^:ii 
 
/ 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/edwardvibookofcoOOgasqrich 
 I 
 
EDWARD VI 
 
 AND THE 
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 
 

 ^iCSt^f>CMWvV?^3^^ <^ftH/»Mf-^^HA^. ^ ^^^VvwifT4/fotH4 
 
 y^^TJcSitV^ ^C^tn/ntSv**^ ' ^Oi^xi yy^^^ ^ ^I^i^*^:.:!^*^^ 
 CX^/WvK*^ /• -flhm**»^^^W AU^Hryy ^fXC****' ot^wt^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^TjJj^r^^jW 
 
 
 Facsimile I. {frontispiece). 
 First page of the Breviary scheme, showing corrections by Cranmer. (MS. Reg. 7 B. IV f. 133a 
 
Edward the Sixth 
 
 and the 
 
 BOOKo/COMMON PRAYER 
 
 An Examination of its 
 
 Origin and Early History : With an 
 
 Appendix of Unpublished 
 
 Documents 
 
 By 
 
 The ABBOT GASQUET O.S.B. 
 EDMUND BISHOP 
 
 THIKB EDITION 
 
 BURNS AND OATES 
 
 28 ORCHARD STREET 
 LONDON W 
 

 i^f^-^ 
 
i 
 
 iT^ CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 TO THE READER. yjj 
 
 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. IX 
 
 Chapter I. church services at the death of 
 
 HENRY YllI 1_ 16 
 
 „ II. CRANMEr's PROJECTED BREVIARY . . . . 17—29 
 
 „ III. CRANMEr's second PROJECT 30—39 
 
 „ IV. PREPARATION FOR CHANGE 40—62 
 
 ^ V. THE PARLIAMENT AND CONVOCATION 1547. 63— 81 
 
 „ VI. THE COMMUNION BOOK 82 — 96 
 
 ■„ VII. PROCLAMATIONS AND PREACHINGS .... 97 — 117 
 
 ^ VIII. THE PRESS ON THE MASS 118 — 133 
 
 » IX. THENEWLITURGY: TIME, PLACE, PERSONS ETC. 134 — 147 
 -» X. CONVOCATION AND THE PRAYER BOOK . , 148 — 156 
 „ XL THE DEBATE ON THE SACRAMENT IN PARLIA- 
 MENT 1548 157—181 
 
 „ XII. THE FIRST ENGLISH BOOK OF COMMONPRAYER 182 — 215 
 ^ XIII. THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1549 AND CONTEM- 
 PORARY LITURGIES 216—235 
 
 ^ XIV. THE RECEPTION OF THE NEW SERVICE . . 236 — 258 
 
 ^ XV. FURTHER PROJECTS 259—276 
 
 * XVI. THE REVISION OF THE PRAYER BOOK 1552 277 — 307 
 
 APPJEISTDIX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 1. ACCOUNT OF MS. REG. 7 B. IV 311 — 314 
 
 II. CRANMEr's BREVIARY SCHEME 315 — 352 
 
 III. CRANMER'S SCHEME FOR MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER 353 — 382 
 
 IV. THE LECTIONARIES AND CALENDARS 383 — 394 
 
 V. THE DEBATE ON THE SACRAMENT IN PARLIAMENT 1548. 395—443 
 
 VI. THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION 444 — 448 
 
 VII. l^OTE ON THE ACTS OF CONVOCATION 1547 .... 449 — 451 
 
 239012 
 
TO THE READER. 
 
 The present work had its origin in the desire to 
 edit Cranmer's hitherto unnoticed projects of litur- 
 gical reform printed in the appendix. In the researches 
 necessary for this purpose, it was found that the 
 history of the religious changes under Edward YI 
 had in some points become involved in much and 
 seemingly unnecessary obscurity. It therefore appeared 
 desirable to present the story of the origin of the 
 Book of Common Prayer as a whole. Other docu- 
 ments were found which had escaped the attention 
 of previous writers and amongst these the notes of the 
 discussion in Parliament preceding the introduction 
 of the first Act of Uniformity. This document aflPords 
 new details in the history of the Prayer Book, and 
 gives the only reliable information about the views 
 entertained by the iSnglish bishops on the subject. 
 Apart from this, the "Notes" are of considerable 
 interest as being the earliest report of a debate in 
 Parliament. 
 
Though treating of liturgy the object of the work 
 is strictly historical. Unless a clear and intelligible 
 idea can be gained of the liturgical changes in the 
 reign of Edward VI. it is impossible to understand 
 a period which is the turning point in the religious 
 history of England. 
 
 The authors desire to record their thanks to the 
 authorities of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, for 
 permission to use the manuscripts in their library. 
 To the Rev. S. S. Lewis M. A, the librarian, in par- 
 ticular, they are indebted for his special kindness 
 to them. 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The first edition of this book was issued with only 
 a few words of introduction. In putting forth a second 
 some further prefatory remarks seem to be called for. 
 
 Kegret has been expressed in more than one 
 quarter that the entire manuscript containing Cran- 
 mer's projects for liturgical reform had not been 
 printed. The reason is simple ; the appendix contains 
 everything of real historical interest. What remains 
 still unprinted may afford some scope for minute 
 antiquarian investigation or some subject for specula- 
 tion. The lessons of the second scheme in particular 
 might invite remark : for instance the already advanced 
 character of the proposed english liturgical reform 
 may be further illustrated by the disuse of the 
 Vulgate. Cranmer's erasure of St. Babilas from 
 the calendar is doubtless explained by the story of 
 this martyr, the proposed lesson, derived from 
 St. Chrysostom's longer homily on the subject, scarcely 
 according with the Tudor idea of the due relation 
 between regality and the priesthood. The lesson for 
 St. Gordias, although referred in the manuscript to 
 St. Basil, shows that Cranmer did not disdain the 
 help of a then recent hagiologist. But the result of 
 such detailed enquiries, whatever it be, will have no 
 effect whatever in varying, though it might here or 
 
there deepen, the historical lines already sufficiently 
 clear. 
 
 As regards the hymns, to the omission of which 
 in the appendix special attention has been called, 
 it seemed unnecessary to print them in full. For 
 the most part they are well known, and are to be 
 found in the breviaries in daily use. The only point 
 of real interest, namely, that Cranmer, as appears 
 from minute variants, took his text from the 
 volume of Clichtoveus and not from the old breviaries, 
 has been already indicated. 
 
 In these circumstances it still seems best to leave 
 the appendix as it stood in the first edition. Liturgi- 
 cally, Cranmer's still-born projects are of no value ; 
 and it is believed that their historical interest has 
 been practically exhausted. 
 
 The notices which this book has received have 
 suggested a few observations on one or two points 
 of detail. 
 
 1. Co7ivocation. 
 
 Special interest has been manifested in the question 
 as to the approval of the Book of Common Prayer 
 of 1549 by Convocation. The object of the examin- 
 ation of this question in these pages was to elucidate 
 an obscure and doubtful point of history and to 
 enable the reader, so far as was possible, to come 
 to a probable conclusion. In estimating the proba- 
 bilities due weight hardly seems to have been given 
 to the evidence against such approval drawn from 
 the discussion on the Sacrament in Parliaments It 
 is true that the argumentum e silentio is continually 
 abused, but it does not follow that it has not its 
 
 1 See p. 181 (5). 
 
XI 
 
 due and proper use. In the present case it seems 
 almost impossible to believe that had Convocation 
 actually and formally approved the Prayer Book, 
 Somerset, placed in the position into which Thirlby 
 had forced him, could have maintained silence as to 
 such approval. The authors must own that to them 
 this argument seemed finally conclusive and it conse- 
 quently appeared unnecessary to burden their pages 
 with further discussions. 
 
 To those, however, who are particularly interested 
 in the subject, it is proper to point out that the 
 treament of Convocation by the governing powers 
 in the reign of Edward VI. forms a consistent 
 whole and has a history of its own. In dealing 
 with any special part of that history the whole 
 must be borne in mind. 
 
 The matter is well illustrated by what took place 
 in 1552. The relation of Convocation to the catechism 
 and articles set forth under its name in 1553 is obscure, 
 but a comparison of the scanty records which remain 
 make the following results almost certain: 
 
 (1) The articles and catechism were submitted to 
 the bishops ^ 
 
 (2) They were never submitted to the lower house 
 of Convocation. 
 
 (3) But "sundry others of our clergy'', a small select 
 body, all or many of them members of Convocation, 
 had a hand in the matter. 
 
 (4) As a result they were printed by the king's autho- 
 rity as the work of Convocation " agreed upon by the 
 bishops and other learned and godly men, in the 
 last Convocation at London in the year of our Lord 
 1552^ 
 
 1 Burnet's "brought into the upper house" is more precise 
 than the evidence warrants. 
 
XII 
 
 (5) When the matter was objected to Cranmer in 
 his disputation at Oxford in 1554, he replied " I was 
 ignorant of the setting to of that title and as soon 
 as I had knowledge thereof I did not like it. Therefore 
 when I complained thereof to the Council it was 
 answered me by them that the book was so entitled 
 because it was set forth in the time of the Convo- 
 cation " \ 
 
 The various steps taken in regard to the articles 
 and catechism thus bear a close resemblance to the 
 course followed in regard to the Prayer Book in 1548. 
 The answer of the Council to the archbishop's 
 objection to the catechism and articles being issued 
 as if with the approval of Convocation is perhaps 
 sufficient evidence of the justice and moderation of 
 the remark, that to examine closely into the terms 
 of official documents is "a process not unnecessary 
 in a period marked by so many doubtful dealings 
 on the part of the rulers ". 
 
 In fact it is clear that the abolition of Convocation 
 was one of the items of general policy determined upon 
 in the early days of this reign, and that in practice the 
 aim of the rulers was to discredit its authority, 
 impair its influence and supersede it generally by in- 
 formal committees wholly dependent on themselves. 
 All this was only a preparation for its final destruc- 
 tion provided for in the archbishop's Reformatio 
 legum ecclesiasticarum ^ 
 
 1 See Burnet III. 1. 210—213. The original passages relating 
 to the subject are: Foxe VI. 468; Ridley's Works, Parker Soc. 
 216—7; Philpot's Works, Parker Soc. p. 179—181 (cf. p. XIII) 
 See also Burnet, III. 2. 205 -6. Brooke's sermon contains nothing 
 more on the subject than the few lines extracted by Burnet. 
 
 2 This explains the profound resentment which animated 
 members of Convocation against Cranmer on the accession of Mary. 
 
XIII 
 
 II. The Mozarahic Missal. 
 
 It seems unnecessary either to enlarge or to 
 modify what has been already said on the subject 
 (pp. 185-6, 206-7 and 444-8). It would be easy 
 but hardly profitable to discuss more minutely the 
 subsidiary questions that have been raised. 
 
 The bearing of the possible intercourse between 
 Spain and England consequent on the marriage of 
 Katherine was obvious and had not escaped atten- 
 tion, but the difficulty was to discover satisfactory 
 evidence of literary intercourse in Henry's reign ^ 
 
 Even on the supposition that Cranmer possessed, 
 or had access to, a copy of this liturgy, the only 
 conclusion that can be drawn is, that in a volume 
 of nearly - 1900 folio columns of print, a missal, he 
 found as proper for his purpose in the compilation 
 of his new Prayer Book only one column— it may 
 l)e a line or two more or less — and that not relating 
 to the masSj but to the blessing of the font. 
 
 III. The Isidorean Theory, 
 
 To the influence of the Spanish rites on the com- 
 pilation of the Book of Common Prayer as much 
 space has been allotted in this book as the matter 
 in its historical bearings could warrant. Indeed the 
 whole subject would seem to have assumed a 
 fictitious importance. Still, as it has been touched 
 upon again, it is perhaps useful to deal with a 
 
 1 For instance in the king's library in 1542 only three Spanish 
 books appear. As they are interesting in themselves it may be 
 as well to mention them : " Dantis works in the castilian tongue " — 
 "Triumphes of Petrarch in castilian"— " Salustius with songis 
 in Spanyssh" (R. 0. Augt. Off. Misc. Bk. 160 ff. 109a, 114b, 
 119a). 
 
XIV 
 
 kindred theory, which the authors had previously 
 examined, but which, on a review of the whole 
 circumstances appeared to them devoid of any 
 foundation in fact. 
 
 This theory is the influence supposed to have been 
 exercised by St. Isidore of Seville on the revision 
 of the Anglican Prayer Book in 1552. The impression 
 on this subject is most conveniently expressed in a 
 document which from its character has naturally 
 obtained the widest circulation. 
 
 "In A. D. 1534" runs the passage "was printed at 
 Leipsic and Antwerp, edited by Joannes Cochleus, 
 the treatise and revision by Isidore of Seville of 
 that form of Gallican liturgy called the Mozarabic, 
 as used in the 6th and 7th centuries and long 
 before (Isid. Hispal. De off. Eccl., Lips. 4to., Antv. 
 8vo., 1534). This work was dedicated to Dr. Robert 
 Ridley, uncle of Bishop Ridley. In the dedication 
 Cranmer himself is named as *vir eruditus et 
 theologus insignis.' It naturally excited much atten- 
 tion ; it is quoted by several of the chief Reform- 
 ers. Scholars are now investigating the large use 
 of it made in other parts of the books of both 
 1549 and 1552. It was the more notable because 
 Cardinal Ximenes had in 1500 refounded the use in 
 Spain in such amplified form as was then possible, 
 which is not so sure to have come under Cranmer's 
 notice. Both forms give evidence which is to the 
 point. A mixed cup was used, but in the ancient 
 form there is no order and no prayer for mixing. 
 In the later, the rubric and prayers are included in 
 the prceparatio which had in the interval grown up 
 before the Introit and Ante-Communion (Burbidge 
 196, 202, etc.)"^ 
 
 ^ In the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bead and 
 
XT 
 
 In the foregoing passage the two " forms" mentioned 
 are : 
 
 (1) the Mozarabic missal : and 
 
 (2) St. Isidore's tract entitled de officiis ecclesiasticis. 
 The theory to be examined is based on this latter 
 
 and has nothing to do with the Mozarabic missal 
 which has been dealt with. 
 
 The character of this tract must be first clearly 
 understood. It is not a liturgy in any sense, but 
 an exposition and often a mystical interpretation 
 of ecclesiastical life and practice. In order that the 
 reader may be put in full possession of the reasons 
 adduced for believing that St. Isidore was a guide 
 to the reformers in the revision of the english 
 liturgy of 1552, the entire chapter of the work in 
 question is here translated and Mr. Burbidge's. 
 arguments are given in the margin. 
 
 St. Isidore. remarks. 
 
 Book I. chapter 15. Of the 
 mass and Prayers, 
 
 But the order of the 
 mass and prayers by which 
 the sacrifices offered to 
 God are consecrated was 
 first instituted by St. 
 Peter; the celebration of 
 which the whole world 
 observes (peragit) in one 
 and the same way. 
 
 The first of these is a 
 prayer of admonition 
 toward the people that 
 
 This " may be compared 
 with the english exhor- 
 tation ' dearly beloved 
 
 others v. the Lord Bishop of Lincoln. Judgment, Nov. 21, 1890 
 (London, 1890). 
 
XVI 
 
 they may be stirred up 
 to entreat God. 
 
 in the Lord'; and the 
 words fratres charissimi 
 are in it in almost every 
 service". (Liturgies and 
 offices of the ChurcJi. By 
 Edvt^ard Burbidge, M.A. 
 p. 198. Note 1). 
 
 The second is of invo- 
 cation to God that he 
 would graciously receive 
 the prayers of the faithful 
 and their oblation. 
 
 The third is poured 
 forth for those who are 
 offering or for the faith- 
 ful departed that they may 
 obtain pardon through the 
 same sacrifice. 
 
 "The second and third 
 prayers take the place of 
 our prayer for the Church 
 militant. Special notice 
 should be paid to the fact 
 that the prayer for the 
 Church was thus separ- 
 ated from the consecra- 
 tion prayer" ibid, note 2). 
 
 After these the fourth 
 is introduced that all 
 reconciled to each other 
 in charity may be united 
 together as worthy of the 
 Sacrament of the body 
 and blood of Christ. For 
 the indivisible body of 
 Christ does not permit in- 
 dividual discord. 
 
 "The fourth prayer may 
 be compared in respect of 
 its position and intention 
 with our invitation, con- 
 fession, absolution, and 
 comfortable words" (^6^c?. 
 note 3). 
 
 The fifth is brought in 
 as an introduction to the 
 sanctification of the obla- 
 tion, in which also all 
 
 " Thefifth prayer corres- 
 ponds with our preface, 
 
xvir 
 
 earthly creatures and 
 heavenly powers are sum- 
 moned to the praising of 
 God; and Hosamia in 
 excelsis is sung, because, 
 by the birth of Our Sa- 
 viour from the race of 
 David, salvation has come 
 to the v^orld, even to the 
 highest. 
 
 Moreover the sixth now 
 follows, the confirmation 
 of the Sacrament, in order 
 that the oblation of 
 the body and blood 
 which is offered to God, 
 being sanctified by the 
 Holy spirit, may be con- 
 firmed. 
 
 The last of these prayers 
 is that which Our Lord 
 taught his disciples to 
 pray, saying: Our Father 
 who art in heaven. 
 
 [Here follows in the 
 tract a short exposition 
 of the Lord's prayer which 
 
 Sanctus and prayer of 
 consecration" ibid, note 4). 
 
 " The sixth prayer may 
 be compared in respect to 
 the contents of many exam- 
 ples of it ^ with our prayer 
 of humble access" (.p 199^ 
 note 1) 2. 
 
 ^ These be it remarked can only be known in the Mozarabie 
 missal itself and not by the tract of St. Isidore. 
 
 2 At p. 201 the author calls attention to the difference 
 between St. Isidore and the Anglican communion service; namely 
 that this sixth prayer is omitted. 
 
XVIII 
 
 need not be translated 
 as having no bearing on 
 the present discussion. It 
 ends:] Our Saviour there- 
 fore taught this prayer, 
 in which is contained the 
 hope of the faithful and 
 the confession of sins, 
 whereof the prophet fore- 
 telling says, Et erit etc. 
 These then are the seven 
 prayers of the sacrifice 
 commended by apostolic 
 and evangelical doctrine. 
 The reason of instituting 
 the particular number 
 seems to be either because 
 of the sevenfold univer- 
 sality of the holy Church, 
 or on account of the seven- 
 fold graces of the Spirit, 
 by whose gift those things 
 which are offered are sanc- 
 tified." 
 
 The foregoing presents to the reader the suggested 
 guide of archbishop Cranmer in his reform of the 
 Anglican liturgy of 1552 and the arguments by which 
 that theory is supported. These invite some com- 
 ment. It will be observed that it is entirely founded 
 on a question of order, not upon a comparison of 
 formularies. The similarity even of order breaks 
 down at the very beginning. St. Isidore places first 
 a prayer of admonition toward the people and 
 secondly a prayer of invocation that God may receive 
 
XIX 
 
 the prayers of the faithful. The Communion service 
 of 1552 reverses this order. 
 
 In the next place the question is not whether the 
 prayers mentioned by St. Isidore " may be compared 
 with/' or ''correspond with", or "take the place of/' 
 certain portions of the Anglican communion service; 
 but whether the revisers of 1552 took the order of 
 prayers given in this tract of St. Isidore as their 
 pattern. 
 
 It may however be further asked, whether the 
 general character of the tract is such as to recom- 
 mend it to the particular and favourable consider- 
 ation of Cranmer. Ample materials exist for forming 
 a correct judgment as to his opinions at this period 
 year after year. Moreover the whole tenour of his 
 ecclesiastical acts are well-known. The question 
 therefore is, how would the doctrine and tone of 
 St. Isidore's work accord with the temper and bent 
 of Cranmer's mind at this period. The first chapter 
 deals with the component parts of the divine office, 
 with its hymns and antiphons and reponsories, 
 which Cranmer had just set aside. It treats of the 
 canonical hours, matins and lauds, tierce, sext, none, 
 vespers and compline, which Cranmer considered the 
 church had now outgrown. St. Isidore also deals with 
 those lesser orders of subdeacon, lector etc., all which 
 were now abolished in the church of England. 
 
 Turning to details the tract is found to be replete 
 with doctrine condemned by Cranmer in no measured 
 terms. The oflPertories, for example which, as St. 
 Isidore says, under the old law were chaunted 
 when the victims were immolated, we joyfully sing 
 "in that true sacrifice by the blood of which the 
 world has been saved". In his chapter on the sacrifice 
 he begins : " The sacrifice that is offered by christians 
 to God our Lord and Master, Christ instituted when 
 
XX 
 
 He gave to His apostles His body and blood before 
 He was betrayed". 
 
 Again. " We believe that it is a tradition from 
 the very apostles themselves to offer sacrifice for 
 the repose of the faithful departed and to pray for 
 them, because this is observed throughout the v^hole 
 world". Further, St. Isidore mentions the fires of 
 purgatory, and he distinguishes clearly between the 
 sacrifice of the altar and the sacrifice of our prayers, 
 referring this latter to offices such as vespers. 
 
 There can be no doubt therefore that the whole 
 of St. Isidore's work runs directly counter to the line 
 of ecclesiastical policy which Cranmer and his friends 
 were forcing on the nation during Edward's reign; 
 and that he could not have looked to it as a guide 
 in the revision of the Communion Service of 1552. 
 The key to this the authors believe is to be found 
 in Cranmer's own w^orks. 
 
 The study of liturgy can be pursued usefully and 
 fruitfully only on those rational methods which 
 should govern all historical investigation. In the case 
 of a document like the Book of Common Prayer it is 
 a dictate of common-sense that any examination 
 of its origin and sources should be conducted with 
 a primary regard to the circumstances in which, and 
 the opinions of the persons by whom, it was produced. , 
 In a w^ord it must be put in its proper historical 
 setting and illustrated from the writings of those 
 who composed it, or their friends, and not by the 
 productions of those centuries the doctrine and prac- 
 tice of which it was the avowed aim and intention 
 of its authors to destroy. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 CHUKCH SERVICE AT THE CLOSE OF HENRY'S REIGN. 
 
 The first Convocation of clergy in the reign of 
 Edward VI. met at St. Paul's on November 5, 1547. 
 The lower house immediately upon their assembling 
 "agreed that the prolocutor in the name of the 
 whole house should report to the most Reverend" 
 the archbishop of Canterbury certain petitions, 
 among which w^as the following: "that the labours 
 of the bishops and others, who by command of Con- 
 vocation had been engaged in examining, reforming 
 and setting forth {et edendo) the divine service should 
 be produced and should be submitted to the exami- 
 nation of this house". 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer's notes of this meeting show 
 some important variations from the official record 
 on this matter. According to his version, the clergy 
 declared that "by command of king Henry VIII." 
 certain prelates and learned men were "appointed.... 
 to devise a uniform order; who according to the 
 same appointment did make certain books, as they 
 be informed". And the object of their request was, 
 according to Cranmer's statement, that these books 
 should be submitted to them "for a better expedi- 
 tion of divine service to be set forth accordingly" \ 
 
 ^ This statement may perhaps in part have been drawn 
 from, or suggested by, the address of the Prolocutor; the con- 
 
 B 
 
2 Church ^Service at the close of Henry^s reign. 
 
 What the result of this application may have been 
 does not appear ; nor does mention of these books 
 occur in any other record. It has been tacitly assumed 
 that if they did indeed exist, they have disappeared. 
 Convocation however, was in fact accurately inform- 
 ed when it spoke of their existence: and for the 
 last three hundred years in all probability such a 
 book has lain among the manuscripts of the Royal 
 library. The identification of the volume removes 
 one of the difficulties which has hitherto stood in 
 the way of any satisfactory investigation into the 
 origin and character of the first Prayer Book of 
 Edward VI. 
 
 Up to the present time there has been an entire 
 want of material to illustrate the history and course 
 of the composition of this book^ and of the steps 
 whereby it assumed its present form. There has been 
 nothing but the book complete as it stands in print. 
 The spirit w^hich dictated and directed the compila- 
 tion has been a matter of conjecture, coloured not 
 infrequently, as is natural in such a case, by the 
 personal prepossessions of the writer. This is the more 
 unfortunate, since a just estimate of the character of 
 a document of such supreme importance is a first 
 and necessary condition for a right understanding 
 of the history of the religious changes in England 
 during the sixteenth century. 
 
 The first Prayer Book of Edward YI. was in itself 
 a revolution; and that on two grounds. Local and 
 diocesan usage of every sort was swept away and 
 an absolute uniformity was prescribed for the whole 
 realm, — a thing unheard of in the ancient Catholic 
 church in England no less than in France and Ger- 
 
 flict of statement as to the king's commandment and the com- 
 mand of Convocation certainly cannot be thus explained. 
 
Church Service at the close of Henry s reign. 3 
 
 many. This note of uniformity is struck emphatic- 
 ally in the Act itself, which also declares the peace 
 and quiet to be engendered by the change. Secondly, 
 a book was introduced, the form and disposition of 
 which was unlike any hitherto in use for public 
 worship in England. 
 
 Whether a nearer examination would show that 
 the divergence is rather one of outward seeming 
 than of reality is a matter involving many conside- 
 rations. Amongst these must necessaril}^ find a place 
 the following: what position does the first Prayer 
 Eook hold in regard to the ancient service books in 
 England, or other contemporary documents of the 
 same kind*? Is it conservative? Is it innovating? 
 And how far is it either ? What was its inspiration ? 
 What were its sources? Unfortunately all these 
 •questions have become involved in extraneous and 
 notably polemical considerations. These, as all will 
 allow, are hardly favourable to the investigation or 
 exposition of bare historic truth. But, in spite of 
 these, it should not be impossible to fix, with a 
 ijufficient degree of accuracy and certainty, the position 
 which the Prayer Books of Edward YI. really hold 
 in the religious history of the time; especially when 
 new documents can be produced to make the task 
 more easy or the result more sure. 
 
 No attempt will be made to enquire whether the 
 change brought about was good or whether it was 
 bad. The present investigation is concerned with 
 facts, and where doctrinal questions must be touched 
 upon to elucidate the mere course of events or 
 change of individual opinion, the actors will be 
 allowed to give their own statements of their own 
 beliefs. Thus the enquiry whether this revolution, 
 which swept away the old order and established 
 in its place the liturgy now holding the affection 
 
4 Church Service at the close of Henry s reign, 
 
 of the majority of Englishmen, was providential, or 
 whether it was a revolt against established law, is 
 altogether foreign to the present purpose. 
 
 As a prelude it is necessary to have a clear under- 
 standing of the condition of public worship at the 
 end of the reign of Henry YIII. Looking back across 
 the course which events actually took in the estab- 
 lishment of an exclusively vernacular service in 
 vEngland, there has been a tendency to attribute an 
 undue importance to the Primers or other prayer books 
 in English issued in the later years of that reign. 
 Vernacular prayers for private use were common in 
 the middle ages, and the contents of the primers, 
 which were essentially designed for such private devo- 
 tion, fall almost entirely outside the ground covered 
 by the first public english service book. 
 
 Glancing at the state of affairs at the moment of 
 Henry's death it may be said that the system of 
 public worship, which existed throughout the middle 
 ages in England, remained intact and in full force. 
 The rites of Sarum, York and Hereford were in prac- 
 tical use as they had been an hundred years before, 
 the same books, the same ceremonies \ 
 
 The acts of Convocation in 1542 however show 
 already a disposition to limit this diversity by pre- 
 scribing the observance of the Sarum rite for the whole 
 province of Canterbury. There appears however no 
 evidence to show that the use of Hereford was then 
 abrogated. It is not impossible that this order was 
 caused by the sudden secularization of so large a body 
 of clergy who had, as members of regular orders, 
 
 1 The purgation to which the service books had been subjected 
 was confined to the omission of the word "Pope", to the sup- 
 pression of the office and name of St. Thomas of Canterbury and 
 to a correction of typographical errors. 
 
Church Service at the close of Henry's reign. 5 
 
 been accustomed to their own special rites and who, 
 in the change of condition, must have been at a loss 
 to tell what breviary to adopt in order to satisfy 
 an obligation binding them in conscience to the daily 
 recitation of the divine office. 
 
 It has been suggested by some recent writers of 
 repute that the suppression of the monastic houses 
 necessitated a change in the method of public worship 
 in order to render the daily homage of the creature 
 compatible with secular duties. It is moreover 
 implied that all offices, except a morning and eve- 
 ning prayer, were designed only for regular religious. 
 These ideas seem due to a misapprehension. The 
 disappearance of the monasteries in no way affected 
 the worship in cathedral or parish churches. It 
 is true that on the refoundation of the monastic 
 cathedrals a body of clergy was instituted somewhat 
 less numerous than it had been on the old footing, 
 if for no other reason at least for this, that a given 
 revenue would suffice for a larger number of men 
 living in community than of men each in receipt of 
 a separate income and keeping up a separate house- 
 hold. But even the cathedrals of the new foundation 
 had a body of clergy fully able to maintain the divine 
 office in becoming splendour \ 
 
 Except in so far as personal obligations were con- 
 cerned, a cathedral or collegiate church of secular 
 clergy was bound to a perpetual round of praise 
 and service hardly less onerous than that of the most 
 observant monastery. The obligation however lay 
 upon them as members of their church and not, as 
 they would strenuously have contended, by vow as 
 
 1 The clergy who remained in the old monastic cathedrals 
 xipon the suppression of the monastery were not uncommonly 
 a-ecommended by the royal agents as "good choir men." 
 
6 Chu7xh Service at the close of Henrifs 7'eign, 
 
 religious. The public recitation of the canonical hours 
 great and small, it is true, originated with persons 
 inclined to what is technically called the religious 
 life: monazontes, as they are named in the recently 
 discovered Per egrinateo Silvice, which throws consider- 
 able light upon this as well as upon so many other 
 ecclesiastical usages at the close of the fourth 
 century ^ 
 
 Still, as early as the time of St. Gregory the Great, 
 it was assumed that the of&ce in a cathedral or even 
 a considerable church was to be publicly sung. By the 
 eighth century the clergy of such churches were 
 regarded and regarded themselves as a real com- 
 munity, the provisions made for the conduct and 
 observance of which differed but slightly from those 
 of a community of monks. There was however this 
 essential difference between them; though the canons 
 around their bishop lived on common funds, they 
 retained their rights to their own property and, 
 subject of course to the obedience of all clergy to 
 their bishop, were free to come and go. 
 
 In the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries 
 the canons, especially of episcopal churches, gradually 
 emancipated themselves from ancient restrictions. 
 The funds originally common, became allotted to 
 individual members of the body. This practice received 
 recognition and confirmation more or less early from 
 the bishops, when the episcopal mensa and that of 
 the canons became distinct and separate. 
 
 The change produced in course of time a departure 
 not less marked in the opposite direction. This latter 
 
 ^ See Duchesne, Origines du culte Chretien^ Paris, 1889. 
 pp. 433—436, for an account of the way in which the public 
 celebration of the divine office grew to be recognized as a dutj 
 of the ecclesiastical state. 
 
Church Service at the close of Heyiry's reign. 7 
 
 tendency was to a renunciation of all private property 
 and the assumption of religious vows, and thus by 
 the beginning of the twelfth century the distinction 
 of regular canons and secular canons was an accom- 
 plished fact. To the class of secular canons belonged 
 all our non-monastic feiglish cathedrals except Car- 
 lisle : and St. Osmund's title to the gratitude of his 
 church will be probably found to lie, not in the 
 liturgical reforms which legend has attributed to 
 him, but in his legislation for the new pattern in his 
 cathedral church at Sarum. Such canons throwing 
 off perhaps gradually the old community restrictions 
 came to differ in no wise, so far as their method of 
 life was concerned, from the rest of the secular 
 clergy. The others formed themselves into a religious 
 order in the strictest sense of the word and became 
 known as regular or Augustinian canons. The name 
 " Canon" common to both, recalls the state of life from 
 which both had sprung, but which both had abandoned. 
 Henceforward whilst bearing this common name 
 they are perfectly distinct in life and spirit. By a 
 contradiction in terms one class came to be called 
 secular canons, whilst the other by tautology received 
 the name of regular canons \ 
 
 In one point however churches of canons, whether 
 secular or regular, kept to the old lines. Both were 
 bound to and observed the solemn and public recit- 
 ation of the entire divine office although now on 
 
 ^ Trithemius long ago drew attention to this "a secular 
 canon *' it is as much as to say " a white black" he writes. See in 
 Ducange s.v. canonicus. This article of Ducange is unfortunately 
 misleading on the origin of secular canons, although a careful 
 perusal of the passages cited therein is sufficient to detect the 
 mistake which is corrected later s.v. Begulares. The question is 
 accurately exposed in Amort Disc: Vet: Canonicorum, pp.329 — 333. 
 
8 Church Service at the close of Henry'' s reign. 
 
 different grounds. The regular canons observed this 
 duty as members of a religious order ; the secular 
 canons as incorporated into a church, whether cathe- 
 dral or collegiate, by the foundation and tradition 
 of which its members voluntarily undertook the 
 obligation so long as they held their prebend \ 
 
 To come to detail: taken as the rule the life of 
 a canon in our English cathedrals up to the close of 
 Henry's days was one of no slight labour and mor- 
 tification. The church offices were long : they made 
 up a day's work quite apart from all questions of 
 time to be given to study, private devotion, or the 
 ordinary claims of daily life. The choral work began 
 early. Morwen, chaplain to bishop Bonner of Lon- 
 don, in commenting on a sermon preached by Pil- 
 kington in June 1561, when lightning had struck 
 the steeple of St. Paul's, and the roof and bells had 
 been burnt, called attention to the change which 
 had been made in the mode of worship. " Now," he 
 says, " whether the people of this realm be declined 
 from the steps of St. Augustine and other blessed 
 fathers and saints which had mass and seven sacra- 
 ments in the church, and God was honoured night 
 and day in the church with divine service, I think 
 there is no man so simple but he may easily per- 
 ceive, except malice have blinded his heart. As in 
 
 1 The universal tradition as to common life in cathedrals 
 must be borne in mind in estimating the introduction of monks 
 into feglish cathedral churches under king Edgar and later. 
 Probably a practical compromise was come to, by allowing the 
 clergy of the other &glish episcopal churches, where the common 
 life had been abandoned, to go on as they were. This will explain 
 William of Malmesbury's '^contra morem Anglorum'\ In fact 
 traces of the old common life survived more generally in France 
 lon^ after the cathedrals had been settled on the new model. 
 
Church Service at the close of Henrifs reign. 9 
 
 St. Paul's church in London, by the decrees of bless- 
 ed fathers, every night at midnight they had matins ; 
 all the forenoon masses in the church with other 
 divine service and continual prayer, and in the 
 steeple anthems and prayers v^ere had certain 
 times". \ 
 
 Pilkington in his reply writes: — "further, where 
 he charges us with declining from the steps of the 
 blessed fathers which ordained in Paul's matins to 
 be had at midnight, all forenoon masses, and in the 
 steeple anthems ; these things we do not only not 
 deny, for we do not count such superstitious idolaters 
 to be our fathers in religion, but we rejoice and praise 
 God for our deliverance from such superstitions. 
 They crack much of blessed fathers and yet name 
 not who they be, but much it shall not skill but 
 their deeds shall prove their holiness. What great 
 holiness was this, to have matins at midnight when 
 folk were on sleep in their beds ! Is not common 
 prayer to be had at such hours when the people 
 might resort to it conveniently? If midnight be 
 such a time most convenient let the world judge.... 
 In Paul's and abbeys at their midnight prayers 
 were none commonly but a few bawling priests, 
 young quiristers and novices which understood not 
 what they said. The elder sort kept their beds.... 
 A prayer not understanded in the heart but spok- 
 en with the lips is rather to be counted prating 
 and bawling than praying with good devotion. 
 The elder sort both in cathedral churches and 
 abbeys almost never came at their midnight pray- 
 er. It was thought enough to knoll the bells and 
 make men believe that they rose to prayer, therefore 
 
 Printed in Pilkington's Works (ed Parker Soc :), p. 483. 
 
10 Church Service at the close of Henry s reign. 
 
 they have not so much to crack of this their doing... 
 But as all their religion is of their own devising 
 so is their reward. Grod has made them no such 
 promise and therefore they can claim nothing at 
 his hands." ^ 
 
 Whether Pilkington was carried away by his 
 fervour in confutation or not may be left an open 
 question. But the popular appreciation of these ser- 
 vices may be gauged by a letter which gives a glimpse 
 of Catholic cathedral life in Mary's days. The writer 
 was apparently one of the canons of Hereford. Its 
 date is about 1583 or 1584 ; it is addressed to Scory 
 the aged bishop of the see, and its object is to secure 
 a stricter confinement for the catholic recusants who 
 " are more increased this day in Hereford than ever 
 were this twenty five years before." 
 
 "Right Honorable and Reverend Father" it begins, 
 " my bounden duty always remembered ; may it 
 please your lordship to be advertised or to put in 
 memory that in the dark days of queen Mary the 
 dean then and the clergy of your cathedral church 
 of Hereford did orderly observe their superstitious 
 orders {i. e, services), and were present thereat con- 
 tinually, except certain days of licence which are 
 called days of jubilee. ^ And did preach their su- 
 perstitious dregs not only, but also did in their 
 outward living keep great hospitality. For every 
 night at midnight they with the whole vicars choral 
 
 1 Pilkington's Works, pp. 527—8. 
 
 ^ This was evidently a term current in Hereford for leaves 
 of absence, but does not appear to bave been in use in other 
 fcglish cathedrals, as far as a cursory examination of the available 
 Statutes has shown. 
 
Church Service at the close of Henri/ s reign. 11 
 
 would rise to matins and especially the 'domydary', * 
 for the week being, would be the first. 
 
 "Then at five o'clock in the morning at St. Nicholas 
 mass ; then at other masses at certain altars ; then 
 at eight of the clock our Lady mass was solemnly- 
 said. Then at nine the prime and hours; then the 
 high mass was in saying until it was eleven of the 
 clock, besides every man must have said his own 
 private mass at some one or other altar daily." 
 
 "Then after dinner to even song till five o'clock, 
 in which time of service a number of tapers were 
 burning every day, and there was great censing at 
 the high altar daily to their idols, and there was 
 a lamp burning day and night continually before 
 their gods. And every sabbath day and festival day 
 St. Thomas' bell should ring to procession and the 
 dean would send his somner '^ to warn the mayor 
 to the procession. And then upon the somner's 
 warning the mayor would send the sergeants to the 
 parish churches, every man in his ward to the alder- 
 man. Then the alderman would cause the parish priest 
 to command all the freemen to attend on the mayor to 
 the procession ^ or lecture. For want of a sermon there 
 should be a lecture in the chapter house every sabbath 
 and holy day, notwithstanding they were at high 
 mass in the choir. And thenby the mayor and commons 
 it was agreed at a general law-day that if the mayor 
 did not come to procession and sermon he should 
 pay 12d. for every default and every alderman 8d. 
 and every man of the election 6d. and every freeman 
 or gild merchant 4:d., if it were known they were 
 
 1 i. e. Hebdomadarian, or weekly officiant, whether in secular 
 or regular churches. 
 ^ i, e. his verger. 
 ^ That is before the High Mass. 
 
12 Church Service at the close of Henry's reign. 
 
 absent and within the hearing of the said bell and 
 did not come, which ordinance was and is recorded 
 in the custom book of the city: so zealous and 
 diligent were the temporality then in observing those 
 dregs of the clergy. Then the dean and clergy would 
 come so orderly to church with such a godly show 
 of humbleness and in keeping such hospitality that 
 it did allure the people to what order they would 
 request them." 
 
 "This is true for I did see and know it; but then 
 did I as a child and knew not the truth, and then 
 such heavy burdens were but light; but now in these 
 joyful days of light how heavy is it among a number 
 of us to come two hours of the day to serve the 
 true God, the everlasting King of all glory. It is 
 lamentable to think on it and much more grievous 
 to him that did see the blind zeal in darkness so 
 observed, and now^ the true light and pathway to 
 salvation neglected. Then were there tapers, torch- 
 es and lamps great plenty, with censing to idols 
 most costly in the clearest day of summer; and now 
 not scarce one little candle is allowed or maintained 
 to read a chapter in the dark evenings in the choir. 
 And as for resorting to hear the truth of the gospel, 
 it is little regarded . . . notwithstanding the visitation'* \ 
 
 1 This letter is contained in Egerton Ms. 1693 p. 81 (B. Mus.) 
 a volume of the papers of Walsingham, Elizabeth's minister 
 relating chiefly to ecclesiastical affairs. It is a copy, without name 
 or date, evidently forwarded to Walsingham by Bp. 8cory. The 
 same volume contains many papers relating to the visitation 
 named in the letter, which was attended with peculiar difficulties, 
 as the cathedral chapter claimed to be exempt by their charters 
 and privileges "as well from the Archbishop of Canterbury as... 
 from their own bishop." (p. 95. cf. Parker's Corresp. Parker 
 Soc. p. 165). The visit was eventually managed by Aubery, Vicar 
 General of the archbishop, in virtue of a royal command, and was 
 
Church Service at the close of Henri/ s reign, 13 
 
 That the writer's reminiscences were not incorrect 
 will appear from the account bishop Scory himself 
 gives of the state of feeling in Hereford in 1561, 
 nearly three years after Mary's death. "The popish 
 justices of the city" so runs Scory 's plaint "command- 
 ed the observance of St. Laurence's day as a holi- 
 day. On the eve no butcher in the town ventured 
 to sell meat; on the day itself no 'gospeller' durst 
 work in his occupation or open his shop. A party 
 of recusant priests from Devonshire were received 
 in state by the magistrates, carried through the 
 streets in procession and 'so feasted and magnified' 
 as Christ himself could not have been more rever- 
 ently entertained.' ^ 
 
 If it is desired to realize what were the English 
 cathedrals in days gone by, it is only necessary to 
 inquire what the french churches were in the be- 
 ginning of the last century : a subject for which ma- 
 terials abound. These stately corporations were un- 
 doubtedly a prominent feature in the religious life 
 of France up to the era of the great Revolution. 
 Not merely in such small towns as Beauvais or Cha- 
 lons, where a cathedral establishment might natur- 
 ally be supposed to overpower all other interests,^ 
 but in busy centres like Eouen, Amiens or Lyons, 
 they were a real religious power in the life of the 
 city. More than that : as may have been already 
 gathered from the Hereford letter, they were the 
 living manifestations in the country of the public 
 recognition that the people formed a Christian and 
 Catholic nation. On high-days and great days the re- 
 held sometime between 5 Sept. 1582 and 19 April 1583. The 
 whole story is shortly told in the Downside Review Vol. VI 
 pp. 58-61. 
 
 1 Froude. History, (ed. 1870) VII p. 19. 
 
14: Church Service at the close of Henry's reign, 
 
 presentatives of every class and profession, up to the 
 lieutenant of the sovereign, took part in the solemn 
 offices along with the clergy as making up together 
 one corporate whole, and thus publicly proclaimed 
 religion an integral part of the national life. 
 
 There were days moreover when the offices of 
 the parish churches were discontinued and the clergy 
 and their flocks assembled within the mother church 
 for one united celebration. Thus the cathedral became 
 essentially a popular institution, even apart from 
 the exceptional splendour with which its services were 
 invested. 
 
 The parish churches of England according to their 
 size and wealth followed the model set them by their 
 cathedral \ The body of clergy attached to them by 
 one title or another, along with choristers and the nu- 
 merous clerics in minor orders who lived the life of lay 
 people in secular callings, was much larger than is now 
 generally realized. This made the maintenance of the 
 public offi.ce in the larger churches, at least on sun- 
 days and feast-days practicable and even easy. ^ It 
 
 ^ This is the simple origin of a diocesan "use" and explains 
 naturally and certainly the predominance of the rite of Sarum in 
 southern England. Five of the episcopal sees of the Canterbury pro- 
 vince, not including Bath and Coventry, had a monastic cathedral, 
 and as the monastic office and the solemnities entirely differed 
 from those of the secular clergy, the rites of these cathedrals could 
 not furnish the model for the parish and collegiate churches of these 
 dioceses. They were thus perforce obliged to adopt the use of some 
 other and secular cathedral. It is unnecessary to discuss here the 
 reasons which may have led to the adoption of the Sarum rather 
 than any other use. 
 
 2 The chanting of the office (i. e. cum nota) was in the middle 
 ages required even in cases where such practice might at the 
 present day seem useless and impossible. Many such examples 
 occur in the Begistrum Visitationum of Eudes Rigaud, arch- 
 bishop of Rouen. 
 
Church Service at the close of Henry's reign. 15 
 
 must be remembered also that what are now known 
 as "devotions" were then essentially regarded as 
 private and personal and, besides the mass, the 
 office was the only church service. 
 
 The measures of Henry VIII. had at most but slightly 
 touched the parish churches and, so far as the ser- 
 vices are concerned they^^ as little as the cathedrals, 
 had been affected by the suppression of the monas- 
 teries. Still, though no practical change had taken 
 place on the accession of Edward, there is evidence 
 that Cranmer had already designed considerable 
 alterations in public worship, the character of which 
 will be considered in the next chapter. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 CRANMER'S PROJECTED BREVIARY. 
 
 More than fifty years ago the late Sir William 
 Palmer pointed out that the breviary of Cardinal 
 Quignon had evidently exercised an influence in the 
 compilation of the Book of Common Prayer. Whole 
 passages in the preface were shown to be either 
 translations or more or less close adaptations of 
 parts of Quignon's own preface to the first edition 
 of his office-book. Here, however, in fact the inves- 
 tigation rested, since it was not possible to attribute 
 the origin of any part or form of the printed 
 English book directly to Quignon's volume. The 
 manuscript to which attention is now invited supplies 
 what has hitherto been wanting to make clear the 
 connection. 
 
 It has been mentioned in the last chapter that 
 this manuscript ^ is at least one of the books, if 
 not all, which Convocation in 1547 asked to see. It 
 comprises two schemes of Office ^ and three tables 
 of lessons. An account of the manuscript and a print 
 
 1 B. Mus. Koyal MS. 7 B. IV. 
 
 2 What is meant by Office must be clearly understood. It 
 is not the Mass, which corresponds to the anglican Communion 
 Service, but the canonical hours, which correspond to the matins 
 and evensong of the Common Prayer Book. 
 
/Hn^^-C^Wlf'^.^^r C^ /W» ^pttxv&nh ^Uf ^y^iK^ ^OViMT 1**^ 
 
 yn4ftu^*\C^ 'iXtffH^:' «omv*« ^tA ^v|5(i<\ ^pctCctK^^H**' 
 
 V^<w{;iM<mM iiftir<^Wf af^^i<K fXrv^wnm ^^t<vim) 
 
 Facsimile II. (to face p. i6). 
 T.alin draft of llic preface to the Book of Common Prayer. (MS. Reg. 7 B. IV f. 7^). 
 
Cranmer's Projected Breviary, 17 
 
 of its contents are given in the appendix: here it 
 will suffice to state results. 
 
 It is however well first to point out the grounds 
 upon which this manuscript is attributed to arch- 
 bishop Cranmer. The schemes of office are, as is 
 evident on the face of them and as will appear 
 more and more clearly the more closely they are 
 examined, of a date earlier than that of the Book 
 of Common Prayer. The first of them, roughly 
 speaking, follows the old order of breviary services, 
 and may be described as Sarum material worked 
 up under Quignon's influence. The second, although 
 also in latin, comes nearer to the form of morning 
 and evening prayer in the first printed Prayer Book 
 of Edward VL (1549). The preface of this latter 
 scheme, also in Ia.tin, is manifestly an earlier draft 
 of the english preface of the book of 1549. 
 
 Further, on confronting the Koyal MS. with the 
 Harleian MS. 426, (Cranmer's draft of the abortive 
 Refor7natio legum ecclesiasticarum, which is recog- 
 nized as being partly in the archbishop's hand- 
 writing,) the identity of workmanship and style is 
 unmistakable. The same secretary (Ralph Morrice) 
 writes the body of the book in both cases; in both, 
 after head lines had been written in, blanks are left, 
 as the Reformatio legum says "for Mr. Morres" to 
 fill up *; in both corrections and annotations are 
 made in the same characteristic manner and by the 
 same hand, which is that of archbishop Cranmer ^ 
 
 To understand the nature of the earlier scheme 
 it is necessary to give some idea of the mediaeval 
 office and that compiled by cardinal Quignon. The 
 seven canonical hours of the church may first be 
 
 1 B. Mus. Harl. MS. 426 f. 17. 
 
 '^ See facsimiles here reduced in size. 
 
18 Cranmers Projected Breviary, 
 
 divided into night and day office, of which the 
 former making one service or "hour", included matins 
 and lauds and was as long as the other six hours 
 put together. 
 
 The body of all the office, whether day or night, 
 was the psalms, including certain scriptural canticles 
 like those of Zachary, the Three Children, and the 
 Blessed Virgin. And what specially characterized 
 matins was the reading of numerous lessons taken 
 from Holy Scripture, the works of the Fathers and 
 the lives of the Saints. In the other "hours" the 
 lessons of scripture were reduced to a few lines, 
 commonly called the ''little chapter''. These then, 
 the psalms and lessons, were the substance of the 
 office and to them, at dates which naturally it is 
 now impossible to fix exactly, other portions were 
 added which served at once for piety and for con- 
 venience in public recitation. 
 
 Thus in a body of clergy, as might be presumed, 
 only the few would have either musical aptitude or 
 knowledge. Moreover all could not be supplied with 
 the music. This would naturally bring about the 
 adoption of antiphons, which were taken generally 
 from some verse of the psalm about to be sung. The 
 practical use of these antiphons, which were sung 
 by trained cantors in the middle of the choir, was 
 to give the general body of the clergy the tone of 
 the coming psalm. ^ This reason, which applied in 
 the early ages, was not less cogent at the moment 
 when the ancient offices were superseded in England. 
 
 ^ This is somewhat obscured by the present practice, which 
 however counts a respectable antiquity, of saying the antiphon 
 after the psalm as well as before, but the ancient roman practice 
 gives it only before the psalm {cf. Grancolas, Brev. Eomain 
 livre I. ch. 30). 
 
Cranm€7''s Projected Breviari/, 19 
 
 The antiphon was not less necessary in our long English 
 Gothic choirs than in the spacious Soman basilicas. ^ 
 
 In the same way the use of the responsory which 
 was sung at the end of each lesson at matins was 
 dictated by a like practical need. To chant these 
 lessons implies a great strain upon the voice. The 
 response, therefore, drawn "from some part of Holy 
 Scripture appropriate to the occasion, and sung partly 
 by the cantors and partly by the choir at large, 
 afforded a welcome and necessary breathing space for 
 the lector. 
 
 These antiphons and responsories are so ancient 
 an addition to the psalmody that they may almost 
 be considered a part of the primitive office. The 
 ^ hymns", although some seem to have been cer- 
 tainly composed by Saint Ambrose for the choral 
 service, were a later element and admitted with the 
 greatest reluctance by the more conservative churches, 
 such as Rome and Lyons. ^ 
 
 The special feature of late mediaeval breviaries, 
 that is to say, of what are called the uses^ whether 
 English, 6:ench, §erman, Italian or monastic, is the 
 lengthening out of the office by the addition of what 
 
 1 Thus whilst the editions of the Sarum breviary were issued 
 by the dozen, one only of the antiphonar appeared. One copy on 
 the cantor's desk would be enough for even a church of the first 
 class. It is probable moreover that the ancient Mss. antiphonars, 
 enormous volumes, executed at great cost, were still used in spite 
 of the printed edition, as they are to the present day at Monte 
 ■Cassino and Einsiedeln. 
 
 2 At Rome hymns do not appear to have been admitted into 
 the office till after the twelfth century. Even in the eighteenth 
 Lyons had adopted only the compline hymn. Their general adoption 
 was probably due to the influence of the monastic order. St. Bene- 
 dict in the sixth century made them part of the office of his monks. 
 
20 Cranmefs Projected Breviary. 
 
 are known as preces * and by the accumulation of 
 offices. That is; not content with the "hours" of the 
 day, which were the hours of the church, out of 
 excess of devotion, after each obligatory "hour" the 
 corresponding portion of the merely devotional office 
 of the Blessed Virgin was recited. These also were 
 even at times followed by the office of the dead. 
 And thus three offices were sometimes said in place 
 of one ^. Even as early as the twelfth century com- 
 plaints of this growing practice had made themselves 
 heard, and by the sixteenth century recitation of the 
 office had become a heavy burden upon the clergy. 
 The sense of weariness which must have resulted 
 could not but have a prejudicial effect upon the 
 chanting of the obligatory part of the divine office. 
 There was urgent need of reform, and that carried 
 out by Pius V. in 1568, which swept away the bulk of 
 these late accretions, restored the breviary to a 
 rational and practicable form. 
 
 More than thirty years previously however a much 
 more radical change had been almost effected by 
 cardinal Quignon, with the approval and recom- 
 mendation of the Pope. Quignon was a Spaniard, a 
 member of the Franciscan order, and a trusted friend 
 and confidant of Pope Clement VII. and his successor 
 Paul III. He was one of the leading spirits of the 
 curia and on intimate terms with the small and able 
 
 * In the anglican Prayer Book the short versicles said after 
 the creed in the Morning Prayer may be taken as a specimen 
 of the ancient preces, 
 
 2 The practice of churches varied considerably in different 
 localities : thus at Sarum only the Matins and Vespers of the 
 Blessed Virgin were recited in choir, the other " hours " being- 
 said privately. 
 
Cranmers Projected Breviary, 21 
 
 body of ecclesiastics who ardently at that time desired 
 reform. 
 
 He had been commissioned by Clement VII. to draw 
 up a breviary but the work only appeared after that 
 Pope's death. The volume was dedicated to Paul III. 
 and was published in February 1535 under the title 
 Breviarium Romanwn niiper reformatum. Prefixed to 
 it was a commendatory brief from the Pope. 
 
 The changes proposed were so radical that notwith- 
 standing the Pope's favour the new breviary raised 
 a storm of opposition. The Sorbonne distinguished 
 itself especially by the vigour of its condemnation. 
 <3uignon felt it prudent to make concessions and 
 issued a revised text intended in some measure to 
 meet the objections taken to his first edition. During 
 the short space, however, of the eighteen months 
 in w^hich the first text was current, no less than 
 six editions appeared at Rome, Venice, Paris and 
 Antwerp \ 
 
 That this reformed Ppman breviary met a real 
 need is evident from the number of editions published : 
 those of the second text being "probably not far 
 short of a hundred". This latter text need not be 
 here considered, for it is certain from the preface of 
 the Book of Common Prayer that Cranmer made use 
 •of the earlier edition I And, although the archbishop's 
 
 1 " These are all the editions of the first text that I have met 
 ^ith" writes its recent editor; "no doubt there are others still 
 undiscovered, although I have searched carefully in many libraries 
 in Italy and also in France." Brev. Romanum a Francisco Card. 
 Quignonio ed: curante Johanne Wickham Legg. Cambridge. 1888. 
 
 2 The prefaces to the two texts of Cardinal Quignon's breviary 
 differ very materially, and in the preface of the Prayer Book 
 Cranmer uses passages of Quignon's first preface which do not 
 ■appear in the second. 
 
22 Crammrs Projected Bf^eviarij. 
 
 scheme includes antiphons, there is do sufficient evi- 
 dence that he derived this feature from Quignon's 
 revised text. The following remarks therefore apply 
 only to the earlier edition. 
 
 The first thing that strikes any one accustomed to- 
 the ancient breviaries, on glancing through Quignon's^ 
 volume, is the absence of all antiphons, responses 
 and little chapters, the reduction of the i)reces to 
 very narrow limits, and the entire omission of every 
 office but that of the day \ His main concern w^as 
 to secure in practice the regular reading of the 
 Scriptures. This of course was the original intention 
 and practice of the church, which, however, traditions 
 and the rubrics of the later breviaries had partially 
 neutralized. 
 
 The parts omitted obviously shortened the office, 
 which was further curtailed by reducing the number 
 of psalms at matins, lauds, vespers and compline 
 to three. The frame- work however of the breviary, 
 and the number and disposition of the hours, remained 
 the same. 
 
 Quignon's arrangement of the Holy Scripture was^ 
 dictated by his wish that the chief books of the Old 
 Testament and all the New should be read through 
 during the year. "Every day throughout the year",, 
 he writes in his preface, "the first (lesson at matins) 
 is from the Old Testament, the second from the New^ 
 and the third from the life of a Saint if a feast be 
 celebrated; but if there be no such feast, the Acts 
 and Epistles are read in this third lesson in the 
 order noted in the Calendar"'. 
 
 ^ i. e. he put aside such votive offices as those of the B. V. 
 Mary and the 'Dead*. Quignon calls special attention to this in 
 his preface: his object being to get rid of whatever "interfered 
 with the reading of Holy Scripture". 
 
 2 ed: J. W. Legg. p. XXI. 
 
Cranmer's Projected Breviary. 23 
 
 One other important feature of this new breviary 
 must be noticed. In the old office books there were 
 numerous variations in the service according as 
 the day was a Sunday, feastday, or weekday. By 
 Quignon's plan such variations were reduced to a 
 minimum. "In my (book)" he writes "there is no 
 difference, or very littler in the days of the entire 
 year and so far as length is concerned Sunday and 
 weekday are the same. The first and second lessons, 
 moreover, are disposed in an unchangeable order 
 throughout the year". 
 
 The reader will now be in a position to estimate 
 the general character of Cranmer's new scheme of 
 office. In the appendix will be found an indication 
 of the sources from which this was drawn, and it 
 will be shown as far as possible in detail how far 
 Cranmer was indebted to Quignon, how far to Sarum, 
 and how far the work appears to be original. In this 
 place again only general results can be given. 
 
 In the disposition of the ecclesiastical year the 
 archbishop appears not to have come to a definite 
 conclusion when drafting his scheme. The body of 
 the book shows the ancient Sarum arrangement, 
 whilst the table of lessons drawn up by his own 
 hand adopts the changes initiated by cardinal Quignon. 
 
 Cranmer's proposed office consisted of the ancient 
 hours of matins and lauds, prime, tierce, sext, none, 
 vespers and compline. 
 
 The Uitin language is retained even for the reading 
 of Scripture throughout the year. 
 
 The distribution of the psalter is unfortunately 
 indicated only by the general direction in each hour 
 " psalmi ex ordine designate. As, however, the num- 
 ber of lessons at matins was reduced ordinarily to 
 three, and three psalms are expressly prescribed for 
 each of the last three days of Holy Week, it may 
 
24 Cranmers Projected Breviary, 
 
 fairly be conjectured that Quignon was also to be 
 followed in the reduction of the psalms at matins, 
 lauds, vespers and compline to three. 
 
 Differing from Quignon's first breviary, Cranmer 
 allowed one antiphon at each hour ; but like his 
 model he omitted the responses and little chapters. 
 
 Another significant change from the old order 
 is found both in Quignon and Cranmer. In the brev- 
 iaries formerly in use the portion called the tern- 
 porale begins with vespers : the feast being then, as 
 now, regarded as commencing with the vesper ser- 
 vice of the eve. Both the cardinal and the arch- 
 bishop begin their ^^m^ora/e with the office of matins. 
 
 The table of lessons in Cranmer's scheme of office, 
 following the old ecclesiastical tradition, begins with 
 the first Sunday of Advent. Besides the three lessons 
 directed to be said at matins, one is appointed to be 
 read at lauds and another at vespers, which, al- 
 though longer, may be taken to represent the ancient 
 little chapters, omitted by Quignon altogether. 
 
 In another most important matter Cranmer's first 
 scheme adopts Quignon's plan of reducing the va- 
 riable parts of the service, and he even goes beyond 
 his model in this direction. The office of one day 
 was made exactly similar to every other through- 
 out the year, except in the Holy Week and on 
 one or two feasts for which special directions were 
 given. 
 
 Those who are particularly interested in the mat- 
 ter will find on examination unmistakable and re- 
 peated instances of the way in which Cranmer's 
 scheme of office, both in its general order and in 
 detail, was inspired by Quignon's roman breviary. ^ 
 
 1 See the print of the scheme in the Appendix. It is remark- 
 able that in the catalogue of the library of Henry VIII., dated 
 
Cranmer's Projected Breviary. 25 
 
 The relation of the projected office to that of 
 Sarum is more simple. The archbishop appears to 
 have used this breviary as a quarry from which to 
 take his materials, v^^hen not quite satisfied with the 
 new ^man office. It must be allowed that what he 
 does take from the ancient English sources is used 
 in a somewhat unscrupulous fashion. Thus, for 
 •example, a little chapter is turned into an antiphon, 
 the old position of various parts is changed without 
 apparent reason, and snipping and cutting indulged 
 in, in what seems to have been an arbitrary way. 
 Still it must be added that in places he enriches the 
 modern baldness of Quignon from the ancient Catholic 
 storehouse of Sarum. 
 
 Two questions remain for consideration : when was 
 this scheme drawn up, and under whose influence? 
 It is always unsatisfactory to deal with a dateless 
 document like this, the contents of which necessarily 
 afford but the slightest indication of time. Under such 
 circumstances all that can be done is to see where 
 it best fits in with the events or the tendencies of 
 particular minds. What follows therefore must be 
 taken merely as conjecture, made however after care- 
 ful examination. 
 
 The Convocation of 1542, as already noted, directed 
 that the Sarum office should be generally adopted 
 for the province of Canterbury. It gave also a second 
 ritual direction : namely " that the curate of every 
 church after the Te Deum and Magnificat shall 
 
 24 April 1542, which appears to contain all the books of the 
 royal chapel except one or two missals, three breviaries only 
 are mentioned, each of which is entered in full as " Breviarium 
 Eomanum". It is hardly perhaps too much to suppose that these 
 were copies of Quignon's volume. Another volume is described 
 as " Ceremonie Ecclesie Romans" (R. 0. Augt. Office Misc : Bk : 
 160. f. 128^ 108b). 
 
26 Cramner's Projected Breviary. 
 
 openly read unto the people one chapter of the New- 
 Testament in foglish... and when the New Testa- 
 ment is read over, then to begin the Old". 
 
 By this order a chapter of the Bible was to be 
 read to the people in 6iglish twice on every day 
 of public service: in the early moraing after matins 
 and in the afternoon at vespers. This measure was 
 a distinct break from the traditional order of service 
 although it certainly had a precedent in the arrange- 
 ment made by Luther and by this time (1542) com- 
 mon in §'erman reformed churches. 
 
 "Here then at this point" writes Canon Dixon 
 " rested the revision of the public service. . . The old 
 books were ordered to be called in and castigated. 
 If the order was ever enforced the books after their 
 expurgation must have been restored to the churches 
 whence they were taken ; but it is more likely nothing 
 was done" '. 
 
 The document known as the Rationale, or exposition 
 of the order of divine service in mass and office, is 
 unfortunately also dateless and anonymous, but there 
 is great probability in the theory put forward by 
 Canon Dixon that it is really the outcome of the 
 ritual commission appointed by Henry VIII. in 1540. 
 In this document "the succession and connection of 
 the "various parts of the great Catholic rites were 
 exhibited with lucidity and even with brevity. All 
 the dispute^ceremonies were maintained. The litur- 
 gic principles of the remarkable Bationale must have 
 been highly obnoxious to Cranmer and it is prob- 
 able enough that it was he who prevented it from 
 seeing the light" '\ 
 
 In the Convocation of 1543 Cranmer made his own 
 
 1 History of Church of England II, 316. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 313. 
 
Cranmers Projected Breviary. 27 
 
 proposal for liturgical reforai. " He declared it to be 
 the royal will that all mass books, antiphoners, 
 portasses in the church of England should be newly 
 examined, reformed and castigated from all manner 
 of mention of the bishop of Rome's name ; from all 
 apocryphas, feigned legend^ superstitious orations, 
 collects, versicles and responses : that the names and 
 memories of all saints which were not contained in 
 the Scripture or authentic doctors should be abolished 
 and put out of the same books and calendars, and 
 that the service should be made out of the Scrip- 
 tures and other authentic doctors". The examination 
 was committed to the bishops of Salisbury and Ely, 
 Capon and Goodrich, and to six of the lower House; 
 but this committee was not formed, the lower House 
 declining to appoint" \ 
 
 Whether Capon and Groodrich did anything does 
 not appear, but, in the light now thrown on the 
 question by the hitherto neglected Royal MS. it seems 
 practically certain that some steps were taken to 
 prepare for the proposed change. The scheme now 
 brought under notice corresponds so closely to the 
 programme proposed by Cranmer to the Convocation 
 of 1543, that even if the MS. did not evidence his 
 own hand, there could be little doubt that this pro- 
 jected order of service was his. 
 
 As to the exact date then, it is possible that the 
 archbishop may have had his material for the pro- 
 posed book already prepared to present to the com- 
 mission which convocation failed to appoint. But it 
 is far more probable that seeing the^ failure of his 
 attempt to induce the synod of the fnglish Church 
 to take up the matter, he turned his own attention 
 
 1 Ibid p. 315. The original is somewhat obscure: "But this 
 the lower House released" (Wilkins. III. 863). The gloss is Strype's. 
 
28 Cranmer''s Projected Breviary, 
 
 to it, and that consequently the document is to be 
 assigned to some date between 154:3 and Henry's 
 death in January 1547 \ 
 
 That it is certainly of a date prior to Edward's 
 accession will be clear from a consideration of the 
 doctrinal points of the book. In the oflQce of the 
 feast of Corpus Christi for instance the Catholic 
 doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament as maintained by 
 Henry is unmistakably expressed ^. 
 
 It may perhaps be considered unnecessary to raise 
 the question as to the influence under which Cranmer 
 probably drew up his scheme : but the enquiry leads to 
 a consideration which might easily escape attention 
 and which is of considerable importance. The choice 
 of Quignon's work for a model has an aspect almost 
 eirenical. At the time it must have seemed more 
 than probable that the Quignon breviary would be- 
 fore very long become the recognized office book of 
 the roman church. Its ready and general acceptance 
 on this side of the Alps gave promise that it would 
 become the common breviary of the West. To take 
 the Quignon text therefore showed some disposition, 
 so far from widening the breach caused in England 
 by the separation from Rome, to keep to points of 
 contact with the Western church as far as possible. 
 
 ^ In 1546 Cranmer strove to gain his end through the king. 
 He went so far as to draw up a draft letter which he proposed 
 that Henry should adopt as his own. In this bishops Day of Chi- 
 chester and Heath of Worcester are represented as pressing 
 with Cranmer for liturgical change. The King appears not to have 
 entered into Cranmer's projects, for nothing more is heard of the 
 matter (Burnet II. 2. pp. 236—7). 
 
 2 The Invitatory for this feast is : Christum salvatorem et 
 panem vite celestiSj Yenite adoremus. This is not the same as 
 Sarum or Quignon, but original. 
 
Cranmer's Projected Breviary. 29 
 
 This was hardly Cranmer's natural disposition. It 
 was however much the temper of Tunstall of Durham, 
 for whom during twenty years the archbishop had the 
 deepest friendship. To these ties Cranmer was faithful 
 to the last. His voice alone was raised in Parlia- 
 ment in Tunstairs favour, \^hen that prelate's ruin 
 had been resolved on by King and Council. 
 
 Looking round then on all the most prominent eccle- 
 siastics of the day, the tone and temper of Tunstall's 
 mind, his moderation, his wise conservatism, his open- 
 ness to new ideas and his acquaintance with men 
 of the new era, seem to point to him as the most 
 likely counsellor of Cranmer in this matter.^ 
 
 1 It is necessary here to notice a suggestion of Canon Dixon 
 in regard to the Eationale spoken of above. He says : " if it had 
 come into Convocation it would have passed": again "I am sure 
 it was never brought before Convocation, for I have no doubt that it 
 was the document which Convocation in the first year of Edward VI. 
 requested Cranmer to produce" (p. 313. see p. 16 aw^e). The words 
 of Convocation itself and of Cranmer make this suggestion hardly 
 probable. The Eationale is merely an account of the divine service 
 and cannot in any sense be called a revision of the service books 
 It still less suits Cranmer's version of the petition of Convocation, 
 for he speaks of an appointment " to alter the service in the church 
 and to devise other convenient and uniform order" and notes that 
 the "said books" were to be "for a better exposition of the divine 
 service to be set forth accordingly". This is a good description 
 of the purpose of the scheme contained in the Royal MS. Further, 
 Cranmer stated to Convocation in 1543 that it was " the royal 
 will" that the new books should be framed, and this accords 
 with his note in 1547, "by the commandment of King Henry VIII." 
 rather than with the other version '^exmandato Gonvocationis'\ 
 
CHAPTER TIL 
 CRANMER'S SECOND PROJECT. 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer's second scheme for the public 
 office raay be briefly dismissed. It is however of 
 considerable importance and interest, as marking the 
 step whereby he passed from the ancient arrange- 
 ment of the divine office to the order for morning 
 and evening prayer which was eventually put forth 
 in the Prayer Book of 1549. 
 
 The daily services were in this scheme reduced 
 to two, namely matins and vespers. "We have 
 thought good " it says " to omit compline altogether 
 and also the accustomed hours, prime, tierce, sext 
 and none, as well because in all these there is a 
 continual repetition of the same things, which is 
 idle and useless, as because it seems a mockery 
 to retain the same divisions of the hours observed 
 by the ancient fathers, when the custom of praying 
 seven times a day has long since ceased and we now 
 assemble only twice a day for prayers'' ^ 
 
 In the second place, the matins and vespers were 
 to be said as hitherto in latin, except the Lord's 
 Prayer and the lessons of Holy Scripture, which were 
 directed to be recited in English. These last were 
 to be read from the pulpit or some other place out- 
 
 1 Ms. Reg. 7 B. IV, f. lib. 
 
Cranmers Second Project. 31 
 
 side the choir. The psalter was to be gone through 
 once in the month, and the general rubric regulating 
 the recital is much the same as it now stands in 
 the present Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 The daily order of Matins^ was as follows: after 
 the Our Father said aloud in english, there followed 
 the Domine labia mea aperies &c. ^ The Venite was 
 omitted altogether. "It has seemed sufficient" says 
 the rubric "that this should be recited among the 
 rest of the psalms in its ordinary course once a 
 month" ^. Next came a hymn varied according to 
 the day of the week or the season of the year. Then 
 followed in order three psalms, Our Father in Eng- 
 lish, three lessons from the Holy Scriptures ^, Te 
 Deum and Benedictus , the salutation Dominus vohis- 
 cmn, and the prayer varying according to the time 
 of the year. The service closed with the Benedicamus 
 Domino to which a new response was given. 
 
 On Sundays and feastdays a fourth lesson was to be 
 said after the Te Deum, which was directed to be 
 taken, either from some homily of the Fathers, or 
 from the life of a saint. On Sundays also after the 
 Benedicamus Domino there were added to the service, 
 the Athanasian Creed, the preces, which still survive 
 in the Book of Common Prayer, with the Collect, now 
 called "for grace". 
 
 The order of vespers was the same on all days of 
 the year and followed that of the daily matins, 
 except that two lessons were read in place of three, 
 
 1 This is the arrangement of the present Prayer Book after 
 the absolution. 
 
 2 Ibid. f. 11a. 
 
 ^ These were preceded in the traditional way by the Juhe 
 Domine with the blessing given by the officiant, and closed with 
 the Tu autem. 
 
32 Cranmer's Second Project. 
 
 and the Magnificat replaced the Te Deum. After the 
 canticle the prayer was said, and the service closed 
 in the usual way. 
 
 It will be seen therefore that this project, though 
 on the same lines as that which subsequently ap- 
 peared in the printed Book of 1549, is somewhat 
 more simple. The vespers are drawn entirely from 
 the old vespers service; the daily morning services 
 comprise certain features of the ancient matins with 
 the Benedictus drawn from lauds; and on ftmdays 
 the Athanasian creed, the preces and the collect 'for 
 grace' taken from prime. 
 
 Of the numerous hymns of the old breviaries 
 twenty-six were retained ; fourteen being assigned to 
 the days of the week and the other twelve to the 
 ecclesiastical seasons of Christmas, Passiontide, Holy 
 Week, Easter, Ascension and Pentecost. 
 
 The variable collects were reduced in the same 
 way. Of the five and thirty prayers retained, whilst 
 one was assigned to each of the Sundays after Pente- 
 cost, only ten had to serve for the ecclesiastical 
 seasons from Advent to Pentecost inclusively. 
 
 Considerable difficulty seems to have been experi- 
 enced in settling the calendar which is the key to 
 all office books on the traditional lines. The Royal 
 MS., which contains these projects of archbishop 
 Cranmer, comprises two schemes of a calendar for 
 saints and three schemes of a table of lessons from 
 Scripture, besides an imperfect draft of a festivals 
 or series of fourth lessons for saints' days. Each 
 of these elements of the entire project must be 
 considered in turn. To take first the two calendars 
 of saints' days. These are markedly distinct in char- 
 acter and there is little difficulty in placing them 
 in their correct order of date. The earlier differs 
 from the traditional calendar only by the paucity 
 

 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 y* 
 
 1 
 
 OrV 
 
 
 
 ■■I 
 
 : , 
 
 5HHtoliiL 
 
 ^H^1.YI 
 
 M*l^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 ksM 
 
 
 jgr 
 
 
 
 te* fe 
 
 ^^ 
 
 'i 
 
 ^4><^ttiu^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 3« 
 
 %W,ts<^\ 
 
 4^ 
 
 '']/Uw<^M 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ^ V' ^iK^ 
 
 
 2 ■ 
 
 I 
 
 ? 
 
 44 
 
 '3 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 f 5 wm** 
 
 ^vt,^-7^a/wi.f 
 
 5 
 
 z 
 
 > 
 
 4-5 
 
 «4 
 
 ^ 
 
 £^^S 
 
 
 ^ + non**^ 
 
 iiA^Me^ltf^MM^^ 
 
 1- 
 
 3 
 
 ■7 
 
 50 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 i\x tumrt^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 * 
 
 4- 
 
 S 
 
 ^t 
 
 16 
 
 <? 
 
 
 |g|bvH4ma6 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 to 
 
 ^< 
 
 <7 
 
 11 
 
 
 ^J'^Hil^ 
 
 SP^4n^Q.ff^-f.^ 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 li 
 
 S^ 
 
 1« 
 
 ^3 
 
 itr^n 
 
 
 ^ ^ t»i4^ 
 
 ^At^M4 '' 
 
 € 
 
 r 
 
 t-f 
 
 ^3 
 
 14 
 
 t> 
 
 
 
 t 7 li>M^ 
 
 4^ tx^^riyft^^ 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 i5 
 
 ^4 
 
 liJ 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 f 6 t*M<. 
 
 
 i« 
 
 9 
 
 1^ 
 
 «y^ 
 
 XI 
 
 17 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 \» 5 t*ii<^ 
 
 -lofmruK^- 
 
 11 
 
 i« 
 
 18 
 
 ><^ 
 
 ZX 
 
 t5 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ .^^ 
 
 {i^^ux^o.e^ 
 
 IX 
 
 U 
 
 a« 
 
 t>7 
 
 23 
 
 Zl 
 
 ■"^H 
 
 
 $ 3 lHi4 
 
 
 '3 
 
 l*^ 
 
 i'Z 
 
 ^? 
 
 24 
 
 ^3 
 
 
 
 ^ ^&iiSt4 
 
 -p^mCc^ 
 
 14- 
 
 •3 
 
 ■=4 
 
 >** 
 
 ^.^ ^ 
 
 .^3 
 
 
 
 b Jw 
 
 
 15 
 
 14 
 
 ^ 
 
 >^ 
 
 r 
 
 2^ 
 
 l^mw 
 
 
 ^ ^y tA\ 
 
 
 le 
 
 i> 
 
 ^-7 
 
 bO 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^g 
 
 
 
 il^^a 
 
 
 1-r 
 
 16 
 
 5^ 
 
 <r, 
 
 4 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 ^»$ fa, 
 
 
 Ei>M«Vl^.^r<^c*w<wP 
 
 »6 
 
 17 
 
 3^ 
 
 ^3 
 
 5 
 
 5- 
 
 
 
 Al4-»^. 
 
 / 
 
 
 l<9 
 
 i8 
 
 33 
 
 ^3 
 
 6 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 ^»^ 1^ 
 
 
 ^Xwk%&r<-M^ 
 
 ZO 
 
 t5» 
 
 55 
 
 ... ^4 
 
 7 
 
 3f 
 
 
 
 f 1^ :.» 
 
 
 
 ^t 
 
 zo 
 
 iSCM.«r«»>i 
 
 65 
 
 ft 
 
 t^llfeZ<j2 
 
 -'Cn« 
 
 
 > u r^ 
 
 
 
 X2 
 
 X-X 
 
 
 Of 
 
 9 
 
 4- 
 
 
 
 < U) :a 
 
 
 
 -5 
 
 7J- 
 
 4 
 
 66 
 
 u> 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 A7 t* 
 
 i — 
 
 h}^u^<{4- 
 
 24 
 
 '3 
 
 6 
 
 ^^< 1 
 
 11 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 Amviihaxu>.Yn^ 
 
 Z< 
 
 ^4- 
 
 8 
 
 . 7, 
 
 \t 
 
 4 
 
 tihUt 
 
 
 
 
 zb 
 
 ^> 
 
 u> 
 
 s 
 
 ^3 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 fc 6 ?«v 
 
 
 
 -7 
 
 26 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 M- 
 
 »5 
 
 
 
 <^ ^ i* 
 
 
 
 xS 
 
 *i7 
 
 M- 
 
 3 
 
 ts 
 
 i> 
 
 T^ 
 
 
 ^4- iv 
 
 
 
 -^■'l 
 
 -0 
 
 t6 
 
 4- 
 
 t6 
 
 T7 
 
 ?^i^ 
 
 
 e ? A 
 
 
 
 ?*■' 
 
 Z9 
 
 tg 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 1<? 
 
 
 
 f^^ 
 
 
 
 51 
 
 30 
 
 7« 
 
 5 
 
 ig 
 
 t» 
 
 
 
 mim 
 
 y<Mk 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 A 
 
 ^ ^x-mM 
 
 ^-f^r^r^'r; 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1^ 
 
 > 
 
 '.?' 
 
 "3 
 
 T 
 
 
 t ^ tK>VUM 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 ^ 
 
 2-1 
 
 2-7 
 
 — -— 
 
 
 
 w*« 
 
 i^maKol>Vi4 
 
 + 
 
 4 
 
 :rS 
 
 •7 
 
 ■flrW. 1 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 • 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 :J9 
 
 7 
 
 *^ z 
 
 3*' 
 
 
 
 < g -i^*^ 
 
 
 6 
 
 b 
 
 3t 
 
 s 
 
 3 
 
 5-^ 
 
 
 
 f r :»ls*4 
 
 iP^Tv^P^iV...^ 
 
 T 
 
 y 
 
 ?? 
 
 ^ 
 
 4 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 <j (T 'iKi^ 
 
 to^vc 
 
 % 
 
 9 
 
 Cff/uo » 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 5orvw 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 a^-i—i^iH- 
 
 
 9 
 
 *9 
 
 5 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 4- 
 
 
 
 f -f 4bM« 
 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 ^ 
 
 u 
 
 7 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 
 c ^ ^^tt« 
 
 <f* v*^ 
 
 It 
 
 M 
 
 7 
 
 11 
 
 ft 
 
 5 
 
 Ucot 
 
 
 %► pNt^u<^ 
 
 
 12. 
 
 iz 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 rt 
 
 itf 
 
 
 
 e ^cNw^ 
 
 2^^^ 
 
 \5 
 
 13 
 
 K> 
 
 15 
 
 10 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 f »g kt. 
 
 
 ^;^^^-?(:l'V'u^ 
 
 »t 
 
 14 
 
 » = 
 
 •5 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 ^ tr -a. 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 M 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 1Z 
 
 l> 
 
 
 
 i5li6 ^ 
 
 
 Cxv7:<^^^ 
 
 16 
 
 tb 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 n 
 
 17 
 
 vgvt2». 
 
 
 fe'> 4 
 
 ' 
 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 iS 
 
 16 
 
 i4 
 
 «^ 
 
 
 
 c «+ \v 
 
 r 
 
 
 '{? 
 
 1» 
 
 i* 
 
 17 
 
 i> 
 
 2J 
 
 
 
 b t? -^ 
 
 c 
 
 /■l^lA 
 
 to 
 
 10 
 
 22 
 
 «7 
 
 i^ 
 
 2^ 
 
 
 
 < u >^ 
 
 
 zo 
 
 a) 
 
 24 
 
 1^ 
 
 17 
 
 >M>lt 
 
 '?« 
 
 
 
 f " ^^ 
 
 
 
 Zl 
 
 21- 
 
 ^U^^<u> ■* 
 
 t$ 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 s fVRi 
 
 
 ^ i^ :*v 
 
 ^ 
 
 J)trigc;A 
 
 ^2 
 
 2Z 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 
 \$ 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 d'^ :rt 
 
 
 ^i^i'otrtmv 
 
 ^3 
 
 ^5 
 
 6 
 
 24» 
 
 to 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 « 8 u. 
 
 
 oco»!<m • 
 
 ^4 
 
 M- 
 
 7 
 
 zt 
 
 ■2\ 
 
 8 
 
 r^c^M*. 
 
 
 C r <^ 
 
 ' 
 
 ^ltiVt<ltfe 
 
 :iN 
 
 -5 
 
 9 
 
 Zl 
 
 Z2 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 ^ <> 'a 
 
 
 
 z6 
 
 .fc 
 
 Jp 
 
 :2t' 
 
 =5 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 < V -A 
 
 
 
 P7 
 
 27 
 
 IZ 
 
 33 
 
 24 
 
 '3 
 
 
 
 f4 -oJ 
 
 
 ^itM/^'^'^^ 
 
 ^(? 
 
 ^« 
 
 14 
 
 ^3 
 
 2> 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^ 3 ^a 
 
 
 
 rO 
 
 ^ 
 
 1^ 
 
 24 
 
 2^ 
 
 «7 
 
 >(£-{;i« 
 
 ,<\|iN;i 
 
 ' 
 
 
 ?.♦' 
 
 3^ 
 
 •s 
 
 -5 
 
 ^7 
 
 '^ 
 
 bj?^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Facsimile III. (to face p. 33). 
 The later calendar showing alterations in Cranmer's hand. (MS. Reg 7 
 
 B. IV f. 4!^). 
 
Cranmers Second Frojed, 33 
 
 of saints' naraes which are entered in it. Not a single 
 eaglish name is to be found in the entire list: that 
 of St. Gregory the Great is in fact the only one 
 connected with England. Of the festivals of the 
 Blessed Virgin, the Purification, Annunciation, 
 Assumption and Nativity arg preserved as well as 
 the feast of St. Anne. A special characteristic of 
 this scheme appears to be the retention of the 
 names of the great Fathers of the Church. There 
 would seem to be one trace of the influence of 
 Quignon in the insertion of the feast of SS. Phileas 
 and Philoromus at the third of February, whilst the 
 calendar gives already, in the insertion of the fes- 
 tival of St. Timothy on 22 January and St. Benjamin 
 on 21 February, an indication of the spirit which 
 presided at the compilation of the later calendar. 
 
 Of this second proposal for a new calendar for 
 the english church it is difficult to speak seriously, 
 or to believe it could be meant in earnest were 
 it not that the correcting hand of Cranmer has 
 attempted to reduce it to a more reasonable form, 
 and that the projected festivale is actually drawn 
 up on the lines which it lays down. It may be de- 
 scribed in one sentence as scripturalism without dis- 
 cretion. It commemorates Abel, Noe, the good Thief, 
 Benjamin, Lydia and Deborah, Gideon and Samp- 
 son, Booz and the Centurion, king David and 
 Nathan, Judith and Esther with others. At the same 
 time it bears traces of having been a further develop- 
 ment of the former calendar. Two english saints 
 are now admitted, St. Edward, king and martyr, 
 and St. Edmund the king. 
 
 The correcting hand introduced some measure of 
 sense by adding old familiar feasts like those ot 
 St. Agnes and St. Vincent, the Invention of the Holy 
 Cross, St. Cuthbert, St. Augustine of Canterbury and 
 
 D 
 
34 Cranmer's Second Project, 
 
 St. Alban. But saints Phileas and Philoromus 
 maintain their ground, and Cranmer's annotations 
 in the festivale refer to the Breviarium Romaniim 
 as a source from which lives of saints may be taken. 
 
 On comparing these schemes with the calendar of 
 feasts which actually appeared in the Prayer Book 
 of 1549 it is not difficult to understand the situation. 
 There were clearly contrary influences at work, the 
 one advocating the ancient calendar somewhat purged 
 of its objectionable elements, the other insisting 
 upon Scripture being the primary basis. What was 
 actually done in 1549 was to retain such feasts as 
 could be distinctly referred to the New Testament. 
 That is, putting aside those of Our Lord, the feasts 
 were reduced to those of the Apostles, the Purifi- 
 cation and Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, 
 St. John the Baptist, St. Mary Magdalen, St. Stephen 
 and the Holy Innocents, with the addition of 
 St. Michael as a commemoration of the angels, and 
 of the one general celebration of All Saints. 
 
 The kernel of the new office lay in the novel tables 
 of lessons of which the manuscript gives three sche- 
 mes. These must be taken in connection with that 
 which appeared in the print of the first Book of 
 Common Prayer. It has been already pointed out 
 that the earliest scheme of lessons is written in 
 Cranmer's own hand and adopts the arrangement 
 of the ecclesiastical year made in Quignon's breviary. 
 In the distribution of the Bible throughout the year, 
 however, like the later schemes it is original and 
 cannot be referred to any earlier breviary, although, 
 as might be expected in one who had long used the 
 Sarum office, there are traces of the influence of the 
 Salisbury use \ This scheme of course belongs to 
 
 ^ For example: the lessons of Advent are taken from Isaias, 
 
^^ar^^-^ {2«e^i.^ ^w-^;,-^ 
 
 ^Sw-^.-^ ^^S ^^ 
 
 4- < «^ t^ 
 
 7 
 
 7 ^5^ 
 
 ^^^ ! ^- If' ? ^^ 
 
 
 2^ 
 
 uf u^ 2-1 
 
 
 ^^^z:iro^ 
 
 Facsimile IV. (to face p. 34). 
 Draft of a table of lessons in Cranmer's hand. (MS. Reg. 7 B IV f, 152a). 
 
Cranme7''s Second Project, 35 
 
 the projected breviary described in the last chapter. 
 
 Passing to the next in order of date a significant 
 change occurs in the arrangement. The first scheme 
 was made to depend upon the ecclesiastical year, 
 the portions of Holy Scripturer being assigned to the 
 various seasons of Advent, Epiphany, Lent, &c. The 
 second was regulated entirely by the days of the 
 month, and the commencement of the book of 
 Genesis was transferred from Septuagesima, as in 
 the traditional office, to January the third. In other 
 words the ecclesiastical year was abandoned in 
 favour of the calendar year, and this was main- 
 tained in the Prayer Book of 1549 and its successors. 
 The steps by which the present arrangement of the 
 lessons from Scripture was arrived at are interesting 
 but the details must be sought in the appendix. 
 Here it will be sufficient to note that in none of 
 the schemes was the continuous reading of Scripture 
 interrupted. Special lessons were first assigned for 
 the ordinary Sunday office in 1559, and however the 
 distribution of the lessons varied the actual amount 
 of Scripture read from any book remained almost 
 the same throughout; but the variations also show 
 how closely linked together are these three schemes 
 and that which was printed in the first Book of 
 Oommon Prayer. 
 
 The plan of morning and evening service adopted 
 in this second project can have no pretence to ori- 
 ginality. For five and twenty years such services had 
 been in use in the Lutheran parts of Germany where 
 the ancient ritual books had, as in this case, been 
 used as the quarry out of which the materials for the 
 new forms of prayer were drawn. It must be re- 
 
 those after the Epiphany from Romans and Corinthians, whilst 
 Genesis was commenced on Septuagesima Sunday. 
 
36 Cranmer's Second Project 
 
 membered however that so far as these services were 
 concerned their conception and their similarity were 
 due less to acquaintance with the new books than 
 to intercourse with men who had used them. There 
 are features however which distinguish the english 
 services contemplated by Cranmer from those which 
 owed their origin exclusively to Lutheran inspiration. 
 The german reformer, however violent may have been 
 his language always held firmly the principle of litur- 
 gical tolerance. Writing in 1545 to the Prince of 
 Anhalt, Luther says: "I cannot recommend the plan 
 of a uniformity of ceremonies in every place". * 
 
 In reviewing the manuscript projects in connection 
 with the Book of 1549, it is impossible not to see 
 how Cranmer s mind constantly tended to greater 
 rigidity in these matters. The projects not merely 
 witness to a desire for a uniformity of observance 
 throughout the country; but all churches alike, from 
 the cathedral with its numerous clergy, singing men 
 and boys, to that of the smallest village, were confined 
 by the Book of Common Prayer to a single type of 
 service, which was made as nearly as possible the 
 same for every day throughout the year. 
 
 It may be that the ancient office manifested a 
 superabundant richness of varying devotional forms, 
 but the new order certainly runs to the opposite 
 extreme. Without doubt subsequent revisions of the 
 Book of Common Prayer have introduced elements, 
 which, although it may not be easy to justify them 
 by the test of antiquity, have given to the daily 
 service a breadth or even a certain dignity which is 
 altogether wanting in the book of 1549. 
 
 One further feature inthemanuscript of the second 
 project remains to be noticed. The whole scheme is 
 
 * Quoted in Jacoby's Llturgik der Beformatorcn^ I, p. 237. 
 
Cranmers Second Project, 37 
 
 introduced by a latin preface of which that of the 
 present Prayer Book is little more than a translation. 
 There are however variants which deserve attention. 
 In the first place in the enumeration of the english 
 *'uses" the latin omits the mention of that of Lincoln, 
 but adds "those of the manifold orders of religious, 
 ■each one of which had its own special use ". Further, 
 passages from Quignon's preface to his breviary are 
 given in the latin draft, which were subsequently 
 left out in the english version. Quignon's measured 
 :and telling criticism of the lessons from saints' lives, 
 in this preface to the second project takes another 
 -colour, and its author was doubtless well advised in 
 omitting from the preface to the Prayer Book his 
 remarks on "old wives' fables and the stupidity of 
 those who had put them together ". The following 
 passage which could not of course be made to suit 
 the printed book is interesting. "We have left" the 
 latin preface says "only a few hymns which appeared 
 to be more ancient and more beautiful than the rest 
 and the histories of certain saints as to w^hom no 
 doubt can be raised. These we have caused to be 
 gathered from fitting authorities greek and latin. 
 Moreover, we have only rejected those saints whose 
 solemnities we saw to be wrongly and superstitiously 
 observed by the common people, or whose lives and 
 conduct appeared to us open to exception, or whose 
 history w^as not recorded by approved authors".^ 
 
 It may be further remarked in regard to passages 
 often quoted from the printed preface to the Prayer 
 Book, that they were perfectly appropriate as used 
 by Quignon from whom they were derived, but even 
 in the first scheme were already out of place. Thus 
 <3uignon could say with justice that on a candid con- 
 
 1 Koyal Ms. 7B.IV. f. 8a. 
 
38 Cranmers Second Project, 
 
 sideration of the original intention of our forefathers 
 in regard to the divine office, it would be acknow- 
 ledged that his book was not so much a novel inven- 
 tion as the restoration of the ancient breviary. In 
 the latin draft of his preface, adapting this Cranmer 
 says: "You have here a form of prayer not newly 
 invented by us but rather the ancient one handed 
 down by the fathers and restored to its primitive 
 use and pristine beauty". In the printed english 
 preface he makes a more modest, but less intellig- 
 ible, claim. " So here you have ", he saj^s, "an order for 
 prayer (as touching the reading of Holy Scripture) 
 much agreeable to the mind and purpose of the old 
 fathers ". A recent writer has remarked that Cranmer 
 was in error in attributing the order of lessons from 
 Scripture to the Fathers of the church, although his 
 expressions are perfectly correct when applied to the 
 mediaeval breviaries. The writer did not know that 
 the passage to which he took exception was derived 
 from Quignon, but had been applied by Cranmer 
 to a book in which the distinctive features of the 
 breviary had been abandoned. * 
 
 Finally the order for morning and evening prayer 
 ends with the following advertisement : " we do not 
 wish that any one be bound, as regards the recital 
 of matins and vespers, to anything more than is- 
 here set down". This of course relates to the obli- 
 gation under which priests lay to recite the entire 
 
 ^ See the interesting tract by E. Ranke Ber Farthest and 
 des herJcdmmlichen Pericopenkreises. Gotha, 1859, pp. 53—4. — 
 The writer's judgment of the Anglican calendar of lessons- 
 seems more equitable than that of Kliefoth, but [it is to be 
 noticed that the two features he selects for commendation are- 
 not Cranmer's, whilst that which he specially criticises is of the 
 archbishop's own devising. 
 
Cranmey^'s Second Project 39 
 
 divine office either privately or in public, and thus 
 contemplates the private recitation of the usual" Hours". 
 The Prayer Book of 1549 relaxes the obligation of 
 private recitation altogether,, but this was reimposed 
 in the second Book of 1552. 
 
 The general rubrics of this project are closed by a 
 "Canon" as to the shortening of ecclesiastical prayers 
 for the sake of preaching. After noticing the advan- 
 tages which will ensue from this exercise, " therefore" 
 (says the canon) " lest the length of the public prayers 
 here established by us should in any way hinder 
 the work of good pastors in teaching their flock, 
 we will that as often as any sermon is preached to 
 the people, the parish priest may omit the Te Deum, 
 the fourth lesson and the Athanasian creed in the 
 public prayers before the people ". * 
 
 It only remains to consider the probable date at 
 w^hich this scheme of morning and evening prayer 
 was drawn up. The alteration of the calendar and 
 the omission of all provision for a hymn and collect 
 for the festival of Corpus Christi make it almost 
 certain that the scheme does not belong to the reign 
 of Henry VIII. On the other hand it certainly dates 
 before the compilation of the printed Book of Common 
 Prayer and clearly manifests traces of having been 
 used for that work. It may safely therefore be assigned 
 to an early period in the reign of Edward VI. 
 
 * Cf. in the Prayer Book of 1549 the last note on ceremonies. 
 
CHAPTER lY. 
 PREPARATIONS FOR CHANGE. 
 
 So long as Henry lived the English church, although 
 deprived of some dignity and strength, in her outward 
 appearance remained unchanged. Her system of 
 v^orship v^as the same as it had been for many genera- 
 tions, but her chief prelate Cranmer was prepared to 
 suggest innovations and had ready in hand a scheme 
 that was revolutionary. To maintain the old order in the 
 great churches of the realm one thing was absolutely 
 necessary: ample revenues to support a large body 
 of clergy with their attendant ministers. The old 
 elaborate ritual must necessarily be curtailed or alto- 
 gether swept away if the ecclesiastical revenues were 
 diminished or entirely alienated from their original 
 purposes. A small establishment would quite suffice 
 for the public service on the simple model now pro- 
 jected by Cranmer. Whether he had in mind the 
 spoliation of the church or a redistribution of its 
 wealth is very doubtful, but it is certain that the 
 simplicity of his proposed ritual rendered confis- 
 cation possible, and would therefore highly commend 
 it to the men who were now to come into supreme 
 power. 
 
 Henry VIII. died at Westminster on Friday, 
 28 January 1547, at two o'clock in the morning. 
 
Prej)arations for change. 41 
 
 Parliament was then sitting; but the king's deatli 
 was kept secret for nearly three days. On Monday, 
 31 January, the Commons ,were sent for to the 
 House of Lords and the Lord Chancellor Wriothesley 
 acquainted them with the event. 
 
 Edward, at the moment of his father's death, was 
 at Hertford. His uncle, the Earl of Hertford, after- 
 wards the Duke of Somerset, was in London but 
 hastened at once to join his nephew. Before leaving 
 the city, however, it is clear that he had made all 
 the arrangements needful for seizing the supreme 
 power. Scarcely twenty four hours after Henry's 
 death he wrote to Paget from Hertford a letter dated 
 29 January, between three and four o'clock in the 
 morning, sent by a messenger, bidden to " haste, post 
 haste, haste with all diligence for thy life, for thy 
 life". The object of the letter was to intimate, " that 
 for divers respects, I think it not convenient to 
 satisfy the world " as to the contents of Henry's w^ill, 
 and saying that between this and Wednesday 
 (February 2) '' we to meet and agree therein as there 
 may be no controversy hereafter ". ^ 
 
 Even Edward himself, although in his uncle's 
 keeping, was not informed of his father's death until 
 they had made the journey from Hertford to Enfield. 
 "We intend," writes Hertford in a second letter, 
 '' from Enfield, this Sunday night at eleven of the 
 clock," that the " King's Majesty shall be a-horse- 
 back tomorrow by eleven so that by three we 
 trust his Grace shall be at the Tower". 
 
 The announcement in Parliament of the names of 
 the executors of Henry's will, who were to constitute 
 the Privy Council and exercise all the authority of 
 
 1 Tytler, Bcigns of Edw. VI and Mary. I. pp. 15— IG. 
 
42 Preparations for change, 
 
 the crown during Edward's minority, raised murmurs 
 of surprise and distrust. How much of the contents 
 of the will was made public is nob known; but it 
 would seem that the Earl of Hertford's plan, sketched 
 in his letter of 29 January, was followed. His direc- 
 tion to Paget was " to have the will presently with 
 you and to show this is the will, naming unto them 
 severally who the executors are that the king did 
 specially trust, and who be counsellors ". 
 
 The first proceedings of the Council within a week 
 of the king's arrival in London, and before Henry 
 was buried, indicated the spirit with which they 
 were prepared to manage even the most weighty 
 matters of ecclesiastical administration. Under Henry^ 
 however strong his Avill and masterful his mind even 
 as supreme head, the old forms of ecclesiastical 
 government retained an ecclesiastical aspect. Under 
 Edward, year by year not merely was all ecclesias- 
 tical power wholly absorbed by the King, the Council 
 and their lay agents; but all care to preserve even 
 the outward forms was disregarded and the admi- 
 nistration of the Church appeared as a mere depart- 
 ment of the State. 
 
 On Sunday, 6 February, in pursuance of this policy^ 
 the Council assembled at the Tower resolved; "Item 
 whereas all the bishops of the realm had authority 
 of spiritual jurisdiction by force of instruments under 
 the seal appointed ad res ecclesiasticas which was 
 determined by the decease of our late Sovereign lord 
 King Henry YIII . . . and for as much as for the better 
 order of the affairs of the realm it is thought con- 
 venient the same authority be renewed unto them; 
 it was therefore ordained . . . that they should cause 
 new instruments to be drawn in form of the others 
 they had before . . . and thereupon every of the said 
 bishops to exercise their jurisdiction in such manner 
 
Preparations for change, 48 
 
 as they did before by virtue of their former grants".* 
 At this Council both Cranmer and Tunstall were 
 present, and in compliance with the order the arch- 
 bishop took out his new commission on the following 
 day. ^ The whole tone of this document, professing 
 as it does that "all ecclesiastical jurisdiction" pro- 
 ceeded from the king " as well as secular ", is sufficient 
 to show that the taking out of these commissions 
 was regarded as a necessary part of the programme, 
 even if the Council Book had not recorded its positive 
 order. In fact it was an immediate announcement 
 of the cardinal point of the whole ecclesiastical 
 policy of Edward's reign. The bishops were to be 
 mere delegates of the King. 
 
 Whether Cranmer found any imitators among 
 the bishops in thus immediately complying with the 
 order of the Council, of which he was one of the 
 most important members, does not appear; but it is 
 worthy of note that Tunstall's name disappears early 
 from the documents issuing from the Council board ^ 
 
 1 Council Book Harl. MS. 2308 f. 25 d. 
 
 '^ This order of the Council appears to have been commonly 
 overlooked and the proceeding has been attributed to the initia- 
 tive of Cranmer. The impression that has generally prevailed may 
 be conveniently given in the words used by Canon Dixon. " Even 
 before the prince was crowned " he writes " it came into the mind 
 of Cranmer, so great was his loyalty, that it was desirable for 
 himself and the other bishops to renew their commissions as 
 functionaries of the new King. He therefore issued or caused to 
 be issued again without delay those curious instruments" &c. 
 (Hist, n, p. 413). "Desirable" seems hardly the word to use in 
 view of the proem of the commission itself printed in Burnet 
 (LI. 2. p. 90), who seems to have seen the Council order, since 
 he says (ir p. 6) * and the bishops were required to take out 
 new commissions". 
 
 ^ After the first three weeks ot this reign his signature does not 
 
44 Preparations for change. 
 
 One bishop certainly objected, and from his own words 
 it may be taken that he spoke in the name of the 
 rest. The full meaning of this novel order did not 
 escape the keen sight of that " ignorant" or " ignorant 
 and subtle lawyer'' as Cranmer designates Gardiner, 
 the great opponent of his innovating tendencies. For 
 nearly a month the jurisdiction of the bishop of 
 Winchester over his diocese must have been suspend- 
 ed pending the result of the correspondence he had 
 on the matter with the Council. His objections are 
 best stated in his own words. In a letter of 1 March 
 to "Master Secretary Paget'' he writes: "Being the 
 matter of the expedition of our commissions com- 
 mitted to you, these (letters) shall be to require you 
 to expedite them favourably as ye promised me you 
 would. This day 1 have seen your addition which I 
 like not ; for we be called ordinaries of the realm, 
 and there should be a request on our parts to make 
 ourselves delegates. And 1 have been exercised on 
 making of treaties, where words (as ye know) have 
 been thrust in to signify somewhat at length and 
 then have such an interpretation as may serve. And 
 we poor bishops be not such a match as the parties 
 be in treaties ... It would be a marvellous matter if 
 after my long service and the love of my master 
 (Henry YlII), I should offend in going about to do 
 well, to see things well by visitations and receiving 
 of convicts to my charge as ordinary, and am but a 
 delegate. Ye must grant archdeacons authority to 
 visit or they cannot pay their tenths, for thereupon 
 their profit doth arise, and then how shall it stand, 
 the archdeacons to have more authority than the 
 bishop, having in his name to be overseer and yet 
 
 appear on the Privy Seals with those of the other councillors, 
 except once in May and twice in June of this year. 
 
Preparations for change. 45 
 
 may not go see. And now is the time when such as 
 have office to order the people should rather have 
 more committed to them than less. And there is no 
 man I think so made as wiV adventure further than 
 the evident speech of the commission will bear . . . 
 I write generally unto you for all and specially for 
 my lord of London. For like as the brethren have 
 made a ballad and solace themselves in it, where 
 Bonner lamenteth the fall of Winchester, so for 
 recompense of his lamentation I speak in his cause,, 
 with whom I perceive ye be offended, justly or no I 
 will not reason for I know not, nor have been, on 
 my fidelity, ever spoken to by him of it" '. 
 
 Gardiner had been, as he himself declares, in 
 Paget's youth "his tutor and teacher; afterwards 
 his master, then his beneficial master'' obtaining 
 from Henry "one of the rooms of the clerkship of 
 the signet for him " ^ The tone of Paget's reply to 
 his old master is extraordinary. It is dated March 
 2, the day after Gardiner had written his request^ 
 and it must have shown the bishop that there was 
 no room for appeal against a policy already decided 
 upon. "1 malign not bishops" he writes " but would 
 that both they and all other were in such order as 
 might be most to the glory of God and the benefit 
 of this realm. And if the estate of bishops is or shall 
 be thought meet to be reformed, I wish either that 
 you were no bishop, or that you could have such a 
 pliable will as could well bear the reformation that 
 should be thought meet for the quiet of the realm". 
 
 *^Your lordship shall have your commission in as. 
 ample manner as I have authority to make out the 
 same, and in an ampler manner than you had it 
 
 ^ State Papers. Dom. Ed. VL Vol I. No. 24. 
 2 Foxe's Acts ed. Townsend, VI. p. 259. 
 
46 Preparations for change, 
 
 before. No man wisheth you better than I do, which 
 is as well as to myself; if you wish me not like, 
 you are in the wrong; and thus I take my leave ot 
 your lordship'' ^ 
 
 Another matter affecting the interests of the church 
 was as easily settled and the course entered on was 
 as persistently pursued. The ecclesiastical revenues 
 and the sacred buildings themselves were early 
 marked out for spoliation. In a paper, dated 15 February 
 1547 are seen "the names of those to be raised to 
 dignity, and lands to be given to them ". Amongst these 
 are the followiug: "My lord ot Hertford "with his 
 dukedom " £ 800 lands a year, and £ 200 of the 
 next bishop's lands" ^ 
 
 Sir Thomas Darcy was to be made steward of 
 the bishop of Norwich in Suffolk and Sir Eichard 
 Southwell in Norfolk. My lord Went worth was "to have 
 the stewardship of all my lord of Ely, his lands and 
 master of his game in Norfolk, in Suffolk and in 
 Cambridgeshire": Sir William Petre was granted 
 " the d 100 a year of my lord of Winchester" (bishop 
 Gardiner) whilst " the stewardship of all my lord of 
 Lincoln's lands" with other small perquisites was 
 divided between Sir William Goring and Sir Ralph 
 Vane. It is a mere common place of history how 
 faithfully and generously the policy thus modestly 
 initiated was pursued to the end. 
 
 But the rulers w^ere not content to lay down only 
 the main lines of conduct in greater matters. The 
 attack began at once and in detail upon almost every 
 point of the ancient system. In 1547, Ash Wednesday 
 
 1 Tjtler. I p. 25. 
 
 ^ State Papers. Domestic. Vol. I No. 11. This appears to be 
 a draft corrected by Hertford himself: the words "and £ 200 
 &c" have been added by the corrector. 
 
Freparations for chajige. 47 
 
 fell upon 23 February, and the Lent sermons 
 afforded an excellent opportunity for the preachers 
 of the new era. It must be borne in mind that in 
 those days there was no " liberty of prophecying ". 
 Henry had opened and shut the mouths of the preachers 
 throughout the country at will, and they might preach 
 unacceptable doctrine at their peril. The pulpit was 
 consequently at this time essentially and purely an 
 official organ of the state and its utterances are to 
 be accepted as indications of the will of the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The man selected to preach before the court on 
 Ash Wednesday was Nicholas Ridley, who in Sep- 
 tember of the same year was made bishop of Rochester. 
 In it he gave a specimen ofthe acceptable word and 
 struck the note which it would be safe for other 
 preachers to take up. After admonishing his audience 
 that he would specially travail in the confutation 
 "of the Bishop of Rome's pretended authority" — 
 a subject which it might be thought was by this 
 time somewhat out of date — he proceeded to matters 
 of more immediate interest and dealt with images 
 and ceremonies. All images, whether of our Lord or 
 the saints he styled idols. In the matter ot ceremon- 
 ies he particularly selected "holy water to drive 
 away devils" for condemnation. The text of the 
 sermon is lost, but it is not difficult to conjecture 
 the manner in which Ridley developed his theme. 
 
