PRINCETON, N. J. % Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agnczv Coll. on Baptism, No. ^V7 AN INQUIRY INTO THE THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS; WITH EXTRACTS FROM THEIR WRITINGS ON THE DOCTRINES OP APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, HOLY BAPTISM, THE HOLY EUCHARIST, PREDESTINATION, FAITH AND WORKS : AND A CONCLUDING DISSERTATION ON THEIB, VALUE AND AUTHORITY IN ILLUSTRATING THE TEACHING OF THE CHUECH OF ENGLAND. BY A PRIEST OF THE DIOCESE OF EXETER. LONDON: HOPE AND CO., 16, GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET. 1852. .sk°.-?*;> PREFACE. The recent controversy in the diocese of Exeter on Holy Baptism, which was the oc- casion of so much discussion respecting the opinions of the Reformers on this and kindred doctrines, gave proof, also, of such widely- prevailing ignorance on the subject, as could hardly have been anticipated. It might have been supposed, after the lapse of three hun- dred years, which have witnessed many con- troversies involving an appeal to the teaching of the Reformers, that their belief, at least 071 important points of doctrine, had long ceased to be a matter of doubt. Yet the rival parties, though disagreeing on essential points, alike claimed for their respective opinions the sanction of the Reformers ; and even by in- IV PREFACE. genious and plausible quotations and conjec- tures maintained what may well be called an absurd and impossible claim ! The reason of this strange ignorance on a topic of so much interest and importance cannot be questioned : the theology of the Reformed divines had not hitherto been investigated without party views or bias, and nothing was really known on the subject as a certain and universally recognized fact. It seemed to the writer, therefore, an object of importance to remove the prevailing uncertainty and error on the teaching of the Reformers, and to ascertain and prove by satisfactory quotations, what really was their belief on the great and leading topics agitated between theological parties. This was the object ori- ginally contemplated — a mere statement, with- out opinion or remark, of the actual teaching of the Reformers. But it appeared, on mature consideration, that a work so written must necessarily be very imperfect and defective, since the opinions of the Reformers mainly deserve investigation, not for their own merits, but for their connection with the teaching of PEEFACE. V our Churcli. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to its precise nature, it is quite clear, and indeed all would admit, that there exists a connection of some kind : — the opinions of the Reformers must be investi- gated, if we would ascertain the real teaching of our Church. Thus it was necessary to trace the connection between their opinions and the dogmatic teaching of the Church, resting her position and doctrines on the only stable foundation — her possession of the Apos- tolic lineage and of the Catholic Faith. But there are other reasons, and at the pre- sent day of especial importance, why the con- nection between the teaching of the Reformers and the authoritative doctrines of the Church should be fairly investigated. Amidst the discordant opinions on most topics of theology generally prevailing, and the present want of an authoritative standard of appeal, there is fearful peril lest our people generally lapse into infidelity or a latitudinarian indifference to dogmatic truth. The ambiguous teaching of our formularies, — the inevitable result, as shown in the present work, of the rival parties a 3 VI PREFACE. at tlie Reformation : the want of reliance which many feel upon the teaching of the Reformed writers as living in times of especial difficulty and party strife : the palpable ab- surdity of the once popular notion, that every reader of Scripture may expect such illumina- tion as infallibly to discover its meaning : — these considerations must lead the earnest inquirer to seek for truth independently of such uncer- tain and deceptive standards, which, under whatever name, are in reality a substitution of the mere conjectures or private judgment and opinion of fallible men, for God's re- vealed will. What is truth ? not the reader's opinion or mine, but the positive teaching and meaning of the Revelation of God. The reader is referred, in reply to this momentous ques- tion, to the remarks on a subject much talked of, but generally misunderstood in its meaning and bearings — the Apostolical Succession.^ This doctrine, rigidly understood, shows the impossibility of holding heresy in connection with apostolical privileges and authority ; teaches us what is, and what is not, truth ; 1 Pages 46, 330-8. PREFACE. enables us to ascertain a bishop's legitimate authority, and the deference due to his teach- ing; and presents also a firm basis upon which may at last be realized the union in one body of the Catholic Church. The views ad- vocated upon this doctrine of course claim no originality : however forgotten at the present day, or misunderstood and misrepresented whilst professedly held, they rest on the sanc- tion of the most learned divines of the English Church, and the unanimous teaching of Catholic antiquity. With this statement of its design, this work is submitted to the judgment of the candid and unbiassed reader, under the hope that its fidelity as a record of Reformed opinions may render it a useful guide to persons interested in the controversies of the day ; and especially, that by a removal of error and prejudice it may promote the real welfare of the Church — founded upon Him who "came to bear wit- ness to THE TRUTH." Advent, 1851. P.S. It may be desirable to state, that, in Vlll PREFACE. quoting from the works of tlae Reformers, the references — unless it be otherwise expressed — are always made to the edition published by the Parke*. Society. The extracts from Foxe's ' Acts and Monuments ' are given on the authority of Cattley's reprint, 8 vols. 8vo, 1841. CONTENTS. The theolog ical grounds upon which the Reformation was founded 1 Extracts from the works of the Reformers, on thi Mass, Transubstantiation, the Papal Antichrist (an indirect proof of their teaching) 10 Extracts from the works of Ridley 10 , Bradford 16 , Cranmer 18 , Becon 20 , Latimer 25 , Hooper 27 , Hutchinson 29 , Coverdale 31 , Pilkingtou 31 Fulke . 32 , Grindal 33 , Sandys 34 , Jewell 36 , Rogers, Saunders, Row- land Taylor, &c. (from the Acts & Monuments ) 38 45 On the Apostolical Succession .... 46 The meaning of this doctrine 47 Extracts from the works of Ridley 55 „ „ Latimer 62 jj „ Cranmer . 63 CONTENTS. Extracts from the works of Hooper Pilkington Fulke Saudys' Bradford PhUpot Jewell On, the Grace of Holy Baptism Preliminary Remarks Extracts from the works of Ridley „ Cranmer „ Latimer „ Becon „ Hooper „ Coverdale „ Sandys „ Jewell On, the Holy Mucharist . . , The teaching of the Chm-ch on the Real Presence The doctrine really rejected by the Reformed writers The peculiar difficulty in an inquiry into their teaching Apparent inconsistencies in the Reformed teaching explained . . . . . . . . The Reformed teaching illustrated from the ' Acta and Monuments' .... Extracts from the works of Ridley „ „ Bradford „ „ Cranmer „ „ Latimer J, „ Becon „ „ Hooper j „ „ Hutchinson „ „ Coverdale . „ „ Jewell The opinions of the Martyrs investigated . The examples reviewed which are apparently contra dictory to the teaching of the Reformers CONTENTS. XI Remarks on the teaching of the Chiu'ch of Rome at the Reformation ...... 138 On Predestination ....... 144 An analysis of the teaching of Calvin and St. Augustine — remarks on the system of the latter . . . 144 The Reformers unanimously held the Calvinistic system 151 Extracts from the works of Bishop Ridley . . 153 „ „ Bradford . . . 154 „ „ Latimer . . . 157 „ Bishop Poynet's Catechism . . 163 „ the works of Becon . . , 165 Hooper . . .166 Philpot . . .169 „ Foxe's 'Acts and Monuments' . 172 The teaching of the Reformers in Queen Elizabeth's reign , . . . , . . . 180 Harpsfield's Dialogues . . . . . .181 The Conyocation of 1572 181 The Bibles published by authority .... 183 Extracts from the works of Archbishop Parker . 185 Whitgift . . .185 Hutton . . .186 Whittaker . . .186 Coverdale . . .186 Sandys . . .187 . „ JeweH . . . 187 On Justification, or Faith and Works .... 189 A declaration signed by Een-ar, Taylor, &c. . . 190 The meaning and connection of Paith and Works . 191 The Reformed teaching on Faith .... 192 Practical results of the Reformed teaching . . 195 The two theories on Faith contrasted . . . 196 A sketch of the arguments of the opposed parties . 198 A summary of the teaching of the Reformed writers on the Apostolical Succession, Baptismal Regeneration, the Holy Eucharist, Predestination, Faith and Works . . . 200 The Dogmatic Teaching of the Church . . . 202 Xll CONTENTS. Page. The peculiar position of the Eeformers — its consequences exhibited in the Liturgy and Articles . . . 202 The heUef of the Reformers not our guide in interpreting the- Liturgy ........ 209 The Reformation a hasty and incomplete work — hence apparent inconsistencies . . . . . .213 The opinions of the Reformed overrated in inquiring into the teaching of the Church . . . . .218 The Catholic rule in investigating truth set aside by an undue deference to the Reformers .... 220 The opinions of the Reformers opposed to the teaching of the Primitive Church ...... 221 The reasons for the undue authority attached to them . 223 Their position in the Anglican Church . . . 226 The fundamental principles of the Church Catholic viewed in connection with the Reformation . . . 232 The early British Church 234 The Apostolical Succession and Episcopal Authority . 238 Concluding remarks . . . . . . .239 Appendix, on the persecution during Queen Mary's reign . 243 THE THEOLOGY "^^y . ^^^^"^ ANGLICAN HEPORMERS. The first topic which must engage the atten- tion of an inquirer into the history and theology of the Reformation will be the ground or reasons upon which the separation from the Church of Rome was then effected. Without at present referring to political reasons, which, no doubt, had much influence, I would consider the matter in a theological point of view, and would propose as the subject of inquiry, what were the main disUncUve reasons which the Reformers urged in vindication of the religious changes in the Anglican Church in the sixteenth century, and of its consequent separation from Western Christendom ? Various replies, I need hardly say, have been given to this important question, but little in accordance with fair and B Z THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICiLN EEFOEMEES. satisfactory principles of inquiry. To suit the purposes of a party, tlie Reformers liave been represented as Catliolic or Protestant, Anglo- Catholic or Evangelical — nay, there is hardly one of the multifarious systems of doctrine which abound in our Church that does not venture to appeal for support to the Reformers. What, then, is the inference ? Had the Re- formers really no distinctive opinions on leading points of theology, or is it impossible to ascer- tain what they really did believe? On the contrary, I affirm that the theology of the Reformers is, on these subjects, quite clear and unmistakable, and that nothing but mere ignorance of their wiitings, or a prejudice and bias in favour of certain opinions often strangely misleading the judgment — so that men learn to believe anything as true, not ac- cording to facts, but simply according to their own wishes — nothing else, I unhesitatingly assert, could cause any difficulty in fully and positively determining the theology of the An- glican Reformers. I speak this of their theology generally ; but to refer more especially to the subject first men- THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMEKS. 6 tioned, the reasons of the separation between the Roman and Anglican Churches, what doubt on the matter can be supposed to exist on the mind of any who woukl carefully peruse their works ? Their reasons are repeatedly and most distinctly given, and it seems impossible for any one to fall into error or mistake on the subject. In regard to the catence, or extracts, here offered to the reader, let it be distinctly under- stood that they are not adduced to serve the purposes of the partizans of any modern sect or party of theological opinions. The writer is solely actuated by an honest intention to put the reader in possession of the actual behef of the Reformers of our Church. Few have time to read or analyse their writings, and to such the compilation here offered may be of service. He is not aware of the existence of any similar compilation, except on specific doctrines, as on baptismal grace ; and in regard to such catence, they appear universally to labour under a defect which materially interferes with their trust- worthiness — they are written professedly to serve a party purpose, as, e. g., to prove that B 2 4 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEEORMEES. the Reformers held the doctrine of baptismal grace. This professed pm-pose materially, even though undesignedly, interferes with their value and fidelity. How readily one, whose purpose is as I have stated, interprets an equivocal ex- pression according to his own wishes, and how indisposed he is (without any conscious dis- honesty) to bring forward counter and dis- cordant statements. Take an illustration. A writer of such catena would probably adduce amongst his witnesses Becon, Cranmer's chap- lain, and bring forward extracts conclusive jo^r se, and yet the reader will subsequently find the utter fallacy of such quotations (or, at least, that other passages occur in Becon' s writings of a totally opposite kind) in the extracts from this writer on Holy Baptism. On some points, indeed, there are, as might have been expected (and as we know was the case with the Protestants on the Continent), differences of opinion amongst the Reformers ; but these diff'erences are mostly trivial and un- important, and have no reference to important dogmas of theology. What most struck the writer in reading their works was their una- THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. 5 nimity, both in doctrine and even phraseology : an unanimity which could hardly be paralleled in any modern school of theology. With re- gard to the all-important topic, the ground of their separation from Rome, there is a perfect agreement between the learned and most illi- terate. Cranmer and Ridley quite accord on this point with the unlettered artizan who had the courage, like themselves, to maintain his opinions amidst the most cruel sufferings. In regard to the leading differences between the Church of Rome and the Reformed party, some would, perhaps, in the first place, bring forward the supremacy of the Pope, This may really be questioned. Other subjects of difference are more frequently and bitterly urged than even the supremacy. I would not, however, be misunderstood. The Reformers were quite unanimous in the opinion that the Pope had no authority or jurisdiction out of his own diocese, and that his assumption of authority over the English Church was a mere usurpation. There is no need of producing quotations in proof of this statement, the truth of which is unanimously admitted. Still this b THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMERS, very important matter is not so frequently and prominently brought forward as would have been anticipated. Perhaps the Reformers mi^ht feel that, however conclusive an appeal to antiquity might be in condemnation of the Pope's supremacy, as exercised in the middle ages, and his interference with the rights of kings, yet that it would be easy for an antago- nist to retort, to allege an argument drawn from the same source, which themselves could hardly satisfactorily answer. Antiquity might, indeed, afford no sanction to the lofty preten- sions of Hildebrand or Innocent ; but it had been equally hopeless to appeal to its decision in behalf of the Royal Supremacy, as main- tained by Cranmer and Cromwell, and really exercised by Henry VIII. However this be, the ' Supremacy ' has not the first place in the controversy — other matters, as I before no- ticed, are more frequently and prominently alleged. Had any of the Reformers been asked to state the main grounds of his refusal to communicate with the Church of Rome, there can be no doubt that, amongst other reasons, the " idolatry of the mass " would THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN UEPOKllEUS. 7 have been prominently alleged. The doctrine of the Church of Rome on the eucharistic sacrifice was deemed fundamentally erroneous. The Reformers denied the doctrine of the Priest- hood, and of the offering of the body of Jesus Christ upon the altar for the quick and the dead. The only oflFering which they recognized was the oblation of praise and thanksgiving ; the only priesthood, a figurative one, common alike to all Christian men and women. Holding that the priesthood of the New Testament ceased with Christ, and that He was the only priest after the order of Melchisedek, they deemed it blasphemy and a derogation from the one offering upon the cross to teach that He is again offered in the mass, or has left an order of priesthood to continue, and to apply to the souls of the faithful, His atoning sacrifice. Upon another ground also, as will subsequently be proved, they deemed the mass an idolatrous service, since they denied the Real Presence in the true and proper sense of the words, think- ing it impossible that Christ — God and Man — whilst at the right hand of God, could be really present, under the form of the sacrament. 8 THEOLOGY OF THE AKGLICAN UEFOEMERS. Hence, if admitting a presence in any seme, they considered it merely a figurative one, as in other ordinances, in which Christ may be said to be present, as therein bestowing his grace and blessing. To this charge of formal idolatry against the Chm-ch of Rome, which was usually alleged in justification of deserting her communion, not only in England, but also on the Continent, was added the general, if not unanimous, be- lief that the Pope was the predicted Anti- christ. Before citing passages in illustration of the teaching of the Reformers, I must beg the reader to bear in mind, that my object is mainly to state the belief of the Reformers, and not whether, or in what degree, this belief is true or erroneous. Hence I generally ab- stain from offering an opinion on the passages quoted, unless where necessary for the better attainment of the object in view. I am at present engaged in stating a certain fact for the information and guidance of the inquirer : in other words, I am answering the question, what did the Reformers really hold and teach. THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. 9 Another observation may perhaps be needed. Some readers may be disposed to censure the writer for portions of the following extracts. There occur expressions in quotations from Bishop Ridley which would have been omitted, had it not been absolutely necessary, in illustra- tion of the object in view, to quote fully and faithfully from one who may be fitly called the chief corner-stone of the Reformation, and whose works are of primary importance to all who would understand their teaching; — and let the reader consider, whether it was possible otherwise fairly to exhibit the teaching of the Reformers. Even the coarseness and irreverent language, the accumulated epithets of disgust and contempt, which characterize some of the quotations, show the strength of the writers' convictions against vi/^hat was deemed the idolatry of the mass, the object of their un- mitigated abhorrence. Men could not use such language except in regard to a system which was fundamentally opposed to their own. Let not, however, the reader suppose that I would vindicate, without exception and for any con- troversial purpose, the quotation of irreverent B 3 10 THEOLOGY OF THE AJTGLICAJ^ REFORMERS. and disgusting language. Some, perhaps, may blame me for passages which are quoted ; but I would remind the reader, that there are far more offensive passages which I have pur- posely abstained from quoting. I could not persuade myself to bring forward much of the filthy and fearfully profane language of Becon, Cranmer's chaplain, and could wish that it had been merely characteristic of this writer, and not, as I fear must in truth be admitted, that it is the peculiar disgrace and stigma of the party and theology of the Reformation. In illustrating the theology of the Reformers, the following extracts are adduced to show their teaching negatively, or what were their reasons for protesting against and refusing to commu- nicate with the Church of Rome. Of course, though only showing it indirectly, these extracts afford very positive and unmistakable evidence as to their belief and teaching. I will merely add, they mainly refer to the Roman teaching on the Mass, the Priesthood, and the Papal "Antichrist." I shall first quote from Bishop Ridley. ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 11 He terms the mass " heinous idolatry, wherein that adoration is given unto the lifeless and dumb creature which is due unto the everlast- ing God." ^ Again, " The head under Satan of all mis- chief is Antichrist and his brood, and the same is he which is the Babylonical beast. ... By the abominations thereof, I understand all the whole trade of the Romish religion, under the name and title of Christ, which is contrary to the only rule of all true religion, that is, God's word. What word of God hath that devilish drab for the maintenance of her manifold abo- minations, and to set to sale such merchandise wherewith (alas ! the madness of man) the wicked harlot hath bewitched almost the whole world. Did not Peter, the true apostle of Christ (of whom this stinking strumpet beareth herself so high, but falsely, and without all just cause), did not he, I say, give all the world warning of her pelf and trash ? " &c.^ On the restoration of the Roman Catholic religion in Queen Mary's reign, he says, " Seeing the doctrine of Antichrist is again 1 P. 51. (Parker Soc. ed.) - P. 53. 12 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEPORMERS. restored unto the realm. ^ . . . Now, even now, out of doubt, brethren, the pit is opened among us, and the locusts begin to swarm, and Abaddon now reigneth. Ye therefore, my brethren, which pertain unto Christ, and have the seal of God marked on your fore- heads, that is, to wit, are sealed up with the earnest of the Spirit to be a peculiar people unto God, quit yourselves like men, and be strong." ^ Of the priesthood, he says, " There are but two only orders of the priesthood allowed in the word of God, namely, the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchisedek. But now the order of Aaron is come to an end by reason that it was unprofitable and weak ; and of the order of Melchisedek there is but one priest alone, even Christ the Lord, who hath a priesthood that cannot pass to any other." ^ He alleges amongst the reasons for destroy- ing altars, "the form of a table shall much more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish mass unto the right use of the Lord's supper. For the use of an altar 1 P. 61. 2 p_ 351. 3 p. 208. ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 13 is to make sacrifice upon it ; the use of a table is to serve men for to eat upon. Now, when we come unto the Lord's board, what do we come for? to sacrifice Christ again, and to crucify Him again, or to feed upon Him who was once only crucified and offered up for us ? If we come to feed upon Him, spiritually to eat His body and spiritually to drink His blood (which is the true use of the Lord's supper), then no man can deny that the form of a table is more meet for the Lord's board, than the form of an altar."^ " Instead of the Lord's table they give the people with much solemn disguising a thing which they caU their mass ; but indeed and in truth it is a very masking and mockery of the true supper of the Lord, or rather I may call it a crafty juggling, whereby these false thieves and jugglers have bewitched the minds of the simple people, that they have brought them from the true worship of God unto per- nicious idolatry. "2 "The [Roman] see is the seat of Satan, and the bishop of the same that maintaineth 1 P. 322. 2 p. 401. 14 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. the abominations thereof is Antichrist him- self indeed."^ " Oh thou now wicked and bloody see, why dost thou set up again many altars of idolatry, which by the word of God were justly taken away ? . . . Hearken, thou whorish bawd of Babylon, thou wicked limb of Antichrist, thou bloody wolf, why slayest thou down and makest havoc of the prophets of God ? Why murderest thou so cruelly Christ's poor seely (silly) sheep ? . . . Thy god, which is the work of thy hands and whom thou sayest thou hast power to make, that thy deaf and dumb god (I say) will not indeed, nor cannot (although thou art not ashamed to call him thy maker), make thee to escape the avenging hand of the high and almighty God. ... Eie upon thee, fie upon thee, filthy drab, and all thy false prophets/'^ "The whore of Babylon may well for a time dally with you, and make you so drunk with the wine of her filthy stews and whore- dom ; and as ye have banqueted and lain by the whore in the fornication of her whorish 1 P. 415. 2 p. 409. ON THE MASS, THE PEIESTHOOD, ETC. 15 dispensations, pardons, idolatry, and such like abominations, so sliall ye drink with her, ex- cept ye repent betime, of the cup of the Lord's indignation and everlasting wrath, which is prepared for the beast, his false prophets, and all their partakers."^ "They pluck away the honour from the only sacrifice of Christ, whilst this sacramental and mass sacrifice is believed to be propitia- tory and such an one as purgeth the souls both of the living and of the dead."^ After a perusal of the above extracts the reader will not be much surprised at Ridley's emphatic language on the difference between the Roman and the Reformed creed : " It is not any ceremony for the which we contend, but it toucheth the very substance of our whole religion; yea, even Christ himself;"^ or at his remark in his conference with Latimer -. " I fight in Christ's quarrel against the mass, which doth utterly take away and overthrow the ordinance of Christ. Let that be taken quite away, and then the partition of the wall that made the strife shall be broken down."* 1 P. 418. 2 p. 107. 3 p. 344. ^ Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vii. 418 (Cattley's ed.). 16 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN HEEOUMEES. Ridley's chaplain and fellow-sufFerer Brad- FOED will be found to bear a testimony equally express and emphatic on the "idol- atry " of the mass. In reference to the esta- blished religion in Queen Mary's reign, he says : " My dearly beloved, the time is now come wherein trial is made of men that have professed to love Christ, and would have been counted keepers of His testimonies. But, well-a-day ! the tenth person persevereth not : the more part do part stakes with the Papists and Protestants, so that they are become mangy mongrels, to the infecting of all that company with them, and to their no small peril : for they pretend outwardly Popery, going to mass with the Papists and tarrying with them personally at their antichristian and idolatrous service, but ' with their hearts,' say they, and 'with their spirits,' they serve the Lord. And so by this means, as they save their pigs, which they would not lose (I mean their worldly pelf), so they would please the Protestants and be counted with them for gospellers, yea, marry would they. But mine own beloved in the Lord, flee from such persons as from men most perilous and perni- ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC, 17 cious both before God and man. . . . Ah, wretches that we be then if we will defile either part (i. e., soul or body) with the rose- coloured whore of Babylon's filthy mass- abomination. It had been better for us never to have been washed than so to wallow our- selves in the filthy puddle of Popery ; it had been better never to have known the truth than thus to betray it. " The mass ... as it is now, being of all idols that ever was the most abominable and blasphemous to Christ and his priesthood, man- hood, and sacrifice ; for it maketh the priest that saith mass, God's fellow, and better than Christ, for the ofierer is always better or equi- valent to the thing offered. If, therefore, the priest take upon him then to offer up Christ as they boldly afiirm they do, then must he needs be better or equal with Christ 'The word which the Lord hath spoken in that day shall judge,' the word, I say, of God ' in that day shall judge.' And what saith it of idolatry and idolaters ? saith it not ' flee from it,' and further 'that they shall be damned ' ? Oh, terrible sentence to all mass- 18 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN HEPOEMERS. mongers, and worshippers of things made with the hands of bakers, carpenters, &c."^ A few extracts may next be added from works of Aechbishop Cranmer. He speaks, in his treatise on the Lord's supper, of the "people drinking new wine of the whore of Babylon's cup until they were as drunk with hypocrisy and superstition as they might well stand upon their legs."^ After- wards he speaks of " the mass as a mere illu- sion and subtle craft of the devil, whereby Antichrist hath many years blinded and de- ceived the world. "^ "But it is a wonderful thing to see what shifts and cautels the Popish Antichrists devise to colour and cloak their wicked errors. . . . For the Papists, to excuse themselves, do say that they make no new sacrifice, nor none other sacrifice than Christ made (for they be not so blind but they see that then they should add another sacrifice to Christ's sacrifice, and 1 Bradford's Works, vol.i. pp. 390-2-3. (P. S. ed.) 2 Treatise on the Lord's Supper, p. 18. (P. S. ed.) 3 Ibid. p. 81. ON THE MASS^ THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 19 SO make His sacrifice imperfect) ; but they say they make the selfsame sacrifice for sin that Christ himself made. And here they run headlongs into the foulest and most hei- nous error that ever was imagined. For if they make every day the same oblation and sacri- fice for sin that Christ himself made (and the oblation that He made was his death and the effusion of His most precious blood upon the cross for our redemption and price of our sins), then followeth it of necessity, that they every day slay Christ, and shed His blood, and so be they worse than the wicked Jews and Pha- risees which slew Him, and shed His blood but once."^ The mass is called " manifest wickedness," "idolatry," "blasphemy," "most detestable idolatry," and the Pope " the Antichrist of Rome." " And as for the saying and singing of the mass by the priest, as it was in time past used, it is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor yet a sacrifice of laud and praise, nor in any wise allowed before God, but abominable and de- ^ Treatise on the Lord's Supper, p. 348. 20 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN EEFORMEllS. testable, and thereof may well be verified the saying of Christ, 'that thing which seemeth an high thing before men, is an abomination before God.' " ' These quotations from Cranmer may be followed by a few extracts from his chaplain Becon's works, a very voluminous writer, who on the accession of Queen Elizabeth was made a prebendary of Canterbury. I will quote the concluding remarks of his work entitled 'The displaying of the Popish Mass : ' much of the work is wholly unfit for quotation, but the following extracts will show something of the tone and spirit of it. " Ye have heard what manifest blasphemies and in- tolerable untruths be contained in the mass. Ye have heard that the mass is the invention of the devil, the nursechild of Antichrist, and the well-beloved darling of all them that have re- ceived the beast's mark. Ye have heard that no Christian man can either say mass or hear mass with a good conscience. To end, ye have heard that the mass is the fountain, well, headspring, and original of all idolatry, super- ^ Treatise on tte Lord's Supper, p. 353. ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 21 stition, wickedness, sin, and abomination, and that it is not God's worship, but idol service. Considering, therefore, these things, if ye tender the glory of God, your own salvation, and the peace, quietness, and safeguard of our country, flee idolatry, forsake your abominable massing, and serve the Lord God according to His holy Word."^ " In distributing the mysteries of His body and blood, Christ the Lord used not an altar after the manner of Aaron's priests, whom the law of Moses appointed to kill and offer beasts, but he used a table as a furniture much more meet to get, defend, confirm, increase, and continue friendship. But the massmonger, as one always desirous to shed blood, standeth at an altar, and so delivereth the communion to the people ; whenas the apostle, speaking of the holy banquet, maketh mention, not of an altar, but a table, saying, ' Ye cannot be par- takers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils.' Neither did the ancient and old church of Christ allow these Aaronical and Jewish altars. For they used a table in the ' P. 286. 22 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN HEFOHMERS. administration of the Lord's supper, after the example of Christ, as it plainly appeareth, both by the holy Scriptures, and also by the writings of the ancient fathers and old doctors. For the sacrifices taken away, to what use, I pray you, should altars serve among the Christians? except ye will call again and bring in use the Jewish, * or rather idolatrous, sacrifices. Truly, altars serve rather for the killing of beasts, than for the distribution of the pledges of amity and friend- ship. Neither do those altars more agree with the Christian religion, than the cauldron, the fire-pan, the basin, the sholve (shovel), the flesh- hook, the gridiron, and such like instruments which the priests of Aaron used in preparing, doing, and dressing their sacrifices. For unto the honest, seemly, and worthy celebration of the holy banquet of the body and blood of Christ, we have need, not of an altar, but of a table, except ye will say that the primitive church, which more than one hundred years after Christ's ascension used tables at the ce- lebration of the divine mysteries, yea, except ye will say that Christ himself, the author of this most holy supper, did dote and was out of ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 33 his wits, which not standing at an altar hke Aaron's priests, but sitting at the table as a minister of the New Testament, did both ordain and minister this holy and heavenly food."^ " Let the venomous dragon, that filthy beast, that false prophet, and that purpled whore of Babylon, shortly come to confusion, that all the glory may be given to the Lamb that sitteth with thee on the throne."^ The coarsely brutal and profane invectives, which everywhere abound in this author's writings respecting the mass and the priest- hood, would almost exceed belief. Language itself seems to fail him in the attempt to accu- mulate terms sufficiently expressive of disgust and abhorrence. On one page of his ' Supplication ' we read, in reference to the Roman priesthood, of ' priests of Baal,' ' Baalite massmongers,' ' idol- atrous and heathenish altars,' ' sacrificing sor- cerers,' 'jangling jugglers,' ' abominable mass- ing,' ' stinking sacrificing,' ' bloody butchers,' ^ A Comparison between the Lord's Supper and the Pope's Mass, pp. 364-5. 2 Ibid. p. 350. 24 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFOKMERS. 'detestable blasphemies/ — whilst the mass is called '' a new sacrifice and a strange oblation, invented by the devil, brought in by Anti- christ, confirmed by such as have received the beast's mark, and frequented, used, and sought of all that have their portion in that lake that burneth with fire and brimstone." " In the worshipping of Baal, Ashtoreth, Moloch, Baalpeor, Melchom, Maazim,^ Dagon, Chames, the Queen of Heaven, Saturnus, Ju- piter, Priapus, Juno, Venus, Vesta, and such other idols, was never so great a blasphemy and dishonour to God as the setting up of this broken bread to be worshipped for a God. And the matter is so much the more to be abhorred because ye colour your abominable idolatry with God's word." ^ " Doth not he [the massmonger] tread the precious blood of Christ our Saviour under his foot ? Doth he not defile the holy mysteries of God and blaspheme the name of the Lord ? Doth he not give himself from God to the devil, and become the child of wrath, a vessel 1 Daniel xi. 38, marffinal reading. 2 Displaying of the Popish Mass, p. 398. ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 25 of vengeance, a fire-brand of hell, and heir of everlasting damnation?" And shortly after- wards it is said of the massmongers, Ye " daily defile the honourable sacrament of Christ's body and blood in your most wicked, damna- ble, devihsh, idolatrous, heathenish, vile, stink- ing, blasphemous, detestable, and abominable massing." ^ Most readers will probably, after the above extracts, have had enough ofBecon; I proceed therefore with the series of writers, and will next adduce Bishop Latimer,^ the fellow-suf- ferer with Ridley. " Christ may say to the massmongers. Who gave you commission to offer up Christ ? who gave you authority to take mine office in hand ? For it is only Christ's office to do that. It is a great matter to off'er Christ. If Christ had offered his body at the last supper, then should we do so too. Who is worthy to offer up Christ ? An abominable presumption. Paul saith, he took bread, and after he had given thanks he brake it and said, Take ye, eat ye, &c., and so said ' this is my body.' ' Displaying of the Popish Mass, p. 284. C 26 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMEES. He gave thanks ? Well then : in thanks- giving there is no oblation ; and when he gave thanks it was not his body.^ " Believe you in the mass ? I say, no : ac- cording unto God's word and my conscience, it is naught ; it is but deceitfulness ; it is the devil's doctrine." ^ " We were wont to have sacrijicium misses, the sacrifice of the mass, which was the most horrible blasphemy that could be devised, for it was against the dignity of Christ and his passion." ^ "Another denial of Christ is this mass- mongering, for all those that be massmongers, be deniers of Christ : which beheve or trust in the sacrifice of the mass and seek remission of their sins therein. For this opinion hath done much harm, and brought innumerable souls to the pit of hell, for they beheved the mass to be a sacrifice for the dead and living. And this opinion hath gotten all their abbeys and chantries, almost the half part of all Eng- land ... for what would folks not give to ease 1 Sermons, p. 375. (Parker Soc. ed.) 2 Ibid. p. 411. 3 Ibid. p. 445. ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 27 themselves from the burden of their sins ? But it was a false easement, a deceitful thing: there- fore how much are we bound unto God which hath delivered us from this bondage, from this heavy yoke of Popery, which would have thrust us to everlasting damnation." ^ The mass is elsewhere termed " an abomi- nable idol, full of idolatry, blasphemy, sacri- lege against God, and the dear sacrifice of His Christ," " heinous sacrilege," and " pernicious blasphemy." ^ And in his ' godly talk ' Avith Bishop Ridley,^ he says, " The very marrow- bones of the mass are altogether detestable, and therefore by no means to be borne withal ; so that of necessity the mending of it is to abolish it for ever." Another distinguished Avriter of the Re- formed Church is Hooper, Bishop of Glouces- ter, one of the sufferers in Queen Mary's reign : the following quotations from his works will be found in strict accordance with those already given. To say or to hear the mass is " very idolatry • Sermons, p. 523. (Parker Soc. ed.) - Ibid. p. 440. ^ Acts aud Monuments, vol. viii. p. 412. c 2 28 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFOEMEES. and shall be cruelly revenged {i. e., punished) without they amend." ^ " The priests of Baal make a piece of bread both God and man, and teacheth people ta honour it." ^ " It is an horrible heresy to say that Christ is offered in the mass for sin. Christ once offered himself." ^ " It were well, then, that it might please the magistrates to turn the altars into tables, ac- cording to the first institution of Christ, to take away the false persuasion of the people they have of sacrifices to be done upon the altars ; for as long as the altars remain, both the ignorant people and the ignorant and evil- persuaded priest will dream always of sacrifice. Therefore were it best that the magistrates re- moved all the monuments and tokens of idolatry and superstition." * " In the primitive Church the abomination done upon altars was not known, nor the sacri- 1 Answers to the Bishop of Winchester's book, p. 153. (Parker Soc. ed.) 2Ibid. p. 153. ^Ibid. p. 182. ^ Sermons upon Jonah, p. 488. ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 29 fice of Christ's precious blood so conculcated and trodden under foot No man can serve two masters, the true religion of God, and the superstition of man. Nor can he be saved that trusteth in Christ hanged upon the cross and Christ offered in the mass, for the one is contrary plain unto the other." ^ " Seeing kneeling is a show and external sign of honouring and v^orshipping, and here- tofore hath grievous and damnable idolatry been committed by the honouring of the sacra- ment, I would wish it were commanded by the magistrates that the communicators and receivers should do it standing or sitting." ^ The next quotations are given from Roger Hutchinson's works, who died at the begin- ning of Que6n Mary's reign ; his work, the "Image of God," was published in 1550, and afterwards in 1560. " Christ's everlasting priesthood hath made an end of all the Levites' priesthood, yea, and of all other priesthood, save only that which belongeth to all Christian men. . . . But our Romans allege the prophet Malachi for the de- ^ Sermons upon Jonah, pp. 492-.500. ^ Xbid. p. 530. 30 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. fence of the sacrifice of the mass and for their Popish priesthood. . . . Malachi nameth none other sacrifice than an oblation of a pure and contrite heart. . . . But the Papists say this is no sacrifice. I affirm that it is ; forasmuch as God saith, ' Behold, I make all things new.' If all things be new, then this is a new sacrifice, albeit we have it in common with the fathers of the Old Testament. The Scripture useth to call things new, when they be commanded anew, as Christ commanded his disciples to love one another, before his passion saith, ' I give you a new commandment, that ye love one another.' " The word ' sacerdos,' priest, is referred always (in the New Testament) to all Chris- tian people, which be all ' sacer dotes,' priests, through Christ ; and ministers have no man- ner of sacrifice, but common with the laity, both men and women, that is to say, the sacri- fice of thanksgiving, and the quick and lively oblation of their own bodies. The New Testa- ment requireth no other sacrifice." ^ The next quotations are given from the 1 Image of Grod, pp. 46-50. (Parker Soc. ed.) ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 31 works of the well-known translator of the Bible, CovERDALE. He was fortunate enough to escape the Marian persecution, returned to England on the accession of Queen Elizabeth, and was collated to the living of St. Magnus, London Bridge. He speaks of the " rose-coloured whore of Babylon, that is, the Popish Church," ^ whilst the mass is called a " heinous and stinking abomination," " the devil's dearling." ^ " But let us look wherefore they call it (the mass) a sacrifice. Even because, say they, in the mass, Christ the Son is offered up unto God His Father. Oh, what a great blasphemy is this, yea, to be abhorred of all virtuous men. ^ An extract is. added from Pilkington, Bishop of Durham in Queen Elizabeth's reign, one of the commissioners appointed to revise the Book of Common Prayer, a.d. 1568. " Now for pulling down altars and minister- ing the communion on tables, a few Avords to try whether we do this without reason or ex- 1 The Carrying of Christ's Cross, p. 253. (P. S. ed.) 2 Ibid. p. 267. 3 The Defence, &c., p. 470. 33 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. ample. . . . Wheresoever, therefore, the New Testament or old writers use this word ' altar,' they allude to that sacrifice of Christ, figured by Moses, and use the word still that Moses used to signify the same sacrifice withal ; and rather it is a figurative than a proper kind of speech in all such places. And because altars were ever used for sacrifices, to signify that sacrifice which was to come, seeing our Saviour Christ is come already, has fulfilled and finished all sacrifices, we think it best to take away all occasions of that Popish sacrificing mass (for maintaining whereof they have cruelly sacrificed many innocent souls) to minister on tables ac- cording to these examples." ^ FuLKE, a distinguished controversial writer in the reign of Elizabeth, also says, in his de- fence of the English translation of the Bible : — " And to tell you plainly, as our conscience beareth us witness, we will never dissemble that we avoid that word ' priest,' as it is used to signify a sacrificer, because we would show a perfect distinction between the priesthood of the law and the ministry of the Gospel, between 1 Confatation of an Addition, pp. 545-7. (P. S. ed.) ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD^ ETC. 33 sacerdos and presbyter, a sacrificer and a go- vernor of the Church." ^ " And whereas he trifleth of the continuance of the sacrifice of Christ, according to the order of Melchisedek, I say it is horrible blasphemy to make any successors unto Christ in that priesthood which the Holy Ghost saith He hath airapa^arov, such as passeth not from Him by succession to others, because he liveth for ever."^ A few extracts might here be added from the few remaining works of Grindal, Arch- bishop of York, and afterwards successor of Parker in the see of Canterbury, " the intimate friend and chaplain of Bishop Ridley;"^ but on referring to " his fruitful dialogue between custom and verity," the passages that I had intended to quote (as referring to the subjects under review) are so loathsome and profane,"* that I cannot persuade myself to lay them be- fore the reader, and it is perhaps unnecessary : 1 Defence of the Englisli Translation, p. 253. (P. S. ed.) 2 Answers to Stapleton, &c., p. 245. 3 Life of Grindal. (P. S. ed.) ^ As, e.g., a passage, p. 30 : " But if you take it," &c, c 3 34 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EErOEMEES. they are, in a doctrinal point of view, in strict accordance with the extracts previously given. The next quotations are from Sandys, Grindal's successor as Archbishop of York, and one of the commissioners for revising the Book of Common Prayer. " The Popish Church hath neither the true foundation, nor yet the right marks of the Church of God : her foundation is man, her marks are blasphemy, idolatry, and supersti- tion. Christ is ihe head of the body the Church. This head cannot err : the head of the Church antichristian is the Pope, that man of sin, a liar, yea, a very father of lies."^ " When public worship is public idolatry, then are we to listen to those admonitions, ' avoid the worshipping of idols,' ' bear no yoke with infidels,' ' depart ye out, touch not that which is polluted.' "^ " In the time of the Gospel the apostles had, and at this day also Christians have, their sacrifices, which, being faithfully offered, are graciously accepted in the sight of God. . . . Let us now consider who are priests to offer up I Sermons, p. 67. (Parker S. ed.) 2 i^ij p_ 191 _ ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 35 these sacrifices. For tliere can be no sacrifice without a priest, as there can be no priest where there is no sacrifice. In the Scriptures I find a threefold priesthood allowed of God : a Levitical priesthood, such as that of Aaron and his sons : a royal priesthood, figured in Melchisedek, and verified in Christ : a spiritual priesthood, belonging generally to all Christians. The Levitical priesthood continued unto Christ, then ceased. For being a figure of the truth which was to come, the truth being come it could no longer continue. Neither is there in the royal priesthood of Melchisedek any other that hath succeeded, but only Christ. He is ' a priest for ever, after the order of Melchise- dek,' a king and a priest, a God and a man, perfect, innocent, undefiled, unspotted, severed from sinners ; yet numbered, punished, plagued with the wicked : humbled to the depth, and exalted far above the highest heavens, without beginning, without end, without father as man, without mother as God. The third priesthood is that which is common to all Christians, for ' He hath made us kings and priests unto God, His Father.' Where the Popish priesthood 36 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMEES. taketh footing, in what ground the foundation thereof is laid, I cannot find in the Scriptures. Antichrist is the author of that priesthood : to him they sacrifice, him they serve. "^ I shall close these quotations with a few extracts from Bishop Jewell, the most able and learned controversialist of the period. " We (the Protestants) have the sacrifice of prayer, the sacrifice of almsdeeds, the sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and the sacrifice of the death of Christ. We are taught to present our own bodies as a pure and a holy and a well-pleasing sacrifice unto God, and to ofier up unto Him the burning oblation of our lips. ' These,' says St. Paul, ' be the sacrifices wherewith God is pleased.' These be the sacrifices of the Church of God. Who- soever hath these, we cannot say he is void of sacrifice. Howbeit if we speak of a sacrifice propitiatory for the satisfaction of sins, we have none other but only Christ Jesus, the Son of God, upon His cross. He is that sacrificed Lamb of God that hath taken away the sin of the world. You will say, ' Ye offer not up ^ Sermons, pp. 410-11. ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD; ETC, 37 Christ really unto God His Father.' No, M. Harding, neither you nor we can so oflfer Him : nor did Christ ever give you commission to make such sacrifice. And this is it wherewith you so foully beguile the simple. Christ ofFereth and presenteth us unto His Father : for by Him we have access to the throne of grace. But no creature is able to offer Him. Christ Jesus upon His cross was a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedek."^ Of the adoration in the sacrament, Jewell says : " The matter is great, and cannot be at- tempted without great danger. To give the honour of God to a creature, that is no god, it is manifest idolatry. And ' all idolaters,' as St. John saith, ' shall have their portion in the lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.' " ^ " Paul saith, ' Christ hath once entered into the holy place,' and ' hath with one only sacrifice and one oblation made perfect all things.' Men say that they can sacrifice Christ himself again every day, not only for ' Defence of the Apology, part ii. p. 336. (Parker S. ed.) 2 Controversy with Harding, art. viii. p. 516. 38 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN EEFORMEES. remembrance' sake, but in very deed, and that in infinite places. Christ saith, ' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.' Men v^^orship the eucharist, alack the while ! being neither Lord nor God, but a sacrament of the Lord, without authority of the Scriptures or example of the apostles, and that as God." ^ In his sermons on the Thessalonians (Epist. ii. ch. 2), he maintains, and has endeavoured to prove, that the Pope is the Antichrist predicted by the apostle. But in bringing forward the teaching of the Anglican Reformers on the idolatry of the mass and the Papal Antichrist, we must not forget the consentient teaching of their suffering brethren, commemorated in the ' Acts and Monuments' of John Foxe; whom Bishop Ridley addresses as " remaining in captivity of the flesh, and dispersed abroad in sundry prisons, but hnit together in unity of spirit and lioly religion y Some of these were men of learning and of much influence, the most dis- tinguished preachers and divines during the ' Sermon at Oxford, p. 959. ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 39 reign of Edward VI., and intimately associated with the compilers of the Anglican Prayer- Book. Their teaching on the above-named subjects will be found in exact accordance with the extracts already given. There is not one, I might venture to assert, who did not believe that the mass was an idolatrous service, and the Pope Antichrist. This could not, I admit, be proved in every case ; as the reader of the ' Acts and Monuments ' is aware, that in the author's narrative of some of the sufferers his account is very brief and imperfect — per- haps from a want of more exact information, or for other reasons which cannot with cer- tainty be determined ; — but in all cases where the examination of the accused is given fulli/ and at length, I may confidently assert the truth of the above statement. In adducing the teaching and opinions of the " Martyrs," it will be necessary (not to burden the reader with unnecessary proof) to make a selection, which shall include the prin- cipal and most distinguished persons, without neglecting the sufferers in humble life, who form the majority, but concerning whom the infor- 40 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMERS. matiou is often very brief and unsatisfactory. Two sources of information respecting them are presented in the pages of Foxe— his record of their examinations, and their letters written for the information or consolation of absent friends. One of the first of the sufierers in Queen Mary's reign was John Rogers, the vicar of St. Sepulchi'e's, to whom Bishop Ridley had given a prebendal stall in St. Paul's. He speaks, in the " godly matter, including his admonitions, sayings, and prophesyings," of the "idolatrous mass;" of " the antichristian Church of Rome, which is the synagogue of Satan, and the very sink of all superstition, heresy, and idolatry ;" ^ and of the " bloody Babylonical bishops." ^ The next sufiPerer was Laurence Saunders, who had a " benefice in the city of London, named Allhallows, in Bread-street." At the beginning of Queen Mary's reign, Foxe tells us he boldly uttered his conscience " against Popish doctrine and Antichrist's damnable ^ Acts and Monuments, vol. vi. p. 604=. 2 Ibid. p. 609. ON THE MASS, THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 41 errors." After his examination, " Laurence Saunders, standing among the officers, seeing there a great multitude of people, opened his mouth and spake freely, warning them all of that which by their falling from Christ to Anti- christ they did deserve ; and therefore exhort- ing them by repentance to rise again, and to embrace Christ with stronger faith, to confess Him to the end, in the defiance of Antichrist, sin, death, and the devil." '*■ Rowland Taylor, the parson of Hadley^ suf- fered shortly after Saunders. At the beginning of Queen Mary's reign some zealous Roman Catholics attempted to restore the Roman ser- vice. In the words of Poxe, Dr. Taylor enter- ing in, and coming in the chancel, " saw a Popish sacrificer in his robes, with a broad new shaven crown, ready to begin his Popish sacrifice. . . . Then said Dr. Taylor, ' Thou devil, who made thee so bold to enter into this church of Christ, to profane and defile it with this abominable idolatry ? . . . I command thee, thou Popish wolf, in the name of God, to avoid hence, and not to presume here with such ^Acts and Monuments, p. 637. 42 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFOEMERS. Popish idolatry to poison Christ's flock.' " ^ He refused at the request of his friends to escape ; "for what Christian man would not gladly die against the Pope and his adherents ? I know that the papacy is the kingdom of Anti- christ, altogether full of lies, altogether full of falsehood."^ And in a letter to his wife, he says, " The mass, as it is now, is but one of Antichrist's youngest daughters, in the which the devil is rather present and received, than our Saviour, the second person in the Trinity, God and man." ^ A few extracts shall follow from the letters of John Bradford, which will be found in perfect agreement with those already given. Thus he speaks of " the mass, and such bag- gage as the false worshippers of God and the enemies of Christ's cross (the Papists, I say) have brought in to poison the Church of God withal, displeaseth God highly, and is abo- minable in His sight."* " The mass is an abo- minable idol, full of idolatry, blasphemy, and 1 Acts and Monuments, vol. vi. p. 679. 2 Ibid. p. 680. 3 Ibid. p. 701. 4 Ibid. vol. vii. p. 198, ON THE MASS^ THE PRIESTHOOD, ETC. 43 sacrilege against God and His Christ."^ " You cannot be partakers of God's religion and Anti- christ's service, whereof the mass is most prin- cipal. You cannot be a member of Christ's church and a member of the Pope's church."^ One quotation will suffice from the " godly- letters " of John Careless. In a letter to a * certain godly faithful sister/ after saying that the idolatrous mass is abominable, devilish, and detestable in the sight of God, he adds, " But dear sister K., do you fly from it both in body and soul, as you would jfly from the very devil himself. Drink not of the whore of Babylon's cup by any means, for it will infect the body and poison the soul. ' Be not partakers of her sins,' saith the angel, ' lest ye be partakers of the plagues that shall shortly be poured upon her.' "^ The opinions of some of the most distin- guished amongst the suffering party having now been laid before the reader, a few ex- tracts may be added to show that the belief of persons, less marked either by position or ' Acts and Monuments, vol. vii. p. 221. 2 Ibid. vol. vii. p. 257. ^ Ibid. vol. viii. p. 192. 44 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFORMBES. learning, was in exact conformity with their brethren in trial. Thus John Warne, an 'upholsterer,' says " that all filthiness and idolatry is in the Church of Rome."^ Thomas Wats, a ' linendraper,' that the mass is abominable, or, as it is said in the ' article ' objected against him, to which he assents, "that the mass now used in the Church of Rome, here in England and other places, is full of idolatry, abomination, and wickedness."^ Thomas Iveson, a ' carpenter,' believeth " con- cerning the sacrament of the altar, that it is a very idol, and detestable before God as it is now ministered."^ John Denley, a 'gentleman/ " beheves that the mass now used in this realm of England is naught, and abominable idolatry, and blasphemy against God's holy word ;"* and Thomas Hudson, a ' glover,' calls the mass " a patched monster and a disguised puppet, more longer a-piecing than ever was Solo- mon's temple."^ ^ Acts and Monuments, vol. vii. p. 81. 2 Ibid. vol. vii. pp. 120-1. ^ ibid. vol. vii. p. 327. ^ Ibid. vol. vii. p. 332. ^ Ibid. vol. viii. p. 464. THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, BAPTISM, ETC. Having now laid before the reader the main reasons urged by the Reformers, in defence of their separation from the Church of Rome, viz., that that Church was the predicted Antichrist — her priesthood a blasphemous usurpation of Christ's office, and her mass a detestable and abominable idolatry :■ — our next inquiry will be, what the Reformers themselves actually believed and taught on these and other points of doctrine and controversy. It is not to be supposed that they were merely satisfied with fierce denunciation against what was deemed the idolatry and apostasy of Rome : they had a well-defined theology of their own, one which on leading points was unanimously received and believed — one which was deemed (by, at least, the more learned of the party) to 46 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. rest upon the joint authority of Scripture and the primitive Church. The extracts which I propose to give in illustration of the Tleformed theology will be arranged under the following heads : — The Apostolical Succession, Baptism, the Holy Eucharist, Predestination, Paith AND Works. In an analysis of the theology of the Re- formers, the first doctrine which, according to general opinion, would require investigation, is that of the Apostolical Succession. It is undoubtedly one of primary importance in the controversy, though not, as I shall presently show, brought forward in the first place by the Reformers or their opponents. What, then, vras the teaching of the Reformers on the Church Catholic? Did they believe that the Church is a visible body, known by its episcopal order, and deriving its authority by an uninter- rupted succession from the apostles ; or, on the other hand, that this succession was not essen- tial to the being of a church, — that this church might exist, and frequently had existed, without THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 47 it, — and that any body of Christians, separated from this succession, but holding what was deemed scriptural doctrine, and administering the sacraments according to the scriptural model, was a true Church ? In other words, did they hold the visible, or invisible church theory ? The Reformers, I reply, unanimously denied the doctrine of the apostolical suc- cession, and it would be impossible to bring forward a single writer amongst them, till nearly the close of Queen Elizabeth's reign,^ who maintained it. The extracts previously given have shown that the Reformers believed that the mass was idolatry and the Pope Antichrist, opinions quite incompatible with the doctrine of the apostolical succession, if this doctrine be rightly understood, and duly considered in all its bearings. Tliere is much prevailing error as to the meaning of the apostolical succession. It is commonly thought that a Church can ' Archbishop Bancroft is said to have been the first who taught the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession in the Eeformed English Church, in a sermon preached an. 1588 (Neal, vol. i. p. 395). See Guizot's History of tU English Revolution, p. 51, Hazlitt's transl. 48 THEOLOGY OF THE AJ^GLICAN EEFORMERS. urge sufficient proof of being a true member of the Catholic body, by proving, through an uninterrupted succession of bishops, its deri- vation from the apostles. But this notion, as a moment's thought will show, is not only in itself a mere absurdity, but is wholly opposed to what the ancient Church unanimously held on the " succession." For consider : if a bishop in any see can trace an uninterrupted descent from the apostles — what then ? of what possible importance can this fact be ? Suppose he teaches heterodox novelties, as, e.g., on the grace of baptism, or the eucha- ristic presence, will his apostolic descent give any weight or authority to his heretical teach- ing ? Will such heresies become true by being taught by a bishop lineally descended from the apostles ? All will admit that they will not, — that mere apostolic descent is insuffi- cient to make a bishop's teaching and opinions authoritative, unless this descent in some way or other guarantee the possession of apostolic truth. Thus it is obvious that mere succession cannot be sufficient to constitute a true Church : the most heretical and antichristian doctrines THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 49 would thus become binding on the conscience : the Church, whilst continuing such, might teach the doctrines of Antichrist, and lead her children into fundamental and damnable error. But what was the doctrine of antiquity on the apostolical succession ? It was, indeed, unanimously be- lieved that the Church must of necessity have an uninterrupted lineage from the apostles, but this was considered as the mere outward frame-work, and intended not only for the transmission of apostolic authority for the priestly office, but principally for the preser- vation and transmission of apostolic truth. Hence, when heretics started any heterodox novelties, the Fathers appealed to the apos- tolic tradition^ — the doctrine everywhere held in the existing Church, and which one bishop had transmitted to another from apostolic times,'^ — as a sufficient refutation. Thus they 1 Thus St. Augustine, in his treatise against Faustus the Manichsean : " Vides in hac re, quid ecclesire catho- licse valeat auctoritas, quse ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentiiim sibimet episcoporum serie, et tot populorum consensione firmatur," — Lib. iii. n. 2, 2 The same writer, in his refutation of Julianus the D 50 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMEES. traced the apostolic doctrine and the succession of orders in inseparable conjunction with each other, and called upon the heretical opponent who refused to admit the teaching of the existing Church thus transmitted, to name the bishop by whom, or the time when, the apos- tolic doctrine was changed. This is in sub- stance the reasoning of St.Irenaeus,^ Tertullian,'^ Pelagian, thus appeals to the continuous transmission of apostolic truth : " Quod invenerunt in ecclesia tenuerunt, quod didicerunt docuerunt, quod a patribus acceperunt hoc filiis tradiderunt." — Lib. ii. p. 34. ' Thus St. Irenreus, in his controversies with the Gnos- tics, appeals, as a most conclusive refutation of the heresy, to the apostolic tradition, everywhere held in the Church ; he says that these heresies were not held by the present bishops or any of their predecessors, up to the apostolic age : " Traditionem apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus, qui vera velint audire : et habemus annumerare eos qui ab apostolis in- stituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur." — Lib. iii. c. 3. 2 The inseparable vinculum between apostolic truth and apostolic lineage may be said to be the basis of Ter- tullian's well-known work, " de PrcEScriptionibiis adversus luBreticos ;" a tract which should be carefully studied by all who would know the real meaning which the early Church affixed to the apostolical succession. Thus, in THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 51 and St. Augustine, the great champions of the Church against the Gnostic, the Manichaean, and Pelagian heretics. This being the true doctrine of the aposto- lical succession, it is quite obvious that the extracts quoted from the Reformed writers, charging the Church of Rome with apostasy and damnable idolatry, are inconsistent with, and show a rejection of, this doctrine. Had the Church of Rome been such as the Reformers believed and represented, the apostolic doctrine c. xxxii. he appeals to heretics to show the apostolicity of their doctrines by their being handed down by a succes- sion from the apostolic age. The Church, he says, can appeal to this test in proof of the truth of her teaching. " Caeterum si quae audent interserere se setati apostolicse, ut ideo videantur ab apostolis traditse quia sub apostolis fuerunt, possumus dicere : Edant ergo origines ecclesia- rum suarum, evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille epis- copus aliquem ex apostolis, vel apostolicis viris, qui tameu cum apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit auctorem vel ante- cessorem. Hoc enim modo apostolicse ecclesise census suos deferunt ; sicut Smyrnccorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne conlocatum refert : sicut Komanorum, Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit ; proinde utique et caeteros exhi- bent quos ab apostolis in episcopatiira constitutos, aj)os- tolici seminis traduces habeant. Confingant tale aliquid hseretici," &c. D 2 52 THEOLOGY OF THE AjN'GLICAN REFOEMERS. must have been wholly lost — the doctrina tra- dita was no longer transmitted, and thus the continuance of the apostolic lineage was a mere nullity, and only served to give the ex- ternal appearance of the Church to the syna- gogue of Satan and the temple of Antichrist. The Reformers were not unaware of this legi- timate deduction from their teaching, and hence most of them denied the title of the Church in any sense to the communion of Rome. The Church, as all Scripture taught, had the promise of divine guidance, and an authority to teach the world, and as all Christendom they believed had apostatized to idolatry,^ the very Church itself had consequently failed, since otherwise God would give authority and commission to the Church to reject His own truth, and to teach blasphemy against Himself. Thus the assertion that the Church teaches idolatry, 1 " So that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children of whole Christendom (an horrible and most dreadful thing to think), have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested of God and most damnable to man, and that by the space of eight hundred years and more." — Homilies, on Peril of Idolatry. THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 53 is tantamount to a denial of its existence as the Church, since it is certain that to the Church, wherever or whatever it be, are affixed inalienable privileges, which, as far as Scriptui'e teaches, we have no intimation can ever be lost or forfeited. But the ill-considered acrimony of contro- versy did not end here. Had the language referred to been merely an abuse of the Roman communion, it would have been needless to refer to the subject ; but it must be remem- bered that if the statements of the Reformers be true, they necessarily imply a rejection of the apostolicity of the English Church. Hence I hesitate not to assert, if we should admit Bishop Jewell's account of the Anglican succession, that at the Reformation it Avas wholly lost. Speaking of the succession in different sees, he says to his Roman opponent, " We succeeded you as light succeeds dark- ness, or day succeeds night." But if the Anglican Church thus essentially changed its doctrines at the Reformation, it would be idle to pretend that there had been a transmission of ivMih. from the apostolic age. The Anglican 54 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFOEMEES, dogmas, whatever they be, would date from the period of the Reformation, and would rest for their authority simply upon the teaching and belief of the Reformers, and not upon apostolic teaching, conveyed uninterruptedly by the " succession " and the tradition of the Church. This is the very position which a sect assumes. The teaching of the Church is represented as " darkness^" its own dogmas, scriptural light and truth ; but as the alleged " truth " originates from the private judgment of the author of the sect, it is simply an opinion, and no proof can be alleged, as in the case of apostolical tradition, of its positive truth and certainty. The statement of Bishop Jewell must, therefore, be indignantly repu- diated as an undesigned but a real betrayal of the claims of the Anglican Church. However this be, it is quite certain that the Reformers did not hold the doctrine of the apostolical succession. They regarded, as will be seen from subsequent extracts, secret assem- blies of Lollards and Hussites as true churches of Christ, and recognized Protestant brethren on the Continent, who had thrown oflp the yoke THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSIO]Sr. 00 of Antichrist, as sister Churches, united in spirit, doctrine, and intercommunion with their own. My first quotations from the Reformers are taken from the works of Bishop Ridley. His views will be most clearly seen by a few extracts from " his godly talk with Latimer in prison."^ It is evident that although he allows the exist- ence of a visible church, consisting of good and bad, of the tares and the wheat, or rather admits the occasional use by the Fathers of the word " Chiu-ch " in this sense, yet he wholly excludes the doctrine of the apostolical succes- sion, first by limiting the promises made to the Church to its invisible portion, and thus denying the privileges and autliority of the visible body, and also by saying that it must be ascertained from the Scriptures which is the true Church, thus leaving to the private judgment of every individual, to determine which j»ro/e552^^ Church " has the true preaching of God's word, the faithful administration of the sacraments, &c." Before I adduce quotations I must call the reader's attention to a passage in another portion ' Foxe's ' Acts and Monuments,' vol. vii. p. 410. 56 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. of his works, which will perhaps best illustrate his meaning in the passages about to be cited. After mentioning his daily prayer for his brethren who had fled out of their own country, because they preferred to forsake all worldly things, rather than the truth of God's word, he adds, " It is even the same [prayer] that I used to make to God for all those Churches abroad through the world, which have forsaken the kingdom of Antichrist, and . professed openly the purity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."^ Could any one have written this who had believed in the doctrine of the apos- tolical succession ? In the " godly talk " of Bishop Ridley with Latimer, Antonian ^ is represented as bringing forward objections on the Roman Catholic side. Antonian objects to Ridley : " Consider into what dangers you cast yourself if you forsake the Church, and you cannot but forsake it if you refuse to go to mass." Bidlei/ : " The holy Catholic or universal Church, which is the 1 Works, p. 393. 2 By this name Foxe says is meant " some Popish persecutor, as Winchester " {i. e.. Bishop Grardiner). THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 57 communion of saints, the house of God, the city of God, the spouse of Christ, the body of Christ, the pillar and stay of the truth ; this Church I believe according to the creed, this Church I do reverence and honour in the Lord. But the rule of this Church is the word of God, according to which rule we go forward unto life. And as many as walk according to this rule, I say with St. Paul, ' Peace be upon them and upon Israel, which pertaineth unto God.' The guide of this Church is the Holy Ghost. The marks whereby this Church is known unto me in this dark world, and in the midst of this crooked and froward generation, are these : the sincere preaching of God's holy word, the due administration of the sacra- ments, charity, and faithful observing of ec- clesiastical discipline, according to the word of God. And that the church or congregation which is garnished with these marks, is in very deed that heavenly Jerusalem which consisteth of those that be born from above. This is the mother of us all, and by God's grace I will live and die the child of this Church. Forth of this I grant there is no salvation." D 3 58 THEOLOGY OF THE AJ^TGLICAN EEFORMERS. Antonian objects : " The Churcli you have de- scribed to me is invisible, but Christ's Church is visible and known." Bjidley : " The Church which I have described is visible, it hath members which may be seen, and also I have afore declared by what marks or tokens it may be known. But «/" either our eyes are so dazzled that we cannot see, or that Satan hath brought such darkness into the world that it is hard to discern the true Church, this is not the fault of the Church, but either of our blindness or of Satan's darkness. But yet in this most deep darkness, there is one most clear candle which of itself alone is able to put away all darkness. ' Thy word is a candle unto my feet and a light unto my steps.' " Antonian objects, that the Church of Christ is a catholic or universal Church, that good and evil are mingled in it, that this Church cannot err, because Cluist hath promised to it His Spiiit, and that this Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Ridley : "I grant that the name of the Church is taken after three divers manners in the Scriptures. Some- times for the whole multitude of them which THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 59 profess the name of Christ, of the which they are also named Christians. But as St. Paul saith of the Jew, ' not every one is a Jew that is a Jew outwardly,' &c., neither yet all that be of Israel are counted the seed ; even so not every one which is a Christian outwardly is a Christian indeed. For if any man have not the spirit of Christ the same is none of his. Therefore that Church which is His body, and of which Christ is the head, standeth only of living stones, and true Christians not only out- wardly in name and title, but inwardly in heart and in truth. But forasmuch as this Church (which is the second taking of the Church) as touching the outward fellowship is contained within the great house, and hath the same outward society of the sacraments and ministry of the word, many things are spoken of that vmiversal Church (which St. Augustine calleth the mingled Church), which cannot truly be understood, but only of that pure part of the Church, so that the rule of Tichonius con- cerning the mingled Church may here well take place — when there is attributed unto the whole Church that which cannot agree unto 60 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMERS. the same, but by reason of tlie one part thereof : that that is either for the multitude of good men, which is the very true Church indeed, or for the multitude of evil men, which is the malignant church and synagogue of Satan. And there is also a third taking of the Church, of the which, although there be seldomer men- tion in the Scriptures in that signification, yet in the world, even in the most famous assem- blies of Christendom, this Church hath borne the greatest swinge. This distinction pre- supposed of the three sorts of Churches, it is an easy matter, by a figure called a synecdoche, to give the mingled and universal Church that which cannot truly be understood but only of the one part thereof. But if any man will stiffly affirm that universality doth so per- tain unto the Church, that whatsoever Christ hath promised to the Church, it must needs be understood of that, I would gladly know of the same man where that universal Church was in the times of the patriarchs and prophets, of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, at such time as the people would have stoned him ; of Elias, of Jeremy, in the times of Christ and the dis- THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 61 persion of the apostles ; in the time of Alius, when Coustantius was emperor, and Fehx, Bishop of Rome, succeeded Liberius. It is worthy to be noted what Lyra writeth upon Matthew. ' The Church,' saith he, ' doth not stand in men by reason of their power and dignity, whether it be ecclesiastical or secular. For many princes and popes, and other in- feriors, have been found to have fallen away from God.' Therefore the Church consisteth in those persons in whom is true knowledge and confession of the faith and of the truth. 