\ \ 
 , -*« ' J 
 
 <■'/ 
 
 
 DA 317.8 .C8 M376 1898 
 Mason, Arthur James, 1851- 
 1928. 
 
 Thomas Cranmer 
 
✓ 
 
 Readers of jJMigtott 
 
 Edited by H. C. Beeching, M.A. 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/thomascranmerOOmaso 
 
THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 FROM TH'K PICTURE BY GKRB1C IV THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY 
 FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY MESSRS. WALKER AND BOUTALL 
 
THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 BY 
 
 ARTHUR JAMES MASON, D.D. 
 
 lady Margaret’s reader in divinity and fellow of jesus college 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, CANON OF CANTERBURY 
 
 BOSTON AND NEW YORK 
 HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY 
 
TO THE REVEREND AND LEaRNED 
 
 THE MASTER AND FELLOWS OF JESUS COLLEGE 
 
 I OFFER 
 
 THIS SLIGHT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE EXTREME KINDNESS 
 WITH WHICH THEY HAVE WELCOMED ME INTO THE SOCIETY 
 OF WHICH CRANMER WAS TWICE FELLOW 
 
 b 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This book is not intended to be an exhaustive 
 account of the great Archbishop’s life, or to go minutely 
 into every question that may be raised in connexion 
 with it. It is rather an attempt to use in a fairly 
 broad fashion the results of the researches of many 
 students, with a view to setting Cranmer as a living and 
 intelligible figure before the English reader of to-day. 
 He is still, as the late Lord Houghton called him in the 
 preface to his Recantacyons, “ the most mysterious person¬ 
 age of the British Reformation ; ” but the history of the 
 sixteenth century is gradually becoming known, and 
 Archbishop Cranmer has received a large share of 
 sympathetic study. 
 
 The materials for his biography are, first, his own 
 letters and writings. These have been collected and 
 published during this century by Mr. H. Jenkyns, and 
 also by the Parker Society. I have generally used Mr. 
 Jenkyns’ collection. Next in value are the two 
 documents printed in the Camden Society’s Narratives 
 of the Reformation —both of them first-class authorities. 
 Ralph Morice’s notes—the more important document of 
 the two—were written for Archbishop Parker, and are 
 the work of Cranmer’s principal secretary, a man of 
 intelligence and resource. It may be that they are 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 occasionally coloured by partiality, but it is to tlie credit 
 of Archbishop Cranmer that he should have been able 
 to inspire such devoted loyalty into the heart of his 
 servant. Foxe’s Acts and Monuments stand in a 
 secondary position. His account of Cranmer is largely 
 drawn from the two documents just mentioned. He 
 frequently, especially in reporting conversations, en¬ 
 deavours to improve upon his original, which detracts 
 from the historical value of his work; otherwise its 
 vivacity and picturesque force make it delightful 
 reading. The works of Burnet and Strype are most use¬ 
 ful to the student, especially in the pidces justificatives 
 contained in their appendices ; but both authors require 
 constant verification. Among later works Todd’s and 
 Hook’s lives are, in their respective ways, serviceable, 
 though neither of them succeeds in presenting a satis¬ 
 factory portrait of Cranmer. 
 
 For an account of the special documents relating to 
 the Archbishop’s last days, I would refer the reader to 
 the fourth volume of Mr. R. W. Dixon’s noble History. 
 I have to thank Mr. Dixon for having lent me his 
 copy of the remarkable tract called Bishop Cranmer’s 
 Bccantacyons , which, as he justly says, he was the first 
 to use. But I have even more to thank him for his 
 History itself. My own book is little else than a 
 putting together of various parts of that work in which 
 Cranmer is spoken of. I trust that it will not be 
 thought disrespectful if I observe that Mr. Dixon’s 
 treatment of Archbishop Cranmer becomes more and 
 more appreciative in the successive volumes. No doubt 
 that is partly because, like other good men, Cranmer 
 himself became worthier of his regard; but I believe 
 that it is partly also because the more deeply Cranmer’s 
 
PREFACE 
 
 IX 
 
 character and career are studied, the more attractive 
 they make themselves felt to be. Among historical 
 figures, as among those of actual life, the fewest 
 mistakes are made by him, who, while exercising a just 
 criticism, exercises it with a charitable resolve to put 
 the best construction which facts will allow upon 
 actions and motives. Mr. Dixon has taught us to do 
 this with men as widely apart as Gardinei and Latimei, 
 as Bonner and Hooper. If my pages may help English¬ 
 men to do likewise with a greater person, I shall indeed 
 
 be thankful. 
 
 Canterbury , Holy Cross Day , 1897. 
 
 Since writing the above, I must add my best thanks 
 to Mr. James Gairdner for having most kindly presented 
 me with a copy of Bishop Cranmers Bccantacyons, of 
 which he was the Editor. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 i. cranmer’s life until the divorce ... ... 1 
 
 II. CRANMER AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY... 44 
 
 III. CRANMER AND THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 81 
 
 IV. CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI. ... ... ... 119 
 
 v. cranmer’s last years ... ... ... ... 165 
 
THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 cranmer’s life until the divorce 
 
 The subject of this biography has, perhaps, received 
 more indiscriminate praise and more indiscriminate 
 censure than any other ecclesiastic of the English 
 Church. His predecessor Thomas Becket, and his 
 successor William Laud, both martyred like himself, 
 alone rival him in this respect. Cranmer was a man 
 not free from infirmities, and it is no object of the 
 following pages to make light of them; but it must 
 be taken into consideration that the circumstances in 
 which he lived were difficult beyond parallel in English 
 history; and no one—at any rate no one who values the 
 principles of Reformed Catholicism—can withhold, 
 when he is acquainted with the facts, a thankful 
 admiration for the man who, by the providence of God, 
 steered the Church of England so well through the 
 first perils of the Reformation. 
 
 Cranmer’s family is said to have been of Norman 
 extraction. A Norman gentleman bearing the same 
 name and the same arms was attached to one of the 
 French embassies in Henry VIII.’s time, and was 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 entertained at Lambeth by the Archbishop. Their 
 original seat in England was in Lincolnshire, where, at 
 the end of the sixteenth century there was still “ an 
 ancient mansion-house of antiquity, called Cranmer 
 Hall,” with the arms of Cranmer still to be seen in the 
 windows. 1 The great-grandfather of the Archbishop, 
 by marriage with an heiress, came into the property of 
 Aslockton, in the adjoining county of Nottingham. 
 
 Aslockton lies in the pleasant and fertile Yale of 
 Belvoir, between Nottingham and Grantham, on the 
 banks of the little river Smyte. On a piece of firm 
 ground, amidst the morasses through which the stream 
 once wandered, rises a bold grassy mound, the only sur¬ 
 vivor out of three which are said to have once existed 
 there. The mounds were formerly known as the Bailey 
 Hills, and are no doubt the remains of some ancient 
 fortification; but the villagers call the one which 
 remains “ Cranmer’s Mound,” and the tradition is that 
 the Archbishop, whether in youth or in later life, used 
 to sit upon this mound and listen to “ the tuneable 
 bells ” of the neighbouring church of Whatton. 
 Accounts differ as to the site of the house where 
 the Cranmers lived ; but there on July 2, 1489, was 
 born the future Archbishop, the second son of Thomas 
 and Agnes Cranmer, the sixth in a family of seven, 
 having two brothers and four sisters. 2 
 
 Cranmer s youth was not altogether happily spent. 
 
 1 Morice p. 238. The arms were originally three cranes, but 
 Henry VIII. changed them into three pelicans in their piety, as 
 a sign of Cranmer’s readiness to shed his blood for his children in 
 the faith ; “ for you are like to be tested,” he said prophetically, 
 “if you stand to your tackling.”— (Ibid. 251.) 
 
 2 Some part of his father’s estate seems to have come into the 
 hands of the Archbishop, although his elder brother lived and had 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 3 
 
 His father “ did set him to school with a marvellous 
 severe and cruel schoolmaster.” According to one 
 account this schoolmaster was “a rude parish clerk .” * 1 
 Cranmer afterwards complained that he “ appalled, 
 dulled, and daunted the tender and fine wits of his 
 scholars,” and said “that, for his part, he lost much of 
 that benefit of memory and audacity in his youth that 
 by nature was given unto him, which he could never 
 recover.” 2 
 
 Hot all his “audacity,” however, was taken from him. 
 His father, though always “ very desirous to have him 
 learned, yet would he not that he should be ignorant in 
 civil and gentlemanlike exercises; insomuch that he used 
 him to shoot, and many times permitted him to hunt 
 and hawk, and to exercise and to ride rough horses.” 
 These pursuits were maintained in mature life. When 
 he was Archbishop of Canterbury, according to his 
 secretary’s account, “he feared not to ride the roughest 
 horse that came into his stable, which he would do 
 very comely; as otherwise at all times there was none 
 that would become his horse better. And when time 
 served for recreation after study, he would both hawk 
 and hunt, the game being prepared for him beforehand, 
 and would sometime shoot in the long-bow, but many 
 times kill his deer with the crossbow ; and yet his sight 
 was not perfect, for he was purblind.” 3 
 
 The father did not live to see the results of his training* 
 of the boy. He died when Thomas was twelve years old, 
 
 a numerous family. In a State paper of 1529, “ Mr. Dr. Cranmer” 
 is named as one of those who have corn to dispose of in the 
 parish of Aslockton. 
 
 1 Narratives of the Reformation p. 218. 
 
 2 Morice p. 239. 3 Ibid. p. 240. 
 
4 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 and was buried in Whatton Church, where a dignified 
 and uncommon-looking stone covers his grave, incised 
 with his effigy, in the costume of a gentleman of Henry 
 VII.’s reign. The widowed mother sent Thomas, at 
 the age of fourteen years, to Jesus College at Cam¬ 
 bridge, which had been founded seven years before. 
 His college tutor was not a man to be of much help to 
 an inquiring youth. “ The scholar of such an one I 
 was,” he writes, “ who when he came to any hard 
 chapter, which he well understood not, would find 
 some pretty toy to shift it off, and to skip over to 
 another chapter, of which he could better skill .” 1 
 There “ he was nozzled,” says a contemporary, “ in the 
 grossest kind of sophistry, logic, philosophy, moral and 
 natural (not in the text of the old philosophers, but 
 chiefly in the dark riddles of Duns and other subtile 
 questionists), to his age of twenty-two years. After that, 
 he gave himself to Faber, Erasmus, good Latin authors, 
 four or five years together, unto the time that Luther 
 began to write; and then he, considering what great 
 controversy was in matters of religion (not only in 
 trifles, but in the chiefest articles of our salvation), 
 bent himself to try out the truth herein: and foras¬ 
 much as he perceived that he could not judge in¬ 
 differently in so weighty matters without the knowledge 
 of the Holy Scriptures (before he were infected with 
 any man’s opinions or errors), he applied his whole 
 study three years to the said Scriptures. After this 
 he gave his mind to good writers, both new and old, 
 not rashly running over them, for he was a slow 
 reader, but a diligent marker of whatsoever he read ; 
 for he seldom read without pen in hand, and whatsoever 
 
 1 Jenkyns iii. 472. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 5 
 
 made either for the one part or the other, of things 
 being in controversy, he wrote it out if it were short, 
 or at the least noted the author and the place, that he 
 might find it and write it out by leisure ; which was a 
 great help to him in debating of matters ever after. 
 This kind of study he used till he were made Doctor of 
 Divinity, which was about the thirty-fourth of his age.” 1 
 
 It is interesting to observe that the date at which 
 this evidently well-informed writer speaks of Cranmer’s 
 turning from scholasticism to the study of Erasmus and 
 other good Latin authors, was the date (1511) at which 
 Erasmus himself began to lecture in Cambridge as the 
 Lady Margaret’s Reader in Divinity. Erasmus, in a 
 well-known letter of the year 1516, contrasts the barren 
 scholastic studies, which were all that Cambridge had 
 had to offer a few years before, with the knowledge 
 of literature and of the Bible which had recently been 
 developed there. 2 The approximate date at which 
 Cranmer is said to have devoted himself to the study 
 of Scripture (1516) is the date of the publication of 
 Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the young Cranmer 
 was personally influenced by the teaching of Erasmus, 
 although there is no record of direct intercourse 
 between the two men at Cambridge. Later on, after 
 Warham’s death, the great man of letters, writing 
 to deplore the loss of his chief patron, expresses his 
 thankfulness that Providence has made some compen¬ 
 sation for him, “ inasmuch as the deceased Archbishop’s 
 place and dignity has been taken by Thomas Cranmer, 
 
 1 Narratives of Reformation p. 219. 
 
 2 Erasmus Ep. cxlviii.; cf. Mullinger Univ. of Camb. vol. i. 
 p. 515. 
 
6 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 a professed theologian, and a most upright man of 
 spotless life, who, without my asking him, has pro¬ 
 mised that he will not be behind his predecessor in 
 his care and kindness towards me; and what he freely 
 promised, he has equally freely begun to perform, so 
 that I may feel that Warham has not been taken away 
 from me, but is born again in Cranmer.” 1 
 
 It is, perhaps, not much to be wondered at, that there 
 was no more intimate friendship between him and 
 Erasmus at the University. Cranmer was twenty-one 
 years junior to Erasmus; and he was always of a 
 retiring temper. It was not likely that he would thrust 
 himself forward in academic circles, any more than 
 elsewhere. It cannot be concluded from the silence of 
 Erasmus that Cranmer was no great scholar in those 
 days. He was commonly appointed to examine candi¬ 
 dates for degrees in divinity at Cambridge, and dis¬ 
 tinguished himself by insisting upon the knowledge of 
 Scripture. 2 His reputation for learning was so well 
 established in the University, that about 1524, upon 
 the recommendation of Capon, Master of Jesus, he was 
 invited by Cardinal Wolsey, along with a few other 
 rising Cambridge scholars, to accept a canonry in the 
 new Cardinal College at Oxford, an honour which 
 Cranmer declined. 3 
 
 Cranmer does not appear at first to have had the 
 intention of entering Holy Orders. Soon after gaining 
 his fellowship at Jesus, in 1510 or 1511, when he was 
 one or two and twenty, “ it chanced him,” in the quaint 
 language of Ralph Morice, “ to marry a wife.” Who 
 
 1 Erasmus Upist. mcclxi. 
 
 2 Cooper’s Athence Cantabr. i. 146 (after Foxe). 
 
 3 Morice p. 240, and Cooper l. c. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 7 
 
 and what his wife was is not certain. Foxe says that 
 she was “ a gentleman’s daughter,” and that Cranmer 
 “ placed the said wife in an inn, called the ‘ Dolphin/ in 
 Cambridge, the wife of the house being of affinity unto 
 her.”/ That a gentleman’s daughter, in those days, should 
 be related to the wife of a respectable innkeeper was 
 not impossible; but Foxe’s account of the matter seems 
 to be not wholly correct, for it would appear from the 
 report of Cranmer’s last trial that she was living at the 
 “Dolphin” before her marriage, and was not only “placed” 
 there afterwards. It “ was objected that he, . . . being 
 yet free, and before he entered into Holy Orders, married 
 one Joan, surnamed Black, or Brown, dwelling at the 
 sign of the Dolphin in Cambridge. Whereunto he 
 answered, that whether she was called black or brown 
 he knew not; but that he married there one Joan, that 
 he granted.” 2 
 
 It was evidently not an exalted marriage; but 
 scholars in those days were often content with homely 
 alliances, and there is not the smallest reason for sup¬ 
 posing that there was anything clandestine or other¬ 
 wise wrong about it. Cranmer’s fellowship at Jesus 
 was vacated by his marriage; and to support himself he 
 “ became the common reader at Buckingham College,” 3 
 now Magdalene. But within a year his wife died, in 
 childbirth; and it is a proof of the esteem in which he 
 was held among those who knew him best, that his 
 own college re-elected him fellow. He was ordained 
 soon after, for in 1520 he was appointed one of the 
 
 1 Foxe viii. 4 (I quote from the eel. of 1843-9). 
 
 2 Jenkyna iv. p. 100. The “Dolphin,” according to Mullinger a 
 Univ. of Camb. i. 612, stood “at the Bridge Street end of All 
 Saints’ Passage.” Part of Trinity occupies the site. 
 
 3 Morice p. 240. 
 
8 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 University preachers, and graduated the year after in 
 divinity. A lecturership in that science had been 
 established at Jesus, and Cranmer held it. 1 
 
 It is pleasant to observe that Cranmer’s friendliness 
 towards his College continued after his promotion to 
 Canterbury. In June, 1533, he sent the Master a buck, 
 “to be bestowed amonges your company within your 
 College. And, he adds pleasantly, “ forasmuch as you 
 have more store of money, and also less need than I at 
 this season, therefore I bequeath a noble of your purse 
 towards the baking and seasoning of him. A_nd when¬ 
 soever I have so much money beforehand as I am now 
 behindhand, I shall repay you your noble again.” 2 Two 
 years later he interposed somewhat peremptorily to 
 preserve the College from a troublesome inquiry with 
 which Cromwell threatened it, most heartily requiring 
 Cromwell to suspend his judgment, and to repel all 
 manner of information and suit in the case, until he 
 heard further from the Archbishop. 3 
 
 A most bitter enemy describing those Cambridge 
 years says of Cranmer, that by means of an agreeable 
 though not particularly brilliant nature, and°by im¬ 
 mense, if ill-spent, industry, he obtained the distinction 
 of being made a Doctor, 4 and so laid the foundation 
 of subsequent honours. “ He had in his favour,” says 
 the same writer, “ a dignified presence, adorned with a 
 semblance of goodness, a considerable reputation for 
 learning, and manners so courteous, kindly, and pleasant, 
 that he seemed like an old friend to those whom he en¬ 
 countered for the first time. He gave signs of modesty, 
 
 1 Morice, p. 240. 2 J en kyns i. 34. 
 
 8 Ibid. i. 133. 
 
 4 It was in 1526, according to Cooper Ath. Cantab, i. 146. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 9 
 
 seriousness, and application.” 1 Cranmer probably ex¬ 
 pected and desired to spend all bis days in the quiet 
 round of academic duties, or perhaps to settle event¬ 
 ually in a country benefice. But one of those accidents 
 which alter the history of the world, brought him 
 suddenly into public life. 
 
 In order to understand the nature of that accident, 
 it is necessary to state briefly the position of affairs 
 with regard to the so-called Divorce of Henry VIII. 
 and Catherine of Aragon. To give this transaction the 
 name of a divorce is really to prejudge the question. 
 Divorce, in the strict sense of the term, is unknown to 
 Christianity. Man and wife, according to the Gospel laws, 
 can never be anything else to each other but man and 
 wife; and if Henry and Catherine had ever been truly 
 man and wife, no act of Church or State could legiti¬ 
 mately set either of them free in the lifetime of the 
 other to marry another person. But it is a matter of 
 grave and reasonable doubt whether Henry and Cathe¬ 
 rine were ever truly man and wife. Catherine had 
 been at an earlier time the wife of Henry’s elder brother 
 Arthur, the Prince of Wales. According to Catherine s 
 own statement, which there is no need to doubt, her 
 marriage to Arthur had never been more than a legal 
 and nominal marriage. But nevertheless it was suffi¬ 
 cient to form an obstacle to marrying Henry. Cathe¬ 
 rine had been publicly married to Arthur, first by 
 proxy and then in person. For the few remaining 
 months of the young Prince’s life the two had lived 
 together in the eyes of the world as man and wife. 
 To propose, therefore, after Arthur’s death, as was done 
 
 1 Bishop Cranmer's Becantacyons p. 3. Regarding this work see 
 Dixon iv. 490. 
 
10 
 
 THOMAS CRANMETl 
 
 % 
 
 by Henry VII., and urged by Ferdinand the Catholic, 
 that his widow should be transferred to his brother, was 
 to outrage every Christian sentiment. Only a low and 
 unworthy conception of the marriage tie could have 
 made it possible to entertain the proposal. There were 
 many at the time of Henry VIII.’s marriage,among whom 
 was Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, who questioned 
 whether it was possible for such an union to be allowed. 
 
 But unhappily the Papal system of dispensations had 
 already accustomed men’s minds to seeing the laws of 
 marriage tampered with. Martin V., in 1418, had per¬ 
 mitted John, Count of Foix, to marry his deceased wife’s 
 sister. 1 When Catherine’s own confessor objected to 
 the proposed marriage with Henry, her father could 
 silence the objection by pointing to Emmanuel, King of 
 Portugal, who was living happily with the sister of his 
 first wife, by dispensation from Alexander VI. 2 The 
 conscience of Europe had been still further paralysed 
 by seeing permission given by the same wicked Pope to 
 Ferdinand II., King of Italy, to marry his own aunt— 
 a precedent many times followed by later popes, down 
 to the present one, who allowed the late Duke of Aosta, 
 propter nimiam 'pietateiri, to marry his sister’s daughter. 
 But Alexander VI. himself refused consent to Cathe¬ 
 rine’s marriage with Henry; and so did Pius III. It 
 was the next Pope, Julius II., a man of little higher 
 character than Alexander, who first gave a dispensation 
 for a man to marry his brother’s widow; and he 
 did so—the point is much to be observed—not on the 
 ground that, after examination, Catherine’s marriage 
 
 1 Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discip. part II. lib. iii. cap. 
 28 sect. 10. See Mr. Knight Watson’s letter in the Guardian , 
 Dec. 13, 1882. 
 
 2 Hook’s Warham p. 195. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 11 
 
 with Arthur proved to have never been a real one. He 
 expressly sanctioned the union whether it had been real 
 or not. Had Julius II. been content to deviate no 
 further from the law of God than Alexander had done 
 before him,England might have remained subject to the 
 Papacy. It was Julius II. who lost the English Church 
 to Rome, by professing to make valid, in any case, a 
 marriage which nothing could justify. 
 
 That Henry VIII. was prompted by high and sacred 
 considerations to seek release from his union with 
 Catherine would be a paradoxical thesis to maintain. 
 He was tired of her. As early as 1524 he had ceased 
 to treat her as a wife. 1 Another affection began to 
 occupy all his mind. The way in which the matter of 
 the divorce was conducted turned what might have been 
 a right and Christian transaction into a tyrannous and 
 cowardly oppression of a helpless lady. When it was 
 found that Catherine could not be brought in private to 
 adopt Henry’s view of the situation, then every artifice 
 was employed to prevent her from offering effectual 
 opposition. Cardinal Wolsey (who did not wish for the 
 divorce, but who found that his position, if not his life, 
 depended upon carrying it through) set himself to 
 prejudice the Queen in the judgment of her best 
 advisers. While Catherine was made to treat the 
 subject as a religious secret, and was debarred from 
 communicating with Spain or Rome, the King s party 
 were pressing busily forward. With the greatest stealth, 
 lest the Queen should hear of it, embassies on the sub¬ 
 ject were sent backwards and forwards to the Pope and 
 to the French King. Catherine was looked upon as an 
 adversary to be alternately brow-beaten and outwitted ; 
 
 1 Brewer Reign of Henry VIII. ii. 164. 
 
12 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 and the King, so far from putting on the appearance of 
 a man under a burden of conscience from which he 
 sought relief, was living a life of extravagant gaiety, 
 with Ann Boleyn ostentatiously thrust forward as if 
 she were already Queen. 
 
 If only Rome could have adopted a firm attitude at 
 this juncture, although it was too late to retrieve the 
 mistake of Julius, yet England might at least have 
 been lost with dignity. But the poor bastard who held 
 the see of Rome was incapable of taking a firm attitude 
 of principle. Clement VII. at one moment assented 
 to the institution of a collusive suit before Wolsey 
 as legate, in which, without Catherine’s knowledge, 
 Henry was summoned to answer on a charge of living 
 with his brother’s wife. 1 At another moment he 
 promised to give Henry a dispensation to marry a new 
 wife without deciding for or against the validity of his 
 first marriage. 2 These were the weapons of unscrupu¬ 
 lous weakness. At length, a commission was issued to 
 Wolsey and Campeggio to sit as joint commissioners for 
 the hearing of the case; but the duplicity of Clement pro¬ 
 vided Campeggio with instructions on no account to allow 
 the case to come to a decision ; and after many months 
 of obstruction, it was finally revoked, in July 1529, to 
 Rome. Things were thus brought to a standstill. 
 
 The King’s disgust at this conclusion of the work of 
 the legates drove him “ for a day or twain ” from London 
 to Waltham Abbey. He was attended by two heads of 
 Cambridge houses—Edward Foxe, Provost of King’s, 
 as almoner, and Stephen Gardiner, Master of Trinity 
 Hall, as secretary. These were the two men who had 
 lately managed the King’s matter. It was by their 
 1 Brewer ii. 187. 2 Ibid. ii. 228, 230. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 13 
 
 exertions that Clement VII. had been induced to issue 
 his commission for the trial. The “ harbingers 
 happened to quarter them at Waltham in the house 
 of a gentleman named Cressy. There they met Dr. 
 Cranmer. An outbreak of the plague had driven him 
 from Cambridge, where two of Mr. Cressy’s sons were 
 pupils of his; their mother also being akin to him. 
 The three men were “ of old acquaintance, and meet¬ 
 ing together the first night at supper had familiar talk 
 concerning the estate of the University of Cambridge, 
 and so, entering into farther communication, they 
 debated among themselves that great and weighty 
 cause of the King’s divorcement.” Cranmer modestly 
 said that he had “ nothing at all studied for the verity 
 of this cause,” nor was “ beaten therein,” as Gardiner 
 and Foxe were; “ howbeit, I do think,’ he said, “ that 
 you go not the next way to work as to bring the matter 
 to a perfect conclusion and end. . . This is most certain, 
 that there is but one truth in it, which no man ought 
 or better can discuss than the divines. ’ It had already 
 been recommended that the Universities should be 
 consulted—indeed Cranmer himself had been put on 
 a commission to represent Cambridge in the matter. 1 
 But Cranmer not only advised that the opinion of the 
 learned men of the kingdom should be sought; he 
 advised that the King should then proceed to act upon 
 it without waiting for the “ frustratory delays ” of the 
 ecclesiastical courts. When the Divine law had been 
 set forth, “ then his Highness, in conscience quieted, 
 may determine with himself that which shall seem good 
 before God, and let these tumultuary processes give 
 place unto a certain truth.” 2 
 1 Narratives p. 219. 
 
 2 Morice p. 241. 
 
14 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 <c If the King/’ so ran another version of what Cranmer 
 said, “ rightly understood his own office, neither Pope, 
 nor any other potentate whatsoever, neither in causes 
 civil nor ecclesiastical, hath anything to do with him. or 
 any of his actions, within his own realm and dominion ; 
 but he himself, under God, hath the supreme govern¬ 
 ment of this land in all causes whatsoever.” 1 
 
 Even this advice of Cranmer’s had no great novelty 
 about it, for Gardiner himself had a year before 
 threatened the Pope face to face, at Orvieto, that if he 
 did not give sentence as required, England would go 
 over to the opinion that a Pope was as unnecessary as 
 he was useless. 2 There were already many men of that 
 opinion in England, although it was not much avowed. 
 But Cranmer’s utterance came exactly at the right 
 moment for the King. When Foxe and Gardiner re¬ 
 ported to him their interview with Cranmer, “ Mary,” 
 said the King, “ I will surely speak with him, and 
 therefore let him be sent for out of hand. I perceive 
 that that man hath the sow by the right ear.” 3 
 
 Cranmer probably never expected his words to be 
 brought to the King’s knowledge ; and Foxe, the 
 martyrologist, is most likely right when he affirms that 
 he earnestly entreated to be left to his peaceful privacy. 
 If Gardiner could have foreseen the future, he would 
 certainly have done all in his power to give effect 
 
 1 Baily’s Life of Fisher p. 89. The words form no part of the 
 valuable document (published by Van Ortroy in 1893) which 
 served as the chief basis of “Baily’s” work ; but they are likely 
 enough in themselves. 
 
 2 Brewer ii. 252. 
 
 3 Foxe viii. 7. Wordsworth Fed. Biog. iii. 130 quotes the 
 story from Baily’s Life of Fisher p. 90 in the form, “ The King 
 swore, by hisuwonted oath, Mother of God, that man hath the 
 right sow by the ear.” 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 15 
 
 to that desire. But things were otherwise ordered. 
 Cranmer came to the King at Greenwich. Henry pro¬ 
 fessed to take him into his confidence. He told him 
 that he never “ fancied woman better ” than Catherine, 
 and that he only sought for a dissolution of his marriage 
 because it was a burden to his conscience. “ Therefore, 
 Mr. Doctor,” he said, “ I pray you, and nevertheless, 
 because you are a subject, I charge and command you 
 (all your other business and affairs set apart) to take 
 some pains to see this my cause furthered according to 
 your device, as much as it may lie in you, so that I may 
 shortly understand whereunto I may trust.” 1 Henry 
 had a way of making men believe him \ and Cranmer, 
 the most guileless and unsuspicious of men, was not 
 slow to be persuaded. He undertook the task, and 
 threw himself heart and soul into it. 
 
 The first duty assigned to him was to cast his 
 opinions on the subject into the form of a treatise. 
 At the King s request he was received, while writing 
 it, into the house of the Earl of Wiltshire, the father 
 of Ann Boleyn. It has been alleged that Cranmer had 
 been for a long time past a chaplain and friend of the 
 family. 2 The conjecture is based upon a misunder¬ 
 standing. There is no evidence whatever that Cranmer 
 was acquainted with the Boleyns before this date; but 
 he now formed a warm and zealous attachment to them 
 —especially to Ann—and his interest in writing for 
 
 1 This is Foxe’s account, viii. 8. 
 
 2 See Mr. Gairdner’s note in Brewer ii. 223. I do not know 
 on what grounds Mr. Gairdner admits that Cranmer was ever a 
 chaplain of Wiltshire’s. On the other hand it would appear that 
 Cranmer was already acquainted with. Cromwell, and had occa¬ 
 sionally acted on his behalf : Calendar of State Papers of Henry 
 VIII. iv. 4872. 
 
16 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 the divorce became keener as he learned to desire the 
 King’ s marriage with his host’s daughter. 
 
 As soon as the book was written it was used to influ¬ 
 ence the opinion of the Cambridge doctors. Cranmer 
 had, it seems, already disputed on the subject there, 
 and by his skill in argument had converted to the 
 King’s side five or six of those who had been the 
 leading champions of the opposite view. It is probable 
 that he now repaired again for a time to Cambridge in 
 furtherance of the cause. 1 His book, at any rate, was 
 widely circulated there, and with effect. It is satis¬ 
 factory, however, to note that he was not personally 
 implicated in the discreditable intrigues by which 
 Gardiner and Foxe obtained a majority for the King in 
 the Cambridge Senate-house. By the time that the 
 University gave its decision Cranmer was far away, 
 discussing the matter with more eminent personages 
 than the Cambridge scholars. 2 
 
 Towards the end of 1529 a new embassy was de¬ 
 spatched to the Court of Home. At the head of it, by 
 a strange and audacious selection, was the Earl of Wilt¬ 
 shire, Ann Boleyn’s father. Cranmer was a member of 
 this embassy, along with Stokesley, Bishop-Elect of 
 London, and others. They found the Pope at Bologna, 
 where the Emperor—Queen Catherine’s nephew—also 
 was; and Cranmer probably witnessed there Charles’s 
 long-deferred coronation at Clement’s hands. 3 The 
 
 1 The occurrence to which Morice refers (p. 242) is evidently 
 the same as that mentioned by the anonymous biographer (p. 220), 
 who places it before the writing of the book. Both, however, 
 speak of his visiting Cambridge afterwards. 
 
 2 See the account of the Cambridge proceedings in Mullinger 
 i. 618, where the date is given as 1529 instead of 1530. 
 
 3 February 24, 1530. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 17 
 
 Emperor’s presence, no doubt, made the prospects of 
 the mission less hopeful, and Wiltshire failed to obtain 
 the Pope’s consent to have the cause settled by the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury. When the Emperor’s back 
 was turned Clement “ more than three times told ” the 
 Bishop of Tarbes “ in secret, that he would be glad if 
 the marriage ” between Henry and Ann “ were already 
 made, either by a dispensation of the English legate 
 or otherwise, provided it were not by his (Clement’s) 
 authority, or in diminution of his power as to dispen¬ 
 sations and definition of Divine law.” 1 Clement had 
 no high-minded determination to see right done by 
 Catherine; but he would not endanger his own position, 
 nor give mortal offence to the Emperor. Wiltshire 
 returned to England a few days after Charles had left 
 Bologna, but Cranmer stayed behind, and moved with 
 the Pope to Rome. There he went on busily with his 
 negotiations, alternately sanguine and dejected. On 
 July 12 he wrote from Rome to a febow-agent at 
 Bologna (it is the earliest letter of his of which anything 
 is preserved)— 
 
 “As for our successes here, they be very little; nor 
 dare we to attempt to know any man’s mind, because of 
 the Pope; nor is he content with what you have done; 
 and he says, no friars shall discuss his power. And as 
 for any favour in this Court, I look for none, but to 
 have the Pope with all his cardinals against us.” 2 
 
 A little later, the prospect appears to him somewhat 
 less gloomy— 
 
 “ As concerning the brief, the Pope never granted us 
 
 1 Le Grand Histoire du Divorce iii. 400. 
 
 2 Quoted in a letter from Croke to the King (State Papers of 
 Henry VIII. iv. 6531), which is in part printed by Burnet 
 Reformation i. 155. 
 
 0 
 
18 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 none after our device, whatsoever Sir Gregory (Cassalis) 
 hath written. Mary, this he did—he willed us to 
 devise a brief; and if it liked him, he would ensign it. 
 But when it was devised, faults were found in it, and 
 it was given to the Cardinal Sanctorum Quattuor to 
 amend; but he amended it after such fashion that it 
 was clean marred for our purpose. Since that time we 
 have had so many new devised and changed again; yea, 
 and moreover, when the Pope hath granted some of our 
 devise, the Emperor s oratory hath made such exclama¬ 
 tions against the Pope that all hath been changed. I 
 never knew such inconstancy in my life. And to shew 
 you plainly my thought, I suppose we shall never have 
 none according to our mind, so long as the Cardinal 
 Sanctorum Quattuor, our utter adversary, beareth this 
 authority. Notwithstanding, the Pope is contented, and 
 I trust we shall have shortly one brief metely good 
 after mine opinion, but not with such terms as we 
 would have it/' 1 
 
 Personally, the Pope seems to have made a not un¬ 
 favourable impression upon Cranmer, to judge from 
 later sayings of his. Clement’s manners were amiable, 
 and he sought to do Cranmer a pleasure. He appointed 
 him to the office of “ Penitentiary ”—according to some, 
 for Henry VIII.’s dominions, according to others, for 
 the whole Papal communion itself. 2 Whether this was 
 the lucrative position which some have considered it, or 
 not, the conferring of it was a high compliment. But in 
 spite of compliments, Cranmer returned, as Morice says, 
 “not answered with the Bishop of Rome.” He arrived 
 in England in September, 1530, to find that things 
 
 1 /State Papers of Henry VIII. iv. 6543. 
 
 2 See Wordsworth Eccl. Biogr. iii. 135. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 19 
 
 were past the diplomatic stage, and that preparations 
 were making for independent action. 
 
 In December 1530, the King, under the guidance of 
 the ruthless Cromwell, struck his first blow at the 
 papal power by laying the entire clergy of England 
 under a Praemunire, for having accepted Wolsey as 
 legate of the Pope, although it had been at Henry’s 
 own instance that he was made legate. The Convoca¬ 
 tion, which met at the beginning of the new year, 
 thought it best to make no resistance to this tyrannical 
 measure, but to purchase the King’s forgiveness by a 
 large vote of money. Before, however, their gift was 
 accepted, it was determined by the King and his ad¬ 
 visers that the Church should be forced to acknowledge 
 explicitly its subjection to the Crown. Into the deed 
 which conveyed their grant of money they were re¬ 
 quired to insert, among other expressions, a clause 
 which acknowledged the King as “ alone Protector and 
 Supreme Head of the Church, as of the clergy, of Eng¬ 
 land.” The clause was long and vigorously debated in 
 Convocation. Messages went backwards and forwards 
 between the clergy and the King. The King was ready 
 to modify his language by admitting the words “after 
 God ” into the title of “ Supreme Plead.” Even so 
 the clergy would not agree to the title. At last, on 
 February 11, Archbishop Warham proposed an amended 
 recognition of the King as “ sole protector, only and 
 Supreme Lord, and, as far as the law of Christ 
 allows, Supreme Head also ” of the English Church and 
 clergy. The amended form was received in silence. 
 When the Archbishop reminded the assembly that 
 silence must be taken for consent, a voice replied, 
 “Then are we all silent.” The Convocation of York 
 
20 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 followed the example of Canterbury, although some of 
 the bishops of the northern province thought fit to 
 publish protestations, explaining the sense in which 
 they admitted the title; to which protestations the 
 King himself replied in a conciliatory manner, de¬ 
 claring that he intended no intrusion into the proper 
 functions of the episcopate. 
 
 It is to be observed that in all the debates upon the 
 new title—at any rate in this stage of proceedings—no 
 one thought of suggesting that the King was encroach¬ 
 ing upon the rights of the Pope. Later on, indeed, it 
 was supposed that by this act the King was substituted 
 for the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church of Eng¬ 
 land; and, as a matter of fact, if the title w r as to mean 
 anything at all, it involved a repudiation, or restriction, 
 of powers which the Papacy had been permitted to 
 exercise in England. But the designation of “ Supreme 
 Head,” or “sole Protector,” or “only and Supreme Lord ” 
 of the English Church, had never been used or thought 
 of in connexion with the Bishop of Rome; and in 
 arrogating it to himself Henry VIII. made no reference 
 to the claims of the Papacy; nor did those who opposed 
 the designation oppose it in the interests of the Papacy: 
 they opposed it in the interests of the liberty of the 
 English Church, and in the interests of the spiritual 
 authority assigned by Christ to the apostolic ministry. 
 When (mistakenly or not) they were satisfied that 
 Henry was only claiming what his predecessors had 
 always claimed, and had no designs upon the internal 
 constitution of the English Church, the anti-papal drift 
 of the King’s new style woke no perceptible alarm. 
 The nation, both in Church and in State, was well 
 accustomed to anti-papal enactments, and there were 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 21 
 
 few who objected to them so strongly as to think it 
 worth while to speak out. The voice which emphasised 
 the silence of the Convocation of Canterbury, when the 
 new title was read out, expressed the feelings of the 
 English Church and nation. 
 
 But the next year, 1532, saw the Supreme Head 
 beginning to interfere with the liberties of the English 
 Church in a new way. In answer to a supplication of 
 the House of Commons, and in spite of temperate and 
 earnest expostulations on the part of the hierarchy, the 
 King forced upon Convocation the memorable Submis¬ 
 sion of the Clergy. By this they bound themselves not 
 to put forth any new canons or ordinances without the 
 King’s assent, and agreed that the existing canons 
 should be examined by a committee of the King’s 
 appointment, with a view to annulling those which 
 might be found prejudicial to the realm, or onerous to 
 the laity, retaining in force the remainder if they 
 should receive the royal authority. The King is said to 
 have exclaimed, in the midst of these transactions, that 
 owing to the oaths of canonical obedience to Rome 
 taken by the bishops at their consecration, the English 
 clergy were but half his subjects. But so far were the 
 English clergy from objecting to the new regulations 
 for fear of causing a breach in the connexion with 
 Rome, that the Convocation in this same year presented 
 a petition (which bore fruit in an Act of Parliament) 
 for the abolition of the Annates, or first-fruits, which 
 the bishops had been accustomed to pay to the Roman 
 treasury. The clergy urged, in this petition, that if the 
 Pope should offer opposition, then, “ forasmuch as all 
 good Christian men be more bound to obey God than 
 any man, and forasmuch as St. Paul willetli us to 
 
22 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 withdraw ourselves from all such as walk inordinately, * 
 it should be ordained that “ the obedience of the King 
 and his people be withdrawn from the see of Rome,”— 
 for which they alleged the precedent of Charles VI. of 
 France and Benedict XIII. The Act of Parliament 
 which gave effect to this desire of the clergy was not at 
 once made known. It was the King’s wish to make one 
 more effort to bring Clement VII. round to his 
 matrimonial projects, and only when that effort failed 
 was the royal assent formally given to the Act. 1 
 
 In these discussions and determinations Thomas 
 Cranmer had had no share, that we know of, although 
 he appears to have been in England and about the 
 person of the King in the first half of the year which 
 saw the Supreme Headship acknowledged by the 
 clergy. 2 In January of that year, although he did not 
 start till later, he was appointed to the difficult post 
 of ambassador to the Emperor, Charles V., with a 
 special view to the question of the marriage. He had 
 recently been made Archdeacon of Taunton. 3 Two of his 
 despatches from Germany to Henry VIII. are extant, 
 and reveal in him considerable sagacity and power of 
 observation. 4 He was still engaged in the cause of the 
 King’s divorce among the German princes and divines, 
 though with no conspicuous success, when he was recalled 
 to England, and to the true work of his life. 
 
 On August 23, 1532, the liberal-minded Archbishop 
 
 1 See Dixon i. 113, 136, foil. 
 
 2 Todd i. 29. Jenkyns i. 1. 
 
 3 But see Calendar of State Papers of Henry VIII. iv. p. 2698, 
 according to which Gardiner held the office at this time. Morice 
 (p. 243) speaks of Cranmer’s promotion as'that of “the deanery 
 of Tanton in Devonshere,” which is manifestly inaccurate. 
 
 4 Jenkyns i. 6—16. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 23 
 
 Warham, the patron of Erasmus, died. It was under 
 him that the clergy accepted the Supreme Head¬ 
 ship and made their submission. It was under him 
 that they had petitioned for separation from Rome, 
 in case the Pope should insist upon the payment of 
 Annates. But Warham was still Legate of the 
 Apostolic See, and before he died he wrote a protest 
 against the consequences which might flow from the 
 measures in which he had taken part, to the derogation 
 of the rights of Rome, or of the prerogatives and 
 liberties of the Church of Canterbury. It was too late, 
 however, to protest, and Warham s successor was 
 destined to see, and to help on, the logical lesults of 
 what had been done under Warham. 
 
