In respect to the right of nominating to bishop, rics,-they were finally settled-in Germany, by the concordat of 1447, which confined the elec tion of bishops to the chapters, exercising that right;—in France, by the concordat of 1516, which vested the nomination to bishoprics, and the collation of certain benefices of the higher class in the kings of France ;-in Spain, by prescription, repeatedly allowed by the popes, under which the kings have uninterruptedly exercised the right of nominating bishops;-and in England, by the charter of king John, recognized and confirmed by his great charter, and by an act of Edward the third *, which gave up to the chapters the free right of electing their prelates; but that statute is virtually repealed by a statute of Henry the eighth †, by which, the chapters, if they do not elect the person recommended by the king's letters missive, are subjected to the penalties of præmunire.

As to the mode of investing bishops elect with their temporalities:-at a general diet held at Worms in 1122, it was settled, that bishops should be chosen by those, to whom the right of election belonged, in the presence of the emperor or his ambassador; that, in the case of a dispute among the electors, the emperor should decide; and that the bishop should take an oath of allegiance to the emperor, and receive his temporalities from him by the delivery of the sceptre, and do the emperor homage for them. This convention was solemnly

25 Edw. III. st. 6, s. 3. † 25 Hen. VIII. c. 7,

confirmed in the following year at the council of Lateran. Speaking generally, this form of investiture has been adopted in every part of christendom.

XIX. 3.

Ecclesiastical Regulations in the reign of Henry the eighth, respecting the general reading of the Bible, in the English language, by the Laity; and some account of the Translation of it, 1st, by Tyndale; and 2dly, by Coverdale: 3dly, of the Edition of the latter by Cranmer : 4thly, and of the Proclamations and legislative Enactments, respecting them,

WHEN Henry assumed the title of head of the church, it was naturally expected that he would have receded much farther, both in doctrine and discipline, from the see of Rome, than he did in reality. Respecting the propriety of a farther reformation, his council was much divided. Anne Boleyn, the new queen, Cranmer, who had succeeded Warham in the see of Canterbury, Cromwell, and several other persons of distinction, were its warm advocates: on the other hand, it was strenuously opposed by the lord chancellor, the duke of Norfolk, and the bishops of Winchester and Rochester: and to their opinion, the king was strongly inclined, both from principle and affection.

By education, he was attached to the catholic church by his writings in her defence, he had acquired great renown; he was proud of his title of defender of the faith, and prouder still of his spiritual supremacy over the church of England.

On the other hand, the savage and contemptuous treatment, which he had received from Luther, alienated him from that reformer and his adherents; while the severe simplicity of the creeds and liturgies of Zuingle and Calvin, had no attractions for him. Still, he was fond of exercising his spiritual authority; and willingly interfered in the concerns of the church. The chief of his interferences should be noticed with this view we shall succinctly mention, 1st, his principal proclamations and legislative enactments, respecting the general reading of the Bible by the laity; and 2dly, the most remarkable of his doctrinal regulations.

The new translation of the Bible afforded the monarch an early opportunity for the exercise of his spiritual supremacy. It is well known, that, since the troubles, occasioned by the Albigenses, in the ninth and tenth centuries, it has been a point of catholic discipline, to prohibit, to the laity, the reading of the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without the special leave of their respective pastors*. The reformers were anxious that such translations of them should be made, and generally circulated.

It is to be observed, that there are many AngloSaxon versions of different parts both of the Old and of the New Testament. Of the translation by archbishop Elfric, we have,-of the Old Testament, the Heptateuch, published by Edmund Thwayte at

* This is shown in the writer's "Essay on the Discipline "of the Church of Rome respecting the general perusal of "scripture, in the vulgar tongue, by the Laity," in the Appendix to the Confessions of Faith, already cited.

Oxford, in 1699;—and, of the New Testament, the gospels only, published by Matthew Parker, at London, in 1571. They were printed by Franciscus Junius and Thomas Marshal, at Dordrecht, with the Mæso-gothic version, in 1665, 4to. and reprinted at Amsterdam, in 1684. An Anglo-Saxon version of the Psalms, evidently translated from the Vulgate, was published by sir Henry Spelman.

It is generally said, that the most ancient English translation of the Bible is that of Wickliffe. This is an error:-"The whole Bible was, before "Wickliffe's days, by virtuous and learned men, "translated into the English tongue, and by good "and godly people, with devotion and soberness, "well and reverently read*." In the preface to Wickliffe's Bible, by Lewis, mention is made of two English translations of part of the Bible, still existing in manuscript, and anterior to Wickliffe's. His translation was finished about the year 1367; and revised by one of his followers. Both the original and the revised translation, are still extant in manuscript: the manuscript copies of the latter are more rare, than those of the former. In the writer's Hora Biblica*, it is said that printed copies of it are not uncommon.-This is a great mistake, as the work was never printed.

In compliance with the wishes of the reformers, William Tyndale, a Welchman, settled at Antwerp, assisted by John Fry, a learned layman, and William Roye, a friar, translated the New Testament from the Greek, into English. In 1526, he pub* Sir Thomas More, dial. iii. c. 14. + Sect. xv.

lished his translation; and procured several copies to be conveyed to England. The success which it met with, induced him to continue his labours. In 1530, he published a translation of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew. Numerous editions of the New Testament, and some editions of the Pentateuch, were printed.

In 1535, Myles Coverdale, an Augustinian friar, published a complete translation, made by himself, of all the Old and New Testament. These translations,-Tyndale's, in particular,-gave offence; and great efforts were made to suppress the copies. Among his opponents, Tyndale had the honour to reckon sir Thomas More. Several propositions, which sir Thomas extracted from the writings of Tyndale, are as opposite to those of the church of England, as they are to those of the church of Rome." If he is not misreported," says Collier*, "he has failed both in truth and decency in several "material points. In short, his heterodoxies are "too visible to reckon him amongst the reformers "of the English church." Coverdale's translation was thought less objectionable than Tyndale's, and, therefore, more favourably received by the public.

At length, the wish to have an authorized version of the Bible was so general, and so strongly ex pressed, that, in 1536, the clergy petitioned the king, that "he would graciously indulge his sub"jects of the laity with the reading of the Bible, in "the English tongue; and have a new translation "of it made for that purpose." Soon after this

* Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 72.