'Evil men, as it is in a gloss of the decrees, are in the Church in name and not in deed.' And St. Augustine (Contra Cresconium Gram- maticum) saith, ' Whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the darkness of this question, let him ask counsel at the same Church of it, which Church the Scripture doth point out without any doubtfulness.' " The above passage has been given at length, to prevent any misapprehension of Ridley's meaning ; the reader must not suppose that either here or elsewhere I either sanction or admit the correctness or applicability of the pas- 62 THEOLOGTf OP THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. sages quoted. My object is to show the opinions of the Reformers on the points of contro- versy, and not to enter into the question (which would involve much unnecessary discussion) whether these opinions are well or ill founded. It is almost needless to say that in the above- quoted passage Bishop R-idley denies the au- thority and privileges of Church catholic, and limits the promises to an invisible congregation, — whether of the elect or the Gospellers, is not of much moment. Latimer agreed with Ridley in his view of the Church, and, in the '' godly talk " from which the extract has been given, expresses his view even more plainly. " I would not," he says, " stick to affirm that the more part of the great house, that is to say, of the whole uni- versal Church, may easily err. And again, I would not stick to affirm that it is one thing to be gathered together in the name of Christ, and another thing to come together with a mass of the Holy Ghost going before. For in the first Christ ruleth, in the latter the devil beareth the swinge — and how then can any- thing be good that they go about ? From this THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 63 latter shall our six articles come forth again into the light, they themselves being very dark- ness. But it is demanded whether the sounder or better part of the Catholic Church may be seen of men or no ? St. Paul saith ' the Lord knovi^eth them that are His.' What manner of speaking is this in commendation of the Lord, if we knew as loell as He loho are His ? Well, thus is the text : ' The sure foundation of God standeth still, and hath this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His : and let every man that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.' Now how many are there of the whole Catholic Church of England which depart from iniquity ? how many of the noble- men ? how many of the bishops and clergy ? how many of the rich men or merchants ? how many of the Queen's councillors, yea, how many of the whole realm ? In how small a room then, I pray you, is the true Chm'ch within the realm of England. And where is it? and in what state ?"^ The teaching of Cranmer on the succession and the authority of the holy Catholic Church, • Acts and Monuments, vol. vii. p. 415. 64 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. is even more explicit than that of his fellow- sufferers. A select number of bishops and divines met, as Bm^net tells us, " bv virtue of a commission from the king, confirmed in par- liament," to put forth a form of faith during the reign of Henry VIII. They drew up the declaration of Christian doctrine for the neces- sary erudition of a Christian man. Their questions and answers on the sacraments are given by Burnet and Collier, in their 'Collection of Records.' I extract the following quotations in illustration of the teaching of Cranmer. " Question 9. Whether the apostles, lacking a higher power as in not having a Christian king among them, made bishops by that neces- sity, or by authority given them by God ? " Answer. AU Christian princes have com- mitted unto them, immediately of God, the whole cure of their subjects, as well concerning the administration of God's word for the cure of souls, as concerning the ministration of things pohtical, and civil governance. And in both these ministrations they must have sundry ministers under them to supply that which is appointed to their offices. The civil ministers THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 65 under the King's majesty in this realm of England, be those whom it shall please his highness for the time to put in authority under him, as for example the Lord Chancellor, &c. The ministers of God's word under his Majesty, be the bishops, parsons, vicars, and such other priests, as be appointed by his highness to that ministration : as, for example, the Bishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Duresme (Durham), the Bishop of Winchester, the Parson of Win- wick. All the said officers and ministers, as well of the one sort as the other, be appointed, assigned, and elected in every place, by the laws and orders of kings and princes. In the admission of many of these officers be divers comely ceremonies and solemnities used, which be not of necessity, but only for a good order and seemly fashion. Eor if such offices and ministrations were committed without such solemnity, they were nevertheless truly com- mitted. And there is no more promise of God that grace is given in the committing of an ecclesiastical office, than it is in committing of the civil office. " Question 10. Whether bishops or priests 66 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. were first, and if the priests were first, then the priest made the bishop ? " Cranmer answers, " The bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ's religion." " Question 11. Whether a bishop hath authority to make a priest by the Scripture or no ? and whether any other, but only a bishop, may make a priest ? " ATiswer. The bishop may make a priest by the Scripture, and so may jprinces and governors also, and that by the authority of God com- mitted to thefit, and the people also by their election. For as we read that bishops have done it, so Christian emperors and princes usually have done it, and the people, before Christian princes were, commonly did elect their bishops and priests. " Question 12. Whether in the New Testa- ment be required any consecration of a bishop or priest, or only appointing to the office be sufficient. " Answer. In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a bishop or a priest, needeth no THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 67 consecration by the Scripture, for election or appointing thereto is sufficient."- Bishop Hooper says, " The commonwealth of the true Church is known by these two marks — the pure preaching of the Gospel, and the right use of the sacraments. . . . Such as teacheth the people to know the Church by these signs, namely, the traditions of men and the succession of bishops, teach wrong . . . fear therefore neither of [or for] the ordinary power or succession of bishops, nor of the greater part. Por if either the authority of bishops or of the greater part should have power to inter- pret the Scripture, the sentence of the Pharisees should have been preferred before the sentence of Zachary, Simeon, Elizabeth, and the blessed Virgin. . . . Remember, Christian reader, that the gift of the interpretation of Scripture is the light of the Holy Ghost given unto the humble and penitent person that seeketh it only to honour God, and not unto those persons that acclaim it by title or place because he is a bishop, or foUoweth by succession Peter or Paul."^ ' Answer to the Bishop of Winchester's Book, p. 126. bb THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. Bishop Pilkington's teaching on the ''suc- cession " will appear from the following ex- tracts. He says, " The privileges and superiorities which bishops have above other ministers, are rather granted by man for maintaining better order and quietness in commonwealths, than commanded by God in His word," ^ " A succession of bishops and ministers we grant has been in the world, rather than in any one see or country, since Christ : which succession we say we have and follow better than they, but not after such sort as he (his Roman Catholic opponent) says and means. God is never without his Church in the world, although some countries fall ; and his Church never wants his ministers and true teachers, at the least privily, although in some ages it has them more plenteously than in other some, and sometimes the outward face of the Church wants not his errors or blots. ... If suc- ceeding in place be sufficient to prove them good bishops, then the Jews and Turks have their good bishops and religion still at Jerusa- 1 P. 493. THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 69 lem, Constantinople, and elsewhere : for there they dwell where the apostles did, and have their synagogues, Levites, priests, and bishops after their sort. We do esteem and reverence the continual succession of good bishops in any place if they can he found, but if they cannot we run not from God, but rather stick fast to his word." And afterwards : " Though the great number of priests and bishops having authority have been these many years the Pope's darlings, rather serving Baal than God; yet our good God, pitying his people, has in all ages reserved some few that taught the truth and feared him." ^ " As Christ our Lord proved the Jews to be of the devil because they fulfilled his desires, and therefore not the children of Abraham, so it is easy to see whose children these be when they follow the Pope and not the apostles. Succession in doctrine makes them the sons of the prophets and apostles, and not sitting in the same seat, nor being bishop of the same place.'' ^ * Answer to the Bishop of Winchester's Book, p. 597-9. 2 Ibid. p. 600. 70 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN llEFOHMERS. After relating the wicked lives of many of the popes, it is said, " Except God dwell and be tied in chairs, seats, and places, he cannot dwell in such wicked men as these popes be. God dwells not in houses made with men's hands, nor in the mighty prelates of the world, but he dwells in the pure minds and con- sciences of his elect people, of what estate or degree soever they be. Compare the doings, preachings, and troublesome life of Peter the apostle, from time to time, with the wicked blasphemies of these Romish prelates, and with their lordly idleness ; and mark in what way he is like them, or they to him. They are no more like than an apple and oyster ; then cannot he be their predecessor, nor they his successors. If they claim to be Judas's successors, I will not stick with them." ^ FuLKE says respecting the Church, " If the Catholic Church might be seen at any time, it should be no article of our faith, which is an evidence of things not seen : Heb. xi." In answer to the objection of his opponent Sta- pleton, " that except the Church had remained ' Answer to the Bishop of Winchester's Book, p. 603. THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 71 in Europe these nine hundred years, Protes- tants should not have had from whence to depart : I answer (replies Fulke), Protestants are not departed out of the Church of Christ, but out of Babylon. And yet I acknowledge that there were members of Christ's Church dispersed, yea, and Churches gathered also in the time of deepest ignorance in most regions of Europe, though not regarded ; or condemned for heretics, in Calabria, in France, in England, in Bohemia." ^ Archbishop Sandys also says, " There is a Church of God and a synagogue of Satan. The Church of God. is builded upon the doc- trine of the apostles and prophets. The true Church hath her mark, whereby she is known: the Gospel duly preached, the sacraments sin- cerely ministered, discipline duly executed. The Popish Church hath neither the true foun- dation, nor yet the right marks of a Church of God. Her foundation is man, her marks are blasphemy, idolatry, superstition. Christ is the head of the body, the Church. This head cannor err : the head of the Church anti- 1 Stapleton's Fortress, p. 51. 72 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. christian is the Pope, that man of sin, a har, yea, the very father of lies." '- "It is true, when the Church is infected and polluted with idolatry and superstition, when the house of prayer is made a den of thieves, the temple of God a synagogue of Satan, when the truth of God is persecuted with the pro- fessors thereof, then we are to serve Him as we conveniently may. When public service is public idolatry, then are we to listen to these admonitions : * Avoid the worshipping of idols,' ' bear no yoke with infidels,' ' depart ye out, touch not that which is polluted.' Rather celebrate the passover in the wilderness with Christ, than in a temple profaned and defiled with idolatry. W/wn the Gospel is persecuted, secret congregations are allowed!' ^ " We gladly grant that we are fallen away from the Bishop of Rome, who long ago fell from Christ : we do utterly abandon his usurped and proud authority, we have happily forsaken 1 Sermons, p. 67. 2 These two extracts, before partly given as re- ferring to another subject, are here repeated with the context. THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 73 that synagogue of Satan, that den of thieves, 'that polluted Church, that demoniacal temple, and we joyfully confess that we have no society or fellowship with his darkness." ^ The associates and fellow-martyrs of some of the Reformers will be found to unite with them in rejecting the doctrine of the apostolical succession. This point of controversy, as the reader of Foxe's 'Acts and Monuments' is aware, was seldom formally brought forward, though there are several instances in which the person examined professes a belief in the invisible Church, a hardly doubtful indication that he did not believe in the visible Catholic Church. But as the term was in all probability used in a Calvinistic sense, the passages will be ad- duced in a subsequent article. I have marked, however, one or two striking instances in Foxe, in which the subject was prominently and directly brought forward. Harpsfield, in examining Bradford, says of the Church, " It hath also succession of bi- shops j" to which Bradford replies, "You say as you would have it, for if this part fail you, ^ Sermons, p. 389. E 74 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEEOEMEES. all the Church that you go about to set up will fall down. You shall not find in all the Scrip- ture this your essential part of your succession of bishops." Poxe adds, as a side-note, " Suc- cession of bishops is no essential part of the Church, but rather ' accidens commune,' which being interrupted yet the Church may stand, as it did before Christ's coming, and after at the coming of Antichrist." ^ At a -subsequent examination of Bradford, the same question is entered upon : Alphonsus. " What is the Church ? " Brad- ford. " Christ's wife, the chair and seat of verity." Alph. " Is she visible ? " Brad. " Yea, that she is to them that will put on the spectacles of God's word to look on her." Foxe adds a note — " The Church is visible but to them that have spiritual eyes." ^ I would also call the reader's attention to the examination of Archdeacon Philpot, one of the most learned of the Reformers. The point of the apostolical succession is more than once brought forward : and one of the examiners stated that the " argument troubled Ridley so ' Foxe, vol. vii. p. 170. ^ j^id, vol. vii. p. 181. THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 75 sore that he could never answer it." Philpot professes in a certain sense to hold it, or rather admits that St. Augustine held it, but its real im- port is wholly explained away. The true Church, he says, is known by succession and true doc- trine {i. e., the teaching of his own party), and thus he can deny the claims of the Church of Rome. It had a local succession, but not sound doctrine. He says, "The Church is not tied to any place longer than it abideth in the word, and for all controversies the word ought to be judge." On being asked where was his religion fifty years ago, " It was in Germany apparent by the testimony of Huss, Jerome of Prague, and WicklifFe, whom your generation a hundred years ago and more did burn for preaching the truth unto you, and before that time and since hath been, although under persecution it hath been put to silence." The examiner adds, " That it is a marvellous strange religion, which no man can tell cer- tainly where to find it." Philpot. " It ought to be no marvel unto you to see God's truth through violence oppressed : for so it hath been from the beginning from time to time, as E 2 76 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAJST EEFOEMEES. it appearetli by stories, and as Christ's true religion is now to be found here in England, although hypocrisy hath by violence the upper hand." ^ The reader, without further quotations, will be enabled to judge of a true religion identified with that of Huss or Wickliffe, and of the virtual denial of the " succession," which is involved in considering their assemblies as Churches pf Christ. These quotations may be closed with an ex- tract from Bishop Jewell, who agrees with the preceding authors in rejecting the doctrine of the succession, whilst he contends, as a matter of fact, that the Anglican bishops did, by due consecration, succeed their Roman Ca- tholic predecessors in the same sees. He thought the succession to be of no moment, and not essential to the being of a Church, yet still, whatever value his antagonist might attach to it, he contended that it was possessed by the Anglican Church. A believer in the apostolical succession could hardly have used Jewell's language in his Apo- 1 Foxe, vol. vii. p. 664-72. THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 77 logy : " We truly have renounced that Church wherein we could neither have the word of God sincerely taught, nor the sacraments rightly administered, nor the name of God duly called upon." ^ The true doctrine of the " succession " does not, it is obvious, authorize a person to try the Church according to Ms own view of the meaning of Scripture, and to desert it if appa- rently inconsistent with that standard. Of the Anglican succession, he says, " We succeed the bishops that have been before our days. We are elected, consecrate, confirmed, and admitted as they were. If they were de- ceived in anything, we succeed them in place, but not in error. They were our predecessors, but not the rulers or standards of our faith. Or, rather, to set apart all comparisons of per- sons, the doctrine of Christ this day, M. Har- ding, succeedeth yom* doctrine, as the day suc- ceedeth the night, as the light succeedeth dark- ness, and as truth succeedeth error." ^ " Here hath M. Harding taken more pains than ordinary. He thought if he could by 1 Apology of the Church of EngLand. 2 Defence of the Apology, part ii. p. 339. 78 theology" of the aistglican reformehs. any colour make the world believe we have neither bishops, nor priests, nor deacons, this day in the Church of England, he might the more easily claim the whole right unto him- seK, And, indeed, if it were certain that the religion and truth of God passeth evermore ordinarily hy succession and none otherwise, then were succession, w^hereof he hath told us so long a tale, a very good substantial argu- ment of the truth." ^ In reply to Harding, who, objecting against Anglican ordinations, had said, " Amongst tbe canons of the apostles this is tbe first, ' Epis- copus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordina- tur,' Jewell replies, " We deny not the conse- cration of three bishops. We deny not the confirmation of the metropolitan. We our- selves are so consecrated and so confirmed. The matter that lieth between us is this. Whether through the whole Church of Christ, no man may be allowed for a bishop without the confirmation of the Pope. Thereto I say, Where be your ecclesiastical canons ? who de- vised them ? who made them ? " ^ 1 Defence of the Apology, part ii. p. 323. ^ Ibid. p. 330. THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 79 " Whereas it further pleaseth you to call for my letters of orders/ and to demand of me, as by some authority, whether I be a priest or no, what hands were laid over me, and by what order I was made : I answer you, I am a priest made long sithence by the same order and ordinance, and I think also by the same man and the same hands, that you, M. Har- ding, were made priest by, in the late time of ^ This is said in reply to Harding's cliaUenge. "There- fore to go from your succession, which ye cannot prove, and to come to your vocation, how say you, sir? You bear yourself as though you were bishop of Salisbury : but how can you prove your vocation ? By what autho- rity usurp you the administration of doctrine and sacra- ments ? What can you allege for the right and proof of your ministry ? Who hath called you? Who hath laid hands on you ? By what example hath he done it ? How and by whom are you consecrated ? Who hath sent you ? Who hath committed to you the ofl&ce you take upon you ? Be you a priest, or be you not ? K you be not, how dare you usurp the name and office of a bishop ? If you be, tell us who gave you orders ? The institution of a priest was never yet but in the power of a bishop. Bishops have always, after the apostles' time, according to the ecclesiastical canons, been consecrated by three other bishops, with the consent of the metropolitan and confir- mation of the bishop of Eorae." — Defence of the Apology, part ii. p. 331. 80 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REEORMEES. that most virtuous prince, King Edward the Sixth. Therefore ye cannot well doubt of my priesthood without like doubting of your own. '' Farther, as if ye were my metropolitan, ye demand of me whether I be a bishop or no ? I answer you, I am a bishop, and that by the free and accustomed canonical election of the whole chapter of Sarisbury assembled solemnly together for that purpose : of which company, you, M. Harding, were then one : and, as I was in- formed, being present there in your own per- son amongst your brethren, gave free and open consent unto the election. If you deny this, take heed your own breath blow not against you." [Harding does deny this in his ' Detection,' fol. 233.] "As for the impertinent tales of Ischyrus and Zacchaeus,^ they touch us nothing. They were 1 Harding had said, " Macarius, a priest of Athanasius (as it was laid to his charge by his accusers), pulled Is- chyrus from the altar as he was at mass, overthrew the holy table, brake the chaHce. The matter brought to judgment, Athanasius and those bishops both denied the fact, and also, though it were granted, yet defended the same as well done, because Ischyrus was not a lawful minister of the mass. And why so ? Because he was not lawfully THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 81 none of ours : we know them not. Our bi- shops are made in form and order as they have been ever, by free election of the chapter, by consecration of the archbishop and three other bishops, and by the admission of the prince."^ The above extracts from Bishop Jewell dis- prove the statement of Dr. Milner and modern Roman Catholic controversialists, that Jewell, when taunted with not being a bishop, could only reply to Harding " by ridiculing the Ca- tholic consecration." ^ JeweU, it is true, does not state (in reply to Harding's questions) by whom, and wlien, and liov) he was consecrated bishop, though he does answer the questions in regard to his priesthood ; but can it be sup- made priest, nor with, churchly laying-on of hands conse- crated. . . . By which example, besides other points, we are taught what to judge of your pretended communion. Again, what say you to Epiphanius, who writeth against one Zacchseus of his time, for that, being but a layman, with wicked presumption took upon him to handle the holy mysteries, and rashly to do the office of a priest." — Defence of the Apology, part ii. p. 321. ' Defence of the Apology, part ii. p. 334. 2 Milner's ' End of Controversy,' let. xxxii. p. 212. (An- drews' ed.) E 3 82 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. posed that Jewell was not himself consecrated, when he says, " We succeed the bishops that have been before our days. We are elected, consecrate, confirmed, and admitted as they were;" and again, " We deny not the conse- cration of three bishops. We deny not the confirmation of the metropolitan. We our- selves are so consecrated and so confirmed." And in the passage I have just quoted he says, " Our bishops are made by consecration of the archbishop and three other bishops." There can be no reasonable doubt that the very no- toriety of Jewell's own consecration made it unnecessary for him to bring forward the names of his consecrators ; and besides, as one of the above extracts shows, that was not the point of controversy between Harding and himself, but whether " no man could be al- lowed as bishop loithout the confirmation of the Pope" ^ ^ It would of course be mo&t satisfactoiy to lay before the reader what reply Harding made in his ' Rejoinder " to Jewell. Was he satisfied with Jewell's reply, or did he accuse him of evading the question of his own (Jewell's) consecration, or did he admit, in point of fact, Jewell's consecration according to the reformed ritual, but object HOLY BAPTISM. 83 Our next subject of consideration, the teach- ing of the Reformers on the grace of Holy Baptism — whilst possessing great interest as regards the controversies of the day — presents, also, from certain peculiar circumstances, an unnsual difficulty. The Reformers held (as will be proved) Calvinistic views, and often, whilst really denying the grace of baptism, express themselves as if they believed its truth. They use orthodox language, but in their own pecu- liar sense. Thus, some express their belief in baptismal regeneration in terms as strong as could be devised, and yet it is quite certain, from other passages, that they believed that grace was given only to the elect amongst the baptized. In the following pages I have en- deavoured to bring before the reader what the Reformers really did believe on the doctrine of baptism, and not merely to quote one appa- against it as msufficient ? I regret that I have not access to Harding's rare work, and can only wish, that the Editor of the Parker Soc. ed. (who had evidently, by his refer- ences, Harding's work in hand) had given Harding's reply, and thus allowed his readers the opportunity of forming a fair judgment. 84 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFOEMEES. rently decisive passage, and to omit others which may be supposed to qualify its meaning. Much uncertainty must exist in regard to ;many authors for reasons above stated, and ;also from that want oi frequent reference to the : subject, which best enables us to ascertain an ; author's meaning. Baptism was not the con- {troversy of the Reformed period, and is some- Itimes scarcely alluded to at all by distinguished .writers who took a prominent part in the ; events of their day. In reviewing the evidence to be produced ■:on the subject under notice, it must be borne iin mind that the Reformers, as will afterwards be proved, universally held the doctrine of Calvinistic predestination ; and hence it is pos- sible that apparent inconsistencies — the asser- tion at one time, at another the explicit denial, of baptismal grace by the same author — may be accounted for (as in the case of Calvin) by the supposition that, although baptismal regenera- tion was really denied, yet that the writers used Catholic phraseology in a sense of their own. Consider, e. g., the difficulty of ascer- taining \\\Q precise meaning of the words and HOLY BAPTISM. 85 phrases everywhere used by the Reformers on baptism. Cranmer tells us, that "as water washes our bodies outwardly, so we be spi- ritually within washed by Christ from all our sins : and as the water is called water of re- generation, or the new birth, so it declareth unto us, through Christ we be born anew, and begin a new life towards God, and that Christ is the beginning of this new life." Archbishop Sandys says, " In baptism, the outward wash- ing of the flesh declareth the inward purging and cleansing of the spirit." Now Cranmer may mean that when the water is applied outwardly in baptism, then we are spiritually washed by Christ, and that the baptismal water is called water of regene- ration, as testifying that a new and spiritual life is then conveyed : or he may have used the phraseology quoted in a Calvinistic sense, and may mean that the outward washing of baptism is merely a sign of the cleansing effi- cacy of Christ's blood, a testimony and a pledge to us that it washes the soul fi^om sin, and not an assured means of efiecting the new birth. These remarks also partly apply to 86 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMERS. tlie extract from Archbishop Sandys, though there can be Kttle- doubt that he, at least, used the words in a Calvinistic sense. Before, then, we pronounce, on the autho- rity of an ambiguous passage, which appears to teach the doctrine of baptismal regenera- tion, that one of the Reformers maintained this doctrine, let it be first determined whe- ther the language be really inconsistent with that which Calvinists then used in reference to baptism. There can be no doubt that the works of Calvin were well known to the Re- formers, and esteemed as of high value and authority. Now we find on referring to them that Calvin, who unquestionably did not be- lieve the doctrine of baptismal grace, not only makes use of language which seems at first sight to maintain this doctrine, but language, it must carefully be noted, precisely of the same kind as that used by the Reformers.^ This ' The opinions of Calvin in reference to baptism are, 1 believe, correctly stated in a recently published work. Calvin " views regeneration not as annexed to the outward rite of baptism, nor as having any necessary connection with it, but as promised to, and solely accompanying faith. By baptism, he teaches, we are admitted into the visible HOLY BAPTISM. 87 must be duly weighed, ere their real belief on this subject can be ascertained. Church {in ecclesice societatem) : the water, from its purifying and cleansing nature, is a figure of Christ's blood, and a sign and testimony (signum et testimonium) that it cleanses the soul : it is a symbol and pledge {symholum et pignus) of salvation, and a confirmation of our faith. In this sa- crament, as in the others (he adds), we receive nothing but through faith. If faith be wanting, the spiritual grace is withheld. It is merely given when we have faith. If, however, baptism be received by the elect, who have at the time ' faith,' then he acknowledges the accompanying spiritual grace, the death unto sin and the new bii'th. . . . Elsewhere, especially in his ' Commentary on the New Tes- tament,' his teaching is apparently in accordance with the doctrine of the Church. Thus, he says that Christ's in- stitution is not void of spiritual grace and inefficacious (inane et inefficax) ; that God does not deceive us by mere signs {non inanibus nohiscumfguris ludere) ; and still more explicitly, that we should acknowledge in baptism a spi- ritual washing, the testimony of the pardon of sin, and the pledge of renewal {dehemus in ha'pti&mo agnoscere spirituale lavacrum, dehemus illic testimonium remissionis peccatorum et renovationis nostrce pignus amplecti). But such language, though apparently orthodox and in studied accordance with the phraseology of the Church, is not intended to contradict, and it is not indeed necessarily inconsistent with, Calvin's characteristic system. There are plain indi- cations in the context of the passages quoted, that spiritual regeneration is limited to the elect only amongst the bap- tized, and the terras made use of, as 'testimony,' 'pledge,' Ob THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMEES. But there is another reason, which appears the best explanation of these apparent, or rather real, inconsistencies. The Reformers had, in earKer Hfe, whilst members of the Church of Rome, been taught the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and subsequent controversies could hardly have obliterated it, as this doc- trine was not brought forward in controversy with Rome. When, therefore, they afterwards imbibed from continental reformers the doc- trine of Calvinistic predestination, can we be surprised that, although this doctrine is realli/'m.- consistent with that of baptismal regeneration, yet at first sight they were not seen or felt to be incompatible.^ The Reformers still spoke at &c., may be understood in Calvin's sense, which, has been before explained." — Examination of Calvinism, p. 110. (Cleaver.) ' A similar inconsistency may be noticed in the ' Con- fession of Paith/ by Cyril Lucar, the Patriarch of Con- stantinople, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, who attempted to infuse Calvinistic opinions into the Greek Church. In one article he maintains, in the strongest terms, baptismal gi'ace, whilst in another he teaches Calvinistic predestination : — no doubt he had not duly considered the real incompatibility of these doctrines. He taught Calvinism, having recently received it from HOLY BAPTISM. 89 times of baptism — its grace and responsibilities — in the language of earlier days, and did not stop to inquire how far it was reconcilable with their newly adopted theory of predesti- nation. This inconsistency might thus early happen, but it could only he temporary : the discrepancy must eventually have been ac- knowledged, and Calvinists, as we know, have long since ceased to speak of baptism in the ambiguous language of those who first held their opinions. But we need not be surprised at it, whether this inconsistency was the result of early education, or from the fact that the appeal in the controversy with Rome was in a great measure to the Fathers, since unquestionably both parties must have well known and ac- knowledged what the Fathers taught on the grace of baptism. To deny baptismal regene- ration was to contradict, on a fundamental point of doctrine, their teaching, and could menven- friends on the Continent ; and also (without considering whether these doctrines can be consistently held together) held the ordinary doctrine of the Chui'ch on baptism. A long and interesting account of Cyril is given in Neale's ' History of the Eastern Church,' vol. ii. p. 356, &c. (Alex- andria.) 90 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. ture upon tliis whilst engaged in controversy with Rome, and alike quoting the Fathers as the ground of appeal ? Hence, I conceive, arises the inconsistency on this subject amongst the Reformed writers. They were engaged in controversy with Rome, and could hardly afford to charge all the Fathers with heresy ; and had, moreover, im- bibed Calvin's view of predestination, which they had not sufficiently mastered, and which they did not themselves perhaps think was inconsistent with baptismal grace. The doc- trine of regeneration in holy baptism seems to have been regarded by them as one of non- essential importance, upon which the Reformed might and really did differ from each other. Leading men amongst them, as Bishop Hooper or Becon, did expressly limit the gift of grace to the elect amongst the baptized ; and there was (as far as we know) neither reproof nor remonstrance from more orthodox brethren. Other questions were really at this time of such overwhelming importance : the influence of this doctrine upon the whole system of theo- logy was not yet felt or understood : the re- HOLY BAPTISM. 91 formed theology itself was in an embryo state, a rudis indigestaque moles, not yet moulded into a consistent or defensible form : the doctrine itself moreover was unanimously held by the Church of Rome, a Church viewed, as we have seen, by the Reformers with the strongest feelings of abhorrence ; can we then be sm-prised at inconsistencies? — that, e.g., Latimer should at one time, with the prepos- sessions of earlier days, speak of baptism in patristic language, whilst at another he rejects baptismal grace, as a dogma of those "fire- brands," the Papists. In adducing quotations I shall begin (as before) with extracts from Bishop Ridley. He says, "The water of baptism is sacra- mentally changed into the fountain of regene- ration, and yet the material substance thereof remaineth all one as was before." ^ The sacrament (the holy eucharist) hath not grace included in it, but to those that receive it well it is turned to grace. After that manner the water in baptism hath grace promised, and by that grace the Holy Ghost 1 Works, p. 13. 92 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REEORMEES. is given, not that grace is included in water, but grace cometh by water." ^ Cranmer says, " Our Saviour Christ or- dained the water of baptism to signify unto us, that as that water washeth our bodies outwardly, so we be spiritually within washed by Christ from all our sins. And as the water is called water of regeneration or new birth, so it declareth unto us through Christ we be born anew, and begin a new life towards God, and that Christ is the beginning of this new life." ^ Afterwards he speaks of original sin as par- doned in baptism.^ And again, after an allu- sion to the holy eucharist, in terms nearly resembling those just quoted from Bishop Ridley, he adds, " Like as in baptism, Christ and the Holy Ghost be not in the water, but be given in the ministration, or to them that be truly baptized in the water." ^ Latimer teaches, " Now like as He (Christ) was born in rags, so the converting the whole world is by rags ; by things, that is, which are 1 Works, p. 240. 2 Answer to the Devonstire Rebels, p. 176. ^ Ibid. p. 182. 4 On the Lord's Supper, p. 148. HOLY BAPTISM. 93 most vile in this world. Eor to go to the matter, what is so common as water? Every foul ditch is full of it : yet we wash our re- mission of our sins by baptism ; for like as He was found in rags, so must we find Him by baptism. There we begin : we are washed with water, and then the words are added, for we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, whereby the baptism receiveth His strength. Now, this sacrament of baptism is a thing of great weight; for it ascertaineth and assureth us, that, like as water washeth the body and cleanseth it, so the blood of Christ our Saviour washeth and cleanseth it from all filth and uncleanness of sins." ^ This passage may appear plain and unmis- takable, and yet in another place Latimer pointedly contradicts the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. " Except a man be horn from above he cannot see the kingdom of God. He must have a regeneration. And what is a regeneration ? It is not to be christened in water, as these fire-brands {i. e., the Roman ^ Sennon xxxvi., p. 137. 