Chapter XII: Part 12

Having given the philosophical definition of justice or righteousness, and explained what is meant by civil and ceremonial justice, the author proceeds as follows:――“The justice of the lawe morall or Moses’s lawe, which is the lawe of God, exceedeth and is far above the other two justices. It is the perfite obedience required of man, according to all the works and deeds of the same; not only in externall and outward deeds, but also with the inward affections and motions of the hart, conforme to the commandement of the same (saying), Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy hart, with all thy mind, with all thy power and strength, and thy neighbour as thyselfe. This is no other thing but the lawe of nature, prented in the hart of man, in the beginning; nowe made patent by the mouth of God to man, to utter his sin, and make his corrupted nature more patent to himselfe. And so is the lawe of nature and the lawe of Moses joyned together in a knot; which is a doctrine teaching all men a perfite rule, to know what he should do, and what he should leave undone, both to God and his neighbour. The justice of the lawe, is to fulfill the lawe; that is, to doo the perfite workes of the lawe as they are required, from the bottome of the hart, and as they are declared and expounded by Christ; and whosoever transgresseth the same, shall never be pronounced just of the lawe. But there was never man that fulfilled this lawe to the uttermost perfection thereof, except only Jesus Christ. Therefore, in the lawe can we not find our justice, because of the deedes of the lawe no flesh shall be made just before God.” p. 57, 58.

“For transgression of the commandement of God, our forefather Adam was exiled and banished forth of paradise, and spoiled of the integrity, perfection, and all the excellent qualities, dignities, and godlie vertues, with which he was endued by his creation, made rebell, and disobedient to God in his owne default. And therefore he might not fulfill the lawe to the perfection as the same required. {392} For the lawe remaining in the owne perfection, just, holye, and good, requireth and asketh the same of man, to be indeed fulfilled. But all men proceeding from Adam, by natural propagation, have the same imperfection that hee had; the which corruption of nature resisteth the will and goodness of the lawe, which is the cause that wee fulfil not the same, nor may not of our power and strength, through the infirmitie and weakness of our flesh, which is enemie to the spirit, as the apostle saith.” p. 79, 80.

“Notwithstanding, after the fall of man, remained with our first parents some rest and footsteppes of this lawe, knowledge, and vertues, in the which he was created, and of him descended in us; by the which of our free will and power, we may do the outward deeds of the lawe, as is before written. This knowledge deceaved and beguiled the philosophers; for they looke but to the reason and judgement of man, and could not perceave the inward corruption of nature, but ever supponed man to bee clean and pure of nature, and might, of his own free will and naturall reason, fulfill all perfection. And when they perceaved the wickednes of man from his birth, they judged that to be by reason of the planete under whom he was borne, or through evill nourishing, upbringing, or other accidents, and could never consider the corrupted nature of man, which is the cause of all our wickednes; and therefore they erred, and were deceaved in their opinions and judgements; but the perfite Christian man should looke first in his corruption of nature, and consider what the law requireth of him, in the which he findeth his imperfection and sinnes accused, (for that is the office of the lawe, to utter sinne to man, and giveth him no remedy,) then of necessitie is he compelled either to despaire or seek Christ, by whom he shall get the justice that is of value before God, which can not be gotten by any lawe or workes, because by the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be justified before God.” p. 81‒83.

“This proposition of the holy spirite is so perfite, that it excludeth (if ye will understande the same right) all the vaine foolish arguments of sophistrie made by the justifiers of themselfes, which perverte the words of S. Paule (as they doo the other scriptures of God) to their perversed sence and mind; saying, that the apostle excludeth by these wordes the workes of the law ceremonial, and {393} not the deeds of the lawe of nature, and morall lawe of Moyses. The which shameless sayings are expressly evacuat by the wordes of the apostle, insomuch that no man of righteous judgement can deny, but shall feel the same as it were in their hands, by this probation. The lawe speaketh to all, that is, accuseth all men that are under the lawe. All men are under the lawe of nature, or the lawe of Moyses, therefore the apostle speaketh of the lawe of nature and Moyses, and of all men which he comprehendeth under Jewe and Gentill, as he proveth by his argumentes in the first and second chap. to the Romans, and concludeth in the third chap. all men are sinners. If all men bee sinners, none is just; if none bee just, none fulfill the lawe; if none fulfill the lawe, the lawe can pronounce none just; therefore concludeth he, that of the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be fonde just before God. The same is proved by David in the 130 Psalme. Here ye see by the words of the apostle, he intends to prove and declare all men sinners; that is, to stoppe all men’s mouths, and to dryve them to Christ by the accusation of the lawe. No lawe may make or declare all men sinners, and subdue the whole world to God, but the lawe of nature and Moyses; therefore, under that word (lawe) the apostle comprehendeth the lawe morall, and not the lawe ceremonial only.” p. 84, 85.

“But think not that I intende through these assertions to exclude good workes; no, God forbid, for good workes are the gift of God, and his good creatures, and ought and should be done of a Christian, as shalbe showen hereafter at length in their place; but in this article of justification, yee must either exclude all workes, or els exclude Christ from you, and make your selfes just; the which is impossible to do. Christ is the end of the lawe (unto righteousness) to all that beleeve, that is, Christ is the consummation and fulfilling of the lawe, and that justice whiche the law requireth; and all they which beleeve in him, are just by imputation through faith, and for his sake are repute and accepted as just. This is the justice of faith, of the which the apostle speaketh, Rom. the 10 chapter: therefore, if ye wilbee just, seeke Christ, and not the lawe, nor your invented workes, which are lesse than the lawe. Christ shall have no mixtion with the lawe, nor workes thereof, in {394} this article of justification; because the lawe is as contrarie to the office of Christ, as darknes to light, and is as farre different as heaven and earth. For the office of the lawe is to accuse the wicked, feare them, and condemne them, as transgressors of the same; the office of Christ is to preache mercy, remission of sinnes, freely in his bloode through faith, give consolation, and to save sinners: for hee came not into this world to call them which ar just, or think themselves just, but to call sinners to repentance.” p. 100, 126, 127, 128.