 Besides these minor matters he touched on a prin- 
 ciple of the greatest practical importance. Although 
 speaking of the invisible church of the elect — "an 
 unknown church to us and known only to God", 
 yet he declared " the union of that church in the 
 permixed church, which God ordereth man to com- 
 plain unto and to hear again". At this point he 
 becomes clear: "men" he says "must receive the 
 
48 Freparations for change. 
 
 determination of the pi^actical church and obey where 
 God's law repiigneth not expressly ". * 
 
 About this same time Barlow, bishop of St. David's 
 preached a sermon seemingly advocating religious 
 changes generally, to which also Gardiner directed 
 the Protector's attention. In his letter the bishop so 
 clearly expressed the ideas of religious policy to 
 which during the whole reign he was faithful that 
 a few passages from it deserve quotation. 
 
 "Alas! my lord, this is a piteous case" he writes^ 
 ^'that, having so much business as ye have, these 
 inward disorders should be added unto them . . . 
 being now a time rather to repair that which needeth 
 reparation, than to make any new buildings, which 
 they pretend. Quiet, tranquility, unity and concord 
 shall maintain estimation. The contrary may animate 
 the enemy to attempt that which was never thought 
 on, which God forbid. There was never attempt of 
 alteration made in England but upon comfort of 
 discord at home; and woe be to them that mind it. 
 If my lord of St. David's, or such others, have their 
 heads cumbered with any new platform, I would 
 wish they were commanded, between this and the 
 king's majesty's full age, to draw the plat, diligently 
 to hew the stones, dig the sand and chop the chalk, 
 in the unseasonable time of building. And, when the 
 King's Majesty cometh to full age to present their 
 labours to him; and in the mean time, not to dis- 
 turb the state of the realm, whereof your Grace is 
 protector; but that you may, in every part of reli- 
 gion, laws, lands and decrees (which four contain 
 
 * See Bp. Gardiner's letter to Ridley cautiously enclosed iu 
 one to Somerset for his information. The date of the latter is- 
 February 28. Foxe, VI. pp. 58-9. 
 
Preparation for Change. 49 
 
 the state) deliver the same unto our sovereign lord 
 according unto the trust you be put in, which shall 
 be much to your honour and as all honest men wish 
 and desire". * 
 
 The fast of Lent had long been rigidly observed 
 by the english people and they were at this time 
 scandalized also by attacks on the practice. Odet de 
 Selve, the french ambassador, writing to his govern- 
 ment on 24 April (1547) from London, says: — "I 
 am told that a preacher who had spoken this past 
 Lent against those who eat flesh, and did not observe 
 the said Lent according to the commandments of the 
 Church, has today publicly retracted in the great 
 church of St. Paul, w^hich is the cathedral church 
 of this city, and has preached just the contrary to 
 the people, remitting the observance of the said Lent 
 and other days to the discretion and conscience of 
 each individual : and this by the commandment, as 
 he said, of the kiug of England and his Council ". ^ 
 
 "The same month of April" writes Stowe ''Dr. Glasier 
 preached at Paul's cross and afiirmed there that the 
 Lent was not ordained of God to be fasted, neither 
 the eating of flesh to be foreborne; but that the 
 same was a politic ordinance of men and might 
 therefore be broken by men at their pleasure". "^ 
 This sermon was different from the retractation 
 mentioned by de Selve and was probably preached 
 at Paul's cross to emphasize the lesson and the 
 doctrine. " 
 
 Submissions and recantations appear then to have 
 
 ^ Foxe (ed. Townsend) vi. p. 25. 
 
 '^ Inventaire analytique des archives : Correspondance Politique 
 d'Odet de Selve (1546—1549). Paris 1888 p. 134. 
 
 3 Stowe. Flores p. 1001. 
 
 4 Cf. Heylyn, Hist, of the Reform : I. 39. 
 
 E 
 
50 Preparation for Change. 
 
 been the order of the day. Dr. Smith, a prominent 
 theologian, who had dedicated his work: "a defence 
 of the sacrifice of the mass " to king Henry VIII 
 not long before the king's death, now " recanted at 
 Paul's cross on Sunday, 15 May, declaring his former 
 books and teaching to be erroneous and heretical ". ' 
 On this matter the french ambassador gives further 
 information. Writing from London on 23 May to his 
 king he says: "1 may tell you, Sire, that in these 
 last few days a preacher, as I am told, has retracted 
 in the great church here the things he had formerly 
 preached according to the tradition of the Church, 
 and has spoken in the most irreverent way of the 
 sacraments and the saints and with the utmost license 
 that is possible of Lent and of all ecclesiastical 
 regulations. This sermon has been printed here in 
 english, and it is sold publicly in this city to the 
 lords of this court. Of the Protector, Sire, many people 
 think he not only favours such things; but that he 
 introduces them. One thing, Sire, I can assure you to 
 be true: that in a building he is raising in this town 
 they stop work neither Sundays nor feastdays; and 
 indeed they worked on it even upon last Ascension 
 day^ 2 
 
 In the same way upon 19 June, another public 
 retractation was ordered. " Perryn, who had preached 
 that it w^as good to have worshipped the pictures of 
 Christ and his saints, now said that he had been 
 deceived and was very sorry that he had taught 
 such doctrine." But already the tide had turned. At 
 this time the government could do no more than feel 
 their way. Before the end of May the french am- 
 bassador writes that "there are rumours about the 
 
 ^ Stowe ut supra. 
 
 ^ Inventaire analytiqiie &c. p. 145. 
 
Preparation for Change, 51 
 
 city of some rising of the people again in Ireland, 
 and some speak of popular murmurs in this kingdom 
 (England), in the northern parts, on account of the 
 novelties which are attempted every day by these 
 new governors against the ancient approved religion". ^ 
 
 The irish troubles and a scotch v^ar now in 
 prospect counselled moderation and inspired a desire 
 "to allay these inward disorders", of which bishop 
 Gardiner had given warning to Somerset. Odet de 
 Solve writes on 16 June : " It seems that the people 
 are growing more cold here and repent the in- 
 novations which had been begun in matters of religion, 
 some proclamation ^ having been issued not to speak 
 or preach about them otherwise than was done 
 in the lifetime of the late king of England. And some 
 former sermons have, I hear, been recalled in which 
 evil was spoken of the sacraments, of the saints 
 and of Lent". ^ 
 
 Moreover, if cardinal Pole's information can be 
 trusted, some stay had been put upon the proceedings 
 of Somerset and Cranmer by the Emperor as early as 
 the March of this 3^ear(1547). Writing from Rome on 
 6 April to the Emperor's confessor he says, " that he 
 had heard that Charles had received the english 
 ambassadors with weighty reproof on account of the 
 innovations in religion and certain impious decrees 
 adopted by the Council ". And in conveying his thanks 
 
 1 Ibid. 
 
 "^ This would appear to be the proclamation referred to by 
 Bp. Gardiner who on 27 May had made representations to 
 Somerset against the sermons then common in the country. On 
 6 June, he writes: "Having first read your Grace's most gentle 
 letters, signifying the device of a proclamation to stay these 
 rumours ", and " reading the same proclamation which your 
 servant brought unto me". (Foxe ed. Townsend VI. p. 36.) 
 
 ^ Invenfaire &c. p. 152. 
 
52 Preparation for Change. 
 
 he says, ''this expostulation seems to have brought 
 this advantage to religion, that those v^ho were the- 
 authors of that impious decree against the sacrament 
 of the altar have not promulgated it".' It is hardly- 
 probable that on such a subject Pole was ill informed. 
 
 But, however those who now managed english 
 affairs might draw back for the moment, the object 
 to be attained was always kept in view. The methods 
 only were changed for others somewhat less irritant ; 
 and it had already been arranged that these w^ere 
 to be carried out by agents more entirely under the 
 control of their masters. The expedient adopted was 
 a royal visitation, which had proved so successful 
 in Henry's reign in carrying forward the royal 
 resolves. It had the advantage also of bringing home 
 to the clergy throughout the whole kingdom their 
 entire dependence on the royal authority and giving 
 them a sense of their complete helplessness to resist 
 the royal measures. 
 
 The commissioners, partly ecclesiastics and partly 
 laymen, were appointed under the great seal by 
 the king as Supreme Head of the Church. They were 
 furnished with certain articles of enquiry and fortified 
 with certain "godly injunctions"^ drawn up "by 
 the advice of sundry bishops and others the best 
 learned men of the realm " as the Council say ^ " and 
 ministered by the king to his loving subjects. All 
 which injunctions his Highness willeth and com- 
 mandeth his loving subjects by his supreme authority 
 obediently to receive and truly to observe and keep^ 
 every man in their offices, degrees and states, a& 
 
 ^ Quirini IV. 44. Quoted in Tierney's "Dodd" II. lx— lxi. 
 '^ Wilkins IV. 3. 
 
 3 In a letter of 30 June 1547. Council Book (Council ofiSce) 
 I. p. 357. 
 
Preparation for Change, 53 
 
 they will avoid his displeasure and the pains in the 
 «ame hereafter expressed." 
 
 In these injunctions are mingled in curious juxta- 
 position reasonable and s'alutary provisions and 
 undoubted novelties. The real object of the whole 
 is tersely expressed by Edward himself in his jour- 
 nal :—" Certain injunctions" he writes "^were set 
 forth which took away divers ceremonies, and com- 
 missioners sent to take down images, and certain 
 homilies were set forth to be read in the church ". ' 
 
 The following changes thus inaugurated by the 
 king's authority only require mention here: No 
 lights were in future to be burnt before any image. ^ 
 The epistle and gospel at the high mass were to 
 be read to the people in english in the pulpit or 
 other convenient place. Every sanday and holiday 
 one chapter of the new Testament in english was 
 to be read at matins immediately after the lessons, 
 and one chapter of the old Testament at even-song 
 after the Magnificat. "When nine lessons are to be 
 read in the church, three of them" were to be 
 omitted with their responsories ; and at even-song 
 the responses with all the commemorations were 
 to be left out. ^ 
 
 ' Burnet II. 2. p. 4. 
 
 '-^ This was a matter upon whicli Cranmer had shown himself 
 •solicitous in Henry's reign. 
 
 ^ These last were short antiphons and prayers at the end of the 
 oflSce, commemorating the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Cross &c. or for 
 Peace. In the document the word is '^memories'' which puzzled 
 Heylyn who thought it must mean obits. Cranmer spoke of 
 them in the convocation of 1543, and got rid of them in his own 
 scheme for a breviary. In his visitation of the diocese of Can- 
 terbury in 1548, the archbishop asks * whether they have 
 omitted.... at even-song the responds with all the memories." 
 {Remains. Parker Soc. p. 156.) 
 
54 Preparation for Change. 
 
 Henceforth no procession was to be allowed in 
 any church or churchyard or other place; but im- 
 mediately before the high mass the clergy were 
 by the injunctions ordered to kneel in the midst of 
 the church and sing or say the litany which had 
 been set forth in english. 
 
 It may be useful to call attention to the full im- 
 port and effect of this last provision. The litany^ 
 it is true, had generally a processional character; ' 
 but the processions before the high mass ^ had nothing 
 whatever to do with the litany. They were com- 
 posed of anthems and versicles which varied accord- 
 ing to the Sunday or festival, and they formed the 
 chief part, if not the entire contents, of a special 
 book called the Processional. The inspiration of 
 this provision came probably from Cranmer himself^ 
 for by this simple injunction one liturgical book 
 was without difficulty got rid of altogether. It alsa 
 effected a break with all previous liturgical tradition 
 in regard to the litany ; and a blow was struck at 
 ceremonies, of which, in the ancient rite, processions 
 had formed one of the most imposing features. 
 
 Beyond this all were enjoined to make no alteration 
 in the order of " Common Prayer " ^ or Divine Service^ 
 
 ^ Among Catholics this fact is now somewhat obscured by the 
 common use of the litany of the B. Virgin and the Saints at 
 the devotions known as the benediction of the Blessed Sacrament 
 and the Quarantore. Of course these were unknown at this time. 
 
 ^ John Aubrey thus recalls the processions before mass and 
 those of rogation days: "The solemnities of procession in and 
 about the church, and the perambulations in the fields besides 
 their convenience were fine diversions. The priests went before 
 in their formalities singing the latin service and the people came 
 after making their good-meaning responses" (ed. Wilts Archceol. 
 Soc. p. 11.) 
 
 ^ This word since so familiar was then a novelty. 
 
Preparation for Change, 55 
 
 otherwise than was specified in the injunctions 
 "until such time as the same shall be otherwise 
 ordered by the king's authority ". And, as if antici- 
 pating the reception whict would be given by the 
 people to these novelties, the injunctions provide 
 that " in the time of the litany, of the mass, of the 
 sermon and whenever the priest readeth the scrip- 
 tures to his parishioners no manner of persons without 
 a just and urgent cause shall depart out of the 
 church, and all ringing and knolling of bells shall 
 be utterly foreborne at that time except one bell 
 to be rung or knoUed before the sermon". 
 
 A special series of royal injunctions was addressed 
 this year (1547) " to the deans, subdeans, prebendaries, 
 chanters &c. &c. in every cathedral church of the 
 realm". Of these the most interesting were the 
 abolition of matins in the night time and the re- 
 quirement that all should attend the sermons preached 
 in their church, in consideration of which they were 
 dispensed from saying Prime and the "Hours". 
 
 " Item ", runs the first, "" to the intent that there 
 may be one uniform order in keeping of divine 
 service within all cathedral churches and colleges 
 of this realm, and for the avoiding of riot and divers 
 inconveniences, which have happened by the ministers 
 of such churches wherein they were wont to rise 
 at midnight to matins, the king's Majesty willeth 
 and commandeth that the dean and all the prebenda- 
 ries and other ministers of those churches shall 
 surcease from singing of the divine service in the 
 night time ; and that the dean and prebendaries and 
 all ministers of the same churches, from the last 
 day of the present month, evermore begin matins 
 at six of the clock in the morning". 
 
 The second runs : " Item they shall be present at 
 all sermons preached within their church and cease 
 
56 Preparation for Change. 
 
 from all other divine service during the time of the 
 same. And, that they may the more conveniently 
 attend upon the said sermon all such days as they 
 have any sermon, they shall omit the Prime and 
 Hours". ' 
 
 The special injunctions given to the dean and chapter 
 of Canterbury and dated 22 September 154:7, afford 
 some variations. Thus: "Item" the document says 
 ^ in consideration of the sermon or else the homily 
 to be made on the holy days, no Lady mass on those 
 days shall be sung in the choir". 
 
 "Item all sequences to be omitted and hereafter 
 no more to be sung in the choir neither working 
 day nor holy day". 
 
 ... "Item that henceforth all masses by note shall 
 be sung within the choir at such times as heretofore 
 they have been used to be sung in other places of 
 the church". 
 
 "Item that at the sermon time one or two bell-ringers 
 shall be appointed by course to keep the chapter 
 house door, to the intent that the noise of the people 
 disturb not the preacher or the hearers of the word 
 of God'\ 
 
 " Item two chapters of the Bible to be read in the 
 
 1 Corpus Christi Coll: Cambridge MS. 120. ff. 66d, 63d. 
 
 One or two points in these injunctions may be noted. "Item 
 they shall every day have some part of Holy Scripture read in 
 english at their table in the time of their meals " (f. 65). * Item 
 they shall lay in the choir two bibles of the largest volume in 
 english for the ministers to use, and two other of the like sort 
 in the body of the church" (Ibid). The special injunctions for 
 Lincoln which have been preserved (C. C. C. C. MS. 108 ff. 265—9) 
 run in the same general form, but against the provision as to midnight 
 matins is the note vacat, from which it may be gathered that in 
 this church matins had already been transferred to a later hour 
 in the morning. 
 
Freparation for Change. 57 
 
 choir one in the morning immediately after matins 
 and another in the evening after (the) Magnificat; 
 to be read by the petty canons, the eldest of them 
 to begin and so by course unto the last of them". 
 
 " Item the choristers to have from henceforth the 
 crown shaven no more ; their heads nevertheless to 
 be kept short " '. 
 
 The aim of these various provisions is clear. They 
 w^ere intended to bring the sermon into chief promi- 
 nence at the expense of the prayers and psalmody. 
 This is quite in the spirit of the ^ canon ' for shortening 
 the public prayers in favour of preaching, contained 
 in Cranmer's MS. project of morning and evening 
 service. They secured also by the restriction of sung 
 masses to the choir that all such service should have 
 a congregational character. 
 
 One of the first results of this visitation v^as to 
 bring Gardiner and Bonner to the Fleet prison. The 
 latter on 12 August was convented before the Council, 
 to which Sir Anthony Cooke, one of the royal visitors 
 in the diocese of London, had reported the bishop's 
 protest against the injunctions. At the Council 
 Bonner agreed to withdraw his protest ; but as a 
 warning to others ho was kept in the Fleet for a 
 week. * 
 
 "The Bishop of Winchester" so runs the entry 
 in the Council Book "having written to the lords 
 of his Majesty's Council and besides that spoken to 
 others impertinent things of the king's Majesty's 
 visitation, and refused to receive the injunctions and 
 
 1 Ibid. MS. 120. ff. 57, 61 and 61d. The last refers to tbe 
 practice of tonsuring the choristers which was retained in french 
 cathedrals up to the revolution. 
 
 2 Council Bk. Harl. MS. 2308 f. 69. The protest and submis- 
 sion are given flf. 70 — 1. 
 
58 Preparation for Change. 
 
 homilies, because as he said, on being examined by 
 their lordships thereupon, they contained things 
 dissident with the Word of God, so as his conscience 
 would not suffer him to accept them, was sent under 
 the safe leading of Sir Anthony Wingfield to the 
 Fleet". ' 
 
 Of the nature of his confinement there he himself 
 writes to Somerset on 12 November, "these seven 
 weeks saving one day I have been here under such 
 straight "keeping as I have spoken with no man." He 
 adds, that he has been obliged to leave off study 
 and give himself " to continual walks for exercise ". ^ 
 
 From another letter written by the bishop from 
 his prison on 14 October (154:7) it is clear that his 
 action was deliberate. He was determined by all 
 means in his power to stay the course whereby 
 those in power were hurrying on the innovations, 
 and he was fully conscious that in so doing he was 
 bringing himself into extreme danger. ^ 
 
 The court officials were giving meantime unmis- 
 takable proof that the supreme authority had deter- 
 mined upon radical changes in ancient ritual and 
 observance. As early as 11 April (1547) the compline 
 was sung in english in the royal chapel, and about 
 the same time licence was granted to Richard Grafton 
 and Edward Whitchurch to print " books concerning 
 
 divine service being in the english or latin 
 
 tongue". '* One prominent feature also of the visitation 
 was the breaking down of the images, which under 
 the injunctions was to extend to "pictures on the 
 walls, glass windows and not merely in church but 
 
 1 Ibid. f. 72. Sept. 25, 1547. 
 
 2 Foxe. ed. Townsend VI. p. 54. 
 
 ^ See his interesting letter printed in Foxe VI. p. 42. 
 * Rot. Pat. 1 Ed. VI. Pars 4, m. 7. April 22. 1547. 
 
Prepai^ation for Change. 59 
 
 even in houses", ' and as early as May of this year 
 (1547) a mob had somewhat anticipated the work 
 of the authorized wreckers. Considering that preaching 
 would only irritate these people, Gardiner had written 
 an earnest appeal to Somerset on the matter. The 
 Protector however appears to have done nothing 
 but send to the bishop a treatise on the right 
 reverence due to images. 
 
 But the royal visitors had hardly got well to work, 
 before the Catholic feeling of the people generally 
 made itself felt, and the authorities were compelled 
 to pause. Odet de Selve, writing from London on 
 27 September, after reporting that the bishop of 
 Winchester had been sent to prison two days pre- 
 viously, continues: "However things may be tendings 
 it is certain that this fury in knocking down images 
 of late indulged in has cooled, and some even of the 
 commissioners who had been charged with the work 
 have been imprisoned. It has been imputed to them 
 that they have exceeded their commissions and that 
 they were only ordered to take away those images 
 to which the people brought candles ^ and which 
 
 1 Wilkins, IV. p. 7. 
 
 2 The innovators in Edward's reign seem to have been unfortu- 
 nate in what they rejected or retained, if what is commonly called 
 the rule of antiquity be taken as the test. For instance, lights in 
 divine service are firstfoundin connection with these three points (1) 
 the reading of the Gospel; (2) feasts of martyrs, which involved the 
 honouring of their relics; (3) burial of the dead (seeMiihlbauer, Gesch. 
 und Bedetdung der (WachS')Lichter bei Jcirchlichen Funktionen^ 
 p. 9, 11, 17, 19, 101, 103). Lights on the altar are of lat& 
 mediaeval introduction, though the pictured representation of a 
 single candle on the altar may be found in the twelfth and perhaps 
 the eleventh century. The modern introduction of gradins is a 
 witness to the scruple felt at placing anything on the altar 
 beyond what was absolutely necessary for the sacrifice. 
 
'GO Preparation for Change, 
 
 were abused, as these new theologians say, and 
 nevertheless they pulled down all indifferently and 
 with great derision. In regard to this, I believe that 
 they had a very good and general commission and that 
 what they did would not have been questioned (by 
 their employers) unless opposition had been made to 
 it ; to meet which, I have a notion that they had 
 reserved for themselves escape by this fine and 
 subtle distinction between the saints to whom candles 
 are offered and those to whom they are not. But I 
 am sure that, if the Protector have a voice in chapter, 
 all be very soon in one case (livree). No other 
 cause of the said bishop of Winchester's (imprison- 
 ment) is given, so far as I know, except that he has 
 refused to write or subscribe his approval of this 
 doing away with images and of such other fine and 
 new reforms, as these people have just carried out" '. 
 By the imprisonment of bishop Gardiner the men 
 in power got rid of one of the chief obstacles to the 
 free and further development of the drama. The 
 meeting of Parliament, which contrary to the usual 
 practice on the accession of a king of England had 
 been put off for many months, could not in decency 
 he much longer delayed. It was summoned for No- 
 vember and actually met whilst the bishop was in 
 safe keeping. The men who held the powers of 
 government were right in fearing the influence which 
 he might exercise in an assembly where he had 
 been long a prominent member, and with those to 
 whom he was so well known. They had reason to 
 dread his power to get others to accept his cardinal 
 principle of keeping quiet whilst the king was yet 
 a child, enforced with the energy and conviction 
 which he could employ so well, which could not 
 
 ^ Inventaire analytique &c. pp. 210—11. 
 
Preparation for Change. 61 
 
 fail to make a deep impression upon the minds of 
 his hearers and might not improbably end in counter- 
 balancing even their power. 
 
 All his life Uardiner had had to deal with men, 
 and had influenced them not unsuccessfully. He had 
 early learnt not to make it difficult for his opponents 
 to retreat from any position. His practice and habit 
 whilst things were in movement was to put the best 
 construction possible on the words and deeds of 
 others. Notwithstanding his roughness at times he 
 showed himself possessed of ^^mi^o^bonhommie. He 
 could gossip and liked to gossip, especially about hi& 
 old master, Henry, for whom he entertained a real 
 affection. At the same time, he was not a man who 
 did not know what fear was. His was a stronger 
 soul, for he had by practice taught himself to master 
 fear in a rough school. Henry, to use his own ex- 
 pression, had often "squared" with him. But when 
 Gardiner had thought himself in the right he did 
 not hesitate to stand his ground, "for which" he 
 says "the king loved me never the worse". ' At a 
 time, when it was already clear that everything^ 
 ecclesiastical was being questioned, the words and 
 counsels of a man so practised in state affairs and 
 of such steadfastness, could hardly fail to be decisive 
 among his peers. 
 
 It was this influence which those in power most 
 feared, and Gardiner fully appreciated the motives 
 which impelled them to keep him in prison. In a letter 
 written to Somerset from the Fleet in the first days 
 of November he says : " I cannot discuss by conjecture 
 why evidence is put off in my case that hath been 
 wont commonly to be granted to all men. If it 
 should be of any man the policy to keep me from 
 
 ^ Gardiner to Somerset, Foxe VI. p. 36. 
 
62 Preparation for Change, 
 
 Parliament, it were good to be remembered 
 whether mine absence from the upper house, with 
 the absence of those I have used to name in the 
 nether house, will not engender more case of 
 objection, if opportunity serve hereafter, than my 
 presence, with such as I should appoint". ' 
 
 The " opportunity " however was never allowed to 
 come. Gardiner never daring this reign took his seat 
 again in the house of peers to meet those before whom 
 objection could be taken; nor did Somerset and Cranmer 
 rest until he was deposed from the see of Winchester 
 and was safe within the walls of the Tower. 
 
 Fose VI. p. 53. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE PARLIAMENT AND CONVOCATION 
 1547. 
 
 Parliament was summoned to meet at Westminster 
 on 4 November, 154:7. The governing powers were 
 not unmindful of the necessity for securing, as usual at 
 this time, the return of members who would support 
 their views, and the Council Book affords a glimpse 
 of the methods employed to override the popular 
 choice. In two instances the active interference of 
 the Council with the liberty of election had been 
 resented and it was considered best to draw back. 
 Thus, the sheriff of Kent, in his desire to secure the 
 return of Sir John Baker as knight of the shire, 
 " did abuse towards those of the shire the (Council's) 
 request into a commandment (and) as their lordships 
 advertise him . . . they meant not, nor mean to deprive 
 the shire by their commandment of their liberty of 
 election. (But yet) if they, the people, would in 
 satisfaction of their lordships' request grant their 
 voices to Mr. Baker, they would take it thankfully". 
 
 At the same time "a like letter was written to 
 the lord warden of the Cinque ports, with this addi- 
 tion : that being informed he should abuse their 
 requests to menace them of the shire of Kent . . . so they 
 
64: The Parliament and Convocation, 
 
 advised him to use things in such sort as the shire 
 might have the free election". ^ 
 
 The opening of the first parliament of the reign 
 was made the occasion of a state pageant: "his 
 Majesty riding from his palace of Westminster to 
 the church of St. Peter in his parliament robes with 
 all his lords spiritual and temporal riding in their 
 robes also". This opportunity moreover was seized 
 upon to introduce a novelty more significant than 
 any yet attempted, for it touched the ritual of the 
 mass itself. After a sermon, made by Dr. Eidley, the 
 new bishop of Rochester "the mass began" writes 
 Wriothesley. The " Gloria in excelsis, the Creed and 
 the Agnus were all sung in english ". ^ The prayers 
 said by the priest, including of course the sacred 
 Canon, "were as formerly in latin, but the general effect 
 which the service must have had upon those present 
 is correctly given by the historian Stowe when he 
 writes: "that same day mass was sung before the 
 lords in the english tongue". ^ 
 
 This was undoubtedly the most important liturgical 
 innovation yet attempted. There had been, it is true, 
 essays in change which at the time must have been 
 startling enough. The novel ritual of consecration 
 and coronation before drawn up by the Council had 
 manifested a disregard for time honoured ceremonies. 
 As all matters affecting the divine service were 
 expressly reserved to be " ordered and transposed by 
 the King's authority", "* the royal chapel was the safe 
 scene of any experiment; it may be presumed that 
 all that was done there had his Majesty's countenance 
 
 » Council Bk. Had. MS. 352 ff. 45d— 46. Sept. 28, 1547. 
 '" Chronicle. Camden Soc. I. p. 187. 
 '' Flares Hist. p. 1002. 
 ■^ Wilkins IV. p. 6. 
 
The Parliament and Convocation. 65 
 
 and approval. And thus, as already noted, as early 
 as Easter Monday of this year, the old evening service 
 of compline had been sung before the king in english. 
 
 In the same way the order of thanksgiving for the 
 victory of Pinkie may be considered official, and it 
 was settled by official regulation. On 18 September, 
 when the news of Somerset's victory over the Scots 
 was received "order was given by letters (from the 
 Council) sent to all the bishops of the realm to cause 
 in the chief cities or towns of their dioceses a sermon 
 to be preached and the Te Deum to be solemnly 
 sung or said and the litany in english giving thanks 
 to God for the victory". ' 
 
 Eye witnesses of the solemnity as it was kept in 
 London describe it as a procession. What such a 
 general procession had been hitherto and what it was 
 again in Mary's reign is well known. In the present 
 case the commands of the official injunctions as to 
 processions issued a few months previously, appear 
 to have caused some embarrassment. The french 
 ambassador describes the London service in the some- 
 what contemptuous phrase of " a general procession 
 according to the new mode of this country" ; * and 
 this vague description is hardly made clearer by the 
 words of Wriothesley, who probably saw what was 
 done but was a,t a loss how to describe it. "The 20th 
 (day of September) being St. Matthew's day" he 
 writes " was a solemn sermon made at PauVs by the 
 bishop of Lincoln, with procession kneeling with their 
 copes in choir. And after that the Te Deum sung with 
 the organs playing ". The model set at Paul's was next 
 day followed in all the London churches, which " kept 
 a solemn procession on their knees in english '\ ^ 
 
 ' Council Bk : Harl. MS. 352 f. 45. 
 ^ Inventaire Analytique p. 205. 
 3 Chronicle. Camd. Soc. I. 186. 
 
66 The Parliament and Convocation. 
 
 The first business of the Commons was the 
 election of the speaker of the house. ''Sir John 
 Baker, knight, chancellor of the fruits and tenths," 
 about whose seat the Council had interested them- 
 selves, was chosen ; and before the end of the month 
 of November the house was engaged in considering 
 a bill for handing over to the king's use the chantry 
 and other church lands. This after some delay and 
 difficulty passed through the house upon 22 Decem- 
 ber. The Lords were meantime occupied with matters 
 more strictly ecclesiastical. On 15 November there 
 was read, for the first time, a bill "for admission 
 of bishops by the king's Majesty only", which the 
 peers finally consented to on 3 December, and 
 which passed the Commons also on the seventeenth 
 of the same month. It was acted upon without 
 delay, and its object was evident. On 1 December 
 the jurisdiction of the bishops, which during the 
 king's visitation had been suspended, was restored 
 to them by an act of the Council " in as ample a 
 way as they had it previously". ^ But what was 
 given with one hand was in reality taken away 
 with the other. The new act, now before parliament, 
 " ordained that bishops should be made by the king's 
 Majesty's letters patent and not by the election of 
 deans and chapters; that all their processes and 
 writings should be made in the King's name only, 
 with the bishop's teste added to it, and sealed with 
 no other seal but the king's, or such as should be 
 authorized or appointed by him " ; thus " making 
 them no other than the king's ministers only, his 
 ecclesiastical sheriffs, as a man might say, to execute 
 his will and dispense his mandates ". ^ 
 
 1 MS. Council Bk. (Privy Council office) I p. 252. 
 * Heylyn, Hist, of Be for mat ion p. 51. 
 
The Parliament and Convocation. 67 
 
 It will be necessary to examine somewhat more 
 closely the bills relating to the Sacrament introduced 
 and passed at this time. Bent upon upsetting the 
 existing ecclesiastical settlement, the Council had 
 •more than once, on experiencing opposition, drawn 
 back from the very measures promoted by themselves. 
 They had however evoked a restless spirit which 
 it is always more easy to stir than to allay. In 
 every community there are always many ready and 
 even eager for change, and many circumstances 
 combined to make this the case in England during 
 the short years of Edward's reign. The motives of 
 a few, although they would seem to have been 
 but a very few, were at least respectable, sincere 
 and honest. Their reforming tendencies had been 
 kept down for some years by the strong baud of Henry; 
 but now these men found freedom to speak and 
 hoped for freedom to act. The bulk however of the 
 innovators were but an unruly mob, for whom 
 destruction and freedom from restraint have ever an 
 attraction, and whose instinct is always against 
 authority and tradition. 
 
 The Council itself by a proclamation issued on 
 12 November, just after the meeting of Parliament, 
 bears witness to the disorders which its action 
 had evoked. "For as much" the document runs "as 
 the misorders by the serving men and other young 
 and light persons and apprentices of London towards 
 priests and those that go in scholars' gowns like 
 priests, hath of late both in Westminster hall and 
 other places of the city of London been so great 
 that not only it hath offended many men, but also 
 hath given great occasion (if on the parts of the 
 «aid priests more wisdom and discretion had not 
 been shown than on the other) of murder and 
 sedition, or at least of such other inconveniences 
 
68 The Parliament and Convocation. 
 
 as are not to be suffered in a commonwealth, as- 
 to the king s Highness and his most entirely beloved 
 
 uncle, the Duke of Somerset and the rest of his 
 
 Majesty's Council hath been credibly and certainly 
 reported and shewed ; for reformation whereof the- 
 king's Highness, by the advice of his most dear uncle 
 and other his Majesty's Council, willeth and straightly 
 commandeth, that no serving man, nor apprentice 
 nor any other person whatsoever he or they be, 
 shall use hereafter such insolency and evil demean- 
 our towards priests, as reviling, tossing of them, 
 taking violently their caps and tippets from them 
 without just title and cause; nor otherwise use 
 them than as becometh the king's most loving sub* 
 jects one to do towards another". ^ 
 
 But even whilst issuing this order to the people 
 of London the Council gave contrary example in it& 
 acts. The resumption of the war against images 
 which it had been found prudent to discontinue in 
 September was permitted : " Item" says the writer 
 of the Grey Friars' chronicle "the 17th day of the 
 same month of November at night was pulled down 
 the rood in Paul's with Mary and John, with all 
 the images in the church. And two of the men 
 that laboured at it were slain and divers other 
 sore hurt". ^ Another contemporary, Wriothesley, 
 expressly states that this was the work of " the 
 king's Majesty's visitors" and adds " that the popish 
 priests said the accident was the will of God for 
 the pulling down of the said idols. Likewise all 
 images in every parish church in London were 
 pulled down and broken by the commandment of 
 the said visitors". ^ 
 
 ' Council Bk. Had. MS 352, ff. 47d-48. 
 
 - ed. Camden Soc. p. 54. 
 
 •' Chronicle — Gdimdi. Soc. II. p. 1. 
 
The Parliament and Convocation, 69 
 
 Not content with example the Council added precept, 
 -and the pulpit comedies of Henry's days were renewed. 
 For " the 27th day of November, being the first Sunday 
 of Advent" writes Wriothesley "preached at Paul's 
 cross, Dr. Barlow, bishop of St. David's, where he 
 showed a picture of the resurrection of our Lord, 
 made with vices, which put his legs out of the 
 sepulchre and blessed with his hand and turned his 
 head; and there stood before the pulpit the image 
 •of our Lady which they of Paul's had lapped up in 
 cerecloth, which was hid in a corner of Paul's church 
 and found by the visitors in their visitation. And 
 in his sermon he declared the great abomination of 
 idolatry in images, with other feigned ceremonies 
 contrary to scripture, to the extolling of God's glory 
 and to the great comfort of the audience. After the 
 sermon the boys broke the idols in pieces". ' 
 
 But the public insults and mockeries heaped upon 
 holy things did not rest here. They were turned against 
 the Blessed Sacrament, which the whole people 
 throughout the land believed to be our Blessed Lord 
 himself. It was nicknamed "Jack in the box, with 
 divers other shameful names", ^ by which the pu- 
 blic conscience was gravely shocked. To meet the 
 popular feeling an act of parliament was proposed 
 putting down such profanity under severe penalties. 
 But Somerset, Cranmer and their friends knew how 
 to turn even this into a means for advancing their 
 own ends. 
 
 On 12 November a bill "for the Sacrament of the 
 altar" was read for the first time in the house of 
 peers. The second reading was taken on the 15th, and 
 liere for the moment the matter rested. This bill 
 
 «. 
 
 ' Chronicle, ibid. 
 
 ^ Grey Friars' Chronicle, p. 54. 
 
70 The Parliament and Convocation. 
 
 may be called the Catholic half of the act subsequently 
 passed. Its object was to put down the growing 
 irreverence to the Blessed Sacrament. Towards the 
 end of the same month of November, how^ever, 
 another measure appeared providing " for the admi- 
 nistration of the Sacrament under both kinds," which 
 was read for the first time on the 26th. On 3 De- 
 cember, the former bill for the reverence to the 
 Sacrament was read a third time and in the same 
 sitting committed to Somerset. 
 
 The case then stood as follows: the bill against 
 irreverence to the Sacrament had been read three 
 times; the bill for the new mode of communion 
 once. The journals of the House give no record 
 of the methods employed to bring about the act- 
 ual result; but the act which finally passed w^as 
 a combination of the two bills. The whole matter 
 was evidently arranged by Somerset, to whom the 
 former bill was committed, between Saturday, 3 De- 
 cember, and Monday the 5th. On this latter day a bill 
 appears in the House of Lords, still under the harmless 
 title of an act " for the Sacrament of the body and 
 blood". It is again entered in the journals of the 
 House, on the seventh, as a bill "for the most holy 
 Sacrament of the altar " and on December the tenth 
 was read the bill for themostHoly Sacrament of the 
 body and blood of Christ, which passed by the common 
 assent of all the peers except the bishops of London,. 
 Norwich, Hereford, Worcester and Chichester. 
 
 ^ The want of an exact record presents a considerable diffi- 
 culty in this reign. The most weighty matters and measures 
 are generally involved in an obscurity which can hardly have been 
 unintentional. For the proceedings of Parliament nothing exists but 
 the titles of bills, the dates of readings and sometimes a record of the? 
 final voting. Even this is embarrassed by the appearance of bills in- 
 troduced, which disappear and reappear with changed titles. 
 
The Parliament and Convocation, 71 
 
 The bill thus passed in the Lords is the act which 
 now appears in the statute book combining, under 
 one single act (1) the bill for reverence to the Sa- 
 crament and (2) the bill for communion in both 
 kinds. 
 
 The episcopal vote given in favour of and against 
 this measure deserves consideration. Eleven bishops 
 were absent from Parliament on the occasion and 
 seem to have appointed no proxies \ and on looking 
 at the list of absentees there does not seem to have 
 been one amongst them who can fairly be classed 
 among the advocates of change. 
 
 The votes of the five bishops recorded against the 
 bill, are more weighty than a mere expression of 
 opinion. These prelates, above the rest then in par- 
 liament, must have ardently desired to see as the 
 law of the land that part of the amalgamated bill 
 which professed to put down all irreverences against 
 the Blessed Sacrament. Believing it to be what they 
 did, it must have cost them much even to appear 
 unwilling to defend it against scurrilous unbelief. 
 Their objection consequently to the portion tacked 
 on by Somerset and his friends, must have been 
 deep indeed to overcome the natural instinct of a 
 Catholic to welcome legal condemnation of the cur- 
 rent blasphemies. 
 
 Ten bishops voted for the measure. Their intentions 
 in so doing must be purely a matter of conjecture; 
 but looking at after events it will not be far from 
 the truth to divide them equally into two parties: 
 
 ^ These eleven were : Gardiner, detained in the Fleet ; Vesey 
 of Exeter; Sampson of Coventry and Lichfield; Kitchin of Llan- 
 daif; Knight of Bath; Thirlby of Westminster ; Wakeman of 
 Gloucester ; Chambers of Peterbro' ; Bird of Chester ; Bulkeley of 
 Bangor; and King of Oxford. 
 
72 The Parliament and Convocation. 
 
 one following the lead of Cranmer, the other of 
 Tunstall of Durham ^ 
 
 The bill was read for the first time in the Com- 
 mons on 10 December, the very day it had been 
 passed in the Lords. Up to the last moment there 
 is manifested on the part of the Grovernment a dis- 
 position to tamper with it. " On December 17th*' says 
 the record in the journals of the Lords "a proviso 
 was sent to the Commons house through Mr. Hales, 
 to be attached to the bill for the most Holy Sacrament 
 of the body and blood of Christ, the which the Com- 
 mons would not receive because the Lords had not 
 given their consent". * 
 
 Of this bill passed in the commons on 17 December 
 it is here sufficient to notice that the first portion 
 condemned all, who "in their sermons, preachings, 
 readingSjlectures, communications, arguments, rhymes, 
 
 ^ Those led by Cranmer were probably the bishops of Ely, 
 St. David's, Lincoln, and Rochester ; those led by Tunstall were 
 Salisbury, St. Asaph, Carlisle and Bristol. 
 
 ^ This entry is all that is known on the subject ; but it is 
 evident that the provision in question has nothing to do with 
 the joining of the two bills, as the amalgamation was effected 
 before the bill was sent down to the lower House on 10 Decem- 
 ber, and it was this bill which passed there on the seventeenth. 
 
 Perhaps some light may be thrown on the nature of the 
 provision which at the last moment it was desired to attach to 
 the bill, by the report of the generally well-informed french 
 ambassador. * It was expected " he writes " that there would be 
 some commotion in this parliament for the Sacrament of the 
 altar, which it was wished to abolish : nevertheless it will remain 
 for the present, as people think ; although the Protector and the 
 chief nobles do not use it any more at home among their 
 families, where they act as badly as, or worse than, the 
 sacramentarians in Germany." (de Selve p. 248. 'wse* i.e. they 
 no longer had mass in their private chapels.) 
 
The Pa7iiament and Convocation, 73 
 
 songs or jests" should call the Blessed Sacrament 
 " by such vile and unseemly words, as Christian ears 
 do abhor to hear." The penalties for so doing were 
 fines and imprisonment to be awarded by "the 
 justices of peace at the quarter sessions". 
 
 The second branch of the statute, after declaring 
 that the administration of holy communion under 
 both kinds of bread and wine was conformable to 
 primitive practice, enacted "that the said most 
 blessed Sacrament shall be commonly delivered and 
 ministered unto the people within the churches of 
 England and Ireland and other the king's dominions, 
 under both kinds of bread and wine, except neces- 
 sity otherwise requires". This exception being only 
 to hold in the case of dangerous and sudden sickness 
 " when wine cannot be provided, nor the sick person 
 pass comfortably into the other world without 
 receiving the Sacrament. " It is further ordered, that 
 a day before the celebration of the communion the 
 people should be exhorted to prepare themselves 
 and the statute concludes that this enactment — 
 "should not be interpreted to the condemning the 
 usage of any Church out of his Majesty's dominions". ^ 
 
 This act closed the effective ecclesiastical business 
 of the session. Parliament was prorogued on 24 De- 
 cember, 1547. 
 
 It is now necessary to consider the action and 
 proceedings of Convocation. It met at St. Paul's on 
 Saturday, 5 November, the day after the assembling 
 of Parliament. The lower house at once elected as 
 prolocutor Doctor Taylor, dean of Lincoln, whose 
 presentation to the archbishop and prelates of the 
 upper house was fixed for Friday, 11 November. 
 This introduction did not however take place till 
 
 1 Collier Eccl Hist. (ed. 1845). V pp. 219-20. 
 
74 The Parliament and Convocation. 
 
 the following Friday, the 18th. It was only at the 
 third session, on Tuesday, 22 November, that the as- 
 sembly settled to business and presented four petitions 
 to the upper house, only one of which is to the 
 present purpose. They requested, as already noted, 
 " that the labours of the bishops and others, who 
 by command of Convocation had been engaged in 
 examining, reforming and setting forth, {et edendo) 
 the divine service, should be produced and should 
 be submitted to the examination of this house". 
 
 Nothing apparently came of this request, and no- 
 thing is heard about it afterwards. In the fourth session 
 held on 25 November no business is recorded. Up 
 to this point the proceedings of the assembly are 
 clear and regular, but from the next session to the 
 close the acts suggest many diflBculties. Thus, the 
 fifth session held on 30 November, was for some 
 reason or other " anticipated'''. The only business done 
 was "that the prolocutor shewed and caused to be 
 publicly read the form of a certain ordinance deliver- 
 ed to him, as he asserts, by the archbishop of 
 Canterbury, for the taking of the body of our Lord 
 under both kinds of bread and also of wine". 
 
 This document was then subscribed by the prolo- 
 cutor and fifteen others out of the fifty- eight present 
 at the session \ It must not be considered a ritual 
 form but merely a declaration for signature offered 
 
 ^ The names of the subscribers were : Taylor, dean of Lincoln; 
 Cranmer the primate's brother; May, dean of St. Paul's; Parry, 
 one of the procuratores cleri of Sarum ; Caurden, dean of Chichester; 
 Redman, archdeacon of Taunton ; Latimer ; Wilke, one of the 
 procuratores cleri of Ely ; Boone, dean of Newark college, Leicester; 
 Roland Taylor one of proc. cleri Lincoln ; Littleton proc. cler. 
 Hereford ; Haynes, dean of Exeter ; Merryck, proc. cler. of St. 
 David's ; Benson, dean of Westminster ; Sandford, proc. cler. West- 
 minster ; William Haynes, deputy for the archdeacon of Oxon. 
 
The Farliament and Convocation. 75 
 
 to such members of Convocation as were present at 
 this anticipated meeting. There is nothing whatever 
 to show that the paper was ''sent down from the 
 bishops" as Bm^net has it ^ ; or "that it had been 
 promoted among the bishops of the upper House" 
 as more modern writers have asserted. The acts of 
 the Convocation are singularly guarded as to the 
 origin of the document. All that the official record 
 can state about the matter is that ''it was given 
 to him" (the prolocutor) as he asserts "by the arch- 
 bishop"^. At the next meeting held on 2 December 
 sixty-two members were present \ In this session 
 " all the before named (i. e. all present) approved by 
 word of mouth the proposal made in the last session 
 about the taking of the body of our Lord under 
 both kinds, millo reclamante'\ At this meeting even 
 the document itself is not mentioned in the act and 
 there is no further question of subscription. 
 
 To form a just estimate of the real character of 
 this proceeding it is necessary to compare what 
 was done in the only other matter of business dealt 
 with in this Convocation. At the eighth and last meet- 
 ing, on 17 December, a proposal to abrogate all 
 canons against the marriage of priests was intro- 
 duced and considered. On this occasion the voting 
 was by subscription, as appears not merely from 
 the report in the acts of Convocation, but also from 
 the original paper, which is still extant. * Not 
 
 I Hist. II. 1. p. 50. 
 
 * " formam cujusdam ordinationis sibi ut asserit a Rev™° Cant, 
 traditam &c". 
 
 ^ Of these 10 had not been present on Nov. 30 whilst 6, 
 including one subscriber William Haynes then present, were now 
 absent. 
 
 "* This paper now forms ff. 398-9 of the C.C.C.C. MS. 114. It 
 bears the signatures of the affirmantes on the one side and the 
 
76 Tlie Parliament and Convocation. 
 
 merely so ; but even on the question of the petitions 
 to be presented to the archbishop, mooted in the 
 third session, this same method of subscription was 
 adopted for ascertaining the sense of the house. It 
 may therefore be taken that this was the normal 
 and regular method. Why another plan was finally 
 adopted in regard to the proposal for communion 
 in both kinds must be a matter for conjecture. 
 
 As already stated the bill for receiving the Sacra- 
 ment was read for the first time in Parliament on 
 26 November, ^ four days before the matter had 
 
 neg antes on tbe other. John Worthiall signed the negative but 
 against his signature are the words : '^hic recantavit^\ He does 
 not sign the paper again among the majority, but, with the 
 two proxies held by him, is counted among the affirmantes. 
 "Robt. Steward'* the last prior and first dean of Ely, signs him- 
 self among the negantes ''Decanus Elien. monachus". 
 
 It has been often asserted on the strength of a declara- 
 tion by John Redman on the subject, that he was absent from 
 this meeting and sent his opinion in writing. The original paper 
 shows that this was not the case for a short way down the 
 paper of subscriptions to assent to change appears in a firm 
 square hand " I John Redman think that a layman who hath 
 but one wife or hath had but one wife being a mind to". At 
 this point he was suddenly stopped, and what he had written 
 was struck out; but he was not to be baulked. His name does 
 not occur among the subscibers; but on a separate paper (f. 400) 
 he gives his opinion in full. That his obstinacy was displeasing 
 to authority is clear from the fact that in the Convocation acts 
 his vote is not counted in the division. It may be as well to 
 add that of the members of Convocation numbering over a hundred 
 only 45 were actually present at this division ; of whom including 
 Worthiall 31 subscribed for the proposal and 14 against it. 
 Including proxies the votes were 53 against 22. 
 
 ^ Burnet says (p. 41) that the bill for the Communion was 
 brought in to the Lords on 24 Nov. This does not appear 
 from the Journals. 
 
The Parliament and Convocation, 77 
 
 been mooted in the Convocation of clergy. In view 
 of the anticipation of a session in which such im- 
 portant business was to be transacted it looks as if 
 the proposal for communion under both kinds was 
 sprung upon Convocation. The attempt to obtain 
 the subscription of the majority failed. It was found 
 that the House could not be trusted to deal with 
 the matter in the ordinary way and the expedient 
 of obtaining some verbal approval was resorted to. 
 
 It is difficult not to bring this proceeding into 
 connection with what was taking place in Parlia- 
 ment. What was required was, not the mature decision 
 of the clergy, but some expression of opinion which 
 might meet the parliamentary exigences of the govern- 
 ment. As already pointed out the manipulation of the 
 two bills, for the reverence of the Sacrament and 
 for communion under both kinds, took place im- 
 mediately afterwards. 
 
 Before leaving these proceedings of Convocation^ 
 it is necessary to call attention to the conditions 
 under which the assembly of clergy were required 
 to transact their duties. Since the changes under 
 Henry VIII. "every Convocation in itself", writes 
 Fuller, "is born deaf and dumb, so that it can neither 
 hear complaints in religion nor speak in the redress 
 thereof till first ephatha *be thou opened' be pro- 
 nounced upon it by commission from royal autho- 
 rity'* *. Among the first acts of the Convocation of 
 1547 was consequently an address to the archbishop 
 "to procure licence in writing to treat and commune" 
 of matters touching religion "and therein freely to 
 give their consents which otherwise they may not 
 do upon pain of peril promised". They also desire 
 
 Church Hist. ed. Brewer IV p. 109. 
 
78 The Parliament a^id Convocatmi. 
 
 permission ''quietly and in good order to reason and 
 dispute among them in this house such matters as 
 concern religion which be disputable". 
 
 How far they were satisfied in this regard may 
 be gathered by an act of the penultimate session 
 (9 December). On that day " were appointed Mr. dean 
 of Winchester and Mr. Dr. Draycott to associate 
 Mr. Prolocutor to my Lord of Canterbury to know 
 a determinate answer . . . what indemnities and im- 
 munity this house shall have to treat of matters 
 of religion in cases forbidden by the statutes of this 
 realm to treat in". ^ 
 
 No reply to this demand is recorded, but it is 
 clear the request made by the clergy when they first 
 met had not up to this time been complied with, 
 and that they were really not free to discuss "and 
 freely to give their consents" even in matters most 
 nearly touching religion. They met only once more 
 after 9 December; namely on 17 December, and 
 there can be little doubt that the words, which 
 Fuller uses of a later Convocation of this reign, apply 
 with equal and even greater force to their first meet- 
 ing. "Now the true reason" he says "why the king 
 would not entrust the diffusive body of the Convo- 
 cation with the power to deal with matters of religion 
 was a just jealousy which he had of the ill affection 
 of the major part thereof, who under the fair rind 
 of Protestant profession had the rotten core of 
 Romish superstition". ^ 
 
 In carrying the act for communion Cranmer and 
 Somerset had gained for the object they had at 
 heart more than the mere provisions ofthe act gave 
 
 1 Wilkins IV. p. 17. 
 
 ^ Acts, ut supra. For a note upon these acts see Appendix VII. 
 
 3 Hist : ed. Brewer IV 109. 
 
The Parliament and Convocation, 79 
 
 them. As regards the fact of communion under both 
 kinds, there were Catholics both in England and 
 abroad who at this time were disposed for the sake 
 of peace to concession. It was after all only a matter 
 of ecclesiastical discipline, although some innovators 
 in urging the incompleteness of the Sacrament, when 
 administered under one kind only, gave a doctrinal 
 turn to the question which issued in heresy. The 
 great advantage secured to the innovators by the 
 adoption of communion under both kinds in England 
 was the opportunity it afforded them of effecting 
 a break with the ancient missal. The change could, 
 it is true, have been made, had those who had the 
 management of affairs so willed, by the insertion of 
 a few lines of rubric. But the passing of the act 
 gave Cranmer a free hand, for, whilst it imposed 
 the practice, it left the power of prescribing the mode 
 to the government. This afforded the archbishop the 
 opportunity of tampering with the ritual of the mass. 
 The only limit to his action was his own moderation 
 or the opposition he might encounter in carrying 
 out his designs. 
 
 Before considering what was actually done attention 
 must be directed to an attitude of mind which, 
 however hard now to realize, was then a potent factor 
 in determining men's conduct. Apart from the idea 
 of the king as "supreme lord", even in matters of 
 religion, the law, as the expression ofthe willofthe 
 nation consecrated by royal sanction, seemed to men 
 like Gardiner and Tunstall to have a claim not merely 
 on outward obedience but even on conscience. In such 
 men it would be an entire mistake to attribute 
 compliance to the mere fear of the consequences 
 of disobedience. However overstrained and unreason- 
 able an attitude of mind such as this may appear 
 now, it was then a fact and must be reckoned with. 
 
80 The Parliament and Convocation. 
 
 It is not intended to excuse or to blame those who 
 thus acted ; but merely to explain actions which 
 unless this be borne in mind must be wholly unin- 
 telligible. 
 
 The case may perhaps be better understood by 
 one or two examples. The story of the deposition of 
 Heath, bishop of Worcester, as will appear subse- 
 quently, turns entirely upon this scruple. Though ready 
 to face imprisonment and incur deprivation rather 
 than assent to the new ordinal he declared that if it 
 were imposed he would not "disobey". The princess 
 Mary affords another example of this inconsequent 
 attitude of mind. Writing to the king she affirms 
 that nothing shall make her swerve from the dictates 
 of conscience. After a series of letters to the Council 
 in answer to their messengers, Wiugfield and Petre, 
 she protests that "rather than she will agree to use 
 any other service than was used at the death of the 
 late king her father, she would lay her head on a 
 block and suffer death but", she said, "I am unworthy 
 to suffer death in so good a quarrel. When the king's 
 Majesty shall come to such years that he may be 
 able to judge these things himself, his Majesty shall 
 find me ready to obey his orders in religion". ^ 
 
 Such ideas were closely connected with a sentiment 
 of which it is now equally difficult to realize the re- 
 ligious and the patriotic aspects. Men have now been 
 long accustomed to the idea of a people divided in 
 religion. In Edward's days such disunion must have 
 appeared to all fatal to the unity of a nation, which 
 till then had been one in faith and practice. The 
 well known phrase cujus regie ejus religio rests upon 
 this basis in England, although in Germany it may 
 have been applied to effect disintegration. It never 
 
 ^ Council Book printed in Archceologia XVII p. 163. 
 
The Parliament and Convocation. 81 
 
 entered into the calculations of those who initiated 
 the changes in England that the new system was 
 to embrace anything less than the whole people. 
 This fact must be borne in mind in considering the 
 measures of religious repression commenced under 
 Edward and adopted by Mary and Elizabeth. Long 
 before the reign of the latter closed, it had become 
 clear to all that the religious unity of England was 
 shattered beyond the power of penal laws to repair. 
 Yet even then the ideal was so powerful that it 
 formed the basis of the ecclesiastical system conceived 
 by Hooker, the first and perhaps the greatest of 
 Anglican theologians. 
 
 In Edward's reign the outcome of such principles 
 was to induce those who held a public position to 
 put the best interpretation possible upon every mea- 
 sure, however much they may have resisted its 
 imposition and disliked its object. 
 
 It remains now to consider the measures taken 
 to give effect to the new law of communion under 
 both kinds. 
 
CHAPTER VL 
 THE COMMUNION BOOK. 
 
 One great difficulty attending any enquiry into 
 the ecclesiastical measures of this or the preceding 
 reign lies in the presence of a number of dateless 
 documents of primary importance. To assign a wrong 
 date to these is often to invert the true sequence 
 of events and thus misinterpret the story. And yet to 
 ascertain even an approximate date is often a delicate 
 and difficult matter. 
 
 Before speaking of the Communion Book, which 
 was the practical outcome of the parliamentary 
 action as to communion under both kinds, one 
 such undated document must be carefully considered. 
 This is a series of questions relating to the mass, 
 which were submitted to the bishops and to two 
 divines, with the answers returned to them. Various 
 conjectural dates have been assigned to this paper 
 ranging over a considerable period. ^ 
 
 ^ Cf. Canon Dixon's History of the Church. II. 476, note. 
 
 This writer would assign the chief part of the document to 
 some period before the .meeting of parliament in 1547, since one 
 of the questions proposed is : "whether it be convenient that 
 masses satisfactory should continue, that is to say priests hired 
 to sing for souls departed". Now "it would have been super- 
 fluous" he argues "to have asked this after the session of 1547, 
 which destroyed chantries'*. This however is a misapprehen- 
 
The Communion Book, 83 
 
 The questions were submitted to the great majority 
 of the bishops of both provinces. Seventeen out of 
 twenty seven return answers ; but whether the rest, 
 including Grardiner, who was in prison until 7 Jan- 
 uary 154:8, were asked for their opinions does not 
 appear. ' 
 
 On examination, the questions will be found to fall 
 into three categories : The third and fourth questions 
 may be summed up thus: 'What do you mean by 
 the mass' 1 The first, second and fifth ask : ' What is 
 the mass for: for Sacrifice or Communion'?. The sixth 
 and seventh raise the practical question: "Shall we 
 do away with the mass, offered for the living and 
 dead, as distinct from communion"? The two conclud- 
 ing questions relate to subordinate matters: the 
 one (No. 8) asks whether the Gospel should be explained 
 
 sion. All that the act for chantries did was to abolish certain 
 perpetual foundations for masses for the dead and give the 
 revenues to the King. There is nothing in the act forbidding 
 that priests be "hired to sing for souls departed'*. This could 
 be done as well after the passing of the act as before, and was 
 only made unlawful when the mass was abolished altogether. The 
 case is accurately stated by Gardiner in the following passage 
 from his sermon preached before the king and Council on June 
 29, 1548 : ''And if ye ask concerning the masses that were wont 
 to be said in monasteries that if the masses had been good the 
 monasteries had not been put down, to that I say, that when 
 the number of the monasteries went away there was no preju- 
 dice to the mass, no more think I now that the chantries be 
 gone. Though the chantries be transposed to another use yet the 
 mass is not condemned. And the act of parliament was, nor is, 
 not prejudicial to the ministers that they should have their living 
 out of the same" (C. C. C. C. MS. 127 p. 21). 
 
 ' The names of the bishops sending in their replies were ; 
 Canterbury, York, Durham, London, Hereford, Worcester, Chichester, 
 Norwich, St. Asaph, Salisbury, Lincoln, Ely, Coventry and Lichfield, 
 €arlisle, Rochester, Bristol and St. David's. 
 
84 The Communion Book. 
 
 at the mass to the people; and the other (No. 9) 
 whether the mass should be in english. ' 
 
 It is quite clear from the practical questions that 
 the document must be assigned to some period in 
 the first or second year of Edward's reign (1547 or 
 1548). The absence of any enquiry, in the whole 
 series of questions, as to the desirability of communion 
 under both kinds, shews that this question had already 
 been removed from practical politics. As the matter 
 was to be raised in the first parliament of 1547 and 
 was finally decided on 20 December of that year,, 
 it can hardly be supposed that in a series of questions 
 put expressly with a view to liturgical innovation,, 
 this one, which was the most pressing of all, would 
 have been omitted. The date of the document may 
 therefore be assigned with some assurance of certainty 
 to a period after 20 December 1547. 
 
 The question as to date then resolves itself into 
 an enquiry as to the precise period in 1548, which 
 best suits the character of the document. The first 
 four of the questions are answered by the bishop of 
 St. David's. That see was vacant in 1548 from 3 Febru- 
 ary, the date of Barlow's translation to the diocese 
 
 ^ The original draft of the questions in Cranmer's hand is in^ 
 C. C. C. C. MS. 105. IF. 230-1. The draft comprises questions 
 4 to 9 of the print (Burnet II. 2. pp. 138-147). Question 4. 
 was first begun by Cranmer : " Whether it be convenient the 
 accustomed — " This was struck out, and "What is the mass" 
 put in its place. This he again changed into "Wherein con- 
 sisteth the mass by Christ's Institution" as it stands in the print.. 
 
 The draft also comprises the special questions afterwards 
 addressed to the bishops of Worcester, Hereford and Chichester (See 
 p. 87, post) printed in Burnet (ut sup. pp. 148—9). The original 
 in Cranmer's hand of the first question has the expression "Sa* 
 crament of the altar" in place of " Sacrament of Thanks " as ia 
 the print from the Lambeth manuscript. 
 
The Communion Book, 85 
 
 of Bath and Wells, to 7 September, when Ferrar 
 was coDsecrated. The questions are evidently intended 
 to be an attack on the mass; but by September 1548 
 things had gone so far that tentative and captious 
 questions of this kind would have been out of date. 
 The strong probability therefore is that these enqui- 
 ries were addressed to the bishops before Barlow's 
 translation from St. David's, or some time in the 
 month of January 154:8. ^ 
 
 It has been stated that the questions were tenta- 
 tive. Their object apparently was to sound the bi- 
 shops and see how far the innovators might safely 
 go; and in particular, to find out whether it would 
 be now possible to sweep away the mass altogether 
 or whether it would be prudent to temporize yet 
 awhile. 
 
 The answers given by the bishops are of great 
 importance and interest. They show the attitude of 
 mind of each individual prelate towards the tradi- 
 tional system, and throw much light on the later 
 sequence of events. It is therefore necessary to dwell 
 iipon them at some length. 
 
 As might be expected Cranmer and Ridley took 
 the extreme line of innovation in everything. In 
 this they were generally followed, although not in 
 all details by Hoi beach of Lincoln and Barlow of 
 St. David's with doctors Cox and Taylor. Goodrich 
 of Ely stands alone. He takes the via media, discreet- 
 ly leaving the settlement to the will of those in 
 
 ^ This seems to accord with a passage of the third series of 
 questions (see p. 88 note) which has been pointed out by a 
 reviewer : " Why may we not as well alter the mass into the 
 english tongue, or alter the ceremonies of the same as we alter 
 the Communion to be under both kinds." It may be well to 
 recall that the questions do not seem to have been put to 
 bishop Gardiner, who was released from prison on 7 January, 1548. 
 
86 The Communion Book. 
 
 power, but not so far leaving the ancient lines a» 
 to make retractation, and the retention of his see in 
 Mary's reign, any very difiicult matter. 
 
 The rest of the bishops take the Catholic view in 
 their replies to all the questions submitted. Six of 
 them answer jointly throughout. The first of these, 
 Bonner of London was a practical man but evidently 
 no theologian. The unanimity of Skip of Hereford, 
 Day of Chichester and Fleath of Worcester is note- 
 worthy in view of the subsequent history. A fifth of 
 the number, Rugg of Norwich, although less known,, 
 took a prominent part, as will be seen, in the dis- 
 cussions which preceded the introduction of the 
 bill for Common Prayer in the house of lords. The- 
 sixth was Wharton of Sfc. Asaph. 
 
 The replies of Cranmer were throughout laconic 
 and fitted to the terms of the questions. His mind 
 as to his answers was probably made up when fram- 
 ing them. Taking the questions as summarized above, 
 the answer of the archbishop to the interrogatory 
 as to the nature of the mass is, that the " oblation 
 and sacrifice" of Christ in the mass are terms im- 
 properly used, and that it is only a "memory and 
 representation " of the sacrifice of the cross. In other 
 words, Cranmer and the four bishops who went 
 with him rejected the sacrifice of the mass, as it 
 had hitherto been received in England and elsewhere^ 
 
 The point of questions 1, 2 and 5, taken together,, 
 was to elicit opinions as to whether, apart from 
 communion, the mass had any virtue in itself, or 
 whether its sole virtue for the individual was in his- 
 own act of communion. Cranmer and the rest of tho 
 innovating party answered by saying, that the virtue- 
 of the sacrament did not extend beyond the recep- 
 tion. This struck at the mass as a sacrifice propitia- 
 tory for the living. Eidley, however, did not go quite 
 
The Communion Book, 87 
 
 so far as the archbishop in this matter and called 
 attention to the " spiritual participation amongst all 
 the members of Christ in all godliness". In so far 
 he approximated to the Catholic idea; although re- 
 jecting Catholic doctrine. 
 
 In replying to the practical questions (Nos. 6 
 and 7) as to whether the mass offered for the living 
 and dead, apart from communion, should still be 
 allowed to continue, Cranmer and Ridley are again 
 of one mind and explicitly in favour of innovation. 
 Hoi beach and Dr. Cox, although inclining to these 
 same views, do not distinctly commit themselves to 
 radical change ; whilst Dr. Taylor makes no reply to 
 the questions. 
 
 On the other hand, the rest of the bishops, though 
 their answers vary in form, are throughout unmistak- 
 ably Catholic in their doctrine. But Sampson of 
 Coventry and Lichfield is as remarkable for his in- 
 tellectual confusion, as Aldrich of Carlisle is for his 
 fullness and precision, and Tunstall of Durham for 
 his masterly terseness and accuracy. ' 
 
 In the case of three of the bishops, Cranmer was 
 not content with the test to which they had been 
 already put. To Heath of Worcester, Day of Chi- 
 chester and Skip of Hereford, three of the group, 
 already mentioned as replying joiutly, a further set 
 of seven interrogatories was administered. The selec- 
 tion of these bishops was possibly dictated by the 
 hope that they might be coerced into joining the 
 party of innovators. It is certain that the questions 
 now put to them are couched in a tone of hectoring 
 contempt. * If such had been the expectation of 
 
 * Some of the bishops on the Catholic side do not answer 
 all the questions. 
 
 * Thus questions (1) and (2) are as follows. " What or where- 
 in John's fasting, giving alms, being baptized or receiving the 
 
88 The Communion Booh, 
 
 Cranmer and his friends they were disappointed. The 
 three bishops reaffirmed their position yet more defi- 
 nitely and the religious temper evinced in the replies 
 brings out only the more strongly the insolence of 
 the questions. 
 
 The ninth of the general series of interrogatories : 
 ** Whether in the mass it were convenient to use 
 such speech as the people may understand?" was a 
 practical matter of the first importance. It elicited 
 replies from only fourteen of the bishops. Holgate 
 of York is the only one who answers in the simple 
 affirmative; whilst Aldrich of Carlisle merely ex- 
 presses his readiness to submit his will to his 
 * superiors and betters " and his " understanding to 
 their judgments". 
 
 Cranmer here gives a single example of conserva- 
 tism: "I think it convenient" he says "to have the 
 vulgar tongue in the mass, except in certain myste- 
 ries, whereof I doubt." Ridley agrees with Holgate ; 
 but thinks that what " pertaineth to the consecration 
 should be spoken in silence". * 
 
 On this point of departure from tradition the Ca- 
 tholic instinct of many of the bishops again asserts 
 itself. They were averse to breaking with the practice 
 of Catholic Christendom. "It is convenient", says 
 Tunstall, "that the common latin tongue to these 
 western parts of Christendom be used in the mass 
 being the common prayer of the whole church". 
 
 Sacrament of Thanks in Englandj doth profit and avail Thomas 
 dwelling in Italy and not knowing what John in England doth ". 
 " What the said acts in John do profit them that be in heaven, 
 and wherein " ? It seems to have been in contemplation to subject 
 them to a third interrogatory in the same spirit as the last. To 
 this third series of questions there are no replies. See them in 
 Cranmer's *" Letters'' (Parker Soc. ed. p. 153.) 
 ^ That is secretly as hitherto. 
 
The Com'} nil) lion Book, 89 
 
 "If the mass should be wholly in english" says 
 Bush of Bristol " I think men should differ from the 
 custom and manner of all other regions ". Worcester, 
 Chichester, and Hereford when further pressed by 
 the additional interrogatories declared that : " We 
 ought to use such rites and prayers as the Catholic 
 church hath and doth uniformly observe" and they 
 based their objection to " the whole mass in english" 
 on the principle that "an uniformity of all churches 
 in that thing is to be kept." 
 
 It seems certain that at this time Cranmer did 
 not feel himself in a position to press upon the 
 English church changes in the liturgy beyond the 
 point toj which the more conservative among the bi- 
 shops were prepared to go. How far that was is 
 expressed by bishop Tunstall. After maintaining that 
 latin should still be used in the mass, especially 
 "in the mysteries thereof," he adds "nevertheless 
 certain prayers might be in the mother tongue for 
 the instruction and stirring of the devotion of the 
 people as shall be thought convenient." This was the 
 course actually adopted in issuing the Communion 
 Book at this time. 
 
 It must be remembered that the sole object of 
 this book was to provide for communion under both 
 kinds, now ordered by parliament, in place of the 
 communion of the host alone as had hitherto been 
 the practice. The printiug of "the Order of Commu- 
 nion" — a booklet of only three or four leaves — 
 was finished on 8 March 1548. To it was prefixed, 
 by way of preface a proclamation without date by 
 the king "to all and singular our loving subjects", 
 imposing the order. At this point the action of the 
 king stops. "The next care was" writes Heylyn " to 
 see the said order put in execution, of which the lords 
 of the Council discharged the king and took the 
 
90 The Coimnunion Book. 
 
 whole burden on themselves, causing a sufficient 
 number of the printed copies to be sent to each bishop 
 in the realm " with a letter, dated 15 March, requiring 
 them to take such measures "that every parson, 
 vicar and curate may have sufficient time well to 
 instruct and advise themselves for the distribution 
 of the most holy communion according to the 
 order of the said book before Easter following", * 
 1 April 1548. 
 
 The letter concluded with a vague and general 
 menace to the clergy at large as answerable for the 
 reception of the book, which was thus " set forth to 
 the intent there should be in all parts of this realm 
 and among all men one uniform manner quietly used". 
 
 The "Order of Communion" thus imposed by the 
 ruling powers left the latin mass, according to the 
 various rites hitherto in use in England, still intact. 
 " The varying of any rite or ceremony in the mass", 
 up to and including the communion of the priest, is 
 expressly forbidden by a rubric of this "Order". 
 
 The book itself was composed of two parts : the 
 first consisted merely of a notice of communion, 
 stating the day upon which "the parson intends to 
 minister" it. The second is a long and novel order 
 for the rite of communion to the laity. The former 
 was not interpolated in the mass ; but the time, 
 manner and even the place of this warning is 
 left to the priest's discretion. Remembering that this 
 was addressed to a people still Catholic in mind 
 and practice there is little in the " warning " to which 
 exception can be taken *, unless it be a passage at 
 
 * Heylyn, Hist, of the Bef. ed. 1664, T. p. 59. 
 
 2 One expression in the address may be noticed. It would 
 have been sufficient to say; * to give us His body and blood"; 
 but the word spiritually is added. This in itself is not incorrect ; 
 
The Communion Book, 91; 
 
 the close "requiring such as shall be satisfied with 
 a general confession not to be offended with them 
 that doth use, to their further satisfying, the auricular 
 and secret confession to the priest". This clearly 
 recognizes officially a disuse of sacramental confes- 
 sion. There is however another aspect in which this 
 address must be considered. Hitherto communion could 
 be, and was, administered at any mass \ The very 
 rubric in this new order of communion indicates 
 this ancient usage in prescribing the necessary pre- 
 paration for the new mode. "As heretofore" it says 
 *" usually the priest hath done with the sacrament 
 of the Body, to prepare bless and consecrate so 
 much as will serve the people, so it shall yet con- 
 tinue still after the same manner and form". Com- 
 munion however as contemplated by the new ritual 
 was to be restricted to the time of which public 
 notice had been given " the next sanday or holyday 
 or at least one day before ". As a fact this restriction 
 of Communion for the laity really prepared the way 
 for a further change, since Cranmer had already 
 expressed his wish for the abolition of masses at 
 which there were no communicants ^. It was con- 
 sequently one step in that direction to prevent com- 
 municants receiving at the private masses. 
 
 The second part of the book is a ritual of com- 
 munion under both kinds. It commences immediately 
 after the communion of the priest and contemplates 
 
 but, taken in connection with Cranmer's known views at the time 
 and with subsequent events, the insertion cannot be regarded as 
 unintentional. This view is confirmed by certain expressions in 
 the "Order" itself. 
 
 ^ It should be borne in mind that in most churches throughout 
 the country many masses would be daily said. 
 
 2 Burnet II 1. pp. 140—2. Here as in so many matters Cranmer 
 
^2 The Communion Book. 
 
 the intending communicants already assembled at 
 the altar steps. It concludes with a special blessing 
 to dismiss them thence to their places. The prayers 
 directed to be said were subsequently incorporated 
 in the communion service of the first Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer. A few general remarks on the new 
 rite are all that need be here given. 
 
 The ritual preparation for the communion in the 
 liturgies of the western church, at least from the 
 time of St. Gregory, has always been of the simplest 
 character. Until the later middle ages it consisted 
 of nothing more than the Lord's Prayer, and another 
 short prayer amplifying the last petition "Deliver 
 us from evil". To these later devotion added one 
 or more prayers which varied from diocese to diocese 
 and gradually became incorporated in the local mis- 
 sals ^ For the communion ofthelaity in addition the 
 form though unsettled was much as at present. 
 
 Thus although the new order of communion must 
 certainly have been a startling introduction to a 
 people accustomed to the old and simple rite, it need 
 not have presented the same insuperable difficulties 
 as it would to those now accustomed to a form 
 long unvaried. Whilst it is impossible not to feel 
 with a certain sense of disquiet the innovating spirit 
 which runs through the whole, or to overlook the 
 
 covers his meaning with discreet care, but taking into consider- 
 ation the questions 5 and 6 and all the replies thereto there 
 can be no doubt what he means in this case. 
 
 ^ The Carthusians and Dominicans still have only one of the 
 three prayers now found in the Eoman missal ; these do not 
 appear to have been introduced into that missal before the close 
 of the 13th century at the earliest. As to forms of communion 
 see for instance Daniel, Cod. liturg. I, 147—8 ; Amort, Veins 
 discipl. Canoniconim, p. 692 ; Hoeynck, Geschlchte der kirchl. 
 Ziturgie des Bisthums Augsburg, pp. 134—6, 301. 
 
The Communion Booh 9B 
 
 definite manifestation of uncatholic intent which here 
 and there betrays itself, it may be said that the 
 prayers, like the address, contain little to which 
 definite objection can be taken '. 
 
 Thus much having been said of the Communion 
 Book, it is proper now to see how it was regarded 
 by a contemporary deeply interested in the matter^ 
 and whose opinion as to its real object and effect 
 is probably correct. The well known Miles Coverdale 
 writing from Frankfort to Calvin on 26 March, 1548, 
 only a fortnight after the book was issued to the 
 bishops, says: — "I cannot but avail myself, most 
 illustrious sir, of the offered opportunity of saluting 
 your worthiness. There w^as brought hither three 
 days since, during the time of the fair, a certain 
 little book in english, containing that order of Holy 
 Communion which the king's majesty has set forth 
 as suitable to the present time. And as I perceived 
 many persons were desirous of obtaining it, I forth- 
 with translated it into german and latin. And there- 
 fore, when I understood the godly bearer of thi& 
 letter to be a townsman of yours, I thought I should 
 gratify your reverence by sending you this trifling 
 present. One of the translations I intended for the 
 
 1 The unnecessary use of the word * spiritually"; the expres- 
 sions ''minister the 'bread'' — "minister the wine"; the conse- 
 cration, or, if necessary, repeated consecrations of the chalice alone,, 
 point to innovation. On the other hand, the insertion of the 
 words "which was given for thee" — " which was shed for thee " 
 in the formula for communion, and the monition that *men 
 must not think less to be received in part (of the consecrated 
 host) than in the whole, but in each of them the whole body 
 of our Saviour Jesus Christ", emphasize the ancient doctrine. 
 It would almost seem that the action of two minds working with 
 diiferent intentions is to be traced in the composition of this- 
 'Order of Communion*. 
 
94 The Communion Booh 
 
 Germans; the other, namely the latin one, I am 
 exceedingly anxious should be forwarded to your 
 reverence. And should you feel inclined to make 
 known to others this cause for congratulation, the 
 first fruits of godliness (according as the Lord now 
 wills his religion to revive in England) you will be 
 able to commit this token of my affection for you 
 to the press more easily than I can. I am now on 
 my return to England having been invited thither 
 after an exile of eight years. Farewell, most excellent 
 master, and affectionately salute your wife, who 
 deserved so well from me and mine when we w6nt 
 to Strasburg". * 
 
 The conviction of Coverdale that the new Order 
 of Communion would be a source of gratification to 
 Calvin and a cause for congratulation as ^Hhe first 
 fruits of godliness" is full of significance. 
 
 Nothing has yet been said as to the authors of 
 the book. The King's proclamation prefixed to it 
 states that he had "caused sundry of his most 
 grave and well learned prelates to assemble them- 
 selves for this matter, who, after long conference 
 together, with deliberate advice finally agreed upon" 
 the Order of Communion issued. Foxe adds that 
 these learned men assembled " in the castle of Wind- 
 sor". 
 
 The names of the churchmen who composed the 
 committee are given, but diversely by different 
 writers. The body however has obtained an established 
 place in history as "the celebrated Windsor com- 
 mission". * Of commission in any formal sense of the 
 
 ' Original Letters. Parker Society pp. 31 — 2. 
 
 2) Dixon II. 493. The whole question of the Windsor assembly 
 -will be considered when the compilation of the first Prayer 
 Book is dealt with. 
 
The Communion Book, 95 
 
 term no trace has been found after a careful examin- 
 ation of records printed and unprinted. It has already 
 been seen that a series of questions was submitted 
 to the majority of the bishops for their opinion. It 
 is almost certain that these interrogatories were 
 preparatory to this Order for Communion. But the 
 names of those who actually compiled the Order 
 are unknown. Few things tend more to obscure the 
 real facts of history than the assumption of certainty 
 where evidence is wanting. It is surely best to avow 
 ignorance where nothing is known. 
 
 "But whoever may have been the author or authors 
 of the * Order', there is no doubt as to the authority 
 which imposed it upon the church. " Our pleasure 
 is", says the king in his proclamation which serves 
 as preface to the book, "" by the advice of our most 
 dear uncle the duke of Somerset, governor of our 
 person and protector of all our realms, dominions 
 and subjects, and other of our privy Council, that 
 the said Blessed Sacrament be ministered unto our 
 people only after such form and manner as here- 
 after by our authority with the advice before men- 
 tioned is set forth and declared". 
 
 Coverdale was not wrong, as the event proved, in 
 greeting the book as merely " the first fruits of 
 godliness ". The king, it is true, admonished in this 
 proclamation advanced innovators like Coverdale 
 himself "to stay and quiet themselves with this our 
 direction . . . and not enterprise to run afore and so 
 by their rashness to become the greatest hinderers" 
 of change. But at the same time he speaks of a 
 " most earnest intent further to travail for the re- 
 formation and setting forth of such godly orders", 
 and concludes: "We would not have our subjects 
 so much to mislike our judgment, so much to mis- 
 trust our zeal, as though we either could not discern 
 
96 The Communion Booh, 
 
 what were to be done or would not do all things 
 in due time. God be praised, we know what by 
 His word is meet to be redressed, and have an 
 earnest mind by the advice of our most dear uncle 
 and other of our privy Council with all diligence 
 and certain speed so to set forth the same, as it 
 may most stand with Grod's glory, and edifying and 
 quietness of our people; which we doubt not but 
 all our obedient and loving subjects will quietly and 
 reverently tarry for". 
 
 With the same intent Edward prescribes in the 
 rubric of the book itself that the rite then issued is 
 to stand only " until other orders shall be provided ". 
 
 This word of "quietness" is the note continually 
 struck in the documents issuing from the govern- 
 ment in this reign. The methods taken to insure such 
 peace and quiet cannot but excite astonishment. In 
 the present case, where minds were already stirred, 
 it might have seemed to most men sufficient to 
 introduce an innovation touching every man's most 
 sacred feelings, without giving a warning that this 
 was merely a temporary measure, and thus opening 
 out to the nation a vista of indefinite change. How 
 the real intention was practically brought home to 
 the people and the effect it had upon them will 
 appear in the next chapter. 
 
CHAPTER YII. 
 PEOCLAMATIONS AND PREACHING. 
 
 The series of proclamations and orders which at 
 this period followed one another with such rapidity, 
 even now produces in the mind a sense of confusion, 
 and it is almost impossible to gain a precise notion 
 of what was ordered to be done and what to be left 
 undone. Although a single purpose may now be dis- 
 cerned in all, at first sight there appears to be a 
 vacillation which almost amounts to contradiction. 
 Any private alteration in the ancient rites is strin- 
 gently forbidden with the proviso, "until the king 
 shall please to alter". It is evident that the king's 
 Council fully understood that these constant changes 
 would set men's minds in a ferment, and yet they 
 did not hesitate to prescribe them. On 6 February 
 1548 one of this series of proclamations was issued. 
 Whilst it stringently forbade, with redundance of 
 language, any deviation from the ancient ceremonial 
 on pain of imprisonment, on the other hand it pro- 
 vided immunity for such as should not observe certain 
 ritual usages, attacked by the Council a week be- 
 fore, if not quite abolished. "Considering" runs the 
 document " nothing so much to tend to the disquiet 
 of this realm as diversity of opinions and variety 
 of rites and ceremonies concerning religion and 
 worship of almighty God" yet the king "is adver- 
 
98 Proclamations and Preachmg, 
 
 tised that certain private curates, preachers and other 
 laymen ... do rashly attempt of their own and singular 
 wit and mind in some parish churches and otherwise 
 not merely to persuade the people from the old and 
 accustomed rites and ceremonies but also themselves 
 bringeth in new orders every one in the church 
 according to their phantasies. . . Wherefore his Majesty 
 straightly commandeth that no manner of person.., 
 do omit, leave done, change, alter or innovate any 
 order, rite or ceremony commonly used or frequented 
 in the church of England and not commanded to 
 be left undone at any time in the reign of our late 
 sovereign lord his Highness' father, other than such 
 as his Highness by his Majesty's visitors' injunctions 
 or proclamations hath already or hereafter shall 
 command to be omitted, left, innovated or changed ; 
 but that they be observed after that sort as before 
 they were accustomed, or else now since prescribed 
 by the authority of his Majesty or by the means 
 aforesaid". All offenders against this proclamation, 
 "shall incur his Highness' indignation and suffer 
 imprisonment and other grievous punishment at his 
 Majesty's will and pleasure". 
 
 Having declared this much the document immedi- 
 ately proceeds to make exception in a form not at 
 all clear until some explanation is given. " For not 
 bearing a candle on Candlemasday, not taking ashes 
 upon Ash-Wednesday, not bearing palms on Palm 
 Sunday, not creeping to the cross, not taking holy 
 bread or holy water, or for omitting other such 
 rites and ceremonies concerning religion and the use 
 of the church, which the most Reverend Father in 
 God, the archbishop of Canterbury by his Majesty's 
 will and command, with the advice" of the Duke 
 of Somerset and others of the Council " hath declared 
 or hereafter shall declare to the other bishops by 
 
Proclamations and Preaching, 99 
 
 his writing under seal to be omitted or changed, no 
 man hereafter to be imprisoned nor otherwise 
 punished". ^ 
 
 It will be noticed that this last provision is merely 
 -a declaration of immunity for such as do not observe 
 the ceremonies in question. It thus contemplates their 
 observance, and their non-observance, and the need 
 of such a proviso is explained by the previous atti- 
 tude of members' of the Council towards these Ca- 
 tholic practices. Steps had already been taken by 
 the ruling powers to inform the clergy of their re- 
 solution to abrogate them. On 27 January 154S 
 Cranmer addressed to Bonner, who as dean of the 
 province of Canterbury was charged to communi- 
 cate such documents to the rest of the bishops, his 
 "letters missive," containing this in effect; "that my 
 Lord Protector's Grace, with the advice of other the 
 King'sMajesty's Honourable Privy Council (for certain 
 considerations them moving) are fully resolved, that 
 no candles shall be borne on Candlemas-day; nor 
 also from henceforth ashes or palms used any 
 longer; requiring me (Bonner) thereuponby his said 
 letters, to cause admonition and knowledge thereof, 
 to be given unto your lordship and other bishops 
 with celerity accordingly . . . that you thereupon may 
 give knowledge and advertisement thereof within 
 your diocese, as appertaineth " ^. 
 
 It will be noticed again that this is not a royal 
 proclamation formally abrogating these ceremonies, 
 but a mere intimation of the will of the governing 
 powers, and, it may fairly be asked how an eccle- 
 siastic in view of such instructions and such a pro- 
 clamation could well see his way, with pains of 
 
 1 Burnet II. 2. p. 129. 
 
 2 Heylyn. Eccl. Restaurata I. p. 55. 
 
100 Proclamations and Preaching. 
 
 imprisonment at least threatened, to arrange for these 
 suggested changes. On the one hand there was no 
 order, but merely the intimation of a full intention 
 and resolution of the government, and on the other 
 there were pains and penalties declared for non- 
 observance of the ancient ceremonies, except in so 
 far as they were abrogated by command of Henry 
 VIII or Edward VI. Had the Council determined to 
 try to bring about " a variety of rites and ceremo- 
 nies" it could hardly have adopted better means. 
 
 Whatever may be thought, moreover, of the cere- 
 monies themselves, they are unquestionably rites to 
 which the popular mind is deeply attached. Three 
 centuries of disuse have not entirely effaced the old 
 idea of palms for Palm Sunday among the english 
 peasantry. A Catholic population does not feel that 
 Lent has begun for them unless they have been 
 sprinkled with the blessed ashes. And, notwith- 
 standing all changes, the old familiar name of 
 Candlemas has ever in England remained associated 
 with the feast of our Lady's Purification. All these 
 ceremonies thus struck at and the processions already 
 forbidden gave a pleasing variety to the regular 
 liturgy; or, as Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday, 
 gave warning of the penitential time of Lent, or of 
 the approach of the solemn and singular rites of Holy 
 Week. Thus the abolition of these observances 
 among a people who had never been accustomed to 
 anything else but Catholic rites was nothing less 
 than a rude uprooting of old habits and associations 
 connected with all that was most sacred in their 
 lives. 
 
 The circumstances moreover did not serve to lessen 
 the shock to popular feeling. "The counsel was as 
 sudden" writes Heylyn "as the warning short, for 
 (the letter) being dated on 28 January it was not 
 
Proclamations and Preaching, ICfr 
 
 possible that any reform should be made in the 
 first particular, but only in the cities of London and 
 Westminster and the parts adjoining, the feast of 
 the Purification falling within five days after. But yet 
 the Lords drove on so fast that before this order could 
 be published in the remote parts of the kingdom, 
 they followed 'it with another (as little pleasing to 
 the main body of the people) concerning images " \ 
 
 This latter order in Council affords so clear an- 
 insight into the state of discord and disorder into 
 which these measures had thrown the entire country, 
 that it deserves notice here. The Council first com- 
 plain that on their previous order for taking down 
 "" images abused with pilgrimages, offerings or censes, 
 much strife and contention hath risen and daily 
 riseth and daily more and more encreaseth about 
 the execution of the same. Some men . . would by 
 their good wills retain all such images still . . and 
 almost in every place is contention for images, 
 whether they have been abused or not . . Considering 
 therefore" the document proceeds "that almost in 
 no part of this realm is any sure quietness but 
 where all images be clean taken away and pulled 
 down already " the bishops are ordered " immediately 
 upon sight hereof . . to give order that all the 
 images remaining in any church or chapel be removed 
 and taken away. And in the execution hereof" the 
 order concludes " we require both you (Cranmer) and 
 the rest of the said bishops to use such foresight 
 as the same may be quietly done, with as good 
 satisfaction to the people as may be. From Somerset 
 place, 11 February" 2. 
 
 ^ Heylyn. Eccl. Rest. I p. 55. 
 
 ^ Ibid p. 56 Heylyn had evidently seen Thirlby's Register, 
 and says that Bonner's letter to the Bp. of Westminster conveying 
 this order bears the date 20 February. 
 
102 Proclamations and Preaching, 
 
 Meantime, whilst on the one hand the Council were- 
 issuing orders to restrain innovations in the liturgy 
 and on the other were allowing it to be understood 
 that such innovations were not displeasing to them, 
 the policy of essaying yet further changes under the 
 eye of the court was revived. At Easter this year,. 
 1548, "there began" as the Grey Friars' chronicle 
 relates "the communion, and confession but of those 
 that would, as the book doth specify" ^ In May 
 appeared a novelty in the cathedral church of the- 
 metropolis for which as yet there was no warrant.. 
 "Paul's choir and divers other parishes in London'* 
 writes Wriothesley "sung all the service in english, 
 both matins and evensong, and kept no mass without 
 some received the communion with the priest'' *. 
 
 Also "on the 12th of May (1548) king Henry YII 
 anniversary was kept at Westminster; the mass sung 
 all in english with the consecration of the Sacrament 
 also spoken in english, the priest leaving out all the- 
 canon after the creed save the Pater Noster and then 
 ministered the communion after the kings book". 
 The sermon at this mass was "made by Mr. Tong 
 the king's chaplain" •\ 
 
 The description of this service at Westminster is- 
 strikingly like a mass on the model of Luther's 
 so called " Latin mass ", with the addition of the 
 
 ^ Camden. Soc. p. 55. 
 
 2 Chronicle. Camden Soc. II, p. 2. If the answers of Cranmer 
 to the questions 1. 2. 5 and 6 noticed in the last chapter are- 
 considered, there can be little doubt as to the inspiration of this- 
 latter regulation. 
 
 ^ Wriothesley. ibid. In the churchwardens' accounts of St. 
 Michael's Cornhill for 1548, occurs this item: "Paid to the school- 
 master of Paul's for writing of the mass in english and the- 
 Benedicites (sic) 5 shillings": also "eight psalters in english" were 
 bought (ed. Overall, pp. 67, 68.) 
 
Proclamations and Preaching. 103 
 
 "Order of Communion" put forth in the previous 
 March. It is impossible also not to see in it a first draft 
 of "the supper of the Lord, commonly called the 
 mass*' as it appeared in the first Book of Common 
 Prayer issued the next year. The question further 
 arises what " matins and even-song " had been used in 
 euglish by certain London churches in the May of the 
 year 1548? Were they a translation of the daily varying 
 ofiices of the ancient breviary ; or did they resemble the 
 unvarying services of the subsequent Prayer Book? 
 Less than a fortnight after this strange service at 
 Westminster, John ab Ulmis, a Swiss studying at 
 Oxford, writes to Bullinger his first impressions, 
 evidently somewhat exaggerated, of the religious 
 situation in England. "The number of faithful" he 
 says "is daily encreasing in vast multitudes more 
 and more. The mass, that darling of the papists, is 
 shaken and in many places it is dismissed. The 
 images too are extirpated root and branch in every 
 part of England nor is there left the least trace 
 which can aflPord a hope or handle to the papists 
 for confirming their error respecting images. Peter 
 Martyr has maintained the cause of the Eucharist 
 and Holy Supper of the Lord; namely that it is a 
 remembrance of Christ and a solemn setting forth 
 of his death and not a sacrifice. Meanwhile however 
 he speaks with caution and prudence, if indeed it 
 can be called such, with respect to the real presence, 
 so as not to seem to incline either to your opinion 
 or to that of Luther. But the public preachers for 
 the most part openly and candidly confute according 
 to their ability the notion of a carnal partaking and 
 have brought over a considerable number to this 
 their opinion. The capernaites, papists and this class 
 of sarcophagists are not sleeping " '. 
 
 ^) Orig. Lett. Parker Soc. pp. 377—8. 
 
104: Proclainations and Preaching. 
 
 Although it is clear from the rest of this lettei 
 that the writer could not have had intimate know- 
 ledge of what was taking place in England, still 
 his first impressions of the situation are valuable. 
 In regard to the boldness with which preachers in 
 their sermons attacked Catholic practices he is 
 undoubtedly correct in what he says. Thus in his 
 famous sermon " of the Plough " preached at St. Paul's 
 on 18 January of this year 1548, under the eye of 
 the court, Latimer had plainly inveighed against 
 Catholic usages, declaring them and the mass itself 
 to be the work of the devil. "His office" said he "is 
 to hinder religion, to maintain superstition, to set 
 up idolatry, to teach all kind of popery . . . Where 
 the devil is resident, and hath his plough going, 
 there away with books, and up with candles; away 
 with bibles, and up with beads; away with the 
 light of the Gospel, and up with the light of candles 
 yea at noon-days. Where the devil is resident, that 
 he may prevail, up with all superstition and idolatry ; 
 censing, painting of images, candles, palms, ashes, 
 holy water and new service of men's inventing; 
 . . . Down with Christ's cross, up with purgatory 
 pickpurse, up with him, the popish purgatory, I 
 mean ... Let all things be done in latin: there 
 must be nothing but latin, not so much as metnento 
 homo quod cinis es, et in cinerem reverteris, which be 
 the words that the minister speaketh unto the ignor- 
 ant people, when he giveth them ashes upon Ash- 
 Wednesday, but it must be spoken in latin; God's 
 word may in no wise be translated into english". ' 
 
 Further "this is the mark at which the devil 
 shooteth, to evacuate the cross of Christ, and to 
 mingle the institution of the Lord's supper. . . These 
 
 ^ Latimer Sermons. Parker Soc. pp. 70—71. 
 
Proclamations and Preaching. 105 
 
 1500 years he hath been a doer, only purposing to 
 evacuate Christ's death and to raake it of small 
 efficacy and virtue. For whereas Christ, according 
 as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, so 
 would he himself be exalted, that thereby as many 
 as trusted in him should have salvation, but the 
 devil would none of that: they would have us saved 
 by a daily oblation propitiatory, by a sacrifice expi- 
 atory or remissory" \ The autobiography of Thomas 
 Hancock, a preacher licensed by archbishop Cranmer, 
 affords another specimen of the sermons countenan- 
 ced and protected by authority at this period. The 
 narrative covers the close of the year 1547 and the 
 beginning of 1548. Preaching at Christ Church in 
 Hampshire, his native place, in the presence of the 
 vicar " the priest being then at mass, I declared " 
 he says, " unto the people that what the priest doth 
 hold over his head, they did see with their bodily 
 eyes; but oar Saviour Christ doth" in the text 
 ^ Because 1 go to the Father ' (John XVI. 8) " say plainly 
 that we shall see him no more. Then you that do 
 kneel unto it, pray unto it and honour it as God, 
 do make an idol of it and yourselves do commit 
 most horrible idolatry " ^. 
 
 Not long after this, apparently on 31 January 1548, 
 he preached in the church of St. Thomas at Salisbury 
 in the presence of the chancellors of the bishops of 
 Salisbury and Winchester and divers other priests 
 and laymen. After inveighing against *" superstitious 
 ceremonies, as holy bread, holy water, images, copes, 
 vestments &c'' he proceeded "at the last against 
 the idol of the altar, proving it to be an idol and 
 no God". Once more he told his audience "that 
 
 ' Ibid. pp. 72-3. 
 
 - Narratives of the Reformation. Camd. Soc. p. 72. 
 
106 Proclamations and Preaching, 
 
 which the priest holdeth over his head you do see^ 
 you kneel before it, you honour it and make an 
 idol of it and you yourselves are most horrible 
 idolaters" \ 
 
 Such was the tenor of the sermons of a preacher 
 licensed by the archbishop to a people still Catholic 
 in heart and belief. In the circumstances what 
 could the Catholic clergy, powerless to prevent one 
 sent with authority from speaking, do, but leave the 
 church as they actually did; Hancock meantime 
 "charging them that they were not of God, because 
 they refused to hear the word of God". The civil 
 powders, however, did not consider themselves bound 
 by Cranmer's licence ; and " the sermon being ended, 
 the mayor Mr. Thomas Chafyn came unto me, lay- 
 ing to my charge a proclamation, in the which was 
 commandment given that we should give no nick- 
 name unto the Sacrament, as round rohbin or Jack in 
 the box ; whereto I answered, that it was no Sacra- 
 ment, but an idol, as they do use it. At that timo 
 was one Hunt and Richard White committed to the 
 gaol for such cause by Dr. Geffrey, who was chan- 
 cellor to bishop Capon, and so would the mayor also 
 have committed me to the gaol had not six honest 
 men been bound for me, that I should answer at 
 the next assizes" ^ 
 
 At these assizes Hancock was bound in his own 
 recognizances of £ 90 and in those of ten others of 
 £ 10 each "that he should not go before the king 
 in his proceedings". "This done I rode from Salis- 
 bury unto my lord of Somersets grace who lay at 
 that time at Sion. I requested his grace that I might 
 have his letter for the discharge of them that were 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 73. 
 
 2 pp. 73-4. 
 
Proclamations and Preaching, 107 
 
 bound for me: he caused my lord treasurer, hi& 
 honour that now is, who then was master of the 
 requests ', to write to my lord chief justice for the 
 discharge of the bond . . . And thus were my friends 
 of Sarum that were bound for me discharged of 
 their bond "^ 
 
 Such countenance from Somerset could hardly fail 
 to encourage a man of Hancock's mind, especially as 
 he was forthwith made " minister of God's word in 
 the town of Poole". Here he had the same gospel 
 to deliver. And when, some Sunday in Juli, dilating 
 on his old theme that God was invisible "the priest 
 at that time being at mass", he went on to say: "if 
 it be so that no man hath seen God, nor can see 
 God with these bodily eyes, then that which the 
 priest lifteth over his head is not God, for you do 
 see it with your bodily eyes, — if it be not God, 
 you may not honour it as God nor for God. Where- 
 at one Thomas Whyte, a great rich merchant and 
 a ringleader of the papists, rose out of his seat and 
 went out of the church saying, 'come from him 
 good people ; he came from the devil and teacheth 
 unto you devilish doctrine'. John Northerell, alias 
 John Spicer, followed him saying, *It shall be God 
 when thou shalt be but a knave ' ^ 
 
 Hancock's preaching at this place also and his 
 conduct to the clergy whom, though he was merely 
 a preacher, he considered to be at his command, 
 resulted towards the close of 1548 in a riot. Once 
 more he had recourse to Somerset and through him 
 obtained " another letter for my quietness in preach- 
 ing God's word in the town of Poole'' \ 
 
 ^ William Cecil (afterwards Lord Burghley). 
 
 -^ pp. 76-7. 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 78. 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 79. The whole narrative deserves to be read. It is 
 
108 Froclamations and Preaching, 
 
 The men primarily responsible for these scandals 
 were obviously Somerset and Cranmer. To the latter 
 by proclamation dated 24 April 1548 was reserved 
 the sole power of granting permission to preach; 
 "all manner of other preachers being inhibited". ' 
 Early in June (1548) instructions were issued by the 
 Privy Council to all the licensed preachers, and the 
 object was as usual declared to be to secure " quiet- 
 ness". The means to be taken thereto was "to 
 instil" into the people "their duty to their heads 
 and rulers; obedience to laws and orders appointed 
 by the superiors who have rule of God ". Wherefore 
 the royal preachers were admonished " that in no 
 wise they do stir and provoke the people to any 
 alteration or innovation other than is already set 
 forth by the king's Majesty's injunctions, homilies 
 and proclamations . . . Rebuking those who will take 
 upon them to run before they be sent, to go before 
 the rulers, to alter and change things in religion 
 without authority ; teaching them to expect and tarry 
 the time which God hath ordained to the revealing 
 of all truth ". Bearing in mind also that " it is not a 
 preacher's part to bring that into contempt and hatred 
 which the prince doth either allow or is content to 
 sutler". Meantime, as the proclamation goes on to 
 declare, "the king's Highness by our advice . . . doth 
 not cease to labour and travail by all godly means 
 that his realm may be brought and kept in a most 
 godly and Christian order, who only may and ought 
 to do it". 
 
 particularly interesting as showing how Somerset made himself 
 personally accessible to preachers of this type and how readily 
 any "going before" the king's proceedings was condoned. It is 
 instructive, too, as to the attitude of the people towards the 
 innovators. 
 
 1 Heylyn. Eccl. Rest. I pp. 59-60. 
 
Proclamations and Preaching, 109 
 
 At the same time it was "not his Majesty's mind 
 to extinct . . . the lively teaching of the word of God 
 by sermons made after such sort as for the time 
 the Holy Ghost shall put into the preacher's mind". 
 And whilst inculcating humility and patience, and 
 comforting the weak, the preachers were not to he- 
 sitate to teach the people the right way; "and to 
 flee all erroneous superstitions, as the confidence in 
 pardons, pilgrimages, beads, religious images and 
 other such of the bishop of Rome's traditions and 
 superstitions, with his usurped power". 
 
 In a word the duty of the king's preacher is 
 declared to be " obediently (to) follow himself and 
 teach likewise others to follow and observe that 
 which is commanded", and generally, "not to think 
 himself wiser than the king's majesty and his Coun- 
 cil". Lastly the Council is of opinion that " what is 
 abolished, taken away, reformed and commanded it 
 is easy to see by the acts of parliament the injunc- 
 tions, proclamations and homilies ". ^ 
 
 This and similar documents, as well as the general 
 tenor of the ecclesiastical acts of the government 
 in the reign of Edward YI, show that a startling 
 and marked change had taken place in the idea of 
 the Church and of the nature of spiritual power since 
 the death of Henry VIII. Although Edward's father 
 claimed in its fulness the powers of supreme Head, 
 the idea of the Church with an actual spiritual 
 jurisdiction was still a living reality to him. But 
 the governing powers under Edward nowhere, either 
 in their declarations or actions, show that they 
 recognized any such idea. All was summed up in 
 the "royal and kingly office". 
 
 ' Burnet. II. 2. pp. 130-2, letter of the Council, dated 13 May 
 and "printed at London 1 June 1548". 
 
110 Proclafnations aiid Preaching. 
 
 Somerset and Cranraer through their licensed preach- 
 ers thus used the pulpit as a means for bringing 
 about the changes which they desired. It was em- 
 ployed also for another purpose. By requiring men 
 known to be unfavourable to change to preach pub- 
 licly at Paul's Cross on certain prescribed topics 
 they put their most prominent opponents to a public 
 test of compliance with the "king's proceedings". 
 Bishop Gardiner was the first to be subjected to this 
 novel mode of trial. 
 
 This prelate had been released from the Fleet 
 prison, where he had been kept during the sitting 
 of Parliament, on 7 January 1548. Although told that 
 he was included in a general pardon he was asked 
 before leaving his prison to sign a form "touching 
 justification". On Thursday (January 12) he went to 
 Somerset's house at Sheen, with his written opinion 
 on the subject ; this however not being satisfactory 
 seven days later he was required to appear before 
 the Council, when, for refusing to adopt the required 
 form, he was committed to his own house as a prisoner. 
 
 In Lent however he was discharged and allowed 
 to return to his episcopal duties at Winchester. But 
 within a fortnight of his coming home " other business 
 came out of a request made by Somerset to sur- 
 render a college at Cambridge". On Easter Sunday 
 (1 April 1548) the Council sent him a letter from 
 Greenwich, stating that they had been lately adver- 
 tised of disorders of seditious persons in Winchester, 
 a great part being traced to the bishop's servants 
 and others turning people's minds against things 
 ordered by the king's authority. The Council con- 
 sequently direct that the bishop is to dismiss his 
 servants "and also to the end his lordship should 
 bear no suspicion of the blame imputed to his ser- 
 vants" he is commanded "to put himself in order 
 
Proclamations and Preaching, 111 
 
 to repair up hither, within fourteen days next 
 ensuing, here to remain ". * 
 
 Gardiner pleaded sickness and was respited, but 
 three days before Whitsunday (20 May 1548) other 
 letters peremptorily ordered him to wait on the 
 Oouncil, his plea of sickness not being credited. Being 
 at the time unable to ride he was carried to London 
 in a horse litter. On his appearance before the Council 
 Somerset objected certain articles "written in a 
 paper " against him, including the maintenance of 
 certain ceremonies in his Cathedral at Winchester 
 during the past Holy Week. * 
 
 The replies made by the bishop not being deemed 
 sufficient Somerset commanded him to remain in 
 London. This he objected to do, if he was to be 
 considered a prisoner, and in the end he was ordered 
 to write his mind on " ceremonies ". 
 
 For the next month no further step appears to 
 have been taken ; but towards the end of the month 
 of June he was ordered to preach a sermon approv- 
 ing what had been done in regard to the Pope, 
 the suppression of monasteries, shrines and chantries, 
 the abolition of candles and ashes, the obligation of 
 auricular confession, and processions, and the estab- 
 lishment of Common Prayer in english.'^ The feast 
 of SS. Peter and Paul (29 June) was fixed for this 
 compulsory sermon. 
 
 He was consequently not merely commanded to 
 
 1 Council Bk. Harl. Ms. 352 f. 68 d. 
 
 ^ Among the points objected to Gardiner was that he had 
 allowed " the Easter Sepulchre ". This practice had not been 
 forbidden, though doubtless it was like other ancient ceremonies 
 distasteful to those in power. 
 
 ^ It will be noticed tha-t this was ordered in June 1548, when 
 the Common Prayer in ejnglish had not yet been imposed, or 
 even publicly proposed. 
 
112 Proclamations and Preaching, 
 
 express his approval of what had actually been 
 done, but also of what Somerset and Cranmer 
 proposed to do. Cecil was deputed to convey the 
 Protector's orders to the bishop. It was first proposed 
 that Gardiner should submit the draft of his sermon 
 for examination and approval. This he refused, main- 
 taining that he was no offender; he also refused to 
 preach "papers of another man's device". Upon 
 this refusal he became for a few hours, as he himself 
 declares, practically a prisoner in Somerset's house. 
 
 On Monday, 25 June, Cecil warned him that the 
 king himself would note every principal sentence 
 " and especially if it touched the King's Majesty ". 
 Two days later Cecil was again sent to urge the 
 bishop not to touch in his sermon upon the Sa- 
 crament of the altar and the mass, since "tha 
 questions and controversies rest at the present in 
 consultation and with the pleasure of Grod shall be 
 in small time by public doctrine and authority 
 quietly and truly determined ". ^ 
 
 Gardiner replied "that he could no wise forbear 
 to speak of the Sacrament, neither of the mass; 
 this last being the chief foundation of our religion^ 
 and that without it we cannot know that Christ is 
 our sacrifice". And as to the Blessed Sacrament he 
 declared that, as it was then so defamed by many, 
 if he did not speak his mind and what he thought 
 of it he knew what other men would think of him. 
 He concluded by expressing his desire that Somerset, 
 would not meddle in these matters of religion, but 
 that the care of them should be committed to the 
 bishops " unto whom the blame, if any should be- 
 deserved, might well be imputed ". ^ 
 
 ^ Somerset to Gardiner. Burnet 11. 2. p. 154. 
 •^ Ibid. p. 155. 
 