 Most writers treat it as a strange and astonishing thing 
 that the King should have selected Thomas Cranmer to 
 succeed to the vacant primacy, as if he had been an un¬ 
 known man. Doubtless there were other men wdio had 
 occupied a more conspicuous position in the eyes of the 
 English Church, but there is no evidence to show that 
 Cranmer’s own contemporaries were surprised. An 
 important foreign embassy was the usual step to 
 ecclesiastical promotion. Tunstall, Stokesley, and 
 Bonner successively passed from such embassies to the 
 great see of London ; Gardiner to that of Winchester; 
 Lee to that of York. It was not altogether surprising 
 that one who had been entrusted with missions so 
 important as those which Cranmer had of late dis¬ 
 charged, should be put into the see of Canterbury. 
 True, his career up to the year 1529 had been that of a 
 quiet student of the. University, but it was not without 
 point that Cranmer himself, when forced, a few years 
 after, to take notice of a foolish slander against his 
 
24 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 earlier life, replied—“If you had but common reason 
 in your heads, you that have named me an ostler, you 
 might well know that the King, having in hand one of 
 the hardest questions that was moved out of the 
 Scriptures these many years, would not send an ostler 
 unto the Bishop of Rome, and to the Emperor’s 
 council, and other princes, to answer and dispute in that 
 so hard a question.” 1 Undoubtedly all open-eyed men 
 must have expected to see Cranmer soon promoted to 
 some high ecclesiastical position, and there is probably 
 some grain of truth in the tale which the Papist 
 Harpsfield relates in a distorted form, that Arch** 
 bishop Warham, in conversation with his nephew, 
 had predicted, not without distress, that Cranmer would 
 be appointed to succeed him. 2 
 
 Beyond all question, the person who was most 
 surprised and least pleased by the appointment was 
 Cranmer himself. He cared nothing for honours and 
 dignities, and was probably only anxious to have done 
 with his embassy and to retire into private life again. 
 There was the more reason for his doing so, inasmuch 
 as in the course of his wanderings amongst the learned 
 men in Germany, “ it was his chance ” again 3 “ to marry 
 a kinswoman of one of theirs,” Margaret, the niece of 
 the well-known Osiander. Such careless statements 
 are made about matters of this kind, that it may be 
 worth while to point out how widely Cranmer’s marriage 
 differed from that, for instance, of Martin Luther. 
 Martin Luther was a friar; his wife a nun. Both of 
 them had believed themselves called by a special 
 
 1 Morice p. 271. 
 
 2 Pretended Divorce of Henry VIII. (Camden Society) p. 178. 
 
 3 Morice p. 243, 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 25 
 
 vocation of God to the life of virginity, and had 
 solemnly vowed that they would never change that 
 estate. Cranmer had done nothing of the sort. The 
 canons of the Western Church, indeed, at the time 
 of his ordination forbade the marriage of the clergy, but 
 he had never taken any vow of celibacy. And now 
 the entire authority of the canons was shaken in 
 England by the submission of the clergy. Cranmer 
 held himself in conscience free. No doubt his residence 
 in Germany, where the marriage of the clergy had long 
 been an accepted thing among liberal-minded men, 
 inclined him the more to a step which he was well 
 assured that the laws of God and of the primitive 
 Church allowed. He had, it appears, already sent his 
 wife into England when the tidings of his great 
 appointment reached him, and the difficulties which 
 his marriage would cause must have added much to 
 the reluctance with which he accepted the charge laid 
 upon him. 
 
 That reluctance was unfeigned. “ There was never 
 man came more unwillingly to a bishoprick, ”he said at 
 his last trial, “ than I did to that. Insomuch that when 
 King Henry did send for me in post that I should come 
 over, I prolonged my journey by seven weeks at the 
 least, thinking that he would be forgetful of me in the 
 meantime.” It was a cruel and unjust retort that was 
 made: “ The King took you to be a man of good 
 conscience, who could not find within all his realm 
 any man that would set forth his strange attempts, but 
 was enforced to send for you in post to come out of 
 Germany.” 1 No doubt it was with a view to subserv¬ 
 ing the purpose of his divorce, that King Henry had 
 
 1 Jenkyns iv. 92. 
 
26 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 nominated Cranmer for Archbishop. When he thanked 
 the King for his promotion, Henry is reported to have 
 told him that he ought rather to thank Ann. 1 But by 
 the time that Cranmer was fully in his new seat, the 
 Convocation of Canterbury, by a large majority, follow¬ 
 ing the lead of the Universities, had pronounced the 
 marriage of Arthur and Catherine to have been a full 
 marriage, and that the Pope had no power to dispense 
 in such a case. 2 Not to speak of the second order of the 
 clergy, probably half the bishops in England—certainly 
 Gardiner, Stokesley, Longland, Standish, Yeysey—would 
 have vied with each other to pronounce the divorce. 
 The Act forbidding all appeals to Rome had just been 
 passed by Parliament, and those bishops knew what 
 they were about. None of them evinced any hesitation 
 in taking the King s side, whatever the Pope might say 
 or do. But the King chose a man of larger capacity 
 than any of them to do his work, and Cranmer moved 
 slowly into his place. 
 
 Cranmer was consecrated in St. Stephen’s Chapel at 
 Westminster on March 30, 1533, by Longland, Bishop 
 of Lincoln, Yeysey, Bishop of Exeter, and Standish, 
 Bishop of St. Asaph. A curious point was raised at 
 his consecration owing to the anomalous circumstances 
 of the moment. Hitherto, for some centuries, all 
 English bishops had taken an oath of obedience to the 
 Pope, and then another to the King, which was intended 
 to deprive the former of political significance. Cranmer 
 had, in the natural course of things, received the usual 
 bulls from Rome for his consecration. He proceeded, 
 according to precedent, to take the usual oaths. But 
 
 1 Bishop Cranmer s Becantacyons p. 4. 
 
 2 April 5, 1533. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 27 
 
 Henry VIII., as has been said already, had lately been 
 exercised in mind with regard to these oaths; and it 
 seemed necessary to be more than ordinarily careful 
 lest the new Archbishop should find himself, like 
 Wolsey, involved in a Praemunire. Accordingly, 
 Cranmer prefaced his oath to the Pope by a protest¬ 
 ation, before a notary and witnesses, that he held it to 
 be more a form than a reality, and that he did not 
 intend by it to bind himself to anything contrary to the 
 law of God, or against the King and commonwealth of 
 England, and the laws of the same; and that he 
 reserved to himself liberty to speak and consult of 
 all things pertaining to the reformation of the Christian 
 religion, and the government of the English Church. 1 
 A great deal has been made of this action of the Arch¬ 
 bishop’s, both at the close of his own life and since. 
 
 “ He made a protestation one day,” cried Martin at his 
 last trial, “ to keep never a whit of that which he would 
 swear the next day.” Cranmer’s answer was character¬ 
 istic. “ That which I did,” he said, “ I did by the best 
 learned men’s advice I could get at that time.” 2 It was 
 his weakness to endeavour to shift the responsibility for 
 his actions upon others. There would have been some 
 force in the rejoinder, that all the learning in the world 
 could not rid him of a perjury, if indeed Cranmer had 
 had clearly in view, at the time when he took his 
 oath, all that he was led to do afterwards. But at the 
 time, he probably meant little less by his oath to the 
 Pope than most bishops of his age and country did. A 
 
 1 The oaths are given in Jenkyns iv. 247, foil. When Dixon i. 
 158, note f, says that Cranmer made certain omissions and inser¬ 
 tions in the usual form, he seems to he confounding the iorm of 
 oath before consecration with that before receiving the pall, also 
 given by Jenkyns. 2 Jenkyns iv. 21, 
 
28 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Langton or a Chichele might as justly be charged with 
 perjury as Cranmer. 
 
 It ought to be clearly understood that Cranmer, at 
 the time of his accession to the throne of Warham, was 
 not the Cranmer of the middle of Edward VI.’s reign— 
 still less was he the modem Protestant he is often taken 
 for. Though he had most likely been on the side of 
 practical reform from the epoch of Erasmus’ sojourn in 
 Cambridge, and was always open-minded, even upon 
 doctrinal subjects, yet when he was made Archbishop 
 his opinions were those of most of the scholars of the 
 day. It is true that the one subject on which he seems 
 to have already made up his mind most definitely, in 
 a reforming direction, was that of the Papal usurpation 
 and its practical consequences. When, three years 
 afterwards, he preached upon this subject at Canter¬ 
 bury, “ I said,” he writes to Henry, “ that these many 
 years I had daily prayed unto God that I might see the 
 power of Rome destroyed; and that I thanked God 
 that I had now seen it in this realm. And I declared 
 the cause wherefore I so prayed. For I said that I 
 perceived the see of Rome work so many things con¬ 
 trary to God’s honour and the wealth of this realm, and 
 I saw no hope of amendment so long as that see reigned 
 over us; and for this cause only I had prayed unto God 
 continually, that we might be separated from that 
 see.” 1 
 
 It may appear surprising that a man of such senti¬ 
 ments could take any oath of obedience at all to the see 
 from which he daily prayed to be separated. But one or 
 two facts deserve to be taken into consideration before 
 judgment is passed, even if they are not held sufficient 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 170. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 29 
 
 \ 
 
 to justify Cranmer’s action. No one, of course, in those 
 days was expected to believe the Pope to be infallible; 
 and no thoughtful contemporary of the Borgias, Roveres, 
 and Medicis could imagine that in practice the Roman 
 Curia was always right. An oath of canonical obedi¬ 
 ence to the Pope could not possibly bind a man to 
 blind subserviency. Every prelate who had taken part 
 in the Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel, had 
 sworn the same kind of oaths; yet they did not feel 
 themselves thereby precluded from criticising the au¬ 
 thority to which they swore, or even from combining to 
 depose a Pope who gave scandal. Archbishop Cranmer 
 desired by his protestation to vindicate for himself 
 the same liberty. He had, as yet, no doctrinal quarrel 
 with the Popes, and no wish permanently to break off 
 ecclesiastical communion with them. But he felt 
 deeply that they were guilty of grave errors in working 
 —especially with regard to the marriage law—and of 
 pernicious usurpations in government. Despairing of 
 their correction by milder measures, he desired that the 
 English Church and nation should repudiate their 
 jurisdiction. And yet he did not deny that the English 
 Church had a duty towards Rome, or that Rome had 
 rights which she might justly claim. When the mo¬ 
 ment for asserting those rights might come, Cranmer’s 
 oath bound him not to be wanting. But there were 
 many other claims to be listened to, and to make Rome 
 listen to, first. The King’s authority, the imperial free¬ 
 dom of the nation, the prerogatives of the Church of 
 Eno-land, needed to be secured: and till this end was 
 accomplished, it was, as Cranmer protested, a matter of 
 form to swear that he would “ be faithful and obedient 
 to the blessed Peter, and to the Holy Apostolic Church 
 
30 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 of Rome, and to our Lord Clement VII., the Lord 
 Pope, and to his successors canonically coming in,” and 
 the rest of it. No oath to uphold “ the rights, dignities, 
 privileges, and authority ” of the Papacy could in con¬ 
 science oblige a man to uphold the Papacy in all pre¬ 
 tensions that it might choose to make. And at any 
 rate, whatever blame may be thought to attach to 
 Archbishop Cranmer for taking such an oath as only 
 a legal form, attaches also, in a measure, to those 
 prelates who, after hearing his protestations, con¬ 
 ferred upon him his sacred order and his pall, and 
 to all who subsequently submitted to him as their 
 metropolitan. 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer had only held his crosier for a 
 few days when he proceeded to the business for which 
 he had been chiefly chosen. Consecrated on March 
 30, he wrote to the King on April 11, petitioning 
 for leave to give a final sentence upon the marriage 
 with Catherine. The letter exists in two forms, both 
 written in the Archbishop’s own hand, and both bearing 
 signs of having been sent to the King. Although Con¬ 
 vocation had now declared against the validity of the 
 King’s marriage, yet, in the country at large, the King’s 
 proceedings were regarded with detestation. Cranmer, 
 ready to draw upon himself all the odium, if he could 
 relieve the King of it, wrote as if on his own motion. 
 Doubtless it had been arranged beforehand that he 
 should do so, and it would seem that the letter of 
 request was privately perused by the King or Cromwell, 
 and then rewritten, to ensure that its terms should be 
 perfectly acceptable. After speaking of the way in 
 which the subject was discussed throughout Christen¬ 
 dom, and the uncertainty among the ignorant people 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 31 
 
 of England with regard to the future succession to the 
 throne, Cranmer continues— 
 
 “ And forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, 
 and your Grace, of your abundant goodness to me 
 showed, to call me, albeit a poor wretch and much un¬ 
 worthy, unto this high and chargeable office of Primate 
 and Archbishop in this your Grace’s realm, wherein I 
 beseech Almighty God to grant me His grace so to use 
 and demean myself, as may be standing with His 
 pleasure and the discharge of my conscience, and to 
 the weal of this your Grace’s realm: and considering 
 also the obloquy and bruit, which daily doth spring and 
 increase of the clergy of this realm, and specially of the 
 heads and presidents of the same, because they in this 
 behalf do not foresee and provide such convenient 
 remedies as might expel and put out of doubt all such 
 inconveniences, perils, and dangers, as the said rude and 
 ignorant people do speak and talk to be imminent: I, 
 your most humble orator and beadman, am, in consider¬ 
 ation of the premises, urgently constrained at the pre¬ 
 sent time most humbly to beseech your most noble 
 Grace, that where the office and duty of the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, by your and your progenitors’ sufferance 
 and grants, is to direct, order, judge, and determine 
 causes spiritual in this your Grace’s realm ; and because 
 I would be right loth, and also it shall not become me, 
 forasmuch as your Grace is my Prince and Sovereign, 
 to enterprise any part of my office in the said weighty 
 cause touching your Highness, without your Grace s 
 favour and license obtained in that behalf: it may 
 please, therefore, your most excellent Majesty (con¬ 
 siderations had to the premises, and to my most bounden 
 duty towards your Highness, your realm, succession, 
 
32 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 and posterity, and for the exoneration of my conscience 
 towards Almighty God) to license me, according to 
 mine office and duty, to proceed to the examination, 
 final determination, and judgment in the said great 
 cause touching your Highness.” 1 
 
 The Supreme Head, in reply, commended the Arch¬ 
 bishop’s “ good and virtuous intended purpose”; declared 
 that he “ recognised no superior in earth, but only 
 God,” yet “ because ye be, under us, by God’s calling and 
 ours, the most spiritual minister of our spiritual juris¬ 
 diction within this our realm,” would not refuse Cran- 
 mer’s “humble request, offer, and towardness,” and 
 charged him to proceed with an eye to God and justice 
 only, and not to “ any earthly or worldly affection.” 2 
 
 The language in which the King spoke of his relation 
 to the primacy was not the language of a Catholic lay¬ 
 man ; but even if it galled, which is improbable, it was 
 not openly resented, and Cranmer prepared to act 
 upon it. 
 
 “After the Convocation in that behalf,” he writes 
 in a letter to a friend abroad, “ had determined and 
 agreed according to the former consent of the Universi- 
 ties, it was thought convenient by the King and his 
 learned counsel, that I should repair unto Dunstable, 
 which is within four miles unto Ampthill, where the 
 Lady Catherine keepeth her house, and) there to call 
 her before me to hear the final sentence in the said 
 matter. Notwithstanding,” he continues with a some¬ 
 what naive surprise, “ she would not at all obey there¬ 
 unto ; for when she was by Dr. Lee cited to appear by 
 a day, she utterly refused the same, saying that inas- 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 22 ; Dixon i. 160. 
 
 2 The reply is given in Collier ix. 103. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 33 
 
 much as her cause was before the Pope, she would have 
 none other judge, and therefore would not take me for 
 her judge.” 1 
 
 The Archbishop, notwithstanding, held a court, and, 
 the serving of the summons having been proved, 
 declared the Lady Catherine contumacious. He was 
 informed by the King’s counsel (of whom Bishop 
 Gardiner was the chief) that her contumacy pre¬ 
 cluded her from further monition to appear; and 
 this simplified and accelerated the course of affairs 
 beyond Cranmer’s expectation. Henry and Cromwell 
 were urging him on, as if they half distrusted him. 
 “ Where I never yet,” he wrote back to Cromwell, 
 “ went about to injure willingly any man living, I would 
 be loth now to begin with my Prince, and defraud 
 him of his trust in me. And therefore I have used all 
 the expedition that I might conveniently ”—that is, 
 with propriety—“use in the King’s behalf, and have 
 brought the matter to a final sentence, to be given 
 upon Friday next ensuing. At which time I trust so 
 to endeavour myself further in this behalf as shall 
 become me to do, to the pleasure of Almighty God and 
 the mere truth of the matter.” Cranmer excuses him¬ 
 self for not having written before to Cromwell on the 
 subject, and adds—“ For divers considerations I do think 
 it right expedient that the matter and the process of the 
 same be kept secret for a time, therefore I pray you to 
 make no relation thereof, as I know well you will not. 
 For if the noble Lady Catherine should by the bruit of 
 this matter in the mouths of the inhabitants of the 
 country, or by her friends or counsel hearing of this 
 bruit, be moved, stirred, counselled, or persuaded, to 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 23. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 appear before me in the time, or afore the time, of 
 sentence, I should be thereby greatly stayed and let in 
 the process, and the King’s grace’s counsel here pre¬ 
 sent ”—-Bishop Gardiner and the rest—“ shall be much 
 uncertain what shall be then further done therein. For 
 a great bruit and voice of the people in this behalf 
 might perchance move her to do that thing herein, 
 which peradventure she would not do, if she shall hear 
 little of it.” 1 
 
 This policy of secrecy and haste was not a noble 
 policy; but any just judgment of Cranmer’s share in it 
 will be tempered by the recollection that he was at any 
 rate not the author of the policy. It had been pursued 
 throughout by the King’s agents, from Wolsey down¬ 
 wards. Cranmer was not even the first to apply it on 
 this particular occasion, but Gardiner and his brother 
 counsel. And as a matter of fact Catherine was not 
 left ignorant of what was being done. She had deliber¬ 
 ately chosen not to plead before the Archbishop’s court, 
 and must have been well aware what would be the 
 consequences. What Cranmer dreaded was not that 
 Catherine should know ; it was that the public should 
 know, and that general indignation should force Cathe¬ 
 rine to abandon her position, and should induce her 
 after all to acknowledge his tribunal, which would delay 
 matters once more. Cranmer knew well that there were 
 no fresh arguments to be brought forward on Catherine s 
 side, and that all that she could do would be to appeal 
 again from the court of the Metropolitan to that of the 
 Pope—an appeal which the law of England had now 
 by anticipation disallowed. One who is not a friend 
 of Archbishop Cranmer’s has the candour to say of his 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 25. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 35 
 
 action in this matter, that “ no judge, lay or ecclesiastical, 
 at the time, with the exception of More, would have acted 
 otherwise.’' 1 Fifteen days were allowed to Catherine 
 in which to repent of her contumacy; but she did not 
 repent. “ The morrow after Ascension Day,” writes 
 Cranmer, “ I gave final sentence therein, how that it 
 was indispensable for the Pope to license any such 
 marriages.” 2 
 
 That was the light in which Cranmer regarded the 
 matter. He was reviewing an unlawful decision of Pope 
 Julius II., not pronouncing judgment upon an innocent 
 and defenceless woman. The Archbishop was perfectly 
 upright and conscientious in delivering such a sentence ; 
 but it is to be regretted that, in his desire to satisfy the 
 King, and to teach the Papacy a lesson, he should 
 have allowed himself to appear unfeeling towards “ the 
 noble Lady Catherine.” Those were, indeed, days when 
 men were not disposed to give effusive utterance to 
 their sentiments about one another’s political misfor¬ 
 tunes; and it is possible to be too hard upon Sir 
 Thomas More’s language on the fall of Wolsey, or on 
 the Nun of Kent; or upon Edward YI.’s language on 
 the fall of Somerset, as well as upon that of Cranmer 
 with regard to Catherine. Besides, we possess only 
 scanty fragments of Cranmer’s familiar correspondence. 
 But Cranmer could, when he chose, express his senti¬ 
 ments with remarkable freedom, even to Henry VIII. 
 He did so in the case of Ann Boleyn; he did so in the 
 case of Cromwell; it is to be wished that he had done 
 
 1 Brewer ii. 189, note. Mr. Brewer is mistaken, however, in 
 what he says. Catherine had already been pronounced contumax , 
 and the fear was lest she should repent of her contumacy. 
 
 2 Jenkyns i. 28. It was May 23. 
 
36 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 so in the case of that more deserving woman, who had 
 been the victim of the political schemes of Julius, and 
 Ferdinand, and Henry VII., to be afterwards flung away 
 by the so-called husband to whom they had married her. 
 
 A really high-minded survey of the situation would 
 have suggested that, although the marriage between 
 Henry and Catherine had been null from the beginning, 
 and could not be made valid by any length of con¬ 
 tinuance, or by any sanction of ecclesiastical and state 
 authorities, yet the parties to it were bound to each other 
 by honour and affection, and could not rightly consider 
 themselves free to act independently. They were 
 brother and sister, and it was right that they should 
 cease to live as if they were man and wife; but neither 
 of them ought to have thought of entering upon a 
 legitimate marriage without the fall consent of the 
 other. Such a view, so far as we know, was not put 
 forward by any of those who voted in Convocation, or 
 Senate-house, or Parliament, for the dissolution of 
 Henry’s union with Catherine. If it had been put 
 forward, Henry would certainly never have listened to 
 it; and, indeed, granted the nullity of the first union, 
 no one could have insisted upon prohibiting a second. 
 
 Four months at least before Cranmer’s sentence 
 was given—perhaps as early as November 14—Henry 
 had been privately married to Ann Boleyn. The 
 marriage had fov a while been kept a secret fiom the 
 Archbisliop-Elect. But as soon as he knew of it, he 
 approved it. In his letter from Dunstable to Crom¬ 
 well, written before his final sentence on the marriage 
 with Catherine had been pronounced, he already speaks 
 of Ann as “the Queen’s Grace.” 1 A day or two later, 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 26. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 37 
 
 lie publicly confirmed her marriage; and it only remained, 
 “on the Thursday next before the feast of Pentecost;” 
 for him to crown her with extraordinary pomp, “ ap¬ 
 parelled in a robe of purple velvet, sustained of each 
 side with two bishops, 1 she in her hair,” and already 
 “ somewhat big with child.” 2 
 
 It is a wanton insult to the memory of Cranmer to 
 suggest, as Mr. Brewer has done, 3 that he was the author 
 of the monstrous proposition that the Pope should give 
 Henry leave to marry again without pronouncing upon 
 the validity or invalidity of his marriage with Catherine. 
 So low had the moral feeling of Rome fallen, that the 
 Pope listened without abhorrence to the proposal. It 
 is right that this should be borne in mind when 
 men condemn, in unmeasured terms, the conduct of 
 Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer, who, seven years 
 after Henry’s marriage with Ann, gave their sanction 
 to the bigamy of a German prince. The traditions 
 of Rome and the new Gospel light of Germany were 
 alike ready to accommodate themselves to the desires 
 of high-placed sinners. But Cranmer was not infected 
 by any such notions. “ You know,” he wrote to 
 Osiander, his wife’s uncle, after Philip of Hesse had 
 been allowed to enter into that adulterous estate, “how 
 men here always come to ask me to explain what goes 
 on among you ; and there are often things which I can 
 neither deny, nor without a blush confess, and which I 
 cannot think how you can allow. Not to speak of your 
 permitting the sons of great nobles to have concubines, 
 lest old hereditary estates should be broken up through 
 lack of legitimate children, what excuse can you possibly 
 
 1 Stokesley and Gardiner, 2 Jenkyns i. 31. 
 
 3 Brewer ii. 223. 
 
38 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 offer for allowing divorce and remarriage while botli 
 the divorced parties are alive, or what is still worse, 
 without any divorce at all, the marriage of a man to 
 more than one wife ? By the teaching of the Apostles, 
 and of Christ Himself, marriage is only of one with one, 
 nor can those who have been thus joined contract new 
 unions except after the death of one or the other 
 partner.” He adds, with justice, that it is more like 
 Mahometanism than Christianity to allow such things, 
 and affirms that he wculd be sorry to have even a slight 
 acquaintance with the professors of the new Gospel, if 
 such are the fruits which it is to produce. 1 It is clear 
 that Cranmer in no way regarded the separation of 
 Henry from Catherine as a divorce, or his marriage 
 with Ann as anything but a first marriage. 
 
 News reached England not many weeks aftei the 
 coronation of Ann, that the Pope was preparing to 
 avenge his slighted authority by such weapons as were 
 possible for him. Henry VIII., on his part, composed, 
 and at length, by the hands of his agent Bonner, de¬ 
 livered to Clement VII., at Marseilles, an appeal from 
 Rome to the General Council of Christendom. He 
 advised Cranmer to do the like. It is interesting, in 
 view of the later history of men and things, to read 
 the letter in which Cranmer forwards to the man who 
 was afterwards, by Papal authority, to degrade him, an 
 appeal from the Pope like that wdiich he delivered to 
 Bonner at his degradation. “ I stand in dread, wiote 
 the champion of the rights of Canterbury, “ lest our 
 holy Father the Pope do intend to make some manner 
 of prejudicial process against me and my Church; and 
 therefore I have provoked from his Holiness to the 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 303. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 39 
 
 General Council. Which my provocation, and a pro¬ 
 curacy under my seal, I do send unto you herewith, 
 desiring you right heartily to have me commended to 
 my Lord of Winchester, 1 and with his advice and 
 counsel to intimate the said provocation after the best 
 manner that his Lordship and you shall think most 
 expedient for me.” He adds that even if the King 
 should, percase, forget to write, as he intended, to 
 demand Bonner’s services for the Archbishop, Bonner’s 
 goodness will make him contented to take this pains at 
 Cranmer’s desire alone. 2 
 
 The time came when Cranmer had to pay for any¬ 
 thing that was unworthy in his conduct with regard to 
 the divorce; and it came long before he suffered at the 
 hands of the injured Catherine’s daughter. Three 
 years from the time when he crowned Ann as Queen, 
 he received a sudden summons to come up from the 
 country to Lambeth, and not to stir from his house. 
 He found that the Queen had been under trial before 
 the Council, on the most atrocious charges, and had 
 been committed to the Tower. Cranmer was deeply 
 attached to Ann. Forbidden to approach the King in 
 person, he seized his pen and wrote to him one of his 
 simple quivering letters—at once more bold than most 
 men would have dared, and more timid than most 
 men would have cared to write. He wrote, he said, 
 somewhat to “suppress the deep sorrows” of his Grace’s 
 heart, and to help him to take them “both patiently 
 and thankfully.” 
 
 “ I am in such perplexity,” he said, “ that my mind is 
 clean amazed, for I never had better opinion in woman 
 than I had in her, which maketh me think that she 
 
 1 Gardiner. 2 Jenkyns i. 71. 
 
40 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 should not be culpable. And again I think that your 
 Highness would not have gone so far, except she had been 
 surely culpable. Now I think that your Grace best 
 knoweth, that next unto your Grace, I was most bound 
 unto her of all creatures living. Wherefore I most humbly 
 beseech your Grace to suffer me in that which both God s 
 law, nature, and also her kindness bindeth me unto; 
 that is, that I may with your Grace’s favour wish and 
 pray for her that she may declare herself inculpable and 
 innocent.” He added that if the Queen proved to be 
 guilty, she would deserve hatred in proportion to the 
 scandal which her crimes would bring upon the Gospel 
 which she professed. 1 
 
 This letter was written on May 3. Before it was 
 despatched, the Archbishop was summoned to the Star 
 Chamber, and there informed of “ such things as ” 
 Henry’s “ pleasure was they should make ” him “ privy 
 to.” The Archbishop did not alter what he had written, 
 but added a postscript, in which he expressed himself as 
 “ most bounden” to the King for making such a com¬ 
 munication, and “ exceedingly sorry that such faults can 
 be proved by 2 the Queen.” On May 15 the Queen 
 was found guilty by the peers, and condemned to be 
 burned or beheaded, as the King might choose. With 
 this condemnation Cranmer was not concerned. His 
 part in the tragedy was yet to come. On the day 
 after Ann’s trial, he was sent to visit her in the Tower, 
 to receive her confession. The next day, May 17 the 
 King .and Queen were cited to appear before him at 
 Lambeth, to answer to certain inquiries for their souls’ 
 health. The court sat in the under chapel of the 
 palace. The proceedings occupied but two hours. It 
 1 Jenkyns i. 163. 2 Against. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 41 
 
 is asserted in the new Act to regulate the succession 1 
 that Ann, probably by her proctor, made damaging 
 admissions before the Archbishop’s court; but what 
 those admissions were remained undivulged. On 
 grounds which are to this day unknown, the Arch¬ 
 bishop pronounced that the marriage between the King 
 and Ann had never been valid, and that the child born 
 of it, his god-daughter Elizabeth, was illegitimate. Two 
 days later the unhappy Queen was put to death, the 
 Archbishop (if we may trust a Scotch divine who was 
 with him that morning) still believing her to be 
 innocent. 2 
 
 Nor was this the last occasion on which Cranmer 
 was required to take part in the miserable business of 
 his master’s wives. In four years’ time—April, 1540—he 
 set his seal to a document which pronounced yet another 
 of the marriages invalid—that of Anne of Cleves. 
 The grounds in this case are known; and certainly 
 they were shamefully inadequate. The Lady Anne 
 was found to have been precontracted to a prince of 
 the house of Lorraine,—although this was known at 
 the time of the marriage, and had not been con¬ 
 sidered sufficient to hinder it;—and the King pleaded 
 that he had never inwardly consented to the union, 
 and that he was incapable of fulfilling its conditions, 
 
 1 Given in Dixon i. 392. 
 
 2 Tlie story is told in Dixon i. 388. Aless affirmed that 
 Cranmer said to him—“ She Avho has been Queen of England on 
 earth will this day become a Queen in heaven,” Hook (Life i. 
 506) thinks that if Cranmer really said this, his conduct was 
 “ unspeakably bad.” But it was quite possible for him to become 
 convinced that the marriage with Ann was invalid, without being 
 convinced of the truth of the crimes for which she was beheaded. 
 The two things were entirely separate. Aless’s narrative, how¬ 
 ever, is evidently inaccurate in some particulars, and seems very 
 improbable altogether. 
 
42 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 and had never attempted to fulfil them—though for 
 six months their life together had, in the world’s eye, 
 been that of married people. It is too probable that 
 (as Burnet says) 1 Archbishop Cranmer had not now 
 “ courage enough to swim against the stream,” which 
 was fast sweeping Cromwell to execution ; but it must 
 be remembered, in mitigation of judgment upon him, 
 that he would have stood absolutely alone, if he had 
 refused to act as he did. Not only had the Convocation 
 of both provinces reported to Parliament that the 
 marriage was void, and Parliament had ratified the 
 decision—Bishop Gardiner taking a leading part in 
 this case as in the case of Catherine—but the Lady 
 Anne herself perfectly acquiesced in the truth of the 
 allegations made, and was quite content to abide by the 
 decision. When afterwards the Duke of Cleves was 
 anxious to effect “ a reconciliation ” of the matrimony, 
 and to obtain the Archbishop’s support, Cranmer utterly 
 refused to give him any encouragement, and instantly 
 reported the occurrence direct to the King. 2 
 
 It was only some year and a half after Henry’s mar¬ 
 riage with Anne of Cleves, that it became Cranmer’s 
 duty to inform the King, who had lately given solemn 
 thanks for the happiness of his marriage with Catherine 
 Howard, that he had received intelligence of the 
 gravest kind regarding the Queen’s moral conduct 
 before her marriage. His compassionate heart was 
 torn when the task was assigned to him of extract in or 
 from the young Queen an account of what had passed 
 in those days between her and Dereliam. It seems 
 from his language to Henry VIII., that he visited her 
 
 1 Ilist. Ref. iii. Appendix 9. 
 
 2 Jenkyns i. 312. 
 
UNTIL THE DIVORCE 
 
 43 
 
 time after time, 1 and was kept whole days at the dis¬ 
 tressing work. “ At my repair unto the Queen s Grace, 
 I found her in such lamentation and heaviness, as I 
 never saw no creature ; so that it would have pitied any 
 man’s heart in the world to have looked upon her; and 
 in that vehement rage she continued, as they informed 
 me which be about her, from my departure from her to 
 my return again; and then I found her, as I do suppose, 
 far entered toward a frenzy.” 2 At length she was 
 partially calmed by a message which he was commis¬ 
 sioned to bring her from the King, promising her mercy 
 if she would make a full confession. The promise, 
 however, was delusive; and the fifth wife, like the 
 second, perished by the axe on Tower Green. 
 
 1 “ Now I do use her thus ; when I do see her in any such 
 extreme brayds, I do travail with her to know the cause ; . . .. 
 and so I did at that time.” 
 
 2 Jenkyns i. 308. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 CRANMER AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 The divorce of Catherine of Aragon was extremely 
 unpopular in the country. Not only were men’s 
 generous impulses on the side of the oppressed Queen, 
 but all that was most conservative in religion espoused 
 her cause, which was practically that of the Pope. 
 While the matter was still under discussion, sermons 
 against the divorce were constantly preached in the 
 churches. One of the first acts of the new Primate 
 was to inhibit all manner of preaching in his own 
 diocese, and to require his suffragans to do much the 
 same. It is said that Cranmer became so much 
 detested for his action in the matter of the divorce as 
 to require special protection when, in 1533, he began 
 to visit the city and diocese of Canterbury. 1 
 
 The hostile feeling against the King’s proceedings 
 had found a centre in the metropolitical city, round the 
 person of a nun of St. Sepulchre’s, Elizabeth Barton, 
 the “ Holy Maid of Kent.” This woman, belonging to 
 that well-known class of religionists, of whom it is 
 difficult to say how far they really believe in their own 
 inspiration, had acquired a strange influence as the 
 
 1 Hook i. 479. Hook has, however, made too much of the 
 Injunction to which he refers, which seems to be quite general in 
 character. 
 
 44 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 45 
 
 utterer of prophecies. In some of these she had 
 denounced judgment upon the King, who was, according 
 to her, barely to survive if he should put away Catherine 
 and marry another, and from that moment forth would 
 have no claim to his subjects’ allegiance. Henry’s was 
 not a reign in which such speeches were left to refute 
 themselves; and real danger might be thought to 
 connect itself with the Nun of Kent, because of the 
 high character and position of many of those who were 
 brought in contact with her. She had been received 
 by Wolsey and by Warham, and by the King himself. 
 Fisher and More had both conversed with her. The 
 powerful convent of Canterbury Cathedral supplied 
 her with confessors and directors from amongst its 
 principal and most learned members. She was in 
 active correspondence with the Charterhouses of 
 London and Sheen, with the Brigittines of Sion and 
 the Observants of Greenwich and Canterbury, in short, 
 with all that was most respected in the monastic 
 religion of the day. Her influence was real, and widely 
 felt. “ I think,” wrote the Archbishop to a friend, 
 “that she did marvellously stop the going forward of 
 the Kino’s marriage, insomuch that she wrote letters to 
 the Pope calling upon him in God’s behalf to stop it. 
 She had also communication with my Lord Cardinal 
 and with my Lord of Canterbury, my predecessor, in 
 the matter, and in mine opinion with her feigned visions 
 and godly threatenings stayed them very much.” 1 
 It was clear that Elizabeth Barton could not be 
 allowed to continue thus. About midsummer, 1533, 
 Cranmer wrote to the Prioress of St. Sepulchre’s— 
 
 “ Sister Prioress, in my hearty wise I commend me 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 81. 
 
46 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 unto you. And so likewise will that you do repair 
 unto me to my manor of Otteforde, and bring with you 
 your nun which was some time at Courtupstrete, against 
 Wednesday next coming: and that ye fail not herein 
 in any wise.’ 51 
 
 A letter from the Dean of the Arches tells Cromwell 
 how the Archbishop at this interview humoured the 
 nun, by granting her leave to go for a week to Court- 
 upstreet in order that a new trance might throw light 
 upon matters which the last had left uncertain. “ My 
 Lord doth yet but dally with her, as [if] he did believe 
 her every word.’ 5 2 Whether to Cranmer himself, or 
 shortly after at the more terrible tribunal of Crom¬ 
 well, the unhappy woman confessed, or was thought 
 to have confessed, that her visions were a tissue of 
 impostures; “ that she never had vision in all her life, 
 but all that ever she said was feigned of her own 
 imagination, only to satisfy the minds of them the 
 which resorted unto her, and to obtain worldly praise. 5 ’ 3 
 She and her accomplices were made to do public 
 penance at St. Paul’s Cross and at Canterbury Cathe¬ 
 dral ; 4 but the ecclesiastical penalty was not deemed 
 sufficient. A bill of attainder was brought in against 
 them early in the following year; and on April 20, 
 Elizabeth Barton and her principal associates were 
 hanged and beheaded at Tyburn. 
 
 The dismay was great at Canterbury; and Cranmer, 
 at the request of the Prior and Convent of Christ 
 Church, wrote to the King on their behalf. He found 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 43. 
 
 2 Calendar of State Papers vi. 967. 
 
 3 Cranmer to Hawkyns, Jenkyns i. 82. 
 
 4 Chronicle of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, in Narratives of the 
 Reformation p. 280. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 47 
 
 them, he said, “as conformable and reformable as any 
 number” with whom he had ever communed. They 
 lamented that any of their congregation should so have 
 ordered himself. Only few had been at all concerned 
 with the nun, “ and they, with the exception of Dr. 
 Booking, who misled them, men of young years and of 
 less knowledge and experience.” The Prior and “ his 
 brethren, the saddest and seniors of the house, with all 
 the other young sort,” regarded the King’s pleasure as 
 greatly as anything else in the world. They offered the 
 King a present of two or three hundred pounds—worth 
 at least ten times as much now—in hopes that he 
 would be gracious to them, and not visit the fault of a 
 few upon the whole company. Cranmer most humbly 
 besought his Highness to be gracious and merciful unto 
 them, “ the rather for my poor intercession; ” 1 and his 
 request was granted, at least for the moment. 
 
 Two of the noblest names in English history had 
 been inserted in the bill against the Nun of Kent— 
 the names of Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More. 
 More had little difficulty in clearing himself of any 
 complicity with “ the lewd nun,” “ that housewife,” “ a 
 false deceiving hypocrite,” as with somewhat unnecessary 
 severity he terms her. 2 Fisher was found guilty of 
 “misprision of treason,” for not having revealed the 
 nun’s disloyal utterances, and was condemned to pay 
 a fine. It was the first serious attempt on the part of 
 Cromwell and the King to be rid of the two chief 
 opponents of their proceedings : if Archbishop Cranmer’s 
 advice had been taken, it would have been the last. 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 76. 
 
 2 Bridgett’s More p. 323 (2nd cd.) ; Gasquet’s English 
 Monasteries i. 143. 
 
48 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 The Act of Succession, passed at the end of March 
 1534, entailed the Crown upon the children of Ann 
 Boleyn, declaring the King’s former marriage to have 
 been contrary to the laws of God, and therefore not to 
 be made good by any dispensation. “ God give grace,” 
 said More to his son-in-law, when first the marriage 
 with Ann was made public, “ that these matters 
 within a while be not confirmed with oaths.” This 
 was precisely what the Act of Succession required. It 
 did not contain any form of oath; but a form was soon 
 provided by letters patent, which not only asserted 
 what was asserted in the Act of Parliament and its 
 preamble, but also renounced a any other (besides the 
 King’s Majesty) within this realm, or foreign authority, 
 prince, or potentate,” and repudiated any oath which 
 might have been previously taken to any other person 
 or persons. 1 Commissioners were appointed to administer 
 the oath; and chief among them was the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury. 
 
 Sir Thomas More has left us, in a letter to his 
 daughter, a vivid description of the scene at Lambeth, 
 when he appeared there to be sworn, before the Arch¬ 
 bishop, the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary Cromwell, 
 and the Abbot of Westminster. When he told the 
 commissioners that he “ would not deny to swear to the 
 succession,” but that he could not take the oath as it 
 stood, “I was commanded,” he says, “ to go down 
 into the garden, and thereupon I tarried in the old 
 burned chamber that looketh into the garden, and 
 would not go down because of the heat. In that time 
 I saw Mr. Dr. Latimer come into the garden, and 
 there walked he with divers other doctors and chaplains 
 
 1 Dixon i. 205. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 49 
 
 of my Lord of Canterbury. And very merry I saw him, 
 for he laughed, and took one or twain about the neck 
 so handsomely, that if they had been women, I would 
 have weened he had been waxen wanton/ 5 He saw one 
 clergyman, for refusing the oath, “ gentlemanly sent 
 straight unto the Tower 55 ; the rest, who swore, including 
 almost all the clergy of London, “sped apace to their 
 great comfort; so far forth that Master Yicar of 
 Croydon, either for gladness, or for dryness, or else that 
 it might be seen quod ille notus or at ypontifici, went 
 to my Lord’s buttery bar and called for drink valde 
 familiar iter When More was called up again, a 
 notable conversation took place between him and the 
 Archbishop. “My Lord of Canterbury, taking hold 
 upon that that I said, that I condemned not the con¬ 
 sciences of them that swear, said unto me that it 
 appeared well, that I did not take it for a very sure 
 thing and a certain that I might not lawfully swear it, 
 but rather as a thing uncertain and doubtful. ‘ But 
 then, 5 said my Lord, /you know for a certainty that 
 you be bound to obey your Sovereign Lord, your King. 
 And therefore are you bound to leave off the doubt of 
 your unsure conscience in refusing the oath, and take 
 the sure way in obeying of your Prince, and swear it. 5 
 . . . This argument seemed me suddenly so subtle, and 
 namely with such authority coming out of so noble a 
 prelate’s mouth, that I could again answer nothing 
 thereto, but only that I thought myself I might not 
 well do so. 551 
 
 When Bishop Fisher came before the commis¬ 
 sioners, he asked leave to read and study the oath before 
 giving his reply. They allowed him a few days for 
 
 1 Bridgett’s More p. 354. 
 
50 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 consideration; and then he told them that he was 
 ready to swear to a part of it, but not to all. They 
 “ answered that the King would by no means like of any 
 kind of exceptions or conditions ; ‘ And therefore, said 
 my Lord of Canterbury, ‘ you must answer directly to 
 our question, whether you will swear the oath or no. 
 
