The commissioners appear to have completed their revision of the Book of Common Prayer before the end of the year 1551. Early in the next year a bill for the uniformity of divine service, with the Book of Common Prayer annexed to it, was brought into the house of lords, and was finally passed in the house of commons and returned to the lords on the 14th of April, 1552. It was ordered that the new services should be used throughout the kingdom from the feast of All Saints following.

communicants on delivering the bread (and mutatis mutandis on delivering the wine) were, "The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." In the second Liturgy the words were, "Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving." Now the words adopted in the Liturgy of Strasburg, as used probably by Bucer, and certainly as published by Pollanus in the year 1551, were "Panis quem frangimus communicatio est corporis Christi." The same words also appear to have been used by Calvin (Epist. p. 206. ed. Amst.), till, owing to the great number of communicants, he found it desirable to discontinue the practice. In the churches of Zurich it appears that no words were addressed to the communicants singly, but only a portion of scripture read whilst the elements were distributed. (Gerdesius, Introd. in Histor. Evang. p. 327. and Monum. Antiq. p. 243.) Would not the form of the commissioners, omitting altogether the dangerous word "body," be more acceptable to the sacramentaries than the form of Pollanus; and does it not indicate a decided opinion on the part of the commissioners that they preferred an exposition of their own to an express quotation from St. Paul? The most eminent and complete sacramentary then in England was John a Lasco, and the words used in his church on the delivery of the bread were, Accipite, edite, et memineritis corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi pro nobis in mortem traditum esse in crucis patibulo ad remissionem omnium peccatorum nostrum." See a Lasco's Forma ac Ratio tota Eccles. Min. in Pereg. Eccl. an. 1550. s The Office for making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons was inserted in this book, with some few alterations which are noticed in the Life of Ridley, p. 340.

It is not necessary to enumerate the other changes which were made in this revision of the Liturgy. It may, however, be desirable to notice two of them; the one on account of its novelty, the other on account of its connection with the early history of the church.

In the first Liturgy the morning and evening services began with the Lord's Prayer: in the second, the morning service opened with the Introductory Sentences, the Exhortation, the General Confession, and the Absolution. It has been an object of some interest to ascertain from what source these compositions were derived; and in the absence of actual information, it has been surmised that the suggestion was taken from the Liturgy published by Calvin for the use of the Genevan church in the year 1545. That Liturgy indeed contains no form of absolution; but it is known from a statement made by Calvin himself, that

t An account of them is given by Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 349. and by Collier, Hist. vol. II. p. 310.

In his answer ad Quæstionem de quibusdam Ecclesiæ Ritibus, dated 12 Aug. 1560. Epist. p. 206. ed. Amst. " Confessioni publica adjungere insignem aliquam promissionem, quæ peccatores ad spem veniæ et reconciliationis erigat, nemo nostrum est, qui non agnoscat utilissimum esse. Atque ab initio hunc morem inducere volui: sed quum offensionem quidam ex novitate metuerent, nimium facilis fui ad cedendum: ita res omissa est." Archbishop Laurence says in his Bamp. Lect. p. 207, "In 1552 when [the Liturgy] was revised and republished, the Introductory Sentences, Exhortation, Confession, and Absolution, were in some degree taken from [Calvin's Liturgy], yet not from Calvin's own translation, but from that of Pollanus, which was printed in England at the very period when the Book of Common Prayer was under revision. This is evident from the circumstance that the translation of Pollanus alone contains an absolution, Calvin's not having the slightest trace of one." But the absolution in Pollanus is merely the following notice: "Hic Pastor ex Scriptura sacra sententiam aliquam remissionis peccatorum populo recitat in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti." It would appear then, that, if the question lies between those two Reformers, the English

he intended in the first instance to add a declaration of that kind, and that he yielded unwillingly to the scruples of others in omitting it. The commissioners would not have rejected a good suggestion" merely because it proceeded

commissioners were indebted to Calvin rather than to Pollanus for the suggestion on which they constructed their form of absolution. Probably, however, it was not taken from either of them, but from the Liturgy used by a Lasco in the German church, which was protected by Cranmer, and incorporated by letters patent in the year 1550. The following portions at least of the Confession and Absolution used in that church bear a strong resemblance to the form adopted by the commissioners. "Neque amplius velis mortem peccatoris sed potius ut convertatur et vivat".... "omnibus vere pœnitentibus (qui videlicet agnitis peccatis suis cum sui accusatione gratiam ipsius per nomen Christi Domini implorant) omnia ipsorum peccata prorsus condonet atque aboleat". . . . . " omnibus, inquam, vobis qui ita affecti estis denuncio, fiducia promissionum Christi, vestra peccata omnia in cælo a Deo Patre nostro modis plane omnibus remissa esse”. . . . . . “ opem tuam divinam per meritum Filii tui dilecti supplices imploramus nobisque dones Spiritum Sanctum tuum .... ut lex tua sancta illi [cordi] insculpi ac per nos demum.... tota vita nostra exprimi ejus beneficio possit." See Forma ac Ratio tota Eccles. Min. in Pereg. anno 1550.

