1R. 1R. (Brcen-Bnn^taoe.
lqo*r
/O <*-*- ^ f
*/
^y^
J>yfc~*G
-~7
/te ^
(/ a-*~*L+^Jo
\/- t\. LV-H_^xiv
c^
J>
j]r. > i2^y-
C" -. 2
y/r
-^- , ^
C 6~^>h-**~* &
C *>~&t2
^?
e^-t^i^*-^ */e
C ft
TfaTLy^^
04-C.
EDWARD VI
AND THE
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
J -^ C^^-< 0_^07,
THE EASY CHAIR
NOTES AND ASIDES.
There was a prayer in the Prayer-book oi
Edward VI., long since removed, that might
well be re- inserted in these days of rapa
cious landlords. It was to be found among
" Sundry Godly Prayers for Divers Pur
poses," under the title "A Prayer for
Landlords." It was a* follows:
We heartily ptray Thee to send Thy Holy
Spirit into the hearts of them that possess
the grounds aiiid (pastures of the earth, that
they, remembering themselves to be Thy
tenants, may not rack or stretch out the
rents of their houses or lands, nor yet take
niirea&ona'blo fines or moneys after the
manner of >covetous worldlings, but so let
them out, that the inhabitants thereof may
be able to pay the rents and to live and
nourish their families and remember the
M-. Give them grace also to consider that
they >are but strangers and pilgrims in this
world, having here no dwelling-place, but
king one to come; that they, remember
ing the short continuance of this life, may
be content with that which is sufficient, and
not join -house to house and land to land,
to the impoverishment of others, but so
behave themselves in letting their tenements,
lands, and pastures that after this life they
may be received into everlasting habitations.
A marvellously apt prevision.
Facsimile 1. (frontispiece}.
First page nf the Breviary scheme, showing corrections by Cnmmer. (MS. Reg. 7 P.. IV f. 133:1).
EDWARD VI
AND THE
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER
AN EXAMINATION INTO ITS ORIGIN AND EARLY
HISTORY WITH AN APPENDIX OF
UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS.
BY
FRANCIS AID AN GASQUET D.D. O.S.B.,
AUTHOR OF "HENRY viu. AND THE ENGLISH MONASTERIES'
AND EDMUND BISHOP.
Second Edition.
JOHN HODGES,
AGAR STREET, CHARING CROSS, LONDON.
1891.
PRINTED AT NIMEGL'EN (HOLLAND) B7 11. C. A. T11IEME OF NIMEGUEN (HOLLAND)
AND
14 B1LLITER SQUARE BUILDINGS. LONDON E. C.
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
TO THE READER. VII
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. IX
Chapter I. CHURCH SERVICES AT THE DEATH or
HENRY vni 1 16
II. CRANMER'S PROJECTED BREVIARY . . . . 17 29
III. CRAMMER'S SECOND PROJECT 30 39
a 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
a VIII. THE PRESS ON THE MASS 118 133
a IX. THE NEW LITURGY: TIME, PLACE, PERSONSETC. 134147
X. CONVOCATION AND THE PRAYER BOOK . . 148 156
XL THE DEBATE ON THE SACRAMENT IN PARLIA
MENT 1548 157 181
a XII. THE FIRST ENGLISH BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 182 215
a XIII. THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1549 AND CONTEM
PORARY LITURGIES 216 235
XIV. THE RECEPTION OF THE NEW SERVICE . . 236 258
a XV. FURTHER PROJECTS 259276
XVI. THE REVISION OF THE PRAYER BOOK 1552 277 307
APFJENDIX.
PAGE.
"I. ACCOUNT OF MS. REG. 7 B. IV 311 314
II. CRANMER'S BREVIARY SCHEME 315352
III. CRANMER'S SCHEME FOR MORNING ANDEVENING 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. NOTE ON THE ACTS OF CONVOCATION 1547 . . 449 451
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 VI
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 affords
new details in the history of the Prayer Book, and
gives the only reliable information about the views
entertained by the english 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.
Regret 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.
I. Convocation.
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 Parliament l . 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).
XP
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 l .
(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 u 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 " l .
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 2 .
1 See Burnet III. 1. 210213. The original passages relating
to the subject are: Foxe VI. 468; Ridley's Works, Parker Soc.
2167; Philpot's Works, Parker Soc. p. 179181 (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.
- This explains the profound resentment which animated
members of Convocation against Cranmer on the accession of Mary.
XIII
II. The Mozarabic Missal.
It seems unnecessary either to enlarge or to
modify what has been already said on the subject
(pp. 1856, 2067 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 l .
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
be a line or two more or less and that not relating
to the mass, 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,
XIV
kindred theory, which the authors had previously
examiued, 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.
Svo., 1534). This work was dedicated to Dr. Robert
Ridley, uncle of Bishop Ridley. In the dedication
Craumer 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.)" 1
In the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bead and
In the foregoing passage the two " forms 1 ' 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 This " may be compared
prayer of admonition with the english exhor-
toward the people that 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 chanssimi
are in it in almost every
service ". (Liturgies and
offices of the Church. By
Edward 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 fifth is brought in
as an introduction to the
sanctification of the obla
tion, in which also all
u The fourth prayer may
be compared in respect of
its position and intention
with our invitation, con
fession, absolution, and
comfortable words'' 1 (ibid.
note 3).
" Thefifth prayer corres
ponds with our preface,
XVII
earthly creatures and
heavenly powers are sum
moned to the praising of
God; and Hosanna in
excelftis is sung, because,
by the birth of Our Sa
viour from the race of
David, salvation has come
to the world, 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).
a The sixth prayer may
be compared in respect to
the contents of many exam
ples of it 1 with our prayer
of humble access 11 (.p 199
note I) 2 .
1 These be it remarked can only be known in the Mozarabic
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 offertories, 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. u 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 whole
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 works.
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 word 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.
CHURCH 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 1 '
the archbishop of Canterbury certain petitions,
among which w r 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" 1 .
1 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 which 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 VI. 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 dose 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 necessarily find a place
the following: what position does the first Prayer
Book hold in regard to the ancient service books in
England, or other contemporary documents of the
same kind"? Is it conservative 1 ? 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
sufficient degree of accuracy and certainty, the position
which the Prayer Books of Edward VI. 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 VIII. Looking back across
the course which events actually took in the estab
lishment of an exclusively vernacular service in
England, 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 1 .
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
upon the suppression of the monastery were not uncommonly
recommended by the royal agents as "good choir men."
6 Church Service at the close of Henrifs reign.
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
disco vexed 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 l .
Still, as early as the time of St. Gregory the Great,
it was assumed that the office 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
1 See Duchesne, Origines du culte Chretien, Paris, 1889.
pp. 433436, for an account of the way in which the public
celebration of the divine office grew to be recognized as a duty
of the ecclesiastical state.
Church Service at the close of Henry's reign. 1
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 english 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
1 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. Regulares. The question is
accurately exposed in Amort Disc : Vet : Canonicorum, pp. 329333 .
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 l .
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 english cathedral churches under king Edgar and later.
Probably a practical compromise was come to, by allowing the
clergy of the other english 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
long after the cathedrals had been settled on the new model.
Church Service at the close of Henry's 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 were 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
Grod 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 Henrys 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. God 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. 2 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. 5278.
2 This was evidently a term current in Hereford for leaves
of absence, but does not appear to have been in use in other
english cathedrals, as far as a cursory examination of the available
Statutes has shown.
Church Service at the close of Henry's reign. 11
would rise to matins and especially the 'domydary', J
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 2 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 3 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 then by 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 4d., if it were known they were
1 i. e. Hebdomadarian, or weekly officiant, whether in secular
or regular churches.
2 i. e. his verger.
3 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 Walsinghara, Elizabeth's minister
relating chiefly to ecclesiastical affairs. It is a copy, without name
or date, evidently forwarded to Walsingham by Bp. Scory. 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 Henry's reign. 1
That the writer's reminiscences were not incorrect
will appear from the account bishop Scory himselt
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.'' 1
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 Rouen, 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, np 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 1 . 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 office in the larger churches, at least on sun-
days and feast-days practicable and even easy. 2 It
1 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 Eegistrum 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 ctiange 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 l is at least one of the books, if
not all, which Convocation in 1547 asked to see. It
comprises two schemes of Office 2 and three tables
of lessons. An account of the manuscript and a print
1 B. Mus. Royal 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.
WiH* ivUi(HM UU.vrwi "SJC^
Facsimile 11. (to Face p. [6).
Latin di-ul'i of the preface to the l'.<.u of Common Prayer. (MS. Reg. r l; - ' V ''
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 VI. (1549). The preface of this latter
scheme, also in latin, is manifestly an earlier draft
of the euglish preface of the book of 154-9.
Further, on confronting the Royal MS. with the
Harleian MS. 426, (Cranmer's draft of the abortive
Reformatio leyum ecdesiasticarum, 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 leg-urn 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 Quiguon. The
seven canonical hours of the church may first be
1 B. Mus. Havl. MS. 426 f. 17.
2 See facsimiles here reduced in size.
18 Cranmer's 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. J This reason, which applied in
the early ages, was not less cogent at the moment
when the ancient offices were superseded in England.
1 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).
Crammer's Projected Breviary. 19
The antiphon was not less necessary in our long english
gothic choirs than in the spacious romau basilicas. l
In the same .way the use of the responsonj 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 antiphous and respousories 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. 2
The special feature of late mediaeval breviaries,
that is to say, of what are called the uses, whether
english, french, german, 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
CJassino and Einsiedeln.
2 At Rome hymus 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 Cranmers Projected Breviary.
are known as preces J 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 2 . 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. Quiguon 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
1 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.
- 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.
Cronmers 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 Eomanum nuper information. 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 Sorbouue distinguished
itself especially by the vigour of its condemnation.
Quignon 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 which the first text was current, no less than
six editions appeared at Rome, Venice, Paris and
Antwerp '.
That this reformed roman 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 Craumer made use
of the earlier edition '. And, although the archbishop's
1 K These are all the editions of the first text that I have met
with" 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. Eomanum a Francisco Card.
Quignonio ed: curante Jolianne Wickham Lcgg. Cambridge. 1888.
' J 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 Cranmers Projected Breviary.
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 preces to
very narrow limits, and the entire omission of every
office but that of the day i . His main concern was
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 1 ',
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 1 '" 2 .
1 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".
3 ed: J. W. Legg. p. XXI.
Cranmer's Projected Breviary. 28
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 suuday, 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 little, 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 latin 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 or dine 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: Cranmer s 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 temporale 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 Quigaon 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
Craiimer's Projected Brevier//. 25
The relation of the projected office to that of
Sarum is raorey simple. The archbishop appears to
have used this breviary as a quarry from which to
take his materials, when not quite satisfied with the
new roman 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 autiphon,
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 1 ?
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 ever}'
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 Romane" (R. 0. Augt. Office Alisc : Bk :
160. f. 128*. 108 b ).
26 Cranmer's Projected Breviary.
openly read unto the people one chapter of the New
Testament in english... 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 englisk twice on every day
of public service: in the early morning 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 german 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 dceremonies were maintained. The litur-
gic principles of the remarkable Rationale 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 Craumer made his own
1 History of Church of England II, 316.
2 Ibid. p. 313.
Cranmers Projected Breviary. 27
proposal for liturgical reform. "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 legends, 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 Goodrich 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 english 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 1543 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 office of the
feast of Corpus Christi for instance the Catholic
doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament as maintained by
Henry is unmistakably expressed 2 .
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 Quiguon's work for a model has an aspect almost
eirenical. At the time it must have seemed more
than probable that the Quiguon 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.
1 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. 2367).
2 The Invitatory for this feast is : Christum salvatorem et
panem vite celestis, Venite adoremtis. 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 Tunstall's favour, when 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
1 It is necessary here to notice a suggestion of Canon Dixon
in regard to the Rationale 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 ante). The words
of Convocation itself and of Cranmer make this suggestion hardly
probable. The Rationale 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 " ex mandato Convocationis".
CHAPTER III.
CRAMER'S SECOND PROJECT.
Archbishop Cranmer's second scheme for the public
office may 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" 1 .
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-
* 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. l 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" 2 . 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 3 , Te
Deum and Benedictus , the salutation Dominus vobis-
cum, 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. lla.
3 These were preceded in the traditional way by the Jube
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 Sundays
the Athauasian 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 festivale
or series of fourth lessons for saints 1 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
KucMinile III. (to face p. 33).
The later calendar showing alterations in Cramner's hand. (MS. K<^ 7 P.. 1 \" f. -\\>).
Cranmer's Second Project. 33
of saints' names which are entered in it. Not a single
english 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 are 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 Crammer has
attempted to reduce it to a more reasonable form,
and that the projected festivals 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
34: Cranmer's Second Project.
St. Alban. But saints Phileas and Philoromus
maintain their ground, and Cranmer's annotations
in the festivals refer to the Breviarium Romanum
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
1 For example: the lessons of Advent are taken from Isaias,
4fs
J-'acsiinilc IV. (to fare p. 34).
Draft of a table of lessons in ( "raniucr's hand. (.MS. Re. ~ P>. IV f. 152:1)
Cranmers 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 Scripture 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
Common 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-
t.hose 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". l
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 in the manuscript of the second
project remains to be noticed. The whole scheme is
1 Quoted in Jacoby's Liturgik der Eeformatoren, 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 euglish
Buses' 1 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 1 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 1 fables and the stupidity of
those who had put them together 11 . 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 whom 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 was 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
Quignon could say with justice that on a candid con-
1 Royal Ms. 7B.IV. f. 8a.
38 Cranmer s 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. Tn
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 says, "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
1 See the interesting tract by E. Ranke Der Fortbestand
des herJcommlichen Pericopenkreises. Gotha, 1859, pp. 534.
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.
Crammer'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 ". 1
It only remains to consider the probable date at
which 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.
1 Cf. in the Prayer Book of 1549 the last note on ceremonies.
CHAPTER IV.
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
worship was 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.
Preparations for change. -il
Parliament was then sitting; but the king's death
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 will,
and saying that between this and Wednesday
(February 2) * we to meet and agree therein as there
may be no controversy hereafter". 1
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 En field.
"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 w r ill, who were to constitute
the Privy Council and exercise all the authority of
Tytler, Reigns of Edw. VI and Mary. I. pp. 15 1C.
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 will 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 ecclesiastic as which was
determined by the decease of our late Sovereign lord
King Henry VIII . . . 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. 43
as they did before by virtue of their former grants". 1
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. 2 The whole tone of this document, professing
as it does that u 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 3 .
1 Council Book Had MS. 2308 f. 25 d.
-i 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. II, p. 413). "Desirable" seems hardly the word to use in
view of the proem of the commission itself printed in Burnet
(II. 2. p. 90), who seems to have seen the Council order, since
he says (H p, 6) " and the bishops were required to take out
new commissions".
3 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 11 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 I 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 VIII), 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 will 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" 2 . 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 1 ' he writes u 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
1 State Papers. Dora. Ed. VI. Vol I. No. 24.
2 Foxe's Ads 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 of
your lordship" l .
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 following: "My lord of Hertford "with his
dukedom " 800 lands a year, and I 200 of the
next bishop's lands 1 ' 2 .
Sir Thomas Darcy was to be made steward of
the bishop of Norwich in Suffolk and Sir Richard
Southwell in Norfol k. 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 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 were 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 Tytler. I p. 25.
2 State Papers. Domestic. Vol. I No. 11. This appears to be
a draft corrected by Hertford himself: the words "and & 200
<fcc" have been added by the corrector.
Preparations for change. 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 of the 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 Preparations for change.
determination of the practical church and obey where
God's law repngneth not expressly". l
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 1 ' 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
1 See Bp. Gardiner's letter to Ridley cautiously enclosed in
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". l
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, which 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 king of England and his Council ". 2
"The same month of April" writes Stowe "Dr. Glasier
preached at Paul's cross and affirmed 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". 3
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. 4
Submissions and recantations appear then to have
1 Foxe (ed. Townsend) vi. p. 25.
2 Inventaire analytique des archives : Correspondance Politique
d'Odet de Selve (15461549). 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 1 ' to king Henry VIII
not long before the king's death, now u recanted at
Paul's cross on Sunday, 15 May, declaring his former
books and teaching to be erroneous and heretical ". '
On this matter the f rench 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 w T ork neither Sundays nor feastdays; and
indeed they worked on it even upon last Ascension
day 1 '. 2
In the same way upon 19 June, another public
retractation was ordered. " Perryn, who had preached
that it was 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
1 Stowe ut supra.
2 Invcntaire analytique &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 war now in
prospect counselled moderation and inspired a desire
"to allay these inward disorders 1 ', of which bishop
Gardiner had given warning to Somerset. Odet de
Selve writes on 16 June: a lt seems that the people
are growing more cold here and repent the in
novations which had been begun in matters of religion,
some proclamation 2 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". 3
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 year (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.
2 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.)
3 Inventaire &c. p. 152.
52 Preparation for Change.
he says, "this expostulation seems to have brought
this advantage to religion, that those who were the
authors of that impious decree against the sacrament
of the altar have not promulgated it". 1 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 were
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' 12 drawn up "by
the advice of sundry bishops and others the best
learned men of the realm " as the Council say 3 " 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, as
1 Quirini IV. 44. Quoted in Tierney's "Dodd" II. LX-LXI.
a Wilkins IV. 3.
3 In a letter of 30 June 1547. Council Book (Council office)
I. p. 357.
Preparation for Change. 53
they will avoid his displeasure and the pains in the
same hereafter expressed."
In these injunctions are mingled in curious juxta
position reasonable and salutary provisions and
undoubted novelties. The real object of the whole
is tersely expressed by Edward himself in his jour
nal :" Certain injunctions 1 ' 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. 2
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 smiday 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. 3
1 Burnet II. 2. p. 4.
This was a matter upon which Cranmer had shown himself
solicitous in Henry's reign.
These last were short antiphons and prayers at the end of the
office, 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."
(Eemains. 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 2 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 also
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 " 3 or Divine Service,
1 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.
a 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
Soe. p. 11.)
s 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 which 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 knolled 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 11 . l
The special injunctions given to the dean and chapter
of Canterbury and dated 22 September 1547, afford
some variations. Thus: "Item 11 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' 1 .
..." 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 11 .
"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 Christ! 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). 8 Item
they shall lay in the choir two bibles of the largest volume in
euglish 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. 2659)
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.
Preparation 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
were 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 was 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. l
"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 the
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 ff. 701.
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 (1547) 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. 3
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". 4 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.
3 See his interesting letter printed in Foxe VI. p. 42.
" Rot. Pat. 1 Ed. VI. Pars 4, m. 7. April 22 1547
Preparation 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 tending,
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 2 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 first found in 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 (see Miihlbauer, Gesclu
und Bedeutung der (Wacks-)Lichter bei Mrchlichen FunMionen,
p. 9, 11, 17, 19, 101, 103). Lights on the altar are of late
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.
60 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
be 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
1 Inventaire anatytique &c. pp. 21011.
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 Gardiner 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 a fund of bonhommie. He
could gossip and liked to gossip, especially about his-
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 hatii been
wont commonly to be granted to all men. If it
should be of any man the policy to keep me from
1 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 during 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.
1 Foxe VI. p. 53.
CHAPTER V.
THE PARLIAMENT AND CONVOCATION
1547.
Parliament was summoned to meet at Westminster
on 4 November, 1547. 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 knieht of the shire,
u 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. Ridley, the
new bishop of Rochester "the mass began" writes
Wriothesley. The u Gloria in excelsis, the Creed and
the Agnus were all sung in english ". 2 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". 3
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", 4 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
1 Council Bk. Harl. MS. 352 ff. 45d 46. Sept. 28, 1547.
' 2 Chronicle. Camden Soc. I. p. 187.
