m "only much prejudicial to his prerogative royal, but also "overmuch onerous to his Highness's subjects," they were content to commit the judgment respecting them to thirtytwo persons," sixteen of the upper and nether house of the "temporalty, and other sixteen of the clergy; all to be "chosen and appointed by his most noble Grace 1." In conformity with this concession, an Act of Parliament was passed in March 1534, empowering his Majesty to nominate Commissioners, and enacting that the Canons approved by these Commissioners, if fortified by the royal assent under the Great Seal, should be kept and observed within the realm. This Act was renewed in 1536 ", and again in 1544o. In the latter case it was so far carried into execution, that Commissioners were appointed, a body of Ecclesiastical Law digested, and a Letter of ratification prepared for the King's signature P. But this signature was never affixed; and the powers granted to the Crown having been limited to the lifetime of Henry VIII, a fresh Act was passed with the same object in 15499. Commissioners are said to have been named shortly afterwards in pursuance of its provisions; but if this was the fact, they seem to have made little progress in the business, for a new Commission was issued in Oct. 1551, to eight bishops, eight divines, eight civilians, and eight common lawyerss; of whom eight were I Wilkins, Concilia, vol. iii. p. 754. m Stat. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19. n Stat. 27 Hen. VIII. c. 15. • Stat. 35 Hen. VIII. c. 16. P Strype, Cranmer, p. 133. and App. N°. 34; Burnet, Reformat. vol. iii. p. 308. "Octo potissimum selecta fuerunt capita, quibus prima operis "præformatio, quasique materiæ præparatio committebatur. "Summæ negotii præfuit Tho. Cranmerus, Archiepis. Cant. Orationis "lumen et splendorem addidit Gualterus Haddonus, vir disertus, et in "hac ipsa juris facultate non imperitus. Quin nec satis scio, an Joan. selected to "gather and put in order" the materials. "But "the matter," says Strype, "was in effect wholly entrusted "by the King to the Archbishop, who associated to him"self in the active part of this work, Taylor, Martyr, and "Haddon." And this account is confirmed by the numer ous corrections in the handwriting of Cranmer and Peter Martyr, which may still be seen in a manuscript copy of the projected code preserved in the British Museum". Thus the Archbishop's share in its composition seems to have been much more than that of mere general superintendence. If he did not actually assist in drawing it up, as is most "Checi viri singularis eidem negotio adjutrix adfuerit manus." Foxe, Preface to Reformatio Legum. But neither Haddon nor Cheke was one of the select eight. These were in the first instance, Cranmer, Ridley, Richard Cox, Peter Martyr, Rowland Taylor, Bartholomew Traheron, John Lucas, John Gosnold: but in November, Thomas Goodrich, Bishop of Ely, William May, and Richard Goodrich, were substituted for Ridley, Traheron, and Gosnold. See Letter of Edward VI. prefixed to Reformatio Legum; and Strype, (Memorials, vol. ii. pp. 303. 479. 487.) whose statement has been preferred to the accounts of Burnet, Reformat. vol. ii. p. 404. and vol. iii. p. 398, which are not easily reconciled with each other. " Harl. MSS. 426. This document is also of use in elucidating the clause respecting the punishment of heretics. In the printed editions the passage stands thus: "Consumptis omnibus aliis remediis, ad ex"tremum ad civiles magistratus ablegetur puniendus:" whence it has been inferred that the obstinate heretic was to be punished with death. But in the Harleian MS. the following limitation is added: "vel ut in perpetuum pellatur exilium, vel ad æternas carceris deprimatur "tenebras, vel alioqui pro magistratus prudenti consideratione plec"tendus, ut maxime illius conversioni expedire videbitur." As the code was never published by authority, it is not known with certainty, whether or not this limitation was finally approved by the Commissioners. But it proves, on any supposition, the sort of punishment which they contemplated, and that death was not, as has been imagined, the necessary consequence of being delivered into the hands of the civil magistrate. See Lingard, Hist. of England, vol. vii. p. 128. 