94 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. Catholics) would have it. How is it to be expounded, then ? St. Peter showeth that one place of Scripture declareth another. St. Peter saith, 'And we be horn again' How? Not by mortal seed, but by immortal. What is this immortal seed ? By the word of tJie living God. By the word of God preached and opened. Thus cometh in our new birth." ^ Becon's statements on baptism are not in accordance with each other. In his ' Catechism on the Sacraments,' pubhshed in Edward VI. 's reign, it is said : — " Father. Comest thou then a sinner unto baptism ? Son. Yes, and stuffed full of sin, begotten, conceived, brought forth, nourished, and living in sin, and the very child of wrath by nature. F. And art thou de- livered from the whole lump of thy ungodliness at thy baptism ? S. Yea, verily. F. In bap- tism, then, we receive both remission of our sins and the Holy Ghost ? S. Yea, and with the Holy Ghost the fruits also of God's Spirit, which St. Paul remembereth in his Epistle to the Galatians." ^ ^ Sermons, p. 185, quoted by Toplady, 'Historic Proof,' vol. i. p. 301. 2 Becon, p. 204. HOLY BAPTISM. 95 Yet in another work he says: — ''True Christians, whether they he old or young, are not saved because outioardly they he washed with the sacra7nental water, hut hecause they he God's children by election through Christ, yea, and that before the foundations of the world were laid, and are sealed up by the Spirit of God unto everlasting life." ^ Bishop Hooper denies the doctrine of bap- tismal grace. " Although baptism be a sacra- ment to be received and honourably used of all men, yet it sanctifieth no man ; and such as attribute the remission of sin unto the external sign doth offend. ... To put on Christ is to lead a new life. Such as be baptized must re- member that penance and faith precede this outward sign, and in Christ the purgation was inwardly obtained before the external sign was given. So that there are two kinds of baptism, and both necessary ; the one interior, which is the cleansing of the heart, the drawing of the Father, the operation of the Holy Ghost, and this baptism is in man when he believeth and trusteth that Christ is the only author of his * Demands of Holy Scripture, p. 617. 96 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. salvation. Thus be the infants examined con- cerning repentance and faith before they be baptized with water ; at the contemplation of which faith God purgeth the soul. Then is the exterior sign added, not to purge the heart, but to confirm, manifest, and open to the world that this child is God's." ^ And in another place he says : " It is ill done to condemn the infants of the Christians that die without bap- tism, of whose salvation by the Scripture we be assm^ed : ' Ego Deus tuus et seminis tui post te.' " 2 CovERDALE says : '' In baptism is required God's election if he be an infant, or faith if he be of age." ^ Archbishop Sandys says : " In baptism the outward washing of the flesh dedaretli the inward purging and cleansing of the spirit." ^ Bishop Jewell, however, distinctly main- tains the doctrine of baptismal grace : " Bap- tism therefore is our regeneration or new birth, 1 Christ and his Office, p. 74. 2 Answer to the Bishop of Winchester, p. 129. ^ Christ and his Office, p. 368. 4 Sermons, p. 302. THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 97 whereby we are bom anew in Christ, and are made the sons of God and the heirs of the kingdom of heaven : it is the sacrament of the remission of sins, and of that washing which we have in the blood of Christ. . , . For this cause infants are baptized, because they are born in sin, and cannot become spiritual but by this ncAV birth of the water and of the Spirit. They are the heirs of the promise : the covenant of God's favour is made unto them." ^ Our next subject of consideration — the Holy Eucharist — is the leading and most important topic during the controversies of the Reformed period. The difficulty in treating it merely consists in making a selection from the num- berless passages which are found in all writers on the subject. Before I produce quotations, it may be de- sirable to state the view which the Reformers had of the holy eucharist — a view, as will ap- pear by the extracts presently to be quoted, unanimously held by them. By the doctrine of the Real Presence is ' On the Sacraments — Baptism, p. 1104. F 98 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMEES. meant, that the body and blood of Jesus Christ, in other words, that our Lord Himself, is present upon the altar after the consecration of the elements, under the form or species of bread and wine. This is the usual ecclesiastical language on the eucharistic presence. Thus, in the notice to the second book of Homilies, the patristic formula is retained, and we read of " the due receiving of Christ's blessed body and blood under the form of bread and wine." It will suffice as a definition of the Real Pre- sence, and must be admitted by those who believe that doctrine at all. It by no means necessarily imphes the doctrine of transub- stantiation. Now the doctrine of the Real Presence was denied by the whole of the Re- formed writers : not a single author, I beheve, could be quoted, belonging to this period, who states as his belief that the body and blood are present under the form of bread and wine. The Reformers' theory was the sacramentarian one : it was deemed superstitious, the charac- teristic sin of the Roman system, to annex divine grace to outward rites, forms, or sacra- ments. The Reformers believed really (though THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 99 using occasionally what may appear ambiguous language) that the blessed eucharist is simply a memorial, and that Christ is no otherwise pre- sent in it than in acts of meditation and prayer. Hence they repeatedly say, that Christ was re- ceived by the ancient patriarchs and prophets before He was born, in the same way as He is now received by Christians in the sacrament. Again, they limited the grace of whatever kind, w^hich might be expected in the holy eucharist by the "faithful" receiver, to its administration; they expressly deny an abiding presence in the elements, implied in the sacramental nature ol the ordinance, and universally believed and acted upon (by a reservation of consecrated elements) in the primitive Church. But there is no occasion to adduce further proof that the Reformers disbelieved the doc- trine of the Real Presence. A reference to the earlier part of the work will give ample proof of an explicit and unequivocal denial that the body and blood of Christ can be present in more than one place at the same time, and hence that the worship of Christ in the mass was idolatry, our Lord being as to His human r 2 100 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN HEEOEMEES. nature in heaven only, at the right hand of God. But although the Reformers did most un- questionably deny the Real Presence, as many of them state, and virtually consider the holy eucharist a mere memorial, yet others, disgusted it may be at the shocking irreverence w^hich at- tended the sacramentarian system, attempted to give it a higher meaning and value than that of a common and ordinary memorial. They speak of the bread and wine being appointed hy Christ, as symbols, and thus serving for an especially significant remembrance of His death; and also that, as He appointed the ordinance, the " faithful " might in its use ex- pect an especial blessing. But this view, it is quite obvious, does not, in anything essential or material, differ from the other, that the bread and wine are mere memorials of an ab- sent Saviour. A writer, it will be seen, even when putting it forward, and giving it as much weight as possible, is forced to admit, that Christ is and may he received in the same way in a " field," as from the priest at the altar. The Reformers, of course, also attempted to THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 101 reconcile their system with that of the Fathers ; and yet what is the amount of even Bishop Ridley's admissions, pressed with the over-, whelming weight of patristic authority against the sacramentarian theory ? He merely ventures to say that the bread and wine may be termed the body and blood of Christ, being so sacra- mentally, as being set apart to a holy use ; and whilst denying that grace is in any way annexed to the outward signs, he admits that, when received by one who has " faith," in him they are " turned to grace." The reader will also be struck with the pointed explicitness of Cranmer's language in denying the sacramental presence. I cannot see any essential difference between the opinion of Bishop Ridley and the " memorial " theory of less learned writers. Each believes that Christ is only present to the " faith of the receiver " (i. e., not actually pre- sent in the sacrament at all), and that he is present in acts of meditation and prayer in the same loay as in the holy communion. But this point requires further elucidation. Some of the Reformers, as Bishop Jewell, do make use of expressions which, at first sight, 102 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMERS. seem contradictory to the above view, and ap- pear to teach, not a figurative, but a Real Pre- sence, in the true and obvious sense of the words ; but when their meaning is explained, the high sense apparently maintained will be found delusive. I would not willingly charge the Reformers with wilful or intentional decep- tion, as if they made use of ambiguous words, or of words in a sense of their own, to suit the purpose of controversy ; but, in point of fact, and for reasons w^hich I will presently state, they did employ language in a way most de- ceptive and unwarrantable. For example, Jewell says, " We verily and undoubtedly receive Christ's body in the sacrament ;" and yet it appears a sentence or two afterwards that all he really means by the statement is, that the sacrament " is a holy mystery and a heavenly action, forcing our minds up into heaven; and there teaching us to eat the body of Christ, and to drink his blood, inwardly by our faith, and that verily and indeed ;" in other words, though Jewell says he believes we receive Christ's body in the sacrament, yet really he thinks it is only at the right hand of God, and THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 103 there eaten by faith, and that is not in the sacrament at all! I need hardly say how language of this kind often perplexes the sim- plest matter, and has enabled some contro- versial writers to represent the Reformers, and especially the author just quoted, as holding the highest view of the doctrine in question, when, in reality, he agreed with his brethren ; although his sentiments are disguised and rendered am- biguous by a misuse of patristic language. But it may be asked, did this arise from dishonesty, a wish to deceive and mislead? The conduct of the Reformers, I reply, was natural, and in their position, and with the peculiar views of the period, almost inevitable. At the period of the Reformation the appeal in theological controversies was to the primitive Church as the standard of truth. The for- mula, so well known in the present day, of " the Bible and the Bible only," was indeed known, and frequently adduced at that period, but mostly by the ignorant and uneducated. The learned controversialist appealed, as a matter of course, to fathers and councils, ac- cording to the immemorial practice of the 104 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. scholar and theologian; and it would have been deemed a palpable betrayal of his cause, a virtual termination of the vi^hole discussion, had he admitted that the patristic system dif- fered essentially from his own. Hence writers, as Ridley and Jewell, who were assured that the ^Fathers, in the main, believed as themselves, resort, when hard pressed in controversy, to sophistry so palpable and apparently disinge- nuous, that it is really difficult to admit an intentional honesty and integrity. Thus, when St. Augustine and St. Ambrose say, " We worship Christ's flesh in the mysteries," i, e., in the holy eucharist, Jewell explains the meaning to be, that we adore Christ's flesh in the mysteries, that is, in the ministration of the mysteries ; and that it is our duty to adore the body of Christ in the word of God, and in the sacrament of baptism, and wheresoever we see any step or token of it ! ! Ridley explains the " adoring " to be reverently handling ! ! adding, that we also "reverently handle the word of God," &c. Again, Harding, Jewell's antagonist, quotes St. Cyril and St. Hilary as saying, that Christ is not only by faith, but THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 105 also " corporally, carnally, and naturally within us." Here, of course, is a distinctive contra- diction of Jewell's theory, that Christ is in us only by faith ; but instead of charging, as we might have expected, these fathers with error or exaggeration, Jewell refuses to admit the discordance, and explains the terms to mean " a full perfect spiritual conjunction, excluding all manner of imagination or fantasy." Of course, if such a system of interpretation be admitted, language has no certain meaning at all, and all controversy and means of investi- gating truth are at an end. The above considerations will show the cause of much apparent disingenuousness in the Reformed writers. It was difficult to bring themselves to believe that the Fathers, regarded with so much reverence and almost implicit faith, did not hold the same views of divine truth with themselves : their attention was eagerly turned to passages (and there were such) which appeared favourable to their pe- culiar system ; and thus, notwithstanding some palpable discrepancies, they thought, — -forced themselves to believe, — that the patristic F 3 106 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFOEilERS. system in the main accorded with their own. Besides, we must bear in mind, that the Re- formers, whilst appeaUng to the Fathers, main- tained also the supreme authority of God's word for deciding religious controversies. If the teaching of the Fathers on any point was shown to be plainly and unmistakably opposed to their own, they had a ready escape from the dilemma; — the Fathers, they said, with unquestionable truth, were not infallible ; the appeal must be made to the word of God, which, being interpreted by themselves, sanc- tioned their own view of the matter in dispute. Thus Becon, when his antagonist brings for- ward patristic authority in support of prayer for the dead, treats the quotations with utter scorn, and tells him he can only be listened to when he brings the word of God in his mouth ! It is almost needless to point out the fallacy and unfairness of this mode of rea- soning, since the question was not about the value or authority of God's word, but solely about its meaniny, which the Reformers had no right authoritatively to determine, and to accuse all who rejected their interpretation of THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 107 "opposing known truth:" nor was it quite fair, when both parties had agreed to an appeal to patristic authority, to evade its decision by escaping to the difficulties of Holy Scripture. The following extracts from Poxe's 'Acts and Monuments ' will show the meaning to be attached to the strong expressions adopted from the T^athers, which were sometimes em- ployed by Bishop Ridley and others in re- ference to the holy eucharist. They are of importance as coming from a contemporary who could not have been mistaken on the subject, and also from one most thoroughly acquainted with the views and teaching of the Reformers. Strictly speaking, however, Foxe's explanation is not needed, since the real opinions of the Reformed on the holy eu- charist are so frequently and unambiguously expressed, that one hardly sees where there is room for doubt on the subject. Foxe thus explains the terms "really, SPIRITUALLY, AND SACRAMENTALLY PRESENT, EATEN, AND UNITED." " First. The body of Christ is really j)re- sent. So was the body of Christ once present 108 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. here on earth with us, and shall be again at the day of His coming. Otherwise it is not here really present, but only to our faith really, — that is to say, truly apprehending his body in heaven and here feeding upon the same in earth. And thus is He present only to good men, whether with the symbols or without the symbols. " The hody of Christ is really eaten. Really, not eaten with our bodily mouth, but with the mouth of faith, apprehending the real body of Christ which suflPered for us, and worketh to us nourishment of life and grace, &c. " The hody of Christ is really united. Really and corporally the body of Christ is united to us by his incarnation and the partaking of our flesh. " Secondly. TJie body of Christ is spiritually present. Spiritually we say His body to be present, when either the body of Christ is present to our spirit and faith, or when the virtue of His body is present and redoundeth to om' bodies and spirits by grace. And this difiereth from the other real presence above, in this : that the one hath respect to the body apprehended, the other to the thing that doth apprehend. THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 109 " The body of Christ is spiritually eaten. Spiritually we eat the body and blood of Christ, not with mouth and teeth but with faith only, whensoever we believe on the passion of Christ, being the true bread of life and the only food of man's soul. And thus is He eaten but only of good men, as well besides the sacrament as loith the sacrament : and of this eating speaketh the sixth chapter of St. John. And so was He eaten in the time also of the old law. "The body of Christ is spiritually united. Spiritually He is united to us when the pro- perties of His holy body, as His innocence, power, glorification, eternity, beatitude, &c., are united to our bodies and spirits, which Cometh by our faith in Him, according to His words in John xvii. : ' Ego in eis, et tu in me,' &c. And this uniting, standing by grace, Cometh as well besides the sacrament, as with the sacrament ; only to the godly. "Thirdly. Tlie body of Christ is sacra- mentally present. Sacramen tally His body is present by representation of another thing which beareth a similitude or a memorial of 110 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMERS. His body ; and His sacramental presence per- taining to tlie outward mouth of the receiver is common as well to the good as to the evil. And this sacramental presence ought not to be alone, but to be joined with the spiritual presence, &c. " TJie body of Christ is sacramentally eaten. Sacramentally we eat with om* bodily mouth the mysteries of bread and wine, not being the real body indeed, but representing the real body ; id est, non panem Dominum, sed panem Domini. And this eating, if it be [not ?] joined with the other two above, pro- fiteth nothing, and so is eaten only of the evil. If it be adjoined, then it is eaten of the good, and them it profiteth. " Tlie body of Christ is sacramentally united. The sacrament, as it is not the real body itself of the Lord, so it causeth not itself any real conjunction between Christ's real body and ours, but representeth the same ; declaring that, as the material bread digested in our bodies is united to the same, so the body of Christ, being received by faith, changeth our spirits and bodies to the nature of Him." THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Ill The teacliing of Bishop Ridley on the holy eucharist, will appear from the following quotations. He says, " The flesh of Christ is received after a spiritual communication and by grace. Neither is the same received in the Supper only, but also at other times by hearing the Gospel and by faith." ^ " The true Church of Christ doth acknow- ledge a presence of Christ's body in the Lord's supper, to be communicated to the godly by grace and spiritually." ^ " The sacrament hath not grace included in it, but to them that receive it well it is turned to grace. After that manner the water in baptism hath grace promised, and by that grace the Holy Spirit is given, not that grace is included in water, but grace cometh by water." " But inasmuch as they (the bread and wine) are sanctified and made the sacra- ments of the body and blood of the Lord, they have a promise of grace annexed unto them, namely, of spiritual partaking of the body of Christ to be communicated and given, not to 1 Works, p. 232. 2 i\^{^^ p 236. 112 THEOLOGY OE THE ANGLICAJ!J REPOEMEES. the bread and wine, but to them which wor- thily do receive the sacrament." Afterwards he says, " Grace is given by it (the holy eucha- rist) as by an instrument, not that Christ hath transfused grace into the bread and wine." ^ " I being fully by God's word thereunto persuaded, confess Christ's natural body to be in the sacrament indeed by spirit and grace, because that whosoever received worthily that bread and wine, receiveth effectuously Christ's body and drinketh his blood, i. e., he is made effectually partaker of his passion." ^ Bradeord, Ridley's chaplain, teaches the same mode of presence as the bishop, and often employs similar illustrations. One ex- tract will suffice, and will serve to show the specific difference, if there be really any at all, between the belief which the Reformers advo- cated of a presence by faith in the holy eucha- rist, and the presence in acts of devotion and meditation. He thus answers the objection which says, " We teach Christ to be none otherwise pre- sent in the sacrament than in His word :" — 1 Works, p. 240. 2 n^ij, p_ 374, THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 11'^ " Though in a field a man may receive Christ's body by faith, in the meditation of His word, yet deny I that a man doth ordinarily receive Christ's body by the only meditation of Christ's death or hearing of His word with so much light or hy such sensible assurance (whereof God knoweth our infirmity hath no small need) as by the receipt of the sacrament. Not that Christ is not so much present in His word preached, as he is in or with his sacrament; but because there are in the perception of the sacrament more windows open for Christ to enter into us, than by His word preached or heard. For there (I mean in the word) he hath an entrance into our hearts, but only by the ears, through the voice and sound of the words; but here, in the sacrament, he hath an entrance by all our senses, by our eyes, by our nose, by our taste, and by our handling also : and, therefore, the sacrament full well may be called seeable, sensible, tastable, and touchable words. And therefore, when many windows are opened in an house, the more light may come in than when there is but one opened, even so by the perception of the sacraments a 114 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN EEFOHMEES. Christian man's conscience hath more help to receive Christ, than simply by the word preached, heard, meditated. And, therefore, methinks the apostle full well calleth the sa- craments obsignations, or ' sealings,' of God's promise. Read Romans the fomih, of circum- cision." ^ Archbishop Cranmer accords in doctrine with his fellow-sufferer Ridley. " Christ's body and blood [are communi- cated] to the faithful receiver, and not to the dumb creatures of bread and wine, under whose forms the Catholic faith teacheth not the body and blood of Christ invisibly to be hidden." ^ " And the true eating and drinking of the said body and blood of Christ is, with a con- stant and lively faith, to believe that Christ gave His body and shed His blood upon the cross for us. . . . And this faith God wc:."keth inwardly in our hearts by His Holy Spirit, and confirmeth the same outwardly to our ears by hearing of His word, and to our other senses ^ Bradford's Works, vol. i. p. 101. (Parker See. ed.) 2 On tlie Lord's Supper, p. 36. THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 115 by eating and drinking of the sacramental bread and wine in the holy supper." ^ " We do not a Httle vary from the heinous errors of the Papists. For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine ; but we say, according to the truth, that he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine." ^ " They say that Christ is corporally under or in the forms of bread and wine : we say that Christ is not there, neither corporally nor spiritually ; but in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine he is spiritually, and corporally in heaven." ^ " The fathers, in the old law, received the same things in their sacraments that we do in ours" (side-note) ; " only this difference was between them and us, that our redemption, by Christ's death and passion, was then only pro- mised, and now it is performed and past. And as their sacraments were figures of his death to come, so be our (ours) figures of the same now past and gone." * " They say that the fathers and prophets of ' On the Lord's Supper, p. 43. ^ Ibid. p. 54. 2 Ibid. p. 53. "t Ibid. p. 60. 116 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. the Old Testament did not eat the body nor drink the blood of Christ : we say that they did eat His body and drink His blood, although He was not yet born nor incarnated." ^ " The eating of Christ's body and blood is a figurative speech, spiritually to understand that we must deeply print and fruitfully believe in our hearts that His flesh was crucified and His blood shed for our redemption. And this our belief in Him is to eat His flesh and drink His blood, although they be not present here with us, but be ascended into heaven ; as our forefathers before Christ's time did likewise eat His flesh and drink His blood, which was so far from them that He was not then born." ^ Latimer, as the reader will see by the dis- putation at Oxford, given in Foxe, agreed with his friend Ridley in the mode in which they believed in the divine presence in the holy eucharist, a mode fully set before the reader in the previous extracts from Cranmer and Ridley. A few extracts may next be given from 1 On the Lord's Supper, p. 74. 2 jbi^. p. 116. THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 117 Becon, Cranmer's chaplain. He says in his ' Catechism : ' — " Father, It is, then, no proper, but a figura- tive speech, when Christ calleth the bread His body. " Son. You say truth. And that the breaking of Christ's body on the altar of the cross for our redemption might be more surely fixed in our hearts when we come together to eat the Lord's supper, Christ ennobled the sacramental bread with the name of His body, when not- withstanding it is the figure or sign of his body. . . . Likewise in the Old Testament was it said of the paschal lamb, this is the Lord's passby or passover ; and yet that pas- chal lamb was not the Lord's very passover or passing by, but it was a figure which repre- sented the passing by : even after the same manner in the New Testament the sacramental bread is called the body of Christ, and the sacramental wine the blood of Christ, not that they be Christ's very body and blood indeed, but they be figures, which, by Christ's institu- tion, be unto the godly receivers thereof sacra- ments, tokens, significations, and representations 118 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICiLN EEFORMERS. of His very flesh and blood, instructing their faith, that as the bread and wine feed them corporally and continue this temporal life, so the very flesh and blood of Christ feedeth them spmtually and giveth everlasting life." ^ " What is it to eat the flesh and to drink the blood of Christ? It is to believe that Christ suffered his passion for our sins. All the patriarchs and prophets believed in Christ ; and Abraham, as Christ saith, saw His day, and did rejoice in it. And they also did eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ spiritually." ^ Bishop Hoopeu says : " When they say it (the body of Christ) is in the sacrament and yet moveth not from the right hand of God, I believe not their saying, but require a pro- bation thereof They make Him there and yet occupy no space," &c. ^ The old fathers before the coming of Christ received Christ in the sacrament : — " As verily as we eat and drink Christ in the holy supper, 1 Catechism, &c,, pp. 383-4. 2 Demands of Holy Scripture, p. 612. 2 A Declaration of Christ and His Office, p. 69. THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 119 SO did tlie fathers eat Christ in their sacra- ments, no less Christ's body then to be born, than we, now that He is born." ^ " We must, therefore, hft up our minds unto heaven when we feel ourselves oppressed with the burden of sin, and there by faith apprehend and receive the body of Christ slain and killed, and His precious blood shed for our offences, and so by faith apply the the virtue, efficacy, and strength of the merits of Christ to our souls, and by that means quit ourselves from the danger of damnation and curse of God. And thus to be partakers of the worthiness and deservings of Christ's pas- sion is to eat the body and drink the blood." It is afterwards added : "To excitate in us this faith and belief in the merits of Christ, the bread is called the body, and the wine His blood, after the phrase and manner of the Scripture." ^ Hutchinson says : " But I hear one say, that delighteth in his own wit and thinketh that he can see further into a millstone beyond ' Answer to the Bishop of Winchester's Book, p, 126. 2 Sermons on Jonah, pp. 530-6. 120 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. others : — If we receive Christ's body by faith only, what needeth the sacrament, what booteth it to come to the Lord's table? seeing we may receive His body without the sacrament wheresoever we be, if we believe upon Him, whether we be in the field, in the town, or in our beds. Truly if thou be honestly and godly affected, and dost revoke Christ's passion to thy memory, hoping for remission and pardon of thy offence through the shedding of His blood and the death of His body, thou dost eat His body and drink His blood." ' " The old Christians (i. e., the Jews), that is, they which in drinking of the rock and in eating of their lamb and other sacrifices had an eye and a faith in Christ, did eat His body and drink His blood as truly, as really, and as effectually as we do." The side-note is, " The old Christians did eat Christ's flesh as really as we do." CovERDALE also says, " that when in the supper by true faith we eat His body and drink His blood, we might, through Him, be 1 The Image of God, p. 243. THE HOLY ETJCHARIST. 131 SO stren'gthened and fed to eternal life, as to abide and live in Him for ever But then eat we His flesh and then drink we His blood when we through true belief do ponder and consider what He hath done and suffered for our sakes." ^ Our quotations may be concluded by an appeal to the works of Bishop Jewell, whose teaching will be found in close conformity with the authors before cited. In his con- troversy with Harding, as I before intimated, he will be found to use the very strong and awful expressions on the holy eucharist which abound in the Fathers ; but, as the attentive reader will observe, he employs sach expres- sions in his own peculiar sense, whilst in reality his views on the blessed sacrament re- sembled those of Archbishop Cranmer and of the writers before quoted. " True it is that the whole Christ is fully at every communion, as Chrysostom saith, not that He is there in fleshly or bodily presence, for so St. Ghrysostom saith not ; but for that by His grace and Holy Spirit He worketh 1 fruitful Lessons, pp. 211, 312. G 122 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMEKS. wholly and ejffectually in the hearts' of the faithful In this sort is Christ present at the holy ministration, because His truth, His wisdom. His righteousness, His word, is there present, as the face is present in the glass, not by any bodily or fleshly presence." ^ After saying " that the patriarchs, prophets, and people of God which lived before the birth of Christ, did bv faith eat His flesh and drink His blood," it is added, if they did eat the same meat, if the things, that is, the matter of their sacraments, were all one with ours, if their faith was all one with our faith, what difference is there between their and our eating ? As they did eat Christ by faith and not by the mouth of the body, so we eat Christ by faith and not by the mouth of our body.^ "Now let us examine what difference there is between the body of Christ and the sacra- ment of the body. . . . The difference herein is this : a sacrament is a figure or token, the body of Christ is figured or tokened. The 1 Controversy with Harding, p. 493. 2 Ibid. pp. 1119-30. THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 123 sacrament — bread is bread, it is not tlie body of Christ : the body of Christ is flesh, it is no bread. The bread is beneath, the body is above. The bread is on the table, the body is in heaven. The bread is in the mouth, the body in the heart. The bread feedeth the outward man, the body feedeth the inward man," &c.^ I will add, in corroboration of the uniform teaching of the Reformers in the above quota- tions, the opinions of the sufferers commemo- rated in the 'Acts and Monuments.' The account of their trial shows most distinctly that their belief agreed with that of the writers whom we have already quoted. All denied most positively the Real Presence, or that the body and blood of Christ are really present under the forms of bread and wine. They did not merely, as some may suppose, deny tran- substantiation : frequently, indeed, this dogma was not even named in the articles " objected " against them ; but the charge of heresy was founded on their disbelief, in any sense, of the Presence of om' Lord in the Sacrament — a ' Controversy with Harding, p. 1121. g2 124 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFOEMEES. charge, as will be seen, which their own " re- plies " fully substantiate. The two or three cases which alone can have any apparent claim to be considered exceptions will afterwards be considered. Even if they are admitted to be real exceptions, they can scarcely be adduced as neutralizing, or at all interfering with, the statement which has been made. 1 shall take consecutively some of the ear- liest cases during the persecution. In the examination of Causton and Higbed, after saying, in their confession of faith, that Christ as man can occupy but one ^place, they add that " Christ is in his holy supper sacrament- ally,^ and spiritually in all them that worthily receive it,^ and corporally in heaven both God and man." ^ Pygot, Knight, and Laurence, in reply to the question. What was their opinion of the sacrament of the altar ? answer, " that in the ^ i. e., The elements are called Clirist's body after con- secration, but are not so in any real sense. 2 i. e., Christ is not under the forms of bread and wine, but only in the worthy receiver : these points will appear quite plain from subsequent examinations. ^ Foxe, vol. vi. p. 735. THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 125 sacrament of the altar, under forms of bread and wine, there is not the very substance of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, but a special partaking of the body and blood of Christ, the very body and blood Christ being only in heaven and nowhere else."^ Then follows the case of Bishop Ferrar, whose opinion on the holy eucharist is not given ; and afterwards the account of Marsh, which will subsequently be examined, which is fol- lowed by that of Mower, who attempted the murder of the priest. His answer is the usual one, that " in the sacrament of the altar, after the words of consecration, there is not really, truly, and in very deed, contained under the form of bread the very true and natural body of oar Saviour Jesus Christ." ^ Foxe next gives an account of John Card- maker, prebendary of Wells, whose account of the Lord's supper will explain the meaning of Pygot and others, when they speak of a " special partaking of the body and blood of Christ." " In partaking of the Lord's supper," he says, " as I receive the substance of bread and ' Foxe, vol. vi. p. 337. 2 i^id. vol. vii. p. 78. 