3 Flores Hist. p. 1002.
4 Wilkins IV. p. 6.
The Parliament and Convocation. G5
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 1 '. '
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 at a loss how to describe it. "The 20th
(day of September) being St. Matthew's day" he
writes " was a solemn sermon made at Paul's 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 foil owed in all the London churches, which "kept
a solemn procession on their knees in english". 3
1 Council Bk : Harl. MS. 352 f. 45.
2 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 u in as ample a
way as they had it previously". 1 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". 2
1 MS. Council Bk. (Privy Council office) I p. 252.
2 Heylyn, Hist, of Reformation 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
o o
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 hand 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 1 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
said 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 its
acts. The resumption of the war against images
which it had been found prudent to discontinue in
September was permitted : u 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". 2 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". *
1 Council Bk. Harl. MS. 352, ff. 47d-48.
2 ed. Camden Soc. p. 54.
:! Chronicle Camd. 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". 1
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", 2 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
here for the moment the matter rested. This bill
1 Chronicle, ibid.
2 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, however,
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 was
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 the most Holy 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.
1 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 pi-oceedings 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 l , 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:
1 These eleven were : Gardiner, detained in the Fleet ; Vesey
of Exeter; Sampson of Coventry and Lichfield; Kitchin of Llan-
daff; 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 Government 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 ". 2
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,
readings,lectures, communications, arguments, rhymes,
1 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.
2 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. 'use' i.e. they
no longer had mass in their private chapels.)
The Parliament 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
ft 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". l
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. 21920.
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 difficulties. 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' 1 .
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
1 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 procurators cleri of Sarum ; Caurden, dean of Chichester ;
Redman, archdeacon of Taunton ; Latimer ; Wilke, one of the
procurators 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 Parliament 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 1 ' as Burnet has it l ; 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" 2 . At the next meeting held on 2 December
sixty-two members were present 3 . 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, nullo 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. 4 Not
1 Hist. II. 1. p. 50.
8 formam cujusdam ordinationis sibi ut assent a Rev mo Cant,
traditam &c".
1 Of these 10 had not been present on Nov. 30 whilst 6,
including one subscriber William Haynes then present, were now
absent.
4
This paper now forms ff. 398-9 of the C.C.C.C. MS. 114. It
bears the signatures of the afftrmantes on the one side and the
76 The 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
negantes on the other. John Worthiall signed the negative but
against his signature are the words : "hie recantavit". He does
not sign the paper again among the majority, but, with the
two proxies held by him, is counted among the affirmantes.
u 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.
1 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
1 Church Hist. ed. Brewer IV p. 109.
78 The Parliament and Convocation.
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". 2
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. a 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". 3
In carrying the act for communion Cranmer and
Somerset had gained for the object they had at
heart more than the mere provisions of the act gave
1 Wilkins IV. p. 17.
2 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 u supreme lord", even in matters of
religion, the law, as the expression of the will of the
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 1 '. 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, Wingfield and Petre,
she protests that "rather than she will agree to use
any other service than was used at the death of tho
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 ciijus regie ejus religio rests upon
this basis in England, although in Germany it may
have been applied to effect disintegration. It never
1 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 VI.
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. l
1 Of. 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 Gardiner, who was in prison until 7 Jan
uary 154S, 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' ?. The first, second and fifth ask : ' What is
the mass for: for Sacrifice or Communion 1 ?. 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
<;ase 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).
1 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,
Carlisle, 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
1 The original draft of the questions in Cranmer's hand is in
C. C. C. C. MS. 105. ff. 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. 1489). 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 in,
the print from the Lambeth manuscript.
The Communion Book. 85
of Bath and Wells, to 7 September, when Ferrar
was consecrated. 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
mouth of January 1548. l
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
upon 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 Holbeach 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
1 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 as-
to make retractation, and the retention of his see in
Mary's reign, any very difficult 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,
Bonuer of London was a practical man but evidently
no theologian. The unanimity of Skip of Hereford,
Day of Chichester and Heath 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 St. 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 the
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. Ridley, 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 jointly, 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 atone of hectoring
contempt. * If such had been the expectation of
1 Some of the bishops on the Catholic side do not answer
all the questions.
2 Thus questions (1) and (2) are as follows. " What or where
in Johns fasting, giving alms, being baptized or receiving the
88 The Communion Book.
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 u understanding to
their judgments".
Cranmer here gives a single example of conserva
tism: "I think it convenient 1 ' 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". i
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 England, 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.)
1 That is secretly as hitherto.
The Communion Book. 89
"If the mass should be wholly in english 11 says
Bush of Bristol " I think men should differ from the
custom and manner of all other regions 1 '. 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 u 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 to] 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 printing of "the Order of Commu
nion 1 ' 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 Communion 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 2 , unless it be a passage at
1 Heylyn, Hist, of the Eef. ed. 1664, I. 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 Sunday 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 2 . 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.
1 It should be borne in mind that in most churches throughout
the country many masses would be daily said.
2 Burnet II 1. pp. 1402. Here as in so many matters Cranmer
92 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 l . For the communion of the laity 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.
1 The Carthusians and Dominicans still have only one of the
three prayers now found in the Koman 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, Vetus
discipl. Canoniconim, p. 692 ; Hoeynck, Geschichte der kirchl.
Liturgie des 13isthums Augsburg, pp. 134 6, 301.
The Communion Book. 93
definite manifestation of uncatholic in tent 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 was 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 this
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
different intentions is to be traced in the composition of this
'Order of Communion'.
t)4 The Communion Book.
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 went
to Strasburg". 1
The conviction of Coverdale that the new Order
of Communion would be a source of gratification to
Calvin and a cause for congratulation as "the 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 11
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
1 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, u 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
8 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 Book.
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 God'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 VII.
PROCLAMATIONS 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
1")4S 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' 1 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 Preaching.
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 1 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 1 '.
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". l
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 1548
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 ad vice 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) thereupon by 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 " 2 .
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. 101
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 11 2 .
1 Heylyn. Eccl Best. I p. 55.
2 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 1 ' 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 VII
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" 3 .
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
1 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.
3 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
english by certain London churches in the May of the
year 1548 ? Were they a translation of the daily varying
offices 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 afford 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. 3778.
104 Proclamations and Preaching.
Although it is clear from the rest of this letter
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 memento
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
1 Latimer Sermons. Parker Soc. pp. 7071.
Proclamations and Preaching. 105
1500 years he hath been a doer, only purposing to
evacuate Christ's death and to make 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 1 ' 1 . 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, u unto the people that what the priest doth
hold over his head, they did see with their bodily
eyes; but oar Saviour Christ doth 1 ' in the text
* Because I 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" 2 .
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 1 '. Once more he told his audience "that
1 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
powers, however, did not consider themselves bound
by Craumer'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 robbin or Jack in
the box; whereto I answered, that it was no Sacra
ment, but an idol, as they do use it. At that time
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" 2 .
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 Somerset's 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, his
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" 2 .
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 ' 3 .
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" 4 .
1 William Cecil (afterwards Lord Burghley).
* pp. 76-7.
3 Ibid. p. 78.
* Ibid. p. 79. The whole narrative deserves to be read. It is
108 Proclamations 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
suffer". 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 bow 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". 1
This and similar documents, as well as the general
tenor of the ecclesiastical acts of the government
in the reign of Edward VI, 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 stili 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".
1 Burnet. II. 2. pp. 130-2, letter of the Council, dated 13 May
and "printed at London 1 June 1548".
110 Proclamations and Preaching.
Somerset and Cranmer 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 1 '.
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 1 '. 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' 1 he is commanded "to put himself in order
Proclamations and Preaching. Ill
to repair up hither, within fourteen days next
ensuing, here to remain ". l
Gardiner pleaded sickness and was respited, but
three days before Whitsunday (20 May 1548) other
letters peremptorily ordered him to wait on the
Council, 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 1 ' 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 u ceremonies 11 .
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. 3 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.
2 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.
3 It will be noticed tha.t this was ordered in June 1548, when
the Common Prayer in english had not yet been imposed, or
even publicly proposed.
112 Proclamations and Preaching.
express his approval of what had actually been
clone, 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 "the
questions and controversies 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 determined ". l
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 1 '. 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 ". 2
1 Somerset to Gardiner. Burnet II. 2. p. 154.
* Ibid. p. 155.
Proclamations and Preaching. 113
The following 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 ol 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
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" 2 .
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 Gardiner's proceedings, the
warning given and great favour 3 , 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 4 , 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.
2 Inventaire Analytique &c. pp. 397 8.
3 In the original draft the word was gentleness, afterwards
changed into favour.
4 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 who . . . showed
such a wilful 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". 1 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".
1 Of. Gardiner's account p. 58, ante.
116 Proclamations and Preaching.
"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 2 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 Preaching. 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 PRESS 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
ofMarcourt's "Declaration of the mass 1 ' 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
1 According to Bullinger's diary Hooper had arrived in Zurich
on 29 March 1547 (Pestalozzi, Heinricli Bulling er, 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
u certain printers, players and preachers make a
wonderment, as though we knew not yet how to be
justified, nor what sacraments we should have 11 '.
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 Askew'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" 2 .
The books of 1547 opened the campaign against
the mass : their general theme was the " enormities "
of the Canon. By the old doctrine of transubstautiation
" they have proved " writes Marcourt u almost the
universal world to open and manifest idolatry " 3 .
Hooper had not yet made up his mind as to the
Canon. " It should seem " he writes u 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 " 4 . In
1 Foxe VI. p. 30.
' 2 Ibid. p. 39. 6 June 1547.
3 A declaration of the mass, Biii.
4 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 euglish translation. Of this 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' 2 .
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 Lynue
"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" 3 . 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. 4
1 Ibid. p. 139.
2 Foxe. ed. Townsend VI. p. 42.
3 R. 0. Privy Seals 1 Ed. VI. Strype (Eccl Mem. II p. 182)
notes that a work by one " Luke, a physician " of London called
John Soon and Master Parson took much at court at this time
and the courtiers wore it in their pockets. No opportunity has
occurred of examining John Soon.
4 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 . . . You
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. (Remains, Parker Soc. pp. 42930).
The Press and the Mass. 123
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" l .
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" 2 .
These two specimens must suffice for a class of
1 An answer to the dcvillish detection of S. Gardiner Bp.
of Winchester, ff VI, XVI &c.
1 The Lamentacyon &c. A. D. 1548. b ii and c vii.
T/te 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
1 The attempt to bring England and Protestant Germany into
line in 1544 5 seems to have had its origin with Bucer. See
Lenz, Briefwechsel Landgraf PhiUpps des Grossmiithigen von
Hessen mil JBucer, II. p 275. Bucer's opinion of Henry is inte
resting : " Der konig ist fur sein person wie er ist; so sind andere
kouig auch wie sie sind " (p. 273 cf. p. 268). But one consi
deration outweighed all the rest : " Cb'llen ist ja ein schwer
exempel, dass unss guter und mechtiger freunden auch wol
konde von nb'teu 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 J54S could be bought at
Frankfort fair within a fortnight of its issue from
the euglish 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,
Zwingli, 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
1 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 Consultatio or Cologne Reformation 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' 1 .
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 of the authors,
whether to the views of Luther and Melancthon or
to those of Zwingli- and Bullinger.
Tour 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) u The church of Rome would not depart a single
letter from transubstantiation, 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. 109o).
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 OEcolampadius, 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-
1 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,
Liturgische Abhandlungen VIII pp. 1245).
2 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
et en quoi (Ecolampade et Zwingle ont failli du leur" (CEttvres
franchises recitcillies 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" 2 .
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.
1 Hall am. Constitiitional Hist. (10th ed.) I. pp. 89-91.
2 "Two Epistles of H. Bullynger, with consent of all the
learned men of the church of Tymiry ". 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" l . 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 1 '. 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 was 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 : 'this
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
1 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 (latin).
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" 1 .
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 relation to a given space, but presence and
absence" 2 ?
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 &c." 3 .
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. 912.
J 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 (i.e. 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" 1 .
1 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 Press 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
traosubstantiation of the papists in the holy supper
of our Saviour, but all the dreams of Luther seem
to him sufficiently well-grounded, perspicuous and
lucid" *.
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 world.
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 was 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
Inventaire &c. p. 436.
The new 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, a 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" 1 .
The government subsequently stated that they had
"abstained from punishing those that had offended 1 '
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" 2 .
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 " 3 .
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" 4 .
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.
3 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.)
4 Burnet. II. 2. p. 6.
time, place and persons concerned in it. 137
writing to Queen Mary in September 1555, says : u 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 1 ' '.
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" 2 .
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.
1 Remains. 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.
2 Narratives of the Reformation. Camd. Soc. p. 225.
138 The new Liturgy,
No list of the "bishops and other learned men, 11
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 will 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, Flaines, Robertson and Redman;
in all, Cranmer with twelve others.
Heylyn, in his Ecclesia 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 2 .
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 3 , 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
1 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.
140 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 'life 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 ; " 2 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;
u 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" 3 .
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. II. 355.
3 Ibid. pp. 85-6.
time, place and persons concerned in it. 141
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'' 1 . 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 3 .
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 II. 243.
2 II. p. 252.
3 Soames. Reformation III. p. 356. " That the prelates . . .
so characterized (as the most learned and discreet) were Eidley,
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
1 Joyce, Acts of the church (1531-1885) p. 115.
time, place and 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 Grey 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 2 for divers matters of the king and
Council" 3 . Odet de Selve, the french ambassador
writing 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 4 . To make some
settlement a certain number of bishops and doctors
are gathered at a place near the court called Chert
sey 5 , where they are to determine what is to be
1 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).
3 ed. Camd. Soe. p. 56.
4 G-rey 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).
5 This is written as Chetsey and interpreted by the editor, Chel
sea; but it is more probable, especially in view of the Grey Friars'
The new Liturgy,
held in this kingdom about the mass and the Sa
crament of the altar" 1 . 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 th 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 2 . In regard to Windsor it may also be
observed that in the later days of October Coverdale
was staying at the castle with Cranmer 3 .
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.
1 Inventaire &c. p. 453.
2 Stubbs. Eeg. Sacr. Angl. p. 80. Strype (Cranmer, pp. 1834)
gives an account of the ceremony. The original Act, from Cranrner's
Register, first printed by Courayer, is reprinted in Estcourt's
Question of Anglican Ordinations, App. pp. xxvn vni. Strype
omits some details of importance : (1) the consecration was
preceded "communibus suffrages 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".
3 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, 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 1 command, are congregate 1 ' 2 . 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.
14:6 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 1 .
The silence of Foxe on the subject is more than
significant. When the debate in Parliament, which
preceded the introduction of the Prayer 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".
1 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. 147
"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.
1 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" 1 . 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 " theConvoca-
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 " 2 .
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' Concilia contains nothing about any meeting
of the Convocation of clergy in the year 15489.
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.
- 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" 1 . Wake's
interpretation of the doubtful 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 3 .
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
1 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 Con vocation
of York was prorogued evidently about 20 April (1548) to 6
October " after which we hear no more of it till its dissolution ".
3 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 ckri . .. jam modo tenta ti instans
exist it ".
150 Convocation and the Prayer 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 of it" 1 .
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 of many of the
acts of Convocation from 1529 2 . For the reign of
Edward VI, 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 3 .
1 State of the church, p. 495.
2 This is true with the exception of the acts of 1547 (see
pp. 75 6 ante 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.
3 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 1644 to the question ofthesyaod-
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" 1 .
His friend was not satisfied, and still doubted
whether the manner of proceeding u 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" 3 .
1 Ecclesia Vindicata. pp. 2930.
a See the whole argument in Ecclesia Vindicata. pp. 7984.
152 Convocation and 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
"Parliament's powers in laws for religion" and republished in
1653 as the " Way of Reformation of the ChurcJi of England".
1 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
Wodroiv 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.
Convocation 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. Hoptou, 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" 2 .
(4) Further, a letter from Edward to his sister
Mary, undated, but apparently about the same time,
states : u 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 " 3 .
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 1 '. 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
singular 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.
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 the
business. Cheek, the king's tutor, moreover, in his
reply to the men of Devon and Cornwall, asks u 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 1 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 lacketh authority, which the king,
the learned and wisest have approved" 1 ? If there
had been any ecclesiastical sanction it is not un
reasonable to suppose that Sir John Cheek would have
here stated it 2 .
1 "The hurt of sedition" (2nd ed. 1569). Bi.
2 The passage 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 the
156 Convocation and the Prayer Book.
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 2 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 ".
1 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 : u 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 in 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 " 1 .
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" 2 .
1 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 u Of the Sacrament of Thanksgiving: a
short treatise of Peter Martyr's making ".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 2 . 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 u 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.
in the Parliament of 15iS 9. 159
God's true officer, by calling the learned and well
minded men together, encrease and enlarge the true
worship 11 . Hence this treatise is offered "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 11 .
(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 11 .
(6) " The presence of Christ ... is not at any time, but
in the use of the supper 11 . (7) Only the good receive
ft the body and blood ", the wicked " receive nothing
but the tokens of bread and wine". (8) When the
Sacrament is received, "the faithful" 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 11 .
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
1 if. 1-6.
160 The delate 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
1548, 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, 2 but the disputation was regarded as
beginning on the morning of the following day,
Saturday the 15th December. 3 On the meeting of the
1 Orig. Letters, Parker Soc. p. 469.
2 Royal MS. 17 B. XXXIX. ff. 5a and Ib. 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 Bullinger 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. 3223.)
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 15489. 161
house the Protector, to bring the proceedings into
some order, commanded the bishops B 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, 1 '
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 Cranmer and Hea,th of Worcester
followed as to the 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 u 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 theearlofWarwickwerepresentthroughout.
H
162 The debate on the Sacrament
Cranmer now rose for the first time to develop
his thesis. He laid it down as certain that " they be
two things, to eat the Sacrament and to eat the
body of Christ. The eating the body 1 ', 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 with
a direct contradiction. He declared that our Lord's
u 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 ihe Parliament of 15489. 163
before returned from an embassy to the emperor
Charles 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
his 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 2 was not agreed upon
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 had set
their hands unto, and for his part," he declared,
u 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 w r orthy of displeasure, that in such a
time when concord is sought for, would cast such
occasions of discord among men".
Thirlby's unlocked for and unwelcome intervention
brought the discussions of the first day to a sudden
close.
1 Thirlby had returned to England in the latter part of July 1548.
a 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, 'that 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 which 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 1 ' 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 15489. 165
desireth to agree with other churches " l . (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 Craumer
early in the year 1548. See p. 88 ante.
2 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 say
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 daring 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 'V
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
1 This, it will be understood, was a home thrust for Cranmer..
in the Parliament of 15489. 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 in
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 u though the form and
accidents of the bread remain 1 ' 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 1 '.
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 Tuustall of Durham. Such
testimony however was waived aside by the remark
of the archbishop u 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 :
u 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 l 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 Parliament of 15489. 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 1 '. Heath pressed him to
say clearly " whether the receiver takes any substance
in the Sacrament or not". Ridley 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 -1 " 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, lie 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 tt and go no further
than our holy Fathers, that have searched (the
scriptures) and come to the belief (which) must be
followed. 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). l On Monday,
1 The details of the passage of the Bill through the Lords.
in the Parliament of 15489. 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 was
taken, and its third reading with the final voting
on Tuesday, 15 January, 1549.
The only lay peers who voted against the measure
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), Salcot 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.
1 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
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
Voysey 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'.
1 The silence of the english chronicles is the more singular
since it seems to have been known in Nuremberg and appears iu
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. From 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 Bullinger. 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 (Craumer) 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 1 ' 2 .
the appendix of additions to Canon's 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 Canon's Chronicle
&c. printed in London by G. Lynne, 1550, f. 274b.
1 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.
2 Orig. 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
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 (\vho) 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 among 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 15489. 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 ". l
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 (i. 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. 46970.
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 our side". 1
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 Craumer's hands. "You must
know 1 ' 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". 2
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, 3 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 4 on the part of
t Ibid. p. 323.
< Ibid. p. 477.
3 See the details in Orig. Letters, p. 644.
4 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 Bullinger that
"the government roused by" the brawling as to the
Sacrament " have convoked a synod of the bishops
to consult about religion" l .
(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 of Cranmer 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 like Tunst all, 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.
