« PreviousContinue »
in England, the new Liturgy was greatly indebted, whereever it deviated from the ancient breviaries, to the progress already made on the continent in the reformation of religious worship. One of the most remarkable occurrences, recorded in the eventful history of the times, is the attempt made by bHerman, elector of Cologne, a Roman catholic archbishop, and a sovereign prince, to establish within his electorate a purer system of doctrine and discipline. His attempt was ultimately unsuccessful ; but the zeal and energy of the venerable prelate, and the learning and prudence with which his measures were conducted, attracted the notice, and secured the respect and sympathy of all protestant churches. He resigned his see in the year 1547, but he had previously published a book, the composition of which had been entrusted to Melancthon and Bucer, containing his views of a “ Christian reformation founded on God's word.” This book was translated into dEnglish, and published in the year 1547, and this first edition was speedily followed by another, bearing testimony, as we may reasonably assume, to the great interest that was felt in England on the
b Sleidan, de Statu Rel. l. 15. f. 200. Seckendorf, Hist. Luth. 107. Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 410. Mem. vol. II. part i. pp. 41. and 479. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. I. p. 105.
c Melancthon to Camerarius, Ep. 304. an. 1543, Bucerus et ego librum absolvimus : to Caspar Cruciger, Ep. 84. an. 1543, from Bonn, Tantum inchoatum est scriptum de forma rituum et doctrinæ, et sequitur formam Norimbergensem. Legi quædam, et ipse articulum intertextui nepi Tpôv únootAOWv tñs Deórntos : to Luther, lib. I. ep. 74, Episcopum velle, ut forma doctrinæ et rituum ad exemplum Norimbergensis Ecclesiæ conscriberetur. See also Laurence, Bampt. Lect.
d With the title, “ A simple and religious consultation of us Herman, by the grace of God,” &c. Imprinted by John Day, 1547 and 1548.
subject of it, and to the influence it exercised in favour of the new learning.
However this may be, it is certain that eCranmer corresponded with the German prelate, and interested the king's council in his behalf; and it cannot be doubted that his book was much employed by the commission assembled at Windsor in the compilation of their new form of Common Prayer. In the great body of their work indeed they derived their materials from the earlier services of their own church ; but in the occasional offices, it is clear on examination that they were indebted to the labours of Melancthon and Bucer, and through them to the older Liturgy of Nuremberg, which those reformers were instructed to follow. It is a strong evidence of the prudence and discernment of the English divines, and especially of the primate who presided over them, that they drew up so temperate a form of public worship, when the great body of the people, for whom it was designed, were totally unfitted for any further alterations.
But though it was clearly shewn by the disturbances which soon followed, that the commissioners had gone to the utmost limits of prudence in the construction of the new Liturgy, it is equally clear that several of the tenets and ceremonies retained by them, did not meet with support from the foreign reformers, and awakened the hostility of many of the most active and resolute of their own countrymen. As early as in July 1549 the Liturgy was translated into Latin, and a scopy was sent by Hills, a well known merchant, and devoted friend of the protestant cause, to the divines of Zurich; another translation
e Strype, Cran. vol. I.
411. f This may have been of the translation made by Dryander (Hess, Catal. vol. II. p. 13.)
was soon made into the same language by & Alexander Aless, a native of Scotland, then residing as a professor at Leipsic; and a third was undertaken, though it appears to have been left imperfect, by bsir Jobn Cheke. Calvini wrote to the protector Somerset, before the close of the same year, complaining of several parts of the service, on information which he appears to have obtained from Bucer; a Lascok addressed himself to Cranmer on the continuance of certain practices which he deemed superstitious; and 'Martyr and Bucer, then holding respectively the office of king's professor of theology in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, would naturally not continue silent respecting prayers and ceremonies, which they formally reported to be unsound and dangerous, when they were consulted afterwards by Cranmer.
8 Burnet (Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 319.), as also Heylin (Hist. Ref. p. 79.), says, that this translation was made for the use of Bucer. It is clear that it was used by Bucer, but not probable that it was made expressly for that purpose. On the contrary, we may infer from its title that it was made for general use ; “Ad consolationem Ecclesiarum Christi ubicunque locorum ac gentium.” Compare Melancthon's Epistles published by Wegscheider, and his Epistle to Camerarius, No. 783. an. 1550. Strype makes a more extraordinary mistake with regard to this book in his life of Cranmer, vol. I. p. 579. h Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 361. vol. II. p. 898.
