It is necessary to notice the assertions here made by Burnet, with a view to delude his readers on the doctrine of venerating and using images in churches, and to screen the sacrilegious rapine of the reformers, who pillaged the shrines and altars to glut their own avarice. Cranmer, it is admitted, took the lead in this matter, as we have proved him heading every other measure of iniquity and outrage. He is stated to have grounded his advice for removing all the images set up in churches, as being contrary both to the second commandment, and the practice of the purest ages of Christianity. That "all images were 66 condemned by the fathers, then the use of them was allowed, but the "worshipping of them was condemned." That abuses arose, and “had "6 now grown to such a height, that heathenism itself had not been guilty of greater absurdities towards its idols." This is mere gratuitous assertion, unaccompanied by a single fact. The practice of using images is coeval with Christianity, and the worshipping or reverencing them was never condemned by the early fathers, but, on the contrary, the fathers wrote in defence of this doctrine. St. Gregory of Nyssa, who died late in the fourth century, and consequently lived in that age when Protestants admit the Christian church to have been pure, thus speaks to his audience, when celebrating the feast of the martyr Theodorus: "When any one enters such a place as this, where the memory "of this just man and his relics are preserved, his mind is first struck "while he views the structure and all its ornaments-with the gene"ral magnificence that breaks upon him. The artist has here shewn "his skill in the figures of animals, and the airy sculpture of the stone; "while the painter's hand is most conspicuous in delineating the high " achievements of the martyr; his torments; the savage forms of his "executioners; their furious efforts; the burning furnace; and the happy consummation of the laborious contest. The figure of Chris " is also beheld, looking down upon the scene. Thus, as in a book the "letters convey the history, so do the colours describe the conflict of "the martyr, and give the beauty of a flowery mead to the walls of our "temple. The picture, though silent, speaks, and gives instruction to "the beholder; nor is the mosaic pavement, which we tread on, less "instructive.”—(Orat. de Theod. Martyr. t. ii. p. 1011.)

The Book of Martyrs says, the worshipping of images was generally received in the eighth and ninth centuries, after a long contest. This is an allusion to the heresy of the Iconoclasts or image destroyers, which was opposed by all the prelates of the Catholic church, and, like all other heresies, when possessed of the civil sword, was supported by brute force and persecution. The founder of this sect was the emperor Leo III. sprung from a plebeian family in Isauria. He, like the reformers in our Edward's reign, sent forth an edict, ordering the images of our Saviour, and his virgin mother, and the saints, to be removed out of the churches under the severest penalties. This extraordinary declaration against the universal practice of the Catholic church excited. murmurs and discontent at Constantinople, the seat of the empire. St. Germain, the patriarch of that see, tried by mild persuasion to disabuse, the emperor of his error, and represented to him, that from the time of the apostles this relative honour had been paid to the images of Christ and his blessed mother. Leo was ignorant and obstinate, he commanded

"

all the images and pictures to be collected and burned. The people resisted, and by an imperial order were massacred without mercy. St. Germain was driven into banishment, and a temporising priest, another Cranmer, was thrust into his place. This took place in the year 729. The holy pope Gregory III. on coming to the papal chair, wrote a long epistle to the emperor, exhorting him to desist from his unholy purposes, and among other things he tells him, "Our churches in their. "rude state are but the work of the builders, a rough fabric of stone, "of wood, of brick, of lime, and mortar. But within they are adorned "with rich paintings; with historical representations of Jesus Christ " and his saints. On these the converted gentiles, the neophytes, and "children of the faithful gaze with no less profit than delight. In these "they behold the mysteries of our religion displayed before their eyes; by these they are animated to the practice of virtue, and silently taught to raise their affections and hearts to God. But of these ex"ternal helps to virtue and religious information you have deprived the "faithful, you have profanely stript the churches of their sacred orna"ments, which so much contributed to edify, to instruct, and animate. "In doing this you have usurped a power which God has not given to "the sceptre. The empire and the priesthood have their respective powers, differing from each other in their use and object. As it be"longs not to the bishop to govern within the palace, and to distribute "civil dignities, so it does not belong to the emperor to command " within the church, or to assume a spiritual jurisdiction, which Christ "has left solely to the ministers of his altar. Let each one of us move " and remain within the sphere to which he is called, as the apostle ad "monishes."-(Reeve's Hist. of the Church, vol. ii. p. 9.)