1 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
tampered with.
Beyond these facts, some conjecture may safely
be 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, 2 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
1 It was reported at this time that the emperor was pressing
some such measure on the english government. See a letter ot
John ab Ulmis to Bullinger 27 Nov. 1548, Orig. Lett. p. 383.
2 Royal MS. 17B. xxxix f. 6.
180 The delate 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 more
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 15489. 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 l 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 1 ', 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 2 .
1 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 indiffer
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 Booh of 1549, el 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 PRAYER.
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 terms,
"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
centuries 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, whatever 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. 2
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 credmdV 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 Of. Duchesne Origines du Culte Chretien pp. vn 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 1549 in relation to the ancient liturgy
the omissions are obviously of primary importance;
and in relation to new forms the points of agreement. 1
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. 2 It is consequently only ne-
1 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 Abhandlungen, vn, pp. 3 4.
2 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 mediseval 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
angliae 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 1 565 within a few months of his death that he
heard of one at Vienna. This was in the hands of
possint) sed ex ^gyptiis, Africanis, Gallicanis, Mozarabis. Sed,
ut hoc Palmeri pace dixerim, perpauca inde dsumpta sunt,
plurima ex romanis liturgiis, singula ex reformatis". (Codex
Liturg. Eccl. Univ. m p. 349 note).
1 So Alvarez Gomez in his life of Ximenes published in 1569.
The Pope sent specially to Toledo for a copy.
186 The First English Book 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 1549 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-
sostoin which he had made 2 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-
1 See Cassandri opera (1616) pp. 1094, 1097-8, 1099,.
1217-18.
2 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. 1 How far they were in fact
used will appear later.
As to the . roman breviary of Quignon, in the book
of 1549 no part remained but what had been in-
1 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 Eucharistice,
of which two editions at least had appeared. Of the liturgy of
St. Basil, the greek appeared at Home 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. The liturgy of 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 works 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 v osius Pelargus printed at Worms in
1541 a translation from a greek MS. which be had found at the
collegiate Church of St. Simeon at Treves. Finally Witzel printed
in 1540 a german translation (See Horawitz and Hertfelder,
Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus 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. 5960). 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 Book 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. 1 '
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 office of confirmation is all that
then represented the pontifical. The book conclu
des with what is now called the "Commination
1 Cambridge reprint of the Sarum Breviary, m p. xxvm.
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: ft 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" J . 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 a,ny cleric 3 .
1 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.
3 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 atte chad 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" 1 . 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.
i P. p. 76. G. p. 193.
The First Ewjlisli Book of Common Prayer. 191
corresponds to tha/t of Sarum in one case only l . 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. 3 There is
1 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 difficult 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.
2 Sarum Missal (Burntisland ed., col. 579).
3 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 say 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 Bucei-'slCensura p. 465. These
notes are entirely omitted in the Book of 1552. It is certain
however from the injunctions of Ridley 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 had been commonly forbidden and that the prohibition
ultimately rests on the royal authority.
1 Tne 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 offering by the
people of the bread and wine for the sacrifice 2 , and
whilst this offering was being made the choir sang
a portion of a psalm which became known as the
offertory. 3 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 different revisions of the Prayer Book, but the followino-
table will best explain the changes in position :
1548.
1
2
3
1 P. p. 79. G. p. 196.
1 This had already disappeared from other liturgies, whilst
traces of the practice remain in the Western Church even to
the present day.
3 The detail of the rite is given with accuracy in the very
valuable Ordo Romanus 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. Tune vero archidiaconus accipiens calicem a subdiacono
ponit ipsum juxta oblationes Pontificis ad dexteram partem ;
tune Pontifex inclinato vultu in terrain super oblationes dicit
orationem, ita ut nullus prater Dominum et ipsum audiat nisi
tantum : Per omnia scccula &c. (Gerbert, Monumentall. 169 70).
1549.
1552.
Present book.
2-f3
4 (new)
14-3
1
1
4
2 + 3
2
194 The First English Book of Common Prayer.
still retained in the Roman 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 1 ' &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." 3 At the same time the family to whose
1 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 FolJcs mass
Book' p. 233.
3 The whole of this question of offertory and offering 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
" offrande". In the Book of 1549 the word 'offering' is used in
two senses : (1) of 8 offering " proper (P. p. 84 last three lines ;
The First English Book of Common Prayer. 195
"turn it fell to offer for the charges of the Commu
nion 11 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 1214) 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".
1 In this way the word "offertory" has in English come to
mean "a collection''; a sense which is wanting to the word in.
other languages.
196 The First English Book 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 2 , 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 3 .
(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 4 , a third is about half new 5 , a
fourth is curtailed about half 8 and the fifth is but
slightly altered from the original 7 . After the Preface
the Sanctus follows as in the old missals; but with
a variety in the translation, the import of which only
1 The "mixed chalice" was retained in the book of 1549,
2 Cf. his replies to the questions on the mass.
3 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.
4 Christmasday and Whitsunday.
5 Ascension day.
6 Trinity Sunday.
T Easter day.
The First English Book of Common Prayer. 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 actionis; 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 fidelium, 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 fidelium generally,
it is certainly true of the Canon a . 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 3 . 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 4 .
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
1 Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western p. xxxvn. 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.
3 Compare in Daniel the Gelasian and Gregorian canons.
4 This is all the more striking since there are passages in it
which it is not easy to explain. Cf. Duchesne, Origines &c. p. 173
(especially the note) and p. 174; Hoppe, Die Epiklesis, 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 '.
1 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 Koman, 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 fidelium
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 mei memo-
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 Book of Common Praijer. 199
The ancient rubrics are omitted, since in the Book
of 1549 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.
SAKUM.
Therefore most merciful
Father, through Jesus
Christ thy Son, our Lord,
PKAYER BOOK 1549. 1
Let us pray for the
whole state of Christ's
church.
Almighty and everliving
God which by thy holy
Apostle hast taught us to
make prayers and sup
plications and to give
thanks for all men ',
(12) tibi ob
tibi obtulit
tibi obtulit
obtulit tibi
tulit
(13) Per eun-
Per eundem
Per eundem
Per eundem
demChristum(at
Christum
Jesum Christum
Christum
end ofsitpplices)
(14) Memento
Memento etiam
Memento etiam
Memento etiam
etiara Domine
Domine anima-
Domine famulo
Bomine famulo
famulorum
rum famulorum
rum
rum
(15) Anastasia
Anastasia cum
Anastasia et
Anastasia et
et omnibus
omnibus
cum omnibus
cum omnibus
1 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 humbly pray and
beseech Thee to receive these
gifts, these offerings, these
holy undenled 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.
we humbly beseech Thee
most mercifully to receive
these our prayers, which
we offer unto Thy Divine
Majesty, beseeching Thee
to inspire continually the
universal 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
ward 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. Give 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 Prayer. 201
SARUM.
Remember, Lord, 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 sacrifice 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 chiefly 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, |
Cornelius, Cyprian, Lau- j
rence, Chrysogonus, John I
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 y
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,Thy mercy
and everlasting peace,
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 Common Prayer.
SABUM.
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 1
1 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 Eucharistics" (for the passages
see in ed. Migne, Patrol' Gr. vol. 161 col. 493 ; 500 1; 504 6;
510; 5145; 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 " efficiat" 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 Common Prayer. 205
SARUM.
that it may be made
unto us the Bo -f- dy and
Bl + ood of Thy most dearly
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 -f- 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 be unto us
the Body and Blood of Thy
most dearly beloved Son
Jesus Christ. 1
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.
1 On the question whether this was meant to exclude the
ancient Catholic doctrine, see Cranmer's Defence, Park. Soc.
pp. 3648, 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 be the body and blood of Christ ; but that they may be 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
-f- 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 '.
1 The form of words of institution in the Book of 1549 is quite
different 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 gpanish liturgy both
in language and simplicity. It is difficult to think that the one
is not derived immediately from the other" (Scudamore, Notitia
Eucharistica 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 holy people, iumem-
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 benedixit ' he blessed ' " ( Works
Parker Soc. p. 26 cf. also pp. 1617) 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 benedicere is to give thanks "( Works, Park.
Soc. p. 111). The wording of the Prayer Book is almost certainly
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 Book of Common 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
own gifts, albeit given
unto us, a pure -j- victim,
a holy-f victim, an unde-
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 remembrance His blessed
passion, mighty resurrec
tion and glorious 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 2 ,
1 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 oifer our
selves and all that we have unto Him and His 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.
2 Although in what follows there is similarity of words, this
cannot be represented by 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.
SARDM.
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 -f- dy and
bl + ood of Thy Son, may
be fulfilled with all heavenly
bene + diction and grace,
through the same Christ
our Lord. Amen.
1549.
Remember also, OLord,
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 ;
1 This seems to be suggested by the oUatio 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. 211
SARUM.
the souls of Thy servants
and handmaidens N, 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 iveiqhing our merits,
but freely pardoning our
offences, we beseech Thee
through Christ our Lord,
by whom all these good
[gifts] Thou, Lord, ever
createst, sancti 4- fiest,
fillest H-with life, bless -f
1549.
not weighing our merits,
but pardoning our offences,
through Christ our Lord ;
212 The First English Book of Common Prayer.
SARUM.
est and besto west upon us.
By -\- Him and with -+-
Him and in -f- 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 glory
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 Roman 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 Prayer. 213
ihe 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. 1
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 1549 this " commixture" is left out altogether
and in place of the prayer a new composition entirely
different in idea is substituted. 2 The Agnus is removed
to the time of the communion of the people. 3
(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. 4 A few alterations are made and additions
introduced which are not without significance. Thus :
1 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
bution 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, Liturgies
Eastern and Western p. xxxiv).
' 2 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
course 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
Home) the prayer for the commixture.
1 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 " arid " the Sacrament of the
blood 11 for "the bread 11 and "the wine 11 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 11 . 2
(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. 3
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.
3 " 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 XIII.
THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1549 AND CONTEMPORARY 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
liturgies 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 liturgies 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 l .
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
may be briefly summed up as follows: speaking gene
rally and taking no account of ceremonial, the new
office of 1549 may be said to agree with the ancient
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
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
1 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 l .
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 2 .
1 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 Bichter Die evangelischen Kirclienordnungen des seclis-
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 liturgies 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
during 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". 2 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". 3
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
office 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.
2 Daniel, Codex Liturgicus, vol. n, p. 81.
3 " Loquor autem de Canone illo lacero et abominabili ex
multorum laciniis seu sentina collecto, ibi ccepit missa fieri sacri-
ficiuni, ibi addita offertoria" &c. Daniel ut sup. p. 82.
220
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 Sanctus, 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 1 '. 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. 1
Luther's scheme for reforming the ancient mass
is developed as follows:
(1) Notice is to be given by those intending to
communicate. 2
(2) The vestments hitherto in use are allowed to
continue.
(3) (4) The mass is to begin with the introit, 3
1 See Jacoby, Liturgik der Eeformatoren 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.
3 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 Contemporary 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 1 '. 1
(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 Gospel 2 and the Mcene
Creed. 3
(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, 4
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
vm 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, vin p. 14).
1 The old salutation Dominus 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, vin.
p. 33). In the same way the old ceremonial connected with the
reading of the Gospel was entirely swept away.
3 Daniel &c. p. 85. At this point Daniel reads "Symbolum
Nioenum cantari solitum displicet" omitting the important word
non. See the correct text in Etchter 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. 3
(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 4 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. 5
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 teaching 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.
2 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, vm
pp. 77-8).
3 See Kliefoth, vm pp. 549.
4 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, vm pp. 845.)
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 embolismus 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. Granmer
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, vm pp. 1046 and Jacoby, Liturg'ik dcr Reformatoren
I pp. 2978).
1 The first beginning "Doinine 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; 2 and passing from the Communion office to
consider the other sacramental rites this affinity 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 3 is
1 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 Anglieana 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).
2 As Kliefoth remarks : " Nur grosse Unkenntniss der Geschichte
und Gestalt der mittelalterlichen Liturgie hat rneinen ko'nnen
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 Concord ten formel 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 OEcolampadius.
No single book gives the details of its history. Drouven (Die
Beformation 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 Pliilipps des Grossmutliigen von Hessen mit 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, 5912. Hardenberg's life in 15445 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
220 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. l
The service " Of them that be baptized in private
houses in time of necessity 11 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 consuUatio 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 " 2 . 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
1 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.
2 See Bulley, Communion and baptismal offices p. vm. 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
no". 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. 2 Moreover
1 Two examples may suffice. The rubric before the certificate
runs "then shall not he christen the child again, lut shall receive
him as one of the flock 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, nicht wider tcnffpn
sonder . . . es da in die gemeinund zal der rechtschaffen 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.
2 This new turn given to the rite of confirmation explains
the insertion of the catechism under that heading. In the Lutheran
228 The Prayer Book of 1549
complicated as the history of this Sacrament l 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 sufficient 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. 2745).
1 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. l But the statement
of a contemporary, well qualified in every way to
form a judgment on the subject, is precise. Richard
Hilles writing to Bullinger 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". 2
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. 3 To their astonishment
practical directions which have little or nothing to do with
liturgy proper.
1 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 Jim." 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
to settle the Pia consultatio with Bucer.
2 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
and delight however, in 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 Bullinger 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
a 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 a 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 Contemporary 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 Bullinger
could only convey by letter. The publication of
Cranmer's Lutheran catechism in the summer of
this same year (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 a 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, 2 and Hooper, Bullinger's intimate friend, was
1 Orig. Letters, p. 383. Traheron writing from London 28 Sep
tember 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 Prayer Book of 1549
certainly 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" 3 .
Francis Dryander, * Greek Professor" at Cambridge,
who cordially agreed with his master Bullinger in
moderate form of Lutheranism which 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 tt 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 Heinrich 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.
and Contemporary Liturgies. 233
his 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
Vadian on the condition of his communicating it to
you. You will see that the summary of doctrine
cannot be found fault with, although certain cere
monies are retained in that book which may appeal-
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 definite-
ness in his subsequent treatises on the Eucharist,
his common-place books, from wick he drew his
material, bear sufficient evidence of his embarrassment
how to reconcile those views with the writings of
the Fathers. 2
1 Ibid pp. 350-1.
3 Royal MS. 7 B XL 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 on the Sacrament of 1550.
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 cselo 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. 155193 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
Julius, master Immanuel (Tremellius) 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 caudles: 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". l
i 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
use on Whitsunday, June 9 1549. 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 l for the first offence,
twenty for the second, and, for a third, forfeiture of
all 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
Communion, commonly called the mass, might be
said in college chapels in Greek, Latin or Hebrew" 2 .
1 More than .100 of our money.
2 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. l
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 the
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.
1 For Luther's theory on the subject see Bichter, 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 reception 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 1 '
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" l .
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 2 . Therefore in considering the sudden substitu-
1 T. Mozley's Reminiscences chiefly of Oriel College &c. II
p. 320.
2 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, quse 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 hanc linguam apud Romanos-
Catholicos quasi adhuc vivere ita ut simpliciorum quoque homi-
num mentibus latinae formulae impressae sint, quas probe intel-
ligunt. Abhinc paucis annis habitabam Monaci apud civem quen-
dam grandevum, pium quidem sed minime cultioris ingenii ;
The reception of the new 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 which they had to be reconciled.
A few days before the new service was ordered
to come into general use, Dryauder writing to Bui-
linger from Cambridge stated that "the eaglish
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 " 2 .
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
tainen ssepe ex ore ejus exciderunt et elapsa sunt verba latina
e.g. " Unser Sohn ist neun Jahr in der Premde. Das 1st hart
fur die Aeltern. Aber was soil man machen : Fiat voluntas tua."
1 Orig. Letters, p. 350.
3 Ibid. p. 539. " There are for instance from six to eight
hundred Germans".
240 The reception of the new 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 hooks
in the beginning of Lent" l , apparently on the first
day a copy oi 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 1 ' 2 . 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" 3 .
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 w T ork openly ;
and in some churches service and some none, such
was the division". 4
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
1 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.
4 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". 1 Another letter in the same terms was
addressed to Thhiby, 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 surplice". 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". 3
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 Eccl Mem. n. 21011 from Thirlby's register.
3 Grey Friars' Ghron. p. 60 and Wriothesley n. 16. The 1 atter
is again wrong as to date.
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. 1 This document also was
at once communicated by Bonner to the cathedral
priests.
On Sunday, 28 July, and Monday the 29th many
people u were convented 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. 2 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". 3 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. 4
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' Chron. p. 61.
3 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. C. C. C. MS. 340; the translation in
MS. 102.
4 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 u 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
Wai brook and Cole Church. Such was the division
that day". 2
Some days later, on the Sunday within the octave
of the feast (18 August), Bouner, compelled by the
Council's order "on Sunday come seven night to
celebrate the communion", 3 came to his cathedral
j. 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." 1
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 1 '. 2
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" 3 . 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. 4
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-
1 Grey Friars' p. 62.
2 Ibid.
3 Micronius to Bullinger. London 30 Sept. 1549. Orig. Letters
p. 557.
4 Foxe V. 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", l 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". 2
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 manibiis meis
semper ". 3 That same night he was conveyed to the
Marshalsea. 4
The imprisonment of the bishop however did not
1 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).
8 Foxe V. p. 791.
3 Ibid. 784.
4 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". 1
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,
1 Orig. Letters, p. 72.
The reception of the new Service. 247
although they have been so grievously chastised they
would rise again". 1
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 (1549) 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". 2
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. 3
1 Calendar of Venetian State papers, v, p. 345.
2 C. C. C. C. MS. 106 f . 490. Cooper's Annals of Cambridge IT, p. 28.
3 See the graphic account in Alban Langdale's Catholica Con-
24:8 The reception of the new Service.
On the eve of Corpus Christ! 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 Kochester 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 WHS one of the dis
putants, complains especially of the interruptions and browbeating
and scoffing in which Ridley indulged. See also Ridley's Works
ed. Parker Soc. pp. 169 seqq.
The reception of the new Service. 219
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". l
The effect of Ridley's measures however did not
correspond to the wishes of 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 profligate epicureans , 2 who
1 C. C. C. C. MS. 106 pp. 490 seqq.
2 In his Censura the writer uses almost the same words
* passim illis (i. e. parish churches) prsesunt aut homines epicuraei
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". 1
1 Orig. Letters, pp. 546 7.
2 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, u 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". 1
It can be understood in the circumstances that
Martyr's expositions at Oxford were not attended
with much success. Recourse 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 government 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 Eeformatoren,
II, pp. 126-7.
1 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.
2 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". 1 And later, that the "Oxford men were still
pertinaciously sticking in the mud of popery". 2
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 ah' enation of the
people from the ruling powers. However important
in their results were the changes made by Henry VIII,
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 Catholic 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 r
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"; 1
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 the
sacrifice of the mass and to an enforcement a 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
1 This was the main object of the Statute of the articles of
Henry VIII.
2 Works 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, 'this day have I seen my maker 1 , and 'I
cannot be quiet except I see my maker once a day 1 ?
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 11 ? 1
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
1 Ibid. p. 229.
The reception of the new 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
which 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
1 Montesquieu, De, Vesprit des lois, livre xxn, chap. 2.
256 The reception of the new service.
table iu place of the altar. l u 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". 2
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". 3
" 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' 1 . 4
But although some addition was thus being always
made, what was done, was done in the face of
1 Burnet II, 2. p. 165.
2 Norfolk Archeology VII. p. 73.
3 These bishops were according to Hooper (Feb. 1550) Cranmer,
Ridley, Goodrich, Ferrar, Holbeach and Barlow 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 to
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
712).
4 Orig. Letters, pp. 479-30.
The reception of the new Service. 257
opposition from every class even from those who
were in some measure dependent on the government
itself. On March 14, 1550, Dr. John Ponet preaching
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 1 '.
" 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, 2 and to be content with such godly
1 "J. Notable Sermon". Printed by G. Lynne. 1550. F. 2.
2 The experience of Hancock, Cranmer's preacher, will bear
S
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.