“This faith which only justifieth and giveth life, is not idle nor remaineth alone; nevertheless, it alone justifieth, and then it works by charitie; for unfained faith may no more abyde idle from working in love, than the good tree may from bringing foorth her fruite in due time; and yet the fruite is not the cause of the tree, nor maketh the tree good, but the tree is the cause of the fruite; and the good tree bringeth forth good fruite, by the which it is knowen goode: even so it is of the faithfull man, the workes make him not faithfull nor just, nor yet are the cause thereof; but the faithfull and just man bringeth forth and maketh good workes, to the honour and glorie of God, and profit of his neighbour, which beare witnesse of his inward faith, and testify him to be just before man.” p. 131, 132. In the following part of the treatise, the author shows at large, that the doctrine of gratuitous justification does not release Christians from obligation to perform good works, and inculcates the duties incumbent upon them in the different spheres of life in which they may be placed. _Confession of Faith; conteining how the troubled man should seeke refuge at his God; compiled by M. Henry Balnaves of Halhill,[486] and one of the Lords of Session of Scotland, being a prisoner within the old pallaice of Roane, in the year 1548. T. Vautrollier, Edin. 1584._

{395}
Note P, Footnote 120.

_Extracts from Knox’s Defence before the Bishop of Durham._――Since the publication of the first edition of this Life, I have seen a copy of this Defence in print. Its title will be found in the catalogue of Knox’s works, to be inserted in the last note of volume second. The printed edition agrees more exactly with the MS. in my possession than any of his other works which I have had the opportunity of comparing. The extracts given in this note are continued in their original form, to preserve the orthography of the MS., which constitutes almost the only difference between it and the printed edition.

“The fourt of Apryle in the yeir 1550, was appoyntit to Johne Knox, preacher of the halie evangell of Jesus Chryst, to gif his confessioun why hie affirmed the mes idolatrie; whilk day, in presence of the consale and congregatioun, amangis whome was also present the bischope of Duram and his doctors, on this manner his beginneth.

“This day I do appeir in your presence, honourabill audience, to gif a reasone why so constantlie I do affirme the mes to be, and at all tymes to haif bene, idolatrie and abominatioun before God; and becaus men of great eruditioun, in your audience, affirmed the contrarie, most gladlie wold I that heir thay wer present, either in proper persone, or els by thair learnit men, to ponder and wey the causis moveing me thairto: for unles I evidentlie prufe myne intent be Goddis halie scriptures, I will recant it as wickit doctrine, and confes my self maist worthie of grevous punisment. How difficil it is to pull furth of the hartis of the pepill the thing whairin opinioun of holines standeth, declareth the great tumult and uprore moveit aganis Paule by Demetrius and his fellowis, who by idolatrie gat great vantage, as our priestis have done be the mes in tymes past. The pepill, I say, heiring that the honor of thair great goddes Diana stude in jeopardie, with furious voces cryit, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians;’――and heirunto wer thay moveit be lang custom and fals opinioun. I knaw, that in the mes bath not onlie bene estemit great holines and honoring of God, but also the ground {396} and fundatioun of our religioun: so that, in opinioun of many, the mes taken away, thair resteth no trew wirschipping nor honoring of God in the erth. The deiper hath it persit the hartis of men yat it occupyith the place of the last and misticall supper of our Lord Jesus. But yf I sal, be plane and evident scriptures, prove the mes, in hir mair honest garment, to haif been idolatrie befoir God, and blasphemous to the death and passioun of Chryst, and contrarie to the supper of Jesus Chryst, than gude hope have I, honorable audience and belovit brethrene, that the feir, love, and obedience of God, who in his scriptures hath spokin all veritie necessarie for oure salvatioun, sall move yow to gif place to the same. O Lord eternal! move and governe my toung to speak the veritie, and the hartis of thir pepill to understand and obey the same.” MS. Letters, p. 1, 2.

In proof of his position, he laid down and defended two syllogisms. The first is thus stated: “All wirschipping, honoring, or service inventit by the brane of man in the religioun of God, without his awn expres commandement, is idolatrie: the mes is inventit by the brane of man without any commandement of God: thairfoir it is idolatrie.” The second syllogism is thus framed: “All honoring or service of God, whairunto is addit a wickit opinioun, is abominatioun: unto the mes is addit a wickit opinioun: thairfoir it is abominatioun.” p. 3, 21. In support of the major proposition of his first syllogism, he argues from 1 Sam. xiii. 11‒14. xv. 22, 23. Deut. iv. 2. xii. 8, 32. 1 Cor. xi. 23. Take the following as a specimen:――“We may not think ws so frie nor wyse that we may do unto God, and unto his honour, what we think expedient. No: the contrarie is commandit by God, saying, ‘Unto my word sall ye ad nothing, nothing sall ye deminische thairfrome, that ye might observe the preceptis of your Lord God.’ Whilk wordis ar not to be understand of the decalogue and law moral onlie, but of statutis, rytes, and ceremonyis; for equall obedience of all his lawis requyreth God. And in witnis thairof, Nadab and Abihu offiring strange fyre, whairof God had geven unto thame na charge, wer instantlie, as thay offirit, punissit to death by fyre.――In the punisment of theis two afoirsaid is to be observit, that Nadab and Abihu wer the principal priestis nixt to Aron thair father, and that they {397} were comprehendit neither in adulterie, covetusnes, nor desyre of warldlie honor, but of a gud zeall and simpill intent wer making sacrifice, desyreing no profit of the pepill thairby, but to honor God, and to metigat his wraith. And yit in the doing of this self same act and sacrifice wer they consumit away with fyre; whairof it is plane, that nether the preeminence of the persone or man that maketh or setteth up any religioun without the express commandement of God, nor yet the intent whairof hie doith the same, is acceptit befoir God: for nothing in his religioun will hie admit without his awn word, but all that is addit thairto doith hie abhor, and punisseth the inventoris and doeris thairof, as ye haif hard in Nadab and Abihu.” p. 6, 7.