126 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN? REFORMERS. wine, the nature of whicli is to strengthen the body, so do I hy faith receive the redem][)tion wrougJit in Christ's body, hroTcen of the cross ; Hfe by his Kfe, resurrection by his resurrection, and, in sum, all that ever Christ in his body suffered for my salvation, to the strengthening my faith in the same. And I believe that God had appointed this eating and drinhing the creatures of bread and wine in his holy supper according to His word, to move and to stir up my mind to believe these articles afore written." ^ In the answers of John Simson and John Ardeley, husbandmen, " They have believed, and do believe, that in the sacrament of the altar there is not the very substance of Christ's body and blood, but only the substance of the natural bread and wine." ^ Hawkes agreed in his opinion of the sacra- ment with the others, Pygot, and those above instanced ; then follows : — " Thomas Wats, a linen-draper, hath and doth believe that Christ's body is in heaven, and nowhere else, and fur- ther, that he will never beheve that Christ's body is in the sacrament." He admits also, 1 !Foxe, vol. vii, p. 84. ^ Jbid. vol. vii. p. 88. THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 127 " confessing and firmly believing the same to be true," the fom'th article objected against him, " that the very true presence of Christ's body and blood in substance is not in the sa- crament of the altar, but only in heaven and nowhere else." Again, in the answers which Thomas Os- mund, William Bamford, and Nicholas Cham- berlain, make to the articles objected against them. "They do believe that in the sacra- ment, under the forms of bread and wine, there is not the very substance of Christ's body and blood, but that there is only the substance of material bread and wine, and that the same material bread and wine be only the signs and tokens of Christ's body and blood, and are to be received only for a re- membrance of Christ's passion and death, without any substance of Christ's body and blood at all." And also, " That the true re- ceiving and eating of Christ's body according to Christ's institution, is to take, distribute, and eat material bread, and thereby to remem- ber the passion and death of Christ, and so 128 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN HEPOEMEES. receive by faith as they believe Christ's body and blood, and not otherwise." ^ The next case is that of John Bradford, one of the most distinguished of the sufferers. He was frequently examined by Harpsfield and others, and though, as it will be seen, he pro- fesses to believe a real presence, it is not a presence under the sacramental forms, but a presence, in the phraseology of the day, to the faith of the receiver; i. e., if a person had faith he realized Christ's passion by devout meditation in partaking of the symbols, and thereby received the benefits of his death. This is of course a denial of the Real Presence in the sacrament, and of that wonderful and miraculous display of divine power, of which, in the prmiitive Church, it was cited as the greatest example. In one examination, Bradford says, " I deny not His presence to the faith of the receiver, but deny that He is included in the bread, or that the bread is transubstantiate." Worcester. "If he be not included, how is he then pre- sent ? " Bradford. " Porsooth though my faith 1 Foxe, vol. vii. p. 141. THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 129 can tell how, yet my tongue cannot express it, nor you otherwise than by faith hear it or un- derstand it." But Bradford's meaning is rendered still clearer by the subsequent examination before Harpsfield. Harjpsfield. " You agree not with us in the presence (in the holy eucharist) nor in any thing else." Brad. " How you be- lieve you know : for my part I confess a pre- sence of wdiole Christ, God and man, to the faith of the receiver !' Harps. " Nay, you must believe a real presence in the sacrament." Brad. " In the sacrament ? Nay, I will not shut him in, nor tie him to it otherwise than faith seeth or perceiveth. If I should include Christ really present in the sacrament, or tie him to it otherwise than to the faith of the re- ceiver, then the wicked men should receive him, which I do not nor will by God's grace believe." Harps. " More pity : but a man may easily perceive you make no presence at all, and therefore you agree not therein with us." Brad. " I confess a presence, and a true presence, hut to the faith of the receiver'^ " What," quoth one that stood by, " of Christ's G 3 130 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAjST EEEORMERS. very body wMch died for us ? " Brad. " Yea, even of whole Christ, God and man, to feed the faith of him that receiveth it." Harps. " Why, this is nothing else but to exclude the omnipotency of God, and all kind of miracle in the sacrament." Brad. " I do not exclude his omnipotency, but you do it rather ; for I believe that Christ can accomplish his promise, the substance of bread and wine being there, as well as the accidents, which you believe not. When we come to the sacrament, we come not to feed our bodies, and therefore we have but a little piece of bread ; but we come to feed our souls by Christ with faith, which the wicked do want, and therefore they receive nothing huipanem Domini, as Judas did, and not panem Dominum, as the other apostles did." Harps. " The wicked do receive the very body of Christ, but not the grace of his body." Brad. " They receive not the body, for Christ's body is no dead carcase ; he that receiveth it, receiveth the spirit, which is not without grace, I trow." ^ John Leaf, " an apprentice to a tallow- 1 Eoxe, vol.vii. p. 173-3. THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 131 chandler," suffered with Bradford. He had been Rogers's scholar, and " did believe in the doctrine of the said Rogers, and in the doctrine of Bishop Hooper, Cardmaker, and others of their opinion, who of late were burnt for the testimony of Christ." He stated as his belief that the priest delivereth to the communicants " only material bread and wine, and the communicants do receive the same in remembrance of Christ's death and passion, and spiritually in faith they receive Christ's body and blood ; but not under the forms of bread and wine" ^ John Bland, preacher, admitted the truth of the fourth article objected against him : — " Thou dost hold, maintain, affirm, and believe that in the blessed sacrament of the altar, under the forms of bread and wine, there is not the very body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ in substance, but only a token, sign, and remembrance thereof, and that the very body and blood of Christ is only in heaven and nowhere else." ^ Hall, a bricklayer, and Wade, affirm " the ' Foxe, vol. vii. p. 193. - Ibid. vol. vii. p. 304. 132 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEPOHMEES. very body of Christ to be in heaven, and in the sacrament to be a token or remembrance of Christ's death." Dirick Carver, a beer- brewer, " hath and doth beUeve that the very substance of the body and blood of Christ is not in the said sacrament, and that there is no other substance remaining in the said sacra- ment after the words spoken by the priest, but only the substance of bread and wine." ^ John Launder, " husbandman," doth confess and believe that in the sacrament now called the sacrament of the altar, there is not really and truly contained under the forms of bread and wine, the very natural body and blood of Christ in substance ; but his belief and faith therein is as followeth, viz., that when he doth receive the material bread and wine, he doth receive the same in remembrance of Christ's death and passion, and so receiving it, he doth eat and drink Christ's body and blood by faith, and none other ways, as he believeth." ^ The above instances, taken consecutively from the narrative of Foxe, will be sufficient to prove what the sufferers during the perse- 1 Foxe, vol. vi. p. 322. 2 ibid_ voi_ ^^ p_ 333^ THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 133 cution of Queen Mary believed on the holy eucharist. A perusal of the whole narrative of the Martyrologist would show that such opinions were unanimously held ; and indeed the only cases in which there could be any doubt, arise either from the wish of the ac- cused to save his life by ambiguous phraseo- logy, or by making use (as we have seen in the case of Bradford) of Catholic terms, not in their obvious sense, but with a peculiar self-imposed meaning of his own. There are only three or four cases which I suppose coidd be adduced as appearing to contradict the express and unequivocal denial of the Real Presence, in the examples before quoted. It may be doubted whether a single one is a real exception ; though even should all be admitted, they v/ould be too insignificant, as I have said, to allege in contradiction of the general state- ment which has been made of the denial of the Real Presence by the sufferers in the reign of Queen Mary. I will, however, mention these cases. The one of George Marsh ^ may be supposed to ' Foxe, vol. vii. p. 39. 134 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. offer an exception. He says, in reply to the usual question on the holy eucharist, "But what is thy belief in the sacrament of the altar ? I answered, I believed that whosoever according to Christ's institution did receive the holy sacrament of Christ's body and blood did eat and drink Christ's body and blood, with all the benefits of His death and resur- rection, to their eternal salvation ; for Christ, said I, is ever present with His sacrament." This may appear, at first sight, a satisfactory statement of the Real Presence, yet it may be doubted whether its apparent orthodoxy is not really set aside by the equivocal words " who- soever according to Christ's institution!' Marsh probably meant to limit the presence to the sacrament as administered by the Reformers, and that none except one with living faith did receive the sacrament " according to Christ's institution." The subsequent examination of Marsh, " who answered unto every article very modestly according to the doctrine by public authority received and taught in this realm at the death of King Edward," cannot at present (says Eoxe) be gotten. This prevents our THE HOLY EUCHARIST, 135 judging more positively respecting his case. After the answer above quoted, it appears that " Marsh was troubled in his conscience for being no more bold touching the sacrament." " Hitherto (he says) I went about as much as in me lay to rid myself out of their hands, if hy any means, without ojjen denying of Christ and His word, that could be done." Another equivocal case i& that of Julius Palmer. Again, as in the last instance, the examination is only given imperfectly ; " more of his examination in that time and place is not yet (says Foxe) come to our hands." " Parson. Do you not believe that they which receive the holy sacrament of the altar, do truly eat Christ's natural body ? Palmer. If the sacrament be administered as Christ did ordain it, the faithful receivers do indeed spiritually and truly eat and drink in it Christ's very natural body and blood." After some further conversation on the ambiguity of Palmer's language, the examiner asks, " But tell me, is Christ present in the sacrament or no ? Palmer. He is present. Jeffrey. How is He present? Palmer. The doctors say 136 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEPORMERS. 'modo inefFabili/ therefore why do you ask me? Would God ye had a mind ready to believe it, or I a tongue able to express it unto you." ^ This case has, perhaps, less claim than the preceding one to be considered as an objection. " If the sacrament be administered as Christ did ordain it, the faithful receivers do indeed spiritually^' &c.; i. e., when the sacrament was administered after the Reformed rite, and the communicant had faith, then he received in some manner the body of Christ, and Christ was spiritually present in him. The only other case which I suppose might be quoted as an exception is that of Arch- deacon Philpot, whose thirteen lengthy exa- minations are given by the Martyrologist. Philpot admits, in words, the Real Presence. He says, "I do confess that in the Lord's supper there is, in due respects, both the sign and the thing signified when it is duly ad- ministered after the institution of Christ." This confession would have been entirely satis- factory, had it not been for the equivocal ex- ^ Foxe, vol. viii. p. 216. THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 137 pressions of " due respects " and " administered after the institution of Christ." {Sixth exami- nation^ Philpot's meaning will be made plainer by what follows : "If any come worthily to re- ceive, then do I confess the presence of Christ wholly to be with all the fruits of His passion unto the said worthy receiver by the Spirit of God, and that Christ is thereby joined to him and he to Christ." {Seventh examination?^ Philpot denies {sixth examination) that there is any presence of Christ in the sacrament as administered in the Church of Rome. " As touching their sacrament which they term of the altar, I say now as I said in the convo- cation house, that it is not the sacrament of Christ, neither in the same is there any manner of Christ's presence." Philpot asserts that it is blasphemy to say " that these words only, ' this is my body,' make a real presence ; bless, take and eat, be as substantial points of the sacrament as ' this is my body.' " In reply to the question, " Why, then you would not have it to be the body of Christ unless it be received ?" — JPhil- 138 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN E,EFOKMERS. pot. " No, verily, it is not the very body of Christ to any otlier but such as condignly re- ceive the same after Ms institution." {Sixth examination?^ The above extracts will show that the opin- ions of Philpot resembled those of his fellow- sufferers ; though, being a learned man, he wished to retain the ecclesiastical language on the holy eucharist, and to adapt it to his own peculiar views. He denies, with his fellow- sufferers, the presence of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, and limits his presence to the worthy receiver. It may, perhaps, be objected that when the Reformers denied the real and substantial presence in the holy eucharist, they were merely denying it in the gross and carnal sense held by their opponents. But I reply, that this charge against the Roman Catholic party is only, as I shall prove, ^^artially true ; and, moreover, even if fully admitted, it would not exonerate the Reformers from the charge of a denial of the Real Presence ; since, whatever might be the Roman opinion, it is quite un- questionable, as we have seen, that the Befor- THE HOLT EUCHARIST. 139 mers denied any presence whatever under the forms of the sacrament. Now it is admitted that the common people entertained a very gross and carnal view on the holy eucharist in the sixteenth century; but what proof is there that the bishops and others, who examined the Reformers, held the same view, and consigned those to the flames who would not profess a belief in it ? It will be said that Bonner and others state as the Catholic faith, a belief in the corporal or natural presence of Christ in the sacra- ment. This is quite true; but let us hear their own explanation of their meaning. An extract from Gardiner, in his controversy with Cranmer, may be quoted, which will show why these terms are made use of at all. " The true teaching (he says) is that Christ's very body is present under the form of bread in as many hosts as be consecrate, and is there really an(^ substantially, which words, really and sub- stantially, be iniphed when we say truly pre- sent. The word corporally may have an am- biguity and doubleness in respect and relation : one is to the truth of the body present, and so 140 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN HEFOEMEES. it may be said that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, but if the word ' corporally' be referred to the manner of the presence, then we should say Christ's body were present after a corporal manner, which we say not, but in a spiritual manner; and, therefore, not locally, nor by manner of quantity, but in such man- ner as God only knoweth, and yet doth us to understand by faith the truth of the very pre- sence, exceeding our capacity to comprehend the manner how." ^ In the examination of John Bland, by Harps- field, Bonner's chaplain, the eucharistic pre- sence is defined, not as carnal or natural, but as the presence of our Lord's glorified body. Harpsfield says, " The natural body of Christ that was born of the Virgin is glorified, and that same body is in the sacrament after con- secration. Bland. ... I would that all men heard that ye say the glorified body of Christ is in the sacrament after the consecration. Harps. I may call thee grossly ignorant. Thou grossly ignorant, is not the same body glorified that was born of the Virgin Mary ? ' Cranmer 'On the Lord's Supper,' p. 89. THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 141 Is it, then, any absurdity to grant that to be in the sacrament?" On Bland's objecting "that the sacrament was instituted, delivered, and received of His apostles before Christ's body was crucified, and it was crucified before it was glorified," — "Harps. Thou art without all learning. Was not Christ's body given to His apostles as in a glorified act, and yet no incon- venience, although his natural body was not crucified, for when he was born of the Virgin Mary, without pain, was not that the act of a glorified body ? And when he walked on the water, and when he came into the house to his apostles, the doors being shut fast, were not these acts of a glorified body ? Then my lord of Dover helped him to a better place, and said, when Christ was in Mount Tabor he was there glorified in his apostles' sight. Harps. Ye say truth, my lord, he was glorified in the sight of three of his apostles. Bland. This, methinks, is new doctrine."^ The above quotations appear to place the belief of the bishops and learned divines in the Roman communion in contrast with the ' Foxe, vol. vii. p. 295. 14£ THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. belief usually held by the mass of her people. The prisoner examined is surprised at Harps- field's teaching, and unprepared with a reply. The Roman view of our Lord's presence he had evidently viewed as a gross and carnal one, the one we may suppose generally held, and hence can only exclaim, on hearing Harpsfield's more spiritual explanation, " This, methinks, is new doctrine." If we keep out of view this common popular belief, the difference, it must be admitted, be- tween the two parties was not in reality re- specting the nature of the Presence at all, as if one held a carnal and the other a spiritual pre- sence, but simply related to the question, whe- ther there was in the sacrament any presence at all. This is quite clear from the discussion between Bishop Gardiner and Archbishop Cranmer, who both agree that the Presence is only spiritual, but differ whether it be in the sacrament, as the former says, by consecration, or, according to the latter, is not in the sacra- ment at all, but merely in the faithful receiver. But while such terms as " corporal " or " natural " are capable of explanation as not THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 143 inconsistent with the spiritual Presence, it is much to be regretted that they were made use of at all. In their ordinary sense they would only convey gross and carnal notions, and lead the poor and uneducated to form an opinion on the holy eucharist like the men of Caper- naum ; and there can be little doubt that such notions did prevail in the sixteenth century as characteristic of the Roman view. Not that we can depend upon the statements of enemies who were disposed to represent each other's tenets in the most revolting and forbidding terms. Whatever the poor and illiterate might think of the Roman view of the Presence — and it is much to be feared that sufficient pains were not taken to impress upon them not only its verity but also its spirituality — the learned controversialist certainly knew that it was not held de fide by the Roman church that our Lord was present in a carnal sense ; and yet we find Archdeacon Philpot using the following expressions, which can hardly, I fear, be vin- dicated from the charge of wilful falsehood and misrepresentation : — " Keeper. Will you go to mass? Fldlpot. My stomach is too raw to 144 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. digest such raw meats of flesh, blood, and bone this morning." ^ Before I enter upon the subject of Predes- tination, the next topic of inquiry, it may be desirable to state the specific difference be- tween the view of predestination held by St. Augustine, from whom the theory originated, and the same theory as revived in modern times by Calvin. Both agreed on leading points; — that all men are by nature wholly corrupt, and that God by a decree of elec- tion rescues some from condemnation, and leaves others to their inevitable doom; and that this decree is not to be attributed to His foresight of man's merits or demerits, but simply to His own sovereign and irresponsible will. They differed mainly on the indefecti- bility of grace, and the doctrine of holy baptism. Calvin taught that divine grace once given could not finally be lost ; that its bestowment evidenced God's purpose of elec- tion ; that His omnipotence ensured its effect, and thus that it necessarily issued in the salva- 1 Foxe, vol. vii. p. 644. PREDESTINATION. 145 tion of the receiver. Hence he limited the gift of grace to the elect, and could not, ac- cording to his own system, believe that all the baptized were by and through baptism regene- rate, since, in his mouth, this would have been tantamount to an assertion of universal salva- tion. St. Augustine, on the other hand, taught explicitly the doctrine (wdiich, indeed, none had yet ventured to call in question) of baptismal regeneration ; — that all the baptized received in the sacrament the pardon of sin and the gift of the Holy Ghost. ^ He reconciled this doctrine with the predestinarian theory by the supposi- tion, that not only the grace of regeneration, ' The following extracts will illustrate the teaching of St. Augustine on the grace of holy baptism : — " Neminem unquam eorum qui ad Christum accesserunt per baptismum, sana tides et sana doctrina putavit ex- ceptum a gratia remissionis peccatorum." — Be Peccatorum Mentis, lib. i. c. xxviii. " Cum itaque per baptismi sacramentum, morti Christi confonnentur infantes, eos a serpentis morsu fatendum est liberari, si a Christianas fidei regaila nolumus aberrare. Quem tamen morsum non in sua vita propria, sed in illo cui primitus inflictus est, acceperunt." — Idem, lib. ii. xxvii. "Gratia ejus illuminationem, justificationemque nos- tram etiam intrinsecus operatur . . . hac euim gTatia baptizatos quoque parvulos suo inserit corpori . . . dat H 146 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAJST E,EFOEMEB,S. but also another gift, the grace of perseverance, was necessary for the salvation of the adult Christian. Thus, while all the baptized (elect or non-elect) receive the gift of regeneration, the elect alone, being predestinated to eternal life, have the added gift of perseverance. Hence, whilst they from whom the latter gift enim sui Spiritus occultissimam fidelibus gratiam, quam latenter infundit et parvulis." — Ibid. lib. i. c. ix. " Absit ut ego inanem dicerem gratiam lavacri illiiis in quo renatus sum ex aqua et spiritu, qua liberatus sum e reatu omnium peccatorum, vel quse nascendo traxeram vel quae male vivendo contraxeram." — Contra Julimmm, lib. vi. c. xiv. § 44. " Baptismus datur ut moriamur et reviviscamtis (c. xlii.). Ipsum est quod io nobis celebratur, magnum baptismatis sacramentum, ut quicunque ad istam pertinent gratiam, moriantur peccato, sicut ipse peccato mortuus dicitur, qui mortuus est carni, hoc est peccati similitudini : et vivant a lavacro renascendo sicut ipse e sepulchro resur- gendo, quamlibet corporis setatem gerant." " In baptismo omnes peccato mori, et parvidos et majores (c. xliii.). A parvulo enim recens nato usque ad decre- pitum senem, sicut nullus est prohibendus a baptismo, ita nullus est qui non peccato moriatur in baptismo : sed narvuli tantum originali, majores autem etiam iis omnibus moriuntur peccatis, quaecunque male vivendo addiderunt ad Ulud quod nascendo traxerunt." — Enchiridion, torn. vi. c. 353. PREDESTINATION. 147 is witliheld necessarily fall from grace, the elect, under its influence, are preserved unto the end. Should, however, any of the baj^tized die in infancy, his baptism, St. Augustine be- lieved, afforded an infallible pledge of his elec- tion. He had been regenerated by baptism, and thus been made God's child by the in- fusion of His grace ; — dying in this state, he vv^as undoubtedly saved. ^ ^ Tlie teaching of St. Augustine on predestination, and especially as distinguished from that of Calvin, will be seen from the following extracts : — " Hie si a me quEeratur cur eis Deus perseverantiam non dederit, quibus earn qua christiane viverent dilectionem dedit, me ignorare respondeo. . . . Mirandum est quidem, multumque mirandum, quod filiis suis quibusdam Deus quos regeneravit in Christo, quibus fidem spem dilectionem dedit, non dat perseverantiam : cum filiis alienis tanta scelera dimittat, atque impertita gratia faciat filios suos. Quis hoc non miretur ? quis hoc non vehementissime stupeat ?" — Be Correptmie et Gratia, c. viii. § 17, 18. " Quis enim ex multitudine fidelium, quamdiu in hac mortalitate vivitur, in numero praedestinatorum se esse prsesumat ? Quia id occultari opus est in hoc loco, ubi sic cavenda est elatio, ut etiam per Satanse angelum ne extolleretur, tantus colaphizaretxir apostolus (3 Cor. xii.7). Hinc apostolis dicebatur, Si manseritis in me (Joan. xv. 7), dicente illo qui eos utique sciebat esse mansuros. Et per prophetam, /Si voZ«e;7Y«5 et audieritis me (Isai. i. 19), cum H 2 148 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFOEMERS. The above remarks have been made in illus- tration of the Augustinian and Calvinistic theories of predestination, since some might suppose that the Reformers adopted the former and not the latter theory. I think, however, there can be no doubt that the Reformers adopted the Calvinistic theory : most of them unquestionably did, and we have no proof of any disagreement amongst the rest on this point. I do not find that any of the Reformers allude sciret ipse in quibus operaretur et veUe (Philip, ii. 13). Et similia multa dicuntur. Nam propter hujus utilitatem secreti ne forte quis extollatur, sed orones etiam qui bene currunt, timeant dum occultum est qui perveniant : propter hujus ergo utilitatem secreti credendum est quos- dam de filiis perditionis, non accepto done perseverandi usque ad finem, in fide quae per dilectionem operatur incipere vivere, et aliquandiu fideliter et juste vivere, et postea cadere, neque de hac vita priusquam hoc eis con- tingat auferri." — De Correptione et Gratia, c. xiii. § 40. " N"on autem quicunque vocati consequenter electi. lUi ergo electi, ut ssepe dictum est, qui secundum propositum vocati, qui etiam preedestinati atque praesciti. Horum si quisquam perit, fallitur Deus, sed nemo eorum perit quia non fallitur Deus. Horum si quisquam perit, vitio hu- mano vincitur Deus, sed nemo eorum perit quia nulla re vincitur Deus. Electi autem sunt ad regnandum cum Christo." — Idem, vii. § 14. " Ex duobus itaque parvulis originali peccato pariter PREDESTINATION. 149 to the Augustinian form of predestination at all, and far less that they preferred it to the Calvinistic theory. Besides^, the reader must bear in mind the influence which Calvin had amongst the Reformed, at this period. Even Heylin admits ^ that the alterations made in the second book of Edward VI. were mainly owing to him. Calvin might, as this writer says, off'er his assistance to Archbishop Cranmer in compiling the first prayer-book of 1548 : — an offer which, according to Hey- obstrictis, cur iste assumatur ille relinquatur,^ et ex duobns ifitate jam grandibus impiis, cur iste ita vocatur ut vo- cantem sequatur, ille autem aut noii vocatur, aut non ita vocatur, inscratabilia sunt judicia Dei. Ex duobus autem piis, cur huic donetur perseverantia usque ad finem, Uli non donetur, inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei. lUud tameu fidelibus debet esse certissimum, liunc esse ex prcedesti- natis, ilium non esse. Non si fuissent ex nobis, ait unus praedestinatorum qui ex pectore Domini biberat hoc se- cretum, niansissent utique nobiscum,'" — Be Bono Perseve- rantice, c. ix. § 31. ' Preface to tbe History of the Keformation. * i. e.. Why one is baptized, and dying is thus taken to heaven, and the other is left, i. e., dies unbaptized, and (as St. Augustine teaches) perishes eternally : — an illustra- tion frequently adduced by St. Augustine in confirmation of his theory of absolute predestination. 150 THEOLOGY OP THE AJIGLICAJ^' REEORMEES. lin's account, was rejected the archbishop "knew the man and refused the offer." ^ I am not aware upon what authority it is here asserted that Cranmer refused Calvin's assistance ; nor is it very probable that Calvin's assistance should have been declined in compiling the first prayer-book, and yet shortly afterwards that many alterations should at once be made (as all agree) in accordance with his (Calvin's) suggestions. Besides, even Heylin does not venture to assert that Calvin's assistance was refused on account of any objections to his religious opinions: — he merely speaks of Calvin's " pragmatical spirit " in suggesting the changes of the second prayer-book. But the question is hardly worth any further re- mark : whatever might be the influence of Calvin with the compilers of the Liturgy, they were undoubtedly well acquainted with his peculiar system. The first edition of the ' In- stitution of the Christian Religion ' was pub- lished in 1534, upwards of fourteen years before the first prayer-book of Edward VI. Even if they refused his assistance on account 1 History of the Eeformation, Edward VI., p. 65. PREDESTIiSrATION. 151 of liis domineering and imperious temper, this will by no means imply that they at all dif- fered from his characteristic system : whether they differed or not, can only be ascertained from their writings. In reviewing the quotations to be adduced in illustration of the teaching of the Reformers, it will appear quite plain and undeniable that all ^ without exception had embraced the Cal- vinistic system of predestination. The only apparent exception is that of Bishop Latimer, but this we shall show is merely owing to his inconsistency with himself. He did not really differ, as will be proved, from his brethren. There was, it appears from the 'Acts and Monu- ments,'^ a party of " free-willers " amongst those imprisoned for religion in Queen Mary's reign, but they were very few, and were ac- cused of heresy on the subject of original ' Hej'^lin can only bring forward Latimer and Hooper amongst the Eeformers as opposed to the " absolute de- crees " of Calvin : — yet both of these, and the latter espe- cially, held the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, though not in its most rigorous form. — Cyprianus Anglicus, introduction, xxx. 2 See the account of Careless ; Foxe, vol. viii. p. 163. 152 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. sin, and held in utter opprobrium by the Re- formed party. Strype says that in the year 1554, during the persecution of Queen Mary, amongst the Protestants who then filled the prisons of London there was a mixture of free- will men, that is, of men who " held free will, tending to the derogation of God's grace, and refused the doctrine of predestination and ori- ginal sin." Some were confined, he says, " in the King's Bench, where Bradford and many other gospellers were ; many whereof by their conferences they Cthe free-will men) gained to their own persuasion. The name of the chief man was Harry Hart, who had writ some- thing in defence of his doctrine. Trew and Abingdon were also teachers amongst them. Kemp, Gibson, and Chamberlain, were others. They ran their notions so high as Pelagius did : the writings and authorities of the learned they utterly rejected and despised. Bradford was apprehensive that they might now do great harm in the Church, and there- fore out of prison wrote a letter to Cranrner, Bidleg, and Latimer, the three chief heads of the Reformed though oppressed Church in PREDESTINATION. 153 England, to take some cognizance of this matter, and to consult with them in remedy- ing it ; and with him joined Bishop Ferrar, Roioland Taylor, and John Philpot^ ^ Our first quotations shall be given from Bishop Ridley. He wrote a treatise on election, which has unfortunately been lost -. the following passages comprise all that re- lates to the subject which I have been able to glean from his works. He speaks of "the true elects and dearly beloved chil- dren of God and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven;"^ and shortly before his death, bids farewell " to the little flock of the high heavenly pastor Christ, for to thee it hath pleased the heavenly Father to give an ever- lasting and eternal kingdom." ^ He speaks, in passages which have been before quoted, of the invisible Church as " standing only of true stones and living Christians ; " addresses his brethren as those " which pertain unto Christ and have the seal of God marked in their foreheads, that is to say, are sealed up ^ Memorials of Cranmer. 2 Works, p. 397. ^ Ibid. p. 437. H 3 154 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMEES. with tlie earnest of the Spirit to be a pecuhar people unto God." As some of these extracts may appear very equivocal, and do not, indeed, necessarily bear a Calvinistic sense, I must direct the reader to the plain and undisguised statements of Ridley's chaplain and friend, John Bradford, prebendary of St. Paul's, of whom Ridley says, " I thank God heartily that ever I was acquainted with him, and that ever I had such an one in my house." ^ It cannot, I think, be denied that Bradford's statements must remove any fair doubt respecting the opinions of Ridley. If Ridley had held the doctrine of free will and opposed the Calvinistic teaching, could we suppose that his chaplain would not have referred to it, since in other letters he opposes " free will," and the denial of Calvin- istic election as serious and dangerous errors ? Yet he (Bradford) addresses a treatise on elec- tion, distinctly maintaining the Calvinistic view, to Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, a treatise signed by Bishop Perrar, Rowland Taylor, and Arch- deacon Philpot, and himself.^ In his letter to 1 Bradford's Works, ^re/ace, x. (P. S. ed.) 2 Ibid. pp. 305-6. PREDESTINATION. 155 John Careless, he desires to be commended '" to your good brother Skel thorp " (who, Foxe tells us, was " a free-will man "), " for whom I heartily praise my God, which hath given him to see his truth at length and to give place to it. . . . Forget not salutations in Christ, as you shall think good, to Trew and his fellows (also free-willers) : the Lord hath his time, I hope, for them also, although we perchance think otherwise."^ Can any one, after the above, suppose that Bishop Ridley could be himself a " free- wilier," and that his chaplain would have made an allusion to it ? In Bradford's treatise, called ' The Defence of Election,' he says, " Faith of God's election (I mean, to believe that we be in very deed ' the children of God,' through Christ, and shall be for ever inheritors of everlasting life, through the only grace of God our Father in the same Christ) is, of all things ivhich God requireih of us, not only most princijpal, hut also the whole sum : so that without this faith there is nothing we do that can please God. . . . The Bible doth plainly set forth to us 1 Foxe, vol. vii. p. 242. 156 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMEUS. that God hath of his own mercy and goodwill, and to the praise of his glory in Christ, elected some and not all ; whom he hath predestinate unto everlasting life in the same Christ, and in his time calleth them, justifieth them, and glorifieth them, so that ' they shall never perish' and err to damnation finally." The defence of election is written against a ' Trea- tise on Free Will,' which he divides into dif- ferent "heads," called by him "enormities." In replying to the fifth " enormity," he says, " Why then he will say, if God will have all men to be saved, and damnation cometh of ourselves, then God hath not reprobate any or predestinate them to be damned, and where is election then of some and not all?" "To this I answer, that if we have Christ's spmt we have received it to this end, that we should see what is given to us of God in Christ, as saith the apostle, and not what is given to the devil and to the reprobate. ... As to repro- bation, and what mercy God offereth to them and then sire Satan, I think it unseemly for us to seek out ... to dispute of Satan and the reprobate pertaineth nothing unto us, and PREDESTINATION. . 157 therefore is to be omitted of us. Again, how is it that ' God would have had all men to be saved ' and ' yet whom he will he maketh hard- hearted,' and also ' showeth mercy on whom he will ' ? I wdl be content to leave it, till I shall see it in another life." ^ The above extracts will illustrate the opi- nion not only of Ridley, but also of the Re- formers generally, who seem, whilst main- taining election, to lose sight of, or rather loish to lose sight of, the corresponding doctrine of reprobation. They either throw it aside as a mystery, " God being but partly known of man in this life," or speak of the condemnation of the reprobate as being merely the punish- ment of their sins. The teaching of Latimer on the predesti- narian system may be next cited. He is the only writer amongst the Reformers who appears to contradict the Calvinistic system. The fol- lowing extracts seem to prove his belief in universal redemption, and the possibility of a final fair from grace. " But you vv^ill say, how shall I know that 1 Bradford's Works, p. 324. 158 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. I am in the book of life ? How shall I try myself to be elect of God unto everlasting life ? I answer, first we may know that we may at one time be in the book and at another time come out again, as it appeareth by David, who was written in the book of life ; but when he sinned, he at that same time was out of the book of the favour of God, until he had repented and was sorry for his faults. So we may be in the book one time, and afterwards, when we forget God and His word, and do wickedly, we come out of the book ; that is, out of Christ, which is the book." ^ " When thou hast faith in Christ, then thou art in the book of life, and so art sure of thy election. And again if thou be without Christ, and have no faith in Him, neither art sorry for thy wickedness, nor have a mind and pur- pose to leave and forsake sin, but rather exer- cise and use the same, then thou art not in the book of life as long as thou art in such a case. .... And thus may you see who are in the book of life and who are not. For all those that are obstinate sinners are without Christ, ' Sermons, p. 175. PREDESTINATION. 159 and so not elect to everlasting life if they remain in their wickedness. There are none of us all but we may be saved by Christ." ^ " Christ shed as much blood for Judas as He did for Peter. Peter believed it, and therefore was he saved : Judas would not believe it, and therefore he was condemned : the fault being in him only, in nobody else." ^ These passages of Latimer may appear dis- tinct and unambiguous in proof of his belief of the anti-Calvinistic doctrines ; and yet it must be admitted that they are of little or no authority, as passages equally cogent may be produced in illustration of the same writer's Calvinism. Toplady^ has cited several pas- sages undoubtedly Calvinistic from Latimer's sermons ; and although, with the eagerness of a controversialist, many of his quotations are very little to the point, yet it must be ad- mitted that others are really cogent, and almost warrant the writer's statement, that though he (Latimer) was " by far the most unlearned and by much the least guarded and accurate among the 1 Sermons, p. 208. 2 iijij_ p_ 521. ^ Historic Proof, vol. i. p. 320, &c. 160 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMEES. whole choir of Enghsh Reformers ; still he was in reality a Calvmist, a strict Calvinist, a zealous Calvinist, and in naost respects a consistent Calvinist." Before citing from Toplady the Calvinistic passages of Latimer, it may be in- teresting to the reader to quote his (Toplady's) explanation of the passages just quoted. He says Latimer seems to have symbolized with some of the Lutherans, who taught " that a truly sanctified person could not fall finally from grace, he might nevertheless fall totally ; he might make utter shipwreck of faith for the time being, though he should certainly (by virtue of God's immovable covenant and elec- tion) be regenerated over again and saved at last." Thus he explains Latimer's expression of being at one time in the book and then out of it. Whatever be thought of this explana- tion, Toplady's comment upon the passage that " Christ shed as much blood for Judas as for Peter " is sheer sophistry : he represents Latimer to have meant that " the Mediator's blood was as much suflScient (so infinite was its value) to have redeemed even Judas, had it been shed for that purpose, as to have redeemed PREDESTINATION. 