66

66

port to Bullinger 9, but he is fully justified in treating it as al-
together unworthy of credit. The Archbishop's "authority,
he says,
was now very great, so that there was undoubt-
"edly great deference paid to it, as also to his wisdom and
learning, by the rest of the divines appointed to that
"work: so that as nothing was by them inserted in the
"Liturgy, but by his good allowance and approbation, so
"neither would they reject or oppose what he thought
"fit should be put in or altered." To this it may be
added, that if Cranmer's project had been really laid aside
to make way for one with which he was not thoroughly
satisfied, he would scarcely have undertaken a short time
afterwards to prove," that not only the common prayers of
"the Church, the ministration of the sacraments, and other
"rites and ceremonies, but also all the doctrine and reli-
"gion set forth by King Edward, was more pure and ac-
"cording to God's word than any other doctrine that hath
"been used in England these thousand years:" and again,
"that the Order of the Church set out at this present by
"Act of Parliament is the same that was used in the Church
"fifteen hundred years passed s."

The reader perhaps will be disappointed at not finding Cranmer's in this Collection the treatise published in 1548, comCatechism. monly called Cranmer's Catechism. It must be allowed to

have a fair claim to this appellation, since it is represented

in the title page to have been "set forth by the moost re"verende father in God, Thomas, Archbyshop of Canter

66

bury." Yet it certainly was not written by Cranmer, being taken for the most part from a Latin Catechism by Justus Jonas; and there are good grounds for believing that it was not even translated by him t. It cannot there

9 See Phonix, vol. ii. p. 82.

Strype, Cranmer, p. 266.

• Declaration concerning the Mass, (Vol. iv. p. 1.)

t See Preface to the Oxford edition, 1829, by Dr. Burton, (p. vi-viii.)

fore as a whole be considered entitled to a place among his works". But there is more difficulty respecting some particular portions of it; for it is not in all points a mere version. Besides other variations, it contains a discourse of some length against the worshipping of images, and a short but eloquent exhortation to prayer; of neither of which is there the slightest vestige in the original. And of these, it may perhaps be thought, Cranmer was the author. Henry Wharton indeed, and Mr. Todd ×, attribute them to the Archbishop without hesitation, and Dr. Burton, in his Preface to the Oxford reprint of the two Catechisms, leans to their opinion. Yet it seems fair to presume, that the additions were from the same hand as the translation, and this, as has been said, was probably not executed by the Archbishop. At all events they cannot be traced to him with any certainty, and therefore the only extract from Cranmer's Catechism inserted in the present Collection, is the prefatory Epistle addressed to Edward VI. This is undoubtedly genuine, and has accordingly received a place in the first volume, among the Letters y.

mer.

tion of Un

Here also may be noticed another publication of the Confutasame date, which has been too hastily attributed to Cran- written This is a short tract on Unwritten Verities, printed Verities. anonymously in 1548, but supposed by Strype z to have been written by the Archbishop, and to have been published by him in Latin in the preceding year. Both these suppositions however are wholly unsupported by evidence: and

to whose full account of the two Catechisms the reader is referred for farther information.

"There has been the less inducement to admit it, as it has been lately reprinted, together with the Latin original, at the Oxford University Press, in a uniform type with the present publication.

* Life of Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 522.

y Letter CCLXXI.

z Strype, Memorials, vol. ii. p. 136.

Marquis of Northampton's Divorce.

the probability is, that Strype confounded this short tract with a larger book bearing a similar title, which was put forth in 1557 by an exile, designating himself by the initials E. P., and which professed to be a translation from the Latin of the Archbishop. But neither is this larger book free from all suspicion. Notwithstanding the statement in its title page, Bishop Tanner a has remarked, that though written, it seems never to have been printed in Latin: and it is indeed not unlikely, that it was compiled by E. P. out of some manuscript notes by the Archbishop, still preserved in the British Museum. It is at least certain, that the Preface and the Conclusion, together with some parts of the body of the work, must be ascribed entirely to the translator. However, as it contains much matter which was put together by Cranmer, though probably without any design of publication, it has been reprinted in Vol. ivb; where also will be found some further details respecting it. The other tract, being thought to be altogether spurious, has been placed in the Appendix c.

About this same time, as if the last reign had not produced sufficient business of this nature, Cranmer was engaged in examining a new and important case of divorced. It was indeed more truly a case of divorce than any that had been yet before him, being the first which turned upon the possibility of dissolving the nuptial tie: for in the three matrimonial causes of Henry VIII. it was held, that the nuptial tie had been never fastened, and that the marriages consequently were null and void ab initio. The plaintiff on the present occasion, was William Par, Marquis of

a The following is his remark: "Confutations of Unwritten Verities, "written against Rich. Smith's book, De veritatibus non scriptis; qui "liber Latine scriptus, nunquam ut mihi quidem videtur, in ea lingua "impressus fuit." Tanner, Bibliotheca.

