Part 37

1812. This year has been yet distinguished by nothing more than a miserable stagnation of trade, and a probability of the bread and beer and other necessaries of life being dearer than ever. Nothing, in short, appears to be going on here now with vigour or spirit, but the methodist erection above mentioned and taxgathering; so that were we required to name whatever is here at present in a very thriving state, or rapidly on the increase, we should be able to mention scarce any thing besides these two articles, _taxation_ and _methodism_.—As to the much talked of _Evening Lecture_ at the Church, it will seemingly be given up at last; our churchmen not having zeal enough to effect its accomplishment.—As to the _Dispensary_, its prospect of success is far more flattering, and there can be little doubt now of its speedy establishment: large sums have been already subscribed, a house has been purchased, or is about to be purchased, and every thing fairly promises the sure completion of the undertaking, and the full application of its benefits to those classes of the inhabitants for whose behoof or relief the institution is intended. That it has succeeded better than the proposed _Lecture_, will perhaps be considered by some people as an indication, that our wealthy churchmen are more ready to provide for the _corporeal_ than for the _spiritual_ accommodation of their neighbours.—Of the notable plan of _economy_, so laudably adopted, and so steadily pursued during the present mayoralty, to save certain expenses usually attached to that important office, some account has been given at pages 1087, and 1154.—Of the present state of the _Workhouse_, and the prospect in regard to the future management of it, and of the _poor-rates_, some further observations, in this latter part of the work, were intended; but our information is too imperfect to admit of our resuming these subjects at present: we can therefore only say, that it is to be feared our sanguine hopes of being greatly benefited by the new plan, or lately adopted system, will, after all, terminate in useless regret and vexatious disappointment. Whatever they may do on the other side, it seems now pretty clear that our managers are not likely very soon to fall into the sin of being too frugal or economical in the application of the public money. {1215}—Among the extraordinary and memorable events of this year, the tragical exit or assassination of our late premier will be expected, perhaps, to be here noticed: and much as we do deplore that shocking catastrophe, we would fain hope it will operate as a warning to all future ministers, not to trifle with the serious complaints and sufferings of their fellow subjects. What may be the results of that fatal and melancholy occurrence, and the subsequent changes, it is impossible yet to say. They seem to have already produced the _rescinding_ of the vile and pernicious _orders of council_, which had reduced almost half the nation to distress and beggary, and proved how easily the Americans can cramp our manufactories. Should they also produce a redress of the grievances complained of by the Catholics and other Dissenters, together with a thorough parliamentary reform, and a general peace, we may still escape national perdition, and even hope yet to see brighter and happier days.—The convulsion and expulsion lately experienced at the _Independent_, or rather _Presbyterian_ chapel, may be also placed among the remarkable occurrences of this year. That congregation, it is hoped, (and all our other congregations) will no longer tolerate _priestcraft_, or submit to be _priest-ridden_. Whatever may be said of their successors who denominate themselves _Independents_, our _Presbyterian ministers_, we believe, were never chargeable with priestly domination.

_FINIS_.

ERRATA. {1216}

Page 638, last word of the contents of section III, for _ineffetual_ r. _ineffectual_.—p. 638, l. 8, _for fovourite_ r. _favourite_—p. 735, l. 9, after _them_ a _comma_.—p. 773, l. 2, after _conscience_ a _semicolon_.—p. 782, last line but one, after _absentees_, a _comma_. —p. 794, l. 4, for _rejected_, r. _ejected_—p. 800, l. 5, after _stand_, r. _by_.—p. 803, l. 21, after _rubbish_, a comma—p. 821, l. 9, for _Guyborn_, r. _Guybon_.—same page, l. 19, after _even_ r. _the_.—p. 835, l. 21, for _Assesiation_ r. _Association_—p. 847, Note, l. 19, for _proceeding_ r. _preceding_.—p. 959, last line but one, for _egregiously_ r. _eggregiously_—p. 1027, note, l. 24, for _pastime_ r. _patience_.—p. 1087, l. 14, for _exegencies_ r. _exigences_.—p. 1106 l. 1, _comma_ after _here_—p. 1127, note, l. 5, for _townsnen_ r. _townsmen_.—p. 1140, last l. for 1570 r. 1590—p. 1142, note, l. 8, after _could_ r. _not_. —p. 1147, note, l. 2, after _much_ r. _to his_.