Proclamations and Preaching, 113 
 
 The followiDg day, Thursday 28 June, the Protector 
 communicated his mind to Gardiner in regal style. 
 He expressly ordered him by the king's authority 
 to abstain from treating of any matter of controversy 
 concerning the Sacrament and the mass, which was 
 "necessarily reserved for a public consultation and 
 at this present utterly to be forborne for the 
 common quiet". 
 
 The tone of this letter, which reached the bishop 
 between three and four in the afternoon of the 
 day before his sermon, gave him material for re- 
 flection. "From four o'clock on Thursday" he says 
 " till I had done my sermon on Friday I did neither 
 drink, eat nor sleep". 
 
 The actual scene of the sermon cannot be better 
 described than in the words of one who shows 
 himself always well informed and who records the 
 rumours, true or false, current at the time, as to 
 the circumstances under which Gardiner was com- 
 pelled to preach. " The day before yesterday " writes 
 Odet de Selve to the french king "the bishop 
 of Winchester preached at great length before the 
 king of England and all the Council and a great 
 multitude of people. He maintained, as I have heard, 
 the direct contrary of all the new opinions now 
 approved, . . . especially in regard to the mass and 
 Holy Sacrament of the altar ; saying that he would 
 rather be burnt a hundred times than deviate from 
 what the Church has determined thereupon : and that 
 he would think himself happy to die in such a 
 quarrel. And yesterday evening he was taken a pri- 
 soner to the Tower, which every one thinks he will 
 never leave unless it be to lose his life, for he was 
 marvellously vehement, as people are saying, in con- 
 demning the innovations in this country, even to the 
 point of saying to the king's face that he could not 
 
 I 
 
114: Proclamations and Preaching. 
 
 and ought not to usurp the title of Supreme Head 
 of the Church ^ Some say that he had been expressly- 
 ordered to preach this sermon in public and in 
 presence of the king of England, to declare and set 
 forth what he held on each point of religion enjoined 
 by the king, because he had refused to put his judg- 
 ment on paper; so that he was forced either to 
 speak against his conscience or to say what he has 
 said. And others who are unfavourable to him say 
 that he himself had schemed to preach this sermon 
 before the king to get a hearing for this once, so 
 as to disburden himself of what he had in his heart" \ 
 The story would not be complete without some 
 account of the official version put forth of the whole 
 process against Gardiner. On Sunday, 1 July, the 
 Council addressed a letter to the english ambassa- 
 dors abroad to enable them to declare where ne- 
 cessary "the manner of Grardiner's proceedings, the 
 warning given and great favour ^, many ways showed 
 to him". The letter sets forth that the king, by the 
 advice of the lord Protector and the Council " thinking 
 requisite for sundry considerations to have a general 
 visitation throughout the realm *, and, by the advice 
 of sundry bishops and other the best learned men 
 of the realm, appointed certain orders and injunc- 
 tions to be generally observed". These orders were 
 
 1 There is nothing in the sermon as recorded which bears 
 out this statement. Nor is it likely in the circumstances that 
 Gardiner would have taken this line. It was probably founded 
 on rumour and shows at least the excited state of the public 
 mind. 
 
 * Inventaire Analytique &c. pp. 897—8. 
 
 ^ In the original draft the word was gentleness^ afterwards 
 changed into favour. 
 
 ^ In the draft originally the expression was : " thinking good 
 to have many abuses reformed". 
 
Proclamations and Preaching. 115 
 
 * of all men of all sorts obediently received and 
 executed saving only by this man v^ho . . . showed 
 such a v^ilful disobedience therein as, if it had not 
 been quickly espied, might have bred much unquiet- 
 ness and trouble. For his lewd proceedings ... he 
 was only sequestered to the Fleet where he remained 
 for a short time as much at his ease as if he had 
 been in his own house".' On promise of conformity 
 he was liberated and allowed to return to his diocese 
 which became a scene of contention. " Besides this 
 we were informed that, to withstand such as he 
 thought to have been from us, he had caused all his 
 servants to be secretly armed and harnessed". 
 
 " When called before the Council upon a renewed 
 promise we did yet leave him at liberty, only requir- 
 ing him to remain at his house of London. . . He 
 was no sooner come to his house but he began to 
 meddle in matters where he neither had commission 
 nor authority, in such matters also as touched the 
 king's Majesty's right; and being yet again admon- 
 ished by us, the Lord Protector, he did not only 
 promise to conform himself in all things like a good 
 subject, but also, because he understood that he was 
 diversely reported of, and many were also offended 
 with him, he offered to declare to the world his 
 conformity, and promised in an open sermon so to 
 (declare) his mind in sundry articles agreed upon, 
 that such as had been offended should not from 
 thenceforth have any such cause to be offended, but 
 well satisfied in all things: declaring further that 
 as he, in his own conscience was well satisfied and 
 liked well the king's Majesty's proceedings within 
 this realm, so would he utter his conscience abroad 
 to the satisfaction and good quiet of others". 
 
 ' Cf. Gardiner's account p. 58, ante. 
 
116 Proclamations and FreacJiing. 
 
 ''And yet all this notwithstanding at the day 
 appointed he did both most arrogantly and disobe- 
 diently speak of certain matters contrary to an express 
 commandment given unto him ; and also in the rest 
 of the articles whereunto he had agreed before, he 
 used such a seditious manner of utterance in the 
 presence of the king's Majesty, of us all, and of a 
 very great audience, as was very like to have even 
 there publicly stirred a great tumult". 
 
 " He has showed himself" the Council concluded 
 " an open great offender and very seditious man ". ' 
 
 Gardiner's sermon ^ has rightly been described as 
 one of the most remarkable documents of the age. 
 It would not be proper to take it as a free and 
 unfettered expression of his preferences, or as a de- 
 claration of his opinion as to what in itself was best 
 or most fitting. The bishop took the circumstances 
 as he found them and "condescended" to measures 
 he had no power to hinder. This method of com- 
 pliance was deliberately adopted in the hope of saving 
 the essential feature of the ancient system which 
 still remained. On reading his sermon there can be no 
 doubt as to his intention and aim. He accepted what 
 had been done in order to secure at least the main- 
 tenance of the mass. 
 
 Had Gardiner been met "in a like mind by the 
 reformers" not only "England might never have had 
 to lament the Marian persecution"; but the nation 
 might have been spared much that is most painful 
 in its later religious history. 
 
 1 State Papers. Domestic. Ed. VI. Volume IV No. 20. (1 July 
 1548). 
 
 2 In C. C. C. C. MS. 127 f. 15 seqq: are notes of this 
 sermon taken probably at the time. Though agreeing in sense 
 they differ considerably in expression from the printed version. 
 
Proclamations and Pf^eaching. 117 
 
 But this question had already been decided in the 
 minds of those who had the real control of eccle- 
 siastical affairs. There was no hesitation on their 
 part as to the answer to be given him. The next 
 night he was lodged in the Tower of London. " There 
 for a whole year less six days" he writes ''l was 
 left unheard, not seeing any man except my chaplain 
 once when I was ill, and from morning to night on 
 Easter day"^ 
 
 1 Foxe VI. p. 72. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE PKESS AND THE MASS. 
 
 The pulpit was not the only means at the disposal 
 of the government to prepare the way for the changes 
 now meditated. The press, although apparently not 
 so immediately under control as the pulpit, was at 
 this date really in the power of the rulers. Here 
 and there possibly a book might be published bear- 
 ing the name of author and printer which was 
 distasteful to Cranmer and the Council, but there 
 can be no doubt that this would be done at the 
 peril of those concerned. And as a fact on examining 
 the bibliography of these years it is remarkable 
 that hardly a single book or pamphlet written in 
 support of the ancient doctrines appears to have 
 been issued from the english press. Such treatises 
 as those of Gardiner and Tunstall in behalf of 
 the Sacrament had to be printed abroad, or if in 
 England in secret. 
 
 On the other hand, the country was flooded with 
 works, either translations of the labours of foreign 
 reformers, or original compositions, inveighing against 
 Catholic observance and especially against the mass. 
 These bore the name of author or printer and were 
 mostly of the booklet class, which could be sold 
 
The Press and the Mass, 119 
 
 for a few pence and were evidently designed for 
 wide circulation among the people. In the circum- 
 stances there can be no doubt whatever, that this 
 style of literature, which is so abundant, could not 
 have had currency without the connivance or the 
 good will of the government, and that it really 
 represents beyond question their wishes and inten- 
 tions. Not merely was the circulation of such literature, 
 which is chiefly of a profane and scurrilous character, 
 not prohibited or even moderated by any of the 
 numerous proclamations of the time, but express 
 licence was given to printers of such works. 
 
 In 1547 these books are not numerous and were 
 mostly printed abroad. Thus an english translation 
 of Marcourt's " Declaration of the mass " was printed 
 at Wittenberg, and a translation of Luther's "Disclos- 
 ures of the Canon of the popish mass " was imprinted 
 at " Have-at-all-papists ", and was perhaps a secret 
 publication of some english press. Bale was busy 
 against the " papists " and the " mass " at Marburg, 
 and Hooper published at Zurich, his answer to 
 bishop Gardiner's work on the Sacrament which 
 had appeared the preceding year ^ 
 
 These books, aimed at Catholic customs and prac- 
 tices, were even in this year not circulated by stealth, 
 as would have been necessary in Henry's reign, but 
 were hawked about in the market towns for public 
 sale. Thus as early as the end of May 1547 bishop 
 
 ^ According to Bullinger's diary Hooper had arrived in Zurich 
 on 29 March 1547 (Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger, p. 634) and 
 Bullinger took him and his wife to reside in his own house, 
 as he could not find a suitable lodging for him elsewhere. "I 
 took him in gladly" writes Bullinger to Micronius in April 
 " and with all my heart, for he is it seems to me a straight- 
 forward Christian". (Ibid. p. 258.) 
 
120 The Press and the Mass, 
 
 Gardiner had written to Somerset that he had " seen 
 of late two books set forth in english, by Bale, very 
 pernicious, seditious and slanderous against religion". 
 It grieved him "not a little to see so soon after" 
 Henry's death these books "spread abroad" and 
 "certain printers, players and preachers make a 
 wonderment, as though we knew not yet how to be 
 justified, nor what sacraments we should have " '. 
 And a fortnight later he again writes : "as for Jack- 
 o-Lent's English Testament, it was sold in Winches- 
 ter market, before I wrote unto your grace of it: 
 and as for Bale's book, called the Elucidation of 
 Anne Ashew's martyrdom, they were in these parts 
 common, some with leaves unglued where master 
 Paget was spoken of, and some with leaves glued. 
 And I call them common, because I saw, at the 
 least, four of them. As for Bale's book, touching 
 the death of Luther, wherein was the duke of Saxony's 
 prayer (whereof 1 wrote) it was brought down into 
 this country by an honest gentleman, to whom it 
 was given in London for news" ^. 
 
 The books of 1547 opened the campaign against 
 the mass: their general theme was the "enormities" 
 of the Canon. By the old doctrine of transubstantiation 
 "they have proved" writes Marcourt "almost the 
 universal world to open and manifest idolatry" ^ 
 Hooper had not yet made up his mind as to the 
 Canon. "It should seem" he writes "by the canon 
 of the mass that is at this day read, which was 
 written in Gregory's time, that the mass was a com- 
 munion ". But as for private mass he was already 
 convinced that it was " wicked and devilish " *. In 
 
 1 Foxe VI. p. 30. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 39. 6 June 1547. 
 
 ^ A declaration of the mass, Biii. 
 
 ** Hooper. Early Writings. Parker Soc. p. 226 
 
The Press and the Mass. 121 
 
 his then frame of mind he considered that the Holy- 
 Supper was "to be used as a communion unto all 
 under both kinds, and not be made a mass that 
 blasphemeth God. For such as honour the bread there 
 for God do no less idolatry than they that made the 
 sun their god or stars" \ 
 
 The great publication of this first year of Edward's 
 reign was however the " Paraphrase of Erasmus " 
 in its official english translation. Ofthis book bishop 
 Gardiner complains very vehemently to Somerset 
 calling attention to many false translations and 
 errors. Especially he notes that " if this paraphrase 
 go abroad, people shall be learned to call the 
 Sacrament of the altar, ^ holy bread' and a 'symbol' ^ 
 
 At the close of the year the policy of the rulers 
 became less guarded and the floodgates were opened. 
 On 26 November 1547, the day upon which the bill 
 for communion under both kinds was first read in 
 the Lords, a licence was granted to Walter Lynne 
 "to print or cause to be printed a certain book 
 which is called in our vulgar tongue ' The beginning 
 and ending of all popery ', and all other manner of 
 books consonant to godliness "^ This work, a book 
 with pictures, was filled with abuse of everything 
 Catholic and was dedicated to the king himself 
 and the Lord Protector. After such an advertisement 
 no one could well fail to understand what was 
 pleasing in the highest quarters. * 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 139. 
 
 2 Foxe. ed. Townsend VI. p. 42. 
 
 3 R. 0. Privy Seals 1 Ed. VI. Strype [Eccl. Mem. 11 p. 182) 
 notes that a work by one " Luke, a physician " of London called 
 John Boon and Master Far son took much at court at this time 
 and the courtiers wore it in their pockets. No opportunity has 
 occurred of examining John Boon. 
 
 ^ This regulation of the press is illustrated at a later 
 
122 The Press and the Mass. 
 
 In the year 1548 between twenty and thirty of 
 such books against the Blessed Sacrament and the 
 mass were published. They can in no sense be called 
 books of controversy but were filled with blasphem- 
 ous and profane abuse. Those moreover which are 
 now known can only be regarded as samples of 
 what actually were printed, since, as is obvious, such 
 booklets readily disappear and those which survive 
 are extreme rarities. Even the greatest public libraries 
 do not contain copies of all that are known. A few 
 extracts from the less scurrilous will be sufficient to 
 indicate the temper displayed in them generally. 
 
 Anthony Gil by opened the way by an answer to 
 bishop Gardiner's book on the Sacrament. It was 
 published in January 1548, and it complains that the 
 bishop's book in exposition of the Catholic doctrine 
 of the Sacrament " is spread everywhere and received 
 in many places more reverently than the blessed 
 Bible, the holy word of God'\ The Sacrament itself, 
 the author of the reply stigmatizes "as the popish 
 idol, the dumb God and poetical changeling". He 
 points at Bucer's teachings on the subject; and whilst 
 admitting that the German doctor had confuted 
 "popish doctrine" he condemns the obscurity of the 
 language of those who are " not content to say plainly 
 a spade. As for me" he says "I have learnt to call 
 bread, bread, and to speak al things plainly... Ton 
 however," meaning the papists as he calls them, "will 
 have a carnal change, a carnal presence, a carnal 
 
 date by a letter of Cranmer asking Cecil to obtain permis- 
 sion for him to publish his reply to Gardiner's book on the 
 Sacrament. " And forasmuch " he writes " as both printing and 
 selling of any matters in the english tongue is prohibited by a 
 proclamation set forth, unless the same matter be first allowed 
 by the king's Majesty, or six of his Majesty's Privy Council " he 
 begs to have that leave. (Eemains, Parker Soc. pp. 429—30). 
 
The Press mid the Mass. 12^ 
 
 sacrifice ; a piece of paste, as we say, flesh and blood 
 as ye say, to be carnally worshipped with fond gest- 
 ures, a creature to be made a creator, a vile cake 
 to be made God and man" '. 
 
 An anonymous " Christian " thus utters his " Lamen- 
 tacyon against the city of London for some certain 
 great vices used therein". "The great part of these 
 inordinate rich, stiffnecked citizens will not have 
 in their houses that lively word of our souls, nor 
 suffer their servants to have it, neither yet gladly 
 read it nor hear it read . . . Also the greatest part 
 of the seniors or aldermen with the multitude of 
 the inordinate rich. Even as the rich cried out against 
 Christ . . . even so do the rich of the city of London 
 take part and be fully bent with the false prophets 
 the bishops and other stout, strong and sturdy priests 
 of Baal to persecute unto death all and every godly 
 person which either preacheth the word of God or 
 setteth it forth in writing". 
 
 Then, after reprobating various Catholic practices 
 especially the invocation of Saints and honouring 
 our Lady with the title of ''Queen of Heaven", the 
 writer proceeds: "Ye will (to) have the service of 
 God maintained in the church to God's honour and 
 yet by the same service is God dishonoured, for the 
 Supper of the Lord is perverted and not used after 
 Christ's institution . . . and so is that holy institution 
 turned into a vain superstitious ceremonial mass" 
 and "thus hath he changed the holy memory of 
 Christ's death into the worshipping of his God, made 
 of fine flour" *. 
 
 These two specimens must suffice for a class of 
 
 ^ An answer to the devillish detection of S. Gardiner Bp. 
 of Winchester, ff VI, XVI &c. 
 
 2 The Lamentacyon &c. A. D. 1548. b ii and c vii. 
 
124 The Press and the Mass. 
 
 literature which cannot but strike the reader with 
 a sense of horror. The government never checked 
 the issue of these productions, although, at the time, 
 the doctrine against which they were directed was 
 the received faith of the english people. The writers 
 were mostly english although they drew their in- 
 spiration from abroad. The engrossing topic of Henry's 
 divorce and the work of suppressing the monasteries 
 had drawn away the attention of the nation at large 
 from other matters; yet ever since Henry VIII and 
 Fisher intervened in religious controversy with (Eco- 
 lampadius and Luther, England was never isolated 
 from the religious movements of the time. Foreigners 
 were perfectly well aware of all that was taking 
 place in England. They were kept informed by many 
 channels of communication besides their intercourse 
 with the religious exiles whom the strong measures 
 of Henry against the new doctrines had forced to 
 seek a resting place abroad. The hope entertained 
 by the foreign reformers of seeing England drawn 
 into the stream of change, kept up in them a living 
 interest in the religious dispositions of the country \ 
 Henry's hand was heavy on the innovators, at least 
 in the later years of his reign, and so far as was 
 possible he kept their books and their teaching 
 from being disseminated among his people. With 
 
 ^ The attempt to bring England and Protestant Germany into 
 line in 1544—5 seems to have had its origin with Bucer. See 
 Lenz, BriefwecJisel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmiltliigen von 
 Hessen mit Bucer, II. p 275. Bucer's opinion of Henry is inte- 
 resting : "Der konig ist fiir sein person wie erist; so sind andere 
 konig auch wie sie sind " (p. 273 cf. p. 268). But one consi- 
 deration outweighed all the rest : * Coll en ist ja ein schwer 
 exempel, dass unss guter und mechtiger freunden auch wol 
 konde von noten sein " (p. 274). 
 
The Press and the Mass. 125 
 
 Edward's accession, however, the will to restrain the 
 circulation of the works of foreign reformers ceased 
 to exist. 
 
 The knowledge of books and their diffusion even 
 in distant parts was much more easy and rapid in 
 the middle of the sixteenth century than is now com- 
 monly realized. It has already been pointed out that 
 copies of the new Order of Communion which appeared 
 in England in the spring of 1548 could be bought at 
 Frankfort fair within a fortnight of its issue from 
 the english press. And its translation had probably 
 been perused by Calvin almost as soon as it had 
 reached the clergy in the more remote parts of 
 England. 
 
 During the year 1547 translations of two treatises 
 by Melancthon had appeared, the first a tract on 
 justification, the second an epistle to Henry VIII on the 
 Six Articles. This latter, perhaps as touching the king's 
 Majesty, bears no indication where it was printed* 
 In the following year (1548) english versions of the 
 works of many foreign reformers were issued from 
 the press for english instruction. These were hardly 
 less numerous than the original works. Amongst 
 them were translations from the works of Luther, 
 Zwingb', Calvin, Melancthon, Bullinger, Urbanus 
 Regius, Osiander, Hegendorp, and Bodius '. Even a 
 translation of a little anonymous tract from Osian- 
 der's town of Nuremberg appeared in this year. This 
 " Disputation between a Christian shoemaker and a 
 
 ^ Among the translations from Calvin of a later date that 
 of his Catechism and Form of Common Prayers used in the 
 Church of Geneva was printed by Whitchurch, one of the printers 
 of the Prayer Book on 3 June 1550. Two editions of a trans- 
 lation of the Pia Considtatio or Cologne Eeformatlon of arch- 
 bishop Hermann had appeared in 1547 and 1548. 
 
126 The Press and the Mass. 
 
 papist parson in Nuremberg" was intended to hold 
 the clergy up to ridicule. Their occupations, and in 
 particular the recitation of the divine office were 
 the mark of much playful satire. Walter Lynne, who 
 had been particularly licensed to set forth works of 
 godliness, was especially remarkable for the number 
 of translations of Luther's works which he issued 
 this year (1548) from his place "by Billingsgate ''. 
 
 Of these translations, also, many without doubt 
 have disappeared and those now known may also be 
 regarded as specimens only. In considering the liter- 
 ature of the period account must be taken also of 
 the original prints of the works of the foreign reformers 
 which found their way to England \ 
 
 Throughout the bulk of these books, originals and 
 translations, the central point of attack is the Sa- 
 crament and the mass. This is the case whatever may 
 have been the particular leaning oi the authors, 
 whether to the views of Luther and Melancthon or 
 to those of Zwingli: and Bullinger. 
 
 "Four principal theories'' writes Hallam, "to say 
 nothing of subordinate varieties, divided Europe at 
 the accession of Edward VI. about the Sacrament of 
 the Eucharist. 
 
 (1) "The church of Rome would not depart a single 
 letter from transuhstantiation, or the change at the 
 moment of consecration of the substances of bread and 
 wine into those of Christ's body and blood". 
 
 (2) " Luther, partly as it seems out of his determin- 
 ation to multiply differences with the church, invented 
 a, theory somewhat different, usually called consub- 
 
 1 A copy of Calvin's tract, De la cene du Seigneur, first 
 published in 1540, appears in the King's library catalogue of 1542, 
 ^De Cena Domini, gallice". (R. 0. Aug. Off. Miscell. Bks. Vol. 
 160. f. 109a). 
 
The Press and the Mass, 127 
 
 stantiation. He imagined the two substances to be 
 united in the sacramental elements, so that they 
 might be termed bread and wine, or the body and 
 blood, with equal propriety. But it must be obvious 
 that there is little more than a metaphysical distinc- 
 tion between this doctrine and that of Rome " *. 
 
 (3) "A simpler and more rational explanation 
 occurred to Zwingli and (Ecolampadius, from whom 
 the Helvetian protestants imbibed their faith. Reject- 
 ing every notion of a real presence, and divesting 
 the institution of all its mystery, they saw only 
 figurative symbols in the elements which Christ had 
 appointed as a commemoration of his death. But 
 this novel opinion excited as much indignation in 
 Luther as in the Romanists"*. 
 
 (4) "Besides these three hypotheses, a fourth was 
 promulgated by Martin Bucer of Strasburg, a man 
 of much acuteness, but prone to metaphysical subtlety, 
 and not, it is said, of a very ingenuous character. Bucer, 
 as I apprehend, though his expressions are unusually 
 confused, did not acknowledge a local presence of 
 Christ's body and blood in the elements after con- 
 
 * The ordinary Lutheran forms of administration of Communion 
 are singularly emphatic ; as for instance, * Take and eat, this is 
 the body of Christ which is given for you". (See Kliefoth, 
 Liturgisclie AhhancUiingen VIII pp. 124—5). 
 
 ^ In the hands of Bullinger Zwingle's doctrine was modified, 
 but without change of its essential character, and brought into 
 the form in which it has been adopted by the Helvetic churches. 
 He divested it of its merely commemorative character insisting 
 also on the presence in the communion. This change was so 
 far developed in 1540 that Calvin expounding the doctrine could 
 write : " Nous avons done en quoi Luther a failli de son cote 
 at en quoi (Ecolampade et Zwingle ont failli du leur" {(Euvres 
 frangoises rccueilUes par L. P. Jacob p. 208). 
 
128 The Press and the Mass. 
 
 secration, so far concurring with the Helvetians ; while 
 he contended that they were really, and without 
 figure, received by the worthy communicant through 
 faith, so as to preserve the belief of a mysterious 
 union, and of what was sometimes called a real 
 presence" ^ 
 
 The reformers, however much they might differ 
 as to the Sacrament, agreed in condemning the 
 ancient teaching about the mass as a sacrifice 
 and in their detestation of the "Canon'' of the 
 missal. 
 
 The opinions of both Lutherans and Helvetians 
 on this point are fairly expressed in an " Epistle " of 
 Bullinger, a translation of which was printed in 
 London in 1548. '^ Moreover " he writes "man needs 
 to blind himself with these words, high mass, low 
 mass. In the high mass are the selfsame abomina- 
 tions which are in the lowest. In both of them is 
 the institution and ordinance of Christ perverted; 
 in both of them is he worshipped in the bread ; in 
 both of them are idols served ; in both, specially in 
 the service of the saints, is help asked of creatures; 
 in both of them is the wicked Canon, the greatest 
 portion of the mass. There is nothing in it of old 
 antiquity, nothing of the apostolic simplicity" \ 
 
 In these years 1547 and 1548 consequently the 
 popular mind was being stirred up by changes in old 
 established ceremonial, by novel introductions into 
 the services, by intemperate preaching and by profane 
 tracts scattered broadcast over the country, attacking 
 with scurrilous abuse what the people had hitherto 
 been taught to regard as the Most Holy. 
 
 ^ Hallam. Constitutional Hist. (10th ed.) I. pp. 89- 9L 
 '■^ '^Two Epistles of H. Bullynger, ivith consent of all the 
 learned men of the church of Tyaury ". London, 1548 Av. 
 
The Press and the Mass. 129 
 
 In the midst of all this ferment it is important to 
 know something of the mind of Cranmer on this 
 cardinal question of the Sacrament. It must be allowed 
 that at this period the opinion of the archbishop in 
 matters of religion, even apart from his position as 
 the chief ecclesiastic of the realm, was a real determ- 
 ining factor in events. 
 
 From the letter of Somerset to Gardiner on 28 
 June 1548, it is clear that the settlement of the 
 great questions relating to the Blessed Sacrament 
 was under the consideration of the government. 
 " The questions and controversies " he writes " con- 
 cerning the sacrament of the altar and the mass 
 rest at the present in consultation, and with the 
 pleasure of God shall be in small time by public 
 doctrine and authority quietly and truly determin- 
 ed" \ It is certain that Cranmer, who would have 
 at least the chief part in the discussions and set- 
 tlement, had already given up his belief in the mass 
 as a sacrifice. That is, he had ceased to hold "that 
 Christ is therein offered by the priest and people". 
 In his replies to the series of questions noticed in 
 Chapter VI he had said that the terms "oblation 
 and sacrifice" of Christ in the mass were improperly 
 used, and that it was only a " memory and repre- 
 sentation" of the sacrifice of Calvary *. 
 
 As to the nature of Cranmer's belief in the real 
 presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, it 
 is always difficult to determine with precision, at 
 any given time, the exact phase of a mind so shifting. 
 In this matter however there appears to have been 
 a steady descent from the old teachings professed 
 throughout Henry's reign. In the August of 1548, 
 
 1 Burnet. II. 2. p. 154. 
 
 2 See p. 86. ante. 
 
130 The Press and the Mass, 
 
 Cranmer translated a Lutheran catechism ; ' making 
 to the english version sundry additions of his own. 
 
 In this work in giving " the meaning and plain 
 understanding of the words of the Lord's Supper " 
 he declared that the Sacrament was " the true body 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was ordained by 
 Christ himself to be eaten and drunken of us Christ- 
 ian people under the form of bread and wine". It 
 was not unnatural that such teaching should be 
 unpalatable to the more advanced party, and it has 
 been justly remarked, that it may be reconciled with 
 the teachings of either Rome or Wittenberg. The 
 translation itself however contains evidence that 
 Cranmer's opinions had already, before this public- 
 ation, taken a decisive turn. His attitude to the 
 controversies of the day on the question of the 
 Eucharist is accurately shewn in his version of a crucial 
 passage of this Lutheran catechism. 
 
 "God is almighty '^ says the original. "Therefore 
 he can do all things that He wills... When He calls 
 and names a thing ivhich ivas not before, then at once 
 that very thing comes into being as He names it. There- 
 fore when He takes bread and says : ' this is my 
 body', then immediately there is the body of our 
 Lord. And when He takes the chalice and says : Hhis 
 is my blood', then immediately His blood is present "2. 
 
 Cranmer leaves out of his translation the words 
 given in italics and renders the rest as follows : 
 "wherefore when Christ takes bread and saith: 
 *Take, eat, this is my body', we ought not to doubt 
 but we eat His very body ; and when He takes the 
 
 ^ The german original designed for Nuremberg was translated 
 into latin by Justus Jonas and published by him in 1539. Cranmer's 
 english version was made from this latin translation. 
 
 2 See ed. Burton p. 177 {Jatin). 
 
The Press and the Mass. 131 
 
 cup and saith : *Take, drink, this is my blood', we 
 ought to think assuredly that we drink His very 
 blood" ^ 
 
 Such a version cannot have been accidental. The 
 two versions express the teachings of the two great 
 schools of opinion in the sixteenth century : those who 
 held, as it has been roughly said, the real presence 
 and those who held the real absence. Hallam's words 
 may again be quoted in explanation. "The truth is" 
 he writes, "there were but two opinions at bottom 
 as to this main point of the controversy, nor in the 
 nature of things was it possible that there should 
 be more. For what can be predicated concerning a 
 body in rel-ation to a given space, but presence and 
 absence'**? 
 
 To speak more exactly ; the one school connected 
 the presence with the act of consecration, the other 
 with the act of communion. And, although this was 
 not unnaturally overlooked at the moment, Cran- 
 mer's version of the crucial passage of the catechism 
 shows that he already belonged to the latter school 
 of thought, not to the former. He himself also ac- 
 curately marked the time of change when he said 
 in 1551, in his answer to Gardiner: "This I confess 
 myself, that not long before I wrote the said catechism 
 I was in that error of the real presence as I was 
 many years past in divers other errors, as of tran- 
 substantiation (fec."^ 
 
 It may well be expected that the real undercurrents 
 of Cranmer's thought should not have been recog- 
 nized at this time, and that men should have judged 
 him by what appeared on the surface. The archbishop 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 207 (english). 
 
 2 Constit. Hist. (10th ed.) I. pp. 91—2. 
 
 3 Works on the Lord's Supper ed. Parker soc. p. 374. 
 
132 The Press and the Mass, 
 
 had put forth his translation of a Lutheran ca- 
 techism and had withheld himself from the society 
 of those who shared the Helvetian views. Outwardly 
 therefore there was no ground as yet for anticipat- 
 ing that his conversion would have been so speedy. 
 He was watched during all this period most nar- 
 rowly both by the english and foreign reformers^ 
 who constantly and minutely reported the attitude 
 of his mind to their foreign masters. But, their very 
 anxiety was calculated to prevent their forming an 
 accurate estimate of the archbishop's real opinions. 
 " You must know " writes Bartholomew Traheron 
 to Bullinger, on 1 August 1548, " that all our country- 
 men who are sincerely favourable to the restoration 
 of truth entertain in all respects like opinions with 
 you {ix. Helvetian). I except the archbishop of Can- 
 terbury and Latimer and a very few learned men 
 besides ; for from among the nobility I know not 
 one whose opinions are otherwise than what they 
 ought to be. As to Canterbury, he conducts himself 
 in such a way, I know not how, as that the people 
 do not think much of him and the nobility regard 
 him as lukewarm. In other respects he is a kind 
 and good natured man" '. 
 
 ' Orig. Letters. Park. Soc. p. 320. The writer then goes on to 
 say * as to Latimer, though he does not clearly understand the 
 true doctrine of the Eucharist, he is nevertheless more favourable 
 than either Luther or even Bucer. I am quite sure that he will 
 never be a hindrance to the cause. For, being a man of admir- 
 able talent, he sees more clearly into the subject than others 
 and is desirous to come into our sentiments, but is slow to decide, 
 and cannot without much difficulty, and even timidity, renounce 
 an opinion, which he has once imbibed. But there is good hope 
 that he will some time or other come over to our side altogether. 
 For he is so far from avoiding any of our friends that he rather 
 seeks their company" &c. 
 
The Fress and the Mass, 133 
 
 John ab Ulmis, the Oxford student, also writes to 
 his master Bullinger on 18 August 1548, from London 
 where he had come to introduce himself to the 
 favourable notice of the archbishop. "After I had 
 written this very short letter", he says, "lo! your 
 letter was delivered to the archbishop of Canterbury, 
 which I fully understand from master Peter Martyr 
 that you had written to him with the greatest cour- 
 tesy and respect. The first part, if I remember right, 
 was a grave and learned admonition to his episcopal 
 duties ; the remainder was a subtle transition to the 
 Eucharist. But, to tell you all in a few words ; although 
 your letter (for it was constantly being copied) 
 afforded pleasure to every one, and to the bishop 
 himself a full and gratifying exhortation to his duty, 
 yet I would have you know this for certain, that 
 this Thomas 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 approved that foul and sacrilegious 
 tran substantiation of the papists in the holy supper 
 of our Saviour, but all the dreams of Luther seem 
 to him sufficiently w^ell-grounded, perspicuous and 
 lucid" \ 
 
 Before the close of the year 1548, however, Bullinger 
 and his disciples had reason to congratulate them- 
 selves that the favourable turn in Cranmer's opinions 
 was patent to all the wprld. 
 
 1 Ibid. pp. 380-1. Ab Ulmis to Bullinger 18 Aug. 1548 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE NEW LITURGY; TIME, PLACE, AND PERSONS 
 CONCERNED IN IT. 
 
 The autumn of 1548 was marked by a great mort- 
 ality: London was visited by the pestilence. As 
 early as 19 August the French ambassador had 
 found it necessary to remove to Streatham to avoid 
 the danger ^ But the work on the new liturgy 
 which had now to be undertaken could be as well 
 pursued in the country as in London. The new form 
 of public prayer to supersede the old traditional 
 services w^as to be ready to receive the approval of 
 Parliament in its meeting at the close of the year. 
 
 Before describing what took place when the go- 
 vernment measure for Common Prayer was brought 
 before the Lords at Westminster, it will be useful 
 to enquire into what is known as to the circum- 
 stances under which the book was composed. In 
 itself, it may be of little importance to determine 
 exactly when or where the work was compiled, or 
 who probably had the chief hand in the matter; but 
 the variety of statements as to time, place and 
 persons, makes it at least desirable to fix the limits 
 
 1 Inventaire &c. p. 436. 
 
The 7ieiv Liturgy. 135 
 
 of certain knowledge and to enquire what is estab- 
 lished by evidence and what is mere conjecture. As 
 a matter of fact definite statements are constantly 
 made in regard to this matter, which, upon examina- 
 tion, will be found to have no surer basis than the 
 guesses and imaginings of their authors. In this 
 chapter therefore it is proposed, first to give the 
 history of the various statements commonly made as to 
 the compilation of the first Prayer Book of Edward VI; 
 and next to state, so far as is possible, what can 
 really be ascertained as certainly known upon 
 authentic evidence. 
 
 In the letter to the bishops of 13 March 1548, in 
 which the Council ordered the new rite of com- 
 munion, there is expressed the belief that this addi- 
 tion to the ancient mass would not be willingly 
 received by a large portion of the clergy. And "con- 
 sidering furthermore" the letter proceeds, "that a 
 great number of the curates of the realm either for 
 lack of knowledge cannot, or for want of good mind 
 will not, be so ready to set forth the same as we 
 would wish," provisions to meet the immediate 
 difficulty are consequently made. 
 
 The result corresponded to the anticipation of the 
 Council. Foxe, who must have been an eyewitness 
 of what really happened, states that "through the 
 perverse obstinacy and dissembling frowardness of 
 many of the inferior priests and ministers of the 
 cathedrals and other churches of this realm, there 
 did arise a marvellous schism and variety of fashions 
 in celebrating the common service and administra- 
 tion of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies 
 of the church. For some, zealously allowing the king's 
 proceedings, did gladly follow the order thereof; 
 and others, though not so willingly admitting them 
 did yet dissemblingly and patchingly use some part 
 
136 The new Liturgy^ 
 
 of them ; but many, carelessly contemning all, would 
 still exercise their old wonted popery " \ 
 
 The government subsequently stated that they had 
 "abstained from punishing those that had offended" 
 by failing to comply with their orders as to the new 
 rite of communion; but had resolved to meet the 
 difficulty by the imposition " of a uniform, quiet and 
 godly order, rite and fashion of common and open 
 prayer and administration of the sacraments" ^ 
 These then are the reasons which determined the 
 rulers to impose the new liturgy, as explained by 
 the authors of the measure itself. 
 
 In regard to the persons who actually prepared 
 the new book, the Act of Uniformity states that the 
 king's highness, by the advice of Somerset and the 
 rest of the Council, "appointed the archbishop of 
 Canterbury and certain of the most learned and 
 discreet bishops and other learned men of this 
 realm" to draw it up. Their instructions were, 
 according to the authority of the act, " to have as well 
 eye and respect to the most sincere and pure Christian 
 religion taught by scripture as to the usages in the 
 primitive church "^ 
 
 In his diary the king gives another item of 
 information. Under the second year of his reign he 
 writes that " an uniform order of prayer was insti- 
 tute, before made by a number of bishops and learned 
 men gathered together in Windsor "^ 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer in the last days of his life, 
 
 1 Foxe (ed. Townsend) V. p. 720. 
 
 2 Act of Uniformity. 2 and 3 Ed. VI c. 1. 
 
 ^ Ibid. cf. "Sincerely set forth according to the Scriptures 
 and the use of the primitive church". King and Council to Bonner 
 23 July 1549. (Foxe. ed. Townsend V. p. 726.) 
 
 * Burnet. II. 2. p. 6. 
 
time J place and persons concerned in it 137 
 
 writing to Queen Mary in September 1555, says : " when 
 a good number of the best learned men reputed 
 within this realm, some favouring the old, some the 
 new learning, as they term it (where indeed that 
 which they call the old is the new and that which 
 they call the new is the old) ; but when a great 
 number of such learned men of both sorts were 
 gathered together at Windsor for the reformation 
 of the service of the church, it was agreed by both, 
 without controversy (not one saying contrary), that 
 the service of the church ought to be in the mother 
 tongue'' '. 
 
 The anonymous * life and death of archbishop Cran- 
 mer', certainly drawn up before 1559, states in regard 
 to the first Prayer Book, that Edward ''by the 
 inciting of the foresaid archbishop and the advice of 
 the Duke of Somerset, and the consent of the whole 
 Council, established by act of parliament so good 
 and perfect a book of religion and agreeable to God's 
 word (without dispraise of other be it spoken) as 
 ever was used since the apostolic times " *. 
 
 Foxe, the next writer who deals with this question 
 and a contemporary of the event, simply copies the 
 information, and even the words, of the act of Par- 
 liament on the matter. He has apparently no further 
 knowledge than what was given to the country by 
 the government in the preamble of the bill for 
 Uniformity. 
 
 ^ Eemains. Parker Soc. p. 450, 
 
 The opinions expressed by the bishops in the early part 
 of 1548 on the question of vernacular service have already been 
 noticed in considering their replies to the series of questions 
 on the mass (p. 88 ante). It will be remembered that they were 
 by no means all in favour of this innovation. 
 
 ^ Narratives of the Beformation. Camd. Soc. p. 225. 
 
138 The neiv Liturgy, 
 
 No list of the "bishops and other learned men," 
 thus said to have compiled the book, appears to have 
 been given until the publication of Fuller's Church 
 History in the year 1657, more than a century later. 
 This author, as v^ill be seen in the following passages, 
 commences his account by confusing the ' Order of 
 Communion' (1548) and the first Prayer Book of the 
 following year (1549). " But under his son king Edward 
 VI/' he writes, " a new form of divine worship was 
 set forth in the vulgar tongue which passed a three- 
 fold purgation (viz. in 1549, 1552, 1559). The first 
 edition of the liturgy or Common Prayer, in the first 
 year of king Edward VI, was recommended to the 
 care of the most grave bishops and others, (assembled 
 by the king at his castle at Windsor) and when by 
 them completed, set forth in print, 1548, with a 
 proclamation in the king's name to give authority 
 thereunto : being also recommended unto every bishop 
 by especial letters from the lords of the Council" 
 (see the form of them in Foxe II, 661) "to see the 
 same put in execution. And in the next year a penalty 
 was imposed by Act of Parliament on such who 
 should deprave or neglect the use thereof". It will 
 be observed that nearly all the details here given 
 relate to the order of communion issued in 1548. 
 Under this doubtful and confused heading Fuller for 
 the first time gives a list of the compilers of the 
 liturgy. These he states are: the archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, the bishops of Ely, Rochester, Lincoln, West- 
 minster, Hereford and Chichester, and the doctors 
 May, Cox, Taylor, Haines, Robertson and Redman; 
 in all, Cranmer with twelve others. 
 
 Heylyn, in his Ecdesia Vindicata published the 
 same year (1657), writes: "where let me tell you, 
 by the way, that the men who were employed in 
 the weighty business (of drawing up the first Prayer 
 
time, place and persons concerned in it. 139 
 
 Book) were Cranmer and the above-named twelve 
 bishops and doctors" \ 
 
 The same writer, in his Ecclesia Eestaurata published 
 in 1664, somewhat varies the version he gave in 
 his previous work. He writes in reference to "the 
 godly bishops and religious men" engaged on the 
 Order of Communion : these " convened together (if 
 at the least they were the same which made the 
 first liturgy of this king's time, as I think they were) 
 were those who follow:" — He then gives the names 
 of Cranmer and his twelve associates \ 
 
 A few pages further on the author states positively 
 that the persons, to whom the framing of the Prayer 
 Book of 1549 was committed, were " the godly bishops 
 and other learned divines . . . formerly employed in 
 drawing up the order for Holy Communion". 
 
 In 1679 Burnet gave a very full and entirely new 
 list of the compilers of the Order of Communion. It 
 was composed of the names of all the bishops and 
 divines to whom the * questions ' relating to the mass 
 had been submitted ^, to which he added those of 
 Thirlby, bishop of Westminster and doctors May, 
 Haines, Robertson and Redman, evidently obtained 
 without acknowledgment from the list given by 
 Fuller. In regard to the Prayer Book, he states 
 
 * p. 30. Heylyn's authority was evidently Fuller's History 
 published in the same year although he does not say so. For> 
 this part of the Ecclesia Vindicata is only a reprint of his tract. 
 *" Parliament's powers in laws for religion''' which Heylyn pub- 
 lished in 1645 and which does not contain the passage * where 
 let me tell you" &c quoted above. In regard to the order of 
 communion he keeps to the words of Foxe, that "it was the 
 care of the most grave and learned bishops and others assembled 
 by the king at his castle of Windsor". 
 
 2 I. pp. 57-8. 
 
 3 See p. 138 ante. 
 
14:0 The new Liturgy, 
 
 summarily, that it was the work of " those selected 
 bishops and divines who had laboured in the setting 
 forth of the office of the Communion". The elements 
 of confusion being now fully present it remains to 
 state briefly the various combinations and conjectures 
 for which they provided material. 
 
 Strype in his Mife of Cranmer' published in 1694, 
 simply states that the commissioners for drawing 
 up the Order of Communion "were most of the bish- 
 ops and several others of the most learned divines 
 of the nation" together with archbishop Cranmer \ 
 For the authors of the first Prayer Book he assigns 
 " the same bishops and divines as it seems ; " * and 
 having said so much, he proceeds soon after to re- 
 peat the general words of the Act of Uniformity 
 about the compilers, adding: "but the rest of them, 
 if we may give credit to Fuller's Church History, and 
 what is commonly taken up and reported in our 
 histories, were ^' Cranmer and the above-named twelve; 
 "though I conjecture the main of the work went 
 through some few of these men's hands, for three of 
 those bishops, Thirlby, Skip and Day, protested against 
 the bill for this liturgy when it passed their house, and 
 I believe Robertson and Redman liked it as little" \ 
 
 Next in order of time comes the church historian 
 Collier. He gives the following account of the compil- 
 ation of the Communion Book : "In the latter end 
 of this winter, 1547, a committee of divines were 
 commanded by the king to draw up an order for 
 administering the Holy Eucharist in english under 
 both kinds . . . The commission was directed to the 
 archbishop of Canterbury and" the twelve divines 
 
 1 p. 159. Cf, Eccl. Mem. II. p. 85. 
 
 2 Eccl. Mem. 11. 355. 
 
 3 Ibid. pp. 85-6. 
 
time, place and persons concerned in it 14:1 
 
 mentioned by Fuller. '^ These were the persons who 
 afterwards made the first Liturgy, and therefore 
 Heylyn is of opinion that they were now employed 
 for the business above mentioned. The learned bishop, 
 Burnet from a MS. of Dr. Stillingfleet gives a differ- 
 ent list, on which we ought rather to rely, for 
 Heylyn speaks only upon conjecture"*. Collier then 
 gives the names of the four and twenty first sug- 
 gested by Burnet. As to the Prayer Book (1549) 
 he merely states that " the committee of bishops 
 and divines above mentioned" were entrusted with 
 the work ^ But as to which of the lists he here 
 refers to, whether the twelve or the twenty four, 
 he leaves the reader of his book to determine for 
 himself. 
 
 Soames adopts Fuller's list, but follows out Strype's 
 hint as to the book probably passing through few 
 hands ; and in view of the statement of the Act of 
 Uniformity that it was " concluded with one uniform 
 agreement" of the compilers, considers that Cranmer, 
 Goodrich, Holbeach and Ridley among the bishops, 
 and May, Taylor, Haines and Cox among the divines, 
 completed the task, the rest withdrawing ^ 
 
 A recent writer of authority states categorically 
 in regard to the Order of Communion, that "the 
 work was entrusted to a committee of twenty four 
 persons, and that committee was composed entirely 
 and exclusively of members of the Convocations of 
 
 1 History 11. 243. 
 
 2 II. p. 252. 
 
 2 Soames. Beformation III. p. 356. " That the prelates . . . 
 so characterized (as the most learned and discreet) were Ridley, 
 Goodrich and Holbeach, is highly probable, both because they 
 have been long placed among our illustrious liturgy compilers 
 and because they professed principles purely scriptural, (p. 354). 
 
142 The new Liturgy, 
 
 Canterbury and York, an important fact which has 
 generally been overlooked". For this statement he 
 refers his readers to Collier. 
 
 In speaking of the Prayer Book of 1549, he says: 
 *a body of divines was now selected and fortified 
 by royal authority for the purpose (of compiling the 
 first Prayer Book of Edward VI). This was a 
 smaller committee than that which had just settled 
 the Order of Communion. That committee consisted 
 of 24 persons as above stated and was composed of 
 members of both Convocations. The committee now 
 under consideration consisted of 13 persons only 
 and was selected solely from the Convocation of 
 Canterbury. But on comparison of the two lists 
 given, it will be seen that all those engaged in the 
 second committee had served on the first. The names 
 of the second committee for compiling a reformed 
 Prayer Book are as follows ": Cranmer and the twelve 
 associates mentioned by Fuller \ 
 
 The question of time and place has fortunately 
 not been so much obscured by subsequent additions 
 to the story. Foxe, although he mentions " the king's 
 castle of Windsor" as the place where the compilers 
 of the Order of Communion assembled, does not 
 assign any place for "the most godly and learned 
 conferences" upon the first Prayer Book (1549). The 
 king's diary however states that the bishops and 
 others ''were gathered together in Windsor" and 
 this statement has been generally accepted. 
 
 Heylyn, more than a century after the event, was 
 the first to assign a date for the formal commence- 
 ment of the work. His assertion is that Edward 
 caused the bishops and divines intrusted with the 
 compilation "to attend his pleasure on the 1st day 
 
 ' Joyce, Acts of the church (1531—1885) p. 115. 
 
time, place mid persons concerned in it. 143 
 
 of September'' (1548) ^ Strype declares that the 
 committee of bishops and others " met in May 1548. " 
 But, for both these statements no authority is given 
 and subsequent writers have made their choice 
 between them, or combined them as best suited 
 their purpose. 
 
 It now remains to be seen what can be ascertained 
 in regard to these matters from contemporary docu- 
 ments. First, as to the place of assembly, the king 
 can hardly be mistaken and some meeting must' 
 have taken place at Windsor. The Grrey Friars' 
 chronicle, however, after referring to the proclamation 
 of 23 September (1548) inhibiting all preaching until 
 ''such time as the Council had determined such 
 things as were in hand withal", continues: "for at 
 that time divers of the bishops sat at Chertsey abbey 
 for some time * for divers matters of the king and 
 Council" ^ Odet de Selve, the french ambassador 
 writiug from Streatham to his sovereign on 30 
 September 1548 concludes that he has no more news 
 for the moment " except that there are daily fights 
 in the London churches and elsewhere in the kingdom, 
 whether there shall be mass or not *. To make some 
 settlement a certain number of bishops and doctors 
 are gathered at a place near the court called Chert- 
 sey % where they are to determine what is to be 
 
 ^ Eccl. Eestaurata. I. p. 64. 
 
 ^ The clause " for some time" is not in the Camden Soc. edi- 
 tion, but appears in the Rolls edition (monum. Francisc. II, 217). 
 
 ^ ed. Camd. Soc. p. 56. 
 
 * Grey Friar^s chronicle writes almost in the same terms at 
 this period : " also at that time was many battles made of divers 
 parties against the Blessed Sacrament one against another". 
 (Ibid p. 57). 
 
 ^ This is written as Chetsey and interpreted by the editor, Chel- 
 sea; but it is more probable, especially in view of the Grey Friars' 
 
144 The neiv Liturgy, 
 
 held in this kingdom about the mass and the Sa- 
 crament of the altar" \ It seems clear therefore that 
 although the persons engaged on the compilation 
 of the new Prayer Book had an interview with 
 the king at Windsor, they also held sittings at 
 Chertsey. 
 
 In the early days of this month an assembly was 
 certainly held in Chertsey for another purpose. On 
 the 9*^ of September 1548 Ferrar was there consecrated 
 bishop of St. Davids by Cranmer, assisted by Holbeach 
 of Lincoln and Ridley of Rochester. The other persons 
 specially mentioned as being present at this service, 
 and communicating, are Thirlby, bishop of West- 
 minster, and doctors May, Haynes, Robertson and 
 Redman. The resemblance to the list given by Fuller 
 is striking ^ In regard to Windsor it may also be 
 observed that in the later days of October Coverdale 
 was staying at the castle with Cranmer ^. 
 
 chronicle that Chertsey is meant. Chelsea at this time of plague 
 would be too near London and certainly not near the court, which 
 was then at Oatlands within two or three miles of Chertsey abbey. 
 
 * Inventaire &c. p. 453. 
 
 2 Stubbs. Beg. Sacr. Angt p. 80. Strype {Cranmer^ pp. 183—4) 
 gives an account of the ceremony. The original Act, from Cranmer's 
 Register, first printed by Courayer, is reprinted in Estcourt's 
 Question of Anglican Ordinations, App. pp. xxvii — viii. Strype 
 omits some details of importance : (1) the consecration was 
 preceded "communibus suffragiis de more ecclesiae Anglicanae". 
 Canon Estcourt (p. 55) is doubtless right in thinking this " may- 
 refer to the litany which was ordered by the king's injunctions 
 the year before" as a substitute for the procession (see p. 54 ante) ; 
 (2) the "holy Eucharist was consecrated," as well as administered, 
 by Cranmer "in the vulgar tongue". 
 
 ^ Orig. Letters, p. 32. Coverdale to Paul Fagius. " From the 
 king's castle which we call Windsor", 21 Oct. 1548. "I also 
 showed your letter yesterday to the most Revd. archbishop of 
 
time J place and persons concerned in it. 145 
 
 If, as Heylyn states, those engaged on the book 
 were received by the king at Windsor before com- 
 mencing their work, it seems improbable that this 
 reception could have taken place on 1 September. 
 On that day Edward was at his house at Oatlands and 
 Somerset at Syon. On the 22nd and 23rd of September, 
 however, the Privy Seals show that the king was at 
 Windsor, and these are the only days on which the 
 court is known certainly to have been there during 
 the months of July, August and September \ It is 
 moreover noteworthy that on the second day of the 
 king's stay at the castle (23 September) the proclam- 
 ation was issued notifying that the king was deter- 
 mined to see very shortly one uniform order (of 
 divine service) throughout this his realm, and to 
 put an end to all controversies in religion, so far 
 as God should give grace, for which cause at this 
 time certain bishops and notable learned men, by 
 his highness' command, are congregate" ^. This is the 
 first public intimation that what Somerset had fore- 
 shadowed in his letter to Gardiner (28 June) was 
 being brought to effect, and that the compilation of 
 a new liturgy was actually in hand. 
 
 It may be concluded therefore with much proba- 
 bility that the work was formally inaugurated on 
 the 22nd or 23rd of September 1548. 
 
 Canterbury, who, as he has undertaken to educate your dear son 
 (whom he has just sent away to Canterbury by reason of the 
 plague that is raging at this place) both in religion and learning 
 at his own expense, in like manner reflecting upon the lamentable 
 condition of your churches, he truly sympathizes in your mis- 
 fortune wherefore he desired you most especially to come over 
 to us". 
 
 ^ De Selve Inventaire &c. p. 451 also notes this stay at 
 Windsor. 
 
 2 Wilkins IV. 30. 
 
 L 
 
146 The new Liturgy, 
 
 The question in regard to persons is not hard to 
 decide. All that is known for certain is that Cranmer 
 was one of those who compiled the book. On a 
 review of the detailed statements made as to the 
 persons engaged in the work it will appear that they 
 are all based on the statements of either Burnet or 
 Fuller. Burnet's list of twenty-four bishops and 
 doctors is a purely arbitrary composition and need 
 not be seriously considered. There remains only the 
 list of Fuller. This he cannot be believed to have 
 invented, and it certainly agrees closely with the 
 list of persons known to be assembled at Chertsey 
 early in September. But as he himself clearly did 
 not know to what the list really referred, it is prac- 
 tically useless for determining the actual names of 
 the compilers of the First Book of Common Prayer, 
 and must remain without authority until the docu- 
 ment itself can be produced'. 
 
 The silence of Foxe on the subject is more than 
 significant. When the debate in Parliament, which 
 preceded the introduction ofthePrayer Book, comes 
 to be considered it will be seen that Somerset intended 
 that as little as possible should be publicly known 
 concerning the history of the composition of this 
 new liturgy. 
 
 A document of some interest, proceeding from 
 Somerset himself, still remains to be noticed. On the 
 4th of September 1548, he wrote "from Syon", "to 
 our loving friend our Vice-chancellor of Cambridge 
 and to all masters and rulers of colleges there". 
 
 ^ Search has been made for any sign of a commission for 
 either the Order of Communion or the book of Common Prayer, 
 through every series of documents and collection of papers, which 
 seemed to promise results ; but in vain ; no indication of any 
 such commission has been met with. 
 
time, place and persons concerned in it 14:7 
 
 "After our right hearty commendations. For so 
 much as upon divers orders in the rites and cere- 
 monies of the church, there might perad venture some 
 dissension or disorder rise amongst you in the 
 university, to the evil example of other, we have 
 thought good to advertise you, and in the king's 
 Majesty's behalf to will and command you that until 
 such time as an order be taken and prescribed by 
 his Highness to be universally kept throughout the 
 whole realm, or by visitors of his Highness appointed 
 unto you particularly, that you and every of you 
 in your colleges, chapels or other churches use one 
 uniform order, rite, and ceremonies in the mass, 
 matins and even-song and all divine service in the 
 same to be said or sung, such as is presently used in 
 the king's Majesty's chapel, and none other. The 
 which for more instruction we have by this bearer 
 sent unto you. Thus fare you well" ^ 
 
 From this letter it appears (1) that yet a further 
 step had been taken in the royal chapel and that 
 the service celebrated there consisted of three parts : 
 the mass, matins and even-song. It may be gathered, 
 that the compline in english had disappeared. (2) 
 This service must have differed from the mass, matins 
 and vespers contained in the ancient books, since it 
 was necessary that copies should be sent for the 
 guidance of those who were required to observe it. (3) 
 The new order prescribed ceremonies which were 
 different from those hitherto in use. (4) It is clear 
 that before September 1548, services were already 
 drawn up and in use, the main parts of which corres- 
 ponded with those subsequently enforced in the first 
 Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 I The original is in C. C. C. C. MS. 106 f. 495 : it is printed 
 in Cooper's Annals of Cambridge, II. p. 18. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 CONVOCATION AND THE PRAYER BOOK. 
 
 A recent work of some authority, dealing profes- 
 sedly with the acts of theChurch (1531 —1885) states: 
 " the fact, that the (First Prayer) Book was formally 
 and synodically sanctioned, can be positively proved 
 by evidence, and that indisputable^^Such synodical 
 sanction must have been given, if at all, sometime 
 between 24 November 1548, the day on which par- 
 liament met, and 14 March 1549, when it was prorogued. 
 On the other hand, the recent historian of the Church 
 of England, Canon Dixon, affirms that " the€onvoca- 
 tions of the clergy had nothing to do with the first 
 Act of Uniformity of religion. Laymen made the first 
 english Book of Common Prayer into a schedule of 
 a penal statute. As little in the work itself, which 
 was then imposed on the realm, had the clergy 
 originally any share "^. 
 
 In the face of such contradictory statements it is 
 impossible here to avoid a brief enquiry into the 
 facts of the case so far as they can be ascertained. 
 
 Wilkins' (7o?2c^7/a contains nothing "about any meeting 
 of the Convocation of clergy in the year 1548—9. 
 From the brief abstract given in his volume of the 
 king's writs of prorogation, it would appear that 
 
 1 Joyce, Acts of the Church, p. 117. 
 
 2 History &c. Ill, p. 5. 
 
Convocation and the Prayer Book. 149 
 
 it did not meet from 26 December 1547, until 24 
 January 1552. One document, however, which is there 
 cited as a prorogation sine die, hardly seems on 
 examination of Cranmer's register to bear this inter- 
 pretation. It is difficult to say what this writ, dated 
 21 April 1548, really means. It is possible that the 
 registrar has made some omission in copying the 
 document into the book; but as it stands the sense 
 is accurately expressed in a note of White Kennett : 
 * the said Convocation was further prorogued, to what 
 day is not signified in the royal writ"\ Wake's 
 interpretation of the doubtfal document is, that the 
 meeting was prorogued "to such other time as the 
 archbishop should appoint " *. This does not appear 
 from the writ itself, and from the document which 
 immediately follows, it seems more probable that 
 Convocation had actually met in the winter of 1548 —9 ^ 
 Moreover parliament at this time passed an act, 
 confirming a subsidy granted by the clergy to the 
 king, and although it must not necessarily be 
 concluded that the grant was made in Convocation 
 at this date, it appears more probable that this was so. 
 Granting therefore that the Convocation of clergy 
 of the province of Canterbury met at the same time 
 as parliament {November 1548) what did it do? Wake 
 writes as follows: "What our Convocations did" 
 whilst parliament was sitting "more than granting 
 
 ^ Lansd. MS. 1031 f. 30, Eadem Convocatio prorogata ulterius 
 ^dies non significatur in brevi regis). 
 
 2 State of the Church p. 494. He also says that the Convocation 
 of York was prorogued evidently about 20 April (1548) to 6 
 October " after which we hear no more of it till its dissolution ". 
 
 ^ This is a prorogation from 15 March 1549, the day after the 
 prorogation of Parliament to 4 November of the same year. In 
 it is the phrase "Convocatio clcri . . . jam modo tenta ct instans 
 txistii ". 
 
150 Convocation and the Frayer Book. 
 
 of a subsidy I cannot tell ; most probable it is, that 
 they only met and were continued (i.e. adjourned) 
 from time to time by the archbishops whilst par- 
 liament sat, as I find that of our province (of York) 
 was, by order of the king's writ at the end ofit"^ 
 It is unfortunately true that the records of the 
 Convocation of Canterbury were burnt in the great 
 fire of London (1666); but it does not follow that 
 .their contents are unknown. The assertion, that almost 
 as much is known of them for the reign of Edward VI^ 
 as if they had actually survived, would hardly be an 
 exaggeration. Many years before their destruction 
 these records were examined by both Heylyn and 
 Fuller. The former was at the time of his researches 
 clerk of the Convocation and had the custody of the 
 archives. He was moreover then actually engaged in 
 gathering his materials for the history of the Re- 
 formation, and to his collections then made is 
 practically due all present knowledge ofmanyoftho 
 acts of Convocation from 1529 \ For the reign of 
 Edward YI, moreover, he is careful to describe in 
 his history the actual state of the records as he saw 
 them, and his account is borne out by the indepen- 
 dent testimony of Fuller ^ 
 
 ^ State of the church, p. 495. 
 
 ^ This is true with the exception of the acts of 1547 (see 
 pp. 75 — 6 aw^e and Appendix VII.). Wilkins saw Heylyn's volume 
 of excerpts, and the records of Convocation which he prints for the 
 reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary are almost entirely 
 derived from Heylyn's MSS, although in three or four instances he 
 does not give the authority. The MSS. Wilkins used can hardly 
 have been destroyed since his time and should be forthcoming. 
 
 ^ It is evident from his writings that Heylyn never saw the 
 acts of the Convocation of 1547; these had disappeared from the 
 archives before his time. They had been already collected with 
 many other valuable contemporary documents by archbishop Parker. 
 
Convocation and the Prayer Book, 151 
 
 Further than this; Heylyn's attention was specially 
 called in the year 164:4 to the question ofthesynod- 
 ical approval of the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. 
 He was in correspondence with a writer, who had 
 objected that the established religion of England 
 was only parliamentary, imposed by the authority 
 of the Lords and Commons, and without the express 
 approval of the clergy in Convocation. Heylyn at 
 first replied that the liturgy was the work of the 
 Church, and " that the two houses of parliament did 
 nothing in the present business but impose that upon 
 the people, which the learned and religious clergy, 
 whom the king appointed thereunto, were agreed 
 upon"\ 
 
 His friend was not satisfied, and still doubted 
 whether the manner of proceeding " was so regular 
 as it might have been. And this," Heylyn added in his 
 reply, " you stumble at the rather in regard that the 
 whole body of the clergy in their Convocations had 
 no hand therein, either as to decree the doing of it 
 or to approve it being done ". He thereupon discusses 
 this objection at considerable length. He takes it for 
 granted, having at the time complete access to the 
 records of the Convocation, that the fact is as objected, 
 and that Convocation really had no hand in the 
 framing or approval of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 He however meets the objection by an affirmative 
 answer to the following question: ''Whether the 
 king (for his acting by a protector does not change 
 the case) consulting with a lesser part of his bishops 
 and clergy and having their consent therein may 
 conclude anything in the way of (practical) reform- 
 ation, the residue and greater part not advised withal 
 nor yielding their consent unto it in a formal way " ^ 
 
 ^ Ecclesia Vindicata. pp. 29—30. 
 
 * See the whole argument in Fcclesia Vindicata. pp. 79—84. 
 
/ 
 
 152 Convocation mid the Prayer Book, 
 
 The first statement of any ecclesiastical historian 
 tending towards the definite assertion that Convoca- 
 tion actually approved the first Prayer Book, is that 
 of Strype in 1723, who certainly says that, "what 
 they (the learned divines) had concluded upon was 
 offered the Convocation and, after all this, the par- 
 liament approved "^ 
 
 It may be taken as certain therefore that the Con- 
 vocation registers contained no record, either of any 
 appointment of divines to compile the new liturgy, 
 or of any approval of it after it was drawn up, whether 
 before or after the parliamentary sanction. 
 
 Certain contemporary evidence, however, has been 
 adduced as positive proof of this synodical approval, 
 the value of which has also to be considered. 
 
 (1) The king's letter to Bonner, dated 23 July 1549, 
 asserts that the book " hath been and is most godly 
 set forth not only by the common agreement and 
 full assent of the nobility and commons of the late 
 session of our late parliament, but also by the like 
 assent of the bishops in the same parliament and 
 
 This part of the work was first printed in 1645 under the title 
 '^Parliamenfs powers in laios for religion'' and republished in 
 1653 as the ''Way of Beformation of the Church of England''. 
 * Eccl. Mem. II. p. 87. The Catholic controversialists whom 
 Strype stigmatizes, such as Dr. Hill and Dr. Bristowe must be 
 allowed to accept the responsibility for raising the debates on 
 this subject. The testimony of Bancroft and Abbot does not seem 
 to be of any real weight in the discussion. Bancroft's impression 
 moreover was that the Communion Book of 1548, not the Prayer 
 Book of 1549, was carefully compiled and confirmed by a Synod 
 (see the passage of his sermon reprinted in the Miscellany of the 
 Wodrow Soc. vol. I. p. 480). Readers of the sermon, acquainted 
 with the facts, will probably be of opinion that Bancroft had no 
 knowledge of what took place apart from books still accessible. 
 
Convocatmi and the Prayer Book. 153 
 
 of all other the learned men of this realm in their 
 synods and Convocations provincial" \ 
 
 (2) The answer made to the men of Devon and 
 Cornwall drawn up in the king's name about the 
 same date has almost the same words. 
 
 (3) About 24 June 1549, the Council gave certain 
 instructions to Dr. Hopton, chaplain to the princess 
 Mary, in regard to her persistency in having mass 
 still said in her chapel. In reply to the observation 
 of the princess, that the law made by parliament 
 is not worthy of the name of law, he is told to 
 reply, that she is "wrong to disallow a law of the 
 king made after long study, true disputation, and 
 uniform determination of the whole clergy consulted, 
 debated and concluded" \ 
 
 (4) Further, a letter from Edward to his sister 
 Mary, undated, but apparently about the same time, 
 states : " we have, by the advice of our dearest uncle 
 Edward Duke of Somerset &c. and the rest of our 
 Privy Council, with one full and whole consent, both 
 of our clergy in their severalSynods andConvocations, 
 and also of the noblemen and commons in the late 
 session of our parliament, established by authority 
 of our said parliament one godly and uniform order 
 of common prayer "^ 
 
 The above is all the contemporary evidence ad-^ 
 duced to prove the sanction of Convocation to the 
 new Prayer Book. It will be observed that the 
 documents quoted were issued at a period when the 
 
 1 Foxe, V. p. 126. 
 
 2 Ibid. VI. p. 8. 
 
 3 R. 0. State Papers. Domestic. Ed. VI. Vol. IX. No. 51. Cf. 
 also a subsequent clause in the same letter: "forasmuch as the 
 premisses have been foreseen, considered, debated and set forth 
 with one agreement of all the state of our realm, and by the 
 authority of our said Parliament as aforesaid". 
 
154 Convocation and the Prayer Book. 
 
 opposition of the country to the introduction of the 
 liturgy had already made itself felt, and when ac- 
 cordingly it was necessary to support the measure 
 with all the authority possible. On examining these 
 passages closely — a process not unnecessary in a 
 period marked by so many doubtful dealings on the 
 part of the rulers — it will be seen that the assent 
 of the bishops to the Book is limited, to such as was 
 given "in the said parliament". This was written to 
 bishop Bonner, who knew the circumstances ; but to 
 Mary, the king states that the liturgy had received 
 the " consent of our clergy in their several Synods 
 and Convocations provincial". If any definite and 
 exact meaning is to be attached to this at all, it 
 must apply to the province of York as well as to 
 that of Canterbury. It would indeed be more than 
 smgular if all traces of so important an Act should 
 have disappeared from the records of both provinces. 
 For here Wake's statement may be recalled, so far 
 as York is concerned, that this Convocation was 
 only adjourned from time to time whilst the par- 
 liament sat; in other words, that it never assembled 
 for business at all. 
 
 The only substantial point, upon which the belief 
 that such approval was in fact given or asked can 
 be based, is the king's letter to Bonner. It may be 
 fairly urged that Edward writing to one who was 
 cognizant of the actual facts of the case would not 
 have thought of making such a statement, even in 
 its guarded form, if it were not true. It will be 
 recollected however that so far as the assent of the 
 bishops is concerned, this is limited to what was 
 given in the parliament. Even here it is quite certain 
 that so far from this assent having been given by 
 all the bishops, practically as many voted against 
 the measure as for it. 
 
Convocation and the Prayer Book, IS^ 
 
 The general statements therefore contained in the 
 passages before cited can hardly be taken as sufficient 
 warrant for accepting as fact what is otherwise 
 doubtful. The whole matter has the appearance of 
 being an after-thought. The need of obtaining any 
 approval of the clergy to measures contemplated by 
 the king and Council does not appear to have been 
 considered, and the suggestion is not made, until it 
 became of importance to win acceptance for the new 
 liturgy, and overcome popular opposition by investing 
 it with all the authority possible. 
 
 The Act of Uniformity, which carefully details all 
 the steps taken in the matter, and is in fact the 
 sole authority on the subject, nowhere pretends or 
 hints that the Convocation had any part in tho 
 business. Cheek, the king's tutor, moreover, in his 
 reply to the men of Devon and Cornwall, asks " why 
 should ye not like- that which God's word established^ 
 the primitive Church hath authorized, the greatest 
 learned men of this realm hath drawn, the whole 
 consent of the parliament hath confirmed, the king's 
 Majesty hath set forth ? Ye think it is not learnedly 
 done. Dare ye commons take upon you more learning 
 than the chosen bishops and clerks of this realm 
 have ? Ye were wont to judge your parliament wisest, 
 and now will ye suddenly excel them in wisdom? 
 Or can ye think it lackethauthority, which the king, 
 the learned and wisest have approved"^? If there 
 had been any ecclesiastical sanction it is not un- 
 reasonable to suppose that Sir John Cheek would have 
 here stated it^ 
 
 1 "The hurt 'of sedition'' (2nd ed. 1569). Bi. 
 
 ^ The passaore already cited from Cranmer's letter to Queen 
 Mary (Sept. 1555) has a bearing on this point. It is at least as- 
 remarkable for what it does not say as for what it says. In thft 
 
156 Convocation and the Prayer Booh, 
 
 On looking therefore merely at the passages ad- 
 duced for the approval of the Book of Common 
 Prayer by Convocation, they might at first sight seem 
 sufficient to bear out the assertion. But on taking 
 a survey of the entire circumstances, and bearing in 
 mind the attitude of Cranmer to the Convocation at 
 its last meeting, there can remain very little doubt 
 that the book was never submitted to Convocation 
 at all \ 
 
 In the next chapter, however, it will appear that 
 for the general and vague statements of an approval 
 there was at least some pretext. It is now certain 
 that the proposed liturgy was submitted to a meeting 
 of the bishops, apparently in the month of October, 
 with a view to obtain their general assent to the 
 intended government measure, and thus insure its 
 speedy passage through parliament. This meeting 
 however of the bishops, although in a contemporary 
 letter^ it is called a synod, can have no pretension 
 to be a formal assembly of the clergy. 
 
 The success which attended the measure in par- 
 liament will appear in the next chapter. 
 
 ■circumstances of his peril, it would be natural to suppose that, 
 if it had been possible he would have cited the synodical approval 
 by the English church of " the reformation of the service ", 
 in preference to the " good number of the best learned men 
 reputed within this realm". 
 
 ^ See p. 181 post. 
 
 2 John Burcher at Strasburg to Bullinger (see p. 178 post). 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 THE DEBATE ON THE SACRAMENT IN THE 
 PARLIAMENT OF 1548-9. 
 
 The opening of the second session of parliament 
 was fixed for the end of November 1548. The french 
 ambassador writing from London on the 26th of the 
 month says : " Sire: the king of England arrived here 
 yesterday, where are also all the chief nobles, bishops 
 and gentlemen of this kingdom for the estates, which 
 they call parliament, which is immediately to as- 
 semble at Westminster, chiefly for the purpose, as 
 it is believed, of effecting some settlement m the 
 matter of religion upon which there is a wonderful 
 discord of opinion and practice, especially in regard 
 to the Sacrament of the altar and the mass. It may 
 also be expected that the way to raise money from 
 the people will be discussed, for there are grave 
 reasons for thinking that the king is not too well 
 provided " \ 
 
 On 1 December, de Selve again reports, that " the 
 parliament began here on Tuesday last, the 27th of 
 November. The king of England was not present in 
 person because it is only a continuation of that 
 which commenced last year"\ 
 
 * Inventaire &c. p. 473. 
 2 Ibid. p. 475. 
 
158 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 No ecclesiastical business was undertaken during 
 the first fortnight ; but the course of proceedings in 
 this pressing matter had already been determined 
 upon. The introduction of a bill, imposing the new 
 Prayer Book on the church, was to be preceded by 
 a discussion on the doctrine of the Sacrament. 
 
 Among the Royal collection of manuscripts, in the 
 British Museum is a small tract, hitherto apparently 
 unnoticed, which seems not unlikely to have been 
 connected with the preparations for this discussion. 
 It is entitled " Of the Sacrament of Thanksgiving: a 
 short treatise of Peter Martyr's ma&^'\To the tract 
 is prefixed a letter dedicating the translation to 
 ''the Right Hon : the Lord Protector's Grace", and 
 dated from Westminster the 1st day of December, 
 which can only have been in this year, 1548*. This 
 dedication commences by declaring "that there are 
 many and divers controversies about the Sacrament 
 of Thanksgiving, which do occupy men's heads won- 
 derfully, and for the greatness of the matter seem 
 worthy debatement". The writer then proceeds to 
 remind Somerset that he " had so long season before 
 coming to the height of this honour, not only fa- 
 voured, but also furthered the truth of God and 
 his glory in most dangerous times. Wherefore you 
 knowing the true cause of honour and receiving the 
 effect thereof, do now most praiseworthily and like 
 
 1 B. Mus. Royal. MS. 170. V. 
 
 2 On 1 December 1547 the tract would have been prema- 
 ture, because matters were not yet so far advanced, and on 
 1 December 1549 not only would the tract have been out of 
 date, but Somerset was no longer the Protector. There is nothing 
 to show who translated it ; but the conjecture may be hazarded 
 that it was Turner, Somerset's chaplain, and one who was at 
 the time very active with his pen against the mass. 
 
m the Parliament of 15i8— 9. 159 
 
 God's true officer, by calling the learned and well 
 minded men together, encrease and enlarge the true 
 worship". Hence this treatise is ofiered "to your 
 Excellency, thinking it both worthy your grace's 
 reading and also fit that excellent truths should be 
 defended by excellent magistrates" ^ The translator 
 commences by summing up the conclusions of Mar- 
 tyr's tract in a practical form such as the busy 
 statesman might easily master. 
 
 They are the following : (1) " Christ is in the Holy 
 Supper to them that do come to his table, and he 
 doth verily feed the faithful with his body and blood". 
 (2) There is no transubstantiation. (3) There is no 
 intermixture of the natures or substances of bread 
 and wine and body and blood. (4) But they are so 
 united that as often as the one is faithfully received 
 the other also is. (5) " The presence of Christ . . . doth 
 belong more nighly and properly to the receivers 
 than to the tokens " that is " of those receivers that 
 do rightly and faithfully come to the communion". 
 (6) *' The presence of Christ ... is not at any time, but 
 in the use of the supper". (7) Only the good receive 
 ** the body and blood ", the wicked " receive nothing 
 but the tokens of bread and wine'^ (8) When the 
 Sacrament i'-, received, "the faithfuF' ought to wor- 
 ship " in their mind Christ himself and not the 
 tokens'*. (9) "The residue of this Sacrament, after 
 the communion is done, ought not to be kept as we 
 see it used now in popish churches". 
 
 It will be subsequently seen, that these conclusions 
 cover the ground taken up by Cranmer and his fol- 
 lowers in the debate on the Sacrament at the Par- 
 liament house, and it would appear more than 
 probable that this manuscript was actually designed 
 
 » fiP. 1-6. 
 
160 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 for Somerset's help and guidance in the management 
 of the business. 
 
 The burning question was approached for the first 
 time in the House of Lords on Friday 14 December 
 154:8, and the disputation extended over some days. 
 Three laymen only spoke in the discussion but the 
 parts were carefully assigned to each. Somerset assum- 
 ed, as moderator, a calmness and dignity which was 
 only once disturbed by a sudden gust of passion ; 
 Warwick, afterwards the duke of Northumberland, 
 undertook the task of hectoring and threatening 
 those in opposition to the government measure ; 
 whilst Smythe, the secretary of State, freely inter- 
 rupted the course of argument with speeches and 
 remarks generally verging on vulgar profanity. The 
 commons it is said crowded into the chamber of the 
 upper house "to hear these sharp and fervent dis- 
 putations " \ 
 
 On the first evening (Friday 14 December) the 
 proposed new Book of service was apparently read 
 by secretary Smythe and some irregular discussion 
 took place, ^ but the disputation was regarded as 
 beginning on the morning of the following day, 
 Saturday the 15th December.^ On the meeting of the 
 
 ^ Orig. Letters, Parker Soc. p. 469. 
 
 •2 Royal MS. 17 B. XXXTX. fF. 5a and lb. The account of the 
 debate in the House of Lords given in this chapter is taken from 
 this important MS. hitherto unknown. The whole document 
 will be found in the Appendix. It is probably the first syste- 
 matic account of any debate of Parliament. Traheron writing 
 to BuUinger on the 31st says : " on the 14th of December if I 
 mistake not a disputation was held at London concerning the 
 Eucharist in the presence of almost all the nobility of England &c ". 
 {Orig. Letters pp. 322—3.) 
 
 ^ On each day, according to the Lords' Journals, the House met 
 at ten o'clock in the morning. The bishop of Coventry and Lich- 
 
in the Parliament of 1548—9, 161 
 
 house the Protector, to brmg the proceedings into 
 some order, commanded the bishops " to fall to some 
 point (and) willed them to dispute whether bread 
 be in the Sacrament after the consecration or not ". 
 
 Tunstall, the bishop of Durham, upon whom the 
 burden of the dispute on the side of Catholic doctrine 
 fell on the first day, was unwilling that so important 
 a discussion should be confined within the narrow 
 limits of Somerset's proposition. He was proceeding 
 to treat of the mass generally when the Protector 
 interrupted and insisted upon the course he had 
 prescribed being strictly followed. 
 
 The bishop was unwilling to give way, and pointed 
 out that "the adoration was left out of the Book," 
 because those who had compiled it believed that 
 "there is nothing in the Sacrament but bread and 
 wine;" and yet he, Tunstall, firmly "believed that 
 there is the very body and blood of Christ both 
 spiritual and carnal." 
 
 On the conclusion of this speech a running con- 
 versation between Crar»mer and Health of Worcester 
 followed as to tb^ true meaning of the words 
 'spiritual' and * corporal' employed by Tunstall. 
 Mr. Secretary Smythe here interrupted " with a long 
 process" on the same subject, declaring that in his 
 opinion "it could not be the true body, or else He 
 must want His head or His legs ", with other details 
 of a similar character. 
 
 Heath now recalled the true issues of the discussion 
 by remarking " that reason will not serve in matters 
 of faith," and claiming the simple reality of truth 
 for the words of our Lord. 
 
 field was absent from his place on Saturday 15 December, and 
 the bishop of Peterborough on the last two days of the discus- 
 sion. The Protectorand the earl ofWarwick were present throughout. 
 
 M 
 
16^ The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 Cranmer now rose ior the first feie to develop 
 his thesis. He laid it dlo'wn as certain* that " they be 
 two things, to eat the Sacrament and' to- eat the 
 body of Christ. The eating the body", he said, "is 
 to dwell in Christ, and this may be, although a man 
 never taste the Sacrament". He then introduced to 
 the notice of the House two- ideas upon the devel- 
 opment of which, in the subsequent course of the 
 discussion, the archbishop's argument chiefly turns. 
 He declared it to be his belief that (1) " the wicked eat 
 not the body of Christ, but their own condemnation," 
 and (2) that "ourfaith is not to believe Him to be 
 in the bread and wine, but that He is in heaven". 
 The rest of this long speech, although somewhat 
 unpleasant reading, has little to do with the main 
 issue. 
 
 Tunstall replied to the archbishop at once withi 
 a direct contradiction. He declared that our Lord's 
 * body is in bread and wine, because God hath spoken 
 it, who is able to do it saying : This is my body ; 
 and this is my blood". 
 
 Canterbury then proposed what to his mind was 
 an insoluble difficulty. "If", he said, "the evil man 
 eat the body he has life everlasting.^^ Hereupon 
 again ensued a series of short interrogatories and 
 replies during which Barlow of Bath and Wells 
 made his solitary contribution towards the settle- 
 ment of the questions at issue. His intention apparently 
 was to draw the discussion from the main purpose 
 to the side question of the reservation of the 
 Sacrament, and in his endeavour he was seconded 
 by Holbeach of Lincoln. The substance of Barlow's 
 remarks was a series of four quotations from the 
 Fathers of the church. 
 
 At this point in the first day's debate bishop 
 Thirlby of Westminster, who had only a few months 
 
in the Parliament of 1548—9, 163 
 
 before returned from an embassy to the emperor 
 dharles V, rose. ' He was a man who could lay claim 
 to little theological learning and probably leant 
 much upon bishop Gardiner of Winchester in such 
 matters. He was however a diplomatist, and whilst 
 Ms Catholic brethren on the episcopal bench were 
 wholly absorbed in the discussion which was pro- 
 'Ceeding, he had busied himself in considering the 
 really important point, the impression made on the 
 minds of the listeners upon whose votes the ulti- 
 mate issue would depend. What that impression 
 must have been may be best gathered from the 
 bishop's own words, and the scene which followed 
 immediately upon them. He advised the "audience 
 to understand that the book that was read, touching 
 the doctrine of the Supper ^ was not agreed upon 
 ^mong the bishops, but only in disputation ; lest the 
 people should think di^LiOnesty in them to stand in 
 <irgument against their own deed that they had set 
 their hands unto, and for his part," he declared, 
 ""he did never allow the doctrine". 
 
 This plain enunciation of the position of the 
 bishops with regard to the proposed service book 
 caused consternation among the rulers. Warwick 
 evidently in anger rose to reply. "It was" he said 
 ^a perilous word spoken in that audience; and (he) 
 thought him worthy of displeasure, that in such a 
 time when concord is sought for, would cast such 
 occasions of discord among men". 
 
 Thirlby's unlooked for and unwelcome intervention 
 brought the discussions of the first day to a sudden 
 -close. 
 
 ^ Thirlby had returned to England in the latter part of July 1548. 
 
 ^ From the discussion of the Monday following it is clear that 
 this " book" was nothing else but the Communion office of the 
 first Book of Common Prayer. 
 
164 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 The next day was Sunday upon which there can- 
 be little doubt the Council would have discussed the 
 situation. On Monday (17 December) the debate was 
 resumed in the parliament House. The unexpected 
 turn given to the discussion by the bishop of West- 
 minster was naturally uppermost in the minds of 
 the rulers. The Protector rose on the assembling 
 of the House and addressed himself " first of the 
 words that were spoken on Saturday at night before." 
 His observations had evidently been carefully con- 
 sidered and were marked by studious self-control. 
 "The bishops' consultation" he said " was appointed 
 for unity : the book of their agreement had been read. 
 In Councils, though some consent not unto the thing, 
 yet by the most part it is concluded". In the present 
 case "only the bishop of Chichester (had) refused 
 to agree ". And for this refusal he had assigned three 
 reasons, (1) that chrism was omitted in confirmation ; 
 (2) that " in the prayer of the communion, where it is 
 written, Hhat it may be unto us &c\ he would have 
 'be made unto us &c". And (3) he desired "to have 
 certain words added after the consecration, which 
 were: 'that these sacrifices and oblations &c'". 
 
 To the bishop of Westminster this statement of the 
 Protector as to the previous discussions and agreements 
 of the bishops, full as it may appear to be, seemed 
 insufficient. He now rose in his place in the House 
 and explained his position at length. And first he 
 exposed the considerations w^hich had moved him 
 to the subscription of the proposed Book of Common 
 Prayer. They were four in number: (1) "although of 
 some there is in it too much" still those who held 
 with him "confess it to agree with scripture;" 
 (2) " though many things are wanting in the book\ 
 yet it was agreed " they should be treated of after- 
 wards." And in all these matters "he (Thirlby> 
 
in the Parliament of 1548—9, 165 
 
 ^desireth to agree with other churches " \ (3) He was 
 strongly moved also to agree by a desire to secure 
 concord and unity at home. (4) That as the need of 
 ceremonies in religion was still recognized, the Book 
 did not condemn ceremonial usages still retained in 
 other churches. 
 
 But the two great objections which he had to the 
 book as it stood were the abolition of the elevation 
 and the adoration. For wheresoever the Sacrament 
 is, it ought, he said, to be worshipped ; and in proof 
 of this he adduced a striking passage from the works 
 of St. Augustine. In consideration of unity at home, 
 however, he would concede that other things might 
 be altered ; but he never consented that the adoration 
 should be left out nor agreed to the doctrine of the 
 book. He held, moreover, that the very diversity 
 -of opinions now existing as to the verity of the 
 body and blood made it all the more necessary that 
 the true doctrine of the Sacrament should be plainly 
 set forth \ Also he desired that it should be known 
 that when the book was agreed to by the bishops 
 the word oblation was in it, which is now left out. 
 
 After this revelation of some part of what had 
 taken place in the previous discussion of the bishops, 
 Thirlby concludes with a general remark. "Things 
 in disputation" he says "are not agreed upon until 
 we allow that which is spoken of. It is a duty to 
 .set forth God's truth in plain terms. The want of 
 this plainness in the present case caused him in his 
 conscience not to agree to the doctrine". 
 
 For these plain statements the Protector was 
 
 1 This same desire had been already expressed by several 
 'bishops in their replies to the series of questions put by Cranmer 
 'early in the year 1548. See p. 88 ante. 
 
 ^ i. e. in the communion service of the Book. 
 
166 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 evidently not prepared. Smythe rose and made a. 
 somewhat pointless remark. " My lord of Westmin- 
 ster" he said " is persuaded of the verity of the body 
 and blood in the Sacrament: yet touching this book 
 they are all agreed of the doctrine so far as is of 
 me read". 
 
 By this time Somerset had made up his mind how 
 to act. He spoke in anger which he did not attempt 
 to conceal. "These vehement sayings" he declared 
 " show rather a wilfulness and an obstinacy to sajr 
 he will die in it". He would persuade men that he 
 could prove his doctrine by ancient doctors while in 
 fact he brings no authority forward. 
 
 Thirlby had had his say, and during the rest of the 
 discussion, with the exception of one remark, he 
 remained silent, leaving to others the task of adduc- 
 ing the authority of ancient doctors for the old 
 belief. The disclosures he had already made, however,, 
 afford more information as to the events, which 
 Somerset evidently desired to see involved in ob- 
 scurity, than can be obtained from any other source. 
 
 Bonner of London succeeded. After observing that 
 ''when anything is called in question" it must be 
 seen "whether it be decent, lawful and expedient", 
 he proceeded to declare his conviction that the 
 doctrine of the proposed Prayer Book was "not 
 decent, because it has been condemned as heresy,, 
 not only abroad, but in this realm also, as in tha 
 case of Lambert". * 
 
 "The faults in the book" he said "are these: 
 there is heresy because it is called bread ". But before 
 Bonner could develop his thesis or enumerate the 
 other faults, Somerset interrupted him; and after 
 reciting our Lord's words at the last supper from 
 
 ^ This, it will be understood, was a home thrust for Cranmer. 
 
in the Parliament of 1548— 9, 167' 
 
 SS. Matthew, Mark and Luke, asked : " who can take 
 this otherwise but that there is bread still"? And 
 quoting the words of St. Paul he concluded: "here- 
 doth appear plainly that which He blessed He gave - 
 to His disciples, and that is bread". 
 
 It is unnecessary to give the entire discussion hif 
 detail. Here it will be convenient only to mark the- 
 salient points. Following the rest of the Catholic- 
 party, Day of Chichester expounded the ancient doc- 
 trine ''that the body is there after the consecration". 
 He declared his belief that *" though the form and 
 accidents of the bread remain" it is no longer mere 
 bread, but "the same body that was wounded with 
 the spear and gushed out blood". 
 
 Skyp of Hereford addressed himself in particular 
 to Cranmer's proposed difficulty that as the body of 
 Christ was in heaven it could not also be in the 
 Sacrament. He concluded his remarks by the assertion 
 of his faith that the Blessed Sacrament " is the very 
 body that is in heaven"; adding directly to Cranmer, 
 "Lanfranc understood it so, who was your prede- 
 cessor". 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer was supported by Holbeach 
 of Lincoln and next by Ridley of Rochester. Goodrich 
 of Ely contented himself with two or three remarks 
 of no importance, but leaning to the views of the 
 innovators. 
 
 The Catholic view was maintained by Tunstall of 
 Durham, Rugg of Norwich, Bonner of London, Heath 
 of Worcester, Day of Chichester, Skyp of Hereford 
 and Thirlby of Westminster. The bishops of Llandaff 
 and Carlisle each made only one remark directed 
 against Cranmer's views. 
 
 The Bishop of Lichfield here again shows the con- 
 fusion of mind, which is to be noted in his replies 
 to the questions on the Sacrament proposed in the 
 
168 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 early part of the year. His remarks during the course 
 of the debate were few, but were sufficient to raise 
 in Cranmer's party the hope that they had gained 
 an episcopal convert. On the fourth day however 
 the bishop rose to " deny his conversion which was 
 supposed to be by his words that he spoke upon 
 Monday". 
 
 The bishop of Norwich took his stand on the ground 
 of tradition and alleged the liturgies of St. James 
 and St. Clement against the proposed book; just as 
 " Chrysostom and Basil in the canon of their masses " 
 were adduced later on by Tunstall of Durham. Such 
 testimony however was waived aside by the remark 
 of the archbishop " that there is in the beginning of 
 Chrysostom a prayer to himself, which proves that 
 it was not his mass", and by that of Holbeach of 
 Lincoln, that "the mass of St. James cannot be 
 showed". 
 
 Ridley proved himself Cranmer's most able coad- 
 jutor. He first intervened in the debate towards the 
 close of the second day (17 December). He addressed 
 himself to the question for discussion as defined by 
 Somerset, and his speech is evidently prepared with 
 care. He begins with the monition of St. Peter: 
 "^ render reason and cause of the faith that is within 
 you". That faith, as regards himself, he explains at 
 length. "As Christ", he says, "took upon Him manhood 
 and remained God, so is bread made by the Holy 
 Ghost holy and remaineth bread still . . . Still the 
 bread of communion is not mere bread, but bread 
 united to the divinity". 
 
 The bishop of Worcester contested Ridley's reason- 
 ings. "The text 'hoc est corpus\ you say, does not take 
 away the substance of bread, and there is no other 
 substance but bread; it is meant then that we receive 
 in faith, when we receive the very body". Ridley 
 
in the Pmiiament of 1548—9. 169 
 
 thus questioned did not flinch from his position. 
 ^^ Concerning the outward thing it is very bread", 
 he said, " but according to the power of God, is 
 ministered the very body". Heath pressed him to 
 say clearly " whether the receiver takes any substance 
 in the Sacrament or not". Eidley replied, that Christ 
 was really in heaven " and is present in the Sacrament 
 by His working". 
 
 The bishop of Worcester then, after pointing out that 
 all the old doctors granted a conversion of the bread, 
 enquired " into what is the bread converted ? " Roches- 
 ter thus pushed answered : " it is converted into the 
 body of Christ", and then, seeming to perceive his 
 blunder, put the question: "how^ are we turned in 
 baptism"? Spiritually, replied Heath. And thereupon 
 Ridley proceeded further to cover up his mistake 
 by a similitude. ^'Even", he said, "as a glass receives 
 the light of the sun, but the stone cannot for the 
 light may not pierce through it, so the evil man cannot 
 receive the body". 
 
 At this point, where Heath would have evidently 
 proceeded to point out that such a conversion was 
 no conversion at all, Warwick intervened. "Where 
 is your scripture now my Lord of Worcester ? Methinks 
 because you cannot maintain your argument neither 
 by scripture nor doctors you would go to, now, with 
 natural reason and sophistry." Heath did not resume 
 the discussion. 
 
 Cranmer, however, rose and now gave in a few 
 words the creed of his own party. "I believe", he 
 said, "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. When the evil (man) eateth the Sacrament, 
 bread and wine, he neither hath Christ's body nor 
 eateth it. The good man hath the Word within him, 
 
170 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 and the Godhead by reason of an indissoluble annexion 
 (with) the manhood. Eating with his mouth giveth 
 nothing to man, nor the body being in the bread. 
 Christ gave to his disciples bread and wine, creatures 
 amongst us, and called it His body saying, Hoc est 
 corpus meum'\ 
 
 On the last day of the discussion Heath brought 
 Ridley again to the point at which he had been 
 interrupted by Warwick on the previous day, and 
 pressed him to declare what change, if any, was 
 wrought in the elements by the consecration. Ridley 
 replied that the bread " is transformed, for of the 
 common bread before, it is made a divine influence; 
 but the substance of the bread remains as it was 
 before. " 
 
 Towards the close of the fourth day the prelates 
 on the Catholic side strove to bring the whole ques- 
 tion to a more simple issue. Bonner urged his hearers 
 to abide in the ancient doctrine " and go no further 
 than our holy Fathers, that have searched (the 
 scriptures) and come to the belief (which) must be 
 follow^ed. They", he concluded "have found it, we 
 should not then go seek it still, but follow them 
 and believe as they did". 
 
 The discussion closed on Wednesday, 19 December, 
 by a reiteration of Cranmer's own belief: and on the 
 same day "the book for the service in the Church" 
 was brought down to the Commons by Mr. Secretary 
 Smythe, read to the members and redelivered to him. 
 
 The following day in the house of Lords the 
 " bill for confirmation of service to be used throughout 
 the realm was committed to Mr. Hales, sergeant- 
 at-law": and the next day, 21 December, the par- 
 liament adjourned until 2 January (1549). ^ OnMonday, 
 
 ^ The details of the passage of the Bill through the Lords 
 
in the Pmiiament of 1548—9. 171 
 
 the 7th of that month, the *" Bill for religion with 
 penalty for the same" was read in the Lords for 
 the first time '; on the 10th, the second reading wa» 
 taken, and its third reading with the final voting 
 on Tuesday, 15 January, 1549. 
 
 The only lay peers who voted against the measure f 
 were the Earl of Derby and the Lords Dacre and 
 Windsor. It is necessary to analyse carefully the 
 votes recorded by the spiritual peers. Of the bishops 
 present, ten voted for the government measure and 
 eight against it. Those approving it, were of course 
 Cranmer, Holbeach, Goodrich, Ridley and Barlow. 
 The other five who followed their leading were 
 Holgate of York, Chambers of Peterborough, (who 
 retired into his diocese immediately after the voting 
 and named as his proxies the bishops of London 
 and Worcester), Sal cot of Sarum, Bush of Bristol 
 and Sampson of Lichfield. 
 
 The prelates who voted against the new Book 
 were Bonner, Tunstall, Heath, Thirlby, Rugg of 
 Norwich, Aldrich of Carlisle, Skyp of Hereford and 
 Day of Chichester. Of the bishops who were not 
 present at the voting, the vote of Gardiner who was 
 in the Tower, can not be doubtful. Four others 
 were represented by proxies: King of Oxford had 
 named Holbeach and Ridley; Wharton of St. Asaph 
 was represented by Goodrich and Salcot of Sarum ; 
 the bishop of Bangor by Salcot, Thirlby and Bush, 
 and the bishop of Chester by Bonner and Thirlby. 
 
 are to be seen in the Journals. As the forms of the House were 
 still unsettled, it is sometimes difficult to fix exactly the par- 
 ticular stage at which the reading of a Bill had arrived. 
 
 ^ As the title of the Bill was altered before its first reading, 
 it is possible that it was committed to Hales to draw up the 
 form of penalty. 
 
172 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 Judged by the proxies therefore the bishops of 
 Oxford and St. Asaph must be considered as voting 
 for the bill, the bishop of Chester against it while 
 Bangor was neutral. Four more of the episcopal 
 .bench remain to be accounted for : the proxy of 
 IVoysey of Exeter, although called for, only arrived 
 when the voting was over: of Wakeman of Gloucester 
 nothing is known : the bishop of Llandaff, who had 
 spoken against Cranmer during the discussion, was 
 not present at the last; and Ferrar of St. David's 
 was also away; but his opinion cannot be doubted. 
 
 Taking all circumstances therefore into consideration 
 the opinion of the bishops upon the new liturgy may 
 fairly be stated as follows: thirteen of their number 
 were favourable to the government measure, ten 
 .were opposed to it, whilst the views of the remaining 
 four, the bishops of Llandaff, Bangor, Gloucester and 
 Exeter, may be considered doubtful, although they can 
 hardly be believed to have been favourable. 
 
 It may be unnecessary to remark that the govern- 
 ment must have brought every pressure to bear on 
 the prelates to secure their support; but even so, 
 their success can hardly be considered such as strongly 
 to recommend the Book imposed to the respect and 
 good will of the nation at large. 
 
 The immediate impression made by the events 
 detailed in this chapter may be best gathered from 
 the letters written to foreign reformers by their friends 
 in England. It is singular that beyond an entry in 
 the King's journal and some slight references made 
 at a later period, there is no mention of this momen- 
 tous discussion in the contemporary english chronicles'. 
 
 ^ The silence of the english chronicles is the more singular 
 since it seems to have been known in Isluremberg and appears in 
 
in the Parliament of 1548—9, 173 
 
 Even the careful collector Stowe does not record 
 the debate and the full import of the information 
 contained in the Zurich letters can only be understood 
 in the light of the discussion itself, which is here 
 given for the first time. Prom this document however 
 it is sufficiently clear that Somerset did not intend 
 that more should be known of the real history ot 
 the Book than he could help. 
 
 On 27 November, 1548, the very day upon which 
 Parliament assembled, John ab Ulmis wrote from 
 Oxford to Bulliuger. He notifies in his letter the 
 opening of Parliament and promises to send "by 
 the first opportunity a careful and distinct account 
 of the principal acts '. The bishops" he at present 
 reports "entertain right and excellent opinions re- 
 specting the Holy Supper. That abominable error and 
 silly opinion of a carnal eating has long since been 
 banished and entirely done away with; even that 
 Thomas (Cranmer) himself about whom I wrote to 
 you when I was in London, by the goodness of God 
 and the instrumentality of that most upright man, 
 master John a Lasco, is in great measure recovered 
 from his dangerous lethargy " \ 
 
 the appendix of additions to CariorCs Chronicle by John Funk 
 of that town, although the sequence of events is displaced. "There 
 was also" he writes "a great disputation in the Parliament that 
 year for the putting down of the Mass ". See Carton's Chronicle 
 &c. printed in London by G. Lynne, 1550, f. 274b. 
 
 ^ Unfortunately this promised account is not forthcoming. 
 John ab Ulmis was a protege of Cox, Dean of Christ Church and 
 chancellor of the university, and his information as to facts would 
 have been probably accurate. 
 
 * Orlg. Letters. Parker Soc. p. 383. It is probable that the 
 writer had heard vague rumours as to the " agreement" of the 
 bishops to the " book "; he would probably be well informed 
 about the religious views of the archbishop. 
 
174: The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 On 26 December (1548) Peter Martyr wrote from 
 Oxford to his friend Bucer. He explained that he 
 had delayed writing because he had been " awaiting 
 the result of this parliament; but as its proceedings 
 are not yet made known" he cannot yet tell him 
 what is done about religion. "There is however", he 
 says, "generally entertained the best hope of success". 
 He himself is alarmed at two things: the one is 
 "the most obstinate pertinacity of the friends of 
 popery (who) are very numerous and consisting of 
 bishops, doctors and men of that class, who are so 
 cunning as to draw a multitude of ignorant persons 
 along with them, and so bold, that, perceiving the 
 supreme power of this kingdom, which is commonly 
 called a parliament, is shortly about to make some 
 regulations respecting religion, and feeling that the 
 result will not be in their favour, they are consoling 
 themselves with expectations from the emperor, and 
 muttering everywhere that he will not long allow 
 of such proceedings. 
 
 "The other matter which distresses me not a little 
 is this, that there is so much contention amoug our 
 people about the Eucharist that every corner is full 
 of it and even in the supreme Council of the state, 
 in which matters relating to religion are daily brought 
 forward, there is so much disputing of the bishops 
 among themselves and with others, as I think was 
 never heard before. Whence those who are in the 
 lower House, as it is called, that is, men of inferior 
 rank, go up every day into the higher court of 
 parliament, not indeed for the purpose of voting 
 (for that they do in the lower House,) but only that 
 they may be able to hear these sharp and fervent 
 disputations. Hitherto the popish party has been 
 defeated and the palm rests with our friends, but 
 especially with the archbishop of Canterbury, whom 
 
in the Parliament of 1548—9, 175 
 
 they till now were wont to traduce as a man ignor- 
 ant of theology, and as being only conversant with 
 matters of government; but now, believe me, he has 
 shewn himself so mighty a theologian against them 
 as they would rather not have proof of, and they 
 are compelled, against their inclination, to acknow- 
 ledge his learning and power and dexterity in debate. 
 Transubstantiation, I think, is now exploded, and the 
 difficulty 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 ''\ 
 He concludes by saying that the dissensions are so 
 grave in the country that something must be done, 
 and thinks there can be no doubt as to the result, 
 since " the innovations which have everywhere taken 
 place" have been so great that the government 
 " can no longer retrace their steps ". ^ 
 
 At this date then, 26 December, Peter Martyr was 
 only generally informed as to the debate which had 
 taken place in parliament. A few days later, 31 
 December, Traheron writing to Bullinger from London 
 furnished him with some details. " The argument " 
 he says " was sharply contested by the bishops. The 
 archbishop of Canterbury, contrary to general expec- 
 tation, most openly, firmly and learnedly maintained 
 your (^. e. Bullinger s) opinion upon this subject. His 
 arguments were as follows : The body of Christ was 
 taken up from us into heaven. Christ has left the 
 world. 'Ye have the poor always with you, but me 
 ye have not always' &c. Next followed the bishop 
 of Rochester, who handled the subject with so much 
 eloquence, perspicuity, erudition and power, as to 
 
 1 Orig. Letters, pp. 469—70. 
 
176 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 stop the mouth of that zealous papist, the bishop of 
 Worcester. The truth never obtained a more brilliant 
 victory among us. I perceive it is all over with 
 Lutheranism, now that those who were considered 
 its principal and almost only supporters, have alto- 
 gether come over to oar side".^ 
 
 A second letter of Peter Martyr to Bucer, dated 
 22 January 1549, shows that notes of the discussion 
 in Parliament had been taken and that this record 
 was at the time in Cranmer's hands. "You must 
 know" he writes, "that many things have been 
 determined in our parliament respecting religion,, 
 but with such obstinate opposition from certain 
 bishops as no one ever expected would be the case- 
 The acts however are not yet made public. My lord 
 of Canterbury told Julius that he had forwarded 
 them to me; but I have not yet received them". ^ 
 
 Lastly a letter from an Englishman, John Burcher, 
 to Bullinger and dated from Strasburg, 22 January 
 1549, suggests several interesting considerations. 
 After details showing the extreme care that was 
 then taken to keep Bullinger fully informed as to 
 all that was taking place in England, *'' the writer 
 passes on to give a summary of the english news 
 already forwarded, to make sure of its reaching him. 
 "This was the substance of the first letter" he con- 
 tinues; "the second related to matters of religion,, 
 and the discussion which lasted three days between 
 four bishops, namely, the archbishop of Canterbury 
 and another, called Doctor Ferrar* on the part of 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 323. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 477. 
 
 3 See the details in Orig. Letter Sy p. 644. 
 
 ^ The writer was not well informed in this. Ferrar was not. 
 present at the discussion. Ridley doubbless is meant. 
 
in the Parliament of 1548—9, 177 
 
 the gospel, and the bishops of Worcester and West- 
 minster on the side of popery. Nothing, however, 
 is as yet decided, nor is there any public preaching. 
 But, as I hope you will receive that letter, I pass 
 over the rest. I will not however omit this truly 
 discreet reply which our young king made to the 
 Protector. When the disputation was ended, the 
 Protector accosted the king with an expression of 
 his surprise, saying, *How very much the bishop of 
 Westminster has deceived my expectation.' 'Your 
 expectation', the king replied, 'he might deceive, 
 but not mine'. When the Protector further enquired 
 the reason, '1 expected', said the king, * nothing 
 else but that he, who has been so long time with 
 the emperor as ambassador, should smell of the 
 Interim'; a reply truly becoming the young king, 
 and which I did not think right to omit" *. 
 
 This extract shows that much reserve was still 
 maintained in regard to the details of the discussion; 
 but no one can doubt, after perusing the report of 
 the debate now printed, that the anecdote related 
 by Burcher is authentic. 
 
 A point has now been arrived at when a review 
 may be advantageously taken of the course of events 
 which led up to the passing of the Act of Uniformity. 
 It may be taken that all the bishop of Westminster 
 said in the discussion was true in fact. Still it is 
 obviously not the whole truth as to the compilation 
 of the new service book, but it is probably all that 
 will ever be known about it. Somerset denied nothing, 
 and Cranmer was silent although one remark of 
 Thirlby was practically a public impeachment of the 
 archbishop's good faith and honesty. It is therefore 
 certain that the bishops were called together by 
 
 1 Orig. Letters pp. 645 — 6. 
 
178 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 Somerset with the object of coming to some under- 
 standing about the proposed Book of Common Prayer. 
 (1) This meeting appears to have taken place in Octo- 
 ber, some time after the proclamation in wich the first 
 public notice of intended changes in the Liturgy was 
 made (23 Sept. 1548). For upon 29 October, John: 
 Burcher at Strasburg already informs BuUinger that ) 
 " the government roused by " the brawling as to the | 
 Sacrament "have convoked a synod of the bishops j 
 to consult about religion"'. 
 
 (2) The proposed Prayer Book was submitted to 
 this meeting, and its terms to some extent were 
 discussed, though the chief stress seems to have been 
 laid on the " doctrine '\ 
 
 (3) The bishops present at these meetings did not 
 agree among themselves " as to the doctrine of the 
 Supper" and came to no conclusion. 
 
 (4) The assembled bishops all signed the book 
 except Day of Chichester ; but this was on the 
 understanding that their action was not to imply 
 any assent to the doctrine ofCranmer and his followers. 
 
 (5) The objections to the book centred round this 
 point: that the adoration of the Sacrament was 
 left out. 
 
 (6) It was allowed that many things were wanting 
 in the book as submitted and it was agreed that 
 these should be treated of afterwards: thus affording 
 an opportunity desired by men likeTunstall, Heath, 
 Bonner and Thirlby himself, of making it more 
 conformable to the ordinary practice of the Church 
 from which, as the book stood, it was a departure. 
 
