only desire was to keep the booty for which they had canted: and whom the threat of severity, or at most the mere exposure to danger, would be enough to drive the Queen's way. From this conviction it was that in the first year of the reign so many priests and justices had the boldness to anticipate the alteration of the laws or that Gardiner, a statesman, fell in with the persecution, of which he instantly, but too late, learned the futility' (p. 731).

To have established unmistakably the firm foundation of the English Reform, to have surrounded the English Prayer Book with a halo never to be dissipated, to have glorified the cleansing of the Church from the old superstitions by so great a cloud of witnesses, to have given stability to that which they most hated, was the boon which that savage queen and her satellites, in spite of themselves, conferred upon the Church of England. There is good reason to believe that the actual conversion to Reforming opinions went on at a quicker rate during the reign of Mary, and in the midst of the burnings, than it had done in the reign of Edward. When Elizabeth came to the throne the nation was Protestant. A miserably small number of the clergy refused to accept the restoration of the English Prayer Book. The persecution, even in the dioceses where it raged the hottest, had not only failed to root out Reforming opinions, but had actually been unable to repress regular religious assemblages for worship according to the English Prayer Book. In Bonner's own diocese there existed through all the persecution a congregation, varying in number from 40 up to 200, which maintained constant meetings for religion during the whole of Mary's reign. The ministers of this congregation were Scambler, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough ; Foule; Rough, who was put to death by Bonner; Augustine Bernher; and finally Thomas Bentham, who continued in charge till the death of Queen Mary.

There are some other matters to be noted in this volume besides the history of the persecution. At p. 73 Weston, the Prolocutor of Convocation, is made to say, 'That blasphemous and erroneous book, which they call the Book of Common Prayer, never passed our Houses.' Upon this Canon Dixon notes, 'In my third volume I have given reasons for concluding that the Prayer Book was never submitted to Convocation in the reign of Edward. Or rather,' he says, correcting himself, 'I have exhibited the reasons both for and against that conclusion.' From what we remember of the third volume, the reasons for were certainly favoured by the writer rather than those against. We are glad to find by the

wording of this note that the view favoured in vol. iii. is somewhat shaken. Messrs. Gasquet and Bishop, in their recent work on the First Prayer Book, are also of opinion that it was not submitted to Convocation. But their statement of the evidence is somewhat incomplete. This is a matter of some importance, though not vital, as there can be no question of the present Prayer Book having received the deliberate sanction of Convocation. We maintain, however, in spite of faltering friends and insidious enemies, that both the First and Second Prayer Books drawn up under Edward VI. were submitted to Convocation. And first, with respect to the First Book. From certain rough notes which have been preserved we know that the examination of the new Divine Service was put down on the agenda for November 22, 1547. Was it then examined? Between that date and the time when it was brought into Parliament (December 19) there was ample time for an examination. Did it take place? The King's answer to the Devonshire rebels distinctly affirms that it did, and argues from this as to the authority of the Book. 'Whatsoever is contained in our book . . . is by our Parliament established, by our whole clergy agreed, yea, by the bishops of the realm devised.' In the same way Nicholas Udall, addressing the same insurgents, speaking of this Prayer Book, says, Hath the whole Convocation and Parliament, upon mature examination thereof, allowed it for service most godly and most mete to be uniformly used throughout the King's dominions, and so admitted it by a law?'2 Why are these assertions to be discredited? But an absolutely conclusive proof remains in the fact that the Council, writing to Bishop Bonner, who objected to the use of the book, allege that 'the book was approved and set forth by the bishops and all other learned men of the realm in their synods and convocations provincial. It is clearly absurd to suppose that this could have been used as an argument to Bonner, who was as much cognizant of all the facts as anyone, if he had known the contrary to be the case.3 Lord Selborne comments thus on the evidence: 'It is not surprising that evidence such as this convinced even Dean Stanley of the assent of Convocation

1

Joyce, England's Sacred Synods, p. 471.

Troubles connected with the Prayer Book of 1549.' Documents edited by Nicholas Pocock. Camden Society Publications, 1884, New Series, xxxvii. p. 169. See also p. 144.

3 Another most important piece of evidence is mentioned by Joyce (England's Sacred Synods, p. 471). 'A letter indited by his Majesty's Council to the Lady Mary on the subject of her chaplain saying Mass declares that such a proceeding is "a contempt of the ecclesiastical

to the Book of 1548-9.' As regards the Second Book, it was certainly drawn up by a committee of Convocation. It was probably submitted to the whole Convocation. It was certainly confirmed by the acceptance by Convocation of the forty-two Articles of Religion, which give it an express sanction. The notion that the First Book was not submitted to Convocation is due to a random shot of Peter Heylin, who, desirous to defend his patron Laud's utterly illegal introduction of the Scotch Book under the royal sanction, ventures the assertion that the same thing had been done by Edward VI. and Elizabeth. No one conversant with the worthy Peter's method of arguing would think much of this random assertion. It is probable that Weston's assertion refers not to the First but to the Second Book of Edward.