Eccl.

wHeylin says, (Hist. Ref. p. 65.) and Collier repeats the statement, (Hist. vol. II. p. 253.) that Calvin offered his assistance to Cranmer, but that Cranmer "knew the man, and refused his offer." This statement appears to be overcharged. It is clear indeed from Calvin's letters and dedications that he frequently offered his advice to Edward and the English reformers, and that he was urged to do so by Bucer and other correspondents in England. He began with his Dedication to the Protector Somerset in the year 1548, and so late in the reign of Edward, as in Feb. 1553, he requested Cheke to let him know "si quando regem censueris meis exhortationibus excitari posse." (Calv. Epist. p. 68, ed. Amst.) But he appears to have acted with the concurrence, and even at the suggestion, of Cranmer; who wrote to him in 1552 to ask for his assistance in forming a convention of "docti et pii viri, qui alios antecellunt eruditione et judicio .... capita omnia ecclesiasticæ doctrinæ tractarent." (Cranm. Works, vol. I. p. 346. with Jenkyns' note: and his pref. at p. civ. Calv. Epist. p. 61.) Calvin also said, in a letter to Farel in June 1551, (Calv.

from Calvin; but in this instance there was no opportunity for putting such a scruple to the test. The breviaries of the English church contained many forms of absolution ; and the practice was so familiar to the Reformers, that we find it required, on the visitation appointed in the first year of Edward's reign, in the following injunction": "That the damnable vice of despair may be clearly taken away, and firm belief and steadfast hope surely conceived of all their parishioners, being in any danger, they [the curates] shall learn and have always in a readiness such comfortable places and sentences of scripture as do set forth the mercy, benefits, and goodness of Almighty God, towards all penitent and believing persons."

The other alteration which remains to be noticed, was in the form now known as the Prayer for the Church Militant. In the first Liturgy that prayer was simply "for the whole state of Christ's church," and ended with a sentence recommending the dead to the mercy of God. The sentence was omitted on the revision, and the words "militant here in earth" were added in the prefix, to shew that the church not only did not practise intercession for the dead, but even carefully excluded it.

Epist. p. 240.) "Cantuariensis nihil me utilius facturum admonuit, quam si ad regem sæpius scriberem."

Nevertheless his peculiar opinions were not approved by the leading reformers in England, who, like the divines of Zurich, adopted generally the opposite sentiments of Luther and Melancthon. Bullinger, when questioned on the subject of foreknowledge and predestination by Traheron in 1552, wrote a long and elaborate account of the points in which he differed from Calvin. Hess, Catal. vol. II. pp. 62.67.

× See Breviar. Sarisbur. Psalter, fol. 13 and 57. Breviar. Ebor. fol. 252. and Palmer's Origines Liturg. vol. I. p. 214.

y Cranm. Works, App. vol. IV. p. 335. Wilkins' Concilia, vol. IV.

.p. 6.

"Since the reign of Edward VI. the Book of Common

z Strype says, (Cran. vol. I. p. 381.) "I look upon that but as an improbable report that was carried about in Frankford in those unseemly branglings among the English exiles there, that Bullinger should say That Cranmer had drawn up a book of prayers an hundred times more perfect than that which was then in being; but the same could not take place, for that he was matched with such a wicked clergy and convocation, with other enemies.'" And Jenkyns, in his admirable edition of Cranmer's Works, observes (Pref. p. liv.) that Strype" is fully justified in treating it as altogether unworthy of credit," adding, "that he does not seem to have had sufficient grounds for attributing this report to Bullinger." It certainly appears from the tract to which Strype was indebted for his information (Discourse of the Troubles at Frankfort, p. 42.), that Bullinger was not the person with whom the report originated, but probably either the Mr. H. or Mr. C. mentioned in the same passage. May we not suppose therefore that it originated either with Horne or Cox, who both corresponded with Bullinger, and would either of them satisfy all the other circumstances of the case? But whether this supposition be correct or otherwise, there are reasons for considering the report as an exaggerated statement rather than as entirely groundless. In this matter, as in many others, the whole question turned on the nature of the sacraments. Martyr, writing to Bullinger in June 1552, after the completion of the second Liturgy, says, “Reformatio in Anglia ob rem sacramentariam obtineri nequit. Liber tamen rituum ecclesiæ ac administrationis sacramentorum est emendatus. An usus sacramentorum gratiam Dei conferat, magnopere inter se disceptant Angli, qui ab operum meritis vix avelli possunt." (Hess, Catal. p. 60.) This was also the opinion of Hooper, a Lasco, and others of the sacramentaries, who, together with Martyr, were at that time in high repute at the court of Edward, and were members of the commission appointed to act with Cranmer in preparing a code of ecclesiastical law. A Lasco more especially, of whose influence we have already had abundant traces, joined with Bullinger and Calvin in objecting to the use of the surplice, to private baptism, churching of women, the ring in marriage, and other "hurtful and offensive ceremonies" as Calvin afterwards called them. (Calv. Epist. p. 96. Discourse on the Troubles, &c. pp. 29, 43, and 44.)

But Cranmer himself was at this time personally attached to the sacramentaries and the divines of Zurich (a Lasco's Letter to Bullinger, Miscell. Groning. vol. IV. p. 470.): he was even represented, as

C