1 Ibid, sig: G 1 and G 2. Ponet adds that if a schoolmaster finds
that one'ofhis boys is the son of a man addicted to the novelties,
he does not spare the rod ; but the boy gets birched
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". l
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
1 Orig. Letters, p. 72.
260 Further projects. The Ordinal.
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 Bonners 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, fc but
this ordination nevertheless was celebrated after that
order that was soon established". 2
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, u through the frequent proclamations that
had been issued, their jurisdiction had been entirely
destroyed, and that they had been brought into
1 Strype's Cranmer pp. 1834.
2 Ibid. p. 191. See the names of those ordained in Strype. 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.
Further 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. 2 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
tt 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". 3
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. 4 Accordingly the names of the persons who
1 Journals of the Lords pp. 35960.
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.
4 Pocock, Troubles concerning the Prayer Book. 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 w r hich 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 ". 1
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. 2
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
"for that he obstinately denied to subscribe". 3
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
1 Council Book (Privy Council Office) n, 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.
3 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 11 . *
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". 2
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'. 3 By the transfer ofThirlby
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 Book.
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 bis deprivation
turned entirely on his refusal to subscribe to the ordinal as may
be seen from the record in the Council Book.
a 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 dignity
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." 2
The new bishop of London was not long in justifying
the best hopes that Hooper had expressed to Bulliuger
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." 3 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". 4
1 Grig. Letters, p. 79. Hooper to Bullinger. 27 March. 1550.
2 Carad. Soc. p. 66.
3 Chronicle, Camd. Soc. n p. 41.
4 Grey Friars Chron. 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". l 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 14th day of December". 2
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 1 '. 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 ". 3
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 Hem. n, 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 2-i 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 ot
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
1 A printed copy of these reasons evidently as issued by the
Council is in C. C. C. C. MS. 113 ff. 39-40.
2 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 Remains p. 524).
Further projects. The Ordinal. 267
word altar in the Book of Common Prayer, the
second reason is interesting : u 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 antichristi impietates, earumque administri et defen-
sores, impura doctrina et prophana Sacramentorum administrate,
superstitio peregrinorum festorum et cseremoniarum, harumque
abominationum procurators, 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 Council's 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 a 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 1 '. 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 impietatuin, debetque res hsec populis quam
diligentissime approbari ; sed multo magis urgeri debent in sacris
concionibus, et ubi ubi id cum fructu fieri possit, ea quse non
tantum majora sunt sed ita ad salutem necessaria ut sine illis
et base sint Deo abominationi. Haec sentis mecum, oras, urges;
Dominus det successum." (C. C. C. C. MS. 113. ff. pp. 4144) 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. C. MS. 113. f. 5a).
1 Council Bk. Harl. MS. 352 ff. 120-123.
Further projects. The Ordinal. 269
science would not bear". 1 He was thereupon com
mitted to the Fleet 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 Paul's, whereof information was
given that it was used as the very mass". 2 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 1 '. 3
Advantage was taken of the paucity of rubrics in
the Book of 1549 to continue the ancient ceremonies
in every way not expressly forbidden. 4 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
1 Council Book in Arclicsologia XVIII p. 150.
2 Council Book in Strype. Eccl. Mem : II p. 372.
3 Censura, quoted in Dixon III 283.
4 For details of the ceremonies continued even after the im
position of the service see the Injunctions of Ridley (Works.
Parker Soc. pp. 31920) and of Hooper (Later writings, pp.
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. 1 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. 2
Although in the session of parliament (154950)
an act had been passed for calling in, for the purpose
of destruction, all the ancient service books, 3 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. 4 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.
2 Ibid. pp. 4634 and De officio Regis ChrlsUani p. 35, 39.
3 Burnet II, 1 p. 143. All the bishops present agreed except
those of Durham, Coventry, Carlisle, Worcester, Westminster and
hichester.
4 Hooper the zealous court preacher writing to Bullinger 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.)
Farther projects. The Ordinal. 271
in secret. Bernard Gilpin, a granduephew 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". 4 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 15489 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
1 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 offences and promising to
1 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". (Archceologia. XXXVI.p. 230). AlsoatBungay 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 15489, 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.
u 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 d ; and the parish priests do this to obtai n 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
1 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 icritings 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 1548, but then in 154950 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 1 , he thinks they might be
styled Sacramentarians."
u This much will suffice 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
1 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 la cene ", 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 Francoises, 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 undertaken. "As
ye have taken away the mass from the people" he
said, a so take from them her feathers also, the altars,
vestments and such like as apparelled her" 2 . How
this advice was followed will be briefly shown in
the next chapter.
1 Eeport of the most noble messer Daniele Barbaro. Venetian
State Papers Vol. V pp. 347-53.
8 Early writings. Parker Soc. p. 440. Latimer likewise
explains wherein, in his mind, lay the virtue of the mass.
"I cannot find there (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 Remains
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 office, 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, 1 the Chancellor and Secretary Petre went to
visit Gardiner. They showed him a u 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-
1 This was the Christmas day upon which the Council decided
to call in all the ancient service books.
278 The Second Book of 1552.
tainly had not been heard or condemned and there
fore that he did not ask for mercy. As for the "book'V
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. a
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 ". 3 Twice
1 Foxe VI. p. 72.
3 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 1 '. 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. i 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. 11 This was really a confutation of Cran-
mer's book on the Eucharist, published by him in
the middle of the year 1550 2 . 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,
1 Council Book Harl. MS. 352 f. 126.
2 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
put that the Fathers undoubtedly declare that u 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 ; 1 which I allege
because it shall appear it is a teaching set forth among
1 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 (.Parker 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, u in no point improve that godly book
nor vary from it". 2 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 " 3 .
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." 4 On this allusion to the Prayer
Book Cranmer makes no remark.
1 Parker Soc. ed. p. 55.
2 Ibid. p. 56.
3 Ibid. pp. 226-7.
4 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 prayeth 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" 1 .
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 1 ' 2 .
(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.
2 Ibid. See also p. 83, " and therefore the church &c." and p.
88. "Nor Christ doth not" &c.
The Second Book of 1552. 283
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" 3 .
Cranmer answers : u 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." 4
(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.
4 Ibid. p. 53
284 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 " l .
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 1 ' 1 .
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 1 ' 3 .
(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.
2 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." 1
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 first book, which
G-ardiner 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 was
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,
u 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" 2 .
1 State Tapers. Dora. Vol. XII ff. 64a-65.
a See in Strype's Cranmer Appendix no. 61. Canon Dixon
(in. 248) seems to identify this conference of the bishops with
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 : u 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 royal 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. 1552 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 records 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
now 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. 24950. 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 little room for doubt as to the
inspirers 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"; l
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 bis 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 III 439).
1 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 (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. "W hat
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 doctrina 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.
1 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 line.
(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 1 ', 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 1652. 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 recognized. '
(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 immediatelv
1 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 Hooper, who, during 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 ur it ings. Parker Soc. pp. 1323).
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. 1
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
1 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. 1 "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 ". 2 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.
1 See as to his doctrine, p. 295 post, 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 2 . 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 Arcluzological 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 u so much bread and wine as shall
suffice" for the number of communicants is now
omitted *.
1 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" l . But as regards "the signs, 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 " a .
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.
8 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 3 . In the light of this
teaching of Bucer, there is little wonder that he took exception
1 Confessio de Eucharistia p. 543 cf. p. 551.
2 Definitio plenior pp. 552 3 cf. C-ensura p. 473.
1 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 suffice 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, as though
there were in this bread and wine in itself something divine or
holy outside of its actual use in communion" (Censura,pip. 5523).
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 zur Geschichte 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.
1 Censnra, 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 officials "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." 2 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" 3 . And on " Easterday the
dean, William May, did minister himself" 4 , and
"after the creed the bishop caused the veil to be
drawn that no person should see but those that
received" 5 .
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.
2 Grey Friars' chronicle. Camd. Soc. p. 69.
3 Wriothesley II, p. 47.
4 Grey Friars', p. 69.
5 Wriothesley II, p. 47.
298 The Second Book of 1552.
one prayer common to both Sarum and Luther J was
now left out, and even this prayer was subjected
to mutilation 2 . 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 away with at Bucer's suggestion 3 .
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 4 .
For it was substituted a form in which the signifi
cation of the ancient ceremony seems entirely lost 5 .
It is unnecessary to follow in further detail the
changes made in the various parts of the Book of
Common Prayer 6 . Their spirit is already sufficiently
1 See p. 224 ante note.
2 By the omission of " that by this wholesome layer of regeneration
whatsoever sin is in them may be washed clean away ". In regard
to this prayer, see Jacoby Liturgik der Eeformatoren I. p. 303 4.
3 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.
4 The omissions are Parker Soc. ed. p. 125, lines 1 to 13.
5 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 ".
6 In regard to the addition of the preliminary address the general
The Second Book of 1552. 299
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 154:9 rather hints
at than definitely expresses the idea of intercession
for the dead 1 .
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 1 ', 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).
1 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, 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 once
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 1 .
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
1 De Eegno Christi lib. II, cap. 5 pp. 6061. This work
must have been written in the autumn of 1550. The C. C. C. C.
MS. 119, contains pp. 35 a letter to the king signed by Bucer,
and pp. 456 a letter, entirely in Bucer's hand, to Cheke. Both
are dated 21 Oct. 1550. These letters accompanied the MS. of
the de Eegno 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. 496501) apologizing to the prelate for entering
on this discussion of a subject upon which his opinion had not
been asked.
302 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". 2 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 nbte, p. 287 ante.
2 5 & 6 Ed. VI, cap. 1.
The Second Book 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 VI 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
1 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 1 .
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. Royal 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 " l .
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).
3 Ibid. p. 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, 3 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 mediaeval
liturgy and had an intimate acquaintance with the
whole range of new service books. Had he seen
1 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).
2 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.
4 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 1519 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 were 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 I.
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 i7th 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) ff. 721. The scheme for Morning and Even
ing Prayer described in chapter III.
It is composed of:
(a) ff. 78. The Preface.
(b) ff. 9io. A rubric for the recitation of the
psalter and the reading of Holy
Scripture.
<c) ff. ii 1 2 a. Rubrics on the Order of Morning
and Evening Service.
(d) f. i2a. Canon de abbremandis precationibus.
(e) f. i2b. Benedictions before lessons.
(f) ff. 13 i8a. Hymns.
3i2 Appendix I.
(g) if. iSb 2 1 a. Collects.
(3) if. 22 132. The Fcstivale; being the special
lessons (lives of saints) for feast days.
(4) if. 133 150. The project for a breviary described
in Chapter II.
(5) if. 151 156. Calendar of lessons from Scripture
in Cranmer's handwriting, called " the
first" below.
(6) if. 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 Fcstivale 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 given 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. 2 6b.)
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. 9 |*)
Apparently therefore either by the gift of the earl
of Arundel (in 1579) 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 I.
library came into the hands of Henry, Prince of Wales r
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 II.
CRANMERS BREVIARY SCHEME.
THIS is a print of Article 2 of the Royal MS.
7 B. IV and comprises Cranmer's projected Brev
iary. The relative table of lessons is dealt with
in Appendix IV.
In the following print the spelling and irregula
rities of the original 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 x ). As a fact Morice although
so long a faithful servant of Craumer was a lay
man. One at least of the blunders suggests that
this part was written from dictation (the Easter
Hymn u Ad ccenam agni providi" was originally
written magni). But from other mistakes it seems
*) e. g. In sempiternce. in place of supremce in the third
strophe of the Pange lingua.
316 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 whit
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. i 33 a.) HORARUM CANONICARUM SERIES.
Ad matutinas.
Ante omnes horns tarn diimias quam nocturnas per
totum anni cursum dicatur Oratio dominica. * Qua dicta
continuo mcipief 1 - sacerdos Domine labia etc. Deus in
adjutorium etc. Gloria patri etc. cum Haleluya. Hie mos
toto anno observandus cst excepto quod a Septuagcsima
usque ad Pascha in loco Aleluya dicetur Laus tibi
domine rex eterne glorie. 3
Invitatorium, Christum Dominum per prophetas pro-
missum Venite adoremus. 4 Psalnms Venite exultemus
etc. cum Gloria patri. a INVITATORIUM XON REPETATUR
1 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".
2 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 Cnena Domini (fol. 14 ib).
4 This Invitatory is not in S. Q or York.
a In margin.
318 Appendix II.
AMPLIUS ANTE FINEM PSALMI. 5 ET PSALMUS ALTER-
NATUM DICATUR. Hymmis, Verbum supernum etc. 6
Psalini ex ordine dcsignati. Finiantur autem psahm
omncs et cantica per totum annum cum Gloria patri
etc. Antiphona, Nox precessit dies autem appropinquavit ;
abjiciamus ergo opera tenebrarum, et induanrar arma
lucis. 7 Lectiones tres ex kalendario designate petende
sunt. a
HEC REGULA PONATUR ANTE LECTIONES. b Bene-
dictio ad primam lectionem rcddenda, Benedictione
perpetua benedicat nos pater eternus. Ad 2<w, Deus Dei
filius nos benedicere et adjuvare dignetur. Ad^^,Sp\-
ritus Sancti gratia illuminet sensus et corda nostra.
Ad 4. In charitate perfecta confirmet nos Trinitas
Sancta. 8 Porro unaqueque lectio sive ad nmtiitmas sive
ad vespertinas horas cum Jube Domine benedicere, sa-
cerdote bcnedictionem subjungente, incJwabitur ; atque
terminabitur cum Tu autem Domine miserere nostri
5 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.
6 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).
7 This is the first antiphon of the third nocturn of Advent Sunday in S.
8 These four benedictions are the three of the first nocturn /^r annum
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 Danicle 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: "illuii.inet corda"; corrected by the scribe.
Appendix II. 319
(fol. i33b) ct respondebitur Propter magnam misericor-
diam tuam. 9 FINITIS LECTIONIBUS a sequatur psalmus
Miserere mei Deus etc. Qui psalmus hoc in loco dicen-
dus est cotidie usque ad Natalem Domini, et a Sep-
tuagesima ad Pascha. Aliis autem temporibus dicatur
Te Deum laudamus etc. 10
Ad laudes. "
Sacerdos 6 incipiet Deus in adjutorium etc. ut supra ad
matutinas. Psalmi ex or dine designati et canticum Be-
9 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.
10 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
(? 39) DU t a t 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.
11 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 (b) 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 rubiicator. This correction is
in accordance with traditional prac'.ice.
320 Appendix II.
nedictus etc. ANTE BENEDICTUS DICATUR CAPITULUM
EX SAPIENTIALIBUS LIBRIS. Ex RESPONDEATUR DEO
GRATIAS. a Antiphona, Gaudete in Domino semper. Mo-
destia vestra nota sit omnibus hominibus. Dominus
prope est. 12
Omnes collectas 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. 13 Qui
vivis etc. cum Dominus vobiscum etc. Benedicamus etc.
HEE PRECES DICAXTUR AD PRIMAM POST AXTIPHO-
XAM DE TRIXITATE. 14 b Postrcmo sequantur preces cum
prostratione c hoc modo.
12 This is part of the third ant. of the third noct. on Sundays in
Advent in S. (II, 2647 of the Cambridge reprint which is referred
to hereafter in the notes).
ls 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.
u These preces are derived from S. not Q.
They appear to be adapted from the preces feriales 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 face 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,
Rcsp. Et salutare tuum da nobis.
Sacerdos. Domine salvum fac Regem.
Rcsp. 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. i34a) nostris.
R. Quia non est alius qui pugnet pro nobis nisi
tu solus Deus.
Sacerdos. Dominus vobiscum etc.
Oremus. Domine sancte pater omnipotens eterne Deus
qui nos ad principium hujus diei etc. 15 Per
Christum etc.
Ad primam. 16
Post recitatam dominicam orationem incipiet sacerdos
Deus in adjutorium etc. lit supra ad vmtutinas. Hymnus,
Jam lucis etc. Psalmi ex or dine designate. Atque in
diebus dominicis et festivis sequetur symbolum Atha-
nasii Quicumque vult etc. In aliis diebus Credo in Deum
patrem etc. Antiphona, Te jure laudant, te glorificant
15 The Sarum version of the prayer; but for "salva" the MS. reads
" serva ", and (doubtless by oversight) " moderatione " for " moderamine ".
16 This order of Prime is taken from Quignon pp. 234, 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 adorar.t" 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 ofjiciwn
Cafituli (see note 19).
322 Appendix II.
omnes creature tue, O beataTrinitas. al< HlC DICANTUR
PRECES CUM PROSTRATIONE. b 18 Finitis precibus c
legatur loco Martilogii historia defesto si que contigerit.
DEINDE d 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 e Dominum
Deum nostrum, ut nos ab eo (fol. 134-b) et adjuvemur
et salvemur. Qui in trinitate perfecta vivit et regnat
Deus. Per omnia etc. Dominus vobiscum etc. Benedicamus
etc. 19 f
17 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-
cendenr, before the remnant of the ojffidum Cafituli.
18 In 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.
19 "Deinde dicet" etc. This is a remnant of the ancient Sarum
offidum Cafituli, 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 supra 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 ".
f At the end of prime is this direction in Cranmer's hand, afterwards
crossed through : " Hoc loco dicantur preces ".
Appendix II. 323
Ad tertiam. " 20
Deus in adjutorium etc. lit supra ad matutinas.
Hymnus, Nunc sancte nobis Spiritis etc. Psalmi ex
or dine designate. Antiphona, Laus et perennis gloria
Deo patri et filio sancto simulque Paracleto in secula
seculorum. 21 Sacerdos, Dominus vobiscum etc. et sequatur
oratio de die.
Ad sextam. 20
Hymnus, Rector potens etc. Antiphona, Ostende
nobis Domine misericordiam tuam, et salutare tuum da
nobis. 2 ' 2 Cetera ut supra ad tertiam.
Ad nonam. 20
Hymnus, Rerum Deus tenax etc. Psalmi ex or dine
designate. Antiphona, Alter alterius onera portate et
sic adimplebitis legem Christi. ~ 3 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" ;
(&) the insertion of " Jesum Christum " (<T) the change of " ut nos
mereamur ab eo adjuvari et salvari " into " ut nos ab eo adjuvemur
et salvemur."
20 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 n
above).
21 This is the antiphon at Tierce for Sunday in S. (II, 60, but
"simul" not "simulque").
22 This is the resp. and vers. for Advent after the little chapter of
Sext in S., turned into an antiphon. (II, 66).
23 This is the little chapter for ferias out of Advent in S. (II, 68).
turned into an antiphon.
324 Appendix II.
tionc. ~ k a Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison, etc. ut supra
post laudcs 25 prefer orationcm que est Adesto Domine
supplicationibus nostris, et viam famulorum tuorum in
salutis tue prosperitate dispone, ut inter omnes vie et
vite hujus (fol. i35a) varietates tuo semper protegamur
auxilio. 2G Per Dominum etc.
Ad vesper as. 27
Dicta oratione dominica incipict sacerdos Deus in
adjutorium etc. ut supra ad matutinas. Hymmis, Con-
ditor alme siderum etc. Psalmi ex ordine desipnati.
o
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. 28 Deinde sequatur benedictio ante
lectionem, Divinum auxilium maneat semper nobiscum. 29
Atque hec benedictio pcrpetiio ad vesperas dicetur.
Lectio ex kalendario.
Bencdictiones ad hujus diei lectiones toto anno non
2i 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.
26 This prayer is the collect for the mass fro iter agentibus, 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 ; (<:) " 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".
dix II. ^25
mutantur. Ipsas tamen lectiones cotidie mutatas ex
kalcndario petes, prefer illas que certis quibusdam diebus
dicende scorsim assignantur.
Sequatur Dominus vobiscum etc. cum oratione de die.
Ad completorium. 30
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. 31 Psalmi ex
or dine designati. Statim post psalmos sequatur canticum
Nunc dimittis etc. (fol. 1356) Antiphona, Salva no?
