1 a; r- 
 
 : % f tM^fK^^-^ .^^ 
 
 f\. 
 
 
 
 *>«x~ 
 
 
 
 ,0 o 
 
 
 
 ps 
 
 '^ aiTTdlililliililtr-^J " ^^"^ "^ ^ ^ 
 
 O 0^ 
 
 
 "^A v^ 
 
 V 
 
 o 
 
 .^ ^-^.^ 
 
\^^ ^^, 
 
 ^0 
 
 
 
 
 ^o<^. 
 
 .Q' 
 
 %< 
 
 
 
 ^^. * s ^ ^( 
 
 1 f.- I) 
 
 %4' 
 
 »(\; 
 
 
 G^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ , , -^ \' \ 
 
 
 
 
 0^ :^ -^"^% ^ 
 
 ^6. 
 
 
 
 ,^' 
 
 ' r. 
 
 '^ P as /i 
 
 
 
 
 
 // 
 
 
 J 
 
 .... , . > <^- 
 .0 
 
 
 "^ '■^ *^'~^ ^*" r\0 C- t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 =* xO <?. 
 
 ,a -7-^ 
 
THOMAS CRANMER 
 
Copyright Phcto., Walker & Cockerell 
 THOMAS CRANMER, 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 
 PAINTERj G. FLICCIUS. 
 
Thomas Cranmer 
 
 AND THE ENGLISH REFORMATION 
 
 1489- 1556 
 
 / 
 
 BY 
 
 ALBERT FREDERICK POLLARD 
 
 ARCHON BOOKS 
 
 HAMDEN, CONNECTICUT 
 1965 
 

 c 
 
 • V 
 
 Copyright 1905 by 
 ALBERT FREDERICK POLLARD 
 
 Reprinted 1965 in an unaltered 
 
 AND unabridged EDITION BY ARRANGEMENT WITH 
 
 PUTNAM & CO., LTD. 
 
 Copa/ 
 
 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 65-24503 
 
 PRINTED in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
PREFACE 
 
 IF an author might frankly review his own book in 
 his Preface, the following pages would take as 
 their text the caution, " Beware of too much explain- 
 ing lest we end by too much excusing." For the pres- 
 ent volume seeks to explain as much as possible. To 
 extenuate nothing is a golden rule, but the grossest 
 injustice ensues upon a neglect of extenuating cir- 
 cumstances. All the proverbs notwithstanding, ex- 
 planation is the first duty of the historian and the 
 biographer ; and Cranmer has been termed the most 
 mysterious figure in the English Reformation. The 
 obscurity is not in his character, but in the atmos- 
 phere which he breathed, and atmosphere is the most 
 difficult of all things to re-create. As a rule there 
 are no materials ; for to people who live in it, a po- 
 litical or religious atmosphere is a familiar thing, 
 which needs no explanation and therefore is not re- 
 corded in documents. Then the atmosphere changes, 
 and can only be recalled to posterity by an observa- 
 tion and reflexion compared with which the mere 
 ascertainment of facts is easy. 
 
 A failure to realise this unfamiliar atmosphere 
 vitiates most of the estimates of Cranmer's career 
 and character, and notably those of the Whig school 
 
iv Preface 
 
 represented by Hallam and Macaulay. Hallam in- 
 deed always recognises that Cranmer's " faults were 
 the effect of circumstances and not of intention," 
 but he blames the Archbishop for having " con- 
 sented to place himself in a station where those 
 circumstances occurred." * He might perhaps have 
 made the great refusal ; but unless some one had been 
 willing to take up the burden with all its irksome 
 conditions, there would have been no Reformation. 
 And in one like Cranmer, who for years had been 
 praying for the abolition of the Pope's power in Eng- 
 land, it surely would have been a cowardly love of 
 mental and physical ease to decline his share in the 
 work because of the sacrifice it involved. He chose 
 the better part, but it was one of labours and 
 sorrows. To succeed Warham who had just sur- 
 rendered the keys of ecclesiastical independence ; 
 to be Archbishop under Henry VHI. who had 
 broken the powerful Wolsey without an effort ; then, 
 after two years* comparative peace with Somerset, 
 to be flouted for four by Northumberland ; and 
 finally, under Mary, to hold views of the State 
 which compelled non-resistance, and yet to have a 
 conscience which said that submission was cowardice 
 — such was Cranmer's lot. Compared with Henry 
 VHI. he is weak, but none the less human for that. 
 He is the storm-tossed plaything of forces which 
 even Henry could not completely control ; and his 
 soul is expressed in the beautiful and plaintive 
 strains of his Litany, which appealed to men's hearts 
 in those troublous times with a directness now 
 • Constitutional History, ed. 1884, i., 98. 
 
Largs 
 150 
 
 mm( 
 150Z. 
 
 Lacy 
 Both. 
 
 hom 
 •prn : 
 [tedi 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Preface v 
 
 scarcely conceivable. His story is that of a conscience 
 in the grip of a stronger power; but, unless I mis- 
 read his mind, he surveyed his life's work in the 
 hour of death and was satisfied. 
 
 It has been maintained by an eminent scholar re- 
 cently dead * that the chief content of modern history 
 is the emancipation of conscience from the control of 
 authority. From that point of view the student 
 of Tudor times will not be exclusive in his choice of 
 heroes. He will find room in his calendar of saints 
 for More as well as for Cranmer. Both had grave 
 imperfections, and both took their share in enforcing 
 the claims of authority over those of conscience. 
 Nor perhaps is it true to say that they died in order 
 that we might be free ; but they died for conscience* 
 sake, and unless they and others had died conscience 
 would still be in chains. That was Cranmer's serv- 
 ice in the cause of humanity ; his Church owes him no 
 less, for in the Book of Common Prayer he gave it 
 the most effective of all its possessions. 
 
 The materials for sixteenth-century history are 
 so vast that no one can hope to master them all 
 in the allotted span of human life'; but the bio- 
 grapher's path has been greatly smoothed by the 
 monumental series of Letters and Papers, Foreign 
 and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIIL^ published 
 
 ' Lord Acton. 
 
 'Dr. James Gairdner, C.B., has made the nearest approach after 
 forty-five years' strenuous labour. 
 
 * Cited throughout the text as L, and P.; they are often inaccu- 
 rately styled *• State Papers," a description properly reserved for the 
 
VI Preface 
 
 by the Record Ofifice under the editorship of the late 
 Mr. Brewer and Dr. James Gairdner, which so far as 
 it goes (1544) completely supersedes all other sources 
 for Cranmer's life. Another recently published au- 
 thority of the highest value is the Acts of the Privy 
 Council^ extending from 1542 to 1599; but the do- 
 mestic State Papers from 1547 onwards are poorly 
 represented in Lemon's Calendar (i860); and 
 although the correspondence of English agents 
 abroad is more adequately summarised in Turnbull's 
 Foreign Calendar^ the more valuable despatches of 
 foreign ambassadors in England are yet unpublished 
 with the exception of two volumes issued by the 
 French Government, Brown's Venetian Calendar^ and 
 the Spanish Calendar^ which has not yet touched the 
 reign of Edward VI. or Mary. The great collec- 
 tions in the British Museum are also for the most 
 part imprinted. 
 
 Of contemporary chronicles, Hall's is the best for 
 the reign of Henry VHI., and for that of Edward 
 VI. the most useful authority is J. G. Nichols's Lit- 
 erary Remains of Edward VI. (Roxburghe Club, 
 1857, 2 vols.), which is perhaps more important for 
 the numerous contemporary documents it prints 
 than for the young King's Journal, which is its ptkce 
 de resistance. Of the many valuable chronicles 
 published by the Camden Society may be mentioned 
 Wriothesle/s Chronicle, the Greyfriars' Chronicle, 
 
 eleven volumes of State Papers of Henry VIII., published in ex- 
 tenso by the Record Commission, 1830-52. The L. and P. contain 
 much besides State Papers. 
 
Preface vii 
 
 the Chronicle of Queen Jane and Queen Mary^ Mach- 
 yns Diary, and the Narratives of the Reformation. 
 With regard to church history, the primary source 
 is the works of the Reformers themselves ; they are 
 here cited in the Parker Society's collected edition 
 in fifty-four volumes (Cambridge, 1841-55). This 
 includes the latest edition of Cranmer's own works 
 (2 vols., 1844-46),* though that by Jenkyns (4 vols., 
 Oxford, 1833) is hardly, if at all inferior. Next to 
 these, Foxe*s Acts and Monuments (ed. Townsend, 
 8 vols., 1843-49)' is the greatest quarry ; his tone is, 
 of course, biassed, but he prints a vast mass of docu- 
 ments with which he did not apparently tamper. 
 The next most valuable collection is Strype, whose 
 works on the Reformation in the best edition (Ox- 
 ford, 1812-24) run to twenty- five volumes; of these 
 the Ecclesiastical Memorials is the most important 
 for the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and 
 Mary. Strype's labours had been preceded by Ful- 
 ler's History {i6$S ', ed. Brewer, 6 vols., Oxford, 1845) 
 and Heylyn's Ecclesia Restaurata (1661 ; ed. Robert- 
 son, London, 1849), which were partly based on the 
 records of Convocation, destroyed soon after at the 
 fire of London (1666). Bishop Burnet of Salisbury fol- 
 lowed with what was long the most popular history of 
 the Reformation (3 vols., 1679, 171 5) ; its arrangement 
 is atrocious, but the documents are valuable, espec- 
 
 * This is the edition cited in the text briefly as Works; the volumes 
 are not numbered, but that containing Cranmer's works on the Lord's 
 Supper was published first, and is here treated as volume i. ; that con- 
 taining his letters and miscellaneous pieces followed, and is here cited 
 as vol. ii. 
 
 ' This is the edition cited as '* Foxe " in the text. 
 
Vlll 
 
 Preface 
 
 ially in the last greatly-augmented edition of Pocock 
 (Oxford, 7 vols., 1865).* The latest history of the 
 Reformation on an ambitious scale is that of Canon 
 Dixon (6 vols., 1878-99), a work of great labour, but 
 perhaps a criticism rather than a history of the Re- 
 formation. The best summary of the facts is given 
 in Dr. Gairdner's volume (1902) in Stephens and 
 Hunt's History of the Church of England, the 
 point of view of which is somewhat like Dixon's. 
 The general modern histories, such as Lingard's 
 and Froude's are too well known to need further 
 description ; but it may be remarked that there is 
 inadequate justification for the systematic detrac- 
 tion of Froude's History which has become the 
 fashion. He held strong views, and he made some 
 mistakes; but his mistakes were no greater than 
 those of other historians, and there are not half a 
 dozen histories in the English language which have 
 been based on so exhaustive a survey of original 
 materials. 
 
 Of the various Lives of Cranmer, Strype's (1694, 
 folio, London) is the earliest, the fullest, and contains 
 most original matter; but Strype was a most indus- 
 trious compiler without any pretensions to style. 
 The Life by H. J. Todd (2 vols., 1831) is more 
 readable, but is too apologetic, and adds little to 
 Strype; and Le Bas (2 vols., 1833) adds practically 
 nothing to Todd. The memoir in Dean Hook's 
 Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury was written 
 
 * In the text the cumbrous method of reference adopted by Pocock 
 in his index has been abandoned, and the references are simply to 
 the volume and page of Pocock's edition. 
 
Preface 5x 
 
 under the influence of the Tractarian movement, 
 and particularly of S. R. Maitland's attacks on 
 the Reformers; the balance is redressed in Canon 
 Mason's interesting sketch (1896) which, however, is 
 stronger on the theological than on the historical 
 side. Dr. Gairdner's article in the Dictionary of 
 National Biography (vol. xiii., 1888) is, like all that 
 author's work, a model of compressed accuracy.* 
 Its chief defect is that Dr. Gairdner's eye had not 
 lighted on the late Mr. R. E. Chester Waters's re- 
 searches into Cranmer's family history, published in 
 his Chester s of Chicheleyy 1877. That monument of 
 scientific genealogy is here for the first time used in 
 a biography of Cranmer. 
 
 For a more exhaustive bibliography I must refer 
 to the appendix to my England under Protector 
 Somerset (1900, pp. 327-339) or to my contribution 
 to the Cambridge Modern History (vol. ii., 1904, pp. 
 795-801). But I must acknowledge my debt of 
 gratitude to the various owners of pictures who have 
 generously permitted their reproduction in these 
 pages, and to Messrs. Goupil for lending two negatives 
 originally prepared for illustrating my volume on 
 Henry VHL The Rev. John Standish, Vicar of 
 Scarrington, most kindly supplied me with inform- 
 ation respecting Aslacton ; and to the candid opin- 
 
 ' There are various other Lives of Cranmer from different points of 
 view, but they have no claim to be based on original research. For 
 Cranmer's "Catechism " see Tite and Thomson's Bibliography ^ 1862 ; 
 for his library see Mr. Edward Burbidge's two pamphlets, and for 
 his handwriting see J. E. Bziley's Autographs 0/ Thomas Cranmer ^ 
 1879. 
 
X Preface 
 
 ions of my wife and of my friend, Mr. Graham 
 Wallas, I owe not merely the correction of many a 
 slip, but the pruning of numerous passages. 
 
 A. F. Pollard 
 
 Putney, London, 
 
 15 February, 1904. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAOll 
 PARENTAGE, BIRTH, AND EARLY YEARS ... I 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CRANMER AND THE DIVORCE OF CATHERINE OF 
 
 ARAGON 24 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 CRANMER AND THE ROYAL SUPREMACY . . . 61 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 CRANMER AND REFORM 88 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 CRANMER AND THE CATHOLIC REACTION . . I24 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 CRANMER'S PROJECTS DURING HENRY's LAST YEARS 161 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 CRANMER AND THE FIRST BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 184 
 
 CHAPTER Vin. 
 
 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND CONTROVERSIES . . 224 
 
 xi 
 
xii Contents 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 CRANMER AND THE SECOND BOOK OF COMMON 
 
 PRAYER 246 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 THE DOWNFALL OF ENGLISH PROTESTANTISM . . 275 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 CRANMER's CHARACTER AND PRIVATE LIFE , . 303 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 IN TIME OF TROUBLE 33O 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 IN THE HOUR OF DEATH 356 
 
 INDEX . . » 385 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 PAGF 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY 
 
 Frontispiece 
 From the painting by G. Fliccius. 
 
 QUEEN CATHERINE OF ARAGON . . . • 3© 
 
 QUEEN ANNE BOLEYN 32 
 
 After the picture by Lucas Corneley, now in the 
 possession of the Earl of Romney. By per- 
 mission of the Earl of Romney. 
 
 POPE CLEMENT VII. 36 
 
 After Fra Sebastiano del Piombo, Muzeo Nazio- 
 nale, Naples. Copyright by Anderson, Rome. 
 
 QUEEN ELIZABETH ...... 60 
 
 From the picture at St. James Palace. 
 
 SIR THOMAS MORE ....... 80 
 
 After the painting by Holbein. 
 
 LADY JANE SEYMOUR ...... lOO 
 
 After the painting by Hans Holbein, now at 
 Vienna. Copyright by J. Lowy. 
 
 WILLIAM TYNDALE HO 
 
 xiii 
 
 »--t 
 
xiv Illustrations 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THOMAS CROMWELL, EARL OF ESSEX . . . 138 
 
 From the painting by Holbein, probable date about 
 1537. Picture is now at Tyttenhanger Park, 
 and is reproduced by permission of the 
 Countess of Caledon and Messrs. Goupil. 
 
 THOMAS CRANMER, WITH HIS SEAL AS ARCHBISHOP 
 
 OF CANTERBURY 150 
 
 From a steel engraving. 
 
 QUEEN CATHERINE HOWARD 162 
 
 Painted in the school of Holbein. 
 
 KING HENRY VIIL PROBABLY ABOUT 1540 . . 182 
 
 From a chalk drawing by Holbein, in the Royal 
 Print Cabinet, Munich. By permission of 
 Messrs. Goupil, the owners of the negative. 
 
 BISHOP HUGH LATIMER 2o6 
 
 PIETRO VERMIGLI, COMMONLY KNOWN AS PETER 
 
 MARTYR 218 
 
 From the painting now in the Chapter-house at 
 Christchurch, Oxford. By permission of the 
 Dean and Students. 
 
 PROTECTOR SOMERSET 250 
 
 After the portrait, dated 1548, in the possession 
 of Sir Edmund Verney, and now in his house 
 at Rhianva. Reproduced by the owner's per- 
 mission. 
 
 KING EDWARD VI. 266 
 
 Painted after a drawing attributed to Holbein. 
 
Illustrations xv 
 
 PAGB 
 
 LADY JANE GREY 3OO 
 
 From the picture now in the possession of Earl 
 Spencer at Althorpe. By permission of Lord 
 Spencer. 
 
 LAMBETH CHURCH AND PALACE .... 32O 
 
 As they appeared about the year 1670. From an 
 old copper print. 
 
 CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL 340 
 
 From an old copper print. 
 
 CARDINAL POLE 362 
 
 After the picture by Titian, now in the possession 
 of Lord Arundel of Wardour. By permission 
 of the owner and Messrs. Cassell & Co. 
 
 PORTRAIT OF CRANMER DURING THE REIGN OF 
 
 EDWARD VI 380 
 
 From the original picture at Lambeth Palace. 
 
THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 PARENTAGE, BIRTH, AND EARLY YEARS 
 
 MIDWAY between the north-midland towns of 
 Grantham and Nottingham, and just beyond 
 the railway which joins them, lies the modest ham- 
 let of Aslacton.* It is not of itself a parish ; of old 
 it belonged to Whatton on the south-east, and now 
 it forms part of Scarrington on the north-west. 
 Until recent years its spiritual needs were satisfied 
 with a Primitive Methodist chapel and an Anglican 
 mission room named, like some walks and mounds 
 in the neighbourhood, after its one distinguished 
 native. Its inhabitants do not number five hundred 
 souls, and it covers less than thirteen hundred 
 acres of land. The cross-roads, on which its cot- 
 tages cluster, lead nowhere in particular, and the 
 great Fosse Way passes it by in contempt four miles 
 
 * So it was generally spelt in Cranmer's time, and often is to-day, 
 but it was in the sixteenth century, and is now also, spelt Aslocton, or 
 Aslockton, 
 
2 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 
 
 to the north-west. Beyond that lies Sherwood For- 
 est, already in the days of Cranmer's youth cele- 
 brated as the scene of the legendary exploits of 
 Robin Hood. To the south-east a stream, dignified 
 by the name of the River Smite, meanders down to 
 its junction with the Devon and then loses itself in 
 the great river, the Trent, at Newark. Beyond this 
 stream the ground rises to the heights whence, in 
 Armada days, 
 
 " Belvoir's lordly terraces the sign to Lincoln sent. 
 And Lincoln sped the message on o'er the wide vale 
 of Trent."* 
 
 Few inhabited spots have suffered less from modern 
 civilisation ; the nearest money office is three miles 
 distant, and if a rustic of Aslacton requires the tele- 
 graph he has still farther to seek. Some six times a 
 day, trains pass in either direction, but Aslacton 
 owes its railway station less to its own than to the 
 borrowed importance of neighbouring Whatton ; 
 and the proximity of a railroad at all is solely due 
 to the fact that the pioneers who constructed the 
 line from Grantham and Nottingham must needs 
 pass near Aslacton. 
 
 Here on 2 July, 1489, was born " the first Protes- 
 tant archbishop of this kingdom, and the greatest in- 
 strument, under God, of the happy Reformation of 
 this Church of England: in whose piety, learning, 
 wisdom, conduct, and blood the foundation of it was 
 laid." * But Aslacton, although it was the place of 
 
 * Macaulay, The Armada. 
 
 ' Strype, Cranmer^ ed. 1820, p. i. 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 3 
 
 Cranmer*s birth, was not the original cradle of the 
 race. The family took its name from Cranmer, a 
 manor in the parish of Sutterton in Lincolnshire ; and 
 its arms, a chevron between three cranes y are an her- 
 aldic pun on the name, which signifies a lake abound- 
 ing in cranes. It occurs as a place-name in the coun- 
 ties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and under the variant 
 "Cranmore" is found in the west of England.* 
 Imaginative county historians,' and fertile makers of 
 pedigrees, have traced the genealogy of the Cran- 
 mers of Sutterton back to the reign of Edward I., 
 when one Hugh de Cranmer is said to have wedded 
 the daughter of William de Sutterton. But few 
 genealogists of the sixteenth century were content 
 with a line which began at so recent a date. It 
 was an age of parvenus^ and therefore of pedigree- 
 makers, and the legislature has never weighted 
 the imagination of genealogists with the penalties 
 attaching to the forgery of other kinds of documents. 
 The great Lord Burghley himself was a zealous hunter 
 of pedigrees, and even Cranmer liked to believe 
 that his forbears came over with William the Con- 
 queror. When he discovered in the train of the French 
 Ambassador a gentleman with a similar coat-of-arms 
 to his own, he gave him a good dinner at Lambeth 
 on the strength of the supposed relationship. 
 
 The truth is that the Cranmers* antecedents were 
 obscure and their position humble enough. " I take 
 it," said Cranmer, many years later, " that none of 
 
 * There were also " Cranmores " at Aslacton, a family of inferior 
 social position to the Archbishop's. 
 ' E. g,y R. Thoroton in his Nottinghamshire ^ ed. Throsby, 1797. 
 
4 Thomas Cranmer [mSq- 
 
 us all here, being gentlemen born, but had our be- 
 ginnings that way from a low and base parentage." * 
 No member of his family had been knighted or 
 pricked as sheriff, none had been elected to serve in 
 Parliament or summoned to fight his country's bat- 
 tles in the wars of the fourteenth century. It is, 
 however, an exaggeration to say that there is no evi- 
 dence for the existence of the various members of 
 the family, whom the historian of Nottinghamshire 
 has introduced into the fourteenth-century part of 
 the pedigree ; for we have it on the authority of the 
 tax-collector that in 1338 one Hugh de Cranmer 
 owned three acres and something more in the county 
 of Lincoln. ' It is no straining of probabilities to 
 assume that this Hugh de Cranmer is he whose 
 name was painted on the stained-glass windows of 
 Sutterton Church,^ and that both are identical with 
 the Hugh who figures in the pedigrees as the grand- 
 father of Edmund Cranmer, the first to connect the 
 Cranmers with Aslacton. 
 
 This Edmund did not a little to promote the 
 modest fortunes of the faniily. Early in the fif- 
 teenth century he married Isabella, daughter and 
 heiress of William de Aslacton,* and her family 
 was certainly of higher social standing than that 
 of her husband. It may,have been descended from 
 Walkelin, presumably a Norman, who held Aslac- 
 ton in the time of Domesday Book*; one of its 
 
 * Narratives of the Reformation (Camden Soc), pp. 274-5. 
 
 * Calendar of Close Rolls, 1337-9, p. 493. 
 
 * Holies, Church Notes in Lincolnshire, sub verbo Sutterton. 
 *Thoroton, ed. Throsby, i., 262. 
 
 * Test<i de Nevill, Notts, p. 3. 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 5 
 
 members had been sheriff of Nottingham and Derby 
 shires in the reign of Henry III., and another had 
 sat as knight for his native county in the parliament 
 of Edward III.* Edmund Cranmer apparently sold 
 his Lincolnshire inheritance, and with the proceeds 
 purchased in 1425 lands adjoining his wife's in Aslac- 
 ton. Their son John married Alice Marshall of South 
 Carleton in North Muskham, Nottinghamshire, and 
 by her had issue two sons, Thomas, the father of the 
 future Archbishop, and John. The elder, of course, 
 succeeded to the Aslacton lands, and the younger, 
 in orthodox fashion, devoted himself to the Church. 
 Of the Archbishop's father we know more than of 
 any earlier member of the family. He was probably 
 born between 1450 and 1455, and some thirty years 
 later he married Agnes, daughter of Lawrence Hat- 
 field of Willoughby, in the Nottinghamshire hun- 
 dred of Thurgarton. The suggestion' that these 
 Hatfields were descended from the lords of Hat- 
 field in Holderness is a conjecture unsupported by 
 evidence ; but they were a county family of some 
 standing, and Agnes Hatfield's uncle married the 
 daughter of Sir Thomas Molyneux of Hawton ; his 
 son, Henry Hatfield, was in later years surveyor of 
 the Archbishop's lands.' By this marriage Thomas 
 Cranmer had a large family ; there were three boys 
 and at least four girls. Of the daughters, Dorothy 
 married Harold Rosell, of Ratcliffe-on-Trent,* and 
 
 » Lists of Sheriffs, P. R, 0., 1898 ; Official Return of Members of 
 Pari, i., 72. 
 
 ^ Poulson's Holderness^ ii., 443. 
 'Cranmer, Works (Parker Soc), ii., 265. 
 * Thoroton, i., 184. 
 
6 Thomas Cranmer [1469- 
 
 Agnes wedded Edmund Cartwright* of Ossington, a 
 family which produced more than one well-known 
 name in English history. Two daughters, Margaret 
 and Emmet, were unmarried at their father's death ; 
 one of them afterwards became the wife of that un- 
 known brother-in-law of the Archbishop who per- 
 ished in the fire at Lambeth Palace in December, 
 1543.* The other was scarcely more fortunate in 
 her matrimonial relations ; her first husband was " a 
 milner," but during his lifetime she is said to have 
 married a second, one Henry Bingham, and her 
 daughter by one of these husbands (presumably the 
 first) was wife of Dr. Christopher Nevinson, the 
 Archbishop's commissary, facts which furnished ma- 
 terial for an attack on Cranmer by his Prebendaries 
 in 1543.' 
 
 With so large a family, the Cranmers' household 
 can hardly have been luxurious. Despite the slow 
 but steady improvement in the fortunes of the clan, 
 the Archbishop's father possessed but moderate 
 means, and the extent of his influence and estates 
 can easily be exaggerated. Aslacton was a ** lord- 
 ship " as well as a hamlet, but it is not clear that 
 Cranmer was lord of any of the various manors of 
 which the " lordship " was composed. The " lord- 
 
 * Thoroton, iii., 173 ; Waters, Ckesters of Chicheley^ pp. 370-1. 
 
 ' Stow's Annals^ p. 988. 
 
 ^For Nevinson, or Nevynson, see Diet. Nat. Biog.^ xl., 308, 
 where, however, no mention is made of his wife's relationship to 
 the Archbishop; compare Z. and P.^ vol. y.v\\\.y passim. A fifth 
 daughter is said to have been the wife of John Monins, Lieutenant of 
 Dover Castle, and a sixth is reported to have married one Shepey, a 
 knight, but the relationship of these ladies is highly problematical. 
 
15293 Parentage, Birth, Early Years 7 
 
 ship " itself belonged to the Crown, apparently as 
 part and parcel of the duchy of Lancaster. Ed- 
 ward IV. gave it to the Marquis Montagu, brother 
 of Warwick the King-Maker, but on the fall of 
 the Nevilles it reverted to royal hands. Among 
 the various persons appointed from time to time 
 as " receivers *' or other royal representatives in the 
 ** lordship ** the name of Cranmer does not occur* ; and 
 from this fact, and from the smallness of the be- 
 quests in the elder Cranmer's will, it may be safely 
 assumed that his rents hardly sufficed to keep him 
 and his household in the moderate comfort to which 
 the smaller English gentry of the time were accus- 
 tomed. 
 
 These comparatively narrow circumstances deter- 
 mined the careers of Cranmer's sons. The eldest, 
 John who was born in the spring of 1487, was expected 
 to do as his father had done, keep his inheritance in- 
 tact, extend it, or enhance his social position by marry- 
 ing well, and beget sons to carry on the family line and 
 traditions. To him education was a matter of little 
 or no importance, and there is no evidence to show 
 that his intelligence was one whit superior to that of 
 his class. The inference is in the opposite direction, 
 for had he possessed brains or ambition, the in- 
 fluence of the Archbishop could easily have secured 
 for his brother an opportunity of distinguishing 
 himself in some wider sphere of usefulness than the 
 
 * See Calendar of Patent Rolls^ 1476-85, pp. 4, 19. The baili- 
 wick of the Lordship of Aslacton was granted in 1476 to one Richard 
 Holt, and the receivership of Aslacton to Gervase Clifton (cf. Cal. 
 Inquis^ Post-Mortem, Henry VII., i., 714. In 1780 Aslacton be- 
 longed to a Mr. Marriott (Thoroton, Nottinghamshire, i., 264). 
 
8 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 
 
 local affairs of Aslacton. But in spite of his lands 
 and his brother, John Cranmer never even rose to the 
 dignity of a justice of the peace. He was perhaps 
 successful in all to which his lowly ambition aspired. 
 He won a wife who boasted among her remote an- 
 cestors a baron by writ, and his daughter actually 
 married the youngest son of a living peer.* 
 
 It was beyond the means of the Cranmer estates 
 to support two of the family in such a position, and 
 both of John's younger brothers were quartered on 
 the Church. There is no reason to suppose that 
 either felt any special call to the spiritual state ; the 
 decision was made for them by their parents and 
 their circumstances ; younger sons, for whom the 
 family property could not provide, as a matter of 
 course took holy orders. And so Thomas Cranmer 
 was, by no design of his own, launched on his fateful 
 career. His younger brother, Edmund, born about 
 1 491, was intimately associated with him throughout 
 his life ; he followed Thomas to Cambridge, assimi- 
 lated his elder brother's views and like him, married 
 a wife, received the Archdeaconry of Canterbury, es- 
 caped to the Continent on Mary's accession, and 
 died abroad in 1571.' 
 
 The first step in a clerical career was a clerical 
 education, and the Archbishop once told his secre- 
 
 * His first wife was Joan, daughter of John Fretcheville of Stavely, 
 whose ancestor Ralph de Fretcheville was summoned to Parliament 
 as a baron in 1298; his daughter Susanna (by a second wife) married 
 Thomas Brooke, alias Cobham, the youngest son of the sixth Lord 
 Cobham ; he became steward of the Archbishop's household and died 
 in 1547- 
 
 * "Waters, Chesters of Chicheley^ pp. 395-6. 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 9 
 
 tary that his father " did set him to school with a 
 marvellous severe and cruel schoolmaster." * An- 
 other account,' written soon after Cranmer's death, 
 states that he " learned his grammar of a rude par- 
 ish clerk in that barbarous time." But as Morice 
 goes on to speak of Cranmer's leaving his " grammar 
 school" to go to Cambridge, it is probable that his 
 instructor was not the local parish priest, but the 
 master of some neighbouring school. Of these there 
 were at least four within easy reach of Aslacton in 
 Cranmer's boyhood, Grantham, Nottingham, Newark, 
 and Southwell.' There is no evidence to determine 
 at which of these schools he was educated ; possibly 
 it was at Southwell, for here in 1533 he recommended 
 that his nephew and godson, Thomas Rosell, should 
 be sent to school.* Wherever the pedagogue ruled 
 his ** tyranny towards youth " is said to have been 
 
 " such that, as he [Cranmer] thought, the said school- 
 master so appalled, dulled and daunted the tender and 
 fine wits of his scholars, that they commonly more hated 
 and abhorred good literature than favoured or embraced 
 the same, whose memories were also thereby so mutilated 
 and wounded that for his part he lost much of that benefit 
 of memory and audacity in his youth that by nature was 
 given to him, which he could never recover, as he divers 
 times reported. And, albeit his father was very desirous 
 to have him learned, yet would he not that he should ht 
 
 * Morice, Anecdotes (Narratives of the Reformation) pp. 238-9. 
 
 * Ibid., p. 218. 
 
 ^ See A. F. Leach, English Schools at the Reformation, pp. 
 322-3. 
 
 * Cranmer's Letters (Parker Soc. Ed.), pp. 256, 262. 
 
10 Thomas Cranmei* [1489- 
 
 ignorant in civil and gentlemanlike exercises, insomuch 
 that he used him to shoot and many times permitted him to 
 hunt and to hawk and to exercise and to ride rough horses. 
 So that now being archbishop he feared not to ride the 
 roughest horses that came into his stable. Which he 
 would do very comely, as otherwise at all times there was 
 none in his house 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 be- 
 forehand. And would sometimes shoot with the long 
 bow, but many times kill his deer with the cross- 
 bow, and yet his sight was not perfect, for he was pur- 
 blind."' 
 
 The elder Cranmer was not, however, long to 
 direct his son's training in outdoor sports or mental 
 exercises. He died in the prime of life on 27 May, 
 1501, when his eldest son was fourteen, his second 
 twelve, and his third ten years of age. He was 
 buried in the church of St. John of Beverley at 
 Whatton, at the east end of the north aisle, and a 
 simple inscription on a plain slab of alabaster re- 
 corded the fact of his death.' His will was proved 
 at York on the first of October following. * It was, 
 like everything else we know of its author, entirely 
 commonplace ; and such bequests as he made to the 
 Church were for the benefit of secular and not monas- 
 tic establishments. That was a frequent sign of the 
 decay of monastic influence ; and Cranmer's benefac- 
 tions did not amount to much. Ten shillings were 
 
 * Morice, pp. 239-40. 
 
 ^ Ashmole MS.%1\^ p. 155. 
 
 ■ Testamenta £ doracensia {Smtees Soc), iv., 194. 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 1 1 
 
 left to Whatton to buy a new bell, and six shillings and 
 eightpence went towards the maintenance of the Holy 
 Trinity Chapel at Aslacton. * The paucity of these 
 ecclesiastical bequests is a little surprising in view of 
 the apparently clerical character of the elder Cran- 
 mer's friends. The overseer of his will was the Abbot 
 of Welbeck, and among the witnesses to it were 
 Thomas Wilkinson, vicar of Whatton, who became 
 Abbot of Welbeck two years later, and Edward 
 Collinson, a Canon of the same Premonstratensian 
 Abbey. That Abbey was rector ' of Whatton, and, 
 considering the closeness of the relations between 
 Cranmer and the Canons of Welbeck, it is somewhat 
 strange that neither of his sons should have joined 
 that religious house. The idea must almost have 
 been suggested to the future Archbishop and re- 
 jected by him or by his parents. 
 
 To the members of his family Cranmer had little 
 to leave except the lands entailed upon his eldest 
 son. Five marks each were given to his two un- 
 married daughters, and twenty shillings a year each in 
 land were left to Thomas and Edmund ; if either of 
 them died, the survivor was to have the shares of 
 both. Perhaps there was more to leave than appears 
 in the will ; for the widow, who was appointed sole 
 
 * These sums should be multiplied by twenty to bring them to 
 their modern equivalent ; the chapel at Aslacton was apparently on 
 the site of the present parish room named after Cranmer. 
 
 ' Before the Reformation monasteries and other corporate bodies 
 were often " rectors" (». ^., owners of the tithe) of parishes; on the 
 dissolution of Welbeck, the Archbishop bought the tithes of Aslacton 
 and Whatton, and transferred them to his nephew, Thomas, the head 
 of the family {cf. Massingberd, Hist, Ref, App.). 
 
12 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 
 
 executrix and residuary legatee, was able to maintain 
 two sons at Cambridge, and, it would seem, to endow 
 the future Archbishop with something above his 
 twenty shillings a year. Many years later, Cranmer 
 wrote that he was better off as a scholar at Cam- 
 bridge than he was as Archbishop,' and the ear- 
 liest reference to him in the state papers of the time 
 records that in 1528 "Master Doctor Cranmer" of 
 Aslacton had, like Joseph, corn to sell in a time of 
 scarcity.' 
 
 Meanwhile, their father's death made no change in 
 the Cranmers* plans and position. Thomas remained 
 under his severe and cruel schoolmaster for another 
 two years, and then in 1503 or 1504 he went up to 
 Cambridge, whither, some five years later, he was 
 followed by his brother Edmund. He is assumed 
 to have entered at Jesus College, of which he was 
 elected fellow a few years later. The college had 
 been founded only some six or seven years before on 
 the site of the nunnery of St. Rhadegunde, which 
 had been dissolved on account of the gross immorality 
 prevailing among the inmates.' There was little in 
 the intellectual atmosphere of Cambridge to stimu- 
 late the mental activity of even the most inquisitive 
 undergraduate. The Roman hierarchy still dis- 
 couraged the study of Greek as the language of the 
 schismatic and rival Church of the East ; it had been 
 taught more or less spasmodically for nearly a gen- 
 
 ' Works^ ii., 437. 
 
 * Z. a«</ /*., iv,, 3819. 
 
 * J. Bass Mullinger, Univ. of Cambridge, i., 320 ; A. Gray, History 
 of Jesus College t iip2, passim. 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 13 
 
 eration at Oxford, but had not penetrated to the 
 recesses of the sister university. Nor does the clas- 
 sical Latin of Virgil and Cicero, Horace and Tacitus 
 appear to have been in greater favour. The Univer- 
 sity Library at the end of the fifteenth century seems 
 to have consisted of between five and six hundred 
 volumes, and in this somewhat meagre collection 
 there was not a Greek nor a classical Latin author; 
 even patristic theology was poorly represented, and 
 the library only possessed part of the works of the 
 four great Fathers of the Latin Church, Ambrose, 
 Gregory, Jerome, and Augustine. The books were 
 almost exclusively concerned with mediaeval scho- 
 lastic philosophy, the dry bones of which had as 
 yet scarcely been stirred by the breath of the New 
 Learning. 
 
 So Cranmer's education proceeded uneventfully 
 along the dusty, well-worn paths of the trivium and 
 quadrivium. " He was nozzled," writes his contem- 
 temporary biographer,' "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 subtle questionists) 
 to his age of twenty-two years." The Archbishop 
 himself declares that his tutor was " such an one 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."' The name of this learned 
 don has not been preserved, but the fellows of Jesus 
 
 * Narratives of the Reformation^ p. 219. 
 ' Jenkyns, iii., 472. 
 
14 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 
 
 Coljege, at the time of Cranmer's entrance, were 
 aone of them men of remarkable intellect. The 
 Master was William Chubbes, * who had held that 
 post since the foundation of the college in 1497 ; he 
 was, it is true, the author of two books, but one was 
 an introduction to logic, and the other was a com- 
 mentary on Duns Scotus ; and it is not unfair to as- 
 sume that they typified a scholastic learning then in 
 the last stage of senile decay. Chubbes died in the 
 second or third year of Cranmer*s residence at Jesus, 
 and his successor was Dr. John Eccleston, of whom 
 little is known except that he became chancellor of 
 Ely Cathedral, and vice-chancellor of the University 
 of Cambridge. He presided over the college for 
 two years ; and then, after the six months* reign of 
 Thomas Alcock, who probably owed his election to 
 his relationship to Bishop John Alcock, the founder 
 of the college, the choice of the fellows fell upon 
 William Capon, who remained Master for thirty 
 years. His chief claims to distinction are the facts 
 that he was chaplain to Wolsey, by whom he was 
 selected to be Dean of his short-lived college at 
 Ipswich, and was brother of the more celebrated 
 John Capon, Bishop of Bangor and Salisbury. Of 
 the fellows scarcely one calls for notice ; Sir Thomas 
 Elyot,' the translator of Isocrates and Plutarch, the 
 friend of Ascham and More, and the author of one 
 
 * Diet. Nat. Biogr., x., 298. See also Cooper's A thence Cantet" 
 brigienses for Chubbes and the other fellows of Jesus ; a list of those 
 noticed is given in the house-lists at the end of the volume. Further 
 information is in A. Gray's History of yesus College^ 1902. 
 
 ' Diet. Nat. Biogr.^ xvii., 347, which also contains lives of Good- 
 rich and Bale. 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 15 
 
 of the earliest Latin-English dictionaries, has been 
 claimed as an alumnus of Jesus College, but on dis- 
 putable grounds. The star of the college was, how- 
 ever, in the ascendant. Besides Cranmer himself, a 
 distinguished fellow was elected in 1 5 lO in the person 
 of Thomas Goodrich, afterwards Bishop of Ely, and 
 Lord Chancellor of England; and not long after- 
 wards the college was joined by John Bale, the 
 father of English biographers. 
 
 In the wider sphere of the university light was 
 also beginning to shine. In 1497 the illustrious John 
 Fisher, afterwards Bishop of Rochester, and Cardi- 
 nal, was made confessor to Margaret Beaufort,* the 
 mother of Henry VII. He was at the time Master 
 of Michaelhouse, Cambridge ; four years later he 
 became Vice-chancellor of the university, and 1502 
 saw the first fruits of his influence over the greatest 
 benefactress of Oxford and Cambridge in the estab- 
 lishment of the Lady Margaret chairs of divinity and 
 of the Lady Margaret Preachership. The divinity 
 professor was to lecture on most days in the year, 
 and the preacher was to preach in the neglected ver- 
 nacular tongue. These endowments were followed 
 by the foundation of Christ's College in 1505, and 
 then by that of St. John's College.* In 1506, 
 probably at Fisher's suggestion, the King himself 
 and his mother visited Cambridge, and in the 
 same year the newly-awakened interest in learning 
 is indicated by the offer of a degree in divinity 
 
 * See Halsted, Life of Margaret Beaufort, 1839. 
 
 * Baker, Hist, of St. John's College, ed. Mayor ; Bass MuUinger, 
 Univ, of Cambridge. 
 
 3 
 
i6 Thomas Cranmer [,489- 
 
 to the greatest scholar of his age, Erasmus of 
 Rotterdam.* 
 
 That these public events of his undergraduate 
 career had some influence in broadening Cranmer's 
 outlook scarcely admits of doubt ; but for the pre- 
 sent he was bound by the limits of the conventional 
 studies requisite for his degree ; and it was not until 
 after he had graduated B. A. in 1510 or 151 1 that 
 he began to emancipate himself from their trammels. 
 Even then his line of inquiry was strictly prescribed, 
 for soon afterwards he was elected one of the twelve 
 fellows of Jesus College, eleven of whom were com- 
 pelled by the statutes to study theology. These 
 statutes were the work of three successive bishops 
 of Ely, Alcock, the founder of Jesus, James Stanley, 
 the step-son of Margaret Beaufort and an early friend 
 of Erasmus, and Nicholas West ; and their prohibition 
 of the study of canon law is a curious illustration of 
 the unpopularity in which its abuse had involved it. 
 Cranmer accordingly had no option but to pursue his 
 theological course, but there was ample scope for re- 
 form in its methods, and he now began to turn from 
 the mediaeval schoolmen to " Faber, Erasmus, and 
 good Latin authors," including probably the great 
 Fathers of the Latin Church. It may be no more 
 than a coincidence that in the same year (151 1), 
 Erasmus took up his residence in Cambridge as 
 Lady Margaret Lecturer in Divinity, and it would be 
 rash to assume any personal intercourse between the 
 Dutch humanist and the retiring young graduate, 
 
 * See Nichols, Letters of Erasmus^ 1901, p. 402 ; Lewis, Life of 
 Fisher^ App. viii. 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 17 
 
 twenty-one years his junior/ That Cranmer at- 
 tended Erasmus's lectures is possible ; but it is by no 
 means clear to what extent Erasmus lectured either 
 on divinity, as he was bound by the terms of his office 
 to do, or on Greek, in which he was naturally more 
 interested. Cranmer made no mark at this time as 
 a Greek scholar, and Erasmus's subsequent enco- 
 mium ' of him as " a most upright man of spotless 
 life " was evoked, not by personal friendship, but by 
 the fact that Cranmer had promised him the same 
 liberality as he had enjoyed from the Archbishop's 
 predecessor, Warham. 
 
 The tenure of his fellowship and the course of his 
 studies were soon interrupted by Cranmer's mar- 
 riage. Jesus College was situated in a somewhat re- 
 mote part of Cambridge, and apparently the nearest 
 spot at which Jesus men could foregather with mem- 
 bers of other colleges was the Dolphin Inn at the 
 Bridge Street end of All Saints' Lane, a site now 
 occupied by part of Trinity College. ' Inns had not 
 then degenerated into mere drinking-shops ; they 
 were rather hotels and clubs, and the hosts were in 
 better social estimation than the publican of to-day. 
 With the mistress of the Dolphin lived a young 
 relative named Joan, who is described as ** a gentle- 
 man's daughter."* Cranmer fell in love with her 
 
 ' The fact that Erasmus does not mention Cranmer has been ad- 
 duced to prove that the latter's university career was undistinguished 
 (Jane M. Stone, Queen Mary, p. 380) ; but the argument would be 
 fatal to many other reputations. 
 
 * Erasmus, Epis tolas ^ mcclxi. 
 
 2 Bass Mullinger, i., 612 ; Mason, Cranmer, p. 7. 
 
 *Foxe. Acts and Monuments ^ ed. Townsend, viii., 4. 
 
1 8 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 
 
 and eventually married her. She continued to reside 
 at the Dolphin, and Cranmer*s frequent resort to 
 the house gave rise to the subsequent fable that 
 he himself was an ostler at the inn. * This was one 
 of many calumnies, but in reality there was nothing 
 disgraceful about the marriage except from the point 
 of view of perverted class prejudice, which regards 
 it as more honourable to seduce than to marry 
 girls of humble rank. Cranmer was not in holy 
 orders, and it is entirely due to theological hatred 
 that his marriage was singled out for objurgation by 
 those who passed over in silence the illicit connex- 
 ions then commonly formed by churchmen from the 
 highest to the lowest degrees. 
 
 This marriage necessarily deprived Cranmer of his 
 fellowship, but he was immediately appointed *' com- 
 mon reader" in Buckingham College, a recent founda- 
 tion, now known as Magdalen College.* This post 
 he held for less than twelve months, for about a year 
 after his marriage his wife died in childbed, and 
 his old college paid Cranmer the compliment of 
 re-electing him to his fellowship. The honour was 
 the more marked because this extension of the term 
 " unmarried " to a widower was an interpretation of 
 college statutes which remained unique for centu- 
 ries.' It should dissipate any idea that Cranmer 
 had lost caste by his marriage, and it is at the same 
 time indisputable testimony to the esteem in which 
 
 * Narratives of the Reformation ^ p. 269 ; the northern rebels in 
 1536 called him a tavemkeeper. — L. and P.^ xi., 714. 
 ^ Diet. Nat. Biogr.y liii., 447. 
 ^ Pass Mullinger, i., 612 ; Le Bas, Cranmfr^ i., 2^. 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 19 
 
 his character and intellectual attainments were held 
 by those in a position to judge them. 
 
 Meanwhile, under the influence of his bereave- 
 ment, Cranmer pursued his studies with increased vig- 
 our. In 1 5 16 Erasmus speaks of the change which 
 had come over the intellectual atmosphere of Cam- 
 bridge in the last few years' ; scholasticism was grad- 
 ually giving way to the study of literature and of 
 the Bible. Cranmer threw himself into the move- 
 ment, and the publication of Erasmus's New Testa- 
 ment in 1 5 16 and of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses in 
 1 5 17 marks the approximate date at which the future 
 English reformer began a systematic examination of 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 " Then he " [says his biographer],' " 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, forasmuch as he 
 perceived that he could not judge indifferently 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 with- 
 out pen in hand, and whatsoever made either for 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 
 
 * Erasmus, Epistola^ cxlviii. * Narr, Ref,^ p. 219. 
 
20 Thomas Cranmer [1489- 
 
 of matters ever after. This kind of study he used till 
 he was made Doctor of Divinity which was about the 
 thirty-fourth of his age." 
 
 Even his bitterest enemies bore witness to Cran- 
 mer's immense industry and personal attractions. 
 " He had in his favour," writes one of them,* " a 
 dignified presence, adorned with a semblance of 
 goodness, 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, seriousness, and application," qualities 
 which earned him steady promotion in his college 
 and university. Soon after his re-election to a fel- 
 lowship he was appointed Lecturer in Divinity in 
 Jesus College; before 1520 he was ordained, and 
 in that year he was selected to be one of the uni- 
 versity preachers. He was also entrusted with the 
 task of examining candidates for degrees in divin- 
 ity, and in this capacity he endeavoured to raise 
 the standard of Biblical knowledge by requiring 
 from them some evidence of their having studied 
 the Scriptures.' Finally, in 1524, he was offered 
 by Wolsey a canonry in the newly-founded Cardi- 
 nal College at Oxford — an offer which, fortunately 
 perhaps for himself, he declined. 
 
 It is a significant fact that most of these Canons, 
 selected for their eminence in learning or character, 
 soon fell under suspicion of attachment to Lutheran 
 
 * Bishop Cranmer' s Recaniacyons ^ ed. Gairdner, p. 3. 
 
 * Foxe, viii., 5. 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 21 
 
 doctrines. As early as 1521 a number of Cambridge 
 men had begun to meet at the White Horse tavern 
 to examine and discuss the novel views put forward 
 by the Wittenberg monk. The inn became known 
 as " Germany," its frequenters as ** Germans," and if 
 Oxford's reception of the Renaissance was more 
 ready than that of Cambridge, the latter university 
 has at least the honour of having afforded an earlier 
 welcome to the Reformation. Among these Cam- 
 bridge Reformers were some of the greatest names 
 in the movement : Tyndale and Coverdale, the trans- 
 lators of the Bible; Latimer, the prophet of the 
 Reformation; and Bilney and Barnes, Crome and 
 Lambert, some of its earliest martyrs. The rapid 
 spread of the new doctrines excited alarm in high 
 orthodox circles, and the King himself descended 
 into the arena with his royal fulminations against 
 Lutheran heresies. Sir Thomas More was vexed 
 that any one should so far carry into practice the 
 principles laid down in the Utopia, where all religions 
 were tolerated, as to dissent from the orthodox 
 faith ; and soon after his appointment as High Stew- 
 ard of Cambridge in 1525 commissions were issued 
 to check these vagaries. Severer measures were 
 taken by Wolsey in 1528, and some of the Reform- 
 ers were induced to renounce their opinions. 
 
 Cranmer himself was affected by his industrious 
 examination of the Scriptures and of the new doc- 
 trines, and about 1525 he began in private to pray 
 for the abolition of papal power in England.* But 
 he avoided any open expression of his views, for he 
 
 * Worksy ii., 327; Z. and P.^ 1543. "•» 303' 
 
22 Thomas Cranmer [1439- 
 
 does not appear to have incurred any suspicion with 
 regard to his orthodoxy. Naturally of a reticent 
 and unaggressive disposition, he was the very re- 
 verse of an enthusiast ; his slowness in reading was 
 characteristic. New ideas won their way to his 
 mind with painful, hesitant steps ; and they were 
 only adopted after years of mature reflexion. His 
 caution bordered on timidity, not so much from 
 moral cowardice, as from an intellectual perception 
 of both sides to the question. He never possessed 
 the burning zeal which blinds men to all aspects of 
 truth except one, and enables them to go forward in 
 the sublime confidence that they are themselves en- 
 tirely right and their opponents entirely wrong. His 
 career was that of a conservative reformer, reluctantly 
 abandoning ground which he felt to be untenable, 
 but somewhat doubtful of the security of his next 
 foothold. 
 
 He was still, however, occupied almost solely with 
 academic work, and besides his college and univer- 
 sity duties he appears occasionally to have taken 
 charge of private pupils. At any rate, two youths 
 of the name of Cressy * were in his care in 1529; 
 
 * The exact relation between Cranmer and the Cressys is difficult 
 to trace. There was an ' ' ancient and genteel " family of that name 
 settled at Holme near Hodsack, Nottinghamshire, to which the 
 famous Benedictine, Hugh Paulinus Cressy (see Diet. Nat, Biog.^ 
 xii., 114), belonged; and later in the sixteenth century Cranmer's 
 grandnephew, Thomas, and one "William Cressy married sisters. 
 The Cressy family had held lands in Nottinghamshire since the reign 
 of Edward II., and more than one had attained to knightly rank; 
 there were branches of it in other counties (see Cal. Inquisitionum 
 post mortem^ iv., 125, 224, 262, 272, 431, 462 ; Cal. of Ancient Deeds^ 
 i-» 403* ii'f 520, and iii.^ passim/ Clutterbuck's Hertfordshire ^ i., 407 
 
1529] Parentage, Birth, Early Years 23 
 
 their mother was in some way related to Cranmer, 
 and their father owned a house at Waltham in 
 Essex. Here in the summer Cranmer took refuge 
 with his two pupils when that terror of the sixteenth 
 century, the plague, made Cambridge an undesirable 
 habitation ; and here occurred the incident which 
 changed the whole course of Cranmer's life and 
 helped to alter the course of English history. 
 
 and other references in Marshall's Genealogist's Guide). The Cressy 
 here referred to was possibly Robert Cressy, a notary sometimes 
 employed by Wolsey (see Z. and P., i,, 4332, ii., 3925, iv., 6); 
 but the only Cressy connected with Waltham appears to be the 
 John Cressy who, with Joan his wife, was buried in Waltham Church. 
 Fuller says that the name had died out in Waltham before his day 
 {circa 1650.) None of the inquisitions in the Record Office throw 
 Any light on the matter. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 CRANMER AND THE DIVORCE OF CATHERINE OF 
 
 ARAGON 
 
 OF all the incidents affecting Cranmer's life the 
 most important is the divorce of Catherine of 
 Aragon.* That divorce and its ramifications were 
 the web into which the threads of Cranmer's life were 
 woven. Through it he first attracted the notice of 
 Henry VIII. ; to his services in that cause he owed 
 his elevation to the See of Canterbury, the part 
 he played in the history of the English Reformation, 
 and, finally, his martyrdom. It therefore becomes 
 
 ' It is impossible to avoid the use of the term " divorce" in spite 
 of its obvious inaccuracy. From neither of the two conflicting points 
 of view was there any divorce at all. The Anglican view was that 
 Henry VIII. and Catherine had never been legally married, and the 
 so-called divorce was really a declaration of nullity. Roman Cath- 
 olics, on the other hand, declared that they were legally married and 
 as the Pope gave sentence to that effect, there was no legal " divorce." 
 Hence Harpsfield's treatise on the subject is entitled " The Pretended 
 Divorce." Nor, indeed, does the canon law recognise such a thing as 
 divorce at all ; there may be separation a tnensa et toro, but that 
 does not destroy the marriage-bond at all ; or there may be a declara- 
 tion that a marriage has been null and void from the beginning. 
 These declarations were common in the early sixteenth century, the 
 complexities of the canon law affording considerable facilities for 
 obtaining them. 
 
 24 
 
[1529-1533] Divorce of Catherine 25 
 
 imperative to indicate as briefly as may be the origin 
 of that episode and its influence on the Reformation 
 in which Cranmer Hved and moved and had his being. 
 Without some such introduction it is impossible 
 to weigh Cranmer's character in the balance, or to 
 estimate the effect of his career on English history. 
 
 Important, however, though the divorce was as the 
 occasion of the Reformation, no theory could be 
 more shallow than that which seeks to represent 
 Henry's desire to put away an unattractive wife as its 
 one and only cause. Before the faintest whisper of 
 any such project as the divorce could have reached 
 him, an Imperial officer, writing from Rome to Charles 
 V. on 8 June, 1527, alluded to the possibility of the 
 King of England's turning the English Church into 
 a separate patriarchate and denying obedience to the 
 Papal See.* He thought such a development probable, 
 if the Imperialists who had just sacked Rome retained 
 the Pope in their custody; and, indeed, nothing 
 could be more natural than that England should 
 repudiate a spiritual jurisdiction which moved at the 
 will of a secular foe. The papal claims were tolerable 
 only so long as the mediaeval ideal of the unity of the 
 civilised world under one spiritual and one temporal 
 head remained intact ; but they could not survive the 
 growth of the spirit of nationality and the effect of 
 the impression that papal powers could be made to 
 serve particular interests. This abuse first attained 
 flagrant proportions when Charles VIII. crossed the 
 Alps in 1494 and made Italy the cockpit of Europe. 
 The Vicar of Christ might have looked on with 
 
 * L» and P.^ vol. iv., Pref., p. clxx- 
 
26 Thomas Cranmer [1520- 
 
 comparative unconcern, had he been content with 
 spiritual pre-eminence ; but his efforts to grasp the 
 shadow of temporal power involved him in the fray, 
 and forced him to side now with one and now with 
 another secular prince in order to extend the bounds 
 of his petty Italian domains. In this struggle his 
 lack of material resources compelled resort to spir- 
 itual arms ; and the weapons, wielded of yore in the 
 cause of the faith, became pawns in a game which 
 was played with Italian acres for stakes. Temporal 
 princes were branded as " sons of perdition and child- 
 ren of iniquity," not because their morals were bad or 
 their creeds unsound, but because they stood in the 
 way of papal greed. The Catholic Emperor, Charles 
 v., told Clement VII. that the sack of Rome was the 
 just judgment of God * ; and one of his envoys pro- 
 posed that the Pope should forfeit his fiefs as the 
 root of all the evil." The Pope's spiritual influence 
 contracted as his worldly possessions expanded ; and 
 his estimation and credit have never increased so 
 fast as in the generation which followed the loss of 
 his temporal power. 
 
 England, however, was not particularly moved by 
 papal subservience to secular interests so long as it 
 was merely a question of the increase or decrease of 
 the extent of the Papal States, or even of the rela- 
 tive preponderance of French and Spanish influence 
 in Italy. But as soon as a matter of decisive import- 
 ance to England arose, she discovered a striking 
 grievance. Spain and France might put up with 
 
 * Calendar of Spanish State Papers^ 1527-29, p. 309. 
 ^ Ibid,, pp. 209-210. 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 27 
 
 the prostitution of papal prerogatives in the interests 
 of temporal princes, because the kings of Spain and 
 of France were precisely those who benefited by the 
 process. If the Pope was a Spaniard to-day, he 
 might be a Frenchman to-morrow ; but it was safe 
 to say that in no case would the Pope be English. 
 Even Wolsey and Pole were unable to break down 
 the hostile barrier. It was, indeed, admitted that 
 there should as a rule be one English Cardinal, but 
 what was one in a body of forty ? and it is little won- 
 der that the nation repudiated the jurisdiction of 
 a court in which its influence was measured on such 
 a contemptible scale. 
 
 Such were the conditions that were first brought 
 home to Englishmen's minds by the question of the 
 divorce of Catherine of Aragon. That question was 
 not the cause, but only the occasion of the per- 
 manent breach with Rome. Had it been the only 
 ground of difference there would have been no ob- 
 stacle to reconciliation after the death of Catherine 
 of Aragon and Anne Boleyn in 1536. Henry VIII. 
 had no love for heresy ; he had been brought up in 
 strict adherence to the Catholic faith, and for nearly 
 twenty years he had distinguished himself by his de- 
 fence of the Papal See. He had launched into war 
 against Louis XII. because that king attacked the 
 Pope's temporal States ; he had written a book to 
 confute Luther's denial of papal prerogatives ; and 
 papal blessings had followed him all his life.* The 
 
 * Sir Thomas More in 1521 urged Henry not to maintain so strongly 
 in his book that the primacy of the Pope was of divine institution. 
 More then doubted that dogma, but later on was converted to it 
 
28 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 importance of the divorce lies in the fact that it 
 changed this friendship into enmity, and alienated 
 the only power which might have kept in check the 
 anti-papal and anti-sacerdotal tendencies then grow- 
 ing up in England. 
 
 But great as Henry's power was, its exercise was 
 attended by such potent effects only because it 
 decided a balance of other forces : ^lone it would 
 have been powerless against the Pope and the 
 priests. No ruler can effect anything except by 
 utilising forces which exist independently of his own 
 individual will, and it is idle to deny that such anti- 
 ecclesiastical forces existed in the reign of Henry 
 Vni. In 1 5 12, when Englishmen wished to insult 
 the Scots, they called them " Pope's men," * and at 
 the same time the people of London were said to be 
 so hostile to the Church that any jury would con- 
 demn a cleric though he were as innocent as Abel. ' 
 In 15 1 5 petitions were presented to Parliament 
 against clerical exactions, and they gave rise to 
 stormy debates ' ; prelates wrote in alarm of a party 
 which was bent on the subversion of the Church, 
 and bitterly complained that that party found favour 
 at Court.* Wolsey sought to save his order by urg- 
 ing the speedy dissolution of Parliament ^ and by re- 
 fusing, with one exception ', to call another for the 
 remaining fourteen years of his rule. Henry VIII. 
 
 while Henry's mind moved in the opposite direction. (More, Eng- 
 lish Works, p. 1424 ; L. and P., vii., 289.) 
 
 * L. and P., I., ii., 3320. 2 ji,i(i,^ II., i., 2. 
 
 ^Ibid., II., i., 1312, 1315. -Cf. I., ii., 5725. 
 
 *Ibid., II.. ii., 4074, 4083. ^ Ibid., II., i., 1223. *Viz., in 1523. 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 29 
 
 knew perfectly well that if he chose to quarrel with 
 Rome he would find abundant lay support. 
 
 >While his divorce was not the sole cause of the 
 breach with Rome, it is equally clear that Henry's 
 passion for Anne Boleyn was not the sole cause for 
 the divorce or the origin of the doubts respecting the 
 legality of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, 
 When Julius II. was first asked in 1503 to grant a 
 dispensation for Henry's marriage with his brother 
 Arthur's widow, the Pope replied ' that it was a great 
 matter, and that he did not know whether it were 
 competent for him to grant a dispensation in such a 
 case./ His dispensing power had, indeed, been denied 
 by a General Council, and it was by no means uni- 
 versally admitted that the Pope was superior to 
 General Councils. There was no doubt that such a 
 marriage was canonically forbidden as sin ; Cather- 
 ine's father, Ferdinand of Aragon, felt it necessary to 
 remove scruples which Henry might entertain on the 
 subject' ; her confessor was deprived of his post for 
 venturing to suggest doubts in her mind, ' and Arch- 
 bishop Warham held similar views.* These objec- 
 tions were overridden by Henry's faith in the Pope 
 and desire for Catherine's dower. The marriage was 
 consummated, and in all probability nothing more 
 would have been heard of its doubtful validity but 
 for the extraordinary fatality which attended its is- 
 sue. Four children came to the pair before the 
 
 * Adrian de Castello to Henry VII. in Pocock's Records of the 
 Reformation^ i., i ; Z. and P.^ iv., 3773. 
 
 ' Cal. Spanish State Papers, ii., 8. 
 
 * Ibid, Preface, pp. xiii., etc. * L, and P.^ iv., 2579. 
 
30 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 autumn of 15 14 ; but every one was still-born or died 
 soon after birth, and in that year it was reported 
 in Rome that the lack of heirs was leading Henry to 
 contemplate the divorce of his Spanish wife/ His 
 relations with Spain were strained at the time ; but 
 presently they mended, and the birth of the Princess 
 Mary in 1 516 revived the King's hopes of a son and 
 successor. They were doomed to disappointment ; 
 Catherine had more miscarriages and still-born child- 
 ren, but not one that survived, and by 1525 it was 
 perfectly certain that if Henry remained married to 
 Catherine he must relinquish all hopes of a male 
 heir to the throne. 
 
 It is difficult to realise what that meant to Eng- 
 lishmen of the early part of the sixteenth century, 
 for three glorious reigns have long ago banished any 
 prejudices that may have been entertained against 
 female sovereigns. But in 1531 a well-informed for- 
 eign ambassador could solemnly declare to his govern- 
 
 • Calendar of Venetian State Papers ^ 1509-19, p. 479 ; this inter- 
 esting and important fact was only revealed by the publication of the 
 Venetian State papers in 1866. Before that date, the earliest sug- 
 gestion of the divorce was believed to have been made by Henry's 
 confessor, Longland, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln. The anonymous 
 authorof the " Life and Death of Cranmer, "(iVa^. Ref., p. 219) states 
 that Henry was persuaded of the invalidity of his marriage by Long- 
 land, and his assertion is supported by a letter written in 1532, in 
 which the date of Longland's suggestion is assigned to 1522, or 
 1523 (Z. and P., v., 1114). So, too, in 1536 the northern rebels 
 thought that Longland was the beginning of all the trouble {ibid., 
 xi., 705) and compare Shakespeare, Henry VIII., Act II., sc. iv., 
 where Henry says : ** First I began in private with you, my Lord 
 of Lincoln." Other persons credited with the original proposal are 
 the Bishop of Tarbes, Wolsey, and Stafileo, Dean of the Rota. 
 
Copyright Photo., Walker & Cockerell. 
 QUEEN CATHERINE OF ARAQON. 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 31 
 
 ment that the laws of England did not permit a 
 woman to mount the English throne.* There was, 
 of course, no such law ; nevertheless, that seemed 
 to be the theory on which the succession had been 
 regulated. The Empress Matilda, the only woman 
 who had tried to grasp the English sceptre, had been 
 driven from the land after a bloody civil war. John 
 of Gaunt had maintained in Parliament that the 
 crown descended only through males, and the Lan- 
 castrian kings had in practice made good the claim 
 that Henry IV., the son of Edward III.'s younger 
 son, had a better title than Philippa, the daughter 
 of an elder. In 1485 Margaret Beaufort was the 
 Lancastrian heir to the throne, yet she was passed 
 over in favour of her son Henry VII., who had no 
 jot of hereditary right which he did not derive from 
 her. Why should the Princess Mary's title be any 
 better than that of Margaret Beaufort ? and if the 
 attempt of one Queen to mount the throne had kin- 
 died the flames of civil strife, would not the attempt 
 of another fan the barely extinguished embers of the 
 Wars of the Roses? Other fears reinforced this 
 theory of the succession. Englishmen throughout 
 the century had a dread of being brought by mar- 
 riage under a foreign yoke ; by that means Brittany 
 had lost its independence, the Netherlands had been 
 fettered to Spain, and Bohemia and Hungary to 
 Austria. If a Queen ascended the throne she ran 
 the risk either of rousing internal strife by marry- 
 ing a subject, or of promoting external dominion by 
 giving herself and her realm to an alien prince. 
 
 * Col. Venetian State Papers^ 1527-33, p. 3CX), 
 
32 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 The divorce of Catherine of Aragon was only one 
 of the mearis suggested for avoiding the difficulty. 
 Campeggio, who came to try the case in England, at 
 one time entertained the idea that the Princess Mary 
 might be married to her half-brother, the Duke of 
 Richmond, Henry VIII. 's illegitimate son.* He ap- 
 peared to see nothing unnatural in such a union, nor 
 did he anticipate that the Pope would make any 
 difficulty about granting the dispensation. Clement 
 VII. himself proposed more than once that Henry 
 should take a second wife without troubling about 
 the divorce of his first' ; and, indeed, there were pre- 
 cedents for such a course not merely in Scripture, 
 but in more recent times. It was not so very long 
 since a pope had allowed a king of Castile to take a 
 sepond wife on account of the sterility of his first, 
 under the condition that, if he had no children by 
 the second within a specified time, he should return 
 again to the first.' After all, it was not the Refor- 
 mation which first introduced curiosities into the law 
 of marriage. 
 
 The expedient, however, which found most favour 
 with Henry VIII. and his advisers was that of setting 
 up the claim of the Duke of Richmond. The pat- 
 ent of his creation in 1525 gave him, much to Queen 
 Catherine's disgust, precedence over the Princess 
 Mary ; he was endowed with titles and offices which 
 
 * Z. and P.^ iv., 4881 ; it was claimed that the Pope could legalise 
 marriages between brothers and sisters of the full blood {ibid.y v. , 468), 
 and of course popes have often permitted marriages between aunts 
 and nephews, uncles and nieces {cf. Canon Mason, Cranmer, p. 10). 
 
 ^ L. and P.^ iv., 6627. 
 
 ' Cal. of Spanish State Paper s^ ii., 379, 
 
QUEEN ANNE BOLEYN. 
 
 AFTER THE PICTURE BY LuCAS CORNELEY, NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF THE EARL OF ROMNEY. 
 
 BY PERMISSION OF THE EARL OF ROMNEY. 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 33 
 
 legitimate children of Henry VII. had enjoyed, and 
 in 1527 the Spanish ambassador reported a scheme 
 for making him King of Ireland.* In various nego- 
 tiations for his marriage it was broadly hinted that 
 he might safely be regarded as the heir presumptive 
 of England," and Charles V. believed that the be- 
 trothal of Mary to a French prince in 1527 was mainly 
 designed to remove her from England and from the 
 Duke of Richmond's path to the throne.' Some 
 years later it was thought that the provision in the 
 Act of Succession empowering Henry to leave the 
 crown by will was intended to facilitate its devolu- 
 tion upon the Duke ; andHbefore expressing disgust 
 at so violent an expedient, it is well to remember 
 that a century and a half later a considerable party 
 in England preferred the claim of an illegitimate but 
 Protestant son of a king to that of his legitimate but 
 Catholic brother.* 
 
 This solution of the difficulty had, however, two 
 defects in Henry's eyes. It did not satisfy his con- 
 science in the matter of his marriage with Cather- 
 ine, and it brought him no nearer a union with Anne 
 Boleyn. Now, there is no need to assume that 
 Henry's scruples were entirely fictitious. He is not 
 the only figure in history who has possessed the 
 useful faculty of really convincing his conscience 
 that what is personally desirable and politically ex- 
 pedient must therefore be morally right. He was, 
 
 ' Cal. of Spanish State Papers ^ III., ii., 109, 
 ' L. and P., iv., 3051. 
 » Cal. Spanish State Papers, III., ii., 482. 
 * J^amely, MoniQouth and James II, 
 
34 Thomas Cranmer (1529- 
 
 moreover, in some respects a superstitious man, and 
 he could hardly fail to be impressed by the unique 
 coincidence of which he was the victim. Never be- 
 fore had there been such a mortality among the chil- 
 dren of an English king; never before had an Eng- 
 lish king married his brother's widow. In that theo- 
 logical age men less superstitious than Henry might 
 easily have seen some connexion between these cir- 
 cumstances and the Scriptural prohibition against 
 marriages such as his* ; and it is one of the ironies of 
 history that writers who maintain most sincerely that 
 Henry's marriage was null in the sight of God and 
 man have sometimes been his severest judges for 
 having dissolved it. The basis of such a position 
 lies, of course, in equitable considerations. Quod 
 fieri non debuit factum valet was the common-sense 
 view of the Lutheran divines on the point, and no 
 court of equity would have granted a divorce, for its 
 injustice to Catherine was flagrant and unredeemed. 
 But, unfortunately, CatHerine's case, like all great po- 
 litical issues, was judged, not by equity, but by law 
 and expedience. The political advantages of a di- 
 vorce were patent, and if the Pope's dispensing power 
 was denied, it was also clear that the marriage was 
 null in point of law. 
 
 At first Henry VHI. was by no means inclined to 
 deny the papal dispensing power. He was, on the 
 contrary, relying on it to remove an impediment to 
 his marriage with Anne Boleyn arising from his illicit 
 
 * The French Ambassador, Du Bellay, afterwards a Cardinal, de- 
 clared that ' ' God had long ago passed sentence upon the marriage " 
 (Z. andF., iv., 4899; Du Bellay to Montmorency, Nov. ist, 1528), 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 35 
 
 relations with her sister Mary.* He experienced no 
 difficulty in obtaining a dispensation to that effect, 
 and he had some grounds for expecting an equally 
 favourable reply to his demand for a divorce. Within 
 his own family circle he saw ample precedents for 
 such a course. His younger sister, Mary Tudor, 
 had been twice married, first to Louis XH. of France, 
 and secondly to the Duke of Suffolk; both hus- 
 bands obtained divorces from previous wives with- 
 out the least difficulty. Louis's first wife had been 
 sent to a nunnery solely because he wanted to marry 
 the Duchess of Brittany and offered the Pope his 
 support in return for the boon. The Duke of Suf- 
 folk's case was still more to the point, for he ob- 
 tained a divorce on the identical ground on which his 
 brother-in-law was seeking one, namely, the invalid- 
 ity of a previous dispensation.' Then, too, at the 
 same moment that Henry's envoys were pressing his 
 divorce, representatives of his sister Margaret, Queen 
 of Scotland, were urging the Pope to annul her mar- 
 riage with Angus for reasons much more flimsy than 
 those which Henry VHL put forward.' Yet her de- 
 mand was granted without much trouble, and surely, 
 Henry might think, a powerful king like himself was 
 
 ' These relations were long believed in England {cf, Le Bas, Lift 
 of Cranmer, i,, i8) to be a Roman Catholic libel similar to the as- 
 sertion that Henry VIII. was father of Anne Boleyn. The latter, 
 indeed, is a fiction, but there is no doubt about the relations be- 
 tween Henry VIII. and Mary Boleyn. See Stephan Ehses, Rom- 
 ische Dokumente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung Heinrich VIII. 
 von England, 1^27-1^34, 1893, and English Historical Review, 
 vols. xi. and xii. 
 
 * L. and P., iv., '5859. * Ibid,, iv., 4130, 4131. 
 
36 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 entitled to as much consideration as his sister and 
 brothers-in-law. 
 
 His petition then did not seem altogether unrea- 
 sonable, nor did Clement VII. treat it as such ; but the 
 Pope was still in the grip of the Imperialists who had 
 pillaged his capital and kept him in ignominious con- 
 finen^ent in the castle of S. Angelo. He could hardly 
 be expected to court ruin by divorcing his gaoler's 
 aunt; but if the French, now in alliance with Henry, 
 would only advance and deliver him from the hands 
 of his enemies, he would see what he could do.' 
 Meanwhile he endeavoured to gain time by granting 
 commissions which turned out to be worthless. They 
 succeeded, however, in their object, for in 1528 the 
 French commander, Lautrec, marched down through 
 Italy, captured Melfi, and shut up the Spaniards in 
 Naples. Spanish dominion in Italy seemed doomed 
 to perish. Clement felt himself something more 
 than the Emperor's chaplain, and an ample commis- 
 sion was granted to Wolsey and Campeggio to try 
 the case." Even if one were unwilling, the other 
 might proceed and pronounce sentence by himself, 
 and all appeals from the jurisdiction of the legatine 
 court were forbidden. The Pope also gave a written 
 promise that he would not revoke nor do anything 
 to invalidate the commission, but would confirm the 
 Cardinals* sentence.^ This was tantamount to a ver- 
 dict in Henry's favour, and he might well think that 
 his case was won. 
 
 But no sooner had Campeggio started than the 
 
 * Z. and p., iv., 3682. 2 /^/^,^ iv., 4345. 
 
 * £.ng. Hisk Rev.^ xii.,7 ; Ehses, Romische Dokumenie^ No. 23. 
 
Copyright, Anderson. Rome. 
 POPE CLEMENT VII. 
 
 AFTER FRA SEBASTIANO DEL PIOMBO, MUZFO NAZIGNALE, NAPLES. 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 37 
 
 fortune of war was reversed. The French were de- 
 feated, and the Pope's secretary wrote off in hot haste 
 to Campeggio that as the Emperor was victorious 
 the Cardinal must not on any pretext pronounce a 
 decision without a fresh commission from Rome. 
 He must protract the matter as long as possible, for, 
 in view of Charles's predominance, the granting of 
 Henry's divorce would mean the utter ruin of the 
 Church **as it is entirely within the power of the 
 Emperor's servants." * Clement himself assured 
 Charles that nothing would be done to the prejudice 
 of his aunt. Campeggio's proceedings in England 
 were therefore merely a farce intended to divert 
 the English until the final event of the war in Italy 
 should make up Clement's mind. On 21 June, 1529, 
 hostilities were brought to an end by the crushing 
 defeat of Landriano. The Pope, with an intelligent 
 anticipation of coming events, had declared a few 
 days before that he meant to become an Imperialist 
 and to Hve and die as such,' and early in July he 
 concluded a family compact with Charles at Barce- 
 lona.' Clement's nephew was to marry Charles's ille- 
 gitimate daughter ; the tyranny of his family was to 
 be reimposed on Florence, and all towns wrested from 
 the Papal States were to be restored. The Pope in 
 return was to quash the proceedings against Cather- 
 ine of Aragon. Campeggio was informed before- 
 hand of the Pope's intentions ; the case, had, however, 
 made considerable progress, and on 23 July Henry, 
 ignorant of the understanding between Clement and 
 
 ^ Z. and p., iv., 4721, 4736-37. 
 
 2 Spanish Cal., IV., i., 72. * Ibid., II7. 
 
38 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 Charles, expected Campeggio to pronounce his sen- 
 tence. The court was crowded, Campeggio stood 
 up and began to speak, but instead of delivering 
 judgment he adjourned the case/ *' By the Mass," 
 burst out Suffolk, giving the table a great blow with 
 his hand, " now I see that the old saw is true, that 
 there was never a legate or cardinal that did good in 
 England!" 
 
 The effect of this blow on a man of Henry's chol- 
 eric temper and boundless self-will may well be im- 
 agined, but with all his passionate egotism the King 
 combined a notable power of self-control. No furi- 
 ous outburst on his part seems to have followed the 
 legate's decision, and friends of the Queen vainly 
 flattered themselves that the affair would blow over. 
 But early in August the King made arrangements 
 for summoning Parliament," and then started on a 
 progress in the country. On the 4th he was at 
 Waltham, on the 6th he was hunting all day at 
 Hunsdon. Thence he moved to Tyttenhanger, and 
 three days later returned to Waltham ; he was ac- 
 companied by Dr. Edward Fox, his almoner, and by 
 Stephen Gardiner, his secretary. The harbingers 
 quartered Fox and Gardiner in Cressy's house, 
 
 * His procedure is said to have been quite normal, because he only 
 claimed the holidays usually taken by the Rota ; but this was little 
 more than a pretext. At any rate, when Charles V. was pressing for 
 a decision in Catherine's favour in the following year, his ambassador 
 declared that it was usual for cases of such importance to be carried 
 on in spite of the holidays. Z. and P.^ iv., 6452. 
 
 * The writs were actually dated 9 Aug. , but the determination to 
 summon Parliament must have been reached before Henry left 
 London ; it was his reply to Clement's revocation of the divorce case. 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 39 
 
 where Cranitier was staying with Cressy*s sons. Both 
 were old acquaintances of Cranmer's, for Fox was 
 educated at King's College, of which he was now 
 Provost, and Gardiner was Master of Trinity Hall. 
 Nor was this the first occasion on which Cranmer 
 had been in the precincts of the Court. Nearly 
 a year before, he had been sent to London by 
 the Master of Jesus, apparently to negotiate some 
 business with regard to the property held by the 
 college in Southwark, and he returned, bringing let- 
 ters from Cromwell, even then well known as Wol- 
 sey's factotum.* 
 
 Naturally the three friends, meeting at dinner in 
 Cressy's house, fell to discussing the great question 
 of the divorce. Cranmer was asked his opinion ; he 
 professed that he had not studied the matter, but 
 being a theologian and not a lawyer (the statutes of 
 his college forbade the study of canon law), he had 
 little patience with the law's delays, and suggested 
 the more speedy method of taking the question out 
 of the hands of the lawyers and submitting it to the 
 divines of the universities.' No one to-day would 
 think of appealing to such an arbitrament, but, as 
 Ranke says, *' we must recollect that the universities 
 were then regarded not only as establishments for 
 education, but as supreme tribunals for the decision 
 of scientific questions " ' ; and when the Elector 
 Frederick of Saxony founded Wittenberg in 1502 he 
 declared that he and all the neighbourhood would 
 
 * Z. and P,^ iv., 4872. 
 
 ' Morice in Narratives of the Reformation, p. 241. 
 
 ' Hist, of the Reformation, trs. by Austin, i., 314. 
 
40 Thomas Cranmer [152^ 
 
 resort to it " as to an oracle." To these oracles Cran- 
 mer now proposed an appeal. They were indeed 
 the only tribunals apart from the Papacy to whose 
 verdict any respect would be paid. The Popes of 
 a previous generation had practically destroyed the 
 authority of General Councils, and the Papacy was 
 now the handmaid of Charles V. The anarchy in 
 Christendom inevitably encouraged separatist ten- 
 dencies, but it would at least give an appearance of 
 moral justification to individual action on the part of 
 the English Church if the universities of Europe 
 approved of the grounds on which it acted. 
 
 So Fox and Gardiner eagerly welcomed Cranmer *s 
 suggestion,* and a day or two later, after the Court 
 had removed from Waltham, they mentioned the 
 matter to Henry. The King was no less pleased 
 with the idea. He thereupon, says Morice, " com- 
 manded them to send for Dr. Cranmer. And so by 
 and by being sent for, he came to the King*s pres- 
 ence at Greenwich.'* If Morice is correct as to the 
 place, Henry certainly acted with no undue precipi- 
 tation, for he did not return to Greenwich until 
 November,' when the meeting of Parliament ren- 
 
 ' According to a more doubtful version of Cranmer's advice, he 
 declared tliat " if the King 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 government of this land in all causes whatsoever " ; 
 whereupon "The King swore, by his wonted oath. Mother of God, 
 that man hath the right sow by the ear " (Bailey, Life of Fisher^ pp. 
 89-go; cf. Foxe, viii., 8). There is an ex post facto flavour about 
 this story and it rests on no contemporary authority. 
 
 ' See the itinerary of Henry VIII. in L. and /•., iv,, 5965, and other 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 41 
 
 dered his presence in London necessary. He had 
 other matters to occupy him, and the interval saw 
 the fall of Wolsey and the preparation of those 
 parliamentary measures which began the subjection 
 of the Church in England to the royal supremacy 
 and its consequent separation from Rome. "And," 
 continues Morice, ** after some special communication 
 with the said Dr. Cranmer, the King retained him to 
 write his mind in that his cause of divorcement, and 
 committed him unto the Earl of Wiltshire, Queen 
 Anne's father, to be entertained of him at Durham 
 Place, where the Earl did lie, until he had penned 
 his mind and opinion concerning the said cause." 
 
 With this task Cranmer was busy during December 
 and January, and he is no doubt the " wonderfully 
 virtuous and wise man," by whose counsels the King 
 then described himself as being encouraged. Other 
 steps were promptly taken to carry out his advice, 
 and in November Dr. Richard Croke, the great 
 Greek scholar, was sent to Italy to ransack libraries 
 tor writings which would tell in Henry's favour, and 
 to secure the adhesion of noted doctors in the uni- 
 versities. As soon as Cranmer's book was completed, 
 it was circulated, apparently in manuscript, among 
 the leading dons of Cambridge, and he was himself 
 sent down to reinforce by word of mouth the argu- 
 
 references to his progress during August-November. It is interesting 
 to compare Foxe's account (Acts and Monuments ^ viii., 7) with his 
 authority {Narr. Re/., p. 242). Thus, Morice's "by and by" 
 becomes, in Foxe " the next day, when the King removed to 
 Greenwich," although in reality there intervened a month's residence 
 at Windsor. 
 
42 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 ments of his pen.* Both methods met with success; 
 in one day he is said to have converted six or seven 
 learned men who had hitherto been opposed to the 
 divorce ; and when, in February, Gardiner and Fox 
 were urging the nomination of a committee of uni- 
 versity scholars to determine the question, objection 
 was raised to many of their nominees on the ground 
 that they had already expressed approval of Cran- 
 mer's book.' 
 
 It does not appear that Cranmer had any part or 
 lot in the manoeuvres of the King's agents to obtain 
 a favourable vote in Senate-house at Cambridge. He 
 had been selected to accompany the Earl of Wiltshire,' 
 Stokesley, afterwards Bishop of London, and Lee, 
 afterwards Archbishop of York, on their embassy to 
 the Pope and to the Emperor ; and, though the 
 ambassadors did not start, as has often been 
 
 ' I find no mention of the book having been printed ; Strype sug- 
 gests that the treatise on the divorce in Cotton MS. Vespasian B. v. , 
 (Brit. Mus.), which is signed by Cranmer, is his original work (see 
 Burnet, Ref., ed. Pocock, i., i66 ; iv., 146-7 ; vii., 239). Pocock 
 agrees with Strype, but the signature, Thomas Cantuariensis ^ could 
 not have been written before 1533. 
 
 ' L. and P. , iv. , 6247. 
 
 ^ There is no evidence that Cranmer was ever chaplain to Anne 
 Boleyn or her father ; or that he was acquainted with the family 
 before Henry VIII. quartered him on the Earl at Durham Place. 
 Dr. Gairdner, who makes the assertion in his edition of Brewer (ii., 
 223), does not repeat it in his life of Cranmer in the Diet. Nat. 
 Biog. (1888), though he does, without citing any authority, in 
 his History of the English Church (1902), p. 137 ; he has himself 
 pointed out Brewer's error in supposing that Cranmer was the Earl's 
 chaplain who was employed in the divorce question in 1527-28 (cf. 
 Z. and P.^ iv., 3638); the chaplain in question was John Barlow, 
 possibly brother of the Bishop of St. Davids. 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 43 
 
 asserted,' in December, they left England late in 
 January or early in February, 1530, before the matter 
 came to a decision in the University. Soon after 
 their departure the verdicts of Cambridge and Oxford 
 in Henry's favour were sent after them to be laid 
 before the Pope in the hope that some impression 
 might be made upon his mind. The envoys utilised 
 their presence in France to urge the French King 
 to obtain similar decisions from the Sorbonne and 
 other learned bodies in his dominions. Eventually, 
 Paris and Orleans, Angers, Bourges, and Toulouse 
 adopted Henry's view against the papal power to 
 dispense; these votes were not obtained without 
 some manipulation, but to represent them all as due to 
 bribery is to accuse the pre-Reformation universities 
 of a degree of corruption which the most zealous 
 Protestant would scarcely believe to be possible. 
 The truth is that the power of the Pope to dispense 
 in such cases was, as Julius II. admitted, really a 
 matter of doubt; and while individuals may have 
 been bribed by Henry's agents on the one hand or 
 by Charles's on the other, there is no more reason to 
 question the honesty of the mass of the opinions 
 given in Henry's favour than of those given against 
 him. 
 
