due impression on the mind of Cranmer. But another cause, of still greater efficacy, may perhaps be found, in the Plan for hope which he long cherished of arranging by common concompiling a General sent a General Confession of Faith for all the scattered Confession Protestant Churches. This plan originated with Melancall the Re- thon, who had many years before expressed a wish for the Churches. compilation of such a document. Cranmer, it seems, was of Faith for formed pleased with the proposal, and, when the accession of Edward VI. appeared to facilitate its execution, hastened to invite the most eminent reformers on the continent to hold a meeting in England for the purpose ". And at In addition to the accounts of this design, given by Strype and others, some farther information is furnished by the Letters from Cranmer to Melancthon, Hardenberg, Bullinger, and Calvin, which are now first printed from manuscripts at Zurich. See Letters CCLXXIII. CCLXXVI. CCLXXXIII, CCLXXXIV, CCLXXXV. See Letter CCLXXVI. note (r). "There does not appear to be any evidence that Calvin was invited to this conference; the correspondence which Strype assigns to this year, being certainly of later date. See Vol. i. pp. 345, 346; Strype, Cranmer, p. 407. The following extract from a Letter by John a Lasco to Hardenberg, implies that there was some hesitation on the point. "Contentio Sacramentaria cœpit illic [i. e. in Anglia] exagitari per "quosdam, estque instituta ea de re publica disputatio, ad quam mag"nis multorum precibus vocor. Bucerus exspectatur. Franciscus "noster Dryander jam adest. Et de Calvino mussatur, nisi quod Gal"lus est." Gerdes, Scrin. Antiq. tom. ii. p. 644. Heylyn asserts positively," that upon the very first reports of a reformation here in“tended, Calvin had offered his assistance to Archbishop Cranmer, as "himself confesseth. But the Archbishop knew the man, and refused "his offer." Heylyn, Eccles. Restaur. p. 65. But he gives no authority for the latter part of his statement, and it can hardly be reconciled with Cranmer's Letter to Calvin of March 20th, 1552. Besides this brief remark by Heylyn, there are two other accounts of Calvin's correspondence with the English Reformers in the reign of Edw. VI, which deserve notice: one in Fores and Firebrands, (part ii. p. 10.) from a memorandum by Sir Henry Sidney; the other in Strype's Life of Parker, taken from a manuscript by Archbishop Abbot, professing to give the substance of some papers which belonged to Arch first he was apparently well satisfied with the progress of the undertaking. He informed John a Lasco in July 1548*, that several learned men had already arrived; so many indeed, that scarcely any more were required: and he therefore entreated him both to come himself, and also, if possible, to bring Melancthon, to whom, he stated, he was then sending a third invitation. A few weeks afterwards he addressed Albert Hardenberg, the Superintendent of the Reformed Church at Bremen, in nearly similar termsy. His sanguine expectations however were disappointed. John a Lasco indeed came to England in the autumn; but Melancthon, though ready to communicate his advice by letter, persisted in declining to attend in person. Yet the applications to him were still continued. In Feb. 1549 an asylum was offered him from the troubles occasioned in Germany by the publication of the Interim: he received another invitation, as is learnt from his own correspondence, in May 1550; and another, in common with Bullinger and Calvin, in March 1552 z. But all were in vain: Melancthon was still immoveable; so that Cranmer seems at length to have discovered the impracticability of the project a, and to have bishop Parker. These agree in stating, that overtures were made by Calvin and others to Edward VI. on the subject of episcopacy; that they failed in attaining their object; and that the failure "caused much animosity among reformers:" but the former version of the story assumes that they were received, and attributes their rejection to the intrigues of the papists: the latter relates that they were never received at all, but were intercepted by Gardyner and Boner, and a forged answer returned in the name of the English protestants, "wherein they "checked Calvin, and slighted his proposals." If the first of these narratives is correct, it is strange that no allusion to the overtures occurs in any of Cranmer's Letters. The second will account indeed for this silence: but we shall still look in vain for that "animosity" which is said to have been kindled between Calvin and the English Church. * Letter CCLXXII. y Letter CCLXXIII. z See Letters CCLXXII. CCLXXVI. CCLXXXV. a 1550 and 1551 have each been named as the date when these Forty-Two Religion, proceeded without farther delay, to complete a separate Formulary for the Church of England. It may perhaps be matter of surprise, that he did not make this discovery earlier: it may even be maintained, that the scheme was in its own nature chimerical, and that the attempt to carry it into execution was more creditable to his zeal than his judgment. But it is somewhat presumptuous, even when instructed by the event, to ridicule a design, approved by two such men as Cranmer and Melancthon. It is possible indeed, that they calculated too much on finding in others the same moderation, candour, and spirit of conciliation which distinguished themselves. But they were, neither of them, of an ardent temperament, nor