This emperor, however, continued the persecution whilst he lived, and his son Constantine Copronymus, when he mounted the throne, exceeded his father's barbarity, and extended the persecution through all the provinces. After a cruel reign of thirty-four years, Constantine was seized by death, and his son Leo followed his steps in harassing the church during the five years that he reigned. He was succeeded by his wife the empress Irene, who, being a Catholic, gave peace to the church, and by her desire a council was called by pope Adrian, which assembled at Nice, on the 24th of September, 787. It consisted of 377 bishops from Greece, Thrace, Natolia, the islands of the Archipelago, Sicily, and Italy. The prelates thus assembled were occupied in examining the fathers, the conduct of the Iconoclasts, and the objections made against the practice of venerating images. In the seventh session of the synod the bishops came to the following decision:-" After mature delibera"tion and discussion, we solemnly declare, that holy pictures and images, especially of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, of his immaculate "Mother our Lady, of the angels and other saints, are to be set up in "churches as well as in other places, that at the sight of them the faithful may remember what they represent; that they are to be ve"nerated and honoured, not indeed with that supreme honour and worship, which is called Latria, and belongs to God alone, but with a relative and inferior honour, such as is paid to the cross, to the gospel, and other holy things, by the use of incense or of burning lights. For the honour paid to images passes to the architypes or

་་

"

"

things represented, and he who reveres the image, reveres the person it represents. Such has been the practice of our pious forefathers, "such is the tradition of the Catholic church transmitted to us, this "ecclesiastical tradition we closely hold conformably to the injunction given by St. Paul to the Thessalonians."-(2 Thess. c. ii. v. 14.) The decree was published and received with loud acclamations by the people; Iconoclasm died away, and was heard of no more, till the reformers of the sixteenth century thought fit to revive it with many other pernicious doctrines, that entailed misery upon the people where happiness before reigned. To shew the concurrent belief of the Catholic church in all ages on this ancient practice, we will here give the decree of the council of Trent, which sat at the same period when the work of devastation was going forward in England, by comparing which with the sentiments of Gregory III. and the council of Nice, the reader will see that the doctrine of the Catholic church is invariable, and that what was taught in the eighth century was grounded on the universal practice of the church from the time of the apostles, as it was in the sixteenth century, and is now at the present day. The council of Trent decreed, "That images of Christ, of the blessed Virgin, and of other saints, are "to be exposed and retained particularly in churches, and that due honour and veneration are to be shown them; not as believing that any divinity or virtue is in them, for which they should be honoured; or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any trust be placed in "them, as the Gentiles once did in their idols: but because the honour given to pictures is referred to the prototypes, which they represent; so that through the images, which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, and kneel, we may learn to adore Christ, and to "venerate his saints."-(Sess. xxv. de Invocat. SS. p. 289.) Having thus clearly established the doctrinal part of the subject, we may now proceed to examine the motives which induced the reformers of the sixteenth century to adopt the violent measures of the Iconoclasts of the eighth, or, as Burnet says, "to clear the churches of images, that the "people might be PRESERVED from idolatry."

"

『་

But though, as Burnet would make us believe, the advisers of the youthful Edward were anxious to preserve the people from idolatry, they were not so feelingly alive to preserve for them those civil privivileges which had hitherto made them a free and happy nation. Of this, however, we have not a word in the modern Book of Martyrs; it is therefore necessary that we should supply the omission. The object of the modern editors is to mislead the public mind, and excite hatred against the Catholics and their religion; ours is to elucidate the truth, and, by removing the veil of ignorance which has so long clouded the Protestant mind, dissipate those groundless prejudices which interested bigots have so long kept alive against the professors of the ancient faith of the kingdom. While the chief reformers were hypocritically exclaiming against idolatry, or the use of images in churches, they were worshipping and paying adoration to the mammon of iniquity, and contriving means how to aggrandize themselves both in titles and estates. Though Harry's will was in some respects wholly disregarded, in others it was made to sanction the schemes of ambition which the factious leaders meditated. Set a beggar on horseback, and it is said he will

