« AnteriorContinuar »
former professions, that "faith excludeth charity from the "office of justifying P," he does not seem to have admitted the truth of the charge. For, as Gardyner himself relates, he explained it to have been his intent "only to set out the "freedom of God's mercy 9," an explanation, apparently designed both to disclaim the inference drawn from his words, and to assert the agreement on this subject between the Necessary Doctrine and the Homilies; since the former work, no less explicitly than the latter, attributes our justification to the free mercy and grace of God." It may therefore be conjectured, that in his written vindication, though he may not have denied even on this head some minor differences, he yet maintained the general consistency of the two treatises. And in essentials they may fairly be said to agree. They both teach, that we are not "justified "by our own acts, works, and deeds $," but by the merits and precious bloodshedding of our Saviour Christ; that "by "faith given us of God we embrace the promise of God's mercy and of the remission of our sins t;" and that this justifying faith is not alone in man without true repent
ance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of God at any "time or season "." And it was Cranmer's object to inculcate plainly and practically these fundamental truths, rather than to enter upon what Burnet calls "the niceties which "have since been so much inquired into about the instru"mentality of faith in justification *.”
p Foxe, Acts, &c. vol. ii. p. 6. Strype, Cranm. App. p. 77.
"My Lord of Canterbury told me his intent is only to set out the "freedom of God's mercy." Gardyner to Protector Somerset, in Foxe, Acts, &c. vol. ii. p. 6.
Homily of Salvation. (Vol. ii. p. 139.)
Homily of Salvation. (Vol. ii. p. 147.)
Necessary Doctrine, p. 368.
Necessary Doctrine, p. 365.
Homily of Salvation. (Vol. ii. p. 143.) Necessary Doctrine, p. 368. See also Notes and Authorities on Justification, (Vol. ii. p. 121, &c.) * Burnet, Reformat. vol i. p. 576.
The Book of Homilies was published in the summer of Meeting of 1547. In the November of the same year full occupation and Convo- was given to the Archbishop by the meeting both of the
Discussion on the
Parliament and the Convocation. His Speech y delivered in the latter assembly, respecting teaching religion to the people in the pure form in which it was established by Christ, and eradicating what still remained of popish corruption, is unfortunately lost. But neither here, nor in the House of Lords, were his exertions fruitless. In both places several important questions were agitated, “
chiefly by his "motion and direction z. One of these was the celebration of the Mass. According to a design, which as Cranmer informed his secretary Morice a, had been entertained by the late King, it was now resolved to "change the Mass "into a Communion," that is, to substitute the general participation in the sacred elements by the people, for the solitary oblation of them by the priest. To give effect to this resolution, an Act of Parliament b was passed, providing punishment for contempt and reviling of the sacrament, and ordaining that it should in future be administered in both kinds, and to all who chose to receive it. It was also thought advisable for facilitating the execution of these enactments, that a New Order for the Lord's Supper should be framed; and a Commission was accordingly appointed for this purpose c.
The opinions of the Commissioners appear to have been ascertained according to the method pursued in the late reign, by the circulation of Queries. The Answers to these by Boner and his adherents, provoked a fresh set of
y Archbishop Parker, Antiq. Brit. p. 507.
z Strype, Cranmer, p. 157.
a Foxe, Acts, &c. vol. ii. p. 586. See Vol. i. p. 321.
b Stat. 1. Edw. VI. cap. 1. Strype conjectures, that this Act was not only "procured," but "drawn up" by Cranmer. Memorials, vol. ii. p. 61.
Strype, Cranmer, p. 158.