161 any other person;"^ whereas Latimer says that Christ's blood actually was shed for Judas, that He " shed as much blood for Judas as He did for Peter," and not that it miglit\2c^Q been shed, had God so willed it. And yet it is only fair to say that Toplady has quoted another passage from Latimer, in which he says that Christ did not ^Vo for "impenitent sinners -." " Christ died not for them : His death reme- dieth not their sins." ^ I shall now set before the reader the most cogent passages which Toplady has adduced in proof of the Calvinism of Latimer. ' "All they that beHeved in Christ since Adam was created were saved by Him." ^ Speaking of the fear of death, he says, " Yea, the elect people of God, the faithful, having the beholding of his face, tliough God hath always preserved them (such a good God is he to them that believe in Him, that He will not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able to bear), yet, for all that, there is nothing they com- plain of more sore than this horror of death." * 1 Historic Proof, vol. i. p. 315. » Ibid. p. 558. - Latimer's Sermons, p. 323. ^ Sermons, p. 308. 162 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN EEFORMERS. " We may learn here (from Matth. viii. 23, &c.) that the ship signified the congregation of Christ and His Church, The disciples, being in the ship, are preserved through Christ ; so all those lohich are in the Church of Christ shall be saved and preserved by Him. The others, which are without this Church, shall be damned and perish." ^ " If thou believest in Him, then thou art written in the book of hfe, and shall be saved.'' ^ " The Lord knoweth them that are His. Also Christ Himself saith. No man shall take those from me whom my Father hath ffiven to me, that is to say, which are ordained to ever- lasting life." ^ The writings of Cranmer do not enable us clearly to ascertain his opinions on the subject under review ; but his teaching (similar to Rid- ley's) is not doubtful, as I shall show. At the time when the Forty-two Articles were put forth, in the reign of Edward VI., there was issued with them a short catechism, called King Edward's Catechism, by others ' Sermons, p. 855. 2 i^id. p. 846. ^ ibid. p. 564. PREDESTINATION. 163 Bishop Poynet's (lie being the supposed au- thor), " A catechism," says Strype, "for the instruction of children in the fundamentals of true religion, passed the same Synod (the Synod of 1552), but who was the author was not known in those days. Bishop Ridley was charged to be the author and publisher thereof, by Ward and Weston, in the disputation with him at Oxford. Ridley declared he was not, but confessed that he saw the book, perused it after it was made, and noted many things for it, and so consented io the book. Weston then told Ridley that he (viz., Ridley) being then a bishop in his ruff, had made him {Weston) subscribe it. But Ridley replied he had com- pelled no man to subscribe : indeed, he had set his hand to it, and so did Cranmer, and then it (the catechism) was given to others of the Convocation, to set their hands, but without compulsion." ^ This catechism is drawn out in the form of a dialogue between a Master and Scholar. The following extracts will show that the doctrine of Calvinistic predestination is plainly and un- ' Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. ii. p. 368. 164 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMEES. ambiguously taught in it. After speaking of the Church, as consisting of those who live holily, and place all their hope and confidence in God, it is added, " They who are firm in this faith were forechosen, predestinated, and ap- pointed to everlasting life, before the world was made. And as a witness of this they have within their hearts the spirit of Christ, the author, earnest, and unfailing pledge of their faith; which faith only is able to perceive the mysteries of God, only brings peace to the heart, only taketh hold on the righteousness which is in Christ Jesus. '■'Master. Doth then the spirit alone and faith (if we sleep soundly or are otherwise careless and slothful) so work all things for us, that without any effort of our own they carry us slothful to heaven ? " ScJiolar. I have been accustomed, master, as you have taught me, to make a difference between causes and their effects. The first, principal, and most effective {perfectissima) cause of our justification and salvation, is the goodness and love of God, by which He has written us amongst the number of His elect PREDESTINATION. 165 {nos in numerum suorum electorum ascripsif), before He made the world. After that, it is given that we may be called by the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, when the Spirit of the Lord is poured into us, by whose guiding and governance we are led to place a firm reliance upon God, and to hope for the performance of all His promises of this elec- tion, the accompaniment {comes) is the morti- fication of the old man, that is, of our appe- tites and lust. Prom the same spirit also Cometh our sanctification, the love of God, of our neighbour, justice, and innocency of life : and to say all in a word, whatever is in us, or may be done by us, pure, sound, true, and good, wholly springs from this most pleasant root, from this mOst plentiful fountain, the goodness, love, election, and most holy purpose of God. He is the cause, the rest are the effects." ^ The next extracts are given from the works of Becon, Cranmer's chaplain. In ' The Displaying of the Popish Mass ' he ^ Catechismus brevis Christianse Disciplinse. (Liturgies of Ed. VI., pp. 559-60. P. S. ed.) 166 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMEES. says, " For there are certain things which God cannot do, as, for example, He cannot deny Himself, He cannot lie, He cannot save such as die in infidelity, He cannot make another of like power with Himself, He cannot save the reprobate nor condemn the elect, which have their names loritten in the booJc of life." ^ " What is predestination ? The secret un- changeable appointment of God before all beginnings, by His counsel and wisdom to life everlasting, concerning His elect and chosen people, or any other beginning, ordering, or ending of all things." ^ "True Christians, whether they be old or young, are not saved because that outwardly they be washed with the sacramental water, but because they be God's children by election through Christ, yea, and tbat before the foun- dations of the world were laid, and are sealed up by the Spirit of God unto everlasting life."^ Bishop Hooper also held the same view of predestination. "Faith," he says, " is the sole gift of God, and cometh not into the soul 1 P. 273. 2 Demands of Holy Scripture, p. 616. ^ Ibid. p. 617. PEEDESTINATION, 167 of man because he is learned, but because his name is vvroten (written) in the book of hfe, and preserved by grace, that he honour not the beast that blasphemeth the Hving God." ^ " The cause of our election is the mercy of God in Christ : Rom. ix. Howbeit he that will be partaker of this election must receive the promise in Christ by faith. Por therefore we be elected, because afterwards we are made the members of Christ : Eph. i., Rom. viii. Therefore, as in the justification or remission of sin, there is a cause, though no dignity at all in the receiver of his justification ; even so, we judge him by the Scripture to be justified and hath remission of his sin because he re- ceived the grace promised in Christ ; so we judge of election by the event or success that happeneth in the life of man, those only to be elected that by faith apprehend the mercy promised in Christ. Otherwise we should not judge of election.'' ^ " Such as be sanctified in Christ must lead an honest and holy life, or else his sanctifica- ^ Answer to the Bishop of Winchester's Book, p. 246. 2 Declaration of the Ten Commandments, pref. p. 364. 168 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMERS. tion availeth not. As God forsook the children of sin, so will He us. . . . Therefore one of these two we must needs do, that say we be justified and sanctified in Christ, either from the bottom of our souls amend, or else be eternally lost with all our ghostly knowledge."^ The last-quoted passage of course is incon- sistent with the Calvinistic doctrine of final perseverance, since Hooper speaks of God for- saking those who are sanctified if they con- tinue not to lead holy lives : the latter part of the sentence is probably intended more exactly to express his meaning, " we that say we be justified," I. e., he is referring to those who merely profess to be, though not really, sanc- tified and justified — the elect of God. If he intend to teach that the " sanctified " can fall finally from grace, he contradicts his own ex- plicit and well-known teaching. I will merely add, as a fresh proof of this, an extract from a letter to his wife given by Eoxe. " We may be tempted," he says, " of the devil, the flesh, and the world, yet although those things pinch they do not pierce, and although they work 1 Christ and His Office, p. 77. PREDESTINATION. 169 sin in us, yet in Christ no damnation to those that be grafted in him. Hereof may the Christian man learn both consolation and pa- tience : consolation in that he is compelled, both in his body and goods, to feel pain and loss, and in the soul heaviness and anguish of mind ; howbeit none of them both shall sepa- rate him from the love that God beareth him in Christ." ^ Archdeacon Philpot, in his ' Apology for spitting on an Arian,' refers to the disputes before mentioned with the " free-willers," and thus speaks of them, " If you hear that there is contention between us and them that be in prison, marvel not therefore, neither let your minds be alienated from the truth anything thereby ; for as it is written, ' It is necessary that heresies should be, that the elect might be tried.' Christ and Antichrist can never agree. And as St. John saith, ' Antichrist is come, and there is now many Antichrists ; there are gone out fi'om us such as were none of us, for if they had they would have continued with us.' By this saying of St. John, we may well 1 Foxe, vol.vi. p. 668. I 170 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFORMEES. try and know all the rout of Antichrist's ge- neration. Such they be as break the unity of Christ's Church, neither abide in the same, neither submit their judgment to be tried in the causes which they brabble for, by the godly learned pastors thereof: but arrogantly de- prave them and take upon themselves to be teachers before they have learned, affirming they cannot tell what, and speaking evil of that which they know not : proud they are and puffed up in the imagination of their own hearts and blind senses, and judge themselves best of all other, because they can make a pale face of hypocrisy to the world." After much in the same strain, which will show the opinion held of the " free-willers " by one of the leading persons, of great influence amongst the Reformers, he adds that these " most spite- fully and falsely " allege, against " the sincere professors of the Gospel," that " we make God the author of sin, and that we say, let men do what they will, it is not material if they be predestinate;" and that "he is most slanderously charged and defamed by these outrageous here- tics," "only (he adds) because I hold and affirm PREDESTINATION. 171 (being manifestly instructed by God's word) that the elect of God cannot finally perish." ^ Philpot, in his fifth examination, as given in the ' Acts and Monuments/ after saying to his examiner, " Which of you all at this day is able to answer Calvin's ' Institutions,' who is minister of Geneva ? " subsequently adds, " In the matter of predestination, he (Calvin) is in none other opinion than all the doctors of the Church be, agreeing to the Scriptures." ^ At a subsequent examination, the following dia- logue occurs between Philpot and his examiner, the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry : — "The Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield began to show where the true Church was, saying, the true Catholic Church is set upon a high hill." Philpot. " Yea, at Borne, which is the Ba- bylonical Church." Bishop of Coventry. " No ; in our true Ca- tholic Church are the apostles, evangelists, and martyrs, but before Martin Luther there was no apostle, evangelist, or martyr of your Church." 1 Works, p. 307. ^ j'oxe, vol. vii. p. 626. I 2 172 THEOLOGY 01' THE ANGLICAN EEEORMERS. Philpof. "Will ye know the cause why? Christ did prophesy that in the latter days there should come false prophets and hypo- crites, as you be." Coventry. " Your Church of Geneva, which 3^e call the Catholic Church, is that which Christ prophesied of." FJiilpot. " I allow the Church of Geneva, and the doctrine of the same : for it is U7ia, catholica et apostolica, and doth follow the doctrine that the apostles did preach, and the poctrine taught and preached in king Edward's days was also according to the SAME." In regard to the other Reformers who were sufferers in the reign of Queen Mary, and of whom, in many cases, the only " remains " are an account of their examination or a few letters, there can be no doubt that on the sub- ject under review they held the same opinions as the leaders of their party from whom quota- tions have already been made. Nay, it may be doubted whether there is a single instance of a " free-vvdller " amongst the " martyrs " whom Foxe commemorates. /, at least, in a careful PREDESTINATION. 173 persusal of the 'Acts and Monuments,' have not noticed any such instance. It would be profitless to detail every case amongst the sufferers of a be- lief in predestination : nor could we indeed thus prove the universal or usual belief entertained of the doctrine, for as the reader of Foxe is aware, this was not one of the " articles " proposed to the accused : their belief in it is discovered either incidentally, or from letters addressed for the admonition and consolation of friends. But undoubtedly in every case, where the opinion of the sufferer is, by whatever means, elicited, it is plainly and unmistakably Calvinistic. The principal instances given in the ' Acts and Mo- numents ' shall now be quoted or referred to. To the extracts already given from Bradford, Ridley's chaplain, another passage may be added from a letter which he addressed to a " faithful woman in trouble." " If He (God) had not chosen you, as most certainly He hath. He would not have so called you, He would never have justified you. He would never have so glorified you with His gracious gifts, which I know ; praised be His name therefore. He would never have so exercised your faith with 174 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEFOEMERS. temptations as He hath done and doth, if, I say, He had not chosen you. If He hath chosen you, as doubtless, dear heart, He hath done in Christ, for in you I have seen His earnest, and before me, and to me, you could not deny it, I know both where and when : if I say He hath chosen you, then neither can you or shall you ever perish Ah, my own dear heart, Christ only, Christ only, and His mercy and truth. In Him is the cause of your elec- tion. This Christ, this mercy, this truth of God remained for ever, is certain for ever, and is your election certain for ever, for ever; I say for ever." ^ In a " Declaration " afterwards quoted at length, Bishop Ferrar, Rowland Taylor, John Philpot, John Bradford, Bishop Hooper, Ed- ward Crome, John Rogers, Lawrence Saunders, Edmund Lawrence, Bishop Coverdale, and two others whose initials only are given, after relating their opinion on justification, add, " they disallow the Papistical doctrine of free will," meaning (it cannot be doubted) that 1 Foxe, vol. vii. p. 332. PREDESTINATION. 175 they reject the doctrine of man's free will, and hold the Calvinistic opinion; for the doctrine of man's free will was generally called a Papis- tical doctrine, as it is by Bradford in his trea- tise on ' Election.' Thus, in his reply to an opponent who said, that if the Calvinistic teaching be true " that there is no sin in man, for if man have no choice, then the evil man doth that which God would have him to do, as well as the good man," Bradford tells him that he " playeth the Papist in attributing (to man) free will and choice, which utterly destroyeth the justification by faith only, by God's own mercy and goodness." This will show the meaning, or rather the utter want of meaning, in the epithet " Papistical." Besides, most of the above-named persons did hold, as we know from their own writings, Calvinistic views, and is there the least reason to suppose that the others signing the declaration differed from them? Bradford says of the few "free-wil- lers " amongst the Reformed, before referred to, that they were likely to prove more danger- ous than the Papists. " The effects of salva- tion," lie says, " they so mingle with the cause. 176 THEOLOGY OP THE ANGLICAN EEPORMERS. that if it be not seen to, more hurt will come by them than ever came by the Papists, inas- much as their life commendeth them to the world more than the Papists."^ George Marsh, who suffered at Chester, April 1555, held the predestinarian system. " Though Satan (he says) be suffered to sift us as wheat for a time, yet faileth not our faith through Christ's aid If any, therefore, faU away from Christ and His word, it is a plain token that they were but dissembling hypocrites, for all their fair faces outwardly, and never believed truly, as Judas, Simon Magus, Demas, Hymenseus, Philetus, and others were." ^ Warne, upholsterer and citizen of London, was burnt in Smithfield, May 1555. In his 'Commentary on the Apostles' Creed' under the Art. ' the Holy Catholic Church,' he says, "This is a holy number of Adam's posterity elected, gathered, washed, and purified by blood, from the beginning of the world .... which most holy congregation .... doth remain 1 Bradford's Works, p. 305. (P. S.E.) 2 Foxe, vol. vii. p. 57. PEEDESTINATION. 177 in one perfect unity, both of faith and fellow- ship, which unity is knit in an unspeakable knot, as well of them who are departed from this mortal life, as of them who now be living and hereafter shall be in the same ; and so shall continue, until tliey all do meet in the kingdom, where the Head, Jesus Christ, with all His holy members (of which number, through Christ, I assuredly believe I am one) shall be fully complete, knit, and united toge- ther for evermore." ^ John Newman, put to death at Saffron Wal- den, and Robert Smith, at Uxbridge, August 1555, express their belief in election and the final perseverance of the elect. The latter says, " God hath numbered all the hairs of his children's heads, so that not one of them shall perish without His fatherly will. He keepeth the sparrovi^s, much more will He preserve them whom He hath purchased with the blood of the immacidate Lamb." ^ Robert Samuel, a preacher in King Edward's days, burnt at Ipswich about the same time, maintains the Calvinistic teaching with equal ^ Foxe, vol. vii. pp. 83, 84. ' ^ Ibid. vol. vii. I 3 178 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFOEMERS. distinctness. "Death, hell, and sin cannot sunder nor pluck us from Him. Tor as the Son cannot be divided nor sundered from the Father, nor the Holy Ghost from them both ; no more may we, being the faithful members of Christ, be separated from Christ." ^ Robert Glover, burnt at Coventry, Septem- ber 1555, believed, as we learn from his " godly letters," in predestination,^ though the passage is too long for quotation. Thomas Whittle, a clergyman of Essex, put to death January 1556, held, as appears from several passages in his " letters," the same doctrine : " God suffereth His sometimes to fall, but not finally to perish, as Peter sank into the sea and was not drowned, and sinned grievously upon the land, through in- firmity denyiag his Master, but yet found mercy." ^ Three men were burnt at Beccles, in Sufiblk, who " affirmed no mortal man to have in him- self free will to do good or evil :" ^ others, afterwards mentioned by Foxe as persecuted 1 Poxe, vol. vii. ^ Ibid. vol. vii. p. 729. 2 Ibid. vol. vii. p. 396. ^ xbid. vol. vui. p. 146. PREDESTINATION. 179 and driven out of the country, " denied man's free will." ' John Careless, of Coventry, was, it would appear, a man of great influence amongst the Reformed. He repeatedly, and most explicitly, in his letters given by Foxe, maintains the doctrine of predestination, and had much dis- cussion with that party of " free-willers," to whom reference has been previously made.^ Richard Woodman, whose six lengthy ex- aminations are given by Poxe, thus reasons re- specting free will : " If we have free will then our salvation cometh of our own selves, and not of God, the which is a great blasphemy against God and His word." ^ Mrs. Joyce Lewis, before her sufi'ering, "reasoned most comfortably, out of God's word, of God's election and reprobation/' and on the morning of her death, the Martyrologist tells us, Satan " shot at her a fiery dart," " questioning with her how she could tell that she was chosen to eternal life, and that Christ died for her." ^ * li'oxe, vol. viii. p. 148. ^ Ibid. vol. viii. p. 358. 2 Ibid. vol. viii. p. 163. ■* Ibid. vol. viii. p. 403. 180 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAJST REFOEMERS. The above list, including the chief cases mentioned by Foxe, where the belief of the suf- ferers in Calvinistic predestination was elicited, will corroborate what has been previously ob- served, of the adoption of this view by the Re- formers during the reign of Edward VI. There is ample proof that the Protestant divines who had escaped to the Continent to avoid the persecution of Mary, and retm-ned on the accession of Queen Elizabeth, unani- mously retained the Calvinistic teaching which had distinguished them during the reign of Edward, It would be impossible to point out a single person of eminence who held views afterwards termed Arminian, until after the time when the Prayer Book and Articles had been promulgated ; and it may indeed be doubted whether anti-Calvinistic teaching would then have been even permitted in the Anglican Church. Before quotations are produced, let the reader consider one or two significant facts. At the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign Harps- field was imprisoned for his refusal to acknow- ledge the Queen's supremacy. In prison he PREDESTINATION. 181 wrote a work under the title of ' Alan Cope's Dialogues,' the last book of which was intended as a reply to Foxe's ' Acts and Monuments,' just published. He says of Calvin's ' Insti- tutes,' " that it is held in such esteem amongst the Enghsh bishops, that scarcely any one is admitted to the ecclesiastical office who does not possess, and diligently study it." ^ Harpsfield was undoubtedly an enemy of the Reformed Church ; but surely his testimony is admissible in regard to a question of fact of which he could not be ignorant, and especially so, as the Martyrologist in his reply throws no discredit whatever on the statement. In referring to the Martyrologist, let me also call the reader's attention to the " Canons " put forth by the Convocation of 1572, which confirmed the Thirty -nine Articles. By these it was enjoined that Foxe's ' Book of Martyrs' should be placed in the churches, and in the ' " Atque is liber [Institutio Christianse Keligionis] in tanto apud nostros iiodie in Anglia uovl Evangelii satrapas pretio est, ut vix quemquam ecclesiasticae functioni profi- ciant, qui non hunc librum habeat et studiose evolvat." — Copi Dialogi, p. 824. Antwerp, 1566. 182 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFOEIIERS. halls and houses of the bishops, deans, and archdeacons, to be read and studied by the people. These "Canons," though they did not become, strictly speaking, the law, as not being ratified by the Queen or Parliament, yet undoubtedly show the unanimous teaching of the Church at that period. Now, as every reader of the Martyrology is aware, it advo- cates the Calvinistic doctrine whenever occasion offers, by notes, and also in a long dissertation, in which the subject is treated in all its bear- ings. But it may be said that the bishops and clergy of the Convocation merely wished Foxe's account of the martyrs to be universally read throughout the country, and had no intention to sanction his peculiar theology. This may, in a certain sense, be true : Foxe's work was midoubtedly ordered to be read by the people at large, as an antidote to the teaching of the Church of Rome ; but can we think that, had the Convocation deemed his teaching grossly heterodox (and this must have been the case unless themselves held the Calvinistic system), they would have conferred the very highest sanction which could have been given to an PREDESTINATION. 183 uninspired book, by the injunction to place it in cliurches chained side by side with the Bible, to instruct the people of England? If its Calvinistic teaching had not been fully approved of, would this especial sanction have been given to the 'Acts and Monuments,' and that, too, without a single word of cen- sure or disapprobation ? But let us open one of these Bibles which were chained in churches, and distributed throughout the land for the guidance of the people ; and we shall no longer be in doubt whether the Convocation approved of the Cal- vinistic teaching of the 'Acts and Monuments.' All the Bibles published during the reign of Queen Elizabeth had notes affixed, in which the Calvinistic doctrines are expressly main- tained. I have before me an edition published nearly at the close of her reign, printed by the deputies of Christopher Barker, printer to the Queen, 1597, cum gratia et privilegio Regice Majestatis. It would be of course absurd for any one acquainted with the character of the Queen to suppose that a printer would profess to publish, under her sanction, Bibles which 184 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFOEMEES. set forth a system of theology opposed to that of her own and of the prelates of the Church. The supremacy was not in her day a titulus sine re, nor was its exercise de- puted to the " Privy Council," but was most vigilantly and often harshly exercised. The unlucky printer and his assistants, had they ventured upon such a step as the publication of a Bible professedly cum regia auctoritate, and yet unsanctioned by the Queen, would, it cannot be doubted, have met with the most severe punishment. After the title-page follows " the summe of the whole scripture of the bookes of the Olde and Newe Testament," and on the next leaf " certaine questions and answers touching the doctrine of predestination, the use of God's worde and sacraments." The first four of these are : — " Question. Why do men so much vary in matters of religion ? Answer. Because all have not the like measure of knowledge, neither do all believe the gospel of Christ. Quest. What is the reason thereof ? A71S. Because they only believe the doctrine and gospel of Christ which PEEDESTENATION. 185 are ordained unto eternal life. Quest. Are not all ordained unto eternal life ? Ans. Some are vessels of wrath ordained unto destruction, as others are vessels of mercy prepared unto glory. Quest. How staudeth it with God's justice that some are appointed unto damnation ? Ans. Very well : because all men have in themselves sin, which deserveth no less ; and therefore the mercy of God is wonderful, in that he vouch- safeth to save some of that sinful race, and to bring them to the knowledge of the truth." This will suffice as a specimen of the theology taught by the notes of the Bibles circulated during the reign of Elizabeth : it would be unnecessary to refer to the notes accompanying the sacred text, especially at Acts xiii. 45 and Rom. ix., in which the doctrine of absolute predestination is most distinctly maintained. Archbishop Parker was consecrated soon after the accession of Queen Elizabeth, but I am not aware that he left any writings from which we can collect his belief on the predestinarian controversy. His successor, Whitgift, held these doctrines in the most 186 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. rigorous form, as appears from his signing and sanctioning the Lambeth articles. In the doctrine of these articles, Hutton, the Arch- bishop of York, declared his acquiescence. Dr. Whittaker, a distinguished controversial writer, drew up the Lambeth articles, and laid them before Whitgift.^ A few extracts from Elizabethan divines may be added. Coverdale says, " Eor we which be in Christ do know with an undoubted faith, and feel it also in our hearts, that God is our Father through Christ, and that in Him He hath admitted and chosen us." ^ " Thus cometh our health originally out of the grace and mercy of our heavenly Eather, who afore the world was created did choose us, in Christ Jesus His Son, unto eternal life, and in the book of life wrote up our names." ^ " To this Church pertain all they that since the beginning of the world have been saved, and that shall be saved unto the end thereof." * 1 ColHer, vol. ii. p. 644, ed. 1708-14. 2 fruitful Lessons, p. 234. 3 Ibid. p. 248. 4 The Carrying of Christ's Cross, p. 461. PREDESTINATION. 187 Archbishop Sandys says, " The believing Christian, the regenerate child of God, who through faith in Christ is certain of his dehver- ance from the devil and from hell, assured of remission of sins and of hfe everlasting, in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Saviour, he serveth in the reverent fear of love, and not in that dreadful fear of death and everlasting damnation, v^^herewith the re- probate mind is daunted." ^ Another quotation shall be added fi'om Bishop Jewell, the most learned of the writers from whom extracts are now given. He says, in his exposition of the Thessalonians, "God hath chosen you from the beginning. His election is sure for ever. The Lord knoweth who are His. You shall not be deceived with the power and subtlety of Antichrist. You shall not fall from grace. You shall not perish. This is the comfort which abideth with the faithful, when they be- hold the fall of the wicked, when they see them forsake the truth and delight in fables, when they see them return to their vomit and wallow again in the mire. When we see these ' Sermons, p. 185. lob THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAJf REFORMERS. things in others, we must say, alas ! they are examples for me, and lamentable examples. Let him that standeth take heed that he fall not. But God hath loved me, and chosen me to salvation. His mercy shall go before me, and His mercy shall follow in me. His mercy shall guide my feet, and stay me from falling. If I stay by myself, I stay by nothing — I must needs come to the ground. He hath loved me, He hath chosen me, He will keep me." ^ The reader, on weighing the above testi- monies in proof of the Calvinistic teaching of the Reformers and of all eminent writers during the reign of Edward VI. and the earlier part of that of Queen Elizabeth, must come to the conclusion that these doctrines were unani- mously held. Nay, it may be questioned (as I have said) whether anti- Calvinistic opinions would then have been tolerated ; or not even have exposed the person who unfortunately maintained them to ecclesiastical censure and punishment. The only remaining point upon which it ^ Jewell on the Thessalonians, p. 143, ed. 1611. JUSTIFICATION. 189 is needful to inquire is the teaching of the Reformers on Justification, or Faith and AVORKS. The teaching of the Reformers cannot be better illastrated than by the following decla- ration, " drawn and sent abroad out of prison," signed by the names of the leaders amongst the Reformed party, and representing, it may fairly be said, their unanimous teaching : ^ — " We believe and confess concerning justi- fication, that as it cometh only from God's mercy through Christ, so it is perceived and had of none which be of years of discretion, otherwise than by faith only ; which faith is not an opinion, but a certain persuasion wrought by the Holy Ghost in the mind and heart of man, through whom as the mind is illu- minated, so the heart is suppled to submit itself to the will of God unfeignedly ; and so showeth forth an inherent righteousness, which is to be discerned in the article of justification from the righteousness which God endueth us withal, justifying us : although inseparably they go together. And this we do not for ^ Foxe, vol. vi. p. 553. 190 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. curiosity or contention's sake, but for con- science' sake, that it may be quiet ; which it can never be if we confound without distinc- tion forgiveness of sins and Christ's justice imputed to us, with regeneration and inherent righteousness. By this we disallow the pa- pistical doctrine of free-will, of works of su- pererogation, of merits, of the necessity of auricular confession, and satisfaction to God- ward." This "Declaration" is signed by Bishop Eerrar, Rowland Taylor, John Philpot, John Bradford, Bishop Hooper, Edward Crome, John Rogers, Lawrence Saunders, Edward Lawrence, J. P. and T. M., and Bishop Cover- dale. There were various and often discordant opinions on the subject amongst writers of the Catholic Church, and no attempt had been made to discuss the subject with scientific exactness.^ Hence, whilst some of the Eathers ^ " The doctrine of justifying faith experienced the same fate as aU the other fundamental doctrines of Christianity. For 1500 years Christians had lived in and by that faith, and formed many intellectual conceptions upon it, and had laid down the same in numerous writings, and had withal JUSTIFICATION. 191 distinctly teach that we are justified by works, others roake use even of the Lutheran formula of " faith only." Scripture also teaches, with- out an attempt to reconcile the statements, that we are justified by faith, or that we are justi- fied and saved by good works. Both state- ments, I need hardly say, are strictly true. Faith and works may be regarded from a dif- ferent point of view : — in one aspect faith may be said to justify us; and in another, we are justified by works and not by faith only. The error of Luther, Calvin, and of an extreme party amongst the Anglican Reformers, was chiefly a one-sided view of truth : — ^justification by felt much deeper things than could be comprehended in notions or defined by \vords. Yet, in default of an er- roneous view of that faith being decisively put forth and asserted by many, men were as far from arriving at a truly sifting point, and at the highest degree of evidence upon the matter, as before Arius upon the doctrine of Christ's divinity, or before Pelagius upon that of grace. Hence it happened that, in the same way as the above-named articles of faith, much that was obscure, much that was self-contradictory, was found among Christian writers be- fore the Nicene Council, and the African and Gallic synods," &c. — MoeUer on Symbolism, vol. i. p. 166 (Eo- bertson's trans). 192 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REEOEMERS. faith only (the words understood in their own sense) became the shibboleth of a party, and was considered as the mark of evangelical truth. Foxe, at the beginning of the 'Acts and Monuments,' ^ has a long discussion on "faith;" and though he speaks in the usual tone of his party on the fundamental differences about faith and justification, yet it is quite clear, from his own account, that his charges against the Church of Rome, instead of resting on adquate proof, are derived merely from his own conjectural inferences about her teaching. Thus, after saying that St. Paul ascribeth our justification unto faith, "con- trary to which doctrine the Pope and his Church have set up divers and sundry other means of their own devising, whereby they say the merits of Christ's passion are applied to us, — as hope, charity, sacrifice of the mass, &c., so that Christ's sacrifice, stripes, and suffering by this teaching doth not heal us nor is beneficial to us, though we believe never so well, unless we add also these works 1 Vol. i. p. 64. JUSTIFICATION. 193 and merits above recited ; which, if it be true, then it is false what Isaiah the prophet doth promise -. — " In His stripes we are all made whole," &c. The fallacy of this reasoning consists in the assumption that Christ's merits can be applied to our souls only through faith ; and hence to apply them through works of man is deny them altogether ! How absurd it must appear to any one not accustomed to statements frequently made in controversy, to hear the assertion that the passage quoted from Isaiah excludes the application of the merits of Christ's death through the holy Eu- charist, or fasting and alms ! Surely the prophet does not say how or by what means we are healed through Christ's most precious bloodshedding. — Nay, it is, as we know, stated explicitly in Holy Scripture, that sin is washed away in holy Baptism, and also that we receive the holy Eucharist for the remission of sins, i. e., that the merits of the Passion are applied to our souls through these outward ordinances. Again, Eoxe says, " If not justified by faith only," " then our salvation should stand in a doubtful wavering, because, in working, we are K 194 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN EEEOKMERS, never certain whether our deserts be perfect and sufficient in God's judgment or no \' but surely the very same charge might be made against faith, since how can a man be certain, upon undeceivable grounds, that he has a true and saving faith ? Is there not, at least, as much ground for deception about faith as about works ? But what, it will be said, did the Reformers mean by faith ? They considered it as a di- vinely implanted principle, by which we " apprehend " the righteousness of Christ, which is thus imputed as our own, and by which we are justified in the sight of God. Now this statement, nakedly and unguardedly put forth, is false, and of dangerous tendency : it may be a part of Scripture, and true in a certain sense ; but if put forth as the whole truth, it is a most pernicious heresy. Even if Scripture did say that we apprehend the righteousness of Christ by faith, it also says, " we are justified by works, and that grace and pardon are given through the sacraments." Now both these statements must be held to- gether. We do not hold the truth of Scripture, JUSTIFICATION. 195 but mere opinions of our own, when we take one portion, and explain away by ingenious sophistry everything that is discordant with it. The doctrine of justification by faith was held without quahfication, and acted upon, by some of the Reformed party, and produced, as might have been expected, the most fearful immorality. The Reformers themselves fre- quently allude to the utter ungodliness which marked their own adherents during the reign of Edward VI. Thus Bishop Hooper says : " Another life is required of the justified man than the gos- pellers lead now-a-days, that hath words with- out facts, which slandereth the Gospel and promoteth it not." ^ Latimer uses still more forcible expressions : " But London (he says) was never so ill as it is now. In times past men were full of pity and compassion, but now there is no pity, for in London their brother shall die in the streets for cold; he shall lie sick at the door between stock and stock," &c.