 ‘ Then/ said my Lord of Rochester, * I do absolutely 
 refuse the oath.’ ” 1 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer, however, was too desirous for 
 the safety of the illustrious malcontents to allow these 
 answers of theirs to he final. He wrote to Cromwell 
 earnestly begging that they should be allowed to swear 
 after their own fashion. “ I doubt not but you do right 
 well remember that my Lord of Rochester and Master 
 More were contented to be sworn to the Act of the 
 King’s succession, but not to the preamble of the same. 
 What was the cause of their refusal thereof I am 
 uncertain, and they would by no means express the 
 same. 2 Nevertheless, it must needs be, either the 
 diminution of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, 
 or else the reprobation of the King’s first pretensed 
 matrimony. But if they do obstinately persist in their 
 opinions of the preamble, yet meseemeth it should not 
 be refused, if they will be sworn to the very Act of 
 Succession; so that they will be sworn to maintain the 
 same against all powers and potentates.” He urged 
 the good effect which their swearing would produce 
 upon the “ Princess Dowager and the Lady Mary,” 
 upon the Emperor and other friends. He pleaded that 
 if such men should say that the new succession was 
 
 1 Van Ortroy p. 285. 
 
 2 They had not given their reasons, lest the statement of them 
 should be treated as an act of high treason. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 51 
 
 good and according to God’s laws, no one within the 
 realm would once reclaim against it. Some persons, 
 he said, could not alter from their opinions of the 
 pretensed marriage, or of the Bishop of Rome’s 
 authority; their consciences were indurate and invert¬ 
 ible ; they had once said their minds, and felt that if 
 they now varied therefrom, their fame and estimation 
 would be distained for ever; but if they could but be 
 brought to acknowledge the succession itself, it should 
 be amplected and embraced, and that this end would 
 be greatly furthered by the consent of the Bishop and 
 More. He added that if the King pleased, “ their said 
 oaths might be suppressed,” except when and where 
 the publishing of the same might be serviceable. 1 
 
 Cranmer’s prudent letter was laid before the King; 
 but the King “ in no wise wdlled but that they should 
 be sworn as well to the preamble as to the Act. 
 Wherefore,” Cromwell said, “his Grace specially 
 trusteth that ye will in no wise attempt or move him 
 to the contrary.” 2 The effort was unavailing; but it is 
 satisfactory to know that the blood of the two most 
 famous martyrs of the reign was in no way to be laid 
 to the charge of the Archbishop. 
 
 Nor did he fail to strive likewise to save the scarcely 
 less noble, if not so celebrated martyrs, the sight of 
 whom, as they went out to execution, moved Sir 
 
 1 It is questionable what Cranmer meant by the last sentence. 
 People generally suppose that he meant that it might be given out 
 that they had taken the oath, without letting it be known that 
 the oath in their case was taken with a difference. Certainly 
 such advice would not be to Cranmer’s honour. But it is at least 
 possible that Cranmer meant that it need not everywhere be 
 blazed abroad that they had taken the oath at all: the great thing 
 was to get them quietly through. 
 
 2 Bridgett’s Fisher p. 279. 
 
52 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Thomas More to such envious self-contempt. 1 Cranmer 
 had at an earlier time been on good terms with Austin 
 Webster, Prior of the Charterhouse of Axholme; 2 and 
 when Webster, with Reynold of Sion and otheis, had 
 been attainted of high treason for clinging to "the 
 usurped power of the Bishop of Rome, Cranmer was 
 surprised. Webster had promised him never to 
 “ meddle for the defence of that opinion.” It moved 
 the Archbishop’s pity that men so learned in Scriptures 
 and Doctors should suffer by their ignorance on this 
 point. “If there be none other offence laid against 
 them than this one,” he wrote to Cromwell, “ it will be 
 much more for the conversion of all the fautois theieof, 
 after mine opinion,that their consciences maybe clearly 
 averted from the same by communication of sincere 
 doctrine, and so they to publish it likewise to the woild, 
 than by the justice of the law to suffer in such 
 ignorance. And if it would please the Ring s Highness 
 to send them unto me, I suppose I could do very 
 much with them in this behalf.” 3 It does not appear 
 that the sanguine Archbishop was permitted to make 
 his experiment; it is certain that the two men for 
 whom he pleaded so earnestly were horribly put to 
 
 death. 
 
 Not long before the slaughter of the Carthusians and 
 their associates, a step had been taken which was full 
 of terrible consequence for the Church of England. It 
 was the practical delegation of the King’s newly declared 
 headship to a vicar-general, in the person of Thomas 
 Cromwell. 
 
 It might have been thought that the declaiation of 
 
 ’ iiridgett’s More p. 404. 2 See Jenkyns i. 127. 
 
 s Ibid. i. 134. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 53 
 
 the independence of the national Church as against 
 Rome would have added dignity to the See of Canter¬ 
 bury ; and perhaps at first it was the intention of the 
 King that this should be the case. Early in 1534 there 
 was a kind of partition between the Archbishop and 
 the King of the prerogatives which had been acquired 
 in the course of ages by the Pope; and the power of 
 granting licenses and dispensations, such as had before 
 been only obtainable from Rome, fell to the Archbishop. 
 He even conferred the pall upon the successor of 
 Lee in the northern primacy with an impressive cere¬ 
 monial in his chapel at Lambeth. 1 He had at all times 
 possessed the rights inherent in a primatial and 
 rnetropolitical see ; and in that capacity Cranmer pro¬ 
 ceeded to make a visitation of his province. At the 
 time that his monition on the subject was issued to 
 the premier diocese of London, the old official style 
 had not been altered. Cranmer was designated in the 
 instrument as Legate of the Apostolic See. Visitations 
 were always unpopular, and in those days were costly 
 to the visited. Bishop Stokesley resisted the visitation. 
 He and his Chapter protested—the penalties of a 
 Praemunire might be hanging over them—that they 
 could not recognise the Archbishop as Legate, and they 
 appealed to the King. But the King upheld the Arch¬ 
 bishop, and the visitation went forward. Cranmer 
 turned to the great diocese of Winchester. Bishop 
 Gardiner withstood him likewise. He urged with 
 some reason that Warham had visited him only five 
 years before : and besides—Cranmer having meanwhile 
 
 1 Strype’s Cranmer ch. xxix. See the paper by [Bishop] Stubbs 
 in the Gentleman's Magazine for November 1860, p. 522 ; cp. also 
 
 p. 648. 
 
54 
 
 THOMAS CHANMER 
 
 discarded the legatine title—that it was contrary to 
 the royal supremacy for any subject to style himself 
 Primate of all England. 
 
 The objection called forth one of Cranmer’s most 
 characteristic letters. Already whatever love may once 
 have existed between the old Cambridge acquaintances 
 was fast vanishing. Cranmer wrote to Cromwell, then 
 still secretary, that Gardiner was endeavouring to 
 advance his own cause under pretence of the King’s. 
 
 “ Ye know,” he said, “the man lacketh neither learning 
 in the law, neither witty invention, no craft to set 
 forth his matters to the best.” The Bishop of Borne, 
 he urged—with some logical force, if his premiss were 
 allowed to be exact—had formerly been taken for 
 Supreme Head, and yet had a great number of primates 
 under him, without derogation to his authority; why 
 should it not be so with the King ? All the bishops 
 in England would gladly have conspired with the Pope 
 to take away the primatial title, so that they might 
 have been all equal together, if the Pope had wished 
 to abolish it in the interest of his supreme authority. 
 
 “ All this notwithstanding,” he pursued, “ if the 
 Bishops of this realm pass no more of 1 their names, 
 styles, and titles, than I do of mine, the King’s High¬ 
 ness shall soon order the matter between us all. ... I 
 pray God never be merciful unto me at the general 
 judgment, if I perceive in my heart that I set more 
 by any title, name, or style that I write than I do by 
 the paring of an apple, farther than it shall be to the 
 setting forth of God’s word and will. Yet will I not 
 utterly excuse me herein; for God must be my judge, 
 who knoweth the bottom of my heart, and so do not I 
 
 1 Care no more for. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 55 
 
 myself; but I speak for so mucli as I do feel in my heart; 
 for many evil affections lie lurking there, and will 
 not lightly be espied. But yet I would not gladly 
 leave any just thing at the pleasure and suit of the 
 Bishop of Winchester, he being none otherwise affection¬ 
 ate unto me than he is. Even at the beginning 
 first of Christ’s profession, Diotrephes desired gerere 
 primatum in ecclesict: and since, he hath had more 
 successors than all the Apostles had, of whom have come 
 all these glorious titles, styles, and pomps into the 
 Church. But I would that I, and all my brethren the 
 Bishops, would leave all our styles, and write the style 
 of our offices, calling ourselves Apostolos Jesu Christie 
 so that we took not upon us the name vainly, but were 
 so even in deed ; so that we might order our diocese in 
 such sort that neither paper, parchment, lead, nor wax, 
 but the very Christian conversation of the people, might 
 be the letters and seals of our offices, as the Corinthians 
 were unto Paul, to whom he said, Littcrac nostrae et 
 signet Apostolatus nostri vos estis .” 1 
 
 The extent of Cranmer’s deference to royal authority 
 was soon put to the test by Cromwell’s new appoint¬ 
 ment. He became Vicar-General of the King in 1535. 
 The instrument which appointed him was in truth a 
 terrible document. It laid the entire system of the 
 Church of England at the mercy of the Vicegerent. 
 He was empowered not only to visit, in person or by 
 deputy, all ecclesiastical bodies and persons, but also, 
 amongst other things, to suspend or deprive, to summon 
 synods, to legislate, to direct the elections of prelates, 
 and to annul them if he thought proper. An attempt 
 was indeed made to distinguish between the prerogatives 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 136. 
 
56 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 which were bestowed upon the bishops by Divine 
 commission in the Scriptures, and those which they 
 exercised by grace of the King, and in his stead; but 
 never was the English Church submitted to such an 
 usurpation as at Cromwells appointment. And to add 
 insult to injury, the preface to the fulsome document 
 stated (in language which was perhaps aimed chiefly at 
 the Pope, but at any rate seemed to strike the higher 
 elergy of the realm), that the appointment of a Vicar- 
 General of the King was made necessary by the self- 
 seeking, the indolence, the licentious bad example of 
 those who claimed to govern the Church, by which the 
 Bride of Christ had been so disfigured that her Spouse 
 could barely recognise her. 1 
 
 In June of the year following that which saw the 
 appointment made, Convocation was summoned. At 
 its first session for purposes of deliberation, Dr. William 
 Petre appeared in the BTpper House, and claimed to 
 preside over it as the representative of the Vicegerent. 
 Many, at the time, no doubt, must have felt surprise and 
 indignation, as historians of a later date have felt it; 
 but there is no record of any protest having been made. 
 The Popes had accustomed men to seeing lawful 
 authorities overridden; and if Cranmer’s theory of the 
 transference of the Supreme Headship from the Pope 
 to the King was true, it was as innocent for the King’s 
 deputy to take precedence of Cranmer in the Con¬ 
 vocation of Canterbury as it had been for Wblsey to 
 take piecedence of Warham. Stokesley and Gardiner 
 were as much committed to the principle involved as 
 Cranmer himself was. In the extreme form, however, 
 the insult was not repeated. Cromwell presided in 
 
 1 The document is given in Collier ix. p. 119. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 57 
 
 person at the next session. This was bad enough ; but 
 it was not quite so offensive as to send his proctor to 
 preside in the venerable assembly. 
 
 But the main purpose of Cromwell’s appointment 
 was not to take down the pride of prelates and con¬ 
 vocations. It was to bring money into the King’s 
 exchequer. His first act was to inhibit, through 
 Cranmer, all archbishops and bishops from visiting 
 their dioceses and provinces, and in fact to suspend all 
 ordinary jurisdictions whatever, until a visitation by 
 the Supreme Head should have been carried through. 
 Most of the monasteries had always been exempted 
 from episcopal jurisdiction, and when the Papal author¬ 
 ity was swept away and divided between the Crown and 
 the Primate, it had been expressly enacted that neither 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury nor any one else should 
 have power to visit them. The purpose of this enact¬ 
 ment was clear. A royal visitation of the monasteries 
 was the prelude to their suppression; and the King and 
 Cromwell did not wish any ecclesiastic to be able to 
 interpose a shield between the monasteries and the 
 spoiler. 
 
 A Life of Cranmer is not required to narrate the 
 shameful and wasteful process by which the religious 
 houses of England were broken up and their property 
 squandered. It was not Cranmer’s doing, and he had 
 no power to check it. Sympathy with the monastic 
 system he probably had none. On occasion he spoke of 
 monks and friars with all the scorn which was common 
 among seculars. He thought that many of the Ob¬ 
 servants were “ wolves in sheep’s skins.” 1 He trusted 
 that their “ irreligious religion ” might be “ extincted ” 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 181. 
 
58 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 at Canterbury as well as elsewhere. 1 But he approved 
 of the original intention of such foundations. 2 Quite a 
 number of his earlier letters are addressed to “ Brother 
 Abbots ” and “ Sister Prioresses/’ and show him to 
 be on pleasant terms with them. In the house of the 
 Black Friars at Cambridge he knows " men of good study, 
 living, learning, and judgment; and pity it weie, he 
 thinks, “ but that they should have such a head and 
 ruler as is of like qualities.” 3 He recommends two 
 Benedictines as candidates for the vacant Priory of 
 Worcester, and says, “ I know no religious, men m 
 England of that habit that be of bettei learning, judg 
 ment, conversation, and all qualities meet for an head 
 and master of an house.” 4 Cranmer would probably 
 never have stirred for a dissolution of the monasteries. 
 When others did so, he made no personal gam by it. 
 Though he occasionally begs Cromwell for small grants 
 of monastic property for friends and dependents, he 
 asks nothing for himself. The few pieces of monastic 
 property which he acquired were by way of exchange, 
 and at ruinous cost. 5 However pleased he may have 
 been for some reasons to see the dissolution, the way in 
 which the plunder was employed was a deep disappoint¬ 
 ment to him, as it was also to Latimer. “ I was ever 
 hitherto cold,” he writes to the Vicegerent, “ but now I 
 am in a heat with the cause of religion 5 that is, of 
 monasticism— 1 “ which goeth all contrary to mine expect- 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 174. 
 
 2 “The beginning of prebendaries was no less purposed lor the 
 maintenance °of good learning and good conversation of living, 
 than religious men were.” To Cromwell: Jenkyns l. 292. 
 
 3 Jenkyns i. 120. 4 Ibid. i. 144. 
 
 e See Dixon i. 333, 396 ; ii. 151. But compare Narratives of 
 
 Reformation p. 263. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 59 
 
 ation, if it be as the fame goeth; wherein I would 
 wonder fain break my mind unto you, and, if you please, 
 I will come to such place as you shall appoint for the pur¬ 
 pose/’ 1 But Cromwell had no desire for his counsel, and 
 the Archbishop was probably obliged to keep it to himself. 
 
 There was one monastery with which it is especially 
 interesting to trace Cranmer’s relations. Though a 
 secular and a married man, he was himself, by virtue of 
 his archbishopric, the head of the great convent of 
 Christ Church at Canterbury. It and its Prior were to 
 him “the Prior and Convent of my Church.” 2 Its 
 monks were to him, in a peculiar sense “ my brethren.” 
 He writes to the Prior about “ your brothern and mine.” 
 When he first came to the see the convent bore the 
 expense of his enthronement banquet. 3 Pie was in 
 great difficulties about money at the time; and he 
 “ showed his necessity ” to the convent, “ thinking of 
 good congruence he might be more bolder of them, and 
 they likewise of him, than to attempt or prove any 
 foreign friends.” He promised that he would so 
 recompense them as they should be well contented and 
 pdeased withal. 4 How warmly, in fulfilment of this 
 promise, he espoused their cause at the time of their 
 troubles over the Nun, has already been told. It was 
 then their turn to plead poverty. They could not offer 
 the King as much as they would have wished. “ Besides 
 the ornaments of the Church, and some plate that the 
 Prior and certain officers hath, this monastery is not 
 aforehand,” he tells the King, “ but in debt divers ways.” 
 He prays his Highness to send them “ some comfortable 
 word or letter for their comfortation in this their great 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 162. 
 
 3 Hook i. p. 460. 
 
 2 Ibid. i. 76. 
 
 4 Jenkyns i. 57. 
 
60 THOMAS CRAHMER 
 
 pensiveness and dolour.” 1 When the visitation of the 
 monasteries began, a great show was made of xestoring 
 the strict discipline of former days. Amongst other 
 things, the monks were forbidden, on any pretext what¬ 
 ever, to go beyond the precincts. Hereupon the 
 Archbishop wrote to Cromwell to intercede for a relax¬ 
 ation of the rules on behalf of one of the great officeis 
 of the House, the Cellarer, whose health would suffer by 
 the confinement. The Archbishop was anxious foi the 
 consequences not only for the Cellarer himself, but foi 
 the House. “ The said monastery should lack many 
 commodities, which daily do grow and increase by his 
 policy and wisdom by his provision abroad ; for he is the 
 only jewel and housewife of that house. ^ Cranmer 
 was appealed to for an explanation of the new legu- 
 lations that had been laid down for the dismissal of the 
 younger monks, but prudently referred the questions to 
 headquarters. 3 
 
 In spite of his solicitude for the welfare of the 
 House, it is not likely that the Archbishop was looked 
 upon with favour by more than a small section of the 
 brethren. They may perhaps have been English-minded 
 enough to bear it with equanimity, when Cranmei, 
 thinking Canterbury to be more backward than any 
 other place in his diocese, preached in his cathedial 
 two sermons (which he confesses to have been “ long 
 ones) to prove that the Pope’s authority was but an 
 usurpation, and that the King was, by God s law, the 
 Supreme Head of the Church of England. We lieai 
 of no refusals to swear to the Supreme Headship at 
 Canterbury. But there was a cause of disagreement 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 77. 2 Ibid. i. 148. 
 
 3 Ibid . i. 155. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 61 
 
 which touched nearer home. The glory of the great 
 convent was all bound up with the shrine of St. 
 Thomas. It must have struck horror into the heart of 
 every monk of Christ Church when he heard that St. 
 Thomas’ successor and namesake had written to the 
 Vicegerent on August 18, 1538, to say that he greatly 
 suspected the martyr’s blood in the cathedral to be 
 “ but a feigned thing, made of some red ochre or of such 
 like matter,” and had begged that his chaplains might 
 be commissioned “ to try and examine that and all other 
 like things there.” 1 Already, in the year before, 
 Cranmer had done a deed which awoke consternation 
 even in the rival convent of St. Austin’s, where the 
 name of St. Thomas was less cherished. Convocation, 
 acting in obedience to royal stimulus, had abrogated all 
 but certain specified festivals during harvest time and 
 term time. Cranmer, who found the people of his 
 diocese obstinately observing these abrogated days, and 
 who expostulated with Cromwell for allowing them to 
 be still observed at Court, 2 was minded himself to set a 
 striking example of compliance. Among the festivals 
 which had not been retained was that of the Translation 
 of St. Thomas, on July 7th. The day before had long 
 been observed, like the eves of other great holidays, as 
 a solemn fast. But in that “same year,” writes the 
 astonished chronicler of St. Augustine’s, “ the Arch¬ 
 bishop of Canterbury did not fast on St. Thomas’ Even, 
 but did eat flesh, and did sup in his parlour with his 
 family, which was never seen before in all the country.” 3 
 Alter this it was to little purpose that Cranmer devoted 
 half the following Lent to “ reading the Epistle of St. 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 262. 
 
 3 Narratives of the Reformation p. 285. 
 
 2 Ibid. i. 201. 
 
62 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Paul to the Hebrews in the Chapter House” of the 
 cathedral monastery. 1 He must have been heard by 
 an unwilling and offended audience. 
 
 The Prior of the convent throughout all those 
 anxious days was Thomas Gold well. 2 He was, at 
 the beginning of Cranmers reign, “a man of gieat 
 simplicity, and void of malice, as far as the Aiclibishop 
 could judge. 3 But in course of time a mutual suspicion 
 arose between the two men. Cranmer complained that 
 the Prior, contrary to promise, had behaved badly to 
 his physician; 4 that he did not regard the King’s 
 injunctions, professing to have dispensation to display 
 the relics, on St. Blaise s day, after the King had 
 forbidden such exhibitions; 5 that he had readmitted to 
 the convent a monk who had run away in suspicious 
 circumstances, and who was supposed to have spent nis 
 time at Borne. 6 A short while before the dissolution 
 Cranmer heard a rumour that Cromwell intended to 
 depose Goldwell and put another P 1101 m his place. It 
 caused him little regret. He begged that, if the report 
 were true, Goldwell’s office might be conferred on Hi. 
 Bichard Thornden, the Warden of the Manors of the 
 house. He described him as “ a man of right honest 
 
 1 Narratives of the Reformation p. 286. , 
 
 2 Hook (Cranmer ii. 10) is in error when he identifies Cranmer s 
 Prior with the great builder of Christ Church gate and of the 
 central Tower, the conductor of Colet and Erasmus. This was 
 his predecessor, Thomas Goldstone. Thomas Goldwell, however, 
 was in his way a builder too. He built a pier at Dover “ to Ins 
 great charge and cost.” Narratives of the Reformation p. 283. 
 
 3 Jenkyns ii. 77. 4 Ibid. i. 223. 5 Ibid. i. 182. 
 
 6 Ibid. i. 254. Mr. Dixon i. 330 asserts that the Prior ol 
 the Black Friars who preached against Cranmer at Canterbury 
 did so at Prior Goldwell’s instigation, and in the cathedral pulpit. 
 
 I cannot find any authority for these two statements. Certainly 
 
 Cranmer himself does not suggest it (Jenkyns i. 1 iO). 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 63 
 
 behaviour, clean living, good learning, good judgment, 
 without superstition, very tractable, and as ready to set 
 forward his Prince’s causes, as no man more of his coat/’ 
 His commendation of Thorn den ends with what appears 
 to be an innuendo against the aged Goldwell—“ I am 
 moved to write to your Lordship in this behalf, inasmuch 
 as I consider what a great commodity I shall have, if 
 such one be promoted to the said office that is a right 
 honest man and of his qualities; and I insure your 
 Lordship the said room requireth such one ; as knoweth 
 God.” 1 It was not the first time that Cranmer had 
 written in support of Thornden; 2 and Prior Goldwell 
 had some reason to be jealous of the Warden’s influence. 
 When the time came for the conversion of the Prior 
 and Convent into Dean and Chapter, the old man 
 piteously entreated Cromwell to make him Dean. He 
 heard that the commissioners who were to effect the 
 change were about to visit the cathedral, “ of the which 
 commission my Lord of Canterbury, as I hear, shall be 
 the chief, who is not so good lord unto me as I would 
 he were. Wherefore, without your especial lordship, I 
 suppose my Lord of Canterbury will put me to as much 
 hindrance as he can; and also I have heard of late that 
 my brother, the Warden of the Manors, Dr. Thornden, 
 is called in my Lord of Canterbury’s house, ‘ Dean of 
 Christ Church in Canterbury.’ This office of Dean by 
 the favour of your good Lordship I trusted to have had, 
 and as yet trust to have. I have been Prior of the said 
 church above 22 years, wherefore it would be much 
 displeasure to me in my age to be put from my chamber 
 and lodging.” 3 The Prior did not obtain his desire. 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 239. 2 Ibid. i. 148. 
 
 3 Gasquet English Monasteries ii. 474. 
 
64 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 He was offered one of the prebends of the new found¬ 
 ation, which he refused, and retired upon a pension of 
 £80 a year—equivalent to nearly £1000 now. But he 
 succeeded in putting a spoke in Thornden’s wheel. 
 Thornden became a prebendary, and, after a while, 
 Bishop Suffragan of Dover; but the deanery was given 
 to another, and Cranmer had reason to think very 
 differently afterwards of the man whose advancement 
 he had pressed. 1 
 
 The Archbishop was not entirely satisfied with what 
 Goldwell calls the “ change of religion” which took 
 place in his cathedral. There was a magnificence 
 about the new scheme which might well make the royal 
 founder feel satisfied with himself. He thought that 
 the perusal of it would convince the King of Scotland 
 of the godliness of his proceedings. 2 A hundred and 
 sixty-eight persons constituted the new body, headed 
 by a Provost, twelve prebendaries, and six preachers. 
 When the scheme was sent to Cranmer for his opinion, 
 he evinced no great admiration for the scale of payments 
 on which the new establishment was framed. “ Surely, 
 my Lord,” he wrote to Cromwell, “ I think that it will 
 be a very substantial and godly foundation. Nevei- 
 theless, in my opinion, the Prebendaries, which be 
 allowed £40 a piece yearly, might be altered to a more 
 expedient use. Having experience both in times past, 
 and also in our days, how the said sect of prebendaries 
 have not only spent their time in much idleoess, and 
 their substance in superfluous belly cheer, I think it not 
 
 1 Gasquet is wrong in saying that Thornden "became Dean. 
 Nicholas Wotton was the first Dean of Canterbury under Henry 
 yjjj p) r Crome, however, not Dr. Thornden, was Cranmer’s 
 
 final candidate (Jenkyns i. 294). 
 
 2 Jenkvns i. 291. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 65 
 
 to be a convenient state or degree to be maintained and 
 established.” A prebendary, he said, was commonly 
 “ neither a learner, nor teacher, but a good viander.” 
 They were always intriguing to get their own way in 
 the college. When learned men were admitted to such 
 rooms, they were apt to desist from their good and godly 
 studies, and all other Christian exercise of preaching 
 and teaching. Wherefore he wished that not only the 
 name of a prebendary were exiled the King’s found¬ 
 ations, but also the superfluous conditions of such 
 persons. “ To say the truth,” he continued, in a style 
 which soon after became very cheap, “it is an estate 
 which St. Paul, reckoning up the degrees and estates 
 allowed in his time, could not find in the Church of 
 Christ.” He thought, instead of the twelve wealthy 
 prebendaries, it would be better to have “twenty 
 divines at £10 a piece, like as it is appointed to be at 
 Oxford and Cambridge; and forty students in the 
 tongues and sciences and French, to have ten marks 
 apiece. In this way the readers, or professors, con¬ 
 templated in the scheme, would have better audiences ; 
 for assuredly the twelve prebendaries would be too busy 
 “making of good cheer” to attend their lectures. 
 
 A prebendary of Canterbury, who reveres at a 
 distance of three centuries and a half the name of 
 Archbishop Cranmer, may regret that he had so bad an 
 opinion of his “ sect,” and may hope that it would have 
 been altered if he could have foreseen the subsequent 
 history of the cathedral body. But it is a pleasure 
 to observe that Cranmer’s design was to increase, 
 and not diminish, the number of priests attached 
 to his cathedral; and that if the scheme, with his 
 alterations, had taken effect, Canterbury would have 
 
 p 
 
66 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 become a very great educational centre, if not a very 
 rich one. 
 
 Another part of the educational scheme m connexion 
 with the cathedral drew out the zeal of Archbishop 
 Cranmer in a manner which no generous heart can fail 
 to admire. The story is told by his secretary Morice, 
 who was evidently present at the scene which he 
 describes. When the commissioners were, engaged m 
 electing the sixty scholars of the new King’s School, 
 “more than one or two” would have “none admitted 
 but younger brethren and gentlemen s sons: as foi 
 other, husbandmen’s children, they were more meet, 
 they said, for the plough and to be artificers than to 
 
 occupy the place of the learned sort. 
 
 It was indeed the characteristic of the age of Henry 
 to plunder the patrimony of the poor for the sake of 
 enriching the rich. But Cranmer did not share the 
 fashionable views of his day. "Poor men’s children,” he 
 said, “ are many times endued with more singular gifts 
 of nature, which are also the gifts of God—-as with 
 eloquence, memory, apt pronuntiation, sobriety, with 
 such like—and also commonly more given to apply their 
 study, than is the gentleman’s son, delicately educated. 
 To the plea that ploughmen were as much needed in 
 the commonwealth as any other set of men, and that 
 therefore it was best to keep the ploughman’s son to 
 the plough, the Archbishop replied “that utterly to 
 exclude the poor man’s sons from the benefit of learning, 
 as though they were unworthy to have the gifts of the 
 Holy Ghost bestowed upon them as well as upon others,” 
 was “ as much as to say that Almighty God should not 
 be at liberty to bestow His great gifts of grace but as 
 we shall appoint them, to be employed according to our 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 67 
 
 fancy.” God, he said, “giveth His gifts, both of learn¬ 
 ing an other perfections in all sciences, unto all kind 
 and states of people indifferently: even so doth He 
 many tunes withdraw from them and their posterity 
 again those beneficial gifts, if they be not thankful.” 
 He said that it was as vain as the Babel-builders’ 
 work to attempt ‘Ho shut up into a straight corner 
 the bountiful grace of the Holy Ghost.” God would 
 provide that the offspring of the best born children 
 should become “most unapt to learn, and very dolts” • 
 he himself had seen no small number of them “ very 
 dull and without all manner of capacity. I take it ” 
 lie pursued, “ that none of us all here, being gentlemen 
 born (as I think), but had our beginning that way from 
 a low and base parentage—and through the benefit of 
 learning and other civil knowledge all gentlefolk] 
 ascend to their estate.” Feats of arms, they replied, 
 and martial acts, had been the chief means of such 
 advancement: to which the Archbishop retorted—“ As 
 though the noble captain was always unfurnished of 
 good learning and knowledge to persuade and dissuade 
 is army ! To conclude, if the gentleman’s son be apt 
 to learning, let him be admitted; if not apt, let the 
 poor man’s child apt enter his room.” 1 
 
 To have been put into a secondary place in the 
 Church of England by a lay Vicegerent, woke no 
 resentment in the placid and unselfasserting mind of 
 Cranmer. A curious friendship sprang up between 
 im anc * Thomas Cromwell—a friendship which may 
 be compared to the friendship between Matthew Parker 
 and Burleigh, or, more distantly, to that between Laud 
 and Strafford. It was the friendship of two men 
 1 Narratives of the Reformation p. 273. 
 
68 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 thrown together by common official work, and, in the 
 main, animated in the performance of it by the same 
 ideas. It is a pity that we have not, as in the case of 
 the two later Primates, both sides of the correspondence 
 preserved. While Cromwell kept every trifling note 
 which he received from the Archbishop, Cranmer either 
 did not keep the letters of Cromwell, or they are lost. 
 Enough remains, however, to show the contrast between 
 the characters of the two men—the layman reserved, 
 yet passionate, seldom asking or accepting advice, 
 self-reliant; the priest sanguine, open-hearted and 
 communicative, afraid of giving offence or pain, always 
 assuming that his correspondent’s sympathies are on 
 his side, and apparently without a will of his own, 
 except where principle is concerned. Where principle 
 is concerned Cranmer speaks out. There is a fine note 
 of firmness in his first letter of any importance to 
 Cromwell, written a few weeks after his consecration. 
 Cromwell had asked him to promise to appoint a 
 
 nominee of his to a priory. 
 
 “ Master Cromwell,” he answers, “I am entirely 
 resolved to prefer to the same office, and all such other 
 when the same shall be void, some such one person as 
 was professed in the same house, ct sic de eodevi go eouio, 
 if any such shall be found apt and meet. If there be 
 none so apt and meet in the said house, then I will be 
 glad to provide the most meetest that can be found in 
 any other place, of the same rule, habit, and religion. 
 Of whose sufficiency and ability I ought, if I do my 
 office and duty, to have good experience and knowledge 
 myself, afore that I will admit or prefer him: and for 
 as much as I do not know the person whom ye would 
 prefer to this office, I pray you that I may be asceitained 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 69 
 
 of his name, and of the place where he doth demore. 
 That done, I will hereafter make you such further 
 answer as I trust ye shall be pleased withal.” The fact 
 that Cromwell’s letter was brought by his candidate in 
 person made Cranmer wish “ to take longer respite in 
 this behalf. Ye do know,” he continues, “ what am¬ 
 bition and desire of promotion is in men of the Church, 
 and what indirect means they do use to obtain their 
 purpose; and I remit to your wisdom and judgment 
 what an unreasonable thing it is for a man to labour 
 for his own promotion spiritual.” 1 
 
 Cromwell sues to him for a dispensation on behalf of 
 a man who wishes to marry the niece of his deceased 
 wife—a degree which was not prohibited by the latest 
 statute on the subject. 
 
 “ Surely, my Lord,” is the reply, “ I would gladly 
 accomplish your request herein, if the word of God 
 would permit the same. By the law of God many 
 persons be prohibited which be not expressed, but be 
 understand by like prohibition in equal degree. Where 
 it is there expressed that the nephew shall not marry 
 his uncle’s wife, it must needs be understand that the 
 niece shall not be married unto the aunt’s husband, 
 because that all is one equality of degree. I trust this 
 one reason shall satisfy all that be learned and of 
 judgment. And as touching the Act of Parliament 
 concerning the degrees prohibited by God’s law, they 
 be not so plainly set forth as I would they were. 
 Wherein I somewhat spake my mind at the making of 
 the said law, but it was not then accepted. I required 
 them, that there must be expressed mother, and mother- 
 in-law, daughter and daughter-in-law; and so in further 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 20, 
 
70 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 degrees directly upward and downward, in lined recta; 
 also sister and sister-in-law, aunt and aunt-in-law, niece 
 and niece-in-law. And this limitation, in my judg¬ 
 ment, would have contained all degrees prohibited by 
 God’s law, expressed and not expressed, and should 
 have satisfied this man, and such other which would 
 marry their nieces-in-law.” 1 
 
 Occasionally there is a little tiff between the friends. 
 Cromwell thinks that Cranmer is not as quick as he 
 might be over the divorce, and the Archbishop eagerly 
 vindicates himself. 2 Another day, Cromwell is evidently 
 in a very bad humour with him. He has charged him 
 and his brother, the Archdeacon of Canterbury, with de¬ 
 taining property belonging to the King, and has written 
 “ very friendly ” that he “would be sorry it should come 
 to the King’s knowledge.” At the same time he had 
 got Latimer to write to the Archbishop in his name 
 to say that he “looked upon the King’s business (of 
 the Supremacy) through his fingers.” “ I marvel not,” 
 the Archbishop replies, “ that you do so think, which 
 knoweth not what I have done.” 3 “ I do not a little 
 
 marvel,” he says another time, “ that you will think in 
 me such lightness, to complain of one by whom I know 
 no fault.” 4 But it is not often that Cranmer writes with 
 even so much of asperity. He knows the formidable 
 countenance of the man with whom he is dealing. “ If 
 they once look you in the face,” he writes, as he sends 
 him a prisoner or two, “ they shall have no power to 
 conceal anything from you.” 5 If he has a complaint to 
 make, he makes it very gently. “ Much business maketh 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 173. Cranmer’s rule was drawn out by Arch¬ 
 bishop Parker, and became the law of the land under Elizabeth. 
 
 2 Jenkyns i. 25. 3 Ibid. i. 152. 4 Ibid. i. 146. 
 
 s Ibid. i. 117. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 
 
 71 
 
 you to forget many things; and yet I wonder that you 
 remember so many things as you do.” 1 Sometimes 
 there is a playful touch in the letters—occasionally a 
 grim one. “I delivered unto you about Easter last 
 passed a certain billet containing such matter as Friar 
 Oliver preached in the last Lent ”—in defence of the 
 Pope—“ which bill if ye had remembered, I doubt not 
 but that ye would have provided for the same Friar 
 afore this time; albeit there is no time yet lost, but 
 that the same may be renewed again.” 2 “ If you could 
 make Mr. Hutton an Abbot or Prior,” he writes, in the 
 year before the Six Articles, “ and his wife an Abbess 
 or a Prioress, he were most bound unto you. If you 
 would help him to such a perfection, I dare undertake 
 for him that he shall keep a better religion than was 
 kept there before, though you appoint him unto the 
 best house of religion in England.” 3 
 
 It is curious how implicitly Cranmer believed that 
 Cromwell—as he had believed that Ann Boleyn—was 
 heart and soul labouring for the promotion of Cranmer’s 
 own Gospel. Again and again he claims his sympa¬ 
 thetic interest in the cause. Now it is the spiritual 
 darkness of Calais (then in the diocese of Canterbury) 
 which distresses him: he pleads for the planting of 
 “two learned persons” there who “shall shortly (no 
 doubt) extirpate all manner of hypocrisy, false faith, 
 and blindness of God and His word, wherein now the 
 inhabitants there be altogether wrapt.” 4 Now he begs 
 that a living may be found for “ Mr. Hambleton, put 
 from his lands and possession in Scotland for that he 
 favoureth the truth of God’s word,” “until it please 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 162. 2 Jbid. i. 120 
 
 3 Ibid. i. 256. * jbid. i. 145. 
 
72 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 God to send the true light of His gospel into his 
 country.’’ 1 Now he complains that the Bishop ot 
 Norwich “doth approve none to preach m his diocese 
 that he of right judgment,” and asks that certain grave 
 men may have the King’s license to preach there m 
 spite of him, which would be “ a deed very acceptable to 
 God; for it were great pity that the diocese of Norwich 
 should not be continued in the right knowledge of God 
 which is begun amongst them.” 2 Another time he 
 sends him the names of certain men of Smarden and 
 Plucklev in Kent, “ indicted for unlawful assemblies 
 l the last session at Canterbury, because they are 
 accounted fautors of the new doctrine, as they call it, 
 and asks protection for them. 3 Another time he urges 
 a promotion for the father of the great Francis Bacon, 
 on the ground that he is “ of good judgment touching 
 Christ’s religion.” 4 It suited Cromwell to allow the 
 Archbishop to believe in him; and indeed, like 
 Northumberland in the reign of Edward VI., while m 
 heart attached to the unreformed religion, if to any at 
 all, he followed pretty steadily in action the policy of 
 
 advancing the Reformation. 
 
 But as soon as the King’s turn was served, the power 
 of the Church broken, and the spoils of the monasteries 
 fathered, Cromwell’s knell rang. It was to no purpose 
 that he acquiesced, or more than acquiesced, in the 
 reaction of the Six Articles. There were stormy scenes 
 between him and Henry. Sometimes the ferocious 
 Kin<r would “bob him about the head 5 in his anger. 
 The miserable affair'of Anne of Cleves brought matters 
 to a point. Suddenly he fell; and the only voice in 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 166, 184. 
 ^ Ibid. i. 273. 
 
 2 Ibid. i. 186. 3 Ibid. i. 243. 
 
 5 See Dixon ii. 240, 241, 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 73 
 
 ✓ 
 
 England that made itself heard on his behalf was that 
 of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He, who had written 
 to the enraged Sovereign on behalf of Ann Boleyn, 
 now wrote to him an eloquent panegyric upon the 
 doomed Cromwell. 
 
 “ I heard yesterday in your Grace’s Council that he 
 is a traitor. Yet who cannot be sorrowful and amazed 
 that he should be a traitor against your Majesty—he 
 that was so advanced by your Majesty; he whose surety 
 was only by your Majesty; he who loved your Majesty, 
 as I ever thought, no less than God; he who studied 
 always to set forwards what was your Majesty’s will and 
 pleasure; he that cared for no man’s displeasure to 
 serve your Majesty; he that was such a servant in 
 my judgment, in wisdom, diligence, faithfulness, and 
 experience, as no prince in this realm ever had; he that 
 was so vigilant to preserve your Majesty from all 
 treasons, that few could be so secretly conceived, but he 
 detected the same in the beginning ? . . . I loved him 
 as my friend, for so I took him to be; but I chiefly 
 loved him for the love which I thought I saw him bear 
 ever towards your Grace, singularly above all other.” 1 
 Cromwell was beheaded six weeks after, on July 28, 
 1540; and the same day Henry married Catherine 
 Howard, niece to the chief supporter of the party of 
 the Old Learning. 
 
 There were, no doubt, many who supposed, either 
 with hopes or with fears, that the Primate would have 
 fallen along with the statesman to whom he clung. 
 This was not to be the case. On the contrary, the 
 removal of Cromwell from the scene only drew the King 
 and the Archbishop more closely together. During the 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 298. 
 
74 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 seven years which remained of Henry’s life, Cranmer 
 transferred to the King the timid, affectionate confi¬ 
 dence with which for the seven years past he had leant 
 upon Cromwell. And the King, really fond of his 
 simple and unworldly “chaplain,’ took a deligrt in 
 watching and defeating the plots that were laid agains 
 him. “ You,” said Cromwell one day to the Archbishop, 
 after the Archbishop had spoken out against the bill 
 of the Six Articles,' “ you were born in a happy hour 
 I suppose; for do or say what you will, the King wil 
 always well take it at your hand. And I must needs 
 confess, that in some things I have complained of you 
 unto his Majesty, but all in vain, for he will never give 
 credit against you, whatsoever is laid to your charge. 
 
 The first of the plots against Cranmer which followed 
 the execution of Cromwell arose out of his own ecclesi¬ 
 astical family. His sense of fairness had led him, with 
 the King’s approval, to distribute his patronage in the 
 reformed cathedral between the Old and the New 
 Learning. The six preaclierships were avowedly filled 
 upon this principle; the twelve canonries were mostly 
 filled by former monks. Series, one of the preachers, 
 and Sandwich, one of the canons, were the most out¬ 
 spoken in opposing their patron, the Archbishop; anc 
 from the account given in Strype it would seem that 
 the Archbishop did not always get the best of it. One 
 Trinity Sunday the Archbishop summoned them all to 
 Croydon and lectured them. He told Series, who had 
 said in preaching that images in churches were not 
 idols that the two things were the same, only the 
 one name was Latin and the other Greek. Sandwich 
 formerly a leading monk of Christ Church, and 
 1 Narratives of the Reformation p. 258. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 75 
 
 Warden of Canterbury Hall at Oxford, 1 had the 
 hardihood to defend Series, and say “that he did not 
 think so; an image, not abused with honour, is an 
 image, and not an idol” It was a good defence; and 
 the report got about in Canterbury that the Archbishop, 
 unable to controvert it, had said that he “would be 
 even with ” Sandwich, and would make him “ repent his 
 reasoning with him.” The meekest man sometimes loses 
 patience with the rebels; and either then or another 
 day Cranmer is said to have exclaimed—“You and your 
 company hold me short; but I will hold you as short.” 
 
 War was now broken out. The malcontents of the 
 Chaptei allied themselves with the renowned visitor 
 of monasteries, Dr. London, described by Archbishop 
 Parker as “ a stout and filthy Prebendary of Windsor,” 2 
 who undertook the conduct of the business. Articles 
 were carefully prepared in secret—first against Cranmer’s 
 chaplains, and then, as the spirits of the men rose, 
 against the Primate himself. It was thought that 
 he could be proved to have offended against the Act 
 of the Six Articles. At length the indictment was in¬ 
 troduced into the council-chamber, where Cranmer had 
 many foes. Thence it passed into the King’s hands. 
 What followed must be told in the graphic language 
 of Morice. “ The King, on an evening, rowing on the 
 *1 hames in his barge, came to Lambeth Bridge, and 
 there received my Lord Cranmer into his barge, saying 
 unto him merrily—‘ Ah, my chaplain ! I have news for 
 you ! I know now who is the greatest heretic in Kent.’ 
 And so pulled out of his sleeve a paper, wherein was 
 contained his accusation, subscribed with the hands of 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 238. 
 