Domine vigilantes, custodi nos dormientes ut vigilemus
in Christo et requiescamus in pace. * 2 Deinde seqtiantur
preces cum prostratione. ffl 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. M
1 The order of compline is derived from Q. (p. 25), but with the
following variations: (a) an antiphon is inserted after Nunc dimittis,
(U) followed by the preces as prescribed at prime ; preces are commonly
excluded by Quignon and Cranmer here imitates Sarum (but see note
33). W "Fidelium animae" is omitted (see note n (e) above) ; (d) the
antiphon of the Blessed Virgin after compline is omitted.
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.
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).
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.
3i This prayer is from Sarum; Q. has the "Visita 1 ' appropriate for
conventual, but less so for secular, churches.
326 Appendix II.
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.
a Memorie detur oportere cantica Benedictus, Magnificat.
et Nunc dimittis sic sequi precedentes psalmos ut nihil in-
terseratur, sed sine inter stitio cum psalmis precedentibus
perpetuo ductu canantur. b
DOMINICA 2. c
Dominica secunda adventus Domini. d
Oratio. Excita Domine corda nostra ad preparandas
unigeniti tui vias ; ut per ejus adventum purificatis tibi
mentibus serviRE 6 VALEAMUS. 35 Qui tecum etc.
(fol. i36a.) Dominica 3" Adventus Domini.
f 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".
c A line has been drawn across this passage (" Memorie ... ca
nantur ' ; ) as if for deletion.
b "Conantur" MS.
c In margin.
d "Lectio quarto, ex Esaie ca. n, 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 36 prepediunt, indulgentia
tue propitiationis acceleret. Qui vivis etc.
In Natali Domini.
Ad primas vesper as. Hymnus, Veni redemptor
omnium 37 etc. Antiphona, Implete sunt dies Marie ut
pareret filium suum primogenitum. 38 Oratio. Concede
quesumus omnipotens Deus; ut nos unigeniti tui nova
per carnem nativitas liberet, quos sub peccati jugo
vetusta servitus tenet. Per Dominum nostrum 39 etc.
LECTIO PONATUR ANTE LECTIONEM. b Lectio ex Esaia
40, Consolamini, consolamini popule meus usque ad
fetas ipse portabit 40
Ad matutinas. Invitatorium, Christum verum Deum
verumque hominem natum ex Maria virgine, Venite
adoremus. 41 Hymnus, Christe redemptor omnium 42 etc.
16 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).
9 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.
12 See note 37.
a "Lectio ex Esai. ca. 52, Consurge, consurge usque ads alutare Dei
nostri"; crossed through.
b So MS. for, "orationem". This note is in the margin.
c "Portavit". MS.
3 2 M Appendix II.
Antiphona, Dominus dixit ad me, filius meus es tu,.
ego hodie genui te. 43 Lectio pn'ma ex Esaic ca. q,
Populus qui ambulabat usque ad exercituum faciet hoc.
(fol. ia6b). Lectio secunda ex a JOH. 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 4 ex Math, i, Liber
generationis Jesu Christi usque ad et vocavit nomen
ejus Jesum. 44
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. 45 Oratio. Concede quesumus ut supra ad primas
vesperas.
Ad vesperas. Hymnus, A solis ortus cardine 46 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. 47 Lectio ex epistola ad Titum
Apparuit gratia Dei salvatoris nostri usque ad sunt
enim inutiles et vane. 48
In festo Dim Stcphani.
Ad matutinas. Ex Act. VI T o Lectio prima, In diebus
illis crescente numero etc. usque tf^faciem ejus tanquam
43 The first ant. of the first noct. in S.
44 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.
45 The fourth ant. of lauds on Christmas day in S.; the final Alle
luia omitted.
46 So too in S.
47 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.
18 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 a . Dixit autem princeps sacerdotum
usque ad nutrivit eum sibi in filium. Lectio 3" ex Act. 7,
Et eruditus est Moyses usque ad in operibus manuum
suarum.
(fol. i3;a). Ad vesperas. Lectio ex eodem. Convertat
se autem Deus usque ad consentiens neci ejus.
In festo dim fohannis Evangeliste.
Ad matutinas. Lectio prima ex Math. 4, Ambulans
Jesus juxta etc. usque <z^secuti sunt eum. Lectio secunda
ex Joan. 13, Amen, amen, dico vobis usque ad ad quid
dixerit ei. Lectio 3" ex Joan. 21, Et cum hoc dixisset
etc. usque ad verum est testimonium ejus.
In festo d. Innocentium.
Ad matutinas. Lectio 4 ex Math. 2, Ecce Angelus
Domini etc. usque ad noluit consolari quia non sunt.
Circumcisio Domini.
Ad primas vesper as. Lectio ex Gen. 17, Postquam a
ABRAHAM nonaginta et novem etc. usque ad pariter
circumcisi sunt.
Ad matutinas. Lectio i a ex Deuter. 10, Et nunc
Israel quid Dominus Deus tuus etc. usque ad sicuk astra
celi. Lectio 2 a 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 Vcsperas ex Colloss. 2, Videte ne quis vos
decipiat etc. usque ad ad saturitatem carnis.
Epiphania Domini.
Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Hostis Herodes impie 49 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. i37b). Lectio ex Esaie 60, Surge illuminare Hieru-
salem etc. usque ad laudem Domino annunciantes. *
Ad mitutinas. Hymnus, A patre unigenitus 49 etc.
Lectio i a 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. tisque 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 hec dicit
Dominus formans me etc. usque ad pauperum suorum
miserebitur. HEC ORATIO PONATUR AD PRIMAS VES
PERAS. a 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. M Per
Christum Dominum etc.
Dominica prima post octavas, 52 Epiphanie.
Invitatorium, Dominum qui fecit nos Venite adore-
mus. 53 Hymnus, Eterne rerum conditor M etc. Antt-
phona ad matntinas, Servite Domino in timore et
exultate ei cum tremore. 55
Antiphona ad laiidcs, Spiritus omnis laudet Dominum,
The third lesson of matins of Epiphany in :>.
1 In S. this is the prayer at lauds and second vespers. In Q. one
prayer only as here".
)2 "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.
8 The Invitatory for fridays in S.
4 The Sunday hymn at lauds in S.
5 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. i38a) sunt omnia, mandavit
et creata sunt universa. w 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 vesper as. Hymnus, Deus creator 57 etc. Antiphona,
Sciamus omnes quia Dominus ipse est Deus, cui jubi-
lemus et exultemus et laudemus nomen ejus in eter-
num. 56 Invitatorium, hymm, et antiphone hujus dieiad
diem cinerum duralunt.
Dominica 2 a .
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.
Dominica 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 constitutes, pro hum-
ana scis fragilitate non posse subsistere ; da nobis salu-
tem mentis et corporis; ut ea que pro peccatis nostris
patimur te adjuvante vincamus. Per Christum etc.
(fol. i38b.) 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 (II, 29).
>7 In S. the Sunday hymn of verpers until Lent was " Lucis creator"
(I, ccccxviiy; "Deus Creator" was said at vespers of the Saturday before
the first Sunday after the octave of Epiphany.
332 Appendix II.
Dominica in Septuagesima.
a Hinc ad Pascha ^lsque, loco Aleluya et Te Deum,
dicetur Laus tibi Domine etc. et psalmus Miserere. 5S
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. 59
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.
Iwuitatorium, Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis nolite
obdurare corda vestra. 60 Hymnus, Audi benigne 61 etc.
Antiphona (fol. i3ga). Convertimini ad me in toto corde
vestro in jejunio et fletu et planctu. 62 . Lectio i a ex
Esaie 58, Clama ne cesses etc. ^lsque ad erunt sicut
meridies. Lectio 2* ex Jone 3, Factum est verbum
58 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.
60 In S. the Invitatory on Passion Sunday; at York, on the fourth
Sunday in Lent (Brev., Surtees Soc., I. 329).
61 "Audi benigne" in S. begins on the first Sunday of Lent (at lauds).
63 Part of the little chapter of lauds, or ant. of memoria j>ro
pcenitmtibus , on Ash Wednesday in S.
Appendix II. 333
Domini etc, ^(,sque 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. 63 Oratio. Exaudi quesu-
mus Domme supplicum preces, et confitentium tibi parce
peccatis; ut pariter nobis indulgentiam tribuas benignus
et pacem. 64 Per Christum etc.
Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Ex more docti mistico 65 etc.
Antiphona, Lavamini, mundi estote, auferte malum
cogitationum vestrarum ab oculis meis. 66
Ad completorium. Loco Salvator mundi dicatur hyni-
nus Christe qui lux etc. 67
Invitatorium, hymni et antiphonc prescripta ^^,sque
ad dominicam in passione durabunt. 6 *
Dominica prima quadragesime.
Oratio. Inchoata jejunia quesumus Domine benigno
favore prosequere; ut observantiam quam corporaliter
exhibemus, mentibus etiam synceris. exercere valeamus. 9
Per Christum etc.
53 Part of the little chapter of sext on the first monday in Lent, and
thenceforward on ferias for a fortnight.
64 The prayer of the memoria pro fcenitentibus in S. (I, dlvii).
lS 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.
7 This hymn in S. is begun at compline on the first Sunday of Lent.
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.
11 The prayer for friday after Ash Wednesday in S.
334 Appendix II.
(fol. i39b.) 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 etc.
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. 70 Per Christum Dominum nostrum.
Dominica 4".
Oratio. Concede quesumus omnipotens Deus ; ut qui
ex merito nostre actionis aifligimur, tue gratie consol-
atione respiremus. Per Christum etc.
Dominica in passione.
AD VESPERAS. HYMNUS, VEXILLA REGIS PRODEUNT.
AD COMPLETORIUM UT AD 2 as VESPERAS.
AD MATUTINAS. Invitatorium, Christum Dei filium
quia sua nos passione redemit, Venite adoremus. 71
Hymmis, i. Pange lingua. 2. De parentis. 3. Hoc
opus nostre salutis. 4. Quando venit etc. 5. Vagitinfans
etc. 6. Gloria et honor etc. 72
70 The prayer of vespers on Wednesday after the second Sunday
of Lent in S.
71 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 Eluddatoritimio\.i > Q\);
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
Antiphona, Popule meus quid feci tibi, aut quid molest-
us fui. Responde mihi. Lectio prima ex Math. 2 6,
Et factum est cum etc. usque ad hec fecit in memoriam
ejus. Lectio 2* ex eodem, Tune abiit unus (fol. 140(2),
etc. ^^sque ad exierunt in montem Oliveti. Lectio 3* ex
eodem, Tune dixit illus Jesus, omnes vos etc. usque ad
Ecce, appropinquavit qui me tradet.
Ad laudcs. Antiphona, Circumdederunt me canes
i, eonsilium malignantium obsedit me. 74
Ad vesper as. Hymnus, I. Vexilla regis prodeunt
2. Confixa clavis. 3. Quo vulneratus. 4. Impleta sunt.
5. Te summa Deus. 75 HlC HYMNUS DICATUR AD
PRIMAS VESPERAS *. Antiphona, Foderunt manus meas
et pedes meos et dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea. 74
Lectio ex eodem ca. quo supra, Adhuc eo loquente
ecce etc. usque ad ut videret finem.
HEC ORATIO PONATUR AD PRIMAS VESPERAS. a
Oratio. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui humano generi,
ad imitandum humilitatis exemplum, salvatorem nostrum
carnem sumere et crucem subire fecisti: concede pro-
pitius; ut et patientie ipsius documenta, et resurrectionis
consortia HABERE b valeamus. Per Christum Dominum
nostrum.
73 The fourth ant. of lauds in S.
"* 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 ElucidatorilUn,
fol. 3oa, 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. a
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. 76
Hujus diei invitatorium, hymni, antiphone, usque ad
Cenam Domini cotidie dicentur.
Feria secunda.
Ad inatutinas, Lectio I. ex Math. 26, Princeps
autem sacerdotum etc. ^^,sque ad flevit amare. Lectio 2",
ex Math. 27, (fol. i4ob.) Mane autem facto usque
ad constituit mini Dominus. Lectio 3" ex eodem ca.
Jesus autem stetit usque ad tradidit eis ut crucifi-
geretur.
Ad vesper as. Lectio ex eodem ca. Tune milites etc.
usque ad Hie est Jesus rex Judeorum.
Feria tertia.
Lectio prima ex eodem cap. Tune crucifixi sunt usque
ad et apparuerunt multis. Lectio 2 a ex eodem ca. Centurio
autem usque ad signantes lapidem cum custodibus.
Lectio 3 a 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 Olivarum. Lectio 2 ab ex eodem
76 In S. this is the ant. on Nunc dimittis from the third sunday of
Lent to Passion Sunday (York from the 4th sunday to OennD omeni).
But both read at the end, " Salvator amarae morti ne tradas nos ".
a In margin.
b "^" 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 lit 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, a Appropinquabat autem usque
ad et paraverunt pascha.
(fol. 1 4 1 a.) 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, n, Erat autem
quidam languens Lazarus etc. usque ad et moriamur
cum eo. Lectio 2 a , 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 palmaritm.
Lectio prima ad matutmas ex Joan. ca. 12, Erant
autem quidam gentiles etc. tisque ad et abscondit se
ab eis. Lectio secunda ex eodem, Cum autem tanta signa
etc. usque ad Pater sic loquor. Lectio 3" ex Math. cap.
21, Et cum appropinquasset zisque ad ibique mansit.
Lectio ad vesperas, ex Joan, ca XIIP. Ante diem
festum pasche usque ad accipit eum qui me misit.
Feria 2 a .
Ad matutmas. Lectio prima ex Joan. ca. 13, Cum
hec (fol. i4ib.) dixisset usque ad donee ter me neges.
Lectio 2 a 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 a 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 iiii.
Lectio prima ex eodem, Pontifex ergo interrogavit
usque ad erat autem Barrabas latro. Lectio 2* ex Jo.
ca. 19, Tune ergo apprehendit Pilatus usque ad ilium
77 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 HYMXUS, NEC
VENITE, NEC INVITATORIUM. 78 a .
In Cena Domini.
Ad matutinas, psalmi tres, viz. 68, Salvum me fac
Deus; (fol. i42a) et 69, Deus in adjutorium; et 70, In
te Domine speravi. Omitfantur autem psalmi feriales
hoc die, et duobus sequentibus. Ad nuitutinas vero an-
tiphona, Zelus domus tue comedit me et opprobria
exprobrantium tibi ceciderunt (super) 6 me. 79 Lectio T
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. usqiie ad ritu perpetuo. Lectio 3" ex
Hebr. c 1 1 , Convenientibus ergo vobis etc. usque ad
cum hoc mundo damnemur.
Omittatur hoc TRIDUO d Miserere, quoniam ad laudes
postea dicetur.
Ad laudes. Antiphona, Traditor autem dedit illis
signum dicens, Quemcumque osculatus fuero ipse est,
tenete eum. 80 Kyrie Eleison.
78 The practice is the same in both S. and Q. ; but the wordincr 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 ".
34 Appendix II.
R. Domine miserere. Christus factus est obediens
usque (ad) mortem.
Saccrdos. Christe eleison.
R. Qui expansis in cruce manibus traxisti omnia ad
te secula.
Sacerdos. Christe eleison.
R. Qui prophetice prompsisti, Ero rnors tua, O mors.
Sacerdos. Kyrie eleison.
R. Christus Dominus factus est obediens usque ad
mortem, mortem autem crusis.
Deinde sequatur (fol. i42b), psahnus Miserere cum
oratione Respice quesumus Domine super hanc famil-
iam tuam, pro qua Dominus noster Jesus Christus non
dubitavit manibus tradi nocentium, et crucis subire tor-
mentum. Qui tecum etc. 81
Ad vesperas. Antiphona, Cenantibus autem eis accepit
Jesus panem, benedixit, ac fregit deditque discipulis
suis. 80 Lectio ex Joann. 12, Ante diem festum etc.
usque ad accipit eum qui me misit. Oratio. Respice
quesumus etc. ut supra.
Ad completorium. Antiphona, Christus' factus est pro
nobis obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem cru
cis. ** Oratio. Respice etc.
In die Parasccves.
Ad tnatutinas psahni tres : 2, Quare fremuerunt; 21,
Deus Deus meus respice ; 26, Dominus illuminatio. Anti
phona, Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea et super vestem
meam miserunt sortem. 79 Lectio i a EX GEN. 22, Tentavit
Deus Abraham usque ad obedisti voci mee. Lectio 2 a ,
ex Esai. Liii, Quis credidit auditui usque ad pro trans-
gressoribus rogavit. Lectio 3" ex epistola ad Heir. ca. g,
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.
- \ppcndix IT.
Habuit quidem et prius usque ad eterne hereditatis.
AD LAUDES. Antiphona, Proprio filio suo non pe-
percit Deus, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit ilium. 82
Preces cum oratione ut pridie.
(fol. 1 4 3 a.) A d vesper as. A ntiphona, Dederunt in escam
meam fel et in siti mea potaverunt me aceto. M Lectio
ex cpistola ad Hebr. cap. 9, Ubi enim testamentum
est etc. usque ad expectantibus se ad a salutem.
Completorium ut pridie.
In mgilia pasche.
Ad matutinas. Psalmi 15, Conserva me Domine ;
75, Notus in Judea Deus; 87, Domine Deus salutis. *'
Antiphona, Posuerunt me in lacu inferior! in tenebrosis
et in umbra mortis. 83 Lectio prtma ex Osee 13, De
manu mortis liberabo eos etc. iisque ad vinum libavi.
Lectio 2 a ex Joan. 19, Rogavit Pilatum Joseph ab
Arimathea etc. usque ad signantes lapidem cum custo-
dibus. Lectio 3 a ex I Petri 4, Christo igitur passo in
carne etc. usque ad commendent animas suas in bene-
factis.
Ad laudes. Antiphona, O mors, ero mors tua.
Morsus tuus ero inferne. 86 Reliqua omnia ut in die Cenc.
Ad vesperas. Deus in adjutorium etc. cum Aleluya. 87
Antiphona, vespere autem sabbathi que illuscescit
in prima sabbathi, venit Maria Magdalene et altera
82 The first ant. of lauds in S.
This does not appear in the Breviaries as an ant. or resp.
'' The third psalm of the first nocturn, and the second and third of
the third, in S.
5 The verse of the eighth resp. of matins of Holy Saturday in S
6 The first ant. of lauds of the day in S.
' 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. w HINC AD FES-
TUM USQUE TRINITATIS ANTIPHONE OMNES FINIENTUR
CUM ALLELUYA. Lectio ex Math. 28, Vespere autem
<fol. i43b) 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 gaudiis semper
vivamus. Per eundem etc. 89
Ad completorium. Salva nos Domine vigilantes,
custodi nos dormientes; ut vigilemus in Christo et
00
requiescamus in pace.
In die Pasche.
Invitatorium, Alleluya, Christus hodie surrexit. Venite
adoremus eum, Alleluya. 91 Hymnus, Aurora lucis
rutilat 92 etc. Antiphona, Angelus autem Domini des-
cendit de celo et accedens revolvit lapidem et sedit
super eum, Alleluya. 93 Lectio i a Exod. 12 et 13,
Egressus est omnis exercitus etc. usque ad r^c in cunctis
finibus tuis. Lectio 2 a ex Jona ca 2. Et preparavit
Dominus piscem usque ad Jonam in aridam a . Lectio
tcrtia ex Math. ca. 28, 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.
S9 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.
9 * 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. 3_^
orum veniunt ad monumentum orto jam sole, Alle-
luya 94 . Oratio. Deus, qui hodierna die (fol. i 44 a) per
Unigenitum tuum eternitatis nobis aditum devicta morte
reserasti; vota nostra, que preveniendo aspiras, etiam
adjuvando prosequere 95 . Per eundem etc.
Ad omnes horas post antiphonam per tolas octavos
dicatur, Hec dies quam fecit Dominus; exultemus et
letemur in ea 9G .
Ad vesper as. Hymnus, Ad cenam agni a providi etc. 97 .