apt to engage rashly in wild and visionary enterprises. And circumstances occurred, both on the continent and in England, sufficiently untoward to frustrate an undertaking in itself perfectly feasible. And this seems to have been Calvin's view of the case. He evidently despaired of success; he spoke of the agreement of the reformers on a standard Form of Doctrine, as an object of desire, rather than of hope: but his forebodings, it is manifest, were not so much grounded on the Utopian character of the project, as on the overpowering difficulties of the times b. For on the design itself he bestowed the highest praise, and revived it himself some years afterwards on the accession of Queen Elizabeth C. But whatever may have been Cranmer's anxiety to obtain Articles of a General Confession of Faith, he did not in the mean while neglect to take measures for preparing a particular one. Having received an order, probably at his own re 1552. efforts to form a protestant union ceased: but the three Letters CCLXXXIII, CCLXXXIV, CCLXXXV, sufficiently prove that they were continued till 1552. See Vol. i. p. 345. note (m). с See Vol. i. p. 347; Calvini Epistolæ, pp. 134, 135. Genev. 1617. 66 quest, in the year 1551, "to frame a book of Articles of Religion d," he "in obedience hereunto," says Strype, "drew up a set, which were delivered to certain other 66 66 bishops to be inspected and subscribed, I suppose, by "them." In May 1552, after the failure of the invitations to foreign reformers, the Privy Council sent for these Articles, inquiring at the same time whether they were "set "forth by any public authority." In September, the Archbishop forwarded them, after they had undergone a revision, to Sir John Cheke; on the twenty-third of November he again received them from the Council, to whom he returned them on the following day, beseeching the Lords f " to be means unto the King's Majesty, that all the bishops may have authority from him to cause all their preachers, archdeacons, deans, prebendaries, parsons, ❝vicars, curates, with all their clergy, to subscribe to the "said Articles." This authority, though long delayed, was at last granted in the following June; when letters from the King were issued to the several prelates, informing them, that "certain Articles were sent, gathered with great study, "and by counsel and good advice of the greatest learned part of the bishops of this realm, and sundry others of "the clergy;" and exhorting them both to subscribe them themselves, and also to cause them to be subscribed by "all other which do or hereafter shall preach or read "within their dioceses 5." It is no part of the present design to enter into the controversy which has arisen respecting the agreement of the Convocation to these Articles; but we are concerned to ascertain, how far they may be ascribed to the Archbishop. And if we add to the short statement just given, his own declaration before Brokes at Oxford b, little doubt will be entertained of his being the 66 d Strype, Cranmer, p. 272. e See Letter ccxc. f See Letter CCXCII. 8 See Appendix, No. XLIII. The following is an extract from the English account in Foxe : Reformatio person, mainly responsible for their contents. It is of course not meant to intimate that they are an original work. They are generally admitted to be a compilation; and the Confession of Augsburgh is usually mentioned as their chief source. There is reason however to believe, as has been shown abovek, that they were taken more immediately from a set of Articles agreed on by the English and German divines at a conference held in London in 1538. But they do not follow servilely either of these Formularies; they are at once more comprehensive and more brief, containing judgments on a greater variety of questions, but entering less into the grounds on which these judgments rest. The second important work, now completed by the assistance of Cranmer, was the revision of the Ecclesiastical Laws. This revision had been first projected as early as 1532. In the submission then made to the King by the clergy, they declared, that whereas divers canons were "thought to be not "As for the Catechism, the Book of Articles, with the other Book "against Winchester, he granted the same to be his doings." In the official Latin report, Cranmer's answer is expressed thus: " Quoad Ca"techismum et articulos in eodem fatetur se adhibuisse ejus consilium "circa editionem ejusdem." See Vol. iv. pp. 102. 106. The Catechism here mentioned was set forth by Royal authority at the same time with the Articles," for the instruction of young scholars in the fear of God." (See Appendix, N°. XLIII. 1.) Though approved by Cranmer, it was not composed by him. Ridley was charged with being its author, but denied it. It has also been attributed to Nowell, but the most prevailing opinion seems to be, that it was written by Ponet, Bishop of Winchester. (See Vol. iv. p. 65. note (u).) It superseded the Catechism translated under the Archbishop's direction in 1548, which was probably considered objectionable, as giving too much countenance to the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. Both these Catechisms must be distinguished from the very short one for children, forming part of the Office for Confirmation in Edward VI.'s first Service Book, and now, with the addition of some questions and answers on the Sacraments, known by the name of the Church Catechism. * Pages xxiii, xxiv. |