ride to the devil; the same we may say of the prominent characters who ruled under Edward VI. Of the sixteen individuals named as executors to the late king's will, it was remarked that they were men hitherto but little known, having no claim to high birth, but raised to their present rank by the partiality of Harry, and their readiness to pander to his vices. Of their moral character some estimate may be formed from the fact, that after having solemnly sworn to see the last will and testament of their late master scrupulously fulfilled, they almost immediately absolved themselves from the obligation of that oath, to comply with the ambitious projects of the protector Hertford. In another point of view, however, where their personal interests were concerned, they took care that nothing should be neglected that could help their own aggrandizement. In the body of Henry's will, there was a clause charging the executors with ratifying every gift, and performing every promise which he should have made before his death. Here was a sweeping charge, which it was resolved to turn to the best account. Dr. Lingard, in his History of England, says,-" What these gifts and promises might be, must, it was presumed, be known to Paget, Herbert, and Denny, who had stood high in the confidence, and "been constantly in the chamber of the dying monarch. These gen"tlemen were therefore interrogated before their colleagues: and from "their depositions it was inferred, that the king had intended to give a "dukedom to Hertford, to create the earl of Essex, his queen's brother, a marquess, to raise the viscount Lisle, and lord Wriothesley to the higher rank of earls, and to confer the title of baron on sir Thomas Seymour, sir Richard Rich, sir John St. Leger, sir William Willough"by, sir Edward Sheffield, and sir Christoper Danby: and that, to enable "the new peers to support their respective titles, he had destined for "Hertford an estate in land of 800l. per annum, with a yearly pension "of 3001. from the first bishopric, which should become vacant, and the "incomes of a treasurership, a deanery, and six prebends, in different "Cathedrals: for each of the others a proportionate increase of yearly "income; and for the three deponents, Paget, Herbert, and Denny, "400 pounds, 400 marks, and 200 pounds. Two out of the number, "St. Leger and Danby, had sufficient virtue to refuse the honours and revenues which were allotted to them: Hertford was created duke of "Somerset, Essex marquess of Northampton, Lisle earl of Warwick, "Wriothesley earl of Southampton, and Seymour, Rich, Willoughby "and Sheffield, barons of the same name: and to all these, with the "exception of the two last, and to Cranmer, Paget, Herbert, and Denny, " and more than thirty other persons, were assigned in different pro"6 portions manors and lordships out of the lands, which had belonged "to the dissolved monasteries, or still belonged to the existing bishop"rics. But sir Thomas Seymour was not satisfied: as uncle of the king "he aspired to office no less than rank: and to appease his discontent "the new earl of Warwick resigned in his favour the patent of high "admiral, and was indemnified with that of great chamberlain, which "Somerset had exchanged for the dignities of lord high treasurer, and "earl marshal, forfeited by the attainder of the duke of Norfolk."These proceedings did not pass without severe animadversion. Why, "it was asked, were not the executors content with the authority which

"

they derived from the will of their late master? Why did they re"ward themselves beforehand, instead of waiting till their young sove"reign should be of age, when he might recompense their services according to their respective merits?" Thus the reader will see that though the crime of idolatry is represented as having touched the consciences of these menders of religion, they were not averse to the crimes of self-aggrandizement, robbery, and sacrilege. We should have added forgery too; for the same historian remarks, that though the clause to the above effect appears in the body of the will, yet it is somewhat mysterious that it should be ordered, as the deponents testified, to be inserted only when the king was on his death-bed, that is, about January the 28th, and the will purports to be executed three weeks before, on the 30th of December.

We must now notice the funeral of Henry. The ceremony was performed with very great pomp, and while the body lay in state at Whitehall, MASSES were said every day, so that it is as clear as the sun at noon-day, that though Protestants are now compelled, in order to qualify for civil office, to swear that the mass is idolatry, yet Cranmer; and all the crew of reformers at the beginning of Edward's reign, as well as the reign of the first pope of the English church, believed in and followed the doctrine and practice of this great sacrifice. The king himself, by his will left 600l. a year for masses to be said for the repose of his soul, but this part of his will was soon violated and the money appropriated to other purposes, as he had impiously deprived others of the same religious benefit. Next followed the coronation of the young king, the ceremony of which was much shortened, and an alteration was made of so important a nature that we shall give the relation in Dr. Lingard's words. "That the delicate health of the young king," says the historian, "might not suffer from fatigue, the accustomed ceremony was considerably abridged: and, under respect for the laws and con"stitution of the realm, on important alteration was introduced into "that part of the form, which had been devised by our Saxon ancestors, to put the new sovereign in mind that he held his crown by the "free choice of the nation. Hitherto it had been the custom for the archbishop, first to receive the king's oath to preserve the liberties of "the realm, and then to ask the people if they were willing to accept him, and obey him as their liege lord. Now the order was inverted: “and not only did the address to the people precede the oath of the king, but in that very address they were reminded, that he held his crown by descent, and that it was their duty to submit to his rule."Sirs,' said the metropolitan, I here present king Edward, rightful "and undoubted inheritor, by the laws of God and man, to the royal "6 dignity and crown imperial of this realm, whose consécration, inunction, and coronation, is appointed by all the nobles and peers of the "land to be this day. Will ye serve at this time, and give your good "wills and assents to the same consecration, inunction, and coronation, "as by your duty of allegiance ye be bound to do?' When the accla"mations of the spectators had subsided, the young Edward took the accustomed oath, first on the sacrament, and then on the book of the gospels. He was next anointed, after the ancient form: the protector "and the archbishop placed on his head successively three crowns,