 Meanwhile the ambassadors proceeded by slow 
 stages through France — it was beneath their dignity 
 to travel " in post," — and they were too late to witnf^Qs 
 
 ^ E. g., by Canon Mason, Cranmer, p. 16 ; nor was Cranmer, as 
 his biographers have often assumed, formally accredited as one of the 
 ambassadors ; he was only attached to the embassy with special 
 reference to the university business 
 
44 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 the occasion on which for the last time in history 
 a Holy Roman Emperor received his crown from 
 the hands of a Pope. That ceremony took place 
 at Bologna on 24 February, but it was the middle of 
 March before Cranmer and his colleagues reached the 
 city.* The Emperor was still there negotiating with 
 Clement, and, appalled by the din of the Imperial 
 arms, the Pope had no ears for requests from a distant 
 king. Even when Charles was gone, his power re- 
 mained : and though Clement repeatedly declared 
 that he wished Henry would marry Anne Boleyn 
 without further ado, and so relieve him of the 
 responsibility for what might happen,' he would take 
 no step which might expose him to the Emperor's 
 wrath. So Wiltshire and Lee returned in the early 
 summer to France, while Stokesley was left at 
 Bologna to deal with the university there, and 
 Cranmer joined Croke with a similar object at Venice. 
 In view of the fact that the Emperor and the Pope 
 had just rearranged the political map of Italy after 
 their fancy, and that Clement had drawn up a bull 
 prohibiting all doctors, notaries, and others, from 
 maintaining the invalidity of Henry's marriage," it 
 is surprising that the English agents should have 
 met with any success. Yet Ferrara, Bologna, and 
 Padua determined in their favour, and in June Cran- 
 mer is said to have offered to debate the question 
 with any doctor in Rome. Thence he wrote on 12 
 
 ' Canon Mason thinks that they witnessed this ceremony, but on 
 12 March, Casale writes from Bologna, " The English ambassadors 
 will be here to-morrow or the next day." — Z. and P., iv., 6268, 
 
 "^ Ibid,, iv., 6290 ; Le Grand, Ilist, du Divorce^ iii., 394. 
 
 ^ l.^ and P.^ iv., 6279, 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 45 
 
 July, admitting that their success was small ; they 
 dared not attempt, he says, to know any man's mind, 
 because of the Pope.^ He did not escape the effects 
 of the July climate at Rome, and lay there ill for a 
 fortnight. On his recovery he returned to the charge 
 with no better success than before. He wanted a 
 papal brief in Henry's favour, but whenever the 
 Pope made the slightest concession in the way of 
 postponing an adverse decision, the Emperor's 
 envoys made such an outcry, and so terrified him 
 that the concession was quickly withdrawn.' Cran- 
 mer declared that he had never known such incon- 
 stancy ; but this, we must recollect, was his first 
 experience of Clement's diplomacy. Personally he 
 seems to have made a favourable impression on the 
 Pope, who paid him the compliment of appointing 
 him Penitentiary for England. Finally Cranmer 
 left Rome in September, bringing with him to Eng- 
 land little result of his mission, except the votes of 
 the Italian universities, the credit for which was dis- 
 puted by Stokesley and Croke. The latter had been 
 an old Cambridge friend of Cranmer's, and it is 
 worth noting how highly Croke thought of Cranmer's 
 influence with the King. He hopes that Henry will 
 believe only Cranmer's version, and even sends his 
 reports open to Cranmer, that he may determine 
 whether or no they should be delivered to the King ; 
 he left " everything to Cranmer's discretion and 
 friendship.'/ ' 
 
 ^ Z. and P.^ iv., 6531 ; Cranmer's letter is not extant ; but it is 
 quoted in one of Croke's to Henry VIII. 
 
 2/<J., iv., 6543 ; Pococjc, Records^ i., 409. 'Z, and P.^ iv., 6701, 
 
46 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 There was now an apparent lull in the matter of 
 the divorce. Parliament did not sit at all in the year 
 1530, and at Rome Henry contented himself with 
 placing obstacles in the way of a decision which now 
 could only be adverse ; two years were consumed in 
 discussing whether his agent should be admitted to 
 plead that Henry could not be legally cited before 
 the court. The time was not wasted in England ; 
 " nothing else," wrote a Florentine in London, ** is 
 thought of every day, except arranging affairs in such 
 a way that they do no longer be in want of the 
 Pope, neither for filling vacancies in the Church, nor 
 for any other purpose." * While the Curia was de- 
 bating technicalities, Henry VHI. was undermining 
 the foundations of the papal power in England, and 
 taking measures which would render the Pope's sen- 
 tence a brutum fulmen whenever it might be given. 
 Cranmer, however, had no share in the proceedings 
 which ended in the King's being acknowledged by 
 Convocation in 1531 as Supreme Head of the Church 
 in England ; he was not a member of that body, but 
 seems to have been quietly employed in further 
 probing the intricacies of the divorce case. Reginald 
 Pole's treatise on the subject was submitted to him 
 for examination in that year, and Cranmer reported 
 that Pole's arguments were so skilfully marshalled 
 and plausibly put that if the book were published, 
 the minds of the people would be incontrovertibly 
 fixed in hostility to the King's cause.' For his serv- 
 ices he appears to have been rewarded with the 
 
 ^ Z. and p., iv., 6774. 
 
 ^ Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, -^PP* I» 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 47 
 
 Archdeaconry of Taunton,' a town which by a 
 curious coincidence was represented in Parliament 
 by his friend and ally, Thomas Cromwell.' How far 
 either of these two heroes of the English Reforma- 
 tion influenced the King at this time by private 
 advice it is not possible to ascertain. Both were 
 in frequent communication with their sovereign ; 
 but on the other hand, Henry VHI.'s policy after 
 Wolsey's fall was mainly his own, and the general 
 course of the Reformation was a perfectly natural 
 development from existing circumstances, which it 
 is idle to attribute to the influence of any one man. 
 Cranmer's quiet studies were soon interrupted. 
 His colleagues in Italy had spoken very highly of 
 his diplomatic abilities, and early in 1532, Henry, 
 who was a shrewd judge of men, selected him for 
 the post of ambassador to the Emperor Charles V.' 
 He was expected to do his best to present the 
 Divorce in as favourable a light as possible to the 
 Emperor and his ministers, but more especially to 
 
 * Morice says " Deanery of Taunton in Devon," which is a singu- 
 lar mistake. Le Neve {Fasti Eccl. Angl., i., 16S,) makes Cranmer 
 Archdeacon of Taunton from 1525 to 1533, but Gardiner held that 
 office in 1529. Possibly Gardiner resigned it in 1531 when he was 
 made Bishop of Winchester, and Cranmer succeeded him. The 
 registers of Bath and Wells are silent on the matter. 
 
 ' Official Return of Members of Parliament^ i. , 370. 
 
 3 His instructions are dated 24 January, 1531 [-2], in them he is 
 styled " consiliarius regis," which shows that he had been admitted 
 a member of the King's ordinary council, a body to be carefully 
 distinguished from the much smaller and more important Privy 
 Council. The Privy Council was evolved out of the ordinary 
 council much as the Cabinet has been evolved out of the now bulky 
 and unmanageable Privy Council, 
 
48 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 the Princes of Germany, whom he was secretly to 
 sound with respect to a possible alliance between 
 them and England ; and he was to endeavour to 
 obtain the repeal of some restrictions on trade be- 
 tween Englishmen and Charles V.'s subjects in 
 the Netherlands. He joined the Imperial Court at 
 Ratisbon, and soon found himself helpless as re- 
 gards the last part of his instructions, because Charles 
 left the determination of commercial affairs in the 
 Low Countries in the hands of his prudent sister, 
 Mary the Regent. In July he quietly repaired to 
 the Court of Saxony, where the Elector, John Fred- 
 erick, had recently succeeded his father ; he was 
 commissioned to assure the Elector and the Dukes 
 of Liineburg and Anhalt of assistance from Henry 
 VIII. and Francis I. in their opposition to Charles 
 V. Suggestions had also been made in the previous 
 year that the two kings should extend similar pro- 
 tection to the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the ablest 
 of the German Protestant princes.* When these 
 projects were formed the prospect of civil war in 
 Germany seemed imminent ; the Protestants had 
 been condemned at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, 
 and Charles V. was threatening to reduce them by 
 force of arms to obedience to himself and the Catho- 
 lic Church, while they, in self-defence, had formed 
 the Schmalkaldic League. But before Cranmer 
 arrived at Ratisbon the situation had altered com- 
 pletely. The Turk was on the point of overrunning 
 not only Hungary, but Germany ; and the pressure 
 of this peril forced the two parties together. To pur- 
 ^L. (tnd p,^ v., 584, 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 49 
 
 chase the aid of the Protestant princes Charles made 
 them such concessions at Niirnberg as to ensure, at 
 any rate for the time, the peaceable exercise of their 
 religion ; and they were now more eager to show 
 their zeal in defence of the fatherland than to turn 
 their arms against their sovereign.* There were 
 other obstacles to an understanding between Henry 
 VIII. and the German Protestants : Henry disliked 
 their view of the mass, and they disapproved of 
 Henry's matrimonial conduct. 
 
 But if Cranmer brought away from Germany no 
 advantageous alliance for England, he formed there 
 a bond which, however much it may have increased 
 his domestic felicity, proved a serious embarrassment 
 at more than one stage in his public career. During 
 the discussions with dukes and divines at Niirnberg, 
 he was naturally thrown into contact with the emi- 
 nent pastor of that Lutheran city, Osiander,' who, 
 although he maybe roughly described as a Lutheran, 
 differed in several respects from the great Reformer, 
 and favoured a definition of the doctrines of the Eu- 
 charist and Justification by Faith which would tend 
 to reconcile them to some extent with Catholic 
 views. His arguments were probably not without 
 effect upon Cranmer's theological development ; and 
 
 ^ Ranke, Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, iii., 
 413, etc. 
 
 ^ Ibid., v., 449 ; Allgemeine Deutsche Biographic, xxiv., 473-483 I 
 Bollinger, Reformation, ii., 81-111; iii., 397-437- The humanists 
 and continental reformers had a perfect passion for giving their 
 names a classical form ; thus Gerard became Erasmus, and Schwar- 
 zerd was translated into Melanchthon. Osiander's real name was 
 Hosmer. 
 
50 Thomas Cranmer [1529. 
 
 in his turn the English divine was able to convince 
 Osiander of the invalidity of Henry's first marriage ; 
 he also persuaded the German to prosecute the 
 labours on which he had long been engaged for 
 the harmony of the four Gospels, and the volume 
 was published in 1537 with a dedication to Cran- 
 mer.* In the course of his visits to Osiander's house 
 Cranmer became attached to his host's niece, Mar- 
 garet," and he had apparently married her before he 
 left the city. The step was a strong one, for Cran- 
 mer was now in priest's orders, and the canons of 
 the Western Church strictly imposed upon priests 
 the obligation of celibacy.'* The authority of those 
 canons was at the time being rudely shaken in Eng- 
 land, but there was no indication that they would 
 be so far overthrown as to permit the marriage of 
 priests. On the other hand, neither Popes nor Kings 
 had been in the habit of inquiring too closely into 
 the private affairs of high-placed ecclesiastics. Wol- 
 sey had formed far less defensible unions, and 
 Clement VII. himself was said at the time to have 
 taken ** two wives '* with him to his interview with 
 Francis I. at Marseilles.* The worst that Cranmer 
 had to fear was that his morality might be likened 
 to that of the Pope and the Cardinal. 
 
 Another of Cranmer's ambassadorial duties was to 
 arrange with the Emperor the form which Henry's 
 assistance against the Turks should take. Both the 
 
 ' Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, i., 15. 
 
 ^ She is often erroneously called Anne, even by the lawyers at 
 Cranmer's trial, and in the Parker Society's Works. 
 ^ Canon Mason, Cranmer, p. 25. *Z, and P., vi., 1147, 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 5 ^ 
 
 English and French kings were bound by treaty to 
 join in the defence of Christendom, but there was 
 usually an easy method of escape from such obliga- 
 tions. Henry and Francis would only offer men, 
 and Charles wbuld only take money ; and before the 
 difference was adjusted the retreat of the Turks and 
 the disbanding of the Emperor's army relieved the 
 immediate necessity. Cranmer followed the Im- 
 perial forces from Ratisbon to Vienna in Septem- 
 ber, and from Vienna to Villach in October. On the 
 way he visited the scene of the battle between the 
 Turks and the Imperial forces, and he noted in his 
 letters * many things which might enlighten his 
 master on the condition of the Emperor's power in 
 Germany and the prospect of his becoming a danger- 
 ous foe. His Italian and Spanish troops did more 
 damage, says Cranmer, than the Turks themselves ; 
 they spread desolation far and wide along their 
 march ; and so disgusted were the " boors " that they 
 gathered in the mountains and fell upon the troops 
 and killed them whenever opportunity offered.' 
 Neither Charles nor his brother Ferdinand ^ was be- 
 loved in the country, and the Emperor had lost the 
 esteem of military men by his failure to prosecute 
 his advantage over the Turks and free his brother's 
 kingdoms from their ravages. 
 
 'Cranmer, Works (Parker Soc), ii., 231-236. 
 
 ^ Ibid.^ ii., 234 ; for the ravages committed by troops in Germany 
 compare Sastrowj Social Germany hi Luther's Time^ tr. Vandam, 
 1902. 
 
 2 Ferdinand, already King of Bohemia and Hungary, had recently 
 been elected King of the Romans, and his elevation was disliked by 
 other German princes. 
 
52 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 Cranmer dated the last of these letters on 20 Octo- 
 ber from Villach in Carinthia, whence the Emperor 
 was to cross the Alps and again interview Clement 
 VII. on his way to Spain. He got as far as Mantua, 
 but before that second meeting at Bologna took place 
 he had received his recall to England. Warham, Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, had died in August, and Cran- 
 mer was destined to be his successor. Gardiner, 
 perhaps, might have had the office but for his op- 
 position to Henry in the parliamentary session of the 
 previous spring; and the knowledge embittered the re- 
 lations between the two men for the rest of their lives. 
 
 Much has been made of this sudden promotion to 
 the archbishopric of Canterbury of one who had at 
 best only held an archdeaconry ; but the fact has been 
 overlooked that the preferment of many of the great- 
 est primates of England has been equally rapid.* Of 
 Cranmer's predecessors, Becket,Winchelsey,and Islip 
 were only archdeacons ; Langton and Meopham were 
 only canons; Kilwardby and Peckham were only 
 priors ; Brad wardine was chancellor of St. Paul's, and 
 Wethershed of Lincoln, when they were raised to 
 the Metropolitan See. It had been the exception 
 rather than the rule for a bishop to be translated to 
 Canterbury ; and so far as his previous preferment 
 was concerned, Cranmer's promotion could be justi- 
 fied by numerous precedents. Nor does it appear 
 that a better choice could have been made with re- 
 gard to personal qualities ; the only living churchman 
 with whom Cranmer could be compared in intellect 
 was Pole, and Pole, who had already refused the 
 
 ' See Le "Ntwe, Fasti Eccl, Angl., ed. Hardy. 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 53 
 
 archbishopric of York, was out of the question. The 
 real objection was not to Cranmer's person, but to 
 the policy which he pursued. 
 
 Warham is said to have foretold that Cranmer 
 would step into his shoes,* but to the new arch- 
 bishop himself the nomination came as a somewhat 
 unpleasant surprise. A man of strong domestic af- 
 fections, he feared separation from the wife he had re- 
 cently married ; and there is no reason to doubt his 
 assertion that he protracted his return journey to 
 England in the vain hope that Henry would in the 
 meantime change his mind.' Henry, however, soon 
 had private reasons for hastening on Cranmer's 
 election, confirmation by the Pope, and consecra- 
 tion. As Queen Elizabeth was born on 7 Septem- 
 ber, 1533, Anne Boleyn's pregnancy was no doubt 
 known to the King in January of that year. It 
 was important to save her character as far as was 
 possible, and still more important that her issue 
 should be legitimate according to England's laws, 
 which by hook or by crook must be made to suit 
 the circumstances. On or about St. Paul's Day, 25 
 January, Henry and Anne were privately married ; 
 but that was not enough without an authoritative 
 declaration of the nullity of the King's previous union 
 with Catherine of Aragon. It was hopeless to ex- 
 pect such a favour from Clement VII., but it might 
 be obtained from an Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 ^ Nicholas Harpsfield, A Treatise on the Pretended Divorce (Cam- 
 den Soc, 1878), p. 178. 
 
 '^ He took seven weeks over it, when it might easily have been ac- 
 complished in three ; see report of his trial in Foxe, viii., 55. 
 
54 Thomas Cranmer [1529. 
 
 Even that was not sufficient without a legal recogni- 
 tion of the Archbishop's Court as the supreme and 
 final court of English ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 
 
 These were the objects which Henry VIII. pur- 
 sued in the spring of 1532 with consummate skill 
 and audacity. Cranmer reached England in January, 
 1533 ; the usual practice of leaving rich bishoprics va- 
 cant for at least a year in order that their revenues 
 might in the interval accrue to the Crown was aban- 
 doned, and Cranmer became Archbishop-elect of 
 Canterbury. To meet his expenses Henry lent him a 
 thousand pounds, and intimated pretty forcibly to the 
 Pope that he must grant Cranmer his bulls at once and 
 without the usual fees. Clement must have known 
 the purpose for which the bulls were wanted, and it 
 seems amazing that Henry should have made such 
 demands, and still more so that they should have 
 been granted. But the English King knew his 
 business ; in the previous year he had with some dif- 
 ficulty induced Parliament to leave it to him whether 
 the Act of Annates should be put in force or not ' ; 
 
 ' This astute provision was embodied in the Act at Henry's per- 
 sonal instance ; Chapuys (Z. and P., v., 879) relates how the King 
 went down to Parliament three times to pass "the article about the 
 Annates," and Giles de la Pomeroy, the French envoy, speaks of his 
 cunning in persuading Parliament to leave the execution of the Act 
 to him ; his letter, although printed under the right date in Froude, 
 ed., 1893, i., 354, has been erroneously placed in Dr. Gairdner's 
 Letters and Papers, under the year 1531, instead of 1532 {Ibid., v., 
 150). It is pretended that the royal pressure was needed to get the 
 general principle of the Act through Parliament ; but it is much 
 more probable that it was needed to ensure the enactment of this 
 particular clause, which constituted a remarkable extension of 
 the royal authority. 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 55 
 
 and the persuasive he now applied to the Pope 
 was the hint that refusal would cost him the First- 
 fruits of all English benefices. The Pope and the 
 Cardinals sighed, but after all it was better that 
 they should go without some of their perquisites for 
 Cranmer's bulls ; it was better that sentence should 
 be given by him against Catherine of Aragon than 
 that the Roman curia should forfeit all the wealth it 
 drew from England. So on 21 February, in spite 
 of the efforts of Chapuys, who sent an envoy to the 
 Pope to warn him against Cranmer, the bulls were 
 sped with unwonted celerity. 
 
 The lever placed in Henry's hands by the Act of 
 Annates was used for other purposes. It served to 
 make the Pope and his ministers adopt an attitude 
 of apparent friendliness to England, and it was actu- 
 ally under this appearance of concord that the Act 
 forbidding appeals to Rome was passed in 1533. 
 Henry was pleasing the Pope, not only by withhold- 
 ing his consent to the Act of Annates, but by oppos- 
 ing a General Council which Clement feared above 
 everything else,' and which Charles V. was demand- 
 ing as part of his compact with the German Protest- 
 ants. Clement, moreover, was bribed by the French 
 offer of marriage between his niece, Catherine de 
 Medici, and the future Henry H., and he seemed 
 about to desert the Emperor's cause." Catherine of 
 Aragon's friends in England were furious ; they 
 cursed Charles for being so slack in her defence, and 
 
 * A proposal was threatened for the restoration of the Papal States 
 to the Emperor. Z. and F,. vi.. 212. 
 
 * Ilnd,y vi., 396. 
 
56 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 they cursed especially the Pope for expediting 
 Cranmer's bulls and delaying the sentence in Cath- 
 erine's favour. Henry took the papal nuncio down 
 to Parliament to advertise the excellent terms upon 
 which he stood with the Holy See^ ; and he even 
 told the unsuspicious priest that, although his studies 
 on the subject of papal authority had caused him to 
 retract his early defence of the Pope, yet Clement 
 might perhaps give him occasion to probe the mat- 
 ter further still and reconfirm what he had originally 
 written ! " Of course this was all a piece of clever and 
 not very scrupulous bluff, but political morality has 
 always been a tender plant, and it was frail indeed 
 in the sixteenth century. The means were none the 
 less successful ; the appearance of concord between 
 Henry and the Pope disheartened the opponents of 
 the Act of Appeals and its passage left the King 
 master of the situation in England. Clement had 
 confirmed an Archbishop who would assuredly de- 
 cide the divorce case in Henry's favour, and Parlia- 
 ment had made it illegal to appeal from his 
 decision. 
 
 On 30 March Cranmer was consecrated. Four 
 days before, he had drawn up a formal protest to the 
 effect that he considered the oath of obedience to 
 the Pope, which he would take at his consecration, a 
 form and not a reality, and that he did not intend to 
 bind himself to do anything contrary to the King 
 and commonwealth of England, or to restrain his 
 
 ^ L. and P., vi., 89: " Many think there is a secret agreement be- 
 tween the King and the Pope," ->" vi T42. 
 ^ Ibid,, vi., 296 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 57 
 
 liberty in things pertaining to the reformation of 
 the Christian religion and the government of the 
 Church of England/ At his trial this protest was 
 represented as a scandalous act, amounting to per- 
 jury.' It was due rather to an excess of scruple on 
 Cranmer's part. Most men would have taken the 
 oath without question, thinking that any future Act 
 of Parliament repudiating the papal jurisdiction 
 would be a sufficient release from its obligations." 
 Cranmer was not satisfied with this ; he foresaw that 
 England would throw off its allegiance to Rome, 
 and he determined that there should be no miscon- 
 ception as to his own action. It was, however, ne- 
 cessary that he should take the oath, because it had 
 been the law, or at least the custom, so to do, and 
 it was doubtful whether he could be regarded as a 
 properly constituted Archbishop unless he fulfilled 
 all the prescribed formalities. The contention that 
 all who had sworn obedience to the Holy See should 
 always and in all circumstances be bound by their 
 oath was a convenient weapon in the hands of 
 
 ' Jenkyns, Cranmer, iv., 247 etc. ; L. and P., vi., 291 ; Dixon, 
 Hist. Church of England, i., 158. 
 
 ' Foxe, viii., 55 : " He made a protestation one day, to keep never 
 a whit of that he would swear the next day." 
 
 ^ If he had quietly said nothing, his action would, according to 
 the arguments of his enemies at his trial, have been justifiable. In 
 defending their own conduct in swearing the oath of royal Su- 
 premacy and then repudiating it, they declared that a bad oath 
 should not be kept. So that Cranmer might have sworn the oath 
 to the Pope which he believed bad, and then broken it without 
 guilt. The guilt apparently consisted in declaring intentions which 
 should have been kept secret {cf. Jenkyns, iv., 87-89). 
 
58 Thomas Cranmer [1529- 
 
 Popes/ but no one had done more to weaken the 
 force of oaths by their frequent grants of absolution. 
 Such a contention would indeed tend to stereotype 
 political and ecclesiastical conditions, and the state 
 of the world would present a curious aspect to-day 
 if at any period in its history oaths of allegiance had 
 become perpetually binding. They are, in fact, 
 feeble expedients which in public affairs are con- 
 sidered binding only so long as convenient; they 
 never alter the course of events, and under the cir- 
 cumstances the counsel of perfection is undoubtedly 
 " Swear not at all." Cranmer, however, had no al- 
 ternative, and while his conduct afforded his prosecu- 
 tors too good a forensic opportunity to be lost, it need 
 not materiallyaffect his judgmentat the bar of history. 
 Twelve days after his consecration Cranmer wrote 
 to the King, humbly begging for licence to proceed 
 with the trial of the question between him and 
 Catherine.' He gave as a reason for haste the mur- 
 murs of the people, but the real reason was the con- 
 dition of Anne Boleyn. The way had been already 
 prepared by Convocation, which had assented to 
 
 * The more enlightened of the Fathers who assembled at the 
 Council of Trent insisted that no reformation of the Papacy was 
 possible unless members of the council were released from their 
 oaths to the Pope, and their assertion was justified by the event. 
 Rigid observance of these oaths would have made the Reformation 
 impossible in every country that recognised the Pope's authority. 
 La petite morale est Vennemi de la grande. If the oath had been 
 sworn to an enemy of the Pope he could have dispensed with Cran- 
 mer's obligation to keep it, as he did in the case of Francis I. in 1526 ; 
 but the morality of an action does not really depend upon the 
 question whether it is licensed or not by the Pope. 
 
 * Cranmer, Works (Parker Soc), ii., 237, 
 
1533] The Divorce of Catherine 59 
 
 two propositions: first, that as a matter of law 
 the Pope had no authority to perniit marriages be- 
 tween a man and his deceased brother's wife when 
 the previous union had been consummated ; and, sec- 
 ondly, that as a matter of fact the marriage between 
 Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon had been so 
 consummated/ All Cranmer had to do was to act 
 upon the decision of the Church in England, and 
 Convocation must share with him the responsibility. 
 He opened his court in May at Dunstable, some four 
 miles from Ampthill, in Bedfordshire, where Cather- 
 ine was then residing. She was duly summoned to 
 appear,' but she refused to recognise Cranmer's juris- 
 diction, and was declared contumacious. That suited 
 the court very well ; the case was quietly hurried on, 
 and sentence was given on the 23rd.' It was a mere 
 repetition of the decree of Convocation ; the mar- 
 riage of Henry and Catherine was declared to have 
 been void from the beginning, because the Pope did 
 not possess the dispensing powers he claimed. 
 
 Five days later Cranmer pronounced, at Lambeth, 
 that the King's marriage with Anne Boleyn was 
 valid. Assuming the correctness of the previous 
 decision, that Henry had never been married to 
 Catherine, there was no reason for this second de- 
 claration except to quiet the popular mind. But the 
 vagueness of the Archbishop's sentence spoilt its 
 effect ; it afforded no information as to the date or 
 manner of the marriage, and to this day it remains 
 
 * Z. and P,^ vi., 311, 317, 4QI. 
 
 * Cranmer, Works ^ ii., 241, 244. 
 
 •Z. and P.y vi., 469, 470, 525; cf. Burnet, i., 22(>-22X, 
 
6o 
 
 Thomas Cranmer [1529-1533] 
 
 a matter of mystery/ Almost immediately after- 
 wards, on Whitsunday, the first of June, Cranmer 
 crowned Anne Boleyn as Queen in Westminster 
 Abbey,' The coronation feast was celebrated with 
 no little splendour, but Anne's enjoyment of it was 
 sadly marred by the state of her health/ Three 
 months later she gave birth, at Greenwich Palace, to 
 the future Queen Elizabeth, and it accorded well 
 with the fitness of things that the first Metropolitan 
 of the Reformed Church of England stood as god- 
 father* to the infant under whose guidance the 
 cause of the Reformation finally triumphed. 
 
 ' The only original authority for the date of the marriage is 
 Cranmer's statement in a letter of 17 June, 1533, to the effect 
 that it took place " about S. Paul's day last " i. e.^ 25 January 
 (Cranmer, Works, ed. Parker Society, ii., 246 ; Ellis, Original 
 Letters, ist Ser., ii., 33-34; Harleian MS ^ 6148, f. 33; Archceo- 
 logia, xviii., 78 ; Todd, Life of Cranmer^ i., 80). Stow, in his 
 Annals, p, 533, gives this date, but Hall, who is followed by Holin- 
 shed, gives 14 November, 1532. This antedating of the marriage 
 was probably intended to shield Anne's character ; Burnet {Hist. 
 Reformation, ed. Pocock, i., 218) argues from the date of Eliza- 
 beth's birth, that Anne must have been married by the beginning of 
 December, " for," he says, " all the writers of both sides agree that 
 she was married before she conceived with child." This is a par- 
 ticularly reckless statement on Burnet's part. Nor is it known who 
 performed the ceremony Chapuys, the imperial ambassador, re- 
 ported as early as 23 February (Z. and P., vii., 180) that Cranmer 
 was the priest, but the Archbishop himself {^Works, ii., 246) de- 
 nounces the rumour as false, and says he did not know of the mar- 
 riage until a fortnight after the ceremony. 
 
 'See the description in Tudor Tracts, ed. A. F. Pollard, 1903, 
 pp. 10-28. 2 L. and P., vii., 584, 601. 
 
 * Elizabeth was bom on Sunday, 7 September, and baptised by 
 Stokesley, Bishop of London, on the following Wednesday. Shake- 
 speare {Henry VIII., Act V., sc. i.) represents the birth as taking 
 place in the night, but it was between 3 and 4 PM. {lb., vii., mi.) 
 
QUEEN ELIZABETH. 
 FROM THE PICTURE AT ST. JAMES PALACE. 
 
CHAPTER Til 
 
 CRANMER AND THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 
 
 " I PROTEST before you all," affirmed Cranmer 
 1 at his trial, "there was never a man came 
 more unwillingly to a bishopric than I." * ** For the 
 Passion of God," wrote another famous prelate ' to 
 a friend at Court when about to be offered an epis- 
 copal See, " if it be possible yet, assay as far as you 
 may to convey this bishopric from me " ; and he 
 signed his letter " Yours to his little power. Add 
 whatsoever you will more to it, so you add not bishop." 
 Twenty years later this same divine was suggested 
 for the Archbishopric of Canterbury, but even this 
 splendid temptation failed to move him from his at- 
 titude of nolo episcopari. Parker was as loath to 
 accept the primacy from Queen Elizabeth as Cran- 
 mer had been from her father ^ ; and when Latimer 
 
 ' Foxe, viii., 55. 
 
 ' Z. and P., XIV., ii., 501. Todd, Deans of Canterbury^ p. 4. 
 The writer was Nicholas Wotton, Dean of both the primatial cathe- 
 drals, doctor of both laws (canon and civil), and reputed professor 
 of both creeds, Catholic and Protestant, He kept his preferment in 
 the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth (see 
 art. by the present writer in Did. Nat. Biog. , Ixiii. , 57-60). 
 
 ^ Pdrker's Correspondence (Parker Soc), p. 70. 
 
 61 
 
62 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 discarded his rochet in 1539 he danced for joy at the 
 thought of his freedom * ; not all the pressure of 
 the Court nor even a petition from the House of 
 Commons could induce him to resume his episcopal 
 garb in the reign of Edward VI. 
 
 Seldom, indeed, has an episcopal career offered 
 fewer attractions than during the sixteenth century. 
 The possession of place without power is purgatory 
 to all but ignoble minds, and lack of power was only 
 one of the hardships which fell to the lot of Henry's 
 bishops ; others were provided by the prison and the 
 stake. But men of spirit could face fetters and 
 flames with greater dignity than they could sit on a 
 throne, erstwhile that of Augustine, but now the 
 footstool of him who wielded the sceptre of Eng- 
 land. The Church had fallen from her high estate ; 
 tKe mighty institution which had humbled emperors 
 in the dust was become the handmaid of princes. 
 The successor of him, who had stood as a suppliant 
 three days in the snow at Canossa, had with impun- 
 ity sacked the Holy City and held the Vicar of 
 Christ as his prisoner ; and the Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury had sunk into the position of a minister 
 of a spiritual jurisdiction which belonged to the 
 King. 
 
 This revolution was already effected before Cran- 
 mer was elected to the Metropolitan See ; it only 
 needed some legal formalities to give it complete re- 
 cognition. No one can really be satisfied with the 
 theory that th\s peripeteia was solely due to the vio- 
 lence, av arice, and lust of a single man. The phen- 
 
 »Foxe, vii., 463, 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 63 
 
 omenon was not peculiar to one, but common to 
 almost all the nations of Europe ; priests were not 
 more hated in England than they were in Germany, 
 and the secularisation of church property proceeded 
 apace even in Catholic countries. The Church of 
 England was painfully servile to Henry VIII., but it 
 never licensed bigamy, as Clement VII. proposed to 
 do at Rome, and as Luther and Melanchthon did in 
 Germany. The subordination of Church to State 
 was in the sixteenth century a common characteristic 
 rather than a distinguishing feature, and it is there- 
 fore idle to seek its explanation in purely local 
 circumstances like the temper of Henry VIII. 
 
 There had for many hundreds of years been an un- 
 ceasing struggle in every country between the civil 
 and the ecclesiastical power. In England the Church 
 reached the zenith of its influence during the thir- 
 teenth century ; and from the legislation of Edward 
 I. it had gradually declined until the Wycliffite move- 
 ment, with its appeal to the State to purify a corrupt 
 Church, seemed likely to anticipate some of the most 
 striking effects of the Reformation. But the alliance 
 between the Lancastrian monarchs and the Church, 
 the emancipation of the Popes from their Babylonish 
 captivity at Avignon, and their victory over the Con- 
 ciliar movement delayed the decisive hour; and 
 then the Wars of the Roses interposed another ob- 
 stacle in the path of reform. The main result of 
 that struggle was an enormous increase of royal 
 power. Feudal aristocracy committed political sui- 
 cide, and even the House of Commons maimed 
 itself for generations. Henry VII. completed the 
 
64 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 process. His most effective method of strengthen- 
 ing his position was the elimination of all alterna- 
 tive governments^ and pretenders were removed by 
 force or by fraud, while the remaining feudal lords 
 were converted into Tudor officials or relegated to 
 obscurity. 
 
 But his astute policy would have been vain with- 
 out the co-operation of powerful secular tendencies. 
 The amazing geographical discoveries extending 
 throughout the fifteenth century, and the conse- 
 quent impetus given to commerce diverted men's 
 minds from the pursuit of political ends to the 
 prosecution of personal gain, and a community bent 
 on trade is more interested in strong government 
 than in self-government. The simultaneous revival 
 of learning, and particularly the study of Roman 
 civil law, added fresh dignity to the name of 
 Prince ; common law and feudal custom, both of 
 them checks on royal despotism, became barbarous in 
 the eyes of men who were fascinated with the sym- 
 metry of the Code and its scientific maxims of des- 
 potism. To promote the study of the Roman civil 
 law was an object dear to all the Tudors ; their 
 officials were mostly civilians, and the Roman law, 
 which was adopted far and wide on the Continent, 
 and even in Scotland, was almost received into Eng- 
 land.* It was a weapon which kings could use against 
 canon and common law, against papal and popular 
 claims. To Roman emperors divine honours were 
 paid after death, and to Tudor sovereigns honours 
 
 ^ Professor F. W. Maitland, English Law and the Renaissance^ 
 1901; Eng. Hist. Rev., xv., 168-169. 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 65 
 
 too near the divine were rendered while they lived. 
 No poet before the age of the Tudors would have 
 thought of the *' divinity " which ** doth hedge a 
 king," and a great French historian has described 
 the sixteenth-century sovereign as a kind of new 
 Messiah.* He was the embodiment of the fresh 
 national aspirations which had ousted the universal 
 and cosmopolitan ideals of the Middle Ages, and 
 intense loyalty to the King left little room for the 
 old allegiance to the Church. 
 
 The last reinforcement the King received was from 
 the Reformation itself. The voice of the Church, 
 which exalted the Pope but slighted the King, gave 
 way to the Scriptures, which knew nothing of Popes 
 or Archbishops, but were emphatic about the claims 
 of secular princes. In the Old Testament kings 
 rather than priests were the Lord's Anointed. In 
 the New, resistance to authority was pronounced 
 a heinous offence, and the powers that be were 
 derived from divine ordination. Cranmer's polit- 
 ical theory resembled that of St. Paul. Luther 
 long regarded Charles V. as the lineal successor of 
 the Csesar whose authority Christ had recognised; 
 and when he gave up his faith in Charles he trans- 
 ferred it to his territorial sovereign, the Elector of 
 Saxony, and preached an unlimited passive obedi- 
 ence. The divine right of kings was a Reformation 
 theory. 
 
 Parallel with this extraordinary growth of the 
 royal prestige and power there went a corresponding 
 
 ' Michelet, Histoire de France, ed. 1879, i^M 2>^^' (Chap, xii.), 
 Le Nouveau Messie est le roi. 
 
66 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 decline in clerical influence. Externally the Church 
 stood erect, robed in its old magnificence; papal 
 pretensions were never louder nor clerical privileges 
 more exorbitant than at the dawn of the sixteenth 
 century; and it was a novel extension of ecclesias- 
 tical abuses which precipitated the conflict at Wit- 
 tenberg. Bui it was then with the Church as it was 
 with the French monarchy on the eve of the Revolu- 
 tion ; both had monopolised power only to be 
 crushed by its weight ; and while the imposing 
 edifice seemed to grow in height, its foundations in 
 the hearts arid understandings of men were slowly 
 rotting away. The debasement of clerical morals, the 
 corruption of papal courts, the immunity of clerical 
 criminals, the wealth of the clergy, their exactions 
 from the laity, and the oppressiveness of their juris- 
 diction had made the Church more unpopular than it 
 had been before or has been since.* One of the first 
 uses to which the printing-press was put was to 
 satirise and denounce the clergy ; and whether the 
 accusations contained in this popular literature were 
 substantially true or not, they prove that the Church 
 had lost its hold upon the affections of men. These 
 grievances found their first and freest utterance in 
 Germany. They were equally felt in England, but 
 in England there was a strong central government, 
 which, for the moment, was guided by clerical 
 hands. 
 
 During the first few years of Henry VIII.'s reign 
 his chief advisers were Bishops Fox and Ruthal, and 
 
 ' See Cambridge Modern History, vol. i., chap, xix., by H. C. Lea, 
 for a brief but admirable statement of these grievances. 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 67 
 
 Archbishop Warham ; presently they were eclipsed 
 by Wolsey's rising star, which ruled the ascendant 
 for fifteen years. By keeping Parliament at a dis- 
 tance and by playing upon the vain young King's 
 Continental ambitions, Wolsey staved off the attack 
 on the Church. But his power was built on a van- 
 ishing base. The Treaty of Cambrai in 1529 closed 
 the avenues to England's influence abroad, and made 
 Henry's gaze introspective. It was as great a blow 
 to Wolsey as his failure to obtain a divorce for his 
 master,' and he was too great a statesman not to per- 
 ceive what would be the effect. His failure in foreign 
 policy would mean his fall, and his fall, as he re- 
 peatedly told Campeggio, Du Bellay, and Clement 
 Vn., would mean the irretrievable ruin of the Church 
 in England." It was owing, wrote Campeggio, to 
 Wolsey's vigilance and solicitude that the Holy 
 See retained its authority ' ; and Du Bellay declared 
 on the eve of Wolsey's fall that the intention was, 
 as soon as he was gone, to attack the Church and to 
 confiscate its riches ; he wrote the information in 
 cipher, but said that such a precaution was really 
 superfluous, because the policy was openly pro- 
 claimed. He thought no ecclesiastic would again 
 be made Chancellor, and predicted " terrible alarms" 
 for the Church in the coming Parliament.* 
 
 It is, therefore, perfectly obvious that the anti- 
 
 'Z. and p., iv., 5231, 5581, 5679, 5701; and compare the present 
 writer's Henry VIII., chapter iv. 
 
 '^Ibid., iv., 4897, 5210, 5572, 5803, 5945. 
 
 ^Ibid., iv., 4898. 
 
 * Ibid., iv., 6011, cf. iv., 5862, 5953, 5983, 5995,6017-18. 
 
68 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 ecclesiastical legislation of the Reformation Parlia- 
 ment was no mere whim on the part of Henry VIII., 
 or chance suggestion on the part of any adviser * ; it 
 was so far dictated by circumstances that intelligent 
 observers could predict its general tenor before that 
 Parliament met. Wolsey fell, as he himself and 
 others had foretold, and with him clerical influence 
 was eliminated from the Government. The Chan- 
 cellorship, which from time immemorial had been 
 held by prelates,' was, as Du Bellay anticipated, 
 entrusted to a layman, Sir Thomas More. The 
 keepership of the Privy Seal, which had been occu- 
 pied in Henry VIII. *s reign by three successive 
 bishops, was now transferred to Anne Boleyn's father; 
 the clerkship of Parliament, hitherto considered as 
 peculiarly a clerical office, was given to Sir Edward 
 North; and, though Gardiner remained Secretary, 
 Du Bellay thought that his influence would have 
 been much enhanced had he abandoned his spiritual 
 
 ^ In Mr. R. B. Merriman's Life and Letters of Cromwell (1902, 
 chap, vi.) the credit or discredit of the whole business is attributed 
 to Cromwell, mainly on the strength of Pole's assertion that Henry 
 VIII. was despairing of success when this " emissary of Satan" 
 came and suggested to him the repudiation of the Pope's authority. 
 But Pole was writing nine or ten years after the event; he admits 
 that he did not hear Cromwell's alleged advice to the King, and be- 
 fore the interview is supposed to have taken place we are told in a 
 contemporary letter that " nothing else was thought of every day in 
 England except to arrange how to do without the Pope." (Z. and 
 P., iv., 6774.) A biographer is often tempted to attribute great 
 movements to the influence of one subordinate agent. 
 
 "^ The only lay chancellor in the previous two centuries appears to 
 have been Thomas Beaufort, chancellor 1410-12, and afterwards 
 Duke of Exeter. 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 69 
 
 calling.* The Government thus assumed an un- 
 wonted lay complexion ; at the same time it was 
 brought into harmony with the spirit which ani- 
 mated the House of Commons, while the simultane- 
 ous creation of half a dozen peers tended to equalise 
 the temporal and spiritual vote in the House of 
 Lords.' 
 
 Parliament began its work in November, 1529, 
 with bills to limit clerical fees for probate, to check 
 the abuse of pluralities and non-residence, and to 
 forbid the acquisition of breweries and tanneries by 
 the clergy. These modest proposals at once pro- 
 voked the cry of " The Church in danger !", as it had 
 been provoked in 15 12 by a proposal to exempt 
 spiritual persons below the rank of subdeacon from 
 the *' benefit of clergy" if they had committed mur- 
 der or felony.' ** My Lords," cried Bishop Fisher, 
 "you see daily what bills come hither from the Com- 
 mons' House, and all is to the destruction of the 
 Church. For God's sake, see what a realm the 
 kingdom of Bohemia was ; and when the Church 
 went down, then fell the glory of that kingdom. Now 
 with the Commons is nothing but ' Down with the 
 Church !' And all this, meseemeth, is for lack of 
 faith only."* The bills were rejected by means of 
 the spiritual votes in the House of Lords ; and as a 
 
 ' L. and P., iv,, 6019. 
 
 * Cf., J. H, Round, Peerage Studies, 1901, pp. 330-366. Mr. Round, 
 in contending that the lay peers had a majority as early as 1534, ne- 
 glects the fact that several of the lay peers were minors, and so 
 could not vote, while a spiritual peer was never a minor. 
 
 ^Z. and P., II., i., 1313. 
 
 * Hall, Chronicle, p. 766. 
 
7o Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 way out of the deadlock between the two Houses, 
 Henry suggested a conference, in which the tem- 
 poral peers, united with the Commons, outvoted the 
 bishops and abbots and passed the bills.' In 1531, 
 Convocation was compelled, under the threat of 
 Prcemunire, to pay a large fine to the King and to 
 give him the title " Supreme Head of the Church." 
 Even in those degenerate days the proposal excited 
 resistance, and the papal nuncio went down to stiffen 
 the backs of the clergy. But it was all of no avail ; 
 Archbishop Warham declared that ira principis 
 mors est* and Convocation had to content itself with 
 the qualifying clause, " as far as the law of Christ 
 allows." It was, thought Chapuys, the Imperial 
 ambassador, an empty phrase, for no one would ven- 
 ture to dispute with the King the question where 
 his supremacy ended and that of Christ began.' 
 
 In 1532 the Act forbidding the payment of An- 
 nates to Rome was passed, and the famous petition 
 of the Commons against the clergy was presented.* 
 On the assumption that there were no real abuses in 
 the Church at that time, and that all the evidence of 
 their existence is necessarily a false and malicious 
 
 ^ Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures ^ ed. 1887, p. 317. 
 
 ^Z. and P.^ vol. v., p. 137. 
 
 ^ Ibid.y v.. No. 105. 
 
 * There are four drafts of this petition in the Record Office (see 
 L. and P.^ v., 1016); one of them is printed in full by Mr. Merri- 
 man (Z?/<? of Cromwell^ i., 104-111). Two of the drafts are in a 
 strange handwriting, probably that of some independent member of 
 Parliament ; these are filled with interlineations in Cromwell's 
 hand, and it is probably from them that he prepared a copy to be 
 submitted to the King. 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 7t 
 
 libel, this petition has been represented as a Court 
 concoction prepared to facilitate the evil designs of 
 the King ; and the Commons are supposed to have 
 been hypnotised into thebelief that they suffered from 
 grievances which were entirely fictitious. However 
 that may be, two sets of demands were laid before 
 Convocation; one came from the King, the other 
 was the petition of the Commons. Henry wished 
 the Church to abdicate its right of independent 
 legislation, to consent to a reform of ecclesiastical 
 laws, and to recognise the necessity of the King's 
 approval of existing canons. On the other hand 
 the Commons complained of the citation of laymen 
 out of their dioceses, the delays in obtaining probate 
 and in the institution of parsons, the conferment 
 of benefices on minors, the devotion of the clergy 
 to worldly affairs, the exaction of heavy fees, and 
 the harsh procedure of the spiritual courts in 
 cases of heresy. These reforms were granted by 
 Convocation; most of them passed the House of 
 Commons ; but in the House of Lords, the bishops 
 and abbots, aided by Sir Thomas More, rejected 
 the demands of the King, while accepting those of 
 the Commons. Before the end of the year Audley 
 succeeded More as Chancellor, Cromwell stepped 
 into Gardiner's shoes as Henry's chief adviser, and the 
 lay element had become supreme in the Government, 
 in both Houses of Parliament, and in the country at 
 large. The Church in England had been forced into 
 that dependence on the State from which she has 
 never since been able or willing to shake herself 
 free. 
 
72 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 Such were the conditions under which Cranmer ac- 
 cepted the archiepiscopal See, and they must be taken 
 into careful consideration in judging his action and 
 in estimating his character. Apart from his adop- 
 tion of the principles of the Reformation, which 
 can only be a defect in the eyes of Roman Catho- 
 lics, the worst suspicion under which he labours is 
 that of having been in some sort a traitor to his 
 order, of having handed over to secular hands the 
 keys of ecclesiastical independence. The surrender 
 of a position to the enemy is always an unpopular 
 act, but it may in certain circumstances be neces- 
 sary and patriotic. If the city is beleaguered with- 
 out hope of succour, if the refusal to yield only means 
 that it will be stormed and left to the uncovenanted 
 mercies of the foe, the commander who takes upon 
 himself the responsibility of capitulation is braver 
 than he who declines. There can be no doubt that 
 the Church in England, however distasteful the pro- 
 cess may have been, was consulting both its own in- 
 terests and those of the nation at large in seeking to 
 come to terms with the secular power, and in en- 
 deavouring, by the surrender of its least tenable 
 rights and privileges, to retain as much as might 
 be of its catholicity and its connection with the 
 past. It may be asserted that, had Warham been a 
 Becket, had the whole Church been animated with a 
 spirit of firm resistance, it might have withstood the 
 assault. But it is far more probable that its ruin 
 would have been more irretrievable, its break with 
 the past more complete. The course of the Reforma- 
 tion in England might then have followed more 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 1'^^ 
 
 closely its course in Germany or even in Switzer- 
 land ; and so far from seeking only to remove 
 abuses, men might have set themselves to raise a 
 new edifice upon other foundations. The result 
 would have probably been to kindle the flames of 
 civil wars of religion. 
 
 Further, it must be observed that it was not 
 Cranmer who handed over the keys at all, but the 
 prelate whom Roman Catholic writers describe as 
 the " saintly and venerable Warham." * It was he 
 who persuaded Convocation to acknowledge the 
 royal supremacy, and he did so with less justification 
 than Cranmer might have urged. For Warham be- 
 lieved the royal supremacy to be an evil ; Cranmer 
 thought it a good. Just before his death the aged 
 Archbishop drew up a protest against the recent 
 infractions of ecclesiastical immunities ' ; he recalled 
 the case of Henry II. and hinted that Henry VIII. 
 might go the way of other kings who had violated 
 the liberties of the Church. Cranmer's view was 
 different; he was profoundly impressed with the 
 abuses in the Church, which for years he had ascribed 
 to the papal jurisdiction. The only means of reform 
 was the royal supremacy. He thought, as the vast 
 majority of English churchmen have thought after 
 him, that the Church gained more than it lost through 
 its connection with the State, and he was not so 
 foolish as to quarrel with the conditions upon which 
 alone that connection was possible. These condi- 
 tions had been laid down by others, and for them he 
 
 ^ Gasquet, Henry VIII. and the Monasteries^ 1893, i., 67 
 •Z. and P., v., 1247. 
 
74 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 was not responsible. He entered upon his archiepis- 
 copal career knowing perfectly well that his mission 
 was to be, as Henry expressed it, " the principal minis- 
 ter of our spiritual jurisdiction." * With that condi- 
 tion, he would, even if he disliked it, be forced to 
 comply ; the King who had broken Wolsey without 
 an effort, and afterwards sent a Cardinal to the 
 block, would not be deterred by Cranmer. 
 
 For the present, however, the abolition of the papal 
 jurisdiction added dignity to the Archbishopric of 
 Canterbury. When, in 1 544, the Archbishop of York 
 died, Cranmer assumed a function hitherto exercised 
 by Popes, and sent his successor a pall." This was a 
 solitary instance of the adoption by an English Arch- 
 bishop of an expedient employed by the Popes to 
 enhance their authority and fill their coffers'; but 
 primates of England retained for a longer period the 
 right of issuing dispensations and licences which pre- 
 viously belonged to the Roman pontiff ; they were 
 found useful in releasing Henry VHI. from incon- 
 venient matrimonial bonds. For a year, too, the 
 Archbishop's court remained the supreme tribunal in 
 England for ecclesiastical causes, but its authority 
 was soon limited by the legalisation of appeals from it 
 to Chancery, and by the transference to secular courts 
 of matters which had before been regarded as subject 
 
 ^ L. and P., vi., 332. 
 
 -Bishop Stubbs in Gentleman's Magazine^ i860, ii., 522; Mason, 
 Cranmer y p. 53. 
 
 ' Pole was the last Archbishop of Canterbury to wear the pall {cf. 
 Burnet, ii., 545); it was an object of frequent denunciation (c/". Pil- 
 kington, JVorks, p. 582, and Gough, Index to Parker Soc. Publ. 
 s. V. "Pall"). 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 75 
 
 to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Henry VIII. even 
 meditated placing the marriage laws under the cog- 
 nisance of civil tribunals/ but many generations 
 passed away before this very modern idea was put 
 into execution. 
 
 Meanwhile the King's presumption in cutting the 
 Gordian knot of the divorce question by having it 
 decided in England roused Clement VII. to action; 
 and on II July, 1533, the sentence of excommuni- 
 cation was drawn up at Rome,' though its publica- 
 tion was deferred. Henry thereupon withdrew his 
 ambassadors from the papal court, confirmed the 
 Act of Annates, and prepared an appeal from the 
 Pope to a General Council. Clement, at last, was 
 alarmed ; he began to fear that he really would lose 
 his spiritual jurisdiction in England ; and he probably 
 derived little comfort from the assurances of his 
 Imperialist friends that, after all, England was but 
 " an unprofitable island," and that its loss would be 
 more than compensated by the increased devotion 
 of Spain and of the other dominions of the Emperor.^ 
 The appeal to a General Council was served on the 
 Pope by Bonner* on 7 November, while Clement 
 was visiting Francis I. at Marseilles^; and Cranmer 
 was advised to intimate a similar appeal in case the 
 Pope should **make some manner of prejudicial 
 process against me and my Church.'' ' He accord- 
 
 ' Z. and P.^ v., 805; vii., 232. 
 
 '^ Ibid., vi., 654-655, 807, 953. ^Ibid., vi., 997. 
 
 * The future Bishop of London and champion of the Pope. 
 
 * Z. and P., vi., 721, 998. 
 
 ^ Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, i., 31-32 ; Cranmer, Works, ii., 
 268. 
 
7^ Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 ingly wrote to Bonner to ask him to do this service : 
 but as the letter was not dated till 27 November, 
 Cranmer's appeal was too late.* His apprehensions 
 were well founded, for he was doubtless one of the 
 bishops whom the Pope " cursed ** in the summer 
 for their share in the divorce," and in September a 
 brief was drawn up for his deprivation and excom- 
 munication/ 
 
 Henry's action in appealing to a General Council 
 dashed the hopes which Francis I. entertained of 
 effecting an accommodation between his old ally, 
 England, and his new friend, the Pope.* He made, 
 however, another effort by sending Du Bellay, 
 Bishop of Paris, to London in the winter to induce 
 Henry to resume negotiations with the papal court. 
 Henry would only promise that if Clement would 
 declare his first marriage null and his second valid, 
 he would refrain from further measures against the 
 Pope's authority. With these assurances the Bishop 
 set out for Rome, and Burnet has a story," told on 
 the authority of Du Bellay 's brother, of how a re- 
 conciliation between England and Rome was only 
 frustrated by the precipitation of the Imperialist 
 cardinals, who refused to wait a few extra days for 
 
 ^ L. and P., vi., 1425; Burnet, Reformation, ed. Pocock, vol. vi., 
 pp. 56-67. The Pope left Marseilles for Rome on 12 November. 
 
 'Z. and P,, vi., 1055. 
 
 ^ Ibid.^ vi., 1 104. 
 
 * " Ye have clearly marred all," he complained to the English am- 
 bassadors; "as fast as I study to win the Pope, you study to lose 
 him" {ibid,, vi., 1427). 
 
 5 Burnet, Reformation, ed. Pocock, iii., 182-83; Du Bellay, Md- 
 moires; cf. Z. and P., vol. vii., App. Nos. 8, 12, 13. 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy ^^ 
 
 the return of a courier. Burnet discerns the hand 
 of Providence in this narrow escape from peace 
 with Rome ; but in reaHty the promise of peace 
 was quite illusory, and Parliament was at the mo- 
 ment engaged in severing the last of the bonds 
 between the English Church and the Roman See. 
 Henry had, in fact, thrown off all disguise as soon as 
 his specious appearance of conciliation had done its 
 work, and his confirmation of the Act forbidding the 
 payment of Annates to Rome' was ratified by a 
 fresh Act, passed in the session of Parliament which 
 lasted from January to March, 1534. This second 
 Act of Annates defined the method henceforth to be 
 observed for the appointment of English bishops. 
 Chapters were to elect the candidate named in the 
 King's letters missive, and if they failed to do so 
 within twelve days the King might appoint by letters 
 patent.' A second Act of Appeals, besides repeat- 
 ing and confirming the abolition of appeals to Rome, 
 embodied those concessions to the King which had 
 been made by Convocation in 1532, but rejected in 
 the House of Lords. Convocation was not to meet 
 or legislate without the King's assent ; a commission, 
 nominated by the King, might reform the Canon 
 Law; there was to be an appeal from the Arch- 
 bishop's court to Chancery ; and religious houses 
 which were exempt from episcopal authority were 
 subjected to that of the King. Another Act forbade 
 the payment of Peter's pence ; and a check upon 
 prosecutions for heresy was provided by an Act 
 
 'Z. and p., vi., 793. 
 
 ' 25 Hen. VIII, c. 20 ; this was made the usual method in 1547, 
 
78 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 which required the evidence of two lay witnesses for 
 every charge.' 
 
 The final Act of that session was a constitutional 
 innovation of great importance. The succession to 
 the crown, which had hitherto been regulated by 
 vague right, was now determined by a definite law to 
 be vested in Henry's heirs by Anne Boleyn. This Act 
 was to be enforced by an oath which might be ten- 
 dered to any one, and at the head of the commission 
 aippointed to administer it was the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury." Among the first who were required to 
 take the oath were Fisher and More ; both had been 
 implicated in the previous year in the extraordinary 
 affair of Elizabeth Barton,' the Nun of Kent, in 
 whose alleged visions it is impossible to distin- 
 guish the imposture from the genuine delusions. 
 Some eight years before, she had earned a reputation 
 for sanctity by denouncing the sensual lives of the 
 clergy, and this reputation was afterwards used to 
 put obstacles in the way of Henry's divorce. She 
 drew, it is stated in the Confutation of Unwritten 
 Verities doubtfully attributed to Cranmer, "into 
 her confederacy, both of heresy and treason, holy 
 monks of the Charter House, obstinate (they would 
 be called Observant) friars of Greenwich, nice nuns of 
 Sion, black monks (both of cowls and conditions) of 
 
 'Cf. L. and P.^ vii., 393. 
 
 ^ His colleagues are given in L, and P. (vii., 391) as Audley, Nor- 
 folk, and Suffolk ; Strype {Mem. of Cranmer, i. , 36) names Audley, 
 Cromwell, and the Abbot of Westminster. 
 
 ^ For Elizabeth Barton see L. and P. and Spanish Calendar for 
 1533-34 ; Wright's Suppression of the Monasteries (Camden Soc), 
 pp. 13-34. 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 79 
 
 Christ Church and St. Austin's of Canterbury, 
 knights, squires, learned men, priests, and many 
 other." ^ She predicted that Henry would lose his 
 kingdom within seven months if he married Anne 
 Boleyn, and declared that in her visions she had 
 seen the very place in hell that was prepared for 
 him.' This kind of prophesying would nowadays be 
 safely left to confute itself, but in that superstitious 
 age it was a source of public danger. The nun could 
 scarcely be treated as innocuous when men like 
 Warham and Fisher fell under her influence. War- 
 ham is said, in a contemporary account, to have 
 been diverted by her warnings from an intention 
 to pronounce sentence in favour of Henry's divorce. 
 Many others disaffected to the Government had 
 held communications with her, including Queen Cath- 
 erine's chaplains. More sought an interview with 
 her, but was not deceived, and his name was struck 
 out of the bill passed against her and her adherents. 
 But Fisher believed in her holiness, and there is 
 some point in Cromwell's remonstrance to him that 
 he would have made a more careful inquiry before 
 accepting her visions if she had approved instead 
 of denouncing the King's proceedings.' It was 
 Cranmer who took the first steps to expose the im- 
 posture ; he saw the Nun of Kent in the summer 
 of 1533,* and induced her to confess. In accord- 
 ance with his invariable practice of making Parlia- 
 
 * Cranmer, Works, ii., 65. 
 
 ' Gairdner, Church History, 1902, p. 144. 
 
 • Burnet, ed. Pocock, iv., 195-201. 
 ^Cranmer, Works, ii., 252, 271-274. 
 
 7 
 
8o Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 ment his accomplice in all acts of severity, Henry 
 had her condemned by Act of Attainder, and she 
 was executed in April, 1534. Cranmer, however, 
 interceded earnestly and successfully on behalf of 
 the monks of Christ Church, who had been among 
 her dupes or accomplices/ 
 
 Their connection with the Nun of Kent naturally 
 suggested the administration to Fisher and More 
 of the oath imposed by the Act of Succession ; a 
 further reason may possibly be found in the sen- 
 tence pronounced by the Pope on 23 March, 1534, 
 in favour of the validity of Henry's marriage with 
 Catherine of Aragon. The oath would serve as a 
 useful touchstone of allegiance to the verdict of 
 the Pope or to that of the English Church. So, 
 on 13 April, Fisher and More were called before 
 Cranmer and his colleagues at Lambeth.' The form 
 of the oath had not been prescribed by Parliament, 
 but drawn up by the commissioners ; and More, 
 while willing to swear to the succession itself on 
 the ground that that was a matter within the com- 
 petence of Parliament, objected to the oath' and 
 to the preamble of the Act because it contained a 
 denial of Papal authority, which he maintained was 
 incompatible with his conscience. Fisher also re- 
 fused, and Cranmer, who was generally on the side 
 
 * Cranmer, Works ^ ii., 271. 
 
 * More, Works, p. 1528; Burnet, i., 256; Strype, Cranmer, i., 36- 
 
 38. 
 
 2 More's objections to the legality of the oath prompted an Act of 
 Parliament, passed the next session, declaring the form of oath pro- 
 posed by the commissioners to be the one intended by Parliament. 
 
SIR THOMAS MORE. 
 
 AFTER THE PAINTING By HOLBEIN 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 8i 
 
 of mercy, urged the King to accept the oath in the 
 form in which they were willing to take it.* He 
 thought this would be a sufficient recognition of 
 Henry's authority, but the King discovered an im- 
 plied assertion of that of the Pope. Cranmer's 
 mediation proved vain, and Fisher and More were 
 condemned to loss of goods and imprisonment for 
 life. With their subsequent execution on the charge 
 of maliciously trying to deprive the King of his title 
 of Supreme Head of the Church Cranmer had, for- 
 tunately for his reputation, nothing to do.' 
 
 In the meantime Convocation, universities, and 
 monasteries were occupied in debating the question 
 whether the Bishop of Rome had any more author- 
 ity in England than any other foreign bishop. In 
 the previous year preachers had been required to 
 proclaim the superiority of General Councils to 
 Popes, and it had been ordered that the Pope should 
 be officially styled plain Bishop of Rome. His au- 
 thority in England was now repudiated with some- 
 thing like unanimity. Fear, no doubt, had something 
 to do with it, but the decision would hardly have 
 become permanent had it been based on nothing but 
 fear. In November, 1534, Parliament met once 
 more to give legal effect to this repudiation of the 
 Papal authority and to the recognition of Henry's 
 
 * Z. and P., vii., 499, 500. 
 
 ' It is often said inaccurately that More was executed for refusing 
 to take the Oath of Supremacy, though no oath was imposed by that 
 Act and no penalty attached to its infraction. But the Treason Act, 
 passed in the same session, made it high treason to attempt to de- 
 prive the King of any of his titles, and it was on this Act that More 
 was tried and condemned. 
 
82 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 ecclesiastical supremacy, conceded three years be- 
 fore by Convocation. It went farther than Convo- 
 cation had gone, and omitted the clause qualifying 
 the supremacy. It professed only to corroborate and 
 confirm a pre-existing right. The King's Majesty, 
 it declared, ** justly and rightfully is and ought to be 
 the Supreme Head of the Church of England," and it 
 proceeded to annex and unite to the Imperial Crown 
 " all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions* 
 privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and com- 
 modities to the said Dignity of Supreme Head of the 
 same Church belonging and appertaining."* The 
 title was incorporated with the King's style by an 
 order in council dated 15 January, 1535.' 
 
 This Act of Supremacy is one of the shortest in 
 the statute-book ; it remained in force for less than 
 twenty years, and Henry VIII. was the only mon- 
 arch who personally exercised for any length of time 
 the powers it conferred.' He was also better quali- 
 fied than any other English sovereign for the posi- 
 tion. His morals, it is true, left much to be desired, 
 but they were not worse than those of some Popes. 
 His mind and conscience had been nourished on 
 mediaeval scholastic philosophy and on mediaeval 
 canon law, and throughout his reign his theological 
 views were in general harmony with those of the 
 
 »26 Henry VIII. c. i. 
 
 *Z. and P.^ viii., 52. 
 
 3 In Edward VI. 's reign the Supremacy was exercised by the Coun- 
 cil; Mary was, of course, Supreme Head foi; the first year of her 
 reign, but she soon abolished the title and it has never been re- 
 stored. Elizabeth and her successors have only been styled '* su- 
 preme governors." 
 
15351 The Royal Supremacy Ss 
 
 majority of his clergy. He always believed in rites 
 and ceremonies ; he might dally with Lutheranism, 
 or rather permit his ministers to dally with it for 
 political purposes, but he always remained a Catholic 
 at heart. His convictions were not due to ignorance, 
 for few men were so well read in heretical theology ; 
 he kept a private cabinet full of Lutheran books 
 and read them with eagerness and intelligence. He 
 loved nothing better than a theological argument 
 with his bishops, and most of them regarded his su- 
 premacy not without reason as the most effectual 
 bulwark against the storms of heresy which had sub- 
 merged the Church in Germany. 
 
 Nor did his extensive powers trench quite so much 
 upon the Church's prerogative as has sometimes 
 been supposed. The King's authority was only a 
 potestas jurisdictionis and not at all a potestas or- 
 dinis} The title " Supreme Head " was an offen- 
 sive phrase, which implied to most men more than 
 even Henry thought of claiming. It seemed to indi- 
 cate a pretension to spiritual powers which were en- 
 tirely outside the lay province. But Henry himself 
 declared that the title conferred on him no new 
 powers ; he never asserted ' that he could ordain a 
 
 'See Makower, ConstiU Hist. Church of England, Eng. transl., 
 
 p. 255. 
 
 ' Yet this question was debated among his bishops and others \ 
 and Cranmer maintained that princes and governors might make 
 bishops and so might the people by their election ; see Burnet, ed. 
 Pocock, iv., 481-487; Strype, Cranmer, ii., 749-751; Jenkyns, ii., 
 98, ei sqq., and Dixon, ii., 303-308. Some of the answers given in 
 these documents indicate the high-water marks of what has been 
 called " Byzantinism" in England. 
 
84 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 sub-deacon, baptise, marry, impose penance, pro- 
 nounce absolution, let alone say mass. The whole 
 sacramental system was left in the hands of the 
 Church. The King was empowered in certain cir- 
 cumstances to nominate bishops, but it was never 
 assumed that such nomination conferred any spirit- 
 ual powers; they were the result of confirmation 
 and consecration at the hands of the Church. Henry 
 claimed to control the machine, but he did not pre- 
 tend to supply the motive power ; he might select 
 the channels through which spiritual privileges 
 flowed, but he was not the channel through which, 
 nor the fountain from which, they flowed. He was 
 willing, to use his own words, to leave the clergy 
 control of men's souls, provided the State had con- 
 trol of their bodies.* 
 
 Again, it is necessary to guard against the idea 
 that Henry forced a Church that was previously free 
 under a galling Erastian yoke. Such a view errs as 
 much in one direction as the view that Henry freed 
 the Church does in the other. The freedom of the 
 Church had long before shrunk to a shadow. Bishops 
 and Abbots, who had once been freely elected by 
 their chapters, had for centuries been joint nominees 
 of Pope and King. A prelate depended exclusively 
 upon the King for his temporalities and upon the 
 Pope for his spiritualities." The representative idea 
 
 ^ L. and P.^ v., 1013. 
 
 ^ Archbishop Warham, shortly before his death, explained his view 
 of the Pope's authority, which, as Warham was no extreme Papalist, 
 may be accepted as correct (Z.. and P.^ v., 1247). His acts in con- 
 secrating bishops were done, he says, in his capacity as commissary 
 
1535] The Royal Supremacy 85 
 
 embodied in elections had gone out of them and left 
 them a meaningless form ; while the supposed right 
 of the English provinces to legislate independently 
 of King and of Pope has been conclusively proved 
 to be mainly a myth.* Had the jurisdiction of the 
 Pope been only abolished, the English Church would 
 undoubtedly have acquired that right ; but before 
 the Papal jurisdiction was abolished Henry took 
 care that Convocation should transfer to himself 
 those legislative powers which the Pope had exer- 
 cised. The Church in England was not freed from 
 the yoke of an extraneous jurisdiction or from the 
 burden of first-fruits and tenths ; they were merely 
 transferred from the Pope to the King. Henry, in 
 fact, neither liberated nor enslaved the Church ; he 
 simply substituted a sole for a dual control. The 
 change was no doubt acceptable to most, and it 
 might appear like a liberation, because the despot- 
 ism was a native and not an alien one. But it be- 
 came at once more effective and more severe. Dual 
 controls are usually inefficient, and between Kings 
 
 of the Pope, and they were really the Pope's acts. Moreover, a 
 bishop received his jurisdiction, not by election or consecration, but 
 by being declared bishop in Consistory at Rome. The dependence 
 of the English Church on Rome was therefore a reality, and no mere 
 form. When it was abolished by the second Act of Annates, the 
 confirmation of the bishop by other English bishops was obviously 
 intended to take the place of the previous declaration in Consistory, 
 which, according to Warham, really made a man a bishop. This 
 confirmation was certainly not in intention the formality to which it 
 has been reduced by practice and by a recent decision of the English 
 courts. 
 
 * Professor F. W. Maitland, The Roman Canon Law^ 1898. 
 
86 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 and Popes the Church had lapsed into impotent an- 
 archy. The rigour of the new supremacy may best 
 be justified on the plea that not otherwise could 
 the Church have been reformed. 
 
 It was, however, an expedient repugnant to mod- 
 ern ideas. In the, latter years of Henry's reign "the 
 King's doctrine" became the usual phrase for or- 
 thodoxy. Such a condition could not be permanent, 
 for it was opposed to the foundations of Protestant- 
 ism as well as to those of Catholicism, and occasioned 
 the simultaneous execution of martyrs to both faiths, 
 the one class on the scaffold as traitors, the other 
 at the stake as heretics.* It was only possible in days 
 when a powerful sovereign could stand between the 
 two opposing forces, balancing one against the other, 
 and when regard for the State as represented in the 
 King's person outweighed every other consideration. 
 Henry's supremacy was personal, not parliamentary ; 
 he and his daughter Elizabeth denied to their Parlia- 
 ments any share in their ecclesiastical prerogative. 
 Parliament and Convocation were co-ordinate legis- 
 lative bodies, independent of one another, but sub- 
 ject to the sovereign. Such was the Tudor system, 
 but it barely outlived the Tudor dynasty. No other 
 monarch has been able to wield their double sceptre ; 
 and as the power of the Crown declined, its secular 
 authority was seized by Parliament, which also at- 
 tempted to grasp its ecclesiastical supremacy. Con- 
 
 ^ The most notorious. case occurred on 30 July, 1540, when Barnes, 
 Jerome, and Gerrard were burnt for heresy, and Featherstone, 
 Powell, and Abel were hanged for treason, all at Smithfield. (See 
 Wriothesley, Chronicle^ Camden Soc, i., 120-121.) 
 
15351 The Royal Supremacy 87 
 
 vocation disputed the claim, but was unable to 
 vindicate its own, and the royal supremacy as 
 exercised by Henry VIII. has died a natural death, 
 leaving as yet no recognised successor, and a state of 
 affairs not far removed from ecclesiastical anarchy. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 CRANMER AND REFORM 
 
 " 'T'HAT our said Sovereign Lord shall have full 
 1 power and authority from time to time to 
 visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, 
 and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, 
 contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be, 
 which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdic- 
 tion are or may lawfully be reformed, repressed 
 . . . most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the 
 increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the 
 conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquillity of 
 this realm." Such were the objects, as defined in 
 the Act of Supremacy, which the King, armed with 
 his two-edged sword of temporal and spiritual au- 
 thority, now set out to accomplish. They were as 
 vague as they were ample ; the Supreme Head 
 might think that he had been girt with these weap- 
 ons to reform abuses which heretics cast in the teeth 
 of the Church, or he might imagine that he had been 
 called to extirpate heresies which feebler Popes had 
 failed to crush. Cranmer looked for the one consum- 
 mation, and Gardiner hoped for the other ; and the 
 parties which followed their lead fought a twelve- 
 
 88 
 
[1533-1538] Cranmer and Reform 89 
 
 years* fight for the control of the royal supremacy 
 and the direction of England's ecclesiastical policy. 
 Henry held the balance, inclining now to this side, 
 now to that, as his political or personal ends made it 
 desirable to cultivate friendship with Protestant or 
 Catholic powers. When, in 1539, the King threw 
 his whole weight into the scale against the New 
 Learning, he did so partly because, as Bishop Stubbs 
 has said,* he *' symbolised consistently with Gar- 
 diner and not with Cranmer," but partly, perhaps, 
 because he saw that unless he redressed the balance 
 the Protestants would predominate, and the equi- 
 librium, on which his power was based, would be 
 destroyed ; and, as a matter of fact, the balance did 
 turn decisively in their favour as soon as Henry 
 Vni. was removed from the scene. 
 
 The growth of the Protestant party and the de- 
 velopment of its religious principles in England dur- 
 ing the reign of Henry VHI. have been somewhat 
 obscured by modern attempts' to minimise the influ- 
 ence of Protestantism in England, and to emphasise 
 both the continuity of Catholic doctrine in the Church, 
 and the identity of the mediaeval Church in Eng- 
 land with the modern Church of England.' The 
 
 ' Stubbs, Lectures on Mediceval and Modern History , ed. 1887, p. 
 299. 
 
 ^ E, g.^ Canon Dixon's great work, The History of the Church of 
 England^ iJJo-iS7^^ ^ vols. 
 
 ^ The excess to which the practice of exaggerating the independ- 
 ence of the English Church during the Middle Ages, and of laying 
 stress on its modern Catholicism has gone, has led one critic to affirm 
 that some writers believe the Church to have been Protestant before 
 the Reformation and Catholic after it. 
 
90 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 Church is of course the same Church before and 
 after the Reformation, but then Saul and Paul were 
 the same man before and after conversion, and proof 
 of the identity does not refute the change. Men do 
 not change their bodies when they change their 
 minds, and an institution may preserve its outward 
 form while its spirit is altered. Except for the sub- 
 stitution of the royal for the papal supremacy, the 
 Church retained its organisation almost intact, but 
 the intention which underlay its forms and its form- 
 ularies was profoundly modified by Cranmer him- 
 self, and by the influence of the new doctrines which 
 are conveniently if not quite accurately described as 
 Protestant.* 
 
 The origin of these new doctrines or heresies in 
 England is not correctly ascribed to Luther; the 
 spread of Lutheranism on the Continent undoubt- 
 edly gave impetus to the movement in England, but 
 the views of the English Reformers approach so 
 much more nearly to those of Wycliffe than to those 
 of Luther, that the Englishman rather than the Ger- 
 man must be regarded as the morning star of the 
 Anglican Reformation. Even as Wycliffe had done, 
 so Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Hooper looked to 
 the State to reform a corrupt Church ; like him they 
 
 ^ The term properly applies only to those who adopted the Protest 
 drawn up by some of the German princes against the decrees of the 
 Diet of Spires in 1529, but the need of some common designation 
 for the religious opponents of Rome led to its use outside Germany, 
 and it began to be applied to English Reformers in the reign of Ed- 
 ward VI. (See the present writer's Tudor Tracts^ p. xxiii., note). It 
 was of course never admitted into the formularies of the English 
 Church. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 91 
 
 regarded the wealth of the clergy as an impediment 
 to the exercise of spiritual influence, and, like him, 
 they gradually receded from the Catholic doctrine 
 of the mass. Most of the English Reformers were 
 acquainted with Wycliffe's works ; Cranmer declares 
 that he set forth the truth of the Gospel,* Hooper 
 recalls how he resisted " the popish doctrine of the 
 mass,'" Ridley how he denied transubstantiation,' 
 and Bale how he denounced the friars* ; and it is 
 not perhaps without significance that Henry VHL 
 himself in 1530 sent to Oxford for a copy of the arti- 
 cles on which Wycliffe had been condemned/ The 
 control of the press exercised by the authorities pre- 
 vented his works being printed, but numbers of them 
 circulated in manuscript, and Bale records " with tri- 
 umph that, in spite of the efforts to suppress them, 
 not one had utterly perished. 
 
 " It is certain," says Dr. Rashdall, " that the Reforma- 
 tion had virtually broken out in the secret bible-readings 
 of the Cambridge reformers before either the trumpet- 
 call of Luther or the exigencies of Henry VIH/s per- 
 sonal and political position set men free once more to 
 talk openly against the pope and the monks, and to teach 
 a simpler and more spiritual gospel than the system 
 against which Wyclifife had striven." ' 
 
 It is not probable that all the cases of heresy 
 which occurred in the early years of Henry VHI.'s 
 
 'Cranmer, Works, i., 14. 'Hooper, Works, i., 527. 
 
 "Ridley, Works, p. 158. '•Bale, Select Works, p. 171. 
 
 ^Z. and P., iv., 6546. 'Bale, Works, p. 140. 
 
 'Z>iV/. of Nat. Biog., art. " Wycliffe," Ixiii., 218. 
 
92 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 reign were due to the lingering subterranean influ- 
 ence of Wy cliff e, and the popular tract, Wy cliff es 
 Wicket^ the possession of which was frequently made 
 a charge against their victims by the clerical courts, 
 was not from the Reformer's pen. But of the pre- 
 valence of heretical opinions in England before Lu- 
 ther's revolt against Indulgences there is ample 
 evidence. Foxe recounts the martyrdom of ten 
 men and women between 1509 and 15 18; many 
 suffered a less extreme form of persecution, and in 
 the year 15 17 alone thirty-five persons in the diocese 
 of London were forced to abjure their opinions.^ 
 Nor does Foxe*s witness stand alone ; occasionally 
 instances of heresy are mentioned in the State pa- 
 pers,' and on 8 November, 151 1, Ammonius, Henry 
 VIII.'s Latin secretary, writing to his friend Eras- 
 mus, attributes the scarcity and dearness of wood to 
 the holocaust caused by the heretics.' It was a grim 
 and heartless joke, no doubt ; but there would have 
 been no point in it unless there had been a notable 
 number of heretics burnt. And the secretary's letter 
 proceeds to state that his servant's brother, " lout as 
 he is, has founded a sect and has his followers.'* 
 Three months later the movement had become so 
 pronounced that Warham summoned a convocation 
 of his province for the express purpose of extirpat- 
 
 ' Foxe, Acts and Monuments y iv., 206. 
 
 ^E. g., Z. and P., i., 1381; cf. H. E. Jacobs, The Lutheran 
 Movement in England, p. 3 ; "as late as 152 1, the Bishop of London 
 arrested nearly five hundred Lollards, who probably had no connec- 
 tion with the movement then beginning in Germany." 
 
 ^ Ibid., i., 1948. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 93 
 
 ing heresy.* In October, 15 16, More declared that 
 the EpistolcB Obscurorum Virorunty that scathing 
 attack on the clergy, was popular everywhere.* Two 
 months later one Humphrey Bonner was accused of 
 ridiculing the Holy See in his sermons,* and Henry's 
 famous book against Luther appears to have been 
 begun in the spring of 15 18,* before Luther had 
 attracted any attention outside Germany, and to 
 have been originally directed against heretics among 
 his own subjects. 
 
 Under these circumstances Luther's books and 
 doctrines fell upon fruitful soil in England. In 1 521 
 Oxford was said to be infected with Lutheranism,' 
 and at Cambridge it was even more prevalent. 
 Henry VIII.'s book and the solemn committal to 
 the flames of Luther's writings in St. Paul's Church- 
 yard on 1 2th May in that year, before Wolsey, the 
 Papal nuncio, and other high dignitaries, did little to 
 stop the infection ; and during the next ten years 
 the German Reformer's views gained ever wider ac- 
 ceptance in England. Anne Boleyn and her father 
 were once described by Chapuys as being more Lu- 
 theran than Luther himself "; and even Henry VHI. 
 was beginning to look with lenient eyes on men who 
 might be useful pawns in the struggle with Rome.' 
 
 ' L. and P., i., 4312. ^ Ibid.^ ii., 2492. ^ Ibid., ii., 2692. 
 
 ^ Ibid.^ ii., 4257. Henry was certainly engaged in writing a book 
 at that time, and its arguments were submitted to Wolsey and to 
 other "great learned men." Nothing more is heard of it until 1521. 
 
 ^ Ibid,, iii., 1193. ^ Ibid., v., 148. 
 
 ' In 1529 he ordered Wolsey to discharge the Abbot of Reading, 
 who was accused of Lutheranism, "unless the matter be very hei- 
 nous."— (/i5/</., iv., 5925; cf. Ibid., iv., 6325, 6385; v., App. 7.) 
 
94 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 But not every one who was called Lutheran in 
 England adopted the doctrines of Wittenberg ; the 
 phrase was a generic term used to express any sort 
 of hostility to Rome or the clergy, and even the pos- 
 session of the Bible in English was sometimes suffi- 
 cient to make its owner a Lutheran suspect. The 
 number of Englishmen who were really Lutherans 
 was probably small, and Cranmer at the time of his 
 appointment as Archbishop was certainly not one of 
 them. He may have been affected to some extent 
 by Osiander's views during his stay in Germany, but 
 it is doubtful whether Osiander himself could pro- 
 perly be called a Lutheran. 
 
 The pressing need in Cranmer's eyes and in those 
 of most reforming churchmen was not a change of 
 doctrine so much as a change of conduct, and the 
 revival of Scriptural knowledge among both clergy 
 and laity. As soon as he had been enthroned at 
 Canterbury (3 December, 1533), he commenced a 
 visitation of his diocese. In 1534 he directed his 
 commissary to visit Norwich, where the Bishop had 
 distinguished himself by the persecution of Bilney' 
 and other reformers. Next followed a metropolitical 
 visitation of the southern province. It involved 
 Cranmer, as it had generally involved his predeces- 
 sors, in disputes with his suffragan bishops. Per- 
 sonal jealousy embittered the quarrel; probably 
 both Gardiner of Winchester and Stokesley of Lon- 
 don considered that they had better claims than 
 Cranmer to sit in Augustine's chair ; and they were 
 
 *See Diet. Nat. Biogr.^ v., 40. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 95 
 
 naturally disposed to resent his visitation, because 
 their own sympathies were conservative and the 
 Archbishop's were in favour of change. Gardiner 
 objected that his See had been visited not long be- 
 fore by Warham, and in his zeal for the royal su- 
 premacy he made the not very scrupulous protest 
 that Cranmer's assumption of the title " primate " was 
 an infraction of the King's ecclesiastical prerogative. 
 He seems to have thought that all bishops should be 
 equal under the Crown — at least so long as Cranmer 
 was Archbishop ; and indeed a proposal was put 
 forward in Parliament in 1532 for the transference 
 to the King of the primate's powers over his bis- 
 hops.* Stokesley cavilled at the use of the style 
 legatus natus of the Apostolic See, which had be- 
 longed to Archbishops of Canterbury for centuries, 
 and had not yet been legally abolished. The King, 
 however, upheld Cranmer in both cases, and his 
 visitation duly proceeded. Another attempt, insti- 
 gated, probably, by personal enmity to Cranmer, was 
 made against his primatial dignity. The Archbishop 
 of Canterbury was head of two ecclesiastical courts, 
 the Court of Arches and the Court of Audience, in 
 the latter of which he heard appeals from other dio- 
 ceses besides his own. It was now asserted that 
 former Archbishops held this court only in virtue of 
 their legatine authority from the Pope, and that, the 
 Papal jurisdiction having been repudiated, the Court 
 of Audience had no legal basis." Cranmer contested 
 
 »Z. and p., v., 850. 
 
 'See the reply to the Archbishop printed by Strype {Cranmer, ii., 
 714-716); the " order concerning the Proctors of the Court of Arches," 
 
96 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 this idea and appears again to have been upheld by 
 Henry ; but eventually the other view prevailed, and 
 when, in very recent times, an Archbishop once more 
 held a Court of Audience at Lambeth, the " court " 
 was admitted to be no real court at all, and its de- 
 cisions to have no legal binding power.* 
 
 Meanwhile, in 1534, Cranmer issued a pastoral in 
 which he enjoined silence respecting masses for the 
 dead, prayers to saints, pilgrimages, and the celibacy 
 of the clergy. These practices were the subject of 
 much denunciation, and Cranmer hoped that within 
 a year an authoritative decision on these points would 
 be adopted. He also persuaded Convocation to pe- 
 tition for an authorised version of the Bible in Eng- 
 lish. Four years before, there had been a persistent 
 rumour that Henry was in favour of this measure"; 
 but the tendencies encouraged by Tyndale's trans- 
 lations alarmed the King, and his promise of the 
 boon was made conditional upon the abandonment 
 of unorthodox views." So now the petition of Con- 
 vocation was accompanied by a demand for the 
 suppression of heretical books. Cranmer also, in con- 
 junction with Cromwell and Anne Boleyn, used his 
 influence to procure the promotion of Reformers 
 to the bench of Bishops. He had long befriended 
 
 which Strype attributes to Cranmer, seems to have been really due 
 to Warham, and the protest against it which he prints {Ibid., ii., 717- 
 728) to belong to 1^32 or some earlier date. 
 
 1 Cf. Canon MacCoU, The Reformation Settlement^ loth ed., p. 
 
 567. 
 ^L.andP.,\y., 6385. 
 2/<?^„iv., 6487. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 97 
 
 Latimer,* who in 1535 was appointed to the See of 
 Worcester ; Shaxton was made Bishop of Salisbury, 
 Foxe of Hereford, Hilsey of Rochester, and Bar- 
 low of S. David's, with the result that for a few 
 years the episcopal bench was more inclined to re- 
 form than the lower house of Convocation. Never- 
 theless the conservative element on the bench 
 frustrated for the time Cranmer's projected Bible in 
 English. He divided the task of revision among 
 various prelates, and Gardiner performed his portion, 
 but Stokesley did nothing, declaring that it was 
 " abusing the people to give them liberty to read the 
 Scriptures." ' 
 
 The year 1535 was, however, notable mainly for 
 the visitation of the monasteries under the authority 
 of Thomas Cromwell, who, to the derogation of the 
 Church, had been appointed Henry's Vicar-General 
 in ecclesiastical matters. To facilitate his operations 
 all episcopal jurisdictions, including Cranmer's, 
 were for the time suspended, and so the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury was relieved of all responsibility for 
 the methods employed to destroy the monasteries. 
 That the monasteries needed drastic reformation 
 Cranmer was no doubt convinced, and he probably 
 had little sympathy with the principle of monasti- 
 cism ; but he can have had no enthusiasm for the way 
 in which their vast estates were used to bribe the laity 
 into supporting Henry's government. Without de- 
 nying that the county families and noble houses, 
 
 'In 1533 all the prelates except Cranmer were said to be demand- 
 ing Latimer's suppression. (Z. and P,^ vi,, 1249.) 
 ' Strype, Cranmer ^ i., 48. 
 
