worship of the church as he pleases -I reply that the common authority spoken of, means the authority of church as well as state, and the latter is only confirmatory of the former, or at least only temporal; and cannot effect alterations contrary to the will of the church, so as to have any obligation in foro conscientiæ.

VI. In fine, the convocation of the clergy in the reign of Elizabeth completed the reformation of the church of England. In In 1562, they compiled and authorized the XXXIX. Articles of Christian doctrine, which were published and confirmed legally by the supreme temporal authority. In 1571, and 1603, they enacted canons in their convocations, which were confirmed by Elizabeth and James I. Thus the ritual, Articles, and discipline of the church of England do not rest merely on temporal authority, but on the original sanction and subsequent practice and custom of the catholic churches of these realms.

k Towgood on Dissent, p. 10.

deprivations were tolerable, and she had the power of sanctioning them.

In the reign of Edward VI. several deprivations of bishops took place, by means of royal commissions, sometimes consisting of bishops, sometimes of laymen, which were apparently unjust as well as irregular. Boner bishop of London, Gardiner of Winchester, Heath of Worcester, Day of Chichester, and Tunstall of Durham, were expelled successively from their sees between 1549 and 1553. These irregularities I do not pretend to justify.

Burnet, ii. 234. 280. 305. 375. 398. Le Bas' Cranmer, i. 329.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE REIGN OF MARY.

THE deprivations of bishops alluded to above, were acts deserving of censure; and we therefore cannot view as an irregularity or an injustice the restoration of bishops Boner, Gardiner, Heath, Day, and Tunstall to their sees by the royal commissions of queen Mary', though the result was the expulsion of bishops Ridley, Poynet, and Scory, who had occupied those sees with at least the tacit sanction of the church. But other proceedings followed, which were too obviously dictated by a spirit of vengeance and hatred. The removal of bishop Hooper by the queen, from his see of Gloucester, which he held by regular and canonical institution', was altogether unjustifiable. Voysey was irregularly restored to the see of Exeter by an order under the great seal, expelling without any trial or formality whatever, bishop Coverdale, who had succeeded on his voluntary resignation. Pates, who had been nominated to the see of Worcester many years before by the pope, contrary to the ecclesiastical and civil regulations made in the reign of Henry VIII., was intruded into that see by royal

i Burnet, ii. 443.

j Ib. ii. 282.

k Ib. 306.

authority'. But in March, 1554, an unprecedented violation of justice and of ecclesiastical liberties took place. Royal commissions were appointed for the deprivation of no less than seven archbishops and bishops at once, some for the fact of marriage which the church of England had sanctioned, and others on a vague charge of offences, and the clause in their patents given by Edward VI. (which was a mere nullity)" quamdiu se bene gesserint "." Thus nine bishops were almost at once driven from their sees by the royal power. The bishop of Bath was compelled to resign by threats and intimidation". This is exclusive of Ridley, Poynet, and Scory, who were at once harshly expelled, and of archbishop Cranmer, afterwards degraded by two papal delegates, who besides being incompetent to judge according to the canons, acted by a power which was irregular and null, the papal jurisdiction having been suppressed in England, and never regularly revived again.

It is in vain that Bossuet would cloke the scandal of such proceedings by pretending that "until the ecclesiastical order was re-established they acted against the Protestants on their own maxims "." If these maxims were wrong in themselves, it could not be justifiable to act on them. They could only have afforded a sufficient reason for proceeding in a lawful manner against any who could have been proved to hold them. But there is no evidence that any maxims were received either

by the church of England generally, or by the prelates so arbitrarily and irregularly expelled, which could justify such proceedings.

Acts of such violence were without parallel in history. The expulsion of so many bishops by royal commissions; bishops not intruded into their sees by force, or on any doubtful title; and this too by a queen so well aware of the incompetency of the temporal power for such acts, as to refuse the title of Head of the church of England, decline accepting the oath of supremacy, and repeal all the laws establishing the ecclesiastical power of the crown; this expulsion, I say, is too obviously attributable to a spirit of hatred towards those bishops who promoted the reformation of the church of England and its independence of the Roman pontiffs; and to the revengeful feeling of Gardiner and Boner, who being elevated to the head of affairs (Gardiner was immediately made lord chancellor of England), had the power as well as the inclination to persecute their opponents. The same motives which influenced Gardiner and Boner operated on Tunstall, Heath, and Day, ranging them in opposition to the cause of the reformation in the church of England. They were reinforced by a few weak or time-serving prelates, and by fourteen new bishops selected for their implicit devotion to the Roman pontiff, and chiefly intruders into the sees of the expelled bishops.

In contemplating these proceedings in the reign of Mary, we observe all the principles of ecclesiastical discipline violated by the popish party, in their anxiety to place these churches under that jurisdiction of the Roman see which they imagined to be essential to catholic unity. This imagined necessity caused them to violate the rules of the church, and to subvert our

VOL. I.

I i