 ^ Ibid p. 643. Somerset's words are formal : * the bishops' 
 consultation" (Debate. Royal MS. 17 B. xxxix f. 5d.) It is worthy 
 of note that in parliament the Protector says nothing, when speaking 
 of the meeting, about "other best learned men". 
 
in the Parliament of 1548—9. 179 
 
 (7) The book after the bishops had signed it was 
 i;ampered with. 
 
 Beyond these facts, some conjecture may safely 
 loe made as to the motives which induced the bishops 
 to sign the proposed liturgy. The whole country 
 had been stirred up: it was a scene of confusion 
 and wrangling the continuance of which would 
 seriously jeopardize "the unity at home in this 
 realm". At the same time the government had so 
 managed their foreign policy as to make domestic 
 tranquillity imperative. The kingdom was at war 
 with Scotland and there was in prospect a breach 
 with France against which country the Protector was 
 unable, as Henry had done, to play off the emperor. 
 Thus apart from the religious beliefs and designs of 
 Cranmer and Somerset there seemed to be an abso- 
 lute need for some english Interim \ 
 
 The real opinion of the Catholic bishops as to the 
 proper solution of the difficulty is clear from the 
 report of the debate and their subsequent action. 
 And whatever judgment may be passed on them for 
 signing a book in regard to which they had such 
 manifest scruples, ^ it must be allowed that a 
 difficult position had been prepared for them and 
 that at the time the appeal to their love of country 
 must have come with great force. 
 
 In fact it is hardly too much to say that the 
 Catholic party amongst the bishops was caught in a 
 trap. They were induced to sign a book which 
 was wholly inadequate, on extraneous considera- 
 tions and under a pledge for subsequent revision. 
 They were then launched on a public discussion in 
 
 * It was reported at this time that the emperor was pressing 
 some such measure on the english government. See a letter of 
 John ab Ulmis to Bullinger 27 Nov. 1548, Orig. Lett, p. 383. 
 
 2 Royal MS. 17B. xxxix f. 6. 
 
180 The debate on the Sacrament 
 
 Parliament at which it was calculated they would 
 not dare to show themselves inconsistent. The expect- 
 ation however of the government was so far dis- 
 appointed. And it is not wonderful that when their false 
 position was made clear to the Catholic bishops, they 
 through Bonner declared, "" there is heresy in the book". 
 Before passing on to consider the character of the 
 new liturgy imposed on the english Church by the 
 Act of Uniformity, some brief expression of opinion 
 formed after careful consideration of the available 
 evidence may be expected upon some of the moro 
 obscure points of its history. 
 
 (1) It is most probable that no formal commission 
 was ever issued to compile the Prayer Book. Such a 
 commission imposes responsibility and confers rights. 
 This was not the method commonly employed in 
 Edward's reign. It was a time of governmental formu- 
 lae, one of which occurs again and again in official 
 documents throughout this period of history to design- 
 ate the persons engaged in preparing the liturgical 
 changes. " The godly bishops and best learned men", 
 covers as much or as little as those in power might 
 please. Without issuing a definite commission they 
 were free to call whom they would, to what place 
 they would, as well as to vary the individuals engaged 
 on the work at their pleasure. In a word it is doubt- 
 ful whether any " Windsor commission", if by that 
 expression it is meant to designate any definite body 
 of men formally appointed to undertake the task, 
 ever had any existence. 
 
 (2) Strype is probably right in considering that 
 the "Prayer Book went through only a few hands". 
 Whose hands these were is tolerably clear from the 
 result, but the only positive statement that can be 
 made is, that Cranmer had the chief part in the 
 inspiration and composition. 
 
in the Parliament of 1548—9, 181 
 
 (3) It is most probable that the compilation was 
 long meditated and its progress to its ultimate form 
 gradual. It would appear likely also that the matins 
 and even-song in english at St. Paul's and the 
 english mass at Westminster in the May of 1548 ^ as 
 well as the offices in use in the King's chapel in 
 September, were substantially those afterwards incor- 
 porated in the first Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 (4) For the "certain bishops and notable learned 
 men", assembled at Chertsey and Windsor by the 
 King's command, nothing was left to do but to put 
 together, and give the final touches to the material 
 already prepared. The book thus completed was 
 submitted in October, or in the early days of Novem- 
 ber to the bishops. These two assemblages were 
 distinct in regard both to their object and the persons 
 composing them. 
 
 (5) The report of the discussion in parliament 
 does away with any lingering doubt as to whether 
 the english liturgy was approved by the clergy in 
 Convocation or not. Had such been the case Somerset 
 and Cranmer could not have failed to retort that 
 approval upon Thirlby ^. 
 
 ^ see p. 102 ante. 
 
 2 The same may be said of Somerset's letter to Pole of 4 June 
 1549 in defence of the new Prayer Book. He elaborately 
 recounts * the common agreement of all the chief learned men 
 in the realm ... as well bishops as other equally and indifiPer- 
 ently chosen", "first agreement on points", "and then the same 
 coming to the judgment of the whole parliament ... by one whole 
 consent of the upper and nether house of the parliament finally 
 concluded and approved ; and so a form of rite and service, a 
 creed and doctrine and religion and after that sort allowed, set 
 forth and etablished by act and statute (Pocock, Troubles con- 
 nected with the Prayer Boole of 1549. ei Camden Soc. p. X) 
 Is it possible to suppose that Somerset here too would not have 
 pleaded the formal and synodical sanction of the Book of Common 
 Prayer by Convocation had any such been given? 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE FIRST ENGLISH BOOK OF COMMON PRAYEH. 
 
 The act of parliament imposing the Prayer Book 
 was rightly called the Act of Uniformity. For, as the 
 preface of the book itself declares in emphatic terras, 
 ''now from henceforth all the whole realm shall 
 have but one use". 
 
 The forms of public prayer are the very centre and 
 kernel of the religious life of a Christian people. 
 The new book displaced the traditional liturgy in 
 England, the origin and history of which are so lost 
 in the obscurity of time that they afford little more 
 than objects for the speculation and conjectures of 
 the learned. The various Books of Common Prayer 
 given to the english church during the last three 
 penturies are merely modifications of this first Prayer 
 book of 1549. And thus from whatever point of view 
 the new liturgy be regarded it is without doubt 
 one of the most momentous documents connected 
 with the ecclesiastical history of England. It becomes 
 therefore a matter of the first importance to gain 
 if possible a clear and definite idea of its character, 
 its relation to the old service books which it super- 
 seded and to other new liturgical formulae which 
 were put forth in other countries about the same time. 
 
 Any enquiry of this kind, however, presents diffi- 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer. 183 
 
 culties apart from the mere critical investigation 
 demanded by so important an historical document. 
 Every liturgical book, v^hatever may be thought of 
 its intrinsic character, or of the intentions of its 
 composers, has on the face of it a certain claim to 
 forbearance and respect. A Catholic, who sees in 
 the living liturgy of the roman church the essential 
 forms, "which remain still what they were 1200, 
 perhaps nearly 1400, years ago ", * cannot but feel a 
 personal love for those sacred rites which come to 
 him with all the authority of centuries. Any rude 
 handling of such forms must cause deep pain to 
 those who know and use them. For they come to 
 them from God, through Christ and through the 
 Church. But they would not have such attraction 
 were they not also sanctified by the piety of so many 
 generations who have prayed in the same words and 
 found in them steadiness in joy and consolation in 
 sorrow. ^ 
 
 And although the book now to be considered 
 manifestly does not possess the same titles to vene- 
 ration, still for three centuries it has been associated 
 with the most holy thoughts, feelings and aspirations 
 of the majority of Englishmen. Thus whilst its im- 
 portance demands that it should be examined as an 
 historical document, such scrutiny should be regulated 
 by consideration for the attachment of those to whom 
 it is a living reality. 
 
 For the present purpose the investigation is limited. 
 The saying 'lex orandi, lex credendi' is after all only 
 of the most general application. And it is obvious 
 that a form of prayer, whilst it assumes a truth 
 
 1 Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. xv. 
 
 2 Cf. Duchesne Origines du Culte Chretien pp. vii— vra. 
 
184 The First English Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 need not, and generally does not, express it in distinct 
 and formal terms. The attempt therefore to deduce 
 from liturgical books a definite doctrinal formula 
 much less a system of doctrine must end in failure. 
 The. primary aim of any liturgical formula is to assist 
 the piety of the faithful, not to afford a touchstone 
 of error, for whilst it expresses the truth so far as 
 it goes, it is not intended as a full exposition or 
 expression of it. Accordingly the actual doctrine of 
 the book need not be considered. Here it will be 
 sufficient to mark the manner in which the new 
 service book agrees with or differs from the tradi- 
 tional books then in use and the new contemporary 
 liturgies. To rightly estimate the character of the 
 Prayer Book of ] 549 in relation to the ancient liturgy 
 the omissions are obviously of primary importance; 
 and in relation to new forms the points of agreement. ^ 
 In such an investigation no account need be taken 
 of resemblances or analogies between the english 
 Prayer Book and other liturgies eastern or western 
 which there is no reason whatever for supposing 
 were really used by the compilers as one of their 
 sources of inspiration. ^ It is consequently only ne- 
 
 "• In short the new liturgy stood in relation to mediaeval forms 
 as a practical criticism and judgment of them. See the excellent 
 remarks of Kliefoth Liturgische Ahhandlungen^ vii, pp. 3—4. 
 
 "^ Works like those of Palmer and Scudamore are interesting 
 and valuable, but such commentaries have little to do with 
 the historical character of the book of 1549. They are also often 
 disfigured by a want of real acquaintance with mediaeval liturgy 
 and their aim and method are rather those of Apologetics than 
 of History. To use the words of the liturgist Daniel, a judge, 
 it is certain, equally disinterested and competent : " Doctis 
 anglise scriptoribus, alias omnino dignissimis cultu atque officio, 
 in deliciis est, omnes ritualis sui paginas contexere et concinnare 
 non ex 'romanis libris (nam hi recentiores sunt quam ut ferri 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer, 185 
 
 cessary here to consider what might have been 
 actual sources from which these compilers could 
 have derived either suggestion or material. These 
 are (1) the ancient uses, chiefly Sarum, York and 
 Hereford, which then existed in England; (2) the 
 breviary of Cardinal Quignon; (3) the Greek liturgies; 
 (4) the Mozarabic, or ancient rite of Spain. 
 
 This last (the Mozarabic) may conveniently be 
 considered first. The opinion that this rite was used 
 in the compilation of the Book of Common Prayer 
 rests upon two points of evidence : first on a simila- 
 rity in the words of Institution of the Sacrament; 
 secondly on the form of blessing the font. In regard 
 to the first point it will appear later that this was 
 derived not from the Mozarabic, but from a contem- 
 porary liturgy. In regard to the second, it seems 
 certain that the form must have been obtained either 
 directly or indirectly from the Spanish liturgy. But 
 there are difficulties connected with the case. It is 
 true that the missal and breviary of this rite were 
 printed in the beginning of the sixteenth century, but 
 as the impression was for actual liturgical use at 
 the time it was not in the ordinary book market 
 and so late as 1540 there was not even a copy in 
 the Vatican library. * What is still more to the 
 present purpose is that the liturgist Cassander, whom 
 nothing escaped, sought in vain for years to discover 
 any copy of the missal and it was not until the 
 year 1565 within a few months of his death that he 
 heard of one at Vienna. This was in the hands of 
 
 possint) sed ex iEgyptiis, Africanis, Gallicanis, Mozarabis. Sed, 
 ut hoc Palmeri pace dixerim, perpauca inde desumpta sunt, 
 plurima ex roraanis liturgiis, singula ex reformatis". (Codex 
 Liturg. JEccl. Univ. iir p. 349 note). 
 
 ^ So Alvarez Gomez in his life of Ximenes published in 1569.. 
 The Pope sent specially to Toledo for a copy. 
 
186 The First English Booh of Common Prayer, 
 
 the celebrated John Sambucus and (as from circum- 
 stances it may be inferred) there was no copy in 
 the imperial library. ' 
 
 If a copy had existed in England it can hardly 
 have disappeared. There is no trace of such a book 
 in the catalogue of the Royal library in 1542 and if 
 it had been in Cranmer's library it would almost 
 certainly have passed through Lord Lumley into the 
 Royal collection, now in the British Museum. Some 
 portion of this blessing of the font survives in the 
 present Prayer Book, but the means whereby it 
 found its way into the book of 154:9 is a problem 
 yet to be solved. 
 
 The case is different as regards the greek liturg- 
 ies. These had been known in England both in 
 the original and in ancient and sixteenth century 
 translations. As early as 1510 or 1511 Erasmus gave 
 bishop Fisher a translation of the mass of St. Chry- 
 sostom which he had made * and this latin version 
 had appeared in print at least three times before the 
 compilation of the Prayer Book. The first print of 
 the masses of St. Chrysostom and St. Basil appeared 
 at Rome in 1526 and the same year Stokesley, bishop 
 of London was able to lend a copy to Fisher. ^ 
 Numerous prints had appeared by the year 1548, and 
 whatever may have been the use made of the greek 
 liturgies in the compilation of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, it is quite certain that they were perfectly 
 well known to all interested in the theological dis- 
 
 > See Cassandri opera (1616) pp. 1094, 1097-8, 1099, 
 1217-18. 
 
 '^ Fisher, De Veritate Corporis f. 64a. It was sent to Colet 
 in 1513. 
 
 3 Fisher, ut sup. 64a. 87a. 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer. 187 
 
 cussions of the time. * How far they were in fact 
 used will appear later. 
 
 As to the - roman breviary of Quignon, in the book 'O^"''^^ 
 of 154:9 no part remained but what had been in- 
 
 * So far as the greek liturgies are concerned, the following 
 seems to have been the available material in the year 1549. The 
 Clementine liturgy and that of St. James were known only by 
 extracts in the tract of Bessarion, de Sacramento Eucliaristice, 
 of which two editions at least had appeared. Of the liturgy of 
 St. Basil, the greek appeared at Rome in 1526, Witzel had 
 printed his own translation and a second translation from an ancient 
 MS. at Mentz in 1546. Gentianus Hervetus printed his translation 
 at Venice in 1548 ; and Cochlseus had published another ancient MS. 
 in his Speculum at Mentz in 1549. TheMiuYgj oi St, Chrysostom 
 had been considerably altered between the 12th and 16th century. 
 The greek 16th century text appeared at Rome in 1526 and 
 at Venice 1528, and latin translations of this text at Venice 
 1528, and Prague 1544 ; Hervetus' translation, Venice 1548, seems 
 also to have been of this text. Erasmus' version was from a 12th 
 century text. It appeared at Paris 1537, at Colmar 1540, among 
 St. Chrysostom's workg 1547; and it is said in the edition of 
 1537 also. The 12th century version of Leo Thuscus appeared 
 at Colmar in 1540 from a MS. in the library of the Augustinians, 
 whilst the Dominican Amb^'osius Pelargus printed at Worms in 
 1541 a translation from a greek MS. which he had found at the 
 collegiate Church of St. Simeon at Treves. Finally Witzel printed 
 in 1540 a garman translation (See Horawitz and Hertfelder, 
 Briefweclisel des Beatus Bhenanus p. 466). 
 
 Although some, of these prints were but small volumes or 
 tracts it is certain that they were not unknown in England. 
 (Cf. Richard Smith's Defence of the Sacrament of the altar 
 (1546) f. 59 — 60). It is remarkable that whilst they are freely 
 quoted by writers on the Catholic side, Smith, Tunstall, Gardiner, 
 their testimony is ignored by Cranmer and his friends (see p. 
 168 ante. There is also a single reference in Cranmer's Defence, 
 1549; and one in his Common Place Books, MS, Reg. 7. B. XII 
 fol. 164a). 
 
188 The First English Booh of Common Prayer, 
 
 corporated in the Preface, and such general influence 
 as it may be supposed to have exercised in regard 
 to the continuous reading of Scripture. 
 
 There remains to be considered what relation the 
 new service book had to the ancient english uses. 
 The way in which these vary one from the other 
 is interesting to the specialist, but the variant parts 
 themselves are not of such magnitude as to be of 
 any practical import. There is nothing moreover in 
 the Book of Common Prayer which can certainly 
 be referred to the influence of York or Hereford as 
 distinct from Sarum. It will be sufficient therefore 
 to take as the standard of comparison the Sarum 
 books, which is tantamount to taking the Roman ; 
 for here again although the differences are of interest, 
 they are unimportant for the present purpose. What 
 has lately been said of the breviary holds good of 
 the missal. "These local peculiarities are by no means 
 so extensive as is sometimes supposed."^ 
 
 Before entering upon a detailed examination, the 
 service book itself must be briefly described. After 
 the preface and the tables of psalms and lessons 
 follows the order for matins and evensong daily 
 throughout the year. This part of the book, with 
 the litany, corresponds to the breviary of the old 
 service. Then comes "the Supper of the Lord and 
 the Holy Communion commonly called the Mass", 
 which took the place of the ancient missal. The 
 offices of baptism, matrimony, the visitation of 
 the sick, the burial service and the purification 
 of women represents the ancient manual or ritual; 
 and the short ofl&co of confirmation is all that 
 then represented the pontifical. The book conclu- 
 des with what is now called the "Commination 
 
 ^ Cambridge reprint of the Sarum Breviary, iii p. xxviii. 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer, 189 
 
 service", which had no forerunner in the ancient 
 liturgical books, and by an advertisement about 
 ceremonies and "notes" on the same subject. 
 
 According to the traditional and universal practice 
 of Christendom the mass, by whatever name it may 
 be called, was the great public service of worship. 
 To it all other offices were subordinate and accessary. 
 It was this, as will already have appeared, which 
 was the main point of controversy in the early years 
 of Edward's reign. "The Book of the Communion", 
 as Cranmer calls it, must therefore necessarily be 
 the centre and substance of the whole investigation, 
 and in the first place this new order of "the Supper 
 of the Lord and Holy Communion, commonly called 
 the Mass " must be compared with the ancient rite. 
 
 (1) It opens with the following rubric: " So many as 
 intend to be partakers of the Holy Communion, shall 
 signify their names to the curate over night or else 
 in the morning, afore the beginning of matins, or 
 immediately after" '. The first rubric therefore main- 
 tains the novelty introduced by the * Order of Com- 
 munion' attached to the mass by the innovators in 
 1548, that intending communicants should signify to 
 the priest their intention, either over night or in 
 the morning 2. 
 
 (2) In the fourth rubric the priest is directed in 
 this service to " put upon him the vesture appointed 
 for that ministration, that is to say a white alb 
 plain with a vestment or cope'\ It must here be 
 explained that a cope was not specifically a sacerdotal 
 vestment but might be worn by any cleric •\ 
 
 ^ Parker Soc. ed. p. 76. 
 
 2 Parker Soc. ed. p. 76. Griffith and Farran's edition p. 193. 
 These two editions will be subsequently referred to as P. 
 and G. respectively. All the first four rubrics are new. 
 
 ^ A great number of these clerics were in mediaeval England 
 
190 The First English Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 By the 'vestment' the chasuble is unquestionably 
 meant and the term is wide enough to cover the 
 use of the amice, stole and other vestments worn 
 by the priest in the celebration of mass. The chasuble 
 was essentially the sacrificial vesture, reserved for 
 the priesthood and practically might be worn by 
 no one of a lower order. By this rubric therefore 
 the use of the chasuble at the service, " commonly 
 called the mass" is made optional. Thus the first 
 direction in a book expressly intended to bring 
 about uniformity was calculated to introduce a 
 marked diversity of practice in a matter which could 
 not fail to be noted by all. It may be taken as certain 
 that those attfichad to the ancient custom would vest 
 as before whilst those who desired change would 
 adopt the cope which broke with past ecclesiastical 
 tradition and the universal practice, and enabled 
 them to display their rejection of the sacrificial 
 character of the service. 
 
 (3) The service itself opened by ''the clerks singing 
 in english for the Office or Introit (as they call it) 
 a psalm appointed for the day"\ Originally the 
 introit of the mass was a whole psalm or at least 
 many verses, but by the eighth or ninth century this 
 had been reduced to two or three verses as at 
 present. The restoration of a whole psalm may 
 therefore be regarded as a return to antiquity. 
 
 As regards the choice of psalms for these introits, 
 however, the case is different. It might have been 
 considered sufficient to adopt those indicated in the 
 old introits of the Sarum missal ; but the compilers 
 have adopted a scheme in which their introit psalm 
 
 practically laymen, living in secular avocations. Although perhaps 
 not according to strict rubric the cope is still often worn by 
 laymen pure and simple. 
 1 P. p. 76. G. p. 193, 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer. 191 
 
 corresponds to tha.t of Sarum in one case only ^ The 
 thoroughness with which this departure from the 
 old order was carried out does not admit a doubt 
 as to its being intentional. 
 
 (4) Whilst this introit was being sung by the 
 choir, the priest " standing humbly before the midst 
 of the altar" is to say the Lord's Prayer and a 
 collect. The former is evidently suggested by the 
 opening of the Sarum mass * and the collect might 
 probably be regarded by the people as equivalent 
 to the ancient confession. He then reads the introit 
 psalm, apparently to himself, if there has been 
 singing. 
 
 (5) The rubrics of the new Prayer Book are con- 
 fined from this point to the end of the creed to an 
 indication of mere sequence. Up to 1549 an elaborate 
 ceremonial had accompanied the whole of this portion 
 of the mass and no guidance is now given to the 
 priest as to the continuance or disuse of the ancient 
 customs other than certain vague and general indi- 
 cations in the Act of Uniformity itself. ^ There is 
 
 ^ The Sarum introit for the third mass on Christmas day is 
 from the psalm which is appointed for the first communion in 
 the Prayer Book of 1549. On one day, the Ascension, the Prayer 
 Book psalm agrees with the roman missal Ps. 46 (47), whilst the 
 Sarum has adopted a verse from the Acts. This probably is a 
 mere accidental resemblance as that on the 17th and 21st Sundays 
 after Trinity certainly is. It is diflBcult to see any reason why 
 in many cases the old order was not retained, as for example 
 on St. Michael's day, when psalm 102 (103), which is singularly 
 appropriate to the festival of the angels, is rejected in favour 
 of psalm 112 (113), which is as curiously inappropriate. 
 
 ^ Sarum Missal (Burntisland ed., col. 579). 
 
 ^ It is forbidden in the Act of Parliament, for example, for 
 any one to compel any parson &c. " to sing or say any common 
 or open Prayer, or to minister any Sacrament otherwise or in any 
 
192 The First English Book of Common Prayer, 
 
 however nothing in the enacting clauses forbidding 
 the priest to use the old ceremonial, whilst the 
 rubrics are so scanty that he is necessarily left to his 
 own interpretation as to what he should do or not 
 do, except in one point: the rubric clearly; contem- 
 plates that the ceremonies hitherto used at the reading 
 of the gospel were to be omitted. Setting aside 
 therefore all questions of ceremonial the service 
 now followed closely the old order of the mass, 
 with the Kyrie, Gloria, collects, epistle, gospel and 
 Creed. The gradual, or tract, or sequence interposed 
 previously between the epistle and gospel was 
 however omitted. "Immediately after the Epistle 
 ended", says the new rubric, "the priest or one 
 appointed to read the Gospel shall say the Holy 
 Gospel'*. 
 
 (6) After the creed are inserted the three exhor- 
 tations which opened the Communion Book of 1548, 
 but their order is inverted. * These having no liturgical 
 
 other manner or form than is mentioned in the said book." Also 
 the Lords pray "that all ministers be bound to saj and use 
 the services in such order and form as is mentioned in the said 
 book and none other or otherwise". On the other hand among 
 " the notes for the more plain explication and decent ministration 
 of things contained in the book" printed at the end of the notice 
 on ceremonies is the following: "as touching kneeling, holding 
 up of hands, knocking upon the breast and other gestures, they 
 may be used or left as every man's devotion serveth without 
 blame" (P. p. 157 G. p. 268). That this rubric refers to the clergy 
 and not to the laity is clear from Bucer'slOewswra p. 465. These 
 notes are entirely omitted in the Book of 1552. It is certain 
 however from the injunctions of Kidley and Hooper and those 
 commonly attributed to the king (see Burnet II. 2. 165 or Cardwell, 
 Documentary Annals I, 63) that some time before 1552 these 
 practices bad been commonly forbidden and that the prohibition 
 ultimately rests on the royal authority. 
 
 ^ Tiie wording and arrangment of these exhortations has been 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer. 193 
 
 importance and merely standing, as the rubric ex- 
 plains, in place of a homily, ^ need not be further 
 considered. 
 
 (7) At this point in the new service occurs a 
 distinct break with the ancient practice. At least as 
 late as the ninth century the Roman rite still ob- 
 served the early practice of the oifering by the 
 people of the bread and wine for the sacrifice ^ and 
 whilst this offering was being made the choir sang 
 a portion of a psalm which became known as the 
 offertory, ^ The bread and wine thus presented were 
 offered with ritual oblation by the priest and the 
 prayer now called the secret was said by him. These 
 prayers which vary in every mass, and which are 
 
 varied in difterent revisions of the Prayer Book, but the following 
 
 table will best explain the changes in position : 
 
 1548. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 P. p. 79. G. p. 196. 
 
 '^ This had already disappeared from other liturgies, whilst 
 traces of the practice remain in the Western Church even to 
 the present day. 
 
 ^ The detail of the rite is given with accuracy in the very 
 valuable Ordo Eomanus edited by Gerbert from a S. Blasien MS. 
 which is evidently the result of personal observation and information 
 obtained on the spot. " Veniens igitur Pontifex ante altare accipit 
 oblationes proprias episcoporum, &c, et ipse ponet eas super 
 altare ; ipse vero Pontifex novissime suas proprias duas accipiens 
 in manus suas elevans oculis et manibus cum ipsis ad coelum 
 orat ad Dominum secrete et completa oratione ponit eas super 
 altare. Tunc vero archidiaconus accipiens calicem a subdiacono 
 ponit ipsum juxta oblationes Pontificis ad dexteram partem ; 
 tunc Pontifex inclinato vultu in terram super oblationes dicit 
 orationem, ita ut nullus praeter Dominum et ipsum audiat nisi 
 tantum : Per omnia scpcula &c. {Gerbert, Monumen fa 11 A69— 70). 
 
 
 
 1549. 
 
 1552. 
 
 Present book, 
 
 2 + 3 
 
 4 (new) 
 
 14-3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 
 2 + 3 
 
 2 
 
194 The First English Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 still retained in the Eoman missal, express the idea 
 of sacrifice and oblation. In the later middle ages 
 private devotion introduced a number of prayers, 
 all expressive of the same idea, to accompany the 
 various ritual acts: thus in the Sarum rite the 
 priest is directed ''to lift up the chalice in both 
 hands, offering the sacrifice to our Lord saying this 
 prayer: ** Receive, Holy Trinity, this oblation" &c. * 
 The whole therefore of this action was called the 
 offertory, and the verse of the psalm itself became 
 generally known under this name. * 
 
 This entire portion of the mass, constituting the 
 act of formal oblation, together with the prayers, 
 new and old, which accompanied it, are swept away 
 in the new service of the Prayer Book. In place of 
 it was put a verse of Holy Scripture appropriate to 
 what was now done; namely the collecting of money 
 *" for the poor man's box'*, which was called the 
 *" offertory."^ At the same time the family to whose 
 
 * The Sarum rubrics are particularly emphatic in calling by 
 anticipation the elements so offered "the Sacrifice" (pp. 593— 4). 
 
 2 Cf. Lydgate's and Langford's meditation in * Lay FoWs mass 
 Boor p. 233. 
 
 ^ The whole of this question of oflFertory and offormg is so 
 confused by the use of the same word in different senses in the 
 rubrics of the Prayer Book that it seems necessary to explain 
 it somewhat at length. 
 
 a) When the practice of presenting the actual bread and 
 wine for the sacrifice fell into disuse, an offering in money 
 was substituted. This partook of a certain ritual solemnity 
 and was not what is now understood by a " collection ". The 
 people went up to the altar and placed their "offering" in the 
 hands of the priest. The money was for his use as he now had 
 to provide the necessary bread and wine. This ceremony was 
 known as "the offering"; or as it is now called in France the 
 " ojfrande'\ In the Book of 1549 the word 'offering' is used in 
 two senses: (1) of "offering" proper (P. p. 84 last three lines; 
 
The First English Booh of Common Prayer. 195 
 
 *turn it fell to offer for the charges of the Commu- 
 nion" made their donation in the ancient way into 
 the hands of the priest. 
 
 The singing of the verses of Scripture appropriate 
 to alms deeds was continued whilst the collection 
 was being made \ And after this "" so many as shall 
 be partakers of the Holy Communion shall tarry still 
 in the choir or in some convenient place near the 
 choir; the men on the one side, the women on the 
 other. All other that mind not to receive the said 
 Holy Communion shall depart out of the choir except 
 the ministers and clerks". 
 
 It was only then that without any ceremony 
 
 G. p. 200 lines 12—14) and (2) the poor box collection (P. p. 82 
 last line. G. p. 198 last line of rubric). 
 
 (6) The difficulty is further complicated by the introduction 
 •of another provision. It was anciently the practice in England, 
 as it still is in France, to bless a loaf of bread, which was then 
 cut up and distributed to the people during the mass. The bread 
 was supplied by each family in the parish in turn. This '^ blessed 
 bread " was now (1549) abolished but the obligation was laid 
 upon each family who had hitherto supplied it to offer every 
 Sunday " at the time of the offertory the just value and price 
 of the holy loaf to the use of their pastors and curates, and that 
 in such order and course as they were wont to find and pay 
 the said holy loaf". This offering was to be made to the priest, 
 whilst the collection for the poor was being made in the church, 
 " in recompense for the costs and charges he was at in finding 
 sufficient bread and wine for the Holy Communion". 
 
 (c) But this was not all: it was further provided, that one 
 person at least of that house in every parish to which it fell 
 under the new arrangement "to offer for the charges of the 
 Communion, or some other whom they shall provide to offer for 
 them, shall receive the Communion with the priest". 
 
 * In this way the word "offertory" has in English come to 
 mean "a collection"; a sense which is wanting to the word in 
 other languasres. 
 
196 The First English Booh of Common Prayer. 
 
 whatever " the minister " placed the bread and wine 
 on the altar \ It will therefore appear that the ancient 
 ritual oblation, with the whole of which the idea of 
 sacrifice was so intimately associated, was swept 
 away. This was certainly in accord with Cranmer's 
 known opinions ^ and the character of the change is 
 unmistakable when the new Prayer Book is compared 
 with other service books compiled in the same century. 
 
 To understand the full import of the novelty it 
 must be borne in mind that this ritual oblation had 
 a place in all liturgies. It is moreover now known^ 
 by the debate in parliament, that the word ' oblation ' 
 occurred in the book when it was presented to the 
 bishops for examination, but had disappeared from it 
 before it came up to the Lords •\ 
 
 (8) After the placing of the bread and wine upon 
 the altar the service returns to the missal and the 
 priest salutes the people with: "The Lord be with 
 you", whilst the succeeding versicle: "Lift up your 
 hearts" carries the thoughts back to the earliest ages 
 of the church. The number of proper Prefaces is 
 however reduced from ten to five. Of these, two are 
 new compositions \ a third is about half new ^ a 
 fourth is curtailed about half ^ and the fifth is but 
 slightly altered from the original \ After the Preface 
 the Sanctus follows as in the old missals; but with 
 a variety in the translation, the import of which only 
 
 ^ The "mixed chalice" was retained in the book of 1549, 
 
 ^ Cf. his replies to the questions on the mass. 
 
 ^ It will be understood that no opinion is expressed on the 
 
 question whether or no the ' lesser oblation ' is to be found in the 
 
 present Anglican Prayer Book. 
 
 * Christmasday and Whitsunday. 
 ^ Ascension day. 
 
 * Trinity Sunday. 
 '' Easter day. 
 
The First English Book of Commoyi Frayer, 197 
 
 appears when compared with the form in the Book 
 of 1552. 
 
 (9) The service now entered upon that part which 
 gave it character and validity, or rather which is 
 the principle of its life; namely the Canon. This is 
 known in early writings as the Canon adionis; or 
 emphatically by the simple word actio^ as the one 
 act upon which all the rest of the service depends. 
 "We venture to suggest" says a recent writer "that 
 a true view of the eucharistic sacrifice, at least of the 
 missa fideliiim, can only be gained by looking at it 
 as a whole, as one great act of eucharistic sacrifice '. 
 
 However this may be of the missa fideliiim generally, 
 it is certainly true of the Canon ^. Our present detailed 
 knowledge of this most sacred part of the mass goes 
 back certainly 1300 years. And with the exception of 
 one short clause added by St. Gregory it has remained 
 practically unchanged to the present day^ This 
 fact, that it has so remained unaltered during 
 thirteen centuries, is the most speaking witness of 
 the veneration with which it has always been regarded 
 and of the scruple which has ever been felt at touching 
 so sacred a heritage, coming to us from unknown 
 antiquity ^. 
 
 It is now necessary to understand how the compilers 
 of the new book dealt with this sacred prayer. For 
 this purpose the two prayers are here printed side 
 
 ^ Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western p. xxxvii. The 
 remarks of the writer at this place deserve the best consideration. 
 , 2 The word canon is here used in its strict sense of the Canon 
 actionis or prayer of consecration. 
 
 ^ Compare in Daniel the Gelasian and Gregorian canons. 
 
 "* This is all the more striking since there are passages in it 
 which it is not easy to explain. Of. Duchesne, Origines &c. -p. 17 S 
 (especially the note) and p. 174; Hoppe, Die i^i?iA;?e5i5, pp. 98— 9, 
 110-11. 
 
198 The First English Book of Common Prayer, 
 
 by side; the passages or words in which they agree 
 are in italics so as to show at a glance what is 
 retained, what is rejected and what is added \ 
 
 * The translation from the York missal of the late Canon 
 Simmons in the Lay Folk's Mass Book (pp. 105—111) has 
 been adopted, with one or two changes to make the version more 
 literal, and in a few other cases where the words of the Book 
 of Common Prayer have been substituted. Of course ' is hardly 
 necessary to explain that by whatever name the Canon be called, 
 whether Roman, Sarum, or York, it is one and the same. The follow- 
 ing table of variants of the Canon of the present Roman (S. Pius 
 V. 1570) Sarum, York and Hereford missals may be convenient. 
 
 Pian. 
 
 Sarum. 
 
 York. 
 
 Hereford. 
 
 (1) - 
 
 pro Rege nos- 
 
 pro Rege nos- 
 
 pro Rege nos- 
 
 
 tro N 
 
 tro N 
 
 tro N 
 
 (2) circum- 
 
 circumstanti- 
 
 circumstanti- 
 
 circumstanti- 
 
 stantium quo- 
 
 um quorum 
 
 um atque om- 
 
 um quorum 
 
 rum 
 
 
 nium iidelium 
 Christianorum 
 quorum (The 
 Sarum of 1554 
 has this reading) 
 
 
 (3) semper 
 
 semperque and 
 semper 
 
 semper 
 
 semper 
 
 (4) Petri et 
 
 Petri, Pauli 
 
 Petri, Pauli 
 
 Petri, Pauli 
 
 Pauli 
 
 
 
 
 (5) tuDeusin 
 
 tu Deus omni- 
 
 tu Deus omni- 
 
 tuDeusin om- 
 
 omnibus 
 
 potens in omni- 
 
 potens in omni- 
 
 nibus 
 
 
 bus 
 
 bus 
 
 
 (6) benedixit, 
 
 benedixit, fre- 
 
 benedixit ac 
 
 benedixit ac 
 
 fregit 
 
 git 
 
 fregit 
 
 fregit 
 
 (7) postquam 
 
 posteaquam 
 
 posteaquam 
 
 posteaquam 
 
 (8) deditque 
 
 deditque 
 
 deditque 
 
 dedit 
 
 (9) in mei me- 
 
 in meimemo- 
 
 in mei memo 
 
 in memoriam 
 
 moriam 
 
 riam 
 
 riam 
 
 mei 
 
 (10) servi tui 
 
 tui servi 
 
 tui servi 
 
 tui servi 
 
 (11) Filii tui 
 
 Filii tui Do- 
 
 Filii tui Do- 
 
 Filii tui Do- 
 
 Domini nostri 
 
 mini Dei nostri 
 
 mini Dei nostri 
 
 mini Dei nostri 
 
The First English Booh of Common Prayer. 199 
 
 The ancient rubrics are omitted, since in the Book 
 of 154:9 they are swept away altogether and the 
 following are substituted: (1) the prayer "shall be 
 said or sung plainly and distinctly;'' hitherto it had 
 been said secretly; (2) there shall be no elevation 
 " or showing the Sacrament to the people;" and (3) and 
 (4) the elements shall be taken into the hands. 
 
 Sarum. 
 
 Therefore most merciful 
 Father, through Jesus 
 Christ thy Son, our Lord, 
 
 Prayer Book 1549.* 
 Let us pray for the 
 whole state of Christ's 
 church. 
 
 Almighty and overliving 
 God which by thy holy 
 Apostle hast taught us to 
 make prayers and sup- 
 plications and to give 
 thanks for all men \ 
 
 Per eundem 
 Christum 
 
 (12) tibi ob I tibi obtulit 
 tulit 
 
 (13) Per eun- 
 demChristuiD(at 
 end oisupplices) 
 
 (14) Memento 
 etiam Domine 
 famulorum 
 
 (15) Anastasia 
 et omnibus 
 
 Memento etiam 
 Domine anima- 
 rum famulorum 
 
 Anastasia cum 
 omnibus 
 
 tibi obtulit 
 
 Per eundem 
 Jesum Christum 
 
 Memento etiam 
 Domine famulo- 
 rum 
 
 Anastasia et 
 cum omnibus 
 
 obtulit tibi 
 
 Per eundem 
 Christum 
 
 Memento etiam 
 Bomine famulo- 
 rum 
 
 Anastasia et 
 cum omnibus 
 
 ^ In Cranmer's work on the Eucharist published in 1550 the 
 fifth and last book is really a defence of the Prayer Book now set 
 forth, with the praise of which he concludes. It is written with 
 evident reference to the text of this new Canon and thus forms 
 a most valuable indication of the sense in which it was drawn 
 up. As to his intention to take away the mass "clearly out of 
 Christian churches as being manifest wickedness and idolatry " see 
 chapter IX, ed. Parker Soc. p. 349 and beginning of Chapter XII 
 p. 350-1. 
 
200 The First English Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Sarum. 
 we hunihly pray and 
 beseech Thee to receive these 
 gifts, these offerings, these 
 holy undefiled sacrifices, 
 which first of all we offer 
 to Thee for Thy holy 
 Catholic Church, which 
 do Thou vouchsafe to 
 keep in peace, to watch 
 over, to knit together 
 and govern throughout 
 the whole world, together 
 with Thy servant our Pope 
 and our Bishop N., 
 
 and our King N., 
 
 and all right believers 
 and maintainers of the 
 Catholic and Apostolic 
 faith. 
 
 1549. 
 tve humbly beseech Thee 
 most mercifully to receive 
 these our prayers, which 
 we offer unto Thy Divine 
 Majesty, beseeching Thee 
 to inspire continually the 
 U7iiversal Church with the 
 spirit of truth, unity and 
 concord: and grant that all 
 they that do confess Thy 
 holy name may agree in 
 the truth of Thy holy word 
 and live in unity and 
 godly love. Specially we 
 beseech Thee to save and 
 defend Thy servant Ed- 
 ivard our King, that under 
 him we may be godly and 
 quietly governed. And 
 grant unto his whole coun- 
 cil, and to all that be put 
 in authority under him, 
 that they may truly and 
 indifferently minister jus- 
 tice, to the punishment 
 of wickedness and vice 
 and to the maintenance 
 of God's true religion and 
 virtue. Grive grace (0 
 Heavenly Father) to all 
 Bishops, Pastors and Cu- 
 rates that they may both 
 by their life and doctrine 
 set forth Thy true and 
 lively word, and rightly 
 
The First English Book of Common Frayer, 201 
 
 Sakum. 
 
 Remember, OLord,Thy 
 servants and handmaid- 
 ens, N., 
 
 and all here standing 
 around whose faith is 
 known and devotion noted 
 by Thee; for whom we 
 offer unto Thee, or who 
 are offering unto Thee, 
 this sam^ifice of praise for 
 themselves and all theirs, 
 for the redemption of 
 their souls, for the hope 
 of their salvation and 
 safety,and unto Thee, eter- 
 nal God, living and true, 
 are rendering their vows. 
 
 In communion with 
 and venerating the me- 
 mory chiefl]/ of the glo- 
 
 1549. 
 and duly administer Thy 
 holy sacraments: and to 
 all Thy people give Thy 
 heavenly grace, that with 
 meek heart and due rever- 
 ence they may hear and 
 receive Thy holy word 
 truly serving Thee in ho- 
 liness and righteousness 
 all the days of their life. 
 And we most humbly be- 
 seech thee of Thy goodness 
 (0 Lord) to comfort and 
 succour all them which 
 in this transitory life be 
 in trouble, sorrow, need, 
 sickness or any other ad- 
 versity. 
 
 And especially we 
 commend unto Thy mer- 
 ciful goodness this con- 
 gregation which is here 
 assembled in Thy name, 
 to celebrate the comme- 
 moration of the most 
 glorious death of Thy Son. 
 
 And here we do give 
 unto Thee most high 
 praise and hearty thanks 
 
202 The First English Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Sarum. 
 rious and ever virgin 
 Mary the mother of Thy 
 Son Jesus Christ our God 
 and Lord, 
 
 and also of Thy blessed 
 Apostles and Martyrs 
 Peter, Paul, Andrew, 
 James, John, Thomas, 
 James, Philip, Bartholo- 
 mew, Matthew, Simon 
 and Thaddeus, Linus, 
 Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, j 
 Cornelius, Cyprian, Lau- j 
 rence, Chrysogonus, John ! 
 and Paul, Cosmas and 
 Damian and of all Thy 
 saints; by whose merits 
 and prayers grant that 
 we may in all things be 
 defended by the help of 
 Thy protection through 
 the same Jesus Christ 
 our Lord. 
 
 1549. 
 for the wonderful grace 
 and virtue declared in 
 all Thy saints from the be- 
 ginning of the world : and 
 chiefly in the glorious and 
 most blessed virgin Mary 
 mother of Thy Son Jesu 
 Christ our Lord and God, 
 and in the Holy Patri- 
 archs, Prophets, Apostles 
 and Martyrs; 
 
 whose examples (0 
 Lord) and steadfastness 
 in thy faith and keeping 
 Thy holy commandments 
 grant us to follow. 
 
 We commend unto Thy 
 mercy (0 Lord) all other 
 Thy servants which are 
 departed hence from us, 
 with the sign of faith, and 
 now do rest in the sleep of 
 "peace. Grant unto them 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer. 203 
 
 Sarum. 
 
 This oblation therefore 
 of our service as also of 
 thy whole household, we 
 beseech thee, Lord, that 
 having been reconciled 
 thou wouldest accept ; and 
 wouldest order our days 
 in Thy peace, 
 
 and ordain that we be 
 delivered from eternal 
 damnation, and numbered 
 with the flock of thine 
 elect, through Christ our 
 Lord. Amen. 
 
 Which oblation, do 
 thou, we beseech Thee, 
 God almighty, vouchsafe 
 to render altogether bless- 
 ed, counted, reckoned, rea- 
 sonable and acceptable; 
 
 1549. 
 
 we beseech Thee,Thj mercy 
 and everlasting peacef 
 
 and that at the day of 
 the general resurrection, 
 we and all they which be 
 of the mystical body of 
 Thy Son, may altogether 
 be set on His right hand, 
 and hear that His most 
 joyful voice: Come unto 
 me, ye that be blessed 
 of my Father, and possess 
 the kingdom, which is 
 prepared for you from 
 the beginning of the world: 
 grant this, Father, for 
 Jesus Christ's sake, our 
 only mediator and advo- 
 cate. 
 
 God heavenly Father, 
 which of Thy tender mercy 
 didst give Thine only Son 
 Jesu Christ, to suffer death 
 upon the cross for our re- 
 demption, who made 
 there (by his one oblation, 
 once offered) a full, perfect, 
 
204 The First English Book of Commoji Prayer 
 
 Sakum. 
 
 1549. 
 and sufficient sacrifice, 
 oblation, and satisfaction, 
 for the sins of the whole 
 world, and did institute, 
 and in His holy Gospel 
 command us to celebrate 
 a perpetual memorial of 
 this His precious death, 
 until His coming again: 
 Hear us (0 merciful 
 Father) we beseech Thee 
 and, with Thy Holy Spirit 
 and word vouchsafe to 
 bl + ess and sane + tify ^ 
 
 * There can be no reasonable doubt that this passage was 
 suggested by the invocation of the Holy Ghost found after the 
 words of institution in the greek liturgies. The forms of this 
 invocation in the Clementine liturgy and in those of St. James, 
 St. Basil and St. Chrysostom were well known at this time from 
 Bessarion's tract ** de Sacramento JEucharistice" (for the passages 
 see in ed. Migne, Patrol.' Gr. vol. 161 col. 493 ; 500— 1; 504— 6; 
 510; 514—5; 517 — 8; 519) and it seems not unlikely that it 
 was the special form in St. Basil's liturgy, the only one in which 
 both words " bless and sanctify" occur, which set the model. In 
 these old forms however the prayer for the change of the elements 
 is absolute and there is nothing which corresponds to the " unto 
 us" of the Prayer Book, which was taken from the roman missal. 
 Although the form of these words insisted upon by bishop Day, 
 "that they may be made'' may also correspond to the '^utfiant'' 
 of the Roman canon, it is more probable that his demand was 
 suggested by the " efficiaf'' or ^' facial" of the greek liturgies 
 as given by Bessarion. Had the old form been retained as 
 desired by Day it might have fairly been held that the old 
 doctrine was continued ; but in the changed form, " that they 
 may be unto us," as it is inserted in the book of 1549, there is 
 
The First English Book of Cominon Prayer. 205 
 
 Sakum. 
 
 that it may he made 
 unto us the Bo -\- dy and 
 Bl + ood of Thy most deafly 
 beloved Son our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Who on the day before 
 He suffered took bread 
 into His holy and vene- 
 rable hands and with His 
 eyes raised up towards 
 heaven unto Thee, God, 
 His Father Almighty, gi- 
 ving thanks to Thee, He 
 bless + ed, brake, , and 
 gave to His disciples say- 
 ing, take and eat ye all 
 of this, for this is my Body. 
 
 In like manner after 
 supper taking also this 
 
 1549. 
 these Thy gifts, and crea- 
 tures of bread and wine 
 that they may he unto us 
 the Body and Blood of Thy 
 most dearly heloved Son 
 Jesus Christ. * 
 
 Who, in the same night 
 that He was betrayed,took 
 bread, and when He had 
 blessed and given thanks, 
 He brake it and gave it 
 to His disciples saying: 
 Take, eat, this is my body, 
 which is given for you. 
 Do this in remembrance 
 of me 
 
 Likewise after supper 
 He took the cup, and 
 
 nothing which is not perfectly reconcilable with the Helvetian 
 doctrine of the Lord's Supper. It must be remembered that this 
 change was no accident, but the compilers purposely kept this 
 form of words in face of opposition. 
 
 * On the question whether this was meant to exclude the 
 ancient Catholic doctrine, see Cranmer's Defence^ Park. Soc. 
 pp. 364—8, especially Chapter 7. In an earlier part of his book 
 he expressly adverts to this passage of the Communion office 
 and writes as follows ; " and therefore in the Book of the Holy 
 Communion we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine 
 may te the body and blood of Christ ; but that they may 1)6 to 
 us the body and blood of Christ, that is to say : that we may 
 so eat them and drink that we may be partakers of his body 
 crucified and of his blood shed for our redemption." Ibid. p. 271. 
 
206 The First English Book of Common Prayer, 
 
 Sarum. 
 most excellent cup into His 
 holy and venerable hands, 
 and likewise giving 
 thanks unto Thee, He bless 
 + ed, and gave to His 
 disciples, saying, take 
 and drink ye all of this, 
 for this is the cup of my 
 blood of the new and 
 everlasting Testament, the 
 mystery of faith, which 
 shall be shed for you 
 and for many for the 
 remission of sins. As often 
 as ye do {or offer) these 
 things, ye shall do them 
 in memory of me. 
 
 1549. 
 when He had given thanks, 
 He gave it to them, saying : 
 Drink ye all of this, for 
 this is my blood of the 
 new Testament which is 
 shed for you and for many 
 for remission of sins. Do 
 this as oft you shall drink 
 it in remembrance of me '. 
 
 ^ The form of words of institution in the Book of 1549 is quite 
 diflferent from that hitherto in use in England. It is of import- 
 ance to enquire whence the new form was derived. In the very 
 commencement there is a change. The roman begins " On the 
 day before"; the new book has "In the same night that". 
 It has been suggested that this was derived from the Mozarabic 
 missal, but in the absence of any definite proof of this origin it 
 is more natural to suppose that both are taken from the words 
 of St. Paul. 
 
 A recent writer has called attention to the * composite character 
 of our formula ", and it really is even more composite than 
 would appear from his account. He adds : ** It is very remarkable 
 how closely it resembles that of the old spanish liturgy both 
 in language and simplicity. It is difficult to think that the one 
 is not derived immediately from the other" (Scudamore, iVbifjY2a 
 EucJiaristica 2nd ed. pp. 600—1). There is however another 
 recital of Institution with which that of 1549 should be compared. 
 It is to be found in a book mentioned by some writers as one 
 source of the Book of Common Prayer, and in great measure 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer. 207 
 
 Sarum. 
 Wherefore also we Thy 
 servants Lord and also 
 Thy ho]y people, mmem- 
 
 1549. 
 Wherefore Lord and 
 heavenly Father, accord- 
 ing to the institution of 
 
 the compilation of Osiander to whom Cranmer was well known. 
 It discloses precisely the same composite form as that adopted 
 in the English Book of 1549, and whilst the Mozarabic presents 
 obvious substantial differences this shows only some slight diver- 
 gences of construction. 
 
 Taking into account both the identity of form and the circum- 
 stances of connection there can be no doubt that the words of 
 Institution in the Book of Common Prayer were derived from 
 the Lutheran liturgy of Brandenburg-Nuremberg. Only one 
 clause, "when he had blessed", does not appear in the German 
 form of Institution. Many reformers felt a difficulty in translating 
 the word benedicere in St. Matthew and St. Mark by " bless." 
 They preferred to treat it as equivalent to the "giving thanks" 
 of St. Luke and St. Paul. Thus Tyndall translates it in St. 
 Matthew as * gave thanks " and in St. Mark as * blessed." Cranmer 
 in his translation changes both into " when he had given thanks." 
 The origin of this dislike for the literal translation may be best 
 explained in the words of Ridley. "Innocentius, a bishop of Rome 
 of the latter days, and Duns do attribute this work (i. e. tran- 
 substantiation) unto the word henedixit ' he blessed ' " ( Worhs 
 Parker Soc. p. 26 cf. also pp. 16—17) and the opinion had been 
 "■ lately renewed now in our days " (Becon Prayers &c. Park. 
 Soc. Ill 269). A great stress was laid on the word by those who 
 maintained the old opinions. " Worcester (Heath) said once to 
 me" writes Latimer "that to offer was contained in benedicere^ 
 which is not true, for Jewe^^icere is to give thanks" (Wor^5, Park. 
 Soc. p. 111). The wording of the Prayer Book is almost certaftily 
 the result of a compromise, if that can fitly be called a com- 
 promise, where one side had to yield in almost every matter and 
 had to put the best, even if a strained, interpretation on what 
 remained. In the Prayer Book of 1552 the words " blessed and" 
 are left out and have not since been restored. For a comparison 
 of the various forms see Appendix vi. 
 
208 The First English Booh of Cojnmon Prayer 
 
 Sarum. 
 ory as well of the blessed 
 passion of the same Christ, 
 thy Son, our Lord, as of 
 His resurrection from the 
 dead, and also of His 
 glorious ascension into the 
 heavens do offer unto Thy 
 excellent majesty, of thine 
 oivn gifts, albeit given 
 unto us, a pure + victim, 
 a holy + victim, anunde- 
 filed 4- victim, the holy 
 bread of eternal life, and 
 the cup of everlasting 
 salvation. Upon which do 
 thou vouchsafe to look 
 with favourable and graci- 
 ous countenance and hold 
 them accepted, as thou did 
 vouchsafe to hold accept- 
 ed the offerings of Thy 
 righteous servant Abel, 
 and the sacrifice of our 
 forefather Abraham, and 
 that holy sacrifice, the 
 pure offering, which the 
 high priest Melchisedech 
 did offer unto Thee. 
 
 1549. 
 Thy dearly beloved Son, 
 our Saviour Jesu Christ, 
 we Thy humble servants, 
 do celebrate and make 
 here before Thy divine 
 Majesty with these Thy 
 holy gifts the memorial 
 which Thy Son hath will- 
 ed us to make: having 
 in retnemh^ance His blessed 
 passion, mighty resurrec- 
 tio7i and glo7ious ascension, 
 
 rendering unto Thee 
 most hearty thanks for 
 the innumerable benefits 
 procured unto us by the 
 same, entirely desiring 
 Thy fatherly goodness 
 mercifully to accept this 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer. 209 
 
 Sarum. 
 
 We humbly beseech 
 Thee Almighty God, 
 command that these things 
 be brought up by the hands 
 
 1549. 
 our sacrifice of praise^ 
 and thanksgiving : most 
 humbly beseeching Thee 
 to grant that by the 
 merits and death of thy 
 Son Jesu Christ and 
 through faith in His blood 
 we and all Thy whole 
 church may obtain re- 
 mission of our sins and all 
 other benefits of His pas- 
 sion. And here we offer 
 and present unto Thee 
 (0 Lord) ourselves, our 
 souls and bodies to be a 
 reasonable, holy and 
 lively sacrifice unto Thee : 
 humbly beseeching Thee ^, 
 
 ^ The Sacrifice of praise is thus explained by Cranmer : 
 " another kind of sacrifice there is, which doth not reconcile us 
 to God ; but is made of them that be reconciled by Christ, to 
 testify our duties unto God and to show ourselves thankful 
 unto him. And therefore they be called sacrifices of laud, praise 
 and thanksgiving"... By this kind of sacrifice ''we offer our- 
 selves and all that we have unto Him and Hi? Father". (Park. 
 Soc. Cranmer's Writings on the Lord's Supper p. 346). The 
 *' Sacrifice of praise " of the ancient canon (p. 201 ante) means, 
 it is clear, something quite different. 
 
 ^ Although in what follows there is similarity of words, this 
 cannot be represented bj italics because, as will be seen on 
 comparison, the whole idea is changed in the direction pointed 
 out in note 1, pag. 205 ante. 
 
 P 
 
210 The First English Book of Common Prayer, 
 
 Sarum. 
 of Thy holy Angel, to thy 
 altar on high before the 
 sight of Thy divine Majesty 
 that as many of us as by 
 this partaking of the altar 
 shall have received the 
 most sacred bo + dy and 
 bl + ood of Thy Son, may 
 he fulfilled with all heavenly 
 bene + diction and grace, 
 through the same Christ 
 our Lord. Amen. 
 
 Remember also, OLord, 
 
 1549. 
 
 that whosoever shall be 
 partakers of this holy 
 Communion may worthily 
 receive the most precious 
 body and blood of Thy Son 
 Jesus Christ, and be ful- 
 filled with Thy grace and 
 heavenly benediction, and 
 made one body with Thy 
 Son Jesus Christ that He 
 may dwell in them and 
 they in Him. And although 
 we be unworthy through 
 our manifold sins to offer 
 unto Thee any sacrifice 
 yet we beseech Thee to 
 accept this our bounden 
 duty and service \ and 
 command these our pray- 
 ers and supplications, by 
 the ministry of Thy holy 
 angels to be brought up 
 into Thy holy Tabernacle, 
 before the sight of Thy divine 
 Majesty ; 
 
 ^ This seems to be suggested by the oblatio servitutis nostrae 
 p. 203 ante where, according to the Sarum rubric, the priest is to 
 * look at the host with great reverence ". What follows is merely 
 a late gloss of an admittedly difficult and mysterious portion of 
 the canon (Hoppe, p. 105—6). 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer, 21] 
 
 Sarum. 
 the souls of Thy servants 
 and handmaidens 1^, which 
 have gone before us with 
 the sign of faith, and sleep, 
 in the sleep of peace; grant 
 unto them we beseech thee 
 Lord, and to all that rest 
 in Christ, a place of re- 
 freshing, light and peace; 
 through the same Christ, 
 our Lord. Amen. 
 
 Unto us sinners also, 
 Thy servants, that hope 
 in the multitude of Thy 
 mercies, vouchsafe to 
 grant some part and 
 fellowship with Thy holy 
 apostles and martyrs, with 
 John, Stephen, Matthias, 
 Barnabas, Ignatius, Alex- 
 ander, Marcellinus, Peter, 
 Felicitas, Perpetua, Aga- 
 tha, Lucy, Agnes, Caecilia, 
 Anastasia, and with all 
 Thy saints, unto whose 
 company do Thou admit 
 us, 
 
 not weighing our merits, 
 but freely pardoning our 
 offences, we beseech Thee 
 through Christ our Lord, 
 by whom all these good 
 [gifts] Thou, Lord, ever 
 greatest, sancti -f- fiest, 
 fillest +with life, bless + 
 
 154:9. 
 
 not weighing our merits, 
 hut pardoning our offences, 
 through Christ our Lord; 
 
212 The First English Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Sarum. 
 est and bestowestuponus. 
 By + Him and with + 
 Him and in + Him is unto 
 Thee, God the Father Al- 
 mighty, in the unity of the 
 Holy Ghost all honour and 
 glory, world without end, 
 Amen. 
 
 1549. 
 
 by whom and with whom 
 in the unity of the Holy 
 Ghost all honour and glo?y 
 be unto Thee, Father 
 Almighty, world without 
 end, Amen. 
 
 To persons in some measure familiar with the 
 foreign service books of the reformation period many 
 points of resemblance both in sequence of idea and 
 turn of expression will be suggested by the canon 
 of the new Prayer Book. Such resemblances hardly 
 admit of demonstration and may be here disregarded. 
 One observation however may be allowed. To a 
 man like Cranmer, who must have been in the habit 
 of saying his mass daily for more than thirty years^ 
 the prayers of the ancient canon would have become 
 part of the very texture of his mind and presented 
 themselves unbidden. It is only therefore to be expected^ 
 apart from all question of intention, that in the new 
 service book recollections of the old forms should 
 continually appear. And this may help perhaps to 
 explain in some measure the recurrence of familiar 
 phrases used to introduce passages quite alien to the 
 ideas expressed in the ancient canon, and suggested^ 
 it would seem, rather by similarity of position in 
 the services, than by similarity of feeling or any 
 desire to preserve the old forms. 
 
 (10) In the book of 1549 the prayer of consecration 
 is immediately followed by the Lord's Prayer as in 
 the Koman liturgy since the time of St. Gregory. 
 The ancient preface to it is however altered and 
 the so called embolismus, which is an expansion of 
 
The First English Book of Common Frayer. 213 
 
 the last petition: "deliver us from evil," is left out 
 altogether. The reason for this omission is not certain, 
 but one result is that the "fraction" of the host 
 which took place during this prayer is also left out 
 of the Prayer Book. ^ 
 
 The service at once proceeds to the Pax Domini, 
 * The peace of the Lord be always with you." 
 
 (11) At this point an inversion of the Sarum rite 
 occurs. In the ancient use there follows immediately 
 the Agnus Dei and then the ritual action called the 
 ^commixture' with its accompanying prayer. In the 
 book of 154:9 this " commixture" is left out altogether 
 and in place of the prayer a new composition entirely 
 different in idea is substituted. * The Agnus is removed 
 to the time of the communion of the people. ^ 
 
 (12) From this point to the conclusion of the 
 service the Book of 1549 practically leaves the missal 
 entirely and adopts the Order of Communion of 
 1548. * A few alterations are made and additions 
 introduced which are not without significance. Thus : 
 
 ' Of the various actions which constitute the ritual preparation 
 for the communion * the most nearly universal are the fraction 
 and commixture . . . The former of these two rites is distinct 
 from the breaking which takes place for the purpose of distri- 
 iDution and the latter is not to be confounded with the * intinction \ 
 a purely oriental rite, which is necessary to the oriental method 
 of administering the two species combined" (Hammond^ Xi^wr^ies 
 Eastern and Western p. xxxiv). 
 
 ■^ On commixture cf. the preceding note. 
 
 ^ In the ancient roman rite the Agnus was sung during the 
 fraction of the host, not as at present after it. The Agnus of 
 €ourse was not originally recited by the priest. When this practice 
 grew up, the matter being one of perfect indifference, the Agnus 
 was inserted either before (e. g. at Sarum) or after (e. g. at 
 Rome) the prayer for the commixture. 
 
 * The compilers were probably determined to this course by 
 
214 The First English Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 the form of absolution which in 1548 declared that 
 " Our Blessed Lord hath left power to his Church 
 to absolve penitent sinners from their sins" now is- 
 couched in general and indefinite terms, all mention 
 of the Church being omitted. A change also in the- 
 last rubric for the communion, * substituting "the 
 Sacrament of the body " and " the Sacrament of tho 
 blood" for "the bread" and "the wine" is a result 
 of Bonner's protest against heresy. 
 
 (13) After the communion of the people is ended 
 a verse of Holy Scripture is directed to be sung 
 *" called the postcommunion". ^ 
 
 (14-) Finally a new invariable prayer is introduced 
 before the blessing, the first words of which are an 
 adaptation of the Sarum prayer said by the priest 
 immediately after communion. ^ 
 
 the general character of the prayers which preceded the communion 
 in the missal. These were of late mediaeval introduction and some 
 of those in the Sarum, which are not found in the Roman, emphasize- 
 aspects of Eucharistic doctrine specially distasteful to Cranmer 
 and his friends, e. g. " Deus Pater, fons et origo totius bonitatis, 
 qui ductus misericordia Unigenitum Tuum pro nobis ad infima 
 mundi descendere et carnem sumere voluisti, quam ego indignus- 
 hie in manibus meis teneo {rubric : hie inclinat se sacerdos ad hos- 
 tiam, dicens). Te adoro " &c. Or again : "Ave in seternum sanctiss- 
 ima caro Christi" &c. This last invocation has been for the last 
 three centuries traditionally continued in Catholic prayer books- 
 but transferred to the time of the elevation. 
 
 ' P. p. 92 G. p. 206. 
 
 2 This is a change of name. In the ancient rite as in the present- 
 missal the variable verse of Scripture was called the communio 
 and it is the variable prayer which follows which is named the 
 postcommunio. This prayer is discarded in the new service. 
 
 ^ " Qui me refecisti de sacratissimo corpore et sanguine " of 
 the old prayer is changed into ; " Thou hast vouchsafed to feed 
 
The First English Book of Common Prayer, 215 
 
 The service ended with the blessing which still 
 concludes the Communion office in the present Prayer 
 Book. 
 
 us in these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of Thy most 
 precious body and blood". 
 
CHAPTER XIIl. 
 THE PKAYER BOOK OF 1549 AND CONTEMPORAEY LITURGIES. 
 
 The Communion office " commonly called the mass" 
 is the chief element in determining the character of 
 the new Prayer Book, and although the undue 
 prominence which has in fact been given to the 
 morning and evening prayer during the past three 
 centuries has somewhat obscured this central act of 
 Christian worship, its importance will hardly be now 
 called in question, and in the middle of the sixteenth 
 century it could not have been doubted. 
 
 In the last chapter, the Communion office has 
 been contrasted with the traditional service of Catholic 
 England, which it was intended to supersede. Here 
 will be pointed out the relation it bore to similar 
 hturgies which had their origin in the religious 
 movements of that century. The labours of several 
 generations of scholars have issued in the classification, 
 more or less accurate, of extant liturgies, eastern 
 and western, and they have been arranged into 
 certain groups or "families''. It is important to 
 enquire to what ''family" the Book of Common 
 Prayer of 1549 belongs, and to understand whether 
 it is to be ranked with the ancient hturgies of 
 the Christian church or with the group of church 
 
The Prayer Book of 1549 &c, 217 
 
 services created by the Reformation in the sixteenth 
 century ^. 
 
 It has already been contrasted with the Sarum 
 mass which may be taken as a type of those in use 
 in the western Church. The result of the examination j 
 may be briefly summed up as follows: speaking gene- j 
 rally and taking no account of ceremonial, the new | 
 office of 1549 may be said to agree with the ancient j 
 mass as far as the creed inclusively. At this point 
 there is an interpolation, which partakes of the 
 nature of a homily. Then there is a gap where the 1 
 old ritual of oblation had been ; the mass is resumed \ 
 for the Preface; but a new prayer of consecration 
 is substituted for the old Canon. Of the rest of the 
 ancient mass only the Lord's Prayer, the Pax Domini 
 and the Agnus survive, the rest being entirely new. 
 
 The liturgies created by the Reformation fall natur- 
 ally into two classes: the Lutheran and the Reformed. 
 Of these it is evident that only the former need be 
 taken into consideration in the present connection. 
 For although it is possible to trace in places a certain 
 similarity of thought and expression, the general 
 character of the " reformed " liturgies is quite different 
 from the Anglican office of 1549, since it is a principle 
 of the reformed liturgies to obliterate as far as possible 
 every trace of the ancient mass. The case is otherwise 
 with the liturgies of the Lutheran churches; which 
 
 * It is of course only possible in a work like this to indicate 
 generally the sources whence the material for the Book of Common 
 Prayer is drawn. If a correct knowledge of the principles on 
 which it was compiled is to be obtained, an annotated edition of 
 the two Books of 1549 and 1552 is necessary, in which the 
 sources, ascertained on a comprehensive survey of contemporary 
 as well as traditional liturgies, are given in detail according to 
 the methods usually employed in such investigations. 
 
218 The Prayer Book of 1549 
 
 must be considered in dealing with this matter ^ 
 At the outset of the enquiry it is necessary to 
 note that the present practice of these churches does 
 not represent what was usual among them in the 
 middle of the sixteenth century. The Thirty years 
 war which devastated Germany in the first half of 
 the seventeenth century was fatal to their observance, 
 although long afterwards there existed a remarkable 
 survival of the ancient Catholic rites in the Lutheran 
 churches which forms a striking contrast to all that 
 prevailed in England, even after the reform of 
 Laud, until within recent years ^. 
 
 ^ In speaking of the Lutheran liturgies those of the genuine 
 type, that is, of Northern Germany, are meant. A general knowledge 
 of the whole range of Lutheran services may be easily gained even 
 by those who have no access to great libraries through the col- 
 lection of Richter Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des seeks- 
 zehnten Jahrhunderts, whilst the work of Kliefoth is a guide and 
 continuous commentary. These early orders are full of details 
 which throw light on the popular use of the liturgy at the close 
 of the middle ages. 
 
 2 In cathedral churches in particular, a great part of the 
 Catholic services remained to a late period intact. The Wittenberg 
 programme in regard to services in monasteries and greater 
 churches is explained in Bugenhagen's Pomeranian order of 1535 
 (Richter, I p. 259). He drew up at the same time a scheme in 
 detail for the canonical hours which two years later he forwarded 
 to Henry VIII, but that king s views in regard to the monasteries 
 were different. This scheme involved the continuance of the 
 ancient Sunday and ferial office in latin, practically unaltered 
 except by curtailment of matins and the introduction of german 
 collects. It was in fact carried out in several cathedral and collegiate 
 churches, even to comparatively recent years. Such books as 
 the Magdeburg (noted) Cantica Sacra (i. e. Antiphonar) published 
 in 1613, or the Halberstadt Breviary (undated) of about the year 
 1791, give an idea of what was done. So far as they go they are word 
 for word the mediaeval books of these churches and very few changes 
 
and Contemporary Liturgies, 219 
 
 The basis of the very numerous hturgies which ap- 
 peared in the sixteenth century among the Lutherans 
 was either the so called "latin mass" put forth by 
 Luther in 1523, or his subsequent "german mass" 
 of 1526, or a combination of both. These "masses" 
 were in fact merely a body of liturgical directions 
 which assumed the existence of the old missals and 
 their continued use, except in so far as they were 
 distinctly abrogated ^ 
 
 In the beginning of his ^'latin mass" Luther laid 
 down the principles upon which he proceeded in his 
 liturgical reforms, and to which he remained constant 
 duriug life. His intention, he declares, was to purge 
 the form of worship in actual use which had been 
 corrupted, and to set forth a godly use. "For" he 
 continues " we cannot deny that mass and the com- 
 munion of bread and wine is a rite divinely instituted 
 by Christ".^ Consequently he allows the mass as it 
 stood in the ancient missals, especially for Sundays, 
 as consonant with primitive purity, except what 
 concerns the offertory and the "abominable canon".' 
 His great grievance against the mass is that it has 
 been turned into a sacrifice. 
 
 occur even in the offices for the saints' days retained. The Magdeburg 
 book is valuable as giving the local chant for every part of the 
 oflBce and in fact holds the place of a mediaeval antiphonar and 
 gradual. The Halberstadt breviary continued in use until the 
 year 1810. To any one unacquainted with the details these 
 volumes might easily pass for Catholic office books. 
 
 1 See for instance the Saxon order of 1539 drawn up by Justus 
 Jonas in Richter, I. 315 and the Halle order of 1541. ibid. p. 340. 
 
 * Daniel, Codex Liturgicus, vol. ii, p. 81. 
 
 ^ "Loquor autem de Canone illo lacero et abominabili ex 
 multorum laciniis seu sentina collecto, ibi ccepit missa fieri sacri- 
 ficium, ibi addita offertoria" &c. Daniel ut sup. p. 82. 
 
220 The Prayer Book of 1549 
 
 In a writing of the year 1530 he expresses his 
 satisfaction that so much of praise and thanksgiving 
 has remained in the mass, as the Gloria in excelsis, 
 the Alleluia, the Creed, the Preface, the Sandus, the 
 Agnus Dei, in which pieces there is nothing of sacri- 
 fice but mere praise and thanksgiving. "Wherefore 
 we also" he says "retain them in our mass". He 
 considers the Agnus Dei especially appropriate for 
 the time of communion. He sums up the case in the 
 one expression, that what is evil in the mass, as 
 savouring of oblation and the opus operatum, is what 
 the priest alone recites secretly.* 
 
 Luther s scheme for reforming the ancient mass 
 is developed as follows: 
 
 (1) Notice is to be given by those intending to 
 communicate. ^ 
 
 (2) The vestments hitherto in use are allowed to 
 continue. 
 
 (3) (4) The mass is to begin with the introit, ^ 
 
 * See Jacoby, Liturgih der Reformatoren I. p. 129. 
 
 2 Daniel, II, p. 92. The object is that the pastor may know 
 the names and "life" of intending communicants. The explanation 
 given by Luther at length as to the intention of this provision 
 (ibid. p. 93) corresponds with the similar direction contained in 
 the second and third rubrics prefixed to the communion office 
 in the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 ^ The Confiteor which in the old rite had been said at the 
 commencement of mass by the priest was from the Lutheran 
 standpoint regarded as a sacerdotal preparation for the sacrifice, 
 and was therefore omitted. The attempt to restore it under the 
 Interim gave great offence. In place of it the Kirchenordnungen 
 give simple directions for the preparation of the altar, the vesting 
 of the priest, and that he should then take his place devoutly 
 and humbly before the altar and begin the service. The omission 
 of the Confiteor in the Prayer Book of 1549 is the more note- 
 worthy inasmuch as it, or an equivalent is allowed in the Bran- 
 
and Contem'porary Liturgies. 221 
 
 which he preserves in its old form; although "we 
 should prefer" he says "that the whole psalm from 
 which they are taken were sung as formerly"/ 
 
 (5) Then follow the Kyrie, Gloria in excelsis, the 
 old .collects, " provided they are pious, as nearly all 
 those for Sundays are", the Epistle, the Gradual, 
 provided it is short, the Grospel ^ and the Nicene 
 Creed. ^ 
 
 (6) As regards the sermon, he leaves discretion 
 about its position in the service, whether after the 
 creed or before the commencement of the mass. 
 
 (7) "There follows all that abomination called 
 the offertory. And from this point almost everything 
 stinks of oblation. Therefore casting aside all that 
 savours of oblation with the entire canon, let us 
 keep those things which are pure and holy. " At the 
 end of the sermon therefore, or after the creed, * 
 there is sung a german psalm or hymn during which 
 the communicants go into the choir, the men going 
 
 denburg- Nuremberg order of 1533 and in the Pia consultatio 
 of Hermann of Cologne. (See Kliefoth, Liturgische Abhandlungen 
 Yiii p. 6. seqq.). 
 
 ^ Daniel p. 83. As a matter of fact this was never acted on. 
 Luther withdrew his proposal and in practice the old introits 
 were taken over as they stood. (Kliefoth, viii p. 14). 
 
 * The old salutation Bominus vobiscum and the Gloria tibi 
 Domine before the Gospel are generally discarded in the Lutheran 
 uses as expressly in the Prayer Book of 1549. (Kliefoth, viii. 
 p. 33). In the same way the old ceremonial connected with the 
 reading of the Gospel was entirely swept away. 
 
 ^ Daniel &c. p. 85. At this point Daniel reads " Symbolum 
 Nicenum cantari solitum displicet" omitting the important word 
 non. See the correct text in Richter I. p. 3. 
 
 * Luther deals with this portion of the service in two separate 
 places of his tract. In order to see what was done it is neces- 
 sary here to have recourse to the liturgies themselves. 
 
222 The Prayer Book of 1549 
 
 to the right hand and the women to the left *. Here 
 the priest prepares the bread and wine and places 
 them on the altar. * During the time a collection 
 for the poor was sometimes made. ^ 
 
 (8) This preparation being finished the priest takes 
 up the order of the mass again, with the salutation : 
 "The Lord be with you" and proceeds with the 
 familiar "Lift up your hearts" followed by the 
 Preface. The greater part of the ancient Prefaces 
 were retained as they stood in the old missals. 
 
 (9) The canon was reduced to a mere recital of 
 the words of Institution pronounced aloud. Then 
 was sung the Sanctus * and whilst the words " Blessed 
 is he who cometh in the name of the Lord '' were 
 sung the host and chalice were to be elevated. ^ 
 
 1 See Luther's mass: Daniel pp. 93 — 4, where he develops his 
 reasons for the separation of the communicants from the non- 
 communicants, the former according to his leaching cooperating 
 in the whole act of the supper and giving by their separation 
 a public confession of faith. The time and method of this separ- 
 ation, which was a break from tradition, was adopted in the 
 first Prayer Book. 
 
 ^ Luther declares that his mind is not made up as to the use of 
 the "mixed chalice"; but he inclines to the use of wine only. 
 In practice the mixed chalice although allowed to be ancient was 
 from doctrinal considerations disused by the Lutherans (Kliefoth,vin 
 pp. 77-8). 
 
 ^ See Kliefoth, vni pp. 54—9. 
 
 * This separation of the Preface and Sanctus, proposed in 1523, 
 was soon abandoned by Luther himself and, with the exception 
 of two orders of the year 1525, the old arrangement was every- 
 where maintained. (Kliefoth, vni pp. 84—5.) 
 
 ^ The elevation is still prescribed in the Wittenberg order of 
 1533. From a letter of Luther in 1539 it appears he had already 
 given it up ; but it remained commonly in use after the roman 
 fashion elsewhere in Northern Germany. In 1543 he expresses 
 his readin ess to resume it if it were useful, and still thinks that 
 
and contemporary Liturgies. 223 
 
 (10) The Lord's Prayer with the usual short preface 
 follows; but Luther directs that the emholismus should 
 be omitted, as well as the fraction of the host and 
 that the Pax Domini should immediately follow. 
 
 (11) The ritual commixture is omitted, and 
 
 (12) The communion of priest and people imme- 
 diately follows, the priest having the discretion of 
 saying one of the preparatory prayers in the missal. ^ 
 The formula of administration to the people Luther 
 leaves unchanged, but they are to receive under 
 both kinds and the Agnus is to be sung during the 
 administration. 
 
 (13) After this a verse of Holy Scripture, the Com- 
 munio of the old missals, may be sung. But the 
 last collect or postcommunion " because it is sugges- 
 tive almost always of sacrifice" is to be omitted. 
 
 (14) Luther suggested a new and invariable prayer 
 in the place which corresponds to the "thanksgiving" 
 prayer at the end of the communion office of 1549. 
 
 The service ended with the blessing. 
 
 On reviewing this office it will be seen that the 
 terms of comparison already used in contrasting the 
 english communion service of 1549 with the ancient 
 mass, hold good in every point except one. Luther 
 swept away the canon altogether and retained 
 only the essential words of Institution. Cranmer 
 substituted a new prayer of about the same length 
 as the old canon, leaving in it a few shreds of the 
 ancient one, but divesting it of its character of 
 
 in itself it is not a dangerous practice, and, although to assert 
 his Christian freedom he had dispensed with it, yet he allows others 
 to continue it if they please. Its disuse was to a great extent 
 caused by the discussions consequent on the Interim. (See 
 Kliefoth, vin pp. 104—6 and Jacoby, LiturgiJc der Reformatoren 
 I pp. 297-8). 
 
 * The first beginning "Domine Jesu Christe". 
 
224 The Prayer Book of 1549 
 
 sacrifice and oblation. Even the closest theological 
 scrutiny of the new composition will not detect 
 anything inconsistent with, or excluding, Luther's 
 negation of the sacrificial idea of the mass. * 
 
 Looking therefore at the characteristics of the 
 new Anglican service and contrasting it on the one 
 hand with the ancient missal and on the other with 
 the Lutheran liturgies, there can be no hesitation 
 whatever in classing it with the latter, not with the 
 former ; ^ and passing from the Communion ofiice to 
 consider the other sacramental rites this af&nity will 
 still be found to exist. 
 
 In the order of Public Baptism for example hardly 
 more than one fourth part of the new office can be 
 referred to the baptismal service of the ancient rituals. 
 The Consultatio of Hermann of Cologne, a quasi- 
 Lutheran production of Bucer and Melancthon ^ is 
 
 ^ It is interesting to observe the impression made by the book of 
 1549 among the Lutherans in Leipsic as reported by Aless in the 
 preface to his translation. After lamenting the dissensions among 
 the reformers, their undue insistence each on his own foible 
 and the suspicious fear with which each regarded an observance 
 different from his own, he specifies, besides one or two matters 
 of small import, the two objections made around him against the 
 book. One is indicated in vague terms but evidently stigmatizes 
 the retention of a canon (Bucer, Scripta Anglicana p. 374). The 
 other point of offence was the prohibition of the elevation of 
 the sacrament after it had been consecrated. In such matters 
 Aless pleads for liberty and he refers cavillers on this and other 
 such matters to the divine justice. (Ibid. p. 375). 
 
 * As Kliefoth remarks : " Nur grosse Unkenntniss der Geschichte 
 und Gestalt der mittelalterlichen Liturgie hat meinen konnen 
 diese in der Liturgie der anglicanischen Kirche wieder zu finden." 
 (vol. VII p. 6). 
 
 3 In the year 1543, when the Pia Consultatio was drawn up, 
 Melancthon had advanced a stage beyond the pure Wittenberg 
 doctrine. (As to the development of his ideas on the Eucharist 
 
and Contemporary Liturgies, 225 
 
 commonly suggested as the source of much of the 
 rest. This to a certain extent is true, but in the 
 Consultatio the baptismal office is divided into two 
 sections said on successive days, and the general 
 order and disposition of parts is very different from 
 that in the Anglican office, which much more closely 
 resembles the second ritual of baptism put forth by 
 Luther in 1524. Some not inconsiderable portions 
 are apparently original; and throughout the whole 
 office it is impossible not to recognize an utter 
 indifference to ancient euglish traditions. ^ Changes 
 at times appear to have been made gratuitously: 
 
 see Frank Die Theologie der Concordienformel III, p. 5—28 
 and relative. notes). The only portion of interest in the book for 
 the Anglican liturgy is the second half, which represents Bucer's 
 particular share in the work. Though employing Lutheran forms 
 he had with his usual skill inserted Strasburg doctrine. He 
 rightly judged that the work would be welcomed by those who 
 shared Helvetic views about the Sacrament. It was however only 
 at the most earnest entreaties of Bucer's friend the Landgrave 
 of Hesse that Luther was restrained from stigmatizing the Pia 
 consultatio along with the works of Zwingli and (Ecolampadius. 
 
 No single book gives the details of its history. Drouven (Die 
 jReformaiion in der colnischen Kirchenprovinz, 1876) supplies the 
 best material for the successive stages of its compilation and the 
 disputes with the Chapter of Cologne about it. Varrentrapp's 
 Hermann von Wied (1878) gives many notices which are not 
 found in Drouven. The second volume of Lenz's Briefwechsel 
 Landgraf Philipps des Grossmiithigen von Hessen mil Bucer 
 furnishes the very important letters to Bullinger and Blaurer, 
 which show how perfectly Bucer appreciated the character of 
 the book and how correct was Luther's judgment of it. A few 
 further details are supplied in Kuyper's Opera Joannis a Lasco 
 IT. 574, 582, 591—2. Hardenberg's life in 1544—5 is also 
 bound up with the history of this book. 
 
 ^ The provisions for "dipping" the child are, however, an 
 evident imitation of the curious rubric of the Sarum ritual. 
 
 Q 
 
226 The Prayer Book of 1549 
 
 thus according to the english practice the Gospel read 
 in the service was taken from St. Matthew; Luther 
 adopted from his ancient local rituals the parallel 
 passage from St. Mark, and this has been transferred 
 to the english baptismal service. ^ 
 
 The service " Of them that be baptized in private 
 houses in time of necessity" offers several subjects 
 for remark. The rubrics, enquiries and certificate, 
 up to the point of the recital of the Gospel, are 
 derived from the Pia consiiUatio of Hermann. Atten- 
 tion has been called to the great superiority of the 
 anglican to the foreign formula. "The former is 
 simple and forcible in its style, the later tediously 
 copious and diffuse "^ This is true so far as the latin 
 translation (1545) of the ConsuUatio is concerned, but 
 the remark does not hold good of the german orig- 
 inal of 1543, which is as concise and pithy as the 
 anglican. Moreover in this short section the german 
 of 1543 differs from the latin in at least half a 
 dozen substantial particulars. In each of these cases 
 
 ^ In this very composite order the proportions of the component 
 parts may be roughly given as follows : Out of about 250 lines 
 (including rubric) between 70 and 80 at most are taken from 
 the elaborate and lengthy office of the old english rituals. 
 This includes one whole prayer, also to be found in Luther's 
 service; in the book of 1549 it has a position similar to that 
 in Luther's book, but in the Sarum ritual it is found in quite 
 another place and connection. With the exception of this single 
 prayer the rest of the Sarum material is scattered about in shreds 
 throughout the whole office. The bulk of the new office is appa- 
 rently original or derived from the books of Luther and Hermann. 
 It would be impossible to show the details except by printing 
 the offices in parallel columns. 
 
 ^ See BuUey, Communion and baptismal offices p. viii. It may 
 be well to observe that the english translation issued in 1547 
 and 1548, was made from the latin version, not from the original 
 german. 
 
and Contemporary Liturgies, 227 
 
 the Book of 1549 follows the german, which there 
 can be no doubt is its immediate source. * 
 
 According to the ancient practice children who 
 had received private baptism were to be brought to 
 church in order that the ceremonies, which had been 
 necessarily omitted, might be supplied. According to 
 the new rubric, derived from the german, this was now 
 to be done " to the intent that the priest might examine 
 and try whether the child be lawfully baptized or 
 bo". In accordance with this change of object, the 
 important ceremonies of exorcism and unction, pre- 
 scribed even in the book of 1549 for public baptism, 
 are left out, whilst the white vesture or chrisom, a 
 mere antiquarian survival, which the rubrics of the 
 old ritual and of the book of 1549 both show to 
 have been a source of abuse and superstition, is 
 retained. 
 
 In the same way the influence of the Lutheran 
 spirit is evidenced in the service for confirmation. 
 Into this the idea of a public profession of faith on 
 coming to years of discretion is introduced which 
 finds no counterpart in the ancient rite. ^ Moreover 
 
 ^ Two examples may suffice. The rubric before the certificate 
 runs "then shall not he christen the child again, hut shall receive 
 Mm as one of the flocJc of the true Christian people.'' There is 
 nothing corresponding to the italicised words in the latin ; but 
 the german runs : " so soil es der Pastor, nicbt wider tenffpn 
 sender ... es da in die gemein und zal der renhtschaffen Christen 
 ■annemen^^ (fol. lxxxviii a). 
 
 The certificate in the latin is very long, resembles the german 
 only in the beginning, and turns on wholly different considera- 
 tions. The english in the Book of Common Prayer exactly fol- 
 lows the german. It may be observed that the original german 
 order in the Cologne book is taken almost word for word from 
 Justus Jonas' Saxon order of 1539. 
 
 ^ This new turn given to the rite of confirmation explains 
 the insertion of the catechism under that heading. In the Lutheran 
 
228 The Prayer Booh of 1549 
 
 complicated as the history of this Sacrament ^ is, one^ 
 thing is clear from the testimony of antiquity, that- 
 confirmation is emphatically the " sacr amentum chris- 
 matis", whilst in the new book of 1549 the chrism 
 was done away with altogether. The outward acts 
 of crossing were retained but the substance of the 
 ceremony is made to consist in the laying on of 
 hands, as among the Lutherans. 
 
 In the three great rites of the First Book of 
 Common Prayer, therefore, unmistakable proof of 
 Lutheran influence is found. The reduction of the daily 
 service to matins and evensong and the general order 
 of the services themselves afford other evidence. Any 
 attentive examination of the early Lutheran liturgies 
 will disclose resemblances in minor matters between 
 them and the book of 1549 which cannot be accidental. 
 And even if it were not an ascertained fact that, during 
 the year when it was in preparation, Cranmer was 
 under the influence of his Lutheran friends, the 
 testimony of the book itself would be suflicient to 
 prove beyond doubt that it was conceived and drawn 
 up after the Lutheran pattern. * 
 
 churches confirmation was regarded as the ending of catechetical 
 instruction when the pastor by imposition of hands admitted the 
 neophyte to full Christian communion (See Daniel, II p. 274—5). 
 
 ^ This is discussed with learning and ingenuity, and from a 
 standpoint which cannot be considered favourable to Catholic 
 practice, in the first volume of Hofling's Sacrament der Taufe. 
 Neale's more restricted account {Introduction p. 999 seqq.) is best 
 understood after Hofling. 
 
 2 The fact is perhaps somewhat obscured by the manner in 
 which Lutheran liturgies are framed. They do not give at length 
 what was taken from the ancient service books: the varying 
 collects, the epistles, gospels, introitS; graduals, communions or 
 the fixed parts of the Ordo Missce which Luther retained. At the 
 same time many of them incorporate theoretical discussions or 
 
and Contemporary Liturgies. 229 
 
 This conclusion is based on an analysis and com- 
 parison of texts only. But it is amply confirmed 
 on a view of the historical circumstances. The younger 
 Justus Jonas, an inmate of Cranmer's house and his 
 friend may naturally be supposed to be prejudiced 
 in favour of the Wittenbergers. ^ But the statement 
 of a contemporary, well qualified in every way to 
 form a judgment on the subject, is precise. Richard 
 Hilles writing to BuUinger from London on 1st June 
 1549 says: "We have an uniform celebration of the 
 Eucharist throughout the whole kingdom ; but after 
 the manner of the Nuremberg churches and some 
 of those in Saxony". ^ 
 
 It has been already seen that at the end of July 1548, 
 the friends of the Helvetian reformers contrasted the 
 attitude of Cranmer to their views unfavourably with 
 that of Latimer and they imply that the archbishop 
 preferred the society of Lutherans to that of the 
 more advanced reformers. * To their astonishment 
 
 practical directions which have little or nothing to do with 
 liturgy proper. 
 
 * According to Laurence {Bampton Lectures^ p. 16 note) the 
 library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, possesses a copy 
 of volumes 1 and 2 of Luther's works with Cranmer's signature 
 and a note saying that these were given to the archbishop in 1548 
 (the year of the composition of the Prayer Book) by '^Justus 
 Jonas Jan." The younger Justus Jonas was only 21 at this 
 time but he was already versed in the discussions of the period. 
 Melancthon took him as his companion on his journey to Cologne 
 io settle the Pia consuliatio with Bucer. 
 
 * Orig. Letters. Parker Soc. p. 266. The writer had lived for 
 many years at Strasburg where the keenest interest was taken 
 in every movement both of the Lutheran and the Helvetian 
 ■churches. He would have been well able to place the new 
 Prayer Book in its proper * family." 
 
 3 Orig. Letters, p. 320. 
 
230 The Prayer Book of 1549 
 
 and delight however, m the debate in parliament^ 
 Cranmer took up a doctrinal standpoint coincident 
 with their own. The change has been attributed by 
 some to the influence of Latimer, by others to that 
 of Ridley, by others again to the society of a Lasco,. 
 but it is probable that it was due to a combination 
 of influences. 
 
 The conversion of the archbishop to the advanced 
 doctrines of the Helvetian school of reformers had 
 long been prepared for in the mind of Bullinger.. 
 He rightly felt that the key to the religious position 
 in England was Cranmer's mind, and that to establish 
 an influence over it would be to transfer the weight 
 of his paramount authority in the ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment from the Lutherans to themselves. 
 
 As early as June 1548 BuUinger was anxiously 
 looking for news. He enquires eagerly from Richard 
 Hilles the whereabouts of a Lasco. He has for- 
 warded, he says, to Cranmer a book accompanied 
 by a letter exhorting the archbishop to a due 
 performance of his episcopal duties and in which by 
 subtle transition he proceeded to treat of the Eucharist. 
 Early in August he writes to Burcher, the partner 
 of Hilles at Strasburg, asking information about the 
 state of England, and for further tidings of John 
 h Lasco. At the same time he desires to know whether 
 his book and letter had been duly forwarded to- 
 Cranmer. 
 
 Bullinger's enquiries about a Lasco were evidently 
 dictated by impatience at his delay in accepting 
 Cranmer's invitation to come over into England. He 
 understood the influence which h Lasco would be 
 likely to exercise over a mind so ductile as that of 
 the archbishop, and hoped through his means to 
 draw him from the "dangerous lethargy" of his^ 
 Lutheranism. The Polish reformer arrived in England 
 
and Contem/porary Liturgies. 231 
 
 at the end of September (1548) and for the next six 
 months lived with the archbishop, and was thus 
 able in person to enforce the doctrine which BuUinger 
 could only convey by letter. The publication of 
 Cranmer's Lutheran catechism in the summer of 
 this same 3^ear (1548) filled the mind of Bullinger 
 with disquietude. In November he again writes to 
 Hilles, who was now in London, for further inform- 
 ation "how the archbishop of Canterbury received" 
 his letter and book. But before this message could 
 have reached England, Bullinger's disciple John ab 
 Ulmis was enabled to convey to him the welcome 
 intelligence that ^'even that Thomas himself about 
 whom I wrote to you when I was in London, by 
 the goodness of God and the instrumentality of that 
 upright and judicious man master John k Lasco is 
 in a great measure recovered from his dangerous 
 lethargy" ^ 
 
 Although this assertion may have been too 
 absolute and exclusive, there seems no reason to 
 doubt that there was sufficient truth in it to justify 
 Bullinger's anxiety that a Lasco should be with Cran- 
 mer. The change in the archbishop's mind certainly 
 took place soon after the Pole's arrival in England 
 and was to that form of doctrine represented by Bul- 
 linger, ^ and Hooper, Bullinger's intimate friend, was 
 
 1 Orig. Letters, p. 383. Tialieron writing from London 28 Sep- 
 tenaber had already informed Bullinger "that Latimer has come 
 over to our opinion respecting the true doctrine of the Eucharist, 
 together with the archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops 
 who heretofore seemed to be Lutherans." (Ibid. p. 322). Traheron 
 was probably somewhat premature although there were indications 
 of the change. 
 
 2 See Orig, Letters : pp. 17, 262, 266, 380, 383, 641. Canon 
 Dixon describes Bullinger as a "moderate Lutheran". This was 
 not the case as may be seen by his attitude towards the very 
 
232 The Frailer Book of 1549 
 
 certaiDly of opinion that Cranmer's continuance in 
 the right path largely depended upon a Lasco's 
 presence \ 
 
 Notwithstanding the triumph of those who now 
 held sway over Cranmer's mind at the line which 
 he took in the discussions preceding the introduction 
 of the act of Uniformity, the book which the act 
 imposed on the church was extremely distasteful 
 to them. Hooper in writing to Bullinger describes 
 it as " very defective and of doubtful construction and 
 in some respects indeed manifestly impious"^. 
 
 Francis Dryander, " Greek Professor" at Cambridge, 
 who cordially agreed with his master Bullinger in 
 
 moderate form of Lutheranism whicli found its way into Berne. 
 In contrast with so many other reformers Bullinger is consistent 
 with himself throughout in his doctrine of the Eucharist, and his 
 honesty comes out in striking contrast to the want of straight- 
 forwardness which characterised many incidents in Bucer's career. 
 At this very time (1548) Bullinger was arranging with Calvin 
 the Zurich consensus (of which the cardinal article was that of 
 the " Supper ") which fixed definitely the doctrine of the Helve- 
 tian churches. Canon Dixon's mistake perhaps came from crediting 
 the assertion sometimes made that Bullinger assented to the 
 Wittenberg Concordia of 1536. This was not really so. For an 
 account of the whole transaction see Pestalozzi's Ileinrich Bull- 
 inger, p. 194 seqq. 
 
 1 Orig. Letters p. 161. Cranmer's letter to Melancthon of 10 Feb. 
 1549 urging him also to come to England is proof of the trust 
 he placed in a Lasco. " I could relate many things upon this subject 
 which would bring you over to our opinion (as to the utility of 
 Melancthon's coming), but the brevity of a letter will not contain 
 them all. I would rather, therefore, that you should learn them from 
 the bearer, John a Lasco, a most excellent man. For he has 
 resided with me upon most intimate and friendly terms for some 
 months past ; and I pray you to give credit to whatever he may 
 relate to you in my name". (Ibid. p. 22.) 
 
 2 Ibid p. 79. 
 
mid Contemporary Liturgies. 233 
 
 liis religious opinions, passes upon the new service 
 book a more measured judgment. *A compendium 
 of it written in latin" he writes "I send to master 
 Yadian on the condition of his communicating it to 
 jou. You will see that the summary of doctrine 
 cannot be found fault with, although certain cere- 
 monies are retained in that book which may appear 
 useless and perhaps hurtful, unless a candid interpret- 
 ation be put upon them. But in the cause of religion 
 which is the most important of all in the whole world, I 
 think that every kind of deception either by ambiguity 
 or trickery of language is altogether unwarrantable. 
 You will also find something to blame in the matter of 
 the Lord's Supper, for the book speaks very obscurely, 
 and however you may try to explain it with candour, 
 you cannot avoid great absurdity. The reason is, the 
 bishops could not for a long time agree among 
 themselves respecting this article" \ 
 
 In fact, so far as Craumer himself was concerned, 
 the first Book of Common Prayer, as a whole, repre- 
 sented a stage in his opinions which he had already 
 passed before the discussion in parliament. This 
 change can only be detected in the book itself by 
 marking the care taken to employ turns of expression 
 which should not clash with his new views. And 
 although the archbishop speaks with sufficient defiuite- 
 ness in his subsequent treatises on the Eucharist, 
 his common-place books, from wich he drew his 
 material, bear sufficient evidence of his embarrassment 
 how to reconcile those views with the writings of 
 the Fathers. ^ 
 
 1 Ibid pp. 350-1. 
 
 * Royal MS. 7 B XI. It is rarely that such an opportunity is 
 afforded of gauging the difficulties of the controversialist in dealing 
 with untoward materials as is supplied by a comparison of Cranmer's 
 common-pilace book with his published book onthe Sacrament of 1550. 
 
 7 
 
234 The Prayer Book of 1549 
 
 The fact that Cranraer had already gone beyond 
 his own work before it was imposed rendered easy 
 and probable a future revision of a yet more radical 
 kind. To this his new friends now looked forward, 
 and of it some promise is even contained in the book 
 itself \ 
 
 That the Prayer Book, before it had begun to 
 be used was really regarded in Lambeth itself as 
 merely a temporary stage in the development of the 
 reformation, is clear from the letter which Bucer 
 and Paul Fagius addressed to their former colleagues 
 at Strasburg. In this they communicate their first 
 impressions gathered on their arrival at the arch- 
 bishop's house, where they remained for the next 
 six months before proceeding to the work found for 
 them at Cambridge. "" We yesterday" they say "waited 
 upon the archbishop of Canterbury, that most bene- 
 volent and kind father of the churches and of godly 
 men; who received and entertained us as brethren, 
 
 The underlining and marginal notes tell a curious tale. The words 
 vinum and panis are eagerly emphasized at fol. 78 and at fol. 79 
 * Dionysius sanctum panem vocat ante consecrationem." Fol. 80 
 seqq. show abundant notes such as these on SS. Leo, Cyril, 
 Hilary, Chrysostom &c. " Christus simul in caelo et in sacramento'* 
 — " Ipsam carnem comedimus" — " Christus per sacramentum inhab- 
 itat nos corporaliter," &c. The interest of these volumes does 
 not depend on the question how much or how little is in 
 Cranmer's hand. They were undoubtedly the books he used. The 
 C.C.C. C. MS. 102 ff. 155-193 comprises his further working 
 notes in regard to the doctrine of the Eucharist, and are still 
 more interesting as being full of insertions in his own handwriting. 
 1 See the rubric P. 97. G: 210 — « is or shall be otherwise 
 appointed by his Highness". This clause seems to have been an 
 after thought, as it does not appear in the print, designated 
 Grafton C. in the Parker Society edition, which seems to bear 
 indications of being the earliest edition. See Parker Soc. ed. p. 
 97. cf. Preface iv, v. 
 
and Contemporary Liturgies, 235 
 
 not as dependents. We found at his house, what 
 was most gratifying to us, our most dear friend 
 doctor Peter Martyr, with his wife and his attendant 
 JuHus, master Immanuel (TremeUius) with his wife; 
 and also Dryander and some other godly Frenchmen 
 whom we had sent before us. All these are enter- 
 tained by the archbishop of Canterbury '\ 
 
 " As soon as the description of the ceremonies now 
 in use shall have been translated into latin, we 
 will send it to you; We hear that some concessions 
 have been made both to a respect for antiquity and 
 to the infirmity of the present age; such, for instance, 
 as the vestments commonly used in the sacrament of 
 the Eucharist, and the use of candles: so also in 
 regard to the commemoration of the dead and the 
 use of chrism, for we know not to what extent or 
 in what sort it prevails. They affirm that there is 
 no superstition in these things, and that they are 
 only to be retained for a time, lest the people, not 
 having yet learned Christ, should be deterred by too 
 extensive innovations from embracing his religion, 
 and that rather they may be won over". ^ 
 
 1 Orlg. Letters pp. 535-6. From Lambeth 26 April (1549). 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 THE RECEPTION OF THE NEW SERVICE. 
 
 The Book of Common Prayer was to come into 
 nse on Whitsunday, June 9 154:9. The Act of Uniformity 
 itself gives indications of the popular opposition it 
 was expected to encounter by prohibiting "any 
 interludes, plays, songs, rhymes or any other open 
 words in derogation, depraving or displaying of the 
 same book; or of anything contained therein". Any 
 attempt to prevent the clergyman from using the 
 book thus imposed, or any interruption whilst the 
 service prescribed by it was proceeding, was to be 
 punished by a fine of ten pounds ^ for the first offence, 
 twenty for the second, and,, for a third, forfeiture of 
 sll goods and chattels and imprisonment during life. 
 
 It was however provided as a special derogation 
 from the uniformity of service thus ordered that 
 „for the encouragement of learning in the tongues, 
 in the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, the 
 services prescribed in the book, except the Holy 
 Oommunion, commonly called the mass, might be 
 said in college chapels in Greek, Latin or Hebrew" '\ 
 
 ^ More than .£100 of our money. 
 
 ^ In explaining his intention in continuing certain parts 
 of the service in latin, Luther had expressed a pious wish, 
 for the sake of learning, that it could be said in greek and 
 
The reception of the new Service. 237 
 
 This provision however had no practical effect in 
 preventing the shock experienced throughout the 
 country by the sudden change from the latin ser- 
 vice to the vernacular. Luther had been most careful 
 to avoid offering any such violence to popular ideas. 
 He was moreover perfectly alive to the effect the 
 prohibition of the latin language would have on 
 education, and he lays emphasis on the maintenance 
 of a latin service for youth and for congregational use 
 on great feasts. The provisions by which this was 
 carried out form one of the most striking and inte- 
 resting features of the early Lutheran Kirchenord- 
 nungen. ^ 
 
 It is only too common, in forming a judgment 
 on the use of latin in the popular services during 
 the middle ages, to decide the question on a priori 
 grounds. It is accordingly taken for granted that the 
 substitution of a purely english service for tho 
 ancient latin one must necessarily have been a 
 popular measure. It is however, a mistake, as expe- 
 rience even in the present day may show, to take 
 for granted that the latin service is and has been 
 no more than a closed book to the uneducated in 
 catholic countries. Even in country parishes much of 
 the invariable parts of the church offices and some 
 even of the variable, have been traditionally taught 
 to the people from childhood. To the peasant, from 
 the time that he had sung as a chorister in his 
 
 hebrew also. The spirit shown in converting a wish, quite in 
 place where it was originally expressed, into a provision of an 
 Act of Parliament is charactistic of much of the ecclesiastical 
 government of Edward's reign. 
 
 ^ For Luther's theory on the subject see Richter, I. p. 36a; 
 also Urbanus Regius' Hanover Order 1536, ibid. p. 275b, and 
 that of Wittenberg, 1533, p. 222b. The Pomeranian p. 257. 
 
238 The 7^eceptlon of the new Service. 
 
 village church, the words of many of the hymns, the 
 psalms and the order of the mass, although he had 
 never gone through a latin school, were firmly im- 
 pressed on the memory. 
 
 It may be sufficient to quote the words of an 
 unprejudiced observer on his first visit to a catholic 
 land. "The general impression among Protestants'' 
 he says "as to Roman Catholic worship (is) that it 
 is without reverence, unreal, and wholly beyond the 
 understanding of all but a few scholars. I can only 
 say that what I saw was the contrary of all this. 
 This I say knowing that no single testimony is suf- 
 ficient to decide such a question. Some enquiry led 
 me to believe that the majority of a french congre- 
 gation followed the psalms and such parts of the 
 service as are audibly said or sung as the act of the 
 congregation quite as well as the english generally 
 follow the prayer book" ^ 
 
 And travellers who have paid attention to the 
 matter can perfectly confirm the truth of these im- 
 pressions. The latin words become not unfrequently 
 so familiar that they suggest themselves to the 
 uneducated even in the occurrences of ordinary daily 
 life \ Therefore in considering the sudden substitu- 
 
 ^ T. Mozley's Heminiscences chiefly of Oriel College &c. II 
 p. 320. 
 
 ^ Daniel's remarks on this are much to the point (Codex 
 Liturgicus II p. 131). * In tortuosa ilia de latini sermonis digni- 
 tate atque auctoritate questione, quae nunc quoque a multis 
 pertractatur, restat ut diligentius in cladem inquiratur quam 
 latina lingua ex illo tempore acceperit, quo evanescere coepit e 
 cultu publico. Nam ssepius observavi banc linguam apud Romanos- 
 Catholicos quasi adhuc vivere ita ut simpliciorum quoque homi- 
 num mentibus latinae formulae impressae sint, quas probe intel- 
 iigunt. Abhinc paucis annis habitabam Monaci apud civem quen- 
 dam grandevum, pium quidem sed mini me cultioris ingenii ; 
 
The reception of the neiv Service, 239 
 
 tion of English for Latin in all the public services 
 of the church it must be borne in mind that to a 
 very great number this measure, so far from afford- 
 ing any gratification to their religious feelings, was 
 one to vv^hich they had to be reconciled. 
 
 A few days before the new service was ordered 
 to come into general use, Dryander writing to Bul- 
 linger from Cambridge stated that "the english 
 churches received the book with the greatest satis- 
 faction" 1. The event does not wholly justify the 
 writer in his prophetical announcement. Before 
 speaking of the armed rising in the country occa- 
 sioned by its imposition, it will be convenient to 
 consider what took place in London. Here, if any- 
 where, resistance to the change would be reduced 
 to a minimum. The city obviously contained a section 
 naturally prone to novelty of any kind. At the time 
 there was also gathered together in it a consider- 
 able foreign element whom Bucer found to be "all 
 godly men and most anxious for the word of God " ^ 
 It was moreover subject to direct court influence 
 and control, and whatever was done there was done 
 in the face of authority. 
 
 At this time in St. Paul's there were two parties, 
 represented by Bonner, the bishop, and by William 
 May, the dean. The latter had in the previous year 
 shown that he was ever ready to be beforehand 
 in innovation. This year he manifested the same 
 
 tamen ssepe ex ore ejus exciderunt et elapsa sunt verba latina 
 e.g. ^ Unser Sohn ist neun Jahr in der Fremde. Das ist hart 
 fur die Aeltern. Aber was soil man machen : Fiat voluntas tua." 
 
 * Orig. Letters, p. 350. 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 539. " There are for instance from six to eight 
 hundred Germans *'. 
 
240 The reception of the neiv Service, 
 
 anxiety to enter into the intentions of the Court 
 and the ruling powers. 
 
 Hence "Paul's choir and divers parishes in London'' 
 ays Wriothesley "began the use after the new books 
 in the beginning of Lent" S apparently on the first 
 day a copy of the book could be obtained. On the 
 second Sunday of Lent (March 17th 1549) after a 
 sermon by Coverdale, the dean, "when the high mass 
 was done, commanded the Sacrament at the high 
 altar to be pulled down" ^. And still desirous to be 
 well in advance, on the Monday after Ascension da}^ 
 (June 3) the ancient choir habit was laid aside and 
 the canons "wore hoods on their surplices after the 
 degrees of the universities, and the petty canons 
 tippets like other priests, and all the chantry priests 
 were put to their pensions and to be at liberty" ^. 
 
 The Book of Common Prayer came into force on 
 9 June (1549). Diversity immediately showed itself. 
 The 20th of the same month was Corpus Christi day: 
 "and that day in divers places in London was kept 
 holyday and many kept none, but did work openly ; 
 and in some churches service and some none, such 
 was the division". * 
 
 Notwithstanding the dismissal of the chantry priests 
 mass continued still to be said in St. Paul's "in 
 private chapels and other remote places of the same". 
 The Council considered that this was " for the place, 
 Paul's, in example not tolerable", and on 24 June 
 they sent Bonner a peremptory order which reached 
 the cathedral clergy on the 27th. By this it was 
 
 • Chronicle. Camd. Soc. n p. 9. 
 
