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). b See Vol. i. p. 347; Calvini Epistolæ, pp. 134, 135. Genev. 1617. Strype, Life of Purker, vol. i. p. 69. C 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 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 h, 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 above, 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 saine 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. k Pages xxiii, xxiv. 86 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 1544°. 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 "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 numerous 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. |