_Whittingham_, _Printer_, _Lynn_.

FOOTNOTES.

{625a} Such as the lawfulness of suppressing reputed error by violence, or of contending for the faith and extirpating heresy by fire and sword.

{625b} For instance, translating the scriptures into the vulgar tongue, and putting them into the hands of the common people, that they might examine and judge for themselves.

{626a} _Bucer_ owns, as will be seen further on, that their converts considered this doctrine as favourable to their licentious propensities.

{626b} “I say, (says _Calvin_,) that by the ordination and will of God Adam fell. God would have man fall. Man is blinded by the will and commandment of God. We refer the causes of hardening to God. The highest and remote cause of hardening is the will of God. It followeth that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening.” [See Barclay’s Apology, Edit. 1703, p. 113, where reference is made to those places in Calvin’s Works where these expressions are found.] Those who are acquainted with this reformer’s _Institution_, must know that many passages to the same purpose, and equally strong, occur there.—Others of the reformers come not a whit behind Calvin in the boldness of their language on this topic.—“God (says _Beza_) hath predestinated, not only unto damnation, but also unto the causes of it, whomsoever he saw meet. The decree of God cannot be excluded from the causes of corruption.”—“It is certain (says _Zanchius_) that God is the first cause of obduration. Reprobates are held so fast under God’s almighty decree, that they cannot but sin and perish.”—“God (says _Peter Martyr_) doth incline and force the wills of wicked men into great sins.”—“God, (says _Zuinglius_) moveth the robber to kill. He Killeth, God forcing him thereunto.” [See _Barclay_, as before.]

{628a} Luth. Serm. in Postill. Evang. 1. Adv.

{628b} Luth. Serm. Dom. 26, post Trin.

{628c} Luth. in Serm. conviv.

{628d} Bucer de regn. Christ. 1, i. c, 4.

{628e} See Milner’s Letters to Sturges, 3d. Ed. p. 170, 171, &c. a work that contains a great deal of very curious matter on these subjects, and on most of the great points at issue between the catholics and their opponents.

{629a} Calv. 1. vi. de scand. quoted by Milner, as before.

{629b} Erasm. Ep. 1. vi. 4.—It appears by the mode of expression here used, that notwithstanding all the unfavourable and unchristian-like effects of their ministry, they actually did, like some modern, labourers in the same vineyard, boldly arrogate to themselves the exclusive name of _evangelical_ ministers, or propagators of the genuine and pure _gospel_.

{630} Erasm ad. Frat. Infer. Germ, quoted by Milner, as before, p. 172.

{632} Mosheim, iii, 313.

{634} See Milner, as before: 182.—_Carlostadius_ was Luther’s first disciple of any considerable note: and he co-operated with, and supported him with great firmness and ability. But having ventured to alter the mass, during Luther’s absence in the year 1521, and to deny the real presence, the latter commenced a furious war against him and his followers, and condemned them in terms of the utmost rancor and bitterness. _Melancthon_ too (misnamed the _mild_) now calls him “a brutal ignorant man, void of piety and humanity, one more a Jew than a christian.”—a rare specimen of mildness and meekness!

{636a} See Milner as before, 188.—It is not said how Henry brooked all this; but it was well for Luther that he was not within his reach. The most curious circumstance is that “Luther, in giving an account of his book, reproaches himself with having been _too mild_ in it towards the king, saying that he did so at the request of his friends, in hopes that his _sweetness_ would gain Henry.”—If such was Luther’s _sweetness_, what could his _sourness_, or his _bitterness_ be?

{636b} Milner, 181.

{636c} Ibid, 132.—No wonder he should behave as he did to Cariostadius, whose chief crime seems to be his having acted _without his authority_, though in conjunction with Bugenhagius, Melanancthon, Jonas, &c. He continued afterwards to persecute him with unrelenting virulence, and nothing would satisfy him short of absolute submission to his sovereign will and pontifical mandates. His banishment ensued. He appears to have been one of the best men among the reformers. It seems, however, that Luther was at last convinced of his misconduct in this affair, and obtained permission for his return from exile. See Mosheim, IV. 30.

{637} See Milner, 123.

{638} See Milner, 185, 186, where the authorities are referred to.