 2 Grey Friars* Chron. p. 58. 
 
 3 Wriothesley ut sup. p. 14. He says 9 June but Grey Friars* 
 chronicle is certainly right in giving the date 3 June. 
 
 ^ Grey Friars' Chron. p. 58. 
 
The reception of the new Service, 241 
 
 commanded "that they should have no more the 
 apostles mass in the morning, nor our Lady mass, 
 nor no communion at no altar in the church but at the 
 high altar"/ Another letter in the same terms was 
 addressed to Thirlby, bishop of Westminster, about 
 the continued opposition of the canons and priests 
 of St. Peter's to the provisions of the new service 
 book. 2 
 
 Cranmer now resolved to give himself a public 
 pattern to the people of London of the new form 
 of service. Accordingly " on Sunday (21 July) he came 
 suddenly to Paul's" and after denouncing those who 
 had risen in arms against the innovations, " did the 
 office himself in a cope and no vestment, nor mitre, 
 nor cross, but a cross staff was borne afore him, 
 with two priests of Paul's for deacon and subdeacon 
 with albs and tunicles, the dean of Paul's following 
 him in his surphce". And "so he did all the office 
 and his satin cap on his head all the time of the 
 office and so gave the communion himself unto eight 
 persons of the said church ". ^ 
 
 Hitherto the government, embarrassed by the risings, 
 had refrained from active measures against Bonner. 
 In all probability Cranmer's visit to St. Paul's was 
 connected with the proceedings which were forthwith 
 taken to bring about the compliance of the bishop 
 of London with the new regulations. 
 
 On Tuesday, 23 July 1549 the king and Council 
 wrote a letter to the bishop lamenting that the new 
 book " remaineth in many places of our realm, either 
 not known at all or not used", or that it is used 
 
 ^ Ibid. This extract summarizes the original order for which 
 see Wilkins IV. 34. 
 
 2 Strype Ecd. Mem. n. 210—11 from Thirlby's register. 
 
 ^ Grey Friars' Chron. p. 60 and Wriothesley ii. 16. The 1 atter 
 is again wrong as to date. 
 
 E * 
 
242 The reception of the new Service, 
 
 so "that the people have not that spiritual delectation 
 in the same that to good Christians appertaineth". 
 The fault of all this the Council declare they cannot 
 but impute to the clergy. ^ This document also was 
 at once communicated by Bonner to the cathedral 
 priests. 
 
 On Sunday, 28 July, and Monday the 29th many 
 people " were con vented before the Council for hearing 
 mass, at Cree church where the french ambassador 
 lay". They were greatly rebuked and commanded 
 to go there no more. ^ Meantime further steps were 
 in contemplation against Bonner. On Saturday, 
 10 August, the archbishop of Canterbury again went 
 to St. Paul's and ''sat in the bishop's stall that he 
 was wont to be stalled in". He preached again on 
 the risings of the people in Devon and Cornwall, and 
 to show "that the occasion came of popish priests 
 was the most part of all his sermon". ^ That same 
 day Bonner was summoned before the Lords of the 
 Council. Here by the hands of the Protector certain 
 injunctions were handed to him which had been 
 drawn up for his future guidance. * 
 
 These instructions throw much light upon the 
 existing condition of things in London. " Heretofore^' 
 runs the document "upon all principal feasts and 
 such as were called majus duplex, you yourself were 
 wont to execute (i.e. celebrate mass) in person. Now 
 
 1 Foxe V. p. 527. 
 
 2 Grey Friars* Ghron. p. 61. 
 
 ^ Ibid. These sermons appear to have been originally composed 
 by Peter Martyr in latin, then translated to be submitted to 
 Cranmer who corrected and changed them for practical use. 
 Martyr's draft is in , C. 0. 0. 0. MS. 340 ; the translation in 
 MS. 102. 
 
 * Foxe V. p. 762. 
 
The reception of the new Service, 243 
 
 •since the time that we by the advice of the whole 
 parliament have set a most godly and devout order 
 in our church of England and Ireland, ye have very 
 seldom or never executed". Complaint is made "that 
 divers of our city of London and other places within 
 your diocese assemble themselves very seldom, and 
 fewer times than they were heretofore accustomed, 
 unto Common Prayer and to the Holy Communion/' 
 Further " that divers as well in London as in other 
 parts of your diocese do frequent and haunt foreign 
 rites and masses and contemn and forbear to praise 
 God and pray for his majesty after such rites and 
 ceremonies as in this realm are approved and set 
 out by our authority '\ ^ 
 
 Of the injunctions at the same time laid upon the 
 bishop the first is the only one that need be here 
 noticed. The same course that had been taken with 
 Gardiner was now followed in regard to Bonner. 
 He was ordered to preach at Paul's Cross and declare 
 and set forth in his sermon certain articles to be 
 prescribed to him by the Council. 
 
 On the feast of Assumption, hitherto observed 
 in England as one of the chief solemnities of the 
 year, Grey Friars' chronicle notes "that there was 
 hanged two persons one without Aldgate and the 
 other at Tottenham Hill, and on that day some 
 kept holiday and some none, as St. Stephen's in 
 Wal brook and Cole Church. Such was the division 
 that day". ^ 
 
 Some days later, on the Sunday within the octave 
 of the feast (18 August), Bonner, compelled by the 
 Council's order "on Sunday come seven night to 
 celebrate the communion",* came to his cathedral 
 
 i Ibid. p. 779. 
 
 2 p. 62. 
 
 3 Foxe V p. 745. 
 
244 The reception of the new Service. 
 
 and * did the office at Paul's both at the procession 
 and the communion, discreetly and sadly."* 
 
 The net however was closing around Bonner. The 
 1st of September was fixed by the Council for his 
 test sermon. On the preceding day Cranmer had 
 arranged to give once more at St. Paul's a public 
 exhibition of the desired ceremonial. But being unable 
 to carry out his intention his chaplain John Joseph,, 
 afterwards one of the accusers of Bonner, occupied 
 the pulpit and "there rehearsed, as his master did 
 before, that the occasion (of the risings) came by 
 popish priests".^ 
 
 On the appointed day Bonner preached at Paul's 
 cross "to a most numerous congregation and main- 
 tained with all his might the corporeal presence in 
 the Lord's Supper" ^ No sooner was the sermon over 
 than Latimer and Hooper "assembled a great rab- 
 blement" as Bonner declared " and inveighed^' against 
 him, chiefly for the declarations he had made on 
 the sacrament. * 
 
 It is unnecessary here to follow further the inter- 
 esting history of Bonner's examinations and trial 
 which led to his committal to the Marshalsea 
 prison on 20 September and finally to his depriva- 
 tion on 1 October. On the last Sunday of his freedom^ 
 15 September, he attended a sermon at St. Paul's in 
 which the preacher declaimed "against the Holy Sa- 
 crament, denying the verity and presence of Christ's 
 true body and blood to be there," and then, as fol- 
 
 * Grey Friars' p. 62. 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
 3 Micronius to BuUinger. London 30 Sept. 1549. Orig. Letters 
 p. 557. 
 
 * Foxe Y. p. 750. Micronius also states that Hooper in that day's 
 lecture strenuously " opposed the doctrine on the sacrament 
 propounded by the bishop." 
 
The reception of the new Service, 245 
 
 lowing on the slaughterings and hangings which 
 were taking place throughout the country at the 
 time, went on with a grim humour to declare 
 ^that faith in this part must not be coacted; but 
 that every man may believe as he will". Bonner, 
 feeling that his "presence and silence might unto 
 some seem to be an allowance of heretical doctrine 
 and a betrayal of his flock of the Catholic sort", 
 determined to make a final public protest and 
 rising from his place left the church. 
 
 The next morning early, before leaving for his 
 third examination at Lambeth, he wrote "in haste 
 to the lord mayor of London with all his worship- 
 ful brethren",* as not knowing when he should be 
 able to speak with them again, "requiring and 
 praying again and again in God's behalf, that you 
 suffer not yourselves to be abused with such naughty 
 preachers and teachers". * 
 
 Four days later, seeing whither events were inevit- 
 ably tending, Bonner said to the archbishop : " three 
 things I have, to wit, a small portion of goods, a 
 poor carcass and mine own soul: the two first ye 
 may take (though unjustly) to you: but as for my 
 soul, ye get it not quia anima mea in manibus meis 
 semper '\^ That same night he was conveyed to the 
 Marshalsea. * 
 
 The imprisonment of the bishop however did not 
 
 ^ In February 1550 John Butler was able to report to his 
 friend Bullinger * that very many of the aldermen of London 
 ■who were veteran papists have embraced Christ", and that " the 
 truth is especially flourishing in London beyond all other parts 
 of the kingdom " {Orig. Letters p. 636). 
 
 2 Foxe V. p. 791. 
 
 3 Ibid. 784. 
 
 * Ibid, and Grey Friars' Chron. p. 62. As to his treatment in 
 prison see p. 65. 
 
246 The reception of the new Service, 
 
 put a stop to the old practices to which the Council 
 had called attention on more than one occasion. 
 Hooper, who had been for some months Cranmer's 
 most active instrument in London, writing to his 
 friend Bullinger on 27 December (1549), said that 
 although " the altars are here in many churches 
 changed into tables, the public celebration of the 
 Lord's Supper is very far from the order and institu- 
 tion of our Lord. Although it is administered in both 
 kinds, yet in some places the Supper is celebrated 
 three times a day. Where they used heretofore to 
 celebrate in the morning the mass of the apostles, 
 they now have the communion of the apostles ; where 
 they had the mass of the blessed Virgin they now 
 have the communion which they call the communion 
 of the virgin ; where they had the principal or high 
 mass they now have, as they call it, the high com- 
 munion. They still retain their vestments and the 
 candles before the altars ; in the churches they always 
 chant the hours and other hymns relating to the 
 Lord's Supper, but in our own language. And that 
 popery may not be lost, the mass-priests, although 
 they are compelled to discontinue the use of the 
 latin language, yet most carefully observe the same 
 tone and manner of chanting to which they were 
 heretofore accustomed in the papacy".* 
 
 If this was the state of things among ^ the Lon- 
 doners", who, as the Venetian envoy reports, "are 
 more inclined to obedience because they are near 
 the court", the reception of the new service book 
 was not likely to be very cordial in the country at 
 large. The same authority states that even after the 
 suppression of the risings of 1549 and the lesson of 
 blood, "had the country people only a leader,, 
 
 ^ Orig. Letters, p. 72. 
 
The reception of the new Service. 247 
 
 although they have been so grievously chastised they 
 would rise again". ^ 
 
 Particular attention was devoted by the govern- 
 ment to secure a favourable reception of the changes 
 in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Early 
 in May (154:9) a commission was issued to the earl 
 of Warwick with bishop Ridley and others to visit 
 them. The object of this visitation, as understood in 
 the universities themselves, was "to take away 
 superstition and eradicate error". 
 
 Whilst engaged in weightier matters the visitors 
 at Cambridge found time on Sunday 26 May, to visit 
 again Jesus College "and commanded six altars 
 to be pulled down in the body of the church and 
 went from the church into a chamber where certain 
 images were and caused them to be broken''.^ 
 
 After some weeks spent in an active inquisition 
 among the colleges Ridley arranged 'for a great 
 public disputation over which he would himself 
 preside. In the first place two conclusions were 
 affixed to the doors of the Schools: the one affirmed 
 that transubstantiation could not be proved by Holy 
 Scripture or the writings of the first ten centuries ; 
 the second that in the Lord's Supper there is no 
 other oblation than a giving of thanks and a com- 
 memoration of our Lord's death. The heads of 
 colleges were then commanded in the king's name 
 that if they or any other had anything to say 
 contrary to these propositions they should now 
 bring it forward or keep silence for ever afterwards. 
 Notice was at the same time served upon them that 
 the feast of Corpus Christi, the third day after, was 
 fixed for the beginning of the public disputation.^ 
 
 ^ Calendar of Venetian State papers^ v, p. 345. 
 
 2 C. C. C. C. MS. 106 f . 490. Cooper's Annals of Cambridge ii, p. 28. 
 
 ^ See the graphic account in Alban Langdale's Catholica Con- 
 
248 The reception of the new Service, 
 
 On the eve of Corpus Christi day, says the journal 
 of the visitation, the visitors " sat likewise at Christ's 
 College and there were before them ten or eleven 
 of Clare Hall for the purgation of Mr. Hoskyns ; they 
 sent also for doctor Maden and also to every college 
 for the names of those that should reply unto the 
 said doctor Maden". 
 
 "On the Thursday, being the accustomed day of 
 Corpus Christi all the visitors save my lord of Ely 
 dined with Mr. Cheke in the King's College hall, 
 where also dined my lord marquis of Northampton ; 
 and at one of the clock began the disputation in 
 divinity upon the foresaid questions in the philosophy 
 schools, and so continued until five ; my lord marquis 
 and all the visitors abiding from the beginning 
 unto the end and Dr. Maden answered in his cope; 
 Dr. Glyn, masters Langdale, Segiswick, Yonge and 
 Parker of Trinity College replying in their silk 
 hoods. My lord of Rochester helped Dr. Maden, and, 
 as he saw cause to, he made answer unto every one 
 of the repliers and ' soluted ' the arguments, shewing 
 very much learning, to the great comfort of the 
 audience, the said lord of Rochester determining the 
 questions scholastico more, 
 
 "On the Friday they sat all at Christ's college., 
 (and) sent for Dr. Glyn and there concluded with 
 him that he should answer the Monday after and 
 defend the contrary part of the former conclusions. 
 My lord marquis dined that day with my lord of Ely. 
 
 " On the Monday, being Midsummer day, at one of 
 the clock, Dr. Glyn defended the contrary part of 
 
 futatio, Paris, 1556, ff. 5 — 7. Langdale, who was one of the dis- 
 putants, complains especially of the interruptions and browbeating 
 and scoffing in which Ridley indulged. See also Ridley's WorJcs 
 ed. Parker Soc. pp. 169 seqq. 
 
The reception of the new Service, 249 
 
 the foresaid questions and Mr. Perne, Mr. Grindal 
 and Mr. Gest and Mr. Pilkington replying to the 
 same., and so continued till six of the clock". 
 
 "On the Tuesday, 25 June, there was another 
 disputation upon the foresaid questions which Mr. 
 Perne defended and continued from nine of the clock 
 until it was past twelve. Whereat all the visitors 
 with the foresaid lords &c. were present and dined 
 with my lord of Ely at Christ's college. The repliers 
 at the same disputation were first Mr. Parker, Mr. 
 Pollard, Mr. Vavasor and Mr. Yonge. When all the 
 repliers had done my lord of Rochester was appointed 
 by the rest of the visitors and the noblemen to 
 determine the truth of the said question, every man 
 of them standing bare headed all the time of deter- 
 mination which was an whole hour. The senior 
 proctor first requested openly that this might be 
 done amongst them all. Which my foresaid lord 
 did, by manifest scriptures and conference of the 
 same with the authority of the most ancient doctors, 
 both wise learnedly and godly; concluding that there 
 was not transubstantiation to be proved nor gathered 
 by scripture or ancient doctors in the Sacrament of 
 the Supper of our Lord; but a commemoration of 
 his death, and a thanksgiving as touching the second". * 
 
 The effect of Ridley's measures however did not 
 correspond to the wishesof the government. Writing 
 on the Whitsunday of the following year (1550) from 
 Cambridge, where he had recently been made pro- 
 fessor of divinity, Bucer complains to Calvin that 
 ""by far the greater part of the fellows are either 
 most bitter papists or profiigate epicureans,^ who 
 
 1 0. 0. C. 0. MS. 106 pp. 490 seqq. 
 
 ^ In his Censura the writer uses almost the same words 
 " passim illis (i e. parish churches) prsesunt aut homines epicursei 
 aut papistae" (p. 466). 
 
250 The reception of the new Service, 
 
 as far as they are able, draw over the young men 
 to their way of thinking". Whilst "many of the 
 parochial clergy so recite and administer the service 
 that the people have no more understanding of the 
 mystery of Christ than if the latin instead of the 
 vulgar tongue were still in use ". * 
 
 At Oxford the same course was followed as at 
 Cambridge. Under the presidency of Holbeach, bishop 
 of Lincoln, and his fellow commissioners * there was 
 held a sharp disputation respecting the Eucharist" 
 writes John ab Ulmis [from Oxford on August 7th. 
 The writer was of opinion that the subject was 
 made so clear that any person of ordinary capacity 
 might easily detect the absurdity of the old doctrine. 
 
 To Bucer however, who had lately arrived in Eng- 
 land, the event proved a most unwelcome surprise. 
 Peter Martyr on 15 June forwarded a report of the 
 disputation by the hands of his servant Julius to 
 Cranmer, who was then staying at Canterbury. By 
 the same messenger he wrote to Bucer asking his 
 opinion about the dispute and the advisability of 
 publishing the acts, which he had no doubt the 
 archbishop would communicate to him. Bucer replied 
 at considerable length on 20 June. After much that is 
 complimentary he comes to the point. "I greatly 
 fear" he writes "that most people who read the 
 acts of this disputation will be entirely of the opinion 
 that you assert that Christ is altogether absent from 
 the Supper and that the only presence is that of 
 his power and spirit''.* 
 
 * Orig. Letters, pp. 546 — 7. 
 
 ^ Scripta Anglicana p. 549. How distressing the incident must 
 have been to Bucer appears from the whole course of fruitless 
 conciliation on the subject of the Eucharist which he had adopted. 
 His first experience in England was to find that a rash hand 
 
The reception of the new Service. 251 
 
 To Bucer it appeared that nothing remained to 
 be done but to secure an opportunity for altering 
 the acts, "and to confess", he says to Martyr, "if you 
 can do it with a safe conscience, that Christ is 
 certainly present in his sacraments, not absent; but 
 you may always add that we feed on Him by 
 faith ".^ 
 
 It can be understood in the circumstances that 
 Martyr's expositions at Oxford were not attended 
 with much success. E-ecourse was had to sterner 
 measures. "The Oxfordshire papists" ab Ulmis says 
 " are at last reduced to order, many of them having 
 been apprehended and some gibbeted and their heads 
 fastened to the walls".* 
 
 Indeed the goyernment measures to secure conform- 
 ity had even less success at Oxford than at Cambridge. 
 One of Bullinger's disciples informs him in 1550 that 
 " Oxford abounds with those cruel beasts the Roma- 
 had just torn aside the veil which he had so carefully drawn 
 over the whole subject. See Jacoby, Liturgik der Beformatoren, 
 II, pp. 126-7. 
 
 * p. 549. The curious suggestions of Bucer as to the means 
 by which Martyr might secure the revision of the acts should 
 be read in the original. 
 
 ^ Orig. Letters, p. 391. The writer also says : * The countrymen 
 are everywhere in rebellion, and have already committed some 
 murders. The enemies of religion are rampant, neither submit- 
 ting to God nor to the king. They would give a good deal to 
 renew and confirm the act of the six articles respecting celibacy, 
 images, divine worship and some other things which are now 
 repealed." Bishop Latimer in his Sermon of the Plough preached in 
 the January of the previous year, 1548, had warned the govern- 
 ment of a popular rising. "The people will not bear sudden 
 alteration" he said; "an insurrection may be made after sudden 
 mutation, which may be to the great harm and loss of the realm'' 
 (Sermons. Parker Soc. p. 76). 
 
252 The reception of the new Service. 
 
 nists"/ And later, that the *^ Oxford men were still 
 pertinaciously sticking in the mud of popery".^ 
 
 It is unnecessary to enter into the details of the 
 commotions and risings which took place within a 
 few weeks of the imposition of the new service. As 
 regards its reception north of the Humber later 
 history bears sufficient witness that the abolition 
 of the Catholic rites was never popular. In the 
 south the whole country from the Bristol channel 
 to the Wash was in a blaze. The religious movements 
 were not confined to the remote parts of Cornwall 
 and Norfolk, and they were a real cause of embar- 
 rassment and fear to the government even in the 
 home counties. And although it was only in Devon 
 and Cornwall that the commons formulated their 
 demands for the restoration of the ancient rites, and 
 elsewhere a variety of causes contributed to the 
 disaffection, still throughout the country the changes 
 in religion were a real factor in the alienation of the 
 people from the ruhng powers. However important 
 in their results were the changes made by Henry YIH, 
 the people themselves continued to worship accord- 
 ing to the old ritual of their forefathers ; and however 
 excellent the new Prayer Book may be now considered, 
 it in fact swept away ruthlessly the ancient and 
 popular practices of religion and substituted others 
 that were strange, bare and novel. No Cathohc people 
 could be under any misapprehension on that point. 
 They had seen the Blessed Sacrament pulled away 
 from its place over the altar and they were told 
 by those who imposed the new service "it was 
 not to be worshipped as it was wont to be". The 
 old ceremonial used heretofore by the church, the 
 palms, and ashes, the holy bread and holy water 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 464. 2 Ibid. p. 467. 
 
The reception of the new Service, 253; 
 
 were abolished and every kind of ridicule and obloquy 
 cast upon them. Their old service of matins and mass^ 
 evensong and procession, was altered beyond recog- 
 nition, whilst the chief pastor of the English church 
 stigmatized the holy mass as " heinous and abominable 
 idolatry", and his trusted friends and agents, the 
 preachers, beginning with Latimer and Hooper, were 
 still more unbridled in their denunciations of what 
 in the minds of the nation at large was the sacred 
 body of Christ itself. 
 
 Under these circumstances it is little to be wondered 
 at that the men of Devon and Cornwall demanded 
 first and before all "we will have the holy decrees 
 of our forefathers observed, kept and performed^ 
 and the sacrament restored to its ancient honour"; * 
 and then that the mass should again be said in latin 
 with the old private masses once more given back 
 to them. 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer was a theologian and knew 
 perfectly well the value of the changes which he 
 had introduced into the Canon of the mass. He was 
 at this very time meditating the production of a book 
 the object of which is summed up in his expectation 
 ^'that all faithful subjects will gladly receive and 
 embrace the same {i.e. the new communion service) 
 being sorry for their former ignorance".* The last 
 section of this book is devoted to abuse of tho 
 sacrifice of the mass and to an enforcement "of 
 the sacrifice of laud and praise", namely "our 
 offering of ourselves," which had been substituted 
 for it. But a few pages before he held up to ridicule 
 the traditional piety of the people, who "run" he 
 
 * This was the main object of the Statute of the articles of 
 Henry VIII. 
 
 ^ Worhs on the Supper, Parker. Soc. p. 354. 
 
"254: The reception of the new service. 
 
 says "from altar to altar and from sacring as they 
 call it to sacring, peeping, tooting and gazing at 
 that thing which the priest held up in his hands. 
 What moved the priests" he asks "to lift up the 
 sacrament so high over their heads, or the people 
 to cry, Hhis day have I seen my maker', and 'I 
 cannot be quiet except I see my maker once a day' ? 
 What was the case of all these, and that as well the 
 priest as the people so devoutly did knock and kneel 
 at every sight of the sacrament, but that they wor- 
 shipped that visible thing which they saw with their 
 eyes, and took it for very God"?^ 
 
 Foxe, who has found many imitators, closes his 
 account of the reign of Edward VI with the assertion 
 that no one suffered for religion during his rule. 
 But in truth the imposition of the book of the new 
 ^service was only effected through the slaughter of many 
 thousands of Englishmen by the english government 
 helped by their foreign mercenaries. The old dread 
 days of the Pilgrimage of grace were renewed, the 
 same deceitful methods were employed to win 
 ■success, the same ruthless bloodshed was allowed in 
 the punishment of the vanquished. Terror was every 
 where struck into the minds of the people by the 
 sight of the executions, fixed for the market days, 
 of priests dangling from the steeples of their parish 
 churches, and of the heads of laymen set up in the 
 high places of the towns. 
 
 At the present day, for those who are accustomed 
 to the Book of Common Prayer, it may be difficult 
 to realize how deeply the english people resent- 
 ed the abolition of their ancient sacred rites. 
 "When to the idea of a supreme spiritual Being 
 as the basis of dogma" writes Montesquieu "there 
 
 » Ibid. p. 229. 
 
The reception of the neiv service, 255 
 
 is joined a worship attractive to the senses, this 
 gives a great attachment to religion. For thus the 
 highest source of motives becomes united to a na- 
 tural inclination for the things of sense. A religion 
 v^hich imposes many observances attaches people to 
 it more than another which has less ... A pure 
 morality is a necessary condition for such attachment ; 
 but when exterior forms of worship are magnificent 
 this pleases us and binds us greatly to religion". * 
 The worship that was now offered to the english 
 people to replace the ancient forms, whatever may be 
 thought of it otherwise, was certainly not calculated 
 to win their affections. 
 
 Moreover what met the eye must have recalled 
 to the nation a previous experience. The people had 
 seen the pillage and devastation of the monasteries, 
 they now witnessed the taking of inventories of 
 such plate and ornaments as remained to their 
 churches. They saw sacred buildings destroyed to 
 satisfy the greed of the rich, and wrecked by the 
 casting down of images and roods. The change of 
 service must have brought home its meaning to 
 every mind, and the suppression of the risings now 
 set the hands of Cranmer and his friends free to 
 sweep away all the externals whereby they had as 
 yet veiled the true import of the religious revolution. 
 An opportunity soon occurred in the diocese of Nor- 
 wich. No sooner was the Act of Uniformity passed 
 (21 Feb. 1549) than bishop Rugg resigned. The see 
 was kept vacant for a year, in the course of which 
 Cranmer, in virtue of his primatial authority, institu- 
 ted a visitation of the diocese. The action of his visitors 
 made it easy to comply with the Council's request 
 in November 1550 for the substitution of a decent 
 
 ^ Montesquieu, De Vesprit des lois, livre xxn, chap. 2. 
 
256 The reception of the new service. 
 
 table in place of the altar/ " Knowing " says Thirlby^ 
 the new bishop, "that the most part'of all altars within 
 this my diocese be already taken down by command- 
 ment of my lord of Canterbury's grace's visitors in 
 his late visitation, this diocese then being void'\ * 
 
 It was owing to measures of this kind that Peter 
 Martyr could write in terms of congratulation to 
 Bullinger in the early days of 1549. "Many things 
 yet remain to be done which we have in expectation 
 rather than reality. The perverseness of the bishops 
 is incredible. They oppose us with all their might; 
 yet some of that order, although very few, are 
 favourable to the undertaking".^ 
 
 " The labour of the most reverend the archbishop 
 of Canterbury is not to be expressed, for whatever 
 has hitherto been wrested from them, we have 
 acquired solely by the industry and activity and 
 importunity of this prelate; and this circumstance 
 gives us encouragement, that some addition is 
 always being made to what we have already ob- 
 tained". * 
 
 But although some addition was thus being always 
 made, what was done, was done in the face of 
 
 1 Burnet II, 2. p. 165. 
 
 * Norfolk Archceology VII. p. 73. 
 
 ^ These bishops were according to Hooper (Feb. 1550) Cranmer,^ 
 Ridley, Goodrich, Ferrar, Holbeach and iBarlow of Bath. These as 
 he (Hooper) believed, all entertained " right opinions in the matter 
 of the Eucharist". In regard to Cranmer he adds, "the arch- 
 bishop gives to all lecturers and preachers their licence ta 
 read and preach. Every one of them must previously subscribe 
 to certain articles which if possible I will send you; one of 
 which respecting the Eucharist is plainly the true one and that 
 which you maintain in Switzerland" {Orig. Letters, pp. 76 and 
 71—2). 
 
 * Orig. Letters, pp. 479-30. 
 
The reception of the new Service, 257 
 
 opposition from every class even from those v\^ho 
 v^ere in some measure dependent on the government 
 itself. On March 14, 1550, Dr. John Ponet prettchmg 
 before the king and court gives a glimpse of the 
 real state of the country. "Another talk there is" 
 he says " whereby ye shall know such as tread God's 
 most holy word under their feet. * Believe' say they 
 ^as your forefathers have done before you\ and in 
 this mind they counsel all men to stand and remain 
 still stiffly without searching any further. By this 
 reason, if our forefathers denied Christ we must also 
 deny Christ. If our forefathers acknowledged the 
 bishop of Rome to be the supreme head of the 
 Church, we must do the like, and so forth of the 
 popish mass and all such trumpery". * 
 
 "And here is a question: by what means chiefly 
 hath these talks been sown abroad and bruited 
 amongst the people? Forsooth by the judges in their 
 circuits and the justices of peace that be popishly 
 affected, by bishops and their officers in their synods 
 and other meetings of ecclesiastical persons, by 
 schoolmasters in their grammar schools, by stewards 
 when they keep their courts, by priests when they 
 sit to hear auricular confession, and such like as mind 
 nothing else but the plain subversion of the kingdom 
 of Christ and all christian doctrine, and setting up 
 again the doctrine and kingdom of the Romish 
 antichrist to God's great dishonour". 
 
 " The judge in his circuit, in times past when the 
 people hath been assembled, has persuaded the people 
 to do as their forefathers had done before them, 
 and to do as most men do and so they shall be most 
 in quiet, ^ and to be content with such godly 
 
 1 "A Notable Sermon'\ Printed by G. Lynne. 1550. F. 2. 
 * The experience of Hancock, Cranmer's preacher, will bear 
 
258 The reception of the new service. 
 
 doctrine as was contained in the six articles, and 
 so forth". 
 
 *" The bishop and his officers persuade the priests 
 of the county that they shall also follow ancient 
 customs and usages in the church, and believe and 
 do as the Church believeth and hath taught them, 
 meaning by the Church, the church of Rome, though 
 they say not so expressly". 
 
 "Now here hath all the justices of peace and 
 gentlemen and others who were at the sessions, and 
 all the priests and others who were at the synod, 
 learnt their lessons how they shall talk to their 
 neighbours when they come home". 
 
 "In so much that the schoolmaster in the gram- 
 mar school hearing of it will pour this talk into the 
 ears of his scholars. Oh! what hurt these popish 
 schoolmasters do! They mar all, most noble prince, 
 poisoning the children's ears with popery in their 
 youth".' 
 
 out Ponet*s statement as to the views of the judges being against 
 the innovation. See Narratives of the Reformation. Camd. Soc. p. 74. 
 ^ Ibid, sig: G 1 and G 2. Ponet adds that if a schoolmaster finds 
 that one of his boys is the son of a man addicted to the novelties, 
 he does not spare the rod ; but the boy gets birched " thrice 
 against his fellows once". 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 FURTHER PROJECTS. - THE ORDINAL. 
 
 It has already been seen that in the intention of 
 •Cranmer, who was the originator and chief promoter 
 of the ecclesiastical changes of this reign, the Prayer 
 Book of 1549 was a temporary measure. As early 
 as October or November 1548 the bishops had been 
 assured that the liturgy as submitted to them was not 
 in its final form, although Cranmer had not informed 
 the assembly of the precise character of the further 
 changes meditated. 
 
 The sincere but impatient Hooper in December 1549, 
 when Cranmer was very friendly to the advanced 
 school of reformers, wished "nothing more for him 
 than a firm and manly spirit". He is "too fearful" 
 he writes " about what may happen to him. There 
 are (in England) some six or seven bishops who 
 comprehend the doctrine of Christ, as far as relates 
 to the Lord^s Supper, with as much clearness and 
 piety as one could desire, and it is only the fear for 
 their property that prevents them from reforming 
 their churches according to the rule of God's word". ^ 
 
 In this exposition of motives Hooper was doubtless 
 too absolute. But no one can follow the steps of 
 Cranmer as archbishop of Canterbury without clearly 
 
 ^ Orig. Letters, p. 72. 
 
260 Further projects. — The Of^dinal, 
 
 perceiving that whatever may have been his wishes 
 he was ever careful to keep himself within the lines 
 of safety. His habitual method before committing 
 himself irrevocably to any measure was to ascertain 
 by an essay how far he might safely go. One result 
 of this tentative policy in matters of religious 
 observance was to keep the whole country during 
 Edward's short reign in perpetual unrest. Whatever 
 was established was soon upset to make way for 
 new provisional changes, which in turn gave place 
 to something more novel. 
 
 As yet no change had been made in the forms 
 for conferring ordination which were contained in 
 the old Pontificals. But at the consecration of Ferrar 
 to the see of St. David's in September 1548, when 
 Cranmer was assisted by Holbeach and Ridley, some 
 changes were made in the old ritual. ^ In the course 
 of the following year, 1549, after Bonner's deprivation 
 the archbishop held an ordination at St. Paul's, 
 assisted by Ridley. " The old popish order of conferring 
 of holy orders was yet in force" writes Strype, '" but 
 this ordination nevertheless was celebrated after that 
 order that was soon established".'^ 
 
 A provision for a new Ordinal was designed by 
 Cranmer to be made in the session of parliament 
 which met in November 1549. On the 14th of that 
 month the bishops made a public protest in the 
 house that, " through the frequent proclamations that 
 had been issued, their jurisdiction had been entirely 
 destroyed, and that they had been brought into 
 
 ^ Strype's Cranmer pp. 183—4. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 191. See the names of those ordained in Strjpe. No 
 authority is given for this statement, and Strype is not to be relied 
 upon for accuracy of dates; but the course described is so con- 
 sonant with Cranmer's usual methods that the statement may be^ 
 accepted. 
 
Furthe7' 'projects. — The Ordinal, 261 
 
 contempt before their own flocks". They were 
 required by the house to draft a bill on the subject. 
 This was produced on 18 November, declared to be 
 unsatisfactory as claiming too much, and referred for 
 modification to a small committee of which Cranmer 
 was the principal. ^ A bill for a new Ordinal was 
 introduced into the House of Peers on 8 January 
 1550. It seems to have given rise to considerable 
 discussion for it only passed its first reading on the 
 23rd of the month and was finally voted two days 
 later (25 January 1550). Thirteen bishops were absent 
 from the house. Of the fourteen present, five dis- 
 sented. ^ The act was very short, simply approving 
 beforehand the new Ordinal, which, by six prelates 
 and six other men of this realm learned in God's law 
 " by the king's majesty to be appointed and assigned, 
 or by the most number of them, shall be devised for 
 that purpose, and set forth under the great seal of 
 England before the 1st day of April next coming". ^ 
 No time was lost: hardly more than a week after 
 the Act was passed, on Sunday, 2 February, the 
 Council, after remitting to the further examination 
 of Cranmer and Holbeach a " Scott" who was accused 
 of having preached "^against the Book of Service", 
 proceeded to appoint " the bishops and learned men 
 to devise orders for the creation of bishops and 
 priests". But no names are entered in the Council 
 register. * Accordingly the names of the persons who 
 
 • 1 Journals of the Lords pp. 359—60. 
 
 2 Those in favour of the bill were Cranmer, Goodrich, Barlow, 
 Holbeach, Ridley, Ferrar, Wharton of St. Asaph, Skyp of Hereford 
 and Sampson of Coventry. The dissentients were : Tunstall, Heath, 
 Day, Thirlby and Aldrich of Carlisle. 
 
 3 Statute 3 and 4 Ed. VI c. 12. 
 
 '* Pocock, Troubles concerning the Prayer Booh. Camd. Soc. p, 135 
 seqq. 
 
262 Further projects, — The Ordinal. 
 
 were thus to be officially connected with the book 
 about to be issued are with one exception unknown. 
 
 From the subsequent proceedings it is certain that 
 the book was already devised and all that was left 
 for the "bishops and learned men" to do, was to 
 agree to it and sign their names. For in less than 
 a week after the Council meeting at which the 
 appointment of the committee was mooted, on Sa- 
 turday, 8 February, Heath, bishop of Worcester, was 
 convented before the lords in Council "for that he 
 would not assent to the book made by the rest of 
 the bishops and clergy appointed to devise a form 
 for the creation of the bishops and priests"/ 
 
 This statement of the Council register is formal, 
 but it may be left to the reader to determine for 
 himself whether in the space of six days it would 
 be possible to draw up the new Ordinal and conduct 
 the discussions to which so delicate a matter must 
 inevitably give rise. * 
 
 Heath could not be moved by any representations 
 to give his assent to the proposed book. He declared 
 that if it were imposed he would not disobey, but 
 further he would not go, and accordingly on -Tuesday, 
 4 March (1550), he was committed to the Fleet prison 
 "lor that he obstinately denied to subscribe''. ^ 
 Here he was confined for eighteen months. On 
 several occasions he was brought up before the 
 Council which strove by every means to convince 
 him that his position was unreasonable. But neither 
 
 > Council Book (Privy Council Office) ii, p. 84. 
 
 2 Burnet, II 1 p. 195, considers that a digested form was 
 already prepared, probably by Cranmer, which was submitted to 
 the assembly. But the case as regards this is even stronger than 
 he puts it. 
 
 ^ Council Book ut supra p. 109. 
 
Further projects, — The Ordinal, 263 
 
 threats nor arguments could move him, and at length, 
 on 22 September 1551, he was brought for the last 
 time before the Council and commanded to subscribe 
 to the Ordinal "before Thursday next following, 
 being the 20th, upon pain of deprivation of his bishop- 
 ric ". To " this command he resolutely answered 
 that he could not find it in his conscience to do it 
 and should well be contented to abide such end 
 either by deprivation or otherwise as pleased the 
 king's Majesty". ^ 
 
 By the very terms of the act of parliament the 
 " new form and manner of making and consecrating 
 archbishops, bishops, priests and deacons" could not be 
 delayed. It was already in print before 25 March 1550. 
 Even as early as 5 March, Hooper preaching in London 
 had already seen the book and expresses his wonder 
 at its containing an oath "by saints". "How it is 
 suffered" he says "or who is the author of that 
 book I well know not". "^ 
 
 At this last date it was already known that Ridley, 
 a "worthy minister of Christ, succeeds the bishop 
 of London, who is deprived'* and "another post is 
 allotted to the bishop of Westminster, where he 
 will do less mischief. ^ By the transfer of Thirlby 
 to Norwich, vacant by the resignation of Rugg, and 
 the continued vacancy of the see of Westminster, 
 
 1 Council Book Harl. MS. 352 f. 167. It does not appear on 
 what ground Mr. Pocock {Troubles concerning the Prayer Booh, 
 Camd. Soc. p. 138 note) attributes the deprivation of Heath to a 
 refusal to pull down altars. It is true that the bishop volunteered 
 the statement that he would not consent to this if it were demanded 
 of him ; but the question never arose practically and his deprivation 
 turned entirely on his refusal to subscribe to the ordinal as may- 
 be seen from the record in the Council Book. 
 
 ^ Hooper's Early works. Parker Soc. p. 479. 
 
 3 Hales to Gualter, London, 4 March 1550. Orig. Letters p. 185. 
 
264 Further projects, — The Ordinal, 
 
 the field was left open for the operations of Ridley. 
 What he is expected to do " if only his new dignit}^ 
 do not change his conduct" writes Hooper, " is to 
 destroy the altars of Baal as he has heretofore 
 when he was bishop of Rochester". Hooper adds 
 that already, in March 1550, "many altars have been 
 destroyed in this city (London) since I arrived 
 here". ' 
 
 Ridley was appointed to his new see on 1 April 
 1550, and on "the 12th of April", writes the author 
 of the Grey Friars' chronicle, "was stalled by one 
 of the bishop of Ely's chaplains". A week later, 
 on Sunday, 19th April, "he came into the choir at 
 the communion time, and at that time he and the 
 dean received and master Barne. And the two took 
 the host of the priest in their two hands, and that 
 same time the bishop commanded the light of the 
 altar to be put out before he came into the choir. " ^ 
 
 The new bishop of London was not long in justifying 
 the best hopes that Hooper had expressed to BuUinger 
 about him. " This month of June in Whitsun week," 
 writes Wriothesley, "all the altars in every parish 
 church throughout London were taken away and a 
 table made in the choir for the reception of the com- 
 munion." ^ And " on the night of St. Barnabas' day was 
 the altar in Paul's pulled down and a veil was hanged 
 up beneath the steps and the table set up there. 
 And a sennight after, there the communion was 
 ministered".'* 
 
 ^ Orig. Letters, p. 79. Hooper to Bullinger. 27 March. 1550. 
 
 2 Camd. Soc. p. QQ. 
 
 ^ Chronicle, Camd. Soc. ii p. 41. 
 
 ^ Grey Friars Ghron. p. 67. The division of practice which 
 had shewn itself in the preceding years was naturally aggravated. 
 " Item " says the Chronicle "• also this year Corpus Christi was 
 not kept holy day, and the Assumption of our Lady. And such 
 
Further projects, — The Ordinal, 265 
 
 The desecration and abuse to which the most Holy 
 Sacrament, and the churches which had enshrined it, 
 had now long been subject, had their effect not unna- 
 turally upon the popular mind. All respect for the 
 sacred character of the church was lost. " Item the 
 14th day of June", runs the chronicle, "was a man 
 slain in Paul's church and two frays within the 
 church that same time afterwards". ^ And again; " this 
 year was many frays in Paul's church and nothing 
 said unto them, and one man fell down in Paul's 
 church and broke his neck for catching of pigeons, 
 in the night of the Mth day of December". ^ 
 
 As time went on to such a pitch did these riots 
 in holy places reach that in the year 1552 it was 
 thought necessary to issue a royal proclamation 
 restraining them. This document first recalled that 
 ^ churches were at the beginning godly instituted for 
 Common Prayer, preaching of the word of God and 
 ministration of the sacraments". But, it continues, 
 they " be now of late time in many places and speci- 
 ally in the city of London irreverently used. So far 
 forth that many quarrels, riots, frays and bloodshed 
 have been made in some of the said churches, besides 
 shooting of handguns to doves and the common 
 bringing in of horses and mules into and through 
 the said churches, making the same like a stable 
 or common inn, or rather a den or sink of all 
 unchristianuess ". ^ 
 
 division through all London that some kept holy day and some 
 none. Almighty God help it when His will is, for this is the 
 second year. And also the same division was at the Nativity 
 of our Lady" (ibid). 
 
 1 Ibid. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 68. 
 
 3 (February 20th). Rot. Glaus. 6. Ed. VI, Pars 8. 10* See 
 also Strype, EccL Mem. ii, p. 524. 
 
266 Further 'projects, — The OrdinaL 
 
 In the pulling down of altars Ridley, although 
 doubtless sure of his ground, had gone before the 
 king's proceedings. It was one of those ** additions 
 always being made" which appeared so encouraging 
 to Peter Martyr. But here again the diversity of 
 practice in the use of altar and table, which the 
 bishop of London had thus introduced, was an ''oc- 
 casion of much variance and contention" whether 
 altars should be destroyed altogether or not. Hence 
 again the Council, on 24 November 1551, "to avoid" 
 as they declared " all matters of further contention 
 and strife", ordered an uniformity on this point also, 
 by directing that every altar should be at once taken 
 away. With this letter, which bears Cranmer's sig- 
 nature together with those of other members of the 
 Council, was forwarded to the bishops a series of 
 reasons why "the Lord's board should be rather 
 after the form of a table than of an altar ", * These 
 were put forth by Ridley to show that in pulling 
 down altars he was not acting contrary to the Book 
 of Common Prayer; but that "he was induced to do 
 the same, partly moved by his office and duty 
 wherewith he is charged in the same book, and 
 partly for the advertisement and sincere setting for- 
 ward of God's holy word and the king's Majesty's 
 proceedings." * 
 
 As being an official declaration of the use of the 
 
 ^ A printed copy of these reasons evidently as issued by the 
 Council is in C. C. 0. 0. MS. 113 ff. 39-40. 
 
 ^ Ridley's Works. Parker Soc. p. 321. There seems to be no 
 reason for the assertion that these considerations were composed 
 by Ridley. The Council in their letter to Ridley say : " we 
 send unto you herewith certain considerations gathered and 
 collected that make for the purpose, the which and such other 
 as you shall think meet we pray yeu to cause to be declared 
 to the people" (Cranmer's Bemains p. 524). 
 
Further projects. — The Ordinal, 267 
 
 word altar in the Book of Common Prayer, the 
 second reason is interesting: "Whereas", it is said 
 " the Book of Common Prayer maketh mention of an 
 altar, wherefore it is not lawful to abolish that 
 which that book alloweth: to this it is thus ans- 
 wered : the Book of Common Prayer calleth the 
 thing whereupon the Lord's supper is ministered 
 indifferently a table, an altar, or the Lord's board, 
 without prescription of any form thereof, either of 
 a table or of an altar, so that whether the Lord's 
 board have the form of an altar or of a table the 
 Book of Common Prayer calleth it both an altar 
 and a table"/ The order issued by the Council for 
 
 1 Cranmer's Remains, p. 525. In the C. C. C. C. MS. 113, a 
 volume containing Bucer papers, is a letter signed by him on 
 the abolition of altars. It bears no date and gives no indi- 
 cation of the quality of the person addressed, who had sought his 
 opinion. He begins by laying down that there is no Scripture 
 requiring the abolition of altars. He then gives various reasons 
 of congruence why a table is to be preferred, and he concludes that 
 the use of a table does, and an altar does not, contribute to the faith 
 that edifies ; but he ends his letter by pointing out that, although 
 such works as the abolition of altars may be good in themselves, 
 they are little moment in the present juncture and that what is 
 much more important is the preaching of things necessary for 
 salvation, without which mere external change will be nothing 
 but an abomination before God. " Dominus adsit autem ", he writes, 
 *'ut non solum impietatis instrumenta, verum etiam et imprimis 
 ipsse tollantur antichrist! impietates, earumque administri et defen- 
 sores, impura doctrina et prophana Sacramentorum administratio,. 
 superstitio peregrinorum festorum et cseremoniarum, harumque 
 abominationum procuratores, sacrilegi parochiarum dispoliatores 
 et vastatores, restituta omni Christi pura doctrina et solita dis- 
 ciplina, et deputatis parochiis fidelibus ministris cum sufficient! 
 provisione pro ipsis et scholis atque pauperibus. Satan enim 
 semper quaerit ut si omnino religiosi esse volumus culices exco- 
 lamus et quod externum est mutemus, camelos deglutiamus 
 
268 Further ^projects. — The OrdinaL 
 
 the removal of all altars, brought Day of Chichester 
 to prison as the Ordinal had brought Heath. On 
 the 28th of the same month (November 1550) he went 
 to Somerset with the Councirs letters and stated 
 that "he could not conform his conscience to do 
 what he was by the said letters commanded". He 
 was told in reply " to do his duty, and in such things 
 to make no conscience". The attitude of the bishop 
 was reported to the Council on Sunday, 30 November, 
 and he was at once summoned before it, to receive 
 instructions as to his conduct from Cranmer, Ridley, 
 Goodrich and other lords. 
 
 He was again summoned on 4 December, further 
 argued with, and warned of the danger of disobe- 
 dience, Sunday the seventh of the month being fixed 
 for his final reply. * These threats not having been 
 effectual in moving him, on the following Thursday, 
 11 December, he was again brought to the Council 
 and asked whether he would obey "touching the 
 pulling down of altars". He replied as before "that 
 it was against his conscience; wherefore he prayed 
 them to do with him what they thought requisite, 
 for he would never obey to do this thing, thinking 
 it a less evil to suffer the body to perish than to 
 corrupt the soul with that thing which his con- 
 
 internasque sordes dissimulemus. Laudo Deum quod vel instru- 
 menta tolluntur impietatum, debetque res haec populis quam 
 diligentissime approbari ; sed multo magis urged debent in sacris 
 concionibus, et ubi ubi id cum fructu fieri possit, ea quae non 
 tantum majora sunt sed ita ad salutem necessaria ut sine illis 
 et hgec sint Deo abominationi. Hsec sentis mecum, oras, urges ; 
 Dominus det successum." (C. C. C. C. MS. 113. ff. pp, 41—44) On 
 26th December of the same year 1550 he writes to the Marquis 
 of Dorset in the same strain and with an earnestness which 
 shows how deeply he was moved (C. C. C. 0. MS. 113. f. 5a). 
 1 Council Bk. Harl. MS. 352 ff. 120-123. 
 
Further projects, — The Ordinal, 269^ 
 
 science would not bear"/ He was thereupon com- 
 mitted to the J'leet and finally deprived along with 
 bishop Heath in the September of the following year. 
 
 Notwithstanding the zeal and activity of Ridley 
 the celebration of the new communion office, with 
 the old ceremonial hitherto used in the mass, 
 although this was expressly forbidden by him in 
 his injunctions, was continued in St. Paul's. The 
 matter was reported to the Council, which on 11 
 October 1550 ordered "that Thomas Astley should 
 be joined with two or three more honest gentlemen 
 in London for the observance of the usage of the 
 communion in PauFs, whereof information was 
 given that it was used as the very mass". ^ Bucer 
 also writing at the end of 1550 says, that he hears 
 " that there are mass priests who celebrate memories 
 in the very time and place that the ordinary mini- 
 sters are celebrating communion ". '^ 
 
 Advantage was taken of the paucity of rubrics in 
 the Book of 1549 to continue the ancient ceremonies 
 in every way not expressly forbidden. * Bucer in his 
 Censura complains that a great many ministers so 
 recite the communion office that people, although 
 standing quite close, cannot understand them. And, 
 almost echoing the injunctions of Hooper and Ridley, 
 he declares that a great number of priests by trans- 
 ferring the book from the right side of the altar to 
 the left, by reciting the Canon whilst the Sanctus was 
 being sung, by bending down (over the altar), by 
 
 ^ Council Book in Archceologia XVIII p. 150. 
 
 2 Council Book in Strype. Eccl Mem : II p. 372. 
 
 ^ Censura, quoted in Dixon III 283. 
 
 ^ For details of the ceremonies continued even after the im- 
 position of the service see the Injunctions of Ridley {WorJcs,. 
 Parker Soc. pp. 319—20) and of Hooper (Later writings, "p]). 
 127-8). 
 
270 Further projects. — The Ordinal. 
 
 lifting up their hands, genuflecting, shewing the bread 
 and the cup of the Eucharist, striking their breasts, 
 washing out the chalice, making the sign of the 
 cross in the air and other gestures, as well as 
 by vestments and lights, strive to show forth by 
 every means they possibly can the execrable mass; 
 whilst the superstitious people adore but do not 
 communicate. ^ He complains moreover that the 
 collections for the poor, which had now replaced 
 the ancient offertory, were observed in very few 
 parishes, and he contrasts this neglect with the care 
 which had long been taken in this matter in Belgium, 
 where nevertheless the true profession of the gospel 
 meets with capital punishment. ^ 
 
 Although in the session of parliament (1549—50) 
 an act had been passed for calling in, for the purpose 
 of destruction, all the ancient service books, ^ and 
 on Christmas day 1549 a royal proclamation had been 
 issued to the same effect, such measures in the state of 
 public feeling, hostile to the innovations, could not 
 possibly be effectual. * Not merely was the communion 
 celebrated like the mass in outward appearance, but 
 the ancient mass itself continued to be said by priests 
 
 1 Censura, pp. 458, 461, 465, 466, 469, 493-4. 
 
 ^ Ibid. pp. 463—4 and De officio Regis Christiani p. 35, 39. 
 
 ^ Burnet II, 1 p. 143. All the bishops present agreed except 
 those of Durham, Coventry, Carlisle, Worcester, Westminster and 
 €hichester. 
 
 ^ Hooper the zealous court preacher writing to BuUinger on 
 27 March 1550 says that he did not dare to go into the country. 
 " I have not yet visited my native place (Somerset) being prevented 
 partly by the danger of rebellion and tumult in those quarters, 
 and partly by the command of the king that I should advance 
 the kingdom of Christ here in London. Nor indeed am I yet 
 able to stir even a single mile from the city without a numerous 
 attendance." (Orig. Letters, p. 79.) 
 
Further 'projects. — The Ordinal. 271 
 
 in secret. Bernard Gilpin, a grandnephew of bishop 
 Tunstall, even at the close of Edward's reign, and 
 whilst holding the king's licence as a general preacher 
 of the reformed doctrines, still ''at sometimes read 
 mass; but seldom and privately".* If this was the 
 practice of one who was already attached to the 
 party of innovators, the same must certainly have 
 been the case with the many who were zealous for 
 the old doctrines. 
 
 The state of religion in England at the close of 
 1550, as it appeared to an acute observer, is recorded 
 in the report which was drawn up in May 1551 for 
 the Venetian government by Daniele Barbaro, who 
 had just returned from a legation to England. The 
 Venetian envoys were, as became the servants ot 
 that republic, men of strict orthodoxy, but they do 
 not appear to have allowed their religious beliefs 
 to interfere with accurate observation or dispassi- 
 onate estimate of facts. 
 
 "With regard to church ceremonies" he writes, 
 " it is true they have retained many of them ; intro- 
 ducing many new ones, under pretence that the 
 nature of the times requires this, as some had not 
 at first opened their eyes to them'\ 
 
 "Now in 1548—9 a book was printed in english, 
 compiled by the king's command, by many bishops 
 and learned men and subsequently confirmed by 
 parliament, which book is entitled " the public prayers 
 and administrations of the sacraments and cere- 
 monies". It was then ordered that according to the 
 precepts of this book they were to observe the 
 same form in the churches of England, Wales and 
 Calais; it mentions those places because in Ireland 
 and the islands subject to England where the english 
 
 ^ Carleton. Life of Bernard Gilpin (1636) p. 118. 
 
272 Further projects. — The Ordinal, 
 
 tongue is not understood no obligation is imposed. 
 
 "In the colleges and universities, such as Oxford 
 and Cambridge, they allow them to read the prayers 
 in greek, latin and hebrew, to encourage students, 
 but the service of the Lord's supper is read nowhere 
 but in english. They officiate in the churches in the 
 morning and evening so that all the psalms are 
 read twelve times annually and the Testament once, 
 except certain chapters of the Apocalypse. On holy- 
 days they read a compendium of the litanies without 
 commemoration of saints". 
 
 " They use bells and organs, but neither altars nor 
 images, nor water, nor incense, nor other roman 
 ceremonies. In all the churches, on the walls which 
 are whitened for this purpose, below the royal arms,, 
 they inscribe certain scriptural sayings". * 
 
 After speaking of their use of baptism, the envoy 
 passes on to the new communion service. "On the 
 day before the communion, or on the day itself, the 
 communicants are bound to present themselves 
 to the priest before the morning service, or im- 
 mediately afterwards, and acquaint him with their 
 intention, and should any of them be known to have 
 led an infamous and scandalous life, the priest warns 
 him not to go to the communion until after he has 
 declared his repentance and determination to amend, 
 making reparation for his oflTences and promising to 
 
 ^ This practice had already begun as early as the year 1547 
 and seems to have been one of the consequences of the visitation 
 of that year. Thus the churchwardens' accounts of Wing, co. 
 Bucks: "To Saunder and his man for whiteliming of the church 
 5s and 5d". (i4rc/2<^oZo^ia. XXXVI.p, 230). Also at Bungay co. Suffolk 
 {East Anglian. New Ser. I. p. 128). Scripture texts were painted at 
 the same time. These charges become general in the church- 
 wardens* accounts in the years 1548—9, which give a lively picture 
 of the wreckage of ecclesiastical structures at that time. 
 
Further projects, — The OrdinaL 273 
 
 do so. That is ordained in the book, but not observed, 
 having been done for appearance sake. When they 
 communicate the priests wear surplices, they dismiss 
 the non-communicants from the choir, take as much 
 bread and wine as may suffice, and if the wine in 
 the chalice is not sufficient they mix it with spring 
 water. The bread is coarser than what is used at 
 Venice and of circular form without images, and 
 they make a general confession which is preceded 
 by a very long homily. 
 
 " They choose one person in each family to commu- 
 nicate every Sunday, so certain merchants treat it as 
 a joke and are in the habit of sending one of their 
 servants ^ ; and the parish priests do this to obtain alms." 
 
 " They allow the priests to marry, and their primate 
 the archbishop of Canterbury has a wife ; this being 
 tolerated even in foreigners, such as Bernardino de 
 Siena who last year had a son". 
 
 "Even extreme unction is administered with 
 unconsecrated oil, and if the danger is imminent they 
 tell the sick man that if he repents heartily and 
 affirms that Christ died for him, he has then com- 
 municated in spirit, although he do npt take the 
 Sacrament through the mouth". 
 
 "These and other similar things were done and 
 
 ^ Hooper in his injunctions of 1551 for the diocese of Gloucester 
 charges the parson &c. " not to permit in any wise one neigh- 
 bour to receive for another, as it is commonly used in this 
 diocese. For when he that should receive it himself by the order 
 of the king's law is not disposed to receive he desireth his 
 neighbour to receive for him, which is contrary to God's word" 
 {Later ivritings p. 133). 
 
 Cranmer's injunction of 29 Oct. 1550 shows that this practice 
 existed among the members of his own cathedral church of 
 Canterbury. "Item that every petty canon or vicar of this church 
 do personally receive the communion in his own course" {Remains^ 
 p. 162). 
 
 T 
 
274 Further projects, — The Ordinal. 
 
 ordained in the year 154:8, but then in 1549—50 by 
 royal authority another book was published and 
 confirmed in parliament, containing the form of 
 conferring holy orders, nor do they differ from those 
 of the Roman Catholic religion save that in England 
 they take an oath to renounce the doctrine and 
 authority of the pope". 
 
 "They read certain other 'lessons' from Scripture 
 by authority of the (ecclesiastical) ministry, and use 
 sacerdotal garments, and therefore they lately con- 
 demned bishop Hooper, who would not consent either 
 to the sacraments or to the habits, saying that they 
 are ceremonies of the Old Testament and a Jewish 
 and idolatrous observance". 
 
 Barbaro then says that he has "nothing more to 
 declare about the ceremonies of the anglican church, 
 and is at a loss to narrate the contradictory opinions 
 entertained in England about the faith, both with 
 regard to the most Holy Trinity and the angels, as 
 also about the creation of the world, the humanity 
 of Christ, and the efficacy of the sacraments". 
 
 " No one preaches or lectures publicly in theology, 
 until after he has been examined by the archbishop 
 or approved and sworn by the bishop. It hence 
 ensues that without further law or statute, the 
 preachers and public professors of theology propound 
 to the people one sole doctrine according to the will 
 of their superiors, so that the greater part of their 
 sermons and lessons consists in abusing the Pope, (and) 
 in preaching . . and maintaining whatever their masters 
 choose. For these causes they lately condemned the 
 bishop of Winchester, a very worthy man and who 
 led the best of lives. They deprived him of his 
 bishopric, which was perhaps his greatest sin, as it 
 yielded him a rental of 12000 crowns, and some 
 other bishops who will not conform to their opinions 
 
Further' ^projects. — The Ordinal. 275 
 
 are to be sacrificed in like manner. In addition to 
 this, there are divers sects all over the country, 
 where there may be said to reign the confusion of 
 tongues, a dissolute license, a manifest scourge from 
 God, by giving refuge to all the fugitive apostates 
 from France, Italy and Germany. And had your 
 ambassador to give a name to their heresies, as the 
 followers of the chief of them consider the mass 
 idolatrous by its consecration, and as they do not 
 admit the real presence^, he thinks they might be 
 styled Sacramentarians." 
 
 "This much will sufiice with regard to religion 
 on account of which they had the audacity to enter 
 the reporter's house, in violation of ambassadorial 
 privileges, seizing the priest who was celebrating 
 
 * The "real presence" is an ambiguous phrase and was capable, 
 as any one acquainted with the polemical writings of this period 
 will acknowledge, of conveying, if need be, the whole range of 
 doctrine from that of the Catholic church to that of the congre- 
 gations of Zurich and Geneva. 
 
 For Calvin's teaching on the 'real presence' — "la propre 
 substance de son corps et son sang" see " De Za cewe ", Geneva- 
 1540. He says " II n'est pas seulement question que nous soyons 
 participants de son esprit, mais il nous faut aussi participer a son 
 humanite". For he holds that otherwise, " c'est rendre ce saint 
 sacrement frivole et inutile". (CEuvres Frangolses, p. 186.) 
 
 Viewed in another aspect, when Gardiner urged against Cranmer 
 that the Lutherans and even Bucer, then in England, admitted 
 the 'real presence', Cranmer replied that although this may 
 have been so in times past and may perhaps still (1551) be: 
 » Yet the faith of the real presence may be called rather the 
 faith of the papists than of the other; not only because the 
 papists do so believe, but specially for that the papists were the 
 first authors and inventors of that faith and have been the chief 
 spreaders abroad of it and were the cause that others were 
 blinded by the same error." (Cranmer's Works on the Supper 
 Parker Soc. p. 21). 
 
276 Further projects, — The Ordinal. 
 
 mass for him at home, as was written by the am- 
 bassador to the Doge in his letter, dated 24 July 
 last" (1550) \ 
 
 It is unnecessary here to follow in any detail the 
 changes which took place in the year 1551. These 
 seem all designed to prepare the way for the new 
 Book of Common Prayer, the second of king Edward 
 the Sixth, which was already under consideration in 
 1550. Preaching in the Lent of that year before the 
 king and Council, Hooper exhorted them to go 
 forward in the glorious work they had uudertaken. "As 
 ye have taken away the mass from the people" he 
 said, "so take from them her feathers also, the altars, 
 vestments and such like as apparelled her" ^. How 
 this advice was followed will be briefly shown in 
 the next chapter. 
 
 * Report of the most noble messer Daniele Barbaro. Venetian 
 State Papers Vol. V pp. 347-53. 
 
 ^ Early writings. Parker Soc. p. 440. Latimer likewise 
 explains wberein, in bis mind, lay tbe virtue of tbe mass. 
 "I cannot find tbere (i. e. in the New-Testament) neither the 
 popish consecration, nor yet their transubstantiation, nor their 
 oblation, nor their adoration, which be the very sinews and 
 marrow-bones of the mass" (Ridley's Works p. 112). These in 
 a later passage he declares are " by no means to be borne withal 
 and that the only mending of it is to abolish it for ever", and, 
 these being taken away, *the most papists of them all will not 
 set a button by the mass." (Ibid. 122 cf. Latimer's i?ewaiw5 
 p. 257). In the light of all these passages there can be no doubt 
 as to the import of Latimer's observation that he finds: "no 
 great diversity in" the communion offices of the first and second 
 Books of Common Prayer {Remains p. 262). 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 THE SECOND BOOK OF 1552. 
 
 As will be now understood, changes in the Book 
 of Common Prayer were practically decided upon 
 before it came into actual use in the June of 1549. 
 The particular form which the alterations took in 
 the Communion oflBce, the most important and vital 
 part of the whole, was largely determined by bishop 
 Gardiner, or rather by the almost nervous antipathy 
 which Cranmer had for him. This dislike was natural 
 and of long standing. The archbishop was a weak 
 man and ^trusted to his suppleness for security in 
 opposition : Gardiner, whatever may be thought of 
 him otherwise, was a strong man able to bear alike 
 favour and disgrace. 
 
 After nearly eighteen months of imprisonment 
 in the Tower, a day or two after Christmas day 
 1549,* the Chancellor and Secretary Petre went to 
 visit Gardiner. They showed him a " book passed by 
 the parliament" as the book of public service, and 
 told him if he would accept it Somerset would ask 
 the king for mercy for him. He replied that he 
 wanted justice; that he had not oflended and cer- 
 
 "^ This was the Christmas day upon which the Council decided 
 to call in all the ancient service books. 
 
278 The Second Booh of 1552. 
 
 tainly had not been heard or condemned and there- 
 fore that he did not ask for mercy. As for the "book", 
 he refused to examine it in prison. * 
 
 After the lapse of another six months he was- 
 presented with certain articles, among which was a 
 declaration that the " king's service book was godly 
 and christian". This he signed; but five days later 
 other lords of the Council came to his prison and 
 required his subscription to a much more ample body 
 of articles, which covered the whole ecclesiastical 
 policy hitherto developed by the governing powers. 
 Here it is sufficient to mention the articles which 
 had special relation to the liturgy. He was asked 
 to declare: that masses for the dead were rightly 
 abolished; that the mass was mostly invented by 
 the bishop of Rome; that private masses were the 
 invention of man; that the Sacrament ought not to 
 be lifted up and shewed to the people to be adored ; 
 that all mass books, couchers, grailes and other 
 latin service books had been rightly destroyed; that 
 the Ordinal was godly and not contrary to sound 
 doctrine; and that the subdiaconate and minor orders 
 were rightly abolished. This body of articles was- 
 presented to the bishop as an order of the king and 
 he was therefore required not only to subscribe them, 
 but to declare himself well pleased and undertake 
 to maintain them all. ^ 
 
 Gardiner refused to sign; and even Ridley, who 
 visited him next day, failed to persuade him. He 
 asked only for a trial by justice "which, although 
 it were more grievous, yet hath it a commodity in 
 it, that it endeth certainly the matter".^ Twice 
 
 1 Foxe VI. p. 72. 
 
 2 Ibid. pp. 82-3. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 74. 
 
The Second Book of 1552. 279 
 
 in the next few days the bishop was called before 
 the Council and offered articles. He refused, and on 
 the second occasion he begged on his knees " for the 
 passion of God, my lords, be my good lords and 
 let me be tried by justice whether I be faulty or 
 no". The Council returned no answer but a further 
 demand for his signature to the papers. 
 
 The government at length yielded to his request 
 for a trial, and on Sunday, 14 December, (1550) they 
 dispatched a letter to the lieutenant of the Tower 
 directing him to take the bishop of Winchester 
 before the archbishop and other commissioners at 
 Lambeth on the following day and from day to day 
 until the trial was done. * The only point of interest 
 in these proceedings to the present purpose was the 
 delivery by Gardiner to archbishop Cranmer in open 
 court of " an explication and assertion of the true 
 Catholic faith touching the most Blessed Sacrament 
 of the altar." This was really a confutation of Cran- 
 mer's book on the Eucharist, published by him in 
 the middle of the year 1550 \ To this challenge of 
 Gardiner Cranmer replied immediately. 
 
 Gardiner's work was drawn up with the greatest 
 care and moderation of tone. It was however cal- 
 culated to irritate Cranmer in the highest degree. 
 Throughout, the bishop followed the policy hitherto 
 pursued by the Catholic party in the episcopate, 
 
 « Council Book Harl. MS. 352 f. 126. 
 
 ^ Gardiner's book was printed in 1551 without name of printer 
 or place. It was also printed at full length by Cranmer along 
 with his own previous book, of which this was a confutation, 
 and a reply to Gardiner's criticisms. This last bears marks of 
 having been written in great haste. Although highly controversial 
 and often abusive it is of real importance for the history of this 
 time. It appears in its most handy form in the Parker Society- 
 reprint. 
 
280 The Second Book of 1552, 
 
 whether rightly or wrongly, of contesting every inch 
 of ground with the innovators and putting a Catholic, 
 even if a strained, interpretation upon what had 
 been imposed on the church by the law. For this 
 purpose he gave the words of the Prayer Book the 
 most Catholic meaning of which they could be made 
 susceptible. And then, treating it as Cranmer's own 
 work, he contrasts it with the opinions about the 
 Eucharist which the archbishop had expressed in 
 his book on the Sacrament, published the same year. 
 He then left him to defend his consistency as best 
 he might. 
 
 The primate's easiest method of meeting his ad- 
 versary would have been to allow that the Book of 
 Common Prayer as it then stood represented merely 
 a passing phase of reform. But in fact he treated 
 the attack in detail, contending that there was 
 nothing in his work on the Sacrament inconsistent 
 with the real meaning of the Prayer Book. 
 
 The passages in the controversy which relate im- 
 mediately to the new service book are so important 
 for understanding its future history that they must 
 be here dealt with one by one. Gardiner first points 
 out that the Fathers undoubtedly declare that "we 
 receive in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our 
 mouth ", and then continues : " and such speech other 
 use, as a book set forth in the archbishop of Can- 
 terbury's name called a Catechism ; * which I allege 
 because it shall appear it is a teaching set forth among 
 
 * It had been given out by some that this translation of the 
 german Lutheran catechism was Cranmer's "man's doing" and 
 not his own ^J^arker Soc. p. 188). Cranmer had admitted in his 
 Defence (1550) that he had translated the work himself and 
 he again in his reply to Gardiner on this passage repeats this 
 admission. 
 
The Second Book of 1552. 281 
 
 us of late, as hath been also and is by the Book of 
 Common Prayer, being the most true Catholic doc- 
 trine of the substance of the Sacrament, in that it 
 is there so Catholicly spoken of; which book the 
 author (Cranmer) doth after specially allow, how- 
 soever all the sum of his teaching doth improve it 
 in that point; so much is he contrary to himself" \ 
 
 In reply Cranmer here passes lightly over the 
 reference to his Lutheran catechism; but states 
 that "the Book of Common Prayer neither uses any 
 such speech, nor giveth any such doctrine; nor I", 
 he says, "in no point improve that godly book 
 nor vary from it". ^ Later on Gardiner again presses 
 him with the doctrine of his german catechism as 
 to the reception of Christ in the Sacrament. To this 
 the archbishop replies that the word "spiritually" 
 should be added or understood ; and " then is the 
 doctrine of my catechism ", he declares, " sound and 
 good " \ 
 
 The points specially dealing with the service book 
 must be particularly noted. 
 
 (1) In treating of the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice 
 Gardiner calls attention to the prayers for the living 
 and dead in the ancient Canon, and then goes on to 
 say: "whereupon this persuasion hath been duly 
 conceived, which is also in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, in the celebration of the Holy Supper, retained, 
 that it is very profitable at that time when the 
 memory of Christ's death is solemnized, to remember 
 with prayer all estates of the church and to recom- 
 mend them to God." * On this allusion to the Prayer 
 Book Cranmer makes no remark. 
 
 ^ Parker Soc. ed. p. 55. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 56. 
 
 3 Ibid. pp. 226-7. 
 
 ^ p. 84 cf. also the last words of this section. 
 
282 The Second Book of 1552, 
 
 (2) Upon that part of the Canon in the new Book 
 which immediately precedes the words of Institution 
 Gardiner writes : " the body of Christ is, by God's 
 omnipotence who so worketh in His word, made 
 present unto us, as the church pray eth it may please 
 him so to do. Which prayer is ordered to be made 
 in the Book of Common Prayer now set forth, wherein 
 we require of God the creatures of bread and wine 
 to be sanctified and to be to us the body and blood 
 of Christ, which they cannot be, unless God worketh 
 it and make them so to be"*. 
 
 Cranmer to this replied : " Christ is present when- 
 soever the church prayeth unto Him, and is gathered 
 together in His name. And the bread and wine be 
 made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as 
 it is in the book of Common Prayer) but not by 
 changing the substance of bread and wine into the 
 substance of Christ's natural body and blood, but 
 that in the godly using of them they be unto the 
 receivers Christ's body and blood . . . and therefore, 
 in the book of the Holy Communion we do not pray 
 absolutely that the bread and wine may be made 
 the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us in 
 that holy mystery they may be so"^ 
 
 (3) Speaking of the prayer, now called the ' Prayer 
 of humble access', which in the first book stood 
 after the consecration and immediately before the 
 Communion, Gardiner writes: "as touching the ado- 
 ration of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament, which 
 adoration is a true confession of the whole man's 
 soul and body, if there be opportunity of the truth 
 of God in his work, is in my judgment well set 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 79. 
 
 ^ Ibid. See also p. 83, " and therefore the church &c." and p. 
 88. " Nor Christ doth not " &c. 
 
The Second Booh of 1552. 28B 
 
 forth in the Book of Common Prayer, where the 
 priest is ordered to kneel and make a prayer in his 
 own and the name of all that should communicate 
 confessing therein what is prepared there " \ 
 
 This the archbishop does not meet, but states that 
 he has already " showed what idolatry is committed 
 by means of the papistical doctrine concerning ado- 
 ration of the Sacrament." ' 
 
 (4) Referring to the actual words of administration 
 of the communion in the first Prayer Book, Gardiner 
 points out that those whom Cranmer calls papists 
 " agree in form of teaching as to the presence with 
 what the church of England teaches at this day in 
 the distribution of Holy Communion, in that it is 
 there said the body and blood of Christ to be under 
 the form of bread and wine"^ 
 
 Cranmer answers: "and as concerning the form of 
 doctrine used in this church of England in the Holy 
 Communion, that the body and blood of Christ be 
 under the form of bread and wine, when you shall 
 show the place where the form of words is expressed, 
 then shall you purge yourself of that which in the 
 meantime I take to be a plain untruth. " ^ 
 
 (5) In the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 the 
 following rubric is repeated from the Order of Com- 
 munion attached to the mass in 1548: "and every 
 one (i, e, of the consecrated breads) shall be divided 
 in two pieces at the least, and so distributed, and 
 men must not think less to be received in part than 
 in the whole, but in each of them the whole body 
 of our Saviour Jesu Christ". 
 
 1 Ibid, p. 229. 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 51. 
 * Ibid. p. 53. 
 
2Si The Second Book of 1552. 
 
 Further, commenting on a profane passage in 
 Cranmer's book, Gardiner remarks: "this is a mar- 
 vellous rhetoric and such as the author has overseen 
 himself in the utterance of it. But to the purpose; 
 in the book of Common Prayer now at this time 
 set forth in this realm, it is ordered to teach the 
 people that in each part of the bread consecrate, 
 broken, is the whole body of our Saviour Christ, 
 which is agreeable to the Catholic doctrine " \ 
 
 The archbishop meets this by saying : '^ and as for 
 the book of Common Prayer, although it say that in 
 each part of the bread broken is received the whole 
 body of Christ, yet it saith not so of the parts 
 unbroken, nor yet of the parts or whole reserved as 
 the papists teach"*. 
 
 Winchester sums up generally his opinion of the 
 Book of Common Prayer in the following words: 
 " God of his infinite mercy have pity on us and grant 
 that the true faith of the holy mystery uniformly 
 be conceived in our understanding and in one 
 form of words be uttered and preached, which in 
 the Book of Common Prayer is well termed not 
 distant from the Catholic faith, in my judgment" ^ 
 
 (6) Beyond this mention of the Prayer Book in 
 his work against Cranmer, Gardiner, in discussing 
 Hooper's remarks on the doctrine of the Sacrament, 
 in the same year 1550, also appeals to it in defence 
 of the use of altars. Condemning Hooper's attack upon 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 62. 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 64, cf. Also on the same subject Gardiner p. 325 and 
 Cranmer p. 327. At p. 239 also Gardiner points out, that although 
 the statute of the six articles had been abrogated yet the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation " was never hitherto by any public Council 
 or anything set forth by authority impaired". Cranmer's reply 
 was that the doctrine was false and that was sufficient (p. 240). 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 92. 
 
The Second Book of 1552. 285 
 
 them he says : " This altar is a table before our Lord, 
 and in the book of Common Prayer it is well called 
 by both names. But if there be only a table as Mr. 
 Hooper would have . . (let) there be not any ceremony 
 in the matter, but as it were good fellowship, with- 
 out either standing or kneeling.... wherein the book 
 of Common Prayer lately set forth in this realm 
 giveth a good lesson to avoid Mr. Hooper's fancy, 
 which is that some ceremonies there must needs be,, 
 and then such as be old and may be well used."^ 
 
 It is now necessary to turn to what is known 
 about the revision of the Prayer Book, in which, 
 as will be seen, the points in the hrst book, which 
 Gardiner had pleaded against Cranmer as proving 
 the old doctrines, are specially dealt with. 
 
 Whilst the commission for the bishop of Win- 
 chester's deprivation was sitting, the archbishop wa& 
 making preparations for the revision of the first 
 english service book imposed the previous year. 
 Peter Martyr writing from Lambeth to Bucer on 
 10 January 1551 says that a meeting of the bishops 
 had been held on the matter, and he assumes that 
 his correspondent already knew that such a meeting 
 had been arranged. At this assembly it was settled, 
 " as the most Reverend has informed me, that many 
 things should be changed; but what these emenda- 
 tions were which they agreed upon, he neither told 
 me nor did I dare ask him. But what Sir John 
 Cheke (the king's tutor) told me rejoices me not a^ 
 little. If the bishops will not change the things which 
 ought to be changed, the king will do it himself, 
 and when the matter comes to parliament he himself 
 will interpose his royal authority"^. 
 
 1 State Papers. Dom. Vol. XII ff. 64a-65. 
 ^ See Id Strype's Cranmer Appendix no. 6L Canon Dixon 
 (ni. 248) seenas to identify this conference of the bishops witb 
 
286 The Second Book of 1552. 
 
 There is no authentic or sufficient record of the 
 
 a meeting of Convocation presumed to have been held near the 
 end of the year 1550. His authority is Heylyn, who writes : " in 
 the Convocation which began in the former year anno 1550, the 
 first debate among the prelates was of such doubts as had arisen 
 about some things contained in the Common Prayer Book". 
 After giving some details he concludes : " but what account was 
 given appears not in the acts of that Convocation of which there 
 is nothing left upon record but this very passage." Canon Dixon 
 rightly says that this record has escaped the notice of Wilkins 
 ** who returns blank prorogations on the authority of Cranmer's 
 register " (Wilkins IV. 60). 
 
 The question arises therefore whether the record cited by 
 Heylyn is rightly placed by him in the year 1550. Cranmer's 
 register contains the following roj'^al writs of prorogation ; 
 
 1550. 
 Writ dated 2 Feb. prorogued to 21 April 
 
 — 22 April — 11 October 
 
 — 11 October — 21 January 
 1551. 
 
 Writ dated 21 Jan. -- 3 March 
 
 — 3 March — 14 Oct. 
 
 — 14 Oct. — 15 Nov. 
 
 — 5 Nov. — 24 Jan. 1553 on which day 
 the Convocation met. The question then resolves itself into this, 
 whether it is more likely that there is an error in this conse- 
 cutive series of official documents which are entered in the 
 episcopal register in full ; or whether Heylyn made some mistake 
 in assigning a date to the entry taken by him from the records 
 of Convocation, which he admits were very carelessly kept during 
 this reign, and as Fuller says, were " but one degree above blanks, 
 scarce affording the names of the clerks assembled therein" 
 (IV. p. 109). 
 
 As to the Convocation which met on 24 January 1552, Heylyn 
 writes : " the acts of this Convocation were so ill kept that there 
 remains nothing on record touching their proceedings but the 
 names of such of the bishops as came thither to adjourn the 
 house. Only I find a memorandum" as to the dissolution of the 
 
The Second Book of 1552, 287 
 
 persons to whom the revision was entrusted \ 
 
 bishopric of Westminster "but this was no business of that 
 Convocation though remembered in it". In these circumstances 
 the only safe course is to assume the correctness of the recor<?5 in 
 Cranmer's register. The extract given by Heylyn doubtless relates 
 to a meeting of the Convocation in 1552. It runs as follows : "The 
 first debate amongst the prelates was of such doubts as had 
 arisen about some things contained in the Book of Common 
 Prayer ; and more particularly touching such feasts as were 
 retained and such as had been abrogated by the rules thereof; 
 the form of words used at the giving of the bread and the 
 different manner of administering the Holy Sacrament; which 
 being signified unto the prolocutor and the rest of the clergy 
 who had received somewhat in charge about it the day before, 
 answer was made that they had not yet sufficiently considered 
 of the points proposed ; but that they would give their lordships 
 some account thereof in the following session". The question 
 as to feasts had been raised by Bucer in the Censura (p. 494) 
 and in the De regno Christi (p. 48). 
 
 Bullinger, always well informed, stated to some of the Frankfort 
 exiles that " Cranmer bishop of Canterbury had drawn up a Book 
 of Prayer a hundred times more perfect than this that we 
 nov/ have" (i. e. the Book of 1552). But "the same could not 
 take place for that he was matched with such a wicked clergy 
 and Convocation with other enemies" (Troubles begun at Frank- 
 fort, ed. 1846, p. 50). 
 
 1 See Canon Dixon III. pp. 249—50. But the ^Convocation" 
 mentioned in the letters cited (p. 249, notes 1 and 2) has no 
 relation to any meeting of Convocation of the close of 1550. The 
 letter of ab Ulmis to Bullinger is dated 10 January 1552, (not 
 1551 as in Dixon). That the former is the correct date is clear 
 from the writer's mention of the recent appointment of Goodrich 
 bishop of Ely as Chancellor, or rather Lord Keeper. The assign- 
 ment of Skinner's letter of 5 January to the year 1550 is 
 certainly an error of the Parker Society's editor of the Original 
 Letters, It must be remembered that these letters were written 
 in latin and the word convocatio is evidently not used in its 
 technical english sense, for a meeting of the body of clergy, 
 
288 The Second Book of 1552. 
 
 although there is httle room for doubt as to the 
 iuspirers and chief actors in the business. All that 
 it is necessary to note in the present case is what 
 was actually done, and especially with the office of 
 Holy Communion, which was not only the one all 
 important traditional act of Christian worship, but 
 was at this time throughout western Europe the 
 central point round which all the controversies of 
 the reformation turned. 
 
 On comparing the first with the second Communion 
 office what is obvious at first sight is, that whilst 
 the former, in spite of the substantial changes which 
 had been made in the ancient mass, manifested a 
 general order and disposition of parts similar to the 
 mass itself, the latter was changed beyond recognition. 
 
 It is certain that in this the revisers, whilst accept- 
 ing Bucer's suggestions as to details did not follow 
 his ideas. He did not suggest the revolutionizing of 
 the order of 1549. On the contrary, though keenly 
 alive to all that in detail savoured of " superstition", 
 he speaks of the whole office in the highest terms. 
 "I cannot render thanks to God enough" he says 
 ''for giving a service so pure, and ordered so religi- 
 ously according to the Word of God, especially con- 
 sidering the time when it was drawn up. A very 
 few words and acts apart, I see nothing in it which 
 is not altogether drawn from the Holy Scriptures"; ^ 
 
 called Convocation ; but refers to a meeting of the commissioners 
 upon ecclesiastical laws according to their appointment in No- 
 vember 1551. 
 
 Ab Ulmis, in his letter of 10 January 1552, only reports the 
 more or less accurate gossip of his own circle as to the commis- 
 sion which had been issued a couple of months before. In February 
 he is right in saying * our friend Skinner " was engaged on this 
 commission (Cf. Dixon Til 439). 
 
 ^ Censura p. 465. In the print the Censura is said to have 
 
The Second Book of 1552. 289 
 
 and in fact his recommendations involved no radical 
 change. It is on the other hand not a little significant 
 that everything in the tirst 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/ (1) The inter- 
 cession for the living and the dead in the canon of 
 the Book of 1549 was held by Winchester to allow 
 the mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice. This portion of 
 the canon, with the omission of the memento of the 
 dead altogether, was in the book of 1552 transferred 
 to an early part of the service, and placed between 
 the collection of the alms and the exhortations. "What 
 had survived in the first book of the ancient canon 
 
 been " written at the request of Thomas Cranmer archbishop of 
 Canterbury". There seems however good reason for believing that 
 this is merely an unauthorized addition of the editor and that the 
 statement is in itself incorrect. (1) The original draft of the work 
 (C. C. C. C. MS. 172) has no such title, and an ancient, doubtless 
 contemporary, hand says it was addressed " to the bishop of Ely". 
 (2) Bucer in this work is particularly careful to speak to the 
 person to whom it is addressed in elaborated terms of respect ; 
 but he nowhere uses the word "archbishop" or " primate". He 
 throughout speaks of him as a " bishop " and specifically as " my 
 bishop " : * tantce doctrince atque authoritatis episcopo atque 
 episcopo meo,'' which applies to Goodrich of Ely, but hardly to 
 Cranmer. (3) From the often quoted letter of P. Martyr to Bucer 
 dated from Lambeth 10 Jan. 1551 it is sufficiently clear that 
 Bucer sent a copy of the Censura to Matyr (not Cranmer), but 
 that Cranmer * already knew that you (Bucer) had written 
 (comments on the Prayer Book) to the bishop of Ely." The only 
 comments addressed to Cranmer that are mentioned are those 
 made by Martyr himself. In these circumstances it would appear 
 that the statement made in the print some 25 years after Bucer's 
 death is erroneous. 
 
 * The numbering here follows that of the points taken by 
 Gardiner against Cranmer in the previous pages. 
 
 U 
 
290 The Second Book of 1552, 
 
 of the mass was now omitted entirely with the 
 exception of one Hne. 
 
 (2) The prayer for the sanctification of the gifts 
 on the altar by the Holy Spirit, presumed by Gardiner 
 to be proof of the doctrine of transubstantiation, 
 which was also objected to by Bucer, was omitted. 
 
 (3) The "prayer of humble access'' which had 
 hitherto been said kneeling before the altar after 
 the consecration, and which Winchester had pointed 
 to as an act of adoration, was now placed immedi- 
 ately before the prayer of consecration. 
 
 (4) The words of the administration of the Holy 
 Communion in the book of 1549, which had been 
 adduced as distinct evidence that "the old doctrine 
 of the papists" as to the presence of Christ in the 
 Sacrament was still that of the church of England, 
 were replaced by others. They now ran: ''take and 
 eat this &c.", without any mention of the sacred 
 body and blood of our Lord. 
 
 (5) The rubric stating that the whole body of 
 Christ was to be believed as present in every portion 
 of the consecrated host, upon which Winchester 
 relied as further proof that the ancient doctrine 
 was still maintained, and to which Bucer had objected, 
 was left out in the revised book. 
 
 (6) The word "altar", adduced by Gardiner in his 
 discussion with Hooper, was also entirely expunged 
 from the book of 1552.. 
 
 In the circumstances these changes cannot have 
 been accidental. It seems hardly possible to doubt 
 that in making them the revisers were actuated by 
 a determination to leave no room in the second 
 Book of Common Prayer for those Catholic glosses 
 which Gardiner had endeavoured to put on certain 
 passages in the first. 
 
 For other changes not even this excuse can be 
 
The Second Book of 1552. 291 
 
 found, so gratuitous and uncalled for do they appear. 
 The only reason which it seems possible to give is 
 that the innovators resolved that it should hence- 
 forth be impossible to trace in the new Communion 
 office any resemblance, however innocuous, to the an- 
 cient mass. 
 
 Taking the office as it stood in the book of 1549 
 the chief changes may be thus briefly stated : 
 
 (1) The Introit is done away with altogether. 
 
 (2) The Kyrie is altered, added to and imbedded 
 in the ten commandments in such a way as to be 
 no longer capable of being recoguized. ^ 
 
 (3) The Gloria in excelsis was moved from the 
 beginning to the end of the office immediately before 
 the blessing. 
 
 (4) The exhortations had hitherto stood after the 
 creed in the usual place for the sermon. They were 
 now in the revised book transferred to a place after 
 the offertory sentences. 
 
 (5) The preparation for the communion with its 
 general confession and absolution, which, though of 
 course much longer than the ancient simple form, 
 had kept its place in the book of 1549 immediately 
 
 ^ This change is sometimes attributed to the influence of the 
 service drawn up by Valleranus for the use of the evangelical 
 colony of foreigners settled at Glastonbury. But it was probably 
 due directly to the influence of Roopfir, who, durinsr his visitation 
 of the diocese of Gloucester in 1551, had enjoined that the priest 
 should cause every communicant to rehearse, before receiving, 
 the ten commandments &c. "And if it happen there be so many 
 communicants that all cannot one after another make rehearsal 
 of the commandments, then the curate to read out of the 20th 
 chapter of Exodus the said commandments word for word 
 as they be written &c . . so that the people may say them after 
 him" {Later writings. Parker Soc. pp. 132—3). 
 
292 The Second Book of 1552. 
 
 before the act of communion, was in 1552 put before 
 the Preface. 
 
 (6) The Sanctus following the Preface was altered 
 in a manner which is full of significance. The 
 ancient * Hosanna in the Highest, Blessed is he who 
 Cometh in the name of the Lord, Hosanna in the 
 Highest!" is purely scriptural; no objection could be 
 taken to it therefore on this score. It has already 
 been pointed out that the familiar repetition of the 
 Hosanna was altered in 1549. In the book of 1552 
 the whole is reduced to this simple clause in which 
 none of the original can be recognized : " Glory be to 
 Thee, Lord most High". There can be no doubt 
 that the words : " Blessed is he who cometh in the name 
 of the Lord" were omitted on doctrinal grounds. 
 
 (7) Of the canon of 1549 little more than the bare 
 words of Institution was now allowed to remain in 
 the new office in its original position. As the first 
 portion of the prayer had been utilized in an earlier 
 part of the service, so the last portion, shortened, 
 was now made into a separate prayer to be recited 
 after the communion.* 
 
 In this latter prayer moreover the words ''that 
 whosoever shall be partakers of this Holy Communion 
 may worthily receive the most precious body and 
 blood of Thy Son Jesus Christ" were left out. There 
 is no point on which Bucer writes at greater length 
 in his Censura, or in which he displays more earnest- 
 ness and feeling, than in his argument and entreaty 
 that these words should be retained. It is clear that 
 at the close of the year 1550 some persons whose 
 opinion carried weight were in favour of this omission 
 and of the omission of the corresponding words in 
 
 ^ The concluding four lines of this prayer are all that remained 
 of the ancient canon. 
 
The Second Book of 1552. 293 
 
 what is called the "prayer of humble access". To 
 this Bucer opposed himself with all the powers of 
 his mind and heart. To him the omission was equiva- 
 lent to the casting of a doubt on the reality of the 
 act of communion.^ ''I pray our Lord" he says "to 
 grant that these words may be kept just as they 
 are, for they are indeed pure and most conformable 
 to the words of the Holy Spirit addressed by our 
 Lord himself. I have every hope therefore that this 
 form will be kept just as it is". He expressed him- 
 self even willing to run the risk of the words being 
 misinterpreted in the Catholic sense, rather than 
 that they should be left out. But he thought that 
 all chance of misunderstanding might be taken away 
 by certain definitions, which he suggested, and he 
 concluded his remarks with the expression of his 
 trust that all those engaged on the work of revision 
 would gladly retain these important words. "You 
 are not ignorant" he says "that the eyes of all are 
 at the present day fixed on this kingdom, to which 
 our Lord has given such a king, such prelates, such 
 nobles 'who will admit no rash or irreligious novelty. 
 And I doubt not that my most dear colleague Peter 
 Martyr and all those who are learned in what apper- 
 tains to the kingdom of Christ will advise and desire 
 what I do". ^ Notwithstanding Bucer's urgency the 
 words were omitted in the prayer used after the 
 words of Institution, whilst the parallel passage in 
 the "prayer of humble access," now removed to a 
 part of the service before the canon, was allowed 
 to remain. 
 
 (8) The recital of the Lord's Prayer after the canon 
 with the Pax Domini was done away with altogether. 
 
 ^ See as to his doctrine, p. 295 postj note, 
 2 Censura pp. 473 — 476. 
 
294 The Second Book of 1552. 
 
 (9) The communion was made to follow immedi- 
 ately after the words of Institution. 
 
 (10) The Agnus Dei was omitted ; * as was also the 
 verse of Scripture which corresponded in the book 
 of 1549 to the " communion " of the old missals. 
 
 (11) For these was substituted the Gloria in excelsis 
 brought from the beginning of the ancient service. 
 
 The office ended with a blessing. 
 
 Thus in the revised Book of 1552 nothing of the 
 sequence of the mass was left but the collect, epistle 
 gospel and creed. There was even an interpolation 
 between the Preface and the new Canon. 
 
 The rubrics manifest yet further change ^, Thus : 
 (1) The complicated rubric, as to the provision of the 
 necessary bread and wine, together with a communi- 
 cant by each family in turn, disappears. (2) There 
 is no provision at all made as to the time of placing 
 
 1 Taken in connection with the treatment to which the whole 
 service was subjected, this omission of the Agnus cannot be 
 considered accidental. According to either Catholic or Lutheran 
 doctrine its use at the time of communion is appropriate. But 
 the scruples felt at the strained interpretation put by Gardiner 
 on the "prayer of humble access" as opening the door to ado- 
 ration, would have a greater effect in determining the revisers 
 to this change. 
 
 2 The continued use of the alb, chasuble and cope are expressly 
 prohibited. This was borne in mind by the royal commissioners 
 charged with realizing the church goods in the sixth year of 
 Edward VI. The vestment, either cope or chasuble, left by them 
 in the church was meant not to be worn by the minister but to 
 serve as a covering for the communion table. For historical purposes 
 attention should be directed not to the inventories of goods found 
 by the commissioners in the church, but to the certificate of 
 what they left and to the reasons they not infrequently assign 
 for leaving these objects. See for instance the Surrey church goods 
 in vol. IV of the Surrey Archceological collections or the Hert- 
 fordshire church goods ed. J. E. Cussans. 
 
The Second Book of 1552. 295 
 
 the bread and wine on the table. (3) It is directed 
 that ordinary bread be used in place of the unleav- 
 ened bread. (4) The rubric which prescribes that the 
 minister shall take " so much bread and wine as shall 
 suffice" for the number of communicants is now 
 omitted \ 
 
 ^ This rubric was abolished on the recommendation of Bucer. 
 To understand the point of his objections it is unfortunately 
 necessary to explain his doctrine on the subject of the Euch- 
 arist as delivered at Cambridge in the year 1550. This can 
 be done without recourse to those technical terms real, substantial^ 
 &c. to which he was himself averse and each of which requires 
 an accurate definition before it can be used without ambiguity. 
 Bucer, when dealing with communion^ speaks of the presence, 
 to use Collier's words in reference to the Helvetians, "in terms 
 of magnificence and highest regard ". In it " the true body and 
 blood of our Lord " he says, " Christ himself, God and man, is 
 given and received, that we may remain and live more fully in 
 Him and He in us " ^ . But as regards " the signSf bread and wine, 
 they are exhibitive tokens, and have no union whatever with the 
 glorious body and blood of Christ, but of exhibition and testification 
 that by them our Lord truly communicates himself to His, to be 
 seen and fed on by faith. They have no other use than that of 
 arousing the mind and certifying the true communication of Christ " '. 
 
 This position becomes perfectly intelligible in the light of his 
 teaching on "permanence" which is delivered with the utmost 
 distinctness in what was probably his last lecture at Cambridge. 
 " Transubstantiation and the idea of the permanence of the body 
 and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine" he 
 places on the same level, * as the common parents of impiety 
 and superstition", and he regards the adoration as the natural 
 consequence of the doctrine of permanence '. In the light of this 
 teaching of Bucer, there is little wonder that he took exceptipn 
 
 ^ Confessio de Euckaristia p. 543 cf. p. 551. 
 ^ Definitio plenior pp. 5 52 — 3 cf. Censnra p. 473. 
 
 • Explicatio de vi et usu S. Mysterii p. 610 — 2 (lectures begun at Cambridge 
 9 November 1550 and interrupted by his death). 
 
296 The Second Book of 1552. 
 
 (5) Bucer had called particular attention to the 
 manner in which the canon continued to be recited. 
 "They are obliged by the law" he says "to say the 
 words aloud . . nevertheless they still use the former 
 posture (of inclination) over the bread and wine so 
 that they seem rather to wish to change the bread 
 and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord by 
 the words, than to excite those present to com- 
 municate. I should wish therefore" he writes "that 
 the little black crosses and the rubric about taking 
 the bread and wine into the hands should be removed 
 from the book, as well as the prayer for the blessing 
 and sanctifying the bread and wine'' \ All these points 
 were changed accordingly. 
 
 (6) The provision that on Wednesdays and fridays 
 the first part of the Communion office should be said 
 by a priest in a cope, formerly inserted in imitation 
 of a Lutheran practice, is done away with. (7) It is 
 now directed that the table for the communion 
 
 to the rubric of the Prayer Book of 1549 : ** then shall the minister 
 take so much bread and wine as shall suflBce for the persons 
 appointed to receive the Holy Communion". He regarded it as 
 a cause of " superstition, inducing people to think that, if any 
 bread and wine of the communion remain after it is over, there 
 is something wrong in applying it to common use, ss though 
 there were in this bread and wine in itself something divine or 
 holy outside of its actual use in communion " (C7ew5wra,pp. 552—3). 
 
 In the circumstances of this objection, there can be hardly a 
 reasonable doubt, however repugnant it may be to modern ideas, 
 as to the real meaning of the rubric inserted in the Book of 
 1552 : "and if any of the bread and wine remain &c*'. And this 
 especially, as Bucer, like many of the Helvetians even to the 
 17th century (see Frickart, Beitrcige 0ur G-eschichte der Kirchen- 
 gebrauche im ehemaligen Kanton Bern, pp. 101 — 103) seems not 
 to have objected to the continued use of unleavened bread in the 
 communion. 
 
 ^ Censura, p. 472. 
 
The Second Book of 1552. 297 
 
 should stand in the body of the church and that 
 the minister should place himself at the north side 
 of the table. (8) Finally, a long rubric on kneeling, 
 now commonly called the * Black rubric' was issued 
 as a royal proclamation* after some copies of the 
 revised Book had been already published. 
 
 The fashion of placing the communion table now 
 ordered to be generally observed had already been 
 set by Ridley in St. Paul's in the previous year, 1551. 
 The Tuesday in Holy week, now called the " Tuesday 
 before Easter", the bishop directed the oflBcials "to 
 close up the grates besides the high altar in Paul's 
 that the people should not look in at the time of 
 the communion time.'' ^ And "against Easter he altered 
 the Lord's table that stood where the high altar 
 was and he removed the table beneath the steps 
 into the midst of the upper choir in Paul's and set 
 the ends east and west, the priest standing on the 
 south side of the board" ^ And on " Easterday the 
 dean, William May, did minister himself"*, and 
 " after the creed the bishop caused the veil to be 
 drawn that no person should see but those that 
 received " ^ 
 
 Turning to the office of baptism the result of the 
 revision is that practically all that had been allowed 
 to remain of the ancient baptismal office, except the 
 
 1 This is enrolled upon the Close Roll. 6 Ed. VI, pars. 8. For 
 the history see Dixon III, pp. 475, 6. If Cranmer had throughout 
 his career better observed the principles which underlie his letter 
 on this subject it would have been happy both for the church 
 and the country. 
 
 * Grey Friars* chronicle. Camd. Soc. p. 69. 
 3 Wriothesley II, p. 47. 
 
 * Grey Friar s\ p. 69. 
 ^ Wriothesley II, p. 47. 
 
298 The Second Book of 1552. 
 
 one prayer common to both Sarum and Luther * was 
 now left out, and even this prayer was subjected 
 to mutilation \ Certain insertions are made in the 
 service which are not found in the old rite and the 
 practice of saying part of the service at the church 
 door is done aw^ay with at Bucer's suggestion ^. 
 
 As regards the office of confirmation, the effective 
 part of it, which in the Book of 1549 was imitated 
 from the ancient rite, though weakened and short- 
 ened, was in the revision of 1552 improved away^ 
 For it was substituted a form in which the signifi- 
 cation of the ancient ceremony seems entirely lost ^. 
 
 It is unnecessary to follow in further detail the 
 changes made in the various parts of the Book of 
 Common Prayer ^. Their spirit is already sufficiently 
 
 1 See p. 224 ante note. 
 
 2 By tlie omission of " that by this wholesome laver of regeneration 
 whatsoever sin is in them may be washed clean away ". In regard 
 to this prayer, see Jacoby Liturgik der Beformatoren I. p. 303—4. 
 
 ^ The bodily omissions are Parker Soc. ed. p. 108 lines 9 
 to 19 and line 34 to p. 109, line 12 : p. 109 line 35 to p. 110 
 line 7: p. 110 lines 16 to 22. The triple renunciation and triple 
 profession, as in the ancient rite, is in 1552 changed into a 
 single renunciation and profession. The Sarum peculiarities in the 
 rubric before baptism retained in 1549 are omitted, as also p. 112 
 lines 7 to 26 and p. 113 first three lines of rubric. On exact 
 examination it will appear that the portions of the ancient Order 
 contained in the office of 1549 occur precisely in the passages 
 now omitted and changed. 
 
 * The omissions are Parker Soc. ed. p. 125, lines 1 to 13. 
 
 * It is evidently in the same spirit that the words of the only 
 prayer belonging to the ancient office now retained are changed 
 from : * Send down from heaven upon them thy Holy Ghost the 
 Comforter " into " Strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the- 
 Comforter ". 
 
 * In regard to the addition of the preliminary address the general 
 
The Second Book of 1552, 29^ 
 
 indicated and it appears in the new revision of the 
 Ordinal no less than in the rest of the book. Even 
 the "Holy Communion when there is a burial of the 
 dead" is left out of the book altogether, although the 
 collect used in it in the book of 1549 rather hints 
 at than definitely expresses the idea of intercession 
 for the dead^ 
 
 Though Bucer when called upon had examined the 
 Prayer Book with care and had expressed his opinion 
 on every point of detail which seemed to require 
 amendment, it may be doubted whether the work of 
 revision as a whole commended itself to his judgment 
 as one proper for the time. A passage occurs in his^ 
 new year's gift to the king for 1551, which may be 
 regarded as his warning to the statesmen who had 
 the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs in the present 
 juncture. "Your Sacred Majesty", he writes, "has 
 already found by experience how grave are the evils 
 
 confession and absolution prefixed to the order of morning and 
 evening prayer, it may be observed that this is the order prescribed 
 by Bucer in his first service, drawn up for the use of Strasburg^ 
 published in December 1524 (See Luther's Works ed. Walch XX 
 col. 526). 
 
 * In the opinion of Bucer, this collect contained no intercession 
 for the dead at all. He gives this as his reason for recommend- 
 ing its incorporation in the burial service {Censura p. 490). 
 
 The order of burial in the book of 1549 retained marked traces- 
 of the ancient Catholic practice of praying for the dead. In 1552 
 these were entirely obliterated along with the psalms and suffrages 
 directed to be said in the church either before or after the burial. 
 The reason of this last omission is probably to be found in an 
 interrogatory of Hooper in 1551. " Item : whether the curates 
 teach that the psalms, appointed for the burial in the king's 
 Majesty's book for thankgiving unto God for the deliverance of 
 the dead out of this miserable world, be appointed or placed 
 instead of the dirge wherein they prayed for the dead. '* (Later 
 Writings J Parker Soc. p. 146). 
 
300 The Second Book of 1552. 
 
 which ensued on taking away by force false worship 
 from your people, without sufficient preliminary 
 instruction. The instruments of impiety have been 
 snatched from them by proclamations and the ob- 
 servance of the true religion has been imposed by 
 royal command. Some have on this account made 
 horrible sedition, others have raised perilous dis- 
 sensions in the state, and to this very day wherever 
 they can they either cause new trouble or increase 
 what has been already excited. Some turn the pre- 
 scribed form of service into a mere papistical abuse. 
 Although it is now in the vulgar tongue, the 'sacri- 
 ficers' recite it of set purpose so indistinctly that it 
 cannot be understood, whilst the people altogether 
 refuse to understand or to listen. Not a few of the 
 priests show forth the sacred communion of Christ 
 as the papistical mass and the people are present 
 with no other intention than to assist at the mass 
 itself. Hardly any one takes the Sacrament from the 
 table of the Lord except the priest or the sexton, 
 and even he does so unwillingly. 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 persuasion 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 
 services 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, wo are 
 both unfit for it, and who do not suffer themselves 
 to be advised, and who thus make way for the greed 
 
The Second Book of 1552. 301 
 
 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 ODce 
 the church property is confiscated there will be none 
 found to voluntarily consecrate themselves to her 
 ministry". Bucer concludes by suggesting that the 
 proper course is first to obtain a sufficient supply of 
 evangelists who by their teaching may win popular 
 acquiescence in change and only then to proceed to 
 legislative acts\ 
 
 But such counsels as these were altogether dis- 
 regarded by those who had the supreme control of 
 affairs. The work of revision was pushed on with 
 all speed. Parliament met on 23 January 1552 and 
 
 * De Begno Christi lib. II, cap. 5 pp. 60—61. This work 
 must have been written in the autumn of 1550. The 0. C. 0. 0. 
 MS. 119, contains pp. 3—5 a letter to the king signed by Bucer, 
 and pp. 45—6 a letter, entirely in Bucer's hand, to Cheke. Both 
 are dated 21 Oct. 1550. These letters accompanied the MS. of 
 the de Begno Christi, which it would seem he sent to Cheke to 
 be by him delivered to the King. This remarkable treatise, which 
 is full of practical knowledge and wisdom, was written in great 
 haste : "tandem" he says to Cheke * ut potui perturbate et incon- 
 dite absolvi quae de restituendo apud nos Christi regno institu- 
 eram. " * Studium meum et conatum S. R. M. commendabis. " 
 (p. 45). He closes his letter by these words: "no one has seen 
 the book which I send, except the copyist and Peter Martyr, 
 who wishes also what I do." (p. 46). How deeply Bucer felt that 
 the crying need of the time was the reform of practical abuse 
 rather than the framing of new prayer books and articles of belief 
 appears from letters written later in the same year on 3 December 
 to Cheke and on 26 December to the marquis of Dorset. He 
 develops the same theme to the bishop of Ely at the close of his 
 Censura (pp. 496— 501) apologizing to the prelate for entering 
 on this discussion of a subject upon which his opinion had not 
 been asked. 
 
^02 The Second Book of 1552. 
 
 •Convocation the next day. ^ On 9 March the bill for 
 the new Uniformity in religion was introduced into 
 the Lords. It was read for the third time and passed 
 on 6 April. The bishops of Carlisle and Norwich, 
 Aldrich and Thirlby, being the only surviving members 
 of the band who had consistently and strenuously 
 opposed the series of liturgical innovations, voted 
 against it. Bonner, Day, Heath and Gardiner had 
 been deprived, and Tunstall was in prison awaiting 
 the same sentence. 
 
 The bill was introduced into the Commons on 
 6 April, the day on which it was passed in the 
 Lords. To it in its passage through the house was 
 attached another act compelling everybody to go to 
 church and attend the form of worship imposed. 
 The legislature thus gave to the nation with the 
 second Prayer Book of Edward the sixth a yet more 
 emphatic manifestation of the belief that these 
 compilations were unacceptable to the people at 
 large. 
 
 The terms in which the first Prayer Book is 
 referred to in the act imposing the second demand 
 some notice. It is called in the statute "a very 
 godly order set forth by the authority of parliament, 
 agreeable to the Word of God and the primitive 
 church, very comfortable to all good people . . . and 
 most profitable to the estate of this realm ".^ These 
 words have not unfrequently been interpreted as the 
 expression of a regret, whether on the part of the 
 parliament, or Cranmer, or the bishops does not 
 appear, that this first book had to be given up. 
 This suggestion however hardly seems to meet the 
 
 1 This appears in the King's writ of dissolution (16 April 
 anno 6.) As to its Acts, see note, p. 287 ante. 
 
 2 5 & 6 Ed. VI, cap. 1. 
 