Canon Dixon frequently refers to the book of Gardiner, De Vera Obedientia, written to suit his master, Henry VIII., and strongly directed against the supremacy of the Pope. This book was a terrible difficulty to the unfortunate divine when he had changed his views to suit another authority, and had adopted the Papal supremacy, which before he had repudiated. It was put forth with a preface, usually attributed to Bonner, but which Canon Dixon will not accept as his, grounding himself on the authority of Dr. Maitland. Now Dr. Maitland was an ingenious man who spent his life in trying to overset received opinions, and, it must be confessed, with very considerable success. But old opinions have a habit of reasserting themselves, and sometimes die hard. If the preface was not written by Bonner, by whom was it written? It is quite sufficiently strong in the assertion of the opinions of the day to make its writer acceptable to the ruling power. Why, then, did he not reveal himself and claim his reward? If Bonner did not write the preface he certainly got the reward for it, being advanced by Thomas Cromwell to the see of Hereford, and afterwards to that of London, when he was willing to hold his episcopal jurisdiction on a licence from the King. The sort of indulgent kindness with which Canon Dixon treats Bonner all through the volume is very remarkable. He acknowledges that he put his prisoners cruelly in the stocks when they did not please him, that he beat them with his own hands, that he made them lodge in his coal-house, that he condemned to the fire numbers of illiterate, helpless people, after having over

,

orders of this Church of England." The contempt of ecclesiastical orders' can only mean contempt of proper synodical sanction. See also the evidence of Archbishop Abbott and Archbishop Bancroft.

1

Defence of the Church, p. 52.

whelmed them with insults and reproaches. We are unable to discover the extenuating circumstances which lead the historian to describe this brutal and ignorant man merely as an oddity;' and we would contrast the treatment meted out by Bonner to his prisoners with that which he himself received in the next reign. Though committed to the Marshalsea at the beginning of the reign, he was afterwards allowed to reside in his own house and garden, being unable, indeed, to venture out, lest he should be torn in pieces by the people. One of the not least striking passages in this volume is that which describes the character of the Pope, Paul IV., and the change which took place under him in the policy of the Papacy.

'This was the man who gave to the austere spirit which was entering into the Papacy the bent which it has never lost. A man of nearly eighty years of age, tall, muscular, and elastic, of rapid gait; a man of furious temper and ruthless will-it was he who founded the Theatines, one of the religious orders of that age, which combined the clerical and monastic life; it was he who had reconstituted the Inquisition sixteen years before, making it central and universal, hiring a house in Rome for head-quarters, and generously furnishing it as a gymnasium for heretics with blocks, bars, chains, and the rest of the requisite instruments of exercise. . . . The Papacy, under the appearance of generosity, splendour, and culture, had from this time. a secret grip which restricted intellectual freedom, stopped the flow of learning, and withered the life of nations. The Papacy henceforth existed not for the Christian religion, as under Gregory the Great ; not for the human race, as under Hildebrand; not for the arts, as under Nicholas the Fifth, but for its own claims, which were continually increased. Whatever the character of the Pope henceforth, the Popedom was the same. It was become a system of continuous institutions from which the reigning Pope could never escape. Of these institutions some of the most formidable were now first created, or worked in full power now for the first time-the Society of Jesus, the Roman Inquisition, and that branch of it which strangled intellectual liberty by the Index' (pp. 380-81).

In a note, Canon Dixon goes so far as to describe the modern Papacy as 'the greatest calamity that humanity has ever known.' We cannot but think that the revelations of this volume, and the bringing together in one view the whole picture of the terrible exhibition of this policy in England, may do something to check the growth of this 'calamity,' and to reveal the danger that lies hid in the soft advances of the Papal claims; for though of course modern society would not now tolerate ecclesiastical burnings, and even the most vicious Papalist could not hand over to the sheriff an unfortunate wretch to be put to death in tortures, yet, as Rome never changes, the

principle on which these executions were founded remains the same, and has never been disowned. That principle is that those connected with the 'Chair of St. Peter' have the right to coerce everyone that they can to accept their system of belief in its entirety, on the ground that outside of it and without it there is no salvation. On this point the sentiments of Pio Nono did not probably differ from those of Paul IV., the only difference arising on considerations of policy, power, and method. In fact, Rome claims now, as she did in the days of Mary, the right to tyrannize over the human conscience, and to assail it in ways sometimes gentle and insidious, sometimes fierce and murderous, in order to make it prostrate itself before the ever shifting and varying programme of Roman doctrine.

ART. X. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE.

The Intermediate State between Death and Judgment, being a Sequel to After Death. By HERBERT MORTIMER LUCKOCK, D.D., Canon of Ely. (London, 1890.)

DR. LUCKOCK has made the future state a special study. Some years ago he published a treatise, entitled After Death, which was well received and went through several editions; and now we have the present treatise on the Intermediate State. The two treatises take up different grounds, though at certain points they are intermingled. In regard to After Death, he tells us in the preface to the present work that it was written to elucidate three important questions regarding the Intermediate State-viz. (1) the lawfulness of praying in any way for the dead, (2) the grounds for believing in the intercessions of the dead on our behalf, and (3), as a consequence of this belief, the legitimacy of the practice of addressing appeals to the dead for their help or intercession. Dr. Luckock further tells us that the publication of the first treatise led him into a large correspondence both with friends and strangers, in which, as was very natural, many kindred questions were opened up. It is with these latter questions that he has attempted to deal in the present work. And it is only fair to the author to notice the distinction between the conditions which attach to the two works. The first treatise had for its basis authorities which could not be questioned; its foundation was, in fact, secure. In regard to the questions raised in the present work