 2 MSS. C.C.C.C. No. cxxviii. p. 203, as quoted by Strype. 
 
76 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 certain prebendaries and justices of the sbire. Where- 
 unto my Lord Cranmer made answer, and besought 
 his Highness to appoint such commissioners as would 
 effectually try out the truth of those articles. ‘Mary, 
 said the King, ‘ so will I do; for I have such affiance 
 in your fidelity, that I will commit the examination 
 hereof wholly unto you, and such as you will appoint.’ ” 
 When the Archbishop objected that it would not look 
 well, the King stuck to his point: Cranmer, he said, 
 would tell him the truth, even unquestioned, if he had 
 
 offended. 1 # 
 
 The Archbishop called the complainants before him, 
 
 and expostulated with them. 0 Mr. St. Leger,” he 
 exclaimed passionately, to one of the canons, I had a 
 o-ood judgment in you; but ye will not leave your old 
 mumpsimus .” “ I trust,” retorted St. Leger, “ we use no 
 mumpsimuses but those that are consonant to the laws 
 of God and the Prince.” Others were less bold. One 
 of them burst out weeping at the Archbishop s fatherly 
 address. But it was a difficult matter to get to the 
 bottom of; and the inquiry dragged on without much 
 result, until Morice, the Archbishop’s secretary, took it 
 upon him to write to some of the Council, requesting 
 to have some other commissioners despatched to his 
 master’s aid. He particularly asked for Dr. Leigh, who 
 had had great experience in such investigations. Leigh 
 in an instant sent men to search the houses of all 
 the prebendaries and others who were thought to be 
 mixed up in the matter. Letters were found which 
 showed plainly that not only was Cranmer’s favoured 
 Suffragan, the Bishop of Dover,. acquainted with all 
 the proceedings, but the conspirators had throughout 
 1 Narratives of the Reformation p. 252. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 77 
 
 received advice and encouragement from Gardiner, 
 Bishop of Winchester. Then began confessions and 
 entreaties. “ Gentle father,” wrote Sandwich to the 
 Archbishop, I have not borne so good, so tender a 
 heart to you as a true child ought to bear. I ask of 
 you mercy, with as contrite a heart as ever did David 
 ask of God. And yet, good father, I did never bear 
 malice against you. The greatest cause that ever 
 occupied my heart against you was that I saw so little 
 quietness among us, and so great jars in Christ’s re¬ 
 ligion, supposing that by your permission and sufferance 
 it did arise, which was not so, as I do now perceive. 
 Good father, I have given myself unto you, heart, body, 
 and service; and you have taken me unto you.” To 
 tears and prayers of this kind, Cranmer replied by cast¬ 
 ing up his hands to heaven, and thanking God that 
 amidst so many enemies, he had one great friend and 
 master, without whom he could not stand a day. He 
 prayed God to make them good men; and added that 
 there was no fidelity upon earth; he feared his left 
 hand would accuse his right; but it was what Christ 
 had prophesied of the latter days. He prayed God 
 shortly to finish that time. A brief imprisonment 
 followed, and such of the conspirators as were in the 
 Archbishop’s service were dismissed from their posts. 1 
 
 1 The account is given by Strype Cranmer vol. i. 244 foil. 
 Bishop Gardiner, it must be owned, behaved with moderation and 
 prudence. Visiting Canterbury one day, he asked Sandwich about 
 the state of things there, who told him how little Ridley’s and. 
 Scory’s sermons agreed with those of the rest. Gardiner told him 
 that he was sure Cranmer would look to it. He advised Sand¬ 
 wich never to preach without having his sermon in writing, and 
 when any one else preached and he did not like it, “ hold you con¬ 
 tented and meddle not; so shall you do best.” He did, however, 
 say that Shether, instead of crying like a child, ought to have 
 stood out against Cranmer. 
 
78 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Another time the accusation of Cranmer s heresies 
 was made openly in Parliament, by a knight of 
 the name of Gostwick, who had been a secretary of 
 Cromwell’s , 1 and held an official position. When the 
 incident came to the King’s ears, “ his Highness 
 marvellously stormed at the matter, and said that Gost¬ 
 wick had plied a villainous part so to abuse in open 
 Parliament the Primate of the realm, specially being 
 in favour with his Prince, as he was. ‘What will they, 
 quod the King, ‘ do with him, if I were gone ? ’ 
 Whereupon the King sent word unto Mr. Gostwick 
 after this sort—‘ Tell that varlet Gostwick that if he do 
 not acknowledge his fault unto my Lord of Canterbuiy, 
 I will sure both make him a poor Gostwick, and other¬ 
 wise punish him to the example of others. 
 
 A more formidable attempt to overthrow Archbishop 
 Cranmer, on the part of the Lords in the Council 
 attached to the Old Learning, has been made familiar 
 to all Englishmen by the genius of Shakespeare— 
 though Shakespeare, for dramatic reasons, has boldly 
 placed it twelve years too early. Complaint was made 
 to the King in person, that Cranmer and his learned 
 men with their unsavoury doctrines, had made three 
 parts of the land to become abominable heretics. 
 England was thereby in danger of being divided against 
 itself, like Germany. The Lords begged that he might 
 be committed to the Tower, until he could be examined. 
 Henry was not at all disposed to consent; but when it 
 was represented that so long as Cranmer continued to 
 be a member of Council no one would dare to give 
 evidence against him, he agreed that he should be 
 
 1 See Index to Gasquet’s Monasteries. 
 
 2 Narratives of the lieformat ion p. 254. 
 
PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNDER HENRY 79 
 
 arrested next day if the Council then saw cause. That 
 same night Cranmer was roused towards midnight by 
 a messenger who summoned him to the King. The 
 Archbishop rose, crossed from Lambeth to Whitehall, 
 and found the King pacing in his gallery. Henry told 
 him what had happened, and asked what he thought of 
 the proposal of the Council. Cranmer thanked him 
 humbly for the warning, and said that he would 
 willingly go to the Tower until his doctrine was tried. 
 “Oh Lord God,” exclaimed the King, “what fond 
 simplicity have you, so to permit yourself to be im¬ 
 prisoned, that every enemy of yours may take vantage 
 against you! ” He would not hear of such a thing. 
 He told him to go to the Council next day, and if the 
 Council should insist on committing him to the Tower, 
 to display to them a ring, which the King gave him, by 
 which they would know that the King would have no 
 one deal with the matter but himself. 
 
 The next morning he was summoned to the Council 
 by eight o clock; but when he arrived, entrance was 
 denied him. Above three-quarters of an hour he was 
 kept waiting outside the door, among servingmen and 
 lacqueys, while many councillors and others passed in 
 and out. Morice, the faithful secretary, indignant at 
 the insult to his master, went to Dr. Butts, the King’s 
 physician. Di. Butts came and saw with his eyes, and 
 then went and told the King. “ Have they served me 
 so ? ” cried Henry. “ It is well enough; I shall talk 
 with them by and by.” At length Cranmer was called 
 in. The ring was shown. Then Russell, the Lord 
 President, swore a great oath, and said—“ Did not I tell 
 you, my Lords, what would come of this matter? I 
 knew right well that the King would never permit my 
 
THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 80 
 
 Lord of Canterbury to have such a blemish as to be 
 imprisoned, unless it were for high treason. Business 
 was broken off, and they all went straight to the Iving. 
 
 When they came near, Henry burst out—“ Ah, my 
 Lords! X had thought that I had a discreet and wise 
 Council, but now I perceive that I am deceived. How 
 have ye handled here my Lord of Canterbury ? What, 
 make ye of him a slave, shutting him out of the Council 
 chamber amongst serving men? Would ye be so 
 handled yourselves ? I would you should well under¬ 
 stand, that I account my Lord of Canterbury as faithful 
 a man towards me as ever was prelate in this realm, and 
 one to whom I am many ways beholding, by the faith X 
 owe unto God”—here he laid his hand upon his bieast 
 .—and therefore whoso loveth me will regard him 
 thereafter.” XJpon this speech, they all, and especially 
 the Duke of Norfolk, offered an excuse. They meant 
 no harm to the Archbishop by putting him in the 
 
 Tower; they thought that after his trial he would be 
 set at liberty to his greater glory. “ Well,” said Henry, 
 <£ I pray you use not my friends so. I perceive now 
 well enough how the world goeth among you. There 
 remaineth malice among you one to another. Let it 
 be avoided out of hand, I would advise you.” “ And 
 so the King departed,” says Morice, “and the Lords 
 shook hands every man with my Lord Cranmer, against 
 whom nevermore after no man durst spurn during the 
 
 King Henry’s life.” 1 
 
 1 Narratives of the Reformation p. 254 foil. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 CRANMER AND THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 It was. the fashion of those who were opposed to 
 Cranmer m the earlier part of his episcopate, to speak 
 ot him as an ignorant man, of no education. An 
 amusing story is told of one such calumniator, a York¬ 
 shire priest,, who, sitting among his neighbours at the 
 alehouse, said that the Primate had “ as much learning 
 as the goslings of the green that go yonder.” He was 
 committed to prison by the Council, and lay there eight 
 or nine weeks. When it came to Cranmer’s knowledge, 
 Cranmer sent for him, and invited him to “appose,” or 
 examine him, “in grammar, or else in philosophy’and 
 other sciences, or divinity.” When the priest declined— 
 Well then, said my Lord, “ I will appose you. Are 
 you not wont to read the Bible ? ” All clergymen were 
 at this time ordered to do so. “ Yes, that we do daily,” 
 the man replied. “ I pray you, then,” said Cranmer, 
 
 “ tel1 me who was David’s father ? ” The priest stood 
 still, and said, “ I cannot surely tell your Grace.” Then 
 said my Lord again, “ If you cannot tell me, yet declare 
 unto me, who was Solomon’s father?” “Surely,” 
 answered the priest, “ I am nothing at all seen in those 
 geneolagies.” “God amend ye,” said the Archbishop, 
 
 “ and get ye home to your cure, and from henceforth 
 
82 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 learn to be an honest man, or at least a reasonable 
 man.” Cromwell came a few days later to see the 
 Archbishop, and swore that the popish knaves should 
 pick out Cranmer’s eyes and cut his throat, before he 
 would again rebuke them for slandering him . 1 
 
 As a matter of fact, Cranmer was one of the most 
 learned men of his age. “ At all times,” says his secre¬ 
 tary, “when the King’s Majesty would be resolved in 
 any doubt or question, he would but send word to my 
 Lord overnight, and by the next day the King should 
 have in writing brief notes of the Doctors’ minds, as 
 well divines as lawyers, both ancient, old, and new, 
 with a conclusion of his own mind; which he could 
 never get in such a readiness of none, no not of all his 
 chaplains and clergy about him, in so short a time. 
 For, being thoroughly seen in all kinds of expositors, 
 he could incontinently lay open thirty, forty, sixty, or 
 more somewhiles of authors, and so, reducing the notes 
 of them all together, would advertise the King more in 
 one day, than all his learned men could do in a month. 
 And it was no marvel; for it was well known that com¬ 
 monly, if he had not business of the Prince’s, or special 
 urgent causes before him, he spent three parts of the 
 day in study as effectually as [ if ] he had been at Cam¬ 
 bridge. And therefore it was that the King said on a 
 time to the Bishop of Winchester (the King and my 
 said Lord of Winchester defending together that the 
 ‘ Canons of the Apostles ’ were of as good authority as 
 the four Evangelists, contrary to my Lord Cranmer’s 
 assertion), ‘ My Lord of Canterbury,’ said the King, ‘ is 
 too old a Trewante for us twain.’ ” 2 
 
 1 Narratives of the Reformation p. 269 foil. 
 
 2 Ibicl. p. 249. The word Trewante is explained to mean 
 
83 
 
 THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 When Bishop Ridley, himself a man of great attain¬ 
 ments, was a prisoner in the Tower, Queen Mary’s 
 secretary, Bourne, hinted to him that Cranmer’s book on 
 the Eucharist was not really Cranmer’s, but his. “ ‘ Mr. 
 Secretary/ quoth I”—-it is Ridley who tells the tale— 
 
 that book was written of a great learned man, and 
 him which is able to do the like again. As for me, I 
 ensure you (be not deceived in me), I was never able to 
 do or write any such like thing. He passeth me no 
 less than the learned master his young scholar/ ” 1 
 
 Some idea of the range of Archbishop Cranmer’s 
 learning may be formed by examining the list of his 
 remaining books, which has been made by Mr. Edward 
 Burbidge. 2 That list includes some 350 printed vol¬ 
 umes, and about 100 manuscripts. Of course, this 
 number represents but a small fraction of the Arch¬ 
 bishop s library, of which, no doubt, most is now lost or 
 destroyed. It is, as Mr. Burbidge says, “ nothing less 
 than astonishing ” to find the traces of so wide and deep 
 a study of Scripture in those days. There are two 
 Hebrew Bibles of Cranmer’s in existence, besides the 
 great Complutensian Polyglofct, together with Kimchi’s 
 Hebrew and Latin Commentary on the earlier Psalms, 
 and three works on the Hebrew language. One of the 
 Hebrew Bibles is interleaved with a Latin translation 
 of Cranmer’s own, in Cranmer’s hand. It is needless to 
 say, after that, though the fact was formerly questioned, 
 that the Archbishop was familiar with Greek. Morice’s 
 statement about his master’s knowledge of expositors 
 
 Trojan, i. e. a fighter; but perhaps it is only truant , used in a 
 general familiar way, as ‘‘beggar/’ “knave” (see Skeat s.v. 
 Truant). 1 Quoted in Jenkyns i. lxxxv. 
 
 2 Liturgies and Offices of the Church xvii. 
 
84 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 of the Bible is well borne out by the evidence. Not 
 only do we still find in different places an almost com¬ 
 plete set of the Latin and Greek Fathers—several of 
 them in various editions—as well as an imposing array 
 of the works of the Schoolmen—the Angelic and the 
 Seraphic, the Subtle, the Irrefragable, the Invincible, 
 and all the rest:—his direct Commentaries upon Holy 
 Scripture include the great exegetical works of Thomas 
 Aquinas (in edition after edition), of Denys the Carthu¬ 
 sian, of Euthymius and CEcumenius, and other “old” 
 authors. The “new” of every school are well repre¬ 
 sented by Bucer and Cajetan, by Erasmus and his 
 adversary Faber, by Francis Titelmann and Melan- 
 chthon. Of Cranmer’s books on Liturgiology and other 
 subjects, it is only necessary here to say that we have 
 proof of an immense and highly diversified erudition. 
 
 That Archbishop Cranmer was well acquainted with 
 the books which he thus amassed is proved not only by 
 the frequent annotations in his own hand which enrich 
 them;—Mr. Burbidge justly calls especial attention to 
 his copies of Eusebius and of Epiphanius ;—the same is 
 shown by his manuscript Commonplace Books. Of 
 these several exist, of greater or less extent. 1 The 
 history of the most important of them is in part known. 
 That famous antiquary Archbishop Parker, “ with spying 
 and searching,” discovered it to be in the hands of a 
 certain Dr. Nevison, Canon of Canterbury, who, having 
 no right to it, denied that he had it. Thereupon 
 Parker wrote to ask the help of the Council in 
 
 1 The Lambeth Library contains a Collection of Lcnvs, showing 
 the extravagant pretensions of Rome (Stillingiieet, 1107), and 
 Notes on Justification (Stillingfleet, 1108). These are printed in 
 Jenkyns ii. 1 and 121. 
 
85 
 
 THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 recovering the books, saying that he would “as 
 much rejoice to win them, as to restore an old 
 chancel to reparation.” Sir William Cecil, who in 
 eaily days had presumed to admonish Cranmer for 
 his faults, 1 now rejoiced to hear “of such hid trea¬ 
 sures as he took the books of the holy Archbishop 
 Cranmer to be.” He had himself lately recovered five or 
 six written books of his. Letters from the Council 
 were soon despatched to Archbishop Parker, authorising 
 him to search the canon s house j and the prize is now 
 in the British Museum, with this correspondence pre¬ 
 fixed to it. 2 
 
 The work, which has never been printed, is in two 
 large folio volumes, written mainly in Ralph Morice’s 
 hand, partly also in those of other secretaries. It 
 has evidently been put together at different epochs in 
 Cranmer’s life; and an accurate study of it would help 
 to show the gradual formation of its author’s opinion 
 upon many oi the points of which it treats. It contains 
 an immense number of extracts—from Clement of Rome 
 and Ignatius j from Irenaeus and Tertullian, Origen and 
 Cyprian; Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, Paulinus of Nola, 
 Augustine, Fulgentius, Jerome, Vincent of Lerins, Cas- 
 sian, Prudentius, Gelasius, Leo, Sulpicius Severus, 
 Gregory the Great, and Bede; from Eusebius, Epipha- 
 nius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chry¬ 
 sostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Socrates and Sozomen, 
 Theophilus of Alexandria, Denys the Areopagite, 
 John Damascene, Nicephorus Chartophylax; from Ra- 
 banus and Haymo, Aldhelm, Bruno, Bernard, Anselm, 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 351. 
 
 7 L. xi. xii. I lie letters are printed in A rchbishop Parker’s 
 Correspondence pp. 186—195. 
 
86 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Dagobert, Otto of Freising; from Peter Lombard, 
 Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Hugh of St. Victor, 
 Albert the Great, Alexander of Hales; from the letters 
 of the Popes (real and forged); from the Canons of 
 Councils, ecumenical and provincial, foreign and English, 
 down to the Capitulum Coloniense; from the Ordinary 
 Gloss and Lyranus; from Durandus and Honorius de 
 Celebratione Missarum , Paulus Cortosius and Panor- 
 mitanus, Orbellensis and Gerson, Stapulensis, Erasmus, 
 Bilibald Pirckheimer, Eckius, Cajetanus, Luther, Oeco- 
 lampadius, Osiander, Bucer, Brentius, Melanchthon, 
 Calvin, Bullinger; and many others. 
 
 Sometimes the extracts are interrupted to give the 
 rimmt of an argument of Eckius or Calvin, sometimes 
 objections or reasonings of Cranmer’s own. He weighs 
 the consequences of accepting universal traditions, and 
 how the Pope’s position would or would not be thereby 
 strengthened. 1 
 
 1 The extracts have been made on sheets of paper, which have 
 been stitched together afterwards. Evidently the present form is 
 not the earliest form, because, although the hands vary, no one 
 section is, so far as I have seen, by more than one hand. The 
 extracts from the Greek writers are given in a Latin version. 
 Here and there, the arguments and reasonings are in English. 
 So far as I have been able to observe, there are no extracts from 
 Gregory of Nyssa (though the Archbishop had at any rate one of 
 his works ; see Burbidge xxii.), nor from Clement of Alexandria, 
 Didymus, or Cyril of Jerusalem. It is more noteworthy that 
 there are none from Isidore of Seville or Amalarius, though he 
 possessed MSS. of some of their writings ; see Burbidge xvii. xix. 
 Subjoined is the list of contents, written (unless I mistake) in 
 Morice’s hand, though the paging (which I have not given) was 
 not completed by him, and has only been filled in with pencil. 
 
 Tabula Repertoria. 
 
 1. Sacre scripturse intellectus et vtilitas. 
 
 2. Quod Authorum scripta, sine verbo dei, non sunt accipienda 
 
 pTo articulis fidei. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 87 
 
 There is no distinguishable point of time at which 
 Thomas Cranmer began to take the reforming side in 
 
 3. Scripturae confirmantes idem. 
 
 4. Doctores idem probantes. 
 
 5. Raciones in idem. 
 
 6. Conciliorum decreta sine scriptura, non sunt accipienda pro 
 
 articulis fidei. 
 
 7. Veteres Canones Abrogati. 
 
 8. Ex Angelorum oraculis non licet idem facere. 
 
 9. Nec miraculis idem probare plias est. 
 
 10. Nec eciam Apparitio mortnorum idipsum satis Astruit. 
 
 11. Sed nec consuetudini, liac in re fidendum est. 
 
 12. Obiectiones, quod praeter scripturae Authoritatem, accipiendi 
 
 sunt noui articuli fidei. 
 
 13. Tradiciones non scriptae. 
 
 14. Raciones in idem. 
 
 15. Nec miracula, nec Christi professio, nec locus, nec externum 
 
 aliquod, faciunt bominem sanctum, aut deo gratum, 
 sed observacio mandatorum dei. 
 
 16. Noue doctrinse. 
 
 17. In Cerimoniis fere omnibus, Iudeos imitamur. 
 
 18. Osiander. 
 
 19. De sacrificiis Cbristianorum. 
 
 20. De sacramentis. 
 
 21. De charactere. 
 
 22. De baptismo. 
 
 23. De Eucharistia. 
 
 24. De paenitencia. *De confessione. 
 
 25. De Satisfactione. 
 
 26. De Matrimonio. 
 
 27. De ordinibus ecclesiasticis. 
 
 28. De Vnctione. 
 
 29. De Impositione manuum. 
 
 30. De Confirmacione. 
 
 31. De extrema vnctione. 
 
 32. De vnctione paedum [for De locione pedum], 
 
 33. De Aqua benedicta. 
 
 34. De feriis. 
 
 35. De Sanctorum Invocacione. 
 
 36. De Imaginibus. 
 
 37. De diuorum Reliquiis 
 
 38. De vera Religione et supersticione. 
 
 39. Yt oremus, aut peccatorum veniam consequamur, non est 
 
 vllus locus prae alio deo acceptior, nec pro liiis opus 
 est longe pegrinari. 
 
88 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 the controversies of the age. It appears that from the 
 Cambridge days of Erasmus he was in sympathy with 
 those who, in the language of the time, “ favoured the 
 Gospel.” These men, of whom Bilney, Latimer, and 
 Barnes were the chief, were not doetrinally at issue 
 with the established religion. If they were accounted 
 heretics, and were sometimes found abjuring their 
 heresies, and sometimes burning for them, it was 
 because of their unsparing denuntiation of practical 
 abuses which had been sanctioned by time and by 
 authority. Pilgrimages, the worship of images, indul¬ 
 gences (or “ the Bishop of Rome’s pardons,” as they 
 were called), the narrowness and presumption of the 
 scholastic divinity, compulsory celibacy of the priest- 
 
 40. De Religiosis. 
 
 41. De votis. 
 
 42. De virginitate, et voto castitatis. 
 
 43. De Ecclesia. 
 
 44. De Ecclesiis edificandis, dedicandis, et earuni ornatu. 
 
 45. De lioris Canonicis. 
 
 46. De Oracione, et cantu Ecclesiastico. 
 
 47. De Ieiunio. 
 
 48. De iElemosina. 
 
 40. De corruptis ecclesiae moribus. 
 
 50. De Excommunicacione. 
 
 51. De sepultura mortuorum. 
 
 52. De missa. 
 
 53. De diuinis prseceptis. *De Purgatorio. 
 
 54. De Gracia et meritis. ^Contra Purgatorium. 
 
 55. De Libero Arbitrio. 
 
 56. Semper orandus est deus, vt condonet peccata, eciam piis 
 
 filiis, quibus iam omnia peccata dimissa sunt. 
 
 57. De beatissima virgine. *De conuersione impii. 
 
 o8. De Obediencia erga magistratus. *Gracia praecedit 
 
 „ meritum. 
 
 *De openbus ante spiiitum sanctum. 
 
 *De tide. 
 
 ^Contra merita humana. 
 
 *Added in later band. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 89 
 
 hood, the secular pomp of the higher clergy, supersti¬ 
 tions of various kinds, were the object of their attacks. 
 What they mainly desired was a freer and more spiritual 
 Christianity than they found. One great practical re¬ 
 form which Cranmer had long desired to promote has 
 already been mentioned—-The liberation of his country 
 from the yoke of Rome. Another was the diffusion of 
 the Bible in English. 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer was, of course, far from being 
 the first English Churchman who had laboured for this 
 cause. Not to speak of earlier and more partial efforts, 
 the great work of Wiclif had never been forgotten. It 
 had drawn forth such a passionate love of the Bible in 
 the hearts of Englishmen, that when Henry VIII/s 
 commissioners of 1530, in Archbishop Warham’s time, 
 attempted to suppress the New Testament of Tyndale— 
 mainly because of its venomous notes—and reported 
 that no such translation was necessary, they yet felt 
 constrained to add that if the English people showed 
 signs of forsaking erroneous opinions, the King ‘Untended 
 to provide that the Holy Scriptures should be by great 
 learned and Catholic persons translated into the English 
 tongue, if it should then seem to his Grace convenient 
 to do.” 1 The matter did not interest Henry, but 
 Cranmer took it up. In the first Convocation over 
 which he presided, in 1534, the clergy joined to a 
 request that heretical books might be called in, and 
 that laymen should be restrained from public disputa¬ 
 tions on the faith, the request that his Majesty would 
 nominate trustworthy persons to translate the sacred 
 Scripture into the vulgar tongue, and permit the same to 
 be delivered to the people according to their learning. 
 
 1 Dixon i. 42. 
 
90 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 No royal action was taken upon this petition, but 
 the zealous Primate himself endeavoured to form a 
 committee for the purpose. Taking one of the existing 
 versions of the New Testament, he divided it among 
 the most learned of the bishops and others to be cor¬ 
 rected and returned to him at a given date. Gardiner 
 did the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John; he informs 
 Cromwell, in June 1535, that he has finished them. 1 
 Stokesley was to have done the Acts of the Apostles; 
 but when Cranmer sent his secretary to Fulham to ask 
 for the book, the Bishop only replied that he “ marvelled 
 what my Lord of Canterbury meant; ” it was “ abusing 
 the people to give them liberty to read the Scriptures, 
 and did nothing else but infect them with heresies. I 
 have bestowed never an hour upon my portion,” he 
 said, “ nor never will.” On the secretary’s return to 
 Lambeth Cranmer marvelled at the Bishop’s froward- 
 ness, that he would not do as other men did; but a wag 
 who was present explained, to the Archbishop’s amuse¬ 
 ment, that our Lord had left nothing in His “Testa¬ 
 ment ” to Bishop Stokesley, and that the Apostles were 
 “simple poor fellows,” in whose acts the haughty prelate 
 could not be expected to take an interest. 2 
 
 Reluctance on the part of some of those to whom the 
 task was assigned was joined to cross-action on the part 
 of the Vicegerent. Before Cranmer’s committee-men 
 could finish their work, Coverdale’s version of the Bible 
 appeared—the first printed version of the whole Bible 
 in English. Cromwell drew up an Injunction in 1536, 
 that by the middle of next year every parson should 
 provide his church with a Latin Bible and an English, 
 
 1 See Jenkyns i. xxvii. 
 
 2 Narratives of the Reformation p. 277. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 91 
 
 which could be no other than Coverdale’s. The In¬ 
 junction appears to have had for its sole effect the 
 quashing of Cranmer’s project, for Coverdale’s Bible 
 never came into the churches. 1 But the year after, 
 when “ Matthew’s ” Bible was issued, Cranmer was 
 much pleased with it—indeed, he is thought to have 
 been cognisant beforehand of its preparation. 2 He sent 
 a copy of it to Cromwell, with the request that it might 
 be licensed “ until such time that we, the Bishops, shall 
 set forth a better translation, which I think,” he pur¬ 
 sues, “will not be till a day after doomsday. And if 
 you continue to take such pains for the setting forth of 
 God s word as you do, although in the mean season you 
 suffer some snubs, and many slanders, lies, and re¬ 
 proaches for the same, yet one day He will requite 
 altogether. And the same word (as St. John saith) 
 which shall judge every man at the last day, must 
 needs show favour to them that now do favour it.” 3 
 Although Matthew’s Bible was disfigured by many of 
 the same features which had disfigured Tyndale’s New 
 Testament, the petition of Cranmer was granted. Nine 
 days later he writes a glowing letter of thanks. “ You 
 have shewed me more pleasure herein than if you had 
 given me a thousand pound. Hereby such fruit of 
 good knowledge shall ensue, that it shall well appear 
 hereafter, what high and acceptable service you have 
 done unto God and the King, which shall so much 
 redound to your honour, that, besides God’s reward, you 
 shall obtain perpetual memory for the same within the 
 realm. And, as for me, you may reckon me your bond- 
 man for the same.” 4 The Archbishop’s overflowing 
 
 1 Dixon i. 447. 2 Westcott English Bible p. 70. 
 
 3 Jenkyns i. 196. 4 Ibid. i. 199. 
 
92 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 delight could not rest without writing again a fortnight 
 after. “ These shall he to give you most hearty thanks 
 that any heart can think, and that in the name of them 
 all which favoureth God’s word. This deed you shall 
 hear of at the great day, when all things shall be opened 
 and made manifest.” 1 
 
 A new and more wholesome edition of this book was 
 prepared at Paris in 1538 by Coverdale—curiously 
 enough under the supervision of the famous Bonner, 
 who, on his promotion directly after to the see of 
 London, set up six copies in the nave of St. Paul’s. 
 This edition was partly destroyed by the French Inqui¬ 
 sition, but was finally completed in England, where it 
 was introduced by a new Injunction of the Vicegerent, 
 to the effect that every parish church was to have " one 
 book of the whole Bible of the largest volume,” and the 
 parishioners to be “provoked to read the same.” Arch¬ 
 bishop Cranmer wrote for this—the “ Great Bible,” as 
 it is called—a Preface, which is one of his most felicitous 
 pieces of work. Some there were, he said, that were 
 too slow, and needed the spur; some other too quick, 
 and needed more of the bridle. Some lost their game 
 by short shooting; some by overshooting. Of the one 
 sort were those who refused to read or listen to the 
 Scriptures; of the other, those whose conduct hindered 
 the word of God which they professed to further. 
 Although the Scriptures are light, and food, and fire, 
 Cranmer did not wonder that, at their first introduc¬ 
 tion, men who have been accustomed to live without 
 them should fail to appreciate them, as savages who 
 have lived on mast and acorns objected to bread made 
 of good corn. And yet, in the Archbishop’s opinion, 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 200. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 93 
 
 the reading of the Bible was no novelty in England. 
 “It is not much above one hundred years ago since 
 Scripture hath not been accustomed to be read in the 
 vulgar tongue within this realm: and many hundred 
 years before that, it was translated and read in the 
 Saxons’ tongue, which at that time was our mother’s 
 tongue; whereof there remaineth yet divers copies, found 
 lately in old abbeys, of such antique manners of writing 
 and speaking that few men now been able to read and 
 understand them. 1 And when this language waxed old 
 and out of common usage, because folk should not lack 
 the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the 
 newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain, 
 and be daily found.” A long and spirited translation 
 from St. Chrysostom deals with the cavillers of Bishop 
 Stokesley’s type, and ends—“ The reading of Scriptures 
 is a great and strong bulwark or fortress against sin; 
 the ignorance of the same is the greater ruin and de¬ 
 struction of them that will not know it. That is the 
 thing that bringeth in heresy; that is it that causeth 
 all corrupt and perverse living; that is it that bringeth 
 all things out of good order.” As St. Chrysostom was 
 invoked to reprove those who refused to read the Bible, 
 so St. Gregory of Nazianzus is brought in to reprove 
 the other sort of offenders. “ It appeareth that in his 
 time there were some (as I fear me there been also 
 now at these days a great number) which were idle 
 babblers and talkers of the Scripture out of season and 
 all good order, and without any increase of virtue, or 
 example of good living. To them he writeth all his 
 first book, De Theologia ,” of which Cranmer proceeds to 
 
 1 A MS. of the four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, which belonged 
 to Cranmer, is preserved in the British Museum (1 A. xiv.). 
 
94 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 give a vigorous summary. It is not fit for every man 
 to dispute the high questions of divinity. It is danger¬ 
 ous for the unclean to touch that thing that is most 
 clean; like as the sore eye taketh harm by looking 
 upon the sun. Contention and debate about Scriptures 
 doth most hurt to ourselves and to the cause that we 
 would have furthered. “ All our holiness consisteth in 
 talking; and we pardon each other from all good living, 
 so that we may stick fast together in argumentation. 5 ’ 
 To conclude, says the Archbishop in his own words, 
 “ every man that cometh to the reading of this holy 
 Book ought to bring with him first and foremost the 
 fear of Almighty God; and then next, a firm and stable 
 purpose to reform his own self according thereunto, 
 and so to continue, shewing himself to be a sober and 
 fruitful hearer and learner,” lest he lay himself open to 
 the challenge of the Psalm, “ Why dost thou preach My 
 laws, and takest My testament in thy mouth, whereas 
 thou hatest to be reformed, and hast been partaker with 
 advoutrers ? ” 1 
 
 In 1542, after the fall of Cromwell, a fresh effort was 
 made. The Great Bible failed to give satisfaction—at 
 any rate to the clergy of the Old Learning, now in the 
 ascendant. Convocation declared, in reply to a ques¬ 
 tion of the Archbishop, that it could not be without 
 scandal retained, unless it were revised. A revision 
 was agreed upon. The Bible was partitioned among 
 groups of scholars and prelates. Bishop Gardiner 
 signalised himself on this occasion by naming a curious 
 list of Latin words which he thought it important to 
 use in the English translation of the Bible; but other- 
 
 1 The Preface is printed in Jenkyns ii. 104 foil. It only ap¬ 
 pears in the later editions of the Great Bible. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 95 
 
 wise he does not seem to have been opposed to the 
 project any more than to that of seven years before. 
 Suddenly, however, the work was stopped by royal orders. 
 The King, so Cranmer announced, had determined to 
 commit the translation to the two Universities. It 
 is affirmed t and reaffirmed by serious authors, that 
 this was a ruse of Cranmer’s, who was afraid lest 
 Gardiner should carry his point. 1 Of this there is no 
 evidence whatever—it is only a surmise of Strype’s; but 
 to the angry remonstrances of Convocation Cranmer 
 replied that he should abide by the King’s decision. 
 If indeed the King’s decision was due to Cranmer’s own 
 suggestion, Cranmer’s behaviour in the matter is inex¬ 
 plicable. The Universities received no communication 
 upon the subject from the King, and there was no 
 further attempt to provide an authoritative translation 
 while Henry lived. 
 
 The general English public in Henry VIII.’s reign 
 was but little acquainted with the progress of events 
 upon the Continent of Europe; and our Reformation, 
 before the accession of Edward VI., was not much 
 affected by the divines of Germany and Switzerland. 
 Cranmer, who had travelled in Germany, and had 
 married a German wife, was one of the few Englishmen 
 who kept up an intercourse with foreign scholars. Al¬ 
 though by no means disposed—at least in those days— 
 to make the English Church a humble pupil of Witten¬ 
 berg or of Zurich, he wished to see co-operation and a 
 good intelligence between the reforming party abroad 
 and his own emancipated Church. The Protestant 
 princes of Germany had formed a league for mutual 
 defence, and negotiations passed between them and 
 1 See for instance Westcott English Bible 113. 
 
96 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Henry on the subject of his joining it. In 1535 Henry 
 sent to Schmalcalden, where the league assembled, an 
 embassy headed by his former almoner Edward Foxe, 
 recently made Bishop of Hereford. To him was joined 
 one of those men of secondary importance in history, 
 whose careers display in the most instructive manner 
 the shifting currents of an age of transition. This was 
 Nicholas Heath, destined in Mary’s reign to become 
 Archbishop of York and Lord High Chancellor, in which 
 capacity he signed the death-warrant of Cranmer. Heath 
 was at this time all on the side of progress. He is said 
 to have spoken boldly to Cranmer in defence of Frith’s 
 doctrine of the Eucharist, when Cranmer still thought 
 it “notably erroneous.” 1 The Archbishop, always un¬ 
 stinting in his praise of those who were upon his side, 
 commended him to Cromwell as one “which for his 
 learning, wisdom, discretion, and sincere mind toward 
 his prince, I know no man in my judgment more meet 
 to serve the King’s Highness’ purpose ”; and he urged 
 that he should be provided with a stipend fit for an 
 ambassador. 2 The Archdeaconry of Stafford was as¬ 
 signed to him as an endowment, as that of Taunton 
 had been assigned to Cranmer for a similar purpose; 
 and he held that preferment when, with Foxe and 
 Barnes, he attended the gathering at Schmalcalden. 
 Not much was gained at that gathering, either in the 
 way of doctrinal agreement or in bringing the Ger¬ 
 mans to commit themselves to the King’s divorce ; but 
 
 1 Foxe viii. 699 (ed. 1849). 
 
 2 Jenkyns i. 87. It is doubtful whether this letter refers to 
 the Schmalcalden mission, or whether Heath had already been 
 sent into Germany. The mention of “ the King’s great cause ” 
 alone, may be thought to show that it belongs to a somewhat 
 earlier time. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 9? 
 
 Cranmer’s opinion of Heath was justified by the im¬ 
 pression which he made upon Melanchthon. “ The 
 Archdeacon, Nicholas Heath,” wrote Melanchthon to 
 Carnerarius, “is the only one of our guests who is 
 distinguished by culture and learning; the rest are 
 destitute of our philosophy and sweetness, so I avoid 
 their society as much as I can.” 1 The German princes 
 offered to make Henry the Defender of their league on 
 condition of his accepting the Confession of Augsburg. 
 This the old antagonist of Luther declined °to do. 
 Bishop Gardiner supplied him with cogent political 
 reasons for declining; and it is probable that Arch¬ 
 bishop Cranmer, if he was consulted, would support the 
 decision by theological arguments. 
 
 It was now judged advisable that the English Church, 
 which, by the lips of the Supreme Head, had several 
 times, since the breach with Rome, declared that she 
 had no intention of varying in any point from the true 
 Catholic faith, should express in some detail what that 
 faith, in her judgment, was. German divines were to 
 see how far the English were prepared to go along with 
 them. . Diversities at home would be rallied °to an 
 authoritative standard. Accordingly, in 1536, the Ten 
 Articles were prepared, the first precursors of our present f 
 Thirty-Nine. They bore the title of Articles devised by 
 the King's Highness' Majesty , to stablish Christian quiet¬ 
 ness and icnity among us, and to avoid contentious 
 opinions: which Articles be also approved by the consent 
 and determination of the whole clergy of this realm. 
 Whose hand drew them up cannot now be ascertained, 
 but the first signature to them, after the Vicar General’s' 
 
 1 Seckendorf Comm, de Luth. lib. iii. §xxxix. Add. (e\ quoted 
 by Jenkyns 1 . 87. ' ” 1 
 
 II 
 
98 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 is naturally that of Cranmer; and they well represent 
 his state of opinion at the time. These Articles, as the 
 preface states, are divided into two parts—a division 
 which lays the true basis of our Catholic Reforma¬ 
 tion, and which Cranmer rightly claims as a great 
 re-discovery of the time. 1 “ The one part containeth 
 such [Articles] as be commanded expressly by God, and 
 be necessary to our salvation ; and the other containeth 
 such things as have been of a long continuance for a 
 decent order and honest policy prudently instituted and 
 used in the churches of our realm, although they be 
 not expressly commanded of God, nor necessary to our 
 salvation/' Acceptance of the canonical Scriptures, and 
 of the three Creeds, as the rule of faith; holy Baptism; 
 the sacrament of Penance, as a necessity for all who 
 have committed mortal sin after baptism, but explained 
 after a truly evangelical manner; the presence of 
 Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist briefly 
 stated, though without using the technical terms of 
 transubstantiation; Justification, defined in the words 
 of Melanchthon, and to be attained by contrition and 
 faith, joined with charity, but not as though these 
 were its meritorious cause ; these are the first necessary 
 part of the little book. In the second part the people 
 are taught how to use and how not to use sacred images, 
 how to honour and how not to honour saints, what kind 
 of prayers may be addressed to saints, the meaning of 
 various rites and ceremonies which are instructive and 
 laudable, though they have no power to remit sin; and 
 of Purgatory, that no man ought to be grieved at the 
 eontinuanoe of prayers for the departed, “ that they 
 may be relieved and holpen of some part of their 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 216. 
 
99 
 
 THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 pain,” 1 but that “ the place where they be, the name 
 thereof, and kind of pains there, be to us uncertain by 
 Scripture,” so that the abuses connected with the 
 doctrine ought to be clearly put away, such as that “ the 
 Bishop of Rome’s pardons,” or masses said at Scala 
 Caeli or otherwhere, could send souls straight to heaven. 2 
 
 These Articles were put forth in July 1536. In the 
 preface to them, the King declared that if they were 
 obediently received by the people, he should be not a little 
 encouraged “ to take further travails, pains, and labours ” 
 for their commodities. There was, indeed, much left to 
 be desired in the reception of the Articles and of the 
 royal Injunctions which accompanied them. At the 
 time of their appearance, the abbeys were fast falling, 
 and the “ Pilgrimage of Grace ” attested the unpopu¬ 
 larity of the King’s measures. The northern clergy 
 assembled and passed a series of reactionary resolutions. 
 Henry turned fiercely upon the bishops of the reforming 
 school, and, probably more to appease the opposite 
 faction than for any other reason, upbraided them in 
 a general manifesto for speaking against accustomed 
 ceremonies in spite of the Ten Articles and Injunctions. 
 
 Nevertheless, he was so well pleased with his first 
 attempt at doctrinal pacification, that a further step 
 was determined upon. At the beginning of the next 
 year, Cromwell summoned the bishops to a meeting. 
 After he had opened the proceedings, the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury thus stated the business in hand— 
 
 1 In the original draft, it seems to have run, “ that they may 
 sooner obtain the mercy of God and fruition of His glory.” The 
 alteration is probably due to the King’s own hand. 
 
 2 The Ten Articles, together with the Bishops’ Book and the 
 King’s Book , may be found in Lloyd’s Formularies of Faith put 
 forth by Authority in the reign of Henry VIII. (Oxford, 1856). 
 
