Sivut kuvina

sary to be made in the Liturgy, could not be accomplished otherwise, he would interpose his own authority, and ratify them by means of parliament. In the mean time, as the Book of Common Prayer contained no form of consecrating and ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, the commissioners had drawn up an Office for that purpose, which was now confirmed by act of parliament, and published in March 1550. And this might naturally be considered as the termination of their labours; but there is reason to believe that the commission was not discharged, and that the same persons, who still continued members of it, were soon afterwards instructed to revise the whole Book of Common Prayer, and to introduce such alterations as might seem to them to be required. The state of public opinion had now at once furnished an opportunity, and created a necessity, for further change. The hopes of the Romanists had been extinguished, partly by the defeat of the insurgents in Devonshire, but principally by the strong protestant feeling expressed in the council and the parliament; and the tendency was carried so far in the opposite direction, that encouragement was afforded for the circulation of books and the inculcation of opinions favourable to the turbulent sect of the Anabaptists. There were two subjects of dispute which require to be especially noticed, not merely for their im

Catechism, the convocation was induced to delegate its authority to a commission appointed by the king. (Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 121.) This explanation was certainly given in the first convocation of queen Mary, when an objection was made as to the authority of the Catechism, (Fox, Acts and Mon. f. 1410,) and may be extended to the case of the Liturgy, as no record of its approval appears to have been found in Heylin's time on the registers of convocation. Comp. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. III. p. 404.

portance among the controversies of that period, but also on account of their direct connection with the projected revision of the Liturgy. The lawful use of clerical vestments was a question which, more than any other at this time, disturbed the harmony of the English church, and brought scandal upon the cause of the reformation. To common observers, and as expressed in common language, the question appeared to be of little consequence; but it was in reality the ground on which two great parties were content to meet, for the discussion of principles connected with the foundation of church government, and essential to their several existence. It was required, in a rubric of the first Liturgy, that “at the time appointed for the ministration of the holy communion, the priest that shall execute the holy ministry, shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say, a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope.” It was also required, that “whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the holy communion in the church, or execute any other public ministration, he shall have upon him, beside his rochet, a surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.” Now it was a sufficient objection in those days, that a distinction was thus made between the services of the church, which had a tendency to uphold the ancient superstitions of the mass in the minds of the common people. But the question really at issue was of a much more vital character. It affected the first principles of church authority, and disputed the right of any body of men, under whatever name they were assembled, to impose ceremonies, which, though considered indifferent by the great body of believers, were held by many b 3

to be of noxious tendency, and by some were felt to be sinful. This question was brought to an issue by the determined resistance of Hooper, when nominated to the see of Gloucester. Having contracted ‘sentiments in accordance with those of the Swiss reformers, partly from a residence at Zurich, but still more from the natural vehemence of his character, he refused to wear the episcopal vestments. By the influence he had acquired from his learning, his indefatigable exertions, and his reputation for eminent sanctity, he had recommended himself to many of the leading reformers, had been Supported in his conscientious scruples by his patron the "earl of Warwick, and had even obtained the interposition of the youthful monarch in his favour. But in this instance Cranmer was inexorable. In his own sentiments he was not unfriendly to an alteration of the rubric; and on a former "occasion, when a scruple of conscience had been pleaded, he had given the strongest proof of his moderation, by dispensing with the use of the customary habits. But in the present instance new dangers had

* Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 302. The exertions of Hooper may be seen from the following notices in the Zurich letters. Micronius, writing to Pellicanus, in June 1549, calls Hooper the future Zuingle of England. The same to Bullinger, in Sept. 1549, speaks of Hooper's indefatigable exertions. Butler, writing to Stumphius in Feb. 1550, describes indefessum Hoperi in evangelio propagando studium. Utenhovius to Bullinger, in Jan. 1550, writes de summo Hoperi in officio ardore et mirifico fructu. And another correspondent of Bullinger says, in April 1551, Hoperus occupatissimus quotidie quatuor conciones habet. Comp. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. III. pp. 385. 402.

"Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 302.

* In the case of Sampson, in 1549, whom Cranmer and Ridley consented to ordain without the customary habits. Strype, Cran. vol. I.

p. 273. Life of Ridley, pp. 302. 303. Wood's Ath. Ox. vol. I. col. 549. ed. Bliss.

arisen, and great principles were at stake; and Cranmer refused to confer consecration, when, by so doing, he would have acted in violation of positive law, and in contempt of the authority of the church. These views finally prevailed; and Hooper, having persisted in his refusal till he had lost the yeonfidence not only of his countrymen, but even of the foreign reformers, yielded to an apparent *compromise, and received a consecration at the hands of Cranmer. The inquiries instituted in the progress of this dispute were decisive not only as to the conduct of the archbishop, but also as to the continuance of the rubric. The most eminent reformers, whether in England or on the continent, including "Martyr and Bucer, who endeavoured to overcome the resistance of Hooper, and “Bullinger and Calvin, who interceded in his favour, expressed an earnest hope that whenever an opportunity should arise, the obnoxious practice should be abandoned. The rubric was omitted in the second Liturgy, and the more temperate among the objectors were reconciled by the introduction of more simple vestments. But the dispute has ever since existed, although its outward form and

y John ab Ulmis, writing to Bullinger in Feb. 1551, says, Hoperus apud principes ob litem vestiariam excidit: and Hooper himself to Bullinger, in June 1550, states that a Lasco was the only person who supported him throughout. Hess, Catal. vol. II. pp. 30 and 53.

* Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 91.

a Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 364.

b Strype, Cran. vol. I. pp. 303. 304. 362.

• Bullinger, in a letter to Cranmer. See Cranmer's answer. Works, vol. I. p. 345. Calvin, in a letter to Somerset, which he notices in writing to Bullinger in 1551, (Calv. Epist. p. 60. ed. Amst.) and says that he approved of Hooper's resistance to the anointing; but wished him to acquiesce de pileo et veste linea; being however himself of opinion that such ceremonies should not be continued.

[ocr errors]

method of expression have sometimes varied. It was revived at Frankfort, and distracted the unhappy "church, which took refuge there during the reign of Mary. It was brought back to England on the accession of Elizabeth by Knox, Goodman, Whittingham, and others, and still continues in the persons of their successors to contract the usefulness, and to destroy the unity, of the British church. The other subject of dispute, which it appears necessary to notice, is the nature of the sacramental elements in the Lord's Supper. This subject, like the one already considered, might seem in itself to be of small compass, and of secondary importance; but it was then, and has often since been treated, as involving the main principles of the whole controversy, and as being itself the sum and substance of all the points disputed between the Reformers and the Romanists. Neither the interest, however, nor the intricacy of the subject terminated there. The reformers were agreed, as long as they confined themselves to the denial of the Romish doctrine; but they were immediately divided when they attempted the positive exposition of their own. Moreover, between the belief of the Lutherans, who held that the bread and the body were combined, and the extreme opinion of the anabaptists, who maintained that the whole service was merely a commemorative rite, there was space sufficient within the pale of the church for a “gradation of sentiments,

* See a tract entitled, “A brief Discourse of the troubles begun at Frankfort in Germany, an. Dom. 1554, about the Book of Common Prayer and Ceremonies, and continued by the Englishmen there to the end of Queen Mary's Reign,” published in 1575, reprinted in 1642.

e For instance; P. Martyr: “Fatemur non effigiem sive formam et accidentia panis subire hoc munus ut sint sacramenta, sed naturam

« EdellinenJatka »