Post Magnificat antiphona, Si consurrexistis cum Christo
que SuRSUM 6 simt querite, Aleluya . Lectio ex Joanne
ca. 20, Exiit ergo Petrus etc. usque ad et hec dixit
mihi.
'HYMNI HUJUS DIET 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 sabbathi usque
ad quod factum fuerat.
14 In S. this is, as here, the ant. on Benedict.
5 The prayer of luds also in S.
From S. (I, dcccxv-xvi); substantially the same in Q. (p. 58)
From Q.; in S . this hymn was not begun until the second vespers
of Low Sunday.
* This commencement of the epistle of the mass of Holy Saturday
and little chapter of prime and none on Easter day, does not appear
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 II.
Ad vesperas, Lectio ex Joanne ca. 2 1, Postea manifest-
avit se etc. usque ad. cum surrexisset a mortuis.
Feria iiii ta .
Ex Luc. cap. 2$, Et ecce duo ex illis usque ad in
fractione panis.
(fol. i44b.) Ad vesperas. Lectio ex Joanne ca. 21,
Cum ergo prandidissent usque ad qui scribendi sunt
libros a .
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, Alle-
luya 98 . Hec sola antiphona dicatur super psalmos tarn
ad vesperas quam ad matutinas 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". Per Christum etc.
AD MATUTINAS. INVITATORIUM, ALLELUYA, SURR-
EXIT DOMINUS VERE. VENITE ADOREMUS EUM,
ALLELUYA. Hoc INVITATORIUM DICATUR USQUE AD
ASCENSIONEM DOMINI. 10 Lectio iiii' a ex Luc. 24, Dum
autem hec usque ad benedicentes Deum. Amen.
Dominica 2".
Oratio. Deus, qui (in) 6 filii tui humilitate jacentem
mundum erexisti, fidelibus tuis perpetuam concede
letitiam; ut quos perpetue mortis eripuisti casibus,
gaudiis facias sempiternis perfrui. Per eundem etc.
99 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.
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 a , et ea que sunt apta * sec-
tari. Per Dominum etc.
(fol. i45a.) Dominica iiii' a .
Oratio. Deus, qui fidelium mentes unius efficis volun-
tatis : da populis c tuis id amare quod precipis, id desi-
derare quod promittis d ; ut inter mundanas varietates
ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gaudia. Per
Dominum etc.
Dominica v a .
Oratio. Deus, a quo bona cuncta procedunt: largire
supplicibus tuis ut cogitemus te inspirante que recta
sunt, et te gubernante eadem faciamus. Per Dominum etc.
Ascensio Domini.
Ad vespcras. Hymn us, Jesu nostra redemptio 101 etc.
Antiphonn, Ascendens Christus in altum captivam duxit
captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus, Aleluya. m Oratio.
Concede quesumus omnipotens Deus. ut qui hodierna
die Unigenitum tuum, redemptorem nostrum, ad celos
ascendisse credimus, ipsi quoque mente in celestibus
habitemus. 103 Per eundem etc.
11 In Q. the hymn for vespers; in S. for compline.
See the Alleluia of the mass of the Ascension and its octave
the second resp. of matins on Friday after the Ascension in S
In Q " the P ra y er at vespers ; in S. it is not begun until lauds.
a originally "nomine".
b originally "aperta".
c populus. MS.
d originally "permittis".
346 Appendix II.
Ad matutinas. Inmtatorium, Christum Dominum as-
cendentem in celum Venite adoremus, Aleluia. 104 Hym-
nus. Eterne Rex altissime 195 etc. Antiphona, Ascendit
Deus in jubilo et Dominus in voce tube, Aleluya. 106
Lectio prima ex Esai. 63, Quis est qui venit etc. usque
ad cunctis diebus seculi. Lectio 2 a ex Act. i, Primum
quidem sermonem etc. usque ad euntem in celum.
(fol. i45b). 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 a ad
vos Alleluya. 107
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. 108
Lectio b ex Ephes. 4, Obsecro itaque vos usque ad
sui in charitate.
Nihil deinceps mutetur usque ad penthecosten prefer
lectiones.
Penthecoste.
Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Jam Christus astra IOT etc.
104 From Q.; S. has not "dominum".
105 Agreeing with both S. and Q.
106 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).
1 <> 8 This is the ant. on Magnificat of the second vespers of the feast
also in S.
103 From S. (in Q. this hymn is at matins).
a Originally, "earn".
b " ad vesperas " ; crossed through.
Appendix II. 347
Antiphona, Veni sancte spiritus ; reple tuorum corda
fidelium, et tui amoris in eis ignem accende. 110 ORATIO
SCRIBATUR POST LECTIONEM. a Oratio. Deus, qui corda
fidelium sancti Spiritus illustratione docuisti: da nobis
in eodem spiritu recta sapere, et de ejus semper sancta
consolatione gaudere. 1H Per Dominum nostrum. Lectio
ex Levit. 23, Preceptum est sempiternum usque ad
generationibus vestris.
Ad matutinas. Invttatormm, Spiritus Domini reple-
vit orbem terrarum. Venite adoremus EUM, Alleluia. m
Hymmis, Impleta gaudent viscera 113 etc. Antiphona,
Emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem
terre. 114 Lectio I" ex Joel 2, Noli timere terra etc. usque
ad Dominus vocaverit. Lectio 2 a ex Act. 2, Et cum
complerentur dies etc. usque ad musto pleni sunt isti.
(fol. i46a). 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. 115
Hoc die ante initinm misse cantetur hymnus Veni
creator Spiritus etc. 116
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 holy comfort ").
112 In S. and Q.; but the addition "eum" is found in neither.
3 The hymn for Lauds in S.; not in Q.
111 The third ant. of the first nocturn in S.
' As in S.
110 From S, (I, mviii).
a In marein
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. " 5
Lectio ex Act. Stans autem Petrus usque ad salvus
erit
Perm 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 usque ad
apud eos aliquot diebus.
Fcria 4.
Lectio 4 ex Act. 19, Factum est autem etc. linguis
et prophetabant.
In Fes to Trinitatis.
Ad vespcras. Hymnus, Adesto sancta Trinitas 117 b etc.
Antiphona, Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo :
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritis Sanctus ; et hi tres unum
sunt 118 . Oratio. PONATUR POST LECTIONEM C . Omnipotens
sempiterne Deus, qui dedisti famulis tuis in confessione
(fol. i46b) vere fidei eterne Trinitatis gloriam agnoscere,
et in potentia majestatis adorare unitatem: quesu-
mus ut in ejusdem fidei firmitate ab omnibus sem
per muniamur adversis lt5 . Qui vivis etc. Lectio ex
Math. 3, Tune venit Jesus iisquc ad in quo mihi com-
placui.
117 As in S. and Q.
118 The little chapter of sext in S.
a batizatus. MS.
b "Trinitatis" MS.
c In margin.
Appendix II. 349
Complctnrium ut post Epiphaniam.
Ad matutinas. Invitatorium, Deum verum unum in
Trinitate et Trinitatem in unitate, Venite adoremus 119 .
Hymnns, O Pater Sancte, mitis atque pie etc. 12 . Anti
phona, Te invocamus, te laudamus, te adoramus, O
beata Trinitas 121 . Lectio prima ex Gen. 8, Apparuit
autem Abrahe Dominus etc. iisque adne transeas servum
tuum. Lectio 2 a 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 latides. 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 12 " 2 .
Oratio ut supra.
Ad vcspcras. Antiphona, Spes nostra, salus nostra,
honor noster, O beata Trinitas 123 . Lectio ex i Joan. 5,
Quis est (fol. i47a) qui vincit usque ad et hi tres unum
sunt.
Feria 2.
et deinceps usque ad Advcntum.
Invitatorium, Laudemus Jesum Christum, quia ipse
est redemptor omnium seculorum m . Jfymnns, Primo
119 From S.
120 The hymn of lauds in S.
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.
123 The second ant. of the second nocturn in S.
124 The invitatory of the Sunday from the first Sunday after Trinity
to September in S.
35 Appendix II.
dierum etc. Antiphona, Adaperiat Dominus cor nos
trum in lege sua, et in preceptis suis, et faciat pacem 126 .
Ad -laudes. Antiphona, Omnis creatura celi et terre
benedicat Dominum ; hymnum dicat et superexaltet eum
in secula 127 . Oratio. Adesto supplicationibus nostris
omnipotens Deus: et quibus fiduciam sperande venie
indulges, consuete misericordie tribue benignus effectum.
Per Christum Dominum etc. 128 .
Ad vesperas. Hymnus, Lucis Creator optime etc. 129 .
Antiphona, Vespertina oratio ascendat ad te Domine,
et descendat super nos misericordia tua 150 .
ANTIPHONE HUJUS DIEI USQUE AD DOMINI DICAN-
TUR ADYENTUM.
In Festo Corporis Christi.
Hymnus, Pange lingua etc. 2. Nobis datus 3. In
supreme". 4. Verbum caro. 5. Tantum ergo. 6. Geni-
tori 131 . Antiphona, Panis quern ego dabo caro mea est,
pro 6 mundi vita 13 ' 2 . 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.
1- S The ant. at Magnificat on Saturday next after 27 September, and
invitatory throughout October in S.
1-27 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 pofulnm 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.
131 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 quern 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 REDEMPTIONS TUE FRUCTUM IN NOBIS
JUGITER SENTIAMUS. QUI VIVIS ET REGNAS.
Ad matutinas. Inmtatorhim, Christum Salvatorem et
panem (fol. 147!)) vite celestis, Venite adoremus 133 .
Hymnus, Sacris solenniis etc. m Antiphona? Ego sum
panis vivus qui de celo descend! ; si quis manducaverit
ex hoc pane vivet in eternum. 134 Lectio I a Exod. 1 6,
Locutus est Dominus ad Moysen etc. usque ad sol lique-
fiebat. Lectio 2 a ex Paul, primo Corr. n, 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 lattdes. Antiphona, O sacrum convivium in quo
Christus sumitur ; recolitur memoria passionis b ejus : mens
impletur gratia et future glorie nobis pignus datur. 135
Ad vesperas. Antiphona, Qui manducat meam
carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet et ego
in eo. 13G Lectio, I ad Corr. i o, Calix benedictionis usque
ad et mense demoniorum.
Dominica prima post,
festum Trinifatis.
Here follow merely the collects from the first to the
J " This invitatory, worthy of the feast, appears to be original.
1S * The ant. on Benedictus at lauds in S., which has at the end
Allehiya.
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".
65*
\ppciidix II.
twenty-fifth Sunday after Trinity. They are those of
Sarum. The following points only require notice.
ist Sunday: the word "fortitude" omitted by the
scribe 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.
1 4th 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
quae " in Sarum and Quignon ; the MS. omits " nos
trorum"; the Prayer Book of 1549 reads "from the
bands of all those sins which".
APPENDIX III.
CRANMER S SCHEME FOR MORNING AND EVENING PRATER.
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, which it would be of no interest to reproduce
at length, are only noted. The preface shows in
parallel columns (1) those passages of QuignonV
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 Ecclesiasticum of Clich-
354 Appendix III.
toveus. ' This wil] 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, Ht/mnum 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 orius, 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 atque pie, and acknow
ledged as such by the author. a
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
ante terminum, Clichtoveus and Craumer'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 3 .
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
1 Cranmer's copy of this book (ed. 1516), now at the
British Museum, bears both his signature and Lumley's.
2 " 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.
3 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.
1
MS. REG. 7 B. IV.
PREFACE TO THE BOOK
OF COMMON PRAYER
(1549).
(fol. 7 a) Nihil
There was never
unquam ab ho-
any thing by the
minibus tanta
art of man so
cautione excogit-
well devised, or
atum, aut tanta
so surely estab
firmitate stabilit-
lished which (in
um quod vetus-
continuance of
tate et temporum
time) hath not
lapsu non cor-
been corrupted :
ranpcrctur.
as (among other
Hoc et in pre-
things) it may
cibus illis quas
plainly appear by
. . horarias preces
horarias sive ca
the common pray
quas canonicas
nonicas appella
ers of the Church
etiam appellamus
mus usu venisse
commonly called
... (p. XIX).
conspicimus.
divine service,
Et profecto si
Quarum ratio-
the first orig
quis modumpre-
nem a priscis
inal and ground
candi olim a ma-
ecclesie Patribus
whereof, if a man
joribus traditum
institutam si quis
would search out
diligenter consy-
diligenter exqui-
by the ancient
deret, horum om
rat et examinet,
fathers, he shall
nium ab ipsis
earn sane nee
find that the same
habitam esse ra-
inepte nee incom
was not ordained
tionem manifesto
mode ordinatam
but of a good
deprehendet. (p.
fuisse comperiet.
purpose and for
XX).
a great advance
ment of godli
ness.
Illi siquidem
For they so or
tali modo rem
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
that all the whole
singulis annis om-
Bible (or the
nia sacra biblia
greater part
perlegerentur, et
thereof) should be
una cum anni
read over once
circulo canonice
in the year,
quoque scripture
circulus revolve-
retur.
Volentes nimi-
intending th ere
rum uti clerici et
by that the cler
ecclesiarum antis-
gy, and specially
tites, assidua sa-
such as were
crarum literarum
ministers of the
lectione medita-
congregation,
tioneque, et ipsi
should (by often
ad arduam virtu-
reading and me
tis viam capes-
ditation of God's
cendam incita-
word) be stirred
rentur, et alios
up to godliness
exhortandi in
themselves, and
doctrina sana
be more able also
convincendique
to exhort other
eos qui contradic-
by wholesome
unt facultatem
doctrine, and to
sibi compararent ;
confute them that
et plebes auditis
were adversaries
quotidie in cetu
of the truth. And
sacro sacris divini
further that the
verbi lectionibus
people (by daily
in dies magis ac
hearing of holy
magis in rerum
scripture read
divinarumcognit-
in the church)
358
Appendix III.
QUIGNON'S PREFACE,
1ST TEXT.
Cambridge reprint.
MS. REG. 7 B. IV.
PREFACETO THE BOOK
OF COMMON PRAYER
( i 549)-
ione proficerent
should contin
ac in Deum pie-
ually profit more,
tate accenderen-
and more in
tur.
the knowledge
of God, and be
the more inflam
ed with the love of
his true religion.
Sed factum est
Sed (proh dolor)
But these many
nescio quo pacto
illam maiorum
years past the
hominum negli-
tarn sanctam tarn
godly and decent
gentia ut paula-
pulcram tarn bene
order of the an
tim a sanctissimis
coherentem ordi-
cient fathers hath
illis veterum pa-
nationem, super-
been so altered,
trum institutis
veniens etas
broken and ne
discederetur. (p.
quam fcede con-
glected by plant
XX).
spurcaverat con-
ing in uncertain
vulseratque et
stories, legends,
tanquam mem-
responds, verses,
bratim dilacera-
vain repetitions,
verat.
commemorations
Nam primum
Nam librorum
and synodals \
libri sacrae scrip-
seriem continuam
turae, qui statis
et integram nus-
anni temporibus
quam observa-
erant perlegendi,
mus. Sed vel
fragmenta hinc
inde decerpimus
et consarcinamus,
nihil quid preces-
serat quidve se-
1 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
0549)-
vixdum incoepti
quatur attenden-
that commonly
a precantibus
tes, vel initia
when any book
praeterm ittuntur
tantum librorum
of the Bible was
<p. XX).
delibantes vix
begun, before
tribus decursis
three or four
capitulis cetera
chapters were
pretermittimus.
read out, all the
rest were unread.
1 Ut exemplo
Sic librum
And in this
esse possunt liber
Esaie in adventu,
sort the book of
Genesis qui inci-
sic librum Gene
Esaie was begun
pitur in Septua-
sis in Septuage-
in Advent, and
gesima, et liber
sima inchoamus,
the book of Ge
Isaie qui in ad-
sed inchoamus
nesis in Septua-
ventu, quorum
tantum, ad um-
gesima, but they
vix singula capi-
belicum (fol. 7. b)
were only begun
tula per legimus,
non perducimus.
and never read
ac eodem modo
through.
caetera veteris
testamenti volu-
Haud secus
After a like
mina degustamus
Evangelia et novi
sort were other
magis quam legi
testamenti scrip-
books of holy
mus. Nee secus
turas omnes con-
scripture used.
accidit in Evan-
taminamus, laxa-
gelia et reliquam
tis 2 librorum om
scripturam novi
nium compagi-
testamenti,
bus omnia mis-
centes, transpo-
nentes, confund-
entes.
1 the passage Ut exemplo . . . comparanda " is not in the preface
of the second text.
* luxatis. MS.
360
Appendix III.
QUIGNON'S PREFACE,
1ST TEXT.
Cambridge reprint.
1 quorum in loco
successerunt alia
nee utilitate cum
his nee gravitate
comparanda . .
..(p. XX).
. . . Turn historiae
Sanctorum tam
inculte et tam
negligent! judicio
scriptae leguntur
ut nee auctorita-
tem habere vide-
antur nee gra-
vitatem. (p. XX).
MS. REG. 7 B. IV.
Quid quod fri-
vola quedam et
anilibus fabulis
non absimilia
introducta sint et
digna habita pre
quibus divinorum
oraculorum lectio
loco moveretur.
Nam historic
sanctorum fere
tam crasso juditio
collecte sunt et
stilo tam incon
dite descriptae ut
lectori cordato
fastidium facile
pariant
PREFACE TO THE Booic
OF COMMON PRAYER
(1549)-
And moreover
whereas S. Paul
would have such
language spoken
to the people in
the church as
they might un-
1 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.
QUIGNON'S PREFACE,
1ST TEXT.
Cambridge reprint.
MS. REG. 7 B. IV.
PREFACE TO THE BOOK
OF COMMON PRAYER
(1549).
J 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
nocturnas 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 nocturn,
now of late time
a few of them
have been daily
1 This passage is not in the preface to the second text.
362
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
animi pensicula-
said (and oft re
intentione men
cione quotidie re-
peated) and the
tis inculcantur.
plicantur. Ne quid
rest utterly omit
(p. XX).
interim dicam de
ted. Moreover
1 Accedit tarn
regularum multi-
the number
perplexus ordo
tudine et difficul-
and hardness of
tamque difficilis
tate, demultifariis
the rules, called
precandi ratio,
officiorum trans-
the pie, and the
mutacionibus ac-
manifold chang-
ceteris rerum
ings of the service
labyrinthis qui-
were the cause
bus librorum
that to turn the-
evolvendorum
book only was
ratio tarn impe-
so hard and in
dita et perplexa
tricate a matter,
ut interdum paulo
facta est, ut non
that there was
minor opera in
raro plus negocii
more business to
inquirendo pona-
sit investigare
find out what
tur quam cum
quod est legen-
should be read
inveneris in le-
dum quam ubi
than to read it
gendo (p. XX).
inventum est le-
when it was found
gere; eoque res
out.
devenerat ut ars
quedam inde fue-
rit constituta, ac
peritum artificem
esse oporteretqui
Ordinalem (sic
enim vocant me-
1 Also p. XXV. " Postremo in illo summa erat confusio propter regu
larum multitudinem et perplexitatem, et festorum translationem et varias
commemorationum &c. &c. inculcationes."
Appendix III.
QUIGXON'S PREFACE,
IST TEXT.
Cambridge reprint.
MS. REG. 7 B. IV.
PREFACE TO THE BOOK
OF COMMON PRAYER
( I 549).
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 2 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)-
1 O missis anti-
texatur. Hanc
For this cause be
phonis, capitulis
ob causam Anti-
cut off Anthems,
et responsoriis ac
phonas, Respon-
Respondes, Invi-
multis hymnis
soria, Inventoria, 3
tatories, and such
ceterisque id ge
Capitula ac cetera
like things as
nus rebus Scrip-
id genus sacre
did break the
turae sacrae lec-
lectionis cursum
continual course
tionem impedien-
interrumpentia
of the reading
tibus (p. XXI).
pleraque resecui-
of Scripture.
mus. (fol. 8a.)