Queries from Cranmer, and thus led to a curious though brief debate on paper between the opposing parties d. The chief points considered, were the benefit which the receiving of the sacrament by one man might confer on another; the nature of the sacrifice offered in the Mass; the propriety of its being celebrated by the priest alone; and the expediency of using in it "such speech as the people may understand.” And the judgment of Cranmer was, that the act performed by one man was of no avail to any other; that there was no true sacrifice in the Mass, but only the "memory and repre"sentation" of a sacrifice; that private masses ought to be abolished; and that, except in "certain secret mysteries," whereof he doubted, "it was convenient to use the vulgar tongue." With regard to private Masses, Boner and his friends admitted them to be less desirable than general communion, and argued only, that in the absence of people to receive with the priest, they were "lawful and convenient." On the remaining points they differed from the Archbishop more widely. They were in particular very positive in maintaining, that "to have the whole Mass in English was neither "expedient neither conveniente." Here, as has been seen, Cranmer also was not without his doubts, and was therefore perhaps not unwilling to concede so far to their objections, as to leave for the present the old Latin Office untouched, and to limit the change to the addition of an English Order for the Communion, according to which the priest, after receiving the sacrament himself, was to administer it to the people f. This Order, with a Royal Proclamation prefixed, Order for was published on the 8th of March 1548, and was trans- munion in English. mitted to the bishops on the 15th, together with a letter 1548. from the Council, attributed by Collier to the Archbishop 8,
d Vol. ii. P. 178.
e Vol. ii.
f Collier, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 245. Sparrow, Collection of Records.
8 Collier, ibid. p. 246. See Appendix, No. xxxII.
enjoining them to take measures to secure its general use at the ensuing Easter.
This partial improvement soon led to farther reformation. vice Book. In the following September, "a number of the best learned
men h❞ met at Windsor for the purpose of examining all the Offices of the Church. Such a measure was not altogether new. A review of the Service Books had been directed by Henry VIII 1, and probably some progress had been made in the work for in the first year of Edward, the Lower House of Convocation petitioned the Archbishop, that "the works of the bishops and others who had laboured “in examining, reforming, and publishing the divine ser"vice, might be produced and laid before the Housek." What was the extent of the alterations then projected, and whether or not it was contemplated to adopt the English language in the corrected ritual, does not appear. At present however, the divines who were assembled at Windsor, had no hesitation in determining that the worship of God should be conducted in the vernacular tongue1; and proceeding on this principle, they within a few months arranged that Form of Common Prayer which is usually known by the name of King Edw. VI.'s first Service Book m. It has always been believed, that the excellence of this compilation is in great
h See Letter ccxcix. p. 375.
i See above, p. xli, and Letters cCXVI. CCLXVI.
k Strype, Cranmer, p. 155.
"When I was in office, all that were esteemed learned in God's "word agreed this to be a truth in God's word written, that the com"mon prayer of the Church should be had in the common tongue. "You know I have conferred with many, and I ensure you I never "found man, so far as I do remember, neither old nor new, gospeller nor papist, of what judgment soever he was, in this thing to be of a "contrary opinion." Ridley to West, in Letters of the Martyrs, fol. 42. See also Cranmer's Letter to Queen Mary. (Vol. i. p. 375.)
m It was printed by Edw. Whitchurch, in June 1549. The second Service Book appeared in 1552.
measure due to the piety and judgment of Cranmer. By his contemporary Bale indeed, it is placed, together with the Ordination Services published in the next year, upon Ordination the list of his works. But it could scarcely keep its position there, consisting, as it does, chiefly of translations from the older Liturgies, even if the Archbishop were known to have been the only individual employed on it. Still less can it do so, when we are aware that he was assisted by several Commissioners of acknowledged learning and talents. A somewhat less questionable claim may be advanced in favour of the Prefaces to these two publications: since they may be supposed to be original compositions, and since the first words of them are actually quoted in Bale's catalogue. But these are merely quoted, according to Bale's usual practice, to identify the books mentioned: and they in fact no more prove Cranmer to have been the author of the Prefaces, than of the entire works in question. Although therefore they are sometimes classed among his writings, they have not been inserted in the present Collection.
It is not necessary here to enter into a detail of the objections made to Edw. VI.'s Liturgy, and of the revision which it received in consequence, previously to its republication in 1552°. But some notice is required of a story respecting it, current among the English exiles at Francfort in the reign of Mary. Cranmer, Bishop of Canterbury," they were told, "had drawn up a Book of Prayer an hun"dred times more perfect; yet the same could not take place, for that he was matched with such a wicked clergy "and Convocation, with other enemies P." Strype does not seem to have had sufficient grounds for attributing this re
PA Discourse of the Troubles at Francfort, in the Phoenix, vol. ii. p. 82.