^ . . . " Surely in Popery they had a reverence, but now we have none at all. I ^ Christ and His Office, p. 58. ^ Sermons, p. 64. k2 196 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. never saw the like." ^ " Oh, what blasphemy do we commit day by day ! What little regard have we to His blessed passion, thus to swear by God's blood, by Christ's passion. We have nothing in our pastime but God's blood, God's wounds." Such were the results of a real practical belief of the doctrine of justification with- out works : it naturally led to an utter disregard of all moral obligation. Hence another theory on the subject of justification was generally advocated : it was said that al- though the sinner was justified by faith only, yet that true faith would necessarily produce good works. " Faith (says Foxe), as a good root, cannot lie dead or unoccupied, but springeth forth, and maketh both the tree fruitful and also the fruit thereof to be good." But this theory of the Reformed party, whilst still in words adhering to the formula of justi- fication by faith only, was virtually a surrender of the very point in dispute. Let us hear the statement of the two parties. The one says that the sinner is justified by faith and good 1 Sermons, p. 330. JUSTIFICATION. 197 works : that these must actually be present before man can be accounted righteous before God : —he says, also, that true faith may exist without good works, and that although faith is needful for their performance, by preparing and disposing the mind, yet that its effects may be hindered by man's wilful perverseness. The Protestant, on the other hand, affirms that the sinner is justified by faith only, but that this faith will necessarily produce the fruits of holiness ; and that if, in point of fact, it be unaccompanied by these fruits, it is a mere illusion of the Evil one, and not the working of the Spirit of God. Now contrast these theories, and it is clear that each party makes good works the real test of justification ; the one in expli- cit terms, and the other virtually, by repre- senting them as alone evidencing the reality of faith, and that a supposed faith must be an illusion unless it produces them : the only dif- ference seems to be, that the one regards good works as inseparably connected with true faith, whilst the other believes that the connection depends, in a great measure, upon man's earnest and persevering efforts. 198 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REPORMEES. But why, it may be said, were the opposite opinions on justification brought forward with such frequency and virulence, or this doctrine even spoken of as the doctrine of a standing or a falhng church ? The usual accompaniment of party warfare — mutual misrepresentation — is perhaps seen, in the most marked degree, in the subject we are considering. The Pro- testant represented the numerous forms and ceremonies which had been introduced into the Church, as calculated to take away all reliance upon Christ, and to hide him from the sinner's view : justification by faith removed (as he thought) every obstruction : the dark veil was thus rent asunder, and upon the sinner shone, without cloud, the beams of light and im- mortality. The Roman Catholic argument, on the other side, may be thus stated : — Can the Church be supposed to seek to hide Christ from His people, when her whole ceremonial was intended to draw the heart and affections to Him : when her daily sacrifice was a repre- sentation of His dying love, and she taught her children to believe in His presence upon the altar, and to adore Him under the sacramental JUSTIFICATION. 199 veil? How could men forget Christ, whilst He was really with them upon the altar under the form of bread, or not stand in need of the worship of an outward ceremonial whilst com- posed of both body and soul, and owing the service of both to their Creator and Redeemer ? This reply is, no doubt, in the main, satis- factory. ' The supposition is palpably absm-d that it is the tendency of an outward ceremo- nial, in a greater or less degree, to conceal the Redeemer from His worshippers, since there could be no outward service at all without some ceremonial. The true question (or what ouffht to have been the true question) between the parties was the kind and degree of ceremonial. The attempt of the Reformers, by a theory of justi- fication to cut up the whole Roman system, was perhaps in itself effective and unanswer- able ; but unfortunately, at the same time, it set aside the obligation of the external worship of God altogether ! A ceremonial was not only allowable, but valuable and indispensable, whilst much prevailing excess and abuse ur- gently needed correction and removal. The above remarks are intended to show 200 THEOLOGY OF THE ANGLICAN REFORMERS. that there was really very little difference, on the subject under consideration, between the moderate men of either party. However, it cannot be doubted that the Reformed doctrine on justification was too often held unguardedly, and without qualification, both on the Conti- nent and in England, and frequently produced a wide-spread disregard of all moral obligation, its natural and inevitable results. A summary of the teaching of the Reformed writers, as ascertained by the extracts and quotations given, may be useful to the reader. I. The reasons have been shown why the Reformers separated from the Church of Rome : — the supposed idolatry of the mass, and an alleged incompatibility between the Roman doctrine of the Priesthood and the one Obla- tion of our Lord upon the cross ; together with the generally prevailing opinion that the Pope was the Antichrist predicted in Holy Scripture. II. The teaching of the Reformers on lead- ing topics has been investigated : the result of the examination may be thus stated. The Reformers were quite unanimous in their de- JUSTIFICATION. 201 nial of the Apostolical Succession, and in rejecting the true doctrine of the Real Pre- sence in the Holy Eucharist. A strict unani- mity prevailed also amongst them on the subject of Predestination, the Calvinistic theory being adopted. On the doctrine of Holy Baptism, however, there existed, it would seem, a difference of opinion; — most prohably (the quotations not warranting, except in one or two cases, a positive statement) a few of the party believed in baptismal regene- ration ; whilst, generally, the Reformers denied the grace of Baptism, as indeed might have been expected from their belief in Calvinistic predestination. Our inquiry into the doctrine of Justification has shown that on a fair statement of the rival theories there was little real difference between the Anglican and Ro- man party : the doctrine was explained in an innocuous sense by moderate and judicious writers amongst the Reformers, although others held it in accordance with the blasphemous and immoral theory of Antinomianism. THE DOGMATIC TEACHING OP THE CHURCH. The teaching of tlie Ueformers has now been investigated : no pains have been spared, fairly and honestly, and mthout party purpose, to state their opinions. A few additional remarks may be useful, in illustration of the bearing of the teaching of the Reformers upon the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England. The Liturgy and Articles are too often re- garded, not as a compilation from various and often discordant sources, but as composed by the Reformers simply in accordance with their own views. Hence it has been often said. How could the Reformers be Calvinists if the Liturgy is not accordant with Calvinistic tenets ? a difficulty which many would obviate by re- sorting to far-fetched and most unwarrantable interpretations of the offices of the Church. Take, e. g., the doctrine of baptismal regenera- DOGMATIC TEACHLNG OP THE CHUECH. 203 tion. In the baptismal offices it is distinctly taught that every child baptized is " by baptism regenerate," and one hardly sees how the doc- trine of baptismal grace could be stated with greater explicitness ; yet these express state- ments must, it is said, be interpreted in the hypothetical sense, otherwise the Reformers would contradict their own (Calvinistic) opin- ions. This argument, undoubtedly plausible, is wholly destitute of truth, as a few considera- tions will show. If the Reformers had composed a Liturgy de novo, and been able to express fully and without reserve their own opinions, there can be no doubt whatever that it would have been drawn up in uniformity with the views of Calvin and other continental Re- formers. Can it be for a moment supposed — if we view the Reformers as possessed of the least amount of principle or integrity- — that their formularies of faith and worship would not have been drawn up in strict accordance with their own views ? But let us consider what was their actual position. On the death of Henry VIII. it cannot be doubted that the mass of the people held the old faith : the 204 THE REFOKMERS AND THE alterations and changes made in Ms reign had been merely the abolition of the Papal Supre- macy, and the removal of a few superstitious usages. The faith of the people generally, in the old articles of belief, was quite un- changed. On the accession of Edward VI., Cranmer and other associates, having imbibed Lutheran or Calvinistic opinions, began the work of Reformation — i. e., to force upon a reluctant people the Reformed teaching. Of the unwillingness of the people generally to admit these changes in the faith and worship of the Church we have abundant evidence in the frequent insurrections of this reign, and in the willingness, on the accession of Mary, with which the whole kingdom restored the ancient worship and ceremonial of the Church.^ ' Sanders, a contemporary, says that " if the kingdom had been divided into three parts, not one third wished for the change in religion," and mentions a striking in- stance of the willingness with which the people welcomed the re-establishment of the ancient faith {De Sckismate, p. 263. Ingoldst. 1587). The same fact, "that the Reforma- tion moved on with too precipitate a step for the majority," is admitted by modern historians, as HaUam (Constitu- tional History, vol. ii. pp. 91, 92), who says : "But an historian (?-. e., Burnet), whose bias was certainly not un- DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. 205 But Cranmer, and others engaged in the work of reformation, were not only impeded by the difficulty of forcing the new faith upon a reluctant nation, but had also to contend against the bishops of the " old learning," and other persons of rank and influence about the court of Edward VI., some perhaps preferring the old religion, and others not wishing to go so far as Cranmer in the work of reformation. Now what was, and, indeed, could only have been the consequence of such a state of things ? The Reformers were driven to adopt a vacillating and temporizing policy ; they could not possi- bly do what they would have wished ; they were forced to concede much to the rival faction, to retain portions of the old formularies of wor- ship, which they would gladly have abolished, as superstitious and savouring of Popery, under favourable to Protestantism, confesses that all endeavours were too weak to overcome the aversion of the people to- wards Reformation, and even intimates that German troops were sent for from Calais on account of the bigotry with which the bulk of the nation adhered to the old supersti- tion. This is a somewhat humiliating admission, that the Protestant faith was imposed on our ancestors by a foreign army." 206 THE REFORMERS AND THE the hope, it may be, that a more favourable opportunity would arrive for their removal. A system was adopted, and, as we find from the Zurich letters, was also continued through Queen Elizabeth's reign. The Reformers, during her reign, in writing to Continental friends, express much regret that neither the Queen nor people would allow them to perfect the Reformed Chm-ch of England, by tlie abolition of what themselves and correspon- dents considered as superstition and Popery — after the standard of Zurich or Geneva ! Hence the reader cannot be surprised if por- tions of the Prayer Book are little in accord- ance with what might have been expected from the opinions of Cranmer and his friends. The object of the Reformers — if they were to succeed at all — must have been to disguise, as much as possible, any innovation, and to give the people large portions of the existing formularies of worship to which they had been accustomed. Hence many of the people might be led to think, at first sight, that the old and new faith differed very little from each other : that they had much of the old service as before, DOGMATIC TEACHING OP THE CHURCH. 207 but better understood, as being translated into their native tongue. Thus the new service would be better received, the mass of the peo- ple would become gradually reconciled to it ; and when ripe for the change further innova- tions might safely be introduced.^ This course was accordingly adopted : the Prayer Book was mainly composed of the exist- ing formularies of worship ; and in the com- pilation of the Articles, whilst the Reformers ' Take, e. g., Burnet's account, which is in substance admitted by other ecclesiastical historians. When it was resolved, at the beginning of King Edward's reign, to pro- ceed to a further reformation, he tells us that preachers were appointed throughout the kingdom to prepare the way for contemplated changes. These preachers were " charged to preach sincerely, and with that caution and moderation which the time and place shall require In delivering things ■ to the people they were ordered to have a special regard to what they could bear. . . . Great care was to be had not to provoke the people too much, lest, in the infancy of the king, and in some ill conjuncture of affairs, they might be disposed to make commotions." And afterwards he says, in reference to the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., " several things had been contained in it either to draw in some of the bishops who, by such yielding, might be prevailed on to concur in it, or in com- pliance with the people, who were fond of their old super- stitions." — Part ii. book i. pp. 61, 155. 208 THE REFORMERS AND THE wished to state their own views as explicitly as the circumstances of the time permitted, yet much reserve and ambiguity were absolutely indispensable, if (as was the case) the Articles were to be signed by persons whose views greatly differed from their own. And what has been the consequence? I will not say there is any positive contradiction, formally and in words, between portions of the Anglican formularies ; but can any one deny that there is a difference in spirit and tone be- tween modern and ancient portions, as between the Collects and Baptismal Service, and the Thirty-nine Articles ? If it be said that the Re- formers carefully expunged everything deemed erroneous in ancient prayers and collects, be- fore incorporating them in the Prayer Book, I deny that it is possible that an alteration here and there could change collects and prayers from Catholic to Calvinistic. The spirit and tone of the two are quite distinct, and can- not thoroughly amalgamate together. Hence, from the first compilation of our Prayer Book in 1548, to the present time, there have been unceasing complaints, by Protestant and Puri- DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHUECH. 209 tan, that there is much of superstition and ill- disguised Popery still remaining in our Prayer Book. And yet the persons who make these complaints (I would frankly and fairly admit it) do agree with the Reformers generally in matters of faith and discipline. Now, what is the inference ? Surely this. That the Re- formers were compelled by the circumstances of their position to admit much that they must have deemed erroneous or superstitious in the Anglican formularies : and thus it is plain that the Prayer Book cannot satisfactorily be inter- preted according to the known opinions of the compilers. Certain portions unquestionably are not in accordance with such opinions, and be- long to a totally opposite school of theology. From the above observations, the reader will, I think, admit that it is quite unwar- rantable to interpret the baptismal Offices in accordance with the belief of those who com- piled them. They must be interpreted accord- ing to their literal and grammatical mean- ing ; and, thus viewed, it is really quite startling to suppose that any one can ques- tion whether or not these Offices teach the 210 THE EEPORMERS AND THE doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It would be impossible to devise language of a more positive and explicit character. And not only the baptismal Ritual, but all other portions of the Prayer Book, must be interpreted not only in accordance with ordinary grammatical rules, but simply as considered per se, and without reference to any other portion. The plan so generally adoped of considering the An- gHcan Prayer Book and Articles as one ho- mogeneous system, and of fitting precisely and exactly each portion together, often by the sacrifice of grammar and of the ordinary meaning of words, is not only in itself unwar- rantable, but it is clear that it is not allowable by the ckcumstances of its compilation. Thus, to refer to the subject just mentioned. One party, as we have seen, thinks that the bap- tismal Offices must be interpreted (because the Reformers were Calvinists) in the hypothetical sense ; whilst another asserts, just as unwar- rantably, that the Twenty- seventh Article was meant to teach explicitly the doctrine of bap- tismal grace ; an opinion not derived from an analysis of the article itself, but simply from DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. 211 the supposition that as the baptismal Office does assert this doctrine strongly, therefore the Arti- cle must also have been intended to maintain it with equal ewplicitness -. — a supposition (as pre- vious remarks have shown) which is quite un- warrantable. The baptismal service tna^ have been explicit, as derived from ancient sources, and the Article, whilst not denying or at all in- consistent with this doctrine, may be expressed so vaguely that men of opposite views could ahke sign it. Whether this be really the case must be determined solely from the literal and gram- matical meaning of the Article itself, and not from a priori reasonings about the opinions of the Reformers or other portions of the Prayer Book. One thing seems quite certain, — and this alone should convince us of the utter fallacy of the attempt to force each portion of our services into eojact conformity with others, — the Article does not teach this doctrine of baptismal grace with t/ie same explicitness as the offices in the Prayer Book: — every person of can- dour will, I think, admit that this doctrine might have been taught much more clearly and plainly than it is in the Article, and that in point of fact 213 THE REFORMERS AND THE it is set forth much more explicitly in the baptis- mal offices and Catechism. But how could this be so, if in the Liturgy and Articles were con- tained one clearly defined system of doctrine, whether of the Reformers or any other ? The apparent discrepancy of portions of the Prayer Book inevitably resulted from the system to which we have referred, adopted by the Re- formers : it must be admitted, and borne vrith as a defect or difficulty, and it is quite fruitless to seek to remove it by attempted theories and ex- planations, which, however ingenious, can never be satisfactory to a person of integrity or candour. Besides, not only the circumstances of those who originally compiled the Prayer Book must be borne in mind, but also the fact that the Prayer Book underwent changes — some im- portant ones, indeed — during the hundred years between its first compilation and its last revision. Bishop Overal, e.(/., added the "ques- tions and answers " on the sacraments to the Catechism, and yet his opinions on sacramental grace widely diff'ered — as widely as Catholicism and Calvinism — from the sacramentarian theory of the original compilers. But can we suppose DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHUECH. ^13 that he (Overal) carefully examined every por- tion of the Articles and Liturgy, with the inten- tion of making these questions one homogeneous system with them ? The idea would be quite absurd. The questions were simply in accord- ance with Bishop Overal's own views and those of the bishops of the Hampton Court Conference. Another consideration must also be borne in mind. The Reformation at first (as we all know) was a work hastily put together, and by men who, from the circumstances of the time, could only state their own views indistinctly and with much reserve. Hence there is a marhed discre- pancy between the work and its authors — va- rious statements and opinions are found, which have little harmony with each other. In the Sixth Article, e.g., it is said that the Church reads the Apocryphal books " for example of life and instruction of manners, yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine :" and yet in the Homilies, written for the most part by the very men who compiled the Articles, the Apocrypha is quoted precisely in the same way as canonical scripture, and is equally brought forward to establish doctrine ! How strangely forgetful, also, must Bishop Ridley have been 214 THE REFORMERS AND THE of the Articles which he, in conjunction with others, had just issued, when, without consider- ing that the Apocrypha is not to be used to estabhsh doctrine, he quotes from the book of Wisdom, calHngit " God's scripture," a passage against the making and worshipping of images ^ — a point surely of very important doctrine. Or contrast the teaching of the Reformers in regard to the important practical duty of fasting, with the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer. The Reformers did not enjoin fasting on certain days as a religious duty, following the immemorial practice of the Church, but condemned it as a mark of superstition, unwarranted by the word of God. If fasting was to be observed on certain days, they remind us, it is simply on the authority of the civil magistrate. Thus Latimer says, " We may eat flesh on Fridays by God's word, were there not a law made by the king and his most honourable council. . . . And this law is but a matter of policy, not of religion or holiness, and we ought to live according to the laws of the realm made by the king's majesty." ^ This extract represents the unanimous teach- ^ Works, p. 85. ^ Sermons, xxxiii. 81. DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. 215 ing of the Reformers : — fasting, it would have been admitted, was a Christian duty; but its observance enjoined at certain periods by eccle- siastical authority, was considered an infringe- ment of Christian liberty, and also as unsanc- tioned by the word of God. The command to fast was only tolerated in obedience to the civil magistrate, or, as it is said in the Homilies, to encourage the fisheries. Now, if we refer to the Book of Common Prayer, we shall find that the very same days are enjoined to be observed " in the Church of England " as for- merly had been observed by the Church of Rome, and that the distinction between fasting and ab- stinence is maintained, or, at least, is unquestion- ably implied. It may, of course, be said that the Prayer Book does not state that fasting on prescribed days is a religious duty at all ; but if not, if a mere civil duty and without any religious sanction, a reason might have been expected why the same days of fasting should have been enjoined as by the Church of Rome, or the ecclesiastical distinction recognized be- tween fasting and abstinence. But without fur- ther remark, it is obvious to any one acquainted 216 THE EEFOEMERS AND THE with the writings of the Reformers, that the injunctions of the Prayer Book on fasting were opposed to their belief : they were compelled hy circumstances to retain them in the Prayer Book and to vindicate their observance. The reason alleged by Latimer is a mere subterfuge, since is it possible that the Re- formers could have supposed that a religious duty (as fasting must be acknowledged to be) can rest for its authority upon the command of the magistrate? The glaring incongruity of the belief of the Reformers, and the teaching of the Prayer Book, was pointed out by a Roman Catholic contemporary. " The Pro- testants," he tells us, " are compelled to ob- serve the stated fasts of the church, though they do it unwillingly, exclaiming that it is contrary to the Scriptures and gospel liberty that such things should be prescribed. But Elizabeth, to soothe their consciences in this matter, declares at the beginning of Lent, that fasting is enjoined, not for the sake of religion, penitence, or devotion, but for public welfare, for the encouragement of fisheries," &c. The author goes on to say, " that few kept the DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. 217 queen's fasts, and that they were ashamed of them, and that the queen and the archbishop easily granted dispensations for money." ^ Again, who would have expected, on pe- rusing the unanimous, and I may almost say the characteristic, opinions of the Reformers on justification by faith only, and the imputed righteousness of Christ, to find the highest Catholic teaching on absolution recognized in the Ordination Service and the Visitation of the Sick? I do not say, of course, that justi- fication by faith only is necessarily incompati- ble with sacramental absolution, or the power of the priest to forgive and retain sins ; but most persons at first sight would see little afiinity between these doctrines, and would regard them as portions of opposite and discordant systems. The Reformers themselves, so far as I am aware, have made no efforts to reconcile the seeming discrepancy. The doctrines of justification by faith only, and of priestly absolution, are asserted equally, — ^the one in the Articles, and the other in the Prayer Book ; but if we turn to the writ- ings of the Reformers, the latter doctrine is ig- ' Eislitoni Contimiatio, p. 304 : Sanders, De ScMsmate. L 218 THE REFORMEES AND THE nored or contradicted. The dying Christian is not recommended to confess his sins to a priest, and to seek for pardon and justification by sacra- mental grace, but to trust wholly in Christ's imputed righteousness, and to acknowledge " Christ has fulfilled the law for me, and given me as a gift His fulfilling, so that I am now reckoned a fulfiUer of the law before God." ^ What need, then, of the priest or of sacraments to convey grace and pardon ? But it is necessary to enter more deeply into the subject before we can ascertain the precise bearing of the religious belief of the Reformers upon the theology of the Church of England. It cannot indeed be denied that all parties in the Church of England attach too much weight and authority to their opinions and teaching. I am not now referring to the character and learning of the Reformers, and to that peculiar situation in which they were placed, before re- ferred to (which shows that little weight is due to their teaching considered in itself), but to their position as Iteformers of our Church. ^ Latimer's Sermons, p. 149, DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. 219 We attach to them an influence not as the Reformers, but as the authors and founders of our Church. This opinion is exhibited in a variety of forms, and is generally received. Many persons would openly avow it; whilst others, who yNOtvSA professedly repudiate such a notion as wholly inconsistent with the catho- licity of our Church, are more or less influenced by it. But what is the position, theologically considered, of the Church of England ? As a branch of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, her origin dates not from the sixteenth century, but from the apostolic age. Her doctrines, as a 'portion of the Church, can in no sense rest upon the authority and teaching of the Re- formers, but upon the unbroken tradition of the Catholic body. These doctrines are true, not merely on the supposition that they are contained in Scripture, but because the Church of Christ has always believed them, and God has promised to guide His Church into all truth. The very difference between the Ca- tholic and the sectarian is, that the one follows his individual judgment, and the other prefers to rely upon the authority of the Church. Thus l2 220 THE EEFOEMEES AND THE an Anglican, instead of receiving implicitly the teaching of the Reformers, will ascertain its truth or falsehood by comparing it with the teaching of the Church Catholic. The j)hurch is the highest tribunal upon earth — even " the pillar and the ground of the truth." But if we bhndly accept as true the mere teaching and opinions of the Re- formers, we may talk of our Catholic prin- ciples, but the delusion, a moment's thought must show, is gross and palpable : we shall then be following, not Christ's Church, but the private judgment of the Reformers, and ought in honesty to bear their names, just as modern sects bear the names of those from whom they originate. But persons who assume the name of Ca- tholic, and yet profess to follow the teaching of the Reformers, will probably say that I have misrepresented the matter. They would hardly profess to believe a doctrine as true, simply upon the authority of the Reformers. The authority of the Church, it will be admitted, can alone show the truth of a doctrine; but the Reformers (they will allege) did hold and DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. 221 teach all Catholic truth, and therefore we have no need to refer to the Fathers in proof of doctrine : — this has been already done by the Reformers, and we have simply to receive as Catholic what tJiey assure us is such. This statement would, of course, be quite satis- factory, and really identical with the Catholic theory, had the Reformers and the Fathers held the same tenets; but is there any one with competent knowledge who would venture to make the assertion ? The Patristic and the Reformed teaching are obviously and in the most marked manner in direct opposition to each other. The controversialist, anxious to prove a point, will eagerly catch at any ex- pression which seems to favour his own views. Thus he may allege the challenge of Bishop Ridley, Cranmer, Philpot, and others, that they were willing to be judged by the primi- tive Church, as a proof that their opinions and those of their fellow-sufferers were ac- tually in accordance with primitive truth. But surely it would be most absurd to rely upon the mere statement of the Reformers, when the most positive evidence can be ad- 222 THE EEEORMERS AND THE duced in disproof of it; neither should the assertion that certain opinions are primitive lead us, without further inquiry, to conclude that they are so. Persons of most discordant views alike appeal to the Fathers, and gladly claim any portion of their teaching which may seem to agree with their own views. On the revival of Socinianism, its advocates claimed the support of antiquity ; and in our own country in more recent times a large work has been written in defence of the same heresy, ^ founded on appeal to the teaching of early Fathers and the well-known Catholic maxim that " truth is first and error of later growth." Notwith- standing this, most persons still think that Unitarianism and primitive truth do widely and essentially differ. Just so any one really acquainted with the Fathers requires better proof than any assertion of the Reformers, however positive and unanimous, that the early Church held either the sacramentarian heresy, or the blasphemous teaching of John Calvin on divine predestination. Whether, indeed, the ^ Priestley's ' History of Early Opinions respecting Jesus Christ,' 4 vols. DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHUECH. 2^3 Fathers and the Reformers, even on essential points, were unanimous in their teaching, might safely be left to the judgment of any competent reader after perusing the quotations in the pre- vious portion of this work. The party spirit caused by the Reformation and our controversies with Rome, has also contributed to the undue authority attached to the Reformers. Here again we see a prac- tical illustration of the theory recently noticed, that our Church originated from the Refor- mers. Anglican writers seem to think that her existence depends upon defending their conduct and acts. To say anything in their dispraise is to " betray " the cause of our Church. Hence learning and ingenious sophis- try have been put in requisition to explain away the most indefensible and atrocious acts. For instance, the utter want of all moral prin- ciple exhibited by Cranmer throughout his unhappy career has been apologized for or even vindicated ; and it has been thought necessary to excuse the unrelenting cruelties of his mas- ter, as indispensably needful to promote the cause and success of the Reformation. 224 THE E.EFOK.MERS AND THE And not only party spirit and the bitterness of our controversy with Rome, prevent a fair investigation of the character of the Reformed divines, and of their position in oiu" Church, but with most persons they are strangely invested with a supposed sacred character as " martyrs." The well-known ' Acts and Monuments' of John Poxe, a work written upon principles of the most repulsive Puritanism, has perhaps had greater influence upon the public mind than any book ever written, and has been the main cause of that bitter feeling against the Church of Rome which generally prevails, and also of a very distorted and one-sided view of the character and sufferings of the Reformers.^ The title of " martyrs " is a harmless one if used in the proper sense of loitnesses for the belief of the sufferer in certain opinions, but it is of course no proof of their truth. ^ Cal- vinism does not become true, although most of Foxe's martyrs died in its defence. Besides, the absurdity of supposing that any sanction ^ See Appendix, On the Persecution during the reign of Queen Mary. 2 Martyres veros non facit poena sed causa. — St. August. DOGMATIC TEACHING OP THE CHURCH. 225 is given to opinions by martyrdom endured in their defence appears evident from the fact, that tenets the most opposed to each other, and also of the most heretical and blasphemous character, can alike plead the attestation of suffering and death endured in their defence. The Protestant and the Roman CathoHc have each had their martyrs — can each appeal to the heroism and unflinching courage of their ad- vocates amidst the most cruel sufferings and death. Mary burnt the Reformers ; her sister hanged, with cruel mutilations, the Roman Catholic priests : — nay, the parallelism is still more exact and striking. Ehzabeth burnt a sectarian for dissenting from the established faith, and the writ issued for his burning {de haeretico comburendo) was drawn up in the same form as had been made use of in her sister's reign — the old ortJwdooc form in use long before the Reformation, when the Lollards were committed to the flames ! ^ ' A modern historian, whose zealous adherence to Protes- tantism is undoubted, has the candour to admit, "that the difference in this respect (tolerance in religion) between the Catholics and the Protestants was only in degree, and l3 2*26 THE EEFOEMERS AND THE But what, it may be asked, is the position which the Reformers hold in the Enghsh Church ? did they effect nothing, and is it in the same condition as if they had not existed ? This supposition, of course, would be absurd, as the least inspection of the formularies of our Church will show. The Reformers did leave the impress, m some decree, of their character- istic opinions upon portions of the Prayer Book, though not so distinctly and unam- biguously as formally to contradict the faith previously held. Positive truth was not ac- tually denied, but rendered uncertain by vague in degree there was mucL. less difference than we are apt to believe. Persecution is the deadly original sin of the Keformed Churches, that which cools every honest man's zeal for their cause in proportion as his reading becomes more extensive. The Lutheran princes and cities in Ger- many constantly refused to tolerate the use of the mass as an idolatrous service, and the name of idolatry, though adopted in retaliation for that of heresy, answered the same end as the other of exciting animosity and uncharitable- ness. The Eoman worship was equally (in Edward the Sixth's reign) proscribed in England. Many persons were sent to prison for hearing mass, and similar offences. The Princess Mary su-pphcated in vain to have the exercise of her own religion at home." — Hallam's Constitutional His- tory, vol. i. p. 94. DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHUECH. 227 and imperfect statements, wliicli the Reformers themselves probably explained in accordance with their own peculiar tenets, though capable of a strictly Catholic interpretation. This is seen, in a great measure, in the eucharistic service,^ though chiefly in the Thirty-nine Ar- ^ Thus the lowest, though a true and Catholic view of the holy Eucharist, is generally brought forward, which leads to an impression that it is only a memorial of Christ's death. Consider the following extracts ; — " The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, to be received in remembrance of His meritorious cross and pas- sion;" " it is your duty to receive the communion in re- membrance of the sacrifice of His death." " To the end we should alway remember the exceeding great love of our Master, ... he hath instituted and ordained holy mys- teries . . . for a continual remembrance of His death." " Christ did institute and in His holy Gospel command us to continue a perpetual memory of His precious death." " Take and eat (or drink) this in remembrance that Christ died." Again, the Presence in the sacrament is apparently made to depend upon the faith of the communicant. If with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy sacrament, then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ : the word " spiritual," though true, is obviously ca2oable of, and has been generally used in, an uncatholic sense. Hence it is dubious what was really intended by the statement that Christ is spiritually received, or is our spiritual food in the sacrament. In the first Prayer Book it was said, 228 THE EEFORMERS AND THE tides are exhibited the peculiar opinions of the Reformed party, and a marked design — whilst putting forth their own opinions as far as could be ventured upon — ^to use statements so loose and inexplicit that a party wholly opposed might still join in them. ^ " Grant us so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son and to drink His blood in these holy Mysteries^ that our sinful bodies," &c. " In these holy Mysteries " is now omitted : — why ? The Eeformers believed that Christ's body was eaten and His blood drank, not only in the Mysteries, but whenever we exercised an act of faith. Does not this explain the reason of the omission ? Yet the Eucharistic service, notwithstanding the vague and imperfect statements animadverted upon, does not formally and in words contradict primitive truth : — ^it is made sufficiently comprehensive to shelter those who deny it, but has equally the merit of being capable of a true and Catholic sense, ' I have no wish to reopen a controversy much agitated a few years ago, on the meaning of the Thirty-nine Articles; and merely intend in the present note to lay before the reader a few remarks in proof and illustration of the state- ments in the text. The primary question relating to the Articles is, doubtless, whether on some important points of doctrine their meaning is clear or indefinite ? Now that the latter is the case, admits, I think, of the most con- clusive proof. Let the reader refer to Articles XVII., XIX., XX VII., and interpret them " literally and gram- matically," and he cannot determine whether the doctrines DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. 