100 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 “ There be weighty controversies now moved and put 
 forth, not of ceremonies and light things, but of the 
 true understanding and of the right difference of the 
 Law and the Gospel; of the manner and way how sins 
 be forgiven; of comforting doubtful and wavering 
 consciences, by what means they may be certified that 
 they please God, seeing they feel the strength of the 
 law accusing them of sin ; of the true use of the Sacra¬ 
 ments, whether the outward work of them doth justify 
 man, or whether we receive our justification by faith. 
 Item, which be the good works, and the true service 
 and honour which pleaseth God ; and whether the choice 
 of meats, the difference of garments, the vows of monks 
 and priests, and other traditions which have no word of 
 God to confirm them, whether these, I say, be right good 
 works, and such as make a perfect Christian man, or no. 
 Item, whether vain service and false honouring of God, 
 and man’s traditions, do bind men’s consciences, or no. 
 Finally, whether the ceremony of Confirmation, of 
 Orders, and of Annealing, and such other, which cannot 
 be proved to be institute of Christ, nor have any word 
 in them to certify us of remission of sins, ought to 
 be called Sacraments, and to be compared with Baptism 
 and the Supper of the Lord, or no.” 1 
 
 Unfortunately for the cause of peace, Cromwell had 
 introduced into the meeting the Scotchman Aless, who 
 was at this time a guest of the Archbishop’s at Lambeth. 
 Aless bad sojourned long among the Lutherans of 
 Germany, and delivered himself with an assurance which 
 provoked the deep resentment of Bishop Stokesley and 
 other prelates of the Old Learning. Yet so loyal were 
 they all to the cause of Catholic unity, that there was 
 
 1 Jenkyns ii. 16. > 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 101 
 
 no difficulty in forming a committee, by whose labours 
 m a very short time was produced the Institution of a 
 Christian Man, commonly known as the Bishops’ Book. 
 In this work, Cranmer, along with Bishop Foxe, had the 
 chief share. 1 No small amount of discretion and 
 conciliatory feeling must have been required to bring 
 such diversity of views into agreement. It is impossible 
 without emotion to read this grave and fervent, practical 
 and large-minded, exposition of the Christian faith and 
 life, as understood by the Church of England under 
 Henry, and to see the names appended to it. Side by 
 side with Archbishop Cranmer’s, appears the name 
 of Edward Lee of York, the old antagonist of Erasmus. 
 Stokesley and Gardiner, Tunstall, Clerk, Yeysey, Long- 
 land, and Sampson, are willing to be considered its joint 
 authors with Latimer and Shaxton, Goodrich, Foxe, 
 Hillsey, and Barlow. Among the signatures of men 
 who were not } 7 et bishops, stand those of Bonner, Skip, 
 and Heath, of Richard Smith, and May, Nicholas 
 Wotton, and Richard Cox. He would have been a bold 
 man who would have undertaken in 1537 to say in 
 what directions this united band of divines would 
 afterwards diverge. 
 
 The “ Bishops’ Book ” contained an explanation of the 
 Creed, the Seven Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, 
 the Pater Noster, and the Ave Maria; of Justification, 
 and of Purgatory. Doctrinally, it occupies the same 
 position as the Ten Articles, upon which it is founded. 
 On some of the crucial points, such as Penance and the 
 Eucharist, Justification and Purgatory, it only repeats 
 the Articles with a few verbal alterations. Although 
 all the seven Sacraments are affirmed to deserve that 
 1 Latimer to Cromwell, in Jenkyns i. 188. 
 
102 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 name, the Sacraments of Baptism, Penance, and of the 
 Altar are set above the rest, as having been instituted 
 by Christ Himself with outward visible signs and con- 
 veying graces whereby sins are remitted. The Ave 
 Maria is explained to be not a prayer, but an act of 
 praise only, and nothing is said about the invocation 
 of her or of other saints. The Church of Borne is to 
 be considered as only one Church among many. 
 
 There is one doctrine dealt with in the “ Bishops’ 
 Book,” of which it is necessary to take more extended 
 notice, because about this time Cranmer’s personal 
 opinion on it was inclined to vary from what he acknow¬ 
 ledged as binding in public. It is the doctrine of Holy 
 Orders, and of ecclesiastical authority. Towards the end 
 of 1540, questions were sent round to all the bishops, 
 with a view (as it seems) to the compilation of the 
 “ King’s Book,” which in 1542 superseded the “ Bishops’ 
 Book.” The questions were probably drawn up by 
 Cranmer himself, and his answers to them remain, as 
 well as those of other bishops. In these he states his 
 opinion as follows— 
 
 “All Christian princes have committed unto them 
 immediately of Cod the whole cure of all their subjects, 
 as well concerning the administration of God’s word for 
 the cure of souls, as concerning the ministration of 
 things political and civil governance : and in both these 
 ministrations they must have sundry ministers under 
 them to supply that which is appointed to their several 
 offices. The civil ministers under his Majesty ... be 
 those whom it shall please his Highness for the time to 
 put in authority under him, as for example, the Lord 
 Chancellor, Lord Treasurer, etc. The ministers of God’s 
 word under his Majesty be the bishops, parsons, vicars, 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 103 
 
 and sucli other priests as be appointed by his Highness 
 to that ministration : as for example, the Bishop of 
 Canterbury . . . the Parson of Winwick, etc. All the 
 said officers and ministers, as well of the one sort as of 
 the other, be appointed, assigned, and elected in every 
 place, by the laws and orders of kings and princes. 
 
 “ In the admission of many of these officers be divers 
 comely ceremonies and solemnities used, which be not 
 of necessity, but only for a good order and seemly 
 fashion; for if such offices and ministrations were 
 committed without such solemnity, they were neverthe¬ 
 less truly committed. And there is no more promise of 
 God that grace is given in the committing of the 
 ecclesiastical office, than it is in the committing of the 
 civil office.” 
 
 In the Apostles’ time, Cranmer continues, because 
 there were no Christian princes to govern the Church, 
 ministers could only be appointed by the consent of 
 the Christian multitude among themselves. They took 
 such curates and priests as they knew to be meet, or as 
 were commended to them by men replete with the 
 Spirit. Sometimes the Apostles appointed them; in 
 which case the people with thanks accepted them, “not 
 for the supremity, impery, or dominion, that the 
 Apostles had over them to command, as their princes 
 and masters, but as good people, ready to obey the advice 
 of good counsellors.” 
 
 Bishops and priests were “both one office in the 
 beginning of Christ’s religion. A bishop may make a 
 priest by the Scripture, and so may princes and govern¬ 
 ors also, and that by the authority of God committed to 
 them, and the people also by their election; for as we 
 read that bishops have done it, so Christian emperors 
 
104 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 and princes usually have done it, and the people, before 
 
 Christian princes were, commonly did elect their bishops 
 and priests. 
 
 “In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be 
 a bishop, or a priest, needeth no consecration by the 
 
 Scripture, for election or appointing thereunto is 
 sufficient.” 
 
 lo the question whether, by the Scripture, a bishop 
 or priest may excommunicate, and whether they alone, 
 the Archbishop replies that Scripture neither commands 
 nor forbids them. If the law of the land permits them, 
 they may; if it forbids, they may not; and the law may 
 empower men who are not priests to excommunicate. 
 
 ^ # writes Cianmer, at the end of his answers, 
 
 “ is mine opinion and sentence at this present; which] 
 nevertheless, I do not temerariously define, but refer 
 the judgment thereof wholly unto your Majesty .” 1 
 
 Cranmer’s opinion on the subject is of some contro¬ 
 versial importance at the present time, inasmuch as his 
 opinion was shared by some other prelates—notably by 
 Bishop Barlow, the chief consecrator of Archbishop 
 Parker. If the defective intention of Barlow was 
 enough to invalidate his consecration of Parker, the 
 same might with some justice be said of the twenty- 
 three bishops consecrated by Archbishop Cranmer, which 
 would introduce grave confusion into the history of the 
 Church. But, as a matter of fact, neither Barlow nor 
 Cranmer had the smallest wavering of intention with 
 regard to the consecrations which they were performing 
 o fancy that the bishops whom they consecrated might 
 have been as true bishops by the King’s command, or 
 the people’s choice, without any of the “ comely cere- 
 
 1 See Jenkyns ii. 98 foil. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 105 
 
 monies and solemnities ” in use, gives no proof of an 
 inadequate intention or a failure of faith, when the due 
 forms were actually employed. There was no contradiction 
 between Cranmer’s answers to the questions of 1540, and 
 the full statement upon the Sacrament of Orders to 
 which he had set his hand in the “Bishops’ Book.” The 
 chapter on the Sacrament of Orders is the longest in 
 that book. It unhesitatingly affirms that this Sacrament 
 was “ instituted by Christ and His Apostles in the New 
 Testament; that it has for its visible and outward 
 sign “ prayer and imposition of the bishop’s hands ; ” 1 
 that it has “ annexed unto it assured promises of excel¬ 
 lent and inestimable things ; ” that “ God hath instituted 
 and ordained none other ordinary mean whereby He will 
 make us partakers of the reconciliation which is by 
 Christ, and confer and give the graces of His Holy 
 Spirit unto us,” except the Word and Sacraments, for the 
 dispensing of which the ministry is necessary. Nor 
 were these views only the prevalent views, acquiesced in 
 by Cranmer for the sake of unity. When in 1548 he 
 translated the Catechism of Justus Jonas, he put forth 
 in his own name a statement concerning the sacred 
 ministry which suggests no ambiguity. « The Apostles,” 
 it says, “ laid their hands upon [others] and gave them 
 the Holy Ghost, as they themselves received of Christ 
 the same Holy Ghost, to execute this office. And they 
 that were so ordained were indeed the ministers of God 
 as the Apostles themselves were. And so the minis¬ 
 tration of God’s word (which our Lord Jesus Christ 
 Himself did first institute) was derived from the 
 Apostles unto others after them, by imposition of hands 
 
 1 It is noticeable that nothing is said of the porrection of the 
 instruments. 
 
106 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles’ time to 
 our days. And this shall continue in the Church, even 
 to the world’s end.” 1 
 
 The “Bishops’ Book” marks the point which had 
 been reached by the reforming movement in 1537. It 
 satisfied the respectable school of Reformers like 
 Latimer; it carried along with it the conservatives like 
 Tunstall. But it received no collective sanction from 
 the Church; and the King, although he so far approved 
 of it as to send it to the King of Scotland as an example 
 for the Scotch to imitate, refused to give it his royal 
 authority. 2 
 
 Cranmer himself is partly responsible for not having 
 let well alone. He was anxious, like Cromwell, to 
 resume the interrupted negotiations with the German 
 Protestants. In May, 1538, a deputation from them 
 arrived in England. It consisted of Burckhardt, Vice- 
 chancellor of Saxony, and two others. They had hardly 
 been a month in England before they endeavoured to 
 gain from Cranmer a commutation of penance for a 
 clergyman named Atkinson, who held novel opinions 
 
 1 Catechismus p. 196 (Oxford, 1829). 
 
 2 The King’s strictures upon the “ Bishops’ Book ” may be seen 
 in Jenkyns ii. 21 foil., and on p. 65 foil. Cranmer’s comments 
 upon these strictures. For those who suppose that Cranmer’s 
 attitude was one of unvarying subserviency towards the royal 
 theologian, it will be a good corrective to read his comments upon 
 Henry’s observations. The tone of them is strangely outspoken 
 and Iree, as he criticises alike the grammar, the logic, and the 
 theology of Henry. “ I trust the King’s Highness will pardon 
 my presumption,” he writes in returning the book to Cromwell, 
 “that I have been so scrupulous, and as it were a picker of 
 quarrels to his Grace’s book, making a great matter of every light 
 fault, or rather where no fault is at all; which I do only for this 
 intent, that because the book now shall be set forth by his Grace’s 
 censure and judgment, I would have nothing therein that Momus 
 could reprehend” (Jenkyns i. 227). 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 107 
 
 upon the Eucharist. They had mistaken their man. 
 Cranmer’s orthodoxy on the great subject, and Cranmer’s 
 sense of English independence, were alike affronted. 
 He told the ambassadors that Atkinson should do his 
 penance at St. Paul’s and nowhere else. It was in vain 
 that they pleaded that a condemned Saxon’s life had 
 been spared at the instance of Bishop Foxe, when he was 
 in Germany. That error of the Sacrament of the Altar 
 was so greatly spread in the realm, the Archbishop 
 answered, and daily increasing more and more, that 
 it was needful for the penance to be performed where 
 the most people might be present, and thereby, in seeing 
 him punished, to beware of the like offence. 1 
 
 It was not a hopeful episode at the beginning of an 
 attempt at doctrinal agreement ; yet the sanguine 
 Archbishop went forward. The committee appointed to 
 confer with the Germans, of which he was one, discussed 
 with them patiently The greater part of the Augsburg 
 Confession, and drafted a revised form of some of its 
 Articles which seemed likely to be acceptable to both 
 sides; but after that they diverged. 2 The German 
 “ orators ” wished to proceed to the remaining Articles 
 of Augsburg, which treated of the Mass, Communion in 
 one kind, Confession, the priestly celibate, and the 
 like, under the head of abuses. Cranmer was willing 
 to be guided by their preference. But the other com¬ 
 missioners thought differently. The King himself, they 
 said, was writing upon the alleged abuses, and they 
 would not risk a difference from him. They demanded 
 a discussion of Matrimony, Orders, Confirmation, and 
 Extreme Unction, which found no place in the Augsburg 
 Confession, and in which, as Cranmer affirms, “ they 
 1 Jenkyns i. 249. 2 See Ibid, iv, 273, 
 
108 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 know certainly that the Germans will not agree with 
 us.” Upon this shoal the negotiations were wrecked. 
 Evidently the King was not pleased with the Germans, 
 who seemed to suppose that they had come to teach, not 
 to learn. If Cranmer was not misinformed, they were 
 even treated with scanty courtesy. They were kept 
 waiting month after month, in hopes of some final 
 decision by the King. The princes who sent them 
 began to chafe at the expense to which they were put. 
 Lambeth was not in condition to receive them as guests, 
 and the house assigned to them by Cromwell was far 
 from agreeable. “ Besides the multitude of rats,” says 
 Cranmer, “ daily and nightly running in their chambers, 
 which is no small disquietness, the kitchen standeth 
 directly against their parlour where they daily dine and 
 sup; and by reason thereof the house savoureth so ill, 
 that it offendeth all men that come into it.” 1 The orators 
 took their departure ; and though Burckhardt returned 
 next year in a more open frame of mind, the scheme 
 for corporate union never revived in the days of Henry. 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer, whose wish was often father to 
 his thought, had long persuaded himself that the King, 
 as well as Cromwell, was altogether on his side in 
 matters of religion. Soon after the departure of the 
 German “orators” in 1538, a lively correspondence broke 
 forth between him and a Justice and Privy Councillor 
 in his diocese, who claimed the “ Bishops’ Book ” as an 
 indication that Henry “ allowed all the old fashions, and 
 put all the knaves of the new learning to silence.” 
 Acting upon this opinion, the Councillor had en¬ 
 deavoured to stop the reading of the Bible, and at 
 sessions molested the favourers of the Gospel. Cranmer 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 264. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 109 
 
 warned him that if he did not change his ways, he 
 should be constrained to complain of him to the King, 
 “ which (he says) I were very loth to do, and it is 
 contrary to my mind and usage hitherto.” Men like 
 this Justice were so blinded, Cranmer said, that they 
 called the old new, and the new old. “ In very deed,” 
 he wrote, “ the people be restored by this book to their 
 good old usages, although they he not restored to their 
 late abused usages. The old usage was in the primitive 
 Church, and nigh thereunto when the Church was most 
 purest. If men will indifferently read these late declar¬ 
 ations, they shall well perceive, that purgatory, 
 pilgrimages, praying to saints, images, holy bread, holy 
 water, holy days, merits, works, ceremonies, and such 
 other, be not restored to their late accustomed abuses, 
 but shall evidently perceive that the word of God hath 
 gotten the upper hand of them all, and hath set them 
 in their right use and estimation.” If it were not for 
 the favour that he bore him, the Archbishop said that 
 he would call the Justice’s servants before him as 
 heretics, for all their brag. 1 
 
 He was soon to receive a painful surprise with 
 regard to the King’s attitude. Personally attached as 
 the King was to Cranmer, he was by no means so much 
 in love as Cranmer thought with reforming schemes. 
 Ann Boleyn was gone. Cromwell, though still in 
 favour, was no longer so necessary to the King. In 
 June 1540, the “Whip with Six Strings” descended 
 upon the shoulders of those who, in the main, looked 
 to Cranmer as their leader. 
 
 It is strange that the Six Articles should have been 
 considered to denote a great reactionary change in 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 206 foil. 
 
110 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Henry s mind. 1 There is little in the doctrine which 
 is not covered. by the Ten Articles, or the “ Bishops’ 
 Book,” or previous Injunctions. They do indeed add 
 lansubstantiation to the Real Presence, and affirm 
 that communion in both kinds is unnecessary, and that 
 pi ivate masses ought to be continued ; but these points 
 were not denied in the earlier formularies. The need 
 of auncular confession was more strongly inculcated in 
 the Bishops’ Book ” than in the Six Articles. In one 
 respect only might men who watched Henry carefully 
 ieel a legitimate surprise at his new Act. When almost 
 the last conventual establishments were closing it was 
 announced that vows of chastity, advisedly taken, were 
 for ever binding. Otherwise, the Articles gave expres¬ 
 sion to Henry’s consistent orthodoxy. But to those 
 who interpreted Henry by what he had more or less 
 tacitly allowed, the Articles were a terrible shock. 
 These Six new Articles of our Faith,” says a contem¬ 
 porary, were “ as well agreeing with the word of God 
 and the former book of religion, called the 'Bishops’ 
 
 S*; Watei ’ Hghfc With dar kness, and 
 
 Cranmer, at the beginning of the Parliament which 
 p_assed these Articles, had been put on a small com¬ 
 mittee of divines who were to draw up a new declara- 
 lon o nghcan belief. Before, however, they could 
 arrive at any result, the Duke of Norfolk was sent by 
 the Kmg into the House of Lords with the draft of 
 ie ix rticles, and a bill to enforce them by fearful 
 
 o/ a ?LT ny r US /“ Life and Death of Cranmer ” in Narratives 
 
 Inmefteirbto^lTeS 08 ^ 6 Ch “« e * “ol 
 
 a prey to the King. * cne raon astenes from falling 
 
 Narratives of the Reformation p. 224. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 111 
 
 penalties. Against this bill, Cranmer contended, 
 according to his secretary’s account, “most danger¬ 
 ously.” 1 On three consecutive days, it is said, with 
 the aid of the other reforming bishops, he maintained 
 his ground. At last, Henry himself came down to the 
 House to take the side against him. So powerful was 
 Cranmer’s opposition, that the King sent word to him 
 to withdraw from the House of Lords, which the Arch¬ 
 bishop respectfully declined to do. When the Act was 
 passed, the King, who was capable of admiring a skilful 
 argument, even when it was against himself, begged 
 Cranmer to send him a copy of his speeches. By the 
 Act itself, it had been made heresy, punishable at 
 common law, to speak against the first of the Articles, 
 and felony to speak against the rest. To commit his 
 arguments to paper was therefore to run a good deal 
 of risk; and an exciting adventure befell the book. 
 Morice, the secretary, who wrote it out, was obliged 
 one day to go over from Lambeth to London, and, for 
 better safe-keeping, took the book with him. A bear- 
 baiting was taking place at the time in a boat on the 
 river. The bear broke loose, capsized Morice’s wherry, 
 plunged Morice into the Thames, and sent the book 
 floating down the tide. It came into the hands of the 
 bearward, who was a zealous Papist. When he found 
 whose and what it was, the bearward thought he had 
 found his opportunity against the heretical Archbishop. 
 “ You be like, I trust,” he told the secretary, “ to be 
 both hanged for this book.” Refusing to give it up for 
 money, he carried it to the council-chamber, and only 
 the fortunate interference of Cromwell prevented the 
 man from bringing the matter to an issue. 2 
 
 1 Narratives of the Reformation p. 248. 2 Foxe v. 388. 
 
112 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Henry’s request for Cranmer’s arguments had been 
 conveyed by Cromwell and Norfolk, whom, after the 
 passing of the Six Articles Bill, the King had sent to 
 dine at Lambeth with the Archbishop, and to assure 
 him that the King had not taken his outspokenness 
 amiss. Henry knew well that Cranmer stood in need 
 of consolation. He had not only suffered the defeat of 
 principles which were dear to him. The Six Articles 
 had touched him in a very tender spot. They had put 
 an end to his married life. 
 
 It ought, perhaps, to have been no great surprise to 
 Cianmer that the law should be made more stringent 
 against the marriage of the clergy. No permission of 
 such marriages had at any time been given; and in 
 lobS a loyal proclamation had been issued for depriving 
 any priests who were known to be married, and forbid¬ 
 ding them to “ minister any sacrament or other ministry 
 mystical. 1 Notwithstanding this, an impression had 
 been somehow created, that the King intended to 
 allow priests to marry. 2 Perhaps Strype is right in 
 thinking that the very wording of the prohibition— 
 marriages that be openly known ”—was taken to 
 mean that marriages which were kept quiet would be 
 unmolested. It came, therefore, as a thunderbolt to 
 Cranmer and many others, when the third of the new 
 Articles affirmed that God’s law forbade the marriage 
 of priests, whether before or after receiving that sacred 
 order; and the Act declared such marriages void, and 
 made them, if persisted in, a capital offence. 
 
 Cranmer s wife had, no doubt,been always kept in strict 
 retirement. The scoffing Papists of Queen Mary’s time 
 
 1 Wilkins iii. 696, where the date is wrongly given. 
 
 2 Strype’s Cranmer i. 154. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 113 
 
 f made merry over the shifts to which, in their imagina¬ 
 tion, the Archbishop had been put to hide her. All sorts 
 of ludicrous situations were invented. He was said to 
 have carried her about “ in a great chest full of holes, 
 that his pretty Nobsey might take breath at.” 1 Now, 
 however, even this precarious felicity could be enjoyed 
 no more. Osiander’s niece w~as shipped off to her 
 friends in Germany, and the Archbishop had to work 
 on as best he could without her. When his troubles 
 with the Canons of Canterbury began, some three years 
 after, the King, u putting on an air of pleasantry, asked 
 him whether his bedchamber could stand the test of 
 the Articles.” Cranmer’s straightforward answer pleased 
 Henry. The King told him that the severity of the 
 Act had not been levelled at him, and renewed his 
 promises of favour. 2 
 
 On one point, indeed, the King had taken the Arch¬ 
 bishop’s part in the debate on the Six Articles. So 
 clearly had Cranmer shown that auricular confession to 
 a priest (which Cranmer valued and used) was not 
 made compulsory on all men in Scripture, that when 
 Bishop Tunstall sent in to the King afterwards a 
 re-statement of his opinion to the contrary, Henry 
 replied that he wondered at him. It had been proved, 
 he said, both by the Bishop of Canterbury and himself, 
 that the texts which Tunstall quoted “ made smally or 
 nothing to his purpose.” 3 
 
 Within a year of the passing of the Six Articles 
 Cromwell fell, accused of heresy, as well as of treason. 
 
 1 Harpsfielcl’s Pretended Divorce of Ilenry VIII. p. 275. Cp. 
 Bishop Cranmer’s Recantacyons p. 8. 
 
 2 Collier v. 127. 
 
 3 Todd i. 276, from Burnet. 
 
114 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 At the moment when Cranmer wrote to the Kino* in 
 
 O 
 
 his defence, the Archbishop himself was in the thick 
 of an unequal conflict on behalf of the very principles 
 which helped to ruin the Vicegerent. A commission had 
 again been appointed for formulating afresh the 
 doctrine of the Church. “At that season/’ says his 
 secretary, “ the whole rabblement which he took to be 
 his friends, being commissioners with him, forsook him 
 and his opinion in doctrine, and so, leaving him post 
 alone, revolted altogether.” Gardiner was, of course, 
 the leader of the opposition; but he was joined by 
 Heath, who had won the testimonial of Melanchthon, 
 by Hay of Chichester, and others who owed their 
 advancement to Cranmer. Heath, and Skip, Bishop of 
 Hereford, as familiar friends of the Archbishop, took 
 him down into the garden at Lambeth, and urged him 
 to adopt a form of words which they thought more 
 likely to find acceptance with the King than that which 
 Cranmer pressed upon the committee. Cranmer bade 
 them beware what they did. He told them that he 
 knew the King’s nature. The truth would one day 
 come out about these articles; and then the Kin£ 
 would never again trust those who had in false prudence 
 concealed it from him. 1 Cranmer was right. While 
 heavy odds were being laid by betting men in London 
 that Cranmer, before Convocation broke up, would 
 be set in the Tower beside his friend, Cromwell, 
 “ Hod gave him such favour with his Prince, that the 
 book altogether passed, by his assertion, against all 
 their minds.” Henry’s suspicions were aroused by the 
 change of mind which he saw in others of the com- 
 
 1 Foxe viii. 24. 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 115 
 
 missioners; his regard for Cranmer’s constancy “ drave 
 him all alone to join ” with him. 1 
 
 This book, which the Archbishop carried through, was 
 no other than the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of 
 a Christian Man , commonly called the “ King’s Book,” 
 to distinguish it from the “Bishops’ Book.” Most 
 writers, considering the time at which it appeared to be 
 a time of reaction, have been compelled to find in the 
 “ King’s Book ” a marked contrast to the doctrine of its 
 predecessor. Morice’s account of the circumstances of 
 its birth puts a different construction upon the matter. 
 So far from suggesting that the Necessary Erudition was 
 the work of a retrograde party, authorised in spite of 
 Cranmer’s opposition, it shows that that book in the 
 main represents the triumph of Cranmer, at a moment 
 when he seemed most unlikely to succeed. 2 
 
 1 Morice Narratives of the Reformation p. 248. 
 
 2 The employment to which Foxe has put a part of Morice’s 
 graphic language has misled many subsequent writers. Foxe 
 makes Cranmer to oppose the Six Articles “post alone.” 
 Morice, when he used that phrase, used it of Cranmer’s position, 
 not at the time of the Six Articles, but at the time of Cromwell’s 
 fall. Foxe uses it of an occasion when Cranmer was beaten; 
 Morice of an occasion when Cranmer won. The Six Articles 
 passed in 1539, a year before Cromwell fell. The only “ book of 
 articles of our religion” that we know of, which was under dis¬ 
 cussion when Cromwell fell, was that which appeared in 1543 
 under the name of the Necessary Erudition. It is true that some 
 slight detraction from Morice’s authority at this point must be 
 admitted, because of the evident signs that the old man’s memory 
 was here at fault in certain details. He mentions Thirlby (in 
 the MS.) as one of those who deserted Cranmer, and then erases 
 the name. He mentions Shaxton also, and leaves the name 
 standing, although Shaxton had been forced to resign his see a 
 year before. But Morice can hardly have been mistaken as to 
 his main facts—that the book which then was carried was practi¬ 
 cally Cranmer’s and that the other party were desirous of carrying 
 something very different. No record remains of the alternative 
 document which they favoured. 
 
116 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Nor, indeed, should any one be surprised that the 
 Necessary Erudition, broadly speaking, represents 
 Cranmer’s views at the time of its composition. There 
 are but few portions of it which are not taken from the 
 earlier work, by a careful weaving together of material 
 which in the earlier work was scattered and ill-arranged. 
 There are, no doubt, passages in the new book which 
 have the appearance of being due to Bishop Gardiner— 
 as where the meaning of Latin words like Dominus, and 
 ftdclis, and ecclesia, and sanctorum, is discussed. Doubt¬ 
 less there are expressions which Cranmer must have 
 deprecated, but the doctrine is not much changed. 
 Transubstantiation is added to the Real Presence; but 
 in mildly expressed terms, and Cranmer’s objection to 
 the doctrine had not yet formulated itself as it did a few 
 years later. The Invocation of Saints is somewhat more 
 encouraged than before; but it is carefully explained 
 that their intercession is not efficacious except through 
 the mediation of Christ, who is “ the only eternal Priest 
 and Bishop of His Church.” In only one respect is 
 Cranmer’s private opinion markedly crossed. The new 
 book maintains that priests ought not to marry; but 
 Cranmer had already bowed to the Six Articles, when he 
 found opposition unavailing. For the rest, the Neces¬ 
 sary Erudition is avowedly a reforming work. It looks 
 back with satisfaction upon what has been accomplished 
 in that direction, although it admits that there has been 
 evil mixed with the good. The condemnation of Rome 
 is more emphatic than ever. The new sections on 
 Faith, on Free Will, on Justification, on Good Works, 
 are all written from the standpoint of one who sym¬ 
 pathises with the lately recovered ideas upon those 
 subjects, though soberly criticising the rash modes in 
 
THE REFORMATION UNDER HENRY 
 
 117 
 
 which they had been promulgated. On Penance, the 
 book speaks in accordance with the views in which 
 Cranmer and Henry were agreed. “ The Sacrament of 
 Penance ” is boldly declared to be “ properly the Absolu¬ 
 tion pronounced by the priest,” to the obtaining of 
 which contrition, confession, and satisfaction (usually 
 considered to be the very elements of the sacrament) 
 “ be required as ways and means expedient and neces¬ 
 sary.” It would be very easy to imagine a presentment 
 of Christian doctrine more reactionary than that which 
 is commonly supposed to prove the revival of the party 
 of the Old Learning. The “ King’s Book ” may be 
 taken to express fairly the English Reformation move¬ 
 ment as guided by Cranmer under Henry VIII. 1 
 
 The mutual attachment between the two men lasted 
 to the end. When Henry knew himself to be dying, he 
 refused to see any divine except the Archbishop, for 
 whom he sent in haste, but his power of speech was 
 gone before the Archbishop arrived. “ As soon as he 
 came, the King stretched out his hand to him. The 
 Archbishop exhorted him to place all his hope in the 
 mercy of God through Christ, beseeching him earnestly 
 that if he could not testify this hope in words, he 
 would do so by a sign. Then the King wrung the 
 
 1 Although the Necessary Erudition must be considered to 
 represent (with some deductions) the teaching of Cranmer, there 
 is more reason for discerning a triumph of the Old Learning in 
 the Rationale, an explanation of the Church services, which was 
 drawn up at the same time. Who drew it up is quite uncertain; 
 and I cannot think it likely to have been the work of the Com¬ 
 mission on Ceremonies appointed by Cromwell in 1540 (see the 
 list in Dixon ii. 234). But it commended ceremonies which 
 Cranmer did not love ; and it may very probably be a proof of 
 Cranmer’s influence (as Strype affirms) that the Rationale was not 
 adopted by the Church, as his Necessary Erudition was. 
 
118 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Archbishop’s hand, which he held in his own, as hard 
 as his failing strength would allow, and, directly after, 
 breathed his last.” 1 
 
 The Archbishop’s mourning for his master was deep 
 and lasting, and he chose to wear the signs of it to his 
 dying day. The fine portrait of him in the National 
 Portrait Gallery, by an otherwise unknown painter— 
 Gerbic a Flicciis—was taken the year before Henry’s 
 death. It represents a large, clean-shaven man of fifty- 
 seven years of age, sitting very upright in his chair. 
 He does not look like a man of weak character, though 
 the full and falling mouth might perhaps indicate some 
 slowness of temperament. The brows are well-defined 
 and slightly contracted, and the “ purblind ” eyes look 
 inquiringly out from under them. In his hands are 
 the Epistles of St. Paul, while on the table lies a book 
 on Faith and Works. A later portrait would have 
 represented him with a grey beard; for it is said that 
 he never shaved his beard after the death of Henry, as 
 a token of sorrow for his loss. 
 
 1 Godwin Rerum Ancjl. Anncdes p. 154 (ed. 1628). 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 Things changed rapidly after the death of Henry. 
 Although the Archbishop had been put at the head of 
 the Council of Regency by the will of the deceased 
 King, the supreme power passed at once into the hands 
 of the young Edward’s uncle, best known as the Pro¬ 
 tector Somerset. It suited Somerset and his supporters 
 to patronise the new ideas of religion, which promised 
 to divert Church property to a most liberal extent for 
 the use of lay lords. Before the year 1547 was out, a 
 bill was passed in Parliament for granting to the King 
 all chantries, colleges, and free chapels which had not 
 already been dissolved. For some reason it was not till 
 1552 that the chantries were actually sold, by which 
 time Somerset had fallen, and Northumberland had 
 taken his place. Cranmer, who had formerly been 
 distressed over the waste of the monastic property, 
 strenuously opposed the meddling with the chantries. 
 “He offered,” says Morice, “to combat with the Duke 
 of Northumberland, speaking on the behalf of his 
 prince for the staying of the chantries until his Highness 
 had come unto lawful age.” 1 It was his own desire, as 
 it must have been the desire of many, to maintain the 
 
 1 Narratives p. 247. 
 
 119 
 
120 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 position of things which Henry had bequeathed, in 
 other matters besides this of the chantries. Near the 
 beginning of Edward’s reign, he told Morice of the way 
 in which Bishop Gardiner had hindered some reforms 
 which he had nearly persuaded Henry to adopt; and 
 when the secretary observed that he could now proceed 
 with those reforms without obstruction, “ Not so,” the 
 Archbishop replied; “it was better to attempt such 
 reformation in King Henry VIII/s days, than at this 
 time, the King being in his infancy.” 1 
 
 But when it was determined by the dominant faction 
 that the revolution was to go forward, Cranmer took up 
 the cause and championed it. He did so not only 
 because he was personally in favour of reform, but 
 also in accordance with his consistent habit of deference 
 to State authorities. Although the word is an un¬ 
 pleasant word to use of him, he was a thorough Erastian. 
 It was a not uncommon nor strange position to adopt 
 at that point in history. The English Church in past 
 days had for a long while been accustomed to receive 
 guidance and support from the Papacy; and when the 
 Papacy could no longer be looked to, the royal power 
 naturally took its place. Men like Tyndale, with 
 whom Cranmer was in much sympathy, were ready to 
 pay an extravagant deference to “the Prince.” The 
 Bible, which contained not a word about the Pope, had 
 a great deal to say about the God-given authority of 
 the King. To the King—especially the King of 
 England—God had committed the responsibility of 
 determining what was best for his subjects, in matters 
 of religion, no less than in matters of ordinary policy. 
 It was not that Cranmer held a low view of religion and 
 
 1 Foxe v. 563. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 121 
 
 of its sanctions; it was that he held a high, an un¬ 
 warrantably high, view of the State. The State, and 
 the Head of the State, were to him so spiritual, so 
 Divine, that ministers of religion, like himself, within 
 the State, were bound, when it was not positively 
 against their conscience, to submit their judgments to 
 those who wielded the executive, and to carry out what 
 was appointed them. The first thing which the Arch¬ 
 bishop did on the accession of Edward was to take out a 
 new license to exercise his archiepiscopal office; and so 
 did Gardiner, Bonner, Tunstall, and the rest. He 
 persisted in acting upon the same theory to the end, 
 even when it cost him everything. 
 
 Bishop Gardiner was also an Erastian, but not so 
 consistent an Erastian. Although, as Cranmer reminded 
 him, he had once said that the King was as much King 
 at one year old as at one hundred, as soon as he found 
 that the platform of Henry VIII. was to be abandoned, 
 he threw himself strenuously into opposition. When 
 the Archbishop wrote to him to enlist his co-operation 
 in bringing out the new Booh of Homilies , which had 
 been projected but not accomplished in Henry’s reign, 
 Gardiner utterly refused. The Necessary Erudition, he 
 said, ought to be maintained as the standard of Christian 
 teaching in the realm. To this Cranmer replied, in 
 spite of the hand which he had had in the production 
 of that book, that the King had been “ seduced ” into 
 espousing it, and that Henry “ knew by whom he was 
 compassed.” The many points in the book which 
 represented Cranmer’s triumph, shrank under Gardiner’s 
 provocation into insignificance beside the things in it 
 which Cranmer disapproved. Gardiner retorted that 
 after Cranmer had lived for four years in agreement 
 
122 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 with the doctrine of the hook, it was “ a very strange 
 speech ” to say, so soon after King Henry’s death, that 
 his Highness was seduced. Not long after, the Bishop 
 found himself in prison, and, though unjustly, laid his 
 tribulations to the charge of Cranmer. The Arch¬ 
 bishop was sincerely desirous to deliver him, and sent 
 for him one day to the Deanery at St. Raul s. He 
 spoke to him in defence of his Homily on Justification, 
 to which Gardiner had taken exception, hoping after all 
 to persuade him to join in the projected Homilies. 
 It was in vain. Gardiner confessed that he was no 
 match for Cranmer in the argument. “ He overcame 
 me, that am called the Sophister,” he said, “by 
 sophistry ) ” but he would not co-operate, foi all that. 
 Cranmer was vexed with him. “You like nothing, he 
 said, “unless you do it yourself.” Nevertheless he 
 endeavoured to overcome by kind offers what he thought 
 to be personal obstinacy. “ You are, he said, a man 
 meet in my opinion to be called to the Council again: 
 we daily choose and add others that were not appointed 
 by our late Sovereign Lord.” “ These,” wrote Gardiner 
 to Somerset, “ were worldly comfortable words, but he 
 thanked God there was not that deceit in him, which 
 Cranmer seemed to think. 1 Such disputes threw the 
 Archbishop all the more into the arms of the men who 
 
 reigned in the King’s name. 
 
 Upon another doctrine of great importance Cran- 
 mer’s opinion was now fast diverging from that of 
 Gardiner. It was the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. 
 No doubt there were abuses in connexion with that 
 sacrament which at any time of his life he would 
 have wished to see rectified; and in all probability for 
 
 1 Dixon ii. 448, from Foxe. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 123 
 
 a longer period than lie himself was aware, he had 
 been insensibly modifying his own conceptions of the 
 mystery. But he bad been content to use the current 
 phraseology—and more than that, he believed himself 
 to be wholly on the side of the teaching which then 
 held the field. Soon after his accession to Canterbury, 
 Frith had been brought before him (and others) to 
 answer for his doctrine on Purgatory and on the 
 Eucharist. Frith, though he had his own opinion 
 about the Eucharistic Presence, yet did not maintain 
 that it was the only lawful opinion; he did but main¬ 
 tain that neither was Transubstantiation the only lawful 
 opinion. “ This article ” he wrote from prison, “ is no 
 necessary article of faith. I grant that neither part is 
 an article necessary to be believed under pain of 
 damnation, but leave it as a thing indifferent, to think 
 thereon as God shall instil in every man’s mind, and that 
 neither part condemn other for this matter, but receive 
 each other in brotherly love, reserving each other’s 
 infirmity to God.” 1 It would have been well if, in the 
 controversy of which this was the first act, the spirit of 
 these noble words could have been preserved. But 
 Cranmer thought Frith entirely in the wrong; and 
 although he was no more to blame for his execution 
 than others were, he seems to have concurred fully in 
 the judgment. “ Other news have we none notable, he 
 wrote to a friend abroad, “ but that one Frith, which 
 was in the Tower in prison, was appointed by the 
 King’s Grace to be examined before me ’ and others; 
 “ whose opinion was so notably erroneous that we could 
 not despatch him, but was fain to leave him to the 
 determination of his ordinary, which is the Bishop of 
 
 1 Dixon i. 1G8. 
 
124 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 London. His said opinion is of such nature that he 
 thought it not necessary to be believed as an article of 
 our faith ”—Cranmer notes accurately the position held 
 by Frith—“ that there is the very corporal presence of 
 Christ within the host and sacrament of the altar, and 
 holdeth of this point most after the opinion of Oeco- 
 lampadius. And surely I myself sent for him three or 
 four times to persuade him to leave that his imagina¬ 
 tion ; but for all that we could do therein, he would not 
 apply to any counsel. Notwithstanding, now he is at 
 a final end with examinations; for my Lord of London 
 hath given sentence, and delivered him to the secular 
 power, where he iooketh every day to go unto the fire. ’ 1 
 So little sympathy had the Archbishop at that date 
 with Oecolampadian views. 
 
 It was about four years later, that he wrote a Latin 
 letter to Vadianus, a Swiss opponent of the real Pre¬ 
 sence, in terms of admiration and brotherliness indeed, 
 but very earnest and decided upon the main contention. 
 
 “ Frankly to tell you my mind (as good men ought to 
 do with one another), the thesis which you maintain in 
 those six books, of which you made me a present, is 
 one which I do not like at all, and I wish you had 
 spent your midnight labour to better purpose. Unless 
 plainer proof can be given me than I have yet seen, 
 I will be neither a patron nor an abettor of your 
 opinions. I have seen everything, or nearly so, that 
 Oecolampadius or Zwinglius have written and published, 
 and I have learned that everything, no matter by what 
 author, must be read with a critical eye. As far as they 
 have endeavoured to point out, and refute, and amend, 
 papistical and sophistical errors and abuses, I admire 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 31. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 125 
 
 and approve. I wish they had stopped at those limits, 
 and had not trampled down the wheat along with the 
 tares. I do not think any fair reader will be convinced 
 that the ancient authors are on your side in this con¬ 
 troversy. If this is an error, it is one commended to us 
 by the Fathers and by the Apostolic men themselves; and 
 what good man could listen to such a statement, not to 
 speak of believing it? No words can express how this 
 bloody controversy has everywhere, but among us par¬ 
 ticularly, hindered the Gospel word which was running 
 so well. With your leave I exhort and advise you, nay, 
 I pray and beseech, and in the bowels of Jesus Christ 
 obtest and adjure you, to allow to the Churches that 
 peace of God which passeth all understanding, that with 
 united forces we may propagate the one sound, pure, 
 evangelical doctrine, which is in accordance with the 
 discipline of the primitive Church. We shall with ease 
 convert even the Turks to the obedience of our Gospel, 
 if we can but agree among ourselves.” 1 
 
 It was believed by some in Cranmer’s own time, and 
 has been asserted again in ours, that the Archbishop 
 passed from the belief in Tran substantiation to his 
 later doctrine, through a phase of Lutheran opinion on 
 the subject. “ You, Mr. Cranmer,” said Martin to him 
 at his trial, “ have taught in this high sacrament of the 
 altar three contrary doctrines.” “ Nay,” he answered ; 
 «I taught but two contrary doctrines in the same.” 2 From 
 his own point of view he was speaking the exact truth. 
 There was no period at which he taught a definite doc¬ 
 trine like Luther’s, opposed to the Roman on the one 
 hand, and to the Swiss one on the other. The Lutheran 
 dogma of Consubstantiation is a highly elaborated dogma, 
 1 Jenkyns i. 193. 2 Ibid. iv. 95. 
 
126 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 of which it is hardly unfair to say that it unites the 
 difficulties of both the other theories of Cranmer’s time 
 without the advantages of either. So little sympathy 
 with it was felt in England, that Ridley affirmed that 
 the Papists and he were more nearly agreed together 
 than either of them was with the Lutherans; for while 
 both he and the Papists affirmed that there was only 
 one substance in the sacrament, the Lutherans affirmed 
 that there were two. This theory Cranmer never held. 
 Although in the first year of Edward YI.’s reign he 
 published a translation of a Catechism on the subject 
 by an avowed Lutheran, yet that Catechism does not 
 give expression to the Lutheran dogma of Consubstan- 
 tiation. 
 