98 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 founded on the spoils of the Church, have thereby 
 been enabled in the past to do their country some 
 service, it may be doubted whether the permanent 
 results have been beneficial ; and it may be admitted 
 that from the point of view of education and of pro- 
 vision for the sick and poor, the dissipation of 
 monastic property was a waste of one of the most 
 splendid opportunities in English history. 
 
 Another tragedy, with which Cranmer was more 
 nearly concerned, was enacted in 1536. Whether 
 Anne Boleyn was guilty or innocent of the charges 
 on which she was beheaded is a question with which 
 Cranmer's biographer is not called upon to deal,* 
 for the Archbishop's part in the matter related not 
 to the Queen's death, but to her divorce. He was 
 inexpressibly shocked at her fall, and, so far 
 as we know, he was the only man of the time 
 who had the courage to plead with Henry on her 
 behalf. He had never had better opinion in 
 woman, he wrote, than he had in her ; and next to 
 the King he was most bound unto her of all creatures 
 living; he ventured to express a hope that she 
 would be found innocent, and even reminded Henry 
 that he, too, had offended God.* Anne was, how- 
 ever, condemned by a court of twenty-six temporal 
 peers, over which her uncle presided, and Cranmer 
 was then called in to pronounce her divorce. The 
 reasons for this extraordinary step are still obscure, 
 and the grounds on which the divorce was declared 
 
 * I have discussed the point in my Henry VIII. , chap. v. 
 ' Works. ^ ii., 324 ; see also Paul Friedmann, Anne Boleyn^ 1884, 
 vol. ii., chap. xvii. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 99 
 
 were kept profoundly secret. Why, if Henry merely 
 wanted to get rid of his Queen, was he not satisfied 
 with her execution ? What object could possibly be 
 served by proclaiming the marriage to have been null 
 from the beginning, and by bastardising the Princess 
 Elizabeth as well as the Princess Mary ? It may be 
 that Henry had become sensitive to the force of 
 public opinion against the marriage, for his envoys 
 had just failed to persuade the Lutherans of its 
 validity. Anne, moreover, had had at least two 
 miscarriages ; similar misfortunes had convinced 
 Henry of the nullity of his marriage with Catherine, 
 and conscientious scruples grow by what they 
 feed on. 
 
 However this may be, Cranmer had to decide the 
 question by canon law ; and the hopeless confusion 
 into which canon law had fallen now that the Papal 
 jurisdiction, the keystone of the arch, had been 
 abolished, gave rise to the strangest anomalies. 
 Two canonical objections to the marriage were 
 raised. The first was an alleged precontract be- 
 tween Anne and the Earl of Northumberland, 
 which was supported by some circumstantial evi- 
 dence, although the Earl himself solemnly denied 
 its existence. There was a more valid objection. 
 Henry's previous relations with Mary Boleyn had 
 created an affinity between him and her sister 
 Anne, which, by canon law, was a bar to their mar- 
 riage. For this reason Henry had obtained a dis- 
 pensation from Clement VH. in 1528 ; but since that 
 date the Pope's dispensing power had been repudi- 
 ated, and the old canonical objection was therefore 
 
loo Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 revived.* The King in his anxiety to divorce Cath- 
 erine had denied the power of the Pope to dispense ; 
 by so doing he had, probably without realising it 
 a:t first, invalidated his marriage with Anne, which 
 rested upon the same dispensing power. The 
 realisation of this fact, stimulated no doubt by his 
 failure to obtain recognition for her in any quarter 
 outside England, was probably responsible for her 
 divorce, though not for her death ; and, monstrous 
 as it seems from the point of view of justice and 
 equity, the divorce of Anne Boleyn was probably 
 legal. A less opportunist government than that of 
 Henry VIII. would have endeavoured to put the 
 existing canon laws on a firmer and more reasonable 
 basis, but the King had already enough on his 
 hands, and the position of the canon law in England 
 has to this day remained somewhat anomalous. 
 
 On the day (19 May) that Anne Boleyn was be- 
 headed, Cranmer granted Henry a special licence to 
 
 * There are some objections to this view. Firstly, the affinity 
 created by Henry's relations with Mary Boleyn was different from 
 the affinity created by Prince Arthur'^s marriage w^ith Catherine; 
 the former was only held to be an obstacle by canon law, the 
 latter by Divine law; and many would have admitted the Pope's 
 power to dispense with canon law, who denied his power to dis- 
 pense with Divine laws. Secondly, in the tract on the divorce attrib- 
 uted to Cranmer (Burnet, ed. Pocock, iv., 146), it is asserted that an 
 affinity fatal to marriage is only created nuptiali fcedere. On the 
 other hand, the Pope's dispensing power had been denied altogether, 
 and it is by no means clear that Cranmer's views (if they were Cran- 
 mer's) on affinity had been recognised as canon law in England in 
 1536. Chapuys definitely states (Z. and /*., xi., 41) that the ground 
 of Cranmer's sentence was Henry's relations with Mary Boleyn, and 
 not Anne's precontract with Northumberland. 
 
Copyright by J. Lowy. 
 LADY JANE SEYMOUR. 
 
 AFTER THE PAINTING BY HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER, NOW AT VIENNA. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform loi 
 
 marry a third wife.* Jane Seymour was descended 
 on her mother's side from Edward III., and the 
 stringency of the canon law was still so great that 
 the Archbishop had to grant at the same time a dis- 
 pensation relieving the parties from the impediment 
 to their marriage arising from consanguinity. They 
 were betrothed on the 20th and were privately mar- 
 ried at York Place ten days later.' After sixteen 
 months Queen Jane gave birth on 12 October, 1537, 
 to the future Edward VL, over whose birth, wrote 
 Latimer, there was as much joy as over that of S. 
 John the Baptist. Cranmer was godfather to the 
 infant at his christening on the 15th.' Nine days 
 afterwards the Queen died. Had she lived she 
 would have saved Henry and the English Church 
 from the serio-comic episode of Anne of Cleves and 
 from the tragedy of Catherine Howard. 
 
 From these unsavoury matters of royal matrimony 
 the Archbishop turned with relief to more congenial 
 work. In February, 1536, he had preached a nota- 
 ble sermon in S. Paul's Churchyard, "and," writes 
 Chapuys, " of the two hours that he preached one 
 and a half were occupied with blasphemies against 
 His Holiness and his predecessors.* The special 
 
 ^ The expression is not strictly correct ; according to Henry's 
 view, which was endorsed by the Church, Catherine of Aragon and 
 Anne Boleyn had never been his wives, so Jane Seymour was the 
 first. 
 
 ' They are often incorrectly said to have been married on the day 
 after Anne's execution. It does not appear who officiated. 
 
 ' Strype, Eccl. Memorials, I., ii,, i-io ; Cranmer did not perform 
 the ceremony. 
 
 ^ L. and P., x., 282, 283. 
 
I02 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 object of his discourse appears to have been not, as 
 Chapuys impUes, to deny the existence of purga- 
 tory, that dim realm in which were laid the unseen 
 foundations of the Roman Church, but to denounce 
 the idea that Popes could release men's souls from 
 durance. He also sought, according to Chapuys, to 
 prove that all the Scriptural passages about Anti- 
 christ referred to the Italian pontiff; and if so, he 
 entered upon a sort of controversy of which the an- 
 nals of the Reformed churches are too full. 
 
 Other doctrines besides that of purgatory occupied 
 the bishops' attention. *' The prelates here," writes 
 Chapuys on i April, *' are daily in communication 
 in the house of the Archbishop of Canterbury for 
 the determination of certain articles and for the re- 
 form of ecclesiastical ceremonies." ^ They were, in 
 fact, engaged in debates which resulted in the Ten 
 Articles, the first definition of the faith put forward 
 under the royal supremacy. It was a compromise 
 between the old faith and the new ; but it was a vic- 
 tory for the latter, in so far as " no compromise" had 
 hitherto been the Catholic attitude. The matter was, 
 indeed, started in Convocation in June in the form of 
 a complaint preferred by the lower house of sixty- 
 seven Lutheran errors then current in England which 
 the clergy thought should be repressed." Fuller says 
 these errors contained " the Protestant religion in 
 ore " ; and it was not likely that Cranmer and the 
 newly appointed prelates of the upper house would 
 
 * L, and P.^ x., 6oi. 
 
 - These are printed in Fuller's Church History, 1656, bk. v., 
 209-212, or ed. Brewer, 1845, !"•» 128-136. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 103 
 
 consent to their indiscriminate condemnation. The 
 result seems to have been a deadlock between the 
 two parties, and Henry VIII. took the matter into 
 his own hands/ and himself penned a set of articles. 
 These were revised by Cranmer and laid before 
 Convocation by Bishop Foxe on ii July; and the 
 clergy who in the same session admitted Dr. Petre 
 to the highest seat in their assembly on the ground 
 that he was Cromwell's proctor, and Cromwell was 
 the Supreme Head's Vicegerent,' did not venture to 
 reject the royal theology. 
 
 The articles were passed, subscribed, and printed.' 
 Five were devoted to points of faith and five to 
 ceremonies. Three sacraments, baptism, penance, 
 and the Eucharist, were strongly upheld ; works of 
 charity were declared to be necessary to salvation, 
 auricular confession was not to be contemned, and 
 justification could only be attained " by contrition 
 and faith, joined with charity." Images were to 
 stand in the churches, saints to be invoked as inter- 
 cessors, the usual Catholic ceremonies to be observed, 
 and prayers to be offered for the departed. On the 
 other hand, the Bible and the three Creeds were to 
 be regarded as the standard of orthodoxy, a position 
 
 ^ L. and P., xi., iiio ; the King says "he was constrained to put 
 his own pen to the book and conceive certain articles which were 
 agreed upon by Convocation." Cf. ibid., Nos. 59, 123, 377, 954. 
 
 'See Wilkins, Concilia, iii., 803. 
 
 ^ They are printed in full from the Convocation records (soon 
 afterwards burnt) in Fuller's Church History, 1656, bk. v., 213- 
 225 (or in 1845 ed., vol, iii., 145-159), and from Cotton MS., 
 Cleopatra, E. v., p. 59, in Pocock's Burnet, iv., 272-290; an 
 epitome is given in Strype's Cranmer, i., 58-62. 
 
I04 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 from which the Reformed Church of England has 
 never varied ; amendment of life was pronounced a 
 necessary part of penance, faith was joined with 
 charity as necessary to justification, and the article 
 on the Eucharist did not go beyond an assertion of 
 the Real Presence ; there was to be no censing, kneel- 
 ing, or offering to images; the invocation of the 
 saints was "to be done without any vain supersti- 
 tion, as to think that any saint is more merciful, or 
 will hear us sooner than Christ " ; ceremonies were 
 declared to have no " power to remit sin " nor masses 
 to deliver souls from purgatory. The mention of 
 only three sacraments does not perhaps imply a re- 
 pudiation of the other four, though the attempt then 
 made to introduce a fourth, the sacrament of holy 
 orders, failed. On the whole, the Ten Articles were 
 a notable advance towards the purification of the 
 Church, and Cranmer and his reforming colleagues 
 had reason to feel satisfied that they had brought 
 the King thus far. Many of the worst abuses had 
 been removed at least from the seat of authority; 
 the whole system of Indulgences, which had pro- 
 voked Luther's revolt, was repudiated ; the polythe- 
 ism, into which popular worship of saints and images 
 tended to degenerate, was checked ^ ; and amend- 
 ment of life rather than performance of useless 
 penances was held up as the true symbol of re- 
 pentance. The Articles were, in fact, an excellent 
 embod|^ ent of the practical, as distinguished from 
 the doctrinal Reformation, which was the first and 
 foremost object of the movement. 
 
 ' Cf. Hallam, Hist, of England, 1884, i., p. 87. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 105 
 
 The same practical object is apparent in the In- 
 junctions* issued by Cromwell in August to enforce 
 the Ten Articles. Attention was called to the fact 
 that the Articles distinguished the " real doctrine of 
 Salvation" from the *' rites and ceremonies of the 
 Church, " that the people might know *' what was 
 necessary in religion, and what was instituted for the 
 decent and politic order of the Church." Supersti- 
 tion, holy-days, images, relics, miracles, and pilgrim- 
 ages were to be discouraged, and men were exhorted 
 to keep God's commandments, to provide for their 
 families, and to bestow what they could afford on 
 the poor rather than spend it in offerings to relics 
 and images or in making pilgrimages to shrines. 
 The clergy were to urge fathers to teach their child- 
 ren the Paternoster, the Articles of Faith, and the 
 commandments in their mother-tongue, and to bring 
 them up in learning or in some honest occupation or 
 trade. A Bible in Latin and English" was to be 
 provided in the choir of every church for every man 
 to read. The clergy were to eschew taverns and ale- 
 houses, cards or other unlawful games, and to set an 
 example to others by devoting their leisure to the 
 study of the Scriptures and by the purity of their 
 lives ; they were to expend a fortieth of their in- 
 comes on the poor, and if they had a hundred 
 pounds ' or more a year they were to provide 
 exhibitions for poor scholars at some school or 
 
 * Printed in Pocock's Burnet, iv., 308-313. 
 2 See below, pp. 1 12-1 14. 
 
 ^It is necessary to multiply sums of money by ten, twelve, or even 
 fifteen to bring them up to their present value. 
 
io6 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 university. The ecclesiastical government of Henry 
 VIII. has been bitterly, and in some respects, 
 justly, denounced, but at least it set before the 
 Church some ideals which have not yet been at- 
 tained. 
 
 Nor were the reforms which Henry did accom- 
 plish allowed to pass without protest. Reaction was 
 gathering its forces, and while Cromwell was de- 
 nouncing pilgrimages to the shrines of the saints, 
 another sort of pilgrimage was organising from which 
 he and his colleagues had more to fear. It is not, 
 however, quite accurate to represent the rising in 
 northern England in the autumn of 1536, known as 
 the Pilgrimage of Grace, as exclusively a religious 
 movement ; the first acts of rebellion broke out not 
 against the visitors of monasteries, but against the 
 collectors of taxes; and while the people in the 
 north undoubtedly suffered from the break-up of 
 monastic establishments, they had other grievances 
 and feared other ills. The second article of the 
 Lincolnshire rebels was a demand for the repeal of 
 the recent Statute of Uses. The enclosure move- 
 ment was responsible for at least as many homeless 
 vagrants as the ejection of the monks from their 
 cells, and evicted tenants had no pensions like the 
 monks to alleviate their sufferings. More prosperous 
 people, too, were alarmed by reports that taxes were 
 to be levied on every baptism, marriage, and burial, 
 and fines on the beasts of the field; that churches 
 within five miles of another were to be destroyed as 
 superfluous, and their jewels and plate confiscated ; 
 and that there was to be a rigid inquisition into every 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 107 
 
 man's property. These seditious rumours did their 
 work, and in the autumn of 1536 Lincolnshire first 
 and Yorkshire next flamed out in revolt. It was a 
 great opportunity for the Pope's adherents in Eng- 
 land, but even the most reactionary of the English 
 CathoHcs seemed to have little enthusiasm for the 
 Papal cause. His claims to spiritual supremacy 
 were mentioned during the conference at Pontefract, 
 but it was suggested that he should delegate his 
 functions to the Archbishops of Canterbury and 
 York, ** so that the said Bishop of Rome have no 
 further meddling."* The popular demand in the 
 north, so far as religion was concerned, seems to 
 have been for the restoration of Catholicism minus 
 the Pope, and one of the rebels' articles went to the 
 root of the whole conflict between mediaeval and 
 modern ideas. It denied the power of any nation 
 to repudiate received canon laws without the consent 
 of a General Council " ; that was the old ideal against 
 which England protested by asserting her right to 
 reform her national Church herself. Cranmer was 
 naturally singled out for attack, both as a patron of 
 heretics and because of his sentence against Catherine 
 of Aragon. ^ The rebels demanded that he should 
 be handed over to them, or banished the realm, and 
 one of .their popular songs ran *: 
 
 ^ L. and P., xi., 1182, 1244, 1246. 
 
 ^ Ibid, xi., 1 182 ; this denial does not support a modern theory that 
 canon laws were not valid in England unless confirmed by the Eng- 
 lish Church. 
 
 ^ Ibid, xi., 1 182. 
 
 *Ibid, xi., 786. 
 
io8 Thomas Cranmer [1533 
 
 C^rim,' Cran,* and Riche,' 
 With three L* and their liche. 
 As some men teach, 
 God them amend. 
 And that Aske ^ may, 
 Without delay, 
 Here make a stay, 
 And well to end. 
 
 South of the Trent, however, the old faith had no 
 such staunch friends as Aske and his followers, and 
 early in 1537 the revolt was quenched, or rather 
 burnt itself out. It may have taught Henry to be 
 cautious in religious innovations, and possibly to its 
 influence may be traced the fact that the four sacra- 
 ments which had been omitted from the Ten Articles 
 of 1536 were included in the Institution of a Christian 
 Many published in 1537. This was an exposition of 
 the orthodox faith, as understood in England, on 
 which the Bishops were engaged from February 
 until June ; but all their prolonged debates produced 
 no better definition of the Faith than that contained 
 in the King's Ten Articles. The insistence on the 
 
 ' /. e., Cromwell. 
 
 "^ Cranmer. 
 
 ^ Richard, first baron Rich, Solicitor-General and afterwards 
 Lord Chancellor; %e&Dict. Nat. Biog., xlviii., 123-127; the name was 
 no doubt pronounced as it is in German, Reich, and would rhyme 
 with "liche, " which is simply " like." 
 
 ^ Possibly Leigh and Layton, the two royal visitors of monasteries, 
 and Latimer; Lee, Archbishop of York, is probably not intended, 
 but Longland of Lincoln might be one, and even Dr. London might 
 have a claim. 
 
 ^ The leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 109 
 
 seven sacraments was the only concession made to 
 the reactionary party, and the doctrine of Purgatory 
 was repudiated as emphatically as before. Never- 
 theless Henry VIII. took no responsibility for the 
 book ; he had not had time, he wrote in August,* to 
 examine it properly, but he trusted to the wisdom of 
 his prelates and gave his consent to its publication. 
 It was accordingly known as The Bishops Book, and 
 the preface written by Bishop Foxe of Hereford 
 declares that it represented the final and unanimous 
 agreement of the assembled Bishops and divines.' 
 
 The same year saw the publication of the first au- 
 thorised version of the Bible in English, a project on 
 which Cranmer had long set his heart. Versions of 
 the Scriptures in vernacular tongues had existed for 
 some time both in England and on the Continent, 
 and with a view to belittling the work of the Re- 
 formers, their importance has lately been much ex- 
 aggerated. For they were made from the Vulgate, 
 which was itself a bad translation of inferior versions 
 of the orginal documents. Tyndale's was the first 
 English translation from the original Hebrew and 
 Greek, and Tyndale's has been condemned and 
 burnt not so much because of the errors which it un- 
 doubtedly contained, as because of the approaches it 
 
 ' Subsequently, however, he made a considerable number of anno- 
 tations upon it which Cranmer took the liberty to criticise. Henry's 
 notes and Cranmer's criticisms are printed in Jenkyns' Cranmer, ii., 
 21 et sqq., and in the Parker Society's edition of Cranmer's Works, 
 ii., 83 et sqq. ; cf. also ibid., ii., 359-360. 
 
 ' It was issued in Sept., 1537 ; the revision of it published in 1543 
 was known as The Kinz^s Book. 
 
no Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 'fl 
 
 made to truth. It was shocking to a generation 
 which believed that Jesus Christ had endowed the 
 Church with the institutions, rites, and ceremonies it 
 possessed in the sixteenth century, to find npea- 
 fivrepo^ translated "elder" instead of "priest," 
 iuKkrfaia as " congregation " instead of " church," 
 ixsravoeiv as " repent " instead of " do penance," 
 and ayocTtrf as " love " instead of " charity." Sir 
 Thomas More had no objection to the truth being 
 made known to the select few, but an attempt like 
 Tyndale's to bring it home to " the boy that driveth 
 his plough " he regarded as " a design to depreciate 
 the authority of an ordained priesthood and of an 
 organised Church." ^ More's views in this matter 
 were shared by Henry VIII. and by most of his 
 Bishops; but in 1534 Cranmer had induced Con- 
 vocation to petition for another English version, and 
 
 * Gairdner, The English Church in the Sixteenth Century, 1902, 
 pp. 190-1. Dr. Gairdner appears to agree with More in considering 
 Tyndale's translation of the Scriptures as " a mischievous perversion 
 of those writings intended to advance heretical opinions." Tyndale's 
 object was to spread the knowledge of the Scriptures irrespective of 
 the question whether that knowledge made men heretics or confirmed 
 their Catholicism. If a knowledge of the Scriptures tended to make 
 men heretics, that was the fault of the Church. And as for the 
 " mischievous perversion," that surely consisted in enforcing a trans- 
 lation which implied a whole world of ideas not contained in the 
 original. *' Priest," " do penance," "charity," and '* church" all 
 denoted to the men of the sixteenth century ideas which are not to 
 be found in the New Testament; and no Greek scholar would dispute 
 the fact that Tyndale's expressions were less of a perversion of the 
 truth than those they displaced. If Tyndale's translation is a "mis- 
 chievous perversion," what is the Revised Version, which for the 
 most part adopts Tyndale's phrases ? 
 
ilxfKRT Ht.C TABELLA Q\OI> 50L\M POTVIT ARS GviLHEl,niTYHD\U-.HV1^5 CUM AvLC \l\ rlljl. ^^^^i 
 n OHMAMENTl.qVl P05T FtLIClS rVMORIS ThECM.OOI E PKIMITIAS HK: OtPOSl PAS .XliTVtfl t. !{l KOS 
 VoTE.'iTAMENTO NtC NON pENTATtVCHO IN VtRt4 \C\ LAM TRWFEROUaD OPER.V1 UAVAViT AtWLIA 
 iAU to V5U S\l\Tirrjt\M.VT INOt lion irilUWTOAl4CLl€AP05-rXXV5ATHWXMAmRk>'^tratM- I 
 
 Copyright Photo., Walker & Cockerell. 
 WILLIAM TYNDALE. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform m 
 
 Cromwell encouraged Coverdale to make his trans- 
 lation in 1535. It was much inferior to Tyndale's, 
 making no pretence to original scholarship, and 
 being derived mainly from the Vulgate, and from 
 Luther's German translation ; but its sale, which had 
 hitherto gone on unauthorised, was licensed by the 
 King in 1537, probably to enable the clergy to com- 
 ply with the Injunctions of 1536, ordering the pro- 
 vision of an English Bible in every church before 
 August, 1537. This, however, was not the version 
 which Cranmer sent to Cromwell on the 4th of that 
 month, declaring that he liked it '* better than any 
 other translation heretofore made," and urging that 
 it might be licensed for sale " until such time that 
 we Bishops shall set forth a better translation, which I 
 think will not be till a day after doomsday."^ This 
 latter version had been prepared by John Rogers, 
 the martyr, who, according to Bradford, '' broke the 
 ice valiantly " in Queen Mary's reign. Rogers had 
 been entrusted by Tyndale with the manuscript of 
 his incomplete translation of the Bible, including the 
 whole of the New Testament and the Old as far as 
 Jonah ; he incorporated all the former, and the latter 
 as far as the second book of Chronicles ; the rest he 
 borrowed from Coverdale." The book was originally 
 printed at Antwerp, but Grafton, the English printer, 
 purchased the sheets and sent a copy to Cranmer, 
 
 ^Cranmer, Works, \\., 2>AA- 
 
 'See Diet. Nat. Biog., s. v. Rogers, John (i500?-i555). The 
 dedication was signed Thomas Matthew, and the Bible was known 
 as " Matthew's Bible," but there is no reason to doubt the identity 
 of Rogers and Matthew, 
 y 
 
112 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 who was so pleased with it that he wrote the above 
 letter to Cromwell. The result exceeded his ex- 
 pectations and nine days later he again wrote to 
 Cromwell. ^ 
 
 " My very singular good lord, in my most hearty wise 
 I commend me unto your lordship. And whereas I un- 
 derstand that your lordship, at my request, hath not only 
 exhibited the bible which I sent unto you, to the king's 
 majesty, but also hath obtained of his grace that the same 
 shall be allowed by his authority to be bought and read 
 within this realm; my lord, for this your pain taken in 
 this behalf, I give unto you my most hearty thanks, as- 
 suring your lordship for the contentation of my mind, 
 you have shewed me more pleasure herein than if you 
 had given me a thousand pound; and I doubt not but 
 that hereby such fruit of good knowledge shall ensue 
 that it shall well appear hereafter what high and accept- 
 able service you have done unto God and the king; 
 which shall so much redound to your honour that, be- 
 sides God's reward, you shall obtain perpetual memory 
 for the same within this realm. And as for me, you may 
 reckon me your bondman for the same. And I dare be 
 bold to say, so may ye do my lord of Worcester." ' 
 
 A fortnight later he once more wrote to thank the 
 Vicegerent for his services in the matter. 
 
 " For the which act, not only the King's majesty, but 
 also you shall have perpetual laud and memory of all 
 them that be now, or hereafter shall be God's faithful 
 people and the followers of his word. And this deed 
 
 ' Cranmer, Works y Parker Soc, ii., 345-346. 
 ^ I. e.y Latimer. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 113 
 
 you shall hear of at the great day, when all things shall 
 be opened and made manifest. For our Saviour Christ 
 saith in his Gospel, that whosoever shrinketh from him 
 and his word, and is abashed to profess and set it forth 
 before men in this world, he will refuse him at that last 
 day; and contrary, whosoever constantly doth profess 
 him and his word, and studieth to set that forward in this 
 world, Christ will declare the same at the last day before 
 his Father and all his angels, and take upon him the 
 defence of those men." * 
 
 So the " mischievous perversion ** of the heretic 
 who less than a year before had been burnt at the 
 stake in Antwerp," went forth with Cranmer's bless- 
 ing to work its way among the English people, and 
 Tyndale's translation, which had before been con- 
 demned, received now the sanction of authority, and 
 permeated all future versions of the Bible in English. 
 The result was not due to the Bishops as a whole, 
 but to Cranmer, Cromwell, and Henry VIII., and of 
 the three Cranmer, whose motives were unmixed 
 with any considerations of worldly policy, deserves 
 the greatest credit. This version was, however, too 
 advanced for the government, and in 1538-9 an ex- 
 purgated edition was printed in Paris, where finer 
 type was available than in England. It is known as 
 the Great Bible, and also, from the fact that the 
 Archbishop wrote a preface for the 1540 and 1541 
 editions of it, as "Cranmer's Bible." In 1538 
 
 * iVorks, ii., 346-347. 
 
 ' Diet. Nat. Biog., Ivii., 428, where the date of Tyndale's death is 
 erroneously given as 6 August instead of 6 October. 
 
114 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 Cromwell issued a fresh set of Injunctions/ order- 
 ing that a copy of this Bible " of the largest vol- 
 ume " " should be set up in every church where 
 the people might most commodiously resort to 
 it and read it, the cost of purchase being defrayed 
 half by the parishioners and half by the incumbent.' 
 The clergy were " expressly to provoke, stir, and 
 exhort every person to read the same," but to 
 avoid contention and altercation and to reserve 
 disputed points for "men of higher judgment in 
 Scripture." In other respects the Injunctions of 
 1538 were similar to those of 1536; every incum- 
 bent was to recite the Paternoster^ Creed, and Ten 
 Commandments in English, that his flock might 
 learn them by degrees; he was to require some 
 knowledge of the rudiments of the Faith before ad- 
 mitting candidates to the sacrament of the Altar, to 
 keep a register of births, marriages, and deaths,* and 
 to preach at least once a quarter. 
 
 The reasons which led Henry VIII. to permit 
 
 ' Printed in Burnet, iv., 341-346. 
 
 ^ This expression may be explained by a letter from Grafton, the 
 printer of this Bible, to Cromwell (Strype, Cranmer^ ii., 729-732). 
 Grafton complains that after he had spent 500/. on this edition other 
 men ' ' go about the printing of the same work again in a lesser letter 
 to the intent that they may sell their little books better cheap than I 
 can sell these great " ; and the stipulation about ' ' the greatest vol- 
 ume" was probably designed to protect the original printers from 
 this piracy. 
 
 ^For these editions see Dixon, ii., 77-79, and authorities there 
 cited. 
 
 * Some hint that this invaluable reform was intended as early as 
 1536 apparently gave rise to the rumour in Lincolnshire that a tax 
 was to be paid on each of these events. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 115 
 
 these instalments of the Reformation were political 
 rather than religious. The reading of the Scriptures, 
 and the growing disbelief in Purgatory, tended to de- 
 stroy what hold the Papacy still had over the minds 
 of Englishmen and indirectly to reconcile them to 
 Henry's own supremacy ; the way was also paved 
 for a better understanding with the Protestant princes 
 of Germany whom Henry's political exigencies com- 
 pelled him then to conciliate. Before the quarrel 
 with the Emperor over Catherine of Aragon, the in- 
 tense rivalry between Charles V. and Francis I. made 
 England fairly secure; but the policy Henry pur- 
 sued with regard to the Church involved the possi- 
 bility of a Catholic coalition, and forced him to look 
 beyond France for friends. These would naturally 
 be found in the German Protestants, who, since 15 30, 
 had always been on the verge of war with their 
 Catholic Habsburg rulers. In 1535 and 1536, Eng- 
 lish agents had been busy in Germany seeking for 
 the basis of a political and theological union between 
 England and the Lutheran states. Two years later 
 the growing friendship of Charles and Francis, pro- 
 moted by Paul HI., threatened both English and 
 Germans, and another effort was made to bring them 
 together. This was Cromwell's favourite scheme, 
 and Cranmer from very different motives threw him- 
 self eagerly into the work. He had since 1532 kept 
 in communication with Lutheran divines, and his 
 own theological opinions were nearer the Lutheran 
 standpoint than those of any other Bishop in Eng- 
 land. In 1536 Bucer dedicated to Cranmer his 
 commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, prefix- 
 
ii6 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 ing a long letter which expressed the hope of Ger- 
 many that the Archbishop of Canterbury would 
 succeed in his efforts to reform the Church in Eng- 
 land.^ When the Protestant deputies, headed by 
 Burckhardt, Vice-chancellor of Saxony, arrived in 
 London in May, 1538, they found their chief sup- 
 port in Cranmer, and the Archbishop probably pre- 
 sided at the conferences between them and the 
 English Bishops. The Germans demanded, as a 
 preliminary to an alliance, the concession of the cup 
 to the laity, the abolition of private masses, and 
 permission for priests to marry; but the English 
 Bishops refused to discuss these demands, saying 
 that Henry VIII. was himself composing a reply. 
 They wished to treat of the four disputed sacra- 
 ments, matrimony, holy orders, confirmation, and 
 extreme unction ; but on these points they knew, 
 says Cranmer, that the Germans would not agree 
 with them, " so that I perceive," he writes to Crom- 
 well, ** that the bishops seek only an occasion to 
 break the concord." ' They were, however, better 
 informed of Henry's mind than the Archbishop. It 
 was not Cranmer, but Tunstall,' who was asked to 
 assist the King ; and his reply asserted the Catholic 
 view of all the disputed questions. The concession 
 of the cup to the laity, permission for priests to 
 marry, and the abolition of private masses were 
 
 ^ Strype, Cranmer^ i., no. 
 
 ^Cranmer, Works, ii., 379. 
 
 2 Pocock's Burnet, i. , 408 ; Gardiner seems also to have been con- 
 sulted. The King's answer is printed by Pocock, iv., 373. See 
 other documents relating to the German mission in Strype's Ecclesu 
 astical Memorials^ vol. i., App., Nos. 94-102, 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 117 
 
 all refused, and in October the Protestant envoys 
 returned home empty-handed. 
 
 This rigid adherence to Catholic doctrine did not 
 imply any slackening in Henry's pursuit of ecclesi- 
 astical property, or in his onslaughts on what he 
 called superstitious practices; and in 1538-39 there 
 was a regular campaign against the remaining mon- 
 asteries, the shrines and relics of the saints, and 
 wonder-working images. Cranmer himself suggested 
 that royal commissioners should inspect the blood 
 of S. Thomas in Christ Church, Canterbury, which 
 he suspected to be but " a feigned thing, made of 
 some red ochre or of such like matter." ^ The 
 ** blood of Hailes " suffered a similar inquisition, and 
 the wonderful Rood of Boxley, an image whose eyes 
 opened and shut, was exposed at Maidstone. These, 
 we are told, were innocent toys never intended to 
 deceive the most credulous folk," and never put to 
 such uses as the blood of S. Januarius at Naples. 
 But, for innocent toys, their destruction provoked a 
 somewhat excessive jubilation among the reformers. 
 " Dagon," wrote one,' " is everywhere falling in Eng- 
 land. Bel of Babylon has been broken in pieces "; 
 and it is doubtful whether the Philistines looked 
 upon Dagon and the Assyrians regarded Bel as 
 nothing but innocent toys. 
 
 ' Works, ii,, 378. 
 
 ' Bridgett, Blunders and Forgeries ; Gairdner, Church History, p. 
 
 199- 
 
 ^ " Ruit hie passim Azzotinus Dagon ; Bel ille Babylonicus jamdu- 
 dum confractus est " (John Hoker of Maidstone to Bullinger in 
 Burnet, vi., p. 194-195); cf. Original Letters, Parker Soc, ii., 
 6og-6io. 
 
ii8 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 The surrender of the greater monasteries and the 
 destruction of shrines like that of S. Thomas at 
 Canterbury yielded Henry more solid gratifications 
 than the burning of graven images. Rents from 
 thousands of acres of monastic land went to fill the 
 gaping void in Henry's exchequer, and cartloads of 
 gold and jewels from the shrine of S. Thomas found 
 their way to the royal treasure-house. This last out- 
 rage on Catholic sentiment precipitated the issue of 
 the bull of excommunication which the Pope had 
 long held in suspense over Henry's head. But its 
 force was spent even before Henry's new treasures, 
 and its main effect was to drive the King into the 
 arms of Anne of Cleves. The Duke of Cleves was 
 not exactly a Lutheran,^ but he had reforming ten- 
 dencies, heretical relationships, and claims on parts 
 of the Netherlands ; and Cromwell hoped, by marry- 
 ing the King to Anne, to cement a political alliance 
 between the German princes and England. The 
 Emperor was passing through France on apparently 
 intimate terms with Francis I. ; and if, in their inter- 
 views at Paris, the two Catholic sovereigns agreed to 
 obey the behests of their father the Pope, the Eng- 
 lish king would be placed in an awkward position. 
 And so Henry consented, led on by Holbein's flat- 
 tering portrait of Anne of Cleves and by Cromwell's 
 extravagant praise of her charms," to place his neck 
 
 'See Merriman, Cromwell, i., 246-247; Cambridge Modern His- 
 tory, ii., 236-237. 
 
 * Holbein's portrait now in the Louvre is here reproduced. Crom- 
 well told Henry that every one praised her beauty, and that she 
 excelled the Duchess of Milan "as the golden sun did the silver 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 119 
 
 once more under the matrimonial yoke ; he hoped 
 that his support of Cleves and other German princes 
 would give Charles enough to do at home without 
 troubling to execute Papal censures in England. 
 
 The event belied both Cromwell's and Cranmer's 
 expectations, and brought their ideas of a religious 
 reformation into violent conflict with those of their 
 masterful sovereign. Cromwell's religious sincerity 
 has recently been denied, mainly in order to enhance 
 his reputation for unscrupulous political skill/ Prob- 
 ably some injustice has thereby been done him ; his 
 private friendship with advanced reformers,' and his 
 hostility to Catholic prelates seem inconsistent with 
 the theory that to him all religions were indifferent ; 
 his constant efforts to promote a union with Protest- 
 ant princes give more support to his sincerity than 
 to his sagacity, and one of the counts against him in 
 the Act of Attainder was that he affirmed heretical 
 doctrine condemned by the King to be good. About 
 Cranmer's attitude there is no doubt ; his statesman- 
 ship was not of a very high order, and he was little 
 interested in the political aspect of affairs. His 
 mind was bent on religious reform, and his theo- 
 logical opinions travelled slowly but steadily away 
 from the Old in the direction of the New Learning. 
 
 moon." The portrait of the Duchess of Milan, now in the National 
 Gallery, explains how chagrined Henry was when he saw Anne. 
 
 ^ Merriman, Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, 1902. 
 
 "^ E. g., with Stephen Vaughan, for whom see Diet. Nat. Biog.^ 
 Iviii., 179; the freedom with which Vaughan expressed Protestant 
 opinions to Cromwell is incomprehensible unless he was sure of their 
 favourable reception. 
 
I20 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 His zeal for the Reformation and his sanguine tem- 
 perament sometimes led him to take a more opti- 
 mistic view of its progress than the facts warranted ; 
 and in 1537 he rebuked a Kentish magistrate fo: 
 asserting that the Ten Articles and the Institution 
 of a Christian Man "allowed all the old fashion and 
 put all the knaves of the New Learning to silence." 
 
 "If," Cranmer went on, "men will indifferently read 
 those late declarations, they shall well perceive that pur- 
 gatory, pilgrimages, praying to saints, images, holy bread, 
 holy water, holy days,^ merits, works, ceremony, 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." * 
 
 This dispute as to the real intention of Anglican 
 doctrine was the first of a series which is not yet 
 exhausted ; and thus early it appeared that the An- 
 glican settlement was to be a compromise between 
 two opposing schools of thought, and a compromise 
 so ambiguously and so skilfully expressed that each 
 party could read into the terms its own individual 
 meaning and turn them to its own purposes whenever 
 it happened to be predominant. 
 
 Cranmer, however, still held to Catholic doctrine 
 in its essential details. He, like the Church, recog- 
 
 • Cranmer himself complained to Cromwell that these superstitious 
 holy-days were still observed at court (Strype, Cranmer^ ii., 729). 
 
 * Cranmer, Works, ii., 349-356 ; in Pocock's Burnet, iv., 298-299, 
 are printed "some considerations offered to the King by Cranmer, 
 to induce him to proceed to a further reformation," but he had to 
 wait till the reign of Edward VI. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 121 
 
 nised no divorce, and set his face against the prevail- 
 ing lax views on marriage which had been encouraged 
 by the frequency of Papal dispensations from the 
 canon law. He was often pressed by men of influ- 
 ence to grant similar dispensations himself/ but 
 always refused. He wrote in disgust to Osiander 
 about the immorality at which Lutheran divines 
 connived when practised by Lutheran princes, and 
 particularly with respect to the bigamous marriage 
 which they, adopting a precedent set by a Pope, 
 countenanced in the case of Philip of Hesse. 
 
 " What excuse," he asked, " can you possibly offer for 
 allowing divorce and remarriage while both 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 joined contract new unions except after 
 the death of one or the other partner." * 
 
 He also still held the canonical doctrine that "such 
 marriages as be in lawful age contracted per verba de 
 prcBsenti diVQ matrimony before God," and such solemn 
 betrothals therefore invalidated any subsequent mar- 
 riage with other persons. 
 
 Not less important was his assertion of the Catho- 
 lic doctrine of the mass. He had already abandoned 
 the Roman dogma of Transubstantiation ; it is not 
 affirmed in the Ten Articles of 1536, and in 153^ he 
 
 ' Cf. Cranmer, Works, ii., 250-251, 329. 
 
 ^Cotton MS., Cleopatra, E. v. f. Ill, printed in Strype, Cran" 
 mer^ ii., 752-756, and Cranmer, Works, ii., 404. 
 
122 Thomas Cranmer [1533- 
 
 wrote to Cromwell that Adam Damlip, the preacher 
 of Calais, *' taught but the truth " when he " con- 
 futed the opinion of Transubstantiation." But he 
 was still a firm believer in the Real Presence ; and 
 when a Zwinglian, Joachim of Watt (Vadianus), 
 whose acquaintance Cranmer seems to have made in 
 1532, sent him a treatise against that doctrine, he 
 declared himself much displeased with the argu- 
 ment, and said he wished Vadianus had employed 
 his study to better purpose.' Nor did he deny 
 the necessity of recourse, in the last resort, to ex- 
 treme penalties against obstinate disbelievers in the 
 real presence. Toleration was in the sixteenth cent- 
 ury no more a part of the orthodox Protestant creed 
 than it was of Roman Catholicism ; Protestants as 
 well as Catholics thought that only one form of truth 
 could be true, and that form must be preserved at 
 all costs ; and toleration was not conceded until the 
 impossibility of forcing men to conform to one or- 
 thodox standard had been practically demonstrated. 
 But Cranmer's mildness made him reluctant to per- 
 secute, and the tale of his victims is short. In 1538 
 one Atkinson ' was accused before Cranmer of deny- 
 ing the sacrament of the altar ; but he recanted and 
 escaped with doing penance. In the same year 
 Cranmer was joined with other Bishops in the pro- 
 ceedings against John Lambert, but Stokesley and 
 
 ^ Cotton MS., Cleopatra, E. v. f. 11 1, printed inStrype, Cranmer, 
 i., 94-95, ii., 740-742; Cranmer, Works, ii., 342-344; Original 
 Letters (Parker Soc), i., 11. 
 
 ^ The German envoys interceded in vain on Atkinson's behalf; cf. 
 Cranmer, Works, ii,, 372, and Mason, pp. 106-107. 
 
1538] Cranmer and Reform 123 
 
 Gardiner were the moving spirits, and Gardiner is 
 said to have expressed discontent with the way 
 in which Cranmfer at Henry's command replied 
 to Lambert's contentions. The King himself pre- 
 sided at Lambert's trial, and the sentence was 
 read by Cromwell.* With regard to Anabaptists 
 he probably felt less scruple ; the recent excesses 
 at Munster had shocked the whole of Europe, and 
 the Lutheran elector of Saxony wrote to warn 
 Henry VHL against members of the sect who were 
 flocking to England. The Archbishop was placed 
 on a commission to deal with them,' but we have no 
 details to show his personal connection with the 
 burning of three Anabaptists on St. Andrew's Day, 
 1538,' and he was soon absorbed in an attempt to 
 stem the tide of reaction which in the following 
 year threatened to involve all reformers alike in a 
 common fate. 
 
 ^ Cranmer was also concerned in the singular case of Friar John 
 Forest, who is erroneously said {Diet. Nat. Biog.^ xix., 435) to have 
 been imprisoned in 1534 "on a charge of heresy, the basis of which 
 was denial of the King's supremacy." The Act of Supremacy had 
 not then been passed, and when it was, denial of the King's suprem- 
 acy was not heresy but treason. The heresies for which Forest was 
 condemned by Cranmer are given in Wriothesley's Chronicle (Cam- 
 den Soc), i., 79; his denial of the royal supremacy also involved 
 him in a charge of treason, and at his execution he had to suffer the 
 penalties for both crimes; he was hanged in chains for treason, and 
 for his heresy a fire was lighted under him. It was not in accord 
 with the refined cruelty of the age that a man should escape with 
 one form of death when he had been condemned on two capital 
 charges. 
 
 ^Strype, Cranmer, i., 99. 
 
 ' Wriothesley, Chronicle^ i., 90. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 CRANMER AND THE CATHOLIC REACTION 
 
 IT is a commonplace with historians to write of the 
 last eight years of Henry VIII. 's reign as the 
 first of those periods of reaction which have followed 
 on each successive stage of England's progress from 
 Roman Catholicism. The Lutheran tendencies of 
 1529-38 gave way to Catholic influence during the 
 remainder of Henry's reign. The rapid Protestant 
 advance of Edward VI. was succeeded by the violent 
 Romanism of Mary. EHzabeth's reign was marked 
 by a steady growth of Puritan feeling; and on its 
 heels trod the High Anglican reaction of Laud and 
 the other Caroline divines which culminated in the 
 attempts of Charles II. and James II. to bring Eng- 
 land again within the Roman fold. The revolution 
 of 1688 was religious no less than political, and its 
 effects upon the Church were the complete predomi- 
 nance of the State, the abeyance of Convocation, 
 and the supremacy of Low Church and Latitudi- 
 narian views. Against this last phase Newman and 
 Pusey raised their protest, and the movement which 
 they started may not even now have reached its 
 flood. 
 
 124 
 
[1538-1545] Catholic Reaction 125 
 
 This oscillation which has characterised England's 
 political and religious history affords ground for a 
 convenient generalisation ; but it must not be exag- 
 gerated, and too much stress has often been laid 
 upon the variations in the ecclesiastical policy pur- 
 sued by Henry VIII. The changes described in the 
 last chapter did not mean to the King that doctrinal 
 revolution which they seemed to imply to the Arch- 
 bishop ; and it is probable that Henry went no fur- 
 ther in this direction ** than the more enlightened 
 popes and cardinals would have done."* He had 
 himself, in 1538, drawn up the reply to the emis- 
 saries of the Schmalkaldic League, rebutting their 
 arguments against communion in one element, cler- 
 ical celibacy and private masses, points on which 
 even good Catholics were then inclined to make 
 concessions ; and he was at the same time edifying 
 the orthodox by creeping to the Cross on Good 
 Friday, serving the priest at mass, and observing all 
 other " laudable ceremonies." In spite of the store 
 which he set upon his own private judgment, Prot- 
 estant theology never made its way into Henry's 
 heart or mind. He had abolished the Pope, but not 
 Popery, wrote Bishop Hooper.' It would be truer 
 to say that he had taken the place of the Pope in 
 the English Church, and substituted a Royal for a 
 Roman Catholicism. 
 
 In this religious conservatism Henry VIII. was at 
 one with the mass of his people. The accumulated 
 force of the habits, customs, and traditions of cent- 
 
 ^Stubbs, Lectures on Mediaval and Modern History, 1887, p. 298. 
 ' Original Letters (Parker Soc), i., 36. 
 
1 26 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 uries could not be destroyed at once, nor merely by 
 preaching; and it is probable that the heart of the 
 nation never went out to the Protestant cause until 
 it had been sanctified by the blood of the Marian 
 martyrs. In 1538-9 the majority of Englishmen 
 were Catholic to the core. 
 
 " Who is there almost," complained a reformer in 1539, 
 " that will have a Bible but he must be compelled 
 thereto. How loath be our priests to teach the com- 
 mandments, the articles of the Faith, and the Paternoster 
 in English ! Again how unwilling be the people to learn 
 it! Yea, they jest at it calling it the New Paternoster 
 and the New Learning."* 
 
 And there were parishes in which it was held to be 
 more profitable for men's souls that they should 
 spend their time praying on their beads than listen- 
 ing to the Scriptures. The popular feeling, which 
 Henry VHI. had used as a lever and without which 
 even he would have been powerless, was animosity 
 towards the papal claims and towards the wealth 
 and class privileges of the clergy, and not towards 
 the doctrine of the Church. Now the papal jtiris- 
 diction had been abolished ; the nobility and gentry 
 had sated their envy of clerical riches by sharing the 
 spoils of the monasteries ; the commercial classes 
 had been appeased by the prohibition of the more 
 obnoxious forms of clerical trading, and by the limit- 
 ation of the Church's power to prosecute for heresy ; 
 while the Catholic susceptibilities of the nation had 
 been outraged by the irreverent extravagances into 
 
 *X. and P.y vol. xiv., pt. ii., p. 140, 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 127 
 
 which the more violent of the Protestant agitators 
 had been led by their hatred of papal abuses. There 
 was little desire to undo what had been done, and 
 the reaction of the next two years only implied a 
 cessation in the progress of the revolution ; yet the 
 predominant feeling in the nation was that things 
 had gone far enough. Bucer believed that Gardiner 
 had warned the King that if he proceeded further, 
 commotions would occur, and that he would find 
 the principal lords in the kingdom against him ' ; 
 and Luther complained that although England had 
 taken away the Pope's name and property, she was 
 strengthening "his doctrine and abominations.'" 
 
 In this condition of public opinion a general elec- 
 tion took place in March, 1539. ^^^ course was 
 marked by an unusual amount of government inter- 
 ference, for the idea that there was no freedom of 
 election in Tudor times, and that the House of Com- 
 mons was an assembly of royal nominees, is a gross 
 exaggeration.^ The bribes or threats employed in 
 1539 were not, so far as the evidence enables us to 
 judge, directed towards securing the return of royal 
 nominees in preference to popular candidates, so 
 much as towards promoting the election of one set 
 of ministerial candidates rather than another ; that 
 is to say, Cromwell was nursing a party to overthrow 
 
 ^ Corpus Reformatorum, iii., 775. 
 
 'Z. and P., xiv., ii., 327 ; Luther, Brief e, v. 209; compare Lu-. 
 ther's letter to the Elector of Saxony, 23 Oct., 1539, for some cu- 
 rious remarks on Henry VIII. and Gardiner. Corpus Re/., iii., 796; 
 Z. and P., xiv., ii., 379. 
 
 ^SeeE. and A. Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons^ 1903. 
 
 10 
 
128 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 Gardiner and Norfolk. The result was a striking 
 illustration, of the difficulty of packing a Parliament 
 against the popular will ; for the House of Com- 
 mons, which Cromwell took particular pains to pack, 
 passed without a dissentient voice the Act of Attain- 
 der against him, and left his rivals secure in royal 
 favour. The Protestant policy which he and his ad- 
 herents favoured received a sudden check, and the 
 Act by which the Parliament of 1539 is best remem- 
 bered is the ferocious Statute of Six Articles. 
 
 That this blow to the cause of religious reformation 
 was severely felt by Cranmer, goes without saying, 
 and his only ground for satisfaction was the know- 
 ledge that he had done his best to avert it. He 
 was naturally a member of the Lords' committee 
 appointed at the King's instance to devise some uni- 
 form standard of faith ; but the committee, which rep- 
 resented in fairly equal proportion prelates of the Old 
 and the New Learning, could come to no agreement ; 
 and after ten days' debate the Duke of Norfolk 
 brought the question before the House of Lords itself.* 
 There it was fully discussed for three days. Cranmer, 
 assisted by Bishops Goodrich of Ely, Shaxton of 
 Salisbury, Latimer of Worcester, Hilsey of Roches- 
 ter, and Barlow of S. Davids, maintained the prin- 
 ciples of the Reformation against Archbishop Lee of 
 York and Bishops Gardiner of Winchester, Stokesley 
 of London, Sampson of Chichester, Tunstall of Dur- 
 ham, Repps of Norwich, and Aldrich of Carlisle. 
 Opinions among the Bishops were fairly balanced, 
 but in the whole House the Reformers were in a 
 
 ' lA)rds^ Journals ^ vol. i., p. 109. 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 129 
 
 hopeless minority. " We of the temporality," writes 
 a peer in describing the scene/ *' have been all of 
 one mind," and that mind was one of bitter hostility 
 to the New Learning. At length the King himself 
 intervened. There was little doubt as to which side 
 he would take; he attached small weight to the 
 views of his Bishops, whether Catholic or Protestant, 
 when they conflicted with those of the laity ; and 
 when the weight of all the lay peers and of at least 
 half the Bishops was thrown into one scale, when 
 even Cromwell and Audley deserted the losing cause, 
 it is doubtful whether Henry could have redressed 
 the balance even had he agreed with Cranmer and 
 been willing to risk his authority in a conflict with 
 Catholic feeling. His object was to compel uni- 
 formity, and it was less dangerous to require the 
 few than the many to submit. So, in the words of 
 an admiring peer, the King confounded them all 
 with his learning. Other persuasions may have been 
 used; Cranmer is said to have refused to be con- 
 founded with learning, and to have submitted only 
 when ordered by the King to withdraw.' 
 
 ^ L. and P., xiv., 1040 ; Burnet, vi., 233 ; Narratives of the Ref- 
 ormation^ p. 248. 
 
 ^ This assertion apparently rests on the uncorroborated statement 
 of Foxe. In one point Cranmer carried the King with him, namely, 
 that auricular confession was not enjoined by Scripture. Tunstall 
 challenged this view, whereupon Henry wrote to him to say that his 
 arguments were futile (Burnet, iv., 400-407). In 1549 Cranmer as- 
 serted that the Six Articles would never have passed unless the King 
 had come personally into the Parliament house {Works, ii., 168). 
 This assertion illustrates the sanguine way in which Cranmer under- 
 estimated the forces opposed to him. 
 
130 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 This submission was in any case only partial, and 
 on some of the points in dispute the Archbishop re- 
 newed the struggle in Convocation a few days later. 
 The proposals were introduced not of course by 
 Cranmer, who would never have done such violence 
 to his convictions, but by Cromwell, who, as Vice- 
 gerent, took precedence of all the Prelates.* The 
 assertion of the doctrine of Transubstantiation and 
 of the perpetual force of vows of chastity seems not 
 to have been challenged again. All the Bishops 
 agreed that private masses might "stand with the 
 Word of God," and that confession was ** very requi- 
 site and necessary " ; but Cranmer, Shaxton, Lati- 
 mer, Hilsey, and Barlow reaffirmed that priests 
 might lawfully marry, and Cranmer and Barlow con- 
 tended that the sacrament should be administered 
 under both kinds. In the Lower House of Convoca- 
 tion there were only two dissentients from the Six 
 Articles, Cranmer*s commissary and marriage-con- 
 nection. Dr. Nevinson ' and Dr. John Taylor, the 
 future bishop of Lincoln.' The New Learning on 
 the episcopal bench was the result of Cromwell's 
 and Cranmer's patronage and of Henry VHL's politi- 
 cal exigencies ; it had taken little root as yet in the 
 church, and the lower clergy were still unmoved by 
 its power. 
 
 *For the debates in Convocation, see Wilkins's Concilia, iii., 845, 
 and L. and P., xiv., i., 1065. 
 
 ''In L. and P., xiv., i., 1065, the name is misprinted " Levyn- 
 son. 
 
 ^For Taylor, see the present writer in Diet. Nat. Biog., Iv., 
 430. 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 131 
 
 Rarely indeed has a measure been passed with 
 such manifold signs of general approval as the 
 "bloody whip with six strings." Henry VIII. *s 
 apologists have cast the whole burden of responsi- 
 bility upon the Catholic bishops, and clerical histo- 
 rians have retorted it upon Henry VIII. It is idle 
 to exculpate the one or the other, but both put 
 together need not bear all the blame. The Catholic 
 bishops would have been powerless to carry the Act, 
 and Henry VIII. would not have helped, unless the 
 mass of the laity had been on the same side. It is 
 an anachronism to represent the people of England 
 in the sixteenth century as enamoured of either po- 
 litical or religious liberty. Toleration was shocking 
 to the minds of the most enlightened ; Sir Thomas 
 More may not have committed the cruelties which 
 Foxe alleges against him, but in theory at any rate 
 he believed in religious persecution. As for the 
 masses, they viewed with the utmost indifference 
 the burning of martyrs for heresy and the torture 
 of priests for treason, and the Act of Six Articles 
 passed without a sign of popular protest. 
 
 The Act and the policy it implied involved one or 
 two changes on the episcopal bench. Latimer was 
 made to give up the See of Worcester and Shaxton 
 that of Salisbury.^ Cranmer, Barlow, Goodrich, and 
 Hilsey were retained in their bishoprics, and so long 
 as that was the royal pleasure they had no option 
 but to remain. The modern practice of resigning 
 
 ^ Their resignation does not appear to have been voluntary, but to 
 have been extorted or at least suggested by the King (Dixon, ii. 
 138-139). 
 
132 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 distasteful and difficult posts would have conisorted 
 ill with the rigorous ideal of duty to the State which 
 prevailed in the sixteenth century. Cranmer, like 
 every one else in that age, admitted the right of the 
 State or the Church to overrule individual conscience ; 
 and the tyranny of this political principle was not 
 brought home to his mind till towards the end of 
 his life. The harshness of the theory was, moreover, 
 considerably modified in practice under Henry VIII. 
 The Archbishop was not forced to make any altera- 
 tion of view with regard to the doctrines laid down 
 by the Act of Six Articles, nor was he required per- 
 sonally to execute its pains and penalties. It is one 
 of the few admirable traits of Henry's character that, 
 provided his ministers observed the outward form of 
 his somewhat arbitrary laws, he did not seek to put 
 further burdens on their conscience. We have it on 
 Sir Thomas More's own authority,^ that all the time 
 that he was Chancellor the King did not employ 
 him on business connected with the divorce of Cathe- 
 rine of Aragon, because he knew that More disap- 
 proved of it ; and in the same way he did not expect 
 Cranmer in person to handle the whip with the 
 six bloody strings. 
 
 Under these conditions Cranmer remained at his 
 post, not without benefit to the cause of the Reforma- 
 tion, for it was doubtless due to his and Cromwell's 
 
 1 The King, says More, "only used in prosecuting the matter 
 those whose consciences were pwsuaded, while those who thought 
 otherwise he used in other business " (More, English Works, i., 424 ; 
 Strype, Eccl. Meni.^ I., ii., No. 48 ; Z. and P., 1534, p. 123). More 
 also says that Henry's first lesson to him on entering his service was 
 that he should look first to God, and after God to him. 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 133 
 
 influence that the penalties attached to the Act of 
 Six Articles were not put in execution. In October, 
 1539, Burckhardt, the Lutheran envoy, wrote to 
 Melanchthon, rejoicing that " the papistical faction 
 had nowise obtained its hoped-for tyranny " ; * they 
 had only secured the statute, he said, and not its 
 execution, and he had no doubt but that it would 
 shortly be abolished. Gardiner and his allies had 
 not yet won the victory ; both he and the reactionary 
 Bishop of Chichester were excluded from the Coun- 
 cil, and Cromwell was planning that marriage with 
 Anne of Cleves, which it was hoped would wed 
 Henry VIII. indissolubly with the anti-Catholic 
 cause. 
 
 Yet the Catholics were leaving no stone unturned 
 to ruin the two protagonists of reform, and the peril 
 in which Cranmer stood is illustrated by a curious 
 tale related to Foxe by the Archbishop's secretary, 
 Morice." After the passing of the Act of Six Arti- 
 cles, Henry VIII., who was genuinely interested in 
 theological questions, sent to Cranmer and asked him 
 to give him in writing a statement of the reasons 
 which had led him to oppose the measure. When 
 the manuscript was completed Cranmer entrusted it 
 to Morice, who happened to be crossing the Thames 
 in a wherry, while a bear was being baited in the 
 water. The animal broke loose, capsized Morice's 
 boat, and the manuscript went floating down the 
 river. It was recovered by the keeper of the Princess 
 
 »Z. and p., XIV., ii., p. 149. 
 
 ' It is reprinted in the present writer's Tudor Tracts, 1903, pp. 
 35 et sqq. 
 
134 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 Elizabeth's bears, a strenuous Catholic ; he perused 
 the book, and, convinced that he could now put a 
 spoke in the Archbishop's wheel,* refused to surren- 
 der his treasure at any price. The next day he went 
 to the Council chamber to deliver what he considered 
 damning evidence of Cranmer's heresy to Sir An- 
 thony Browne or Bishop Gardiner. But Morice had 
 warned Cromwell beforehand, and Cromwell, sum- 
 moning the bearward, made him relinquish the 
 manuscript and soundly rated him for withholding 
 it from its proper owner. 
 
 The Archbishop, however, was not to enjoy the 
 advantage of Cromwell's protection much longer. 
 Anne of Cleves landed at Dover in December, 1539, 
 and on the 29th of that month Cranmer met and 
 entertained her at Canterbury. But the lady whose 
 beauty had been extolled by Cromwell and flattered 
 by Holbein was not to Henry's taste, and he talked 
 of renouncing the marriage. He rudely described 
 his bride as a " Flanders mare," and sullenly asked 
 Cromwell if he must really put his neck under the 
 yoke." He affected to doubt whether she really was 
 
 ^ By the Act of Six Articles it was heresy to speak against the first 
 of them, and treason to speak against the rest ; so that Cranmer, by 
 committing his arguments to paper, was rendering himself liable to 
 both these penalties. That he did it by the King's command might 
 have been no more protection to him than the King's licence was to 
 Wolsey when accused of a breach of PrcEmunire ; for Henry had 
 already, when it suited his purpose, adumbrated the modern consti- 
 tutional doctrine that the royal licence or command was no bar to 
 prosecution for a breach of statute law. 
 
 ' " My Lord," said Henry to Cromwell, "if it were not to satisfy 
 the world and my realm, I would not do that I shall do this day for 
 none earthly thing" (Z. and P.^ xv., 824). 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 135 
 
 free from her alleged precontract with the son of the 
 Duke of Lorraine; but Cranmer argued that the 
 engagement had not gone far enough to prevent 
 her marriage with Henry. Fear lest her repudiation 
 should throw her German friends into the arms of 
 Charles V. and Francis I., and leave England with- 
 out an ally, induced the King to complete the 
 match ; and on 6 January Cranmer married the pair 
 at Greenwich.' Closer acquaintance only increased 
 Henry's disgust, while soon an incipient breach be- 
 tween Charles and Francis showed that the plain 
 Anne of Cleves and the distasteful German alliance 
 might both be discarded with safety. 
 
 The result was fatal to Cromwell, but it need 
 hardly be said that the failure of the Cleves mar- 
 riage was not the only cause of the minister's fall. 
 The non-execution of the Act of Six Articles and 
 the continued immunity which Protestant preachers 
 enjoyed exasperated the Catholic party and braced 
 it to make one more effort. The changes on the 
 episcopal bench in 1539-40 were all in their fa- 
 vour. Two reactionaries. Bell and Capon, took the 
 places of Latimer and Shaxton at Worcester and 
 Salisbury. Stokesley, the truculent Bishop of Lon- 
 don, died in September, 1539, but his See was taken 
 by the still more strenuous Bonner. Heath, Queen 
 Mary's future Chancellor, succeeded the reforming 
 Hilsey at Rochester, and another Catholic, Skip, 
 stepped into Bonner's shoes at Hereford.' A royal 
 
 ' Hall, Chronicle^ p. 836. 
 
 ' See Le Neve, Fasti., ed. Hardy, and the D, N. B. for all these 
 prelates. 
 
13^ Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 commissibn was sent to purge Calais of the heresy 
 which Cranmer*s commissary had encouraged there, 
 and fingers were pointed at Cranmer himself. Nor was 
 he more popular in the country than at the Court ; 
 when he summoned a popular London preacher, Dr. 
 Watts, to account for his Catholic doctrine, ten 
 thousand citizens are said to have assembled to 
 know the reason why ^ ; and the popular temper of 
 the time is illustrated by the fact that persecution 
 of heretics was rarely so severe as in 1539-40, when 
 the administration of heresy laws had been largely 
 confided to secular hands.' 
 
 All this was of evil omen to Cromwell. What- 
 ever his private religious views may have been, he 
 had become identified with a Protestant policy, and 
 the fight between him and his foes was in effect a 
 struggle between Reformer and Catholic for control 
 of the government. The match was sadly unequal. 
 Cromwell had no real friend but Cranmer, and the 
 Archbishop's political influence was never very con- 
 siderable. Melanchthon and the Lutheran princes 
 of Germany might write in Cromwell's praise, but 
 Henry paid more heed to the opinions of Francis 
 L and Charles V., who both detested the upstart 
 Vicegerent. During his mission to Paris in Feb- 
 ruary, 1540, Norfolk was warned by the French 
 king of the evil impression produced by Cromwell's 
 dealings," and Norfolk, like every other English 
 noble, hated Cromwell even more than he had hated 
 
 »Z. and p., XIV., ii., p. 280. 
 * Dixon, History, ii., 135-136. 
 ^L, and P., xv., 785. 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 137 
 
 Wolsey. In this matter, as in that of the Six Arti- 
 cles, the temporal peers were all of one mind. Crom- 
 well's power had no root except in the royal favour, 
 and Henry was beginning to wonder whether his 
 minister's great abilities were worth the friction 
 which his retention involved. The struggles in the 
 Council were becoming a public danger; now one 
 and now the other faction gained the upper hand. 
 In April, 1540, Marillac, the French ambassador, 
 wrote that Cromwell was tottering to his fall, and 
 cynically commiserated Cranmer and the other di- 
 vines who, having taught the lords to spoil the 
 monasteries, were now threatened with ruin them- 
 selves.* Gardiner had been readmitted to the Coun- 
 cil, and there was a plan for making the Catholic 
 Tunstall Vicegerent.' But the end was not yet. A 
 few days later Cromwell was created Earl of Essex, 
 two of his satellites' were made secretaries of State, 
 his enemy, the Bishop of Chichester, was sent to the 
 Tower, and it was rumoured that Cranmer would 
 begin a course of sermons at St. Paul's Cross to ob- 
 literate the effect of those delivered by Gardiner in 
 the previous Lent. Nor would Cromwell stop there. 
 There were five bishops, he said, who ought to be 
 sent to the Tower like Sampson of Chichester; 
 every day, wrote Marillac, new accusations were dis- 
 covered, and things were brought to such a pass that 
 either Cromwell's or Gardiner's party must succumb. 
 
 * Ribier, Lettres, etc., Paris, 1666, i., 513. 
 «Z. and P., XIV., pt. ii., p. 141 : XV., 486. 
 ^ Thomas Wriothesley, afterwards Earl of Southampton, and (Sir) 
 Ralph Sadleir. 
 
138 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 The Bishops were in a state of " envy and irrecon- 
 cilable division, and the people in doubt what to 
 believe." * The tension was too great to last ; if some 
 solution were not speedily found there would be 
 open disruption. 
 
 Then Henry struck as ** remorselessly and sud- 
 denly as a beast of prey."' On the loth of June 
 Norfolk accused Cromwell of treason ; the whole 
 Council joined in the attack, and the Vicegerent 
 was stripped of the Garter and sent to the Tower. 
 A vast number of crimes were laid at his door. He 
 was " the most false and corrupt traitor, deceiver, 
 and circumventor against your most royal person 
 and the imperial crown of this your realm that hath 
 been known, seen, or heard of in all the time of your 
 most noble reign." He had done innumerable acts 
 without the sovereign's knowledge or licence, and 
 had boasted that *' he was sure of " the King. Being 
 a " detestable heretic," he had *' secretly set forth 
 and dispensed into all shires" a ** great number of 
 false, erroneous books," sowing disbelief in the Sac- 
 rament of the Altar " and other articles of Christian 
 religion most graciously declared by your majesty 
 by the authority of Parliament," and had averred 
 that it was as lawful for every Christian man to be a 
 minister of the said Sacrament as it was for a priest. 
 He had released heretics from prison, saved them 
 from punishment, and rebuked their accusers. He 
 was, in fact, the prime cause of all the heresy and 
 schism in the land ; in defence of it he said he would 
 
 * L. and P., xv., 737. 
 
 'Brewer in Z. and P., iv., Pref., p. dcxxi. 
 

 THOMAS CROMWELL, EARL OF ESSEX. 
 
 BY HOLBEIN, PROBABLE DATE ABOUT 1537. PICTURE IS NOW AT TYTTENHANGER PARK, AND IS 
 REPROOUCEO BY PERMISSION OF THE COUNTESS OF CALEOON AND MESSRS. GOUPIL. 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 139 
 
 fight the King in person, and he hoped that if he 
 lived a year or two longer, the King would be 
 powerless to resist ; finally he had held " your 
 nobles of your realm in great disdain, derision, and 
 detestation." * 
 
 All this and much more was set down in an Act 
 of Attainder which passed both Houses of Parlia- 
 ment without opposition. The only voice raised 
 in Cromwell's favour was Cranmer's. He wrote to 
 the King, **with timidity," says Lingard, "boldly 
 considering the times," says Lord Herbert, on Crom- 
 well's behalf.' It was not of much use to address 
 Henry in hectoring tones, and whether Cranmer's 
 letter was bold or timid, his was now, as it was in 
 the case of Anne Boleyn, the only plea which any 
 one ventured to urge in favour of mercy. In neither 
 instance did it prove of any avail. Cromwell, like 
 the Countess of Salisbury in the previous year, was 
 not even accorded a form of trial. Parliament con- 
 demned him unheard, and on the 20th of July he 
 was beheaded on Tower Hill.' 
 
 The last service the King required of him was 
 that he should contribute his share of evidence 
 
 ^ Burnet, iv., 415-423. 
 
 ' Works, Parker Soc, ii., 401. 
 
 ' The expression that Cromwell died by the bloody laws which he 
 himself made is often misunderstood as meaning that he invented 
 the use of Acts of Attainder. That of course was not the case. 
 Acts of Attainder were in use before Cromwell's time, but even in 
 Henry VIII.'s reign they were usually passed in addition to, and not 
 as a substitute for, legal trials. Their motive was to render the na- 
 tion an accomplice in all the King's acts of severity, to make out 
 that these executions were not merely the deeds of the King or of a 
 
I40 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 towards the divorce of Anne of Cleves.* That the 
 moving cause in that measure was Henry's disgust 
 with his wife and dislike of the German alliance ad- 
 mits of no doubt ; but neither was a sufficient legal 
 justification, and it is necessary to examine the legal 
 grounds upon which Cranmer, Convocation, and 
 Parliament based the dissolution of the marriage. 
 The law which had to be administered was of course 
 the Roman canon law which had not been abolished 
 with the Roman jurisdiction, but remained in a state 
 of suspended animation, capable of being repudiated 
 or enforced as circumstances might require. Ac- 
 cording to that law, the validity of a sacrament de- 
 pends upon the " intention " of the minister ; for 
 instance, an Anglican clergyman might administer 
 the Eucharist with all due Roman forms, but unless 
 he believed in Transubstantiation his administration 
 would not be efficacious, because his ** intention" 
 would be defective. Marriage is a sacrament which 
 the parties minister to themselves, ^ and if there is a 
 defective intention on the part of either the marriage 
 may be invalid. Henry VHI. therefore set to work 
 to prove that his " intention " in marrying Anne of 
 Cleves had been defective ; that the matrimony was 
 no more than a form which circumstances had com- 
 pelled him to adopt. Hence the depositions of 
 
 jury which might be packed, but of the whole nation represented in 
 the High Court of Parliament. What Cromwell did was to secure 
 condemnation of the Countess of Salisbury by an Act of Attainder 
 without the usual trial, and this was the measure meted out to him. 
 ^ L. and P.^ xv., 823-824; Merriman, Cromwell^ ii., 268-272, 
 ' See T. Sanchez, l)e Matrimonio, 1739, bks ii, and ivt 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 141 
 
 Cromwell and other courtiers parading Henry*s ex- 
 pressions of reluctance and disgust on the eve of his 
 marriage.' Probably the depositions are substan- 
 tially true, but they do not prove that the pressure 
 of external danger was so great as to render the 
 King's " intention" sufficiently defective to invalid- 
 ate his act.* That was a question of state which 
 Henry claimed that he alone could decide. 
 
 None the less the divorce was a scandal only ren- 
 dered possible by the survival of the grotesque re- 
 quirements of the canon law ; and the whole Church 
 and people of England must share the opprobrium 
 which primarily attaches to the King. It was Gar- 
 diner and not Cranmer who ** explained the cause of 
 the nullity of the marriage in a lucid speech " before 
 Convocation. ' The decree of invalidity was sub- 
 scribed by Gardiner, Tunstall, and Bonner, as well 
 as by Cranmer ; it was signed by nineteen Bishops 
 and by a hundred and thirty-nine other divines,* 
 who apparently thought it a venial offence to strain 
 the marriage law a point or two if by so doing they 
 could get rid of an unpopular Queen and an unde- 
 sirable policy. In the sixteenth century, when the 
 interests of the State overrode every other con- 
 sideration, it would have seemed pedantry to take 
 any other course. Happily, so far as Anne of Cleves 
 was concerned, there was more of comedy than of 
 
 ' Printed in Strype, Eccl. Memorials^ I., ii., 452-463. 
 
 ' In comparatively recent years the Pope annulled the marriage of 
 the Princess of Monaco, who pleaded that she had no "intention" 
 of marrying, but had been forced into it by Napoleon III. 
 
 'Wilkins, Concilia^ iii., 851; Z. and P,, xv., 860. 
 
 *The list is given in Burnet, iv., 431, and in It, and P.^ xv,, 86j, 
 
142 Thomas Cranmer [1538^ 
 
 tragedy. There is no reason to suppose that her 
 separation from Henry was a great blow to her affec- 
 tions. She was liberally endowed with estates to 
 the then enormous value of four thousand pounds a 
 year. She was richer and freer than she had been 
 in Cleves; she was probably more happy and cer- 
 tainly far more secure than she would have been as 
 Henry's wife. She lived on excellent terms with 
 him and with his successors, and when she died in 
 1558 was buried in Westminster Abbey.' 
 
 While Cranmer must share in the responsibility 
 for whatever illegality there may have been in 
 Anne's divorce, he is exempt from the blame of 
 having sought to bring it to pass. That rests mainly 
 upon Gardiner and the Duke of Norfolk. It was 
 they who deliberately used the charms of another 
 woman to stimulate Henry's repugnance to Anne 
 and resolve to put her away. The lady selected 
 was Catherine Howard, Norfolk's niece, and it was 
 under the Bishop of Winchester's roof that a famil- 
 iarity first grew up between her and the King.^ The 
 Bishop, writes one of Bullinger's correspondents, 
 very often provided feastings and entertainments 
 for the pair in his palace at South wark.^ The first 
 official intimation of the favour in which she was 
 held was the grant to her of the goods of two es- 
 caped malefactors in April, 1540, two and a half 
 months before Anne's divorce.* Other tokens fol- 
 
 * See Bouterwek, Anna von Cleve, 
 ^ Diet. Nat. Biog.,'\yi., 304. 
 ' Original Letters^ Parker Soc, i., 202, 
 ^L. and P,t xv., 613 [12]. 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 143 
 
 lowed, and on the 28th of July/ nineteen days after 
 Convocation had pronounced the marriage with 
 Anne of Cleves invalid, Henry privately wedded 
 Catherine Howard at Oatlands. 
 
 Thus was completed the triumph of the Catholic 
 party. It was not so absolute as some desired, for 
 Cranmer still remained Primate of England, Audley 
 was still Lord-Chancellor, and other statesmen of 
 reforming proclivities, such as the future Protector 
 Somerset, were growing in influence ; and it is a 
 common error to suppose that the ferocious penal- 
 ties of the Six Articles were enforced with any per- 
 sistence.^ Yet enough had been done to show the 
 helplessness of the reformers. Norfolk, who openly 
 expressed a partiality for burning heretics, was the 
 Queen's uncle and the King's chief minister, while 
 Gardiner represented Henry's predominant theo- 
 logical mood. Continental Protestants were aghast 
 at the repudiation of Anne of Cleves, and the burn- 
 ing of men like Barnes, Gerrard, and Jerome; and 
 
 ' This is the date given by Dr. Gairdner in Did. Nat. Biog.^ ix., 
 304, but in his Church History, 1902, p. 218, he gives 8 August, the 
 day on which Catherine was publicly proclaimed Queen. 
 
 ^ Canon Dixon (Vol. II., caps, x., xi.) first examined this miscon- 
 ception satisfactorily; cf. L. and. P., 1543, pt. i., Pref., p. xlix.; 
 pt. ii., Pref., p. xxxiv. ; Original Letters, ii., 614, 627; S. R. Mait- 
 land. Essays on the Reformation (ed., 1898). In 1540 Henry ordered 
 " that no further persecution should take place for religion, and that 
 those in prison should be Set at liberty on finding security for their 
 appearance when called for." (Z. and P., xvi., p. 271.) Cranmer 
 himself wrote that "within a yearor little more" Henry "was fain 
 to temper his said laws, and moderate them in divers points; so that 
 the statute of Six Articles continued in force little above the space 
 of one year." {Works, ii., 168.) 
 II 
 
144 Thomas Cranmer [.538- 
 
 they likened Henry VIII. to Nero. Englishmen, 
 wrote one of Bullinger's correspondents, were when 
 subject to the Pope not under such a yoke as they 
 now were, when all their property and life itself was 
 at the King's disposal ; ** a man may now travel from 
 the east of England to the west, and from the north 
 to the south without being able to discover a single 
 preacher who, out of a pure heart and faith un- 
 feigned, is seeking the glory of our God. He has 
 taken them all away." * 
 
 Furiously beat the waves of reaction upon the 
 chief remaining pillar of the Reformation in Eng- 
 land, and many were the attempts to procure Cran- 
 mer's downfall. He had foes at Court, foes on the 
 episcopal bench, among the squires of Kent, within 
 the precincts of his own cathedral and the walls of 
 his own house. The prebendaries of Canterbury 
 had a special and private grudge against their Arch- 
 bishop. For, when the chapter was reconstructed 
 after the dissolution of the monasteries, Cranmer 
 had urged that "not only the name of a preben- 
 dary** should be "exiled his Grace's foundations, 
 but also the superfluous conditions of such persons," 
 The prebendaries, he said, "spent their time in 
 much idleness, and their substance in superfluous 
 belly cheer ** ; they were commonly " neither learn- 
 ers nor teachers, but good vianders." Corrupt them- 
 selves, they seduced younger men from " abstinence. 
 
 ^ Original Letters (Parker Soc), i., 204-206. The statement is, 
 of course, a slight exaggeration. As will be seen later on, there was 
 some preaching in Kent under Cranmer's protection which was 
 scarcely in accord with the letter or the spirit of the Six Articles, 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 145 
 
 study, and learning," to follow their own appetite 
 and example. St. Paul made no mention of preben- 
 daries, and it would be well for religion, thought the 
 Archbishop, if the four hundred pounds destined to 
 support twelve idle prebendaries were devoted to 
 the maintenance of twenty divines at ten pounds 
 and forty scholars at ten marks apiece.^ This was 
 in 1539, before the fall of Cromwell and the triumph 
 of reaction ; but the new foundation was not estab- 
 lished by royal charter until April, 1542. Cranmer's 
 influence was then under a shadow, and his advice 
 was not taken either with regard to the extinction or 
 selection of prebendaries. He had proposed for 
 dean the Protestant preacher Dr. Crome ; but the 
 dean selected was that accomplished trimmer, Dr. 
 Nicholas Wotton ^ ; and among the twelve chosen 
 prebendaries there was only one, the future Bishop 
 Ridley, who made any mark as a Reformer. Cran- 
 mer does, indeed, appear to have obtained the King's 
 permission to appoint three of the New as well as 
 three of the Old Learning to be select preachers in 
 his cathedral." But the impartiality of this arrange- 
 ment did not tend to unity nor improve the Arch- 
 bishop's relations with his Catholic chapter ; and the 
 diocese was soon rife with recrimination in which 
 clergy and laity both took part. The country gen- 
 try and the Justices of the Peace were largely C'^ith- 
 
 ' Cranmer, Works, ii., 396-397. 
 
 ' For Wotton see the present writer in Diet. Nat. Biog,, Ixiii., 
 
 57-^1. 
 
 ^ This was one of the sore points with the prebendaries — they con- 
 sidered such a step to be the means of setting divisions among them, 
 but Cranmer declared that it was the King's will. 
 
146 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 ol?c, and among them was Sir John Baker, possibly 
 the Justice with whom Cranmer had carried on the 
 controversy noticed in the preceding chapter*; he 
 was also Chancellor of the Exchequer, and appar- 
 ently hoped to supplant the Protestant Audley as 
 Lord Chancellor of England.* Another Catholic 
 magnate of Kent was Sir Thomas Moyle, who rep- 
 resented the county in the Parliament of 1542, and 
 was chosen Speaker that year. They hoped by 
 means of the Statute of Six Articles to rid the coun- 
 ty of heretics ; and they as well as the clergy looked 
 to Bishop Gardiner as the champion of their cause. 
 
 Returning in September, 1541, from an embassy 
 to the Diet of Ratisbon, Gardiner paid a visit to 
 Canterbury; and while there he seized the oppor- 
 tunity to sound his namesake, William Gardiner, 
 one of Cranmer's Catholic prebendaries. The pre- 
 bendary told a grievous tale ; he himself was sus- 
 pect for his preaching, while men like Edmund 
 Scory, the future Bishop of Rochester, and Lancelot 
 Ridley, cousin to the future Bishop of London, dis- 
 seminated unsound doctrine. One Catholic preben- 
 dary and two preachers were already in durance for 
 their maintenance of the faith. ' The bishop lis- 
 
 ^ See above, p. 120. 
 
 ' Baker had also served on the commission appointed to inquire 
 into the doings of Cranmer's commissary at Calais. 
 
 3 Some of the Catholic preaching appears to have been extraordi- 
 nary. Series, for instance, was charged with saying that as Adam 
 was expelled from Paradise for meddling with the tree of knowledge, 
 •* so we, for meddling with the Scripture" (Z. and P.^ 1543, ii., p. 
 304). A young layman was reported as saying that '* the Bible was 
 made by the Devil." (Ibid.^ p. 308.) 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction i47 
 
 tened sympathetically ; he rebuked Ridley, and en- 
 couraged William Gardiner to send him any further 
 complaints he might have to make against Cranmer. 
 Nor was it long before the bishop heard from his 
 confidant again. Series and Shether, two of the di- 
 vines imprisoned by Cranmer, refused to plead their 
 cause before him, and were sent back to prison. 
 Prebendary Gardiner at once bespoke the powerful 
 bishop's aid, but an order had already come from 
 Court to Series to submit himself to his metropoli- 
 tan's authority,' and " wily Winchester," as Foxe 
 loved to call the bishop, was too wary to oppose a 
 mandate from the King. 
 
 So Series and Shether were left to Cranmer's 
 mercy ; and their punishment, combined with Rid- 
 ley's and Scory's immunity, was declared by an- 
 other of Cranmer's enemies to be the origin of 
 the " Prebendaries' Plot " against the Archbishop.* 
 There were other causes at work in the minds of 
 Series and his friends. Cranmer had threatened to 
 hold them as cheap as they held him and to break 
 their bond of resistance. His see should be godly 
 and quietly governed, and if restraint was put on 
 Reformers by the Six Articles, Catholics at least 
 
 *Z. and p., XV., I189. 
 
 2 Ibid., XVIII., ii., p. 361. The full story of this " Plot of the 
 Prebendaries" was first rendered accessible by the publication in 
 1902 of MS. 128 in Corpus Christi College Library in Cambridge, in 
 vol. xviii. of the " Letters and Papers." This MS. contains a num- 
 ber of depositions, etc., and even in Dr. Gairdner's abbreviation it 
 occupies eighty-eight closely printed pages. Strype had previously 
 printed a small portion, but the above account is based entirely on 
 the depositions, etc., in Z. and P, 
 
14^ Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 should not return to the fleshpots which had really 
 been left behind. The Justices of the Peace and 
 the Catholic clergy thought he passed that limit of 
 action, and secretly if not covertly encouraged the 
 spread of heresy. He received, it was said, letters 
 once a month from Germany, and thought German 
 divines good judges of theology ; he had main- 
 tained that image and idol were but the Latin and 
 Greek for the same evil thing/ His commissary 
 at Calais, John Butler, and his commissary in Kent, 
 Dr. Nevinson, were both suspected of doubting the 
 truth of Transubstantiation. Nevinson had, much to 
 the scandal of the orthodox, released a notorious 
 heretic in the person of Joan Bocher,^ and although 
 he was married, he had been chosen as proctor in 
 Convocation for the diocese. His wife was daugh- 
 ter of Cranmer's sister, who was accused of having 
 two husbands alive. Such were some of the tales 
 which found their way into the receptive ears of the 
 Bishop of Winchester. 
 
 Series meanwhile was waiting his turn. At last, 
 in March, 1543, he persuaded Dr. John Willoughby, 
 vicar of Chilham, that it was his duty as royal chap- 
 lain to bring these Kentish scandals to the knowledge 
 of the King. Willoughby refused to go alone, so 
 the pair rode together to London on Friday, March 
 the i6th, with a list of charges against the Arch- 
 bishop. It seemed a propitious moment, for a 
 heresy hunt was in full swing in other parts of the 
 kingdom,' and the victims were not confined to men 
 
 »Z. and p., XVIII., ii., p. 329. 
 ^ She was afterwards burned in 1550. 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 149 
 
 of low degree. The Dean of Exeter, two gentlemen 
 of the Court, — Thomas Sternhold, the author of the 
 metrical version of the Psalms, and Sir Philip Hoby, 
 afterwards a statesman of repute, — were sent to 
 prison * ; and Dr. John London, Warden of New 
 College and Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, had 
 made a great impression on the King by detecting 
 the poison of heresy among the royal choir at 
 Windsor. 
 
 It was to Dr. London that Series and Willoughby 
 first resorted. They found that prelatical scoundrel 
 puffed up with his Windsor success and eager for 
 further triumphs. He told them to fear not, took 
 their articles, dressed them up, showed them to some 
 of the Privy Council, and then sent Series and Wil- 
 loughby on to Bishop Gardiner, who also gave them 
 words of encouragement. The next step was to 
 clothe the charges in legal form and to obtain the 
 signature of sufficient witnesses ; and with this ob- 
 ject Dr. London sent Series and Willoughby back 
 into Kent. But now a fit of caution seized the pre- 
 bendaries ; tale-bearing was well enough, but to set 
 one's hand to a slander and perhaps be tried on its 
 truth was quite another matter, and Willoughby 
 returned empty-handed. Thereupon the zealous 
 Dr. London bade him tell Sir Thomas Moyle 
 that the Justices of the Peace in Kent would be 
 held liable if such evil practices were not brought 
 to light, and that they would never have oc- 
 curred had the Justices done their duty. Moyle 
 then set to work with his colleagues to obtain the 
 
 ^ Acis of the Privy Council^ 1542-1547, pp. 97, et. sqq* 
 
I so Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 requisite subscriptions from the prebendaries and 
 parish clergy. When these had been extracted 
 the prebendaries themselves were summoned to 
 London by Dr. Nicholas Wotton, the Dean of Can- 
 terbury, about St. George's Day, the 23rd of April. 
 Moyle was now busy with his parliamentary duties,* 
 and the management of the affair was left to Sir 
 John Baker, who had the advantage of Bishop Gardi- 
 ner's advice. Gardiner thought the articles "well 
 enough," and the conspirators were confident that a 
 general commission would be sent down into Kent 
 to deal with the accusations. They now directed 
 their efforts towards excluding Cranmer from the 
 commission ; it was hoped that Gardiner himself 
 would be placed "at its head and that its members 
 would include the very prebendaries who were spe- 
 cially aggrieved against the Archbishop.^ On the 4th 
 of May they had so far succeeded that the Privy 
 Council passed a resolution that ** if the King should 
 be so content" a commission should be sent into 
 Kent to examine " generally all abuses and enormi- 
 ties of religion." It was probably something more 
 than a coincidence that, on the following day, the 
 King's Book of Religion^ which was to confound all 
 heretics, was " read in the Council Chamber before 
 the nobility of the realm." ' 
 
 It would have gone ill with Cranmer and the cause 
 of the Reformation in England had that commission 
 with Gardiner at its head, and with Henry VIII.'s 
 
 * He was Speaker in the 1543 Parliament. 
 