Northampton, brother to the late King's widow. He had prosecuted a suit against his wife in the Ecclesiastical Courts for adultery, and had obtained a sentence in his favour: but it was disputed, whether this sentence amounted only to a simple separation a mensa et toro, or whether it implied also an absolute release a vinculo matrimonii, so as to enable him to contract a second marriage. The matter was referred to a board of delegates, consisting of Cranmer and nine others. The Archbishop, according to his usual practice, seems to have laboured to collect the best authorities on the subject. A considerable number of these are still preserved in the Lambeth Library e, partly in his own handwriting, partly in that of a secretary, together with a summary of the chief arguments f by which the two opinions might be respectively supported. The authorities were probably collected by himself. The arguments were perhaps supplied either by the advocates, or by some of the delegates who took opposite views of the question: for they were manifestly composed by two distinct and contending parties. The manuscript is closed by eight Queries on the subject, accompanied by Answers. The means here afforded

e Lambeth Library, 1108.

f An abstract of these may be seen in Burnet, Reformat. vol. ii. p. 117. But the reader must be warned against an impression which may probably be left by Burnet's statement, that Cranmer was from the first in favour of the dissolubility of the marriage bond. The final decision indeed, was on this side, but his scattered notes and underlinings prove that he originally leant to the other.

: These Questions and Answers, which have been already printed by Burnet, are subjoined. The four first Queries are in the handwriting of Cranmer.

"1. Quid dirimit matrimonii vinculum?

"2. Quas ob causas dirimi poterit ?

"3. An dirimi poterit conjugium a thoro, non a vinculo?

"4. Quibus casibus possit sic dirimi?

"5. An exceptio illa (excepta fornicationis causa) etiam in Lucæ, "Marci et Pauli locis, qui de his rebus tractant, est subaudienda?

of ascertaining Cranmer's sentiments, are not very abundant. From some short remarks however, which he has inserted in various parts of it, and from the passages underlined, to all appearance by his pen, it seems to have been his first impression to adhere to the opinion expressed by him some years before to Osiander h, that the marriage bond was indissoluble. But he must either have seen reason to change this impression, or the matter must have been determined by the majority of votes: for the delegates decided, that the conjugal knot was so completely rent asunder

"6. An etiam uxor, repudiata propter adulterium, alii possit nu"bere?

“ 7. An redire ad priorem maritum repudiatæ adulteræ liceat? "8. An maritus, propter adulterium, ab uxore casta possit repu"diari?

"Ad primam respondemus; Ipso adulterii facto matrimonii vincu"lum dirimi. Nam alioquin, ob solum adulterium non liceret viro ux"orem repudiare: voluntas viri solicitat judices, judices palam faciunt "ecclesiæ, virum licite talem repudiare uxorem.

"Ad secundam resp. Quod ob solam causam stupri dirimitur ma"trimonii vinculum: cujus ipso quidem facto, conjugii dissolvitur no"dus, et loquimur de his, qui sacrosancti matrimonii jus agnoscunt.

"Ad tertiam resp. Quod non ; quia Mulier quamdiu vixerit, alligata "est viro, Rom. vii; item, Ne fraudetis vos invicem, 1 Cor. vii; item in "eodem loco, Uxori vir debitam benevolentiam reddat similiter, et uxor "viro; item, Vir non habet potestatem sui corporis, sed uxor: similiter nec uxor habet potestatem sui corporis, sed vir.

66

"Ad quartam patet in responsione ad tertiam.

"Ad quintam respondemus; Quod exceptio ista, viz. nisi causa stupri, est subaudienda in Luca, Marco et Paulo: alioquin manifesta "esset pugnantia inter Matthæum et eos.

"Ad sextam respond. Quod repudiata propter adulterium, quia “ uxor repudiantis desiit esse, ob idque libera est, sicut aliæ omnes post "obitum virorum, potest alii nubere, æquo jure juxta illud Pauli, Si 66 non continent, contrahant matrimonium, 1 Cor. vii.

"Ad septimam respond. Quod non licet repudiatæ adulteræ redire "ad repudiantem, tanquam alligatæ ei jugi vinculo matrimonii.

"Ultima questio ad nos nihil." MSS. Lamb. Libr. 1108. fol. 180.

169.

Letter CCLX. p. 304.