 Yet there are not wanting indications that there was 
 a time when Archbishop Cranmer was shaken in the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation, while abhorring the 
 position he afterwards came to occupy. The year after 
 his letter to Yadianus — in which year also Lambert 
 was burned for holding Zwinglian opinions,—a preacher 
 named Damplip came into trouble at Calais (which was 
 in Canterbury diocese) for his Eucharistic teaching. 
 The Archbishop wrote to Cromwell in his defence. 
 “ He utterly denieth that he ever taught or said that 
 the very body and blood of Christ was not presently 
 in the sacrament of the altar, and confesseth the same 
 to be there really; but he saith that the controversy 
 between him and the Prior was, because he confuted 
 the opinion of the Transubstantiation; and therein 
 I think he taught but the truth.” 1 Cranmer had 
 evidently begun to feel that it was possible to believe 
 in the real Presence without holding Transubstan- 
 1 Jenkyns, i. 257 (August 15, 1538). 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 127 
 
 tiation — or Consubstantiation either. It was the 
 opinion of others besides himself. Bishop Tunstall 
 held the same view. He told his nephew, Bernard 
 Gilpin, that Innocent III. had been “ greatly over¬ 
 seen ” in pressing Transubstantiation upon the Church. 1 
 Bedmayne, the first Master of Trinity, who certainly 
 never rejected the real Presence, said on his deathbed 
 (1551), that he had studied the matter for twelve years, 
 and found that some of the Fathers had written plainly 
 contrary to Transubstantiation, and that in others it was 
 not taught nor maintained. 2 “ I confess of myself,” 
 wrote Cranmer at a later time, “ that not long before I 
 wrote the said Catechism, I was in that error of the real 
 Presence, as I was many years past in divers other 
 errors, as of Transubstantiation ”—which shows that he 
 clearly distinguished between the two things—“ for the 
 which and other mine offences in youth I do daily pray 
 unto God for mercy and pardon, saying, Delicta iuventutis 
 meae et ignorantias mcas nc memineris, Domine 3 
 
 From that lofty ground where he was disposed to 
 take his stand, believing on the one hand the real 
 Presence in the sacrament, and on the other hand re¬ 
 jecting the mediaeval fiction of Transubstantiation, 
 Archbishop Cranmer was dragged down by Nicholas 
 Ridley. “ I grant,” he said at the end of his life, “ that 
 then (when he wrote his catechism) I believed other¬ 
 wise than I do now: and so I did until my Lord of 
 London did confer with me, and by sundry persuasions 
 and authorities of doctors, drew me quite from my 
 opinion.” 4 The new opinion which he embraced was 
 embodied in a book published in the year 1550, and 
 
 1 Gilpin’s Gilpin 170. 2 See Foxe vi. 267 foil. 
 
 3 Jenkyns iii. 13. 4 Ibid. iv. 97. 
 
128 
 
 THOMAS CHANMER 
 
 entitled, “ A Defence of the true and Catholic Doctrine 
 of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour 
 Christ, with a confutation of sundry errors concerning 
 the same, grounded and established upon God’s Holy 
 Word, and approved by the consent of the most 
 ancient Doctors of the Church.” It was not difficult 
 for a man of Cranmer’s reading and acumen to expose 
 the absurdities of Transubstantiation, and of the Pro¬ 
 pitiatory Sacrifice, as then popularly understood. No one 
 has done it more trenchantly. This part of his work 
 is full of powerful sentences which deserve to be 
 remembered:— 
 
 “ Although all the accidents, both of the bread and 
 wine, remain still, yet (say they) the same accidents be 
 in no manner of thing. For in the body and blood of 
 Christ (say they) these accidents cannot be; for the 
 body and blood of Christ be neither of that bigness, 
 fashion, smell, nor colour, that the bread and wine be. 
 Nor in the bread and wine (say they) these accidents 
 cannot be; for the substance of bread and wine (as 
 they affirm) be clean gone. And so there remaineth 
 whiteness, but nothing is white; there remaineth 
 roundness, but nothing is round; and there is bigness, 
 and yet nothing is big; there is sweetness, without any 
 sweet thing; softness, without any soft thing; breaking, 
 without anything broken; and so other qualities and 
 quantities, without anything to receive them. And 
 this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our 
 faith.” 1 “ If Christ would have had us believe, as a 
 
 necessary article of our faith, that there remaineth 
 neither bread nor wine, would He have spoken after this 
 sort, using all such terms and circumstances as should 
 
 1 Jenkyns ii. 309. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 129 
 
 make us believe that still there remaineth bread and 
 wine ? ” 1 “ Our faith teacheth us to believe things that 
 we see not; but it doth not bid us that we shall not 
 believe that we see daily with our eyes.” 2 “ Let all these 
 papists together show any one authority, either of 
 Scripture or of ancient author, Greek or Latin, that 
 saith as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine 
 His body and blood, but individuum vagum (a particular 
 thing uncertain), and for my part I shall give them 
 place, and confess that they say true.” 3 In the “ doctrine 
 of the old Catholic Church ” is “ no absurdity nor incon¬ 
 venience, nothing spoken either contrary to Holy Scrip¬ 
 ture or to natural reason, philosophy, or experience, or 
 against any old ancient author .” 4 “No man (says 
 Theodoret) ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous 
 to affirm for a certain truth in religion anything which 
 is not spoken of in Holy Scripture. And this is 
 spoken to the great and utter condemnation of the 
 papists, which make and unmake new articles of our 
 faith from time to time, at their pleasure, without any 
 Scripture at all. And yet will they have all men bound 
 to believe whatsoever they invent, upon peril of dam¬ 
 nation and everlasting fire.” 5 
 
 Cranmer was not, however, so successful in his con¬ 
 structive attempts, as in his criticism of the views of 
 others. The doctrine which he now inculcated was 
 practically indistinguishable from that of Oecolampadius 
 It is true that he will not allow it to be said that he 
 makes the sacramental emblems mere emblems. “ The 
 sacramental bread and wine be not bare and naked 
 
 1 Jenkyns ii. 316. 
 
 3 Ibid. 376. 
 
 2 Ibid. 318. 
 4 Ibid. 353. 
 
 s Ibid. 395. 
 
 Iv 
 
130 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that whosoever 
 worthily eateth them eateth spiritually Christ’s flesh 
 and blood, and hath by them everlasting life .” 1 But, 
 nevertheless, the body of Christ is a absent. Cranmer 
 does not hesitate to use the word. “ The eating and 
 drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood is not taken in the 
 common signification, with mouth and teeth to eat and 
 chew a thing being present, but by a lively faith, in 
 heart and mind, to chew and digest a thing being 
 absent.” 2 “ It is a figurative speech, spiritually to be 
 
 understand, that we must deeply print and fruitfully 
 believe in our hearts that His flesh was crucified and His 
 blood shed for our redemption. And this our belief in 
 Him is to eat His flesh and to drink His blood, although 
 they be not present here with us but be ascended into 
 heaven.” 3 The only sense in which Cranmer will allow 
 that Christ’s body is present with us at the Eucharist, is 
 that in which the sun is present upon the earth, by its 
 light and heat . 4 It is only a virtual presence, and that, 
 not in the sacrament, but in the worthy receivers of the 
 sacrament. Christ is no otherwise present with us in 
 the Eucharist than He is in Baptism ; 5 and the bread is 
 only called His body in the same way that any other 
 figure bears the name of the things it figures:—“ as 
 a man’s image is called a man,” he writes, “ a lion s 
 image a lion, and an image of a tree and herb is called 
 a tree or herb. So were we wont to say, Our Lady 
 of Walsingham; Great St. Christopher of York or 
 Lincoln; Our Lady smileth or rocketh her Child; and a 
 thousand like speeches, which were not understood of 
 the very things, but only of the images of them.” 0 
 
 1 Jenkyns ii. 422. 2 Ibid. 378. - 3 Ibid. 381. 
 
 4 Ibid. 358. 6 Ibid. 412, 416. 6 Ibid. 440. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 131 
 
 It would be unfair not to add that in spite of this 
 low conception of the Eucharistic Presence, there are 
 many beautiful passages in the book, showing that 
 Cranmer’s actual devotion to the Holy Sacrament was 
 not impaired. The language of Ignatius and Irenaeus, 
 which his opponents thought to be on their side, was 
 not too glowing for Cranmer. “ Neither they,” he 
 says, “ nor no man else, can extol and commend the same 
 sufficiently, if it be godly used as it ought to be .” 1 
 Again and again he speaks of its daily use as if it 
 were the obvious and natural thing. Christ ordained, 
 he says, “ not a yearly memory (as the Paschal lamb 
 was eaten but once a year), but a daily remembrance 
 He ordained in bread and wine sanctified and dedicated 
 to that purpose .” 2 Christ’s sacrifice “ is figured, 
 signified, and represented unto us by that bread 
 and wine which faithful people receive daily in 
 the Holy Communion .” 3 The reception of Christ, 
 though purely spiritual, was not the less real or 
 less awful. “ Although He sit in heaven, at His 
 Father’s right hand, yet should we come to this 
 mystical bread and wine with faith, reverence, purity, 
 and fear, as we would do if we should come to see 
 and receive Christ Himself sensibly present. For unto 
 the faithful, Christ is at His own holy table present 
 with His mighty Spirit and grace, and is of them more 
 fruitfully received, than if corporally they should re¬ 
 ceive Him bodily present. And, therefore, they that 
 shall worthily come to this God’s board, must after due 
 trial of themselves consider, first, who ordained this 
 table, also what meat and drink they shall have that 
 come thereto, and how they ought to behave themselves 
 
 1 Jenkyns ii. 402. 2 Ibid. 398. 3 Ibid. 405, 
 
132 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 thereat. He that prepared the table is Christ Himself. 
 The meat and drink wherewith He feedeth them that 
 come thereto as they ought to do, is His own flesh and 
 blood. They that come thereto must occupy their 
 minds in considering how His body was broken for 
 them, and His blood shed for their redemption. And so 
 ought they to approach to this heavenly table with all 
 humbleness of heart and godliness of mind, as to the 
 table wherein Christ Himself is given.” 1 
 
 It is a genuine spiritual prompting which impels the 
 author, who is jealous “ lest that in the stead of Christ 
 Himself be worshipped the sacrament .” 2 The customary 
 worship was, in his belief, a “ horrible idolatry, to wor¬ 
 ship things visible and made with their own hands,” 
 when people adored what were, on their own theory, 
 only accidents and not the very substance itself. “ Else,” 
 he says, “ what made the people to run from their seats 
 to the altar, and from sacring (as they called it) to 
 sacring, peeping, tooting, and gazing at that thing 
 which the priest held up in his hands, if they thought 
 not to honour that thing which they saw ? What 
 moved the priests to lift up the sacrament so high 
 over their heads ? or the people to cry to the priest, 
 ‘ Hold up, hold up ’! and one man to say to another, 
 ‘ Stoop down before ’; or to say, ‘ This day have I seen 
 my Maker ’; and, ‘ I cannot be quiet except I see my 
 Maker once a day * ? If they worshipped nothing that 
 they saw, why did they rise up to see ? ” 3 The error 
 of Rome, he said, lay in “ not bringing them by bread 
 unto Christ, but from Christ unto bread.” 4 
 
 It was no innate love of controversy which induced 
 
 1 Jenkyns ii. 438. 
 3 Ibid. 442. 
 
 2 Ibid. 441. 
 4 Ibid. 446. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 133 
 
 Cranmer to take up liis pen in this matter, but the 
 solemn sense of his high and providential office. “ God 
 I take to witness,” he writes, “ who seeth the hearts of 
 all men throughly to the bottom, that I take this labour 
 for none other consideration, but for the glory of His 
 name, and the discharge of my duty, and the zeal that 
 I bear toward the flock of Christ. I know in what office 
 God hath placed me, and to what purpose; that is to 
 say, to set forth His word truly unto His people, to the 
 uttermost of my power. I know what account I shall 
 make to Him hereof at the last day, when every man 
 shall answer for his vocation, and receive for the same 
 good or ill, according as he hath done. It pitieth me 
 to see the simple and hungry flock of Christ led into 
 corrupt pastures, to be carried blindfold they know not 
 whither, and to be fed with poison in the stead of 
 wholesome meats .” 1 
 
 This work of Archbishop Cranmer’s was originally 
 called forth by a treatise of Bishop Gardiners, entitled 
 A Detection of the Devil's Sophistry; and it called forth 
 in turn a reply from Gardiner, to which Cranmer an¬ 
 swered once more, sentence by sentence, from beginning 
 to end. Gardiner was not a profound or well-read divine; 
 and he approached the subject from the point of view 
 of a man of common sense, who accepts the traditional 
 opinion in a broad way, without caring to go into the 
 niceties of it. The consequence is that the Archbishop 
 has no difficulty in showing that there are grave and 
 frequent differences between the Bishop and the autho¬ 
 rities whom he supposed himself to follow. 
 
 “ There was never man of learning that I have read,” 
 says the common-sense Gardiner, “termed the matter 
 
 1 Jenkyns ii. 289. 
 
134 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 so, tliat Christ goetli into the stomach of the man that 
 receiveth, and no further.” “ It is marvel,” replies the 
 Archbishop, “ that you never read [this], being a lawyer, 
 and seeing that it is written in the Gloss of the law 
 De Consecr. dist. ii. Tribus Gmdibus in these words— 
 
 ‘ It is certain that as soon as the forms be torn with 
 the teeth, so soon the body of Christ is gone up into 
 heaven/ And if you had read Thomas de Aquino and 
 Bonaventure (great clerks and holy saints of the Pope’s 
 own making) with other school authors, then should 
 you have known what the papists do say in this matter. 
 For some say that the body of Christ remaineth, 
 although it be in a dog, or mouse. And some say it is 
 not in the mouse or dog, but remaineth only in the 
 person that eateth it, until it be digested in the stomach. 
 Some say it remaineth no longer than the sacrament is 
 in the eating, and may be felt, seen, and tasted in the 
 mouth. And this, besides Hugo, saith Pope Innocentius 
 himself, who was the best learned and chief doer in this 
 matter of all the other popes. Read you never none of 
 these authors, and yet take upon you the full know¬ 
 ledge of this matter? Will you take upon you to 
 defend the papists and know not what they say ? ” 1 
 “ This is marvellous rhetoric,” says the layman-like 
 Bishop, when Cranmer has affirmed that the papists 
 say “that in the sacrament the corporal members of 
 Christ be not distant in place from one another, but 
 wheresoever the head is, there be the feet.” “ This 
 is marvellous rhetoric, and such as the author hath 
 overseen himself 2 in the utterance of it, and con¬ 
 fessed himself prettily abused, to the. latter end of 
 his years to have believed that [which] he now calleth so 
 1 Jenkyns iii. 101. 2 Made a mistake. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 135 
 
 foolish. This author impudently beareth in hand 1 the 
 Catholic Church to teach that [which] he listetli to 
 bear in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of their 
 teaching; whereas all true Christian men believe simply 
 Christ’s words, and trouble not their heads with such 
 consequences as seem to strive with reason.” “ This is 
 such matter as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer 
 devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had for¬ 
 gotten his part.” “ I bear not the Church in hand, as 
 you report of me,” replies the Archbishop, “ that it 
 saith and teacheth that whole Christ is in every part of 
 the bread consecrated, bat I say that the papists so teach. 
 And because you deny it, read the chief pillars of all 
 the papists, Duns and Thomas de Aquino, who say 
 that Christ is whole under every part of the forms of 
 bread and wine, not only when the host is broken, but 
 when it is whole also. And there is no distance, 
 saith he, of parts one from another, as of one eye 
 from another, or the eye from the ear, or the head 
 from the feet. These be Thomas’s words. And not 
 only the papists do thus write and teach, but the Pope 
 himself, Innocentius III. And yet you say, the Church 
 saith not so ; which I affirm also ; and then it must 
 needs follow that the doctrine of the papists is not 
 the doctrine of the Church.” “ And so the whole 
 doctrine of the papists, which they have taught these 
 four or five hundred years, do you condemn with con¬ 
 dign reproaches, as a teaching intolerable, not to be 
 devised by a scoffer in a play.” 2 “ This author,” says 
 the indignant Gardiner, <c findeth fault that the priest’s 
 devotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory, and not the 
 
 1 Tries to make us believe. 
 
 2 Pp. 113, 118 foil., 145 foil. 
 
136 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 tiling that is offered, which manner of doctrine I never 
 read, and I think it myself it ought to be improved, 1 
 if any such there be to make the devotion of the priest 
 a satisfaction. For undoubtedly Christ is our satisfac¬ 
 tion wholly and fully.” “Although you never read,” 
 returns his merciless censor, “ that the oblation of the 
 priest is satisfactory by devotion of the priest, yet 
 nevertheless the papists do so teach, and you may find 
 it in their St. Thomas, both in his Sum and upon the 
 fourth of the Sentences, whose works have been read 
 in the universities almost this three hundred years, and 
 never until this day reproved by any of the papists in 
 this point. He saith—‘ The sacrifice of the priest hath 
 a satisfactory power; but in the satisfaction the mind 
 of the offerer is more regarded than the greatness of 
 the thing which he offereth.’ ” 2 The inexorable Primate 
 gathers up a list of twenty articles in which Gardiner’s 
 ignorant good sense betrayed him into differing from 
 accredited teachers on the same side. 
 
 As a piece of dialectic against Gardiner, and against 
 the mediaeval notions of the Eucharist generally, 
 Cranmer’s work is triumphant in almost every detail; 
 and in order rightly to judge of his doctrine on the 
 subject it is necessary to realise how degraded and 
 material was the general opinion of the Mass at the 
 time. It is not hard to understand how, when once a 
 mind like his had persuaded itself to allow that the 
 usual definitions of the Eucharistic Presence were 
 wrong, no intermediate position would for long seem 
 satisfactory. Cranmer swung to the opposite extreme. 
 He would not in honesty give less than their fullest 
 force to those expressions in Scripture and in the 
 
 1 Reprobated. 2 Pp. 150, 156, 
 
137 
 
 CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 Fathers which seemed to treat the mystery as nothing 
 but a virtual presence and a commemorative token. . It 
 was an interpretation as one-sided as that which 
 Cranmer had discarded. But his readjustment of belief 
 never made him irreverent towards the sacred ordinance, 
 nor was he conscious of any departure from loyalty to 
 the teaching of the primitive Church. 
 
 The evolution of Cranmer’s opinion on this subject 
 was narrowly watched and criticised by many other 
 observers besides Gardiner and his party. Every sign 
 that he gave was chronicled for the information of 
 foreign divines, especially of Bullinger, who had suc¬ 
 ceeded Zwingli at Zurich. The friends of the Swiss 
 dictator were at first much dissatisfied with Cranmer, 
 and lost no opportunity of telling Bullinger how little 
 opinion the Archbishop had of him. As to Canter¬ 
 bury,” writes Traheron in August 1548, he conducts 
 himself in such a way that the people do not think 
 much of him, and the nobility regard him as lukewarm. 
 In other respects he is a kind, good-natured man. 
 
 “ This Thomas,” wrote John ab Ulmis in the same 
 month, “ has fallen into so heavy a slumber, that we 
 entertain but a very cold hope that he will be aioused 
 even by your learned letter. He has lately published 
 a Catechism, in which he has not only approved that 
 foul and sacrilegious Transubstantiation of the Papists, 
 but all the dreams of Luther seem to him well grounded, 
 perspicuous, and lucid.’ 2 In September, they thought 
 things looked more promising. “ Latimer,” wrote 
 Traheron, “has come over to our opinion respecting the 
 true doctrine of the Eucharist, together with the Arch¬ 
 bishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops who here- 
 
 J Orig. Letters p. 320. 2 Ibid. p. 381. 
 
138 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 tofore seemed to be Lutherans /' 1 In December, 
 Traheron was elated by Cranmer’s language in the 
 debate about the new Prayerbook. “ The Archbishop 
 of Canterbury,” he wrote to Bullinger, “ contrary to 
 general expectation, most openly, firmly, and learnedly 
 maintained your opinion upon this subject. I perceive 
 that it is all over with Lutheranism.” 2 But alas, the 
 sanguine writer was obliged to add a postscript to his 
 letter: “ The foolish bishops have made a marvellous 
 recantation.” Peter Martyr, who was at that time 
 regarded as a Lutheran, and who was present at the 
 debate, felt no reason to be alarmed. “ The palm,” he 
 wrote to Bucer, “remains with our friends, especially 
 with the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom they till now 
 were wont to traduce as a man ignorant of theology, 
 and only conversant with matters of government. But 
 now, believe me, he has shown himself a mighty theo¬ 
 logian. Transubstantiation, I think, is now exploded .” 3 
 It seemed as if Lutheranism was about to triumph 
 when Bucer himself came to this country. “ Bucer and 
 Paul Fagius,” writes Burcher to Bullinger in the 
 following May, “ have safely arrived in England, and 
 have wwitten from the palace of the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury. I wish they may not pervert him, or make 
 him worse .” 4 “ When I gave your letter to the 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury,” writes Hooper, also in May, 
 “ he did not vouchsafe a single word respecting either 
 yourself, or your godly Church. Bucer has very great 
 influence with him, and the Archbishop will appoint 
 him to the Regius Professorship at Cambridge .” 5 But 
 by the end of the year, Switzerland had beaten Ger- 
 
 1 Orig. Letters p. 322. 2 Ibid. p. 323. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 470. 4 Ibid. p. 652. 5 Ibid. p. 64. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD YI 139 
 
 many, though there was still room for anxiety. “ The 
 Archbishop of Canterbury,” wrote Hooper, “ entertains 
 right views as to the nature of Christ s presence in the 
 Supper, and is now very friendly towards myself. He 
 has some articles of religion, to which all preachers 
 are required to subscribe; and in these his sentiments 
 respecting the Eucharist are pure and religious, and 
 similar to yours in Switzerland. We desire nothing 
 more for him than a firm and manly spirit. Like all the 
 other Bishops in this country, he is too fearful about 
 what may happen to him.” 1 By 1551, Hooper (himself 
 then a bishop) could tell Bullinger that Cranmer was 
 hardly able to refrain from tears at receiving a letter 
 from him. “ He made most honourable mention both of 
 yourself and of your profound erudition. You have no 
 one, I am sure, among all your dearest friends, who is 
 more interested about you, and loves you in Christ moie 
 ardently.” 2 
 
 The history of Archbishop Cranmer’s opinion with 
 regard to the Holy Eucharist is of importance not only 
 because of its bearing upon his last end, but because of 
 his permanent influence upon the Church of England 
 by means of the Book of Common Prayer. Perhaps no 
 part of his work had such an interest for the Arch¬ 
 bishop as the liturgical reform, and certainly there was 
 none for which posterity has more reason to be grateful 
 to him. The history of the Prayerbook down to the 
 end of Edward’s reign is the biography of Cranmer, 
 for there can be no doubt that almost eveiy line of it 
 is his composition. 
 
 It was a task for which he was well fitted. So far as 
 the study was possible in that age, Cranmer was a student 
 
 1 Orig. Letters p. 72. 2 Ibid. p. 93, 
 
140 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 of comparative liturgiology. “ A singularly clear answer 
 to the supposition not unfrequently entertained, that 
 he was not well informed about liturgical order and 
 ritual propriety, may be given,” says Mr. Burbidge, 
 “ by putting into the hands of his critics his copy of 
 Gemma Animae , or Diredorium Sacerdotum secundum 
 usum Sarum , or Erasmus’s version of the Liturgy of 
 St. Chrysostom ; and by offering them a choice of his 
 editions of Durandus’s Rationale Divinorum Officiorum 1 
 It was Cranmer who introduced into the West the now 
 familiar “ Prayer of St. Chrysostom.” Some features of 
 the Second Prayerbook were very probably due to his 
 acquaintance with the Mozarabic offices of Spain. 2 He 
 had paid attention to the various old English uses, 
 some of which would have been lost to memory if he 
 had not happened to mention them in his Preface to 
 the Prayerbook. That Preface was largely taken—as 
 well as many hints for the daily offices—from the 
 reforming Breviary of Cardinal Quignon. The attempts 
 of Hermann, Archbishop of Cologne, were followed with 
 deep interest by his brother Archbishop, and the result 
 is very apparent in our Occasional Offices. And if 
 Cranmer was qualified for liturgical revision by special 
 studies, he was no less qualified by his splendid command 
 of the English language, and by his instinctive sense 
 of what would suit average English minds. His genius 
 for devotional composition in English is universally 
 recognised, even by those who have least sympathy 
 with his character and career. 
 
 As early as 1543—the year of the Necessary Erudition 
 —he had announced King Henry’s intention of taking 
 
 1 Liturgies and Offices of the Church p. xiv. 
 
 2 See Burbidge Liturgies and Offices pp. 175, 198. 
 
141 
 
 CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 gome steps in the reform of the service books and it 
 was prescribed that a Lesson should be read in English 
 morning and evening, after Te Dmm, and Magnificat. 
 The year after, Cranmer was employed in composing 
 English Litanies, or “ Processions,” and a deeply inter¬ 
 esting letter of his is preserved, in which he says to the 
 
 “ According to your Highness’s commandment, I 
 have translated into the English tongue, so well as I 
 could in so short time, certain processions, to be used 
 upon festival days, if after due correction and amend¬ 
 ment of the same your Highness shall think so con¬ 
 venient. In which translation, forasmuch as many ol 
 the processions in the Latin were but barren, as me 
 seemed, and little fruitful, I was constrained to use 
 more than the liberty of a translator. Some processions 
 I have added whole, because I thought I had better 
 matter for the purpose than was the procession m 
 Latin; the judgment whereof I refer wholly to your 
 Majesty. And after your Highness hath corrected 1 , 
 if your Grace command some devout and solemn no e 
 to be made thereunto, I trust it will much excitate and 
 stir the hearts of all men unto devotion and godliness. 
 After some recommendations about the music, be adds 
 « As concerning the Salve, fiesta dies, the Latin note, as 
 I think, is sober and distinct enough; wherefore I have 
 travailed to make the verses in English, and have put 
 the Latin note unto the same. Nevertheless, they that 
 be cunning in singing can make a much more solemn 
 note thereto. I made them only for a proof, to see how 
 English would do in song. But because mine Englis 1 
 verses lack the grace and facility that I would wish they 
 
 1 Wilkins iii. 863. 
 
142 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 had, your Majesty may cause some other to make them 
 again, that can do the same in more pleasant English 
 and phrase.” 1 
 
 Except for the publication of an authorised Primer 
 (or book of Private Devotions) in 154G, which was 
 intended to supersede all other Primers, no more was 
 done in the direction of reforming the services during 
 Henry VIII.’s reign. Projects there were, however, for 
 further action. Cranmer told Morice, and Morice told 
 Foxe, of a conversation which took place at Hampton 
 Court in August 1546, when “the great ambassador” 
 came from Francis I. to Henry. “ After the banquet was 
 done the first night, the King was leaning upon the 
 ambassador and upon me. If I should tell what com¬ 
 munication was had, concerning the establishment of 
 sincere religion then, a man would hardly have believed 
 it; nor had I myself thought the King’s Highness had 
 been so forward in these matters as then appeared. I 
 may tell you it passed the pulling down of roods, and 
 suppressing the ringing of bells. I take it that few in 
 England would have believed that the King’s Majesty 
 and the French King had been at this point, within 
 half a year after to have changed the Mass in both 
 the realms into a Communion, as we now use it. 
 And herein the King’s Highness willed me (quoth 
 the Archbishop) to pen a form thereof to he sent to 
 the French King to consider of.” 2 But the deaths 
 
 1 On the question of the date of this letter, see Jenkyns i. 316. 
 The translation of Salve festQj dies is unhappily lost. It is not 
 improbable that we have a specimen of Cranmer’s translation into 
 metre in the longer version of Veni Creator Spiritus in the 
 Ordinal, though it has undergone modification (see Julian’s 
 Dictionary of Hymnology 1209). 
 
 2 Foxe v. 563. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 143 
 
 first of Henry and then of Francis broke off the 
 scheme. 
 
 Notwithstanding the reluctance, which Cranmer at 
 first showed, to make or allow innovations during 
 Edward’s minority, he was soon found endeavouring to 
 execute what had thus been suggested by Henry. 
 Before the end of the year in which Henry died, it was 
 unanimously determined by Convocation that the Com¬ 
 munion should be administered to all Christians under 
 both kinds; and by March of the following year (1548), 
 the new Order of the Communion appeared, which, 
 while it retained the old Latin service of the Mass, 
 surrounded it with English exhortations and devotions, 
 most of which still stand in our Prayerbook. They are 
 mainly based upon the “ Consultation ” of Archbishop 
 Hermann of Cologne, which had been translated into 
 English and was familiarly known to the Archbishop. 
 Before the last month of 1548 ran out, Parliament had 
 approved the First Prayerbook of Edward VI., which 
 received the encomiums of Bishop Gardiner, and which 
 probably constituted the “ marvellous recantation ” 
 of Swiss principles complained of by Traheron to 
 Bullinger. 
 
 But scarcely was the First Prayerbook published, 
 when its chief author began to prepare for a second. 
 He was already surrounded by foreign divines—some 
 of whom had taken refuge in England from troubles 
 abroad, some came on Cranmer’s invitation. A Lasco, 
 Bucer, Peter Martyr, Fagius, Ochino, Tremellius, were 
 among the more distinguished of the company. To the 
 list of foreigners who surrounded Cranmer must be 
 added the name of the Scotch Calvinist, John Knox. 
 “ We desire,” wrote the Archbishop to Hardenberg in 
 
144 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 July 1548, “to set before our Churches the true theology, 
 and we have decided that we need the presence of 
 learned men, to compare their decisions with ours, so 
 as to do away with doctrinal controversies, and build up 
 a whole body of true doctrine. We have summoned a 
 great many godly and learned men, some of whom we 
 have already got, and expect others soon.” 1 To induce 
 Melanchthon to come was an object of repeated and 
 earnest effort. “ If,” says Cranmer, “ when a similar 
 appeal was made to him by that holy old Elector of 
 Cologne, he resolved not to turn a deaf ear to it, surely 
 he will feel bound to listen now, in a case of far greater 
 importance and urgency.” He desired to hold a Pan- 
 evangelical Council, in opposition to that which was 
 assembled at Trent. “Our adversaries,” he wrote to 
 Calvin, “ are now holding their Council at Trent for 
 the establishing of errors, and shall we fail to assemble 
 a godly synod to refute errors, and to purify and pro¬ 
 pagate our doctrines ? They, I hear, are making decrees 
 regarding Bread-worship; therefore we ought to leave 
 no stone unturned, not only to protect others against 
 this idolatry, but also to come to an agreement among 
 ourselves upon the doctrine of this sacrament. With 
 your powers of observation you cannot but see how 
 much the Church of God is weakened by dissensions and 
 differences of opinion regarding this sacrament of unit) 7 . 
 I am anxious for agreement in this doctrine, not only 
 about the subject itself, but also about the very words 
 and forms of expression.” 2 Not only Calvin and 
 Melanchthon, but Bullinger also, received letters from 
 Canterbury to aid in the great project. 
 
 Those three illustrious personages could not, or did 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 332. 2 Ibid. 346. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 145 
 
 not, come; but two of them wrote their minds, and 
 altogether Cranmer had no lack of foreign advice. In 
 1552 (an English Ordinal having in the meantime been 
 completed and put in use) the Second Prayerbook, 
 which was in all its main points our present book, was 
 ordered to be used, after receiving the criticisms of 
 Bucer and others. It shows how far the Archbishop 
 was prepared to go in satisfying the extreme innovators. 
 As regards the main question of the day, the Eucharistic 
 service was entirely rearranged. While the First 
 Prayerbook had followed in the main the order of the 
 pre-reformation service, the new one was upon an 
 altogether original plan. All direct invocation of the 
 Holy Spirit upon the sacramental elements was omitted. 
 The great intercession was no longer connected with the 
 Consecration. The Lord’s Prayer, with its significant 
 petition for the Christian’s Daily Bread, was placed 
 after the Communion, and no longer before it. So was 
 the Gloria in Excelsis. There was no longer any explicit 
 prayer for the faithful departed. The sacrificial 
 character of the Eucharist does not depend upon any 
 special prayers or ceremonies that may be performed or 
 uttered in the course of the service, but resides in the 
 celebration of the sacrament as a whole, and no action 
 of the liturgical reformers could get rid of it; but this 
 aspect of the service was as much obscured as could 
 easily be done. 
 
 And yet the Second Prayerbook itself is a monu¬ 
 ment of the moderation of Archbishop Cranmer. If 
 there are in it omissions which Catholic-minded men 
 may regret, yet there is not a single phrase in it 
 which a Catholic-minded man need hesitate to use. 
 The service is rich and ample in comparison with 
 
146 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 anything which, foreign reformed communities use. 
 Although Cranmer himself once or twice speaks 
 somewhat slightingly of “consecration,” yet in the 
 liturgy he made the recital of the words of institution 
 to form part of a Prayer of Consecration, instead of the 
 bare reading of them to the congregation, which was 
 all that the foreign bodies permitted. While Luther¬ 
 anism forbade the celebrant of the Eucharist to receive 
 the sacrament himself, because that was looked upon 
 as the consummation of the sacrifice, the English book 
 laid it down—“Then shall the minister first receive 
 the Communion in both kinds himself.” Although the 
 words used at the delivery of the sacrament were not 
 what the Church had hitherto used, yet the scriptural 
 “ Take and eat this,” “ Drink this,” were not narrowed 
 by any interpretative addition, such as “ this bread, 
 
 “ this wine.” The more impressive and special vestments 
 prescribed in the first book were laid aside in the 
 second; yet the bishop’s rochet and the presbyter’s 
 surplice remained, to the scandal of most of the Swiss 
 party. Provision continued to be made that the 
 “ solemn note ” which Cranmer loved should be used to 
 “ excitate devotion.” And in spite of all his invective 
 against “artolatry,” the Archbishop inserted in the 
 Second Prayerbook (what had not been thought necessary 
 to mention in the First) a rubric to say that the com¬ 
 municants were to be “ kneeling ” at the moment of 
 reception. He knew what he was about in inserting 
 that rubric. Hooper, A Lasco, and others, had already 
 been denouncing the posture. John Knox alarmed the 
 Council by the vehemence with which he took the 
 same side. The all-powerful Council stopped the issue 
 of the Prayerbook, and bade Cranmer call to him Ridley 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 147 
 
 and Peter Martyr, or such-like, and “weigh the pre¬ 
 scription of kneeling.” Cranmer replied that he would 
 consult with them, but that he trusted “ that we with 
 just balance weighed this at the making of the book,” 
 and added that the Council were not wise to wish to alter 
 the book at the motion of “these glorious and unquiet 
 spirits,” who would still find faults if the book were “made 
 every year anew.” In spite of storms of opposition, he 
 would not hear of allowing communicants to stand or 
 sit; he said they might as well “ lie down on the ground 
 and eat their meat like Turks or Tartars.” The “ Black 
 Rubric,” which the Council thereupon engrafted upon 
 the book, to explain the meaning of the posture, was 
 probably not of Cranmer’s penning, and seems to have 
 had no sanction from Cranmer. 1 
 
 It was not with a view to the Prayerbook only that 
 Cranmer desired the help of the leading foreign divines: 
 he was anxious to renew under Edward what had fallen 
 through under Henry, the attempt to formulate some 
 general Confession of Faith which might be accepted 
 by all reformed Christians, so as to present an unbroken 
 front to Rome,—and not to Rome only. “ Although all 
 controversies cannot be settled in this world,” he wrote 
 to Melanchthon, “because the party opposed to the 
 truth will not assent to the Church’s judgment, yet it 
 is desirable that the members of the true Church should 
 come to an agreement concerning the principal articles 
 of Church teaching.” 2 When he found that this 
 scheme was doomed to failure, he communicated to the 
 foreigners his determination to draw up a separate 
 Confession for the English Church, and received the 
 
 1 See the curious history in Dixon iii. 475 foil. 
 
 2 Jenkyns i. 348. Dated March 27, 1552. 
 
148 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 encouragement of Calvin. 1 He had already for some 
 time past used certain articles as a test for all preachers 
 and lecturers whom he licensed. 2 In the last year of 
 Edward’s reign, he succeeded in procuring that Forty- 
 two Articles should be set forth and put in general use, 
 though not by order of Convocation. They were 
 founded upon that adaptation of the Confession of 
 Augsburg which, in the reign of Henry, Cranmer had 
 devised with the deputation from Germany with a view 
 to doctrinal unity. Although these Articles were fre¬ 
 quently examined and emended by the Council, and by 
 experts, they were, no doubt, mainly the Archbishop’s 
 work, and they are the foundation of our present 
 Thirty-nine. No hard and narrow dogmatism was in 
 them opposed to the dogmatisms of the Continent. 
 “ They showed,” says Mr. Dixon, “ a surprisingly com¬ 
 prehensive and moderate spirit. The broad soft touch 
 of Cranmer lay upon them.” 3 
 
 Another of Cranmer’s labours was destined to have 
 less effect upon the Church than his labours for the 
 Prayerbook and the Articles. Ever since the Sub¬ 
 mission of the Clergy, in the time of Warham, 
 ecclesiastical discipline, as such, had been in abeyance. 
 No one knew what parts of the old Canon Law were 
 still in force, nor what ecclesiastical tribunals were 
 empowered to do. By the Act of Submission the 
 revision of the ecclesiastical law was entrusted to a com¬ 
 mission of thirty-two persons, to be nominated by the 
 Crown. From time to time the commission was indeed 
 nominated, but it never did any work. Probably Henry 
 VIII. had no wish to see a new code established which 
 
 1 See Jenkyns i. 34*7. 2 See above, p. 139. 
 
 3 Dixon iii. 520. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 149 
 
 miglit define and restrict his powers over the Church. 
 Archbishop Cranmer, however, made repeated efforts 
 to rectify this chaotic state of things. The last of 
 these efforts issued—the date is uncertain, but it was 
 in Edward’s reign—in the production of the book called 
 the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. It was not 
 the unaided composition of the Archbishop. Peter 
 Martyr seems to have had some share in it, and it 
 took its literary form—in the Latin—from the hand of 
 Walter Haddon. Yet the conception of the work 
 was Cranmer’s, and it is to be presumed that its pro¬ 
 posed enactments indicate what Cranmer, under the 
 influence of his foreign counsellers, was prepared to 
 defend. 
 
 The form of the book is that of a series of royal 
 enactments. The King commences with declaring him¬ 
 self the minister of God, and desiring and commanding 
 that all his subjects should embrace and profess the 
 Christian religion. Those who refuse it, estrange God 
 from themselves; and the King pronounces their pro¬ 
 perty and their life to be forfeited. The true foundation 
 for a religious system of law is said to lie in a right 
 belief; and accordingly the first part of the book con¬ 
 sists of a statement of the Catholic rule of faith, to 
 which is subjoined a description of various heresies with 
 which the Church is threatened. These heresies include 
 the chief heresies of ancient times; but the main 
 censures of the book are directed against Popish 
 doctrines on the one hand, and still more emphatically 
 against the Anabaptist doctrines on the other. Nor 
 was the threat of death for heresy intended to be but 
 a brutum fulmen. Joan Bocher was not the only person 
 burned for heresy under Edward VI., and Cranmer 
 
150 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 himself sat on the commission which sent to the stake 
 a Flemish impugner of the Divinity of Christ. 1 
 
 There is, of course, much difference between the 
 sacramental teaching in the Eeformatio Legum and 
 that of the Necessary Erudition. “We will,” the King 
 is made to say, ‘ that the symbolical bread and wine, if 
 not used for the pious and scriptural purpose of Com¬ 
 munion, should be held in no higher esteem than the 
 bread and wine which we daily use.” The Lutheran 
 doctrine of the Eucharist is described as being no less 
 of a quagmiie than the Roman. Men are warned 
 against supposing that regenerative force and spiritual 
 grace reside in the baptismal font itself. Yet the 
 orthodoxy of Cranmer condemns severely the opposite 
 enoi of the Sacramentarians,—as in that age they were 
 called. Great is the rashness of those who reduce the 
 sacraments to bare signs and outward badges by which 
 the religion of Christians may be known from that of 
 others, and who consider not how great wickedness it is 
 to conceive of these holy ordinances of God as though 
 they were empty and hollow things.” It is “a cruel 
 impiety” which refuses Baptism to little children. 
 “ The children of Christians belong to God and the 
 Church, as much as those of the Hebrews, who received 
 circumcision in infancy. It is, however, an impious and 
 superstitious thing to hold that the grace of God is so 
 tied to the sacraments that children dying unbaptized, 
 through no fault of their own, are lost:—“We judo- e ,” 
 says the King, “that the truth is far otherwise.” 2 
 
 There are things in the book which show that Cranmer 
 had parted with other of his earlier convictions besides 
 those which concerned the Eucharist. He who had so 
 
 1 Dixon iii. 273. 2 Pp< 16) 18> 19 (ed> 1850)> 
 
151 
 
 CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 sharply reprobated the German Reformers foi allowing 
 divorce, now recommended that if one of the parties 
 to a marriage was guilty of adultery, the other, being 
 blameless, should be permitted to form a new alliance. 
 This was grounded upon the assumption that our Eoid s 
 words, “ saving for the cause of fornication, meant the 
 sin of adultery, and applied to the “ marrying another,” 
 as well as to the “ putting away ” of the first partner. 
 Desertion, long absence, deadly enmity, ill-usage, were 
 also considered sufficient to warrant divorce. A strong 
 condemnation was pronounced upon the sepaiations 
 vinculo durante, which had formerly been permitted. 
 