 "^L.andP.^yiMlW., ii., 327. 
 
 ^ Acts of the Privy Council^ i., 126, 127. 
 
THOMAS CRANMER 
 
 FROM A STEEL ENGRAVING 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 151 
 
 authority at its back, been let loose in Kent. But 
 the plotters little knew their King ; Henry had many 
 failings, but no monarch had a keener insight into 
 men's minds or less liking for being made the tool 
 of others. What reception he gave to this demand 
 of the Privy Council and to the accusations against 
 Cranmer is not known. He kept his counsel and 
 his sentiments to himself,* until one day, as he was 
 being rowed past Lambeth Palace in his barge, he 
 espied the Archbishop standing on the edge of the 
 steps. Calling to him, he made Cranmer take a seat 
 beside him. " Ha, my chaplain," he said, ** I have 
 news for you ; I know now who is the greatest here- 
 tic in Kent " ; and he pulled out of his sleeve the 
 articles against Cranmer and his preachers signed 
 by the Justices and prebendaries. The Archbishop 
 demanded the appointment of a commission to 
 inquire into their truth. ** Marry," said Henry, 
 "so will I do; for I have such affiance and confi- 
 dence in your fidelity, that I will commit the exami- 
 nation hereof wholly to you and such as you will 
 appoint." Cranmer demurred because he, being the 
 accused, would not be an indifferent judge. Henry 
 would listen to no objection. " It shall be no other- 
 wise," he said, " for surely I reckon that you will tell 
 me the truth ; yea of yourself, if you have offended. 
 And therefore make no more ado, but let a commis- 
 sion be made out of you and such other as you shall 
 
 ' This was his habit : " Three may keep counsel," he once said, " if 
 two be away ; and if I thought that my cap knew my counsel, I 
 would cast it into the fire." Never, says Brewer (Z. and /•., iv., 
 Pref., p. dcxxi.), " had the King spoken a truer word, or described 
 himself more accurately." 
 
152 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 name, whereby I may understand how this confed- 
 eracy came to pass." * 
 
 Here was a bolt from the blue; instead of a 
 commission presided over by Gardiner to search out 
 Cranmer*s misdeeds, came one presided over by 
 Cranmer to inquire into the " confederacy *' of the 
 plotters ! Cranmer, however, was but a poor in- 
 quisitor ; either unsuspectingly, or with an over-nice 
 desire to be impartial, he nominated as his assessors 
 his chancellor and his registrar, both of them secret 
 " fautors of the papists,** as Morice calls them, and 
 the enquiry made no progress, though the commis- 
 sion sat for six long weeks. Then through the in- 
 tervention of Sir William Butts, the King's favourite 
 physician, and Sir Anthony Denny, his favourite 
 gentleman of the chamber, a more expert investi- 
 gator was appointed in the person of Sir Thomas 
 Leigh, who had enjoyed a long practice as a visitor 
 of monasteries, and was now summoned from York 
 to lay bare the Kentish plot. Under his vigorous 
 hands the tale was soon unrolled. It was in vain 
 that the prebendaries laid their heads together and 
 then separately tried to shift the blame from one 
 to another, or that the Justices sought the help 
 of the clerk of the peace to divert the scent by draw- 
 ing up indictments against the heretics. Disaster 
 after disaster attended their cause ; Dr. London was 
 convicted of perjury and died miserably in prison ^ ; 
 and the Bishop of Winchester's nephew and secre- 
 tary, Germain Gardiner, who drew up one copy 
 of the articles against Cranmer, was executed on a 
 * Narratives^ p, 252. ' Hall, Chron.^ p. 859. 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 153 
 
 charge of denying the royal supremacy. Cranmer*s 
 rebellious clergy were more fortunate. A few weeks* 
 or months* confinement was the only penalty they 
 paid ; not one appears to have suffered the loss of 
 any preferment, or to have been exempted from the 
 general pardon passed as an Act of Parliament in 
 the following spring. The principal effect of this 
 plot and of the zeal of the heresy-hunters was cer- 
 tainly undesigned ; for Parliament in 1 544 sought to 
 prevent malicious accusations of heresy by providing 
 that no one should be arraigned except on the oath 
 of twelve accusers, nor for any offence committed 
 more than a year before, and that no one should be 
 arrested for heresy except on the warrant of two of 
 the Privy Council. 
 
 Possibly the ease with which the Archbishop's 
 enemies escaped encouraged further delation. At 
 any rate, in the 1 544 or 1 545 session of Parliament, Sir 
 John Gostwick complained in the House of Com- 
 mons of Cranmer's preaching. Gostwick was proba- 
 bly the mouthpiece of the Archbishop's old enemies, 
 the Justices of Kent, for he himself represented 
 Bedfordshire and had not heard the sermons of 
 which he complained. Henry was moved to wrath. 
 " Tell that varlet Gostwick," he said, "that if he do 
 not acknowledge his fault unto my Lord of Canter- 
 bury ... I will sure make him a poor Gostwick, 
 and otherwise punish him to the example of others " 
 — a threat the force of which Gostwick could well 
 appreciate.' He hastened to Lambeth and was so 
 
 * Gostwick had profited enormously by the dissolution of the mon- 
 asteries and by holding the treasurership of First-fruits and Tenths. 
 
154 Thomas Cranmer [1538^ 
 
 penitent that Cranmer not only forgave him, but in- 
 terceded with the King on his behalf. Henry was 
 not so easily mollified, and it was with difficulty 
 that he could be persuaded to grant his pardon on 
 Gostwick*s promise never to meddle with Cranmer 
 again.* 
 
 The third attempt to ruin the Archbishop was the 
 most nearly successful, and is the best known be- 
 cause of the dramatisation of the story in Shake- 
 speare's Henry VI 11,^ On this occasion the Council 
 went so far as to demand Cranmer's committal to 
 the Tower. The King demurred, but was persuaded 
 to consent by the argument that no one would dare 
 to witness against so powerful a personage unless he 
 were in the Tower. Even so, Henry's consent was 
 feigned or he soon repented of giving it ; he sent for 
 Cranmer about eleven o'clock of the same night, 
 and informed him of what had occurred. Cranmer 
 thanked the King for his warning, and expressed 
 
 * Dr. Gairdner suggests that this attempt was the occasion of 
 Henry VIII. 's remarkable sermon addressed to the Houses of Par- 
 liament at the close of the session in 1545, the substance of which is 
 printed in Hall's Chronicle (ed. 1809, pp. 864-868), in Lord Her- 
 bert's Z«/^ and Reign of Henry VIII. (1672, pp. 598-601), and in 
 the present writer's Henry Vlll.y pp. 282-4. 
 
 'Act v., sc. i., ii. This is not the place to discuss the question 
 whether Shakespeare or another wrote these scenes ; the dramatist, 
 whoever he was, took his story from Foxe, who had it from Cran- 
 mer's secretary, Morice. Morice's original narrative is printed in 
 Narratives of the Reformation (Camden Soc, 1859, PP- 254-258), 
 and although Foxe took some liberties with Morice's MS. most of 
 the details and many of the phrases in Shakespeare are incorporated 
 from Morice. The date given in the play for the incident, viz., 
 
,545] Catholic Reaction 155 
 
 himself only too glad of an opportunity to answer 
 whatever might be l^id to his charge ; he was very 
 well content, he said, to go to the Tower, " so that 
 he might be indifferently heard." 
 
 " O Lord God," exclaimed Henry, " what fond sim 
 plicity have you so to permit yourself to be imprisoned 
 that every enemy of yours may take vantage against you. 
 Do you not think that if they have you once in prison, 
 three or four false knaves will soon be procured to wit- 
 ness against you and to condemn you, which else now 
 being at your liberty dare not once open their lips or ap- 
 pear before your face. No, not so, my Lord, I have 
 better regard unto you than to permit your enemies so 
 to overthrow you. And therefore I will that you to- 
 morrow come to the Council, who no doubt will send for 
 you; and when they break this matter unto you, require 
 them that being one of them you may have thus much 
 favour as they would have themselves, that is, to have 
 your accusers brought before you ; and if they stand 
 with you without any regard of your allegations, and will 
 in no condition condescend unto your requests, but will 
 heeds commit you to the Tower, then appeal you from 
 them to our person, and give to them this ring by which 
 they shall well understand that I have taken your cause 
 into my hands from them, which ring they well know that 
 I use it to no other purpose but to call matters from the 
 
 1533, about the time of Queen Elizabeth's birth, is of course an in- 
 stance of poetic licence. It may have occurred in 1545, but certainly 
 not later, as Dr. Butts, who plays an important part in it, died in 
 that year, while Morice's language implied that it was the last 
 attempt against Cranmer made in Henry VIII. 's reign. It would 
 seem to be a more likely occasion for Henry's allocution to Parlia. 
 ment in 1545 than Gostwick's puny attack. 
 
156 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 Council into mine own hands to be ordered and de- 
 termined." ^ 
 
 By eight o'clock the next morning Cranmer was 
 summoned to the Council, and by a refinement of 
 malice he was made to wait outside the door for 
 nearly half an hour surrounded by serving men and 
 lackeys. His faithful secretary, who tells the story, 
 sped at once to Dr. Butts, who first considerately 
 came to keep the Archbishop company and then 
 informed the King. "What," exclaimed Henry, 
 "standeth he without the Council chamber door? 
 Have they served me so ? It is well enough ; I shall 
 talk with them by and by." Presently Cranmer was 
 called into the Council room and charged with in- 
 fecting the whole realm with heresy. No plea to be 
 confronted with his accusers could avail ; he must go 
 at once to the Tower. Then the Archbishop pro- 
 duced Henry's ring. Russell swore his customary 
 oath : " Did I not tell you, my Lords," he said, " what 
 would come of this matter ? I knew right well that 
 the King would never permit my Lord of Canter- 
 bury to have such a blemish as to be imprisoned, 
 unless it were for high treason " ; and they went 
 with fear and trembling into Henry's presence. 
 "Ah, my Lords," broke out the King, "I 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 
 
 ^ Other instances of Henry's using a ring for this purpose are 
 quoted in Nichols's notes to the Narratives of the Reformation^ pp. 
 56, 256 ; and the reader will remember the story of Queen Elizabeth 
 and the Earl of Essex. 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 157 
 
 ye of him a slave, shutting him out of the Council 
 chamber amongst serving men? Would ye be so 
 handled yourselves ? I would you would well under- 
 stand that I account my Lord of Canterbury as faith- 
 ful a man towards me as ever was prelate in this realm, 
 and one to whom I am many ways beholding by the 
 faith I owe unto God ; and therefore whoso loveth 
 me will regard him hereafter." Norfolk tried to 
 make excuses and pretended that their design was 
 only to send the Archbishop to the Tower in order 
 that he might have the greater glory of a triumphant 
 acquittal. " Well," said Henry, " I pray you use 
 not my friends so. I perceive 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 from that time, 
 continues Morice, no man ever more durst spurn 
 against the Archbishop during King Henry's life. 
 The confidence which Henry VHI. reposed in 
 Cranmer was, indeed, the envy of the Archbishop's 
 friends and wormwood to his enemies. " You were," 
 said Cromwell to him, " born in a happy hour ; for 
 do and say what you will, the King will always take 
 it well 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 ; 
 but let me or any other of the Council be complained 
 of, His Grace will most seriously chide and fall out 
 with us. And therefore you are most happy if you 
 can keep you in this estate." ^ Henry indeed could not 
 
 * Narratives y pp. 254-258. ' Ibid.^ pp. 258-259. 
 
158 Thomas Cranmer [1538- 
 
 easily afford to dispense with Cranmer; there was 
 no prelate in England who could have filled his 
 place. Gardiner was able enough in worldly mat- 
 ters, and he had hitherto proved sufficiently pliant, 
 but he had not the advantage of Cranmer's learning 
 nor his simplicity of character. " My Lord of Can- 
 terbury," said Henry to Gardiner, when they were 
 seeking to combat Cranmer's denial that the *' canons 
 of the Apostles " were of as good authority as the 
 four evangelists, " is too old a truant for us twain " * ; 
 and even those who most dislike Cranmer's later 
 theology are thankful that the task of moulding the 
 English liturgy fell into his hands and not into those 
 of the Bishop of Winchester. Tunstall was perhaps 
 the best alternative, being as mild, respectable, and 
 tolerant as Cranmer himself ^ ; but Tunstall again 
 had spent in the study of law and pursuit of diplo- 
 macy the time which Cranmer devoted to scriptural 
 and ecclesiastical learning, and there was nothing to 
 be gained from a personal point of view by his sub- 
 stitution for Cranmer as Primate. Moreover, any 
 unnecessary change was to be avoided ; the King 
 was too wise and too conservative to provoke wanton 
 
 * Narratives, p. 250. 
 
 'For Tunstall, see the present writer in Did. Nat, Biog., Ivii., 
 310-314. In 1539 Gardiner was said by a Reformer to be the " wit- 
 tiest, the boldest, and the best learned of his faculty," but to be of 
 *' very corrupt judgment," though Tunstall had done more harm to 
 the cause of the Reformation by his "stillness, soberness, and sub- 
 tlety" ; he added the pregnant remark that "by such bishops as these 
 came nothing but translatio imperii, so that they make of the King 
 as it were a pope" (Z. and /*., 1539, ii., p. 141.) 
 
1545] Catholic Reaction 159 
 
 disorder when the essence of his contention was that 
 his measures only effected the restoration of an 
 older, better, and more legitimate form of church 
 government ; and the only unnatural changes in the 
 personnel of the episcopate during his reign were 
 the execution of Fisher for treason and the compul- 
 sory retirement of Shaxton and Latimer for heresy. 
 Cranmer's humility no doubt gratified the King's 
 autocratic temper, but his simplicity and single- 
 hearted devotion to the anti-papal cause enhanced 
 his estimation in Henry's eyes. There was in him 
 no touch of the self-seeking ambition which ruined 
 Wolsey and Cromwell. Cranmer almost alone of 
 Henry's advisers refused to join in the general 
 scramble for wealth,* and the King was often im- 
 pressed by virtues he did not himself possess. So, 
 too, the Archbishop's obvious defencelessness against 
 the wiles of his enemies was a recommendation to the 
 protection of a monarch who loved to put down 
 the mighty from their seats and to exalt the humble 
 and meek. What would they do, he once asked, 
 with Cranmer when he was gone ? ' And his warn- 
 ing to the Archbishop that he would in the end be 
 sorely tested if he " stood to his tackling," was em- 
 phasised by his substitution of three pelicans for 
 
 ' "We," wrote Sir William Petre, one of Henry's secretaries of 
 State, "which talk much of Christ and his Holy Word, have I fear 
 me used a much contrary way ; for we leave fishing for men, and 
 fish again in the tempestuous seas of this world for gain and wicked 
 mammon." (Quoted in P. F. Tytler, Edward VI. and Mary ^ \ 
 
 427.) 
 
 ' Narratives of the Reformation^ j>. 25<^. 
 
 X2 
 
i6o Thomas Cranmer [i 538-1545] 
 
 three cranes on Cranmer's coat-of-arms ; for he would 
 have, like the pelican, ** to shed his blood for his young 
 ones brought up in the faith of Christ." * 
 
 • '• The ' pelican in her piety ' had been long a recognised emblem 
 of the Passion of Christ, and there is an old distich : 
 
 * Ut pelicanus fit matris sanguine sanus 
 Sic sumus sanati nos omnes sanguine Nati.' 
 
 It afterwards became a favourite device in religious heraldry, and 
 Cranmer was not the first prelate who adopted it. A pelican on an 
 azure field was borne by Richard Fox, Bishop of Winchester, who 
 died in 1528 . . . and these arms are still used by Corpus Christi 
 College of his foundation at Oxford. Similar arms were assumed by 
 several of Queen Elizabeth's Bishops, either (says Strype) to imitate 
 Cranmer or to signify their readiness to shed their blood for the 
 Gospel " (Chester Waters, Memoirs of Cranmer^ pp. 382-383). 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 cranmer's projects during henry's last 
 
 YEARS 
 
 EAGER as his enemies were to undermine Cran- 
 mer's influence with the King, they yet were 
 often glad to employ it as a screen for themselves, 
 and to thrust upon the Archbishop unpleasant and 
 dangerous duties ; and during the last years of 
 Henry's reign, though Cranmer's chief labours were 
 spent in quiet preparation for religious reform, he 
 was more than once required to take an important 
 part in secular matters. He had already been made 
 the Council's mouthpiece on one perilous occa- 
 sion. In 1533 Henry was boiling over with fury at 
 the Princess Mary's stubborn refusal to relinquish 
 her title and recognise the validity of her mother's 
 divorce. It was, according to Chapuys, the imperial 
 Ambassador, Anne Boleyn who had worked him into 
 this state of feeling, and so exasperated was he that 
 he meditated sending the Princess to the Tower as 
 a disobedient subject. The Council were fully alive 
 to the consequences which would probably follow 
 such a proceeding, but they shrank from pointing 
 them out to Henry, fearing that wrath of the King 
 
 J.61 
 
i62 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 which Wolsey and Warham and Norfolk declared to 
 be death. So the burden was laid upon Cranmer *s 
 shoulders, and the "timorous" Archbishop inter- 
 ceded for Mary as he did for Anne Boleyn and for 
 Cromwell when no other durst open his mouth. In 
 this case his pleadings succeeded, though Henry is 
 said to have prophesied that his intervention would 
 " be to his utter confusion at length " — a remarkable 
 prediction if it is true.* 
 
 A still more trying ordeal was imposed upon 
 Cranmer in 1541. Henry VIII. was satisfied from 
 every point of view with his marriage to Catherine 
 Howard ; and on All Slaints' Day, 1541, he ordered 
 his chaplain, the Bishop of Lincoln, to make prayer 
 and give thanks with him to God for the good life 
 he was living and hoped to live with his present 
 Queen.' Twenty-four hours later Cranmer had to 
 communicate to him the news of Catherine Howard's 
 infidelity. Details of her misconduct before mar- 
 riage had come to the Archbishop's ears during 
 Henry's absence in the north of England ; investi- 
 gation left no doubt as to the correctness of the 
 charges, and it became some one's duty to inform 
 the King. Councillors' hearts quailed at the thought, 
 and with one accord they importuned Cranmer to 
 undertake the task. The King was deeply cha- 
 
 * Morice in Narratives of the Reformation^ p. 259 ; the phrase is 
 in a later hand than Morice's and may be a prophecy after the 
 event. Morice appears to have written " one of them should see 
 cause to repent." 
 
 'Z. and P., 1 540-1541, No. 1334; Nicolas, Proceedings of the Privy 
 Council ^ vii., 352, 
 
Copyright Photo., Walker & Cockerell. 
 QUEEN CATHERINE HOWARD. 
 
 PAINTED IN THE SCHOOL OF HOLBEIN. 
 
1547] Cranmer's Projects 163 
 
 grined ; men whose own morality is not above re- 
 proach are often the more scrupulous about the 
 prenuptial morals of their wives, and Henry was so 
 overwhelmed by the early indiscretions of his Queen 
 that he shed tears and was thought to have gone mad.* 
 Cranmer was sent to obtain her confession and to 
 hold out hopes of mercy, and it is possible that 
 Catherine would have escaped with a divorce, had 
 not proofs of her misconduct after marriage come to 
 light during a later stage of the enquiry. This of- 
 fence was high treason, and as such it passed out of 
 Cranmer's jurisdiction. Parliament intervened, and 
 having secured the King's permission, passed an Act 
 of Attainder to which the royal assent was given by 
 royal commission, professedly to spare the royal 
 feelings.2 Thus ends the tale of Cranmer's share in 
 the matrimonial troubles of Henry VHI., for Cath- 
 erine Parr, his last wife, albeit a lady inclined to 
 religious reform, was married to the King by Bishop 
 Gardiner.'' 
 
 The selection of the Bishop of Winchester to offi- 
 ciate at this ceremony, which took place at Hampton 
 Court on 12 July, 1543, may be connected with the 
 circumstances that Cranmer was still nominally suf- 
 fering under the imputation of Jieresy brought against 
 
 *Z. and p., 1540-1541, Nos. 1403, 1426. 
 
 ' This, is believed to have been the origin of the practice since 
 grown common of giving the royal assent to Acts of Parliament by 
 commission. 
 
 ^ Catherine Parr, it may be remembered, had already had two 
 husbands, and was to have a fourth after Henry's death, so that she 
 was almost as much married as the King himself. 
 
164 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 him by his prebendaries, and that Henry had been 
 annoyed by the discovery of heresy at Windsor. But 
 the cross-currents in Henry's Court were so numerous 
 and so fluctuating that it is impossible to construct 
 the history of the time on the theory that any re- 
 ligious or political principle was all-powerful at any 
 particular moment. Individual ministers a,pparently 
 enjoy the confidence of the Crown as fully when 
 they are hostile as when they are friendly to the 
 main drift of national policy; and, indeed, before 
 the Cabinet system had been evolved, there was no 
 objection to the government's being administered by 
 men of divergent principles. Hence Cranmer seems 
 to have been as actively employed in the Council 
 during the period succeeding Cromwell's fall as he 
 had been before. From 1540 to the end of the 
 reign, except during his laborious investigation into 
 the Plot of the Prebendaries, he was a regular at- 
 tendant at its meetings. In the autumn of 1541, 
 when the King was absent in the north, the Arch- 
 bishop's name heads the list of those councillors 
 who were responsible for the direction of affairs in 
 London; and again in 1544, when Henry crossed 
 the Channel to wage war in person against the King 
 of France, Cranmer is first in the Council of Regency 
 appointed to advise the Queen. In July, 1541, he 
 was selected to harangue the French ambassador on 
 the advantages of peace between France and Eng- 
 land and on the evil effect which would be produced 
 if the French continued some offensive fortifica- 
 tions they had begun near Calais ; and in the follow- 
 ing month he remonstrated with Chapuys about the 
 
1547] Cranmer's Projects 165 
 
 treatment of English commerce in the Netherlands.' 
 In November, 1542, after the battle of Solway Moss, 
 the Earl of Cassilis, the chief of the Scottish prison- 
 ers, was entrusted to the Archbishop's care at Lam- 
 beth, and his intercourse with Cranmer is said to 
 have induced the Earl to adopt the New Learning 
 and thus to have contributed to the furtherance of 
 the Reformation in Scotland. 
 
 To the cause of religious reform Cranmer was, in 
 spite of its official unpopularity, still devoting in 
 private his vast industry and extensive learning. 
 Probably he did not expect much from the prevalent 
 mood of the King and the people, but he believed 
 that the time for a further reformation would come ; 
 he knew that the opportunity, when it came, could 
 not be effectively used without previous prepara- 
 tion, and during the latter years of Henry VIIL 
 he was quietly maturing plans which came to 
 fruit in the reign of Edward VL He drew up 
 at least two schemes of church service which were 
 afterwards used as the basis of the First Book 
 of Common Prayer,' and also drafted a scheme of 
 canon law, for the reform of which three Acts 
 of Parliament were passed in 1534, 1536, and 1544'. 
 But the commission, the appointment of which was 
 then sanctioned, was not actually selected until late 
 
 * Z. and p., 1540-41, Nos. loii, 1085. 
 
 ' Wood, Scottish Peerage, i., 330 ; Le Bas, Life of Cranmer. 
 
 ' During the Convocation of 1544 there was "a secret discussion 
 about asking the King to establish ecclesiastical laws" (Wilkins, 
 Concilia, iii., 868). Cranmer's collection may be connected with 
 this discussion, but nothing came of the proposal. 
 
1 66 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 in the reign of Edward VI.* ; and the consideration 
 of Cranmer's other drafts may be conveniently post- 
 poned until their connexion with the First Book of 
 Common Prayer has to be discussed. ^ The same 
 may be said of Cranmer's labours on the Book of 
 Homilies, He had apparently begun to work on 
 them as early as 1539,' but it was not till 1543 that 
 the Homilies were submitted to Convocation.* Even 
 then they were not published nor apparently ap- 
 proved, and their issue was one of Cranmer's earliest 
 measures in the reign of Edward VI. 
 
 In some minor questions, however, Cranmer was 
 able to get his way even in the reign of Henry VIII. 
 The modification of the Act of Six Articles already 
 mentioned was doubtless furthered by him. In 
 July, 1 541, he drew up, with Henry's acquiescence, 
 a proclamation abrogating a few superfluous saints' 
 days and abolishing certain ** childish supersti- 
 tions." ^ In the following October he was author- 
 ised to enjoin the removal of shrines and relics which 
 were superstitiously revered, and to prohibit the of- 
 fering of lights and candles '* except to the Blessed 
 Sacrament."** In 1542 he defeated Gardiner's at- 
 tack upon the English Bible. Convocation had 
 declared that the version known as "Cranmer's 
 Bible" could not be retained without scandal unless 
 it were revised and corrected. The task of revision 
 was entrusted to a committee headed by Tunstall 
 and Gardiner, and Gardiner produced a long list of 
 
 ^ See below, pp. 213, 214. ■* Ibid.^ 1543, i-» i^?* 
 
 ^ See below, pp.213, 214. ^ Ibid., 1540-41, Nos. 978, 1022. 1027. 
 
 3 L. and P., XIV., i., 466. « Ibid., No. 1262. 
 
1547] Cranmer*s Projects 167 
 
 words which should remain in Latin or else be 
 translated in a more Catholic sense. But three 
 weeks later Cranmer came down with a message 
 from the King to the effect that the revision of 
 the Bible should be entrusted to the universities 
 of Oxford and Cambridge. The bishops all pro- 
 tested, except Cranmer and his brethren of Ely and 
 St. Davids, that Convocation was better fitted for 
 the task than the universities, i. e.^ that the voice 
 of authority should prevail over that of learning * ; 
 but the protest was unavailing, and as the universi- 
 ties were not after all consulted, Cranmer's Bible 
 escaped its Catholic revision. 
 
 The Archbishop is also believed to have prevented 
 an official recognition of the numerous existing forms 
 of church service. A committee of divines had for 
 some time been engaged in drawing up a '* Rationale 
 of Rites and Ceremonies," in which they contented 
 themselves with commending without amending 
 those in use.^ Gardiner's hand has been traced in 
 this production, which, according to Foxe, was " con- 
 futed " by Cranmer. At any rate, it never received 
 the sanction of Convocation, and in February, 1543, 
 Cranmer announced it as the King's wish that mass- 
 books, antiphoners, and portuises should be newly 
 examined and purged of all mention of the Bishop of 
 Rome and of " all apocryphas, feigned legends, super- 
 stitions, orations, collects, versicles, and responses"; 
 and that the names of all saints not mentioned in 
 ** the Scriptures or in the authentical Doctors should 
 
 ' Z. and p., 1542, No. 176. 
 'Collier, ii., 191 ; Dixon, ii., 313, n. 
 
1 68 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 be abolished and put out of the same books and cal- 
 endars." * 
 
 Less successful were Cranmer*s efforts to stamp 
 his individual impress upon the manual of faith, 
 which, published under the title, A Necessary Doc- 
 trine and Erudition for any Christian Man^ was 
 known as the " King's Book " to distinguish it from 
 the "Bishops* Book** of 1537,* and epitomised the 
 prevailing theology of the latter years of Henry's 
 reign. The " Bishops' Book '* had been too advanced 
 for many Bishops and possibly for the King himself ; 
 and since Cromwell's fall the episcopal bench had 
 been labouring at its revision. Questions as to the 
 origin, nature, and number of the sacraments, as to 
 the origin and nature of the episcopal authority, of 
 Holy Orders, and of the power of princes in the 
 Church, were submitted to the Bishops and other 
 divines ; and various replies have survived. Henry 
 himself took part in the discussion, and we have a 
 document containing the King's own annotations on 
 some of the conclusions put before him. There is 
 also a copy of the " Bishops* Book ** with numerous 
 emendations in Henry's hand and answers to them 
 in the Archbishop's.^ These are interesting as a 
 
 ^ Wilkins, Concilia, iii., 863. The Bishops of Ely and Salisbury 
 were entrusted with this task with the help of six members of the 
 Lower House of Convocation, but the Lower House did not co- 
 operate, and the purgation apparently was not carried out, or was 
 limited to the omission of the word " Pope," to the suppression of 
 the office and name of Thomas Beket, and to the correction of typo- 
 graphical errors (Gasquet and Bishop, Edward VI. and the Book of 
 Common Prayer, p. 4, n.). 
 
 *See above, pp. 108-109. ^Cranmer, Works, ii., 83. 
 
X547] Cranmer*s Projects 169 
 
 conclusive refutation of the idea that Cranmer never 
 ventured to express different opinions from those of 
 his sovereign ; for in this document it is seldom 
 that the Archbishop agrees with the King ; some of 
 the royal phrases, says Cranmer, " obscure the mean- 
 ing" of the text; others are "superfluous" and 
 " were better out " ; some, again, " diminish the good- 
 ness of God," and others are " not grammar." The 
 " preter tense," he reminds the King, " may not 
 conveniently be joined with the present." " I can- 
 not perceive," he bluntly says of two other sugges- 
 tions, " any manner of consideration why those words 
 should be put in that place." And so on throughout 
 the book Cranmer's comments proclaim the freedom 
 with which he could speak his mind to the King, 
 and remind us of the testimony of Erasmus to the 
 urbanity and unruffled temper with which Henry 
 was in the habit of conducting his theological dis- 
 putations. 
 
 In the result, however, it is fairly clear that, while 
 Cranmer's literary taste left its mark upon the form 
 of the " King's Book," the doctrine it inculcated re- 
 presented the views of the Catholic rather than those 
 of the Reforming party; and the book may perhaps be 
 regarded as a fair epitome of the Anglo-Catholic 
 faith which most Englishmen of the year 1 543 held, 
 and to which, with one important exception, not a few 
 Anglicans would wish to return to-day. That excep- 
 tion is due to the decay of monarchy and the develop- 
 ment of democratic views. In 1543 there was no 
 question of an independent Church ; the only alter- 
 natives were a Church dominated by the King and a 
 
170 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 Church dominated by the Pope; and Gardiner and 
 Cranmer vied with each other in zeal for the royal 
 supremacy. All were agreed that the selection of 
 bishops belonged to the prince/ and that no ecclesi- 
 astic could act without the prince's permission ; the 
 election by chapters was tacitly regarded as an empty 
 form. Cranmer and Barlow went farther than this ; 
 they considered that this royal appointment con- 
 ferred potestas ordinis as well as potestas jurisdic- 
 tionis, that consecration was not required, and that 
 the King was summus episcopus, from whom the clergy 
 derived the whole of their powers ; and as a logical 
 corollary of this position they denied that Holy 
 Orders were a sacrament.^ This was Lutheranism 
 pure and simple ; it met with the decided opposition 
 of the great majority of the English divines, and was 
 consequently not adopted in the " King's Book." 
 
 * Canon Dixon thinks it significant that Gardiner either did not re- 
 ceive, or returned no answers to, the questions circulated on these 
 points, but his silence is probably due to his absence in Germany in 
 
 1541. 
 
 ^ See Cranmer's and Barlow's answers in Burnet, iv., 443 et seq.^ 
 and compare Dixon, ii., 303-307. "This," says Cranmer, "is 
 mine opinion and sentence at this present ; which nevertheless I do 
 not temerariously define, but refer the judgement thereof wholly unto 
 your Majesty." His convictions were not settled on the point, and 
 in 1548 he reverted to the more orthodox view of ordination, deriv- 
 ing the * ' ministration of God's word " from the imposition of hands 
 by the Apostles and their successors. The change was probably due 
 {a) to the fact that the exercise of royal power by the Council in 
 Edward VI. 's minority made it more difficult to believe in the royal 
 power to confer spiritual privileges, and {b) Cranmer was then turn- 
 ing from the Lutherans to the Zwinglians, who had no such regard 
 as the Lutherans had for the prince as summus episcopus. 
 
1547] Cranmer's Projects 171 
 
 This " third English Confession," as Canon Dixon 
 calls It, consisted of an exposition of the Creed, of 
 the Ten Commandments', of the Sacraments, and of 
 the Lord's Prayer and other select passages from 
 Scripture. It was much more detailed and explicit 
 than the ** Bishops' Book " in its assertions about the 
 sacraments. It uses several of the Latin words 
 which Gardiner recommended in preference to the 
 English translations adopted in Cranmer's Bible. It 
 is definitely committed to the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation, to the Invocation of Saints, and, of 
 course, to the celibacy of the clergy.* It was care- 
 fully revised by Convocation during the spring of 
 1543, and the King himself wrote a Preface reproving 
 diversities of opinion and the improper use of the 
 Scriptures in much the same terms as he afterwards 
 used in his farewell to Parliament in 1545. On 6 
 May, 1543, it was read to the Peers in the Council 
 chamber,^ and it was issued from the press on the 
 19th. Parliamentary approval was expressed in the 
 first Act passed that year, and great expectations 
 
 ^ Canon Mason (pp. 11 5-1 17) seeks to show that the '* King's Book " 
 was essentially Cranmer's work and ** a reforming work." Of course 
 it indicated no idea of repairing the breach with Rome, restoring the 
 monasteries or the worship of saints like Thomas Beket, but the con- 
 tention that it marks an advance upon the " Bishops' Book " of 1537 
 rests upon the assumption that the latter implied the acceptance of 
 all the old theology that was not expressly repudiated, and that its 
 omissions have no particular significance. But it was of these large 
 omissions that the Catholic party complained, and the filling them up 
 in 1543 in a Catholic sense left no room for such interpretations as 
 Cranmer had put upon the "Bishops' Book" in his letters to the 
 Justice of Kent (see above, p. 120). 
 
 ^Acts r, C, 1542-47, p. 127, 
 
172 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 were entertained of it. The King, said his Council, 
 had " set forth a true and perfect doctrine for all his 
 people." * 
 
 This much-trumpeted solvent of all religious diffi- 
 culties has long passed into that limbo which only 
 theological antiquaries explore. But soon afterwards 
 Cranmer jn the privacy of his study, and without any 
 of the pomp and parade which ushered the " King's 
 Book" into the world, was toiling at a document 
 every phrase of which has become a household word 
 wherever the English tongue is spoken. The use of 
 litanies had early grown up in the Western Church, 
 and from the fact that they were sung in procession 
 they were often themselves called processions.* In 
 his later years Henry not infrequently ordered spe- 
 cial processions for special occasions. There had 
 been one in 1 543 on account of the wet harvest, 
 but owing, complained the King, to the fact of 
 its being in Latin the people "have used to 
 come very slackly to the procession " ; and in June, 
 1544, when he was about to invade France, he 
 ordered a litany to be drawn up in English and to 
 be used frequently " not to be for a month or two 
 observed and after slenderly considered."' This 
 
 »Z. and p., 1543. i.. 534- 
 
 5 Hence Wriothesley's phrase " a solemn procession upon their 
 knees in English " {Chron., i., i86), which now sounds strange. There 
 were other processions besides the Litany. See Gasquet and Bishop, 
 Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer, p. 54. Calfhill 
 {Works, ed. Parker Soc, p. 194) says that litanies were used long 
 before processions. See other references to the subject in Cough's 
 General Index to the Parker Society's Publications, 
 
 2 Cranmer, Works ^ i., 494. 
 
1547] Cranmer's Projects 173 
 
 litany was issued by the King's printer on i6 June, and 
 a contemporary chronicler describes it as " the god- 
 iiest hearing that ever was in this realm." ^ The 
 important point about it was its appearance in the 
 vernacular tongue, for the use of English in the church 
 services was still suspect ; and one of the charges 
 brought against Dr. Ridley by the Kentish clergy 
 was that the Te Deuni had been sung in English in 
 his parish church. * There is, however, no evidence 
 that this litany was of Cranmer's composition,' nor 
 was it the famous English Litany which has sur- 
 vived. For in October, 1544, four months after its 
 publication, the Archbishop writes to the King * to 
 say that in obedience to Henry's commands he has 
 translated certain Latin processions into English, 
 using therein ** more than the liberty of a translator," 
 because many of the Latin processions were barren 
 and little fruitful. Some, therefore, he had left out 
 entirely ; others he had added, and in many he had 
 made partial alterations. The whole was to be sung 
 
 * Wriothesley's Chronicles^ i., 148. 
 
 «Z. and P., 1543, ii., 306. 
 
 ' Strype {Cranmer, i., 184) thinks that it was, but he confuses the 
 two litanies of 1544 and 1545. So do Burnet and apparently his 
 latest editor, Pocock, who {^Hist. Ref.y iii., 389) says that the litany 
 of June, 1544, was included in the Primer of 1545. There is a much 
 more considerable confusion in Blunt's Reformation (8th ed., 1897, 
 i., 498-499), where, in representing the Litany as the work of a Com- 
 mittee of Convocation, he appears to be confusing it with the 
 •' King's Book." Canon Dixon and Dr. Gairdner seem to be correct 
 in distinguishing between the litanies of 1544 and 1545, and 
 Wriothesley also distinguishes them, though not clearly. 
 
 ^Cranmer, Works^ ii., 412, 
 
174 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 or chanted ; " but in mine opinion, the song that 
 shall be made thereunto would not be full of notes, 
 but, as near as may be, for every syllable a note ; so 
 that it may be sung distinctly and devoutly." The 
 revision of the Litany or the setting of the " devout 
 and solemn note " which Cranmer desired, appears 
 to have taken some time ; for it was not till June, 
 1545, that the Primer containing this litany was 
 published/ In the following August injunctions =» 
 were sent to the various Bishops to see that it and 
 no other was sung or said in all the churches in their 
 dioceses on Sundays and festivals, and it was first 
 used at St. PauFs on St. Luke's Day, the i8th of 
 October." 
 
 Such was the inception of " the most exquisite of 
 English compositions." * That it was not in all its 
 parts original was natural, for in this as in all his 
 works Cranmer sought not to uproot the old and 
 begin a new edifice upon a different foundation, but 
 to repair, restore, and improve ; and he used all the 
 old material that could be wrought into his new and 
 finer Litany. That his Litany was immeasurably 
 superior to the old will scarcely be denied. The 
 Roman Litany consisted largely of the phrase " Ora 
 pro nobis," repeated afresh after each of a scries 
 
 ^ Wriothesley, Chron., i., 156. Primers were collections of prayers 
 intended not for public, but for private use. English Primers in 
 MS. had existed long before the Reformation, and eight have been 
 enumerated of earlier date than 1460 (Dixon, ii., 360). 
 
 * Cranmer, Works ^ ii., 495-496. 
 
 * Wriothesley, Chron., i., i6r. 
 
 *Gairdner, Hist, of the English Churchy 1902, p. 230, n. 
 
154^1 Cranmer s Projects 175 
 
 of saints* names ' ; and even the litanies included 
 in MarshalFs and Hilsey's.^ Primers of 1535 and 1539 
 were bald and unrhythmical. These were all trans- 
 formed by Cranmer, who, albeit no musician, had a 
 wonderful ear for English prose, into the beautifully 
 smooth and rhythmic cadences of the present Eng- 
 lish Litany. And apart from its literary charm, the 
 Litany has proved so admirable a vehicle for re- 
 ligious devotions and aspirations that its phrases 
 have won their way into the hearts and minds of 
 miUions who do not profess and call themselves 
 members of the English Church. It has stood the 
 test of time better than any other part of the Church 
 Service Book, itself one of the least perishable of 
 human achievements; and it has remained almost 
 unchanged from the day that Cranmer penned it to 
 the present. The petitions to the Virgin, angels, 
 patriarchs, etc., to " pray for us," ' which Cranmer 
 inserted after the invocation of the Trinity, were left 
 out in all the editions of the Book of Common 
 Prayer; and the prayer to be delivered "from the 
 tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable 
 enormities," * was properly and significantly omitted 
 
 ^ £. g., " Sancta Maria Magdalena, ora pro nobis, 
 Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis, 
 Sancta Katherina, ora pro nobis, 
 Sancta Margaretha, ora pro nobis, 
 Sancta Helena, ora pro nobis." 
 ' For Marshall, see the present writer in Diet. Nat. Biog.^ xxxvi., 
 250, and for Hilsey, Bishop of Rochester, see ibid.^ xxvi., 433. 
 Hilsey's Primer was corrected by Cranmer ( Works ^ ii., 392). 
 ^ These petitions were not strictly " invocations." 
 *This was the one jarring note in Cranmer's Litany (Gairdner, 
 History^ p. 230, n.). 
 13 
 
176 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 from the edition of 1559 and was never restored; 
 for the rest, there have been only slight verbal altera- 
 tions, and those not always improvements.' 
 
 The Parliament which met in the autumn of 1545, 
 soon after the first general celebration of the Eng- 
 lish Litany, was marked by another blow, if not for 
 the Reformation, at least against the old system. 
 An Act was passed abolishing chantries or the en- 
 dowments of priests to say masses for the souls of 
 the departed. The measure could scarcely, as Dr. 
 Crome afterwards pointed out, be reconciled with 
 a belief in Purgatory, and incidentally it did not a 
 little to undermine that article of the Catholic faith ; 
 out it originated in no more lofty motive than the 
 necessity of meeting the expenses of the war which 
 England waged with France from 1 544 to 1 546, and 
 the desire of the King to reserve to himself and his 
 friends the profits of a confiscation which the de- 
 scendants of chantry founders had already begun to 
 effect for their own private gain. There was little 
 opposition, and even Gardiner subsequently ex- 
 pressed his approval of the act; but Cranmer and 
 other friends of education regretted that these funds 
 were not appropriated to some national object in- 
 stead of going, as they mostly did, to swell the pock- 
 ets of the landed gentry. 
 
 A more singular incident than the continued pil- 
 lage of the Church distinguished this session of Par- 
 liament. A bill for the extinction of heresies, which 
 presumably must have been more ferocious than the 
 
 » See Parker's First Prayer-Book of Edward VI., Oxford, 1877, 
 pp. 268-275. 
 
1547] Cranmer's Projects 177 
 
 Act of Six Articles, was introduced into the House 
 of Lords and read no fewer than five times.* This 
 protracted procedure indicates a considerable diverg- 
 ence of opinion among the Peers, but in its final form 
 their Lordships passed the bill unanimously, and it 
 was then sent down to the Commons. Whether it 
 expressed the views of the King or not, we do not 
 know. If it did not, the Lords were curiously inde- 
 pendent in passing it ; but if it did, the Commons 
 showed a still more significant independence of both 
 King and Lords by rejecting the bill.^ This incident 
 can hardly have been anything but a blow to the 
 reactionary party and a foreshadowing of the tend- 
 ency which the House of Commons, at least, would 
 show in the coming reign. Indeed, the old system 
 was crumbling away before the inroads of the New 
 Learning even while Henry VIII. succeeded in 
 maintaining the principal outworks intact ; and this 
 last Parliament of Henry's reign sanctioned two 
 other small measures quite inconsistent with pre- 
 vious Catholic practice. By the first, the Knights 
 of St. John, whose Order had been dissolved some 
 years before, were released from their vows of celi- 
 bacy ; the second enacted that eccle'?iastical jurisdic- 
 
 ^ Lords* Journals^ i., 269-271. The now-established limitation of 
 three readings for bills was not then the rule in either House of Par- 
 liament ; Cranmer was one of the peers to whom the bill was com- 
 mitted after the first reading, and then again after the second. 
 
 'It is possible that this difference of opinion between the two 
 Houses was the real occasion for the sermon with which Henry 
 VIII. closed the session on Christmas Eve, 1545. In any case the 
 incident is one of those which show that Parliament was not the 
 servile edict-registering body it is often said to have been. 
 
178 Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 tion might be exercised by married doctors of civil 
 law/ 
 
 Encouraged perhaps by these symptoms and by 
 Gardiner's absence, =^ Cranmer seems to have obtained 
 from the King an expression of opinion in favour of 
 the demolition of roods "in every church," and of 
 the abolition of bell-ringing upon All Hallow night, 
 of the covering of images during Lent, and of creep- 
 ing to the cross. Cranmer drew up a letter to this 
 effect to be signed by the King,' but in the interval 
 Henry received despatches from Gardiner averring 
 that any further alteration in religion or in ceremo- 
 nies would frustrate the negotiations then proceeding 
 between England, the Catholic Emperor, and the 
 King of France. Henry was, in fact, still at war with 
 France and nervous lest his quondam ally, Charles 
 v., should join the enemy. Gardiner's representa- 
 
 ^ The encroachments of the Civil Law upon both the Canon and 
 the English Law was one of the characteristic features of Henry 
 VIII. 's reign (see Maitland, English Law and the Renaissance, 1901). 
 Civil Law was the Emperor's law and Canon law the Pope's law. 
 Henry boasted that England was an Empire and his an imperial 
 throne. The Civil Law with its absolutist maxims appealed strongly 
 to him and to many Tudor statesmen and thinkers, including Francis 
 Bacon; and but for the defeat of the Spanish Armada we should 
 probably have had a droit administratif in England not unlike that 
 of France. 
 
 ^ He was on an embassy to Charles V. from October, 1545, to 
 March, 1546. 
 
 ^ A curious illustration of Cranmer's caution is his pleading that if 
 creeping to the cross were abolished it should only be after the 
 reasons for the change had been explained to the people lest they 
 should think it implied some diminishing of Chest's honour ( Works^ 
 
1547] Cranmers Projects 179 
 
 tions were quite enough to make him change his 
 mind, for the proposed reforms, even in the eyes 
 of a Reformer, must have appeared of slight import- 
 ance compared with the necessity of preserving 
 the Emperor's friendship. 
 
 They would, moreover, have offended the Catholic 
 party at home, which gave abundant signs of vitality 
 and power during the last year of Henry's reign. 
 Lord-Chancellor Audley, who with Cromwell and 
 Cranmer had formed a sort of reforming triumvirate 
 at Henry's Court, had died in 1544, and his place 
 had been taken by Wriothesley, afterwards Earl of 
 Southampton, who, although a prot^g^ of Cromwell 
 and a foe of Gardiner, had on Cromwell's fall ab- 
 jured his radical opinions and devoted himself with 
 zest to the task of crushing heresy. He found a 
 worthy colleague in the Solicitor-General, Sir Rich- 
 ard Rich,' and the pair, aided by the influence of 
 Norfolk, whose taste for burning heretics ceased 
 only with his death, were responsible for the re- 
 newed persecution that broke out in 1 546. Gardiner, 
 too, returned in March, and though his memory has 
 perhaps been burdened with an unfair load," his 
 influence with the King can hardly be regarded as a 
 force tending towards lenity. In April the cele- 
 brated preacher, Dr. Crome, delivered at St. Paul's 
 Cross the sermon above referred to, pointing out 
 
 ' For Wriothesley and Rich see the present writer in Diet. Nat. 
 Biogr., Ixiii., 148-154, and xlviii., 123-127. 
 
 ' S. R. Maitland, in his Essays on the Reformation, made a clever 
 but not altogether convincing effort to clear Gardiner from the 
 aspersions of Foxe. 
 
i8o Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 the inconsistency of the abolition of chantries with 
 a belief in Purgatory. He was called before the 
 Council and forced to make two recantations. A 
 like fate befell two others, a third was burnt, and 
 Latimer himself was sent to prison.* In June fol- 
 lowed the trials of Anne Askew and Shaxton, the 
 former Bishop of Salisbury. Shaxton made a piti- 
 ful abjuration, but no threats and no torture could 
 shake the constancy of Anne. She was racked in 
 the Tower by Wriothesley and Rich, and then in 
 July was burnt at Smithfield in the presence of 
 Wriothesley, Norfolk, the Lord Mayor of London, 
 and many peers and aldermen. In the same month 
 proclamations were issued for the seizure and burn- 
 ing of all copies of Tyndale's and Coverdale's New 
 Testaments and of all the works of Frith, Wycliffe, 
 George Joy, William Roy, Barnes, William Turner, 
 and Richard Tracy.' 
 
 It was the expiring effort of reaction in Henry's 
 reign, and Fortune's wheel came round once more. 
 Peace was concluded with France in June, and the 
 Emperor was involved in war with the Schmalkaldic 
 League of Protestants. Their envoys besought the 
 King for aid, and Henry was dallying with a pro- 
 posal for a Christian league against the Emperor, 
 the Pope, and the Council of Trent." It was the 
 policy of Cromwell revived, and Henry invited the 
 German princes to send him the names of ten or 
 twelve of their learned men that he might choose a 
 
 ' Wriothesley, Chron., i., 167-168. 
 
 ^ Lives of all these Reformers will be found in the Diet. Nat. Biogr. 
 
 * See A. Hasenclever, Die Politik der Schmalkaldener, 1902. 
 
1547] Cranmer s Projects i8i 
 
 few with whom to confer on religion. A stranger 
 proposition followed. In September, 1546, a French 
 ambassador, the Admiral d'Annebaut, came to Eng- 
 land, and he, Henry VIII., and Cranmer discussed 
 the prospects of a further reformation in both king- 
 doms. The King, says Cranmer, leaning on his and 
 the Admiral's arms, was 
 
 " at this point not only within half a year alter to have 
 changed the mass into a communion . . . but also 
 utterly to have extirped and banished the Bishop of 
 Rome and his usurped power out of both their realms 
 and dominions. And herein the King's Highness willed 
 me to pen a form thereof to be sent to the French King 
 to consider of. But the deep and most secret providence 
 of Almighty God, owing to this realm a sharp scourge 
 for our iniquities, prevented (for a time) this their most 
 godly device and intent, by taking to his mercy both 
 these princes." * 
 
 The war of domestic faction was also going ill 
 for the Catholics. In November Gardiner had a 
 violent quarrel with the future Duke of Northumber- 
 land ' and a dispute with Henry over an exchange 
 of lands. One or the other affair caused his ab- 
 
 ' Foxe on Morice's authority in Acts and Monuments, ed. Town 
 send, v., 563-564. The story is corroborated by a letter from Hooper 
 written in the latter part of December, 1546, to Bullinger : "The 
 bearer will inform your excellence of the good news we received 
 yesterday from Strasburgh. There will be a change of relig- 
 ion in England, and the King will take up the gospel of Christ, 
 in case the Emperor should be defeated in this most destructive 
 war ; should the gospel sustain a loss he will then retain his impious 
 mass." — Original Letters, Parker Soc, i., 41. 
 
 'Odet de Selve, Corresp. Politique, 1886, p. 51. 
 
 *.». 
 
1 8? Thomas Cranmer [1541- 
 
 sence from the Council, and there is no record of 
 his attendance between the middle of November 
 and the middle of January, though, according to 
 Foxe*s story, he used to accompany members of 
 Council to the door of the Council chamber to make 
 people think he was in as good credit as ever. 
 Finally, the ruin of Surrey, the poet, and his father, 
 the Duke of Norfolk, decisively turned the balance 
 in favour of the Reformers. " Nor," wrote one of 
 Bullinger's correspondents, ** is any one wanting but 
 Winchester alone, and unless he also be caught, the 
 evangelical truth cannot be restored." ^ Gardiner was 
 not yet to be laid by the heels, but the chief influ- 
 ence in the Council had passed to the future Protector 
 Somerset, whose wife had already betrayed her own 
 and her husband's theological predilections by secret 
 support of Anne Askew ; and in the final draft of 
 Henry's will, which was drawn up on St. Stephen's 
 Day, 26 December, the Bishop of Winchester was 
 excluded from the Council of Regency appointed to 
 govern the realm during the nonage of Edward VI. 
 The sands in the glass of Henry's life were now fast 
 running out, and rumours of his death were rife at 
 the beginning of January, 1547 ; but the end did not 
 come until the early hours of the 28th. In his last 
 moments the King turned towards him who had been 
 his best friend in life ; and feeling that his strength 
 was ebbing he sent late at night to fetch Cranmer 
 from Croydon. When the Archbishop reached 
 Whitehall the King was no longer able to speak ; all 
 he could do was to stretch out his hand to Cranmer 
 
 ' Original Letters ^ Parker Soc, ii., 638, 639. 
 
KING HENRY Vlll. PROBABLY ABOUT 1540. 
 
 fSOVI A CH*LK DRA.VING BY H0L3E.N, IN THE ROYAL PRINT CABINET, MUNICH, BV PERMISS10^» W 
 MESSRS. GOUPIl, THE OWNERS OF THE NEGATiyE* 
 
1547] Cranmer^s Projects 183 
 
 and reply with an affirmative grasp when the Arch- 
 bishop urged him to call upon Christ's mercy and 
 give some token that he trusted in the Lord. So 
 died Henry VIII., and the last support of which he 
 was conscious on earth was the hand of the man 
 whose only support he himself had been in the time 
 of trouble. Faithless to many, to Cranmer the King 
 was true unto death ; and from that day to his own 
 last agony the Archbishop left his beard to grow 
 in witness of his grief. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 CRANMER AND THE FIRST BOOK OF COMMON 
 
 PRAYER 
 
 WHILE Cranmer was soothmg the last moments 
 of Henry's life, two ministers were pacing 
 up and down the gallery outside the chamber of 
 death, busily discussing plans for dividing the mantle 
 of the dying King. One was the Earl of Hertford, 
 better known as Protector Somerset, the brother of 
 Queen Jane Seymour ; and the other was Sir Wil- 
 liam Paget, the King's Secretary, and one of the 
 astutest politicians of the age. On Monday morn- 
 ing, the 3 1st of January, Lord-Chancellor Wriothesley 
 announced to Parliament the demise of the Crown, 
 and in the afternoon the first meeting of the Coun- 
 cil of Regency was held in the Tower. Cranmer's 
 name as Archbishop of Canterbury naturally headed 
 the list of members ; but he had no political ambi- 
 tions or taste for political intrigue, and though his 
 voice was more potent in the affairs of the Church, 
 his political influence does not appear to have been 
 any greater in the reign of Edward VI. than it had 
 been under Henry VIII. There is little doubt that 
 he welcomed the appointment of Hertford to the 
 Protectorship, for the Earl was probably the states- 
 
 184 
 
[1547-49] First Book of Common Prayer 185 
 
 man of the time with whom the Archbishop was in 
 the fullest agreement and sympathy. He was a man 
 of large and noble ideas, but these were little in 
 harmony with the prevailing temper of the times/ 
 He believed in civil and, as far as possible, in re- 
 ligious liberty; and not one instance of death or 
 torture for religious opinion stains the brief and 
 troubled annals of his rule. He has been denounced 
 as a "rank Calvinist,"^ apparently on no other 
 ground than that Calvin once wrote him a letter,' 
 and has been accused of feverish zeal for a Protes- 
 tant revolution on the entirely erroneous assumption 
 that he was responsible for the policy of the Second 
 Book of Common Prayer and the Second Act of 
 Uniformity.* 
 
 A week after Hertford's election as Protector, 
 Paget read to the Council a list of honours which 
 Henry VHI. had intended conferring upon the ex- 
 ecutors of his will.' Only about half of these were 
 carried into effect; but Hertford became Duke of 
 
 ' On the character of Somerset and his policy, see the present 
 writer's England under Protector Somerset^ 1900, or, more briefly, in 
 vol. ii., chap, xiv., of the Cambridge Modern History^ 1904. 
 
 * N. Pocock in English Hist. Rev.^ x., 418. 
 
 ^ See British Museum, Stowe MS., 155, f. 9. 
 
 ^ These of course were passed in 1552 after Somerset's death. He 
 was deprived of the Protectorate in 1549, and cannot be held re- 
 sponsible for acts of the Government after that date ; he must be 
 judged by the Reformation so far as it had proceeded by October, 
 
 1549. 
 
 ^ There is no evidence that these intentions were fabricated ; the 
 ruling faction would not then proprio motu have conferred an earl- 
 dom on Wriothesley, nor invented instructions which they did not 
 mean to carry out. 
 
1 86 
 
 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 [1547- 
 
 Somerset, Wriothesley Earl of Southampton, and 
 Lisle (the future Duke of Northumberland) was 
 created Earl of Warwick. Preparations were then 
 made for the coronation of Edward VI. The cere- 
 mony was performed by Cranmer in Westminster 
 Abbey on Sunday, the 20th of February; and the 
 Archbishop has been blamed for lending his help to 
 an assertion of Tudor absolutist tendencies by pre- 
 senting Edward as King before exacting the oath to 
 observe the liberties of the people/ He seems in- 
 deed to have considered the forms of the coronation 
 as somewhat empty and as conveying no privilege 
 or power; but technically, at any rate, popular as- 
 sent had already been given to Edward's succession 
 through the mouth of Parliament in the reign of 
 Henry VHI., when the crown had been settled on 
 him by statute.^ Edward VI. was therefore the 
 first King of England who came to the throne with 
 a parliamentary title,^ and no dissent in the audience 
 at Westminster could have affected the validity of 
 an Act of Parliament. 
 
 The coronation of Edward VI. was speedily fol- 
 lowed by the fall of Lord-Chancellor Wriothesley, 
 
 * Hallam, ed. 1884, i., 38, n. ; Dixon, ii., 413. Cranmer's ad- 
 dress at the coronation is printed in his Works, ii., 126-127; but 
 the original is lost, and I doubt the authenticity of the speech as 
 printed. 
 
 - 35 Henry VIII., c. i. ; Henry VIII. himself had no power to leave 
 the crown away from Edward, but only to decide the claims of Mary 
 and Elizabeth, whose legitimacy was uncertain. 
 
 ^ The cases of Henry IV. and Henry VII. are not parallel, because 
 in 1399 and 1485 Parliament only gave its assent to a fact already 
 accomplished by unparliamentary methods. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 187 
 
 who was convicted of an unconstitutional and illegal 
 act in issuing a commission out of Chancery with- 
 out a warrant from the Council. Wriotheslcy, as 
 we have seen, had been closely identified with the 
 repressive measures of Henry's last years, and his 
 removal from the Council materially smoothed the 
 path of religious reform. Such a policy was both 
 natural and inevitable considering the constitution 
 of the new Government and the circumstances in 
 which it was placed. It was known before the end 
 of Henry's reign that the Protector was " well dis- 
 posed to pious doctrine and abominated the fond 
 inventions of the Papists " * He had long " not 
 only favoured, but also furthered the truth of God 
 and his glory in most dangerous times"'; and 
 the ruin of Norfolk and Surrey, the exclusion of 
 Gardiner ' and Thirlby from the list of Henry's 
 executors, and now the degradation of Wriothes- 
 lcy left the Catholic party without a leader. Tun- 
 stall and Sir Anthony Browne were respectable 
 Catholics, but neither had the force of character 
 to stem the tide, which even the sluice-gates of the 
 Six Articles had barely enabled Henry VHI. to 
 check. 
 
 That ferocious statute and, indeed, all the heresy 
 laws ceased to be operative with Somerset's acces- 
 
 ' Original Letters, i., 256. 
 
 'Brit. Mus., Royal MS.^ 17, C. v., quoted in Gasquet and 
 Bishop, p. 158. 
 
 ^ There is no valid reason for believing that his exclusion was not 
 the deliberate act of Henry VIII. See England under Protector 
 Somerset, pp. 21-23. 
 
1 88 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 sion to power ; and the pent-up flood spread tumultu- 
 ously over the land. The majority of Englishmen 
 probably had no keen desire for doctrinal change, but 
 zeal and energy were on the side of the Reformers, 
 and the overwhelming need for a practical reformation 
 was ever before the eyes of the Government. So 
 much minute criticism has of late been expended 
 upon the lives and characters of the leading Reform- 
 ers, that the forces which made reform inevitable 
 have been completely left out of sight, and the 
 supremely inadequate theory has gained ground 
 that the whole movement originated, first, in Henry 
 VIII. 's desire for Anne Boleyn, and, secondly, in the 
 greed of the laity for the spoils of the Church. 
 Those motives did exist ; but great revolutions do 
 not arise from petty causes, and the magnitude of 
 the Reformation measures the strength of the forces 
 which brought it to pass. The state of the Church 
 not only provoked its loss of power and privilege, 
 but threatened the nation with ruin; and the Re- 
 formation was an essential condition of the great- 
 ness of modern England. There is no need to rely 
 for proof of the wide-spread corruption upon the 
 fervid invectives of Latimer or the strident censures 
 of Foxe ; dry and musty records are far more con- 
 clusive and eloquent, and the recently published* 
 register of the visitation of the Bishopric of Glouces- 
 ter in 155 1 will perhaps be found sufficient for our 
 purpose. Three hundred and eleven clergy were then 
 examined ; one hundred and seventy-one could not 
 
 * By Dr. James Gairdner in the English Historical Review, Janu- 
 ary, 1904, pp. 98-121. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 189 
 
 repeat the Ten Commandments in English, ten could 
 not say the Lord's Prayer, ttventy-seven could not 
 tell who was its author, and thirty could not tell 
 where it was to be found ; sixty-two incumbents were 
 absent, and most of them were pluralists who did 
 not reside in the diocese. There is no reason to 
 suppose that the clergy of Gloucester were more 
 ignorant than their brethren elsewhere; and the 
 weakness of the Church is really no mystery. The 
 condition of the clergy thus affords some excuse for 
 a Government which sought to reform them, and 
 helps to explain the contempt in which they were 
 held by a laity growing in knowledge. 
 
 In reality the Council of Edward VI. found it 
 necessary to restrain rather than to stimulate the 
 ardour of the Reformers ; and one of its earliest acts 
 was to compel the wardens and curate of a London 
 parish church to restore the images they had re- 
 moved.* The new-found liberty of the people, in fact, 
 degenerated into licence, and every parish church was 
 liable to become the scene of religious experiment. 
 The destruction of images proceeded so fast, and 
 was in many districts so popular, that the Council 
 was afraid to enforce a general restoration. Later 
 in 1547 it was driven to issue a Proclamation 
 against the rough treatment which priests exper- 
 ienced at the hands of London serving-men and 
 apprentices," and to send round commissioners to 
 make an inventory of church goods in order to 
 stay the extensive embezzlement practised by local 
 
 1 Acts p. c, 1547-50, p. 25. 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 521. -^ 
 
iQo Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 magnates. In 1548 the Government put forth fur- 
 ther Proclamations* denouncing unauthorised inno- 
 vations, silencing preachers who urged them, and 
 prohibiting the eating of flesh in Lent ; and endeav- 
 oured to stop the growing practice of divorce. The 
 first Act of Parliament passed in the new reign was 
 directed, not against Catholics, but against those 
 who impugned or spoke " unreverently " of the 
 Sacrament of the Altar. Convocation thought the 
 moment had come for recovering the position from 
 which Henry VIII. had driven it, and petitioned' 
 either that ecclesiastical laws should be submitted 
 for its approval, or that the clergy should be read- 
 mitted to their lost representation in the House of 
 Commons. 
 
 All this should tend to modify the idea that the 
 new Government under the inspiration of Cranmer 
 or the Protector rushed headlong into a policy of 
 rash religious revolution without the least justifi- 
 cation of popular support. Cranmer indeed is re- 
 ported as saying that it was better to have attempted 
 a reformation in Henry's reign than during the mi- 
 nority of Edward, for no one would have ventured 
 to oppose Henry.' The remark is characteristic of 
 the Archbishop's tendency to rely on a stronger 
 power; but the words that follow show that Cran- 
 mer was afraid of the effects of a drastic reformation 
 and not of the middle course which the Protec- 
 
 ^ Strype, Eccl. Mem., II., ii., 346. 
 
 *Wilkins, Concilia, iv., 15; Cardwell, Synodalia,\x.,/^\^\ Makower, 
 Const. Hist, of the Church of England, p. 207. 
 2 Cranmer's Works, ii., 416, n. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 191 
 
 tor actually pursued ' ; and Gardiner, probably not 
 without some reason, insinuated in his letter * to 
 Somerset that the Protector was encouraged in 
 his measures by the Archbishop himself. The 
 young King's minority was a great disadvantage, 
 particularly as it gave the opponents of reform a 
 plausible though not a sound constitutional argu- 
 ment against any change. The King, they main- 
 tained, was personally Supreme Head of the Church, 
 and during his nonage that authority was in abey- 
 ance ; it could not be exercised by the Council or 
 Protector in his name. This argument proved too 
 much, for Gardiner, Bonner, Tunstall, Thirlby, and 
 all the Catholic bishops had, albeit reluctantly, taken 
 out new licences for the exercise of spiritual juris- 
 diction at the commencement of the reign ; and if 
 the royal supremacy was in abeyance these licences 
 were all invalid. It was impossible to set up a dis- 
 tinction between the Supreme Head's power to con- 
 fer ecclesiastical jurisdiction and his power to effect 
 ecclesiastical changes : if the one could be exercised 
 in his minority, so could the other. Constitutionally, 
 too, the argument was quite unsound. At no period 
 in English history has it been admitted that the 
 royal authority was legally any the less during a 
 
 ' " Therefore," he continues, " the Council hath forborne es- 
 pecially to speak thereof, and of other things which gladly they 
 would have reformed in this visitation [1547], referring all those 
 and such like matters to the discretion of the visitors." 
 
 ^ Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi., 42 ; in his reply to Gardiner the Pro- 
 tector said he was "pressed on both sides," and there can be no 
 doubt that he and the Government policy down to 1549 represented 
 ^ via media between two extremes, 
 H 
 
192 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 minority or during a period of royal insanity than 
 when the King was of full age and sound mind.* 
 To countenance such a theory would be to clog the 
 wheels of government and impair the security of the 
 State just when it would naturally be most liable 
 to danger ; and a Government could only adopt such 
 a view in a suicidal frame of mind. The Council 
 felt that the question was crucial and fundamental ; 
 and its measures against Gardiner and Bonner were 
 mainly directed towards extorting from them an 
 acknowledgment that the King's authority was as 
 great as if he had reached maturity.' 
 
 Fortified by this conviction, by the expressions in 
 favour of further reform which Henry had used in 
 the previous autumn, and by the presumption aris- 
 ing from the fact that Henry had entrusted the edu- 
 cation of his son exclusively to men of the New 
 Learning, Cranmer and the Council undertook the 
 task of carrying out those projects which had been 
 suggested or begun under Henry VHI. The tenden- 
 cies of the Government were not obscurely indicated 
 by the sermons which Bishop Barlow, Dr. Nicholas 
 
 * Henry VIII. and his Parliament had done something to encour- 
 age this unconstitutional view by enacting that Edward might on 
 reaching his twenty-fourth year annul all acts passed during his 
 minority. Hence the King of France made difficulties about con- 
 cluding treaties with the new Government on the ground that they 
 might be considered null in after years. 
 
 ^ A consistent Roman Catholic like More would have agreed with 
 the Council on the ground that at no time of his life could a tem- 
 poral sovereign be supreme head of the Church ; but Gardiner and 
 Bonner had given away the best part of their case by acknowledging 
 Henry's supremacy. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 193 
 
 Ridley, and Cranmer's commissary, Dr. Glazier,* 
 preached during Lent, 1547, at St. Paul's Cross 
 against images and other ceremonies ; and the part 
 that Gardiner would play under the new regime 
 was revealed when he protested that there was no 
 authority for making the changes suggested by Bar- 
 low until Edward VI. came of age. But the first 
 avowed indication of the Government's policy was 
 the publication of Udall's edition of Erasmus's Para- 
 phrase'* of certain portions of the New Testament, 
 of Cranmer's Book of Homilies, and of a number 
 of Injunctions which were enforced in a general visita- 
 tion of the realm. 
 
 None of these measures can be described as revo- 
 lutionary. Erasmus's Paraphrase was obviously not a 
 Protestant document ; Udall's edition had been pre- 
 pared in the reign of Henry VIII. and the Princess 
 Mary herself had taken a hand in the translation.^ 
 Gardiner, indeed, attacked it vehemently because 
 the version, like *' Cranmer's Bible," embodied trans- 
 lations nearer the original sense than the Latin 
 words with their accretion of mediaeval ideas; but 
 on the question of scholarship his authority would 
 hardly be preferred to that of Erasmus, whose " great 
 
 ' Dixon and Dr. Gairdner say Glazier preached at Court, but their 
 authorities, Stow, Burnet, and Strype, say St. Paul's Cross. 
 
 * Most bibliographical works and other authorities (including the 
 D. N. B., Iviii., 7) say this Paraphrase did not appear until 1548, 
 but Gardiner, writing on 14 October, 1547, says both it and the 
 Homilies "flowed abroad by liberty of the printers" before that 
 date. It was probably issued with the Homilies and Injunctions on 
 31 July, 1547. 
 
 ' Udall's Preface, 
 
194 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 faults" he denounced. He was on firmer ground 
 when he showed that the Paraphrase and the Homi- 
 lies did not on some points agree. 
 
 The latter production was an old scheme of Cran- 
 mer's. He had been engaged on it as early as 1539/ 
 and in 1543 a collection of Homilies had been sub- 
 mitted to Convocation without obtaining its ap- 
 proval.'* The present volume consisted of twelve 
 discourses which explained the proper use of the 
 Scriptures and the main points of the Christian 
 Faith, such as good works and charity, denounced 
 the sins of perjury, apostasy, and adultery, and con- 
 cluded with an exhortation to obedience and a 
 warning against religious contention. Cranmer was 
 probably responsible for the authorship of several 
 and the tone of all, and they were directed, on the 
 one hand, against superstitious practices, and, on the 
 other, against the preaching of the " hot-gospellers.** ' 
 On the whole they were rather practical than doc- 
 trinal treatises, and the dogmas of the Six Articles 
 were not directly impugned. They did not on 
 that account escape Gardiner's censure, and he at- 
 tacked especially the Homily on Salvation, which, 
 he complained, excluded charity from the work of 
 justification, while Bucer singled it out for special 
 
 »Z. andP,, XIV., i., 466. 
 
 '■^ See above, p. i66. 
 
 ' Three, on Salvation, on Faith, and on Good Works, are printed 
 in Cranmer's Works, ii., 128-149; probably he edited the others. 
 He wrote to Gardiner, asking him to assist in their preparation, and 
 indicating apparently that part of their design was to correct rash 
 innovations in preaching. (Dixon, ii., 426.) 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 195 
 
 commendation.* On this point, indeed, Cranmer 
 seems to have outrun the views" of the Council, for 
 in the Injunctions which were issued at the same 
 time it was asserted that the charity which con- 
 sisted in relieving the poor was " a true worshipping 
 of God, required earnestly upon pain of everlasting 
 damnation." ^ 
 
 These Injunctions, which were based upon Crom- 
 well's, were even more largely concerned with con- 
 duct than the Homilies. There was to be at least 
 one sermon a quarter in every parish church'; the 
 Paternoster, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments 
 were to be learnt by all people ; children were to be 
 properly educated and trained to some honest means 
 of livelihood; the sacraments duly administered ; a 
 Bible and Paraphrase of Erasmus to be provided 
 in every church, and a register of weddings, christ- 
 enings, and burials kept; every incumbent was to 
 devote a portion of his income to the maintenance 
 of some scholar at school or at a university, and the 
 parishioners were to do their part by contributing to 
 the relief of the poor; the sale of benefices was to 
 be punished by deprivation of the presentee and by 
 forfeiture of the presentor's patronage. There were 
 also injunctions against the superstitious use of im- 
 
 'Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vi., 45; Strype, Ecd. Memorials, 
 
 II., i., 50. 
 
 ^Cardwell, Documentary Annals, p. 18 ; the Injunctions with the 
 articles or questions which the visitors were to put to incumbents are 
 printed by Card well, pp. 4-31. 
 
 ^ That such an injunction should have been necessary proves that 
 Latimer's famous invectives against " unpreaching" clergy were not 
 exaggerated. 
 
196 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 ages, the veneration of relics, and the celebration of 
 "feigned" miracles; but the principal innovations 
 appear to have been the abolition of processions, 
 the reading of the Gospel and the Epistle in English, 
 and the saying or singing of the Litany in English 
 by the priests and choir kneeling *' in the midst of 
 the church."' 
 
 There was little in these Injunctions that was not 
 admirable and in keeping with that aspiration for a 
 purging of the practice of the Church which sup- 
 plied the moral force of the Reformation. They 
 express, in fact, an ideal of conduct to which the 
 Church has not yet attained, and the sale of livings, 
 for instance, has shocked the devout and defied the 
 reformer from that day to this. The halting success 
 which attended these efforts was largely due to the 
 fact that creed and not conduct has ever been the 
 cry of religious parties. Nine parts out of ten in 
 these Injunctions related to conduct ; yet with one 
 accord Catholics and Protestants neglected these 
 nine parts, on which they agreed, in order to fight 
 over the tenth, on which they differed." The detail 
 to which Gardiner objected most strongly was the 
 injunction that every incumbent should obtain and 
 diligently study the recently published Paraphrase 
 
 ' Cardwell, p. 14 ; cf. Gasquet and Bishop, p. 54. The motive 
 given for the change was " to avoid all contention and strife 
 ... by reason of fond courtesy and challenging of places in 
 procession, and also that they may the more quietly hear what is 
 said or sung to their edifying." 
 
 ^ Dr. Gasquet and Mr. Bishop admit that these Injunctions con- 
 tain "reasonable and salutary provisions." 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 197 
 
 of Erasmus. He had, he said, favoured Erasmus 
 before he read this book ; but rtow he agreed with 
 those who said that Luther only hatched the eggs 
 which Erasmus laid/ On broader grounds the 
 Bishop of Winchester attacked the Injunctions^ the 
 Homilies, and the Paraphrase — in short, the whole 
 policy of Cranmer and the Government — as being 
 unconstitutional ; and his letters to the Protector 
 on this question contain one of the most interest- 
 ing constitutional arguments propounded in Tudor 
 times. 2 It is in effect a plea that the King's au- 
 thority in the Church ought to be and was subject 
 to similar limitations as those which the common 
 law imposed upon his prerogative in the State. 
 These Injunctions , he said, were mere royal com- 
 mands ; they were not based upon statutory author- 
 ity, and could not have the force of law. Obedience 
 to them might involve him in a peril like Wolsey's, 
 who found that the royal permission to execute 
 legatine jurisdiction could not protect him against 
 the statute of Prcsmunire, There was much plaus- 
 ibility and some force in this argument, and it is a 
 pity that Gardiner forgot his own lesson so con- 
 veniently in the earlier days of Queen Mary'; but 
 statesmen in power do not always observe the 
 excellent maxims they enunciate in opposition. 
 Nor, indeed, was Gardiner's reasoning really sound. 
 
 »Foxe, vi., 47. 
 
 '^ Ibid., vi., 42-52. 
 
 ' The nvass was then re-established without any statutory author- 
 ity, and the laws of the preceding reign were treated as null before 
 they were repealed by the Parliament, 
 
1 98 Thomas Cranmef [1547- 
 
 Wolsey could legally be condemned to the penalties 
 of Prcemunire, because Henry VI 1 1, had no statu- 
 tory authority to license his exercise of legatine 
 jurisdiction. But the Act of Supremacy and the 
 subsequent legislation of Henry's reign had given 
 the King legal authority to reform any ecclesiastical 
 abuses that he thought needed reformation.* The 
 Royal Supremacy was in fact to be really royal and 
 not parliamentary. The Popes had not been fet- 
 tered by common-law restrictions; they claimed 
 absolute authority in the Church, and so far as 
 jurisdiction went, the whole of that authority had 
 been bestowed on Henry VHI. Gardiner, in fact, 
 had welcomed the exercise of these powers when 
 they went to restrain heretics ; he viewed them in a 
 different light when they were employed to effect a 
 reformation, and his resistance to authority involved 
 his incarceration in the Fleet prison. Bonner courted 
 a similar fate, but he soon admitted that his protest 
 against the visitation afforded a bad example, and 
 was released in time to take part in the Parliament 
 which met in November.^ 
 
 Convocation assembled at the same time, and the 
 occasion is remarkable as being one of the few 
 
 * See above, p. 88. 
 
 ' Dr. Gairdner, p. 254, thinks he remained in prison till released 
 by the general pardon, passed as the last act of the session, but sev- 
 eral votes of his are recorded in the Lords' yournals : e. g., p. 308, 
 on 15 December he voted against the first draft of the Chantries 
 Act, and on the lOth he voted against the Bill for Administration of 
 the Sacrament. He was also in his place at the meeting of Parlia- 
 ment on 4 November. It was Gardiner who was released by the 
 operation of the general pardon. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 199 
 
 instances since 1529 in which the clerical and lay 
 representatives of the nation have been of one 
 mind with regard to theological questions. Convo- 
 cation unanimously recommended at Cranmer's 
 instance* the administration of the Communion in 
 both elements,^ and by a majority of fifty-three to 
 twenty-two votes it petitioned for the repeal of all 
 enactments prohibiting the marriage of the clergy.' 
 The former recommendation was embodied in a bill 
 and passed through both Houses of Parliament, 
 having been incorporated in the House of Lords 
 with another bill directed against irreverence towards 
 the Sacrament. The object of this incorporation, 
 which was due to Somerset, was no doubt to concil- 
 iate the Catholic bishops ; but in this it failed, for 
 the bishops of London, Norwich, Hereford, Wor- 
 cester, and Chichester all voted against it.* The 
 second measure was not so fortunate; a bill with 
 the singular title, " that lay and married men may be 
 priests and have benefices," was passed in the House 
 of Commons, but it only reached the House of Lords 
 
 ' Strype, Cranmer, i, 221. 
 
 ' This was no novelty, for, apart from primitive practice and the 
 Utraquists of Bohemia, the Cistercians are said to have commonly 
 administered the Communion in both elements, and the same practice 
 is alleged to have been countenanced in a provincial constitution 
 of Archbishop Peckham. (Foxe, vi., 237.) 
 
 ^ Strype, Cranmer ^ i., 222. 
 
 * Lords' yournals, and Gasquet and Bishop, pp. 69-72. Strype 
 {Eccl. Mem., II., i., 97) thinks this Act "so properly and well 
 expressed" that the "penning thereof" must have been done by 
 Cranmer himself, and later on he "conjectures" that it was "of 
 Cranmer's procuring and drawing up, too." There is nothing im- 
 probable in the suggestion, but I know of no evidence for it. 
 
200 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 on the last day of the session (24 December), and 
 proceeded no further.' 
 
 More important was another act of this session, 
 " occasioned," says Bishop Burnet, " by a speech that 
 Archbishop Cranmer had made in Convocation.'" 
 Therein he had exhorted the clergy to study the 
 Scriptures and consider " what things were in the 
 Church that needed reformation " ; to which reply 
 was made that so long as the Six Articles remained 
 in force, it was perilous to express an opinion. 
 The difficulty was reported by Cranmer to the 
 Council, which thereupon is said to have given or- 
 ders for the drafting of a bill to repeal these Acts. 
 This bill, which produced some lively debates in 
 both Houses of Parliament, and was under discus- 
 
 * Lords' yournals, i., 311 ; this singular phrase is not an echo of 
 the " universalist " theory of the priesthood which attracted many- 
 adherents in Germany in 1525. All it meant was that marriage 
 should be no bar to ordination. This bill apparently did not, like 
 the Act of the succeeding year, permit the marriage of priests already 
 in orders and can hardly have been satisfactory to Cranmer. 
 
 ^ Hist. Ref.^'n.^ 92 ; this is an exaggeration of Cranmer's 
 share in the Act. It was mainly due to the Protector. Con- 
 vocation met on 5 November, when its only business appears to 
 have been the election of a Prolocutor. It then adjourned till the 
 1 8th ; but meanwhile the Act of Repeal had been introduced into 
 the House of Lords on the loth. Yet there is some truth in Bur- 
 net's story, for on 9 December a deputation of the clergy waited on 
 Cranmer to learn ' ' what indemnity and impunity this house shall 
 have to treat of matters of religion in cases forbidden by the statutes 
 of the realm to treat" (Strype, Cranmer, i., 222). Presumably Con- 
 vocation did not enjoy or understand parliamentary privilege ; the 
 Six Articles would have been perpetual had it been treason or felony 
 to discuss their repeal in Parliament. The Act of Repeal was then 
 awaiting its third reading in the House of Commons. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 201 
 
 sion nearly the whole of the session, is one of the 
 most remarkable in English history. It not only 
 destroyed at a blow almost the whole of Henry 
 VIII. *s repressive legislation, but established for 
 the first time a considerable measure of freedom of 
 opinion and freedom of the press. Treason was 
 reduced to the moderate definition which was laid 
 down by Edward III. and is still the law with slight 
 modification. All heresy Acts from the days of 
 Richard II. were repealed, all felonies created by 
 Henry VIII. were abolished, and no one was to be 
 condemned for any sort of treason unless he was 
 charged within thirty days of the date of the offence, 
 and either confessed or was accused by two sufficient 
 and lawful witnesses.' The Act giving the King's 
 Proclamations the force of law was also repealed, 
 and that enabling the King to annul laws on reach- 
 ing the age of twenty-four was modified. With the 
 exception of the Royal Supremacy, which was still 
 to some extent' guarded by penalties of treason, 
 there was to be full liberty to discuss religious ques- 
 tions and to print in English the Scriptures and all 
 kinds of theological treatises. It was, in fact, an 
 attempt to settle the great question of the Reforma- 
 
 * Hallam and all other authorities have written as though this 
 clause first appeared in the Act of 1552. For a more detailed de- 
 scription see the present writer's England under Protector Somerset^ 
 
 PP- 59-67. 
 
 ^ It was no longer treason to deny the Royal Supremacy by 
 *' open word" (a limitation which would have enabled Sir Thomas 
 More to escape), but it was still treason to do so in writing. The 
 Papacy was, in fact, to be excluded from the argument, the real 
 question at issue being between Protestant and Anglo-Catholic, 
 
202 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 tion by public discussion ; and the only restriction 
 imposed on the liberty of the press was the salutary 
 provision, which was enacted in 1 548 and still re- 
 mains in force, that every publication must bear the 
 name and address of the printer and the publisher. 
 In two other measures which came before this 
 session of Parliament Cranmer took an active part. 
 On the 15 December, 1547, he with the Bishops 
 of London, Ely, Norwich, Hereford, Worcester, and 
 Chichester, voted against the Chantries BilP on its 
 fourth reading, and his influence is illustrated by the 
 fact that even at that late stage of the proceedings 
 an amendment was introduced into the bill to meet 
 his criticisms. What they were precisely is not 
 known ; but Cranmer voted for the bill in its final 
 form, though all the other malcontents persisted in 
 their opposition. To him also the Lords committed 
 a bill for abolishing the pretence of electing Bishops 
 by their Chapters and providing for direct nomination 
 by royal letters patent. This was really nothing more 
 than a recognition of the fait accompli; for Henry 
 VHL's Parliament had empowered him to nominate 
 in case the Chapter omitted to elect his candidate 
 within twelve days, and had made rejection of the 
 royal candidate an offence against Prcemunire ; nor. 
 
 ^ See England under Protector Somerset, pp. 123-129. The 
 chief misconceptions about this Act arise from exaggerating its 
 scope. It did not confiscate all the property of guilds, nor did it 
 abolish masses for the dead ; all it did was to abolish certain perpet- 
 ual foundations and transfer the revenues to the King for the ex- 
 press purpose of founding schools. See, on its secular aspect, Ashley, 
 Economic History^ ii., 139, etsqq.^ and, on its religious aspect, Gasquet 
 and Bishop, pp. 82-83. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 203 
 
 in fact, has there been a single instance since the 
 Reformation of successful resistance to the royal dic- 
 tation. But Cranmer's emendation of the bill does 
 not appear to have pleased the Lords, and on the 
 following day it was entrusted to a committee con- 
 sisting of Bishop Tunstall and Goodrich, the chief 
 Baron of the Exchequer, and the Attorney-General.* 
 So far as legislation went, the results of Edward 
 VI. 's first year certainly indicated no violent change 
 with the past ; to eager Reformers they seemed not 
 only moderate but meagre. The clergy were still 
 in the bonds of celibacy, the change in the method 
 of appointing bishops was only one of form, and 
 even the grant of the cup to the laity was a conces- 
 sion at which the Popes had connived in Bohemia 
 and which many good Catholics had been willing to 
 make in Germany.^^ For the rest, it might seem that 
 Parliament wished the nation to argue the matter 
 out for itself. But Cranmer and the Government 
 thought it their duty to give the nation a lead, and 
 even on occasion to require that the lead should be 
 followed in the interests of peace and quietness. 
 From the beginning of the reign the Royal Chapel 
 had afforded an example for others to imitate. 
 
 'Canon Dixon {Hist., ii., 459, note) says that the bill " owed 
 its final form " to Cranmer, but he has overlooked this second com- 
 mission ; See Lords' youmals, 15 and 16 December, 1547. The 
 Act was, of course, repealed in Mary's reign, and excepted in 1559 
 from Elizabeth's general repeal of Mary's ecclesiastical legislation ; 
 so the system of congi d'Slire was restored and remains in force, giv- 
 ing to the Chapters the shadow of a power, the substance of which is 
 retained by the Crown. 
 
 ^ See Cambridge Modern History, ii., 240. 
 