The following extracts will exemplify the irony with which he treated the popish tenets: “Jesus Chryst sayeth, ‘I will lay upon yow none other burdene than I haif alreadie;’ and, ‘that whilk ye haif observe diligentlie.’ O God eternal! hast thow laid none uther burdene upon our backis than Jesus Chryst laid be his word? Then who hath burdenit ws with all theis ceremonyis? prescrybid fasting, compellit chastitie, unlawfull vowis, invocatioun of sanctis, and with the idolatrie of the mes? The divill, the divill, brethrene, inventit all theis burdenis to depres imprudent men to perditioun.” p. 10. Speaking of the canon of the mass, he says, “I will preve, that thairin is indigest, barbarous, folische congestioun of wordis, imperfectioun of sentences, ungodlie invocationis, and diabolicall conjurationis. And this is that holie canon whois autoritie precelleth all scriptures! O! it was so holie it might not be spoken planelie as the rest, but secreitlie it behoved to be whisperit! That was not evil devysit; for yf all men had hard it, sum wold have espyit the vanitie thairof.――Thay say, _Hoc est enim corpus meum._ I pray thame schew, whair find thay _enim_? O! heir mak thay a great matter; and heir lyeth a secreit misterie, and hid operatioun! For in fyve wordis conceaved the virgin Marie, say thay, when sche conceavit the Sone of God. What yf sche had spokin sevin, ten, or twentie words? or what yf sche had not spoken in thrie? Suld thairby the determinat consalle been impeidit? But, O papists! is God a juglar? Useth he certane noumer of wordis in performing his intent?” p. 18, 19.

{398} Quintin Kennedy, abbot of Crossraguel, in an Oration, composed by him in 1561, made some remarks on Knox’s book against the Mass. “Shortly,” says he, “will we call to remembrance ane notable syllogisme (or argument) sett furth be ane famouss preachour, callit John Knox, in his sermon againis the mess, in manner as efter followis.” And having quoted the first syllogism, as already expressed in this note, he answers: “As to the first part of his syllogisme, quhar he dois affirme all worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne without expres command of God to be ydolatrie, it is als falss as Goddis wourd is trew; for quhy? did not Abel, Abraham, Noe, and diuerse vtheris of the aulde fatheris, inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, and wes acceptable to the Lord God, as the Aulde Testament techis ws? Did not Cornelius centurio in likewise inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, quhilk wes acceptable to God, as the New Testament plainly teachis ws? Thus ma we clearlie persaue that this wickit syllogisme aboue rehersit is express aganis the scripture of Almychtie God, bayth Aulde Testament and New. Secundlie, to preve his fals and wicket syllogisme, impropirlie callis he to remembrance the scripture of Almychti God, quhare mentione is maid how king Saule made sacrifice onto God of his owne brayne, and wes nocht acceptable to the Lorde God. Mark this place of the scripture, and it salbe easely persavit that it is all wayis impropirlie appliit; for quhy, his syllogisme makis mentione of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, without expres commande of God; and this place of scripture testifeis plainly of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, express contrar to the commande of God. And sua may we clearlie vnderstand that this first part of his syllogisme differis far fra the testimonie of scripture, adducit be him for confirmatione of the samin; bicaus thair is ane grete difference betuix the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, without expres commande of God, and the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, express contrar to the commande of God; the ane may neuer stand with the scripture; the vther aggreis with the scripture, bayth Aulde Testament and New, as I haif all reddy declarit.” In fine, the abbot insists that Saul {399} “committit na ydolatrie,” for “albeit the scripture dois affirme that stubborness is as the wicketnes of ydolatrie, nochttheles stubbornes is nocht ydolatrie.” Ane Oratioune set furth be Master Quintine Kennedy, Commendatour of Corsraguell, ye zeir of Gode 1561, p. 5‒8. Edinburgh, 1812.

Note Q, Footnote 127.

_Changes on the English Liturgy._――In the Communion‑Book, as set forth in 1548, the words pronounced by the minister at delivering the bread were, “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life;” and at the delivery of the cup, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve,” &c. As altered in the corrected Prayer Book of Edward VI. the words pronounced were, ‘Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee; and feed on him in thy heart by faith――Drink this in remembrance Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.” A rubric was also added, to be read at the celebration of the communion, declaring, that, although the posture of kneeling was retained to signify our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ, and to prevent profanation and disorder; yet “no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either to the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood; for the bread and wine retained their natural substances, and Christ’s natural body was in heaven, and could not be in more places than one at the same time.” Collier, ii. 310: Records, No. 70.

In the settlement of religion, at the commencement of Elizabeth’s reign, the old form of words at delivering the elements was super‑induced upon the new, which, like the patching of old and new cloth in a garment, marred the whole, and pleased neither protestants nor papists; and the rubric, explanatory of kneeling, was thrown out. At the restoration of Charles II., “the church thought fit (says Collier) to condescend so far as to restore the rubric of King Edward’s reign,” to please “some people either of weak judgments or contentious humours.” A piece of condescension, {400} with which the historian pretty plainly intimates his dissatisfaction. In the liturgy which was attempted to be imposed upon the Scottish church in 1637, all the qualifications and explications in the last prayer‑book of Edward VI. were completely excluded, and various expressions, postures, and gestures, favourable to the popish notions and superstition, were unblushingly borrowed from the mass‑book. But the rulers of the church in the three kingdoms were then posting fast to Rome, when they were overturned in their mad career.