Relicti sunt etiam
Hymnos tantum
exhymnis qui plu-
pauculos qui reli-
rimum omnium
quis plus vetus-
habere visi sunt
tatis etvenustatis
auctoritatis ac
in se continere
gravitatis (p.
videbantur relin-
XXI).
quentes, et de-
lectorum quo-
rundam atque
extra omnem
2 et sanctorum
aleam positorum,
historiis quas ex
sanctorum indu-
probatis et gra-
bitatas historias,
vibus auctoribus
quas ex idoneis
grsecis et latinis
scriptoribus grae-
decerpsimus. (p.
cis latinisque
XXI).
desumi ac deflo-
1 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.
a 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,
IST TEXT.
Cambridge reprint.
MS. REG. 7 B. IV.
pREFACETO 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
toric 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,
;66
Appendix III.
QUIGNON'S PREFACE,
Tsr TEXT.
Cambridge reprint.
MS. REG. 7 B. IV.
PREFACETOTHEBOOK
OF COMMON PRAYER
(1549).
cuivis facile sit
atque intellectu
which, as they
intelligere. (p.
faciles reliqui-
be few in num
XXI).
mus.
ber, so they be
plain and easy
to beunderstand-
ed.
Itaque si quis
Habetis igitur
So that here
diligenter anim-
hie precandi
you have an
advertat et vetus
formam non a
order for prayer
patrum consilium
nobis noviter
(as touching the
institutumque
inventam, sed
reading of holy
consyderet, plane
magis veterem
scripture) much
intelliget hoc
illam a Patribus
agreeable to the
breviarium non
traditam (si con
mind and pur
tarn esse novum
silium illorum
pose of the
inventum,
recte reputetis)
old fathers,
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
quam breviarii
multo utiliorem
and a great deal
veteris in commo-
commodiorem-
more profitable
diorem et cultio-
que ilia quam
and commodious
rem formam res-
hactenus in ma-
than that which
titutionem,
nibus habetis.Uti-
of late was used.
sublatis quibus-
liorem quidem
It is more pro
dam rebus quae
quod, repurgatis
fitable because
medio tempore
ac rejectis pluri-
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 TRAYER
(1549).
praeter judicium
mis que turn inu-
many things,
et gravitatem
tilia turn etiam
whereof some be
obrepserant (p.
incerta atque in-
untrue, some un
XXIV.) In hoc
epta adjecta fue-
certain, some vain
autem (breviario)
rant, nil fere
and superstitious,
legitur singulis
nisi meras trg
and is ordained
annis magna et
0eoxvf vdTKt; yga-
nothing to be read
praecipua pars
<pu$ ' comprehen-
but the very pure
veteris testament!
dat,
word of God, the
et totum novum
Holy Scriptures,
&c. (p. XXIV).
or that which
is evidently
grounded on the
same, and that in
such language
and order as is
casque ordine
most easy and
quam hactenus
plain for the un
magis perspicuo
derstanding both
ac directo qui
of readers and
maxime legentis
hearers.
et intellectum ad-
juvat et memo-
riam confirmat.
POTTO quan-
Commodiorem
It is also more
quam non fuit
vero vel propter
commodious,
nobispropositum,
legendi succinc-
both for the short
brevitati, sed
tam brevitatem
ness thereof, and
commoditati pre-
vel propter ordi-
for the plainness
cantium consu-
nis simplicem cla-
of the order , and
lere, utrunque ta-
ritatem vel deni-
for that the rules
men, ut speramus,
que propter regu-
be few and easy.
368
Appendix III.
QUIGNON'S PREFACE,
IST TEXT.
Cambridge reprint.
MS. REG. 7. B. IV.
PREFACE TO THE BOOK.
OE 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
sacras 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
1 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 erit sump-
tus minor in li-
bris comparandis.
Cumque hacte-
nus in serviciis
dicendis decan-
tandisque tanta
fuerit diversitas
ut pene plus
quam babylonica
linguarum 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.
37
Appendix III.
QUIGNON'S PREFACE,
1ST TKXT.
Cambridge reprint.
MS. REG. 7 B. IV.
PREFACE TO THE BOOK
OF COMMON PRAYER
(1549).
hoc regnum facile
Si cui autem
coalescent. Porro
And if any would
laboriosum in hoc
si quis hanc ,
judge this way
breviario videbi-
nostram viam in
more painful, be
tur pleraque om-
eo laboriosam ju-
cause that all this
nia ex libro legi,
dicaverit quod hie
must be read
cum multa in alio
pleraque omnia
upon the book,
quae propterfre-
ex libro sunt le-
whereas before
quentem reperti-
genda quum an-
by reason of so
tionem ediscun-
tea per frequen-
oft repetition they
tur memoriter
tem repeticionem
could say many
pronuncientur ,
multa memoriter
things by heart:
compenset cum
proferre didicis-
if those men will
hoc labore cogni-
sent, is si com-
weigh their la
tionem scripturae
pensetcumlabore
bour with the
sacrae, quae sic
isto turn utilita-
profit in know
in dies augescit,
tem cognitionis
ledge, which daily
et intentionem
quam legendo
they shall obtain
animi, quam Deus
quotidie majorem
by reading upon
ante omnia in
acquiret, turn
the book,
precantibus re-
contemplacionis
quirit (hanc enim
fructum, qui ma
majorem legenti-
jor legentibus
bus quam memo
quam memoriter
riter proferenti-
verba recitanti-
bus adesse neces-
bus provenire
se est) et hujus-
solet, laborem
modi laborem
hujusmodi haud
they will not re
non modo fruc-
dubie tolerare ac
fuse the pain in
tuosum, sed etiam
perferre equo
consideration of
salutarem judica-
animo non gra-
the great profit
bit. (p. XXV).
vabitur. Valete et
that shall ensue
fruimini.
thereof.
Appendix III. 371
(fol. ga.) CANON.
Sacram Scripturam ' z>z Divinis Officiis hoc
or dine legendam dispostiimus.
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 psalmorum.
Psalterium quolibet mense semel absolvetur. Sed
quoniam mensium magna est inequalitas, eos sic ad
equalitatem quandam in primis redigendos censuimus.
Quilibet mensis quantum ad hanc rationem attinet,
justum numerum triginta dierum obtinebit.
Quia igitur Januarius et Martius tricenarium numerum
uno die superant, intermedius 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 Maius, 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
1 "Scrituram" in MS.
3j2 Appendix III.
semper istorum qumque mensmm 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
ternos 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 1 1 8 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. l 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; 3
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.
l The following has been erased : " His adjicientur septem sacra can-
tica jam diu inter psalmos decantari consueta."
a 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 Audits 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 ceterarum
scripturarum.
Nunc ceteras Scripturas quomodo in lectiones dis-
criminavimus audietis. Eruntque quotidie 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 instruction
De Prituis Lectionibus.
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 Testament! 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 I II.
Atque hoc pacto a nobis universa biblia in diurna
tanquam pensa sunt descripta ut et eorum terminus
semper una cum anni termino claudatur; et revertente
novi anni initio librorum quoque initium semper sit
repetendum.
Illud 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
adjiitoriiun, Gloria patri, et Alleluia, vel a Septuage-
sima ad Pascha Laiis 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 ; quern finitum statim sequantur trcs
psalmi quorum quilibet suo Gloria patri terminetur.
Post hec rursus Oracio dominica recitetur in vulgari
lingua apertius proferendo. Turn legantur tres lectiones^
His rite peractis canatur Te Deum ; et eo finite 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. Nam hunc
locum peculiariter sanctorum historiis et homeliis atque
exhortacionibus tempori convenientibus destinavimus.
Porro unaqueque lectio sive ad matutinas sive adves-
pertinas horas cum Jube Domine et benedictione a
Sacerdote succinenda inchoetur, ac sua solita clausula
Appendix III. 375
obsignabitur, nempe Tu antem Domine etc. Et respon-
deat totus chorus Et ignosce pcccatis nostris propter
magnam misericordiam tuani. Et legendas sive lectiones
non intra cancellos ut hodie sed foris e suggestu lit apud
veteres fieri consuevit censemus recitandas, idque ser-
mone vernaculo, ut populus audiens atque etiam intel-
ligens edificetur, et juxta Pauli institutionem respondere
possit. Amen.
His omnibus finitis cantabitur Bcnedictus ; deinde
Dominus vobiscum cum Oratione et Bcjicdicamus Domino.
Et respondeatur semper Laudcmus et superexaltemus
nojncn cjus in sccula. Amen. (Fol. \\b\
Et sic peractis Matutinis, singulis dominicis statim
dicetur symbolum Quicumque milt. Quo terminato cum
suo Gloria patri continue dicet sacerdos has precationes.
Ostende nobis Domine misericordiam tuam.
Respondeatur : Et salutarc tuum da nobis.
V. Dignare Domine die isto.
R. Sine peccato nos custodire.
V. Miserere nostri Domine.
R. J\fiserere nostri.
V. Fiat misericordia tua Domine super nos.
R. Quemadmodum spcraviunis in tc.
V. Domine Deus virtutum convcrte nos.
R. Et ostcnde facicm tuam et salvi crimus.
V. Domine exaudi orationem nostram. 1
R. Et clamor noster 1 ad te venial.
V. Dominus vobiscum.
R. Et cum spiritii, tuo.
Oremus. Domine sancte Pater &c. '
V. Dominus vobisciun.
R. Et cum.
Benedicamus Domino.
1 This change is significant.
2 As in Sarum at prime.
376 Appendix III.
R. Laudemus et superexaltemus nomen ejus in
sccula. Amen.
Series Officii Vespertini.
Oratio dominica.
Deus in adjutorium.
Gloria patri vel Laus * tili.
Tune Hymnus.
Tres psalmi.
Pater noster.
Due lectiones cum suis Benedictionibus.
Magnificat.
Postremo Oratio eo prorsus modo quo ad officium
matutinum.
Porro Completorium hie in totum ommittendum cen-
suimus, et similiter horas illas consuetas Primam r
Tertiam, Sex tarn, et Nonam. Tune quod in his omnibus
fiat parum utilis et ociosa rerum semper earundem
repetitio, turn et iam quod instar ludibrii videatur,
eandem horarum partitionem (fol. 12 a) retinere quam
olim 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 suffecimus, que semper alie atque alie occurrentes-
ut utilitatis plus, ita et tedii minus tarn lectoribus
quam auditoribus afferent.
Nolumus autem quenquam ad aliud pro Officiis
matutinis aut vespertinis dicendum quam hie est ex-
pressum obligari.
Canon de abbreviandis "* ecclesiasticis precacionibus
propter predicationetn
Verbi.
Nunc vero quoniam hunc scopum in hac ecclesiasti-
1 Lus MS.
2 abbreviendis in MS.
Appendix III. 377
carum precacionum editione potissimum spectamus ut
omnia (juxta Pauli consilium) quecumque in ecclesia
geruntur 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,
earn ob rem, ne quid publicarum precationum nostrarum
prolixitas hie a nobis instituta operam illam bonorum
pastorum in suo grege docendo aut impedire aut ulla
ex parte remorari valeat, hoc canone cautum et con-
firmatum esse volumus uti quotiescumque sermo aliquis
exhortationis dicendus est ad plebem aut predicatio
habenda, tune liceat parocho Te Deum, et quartam
lectionem cum symbolo Quicumque vult in publicis
illis coram populo precationibus pretermittere, nimirum
ut populus nimis diuturna 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.
Pol. i2b. Benedictiones dicende ante
lectiones matutinas.
Prima. A dsis o pater omnipotens audique precantes.
Secunda. Nate Deo Deus ipse precantiim 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
almus.
Secunda. Nos et trina Dei benedicat et una potestas.
He benedictiones toti deservient anno.
1 So MS. (?) incessanter.
378 Appendix III.
(fol. I3a.) JTymni diccndi ad Iloras Matnlinas
et Vespcrtinas per totum
fere annum.
Ad matutinas in
die Dominico, Primo dicrum omnium. *
Ad vesperas, Chris te qui lux es et dies, 2
(fol. i3b.) Ad matutinas in
die Lune, Immense celi conditor?
Ad vesperas, Te lucis ante terminum. *
Ad matutinas in
die Martis, Tclluris in gens conditor. 5
Ad vesperas, Jesu Salvator seculi. 6
(fol. I4a.) Ad matutinas in
die Marcurie, * Celi Deus sanctissime. 7
Ad vesperas, Deus Creator omnium. 8
1 The hymn for matins on Sunday in Sarum. "Diebus dominicis
ad nocturnum matutinum" (Clichtoveus fol. 6a.)
8 In Sarum the hymn for compline from the first Sunday of Lent to
Passion Sunday : "In quadragesima ad completorium" (Clichtoveus
fol. 2Sb.)
8 In Sarum the hymn for vespers on monday : "P'eria secunda ad
vesperas" (Clichtoveus fol. 8b.)
In Sarum the compline hymn during Advent and from Oct. Epiph.
to Lent. "Ad completorium" (Clichtoveus fol. 5b.)
6 In S. the hymn at vespers on tuesday: "Feria tertia ad vesperas"
(Client, fol. gb.)
6 In S. the compline hymn from the octave of Easter to Ascension.
The strophe "Quaesumus auc/or" is of course omitted here (so too in
Clicht. fol. 37b.)
7 In S. the hymn at vespers on Wednesday. So too Clicht. fol. lob.
8 In S. a compline hymn (Brev. i, 220). "Sabbato ad vesperas"
(Clicht. fol. I4a.) 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^rtivimus"
Appendix HI. 379
Ad matutinas in die
Jovis, Magne Deus potentie. 1
(fol. i4b.) Ad vesperas, Lucis Creator op time.' 2
Ad matutinas in
dieVeneris, Plasmator hominis Deus. 3
Ad vesperas, O Pater summa Deltalis
ortus. " 4
Ad matutinas in
die Sabbati, Jam htcis orto sidere. 5
(fol. 1 5 a.) Ad vesperas, O lux beata Trinitas.
A primis vesperis natalis Domini usque ad secundas
vesperas Epiphanie dicentur hii duo hymni, alter ad
vesperas, alter ad matutinas:
Ad vesperas, Christe redemptor om
nium. 7
(fol. i5b.) 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:
1 In S. and Client, 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 " Ae metis " before " Qui mane."
3 The hymn at vespers on friday in S. and Clicht.
* A composition of Clichtoveus (fol. I4b.)
5 Hymn for prime in S. and Clicht. (fol. 3b.)
6 The hymn at vespers on Saturday from the first Sunday after
Trinity to Advent in S. "Sabbato ad vesperas" (Clicht. fol. I3b.)
7 The hymn of first vespers of Christmas in S. "In nativitate
Domini" (Clicht. fol. Ija. who reads "gentium" for "omnium").
8 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. I7b.). Clichtoveus like the MS. has no
doxology.
a dietatis. MS.
380 Appendix III.
Ad vesperas, Citltor dei memento. *
(fol. 1 6a). Ad matutinas, Vexilla rcgis prodeunt. *
A primis vesperis dominice Palmarum usque ad
Pascha dicentur hii duo hymni ad vesperas et ad
matutinas :
Ad vesperas, Magno sahitis gaudio. 3
Ad matutinas, Hymnum dicamus Domino.*
(fol. i6b). A matutinis in diePasche usque ad Ascent-
ionem dicentur (hii) hymni ad matutinas et vesperas :
Ad matutinas, Aurora lucis rut Hat.*
(fol. 1 7 a). Ad vesperas, Chorus nave Hicrusalcw. f]
A primis vesperis Ascentionis usque ad Pentecosten
dicentur hymni sequentes ad vesperas et ad matutinas :
Ad vesperas, Fcstum mine celebre mag-
naque gandia. 7
Ad matutinas, Eterne rex altissime.*
1 The compline hymn, Passion Sunday, &c. in Sarum. "In Quadra
gesima alius hymnus" (Clichtoveus fol. 2ga. 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. 3oa.)
3 This hymn is not in the english breviaries or Quignon. " Dominica
in ramis palmarum" (Clichtoveus fol. 32a.)
k Not in the english breviaries or Quignon. "De passione Domini"
(Clichtoveus fol. 33b.)
5 In Clichtoveus fol. 3 5b "in festis Poschalibus ". 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.
6 Hymn at vespers of Eastertide from the octave in Sarum. " In tern-
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.)
8 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. 3Sb.) reading
also in the second line of the doxology, "Qui ascendisti ad ethera", as
Clichtoveus, instead of "Qui scandis super sidera" as in Sarum.
Appendix III. 381
(fol. i7b). A primis vesperis Penticostes usque ad
primas vesperas dominice Trinitatis inclusive dicentur
hii hymni ad vesperas et ad matutinas :
Ad vesperas, Veni Creator Spiritus. '
Ad matutinas, Jam Christus astra ascend
er at. z
(fol. i8b). Orationes per totum annum dicende.
Hec oratio dicetur per totum adventum, Excita quesii-
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, Deus qui nos in tantis &c: as at fourth
Sunday after Epiphany in App. II.
A Septuagesima usque ad Quadragesimam Deus qm
conspicis quia ex nulla etc. (See Sexagesima collect
in S. ; but for " doc ton's 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, Omnipotent sempiternc
Deus qui humano gencri &c, as at lauds of Pas
sion Sunday in App. II; but "habere valeamus
consortia.."
(fol. iga). In die Pasche et (per) totam ebdomadam
1 In Sarum the hymn at tierce on Whitsunday ; "in die Pentecostes"
(Clichtoveus f. 4oa.)
z In Sarum this hymn is divided between vespers (or matins) and
lauds of Whitsunday.
The MS. copies the entire hymn as in Clichtoveus (fol. 413, taking
his readings " compleat " and " omnibus "for " complevit " and " omnium "
as in Sarum.
382 Appendix III.
Dcus qui hodierna die, as at lauds of Easter Day
in App. II.
A prima Dominica post Pascha ad Ascentionem, Dcus
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. 2 2 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 (if. i 5I _6); the second the inter
mediate scheme (if. 1579); a third at the beginning
of the MS. (if. 46); 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 lectio 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 2 oth," whilst in (3) and the printed book it
is transferred to the beginning of January. St. John's
g-ospel 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
year; 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,
arid 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)
Genesis . . .
Chapters.
19
19
i9
1135
150
Exodus . . .
3750
124
1150
124
140
1150
124
3235
3234
3235
Leviticus . .
Numbers . .
Josue . . .
40
1 8, 19, 20.
1025
2736
I 12
40
1 8, 19, 20.
1036
I 12
127
1-36
124
40
1 8, 19, 20.
1036
124
2O
2O 24
22 24
.386
Appendix IV.
BOOKS.
(i)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Chapters.
Hester . . .
i 16
i 16
i 16
19
Job . . . .
142
14
142
142
Matthew . .
425
425
128
128
John. . . .
I IO
I 10
I 21
I 21
Luke. . . .
1,321
I 21
124
124
Acts. . . .
35
35
828
828
128
128
Ecclesiasticus.
i-5i
'-'5
i-5i
I5I
Ezechiel . .
2, 3, 8, 9.
2, 3, 6, 7.
12 22
1-48
25 26
13, 14, 1 8.
28-37
3334
Apocalypse .
I 12
I 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 f have a place assigned in the Festivale, but no
lesson has been written.
388 Appendix IV.
FIRST CALENDAR. SECOND CALENDAR.
Januar.
i.
Circumcisio do-
* Circumcisio.
mini.
2.
*Abel.
3-
Noe.
4-
Titus.
*Titus.
6.
Epiphania domi-
*Epiphania.
ni.
7-
Abraham.
8.
LUCIANUS PRESBITER. *
9-
Sara.
13-
Hilarius.
*Hilarius. ^
14.
Isaac. FELIX NoL. 3
15-
Jacob.
I7 .
ANTONIUS.
19.
Joseph.
20.
FABIANUS ET SEBAS.
21.
(AGNES).
22.
Timotheus.
*Timotheus. ViNCEN.
24.
Babilas.
25-
Convers. Pauli.
*Conversio Pauli. 4
26.
*Ananias.
27.
Chrysostomus.
*Chrisostomus.