{642} Their blindness generally proceeded from a fallacious kind of reasoning, which is still very common among their orthodox descendants or successors, but which, like a two-edged sword, cuts both ways. They plead that they are the people of God, and are in the right way, so that their cause is the cause of God and truth, and therefore the papists are cruel persecutors when they deprive them of their lives or liberties. When they are reminded of having themselves before now deprived the papists and other christian sects of their liberties and lives, they answer, that that was done very justly, as those sufferers were either seditious persons or heretics, and what they did to them was in the way of suppressing _sedition_ or restraining _heresy_. When they are told that the papists excuse and justify their own violent proceedings against the protestants much in the same way and with equal plausibility, they will answer, that what the papists assert is not true. When they are further told that the papists insist upon the truth of their allegations and the falshood of those of the protestants, they will reply that the papists belonging to a false church and influenced by a lying spirit, are not to be credited, but as for them, being the people of God and followers of the truth, their testimony ought to be received without hesitation.—Thus their reasoning ends just where it began—We are God’s people, and therefore our proceedings are not to be impeached! No better reasoning can be expected in defence of injustice and persecution.

{644} Robinson’s Pref. to 3d. vol. of Saurin, p. xii.

{645} The French protestants, or Gallic Calvinists were no less bigoted and intolerant than their brethren elsewhere. Their ministers, in 1563, requested that in order to prevent the propagation of heresy and monstrous opinions, the king would be pleased to receive into his royal protection their confession of faith tendered to him in 1561, and the profession of it; and to provide that atheists, libertines, anabaptists, and Servetists should be severely punished. See Priestley’s Ecclesiastical History, 6, 135.

{646} See p. 636.

{649} “He was called up to the cardinal (Wolsey) for heresie, where he was content to subscribe and graunte unto such articles as they propounded unto him.” Fox A. and M. p. 1736. This happened in 1529. In 1531 he was cited before the archbishop of Canterbury, Wareham, on fresh charges of heresy, and forced to sign an abjuration of them—see Fox, p. 4738. The third time he was called upon, with certain others, to give an account of his opinions, by Henry himself, on which occasion he escaped by an absolute submission of himself to his supreme head in spiritual matters. His fourth and last recantation was when he was deprived of his bishopric, and committed prisoner to the Tower, where he lay till the end of Henry’s reign, on suspicion of heresy, and for violating the fast and abstinence of Good Friday.—It has been suggested that imprisonment did not constitute the whole of his correction or chastisement on this occasion, as Shaxton bishop of Salisbury was forced to recant his Lutheran opinions, and carry a faggot at the burning of four other protestants, in 1546; and it is not likely that Henry would have been content with less from Shaxton’s fellow prisoner, Latimer, than a solemn abjuration of his doctrine.—See Milner, as before, page, 196.

{650} See Milner, p. 196.—Latimer’s name is to the sentence of Joan of Kent, who was burnt in 1549. See Burnet’s Hist. Ref. part ii. b. i. rec. 35. It also appears from Collier and Fox that he was one of the leading bishops who sat at the trial of Lambert the martyr.—See Milner, as before.

{651} See his signature to the sentence against Van Parre; in Burnet’s H. Ref. as before.

{652a} See Milner, 194.

{652b} Fox A. and M.

{652c} Collier vol. ii. rec. 22.

{653a} Heylin Hist. Eliz. p. 89.

{653b} Collier vol. ii. rec. 24.

{653c} Collier, as before.

{653d} Burnet, Collect b. ii. n. 47.

{654a} The royal pair were married by Dr. Rowland Lee, in the presence of Cranmer, the duke of Norfolk, &c. Nov. 14, 1532. Heylin Hist. Eliz. p. 89. Stow fixes the marriage two months later, viz. Jan. 25, 1533. Elizabeth was born September 7. 1583.