Note R, Footnote 159.

_Sentiments of English Reformers respecting the government and worship of the Church._――I shall endeavour to compress the body of evidence which can be produced for the conformity between the private sentiments of the English reformers respecting worship and church‑government, and those of Knox, along with the reformers of Switzerland and Geneva. Hooper, in a letter dated Feb. 8, 1550, informs Bullinger that “the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Rochester, Ely, St David’s, Lincoln, and Bath, were sincerely bent on advancing the purity of doctrine, agreeing IN ALL THINGS with the Helvetic churches.” Burnet, iii. 201. Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, in a letter to Gualter, Feb. 4, 1573, fervently exclaims, “O! would to God, would to God, once at last, all the English people would in good earnest propound to themselves to follow the church of Zurich as the most absolute pattern.” Strype’s Annals, ii. 286, 342.

Cranmer expressed his opinion formally in writing, that “the bishops and priests were at one time, and were no two things, but both ONE OFFICE in the beginning of Christ’s religion.”――“The bishop of St David’s, my lord elect of Westminster, Dr Cox, Dr Redman, say that at the beginning they were all ONE.” Collier, ii. Records, No. 49. Burnet, i. Append. p. 223‒225. Thirteen bishops, with a great number of other ecclesiastics, subscribed this proposition, “that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops.” Burnet, ut supra, p. 324. Cranmer says, “In the New Testament he that is appointed a bishop or a priest {401} needed not consecration, by the scripture, for election or appointment thereto is sufficient.” And of the same judgment was the bishop of St David’s. Ibid. 228, 230. Latimer and Hooper maintained the identity of bishops and presbyters, by divine institution. Voetii Polit. Eccles. tom. ii. p. 837. This was also the opinion of Pilkington, bishop of Durham. Treatise on the burning of St Paul’s, apud Cald. Altare Damascenum, p. 204. Bishop Jewel assents to it in his Answer to Harding, p. 121. And on the accession of Elizabeth, he expressed his hope, that “the bishops would become pastors, labourers, and watchmen, and that the great riches of bishoprics would be diminished and reduced to mediocrity, that, being delivered from regal and courtly pomp, they might take care of the flock of Christ.” Burnet, iii. 288. In the same year, Dr Aylmer addressed the right reverend bench in these terms: “Come of, you bishops, away with your superfluities, yield up your thousands, be content with hundreds, as they be in other reformed churches, where there be as great learned men as you are. Let your portion be priestlike and not princelike. Let the queen have the rest of your temporalities and other lands to maintain these warres which you procured, and your mistresse left her; and with the reste builde and found scholes thorow out the realme: that every parishe church may have his preacher, every city his superintendent, to live honestly and not pompously; which will never be onles your landes be dispersed and bestowed upon many which now feedeth and fatteth but one.――I would our countryman Wicliefe’s boke which he wrote, _De Ecclesia_, were in print, and there should you see that your wrinches and cavillations be nothing worthie. It was my chaunce to happen of it in ones hand that brought it out of Bohemia.” An Harborowe for Faithful and Trew Subjects, sig. O, 4. Cranmer expressed himself in a similar strain respecting the “glorious titles, styles, and pomps,” which were come into the church through the working of the spirit of Diotrephes, and professed his readiness to lay them aside. Strype’s Cranmer, Append. p. 20. Burnet, iii. 105. Append. p. 88. In fact, the title of _bishop_ was very generally disused in common speech during the reign of Edward VI., and that of _superintendent_ substituted in its place. And this change of style was vindicated by Ponet, {402} bishop of Winchester, in an answer which he published to a popish writer. Strype’s Memorials of the Reformation, ii. 444, 445.

It was proposed by Cranmer to erect courts similar to the kirk‑sessions and provincial synods afterwards introduced into the Scottish church. Burnet, iii. 214. Reformatio Leg. Eccles. cap. 8, 10. He ardently wished the suppression of prebendaries, “an estate,” he said, “which St Paule, reckoning up the degrees and estates allowed in his time, could not find in the church of Christ.” Burnet, iii. Append. p. 157, 158. All the protestant bishops and divines in the reign of Edward VI. were anxious for the introduction of ecclesiastical discipline. Dr Cox (Oct. 5, 1552,) complains bitterly of the opposition of the courtiers to this measure, and says, that, if it was not adopted, “the kingdom of God would be taken away from them.” Latimer’s Sermons, fol. cix. b. Lond. 1570. Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. ii. 366. Repository of Orig. p. 150.