Both this Liturgy and the Liturgy of 1552, were translated, soon after they were published, into French, for the use of Calais, and the islands of Guernsey, and Jersey. Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 416. i Epist. pp. 42 and 49. ed. Amst.
Strype, Cran, vol. I. p. 342. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 319. Hess, Catal. vol. II.
24. 1 Martyr and Bucer spoke of the Liturgy in general terms of commendation. Scrip. Ang. p. 456. Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 300. But they objected decidedly to several parts of it, and Martyr carried his opposition so far, that he refused, during the whole of his residence as a canon in Christ Chureh, to wear the customary surplice. Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 92. Strype, Grindal, p. 44. Hess, Catal. vol. II. p. 126.
Great, however, as was the authority of these and other distinguished foreigners, it was neither proclaimed as boldly, nor calculated to make as much impression, as the earnest remonstrances of many of the English reformers, and the progress which their cause was constantly and manifestly making. There was already within the church a mparty, though probably not numerous, which espoused the peculiar sentiments of Calvin ; there were others, and "Cranmer, it appears, had recently been one of them, adhering strictly to the opinions of Luther; there were many, and those among the most active and most learned, who adopted the views of Bullinger and the theologians of Zurich ; there was a still larger body anxious to combine all classes of protestants under one general confession ; and all these, though with distinct objects and different degrees of impatience, looked forward to a revision of the Liturgy, to bring it more completely into accordance with their own sentiments.
These expectations soon began to produce their natural effect. In the convocation of 1550 the question was entertained in each house whether certain rubrics and other passages should not be altered, and an especial reference was made to the form of words employed when the sacred elements were given to communicants. But the greatest impulse was derived from the known senti
m Utenhovius, writing to Calvin, in Nov. 1549, requests him, cui magnum est in Anglia nomen, ut litteras paræneticas Regi scribat ; and Traheron to Bullinger, in September 1552, says, Plurimi Angli Calvini sententiam amplectuntur. Hess, Catal. vol. II. pp. 20 and 62. Compare Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 234.
n The gradual change in Cranmer's opinions on this subject is ably stated by Jenkyns. Pref. to Cranm. Works, p. Ixxiv.
Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 106.
ments of the Pking and the leading members of his council. After the fall of the protector Somerset, and when the Romish party were looking upon that event as an indication in their favour, letters were addressed from the council to the bishops, enjoining them to call in and to destroy all the Romish books of offices; and "Edward, who felt the greatest aversion to the service of the mass, opposed himself openly to any ritual calculated to support it. Distrusting the superior clergy, he resolved to act independently of them, as far as he was able; and $declared to Cheke, that if the changes which were neces
9 P. Martyr, writing to Gualter in June 1550, says, Summum regis et procerum quorundam in religione promovenda studium. Hess, Catal. vol. II. p. 32. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 287. Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 78.
9 Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. part ii.
r Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 355. King Edw. Remains, No. 2, in Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. II. part i. p. 102. Strype, Cran. vol. I. p. 299. Hooper, writing to Bullinger in March 1550, says, Vix expugnatur idolum missæ ; and Martyr to the same, in Jan. 1550, says, Regno Christi episcopi pro viribus resistunt.
3 Strype, Cran. vol. I. pp. 301 and 361. II. p. 899. Martyr, writing to Bucer, on the 10th of Jan. 1551, says,
“ Hoc non me parum recreat, quod mihi D. Checus indicavit ; si noluerint ipsi (episcopi), ait, efficere, ut quæ mutanda sint mutentur, rex per seipsum id faciet; et cum ad parliamentum ventum fuerit, ipse suæ Majestatis authoritatem interponet.” It is evident from this letter of Martyr, from a letter of Cox to Bullinger, in May 1551, (Strype, Mem. vol. II. part i. p. 533,) and from Strype, (Cran. vol. I. p. 299,) that Cranmer met with great opposition, at the end of the year 1550, from the bishops. It is not improbable that the opposition took place in the upper house of convocation; and if this were the case, the king probably intended it to be understood that, if driven to extremities, he would exercise his authority as head of the church, and bring the revision of the Liturgy before parliament, without consulting the convocation any further on the subject. It is not probable that he was compelled to carry his threat into execution ; but there is reason to believe that in this case, as in the subsequent case of the