The Second Booh of 1552. 303 
 
 circumstances of the case, for the act proceeds to 
 state that " this (excellence) notwithstanding a great 
 number of people in divers parts of the realm . . . 
 wilfully and damnably . . . abstain and refuse to come 
 to their parochial churches and other places where 
 Common Prayer, administration of the Sacraments, 
 and preaching of the Word of God is used upon 
 Sundays and other days ordained to be holidays". 
 The concurrent testimony of all contemporaries shows 
 that the popular aversion to the book of 1549 was 
 due not to the retention but to the abolition of so many 
 ancient Catholic rites and practices. For reformation 
 of the popular remissness to attend the new services 
 the act imposes a book still more radically differing 
 from the ancient forms. 
 
 It would seem then necessary to seek some other 
 explanation of the commendations bestowed upon 
 the first book, especially as the bishops most likely 
 to regret the change were now with very few excep- 
 tions removed. One more simple naturally occurs. In 
 the reign of Edward YI no less than in that of 
 Henry VIII all ecclesiastical matters involving the 
 royal authority were delicately handled. The king's 
 ecclesiastical proceedings must always be held to be 
 *good and godly*. The words of this act therefore 
 are merely a decent interment of a book to which 
 the king had once given his supreme approval. 
 
 The law passed finally on 14 April, parliament 
 was dismissed the next day, and the book came into 
 force on the first of November following (1552). 
 
 Although Peter Martyr writing to Bullinger from 
 Oxford on 14 June had assured him that all things 
 had been removed from the Book of Common Prayer 
 which could nourish superstition*, there is every 
 
 * See Goode, An Unpublished Letter of P. Martyr p. 15. 
 
304 The Second Book of 1552, 
 
 indication that even this second book was not intended 
 to be final. The innovating tendencies were still at 
 work and are manifested in the Catechism and Articles 
 issued in the following year. A few days before the 
 articles upon religion were sent to the bishops, 
 "" fifty-four articles concerning the uniform order to 
 be observed in every church of this realm" were also 
 issued by the Council*. 
 
 But when these instructions were issued the king's 
 days were already numbered and after a few brief 
 months of actual use the book was set aside on 
 the accession of queen Mary. 
 
 It is of interest to observe the criticisms passed 
 on the book of 1552 by men of different views 
 whose judgment was not coerced by the legal require- 
 ment that they should use it. In the troubles among 
 the exiles at Frankfort in 1554, in which Cox, after- 
 wards bishop of Ely, and Wittingham, afterwards 
 dean of Durham, took so prominent a part, and 
 which chiefly arose from the objection of some to 
 use even this second liturgy of king Edward, the 
 advice of Calvin and Bullinger was sought. Calvin, 
 after declaring that his habit was " to behave himself 
 gently and tractably in mean things, as external 
 ceremonies", adds: "so do I not always judge it 
 profitable to give place to their foolish stoutness who 
 
 1 Warrant Book. Koyal MS. 18 C. XXIV f. 352b. 24 May 
 > anno 7**. Strype says 20 May and confuses the wording of this entry 
 with that relating to the 42 articles on faith [Eccl. Mem. II, 
 p. 369). He is probably correct in stating that these articles 
 related to rites. It is curious that no trace of them has hitherto 
 been found. It is clear from the Warrant Book that they are quite 
 distinct from the Articles of religion, and from the Catechism 
 which was also issued the same day, 24 May 1553. 
 
The Second Book of 1552, 305 
 
 will forsake nothing of their old wonted custom. In 
 the liturgy of England, I see that there were many 
 tolerably foolish things. By these words I mean that 
 there was not that purity which was to be desired " \ 
 Bullinger enters more into detail. Wittingham went 
 to Zurich expressly to know what he thought of the 
 "Book of England". Bullinger he found "did like 
 well of the english order and had it in his study, 
 but there were certain parts of the book, as surplice, 
 private baptism, churching of women, the ring in 
 marriage, with such like, which he allowed not; and 
 he neither could if he would, nor would if he might, 
 use the same in his church, whatsoever had been 
 reported " *. 
 
 1 Troubles at Frankfort about the Book of Common Prayer dc. 
 ed. 1846. p. 34. In a later letter to Cox Calvin opens his mind 
 more in full on the subject of ceremonies. " Verily ", he writes, 
 " no man well instructed or of sound judgment will deny, as I 
 think, that lights and crossings and such like trifles sprang or 
 issued out of superstitions, whereupon I am persuaded that they 
 who retained these ceremonies on free choice are only greedy and 
 desirous to drink off the dregs. Neither do I see to what purpose 
 it is to burden the church with trifling and unprofitable ceremonies, 
 whereas there is liberty to have a simple and pure Order " 
 (Ibid. p. 52). 
 
 In a memorandum signed by eighteen of the exiles, who perfectly 
 knew what the use under the Book of 1552 really was, Calvin's 
 meaning is explained. " Because that master Calvin in his letter 
 maketh mention of lights, some might gather that he was untruly 
 informed that in the English book lights were prescribed (the 
 contrary whereof appeareth by the description before) where it, 
 is manifest that he useth the figure auxesis and that this his 
 argument is a majore ad minus, for so much as lights and 
 crossing be two of the most ancient ceremonies, having continued 
 in the church above 1300 years, are yet for such causes abolished : 
 how much more ought all other, that have not the like continuance, 
 and yet abused, be utterly removed" (Ibid. p. 54). 
 
 » Ibid. D. 50. 
 
306 The Second Book of 1552, 
 
 It may be presumed that if exception were taken 
 by Bullinger or Calvin to points of more serious 
 import, such as the Communion office, some indica- 
 tion would have been given \ 
 
 The only examination of the book from the hand 
 of a Catholic, not involved in english polemics, occurs 
 in the Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica of Cornelius Schulting 
 of Cologne. He had before him only the latin trans- 
 lation of 1560, which was in some respects mislead- 
 ing ' and his judgment was troubled by two spectres, 
 the "seditious Puritans" and the memory of Bucer. 
 He saw however clearly that Quignon's breviary had 
 exerted some influence on the compilation of the 
 anglican liturgy, ^ and he sums up his judgment thus: 
 "In almost everything it follows the customs and 
 rites of the orthodox Lutherans except in the order 
 of the Supper " . . . . *From these Lutherans they 
 received that short form of prayer and other things 
 except the manner of celebrating the Communion"*. 
 
 This opinion is of the more value, as Schulting, 
 though unable to present what he knew in even a 
 passable form, was profoundly versed in media3val 
 liturgy and had an intimate acquaintance with the 
 whole range of new service books. Had he seen 
 
 ^ All the objections raised in 1569 were to the same effect 
 and about ceremonies which Bullinger had heard were in use in 
 England, but which it was explained to him were not so used 
 in fact (see Zurich Letters ed. Parker Soc. II, p. 354 seqq). 
 
 * For example it contained a calendar full of saints* names, 
 and the reservation of the Sacrament is alluded to. 
 
 3 Vol. IV, pp. 124—5. It was evidently the Preface which 
 gave him the idea. 
 
 * Ibid. pp. 137, 133. cf. also his Hierarchica Anacrisis^ Pars. Ill, 
 p. 87, where he says: "In the kingdom of England they observe 
 the Supper according to the rite and order of Bucer, which is 
 very different from that observed by the Lutherans in Saxony ". 
 
The Second Book of 1552, 307 
 
 the first Prayer Book of 1549 it would have been 
 unnecessary to make even this one reservation. But 
 in 1552 in the revision of the Communion office the 
 Lutheran principles of liturgical change w^ere aban- 
 doned in favour of the radical methods prevalent in 
 the Reformed churches. 
 
 The Book of Common Prayer thus imposed in 1552 
 was revived by Elizabeth in 1559. In the latter some 
 few changes were made. For example in the Commu- 
 nion office (1) the forms of administration of the ele- 
 ments in the order of 1549 and in that of 1552 were 
 amalgamated, and (2) what is called the **Black 
 rubric" on kneeling was left out. The offices of 
 baptism and confirmation, remained as they were 
 in 1552. 
 
 The changes since made, though interesting in them- 
 selves and significant as indications of a desire which 
 still was powerless to effect what was actually 
 wished, are of no historical importance. In the scotch 
 Prayer Book of 1637, a real attempt was made to 
 return at least to the standpoint of 1549. But as 
 regards the english Book, what it was in 1552 it 
 practically remains to the present day. The position 
 which was deliberately abandoned in 1549 and still 
 further departed from in 1552 has never been recov- 
 ered. The measure of the distance traversed in these 
 new liturgies by those who controlled the english 
 Reformation can only be duly estimated on an 
 historical survey of the period in which the ground 
 was lost. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 I. Account of ms. reg. 7 b. iv. 
 II. The First Scheme. 
 
 III. The Second Scheme. 
 
 IV. The Lectionaries and Calendars. 
 
 V. The Debate on the Sacrament in Parlia- 
 ment, 1548. 
 VI. The Words of Institution. 
 VII. Note on the Acts of Convocation 1547. 
 
 w 
 
APPENDIX L 
 
 MS. REG. 7 B. IV. 
 
 The Royal MS. 7 B. IV is a paper MS. in folio. It 
 consists of 159 leaves of which the first and last are 
 blank. The verso of the second leaf has the inscription 
 ^' Festivale et Horarum Canonicarum Series'" in what 
 appears to be a 17 th Century hand. In the following 
 description the leaves are quoted according to the pres- 
 ■ent numbering. ' 
 
 Contents of the Manuscript. 
 
 The MS. falls into the following divisions. 
 
 {i) ff. 4 — 6a. Calendar and table of lessons called 
 below "the third". 
 
 {2) fE. 7 — 21. The scheme for Morning and Even- 
 ing Prayer described in chapter III. 
 It is composed of : 
 
 (a) fF. 7—8. The Preface. 
 
 (b) fF. 9 — 10. A rubric for the recitation of the 
 
 psalter and the reading of Holy 
 
 Scripture, 
 {c) fF. II — 12 a. Rubrics on the Order of Morning 
 
 and Evening Service. 
 •(d) f. 12a. Canon de abhreviandis precationihus, 
 
 (e) f. 12b. Benedictions before lessons. 
 
 <f) ff. 13— 1 8a. Hymns. 
 
312 Appendix I. 
 
 (g) fF. 1 8b— 2 1 a. Collects. 
 
 (3) fF. 22 — 132. The Festivale ; being the special 
 
 lessons (lives of saints) for feast days. 
 
 (4) £F. 133 — 150. The project for a breviary described 
 
 in Chapter II. 
 
 (5) ff. 151 — 156. Calendar of lessons from Scripture 
 
 in Cranmer's handwriting, called " the 
 Jirst" below. 
 
 (6) ff. 157 — 159. Calendar and table of lessons from 
 
 Scripture, called "the second" below^ 
 
 Handwritings, 
 
 Article (5) is wholly in Cranmer's hand. 
 
 Articles (i) and (6) are probably by one writer, al- 
 though as the writing is purely formal it is difficult 
 to be certain. Article (i) however contains insertions 
 and corrections certainly by Cranmer. 
 
 Article (2) is all in one handwriting and seems to 
 be the same as that of the Festivale (art. 3) up to fol. 
 48 inclusive. There are a few notes in both these Ar- 
 ticles by Cranmer. At folio 50, another hand begins 
 which finishes the Festivale and seems to be the same- 
 as that in which Article (4) is written. 
 
 Article (4) has many annotations and corrections in 
 Cranmer's handwriting. 
 
 The MS. shows accordingly at least three hands,, 
 those of two secretaries and of Cranmer. Articles (i) 
 and (6) may be by a fourth hand. 
 
 Relations of the parts of the MS. to each other. 
 
 From internal evidence it appears certain that arti-^ 
 cles (4) and (5) are parts of one whole. 
 
 Articles (i), (2) and (3) form another group. (6) is a 
 Calendar intermediate between (5) and (i). In other 
 words, (4) and (5) are the earlier scheme for a breviary,. 
 
Appendix I. 313 
 
 resembling that of Cardinal Quignon. (i) (2) and (3) 
 are an Order of Morning and Evening Prayer more 
 nearly approaching that of the Prayer Book of 1549. 
 And article (6) represents an intermediate stage of the 
 Calendar. 
 
 It may be stated that the paper of Articles (4) (5) 
 and (6) has the same watermark, see the " PA " on the 
 wrist of the hand shown in the mark, which does not 
 appear elsewhere in the volume. 
 
 The print here givejz of the MS. 
 
 Article (4) is printed in Appendix II. 
 Article (2) is given in Appendix III. 
 Articles (i) (5) and (6), the three Calendars, are dealt 
 with together in Appendix IV. 
 
 History of the MS. 
 
 As is well known, the greater part at least of Cran- 
 mer's library on his attainder in Mary's reign passed 
 into the possession of Henry, last earl of Arundel of 
 the line of Fitzalan. It was placed by him in the 
 splendid house which he subsequently fitted up at 
 Nonsuch. "The same he has left to his posterity, gar- 
 nished and replenished with rich furniture among the 
 which his library is right worthy of remembrance". 
 <B. Mus. MS. Reg. 17 A. IX, f 26b.) 
 
 The earl's elder and favourite daughter was already 
 married to John, lord Lumley. Both he and his father- 
 in-law appear as large purchasers in the sales of Cran- 
 mer's goods after his attainder. (R. O. Exch. Q. R. Mis- 
 -cellanea. ^J*) 
 
 Apparently therefore either by the gift of the earl 
 of Arundel (in 157 9) or by his own original purchase, 
 the bulk of Cranmer's books and MSS. passed into 
 lord Lumley's possession. On his death in 1609 this 
 
314 Appendix /. 
 
 library came into the hands of Henry, Prince of Wales^ 
 by which means the greater part of them are now in 
 the Royal library or among the Royal manuscripts in 
 the British Museum. 
 
 The MS. 7 B. IV it is true, does not any more than 
 his * Common Place Books ' contain Cranmer's signature,. 
 But this is easily explained by the nature of the book 
 itself, and it does bear at the bottom of folio 4a. the 
 autograph of " Lumley ", which in addition to the intern- 
 al evidence of Cranmer's handwriting is sufficient 
 proof of its history. 
 
APPENDIX 11. 
 
 cranmer's breviary scheme. 
 
 This is a print of Article 2 of the Eoyal MS. 
 7 B. IV and comprises Cranmer's projected Brev- 
 iary. The relative table of lessons is dealt with 
 in Appendix IV. 
 
 In the follovp-ing print the spelling and irregula- 
 rities of the orij^inal have been retained ; the erasures 
 in the MS. are indicated in the notes, and Cran- 
 mer's annotations are printed in capitals. Only the 
 variations from the Sarum text are given for the 
 collects after Trinity. The orthography and mis- 
 takes in this portion of the MS. often recall those 
 of the Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum (Harl. 
 MS. 426). 
 
 Some of the mistakes made by the scribe show 
 that he was not accustomed to the recitation of 
 the Divine Office 0- As a fact Morice although 
 so long a faithful servant of Cranmer was a lay- 
 man. One at least of the blunders suggests that 
 this part was written from dictation (the Easter 
 Hymn ^Ad ccenam agni providi'* was originally 
 written magni). But from other mistakes it seems 
 
 ^) e. g. In sempiternoe in place of supremce in the third 
 strophe of the Pange lingua. 
 
3i6 Appendix II. 
 
 certain that the secretary must have written usu- 
 ally from a rough draft which at times he found 
 difficult to decipher. 
 
 The sources from which Cranmer derived this 
 new^ Office are indicated in the notes. There is no 
 evidence that in this he used the York Breviary ; 
 but it is clear that he employed both Sarum and 
 Quignon. The source of some passages has not 
 been found, and it is possible that even some of 
 the Sarum material may have been overlooked, 
 as Cranmer frequently changes the traditional 
 use of parts of the service. 
 
 It need hardly be pointed out to any one famil- 
 iar with the Sarum breviary that even this early 
 scheme was a definite departure from the ancient 
 English order of service, and in many respects wint 
 beyond that proposed by Cardinal Quignon. 
 
 The Breviary opens, it will be understood, with 
 the order of the office for the first Sunday of 
 Advent, which served as a model for the rest of 
 the year. 
 
(fol. 1-^12.) HORARUM CANONICARUM SERIES. 
 
 Ad matutinas. 
 
 Ante omnes horas tarn dmrnas quam nocturnas per 
 totum an7zi czirsum dicatur Oratio doniinica. * Qua dicta 
 continuo incipief^ sacerdos Domine labia etc, Deus in 
 adjutorium etc, Gloria patri etc, cum Haleluya. Htc mos 
 toto anno ohservandus est excepto quod a Septuagesima 
 usque ad Pascha in loco Aleluya dicetur Laus tibi 
 domine rex eterne glorie. ^ 
 
 Invitatorium, Christum Dominum per prophetas pro- 
 missum Venite adoremus. ^ Psalmus Venite exultemus 
 etc. cum Gloria patri. "" Invitatorium non repetatur 
 
 * This is derived from Quignon, " Ad matutinum. Oratio dominicalis 
 Pater noster. Et praemittitur singulis horis per totum annum" (p. 19 
 of Dr. Legg's reprint). The Quignon Breviary is designated below as 
 "Q"; the Sarum as "S". 
 
 * Q. interpolates here at matins confession and absolution ; in Sarum 
 immediately after Pater ^ Ave, and (perhaps) Credo, comes " Domine 
 labia mea" etc. Cranmer in this follows Sarum. In the commencement 
 of the other hours the MS, follows Q. 
 
 * The practice of exchanging Alleluia for Laus tibi is the same in 
 S. and Q. But the form of the rubric and its insertion here are evi- 
 dently suggested by Q. (p. 19). — The "ad pascha" of the text is 
 corrected by the inserted rubric at Coena Domini (fol. 141b). 
 
 * This Invitatory is not in S. Q. or York. 
 
 a In margin. 
 
3i8 Appendix II. 
 
 AMPLIUS ANTE FINEM PSALMI. ^ Et PSALMUS ALTER- 
 NATUM DICATUR. Hymnus, Verbum supernum etc.^ 
 Psalmi ex ordine designatu Finiantur autevi psalmi 
 omnes et cantica per to turn annum cum Gloria patri 
 etc. Anttphona, Nox precessit dies autem appropinquavit ; 
 abjiciamus ergo opera tenebrarum, et induamur arma 
 lucis. "^ Lectiones tres ex kalendario designato petende 
 sunt. "' 
 
 Hec regula ponatur ante lectiones.^ Bene- 
 dictio ad primavi lectionem reddenda, Benedictione 
 perpetua benedicat nos pater eternus. -^^2'^^', Deus Dei 
 filius nos benedicere et adjuvare dignetur. ^^3«»«, Spi- 
 ritus Sancti gratia illuminet '^ sensus et corda nostra. 
 Ad 4. In charitate perfecta confirmet nos Trinitas 
 Sancta. ^ Porro unaqueque lectio swe ad matutmas sive 
 ad vespertmas horas cum Jube Domine benedicere, sa- 
 cerdote benedtctionem suhjungente, mchoabttur ; at que 
 terminahitur cum Tu autem Domine miserere nostri 
 
 * The provision for saying the Invitatory only twice comes from Q, 
 (p. 19). The second text of Quignon makes different provisions for (i) 
 recitation alone (2) by two or more. 
 
 ® This hymn is from S. not Q. From this point the scheme of matins 
 departs from the arrangements of Sarum altogether to follow the order 
 of Q. with probably three psalms, and with three lessons. Q. however 
 has no antiphon, and inserts a Pater nosier before the lessons. (S. : Pater 
 and Ave). 
 
 ^ This is the first antiphon of the third nocturn of Advent Sunday in S. 
 
 * These four benedictions are the three of the first nocturn /^r a/z«MW 
 on days of nine lessons, and the ninth of the Sunday office from Trinity 
 to Advent, in S. But for the Sarum reading " corda et corpora " Cranmer 
 substitutes that of Q. "sensus et corda" (p. 22). 
 
 a At this point is the following, afterwards crossed through by Cran- 
 mer apparently : " Quarta lectio ex Danide ca. 9., Septuaginta hebdo- 
 madas (so MS.) abbreviate sunt usque ad perseverabit desolacio". 
 
 b In margin. Cranmer first began: " Benedictiones p"; this is cross- 
 ed through. 
 
 c Originally: "illuuiinet corda"; corrected by the scribe. 
 
Appendix II, 319 
 
 (fol. 133b) et respondebitur Propter magnam misericor- 
 diam tuam. ^ FiNlTiS LECTIONIBUS " sequatur psalmus 
 Miserere mei Deus etc. Qui psalmus hoc in loco dicen- 
 dus est cotidie usque ad Natalem Domini, et a Sep- 
 tuagesima ad Pas c ha. A His autem temporibus dicatur 
 Te Deum laudamus etc. ^^ 
 
 Ad laudes. " 
 
 Sacerdos ^ incipiet Deus in adjutorium etc. ut supra ad 
 matutinas. Psalmi ex ordine designati et canticuvi Be- 
 
 ^ The substance of this rubric "Porro" etc. may be from either 
 S. or Q. ; but the response " Propter " &c. is from neither, nor from York, 
 
 '® As the provision, " Finitis lectionibus " &c. is derived from Q, (p. i 
 and p. 19), the precise edition used by Cranmer may perhaps be iden- 
 tified. The first printed edition, designated by Dr. Legg as R., reads 
 in the text, p. i, "a dominica in septuagesima ", but in the list 
 of errata is this correction "a feria quarta cinerum". And in fact the 
 change from Te Deum to Miserere is prescribed not at Septuagesima 
 (P" 39) but at Ash Wednesday (p. 42). The later prints (designated 
 P. and A. by the editor) have the correction "a feria quarta cinerum" 
 in the text. Cranmer follows the original reading in the first edition 
 (R.) at p. I. But it is to be remembered that S. lays aside Te Deum 
 (though it does not substitute Miserere") on Septuagesima. 
 
 ** In lauds, Cranmer has so far departed from the order of Sarum 
 in favour of Quignon's arrangement that it can serve no purpose to 
 point out in detail where his scheme differs from the english rite. 
 
 In adopting Q, as his model he has made the following changes : 
 {a) inserted a little chapter before the canticle Benedictus^ and (<?) an 
 antiphon after it ; {c) substituted " Dominus vobiscum " for the verse 
 "Domine exaudi orationem meam" and its response before the collect ; 
 {d) omitted the commemorations ; and {e) has (like Sarum) " Dominus 
 vobiscum" instead of "Fidelium animae" &c. at the close. (See Q. 
 pp. 22 — 23). This applies to the termination of all the hours. " Domi- 
 nus vobiscum" nowhere occurs in Quignon's first text; this may be 
 thought by some to confirm the view that it was originally designed 
 for private, not public, recitation. 
 
 a Originally " Deinde ". 
 
 b Originally : " Finita oratione dominica sacerdos ". The first three 
 words have been' crossed through by the rubricator. This correction is 
 in accordance with traditional piaciice. 
 
320 Appendix II. 
 
 nedictus etc. Ante Benedictus dicatur capitulum 
 
 EX SAPIENTIALIBUS LIBRIS. Et RESPONDEATUR DeO 
 GRATIAS. " Anttphona, Gaudete in Domino semper. Mo- 
 destia vestra nota sit omnibus hominibus. Dominus 
 prope est. *^ 
 
 Omnes colledas precedat Dominus vobiscum etc. 
 Oremus. Excita quesumus domine potentiam tuam et 
 veni ; ut ab imminentibus peccatorum nostrorum periculis 
 te protegente eripiamur, et te liberante salvemur. *^ Qui 
 vivis etc. cum Dominus vobiscum etc. Benedicamus etc. 
 
 HeE PRECES DICANTUR AD PRIMAM POST ANTIPHO- 
 
 NAM DE TRINITATE. " * Postremo sequantuT preces cii77i 
 prostratione '^ hoc modo. 
 
 ^'^ This is part of the third ant. of the third noct. on Sundays in 
 Advent in S. (II, 26—47 of^ the Cambridge reprint which is referred 
 to hereafter in the notes). 
 
 *' This is the prayer for the first Sunday of Advent in S. and Q„ 
 which however read " te mereamur protegente eripi^ te liberante salvari". 
 It will be noticed that various expedients are resorted to in the MS. 
 to avoid the use of the "mereamur" of the ancient prayers. 
 
 ** These preces are derived from S. not Q. 
 
 They appear to be adapted from the preces feriaks of lauds (I, liv, 
 or II, 89) with considerable omissions; with the addition of "Ostende" 
 etc, from the preces at prime (II. 53) and of the antiphon of the 
 memoria de pace at Vespers (I, xi) cut into two so as to form a verse 
 and resp. The prayer is the Sarum version of the ordinary prayer after 
 the preces at prime with the substitution of " serva" for "salva". From the 
 direction " Sacerdos. Et ne nos" it may be gathered that the Lord's 
 prayer was intended here to be said secretly according to the ancient mode. 
 
 These preces were incorporated in the prayer book of 1549 at the 
 end of matins and evensong ; with the insertion of the creed before 
 the Lord's prayer, the direction that " the minister shall say " these " with 
 a loud voice", and the addition of a further suffrage at the end " O God 
 make clean" etc. and of two collects (of the day and for peace). 
 
 a In margin. 
 
 b In margin. Originally (in Cranmer's hand) " Hee preces dicantur post 
 primam". See note 17. 
 
 c " Cum prostratione " crossed through by the rubricator. But see 
 
 Cranmer's own directions later at prime. 
 
Appendix II. 321 
 
 Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison, 
 Pater noster etc.^ Sacerdos, Et ne nos etc. R. Sed 
 libera etc, 
 
 Sacerdos. Ostende nobis Domine misericordiam tuam. 
 Resp. Et salutare tuum da nobis. 
 
 Sacerdos. Domine salvum fac Regem. 
 Resp. Et exaudi nos in die qua invocaverimus te. 
 
 Sacerdos. Sacerdotes tui induantur justitia. 
 R. Et sancti tui exultent. 
 
 Sacerdos. Salvum fac populum tuum Domine. 
 R. Et benedic hereditati tue. 
 
 Sacerdos. Da pacem Domine in diebus (f. 134a) nostris. 
 R. Quia non est alius qui pugnet pro nobis nisi 
 
 tu solus Deus. 
 Sacerdos. Dominus vobiscum etc. 
 Oremus. Domine sancte pater omnipotens eteme Deus 
 
 qui nos ad principium hujus diei etc.'^^ Per 
 
 Christum etc. 
 
 Ad primam. *® 
 
 Post recitatam dommtcam orationem incipiet sacerdos 
 Deus in adjutorium etc. tit supra ad matutinas. Hymnus, 
 Jam lucis etc. Psalmi ex or dine destgnati. Atque in 
 diehus dominicis et festivis sequetur symbolum Atha- 
 nasii Quicumque vult etc. In aliis diebus Credo in Deum 
 patrem etc. Antiphona^ Te jure laudant, te glorificant 
 
 1* The Sarutn version of the prayer; but for "salva" the MS. reads 
 " serva ", and (doubtless by oversight) " moderatione " tor " moderamine ". 
 
 ^^ This order of Prime is taken from Quignon pp. 23 — 4, differing 
 as widely from Sarum as in the case of lauds. 
 
 The changes made in adopting Q. are as follows : {a) after the creed 
 an antiphon de Trinitate is inserted, "Te jure'* etc. This is taken, with 
 omission of the words " Te adorant" from S. (II, 49) ; {b) for a mere 
 verse and resp. in Q. the preces are substituted, as to which see notes 
 14 and 18; {c) the admission of a fragment of the ancient officium 
 Capituli (see note 19). 
 
322 Appendix 11. 
 
 omnes creature tue, O beataTrinitas. " *' HiC DICANTUR 
 PRECES CUM PROSTRATIONE. ^ ^^ Finttis precihus^ 
 legatur loco Martilogn historia de festo si que contigerit. 
 Deinde ^ dicet sacerdos Pretiosa in conspectu Domini. 
 R. Mors sanctorum ejus. Oremus. Sancta Maria mater 
 Domini nostri Jesu Christi atque omnes sancti justi et 
 electi Dei orent pro nobis PECCATORIBUS ad * Dominum 
 Deum nostrum, ut nos ab eo (fol. 134b) et adjuvemur 
 et salvemur. Qui in trinitate perfecta vivit et regnat 
 Deus. Per omnia etc. Dominus vobiscum etc. Benedicamus 
 etc.''^ 
 
 '^'' The rubric erased (see note a below) seems to shew that the 
 original intention of the compiler was to attach the preces to lauds; 
 on second thoughts they were transferred to the end of prime (see 
 note/); and eventually they are placed, more in accordance with pre- 
 cendent, before the remnant of the officimn Capituli. 
 
 ^"^ [n the ancient rite the preces were, and still are, said by those in 
 choir, in the penitential seasons, kneeling; at other times, standing. 
 "Cum prostratione" is therefore quite in place here for Advent. The 
 direction (as to which Cranmer himself seems to have been doubtful) 
 hence found its way, but as a general direction throughout the year, 
 into the Prayer Book of 1549, "all devoutly kneeling". This rubric 
 was altered in 1552 into one prescribing the practice now prevailing, 
 in which the ancient distinction of seasons is still lost. 
 
 ^' "Deinde dicet" etc. This is a remnant of the ancient Sarum 
 ofjicium Capihili, which, like so much else that implies choral or common 
 recitation of the office, finds no place in Q. The nature of this office 
 
 a " Sacerdos, Dominus vobiscum etc, Oremus Sequatur oratio de die, 
 Excita quesumus etc. ut suj)ra ad laudes et finiatur cum Per Christum 
 Dominum nostrum". This has been crossed through. See note 17. 
 
 b In margin. Cranmer first wrote merely: "Hie dicantur preces". 
 This is crossed through. But the direction is immediately renewed in 
 the form printed above. 
 
 c Originally: "Finita prima"; the correction is in Cranmer 's hand. 
 
 d Originally : " Post quam lectam " ; crossed through. 
 
 e Before Cranmer's correction the text stood "nobis per Dominum ". 
 
 / At the end of prime is this direction in Cranmer's hand, afterwards 
 crossed through : " Hoc loco dicantur preces ". 
 
Appendix II. 323 
 
 Ad terttam. °^^ 
 
 Deus in adjutorium etc. ut supra ad viatutinas. 
 
 Hymnus, Nunc sancte nobis Spiritis etc. Psalmi ex 
 or dine designati. Antiphona, Laus et perennis gloria 
 Deo patri et filio sancto simulque Paracleto in secula 
 seculorum. ^^ Sacerdos, Dominus vobiscum etc. et sequatur 
 oratio de die. 
 
 Ad sextant. ^° 
 
 Hymnus, Rector potens etc. Antiphona, Ostende 
 nobis Domine misericordiam tuam, et salutare tuum da 
 nobis. ^'"^ Cetera ut supra ad tertiam. 
 
 Ad nonam. ^'^ 
 
 Hymnus, Rerum Deus tenax etc. Psalmi ex ordtne 
 designati. Antiphona, Alter alterius onera portate et 
 sic adimplebitis legem Christi. ^^ Cetera ut supra ad 
 tertiam. His persolutis sequantur preces cum prostra^ 
 
 in Sarum sufficiently appears from I, dcclxxxiv and dccxciv, and II, 
 54 — 55- Whilst Cranmer has "Oremus" before "Sancta Maria" etc. 
 the Sarum rubric has "Deinde dicat Sacerdos sine Oremus^'. 
 
 The "Sancta Maria" etc. shews the following variants from Sarum 
 [a) the omission of the words "Dei", "intercedant et" and " Deum" ; 
 (h) the insertion of " Jesum Christum " {c) the change of " ut nos 
 mereamur ab eo adjuvari et salvari " into "ut nos ab eo adjuvemur 
 et salvemur." 
 
 ^® The order of Tierce and Sext (and of None up to the preces) 
 is modelled on Quignon (p. 24). The differences are : {a) that Cranmer 
 admits an antiphon at each hour ; {b) that for the verse " Domine 
 exaudi" etc. Cranmer has "Dominus vobiscum", etc. (see note ii 
 above). 
 
 *^ This is the antiphon at Tierce for Sunday in S. (II, 60, but 
 "simul" not "simulque"). 
 
 ** This is the resp. and vers, for Advent after the little chapter of 
 Sext in S., turned into an antiphon. (II, 66). 
 
 " This is the little chapter for ferias out of Advent in S. (II, 68). 
 turned into an antiphon. 
 
324 Appendix II, 
 
 tione. ^ "■ Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison, etc. ut sztpra 
 post laudes ^^ preter orationem que est Adesto Domine 
 supplicationibus nostris, et viam famulorum tuorum in 
 salutis tue prosperitate dispone, ut inter omnes vie et 
 vita hujus (fol. 135a) varietates tuo semper protegamur 
 auxilio. ^ Per Dominum etc. 
 
 Ad vesperas. ^"^ 
 
 Dicta oratione dominica iftcipiet sacerdos Deus in 
 adjutorium etc. ut supra ad matutinas. Hymmis, Con- 
 ditor alme siderum etc. Psalmi ex ordine desis'fiati. 
 
 Statim post psalmos dicatur canticum Magnificat etc. 
 cum Gloria patri etc. Antiphona, Sobrie et juste et pie 
 vivamus in hoc seculo, expectantes beatam spem et 
 adventum glorie Dei. ^^ Deinde sequatur henedictio ante 
 lectionem, Divinum auxilium maneat semper nobiscum. ^^ 
 At que hec henedictio perpetuo ad vesperas dicetur. 
 Lectio ex kalendario. 
 
 Benedictiones ad hujus diei lectiones toto anno non 
 
 24 The ferial preces of lauds (see note 14 above) were in S. said 
 after matins, tierce, sext, none, and vespers of ferias (not Sundays) in 
 Advent (see I, Iv). Cranmer has reduced their recitation to prime and 
 none, but attached them to the Sunday office also. 
 
 25 The necessity for the correction, "post primam", has escaped 
 notice. 
 
 ^^ This prayer is the collect for the mass pro iter agentibusy and the 
 third prayer of the Ilinerarium of the present breviaries. 
 
 27 The order of vespers again is taken from Q. (p. 24), with the 
 following modifications: (a) an antiphon is added after Magnificat; 
 (^) a lesson, that is chapter from the Bible, with its preliminary blessing, 
 is introduced before the prayer ; ic) " Dominus vobiscum" etc. is 
 substituted for "Domine exaudi" etc. (see note ii above). 
 
 28 This is Titus II, 12. 13. "Sobrie ... seculo " is part of the little 
 chapter of lauds and tierce on Christmasday in S. (I. clxxxix and cxciii). 
 
 29 This was an occasional benediction in S. (see II, leaf B ) 
 
 a The words "Cetera.... prostratione" crossed through by the 
 rubricator. Cranmer adds "stet". 
 
Appendix II. .3-5 
 
 mutantur. Ipsas tamen lectiones cotidte mutatas ex 
 kalendario petes, preter illas que certis quibusdam dtebus 
 dicende seorsim asst'gnantur. 
 Sequatur Dominus vobiscum etc. cum oratione de die. 
 
 Ad completorium. ^ 
 
 Recitata oratione dominica dicat sacerdos Converte 
 nos Deus salutaris noster. R. Et averte iram tuam a 
 nobis. Sacerdos, Deus in adjutorium etc, ut supra ad 
 matutinas. Hymnus, Salvator mundi etc. ^^ Psalmi ex 
 or dine designati. Statim post psalmos sequatur canticum 
 Nunc dimittis etc. (fol. 135b) Antiphona, Salva no? 
 Domine vigilantes, custodi nos dormientes ut vigilemus 
 in Christo et requiescamus in pace. ^^ Deinde sequantur 
 preces cum prostratione. ^^ Kyrie eleison etc. ut supra 
 ad laudes. Oratio. Illumina quesumus Domine Deus 
 tenebras nostras, et totius noctis insidias tu a nobis 
 repelle propitius. Per Dominem nostrum Jesum Christum 
 filium suum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate 
 Spiritus Sancti Deus per omnia secula seculorum. ^ 
 
 30 The order of compline is derived from Q. fp. 25), but with the 
 following variations : (a) an antiphon is inserted after Nunc dimittis, 
 {b) followed by the preces as prescribed at prime ; preces are commonly 
 excluded by Quignon and Cranmer here imitates Sarum (but see note 
 33)« if) " Fidelium animae" is omitted (see note 1 1 (e) above) ; (d) the 
 antiphon of the Blessed Virgin after compline is omitted. 
 
 31 This hymn is not in Q. but is taken from S. in which it is the 
 compline hymn for Christmastide and Epiphany with certain other feasts 
 as explained II, 226. 
 
 32 This is the antiphon on Nunc Dimittis in S. from the octave of 
 Epiphany to Lent, and the morrow of Trinity to Advent with certain 
 exceptions explained I, 228 (cf. also II, ccclxvii). 
 
 33 The preces of compline differ considerably from those of lauds 
 and prime in S. It will be observed that Cranmer reduces them to a 
 single unvarying form. 
 
 3* This prayer is from Sarum; Q. has the "Visita'' appropriate for 
 conventual, but less so for secular, churches. 
 
 X 
 
326 Appendix 11. 
 
 Amen. Sacerdos, Dominus vobiscum. R. Et cum spiritu 
 tuo. Benedicamus Domino. R. Deo gratias. 
 
 Que oratio servatur hoc die in horis ecclesiasticis, 
 eadem per totum anni circulum observanda est nisi 
 peculiari regula aliter pro tempore cautum sit. 
 
 '^ Memorie detur oportere ^«^/^"<;^Benedictus, Magnificat, 
 et Nunc dimittis sic sequi precedentes psalmos ut nihil in- 
 ters eratur, sed sine inters titio cum psalmis precedentibus 
 perpetuo ductu canantur. ^ 
 
 Dominica 2^ "" 
 
 Dominica secunda adventus Domim. ^ 
 
 Oratio. Excita Domine corda nostra ad preparandas 
 unigeniti tui vias ; ut per ejus adventum purificatis tibi 
 mentibus serviRE' valeamus. ^ Qui tecum etc. 
 
 (fol. 136a.) Dominica 3" Adventus Domini. 
 
 ^ Oratio. Aurem tuam quesumus Domine precibus 
 nostris accommoda: et mentis nostre tenebras gratia 
 tuae visitationis illustra. Qui vivis etc. 
 
 35 Here, as generally elsewhere, the collect is that proper for the 
 day, as found in the ancient office books and Quignon. It is unnecessary 
 therefore to do more in such cases than point out any variants of the 
 MS. from the ancient text. Here, "servire valeamus" is substituted for 
 the traditional "servire mereamur". 
 
 a A line has been drawn across this passage (" Memorie ... ca- 
 nantur") as if for deletion. 
 
 h "Conantur" MS. 
 
 c In margin. 
 
 d ^^ Lectio quarta ex Esaie ca. il, Egredietur virga etc. usque ad 
 aqua (so MS.) maris operientes". This has been crossed through. 
 
 e Originally, "serviamus". 
 
 f '■^Lectio 4 ex Esa. 35, Confortamini, nolite timere etc. usque ad 
 dolor et gemitus". Crossed through. 
 
Appendix II. 327 
 
 Dominica ^a Adventus Domini. 
 
 ^ Oratio. Excita quaesumus Domine potentiam tuam 
 ■et veni, et magna nobis virtute succurre ; ut per auxilium 
 gratie tue, quod peccata nostra ^^ prepediunt, indulgentia 
 tue propitiationis acceleret. Qui vivis etc. 
 
 In Natali Domini. 
 
 Ad primas vesper as. Hymnus, Veni redemptor 
 omnium^' etc. Antiphona, Implete sunt dies Marie ut 
 pareret filium suum primogenitum. ^^ Oratio. Concede 
 quesumus omnipotens Deus ; ut nos unigeniti tui nova 
 per camem nativitas liberet, quos sub peccati jugo 
 vetusta servitus tenet. Per Dominum nostrum ^^ etc. 
 Lectio ponatur ante lectionem. ^ Lectio ex Esaia 
 40, Consolamini, consolamini popule meus usque ad 
 fetas ipse portabit. '"*^ 
 
 Ad ?natutinas. Invitatorium, Christum verum Deum 
 ^erumque hominem natum ex Maria virgine, Venite 
 ^doremus. ''* Hymnus, Christe redemptor omnium ^^ etc. 
 
 ^* S. has "peccata nostra" as here ; Q., "nostra peccata". 
 
 ^' "Omnium'' probably a mistake of the scribe for "gentium" ; the 
 compiler evidently follows S. in the choice .of hymns for vespers and 
 matins on Christmas day. 
 
 ^* This ant. is the 5th of the first vespers of Christmas day in S. ; 
 but "completi" has been changed to "implete" ; this may be a cor- 
 rection by the Vulgate (Luc. II. 6). 
 
 '^ This prayer is not said in S. until lauds on Christmas day ; in Q. 
 (as here) it is begun at the first vespers. 
 
 *" This is the second lesson of matins on Christmas day in S. 
 
 ** This Invitatory is not in S. Q. or York. 
 
 *^ See note 37. 
 
 a ^'■Lectio ex Esai. ca. 52, Consurge, consurge usque «^s alutare Dei 
 nostri"; crossed through, 
 
 b So MS. for, "orationem". This note is in the margin. 
 c "Portavit". MS. 
 
32 8 Appen dix II. 
 
 Anttphona, Dominus dixit ad me, filius meus es tu,. 
 ego hodie genui te. ''^ Lectio prima ex Esaie ca. q, 
 Populus qui ambulabat usque ad exercituum faciet hoc. 
 (fol. 136b). Lectio secunda ex'' lOYi. i^ In principio 
 erat verbum etc. usque ad in sinu patris ipse enarravit. 
 Lectio 3** ex Luc. 2^ Factum est autem usque ad 
 sicut dictum est ad illos. Lectio /^ ex Math, i, Liber 
 generationis Jesu Christi usque ad et vocavit nomen 
 ejus Jesum. "** 
 
 Ad laudcs Antiphona, Facta est cum angelo mul- 
 titude celestis exercitus laudantium et dicentium, Gloria 
 in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bone volun- 
 tatis. ^^ Oratio. Concede quesumus ut supra ad primas 
 vesperas. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Hymnus, A solis ortus cardine^^ etc. 
 Antiphona, O admirabile commertium, creator generis 
 humani animatum corpus sumens de virgine nasci 
 dignatus est, et procedens homo sine semine largitus 
 est nobis suam deitatem. "" Lectio ex epistola ad Titum 
 Apparuit gratia Dei salvatoris nostri usque ad sunt 
 enim inutiles et vane. '^ 
 
 In festo Divi Stephani. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Ex Act. Yl'^o Lectio prijfta, In 6\ehMS 
 illis crescente numero ^/<;. ^J'f^^^<2^faciem ejus tanquam 
 
 *^ The first ant. of the first noct. in S. 
 
 ** The first and fourth lessons are suggested by the first lesson and 
 gospel of matins of Christmas day in S.; the second and third, perhaps 
 by the gospels of the three masses. 
 
 *° The fourth ant. of lauds on Christmas day in S.; the final Alle- 
 luia omitted. 
 
 *« So too in S. 
 
 *'^ In S. this is the first of lauds on the feast of the Circum- 
 cision, and the ant. at lauds on the Vigil of the Epiphany. 
 
 *® Perhaps suggested by the epistle of the first mass on Christmas day. 
 
 a By mistake of the scribe "Luc. 2" originally. 
 
Appendix II. 329 
 
 faciem angeli. Lectio 2". Dixit autem princeps sacerdotum 
 usque ad nutrivit eum sibi in filium. Lectio ^'^ ex Act. 7^, 
 Et eruditus est Moyses usque ad in operibus manuum 
 suarum. 
 
 (fol. 137a). Ad vesper as. Lectio ex eodem. Convertat 
 se autem Deus usque ad consentiens neci ejus. 
 
 In festo divi Johannis Evangeliste. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Lectio prima ex Math. 4, Ambulans 
 Jesus juxta etc. usque ^</secuti sunt eum. Lectio secunda 
 ex Joan. 13, Amen, amen, dico vobis usque ad dAo;}x\& 
 <iixerit ei. Lectio 3" ex Joan. 21, Et cum hoc dixisset 
 etc. usque ad verum est testimonium ejus. 
 
 lii festo d. Innocentium. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Lectio 4 ex Math. 2^, Ecce Angelus 
 Domini etc. tisque ad noluit consolari quia non sunt. 
 
 Circumcisio Domini. 
 
 Ad primas vesperas. Lectio ex Gen. 17, Postquam" 
 Abraham nonaginta et novem etc. usque ad pariter 
 -circumcisi sunt. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Lectio i" ex D enter. 10, Et nunc 
 Israel quid Dominus Deus tuus etc. usque ad sicut a.stra. 
 celi. Lectio 2'^ ex Galath. 5, Fratres non sumus ancille 
 filii etc. usque ad fides que per charitatem operatur. 
 Lectio 3° ex Luc. 2^, Et postquam consummati sunt 
 dies etc. usque ad priusquam in utero conciperetur. 
 
 Lectio ad Vesperas ex Colloss. 2°, Videte ne quis vos 
 decipiat etc. usque ad ad saturitatem camis. 
 
 Epiphania Domini. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Hymnus^ Hostis Herodes impie*^ etc. 
 
 *^ The choice of the Epiphany hymns is from S. which however 
 had no hymn at matins and said "A Patre" etc. at lauds. 
 
 a Originally: "Postquam vero nonaginta." / 
 
330 Appendix II. 
 
 {fol. 137b). Lectio ex Esate 60, Surge illuminare Hieru- 
 salem etc. usque ad laudem Domino annunciantes. ^ 
 
 Ad moLtutinas. Hymnus, A patre unigenitus "^^ etc. 
 Lectio i" Ex Math. 2°. Cum natus esset Jesus etc. 
 usque ad reversi sunt in regionem suam. Lectio secunda 
 ex cap. 3®. Math. In diebus illis venit Johannes baptizans 
 etc. usque ad in quo mihi bene complacui. Lectio tertia 
 ex Joan. 2^, Et die tertia nuptie facte etc. usque ad 
 crediderunt in eum discipuli ejus. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Lectio ex Esaie 49, Et nunc hecdicit 
 Dominus formans me etc. usque ad pauperum suorum 
 miserebitur. Hec oratio ponatur ad primas ves- 
 peras. "^ Oratio. Deus, qui hodierna die Unigenitum 
 tuum gentibus stella duce revelasti: concede propitius^ 
 ut qui jam te ex fide cognovimus, usque ad contem- 
 plandam speciem tue celsitudinis perducamur. ^^ Per 
 Christum Dominum etc. 
 
 Dominica prima post octavas, ^^ Epiphanie, 
 
 Invitatorium^ Dominum qui fecit nos Venite adore- 
 mus. ^^ Hymnus, Eteme rerum conditor ^ etc. Antt- 
 phona ad matutinas, Servite Domino in timore et 
 exultate ei cum tremore. ^ 
 
 Anttpho7ia ad laudes, Spiritus omnis laudet Dominum,. 
 
 "^^ The third lesson of matins of Epiphany in b. 
 
 In S. this is the prayer at lauds and second vespers. In Q. one 
 prayer only as here". 
 
 "Post octavas." This arrangement (as well as that of the following 
 Sundays) follows S. It is to be presumed the office of the feast was 
 to be repeated on the Sunday within the octave. 
 " The Invitatory for fridays in S. 
 ^* The Sunday hymn at lauds in S. 
 
 The first ant, of the first noct. of the Sunday office from the octave 
 of Epiphany to Passion Sunday in S. 
 
 a In margin. 
 
Appendix II. 331 
 
 quia ipse dixit et facta (fol. 138a) sunt omnia, mandavit 
 et creata sunt universa. ^ Oratio. Vota quesumus Do- 
 mine supplicantis populi celesti pietate prosequere: ut 
 et que agenda sunt videant, et ad implenda que viderint 
 convalescant. Per Christum Dominum etc. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Deus creator ^' etc. Antiphona, 
 Sciamus omnes quia Dominus ipse est Deus, cui jubi- 
 lemus et exultemus et laudemus nomen ejus in eter- 
 num. ^ Invitatonum, hymrn] et antiphone hujus diet ad 
 diem cinerum durabunt. 
 
 Dominica 2*. 
 
 Oratio. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui celestia 
 simul et terrena moderaris : supplicationes populi tui 
 clementer exaudi, et pacem tuam nostris concede tem- 
 poribus. Per Christum etc. 
 
 Do7ninica 3". 
 
 Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, infirmitatem nostram 
 propitius respice ; atque ad protegendum nos dexteram 
 tue majestatis extende. Per Christum etc, 
 
 Dominica 4^*. 
 
 Deus, qui nos in tantis periculis constitutos, pro hum- 
 ana scis fragiHtate non posse subsistere ; da nobis salu- 
 tem mentis et corporis; ut ea que pro peccatis nostris 
 patimur te adjuvante vincamus. Per Christum etc. 
 
 (fol. 138b.) Dominica 5". 
 
 Familiam tuam quesumus Domine continua pietate 
 custodi ut que in sola spe gratie celestis nititur, tua 
 semper protectione muniatur. Per Christum etc. 
 
 ^^ The few occasions on which these antiphons were said (the 2nd 
 and 5th of lauds) see in S fll, 29). 
 
 ^' In S. the Sunday hymn of verpers until Lent was " Lucis creator" 
 (I, ccccxviii^ ; "Deus Creator" was said at vespers of the Saturday before 
 the first Sunday after the octave of Epiphany. 
 
332 Appendix II. 
 
 Dominica in Septuagesima. 
 
 '^ Hinc ad Pascha usque, loco Aleluya et Te Deum 
 dicetur Laus tibi Domine etc. et psalmus Miserere. ^^ 
 
 Oratio. Preces populi tui quesumus Domine clementer 
 exaudi ; ut qui juste pro peccatis nostris affligimur, pro 
 tui nominis gloria misericorditer liberemur. Per Chris- 
 tum etc, 
 
 Dominica 60". 
 
 Oratio. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, dirige actus 
 nostros in beneplacito tuo; ut in nomine dilecti filii tui 
 valeamus bonis operibus abundare. Per Christum etc. ^^ 
 
 Dominica quinquages. 
 
 Oratio. Preces nostras quesumus Domine clementer 
 exaudi ; atque a peccatorum nostrorum vinculis absolutes 
 ab omni nos adversitate custodi. Per Christum etc. 
 
 In die cinerum. 
 
 Invitatorium, Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis nolite 
 obdurare corda vestra. ^ Hymnus, Audi benigne ^^ etc. 
 Antiphona (fol. 139a). Convertimini ad me in toto corde 
 vestro in jejunio et fletu et planctu. ^l Lectio i" ex 
 Esaie 58, Clama ne cesses etc. usque ad erunt sicut 
 meridies. Lectio 2^ ex Jone 3°, Factum est verbum 
 
 ^^ See notes (3) and (10). 
 
 59 In S. this is the prayer "sexta die a nativitate domini " (I, cclxiv) ; 
 but "valeamus" has been substituted for "mereamur". The clause 
 "doctoris gentium protectione" in the Sarum prayer for Sexagesima, 
 originating in the roman station being at St. Paul's, doubtless induced 
 the compiler to omit it. 
 
 ^^ In S. the Invitatory on Passion Sunday ; at York, on the fourth 
 Sunday in Lent {Brev., Surtees Soc, I. 329). 
 
 ^'^ "Audi benigne" in S. begins on the first sunday of Lent (at lauds). 
 ^ Part of the little chapter of lauds, or ant. of memoria ^ro 
 pcenitentibus , on Ash Wednesday in S. 
 
Appendix 11. 333 
 
 Domini etc. usque ad et non fecit. Lectio 3" ex Joel 2^, 
 Magnus enim dies Domini etc. usque ad ut dominentur 
 eis nationes. 
 
 Ad laudes. Antiphona, Derelinquat impius viam 
 suam et vir iniquus cogitationes suas et revertatur ad 
 Dominum, et miserebitur ejus. ^^ Oratio. Exaudi quesu- 
 mus Domme supplicum preces, et confitentium tibi parce 
 peccatis ; ut pariter nobis indulgentiam tribuas benignus 
 et pacem. ^ Per Christum etc. 
 
 Ad vesper as. Hyinnus, Ex more docti mistico ^^ etc. 
 AntipJio^ia, Lavamini, mundi estote, auferte malum 
 cogitationum vestrarum ab oculis meis. ^® 
 
 Ad completorium. Loco Salvator mundi dicatiir hyvi- 
 nus Christe qui lux etc. ^' 
 
 Invitatorium, hymni et antiphonc p'rcsc7'ipia usque 
 ud dominicam in passione durabunt. ^^ 
 
 Dominica prima quadragesime. 
 
 Oratio. Inchoata jejunia quesumus Domine benigno 
 favore prosequere; ut observantiam quam corporaliter 
 exhibemus, mentibus etiam synceris exercere valeamus. *^^ 
 Per Christum etc. 
 
 62 Part of the little chapter of sext on the first monday in Lent, and 
 thenceforward on ferias for a fortnight. 
 
 6* The prayer of the memoria pro Jxznitentibus in S. (I, dlvii). 
 
 6^ In S. this hymn begins at first vespers of the first Sunday in Lent. 
 
 6* In S., part of the little chapter of tierce on monday after the first 
 Sunday in Lent and thenceforward on ferias to Passion Sunday. 
 
 6^ This hymn in S. is begun at compline on the first Sunday of Lent. 
 
 68 As is well known, though the season of Lent is now popularly 
 regarded as beginning, with the fast, on Ash "Wednesday, it was in 
 early times regarded. as beginning with the first Sunday; of this earlier 
 practice there is a survival in the Breviary which does not change to 
 the Lenten order until the first vespers of the Sunday. By the present 
 rubric the provisions of the traditional office books in this matter are 
 abolished. 
 
 ^'^ The prayer for friday after Ash Wednesday in S. 
 
334 Appendix II. 
 
 (fol. 139b.) Dominica secunda. 
 
 Oratio. Deus, qui conspicis omni nosvirtute destitui: 
 interius exteriusque custodi; ut et ab omnibus advers- 
 itatibus muniamur in corpore, et a pravis cogitationibus 
 mundemur in mente. Per eh:. 
 
 Dominica 3". 
 
 Oratio. Deus, innocentie restitutor et amator, dirige 
 ad te tuorum corda servorum ; ut spiritus tui fervore 
 concepto, et in fide inveniantur stabiles, et in opere 
 efficaces. '^ Per Christum Dominum nostrum. 
 
 Dominica 4". 
 
 Oratio. Concede quesumus omnipotens Deus ; ut qui 
 ex merito nostre actionis affligimur, tue gratie consol- 
 atione respiremus. Per Christum etc. 
 
 Dominica in passione. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Vexilla regis prodeunt. 
 Ad completorium ut ad 2''' vesperas. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Invitatorium, Christum Dei fihum 
 quia sua nos passione redemit, Venite adoremus. '* 
 
 Hymnus, i. Pange Hngua. 2. De parentis. 3. Hoc 
 opus nostre salutis. 4. Quando venit ^/^. 5. Vagitinfans 
 etc. 6. Gloria et honor etc. "^^ 
 
 70 The prayer of vespers on Wednesday after the second sunday 
 of Lent in S. 
 
 7^ This Invitatory, not in the traditional books, is taken from Q. 
 
 72 The hymn^ partly at matins and partly at lauds, on Passion Sunday 
 in S. which however omits the verse " Vagit infans". It is probable 
 that the source actually used was Clichtoveus's Elucidatorium fol. 30 b ; 
 for in Cranmer's copy of this book at the end of the verse " Vagit 
 infans " is a red ink mark ; such marks are readily to be recognised 
 by persons who have used the printed books formerly belonging to the 
 archbishop. It should be added, that the hymn in the form given in 
 the text is in Quignon, p. 53 — 4. But see also note 75, and the Intro- 
 ductory note to Appendix III. 
 
Appendix II. 335 
 
 Anttphona, Popule meus quid feci tibi, aut quid molest- 
 us fui. Responde mihi. '^ Lectio prima ex Math. 26, 
 Et factum est cum etc. usque ad hec fecit in memoriam 
 ejus. Lectio 2* ex eodem, Tunc abiit unus (fol. 140(2), 
 etc. usque ad exierunt in montem Oliveti. Lectio 3" ^;tr 
 eodem^ Tunc dixit illus Jesus, omnes vos etc. usque ad 
 Ecce, appropinquavit qui me tradet. 
 
 Ad laudes. Antiphona, Circumdederunt me canes 
 multi, consilium malignantium obsedit me. '"^ 
 
 Ad vesper as. Hymnus, I. Vexilla regis prodeunt. 
 2. Confixa clavis. 3. Quo vulneratus. 4. Impleta sunt. 
 5. Te summa Deus. '^ HiC HYMNUS DICATUR AD 
 PRIMAS VESPERAS *. Antiphona, Foderunt manus meas 
 et pedes meos et dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea. '''* 
 Lectio ex eodem ca. quo supra, Adhuc eo loquente 
 ecce etc. usque ad ut videret finem. 
 
 Hec oratio ponatur ad primas vesperas. " 
 Oratio. Omnipotens sempiteme Deus, qui humano generi, 
 ad imitandum humilitatis exemplum, salvatorem nostrum 
 camem sumere et crucem subire fecisti: concede pro- 
 pitius ; ut et patientie ipsius documenta, et resurrectionis 
 consortia HABERE^ valeamus. Per Christum Dominum 
 nostrum. 
 
 73 The fourth ant. of lauds in S. 
 
 7* The use of this verse (occurring in the first psalm of prime on 
 Sundays) for the antiphon was perhaps suggested by the ninth resp. of 
 matins on Passion Sunday in S. 
 
 75 Of this hymn the fifth, sixth and seventh verses, "Arbor decora", 
 "Beata cujus", and "O crux ave", given in S. and Q., are omitted 
 (Q. omits "Confixa clavis"). In Cranmer's copy of the Elucidatorium, 
 fol. 30a, there is a mark (slight, it is true) after the fourth verse ("Te 
 summa" in the doxology). 
 
 a In margin. 
 
 b The scribe had placed "habere" after "ipsius"; and this is the 
 reading of both Q. and S., in which this prayer is that of Palm Sunday, 
 
336 Appendix II. 
 
 Hoc COMPLETORIUM DICATUR AD PRIMAS VESPERAS. " 
 
 Ad completorium, Hymnus, Cultor Dei memento etc. 
 Antiphona^ Media vita in morte sumus. Quern querimus 
 adjutorem nisi te Domine, qui pro peccatis nostris juste 
 irasceris ; Sancte Deus, Sancte fortis, Sancte et miser- 
 icors, Salvator parce peccatis nostris. "'^ 
 
 Hujus diet mvitatormm, hymiii, a7ittphone, usque ad 
 Cenam Domini cotidie dicentur. 
 
 Feria secunda. 
 
 Ad matutinas, Lectio I. ex Math. 26, Princeps 
 autem sacerdotum etc. usque ad flevit amare. Lectio 2^ 
 ex Math. 27, (fol. 140b.) Mane autem facto usque 
 ad constituit mihi Dominus. Lectio 3" ex eodem ca, 
 Jesus autem stetit usque ad tradidit eis ut crucifi- 
 geretur. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Lectio ex eodem ca. Tunc milites etc. 
 usque ad Hie est Jesus rex Judeorum. 
 
 Feria tertia. 
 
 Lectio prima ex eodem cap. Tunc crucifixi sunt usque 
 ad et apparuerunt multis. Lectio 2^ ex eodem ca. Centurio 
 autem usque ad signantes lapidem cum custodibus. 
 Lectio ^'^ ex Marci 14, Erat autem pascha etc. usque 
 ad et paraverunt pascha. 
 
 Feria 4. 
 
 Lectio prima ex eodem, Vespere autem facto usque 
 ad exierunt in montem Oli varum. Lectio i"-^ ex eode^n 
 
 78 In S. this is the ant. on Nunc dimittis from the third sunday of 
 Lent to Passion Sunday (York from the 4th sunday to CrenaD omeni). 
 But both read at the end, "Salvator amarae morti ne tradas nos". 
 
 a In margin. 
 b "3'^" MS. 
 
Appendix II. 337 
 
 ca. Et ait eis Jesus, omnes scandalizabimini etc. usque 
 ad Ecce qui me tradet prope est. Lectio tertia ex 
 eodem, Et adhuc eo loquente usque ad conveniens 
 testimonium illorum. 
 
 Ad vesper as. Lectio ex eodem, Et surgens summus 
 sacerdos usque ad et cepit flere. 
 
 Feria Qiiinta. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Lectio I ex Marc. 15, Et confestim 
 mane usque ad flagellis cesum ut crucifigeretur. Lectio 
 2'^ ex eodem, Milites autem duxerunt etc. usque ad 
 convitiabantur ei. Lectio 3" ex eodem, Et facta hora 
 sexta usque ad aspiciebant ubi poneretur. 
 
 Lectio ad vesperas,"- Appropinquabat autem usque 
 ad et paraverunt pascha. 
 
 (fol. 141a.) Feria 6. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Lectio I, Et cum facta esset hora 
 usque ad qui hoc facturus esset. Lectio 2", Facta est 
 autem contentio usque ad dixit eis satis est. Lectio 3" 
 Et egressus ibat secundum etc. usque ad et potestas 
 tenebrarum. 
 
 Lectio ad vesperas. Comprehendentes autem eum etc. 
 usque ad audivimus de ore ejus. 
 
 Sabbatho, 
 
 Ad matutinas. Lectio prima ex Joan. 11, Erat autem 
 quidam languens Lazarus etc. usque ad et moriamur 
 cum eo. Lectio 2^, Venit itaque Jesus usque ad ut hie 
 non moreretur. Lectio tertia, Jesus ergo rursus usque 
 ad ut apprehendant eum. 
 
 Lectio ad vesperas, Jesus ergo ante sex dies usque 
 ad post eum abiit. 
 
 a The scribe has omitted here "ex Lucae 22'". 
 
338 Appendix II. 
 
 Ab hiis vesperis ad pascha dicatur oratio, 
 Respice quesumus Domine, etc." 
 
 Dominica palmarnm. 
 
 Lectio prima ad matuHnas ex Joan. ca. 12, Erant 
 autem quidam gentiles etc. usque ad et abscondit se 
 ab eis. Lectio secunda ex eodem, Cum autem tanta signa 
 etc. usque ad Pater sic loquor. Lectio 3" ^;r Math. cap. 
 21, Et cum appropinquasset usque ad ibique mansit. 
 
 Lectio ad vesperas, ex Joan, ca XIIP. Ante diem 
 festum pasche usque ad accipit eum qui me misit. 
 
 Feria 2". 
 
 Ad matutinas. Lectio prima ex Joan. ca. 13, Cum 
 hec (fol. 141b.) dixisset usque ad donee ter me neges. 
 Lectio 2" ex Joann. ca. 14, Et ait discipulus suis etc. 
 usque ad et in vobis erit. Lectio tertia ex eodem, Non 
 relinquam vos orphanos usque ad Surgite, eamus hinc. 
 
 Lectio ad vesperas ex Joan. ca. 15, Ego sum vitis 
 vera usque ad quia ab initio mecum estis. 
 
 Feria 3. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Lectio I ex Joann. ca. 1 6, Hec locutus 
 sum vobis usque ad quia vado ad patrem. Lectio 2'^ ex 
 eodem, Dixerunt ergo ex discipulis usque ad ego vici 
 mundam. Lectio 3" ex Joann. 17, Hec locutus est Jesus 
 usque ad et ego in ipsis. 
 
 Lectio ad vesperas ex Joan. ca. 1 8, Hec cum dixisset 
 Jesus usque ad et calefaciens se. 
 
 Feria tiii. 
 
 Lectio prima ex eodem, Pontifex ergo interrogavit 
 usque ad erat autem Barrabas latro. Lectio 2'^ ex Jo. 
 ca. 19, Tunc ergo apprehendit Pilatus usque ad ilium 
 
 " This prayer in S. begins at vespers on Wednesday; in Q. at lauds 
 of Holy Thursday. 
 
Appendix II. 339 
 
 ut crucifigeretur. Lectio 3" ex eodem^ Susceperunt autem 
 Jesum usque ad tradidit spiritum. 
 
 Lectio ad vesperas ex eodem, Judei ergo quoniam 
 etc. usque ad posuerunt Jesum. 
 
 Hoc TRIDUO NON DICITUR DOMINE LABIA, DeUS 
 IN ADJUTORIUM, GLORIA PATRI, NEC HYMNUS, NEC 
 
 Venite, NEC Invitatorium. '^ ". 
 
 In Cena Domini. 
 
 Ad matutinas, psalnii tres, viz. 68, Salvum me fac 
 Deus; (fol. 142a) et 69, Deus in adjutorium; et 70, In 
 te Domine speravi. Omittantur autem psalmi feriales 
 hoc die, et duohus sequentibus. Ad matutinas vero an- 
 tiphona, Zelus domus tue comedit me et opprobria 
 exprobrantium tibi ceciderunt (super) ^ me. '^ Lectio i*" 
 de Lamentationibus Hieremie, Quomodo sedet sola 
 civitas etc. usque ad et cor meum merens. Lectio 2" 
 ex Exod. 12, Dixit quoque Dominus ad Moisen 
 et Aaron etc. usque ad ritu perpetuo. Lectio ^^ ex 
 Hebr.'^ 11, Convenientibus ergo vobis etc, usque ad 
 cum hoc mundo damnemur. 
 
 Omittatur hoc TRiDUO '^ Miserere, quoniam ad laudes 
 postea dicetur. 
 
 Ad laudes. Antiphona^ Traditor autem dedit illis 
 signum dicens, Quemcumque osculatus fuero ipse est, 
 tenete eum. ^^ Kyrie Eleison. 
 
 78 The practice is the same in both S. and Q. ; but the wording of 
 the rubric is from S. 
 
 79 The psalms and ant. are from the first nocturn in S. 
 
 80 So too S. 
 
 a In margin. 
 
 b Omitted in MS. 
 
 c So MS. for « I Cor ". 
 
 d The scribe had written " loco ", 
 
340 Appendix II. 
 
 R. Domine miserere. Christus factus est obediens 
 usque (ad) mortem. 
 
 Sacerdos. Christe eleison. 
 
 R. Qui expansis in cruce manibus traxisti omnia ad 
 te secula. 
 
 Sacerdos. Christe eleison. 
 
 R. Qui prophetice prompsisti, Ero mors tua, O mors. 
 
 Sacerdos. Kyrie eleison. 
 
 R. Christus Dominus factus est obediens usque ad 
 mortem, mortem autem crusis. 
 
 Deinde sequatur (fol. 142b), psalmus Miserere cum 
 oratione Respice quesumus Domine super banc famil- 
 iam tuam, pro qua Dominus noster Jesus Christus non 
 dubitavit manibus tradi nocentium, et crucis subire tor- 
 mentum. Qui tecum etc. ^* 
 
 Ad vesper as. Antiphona, Cenantibus autem eis accepit 
 Jesus panem, benedixit, ac fregit deditque discipulis 
 suis. ^° Lectio ex Joann. 12, Ante diem festum etc. 
 usque ad accipit eum qui me misit. Oratio. Respice 
 quesumus etc. ut supra. 
 
 Ad completoriuTfi. Antiphona, Christus factus est pro 
 nobis obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem cru- 
 cis. ^ Oratio. Respice etc. 
 
 In die Parasccves, 
 
 Ad matutinas psalmi tres : 2, Quare fremuerunt ; 21,, 
 Deus Deus mens respice ; 26, Dominus illuminatio. Anti- 
 phona, Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea et super vestem 
 meam miserunt sortem. '^^ Lectio i" EX GEN. 22, Tentavit 
 Deus Abraham usque ad obedisti voci mee. Lectio 2% 
 ex Esai. Liii, Quis credidit auditui usque ad pro trans- 
 gressoribus rogavit. Lectio s"" ex epistola ad Hebr. ca. 9, 
 
 81 The text, with omissions, from S. (IT, dcclxxxii— iii) ; but by 
 reducing the whole to the method of mere prcces the dramatic force 
 of this part of the office is lost. 
 
Appendix II. 341 
 
 Habuit quidem et prius usque ad eteme hereditatis. 
 
 Ad laudes. Anttphona, Proprio filio suo non pe- 
 percit Deus, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit ilium. *^ 
 Preces cum oratione ut pridie. 
 
 (fol. 14.^,3..) Ad vesperas. Antiphona, Dederunt in escam 
 meam fel et in siti mea potaverunt me aceto. ^ Lectio 
 ex epistola ad Hehr. cap. 9, Ubi enim testamentum 
 est etc. usque ad expectantibus se ad* salutem. 
 
 Completorium ut pridie. 
 
 In vigilia pasche. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Psalmi 15, Conserva me Domine ; 
 75, Notus in Judea Deus; 87, Domine Deus salutis. '^^ 
 Antiphona, Posuerunt me in lacu inferiori in tenebrosis 
 et in umbra mortis/^ Lectio prima ex Osee 13, De 
 manu mortis liberabo eos etc. usque ad vinum libavi. 
 Lectio 2" ex Joan. 19, Rogavit Pilatum Joseph ab 
 Arimathea etc. usque ad signantes lapidem cum custo- 
 dibus. Lectio 3" ex I Petri 4, Christo igitur passo in 
 came etc. usque ad commendent animas suas inbene- 
 factis. 
 
 Ad laudes. Antiphona, O mors, ero mors tua. 
 Morsus tuus ero infeme. ^^ Reliqua omnia ut in die Cene. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Deus in adjutorium etc. cum Aleluya. *'' 
 
 Antiphona, vcspere autem sabbathi que illuscescit 
 in prima sabbathi, venit Maria Magdalene et altera 
 
 82 The first ant. of lauds in S. 
 
 83 This does not appear in the Breviaries as an ant. or resp. 
 
 84 The third psalm of the first noctum, and the second and third of 
 the third, in S. 
 
 85 The verse of the eighth resp. of matins of Holy Saturday in S. 
 
 86 The first ant. of lauds of the day in S. 
 
 87 These vespers of Holy Saturday of course depart from the 
 ancient order; nor do they accord with Q. 
 
 a Corrected from "in". 
 
342 Appendix II. 
 
 Maria videre sepulchrum, Alleluya. ^ HiNC ad fes- 
 
 TUM USQUE TRINITATIS ANTIPHONE OMNES FINIENTUR 
 
 CUM ALLELUYA. Lectio ex Math. 28, Vespere autem 
 (fol. 143b) sabbathi que lucescit etc. usque ad diebus 
 usque ad consummacionem seculi. Oratio. Deus, qui 
 pro nobis filium tuum crucis patibulum subire voluisti, 
 ut inimici a nobis expelleres potestatem : concede nobis 
 famulis tuis ut in resurrectionis ejus giaudiis semper 
 vivamus. Per eundem etc.^"^ 
 
 Ad completorium. Salva nos Domine vigilantes, 
 custodi nos dormientes; ut vigilemus in Christo et 
 requiescamus m pace. ^^ 
 
 In die Pasche. 
 
 Invitatorium, Alleluya, Christus hodie surrexit. Venite 
 adoremus eum, Alleluya. ^^ Hymnus, Aurora lucis 
 rutilat^^ etc. Antiphona, Angelus autem Domini des- 
 cendit de celo et accedens revolvit lapidem et sedit 
 super eum, Alleluya. ^^ Lectio i"* Exod. 12 et 13, 
 Egressus est omnis exercitus ^/^. ?^j"^2^^<2^nec in cunctis 
 finibus tuis. Lectio 2" ex Jona ca 2^. Et preparavit 
 Dominus piscem usque ad Jonam in aridam ". Lectio 
 tertia ex Math. ca. 2S, Vespere autem sabbathi usque 
 ad diebus usque ad consummacionem seculi. Te Deum 
 etc. 
 
 Ad laudes. Antiphona, Et valde mane una sabbath- 
 
 88 The ant. of the resp. in S. 
 
 89 This is the prayer at the office of the Sepulchre before the matins 
 of Easter day in S. 
 
 90 In S. the ant. is ''Alleluya quater". 
 
 91 Altered from S. 
 
 92 This arrangement is adopted from Q. Sarum has no hymn at 
 matins during Easter week. 
 
 93 The first ant. of lauds in S. 
 
 a "Joanam in arridam'' MS. 
 
Appendix II. 343 
 
 orum veniunt ad monumentum orto jam sole, AUe- 
 luya^l Oratio. Deus, qui hodierna die (fol. 144a) per 
 Unigenitum tuum eternitatis nobis aditum devicta morte 
 reserasti; vota nostra, que preveniendo aspiras, etiam 
 adjuvando prosequere^^ Per eundem etc. 
 
 Ad omnes horas post anttphonam per totas octavos 
 dicatur, Hec dies quam fecit Dominus; exultemus et 
 letemur in ea^. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Ad cenam agni " providi etc. ". 
 Post Magnificat antiphona^ Si consurrexistis cum Christo 
 que SuRSUM ^ sunt querite, Aleluya ^l Lectio ex Joanne 
 ca. 20, Exiit ergo Petrus etc. usque ad et hec dixit 
 mihi. 
 
 "Hymni hujus diei usque ad Ascensionem 
 Domini dicantur. 
 
 Feria 2**. 
 
 Lectio 4 ex Marc. ca. 16, Et cum transisset sab- 
 bathum usque ad nee illis crediderunt. 
 
 Ad vesperas ex Joanne cap. 20 lectio, Cum ergo 
 sero esset usque ad in nomine ejus. 
 
 Feria tertia. 
 
 Lectio 4 ex. Luc. ca. 24, Una autem sabhathi usque 
 ad quod factum fuerat. 
 
 ** In S. this is, as here, the ant. on Benedictus. 
 
 ^* The prayer of lauds also in S. 
 
 36 From S. (I, dcccxv — xvi) ; substantially the same in Q. (p. 58). 
 
 97 From Q. ; in S. this hymn was not begun until the second vespers 
 of Low Sunday. 
 
 98 This commencement of the epistle of the mass of Holy Saturday 
 and little chapter of prime and none on Easter day, does not appear 
 to be used as ant., resp. or verse in the Breviary. 
 
 a Originally written " magni ". 
 b The scribe had written "Christi". 
 
 c Cranmer originally wrote " Invitatorium et hymni"; the first two 
 words have been crossed through. 
 
344 Appendix 11. 
 
 Ad vesperas, Lectio ex Joanne ca.2\y Postea manifest- 
 avit se etc. usque ad. cum surrexisset a mortuis. 
 
 Feria iiii*". 
 
 Ex Luc. cap. 24, Et ecce duo ex illis usque ad inst 
 fractione panis. 
 
 (fol. 144b.) Ad vesperas. Lectio ex Joanne ca. 21^ 
 Cum ergo prandidissent usque ad qui scribendi sunt 
 libros ". 
 
 Dominica prima post pascha. 
 
 Antiphona, Si consurrexistis cum Christo, que sursum? 
 sunt querite, ubi Christus est in dextra Dei sedens ;. 
 que sursum sunt sapite, non que super terram, AUe- 
 luya ^^ Hec sola antiphona dicatur super psalmos tarn 
 ad vesperas quam ad matuiinas et laudes usque ad 
 Ascensionem Domini. Oratio. Concede quesumus om- 
 nipotens Deus, ut qui resurrectionis dominice solennia 
 colimus, innovatione spiritus tui a morte anime resurg- 
 amus^l Per Christum etc. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Invitatorium, Alleluya, Surr- 
 
 EXIT DOMINUS VERE. VeNITE ADOREMUS EUM, 
 
 Alleluya. Hoc invitatorium dicatur usque ad 
 Ascensionem Domini. ^^ Lectio iiii*"* ex Luc. 24, Dum. 
 autem hec usque ad benedicentes Deum. Amen. 
 
 Dominica 2*. 
 
 Oratio. Deus, qui (in) ^ filii tui humilitate jacentem 
 mundum erexisti, fidelibus tuis perpetuam concede 
 letitiam; ut quos perpetue mortis eripuisti casibus^ 
 gaudiis facias sempiternis perfrui. Per eundem etc. 
 
 ^ The prayer of the vespers on Easter day in S. 
 100 Derived from S. (I, dcccxcii). 
 
 a " Invitatorium et hymni hujus diei usque ad Ascensionem dicantur ";. 
 this is crossed through. 
 
 b "in" omitted in MS., seemingly by accident. 
 
Appendix II. 345 
 
 Dominica 3*. 
 
 Oratio. Deus, qui errantibus ut in viam possint redire 
 justitie veritatis tue lumen ostendis: da cunctis, qui 
 Christiana professione censentur, et ilia respuere que 
 huic inimica sunt nomini '^^ et ea que sunt apta ^ sec- 
 tari. Per Dominum etc. 
 
 •:(fol. 145 a.) Dominica iiii*". 
 
 Oratio. Deus, qui fidelium mentes unius efficis volun- 
 tatis : da populis " tuis id amare quod precipis, id desi- 
 derare quod promittis "^ ; ut inter mundanas varietates 
 ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gaudia. Per 
 Dominum etc. 
 
 Dominica V. 
 
 Oratio. Deus, a quo bona cuncta procedunt: largire 
 supplicibus tuis ut cogitemus te inspirante que recta 
 :sunt, et te gubemante eadem faciamus. Per Dominum etc. 
 
 Ascensio Domini. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Ilyinmis, Jesu nostra redemptio *^ ^/^. 
 Antiphona, Ascendens Christus in altum captivam duxit 
 captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus, Aleluya. *^ Oratio. 
 Concede quesumus omnipotens Deus. ut qui hodiema 
 die Unigenitum tuum, redemptorem nostrum, ad celos 
 ascendisse credimus, ipsi quoque mente in celestibus 
 habitemus. ^^ Per eundem etc. 
 
 ^^* In Q. the hymn for vespers ; in S. for compline. 
 102 See the Alleluia of the mass of the Ascension and its octave 
 -day; and the second resp. of matins on Friday after the Ascension in S. 
 ^03 In Q., the prayer at vespers ; in S. it is not begun until lauds. 
 
 a originally "nomine". 
 b originally "aperta", 
 £ populus. MS. 
 d originally "permittis". 
 
346 Appendix II. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Invttatormm, Christum Dominum as- 
 cendentem in celum Venite adoremus, Aleluia. '^^ Hym- 
 nus. Eterne Rex altissime ^"^ etc. Antiphona, Ascendit 
 Deus in jubilo et Dominus in voce tube, Aleluya. ^^ 
 Lectio prima ex Esai. 63, Quis est qui venit etc. tcsque 
 ad cunctis diebus seculi. Lectio 2"- ex Act. i", Primum 
 quidem sermonem etc. usque ad euntem in celum. 
 
 (fol. 145b). Lectio tertia ex Marc. ult. Novissime 
 autem recumbentibus usque ad sequentibus signis. 
 
 Ad laudes. Antiphona, Nisi ego abiero paracletus 
 non veniet ad vos. Si autem abiero, mittam eum " ad 
 vos Alleluya/^'' 
 
 Ad 'vesperas. Antiphona, O rex glorie Domine 
 virtutum, qui triumphator hodie super omnes 
 celos ascendisti ; ne derelinquas nos orphanos, 
 sed mitte promissum patris in nos spiritum ve- 
 
 RITATIS, AlLELUYA. *°^ 
 
 Lectio ^ ex Ephes. 4, Obsecro itaque vos u^que ad 
 sui in charitate. 
 
 Nihil deinceps rmitetur usque ad penthecosten preter 
 lectiones. 
 
 Penthecoste. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Jam Christus astra ^^^ etc, 
 
 104 From Q.; S. has not "dominum". 
 
 105 Agreeing with both S. and Q. 
 
 1*^ See the Alleluia of the mass of the Ascension ; and the verse 
 and resp. at lauds and the hours; but "jubilatione" of the S. Missal 
 and Breviary is corrected into "jubilo" in accordance with the Vulgate. 
 
 107 This ant. is made up (perhaps from memory) of the ant. on 
 Benedictus at lauds on Saturday after Ascension in S., and John XVI. 7 
 in the Vulgate, (cf. second resp. of matins on Friday after Ascension). 
 
 108 This is the ant. on Magnificat of the second vespers of the feast 
 also in S. 
 
 109 From S. (in Q. this hymn is at matins). 
 
 a Originally, " eam ". 
 
 b " ad vesperas " ; crossed through. 
 
Appe7idix II. 347 
 
 Antiphona, Veni sancte spiritus ; reple tuorum corda 
 iidelium, et tui amoris in eis ignem accende. "*^ Oratio 
 SCRIBATUR POST LECTIONEM. " Oratto. Deus, qui corda 
 fidelium sancti Spiritus illustratione docuisti: da nobis 
 in eodem spiritu recta sapere, et de ejus semper sancta 
 consolatione gaudere. "* Per Dominum nostrum. Lectio 
 ex Levit 23, Preceptum est sempiternum usque ad 
 generationibus vestris. 
 
 Ad matutmas. Inmtatorium, Spiritus Domini reple- 
 vit orbem terrarum. Venite adoremus EUM, Alleluia. "^ 
 Hymnus, Impleta gaudent viscera"^ etc. Antiphona, 
 Emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem 
 terre. "'^ Lectio P ex Joel 2^, Noli timere terra etc. usque 
 ad Dominus vocaverit. Lectio 2" ^^t: ^^/. 2, Et cum 
 complerentur dies etc. usque ad musto pleni sunt isti. 
 (fol. 146a). Lectio 3" ex Joanne 14, Si quis diligit me 
 usque ad Surgite, eamus hinc. 
 
 Ad laudes, Antiphona, Accipite Spiritum Sanctum ; 
 quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis, Aleluia. "^ 
 
 Hoc die ante initium misse cantetur hymnus Veni 
 creator Spiritus etc. ^^^ 
 
 Ad vesperas. Antiphona, Hodie completi sunt dies 
 penthecostes. Alleluia: hodie Spiritus sanctus in igne 
 
 110 Part of the antiphon on the psalms at the first vespers of the 
 feast in S. 
 
 111 This prayer is at first vespers in Q. ; in S. it begins at Lauds 
 "Hodierna die" of S. and Q. is omitted. The word " sancta" does not 
 occur in Q. S. or York. It is maintained in the second scheme and 
 has found its way into the Prayer Book of 1549 "(His >^^/j/ coYnfort "). 
 
 112 In S. and Q.; but the addition "eum" is found in neither. 
 ^^3 The hymn for Lauds in S. ; not in Q. 
 
 "■i The third ant. of the first nocturn in S. 
 
 115 As in S. 
 
 116 From S. (I, mviii). 
 
 a In margin 
 
348 Appendix II. 
 
 discipulis apparuit, et tribuit eis charismatum dona: misit 
 eos in universum mundum predicare et testificari. Qui 
 crediderit et baptizatus" fuerit salvus erit, Aleluia. "^ 
 Lectio ex Act Stans autem Petrus usque ad salvus 
 erit 
 
 Feria secunda. 
 
 Lectio 4 ex Act. 2^, His auditis compuncti sunt usque 
 ad panis et orationibus. 
 
 Feria tertia. 
 
 Lectio 4 ex Act. 10, Adhuc loquente Petro ^j^e^^ <a:^ 
 apud eos aliquot diebus. 
 
 Feria 4. 
 
 Lectio 4 ex Act. 19, Factum est autem etc. linguis 
 et prophetabant. 
 
 In Festo Trinitatis. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Adesto sancta Trinitas "' ^ etc. 
 Antiphona, Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo : 
 Pater, Verbum, et Spiritis Sanctus ; et hi tres unum 
 sunt "I Oratio. Ponatur post lectionem^ Omnipotens 
 sempiteme Deus, qui dedisti famulis tuis in confessione 
 (fol. 146b) vere fidei eteme Trinitatis gloriam agnoscere, 
 et in potentia majestatis adorare unitatem: quesu- 
 mus ut in ejusdem fidei firmitate ab omnibus sem- 
 per muniamur adversis "^ Qui vivis etc. Lectio ex 
 Math. 3^ Tunc venit Jesus usque ad in quo mihi com- 
 placui. 
 
 ii"^ As in S. and Q. 
 
 "8 The little chapter of sext in S. 
 
 a batizatus. MS. 
 b "Trinitatis" MS. 
 c In margin. 
 
Appendix II. 349 
 
 CompUtnrmm ut post Epiphantam. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Invitatorium, Deum verum unum in 
 Trinitate et Trinitatem in unitate, Venite adoremus "®. 
 Hymnus, O Pater Sancte, mitis atque pie etc. *^. Anti- 
 phona, Te invocamus, te laudamus, te adoramus, O 
 beata Trinitas ^^^ Lectio prima ex Gen. 8, Apparuit 
 aiitem Abrahe Dominus etc. usque adne transeas servum 
 tuum. Lectio 2"^ ex Esai 6, In anno quo mortuus est 
 rex usque ad terra gloria ejus. Lectio tertia ex Math. 28, 
 Undecim autem discipuli usque ad consummacionem 
 seculi. 
 
 Ad laudes. Antiphona, Te Deum Patrem ingenitum, 
 Te Filium unigenitum, Te Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum, 
 sanctam et individuam Trinitatem toto corde et ore 
 confitemur, laudamus atque benedicimus : tibi gloria in 
 secula *^. 
 
 Oratio ut supra. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Antiphona, Spes nostra, salus nostra, 
 honor noster, O beata Trinitas ^^. Lectio ex i Joan. 5, 
 Quis est (fol. 147a) qui vincit usque «^ et hi tres unum 
 sunt. 
 
 Feria 2. 
 
 et deinceps usque ad Adventum. 
 
 Invitatorium, Laudemus Jesum Christum, quia ipse 
 est redemptor omnium seculorum ^^^ Hymnus, Primo 
 
 "9 From S. 
 
 120 The hymn of lauds in S. 
 
 121 The second ant. of the first nocturn in S. (but "Te adoramus, 
 Te laudamus " in S.). 
 
 122 The ant. on Magnificat at second vespers in S. 
 ^23 The second ant. of the second nocturn in S. 
 
 ^24 The invitatory of the Sunday from the first Sunday after Trinity 
 to September in S. 
 
350 Appendix II. 
 
 dierum ^"^ etc. Antiphona, Adaperiat Dominus cor nos- 
 trum in lege sua, et in preceptis suis, et facial pacem *^^ 
 
 Ad daudes. Antiphona, Omnis creatura celi etterre 
 benedicat Dominum ; hymnum dicat et superexaltet eum 
 in secula^^l Oratio. Adesto supplicationibus nostris 
 omnipotens Deus: et quibus fiduciam sperande venie 
 indulges, consuete misericordie tribue benignus efFectum. 
 Per Christum Dominum etc. ^'^. 
 
 Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Lucis Creator optime etc. *^^ 
 
 Antiphona, Vespertina oratio ascendat ad te Domine, 
 et descendat super nos misericordia tua^'°. 
 
 Antiphone hujus diei usque ad Domini dican- 
 
 TUR AdA'ENTUM. 
 
 In Festo Corporis Christi. 
 
 Hymnus, Pange lingua etc, 2. Nobis datus 3. In 
 supreme °'. 4. Verbum caro. 5. Tantum ergo. 6. Geni- 
 tori ^^\ Antiphona, Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est, 
 pro ^ mundi vita ^^'l Lectio ex Sap. 1 6, Angelorum esca 
 
 125 The hymn of the Sunday from the first Sunday after the octave 
 of the Epiphany to Lent in S. 
 
 ^'26 The ant. at Magnificat on Saturday next after 27 September, and 
 invitatory throughout October in S. 
 
 12' For the few occasions on which this ant. (fourth of lauds) was 
 said in S., see II, 28. 
 
 128 It does not appear what suggested the use of this prayer (the 
 prayer super populum of the mass of Monday in the second week of 
 Lent) at this place. 
 
 129 The vesper hymn for the Sunday and ferial office from the first 
 Sunday after Trinity to Advent in S. 
 
 130 The verse and resp. after the hymn of vespers on Saturday from 
 the Saturday after Trinity Sunday to Advent, in S. 
 
 181 This arrangement of the hymns is from Q. ; in S. Pange lingua 
 is at matins, and Sacris solemniis at vespers. 
 132 Part of the fourth resp. of matins in S. 
 
 a "sempiterne ". MS. 
 b In MS, originally: "est quem ego dabo pro". 
 
Appendix II. 351 
 
 nutrivisti etc. usque jugiter sentiamus. Oratio. Deus^ 
 QUI NOBIS SUB SACRAMENTO MIRABILI PASSIONIS 
 TUE MEMORIAM RELIQUISTI : TRIBUE QUESUMUS ITA 
 NOS CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS TUI SACRA MYSTERIA 
 VENERARI, UT REDEMPTIONIS TUE FRUCTUM IN NOBIS- 
 JUGITER SENTIAMUS. Qui VIVIS ET REGNAS. 
 
 Ad matutinas. Invitatorium, Christum Salvatorem et 
 panem (fol. 147b) vite "celestis, Venite adoremus *^. 
 Hymnus, Sacris solenniis etc. ^^^ Anttphofia,"' Ego sum 
 panis vivus qui de celo descendi ; si quis manducaverit 
 ex hoc pane vivet in eternum. ^^ Lectio P Exod. 1 6, 
 Locutus est Dominus adMoysen ^Z^;. ^^i-^^^^^^sollique- 
 fiebat. Lectio 2" ex Paul, primo Corr. 11, Ego enim 
 accepi a Domino usque AD cum venero disponam.. 
 Lectio 3 ex Joanne 6, Patres vestri manducaverunt 
 manna in deserto usque ad vivet in eternum. 
 
 Ad laudes. Antipho7ta, O sacrum convivium in qua- 
 Cliristus sumitur ; recolitur memoria passionis * ejus : mens 
 impletur gratia et future glorie nobis pignus datur. *^ 
 
 Ad vesperas. Antiphona, Qui manducat meam 
 carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet et ego 
 in eo. ^^^ Lectio, I ad Corr. i o, Calix benedictionis usque 
 ad et mense demoniorum. 
 
 Dominica prima post, 
 festum Trinitatis. 
 
 Here follow merely the collects from the first to the- 
 
 *33 This invitatory, worthy of the feast, appears to be original. 
 
 134 The ant. on Benedictus at lauds in S., which has at the end 
 Alleluya. 
 
 135 The ant. on Magnificat at second vespers in S., which has at the 
 end Alleluya. 
 
 136 The seventh resp. of matins in S. 
 
 a " Antiphone ". MS. 
 
 b In MS. originally: "tue passionis". 
 
352 Appc7idix II. 
 
 twenty-fifth Sunday after Trinity. They are those of 
 Sarum. The following points only require notice. 
 
 I St Sunday: the word "fortitudo" omitted by the 
 45cribe is added by Cranmer. 
 
 4th Sunday : " nihil sanctum " omitted by the scribe 
 is added by Cranmer. 
 
 6th Sunday : " diligentibus nomen " is corrected to " te" 
 {so Sarum). 
 
 9th Sunday : the scribe here after " propitius " left a 
 blank ; Cranmer fills in the missing words " et agendi ". 
 This shews that the scribe copied even the prayers 
 from a rough draft and not from the print. 
 
 14th Sunday: "ut mereamur assequi" of Sarum is 
 changed in the MS. to " ut possimus assequi ". 
 
 1 5th Sunday : the scribe misreads evidently an 
 abbreviation in a draft before him as " clementiam " in- 
 stead of "ecclesiam". 
 
 24th Sunday: "a peccatorum nostrorum nexibus 
 quee " in Sarum and Quignon ; the MS. omits " nos- 
 tronim"; the Prayer Book of 1549 reads "from the 
 bands of all those sins which". 
 
APPENDIX IIL 
 
 cranmer's scheme for morning and evening prayer. 
 
 The preface and rubrics of the scheme for Morn- 
 ing and Evening Prayer described in Chapter III 
 are here printed in full, as well as the benedictions 
 before the lessons. The hymns and collects how- 
 ever, w^hich it would be ofno interest to reproduce 
 at length, are only noted. The preface shows in 
 parallel columns (1) those passages of Quignon's 
 preface used by Cranmer, (2) the latin draft given 
 in the manuscript, and (3) the english print as it 
 appeared in the Prayer Book of 1549. It will be 
 thus possible to see at a glance what, on revi- 
 sion, was omitted and what was added. A minute 
 comparison of the three texts will throw light on 
 Cranmer's mind and methods. 
 
 Although so bald, the scheme is of exceptional 
 interest as showing the step whereby the transi- 
 tion was made from the ancient ecclesiastical 
 system of "Hours" to the printed order of 
 Morning and Evening Prayer. 
 
 The hymns intended to be used in this scheme 
 were taken, not from the existing breviaries, but 
 from the Elucidatorium Ecdesiasticum of Clich- 
 
354 Appendix III. 
 
 toveus. ^ This will appear from the following 
 considerations. Of the twenty-six hymns given in 
 the manuscript five do not occur in the Sarum 
 breviary. One of these, Agnoscat omne saeculum is 
 in the York breviary (and Clichtoveus) ; but the 
 other four are not to be found in any english 
 office book. Three of these, viz. Magno salutis 
 ^gaudio, Hymnum dicamus Domino, and Festum 
 nunc celebre, are given by Clichtoveus from foreign 
 breviaries, and they seem specially to have been 
 used in Germany. Finally the fifth, Pater summce 
 Deitatis ortus, assigned to the vespers of friday 
 throughout the year, is not an ancient hymn at 
 ;all ; but an imitation by Clichtoveus himself of the 
 hymn Pater Sancte, mitis 6^^gw^^^6, and acknow- 
 ledged as such by the author. * 
 
 Next, the hymns in the MS. in many cases fol- 
 low not the reading of the english breviaries,butthat 
 given by Clichtoveus, e, g,, in the hymn Te lucis 
 ^nte terminum, Clichtoveus and Cranmer's MS. read 
 *ac custodia" in place of "ad custodiam"; in the 
 Jesu Salvator sceculi, Clichtoveus and the MS. reverse 
 the ancient english order of strophes 3 and 4 \ 
 
 Finally, whilst the breviaries give a doxology to 
 •every hymn, the major part of those given in the 
 MS. are without doxology and on comparing them 
 with Clichtoveus' collection, it appears that this is 
 given when, and only when, Clichtoveus gives it. 
 There can be no doubt therefore that the hymns 
 
 ^ Cranmer's copy of this book (ed. 1516), now at the 
 British Museum, bears both his signature and Lumley's. 
 
 ^ " Et quoniam " he writes (f. 14b) " piam continet et religi- 
 osam ad Deum orationem, loco illius (servata eadem sententia) 
 hymnum hoc modo lusimus, "0 Pater summce'' &c. as in the MS. 
 
 * See further examples in the notes. 
 
Appendix III. 355 
 
 in the MS. are taken not from the existing brev- 
 iaries but from the book of Clichtoveus. 
 
 In regard to the mode in which the hymns are 
 used, it may be said roughly that in the proposed 
 scheme the Vespers hymn is assigned to matins 
 and the ancient Compline hymn to vespers. The 
 exact changes will be found indicated in the notes. 
 
 This scheme begins with the preface, and bears 
 no title in the manuscript. 
 
356 
 
 Appendix III. 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 . . horarias preces 
 quas canonicas 
 etiam appellamus 
 ...(p. XIX). 
 
 Et profecto si 
 quis modumpre- 
 candi olim a ma- 
 joribus traditum 
 diligenter consy- 
 deret, horum om- 
 nium ab ipsis 
 habitam esse ra- 
 tionem manifesto 
 deprehendet. (p. 
 XX). 
 
 (fol. 7 a) Nihil 
 unquam ab ho- 
 minibus tanta 
 cautione excogit- 
 atum, aut tanta 
 firmitate stabilit- 
 um quod vetus- 
 tate et temporum 
 lapsu non cor- 
 riinperetur. 
 
 Hoc et in pre- 
 cibus illis quas 
 horarias sive ca- 
 nonicas appella- 
 mus usu venisse 
 conspicimus. 
 
 Quarum ratio- 
 nem a priscis 
 ecclesie Patribus 
 institutam si quis 
 diligenter exqui- 
 rat et examinet, 
 eam sane nee 
 inepte nee incom- 
 mode ordinatam 
 fuisse comperiet. 
 
 lUi siquidem 
 tali modo rem 
 
 There was never 
 any thing by the 
 art of man so 
 well devised, or 
 so surely estab- 
 lished which (in 
 continuance of 
 time) hath not 
 been corrupted : 
 as (among other 
 things) it may 
 plainly appear by 
 the common pray- 
 ers of the Church 
 commonly called 
 divine service, 
 
 the first orig- 
 inal and ground 
 whereof, if a man 
 would search out 
 by the ancient 
 fathers, he shall 
 find that the same 
 was not ordained 
 but of a good 
 purpose and for 
 a great advance- 
 ment of godli- 
 ness. 
 
 For they so or- 
 dered the matter 
 
Appendix III. 
 
 357 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 disposuerant ut 
 singulis annis om- 
 nia sacra biblia 
 perlegerentur, et 
 una cum anni 
 circulo canonice 
 quoque scripture 
 circulus revolve- 
 retur. 
 
 Volentes nimi- 
 rum uti clerici et 
 ecclesiarum antis- 
 tites, assidua sa- 
 crarum literarum 
 lectione medita- 
 tioneque, et ipsi 
 ad arduam virtu- 
 tis viam capes- 
 cendam incita- 
 rentur, et alios 
 exhortandi in 
 doctrina sana 
 convincendique 
 eos qui contradic- 
 unt facultatem 
 sibi compararent ; 
 et plebes auditis 
 quotidie in cetu 
 sacro sacris divini 
 verbi lectionibus 
 in dies magis ac 
 magis in rerum 
 divinaramcognit- 
 
 that all the whole 
 Bible (or the 
 
 greater part 
 thereof) should be 
 read over once 
 in the year, 
 
 intending th ere 
 by that the cler- 
 gy, and specially 
 such as were 
 ministers of the 
 
 congregation, 
 should (by often 
 reading and me- 
 ditation of God's 
 word) be stirred 
 up to godliness 
 themselves, and 
 be more able also 
 to exhort other 
 by wholesome 
 doctrine, and to 
 confute them that 
 were adversaries 
 of the truth. And 
 further that the 
 people (by daily 
 hearing of holy 
 scripture read 
 in the church) 
 
358 
 
 Appendix III. 
 
 quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface TO the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1 549). 
 
 Sed factum est 
 nescio quo pacto 
 hominum negli- 
 gentia ut paula- 
 tim a sanctissimis 
 illis veterum pa- 
 trum institutis 
 discederetur. (p. 
 XX). 
 
 Nam primum 
 libri sacrae scrip- 
 turae, qui statis 
 anni temporibus 
 erant perlegendi, 
 
 ione proficerent 
 ac in Deum pie- 
 tate accenderen- 
 tur. 
 
 Sed (proh dolor) 
 illam maiorum 
 tam sanctam tarn 
 pulcram tam bene 
 coherentem ordi- 
 nationem, super- 
 
 veniens etas 
 quam foede con- 
 spurcaverat con- 
 vulseratque et 
 tanquam mem- 
 bratim dilacera- 
 verat. 
 
 Nam librorum 
 seriem continuam 
 et integram nus- 
 quam observa- 
 mus. Sed vel 
 fragmenta hinc 
 inde decerpimus 
 et consarcinamus, 
 nihil quid preces- 
 serat quidve se- 
 
 should contin- 
 ually profit more, 
 and more in 
 the knowledge 
 of God, and be 
 the more inflam- 
 ed with the love of 
 his true religion. 
 But these many 
 years past the 
 godly and decent 
 order of the an- 
 cient fathers hath 
 been so altered, 
 broken and ne- 
 glected by plant- 
 ing in uncertain 
 stories, legends, 
 responds, verses, 
 vain repetitions, 
 commemorations 
 and synodals ^, 
 
 * See below from Quignon's preface the passage "varias comme- 
 morationum" &c. 
 
Appendix III. 
 
 359 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (»549)- 
 
 vixdum incoepti 
 a precantibus 
 praeterm ittuntur 
 (p. XX). 
 
 * Ut exemplo 
 esse possunt liber 
 Genesis qui inci- 
 pitur in Septua- 
 g-esima, et liber 
 Isaie qui in ad- 
 ventu, quorum 
 vix singula capi- 
 tula per legimus, 
 ac eodem modo 
 caetera veteris 
 testamenti volu- 
 mina degustamus 
 magis quam legi- 
 mus. Nee secus 
 accidit in Evan- 
 gelia et reliquam 
 scripturam novi 
 testamenti, 
 
 quatur attenden- 
 tes, vel initia 
 tantum librorum 
 delibantes vix 
 tribus decursis 
 capitulis cetera 
 pretermittimus. 
 
 Sic librum 
 Esaie in adventu, 
 sic librum Gene- 
 sis in Septuage- 
 sima inchoamus, 
 sed inchoamus 
 tantum, ad um- 
 belicum (fol. 7. b) 
 non perducimus. 
 
 Haud secus 
 Evangelia et novi 
 testamenti scrip- 
 turas omnes con- 
 taminamus, laxa- 
 tis ^ librorum om- 
 nium compagi- 
 bus omnia mis- 
 centes, transpo- 
 nentes, confund- 
 entes. 
 
 that commonly 
 when any book 
 of the Bible was 
 begun, before 
 three or four 
 chapters were 
 read out, all the 
 rest were unread. 
 And in this 
 sort the book of 
 Esaie was begun 
 in Advent, and 
 the book of Ge- 
 nesis in Septua- 
 gesima, but they 
 were only begun 
 and never read 
 through. 
 
 After a like 
 sort were other 
 books of holy 
 scripture used. 
 
 * the passage „Ut exemplo 
 of the second text. 
 
 * luxatis. MS. 
 
 comparanda " is not in the preface 
 
360 
 
 Appendix III. 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book. 
 
 OF Common prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 * quorum in loco 
 successerunt alia 
 nee utilitate eum 
 his nee gravitate 
 
 comparanda . . 
 ..(p. XX). 
 
 . . . Turn historiae 
 Sanetorum tarn 
 ineulte et tarn 
 negligentijudicio 
 scriptae leguntur 
 ut nee auctorita- 
 tem habere vide- 
 antur nee gra- 
 vitatem. (p. XX). 
 
 Quid quod fri- 
 vola quedam et 
 anilibus fabulis 
 non absimilia 
 introducta sint et 
 digna habita pre 
 quibus divinorum 
 oraculorum lectio 
 loco moveretur. 
 
 Nam historie 
 sanctorum fere 
 tam crasso juditio 
 collecte sunt et 
 stilo tam incon- 
 dito descriptae ut 
 lectori cordato 
 fastidium facile 
 pariant. 
 
 And moreover 
 whereas S. Pau^ 
 would have such 
 language spoken 
 to the people in 
 the church as 
 they might un- 
 
 ' Also p. XXIV : "Deinde in illo (the old breviary) sanctorum his- 
 toriae non paucae leguntur tam rudi stilo, tam sine rerum delectu et 
 gravitate, ut sint interdum contemptui atque derisui legentibus." 
 
Appendix III. 
 
 361 
 
 •Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 *Deinde psalm- 
 -orum plerisque, 
 qui singulis heb- 
 domadae diebus 
 erant destinati, 
 rejectis, pauci 
 quidam toto fere 
 anno repetuntur. 
 <p. XX.) 
 
 agitatione lin- 
 
 Preterea quum 
 antiqui illi Patres 
 psalmorum lib- 
 rum in septem 
 portiones, quas 
 noctumas vocant, 
 
 distribuissent, 
 nunc omissis reli- 
 quis pauci tantum 
 quidam illique 
 magis labiorum 
 strepitu quam 
 
 derstand and 
 have profit by- 
 hearing the same ; 
 the service in this 
 Church of Eng- 
 land (these many 
 years) hath been 
 read in Latin to 
 the people, which 
 they understood 
 not, so that they 
 have heard with 
 their ears only : 
 and their hearts, 
 spirit and mind 
 have not been 
 edified thereby. 
 
 And further- 
 more notwith- 
 standing that the 
 ancient fathers 
 had divided the 
 psalms into seven 
 portions, whereof 
 every one was 
 called a noctum, 
 now of late time 
 a few of them 
 have been daily 
 
 * This passage is not in the preface to the second text. 
 
36: 
 
 Appendix III. 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 guae magis quam 
 intentione men- 
 tis inculcantur. 
 (p. XX). 
 
 ^ Accedit tarn 
 perplexus ordo 
 tamque difficilis 
 precandi ratio, 
 
 ut interdum paulo 
 minor opera in 
 inquirendo pona- 
 tur quam cum 
 inveneris in le- 
 gendo (p. XX). 
 
 animi pensicula- 
 cione quotidie re- 
 plicantur.Ne quid 
 interim dicam de 
 regularum multi- 
 tudine et difficul- 
 tate, demultifariis 
 officiorum trans- 
 mutacionibus ac- 
 
 ceteris rerum 
 labyrinthis qui- 
 
 bus librorum 
 evolvendorum 
 ratio tam impe- 
 dita et perplexa 
 facta est, ut non 
 raro plus negocii 
 sit investigare 
 quod est legen- 
 dum quam ubi 
 inventum est le- 
 gere; eoque res 
 devenerat ut ars 
 quedam inde fue- 
 rit constituta, ac 
 peritum artificem 
 esse oporteretqui 
 Ordinalem (sic 
 enim vocantme- 
 
 said (and oft re- 
 peated) and the 
 rest utterly omit- 
 ted. Moreover 
 the number 
 and hardness of 
 the rules, called 
 the pie, and the 
 manifold chang- 
 ings of the service 
 were the cause 
 that to turn the 
 book only was 
 so hard and in- 
 tricate a matter, 
 that there was 
 more business to 
 find out what 
 should be read 
 than to read it 
 when it was found 
 out. 
 
 ^ Also p. XXV. " Postremo in illo summa erat confusio propter regu- 
 larum multitudinem et perplexilatem, et festorum translationem et varias 
 commemorationum &c. &c. inculcationes." 
 
Appendix III. 
 
 363 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text, 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface TO the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 thodicum artis il- 
 lius librum) probe 
 intelligeret. 
 
 Nos igitur tanta 
 incommoda con- 
 siderantes eisque 
 remedium adhi- 
 beri cupientes, 
 Methodum in me- 
 dium damus juxta 
 quam id non in- 
 
 concinne fieri 
 
 posse arbitra- 
 mur ^, descripto 
 in eum usum 
 indice lucido fa- 
 cili et cuivis in- 
 telligibili, unum 
 
 hunc scopum 
 maxime conside- 
 rantes ut videlicet 
 
 sacre scripture 
 filum et series 
 
 ubique quoad 
 fieri potest inte- 
 gre et indivulse 
 continuetur, et ut 
 exoticorum scrip- 
 
 torum ^ quam 
 minimum inter- 
 
 These inconve- 
 niences therefore 
 considered, here 
 is set forth such 
 an order whereby 
 the same shall be 
 redressed. And 
 for a readiness in 
 this matter here 
 is drawn out a 
 Kalendar for that 
 purpose which is 
 plain and easy to 
 be understood , 
 wherein (so much 
 as may be) the 
 reading of holy 
 Scripture is set 
 forth that all 
 things shall be 
 done in order, 
 without breaking 
 one piece thereof 
 from another. 
 