Cranmer and his colleagues were far from being satisfied with the purity of the last common‑prayer book of Edward; and the primate had drawn up one which is said to have been “an hundred times more perfect.” Troubles at Franckfort, p. 50. He and Ridley intended to procure an act for abolishing the sacerdotal habits; “for they only defended their lawfulness, but not their fitness.” Burnet’s Letters respecting Switzerland, &c. p. 52. Rotterdam, 1686. When Grindal was appointed to the bishopric of London, he “remained under some scruples of conscience about some things, especially the habits and certain ceremonies required to be used of such as were bishops. For the reformed in these times (says Strype) generally went upon the ground, that, in order to the complete freeing of the church of Christ from the errors and corruptions of Rome, every usage and custom practised by that apostate and idolatrous church should be abolished,――and that the service of God should be most simple, stript of all that show, pomp, and appearance that had been customarily used before, esteeming all that to be no better than superstitious and anti‑christian.” Life of Grindal, p. 28. Horn and others had the same views and scruples. “By the letters,” says Bishop Burnet, “of which I read the originals, [in the archives of Zurich,] it appears that the bishops preserved the habits rather in compliance with the queen’s inclinations than out of any liking they had to them; so far {403} were they from liking, that they plainly expressed their dislike of them.” Burnet’s Letters, ut supra, p. 51. Before they accepted the office, they endeavoured to obtain the abrogation of the ceremonies; and when the act enjoining them passed, they were induced to comply chiefly by their fears that Papists or Lutherans would be put into their places. Strype’s Annals, i. 175, Burnet, ii. 376, and his Sermon on Psal. cxlv. 15, preached before the House of Commons, Jan. 1688. Cox writes to Bullinger, 5th May 1551, “I think all things in the church ought to be pure and simple, removed at the greatest distance from the pomps and elements of the world. But in this our church what can I do in so low a station?” Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. ii. 305. Burnet, iii. 202. Jewel, in a letter to Martyr, Nov. 5, 1559, calls the clerical habits “a stage‑dress” (_vestis scenica_), to which those alone were attached who “had nothing else to recommend them to the people, but _a comical dress_,”――“stipites sine ingenio, sine doctrina, sine moribus, veste saltem comica volebant populo commendari.” He engages that no exertions of his should be wanting to banish utterly these _ridiculous trifles_, “ludicris ineptiis,” and _relics of the Amorites_, as his correspondent (he says) had well designed them. And, at a period still later, (Feb. 8, 1566), he writes to Bullinger, that he “wished that the very slightest footsteps of popery might be removed out of the church and minds of men; but the queen would at that time suffer no change in religion.” Burnet, iii. Append. p. 291. ii. Append. p. 351. Strype’s Annals, i. 174. Grindal and Horn wrote to Zurich, that they did not approve of, but merely suffered, kneeling in the eucharist, and singing with the cross in baptism, with some other ceremonies, hoping that they would speedily obtain their abrogation. Burnet, ii. 310, 314. As to Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, Pilkington of Durham, and Sands of Worcester, the non‑conformists bear testimony, that these prelates discovered the greatest zeal in endeavouring to procure their abrogation. Ibid. iii. 316. The most respectable of the clergy in the lower house were of the same sentiments with the bishops on this subject. In the year 1562, the abrogation of the most offensive ceremonies was, after long reasoning, put to the vote in the convocation, and carried by a majority of those present, but, when the proxies were included, {404} there was found a majority of ONE for retaining them. The arguments used, by archbishop Parker’s chaplains, to prevail upon the house to agree to this, derived their chief force from their being understood to be the sentiments of the queen. Burnet, ii. Append. p. 319, 320. Strype’s Annals, i. 298‒300.

From these facts, (and a collection much more ample could easily be made,) the reader will see who were the first puritans, and how very different the sentiments of the English reformers were from those of their successors. Those good men who had the direction of ecclesiastical affairs in the reign of Edward VI. thought it most prudent to proceed gradually and slowly, in removing the abuses, and correcting the evils, which had overspread the church; and to indulge the people for a season with those external forms to which they had been habituated, that they might draw them more easily from their superstitious notions and practices, and in due time perfect the reformation to the satisfaction of all. The plan was plausible; but its issue was very different from what was intended by those who proposed it. Nor was this unforeseen by persons who wished well to the church of England. After the bishops had resolved to rest satisfied with the establishment which they obtained, and felt themselves disturbed by the complaints of the puritans, (as they were afterwards called,) they endeavoured to engage the foreign divines on their side; and having, by partial representations, and through the respect entertained for the government of England, obtained letters from them somewhat favourable to their views, they employed these to bear down such as pleaded for a more pure reformation. Whitgift made great use of this weapon in his controversy with Cartwright. Bishop Parkhurst wrote to Gualter, a celebrated Swiss divine, cautioning him on this head, adding, that he had refused to communicate some of Gualter’s letters to Whitgift; because, “if any thing made for the ceremonies, he presently clapped it into his book and printed it.” Strype’s Annals, ii. 286, 287. But these divines had formerly delivered their unbiassed judgment, disapproving of such temporizing measures. Cranmer having signified to the Genevese Reformer, that he “could do nothing more profitable to the church, than to write often to the king,” Calvin wrote a letter to the archbishop in 1551, in which he {405} lamented the procrastination used, and expressed his fears, that “a long winter would succeed to so many harvests spent in deliberation.” Epist. p. 62: Oper. tom. ix. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 413. Peter Martyr, in June 1550, gave it as his opinion, that “the innumerable corruptions, infinite abuses, and immense superstition, could be reformed only by a simple recurrence to the pure fountain, and unadulterated original principles.” And the prudential advice, that as few changes as possible should be made, he called “a device of Satan, to render the regress to popery more easy.” Burnet, iii. Append, p. 200. Gualter, in a letter dated Jan. 16, 1559, says, that such advices, though “according to a carnal judgment full of modesty, and apparently conducive to the maintenance of concord,” were to be ascribed to “the public enemy of man’s salvation;” and he prophetically warns those who suffered abuses to remain and strengthen themselves in England, that “afterwards they would scarcely be able to eradicate them by all their efforts and struggles.” Ibid. iii. 273. Append, p. 265.

Fuller says, that the English Reformers “permitted ignorant people to retain some fond customs, that they might remove the most dangerous and destructive superstitions; as mothers, to get children to part with _knives_, are content to let them play with _rattles_.” Very good: but if children are suffered to play too long with rattles, they are in great danger of not parting with them all their days.

Note S, Footnote 160.