204 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 Compline was there sung in English on Easter Mon- 
 day, 1547, the sermon was preached, and the Te 
 Deum sung in English on 18 September to cele- 
 brate the Protector's victory at Pinkie over the 
 Scots ; and at the opening of Parliament on 4 No- 
 vember the Gloria in Excelsis^ the Creed, and the 
 Agnus were all sung in the vernacular tongue. At 
 the same time Thomas Sternhold,* a gentleman of 
 the Court, who had been in trouble in 1543 for 
 advanced religious views, was engaged in composing 
 a metrical version of the Psalms in English, designed 
 both to promote their vogue and to supplant the 
 " lewd " and offensive ballads which found too much 
 favour with reformers of the baser sort. 
 
 So, too, Cranmer had no mind to be idle till Par- 
 liament met again, and he believed that the vast 
 powers conferred by the Act of Supremacy imposed 
 a moral obligation upon the Government to lead the 
 people along what it considered the strait and 
 narrow way. The services of the Church had not 
 been touched by Parliament, but soon after it rose 
 the Archbishop submitted to his colleagues a series 
 of questions intended to elicit their opinions on the 
 subject of the mass or communion service." This 
 transformation had been one of the projects con- 
 sidered by Henry VIII. in the last year of his life, 
 and only prevented, according to Cranmer, by his 
 death. Parliament and Convocation had now both 
 enjoined the administration of the Sacrament in 
 
 ' See Diet. Nat, Biogr., liv., 223. 
 
 ^The date must have been between 20 December, 1547, and 7 
 February, 1548 ; see Gasquet and Bishop, p. 84. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 205 
 
 both elements, and it fell to the Bishops to draw up 
 some form for the rite. If it had been the intention 
 of Henry VIII. to change the rriass into a com- 
 munion service, that intention was certainly not car- 
 ried into effect at this juncture, for the result of the 
 deliberations of the divines was the retention of the 
 old mass,* with the addition of a communion service 
 for the laity. " It would almost seem," say two 
 Catholic writers, "that the action of two minds 
 working with different intentions is to be traced in 
 the composition of this Order of Communion.*** 
 Cranmer's was the mind working for reform, and 
 his answers to the questions circulated ' among the 
 Bishops are, with one exception, in favour* of inno- 
 vation. He objected to the terms "oblation and 
 sacrifice," declaring that the mass was only a " mem- 
 ory and representation " * of the Sacrifice of the 
 Cross. Its virtue was limited to the receivers of the 
 communion, and the laity derived no benefit from 
 private masses performed by priests ; these he 
 thought should cease, and by securing that the laity 
 
 * /. ^., the private masses performed by the priest in which no 
 layman communicated. There might be several of these daily, and 
 they were the special aversion of reformers in all countries, implying 
 as they did that each mass was a sacrifice, performed by the priest 
 for the laity, whose participation was unnecessary, although the 
 communion might be administered to them at any mass (Gasquet 
 and Bishop, p. 91). 
 
 '^Ibid., p. 93, n. 
 
 3 The original of these questions is in the library of Corpus Christi 
 College, Cambridge. (MS. 105, ff. 230-231); the answers with the 
 questions are printed by Burnet (ed. Pocock, v., 197-217) from 4 
 Lambeth MS. 
 
 * Burnet, v., 201, 
 
2o6 Thomas Granmer [1547- 
 
 should only communicate on certain public occa- 
 sions, of which due notice was to be given, he pre- 
 pared the way for their abolition. 
 
 Cranmer's propositions were supported in the main 
 by Ridley, now Bishop of Rochester, Holbeach of 
 Lincoln, Barlow of St. Davids, and by Drs. Cox and 
 Taylor ; but the majority took the Catholic view, and 
 the Protector was averse to violent measures. The 
 chief point was the language to be used. The Cath- 
 olics disliked the adoption of English, as separating 
 the ceremony in England from the manner and cus- 
 tom of other countries. That objection would have 
 been fatal to much else in the Reformation; but 
 Cranmer himself doubted the wisdom of using Eng- 
 lish " in certain mysteries," and he agreed with Tun- 
 stall's proposal that Latin should be retained in the 
 mass, but that certain prayers in English might be 
 added to instruct and stir the popular devotion. 
 One other cautious change was tacitly admitted 
 under the guise of a warning to Reformers ; those 
 who were content with the general confession 
 were required not to be offended with others who 
 practised also auricular and secret confession to the 
 priest.* This Order of Communion was printed on 
 the 8th of March, 1548, and issued on the 15th with 
 an injunction that it should be adopted by Easter fol- 
 lowing. Its object, like that of all the early measures 
 of Edward's reign, was to open the door to the New 
 Learning without shutting it in the face of the Old, 
 
 * The Act of Six Articles, which insisted upon auricular confession, 
 bad of gourse already been repealed. 
 
Copyright Photo., Walker & Cockerell. 
 BSSHOP HUGH LATIMER„ 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 207 
 
 and to carry the whole nation as far as possible 
 slowly and cautiously along the path of Reform. 
 
 The same spirit of compromise pervaded the vari- 
 ous Proclamations issued during the spring of 1548. 
 On the i6th of January, for instance, a Proclamation 
 appeared lamenting the lax observance of Lent and 
 enjoining respect for the old fast-days ; but a few 
 days later the Council resolved to discountenance 
 the burning of candles on Candlemas Day, the use 
 of ashes on Ash Wednesday and of palms on Palm 
 Sunday, as well as creeping to the Cross on Good 
 Friday, and the taking of holy bread and holy water, 
 changes to which Cranmer had nearly obtained the 
 consent of Henry VIII. But again, on the 6th of 
 February, a Proclamation censured innovations begun 
 by parish priests on their own authority, while on 
 the nth the Council ordered the removal of all 
 images, under the impression that this drastic meas- 
 ure would cause less disturbance than the perpetual 
 contention as to whether they were abused or not. 
 
 But the mind of the Government^-which, speak- 
 ing generally of religious matters at this time, means 
 that of Cranmer and the Protector — was not so am- 
 biguous as, in the vain hope of peace and quietness, 
 it was made to appear. It was with the connivance 
 of these two that Latimer, who since his release by 
 Henry's death had been living with Cranmer at 
 Lambeth, began a course of sermons at St. Paul's 
 Cross in January, 1548; in them he lashed not 
 merely the "unpreaching prelate" of the Old, but 
 the greedy landlord of the New Learning, against 
 whom the Protector was about to launch his ill-fated 
 
2o8 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 but generous crusade. On 12 May at Westminster 
 the whole communion service was said in English ; 
 and the fact that the sermon was preached by a 
 royal chaplain suggests that the alteration was not 
 viewed with disfavour in government circles. It is 
 possible, too, that in the Royal Chapel a form of 
 service something like that afterwards enforced by 
 the first Act of Uniformity was in use as early as 
 August, 1548. There is, however, no evidence to 
 prove that the simultaneous exclusion of Latin from 
 the services at St. Paul's and the cessation of private 
 masses there and in various London parishes was 
 due to any other influence than the zeal of the 
 Protestant Dean V and popular pressure. Protestant 
 principles were in fact making rapid strides, and a 
 Government which sympathised with the Reforma- 
 tion could hardly be expected to set its face like 
 adamant against all change, still less to check it by 
 the methods of Henry VIIL, when those methods 
 had been made illegal by Parliament. A caution 
 was, however, issued in May to the licensed preach- 
 ers to restrain them from advocating further innova- 
 tions and to exhort them to rebuke the innovators. 
 
 This popular agitation encouraged or compelled 
 the Government to meditate further projects. Somer- 
 set was probably more concerned to keep the peace 
 than to attempt the perfection of religious truth ; 
 and the complaint of a reformer that the Protector 
 preferred watching the builders at Somerset House 
 to hearing sermons should do something to relieve 
 
 VVjUiam Ma.y ; see Diet. JVat. Biogr. , xxxvji. , 146, 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 209 
 
 his memory of the charge of religious intemperance 
 which it has long unjustly borne. Cranmer had no 
 such worldly distractions; his mind was advanc- 
 ing with the times, and in the great controversy 
 about the Eucharist which was now tending to over- 
 shadow all other religious questions he had not only 
 gone as far as Luther, but was beginning to look in 
 the direction of Zwingli. In this he reflected the 
 temper of a large and growing body of English Re- 
 formers, and the year 1 548 saw a great outburst of 
 Protestant theology. Books poured from the press' 
 controverting and ridiculing the Catholic doctrine 
 of the mass, some of them respectable arguments, 
 but most appeals to the crowd couched in coarse 
 and ribald terms. There was a repetition of the fer- 
 ment which pervaded Germany from 1521 to 1525'; 
 and while Protestant tracts multiplied, scarcely a 
 voice was raised on the Catholic side.' Cranmer 
 himself joined in the fray by publishing an English 
 translation of the Lutheran Catechism of Justus 
 
 ' Between twenty and thirty such books against the mass are 
 known to have appeared in England in 1548, and probably there 
 were many more. 
 
 * See the present writer in the Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii., 
 chap. V. 
 
 2 This disproportion has been explained on the theory that the 
 Government rigidly controlled the press, encouraged the Protestant 
 writings, and suppressed Catholic productions. But this was not 
 the case ; the Government had given up the control of the press by 
 the Act of 1547, and it was not till 13 August, 1549, that the Coun- 
 cil, threatened by revolts in the East and in the West, ordered that 
 no book should be printed without the licence of one of the Secreta- 
 ries of State or of William Cecil {Acts P. C, 1547-15 50, p. 312). 
 Moreover, the disproportion was just as great in Germany, where all 
 
2IO Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 Jonas, but this book struck dismay into the hearts 
 of those Zwinglians who had begun to entertain 
 hopes of the Archbishop's conversion. 
 
 " This Thomas," wrote one to Zwingli's successor, 
 Bullinger, ** has fallen into so heavy a slumber that we 
 entertain but a very cold hope that he will be aroused 
 even by your most learned letter. For lately he has 
 published a catechism, in which he has not only ap- 
 proved that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation * of 
 the Papists in the holy supper of Our Saviour, but all the 
 dreams of Luther seem to him sufficiently well-grounded, 
 perspicuous, and lucid." ' 
 
 Another of Bullinger's correspondents excepted 
 Cranmer and Latimer from the bulk of the learned 
 and the nobility who shared Zwinglian views. " As 
 to Canterbury," he continued, " he conducts himself 
 in such a way . . . that the people do not think 
 much of him and the nobility regard him as luke- 
 warm. In other respects he is a kind and good- 
 natured man." ' These complaints were merely due 
 to the restraint which Cranmer placed upon himself 
 
 the licensing powers were in the hands of Catholics. Gasquet and 
 Bishop (pp. 122, et sgq.) give some specimens of these books. The 
 tract yohn Bon and Master Parson ^ which they had not been able 
 to find (p. 121, n.), is printed in the present writer's Tudor Tracts^ 
 1903, pp. 159-169. 
 
 * This, of course, is a mistake, but advanced Reformers, and Cran- 
 mer himself at a later date, saw little difference between Transub- 
 stantiation and the Real Presence. 
 
 ^^Original Letters ^ Parker Soc, pp. 380-381. 
 
 3 Barth. Traheron to Bullinger, i August, 1548. {Original Letters, 
 i., 380.) For Traheron see the present writer in Did. Nat, Biogr.^ 
 Ivii., 14S. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 211 
 
 and to his reluctance to enunciate private opinions 
 before he could adopt them in public practice. For 
 in reality at least one phrase in his translation of the 
 Catechism indicated a departure from the Lutheran 
 creed ; and he implied in his answer to Gardiner, 
 printed in 1551, that shortly before the publication 
 of the Catechism he had abandoned " that error of 
 the real presence." * 
 
 This union of Cranmer with the forces of pop- 
 ular enthusiasm and the more interested desires of 
 the nobility made it very difficult for the Protec- 
 tor to hold the balance even between Anglo-Catholic 
 and Protestant. The pressure which he told Gardi- 
 ner was being put upon him from both sides in 1547 
 now grew very unequal, and it required some skill 
 and some rigour to prevent dangerous friction be- 
 tween the two parties. The Government was keenly 
 alive to the disruptive effects which disputes over 
 the Eucharist had produced on the Continent ; and 
 although the English Constitution enjoyed better 
 guarantees of stability than those of Germany or 
 Switzerland, the fear of religious war was ever pre- 
 sent to the minds of England's rulers in the sixteenth 
 century. In 1548 feeling was so acute that disputes 
 whether there should be mass or not led to blows 
 being exchanged in St. Paul's and other London 
 churches; and the French ambassador, probably 
 with some exaggeration, declares that there were 
 daily fights on the subject. If unity was to be pre- 
 served, there must be some sort of uniformity ; and 
 
 ' Cranmer, Works^ i. , 374. 
 
212 Thomas Cranmer ti54ir-' 
 
 pending the production of one uniform order, a com- 
 promise and a standard which all should be per- 
 suaded or compelled to observe, the Council imposed 
 silence on the disputants, especially with regard to 
 the doctrine of the mass/ 
 
 Uniformity was the natural outcome of separation 
 from Rome, for in an universal church there is more 
 room for local option than in a national church, es- 
 pecially when that national church was anxious to 
 define the boundaries which marked it off from the 
 Roman church on one hand and the various Pro- 
 testant churches on the other. If there was to be 
 anything national about the church it was scarcely 
 permissible that one diocese or one parish should 
 approximate to the Roman use, while the next dio- 
 cese or parish might follow, that of Geneva, Wit- 
 tenberg, or Zurich. There was more latitude in 
 Germany, where a national system could not be said 
 to exist either in religion or politics ; but the results 
 of German diversity scarcely recommended its adop- 
 tion elsewhere. And so the progress towards uni- 
 formity began almost as soon as the connexion with 
 Rome ceased. The Ten Articles of 1536 and the 
 Six of 1539 were both assertions of the right, and in- 
 dications of the intention of England to select her 
 own formularies of faith and make them uniform. 
 So, too, in 1543, Convocation had recommended the 
 uniform adoption of the Sarum Use throughout the 
 
 ^ On 23 September even licensed preachers were prohibited for the 
 time from preaching anything except the Homilies. Gardiner's fail- 
 ure to observe silence on the mass was one of the causes of his 
 imprisonment in the Tower, 30 June, 1548. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 213 
 
 province of Canterbury ; and the task of compiling a 
 Book of Common Prayer out of the various service- 
 books in use had occupied much of Crahmer's time 
 during the later years of Henry VIII. There was 
 need of reform as well as of uniformity ; the latter 
 was felt mainly in England, but the defects of the 
 current service-books were patent to Roman Catho- 
 lics, and the reformed Breviary which Cardinal 
 Quignon dedicated to Paul III. in 1535 anticipated 
 not a few of the changes effected by the first English 
 Book of Common Prayer.* 
 
 The Breviary of Cardinal Quignon and the Sarum 
 Use were the basis of two schemes of Office * 
 drawn up by Cranmer probably between 1543 — 
 when Convocation or the King or both ordered 
 a revision of the service-books, — and 1547, when 
 Convocation demanded the production of the re- 
 sults of the labours of those who had been engaged 
 in this task. These two schemes mark two suc- 
 cessive stages in the evolution of the First Book of 
 
 ' The similarities between Quignon's work and the Preface to the 
 First Book of Common Prayer were originally pointed out by the 
 Rev. (Sir) William Palmer (i 803-1 885) in his Origines Liturgicce, 
 published in 1832. Quignon was a Spanish Franciscan and a friend 
 and confidant of Clement VII. and Paul III.; many references to 
 him will be found in the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII. ^ and in 
 the Calendar of Spanish State Papers. 
 
 'The MS. is in the British Museum {Royal MS., 7, B. iv.) ; it has 
 been printed and exhaustively discussed in Gasquet and Bishop's 
 Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer, 1890, the most valua- 
 ble of all works on the subject, to which reference should be made 
 for an account of the difference in detail between the various docu- 
 ments. The MS. is mainly in the hand of the Archbishop's secre- 
 tary, Ralph Morice, and the corrections are in Cranmer's own. 
 
214 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 Common Prayer. The first has been described as 
 "Sarum material worked up under Quignon influ- 
 ence," while, the latter " comes nearer to the form of 
 morning and evening prayer in the first printed 
 Prayer Book of Edward VI." The chief feature of 
 interest about the second scheme is that it marks 
 the transition from the ancient arrangement of the 
 Office to the order adopted in 1549. Compline and 
 the four Hours " prime, terce, sext, and none " were 
 omitted altogether, and it is possible that upon this 
 draft was modelled the form of service, from which 
 Compline was omitted, used in the Chapel Royal in 
 1548, and recommended by Somerset in a letter 
 of September the 4th to the Vice-Chancellor of 
 Cambridge as a model for use in College chapels. 
 
 However that may be, there was a considerable 
 step between the second of Cranmer's draft schemes 
 and Edward VI. *s First Book of Common Prayer. 
 The petition of Convocation in 1547 for the produc- 
 tion of the schemes was not conceded, and it was not 
 till September, 1548, that the final stage in the evolu- 
 tion of the Book of Common Prayer was commenced. 
 The work is usually supposed to have been done by 
 a body of Bishops * called the " Windsor Commis- 
 sion," and their names have been variously given 
 by different historians, who in this connexion gener- 
 
 *The "other divines" who are said to have existed are not as a 
 rule mentioned in contemporary references which speak only of 
 "bishops"; see Gasquet and Bishop, p. 178. But on the other 
 hand, Somerset in his letter to Cardinal Pole writes " as well bishops 
 as other equally and indifferently chosen of judgment." (Pocock, 
 Troubles Connected with the First Book of Common Prayer^ p. x.) 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 215 
 
 ally confuse the Order of Communion with the First 
 Book of Common Prayer. But these lists have not 
 been traced to any authentic source, and a thorough 
 search has failed to reveal any trace of a formal com- 
 mission. It is, however, fairly certain that some 
 Bishops did assemble first at Windsor and then at 
 Chertsey Abbey in September and October, 1548, 
 and deliberate upon the controversies raging with so 
 much fury ; and we have their own assertion for the 
 fact that a draft Book of Common Prayer was sub- 
 mitted for their approval. It does not appear, how- 
 ever, that they had much share in drawing up this 
 document, and one of the Catholic Bishops subse- 
 quently complained in the House of Lords that the 
 book had been materially altered since he had sub- 
 scribed to it. The only prelate who refused his as- 
 sent was Bishop Day of Chichester, but the Catholics 
 subscribed mainly for the sake of unity and not be- 
 cause they agreed with all its particulars. Their 
 subscriptions were much like the " nolens voloj' by 
 which Tiptoft' once expressed his concurrence in an 
 Ordinance of the Privy Council. 
 
 The Book, in fact, was, in the form in which it 
 came before Parliament, to all intents and purposes 
 the work of Cranmer. Not only was the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation — in which Cranmer had ceased to 
 believe ten years before — excluded, but that of the 
 Real Presence was implicitly rejected. The elevation 
 and adoration of the Sacrament were left out, the 
 
 1 John, Baron Tiptoft (1375 ?-i443). See the present writer in 
 Diet. Nat. Biogr., Ivi., 409-411, and Nicolas, Proceedings of the 
 Privy Council, vol. ii., Pref., p. liv. 
 
2i6 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 word oblation was studiously avoided, and Bonner 
 asserted that there was " heresy in the book " be- 
 cause the elements were still described as bread and 
 wine after the completion of those ceremonies which 
 implied to a Catholic their transubstantiation. The 
 commendations of the Zwinglian party confirmed the 
 criticisms of the Catholics. " You must know," wrote 
 Traheron to Bullinger, " that Latimer has come over 
 to our opinion respecting the true doctrine of the Eu- 
 charist, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 and the other bishops, who heretofore seemed to be 
 Lutherans." * " Even that Thomas [Cranmer] him- 
 self," remarks another correspondent, " by the good- 
 ness of God and the instrumentality of that most 
 upright and judicious man, master John k Lasco, is 
 in a great measure recovered from his dangerous 
 lethargy." ^ 
 
 Such were Cranmer's views in the autumn of 
 1548, but they are not an accurate indication of the 
 doctrine* of the First Book of Common Prayer, for 
 the Archbishop's scheme was subjected to criticism 
 in both Houses of Parliament and emerged from 
 the ordeal a compromise between the two parties. 
 
 * Original Letters^ p. 322 ; this letter is dated 28 September, and 
 the editor adds *' 1548," but the correctness of this I doubt. The 
 reference to "painful events" applies better to 1549 than to 1548. 
 
 ^ Ibid.y p. 383. Cranmer himself attributed his change of view to 
 Ridley and not to John k Lasco, for whom see Did. Nat. Biogr., 
 and Hermann Dalton's Lasciana and Life of ^ Lasco. Still there is 
 probably some truth in the above statement, as k Lasco passed the 
 winter of 1548-49 with Cranmer at Lambeth. 
 
 ^This doctrine is only a matter of inference ; the Book of Common 
 Prayer is a manual of devotion, not of doctrine, and nice definitions 
 of dogma agree ill with the devotional spirit. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 217 
 
 In this work of modification Convocation seems to 
 have had no hand ' ; but both Houses of Parliament 
 asserted a voice in the matter. The Commons were 
 urged by Traheron ^ to tolerate " no ambiguity in 
 the reformation of the Lord's Supper ; but it was not 
 in his power to bring over his old fellow-citizens to 
 his views." Apparently in this instance the conserv- 
 ative feeling of the Lower House resisted the more 
 radical spirit of the Lords, for there Cranmer and 
 Ridley, we are told by Traheron, argued so well on 
 behalf of the Zwinglian view that *' truth never 
 obtained a more brilliant victory. I perceive that 
 it is all over with Lutheranism, now that those who 
 were considered its principal and almost only sup- 
 porters have altogether come over to our side."* 
 
 " The palm," echoes Peter Martyr to Bucer, ** rests 
 with our friends, but especially with the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, whom they till now were wont to traduce as 
 a man ignorant of theology, and as being conversant 
 only with matters of government ; but now, believe me, 
 he has shown himself so mighty a theologian against 
 them as they would rather not have proof of, and they 
 
 * A whole literature has grown up round this disputed and intricate 
 point ; the scanty evidence we have is contradictory. See Joyce, 
 Acts of the Church ; Dixon, History^ iii., 5, et seq. ; Gasquet and 
 Bishop, chap. x. 
 
 • How Traheron got elected is not revealed by the Official Return 
 of M. P.'s, but his friend Hilles expressly states that he was one of 
 the burgesses. {Original Letters, i., 266.) 
 
 ^ Orig. Letters, i., 323. Traheron probably heard the debate in 
 the Lords, being no doubt one of the M. P.'s who, according to 
 Peter Martyr, went up every day to hear the debate in the House of 
 Lords. Ibid.^ ii., 469. 
 
2i8 Thomas Cranmer [1547- 
 
 are compelled, against their inclination, to acknowledge 
 his learning and power and dexterity in debate. Tran- 
 substantiation, I think, is now exploded, and the diffi- 
 culty respecting the presence is at this time the most 
 prominent point of dispute ; but the parties engage with 
 so much vehemence and energy as to occasion very 
 great doubt as to the result ; for the victory has hitherto 
 been fluctuating between them." * 
 
 A brief report' of this great debate has cbme 
 down to us, and from this authentic record we learn 
 the gist of Cranmer's views. "Our faith," he de- 
 clared, " is not to believe Him to be in bread and 
 wine, but that he is in heaven ; this is proved by 
 Scripture and Doctors till the Bishop of Rome's 
 usurped power came in." Later on in the debate 
 he said, " I believe that Christ is eaten with the 
 heart. The eating with our mouth cannot give us 
 life, for then should a sinner have life. Only good 
 men can eat Christ's body ; and when the evil eateth 
 the Sacrament, bread and wine, he neither hath 
 Christ's body nor eateth it." That is to say, the 
 presence in the Eucharist was a spiritual presence 
 conditioned by the faith of the recipient, Ridley 
 was somewhat more guarded in his admissions ; the 
 bread, he said, remained bread after consecration, 
 "still the bread of communion is not mere bread, 
 but bread united to the divinity." The common 
 bread, he explained, is made a divine influence. 
 
 * Original Letters, ii., 469-470. 
 
 * Extant in British Museum -^tyflf/J/^"., 17, B. xxxix., and printed 
 in Gasquet and Bishop, pp. 397-443 ; for a further exposition of 
 Cranmer's views see the following chapter. 
 
PIETRO VERMIQLI, COMMONLY KNOWN AS PETER MARTYR. 
 
 •FROM THE PAINTING NOW IN CHAPTER-HOUSE ftOOM AT CHRISTCHURCH , OXFORD. BY PERMISSION 
 
 OF THE DEAN AND FELLOWS. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 219 
 
 Such were the answers which Cranmer gave to the 
 three questions propounded in the debate : whether 
 there was a real presence in the sacrament, whether 
 evil men received **that body,'* and whether there 
 was transubstantiation. In each case his reply was 
 in the negative. In the last two questions he carried 
 the majority with him, but, as Peter Martyr indi- 
 cates, the great point at issue was the real presence, 
 and in regard to that the result did not correspond 
 with Traheron's triumphant paean over the rout of 
 the Lutherans. The debate described above took 
 place on 14-17 December, 1548, but the Act of Uni- 
 formity imposing the First Book of Common Prayer 
 did not pass the House of Lords till four weeks later.* 
 The interval was used to modify Cranmer's draft of 
 the Book of Common Prayer so as to secure a ma- 
 jority of episcopal votes in its favour. This was 
 regarded as of much importance by the Protector, 
 and his success enabled the Government to maintain 
 in its subsequent disputes with Bonner and the Prin- 
 cess Mary that the measure had received the sanc- 
 tion of the Church. A majority of prelates would 
 not, however, have voted for the doctrine laid down 
 by Cranmer, and various alterations were introduced 
 to modify Catholic hostility. The most important, 
 perhaps, was the substitution of the phrases *' sacra- 
 ment of the body " and " sacrament of the blood " 
 
 ' That is, on 21 January, 1549 ; it did not receive the royal assent 
 until 14 March, 1549; on this much-disputed date see the present 
 writer in English Historical Review, xvi., 376-379 and Canon Mac- 
 coil's preface to the 10th edition of his Reformation Settlement 
 (1902). 
 
220 Thomas Cranmer [1547^ 
 
 for ** bread " and " wine ** in the last rubric of the 
 communion ; and the change was doubtless designed 
 to meet Bonner's complaint that the use of the 
 words " bread " and ** wine " in this conjunction was 
 heresy. 
 
 In its final form the First Book of Common Prayer 
 was a blow to the extreme Reformers. " The fool- 
 ish Bishops," wrote Traheron to Bullinger, " have 
 made a marvellous recantation." * Hooper described 
 the Book as " very defective and of doubtful con- 
 struction and in some respects indeed manifestly im- 
 pious."' Dryander remarked that with regard to 
 the Lord's Supper ** the book speaks very obscurely, 
 and however you may try to explain it with candour, 
 you cannot avoid great absurdity. The reason is 
 that the bishops could not for a long time agree 
 among themselves respecting this article." Some 
 concessions, wrote Bucer and Fagius, " have been 
 made both to a respect for antiquity and to the in- 
 firmity of the present age " ; and they instanced the 
 vestments enjoined for the celebration of the Euchar- 
 ist, the use of candles and the chrism, and the com- 
 memoration of the dead. The Book was, in fact, 
 neither Roman nor Zwinglian ; still less was it 
 Calvinistic, and for this reason mainly it has been 
 described as Lutheran. Richard Hilles, a well-in- 
 formed layman, compared the communion service 
 with that adopted in the Niirnberg churches and 
 in some of the churches of Saxony. But the resem- 
 blance was due not so much to conscious imitation 
 
 * Original Letters, i., 323. 
 
 * JHd., pp. 232-3, 266, 350-1, 565. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 221 
 
 as to the common conservatism which characterised 
 the Lutheran and Anglican service-books, and led 
 to the retention in them of many Catholic usages 
 which Reformed churches in Europe rejected. The 
 Anglican was, in fact, the most conservative of all 
 the liturgies produced by the Reformation. The 
 Sarum Use was its basis, but Cranmer's extensive 
 acquaintance with contemporary liturgies enabled 
 him to select the best from an enormous range of 
 material. His indebtedness to the Breviary of Car- 
 dinal Quignon has already been mentioned ; with all 
 the more important Lutheran service-books he was 
 familiar; and his correspondence with his wife's 
 uncle, Osiander, and with Zwinglian divines such as 
 J. de Watt (Vadianus) kept him in touch with the 
 trend of every variety of continental opinion. Per- 
 haps the clearest traces of foreign influence may be 
 found in the similarities between the Baptismal Office 
 of the First Book of Common Prayer and the Pia 
 Consultation compiled by Bucer and Melanchthon and 
 published under the authority of Hermann von Wied, 
 the reforming Archbishop of Cologne, in 1543. But 
 Cranmer also laid under contribution the liturgies 
 of the Greek Church, numerous editions of which 
 had been printed before 1548, and possibly of the 
 Mozarabic or ancient rite of Spain. * 
 
 ^ The two similarities alleged between the English Book of 1549 
 and the Mozarabic Use are in the words of institution of the sacra- 
 ment and the form of blessing the font. The first appears rather to 
 have been derived from a contemporary liturgy ; and Gasquet and 
 Bishop (p. 185 n.), while admitting " that the form must have been 
 derived either directly or indirectly from the Spanish Liturgy" 
 point QwX that printed copies of this liturgy were scarcely accessibly 
 
222 Thomas Cranmer [.547^ 
 
 Quite apart from conflicting views in the English 
 Church and Parliament which made compromise es- 
 sential, it was not likely that a liturgy derived from 
 such various sources would embody or emphasise 
 one clear, definite, dogmatic system ; nor is a liturgy 
 the proper vehicle for the assertion of dogma. The 
 value of the English Book of Common Prayer is not 
 to be compared with that of the Augsburg Confes- 
 sion or the Longer and Shorter Catechisms : it was 
 different in kind, but not less in degree. The Prayer 
 Book is not a creed nor a battle-cry, and it provokes 
 the spirit of devotion rather than that of de- 
 bate; it is religion and not theology. To it the 
 Anglican Church owes the hold she retains on the 
 English people. They are not attracted merely by 
 the fact that the Church is established by law; it 
 may be doubted whether her catholicity allures the 
 bulk of the laity, and assuredly her standard of 
 preaching is not the force which keeps men from 
 joining other communions. But the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer is unique, a Ktrjpia es dsu Amid the 
 
 in 1549. But they have already suggested that similarities might be 
 derived from personal intercourse, and here is perhaps the key of the 
 puzzle. A reformer, known as Dryander or Duchesne, but whose 
 real name was Francis Enzinas, was bom at Burgos in 1515; he 
 would certainly be familiar with the Mozarabic Use. In .1548 he 
 came to England and was entertained by Cranmer for some time at 
 Lambeth until he received an appointment at Cambridge. From 
 him the Archbishop probably derived his knowledge of this usage. 
 (See Original Letters^ i., 348 n. ; ii., 535 ; Cooper, Athena Cantabr.). 
 On the general question the words of the liturgist Daniel may be 
 quoted : " Perpauca inde {i, ^., ex iEgjrptiis, Africanis, Gallicanis, 
 Mozarabis) desumpta sunt, plurima ex Romanis liturgis, singula ex 
 Reformatis" — Codex Litur^, EccU Univ.^vx.^ 349. 
 
1549] First Book of Common Prayer 223 
 
 fierce contentions of the churches it gave the Church 
 of England unity, strength, and a way to the hearts 
 of men such as no other Church could boast. That 
 the English Church survived was due in no small 
 measure to the exquisite charm of her liturgy ; and 
 that was the work of Cranmer. He borrowed and 
 learnt and adapted from various sources, but what- 
 ever he touched he adorned. Under his hands the 
 rudest and simplest of prayers assumed a perfection 
 of form and expression, and grew into one of the 
 finest monuments of sacred literary art. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND CONTROVERSIES 
 
 PURE theology occupies a smaller space in Cran- 
 mer'slife than in that of other great Reformers, 
 such as Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin ; he founded no 
 church and gave his name to no doctrinal system. 
 His work was rather to reform a church, and he 
 laboured under conditions unlike those which deter- 
 mined the thoughts and actions of his contemporaries 
 in Europe. No one will dispute the vast importance 
 of the religious issues which agitated civilisation in 
 the sixteenth century, but it is impossible to under- 
 stand the history of that epoch if it is treated 
 from an exclusively theological point of view. Reli- 
 gious forces are potent indeed, but it is doubtful 
 whether religion has fashioned nationality so much 
 as nationality has moulded religion. If religion had 
 been the one supreme test, it would have divided 
 Europe into Catholic and Protestant parties, and 
 not into Catholic and Protestant nations. Religion, 
 in fact, was not so dominant in the sixteenth as it 
 had been in the twelfth century, and the age w^s 
 really one of secularisation. There was no Crusade, 
 nor in any single instance was there an effective coali- 
 
 924 
 
Theological Views 225 
 
 tion of Catholic or of Protestant powers for any 
 object whatever; and when wars of religion did 
 come in the seventeenth century, it was France a 
 Catholic power, which caused the Protestant victory. 
 Political conditions exercised incalculable influence 
 over the results of the religious movement ; Protest- 
 antism broke in vain against the national temper of 
 Spain, and it was national feeling in Germany which 
 gave effect to Luther's protest. Political conditions, 
 too, differentiated the Reformation in England from 
 that in Germany and in Switzerland. Zwinglianism 
 and Calvinism are republican because the Swiss 
 cantons were republics ; Lutheranism became a ter- 
 ritorial religion because territorialism was the effect- 
 ive political principle then existent in Germany. 
 The Church in England became the Church of Eng- 
 land because a strong national monarchy grasped the 
 sceptre which was slipping from the hands of the 
 Papal hierarchy. 
 
 The predominance of the State in England was 
 unfavourable to the influence of the Church and to 
 the free development of religious speculation, while 
 the loose and impotent political organisation of 
 Switzerland and Germany stimulated independent 
 thought. There the seat of authority was, if not 
 empty, poorly filled ; and in the early years of 
 the Reformation, at least, its direction fell into 
 the hands of religious leaders. Hence Luther and 
 Zwingli were able to develop a theology which 
 would soon have been checked in England. Their 
 rulers were weak and not theologians. Henry VIIL 
 Wc^s strong and a theologian with emphatic views of 
 
226 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 his own. In England a reformation could only be 
 effected by the State and through the instrumentality 
 of an Archbishop, who was not merely Primate of the 
 Church but constitutionally the first adviser of the 
 Crown ; a position which, while it conferred honour 
 and dignity, also imposed restraints. It not only 
 bounded his liberty of action, but affected his point 
 of view. To Luther truth could be the only consid- 
 eration; Cranmer had also to consider how truth 
 could be translated into action and imposed on a 
 doubting people ; to him compromise was essential, 
 for he was a statesman as well as a theologian; 
 he lived and moved in a practical sphere in which 
 ideals and abstractions could play but a limited 
 part. 
 
 Another difference arises from this process of 
 reformation by government instrumentality. Lu- 
 ther's Ninety-five Theses were his own individual 
 act ; the Confession of Augsburg was the work of Me- 
 lanchthon ; but the Ten and the Forty-two Articles, 
 the First and Second Books of Common Prayer, 
 were the acts of a government and not the manifes- 
 toes of an individual or even of a party. In these 
 documents Cranmer's voice sounded the dominant 
 note, but all in varying degrees are of composite 
 authorship and represent the working of several 
 minds. Like the policy of modern cabinets, they 
 may not embody any one man's ideal, and caution 
 should be observed in any attempt to deduce there- 
 from the nature of private convictions. Particularly 
 is this the case when the expressions of this com- 
 posite and collective 'opinion are directed primarily 
 
Theological Views 227 
 
 towards the reformation of abuses and regulation 
 of worship, and not towards the definition of 
 dogma. Had the Reformation in England been 
 guided by Calvin or Luther, or by a series of 
 ecclesiastical councils, it might have produced 
 religious war, but would probably have propagated 
 a more definite theological system. A layman is 
 not necessarily a bad theologian, but a statesman 
 must economise truth and compound with the forces 
 of darkness. 
 
 Circumstances thus turned Cranmer away from 
 abstract speculation, and on its speculative and 
 philosophical side his theology is not distinctive. 
 Metaphysics lay quite beyond his mental horizon ; 
 and he has little or nothing to say on the tremen- 
 dous issues involved in the relations between the 
 will of man and the will of God. Probably he 
 thought these vast realms a trackless waste on which 
 it would be rash to enter. Caution was a marked 
 characteristic of Cranmer's typically English mind; 
 although it was open to many influences, no single 
 idea took exclusive possession ; truth shone into it 
 through various media, and the light it received 
 was a blend less clear but more soft than the rays 
 which pierced the brain of Luther or Calvin. The 
 same is true of Anglican doctrine ; the strict alliance 
 of Church and State was by no means an unmixed 
 blessing, but it acted as some protection from the 
 fierce glare of some theological dogmas ; and when 
 Lutheran, Zwinglian, and, lastly, Calvinistic rays 
 did break in upon the English Church they were 
 so combined and modified that a sort of spectrum 
 
228 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 analysis is required to distinguish them one from 
 another. And if the light was moderate, the heat 
 was also less ; for the passion which loosed England 
 from Rome was a political sentiment rather than a 
 religious enthusiasm like that aroused by Predes- 
 tination or Justification by Faith ; and Cranmer's 
 theology by itself would not have generated suffi- 
 cient force to drive the engine of Reform. 
 
 Cranmer himself appears to have reached his con- 
 victions by the intellectual path of reason rather 
 than through the sensational " experiences " which 
 led to Luther's revolt. His repugnance to the old 
 religious system did not, it would seem, arise from 
 its failure to satisfy the spiritual needs of a clamant 
 conscience, but from the dissonance between the 
 Scriptures and the Papacy. It was the study of the 
 Scriptures and not the wrestling of the spirit that 
 first aroused Cranmer's doubts. To the Scriptures 
 he had devoted his time from his early days at Cam- 
 bridge, and throughout his life their influence over 
 his mind was ever-increasing. His career was a 
 troubled but constant journeying away from the 
 papal towards the evangelical position ; and the de- 
 crees of Popes and of General Councils, and even 
 the words of the Fathers, gradually receded into the 
 distance. Yet Cranmer never reached the extreme 
 of Zwinglianism. He did not condemn all that was 
 not in the Bible, for an Archbishop could scarcely 
 do that with consistency ; and he had little patience 
 with those who objected to kneeling because it was 
 not enjoined in the Scriptures. So, too, he always 
 attached a great, though lessening, value to the 
 
Theological Views 229 
 
 Fathers as interpreters of the words of Christ and 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 The Bible was Cranmer's Ark of the Covenant, 
 and his lack of the speculative instinct saved him 
 from the temptation to lay impious hands upon it. 
 He could make effective use of the contradictions 
 between the various decrees of the Popes; but he 
 seems to have been happily blind to the difficulties 
 presented by the text of the Scriptures. In this re- 
 spect he was less acute or less frank than Luther, 
 who admitted the discrepancies between the Synop- 
 tists and the Gospel of St. John, and between Ste- 
 phen*s account of Jewish history and that recorded 
 in the Old Testament.* Still farther was Cranmer 
 from the mental attitude of Carlstadt, who doubted 
 the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and be- 
 lieved that the original form of the Gospels had not 
 been preserved intact.' His interest in textual criti- 
 cism of the Scriptures was conditioned by the sup- 
 port which it gave to attacks on the Papacy. This 
 was the natural position for a practical man engaged 
 in a life-and-death struggle ; it is scarcely the busi- 
 ness of such an one to exhibit the defects in the 
 weapon with which he defended himself and attacked 
 his enemies ; and Cranmer was too busy wielding 
 the sword of the Gospel to spend much time in 
 displaying its flaws. 
 
 The application of the Scriptural test to the prob- 
 lems of the time was with Cranmer a slow and 
 
 ' H. E. Jacobs, Luther, p. 351. 
 
 ' For Andrew Bodenstein, or Carlstadt, see the present writer in 
 Cambridge Modern. History, ii., 165. 
 
230 Thomas Cranmef 
 
 gradual development ; but it was none the less an 
 independent process^ anterior to and not consequent 
 upon the action of the State. For years before the 
 divorce of Catherine of Aragon he had prayed for 
 the abolition of the papal jurisdiction ; and before the 
 Government had taken any action with regard to 
 the doctrine or the practice of the Church, his 
 faith in papal theology had gone the way of 
 his respect for papal law. Whether his visit to 
 Rome in 1530 produced as deep an impression as 
 Luther's did, we do not know ; but at least it did 
 nothing to alter the tendencies of his mind. It is 
 obvious that in 1532 he no longer believed in com- 
 pulsory celibacy for the clergy ; and his intercourse 
 with the Lutheran divines during his embassy to 
 Germany in that year had probably confirmed his 
 doubts of other orthodox views. As soon as he be- 
 came Archbishop he began to agitate for an author- 
 ised version of the Scriptures in English, and the 
 Ten Articles of 1536 were evidence of the distance 
 he had already travelled from later Catholic doc- 
 trine. He had in 1537 already rejected the abuses 
 of " Purgatory, pilgrimages, praying to saints, images, 
 holy bread, holy water, holy days, merits, works, 
 ceremony, and such other. " * 
 
 Of these changes the most important was the 
 denial of Purgatory, for it was belief in its existence 
 and in the power of the clergy to redeem men's 
 souls from its pains that gave the Roman Church its 
 hold over the popular mind. The claim was not 
 capable of practical or ocular refutation; and the 
 
 * Cranmer, IVoris, ii., 351, 
 
Theological Views 531 
 
 fear that, however successfully the priest might be 
 restrained in this world, he might have the last 
 word in the other, was, next to the impression that 
 the priest was endowed with the miraculous power 
 of " making God," the greatest obstacle in the path 
 of the Reformation. Hence the importance of Lu- 
 ther's dogma of Justification by Faith, which made 
 priestly intercession a work of supererogation ; and 
 hence that dogma was so far accepted by the Eng- 
 lish Church as to undermine the belief in Purgatory. 
 Cranmer himself went farther in this direction than 
 most English Reformers, and the views he expressed 
 in 1547 in his Homily of Salvation^ are scarcely dis- 
 tinguishable from Luther's own ; " faith," he wrote, 
 ** doth not exclude repentance, hope, love, dread, 
 and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every 
 man that is justified, but it excludeth them from the 
 office of justifying. . . . Nor that faith also doth 
 not exclude the justice of good works, necessarily 
 to be done afterward of duty towards God . . . 
 but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them 
 to this intent, to be made good by doing of them." 
 Cranmer's attitude towards other theological 
 questions (except the Eucharist) may best be indi- 
 cated by summarising his replies to the series of 
 interrogations put to the bishops by Henry VI H. 
 about 1 541.' He did not materially vary from the 
 
 ' This homily is printed in Works, ii., 128-134 \ Cranmer was 
 almost certainly its author. His *' Notes on Justification," consist- 
 ing of passages from the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Schoolmen, 
 are printed in Works, ii., 203-21 1, and in Jenkyns, ii., 121 et sqq. 
 
 * Buraet, iv., 443-496. 
 
232 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 position he then held, and his answers illustrate not 
 only the difference between him and the Roman 
 Catholics, but that between him and both High 
 and Free churchmen of to-day. With regard to the 
 nature, number, and authority of the sacraments he 
 said that the Scriptures " sheweth not what a sacra- 
 ment is," nor how many sacraments there were; 
 while the " ancient doctors " described a sacrament 
 as sacrcB rei signuffty visibile verbunty symbolunt^ atque 
 pactiOy qud sumus constricti, and applied the name 
 to many more than the orthodox seven ; he knew 
 no reason why the word should be attributed to the 
 seven only, for that number of seven was ** no doctrine 
 of Scripture, nor of the old authors." Questioned 
 whether the thing was there, though the name was 
 absent, he replied that Baptism and the Eucharist 
 were the only two things in Scripture which could 
 be regarded as sacraments ; penance was in Script- 
 ure "a pure conversion of a sinner in heart and 
 mind," and there was no mention of its conventional 
 tripartite division into contrition, confession, and 
 satisfaction ; matrimony, confirmation, and ex- 
 treme unction were not sacraments ; nor was there 
 any allusion in Scripture to ** confirmation with 
 chrism, without which it is counted no sacrament." 
 The interrogations then pass on to the debatable 
 ground of the ecclesiastical power of princes. Was 
 it for lack of commission from a Christian king that 
 the Apostles took upon them to make bishops? or 
 had they authority given of God ? Cranmer drew 
 up a long reply. All Christian princes, he said, 
 have committed to them immediately of God the 
 
Theological Views 233 
 
 whole cure of all their subjects, as well concerning 
 the administration of God's Word for the cure of the 
 soul as concerning the ministration of things political 
 and civil governance/ So under them they have both 
 civil and ecclesiastical ministers, who are appointed 
 by their laws and orders. In the admission of many 
 of these officers divers comely ceremonies and solem- 
 nities were used, but they were not necessary, and 
 their omission would not invalidate the appointment ; 
 nor was there any more divine promise of grace to 
 be given "in the committing of the ecclesiastical 
 office " than in that of the civil office. It was the 
 lack of authority from a Christian king that com- 
 pelled the Apostles to appoint ministers of God's 
 Word. 
 
 To further questions Cranmer answered that in 
 the beginning there was no distinction between 
 priest and bjshop, and that while a bishop might 
 make priests, so might princes and governors, " and 
 the people also by their election." " In the New 
 Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or 
 Priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture, for 
 election or appointing thereto is sufficient " ; a 
 Christian prince was also bound, in case ecclesiastics 
 failed, to teach and preach the Word of God and to 
 make and constitute priests. A man was not bound 
 by Scripture " to confess his secret deadly sins to a 
 
 ' These views appeared to be derived from Marsiglio of Padua 
 who anticipated by two centuries the Tudor theory of Church and 
 State {cf. Dunning, Ancient and Mediceval Political Theory^ pp. 
 242-3). Marsiglio's Defensor Pads was printed in England in 1536, 
 with Cromwell's approbation (see the present writer in D, N. B.^ 
 s. V. "Marshall, William," xxxvi,, 250). 
 
234 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 priest"; nor did Scripture command or forbid a 
 bishop or priest to excommunicate ; such powers 
 depended entirely upon the laws of the country 
 where he lived. 
 
 Many of these points are of merely antiquarian or 
 academic interest, and their importance is slight 
 compared with that of Cranmer's views on the Eu- 
 charist. The doctrine of Transubstantiation he had 
 abandoned early, though the exact date of the change 
 cannot be ascertained. In 1538 he wrote to Crom- 
 weir: 
 
 " As concerning Adam Damplip of Calais, he utterly 
 denieth that ever he 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 transub- 
 stantiation, and therein I think he taught but the truth.' 
 
 But he was yet far from the Zwinglian position ; 
 
 " for," he wrote in 1537 ' to the Zwinglian J. de Watt, 
 " unless I see strohger evidence brought forward than I 
 have yet been able to see, I desire neither to be the 
 patron nor the approver of the opinion maintained by 
 you. And I am plainly convinced . . . that the 
 cause is not a good one." 
 
 The doctrine of the Real Presence was, he thought, 
 proved by *' evident and manifest passages of Script- 
 
Theological Views 235 
 
 ures,'* and "handed down to us by the Fathers 
 themselves and men of apostolical character from the 
 very beginning of the Church " ; and " our gracious 
 Lord would never have left his beloved spouse in 
 such lamentable blindness for so long a period." 
 
 The last was a two-edged argument for a Reformer 
 to use, and the time came when Cranmer himself 
 rejected the Real Presence in spite of the manifest 
 passages in Scripture, the Fathers, and men of apos- 
 tolical character. This development was, however, 
 slow, and its history has been obscured by a remark 
 of Cranmer*s during his examination before Bishop 
 Brooks in 1555.* "You, master Cranmer," said Dr. 
 Martin ' to him, " have taught in this high sacrament 
 of the altar three contrary doctrines, and yet you 
 protested in every one verbum Domini^ " Nay," 
 replied Cranmer, " I taught but two contrary doc- 
 trines " ; and his remark has been considered ' a de- 
 cisive refutation of the idea that he had passed 
 through a Lutheran phase in his transition from 
 papal to Zwinglian doctrine. It is perhaps a little 
 loose to identify the High Anglican doctrine of the 
 Real Presence with the Lutheran dogma of Consub- 
 stantiation ; but that Cranmer at one time believed 
 in the Real Presence while he disbelieved in Tran- 
 
 *Foxe, viii., 56. 
 
 ' Thomas Martyn, or Martin, was a zealous Roman Catholic civilian 
 who took a prominent part in the proceedings against the Marian 
 martyrs ; he was, however, unmolested in Elizabeth's reign, and 
 was even given some legal work by the Government ; see D. N. B,^ 
 xxxvi., 320. 
 
 3 Wordsworth, Eccl. Biogr., iii., 550; cf. Jenkyns iv., 9$, an4 
 Cwnmer, Works ^ ii., 3i§, 
 
236 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 substantiation is certain. That is the only inference 
 possible from his letters to Cromwell and Watt 
 quoted above; and in the preface to his Answer to 
 Dr, Richard Smith h^ wrote that he was "in that 
 error of the Real Presence, as I was many years past 
 in divers other errors, as of Transubstantiationy* 
 thus clearly distinguishing between the two. His 
 answer to Dr. Martin may have been misreported, 
 or his memory may have deceived him ; but there 
 is a third explanation. Proceeding to define the 
 two "contrary doctrines** he had taught, he indi- 
 cates " the Papists* doctrine *' as one, and the view 
 he then held as the other. He had come to regard 
 the Real Presence no less than Transubstantiation 
 as " Papists* doctrine,*' and the same identification is 
 made in the preface to his answer to Gardiner. 
 
 Yet Cranmer would not have called the Real Pre- 
 sence " Papists* doctrine *' at any time between 1538 
 and 1548. He believed it himself throughout that 
 decade, and assuredly he then was no papist. Down 
 to the eve of the debate on the Sacrament in De- 
 cember, 1 548, he was regarded by the Zwinglians as 
 a lukewarm Lutheran, though nearly a year before 
 he had described the mass as " a memory and repre- 
 sentation,** * and the description of him as a Lutheran 
 merely means that he was neither papist nor Zwing- 
 lian. The means of Cranmer*s conversion have been 
 already discussed ' ; the results were apparent .in the 
 debate on the Sacrament and in Cranmer's contro- 
 versies with Bishop Gardiner and with Dr. Richard 
 Smith ; in these books he gives the fullest account 
 
 * Burnet, v., 201, ' See above, p. 216, 
 
Theological Views 237 
 
 of his belief on the question and of the reasons 
 which led him to hold it. 
 
 The First Book of Common Prayer had embodied 
 a compromise on the Eucharist between the views of 
 Cranmer and those of the Catholic bishops. The 
 phraseology employed was capable of a Catholic and 
 of a Protestant interpretation, and both sides asserted 
 that theirs was the only true gloss. But the political 
 events of 1 549 had substituted an agg^ressive for an 
 accommodating government, and it was with the 
 good wishes if not at the instigation of the ruling 
 Protestants that Cranmer set to work to prove that 
 the Protestant view was correct. His book was en- 
 titled A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine 
 of the Sacrament y and it was published in 1550.* 
 In it Cranmer took occasion to impugn some as- 
 sertions made by the Bishop of Winchester in his 
 sermon before the King on 30 June, 1548, and 
 Gardiner, although he was now in prison, found 
 means to take up the cudgels in his own defence. 
 His book was entitled An Explication and Assertion 
 of the True Catholic Faith touching the most blessed 
 Sacrament of the Altar with Confutation of a book 
 Written against the Same, Gardiner affected to 
 believe that the Defence^ although published un- 
 der Cranmer*s name, was not by him because it was 
 inconsistent with the views which the Archbishop 
 
 * The origin of his book is also attributed to the publication of 
 Gardiner's Detection oftheDeviVs Sophistry, a treatise against Protest- 
 ant views of the sacrament, but this had been published four years 
 before in 1546. A Latin version of the Defence by Sir J. Cheke was 
 published abroad in 1553. 
 
238 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 had previously expressed on the subject. Another 
 attack on Cranmer was made by Dr. Richard Smith, 
 who is extravagantly described by Anthony Wood 
 as " the greatest pillar of the Roman Catholic cause 
 in his time." * The Archbishop replied to both in 
 An AnszveTy published in 1551, in which are also in- 
 corporated his original treatise and Gardiner's re- 
 joinder. The whole volume is more than three 
 times the size of this present one, so that it is im- 
 possible to follow even in outline the threads of 
 Cranmer's argument or to do more than give a brief 
 indication of his conclusions. 
 
 From the point of view of mental equipment 
 Gardiner was scarcely a match for the Archbishop. 
 He had no claim to Cranmer's learning, and although, 
 as he acknowledges, his skill in debate had earned 
 him the name of "sophister," he complains that 
 Cranmer overcame him with sophistry ; and Sir 
 Thomas More had once confessed himself staggered 
 by the subtlety of Cranmer's arguments. Never- 
 theless Gardiner had a great deal of rough common 
 sense, and he presented the Catholic view with no lit- 
 tle ability, and considerable moderation. " I know," 
 
 * Smith had been first Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford; he 
 repudiated his Romanism in 1547, but in 1549 had a famous argu- 
 ment on the Sacrament at Oxford with Peter Martyr. He then 
 fled to Louvain, whence his answer to Cranmer was published. He 
 was restored to his professorship under Mary, and preached at Lati- 
 mer and Ridley's martyrdom from the text, " If I give my body to be 
 burnt, and have not charity, it profiteth nothing." The fact suggests 
 that Smith himself had little charity ; neither did he give his body to 
 be burnt, but again recanted in 1559, was deprived of his professor- 
 ship on the ground of adultery, and was made chancellor of Douay 
 University ; see D, N. B., liiii, 101-102, 
 
Theological Views 239 
 
 he writes, * " by faith Christ to be present [in the 
 sacrament], but the particularity how he is present, 
 more than I am assured he is truly present, and 
 therefore in substance present I cannot tell ; but pre- 
 sent he is, and truly is and verily is, and . . . there- 
 fore in substance is, andy as we term it^ substantially 
 is presents The words in italics represent the posi- 
 tion which Cranmer challenged ; and they have the 
 merit of avoiding the vague term real. For spiritual 
 things are as real as things material ; and in this 
 sense Cranmer strenuously asserted the Real Pre- 
 sence in the Sacrament. " As for the real presence 
 of Christ in the Sacrament, " he writes, ** I grant that 
 he is really present . . . that is to say in deed, and 
 yet but spiritually."' That real did not involve a 
 corporal presence ; and Gardiner's therefore begged 
 the question. " Doth not God's word," asked Cran- 
 mer, " teach a true presence of Christ in spirit where 
 he is not present in his corporal substance ? As 
 when he saith : * where two or three be gathered 
 together in my name, there am I in the midst of 
 them.* And also when he saith: 'I shall be with 
 you till the end of the world.* Was it not a true 
 presence that Christ in these places promised ? And 
 yet can you not of this true presence gather such a 
 corporal presence of the substance of Christ's man- 
 hood as you unlearnedly contrary to the Scriptures 
 go about to prove in the sacrament. " ' 
 
 Cranmer's thesis is, " that as no Scripture, so no 
 ancient author known and approved hath in plain 
 terms your transubstantiation ; nor that the body 
 
 * Cranmer, Works ^ i., 59. ' Ibid»^ i., 127. ' IHd.^ i., 61. 
 
240 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 and blood of Christ be really, corporally, naturally, 
 and carnally under the forms of bread and wine; 
 nor that evil men do eat the very body and drink 
 the very blood of Christ ; nor that Christ is offered 
 every day by the priest a sacrifice propitiatory for 
 sin." * His doctrine, he maintained, " was never 
 condemned by no council, nor your false papistical 
 doctrine allowed, until the devil caused Antichrist, 
 his son and heir. Pope Nicholas II.,' with his 
 monks and friars, to condemn the truth and con- 
 firm these your heresies.** ' Elsewhere he declares 
 that Pope Innocent III. was "the chief author of 
 your doctrine both of transubstantiation and of the 
 real presence.'** By " real presence** Cranmer gen- 
 erally means a corporal presence, which Luther as- 
 serted when he declared that " the mouth eats the 
 body of Christ bodily.** Cranmer believed "that 
 Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten, chewed, and 
 digested ; but all is spiritually with faith, not with 
 the mouth.'' ^ Here was a clear repudiation of Lu- 
 theran doctrine, and Gardiner made a good forensic 
 use of the discrepancy between the two Reformers. 
 He complained that the Archbishop sought to pre- 
 judice his opponent's case by calling the Real Pre- 
 sence a Papistical dogma, whereas others held it who 
 were no Papists, — for instance, Luther and himself. 
 
 ^ IVorks,!.,!^. 
 
 * Nicholas II. was Pope from 1058 to 1061. 
 ' Works, i., 14. 
 
 * Ibid'x., 65 ; Innocent was Pope from 1198 to 1216. 
 
 ^ Ibid., i., 15 ; the eating of God as a means of salvation was not, of 
 course, originally a Christian idea ; it is found in some very primitive 
 religions. 
 
Theological Views 241 
 
 Cranmer retorted that he called it Papists' doctrine 
 because Papists invented it, not because Papists and 
 no one else believed in it ; and he pointed out that 
 Luther was not a good witness for Gardiner to 
 allege, because Luther, while holding the Real Pre- 
 sence, denounced more emphatically than any other 
 Reformer the doctrine of Transubstantiation, in 
 which Gardiner believed. 
 
 Having thus repudiated both Lutherans and Pa- 
 pists, Cranmer showed that he did not sympathise 
 with the extreme Zwinglian view, that the bread 
 and wine were " bare tokens," and nothing more. 
 " They be,'* he writes,^ " no vain or bare tokens (for 
 a token is that which betokeneth only and giveth 
 nothing, as a painted fire, which giveth neither light 
 nor heat) ; but in the due ministration of the sacra- 
 ments God is present, working with his word and 
 sacrament." The bread and wine ** have promises 
 of effectual significance."' "As the bread is out- 
 wardly eaten indeed in the Lord's supper, so is the 
 very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten indeed 
 of all them that come thereto in such sort as they 
 ought to do, which eating nourisheth them into 
 everlasting life." ' " I do not say that Christ's body 
 and blood be given to us in signification, and not in 
 deed. But I do as plainly speak as I can, that 
 Christ's body and blood be given to us in deed, 
 yet not corporally and carnally, but spiritually and 
 effectually."* 
 
 This is the gist of Cranmer's teaching. There is 
 
 ' Works, i., II. * Ibid., i., 17. 
 
 ^/did.,i.,2(>. */W., i., 37. 
 
242 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 both a real presence and a miraculous working in 
 the sacrament; but both the presence and the work- 
 ing are spiritual, not material. Christ is present in 
 His divinity, not in His humanity * ; He is really 
 absent in body, for that is in heaven, but He is 
 really present in spirit ; " Christ is with us spiritually 
 present, is eaten and drunken of us, and dwelleth 
 within us, although corporally he be departed out of 
 this world, and is ascended up into heaven "'; " He 
 is neither corporally in the bread and wine, nor in 
 or under the forms and figures of them, but is cor- 
 porally in heaven, and spiritually in his lively mem- 
 bers, which be his temple where he inhabiteth/" 
 So, too, " the miraculous working is not in the bread, 
 but in them that duly eat the bread, and drink that 
 drink . . . For he is effectually present and effect- 
 ually worketh, not in the bread and wine, but in the 
 godly receivers of them."* "And the true eating 
 and drinking of the said body and blood of Christ 
 is with a constant and lively faith to believe that 
 Christ gave his body and shed his blood upon the 
 cross for us, and that he doth so join and incorporate 
 himself to us that he is our head, and we his mem- 
 bers, and flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, having 
 him dwelling in us and we in him. And herein 
 standeth the whole effect and strength of this sacra- 
 ment. And this faith God worketh inwardly in our 
 hearts by his holy Spirit.'"* The best summing up 
 of Cranmer*s views may also be given in his own 
 words ; " figuratively he is the bread and wine, and 
 
 * Works, i., 49. * Ibid., i., 53-54. 
 
 « ibid., i., 12 ; cf. p. 52. ^ /^V-, i., 34- * J^id., i., 43- 
 
Theological Views 243 
 
 spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink 
 the bread and wine ; but really, carnally, and cor- 
 porally he is only in heaven, from whence he shall 
 come to judge the quick and the dead." ^ 
 
 These words represent Cranmer's mature opinion,* 
 from which he only varied during some six weeks 
 in 1556; and when that moment of weakness had 
 passed he returned to the position here indicated, 
 and in his last hour declared that he believed as he 
 had taught in his book against the Bishop of Win- 
 chester. His view of the Sacrament has been de- 
 nounced as a " low " one ; but the only ground for 
 the charge is the fact that Cranmer's doctrine re- 
 duces the importance of the priest as an intercessor 
 between God and man, and emphasises the direct 
 as against the indirect relationship. The Sacrament 
 still remains a miracle, but it is a miracle wrought 
 by God and not by priests, a miracle feeding the 
 souls of men, and not transforming material bread 
 
 * Works, i., 139. 
 
 2 Gardiner again replied to this book of Cranmer's in 1552, and 
 the Archbishop was engaged on a further rejoinder when death cut 
 short his work under Queen Mary ; see below, p. 357. Another 
 controversial work attributed to Cranmer is A Confutation of Un- 
 written Verities, which was published by an English exile, E. P., 
 in 1558, and professed to be a translation from a Latin original by 
 Cranmer ; but the only part that Cranmer appears to have had in 
 the work was that it is based on a collection of passages from the 
 Scriptures and the Fathers compiled by the Archbishop and pre- 
 served among his commonplace-books in the British Museum {Royal 
 MS.^ 7, B. xi,, xii.). It has been admitted into the various editions 
 of Cranmer's Works, but Jenkyns is very doubtful as to its claim to 
 be his, and remarks that ' ' it cannot be safely quoted as evidence of 
 Cranmer's tenets." 
 
244 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 and wine, a miracle relating not to the things seen 
 which are temporal, but to the unseen things which 
 are eternal. 
 
 The denial of this material miracle wrought by 
 the hands of priests struck at the root of the me- 
 diaeval Church system, and it is for this reason that 
 the religious controversies of the sixteenth century 
 centred round the doctrine of the Mass. The sacer- 
 dotal claim had always been that the grace of God 
 flows only through priestly channels, and that none 
 could be saved except by resort to the priestly 
 monopoly. Hence came clericaL privilege and cler- 
 ical rule ; " shall the hands that have made God," 
 asked indignant churchmen in the time of Henry 
 n., " be bound like those of a common malefactor? " 
 Cranmer denied that the hands of the priest could 
 " make God '* ; and therefore the whole super- 
 structure fell to the ground. But this denial was 
 the only means of its overthrow. 
 
 " What availeth it," he asked in his preface, " to take 
 away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such like popery, 
 so long as the two chief roots remain unpulled up? 
 Whereof, so long as they remain, will spring again all 
 former impediments of the Lord's harvest, and cor- 
 ruption of his flock. The rest is but branches and 
 leaves, the cutting away whereof is but like topping and 
 lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds, leaving the 
 body standing and the roots in the ground ; but the 
 very body of the tree, or rather the roots of the weeds, 
 is the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real 
 presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the sacrament of 
 the altar (as they call it), and of the sacrifice and obla- 
 
Theological Views 245 
 
 tion of Christ made by the priest for the salvation of the 
 quick and the dead ; which roots, if they be suffered to 
 grow in the Lord's vineyard, they will overspread all the 
 ground again with the old errors and superstitions." 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 CRANMER AND THE SECOND BOOK OF COMMON 
 
 PRAYER 
 
 THERE is no greater mistake, and none more 
 common, than to assume that the whole reign 
 of Edward VI. is one period, marked throughout by 
 the same characteristics, methods, and aims. In re- 
 ality it is as misleading to identify the policy of 
 Somerset with that of his successor, Northumber- 
 land, as it would be to confuse Girondins with 
 Jacobins in the history of the French Revolution. 
 The year 1549, when Somerset fell, saw a change 
 not merely in the personnel oithe Government, but in 
 every sphere of its activity, in its attitude towards 
 civil and religious liberty, in its treatment of so- 
 cial questions, in its view of the relations between 
 Church and State, and in its management of foreign 
 affairs.* The one element of continuity was that 
 Cranmer remained Archbishop of Canterbury under 
 Northumberland's regime as he had been under that 
 of Protector Somerset. But Cranmer had never 
 been in a position to dictate the ecclesiastical policy 
 
 * For a detailed proof of this statement see the present writer's 
 England under Protector Somerset^ chap. x. 
 
 246 
 
1549] Second Book of Common Prayer 247 
 
 of the Government, and his continuance in the 
 Primacy no more proves that the Second Book of 
 Common Prayer was the natural and inevital^le 
 outcome of the First than it proves that the Six 
 were the natural and inevitable outcome of the 
 Ten Articles. It was this revolution of 1549 and 
 its consequences which provoked and embittered 
 reaction and brought the chief actors in it, and 
 others less guilty, like Cranmer, to a violent and 
 untimely end. 
 
 The First Act of Uniformity, and the First Book 
 of Common Prayer represented the maximum of 
 religious reform which the nation, as a whole, was 
 prepared in 1 549 to accept.* This Act of Uniformity 
 was the mildest ever passed by the English Parlia- 
 ment ; it imposed no penalties for recusancy on the 
 laity, and those imposed on the clergy were lighter 
 than in any succeeding Act. It was a stren- 
 uous attempt to effect reform with as little offence 
 as possible. Like all compromises it was received 
 with derision at both ends of the religious scale. 
 But while the Protestants contented themselves with 
 denouncing what they considered the puerilities and 
 absurdities of the new service-book, the Catholics in 
 the west broke out in revolt. It is not, however, 
 clear that the various risings of 1549 had any 
 close connexion with the Book of Common Prayer. 
 There had been many disturbances in the previous 
 year due to the enclosure of common lands and 
 
 ' The only other Act of ecclesiastical importance passed in 1548-49 
 was one which granted a grudging legality to the marriage of 
 priests. 
 
248 
 
 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 [1549- 
 
 conversion of tillage to pasture, a movement which 
 threw numbers out of work and was at the bottom 
 of most of the rebellions in the sixteenth century. 
 But popular discontent was turned to account by 
 priests of the old persuasion, and even by emissaries 
 from France then on the eve of war with England/ 
 Hence the statement of grievances, which were no 
 doubt drawn up by priests, laid more emphasis upon 
 religious matters than the mass of insurgents would 
 naturally have done themselves. The men of Corn- 
 wall had, however, a tangible reason for disliking the 
 new service-book, because many of them understood 
 no English. They comprehended the old Latin no 
 better ; but they were accustomed to its sound, and 
 men tolerate the incomprehensible more readily than 
 the unfamiliar. 
 
 To Cranmer fell the task of replying to the articles ' 
 drawn up by the insurgent leaders, and it was a 
 matter of no great difficulty to prove their want of 
 reason and logic. The first article demanded the 
 observance of the decrees of all the General Councils 
 and Popes; but, as Cranmer pointed out, these were 
 full of contradictions. Moreover, one decree de- 
 
 * A defence of the insurgents written in French but not printed 
 until 1550 is summarised by Pocock {Troubles, etc., Camden So- 
 ciety, pp. 18-20). Pocock thinks this is a translation from an Eng- 
 lish original, which is lost. It is more probably an original emanat- 
 ing from the French ambassador or one of his agents. Henri II. 
 had previously attempted to use Lord Seymour's conspiracy as a 
 means of embroiling England in civil war (see Hatfield MS S., vol. 
 i., no. 268). 
 
 * These articles are printed with Cranmer's reply in Cranmer's 
 Works, ii., 163-188, and also with Nicholas Udall's reply by Pocock 
 
 in Troubles, etc., pp. 141-193. 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 249 
 
 clared that whosoever did not acknowledge himself 
 to be under the obedience of the Bishop of Rome 
 was a heretic ; but such an acknowledgment would 
 be treason by English law. Another said that all 
 princes' laws against papal decrees were void ; that 
 would invalidate not merely the legislation of Henry 
 VI 1 1, but the statutes of Prcemunire and Provisors, 
 the taxation of the clergy, and all the anti-ecclesias- 
 tical legislation of the Middle Ages. A third forbade 
 men to reprove the Pope even though his conduct 
 might be imperilling thousands of souls. The second 
 demand of the insurgents required the restoration of 
 the statute of Six Articles, though this Act was, as 
 Cranmer showed, inconsistent with several decrees 
 of General Councils. The third insisted upon the 
 revival of the Latin mass with no communicants ex- 
 cept the priest ; the fourth demanded compulsory 
 worship of the sacrament and the execution of all 
 recusants as heretics — a ferocious requisition which 
 deprived its authors of all title to mercy. The fifth 
 would have the sacrament distributed but once a 
 year — at Easter — and then in one kind only; this 
 was a curious illustration of the working of the con- 
 servative spirit, for the rebels wished to stereo- 
 type a custom which, as Tunstall explained, had 
 grown up " by coldness of devotion." * To the sixth 
 article, requiring the administration of baptism on 
 week-days as well as on holy days, the Archbishop 
 replied that there was nothing to prevent it. The 
 seventh and eighth asked for the restoration of 
 candles, ashes, palms, and holy water, and repudiated 
 
 * Burnet, v., 20i. 
 
250 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 
 
 the new service because it was *' but like a Christmas 
 game," and the Cornishmen understood no English. 
 The ninth and tenth required prayers for souls in 
 purgatory and the suppression of the English Script- 
 ures because otherwise the clergy would not be able to 
 confound the heretics.* The eleventh and twelfth 
 articles demanded the release of two divines in 
 prison, the pardon of Cardinal Pole, and his promo- 
 tion to the Council. The thirteenth proposal was 
 that no gentleman should keep more than one serv- 
 ant unless he possessed lands worth more than 
 a hundred marks a year; and the fourteenth de- 
 manded the restitution of some of the suppressed 
 abbeys and chantries. 
 
 These last, and perhaps the seventh and eighth, 
 were the only articles which can be supposed to re- 
 present a really popular sentiment; and the inner 
 mind of the authors of this document is best re- 
 vealed in the reason given for the proposed suppres- 
 sion of the English Bible ; illiterate priests wanted 
 protection from the results of their own illiteracy, 
 while their dangerous temper is illustrated by the 
 demand for the execution of all who refused to 
 worship the sacrament. Hard words are used, and 
 not without justice, of the zealots who imperilled 
 the cause of the Reformation by their arrogance; 
 but the fanaticism was not all on one side, and a de- 
 mand like this enforced by armed rebellion would 
 have driven the most liberal Government into acts of 
 
 ' This was a very natural demand on the part of the clergy when 
 not half of their number in the diocese of Gloucester could repeat 
 the Ten Commandments. 
 
PROTECTOR SOMERSET. 
 
 AFTER THE PORTSAIT, DATED 154S, IN THE POSSESSION OF SIR EDMUND VERNEY, AND NOW IN 
 HIS HOUSE AT RHIANVA. REPaOOUCED BY THE OWNER'S PERMISSION. 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 251 
 
 repressive severity. Cranmer took the truest and 
 the most charitable view, when he wrote that the 
 rebels as a body did not know the meaning of that 
 for which they were made to ask. 
 
 He was, moreover, to some extent in sympathy 
 with the social discontent which clerical agitators 
 turned to their own account in the West. In his 
 address to the people at St. Mary's, Oxford, on the 
 day of his death he uttered a solemn warning to the 
 rich, bidding them remember how hard it was for 
 such to enter the kingdom of heaven, and earnestly 
 exhorting them to show compassion to the poor in 
 those days of their penury.' The same sympathy 
 impelled Latimer" to denounce the covetousness of 
 the landlords in inclosing lands, and reducing the 
 peasant to poverty, and stirred the Protector to 
 undertake that championship of poor men's causes 
 which led to his ruin. The bills for their relief 
 which he promoted in Parliament were thrown out, 
 and the commissions he appointed to check in- 
 closures proved powerless in face of the packing of 
 juries, intimidation of witnesses, and perjury prac- 
 tised by the landed gentry and encouraged by the 
 Protector's own colleagues.' Baulked of the hopes 
 
 * Strype, Cranmer ^ i., 556. 
 
 ^ In his famous sermon "Of the Plough" (Latimer, Sermons, 
 Parker Soc, pp. 59-78). 
 
 ^For details see England under Protector Somerset, chapters 
 viii.-ix. "The people," wrote Hooper to Bullinger, on 25 June, 
 1549, " are sorely oppressed by the marvellous tyranny of the nobil- 
 ity" {Original Letters, i., 66). A good statement of the poor men's 
 complaints will be found in Robert Crowley's Works and Four Sup- 
 plications, both published by the Early English Text Society. 
 
252 
 
 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 [1549- 
 
 of redress, which Somerset's policy held out to 
 them, the peasants rebelled in every direction, and 
 the revolt attained its most serious dimensions in 
 Norfolk, where Robert Kett instituted a poor men's 
 commonwealth. 
 
 Nor were these the only difficulties with which 
 the Protector had to deal. The unscrupulous ego- 
 tism of his brother, the Lord High Admiral, led him 
 into treason and plot ; and the Protector's consent 
 to his execution, extorted from him by cunning 
 schemers who hoped to profit by his fall, fatally 
 weakened his own position. The rebellions in the 
 West and the East diverted troops which should 
 have been sent into Scotland and France, and the 
 French king seized the opportunity to declare war 
 and attack the English Pale. Both there and in 
 Scotland the English lost ground. In England 
 Warwick defeated the English rebels, and his vic- 
 tory made him the hero of the gentry, who now 
 looked for revenge upon those who had hoped and 
 dared to impede their career of prosperous pillage. 
 The Protector himself was the head and front of 
 offence, and in September, 1549, the party of War- 
 wick determined upon his ruin. 
 
 The Earl of Warwick, better known by his later 
 title of Duke of Northumberland, was one of the 
 ablest and most unprincipled party-leaders who have 
 ever turned to their own advantage the resources 
 and wealth of their country. A brilliant soldier, a 
 skilful diplomatist, and an accomplished man of the 
 world, he was aptly described at the time as a second 
 Alcibiades ; and few men have exhibited a greater 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 253 
 
 skill in intrigue, or a smaller regard for principle. 
 For the moment Catholic and Protestant alike were 
 to be his tools in contriving the Protector's destruc- 
 tion. The former disliked the new Prayer Book, 
 so rumours were spread of reaction; the Catholic 
 Southampton was Warwick's chief ally, and hopes 
 were entertained that Gardiner and Bonner would 
 be released from the Tower. Protestant zealots, on 
 the other hand, were annoyed at the Protector's ten- 
 derness towards the Princess Mary and mass-priests, 
 and anticipated under Warwick a more earnest pro- 
 secution of the Gospel's enemies. The rich men 
 abhorred the patron of Latimer ; and the governing 
 classes, with few exceptions, hated the liberty on 
 which Somerset set so much store. All was grist to 
 Warwick's mill. 
 
 With this intrigue the Archbishop had nothing to 
 do. He was in attendance with Somerset, Paget, 
 Cecil, and Sir Thomas Smith upon the young King 
 at Hampton Court in September, 1549, while the 
 cabal assembled in London. In the first week of 
 October the storm burst. On the 6th Somerset 
 hurried the King to Windsor, and from there carried 
 on a war of words* with the Council in London. 
 But his cause was hopeless ; men daily deserted his 
 side, and his efforts to raise the peasants were 
 defeated by Herbert and Russell, the victorious 
 commanders returning from the West. Cranmer 
 and Paget endeavoured to mediate between the two 
 
 ' Most of this correspondence is printed in Ty tier's Edward VI, 
 and Mary, i., 203-247, and in Pocock, Z'r^??/^/*?^ (Camden Soc.) ; see 
 also England under Protector Somerset^ chap. ix. 
 
254 Thomas Cranmer [1549 
 
 parties, and obtained from the Council a promise 
 that the Protector should not suffer in lands, in 
 goods, or in honour. Somerset then submitted, 
 and Cranmer and Paget removed his servants.' But 
 the Council failed to observe its promises ; the Pro- 
 tector was sent to the Tower, his adherents were 
 driven from office, and the Government fell under 
 the exclusive control of Warwick and his friends. 
 
 What was to be their policy — reaction or reform ? 
 For months the balance trembled. "Those cruel 
 beasts, the Romanists," as one Reformer called them, 
 *^ were now beginning to triumph '* over the downfall 
 i6i the Duke, the overthrow of the Gospel, and the 
 '" restoration of their darling the Mass." ' ** The 
 papists," echoed Hooper on 7 November, "are hoping 
 and earnestly struggling for their kingdom " ; and if 
 Bonner were restored to his see, Hooper counted on 
 being "restored to my country and my Father 
 which is in heaven." " At Basel it was reported that 
 Bucer and other reformers had been arrested with 
 the Protector,* and that Somerset's fall would bring 
 the Reformation to ruin. Bonner's appeal against 
 his deprivation by Cranmer in September was under 
 consideration ; Gardiner had petitioned for release 
 from the Tower; and Southampton, who was by 
 
 ^ Tytler accuses Cranmer of treachery in this action, but the 
 charge is scarcely justified. By Somerset's submission the Govern- 
 ment had passed to the Council, and in removing the Protector's 
 servants from about the King, the Archbishop was only carrying out 
 a natural and necessary measure. 
 
 ^ Original Letters^ ii., 464. 
 
 ^ Ibid., i., 70. 
 
 4/W., i., 353. 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 255 
 
 some credited with the chief share in the successful 
 plot, had re-established Catholic influence in the 
 Council. 
 
 It was a critical moment in English history, but 
 there is insufficient evidence to show clearly the 
 forces and circumstances which determined the re- 
 sult. Parliament met, as usual, early in November, 
 and whatever doubt might exist as to its religious 
 attitude there was none about the spirit in which it 
 proceeded to deal with social questions. The land- 
 lords were resolved to have their revenge on the 
 peasants. Acts were passed enabling them to in- 
 close as much land as they liked, and imposing the 
 severest penalties upon all who ventured on oppo- 
 sition'; and it was actually declared a felony for poor 
 people to meet with the object of reducing rents or 
 prices.* Treason-laws were restored and strength- 
 ened, and the Protector's guarantees against their 
 abuse were abolished. The penalty of treason was 
 extended to offences against Privy Councillors, and 
 even to all assemblies for the ** altering of the 
 laws." ' Never did Henry VIII., or Charles I., or 
 James II., aim such blows at English liberties as the 
 men who controlled the fate of the Reformation in 
 the latter days of Edward VI. 
 
 In spite of the apparent success of militant Pro- 
 testantism during these years, from 1549-15 5 3, the 
 cause of reform and Cranmer had fallen on evil days. 
 There was naturally little sympathy between North- 
 umberland and the Archbishop, and on many 
 
 ' 3 and 4, Edward VI., c. 3. ■ Ibid., 18. » IHd., 5 
 
 18 
 
256 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 
 
 qucstions, political and religious, they came into con- 
 flict. Once Northumberland sought to put John 
 Knox into the see of Rochester to serve as a " whet- 
 stone to quicken and sharp the Bishop of Canterbury 
 whereof he hath need " * ; and subsequently Cran- 
 mer declared that the Duke had often gone about 
 to effect his destruction.' Other leaders of re- 
 form were less clear-sighted. Hooper hailed North- 
 umberland as " that most faithful and intrepid 
 soldier of Christ," and declared that England could 
 not do without him, for he was " a most holy and 
 fearless instrument of the Word of God." ' In the 
 eyes of foreign Protestants he and his dupe, the fee- 
 ble-minded Dorset (afterwards Duke of Suffolk), * 
 were "the two most shining lights of the Church 
 of England." ^ Some likened Northumberland to 
 Joshua, and Bale compared him with Moses. He 
 had, in fact, made Bale an Irish bishop, and Hooper 
 also had cause for gratitude, for he wrote, " unless 
 he had been on my side, in the cause of Christ, it 
 would have been all over with me five months since, 
 when the Duke of Somerset was in such difficulties." ' 
 Besides these particular reasons for faith in War- 
 wick, the Reformers ascribed to him the overthrow 
 of the Romanist hopes. It is not, however, likely 
 that Warwick would have espoused their cause un- 
 
 * Calendar of Domestic State Papers, 1547-80, p. 46. Tytler^ ii., 
 142. 
 
 'Cranmer to Queen Mary, Works, ii., 444. 
 ' Original Letters, i. , 82, 89. 
 
 * The father of Lady Jane Grey. 
 ^ Original Letters, p. 399. 
 e/W.,i., 83. 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 257 
 
 less he had thought it the winning side, and he was 
 probably led to this conclusion by the ease with 
 which Parliament and especially the Lower House 
 of 1549-50 passed anti-Catholic and anti-ecclesias- 
 tical measures. The most important of these was 
 the Act ordering the destruction of all the old serv- 
 ice-books except the Primers of Henry VHI. An- 
 other Act was passed once more enabling the Crown 
 to appoint a commission for the reform of the Canon 
 Law/ and a third empowered a commission of 
 six Bishops and six others to draw up an Ordinal. ' 
 It was, however, evident that the change of Govern- 
 ment had widened the breach between Church and 
 State. During Somerset's rule there had always 
 been a large attendance of Bishops in the House of 
 Lords, and he had always secured a majority of 
 episcopal votes for his measures. Only nine Bish- 
 ops, however, out of twenty-seven were present at 
 this meeting of Parliament, and a much larger pro- 
 portion of them voted against the Government. 
 Cranmer, Holbeach of Lincoln, Ridley of Rochester, 
 and Ferrar of St. Davids — all staunch Reformers — 
 as well as the accommodating Goodrich of Ely, and 
 Catholics like Tunstall, Thirlby, Heath, and Day, dis- 
 sented in vain from the second of the above-mentioned 
 Acts ; and such a consensus of Church opinion 
 against a bill promoted by Government was a new 
 
 * Previous Acts to this effect had been passed in 1534, 1536, and 
 
 1544. 
 
 ' That is to say, a ' ' form and manner of making and consecrating 
 of archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons, and other ministers of the 
 church." 
 
258 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 
 
 thing in the history of the Reformation. The Bish- 
 ops met with a similar rebuff when they complained 
 that their jurisdiction was openly contemned and de- 
 rided ; and their efforts to strengthen their authority 
 by parliamentary legislation met with no success.* 
 
 The brief period of comparative religious liberty 
 which the nation had enjoyed under Protector Som- 
 erset had come to an end, and the expulsion of the 
 remaining Catholics from the Council was soon fol- 
 lowed by religious persecution. Early in 1550 War- 
 wick had the Earl of Arundel and Sir Richard 
 Southwell imprisoned, and on the second of Febru- 
 ary Southampton's name was struck off the list of 
 members." Their offices and those of Somerset's 
 friends were now distributed among the faction of 
 Warwick, who packed the Council, as he afterwards 
 packed the House of Commons with his nominees; 
 and thus was constituted what has gravely been 
 termed the "Reformed Administration." ' It is 
 
 * The bill which the Bishops introduced was thought to claim too 
 much, and was referred to a committee on which Cranmer served, 
 but even as modified by this committee the bill failed to become law. 
 
 ' Wriothesley, Chron., ii., 33. 
 
 2 By Froude, who arrived at this conclusion by failing to distin- 
 guish between the deeds of Somerset and those of Warwick ; for 
 instance, he accuses Somerset of gross laxity in pardoning Sir 
 William Sharington, who had been convicted of treason for tamper- 
 ing with the coinage, whereas Sharington was not pardoned until 
 November, 1549, after Somerset's fall. His pardon, indeed, illus- 
 trates the charge brought by Bishop Ponet against the new system, 
 viz., that "corrupt officials took council with crafty Alcibiades {i. e.^ 
 Warwick) how to make non-accompt." ( Treatise of Politicke Power ^ 
 1556). For Sharington, see the present writer in Diet. Nat. Biogr, ; 
 he had been one of Lord Seymour's accomplices. 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 259 
 
 probable that no English ministry has been more 
 corrupt. Under its sway, complaints of bribery in 
 the courts of justice grew louder than ever, and the 
 sale of offices was recognised even by Parliament. 
 Somerset had effected a slight improvement in the 
 coinage, but under Warwick it reached a lower 
 depth of debasement than under Henry VIII. 
 Popular discontent led to proposals for Somerset's 
 restoration, and the fear lest Parliament should take 
 up this cry prevented Warwick from calling it to- 
 gether,* while the lack of parliamentary supply 
 compelled the Government to look elsewhere for 
 resources. The Church was the readiest mine to 
 plunder, and the Chantry lands, the bulk of which 
 had hitherto been reserved for application to educa- 
 tional purposes, were laid under requisition. Some 
 of this wealth went to relieve public necessities, but 
 much found its way into the pockets of courtiers. 
 These lands, says Fuller, were regarded as the last 
 dish in the last course of the feast provided by the 
 Church, and in July, 1552, a commission was ap- 
 pointed for taking the surrender of all that remained.' 
 Cranmer in vain resisted, pleading that these endow- 
 ments might be kept till the King should come of 
 age.' " I have heard," wrote Ridley, " that Cranmer 
 and another whom I will not name were both in 
 high displeasure, the one for shewing his conscience 
 
 * It met on 4 November, 1549, and then not again until after 
 Somerset's death in January, 1552. 
 
 * British Museum Addit. MS., 5498, f. 40 ; Stowe MS., 141, ff., 
 
 59-63. 
 
 * Narratives of the Reformation, p. 247. 
 