 Perhaps no part of the work is more revolutionary 
 than that which dealt with the constitutional action of 
 the Church at large. If a bishop, after paternal 
 admonition, proved negligent in the maintenance of 
 discipline, it was provided that the archbishop should 
 have power to put another man in his place. No 
 reference is made to the time-honoured Convocations 
 of the English provinces:—whether they were to be 
 considered as abrogated, or whether they were to remain 
 as an engine for the taxation of the clergy and the like, 
 may be uncertain; but they are not mentioned. 
 Instead of them, or possibly alongside of them, the 
 archbishop of each province is at liberty to summon, 
 with the royal approval, a synod of his provincial 
 bishops, and of them only, for the determination of any 
 grave question that may arise. In each diocese a yearly 
 synod is to be held, before Palm Sunday, which is to be 
 attended by all the clergy of the diocese. Laymen who 
 receive the special permission of the bishop may be 
 present at the deliberations; the rest aie excluded. 
 At the close of the deliberations, the bishop may 
 
152 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 pronounce canons and decrees of binding validity. The 
 benefits of such synods are set forth in just and striking 
 terms, and especially the benefit of direct intercourse 
 between the bishop and his clergy. “ By means of such 
 synods union and love between the bishop and clergy 
 will be increased and maintained. The bishop will 
 form closer acquaintance with his clergy, and will 
 address them; while the clergy will hear the bishop 
 speaking face to face with them, and will be able, when 
 necessary, to put questions to him.” 1 
 
 The duties of patrons are very impressively set forth; 
 and the bishop is directed to form a body of examiners, 
 whose business it shall be, along with the archdeacon, 
 and (when possible) with the bishop himself, to examine 
 every man presented to a living, and not to institute 
 him if the examination is unsatisfactory. Before the 
 examination, the candidate is to be put on his oath to 
 answer faithfully. Then strict inquiry is to be made, 
 both with regard to his principles of life, and with 
 regard to his “views of the Catholic faith and the 
 sacred mystery of the Trinity,” of the canonical Scrip¬ 
 tures, and of current controversies. The examiners are 
 then to hear him expound the Catechism. Infirmities 
 such as blindness, stammering, hideous disfigurement, 
 bad breath, are to preclude a man from holding a 
 benefice. 2 
 
 It is always a hard thing to draw up a paper con¬ 
 stitution ; and most of all in the case of a society like 
 the Church, in which tradition must necessarily count 
 for much. The Reformatio legum■ was of such a 
 character. Instead of selecting from the mass of exist¬ 
 ing canons those which were deemed to be still useful 
 1 P. 108 foil. 2 p 59 fol] . 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 153 
 
 for the guidance of the Church of England, and adding 
 to them such new ones as experience suggested, it 
 proceeded tabula rasa to provide for every contingency 
 of Church life in an entirely new form. It is on the 
 whole a good thing for the Church of England that 
 the project never became law, either in Edward’s time, 
 or later, when Parker revived it under Elizabeth. Yet 
 the work was a bold and honest attempt to remedy a 
 great evil, and to simplify ecclesiastical law; and the 
 greater part of the book is admirable for its wisdom 
 and its high spiritual tone. 
 
 The wisest and most spiritual reforms in religion 
 do not always carry the consent and goodwill of the 
 people whom they are intended to benefit, and it was 
 the misfortune of Archbishop Cranmer to be often on 
 the unpopular side, even in the reign of Edward. 
 The introduction of the first English Prayerbook was 
 the signal for a formidable insurrection in the west 
 country, as the overthrow of the monasteries had been 
 the signal for the Pilgrimage of Grace in the north. 
 While Russell and Grey of Wilton were mowing 
 down the men of Devon and Cornwall with the swords 
 and muskets of foreign mercenaries, the Archbishop 
 was set to demolish with his pen the demands which 
 they sent in to the Council. It is an essay which calls 
 forth varied feelings in the reader. While with some 
 biographers of Cranmer we may admire the ease and 
 homeliness of the style, with others we may wonder at 
 the way in which Cranmer mixes learned arguments with 
 contemptuous chiding of the ignorant west countrymen. 
 “ 0 ignorant men of Devonshire and Cornwall,” he 
 exclaims, “as soon as ever I heard your articles, I 
 thought that you were deceived by some crafty papists, 
 
154 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 to make you ask you wist not what. How many of you, 
 I pray you, do know certainly which be called the 
 General Councils, and holy decrees of the fathers, and 
 what is in them contained ? The holy decrees, as they 
 call them, be nothing else but the laws and ordinances 
 of the Bishop of Rome, whereof the most part be made 
 for his own advancement, glory, and lucre. A great 
 number of the Councils repugn one against another; 
 how should they then be all kept, when one is contrary 
 to another, and the keeping of one is the breaking of 
 another ? These statements the Archbishop proceeds 
 to illustrate with copious examples; and the contradic¬ 
 tions become more pointed when he discusses the second 
 demand, that along with all the decrees of the General 
 Councils the Six Articles should be put in force again. 
 “It is contained/’ he says, “in the Canons of the 
 Apostles that a priest under no pretence of holiness 
 may put away his wife; and if he do, he shall be ex¬ 
 communicated. And the Six Articles say that if a 
 priest put not away his wife, he shall be taken for a 
 
 felon. You be cunning men, if you can set these two 
 together.” 
 
 Will you not understand what the priest prayeth 
 for you ? Had you rather be like pies or parrots, that 
 be taught to speak and yet understand not one word 
 what they say, than be true Christian men, that pray 
 unto God in heart and faith ? I have heard suitors 
 murmur at the bar, because their attornies have pleaded 
 theircases in the French tongue, which they understood 
 not. W hy then be you offended that the priests, which 
 pleadeth your cause before God, should speak such 
 language as you may understand ? Be you such 
 enemies to your own country that you will not suffer us 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 155 
 
 to laud God, to thank Him, and to use His sacraments 
 in our own tongue ? ” 
 
 “You will have neither man nor woman communi¬ 
 cate with the priest. Alas, good simple souls, how be 
 you blinded with the papists ! The very words of the 
 Mass show plainly that it was ordained not only for 
 the priest, but for others also to communicate with the 
 priest. For in the very Canon which they so much 
 extol, and which is so holy that no man may know what 
 it is, and therefore is read so softly that no man can 
 hear it, in that same Canon, I say, is a prayer contain¬ 
 ing this; that ‘ not only the priest, but as many beside 
 as communicate with him, may be fulfilled with grace 
 and heavenly benediction.’ And although I would 
 exhort every good Christian man often to receive the 
 Holy Communion, yet I do not recite these things to 
 the intent that the old Canons should be restored again, 
 which commanded every man present to receive the 
 Communion with the priest; which Canons, if they were 
 now used, I fear that many would receive it unworthily; 
 but I speak them to condemn your article, which would 
 have nobody to be communicated with the priest. 
 Which your article condemneth the old decrees, canons, 
 and General Councils,—condemneth all the old primitive 
 Church, all the old ancient holy doctors and martyrs, 
 and all the forms and manner of masses that were ever 
 made, both new and old. Therefore eat again this 
 article, if you will not be condemned of the whole 
 world.” 
 
 “ Is this the holy Catholic faith, that the Sacrament 
 should be hanged over the altar and worshipped? 
 Innocent III., about 1215 years after Christ, did ordain 
 that the Sacrament should be kept under lock and key. 
 
158 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 After him came Honorius III.; and although this 
 Honorius added the worshipping of the Sacrament, yet 
 he made no mention of the hanging thereof over the 
 high altar; and in Italy it is not yet used until this 
 day. And will you have all them that will not consent 
 to your article to die like heretics that hold against the 
 Catholic faith ? ” 
 
 A most godly prince of famous memory, King 
 Henry VIII., pitying to see his subjects many years 
 brought up in darkness and ignorance of God by the 
 erroneous doctrine and traditions of the Bishop of 
 Rome, with the counsel of all his nobles and learned 
 men, studied by all means, and that to his no little 
 danger and charges, to bring you out of your said ignor¬ 
 ance and darkness. And our most dread Sovereign Lord 
 that now is, succeeding his father as well in this godly 
 intent as in his realms and dominions, hath with no 
 less care and diligence studied to perform his father’s 
 purpose. And you, like men that wilfully shutteth 
 their own eyes, refuse to receive the light. You will 
 have the Sacrament of the Altar delivered to the lay 
 people but once in the year, and then but under one 
 kind. Vhat injury do you to many godly persons! 
 In the Apostles time, the people of Jerusalem received 
 it every day. And after, they received it in some places 
 every day, in some places four times in the week, in 
 some places three times, some twice, and commonly 
 everywhere at the least once in the week. In the 
 beginning, when men were most godly and most fervent 
 m the Holy Spiiit, then they received the Communion 
 daily. But when the Spirit of God began to be more 
 cold in men s hearts, and they waxed more worldly than 
 godly, then their desire was not so hot to receive the 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 157 
 
 Communion as it was before. An ungodly man abborretli 
 it, and not without cause dare in no wise approach 
 thereunto. But to them that live godly, it is the 
 greatest comfort that in this world can be imagined; 
 and the more godly a man is, the more sweetness and 
 spiritual pleasure and desire he shall have often to 
 receive it. And will you be so ungodly to command 
 the priest that he shall not deliver it to him but at 
 Easter, and then but only in one kind ? ” 
 
 “ 0 superstition and idolatry! how they prevail 
 among you ! The very true heavenly bread, the food of 
 everlasting life, offered unto you in the sacrament of 
 the Holy Communion, you refuse to eat but only at 
 Easter; and the cup of the most holy Blood, wherewith 
 you were redeemed and washed from your sins, you 
 refuse utterly to drink of at any time. And yet in the 
 stead of these you will eat often of the unsavoury and 
 poisoned bread of the Bishop of Rome, and drink of his 
 stinking puddles, which he nameth holy bread and holy 
 water! ” 
 
 “ You say that you will have the old service, because 
 the new is ‘ like a Christmas game.’ You declare your¬ 
 selves what spirit you be led withal, or rather what 
 spirit leadeth them that persuaded you that the word 
 of God is but like a Christmas game. It is more 
 like a game and a fond play to hear the priest speak 
 aloud to the people in Latin, and the people listen with 
 their ears to hear, and some walking up and down in 
 the church saying other prayers in Latin, and none 
 understandeth other. Forasmuch as you understood 
 not the old Latin service, I shall rehearse some things 
 in English which were wont to be read in Latin, that 
 when you understand them you may judge them, 
 
158 
 
 THOMAS CRANMEIi 
 
 whether they or God’s Word seem to be more like plays 
 or Christmas games.” This the Archbishop proceeds to 
 do, in very plain English indeed. “In the English 
 service is there nothing else but the eternal word of 
 God. St. Paul saith plainly that the word of God is 
 foolishness only to them that perish; but to them that 
 shall be saved it is God’s might and power. To some 
 it is a lively savour unto life, and to some it is a deadly 
 savour unto death. If it be to you but a Christmas 
 game, it is then a savour of death unto death. But as 
 Chiist commonly excused the simple people, because of 
 their ignorance, and justly condemned the scribes and 
 Pharisees which by their crafty persuasions led the 
 people out of the right way, so I think not you so much 
 to be blamed as these Pharisees and papistical priests 
 which, abusing your simplicity, caused you to ask you 
 wist not what.” 
 
 * -^° reason with you by learning which be unlearned, 
 it were but folly. The Scripture rnaketh mention of 
 two places where the dead be received after this life, of 
 Heaven and of Hell; but of Purgatory is not one word 
 spoken. Purgatory was wont to be called a fire as hot 
 as Hell, but not so long during. But now the defenders 
 of Purgatory within this realm be ashamed so to say : 
 nevertheless they say it is a third place, but where or 
 what it is, they confess themselves they cannot tell. 
 Truth it is that Scripture maketh mention of Paradise 
 and Abraham’s bosom after this life; but these be 
 places of joy and consolation, not of pains and torments. 
 Seeing that the Scriptures so often and so diligently 
 teach us to relieve all them that be in necessity, to feed 
 the hungry, to clothe the naked, and so to all other that 
 have need of our help; and the same in no place 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 159 
 
 maketh mention either of such pains in Purgatory, or 
 what comfort we may do them; it is certain that the 
 same is feigned for lucre, and not grounded upon God’s 
 word.” 
 
 For the rest it will be observed what terrific reality 
 Cranmer’s loyal Erastianism gave to St. Paul’s saying, 
 that those who resist authority receive to themselves 
 damnation. “ This I assure you of, that if all the 
 whole world should pray for you until doomsday, their 
 prayers should no more avail for you than they should 
 avail the devils in hell, if they prayed for them, unless 
 you be penitent and sorry for your disobedience.” 1 
 
 Notwithstanding the severity of this document, the 
 Archbishop’s behaviour towards Papists became more 
 and more lenient as he receded 'further and further 
 from them in opinion. The vicar of Stepney, formerly 
 Abbot of St. Mary of Grace, was brought before him 
 one day at Croydon for having the bells rung while the 
 licensed preachers were preaching in his church. The 
 Archbishop, says the prosecutor, “ was too full of lenity: 
 a little he rebuked him, and bade him do no more so. 
 * My Lord,’ said I, ‘ methinks you are too gentle unto so 
 stout a papist.’ ‘Well,’ said he, Gve have no law to 
 punish them by.’ ‘ We have, my Lord,’ said I; ‘ if I 
 had your authority, I would be so bold to unvicar him, 
 or minister some sharp punishment unto him and such 
 other. If ever it come to their turn, they will show 
 you no such favour.’ ‘Well,’ said he, ‘if God so pro¬ 
 vide, we must abide it.’ ‘Surely,’ said I, ‘God will 
 never con you thank for this, but rather take the sword 
 from such as will not use it upon His enemies.’ And 
 
 1 Jenkyns ii. 202 foil. The above are, of course, but brief 
 samples from the whole document. 
 
160 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 thus we departed.’’ 1 “He always bare a good face 
 and countenance unto the papists,” says Morice, “and 
 would both in word and deed do very much for them, 
 pardoning their offences; and on the other side, some¬ 
 what over severe against the protestants. On a time, a 
 friend of his declared unto him that he therein did 
 very much harm; whereunto he made this answer, and 
 said ‘ What will ye have a man do to him that is not 
 yet come to the knowledge of the truth of the Gospel ? 
 Shall we perhaps, in his journey coming towards us, by 
 severity and cruel behaviour overthrow him, and as it 
 were in his voyage stop him ? I take not this the way 
 to allure men to embrace the doctrine of the Gospel.’ ” 2 
 Nor was it only private zealots who took offence at 
 Cranmer’s ways. Towards the end of Edward’s reign 
 he was sadly out of favour with the leading spirits on 
 the Council. “ I have heard,” says Ridley, “ that Cran- 
 mer, and another whom I will not name, were both in 
 high displeasure, but especially Cranmer, for repugning 
 as they might against the late spoil of the church goods', 
 taken away only by commandment of the higher powers’ 
 without any law or order of justice, and without any 
 request or consent of those to whom they did belong.” 3 
 “ I would to God,” wrote Northumberland to Cecil, 
 "it please the King’s Majesty to appoint Mr. 
 
 Knox to the office of Rochester bishopric. He would 
 be a whetstone to quicken and sharp the Bishop of 
 Canterbury; whereof he had need.” 4 When he at¬ 
 tempted to gain legal sanction for his new code of 
 Church Law, Northumberland turned fiercely upon him, 
 and abused him—this time for the outspokenness of 
 
 l Narratives of the Reformation p. 157 . 
 
 - Ibid. p. 246. s Dixon iu 4g6 * 4 IUd .... 451 . 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD YI 161 
 
 the licensed preachers. “You bishops,” he said, “ look 
 to it at your peril that the like happen not again, or 
 you and your preachers shall suffer for it together. 1 
 Cranmer was convinced that the Duke had been 
 “ seeking long time his destruction.” 2 Even the young 
 Cecil, who afterwards learned to speak very differently 
 of him, took it upon him to task Cranmer for covetous¬ 
 ness—presumably in not alienating his revenues to the 
 courtiers fast enough. To all, he answered meekly. 
 “ As for your admonition,” he wrote to Cecil, “ I take it 
 most thankfully, as I have ever been most glad to be 
 admonished by my friends. But as for the saying of 
 St. Paul, Qui volunt ditescere, incidunt in tentationem , I 
 fear it not half so much as I do stark beggary. I have 
 more care to live now as an Archbishop, than I had to 
 live like a scholar of Cambridge.” 3 
 
 Accusations like those of Cecil had indeed been 
 brought against the Archbishop in the days of Henry. 
 Men who coveted the endowments of his see “ found 
 means to put it into the King s head that the Arch¬ 
 bishop of Canterbury kept no hospitality correspondent 
 unto his revenues and dignity, but sold his woods, and 
 by great incomes and fines maketh money to purchase 
 lands for his wife and his children. The King hearing 
 this tale, and something smelling what they went 
 about,” says Morice, “ left off any farther to talk of that 
 matter. Notwithstanding, within a month after, 
 whether it was of chance or of purpose it is unknown, 
 the King, going to dinner, called Mr. Seymour unto 
 him, 4 and said, ‘ Go ye straightways unto Lambeth, and 
 
 i Dixon hi. 512. 2 Jenkyns i. 362. 
 
 3 Ibid. i. 351. , . c . , 
 
 4 The Kind’s brother-in-law, who was the chiel complainant. 
 
 M 
 
162 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 bid my Lord of Canterbury come and speak with me, 
 at two of the clock at afternoon.’ Incontinently Mr. 
 Seymour came to Lambeth, and being brought into the 
 hall by the porter, it chanced the hall was set to 
 dinner; and when he was at the screen, and perceived 
 the hall furnished with three principal messes, besides 
 the rest of the tables thoroughly set, having a guilty 
 conscience of his untrue report made to the King, 
 recoiled back, and would have gone in to my Lord by 
 the chapel way. Mr. Nevile, being steward, brought 
 him back unto my Lord throughout the hall; and 
 when he came to my Lord and had done his message, 
 my Lord caused him to sit down and dine with him.” 
 On Seymour s return, the King asked whether my Lord 
 had dined before Seymour came. “No forsooth (said 
 Mr. Seymour), for I found him at dinner.” “Well (said 
 the King), what cheer made he you ? ” “ With these 
 words, Mr. Seymour kneeled down and besought the 
 King’s Majesty of pardon. ‘ What is the matter ? ’ said 
 the King. ‘I perceive,’ said Mr. Seymour, ‘that I did 
 abuse your Highness with an untruth; for besides your 
 Grace’s house, I think he be not in the realm, of none 
 estate or degree, that hath such a hall furnished, or 
 that fareth more honourably at his own table.’ ” The 
 incident was in Morice’s opinion the means of averting 
 a wholesale alienation of ecclesiastical property. 1 
 
 More and more towards the end of Edward’s remn 
 Granmer retired into private life, and to the care of his 
 diocese. Morice and Foxe between them supply us 
 with a fairly full description of the Archbishop at home. 
 “ Concerning his behaviour towards his family,” says his 
 
 1 Morice p. 260. foil. Morice elaborately refutes the charge that 
 Cranmer had impoverished his see. 
 
CRANMER UNDER EDWARD VI 
 
 163 
 
 secretary, “ I think there was never such a master 
 amongst men, both feared and entirely beloved; for 
 as he was a man of most gentle nature, void of all 
 crabbed and churlish conditions, so he could abide no 
 such qualities in any of his servants. But if any such 
 outrageousness were in any of his men or family, the 
 correction of those enormities he always left to the 
 ordering of his officers, who weekly kept a counting-house. 
 And if anything universally were to be reformed or 
 talked of on that day, which commonly was Friday, the 
 same was put to admonition. And if it were a fault of 
 any particular man, he was called forth before the 
 company, to whom warning was given, that if he so 
 used himself after three monitions he should lose his 
 service. And surely there was never any committed 
 to the porter’s lodge unless it were for shedding of 
 blood, picking, or stealing.” 1 
 
 “This worthy man,” says Foxe, who probably derived 
 the information from Morice, “ evermore gave himself 
 to continual study, not breaking that order that he in 
 the University commonly used; that is, by five of the 
 clock in the morning at his book, and so consuming 
 the time in study and prayer until nine of the clock. 
 He then applied himself (if the Prince’s affairs did not 
 call him away) until dinner-time to hear suitors, and 
 to dispatch such matters as appertained unto his special 
 cure and charge; which principally consisted in reform¬ 
 ation of corrupt religion and in setting forth of true and 
 sincere doctrine. For the most part always being in 
 commission he associated himself with learned men for 
 sifting and bolting out of one matter or another, for 
 
 1 Morice p. 269. 
 
164 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 the commodity and profit of the Church of England. 1 
 By means whereof, and what for his private study, he 
 was never idle; besides that, he accounted it no idle 
 point to bestow one hour or twain of the day in reading 
 over such works and books as daily came from beyond 
 the seas. After dinner, having no suitors, for an hour 
 or thereabouts he would play at the chess, or behold 
 such as could play. That done, then again to his 
 ordinary study (at the which commonly he for the 
 most part stood, and seldom sat), and there continuing 
 until five of the clock, bestowed that hour in hearing 
 the Common Prayer, and walking or using some honest 
 pastime until supper time. At supper, if he had no 
 appetite (as many times he would not sup), yet would 
 he sit down at the table, having his ordinary provision 
 of his mess furnished with expedient company, he 
 wearing on his hands his gloves, because he would (as 
 it were) thereby wean himself from eating of meat, 
 but yet keeping the company with such fruitful talk 
 as did repask and much delight the hearers, so that 
 by this means hospitality was well furnished, and the 
 alms chest well maintained for relief of the poor. After 
 supper, he would consume one hour at the least in 
 walking or some other honest pastime, and then again 
 until nine of the clock at one kind of study or another.” 2 
 
 1 “ Specially having almost twenty years together learned men 
 continually sitting with him in commission for the trying out and 
 setting forth of the religion received, and for the discussing of 
 other matters in controversy, some of them daily at diet with him, 
 and some ever more lying in his house.” (Morice p. 267.) 
 
 2 Foxe viii. 13. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 cranmer’s last years 
 
 As tlie death of Edward approached, Archbishop 
 Cranmer allowed himself to be persuaded into joining 
 the plot of the young King and Northumberland to 
 divert the succession to the throne. Elizabeth, no less 
 than Mary, was excluded by that plot, which to a 
 certain extent relieves those who took part in it from 
 having been governed by theological prepossessions. 
 It ought also to be remembered that at the time of 
 Edward’s death the title of Mary and Elizabeth was by 
 no means free from uncertainty. Parliament had, it 
 is true, permitted Henry VIII. to determine the succes¬ 
 sion by will, and in his will he had named Mary and 
 Elizabeth next after Edward. But both of them were 
 still, by Act of Parliament, illegitimate. Not until after 
 Mary’s coronation did the obsequious Parliament annul 
 its own act which had declared her illegitimate, laying 
 all the blame of that act on Cranmer. And it might 
 well be argued—as in fact the Judges affirmed that 
 if Henry had a right to bequeath the crown like a 
 private property, Edward possessed the same right. 
 There was no great moral fault in consenting to the 
 proposed arrangement. 
 
 Nevertheless it was a grievous mistake, and a man 
 
 165 
 
1G6 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 of more independence of mind would not have made 
 it. For Cranmer was convinced at the time that it was 
 a wrong policy. His was the last signature appended 
 to the unlucky document, and he fought hard against 
 signing. He earnestly endeavoured to obtain an inter¬ 
 view with the King, his godson; but it was not allowed, 
 except in the presence of two of Northumberland’s 
 partisans. “I desired,” he writes to Mary, “to talk 
 with the King’s Majesty alone, but I could not be 
 suffered, and so I failed of my purpose. For if I might 
 have communed with the King alone, and at good 
 leisure, my trust was that I should have altered him 
 from that purpose; but they being present, my labour 
 was in vain. That will, God, He knoweth, I never 
 liked; nor never anything grieved me so much that 
 your Grace’s brother did.” But all the rest of the 
 Privy Council had signed; and all the judges and law 
 officers of the Crown, but one, gave it as their opinion 
 that the King had power to make such a will; and 
 the dying boy pressed the Archbishop hard. “ Being 
 the sentence of the Judges,” he writes, “ methought it 
 became not me, being unlearned in the law, to stand 
 against my Prince therein. And so at length I was 
 required by the King’s Majesty himself to set to my 
 hand to his will; saying that he trusted that I alone 
 would not be more repugnant to his will than the rest 
 of the Council were (which words surely grieved my 
 heart very sore), and so I granted him to subscribe his 
 will, and to follow the same. For the which I submit 
 myself most humbly unto your Majesty, acknowledging 
 mine offence with most grievous and sorrowful heart, 
 and beseeching your mercy and pardon; which my 
 heart givetli me shall not be denied unto me, being 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 167 
 
 granted before to so many, which travailed not so much 
 to dissuade both the King and his Council as I did.” 1 
 
 In thus begging for his life, the Archbishop had no 
 intention of begging to retain his place. He knew too 
 well the line which Mary was likely to take, to suppose 
 that he could remain Archbishop. He sought for no 
 renewal of his license, as at the accession of Edward. 
 He only asked that before quitting his office he might 
 have some conversation with the Queen. “ I will never, 
 God willing,” he wrote, “ be author of sedition, to move 
 subjects from the obedience of their heads and rulers; 
 which is an offence most detestable. If I have uttered 
 my mind to your Majesty, being a Christian Queen and 
 Governor of the realm (of whom I am most assuredly 
 persuaded, that your gracious intent is, above all other 
 regards, to prefer God’s true word, His honour and 
 glory) —if I have uttered, I say, my mind unto your 
 Majesty, then I shall think myself discharged. For it 
 lieth not in me, but in your Grace only, to see the re¬ 
 formation of things that be amiss. To private subjects it 
 appertaineth not to reform things, but quietly to suffer 
 that they cannot amend. Yet nevertheless to show 
 your Majesty my mind in things appertaining to God, 
 methink it my duty, knowing that I do, and consider¬ 
 ing the place which in times past I have occupied.” 2 
 Cranmer’s theory of the relation between kings and 
 primates may have been incorrect, but it was at least 
 consistent. His Erastianism rose to the height of a 
 great spiritual principle. 
 
 To do Mary justice, she was disposed to deal most 
 leniently with all who were concerned in the abortive 
 plot. It was with the utmost reluctance that she 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 361. 2 Ibid. i. 363. 
 
168 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 consented to proceed against the poor girl who for a 
 few hours had been thrust into her throne. Cecil, 
 afterwards Lord Burghley, who had been more com¬ 
 promised than Cranmer, remained notwithstanding a 
 member of her Council. Cranmer himself was left at 
 liberty. Perhaps it was hoped that he would have fled 
 from the country, as scores of others were now doing. 
 Archbishop Heath is reported to have said that there 
 was a design of pensioning him off, and allowing him 
 to retire into private life. 1 
 
 But Providence had destined for him a more dis¬ 
 tinguished ending to his career. He paid a visit to 
 the Court one day—it seems to have been for the 
 generous purpose of befriending Sir John Cheke, who 
 was involved in the same trouble as himself. 2 About 
 the same date, his suffragan, Thornden, Bishop of 
 Hover, who owed so much to the Archbishop, took 
 upon him to say the Latin Mass in Canterbury 
 Cathedral. The rumour got about that he had done 
 so by Cranmer s orders, and that Cranmer himself had 
 offered to say Mass before the Queen. This rumour 
 roused him—him who was so little angered at any 
 merely personal calumnies—to a flame of indignation. 
 Worldly prudence—all solicitude for his own safety— 
 was flung to the winds. He wrote a declaration, which 
 it was his intention to have sealed with his archiepis- 
 copal seal and affixed to the doors of St. Paul’s and of 
 all the churches in the City, fiercely repudiating the 
 slander. “ Although I have been well exercised these 
 twenty years to suffer and bear evil reports and lies, 
 and have not been much grieved thereat, but have 
 borne all things quietly; yet untrue reports to the 
 1 Foxe viii. 38. 2 Jenkyns i. 359. 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 169 
 
 hindrance of God’s truth are in no wise to be tolerated 
 and suffered. Wherefore these be to signify to the 
 world, that it was not I that did set up the Mass at 
 Canterbury, but it was a false, flattering, lying, and 
 dissimuling monk which caused Mass to be set up 
 there, without mine advice or counsel, fieddat illi 
 Dominus in die illo” He ended by offering to prove 
 that the Prayerbook, and all the doctrine and religion 
 set out by the late King, was more pure and scriptural 
 than any other doctrine that had been used in England 
 for a thousand years. 1 It was still illegal to use the 
 Latin Mass in the Church of England, and the English 
 service was the only authorised service in the country. 
 It might have been thought no crime to offer to speak 
 in defence of it. But Cranmer was at once committed 
 to the Tower, on the charge of his treason against 
 Mary, and of aggravating the same by spreading about 
 seditious bills. 2 “This day,” wrote Bishop Bonner a 
 few days later to his agents, “ is looked Mr. Canterbury 
 must be placed where is meet for him. He is become 
 very humble,” he adds, putting his own construction 
 upon the Primate’s meekness, “ and ready to submit 
 himself to all things; but that will not serve.” 3 
 
 Two months later, Cranmer was tried at the Guild¬ 
 hall, with the Lady Jane and others. He pleaded guilty, 
 and was condemned. In the Tower he remained, how¬ 
 ever, from his condemnation in November 1553, till the 
 
 1 Jenkyns iv. 2. 
 
 2 Foxe says that before liis attainder he took pains to pay 
 every penny that he owed to any one, so that he might be “his 
 own man ” (viii. 14). 
 
 3 Dixon iv. 38. Bonner had indeed some excuse for speaking 
 triumphantly. He had been very badly treated in the previous 
 reign ; and Cranmer himself had behaved ill towards him ; see 
 Dixon iii. 133 foil. 
 
170 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 following April. He does not seem to have been ex¬ 
 pressly pardoned for his treason, but no more was said 
 about it. There was a charge to be brought against 
 him which was of far greater importance in the Queen’s 
 eyes. It was the charge of heresy. 
 
 There were reasons, if Mary had only known of them— 
 perhaps she did not—why Mary should have been espe¬ 
 cially careful to protect the Archbishop. If it had not 
 been for his interference in earlier days, Mary would have 
 lost her liberty, if not her life. Soon after the birth of 
 Elizabeth, Henry VIII. had been highly incensed against 
 his elder daughter for refusing to abandon the title 
 of Princess, which she had formerly worn. He fully 
 purposed, says Morice, to send her to the Tower, “ and 
 there to suffer as a subject, because she would not obey 
 unto the laws of the realm in refusing the Bishop of 
 Rome’s authority and religion.” Cranmer, who had 
 laboured so earnestly and in vain to save other victims 
 of the Act of Succession, interposed more successfully 
 on Mary’s behalf. The King granted his generous 
 request, but told him that one of them would some day 
 see cause to repent of the decision. 1 But no personal 
 feelings of obligation would have availed to make Mary 
 forgive Cranmer after his late proclamation. To men 
 who were willing to espouse her religious policy she 
 could forgive anything. Gardiner had been at least as 
 forward as Cranmer in the matter of her mother’s 
 divorce, and so far as we know had made no efforts on 
 behalf of the adherents of Catherine and of the Pope. 
 But he had suffered under Edward, and had conformed 
 under Mary, and she found it easy to make him Lord 
 Chancellor of England, and to put herself under his 
 1 Narratives of the Reformation p. 259. 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 171 
 
 political guidance. All his offences were forgotten; 
 and so might Cranmer’s have been, could he have 
 changed his religious ground. But he could not. He 
 was in the Queen’s eyes a heretic, and she meant him 
 to die a heretic’s death. 
 
 According to all the laws of Catholic Christendom no 
 bishop can be tried on such a charge as heresy except 
 by men of his own order. But the Convocation which 
 sat in the beginning of 1554, deputed eight members 
 of the Lower House, none of whom was more than a 
 presbyter, to examine the Archbishop, together with 
 Bishops Latimer and Ridley. There was as yet no law 
 of the land by which they could be condemned ; but 
 when this was objected, Weston, the Prolocutor of the 
 Lower House, and head of the deputed members, re¬ 
 plied—“ It forceth not for a law; we have commission 
 to proceed with them; when they be dispatched let 
 their friends sue the law.” 1 The illegality was not 
 worse than many things done by commission in the two 
 previous reigns; but it was not a hopeful presage for 
 the returning Catholicism of England. The three pre¬ 
 lates were removed from the Tower, where of late they 
 had been imprisoned in one chamber, and had spent 
 their time in studying the New Testament together. 
 They were conveyed to Oxford, where the delegates of 
 Convocation were met and reinforced by representatives 
 of the two Universities. 
 
 The proceedings resembled those in which Cranmer had 
 taken his part under Henry, when the form of a judicial 
 investigation was exchanged for that of an academic 
 debate. No evidence was called to ascertain what 
 Cranmer and the others had taught. The authorities 
 
 1 Dixon iv. 176. 
 
172 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 professed to doubt, and perhaps Cranmer’s history gave 
 them some reason to doubt, whether his heresy was 
 more than a passing phase of opinion, which he might 
 be brought by argument to surrender. 1 Certain articles 
 concerning the Eucharist had been agreed upon which 
 the doctors were to maintain, and Cranmer was to 
 accept or to contest them. The simple and unself- 
 asserting man made no objection either to the compo¬ 
 sition of the Court, or to the method to be employed. 
 On Saturday, April 14, he was brought by the Mayor 
 of Oxford into the choir of Sfc. Mary’s, where the com¬ 
 missioners were seated before the altar. He “reverenced 
 them with much humility, and stood with his staff in 
 his hand; and notwithstanding having a stool offered 
 him he refused to sit.” Weston commenced the proceed¬ 
 ings with a short oration in praise of unity, in the course 
 of which he traced Cranmer’s career, and said how he 
 had fallen away from the unity of the Church, and now 
 the Queen desired them to bring him back to it, if thev 
 could. Cranmer replied that he “ was very glad to 
 come to a unity, so that it were in Christ, and agreeable 
 to His holy word.” The three articles were then read 
 out. The first of them affirmed that “ the natural body 
 of Christ ” was in the sacrament. Cranmer “ did read 
 them over three or four times,” and then asked what 
 they meant by “ natural.” “ Do you not mean,” saith 
 he, 11 corpus organicumV ’—a body with its different 
 members and complete structure. Some answered one 
 thing, and some another; but the general answer was, 
 “ the same that was born of the Virgin.” “ Then the 
 
 1 Bishop Cranmer s Recantacyons 'p. 17: Principio, quia cle 
 gravitate valetudinis dubitabatur, anceps etiam curatio prcescripta 
 est , quasi tentandi vulneris causa. 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 173 
 
 Bishop of Canterbury denied it utterly,” and said that 
 he “would not agree in that unity with them.” He 
 was sent back to the gaol, with the intimation that 
 he was to send in his opinion that night in writing, 
 and that he would be called upon to dispute on the 
 Monday. Any books which he desired were to be given 
 him. The modesty of his behaviour is said to have 
 brought tears to the eyes of some of his opponents. 1 
 
 On the Monday, at eight o’clock, they met again. 
 Weston laid down at the outset that it was not lawful 
 to question the truth of the three articles. The Arch¬ 
 bishop replied that it was vain to dispute on points 
 which it was not lawful to question. Nevertheless, he 
 prepared himself to dispute. He had been well accus¬ 
 tomed to exercises of the kind at Cambridge, and was 
 an extremely skilful debater. Sir Thomas More had 
 confessed himself staggered by the subtlety of his 
 arguments. Bishop Gardiner had declared that Cran- 
 mer overcame him by his ingenious sophistry. On 
 this occasion he argued in a manner worthy of his 
 reputation. The unsparing foe, who afterwards chronicled 
 his Recantacyons , says that it was observed how Cranmer 
 played a double part in the disputations; he was unable 
 to understand how the two things could be reconciled. 
 On the one hand, he says, Cranmer, true to his own 
 character—and it is a high testimony—would not utter 
 a too eager or a contemptuous expression, but kept 
 tongue and temper under restraint, and every word 
 carried an appearance of modesty and respectfulness; 
 while, on the other hand, he made himself the outspoken 
 representative of Zwinglianism.^ It is difficult to 
 
 1 Eoxe vi. 441. 
 
 2 Bishop Cranmer’s Recantacyons p. 19. 
 
174 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 imagine how a man, speaking for his life, as Cranmer 
 thought himself to be, could be so calm and even witty. 
 He was accused, for instance, of falsifying St. Hilary by 
 reading in a certain passage vero for vere; and when 
 he replied that, even if vere were the right reading, the 
 change of one letter made little difference, Weston 
 observed that there was some difference between pastor, 
 a bishop, and pistor, a baker. “ Let it he so,” replied 
 the ready Archbishop; “ yet let pistor be either a baker 
 or maker of bread, ye see here the change of a letter, 
 and yet no great difference to be in the sense.” 1 The 
 written “ Explication ” which Cranmer had sent in, and 
 which he in vain asked to have read aloud in the course 
 of the disputation, is as spiritual and beautiful as 
 anything that he ever wrote. 
 
 But in spite of his skill, and in spite of his spirit¬ 
 uality, the position which he had adopted on the 
 Eucharist was a difficult one to defend, and difficult as 
 it would have been in any circumstances, it was made 
 more so by the way in which the debate was conducted. 
 There was ‘‘such noise and crying out in the school 
 that his mild voice could not be heard.” At one point 
 Weston is said to have stretched out his hand and “set 
 on the rude people to cry out at him indoctum, imperi- 
 tum , impudentem .” 2 There were too many disputants 
 against Cranmer, all of them eager to show their acute¬ 
 ness and their learning, and the discussion ran from 
 topic to topic without any order or progress. “ I can 
 report,” remonstrated the Archbishop to the Privy 
 Council, “ that I never knew nor heard of a more con¬ 
 fused disputation in all my life. For albeit there was 
 one appointed to dispute against me, yet every man 
 
 1 Foxe vi. 461. 2 Ibid. vi. 454. 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 175 
 
 spake bis mind, and brought forth what him liked, 
 without order. And such haste was made, that no 
 answer could be suffered to be given fully to any argu¬ 
 ment. And in such weighty and large matters there 
 was no remedy but the disputations must needs be ended 
 in one day, which can scantly well be ended in three 
 months.” 1 After nearly six hours of it the Prolocutor 
 abruptly concluded, by calling upon the bystanders to 
 cry all together “ Vincit veritas, the truth overcometh.” 2 
 
 Cranmer now demanded, according to the rule of the 
 schools, that another day should be appointed on which 
 he might be the opponent, and they respond. He com¬ 
 plained to the Council that this was not granted; 3 but 
 doubtless it was thought to have been granted, when on 
 the following Thursday he was put up to oppose Harps- 
 field, who kept an act for his doctor’s degree. Weston 
 began the argument against Harpsfield, and then sud¬ 
 denly pausing in it, invited Cranmer to take his place. 
 After a grave compliment to Weston, the Archbishop 
 asked, “ How Christ’s body is in the sacrament, accord¬ 
 ing to your determination ? ” Harpsfield (who had 
 been made Archdeacon of Canterbury in the place of 
 Cranmer’s brother) replied—“ He is there in such sort 
 and manner as He may be eaten.” “ My next question 
 is,”pursued Cranmer, “whether He hath His quantity and 
 qualities, form, figure and such like properties?” Here¬ 
 upon ensued a wild hubbub. The doctors were furious 
 with him for such a thrust, and one answered one thing 
 and one another. But Cranmer stuck to his question. 
 At last Harpsfield was forced to reply—“ He is there as 
 pleaseth Him to be there.” “ I would be best contented 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 366. 2 Foxevi. 468. 
 
 3 Jenkyns i. 366. 
 
176 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 with that answer,” said the Archbishop, “if that your 
 appointing of a carnal presence had not driven me of 
 necessity to have enquired, for disputation’s sake, how 
 you place Him there, since you will have a natural 
 body.” Cranmer was here on his own ground, and 
 drove his antagonists from point to point. At last, to 
 protect Harpsfield from utter discomfiture, Weston, who 
 was perhaps ashamed of the manner in which he had 
 acted three days before, interposed respectfully : “ Your 
 wonderful gentle behaviour and modesty, good Mr. Dr. 
 Cranmer, is worthy much commendation : and that I 
 may not deprive you of your right and just deserving, I 
 give you most hearty thanks in my own name, and in 
 the name of all my brethren.” At which saying all the 
 doctors gently put off their caps. 1 
 
 Notwithstanding this courtesy, the day following, the 
 three bishops were together brought before the com¬ 
 missioners, and “sentence read over them, that they 
 were no members of the Church; and therefore they, 
 their fautors and patrons, were condemned as heretics. 
 They were asked whether they would turn or no; and 
 they bade them read on in the name of God, for they 
 were not minded to turn. So they were condemned all 
 three.” Then Cranmer answered—“From this your 
 judgment and sentence I appeal to the just judgment 
 of God Almighty, trusting to be present with Him in 
 heaven for whose presence in the altar I am thus 
 condemned.” 2 
 
 But none of the three was yet to die. Parliament, 
 for one thing, had not, in April 1554, revived its old 
 laws for the burning of heretics, although the Queen 
 was prepared to act as if it had. Rome also disapproved 
 1 Foxe vi. 518. 2 Ibid. vi. 534. 
 
CRANMER'S LAST YEARS 
 
 177 
 
 of the way in which an unreconciled Church and Realm 
 behaved as though it had been restored by proper pro¬ 
 cesses. Not until the following February were the fires 
 lighted, by which time the Queen had been married to 
 Philip, Pole had been received into the kingdom as 
 Legate of the Pope, and the Houses of Parliament had 
 knelt to receive from him Rome’s absolution. Then, 
 after the English Church and nation had undergone 
 such a humiliation as it had never undergone before, 
 Pole, who was but a deacon himself, issued a commis¬ 
 sion for the trying of Latimer and Ridley. The con¬ 
 demnation pronounced by a commission which Rome 
 had not commissioned was treated as invalid. The 
 case of Cranmer, a metropolitan who had worn the pall, 
 was held to belong to the Pope himself. Accordingly 
 the King and Queen made humble suit to Paul IY. to 
 try him. Paul thereupon issued a summons to the 
 imprisoned Archbishop 1 to appear within eighty days 
 at Rome, at the same time delegating the trial of the 
 case to the head of the Roman Inquisition. That func¬ 
 tionary in turn delegated the matter to Brooks, Bishop 
 of Gloucester, who proceeded to Oxford, and called 
 before him Cranmer as the accused, and the King and 
 Queen of England as the accusers. 
 
 On September 12 the Bishop of Gloucester took his 
 seat in St. Mary’s Church, on a scaffold above the high 
 altar, with Martin and Story, the proctors of the King 
 and Queen, on lower seats to his right and left. The 
 sacrament was suspended immediately over his head. 
 
 1 About this time Cranmer seems to have been removed from 
 Bocardo to the house of one of the Proctors of the University, and 
 did not return to prison until after his trial before Brooks (Bishop 
 Cranmer’s Becantacyons pp. 27, 36). 
 