_Plan of Edward VI. for advancing the Reformation of the Church of England._――A plan of improvements in the English church, which Edward VI. drew with his own hand, may be seen in Strype’s Memorials of the Reformation, ii. 341‒343. He was desirous of the establishment of ecclesiastical discipline, but sensible that the incumbent bishops were in general of such a description as to be unfit for its exercise. “Some for papistry,” says he, “some for ignorance, some for their ill‑name, some for all these, are men unable to execute discipline.” Accordingly, he adds, “as for discipline, I would wish no authority given generally to all {406} bishops; but that commission be given to those of the best sort of them to exercise it in their dioceses.” King Edward’s Remains: Burnet, ii. Records, p. 69.

Omitting other proofs of his intentions, I shall produce the decisive one of his conduct towards the foreign churches settled in London under the inspection of John A Lasco. A Lasco was a Polish nobleman, who had forsaken his native country from love to the reformed religion. In his youth, he enjoyed the friendship of Erasmus, who, in one of his letters, passes a high encomium on him. “Senex, juvenis convictu, factus sum melior; ac sobrietatem, temperantiam, verecundiam, linguæ moderationem, modestiam, prudentiam, integritatem, quam juvenis a sene discere debuerat, a juvene senex didici.” Erasmi Epist. lib. 28, ep. 3. He was offered two bishoprics, one in his native country, and another in Hungary; but he rejected both, and retiring into Friesland, became pastor of a protestant congregation at Embden. Gerdes. Hist. Reform, iii. 145‒150. The protestant churches in the Low Countries being dissipated in consequence of the troubles produced by the _Interim_, he came to England at the pressing invitation of Cranmer, and was chosen superintendent of the German, French, and Italian congregations erected in London, which consisted of between 3000 and 4000 persons. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 234‒241. Gerdes. ut sup. p. 150, 235.

A Lasco afterwards published an account of the form of government and worship used in these congregations, which greatly resembled that which was introduced into Scotland at the establishment of the Reformation. The affairs of each congregation were managed by a minister, ruling elders, and deacons; and each of these offices was considered as of divine institution. Ut infra, fol. i. 6, b. 11. The inspection of the different congregations was committed to a superintendent, “who was greater only in respect of his greater trouble and care, not having more authority than the other elders, either as to the ministry of the word and sacraments, or as to the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, to which he was subject equally with the rest.”――“Cestuy est appellé, au preuilege du Roy, Superintendant, lequel est plus grand que les autres, seulement en ce qu’il a plus de peine et de soing que tous les {407} autres, non seulement au gouuernement de toute l’Eglise, mais aussy a la defendre cōtre les effortz de tous ses aduersaires, et a retenir vn consentement vnanime de tous, aux differens de la doctrine. D’avantage il n’a point plus d’autorité que les autres Anciēs, au Ministere de la parolle, et des sacremens, et en l’usage de la discipline de l’Eglise, a la quelle il est subiect cōme tous les autres. Et comme il a soing des autres au cause de son Ministere, pareillement il se soubmet au soing des autres, en l’obeissance de la parolle de Dieu, et obseruation de la discipline.” Ut infra, fol. i. b. It is proper, however, to mention that A Lasco, although he allows no superiority of office or authority to superintendents, considers that they were of divine appointment, and that Peter held this rank among the apostles. “Premierement que la Ministere de Superintendant, ou Inspecteur, est vne ordonnance diuine en l’Eglise de Christ, instituée du Seigneur Iesus Christ ētre les Apostres mesmes: quād il commanda a Pierre specialement, de confirmer ses autres freres en la foy. Et non pas qu’il luy ait donné autorité sus les autres Apostres: comme le Pape de Rome songe: mais qu’il failloit retenir en l’Eglise vne puissance egalle de tous les Apostres, auec Pierre per vng certain ordre d’une solicitude, des vns pour les autres: ainsy que tres bien l’enseigne sainct Ciprian martyr. Et aussy nous voyons manifestement, qu’un mesme Ministere est egalement attribué a tous les Anciens de l’Eglise, qui sont nommez Inspecteurs, et en Grec Euesques. Nous entendons aussy Iean et Iaques auoir tel honneur que Pierre en l’Eglise de Ierusalem. Mais a fin qu’il y ait quelque ordre, en vn mesme gouuernement Ecclesiastique, entre tous les Anciens, et que tout soit faict par ordre et honnestement, il le faut commencer a vn. Or pour ce qu’il y a bien a faire de quelz, on doit cōmencer lé gouuernement en toute l’Eglise; ores que tous les Anciens ayent vne mesme puissance.” Toute la forme et maniere de Ministere Ecclesiastique en l’Eglise des estrāgers, dresseé a Londres en Angleterre. Par M. Jean a Lasco, Baron de Polonie. Traduit de Latin en Francois et imprimé par Giles Ctematius. 1556, fol. 8, b. 9, a. Imposition of hands was used in the ordination of superintendents, ministers, ruling elders, and deacons. Ibid. fol. 27, 31, 35. The communicants sat at the Lord’s table, and A Lasco spends a number of {408} pages in proving that this posture is preferable to kneeling. Fol. 80‒88. In fine, he says, “We have laid aside all the relics of popery, with its mummeries, and we have studied the greatest possible simplicity in ceremonies.” Ibid. fol. 79, b.