8vo; Hallam, Const. Hist. vol. i. p. 138, 8vo; Todd, (Life of Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 333.) who considers the addition to be in the handwriting of Peter Martyr; but this may be doubted. probable, his interference must be supposed to have at least extended to the exclusion of any thing which he thought objectionable. It may therefore be safely referred to as an authentic record of his opinions. But it was never invested with any legal authority; for it was not finished soon enough to become law under Edward VI, it was of course laid aside in the next reign, and some subsequent attempts to revive it have failed x. The death of Edward VI. produced a total change in the situation of Cranmer. The new Sovereign, instead of valuing him as a wise and temperate reformer, looked on him only as the author of her mother's degradation, as a conspirator against her own right to the crown, and as the indefatigable propagator of heresy and schism. For all this, however, he must have been prepared; but he could not have anticipated the injurious imputations which were cast on the steadiness of his religious principles. It was slanderously reported of him, that he had restored the Mass Declaraat Canterbury, and had also offered to celebrate it himself cerning the before the Queen. This atrocious calumny provoked him Mass. 1553. to draw up a warm and indignant contradiction of it, in which he not only exposed the utter falsehood of the story, but undertook to prove, with the assistance of Peter Martyr and a few others, that the form of worship and doctrine established in England in the preceding reign, "was more pure, and more according to God's word, than "any that had been used in England these thousand years y." This declaration having become public through * See Strype, Parker, p. 323; Todd, Life of Cranmer, vol. ii. pp. 327. 349. It was first printed in 1571, by John Daye, with a Preface by Foxe. Another edition appeared in 1640. Abstracts of its contents may be seen in Burnet, Reformat. vol. ii. p. 405; Collier, Eccles. Hist. vol. n. p. 326; and particularly in Mr Todd's Life of Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 329. y Vol. iv. p. 1. There is so much more vehemence in this paper, than in Cranmer's usual style, that it has been conjectured to be the pro tion con the zeal of a friend, the Archbishop was summoned before the Privy Council, and appears to have been expected to apologize for its circulation. But the only expression of sorrow which could be extracted from him was, that it had passed from his hands prematurely, since he "had intended otherwise to have made it in a more large and ample manner, and minded to have set it "on Paul's Church door, and on the doors of all the "churches in London, with his own seal joined thereto 2." Upon this bold avowal, he was removed from Lambeth, Imprison and sent a prisoner to the Tower, "as well for the treason a committed by him against the Queen's Majesty, as ment in the Tower. 66 66 nus. duction of Peter Martyr. (Carwithen, Hist. of the Church of England.) 2 Foxe, Acts und Monuments, vol. iii. p. 648. a His treason consisted in signing, with other privy counsellors, King Edward VI.'s will for settling the crown on the Lady Jane Grey. See his own account of the affair in Letter ccxcv. "for the aggravating of the same his offence, by spread"ing about seditious bills, moving tumults to the dis"quietness of the present state b." His firmness on this occasion, though it brought suffering on himself, is related to have done good service in reviving the courage of the reformers c. Nor was his own constancy shaken by the increased severity with which he was treated. Although he sued for pardon for his political delinquency, he expressed no regret for his innovations in the Church. He acknowledged indeed, as he had done under the preceding reigns, that it rested not with him but with his Sovereign "to see the reformation of things that be amiss ;" and he professed his determination "never to be an author "of sedition, to move subjects from the obedience of their "heads and rulers, which is an offence most detestable :" but he betrayed no disposition to shrink from the defence of the great changes he had introduced. Confident that they were necessary in themselves, and that they had been sanctioned by lawful authority, he solicited permission to write to the Queen on the subject. He felt it to be his duty, "knowing what he did, and considering the place "which in times past he had occupied," " to show her Ma"jesty his mind in things appertaining to God." Having once done this, he said he should "think himself dis"charged d." Henceforward Cranmer's Remains consist chiefly of his Disputations and Examinations, with the various papers arising out of them. The most prominent of these are his Dis b Minutes of the Privy Council, in the Archæologia, vol. xviii. p. 175. See above, note (y). d Vol. i. p. 363. It does not appear that the leave applied for was ever granted, (See Strype, Cranmer, p. 321.); but a Letter addressed to the Queen about two years later, may be supposed to contain some at least of the sentiments which he now wished to express. See Letter CCXCIX. |