26o Thomas Cranitier [154^ 
 
 secretly but plainly and fully in the Duke of Somer- 
 set's cause, and both of late, but specially Cranmer, 
 for repugning as they might against the late spoil of 
 Church goods, taken away only by commandment 
 of the higher powers without any law or order of 
 justice." * Then greedy eyes were turned on episco- 
 pal revenues ; the surrender of a manor or two was 
 the general condition imposed on a prelate before 
 his elevation; and Ponet was even made to give up 
 all the endowments of Winchester in return for a 
 stipend of two thousand marks. The bishopric of 
 Westminster was abolished, and a nefarious project 
 of Northumberland's to suppress the great see of 
 Durham was only defeated by his own expulsion 
 from office.* 
 
 Oppression went hand in hand with corruption, 
 and practically all the cases of religious persecution 
 quoted by Roman Catholic writers date from this 
 period of the reign. The Princess Mary had been 
 allowed by the Protector to have mass celebrated in 
 her household ; but this licence was now withdrawn." 
 
 * Ridley, Worksy Parker Soc. , p. 59. 
 
 ' He hoped to gain ;^20OO a year by this transaction. ( Tytler^ 
 
 ii., 143.) 
 
 'Cranmer had little or nothing to do with the ill-treatment of 
 Mary ; he was only present at one out of the score or so of meetings 
 of the Council to discuss her case ; and when the question of her 
 licence to hear mass was referred to him, Ridley, and Ponet, they 
 replied that it was permissible under pressure to tolerate such an 
 infraction of the law. So, too, his action in Gardiner's case seems 
 to have been purely " official." He was head of the commission to 
 try him, but took no part in the proceedings which led up to the 
 issue of that commission, did not sign it, and was not present at the 
 Council meeting when it was issued. 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 261 
 
 Bonner, indeed, had been deprived of his bishopric 
 by Cranmer for contumacy on the eve of Somerset's 
 fall, but the sentence was not confirmed until Feb- 
 ruary, 1550, when the Catholics had been driven 
 from the Council ; and Gardiner, although confined 
 in the Tower, was not deprived until February, 
 155 1. That same year saw the deprivation of Heath 
 of Worcester, and Day of Chichester, and the resig- 
 nation of Voysey of Exeter, while Tunstall was 
 sent to the Tower on an absurd charge of treason. 
 Two heads of Oxford colleges. Dr. Cole, of New, 
 and Dr. Morwen, of Corpus Christi, were im- 
 prisoned and a similar fate befell two of Gardi- 
 ner's chaplains ; four other Catholics fled from the 
 country — John Boxall, afterwards Queen Mary's 
 secretary, William Rastell, the nephew of Sir 
 Thomas More, Dr. Richard Smith, the Catholic 
 controversialist, and Nicholas Harpsfield. 
 
 At the other end of the religious scale, Joan 
 Bocher was burnt in May, 1550, and for her execu- 
 tion the Archbishop has been held primarily respon- 
 sible. He had protected her during the persecution 
 of the Six Articles in 1541-42, but her opinions grew 
 more and more heterodox, and in May, 1549, she 
 was condemned by Cranmer for heresy. She was 
 then left in Newgate prison for a year ** in the hope 
 of conversion," and Cranmer, Ridley, Goodrich, 
 Latimer, Lever, Whitehead, and Hutchinson all 
 tried their hands at persuasion. " I had her," de- 
 clared Lord Chancellor Rich, ' " a sevennight in my 
 house after the writ was out for her to be burnt, 
 
 *Foxe, vii., 631. 
 
262 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 
 
 where my lord of Canterbury and Bishop Ridley 
 resorted almost daily unto her." The gravamen of 
 the charge against Cranmer rests upon the story of 
 Foxe that the Archbishop had much ado to persuade 
 the young King to sign a warrant for her execution, 
 and that Edward " lay all the charge thereof upon 
 Cranmer before God.'** The alleged incident was 
 used by Foxe to invest the King with a compassion 
 which he certainly did not possess, and this ** im- 
 portunity for blood " ' has been objected against 
 the Archbishop by nearly all his critics. But Foxe*s 
 story is a work of imagination; the incident is 
 not mentioned by Edward himself in his journal,' 
 nor alleged against Cranmer at his trial. As a 
 matter of fact the young King, then only thirteen 
 years of age, could not and did not sign any war- 
 rants at all. They were signed by the Council, and 
 upon this authority a writ de hceretico comburendo 
 was issued by the Lord Chancellor to the Sheriff of 
 London. Moreover, at the particular meeting of 
 the Council at which the warrant was signed the 
 Archbishop himself was not present and so did not 
 
 * Foxe, v., 699. 
 
 ^ Hay ward, Life and Raigne of Edward Sexf, 1630, p. 7 ; the way 
 in which stories grow may be seen by the reckless fashion in which 
 Hay ward has '* embellished" Foxe's account ; according to him, the 
 Archbishop was " violent both by persuasions and entreaties" and 
 ** prevailed with mere importunity," and he winds up with the re- 
 mark that *' not many years passed but this Archbishop also felt the 
 smart of the fire." He treats it, in fact, as a tale to point a moral. 
 
 ^Literary Remains of Edward VI., p. 264 ; the terms in which 
 he records Joan's execution do not imply much sympathy. "She 
 reviled." says Edward, " the preacher that preached at her death." 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 263 
 
 sign the warrant.* Joan's pitiful story is no evidence 
 against the mildness of Cranmer's character, but it 
 illustrates the narrowness with which most Reform- 
 ers interpreted the doctrine of private judgment. 
 Liberalism was no part of their creed, and even the 
 martyr John Philpot, when himself on trial for 
 heresy, declared that Joan was a ** heretic, well 
 worthy to be burnt, because she stood against the 
 manifest articles of our faith." ' 
 
 Yet the religious persecution of Warwick's ad- 
 ministration must not be exaggerated ; for, after all, 
 Foxe is justified in the boast that during the whole 
 reign of Edward no one, save Joan Bocher and 
 George van Parris, lost his life for the sake of 
 religion,' — a striking record compared with the 
 reign of Mary, whose moderation is held to be 
 proved by the reduction of the number of ascer- 
 tained victims to something short of three hundred ! 
 The severity of Warwick's government was, in fact, 
 directed mainly against his political foes and the 
 poorer classes. Religion to him was really an in- 
 different matter, and his chief object was to secure 
 
 ^ Acts of the Privy Council, 1550-52, pp. 15, 19 ; nor, of course, 
 was the King present at meetings of the Council. The warrant is in 
 Brit. Mus., Harleian MS., 6195, No. 10. See also Hutchinson, 
 Works, Parker Soc, pp. iii.-v., Lit. Remains of Edward VI., pp. 
 ccvi., ccxi. ; and Latimer, Remains, p. 114. A year later an Ana- 
 baptist, George van Parris, was burnt in the same way. 
 
 'Foxe, vii., 631. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 700. The claim to include those who suffered in the west- 
 ern rebellion among martyrs for religion can scarcely be admitted ; 
 for one does not usually include in that category those who fell in 
 Wyatt's rebellion under Queen Mary. 
 
564 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 
 
 himself in power and to please those on whose sup- 
 port he depended. His rival, the Protector, was 
 ultimately brought by the foulest means to the 
 scaffold,* and the violence of his rule so disgusted 
 the nation that as soon as the opportunity arose 
 it declared with one voice against him. That he 
 was able to go on so long unmolested was largely 
 due to a most favourable conjunction of foreign 
 affairs. He made a most ignominious peace with 
 France in March, 1550, which, although it sur- 
 rendered all that the Tudors had fought for in Scot- 
 land, and prepared the way for the dangers which 
 threatened England under Elizabeth, yet gave his 
 government temporary security. Then in 1551-52 
 war approached between France and the Emperor, 
 and the rising of Germany against Charles V.' left 
 Warwick free to pursue his own devices without fear 
 of external alarms. 
 
 It was under these circumstances that the Re- 
 formation was prosecuted in England during the 
 later years of Edward VI. The new Ordinal, which 
 Parliament had empowered a commission to com- 
 pile, was published in March, 1550, and it is proba- 
 ble that Cranmer, assisted by Ridley, had the chief 
 share in its composition.' The commissioners took 
 no advantage of the liberty allowed by the Act to 
 
 * See England under Protector Somerset^ chap, xi : the means in- 
 cluded a good deal of perjury and probably forgery. 
 
 ^ See the present writer in Cambridge Modern History^ vol. ii., 
 chap. viii. 
 
 ^ The names of the commissioners are not known ; the Privy 
 Council Register (1547-50, p. 379) mentions their appointment but 
 not their names. 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 265 
 
 provide for the ordination of " other ministers " — 
 L e.y ostiaries, lectors, exorcists, acolytes, and sub- 
 deacons — below the rank of deacon ; and their form- 
 ulary swept away a vast mass of gorgeous ritual 
 centained in the old Pontificals. It was a long step 
 in the direction of simplicity, ** but all that was ne- 
 cessary to convey the clerical character was never- 
 theless preserved " * ; and like every other measure 
 that Cranmer took it excited the displeasure of the 
 extremists. Bishop Heath of Worcester was sent 
 to the Fleet prison for refusing to subscribe the 
 book, and on the other hand, Hooper, the favourite 
 of Warwick,' and the most popular preacher at this 
 time in London denounced the Ordinal as soon as 
 it was published. In a letter to Bullinger he spoke 
 of the " fraud and artifices by which they promote 
 the kingdom of anti-Christ especially in the form of 
 the oath." ' For this he was summoned before the 
 Council at Cranmer's instance, and upbraided by the 
 Archbishop, but at length, he says, " the issue was for 
 the glory of God." At Easter Warwick offered him 
 the bishopric of Gloucester.* He was appointed by let- 
 ters patent on the 3rd of July, but objected to taking 
 
 ' Dixon, iii., 194 ; the most important point was perhaps the re- 
 tention of the exclusive power of Bishops to ordain. 
 
 ^ Dr. Gairdner (p. 177) attributes Hooper's preferment to Somer- 
 set's influence ; but Hooper ascribed his safety in November, 1549, to 
 Warwick, and to Warwick he must have owed his appointment as 
 Lent preacher in 1550, as Somerset was then in the Tower. War- 
 wick, moreover, was his support in the ' ' vestiarian " controversy, and 
 on Warwick all Hooper's praises were lavished at this time. Against 
 this evidence I do not think the assertions of John ab Ulmis {Orig, 
 Letters, ii., 410) and of Froude(v., 210) have much weight. 
 
 • Orig. Lett., i., 81. * Ibid,, i., 87. 
 
266 Thomas Cranmer [154^ 
 
 the oath by the Saints and using the "Aaronic" 
 vestments required by the Ordinal. After much 
 argument he persuaded the young King to put his 
 pen through this objectionable oath,* and to write 
 a letter to Cranmer recommending his consecration 
 in the simpler form. The Archbishop had too much 
 respect for the constitution to obey, and merely 
 referred Hooper to Ridley who endeavoured to 
 remove his scruples. His efforts were vain, and at 
 the end of July Hooper " obtained leave from the 
 King and the Council to be consecrated by the 
 Bishop of London without superstition.'* Ridley, 
 however, convinced the Council that Hooper was 
 wrong, and the Bishop-elect of Gloucester was con- 
 fined to his house. Cranmer, meanwhile, appealed 
 to Bucer and Martyr,* while Hooper sought the 
 advice of John k Lasco. The two former rebuked 
 Hooper's scruples, but the Pole encouraged re- 
 sistance. Hooper kept neither his house nor 
 silence; he rushed into print with a confession of 
 faith, and the Council in January, 155 1, ordered him 
 into the Archbishop's custody " either there to be 
 reformed or further to be punished as the obstinacy 
 of his case requireth." ' A fortnight later Cranmer 
 reported that his prisoner could not be brought to 
 
 * Canou Dixon (iii., 214 n.) appears to disbelieve this story and 
 remarks that Foxe has nothing about it; but it is narrated in a 
 letter from Hooper's confidant, Micronius, to BuUinger on 28 
 August, 1550. (Ori^. Lett,, ii., 567.) 
 
 « This letter of Cranmer is in Brit. Mus. Add. MS., 28571, /. 46. 
 It is printed not in the Parker Society's collected Works but in 
 Pocock's Troubles, p. 130. Bucer's answer is in his Scripta An- 
 glica, p. 681, A Lasco's in Dalton's Lasciana, Berlin, 1898, p. 329. 
 
 ^ Acts of the Privy Council, 1550-15 52, p. 191. 
 
Copyright Photo., Walker & CockereU. 
 KING EDWARD VI. 
 
 PAINTED AFTER A DRAWING BY HOLBEIN. 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 267 
 
 conformity ; and he was therefore sent to the Fleet. 
 There, much to the grief of the Zwinglian party, 
 Hooper at length submitted to be made a Bishop 
 in the ordinary way. He draws a veil over his own 
 discomfiture and writes t6 Bullinger that " as the 
 Lord has put an end to this controversy, I do not 
 think it worth while to violate the sepulchre of this 
 unhappy tragedy." * 
 
 Cranmer and Ridley had thus vindicated the 
 Church against the " Father of Nonconformity," but 
 Ridley's visitation of his London bishopric in 1550, 
 and conversion of altars into communion-tables, in- 
 dicated that both prelates had made considerable 
 advances towards the Swiss doctrines, of which 
 Hooper was the most uncompromising champion. 
 The fact that these views were held abroad has 
 often been used to involve them in odium — as if 
 Catholic doctrines were not also accepted by foreign- 
 ers ; as if Christianity itself were not a foreign pro- 
 duct; and as if theological truth were a matter to 
 be determined by national prejudices ! Cranmer 
 took the more liberal view and thought that truth 
 should be admitted even though it did come from 
 a foreign source, and he entertained the idea of 
 assembling in England a body of divines whose 
 weight should counterbalance that of the Fathers at 
 Trent.* The disturbed state of Germany assisted 
 
 ' Original Letters^ ii., 712. Hooper's letter to Cranmer signi- 
 fying his submission is in Brit. Mus. Add. AfSS., 28571,^. 24-26. 
 
 - This project was always in Cranmer's mind, but he made special 
 efforts to bring it to pass in 1548 and 1549. See Cranmer's Letters^ 
 Nos. cclxxxvi., cclxxxix., ccxcvi., ccxcvii., and ccxcviii. 
 
268 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 
 
 his efforts, and many a noted Reformer fled from 
 the vengeance of Charles V., and was entertained 
 by Cranmer at Lambeth. 
 
 Among those who arrived in 1547 was Pietro 
 Martire Vermigli,* a native of Florence, who was 
 better known as Peter Martyr, and like Luther had 
 been an Augustinian monk. He came from Strass- 
 burg, stayed for a time with Cranmer before be- 
 coming Regius Professor at Oxford, and was invited 
 by the Archbishop to suggest emendations on the 
 First Book of Common Prayer. From the same 
 city came Tremellius," the Hebraist, a Jew of 
 Ferrara, who found a home and employment at 
 Cambridge ; and from Augsburg came Bernardino 
 Ochino,' a Franciscan and a native of Siena. These 
 three Italians had been driven from Italy by the 
 failure of the Reformation there, and from Germany 
 by the victory of Charles over the Schmalkaldic 
 League. In 1548 the Pole, John k Lasco,* reached 
 Lambeth, and shares with Ridley and Latimer the 
 disputed honour of having sapped Cranmer*s belief 
 in the Real Presence ; he was accompanied by John 
 
 ^ P, M. Vermigli (1500-1562). See Did, Nat. Biogr., Iviii., 253. 
 
 5 John Immanuel Tremellius (1510-1580) studied at Padua, was 
 converted from Judaism by Cardinal Pole, land then became a Pro- 
 testant ; entertained by Cranmer at Lambeth in 1547, made King's 
 reader in Hebrew at Cambridge, 1549, and prebendary of Carlisle, 
 1552, fled to the Continent in 1553. {Did, Nat. Biogr.^ Ivii., 186.) 
 
 3 Bernardino Ochino (1487-1564), noted for his eloquent preach- 
 ing, was made prebendary of Cranmer's cathedral in 1548 ; he fled 
 to Basel in 1553. His theological works, written in Italian, were 
 translated into English (Z>. N. B., xli., 350.) 
 
 ^ 3ee above, pp. 216, 266, 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 269 
 
 Utenhove,' a native of Ghent. The great Melanch- 
 thon himself was invited, but preferred to remain 
 at Wittenberg. The second most famous of living 
 German divines was, however, induced to come in 
 the person of Martin Bucer,' who, like his friend 
 Fagius," exchanged Strassburg for Cambridge and 
 died there. Lesser lights among this galaxy of 
 distinguished strangers were Francis Dryander, the 
 Spaniard ; Martin Micronius, the friend of BuUinger ; 
 Valeran Poullain, the superintendent of the colony 
 of Flemish weavers established by Somerset at 
 Glastonbury ; Peter Alexander of Aries, once chap- 
 lain to Charles V.'s sister Mary, Regent of the 
 Netherlands, and Jean V^ron, a Frenchman, who 
 wrote vigorous tracts denouncing the mass.* It is, 
 however, probable that these foreign divines ex- 
 ercised less influence than the Englishmen who had 
 fled from the persecution of Henry VIII., imbibed 
 foreign ideas, and returned under Edward VI. 
 Hooper, for instance, who had sat at Bullinger*s 
 feet, was more potent than Bucer ; Coverdale, who 
 had lived abroad for fifteen years, may well be 
 
 ^ John Utenhove {d. 1565) resided in England, 1548-53, helped to 
 plant the Flemish colony at Glastonbury, and in Elizabeth's reign 
 was "first elder" of the Dutch Church, London (Z>. N. B.^ Iviii., 
 
 73.) 
 
 ' Bucer was the most influential of foreign divines in England, see 
 D. N. B., vii., 172, and the more recent life by A. Erichson (Strass- 
 burg, 1891). 
 
 ^ Paul Fagius (i 504-1 549), a native of the Palatinate, was made 
 Hebrew reader at Cambridge in 1549, ^^^ d\&di there in the same year. 
 
 *See D. N. B.^ Iviii., 283 ; he was author of the Five Abominable 
 Blasphemies Contained in the Mass, 1548, described by Pocock, who 
 had not traced the author^ in En^l, Hist, Rev., x;,, 419-420, 
 
270 
 
 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 [154^ 
 
 compared with Martyr; and smaller men, such as 
 Bishop Bale, John Rogers, the " proto-martyr," and 
 Bartholomew Traheron, popularised foreign ideas 
 more effectively than immigrants who knew little 
 English. Yet again it must not be forgotten that 
 the English Church in the sixteenth century assimi- 
 lated little that had not been taught by the Eng- 
 lish Wy cliff e,* and that it involves a distortion of 
 terms to label it at any time Lutheran, Zwinglian, 
 or Calvin istic' 
 
 All these forces were, however, thrown into the 
 balance against the compromise which had been 
 embodied in the First Book of Common Prayer, par- 
 ticularly with regard to the Real Presence. Cran- 
 
 * The extraordinary parallelism between Wyclifife's ideas and the 
 English Reformation is often neglected. Wycliffe called upon the 
 State to reform a corrupt church ; that was the basis of the whole 
 Tudor policy. He ' ' habitually treats the papacy in its present form as 
 the most signal manifestation of the spirit of Anti-Christ " ; that is 
 precisely Cranmer's position . Wycliffe ' ' denounces the whole princi- 
 ple of monasticism " ; Henry VIII, uprooted it. Wycliffe '* pleads for 
 the permission of clerical marriages, though he seems to regard celi- 
 bacy as the higher ideal " ; that is exactly the tone of the 1549 ^^^ 
 of Parliament. Wycliffe "strenuously insisted upon the supreme 
 importance of spiritual religion . . . and the comparative un- 
 importance of ceremonies " ; here in a nutshell is the motive of Ed- 
 ward VI. 's legislation. Finally he reduced the *' Real Presence" in 
 the Eucharist to a spiritual presence. (The above quotations are 
 from Dr. Rashdall's article on Wycliffe in D. N. B.^ Ixiii., 220-1.) 
 
 * A loose habit has grown up of speaking about Calvinistic influ- 
 ence in England during the reign of Edward VI. The Low Church 
 influence of that time was Zwinglian, not Calvinistic ; and BuUinger, 
 not Calvin was then the oracle of the most advanced Reformers. 
 It was not till Elizabeth's reign, after the return of the Marian 
 exiles from Geneva, that Calvin exercised any great influence on 
 the English Church, 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 271 
 
 mer had given up that doctrine in 1548, and in 1550 
 during the controversy with Gardiner' maintained 
 that it was not really recognised — at least not in the 
 sense in which Gardiner interpreted it — in the 
 Prayer Book. This controversy may have sug- 
 gested or emphasised to the Reformers the need for 
 revising the First Book oi Common Prayer; and the 
 more important changes in the Second seem de- 
 signed to enforce and establish that interpretation 
 of the First Book which Cranmer upheld against 
 Gardiner'; the door was at last to be shut on the 
 Old Learning. But these points often and not un- 
 naturally coincided with those in which Bucer in- 
 sisted that the First Book needed revision, and to 
 his Censura ' has sometimes been ascribed the de- 
 termining influence in the matter. It is, in fact, im- 
 possible to discriminate precisely the respective 
 shares of these collaborating forces in producing the 
 Second Book of Common Prayer ; but, on the whole, 
 the changes in the Second Book went farther than 
 Bucer recommended. Bucer represented a com- 
 promise between Luther and Zwingli ; the First Book 
 was more Lutheran, the Second more Zwinglian 
 
 ' See above, pp. 237-244. 
 
 ' " Everything in the First Prayer Book upon which Gardiner had 
 fixed as evidence that the new liturgy did not reject the old belief, 
 was in the revision carefully swept away and altered." — Gasquet and 
 Bishop, p. 289. 
 
 ' This Censura is printed in Bucer's Scripta Anglicana (Basel, 
 1577. fol.). It was addressed, not, as has often been assumed, to 
 Cranmer, but to Bucer's diocesan. Bishop Goodrich of Ely. Lau- 
 rence in his Bamfton Lectures (pp. 246-7) minimises Bucer's in- 
 fluence, 
 
272 Thomas Cranmer [1549- 
 
 than he liked. His advice was taken when he 
 urged the adoption of Zwinglian forms, rejected 
 when he pleaded for the retention of the semi- 
 Lutheran phrases of 1549. At his request words in 
 the Communion Office which might be construed as 
 implying the *' permanence of the body and blood 
 of Christ under the species of bread and wine," and 
 as justifying adoration of the Sacrament, were de- 
 leted.* On the other hand, his exhortations were 
 neglected when he argued against the excision of 
 certain phrases, the absence of which would, he 
 thought '* cast a doubt on the reality of the Act of 
 Communion."* 
 
 Besides Bucer, Peter Martyr also submitted the 
 Book of 1549 to an examination ; but his work was 
 not done with the same care and learning as Bucer's, 
 and it had little influence on the Book of 1552. 
 Even Bucer's opinion prevailed only so far as it 
 coincided with those of Cranmer and Ridley, to 
 whom was due the chief share in the compilation of 
 the Second Book of Common Prayer. The princi- 
 pal changes were made in the Communion Office, 
 and the motive for them was doubtless the fact that, 
 the sequence of the 1549 Office being substantially 
 that of the old mass, Catholic priests were able by 
 mumbling the words and repeating the old manual 
 acts to make the new form appear almost indistin- 
 guishable from the old " idolatrous Mass." In the 
 1552 Office no room was left for this representation 
 or misrepresentation. The service was so arranged 
 as to exclude the ideas of sacrifice and corporal 
 
 ^ Gasquet and Bishop, p. 295, note, * Ibid.^ p. 293. 
 
1552] Second Book of Common Prayer 273 
 
 presence which had interpenetrated every word and 
 action in the Mass.' The word *' altar " was ex- 
 punged ; the Kyrie Eleisoti instead of being an invo- 
 cation of the presence of the Lord was changed into 
 an ordinary prayer for grace to keep the Ten Com- 
 mandments; the Gloria in Excclsis^ instead of beinsr 
 placed at the beginning of the Office and heralding 
 the presence of God, was placed at the end ; and the 
 words, " Blessed is He that cometh in the name of 
 the Lord," were omitted as implying the same con- 
 ception. The Agnus Dei was also left out, ordinary 
 instead of unleavened bread was to be used, the 
 wearing of the alb, chasuble, and cope were expressly 
 prohibited, and the minister was ordered to stand 
 at the north side of the *' communion-table," which 
 henceforth was to be placed in the body of the 
 church and not at the east end.' Scarcely less 
 drastic were the changes effected in the Orders for 
 Baptism, and Confirmation, and in the revision of 
 the Ordinal published in 1550. 
 
 With the exception of several points,the importance 
 
 ' The alterationsj can best be appreciated by consulting Parker's 
 First Book of Common Prayer, where the offices are printed side by 
 side; they are summarised and elucidated in Gasquet and Bishop, 
 pp. 2S9-297. 
 
 ' Several of these changes were annulled in the Prayer Book of 
 1559, which revived some of the usages of 1549 ; with regard to or- 
 naments the controversy is whether the rubric relating to them en- 
 joins the ornaments of the 1549 Prayer Book or those in use before 
 that Prayer Book ; the rubric says those " in use by the authority of 
 Parliament in the second year of Edward VI." The First Prayer 
 Book did not receive the royal assent till the third year of Edward 
 VI., but it is not certain that the rubric did not mean the ornaments 
 of the First Prayer Book, although the phrase is inaccurate. 
 
274 Thomas Cranmer [1549-1552] 
 
 of which is variously estimated by different schools of 
 High and Low churchmen, the Prayer Book of 1552 
 is substantially the same as that of the present day. 
 It has been criticised in recent years as approach- 
 ing too nearly to continental Protestantism and 
 particularly to the views of Zwingli's successor 
 Bullinger. But that would seem no ground for 
 objection to Cranmer; the insularity and isolation 
 which is now the pride and the boast of the average 
 Englishman had not then laid so firm a hold upon 
 him, and Cranmer thought that to differ in religion 
 from the rest of the world implied a presumption 
 of error rather than truth. He had no wish to make 
 the Anglican Church national in doctrine or ritual, 
 but only in jurisdiction and government. It was to 
 remain in communion with the Catholic Church 
 purified of papal corruptions. The changes effected 
 between 1549 and 1552 were designed to facilitate 
 an accommodation with the Reformed Churches 
 abroad ; and this purified Catholic Church was by 
 means of a Reformed General Council to bring the 
 whole of Christendom into a new and scriptural 
 unity. No one can describe that ideal as ignoble, 
 and Cranmer cannot be condemned for failing to 
 see that the unity of the visible Church was shattered 
 for ever. To the clearest vision of the sixteenth 
 century it remained hidden that the national and 
 secularising forces which came to birth in that age 
 would go on ever increasing in strength and ever 
 widening the breach between the modern world and 
 that world in which one Church universal was pos- 
 sible and that Church could rival the State- 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE DOWNFALL OF ENGLISH PROTESTANTISM 
 
 THE Second Book of Common Prayer was ushered 
 into the world amid signs and portents which 
 boded ill for its long life and prosperity. It was im- 
 posed on the nation by a new Act of Uniformity 
 which for the first time threatened penalties against 
 the " great number of people in divers parts of the 
 realm '* who did '* wilfully and damnably refuse to 
 come to their parish churches '* ^ ; and the reluctance 
 of the nation to accept moderate reforms was to be 
 cured by passing more radical measures and increas- 
 ing the rigour with which they were to be enforced. 
 The remains of the liberal system which Somerset 
 had established were to be swept away ; the Pro- 
 tector himself was sent to the block,* and the Council 
 
 * If they neglected to attend Common Prayer on Sundays and holy 
 days they were to be punished with ecclesiastical censures and ex- 
 communication ; if they attended any but the authorised form of 
 worship they were liable to six months' imprisonment for the first 
 offence, a year's imprisonment for the second, and lifelong imprison- 
 ment for the third. 
 
 ' 22 January, 1552. 
 
276 Thomas Cranmer [1552- 
 
 began to pack the House of Commons.* Even so, it 
 proved too independent for Northumberland's pur- 
 pose. It rejected a treason bill designed to replace 
 the expiring act of 1549, and passed another which 
 re-enacted in a limited form some of the precautions 
 against injustice which the Protector had introduced 
 in 1547.' It also threw out a bill of attainder 
 against Tunstall, Bishop of Durham ; but North- 
 umberland would not be baulked of the bishopric, 
 and so Tunstall, who had been confined to the 
 Tower on a bogus charge of treason, was deprived 
 by a civil commission — a novel extension of secular 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Dimly the nation was beginning to feel that its 
 ruler was bent on reckless and selfish aggrandise- 
 ment. As early as October, 155 1, tales were told of 
 a new coinage to be minted at Dudley Castle bearing 
 on its face the bear and ragged staff, Northumber- 
 land's badge'; and in 1552 behind closed doors 
 men freely ascribed to him the design of aiming at 
 the crown * ; while a few may perhaps have per- 
 ceived that the chief motive in his zeal for religion 
 was to make the Romanist Mary an impossible can- 
 didate for the throne of a Protestant kingdom, and 
 thus to pave the way for his own advancement. 
 
 *At first this method was only applied to filling up vacancies 
 caused by the death of members (see Acts P. C, 1550-2, pp. 400, 
 
 457, 459, 470). 
 
 ^ The best-known of these was the clause requiring two witnesses 
 in cases of treason. 
 
 ^ Acts P. C, 1550-52, p. 377 ; Lit. Remains of Edward VI, ^ pp. 
 clxvi., 374; Greyfriars" Chron.^ p. 73. 
 
 * HarUian MS., 353,^. 120-121. 
 
1553] English Protestantism 277 
 
 The most sincere Reformers began to think it was 
 time to slacken the pace. 
 
 "Your Sacred Majesty," wrote Bucer to Edward VI., * 
 " has already found by experience how grave are the 
 evils which ensued on taking away by force false worship 
 from your people, without sufficient preliminary instruc- 
 tion. The instruments of impiety have been snatched 
 from them by proclamations, and the observance of 
 true religion has been imposed by royal command. 
 Some have on this account made horrible sedition, 
 others have raised perilous dissensions in the State, and 
 to this very day wherever they can they either caus( 
 new trouble or increase what has already been excited. 
 . . . The example of our Lord and of all pious 
 princes shows that it is first of all necessary to explain 
 to men the mysteries of the kingdom and by holy per- 
 suasion to exhort them to take up the yoke of Christ. 
 Your Sacred Majesty will perceive that to this end 
 all your thoughts and care must be directed, and that 
 those are not to be listened to who will that the religion 
 of Christ be thrust upon men only by proclamations and 
 by laws, and who say that it is enough if the sacred serv- 
 ices of Christ are said to the people it matters not how. 
 It is greatly to be feared that the enemy actuates men of 
 this mind, who strive to hand the government of the 
 religion of Christ to men who are both unfit for it and 
 who do not suffer themselves to be advised, and who 
 thus make way for the greed of men to seize the wealth 
 of the Church, and little by little to do away altogether 
 with Christ's religion. For those led by this spirit hope 
 that when once the church property is confiscated there 
 
 ' Bucer, De Regno Christie lib. ii., cap v., pp. 60-61 ; Gasquet 
 and Bishop, pp. 299-301. 
 
278 Thomas Cranmer [1552- 
 
 will be none found voluntarily to consecrate themselves 
 to her ministry." SI 
 
 Bucer*s words were written at the end of 15 50, 
 and within two years Cranmer was driven into a 
 similarly hostile attitude. His opposition to the 
 confiscation of the chantry lands profoundly irri- 
 tated Northumberland, who now regarded John 
 Knox as the godliest of divines. Knox did not 
 prove compliant enough to suit as Bishop of 
 Rochester and whetstone for Cranmer; but it was 
 owing to Knox's exhortations that Cranmer and the 
 Council came into conflict over the yet unpublished 
 Second Book of Common Prayer. Knox had appar- 
 ently been appointed one of the six royal chaplains,* 
 four of whom were to be always employed on evan- 
 gelical circuits; and before setting out for his sphere 
 on the Scottish borders he was commanded to 
 preach before the King. He took the opportunity 
 to denounce the practice of kneeling at the sacra- 
 ment, and so impressed the Council that the print- 
 ing of the new Prayer Book, in which that posture 
 was enjoined, was stopped. Cranmer was hastily 
 ordered to consult with Ridley and Peter Martyr as 
 
 ' Canon Dixon (iii., 478-479 note) denies that Knox was ever royal 
 chaplain and disputes the arguments of Lorimer and Perry ; but the 
 references in the Privy Council Register and Edward VI. 's Journal 
 show that two royal chaplains were to preach in 1552 on the Scottish 
 borders ; that Knox was employed in this work, receiving £^0 as a 
 reward at the end of his year's service on 27 October, 1552, and 
 being officially commended for his zeal ; he and the five other chap- 
 lains also revised Cranmer's articles for subscription by candidates 
 for ordination. [Lit. Remains of Edward F/., pp. 377-378 notes, 
 464; Acts of the Privy Council^ 1552-54, pp. 148, 154, 190.) 
 
1553] English Protestantism 279 
 
 to whether it would not be better to omit the rubric. 
 The Archbishop was ready enough to take advice, 
 but protested earnestly against the change. Kneel- 
 ing had commended itself to the Bishops and other 
 learned men who had deliberated on the Book, and 
 it had been prescribed by the authority of Parlia- 
 ment. Was it wise, he asked, for the Council to 
 reverse a decision of Parliament at the bidding of 
 turbulent spirits who would find fault with the 
 Book were it altered every year? Kneeling, they 
 say, is not commanded by Scripture ; neither is 
 standing, nor sitting, he replied.* Cranmer's firm- 
 ness saved the custom of kneeling, but he could not 
 prevent the Council from inserting on their own 
 and the King's authority what is known as the 
 Black Rubric in such copies of the Second Book of 
 Common Prayer as had not already issued from the 
 press. This declaration explained that, although 
 the gesture of kneeling was retained, there was no 
 superstitious adoration of the sacrament implied in 
 such an attitude.' 
 
 Another project at which Cranmer had long and 
 
 * This letter is not in any edition of Cranmer's Works ; it is extant 
 dated 7 October, 1552, among the Domestic State Papers in the 
 Record Office (Ed. VI., vol. xv., No. 15; see Calendar, 1547-80, 
 p. 45), and is printed by Perry {Declaration on Kneaiing, p. 77), and 
 by Lorimer {Knox in England, p. 103). See also Canon Dixon, iii., 
 477, note. 
 
 ^ " A runagate Scot," said Dr. Weston to Latimer in 1554, " did 
 take away the adoration of worshipping of Christ in the sacrament, 
 by whose procurement that heresy was put into the last Communion 
 Book ; so much prevailed that one man's authority at that time " 
 (Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi., 510.) Townsend and others refer this to 
 Alexander Aless, but undoubtedly Knox is meant. 
 
28o Thomas Cranmer [1552- 
 
 anxiously laboured was brought to naught by the 
 opposition of Northumberland and the tendencies 
 of the time, and that was the reformation of the 
 laws of the church. The mediaeval canon law was 
 an elaborate edifice, with the Papacy as the key- 
 stone of the arch.* When the Papal jurisdiction in 
 England was abolished Canon Law fell into ruin, 
 from which it has never recovered. Its decrepit 
 state and the absence of any substitute introduced 
 the greatest confusion into the legal and moral 
 codes ; the marriage laws," for instance, were subject 
 to the wildest interpretations, of which Henry VIII. 
 had not been slow to avail himself. The confusion 
 of the Canonists was viewed with ill-concealed satis- 
 faction by civilians, by common lawyers, and by a 
 large section of the community which had no desire 
 to see ecclesiastical discipline re-established on a 
 firm and lasting basis. But such a state of things 
 could scarcely commend itself to churchmen, and 
 least of all to the Archbishop, who was, under the 
 King, the highest authority in the law of the Church. 
 The various Acts passed, empowering the King to 
 appoint a commission for the reform of the Canon 
 Law, had hitherto borne no fruit' ; but Cranmer 
 
 * See Professor F. W. Maitland's Roman Canon Law in England^ 
 1899. 
 
 ' Every variety of opinion was held at this time on the subject of 
 divorce, and Henry VIII. 's matrimonial adventures were by no 
 means peculiar to himself, except in so far as he was in a unique 
 position for getting rid of his encumbrances. 
 
 3 The Act of 1533 declared that such canons as were not " con- 
 trarient to the laws, customs and statutes of this realm, nor to the 
 damage and hurt of the King's prerogative royal," should remain in 
 
15531 English Protestantism 281 
 
 had not been idle. As early as 1544 he had made 
 a collection of passages from the Canon Law * ; but 
 these were of little constructive use, as they were 
 mainly passages asserting the supremacy of the 
 Pope over temporal sovereigns and the immunity of 
 the clergy from lay tribunals. In October, 1551, 
 however, a selection of thirty-two commissioners was 
 actually made, and in the following month a com- 
 mittee of eight was nominated "to rough hew the 
 Canon Law, the rest to conclude it afterwards.*" 
 Even then the commission was not formally made 
 out, and it was not till February, 1552, that Cranmer 
 and his colleagues received authority to proceed 
 with the work. As usual, the chief burden fell upon 
 the Archbishop, and his principal advisers were Peter 
 Martyr, Walter Haddon, the Latin scholar, and Sir 
 John Cheke, Edward VL's tutor. Their labours 
 were not completed when the three-years' term, im- 
 posed by the Act of 1549, expired, and the bill 
 introduced in 1552 to renew the commission failed 
 to become law, largely owing to Northumberland's 
 opposition.' 
 
 force; but the "customs" were sometimes too strange, and the 
 *' King's prerogative royal" capable of too liberal an interpretation 
 to make this proviso very definite. 
 
 ' This collection is extant in Lambeth MS., 1107, and Corpus 
 Christi Coll., Cambridge, MS. cccxl., and is printed in Burnet, iv., 
 520, and in Cranmer's Works, i., 68-75; several of the passages were 
 used by Cranmer in his answer to the Devonshire rebels in 1549. 
 
 ^ Edward VI. 's Journal, p. 398. 
 
 ' The greatest confusion exists with regard to the history of this 
 matter, from which even Canon Dixon and that most accurate of 
 writers, Dr. Gairdner, are not free. Canon Dixon states that the 
 bill introduced in 1552 became law, but it is not on the Statute 
 
282 Thomas Cranmer [issa- 
 
 Yet the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticaruniy as 
 the work of the commissioners was called, is an im- 
 portant illustration of Cranmer's ideas, and its con- 
 tents explain why it never received official sanction. 
 Both its good and its bad points were repugnant to 
 the spirit of the age, and it is doubtful which of the 
 two qualities contributed the more to its unpopular- 
 ity. It began with an exposition of the Catholic 
 faith, and enacted the punishment of forfeiture and 
 death against those who denied or blasphemed the 
 Christian religion ; for the Church was claimed 
 the exclusive right of jurisdiction in such matters, 
 the action of the civil magistrate being limited, as 
 in the Middle Ages, to the execution of its decrees ; 
 and excommunication was said to deprive sin- 
 ners of the protection of God and to consign 
 them to everlasting damnation. The Church of 
 England aspired to hurl those thunderbolts which 
 
 Book ; and Dr. Gairdner {History of the Church, p. 300) concludes 
 his account by saying that after all, on 6 October, 1552, the whole 
 thirty-two commissioners were appointed and divided into four com- 
 panies; but this appointment is really of 6 October, 1551 {Acts P. C; 
 1551-52, p. 382). Both mistakes are derived from Strype's Cranmer 
 (i. , 388-389). The most accurate statement of the affair is in Nichols's 
 Literary Remains of Edward VI., pp. 397-399. The commission 
 was thus abortive, and, although a remarkable document entitled Re- 
 formatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum was compiled, and although Ed- 
 ward in his will urged the completion of the project, the accession 
 of Mary put an end to it and the document remained in MS. until 
 1571, when, having been edited by Foxe, the Martyrologist, 
 it was at length printed ; but it never received any legal 
 authorisation either by Parliament or Convocation. It was edited in 
 1850 by Dr. Edward Card well. One of the MS. drafts {Harleian 
 MS, 426) contains numerous corrections in Cranmer's hand. 
 
English Protestantism 283 
 
 Popes had so often launched in vain.* Reformers 
 commonly work in the spirit of the abuses they 
 seek to remove, and few churches have will- 
 ingly abandoned the weapons of persecution ; 
 but such a pretension ran counter to the spirit of 
 Tudor times, not because sixteenth-century states- 
 men' were averse to persecution, but because they 
 wanted it done by the State and not by the Church. 
 In other respects the code was both too liberal 
 and too drastic for that or the present time. To re- 
 store and invigorate the action of the Church, which 
 had suffered so much from the encroachments of the 
 State in Henry's reign, Cranmer proposed to revive 
 the diocesan synods from which he would not have 
 excluded the laity. Divorce was allowed to both 
 parties not only on the ground of adultery but of 
 desertion, long absence, and cruel treatment ; the 
 innocent party was permitted to marry again ; and 
 confirmed incompatibility of temper justified separa- 
 tion but not divorce. Marriage was thus made less 
 rigid, but its sanctity, so long as it lasted, was 
 guarded by stringent penalties. Adultery was to be 
 punished with imprisonment or transportation for 
 life ; if the wife be the offender she forfeits her 
 jointure ; if the husband, he restores his wife's dower 
 and adds to it half his own fortune. The clergy as 
 
 ^ Ref. Legum Eccl., ed. Cardwell, pp. 167-188. 
 
 ' Edward VI. himself objected to the bishops, being entrusted with 
 these powers of persecution not, as Froude implies (v., 197), because 
 a bishop is naturally incapable of justice, but because the bishops of 
 that day were some papists, some ignorant, some too old, some 
 gf bad repute, etc. {Lit. Remains, pp. 478-479). 
 
284 Thomas Cranmer [155a- 
 
 guardians of morality were threatened with special 
 severity : if a married cleric coipmitted adultery he 
 forfeited his benefice and surrendered his whole 
 estate for the support of his wife and children ; if 
 unmarried he gave all up to his bishop for chari- 
 table uses. So that if Cranmer claimed for his order 
 great powers, he saddled it also with burdens.* 
 
 The other great scheme with which Cranmer was 
 busily occupied during these last years of his power 
 did not prove abortive. He had endowed the 
 Church with a Bible in English, with her own Eng- 
 lish liturgy, and had sought to establish her jurisdic- 
 tion ; he now brought forth a confession of faith 
 which she and none other professed. As early as 
 1 549 he had drawn up a series of articles which he 
 compelled applicants for licence to lecture and 
 preach to subscribe'; and in 1551 he submitted 
 these or another list to his fellow-bishops for 
 their opinion. On 2 May, 1552, the Council or- 
 dered him to produce these articles and to show 
 whether they had been "set forth by any public 
 authority or no."' This was, no doubt, a rebuke 
 
 ^See Dixon, iii., 352-382 ; Cranmer's scheme was based upon the 
 Roman Canon Law, and interwoven with the ' ' agitated formularies 
 of the sixteenth century." The attempt to pour new wine into old 
 bottles was not successful, though Canon Dixon thinks that if the 
 Reformatio had been carried out "the activity and vigour of the 
 Church of England would have been raised to a height which it 
 has never reached," and "the modern history of the Church of Eng- 
 land would have been altogether different." 
 
 ' Orig. Letters, i., 71, 76 ; Nichols {Lit. Rem. of Edward VI., p. 
 377) doubts whether these articles were the same as the later Forty- 
 two. There is no certainty about the matter, but they were prob- 
 ably the germ, 3^^^j^ C 1252-54, p. 32, 
 
1553] English Protestantism 285 
 
 such as Northumberland liked to administer to the 
 Archbishop for presumption in acting without his 
 permission. The articles were returned to Cranmer 
 for revision, a task which he completed by the mid- 
 dle of September. He then sent them to Cheke 
 and also requested Cecil to consider them well.* A 
 month later the Council directed six divines — Harley, 
 Bill, Home, Grindal, Perne, and John Knox to re- 
 examine them." On 20 November they were re- 
 turned with amendments to Cranmer,^ who four 
 days later sent them back with the request that they 
 might now be authorised by the King, and sub- 
 mitted to all the clergy for subscription. "And 
 then I trust that such a concord and quietness in 
 religion shall shortly follow thereof, as else is not to 
 be looked for many years." * 
 
 So wrote Cranmer in the incurable optimism of 
 his soul ; but he was not more deceived when 
 he hoped to rebuild the jurisdiction of the Church 
 than when he thought to bring peace by a creed. 
 
 * Cranmer, Works, ii., 439. 
 
 ^ Acts P. C, 1552-54, p. 148. All these divines were men of 
 eminence whose lives are recorded in the D. N. B. Harley became 
 Bishop of Hereford, Bill, Dean of Westminster, Home, Bishop of 
 Winchester, Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Feme, Dean 
 of Ely, while Knox was greater than most bishops or deans. The 
 Scottish Reformer had before this denounced the rubric on Kneeling 
 in the Book of Common Prayer, and now took exception to the 
 Thirty-eighth Article, which declared the ritual of the Book to be 
 agreeable to the liberty of the Gospel. 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 173, where, curiously enough, the Editor inserts a mar- 
 ginal note, "changes in the Prayer Book"; the articles were, of 
 course, not yet a part of the Prayer Book. 
 
 * Cranmer, W(>rks^ ii., 141, 
 
286 Thomas Cranmer [1552- 
 
 At the first attempt to enforce the Articles, in May, 
 1553, there were many resisters* ; and from that 
 day to this the roll of dissidents has swelled. 
 That the Forty-two Articles of Religion or some- 
 thing like them should have been evolved was per- 
 haps inevitable, for every Church like every party 
 must have its platform ; nor need the Articles 
 have been a root of bitterness and the seed of strife 
 but for the attempt to make them a perpetual bond 
 to shackle the minds of men for ever. For, however 
 irksome a yoke they may appear, they were not in 
 1552 an illiberal interpretation of the English faith; 
 and there is this at least to be said for Cranmer and 
 his colleagues, that the Forty-two Articles were 
 more comprehensive and less dogmatic than any 
 subsequent edition of them. 
 
 "The broad soft touch of Cranmer," says Canon 
 Dixon, " lay upon them when they came from the fur- 
 nace ; a touch which was not retained wholly in the 
 recension which reduced them afterwards to Thirty- 
 Nine. Nearly half of them are such as are common to 
 all Christians ; but even in these the brevity of state- 
 ment and the avoidance of controversy is to be admired." ' 
 
 The first controversial article came not first but fifth 
 in place. Freedom of the Will was explicitly as- 
 serted, and Justification by Faith only was affirmed in 
 brief and moderate terms, while the much-contested 
 
 * Grey friars' Chron., p. 77. 
 
 * iii., 520, The literature of the Forty-two and Thirty-nine Arti- 
 cles, is of course, enormous. See Dix;on, iii., 520-527, and his x^i' 
 ^r^nces. 
 
1553] English Protestantism 287 
 
 Good Works were undefined. It was admitted that 
 General Councils might err, but contention was not 
 provoked by specifying the errors of other Churches. 
 With regard to the sacraments there was less circum- 
 spection, and here the Articles seem to be directed 
 against the decrees of the Council of Trent.' It was 
 no ordinance of Christ that the Eucharist should be 
 reserved, carried about, elevated, or adored ; " sacri- 
 fices of masses" are pronounced " figments and 
 dangerous impostures " ; and five of the mediaeval 
 sacraments are not maintained as such. On the 
 other hand, it is affirmed that the sacraments are 
 not merely marks of profession but effectual signs 
 of grace, and there was no article requiring com- 
 munion in both kinds. 
 
 For the crooked and disingenuous way in which 
 the Articles were presented to the nation the Arch- 
 bishop was not responsible. Their title-page bore 
 a legend to the effect that they had been " agreed 
 upon by the bishops and other learned and godly 
 men in the last Convocation at London " — a state- 
 ment which was inaccurate in itself and can only 
 have been designed to create a false impression.* 
 
 * These decrees were published at various times during the pro- 
 longed existence of the Council, some as early as 1547, much to the 
 disgust of Charles V. who was endeavouring to pacify the Lutherans 
 in Germany. See Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii., cp. viii. 
 
 2 A long array of writers from Heylyn (1661) to Hardwicke (1851) 
 have sought to invest these articles with some sort of synodical au- 
 thority, but until fresh evidence is produced, the arguments of Canon 
 Dixon (iii., 514 etsqq.) against this view must be regarded as conclu- 
 sive. They were published with Bishop Ponet's Catechism^ and at the 
 same time there were in existence Fifty-four Articles designed to 
 
288 Thomas Cranmer [1552^ 
 
 They had not as a matter of fact been submitted to 
 Convocation, and Cranmer, who had not been con- 
 sulted in the matter of this title, rebelled against its 
 dishonest implication. He complained to the Coun- 
 cil, and was told that all the title meant was that the 
 Articles were set forth in the time of Convocation,' 
 — an assertion which seems to have been no more 
 true than the other. They were, in fact, published 
 by the sole authority of the King ; and although 
 that was perhaps legally sufficient, it was more than 
 ever necessary to pretend an ecclesiastical sanction 
 when Northumberland's government was most ob- 
 noxious to the great majority of the nation and the 
 Church, and when the crisis of his fortunes was 
 obviously at hand. For the Articles did not receive 
 the royal signature until 12 June, 1553, and within 
 a month the King was dead. 
 
 It needed more than sleight of hand to carry 
 Northumberland through the storm which he him- 
 self had raised. His overbearing temper, unscru- 
 pulous ambition, and unprincipled government had 
 alienated the nation, the Parliament, the Church, 
 and even the Duke's own favourite preachers. 
 Knox afterwards spoke of him as "ruling the 
 roost by stout courage and proudness of stomach," 
 and claimed to have rebuked him to his face.' Dean 
 
 enforce unity of ritual, as the Forty-two were to enforce unity oi 
 doctrine ; these Fifty-four have entirely disappeared, leaving scarcely 
 a trace behind them. 
 
 ' Foxe, vi., 468. 
 
 'Knox's Faithful Admonition, I554» p. 53. "Was David, said 
 I, and Hezekiah abused by crafty counsellors and dissembling 
 hypocrites ? What wonder is it that a young and innocent king bQ 
 
1553] English Protestantism 289 
 
 Home wrote that he could not tell whether North- 
 umberland was or was not a dissembler in religion * • 
 and 
 
 "as for Latimer, Lever, Bradford, and Knox," wrote 
 Ridley, " their tongues were so sharp they ripped in so 
 deep in their galled backs to have purged them no doubt 
 of that filthy matter that was festered in their hearts of 
 insatiable covetousness, of filthy carnality and volup- 
 tuousness, of intolerable ambition and pride, of ungodly 
 loathsomeness to hear poor men's causes and to hear 
 God's words; that these men of all others, these magis- 
 trates then could never abide. Others there were, very 
 godly men, and well learned, that went about by the 
 wholesome plasters of God's Word, howbeit after a more 
 soft manner of handling the matter; but, alas! all sped 
 alike."" 
 
 Of these latter, no doubt, was Cranmer. In De- 
 cember, 1 55 1, he was suggested as a possible 
 Keeper of the Great Seal during the sickness 
 which Lord Chancellor Rich feigned in order to 
 
 deceived by crafty, covetous, wicked, and ungodly councillors? I 
 am greatly afraid that Ahithophel is councillor and that Judas bears 
 the purse and that Shebna is scribe, controller, and treasurer." 
 There is probably imagination as well as recollection here. 
 
 ^ Froude (v., 136) erroneously attributes this saying to Knox ; it is 
 recorded in Northumberland's letter to Cecil, 7 December, 1552 
 (Tytler, ii., 148), when the Duke protests that he had "for twenty 
 years stood to one kind of religion, in the same which I do now 
 profess"; less than a year later he explained that he had alwavs 
 been a Catholic at heart. 
 
 'Ridley, Works, ip. 59; Foxe, vii., 573. 
 
290 Thomas Cranmer [.55*- 
 
 escape liability for the Duke's illegal acts * ; but the 
 appointment was given to the more pliant Bishop 
 Goodrich, of Ely. In March, 1552, the Archbishop 
 provoked Northumberland's wrath by opposing 
 almost alone in the House of Lords an unconstitu- 
 tional bill for the deprivation of Tunstall'; and a 
 year later, in the last Parliament of Edward VI., he 
 again came into collision with the Duke when he 
 endeavoured to obtain the sanction of the legislature 
 for his Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, North- 
 umberland, with his usual arrogance, bade Cranmer 
 mind his own business, and threatened the Bishops 
 with dire consequences unless they stopped the pre- 
 sumption of preachers who had dared in their ser- 
 mons to reflect upon the deeds of their superiors. 
 
 So strong was the popular discontent that North- 
 umberland feared to meet a freely elected Parlia- 
 ment, and the House of Commons which gathered 
 in March, 1553, was little more than an assembly of 
 the Duke's nominees. To it he thought he might 
 safely address language such as Henry VIII. had 
 never employed. A year earlier he had threatened 
 to confiscate the liberties of the City of London, 
 because he thought prices too high; and now he 
 proposed to hector the members of Parliament in 
 
 * Cal. of Hatfield MSS., i,, 94; cf. England under Protector 
 Somerset^ p. 290 ; the measure to which Rich particularly objected 
 was a resolution of the Council that the King's signature alone was 
 sufficient to give documents validity ; Edward was only just fourteen, 
 and completely under Northumberland's influence. 
 
 ' Lord Stourton was the only peer who supported Cranmer in this 
 act of justice and independence, although there were fourteen 
 bishops present — another gurious instance of Cranmer's " servility." 
 
 I 
 
15531 English Protestanism 291 
 
 much the same tone. "We need not seem," he 
 wrote to the Lord Chamberlain,* " to make account 
 to the Commons of His Majesty's liberality and 
 bountifulness, in augmenting of his nobles or his 
 benevolence shewed to any of his good servants, 
 lest you might thereby make them wanton.'* He 
 had excellent reasons for concealing the extent to 
 which he and his friends had helped themselves 
 from the royal domain ; and with characteristic 
 meanness he attributed the financial deficit to the 
 administration of his rival, Somerset, who had been 
 dead twelve months and had fallen from power 
 three and a half years before.' Few of the bills 
 which he hoped to pass became law, and Parliament 
 was dismissed within a month of its meeting. 
 
 A subsidy was, indeed, granted after much de- 
 bate,' but it was only to be paid in two years, and 
 meanwhile the Duke attempted to fill the exchequer 
 by seizing what church plate he could find. The 
 excuse was that much of it had been rendered use- 
 less by the greater simplicity of ritual now per- 
 vading religion, and on 15 February, 1553, an order 
 was issued for the appointment of commissioners to 
 seize church goods in every shire.* In April and 
 May they went forth on their labour of pillage. 
 
 * Northumberland to Darcy (not to Northampton, as Froude says, 
 v., 127), on 14 January, 1553, Dojuestic State Papers^ Edward VI., 
 vol. xvi., No. 6 ; Tytler, ii., 161. 
 
 * The preamble to the Act for a subsidy, drawn up by North- 
 umberland, conveniently expatiates on the dead man's misdeeds t*o 
 cover those of the living. 
 
 ^See Commons' yonrnals, 7 and ri March, 1553. 
 ^Acts P. C, 1552-54, p. 265. 
 
^92 Thomas Cratimer [1552- 
 
 " All such goods," says a contemporary chronicler,' 
 "were taken away to the King's use; that is to say, 
 all the jewels of gold and silver, as crosses, candle- 
 sticks, censers, chalices, and all other gold and silver, 
 and ready money . . . and all copes and vest- 
 ments of cloth of gold, cloth of tissue, and cloth of 
 silver." Cranmer had sought to prevent this spolia- 
 tion, for a previous commission had been issued in 
 July, 1552,' and in the following November he had 
 been charged with neglecting the King's business, 
 because he made no haste in the matter. Now a 
 more potent safeguard intervened. On 6 July, I553» 
 Edward VI. died at Greenwich, and the triumph of 
 Mary checked a campaign which had been designed 
 to provide the sinews of war for her overthrow. 
 
 That Northumberland had long foreseen this event 
 scarcely admits of doubt. Years before Edward came 
 to the throne men had spoken of him as not likely to 
 live long : an attack of measles and small-pox in 
 April, 1552, further weakened an originally sickly 
 and consumptive frame: and in March, 1553, he was 
 too ill to go down to Westminster Palace to open 
 Parliament. The worse the health of Edward grew, 
 the wider spread the rumour that Northumberland 
 had designs on the crown for himself and his family : 
 for the most secretive of governments cannot long 
 keep its schemes completely hidden, and in May and 
 June the Tower of London was gradually filling with 
 prisoners accused of seditious language against the 
 Duke. His first nibble at royalty appears to have 
 
 * Wriothesley, Chron., ii., 83 ; Grey friars' Chron., p. 77. 
 ^Acts P. C, 1552-54, p. 219 ; Cranmer, Works ^ ii.» 440. 
 
I553J English Protestantism 293 
 
 been a proposal that his only unmarried son, Guilford 
 Dudley, should wed Lady Margaret Clifford, a grand- 
 daughter of Henry VIII. 's sister Mary, but she was 
 too distant in the line of succession ' and was passed 
 over to the Duke's brother, Andrew. Guilford 
 Dudley was reserved for Lady Jane Grey, of the 
 elder branch of the Suffolk line, for which Henry 
 VIII. had destined the crown if all his children died 
 without issue : Lady Jane's sister was at the same 
 time betrothed to Lord Herbert, son of Northum- 
 berland's ally, the Earl of Pembroke : and the Duke's 
 daughter was married to Lord Hastings, who might 
 also have claims on the throne as a descendant of Ed- 
 ward IV.'s brother Clarence. Northumberland's 
 design was to unite all interests and all claims against 
 those of Mary and Elizabeth who were to be ex- 
 cluded from the throne on the ground of their illegiti- 
 mate birth. 
 
 Lady Jane, he determined, should be the new 
 Queen, and his son, her husband, should have the 
 crown matrimonial, while he himself remained the 
 power behind the throne before which all men 
 
 Henry VII. 
 
 ince Arthur Henry VIII. Margaret= James IV. Mary = Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk 
 
 I 1 1 I ! 
 
 Mary Elizabeth Edward VI. James V. Frances= Henry Grey, £leanor= 
 
 Duke of Suffolk Earl of Cumberland 
 
 I 
 
 Mary Queen 
 of Scots 
 
 Lady Jane Grey 
 =Gunford Dudley 
 
 Margaret Clifford 
 =Agdrcw Dudley 
 
 Catherine 
 
 =1 Lord Herbert 
 
 =a Earl of Hertford 
 
294 Thomas Cranmer [155a- 
 
 should bow. Never did ambition o'erleap itself in 
 so hopelessly illogical, illegal, and unconstitutional a 
 fashion. Edward VI., he said, might bequeath the 
 crown by will as well as Henry VIII. ; but Henry had 
 been expressly given this power by Act of Parliament, 
 whereas Edward VI. had not. Moreover, the succes- 
 sion of Mary and Elizabeth did hot depend only on 
 Henry's will ; for another Act of Parliament had 
 provided that unless Henry willed otherwise, Mary 
 and Elizabeth should succeed, if Edward had no 
 issue. Henry did not will otherwise, and therefore 
 Mary's succession was doubly established by Act of 
 Parliament as well as by Henry's will. Edward had 
 no authority to set aside his father's will, still less to 
 override an Act of Parliament. But, putting Henry's 
 will and the Act of Parliament aside, and assuming 
 that Mary and Elizabeth were illegitimate, the next 
 claimant was not Lady Jane, but Mary Queen of 
 Scots. Eliminating her, Lady Jane was not even then 
 the heir, but her mother, Frances, Duchess of Suffolk. 
 Had the Duchess succeeded, the crown matrimonial 
 must have gone to the Duke of Suffolk, and not to 
 Northumberland's son, and so she was induced or 
 compelled to waive her claims in her daughter's 
 favour. 
 
 Northumberland's career had, indeed, landed him 
 in a quandary from which there was only a desperate 
 means of escape. His ambition had led him into so 
 many crimes and had made him so many enemies 
 that he was safe only so long as he controlled the 
 government and prevented the administration of 
 justice. He^ould expect no mercy when once his 
 
 J 
 
1553] English Protestantism ^95 
 
 foes were in a position to bring him to book ; and 
 the prospect drove him to make one last frantic 
 bid for life and for power. There were other tempta- 
 tions which led him to stake his all on a single throw. 
 No immediate interference need be feared from 
 abroad. The Emperor had too much on his hands 
 with war in France and Germany to come to the 
 help of his cousin Mary in England. France would 
 welcome the success of Northumberland's plot, for 
 Mary's accession would mean an alliance between 
 England and Spain, and possibly a repetition of the 
 disasters of 1521-25, when the same combination had 
 produced the rout of Pavia ; and Scotland was now 
 little more than a province of France. No woman, 
 moreover, had yet reigned over England, and the 
 popular impression was that none could — at least 
 unless she married and shared the throne with a man. 
 Lady Jane was, indeed, as much a woman as Mary; 
 but Mary would marry a foreigner, and reduce Eng- 
 land to dependence like that of the Netherlands on 
 Spain, or Hungary on Austria ; whereas Lady Jane 
 had married an Englishman. 
 
 These were not the arguments with which the 
 Duke won Edward's consent. " Consider also," he 
 said to the Council, "that God's cause, which is the 
 preferment of His word, and fear of Papists* entrance 
 hath been (as ye have here before always known) 
 laid the original ground, whereupon ye, even at the 
 first motion, granted your good wills and consents 
 thereunto."* These were the motives which ap- 
 pealed to the King. To him the Duke painted the 
 
 * Chronicle of Queen jfane, pp. 6-7. Holinshed, iii. , 1068. 
 
296 Thomas Cranmer [1552- 
 
 horrors of a Romanist reaction, the undoing of the 
 glorious work of the Reformation on which Edward 
 VI. prided himself more than any one else in the 
 kingdom. Should they rebuild the altars of Baal and 
 restore the idolatrous mass? Should the elect be 
 handed over to the minions of Antichrist ? The 
 dying King would not bequeath such woes to his 
 kingdom, and without any resistance he concurred in 
 Northumberland's scheme. The majority of the 
 Council, consisting as it did mainly of the Duke's 
 nominees, and ruled, as Chief-Justice Montague^ said, 
 by the Duke as he pleased, had no doubt already 
 consented ; and the judges and lawyers were now 
 called in to give Edward's "devise" a legal form. 
 On the 1 2th of June they were brought into the 
 young King's presence at Greenwich. They declared 
 the attempt to be treason. Northumberland, on 
 hearing of their decision, burst into the Council- 
 chamber trembling with rage and fury ; he called the 
 Chief- Justice a traitor to his face, and said he 
 would fight in his shirt with any man in that quarrel. 
 The lawyers departed in fear of their lives. On the 
 14th they were again summoned before the King. 
 With sharp words and angry countenance he de- 
 manded the reason for their disobedience to his 
 commands ; and as he upbraided them, the lords of 
 the Council muttered " Traitors " in their ears. 
 
 Terrorised by threats, the judges and lawyers 
 snatched at the excuse offered by the King's promise 
 
 ^ Montague's narrative is the authority for the following descrip- 
 tion ; it was first printed in Fuller's Church History^ Bk. VIII., 
 section 2» 
 
1553] English Protestantism 297 
 
 to call a Parliament to ratify whatever they did. 
 Edward, they considered, would not punish them for 
 a crime committed at his behest ; and no such offence 
 was known to the law as treason to a future sovereign. 
 Parliament would, if it met before Edward died, 
 enact their indemnity, while if they refused it might 
 attaint them of treason. They preferred the devil to 
 the deep sea, and sorrowfully did as Northumber- 
 land wished, receiving a formal commission and 
 pardon for their proceedings. On the 2ist the *' de- 
 vise" was completed; it was signed by the judges 
 and lawyers who drew it up, by the greater part of 
 the Council, and eventually by a hundred and one 
 prominent personages. 
 
 Cranmer's name stands first on the list, but he was 
 the last of the Council to sign.' To no one was 
 Northumberland less likely to confide his secrets; 
 
 ' Many pitfalls await even those students who use original docu- 
 ments, and one of them consists in attaching too much value to 
 signatures. Documents were not signed in the order in which the 
 signatures read, but spaces were left for the signatures which might 
 be added later but would in order of precedence stand first. Thus 
 Somerset's original signature appears to acts of the Privy Council 
 passed in London during his absence in Scotland, the explanation 
 being that a space was left for his name, and he signed up these acts 
 on his return ; this happened in Cranmer's case above. There is even 
 an instance in which signatures were added to a document- two 
 years after the document was drawn up, — two years after Gardiner's 
 committal to the Tower (30 June, 1548) St. John and Russell were 
 required to sign the order of committal. In the meantime they had 
 been created Earls of Wiltshire and Bedford, and they began to 
 sign under those styles ; then, recollecting that such were not their 
 legal signatures in 1548, they crossed them out, and signed as St. 
 John and Russell (see the present writer in English Hist. Kev,^ 
 xviii. 567-568). 
 
29^ Thomas Cranmer [1552- 
 
 " his heart," wrote Cranmer, " was not such toward 
 me (seeking long time my destruction) that he would 
 either trust me in such matter, or think that I would 
 be persuaded by him." * Cranmer had never taken a 
 very keen interest in politics, and, since the fall of 
 Somerset, had gradually withdrawn more and more 
 from secular affairs. He does not appear to have 
 attended the Council after the 8th of June, 1553, and 
 he knew nothing of the Duke*s intrigues. He was, 
 however, the first subject of the Crown, and his sig- 
 nature was regarded as necessary. So, " when the 
 whole council and chief judges had set their hands 
 to the King's will, last of all they sent for the Arch- 
 bishop, requiring him also to subscribe the will, as 
 they had done." ' Cranmer refused : such a deed 
 would be perjury, for he had sworn to Mary's suc- 
 cession. They, replied the Council, had consciences 
 as well as he ; yet they had subscribed the will, 
 although they were sworn to Mary ; he must not be 
 more particular. Cranmer held out and demanded 
 leave to speak with the King in private. This was 
 denied him : the Councillors feared he might turn the 
 King from his purpose, and Northampton and Darcy 
 
 ^ Works, ii., 444. 
 
 ' Narratives of the Ref,, p. 225. For a refutation of Cecil's claim 
 to have signed last, and for an exposure of the methods in which he 
 shifted responsibility from himself to his brother-in-law and other 
 intimates, see Tytler, ii., 202-206. The original authorities for this 
 extraordinary plot are for the most part printed in Tytler, in John 
 Gough Nichols's Literary Remains of Edward VI., pp 561-576, and 
 in Chronicle of Queen yane and Queen Mary (Camden Soc). Some 
 additional light is shown by the transcripts in the Record Office, 
 occasional fragments of which are printed in Froude. 
 
1553] English Protestantism 299 
 
 were sent to counteract his arguments. To their 
 presence Cranmer ascribed his failure; an4 his at- 
 tempt to dissuade Edward again brought down the 
 wrath of the Duke ; before the whole Council, North- 
 umberland declared that it became not the Arch- 
 bishop to speak to the King as he did. 
 
 The scene between King and Archbishop was 
 painful to both. Cranmer was not told of the judges* 
 scruples, but no doubt he used much the same argu- 
 ments. He made no impression ; Edward had all 
 the Tudor obstinacy. He informed the Archbishop 
 that the judges and his learned counsel were of 
 opinion that the Act of his father entailing the 
 crown could not be prejudicial to him, but that he 
 being in possession of the crown could leave it by 
 will. " This seemed very strange unto me," writes 
 Cranmer, "T)ut being the sentence of the judges and 
 other learned counsel in the laws of the realm (as 
 both he and his counsel informed me) methought it 
 became not me, being unlearned in the law, to stand 
 against my prince therein.** Still he demurred till 
 the King appealed to him not to " be more repug- 
 nant to his will than the rest of the Council were.** 
 This reflection on his loyalty in the mouth of a dying 
 King grieved Cranmer sore, and then at last he 
 yielded. 
 
 The die was now cast, and the Council set to 
 work to secure the Tower, raise troops to overawe 
 London, and man the fleet. On the 2nd of July, Dr. 
 Hodgkin, suffragan Bishop of Bedford, preaching at 
 St. Paul's, omitted to pray for the ladies Mary and 
 Elizabeth ; and on the following Sunday, Ridley, to 
 
300 
 
 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 [1552- 
 
 the disgust of his audience, pronounced them bas- 
 tards. The death of Edward on the 6th was concealed 
 in the hope of securing the person of Mary, by inveigl- 
 ing her to London. She came as far as Hoddesdon in 
 Hertfordshire, when on the 7th she received secret 
 news of her brother's death. Instantly she mounted 
 on horseback and rode full speed for Kenninghall in 
 Norfolk, whence she wrote to the Council, indig- 
 nantly asking why they had not proclaimed her 
 Queen. The stratagem had failed ; there was no 
 longer need for concealment, and on the loth the 
 heralds announced the accession of Queen Jane. To 
 Mary the Council wrote a letter, which they all, 
 including Cranmer, signed, declaring that she was 
 illegitimate and requiring her submission to her law- 
 ful sovereign. 
 
 For nine days and no more that ill-fated Queen 
 was to reign, and she never ruled. Scarcely had the 
 Council replied to Mary's letter when tidings arrived 
 that she had been joined by the Earls of Bath and 
 of Sussex and proclaimed Queen amid universal re- 
 joicings in various parts of the kingdom. On the 
 1 2th Northumberland took the field against her, amid 
 the blackest of omens ; " the people press to see us,** 
 he said to a comrade as he rode through Shoreditch, 
 " but not one saith * God speed.' '* Northumber- 
 land out of the way, the Council began to turn with 
 the tide. While the Duke advanced to Bury St. 
 Edmunds, and then, finding that no succours reached 
 him, while Mary's forces had swollen to thirty thou- 
 sand men, fell back upon Cambridge, his friends and 
 victims in I^ondon perceived that the ^ame was up. 
 
LADY JANE GREY. 
 fROM THE PICTURE NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF EARL SPENCER AT ALTHORPE. BY PERMISSION OF 
 
 LORD SPENCER. 
 
15533 English Protestantism 301 
 
 On the 19th they proclaimed Queen Mary. " Great 
 was the triumph here in London," writes an eye- 
 witness ; " for my time I never saw the like, and by 
 the report of others the like was never seen. The 
 number of caps that were thrown up at the procla- 
 mation were not to be told. ... I myself saw money 
 was thrown out at windows for joy. The bonfires 
 were without number, and what with shouting and 
 crying of the people, and ringing of the bells, there 
 could no one almost hear what another said, besides 
 banquetings and singing in the street for joy.*' 
 
 Yet this was Protestant London, where three 
 weeks later an attempt to say mass caused a riot ; 
 and of the thirty thousand who flocked to Mary's 
 standard in Norfolk, most came from East Anglia, 
 next to London the most Protestant part of the 
 kingdom. The Catholic parts of the realm had no 
 time to make their voice heard ; it was Protestants 
 who declared against Jane and bore Mary in triumph 
 to her throne, and one of them, strange to say, 
 thought the Gospel would be plucked away unless 
 Queen Mary succeeded ! Indeed it was no question 
 between the new and the old religion ; it was not for 
 the mass nor the Pope that men threw up their caps 
 and lost their ears in the pillory. The sentiment of 
 legality, and affection for the Tudor family con- 
 tributed to the result ; but neither stirred the people 
 to the depths. The passion that moved them was 
 detestation of the Duke ; no ruler of England has 
 been more bitterly or more deservedly hated. The 
 " great devil," " a cruel Pharaoh," " that false Duke," 
 **the ragged bear most rank/' "with whonri i§ 
 
302 Thomas Cranmer [1552-1553] 
 
 neither mercy, pity, nor compassion," are some of 
 the epithets hurled at him in a Protestant tract 
 printed in London on 13th of July when his triumph 
 was still quite possible. His own daughter-in-law, 
 Lady Jane Grey, avowed that he was ** hated and 
 evil spoken of by the commons," and that *' his life 
 was odious to all men." If he succeeded, they said, 
 he will "pull and poll us, spoil us, and utterly 
 destroy us, and bring us in great calamities and 
 miseries." His failure, writes another contemporary, 
 was due "partly to the right of .Queen Mary's title, 
 and partly to the malice that the people bore him, 
 as well for the death of the Duke of Somerset and 
 other cruelty by him used." And in more measured 
 terms the French ambassador ascribed Mary's victory 
 less to love for her than to the great hatred which 
 people felt for the Duke who had sought to rule by 
 a reign of terror. That the cause of the Reforma- 
 tion in England was once linked with his fate was 
 perhaps the greatest misfortune that ever attended 
 its history, for that association was a stain which 
 could only be cleansed in the blood of the Marian 
 martyrs. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 cranmer's character and private life 
 
 THE first Lord Houghton, who took a dilettante 
 interest in the Tractarian movement and a 
 reflected interest in the Anglican Reformation, has 
 described Cranmer as ** the most mysterious person- 
 age," and, next to Henry VHL, " the most influential 
 factor " in the history of that convulsion/ Cranmer's 
 influence on the Reformation is an obvious fact, but 
 the mystery of his character disappears before a 
 closer study of his environment. In reality his was 
 one of the simplest of characters, and the ambiguities 
 which obscure his career arise not from the com- 
 plexity of his mind but from the contrasts and con- 
 tradictions of the age in which he lived. It was the 
 age of the Renaissance as well as of the Reformation, 
 of the New Monarchy and State-despotism as well 
 as of revolt against established forms of belief. 
 New forces in literature, commerce, art, religion, and 
 politics jostled one another and produced many 
 strange and startling combinations ; Calvinists and 
 Jesuits might join in preaching tyrannicide while other 
 
 ' Prefatory note to Bishop Cranmer's Recantacyons , London 
 1885. 
 
 21 
 
304 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 papists and Protestants proclaimed the sanctity of 
 kings. There were many cross-currents in that 
 turbulent stream, and it was not possible for man to 
 steer a straight and unvarying course. Yet Cran- 
 mer, although like a swimmer he was carried hither 
 and thither and buffeted by the waves, consistently 
 set his face in the same direction. The stream in 
 the main was with him, but when caught in the 
 eddies he struggled against them ; and if during one 
 brief space of a month or more his courage gave 
 way, he did no worse than the stubborn Queen 
 Mary herself, who in similar time of stress subscribed 
 to terms at least as humiliating * as any contained in 
 Cranmer's recantations. 
 
 Apart from his recantations, the charges against 
 him relate to his conduct as Archbishop, in which 
 capacity he did many things, it is said, at variance 
 with his private convictions. He continued to say 
 mass for instance, under Henry VHL, long after he 
 had ceased to believe in the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation.' The fact does not admit of doubt, and 
 
 ^ In 1536 when she acknowledged that the marriage between Henry 
 VIII. and her mother was "by God's law and man's law incestuous 
 and unlawful," and " utterly refused the Bishop of Rome's pretended 
 authority." Like Cranmer's recantations, these phrases, were of 
 course, dictated to Mary and reflect more discredit upon the dictator 
 than upon the subscriber. 
 
 ^Pocock in Troubles Connected with the Prayer-Book (Pref., p. v.) 
 after some other contemptuous remarks about the Archbishop, says 
 "for those who want to form an estimate of his character, without 
 the trouble of wading through the history of the Reformation, it will 
 be sufficient to give a reference to Lord Macaulay's account of him in 
 his review of Hallam's Constitutional History of England or to an 
 article in the Saturday Review for July 25, 1868." It is curious 
 
Character and Private Life 305 
 
 the offence was perhaps not less than that of reciting 
 the Athanasian creed or subscribing the Thirty-nine 
 Articles after one's faith has outgrown the bounds of 
 these formularies. But Cranmer's official position 
 and the constitutional views of his age afford a justi- 
 fication which cannot be pleaded to-day by private 
 persons. Voluntary resignation of an office on the 
 ground that the holder's conscience could not put 
 up with its duties was then a thing unknown. Men 
 believed with a fervour never since equalled that next 
 to the service of God they were created to serve the 
 State, while the claims of individual conscience were 
 as dust in the balance. Unless the King desired to 
 relieve a minister of office, that minister was bound 
 to retain it ; he had little voice in the matter himself. 
 Ministers then, like civil servants of to-day, had to 
 carry out the orders of Government without any 
 regard to their own predilections. They were no 
 more allowed to relinquish an office of State or a 
 
 to find a High Churchman appealing to Macaulay's verdict on a 
 churchman. His prejudices, his "hectoring sentences and his 
 rough pistolling ways," as Mr. John Morley calls them, ren- 
 der his account of Cranmer the veriest travesty, and admirably 
 illustrate Mr. Morley 's saying that "what we find in Macaulay 
 is that quality which the French call brutal " (Morley, Critical 
 Miscellanies, i., 280, 287). Macaulay's attacks delighted the ex- 
 treme Tractarians ; " Why," wrote Hurrell Froude in 1835," do you 
 praise Ridley ? Do you know sufficient good about him to counterbal- 
 ance the fact that he was the associate of Cranmer, Peter Martyr, 
 and Bucer ? N. B. How beautifully the Edinburgh Review has 
 shown up Luther, Melanchthon, and Co.! What good genius has 
 possessed them to do our dirty work ? " {Remains of R. H. Froude, 
 pp. 393-394). A few days before he had written," I hate the Refor- 
 mation and the Reformers more and more" (/3., p. 389). 
 
3o6 
 
 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 seat in the House of Commons * than a man would 
 to-day be permitted to resign his duty to serve on a 
 jury or his obligation to pay rates and taxes. Hence 
 we find the same men in office under Henry VIII. 
 and Edward VI., under Mary and Elizabeth. Even 
 so upright a man as Sir Thomas More remained 
 Lord Chancellor while Henry was pushing his divorce 
 from Catherine of Aragon — a measure which More 
 abhorred. The principle was Hkewise applied to the 
 Church when the King became its Supreme Head ; 
 Bishops, whether Catholic or Protestant, give effect 
 to legislation whatever its character. Heath, after- 
 wards Mary's Chancellor, Tunstall, Day, Thirlby, and 
 other Catholics administered the First Act of Uni- 
 formity ; they might be deprived or forced to resign, 
 but to resign of their own free will would have 
 been considered a dereliction of duty to themselves 
 and to their King. Their action involved at least as 
 great a sacrifice of conscience as Cranmer was re- 
 quired to make under Henry VIII., and he held 
 higher views than they did of the duty of subjects to 
 their King. 
 
 Even from modern ideas it does not follow that 
 Cranmer was wrong. For to maintain that a public 
 man is to take immediate action on every conviction 
 
 * As is so often the case, the form of this obligation has survived, 
 though its spirit has departed. Members of Parliament can only 
 " resign " by applying for a nominal office of profit under the Crown, 
 the grant of which ipso facto makes their seat void. If the Govern- 
 ment declined to grant this office no member could retire. In the 
 sixteenth century even a peer could not absent himself from Par- 
 liament without royal licence ; then a seat in the House of Lords in- 
 volved duties as well as privileges. 
 
Character and Private Life 307 
 
 is to set up a standard which would make all rule 
 impossible. Every Government and especially a re- 
 forming government, whether it be an individual or 
 a committee, must perforce wear a mask in public 
 behind which it gradually forms its own convictions ; 
 and it must wear this mask not merely until such 
 convictions are formed but until the time has come 
 for attempting to carry them out. This wearing a 
 mask may seem hypocrisy in religion, but it is a ne- 
 cessary part of the price which a Church has to pay for 
 connection with the State ; and even in the freest of 
 Churches it cannot be completely discarded. More- 
 over, if Cranmer could have resigned, the step would 
 have made things worse for the cause of Reform ; and 
 he chose the better part when he remained at his 
 post and successfully laboured to change a system of 
 which he disapproved. The argument against him 
 is an instance of that bondage to logic and abstract 
 ideas which often unfits men of the pen to deal with 
 public affairs. 
 
 A similar failure to realise the difficulties of prac- 
 tical administration has led to another misconception 
 in treating Cranmer's career and that of his associates. 
 It has been truly remarked that the knowledge of 
 after events has spoiled the writing of history. To 
 the man in the study, with a few recorded facts 
 before him, things seem vastly plainer and simpler 
 than they do to the ruler who has to estimate the 
 weight of a number of forces with nothing but his 
 own insight and very imperfect knowledge to guide 
 him. It is easier to condemn a statesman for trust- 
 ing a force that failed than to foretell its failure 
 
3o8 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 beforehand ; and the man of books is apt to forget 
 that to every man of affairs the future is a blank and 
 horrible darkness, and that, however much he looks 
 before he leaps, he peers into the night. He goes 
 farthest, said Oliver Cromwell, who knows not 
 whither he goes; and the great Napoleon warned 
 his subordinates against taking fancy pictures and 
 plans as guides in a country that was really unknown. 
 Never can the future have seemed more dim and 
 uncertain than it did to the men who guided the 
 Reformation, for they were travelling in a country 
 unknown and unlike any that man had traversed be- 
 fore ; and to assume that they had a clear and defi- 
 nite goal before their eyes and a straight and easy 
 path at their feet is to sterilise all the teaching of 
 history. Yet this is the way in which Cranmer has 
 sometimes been treated ; he is represented as having 
 under Henry VHI. not merely the First Book of 
 Common Prayer in his mind's eye, but the Second, 
 and even a third, of which time forbade the produc- 
 tion ; and then he is accused of dissembling, because 
 he did not resign or secure the immediate adoption 
 of reforms which had not yet entered his head. In 
 truth it would be as reasonable to accuse the Amer- 
 icans of dissimulation in 1765 because they had not 
 published the Declaration of Independence before 
 they resisted the Stamp Act. Nations and statesmen 
 do not as a rule jump to conclusions, but reach them 
 under the slow and painful pressure of circumstances. 
 Convictions thus obtained are lasting ; and the fact 
 that Cranmer's work has stood the test of time 
 almost unchanged is astonishing evidence of the 
 
Character and Private Life 309 
 
 fidelity with which he reflected the deepest feelings 
 of the English people. Unless he had struck real 
 chords in English hearts, his Prayer Book would not 
 be in the mouths of millions to-day. 
 
 This quality, of course, had its defects, and Cranmer 
 represented some of the worse as well as the better 
 views of the age. He had not abandoned the theory 
 that heresy was an offence to be purged in the fire. 
 He took an official part in the condemnation of 
 heretics, and in his Reformatio Legum Ecclesias- 
 ticaruni prescribed for the offence all the penalties 
 known in the Middle Ages. At the same time no one 
 was more loath to draw the sword than Cranmer. The 
 ** importunity for blood " with which he is charged in 
 the case of John Bocher, has been disproved ; and 
 the gentleness of his nature made him a hater of rig- 
 our and cruelty. His lenience towards the Romanists 
 was often criticised by his friends. *' What," he 
 answered, " will ye have a man do to him that is not 
 yet come to the knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, 
 nor peradventure as yet called, and whose vocation is 
 to me uncertain ? 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 way to allure men to embrace 
 the doctrine of the Gospel.'" On another occasion 
 Edward Underbill, the " Hot Gospeller " and servant 
 of Edward VI., brought before him the Catholic Vicar 
 of Stepney " for that he disturbed the preachers in 
 his church, causing the bells to be rung when they 
 were at the sermon, and sometimes began to sing in 
 
 ^ Narratives ^ p. 246. 
 
3IO Thomas Cranmer 
 
 the choir before the sermon was half done, and some- 
 times challenged the preacher in the pulpit." Cran- 
 mer, he says, 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, * we 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 others. If ever it come to their turn, they will 
 show you no such favour.* * Well,* said he, * if God 
 so provide, we must abide it.* * Surely,* said I, * God 
 will never con you thanks for this, but rather take 
 the sword from such as will not use it upon His 
 enemies.' " * 
 
 More characteristic of the age and more repug- 
 nant to modern ideas was the respect which Cranmer 
 paid to the State and the King. "This is mine 
 opinion and sentence at this present,'* he once wrote 
 to Henry VHL, "which nevertheless I do not 
 temerariously define, but do remit the judgement 
 thereof wholly unto your Majesty."' That Cran- 
 mer should have expressed such a sentiment is now 
 pronounced to be strange and almost incredible ; but 
 it is only strange to those who have failed to read 
 the signs of that time, and Cranmer, as usual, only 
 
 ^Narratives, p. 157. 
 
 'Burnet, iv., 494 ; Jenkyns, ii., 103. Bonner's answer, which of 
 course has been suppressed, is quite as submissive as Cranmer's ; " ita 
 mihi pro hoc tempore dicendum videtur salvo judicio melius sen- 
 tieniis, cui me prompte et humiliter subjicio.^* Gardiner was abroad 
 at the time ; but he complied with all Henry's humours and only 
 resisted the comparatively weak government of Edward VI. 
 
Character and Private Life 311 
 
 blurted out a thought which possessed all minds and 
 admitted a practice which all pursued. His attitude 
 towards the State was not an idiosyncrasy, but a 
 common feature, nor was it merely due to the weak 
 man's fear of the strong ; it had in his case a logical 
 and conscientious basis, which can scarcely be alleged 
 for a similar compliance on the part of Bonner and 
 Gardiner. The Renaissance was a many-sided move- 
 ment, some of the aspects of which have been unduly 
 neglected. It not only turned men's attention back 
 to the literature and art and religion of classical 
 times, but to the political theory of the primitive 
 Church ; and of that political theory Cranmer's views 
 were an exact reproduction. To St. Paul the " pow- 
 ers that be " were of divine ordination, and dis- 
 obedience was not so much a political offence against 
 man as it was a sin against God. St. Peter proclaimed 
 the Christian's duty of submission "to every ordi- 
 nance of man," and even in the seventh century 
 Gregory the Great described himself as " dust and a 
 worm" before the Csesar at Constantinople.* These 
 views were the natural outcome of the political con- 
 ditions of imperial Rome * ; they disappeared before 
 
 * Dunning, Political Theories, 1902, p. 159. 
 