Notwithstanding these sentiments, and these pieces of disconformity to the practice of the church of England, A Lasco was held in the greatest esteem, and warmly patronized, not only by Cranmer, but also by the young king, who granted him letters patent, erecting him and the other ministers of the foreign congregations into a body corporate. The patent runs in these terms: “Edward, &c. We being specially induced, by great and weighty considerations, and particularly considering how much it becomes Christian princes to be animated with love and care of the sacred gospel of God, and apostolical religion, begun, instituted, and delivered by Christ himself, without which policy and civil government can neither subsist long, nor maintain their reputation, unless princes and illustrious persons whom God hath appointed for the government of kingdoms do first of all take care that _pure and uncorrupted religion_ be diffused through the whole body of the commonwealth, and that a church instituted in _truly Christian and apostolical doctrines and rites_――be preserved, &c, with this intent and purpose, that there may be an uncorrupted interpretation of the holy gospel, and administration of the sacraments, _according to the word of God, and apostolical observance_, by the ministers of the church of the Germans, &c. we command and strictly charge the mayor, &c. that they permit the said superintendent and ministers, freely and quietly to enjoy, use, and exercise their own peculiar ecclesiastical discipline, notwithstanding that they do not agree with the rites and ceremonies used in our kingdom,” &c. The patent may be seen at large in Burnet, ii. Records, p. 202.

But the ulterior design which the king intended to accomplish by the incorporation of this church, is what I have particularly in view. This is explicitly stated by A Lasco, in a book which he published in 1555. In his dedication of it to Sigismund, king of Poland, he says, “When I was called by that king, [Edward VI.] and when certain laws of the country stood in the way, so that the public rites of divine worship used under popery could not {409} immediately be purged out (which the king himself desired;) and when I was earnest for the foreign churches, it was at length his pleasure, that the public rites of the English churches should be reformed by degrees, as far as could be got done by the laws of the country; but that strangers, who were not strictly bound to these laws in this matter, should have churches granted unto them, in which they should freely regulate all things _wholly according to apostolical doctrine and practice_, without any regard to the rites of the country; that by this means the English churches also might be excited to embrace the apostolical purity, by the unanimous consent of all the estates of the kingdom. Of this project, the king himself, from his great piety, was both the chief author and the defender. For, although it was almost universally acceptable to the king’s council, and the archbishop of Canterbury promoted it with all his might, there were not wanting some who took it ill, and would have opposed it, had not his Majesty checked them by his authority, and the reasons which he adduced for the design.” Again, in the Appendix to the same book, p. 649, he says, “The care of our church was committed to us chiefly with this view, that in the ministration thereof, we should follow the rule of the divine word and apostolical observance, rather than any rites of other churches. In fine, we were admonished both by the king himself, and his chief nobility, to use this great liberty granted to us in our ministry, rightly and faithfully, not to please men but for the glory of God, by promoting the reformation of his worship.” The following are the original words of the author: “Cum ego quoque per Regem illum vocatus essem: et leges quædam patriæ obstarent, quominus publici potissimum cultus divini ritus sub papismo usurpati (pro eo ac rex ipse cupiebat) repurgari protinus possunt. Ego vero peregrinorum ecclesiis sedulo instarem, ita demum placuit, ut ritus publici in Anglicis Ecclesiis per gradus quosdam (quantum per leges patrias omnino liceret) repurgarentur: Peregrinis vero hominibus (qui patriis hac alioqui in parte legibus non usque adeo tenerentur) ecclesiæ concederentur in quibus omnia libere, et nulla rituum patriorum habita ratione (juxta doctrinam duntaxit atque observationem apostolicam) instituerentur, ita enim fore, ut Anglicæ quoque ecclesiæ ad puritatem apostolicam amplectendam unanimi {410} omnium regni ordinum consensu excitarentur. Ejus vero consilii rex ipsemet (pro sua pietate) præcipuus non autor tantum, sed etiam propugnator fuit. Etsi enim id in senatu regio omnibus propemodum placeret, ipseque Cantuariensis archiepiscopus rem omnibus modis promoveret; non deerant tamen qui id moleste ferrent, adeoque et reluctaturi fuerint huic instituto regio, nisi rex ipse, non tantum authoritate sua restitisset: sed productus etiam instituti hujus rationibus conatus eorum repressisset.” De Ordinatione Ecclesiarum peregrinarum in Anglia. Epist. Dedic. et p. 649. Larger extracts from this work may be seen in Voetii Politica Ecclesiastica, tom. i. 420‒422.

Had Mr Gilpin been acquainted with these facts, he would have spoken with a little more moderation and respect concerning this accomplished reformer, than he has done in the following passage. “By the favour of Edward VI. he was allowed to open a church for the use of his own persuasion. But he made only a bad use of this indulgence; interfering very impertinently in the controversies then on foot.” Gilpin’s Lives of Latimer and Gilpin, p. 243. Lond. 1780. Writers who, like Gilpin, deal in abridgements, should be very cautious and sparing in the reflections which they make on characters, as they are apt to mislead their readers, without furnishing them with the facts which would serve to correct their mistakes.

Note T, Footnote 162.

_Chaplains of Edward VI._――The following account of the freedom used by the chaplains of Edward VI. in reproving the vices of the courtiers, is given by Knox, in his “Letters to the Faithful in London,” &c. I quote from the MS.