 * " Arbitremur". MS. 
 
 ^ " laciniis" or some such word, is omitted. 
 
364 
 
 Appendix III. 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 * Omissis anti- 
 phonis, capitulis 
 et responsoriis ac 
 multis hymnis 
 ceterisque id ge- 
 nus rebus Scrip- 
 turae sacrae lec- 
 tionem impedien- 
 tibus (p. XXI). 
 
 Relicti sunt etiam 
 exhymnis qui plu- 
 rimum omnium 
 habere visi sunt 
 auctoritatis ac 
 gravitatis (p. 
 XXI). 
 
 ^ et sanctorum 
 historiis quas ex 
 probatis et gra- 
 vibus auctoribus 
 grsecis et latinis 
 decerpsimus. (p. 
 XXI). 
 
 texatur. Hanc 
 ob causam Anti- 
 phonas, Respon- 
 soria, Inventoria, ^ 
 Capitula ac cetera 
 id genus sacre 
 lectionis cursum 
 
 interrumpentia 
 pleraque resecui- 
 mus. (fol. 8 a.) 
 Hymnos tantum 
 pauculos qui reli- 
 quis plus vetus- 
 tatis etvenustatis 
 in se continere 
 videbantur relin- 
 quentes, et de- 
 lectorum quo- 
 rundam atque 
 extra omnem 
 aleam positorum, 
 sanctorum indu- 
 bitatas historias, 
 quas ex idoneis 
 scriptoribus grse- 
 
 cis latinis que 
 desumi ac deflo- 
 
 For this cause be 
 cut off Anthems, 
 Respondes, Invi- 
 tatories, and such 
 like things as 
 did break the 
 continual course 
 of the reading 
 of Scripture. 
 
 ' The preface of the second text of Quignon differs, is more 
 diffuse as to antiphons, &c. and legends of saints; and says nothing 
 as to hymns. 
 
 * Also p. XXIV. "Omnia sunt cultiora, graviora, et ex historia 
 ecclesiastica, et auctoribus probatis gravibusque decerpta." 
 
 3 So MS. 
 
Appendix III. 
 
 365 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface TO the Book 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 fieri non pot- 
 
 uit ut regulas 
 omnino vitare- 
 mus, 
 
 sed nos tarn 
 
 raras et perspi- 
 cuas regulas dis- 
 posiumus ut eas 
 
 rari fecimus. 
 Porro sanctos 
 illos dumtaxat 
 rejecimus quo- 
 rum dies solem- 
 nes vidimus a 
 plebecula perpe- 
 ram ac supersti- 
 tiose celebrari, 
 aut qui de vita 
 et moribus nobis 
 fuerunt suspecti, 
 aut quorum his- 
 torie apud proba- 
 tos autores non 
 extabant ; aut 
 denique cum duo 
 pluresve in eun- 
 dem diem inci- 
 dissent eos qui 
 ex omni numero 
 minus idonei aut 
 necessarii vide- 
 bantur, preter- 
 mittendos judi- 
 cavimus.Regulas 
 autem quoniam 
 omnino vitare 
 non potuimus, eas 
 tamen certe et 
 numero paucissi- 
 mas et multo 
 magis claras 
 
 Yet because 
 there is no re- 
 medy but that 
 of necessity there 
 must be some 
 rules, therefore 
 certain rules are 
 here set forth, 
 
366 
 
 Appendix III. 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 Tsr TEXT. 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549)- 
 
 cuivis facile sit 
 intelligere. (p. 
 
 XXI). 
 
 Itaque si quis 
 diligenter anim- 
 advertat et vetus 
 patrum consilium 
 
 institutumque 
 consyderet, plane 
 
 intelliget hoc 
 breviarium non 
 tarn esse novum 
 inventum, 
 
 quam breviarii 
 veteris in commo- 
 diorem et cultio- 
 rem formam res- 
 titutionem, 
 sublatis quibus- 
 dam rebus quae 
 medio tempore 
 
 atque intellectu 
 faciles reliqui- 
 mus. 
 
 Habetis igitur 
 hie precandi 
 formam non a 
 nobis noviter 
 inventam, sed 
 magis veterem 
 illam a Patribus 
 traditam (si con- 
 silium illorum 
 recte reputetis) 
 ad pristinum et 
 primitivum usum 
 ac nitorem, quan- 
 tum fieri potuit 
 a nobis, restitu- 
 tam, aut certe 
 aliam illi veteri 
 non multo dissi- 
 milem ac omnino 
 multo utiliorem 
 commodiorem- 
 que ilia quam 
 hactenus in ma- 
 nibus habetis.Uti- 
 liorem quidem 
 quod, repurgatis 
 ac rejectis pluri- 
 
 which, as they 
 be few in num- 
 ber, so they be 
 plain and easy 
 to beunderstand- 
 
 ed. 
 
 So that here 
 you have an 
 order for prayer 
 (as touching the 
 reading of holy 
 scripture) much 
 agreeable to the 
 mind and pur- 
 pose of the 
 old fathers. 
 
 and a great deal 
 more profitable 
 and commodious 
 than that which 
 of late was used. 
 It is more pro- 
 fitable because 
 here are left out 
 
Appendix III. 
 
 367 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 praeter judicium 
 et gravitatem 
 obrepserant (p. 
 XXIV.) In hoc 
 autem (breviario) 
 legitur singulis 
 annis magna et 
 praecipua pars 
 veteris testamenti 
 et totum novum 
 &c. (p. XXIV). 
 
 Porro quan- 
 quam non fuit 
 nobis propositum , 
 brevitati, sed 
 commoditati pre- 
 cantium consu- 
 lere, utrunque ta- 
 men, ut speramus, 
 
 mis que tum inu- 
 tilia tum etiam 
 incerta atque in- 
 epta adjecta fue- 
 rant, nil fere 
 nisi meras T«g 
 
 <jp«$ ' comprehen- 
 dat 
 
 easque ordine 
 quam hactenus 
 magis perspicuo 
 ac directo qui 
 maxime legentis 
 et intellectum ad- 
 juvat et memo- 
 riam confirmat. 
 
 Commodiorem 
 vero vel propter 
 legendi succinc- 
 tam brevitatem 
 vel propter ordi- 
 nis simplicem cla- 
 ritatem vel deni- 
 que propter regu- 
 
 many things, 
 whereof some be 
 untrue, some un- 
 certain, some vain 
 and superstitious, 
 and is ordained 
 nothing to be read 
 but the very pure 
 word of God, the 
 Holy Scriptures, 
 or that which 
 
 is evidently 
 grounded on the 
 same, and that in 
 such language 
 and order as is 
 most easy and 
 plain for the un- 
 derstanding both 
 of readers and 
 hearers. 
 
 It is also more 
 commodious, 
 both for the short- 
 ness thereof, and 
 for the plainness 
 of the order , and 
 for that the rules 
 be few and easy. 
 
 ©hOTivi^vGaq MS. 
 
368 
 
 Appe7idix III. 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7. B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 
 OH Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 consecuti sumus. 
 
 (p. XXIV.) 
 
 varias comme- 
 morationum, ver- 
 siculorum , res- 
 ponsoriorum, an- 
 
 tiphonarum et 
 similium rerum 
 laboriosas ac pa- 
 rum graves in- 
 
 culcationes et 
 iterationes quae 
 nee ad pietatem 
 nee ad cognitio- 
 
 nem scripturae 
 sacrse magnopere 
 conducebant. (p. 
 XXIV). Qui nos- 
 
 ter ordo non 
 parum facit ad 
 temporis brevita- 
 tem et laboris 
 
 levamen (p. 
 XXV). 
 
 larum paucitatem 
 (fol. 8b) facilita- 
 temque. 
 
 Adde hue quod 
 et cramben illam 
 recoctam senten- 
 ciarum earundem 
 
 et cantionum 
 tocies coccycis in 
 morem iteranda- 
 rum, sustulimus 
 ad legentium non 
 mediocre como- 
 dum ^ et levamen. 
 
 Preterea juxta 
 modum hunc a 
 nobis ordinatum 
 non aliis opus 
 erit portiforiis 
 sive breviariis 
 quam ipsis bibliis 
 
 Furthermore 
 the Curates shall 
 need none other 
 books for their 
 public service 
 but this book and 
 the Bible, by the 
 
 So in MS. 
 
Appendix III. 
 
 369 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface TO the Book 
 
 OF Common Prayer 
 
 (1549). 
 
 eoque ent sump- 
 tus minor in li- 
 bris comparandis. 
 
 Cumque hacte- 
 nus in serviciis 
 dicendis decan- 
 tandisque tanta 
 fuerit diversitas 
 ut pene plus 
 quam babylonica 
 lingnarum confu- 
 sio videri possit, 
 dum alii usum 
 
 Sarisburiensem, 
 alii Hereforden- 
 sem, alii Bango- 
 rensem, alii Ebo- 
 racensem emu- 
 lantur, etreligio- 
 sorum tarn mul- 
 tifarie cohortes 
 
 suum queque 
 seorsim habue- 
 
 rint usum, 
 nunc in unum 
 eundemque usum 
 ecclesie omnes 
 per universum 
 
 means whereof 
 the people shall 
 not be at so 
 great charge for 
 books as in time 
 past they have 
 been. 
 
 And where 
 heretofore there 
 hath been great 
 diversity in say- 
 ing and singing 
 
 in churches 
 within this realm : 
 some following 
 
 Salisbury use, 
 some Hereford 
 use, some the use 
 of Bangor, some 
 York and some 
 of Lincoln. 
 
 Now from hen- 
 ceforth all the 
 whole realm shall 
 have but one use. 
 
370 
 
 Appendix III. 
 
 Quignon's preface, 
 
 1st text. 
 
 Cambridge reprint. 
 
 MS. Reg. 7 B. IV. 
 
 Preface to the Book 
 OF Common Prayer 
 ' (1549). 
 
 Si cui autem 
 laboriosum in hoc 
 breviario videbi- 
 tur pleraque om- 
 nia ex libro legi, 
 cum multa in alio 
 quae propter fre- 
 quentem reperti- 
 tionem ediscun- 
 tur memoriter 
 pronuncientur , 
 compenset cum 
 hoc labore cogni- 
 tionem scripturae 
 sacrae, quae sic 
 in dies augescit, 
 et intentionem 
 animi, quam Deus 
 ante omnia in 
 precantibus re- 
 quirit (hanc enim 
 majorem legenti- 
 bus quam memo- 
 riter proferenti- 
 bus adesse neces- 
 se est) et hujus- 
 modi laborem 
 non modo fruc- 
 tuosum, sed etiam 
 salutarem judica- 
 bit. (p. XXV). 
 
 hoc regnum facile 
 coalescent. Porro 
 si quis hanc , 
 nostram viam in 
 eo laboriosam ju- 
 dicaverit quod hie 
 pleraque omnia 
 ex libro sunt le- 
 genda quum an- 
 tea per frequen- 
 tem repeticionem 
 multa memoriter 
 proferre didicis- 
 sent, is si com- 
 pensetcumlabore 
 isto tum utilita- 
 tem cognitionis 
 quam legendo 
 quotidie majorem 
 acquiret, tum 
 contemplacionis 
 fructum, qui ma- 
 jor legentibus 
 quam memoriter 
 verba recitanti- 
 bus provenire 
 solet, laborem 
 hujusmodi haud 
 dubie tolerare ac 
 perferre equo 
 animo non gra- 
 vabitur. Valete et 
 fruimini. 
 
 And if any would 
 judge this way 
 more painful, be- 
 cause that all this 
 must be read 
 upon the book, 
 whereas before 
 by reason of so 
 oft repetition they 
 could say many 
 things by heart: 
 if those men will 
 weigh their la- 
 bour with the 
 profit in know- 
 ledge, which daily 
 they shall obtain 
 by reading upon 
 the book, 
 
 they will not re- 
 fuse the pain in 
 consideration of 
 the great profit 
 that shall ensue 
 thereof 
 
Appendix HI. 371 
 
 (fol. 9a.) CANON. 
 
 Sacram Scripturam * in Divi7iis Ofjiciis hoc 
 ordine legendam disposuimus. 
 
 Psalterium quidem duodecies : Evangelia autem Epis- 
 tole et Apostolorum acta ter singulis annis repetentur. 
 Reliqua vero sacra Biblia universa semel dumtaxat in 
 anno perlegentur. 
 
 De lectione psalmonim, 
 
 Psalterium quolibet mense semel absolvetur. Sed 
 quoniam mensium magna est inequalitas, eos sic ad 
 equalitatem quandam in primis redigendos censuimus. 
 
 Quilibet mensis quantum ad banc rationem attinet, 
 justum numerum triginta dierum obtinebit. 
 
 Quia igitur Januarius et Martins tricenarium numerum 
 uno die superant, intermedins eorum Februarius qui 
 28 dies tantummodo complectitur utrinque diem unum 
 mutuabitur. Et sic Februarii psalterium ultimo die 
 Januarii incipietur et primo Martii terminabitur. 
 
 Rursus quoniam Mains, Julius, Augustus, October 
 et December uno die singuli abundant, in omnium 
 istorum mensium ultimis diebus eosdem ipsos psalmos 
 volumus iterari qui penultimis eorumdem diebus deser- 
 viebant, ut in sequentis semper mensis capite psalterium 
 denuo inchoetur. 
 
 Atque isto quidem modo fiet ut omnes ex equo 
 mensis justo tricennorum dierum numero, quod ad 
 hanc rationem attinet, (fol. gb.) circumscribantur, ultimis 
 
 * " Scrituram " in MS. 
 
372 Appendix III, 
 
 semper istorum qumque mensium die bus cum penul- 
 timis eorundem pro uno eodemque die computatis. 
 
 Nunc quo pacto psalterium quoque huic dierum 
 numero exequavimus, accipite. Id autem tali potissimum 
 ratione indicavimus uti singuli semper dies senos habe- 
 rent psalmos sibi deservientes, nempe pro matutinis 
 temos et pro vespertinis itidem ternos. 
 
 At quum psalmorum liber tantummodo 150 psalmos 
 in sese ex suo corpore contineat qui vel quinorum 
 dumtaxat psalmorum quotidiana lectione in triginta 
 diebus absumerentur, videlicet alios triginta ad suum 
 cuique diei senarium perimplendum alicunde sufficere 
 necesse erat ; idque hoc pacto fecimus. 
 
 Psalmum 118 in viginti duas partes jam olim dis- 
 tinctum nos quoque pro viginti duobus psalmis dis- 
 tinctim recitari statuimus. Atque hinc viginti unus ad 
 desideratum psalmorum tricenarium numerum sugger- 
 untur. ^ Psalmum insuper nonum juxta Hebraicam dis- 
 positionem in duos diduximus, eruntque 29. (22)^ Atque 
 hactenus quidem nihil est a nobis divisum cujus exem- 
 plum non aut in Hebraica litera aut in bibliis nostris 
 invenimus. Jam ut octo psalmi qui adhuc desunt sup- 
 pleantur octo psalmos longissimos singulos in duos 
 desecuimus, nempe 17, 67, 68, 77,88,104, 105 etio6;* 
 sicque tandem tricenarius psalmorum qui desiderabatur 
 numerus plene consummatur. Habemusque in toto 
 psalmos satis multos qui seni in singulos dies distributi 
 in regularem ilium (de quo diximus) triginta dierum 
 mensem sufficiant. Hucusque de psalmorum ordinaria 
 lectione. 
 
 * The following has been erased: "His adjicientur septem sacra can- 
 tica jam diu inter psalmos decantari consueta." 
 
 3 « 22 " is substituted for " 29 " in Cranmer's hand to meet the 
 omission of the canticles. 
 
 3 This was originally written " Jam ut unicus psalmus qui adhuc deest, 
 suppleatur, canticum illud Audite cell que loquar (sic) in duo desecuimus", 
 and has been altered in Cranmer's hand as given above in the text. 
 
Appendix III. 373 
 
 (fol. loa.) De Lectione ceterarujn 
 
 scripturarum. 
 
 Nunc ceteras Scripturas quomodo in lectiones dis- 
 criminavimus audietis. Eruntque qiiotidie matutine terne 
 aut quaterne lectiones; ^-vespertine bine. Addidimus et 
 vespertinis precibus suas lectiones quo nimirum populus 
 semper aliquid addisceret, rediretque de templis domum 
 in verbo Dei instructior. 
 
 De Primis Ledionibus, 
 
 In primis lectionibus turn matutinis turn vespertinis 
 universum Vetus Instrumentum preter Prophetas semel 
 in anno perlegetur. Verum hie triginta novem capita 
 longiora ad satisfaciendum dierum numero sunt divisa^ 
 et ex singulis bina constituta. 
 
 De Secundis Lectionibus, 
 
 Omnes Veteris Testamenti Prophete, cum Apocalipsi 
 ex novo, quam (quoniam et ipsa prophetia est) reliquis 
 sui generis adjungendam existimavimus, in secundis 
 lectionibus matutinis recitabuntur. Ceterum hie quoque 
 85 prolixiora capita, ut lectionum numerus cum dierum 
 numero adamussim quadraret coacti sumus discindere. 
 Et sic totum vetus instrumentum est dispositum. Porro 
 secundis lectionibus vespertinis Epistolas Paulinas una 
 cum ceteris canonicis assignavimus, quas omnes ter 
 in unius anni circulo percurremus. Hie autem unum 
 tantummodo caput est divisum idque duntaxat in 
 secunda et tercia repeticione. 
 
 (fol. lob.) De Tertiis Lectionibus. 
 
 Postremo Evangelia cum Actis Apostolicis in tercias 
 lectiones matutinas dispartivimus, que etiam ter in anno 
 universa revolventur. Denique et hie ut lectionum et 
 dierum calculus conveniret, quinque capita longiora 
 medium secuimus. 
 
 A A 
 
374 Appendix T 11. 
 
 Atque hoc pacto a nobis universa biblia in diuma 
 tanquam pensa sunt descripta ut et eorum terminus 
 semper una cum anni termino claudatur; etrevertente 
 novi anni initio librorum quoque initium semper sit 
 repetendum. 
 
 lUud preterea non est silentio pretermittendum quod 
 in annis bisextilibus dies ille additicius qui in Februario 
 intercalatur, idem per omnia servitium cum die qui 
 precesserat observabit. 
 
 (f ol. 1 1 a.) Series Officii Matutim. 
 
 Nunc quo res fiat dilucidior, seriem pensi matutini 
 quam observari volumus a capite ad calcem perscrib- 
 emus. 
 
 Primum omnium dicatur Oratio dominica idque ser- 
 mone vernaculo distinctius quam antehac solebat. Qua 
 finita more solito incipiatur Domine labia cum Deus in 
 adjutoriuin, Gloria patri, et Alleluia, vel a Septuage- 
 sima ad Pascha Laus tibi Domine juxta inveteratam 
 ecclesie consuetudinem. 
 
 Deinde pretermisso Venite (quod in classe sua inter 
 psalmos semel in mense recitari satis est visum) can- 
 tetur Hymnus ; quem finitum statim sequantur Ires 
 psalmi quorum quilibet suo Gloria palri terminetur. 
 
 Post hec rursus Oracio dominica recitetur in vulgari 
 lingua apertius proferendo. Tum legantur tres lectiones^ 
 His rite peractis canatur Te Deum ; et eo finito legatur 
 quarta lectio si qua fuerit eo die legenda. Non erit 
 autem nisi diebus dominicis, vel quum sancti cujuspiam 
 natalis aut dies alioqui insignis aliquis incident cui 
 quartam lectionem assignandam duxerimus. N?^ hunc 
 locum peculiariter sanctorum historiis ethomeL tque 
 exhortacionibus tempori convenientibus destinavimus. 
 Porro unaqueque lectio sive ad matutinas sive adves- 
 pertinas horas cum Juhe Domine et henedictione a 
 sacerdote succinenda inchoetur, ac sua solita clausula 
 
Appendix III. 375 
 
 obsignabitur, nempe Tu autem Domtne etc. Et respon- 
 deat totus chorus Et ignosce peccatis nostris propter 
 magnam mtsericordiam tuam. Et legendas sive lectiones 
 non intra cancellos ut hodie sed foris e suggestu ut apud 
 veteres fieri consuevit censemus recitandas, idque ser- 
 mone vernaculo, ut populus audiens atque etiamintel- 
 ligens edificetur, et juxta Pauli institutionem respondere 
 possit. Amen. 
 
 His omnibus finitis cantabitur Benedtctus ; deinde 
 Dominus vohiscum cum Oratione et Benedicamus Domino. 
 Et respondeatur semper Laudemus et superexaltemus 
 nomen ejus in secula. Amen. (Fol. 11^). 
 
 Et sic peractis Matutinis, singulis dominicis statim 
 dicetur symbolum Qutcu?nque milt. Quo terminato cum 
 suo Gloria patri continuo dicet sacerdos has precationes. 
 
 Ostende nobis Domine misericordiam tuam, 
 
 Respondeatur : Et salutare tuum da nobis, 
 
 V. Dignare Domine die is to. 
 
 R. Sine peccato nos custodire. 
 
 V. Miserere nostri Domine. 
 
 R. Miserere nostri. 
 
 V. Fiat misericordia tua Domine super nos. 
 
 R. Quemadmodum speravimus in te. 
 
 V. Domine Deus virtutum converte nos. 
 
 R. Et ostende faciem tua?n et salvi erimus, 
 
 V. Domine exaiidi orationem nostram. ^ 
 
 R. Et clamor noster^ ad te venial. 
 
 V. Dominus vobiscum. 
 
 R. Et cum spiritu tuo. 
 
 Oremus. Domine sancte Pater &c. * 
 
 V. ^Dominus vobiscum. 
 
 I? , • jfi"/ cum. 
 
 Benedicamus Domino. 
 
 ' This change is significant. 
 * As in Saruin at prime. 
 
376 Appendix III, 
 
 Iv. Laudeimis et superexaltemus npmen ejus in 
 secula. Amen. 
 
 Series Officii Vespertini, 
 
 Oratio dominica. 
 Deus in adfiitorium. 
 Gloria patri vel Laus * tihi. 
 Tunc Hymnus, 
 Tres psalmi. 
 Pater noster. 
 
 Due lecfiones cum suis Benedictionibits, 
 Mag72ificat. 
 Postremo Oratio eo prorsus modo quo ad officium 
 matutinum. 
 
 Porro Completoriufu hie in totum ommittendum cen- 
 suimus, et similiter horas illas consuetas Primam^ 
 Tertiam, Sextain, et Nonam. Tunc quod in his omnibus 
 fiat parum utihs et ociosa rerum semper earundem 
 repetitio, tum et iam quod instar ludibrii videatur, 
 eandem horarum partitionem (fol. 12 a) retinere quam 
 ohm prisci patres observabant quum mos ille septies 
 in die orandi jampridem in ecclesia exoleverit, solea- 
 musque nunc bis tantum in die ad preces convenire> 
 Et in locum completorii lectiones illas duas vesper- 
 tinas suifecimus, que semper alie atque alie occurrentes 
 ut utilitatis plus, ita et tedii minus tam lectoribus 
 quam auditoribus aiferent. 
 
 Nolumus autem quenquam ad aliud pro Officiis 
 matutinis aut vespertinis dicendum quam hie est ex- 
 pressum obligari. 
 
 Canon de ahbreviaiidis ^ ecclesiasticis precacionibus 
 propter predicationem 
 Verbi. 
 Nunc vero quoniam hunc scopum in hac ecclesiasti- 
 
 ' Lus MS. 
 
 2 abbreviendis in MS. 
 
Appendix III. 377 
 
 canim precacionum editione potissimum spectamus ut 
 omnia (juxta Pauli consilium) quecumque in ecclesia 
 g-eruntur ad edificacionem ecclesie fiant, cumque hoc 
 quod tantopere cupimus persuasum habeamus maxime 
 ex eo eventurum si pastores cordati et eruditi serio 
 omnibus modis operam et diligentiam impendant ut 
 verbum Dei quam manifestissime populo indocto subinde 
 exponatur et cessanti ^ quam studiosissime inculcetur, 
 eam ob rem, ne quid publicarum precationum nostrarum 
 prolixitas hie a nobis instituta operam illam bonorum 
 pastorum in suo grege docendo aut impedire aut ulla 
 €x parte remorari valeat, hoc canone cautum et con- 
 firmatum esse volumus uti quotiescumque sermo ahquis 
 exhortationis dicendus est ad plebem aut predicatio 
 habenda, tunc Hceat parocho Te Deum, et quartam 
 lectionem cum symbolo Quicumque vult in pubHcis 
 illis coram populo precationibus pretermittere, nimirum 
 ut populus nimis diutuma lectione detentus ac defati- 
 gatus aut non satis alacris accedat aut non satis tem- 
 poris habeat ad audiendam predicationem Evangelii et 
 claram ostensionem spiritus Christi. 
 
 Fol. 12b. Benedictiones dicende ante 
 
 lectiones matutinas. 
 
 Prima. A dsis o pater omnipotens audtque precanfes. 
 Secunda. Nate Deo Deus ipse precantum suscipe vota. 
 Tertia. Spiritus alme tuis nos largiter imbue donis. 
 Quarta. Dis trina unius, una trium^ Deus adjuvei 
 unus. 
 Benedictiones dicende ante 
 lectiones vespertinas. 
 Prima. Nos pater et gnatus benedicat et halitus 
 
 alinus. 
 Secunda. N'os et trina Dei benedicat et una potestas. 
 He benedictiones toti deservient anno. 
 
 1 So MS. (?) incessanter. 
 
378 Appendix III. 
 
 (fol. 13 a.) Ilynini die en dt ad I lor as Matutinas 
 et Vespertinas per totum 
 fere annum. 
 
 Ad matutinas in 
 
 die Dominico, Primo dieruvi omnium. * 
 
 Ad vesperas, Christe qui lux es et dies, ^ 
 (fol. 13b.) Ad matutinas in 
 
 die Lune, Immense celi conditor.^ 
 
 Ad vesperas, Te lucis ante terminum."" 
 Ad matutinas in 
 
 die Martis, Telluris ingens conditor.^ 
 
 Ad vesperas, Jesu Salvator seculi. ^ 
 (fol. 14a.) Ad matutinas in 
 
 die Marcurie, * Celi Deus sanctissime. ' 
 
 Ad vesperas, Deus Creator omnium. ^ 
 
 ^ The hymn for matins on Sunday in Sarum. "Diebus dominicis 
 ad nocturnum matutinum" (Clichtoveus fol. 6a.) 
 
 ^ In Sarum the hymn for compline from the first Sunday of Lent to 
 Passion Sunday : "In quadragesima ad completorium" (Clichtoveus 
 fol. 25b.) 
 
 ' In Sarum the hymn for vespers on monday : "Feria secunda ad 
 vesperas" (Clichtoveus fol. 8b.) 
 
 In Sarum the compline hymn during Advent and from Oct. Epiph. 
 to Lent. "Ad completorium" (Clichtoveus fol. 5b.) 
 
 ^ In S. the hymn at vespers ontuesday: — "Feria tertia ad vesperas'* 
 (Clicht. fol. 9b.) 
 
 * In S. the compline hymn from the octave of Easter to Ascension. 
 The strophe "Quaesumus auctor^^ is of course omitted here (so too in 
 Clicht. fol. 37b.) 
 
 ' In S. the hymn at vespers on Wednesday. So too Clicht. fol. lob. 
 
 ^ In S. a compline hymn (Brev. i, 220). "Sabbato ad vesperas" 
 (Clicht. fol. 14a.) The MS. reads ''reos ut,'' and ''profunda'' as in 
 Clicht. 
 
 a So MS. The substitution of "a" for "e" is a peculiarity of the 
 scribe in this scheme; thus "marcatus" in the hymn Christe qui lux ; 
 "parditas" in the hymn Eterne rex ; in the preface, "disp^irtivimus" 
 
Appendix III. 379 
 
 Ad matutinas in die 
 Jovis, Magne Deus potentie. * 
 
 (fol. 14b.) Ad vesperas, Lucis Creator optime.'^ 
 
 Ad matutinas in 
 
 die Veneris, Plasmator hominis Deus.^ 
 
 Ad vesperas, O Pater sumince Deltalis 
 
 ortus. " * 
 Ad matutinas in 
 
 die Sabbati, /am lucis orto sidere. ^ 
 (fol. 15 a.) Ad vesperas, O lux heata Trinitas. ° 
 
 A primis vesperis natalis Domini usque ad secundas 
 vesperas Epiphanie dicentur hii duo hymni, alter ad 
 vesperas, alter ad matutinas: 
 
 Ad vesperas, Christe rede^nptor om- 
 nium. ' 
 (fol. 1 5b.) Ad matutinas, Agnoscat omne seculum. ^ 
 A primis vesperis dominice quinte quadragesime, que 
 vocatur dominica in passione, usque ad dominicam 
 palmarum dicentur hii hymni, alter ad vesperas alter 
 ad matutinas: 
 
 ^ In S. and Clicht. hymn at vespers on thursday. 
 
 2 The hymn at vespers on Sunday, S. and Clicht. ; but the MS. inverts 
 the order of strophes 2 and 3 and has "A<f mens ^^ h^ioxt*^ Qui mane J* 
 
 ' The hymn at vespers on friday in S. and Clicht. 
 
 * A composition of Clichtoveus (fol. 14b.) 
 
 ^ Hymn for prime in S. and Clicht. (fol. 3b.) 
 
 ^ The hymn at vespers on Saturday from the first Sunday after 
 Trinity to Advent in S. "Sabbato ad vesperas" (Clicht. fol. 13b.) 
 
 ■^ The hymn of first vespers of Christmas in S. "In nativitate 
 Domini" (Clicht. fol. 17a. who reads "genlium^^ for **omniwn^^). 
 
 ® This hymn is in York but not in Sarum. There can be no doubt 
 however that it was not taken from the York book but from Clicht. 
 ("in nativitate Domini" fol. 17b.). Clichtoveus like the MS. has no 
 doxology. 
 
 a dietatis. MS. 
 
380 Appendix III. 
 
 Ad vesperas, Ctiltor dei memento. * 
 (fol. 1 6a). Ad matutinas, Vexilla regis prodeunt. ^ 
 
 A primis vesperis dominice Palmarum usque ad 
 Pascha dicentur hii duo hymni ad vesperas et ad 
 matutinas : 
 
 Ad vesperas, Magno salutis gaudio.^ 
 Ad matutinas, Hym^tum dicamus Domino.^ 
 
 (fol. 1 6b). A matutinis in die Pasche usque ad Ascent- 
 ionem dicentur (hii) hymni ad matutinas et vesperas: 
 
 Ad matutinas, Aurora lucis rutilat. '^ 
 (fol. 17 a). Ad vesperas. Chorus nove Hierusalcm.^ 
 
 A primis vesperis Ascentionis usque ad Pentecosten 
 
 dicentur hymni sequentes ad vesperas et ad matutinas : 
 
 Ad vesperas, Festum 7iu7ic celebre viag- 
 
 ncique gaudia. '^ 
 Ad matutinas, Eterne rex altissime. * 
 
 * The compline hymn, Passion Sunday, &c. in Sarum. "In Quadra- 
 gesima alius hymnus" (Clichtoveus fol. 29a. Clichtoveus and the MS 
 both read "paululum" instead of "paulum" as in Sarum). 
 
 2 The vesper hymn for Passion Sunday &c. in Sarum. "Dominica 
 in passione" (Clichtoveus fol. 30a.) 
 
 3 This hymn is not in the english breviaries or Quignon. "Dominica 
 in ramis palmarum" (Clichtoveus fol. 32a.) 
 
 * Not in the english breviaries or Quignon. "De passione Domini" 
 (Clichtoveus fol. 33b.) 
 
 5 In Clichtoveus fol. 35b "in festis Paschalibus ". In Sarum this hymn 
 is divided between matins and lauds of Eastertide from the octave. The 
 strophe "Quaesumus auctor" is not given in the MS. 
 
 8 Hymn at vespers of Eastertide from the octave in Sarum. " In tem- 
 pore Paschali" (Clichtoveus fol. 36b.) 
 
 7 This hymn is not in the english breviaries or Quignon. It is taken 
 from Clichtoveus "in ascensione Domini" (fol. 38b.) 
 
 " In Sarum this hymn is divided between vespers (or matins) and 
 lauds of Ascension day: The MS. copies the entire hymn as in 
 Clichtoveus ("in ascensione Domini ad completorium" fol. 38b.) reading 
 also in the second line of the doxology, "Qui ascendisti adelhera", as 
 Clichtoveus, instead of "Qui scandis super sidera" as in Sarum. 
 
Appendix III. 381 
 
 (fol. 17 b). A primis vesperis Penticostes usque ad 
 prim as vesperas dominice Trinitatis inclusive dicentur 
 hii hymni ad vesperas et ad matutinas : 
 
 Ad vesperas, Veni Creator Spiritiis. ^ 
 Ad matutinas, Jam Christus astra ascend- 
 er at. '^ 
 
 (fol. 1 8b). Orationes per totum annum dicende. 
 
 Hec oratio dicetur per totum adventum, Excita quesu- 
 mus &c. as at the fourth Sunday of Advent in 
 App. II. 
 
 Hec oratio a primis vesperis natalis Domini usque ad 
 secundas vesperas Epiphanie, Concede quesumus 
 &c as at first vespers of Christmas in App. II. 
 
 Hec oratio dicetur ab Epiphania usque ad Septuagesi- 
 mam. Dens qui nos in tantis &c: as at fourth 
 Sunday after Epiphany in App. II. 
 
 A Septuagesima usque ad Quadragesimam Deus qui 
 conspicis quia ex nulla etc. (See Sexagesima collect 
 in S. ; but for '' doctor is gentium protectione" the 
 MS. has '' tua protectione " ) 
 
 A prima dominica Quadragesime usque ad Passionem 
 Deus qui conspicis &c. as at second Sunday of 
 Lent in App. II; but the first "et" is omitted. 
 
 A dominica Passionis ad Pascha, Omnipotens sempiterne 
 Deus qui hicmano generi &c, as at lauds of Pas- 
 sion Sunday in App. II; but "habere valeamus 
 consortia." 
 
 {fol. 19a). In die Pasche et (per) totam ebdomadam 
 
 1 In Sarum the hymn at tierce on Whitsunday ; "in die Pentecostes" 
 (Clichtoveus f. 40a.) 
 
 2 In Sarum this hymn is divided between vespers (or matins) and 
 lauds of Whitsunday. 
 
 The MS copies the entire hymn as in Clichtoveus (.fol. 41a, taking 
 his reading-, " compleat " and " omnibus "for " complevit " and " omnium " 
 as in Sarum 
 
382 Appendix III. 
 
 Deus qui hodierna die, as at lauds of Easter Day 
 in App. II. 
 
 A prima Dominica post Pascha ad Ascentionem, Deus 
 a quo bona cuncta &c. as at fifth Sunday after 
 Easter in App. II. 
 
 Ab Ascentione ad Pentecosten, Concede &c. as at first 
 vespers of the Ascension in App. II. 
 
 In die Pentecostes et per totam ebdomadam, Deus qut 
 hodierna die cor da etc. "Sancta" is omitted (see. 
 Appendix II, first vespers of Pentecost). 
 
 In festo Trinitatis Omnipotens sempiterne &c. as at 
 Trinity Sunday in App. II ; but " ut ejusdem fidei " 
 instead of "ut in" etc. 
 
 Then follow the prayers from the first to the twenty- 
 fifth Sunday after Trinity as in the breviary scheme 
 (App. II) with the following variants: 
 Ninth Sunday "propitius" is omitted. 
 Fourteenth Sunday "ut valeamus assequi." 
 Twenty-fourth Sunday "a peccatorum nexibus." 
 
 (fol. 22 a). Sequuntur quarte lectiones prout festa quibus 
 quartas lectiones duximus assignandas in ordine 
 mensium emergent. 
 
 (The Festivale then follows to fol. 132 inclusive). 
 
APPENDIX IV. 
 
 (a) The lectionaries. 
 
 Four schemes for the reading of Holy Scripture have 
 to be considered here. The first is the original plan> 
 in Cranmer's hand (ff. 151 — 6); the second the inter- 
 mediate scheme (fF. 157 — 9); a third at the beginning 
 of the MS. (ff. 4 — 6); and the fourth, that printed in 
 the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. They are here- 
 distinguished by the numbers (i), (2), (3), and (4). 
 
 In regard to the number of lessons to be said at 
 each service the following table shows the stages by 
 which the ancient arrangement was abandoned, and' 
 how the plan eventually adopted was arrived at. 
 
 Offices 
 
 Number of Lessons. 
 
 
 (i) 
 
 (2) 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 Matins 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Lauds 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 Vespers 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Authority for three lessons at matins was to be 
 found in the ancient breviaries, whilst the lesson at 
 
384 Appendix IV. 
 
 lauds and vespers may be taken as merely an exten- 
 sion of the little chapters at these hours. After the 
 first scheme lauds are left out; but a single lesson 
 is still retained at vespers in the second plan; this 
 was increased to two chapters in the third ; an increase 
 which in the printed book was compensated for by 
 reducing the traditional three lessons for matins to two. 
 
 It would occupy much space, without corresponding 
 utility, to print in a tabular form these four schemes 
 for a lectionary. The interest of the comparison really 
 lies in the proof afforded of the gradual tendency to 
 substitute the civil for the ecclesiastical year; and, for 
 an arrangement which in some measure corresponded 
 with the ecclesiastical seasons, a mechanical lechb con- 
 tinua of the Scriptures. 
 
 Thus scheme (i) places the beginning of Genesis at 
 Septuagesima Sunday; in (2) it is transferred to the 
 beginning of January, and this is kept in the Book of 
 1549. Similarly St. Matthew in (i) also began at Sep- 
 tuagesima, and, although this is not the traditional 
 custom, it at least shows an imitation of the ancient 
 arrangement. In (2) the beginning of this gospel is placed 
 upon March 20th;' whilst in (3) and the printed book it 
 is transferred to the beginning of January. St. John's 
 gospel seems from early times to have been asso- 
 ciated with Easter tide. In scheme (i) it is begun on 
 Easter Monday ; in (2) on January 4th, and in (3) and the 
 printed Book it is begun on March 1 4th, July 1 3th and 
 November gth; that is to say it follows in ordinary 
 course the reading of the gospels adopted in the final 
 scheme. 
 
 According to the ancient system the historical 
 books of Scripture were commenced soon after Pen- 
 tecost. In scheme (i) the beginning is fixed for 
 the 3rd Sunday ,in (2) it is placed on June 25th, which 
 represents about the same period of the calendar 
 
Appendix IV. 
 
 385 
 
 3'^ear; in the printed Book they begin on April 8th. 
 
 In the first scheme a chapter is generally divided 
 into 2, or more commonly 3 lessons. This is gradually 
 abandoned for the system of a chapter for each lesson 
 as it appears in the printed lectionary. 
 
 In (i) no lessons are assigned to the matins of Ash 
 Wednesday, to the matins and vespers from Passion 
 Sunday to Easter Sunday inclusively, to the vespers 
 of Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of Easter week, 
 and to matins and vespers of Ascension, Pentecost,. 
 Trinity and Corpus Christi. These are all provided for 
 by special lessons in the projected breviary. It has been 
 already stated that in (i) Cranmer follows Quignon's 
 arrangement of the ecclesiastical year. 
 
 The amount of each book of Holy Scripture assigned 
 to be read remains on the whole much the same through- 
 out the four schemes, but the tendency is to simpli- 
 fication. There are also some interesting variations of 
 which the following may be given as examples. 
 
 Books 
 
 (i) 
 
 (2) 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 Chapters. 
 
 
 
 
 Genesis . . . 
 
 1—9 
 11-35 
 
 1—9 
 
 1—50 
 
 1—9 
 
 
 37—50 
 
 11—50 
 
 
 11—50 
 
 Exodus . . . 
 
 1—24 
 
 1—24 
 
 1—40 
 
 1—24 
 
 
 32—35 
 
 32—34 
 
 
 32—35 
 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 
 40 
 
 Leviticus . . 
 
 18, 19, 20. 
 
 18, 19, 20. 
 
 1—27 
 
 18, 19,20. 
 
 Numbers . . 
 
 10—25 
 27—36 
 
 10—36 
 
 1-36 
 
 10—36 
 
 Josue . . . 
 
 I — 12 
 
 20 
 
 22—24 
 
 I — 12 
 
 20 — 24 
 
 1—24 
 
 1—24 
 
386 
 
 Appendix IV. 
 
 Books. 
 
 (I) 
 
 (2) 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 Chapters. 
 
 
 
 
 Hester . . . 
 
 I — 16 
 
 I — 16 
 
 I — 16 
 
 1—9 
 
 Job . . . . 
 
 1—42 
 
 1—4 
 
 1—42 
 
 1—42 
 
 Matthew . . 
 
 4—25 
 
 4—25 
 
 1—28 
 
 1—28 
 
 John . . . . 
 
 I — 10 
 
 I — 10 
 
 I — 21 
 
 I 2\ 
 
 Luke. . . . 
 
 1,3—21 
 
 I — 21 
 
 1—24 
 
 1—24 
 
 -Acts. . . . 
 
 3—5 
 
 3—5 
 
 
 
 
 8—28 
 
 8—28 
 
 1—28 
 
 1—28 
 
 ^cclesiasticus. 
 
 I— 51 
 
 I — 15 
 17—51 
 
 I— 51 
 
 I— 51 
 
 ^zechiel . . 
 
 
 2, 3, 8, 9. 
 12 — 22 
 25—26 
 
 28-37 
 
 1—48 
 
 2, 3, 6, 7. 
 
 13, 14, 18. 
 33—34 
 
 Apocalypse . 
 
 
 I — 12 
 
 1—22 
 
 
 The third scheme alone provided for the reading of 
 Chronicles I and II, Esdras III and IV, the Canticles 
 and Machabees I and II. The Lamentations of Jeremias, 
 not in (i) and (2), first appear in (3) and are also in- 
 •cluded in the lectionary of the Book of 1549. 
 
 (b) The Calendars. 
 
 The following print shews the two calendars of Saints' 
 •days contained in the MS. with the contents of the 
 Festivale, or lives of saints, to be read as a lesson on 
 their feast day. The earlier calendar is printed in the 
 first column, the later in the second. It is to be 
 noted that 
 
 (i) all the entries in the earlier calendar (ff. 157 — 9) 
 ■are in red ink; 
 
Appendix IV. 387 
 
 (2) those in the later calendar (fF. 4 — 6) in red are 
 here printed in italics; 
 
 (3) all entries in capitals are additions or corrections 
 in Cranmer's hand; 
 
 (4) the erasures are specified in the notes; 
 
 (5) the entries to which an asterisk is prefixed have 
 a proper lesson in the Festivale, and those marked 
 with a t have a place assigned in the Festivale, but no 
 lesson has been written. 
 
388 
 
 Appendix IV. 
 
 F 
 
 ^iRST Calendar. 
 
 — Second Calendar. 
 
 Januar 
 
 . 
 
 
 I. 
 
 Circumcisio do- 
 mini. 
 
 * Circumcisio, 
 
 2. 
 
 
 *Abel. 
 
 3- 
 
 
 Noe. 
 
 4- 
 
 Titus. 
 
 *Titus. 
 
 6. 
 
 Epiphania domi- 
 ni. 
 
 "^Epiphania. 
 
 • 7- 
 
 
 Abraham. 
 
 8. 
 
 
 LUCIANUS PRESBITER. * 
 
 9. 
 
 
 Sara. 
 
 13. 
 
 Hilarius, 
 
 *Hilarius. ^ 
 
 14. 
 
 
 Isaac. Felix Nol.® 
 
 15- 
 
 
 Jacob. 
 
 17- 
 
 
 Antonius. 
 
 19. 
 
 
 Joseph. 
 
 20. 
 
 
 Fabianus et Sebas. 
 
 21. 
 
 
 (Agnes).. 
 
 22. 
 
 Timotheus. 
 
 *Timotheus. ViNCEN. 
 
 24. 
 
 Babilas. 
 
 
 25- 
 
 Convers. Pauli. 
 
 *Conversio Pauli.* 
 
 26. 
 
 
 *Ananias. 
 
 27- 
 
 Ghrysostomus. 
 
 *Chrisostomus. 
 
 * At fol. 26a after the special lesson for Epiphany is this note in 
 Cranmer's hand, " De Luciano lege eccle. hist. li. 8. ca. 1 4 et breviarium 
 Romanum ". 
 
 2 At the end of the lesson for St. Hilary Cranmer notes "lege bre- 
 viarium Romanum" (fol. 27. a.) 
 
 3 Fol. 27b, in Cranmer's hand, "De Felice, lege Augustinum, Am- 
 brosium, portiforium, Paulinum in fine Encomenii nuper translati". The 
 precise volume referred to here by Cranmer has not been identified. 
 
 * An entry "Babilas" at 24 January has been erased, and Cranmer 
 substituted "Conversio pauli", erasing the entry of that feast at the 
 25th. Finally Cranmer erased his own entry at the 24th, and wrote 
 "stet" against the erased entry of the 25th. 
 
Appendix IV. 
 
 389 
 
 First Calendar. 
 
 Second Calendar. 
 
 Februar. 
 
 
 I. 
 
 Ignatius. 
 
 *Ignatius. 
 
 2. 
 
 Purificatio beate 
 Marie. 
 
 "^Purificatio Mar, 
 
 3- 
 
 Philias et Philo- 
 romus. 
 
 
 4- 
 
 
 *Phileas et Philoromus.^ 
 
 7. 
 
 
 Adauctus cum sotiis. 
 
 9- 
 
 
 Apollonia. 
 
 10. 
 
 
 Vidua paupercula. 
 
 12. 
 
 
 EULALIA. 
 
 15. 
 
 
 Zacharias et Elisabeth. 
 
 16. 
 
 
 JULITA. 
 
 17- 
 
 
 Symion. 
 
 21. 
 
 Benjamin. 
 
 *Benjamin. 
 
 24. 
 
 d. Mathias. 
 
 "^Mathias, 
 
 Martius. 
 
 
 3. 
 
 
 Marinus et Asterius. 
 
 4- 
 
 40 martyrevS. 
 
 
 7- 
 
 
 Perpetua et Felicitas. 
 
 8. 
 
 
 Zacheus. 
 
 9. 
 
 
 *40 MARTYRES. ^ 
 
 12. 
 
 Gregorius. 
 
 Fidelis latro. Greg. 
 
 14. 
 
 
 Phinees. 
 
 18. 
 
 
 fEdwardus rex et mart. 
 
 19. 
 
 
 fjoseph. 
 
 20. 
 
 
 Cuthbertus. 
 
 24. 
 
 
 Hieremias. 
 
 25- 
 
 Annunciatio beate 
 Mar. 
 
 Annunciacio m. 
 
 1 " Phileas and Philoromus" were entered by the scribe at 3 February; 
 this entry has been erased and the feast is inserted by Cranmer at the 
 next day. 
 
 ^ "40 martyres " originally entered by the scribe at 4 March ; erased 
 and transferred by Cranmer to the 9th. 
 
 B B 
 
390 
 
 Appendix IV, 
 
 First Calendar. 
 
 - Second Calendar. 
 
 Aprilis. 
 
 
 I. 
 
 
 tJoseph ab Arama. 
 1 
 
 2. 
 
 4- 
 
 d. Ambrosius. 
 
 *Ambrosius. 
 
 7- 
 
 
 Epiphanius. 
 
 8. 
 
 
 Josue. 
 
 II. 
 
 
 Leo I. 
 
 13. 
 
 
 JUSTINUS. 
 
 14. 
 
 TyburtiusValeria- 
 nus etc. 
 
 TiBURTIUS ET VALER. 
 
 16. 
 
 
 Cassianus. 
 
 19. 
 
 
 Lidia. 
 
 22. 
 
 
 Delbora. ^ 
 
 23- 
 
 
 f Georgnis. 
 
 24. 
 
 d. Marcus. 
 
 Gedeon. 
 
 25- 
 
 
 "^Alarcus. 
 
 28. 
 
 
 Sanson. ViTALIS. 
 
 Maius. 
 
 
 
 I. 
 
 Philip, et Jacob. 
 
 ""Philippi et Jacohi 
 
 2. 
 
 Athanasius. 
 
 fAthanasius. 
 
 3- 
 
 
 Booz. Inventio crucis. 
 
 4- 
 
 - 
 
 *Anna uxor helca. 
 
 5- 
 
 
 Samuel. 
 
 8. 
 
 
 fCenturio. 
 
 9- 
 
 Gregorius Nazian- 
 zenus. 
 
 fGregorius Nazianz. 
 
 lO. 
 
 
 GORDIANUS ET EPIMA. 
 
 13- 
 
 
 David rex. ^ 
 
 16. 
 
 
 f Chananea. ** 
 
 26. 
 
 • 
 
 fNathan. AUGUST. 
 
 1 Cranmer has entered at 2 April " Visitatio Marie " ; this entry 
 was afterwards crossed through. See 2 July, below. 2 So MS. 
 
 3 Cranmer enters after David "Cornelius"; this was afterwards cross- 
 ed through. * After the Chananea the Festivale gives fF. 62 — 66 a long 
 account of Gordius mart. " ex Basilio". 
 
Appendix IV. 
 
 391 
 
 First Calendar. 
 
 - Second Calendar. 
 
 Junius 
 
 
 
 
 I. 
 
 
 
 P VMPHILUS MARTYR CUM 
 SOTIIS. ' 
 
 2. 
 
 
 
 Marcellinus et Pe- 
 trus. 
 
 4- 
 
 
 
 Amorrousa. 
 
 II. 
 
 Barnabas. 
 
 
 *Bamabas. 
 
 13. 
 
 
 
 fHelyas. 
 
 14. 
 
 Basilius. 
 
 
 *Basilius. 
 
 16. 
 
 
 
 jAnna prophetissa. 
 
 18. 
 
 
 
 fHeliseus. 
 
 19. 
 
 
 
 Gervasius et Prothas. 
 
 -21. 
 
 
 
 jBaruc. 
 
 22. 
 
 
 
 Albanus. 
 
 2^ 
 
 Nat. Joan, 
 ste. 
 
 baptis- 
 
 '^Nativitas Johannis. 
 
 26. 
 
 
 
 fEzechias. JOHANNES ET 
 Paulus. 
 
 27- 
 
 
 
 fjosias. 
 
 28. 
 
 Ireneus. 
 
 
 fHyreneus. 
 
 29. 
 
 Petrus et 
 
 Paulus. 
 
 "^Petrus et Paulus. 
 
 30. 
 
 
 
 Ezechiel. *Commeo Pauli. 
 
 Julius. 
 
 
 
 
 2. 
 
 Petrus Dorotheus 
 
 VisiTATio Marie. * 
 
 
 etc. 
 
 
 
 9- 
 
 Cyrillus. 
 
 
 fCyrillus. 
 
 10. 
 
 
 
 7 fratres martyres. 
 
 13- 
 
 
 
 fNathanael. 
 
 * Cranmer had originally entered at i June "Justinus martyr"; this 
 is erased and he has substituted Pamphilus as above. Justin martyr is 
 entered at 13 April. 
 
 * The original entry by the scribe was " Petrus Dorotheus etc." This 
 has been erased and "Visitatio Marie" originally entered by Cranmer 
 at 2 April is transferred hither. 
 
392 
 
 Appejidix IV, 
 
 First Calendar. 
 
 — Second Calendar. 
 
 Julius. 
 
 
 
 1 6. 
 
 
 Samaritana. 
 
 1 
 
 20. 
 22. 
 
 Maria Magdalena. 
 
 ^Maria Magda. 
 
 25. 
 
 
 ^Jacobi Apostoli. 
 
 26. 
 
 d. Anna. 
 
 fAnna. 
 
 27- 
 
 
 7 FRATRES DORMIENTES^ 
 
 29. 
 
 
 fMartha. 
 
 Augustus. 
 
 
 2. 
 
 
 fEsdras. 
 
 6. 
 
 
 Transfiguratio. 
 
 8. 
 
 
 fGamaliel. Cyriacus. 
 
 10. 
 
 d. Laurencius. 
 
 fLaurentius. 
 
 13. 
 
 
 fCornelius. Hippolitus, 
 
 15. 
 
 Assump.b. Marie. 
 
 \Assumtio M. 
 
 21. 
 
 
 f Appollo et Aquila. 
 
 24. 
 
 d. Bartholomeus. 
 
 "^Bartholomeus. 
 
 27. 
 
 
 fTobias. 
 
 28. 
 
 d. Augustinus. 
 
 *Augustinus D. 
 
 30. 
 
 
 Felix et Adauctus. * 
 
 September. 
 
 
 I. 
 
 
 Mamas. 
 
 3. 
 
 
 tJudith. 
 
 8. 
 
 Nativitas b. Marie. 
 
 \Nativitas M. 
 
 10. 
 
 « 
 
 fDaniel. 
 
 II. 
 
 
 fHester. Prothus et Hya- 
 
 CYNTHUS. 
 
 14. 
 
 Cyprianus. 
 
 *Cyprianus ET CORNELIUS. 
 
 * "Margareta" is entered by Cranmer at 20 July, and afterwards 
 crossed through. 
 
 * The entry "Felix et Adauctus" was originally made by Cranmer 
 at 31 August, and afterwards crossed through. 
 
Appendix IV. 
 
 393 
 
 First Calendar. 
 
 — Second Calendar. 
 
 .September. 
 
 
 19. 
 
 
 tJob. 
 
 21. 
 
 d. Matheus. 
 
 Mathei postoli. 
 
 22. 
 
 
 Mauritius cum so. 
 
 23. 
 
 
 Tecla. 
 
 24. 
 
 Tecla. 
 
 
 27- 
 
 
 COSMAS ET DaMIA. 
 
 29. 
 
 d. Michael. 
 
 \Michael cum omnibus A, 
 
 30. 
 
 
 fSusanna. HiERO. 
 
 October . 
 
 
 4- 
 
 
 fOsee. 
 
 6. 
 
 Polycarpus. 
 
 1 
 
 7. 
 
 
 Marcus et Marcell. 
 
 9- 
 
 Dionisius Rusticus 
 etc. 
 
 Dionisius cum so. 
 
 II. 
 
 
 "^Luce Evangelist * 
 
 18. 
 
 d. Lucas. 
 
 fAmos. 
 
 21. 
 
 
 ^Symonis et Judae. 
 
 28. 
 
 d. Simon et Judas. 
 
 fAbdias. 
 
 30. 
 
 
 fjonas. 
 
 31- 
 
 
 
 INovember. 
 
 
 I. 
 
 Omnes Sancti. 
 
 ^ Omnes s. defundi. ' 
 
 2. 
 
 
 Memoria animarum. 
 
 4- 
 
 
 fMicheas. ViTALis ET Agri- 
 CO. 
 
 8. 
 
 
 4 CORONATORUM. 
 
 9- 
 
 
 Theodorus. 
 
 ^ Policarpus is entered by the scribe at 6 October; the entry was 
 afterwards erased. Polycarp has a lesson in the Festivale. 
 
 « Nicasius is entered by Cranmer at 1 1 October ; the entry is erased. 
 
 ' Over this entry Cranmer has written : " sancti ". The lesson in the 
 Festivale for this feast is i Thess. IV : 12—17. "Nolo vos ignorare 
 fratres de iis qui obdormierunt . . , to .. sermonibus his..'* (fol, 11 6b) 
 This is the epistle of the Tmass at the burial of the dead. 
 
394 
 
 Appendix IV. 
 
 ] 
 
 First Calendar. 
 
 — Second Calendar. 
 
 November. 
 
 
 II. 
 
 d. Martinus. 
 
 fMartinus. 
 
 13- 
 
 Bricius. 
 
 Brigius. 
 
 14. 
 
 
 fAbacuc. 
 
 17. 
 
 
 fSophonias. 
 
 20. 
 
 
 fEdmundus rex. 
 
 22. 
 
 Cecilia. 
 
 fZacharias. Cecili. 
 
 23. 
 
 
 Clemens. 
 
 24. 
 
 
 ■ Chrisogonus. 
 
 25. 
 26. 
 29. 
 
 Katherina. 
 
 Catherina. 
 
 i 
 
 
 .Saturninus kt Sisyn. 
 
 30. 
 
 d. Andreas. 
 
 \ Andre as. 
 
 4. 
 
 Barbara. 
 
 
 6. 
 
 8. 
 
 13. 
 
 Nicolaus. 
 
 \Nicolau 
 
 % 
 
 Lucie. 
 
 Lucia. 
 
 18. 
 
 
 fLazarus. 
 
 21. 
 
 Thomas apostolus. 
 
 \Thome apostoli. 
 
 25- 
 
 Natalis domini. 
 
 ^Nativitas domini. 
 
 26. 
 
 d. Stephanus. 
 
 ""Stephani 
 
 27. 
 
 d. Joannes Evang. 
 
 ^Johannis. 
 
 28. 
 
 Innocentes. 
 
 "^Innocentes. 
 
 1 Cranmer has entered at 26 November " Linus ", — afterwards crossed 
 through. 
 
 * "Conceptio M." was entered by the scribe at 8 Dec. ; this has been 
 crossed through. The Festivale gives a place for a lesson for the feast.. 
 
APPENDIX V. 
 
 THE DEBATE ON THE SACRAMENT, 
 
 The report ofthe discussion in parliament which 
 lasted from December 14th to December 18th 1548 
 forms the Royal MS. 17 B. XXXIX. It comprises 
 31 leaves in quarto and is bound up with MSS. 
 17 B. XXXVIII and 17 B. XL. 
 
 It has already been pointed out that Cranmer 
 had a copy of the acts of this discussion which 
 he proposed to send to Peter Martyr. It does not 
 appear whether the MS. now described was Cran- 
 raer's copy and found its way into the R.oyal 
 collection through Lord Lumley, or whether, like 
 many other tracts, it was placed in the Royal 
 library at the time. However this may be, there 
 can be no doubt as to the authentic nature of 
 the report and its general fairness. It is true that 
 in some parts the account of what was said by 
 the bishops on the Catholic side, especially on the 
 fourth day, is so much abridged that the sequence 
 of the remarks is occasionally lost. But this may 
 be easily explained in an account of a running 
 discussion. On the other hand the character of 
 the various disputants is so clearly evidenced by 
 
396 Appendix V. 
 
 the report that the document affords unmistakable 
 intrinsic proof of its accuracy. 
 
 It appears to be drawn up partly from written 
 papers, partly from notes taken during the progress 
 of the debate. It will be noticed that in the account 
 of the opening speech of each bishop the arguments 
 are developed with care in regular sequence, whilst 
 this is not the case in the discussion proper. 
 Moreover there is at least one proof that the 
 reporter misread a MS. before him. Bishop Rugg 
 of Norwich quotes (fol. 8 b.) from the mass of St. 
 James and St. Clement. ^ The only source available 
 for these quotations at the time was Bessarion's 
 treatise. In the margin however of the MS. the 
 reference is given as "S Bede". 
 
 It is evident that the word before the writer 
 was "Bessa": and being unfamiliar with the lite- 
 rature, he read it "Beda". 
 
 It may hence be fairly concluded that so far as 
 the set speeches are concerned each speaker 
 probably supplied the reporter with his notes. 
 
 The passages quoted from the Fathers are mostly 
 common places in the controversial books of the 
 time. In the report they appear often rather as 
 indications than actual quotations and thus their 
 bearing in the discussion is not always obvious. 
 The passages have accordingly been given in the 
 notes as far as possible. 
 
 1 Notwithstanding the marginal entry " S. Clement", the passage 
 in the text (fol. 9a) is Bessarion's translation from the liturgy of St. Chry- 
 sostom (see the tractate de Sacramento Eucharisdae in Migne, Pair. 
 Graec. CLXI, 500 — 501). Perhaps the bishop quoted the four liturgies 
 as in Bessarion. 
 
MS. Reg. 17 B. XXXIX. 
 
 J^ol. \a. CERTAIN NOTES TOUCHING THE DISPUTA- 
 
 TIONS OF THE BISHOPS IN THIS LAST PAR- 
 LIAMENT ASSEMBLED OF THE L ORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 SATURDAY THE FIRST DAY. 
 
 DOMINUS PROTECTOR. 
 
 Commanded the Bishops to the intent to fall to some 
 point to agree what things should first be treated of. 
 And, because it seemed most necessary to the purpose, 
 willed them to dispute whether bread be in the Sacra- 
 ment after the consecration or not. 
 
 DUNELMENSIS. 
 
 The mass used to be called so. 
 And treated awhile thereof, till my lord's grace put 
 him in remembrance of the order taken, which was 
 only to talk of the consecration. 
 
 But afterward he proceeded saying: The 
 adoration is left out of the book because 
 Fol. lb. there is nothing in the Sacrament but bread 
 and wine ; yet he believed that there is the 
 very body and blood of Christ both spiritual 
 and carnal. 
 
 Thus he said to maintain the allegation 
 which he made the night before : That Christ 
 had two bodies, and brought Cyrillus for 
 his author, with a long process saying: 
 
39^ Appendix V. 
 
 The Spiritual thus he proved : All we shall 
 
 be such after the resurrection. 
 
 Probatio The Carnal thus : The flesh alone can pro- 
 
 Cyrillus. fit nothing but with the Holy Ghost it 
 
 cA. 26. 4. LIB. quickeneth as: — Verba quae ego loquor 
 SUPER : Caro , •• / , , v 
 
 spiritus sunt et vita. 
 
 Spiritum appellat carnem,^ 
 
 MEA. &c. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 Touching the spiritual and corporal body 
 of Christ. 
 
 When Christ came on the water his disciples 
 took it to be Phantas^na. 
 
 Cyrillus concerning the death only of the 
 flesh and the power of the divinity spake it 
 
 WlGORNIENSIS. 
 J:^ ol. 2 a. J think my Lord of Durham doth mean thus : 
 
 Caro by the joining of the word is Spiritus 
 i. e. Caro verbi. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 The spirit and the body are contrary. 
 It is the error of Origen to believe that at 
 the day of judgment we should be all spirits. 
 
 * " Quas ob res caro quidem ceterorum omnium quicquam vere non 
 prodest : caro autem Christi quia in ipsa unigenitus Dei fill us habitat, 
 sola vivificare potest. Spiritum vero seipsum appellat : quoniam Deus 
 Spiritus est et ut ait Paulus, Dominus spiritus est. Nee ista dicimus quia 
 Spiritum Sanctum in propria persona subsistere non putemus, sed quia sicut 
 factus homo filium se hominis appellat sic se a proprio spiritu spiritum 
 nominat. Non est enim alienus ab eo spiritus suus. Verba que ego locutus 
 sum vobis spiritus et vita sunt. Totum corpus suum vivifica spiritus 
 virtute plenum esse ostendit. Spiritum enim hie ipsam camera nuncupavit, 
 non quia naturam carnis amiserit et in Spiritum mutata sit, sed quia summe 
 cum eo conjuncta totam vivificandi vim hausit." (S. Cyrillus. In Evang, 
 Joan. (ed. 1508 f. QQd.) lib. IV. c.24 (ed. Aubert VI, 376—7). 
 
Appendix V, 
 
 399 
 
 WiGORNIENSIS. 
 
 Cyrillus. We eat flesh that giveth life. If we eat man 
 
 without God it is not profitable. 
 
 DURISME. 
 
 Spiritus non habet ossa. 
 Objectio. He meaneth that spirits are only but fancies, 
 and have no bodies nor bones. 
 
 Smythe. 
 
 Of the corporal and spiritual body. 
 
 A long process declaring what inconveni- 
 ence, and how loathsome thing to hear, 
 Fol. 2 b. should arise, by description of the natural 
 body in the sacrament. For other Christ 
 must have but a small body, or else his 
 length and thickness ^ cannot be there, which 
 things declare that it cannot be no true 
 body, or else he must want his head or his 
 legs or some part of him. 
 
 And also every part of him must be one as 
 big as another, the hand as much as the 
 head, the nose as much as the whole body, 
 with such innumerable. 
 
 WiGORNIENSIS. 
 
 Reason will not serve in matters of faith. 
 I/oc est corpus meuTn, 
 Probatio. It is the body that was offered for us: 
 
 Quod pro vobis tradetur. 
 Ergo. It is real. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 By Scripture our Saviour Christ is our head. 
 
 Thinkes" in MS. 
 
400 
 
 Appendix V. 
 
 and we his body. The word is in our hearing, 
 in our eyes the Sacrament. 
 John. 6. Qui manducat carnem meam etc. 
 
 Fol. 3 a. They be two things, to eat the Sacrament 
 
 and to eat the body of Christ. 
 
 The eating of the body is to dwell in Christ, 
 and this may be though a man never taste 
 the Sacrament. All men eat not the body 
 in the Sacrament. Hoc est corpus meum. 
 He that maketh a will bequeaths certain 
 legacies, and this is our legacy, remission of 
 sins, which those only receive that are 
 members of his body. 
 
 And the Sacrament is the remembrance of 
 this death which made the will good. 
 CoRiN II. Indigni judicium sihi manducant. 
 
 They eat not the body of Christ but eat 
 their condemnation, for he hath nothing to 
 do with them that are not parcels of his 
 body. They are not fed of him because they 
 dwell not in him. 
 Fol. 3b. It was ordained to be eaten of them that 
 
 have ^ everlasting life. 
 
 But they say the very body is there when 
 it is hanged up, which is not found in the 
 Scripture. 
 
 It is also comfortless while it is his body, 
 for, as soon as you tear the bread with 
 your teeth (they say) the body flies to heaven, 
 for it may suffer no such wrong. And while 
 it is in the bread we have no comfort : 
 (some other say) the body tarrieth in the 
 bread till it come to the stomach, and then 
 
 > "Thave" in MS. 
 
Appendix V. 401 
 
 ascends to heaven, for it may suffer no 
 wrong of digestion. 
 
 The body that the just receive continueth 
 whole still. 
 
 Our faith 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. 
 
 Then^ no man drinketh Christ or eateth 
 him, except he dwell in Christ and Christ 
 in him. 
 
 Fol. 4a. DUNELMENSIS. 
 
 His body is in bread and wine, because 
 God hath spoken it, which is able to do it, 
 saying: This is my body, and This is my 
 blood. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 If the evil man eat his body he hath life 
 John. 6. everlasting : Qui edit me habet vitam eternam. 
 
 The bread that we break is his body even 
 as the cup is his blood. 
 
 DUNELM. 
 
 Hoc quod do est corpus. 
 
 As able is he to make it his body as when 
 he said Fiat lux. 
 
 The evil man receives a good thing evil. 
 But Christ is there, in the bread. I know 
 it by his word. 
 
 ■Tyme". erased in MS. 
 Than" in MS. 
 
402 Appendix V, 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 John 6. Qui man ducat etc. 
 
 If an evil man then * eat the bread an 
 evil man must live ever. 
 
 Bathensis 
 
 Origen. Panem quern dedit edi, non reservavi in 
 
 Fol. 4b. crastinum etc. ^ 
 
 AuGusTiNus. Non duhitavit Christus dicere etc. * 
 Dedit discipulis figuram corporis. ^ 
 Fecit corpus suum, id est Jiguram cor- 
 poris sui. 
 
 Sacramentum est cum aliud videtur aliud 
 i?itelligitur. ^ 
 
 WiGORN. contra CaNTOR. 
 
 Granteth that a man may receive the body 
 
 » "Than" in MS. 
 
 • "Nam et Dominus panem, quem discipulis dabat, et dicebat eis, 
 *'accipite et manducate," non distulit, nee servari jussit in crastinum". 
 
 (Orig. Horn. V. in Levit. ii. 211). 
 
 • "Nam ex eo quod scriptum est sanguinem pecoris animam ejus 
 esse, praeter id quod supra dixi, non ad me pertinere quid agatur de 
 pecoris anima, possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud, in signo esse 
 positum ; non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, " Hoc est corpus meum ", 
 cum signum daret corporis sui". (S. Aug. Contra Adtman: cap. 12. sect. 3. 
 ed. Migne VIII. 144) cf. Ridley's Brief Declaration of the Lord s 
 Sujiper (Parker Soc. pp. 41—2.) for the argument drawn by the in- 
 novating party from this text. 
 
 • " Cum adhibuit ad convivium in quo corporis et sanguinis sui 
 figuram discipulis commendavit et tradidit" (S. Aug. in Ps. III. ed. 
 Bened: IV col. 7). 
 
 5 " Quomodo est panis corpus ejus? et Calix vel quod habet calix, 
 quomodo est sanguis ejus? Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia 
 in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur, speciem habet cor- 
 poralem, quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem." (S. Aug. Sermo 
 272^ ed. Mig e V. 1247.) 
 
Appendix V. 403 
 
 without the Sacrament ; but he that receiveth 
 it evil receiveth it to his own* damnation. 
 I Cor. 10. Quapropter prohet se. etc. 
 
 Lincoln. 
 
 Whether the body is in the Sacrament or 
 in the receiver. 
 
 That all men should be judged by Scripture. 
 
 Christ gave no example of reserving be- 
 cause he gave it straight. 
 
 And the Apostles eat and drank before 
 Christ consecrated. 
 
 CiCISTRENSIS. 
 
 Fol. 5 a. It is to be believed and not to be reasoned. 
 
 Nisi ere dideritis non intelligetis. The verity 
 
 of Christ's body therefore is in the Sacrament. 
 
 Westmonast. 
 
 Advised the audience to understand that 
 the book which was read touching the 
 doctrine of the Supper was not agreed on 
 among the Bishops, but only in disputation ; 
 lest the people should think dishonesty in 
 them to stand in argument against their 
 own deed that they hands unto. ^ 
 
 And for his part did never allow the doctrine. 
 
 Comes Warwice. 
 
 That it was a perilous word spoken in that 
 audience; and thought him worthy of dis- 
 pleasure, that, in such a time when concord 
 is sought for, would cast such occasions of 
 discord among men. 
 
 ^ "awne." in MS. 
 
 '^ So MS.; read "they (had set their) hands unto." 
 
404 Appendix V, 
 
 Fol. 5b. MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY. 
 
 DoMiNus Protector contra 
 Westmonast? - 
 
 First of the words that were spoken by him 
 on Saturday at night before. 
 
 The Bishops' consultation was appointed 
 for unity. 
 
 The book of their agreements was read. 
 
 In "Councells" though some consent not 
 unto the thing, yet by the most part it is 
 concluded. 
 
 Only the Bishop of Chichester refused to 
 agree, i. For that in Confirmation there 
 was left out oil on the foreheads. 2. And 
 also in the prayer of the Communion where 
 it is written. That it may he unto us etc. 
 he would have Be made unto us, 3. Also 
 to have certain words added after the 
 consecration which were: That these Sacri- 
 fices and oblations, etc. 
 
 Fol. 6a. Westmonast. 
 
 Respon. The considerations moving him to the sub- 
 
 scription of the book. 
 
 1. First, although of some there is in it too 
 much, yet they confess it to be standing 
 with Scripture. 
 
 2. Though many things want in the book, yet 
 they are agreed to be treated on afterwards ; 
 wherein he desireth to agree with other 
 Churches. 
 
Appendix V. 
 
 405 
 
 FoL. 6b. 
 Probatio. 
 
 PSAL. 98. 
 EXPOSITIO. 
 
 AUGUSTINUS. 
 
 He considered the unity at home in this 
 Realm. 
 
 Also we condemn not them that use cere- 
 monies for we yet use some. 
 
 These are the two great sticks : 
 
 The elevation, wherein is considered the 
 doing of it and the end wherefore it is 
 done. The necessity of it and end is this, 
 to remember Christ upon the Cross. 
 
 The adoration : wheresoever the Sacrament 
 is, to be worshipped; as 
 
 A derate scabellum pedum. 
 
 Terra est scabellum. 
 
 Caro significat terram. ^ 
 
 Other things in consideration of the unity 
 at home might be altered, but the adoration 
 to be left out he never consented, nor to 
 the doctrine agreed. 
 
 And because (of) the diversity of opinions 
 for the verity of the body and blood, he desired 
 to have it spoken plainly in the Sacrament 
 because of the doubtful understanding of the 
 Region. 
 
 Also there was in the book : Oblation, 
 which is left out now. 
 
 Things in disputation are not agreed upon 
 till we allow that which is spoken of 
 
 ' "Fluctuans converto me ad Christum, quia ipsum qusero hie et 
 invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra, et sine impietate adoretur 
 scabellum pedum ejus. Suscepit enim de terra terram; quia caro de 
 terra est et de came Marise carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hie 
 ambulavit et ipsam carnem nobis mandueandam ad salutem dedit (nemo 
 autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit) inventum est 
 quemadmodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini et non solum 
 non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando." 
 
 (S. Aug. Enar. in Ps. 98. (9).) 
 C C 
 
4o6 Appendix V. 
 
 The plainness of the truth in God's \ Word 
 is to be set forth, the want whereof caused 
 him in his conscience not to agree to the 
 doctrine. 
 
 Smythe. 
 
 Fol. 7 a. The verity of the body and blood in the 
 
 Sacrament my Lord of Westminster is 
 persuaded unto. Yet touching this book, of 
 the doctrine all they are agreed so far as 
 is of me read. 
 
 DoMiNUS Protector. 
 
 These vehement sayings sheweth rather a 
 wilfulness and an obstinacy to say he will 
 die in it. To say he will prove it by old 
 doctors, and thereby would persuade men 
 to believe his sayings, when he bringeth no 
 authority in deed. 
 
 London. • 
 
 When anything is called into question, if 
 ye dispute it, ye must see whether it be 
 decent, lawful and expedient. 
 
 This doctrine is not decent because it hath 
 been condemned abroad as an heresy ; and 
 in this Realm; example of Lambert. 
 Fol. 7b. We have agreed before of the verity in the 
 
 Sacrament ; and to go against the same, we 
 should seem like Agabus that could speak 
 with one mouth, truth and falsehood. ^ Lies 
 and true things. 
 
 The faulte in the book are these : 
 
 1 «* goods" in MS. 
 « "Falshed" in MS. 
 
Appendix V. 
 
 407 
 
 JOHN. 6. 
 
 Matt. 
 Mark. 
 Luke. 
 
 2 CORIN. 
 
 Fol. 8a. 
 
 There is heresy because it is called bread. 
 
 Chrysostom says there are three breads : 
 Corporal, wherewith the Apostles were fed ; 
 two of them the Son of Man, as 
 
 Ego sum panis, in sacramento. 
 
 But 
 
 Panis quem ego daho &c. 
 
 If he kept promise with them he gave 
 them both bread and flesh. 
 
 DoMiNus Protector. 
 
 He took bread, &c. 
 
 Take, eat, this is iny body. 
 
 Who can take this otherwise but there 
 is bread still? 
 
 And Paul sayeth so calling it bread : 
 
 As oft as ye eat of this bread and drink 
 of this cup, &c. He took bread and blessed 
 it and gave it to his disciples. Here doth 
 appear plainly that which he blessed he 
 gave to his disciples ; and that is bread. 
 
 LiCHEFELD. 
 
 Thought the doctrine of the book very 
 godly. 
 
 For he never thought it to be the gross 
 body of Christ, so grossly as divers there 
 alleged; nevertheless he took it to be the 
 glorified body of Christ. 
 
 NORWICHE. 
 
 Three things are treated upon: 
 
 1. The Real presence; 
 
 2. Whether the body be received of an evil 
 man, or not. 
 
 3 . Of transubstantiation, and whether the bread 
 
4o8 Appendix V. 
 
 be the very substance of the body, or not. 
 Fol. 8b. Scripture is called the Sword of the Spirit 
 
 The sword is unity and concord. 
 
 It is not wScripture but the devil that moves 
 dissensions. 
 
 Our holy fathers consented together in 
 unity. 
 
 They say that in the Supper Christ con- 
 fesseth he gave his body saying: that shall 
 be given for you. 
 
 His body was a true body, which they say 
 he gave to his disciples; a very body. 
 
 It is a true body, and a spiritual body 
 beside. 
 
 St. Paul sheweth that we receive the very 
 body when we take the bread, saying: 
 I. CoRiN. lo. Panis quern /rangi?nus &c. 
 
 This form used St. James in his Mass: 
 S. Bede. Rogamus ut Spiritus sanctus adveniens 
 
 Fol. 9a. sanctificet hunc panem, et faciat veruvt 
 
 corpus filii sui Christi. 
 S. Clement. Emitte spiritum tuum super haec sacrificiay 
 ut panem hunc in Corpus Christi transmu- 
 tas ea Spiritu Sancto. ^ 
 
 Chrysostome manifestly doth declare that 
 it is the very body of Christ real. Si car- 
 Theophil. nem et sanguinem speciem reservans, &c. * 
 Alexand. Consonans in Ecclesia &c. 
 
 damasce. Quemadmodum in Baptismate &c. ^ 
 
 1 So MS. see Bessarion, Patr. Grace CLXI, 501 (S. Chrysost.) 
 
 2 See much on this passage, often used in the controversies of the 
 time, in the Answer of Cranmer to Gardiner (Parker Soc. ed. pp. 
 188—192). It is quoted as Theophilus of Alexandria by Fisher De 
 Veritate corporis (ed. 1527 f. 153) from which the Bishop of Norwich, 
 as subsequently Gardiner, probably quoted it. 
 
 ' "Quemadmodum in baptismate (quia consuetudo hominibus est 
 
Appendix V, 409 
 
 Christ took not his Godhead from heaven 
 when he descended, nor his body from the 
 earth hkewise when he ascended. 
 
 It is not in Scripture : " Lord, whither goest 
 thou ?" Respon. " I go to Rome to be cruci- 
 fied again." This was said to Peter. 
 
 Panis Jit caro per spiritum sa^tctum quern- 
 
 admodum in deipara assumpsit carnem &c. * 
 
 Damasce. Non estjigura Corporis, sed ipsum Corpus, 
 
 ipso Domino dicente: Hoc est meum, non 
 
 Jigura corporis. 
 
 Fol. 9b. Qui' manducat me vivit in eternum. * 
 
 Lincoln, contra Norwich. 
 
 These are the three points: 
 
 1. The real presence in the Sacrament. 
 
 2. Whether evil men receive that body, or no. 
 
 3. The transubstantiation. 
 
 Objectio. We must rest on faith, not on reason. 
 
 aqua lavari et oleo ungi) conjunxit oleo et aqnse gratiam Spiritus Sancti 
 et fecit illud lavacrum regenerationis. Hunc in raodum, quia mos 
 hominibus est panem manducare et vinum et aquam bibere, conjunxit 
 his ipsis suam diviniiatem et fecit haec suum corpus et sanguinem". 
 (S. Joan : Damascen. Ort/wdoxce FideiYV.c. 14. (ed. 1539, pp. 142 — 3). 
 
 ^ " Corpus enim, secundum veritatem conjunctum est Divinitati, quod 
 €X sancta Virgine corpus est non quod ipsum corpus assumptum ex 
 coelo descenderit sed quod ipse panis et vinum transmutatur in corpus 
 €t sanguinem Dei. Si autem modum requiris quonam pacto sit, sat sit 
 tibi audire quoniam per Spiritum Sanctum, quemadmodum ex sancta 
 Deipara seipso, et in seipso Dominus carnem sustenavit. (Ibid.) 
 
 * "Non est figura panis et vinum corporis et sanguinis Christi (absit 
 enim hoc) sed est ipsum corpus Domini deificatum, ipso Domino dicente: 
 Hoc est corpus meum, non figura corporis sed corpus, et non figura 
 sanguinis sed sanguis. Et ante hoc ipsis Judeis, quoniam nisi mandu- 
 caveritis carnem, filii hominis et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis 
 ■vitam oeternam, Caro mea verus est cibus et sanguis meus verus est 
 potus, Et rursus; Qui manducat me, vivet." (Ibid.) 
 
4IO Appendix V, 
 
 Responsio. Yet faith must have a ground. And that 
 is not of man but of God. 
 
 After his consecration is written: 
 Matt. 26. iV(?« hiham amodo de hoc gentmine vttts. 
 Luke. 22. This my blood ; he calleth it afterward the 
 Chrysostom. fruit of the vine. "What is the fruit of this 
 Theophilac. vine but wine? 
 
 AuGusTiNus Non hibam ex hoc vino} Vivam ^ in mysteria 
 DEEccLEsiAE redcmpttonis nostrae quum dixit, Non bibavt 
 
 FOL. loa. &C^ 
 1 CoRiN. 10. Unus panis multi supius ; he calleth it 
 here Bread, speaking of the Sacrament. 
 
 Why he left it in bread and wine ; because 
 of many is made one, to declare the mystery 
 of our unity. 
 
 The form and accidents cannot shew us of 
 this unity. 
 
 The flesh and blood alone cannot shew us 
 ot this unity. 
 Cypria. de Dedit panem et vinum discipulis. But upon 
 chrismatis. ^^ Cross his body to the soldiers to be 
 crucified. '^ 
 
 The mass of James cannot be shewed. As 
 touching the words in the prayer wherewith 
 my Lord of Chichester is offended, they 
 
 * The passage in Theophylact referred to is : /// Evang. S. Marci, 
 cap. XIV. (ed. Migne), i. 651. That in St. Chrysostom is /w J/^z/Ma^ww.. 
 Homil: LXXXII ed. Migne VII. 740. , 
 
 2 So MS. 
 
 * " Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterio cum dixit : Noip 
 bibani amodo de hoc genimine viiisy S. Aug. De Ecclesiasticis Dogma- 
 tibus cap. XLII (ed. Migne VIII. 1220.) 
 
 * " Dedit itaque Dominus noster in mensa, in qua ultimum cun> 
 Apostolis participavit convivium propriis manibus panem et vinum : in 
 cruce vero manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum." (Pseudo- 
 Cyprianic treatise De unctione Chrismatis. op Basileae 1530 p. 477.^ 
 
Appendix V, 
 
 411 
 
 Fol. lob. 
 
 CHRYSO. 
 HOMELI. 88. 
 
 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 Stand well by Scripture and are meet and 
 convenient. 
 
 For we are sure we pray for no less than 
 Christ himself made. 
 
 Chrysostom spoke that to raise up our 
 minds in priesthood ; saith not once think we 
 be of the earth. And so meaneth he of the 
 Sacrament, Qtwd nos transimus in carnem 
 Christi Even thus they speak ofusaswell 
 as of the Sacrament. 
 
 Wilt thou know how thou are turned? 
 Ask thyself that art turned, for no outward 
 thing is changed. * 
 
 The translating of the element must ^ have 
 another meaning and not be grossly un- 
 derstood. 
 
 1 "Quanta itaque et quam celebranda beneficia vi divinae benedic- 
 tionis operetur attende; et ut tibi novum et impossibile non debeat 
 videri quod in Christi substantiam terrena mortalia committantur, te 
 ipsum qui jam in Christi es regeneratus interroga : dudum alienus a 
 vita, peregrinus a misericordia, a salutis via intrinsecus mortuus exulabas, 
 subito initiatus Christi legibus et salutaribus mysteriis innovatus, in corpus 
 ecclesiae, non vivendo sed credendo transisti : et de filio perditionis 
 adoptivus Dei filius fieri occulta puritate meruisti. In mensura visibili 
 permanens major factus es teipso invisibiliter, sine quantitatis augmento, 
 cum ipse atque idem esses, multo aliter fidei processibus extitisti. In 
 exteriore nihil additum est et totus in interiore homine mutatus es: ac 
 si homo Christi filius affectus et Christus in hominis mente formatus est. 
 Sicut ergo sine corporali sensu, praeterita vilitate deposita, subito novam 
 indutus es dignitatem : et sicut hoc, quod in te Deus laesa curavit, in- 
 fecta diluit, maculata detersit, non oculis sed sensibus tuis credis ; ita et 
 tu cum ad reverendum altare salutari cibo potuque reficiendus accedis, 
 sacrum Dei tui corpus et sanguinem fide respice, honore mirare, mente 
 continge, cordis manu suscipe et maxime haustu interiore assume". 
 (Eusebius Emisenus Op. ed. 1547 f. 45). 
 
 * "Moste" in MS. 
 
412 
 
 Appendix V. 
 
 Leo. Virtute celestis cibt transtmus in carnem 
 
 Christie 
 
 Da?nascen is no worthy author for he 
 
 joineth the promise to oil as well as to 
 
 water, which God hath only said of water. 
 
 Also he maintaineth idolatry to worship 
 
 images. 
 
 Fol. 1 1 a. NORWI. 
 
 John. 6. Quid si videritis filium hominis &c. 
 
 Matt. 26. Pauperes hahehitis semper &c. 
 
 After his resurrection he sayeth : Haec lo- 
 cutus sum vohis etc. While he was yet among 
 us then. And so is this text of Quid si to 
 be taken. 
 
 Lincoln, contra Norwich. 
 
 By Scripture and Chrysostome they would 
 prove transubstantiation, as Cepit panem. 
 Non /regit panem. Sed Corpus Christi. 
 I Cor. id. Panis quem frangimus &c. 
 
 Beda. Fregit panem. 
 
 Chrysost. Vides panem, vides vinum &c. 
 
 Think not that thou receivest the body of 
 Christ at the hands of the priest, sed tan- 
 quam Seraphim ^ ignem. ^ 
 
 Durham contra Lincoln. 
 
 This text Non hibam &c. is declared in 
 
 ^ The passage referred to is probably: "Non enim aliud agit par- 
 ticipalio corporis et sanguinis Christi, quam ut in id quod sumimus 
 transeamus; et in quo commortui et consepulti et conresuscitati sumus, 
 ipsum per omnia et spiritu et carne gestemus ". (S. Leo, Mag. Sermo\S^\Yl, 
 ed. Migne I. 357). 
 
 ^ " curaphyn." in MS. 
 
 * " Propter quod et accedentes ne puteUs vos accipere divinum corpus 
 
Appendix V. 
 
 413 
 
 Fol. lib. Luke, Mark, and Matthew; but no man 
 can prove by Scripture that Christ did eat 
 himself. 
 
 Pants quern frangimus &c. It is not meant 
 of material bread, by that which followeth 
 Omnes pants unus sumus. No natural bread. 
 
 Lincoln. 
 
 Christ did eat the Sacrament hisself for 
 Christ saith so. 
 Austen. Luke spake there per anticipationein. Pants 
 
 is that which is broken. It is Mysttcus yet 
 it is bread. 
 De uno pane participamus ; is bread. 
 
 DUNELMENSIS. 
 
 Fol. 
 
 12a. 
 
 By anticipation Scripture speaketh of Sa- 
 craments by the name of that it was be- 
 fore. It was bread before. And it was flesh 
 and he would not go against himself. 
 
 Lincoln. 
 
 Objectio. D. It was called wine because it was wine 
 before. 
 
 CoNFUTAcio. L, Should wc thcn say that Christ is cal- 
 led God because he was God before, but 
 because he is God still. 
 
 Exodus. 7. Virga versa in colubrum, truly turned by 
 
 the senses seen and perceived. We have 
 no text that Vinum versum est in sangui- 
 
 ex homine, sed ex ipsis Seraphim forcipe ignem, ut scilicet Isaias vidit, 
 divinum corpus accipere puiate." (S. Joan : Clarysos : De Poenitentia . 
 Horn. IX. ed. Migne 11. 345.) 
 
414 
 
 Appendix V. 
 
 JOHAN. 2. 
 
 Objectio. D. 
 Respons L. 
 Objectio. D. 
 
 Resp. L. 
 
 nem Christi. Nor our senses perceive it not 
 neither. 
 
 The water was turned into wine; verily 
 not water still, but the senses felt it to be 
 altered. 
 
 That it was common bread then. 
 
 Nay it is mysticus. 
 
 Because of the omnipotence of God, he 
 hath made bread flesh. 
 
 I believe that Christ is true and omnipo- 
 tent. 
 
 ROFFENSIS 
 
 Petrus. 
 
 OnjECTIO. D. 
 
 Fol. 12b. 
 
 August, 
 
 Chrysost. 
 
 August. 
 Act. 
 
 August. 
 
 Render reason and cause of the faith that 
 is within you. 
 
 Scriptures alleged that after the consecra- 
 tion there remaineth no bread. And that the 
 body is no material bread. Ergo there is no 
 bread. 
 
 Communicatio is the true mystery and sign 
 of the body that was given for us. 
 
 He doubteth not to call his body by the 
 word of the sign of his body. ^ 
 
 Est figura non tantum figura, &c. 
 
 This same body we receive that Christ 
 gave in his supper. 
 
 Calleth it the grace of his body. 
 
 Et erant perseverantes in fractione panis, 
 
 Perdurabant unanimiter/rangentes panem. 
 
 Detrahe verbum pani et est panis. Adde 
 verbum et est sanctus et mysticus. 
 
 Touching conversum and trans elementa- 
 turn. 
 
 ^ See the passage quoted ante, (note 3 on fol. 4. b.). 
 
Appendix V. 415 
 
 It is changed when the child of wrath is 
 Cyrillus. made the child of God. And we say true, 
 that Christ is in us naturally, i.e. * the 
 very property of his body is in us, that is 
 to say, Vt'ta. 
 Fol. 13 a. Septima Sy nodus de adorattone simulacro- 
 rum. But in another Council there was 
 brought an image before them and all they 
 worshipped it and^ condemned the former. 
 As Christ took upon him manhood and 
 remaineth God; so is bread made by the 
 Holy Ghost holy and remaineth bread still. 
 Pa7its communtonts non est panis simplex 
 sed panis unitus divijiitati. As a burning 
 coal is more than a coal for there is fire 
 with it. Conjungit pani divinitatem. He 
 changeth bread in virtutem carnis ; non in 
 veritatem. Theophylactus allegeth so. ^ 
 
 LiCHFELD. 
 
 Desireth to speak a gross word, not for 
 
 transubstantiation for he thought ever that 
 
 Fol. 13b. could not be. But for transmutation, and 
 
 1 "That" erased in MS. 
 
 « "all" erased in MS. 
 
 3 " Non enim figura et exempla quoddam Dominici corporis panis 
 est, sed in illud ipsum convertitur corpus Christi. Dominus enim dicit: 
 Panis quem Ego dabo, caro mea est. Non dixit, Figura est carnis 
 meae, sed, caro mea est. Et iterum; nisi ederitis camem Filii hominis, 
 Et quomodo ? inquit : caro enim non videtur ? O homo, propter infir- 
 mitatem istud fit. Quia enim panis quidem et vinum ex his quibus 
 assuevimus, ea non abhorremus : sanguinem vero propositum et camem 
 videntes non ferremus, sed abhorreremus ; idcirco misericors Deus nostrae 
 infirmitati condescendens, speciem quidem panis et vini servat, in virtutem. 
 autem carnis et sanguinis transelementat." (Theophylactus in Evang. 
 Marci. Cap. XIV. ed. Migne I. 650.) 
 
4 1 6 Appendix V. 
 
 that it is a mystical bread ; for the fathers 
 spake oft of that. 
 
 WiGORNIENSIS. 
 
 This text you say Hoc est Corpus &c. 
 doth not take away the substance of bread. 
 And that there is none other substance but 
 bread. 
 
 Is it meant then that we receive in faith 
 when we receive the very body. 
 
 ROFFENSIS. 
 
 Respon. Concerning the outward thing it is very 
 
 bread. But according to the power of God 
 is ministered the very body. 
 
 WiGORNIENSIS. 
 
 QuESTio. Whether the receiver taketh any sub- 
 
 stance in the Sacrament or not ? 
 
 ROFFENSIS. 
 
 Fol. 1 4a. Respon. The carnal substance sitteth on the 
 right hand of the Father. After this under- 
 standing of the presence he is not in the 
 Sacrament. He is absent, for he saith he 
 will leave the world. 
 
 And in another sense (he saith) he will 
 be with us until the end of the world. 
 
 August. Expounded thus by St. Austen. He goeth 
 
 away after a certain sort and is with us 
 still after a certain sort. *) 
 
 * " Yet one place more of St. Augustine will I allege, which is very 
 clear to this purpose, that Christ's natural body is in heaven, and not 
 here corporally in the Sacrament. In his 51st Treatise, which he writeth 
 upon John, he teachelh plainly and clearly, how Christ, being both 
 God and man, is both here after a certain manner, and yet in heaven. 
 
Appendix V, 
 
 417 
 
 The manhood is ever in heaven ; his 
 divinity is everywhere present. When he was 
 here he was circumscriptive in one place as 
 touching his natural body. 
 
 Secundum ineffahilem gratiam. I will be 
 with you till the consummation. Christ sits in 
 heaven. And is present in the Sacrament 
 by his working. 
 
 "WiGORN. 
 
 Fol. 14b. All the old doctors grant a conversion 
 
 of the bread. 
 QuESTio. Wherein is the bread converted ? Is it in 
 
 the bread ? 
 
 Respon. 
 
 ROFFENSIS. 
 It is converted into the body of Christ 
 
 and not here in his natural body and substance which he took of the 
 blessed Virgin Mary, speaking thus of Christ, and saying : " By his 
 divine majesty, by his providence ; by his unspeakable and invisible 
 grace, that is fulfilled which he spake, "Behold, I am with you unto 
 the end of the world ". But as concerning his flesh which he took in 
 his incarnation ; as touching that which was born of the Virgin ; as 
 concerning that which was apprehended by the Jews, and crucified 
 upon a tree, and taken down from the cross, wrapped in linen clothes, 
 and buried, and rose again and appeared after his resurrection ; as con- 
 cerning that flesh, he said, "Ye shall not ever have me with you". 
 Why so ? For as concerning his flesh, he was conversant with his 
 disciples forty days ; and they accompanying, seeing, and not following 
 him, he went up into heaven, and is not here. By the presence of 
 his divine majesty, he did not depart; as concerning the presence of 
 his divine majesty, we have Christ ever with us : but, as concerning 
 the presence of his flesh, he truly said to his disciples : " Ye shall not 
 ever have me with you". 
 
 " For as concerning the presence of his flesh, the church had him but 
 a few days: now it holdeth him by faith, though it see him not". 
 (S. August. Tract. 51 in Joan. Ev. cap. 12. (^ed Migne, Tract. 50, 13). 
 Translated by Bishop Ridley in A Brief declaration of the Lord's 
 SuJ>per. Parker Soc. Works^^ p. 43. 
 
4i8 
 
 Appendix V. 
 
 QuESTio. How are we turned in baptism ? 
 
 WiGORN. 
 
 Respon. Spiritually. 
 
 ROFFENSIS. 
 
 Even as glass receiveth the light of the 
 sun, but the stone cannot for it may not 
 pierce through it, so the evil man cannot 
 receive the body. ^ 
 
 Comes Warwicke. 
 
 Where is your Scripture now, my Lord 
 
 of Worcester ? Methinks because you cannot 
 
 Fol. 15a. maintain your argument neither by Scripture 
 
 nor doctors, you would go to now with 
 
 natural reason and sophistry. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 I believe that Christ is eaten with heart. 
 
 The eating with our mouth cannot give us 
 life. For then should a sinner have life. 
 But eating of his body giveth life. 
 
 Only good men can eat Christ's body. 
 When the evil eateth the Sacrament, bread 
 and wine, he neither hath Christ's body nor 
 eateth it. 
 
 * Bishop Ridley at another time used the same argument. "Now 
 you will say, what kind of presence do they grant, and what do 
 they deny? Briefly, they deny the presence of Christ's body in the 
 natural substance of his human and assumed nature, and grant the 
 presence by grace," ... "by grace ... the same body of Christ is here 
 present with us. Even as, for example, we say the same sun, which, 
 in substance, never removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present 
 here by his beams, light and natural influence, where it shineth upon 
 the earth. For God's word and his sacraments be, as it were, the beams 
 of Christ, which is Sol justitiae, the Sun of righteousness." (Ridley 
 Works. Parker Soc. p. 13.) 
 
Appendix V, 
 
 419 
 
 This body is not in the evil man for it is 
 John. on the right hand. 2^o man ascended into 
 
 heaven. &c. 
 
 The good man hath the word within him, 
 and the godhead by reason of an indisso- 
 luble annexion is in the manhood. 
 Fol. 15b. Eating with his mouth giveth nothing to 
 
 man, nor the body being in the bread. 
 iRENEus,Lib, 3 Christ gave to his disciples bread and wine, 
 Bread is my creatures among us, and called it his body 
 body. saying Hoc est Corpus meum. * 
 
 WIGORN. 
 
 Ancient writers call it a mystery incompre- 
 hensible and Horrible. 
 
 It is no profit to believe that an evil man 
 receiveth the body. 
 
 He said he would give them such bread as 
 was never given before. As touching the 
 naturalness of the bread Manna is more 
 divine by seeming. He that believeth in me 
 shall live by me, but he meaneth not bread 
 but his own flesh. 
 
 OBJECTIO. 
 gANTOR. 
 
 RESPON. 
 WIGORN. 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 Fol. 1 6a. 
 
 QUESTIO. 
 
 John 6. 
 
 Objectio. 
 
 ROFFENSIS. 
 
 What bread meant he when he said 
 Ego sum panis. 
 Panis quern ego daho. 
 
 WIGORN. 
 
 The working of it is made by the receiver, 
 yet they all eat one thing. 
 
 1 " Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex 
 suis creaturis .... eum qui ex creatura panis est, accepit et gratias egit 
 dicens : Hoc est meum corpus, Et calicem similiter, qui est ex ea 
 creatura quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est." (S. 
 Irenreus., Contra Hares \ IV. c. XVII, ed Migne 1023.) 
 
420 Appendix V. 
 
 August. Cum edimt ipsam carnem. 
 
 Judas received tpsani carnem but he dwell- 
 ed not in Christ nor Christ in him. 
 
 Example of an old man and a sick. They 
 eat one meat but not alike vailable. 
 
 CANTOR. 
 
 Scriptures and doctors prove that Hie calix 
 is figurative, which he often used and sig- 
 nificabat vinum, 
 
 WIGORN. 
 
 The Scripture is received because the 
 Church hath received it. Likewise the Sa- 
 crament. 
 
 ELIENSIS. 
 
 DE ELEVATi- Thcrc is no visible thing that is God. 
 
 The question to the sick whether he be- 
 
 Fol. 1 6b. lieveth that he seeth the body and blood 
 of Christ when he seeth bread and wine is 
 an error. Images and worshipping of bread 
 have been a let that Jews believe not in 
 Christ because the bible speaketh against 
 idolatry. 
 
 TUESDAY. THE THIRD DAY. 
 
 CiCISTRENSIS. 
 
 Hoc est Corpus meum. 
 
 The matter concerneth not only the wealth 
 of the body but of souls. 
 
 The Sacrament hath been called and taken 
 an article of our faith to believe that the 
 body is there after the consecration. 
 
 The people that have been commonly call- 
 ed the Church have thus believed. 
 
Appendix V. 421 
 
 And the opinion that we receive not the 
 body that was given for us to death hath 
 been rejected. 
 
 Fol. 17 a. And to say that we receive the Sacraments 
 but as signs of the body and blood hath 
 been condemned. 
 
 Yet both sides, the one and the other, ground 
 their reasons upon Scripture and doctors. 
 In time past the pure words of Christ were 
 taken. 
 
 But now we expound them by trope and 
 figure. 
 
 Yet there should be brought some Scrip- 
 ture that these words were spoken by figure. 
 Or else they must be taken as they are 
 barely spoken. 
 
 If there be a trope then it is requisite to 
 shew in what word it is. 
 
 Whether in Hoc est^ or Corpus. But this I 
 wot, we shall be sore assulted of Satan when 
 we go hence to prove whether we ground 
 our doctrine upon Scripture or not. 
 
 Fol. 17 b. If it be a trope, it is in Corpus, 
 
 Scripture saith Corpus is the same body 
 that shall be broken for us, which was a 
 natural body. 
 
 In John his Apostles did eat him and drink 
 him spiritually ; but he promised them bread 
 and that they should eat him and drink 
 him otherwise, yet spiritually too. 
 John. 6. Pants quein ego dabo pro wiundt &c. 
 
 Chrysost. in The word body thus signifieth the very 
 body. 
 
 To touch a great man's gown with (de)filed 
 hands is not suflferable. Even so to eat the 
 
 D D 
 
 EPISTOLAM 1 
 
 AD CORIN. 
 
 CAP. 10. 
 
422 Appendix V, 
 
 flesh and drink the blood with corrupt 
 conscience. 
 
 It is that body by the which hell was 
 broken and heaven opened, the selfsame 
 body that was wounded with the spear and 
 gushed out blood.* 
 
 Touching Hoc. 
 
 Material bread cannot be the substance 
 of Christ. 
 Fol. 1 8a. Therefore Hoc must needs praedicare Cor- 
 pus non panem. 
 
 Smyth. 
 
 It is more horrible to eat flesh than to 
 break it. To drink blood than to shed or 
 pour it out. ^ 
 
 And touched my Lord of Chichester's 
 rhetoric. 
 
 CICESTRENSIS contra SMYTHE. ' 
 
 Respon. That he uttered not his tale by human 
 
 reason or by rhetoric, for in that Mr. Smythe 
 is a great deal better than he. 
 
 ^ ** Si autem humanum vestimentum nemo ausus fuerit temere tan- 
 gere ; quomodo corpus universorum Dei immaculatum et purum, quod 
 cum divina ilia natura versatum est per quod sumus et vivimus, per 
 quod portae mortis fractae sunt et fornaces coeli aperti sunt, cum tanta 
 contumelia accipiemus ? . . . Hoc corpus clavis confixum, flagris coesum, 
 mors non tulit, hoc corpus sol cum crucifixum videret, radios avertit 
 &c. &c. . . Hoc corpus dedit nobis et tenendum et comedendum, quod 
 intensse dilectionis fuit." (S. Joannis Chrysost : in Ep: i. ad Cor. Cap. 
 10. Hom: XXIV (4) ed. Migne x 203—4). 
 
 2 This is really a quotation from St. Augustine " Quamvis horri- 
 bilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere, et humanum 
 sanguinem potare quam fundere." Contra adversarium legis II. cap. IX. 
 ed. Migne VIII 658). 
 
Appendix V. 423 
 
 It is said that the doctors maintained not the 
 substance in the Sacrament, and he alleged 
 Erasmus for the judgment of the Fathers. 
 
 DoMiNus Protector. 
 
 To allege Erasmus who is but a new 
 
 writer, and not recite the ancient doctors is 
 
 Fol. 1 8b. inconvenient, since* by Scriptures and old 
 
 writers it was agreed that these arguments 
 
 should first be proved. 
 
 CiCESTRENSIS. 
 
 Intendeth not to make Erasmus his author, 
 but to shew his mind how he understood 
 a place in Scripture. 
 
 Non alligahis os bovis triturantis. 
 This proveth he to be spoken for the minis- 
 ters that are living rehearsed by St. Paul 
 saying Nunquid de bobus curae est Deo. 
 And these are not contrary and St. Austin 
 holds opinion that children shall not have 
 life except they eat the Sacrament.^ 
 John. 6. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, 
 
 Smyth. 
 
 August. Non dubitavit Christus dicere. Hoc est 
 
 Corpus meum, cum signum corporis sui 
 daret. ^ 
 
 i "Sith" in the MS. 
 
 * "Ac per hoc etiam pro parvulorum vita caro data est, quae data 
 
 est pro saeculi vita; et si non manducaverint carnem Filii hominis, 
 
 nee ipsi habebunt vitam". (S. Aug. de Feccai. meriiis ed, Migne X. 124). 
 
 ' See the passage already quoted (note 3 on fol. 4. b.). 
 
 Deutero. 
 CAP. 14. 
 
424 Appendix V. 
 
 Cycestrensis. 
 
 Fol. 19a. Saint Austin also is not afraid to say he- 
 saw Christ's body when he saw the Sacra- 
 ment. ^ 
 
 Smyth. 
 
 August. Blood is a sign of a thing that had life. 
 
 Christ gave as much as any can consecrate ;: 
 and then he had not shed his blood. 
 
 Cycestrensis. 
 
 If a man see a figure or a sign it is not 
 the thing itself, as white and round is not 
 the bread itself Even so Christ gave the 
 Sacrament that the form and accidents of 
 the bread should remain, but not very bread. 
 
 Smyth. 
 
 As who saith, I am a man, but because 
 it is night I cannot be discerned so welL 
 Therefore except ye see me perfectly I am 
 Fol. 19b. no man. This is false for I am man still 
 and so the Sacrament is bread still. Though 
 these arguments be able to prove inwardly 
 neither this nor that. 
 
 London. 
 
 There belongs to the Sacrament Modus 
 dandi and Res data. 
 
 Res data non est Jigura. 
 
 * "Panis ille quem videtis in altari, sanctificatus per verbum Dei,, 
 corpus est Christi. Calix ille, imo quod habet calix, sanctificatum per 
 verbum Dei, sanguis est Christi ". (S. Aug. Sermo 227. ed. Migne. V^ 
 1099) cf. also Sermo 272 ibid. 1246. 
 
 * cf. S. Aug. ed. Migne HI 703. 
 
Appendix V, 
 Cantor. 
 
 425 
 
 August. 
 
 Objectio. 
 Cycestr. 
 
 Blood is a figure of the life. * So is the 
 bread a sign of the body. 
 
 Whether there be any figured speech in 
 Hoc est Corpus. 
 
 But this Ctip is my blood must needs be 
 Jigurate. 
 
 These two which nourisheth us Christ 
 calleth his body and blood. 
 
 But answer to Irenaeus that ancient writer, 
 the disciple of Poly carpus which was John's 
 disciple. 
 
 Cycestrensis. 
 
 If Panis in Panis quern frangimus is to 
 Fol. 2oa. be considered very bread, then must Corpus 
 CoRiN. XI. also that followeth in the same text be 
 taken to be the very body. 
 
 WiGORN. 
 
 We see a thing and there is a thing hid 
 also. 
 
 There is both Signum and Corpus, 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 August, 
 
 August. 
 
 Quid paras ventrem et denies f Crede et 
 manducasti ^ 
 
 Carnaliter intelligere est verba ut dicuntur 
 
 intelligere. ^ 
 
 ^ Ibid. 
 
 2 "Hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quem misit ille. Hoc est 
 €rgo manducare cibum non qui perit sed qui permanet in vitam eternam. 
 Utquid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede et manducasti". (S. -Aug: in. 
 Joan: Tract. XXV. c. 12. ed. Migne. III. 1602). 
 
 * The following passage from St. Augustine presents a similar thought. 
 
426 Appendix V, 
 
 Elyensis. 
 
 Irenaeus. Euchartstia ex duabus rebus constans ter- 
 
 renum et celeste &c..^ 
 
 DUNELMENSIS. 
 
 Consenteth that he called bread his body 
 and wine his blood for so doth the gospel. 
 