{654b} The prevailing notion seems to be, that Henry’s wish for a divorce arose from his attachment to Ann Boleyn; but from a paper in the 3rd. volume of the Harieian Miscellany it appears to be unfounded. We learn from that paper that archbishop Warham was from the first averse to Henry’s marriage with his brother’s widow, but that Fox bishop of Winchester inclined Henry VII. to be for it, as a dispensation from the pope would remove all difficulties. It appears further that the king (Henry VII.) afterwards thought with Warham: and the day the prince came of age he by his father’s order protested against it as null and void. His father also with his dying breath persisted in charging him to break it off. The king continued to have scruples, and at last sent Cardinal Wolsey to France to negotiate a match between him and the duchess of Alencon about August 1527. After that Lord Rochford came over from France with the picture of the duchess. His daughter Ann Boleyn, who was in the duchess’ service, came over probably at the same time; and then it was that Henry set his affection upon her.—There can be no truth therefore in the report that she was the cause of alienating the king’s affections from Catherine, and his scrupling the marriage. The Cardinal returned from France September 30, 1527; and it was not till afterwards that the king expressed to him his attachment to Ann Boleyn. Harl. Misc. vol. 3. p. 43.

{655a} See letter in Burnet History Ref. b. iii. p. 200.

{655b} Burnet, p. 203.

{655c} The two sentences, the one of attainder for adultery, the other of a divorce because of precontract, did so contradict one another, that one if not both must be unjust. Burnet.

{655d} Heylin, Edw. p. 28.

{656a} Collier, vol. p. 218. Burnet.

{656b} See Milner’s 5th Letter to Sturges, whence the above passages or quotations are taken, mostly verbatim.

{657a} Fuller says: “It cannot be denied that he had a hand in the execution of Lambert, Frith, and other godly martyrs,” adding that he would leave him to sink or swim by himself where he is guilty. Ch. Hist. b. 5. sec. 2. He elsewhere accuses Cranmer of arguing against the aforesaid Lambert contrary to his own private judgment; and remarks that “as the latter was burnt for denying the corporal presence, so Cranmer himself was afterwards condemned and died at Oxford for maintaining the same opinion,” b. 5. sec. 6.

{657b} She is also called Joan Butcher and Joan of Kent—“When he (Cranmer) was on the point of passing sentence upon her, . . . she reproached him for passing the like sentence upon another woman, Ann Askew, for denying the carnal presence of Christ in the sacrament; telling him that he had condemned the said Ann Askew not long before for a piece of bread, and was then ready to condemn her for a piece of flesh.” Heylin, Edw. vi, p. 89.—As three other protestants, Lassels, Otterden, and Adams were burnt with Askew for the selfsame cause, there is every appearance that Cranmer was as instrumental in their punishment as he was in that of Askew. (Milner, 207.)

{657c} See the process of their condemnation in Burnet’s Collect. of Rec. part ii, b. 1, n. 35.

{658a} In 1538 a special commission was granted to Cranmer, with two other bishops and six other persons, to try _summaris el de plano_, even though they had not been denounced or detected, all Anabaptists, &c. and to deliver them over to the secular arm. Collier vol. 2. sec. 46.—Within a month from the date of this commission, viz. Nov. 24. I find two Anabaptists burnt, and four bearing faggots. Stow.—About a year after this, by virtue of a special commission, Cranmer with certain other bishops tried Alexander Seaton for protestant opinions, and condemned him to bear a faggot and recant at St. Paul’s Cross, which he did accordingly. Collier, vol. 2 p. 184. The same year three other Anabaptists were burnt by virtue of the former commission. Stow—In Edward’s reign certain chiefs (of the Gospellers and Anabaptists) were condemned April 12, 1549, before the archbishop (Cranmer), the bishop of Westminster, and Drs. Cox, May, Cole, and Smith. Being convicted, some of them were dismissed only with an admonition, some sentenced to a recantation, and others condemned to bear their faggots at St. Paul’s. Heylin, p. 73. About the same time John Champneys of Stratford was convented before Cranmer, Latimer, and two other doctors, at which time he was forced to recant upon oath certain “heretical and damnable opinions” concerning regeneration, &c. as also to carry a faggot. In like manner John Ashton, priest, being convented before Cranmer, abjured his heresies, &c. and took an oath to submit to whatever penance was enjoined. Ex. Regist. Cranm. Collier part ii. b. i, rec. 35.

{658b} Milnes, as before, p. 208.

{659a} Perhaps she meant no more than that he was born free from that natural pollution or hereditary depravity implied in the orthodox doctrine of original sin.

{659b} Burnet, past ii p, 111, 112. Milner, p. 208, 209.