 * Cf. A. J. Carlyle, Mediceval Political Theory in the West, 1903, 
 i., 210. " In some of the Fathers this conception is developed into a 
 theory that the person and the authority of the ruler is so sacred 
 that disobedience to him or resistance of his commands is equivalent 
 to disobedience and resistance of God Himself. By some of the 
 Fathers the divine authority of the State is transferred whole and 
 entire to the particular ruler." These phrases accurately describe 
 the political theory of the Anglican and Lutheran Reformers of the 
 sixteenth century. 
 
312 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 the growing influence of the Church and before the 
 onslaughts of the barbarians who made as great 
 inroads upon Roman political theory as they did 
 upon Roman territory. There was little room for 
 such views in polities governed by Teutonic com- 
 mon law or feudal principles ; and the increasing 
 power of the Church imposed another check upon 
 the despotism of the State. But after the Renais- 
 sance, when men's eyes had been opened to the 
 scientific precision of Roman law, to the beauty of 
 classical literature, and to the primitive purity of the 
 Chu^rch, Teutonic common law and feudal theory 
 seemed as barbarous as scholastic theology and me- 
 diaeval Latinity ; and the decadence of the Church 
 weakened the only possible rival of the *' New Mon- 
 archy." The jurisdiction of the Pope was regarded 
 as a "usurped " authority,^ and the State stood forth 
 as the one great divine institution. Hence the pro- 
 found veneration paid to its behests, and hence in 
 comparison the view which Cranmer took of the 
 Church appears to be low. It was not so much that 
 he took a low view of the Church as that he took a 
 high vie w of the State ; not so much that he wanted 
 
 ^ The acceptance of the theory of divine institution for the ' ' powers 
 that be " led to controversial dilemmas ; for on that theory an author- 
 ity once legitimate must be always legitimate, and it could never be 
 abolished on such grounds as that it had ceased to perform its proper 
 functions. Hence when Reformers wished to abolish an authority 
 they were driven to maintain that it had always been a " usurped " 
 authority ; and this, of course, is always the reason put forward for 
 the abolition of the Roman jurisdiction, and not the real and his- 
 torical reasons. Yet the primacy of Rome was as legitimate and 
 natural a development as the Royal Supremacy ; the on© was no 
 more usurped than the other. 
 
Character and Private Life 3^3 
 
 to make the Church secular as to make the State 
 religious. Papal theorists had been apt to regard 
 the State as the work and sphere of the Devil, and 
 the Church as the only institution and temple of God. 
 Cranmer saw God in the State as well as in the Church, 
 and thought that He manifested Himself in every 
 good work of man and not merely in religious observ- 
 ances. He would have agreed with Burke's words, 
 that the State ** is not a partnership in things sub- 
 servient only to the gross animal existence of a tempo- 
 rary and perishable nature," but ** a partnership in all 
 science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every 
 virtue, and in all perfection." He would have added 
 *' a partnership in all religion and in all godliness." 
 
 That ideal, impressive though it was, commands 
 to-day less sympathy than other of Cranmer's men- 
 tal traits. If his humility, when exhibited in rela- 
 tion to the King, can be interpreted as subserviency, 
 it can hardly be regarded as anything but a Christ- 
 ian virtue when made a rule of life by an Archbishop 
 of the sixteenth century. It was by example as 
 well as by precept, in conduct as well as in doctrine, 
 that Cranmer enjoined a return to the greater sim- 
 plicity of the age of the Fathers. He alone of 
 Henry's Court stood aloof from the scramble for 
 wealth and the struggle for power, and after Wolsey 
 it was well to show that a prelate could eschew 
 pride, ambition, and vainglory. Wolsey exacted ' a 
 
 'See, for example, Venetian Calendar, 1527, p. 84, where it is 
 related how Wolsey's attendants had to wait on him on their knees 
 as he sat at table, while the King of France " dispensed with such 
 exaggerated ceremonies." 
 
314 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 deference beyond that accustomed to princes; he 
 was believed by Campeggio in 1528 to stand between 
 the Church and her ruin,' but it may be doubted 
 whether the Church would not have been wiser to 
 rely on examples like Cranmer*s. He has been re- 
 proached with officiating in St. Paul's " with no vest- 
 ment, nor mitre, nor cross," ' and these things were 
 indeed indifferent to him. 
 
 ** For," he wrote, " I pray God never to be merciful 
 to 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 be for 
 the setting forth of God's word and will. . . . Even 
 at the beginning first of Christ's profession, Diotrephes 
 desired gerere primatum in ecclesia, as saith Saint John in 
 his last epistle ; 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 Christi ; so that we took 
 not upon us the name vainly, but were so even indeed, 
 so that we might order our dioceses 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 saith : Litems nostra et signa apostola- 
 tus nostri vos estis." * 
 
 To this profession Cranmer strove to be faithful 
 throughout ; and the simplicity of his life was the 
 
 * Z. and P., iv., 4898. 'Dixon, iii., 492, n. ' Works^ ii., 305. 
 
Character and Private Life 3^5 
 
 outward sign of the simplicity of his character. He 
 amassed no wealth and received no grants from the 
 King except one which Dr. Butts solicited for him 
 without the Archbishop's knowledge ; and in 1 552 he 
 told Cecil he had more trouble to live as Archbishop 
 than he had when a scholar at Cambridge ; he feared 
 " stark beggary '* more than the temptations of 
 wealth.* Greedy courtiers, anxious to see episcopal 
 lands go the way of monastic endowments, accused 
 him of avarice ; they earned for their pains a sting- 
 ing rebuke from Henry VHI.,' and were only par- 
 doned through the intercession which Cranmer was 
 always happy to make on behalf of his personal ene- 
 mies. On one occasion Cromwell had up a priest 
 from the country for slandering Cranmer as an ig- 
 norant ostler. The Archbishop refused to have him 
 punished ; the priest, he told Cromwell, was not the 
 first by five hundred who had called him such, and 
 he gently brought the man to a better mind by 
 showing him his own ignorance, and then sent him 
 home in peace.' There was no trace of rancour in 
 Cranmer ; his friends spoke of his " incredible sweet- 
 ness of manners," his enemies commended his cour- 
 tesy,* and his forgiving disposition became a proverb. 
 " Do my Lord of Canterbury a shrewd {i. e,y an evil) 
 
 ^ Works, ii., 437. 
 
 ' The story is told in Narratives, pp. 260-263. Henry's declara- 
 tion on this occasion is said by Morice to have prevented the in- 
 troduction into Parliament of several bills for the confiscation of 
 bishoprics which had been prepared. It is a mistake to suppose 
 that all Church spoliation was due to the King. 
 
 * Narratives, pp. 270-272. 
 
 * Bishop Cranmer' s Recantacyons, p. 3. 
 
3i6 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 turn," writes Shakespeare, " and he is your friend 
 for ever." ' '' My Lord," said Heath to the Arch- 
 bishop one day, " I now know how to win all things 
 at your hand well enough." *' How so?" asked 
 Cranmer. ** Marry," replied Heath, " I perceive 
 that I must first attempt to do unto you some nota- 
 ble displeasure, and then by a little relenting obtain 
 of you what I can desire." Cranmer was a little 
 nettled at this dissection of his character. "You 
 may be deceived," he said to Heath, " yet I may 
 not alter my mind and accustomed condition, as 
 some would have me do."' 
 
 Therein at least Cranmer read himself aright ; he 
 was utterly incapable of assuming that sphinx-like 
 impenetrability which Henry VHI. and Elizabeth, 
 not to speak of later statesmen, found so valuable 
 an asset. He did not exactly wear his heart on his 
 sleeve, for Morice tells us that he could put on a 
 cheerful countenance when really sick at heart ; but 
 this reserve broke down in intimate circles, and few 
 were misled. In him there was no guile ; his varia- 
 tions were not calculated, but the faithful reflex 
 
 1 Shakespeare's Henry VIII., Act V., Scene ii. The King says : 
 
 " The common voice, I see, is verified 
 Of thee, vi^hich says thus, ' Do my Lord of Canterbury 
 A shrewd turn, and he is your friend for ever.' " 
 
 ' Narratives, pp. 245-246 : " This singular freedom from every 
 particle of rancour, and literal fulfilment of the precept to forget 
 and forgive seemed so incredible to Macaulay, who was a Scotch- 
 man by descent and a critic by profession, that he has distorted 
 Cranmer's placable disposition into a reproach." — Chester Waters, 
 Chesters of Chicheley, p. 386. 
 
 k 
 
Character and Private Life 317 
 
 of developing convictions. He was never a victim 
 of that infirmity which leads men to pretend that 
 they have always held the same inflexible principles. 
 ** This I confess of myself/' he wrote in his published 
 answer to Dr. Richard Smith, " that ... I was 
 in that error of the real presence, as I was many 
 years past in divers other errors, as that of transub- 
 stantiation, of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priests 
 in the mass, of pilgrimages, purgatory, and many 
 other superstitions and errors that came from Rome. 
 . . . For the which, and other mine offences in 
 youth I do daily pray unto God for mercy and par- 
 don, saying Delicta juventutis mece et ignorantias 
 meas ne meminerisy Doniine. Good Lord, remember 
 not mine ignorances and offences of my youth ." * 
 
 Assuredly Cranmer spared no pains to remedy the 
 "ignorances" of his youth. ** Commonly," says 
 Morice, " 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 Cambridge." ' He was one of the most learned 
 theologians of his age ; and when it was hinted to 
 Ridley that he and not Cranmer was really the 
 author of the answer to Gardiner on the Eucharist, 
 Ridley replied that it was beyond his capacity to 
 write such a book and that Cranmer " passed him no 
 less than the learned master his young scholar." ' 
 His theological learning was one of his titles to 
 Henry's favour. " For at all times when the King's 
 Majesty would be resolved in any doubt or question 
 he would but send word to my Lord overnight, and 
 
 ' Works y i,, 374. '^Narratives, p. 250. ' Foxe, vi., 436. 
 
31 8 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 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 altogether, would advise the King more in one 
 day than all his learned men could do in a month." * 
 Indisputable evidence of Cranmer's theological 
 attainments is afforded not merely by the testimony 
 of friends and foes, but by the extent of his library, 
 his writings and his commonplace books.' His collec- 
 
 * Narratives, p. 249. 
 
 * These commonplace books are now among the Royal MSS. in 
 the British Museum (7 B., xi. and xii.) ; they are mostly in Morice's 
 hand, with marginal notes, etc., in Cranmer's. These volumes seem 
 to have been secured by Dr. Stephen Nevinson, Parker's commis- 
 sary (Canon Mason styles him "a certain Dr. Nevison"; he was 
 first cousin to Cranmer's commissary, Dr. Christopher Nevinson, 
 who died in 1551, cf. D. N. B., xl., 308, and L. and P., 1543, ii., 
 p. 330). From him Cecil vainly attempted to obtain them in 1563 
 (see Parker Correspondence, pp. 180-195, 319) ; they belonged in 
 1659 to Mr. John Theyer of Cooper's Hill, and in the reign of 
 Queen Anne were purchased for the royal collection by Bishop 
 Beveridge for ;^50 (Casley, Cat. of Royal MSS., p. 125). Six or 
 seven other volumes were discovered in 1563 in the possession of 
 John Herd, Prebendary of Lincoln (Le Neve, Fasti, ii. , 162 ; Cooper, 
 AthencB Cantab., ii., 40) ; these seem to have been lost, as do others, 
 for nothing is known of the volumes "about the serious affairs of 
 the Prince and the realm committed unto Bishop Crannjier by 
 Henry VIII. and Edward VI.," which Morice says he was pain- 
 fully occupied in writing for twenty years {Lansdowne MS., cviii., 
 
Character and Private Life 319 
 
 tion of books was broken up at his death, but no fewer 
 than three hundred and fifty printed books and a hun- 
 dred manuscripts have been traced ; his Hbrary was 
 more extensive and vastly more valuable and select 
 than that of Cambridge University when Cranmer was 
 there as an undergraduate. Roger Ascham says he 
 found among Cranmer's books " many authors which 
 the two universities could not furnish " ' ; and they 
 were no mere ornaments or furniture of his rooms, 
 but furniture of his mind. There were two Hebrew 
 Bibles, and one of them is interleaved with a Latin 
 translation made by Cranmer with his own hand. 
 There was an almost complete set of the Greek and 
 Latin Fathers and the best of the mediaeval school- 
 men. With modern writers such as Erasmus he 
 was, as a matter of course, familiar ; ** I have seen," he 
 writes in 1537, "almost everything that has been 
 written and published either by CEcolampadius or 
 by Zwinglius," ' and with the writings of Luther and 
 Melanchthon he was yet more conversant. His com- 
 monplace books in the British Museum Library also 
 contain extracts from Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Brenz, 
 
 8). The bulk of Cranmer's library was secured by Lord Arundel, 
 Queen Mary's Steward of the Household ; he bequeathed the 
 volumes to his son-in-law, Lord Lumley, on whose death in 1609 
 they were bought by Prince Henry, the eldest son of James I. Sev- 
 eral of them bear the signatures Tho.Cantuariensis, Arundel, Lum- 
 ley. Most of the volumes which have been traced are now in the 
 British Museum, a few are at Oxford and at Cambridge, and others 
 are in private hands. (See Ed. Burbidge, Liturgies and Offices of 
 the Church, 1885, Pref., pp. xvii.-xxxii., where a list is given.) 
 
 ^Todd, Cranmer, ii., 525. 
 
 ' Works, ii., 344; 
 
320 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 Eck, and Pirckheimer — divines of all shades of opin- 
 ion, ancient and modern, Latin and Greek. Latin, 
 of course, he spoke and wrote with ease ; Hebrew we 
 know that he read, from his translation of the He- 
 brew Bible ; Greek he may have acquired after he 
 left Cambridge, and the discovery that eidooXov, 
 whence came idolatry, meant the same as imago^ 
 made a great impression on his mind. When Rob- 
 ert Estienne published his great Greek Testament 
 at Paris in 1550,* Cranmer made haste to acquire 
 this Editio regia, as it was called, and used it with 
 effect against Gardiner in his work on the Eucharist, 
 published in 155 1.' Besides these three ancient 
 tongues, all indispensable to a Reformer whose one 
 test of truth was the Scriptures, Cranmer knew 
 French and Italian. He translated Italian news- 
 letters into English for Henry VIII. *s benefit,' and 
 it is scarcely possible that he could have wooed 
 Osiander's German niece without some knowledge 
 of the German tongue. 
 
 A lover of learning himself, Cranmer was a patron 
 of learning in others. He continued Warham*s 
 beneficence to Erasmus, and procured a living and 
 a canonry for John Leland, one of the greatest of 
 English antiquaries. Erasmus repaid him with a 
 letter and Leland with one of his well-known enco-i 
 miums in verse, in which he styles the Archbishop 
 eximium decus piorum,^ Through him John Sleidan, 
 
 * Cf. Cambridge Modern History^ i., 604. 
 
 2 Works ^ i., 24. ^ Ibid., ii., 332. 
 
 * It is printed in Strype, Cranmer, i., 599; cf. Diet. Nat. Biogr,^, 
 xxxiii,, 14 (the canonry at Oxford, for which no date is there given, 
 was conferred on Leland on 26 March, 1543). 
 
LLl 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 
 -1 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 s 
 
 Q. 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 cc 
 
 z 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 I 
 
 
 o 
 
 '" 
 
 cc 
 
 K 
 
 3 
 I 
 
 < 
 111 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 Ul 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 1- 
 
 1- 
 
 i- 
 
 u 
 
 3 
 
 CQ 
 
 o 
 
Character and Private Life 321 
 
 the German historian,* was granted a pension by Ed- 
 ward VI.; and Tremellius, the Hebraist, described 
 Lambeth under Cranmer's rule, as " a house of public 
 entertainment to all people of learning and piety." * 
 No foreign divine of note came to England in Ed- 
 ward VI. 's reign without being lodged under Cran- 
 mer's roof until established elsewhere. 
 
 Nor was his patronage and zeal for education lim- 
 ited to eminent scholars; he would extend the benefits 
 of education to every child of ability, whether he were 
 a ploughman's son or a peer's. When the Cathedral 
 school at Canterbury was being refounded, some of his 
 fellow commissioners * maintained that none but gen- 
 tlemen's sons should be admitted. Cranmer de- 
 nounced the idea; "for," said he, "poor men's 
 children are many times indued with more singular 
 gifts of nature, which are also the gifts of God, as 
 with eloquence, memory, apt pronunciation, sobriety, 
 with such like, and also commonly more given to 
 apply their study than is the gentleman's son, deli- 
 cately educated." The ploughman's son, it was 
 argued, should follow the plough ; only gentlemen's 
 sons were meet to " have the knowledge of govern- 
 ment and rule in the commonwealth " : there was as 
 much need of ploughmen as of other classes, " and all 
 sorts of men may not go to school." " I grant," 
 
 * His real name was Johann Philipson ; cf. Baumgarten Ueber 
 Sieidafi's Leben^ Strassburg, 1878, and SleidarHs Briefwechsely 
 Strassburg, 1881. 
 
 ' Todd, Cranmer^ ii., 207; Cooper, Athence, i., 425. 
 
 ' The chief of them was Sir Richard Rich who, when he founded 
 Felsted School in Essex, perhaps remembered Cranmer's words. 
 
322 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 replied Cranmer, " much of your meaning herein, as 
 needful to a commonwealth ; but yet utterly to ex- 
 clude the ploughman's son and the poor man's son 
 from the benefit of learning, as though they were 
 unworthy to have the gifts of the Holy Ghost be- 
 stowed upon them as well as upon others, is as 
 much as to say that Almighty God should not be at 
 liberty to bestow his great gifts of grace upon any 
 person, nor nowhere else but as we and other men 
 shall appoint them to be employed according to our 
 fancy ahd not according to his most godly will and 
 pleasure; who giveth his gifts both of learning 
 and other perfections in all sciences unto all kinds 
 and states of people indifferently ; even so doeth he 
 many tjmes withdraw from them and their posterity 
 again those beneficial gifts if they be not thank- 
 ful. If we should shut up into a strait corner the 
 bountiful grace of the Holy Ghost, and thereupon 
 attempt to build our fancies, we should make as per- 
 fect a work thereof as those that took upon them to 
 build the tower of Babylon ; for God would so pro- 
 vide that the offspring of our best born children 
 should peradventure become most unapt to learn 
 and very dolts, as I myself have seen no small num- 
 ber of them very dull and without all manner of 
 capacity. . . . To conclude, the poor man's 
 son by painstaking for the most part will be learned 
 when the gentleman's son will not take the pains to 
 get it. . . . Wherefore 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." * Cranmer 
 
 ' Narratives^ pp. 274-275. 
 
Character and Private Life 323 
 
 carried his point with regard to Canterbury school, 
 but the views he contested still flourish among the 
 backward classes in England. And another theory 
 has not disappeared against which Cranmer protested 
 when he sought to save the schoolmaster of Ludlow 
 from being deprived of his school on abandoning 
 holy orders; *'the man's priesthood," he said, "was 
 no furtherance but rather an impediment to him in 
 the applying of his scholars." * 
 
 The same generosity of disposition appears in 
 Cranmer's relations with his dependents and friends. 
 "There never was," says Morice, "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." ' He al- 
 ways retained a grateful recollection of the kindness 
 shown him by his old college at Cambridge, and 
 endeavoured to repay it in after years when his influ- 
 ence was useful to the society and to its individual 
 members.^ When Welbeck Abbey was dissolved, 
 the Archbishop purchased its tithes of Aslacton and 
 Whatton and gave them to his nephew,Thomas, who 
 had inherited the family estates ; and he has been 
 accused of nepotism in promoting his brother Ed- 
 mund to the Archdeaconry of Canterbury. But 
 therein he was only following his predecessors, 
 
 ^ IVor^s, ii., 380; for Ludlow School see Leach's English 
 Schools, 1896, i., 45-46, 49 ; ii., 185, 322. 
 ' Narratives^ p. 268. 
 * Cf. Works ^ ii., 247, 303. 
 
3H Thomas Cranmer 
 
 Chicheley, Bourchier, and Warham,* and his conduct 
 compares favourably with that of Warham and Wol- 
 sey. For Warham bestowed the preferment on a 
 nephew who was not in priest's orders and therefore 
 required a papal dispensation from the canonical 
 prohibition to enable him to hold the office; and 
 Wolsey endeavoured to obtain the rich Bishopric of 
 Durham for his illegitimate son while he was yet a 
 minor ; he failed in this, but secured for the youth 
 in his teens a deanery, four archdeaconries, five pre- 
 bends, and a chancellorship.' Beside this flagrant 
 example Cranmer's conferment of one archdea- 
 conry on a brother who fulfilled all the canonical 
 requirements seems harmless enough, and it is the 
 only charge of the kind that was ever laid at his 
 door. 
 
 A different accusation was that he wasted the 
 lands of his see by granting them away on easy 
 leases, but Morice has successfully vindicated his 
 master's conduct. It was really designed to preserve 
 the cathedral endowments, for unless he had turned 
 the edge of the lay appetite for ecclesiastical property. 
 
 ^ Chester Waters's account of Edmund Cranmer in Chester of 
 Chicheley ; Edmund fled on Mary's accession and died abroad in 
 1571 ; his descendants were numerous ; see the pedigree. 
 
 ' The deanery was Wells, 1526 : the archdeaconries were Norfolk, 
 1523, Suffolk, 1526, York, 1523, and Richmond, 1523 ; the chan- 
 cellorship was of Salisbury, 1523; and the prebends were two in 
 York, 1523, two in Southwell, and one in Lincoln, 1522 ; see Le 
 Neve, Fasti, ed. Hardy, i., 153; ii., 187, 484, 489, 651; iii., 134, 141, 
 188, 216, 438, 441; for each of these preferments a complaisant Pope 
 had to grant two dispensations, one on account of the youth's ille- 
 gitimacy, the other on account of his minority. 
 
Character and Private Life 3^5 
 
 courtiers would probably have secured permanent 
 grants instead of temporary leases. He did, indeed, 
 yield to Henry's demand for the manor of Otford by 
 way of exchange ; but to resist in such a case was 
 clearly out of the question. "For," writes Morice, 
 *• as touching his exchanges, men ought to consider 
 with whom he had to do, especially with such a 
 prince as would not be bridled, nor be against-said 
 in any of his requests." * 
 
 With respect to his family life, we have but the 
 scantiest details. There is no doubt that his 
 relations with his domestic circle were as happy as 
 external conditions would permit. Scandal was busy 
 with one of Cranmer's sisters' ; but it never touched 
 the Archbishop himself, except in so far as to 
 tell that his affection for his wife drove him to 
 curious expedients to retain her company during the 
 dark days of the Six Articles.' It has been thought 
 
 * Narratives^ p. 266. Miss J. M. Stone {Queen Mary, p. 385) 
 quotes this sentence, omitting "as touching his exchanges," con- 
 nects it with Cranmer's phrase about " not temerariously defining, 
 etc.," and distorts it into an acknowledgment that Cranmer sur- 
 rendered all his principles ! "Morice," she says, "unconsciously 
 deprived him of every vestige of fidelity Xo principle.'* 
 
 ' See above pp. 6, 148. 
 
 3 The story was that Cranmer carried her about in a chest with 
 holes bored into it to admit the air; on one occasion, when the chest 
 was placed upside down, the lady had to make her presence known 
 by screams. The story first occurs in Nicholas Harpsfield's Treatise 
 of the Pretended Divorce of Catherine of A r agon, which was written 
 after Cranmer's death; the other early reference to it occurs* in 
 Bishop Cranmer's Recantacyons (see below, pp. 361-2), which may 
 also have been written by Harpsfield. Neither work was published 
 till the nineteenth century, the Divorce by Pocock in 1878, and the 
 
326 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 strange that nothing is heard of her during Cran* 
 mer's troubles under Queen Mary, and that the only 
 efforts on his behalf appear to have been made 
 by his sister ; but the reason is that his wife was 
 far away in Germany. The Archbishop had warned 
 
 Recantacyons by Dr. Gairdner in 1885; but copies of the former were 
 circulated in MS. and the story got abroad; it was published in 
 Nicholas Sanders's De Origine Sckismatis Anglice in 1585. It was 
 contradicted by Sir John Harington on the authority of Mrs. 
 Cranmer's daughter-in-law, who was related to Lady Harington. 
 (Harington, Nuga Antiques^ ed. 1804, iii., 16; Harington was him- 
 self grandson of Cranmer's "loving friend," Sir John Markham; see 
 Cranmer, Works ^ ii., 358, and D. JV. B., xxiv., 385; Catherine 
 [Rogers], the wife of the Archbishop's only son, was cousin of Sir 
 Edward Rogers, Queen Elizabeth's Controller of the Household, and 
 Sir Edward's granddaughter was Harington's wife.) Subsequently, 
 Parsons, the famous Jesuit, repeated the story in his Treatise of the 
 Three Conversions of England, 1603, saying that this same daughter- 
 in-law of the Archbishop told it to her friends from one of whom he 
 heard it. This evidence is not so good as Harington's, and the story thus 
 rests upon Harpsfield's statement, which was contradicted by persons 
 in a better position to know than Harpsfield himself. Absolute 
 proof or disproof is not forthcoming. At the same time I cannot 
 find any original authority for the universally accepted story that 
 Cranmer sent his wife back to Germany after the enactment of the 
 Six Articles. There is no allusion to it in the proceedings at Cran- 
 mer's trial; there he was accused of having kept his wife secretly 
 during Henry's reign and brought her out in Edward VI. 's, — charges 
 which Cranmer admitted {^^^Works, ii., 219, 550); and the language 
 used does not suggest that she left England in the interval. 
 
 By his first wife, Joan, Cranmer had one child who died at birth; 
 by his second he had two daughters and one son. The son, 
 Thomas, disgraced his father's name by loose living in Elizabeth's 
 reign, dissipated what property he had, and died without issue 
 in November, 1598, being buried on the 14th of that month in 
 St. Andrew's, Holborn. His widow, Catherine [Rogers], had three 
 husbands; the first was Hugh Vaughan {d. 1576), the second was 
 Thomas Cranmer, and the third was one Randall; she eventually 
 
 I 
 
Character and Private Life 327 
 
 his friends to flee early in the reign, and his natural 
 affection would ensure that his wife and children 
 should be the first to be placed out of the reach 
 of danger. His wife was a heretic like himself and 
 might well have been joined to the army of feminine 
 martyrs who were sent to the stake by Queen Mary. 
 
 sank into poverty and distress, five shillings and eleven pence being 
 collected for her benefit in St. Olave's, Old Jewry, in 1607. Of the 
 Archbishop's two daughters, one, Anne, died young and unmarried; 
 the other, Margaret, married Thomas Norton (1532-84), a well- 
 known law)'er and politician, but more famous as the joint author 
 of Gorboduc, the earliest-known tragedy in English blank verse 
 (see Diet. Nat. Biogr., xli., 221-225). On his wife's death, Norton 
 married her cousin Alice, daughter of Archdeacon Edmund Cranmer; 
 he had no issue, so that the Archbishop's line died out with his 
 children, and the various claims since put forward to descent from 
 him are all baseless. (The pedigree of the Cranmers of Mitcham, 
 Surrey, printed in Manning and Bray's Surrey, vol. iii., Appendix, 
 and tracing their descent from the Archbishop, has been conclusively 
 proved to be a fabrication by Mr. Chester Waters.) 
 
 The Archbishop's widow married in Germany, perhaps in 1556, 
 as her second husband, Edward Whitchurch, the Protestant printer of 
 Cranmer's Bible and the First Book of Common Prayer, who had fled 
 probably to Germany on the accession of Queen Mary (see Diet. 
 Nat. Biogr., Ixi., 30). He died in 1561, and in 1564 she took a 
 third husband, Bartholomew Scott, a justice of the peace for Surrey. 
 She died about 1571; she does not appear to have had any issue by 
 any but her first husband. 
 
 With regard to the Archbishop's personal appearance we have his 
 portraits and Foxe's description (viii., 43): " he was of stature mean 
 i. e., medium), of complexion he was pure and somewhat sanguine, 
 having no hair upon his head at the time of his death [it had been 
 shaved by a barber at his degradation, a month before]; but a long 
 beard, white and thick [which he had let grow since Henry VIII.'s 
 death]. He was of the age of sixty-six when he was burnt ; and yet 
 (although) being a man sore broken in studies, in all his time never 
 used spectacles." The " purblind " or short sight, of which Morice 
 speaks, was as usual more lasting than long sight. 
 
328 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 That the Archbishop himself stood his ground 
 is one among many proofs of deliberate courage. 
 He used to tell Morice that the brutality of his early 
 schoolmaster had destroyed the "audacity" with 
 which he had been by nature endowed, and that 
 he had never been able to repair the loss. The ex- 
 planation is not convincing. Cranmer was undoubt- 
 edly of that shrinking, sensitive nature which usually 
 acts like a red rag on bullies, but every now and 
 then touches a finer chord in the strong man's heart, 
 as it did in that of Henry VHI. But he was no 
 coward ; he had, indeed, none of the hardihood 
 which ignorance breeds, nor the courage which 
 springs from an incapacity to realise danger and 
 suffering. Sensitive nerves, imagination, and a 
 somewhat slow and hesitating mind gave Cranmer 
 at times the appearance and feeling of weakness ; but 
 when once his mind was made up his courage was 
 not found lacking. He alone, so far as we know, 
 tried to save the monks of Sion from the block ; 
 he alone interceded for Fisher and More, for Anne 
 Boleyn and for the Princess Mary, for Thomas 
 Cromwell and Bishop Tunstall. He told Henry VIH. 
 that he had offended God, and Cromwell that the 
 Court was setting an evil example. He maintained 
 almost unaided a stubborn fight against the Act of 
 Six Articles and resisted longer than any one else 
 the Duke of Northumberland's plot. He refused to 
 fly before danger at Mary's accession ; and for two 
 and a half years withstood without flinching the 
 pressure of a sixteenth-century prison. If then 
 for a month he wavered between his duty to the 
 
Character and Private Life 329 
 
 State and that to his conscience; if finally, he tried 
 to concede that impossible change of belief which 
 his inquisitors required, he redeemed his fall by a 
 heroism in the hour of death to which history can 
 find few parallels. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 IN TIME OF TROUBLE 
 
 QUEEN Mary was borne to the throne on the 
 flood-tide of reaction against a tyrannous gov- 
 ernment, and the first acts of her reign did not utterly 
 belie the hopes which the nation had conceived. 
 The first words of the first Act of her first Parlia- 
 ment declared that " the state of every king, ruler, 
 and governor of any realm, dominion, or common- 
 alty standeth and consisteth more assured by the 
 love and favour of the subjects towards their sover- 
 eign ruler and governor than in the dread and fear 
 of laws made with rigorous pains and extreme punish- 
 ment." It recalled the fact that many ** honourable 
 and noble persons . . . had of late (for words 
 only, without other opinion, fact, or deed) suffered 
 shameful death ; " and echoing the words and senti- 
 ments of Somerset's repeal of the treason laws, it 
 proceeded to abolish those which Northumberland 
 had re-enacted after the Protector's fall. Another 
 echo of the " good Duke's " days was heard when 
 Mary announced that she graciously meant " not to 
 compel or constrain other men's consciences other- 
 wise than God shall put in their hearts." * 
 
 ^ Acts of the Privy Council^ 1552-54, p. 317. 
 
 330 
 
[I553-I555] In Time of Trouble 331 
 
 There were some to whom no clemency could 
 extend, and Northumberland, with his intimate abet- 
 tors, was promptly sent to the scaffold. The Duke 
 did almost as much harm to the Reformation by his 
 death as he had done during his life. This ** most 
 intrepid soldier of Christ," one of " the two most 
 shining lights of the Church of England," confessed 
 that he had been an evil liver and had done wickedly 
 all the days of his life, that for sixteen years he had 
 been no Christian, and that all the woes which the 
 realm had endured of late had been due to the Re- 
 formation ^ ; *' there were," says a letter of the time, 
 " a great number turned with his words." A dra- 
 matic touch is given to the story of his death by the 
 thrice-repeated statement of an eye-witness that the 
 Duke of Somerset's sons stood by'; and according 
 to the Spanish ambassador Northumberland asked 
 their forgiveness for having wrongfully and falsely 
 procured their father's death.' But the real tragedy 
 consisted in the fact that Northumberland's fall 
 dragged down better men than he. 
 
 Since the 20th of July, when he had attended the 
 Council and signed its letter acknowledging Mary 
 as Queen, Cranmer had remained undisturbed at 
 
 * The fullest report of Northumberland's confession is in Brit. 
 Mus., Harleian MS., 284, f. 127 (printed in Tytler, ii., 230-232) ; 
 two others are printed from Harleian MS. 353, in the Chron. of 
 Queen Jane, p. 21 ; a fourth and fifth are in Cotton MS., Titus, B. 
 ii., and Royal MS. y 12 A., xxvi. 
 
 ' Chron. Queen yane, pp. 19, 20, 21. 
 
 3 Renard, quoted in Froude, v., 36 ; Northumberland's tool, Sir 
 Thomas Palmer, also confessed, that he had sworn to evidence 
 against Somerset which Northumberland had fabricatedi 
 
332 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 
 
 Lambeth. On the 8th of August he officiated at 
 the obsequies of Edward VI., who was buried ac- 
 cording to the rites of his Second Book of Common 
 Prayer.* He was not blind to the perils in which he 
 stood ; and he, like Ridley, warned his friends to fly 
 from the plague and get them hence, for the time of 
 tribulation was at hand, and the abomination spoken 
 of by Daniel the Prophet was set up in the Holy 
 Place." Many took heed ; four bishops, five deans, 
 four archdeacons, and scores of doctors and preach- 
 ers escaped from the wrath to come.' With them 
 went numbers of foreign divines; Peter Martyr, 
 John a Lasco, the Dutch Protestants in London, 
 and the Flemish weavers at Glastonbury struck 
 their tents and sought safety abroad,* but Cranmer, 
 Latimer, and Ridley stood by their posts. Cranmer 
 was still Archbishop, and it would ill become him, 
 he said, to fly ; he would shew that he was not afraid 
 to own all the changes that were made by his means 
 in religion during the reign of Edward VL^ 
 
 " Therefore," wrote Ridley a little later, " if thou, 
 O man of God, do purpose to abide in this realm, 
 
 * Grey friars^ Chron., pp. 82-83. 
 
 ' See Ridley's Piteous Lamentation (Parker Soc), pp. 62-63, and 
 Cranmer's Works ^ ii., 441-442, 444-445. 
 
 * See list in Strype's Cranmer^ i., 449-450. 
 
 * Peter Martyr and others of these foreigners obtained passports, 
 but it seems rather far-fetched to adduce this as a proof that Mary 
 " had no desire to persecute " (Gairdner, p. 321). Peter Martyr had 
 only come by official invitation, and it would have been a flagrant 
 violation of public decency to persecute him ; moreover, most of 
 these men were not Mary's subjects, and proceedings against them 
 might have involved awkward disputes with other powers, 
 
 * Strype, Cranmer^ i., 449. 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 333 
 
 prepare and arm thyself to die ; for both by Anti- 
 christ's accustomable laws and these prophecies, 
 there is no appearance of any other thing except thou 
 wilt deny thy master Christ."* Cranmer was soon 
 put to the test. His silence, which was due to re- 
 spect for the Queen, was interpreted as acquiescence 
 in the restoration of the mass, and men thought he 
 would follow in Northumberland's footsteps. Sto- 
 ries were told that the Archbishop had set up the 
 mass in Canterbury Cathedral, had offered to say it 
 at Edward's burial, and again before the Queen in 
 St. Paul's. They came to Cranmer's ears, and moved 
 him, meek as he was, to a wrathful denial. He drew 
 up a manifesto which he intended to fix on the doors 
 of St. Paul's and other churches in London.' " As 
 the Devil," he began, " Christ's ancient adversary, is 
 a liar and the father of lying . . . now goeth he 
 about by lying to overthrow the Lord's holy supper 
 again, and to restore his Latin satisfactoryness, a 
 thing of his own invention and device." Then, 
 recounting the rumours about himself, he proceeds : 
 
 "And although I have been well exercised these 
 twenty years in suffering and bearing evil bruits, reports 
 and lies, and have not been much grieved thereat, but 
 have borne all things quietly, yet when untrue reports 
 and lies tend to the hinderance of God's truth, then are 
 they in no wise tolerate or to be suffered. Wherefore 
 
 ' fVorks, p. 62. 
 
 " See Strype's Cranmer, i., 436 ; Original Letters, 1., 371. This 
 declaration is printed in Cranmer's Works, i., 428-429, from the MS. 
 at Emanuel College, Cambridge ; another MS. is at Corpus Chri^ti 
 College, Cambridge. 
 
334 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 
 
 this is to signify to the world that it was not that I did 
 set up the mass in Canterbury, but it was a false, flatter- 
 ing, and lying monk. . . . And as for offering my- 
 self to say mass before the Queen's Highness at St. 
 Paul's, or in any other place, I never did it, as her Grace 
 well knoweth. But if her Grace will give me leave, I will 
 and by the might of God shall be ready at all times to 
 prove against all that would say the contrary, that all that 
 is said in the holy communion set forth by the most inno- 
 cent and godly prince. King Edward VI., in his court of 
 Parliament, is conformable to that order that Our Saviour 
 Christ did both observe and command to be observed ; 
 which also his apostles and primitive church used many 
 years ; whereas the mass in many things not only hath 
 no foundation of Christ's apostles nor the primitive 
 church, but also is manifestly contrary to the same, and 
 containeth in it many horrible abuses.'* * 
 
 Then he offered to prove in public disputation 
 that " not only the common prayers of the church, 
 the ministration of the sacraments, and other rites 
 and ceremonies, but also that all the doctrine and 
 
 * It is often argued that neither the Second Book of Common 
 Prayer nor the First was intended to be final ; and BuUinger stated 
 in 1555 that " Cranmer had drawn up a book of prayers an hundred 
 times more perfect than that which was then in being, but the same 
 could not take place, for that he was matched with such a wicked 
 clergy and convocation." (Strype, Cranmer^ p. 382.) This story agrees 
 ill with Cranmer's statement in the text; and is on other grounds 
 improbable. The Second Book of Common Prayer represented the 
 furthest limit of Cranmer's advance towards continental Protestant- 
 ism. BuUinger's assertion probably embodies a hazy recollection of 
 the perfectly accurate account which his correspondents had given 
 him of the First Prayer Book, where Cranmer's draft was toned 
 down by the hostility of the bishops and others. 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 335 
 
 religion set forth by our sovereign lord King Ed- 
 ward VI. is more pure and according to God's word 
 than any other that hath been used in England these 
 thousand years." 
 
 This challenge was bold to the verge of foolhardi- 
 ness, and it was the immediate occasion of the be- 
 ginning of Cranmer's tribulations.* The manifesto 
 was not then printed, but the Archbishop gave a 
 copy to Bishop Scory, who indiscreetly communi- 
 cated it to others ; and on the 5th of September the 
 document was read aloud in Cheapside. Next day 
 " every scrivener's shop almost was occupied in writ- 
 ing and copying out the same.'" It was a counter- 
 blast to Northumberland's apostasy which rejoiced 
 the heart of every true Reformer ; and copies, says 
 Renard, multiplied as fast in manuscript as the 
 printing-press could have turned them out. A day 
 or two later the Council sent for Cranmer ; he ap- 
 peared before it on the 13th of September. It was 
 busy with the case of Latimer, who on that day was 
 sent to the Tower, and the Archbishop was ordered 
 to attend the following day at the Star Chamber.' 
 
 His offence, we are told in the Council's register, 
 was long and seriously debated by the whole board ; 
 and indeed their lordships' arguments must have been 
 full of unconscious irony. They could, no doubt, 
 
 ' Froude (v., 255) not unjustly remarks, "Considering the position 
 of the writer, and the circumstances under which it was issued, I re- 
 gard the publication of this letter as one of the bravest actions ever 
 deliberately ventured by man." 
 
 ^Foxe, viii., 38. 
 
 ^Acts P. C, 1552-54, pp. 346-347 ; CAron. Queen Jane, p. 27 : 
 Grey friars' Ckron., p. 84 ; Wriothesley's Chron., ii., 103. 
 25 
 
33^ Thomas Cranmer [1553- 
 
 inveigh with a clear conscience against " the spread- 
 ing about seditious bills moving tumults to the dis- 
 quietness of the present state," though Cranmer had 
 had little enough to do with the publication of his 
 protest. But the main charge pretended against 
 him was *' treason against the Queen's Majesty " — 
 treason in which not a few of them had taken a far 
 less innocent part than Cranmer. Northumberland 
 had objected that many of the peers who condemned 
 him for treason had been partakers in the self-same 
 offence ; and Cranmer with more justice might have 
 urged that it scarcely became Councillors to send 
 him to the Tower for a crime which they had com- 
 mitted.. That, however, was the result of this long 
 and serious Star Chamber debate. Cranmer went 
 out from the Council's presence and was conveyed 
 forthwith to the Tower ; and as the gates clanged 
 behind him they closed on the days of his free- 
 dom. Probably by design he was lodged in the 
 cell whence Northumberland had passed to the 
 scaffold.* 
 
 Two months later, on the 13th of November, 
 Cranmer was put on his trial for treason at the 
 Guildhall in London, and with him were associated 
 Lady Jane Grey, her husband, and two other sons 
 of Northumberland." Their technical guilt was much 
 the same, and so was their moral innocence. All 
 had acted under compulsion ; but that was a plea of 
 
 ^"Over the gate against the water-gate, where the Duke of 
 Northumberland lay before his death." — Chron. Queen Jane. 
 
 ^ See documents relating to the trial in the Baga de Secretis, cal- 
 endared in Appendix II. to the Fourth Report of the Deputy Keeper 
 of Records. 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 337 
 
 which only courts of equity could take cognisance, 
 and equitable considerations did not count in trials 
 for treason. Cranmer at first pleaded not guilty, but 
 then withdrew that plea and confessed to the charges. 
 All the prisoners were condemned to death, but on 
 Cranmer alone was there any design to carry out the 
 sentence. The Archbishop, wrote Renard, who knew 
 all the secrets of Mary's government, on the 17th of 
 November, **will be executed."* But Mary or her 
 ecclesiastical advisers soon discovered a scruple. 
 Such an execution would be a violation of the laws 
 of the Church, which were soon to be revived. By 
 them no cleric could suffer at secular hands until he 
 had been degraded and had lost the inviolability 
 with which ordination invested the churchman. 
 And so, although an Act of Parliament confirmed 
 the attainder, Cranmer's life was spared for the 
 moment. 
 
 That he was put on his trial for treason at all was, 
 indeed, an act of revenge, and no sophistry can 
 make it anything else. Treason was not his crime, 
 but his sentence of divorce against the Queen's 
 mother." Winchester and Arundel, Bedford and 
 
 * Froude, v., 295. Archbishop Heath is reported as saying that 
 the Queen's determination was that Cranmer should only be deprived 
 of his bishopric and given a sufficient living on condition that he 
 kept his house and did not meddle yfith religion. (Foxe, viii. , 38.) 
 These may have been Heath's own merciful sentiments, but they 
 were soon overruled. 
 
 ' Mary's anger was natural enough, but she might have been sat- 
 isfied with the triumph which established the validity of that mar- 
 riage and seated her on the throne. She forgave Gardiner, who had 
 been eagerly pushing on the divorce long before Cranmer had e^- 
 pressed an opinion on it. 
 
33^ Thomas Cranmer [^553- 
 
 Shrewsbury, Pembroke and Rich, Paget and Petre, 
 Cheyney and Mason, had all committed worse trea- 
 son than he, yet all were now sitting in Mary's 
 Council, enjoying her confidence. Suffolk, Lady 
 Jane's father, Northampton, and Cecil, three of 
 Northumberland's strongest supporters, had all been 
 pardoned ; but nothing could extort from Mary a 
 pardon for him who had more than once interceded 
 for her * ; and the whilom friends of the Archbishop, 
 who now basked in the sunshine of Mary's favour, 
 took care not to risk its loss on behalf of the pris- 
 oner in the Tower. 
 
 ** Having no person," he wrote to the Queen, " that I 
 know to be a mediator for me, and knowing your pitiful 
 ears ready to hear all pitiful complaints, and seeing so 
 many before to have felt your abundant clemency in 
 like case, I am now constrained most lamentably and 
 with most penitent and sorrowful heart to ask mercy 
 and pardon for my heinous folly and offence in consent- 
 ing and following the testament and last will of our late 
 sovereign ; which will, God he knoweth, I never liked ; 
 nor never anything grieved me so much that your 
 Grace's brother did. And if by any means it had been 
 in me to have letted the making of that will, I would 
 have done it." ^ 
 
 Then, after describing his fruitless efforts to pre- 
 vent that madness, and the compulsion put upon 
 him to sign the will, he admitted that when he sub- 
 scribed he did it unfeignedly and without dissiinU" 
 
 * See above, p. i6i. 
 
 * Cranmer, Works ^ ii. , 443-444. 
 
 I 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 339 
 
 lation. Nowhere does Cranmer's simple, transparent 
 honesty come out so clearly ; had he possessed one 
 iota of the dissembling craft with which he has some- 
 times been charged/ he would never have written a 
 sentence like that to Mary. It was not in him to 
 sign a document with mental reservations ; when he 
 subscribed the will, he did so with the full intention 
 of keeping his promise, and he blurts out the truth 
 like a child. Another eminent man signed the will, 
 and has left an apology for his conduct ; it affords a 
 useful contrast with Cranmer's. Twenty years later 
 the wily Cecil put into the mouth of a servant his 
 version of the affair. He falsely stated that he 
 signed last of all, and then only signed as a ** wit- 
 ness " — as if all the others could not have pretended 
 the same excuse ! ' 
 
 Having made his petition for life, Cranmer next 
 desired leave to quiet his conscience, and incident- 
 ally he stated with much precision and clearness his 
 position on a subject's duty when he differed from 
 his sovereign in religion. *' I will never, God willing, 
 
 ' " From first to last," says one zealous writer, "he had proved 
 himself so base a dissembler that no confidence could possibly have 
 been placed in the sincerity of his recantations. That he had lied 
 therein also, he admitted by his final recantation of them all." — J. 
 M. Stone, History of Queen Mary, IQOI, p. 389. 
 
 ^ Tytler, ii., 171, 202 ; Strype, Annals^ iv., 349. It need scarcely 
 be said that there is no difference between Cecil's signature and those 
 of the other Councillors. Cecil, in fact, was peculiarly responsible, 
 as he had been Northumberland's most trusted secretary of state. 
 No doubt he disliked and distrusted the scheme ; but if all who felt 
 the same had acted with courage it would never have passed its in- 
 itial stages. Cranmer's opposition was useless because the whole 
 weight of Government was already cast in the other balance. 
 
340 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 
 
 be author of sedition to move subjects from the 
 obedience of their heads and rulers, which is an of- 
 fence most detestable." Yet conscience required 
 him, considering the place he had held as chief spir- 
 itual adviser to his sovereign, to *' shew your Majesty 
 my mind in things pertaining unto God." When 
 once he had done that, his conscience would be dis- 
 charged. " For it lieth not in me, but in your Grace 
 only to see the reformation of things that be amiss. 
 To private subjects it appertaineth not to reform 
 things, but quietly to suffer that they cannot amend." 
 Even this statement of his mind he would not make 
 without the Queen's permission ; and, needless to 
 say, he awaited that grace in vain. 
 
 Cranmer was now in a very anomalous position. 
 He was a prisoner in the Tower and a condemned 
 traitor ; that condemnation deprived him, according 
 to the laws as they stood, of his Archbishopric, and in 
 obedience to those laws he now signed himself merely 
 T. Cranmer.* But by the canon law his ecclesiastical 
 character remained still intact ; he could only be de- 
 prived by spiritual authority after condemnation by 
 a spiritual court for a spiritual offence. Mary, as 
 an orthodox Roman Catholic and devoted Papist, 
 wished to have Cranmer deprived by the Pope's 
 authority and burnt as a heretic ; but the laws de 
 hcBretico comburendo had not yet been revived nor 
 those against the papal jurisdiction abolished." Hence 
 
 ^ E. g., in his letter to Mrs. Wilkinson, Works^ ii., 445. 
 
 ' These legislative changes were not ventured upon until 1554, 
 when Wyatt's rebellion had failed, the marriage with Philip had 
 been completed, the Emperor's support secured, and the sheriffs (not 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 341 
 
 Cranmer*s reprieve ; meanwhile he was only sequest- 
 ered from his Archbishopric, and it was not till 
 after his death that Cardinal Pole stepped into 
 his place. He was even allowed to walk in the 
 Tower gardens, and a greater appearance of clem- 
 ency was shown if, as is said, he received a pardon 
 for treason/ Had this been true, the boon would 
 have resembled that accorded to Somerset, when he 
 was acquitted of treason but condemned to death 
 for felony ' ; and the mercy extended to Cranmer 
 
 the constituencies) had been ordered to choose knights, citizens, and 
 burgesses of "the wise, grave, and Catholic sort." This curious 
 situation has created confusion in the minds of historians. Burnet 
 says Cranmer was still considered archbishop. Wharton {Specimen 
 of Errors) disputed this statement, showing that commissioners were 
 appointed to exercise the jurisdiction of the see during its vacancy, 
 and that a special register was kept for the period. Yet Cranmer 
 was still archbishop by Roman canon law. The deprivation of Tun- 
 stall by the civil power has been considered one of the most illegal 
 acts of Edward's reign, and if Cranmer's deprivation had been com- 
 plete there would have been no explanation of the sentence of 
 deprivation subsequently pronounced at Rome nor of the delay in 
 filling up the see. It was a question of conflict between the munici- 
 pal laws of England and the universal law of the Church. By the 
 one, Cranmer ceased to be archbishop on his attainder in November, 
 1553 ; by the other, he remained archbishop till judgment was pro- 
 nounced against him at Rome two years later. 
 
 • Foxe, viii,, 38 ; Strype, i., 460; but neither gives any date or 
 authority. If he had been pardoned he should have been released, 
 as he had not yet been condemned for heresy. All the evidence is 
 against the story. On 3 May, 1554, the Council, considering what 
 to do with Cranmer, remarked that he had been judged a heretic by 
 both universities, and was besides " already attainted." In Septem- 
 ber, 1555, Bishop Brooks told him he was a dead man in the eye of 
 the English law, being attainted of treason, and in 1563 an Act of 
 Parliament was required for the restitution of his children. 
 
 * England under Protector Somerset, p. 305. 
 
342 Thomas Cranmer tisss- 
 
 would have consisted in substituting for death on the 
 scaffold the more long-drawn torture at the stake. 
 As a matter of fact, no pardon was ever granted. 
 
 For a few months Queen Mary had enough to do 
 to keep her throne without troubling about Cran- 
 mer*s or any one else's heresy. The rebellion of 
 Wyatt came nearer to success than any other revolt 
 in Tudor times, but that very circumstance hardened 
 her heart the more, and enabled her Government to 
 maintain that heresy and treason were both the 
 same thing. She had no more loyal subject than 
 Cranmer, and he could not be even an innocent 
 cause of dynastic plots as Lady Jane Grey was. 
 Nevertheless, he was not to escape ; on 8 March, 
 1554, the Lieutenant of the Tower was ordered to 
 deliver Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer to Sir John 
 Williams to be conveyed to Oxford.* The order 
 was not at once carried out ; and, the Tower being 
 crowded with prisoners, the three Reformers were 
 placed in one room, where they read and discussed 
 the New Testament. Early in April they were re- 
 moved to Oxford and lodged in Bocardo' prison, 
 opposite St. Michael's Church in the Corn Market. 
 They were to partake in a scholastic disputation on 
 the mass, and on the 14th of April the contest began 
 in the University Church of St. Mary. 
 
 » Aas P. C, 1552-54* p. 406. 
 
 * The prison is said to have been so named because it was as im- 
 possible to escape from it as from the logical figure known by that 
 name ; it really formed part of the northern gate of the city. The 
 door of Cranmer's prison is now in St. Mary Magdalene Church, 
 which is close by the Martyrs' Memorial, and must be distinguished 
 from the University church (St. Mary the Virgin). 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 343 
 
 Commissioners from Cambridge joined forces with 
 those from Oxford for the debate, and the same 
 men who argued with Cranmer were also to judge 
 whether his or their arguments had prevailed.^ Nor 
 were Ridley and Latimer permitted to hear his con- 
 tentions, for each was to dispute alone. By this 
 means they might be led to contradict one another, 
 and the whole weight of all the Catholic disputants 
 might be brought to bear on them singly. 
 
 Cranmer was first selected ' ; the Prolocutor began 
 by censuring in detail his past life. He then showed 
 Cranmer the Articles round which the debate was 
 to centre. Cranmer, declaring them to be contrary 
 to God's Word, was required to commit his rea- 
 sons to paper, and to be ready to maintain them in 
 disputation on the following Monday, the i6th of 
 April. At eight in the morning Weston opened the 
 debate by declaring that their object was not to call 
 Catholic doctrine into dispute, but to confound the 
 heretics; what they wanted, in fact, was not justice 
 but judgment. In that case, replied Cranmer, the 
 disputation was useless. It was, indeed, only de- 
 signed to register a foregone conclusion and to pro- 
 vide grounds for his condemnation. He was not 
 permitted to read the exposition of his views on the 
 Sacrament, which Canon Dixon terms "learned, 
 
 * Heylyn, ed. 1849, ii., 155, " Commissionated to dispute, and 
 authorized to sit as judges " ; but several of the disputants were set 
 apart as ^^ censor es.'* 
 
 '^ See Foxe, vi., 439-468 for a full report of this disputation ; Jen- 
 kyns, iv., 4-66 ; Cranmer, Works (Parker Soc), i., 389-423 ; and 
 Strype's Cranmer, chap. x. 
 
344 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 
 
 moderate, and noble," * nor was he allowed to cross- 
 examine his numerous adversaries. 
 
 " I never," he complained ' to the Council, " knew nor 
 heard of a more confused disputation in all my life. For 
 albeit there was one appointed to dispute against me, 
 yet every man spake his 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 
 argument before another brought anew argument. . . . 
 But why they would not answer us, what other cause can 
 there be but that either they feared the matter, that they 
 were not able to answer us, or else (as by their haste 
 might well appear) they came, not to speak the truth, 
 but to condemn us in post haste, before the truth might 
 be thoroughly tried and heard ? " 
 
 Chedsey ^ was Cranmer's chief antagonist, but the 
 Prolocutor,* the Vice-Chancellor, and half a dozen 
 other divines frequently interposed. In spite of 
 this unmannerly treatment Cranmer bore himself 
 throughout the ordeal with unruffled temper and 
 courtesy. His demeanour towards the court was, if 
 anything, too submissive ; but his points were none 
 the less effective, and when, after six hours' contro- 
 versy, the Prolocutor summed up against him and 
 bade the audience cry *' Vicit Veritas^' even his oppon- 
 ents do not appear to have been quite satisfied with 
 
 ^ Dixon, iv., i8g. 
 
 ^ Works, ii., 445-446. 
 
 2 William Chedsey (15107-74?) had been chaplain to Bonner, and 
 prebendary of St. Paul's in the previous reign. 
 
 ^/. e., Hugh Weston (1505 ?-68), Dean of Westminster and 
 Windsor; see the present writer in Did. Nat, Biogr., Ix., 361. 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 345 
 
 the verdict. At any rate, he was asked to argue 
 again on the following Thursday, when John Harps- 
 field,' Bonner's archdeacon, was to dispute for his 
 degree of D.D. ; and on this occasion Weston was 
 moved to commend, not his arguments, but his con- 
 duct. ** Your wonderful gentle behaviour and mod- 
 esty," he said, " is worthy much commendation ; and 
 that I may not deprive you of your right and just 
 deserving, I give you most hearty thanks in mine own 
 name, and in the name of all my brethren." At 
 which saying " all the doctors gently put off their 
 caps." This tribute was not to affect the sentence 
 pronounced on all the three Reformers on the follow- 
 ing day. They were said to have been overcome in 
 the disputations, which Cranmer denied ; to be no 
 members of the Church ; and were asked whether 
 they would turn or no. With one accord they re- 
 fused, and were condemned as heretics. ** From 
 this your judgement and sentence," said Cranmer, 
 " I appeal to the just judgement of God Almighty." 
 These proceedings were purely academic ; for, 
 as Hooper said, there was yet no law by which 
 they could be condemned ; and Gardiner's efforts' 
 to carry through Parliament the renewal of the 
 heresy laws was even then meeting with successful 
 
 1 John Harpsfield (1516-78) must not be confused with his bet- 
 ter-known though younger brother, Nicholas (i5i9?-75); both are 
 in the D.N .B. 
 
 2 S. R. Maitland and others have defended Gardiner from the 
 charge of persecution on the ground that his actions were only " of- 
 ficial," and that he was bound to carry out the law ; but the fact is 
 neglected that he did his best to pass laws which should make per- 
 secution a part of his ordinary duties. 
 
34^ Thomas Cranmer [1553- 
 
 resistance. Some of the hotter heads were for burn- 
 ing them out of hand, despite the laws and in virtue 
 merely of the commission by which they had been 
 tried. And these unconstitutional views appear to 
 have been expressed even in the Privy Council. It 
 was sorely perplexed what to do ; to dispose of the 
 heretics somehow or other was obviously its desire, 
 and on the 3rd of May 
 
 " it was resolved by their Lordships that the judges and 
 the Queen's Highness' learned counsel should be called 
 together and their opinions demanded what they think 
 in law her Highness may do touching the cases of the 
 said Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, being already by 
 both the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge judged 
 to be obstinate heretics ; which matter is the rather to 
 be consulted upon for that the said Cranmer is already 
 attainted."' 
 
 The animus behind these words is clear; but the 
 judges and other lawyers no doubt brushed aside 
 the idea that the judgment of a few academics was 
 a warrant for putting any one to death, even though 
 a royal commission had invested their views with a 
 fictitious importance. So Cranmer was sent back to 
 Bocardo, Ridley to the charge of the sheriff, and 
 Latimer to that of the bailiff of Oxford. For a year 
 and a half they languished in prison until the law 
 could be altered so as to secure their execution. 
 
 The Romanist flood of reaction meanwhile surged 
 higher and was lashed into greater violence ; in 
 
 ^ Acts P. c, 1554-56, p. 17. 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 347 
 
 Mary's first Parliament it submerged most of the 
 work of Edward VI. ; in her third it now covered 
 the remnant and that of Henry VIII. The Queen 
 herself was its stormy petrel ; before the law had 
 sanctioned the death of a single Reformer, she was 
 arranging how they were to be burnt with decency 
 and order.* But a suitable Parliament alone could 
 give full effect to her wishes, and of the moderate 
 House of Commons which rejected the heresy bills 
 of May, 1554, not a sixth found seats in that which 
 met in November.' Convocation petitioned for the 
 renewal of the statutes de hcsretico comburendo* ; in 
 the Commons there was little resistance, and the 
 only fight for mercy was made in the House of 
 Lords. In January, 1555, the great act of persecu- 
 tion became the law of the land. The realm was 
 reconciled with the Pope, and the Church recovered 
 its power of dealing with heretics. The Dudleys 
 who had been condemned with Cranmer for treason 
 could now be released, for Cranmer was safe in the 
 fiercer grip of the heresy laws. 
 
 The engine which Parliament had at last let loose 
 did not long remain idle. Six days after the session 
 ended, the heretics in the Tower were arraigned be- 
 fore Gardiner; and a fortnight later John Rogers 
 " valiantly broke the ice " at Smithfield. Then began 
 
 1 Collier, Eccl. Hist., ii., 371; Dixon, iv., 236. 
 
 "^ Compare the lists in the Official Return of Members of Parlia- 
 ment, 1878; this was the Parliament for which the Queen ordered 
 the election of members " of a wise, grave, and Catholic sort " (see 
 her letter in Burnet, vi., 313-314)- 
 
 3 This fact rather goes against Canon Dixon's theory that the* 
 clergy were ever backward in persecution^ 
 
34^ Thomas Cranmer [1553- 
 
 the bloodiest persecution that England has ever 
 known ; and before six months had passed, some fifty 
 Protestant martyrs had suffered at the stake. Among 
 these early victims were Bishops Hooper and Fer- 
 rar, and eminent divines such as Rowland Taylor, 
 Cardmaker, and Bradford. Yet this is the period 
 during which Philip II. is said to have exercised a 
 restraining influence over his wife ! There is, how- 
 ever, something to be said for the wretched Queen. 
 The idea that she was, in slaying her fellow-creatures, 
 making a burnt-offering acceptable to God * may have 
 been due to physical as well as to mental derange- 
 ment. When she was cherishing for six months the 
 delusion that she was about to become a mother and 
 went so far as to appoint special envoys to announce 
 the happy event to foreign courts with commissions 
 all written out and nothing to fill in except the date 
 of the birth and the sex of the child, it was natural 
 enough that other illusions should darken her mind. 
 And it must also be remembered in extenuation 
 that if she had burnt every one of the thousands of 
 heretics in her kingdom, she would only have been 
 logically giving effect to the tenets of the faith she 
 professed. But the result was that she did more than 
 Henry VIII., more than Edward VI., and even more 
 than Elizabeth to make the victory of the Reforma- 
 tion in England certain. 
 
 The delay in dealing with Cranmer was not due to 
 
 * The origin of the idea that evil spirits possessed men, which could 
 only be purged by burning, lies hidden in primitive mythology, and 
 still survives, in a few savage tribes ; it filtered into Christianity like 
 other pagan superstitions during the dark ages. 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 349 
 
 the mercifulness of Philip II., but to a desire to com- 
 ply with all the punctilios of Roman canon law. 
 One who had been an archbishop, consecrated with 
 all the rites and ceremonies, clothed in the pallium 
 sent from Rome, and proclaimed in the papal con- 
 sistory, could, it was thought, only be decently dealt 
 with by papal authority. To the Pope Cranmer was 
 still Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, and as such 
 he was cited before the papal commissioners. The 
 academic resolution of April, 1554, was, of course, no 
 condemnation by English law, and it was worth even 
 less at Rome ; for the English Church was still bar- 
 ren and dead in a schism until the following year, 
 when the reconciliation with Rome restored it to life 
 and made fruit possible. So Cranmer, Ridley, and 
 Latimer were all to be tried again ; and the two latter 
 were judged by three bishops acting on a commis- 
 sion granted by Pole as papal legate. They were 
 sentenced to death on the first of October, 1555, and 
 on the 1 6th, from the roof of his Bocardo prison, 
 Cranmer watched the flames devour his friends below 
 in the ditch outside Balliol College ; he may have 
 heard stout-hearted Latimer bid Ridley be of good 
 cheer, for by God's grace they would light in Eng- 
 land that day a candle that never should be put 
 out. 
 
 For Cranmer himself a longer trial was in pre- 
 paration. In their abasement at the feet of papal 
 majesty, the sovereigns of England appeared as par- 
 ties in a suit against a subject of their own before a 
 foreign tribunal. They " denounced " him to the 
 Holy Father, and the Holy Father deputed the 
 
350 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 
 
 Prefect ' of his Holy Inquisition to act in the matter. 
 The Prefect further delegated the conduct of the 
 trial to Bishop Brooks ' of Gloucester, to the Dean of 
 St. PauFs, and to the Archdeacon of Canterbury. 
 Early in September Brooks arrived in Oxford, and 
 cited Cranmer to appear at Rome in person or by 
 proxy within the space of eighty days to answer 
 such charges as should be laid against him by Philip 
 and Mary. This was merely a formal pretence, for 
 there was no intention of allowing Cranmer to plead 
 in Rome, and on the I2th the subdelegate's court 
 was opened in the Church of St. Mary.' Cranmer 
 bowed to Drs. Martin and Story,* the proctors of 
 Philip and Mary, but refused to recognise Brooks as 
 the representative of a jurisdiction which he, like his 
 opponents, had once forsworn. Brooks, after remark- 
 ing that he came neither to judge nor to dispute, but 
 to examine him in certain matters and to make re- 
 lation thereof to him that had power to judge, ex- 
 horted him to repent of his errors and return to the 
 bosom of the Catholic Church. Cranmer, protesting 
 that he made answer not to the Papal subdelegate, 
 but to Martin and Story as King's arid Queen's proc- 
 
 * Cardinal de Puteo (of the Pit, as Cranmer translated it), or 
 Du Puy. 
 
 ' James Brooks, 1512-60, had been master of Balliol College, 
 and succeeded Hooper as Bishop of Gloucester. 
 
 ^ For Cranmer's trial see Foxe, viii., 45-63 ; Jenkyns, iv., 79-117. 
 
 * Dr. John Story had an adventurous career; see the present writer 
 in Diet. Nat. Biogr. , liv. , 427. He lamented Queen Mary's mildness, 
 wished to put the Princess Elizabeth to death, instigated Alva to 
 establish the Inquisition at Antwerp in 1565, was executed, for 
 t;i;easoa in 1570 and canonised in 1886,^^ 
 
1555] In Time of Trouble 351 
 
 tors, then delivered a strong defence of the Royal 
 Supremacy, of his writings on the Sacrament, and 
 an attack upon the Papacy. " The Bishop of Rome,** 
 he declared, " treadeth under foot God's laws and 
 the King's *' ; " yet I speak not this for hatred I bear 
 to him that now supplieth the room, for I know him 
 not. I pray God give him grace not to follow his 
 ancestors." The warmest dispute arose over the 
 perjury with which Cranmer was charged in breaking 
 his oath to the Pope. He retorted that Brooks had 
 abjured the oath he swore to King Henry. Both 
 accusations were true, and although Cranmer had 
 saved his real consistency by his preliminary pro- 
 testation that his oath to the Pope was void, that 
 very act laid him open to a further technical charge 
 of perjury. Brooks pronounced no sentence, for 
 that was beyond his commission ; he merely sent a 
 certified report of the proceedings to Rome, where 
 it awaited the Pope*s decision. 
 
 Immediately after this trial Cranmer sent a re- 
 markably bold appeal to Mary,* vindicating his own 
 and the nation's conduct in repudiatiner the papal 
 jurisdiction, in adopting their mother 'tongue for 
 their own devotions, in renouncing Transubstantia- 
 tion, and in demanding the administration of the 
 Sacrament under both elements. ** Alas ! ** he wrote, 
 
 " 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 an 
 authority coming from any person out of this realm ; 
 
 'Cranmer, Works, ii., 447-454. 
 24 
 
352 Thomas Cranmer [1553- 
 
 where a King and Queen, as if they were subjects within 
 their own realm, shall complain and require justice at a 
 stranger's hand against their own subject being already 
 condemned to death by their own laws. As though the 
 King and Queen could not do or have justice within 
 their own realms against their own subjects, but they 
 must seek it at a stranger's hands in a strange land, 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 owe all obedience) to 
 be mine accusers in judgement within their own realm 
 before any stranger and outward power." 
 
 Then, quoting from the Roman canon law, he 
 showed how fatal the papal claims, if admitted, were 
 to national independence; how the Queen herself, 
 her judges, and all other executors of her laws stood 
 condemned as heretics, because not a few of her 
 laws were even then repugnant to the canon law of 
 Rome, and Popes had pronounced all such laws in- 
 valid and their authors, executors, and observers 
 cursed. These things, he supposed, had not been 
 explained to Parliament, or the Roman jurisdiction 
 would never have been readmitted. The clergy 
 who knew the truth had their own reasons for 
 silence; they maintained the Pope 
 
 " to the intent they might have as it were a kingdom 
 and laws within themselves, distinct from the laws of 
 the crown, and wherewith the crown may not meddle; 
 and so being exempt from the laws of the realm, might 
 live in this realm like lords and kings without damage 
 
I555J In Time of Trouble 353 
 
 or fear of any man, so that they please their high and 
 supreme head at Rome. . . . Ignorance, I know, 
 may excuse other men; but he that knoweth how preju- 
 dicial and injurious the power and authority, which he 
 [the Pope] challengeth everywhere, is to the crown, laws, 
 and customs of this realm, and yet will allow the same, I 
 cannot see in anywise how he can keep his due allegiance, 
 fidelity, and truth to the crown and state of this realm." 
 
 This was the centre of Cranmer's position and, in- 
 deed, the heart of the Reformation in England ; and 
 in the repudiation of the claims of the Pope and the 
 Church to a jurisdiction not merely independent of 
 national systems but superior to them, the Reforma- 
 tion was ultimately triumphant in Catholic as well 
 as in Protestant countries. The State all over the 
 world has deposed the Church from the position it 
 held in the Middle Ages, and the existence of 
 churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, in the 
 various political systems is due not to their own 
 intrinsic authority, but to the toleration or encour- 
 agement extended to them by the State. No eccle- 
 siastic has any appeal to that " outward judge," 
 whom Cranmer denounced, from the national laws of 
 the land in which he lives. The pretensions of Popes 
 to dispense with oaths of allegiance, to root out and 
 destroy, to plant and build again principalities and 
 powers, have disappeared so utterly from the face of 
 the earth that it is hard to believe they ever existed. 
 Yet to Cranmer they were a real and terrible men- 
 ace ; and, as if his previous letter had not been bold 
 enough, he wrote again * to Mary, lamenting the 
 
 » fVor^s, ii., 454. 
 
354 Thomas Cranmer ['553- 
 
 oath she had taken to the Pope, *' to be obedient to 
 him, to defend his person, to maintain his authority, 
 honour, laws, and privileges." Such an undertaking 
 was, he averred, inconsistent with the other oath she 
 had sworn, to maintain the laws, liberties, and cus- 
 toms of this realm. 
 
 In conclusion, he complained that he was kept 
 from the company of learned men, from books, from 
 counsel, from pen and ink, save for the purpose of 
 writing to her. He was, however, willing to answer 
 his summons to Rome.* "And I trust that God 
 shall put in my mouth to defend His truth there as 
 well as here." That request, of course, was not 
 granted; and on 20 November, 1555,* the Car- 
 dinal-delegate brought his case before the Papal 
 Consistory. Five days later Cranmer was pronounced 
 contumacious for not appearing and was solemnly 
 excommunicated by the Pope in person. The occa- 
 sion, no doubt, was great, and the scene was perhaps 
 impressive — the pastor of all the world cutting off 
 from his flock the once great Primate of England. 
 But in sixteenth-century Rome there was barely a 
 step from the sublime to the infamous ; and in the 
 
 * Dr. Gairdner in his life of Cranmer in the Diet. Nat, Biogr. says 
 that "Foxe tells us that he expressed his willingness to go and de- 
 fend himself at Rome if the Queen would let him. But the state- 
 ment is scarcely consistent with the position he had already taken 
 up,'* etc. The passage in Cranmer's letter above cited apparently 
 escaped Dr. Gairdner' s eye. With regard to the inconsistency, 
 Cranmer was not prepared to accept the Pope's jurisdiction ; he 
 merely contemplated a sort of missionary enterprise of a very bold 
 and hopeless nature. 
 
 * Game's letter to Mary in Tytler, ii., 486-487, 
 
15551 In Time of Trouble 355 
 
 same hour that the Vicar of Christ passed sentence 
 upon the arch-enemy of the Catholic faith, the 
 worldly Prince of the Papal States invoked the same 
 terrific anathemas in a squalid dispute with a petty 
 Italian lord ! ' 
 
 Pole was then appointed to the vacant Archbish- 
 opric, and a papal commission was issued for Cran- 
 mer's degradation and delivery to the secular arm. 
 His hour at last was come. Hitherto he had en- 
 dured more than two years* incarceration and had 
 withstood the assaults of his enemies without flinch- 
 ing. He was now to be put to the supreme and 
 final test whether he could sustain in deed the words 
 of his letter to Mary. 
 
 " I have not spoken for fear of punishment and to 
 avoid the same, . . . but I have spoken for my most 
 bounden duty to the crown, liberties, laws, and customs 
 of this realm of England; but most specially to discharge 
 my conscience in uttering the truth to God's glory, cast- 
 ing away all fear by the comfort w^hich I have in Christ, 
 who saith, * Fear not them that kill the body, and cannot 
 kill the soul; but fear him that can cast both body and 
 soul into hell-fire.* He that for fear to lose this life will 
 forsake the truth, shall lose the everlasting life; and he 
 that for the truth's sake will spend his life, shall find 
 everlasting life." 
 
 ^Foreign Calendar ^ i553-58» p. 202. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 IN THE HOUR OF DEATH 
 
 WHILE the Pope was pronouncing him con- 
 tumacious for taking no care to obey his 
 citation * and was condemning him to be deprived 
 and degraded as an obstinate heretic, and while 
 he was being burnt in efdgy at Rome,' Cranmer 
 was engaged in drawing up an appeal to a Gen- 
 eral Council. The law of nature,' he wrote to a 
 legal friend whose assistance he sought, required 
 every man to defend his own life so far as it 
 might be done without offence to God ; and lest he 
 should seem rashly and unadvisedly to cast himself 
 away he had resolved to follow Luther's example in 
 appealing from Leo X. He was bound by oath, he 
 said, never to consent to the reception of the Pope's 
 authority in England ; from this came all his trouble, 
 so that the quarrel was personal between him and 
 the Pope, and no man could be a lawful and in- 
 different judge in his own cause; therefore, he 
 had good reason in appealing to a General Council. 
 
 * *' Comparere non curaret" says the Pope. 
 ' Recantacyons, p. 69. 
 » Works, ii., 455-456. 
 
 356 
 
In the Hour of Death 357 
 
 Not that he thought his life would thereby be saved ; 
 he was well aware that in 1460 Pius II. by his " ex- 
 ecrable" Bull' had forbidden all such appeals to 
 a General Council, and had thus made absolute his 
 own jurisdiction. ** The chiefest cause in very deed 
 (to tell you the truth)," wrote Cranmer, '* of this 
 mine appeal is that I might gain time (if it shall so 
 please God) to live until I have finished mine answer 
 against Marcus Antonius Constantine' which I now 
 have in hand." 
 
 The appeal was a stirring and striking document.* 
 Cranmer paid an eloquent tribute therein to Rome's 
 services in early times. 
 
 " The Church of Rome, as it were, lady of the world, 
 both was and was also counted worthily the mother of 
 other churches; forasmuch as she then first begat to 
 Christ, nourished them with the food of pure doctrine, 
 did help them with her riches, succoured the oppressed, 
 and was a sanctuary for the miserable; she rejoiced with 
 them that rejoiced and wept with them that wept. Then 
 by the examples of the Bishops of Rome riches were 
 
 • The bull '' Execrabilis" is dated i Jan., 1460: see Cambridge 
 Mod. Hist., i., 632-633. 
 
 ^ I.e., Gardiner, who under this pseudonym published a rejoinder 
 in 1552 to Cranmer's books on the Sacrament. Three books of this 
 reply are said to have been completed by Cranmer when his work 
 was cut short; but all trace of them has disappeared. Nor does any 
 copy of Gardiner's book appear to be known. See Cranmer, Works, 
 vol. ii., Pref., p. x. ; and other references s. v. Gardiner in Gough's 
 Index to Parker Soc. Publications. Neither of these works is 
 mentioned by the biographers of Cranmer and Gardiner in the Diet. 
 Nat. Biogr. 
 
 *Foxe, viii., 73-76; Jenkyns, iv., 121-129; Works, ii., 224-228. 
 
35^ Thomas Cranmer 
 
 despised, worldly glory and pomp was trodden under 
 foot, pleasures and riot nothing regarded. Then this 
 frail and uncertain life, being full of all miseries was 
 laughed to scorn, whiles through the example of Romish 
 martyrs men did everywhere press forward to the life to 
 come. But afterward the ungraciousness of damnable 
 ambition never satisfied, avarice, and the horrible enorm- 
 ity of vices, had corrupted and taken the see of Rome, 
 there followed everywhere almost the deformities of all 
 churches growing out of kind into the manners of the 
 church, their mother, leaving their former innocency 
 and purity, and slipping into foul and heinous usages. 
 For the foresaid and many other griefs and abuses, since 
 reformation of the above-mentioned abuses is not to be 
 looked for of the Bishop of Rome; neither can I hope 
 by reason of his wicked abuses and usurped authority, 
 to have him an equal judge in his own cause, therefore 
 I do challenge and appeal in these writings from the 
 Pope." 
 
 He protested against being condemned in his ab- 
 sence ; he could not appear in person, for he was 
 straitly kept in prison ; " and though I would never 
 so fain send any proctor, yet by reason of poverty I 
 am not able (for all that ever I had, wherewith I 
 should bear my proctor's costs and charges, is quite 
 taken from me)." 
 
 This appeal Cranmer had no means of lodging, 
 and on 13 February, 1556, Bonner and Thirlby 
 went down to Oxford to execute the papal com- 
 mission for his degradation. The procedure on 
 such occasions was a monument of exquisite cruelty^' 
 
 * The form is given in Foxe, viii., 77-79 ; cf, Pontificale Romanum 
 by J. Catalan (Rome, 1740), iii., i46->i64. 
 
In the Hour of Death 359 
 
 nothing that ingenuity could devise was omitted to 
 abase the victim and wound his spirit ; and while 
 Bonner gloated over his task, Thirlby must have 
 suffered at least as much as Cranmer. He was a man 
 of humanity and had received promotion, friendship, 
 and other benefits from the Archbishop. "Whether 
 it were a jewel," writes Morice, " plate, instrument, 
 maps, horse, or anything else, Thirlby had but to 
 admire, and Cranmer would give it him." * Calling 
 the prisoner before them in the choir of Christ 
 Church Cathedral, the two papal commissioners read 
 their commission. When they came to the state- 
 ment that his cause had been indifferently (/. e, im- 
 partially) heard at Rome and that he had lacked 
 nothing necessary for his defence, Cranmer was 
 moved to anger ; ** God must needs," he exclaimed, 
 ** punish this open and shameless lying." Next he 
 was clothed in the vestments of all the seven orders 
 and with the insignia of an archbishop ; a staff was 
 put in his hand and a mitre upon his head. Then 
 Bonner mocked him : 
 
 " This is the man," he said, "that hath ever despised the 
 Pope's Holiness, and now is to be judged by him ; this 
 is the man that hath pulled down so many churches and 
 now is come to be judged in a church ; this is the man 
 that contemned the blessed sacrament of the altar, and 
 now is come to be condemned before that blessed sacra- 
 ment hanging over the altar ; this is the man that like 
 
 1 Harleian MS., 416, fol. 183; in Dixon, iv., 500, the number of 
 the MS. is misprinted as 116. 
 
36o 
 
 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 Lucifer sat in the place of Christ upon an altar ' to 
 judge others, and now is come before an altar to be 
 judged himself." 
 
 So pained was Thirlby at this exhibition that more 
 than once he pulled Bonner's sleeve to stop him. 
 After this they began to strip Cranmer of his robes. 
 As they took off his pall he asked, **Which of you 
 hath a pall to take off my pall ? " He was an arch- 
 bishop, they only bishops ; they acted, they replied, 
 not as bishops but as papal delegates. They then 
 wrested the crozier staff from his hands, while he 
 drew from his sleeve his appeal to a General Council.' 
 Thirlby said they could admit no appeal, and the 
 degrading rite went on. Bonner scraped his fingers 
 and nails to obliterate the effects of an unction 
 administered twenty-three years before. Divested 
 of episcopal rank, Cranmer was then successively 
 degraded from the orders of priest, deacon, sub- 
 deacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and doorkeeper. 
 Finally a barber shaved his head to deprive him of 
 whatever grace a long disused tonsure may have 
 originally given him. " Now," exclaimed Bonner in 
 brutal triumph, "now are you no lord any more.'* 
 " All this," said Cranmer, " needed not ; I had my- 
 self done with this gear long ago." 
 
 * This was a scandal which Cranmer warmly repudiated. The 
 truth of the incident was that, Cranmer having to sit in commission 
 at St. Paul's, a scaffold was as usual prepared for him by the 
 Bishop (Bonner) and his officials; and it is possible that the scaffold 
 concealed an altar. 
 
 ^ In Foxe and in other accounts the crozier is said to have been 
 taken away first, but the regular and natural order was to begin with 
 the highest insignia, the pall. 
 
In the Hour of Death 361 
 
 Clad in " a poor yeoman-beadle's gown, full bare 
 and nearly worn," Cranmer was now as a layman 
 handed over to the secular authorities, whom Bon- 
 ner, if he followed the usual form, besought not to 
 expose their charge to any danger of death or muti- 
 lation ! He was taken back to Bocardo, where two 
 days later he made the first of his dated recantations. 
 It stands fourth among All the Submissions and 
 Recantations of Thomas Cranmer^ officially pub- 
 lished after his death ; and according to another 
 recently discovered narrative,' he had for six weeks 
 or more been listening to the persuasions of two 
 
 * This other narrative is entitled Bishop Cranmer' s Recantacyons; 
 it was privately printed in 1885 by the late Lord Houghton 
 under the editorship of Dr. J. Gairdner. The original MS. is in the 
 Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris; it was found among Nicholas 
 Harpsfield's papers and is thought to have been written either by 
 him or by Alan Cope. Canon Mason thinks the tract was 
 written by Harpsfield; but Harpsfield affected to disbelieve the 
 whole incident of Cranmer's burning his right hand (see Dixon, 
 iv., 545), an incident mentioned in the Recantacyons, Dr. 
 Gairdner, Canon Dixon, and Canon Mason have based their 
 accounts of Cranmer's last days largely upon it, but its authority 
 is very questionable. It was, as the author admits, "written 
 to order," to counteract the effect of Cranmer's final triumph, to 
 check the Protestant boasting over his courage (see Recantacyons^ p. 
 113), and to prove that he was no martyr — a contention which 
 Harpsfield maintained in his Dialogi Sex^ 1566, p. 743 (it may also 
 be noted that in the Recantacyons and in Harpsfield's Divorce we 
 have the only contemporary authority for the story of Cranmer's 
 wife). Moreover, it is full of strange stories of attempted rescues, 
 the appearance of comets, etc. We are told that Cranmer's heart 
 remained unburnt, being hardened by the poison of heresy, as Sueton- 
 ius relates that Germanicus's heart was made proof against cremation 
 by material poison ^Recantacyons ^ p. 109). It states that on his way 
 
362 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 Spanish Friars, Pedro de Soto and John de Villa 
 Garcia, and of his gaoler, Nicholas Wodson. He is 
 also said to have asked for an interview with his old 
 friend Tunstall, who replied that Cranmer was more 
 likely to shake him than be convinced by him, and 
 with Cardinal Pole, who gathered up all his skirts 
 when there was fear of contact with heretics. It is 
 as a result of these persuasions that Cranmer is sup- 
 posed to have signed the first three of his recanta- 
 tions; but they are not really recantations at all. 
 In the official version th^ first two are merely styled 
 "submissions," and the third still more vaguely a 
 "scriptum." They are, in fact, only submissions 
 
 to execution Cranmer declared that he would have maintained his 
 recantation if only the Pope had let him live, and repeated the 
 statement at the stake /a/aw aperteque (publicly and openly), which 
 is quite incredible, seeing that a few moments before Cranmer had 
 irrevocably renounced the Pope " and all his false doctrine." There 
 is no word of this in the detailed account of the scene written by a 
 Catholic bystander in a letter to a friend immediately afterwards, 
 nor in the account written by the Venetian ambassador in London 
 three days later; and it is inconsistent with Queen Mary's explana- 
 tion of her action in putting Cranmer to death, viz., that his 
 ' ' iniquity and obstinacy against God and the Queen were so great 
 that her clemency and mercy could have no place with him." 
 {Foreign Cal.^ 1553-58, p. 224; Venetian Cal., 1553-58, Pt. i., p. 386). 
 Such a declaration made palam aperteque would have stultified the 
 whole of Cranmer's action on his last day, and would not have 
 remained unknown until 1885. Finally, the author of this tract 
 gives a wrong date for Cranmer's execution. Under these circum- 
 stances it cannot be accepted as an historical authority of much 
 value. The Government had ^lo reason to spare Cranmer's reputa- 
 tion; they even published under official sanction as his words the 
 very opposite of what he spoke. If, therefore, they had known of 
 anything worse than the details embodied in their official version, 
 ^// Mi? ^w^/mVi-wwj, they would certainly have published it. 
 
CARDINAL POLE. 
 
 AFTER THE PICTURE BY TITIAN, NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF LORD ARUNDEL OF WARDOUR. BY 
 PERMISSION OF THE OWNER AND MESSRS, CASSELL & CO. 
 
In the Hour of Death 3^3 
 
 to authority, such as Cranmer*s political principles 
 almost compelled him to make. 
 
 It must always be borne in mind that the English 
 Reformers of the sixteenth century as a rule recog- 
 nised no such thing as the right to individual judg- 
 ment, and its necessary corollary, religious toleration. 
 Every form of government is based on a compromise 
 between two principles, either of which, when pushed 
 to extremes, is fatal to human society. The idea 
 of private judgment ultimately leads to anarchy, 
 and the doctrine of authority to slavery. In some 
 cases the law must override individual conscience, 
 while on the other hand, unless individual conscience 
 had occasionally defied the law, there would have 
 been no progress; and men who denounce most 
 vigorously resistance to the law are often first to 
 resist when the law touches their own individual con- 
 science. Cranmer was now at the crux of the dif- 
 ficulty. The question for him, as for most others, 
 had been between the authority of the Pope and that 
 of the English State represented by the King. He 
 had unreservedly decided for the authority of the 
 State, and he was deeply imbued with the sixteenth- 
 century notions of the wickedness of resistance to the 
 King's authority. He had in 1 549 told the rebels of 
 Devon with unnecessary emphasis that if the whole 
 world prayed for them till doomsday it would not 
 avail them unless they repented their disobedience. 
 