 N 
 
178 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 Cranmer was sent for. He stood for awhile, until one 
 of the officials called out —“ Thomas, Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, appear here and make answer to that shall 
 be laid to thy charge; that is to say for blasphemy, 
 incontinency, and heresy; and make answer here to the 
 Bishop of Gloucester, representing the Pope’s person.” 
 “Upon this, he being brought more near unto the 
 scaffold, where the foresaid Bishop sat, he first well 
 viewed the place of judgment, and spying where the 
 King and Queen’s Majesty’s proctors were, putting off 
 his cap, he first, humbly bowing his knee to the ground, 
 made reverence to the one and after to the other. That 
 done, beholding the Bishop in the face, he put on his 
 bonnet again, making no manner of token of obedience 
 towards him at all.” To the Bishop’s expostulation, he 
 replied that he “ did it not for any contempt to his 
 person, which he would have been content to have 
 honoured as well as any of the other, if his commission 
 had come from as good an authority as theirs;” but that 
 he “had once taken a solemn oath never to consent to 
 the admitting of the Bishop of Rome’s authority into 
 this realm of England again, and that he had done it 
 advisedly, and meant by God’s grace to keep it.” 1 
 
 This, indeed, was the main point of the whole busi¬ 
 ness; for though he was examined on many points in 
 his teaching and career, it was the contest with the 
 Pope that chiefly engrossed his mind. When the trial 
 was over, he sent his own report of it, by the hands of 
 Martin and Story, to Queen Mary, and a strangely 
 powerful and outspoken document it is. Those who 
 think of Cranmer as deficient in courage must have for- 
 gotten, if they ever read, his declaration against the Mass 
 
 1 Eoxe viii. 45. 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 179 
 
 at the beginning of the reign, and the intrepid monition 
 (for such it is) which he now addressed to the deaf ears of 
 the Queen. “ Alas,” wrote the great plain Englishman, 
 “ it cannot but grieve the heart of any natural subject, 
 to be accused of the King and Queen of his own realm, 
 and specially before an outward judge, or by authority 
 coming from any person out of this realm: where the 
 King and Queen, as if they were subjects within their 
 own realm, shall complain and require justice at a 
 stranger’s hands against their own subject, being already 
 condemned to death by their own laws; the like 
 whereof, I think, was never seen. I would have wished 
 to have had some meaner adversaries; and I think that 
 death shall not grieve me much more, than to have my 
 most dread and most gracious Sovereign Lord and Lady 
 (to whom under God I do owe all obedience) to be 
 mine accusers in judgment within their own realm, 
 before any stranger and outward power.” “ The im¬ 
 perial crown and jurisdiction temporal of this realm is 
 taken immediately from God, to be used under Him 
 only, and is subject unto none but to God alone.” He 
 showed at length how harmful to the Crown were the 
 claims of the Pope, and added that he did not think 
 these considerations could have been opened in the 
 Parliament House, or such a foreign authority would 
 never have been received again; “ and if I,” he said, 
 
 “ should allow such authority within the realm, I could 
 not think myself true either to your Highness, or to 
 this my natural country, knowing that I do know. 
 Ignorance, I know, may excuse other men; but he that 
 knoweth how prejudicial and injurious the power and 
 authority, which he challengeth everywhere, is to this 
 realm, and yet will allow the same, I cannot see in 
 
180 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 any wise how he can keep his due allegiance, fidelity, 
 and truth.” “ This that I have spoken,” he subjoins, 
 “ against the power and authority of the Pope, I have 
 not spoken (I take God to record and judge) for any 
 malice I owe to the Pope’s person, whom I know not; 
 but I shall pray to God to give him grace that he may 
 seek above all things to promote God’s honour and 
 glory, and not to follow the trade of his predecessors in 
 these latter days. Nor I have not spoken it for fear of 
 punishment, and to avoid the same, thinking it rather 
 an occasion to aggravate than to diminish my trouble; 
 but I have spoken it for my most bounden duty to the 
 Crown, liberties, laws, and customs of this realm of 
 England, but most especially to discharge my conscience 
 in uttering the truth to God’s glory, casting away all 
 fear by the comfort which I have in Christ .” 1 
 
 If this letter was not daring enough, Cranmer fol¬ 
 lowed it up by a second. “ I learned by Dr. Martin 
 that at the day of your Majesty’s coronation you took 
 an oath of obedience to the Pope of Rome, and the 
 same time you took another oath to this realm, to 
 maintain the laws, liberties, and customs of the same. 
 I beseech your Majesty to expend and weigh the two 
 oaths together, to see how they do agree, and then—to 
 do as your Grace’s conscience shall give you; for I am 
 surely persuaded that willingly your Majesty will not 
 offend nor do against your conscience for nothing. But 
 I fear me that there be contradictions in your oaths, 
 and that those which should have informed your Grace 
 thoroughly, did not their duties therein. If your 
 Majesty ponder the two oaths diligently, I think you 
 shall perceive you were deceived ; and then your High- 
 
 1 Jenkynsi. 3G9 foil. 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 181 
 
 ness may use the matter as God shall put in your 
 heart/’ He ended by saying that if her Majesty would 
 give him leave, he would appear at Rome in answer to 
 the Pope’s summons, and that he trusted that God 
 should put in his mouth to defend His truth there as 
 well as here. 1 
 
 While Pole, the Legate, was engaged in composing 
 elegant philippics in reply, and Brooks’ report of the 
 trial was on its way to Rome, where the maniacal 
 Paul IV. in Consistory pronounced Cranmer contu¬ 
 macious, and commanded that he should be degraded 
 and delivered to the secular power, 2 Cranmer was 
 devising an appeal. He contrived to get a letter taken 
 to a doctor of laws in the University, asking his aid 
 in fashioning an appeal from the Pope to a General 
 Council, as Luther had appealed. He said that the 
 time was short, that the thing must be done with the 
 utmost secrecy, that he felt it to be a man’s duty to 
 save his life if he could, and that his chief reason 
 for wishing to live was that he might finish, what he 
 had already begun, a new reply to a new rejoinder of 
 Gardiner’s on the Eucharist. Almost the very day that 
 Cranmer penned this letter his old antagonist passed 
 beyond the reach of controversy by death. 3 
 
 The weeks drifted away, and near the end of the 
 year 1555, some two months after the deaths of Latimer 
 and Ridley, the first signs of a change were observable 
 in Cranmer. It is said that he expressed a wish to 
 see the good and gentle Tunstall, Bishop of Durham. 
 
 1 Jenkyns i. 383. 
 
 2 Cranmer was burned at Rome in effigy ( Bishop Cranmer's 
 JRecantacyons p. 69). 
 
 3 The letter is in Jenkyns i. 385. Gardiner died November 13 
 
 1555. ’ 
 
182 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 For Tunstali Cranmer had always felt a high regard. 
 Tunstall, the friend of Erasmus, had conformed to the 
 First Prayerbook of Edward ; and when in the latter 
 part of that reign a bill to deprive him was brought into 
 the House of Lords, Cranmer alone, with one lay peer, 
 contended against it. When a little later he was de- 
 prived by a commission, Cranmer utterly refused to have 
 anything to do with it. In Henry’s days Tunstall had 
 spoken as strongly against the Papacy as Cranmer, or 
 as Gardiner; but now he had submitted. Tunstall had 
 written a book upon the Eucharist, about the same 
 time as Gardiner and (on the whole) taking the same 
 side. That book Cranmer had with him in Bocardo. 1 
 The aged prelate was unable to take the journey to 
 Oxford; and besides, he added, in words full of signifi¬ 
 cance, so far from his being any help to Cranmer, 
 Cranmer would be confident of creating doubts in him. 
 It came to Pole’s ears that Cranmer would be glad to 
 speak with him; but the fastidious Legate preferred to 
 launch his diatribes at the prisoner from afar. England 
 now swarmed with Spanish divines, who took in the 
 distracted Church of this country the place of the 
 Bucers and A Lascos of the reign before. Pole sent 
 one of these, named Soto, to the Archbishop. Cranmer 
 was not much influenced by Soto; but, after a time, he 
 asked to see another of the Spaniards, John de Villa 
 Garcia. This young man—he was not yet thirty—who 
 was soon to be rewarded for his share in Cranmer’s 
 downfall by the chair of Regius Professor in which 
 Peter Martyr had sat, before long established a kind of 
 friendship with the prisoner, though Cranmer warmly 
 repelled his arguments. If the bitter writer of Bishop 
 
 1 Bishop Cranmer s Iiecantacyons p. 24. 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 183 
 
 Crammers Recantacyons may be trusted, the influence of 
 the gaoler upon his lonely prisoner was more effectual 
 than the syllogisms of the Dominican. Between them, 
 however, they succeeded. It was on New Year’s Eve 
 that de Garcia first visited Cranmer. At the end of 
 January, or thereabout, Cranmer wrote his first short 
 Submission. No right of the Pope was acknowledged 
 in it, but Cranmer fell back on his ancient principle 
 of yielding to the judgment of State authorities. 
 
 “Forasmuch,” he wrote, “as the King and Queen’s 
 Majesties, by consent of their Parliament, have received 
 the Pope’s authority within this realm, I am content to 
 submit myself to their laws herein, and to take the 
 Pope for chief head of the Church of England, so far as 
 God’s laws, and the laws and customs of this realm will 
 permit.” 
 
 It was not to the Pope’s laws that he submitted, but 
 to those of the King and Queen; and he accepted the 
 Supreme Headship of the Pope with the same careful 
 reservation with which the Church had accepted Henry’s 
 twenty-five years before. A few days more, and he had 
 revoked this submission, but soon substituted for it a 
 more unguarded one:— 
 
 “ I, Thomas Cranmer, doctor in divinity, do submit 
 myself to the Catholic Church of Christ, and to the 
 Pope, Supreme Head of the same Church, and unto 
 the King and the Queen’s Majesties, and unto all their 
 laws and ordinances.” 
 
 Even this was no renuntiation of his belief on the 
 points in dispute, nor certainly any acknowledgment 
 that the Pope was always right. It was an acknowledg¬ 
 ment of a power existing de facto , with which Cran- 
 mer would no longer contend. This acknowledgment 
 
184 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 he did not revoke before the end. It is said that he 
 began to go to chapel, that he attended Mass, that he 
 walked again in the Litany procession, that on Candle¬ 
 mas Day he held a taper, and that he joined in singing 
 a Requiem or a Dirge. 1 
 
 The only answer to these advances was a commission 
 from London to two prelates to act upon the*' mandate 
 which had now arrived from Rome, and to degrade 
 Cranmer. The two prelates were Bonner and Thirlby. 
 Thirlby, a good and not illiberal man, had conformed to 
 all the changes, from Henry VIII. to Mary, and kept his 
 seat throughout, though he shrank from changing again 
 under Elizabeth. It was probably for this reason that 
 he was selected for the odious task. The task was the 
 more odious because between him and Cranmer, to 
 whom he was indebted for promotion, there had been a 
 warm personal friendship. “Whether it were jewel, 
 plate, instrument, maps, horse, or anything else,” says 
 the Archbishop’s secretary, “Thirlby had but to admire, 
 and Cranmer would give it him.” 2 Before him and 
 Bonner Cranmer was summoned to appear, on St. 
 Valentine’s Day, in the Cathedral of Oxford. Even at 
 that moment he was not spared the weariness of 
 hearing declamations and arguments. He was set up 
 aloft upon the rood-screen, while Harpsfield made a 
 recital of his misdeeds. When the orator had finished, 
 Cranmer flung his arms around the great Rood, which 
 had been re-erected there, with its thorn-crowned 
 Figure, crying—“ This is the Judge to whom I refer my 
 hap.” 3 He was then dragged down and invested with 
 all the habiliments of an archbishop, only made of 
 
 1 Bishop Cranmer’s Becantacyons p. 63. 
 
 See Todd ii. 469, 3 Bishop Cranmer’s Becantacyons p. 70, 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 185 
 
 canvas and rags, in mockery. When they put on 
 him the chasuble, which he had not worn for four 
 years, he said—“ What! I think I shall say Mass,” 
 meaning, though ironically, “ I suppose I am to do so; ” 
 to which one of Bonner’s chaplains answered—“Yes, 
 my Lord; I trust to see you say Mass for all this.” 
 “ Do you so ? ” said Cranmer; “ that shall you never 
 see.” His submissions thus far had not involved a 
 change of mind on that point. Yet the opinions of 
 Cranmer on the subject were now, if they ever were 
 otherwise, as tolerant as those of Frith had been. The 
 doctors fell to disputing with him about it. “Do 
 you think” said de Villa Garcia, “that all the Saints 
 are lost, who never heard of your new faith ? ” “Nay,” 
 replied Cranmer, “ I think that you may gain eternal 
 salvation by your faith, and I by mine.” “ Then,” cried 
 the friar, “ there is no one faith, from which it is infidelity 
 to differ.” The Archbishop acknowledged that in neces¬ 
 sary things there was one faith, but not in all. 1 After 
 an oration by Bonner, so insolent in its triumph that 
 Bishop Thirlby “ divers times pulled him by the sleeve 
 to make an end,” they proceeded to strip him of his 
 insignia, piece by piece. They began with his crosier- 
 staff*; but Cranmer held fast, and refused to deliver it 
 up. Before it could be wrested from him, he plucked 
 out of his left sleeve a paper, and gave it to them, 
 crying—“I appeal to the next General Council.” The 
 paper containing the appeal was put in the hands of 
 Thirlby, who said respectfully—“ My Lord, our com¬ 
 mission is to proceed against you omni appellatione 
 remota , and therefore we cannot admit it.” “ Then 
 you do me the more wrong,” answered the prisoner, 
 
 1 Bishop Cranmer 1 s Becantacyons p. 72. 
 
186 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 rising' in bis travesty attire above his natural home¬ 
 liness of temper. “ My case is not as every private 
 man’s case. The matter is between the Pope and 
 me immediately; and I think no man ought to be 
 a judge in his own cause.” “Well,” said Thirlby, 
 greatly moved, “ if it may be admitted, it shall.” 
 When they took away his pall, Cranmer once more 
 flashed with the fire of his great predecessors. “Which 
 of you,” he exclaimed, “ hath a pall, to take off 
 my pall ? ” At last he was stripped of all, his head 
 shaven to obliterate the tonsure, and his fingers scraped 
 where they had once been anointed; they clothed him 
 with a yeoman’s gown, and put a townsman’s cap upon 
 his head. “Now,” said the coarse Bonner, who had no 
 sense of the spiritual tragedy in which he was taking 
 part, “ are you no lord any more.” 1 
 
 The appeal which the Archbishop put in was worthy 
 of its great occasion. He began by protesting that he 
 intended “ to speak nothing against one, holy, catholic, 
 and apostolical church, or the authority thereof (the 
 which authority I have in great reverence, and to whom 
 my mind is in all things to obey); and if anything 
 peradventure, either by slipperiness of tongue, or by 
 indignation of abuses, or else by the provocation of 
 mine adversaries, be spoken or done otherwise than 
 well, or not with such reverence as becometh me, I am 
 most ready to amend it.” Then, in language which 
 might be taken to imply that he acknowledged the 
 Bishop of Rome to “ bear the room of Christ in earth,” 
 and to “have authority of God,” 2 he affirmed, never- 
 
 1 Foxe viii. 79. 
 
 2 By the word “although,” Cranmer probably meant “even 
 if,” like “though” in 1 Cor. xiii. 1. 
 
CRANMERS LAST YEARS 
 
 187 
 
 theless, that the Pope is not thereby “become un- 
 sinnable,” aod must be resisted if he command any¬ 
 thing against the commands of God. Where resistance 
 to him is impossible, because princes, deceived by evil 
 counsel, aid him, there yet lies an appeal from him. 
 “ Insomuch that the inferior cannot make laws of not 
 appealing to a superior power, and since it is openly 
 enough confessed that a holy General Council is above 
 the Pope, especially in matters concerning faith, and 
 that he cannot make decrees that men shall not appeal 
 from him to a General Council; therefore I, Thomas 
 Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, or in time past 
 ruler of the Metropolitical Church of Canterbury . . . 
 do challenge and appeal from the Pope, ... as well for 
 myself as for all and every one that cleavetli to me, or 
 will hereafter be on my side, unto a free General 
 Council/’ It concludes with the noble words: “ And 
 I protest and openly confess, that in all my doctrine 
 and preaching, both of the sacrament and of other my 
 doctrine whatsoever it be, not only I mean and judge 
 those things as the Catholic Church and the most holy 
 Fathers of old with one accord have meant and judged ; 
 but also I would gladly use the same words that they 
 used and not use any other words, but to set my hand to 
 all and singular their speeches, phrases, ways, and forms 
 of speech which they do use in their treatises upon the 
 sacrament, and to keep still their interpretation.' But 
 in this thing I only am accused for an heretic, because 
 I allow not the doctrine lately brought in of the sacra¬ 
 ment, and because I consent not to words not accustomed 
 in Scripture and unknown to the ancient Fathers.” 1 
 
 1 Foxe viii. 76. The word “only’ 5 belongs, of course, to “this 
 thing,” not to “ I.” 
 
188 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 The third and fourth so-called Submissions added 
 nothing to what was contained in the former ones, or 
 indeed in his Appeal itself. In the third, he reaffirmed 
 that he was content to obey the royal ordinances as 
 well concerning the Pope’s primacy as others, and pro¬ 
 mised that he would move and stir all other to do the like. 
 But he referred the judgment of his book on the Sacra¬ 
 ment not to the Pope, but to the Catholic Church and to 
 the next General Council. In the fourth, which was 
 signed on February 16, and delivered, like the preceding 
 one, into the hands of the Bishop of London, he only said 
 that he firmly believed in all articles and points of the 
 Christian religion and Catholic faith, as the Catholic 
 Church doth believe, and hath believed from the begin¬ 
 ning of Christian religion. He had done nothing so 
 far, that was wholly irreconcileable with his former 
 convictions. 
 
 But now, for some reason, although he was informed 
 that his death-warrant was actually signed, there was 
 a change in their treatment of him. A sister of his, 
 who had apparently gone with the Queen’s changes, 
 took counsel’s opinion whether it was lawful to put an 
 Archbishop to death. 1 At her urgent entreaty he was 
 removed from Bocardo, and lodged in the Deanery of 
 Christ Church ; “ where,” says the austere martyrolo- 
 gist, “he lacked no delicate fare, played at the bowls, 
 had his pleasure for walking, and all other things that 
 might bring him from Christ.” It seemed that he 
 might expect to live. Learned men surrounded him. 
 The Spanish friars plied him incessantly. About the 
 beginning of March Cranmer fell indeed. In a lengthy 
 Latin document, his fifth, no doubt prepared for him 
 
 1 Bishop Cranmer’s Tiecantacyons p. 51. 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 189 
 
 by John de Villa Garcia, in whose presence lie copied 
 it out and signed it, Cranmer made a complete recant¬ 
 ation of his former convictions upon all the disputed 
 points. He acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as 
 Supreme Head of the visible Church, the Vicar of 
 Christ, whom all were bound to obey. He accepted 
 Transubstantiation, set forth in explicit terms; the six 
 other sacraments as taught by the Church of Rome; 
 the torments of Purgatory, and prayers to the Saints. 
 He expressed penitence for having ever thought dif¬ 
 ferently from the Roman Church, asked the prayers of 
 the faithful that he might be pardoned, and adjured all 
 whom his example or teaching had misled, to return to 
 the unity of the Church. The unhappy man ended by 
 calling God to witness that this profession was not made 
 for any mans fear or favour, but heartily and very 
 gladly. 
 
 It was, undoubtedly, a miserable departure from prin¬ 
 ciple ; and yet it is not impossible that an anxiously 
 inquiring man like Cranmer may, in these years of 
 solitary reflexion, and in his recent discussions, have 
 learned sincerely to doubt the rightness of much that 
 had been said and done by him and his associates. A 
 narrow and rigid mind, such as Ridley’s or Hooper’s, 
 would not have entertained a question of what it had 
 once embraced; but Cranmer was capable of it. With 
 regard to the chief topic in the controversy, it must be 
 remembered that during the greater part of his life 
 Cranmer had been accustomed devoutly to sing his Mass 
 without allowing his traditional belief to be shaken 
 by the Swiss literature which he studied. It was not 
 unnatural if, when Ridley, who had persuaded him to 
 adopt the Zwinglian view, was gone, further thought 
 
190 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 and study convinced him that, however loyally he may 
 have intended in his book to follow the Catholic Fathers, 
 he had failed to give due weight to many of their utter¬ 
 ances. He had, if I mistake not, really gravitated hack 
 towards his earlier position—towards the position of 
 Bishop Tunstall, whom he had asked to see. Finding 
 that he had been wrong on one point, he gave way on 
 all. And then, at his last hour, in that deep self-distrust 
 which was so characteristic of him, he probably felt that 
 he had been unduly swayed by the desire to live, and 
 that it was safest to stand by the opinions which he 
 had formed while he was a free man. 
 
 Deeply committed as he now was to the whole Papal 
 system, the fallen Cranmer (no doubt) intended at first 
 to make the best of it; but he was not happy. To the 
 congratulations and offers of Soto he replied, with sobs 
 which choked his utterance, that nothing could be done 
 for him but to implore peace and pardon for him from 
 God, for the pricks of his conscience would give him no 
 rest. His nights were troubled. Alone or in company 
 he repeated the Litanies, with their invocations of the 
 Saints, which in Henry’s days he had set aside. As 
 he recited the Penitential Psalms, and came to the 
 words, Fm' Thine arrows stick fast in me , his poor 
 wounded heart sought relief in such a burst of tears, 
 that no one could question the sincerity of his sorrow. 
 He asked for a learned confessor, who might hear and 
 absolve him. Every flitting of his heart was reported to 
 Pole, and to the Queen and Council. Pole granted his 
 request, and Cranmer received absolution from one of 
 the Spanish Dominicans. Many people visited him. 
 He told them how glad he was to be reunited to the 
 flock. Some one brought him back his copy of Sir 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 191 
 
 Thomas More’s Comfort against Tribulation ; and Cran- 
 mer took occasion to say, with truth, that he had never 
 consented to the death of its witty and upright author. 
 The next day he confessed again, and received the 
 Blessed Sacrament, with every expression that might 
 satisfy the demands of those who surrounded him. 1 
 
 Had the enemies of the Archbishop been men of 
 wisdom, they would have been contented with the 
 victory which they had gained, and would have suffered 
 the discredited Cranmer to pass out of his prison—for 
 he was in prison again—to a life of contempt. But 
 they were not men of wisdom. They were bent upon a 
 further display of their triumph. There was yet a 
 depth lower for Cranmer to sound; but it is question¬ 
 able whether it was more base for Cranmer to sign his 
 next document, or for others to give it to him to sign. 
 His sixth Submission made no more complete surrender 
 of principle than the Recantation which preceded it: 
 that would have been impossible. It was only designed 
 for the purpose of making that surrender more abject and 
 more bitter. The man who in February loftily called 
 Christendom to step in and judge between him and 
 the Pope, on March 18 set his hand to sign a fulsome 
 lamentation for having sinned worse than Saul the per¬ 
 secutor and blasphemer, and worse than the crucified 
 robber. He had sinned against heaven, and against 
 the realm of England. He had been the cause and 
 author of the divorce of Henry, and deserved both tem¬ 
 poral and eternal punishment for it. Out of that 
 divorce had come the deaths of many good men, the 
 schism of the realm, and havoc beyond imagination. 
 Cranmer said that he had opened the windows to all 
 1 Bishop Cranmer's Recantacyons p. 78 foil. 
 
192 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 the heresies, especially on the sacrament of the 
 Eucharist. It is impossible to doubt who was the 
 author of this tedious Latin exercise. The Scriptural 
 conceits which adorn the composition, and indeed the 
 whole style, and the circumstances, betray the affected 
 hand of Pole, who four days later was to be consecrated 
 to the see of the murdered man. 
 
 On March 19, Cranmer’s spare time was occupied in 
 sending requests to various Colleges in Oxford—to 
 Christ Church, Magdalen, Corpus Christi, and especially 
 to All Souls, upon which, as Chichele’s successor, he 
 made a Founder’s claim—that prayers might be offered 
 for him after his ’death, 1 and in correcting and sisfnino- 
 copies of his recantation. The next day, some more 
 copies were brought to him for the purpose; he signed 
 them, and then said that no one should induce him to sign 
 any more. That evening he received a visit from Cole, 
 the Provost of Eton. Cole’s business at Oxford was to 
 preach at Cranmer’s burning, and the Queen herself 
 had given him the heads of his discourse. Ever since 
 the beginning of her reign, Mary had been solicitous 
 that “ good sermons ” should be preached at the burning 
 of heretics. 2 Cole asked Cranmer whether he persevered 
 in the faith, to which he replied that he did. He be¬ 
 sought Cole’s good offices with Mary on behalf of his 
 orphan son, and wept as he spoke of him. It has been 
 affirmed that Cole never told Cranmer that he was to 
 die; but this appears to have been only a conjecture of 
 Foxe’s to account for Cranmer’s action afterwards. 
 Cole told the Archbishop that he was charged with the 
 melancholy tidings that he could not be permitted to 
 
 1 Bishop Cranmer $ Recantacyons pp. 90, 94. 
 
 2 Dixon iv. 236. 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 193 
 
 live. It was a thing so monstrous and unheard of, to 
 put a man to death for an opinion which he had 
 solemnly renounced, that the Archbishop may well have 
 hoped, in spite of the information; but he answered 
 with a placid countenance that he had never feared 
 death, only that there was an intolerable burden upon 
 his conscience. 
 
 That night was Cranmer’s last. He began to learn 
 by heart the words which he had prepared to utter on 
 the morrow; then he broke off, saying that he would 
 read them from the manuscript. He supped as usual, 
 talked with companions till a late hour, went to bed 
 and slept peacefully till five. Then he rose and prayed, 
 and was shriven once more. Cole came to visit him 
 again that morning, and asked if he had any money 
 to give to the poor,—as condemned men usually 
 did. He had none; and Cole bestowed upon him fif¬ 
 teen crowns for the purpose. Those about him were 
 ill-pleased when, in giving a piece of silver to a poor 
 old woman, he remarked that he would rather have the 
 prayers of a good layman than those of a bad priest. 
 Yet he was still arranging for funeral masses in the 
 Colleges, and is said to have signed fourteen more 
 copies of his recantation that morning. It was observed 
 with some anxiety that a ring and a message were 
 brought to him from a sister who had stuck to her 
 Reformation principles ; and they may indeed ha,ve had 
 an effect upon the sensitive man. But he seemed not 
 to falter. “ Never fear,” he is reported to have said to 
 his friend the gaoler, as he thanked him and went out 
 towards his execution ; “ it was God who bent my mind 
 and opinion at the beginning : I trust that He will 
 complete the building which He has begun.” 
 
 o 
 
194 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 The morning of March 21 was foul and rainy. 
 About nine o’clock, Lord Williams, with the Mayor 
 and others, brought the prisoner out of Bocardo to be 
 killed. Because of the wildness of the weather it had 
 been decided that the sermon should not be preached 
 at the stake as usual, but in St. Mary’s Church. 
 Cranmer carried in his bosom the paper upon which 
 he had written out his last speech, in which he had 
 purposed to profess publicly those Roman principles 
 which he had now accepted. It is possible that he 
 still hoped, even when he left Bocardo, that the pro¬ 
 fession would win him a reprieve. A friar walked on 
 either side of him; and at the entrance of the Church 
 they significantly began the Nunc Dimittis. If he had 
 entertained any doubts before, the Song of Simeon 
 must have certified him that his departure was at 
 hand. They led him to a stage over against the pulpit, 
 where he stood aloft that all the people might see him, 
 “ in a bare and ragged gown, and ill-favouredly clothed, 
 with an old square cap ” upon his head. In this habit, 
 he “stood a good space upon the stage,” waiting for 
 the arrival of the preacher; and then, “ turning to a 
 pillar near adjoining thereunto, he lifted up his hands 
 to heaven, and prayed unto God once or twice.” While 
 Cole’s sermon was in progress, Cranmer was seen to 
 be deeply moved. It was not the preacher’s eloquence 
 that moved him ; it was the working of that inspiration 
 which now came down upon him in answer to his 
 prayer. He was determining to recant liis recantation. 
 “ I shall not need,” says an eyewitness, who took the 
 side opposed to him, “ for the time of sermon, to describe 
 his behaviour, his sorrowful countenance, his heavy 
 cheer, his face bedewed with tears; some time lifting 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 195 
 
 his eyes to heaven in hope, some time casting them 
 down to the earth for shame; to be brief, an image of 
 sorrow, the dolour of his heart bursting out at his eyes 
 in plenty of tears, retaining ever a quiet and grave be¬ 
 haviour, which increased the pity in men’s hearts [so] 
 that they unfeignedly loved him, hoping it had been 
 his repentance for his transgression and error.” And so 
 indeed it was. 
 
 Sermon ended, the people began to hasten to the 
 stake; but Cole called upon them to remain and hear 
 the condemned man’s profession of repentance and of 
 faith, and to join in prayer for him. “ I think,” says 
 the eyewitness, “ there never was such a number so 
 earnestly praying together. Love and hope increased 
 devotion on every side.” Then the Archbishop arose, 
 put off his cap, drew forth from his bosom the paper 
 which he had written, and said—“ Good people, I had 
 intended to desire you to pray for me, which because 
 Mr. Doctor hath desired, and you have done already, I 
 thank you most heartily for it. And now will I pray for 
 myself, as I could best devise for mine own comfort, and 
 say the prayer word for word as I have here written 
 it.” He added that there was one thing which grieved 
 his conscience more than all the rest, of which he would 
 speak by and by. Still standing upon his stage, he 
 read aloud the beginning of his own Litany, and then 
 went on with a pathetic entreaty. “ Thou didst not 
 give Thy Son unto death,” he read, “ 0 God the Father, 
 for our little and small sins only, but for all the greatest 
 sins of the world, so that the sinner returns unto Thee 
 with a penitent heart, as I do here at this present.” 
 Then falling upon his knees and all the people along 
 with him, he said the Lord’s Prayer in English, but it 
 
196 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 was observed that be added no Ave Maria. After that 
 he stood up, and read his speech. He exhorted the 
 people not to set overmuch by this glozing world, 
 willingly and gladly to obey the King and Queen, to 
 love one another with brotherly affection, to make a 
 right use of riches—those who had them. He had been 
 a long time in prison, he said, but he had heard of the 
 great penury of the poor, and knew how dear victuals 
 were at the time in Oxford. And now, he said—still 
 reading—forsomuch as he was come to the last end 
 of his life, and saw before his eyes heaven ready to 
 receive him, or hell ready to swallow him up, he would 
 declare to them his very faith, without colour or dis¬ 
 simulation, whatsoever he had written in times past. 
 He rehearsed the Apostles’ Creed. He said that he 
 believed every article of the Catholic Faith, every word 
 and sentence taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, His 
 Apostles and Prophets in the New and Old Testament, 
 and all articles explicate and set forth in the General 
 Councils. 
 
 “ And now,” he said—and he was still reading from 
 the manuscript—“ I come to the great thing that so 
 troubleth my conscience more than anything that ever 
 I did or said in my life; and that is the setting 
 abroad ”—but there Cranmer left his manuscript. In 
 his manuscript he had written that the thing which 
 troubled him was “ the setting abroad untrue books and 
 writings contrary to the truth of God’s Word—the 
 books which I wrote against the Sacrament of the Altar 
 sith the death of King Henry VIII.” What he said 
 was, “ the setting abroad of writings contrary to the 
 truth; which now here I renounce and refuse, as things 
 written with my hand contrary to the truth which I 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 197 
 
 thought in my heart, and writ for fear of death and to 
 save my life, if it might be; and that is, all such bills 
 which I have written or signed with mine own hand 
 since my degradation; 1 wherein I have written many 
 things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended in 
 writing contrary to my heart, therefore my hand shall 
 first be punished. For if I may come to the fire, it shall 
 be first burned. And as for the Pope, I refuse him, 
 as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false 
 doctrine.” 
 
 It was a strangely dramatic ending for one who 
 usually cared so little for effect. The downright charac¬ 
 ter of the man sets off the splendour of his action. 
 God had allowed him to fall, that the miracle of his 
 recovery might the more powerfully affect the Church 
 for ever. As soon as his words were finished, he turned 
 as white as ashes, and all trace of tears passed from his 
 countenance. Lord Williams was the first to speak. 
 “ Are you in your senses ? ” he cried, “ do you know 
 what you are doing ? ” “ That I do,” said Cranmer. 
 
 “ You shall never clear yourself of those errors,” cried 
 Williams, “with that dissembling hand.” “Alas, my 
 lord,” replied the Archbishop, “ I have been a man that 
 all my life loved plainness, and never dissembled till 
 now against the truth, which I am most sorry for.” He 
 added that, for the sacrament, he believed as he had 
 taught in his book against Gardiner. After that he was 
 suffered to speak no more. 
 
 Amidst the hubbub of voices, some asking what had 
 happened, some explaining and commenting angrily 
 or exultingly, according to their predilections, Cranmer 
 
 1 It will be observed that this does not include his first two 
 Submissions. 
 
198 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 was hurried away to the place where Latimer and 
 Ridley had been burned before him. So quick was 
 the martyr’s step that others could scarcely keep pace 
 with him. The baulked friars ran beside him, en¬ 
 deavouring even yet to bring him round again. 
 “Recollect yourself,” urged John de Garcia, “do not 
 die so desperately.” “ Away,” Cranmer replied, “ this 
 fellow would have me take the Pope for head of 
 the Church, when he is its tyrant.” But his next 
 answer was more like his habitual lowliness. “ As¬ 
 suredly,” cried the friar,“you would have acknowledged 
 him for head if he had spared your head.” Cranmer 
 felt that the thing was true. It was the murderous 
 cruelty shown towards him which had brought him to 
 his senses. There was a pause; and then the simple- 
 hearted Archbishop answered—“ Yes ; if he had saved 
 me alive, I should have obeyed his laws.” De Garcia 
 reminded him that he had made his confession that 
 morning. “ Well,” answered the Archbishop, purposely 
 ignoring the point of the remark, “ and is not confession 
 a good thing ? ” 
 
 “ Coming to the stake with a cheerful countenance 
 and willing mind,” says the Papist eyewitness, “ he put 
 off his garments with haste, and stood upright in his 
 shirt.” The friars spoke to him no more; they said 
 the devil was with him. When an Oxford divine, called 
 Ely, began a disputation, Lord Williams cried—“ Make 
 short, make short.” An iron chain fastened Cranmer 
 to the stake. He appears to have taken from his bosom 
 a signed copy of his Recantation, intending to throw it 
 into the flames. Lord Williams plucked it from him. 
 He offered his hand to some of the bystanders. To a 
 last appeal from Ely, who chode those who accepted the 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 199 
 
 sign of kindness, “ the Bishop answered, showing his 
 hand, 'This is the hand that wrote it, and therefore 
 shall it suffer first punishment.’ ” 1 
 
 “ Fire being now put to him,” says the anonymous 
 spectator, “ he stretched out his right hand and thrust 
 it into the flame, and held it there a good space, 
 before the fire came to any other part of his body, 
 where his hand was seen of every man sensibly burn¬ 
 ing, crying with a loud voice—‘ This hand hath 
 offended.’ ” Only once he withdrew it from the fire 
 to wipe his face. 2 “ As soon as the fire got up he 
 was very soon dead, never stirring or crying all the 
 while. His patience in the torment,” continues the 
 Papist, “ his courage in dying, if it had been taken 
 either for the glory of God, the wealth of his country, or 
 the testimony of truth, I could worthily have commended 
 the example, and matched it with the fame of any 
 Father of ancient time.” 3 
 
 So ended that great and troubled career. Men will 
 
 1 I am inclined to tliink that the quotation of St. Stephen’s 
 words, cc I see heaven opened,” which Bishop Cranmer’s Re- 
 cantacyons puts in his mouth, is a malicious reminiscence of what 
 Cranmer had said in his speech in St. Mary’s about heaven or 
 hell being ready for him. 
 
 2 Foxe. 
 
 3 This account of Cranmer’s end is for the most part taken 
 from the letter of the anonymous Papist “ J.A.,” which is pre¬ 
 served among Foxe’s MSS. in the British Museum (Harleian, 
 422, 10). It is printed by Strype, and reprinted by Todd, ii. 493 
 foil., though Mr. Dixon points out (iv. 532, note) that Strype has 
 fused it with another document, containing Cranmer’s speech. 
 I have added many details, however, from Bishop Cranmer’s 
 RecantacAjons— especially the dialogue on the way to the stake. 
 With regard to this latter pamphlet, I am disposed to think, in 
 spite of the contrary opinion of Mr. Gairdner, the editor, that it 
 was written by Nicholas Harpsfield. Sec the account ot it in 
 Dixon iv. 490. 
 
200 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 continue to judge him very variously, according as they 
 agree with his opinions or disagree; but it may be 
 hoped that from henceforth one fault will not be so 
 frequently laid to his charge—a fault which was wholly 
 foreign to his character. Whatever else he was, Cranmer 
 was no crafty dissembler. He was as artless as a child. 
 Even those actions of his which have brought upon him 
 the accusation of double dealing—the reservation with 
 which he took the oath at his consecration, the acknow¬ 
 ledgment that he should not have withdrawn his 
 recantation if he had been allowed to live—are instances 
 of his naive simplicity. He may sometimes have 
 deceived himself; he never had any intention to deceive 
 another. Trustful towards others, even to a fault, he 
 had little confidence in himself. His humility amounted 
 almost to a vice. His judgment was too easily swayed 
 by those who surrounded him—especially by those in 
 authority. In this way he frequently did or consented 
 to things imposed upon him by others, which he would 
 never have thought of by himself. He sheltered him¬ 
 self under the notion that he was a subordinate, when 
 by virtue of his position he was necessarily a principal, 
 and was surprised, and sometimes even irritated, that 
 others did not see things in the same light. What was 
 clear to himself he expected to be clear to others—even 
 if the view was one to which he had himself but lately 
 come. When others failed to assent to his opinions, he 
 was inclined to reprove them somewhat too plainly for 
 their ignorance and stupidity. The few men whom he 
 had learned thoroughly to suspect, like Bishop Gardiner, 
 lie pursued relentlessly. Yet the least sign of a change 
 would have made him relent. He was the most placable 
 of men. “ My Lord,” said Heath, afterwards Queen 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 201 
 
 Mary’s Chancellor, “ I now know how to win all things 
 at your hands well enough.” “ How so ? ” said Cranmer. 
 “ Mary,” Heath replied, “ I perceive that I must first 
 attempt to do unto you some notable displeasure, and 
 then by a little relenting obtain of you what I can 
 desire.” “Whereat my Lord bit his lip,” says Morice, 
 “ as his manner was when he was moved, and said—‘ l T ou 
 say well, but yet you may be deceived.’ ” “ He was a 
 
 man of such temperature of nature, or rather so 
 mortified,” says his secretary, “ that no manner of 
 prosperity or adversity could alter or change his ac¬ 
 customed conditions. To the face of the world, his 
 countenance, diet, or sleep commonly never altered.” 1 
 He was indefatigable in his industry. His placid 
 character knew no ambition. In an age of rapine, the 
 friend of Henry remained unenriched. So courteous 
 and amiable in his manners that his enemies found fault 
 with him on that account, he was unstinting in his 
 hospitality, especially towards scholars, and lavish in his 
 gifts. Unless marriage is a sin, no breath ever assailed 
 the purity of his life. He lived in constant prayer and 
 penitence. 
 
 Even those who cannot approve of all Cranmer’s acts 
 and opinions may well be thankful to the Divine 
 Providence which at that crisis of history set him in his 
 great place. A man of a more rigid mind would have 
 snapped under the strain which he endured, and the 
 continuity of the Church of England would have been 
 greatly imperilled. If Gardiner, or Heath, or even 
 Thirlby—to name some of the most statesmanlike of his 
 contemporaries—had been put in the chair of St. 
 Augustine when Cranmer was, they could not have 
 
 1 Morice pp. 245, 244. 
 
202 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 maintained the position under Edward; and the place, 
 if filled at all, would have been filled by some reckless 
 innovator after the Swiss pattern. Cranmer’s large 
 mind and temper, while essentially conservative, was 
 capable of taking in the new and of going great lengths 
 with it, and yet of coordinating it with the old, instead 
 of substituting the one for the other. In this way he 
 was able to preserve, by means of the Prayerbook, the 
 Ordinal, and the Articles, a truly Catholic footing for 
 the Church of England. If, instead of an ever narrow¬ 
 ing sect of adherents to the Papacy, confronted by a 
 Protestantism which drifts further and further away 
 from the faith of the ancient Fathers, our country 
 possesses a Church of unbroken lineage, true to the 
 agelong inheritance in its framework of government, 
 doctrine, and worship, yet open to every form of progress, 
 and comprehensive enough to embrace every human 
 being who confesses Christ, the thanks are due, under 
 God, to the sagacity, the courage, the suppleness com¬ 
 bined with firmness, of Archbishop Cranmer. The 
 unparalleled splendour of his dying actions secured for 
 ever to the Church of England what his life had gained. 
 For two things Cranmer lived. He lived to restore, as 
 nearly as might be, the Church of the Fathers; and he 
 lived, and he died, for the rights and the welfare of 
 England. The independence of the English Crown, the 
 freedom of the English Church from an intolerable 
 foreign yoke, an English Bible, the English services— 
 for these he laboured with untiring and unostentatious 
 diligence, and with few mistakes, considering the 
 difficulties of his task. He made no claim to in¬ 
 fallibility; but he laid open the way to the correction 
 of whatever might be amiss in his own teaching or in 
 
CRANMER’S LAST YEARS 
 
 203 
 
 the Church which he ruled, when, in the magnificent 
 demurrer which he made at his degradation, he appealed, 
 not for himself only but for all those who should after¬ 
 wards be on his side, to the next General Council. 
 Under that broad shield which he threw over us, we 
 may confidently abide, and lay our cause before those 
 who will candidly weigh the facts of history. 
 
 THE END 
 
Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, 
 London & Bungay. 
 


 

 
 / 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 * 
 
Princeton 
 
 Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 1 10 
 
 12 01173 9259 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 ---— 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 — - 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 DEMCO 38-297 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 Mas^m 
 
 "T^AWias. (} r» o. n t\ a .>». 
 
 l~ ~0*V\ u r» 9.V* 1*4* !•:“ V 
 
 
 
 
r -./<"•••■ "-^S-rCr •'/■' • y ■ ■ • ■ - • 
 
 ■' ■ - .-r -. 
 
 
 x*‘, y'/•*v^• •'**’-'• *' ■ 7 -' •• v .