{660a} The two first of these retractions are without date. The third appears to have been signed Feb. 14. The fourth is dated Feb. 16; and the last is dated March 13. See Strype’s Mem. Ecc. vol. iii, p. 134. Cranmer retracted his recantations and was executed March 21.

{660b} Milner, as before, 210.

{661} Stow’s Annals, an. 1546. Milner, p. 173.

{662a} Hist. Ref. part ii. p. 226.

{662b} Heylin’s Hist. Ref. Edward IV, 1550. Milner, 174.

{662c} Strype’s Mem. Eccl. p. 440.

{663a} Strype’s Mem. Eccl. B. 11. c. xxiii.

{663b} Camden, Appar. ad Annal Eliz.—Milner 175.

{664} The unfavourable and ill effects of the reformation on the manners, and morals of the people, both at home and abroad, must be chiefly ascribed to some of the great defects of the system—some of its most prominent features or distinguishing doctrines, as was before suggested—such as justification by faith without works, predestination to perdition as well as to salvation, or election and reprobation representing all human characters and actions (even the most horrid crimes), as emanating or resulting from the decrees of Heaven, or will of God—doctrines which certainly cannot be said to be favourable to practical holiness or virtuous living. Yet they form a main part of what has been called _evangelical_ religion ever since. As to their licentious tendency, Luther is known to have gone very far, and expressed himself very strongly on the above doctrine of _justification_; even so as to speak very slightly of the _Epistle of James_, calling it “dry, chaffy, and unworthy the apostolic spirit,” for no other reason than its manifest opposition to his views of this doctrine. He probably deemed that Epistle far inferior to his own writings when he called himself the _second Elias_ and the _Chariot of Israel_, and said in his book against the king of England, “My ministry and calling are of that excellency that it is in vain for princes or any persons on earth to expect submission or forbearance from me.” Be this as it may, it is evident, from _Bucer’s_ testimony, (see p. 628) that the reformed converts made a great handle of that doctrine, and considered it as excusing and encouraging their licentiousness: and Bucer was a witness of the effects of the reformation in England as well as on the continent.—As to those reformed doctrines relating to the _Divine Decrees_, or predestination to perdition as well as to salvation, and which are commonly comprehended under the terms Election and Reprobation, their loose and licentious tendency, must be obvious to every unbiassed mind, seeing they place good and evil, virtue and vice, truth and error, right and wrong, as it were upon a level, and in effect annihilate all the distinctions between them, making the worst as well as the best of human actions to be agreeable to the will of God and the offspring of his eternal counsel or purpose. Where such doctrines prevail it may be expected that moral restraints will be soon overpowered.

{668} So far they were evidently of use, and their suppression was a real and public loss, in that view and as things then stood.

{672} In the days of Wickliff, and for a good while after, there was among the common people a spirit of revolt against papal tyranny and corruption; but that spirit had been suppressed and extinguished before Henry had begun his work of reformation. Between his work and that of Wickliff there was a wide and striking difference—the former originated with the court, the latter with some thinking men at Oxford; the former was carried on by royal caprice, orders of council, and acts of parliament, the latter by the diligent and persevering exertions and eloquence of private individuals of integrity and learning, who were convinced of its importance, and who travelled on foot about the country to instruct and enlighten the people, in order to improve their manners, their morals and their religious principles.

{673} This might be the reason why so many places of worship besides the convents, and which had no connection with them, were here laid by and demolished at that time—such as the church or chapel of St. James, those of St. John, and of St. Catherine, &c. the demolition of which, except for the reason now suggested, must appear exceedingly unaccountable.—As to the church or chapel of _St. Catherine_, of whose site the author expressed much uncertainty at p. 559, he now begs leave to inform the reader that he has been since led to conclude, from some old MSS. that it stood in that small field without the East gate, on the left hand as we go out of the town, and which is now enclosed from the road by a brick wall. It appears that it retained the name of _St. Catherine’s ground_ long after the church had disappeared.

{674} Many of them could hardly read; and as to preaching, it was what few of them were capable of. To supply that deficiency the _Book of Homilies_ was provided, and the reading of those homilies, for a while, appears to have supplied the place of preaching. But the plan was ill calculated to instruct and enlighten the common people, though it might be of use to their superiors.

{675a} Hist. Ref. 1. 317.

{675b} Hist. Ref. as before.

{676} Burnet Hist. Ref. as before.