 This theory involved but slight inconvenience 
 when Henry or Edward was King, and when their 
 laws concurred with Cranmer's conscience in renounc- 
 ing the Pope and his doctrine. But when Mary was 
 
364 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 Queen the trouble began. If the English sovereign, 
 Church, and Parliament had the right to abolish the 
 papal jurisdiction, had they not also the right to 
 restore it ? And this authority restored, on what 
 grounds could Cranmer resist? When arguing with 
 Sir Thomas More about the oath of succession in 
 1534, he had suggested that More's conscience was 
 doubtful about his duty to swear, but there was no 
 doubt about his duty to obey the King.' Even More 
 confesses that he was unable at first to rebut the 
 argument ; yet he had surer ground than Cranmer 
 in 1556 when the same reasoning was turned against 
 him. For More could say that the voice of the 
 Catholic Church justified him in refusing in this in- 
 stance obedience to the King; but Cranmer could 
 not plead the authority of the Church. For good or 
 for ill, he had pinned his faith and allegiance to the 
 State ; and logically he was driven to obey the 
 State even when it asserted the jurisdiction of 
 Rome. Was there not also Scriptural warrant for 
 yielding under compulsion? Had not Elisha pro- 
 mised pardon to Naaman whenever he bowed the 
 knee in the House of Rimmon? 
 
 It was this distressing dilemma which produced 
 Cranmer's first submission ; he recognised the papal 
 authority, not because its claims had any intrinsic 
 weight, but because the law of England, which he 
 was bound to obey, had reimposed that authority. 
 " Forasmuch," he wrote,J "as the King's and Queen's 
 
 ' Z. and p. of Henry VIII., vii., 227. 
 
 ' Jenkyns, iv., 393, who reprints Cawood's official publication, 
 All the Su(>missiQns^ 
 
In the Hour of Death 365 
 
 Majesties, by consent of the Parliament, have re- 
 ceived the Pope's authority within this realm, I am 
 content to submit myself to their laws herein." Yet 
 he was not content ; his conscience warred with his 
 logic. Whatever the laws might say, his conscience 
 did not admit the papal claims. He had sworn to 
 renounce the Pope, andw that oath represented his 
 real convictions. Scarcely had he signed the first 
 submission before he cancelled it, throwing logic to 
 the winds and taking refuge in conscience. But 
 then, what about his oath of allegiance to Mary and 
 her laws? Was not that also a conscientious oath? 
 Undoubtedly it was: his conscience was now di- 
 vided against itself, while logic counselled submission. 
 Thus divided, his conscience could not stand, and a 
 second submission followed, more complete than the 
 first. 
 
 The date of these two submissions cannot be 
 ascertained. Perhaps they preceded his degrada- 
 tion,* on 14 February. If so, they were annulled 
 by the appeal he then presented to a General Coun- 
 cil, in which he spoke of the heinous and usurped 
 authority of the Bishop of Rome, and by his declar- 
 ation during the ceremony that he would never 
 again say mass. Either the indignities then suffered 
 renewed his abhorrence of the papal system or the 
 presentation of his appeal gave him fresh confidence ; 
 
 ' On the other hand, in his final recantation, Cranmer repudiated 
 all bills signed "since my degradation." He certainly meant to 
 repudiate all his acknowledgments of papal authority ; and, unless 
 he made a mistake, his words must imply that no submissions were 
 signed before bis degradation. 
 
366 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 for when Bonner visited him in Bocardo on 
 15 and 16 February he could only extort from 
 him submissions much more guarded than before. 
 These are the third and fourth recantations; 
 the third, while expressing readiness to submit 
 to the laws of the King and Queen concerning the 
 Pope's supremacy, promised with regard to his 
 books submission not to the Pope, but only to the 
 judgment of the Catholic Church and of the next 
 General Council. The fourth recantation, dated 
 15 February, was the first in which Cranmer 
 made any direct reference to questions of doctrine, 
 and he did so " in terms which might have been 
 subscribed by any of the martyrs that had died.'** 
 He simply declared his belief to be in accord with 
 that of the Catholic Church ; that, of course, had all 
 along been his contention ; Popery was a corruption 
 of Catholicism. 
 
 These documents Bonner took back to London, 
 where it now devolved upon the Government, that 
 is to say. Queen Mary and Cardinal Pole,* to decide 
 what was to be done with the degraded Archbishop. 
 There is no reason to suppose that they ever in- 
 tended to spare his life. They would have thought 
 it presumption to neglect a papal sentence, and in- 
 deed those condemned by the Church were as a 
 
 * Dixon, iv., 505. 
 
 * Gardiner, the Lord Chancellor, had died on 12 November, 
 1555 ; oil liis death-bed he is reported to have said, " Negavi cum 
 Petro^ exivi cum Petro, sed nondum Jlevi cum Petrol {Diet. 
 Nat. Piogr.^ xx., 424.) The " negavi " refers to his repudiation of 
 Rome under Henry VIII., the "exivi" to his deprivation under 
 Edward VI. 
 
In the Hour of Death 367 
 
 matter of course in Mary's reign sent to the stake. 
 From their point of view, Cranmer had done evil 
 for which his death would be but a slight atone- 
 ment ; unable to comprehend the state of mind 
 which led men to reject the doctrine of Rome, they 
 and many others since their time attributed the whole 
 Reformation in England to the divorce of Queen 
 Catherine, in which Cranmer had played no small 
 part. That to Mary was naturally a grievous offence, 
 and others who shared the guilt with Cranmer were 
 not sorry that he alone should bear the responsi- 
 bility. Nor, although the contrary has often beeh 
 asserted, was it illegal to burn a penitent heretic. * 
 
 But Mary and Pole had wider objects in view than 
 the satisfaction of a personal animus against Cranmer 
 or the exemplary punishment of the greatest living 
 heretical Englishman, They desired to serve the 
 general cause of Roman Catholicism. It was not 
 enough that Cranmer should die ; he must also be 
 made to ruin the Reformation. Northumberland 
 had "turned many*' by his speech on the scaffold; 
 if Cranmer would only repeat the performance, 
 the candle lighted by Ridley and Latimer might be 
 snuffed out after all. Cranmer's weakening on the 
 
 ' Froude describes Cranmer's burning as "an act unsanctioned 
 even by their own bloody laws," and Canon Dixon says that if Cran- 
 mer was not a martyr he was a murdered man. But in 1498, for 
 instance, at Canterbury a heretic priest was burnt at the stake, 
 even though Henry VII. himself persuaded him to recant and *' got 
 great honour" thereby. (Cotton MS., Vitellins A., xvi., f. 172; 
 Excepta Historica^ p. 117.) It was, no doubt, considered the proper 
 thing to pardon penitent heretics, but it does not appear to have 
 been a legal obligation. 
 25 
 
368 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 point of the papal supremacy had already suggested 
 that he might be used for this purpose, and after 
 Bonner's return to London means were considered 
 for producing a deeper impression on Cranmer*s 
 mind. Terror was first employed, and on 24 Feb- 
 ruary the Queen signed a warrant for his committal 
 to the flames. No date was fixed, ^ but Cranmer 
 was given to understand that the writ had been 
 signed. 
 
 When a sufficient interval had elapsed for this in- 
 formation to work on the prisoner's mind, his treat- 
 ment was suddenly changed. The prison doors were 
 thrown open, and Cranmer exchanged his dungeon 
 in Bocardo for the pleasant Deanery of Christ 
 Church.' There he was used with every consid- 
 
 * This warrant is printed in Burnet, v., 452, 453, where it is erro- 
 neously styled a writ ; a zvarrani was directed by the Queen to the 
 Lord Chancellor, who would thereupon issue out of Chancery a 
 writ for the execution. Burnet's error has led Canon Dixon into 
 confusion on the subject ; he disputes Lingard's assertion that the 
 day of Cranmer's execution was fixed (Dixon, iv., 207), and says tlie 
 day was not fixed in the writ. But he is thinking of the warrant, 
 which did not fix a date ; and although it prescribed the form of the 
 writ, the writ itself does not appear to be extant. Dr. Gairdner, on 
 the authority of the Recantacyons ^ p. 75, says that Cranmer. was told 
 he was to suffer on 7 March, which is possibly true. 
 
 * The Recantacyons and Dr. Gairdner place Cranmer's removal to 
 Christ Church before and not after his degradation ; but not very 
 consistently the Recantacyons represents Cranmer as being influenced 
 by the keeper of Bocardo prison at the time that he is supposed to 
 be faring delicately in Christ Church. Foxe definitely says that it 
 was after the degradation ; Canon Dixon takes the same view, and 
 some confirmation of it may be found in the fact that the English 
 witness to the fifth recantation was Henry Siddall, Canon of Christ 
 Church. 
 
In the Hour of Death 3^9 
 
 eration. He walked in the gardens, played bowls 
 on the green, enjoyed the converse of men of learn- 
 ing and wit, and lacked no delicate fare. Bishop 
 Brooks at his trial told him* that, "whereas you 
 were Archbishop of Canterbury and Metropolitan of 
 England, it is ten to one (I say) that ye shall be as 
 well still, yea, even better." All these things might 
 be given him if 
 
 Then Cranmer fell. He signed his fifth or real 
 recantation,' in which he anathematised the whole 
 heresy of Luther and Zwingli, confessed his belief 
 in one holy and visible Catholic Church, beyond 
 the pale of which there was no salvation, and recog- 
 nised the Pope as Christ's vicar and supreme head 
 of the Church on earth. The true body and blood 
 of Christ were, he declared, really present under the 
 forms of bread and wine in the sacrament ; the bread 
 was translated into the body and the wine into the 
 blood of Christ. He acknowledged the six other sac- 
 raments and the existence of Purgatory. This was no 
 mere submission to outward authority, but a profess- 
 edly complete recantation of inward belief extorted 
 from him by the poignant contrast between the 
 pleasant prospect of life and the vivid horror of an 
 agonising death. He surrendered every point for 
 which he had fought ; the " comfort he had in 
 Christ " had not, as he hoped, enabled him " to cast 
 away all fear." 
 
 Unfortunately, human frailty has made Cranmer's 
 
 * Foxe, viii., 48. No definite promises are known to have been 
 made, unless Foxe's authority be accepted, but Cranmer's treatment 
 was suggestive, ' Jenkyns, iv., 395. 
 
370 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 case a type rather than an exception among religious 
 leaders. But they lived in times far removed from 
 the comfortable immunity which now attends doc- 
 trinal vagaries ; and it is more charitable and perhaps 
 more fruitful to attempt to understand the psycho- 
 logical problem presented by cases like those of St. 
 Peter, Hus, Jerome of Prague, Savonarola, Cranmer, 
 and Galileo ' than to make broad our phylacteries 
 and point the finger of scorn at those who succumb- 
 ed to a test which their critics have never stood. 
 How comes it that an ordinary dervish will face 
 death without flinching when great religious leaders 
 have quailed ? No doubt the horrible mode of a here- 
 tic's death supplied an additional terror, and courage 
 comes easier on the spur of the moment and in the 
 heat of the battle than after prolonged reflection. But 
 it is also true that the more sensitive the mind is, 
 the greater is the fortitude required to confront 
 danger. It is easy for the dull brain to face death ; a 
 dog, could it reason, could never be made to recant, 
 because it would fail to imagine death. But an im- 
 pressionable imagination like Cranmer*s paints the 
 unknown horrors of the stake in the most vivid 
 colours. It was the working of his imaginative and 
 susceptible mind which drove Cranmer to yield 
 when less impressionable men like Hooper, Ridley, 
 and Latimer successfully bore the strain. 
 
 > For Hus and Jerome, see Creighton, History of the Papacy ^ 
 Bk. II., chap. V ; for Savonarola, see Villari's Life, and for Galileo 
 see Fahie's Life. The scientist is perhaps the least to be excused, 
 for he had means of verifying his conclusions which were not available 
 fof the theologians ; his certainty was objective, theirs only subjective, 
 
In the Hour of Death Z7^ 
 
 In another respect Cranmer was less fitted than 
 his colleagues to withstand the attack. A man who 
 sees only one side of truth at a time is proof against 
 doubt ; but the man of broader intellect, who knows 
 that truth is relative and feels the force of hostile 
 arguments, is inevitably less dogmatic and less abso- 
 lutely sure of the impregnability of his position. In 
 these days of comparative study it might almost be 
 said that to be positive is to be ignorant ; and few 
 there are who would give their bodies to be burnt 
 on the assumption that their opinion was the whole 
 truth and nothing but the truth. Cranmer was 
 much nearer this modern position than his con- 
 temporaries ; he knew, none better, that on the im- 
 pregnable rock of Holy Scripture could be based 
 arguments against him as well as for him, and that 
 the voice of the Church had varied in various ages. 
 Even General Councils, he knew, could err ; was he, 
 then, unique and infallible? His distressing dilemma 
 between a conscience which bade him renounce the 
 Pope and a conscience which bade him obey his sov- 
 ereign opened a breach through which doubts rushed 
 in and submerged him. 
 
 The date of his fifth recantation is uncertain, 
 but it was in print before 13 March, when the 
 Privy Council summoned the printers before them 
 and ordered all copies to be burnt.* An English 
 translation of this document, writes the Venetian 
 ambassador on 24 March,' 
 
 » Acts p. C, 1554-6, p. 247. 
 
 * Venetian Cal, 1553-58, Pt. i., p. 386. This is the nearest con- 
 temporary account of the incident ; cf. Original Letter Sy i., 173, 
 
372 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 " was published in London, and as it was signed by 
 Father Soto and his associate, both Spaniards, . . . 
 the Londoners not only had suspicion of the document, 
 but openly pronounced it a forgery ; so the Lords of the 
 Council were obliged to suppress it and to issue another 
 witnessed by Englishmen." 
 
 It may have been partly to demolish for ever 
 these suspicions of forgery that Cranmer, who was 
 now — if not before — sent back to Bocardo, was 
 required to make a sixth and still more debas- 
 ing confession*; but the main object seems to 
 
 where Sampson writes from Strassburg on 6 April : "A certain 
 absurd recantation, forged by the papists, began to be spread abroad 
 during his life-time, as if he made that recantation ; but the authors 
 of it themselves recalled it while he was yet living," Foxe also 
 plainly believes it was forged, and in more recent times Whiston, 
 Todd, and Soames have doubted whether Cranmer recanted at all. 
 There is little ground for this view, which would destroy the signifi- 
 cance of Cranmer's action in burning his right hand. With regard 
 to the suppression of the first edition of the fifth recantation various 
 theories have been suggested. Dixon thinks it was suppressed because 
 it was issued by an " obscure" firm merely at the instance of the 
 Oxford theologians, Lingard because it infringed the patent of Ca- 
 wood, the Queen's printer, and others because it really was forged. 
 Dixon's idea of Copland's being an obscure firm will not stand 
 against the two pages about him in the Diet. Nat. Biogr. , and there 
 may be something in Lingard's view, as Cawood undoubtedly had 
 the right to publish official documents. Yet there was probably 
 some truth in the Venetian ambassador's story. Dixon says it is 
 inaccurate because Siddall (not Soto) and Garcia are the witnesses ; 
 so they are in the later edition of Cawood ; but what the ambassa- 
 dor says is that Soto and Garcia witnessed Copland's first suppressed 
 edition, of which no copy is known. Probably Siddall, as an Eng- 
 lishman, was substituted for Soto ; he was one of the most active 
 turncoats in that canting and recanting age. See Diet. Nat. Biogr. ^ 
 lii., 193. 1 Printed in Jenkyns, iv., 396-397. 
 
In the Hour of Death 373 
 
 have been to cover the whole history of the Re- 
 formation with shame and indeUble infamy. Hith- 
 erto Cranmer had only professed a complete change 
 of mind, without directly accusing his past career. 
 Now he was to depict his misdeeds in the black- 
 est hues, and to attribute to his own sinister influ- 
 ence the whole series of woes which had lately 
 afflicted the realm. " I have sinned " (such were the 
 words put into his mouth) ^ " most grievously, before 
 Heaven and against the realm of England, yea, 
 against the whole Church of Christ ; I have perse- 
 cuted more furiously than Paul ; I have blasphemed, 
 persecuted, and maltreated." He was then made to 
 compare himself with the thief on the cross, and to 
 imply that, like the thief, he only repented when his 
 means to do harm had failed. He was most deserving, 
 proceeded the confession, not only of all human and 
 temporal, but of divine and eternal punishment, 
 
 ** because I did exceeding great wrong to Henry VIII,, 
 and especially to his wife, Queen Catherine, when I 
 became the cause and author of their divorce ; which 
 crime, indeed, was the seed-plot of all evils and ca- 
 lamities to this realm. Hence came the death of so 
 many good men, hence the schism of the whole realm, 
 hence heresies, hence the confounding of so many minds 
 and bodies. ... I opened wide the windows to 
 heresies of every sort, of which I myself was the chief 
 doctor and ductor. ... In this indeed I was not 
 
 * The real author of this document was probably Cardinal Pole; 
 its style bears a striking resemblance to that affected by Pole ; and 
 the view of the origin of the Reformation is that expressed by Pole 
 in a letter to Mary in 1553 {Cambridge Modern History, ii., 519). 
 
374 
 
 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 only worse than Saul and the thief, but most accursed of 
 all whom the earth has ever borne. . . ."* 
 
 This last shameful confession, — more shameful to 
 those who dictated it than to the heart-broken cap- 
 tive who signed it, — was dated i8th March. It 
 would reach London on the following day. Queen 
 Mary and Pole had now got what they wanted and 
 all they could hope to obtain. Here was a version 
 of recent history even more pleasing to them than 
 that of Northumberland. When the chief prophet 
 of Reform had cursed it in terms like these, who 
 should be found to bless or defend ? A signal and 
 final service had Cranmer performed ; he could be of 
 no further use except to repeat in public his private 
 confession ; he might now be dismissed to the stake. 
 Orders were given at once, which would reach Ox- 
 ford on the 20th, that Cranmer should be burned on 
 the following day. Dr. Cole, Provost of Eton, was 
 warned to prepare a sermon, and Lord Williams of 
 Thame and other local magnates were directed to 
 summon their forces to maintain order at the com- 
 ing execution. Cole arrived in Oxford on the 20th, 
 and the lords and their retainers in the early hours 
 next morning. 
 
 * Notwithstanding the outcry about the witnesses to the fifth re- 
 cantation, this sixth document has no witness at all, and in this 
 respect it resembles all the recantations except the fifth. It was 
 scarcely surprising that the fifth recantation was the only one known 
 to Foxe ; if all the documents were unwitnessed they might all be 
 considered equally authentic ; but the fact that in the official version 
 one is witnessed and the others are not seems to imply a distinction 
 either in importance or authenticity. 
 
In the Hour of Death 375 
 
 It was probably on the day before his death that 
 Cranmer composed what is called his seventh recan- 
 tation.^ It consisted of the address he should make 
 to the people at his execution, and when he wrote it 
 out he must have already known that he was to die 
 on the morrow." His sixth recantation had bent the 
 bow to the uttermost ; could a religious system 
 which involved such cruelty be just or true? He 
 was still in the valley of doubts and fears, but 
 the light had begun to glimmer, and the harrowed 
 mind to hope. Although this seventh document 
 asserts the real and substantial presence of Christ 
 in the Eucharist, and repudiates the books he 
 had written against that doctrine since the death 
 of Henry VIII., it contains no such shameful 
 
 * Jenkyns, iv., 398-400: it is neither signed, witnessed, nor dated ; 
 but most of it, at any rate, was Cranmer's composition. 
 
 'Otherwise how could he have written " I am now come to the 
 last end of my life," etc. ? The idea that Cranmer did not know he 
 was to die on the 21st until that same morning originated with 
 Foxe, who was not acquainted with the seventh recantation, a docu- 
 ment carefully prepared on the assumption that he was to die. That 
 he wrote this and not merely spoke it is clear from the fact that this 
 recantation is printed in the official version by Cawood. Cranmer 
 appears to have made more than one copy of this document, and 
 from one of these the Government printed it. Strype, Todd, and 
 Froude accuse Bonner of fraud in printing this account of what 
 Cranmer meant to say, when it was the opposite of what he did say, 
 and also suggest forgery. But Bonner would not have forged so 
 lame and halting a submission, and if he had forged he would also 
 have added a signature, if not witnesses and a date. Moreover, he 
 only professed to print what Cranmer had written, not what he said. 
 Of course, it was not, even so, a very honourable thing to do ; but the 
 object was to counteract the immense effect of Cranmer's spoken 
 words. 
 
37^ Thomas Cranmer 
 
 language as its predecessor, and not a word of sub- 
 mission to the Pope: apart from the Sacrament it 
 merely professes the creed of the English Reform- 
 ers. " I believe," he says, " every article of the 
 Catholic faith, every clause, 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." * Could it be that Cranmer was going 
 over again in brief the history of his mental develop- 
 ment? His previous recantations had carried him 
 back to the state of belief in his youth, but they had 
 not represented any deep change of conviction, and 
 now it seemed that the revulsion had already begun. 
 Gradually he began to recover lost ground, and in 
 this seventh recantation there is nothing inconsistent 
 with his position under Henry VHI. after the breach 
 with Rome." 
 
 But the process did not stop here in a half-way 
 house ; and a further mental struggle ensued during 
 the night between this recantation and the dawn of 
 
 * These significant limitations in this last recantation have riot 
 hitherto been noticed, and it is mainly on them that I base the above 
 view that Cranmer's mind had begun to react earlier than is usually 
 supposed. Canon Mason puts the change as late as the scene in St. 
 Mary's on the 21st, but the alterations of this seventh writing which 
 Cranmer made in his oral address lead so naturally to his conclusion 
 that they can scarcely have been improvised on the moment. I feel 
 sure that they must have been thought out before he left his 
 prison. 
 
 * It maybe worth noting that there is no mention of the Ave Maria 
 after the Lord's Prayer in this document, and that the Lord's Prayer 
 was in English, not in Latin. 
 
In the Hour of Death 377 
 
 his dying day/ Of that night of agony we have no 
 record, but it needs none to depict the depth of 
 Cranmer's conflicting emotions, his shame and hu- 
 mihation, his dread of approaching torture and of 
 the yet more dark hereafter, his intense desire to 
 salve his conscience, and his aching to be at peace. 
 The papist tractarian tells us that he sought comfort in 
 the Penitential Psalms, but we may be sure that pe- 
 titions from his own great Litany sprang no less 
 readily to his lips : 
 
 " that it may please Thee to succour, help, and comfort 
 all that be in danger, necessity, and tribulation . . . 
 and to show Thy pity upon all prisoners and captives ; 
 . . . that it may please Thee to bring into the way of 
 truth all such as have erred and are deceived . . . 
 that it may please Thee to strengthen such as do stand, 
 and to comfort and help the weak-hearted, and to raise 
 up them that fall, and finally to beat down Satan under 
 our feet." 
 
 ^ There are several stories about Cranmer's last night which are 
 mutually destructive and cannot be corroborated. Foxe says he was 
 visited by Garcia early in the morning and induced to sign copies of 
 * ' articles " ; this is almost certainly wrong, for the Government 
 would assuredly have published these " articles" with the other sub- 
 missions. Neither Foxe nor the author of the Recantacyons is to be 
 trusted implicitly {cf. Dixon, iv., 525-526). According to the Re- 
 cantacyons, Cranmer supped and talked with companions till a late 
 hour, and then slept peacefully till five o'clock. If that is so, it 
 is difficult to see where he found time to compose his last recantation 
 and speech ; and the further statement that he signed fourteen cop- 
 ies of it in the morning of the 21st is incredible, for if such was the 
 case, how was it that the Government could not find a single signed 
 %opy to print, but printed one without any signature at all? 
 
378 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 The morning broke in a storm of rain, and the 
 crowds which thronged St. Mary*s came out to see 
 a reed shaken with the wind. The reed was bent 
 and sorely bruised, but it was not broken yet ; even 
 now it might be fashioned into a rod. To St. Mary's 
 Cranmer was led in procession between two friars, and 
 as they approached the doors a significant Nunc 
 Dimittis was raised. Inside, Cranmer was placed on a 
 stage opposite the pulpit,^ from which Dr. Cole was to 
 preach a sermon. Cranmer had given no sign to Cole 
 or the friars who visited him in the morning ; but he 
 had told a poor woman, on whom he bestowed some 
 money, that he would sooner have the prayers of a 
 good layman than those of a bad priest. That boded 
 ill for his final profession, and both Romanists and 
 Reformers passed from hope to fear and from fear to 
 hope as they witnessed Cranmer's demeanour. He 
 was made the touchstone of truth, and his foes them- 
 selves had determined that his conduct should test 
 the strength of the two forms of faith. 
 
 He stood there, ** an image of sorrow,'* while Cole 
 delivered his not unmerciful sermon.' With more 
 
 * " The pillar on the north side of the nave of St. Mary's where 
 Cranmer stood has a cut in it, a foot or two from the ground, where 
 it was hewn to receive the wooden stand on which he was placed. 
 Cole's pulpit of stone was exactly opposite, a few inches eastward of 
 the present wooden pulpit on the south side. The front of that pul- 
 pit has been preserved and is built into the wall above a door in the 
 church." — Dixon, iv., 527, note. 
 
 * It was charity itself compared with the terms of Cranmer's sixth 
 recantation ; with regard to the Divorce, for instance. Cole admitted 
 that Cranmer acted ' ' not of malice, but by the persuasion and ad- 
 vicp of certain learned men." 
 
In the Hour of Death 379 
 
 kindliness than consistency he recalled for Cranmer's 
 comfort the fate of the three faithful children of 
 Israel, who refused to bow before the false god 
 which the King had set up, and passed through 
 the fire unscathed. When he had ended he 
 asked them all to pray for the contrite sinner. 
 Cranmer knelt with the congregation. Then he 
 rose and gave thanks for their prayers, and began 
 to read from a paper he held in his hand.* It 
 was his seventh recantation — amended. First 
 came a prayer — " the last and sublimest of his 
 prayers ' " ; then followed four exhortations. He 
 besought his hearers to care less for this world and 
 more for God and the world to come ; to obey the 
 King and Queen, not for fear of them only, but much 
 more for the fear of God, for whosoever resisted 
 them resisted God's ordinance ; to love one another 
 like brothers and sisters and do good to all men ; 
 and finally he reminded the rich how hard it was for 
 them to enter the kingdom of heaven, and moved 
 them to charity ; for what was given to the poor was 
 given to God.' 
 
 * Lingard says he had two papers, one a copy of a recantation, the 
 other a retractation of them all ; the first was to be used if a pardon 
 came, the second if he was to die. His real intention was to burn the 
 recantation as he did his hand. The Venetian ambassador says he 
 actually did this ; the Recantacyons says it was taken from him be- 
 fore he was bound to the stake. 
 
 'Dixon, iv., 534. 
 
 'The most authoritative account of these final scenes is the British 
 Museum Harleian MS., 422, ff., 48-53 ; this consists really of two 
 documents ; (i) a letter of a Roman Catholic signed J. A., and written 
 to a friend on 23 March, two days after the execution which it de- 
 scribes; (2) a paper heade4 " Crannjer's Words before his Death," 
 
380 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 " And now," he went on, " forasmuch as I have tome 
 to the last end of my life, whereupon hangeth all my life 
 past and all my life to come, either to live with my Sav- 
 iour Christ for ever in joy, or else to be in pains ever with 
 the wicked devils in hell ; and I see before mine eyes pre- 
 sently either heaven ready to receive me, or else hell 
 ready to swallow me up : I shall therefore declare unto 
 you my faith without colour or dissimulation ; for now 
 is no time to dissemble whatsoever I have written in 
 time past." * 
 
 Then Cranmer began the real work of that day. 
 Having recited the Lord's Prayer in English he 
 began the profession of faith contained in the seventh 
 recantation ; but now he declared no unlimited belief 
 in General Councils. He had completely re-covered 
 the ground lost in his recantations and re-gained the 
 position of 1552.' If his audience perceived the drift 
 of these changes, the tension must have grown al- 
 most unbearable. The climax was reached ; his trial 
 was over, his triumph began. 
 
 written in the same hand and enclosed with the letter ; this was ap- 
 parently copied by J. A. from a still earlier MS., written possibly 
 on the very day of execution. Strype has manipulated these two 
 documents so as to form a continuous narrative (Dixon, iv., 532-533). 
 Another narrative {Harleian MS., 417, ff., 90, et seq.) is printed in 
 Nichols's Narratives of the Reformation, pp. 218-233. The next in 
 value is that of the Venetian ambassador, written on 24 March. 
 
 ' The last phrase of Cranmer's conveyed no sure indication to 
 others, but it was a significant departure from the seventh recantation 
 he had written in prison the day before; that ran, "whatsover I 
 have said, preached, or written in time past," and referred to his 
 Reforming activity. By leaving out ' ' said, preached, or " he now 
 indicated his written recantations. 
 
 ' The Forty-two Articles of that year admitted that General Coun- 
 cils might err. 
 
PORTRAIT OF CRANMER DURING THE REIQN OF EDWARD VI. 
 
 FROM THE ORIGINAL PICTURE AT LAMBETH PALACE. 
 
In the Hour of Death 381 
 
 *' And now I come to the great thing that so troubleth 
 my conscience, more than any other thing that I said or 
 did in my life : and that is my setting abroad of writings 
 contrary to the truth, which here now I renounce and 
 refuse as things written with my hand contrary to the 
 truth which I thought in my heart, and written 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 ; wherein I have written 
 many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand of- 
 fended in writing contrary to my heart, it shall be first 
 burned. And as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's 
 enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine. And 
 as for the Sacrament " 
 
 He got no farther ; his foes had been dumb with 
 amazement, but now their pent-up feelings broke 
 loose. '* Stop the heretic's mouth ! " cried Cole, 
 " take him away ! " *' Play the Christian man," said 
 Lord Williams ; " remember your recantations and 
 do not dissemble." " Alas, my lord," replied Cran- 
 mer, " I have been a man that all my life loved plain- 
 ness, and never dissembled till now against the truth ; 
 which I am most sorry for" ; and he seized the oc- 
 casion to add that as for the Sacrament he believed 
 as he had taught in his book against the Bishop of 
 Winchester. The tumult redoubled. Cranmer was 
 dragged from the stage and led out towards the stake. 
 
 There was no need of a spur for his lagging steps. 
 His desire was now to be gone. He had done with 
 the quicksands of logic, legal formulas, and constitu- 
 tional maxims, and had gained a foothold in con- 
 science. The fight had been long and bitter, but he 
 
382 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 had reached a conclusion at length ; he had " pro- 
 fessed a good profession before many witnesses." 
 The Reformation would not be shamed in him, and 
 the gates of hell should not prevail against it. Over 
 it^ as over his own ashes, he would write the legend 
 Resurgam. Eagerly he pressed forward to the scene 
 of his final victory, and the friars could scarcely keep 
 pace. Through Brasenose Lane and out of the gate 
 by St. Michael's they sped to a spot in the present 
 Broad Street in front of Balliol College ; there Ridley 
 and Latimer had suffered six months before, and now 
 it is marked by a plain stone cross ^ in the ground. 
 
 The friars ceased not to ply him with exhor- 
 tations; "Die not in desperation," cried one; 
 "Thou wilt drag innumerable souls to hell," said 
 another. But Cranmer was out of their reach ; it 
 was not to perdition that he thought those souls 
 would go. Cheerfully he put off his upper garments 
 and stood in his shirt, which reached to the ground. 
 There was no hair on his head, but a long white 
 beard flowed over his breast. He was then bound 
 to the stake with a steel band,' and light was set to 
 
 ' The Martyrs' Memorial stands round the corner in St. Giles's ; 
 it was erected in 1842 in spite of the opposition of the Tractarians 
 (see Liddon, Life of Pusey, ii., 64-76). The spot was then an 
 empty ditch, probably the remains of a moat which ran round the 
 old city walls. Pusey thought it "not respectful that carts, etc., 
 should drive over the place where [the martyrs] yielded up their 
 somIs'* {ibid., ii., 66). The "carts, etc." are now kept off by an 
 electric-light standard which obstructs the road. 
 
 ' The steel band is still preserved in private hands ; see Gentle- 
 tnarCs Magazine, July, 1857, pp. 61, 75 ; the account of moneys 
 paid for the faggots and furze used at the execution is printed by 
 Strype, 
 
In the Hour of Death 383 
 
 the hundred and fifty faggots of furze and the hun- 
 dred faggots of wood which made up his funeral 
 pyre. As the flames leapt up, he * stretched out his 
 right hand, saying with a loud voice, " This hand 
 hath offended," and held it steadfastly in the fire 
 until it was burnt to ashes. Thus openly did he 
 proclaim his faith by the gesture in which the mind 
 of posterity paints him. No one could falsify that 
 recantation ; it was a sign which none could misread. 
 His body might perish, but his cause was won. He 
 saw the travail of his soul and was satisfied. 
 
 " His patience in the torment," writes a hostile eye-wit- 
 ness, " 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, as it was for a pernicious error, and 
 subversion of true religion, I could worthily have com- 
 mended the example, and matched it with the fame of 
 any Father of ancient time." 
 
 No cry escaped his lips, no movement betrayed 
 
 ^ The Venetian ambassador says: "At the moment that he was 
 taken to the stake he drew from his bosom the identical writing 
 (probably the Fifth Recantation), throwing it in the presence of the 
 multitude with his own hands into the flames, asking pardon of God 
 and of the people for having consented to such an act, which he ex- 
 cused by saying that he did it for the public benefit, as, had his life, 
 which he sought to save, been spared him, he might at some time 
 have still been of use to them, praying them all to persist in the doc- 
 trine believed by him, and absolutely denying the Sacrament and 
 the supremacy of the Church. And, finally, stretching forth his arm 
 and right hand, he said : ' This which has sinned, having signed the 
 Writing, must be the first to suffer punishment,' and thus did he 
 place it in the fire and burned it himself," 
 
 26 
 
3^4 Thomas Cranmer 
 
 his pain, save that once with his unburnt hand he 
 wiped his forehead. The flames might scorch and 
 consume his flesh, but his spirit had found repose; 
 for conscience had ceased to torment, and a peace 
 which passed understanding pervaded his soul. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abel, Thomas, 86 note 
 Acton, Lord, Preface, vii note 
 Agnus, the, 204, 273 
 X Lasco, John, see Laski 
 Alcock, John, Bishop, 14, 16 
 Alcock, Thomas, 14 
 Aldrich, Robert, Bishop of 
 
 Carlisle, 128 
 Aless, Alexander, 279 note 
 Alexander, Peter, 269 
 Altar, Sacrament of, see 
 
 Eucharist 
 Ammonius, Andreas, 92 
 Ampthill, 59 
 Anabaptists, 123 
 Angelo, S., Castle of, 36 
 Angus, Earl of, 35 
 Annates, Acts of, 54-55, 7°, 
 
 75» 77 
 Annebaut, Admiral d', 181 
 
 Antwerp, iii, 113 
 
 Appeals, Acts of, 55-56, 77 
 
 Arches, Coiirt of, 95 
 
 Arthur, Prince, 29, 59, 100 
 
 note 
 Articles, the Ten, 102-105, 
 
 108, 120, 126, 212, 226, 
 
 230, 247 
 Articles, the Six, 1 28-131, 
 
 133. 135, 137. 143. 146- 
 152, 166, 177, 187, 200- 
 201, 206 note, 212, 247,249, 
 261 
 Articles, the Forty- two, 226, 
 284-288 
 
 Arundel, Earl of, see Fitz- 
 
 alan 
 Ascham, Roger, 14, 319 
 Ashes, use of, 207 
 Aske, Robert, 108 
 Askew, Anne, 180, 182 
 Aslacton, 1-4, 6-7, 11, 12, 
 
 323 
 
 Aslacton, William de, 4 
 
 Atkinson, 122 
 
 Attainder, Acts of, 139 note, 
 163 
 
 Audience, Court of, 95-96 
 
 Audley, Thomas, Lord Chan- 
 cellor, 71, 129, 143, 146, 
 179 
 
 Augsburg, Confession of, 222, 
 226 
 
 Augsburg, Diet of (1530), 48 
 
 Auricular Confession, 103, 
 206 
 
 B 
 
 Baker, Sir John, 146, 150 
 Bale, John, 14 note, 15, 91, 
 
 256, 270 
 Baptism, 103, 232 
 Baptismal Office (1549), the, 
 
 221 
 Barcelona, Treaty of, 37 
 Barlow, John, 42 note 
 Barlow, William, Bishop of 
 
 S. David's, 42 note, 97, 
 
 128, 130, 131, 167, 170, 
 
 192-193, 206 
 Barnes, Robert, 21, 86 note, 
 
 143, 180 
 
 385 
 
386 
 
 Index 
 
 Barton, Elizabeth, 78-79, 80 
 Bath, Earl of, 300 
 Beatifort, Margaret, 15, 16, 
 
 31 
 Beaufort, Thomas, Dtike of 
 
 Exeter, 68 note 
 Becket, Thomas, Archbishop, 
 
 52, 72, 117-118, 168 note, 
 
 171 note 
 Bedford, Earl of, see Russell 
 ^ell, John, Bishop of Wor- 
 
 , cester, 135 
 Biell-ringing, 178 
 Belvoir, 2 
 Bible, the, in English, 94, 96, 
 
 97, 105, 109, no, 114, 126, 
 
 166-167 
 Bill, William, 285 note 
 Bilney, Thomas, 21 
 Bingham, Henry, 6 
 Bishops, Election of, 202- 
 
 203 note 
 Bishops' Book, The, 109, 168, 
 
 171 
 Bocardo prison, 342, 346, 
 
 349, 361, 366, 368, 372 
 Bocher, Joan, 148, 261-263, 
 
 309 . 
 Bohemia, 31, 69, 199 note, 
 
 203 
 
 Boleyn, Anne, 27, 29, 33-34. 
 42 note, 44, 53, 58-60, 78- 
 79. 93. 96, 98-100, 139, 
 161-162, 188, 328 
 
 Boleyn, Mary, 35, 99, 100 
 note 
 
 Boleyn, Thomas, Earl of 
 Wiltshire, 41, 42, and note, 
 44, 68 
 
 Bologna, 44, 52 
 
 Bonner, Bishop, 75, 76, 135, 
 141, 191-192, 198-199, 
 202, 216, 219, 220, 253, 
 254, 261, 310 note, 311, 
 345. 358-360, 366, 375 
 
 Bonner, Humphrey, 93 
 
 Bourchier, Archbishop, 324 
 
 Boxall, John, 261 
 
 Boxley, Rood of, 117 
 
 Bradford, John, in, 289, 348 
 Bradwardine, Archbishop, 52 
 Brandon, Charles, Diike of 
 
 Suffolk, 35, 38 
 Brenz, John, 319 
 Brittany, Duchess of, 35 
 Brooks, James, Bishop of 
 
 Gloucester, 235, 341 note, 
 
 350-351, 369 
 Browne, Sir Anthony, 134, 
 
 187 
 Bucer (or Butzer) Martin, 
 
 115, 127, 194, 220, 221, 
 
 254, 266, 269, 271, 277- 
 
 278. 319 
 Buckingham (afterwards 
 
 Magdalen) College, 18 
 Bullinger, Henry, 142, 144, 
 
 181 note, 182, 210, 216, 220, 
 
 251, 265, 269, 270 note, 
 
 274, 319. 334 note 
 Burckhardt, Dr., 116, 133 
 Burgos, 222 note 
 Butler, John, 148 
 Butts, Sir William, 152, 155 
 
 note, 156, 315 
 Byzantinism, 83 note 
 
 Calais, 122, 136, 146 note, 
 148, 164, 234 
 
 Calvin, John, 224, 227, 319 
 
 Calvinism, 185, 220, 225, 270 
 note, 303 
 
 Cambrai, Treaty of, 61 
 
 Cambridge University, 12, 13, 
 14, 15, 91, 214 
 
 Campeggio, Cardinal, 32, 36, 
 37. 38. 67, 314 
 
 Canon Law, 77, 99, 121, 140, 
 165, 257, 280-284 
 
 Canterbury Cathedral, re- 
 founding of, 145 
 
 Canterbury Cathedral school, 
 321-323 
 
 Capon, John, Bishop of Ban- 
 gor and Salisbury, 14, 135, 
 168 note 
 
Index 
 
 387 
 
 Capon, William, 14 
 
 Cardinal College (afterward 
 Christ Church), Oxford, 20 
 
 Cardmaker, John, 348 
 
 Carlstadt (Bodenstein), An- 
 drew, 229 
 
 Cartwright, Edmund, 6 
 
 Cassilis, Earl of, 165 
 
 Castile, King of, 32 
 
 Catechism, Cranmer's, 209- 
 211 
 
 Catechism, the Longer and 
 Shorter, 222 
 
 Catherine of Aragon, 24, 27, 
 29, 79, 99, 100 note, 107, 
 
 115. 132 
 
 Cawood, John, 372 note 
 Cecil, William (Burghley), 3, 
 209 note, 253, 285, 298 
 note, 315, 318 note, 338- 
 
 339 
 Celibacy of the Clergy, 18, 50, 
 
 116, 130, 171, 199, 203, 247 
 note 
 
 Ceremonies, 166-167, 207 
 Chantries, abolition of, 176, 
 179, 198 note, 202, 259, 278 
 Chapuys, Eustace, 54 note, 
 55, 60 note, 70, 93, 100 
 note, loi, 102, 161, 164 
 Charity, 103, no, 194-195 
 Charles V., 25, 26, 33, 36, 
 
 37, 43-44, 47, 52, 55, 75, 
 115, 118, 135-136, 178- 
 179, 180-181, 264, 268, 
 287 note, 295 
 Charles VIII., 25 
 Chedsey, William, 344 
 Cheke, Sir John, 237 note, 
 
 281, 285 
 Chertsey Abbey, 215 
 Cheyney, Sir Thomas, 338 
 Chicheley, Archbishop, 324 
 Chichester, Bishops of, see 
 
 Sampson and Day 
 Christina of Milan, 118 note 
 Chubbes, William, 14 
 Cistercians, 199 note 
 Civil Law, 178 note 
 
 Clement VII., 26, 32, 36, 37, 
 
 44, 45, 5°, 52-56, 63, 67, 
 
 75, 76, 99, 213 note 
 Cleves, Anne of, loi, 118, 
 
 133-135, 140-143 
 Cleves, William, Diike of, 118- 
 
 119 
 Clifford, Lady Margaret, 293 
 Coinage, debasement of, 259 
 Cole, Dr. Henry, 261, 374, 
 
 378-381 
 Cologne, Archbishop of, see 
 
 Wied, Hermann von 
 Common Prayer, First Book 
 
 of, 165-166, 213-223, 226, 
 
 237, 247, 271 
 Common Prayer, Second 
 
 Book of, 185, 271-274, 275, 
 
 334 . 
 
 Communion Service, 181, 199, 
 203-207, 208, 215, 272, 334 
 
 Compline, 204, 214 
 
 Confirmation, 232 
 
 Consubstantiation, 235, 240- 
 241 
 
 Convocation, 46, 58, 70-71, 
 77, 82, 96, 97, 102-103, 
 130, 140-141, 165 note, 
 166, 167, 168 note, 171, 
 190, 198-200, 212-214, 
 287-288 
 
 Cope, Alan, 361 note 
 
 Copland, William, 372 note 
 
 Cornwall, rising in, 247-250 
 
 Councils, General, 8r, 107, 
 228, 248, 287,357, 366,371 
 
 Coverdale, Miles, Bishop of 
 Exeter, 21, in, 180, 269 
 
 Cox, Dr., 206 
 
 Cranmer, Agnes, 5 
 
 Cranmer, Edmund de, 4, 5, 8 
 
 Cranmer, Archdeacon Ed- 
 mund, 8, 11, 324, 327 note 
 
 Cranmer, Emmet, 6 
 
 Cranmer, Hugh de, 3, 4 
 
 Cranmer, Isabella, 4 
 
 Cranmer, Joan (Archbishop's 
 ist wife), 17 
 
 Cranmer, John, 5, 7 
 
388 
 
 Index 
 
 Criamner, Margaret, 6 
 
 Cranmer, Margaret (Arch- 
 bishop's 2d wife), 50, 326- 
 327 
 
 Cranmer, Thomas (Archbish- 
 op's father), 5-12 
 
 Cranmer, Thomas (Archbish- 
 op), birth and parentage, 
 3-10; arms, 3; brothers 
 and sisters, 5-6 ; his severe 
 schoolmaster, 9-10; skill 
 in physical exercises, 10; 
 his inheritance, 11-12; 
 enters at Jesus College, 
 Cambridge, 12; education 
 there, 13-14; contempor- 
 ary scholars and influ- 
 ences, 14-16; relations 
 with Erasmus, 17; first 
 marriage, 17-18; death of 
 his wife, 18; re-elected fel- 
 low of Jesus, 18; his Bibli- 
 cal studies, 19-22 ; tutor to 
 the Cressys at Waltham, 
 22-23; influence of divorce 
 of Catherine of Aragon on 
 his life, 24-38; first meet- 
 ing with Henry VIII., 39- 
 40; his opinion on the di- 
 vorce, 40 ; retained for the 
 King's service, 41 ; sent 
 on an embassy to Italy, 
 42 ; efforts to win over for- 
 eign universities, 42-44; at 
 Rome, 45; consulted on 
 Pole's book, 46; arch- 
 deacon of Taunton, 47; 
 ambassador to Charles V., 
 47; negotiations in Ger- 
 many, 48 ; second marriage 
 49-50; letters to Henry 
 VIII., 51 ; recalled and 
 designated Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, 5 2 ; election 
 an d consecration , 5 4-5 6 ; 
 his protest respecting his 
 oath to the Pope, 56-58; 
 pronounces Henry's mar- 
 riage with Catherine in- 
 
 valid and that with Anne 
 valid, 59; crowns Anne 
 Boleyn and stands god- 
 father to Elizabeth, 60; 
 position as Archbishop 
 under Henry, 61-71; his 
 responsibility for the sur- 
 render of the Church, 73; 
 sends a pall to the Arch- 
 bishop of York, 74; ap- 
 peals against the Pope, 75- 
 76; dealings with the Nun 
 of Kent and Sir T. More, 
 78-80; his indebtedness to 
 Wy cliff e, 90, 91 ; first meas- 
 ures of reform as arch- 
 bishop, 94; visits his pro- 
 vince, 95 ; urges the trans- 
 lation of the Bible into 
 English and the appoint- 
 ment of reforming Bishops, 
 96-97; intervenes on be- 
 half of Anne Boleyii, 98; 
 pronounces her divorce, 
 99-100; stands godfather 
 to Edward VI., 10 1; at- 
 tacks the Pope and purga- 
 tory, 103; revises the Ten 
 Articles, 103; attacked by 
 the rebels of 1536, 107- 
 108; secures an authorised 
 version of the Bible in 
 English, 1 09-1 12; " Cran- 
 mer 's Bible," 113; favours 
 an alliance with the Ger- 
 man Protestants, 11 5-1 16; 
 controversy with a Kent- 
 ish magistrate, 120; his 
 views on divorce, 121; 
 on Transubstantiation and 
 toleration, 1 2 2-123 ; op- 
 poses the Act of Six Arti- 
 cles in Parliament, 128; 
 and in Convocation, 130; 
 remains Archbishop in 
 spite of them, 132 ; his peril, 
 133-134; entertains Anne 
 of Cleves, 134; marries her 
 to Henry, 135; intercedes 
 
Index 
 
 389 
 
 Cranmer, (Continued) 
 
 for Cromwell, 139; divorces 
 Anne of Cleves, 140—142; 
 denounces prebendaries 
 144-145; their plot against 
 htm, 146-150; Henry pro- 
 tects him, 151-1^2; Gost- 
 wick attacks him, 153; 
 the Council attacks him, 
 1 54-1 5 5 ; again protected 
 by Henry, 156-157; rela- 
 tions between Henrjr and 
 Cranmer, 159-160; inter- 
 cedes for Mary, 161-162; 
 communicates to Henry 
 Catherine Howard's mis- 
 conduct, 162-163; engaged 
 on political afifairs, 164- 
 165; his schemes of re- 
 form, 165-166; attempts 
 to stem reaction, 166-168; 
 criticism of Henry VIII., 
 169; his views on royal 
 supremacy, 170; his work 
 on the Litany, 172-175; 
 last attempts at reform 
 under Henry, 1 78-181; at 
 Henry's death-bed, 182; 
 supports Protector Somer- 
 set and crowns Edward VI. , 
 184-186; first reforms un- 
 der Edward VI., 187-193; 
 Cranmer 's Book of Homi- 
 lies, 193, 194; proposes the 
 administration of the Sac- 
 rament in both elements, 
 1^9; supports repeal of 
 Six Articles, 200; votes 
 against Chantries Bill, 202 ; 
 his share in the first Order 
 of Communion, 204-206; 
 publishes catechism of Jus- 
 tus Jonas, 209; Zwinglian 
 view of him, 210; abandons 
 the doctrine of the Real 
 Presence, 211 ; his work on 
 the First Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, 213-215; ad- 
 opts Zwinglian views of 
 
 the Sacrament, 2 1 6-2 1 7 ; 
 speech in the House of 
 Lords, 218; his draft of 
 Communion Service modi- 
 fied, 219-220; acquaint- 
 ance with contemporary 
 liturgies, 221; his position 
 as archbishop, 226; devel- 
 opment of his religious 
 opinions , 228-244; atti- 
 tude towards the Bible, 
 228-229; towards papal 
 jurisdiction and doctrine, 
 229-230 ; views on justifica- 
 tion, 231, on the number 
 of the sacraments, 232, on 
 the ecclesiastical power of 
 princes, 23 2-233 > on Holy 
 Orders, 233, on confession 
 and excommunication, 234; 
 on Transubstantiation and 
 on the Real Presence, 235- 
 245 ; controversies with 
 Gardiner and Dr. Richard 
 Smith, 236; his Defence of 
 the True Doctrine of the 
 Sacrament, 237—243; al- 
 leged authorship of A 
 Confutation of Unwritten 
 Verities, 243 note ; his 
 answer to the Western 
 Rebels in 1549, 247-250; 
 sympathy with social 
 grievances, 251; share in 
 Somerset's fall, 253-254; 
 relations with Northum- 
 berland, 255-256, 260; con- 
 duct with regard to Joan 
 Bocher, 261-263, and in 
 the vestments controv- 
 ersy, 265-267; desires a 
 Reformed General Council, 
 267; entertains distin- 
 guished strangers at Lam- 
 beth, 268-269; share in the 
 Second Book of Common 
 Prayer, 271-274; in oppo- 
 sition to Northimiberland, 
 277-290; on the practice of 
 
390 
 
 Index 
 
 Cranmer, (Continued) 
 
 kneeling, 279; on Canon 
 Law, 280-284; draws up 
 the Forty- two Articles, 
 284-288 ; suggested as Lord 
 Keeper, 290; opposes Ed- 
 ward VI. 's "devise," 298- 
 299; his alleged subserv- 
 iency, 304-307, and dis- 
 simtilation, 307-309; his 
 dislike of persecution, 309- 
 310; his views of Church 
 and State, 31 1-3 13; his 
 humility, 313-314, and 
 guilelessness, 315-316,339; 
 his learning and library, 
 316-320; patronage ^of 
 learned men, 320-321 ; lib- 
 eral views on education, 
 321-322; his alleged ne- 
 potism, 323-324; manage- 
 ment of his estates, 324- 
 325; family life, 325-326; 
 his wife and children, 326- 
 327 note; his courage, 328- 
 329; his personal ap;pear- 
 ance, 327 note; officiates 
 at Edward VI. 's funeral, 
 332 ; refuses to flee abroad, 
 332; denounces the Mass 
 and offers to defend the 
 Reformation, 333-334; his 
 manifesto, 335; is sent to 
 the Tower, and tried for 
 treason, 336 ; spared for the 
 time, 337; writes to the 
 Queen for pardon, 338; his 
 anomalous position, 340; 
 alleged pardon, 341 ; trans- 
 ferred to Oxford, 342 ; dis- 
 putations there, 343-345; 
 "denounced" at Rome by 
 Philip and Mary, 349; 
 trial at Oxford, 350-351; 
 defends his conduct in a 
 letter to Mary, 352-353; 
 excommunicated and de- 
 prived by the Pope, 354; 
 professes his readiness to 
 
 die for his faith, 355; 
 burnt in effigy at Rome, 
 356; appeals to a General 
 Council, 357-358; his de- 
 gradation by Bonner and 
 Thirlby, 358-360; his first 
 recantations, 361-366 ; con- 
 flict between his conscience 
 and duty to the State, 363- 
 364; fifth or real recanta- 
 tion, 369; causes of it, 
 370-371 ; sixth recantation, 
 373-374; seventh recanta- 
 tion, 375 ; his mind recoils, 
 376; his last night, 377; 
 his final tritimph, 378-384 
 Cressy family, 22 note, 38, 39 
 Croke, Dr. Richard, 41, 44, 45 
 Crome, Dr., 21, 145, 176, 179 
 Cromwell, Thomas, 39, 47, 
 68, 70 note, 71, 79, 96, 97, 
 103, 105, 108 note, III— 
 114, 118-119, 123, 127- 
 130, 132; 133, 134-139, 157, 
 159. 161, 179, 180, 315, 328 
 Cross, Creeping to the, 178, 
 
 207 
 Crowley, Robert, 251 note 
 Croydon, 182 
 
 D 
 
 Damplip, Adam, 122, 234 
 Darcy, Thomas, Lord, 291, 
 
 298 
 Day, George, Bishop of Chi- 
 chester, 199, 202, 215, 257, 
 
 261, 306 
 Denny, Sir Anthony, 152 
 Derby, 5 
 Devon, R., 2 
 Devonshire, rising in, 247- 
 
 250 
 Divorce, Law of, 24 note, 
 
 121, 140-141, 283-284 
 Divorce of Catherine of Ara- 
 
 gon, 25-60 
 Divorce of Anne Boleyn, 98- 
 
 100 
 
Index 
 
 391 
 
 Divorce of Catherine Howard, 
 163 
 
 Dolphin Inn, The, 17, 18 
 
 Dorset, Marquis of, see Grey, 
 Henry 
 
 Dryander, Francis, 220, 222 
 note, 269 
 
 Du Bellay, John, Cardinal, 
 34 note, 67, 68 
 
 Duchesne, see Dryander 
 
 Dudley, Andrew, 293 
 
 Dudley, Guilford, 293, 336 
 
 Dudley, John (Northumber- 
 land), vi, 181, 246, 252- 
 259, 263-264, 276, 281, 
 285, 288-295, 330-331, 367 
 
 Duns Scotus, 13 
 
 Dunstable, 59 
 
 Durham, Bishops of, see 
 Ruthal and Tunstall 
 
 E 
 
 Eccleston, John, 14 
 
 Eck, Dr., 320 
 
 Edward III., 31, 10 1, 201 
 
 Edward VI., loi, 184-186, 
 
 262, 266, 2^2, 295-300; 
 
 reign of, misunderstood, 
 
 246-247 
 Elizabeth, Princess, 53, 60, 
 
 61, 99, 134, 155 note, 156 
 
 note, 186 note, 203 note, 
 Ely, Bishops of, see Goodrich 
 
 and Thirlby 
 Ely Cathedral, 14 
 Elyot, Sir Thomas, 14 
 Enzinas, Francis, see Dry- 
 ander 
 Epistolce Obscurorum Viro- 
 
 rum, 93 
 Erasmus, 16-17, ^9' 9^> 169, 
 
 193. 195. 197. 320 
 Estienne, Robert, 320 
 Eucharist, 103-104, 114, 138, 
 
 140, 190, 199, 209, 211, 
 
 218, 220, 237, 272 
 Exeter, Dean of, see Heynes 
 
 Faber, Johann, 16 
 Fagius, Paul, 220, 269 
 Featherstone, Richard, 86 
 
 note 
 Ferdinand of Aragon, 29 
 Ferdinand, Archduke, 51 
 Ferrar, Robert, Bishop of St. 
 
 Davids, 257, 348 
 Fisher, John, Bishop of Re Ch- 
 ester, and Cardinal, 15, 69, 
 
 74, 78-79, 80-81, 159, 328 
 Fitzalan, Henry, Earl of 
 
 Anmdel, 258, 319 note, 337 
 Forrest, Friar John, 123 note 
 Fosse Way, i 
 Foxe, Edward, Bishop of 
 
 Hereford, 38, 39, 40, 42, 
 
 97, 103, 109 
 Foxe, John, the Martyrolo- 
 
 gist, 92, 131, 147, 182, 188, 
 
 262 
 Foxe, Richard, Bishop of 
 
 Winchester, 66, 160 note 
 Francis I., 43, 48, 50-51, 58 
 
 note, 75, 76, IIS, 118, 135- 
 
 136, 164, 178, 180-181, 
 
 192, note 
 Frederick of Saxony, 39 
 Frith, John, 180 
 
 G 
 
 Galileo, 370 
 
 Gardiner, Germain, 152 
 
 Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of 
 
 Winchester, 38-40, 42, 
 
 47 note, 68, 71, 88, 94, 95, 
 
 97, 116 note, 123, 127-128, 
 
 133-134, 137. 141, 146, 
 149,150, 152,158,163,166- 
 167, 170, 176, 178-179, 
 181-182, 187, 191-194 
 196-198, 2 1 1-2 1 2 note, 
 236-244, 253-254; 260 
 note, 261, 271, 297 note, 
 310 note, 311, 317, 337 
 note, 345, 347, 357 note, 
 366 note, 381 
 
392 
 
 Index 
 
 Gardiner, WilKam, 146-147 
 
 Geneva, 212 
 
 Germany, Protestants of, 48- 
 49; 90 note, 115-117, 135- 
 136, 180, 209—212, 220, 225 
 
 Gerrard, Thomas, 86 note, 
 
 143 
 Glazier, Dr., 193 
 
 Gloria in Excelsis, the, 204 
 
 Gloucester, Bishop of, see 
 
 Hooper, John 
 Gloucester, visitation of the 
 
 Bishopric of, 188-189 
 Goodrich, Thomas, Bishop of 
 
 Ely, 14 note, 15, 128, 131, 
 
 167, 168 note, 202—203, 
 
 257, 261, 290 
 Good works, doctrine of, 194 
 Gostwick, Sir John, 153-154, 
 
 155 note 
 Grafton, Richard, iii, 114 
 
 note 
 Grantham, i, 2, 5, 9 
 Greenwich, 40, 41 note, 60, 
 
 78, ^ZS 
 
 Grey, Lady Catherine, 293 
 
 Grey, Frances, Duchess of 
 Suffolk, 293—294 
 
 Grey, Henry, Marquis of 
 Dorset and Duke of Suf- 
 folk, 256, 293, 338 
 
 Grey, Lady Jane, 293-302, 
 336, 342 
 
 Gnndal, Edmund, 285 note 
 
 H 
 
 Haddon, Walter, 281 
 Hailes, Blood of, 117 
 Hallam, Henry, vi, 304 note 
 Hampton Court, 163 
 Harley, John, 285 note 
 Harpsfield, John, 345 
 Harpsfield, Nicholas, 24 note, 
 
 261, 325 note, 326 note, 
 
 361 note 
 Harrington, Sir John, 326, 
 
 note 
 Hastings, Lord, 293 
 
 Hatfield family, 5 
 
 Heath, Nicholas, Bishop of 
 Rochester and Worcester 
 and Archbishop of York, 
 13s, 199. 202, 257, 261, 265, 
 306, 316, 337 
 
 Henri II., 55 
 
 Henry II., 73 
 
 Henry IV., 31, 186 note 
 
 Henry VII., 15, 31, 33, 63, 
 186 note 
 
 Henry VIIL, vi, 21, 24-25, 
 27-28, motives in divor- 
 cing Catherine of Aragon, 
 29-30; contemplates the 
 succession of his illegiti- 
 mate son, 32; scruples re- 
 garding his marriage with 
 Catherine, 33-34; prece- 
 dents for a divorce, 35; 
 summons the Reformation 
 Parliament, 38; first meets 
 Cranmer, 40-41 ; Supreme 
 Head, 46, 70, 82; makes 
 Cranmer Archbishop, 52; 
 outwits the Pope and ob- 
 tains Acts of Annates and 
 Appeals, 53-56; reasons 
 for his success, 53-54; his 
 power, 65 ; secularises his 
 government, 68; destroys 
 the independence of Con- 
 vocation, 71 ; compared by 
 Warham to Henry II., 73; 
 thinks civil courts should 
 have cognisance of mar- 
 riage, 75; appeals to a 
 General Council, 76; com- 
 pletes the breach with 
 Rome, 77; regulates the 
 succession, 78; denounced 
 by the Nun of Kent, 78- 
 79; his treatment of More 
 and Fisher, 80-81; his re- 
 ligious views, 83; nature 
 and extent of his su- 
 premacy, 84-88; his book 
 against Luther, 93; ap- 
 points Cromwell vicar-gen- 
 
Index 
 
 393 
 
 Henry VIII., (Continued) 
 eral, 97; has Anne Boleyn 
 divorced and executed, 98- 
 100; marries Jane Sey- 
 mour, 1 01; pens the Ten 
 Articles, 103; authorises 
 the issue of the English 
 Bible, 1 1 2-1 1 3 ; reasons for 
 permitting reforms, 115; 
 refuses to adopt Protest- 
 antism, 116; but continues 
 spoliation of Church prop- 
 erty, 117; is persuaded to 
 marry Anne of Cleves, 118; 
 his Catholicism, 125; takes 
 part in debate on Six 
 Articles, 129; respects his 
 ministers ' scruples , 132; 
 repudiates Anne of Cleves 
 and Cromwell, 134-142; 
 marries Catherine Howard, 
 143; compared by Luther- 
 ans to Nero, 144; protects 
 Cranmer from his pre- 
 bendaries, 1 51-152; and 
 from the Council, 155-157; 
 his confidence in and re- 
 spect for Cranmer, 157- 
 1 60 ; marries Catherine 
 Parr, 162-163; his share in 
 The King's Book, 1 68-1 7 2 ; 
 last concessions to reform, 
 178-181; death, 182-183 
 
 Herbert, Henry, 2d Earl of 
 Pembroke, 293 
 
 Herbert, William, ist Earl of 
 Pembroke, 253, 293, 338 
 
 Herbert, Lord, of Cherbury, 
 
 139 
 Hereford, Bishop of, see Skip 
 Heresy Laws, 1 53, 1 76, 201, 347 
 Hertford, Earl of, see Sey- 
 mour 
 Heynes, Simon, Dean of 
 
 Exeter, 149 
 Hilles, Richard, 217 note, 220 
 Hilsey, John, Bishop of Roch- 
 ester, 97, 128, 130, 131, 135, 
 175 
 
 Hoby, Sir Philip, 149 
 
 Hodgkin, Bishop, 299 
 
 Holbeach, Henry, Bishop '» 
 Lincoln, 206, 257 
 
 Holbein, Hans, 118, 134 
 
 Holy-days, 120 
 
 Homilies, Book of, 166, 193- 
 195, 212 note, 231 
 
 Hooper, John, Bishop of 
 Gloucester and Worcester, 
 90, 91, 125, 181 note, 220, 
 251. 254, 256, 265-267, 
 345, 348 
 
 Home, Robert, 285 note, 289 
 
 Houghton, Lord, 303, 361 
 note 
 
 Howard, Catherine, loi, 142— 
 143; 162-163 
 
 Howard, Henry, Earl of Sur- 
 rey, 182, 187 
 
 Howard, Thomas, Duke of 
 Norfolk, 128, 136, 138, 
 142-143, 157, 161, 179, 
 180, 182, 187 
 
 Hus, John, 370 
 
 Hutchinson, Roger, 261, 262 
 note 
 
 Images, 103-104, 115, 117. 
 
 120, 148, 178, 189, 195- 
 
 196, 207 
 Indulgences, 104 
 Injunctions, Cromwell's 
 
 (1536), 105 
 Injunctions, Cromwell's 
 
 (1538), 114, 195 
 Injunctions of 1547, 193 
 
 195-198 
 Innocent III., Pope, 240 
 Institution of a Christian 
 
 Man, The, to8, 120 
 Intention, doctrine of, 140— 
 
 141 . 
 Invocation of Saints, 103— 
 
 104, 171 
 Islip, Archbishop, 52 
 
394 
 
 Index 
 
 James II., 33 note, 43 
 Januaritis, S., 117 
 Jerome, S., 86 note, 143 
 Jerome of Prague, 370 
 Jesuits, 303 
 Jesus College, Cambridge, 
 
 1 2-10 
 John Frederick, Elector of 
 
 Saxony, 48, 123 
 John of Gaunt, 31 
 Jonas, Justus, 209-210 
 Jo}^, George, 180 
 Jtiliiis II., Pope, 29 
 Justification, doctrine of, 
 
 103-104, 228, 231 note, 286 
 
 K 
 
 Kent, 144 
 
 Kent, the Nun of, see Bar- 
 ton, Elizabeth 
 Kett, Robert, 252 
 Kilwardby, Archbishop, 52 
 King's Book, The, 150, 168- 
 
 169, 171— 172 
 Kneeling. 278-279 
 Knights of St. John, 177 
 Knox, John, 256, 278-279, 
 
 285 note, 288-289 
 Kyrie Eleison, the, 273 
 
 Lambert {alias Nicholson), 
 John, 21, 122—123 
 
 Lambeth, 80, 96, 151, 153, 
 165, 207 
 
 Landriano, battle of, 3 7 
 
 Langton, Stephen, Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, 52 
 
 Laski, or h. Lasco, John. 216, 
 266, 268, 333 
 
 Latimer, Hugh, Bishop of 
 Worcester, 21, 61, 90, 97, 
 loi, 108 note, 112, 128,130, 
 131, 159, 180, 188, 195 
 note, 207, 210, 216, 251, 
 
 253, 261, 268, 289, 333. 
 
 335, 342-346, 349. 367 
 
 Laud, Archbishop, 124 
 
 Lautrec, Marshal, 36 
 
 Layton, Dr. Richard, 108 
 note 
 
 Lee, Edward, Archbishop of 
 York, 42, 44, 108 note, 128 
 
 Leigh, Sir Thomas, 108 note, 
 152 
 
 Leland, John, 320 
 
 Lent, observance of, 190, 207 
 
 Lever, Thomas, 261, 289 
 
 Lincoln, 2, 4 
 
 Lincoln, Bishops of, see Long- 
 land, Holbeach, and Tay- 
 lor 
 
 Lincolnshire Rebellion, 106, 
 114 note 
 
 Lingard, Dr., 139 
 
 Lisle, Viscount, see Dudley, 
 John 
 
 Litany, the, vi, 172-176, 196 
 
 London, Bishops of, see 
 Stokesley, Ridley, and 
 Bonner 
 
 London, Dr. John, 108 note, 
 
 149, 152 . 
 
 Longland, Bishop, 30 note, 
 108 note, 162 
 
 Lorraine, Duke of, 135 
 
 Louis XII., 27, 35 
 
 Ludlow, 323 
 
 Luther, Martin, and Luther- 
 anism, 19, 27, 63, 65, 90, 
 92, 93. 104, III, 127, 209- 
 210, 216, 220-221, 224, 
 225, 226-227, 229, 240, 
 319. 356 
 
 M 
 
 Macaulay, Lord, vi, 304 note, 
 
 316 note 
 Maidstone, 117 
 Mantua, 52 
 Margaret Tudor, Queen of 
 
 Scotland, 35 
 Marillac, Charles de, 137 
 
Index 
 
 395 
 
 Markham, Sir John, 326 note 
 Marseilles, 50, 75, 76 note 
 Marshall, William, 175, 233 
 
 note 
 Marsiglio of Padua, 233 note 
 Martyn, Thomas, 235-236, 
 
 350 
 Martyr, Peter, see Vermigli 
 Martyrs' Memorial, the, 382 
 
 note 
 Mary, Queen, vi, 30-33, 99, 
 161-162, 186 note, 193, 
 197, 219, 253, 260, 263, 
 276, 29s, 300, 304, 328, 
 330. 346-348, 365-367 
 Mary Tudor, Duchess of 
 
 Suffolk, 35, 293 
 Mason, Sir John, 338 
 Mass, the, 181, 205, 212, 272, 
 287, 334; see also Euchar- 
 ist 
 Masses, Private, 116, 125 
 Matilda, Empress, 31 
 Matthew's Bwle, in note 
 May, William, Dean of St. 
 
 Paul's, 208 
 Medici, Catherine de', 55 
 Melanchthon, Philip, 63, 133, 
 
 136, 221, 226, 269, 319 
 Melfi, 36 
 
 Meopham, Archbishop, 52 
 Micronius, Martin, 266 note, 
 
 269 
 Molyneux, Sir Thomas, 5 
 Monasteries, dissolution of, 
 
 97, 106, 117, 126 
 Monmouth, Dtike of, 33 note 
 Montague, Chief- Justice, 296 
 More, Sir Thomas, vii, 21, 27 
 note, 68, 71, 78-79, 80-81, 
 93, no note, 131-132, 192 
 note, 201 note, 238, 261, 
 306, 328, 364 
 Morice, Ralph, 9, 40, 41, 133- 
 134, 152, 154-155 iiote, 
 157, 213 note, 315 note, 
 316, 317, 318 note, 323- 
 
 325,35 
 Morwen 
 
 , Dr., 261 
 
 Moyle, Sir Thomas, 146, 149, 
 
 150 
 Mozarabic Use, the, 221-222 
 
 note 
 
 N 
 
 Necessary Doctrine and Er- 
 udition for any Christian 
 Man, see King's Book, 
 The 
 Nevinson, Dr. Christopher, 6 
 
 note, 130, 148, 318 note 
 Nevinson, Stephen, 318 note 
 Newark, 2, 9 
 Newman, Cardinal 124 
 New Monarchy, the, 303, 312 
 Nicholas II., Pope, 240 
 North, Sir Edward, 68 
 Northampton, Marquis of, see 
 
 Parr, William 
 Northumberland, Duke of, 
 
 see Dudley, John 
 Norton, Thomas, 327 note 
 Norwich, Bishops of, see 
 
 Repps and Thirlby 
 Nottingham, i, 2, 9 
 Numberg, 49, 220 
 
 O 
 
 Ochino, Bernardino, 268 
 
 (Ecolampadius, 319 
 
 Orders, Holy, doctrine of, 
 
 168-170 
 Ordinal of 1550, 257, 264- 
 
 266, 273 
 Osiander, 49-50, 94, 121, 221, 
 
 320 
 Otford, 325 
 Oxford, Cranmer at, 342-384 
 
 Paget, Sir William, 184, 185, 
 253-254, 338 
 
 Pall, the Archbishop's, 74 
 and note, 360 
 
 Palmer, Sir Thomas, 331 note 
 
 Palmer, the Rev. Sir Wil- 
 liam, 213 note 
 
39^ 
 
 Index 
 
 Palms, tise of, 207 
 
 Papacy, secularisation of 
 
 the, 26 
 Parker, Matthew, Archbishop 
 
 of York, 61 
 Parliament, the Reforma- 
 tion, 38, 40, 41, 46, 68, 69 
 Parliament of 1539, 127-130 
 Parliament of 1545, 176-178 
 Parliament of 1547, 190, 199- 
 
 203 
 Parliament of 1548, 218-220 
 Parliament of 1549, 255, 257 
 Parliament of 1552, 275-276 
 Parliament of 1553 (March), 
 
 290-291 
 ParUament of 1553 (Octo- 
 ber), 330 
 Parliament of 1554, 347 
 Parliamentary Procedure, 
 
 177 
 Parr, Catherine, 163, 164 
 Parr, William, Marquis of 
 Northampton, 291, 298, 
 
 338 
 Parris, George van, 263 
 
 Parsons, Robert, 326 note 
 Paul, St., 311, 373 
 Paul III., Pope, 213 
 Paulet, William, Marquis of 
 
 Winchester, 297 note, 337 
 Peckham, Archbishop, 52, 
 
 199 note 
 Penance, doctrine of, 103- 
 
 104, no 
 Penance, Cranmer's views of, 
 
 232 
 Percy, Henry, Earl of North- 
 umberland, 99, 100 note 
 Peme, Andrew, 285 note 
 Peter, St., 311, 370 
 Peter's jjence, 77 
 Petre, Sir William, 103, 159 
 
 note, 338 
 Philip II., King of England, 
 
 340 note, 348-349 
 Pmlip of Hesse, 48, 121 
 Philpot, John, 263 
 Pia Consultatio, the, 221 
 
 Pilgrimage of Grace, 106 
 Pilgrimages, 105-106, 120, 
 
 .317 
 Pinkie, battle of, 204 
 
 Pirckheimer, Wilibald, 320 
 
 Pole, Reginald, Cardinal, 27, 
 
 46, 52, 74 note, 214 note, 
 
 250. 341, 355» 366-367, 
 
 ^ 373-374 . 
 
 Pomeroy, Giles de la, 54 note 
 Ponet, John, Bishop of Win- 
 chester, 258 note, 260, 287 
 
 note 
 Pontefract, 107 
 Poullain, Valerand, 269 
 Powell, Edward, 86 note 
 PrcBmunire, 70, 134 note, 
 
 197—198, 202, 249 
 Prebendaries, Plot of the, 
 
 144-152 
 Predestination, 228 
 Press, liberty of the, 201- 
 
 202, 209 
 Primers, Henry VIII.'s, 174, 
 
 175, 257 
 Processions, 172 note, 196 
 Proclamations, 189, 190, 201, 
 
 207 
 Protector, the, see Se5miour 
 Protestantism, use of the 
 
 term, 90 note; growth of, 
 
 in England, 90-95 
 Psalms in English, 204 
 Purgatory, doctrine of, 102, 
 
 104, 109, 115, 120, 176, 
 
 179, 230-231, 317, 369 
 Pusey, Dr., 124 
 
 Q 
 
 Quignon, Cardinal, 213-214, 
 221 
 
 R 
 
 Rastell, William, 261 
 Rationale of Rites and Cere- 
 monies, 167 
 Ratisbon, 48, 51, 146 
 
Index 
 
 397 
 
 Real Presence, doctrine of, 
 
 104, 215-220, 234-244, 272 
 Recantacyons, Bishop Cran- 
 
 mer's, 361 note 
 Reformatio Legum Ecclesias- 
 
 ticarum, 280-284 
 Reformation, the, alleged 
 
 origin of, 25, 65 ; causes of, 
 
 188; character of, 104, 224- 
 
 226, 303, 308, 353 
 Renaissance, the, 303, 311- 
 
 312 
 Renard, Simon, 331, 335, 337 
 Repps, William, Bishop of 
 
 Norwich, 128, 199, 202 
 Rich, Richard, ist Baron, 
 
 108, 179, 180, 261, 289, 
 
 321 note 
 Richard II., 201 
 Richmond, Duke of, 32, 33 
 Ridley, Dr. Lancelot, 146- 
 
 147. 173 
 Ridley, Nicholas, Bishop of 
 Rochester and London, 90, 
 91, 145, 193. 206, 216 note, 
 217, 218, 257, 259, 261- 
 262, 264, 266-267, 268, 
 289, 290 note, 299, 317, 
 
 332-333. 342-346, 349, 367 
 Rochester, Bishops of, see 
 
 Heath, Hilsey, Ridley, and 
 
 Scory 
 Rogers, John, 11 r, 270, 347 
 Rogers, Sir Edward, 326 
 
 note 
 Roman Civil Law, 312 
 Rome, sack of, 26 
 Rosell, Dorothy, 5 
 Rosell, Harold, 5 
 Rosell, Thomas, 9 
 Roses, Wars of the, 31, 63 
 Rubric, the Black, 279 
 Rubric Ornaments, the, 273 
 
 note 
 Russell, John, ist Earl of 
 
 Bedford, 156, 253, 297 
 
 note, 337 
 Ruthal, Thomas, Bishop of 
 
 Dtirham, 66 
 
 S 
 
 Sacrament of the Altar, the, 
 
 see Eucharist 
 Sacraments, the Seven, 104— 
 
 105, 108-109, i^^6, 171 
 Sadleir, Sir Ralph, 137 note 
 Saints, Invocation of, 103- 
 
 104 
 Salisbury, Bishops of, see 
 
 Shaxton and Capon 
 Salisbury, Countess of (Mar- 
 garet Pole), 139 
 Sampson, Richard, Bishop of 
 
 Chichester, 133, 137 
 Sanders, Nicholas, 326 note 
 Sarum Use, the, 212-214, 221 
 Savonarola, 370 
 Scarrington, i 
 Schmalkaldic League, 48, 
 
 125, 180 
 Scory, Edmund, Bishop of 
 
 Rochester, 146, 147, 335 
 Selve, Odet de, 211 
 Series, Robert, 146 note, 147- 
 
 148 
 Seymotu", Edward, Duke of 
 
 Somerset, vi, 143, 182, 184- 
 
 187, 190, 191, 197, 199- 
 
 200, 206-208, 211, 214, 
 
 219, 246, 251-254, 264, 
 
 27s. 291, 302, 330-331, 341 
 Seymour, Jane, loi, 184 
 Seymour, Thomas, Lord High 
 
 Admiral, 248 note, 252, 
 
 258 note 
 Shakespeare, 30 note, 60 
 
 note, 154, 316 note 
 Sharington, Sir WilUam, 258 
 
 note 
 Shaxton, Nicholas, Bishop of 
 
 Salisbiuy, 97, 128, 130, 
 
 131. 135. 159, 180 
 Sherwood Forest, 2 
 Shether, Edmund, 147 
 Shrewsbury (Francis Talbot), 
 
 Earl of, 338 
 Siddall, Henry, 368 note, 372 
 
 note 
 
398 
 
 Index 
 
 Skip, John, Bishop of Here- 
 ford, 13s, 199, 202 
 Sleidan, John, 320-321 
 Smite, River, 2 
 Smith, Dr. Richard, 236, 238, 
 
 261, 317 
 Smith, Sir Thomas, 253 
 Smithfield, 180 
 Solway Moss, 165 
 Somerset, Duke of, see Sey- 
 mour, Edward 
 Somerset House, 208 
 Soto, Pedro de, 362, 372 
 Southampton, Earl of, see 
 
 Wriothesley, Thomas 
 Southwell, 9 
 
 Southwell, Sir Richard, 258 
 Spires, Diet of (1529), 90 note 
 Stafileo, Dean of the Rota, 30 
 
 note 
 Stanley, James, Bishop of 
 
 Ely, 16 
 Stemhold, Thomas, 149, 204 
 Stokesley, John, Bishop of 
 London, 42, 44, 45, 60 
 note, 94-95,97, 122, 128, 13s 
 Story, Dr. John, 350 
 Strassburg, 181 note 
 Succession, Act of, 78, 80 
 Suffolk, Dukes of, see Bran- 
 don, Charles ; Grey, Henry 
 Suffolk, Duchess of, see Mary 
 
 Tudor: Grey, Frances 
 Supremacy, Act of, 82-84 
 Supremacy, the Royal, 70- 
 73, 81-88, 123 note, 191, 
 197-198, 201 
 Supremacy, Papal, 81 
 Surrey, Earl of, see Howard, 
 
 Henry- 
 Sussex, Thomas Radcliffe, 
 
 Earl of, 300 
 Sutterton, 3 
 
 Sutterton, William de, 3 
 Switzerland, 211, 225 
 
 T 
 
 Tarbes, Bishop of, 30 note 
 Taunton, 47 
 
 Taylor, John, Dr., afterwards 
 
 Bishop of Lincoln, 130, 206 
 Taylor, Rowland, 348 
 Te Deum, the, 204 
 Ten Articles, see Articles 
 Ten Conunandments, 114, 
 
 126, 171, 189, 195, 273 
 Thirlby, Thomas, Bishop of 
 
 Ely and Norwich, 187, 191, 
 
 257» 306, 358-360 
 Tiptoft, John, Baron, 215 
 Toleration, Religious, 122, 
 
 131, 185, 283, 363 
 Tracy, Richard, 180 
 Traheron, Bartholomew, 210 
 
 note, 216-217, 219, 220, 270 
 Transubstantiation , 1 2 1 -i 2 2 , 
 
 130, 148, 171, 210, 215- 
 
 218, 219, 234-244, 304, 
 
 351, 369 
 
 Treason Laws, 201, 255, 276 
 
 Tremellius, John Immanuel, 
 268, 321 
 
 Trent, Cotmcil of, 58 note, 
 180, 267, 287 
 
 Trent, River, 2, 102 
 
 Tunstall, Cuthbert, Bishop of 
 Durham, 116, 128, 129 
 note, 137, 141, 158, 166, 
 191, 203, 206, 249, 257, 
 261, 276, 290, 306, 328, 
 341 note 
 
 Turner, William, 180 
 
 Tyndale, John, 21, 96, 109, 
 no note, III, 113, 180 
 
 Tjrttenhanger, 38 
 
 U 
 
 Udall, Nicholas, 193, 248 
 
 note 
 Uhnis, John ab, 265, note 
 Underbill, Edward, 309 
 Uniformity, First Act of, 208, 
 
 212, 247 
 Uniformity, Second Act of, 
 
 185, 275 
 Uses, Statute of, 106 
 Utenhove, John, 269 
 Utraquists, 199 note 
 
Index 
 
 399 
 
 Vadianus, see Watt, J. de 
 Vaughan, Stephen, 119 note 
 Vermigli, Pietro Martire, 217, 
 
 219, 238 note, 266, 268, 
 
 272, 281, 333 
 V^ron, Jean, 269 
 Vestments Controversy, 265- 
 
 267 
 Vienna, 51 
 Villach, 52, 53 
 Villa Garcia, John de, 362, 
 
 372 note, 377 note 
 Voysey, John, Bishop of 
 
 Exeter, 261 
 Vulgate, the, 109 
 
 W 
 
 Walkelin, 4 
 
 Waltham, 23, 38, 40 
 
 Warham, William, Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, vi, 
 17. 29, 52, 53, 67, 70, 72- 
 73, 79, 84 note, 92, 95, 96 
 note, 161, 320, 324 
 
 Warwick, Earl of, see Dud- 
 ley, John 
 
 Watt, Joachim of, 122, 221, 
 234, 236 
 
 Watts, Dr., 136 
 
 Welbeck Abbey, 11, 323 
 
 West, Nicholas, Bishop of 
 Ely, 16 
 
 Westminster Abbey, 60, 186, 
 208 
 
 Weston, Dr. Hugh, 279 note, 
 
 343-345 
 Wethershed, Richard, Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, 52 
 Whatton, i, 10, 11, 323 
 Whitechurch, Edwardf, 327 
 
 note 
 Whitehall, 182 
 Whitehead, David, 261 
 White Horse Tavern, 20 
 Wied, Hermann von. Arch- 
 bishop of Cologne, 221 
 
 27 
 
 Williams, Sir John, Lord 
 Williams of Thame, 342, 
 
 374, 381 
 Willoughby, Dr. John, 148- 
 
 149 
 Wiltshire, Earls of, see Bo- 
 
 leyn, Thomas, and Paulet, 
 
 William 
 Winchelsea, Archbishop, 52 
 Winchester, Bishops of, see 
 
 Gardiner and Ponet 
 Windsor, 215 
 Windsor Commission, the, 
 
 214-215 
 Wittenberg, 39, 66, 94, 212, 
 
 269 
 Wolsey, Thomas, Archbishop 
 
 of York, vi, 14, 20, 27, 28, 
 
 30 note, 36, 41, 47, 67, 68, 
 
 74, 93» 137, 159, 161, 197- 
 
 198, 313. 324 
 Worcester, Bishops of, see 
 
 Heath and Latimer 
 Wotton, Dr. Nicholas, 61, 
 
 145, 150 
 
 Wriothesley, Thomas, Lord 
 Chancellor, Earl of South- 
 ampton, 137 note, 179, 
 180, 184 note, 186-187, 
 253-254, 258 
 
 Wyatt, Sir Thomas, 263 note, 
 340 note, 342 
 
 Wycliffe, John, 63, 90, 91, 92, 
 180, 270 
 
 Wy differs Wicket, 92 
 
 Y 
 
 York, Archbishops of, see 
 
 Wolsey and Lee 
 York Place, 101 
 Yorkshire, rebellion in, 106 
 
 Zurich, 212 
 
 Zwingli and Zwinglianism, 
 122, 170 note, 209-210, 
 216-217, 220, 224, 225, 
 227, 228, 234-236, 241, 
 267, 270-272, 274, 319 
 
,^^ 
 

 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 .•i!-' 
 
 '> °^'^'^%<- .<^' 
 
 ^<. '^ "^ * <r S 
 
 <l. * .0 K. ^ \^^ 
 
 .^^cO-/.^<, 
 
 '^^ 
 
 >V .r> 
 
 • 
 
 
 A^^ ^''"*. 
 
 > ^^^^r^.-'. 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper pro( 
 aV <^« Neutralizing agent: iVlagnesium Oxide 
 
 :/ 
 
 -.^--^^^ 
 
 2001 
 
 <%> .^ Treatment Date: 
 
 ^. " ' -..^^ "^ Preservationiechnoloc 
 
 S^ :!^ ,^jY?>:2-. '' . A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVA 
 
 111 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724) 779-2111 
 
,0o_. 
 
 \j 
 
 
 ,^'V 
 
 /■ JfN^i . Or ^ 
 
 " % 
 
 
 
 i' « 
 
 .Oo^ 
 
 '^^'' *^"^ ,(P 
 
 
 A-^' 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 \ o 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 .^ .^^ -n^. 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ■J^' 
 
 
 vO^^. 
 
 9> ^''c^. 
 
 aO 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 A"* 
 
 z -; 
 
 
 
 -,^ 
 
 >' % 
 
 
 
 oo^ 
 
 V 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 
 ^ '^^ fe. &i -i 
 
 
 -b. 
 
 xO^^, 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 007 32^ 421 
 
 mmm 
 
 ^^m^i^