“How boldlie thair synis wer rebukeit, even in thair faces, suche as wer present can witnes with me. Almost thair wes none that occupyit the place [pulpit] but he did prophesie, and planelie speake, the plaguis that ar begun, and assuredlie sall end. Mr Grindal planelie spak the deth of the kingis maieste, complayning on his houshald servandis and officeris, who nether eschameit nor feirit to raill aganis Godis trew word, and aganis the preacheris {411} of the same. The godlie and fervent man, maister Lever, planelie spak the desolatioun of the commoun weill, and the plaguis whilk suld follow schortlie. Maister Bradfurde (whome God, for Chrystis his Sonis sake, comfort to the end) spared not the proudest, but boldie declareit that Godis vengence suld schortlie stryke thame that than wer in autoritie, becaus thay abhorrit and lothed the trew word of the everlasting God. And amangis many uther willit thame to tak exempill be the lait duck of Somerset, who became so cald in hering Godis word, that the yeir befoir his last apprehensioun, hie wald ga visit his masonis, and wald not dingyie[487] himself to ga from his gallerie to his hall for hering of a sermone. God punnissit him (said the godlie preacher), and that suddanlie; and sall hie spair you that be dowbill mair wickit? No: hie sall not.[488] Will ye, or will ye not, ye shall drink the cupe of the Lordis wrath. Judicium domini! judicium domini! the judgment of the Lord! the judgment of the Lord! lamentabillie cryit hie, with weipping teiris. Maister Hadden most learnedlie opinit the causis of the bypast plagis, affirmyng that the wors were to follow, unless repentance suld schortlie be found. Thir things, and mekill mair I hard planelie spokin, efter that the haill counsale had said, thay wald heir no mo of thair sermonis; they wer but indifferent fellowis; ye, and sum of thame eschameit not to call them pratting knaves. But now will I not speik all that I knaw, for yf God continew my lyfe in this trubill, I intend to prepair ane dische for suche as than led the ring in the gospell: but now thay haif bene at the scule of Placebo, and amangis laddis [ladies] hes learnit to dance, as the devill list to pype!” P. 120, 121.

With Knox’s representation exactly agrees the affecting “Lamentation for the change of religion in England,” composed in prison by bishop Ridley, in which he names our countryman, along with Latimer, Lever, and Bradford, as distinguishing themselves by the faithfulness and boldness with which they censured the vices which reigned at court. I would willingly make extracts from it, but must refer the reader to the paper itself, which he will find inserted {412} at large, in the account of the bishop’s trial and martyrdom, by Fox, p. 1614‒1620. Edit. anno 1596.

Grindal was an exile during the reign of Mary, and, under Elizabeth, was made successively bishop of London, archbishop of York, and archbishop of Canterbury. Thomas Lever was a very learned man, and Master of St John’s College, Cambridge. He was Knox’s colleague at Frankfort. Upon the accession of Elizabeth, he was admitted to a prebend in the cathedral of Durham, but was afterwards deprived of it on account of non‑conformity. He seems to have been allowed to preach through the country, and, in 1577, died Master of Sherburn Hospital. Some of his sermons are in print. Troubles of Franckfort, p. 13‒28. Strype’s Parker, p. 212. App. 77. Grindal, 170. Annals, iii. 512‒514. Hutchinson’s Durham, ii. 594. John Bradford was in prison when Knox wrote the above account of him, and was soon after committed to the flames. James Haddon had been chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk, and went to Strasburg at the death of Edward VI. He was chosen, along with Knox, to be one of the ministers of the English church at Franckfort, but declined accepting the office. Troubles of Franckfort, 13, 16, 23. Strype’s Annals, ii. Append. p. 46.

Note U, Footnote 169.

The _Confession_ or _Prayer_, composed and used by Knox, after the death of Edward VI. and the accession of Mary, shows the state of his mind at that crisis, and refutes the unfounded charges of the popish, and of some episcopal writers, that he was guilty of stirring up rebellion against the queen. I extract it from his treatise on Prayer, printed in 1554, which is now exceedingly rare.

“Omnipotent and everlasting God, father of our Lorde Jesus Chryste, who be thy eternal providence, disposeth kingdoms as best seameth to thy wisdom, we acknowledge and confesse thy judgementis to be righteous, in that thou hast taken from us, for our ingratitude, and for abusinge of thy most holy word, our native king, and earthly comforter. Justly may thou poure forth upon us the uttermoste of thy plagues; for that we have not knowen the dayes {413} and tymes of our merciful visitacion. We have contempned thy worde, and despised thy mercies. We have transgressed thy lawes: for deceitfully have we wrought everie man with our neighbours; oppression and violence we have not abhorred; charitie hath not apeared among us, as our profession requireth. We have little regarded the voices of thy prophets; thy threatnings we have esteemed vanitie and wynd: so that in us, as of ourselfis, restis nothing worthy of thy mercies. For all are found frutless, even the princes with the prophetes, as withered trees apt and mete toe be burnt in the fyre of thy eternal displeasure. But, O Lord, behold thy own mercy and goodness, that thou may purdge and remove the most filthy burden of oure most horrible offences. Let thy love overcome the severitie of thy judgmentis, even as it did in geving to the world thy onely Sonne Jesus when all mankynde was lost, and no obedience was lefte in Adam nor in his sede. Regenerate our hartes, O Lord, by the strength of the Holy Ghost. Convert thou us, and we shall be converted. Work thou in us unfeigned repentance, and move thou our hartes too obey thy holy lawes. Behold our trobles and apparent destruction; and stay the sword of thy vengeaunce, before it devoure us. Place above us, O Lord, for thy great mercies sake, such a head, with such rulers and magistrates, as feareth thy name, and willeth the glory of Christ Jesus to spred. Take not from us the light of thy euangely, and suffer thou no papistrie to prevail in this realme. Illuminate the harte of our soveraigne ladye, quene Marie, with prignant gifts of thy Holy Ghoste. And inflame the hartes of her counsayl with thy trew fear and love. Represse thou the pryde of those that wolde rebelle. And remove from all hartes the contempte of the worde. Let not our enemies rejoyce at our destruction; but loke thou too the honor of thy own name, O Lorde, and let thy gospell be preached with boldenes in this realme. If thy justice must punish, then punish our bodies with the rodde of thy mercy. But, O Lord, let us never revolte nor turne backe to idolatrie agayne. Mytigate the hartes of those that persecute us, and let us not faynte under the crosse of our Saviour; but assist us with the Holy Ghoste, even to the end.”

{414}
Note V, Footnote 207.