9/29 From the above remarks, it is obvious that the opinions of the Reformers are not in them- of Calvinisiic predestination, tte apostolical succession, and baptismal regeneration are there asserted or denied. These Articles, so vague and indefinite in phraseology, wiU accord when interpreted in the literal and ordinary sense of the words, with either their belief or rejection. Thus it must be acknowledged that the Eeformers did, in point of fact, use ambiguous language in reference to important matters of doctrine. It may be said, indeed, that the E-eformers did not consider these doctrines of essential -importance, but left them as "open questions," about which their own party might be allowed to differ from each other. But this opinion attributed to the Eeformers — that the doctrines refeiTed to were considered as non- essential — ought to have been proved from their writings, and not taken for granted, to suit a modern theory. The supposition is quite unfounded, except perhaps as regards the doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; — the other doc- trines, on the Succession and Predestination, were con- sidered of essential moment, both in themselves and as respected the controversy with Eome. I hesitate not to assert, that the Eeformers held that the doctrine of the apostolical succession was equally erroneous with that of purgatory, or the invocation of saints ! Again, let any one who ventures to maintain that the meaning of the Articles on all important points is plain and explicit, and that the Eeformers simply expressed their own belief and teaching, turn to Article XXXI., in which he will find proof, that a doctrine which the Ee- formers themselves coiisidered as in the highest degree of 230 THE REFORMERS AND THE selves of any authority whatever, and that their truth, or falsehood must be tested by the fundameutal importance, is, evero when the subject impera- tively required its distinct statement, deliberately and inten- tionally kept out of view and suppressed. The Eeformers, as I have proved, unanimously believed (there was not any point of doctrine upon which, greater unanimity prevailed), that the priesthood of tlie Gospel ceased with Christ, and that our only Offering is, one common to all Christian men and women, the offering of praise and thanksgiving. This view was not only unanimously held, but put forward in tlie first place in the controversy with Eome. Why, then, in protesting against the sacrifice of masses did the Reformers mthhold all mention of their oft-repeated and, if true, most conclusive and unanswerable argument ? If there were no sacrifice since Christ's death, the mass would be indeed most emphatically, and in every sense, a fable and delusion. The sole reason that can be assigned is that the state of existing parties rendered quite impos- sible a clear exposition of what the Eeformers deemed a most essential truth. The adherents of Eome, or those who in any sense believed Catholic doctrine, could not pos- sibly have declared their acquiescence in a statement which would have denied in toto the Christian priesthood. An Article, therefore, was framed which accorded with the views of both parties. After first declaring the fundamental verity of Christ's one atonement on the cross, it con- demned, as inconsistent \vith this doctrine, the popular notion of the Holy Sacrifice, that Christ was again iu the mass offered for sin, which implied that the sacrifice on the cross was in itself an imperfect and insuificient atonement. DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHUECH, 231 teaching of the Church Catholic. Their use and value consist in the illustration which Thus, althougli the gross eiTor of Christ's reiterated sa- crifice (tlie popular view of the sacrifice of the mass) was condemned, the true and Catholic doctrine of the eucha- ristic sacrifice was not assailed. Or let the reader turn to Articles XX., XXI., XXII,, XXV., and XXVIII., and he wiU see instances of am- biguity in their indefiniteuess of language, and in the use of terms upon which the meaning of the sentence really rests, which, are left unexplained : let him compare these Articles with the first five on the Holy Trinity — so precise and unmistakably definite in meaning, — and he must admit that, as indefiniteuess could be avoided wJien such was the object of the Reformers, the ambiguity of these Articles could not have been without purpose and de- sign. But what, it may be asked, did the Reformers really oppose in the Articles referred to, or in anti-Roman Ar- ticles generally ? They plainly and undeniably condemn the doctrines of the Church of Rome in one shape or other. It cannot be doubted that these Articles are directed against the gross and popular system of Catholicity gene- rally held at the Reformation, and which was the subject (as we learn from the Avritings of Reformers) of their special abhorrence and condemnation. But whether they intended to go beyond this system, and to deny the au- thoritative teaching of Rome on the points in dispute, in every sense, cannot be ascertained from the Articles them- selves : — whether, e. (j., under the name of transubstantia- tion, was merelv attacked the doctrine of a gross and 232 THE REFORMERS AND THE they afford to the Articles and Liturgy of our Church. Let us not, either in ignorance of ecclesiastical carnal presence, or this doctrine in, every form, even when explained, as by writers of authority, to mean a spiritual presence.^ It is of course implied in what I have just stated, that doctrines authoritatively taught by the Church of Rome are condemned in the Articles in whatever degree they are really identical with the popular belief against which the Articles were directed. After this proof of the ambiguity of the Articles, a few words may be added on their interpretation. They are to be interpreted, not according to the teaching of the Re- formers, but in their literal and grammatical meaning ; and what this meaning is on certain points has never been authoritatively declared, and cannot be decided by the mere dictum or opinion of any bishop or number of bishops. The Articles must be submitted to the judgment of Convocation, which only is competent to decide their meaning — or, at least, to declare the teaching of the Church of England on any matter in dispute. Till the meaning of the Articles is thus authoritatively fixed, their interpretation must rest upon each individual subscriber's judgment and conscience. If the indefiniteness of meaning inherent in some of the Articles, exhibited in the preceding note, appears to render obscure, on certain points, the teaching of our Church, let * The late Dr. Lingard (History of England, vol. vi. p. 677, note) gires as the definition of transubstantiation, that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten " after a real, though spiritual and sacramental manner." DOGMATIC TEACHING OP THE CHURCH. 233 history or in subservience to certain popular pre- judices and opinions, ignore, either really or practically, the existence of the English Church for a thousand years before the Reformers were born ; or deny that during that period it was a portion of Christ's Church, invested with apos- tolical orders and mission, and really teaching the verities of the everlasting Gospel. If we regard our Church before the Reformation as fundamentally corrupt in doctrine, possessing merely the external marks of a Chm-ch, but inculcating an idolatrous system wholly opposed to the truth of God, then the title of our own Church to apostolical gifts and mission must be wholly abandoned. I have said before, a church can only possess apostolical gifts and authority through an unbroken transmission from the apostles of the episcopal orders and doctrine. Thus the apostolical claims of the it be borne in mind, that the Articles cannot be regarded as a perfect system of doctrine, but are mainly a protest against existing corruptions. The faith of the Church of England, as a branch of the Church Catholic, is not the invention of Protestant Eeformers in the sixteenth century, but is that faith once delivered to the saints, which has been trans- mitted unchangeable by the apostolic priesthood, and is now, and evermore, the heritage of the Body of Christ. 234 THE REFORMERS AND THE present Anglican Church wholly rest upon its oneness with the unreformed Church in essen- tial and fundamental doctrine. It is one and the same Church, with a difference undoubtedly on certain important points, yet as this trenches not on necessary truth it cannot affect the iden- tity during the whole period of its existence. If fundamental doctrine were really changed at the Beformation, the Church in England then perished, and an Anglican sect, resting on the basis of other sects, was substituted in its place. But another theory has been proposed, so thoroughly baseless, that, although advocated by great names in ancient and modern times, it can hardly merit notice or refutation. It is said that, at the Keformation, our Church merely went back to the period before the usur- pations of Rome, and thus forms a continuation, not of the unreformed, but of the ancient British Church. But persons who allege this plea seem to have forgotten the meaning of the apostolical succession. If the Beformed Church were really modelled after the form of the ancient British one, and satisfactory proof could be alleged of its identity in doctrine, how could the succession of orders be trans- DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHUECH. 235 mitled from the one to the other ? The ancient British Church, as we know, was soon merged into the Church which St. Austin and the Ro- man missionaries founded, and there was no Succession in England for a thousand years be- fore the Reformation but that in communion with Rome. Thus it is quite impossible that the Reformed Church could be a continuation, hy Succession, of the ancient British Church. Had the British bishops continued their suc- cession independently of the Church founded by St. Austin, the case would have been wholly different; but, as I have said, the original British Church became united with the Roman mission, and it is impossible to show any Succession independently of Rome, Besides, even in regard to doctrine, it must, I repeat, be transmitted continuously with the apostolic orders, and a church, with any pre- tensions to a belief in the Succession, cannot substitute, in place of her existing creed, one fundamentally opposed, under the pretence of returning to a primitive model. The doctrine thus substituted would rest, in a great measure, on the private judgment of those who supposed 236 THE EEFORMERS AI^D THE that it had been really held in a primitive age, and could have no claim to be transmitted through successive bishops from the apostolic times. Thus in regard to the British Church, who would venture, from the very meagre re- cords of the first five or six centuries, to draw out, with the faintest title to probability/, a statement of its doctrines even upon essential points ? The belief of the British Church must" wholly rest upon conjecture, in the utter ab- sence, during this period, of all trustworthy records for our guidance. The only writer from whose voluminous works we may reason- ably hope to form an opinion on the subject is the Venerable Bede, who lived before the close of the seventh century. But his teaching on purgatory, the invocation of saints, the wor- ship of images and relics, is little in accordance with the system which controversialists have supposed, and have endeavoured to persuade themselves and readers, was the creed and wor- ship of the early British Church ! Thus it is in vain to delude ourselves by any imaginary connection with the ancient British Church, as if we could thus escape all connec- DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. 237 tion with Rome, and the obhgation equally with herself to believe the Catholic verities. The novel doctrines unhappily prevailing, are vin- dicated on the alleged plea of the authority of Scripture, or it is asserted have the sanction of primitive antiquity,^ or, as others affirm, are a revival of the creed of the ancient British Church ; but let it not be forgotten that, if we claim apostolic orders and mission, we must hold unchanged all Catholic verities trans- mitted continuously by the Succession. The apostolic privileges of which we boast are in- separably connected with the tradition and a ' Many persons who in words would repudiate the pri- vate judgment theory, and justly protest against the ab- surdity of supposing that every one can discover the truth of God from the mere letter of Scripture, and that the discordant opinions thus elicited are alike true, yet seem to forget that the teaching of primitive antiquity on cer- tain points is eqiially obscure with the mere letter of Scripture, and thus that the discovery of novel doctrines in the writings of the Fathers must rest upon the same basis, i. e., must be equally uncertain, as the novel doctrines which persons fancy they can discover in the pages of Scripture ! If we would escape the private judgment theory in one shape or another, we must seek for the doc- trines of pure and primitive antiquity in the teaching and guidance of the present Church. 238 THE REPOEMERS AND THE belief of the doctrines of tlie Holy Catholic Church. It would be merely childish perverse- ness to receive one portion of a doctrine, and to reject (to suit a theory of our own) another por- tion inseparably connected with it — a truth which at the present day there is too much need of asserting. The dignity and authority of a bishop, and the weight justly attached to his apostolic office, have been too frequently used as a vehicle for attacking the doctrines of the Faith, or disseminating the most pernicious heresies. A bishop's authority is appealed to in opposition to the unanimous teaching of the Church, and the Catholic Christian is accused of presumption and disobedience in believing the creed in opposition to the teaching of his bishop. But this fancied authority of a bishop to teach what he pleases, to hold or reject the faith of the Church, rests upon mere igno- rance, as I have shown, of the meaning of the apostolical Succession. A bishop is only em- powered to teach the Catholic faith ; and if he corrupt or repudiate this, his teaching or opi- nions have no weight whatever. The Church rejects and condemns him as a heretic, and the DOGMATIC TEACHING OP THE CHURCH, 239 faithful are bound not only to reject his hetero- dox teaching, but to renounce his communion, or, if compelled by the civil power, to render obedience under protest and upon mere com- pulsion. If English churchmen would ever bear in mind the all-important truth, that their present Church is really one in unbroken continuation with that existing from the apostolic era, it would save them from much sectarian pre- judice about the^eformers and their opinions : it would permit them to acknowledge cheer- fully the excellence of the Church in what would be called its unreformed state, and whilst not blind to much ignorance and the gross superstitions which then prevailed, and^ were wisely removed at the Reformation, and also to the blessings which that event has conferred on our Church, ^ we should be willing, with whatever humiliation, to acknowledge the many evils which unhappily attended it, the divi- sion and disunion of which it has been the ' As, e. g., in restoring the eucliaristic cup to the laity, in abolishing the abuse of public prayer in an unknown tongue, and of the compulsory celibacy of the priesthood. 240 THE EEFOEMERS AND THE source, the little practical belief which has since existed in our Church of much important and fundamental doctrine, the ever-multiplying forms of heterodoxy day by day springing up amongst us ! The especial evil inflicted upon the Anglican Church at the "Reformation was undoubtedly its separation from the rest of Christendom, and its subjection almost unconditionally to the civil power : but is there not much to en- courage the hope that the tinae of mercy and deliverance is at hand? The union of Church and State, once the stcpposed glory of our land, is day by day being seen in its true light — a vassalage corrupting and degrading, which leavens the Church with heterodoxy, and fills the apostolic hierarchy with latitudinarian or heretical bishops, whose title to preferment is subservience to the creed and bidding of the minister of the day ! The narrow-minded prejudices of a past age are fast dissipating — the boast, I mean, of our own purity and fancied excellencies, and the contemptuous despising of other portions of Christ's Church ; — the evils of schism and division are becoming DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. 241 more deeply and painfully felt, and catholic- minded men, too long alienated from each other by jealousy and suspicion and the rivalry of a divided communion, are drawing together in kindlier sympathy. Thus, it may be hoped, appear tokens of that blessed day, when the scattered and disunited portions of the Re- deemer's body shall again be united, and the Church, endowed with the gifts of Pentecost, go forth to combat with an unbelieving world, until the promise be fulfilled that the king- doms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever. M APPENDIX. APPENDIX. THE PEESECUTION DUEING THE EEIGN OF QUEEN MAEY. The opinions usually held in the Church of England respecting the Reformers are not only in themselves wholly untrue, but they so directly interfere with a due estimate of their writings, and of the authority which may be supposed to belong to them, that it seemed absolutely necessary to enter at some length upon the subject. I fear it will appear too evident that the Reformers, when opposed and dis- countenanced by the civil power at the begin- ning of Queen Mary's reign, lost sight of the elementary principles of Christian duty, and by the most unwarrantable and seditious acts not only irritated the government and brought M 2 244 APPENDIX. upon themselves merited punishment, but by their writings and conduct naturally led their rulers in Church and State to suppose that their religious belief itself was in a great measure chargeable with the atrocities which marked the party, and that its extermination alone could restore peace to the kingdom and submission to the authority of the law. But let the reader form his own judgment from the materials which I shall proceed to lay before him. The persecution, I would observe, did not commence till a year and a half after the queen's accession, which was on July 6, 1553, the first martyr being burnt February 4, 1555. Let this fact and the dates be carefully borne in mind, being very important, as will presently appear, to a correct view of the matter. I would first call attention to the conduct of the Reformed party on the accession of Queen Mary. On the death of Edward VI. an attempt was made to deprive the Queen of her right to the throne on account of her reli- gion; and, with the sanction of the leading men of the party, Lady Jane Grey was pro- APPENDIX. 245 claimed.^ The letter of the lords of the coun- cil was signed by Cranmer. Bishop Ridley preached at St. Paul's Cross, " declaring his mind to the people as touching the Lady Mary, and dissuaded thera, alleging there the incom- modities and inconveniences which might arise by their receiving her to be their queen. "^ In a few months after the Queen's accession Wyatt's rebellion broke out, originating from the Protestant party, one object of the con- spirators being to dethrone the queen and to restore the Reformed religion. Elizabeth (after- wards queen) was " at least acquainted with the designs of the conspirators, if she did not actually encourage them ;"^ though there is no reasonable doubt, as Dr. Lingard has shown, that she toas deeply implicated in the con- spiracy.* " One Peatherstone, alias Constable, counterfeited himself Edward VI. ; he was seized and carried before the council, when he begged the queen's pardon and confessed he had been importuned hy a great many people to 1 Foxe, vol. vi. p. 385. 2 ibid. vol. vi. p. 389. ^ Tytler's ' Eeigns of Edward VI. and Mary,' vol. ii. p. 279. 4 History of England, vol. v. p. 43-i, ed. 1849. 246 APPENDIX. undertake the imposture." ^ Another impos- ture was afterwards set up. "A young maid, named Elizabeth Crofts, was tutored to coun- terfeit certain speeches, in the wall of a house not far from Aldersgate. ... A strange whistle was devised for her, out of which her words proceeded in such a tone as seemed to have nothing mortal in it ... . for the interpreting of whose words there wanted not some of the confederates who mingled themselves by turns amongst the rest of the people, and, taking upon them to expound what the Spirit said, delivered many dangerous and seditious words against the queen, her marriage with the prince of Spain, the mass, confession, and the like." ^ In the Parliament dissolved January 16, 1555, "an act was made to punish, with severity * those who should speak anything against the king or queen, or that move any sedition or rebellion.' Also in this Parliament three statutes were revived for trial of heresy. . . . Also the doings of Master Rose, and the others that were with him, were communed of in this 1 CoUier, vol. ii. p. 379. 2 Heylin on the Reformation: Mary^ p. 37 (1670). APPENDIX. 247 Parliament, and upon that occasion an act was made that certain evil prayers should be treason against the Queen's highness. The prayers of these men were thus : ' God turn the heart of Queen Mary from idolatry, or else shorten her days.' " ^ On the accession of Queen Mary many of the Reformers had retired to the Continent. They engaged themselves in writing books and tracts of the most seditious and revolutionary character, against the religion and the govern- ment of the Queen, denouncing her under the name of Jezebel, and her religion as blasphemy and idolatry, giving very significant hints that if the idolatress and her religion were longer tolerated God's heaviest judgments might be expected on the kingdom.^ The wide circula- ^ Foxe, vol. vi. p. 584. 2 Dr. Maitland classes the copious extracts which he adduces from these works under four heads, which, as his quotations would occupy too much space, will be best fitted to give the reader an idea of their contents. These publications are thus classified : — " I. Those which have generally a revolutionary ten- dency — which discuss the subject of government in such a way as to inculcate not only the doctrine that the people have a right to resist the ruler whenever, in their opinion. 248 APPENDIX. tion of such books in England, before the per- il e commands what is wrong, but that they are the source of power, and are answerable to God not only for their delegation of it to fit persons as rulers, but for the use which they allow to be made of it by those to whom they have delegated it, and from whom, upon the misuse of that power, they are bound to resume it ; these ideas being illustrated, enforced, and familiarized by perpetual repetitions of, and allusions to, histories respecting rulers deposed and kiUed by their subjects. " II. Those which were specially directed against Queen Mary individually, and which were of two kinds : (1) Those which denied her right to the throne on the general ground of her sex, or on the more particular ground of illegitimacy. (2) Those which were directed against her personal cha- racter, and which, by charging her with cruelty, oppression, &c., were calculated to render her odious. " III. Those which were directed against foreigners, and, in particular, against the Spaniards and the Spanish match, and which, under a profession of patriotism, urged that the people and the country had been, or would be, betrayed and sold into the hands of strangers and foreigners of the basest description, by whom they would be enslaved and oppressed without mercy unless they rose up and ex- pelled them. " IV. Those relating to the change in religion — repre- senting it both as a judgment in itself, and as a sin which would bring down further judgments — and generally threat- ening judgments on the people of the country for rejecting the word of God, and embracing or tolerating idolatry and superstition." — Essays, pp. Ill, 113. APPENDIX. 249 secution began, is evident from Foxe.^ He says, " Divers as well householders as servants and apprentices were apprehended, and taken and committed to smidry prisons, for the hav- ing and selling of certain books which were sent into England by the preachers that fled into Germany and other countries, which books nipped a great many so near, that within one fortnight there were little less than threescore imprisoned for this matter." Other proclama- tions were afterwards issued against importing into England seditious and heretical books • ^ and in the latter of the acts referred to, the offender was liable to the punishment of death. The dangerous task of importing and putting into circulation such books was undertaken by the most zealous of the party, as we find from the examinations given by the Martyrologist.^ But the Reformers did not content them- selves with the mere recommendation of sedi- tion and murder. Several attempts were made to kill the Queen. Wood mentions, in his 'Athenae Oxonienses,' that " Wilham Thomas, 1 Vol. vi. p. 561. 2 poxe, vol. ^^i. p. 127, viii. 468. ^ Ibid. vol. viii. pp. 384, 446. M 3 250 APPENDIX. clerk of the council of Edward VL, and a dis- ciple of the famous preacher Goodman, plotted the murder of the Queen, for which he was sent to the Tower, and afterwards executed, at which time he boasted that he died for his country." Another, a contemporary writer, says, "I could declare unto you how the traitorous gospellers of England .... shot arrows and darts against her (Queen Mary's) court gates, conspired her death, devised to poison her, to kill her with a dagge (pistol) at one time, with a privy dagger at another time, reviled her, called her bastard, butcher, printed seditious books against her, wherein they railed at her like hell-hounds, and named her traitor- ous Mary, mischievous Mary." ^ Renard, the ambassador, in his letter to the Emperor (April 22, 1554), says that the Queen " showed hira a letter which had been thrown on her kitchen table, the most seditious thing in the world, full of threats against herself and against the Chancellor," &c.^ Others were summoned be- ' Frarin's Oration against the unlawful Insurrections of the Protestants of our time: Maitland's Essays, p. 143. 2 Tytler's 'Edward VI. and Mary,' vol. ii. p. 377. APPENDIX. 251 fore the council for tampering with astrology and magic. They were prosecuted, in all likeli- hood, says Collier, for calculating the Queen's nativity and foretelling her death ; ^ whilst another was accused of praying " that if God would not take away Queen Mary, then that the devil would take her away." ^ But the provoking conduct of the Reformed party towards the established religion, dis- played from the accession of the Queen, tended in an especial degree to irritate the Govern- ment against them. When her chaplain. Dr. Bourn, was preaching, a dagger was thrown at him, and there was a great tumult amongst his audience, so that he narrowly escaped with his life.^ On another occasion, when a priest was celebrating mass, his life was attempted by a person called Branch, who stabbed him in several places, so that the hosts he was administering were covered with blood : at another time a gun was fired at Dr. Pendle- ton. Or let the reader peruse the following instances of the spirit and conduct of the Be- 1 Collier, vol. ii. p. 377. ^ poxe, vol. viii. p. 6.30. 3 Eoxe, vol. vi. p. 391. 352 APPENDIX. formed party, and consider what effect they were likely to have upon the rulers in Church and State. On the 25th March, 1554, the pix and crucifix were taken out of the sepulchre before the priest " rose to the resurrection," in ridicule of the Roman ceremonial on Easter day. On the 8th April following " there was a cat hanged upon a gallows, at the cross in Cheap, apparelled like a priest ready to say mass, with a shaven crown. Her two forefeet were tied over her head, with a round paper, like a wafer-cake, put between them ; whereon arose great evil-will against the city of London, for the Queen and the bishops were very angry withal." ^ A man called Mendrain shaved his dog's head in ridicule of the priests' tonsure. Another gave the holy Eucharist to a dog ; ^ whilst a third stood behind the priest at the elevation of the Sacrament, and in ridicule lifted up his dog. And these acts are not to be considered as ^ Poxe, vol. vi. p. 548. 2 Harpsfield, in his reply to Foxe, terms him " Pekus." " Pekus (eucharistiam) caniculo porrigebat." — Copi Bia- logi, p. 749. APPENDIX 253 merely characteristic of a few desperate fanatics, but are most significant tokens of the Pro- testantism of the period. Let the reader con- sider the following illustrations, selected from Dr. Maitland's Essays, in which he has collected much important matter bearing on the subject. Beginning from the reign of Henry VIII., he says, Cromwell was "the great patron of ri- baldry and the protector of the ribalds, of the low jester, the filthy balladmonger, the alehouse singers, and ' hypocritical mockers in feasts ;' in short, of all the blasphemous mocking and scofiing which disgraced the Protestant party at the time of the Reformation. It is of great consequence in our view of the times to con- sider that the vile publications, of which too many remain, while most have rotted, and the profane pranks which were performed, were not the outbreaks of low, ignorant partisans, a rabble of hungry dogs, such as is sm'e to run after a party, even in spite of sticks and stones bestowed by those whom they follow and dis- grace. It was the result of design and policy, earnestly and elaborately pursued by the man 254 APPENDIX. possessing for all such purposes the highest place and power in the land."^ Bishop Burnet, speaking of Bonner*s in- junctions to his clergy in the year 1542, one of which was ' no plays or interludes to be acted in churches ;' after telling us that this was the ' greatest blemish of that time,' adds, " These were the stages and interludes which were then generoMy acted, and often in churches. They were representations of the corruptions of the monks, and some other feats of the Popish clergy. . . . But from representing the immoralities and disorders of the clergy they proceeded to act the pageantry of their wor- ship ^ A contemporary writer, in allusion to Queen Mary's reign, tells us that " pestilent and abominable songs were sung in taverns, inns, common tables, open streets," in derision of the sacraments or ceremonial of the Church. The holy Eucharist was especially the object of Puritan abhorrence. " Not a few," as Strype says, " spoke of the holy sacrament with much ' Essays on the Reformation, p. 236. APPENDIX. 255 contempt ; they called it by ' vile and unseemly terms.' " " They made rhymes and plays and jests of it." Most abundant proof is adduced by Maitland of the ribaldry and blasphemous mockery which characterized the Reformed party generally. " To raise a laugh against Popery at whatever expense, and to provide for the eyes and ears of even the rude multitude, who could not read, gross and profane pictures, jests, songs, interludes, was," as he says, " a very startling featui'e " of the Reformed period ; " but it seems to have been noticed and inquired into less than it should have been."^ Dr. Maitland adds (and to his remarks I would beg the reader's most earnest attention), " Bur- net admits that ribaldry and mocking filthiness and foolish talking and jesting, such as are not convenient, were made great use of and encou- raged in every possible way by the 'political men of that party,' but he states that these courses were ' disliked and condemned ' by the ' grave and learned sort of Reformers.' Here is a plain matter of fact. Who were the grave and learned Reformers who opposed ' Essays on the Eeformation, p. 227. 256 APPENDIX. these courses ? What did they do to put a stop to them ? Where is their disHke and con- demnation recorded ? There may be protests and condemnations in the writings of some of the Reformers, but I know not of them. God forbid that I should suppress them if I did. " ^ I can only add, that my own perusal of the works of the Reformers has not afforded me any proof that the " grave and learned sort " protested against the blasphemy and ribaldry of their brethren, I am afraid that it is too true, as Maitland adds, that they stood by and " laughed in their sleeve " " whilst others were doing what it might not have beseemed the ' grave and learned' sort to do themselves." An instance occurs to me in which reproof was most urgently and imperatively needed. The reader will recollect a quotation before given from the prayer of Master Rose and his com- pany, " that God would turn the heart of Queen Mary or shorten her days." When Master Rose and his friends were imprisoned, Bishop Hooper, who was with them in the ^ Essays on tlie Eeformation, pp. 239-40. APPENDIX. 257 Fleet, wrote them letters of consolation.^ Now here we might surely have expected some hint or protest by the bishop against such wicked and treasonable language ; but not a syllable of disapprobation is breathed in these letters^ — not a hint that such language was unbecoming and sinful. Yet Bishop Hooper was one of the most influential writers and preachers of the reign of Edward VI. Now let the reader fairly weigh the above facts as illustrative of the conduct and charac- ter of the Reformers : let him consider if any government could long have continued in existence unless the most severe punishment had bden inflicted upon a party who, under the mask of religion, were guilty of the most seditious and atrocious acts : — a party, the ul- timate, if not the avowed design, of which was to dethrone the Queen and to exterminate the established religion as damnable idolatry, the continuance of which day by day provoked God's curse and judgments ! Besides, let it be borne in mind that the ' Foxe, vol. vi. p. 585. 258 APPENDIX. seditious and blasphemous conduct of the Re- formed party was undoubtedly a cause, if not the only cause, of the persecution which en- sued. Had the government on the accession of the Queen commenced a persecution of the Protestant party, one might have been disposed to excuse or apologize for any outbreak of sedi- tion and rebellion ; but the persecution did not begin, as I have said, till a year and a half after the Queen's accession, and then was im- mediately brought on (as I have shown) by the unjustifiable conduct of the Protestant party. It may he questioned whether the Re- formed party would have been persecuted at all had they conducted themselves quietly and in obedience to the law. There were many debates in the Queen's council before the persecution began, which was a month or two after the affair of Master Rose. After the persecution had begun it was more than once stopped, as the moderate party prevailed, and then some fresh outbreak of the Reformed party seems to have renewed its violence. Thus, I think, it can hardly be questioned that the Reformed party, in a great measure, APPENDIX. 259 brought the persecution upon themselves. ' However painful and difficult the position in which they were placed, their conduct was most unworthy of the Christian name and re- ligion ; and, whatever commiseration we may feel for their sufferings, is little calculated to excite any feelings of sympathy or esteem. The most severe measures were absolutely needed for the safety of the Queen and government, constantly in danger through the acts of sedi- tion and treason either perpetrated or defended by the Reformed party. Yet admitting this, it is still much to be regretted that the perse- cution was carried on with such unsparing cruelty, and also that its victims were chiefly of the lower class — the ignorant and unlettered artisan and labourer. It is truly melancholy to read the examinations of most of the suf- ferers honoured by Foxe with the name of " martyrs ; " persons ignorant often of the elements of the Christian faith, and whose title to the appellation is fanatical railing against the " idolatry " of Rome ! ^ Perse- cution on account of alleged heresy had, indeed, ' See, e. g., vol. viii. pp. 142, 391. 260 APPENDIX. .the unanimous sanction of both the Catholic and Protestant party, and it M-ould be wholly unjust to charge it upon the Church of Rome, as being exclusively her stigma and sin. Had the leaders of the Protestant party been put to death, as a warning to humbler brethren, and the persecution there terminated, although these acts of cruelty, considered abstractedly and on general grounds, had still been wholly indefensible, yet, viewed according to the general belief and practice of the time, they would not have excited surprise. But the severity of the persecution fell almost wholly on the poor : great numbers, chiefly taken from the lowest portion of society, were committed to the flames. Hence there has been handed down amongst the mass of the people a deep and bitter hatred of the persecutors — an indis- criminating detestation of their religion and of everything supposed to approximate to it — a feeling which even three hundred years has not been able to obliterate. If a few of the higher class merely (who almost unanimously, how- ever, on the accession of Mary joined the re- established faith) had been visited with the APPENDIX. 261 penalties of heresy, the effect would have been temporary : the people generally had cared little for their sufferings, or perhaps have viewed them with secret pleasure. But when the persecution reaches the mass of the people themselves, their revenge is generally unsparing and terrible.^ The Protestant party were too few in number to avenge themselves in Mary's reign, and the persecution, though severe and remorseless, was only comparatively of short continuance ; but it is not yet forgotten. Recent events have, alas ! given too much proof that popular preachers can still appeal ' The Eoman people quietly endured Domitian's tyranny, whilst the slaughter was limited to the nobles and sena- tors ; but when the mass of the people felt its severity, when, in Juvenal's words, ^ the tyrant was feared by cob- blers, he was soon destroyed, and the noble blood before shed with impunity was avenged. At the French Kevo- lution, also, when the slaughter was limited to the nobility none dreamed of opposing the ruling faction ; but when the poor mechanic and tradesman became the victims, then the oligarchy was destroyed and the reign of ten'or ceased. * Sed periit postquam cerdonibus esse timendus Cceperat : — hoc nocuit Lamiarum csede madenti. Satir. iv. 153-4. 262 APPENDIX. with terrible effect to our " martyred fore- fathers," in arousing the infuriated passions of the religious world, and drowning in a torrent of wrath and hatred that candour and charity which are due even to the members of a rival and hostile communion. THE END. Hope and Co., PrinterSj 1 6, Great Marlborough-street.