 But he. expounded it after a sort and 
 denied after any bread to remain. 
 
 Fol. 2ob. Lincoln. 
 
 Irenaeus. Confessus est Calicem suum sanguinem. * 
 
 ROFFENSIS. 
 
 Pants in quo gratiae actae sunt quoddam ^ 
 terre7iu'm est et supernum. 
 
 He blessed not his natural body but 
 panem. 
 
 And of a phantastical body there is na 
 figure. 
 
 "Quoniam quisquis ilium diem nunc usque observat sicut littera sonat^ 
 carnaliter sapit". (S. Aug. De Sj)iriiu et Littera, ed. Migne X. 216). 
 * " Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis percipiens invocationem 
 Dei, jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus 
 constans, terrena et coelesti : sic et corpora nostra percipientia Eucha- 
 ristiam jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia". 
 (S. Irenaeus contra Hceres: IV c. 18. ed: Bened. 251). 
 
 2 "Quomodo autem constabit eis, cum panem in quo gratiae actae 
 sint, corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum 
 fabricatoris mundi Filium dicant, id est Verbum ejus, per quod lignum 
 fructificat, defluunt fontes, et-terra dat primum quidem fenum, post deinde 
 spicam, deinde plenum triticum in spica. Quomodo autem rursus dicunt 
 carnem in corruptionem devenire et non percipere vitam, quae corpore 
 Domini et sanguine alitur? Ergo aut sententiam mutent, aut abstineant 
 ofFerendo quae praedicta sunt". (Irenaeus. Contra Hceres. IV. c. 18.. 
 ed. Bened. 251.) 
 
 3 quondam in MS. See the passage of St. Irenaeus quoted by Ely, 
 
Appendix V. 427 
 
 Tertullian, N^on desinit esse substantia pants. 
 
 Nee pan em in quo ipse suum corpus 
 representat &c. ^ 
 
 Renatus confesseth that Tertullian was of 
 this opinion and defended it. 
 
 Cantor. 
 Tertullian. Appellavit panem suum Corpus. ^ 
 
 Westmonast. 
 iRENAEus. Eucharistiam appellat Corpus, non panem. ^ 
 
 Lincoln. 
 
 Eucharistia is more than Panis communis 
 1 CoRiN. 10. for it is Mysticus. As in Paul Calix bene- 
 
 dictionis. 
 Irenaeus. De pane qui est Corpus eius. * 
 
 * "Acceptum panem, et distributum d;scipuHs, corpus ilium suum 
 fecit, Hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est, figura corporis mei. Figura 
 antem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Cgeterum, vacua res, quod 
 est phantasma, figuram capere non posset." (Tertullian. adv. Marcionem 
 IV, c. 40. ed. Migne II. 460, where also see the exposition of Bellarmine 
 on this passage in note). 
 
 " Sed ille quidem usque nunc nee aquam reprobavit — nee panem, 
 quo ipsum corpus suum representat." (Ibid. I. c. 14. ed. Migne II. 262.) 
 
 * In his answer to Gardiner, Cranmer says " I have cited Tertullian, 
 who saith in many places that " Christ called bread his body." (ed. 
 Parker Soc. p. 33. cf. also pp. 153 — 4 for the arguments on this point.) 
 
 3 " Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium, primitias Deo ofiferre ex 
 suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nee infructuosi nee 
 ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est, accepit et gratias egit dicens. 
 Hoc est meum corpus : et calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, quae 
 est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, et novi testamenti 
 novam docuit oblationem ; quam Ecclesia ab apostolis accipiens in 
 universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis prsestat, primitias 
 suorum munerum in novo testamento." (Irenaeus. Contra Haeres. IV. c, 
 17. ed: Bened. 249.) 
 
 * " Spiritus enim neque ossa, neque carnes habet, sed de ea disposi- 
 
428 Appendix V. 
 
 Fol. 2 1 a. WEDNESDAY. The Fourth Day. 
 
 WiGORN. 
 
 Irenaeus called it bread because it was 
 bread before. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 QuESTio. What is it that he calleth bread and wine ? 
 
 Cicestrensis. 
 
 Allegeth Hilarius. 
 
 NORWICENSIS. 
 
 Rehearseth Austin with a weary process 
 unworthy of remembrance and much against 
 his own * purpose in the end. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 First it is called bread and after the con- 
 secration significat Corpus Christi. 
 
 Lychefeldien. 
 
 Before we go to the great mysteries we 
 Fol. 2 lb. should have a solemn prayer and a solemn 
 fasting. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 Tertullian. Docendo vocans panem Corpus suufn, id 
 est figuram Corporis. ^ 
 
 WiGORN. 
 
 Granteth that Christ called bread his body. 
 
 tione quae est secundum verum hominem . . . de pane, quod est corpus 
 ejus, augetur." (S. Irenaeus. Contra Haeres. lib. V. c. 2. ed. Bened. 294. 
 
 1 awne in MS. 
 
 2 See passage before quoted. 
 
Appe7tdtx V, 
 
 429 
 
 But meaning the name only that used 
 before. 
 
 DUNELMENSIS. 
 
 Ad titum. Paul bids us fly curious questions. Christ 
 
 when he met with Mary Magdalen, she 
 knew not his form because he was like a 
 gardener, and yet was none indeed. So in 
 the bread &c. * 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 Hoc est Corpus. 
 
 If that it were meant by Corpus^ then 
 were CorpiLs a figure of the body. 
 Fol. 22 a. But the bread is the ^ figure. For the 
 bread is the Sacrament. 
 
 Landaffensis. 
 
 If he said it were figura non figurata 
 then the matters were out of doubt and 
 question. 
 Genesis 3. Example, Memento homo quod cinis es et 
 
 in terram reverterts. 
 
 HaRFORDIENSIS contra CANTOR. 
 
 Objectio. This word Hoc should mean bread. And 
 
 bread the body of Christ. 
 
 1 This same example was used by Bishop Tunstall in his work on 
 the Sacrament. " Et Marise Magdalense tanquam hortulanus apparuit, 
 non prius agnitus quam eam nomine vocaret dicens, Maria: qua voce 
 cognoscens ilium, appellat eum Rabboni. Glorificata namque corpora 
 similia angelis, hanc videntur habere dotem ut quando velint videantur, 
 quando videri nolint mortalibus oculis conspicua non sint. Itaque qui 
 arguit in Sacramento Corpus Christi non esse, quod nculis non videatur. 
 resurrectionem Christi negare videtur." 'Tunstall De Veritate Corporis. 
 ed. 1554. fol. 27a.) 
 
 2 " bodye" erased in MS. 
 
430 Appendix V, 
 
 If we should think the flesh of Christ's 
 body is in the receiver, we should exclude 
 Christ out of the Communion and the Sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 Objectio. The body of Christ is in heaven. ^/-^^ he 
 
 is not in the Sacrament. That the body of 
 Christ cannot be under any form in the 
 Sacrament. 
 
 It is but the grace that cometh unto us 
 by the body (they say) we shall receive but 
 a certain grace. 
 
 Fol. 22b. Then shall we change the name of the 
 
 Sacrament of the body and call it the Sa- 
 crament of benefits which we receive by 
 the body of Christ. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 Reiteratio. Hoc est Corpus meum, id estfigura Cor- 
 poris. Thus sayeth the old fathers. 
 
 HERFORD contra CANTOR. 
 
 Having respect to the hanging on the 
 cross it is a figure. 
 
 It is nevertheless the very body that is 
 in heaven. 
 
 Lanfrancus ^ understood it so who was 
 your predecessor. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 You say the body is the figure of the 
 body. Nothing is a figure but that which 
 is seen visible. 
 
 Fol. 23 a. You 
 
 Harford. 
 confer the Sacrament of the Old 
 
 1 In his Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini written against Beren- 
 garius ed. Migne 407—442. 
 
Appendix V. 43 r 
 
 Testament with this, and make it of no 
 more value in using (than) Manna and 
 drinking water out of the stone; with, sig- 
 nifieth Corpus figura Corporis. 
 
 Carliel. 
 
 Said as the Bishop of Hereford, id est 
 significat Corpus figura Corporis. 
 
 DUNELMENSIS. 
 
 Figuram non esse sine veritate Corporis.. 
 You would deny that he had any body. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 That which is not can have no figure. 
 
 If he had no body, bread could be no 
 figure of his body. This were to maintain 
 Manichaeus^ heresy. 
 
 Cycestrensis. 
 
 Fol. 2 3D. Oil signifieth the Holy Ghost; yet the- 
 Holy Ghost did never die. 
 
 The flesh was left us a sacrament and 
 Christ is there by a figure called Typus, 
 which the schoolmen use w^hen they demon- 
 strate what * is meant here. Caro^ id esty. 
 Terra conversa in figuram suam. 
 
 Figura here is the very thing itself 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 If oil represented the Holy Ghost then 
 was there an Holy Ghost. So the figure of 
 the body. 
 
 The figure of the horse, id est, the- 
 proportion of the horse. This is a figure 
 
 1 " which " in MS. 
 
432 
 
 Appendix V. 
 
 Fol. 24a. 
 
 August. 
 
 Cyprian. 
 
 I. 
 
 Matt. 
 
 2. 
 
 Paul Ad. 
 
 10. CORIN. 
 
 3- 
 John 6 
 Fol. 24b. 4. 
 Luke 22. 
 
 Chrysost. 
 Super John. 
 
 called to shew; and there is no proportion 
 in the Sacrament; for it were absurdum. 
 
 Cycestrensis. 
 
 Granteth both the figure and the thing 
 itself. 
 
 ROFFEN. 
 
 No man sayeth instead oi Hoc put in Pants, 
 but we say that Hoc meaneth Faults. 
 
 Adhibuit Judam convivio suo in quo com- 
 me7idahat Jigiiram Corporis sui.^ 
 
 How the body is present and in what 
 manner.'' 
 
 Quia divinitas ifi/undit se elemento. 
 
 Therefore the human nature being in 
 heaven may be said to be here, non iji 
 unitate naturae sed iit tuiitate personae. 
 
 Where the one nature is the other may 
 be said to be. 
 
 There are four kinds of bread : 
 
 One natural; when he said Non in solo 
 pane vivit homo. 
 
 The second Sacramental, as Panis que?n 
 frangimus. 
 
 The third flesh ; when he saith Panis quem 
 ego dabo caro mea est. 
 
 The fourth divine, as Ego sum panis vivus 
 qui de coelo descendi. 
 
 When I was daily Avith you in the temple 
 ye stretched out no hands against me, but 
 this is even your very hour. 
 
 Harforde contra Lincoln. 
 That thing that thou seest, Christ would 
 
 * See passage quoted ante (fol. 4 b., note 4). 
 
Appendix V. 433 
 
 2 Fishes. thee to believe that which thou seest not. 
 
 Therefore he did those miracles. First that 
 
 whensoever he said any word they might 
 
 believe it. 
 
 If Christ would say " This is a woolpack," 
 
 be it impossible that any could try it out, 
 
 if he say it, though it were hay before, yet 
 
 we must believe his word. 
 
 It is no carnal reason to say, that it is 
 
 the body of Christ is beyond reason to 
 
 believe. 
 Fol. 25a. But that it signifieth Christ's body and 
 
 bread also, every child may soon perceive. 
 
 Lincoln contra Harford. 
 
 Two things are to be noted in Christ's 
 miracles: the one was his doctrine; the 
 other his works, which were to confirm and 
 stablish his doctrine. 
 
 Beside the words the adversaries recite 
 a miracle. But there is no miracle ; but that 
 which is seen they be but signs. Christ 
 wrought no miracle but that which was seen. 
 
 Cycestrensis. 
 
 Reg. Yes, forsooth ; as Pete tiht stgnum a Deo, 
 
 Achab non petam. Ecce virgo concipiet &c. 
 Which is a miracle and not seen, for the 
 people took Christ to be Joseph's son. 
 
 Lincoln. 
 
 Yes; Mary knew it and felt the work 
 of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Fol. 25b. ROFFENSIS. 
 
 I say not the bread is ^ but a figure and 
 
 1 "not" erased in MS. 
 
^34 Appendix V, 
 
 that every man may perceive. But it is more 
 than a figure for besides the natural bread 
 there is an operation of divinity, for my 
 senses when they taste and eat perceive 
 but a figure. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 :3. CoRiN. lo. Saint Paul saith: Panis quern frangimus 
 est commum'catto Corporis. Even so Christ 
 when he said: This is my body he meant 
 communionem corporis. For Christ when 
 he bids us eat his body it \?> figurative ; 
 for we cannot eat his body indeed. When 
 God commands a good thing to be done 
 and forbids an evil thing it is no figure. 
 
 -August. To eat his flesh and drink his blood is 
 
 to be partaker of his passion, as water is 
 water still that we are christened withal or 
 that was wont to be put into the wine. 
 
 WiGORN. contra Roffen. 
 
 Fol. 26a. He presseth him that he thinks there is 
 nothing more than he was before* but the 
 grace of God as in all other Sacraments, 
 and this is not more altered than other are. 
 All writers yet speak of a change of the bread. 
 
 -X^uEsTio. What is it after the consecration more than 
 
 it was before? 
 
 They call it also Tremendum mysterium, 
 horribile. 
 
 ROFFENSIS. 
 
 In that bread is communio Corporis 
 Christi in the good. But the ill do receive 
 mortem et judicium. 
 
 ^ So MS. zzi after consecration, than there was before. 
 
Appendix. V. 
 
 435 
 
 And that the doctors use these terms it 
 
 is for the reverence, and so speak they 
 of water. 
 
 Inspice vini divinam in a great Canon 
 he proponeth \ Also the question of Charles 
 to Bertram: Christus manducatur in Sa- 
 cramento licet totus sit in coelo. 
 
 It is transformed; for of the common 
 bread before, it is made a divine influence. 
 Pol. 26b. The natural substance of bread remains 
 as it was before. 
 
 Cycestrensis. 
 
 That the authors were alleged wrong by 
 my Lord of Rochester. 
 pROBATio. Bertram is printed of late at Geneva 
 
 among the Sacramentaries and corrupted. 
 For the bishop of Rochester, Fisher, 
 brought the same author against CEcolam- 
 padius for the verity of the body of the 
 Sacrament. 
 
 And sayeth also that Cyprian was wrong 
 recited. 
 Cyprian. Panis ipse omnipotentia verhi secundum 
 
 naturam no7i in specie factus est caro &c. ^ 
 Natura vet substantia non desunt. Whether 
 natura be substance or property. 
 
 ROFFENSIS. 
 
 Alleged Cyprian right for the words are 
 here. 
 
 1 So in MS. 
 
 2 *< Panis iste quern dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie, sed 
 natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro, et sicut in persona 
 Christi humanitas videbatur et iatebat divinitas ita Sacramento visibili 
 ineffabiliter divina se infudit essentia". Sermo de coena Domini in Cy- 
 
 J)riani op. ed. Basileae 1530. p. 445.) 
 
43"<-> Appendix V. 
 
 Fol. 27 a. It is changed in nature, that is to say in 
 
 property. 
 Cvi-kiAN. Vocat corpus pancin propter membrorum 
 
 convenientiain. 
 
 Panis est propter mUrimeiititm corporis, 
 Carneui vocat propter assuiuptae cariiis pro- 
 prietatem. 
 
 Proprietas assuiuptae cariiis vita erat. 
 Divina essentia infudit se Sacramento. ^ 
 
 Cycistren. 
 
 Like as in the humanity of Christ the 
 Godhead was, even so the presence of his 
 very body is in the Sacrament. 
 
 And my Lord also mis-rehearsed Fuse- 
 bius upon this text : " Touch it with thy 
 faith". 
 
 ROFFEN. 
 
 Eusehius saith that it is necessary to make 
 a Sacrament of his body to the intent that 
 Fol. 27 b. his body might be honoured continually in 
 a mystery in the Sacrament, which was 
 offered for our redemption. And Christ's 
 body in grace should be here present. Fide 
 estimanda iioii st)ecie.'^ 
 
 1 " Panis est esca, sanguis vita, caro substantia corpus ecclesia : Cor- 
 pus propter membrorum in unum convenientiam : Sanguis propter vivi- 
 ficationis efficientiam : caro propter assumptae humanitatis proprietatem, 
 Hoc Sacramentum aliquando panem Christus appellat, portionem vitae 
 aeternce, cujus secundum haec visibilia corporali communicavit naturae". 
 (Ibid. pp. 444—5). 
 
 * " Et ideo quia corpus assumptum ablaturus erat ex oculis nostris 
 et syderibus illaturus necessarium erat ut nobis in hac die sacramentum 
 corporis et sanguinis sui consecraret : ut coleretur jugiter per mysterium 
 quod semel ofTerebatur in pretium : ut qui a quotidiana et indefessa 
 currebat pro hominum salute redemptio, perpetua esset etiam redemp- 
 
Appendix V, 
 
 437 
 
 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 Objectio. 
 
 hilarius de 
 trinitate. 
 
 Fol. 28a. 
 
 HiLARlUS. 
 
 And for this word m suhstantiam I un- 
 derstand it thus in proprietatem ; in virtutem 
 substantiae. 
 
 Nee diihitatur conversa in naturafu Divini 
 Corporis dicere, quando homo fit membrum 
 Christi Corporis. * 
 
 CiCISTRENSIS. 
 
 We receive the word in the Sacrament, 
 not the substance of the body. 
 
 Si verbum caro factum est &c. 
 
 Et nos vere Verbum carnem cibo domt- 
 nico accipimus^. 
 
 ROFFENSIS. 
 
 Verbum carnem, id est Christum. 
 
 CiCISTREN. 
 
 Et naturam carnis sub Sacramento eter- 
 nitate nobis communicandae admiscuit &c. ^ 
 
 tionis oblatio et perennis ilia victima viveret in memoria et semper 
 presens in gratia. Vere unica et perfecta hostia, fide estimanda non 
 specie". (Eusebius Emisenus. Opera ed. Paris. 1547. f. 44b.) 
 
 1 " Nee dubitet quisquam primarias creaturas nutu potentiae, presentia 
 majestatis in dominici corporis transire posse naturam, cum ipsum ho- 
 minem videat artificio coelestis misericordiae Christi corpus effectum. 
 Sicut autem quicumque qui ad fidem veniens ante verba baptismi adhuc 
 in vinculo est veteris debiti, his vero commemoratis mox exuitur omni 
 faece peccati ; ita quando benedicendae verbis coelestibus creaturse sacris 
 altaribus imponuntur, antequam invocatione summi nominis consecrentur 
 substantia illic est panis et vini : post verba autem Christi corpus et 
 sanguinis est Christi, Quid mirum autem est si ea quae verbo creare 
 potuit, possit creata convertere : imo jam minoris videtur esse miraculi, 
 si id quod ex nihilo agnoscitur condidisse, jam conditum in melius 
 valeat commutare". (Ibid. f. 47b.) 
 
 2 " Si enim vere verbum caro factum est, et vere nos verbum carnem 
 cibo dominico sumimus ; quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis 
 existimandus est, qui et naturam carnis nostrae jam inseparabilem sibi 
 homo natus assumpsit, et naturam carnis suae ad naturam eternitatis sub 
 Sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit?" (S. Hilarius. De 
 Trinitate lib. VIII. ed. Migne 11. 246.) 
 
 E E 
 
438 Appendix V, 
 
 ROFFEN. 
 
 Naturaliter Christus habitat in nobis. ^ 
 Not only in unity and charity but real in 
 his benefits. 
 
 CiCISTREN. 
 
 If the body taken of the Virgin Mary be 
 Christ. 
 
 WiGORN. 
 
 We are commanded to drink blood, which 
 in the old law was forbidden. The doctors 
 Fol. 28b. alleged must be understood as they speak 
 plainly. 
 
 ROFFEN. 
 
 EusEBius. Invisibilis sacerdos convertit visibiles crea- 
 
 turas in substantiam naturae sicae id est 
 in substantiae proprietatem, * 
 
 Smyth. 
 
 Origenes. If it did sanctify of its own nature then 
 
 it doth make holy the wicked man that 
 doth receive the sacrament. ^ 
 
 * " Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non 
 naturaliter, vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse; quia in Christo 
 Pater, et Christus in nobis, unum in his esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur 
 carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit et vere homo ille^ qui ex 
 Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosque vere sub mysterio carnem corporis 
 sui sumimus" (Ibid.) 
 
 2 " Invisibilis Sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis et 
 sanguinis sui, verbo suo secreta potestate convertit, ita dicens : Accipite 
 et edite, Hoc est enim corpus meum.' (Eusebius Emisenus. Horn. V. 
 ed Paris. 1547. f. 44d.) 
 
 3 " Quemadmodum non cibus, sed conscientia cum hesitatione ves- 
 centis polluit edentem, eo quod qui hassitat, si vescatur, judicatus est; 
 et quemadmodum nihil est impurum per se polluto et incredulo sed 
 propter ipsius immundiciem et incredulitatem : ita quod sanctificatur per 
 
Appendix V. 439 
 
 Durham. 
 
 Denieth that book to be of Origen's 
 works. 
 
 Elien. 
 
 Erasmus saith it is Origen. 
 
 London. 
 
 Scrutamtni Scripturas. As we seek and 
 hear, what shall we do then when we have 
 searched? Believe then we must. 
 
 What shall we do then? Marry there 
 abide, and go no further than our holy 
 Fol. 29 a. fathers that have searched and come to the 
 belief (that) must be followed. They have 
 found it; we should not then go seek it 
 still, but follow them and believe as they did. 
 
 Smyth. 
 
 Origen. Si comedertmus non ahundamus, neque 
 
 si non comederiinus quicquam nobis deerit. ^ 
 
 LiCHFELD. 
 
 Denieth his conversion, which was sup- 
 posed to be by his words that he spake 
 upon monday; and believeth that it is no 
 
 verbum Dei et per obsecrationem non suapte natura sanctificat utentem. 
 Nam id si esset, sanctificaret etiam ilium qui comedit indigne Domino.'* 
 (Origen. in Matth. c. XV. ed. Erasmi. 1545. Ii. p. 28.) 
 
 Ridley in his " Brief declaration of the Lord's Supper " (Parker 
 Soc. Works p. 29) says : " In the disputations which were in this matter 
 in the parliament house and in the Universities of Cambridge and 
 Oxford, they that defended transubstantiation, said that this part of 
 Origen was but set forth of late by Erasmus and therefore is to be 
 suspected." 
 
 1 "Neque si comederimus abundabimus, neque si non comederimus 
 minus habebimus". (Ibid). 
 
440 
 
 Appendix V, 
 
 Origen vel 
 
 Cyrillus. 
 
 Fol. 29b. 
 
 gross body, but a natural body that is 
 glorified and not only in virtue and spirit; 
 but faith receiveth both the virtue and the 
 natural body also. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 There is Littera quae occidit in the old 
 and the new Testament. * 
 
 In the new this is [Littera occtdtt,) when 
 Christ gave his body, to take it literally. 
 The bread and wine are not changed out- 
 wardly but inwardly, as we are changed 
 to be new men yet are we men still. Thou 
 art made God's son, and Christ dwelleth 
 in thy mind. The change is inward, not in 
 the bread but in the receiver. To have 
 Christ present really here, when I may 
 receive him in faith, is not available to do 
 me good. 
 
 Christ is in the world in his divinity,, 
 but not in his humanity. 
 
 The property of his Godhead is every- 
 where, but his manhood is in one place only. 
 ViGiLius These heretics denied that he was very 
 EuTYCHEN. man. 
 Fol. 30a. Two natures in Christ hath been ever 
 
 received by the Church. 
 
 DUNELMENSIS. 
 
 ^ „ Authors say that Christ is here invisible ; 
 
 Basil. that doth appear by the Canon in their 
 masses. 
 
 * " Consuetudo est Scripture sanctae cum aliquid contrarium corpori 
 huic crassiori et solidiori designare vult, spiritum nominare : sicutdicit:; 
 litera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat". (Origen. Peri Archon. lib. I,. 
 ed. 1545. I. 751). 
 
Appendix V. 441 
 
 Ut visihilis Christi natura invisihilis sit 
 in Sacramento. ^ 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 But his body is not here invisible. 
 
 And there is in the beginning of Chry- 
 sostom's mass a prayer to himself which 
 proves that it was not his mass. 
 
 But this is the mind of old ancient authors 
 concerning Hoc est Corpus, whether Christ 
 meant this to be his body or bread. 
 Pol. 30b. Such bread calleth Christ his body as is 
 
 Cyprianus a 'xx, a a 
 
 Epipha, common among us, made with nour and 
 w^ater, and wine likewise. Such bread as 
 feeds the body, that cannot hear nor see, 
 but round, broad, thick and white. ^ 
 
 It is material bread that hath these qua- 
 lities; his body was not so. 
 
 As the baker maketh it so doth the 
 altar descrive ^ it. 
 
 These say Christ called such bread his 
 body. 
 
 If you understand Hoc, this bread, then 
 bread was his body. And if this word doth 
 not '^ signify bread, Christ said not that bread 
 was his body. 
 
 1 Quoted in Bishop Tunstall's De Veritate Corporis ff. 35 to 36a, 
 
 2 " Videmus enim quod accepit Salvator in manus suas, veluti Evan- 
 gelium habet quod surrexit in coena et accepit haec, et ubi gratias 
 €gisset dixit, hoc meum est hoc et hoc. Et videmus quod non equale 
 €st neque simile non imagini in carne, non invisibili deitati, non linea- 
 mentis membrorum. Hoc enim est rotundae formae et insensibile quantum 
 ad potentiam. Et voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc et hoc : 
 €t nemo non fidem habet sermoni. Qui enim non credit esse ipsum 
 verum, sicut dixit, is excidit a gratia et salute". (Epiphanius, lib. Anco- 
 ratus ed. 1542. p. 558.) 
 
 3 So in MS. 
 
 ^ "not not" in MS. 
 
442 
 
 Appendix V, 
 
 WiGORN. 
 
 Respon. They keep the name as it was before it 
 
 was converted and Christ did it in a thought,. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 Fol. 31a. Where calls Christ bread his body? 
 
 "This glove is my cap"; who would 
 believe it except he see it turned. 
 
 DUNELMENSIS. 
 
 The example of a cap is a mortal man's^ 
 example. But Christ said it that might turn. 
 it in a moment. 
 
 Cantor. 
 
 It was natural bread, but now no com- 
 mon bread for it is separated to another 
 use. Because of the use it may be called 
 bread of life. 
 
 That which you see is bread and wine 
 But that which you believe is the body of 
 Christ. ' 
 August. We must believe that there is bread and 
 
 the body. 
 
 Lincoln. 
 
 Fol. 31b. Two things were touched now. 
 
 One, an answer to my Lord of Canter- 
 bury which is this : That it is called bread 
 because is was called bread. As : the blind 
 doth see. The disciples of John saw them 
 that were blind see ; therefore they believed 
 
 1 " Quod ergo videtis, panis est et calix ; quod vobis etiam oculi 
 vestri renuntiant : quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est 
 corpus Christi, calix sanguis Christi," (S. Aug. Senno 272. ed. Migne^ 
 V. 1246.) 
 
Appendix V, 443 
 
 it because they knew them bHnd before. 
 Likewise of bread : my senses see it is bread. 
 
 The other was, the omnipotency of God, 
 that we should beheve it there because that 
 Christ did say it. 
 August. But Deus is sic omnipotens ut rationis 
 
 institutum evellat. ^ 
 
 It should be seen and appear, if he had 
 meant it so. For he is omnipotent and could 
 have done it. 
 
 ROFFEN. 
 
 Fol. 32 a. It is carnal reason that letteth us. Carnal 
 reason cannot believe that bread is his body. 
 Therefore grossly he imagineth, thatthink- 
 eth bread remaineth no more. A sacrament 
 or mystery is not a Do this in the remem- 
 hrance of me. It was instituted then a cer- 
 tain commemoration of his body. 
 
 The question is not whether he might 
 do so or not; but whether he hath done it 
 or not. 
 
 Baptismus nos salvat; not the baptism but 
 the Holy Ghost which is offered unto us 
 at our regeneration. 
 
 1 So in MS.: read " non evellat." 
 
APPENDIX VL 
 
 The Words of Institution. 
 
 Several suggestions have been made by recent wri- 
 ters as to the sources from which the words OF IN- 
 STITUTION in the Communion service of the Book of 
 Common Prayer were derived. The following table and 
 remarks will further elucidate this question. 
 
 MOZARABIC. 
 
 Book of Common 
 Prayer 1549. 
 
 Brandenburg- 
 Nuremberg 1533. 
 
 Dominus noster 
 Jesus Christus in 
 qua nocte trade- 
 batur accepit 
 panem et gratias 
 agens benedixit 
 ac fregit, deditque 
 discipulis suis di- 
 cens accipite et 
 manducate. Hoc 
 est corpus meum 
 quod pro vobis 
 tradetur. Quoties- 
 cumque mandu- 
 
 caveritis : hoc 
 
 (Who) in the 
 same night that 
 he was betrayed, 
 took bread and 
 when he had 
 blessed and given 
 thanks * he brake 
 it and gave it to 
 his disciples, say- 
 ing : Take, eat, 
 this is my body 
 which is given for 
 you, do this in 
 remembrance of 
 me. 
 
 UnserHerr Je- 
 sus Christus in 
 der nacht do Er 
 
 verraten wardt 
 nam Er das brot 
 
 dancket und 
 brachs und gabs 
 
 sein Jiingeren 
 
 und sprach : 
 Nembt hin und 
 esset, Das ist mein 
 leyb derfureuch 
 gegeben wirdt : 
 das thut zu mei- 
 nem gedachtnus. 
 
 1 Tyndall's version of this passage of the Gospel is "and thanked^'; 
 Cranmer's version renders it "and when he had given thanks". 
 
Appendix VI. 
 
 445 
 
 MOZARABIC. 
 
 Book of Common 
 Prayer 1549. 
 
 Brandenburg- 
 Nuremberg 1533. 
 
 facite in meam 
 commemoratio- 
 nem. 
 
 Similiter et ca- 
 licem post quam 
 coenavit dicens: 
 
 Hie est calix 
 novi testamenti 
 in meo sanguine 
 qui pro vobis et 
 pro multis effun- 
 detur in remissi- 
 onem peccato- 
 rum. Quotiescum- 
 que biberitis : hoc 
 facite in meam 
 commemoratio- 
 nem. 
 
 Likewise after 
 supper he took 
 the cup and when 
 he had given 
 thanks he gave 
 it to them, say- 
 ing : Drink ye all 
 of this for 
 this is my blood 
 of the new Testa- 
 ment which is 
 shed for you and 
 for many for 
 remission of sins. 
 Do this as oft as 
 you shall drink 
 it in remem- 
 brance of me. 
 
 Desselben gley- 
 chen naniEr auch 
 den kelch nach 
 
 dem abentmal 
 und dancketund 
 gab ihn den und 
 sprach : Trinckt 
 alle daraus. 
 
 Das ist mein 
 blut des newen 
 testamentes das 
 fiir euch und fiir 
 
 vil \ ergossen 
 wirdt zur verge- 
 bung der siinden^ 
 Solchs thut so oft 
 irs trinckt zu mei- 
 nem gedechtnus. 
 
 A few remarks may be appended on the early his- 
 tory of the Lutheran formula of Institution and on 
 Cranmer's acquaintance with the Lutheran forms actually 
 in use. As early as 1523 Luther, in his latin mass, 
 had rejected the form of words generally adopted in 
 the western church and framed another. Although he 
 can hardly have consulted the Mozarabic Missal for the 
 purpose, since this would have been just as distasteful 
 to him in its continual expression of the idea of Sacri- 
 
446 Appendix VI. 
 
 fice as the ordinary Missal, Luther's form contains a 
 singular expression which is characteristic of the Mo- 
 zarabic words of institution. ^ 
 
 In his german Mass of 1526 Luther gave another 
 form of institution ^ which has been the basis of the 
 various formulae used in the Lutheran churches, among 
 the rest by Nuremberg in the order of 1533 as given 
 above. The principle followed in the compilation of this 
 form was, that it should be a harmony of all the four 
 narratives of the Institution contained in the New 
 Testament. ^ 
 
 The formulae of Institution besides being contained in 
 the Kirchen-Ordnungen, are also given in the various 
 Lutheran Catechisms for children to learn by heart.'' 
 Such a form accordingly appears in the Nuremberg 
 Catechism, translated into latin by Justus Jonas and 
 thence into english by Cranmer. 
 
 The Nuremberg formula given above naturally found 
 a place in the german Catechism intended for that 
 church,^ and was thereafter proposed by Cranmer as 
 
 1 The Mozarabic has, "hie est calix novi iestameniiin meo sanguine*\ 
 (for which see Sabatier III. 699). Luther has "Hie calix est novi tes- 
 tamenti in meo sanguine" and this has passed into the danish formula 
 compiled by Bugenhagen. Luther doubtless took his version from the 
 Communion for Passion Sunday in the western Missals {" hie calix novi 
 iestamenti est in meo sanguine, dicit Dominus"). 
 
 2 See Daniel Codex Lit: II 109. For variants see Kliefoth V. p. 109. 
 ' This principle is indicated in the Brandenburg-Nuremberg Order (1533) 
 
 and in that of Cassel (1539. Richter I. 200 and 301) and more fully 
 explained in the Frankfort order of 1530 (Ibid p. 141). So also in 
 the Lutheran Cathechism translated by Cranmer it is said, " Furthermore 
 if any man will ask ye where this {i. e. the words of Institution) is written: 
 ye shall answer : these be the words which the Holy Evangelists, Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke and the apostle Paul do write" (ed. Burton p. 213). 
 
 * See e.g. Bugenhagen's Kirchen-Ordnung for Brunswick, 1528, (ed. 
 HSnselmann pp. 253 — 5); and Luther's greater and lesser Catechisms, 
 with their latin translations (in J. G. Walch's Christliehes Coneordienbuch)^ 
 
 * See ed. Burton p. 175 and p. 181. 
 
Appendix VI. 447 
 
 the formula of Institution to be taught to english 
 children in 1548. "Wherefore good children " his trans- 
 lation says "ye shall duly learn the words by the 
 which our Lord Jesus Christ did institute and order 
 His supper, that ye may repeat them word for word 
 and so print them in your memory that you may bear 
 them away with you home to your fathers' houses and 
 there often rehearse them." ^ The following is Justus 
 Jonas' latin version of the german Nuremberg form 
 with Cranmer's english translation of the latin. 
 
 Latin of Justus Jonas. 
 
 "Dominus Jesus in ea nocte qua tradebatur accepit 
 panem gratias agens, fregit, deditque discipulis suis et 
 dixit, Accipite, edite; hoc est corpus meum quod pro 
 vobis datur, hoc facite in mei commemorationem. " 
 
 Similiter accepit et calicem, postquam cenavit, gratias 
 agens, dedit eis et dixit: Bibite ex hoc omnes, hie 
 est sanguis meus novi Testamenti qui pro vobis et 
 multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite 
 quotiescumque bibitis in mei commemorationem."^) 
 
 Cranmer's translation. 
 
 Our Lord Jesus Christ the same night that He was 
 betrayed, took bread and giving thanks brake it and 
 gave it to his disciples and said : Take, eat, this is my 
 body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance 
 of me. 
 
 Likewise He took the cup after He had supped and 
 giving thanks gave it to them and said: Drink of this 
 all ye. This is my blood of the New Testament, which 
 is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of 
 
 1 Ibid. 206. 
 
 2 Ed, Burton p. i8i. 
 
448 Appendix VI. 
 
 sins. Do this as oft as ye drink, in remembrance 
 of me." ' 
 
 It will be seen on examination of these formulae 
 that apart from certain variations, which are merely of 
 rendering" and not of substance, the Nuremberg form 
 of Institution, 1533, the latin of Justus Jonas, Cranmer's 
 translation of this, and the form actually adopted in 
 the first Prayer Book of 1549, are one and the same. ^ 
 
 The form of Institution in the Book of Common 
 Prayer must consequently be referred for its origin to 
 the Brandenburg-Nuremberg recension of the Lutheran 
 recital and not to either the roman or the mozarabic. 
 
 * p. ^95. 
 
 2 As to the words "blessed and" see note on this passage of the 
 Canon, chapter XII. 
 
APPENDIX VII. 
 
 Note on the Acts of Convocation 1547. 
 
 The acts of this Convocation have received very un- 
 fortunate treatment. Burnet (II. 2. Bk: i. Records 
 Nos. 1 6 and 17.) printed Cranmer's memoranda of certain 
 petitions which the clergy of the lower house presented 
 to the archbishop. These he gives on the authority 
 of bishop Stillingfleet's MS. which is now at Lambeth 
 (MS. 1 108.). Strype {Life of Cranmer p. 220) gave a 
 translation of what he considered to be the private 
 notes of some member of the lower house. "■ Some 
 account of what was done here I will in this place set 
 down", he writes, "as I extracted it out of the notes 
 of some member, as I conceive, then present at it". 
 This extract he took from the Synodalia volume of 
 the Parker MSS. at Cambridge (C. C. C. C.MS. 113, f. 
 5a seqq:). Succeeding writers have regularly referred 
 to Strype, although what he prints does not give any 
 general idea of the document from which it is profess- 
 edly drawn. Moreover it is so inaccurate in detail 
 that it is worse than useless, and it seems indeed ques- 
 tionable whether Strype could ever have seen the 
 original himself. 
 
 A partial copy of this document from the Synodalia 
 volume, is to be found among White Kennett's collec- 
 tions (B. Museum, Lansd: MS. 1031, fif. 41b seqq.). 
 
45 o Appendix VII. 
 
 This also is inaccurate and very imperfect; but even 
 from this abridgment of the formalities and wording 
 some idea of the real character of the original docu- 
 ment may be gathered, which is sufficient to shew 
 that Strype can hardly be correct in treating it as mere 
 private and unofficial notes. 
 
 Another copy, probably made about the same date, 
 is given in Egerton MS. 2350 (ff. 6 seqq.). The scribe 
 was often unable to read the MS. before him, but many 
 of the mistakes are corrected by a revising hand. Though 
 still incomplete, the Egerton copy is in all respects 
 to be preferred to White Kennett's. But as usual it 
 is necessary to have recourse to the original MS. (C. C. 
 C. C. MS. 113) in order to discover the real character 
 of the document. 
 
 This paper comprises (i) the list of members com- 
 posing the Convocation, which at first sight, by its 
 omissions, corrections and additions, reveals itself as the 
 original paper drawn up by the clerk; (2) a report in 
 a fair hand, different from the preceding, of each of 
 the eight meetings. This comprises a list of the mem- 
 bers present at each meeting and a minute of business 
 done. Strype's print is an imperfect and incorrect 
 rendering of these minutes. 
 
 There seems no reason for doubting that these pa- 
 pers are a part of the journal of Convocation, and not 
 as Strype supposed, mere " notes of some member . . . 
 present at it ". It is probable that they were abstracted 
 by some influential person, like so much else, in the 
 sauve qui peut which followed Edward's decease. Their 
 abstraction accounts in part for the state of the Con- 
 vocation records in this reign described by Fuller and 
 Heylyn, who (not having seen the C. C. C. C. MS.) knew 
 nothing of what took place in the Convocation of 1547. 
 The original paper, mentioned p. 75 note (4), coming 
 from the same source, is interesting as an illustration 
 
Appendix VII. 451 
 
 of the method of " subscription " then in use mentioned 
 in these official acts. 
 
 Wilkins' treatment of the Convocation of 1547 is 
 as unsatisfactory as Strype's. He gives the "words" 
 of the petition from the lower house " as they were 
 found in archbishop Cranmer's MS. in the hands of 
 Edward Stillingfleet, late bishop of Worcester ", together 
 with a few notes as to the sessions, with a reference 
 to Cranmer's Register (which does not contain these 
 acts at all). 
 
 A complete and accurate edition of these records 
 is certainly to be desired. But on full consideration it 
 did not appear that the document, with the long lists 
 of names, had a sufficiently direct relation to the 
 subject of this book to warrant its finding a place in 
 the appendix. 
 
 The necessity for such a print of the original acts 
 may, however^ be illustrated by a passage from Burnet. 
 "For the third petition" he writes of this Convocation, 
 " it was resolved that many bishops and divines should 
 be sent to Windsor to labour in the matter of a church 
 service. But that required so much consideration that 
 they could not enter on it during the session of 
 parliament" (II. p. 53). There is nothing whatever to 
 warrant such a statement, which is based merely on 
 Burnet's sense of what might or should have been 
 done. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Altars, destruction of, 256, 264, 266, 267, note 272. 284 ; word 
 
 expunged from Prayer Book 290. 
 Antiphons, object of, 18, 19; absence of, in Quignon, 22, 
 Apostles' mass, 241, 246. 
 Arms, royal (in churches), 272. 
 Articles of religion, 304. 
 Ash-Wednesday, observance of, 98, 100. 
 Ashes 100, 252. 
 
 Baker, Sir John, 63, QQ. 
 
 Bale, works of, 119. 
 
 Baptism, order for, see Prayer Book. 
 
 Barbero, Daniele, report of 271 — 276. 
 
 Barlow, bishop, 84, 85 ; sermons of, 48, 69 ; in debate concerning 
 
 sacrament, 162. 
 Beauvais, cathedral of, 13. 
 Bells, ringing of, 55, 56, 272. 
 Benediction of Blessed Sacrament, 54 note 
 
 FP 
 
454 Index, 
 
 Bishops, authority of, derived from the king, 42, 43 note, 45, 
 QQ\ attitude of, towards change, 71, 74 note^ 83—88, 154, 
 256 ; whether unanimous, 71, 163, 167, 178, 233, 256; in debate 
 concerning B. Sacrament 160 — 170; meeting of, for the 
 revision of the Prayer Book, 178, 180, 285, 287 note ; voting 
 of, for Prayer Book, 171, 179. 
 
 Bonner, bishop, 45, 86, 239 ; injunctions given to 242 ; sermon of, 
 at Paul's cross, 244; speeches of, concerning Prayer Book, 
 166, 170; imprisonment of, 57, 245; king's letter to, 152, 154. 
 
 Bread, blessed, 98, 195 note, 252. 
 
 Breviary, mediaeval, 19, see Quignon. 
 
 Bucer, Martin, 127 ; his opinion of English reforms 250, 288, 
 292, 299—301 ; on bread and wine for communion, 295 note. 
 See Censura, 
 
 Bullinger, diary of, 119 note, 128 ; belief of, 231 note, 305. 
 
 Burnet, value of testimony of, 139, App. vii, 451. 
 
 Calendar, arrangement of, 32—35, 38 note, App. iv, 386—388. 
 Calvin, influence of, on english reforms, 93, 125, 305. See 
 
 Helvetian school. 
 Cambridge, surrender of college at, 110 ; visitation of, 248. 
 Candlemas day, 98, 100. 
 Canon of Prayer Book 197. See Prayer Book ; comparison of 
 
 Roman, Sarum, York & Hereford, 198 note. 
 Canons, duties of, 6, 8 ; separation of regular and secular, 7 ; 
 
 name of, 7 note, 
 Canterbury, instructions given to chapter of, 56. 
 Capon, bishop; 106. 
 Carlisle, cathedral of, 7. 
 Carthusians, customs of, 20 note, 92 note. 
 Cathedrals, services in, 5—9, 13, 55, 102. 
 Censura, the, 269, 270, 288 note, 292, 299. 
 Ceremonies, abolition of ancient, 53, 98, 104, 105, 109,111,147,' 
 
 253, 271-272, 305 ; people's love for, 100. 
 
Index, 455 
 
 Chafyn, Mr. Thomas, 106 
 
 Ohalice, mixed, 196 note* 
 
 Chalons, cathedral of, 13. 
 
 Chantry priests, 240. 
 
 Chantries^ 82 note. 
 
 Chapter, little, 18, 22. 
 
 Charles, emperor, reception of english ambassador, 51. 
 
 Chertsey, meeting at, 144. 
 
 Chrism, 228. 
 
 Churches, desecration of, 68, 255, 265. 
 
 Cinque ports, letter to warden of, 63. 
 
 Clement VII, 21. 
 
 Clergy, secularization of, 4; duties of, 5; attacks upon, 98,126; 
 attitude of, towards change, 85, 86, 89, 135, 242, 250; see 
 bishops. 
 
 Clichtoveus, Elucidatorium Ecclesiasticum of, App. iii, 353. 
 
 Codex Liturgicus by H. A. Daniel. 184. 
 
 Collects, 32. 
 
 Commandments, reading of, in service, 291. 
 
 Commemorations, 53. 
 
 Commission, ritual, see Prayer Book. 
 
 Communion, Order of, 189 ; date of, 89, 189 ; first performance 
 of, 103; general description of, 90 — 93; authorship of, 94; 
 royal mandate concerning, 135 ; bills relating to, 70—74, 
 76, 121 ; contemporary opinion concerning, 79, 93 ; un- 
 der both kinds, 73, 77, 79, 84, 89, 91 ; confusion resulting 
 from, 135. 
 
 Concilia f Wilkin s*, 148. 
 
 Confession, Sacrament of, 102, 111, 257. 
 
 Confirmation, Order for, see Prayer Book. 
 
 Confiteor, 220 note. 
 
 Convocation of 1542, directions of, 4, 25, 149; of 1543, h^note, 
 26; of 1547, 1, 148, 150 wo^e ; proceedings of, concerning 
 change, 73—77 ; of 1548, 149 ; prorogation of, 149, 285 note\ 
 general regulations for, 77 ; Prayer Book never submitted to, 
 
45 & Index, 
 
 156, see Prayer Book; real connection of, with Prayer Book, 
 148, 181; records of Acts of, 150, 152, App. vii, 449 ; method 
 of subscription to 74, 75, 76, 451. 
 
 Cope, not necessarily sacerdotal, 189, 235 ; ultimate use of, 294. 
 
 Corpus Christi, office of, 28; feast of, 39, 240, 247. 
 
 Council Privy, of Edward's reign, 41-43, 100-102, 108, ll4; 
 disorders caused by, 67. 
 
 Coverdale, opinion of 'Order of Communion', 93, 144; sermon 
 of, 240. 
 
 Cranmer, general views of, 40, 129-133, 176, 229, 233, 253; 
 policy of, 253, 260; dealings of, with Convocation, 1, 75,79; 
 antipathy of, to Gardiner, 277; answer of, to Gardiner, 280; 
 letter of, to Queen Mary, 156; library of, App. i, 313; book 
 of, on communion service, 253; schemes of, for Prayer Book, 
 15, 23, 26 — 28, 30, 33, 36, 40, 79; influence of, in compiling 
 Prayer Book, 180, 212, 233 note, 253, 256, 259; speeches 
 of, concerning Prayer Book, 162, 169; drafted by, 17, 27,34, 
 App. i, 312 ; oflBce done by, at St. Paul's, 241 ; character of 
 129, 230, 277; his catechism, 130, 131, 280. 
 
 Daniel, H. A., Codex Liturgicus of, 184. &c. 
 
 Darcy, Sir Thomas, 46. 
 
 Day, bishop 167 ; imprisonment of, 268. 
 
 "Devotions," 15. 
 
 Dixon, Canon, theory of, concerning Bationdle 26 ; evidence of, 
 
 concerning sanction of Prayer Book, 148. 
 Dryander, Francis, opinion of Prayer Book, 232, 239. 
 
 Edward VI, accession of, 41 ; coronation of, 64 ; condition of 
 religion under, 42, 81, 109, 121, 124, 271; ecclesiastical policy 
 of reign of, 43, 48, 97, 109, 260 ; personal attitude of, to- 
 wards religion, 121, 177; power of royal wish during reign of, 
 79 ; first Parliament of, 64, 98. 
 
 Elizabeth, condition of religion under, 81. 
 
Index. 457 
 
 English, use of, in services of the church, 30, 53, 84, 88, 102, 
 
 137, 237, 272. see also latin. 
 Erasmus, Paraphrase of, 121. 
 Evensong, see Matins. 
 Exhortations in Prayer Book, 192 note^ 291. 
 
 Eerrar, bishop, 85, 172 ; consecration of, 144, 260» 
 Font, manner of blessing, 185. 
 Foxe, evidence of, 185, 187, 254. 
 France, churches of, 13. 
 Frankfort, troubles at, 305 note. 
 French ambassador, see Selve. 
 
 Fuller, Richard, statement of, on Convocation, 77 j concerning 
 Prayer Book,- 138. 
 
 Oardiner, bishop, 44, 111 ; revenues of, 46, 274; letter of, concerning 
 Barlow's sermon, 48, 51 note ; sermons of, concerning chantries, 
 82 note^ concerning ceremonies, 112 ; publications of, 119 ; 
 attitude of, towards religious reforms, 61, 79, 116; opinion of, 
 concerning Prayer Book, 113, 116, 284; imprisonment of, 57, 
 62, 113, 117 ; refusal of, to sign royal documents 278 ; trial 
 of, 279-285 ; release of, 110 ; character of, 61, 277. 
 
 Oilby, Anthony, 122. 
 
 Gilpin Bernard, 271. 
 
 Olasier, Dr., sermon of, 49. 
 
 Glass windows, breaking of, 58. 
 
 Gloria in Excelsis, 221, 291. 
 
 Glyn, Dr., speech of, 248. 
 
 Goodrich, bishop, 27, 141, note 85 
 
 Goring, Sir William, 46. 
 
 Gradins, introduction of, 59 note. 
 
 Greek liturgies, 187 note, see Prayer Book. 
 
458 Index, 
 
 Hales, sergeant-at-law, 170. 
 
 Hancock, Thomas, sermons of, 105. 
 
 Heath, bishop, 28 note; deposition of, 80; speeches of, 161,168, 
 
 170 ; imprisonment of, 262. 
 Hebrew, use of, in publifc service, 236. 
 Helvetian school, influence of, 103, 119, 124—128,133, 173,230, 
 
 256 note. 
 Henry Vn[, condition of religion under, 4, 40, 42, 252; death of, 40. 
 Hereford, rite of, 4, 198 note, see Prayer Book; letter of canon 
 
 of, 10-12. 
 Hertford, earl of, 41. 
 
 Heylyn, evidence of, 100, 138 ; on Convocation, 286 note, 
 Holbeach, bishop, 144, 162, at Oxford, 250. 
 Hooker, Dr., 81. 
 Hooper, bishop, 120, 244 ; opinion of, on Prayer Book, 232, 236 ; 
 
 injunctions of, concerning communion, 273 note ; attitude of, 
 
 towards change, 246, 256 note^ 259 ; danger of, 270 note. 
 Hymns in office, -19 note \ in Prayer Book, 32, 37, 246, App. iii, 353. 
 
 Images, condemnation of, 47, 50, 53, 101, 247, 255, 272; pulling 
 
 down of, 58, 68. 
 Injunctions, royal, 53, 243. 
 Interim, the, 179, 220 note. 
 Introits of communion service, 190, 291. 
 Ireland, contemplated rising in, 51. 
 
 Jonas, Justus, 229. 
 
 Joyce, Acts of the church, 142 , 148. 
 
 Jubilee, days of, 10. 
 
 Judges, influence of, 257. 
 
 Kyrie, 291. 
 
Index, 459 
 
 Lamentacyon against the city of London, 123. 
 
 Lanfranc, evidence of, concerning the B. Sacrament, 167. 
 
 Lasco, a, 173, 230, 232 note. 
 
 Latimer, bishop, sermons of, 104; views of, 132 note, 244. 
 
 Latin, discontinuance of, 53, 58, 64, 88, 104, 246 ; popularity 
 of, 237 -239 ; use of, in Prayer Book, 23, 30, 236 note ; see 
 also English. 
 
 Laurence, Saint, day of, 13. 
 
 Law, power of, 79, 257. 
 
 Lent; observance of, 49, 50. 
 
 Lessons, see Prayer Book. 
 
 Lights in divine service, 59 notCj 104, 235, 246, 264 ; prohibi- 
 tion of, 53. 
 
 Lincoln, use of, 37. 
 
 Litany, recitation of, 54. 
 
 Liturgy, see Mass and Prayer Book. 
 
 Luther, services of, 26, 36, 102, 217, 218 notes; liturgical re- 
 forms of, 219, 237; publications of, 119, 125; catechism of, 
 130, 280 note. App. vi, 446. 
 
 Lutheranism, rejected in England, 36, 176, 288 ; influence of, in 
 England, 35, 124-128, 228. 
 
 Lynne, Walter, 121, 126. 
 
 Lyons, services in, 19 note. 
 
 Maden, Dr., 248. 
 
 Marcourt's Declaration of the mass, 119. 
 
 Martyr, Peter, 103, 235; tract of, on Sacrament, 158; letters 
 from, 174, 250, 256. 
 
 Mary, princess, attitude of, towards change, 80, 153 ; religious 
 ceremonies under, 10, 116. 
 
 Mass, offering of, 9, 11, 56, 270 ; recantations concerning, 50 ; 
 regulations concerning, 69, 70, 91 ; questions concerning, 82— -86 * 
 gradual abolition of, 102, 103, 128, 147, 196, 199 note, 242, 
 252; attacks upon, 64, 102, 120, 123, 126, 128, 276 note; 
 
^460 Index. 
 
 doctrine of Real Presence in, 103, 121, 127, 131, 178, 205 
 note, 275 note, 280, 282, 295 ; see also Prayer Book. 
 
 Matins, 253 ; provisions for, 31, 55, 56, 103 ; see also Prayer Book. 
 
 May, Dean, 138, 297. 
 
 Melanchton, Philip, 125. 
 
 Memories, 53 note, 269. 
 
 Monasteries, effect of dissolution of, 5, 15, 255. 
 
 Montesquieu, on ceremonies, 254. 
 
 Morrice, Ralph, 17. 
 
 Morwen, chaplain, 8. 
 
 Mozley, T., on Catholic services, 238. 
 
 Norwich, visitation of diocese of, 255. 
 
 Oatlands, court held at, 145. 
 
 Offertory, 193, 194 note, 270. 
 
 Office, Divine, 126; recitation of, 5 — 7, 10— 14= note, BS; general 
 
 arrangement of, 17; burden of, 20; meaning oi word, 16 note ; 
 
 substance of, 18 ; of the B. Virgin, 20 j of the dead, 20 ; 
 
 votive, 22 note; see Prayer Book. 
 Ordinal, new, 259, 299 ; passing of, 261, 274. 
 Ordinations held by Cranmer, 144, 260. 
 Osmund, Saint, 7. 
 Oxford, visitation of, 250—252. 
 
 Paget, Secretary 41, 44; letter from, to Gardiner, 45. 
 
 Palmer, Sir William, 16, 184 note. 
 
 Palm Sunday, 98, 100. 
 
 Parish churches, v^orship in, 5, 14. 
 
 Parliament, first of Edward's reign, 60, 63, 64, 157; proceed- 
 ings of, for Prayer Book, 72, 76, 160, 170-172, 181, 261; 
 difficulty in tracing bills of, 70 note, 172 note. 
 
Index. 461 
 
 Paul's Saint, sermons at, 49, 69, 110, 243 ; pulling down altars 
 in, 240, 264 ; pulling down rood of, 68 ; innovations in, 240 ; 
 desecration of, 265 ; ceremonies in, 269, 296. 
 
 Peregrinatio Silvice, 6. 
 
 Perryn, retraction of, 50. 
 
 Petre, Sir William, 46, 80, 277. 
 
 Pictures, holy, 50. 
 
 Pilkington, answer of, to Morwen, 9. 
 
 Pinkie, thanksgiving for battle of, 65. 
 
 Pius v., reform of, 20. 
 
 Plague, visitation of, 134. 
 
 Plough, sermon of the, preached by Latimer, 104, 251 note. 
 
 Pole, Cardinal letter from, 51. 
 
 Ponet, Dr. J., Sermon of, 257 
 
 Poole, preaching at, 107. 
 
 Pope, omission of name of, 4 note, 27 ; supremacy of, 47, 
 
 Praise, sacrifice of, 209 ; see Prayer Book. 
 
 Prayer Book, veneration due to, 183 ; contents and account of 
 MS. draft for, App. i, 311 ; name of, 54 note-, object of litur- 
 gical formulae, 184 ; first scheme for, 17, 23—27, App. ii, 
 315; second scheme for, 17, 30, 33, 35, 36, App. iii, 353; 
 author of schemes, 17, 27, 34, App. i, 312 ; dates of, 17, 25, 
 27, 28, 39, 142 ; general arrangement of earlier book, 23, 
 30—35, 55, 56, 188-192, App. ii, 317; temporary nature of 
 changes, 96, 234, 259, 304 ; present form of, 307 ; compilation 
 of, 134—138 ; erroneous opinions concerning compilation of, 
 134—143; truth concerning compilation of, 143—147, 181; 
 supposed commission for, 94, 136, 138, 140, 146 note, 178, 
 180 ; place of meeting, 136, 142, 143 ; date of commencing, 
 145; whether synodically approved of, 148, 151—153, 156, 
 178, 181; notes on Acts of Convocation, App. vii, 449 ; present- 
 ed in the House of lords, 160 ; in the House of commons, 
 170 ; contemporary documents concerning, 137, 143, 152—153, 
 172, 235 ; contemporary opinion concerning, 172—177, 181, 
 232, 236, 271, 304 ; enforcing of, 242, 246, 251, 302 ; adherence 
 
46% Index. 
 
 of the people to ancient ritual, 171, 246, 251 note, 252—258^ 
 269, 303 ; royal injunctions concerning, 52, 54—57, 95 ;. 
 risings of the people against novelties in ritual, 51, 242, 247, 
 252, 254 ; connection of, with ancient service books, 3, 17, 23 
 25, 30, 31, 34 note, 184, 188, 191 note, 217, 224, App. ii, 
 316; connection of, with Quignon's breviary, 16, 17, 21, 23^ 
 24, 28, 33, 37, 187, 306, App. ii, 316, App. iii, 356 ; con- 
 nection of with Lutheran liturgy, 35, 212, 217, 224,228,288 ; 
 comparison of, with Lutheran liturgy, 220 — 224; preface of, 
 17, 36—38, 182, App. iii, 353 ; comparison of prefaces, App. 
 iii, 356 ; lessons of, 24, 26, 30, 34, 35, 37, 274, App. iv, 383 ; 
 hymns of, 32, 37, 246, App. iii, 353, 378-382; calendar, 
 32—35, 38 note, App. iv, 386; comparison of calendars, App. 
 iv, 388 ; lights used in services of, 53, 59 note, 104, 285, 246, 
 264; rubrics of, 31, 39, 189, 191, 199, 234 wo^e, 269, 283, 290 ; 
 notes of, 189, 191 note ; revision of, 285 ; general character of 
 changes, 303. Communion service of, position of, in Prayer 
 Book, 188, 189 ; general arrangement of, 217 ; contemporary 
 opinion concerning, 229, 246 ; documents concerning, 82, 95, 
 153; debates in parliament concerning, 160 — 172, 163 note, 
 181, 261. App. V, 395; report of,. 397; connection of, with 
 mozarabic liturgy, 185, App. vi, "44, ^48 ; with s: reek liturgies, 
 186, 187 note; with Sarum use, 191 note, 199—212; with 
 older liturgies, 184, 191 note, 217, 224 ; with liturgies of the 
 16*^ century, 217, 224, 228, App. vi, 445; vestments for, 189, 
 190, 235 ; vestments of Lutheran ritual, 220 ; whether idea 
 of sacrifice is retained in, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 209, 219, 
 221, 247, 249, 281; introits of, 190, 191 note; of Lutheran 
 ritual, 220 ; omission of Conflteor, 220 note ; exhortation 
 in, 192; offertory of, 193-195, 221, 270; Gloria in excelsiSj 
 221 ; proper prefaces of, 196, 217 ; prayer of consecration 
 197, 217: comparison of, with canon of Sarum use, 199 ; ^pww5 
 Dei position of, 213; Pater noster, 212, 223; form of absolu- 
 tion, 214 ; foi-m of institution, 206 note, 223 ; App. vi ,444 ; ad- 
 ministration of, 195, 214, 220 wo^e, 241, 272, 273; see aZso Order 
 
Index. 46$ 
 
 of communion ; whether under both kinds, 223, see also Order 
 of communion ; commemoration of the dead, 235 ; word oblation, 
 omitted, in 196, 217, 247 ; word altar retained in, 267. Communion 
 service of second Prayer Book, 281, 288 ; commission for, 285 ;- 
 Gardiner's influence on, 277, 289; doctrinal changes in, 290 j 
 gratuitous changes in, 291 ; introits omitted, 291 ; idea of sacrifice 
 obliterated in, 289; exhortation in, 291 ; Gloria in excelsis^ 291, 
 294 ; alteration of SanctuSj 292 ; consecration prayer in, 289, 
 292; Agnus Lei position of, 294; form of institution. 282; ad- 
 ministration of, 283, 290 ; arrangements for bread and wine- 
 for, 295 ; commemoration of the dead, 281, 289 ; rubrics of, 294, 
 297 ; position of minister, 296, 297 ; position of table, 296 ; vest- 
 ments prohibited in, 294 note; summing up of changes in, 289,, 
 294, 303. Baptism, public, order for, 224, 272 ; comparison of,, 
 with Sarum use, 225 note ; private order for, 225 ; revised form 
 of, 297. Confirmation, order for, 227 ; revised form of, 297 ; 
 Burial, order for, 299 note. Ordinal new, 259, 299 ; passing of^ 
 261, 274 ; see also Mass and Sacrament. 
 
 Preachers, see Sermons. 
 
 Preces, 20, 22, 31. 
 
 Press, control of, 118, 121 note ; general tendency of, 122 ; foreign 
 works issued by, 125. 
 
 Priests, marriage of, 75, 273. 
 
 Primers, undue importance attached to, 4. 
 
 Processional, 54. 
 
 Processions, 65, 253 ; forbidden, 54, 100. 
 
 Psalter, distribution of, 23, 31, 272. 
 
 Purgatory, doctrine of, 104. 
 
 Quarant'ore, 54, note. 
 
 Quignon, account of, 20; breviary of, 21, 24, 37; see Prayer 
 Book. 
 
464 Index. 
 
 Bationale, 26, 29 note. 
 
 Redman, John, 76 note. 
 
 Reformed Liturgies, Character of, 217, 291, 301. 
 
 Reformers, destruction wrought by, 255. 
 
 Eesponsory, object of, 19; absence of, in Quignon, 22. 
 
 Revenues, ecclesiastical, appropriation of, 46. 
 
 Ridley, Nicholas, sermons of, 47, 64; attitude of, towards change* 
 85, 86, 141 note', coadjutor of Cranmer, 168, 247; views of» 
 concerning B. Sacrament, 170; speech of, at Cambridge, 248» 
 249 ; made bishop of London, 264. 
 
 Rogation days, 54 note, 
 
 Rome, services of, 19. 
 
 Roods, destruction of, 68, 69, 255. 
 
 Rouen, cathedral of, 13. 
 
 Rugg, bishop, 86; resignation of, 255. 
 
 Sacrament, Blessed, defence of, 73, 279, 282 ; bills relating to, 
 67, 69 — 73, 157 ; four views concerning, 126 ; debate concern- 
 ing 160—172, 174 ; attacks upon, 69, 105, 122, 253 ; whe- 
 ther to be worshipped, 105, 123, 165, 178, 247; see aZso Mass. 
 
 'Sacramentarians, 275, 
 
 Sacrifice, see Prayer Book. 
 
 Saints, omission of names of, 4 note, 33 ; commemoration of, 
 33, 37; attacks upon, 51, 123, 128. 
 
 Salisbury, Hancock's sermon at, 105. 
 
 Sarum, rite of, 4, 14 note ; influence of, on Prayer Book, 17, 
 191, 194, 198 note^ see Prayer Book; comparison of, with 
 roman, 199 ; practice at, 20 note. 
 
 Schoolmasters, influence of, 257, 258 note, 
 
 Schulting, Cornelius, 306. 
 
 Scory, bishop, 10, complaint of, 13. 
 
 Scriptures, reading of, 18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 34, 35, 53, 56, 272 ; 
 see also lessons in Prayer Book. 
 
 Scudamore, works of, 184 note. 
 
 Secret, the, 193. 
 
Index. 46S 
 
 Sequences, omission of, 56. 
 
 Selve, Odet de, reports from, 49, 50, 59, 72 note, 118, 143, 157. 
 
 Sepulchre, the Easter, 111 note. 
 
 Sermons, 39, 51 note, 55, 57 ; proclamations concerning, 108,. 
 
 128, 221, 274 ; dictated by the government, 47 ; importance 
 
 attached to, 57. 
 Service books, ancient, destruction of, 270, see Prayer Book. 
 Smith, Dr. recantation of, 50. 
 Soames, evidence of, 141. 
 Somerset, Duke of, 41 ; attitude of, towards religion, 50, 62, 
 
 113 ; letter of, to Gardiner, 129 ; letter from, to Cambridge, 
 
 147 ; speeches of, in parliament concerning Prayer Book, 161^ 
 
 164, 166 ; dealings of, with preachers, 108. 
 Sorbonne, influence of, 21. 
 Southwell, Sir Richard, 46. 
 Strype, life of Cranmer, 140 ; evidence of, 152. 
 'Supper of the Lord', see Mass. 
 Supremacy, papal, 47, 257, 274 ; royal, 79, 114. 
 
 Taylor, Dr., 73. 
 
 Temporale, the, 24. 
 
 Thirlby, bishop, speeches of, concerning B. Sacrament, 162, 164 ; 
 
 transferred to Norwich, 256, 263, 
 Thomas, Saint, omission of name of, 4 note. 
 Thomas', Saint, bell of, 10. 
 Tonsure, 57. 
 
 Traheron, Bartholomew, letters from, 132, 175. 
 Tunstall, bishop, iSnote, 72, 79, 87 ; Cranmers friendship for, 29 ; 
 
 in debate concerning the Sacrament, 161, 162 ; imprisonmeiit 
 
 of, 29, 302. 
 
 Ulmis, John ab, letters from, toBullinger 103, 133, 173, 231, 250. 
 Unction, Extreme, administration of, 273. 
 
466 Index. 
 
 Uniformity, introduction of into service, 2, 36. 
 
 Uniformity, Act of, 3, 136, 148, 155, 177, 182, 191 ; provisions 
 
 of, 236 ; second bill for, 302. 
 Unity, loss of, in matters of belief, 47, 81. 
 Universities, visitation of, 247—252. 
 Use^ 19, 37 ; meaning of word, 14 note. 
 
 Vernacular, use of in prayers, 4 ; see english and latin. 
 Vespers, 31, see also Prayer Book and Matins, and Office. 
 Vestments, for communion service, 189, 220, 235, 294 Tiote. 
 Virgin, Blessed, office of, 20 ; feasts of, 33, 243, 264 note ; mass 
 
 of, 56, 241 ; attacks upon, 123. 
 Visitation of 1582, 12. see note, of 1548, 52. 
 
 Water, holy, 47, 98, 252, 272. 
 
 Wentworth, lord, 46. 
 
 Windsor commission, the, 136, 144, 180; see Prayer Book. 
 
 Wingfield, Sir Anthony, 58, 80. 
 
 Worthiall, John, 76. 
 
 Whyte, Thomas, 107. 
 
 York, rite of, 4, 198 note. 
 
 PRINTED AT NIMEGUKN (HOLLAND) BY H. C. A. THIEME OF NIMEGUBN (H0LLANI>; 
 AND 14 BILLITER SQUARE BUILDINGS, LONDON E. C. 
 
^k 
 
 
 
 
 -m- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ■m 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 ■}^ 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 m- 
 
 
 -^• 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 Burns & Gates' 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 ^<^ 
 
 
 
 Publications : 
 
 
 
 -m- 
 
 
 m- 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 A Selection 
 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 5<^ 
 
 
 -m- 
 
 
 m- 
 
 
 -m- 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 ■m 
 
 
 '^<^ 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 m^ 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 so- 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 •?<^ 
 
 
 
 npHE Complete Catalogue 
 
 
 
 -m 
 
 will be sent post free 
 
 m- 
 
 
 
 on application. 
 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 m- 
 
 
 •m 
 
 
 m- 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 m^ 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 m- 
 
 
 ■m 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 ■m 
 
 
 •?<^ 
 
 
 -m- 
 
 
 ■^<^ 
 
 
 -m 
 
 
 ?<^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -i-g>?. 
 
 
 .5<^4- 
 
 
 -f^. 
 
 28 ORCHARD STREET, 
 
 •?<3+- 
 
 
 M 
 
 LONDON, W. 
 
 •8t 
 
 
 -fg>^ 
 
 
 §<3-f- 
 
 
 "+c>?' 
 
 
 •?<3^ 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 ■so- 
 
 d? d? 0, 
 
 
 S^H 
 
MEDITATIONS AND DEVOTIONS. 
 
 A Spiritual Garland* Culled from The Little Garden of 
 Roses. By Thomas k Kempis. Selected and adapted 
 from the Latin by the Editor of Golden Words, i/- 
 
 A Bishop and His Flock* By the Rt. Rev. John Cuthbert 
 Hedley, O.S.B., Bishop of Newport. Crown 8vo, 
 cloth, gilt top. 6/- 
 
 A Daily Thought. From the Writings of Father Dignam, 
 
 S.J. New and Revised Edition. Demy 32mo., bound 
 
 in maroon leather, gilt edges. 2/- 
 A Retreat : consisting of Thirty-three Discourses, with 
 
 Meditations : for the use of the Clergy, Religious, 
 
 and others. By Right Rev. Bishop Hedley, O.S.B. 
 
 Cr. 8vo, half-leather. 6/- 
 At the Feet of Jesus. By Madame Cecilia (of St. Andrew's 
 
 Convent, Streatham). Revised and Cheaper Edition. 
 
 Cloth. 2/6. 
 A Voice that is Still. Words written or spoken by the 
 
 late Father James Clare, S.J. With a sketch of his 
 
 life by Father McLeod, S.J. Demy 32mo, leather, 
 
 gilt edges, with portrait. 2/- 
 Christian Perfection, On. By Ven. Father Alphonsus 
 
 Rodriguez. For persons living in the World. 6/- 
 Contemplations and Meditations on the Hidden Life of Our 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Method of St. 
 
 Ignatius. Translated by a Sister of Mercy (Coventry), 
 
 and Revised by Rev. W. H. Eyre, S.J. New 
 
 Edition. 2/6. 
 
 Devotional Library for Catholic Households. Containing — 
 New Testament ; Book of Psalms ; Imitation of 
 Christ, by Thomas k Kempis ; Devout Life, by St. 
 Francis de Sales; Spiritual Combat, by Father Scupoli. 
 All neatly bound in cloth, red edges, with cloth case 
 to match. 5/- net (postage 4d.) 
 
 Devout Life, An Introduction to a. By St. Francis de 
 Sales. Translated by Very Rev. Dr. Richards. Cloth, 
 1/6. Calf, red edges, 5/-. Morocco, gilt edges, 5/6. 
 
 Eucharistic Jewels. By Percy Fitzgerald. 2/6. 
 
 Faber (Rev. F. W.) All for Jesus: or, the Easy Ways of 
 Divine Love. Cr. 8vo, cloth. 5/- 
 
 Faber (Rev. F. W.) Growth in Holiness: or, the Progress 
 of the Spiritual Life. Cr. 8vo, cloth. 6/- 
 
MEDITATIONS AND DEVOTIONS {continued). 3 
 
 Faber (Rev. F. W.) Notes on Doctrinal and Spiritual 
 Subjects. Two Vols. Cr. Svo, cloth. 10/- 
 
 Faber (Rev. F. W.) Spiritual Conferences. 6/- 
 
 Faber (Rev. F. W.) The Creator and the Creature: or, 
 the Wonders of Divine Love. Cr, 8vo, cloth. 6/- 
 
 Faber (Rev. F. W.) The Precious Blood : or, the Price of 
 our Salvation. Cr. 8vo, cloth. 5/- 
 
 Father Dignam's Retreats. With Letters and Notes of 
 Spiritual Directions, and a few Conferences and 
 Sermons. New and Enlarged Edition, with a Preface 
 by Rev. Father Gretton, S.J. Cr. 8vo, 6/- net 
 (postage 4d.) 
 
 Feasts of Mother Church, The. With Hints and Helps for 
 the Holier Keeping of Them. By Mother M. Salome 
 (of St. Mary's Convent, York). With Illustrations. 
 3/6. 
 
 Growth in the Knowledge of Our Lord. Meditations for 
 every day of the Year. Adapted from the original of 
 the Abb6 de Brandt. By Mother Mary Fidelis. In 
 Three Vols. Cr. Syo. 21/- net (postage 6d.) 
 
 Holy Confidence: or Simplicity with God* Translated by 
 Mother Magdalen Taylor, S.M.G. From a work of 
 Father Rogacci, S.J. Revised by Father James Clare, 
 S.J. Imperial 32mo., cloth. 1/6 net (postage 2d.) 
 
 Holy Wisdom (Sancta Sophia). Directions for the Prayer of 
 Contemplation, &c. By Ven. Father F. Augustin 
 Baker, O.S.B. Edited by Abbot Sweeney, D.D. Cr. 
 8vo. Quarter leather. 6/- 
 
 Imitation of Christ, Of the. By Thomas k Kempis. 
 
 New Popular Editio7i for Distribution. Cloth, red 
 edges, 6d. net (postage 2d.) Paste grain, limp, round 
 corners, gilt edges i/- 
 
 Superfine Pocket Edition. Fancy cloth extra, with red 
 
 borders, 1/6. And in leather bindings, from 2/6 to 10/- 
 
 Presentation Edition (size, 6|- by i\\ inches). With red 
 
 border on each page. Cloth extra, 3/6. And in leather 
 
 bindings, from 7/- to 15/- 
 
 Jewels of the Imitation. By Percy Fitzgerald. 2/- 
 
 Manresa \ or, the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. For 
 general use. Fcap. 8vo, cloth. 3/- 
 
 Meditations for Every Day in the Year. By Bishop Chal- 
 loner. Revised by Bishop Vertue. Cr. Svo, cloth. 3/- 
 
4 MEDITATIONS AND DEVOTIONS {conthiued.) 
 
 Mirror of St^ Edmund, The* Done into modern English by 
 F. M. Steele. With a Preface by Very Rev. Father 
 Vincent McNabb, O.P. Cloth, 2/- net; paper cover 
 i/- net (postage 2d.). 
 
 Outline Conferences for Children of Mary* Translated from 
 the German of Father J. Dahlmann. With a Preface 
 by Madame Cecilia (of St. Andrew's Convent, Streat- 
 ham. 2/6. 
 
 Perfection of Man by Charity, The. A Spiritual Treatise. 
 By Rev. R. Buckler, O.P. Cr. 8vo, cloth. 5/- 
 
 Practical Meditations for Every Day in the Year, on the Life 
 of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Chiefly for the use ot 
 Religious. By a Father of the Society of Jesus. In 
 Two Vols. Cloth. 9/- 
 
 Retreat Manual, The. A Handbook for the Annual Retreat 
 and Monthly Recollection. By Madame Cecilia, of 
 St. Andrew's Convent, Streatham. With a Preface by 
 the Rev. Sidney Smith, S.J. Fcap. 8vo. 2/- 
 
 Seraphic Keepsake, The. A Talisman against Temptation. 
 Written for Brother Leo byS. Francis of Assisi. Also 
 his Words of Counsel and Praise of God Most High. 
 Printed in facsimile from the Saints' handwriting and 
 set forth in English by Reginald Balfour, Fellow of 
 King's College, Cambridge. With Illustrations. 3/6 
 net (postage 3d.). 
 
 Short Exercises during Holy Mass and a Month's Thoughts 
 on Death. Taken from the French by A. E. P. In 
 stiff wrapper, i/- net ; cloth, 2/- net. 
 
 Spirit of the Cure of Ars, The. Translated from the French 
 of M. I'Abb^ Monnin. Edited by Rev. John E. 
 Bowden, of the Oratory. 32mo, cloth, with Portrait. 2/- 
 
 St. Gertrude, The Exercises of. 32mo, cloth, i/6 ; leather, 
 
 2/- and 4/6. 
 
 Spiritual Combat: together with the Supplement to the 
 same, and the Treatise on Inward Peace. By Rev. 
 Lorenzo Scupoli. New Popular Edition. (Size, 5 by 
 3 J inches). Cloth, 6d. net (postage 2d.) ; cloth, gilt, 
 red edges, i/-. Lambskin, 2/6. Calf and Morocco, 
 4/6. 
 
 Spiritual Conflict and Conquest, The. Edited by the Very 
 Rev. Jerome Vaughan, O.S.B. Cr. Syo. 5/- 
 
 St. Gertrude and St. Mechtilde, The Prayers of. 32mo, 
 cloth, i/-; leather, 2/- and 4/6. 
 
MEDITATIONS AND DEVOTIONS {continued). 5 
 
 St. Teresa's Own "Words: or, Instructions on the Prayer 
 of Recollection. Arranged by Bishop Chadwick. 
 Cloth, i/- net (postage 2d.) 
 
 St. Francis de Sales* Works- Edited by Very Rev. Canon 
 Mackey, O.S.B. 
 
 Letters to Persons in the World. 6/- 
 
 Treatise on the Love of God. 6/- 
 
 Letters to Persons in Religion, with Introduction by 
 Bishop Hedley on **St. Francis de Sales on the 
 Religious State." 6/- 
 St. Teresa's Paternoster : A Treatise on Prayer. By Very 
 Rev. Joseph Frassinetti. Translated by Canon Hutch, 
 D.D. i8mo, cloth. 4/- 
 
 Sursum Corda. A Manual of Private Prayers for each Day 
 of the Week. With an Appendix of Devotions for 
 use on various occasions. Compiled by the Rev. J. D. 
 Hilarius Dale. Limp cloth, i/- net (postage 2d.) ; 
 leather, 2/6 net (postage 3d.). 
 
 The Grounds of Hope^ By the Very Rev. W. J. B. 
 Richards, D.D. Cloth, gilt, i/- 
 
 Towards Eternity. By the Abb^ Poulin. Translated by 
 M. T. Torrome. Cr. 8vo, cloth. 5/. 
 
 Ullathorne (Archbishop), Christian Patience, the Strength 
 and Discipline of the Soul. Demy 8vo. 7/- 
 
 Ullathorne (Archbishop). The Endowments of Man, Con^ 
 sidered in their Relation with his Final End. Demy 
 8vo. 7/- 
 
 Ullathorne (Archbishop). Groundwork of the Christian 
 
 Virtues* The. Demy 8vo. 7/- 
 Wiseman (H. E. Cardinal). A Month's Meditations. Cr. 
 
 8vo, leather back. 4/- 
 
 ON THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. 
 
 Childhood of Christ, The* Translated from the Latin by 
 Henry Copley Greene. With an Introduction by Alice 
 Meynell. Printed with the Original Latin Text oppo- 
 site the Translation. With illustrations. Cloth 3/6 
 net ; Leather, gilt top, 5/- net (postage 4d.) 
 
6 ON THE LIFE OF OUR LORD {continued). 
 
 Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. From the Medi- 
 tations of Anne Catherine Emmerich. Fcap. 8vo. 3/6. 
 
 The Life of Our Lord. Written for Little Ones. By 
 Mother M. Salome, of the Bar Convent, York. 3/6. 
 
 Faber (Rev. F. W.) Bethlehem. Cr. 8vo. 7/- 
 
 "Wiseman (H.E. Cardinal). Meditations on the Incarnation 
 and Life of Our Lord. Cr. 8vo. 4/- 
 
 Wiseman (H. E. Cardinal). Meditations on the Sacred 
 Passion of Our Lord. With a Preface by H. E. Car- 
 dinal Vaughan. Cr. 8vo. 4/- 
 
 ON THE SACRED HEART. 
 
 Imitation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In Four Books. 
 By Rev. Father Arnold, SJ. Fcap. Svo, cloth, 4/6 ; 
 Cloth, gilt, red edges, 5/-; leather, 8/6. 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Glories of the Sacred 
 Heart. Cr. 8vo. 4/- 
 
 Manual of the Sacred Heart. Cloth, 2/- Cloth, red edges, 
 with Frontispiece, 2/6. Leather, 4/6, 5/6, and 6/- 
 
 Meditations on the Sacred Heart. By the Rev. Joseph 
 Egger, S.J. Cr. 8vo, cloth, gilt. 2/6. 
 
 Spirit of the Sacred Heart, The. A Manual of Prayers and 
 Devotions. Printed in bold black type, upon a fine 
 white paper, making a handsome volume of over 700 
 pages. Cloth, red edges, 3/6. Leather, 5/6 to 12/6. 
 
 ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN. 
 
 Sinless Mary and Sinful Mary. I. — Mary's Social Mission 
 as the Second Eve. II. — The Woman that was a 
 Sinner. By Father Bernard Vaughan, S.J. With 
 two Illustrations. Leather, 3/6 net ; cloth, 2/- net ; 
 stiff wrapper, i/- net (postage 2d.). 
 
 Mary Immaculate. From the Writings of the Fathers and 
 Doctors of the Church as found in the Roman Breviary. 
 Done into English by John Patrick, Marquess of Bute, 
 and compiled by Father John Mary, Capuchin Friar 
 Minor. Cloth, i/- net (postage 2d.) ; leather, 2/6 net 
 (postage 3d.) 
 
 The Land of the Rosary. Scenes of the Rosary Mysteries. 
 By Mrs. Archibald Dunn. Illustrated. 3/6. 
 
ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN {continued), 7 
 
 Blessed Virgin in the Nineteenth Century, The. Appar- 
 itions, Revelations, Graces. By Bernard St. John. 
 With Introduction by Rev. E. Thiriet, O.M.I. Cr. 
 8vo, with six Illustrations. 6/- 
 
 Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, The^ 
 By Rev. Thomas Livius, M.A., C.SS.R. Demy 
 8vo. 1 2/- 
 
 Faber (Rev. F. W.) The Foot of the Cross: or, The 
 Sorrows of Mary. Cr. 8vo. 6/- 
 
 Father Faber's May Book- A Month of May, arranged for 
 daily reading, from the writings of Father Faber, 
 iSmo, cloth, gilt edges. 2/- 
 
 Glories of Mary, The. By St. Alphonsus Liguori. Edited 
 by Bishop Coffin, C.SS.R. Fcap. 8vo. 3/6. 
 
 Graces of Mary, The: or. Instructions and Devotions for the 
 Month of Mary. New Edition. 32mo, cloth, gilt. 2/- 
 
 Lifc of Mary for Children, The. Translated from the 
 German. By Mrs. Bennett Gladstone. With four 
 Chromo-lithographs and forty-five Illustrations. 1/6. 
 
 Madonna, The. A Pictorial Record of the Life and Death of 
 the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ by the Painters and 
 Sculptors of Christendom in more than Five Hundred 
 of their Works. The Text translated from the Italian 
 of Adolfo Venturi, with an Introduction by Alice 
 Meynell. Medium 4to. Bound in Buckram. ^1 lis. 6d. 
 
 Month of Mary. By Rev. Father Beckx. Cr. 8vo. 3/- 
 
 Month of Mary. By St. Alphonsus Liguori. 32mo, cloth, 
 gilt. 1/6. 
 
 Our Lady of Perpetual Succour. A Manual of Devotion 
 for every day of the Month. Translated from the 
 French by Rev. T. Livius, C.SS.R. 32mo, cloth, i/- 
 net ; leather 2/- net, 2/6 net, and 4/6 net (postage on 
 single copies 2d.) 
 
 Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Manual of. From the 
 Writings of St. Alphonsus Liguori. By a Redemp- 
 torist Father. i8mo, cloth, i/- net ; leather 2/- net. 
 With Hymns : Cloth, 1/6 net ; leather, gilt edges, 3/- 
 net (postage on single copies 3d.) 
 
8 ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN {continued). 
 
 Our Lady's Manual ; or, Devotions to the Sacred Heart of 
 Mary. Cloth, 2/- Best Cloth, red edges, 2/6. Calf 
 or morocco, 5/6 each. 
 
 Treatise on the True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary» 
 By Blessed Grig-non de Montfort. Faber Faber's 
 translation. Edited by H.E. Cardinal Vaughan. 
 F'cap. 8vo, 2/- 
 
 ON THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 Devotion to the Holy Ghost for each day of the Month, 
 Short Readings on* Being Extracts from the Works 
 of Father Faber. Compiled by Rev. Father J. M., 
 Capuchin Franciscan. Imperial 32mo, stiff wrapper, 
 3d. net. Cloth, 6d. net (postage id.) 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Internal Mission of the 
 
 Holy Ghost, Cr. ^vo, 5/- 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Temporal Mission of the 
 
 Holy Ghost ; or. Reason and Revelation. Cr. 8vo, 5/- 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Holy Ghost the Sanctifier. 
 
 32mo, cloth, gilt, 2/- 
 
 Suppliant of the Holy Ghost: A Paraphrase of the "Veni 
 Sancte Spiritus." Composed by Rev. R. Johnson, of 
 Louvain. Edited by Rev. T. E. Bridgett, C.SS.R. 
 32mo. 1/6. 
 
 ON THE BLESSED SACRAMENT AND HOLY 
 COMMUNION. 
 
 Welcome! Holy Communion, Before and After. By Mother 
 Mary Loyola. Edited by Father Thurston, S.J. With 
 Frontispiece of Holman Hunt's " Light of the World." 
 Small crown 8vo, 3/6 net. Prayer-book size edition, 
 handsomely bound in leather, round corners, red 
 under gilt edges, 5/- net (postage 4d.) 
 
 Banquet of the Angels, The. Preparation and Thanksgiv- 
 ing for Holy Communion. By Archbishop Porter, S.J. 
 i8mo, blue cloth, gilt, 2/-. Also in handsome leather 
 bindings, suitable for First Communion memorial 
 gifts, at 6/6 net and 8/6 net. 
 
 At Home Near the Altar. By Rev. Matthew Russell, S.J. 
 i8mo, cloth, gilt, i/- net (postage ijd.) 
 
ON THE BLESSED SACRAMENT {continued). 9 
 
 Close to the Altar Rails. By Rev. Matthew Russell, S.J. 
 i8mo, cloth, gilt, i/- net (postage igd.) 
 
 Divine Consoler, The. Little Visits to the Most Holy 
 Sacrament. By J. M. Angeli, of the Lazarist Fathers. 
 Translated by Genevieve Irons. i8mo. 2/6. 
 
 First Communion. A Book of Preparation for First Com- 
 munion. By Mother Mary Loyola. Edited by Father 
 Thurston, S.J. Re-set in new type. With some new 
 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. 3/6. 
 
 **First Communion/* Questions on. By Mother M. Loyola, i^- 
 
 Faber (Rev. F. W.) The Blessed Sacrament: or, the 
 Works and Ways of God. Cr. Svo. 7/6. 
 
 Legends of the Blessed Sacrament: Gathered from the 
 History of the Church and the Lives of the Saints by 
 Emily Mary Shapcote. With numerous Illustrations. 
 4to, handsomely bound in cloth, gilt. 6/- 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Blessed Sacrament the 
 Centre of Immutable Truth. 32mo, cloth, gilt, i/- 
 
 Moments Before the Tabernacle. By Rev. Matthew Russell, 
 S.J. iSmo. i/- net (postage id.) 
 
 Reflections and Prayers for Holy Communion. With 
 Preface by Cardinal Manning. In Two Vols., each 
 complete in itself. 4/6 each. Cloth, red edges, 5/- 
 each. Leather, 9/- and 10/- each. 
 
 The Sacrifice of the Mass. An Explanation of its Doctrine, 
 Rubrics, and Prayers. By Rev. M. Gavin, S.J. 2/- 
 
 The Treasure of the Church. By Canon J. B. Bagshawe, 
 D.D. Cr. Svo, 3/6. 
 
 Visits to the Most Holy Sacrament and the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary. By St. Alphonsus Liguori. Edited by Bishop 
 Coffin, C.SS.R. 32mo. Cloth, i/-. Leather, 2/6 and 4/6. 
 
 ON THE PRIESTHOOD AND ON RELIGIOUS 
 
 LIFE. 
 
 Catechism of the Vows. By Rev. P. Cotel, S.J. i/- 
 
 The Young Priest : Conferences on the Apostolic Life. By 
 Herbert Cardinal Vaughan. Edited by Mgr. Canon 
 John S. Vaughan. 5/- net (postage 4d.) 
 
lo ON THE PRIESTHOOD. 
 
 Religious Life and the Vows, The. A Treatise by Mgr, 
 Charles Gay, Bishop of Anthedon. 5/- 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Eternal Priesthood. 2/6. 
 
 Salvatori^s Practical Instructions for New Confessors. 
 Edited by Father Anthony Ballerini, S.J., and Trans- 
 lated by Canon Hutch, D.D. i8mo, cloth, gilt. 4/- 
 
 Parish Priest's Practical Manual, New. A Work useful also 
 for other Ecclesiastics, especially for Confessors and 
 for Preachers. By Very Rev. Joseph Frassinetti. 
 Translated by Canon Hutch, D.D. Cr. 8vo. 6/- 
 
 BIOGRAPHY AND HAGIOLOGY. 
 
 • 
 Archbishop Ullathorne, The Letters of. Arranged by A. T. 
 Drane. (Sequel to the "Autobiography.") Demy 
 8vo. 9/- 
 
 Archbishop Ullathorne, The Autobiography of- Edited by 
 A. T. Drane. Demy 8vo. 7/6. 
 
 Biographical History and Bibliographical Dictionary of the 
 English Catholics. From the Breach with Rome in 
 1534 to the present time. By Joseph Gillow. In 
 Five Volumes, demy Svo, ;£"3 15s. ; or volumes 
 2, 3, 4 and 5 separately, 15/- each. 
 
 Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque. Her Life, her Mission, 
 and her Golden Sayings. Together with the decree of 
 her Beatification. By the Rev. Charles B. Garside^ 
 M.A. New Edition. Cloth, i/- 
 
 Blessed Thomas More, Life of* By his Son-in-law, William 
 Roper. With a Foreword by Mr. Justice Walton. 
 1/6 net (postage 2d.). 
 
 Butler (Rev. Alban). Complete Lives of the Saints for Every 
 Day of the Year. Twelve Pocket Monthly Volumes 
 and Index Volume, in neat cloth binding, gilt lettered, 
 1/6 each. Or the complete set of Thirteen Volumes, 
 in handsome cloth case, 20/- 
 
 Chronicle of Jocelin, The. With Introduction, Notes, and 
 Index by Sir Ernest Clarke, F.S.A., and a Foreword 
 by the Rev. Dr. William Barry. 2/6 net. Postage 3d. 
 
 Cure d'Ars, Life of the. From the French ot Abbe Monnin. 
 Edited by Cardinal Manning. Fcap. Svo. Illustrated 
 wrapper, i/- net. Cr. 8vo., cloth, gilt. 2/6. 
 
BIOGRAPHY AND HAGIOLOGY {continued^ ii 
 
 Frederick William Faber, D.D., The Life and Letters of. 
 By Rev. John E. Bowden, of the Oratory. 6/- 
 
 England's Cardinals. By Dudley Baxter, B.A. With an 
 Appendix showing the Reception of the Sacred Pallium 
 by the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster. 
 Cr. 8vo, cloth, gilt, with illustrations. 2/6. 
 
 From Hearth to Cloister in the Reign of Charles II. Being 
 a narrative of Sir John and Lady Warner's so-much- 
 wondered-at resolutions to leave the Anglican Church 
 and to enter the Religious Life. By Frances Jackson. 
 Cr. 8vo, quarter leather, gilt top. 5/- 
 
 Letters of Blessed John of Avila. Translated and Selected 
 from the Spanish by the Benedictines of Stanbrook. 
 With a Preface by the Rt. Rev. Abbot Gasquet, O.S.B. 
 Crown 8vo, cloth. 2/6 net (postage 4d.) 
 
 Little Flower of Jesus, The. Being the Autobiography of 
 Sister Teresa, of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face, 
 Carmelite Nun. Translated from '■^ Histoire d'une 
 Ame,'^ by M. H. Dziewicki. With 3 portraits. New 
 and Cheaper Edition. 2/6 net (postage 4d.) 
 
 Lives of the Blessed English Martyrs* Edited by Dom Bede 
 Camm, O.S.B. Vol. I. — The Martyrs under Henry 
 VIII. 7/6 net (postage 5d.). Vol. II. — The Martyrs 
 under Elizabeth. 7/6 net (postage 6d.). 
 
 Mary Ward : A Foundress of the Seventeenth Century. By 
 Mother M. Salome, of the Bar Convent, York. With 
 an Introduction by the Bishop of Newport. Illustrated. 
 Cr. Svo, cloth, gilt. 5/- 
 
 Mirror of Perfection, The. Being a record of St. Francis 
 of Assisi, ascribed to his Companion, Brother Leo of 
 Assisi. Translated by Constance, Countess De La 
 Warr, with an Introduction by Father Cuthbert 
 O.S.F.C. Crown Svo. Bound in Buckram, gilt. 5/- 
 Popular Edition, Wrapper, i/- net (postage 3d.) 
 
 Miniature Lives of the Saints, for every Day in the Year. 
 Edited by Rev. H. S. Bowden, of the Oratory. Two 
 Vols. i8mo, cloth, gilt. 4/- 
 
 Reminiscences of an Oblate of St. Charles. By the Rev. 
 Francis J. Kirk, O.S.C. Bound in buckram, 2/- 
 
12 BIOGRAPHY AND HAGIOLOGY {continued). 
 
 S« Catherine de Ricci: Her Life, her Letters, her Com' 
 munity. By F. M. Capes. Introduced by a Treatise 
 on the Mystical Life by Fr. Bertrand Wilberforce, O.P. 
 With a Portrait of the Saint, a Facsimile Letter, and 
 other Illustrations. Demy 8vo, 7/6 net. 
 
 St. Cuthbert, Life of. By Monsignor Edward Consitt. New 
 Edition. 2/6. 
 
 St. Gertrude, Life and Revelations. By the Author of "St. 
 Francis and the Franciscans." Cr. 8vo. 7/6. 
 
 St. Ignatius Loyola and the Early Jesuits. By Stewart Rose. 
 With more than 100 Illustrations, by H. W. and H. C. 
 Brewer and L. Wain. Edited by the Rev. W. H. 
 Eyre, S.J. Super royal 8vo. Handsomely bound 
 in cloth, extra gilt. 15/- net. 
 
 St. John Baptist de Rossi» Translated from the Italian by 
 Lady Herbert. A new edition, with an introduction on 
 Ecclesiastical Training and the Sacerdotal Life by 
 Cardinal Vaughan. 5/- net. 
 
 St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland, Life of. By Rev. W. B. 
 Morris. Cr. Svo. 5/- 
 
 St» Philip Neri, Life of. Translated from the Italian of 
 Cardinal Capecelatro by Rev. Thomas Alder Pope. 
 Two Vols. Cr. Svo. 12/6. 
 
 St. Thomas of Aquin, The Life and Labours of. By Arch- 
 bishop Vaughan, O.S.B. Edited by Dom Jerome 
 Vaughan, O.S.B. Cr. Svo. 6/6. 
 
 St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, Life of. Edited 
 by Rev. Pius Cavanagh, O.P. With Eleven Illus- 
 trations. Cr. Svo, 4/6. 
 
 SERMONS AND DISCOURSES. 
 
 Sermons Preached in St. Edmund*s College Chapel on 
 Various Occasions. With an Introduction by the 
 Archbishop of Westminster. Collected and arranged 
 by the Rev. Edwin Burton, D.D., Vice-President of 
 St. Edmund's College, Ware. 5/- 
 
 Christian Inheritance, The. Set forth in Sermons bv Right 
 Rev. J. C. Hedley, O.S.B., Bishop of Newport. Cr. 
 Svo, cloth, gilt, gilt top. 6/- 
 
 Light of Life, The. Set forth in Sermons by the Right Rev. 
 J. C. Hedley, O.S.B., Bishop of Newport. Cr. Svo, 
 cloth, gilt, gilt top. 6/- 
 
SERMONS AND DISCOUSES {continued). 13 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). Sermons on Ecclesiastical 
 Subjects. Cr. 8vo. 6/- 
 
 Our Divine Saviour. By Right Rev. J. C. Hedley, O.S.B., 
 Bishop of Newport. Cr. 8vo, cloth, gilt, gilt top. 6/- 
 
 Sermons for the Sundays and Festivals of the Year. By 
 Right Rev. Abbot Sweeney, O.S.B. Cr. 8vo, leather 
 back. 7/6. 
 
 POLEMICAL AND HISTORICAL. 
 
 Who Killed Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey ? By Alfred Marks. 
 With an Introduction by Father J. H. Pollen, S.J. 
 Price 3/6 net (postage 4d.) 
 
 The Holy Catholic Church: Her Faith, Works, Triumphs. 
 By a Convert. 3/6. 
 
 Answers to Atheists: or. Notes on Ingersoll. By Rev. L, A. 
 Lambert. Cr. Svo, wrapper, 6d. (postage 2d.) ; cloth, 
 gilt lettered, i/- 
 
 Catholic Controversy. A Reply to Dr. Littledale's ** Plain 
 Reasons." By Very Rev. H. I. D. Ryder, of the 
 Oratory. Very attractively produced, with portrait of 
 the Author on cover. Price 1/- net (postage, 3d.) 
 
 Catholic Controversy, The. By St. Francis de Sales. 
 Edited by Very Rev. Canon Mackey, O.S.B. 6/- 
 
 Controversial Catechism. By the Rev. Stephen Keenan. 2/- 
 
 The Divine Plan of the Church. By the Rev. John 
 
 MacLaughlin. Cr. Svo. Wrapper, 1/6 ; cloth 2/6. 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). Why I Became a Catholic* 
 
 (Religio Viatoris). Cr. Svo. i/- 
 Formation of Christendom, The. By T. W. Allies, K.C.S.G. 
 
 New and Revised Edition. Cr. Svo. 5/- each volume. 
 Vol. I.— The Christian Faith and the Individual. Vol. IL— The Chris- 
 tian Faith and Society. Vol. III. — The Christian Faith and Philosophy. 
 Vol. IV. — As seen in Church and State. Vol. V. — The Throne of the 
 Fisherman. 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Four Great Evils of the Day- 
 
 Cr. Svo. 2/6. 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Workings of the Holy Spirit 
 
 in the Church of England. Cr. Svo. 1/6. 
 Rome and England : or. Ecclesiastical Continuity. By Rev. 
 
 Luke Rivington, D.D. Cr. Svo, cloth. 3/6. 
 
14 POLEMICAL AND HISTORICAL. 
 
 St. Peter, Bishop of Rome : or, the Roman Episcopate of the 
 Prince of the Apostles. By Rev. T. Livius, M.A., 
 C.SS.R. Demy 8vo. 12/- 
 
 The Cross in Japan. A History of the Missions of St. Francis 
 Xavier and the Early Jesuits. By Cecilia Mary 
 Caddell. New Edition, with Preface and Supple- 
 mentary Chapter by the Bishop of Salford. F'cap. 
 8vo, fancy cloth. 2/6. 
 
 BIBLES AND PRAYER BOOKS. 
 
 Holy Bible. 
 
 Octavo Edition (9 by 6 inches). Cloth, red edges, 
 5/- ; and in a great variety of leather bindings, at 8/-, 
 10/-, 15/, 18/-, 30/-, and 35/- each. ^ 
 
 Pocket Edition (size 5 J by 3 J inches). Embossed 
 cloth, red edges, 2/6 ; and in leather bindings at 4/6, 
 6/6 and 7/6. 
 
 New Testament. 
 
 New Large-Type Editio7i. With annotations, refer- 
 ences, and an historical and chronological index. 
 Cr. 8vo (size 7^ by 5 inches). 500 pp. Cloth, 2/- ; 
 and in leather bindings at 4/6 and 8/6. 
 
 Pocket Edition. Limp cloth, 6d. net (postage 2d.) ; 
 leather bindings, i/-, 1/6, 3/- and 4/6. 
 
 Manual of Prayers for Congregational Use. New Pocket 
 
 Edition with Epistles and Gospels. (5 by 3J inches). 
 
 369 pages. Cloth, 6d. net (postage 2d. ; or with an 
 
 enlarged Appendix, Cloth, i/- ; leather, 2/6, 5/-, and 
 
 upwards. 
 Garden of the Soul- In Five Editions. 6d. to 17/6. 
 Key of Heaven. In Three Editions. 6d. net to 5/. 
 Path to Heaven. New and Enlarged Edition. (Over 1,000 
 
 pages). 2/- to 8/6. 
 Manual of Catholic Piety. In Three Editions. 6d. net to 5/- 
 Catholic^s Vade Mecum. 3/6 to 21/- 
 Catholics Daily Companion, i/- to 5/- 
 Daily Prayer Book, The. Leather 2/- net (postage 3d.) 
 Flowers of Devotion. New Edition. With Ordinary of the 
 
 Mass in large type. In leather bindings at 1/6, 2/6, 
 
 4/-» 5/-» and 6/- 
 Golden Manual^ The. The most complete Prayer Book. 6/- 
 
 to 30/- 
 
BIBLES AND PRAYER BOOKS {continued). 15 
 
 Missal for the Laity. 6d. net to 5/- 
 
 Roman Missal. With all the New Offices, and the Propers 
 for England, Ireland, Scotland, the Society of Jesus, 
 and the Order of St. Benedict. Size, 5|- by 3! inches. 
 
 5/- to 30/- 
 
 Spirit of the Sacred Heart- 3/6, 5/6, 8/6, and 12/6. 700 
 pages, printed in large clear type. 
 
 The Young Child's Mass-Book. By the Hon. Mrs. 
 Kavanagh. Popular Edition, cloth 6d. Another and 
 Revised Edition, re-set in new and large type, and 
 with 10 specially-designed coloured Illustrations, 
 Cloth, giit, gilt edges, i/- ; lambskin, limp, gilt edges, 
 2/6. 
 
 THEOLOGICAL. 
 
 Of God and His Creatures. An annotated translation, with 
 some abridgments, of the Summa Contra Gentiles of 
 St. Thomas Aquinas. By Joseph Rickaby, S.J. 
 (M.A.Lond., B.Sc.Oxon.), Author of Aquinas EthicuSy 
 &c., &c. Foolscap folio, strongly bound, price One 
 Guinea net (postage gd.) 
 The translation of so large a work, after so long- a lapse, may be taken 
 as a sign of the time. It has been called into existence by Leo the 
 XIII. 's earnest counsel to the world to become well versed in the 
 wisdom of St. Thomas. Many students, hitherto deterred by the un- 
 familiar idiom of Church Latin and by the disused moulds of mediaeval 
 phrase and thought, are likely to welcome a translation, which is not 
 merely of words into words, but of thought into thought. 
 
 Where Believers May Doubt; or. Studies in Biblical 
 Inspiration and other Problems of Faith. By the Very 
 Rev. Vincent J. McNabb, O.P. Cr. Svo, 3/6. 
 
 Foundations of the Faith : The Existence of God Demons- 
 trated. From the German of Father Ludwig von 
 Hammerstein, S.J. With an Introduction by Very 
 Rev. W. L. Gildea, D.D. Cr. 8vo. 6/- 
 
 Dante's Divina Commedia: Its Scope and Value. From 
 the German of Francis Hettinger, D.D. Edited by 
 Rev. H. S. Bowden, of the Oratory. Cr. %yo. 10/6 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). Sin and its Consequences. 4/- 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Fourfold Sovereignty of God. 
 
 Cr. 8vo. 2/6. 
 Natural Religion. Being Vol. I. of Dr. Hettinger's '' Evid- 
 ences of Christianity." Edited by Rev. H. S. Bowden. 
 With an Introduction on ** Certainty." Cr. 8vo. 7/6. 
 
i6 THEOLOGICAL {continued.) 
 
 Revealed Religion. The Second Volume of Dr. Hettinger's 
 ** Evidences of Christianity." Edited by the Rev. 
 H. S. Bowden. With an Introduction on the '* Assent 
 of Faith. Cr. 8vo. 5/- 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. 
 
 Health and Holiness. A study of the Relations between 
 Brother Ass, the Body, and his Rider, the Soul. By 
 Francis Thompson. With a Preface by the Rev. 
 George Tyrrell, S.J. Cloth, 2/- net ; wrapper, i/- net. 
 
 Come and See : A Tale of Faith Found in London. By 
 Wilfrid Meynell. Wrapper, i/- net ; cloth, 2/6 net 
 (postage 3d.) 
 
 Loss and Gain. Cardinal Newman's Famous Story of Oxford 
 Life and a Conversion. Wrapper, 6d. net ; limp 
 cloth, i/- net (postage 3d.). 
 
 Callista. A Tale of the Third Century. By Cardinal 
 Newman. Wrapper, 6d. net. (postage 3d.) ; limp 
 cloth, i/- net (postage 3d.) ; or printed on superfine 
 paper and bound in cloth, richly gilt, gilt edges. 3/6. 
 
 Fabiola. A Tale of the Catacombs. By Cardinal Wiseman. 
 
 Popular Edition. Wrapper, 6d. net (postage 3d.) ; 
 
 limp cloth, i/- net (postage 3d.) ; or printed on superfine 
 
 paper and bound in cloth, richly gilt, gilt edges, 3/6. 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). Miscellanies. First and Second 
 
 Series. 6/- each. 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). Pastime Papers. Fcap. 8vo, 
 cloth, gilt, with Portrait. Wrapper, i/- net. Cloth, 
 2/6 net (postage 3d.) 
 
 Manning (H. E. Cardinal). The Independence of the Holy See. 
 Cr. 8vo. 2/6. 
 
 Requiescant. A Little Book of Anniversaries, arranged for 
 daily use by those who love to remember the Faithful 
 Departed. By Mary E. S. Leathley. With an Intro- 
 duction by Canon Murname, V.G. 2/- 
 
 George Eastmont : Wanderer. A Story of the London Dock 
 Strike and of Cardinal Manning's part in it. By John 
 Law, Author of '' A City Girl." 3/6. 
 
 BURNS & GATES, Ltd., 
 
 28 ORCHARD STREET, LONDON, W. 
 
 3111/11/05. 
 
m 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recalL 
 
 RECD LU 
 
 0CT23'65-1PM 
 
 FFT'ERLIBKARY 
 
 SAN DIEGO 
 
 tOPH 
 
 wr^ 
 
 Am- 
 
 HQV 22t9SS44 
 
 '•'■^ I <■ i2> 
 
 J Ac, 
 
 rEC'D i-U 
 
 QeCl2'65-3 
 
 ^JS 
 
 J993_ 
 
 MAR 21965 2 1 
 
 REC'D ID 
 
 FEBf^'^vlg 
 
 M 
 
 Jlil ^ 6 iqQ4 
 
 CnCULATION DE P T 
 
 LD 21A-60m-3,'65 
 (F2336sl0)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 Universicy of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
YC 44628 
 
 U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 coHSMDsma 
 
 ^39012