1 At fol. 26a after the special lesson for Epiphany is this note in
Cranmer's hand, " De Luciano lege eccle. hist. li. 8. ca. 14 etbreviarium
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.
4 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.
1. Ignatius.
2. Purificatio beate
Marie.
3. Philias et Philo-
romus.
4-
7-
9-
10.
12.
15-
1 6.
21. Benjamin.
24. d. Mathias.
Martius.
6-
4-
7-
8.
9-
12.
14.
1 8.
19.
20.
2 4 .
25-
40 martyres.
Gregorius.
Annunciatio beate
Mar.
*Ignatius.
^Purificatio Mar.
*PHILEAS ET PHILC-ROMUS.'
ADAUCTUS CUM SOTIIS.
APOLLOXIA.
Vidua paupercula.
EULALIA.
Zacharias et Elisabeth.
JULITA.
Symion.
*Benjamin.
^Mathias.
MARINUS ET ASTERIUS.
PERPETUA ET FELICITAS.
Zacheus.
*40 MARTYRES. 2
Fidelis latro. GREG.
Phinees.
fEdwardus rex et mart,
fjoseph.
CUTHBERTUS.
Hieremias.
Annunciacio m.
"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.
fjoseph ab Arama.
i
2.
4. d. Ambrosius.
*Ambrosius.
7-
EPIPHANIUS.
8.
Josue.
1 1.
LEO I.
13-
JUSTINUS.
1 4. Tyburtius Valeria-
TIBURTIUS ET VALER.
nus etc.
1 6.
CASSIANUS.
19.
Lidia.
22.
Delbora. 3
23-
f Georgius.
24. d. Marcus.
Gedeon.
25-
*Marcus.
28.
Sanson. VlTALIS.
Maius.
i. Philip, et Jacob.
*Philippi et Jacoli.
2. Athanasius.
fAthanasius.
3-
BOOZ. INVENTIO CRUCIS.
4-
*Anna uxor helca.
5-
Samuel.
8.
fCenturio.
9. Gregorius Nazian-
fGregorius Nazianz,
zenus.
10.
GORDIANUS ET EPIMA.
13-
David rex. 3
1 6.
f Chananea. 4
26.
fNathan. AUGUST.
1 Cranmer has entered at 2 April " Visitatio Marie"; this entry
was afterwards crossed through. See 2 July, below. z So MS.
3 Cranmer enters after David " Cornelius" ; this was afterwards cross
ed through 4 After the Chananea the Festivale gives ff. 62 66 a long
account of Gordius mart. " ex Basilio".
Appendix IV.
FIRST CALENDAR.
SECOND CALENDAR.
Junius.
I.
2.
4-
1 1 . Barnabas.
13-
1 4. Basilius.
1 6.
1 8.
19.
21.
22.
24. Nat. Joan, baptis-
ste.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Ireneus.
Petrus et Paulus.
Julius.
2. Petrus Dorotheus
etc.
9. Cyrillus.
10.
'3-
P VMPHILUS MARTYR CUM
SOTIIS. 1
MARCELLINUS ET PE
TRUS.
Amorrousa.
*Barnabas.
fHelyas.
*Basilius.
fAnna prophetissa.
fHeliseus.
GERVASIUS ET PROTHAS.
fBaruc.
ALBANUS.
*Nati f vitas Johannis.
fEzechias. JOHANNES ET
PAULUS.
fjosias.
fHyreneus.
* Petrus et Pauhts.
Ezechiel. *COMMEO PAULI.
VISITATIO MARIE. *
fCyrillus.
7 FRATRES MARTYRES.
fNathanaeL
1 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 en'ry by the scribe was " Petrus Dorotheus etc." This
has been erased and "Visiiatio Marie" originally entered by Cranmer
at 2 April is transferred hither.
39 2 Appendix IV.
FIRST CALENDAR. SECOND CALENDAR.
Julius.
I 6.
2O.
22. Maria Magdalena.
25-
26. d. Anna.
27-
29.
Augustus.
2.
6.
8.
10. d. Laurencius.
13-
15. Assump.b. Marie.
21.
24. d. Bartholomeus.
.27.
28. d. Augustinus.
30.
September,
i.
3-
8. Nativitas b. Marie.
10.
ii.
1 4. Cyprianus.
Samaritana.
* Maria Mag da.
*Jacobi Apostoli.
fAnna.
7 FRATRES DORMIENTES.
fMartha.
fEsdras.
TRANSFIGURATIO.
fGamaliel. CYRIACUS.
fLaurentius.
[Cornelius. HIPPOLITUS.
\Assumtio J/
fAppollo et Aquila.
* Bartholomeus.
fTobias.
*Augustinus D.
FELIX ET ADAUCTUS. *
MAMAS.
fjudith.
^^atirifas J/
fDaniel.
fHester. PROTHUS ET HYA-
CYNTHUS.
*Cyprianus ET CORNELIUS.
1 "Margareta" is entered by Cranmer at 20 July, and afterwards
crossed through.
2 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.
21. d. Matheus.
22.
tJob.
Mathei postoli.
MAURITIUS CUM so.
23-
24. Tecla.
27.
29. d. Michael.
30.
October
TECLA.
COSMAS ET DAMIA.
\Michael cum omnibus A.
fSusanna. HIERO.
4-
6. Polycarpus.
7-
9. DionisiusRusticus
fOsee.
i
MARCUS ET MARCELL.
DlONISIUS CUM SO.
etc.
1 1.
1 8. d. Lucas.
21.
28. d. Simon et Judas.
30.
*Luce Evangelist. *
fAmos.
*Symonis et Judae.
fAbdias.
fjonas.
November.
i. Omnes Sancti.
2.
* Omnes s. defuncti. 3
MEMORIA ANIMARUM.
4-
fMicheas. VITALIS ET AGRI-
CO.
8.
9-
4 CORONATORUM.
THEODORUS.
1 Policarpus is entered by the scribe at 6 October; the entry was
afterwards erased. Polycarp has a lesson in the Festival*.
* Nicasius is entered by Cranmer at 1 1 October ; the entry is erased.
1 Over this entry Cranmer has written : " sancti ". The lesson in the
Festivale for this feast is i Thess. IV : 1217. " Nolo vos ignorare
fratres de iis qui obdormierunt . . , to .. sermonibus his.." (fol. n6b)
This is the epistle of the r ma ss at the burial of the dead.
394
Appendix IV.
FIRST CALENDAR.
SECOND CALENDAR.
November.
ii. d. Martinus.
fMartinus.
13. Bricius.
BRICIUS.
14.
fAbacuc.
17-
fSophonias.
20.
fEdmundus rex.
22. Cecilia.
fZacharias. CECILI.
23-
CLEMENS.
24.
CHRISOGONUS.
25. Katherina.
CATHERINA.
26.
t
29.
.SATURNINUS ET SISYN-
30. d. Andreas.
] Andreas.
December.
4. Barbara.
6. Nicolaus.
\Nicolai.
8.
t
13. Lucie.
LUCIA.
1 8.
j-Lazarus.
2 1 . 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 Y.
THE DEBATE ON THE SACRAMENT.
The report of the 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-
mer's copy and found its way into the Royal
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. l 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 u 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 Eucharistiae in Migne, Patr.
Graec. CLXI, 500 501). Perhaps the bishop quoted the four liturgies
as in Bessarion.
MS. REG. 17 B. XXXIX.
Fol. \a. CERTAIN NOTES TOUCHING THE DISPUTA
TIONS OF THE BISHOPS IN THIS LAST PAR-
LI AM EN T ASSEMBLED OF THE L ORD'S SUPPER.
SATURDAY THE FIRST DAY.
DOMIXUS 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. ib. 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:
398 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. q u i c k ene th as: Vcrba guae ego loquor
SUPER: CARO .... .
spiritus sum et vita.
MEA. &C. ...
Spiritum appcllat carnem. *
CANTOR.
Touching the spiritual and corporal body
of Christ.
When Christ came on the water his disciples
took it to be Phantasma.
Cyrillus concerning the death only of the
flesh and the power of the divinity spake it.
WlGORNIENSIS.
r ol. 2 a. i think my Lord of Durham doth mean thus :
Caro by the joining of the word is Spiritus
i. e. Caro vcrbi.
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.
1 " Quas ob res caro quidem ceterorum omnium quicquam vere non
prodest : caro autem Christi quia in ipsa unigenitus Dei filius 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 eg o locutus
sum vobis spirilus et vita sunt. Totum corpus suum vivifica spiritus
virtute plenum esse ostendit. Spiritum enim hie ipsam carnem 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. ggd.) lib IV. 0.24 (ed. Aubert VI. 3767).
CYRILLUS.
OBJECTIO.
Fol. 2b.
PROBATIO.
Appendix V.
WlGORNIENSIS.
399
We eat flesh that giveth life. If we eat man
without God it is not profitable.
DURISME.
Spirittis non habct ossa.
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,
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 1 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.
WlGORNIENSIS.
Reason will not serve in matters of faith.
Hoc est corpus me inn.
It is the body that was offered for us:
Quod pro vobis tradctur.
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 sibi 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 l everlasting life.
But they say the very body is there when
it is hanged up, w r hich 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
1 "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 2 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 Jiabct vitain ctcrnam.
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 hix.
The evil man receives a good thing evil.
But Christ is there, in the bread. I know
it by his word.
1 "Tyme". erased in MS.
* "Than'' in MS.
4O2 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 reservam in
Fol. 4b. crastinum etc. 2
AUGUSTINUS. Non dubitamt Christus dicere etc. 3
Dedit discipitlis figuram corporis. 4
Fecit corpus suum, id est figuram cor
poris sui.
Sacramentum est cum aliud videtur aliud
intelligitur. 5
WlGORN. contra CANTOR.
Granteth that a man may receive the body
1 "Than" in MS.
a "Nam et Dominus panem, quern discipulis dahat, et dicebat eis,
" accipite et manducate," non distulit, nee servari jussit in crastinum ".
(Orig. Horn. V. in Levit. ii. 211).
3 " 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 interpreter! praeceptum illud, in signo esse
positum ; non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, " Hoc est corpus meum '',
cum signum daret corporis sui". (S. Aug. Contra Aditnan: cz-p. 12. sect. 3.
ed. Migne VIII. 144) cf. Ridley's Brief Declaration of the Lords
Supper (Parker Soc. pp. 412.) for the argument drawn by the in
novating party from this text.
4 " 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. Qitaproptcr probe t 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.
ClCISTRENSIS.
Fol. 5 a. It is to be believed and not to be reasoned.
Nisi credideritis non intelligctis. 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. " 2
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.
1 "awne." in MS.
2 So MS.; read "they (had set their) hands unto."
44 Appendix V.
Fol. 5 b. 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 be 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. 6 a. 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
Adorate 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.
1 "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 carne Marias carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hie
ambulavit et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam 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
406 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. yb. 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. 2 Lies
and true things.
The fault-s in the book are these :
1 " goods" in MS.
a "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 pants, in sacramento.
But
Pants quern ego dabo &c.
If he kept promise with them he gave
them both bread and flesh.
DOMINUS PROTECTOR.
He took bread, -&c.
Take, eat, this is my body.
Who can take this otherwise but there
is bread still ?
And Paul sayeth so calling it bread :
As oft as ye cat 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.
LlCHEFELD.
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- Qftransubstantiation, and whether the bread
408 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.
ft is not Scripture 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. io. Pants quern frangimus &c.
This form used St. James in his Mass:
S. BEDE. Rogamus tit Spiritus sanctus advem'ens
FOL. ga. sanctificet hunc panem, et faciat verum
corpus filii sui Christi.
S. CLEMENT. Emitte spiritum tuum super haec sacrificia,
lit panem hunc in Corpus Christi transmu-
tas ea Spiritu Sane to. *
Chrysostome manifestly doth declare that
it is the very body of Christ real. St car-
THEOPHIL. nem et sangtiinem speciem reservans, &c. 2
ALEXAND. Consonans in Ecclesia &c.
DAMASCE. Quemadmodum in Baptismate &c. 3
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.
188192). It is quoted as Theophilus of Alexandria by Fisher De
Veritate corforis (ed. 1527 f. 153) from which the Bishop of Norwich,
as subsequently Gardiner, probably quoted it.
3 " Quemadmodum in bapttsmate (quia consuetudo hominibus est
Appendix V.
409
Fol. 9 b.
i.
2.
3-
OBJECTIO.
Christ took not his Godhead from heaven
when he descended, nor his body from the
earth likewise 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 fit caro per spiritum sanctum quem-
admodum in deipara assumpsit carnem &c. *
Non estfigura Carports, sed ipsum Corpus,
ipso Domino dicente : Hoc est meum, non
figtira corporis.
Qui manducat me vivit in eternum. !
LINCOLN, contra NORWICH.
These are the three points:
The real presence in the Sacrament.
Whether evil men receive that body, or no.
The transubstantiation.
We must rest on faith, not on reason.
aqua lavari et oleo ungi) conjunxit oleo et aquae gratiam Spiritus Sancti
et fecit illud lavacrum regenerationis. Hunc in modum, quia mos
hominibus est panem manducare et vinum et aquam bibere, conjunxit
his ipsis suam divinitatem et fecit haec suum corpus et sanguinem".
(S. Joan : Damascen. Orthodoxy FideilV.c. 14. (ed. 1539, pp. 1423).
"Corpus enim, secundum veritatem conjunctum est Divinitati, quod
ex sancta Virgine corpus est non quod ipsum corpus assumptum ex
coelo descenderit sed quod ipse panis et vinum transmutatur in corpus
et 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 ceternam. 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:
Non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis*
This my blood; he calleth it afterward the
fruit of the vine. What is the fruit of this
vine but wine?
Non bibam ex hoc vinol Vivam 2 in mysterio
redemptionis nostrae quum dtxit, Non bibam
MATT. 26.
MARK. 14.
LUKE. 22.
CHRYSOSTOM.
THEOPHILAC.
AUGUSTINUS
DE ECCLESIAE
DOGMAT.
FOL. 103.
i CORIN. io. Unus panis multi sumus ; 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
ol this unity.
Dedit panem et vinum discipulis. But upon
the Cross his body to the soldiers to be
crucified. 4
The mass of James cannot be shewed. As
touching the words in the prayer wherewith
my Lord of Chichester is offended, they
CYPRIA. DE
UN CT i ONE
CHRISMATIS.
1 The passage in Theophylact referred to is : In Evang. S. Marci.
cap. XIV. (ed. Migne), I. 651. That in St. Chrysostom is In Matthaeum*
Homil: LXXXII ed. Migne VII. 740.
2 So MS.
* "Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterio cum dixit : Non
bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis." S. Aug. De Ecclesiastids Dogma-
libus cap. XLII (ed. Migne VIII. 1220.)
4 " Dedit itaque Dominus noster in mensa, in qua ultimum cum
Apostolis participavit convivium propriis manibus panem et vinum : in
cruce vero manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum." (Pseudo-
Cyprianic treatise De unctione Chrismatis. op Basilese 1530 p. 4774
Appendix V.
411
stand well by Scripture and are meet and
convenient.
Fol. lob. For we are sure we pray for no less than
Christ himself made.
CHRYSO. Chrysostom spoke that to raise up our
HOMELI. 88. mm( j s m priesthood ; saith not once think we
be of the earth. And so meaneth he of the
Sacrament, Quod nos transimus in carnem
Christi. Even thus they speak of us as well
as of the Sacrament.
Wilt thou know how thou are turned?
Ask thyself that art turned, for no outward
thing is changed. 1
The translating of the element must 2 have
another meaning and not be grossly un
derstood.
EUSEBIUS.
1 "Quanta itaque et quam celebranda beneficia vi divinae benedic-
tionis operetur attende; et ut tibi novum et impossible 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).
2 "Moste" in MS.
412
Appendix V.
LEO. Virtute celestis cibi transimus in carnem
Christi. 1
Damascen 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. 6r Quid si videritis filium hominis &c.
MATT. 26. Pauperes habebitis semper &c.
After his resurrection he sayeth : Haec lo-
cutus sum vobis 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 fregit panem. Sed Corpus Christi.
i COR. 10. Pants quern frangimus &c.
BEUA. Fregit panem.
CHRYSOST. Vides panem, vides mnum &c.
Think not that thou receivest the body of
Christ at the hands of the priest, sed tan-
quam Seraphim 2 ignem. 3
DURHAM contra LINCOLN.
This text Non bibam &c. is declared in
1 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'LX.lII.
ed. Migne I. 357).
2 " curaphyn." in MS.
* " Propter quod et accedentes ne putetis vos accipere divinum corpus
Appendix V. 413
Fol. nb. 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 panis unus sumus. No natural bread.
LINCOLN.
Christ did eat the Sacrament hisself for
Christ saith so.
AUSTEN. Luke spake there per anticipationem. Panis
is that which is broken. It is Mysticusyet
it is bread.
De uno pane participamus ; is bread.
DUNELMENSIS.
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.
Fol. 1 2 a. LINCOLN.
OBJECTIO. D. It was called wine because it was wine
before.
CONFUTACIO. L, Should we then 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 putate." (S. Joan: Chrysos : De Poenitentia.
Horn. IX. ed. Migne n. 345.)
414
Appendix V.
nem Christi. Nor our senses perceive it not
neither.
JOHAN. 2. The water was turned into wine; verily
not water still, but the senses felt it to be
altered.
OBJECTIO. D. That it was common bread then.
RESPONS. L. Nay it is mysticus.
OBJECTIO. D. Because of the omnipotence of God, he
hath made bread flesh.
RESP. L. I believe that Christ is true and omnipo
tent.
ROFFENSIS
PETRUS. Render reason and cause of the faith that
is within you.
OKJECTIO. D . Scriptures alleged that after the consecra-
Fol. 1 2b. 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.
AUGUST. He doubteth not to call his body by the
word of the sign of his body. l
CHRYSOST. Est figura non tantum figura, &c.
This same body we receive that Christ
gave in his supper.
AUGUST. Calleth it the grace of his body.
ACT. Et erant perseverantes in fractione panis.
Perdurabantunanimiterfrangentespanem.
AUGUST. Detrahe verbum pani et est panis. Adde
verbum et est sanctus et mysticus.
Touching conversum and transelementa-
tum.
1 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, Vita.
Fol. 1 3 a. Septima Sy nodus de adoratione simulacro-
rum. But in another Council there was
brought an image before them and all they
worshipped it and 2 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.
Panis communionis non est panis simplex
sed panis unihis dimnitati. As a burning
coal is more than a coal for there is fire
with it. Conjungit pant dwinitatem. He
changeth bread in virtutem carnis ; non in
veritatem. Theophylactus allegeth so. 3
LlCHFELD.
Desireth to speak a gross word, not for
transubstantiation for he thought ever that
Fol. i3b. could not be. But for transmutation, and
1 "That" erased in MS.
2 "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 quern Ego dabo, caro mea est. Non dixit, Figura est carnis
meae, sed, caro mea est. Et iterum; nisi ederitis carnem 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 carnem
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.
Mara, Cap. XIV. ed. Migne I. 650.)
4 1 6 Appendix V.
that it is a mystical bread ; for the fathers
spake oft of that.
WlGORNIENSIS.
This text you say Hoc cst 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.
WlGORNIENSIS.
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. *)
1 " 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 5 1st Treatise, which he writeth
upon John, he teacheth plainly and clearly, how Christ, being both
God and man, is both here after a certain manner, and yet in heaven,
Appendix V.
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 ineffabilem gratiam. I will be
with you till the consummation. Christ sits in
heaven. And is present in the Sacrament
by his working.
WlGORN.
Fol. i4b. 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
Supper. 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. 1 5 a. 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.
1 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
JOHN.
Fol. i5b.
. 3
This body is not in the evil man for it is
on the right hand. No 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.
Eating with his mouth giveth nothing to
man, nor the body being in the bread.
Christ gave to his disciples bread and wine,
CAPITE 33
Bread is my creatures among us, and called it his body
body. saying Hoc est Corpus meum. 1
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 belie veth in me
shall live by me, but he meaneth not bread
but his own flesh.
OBJECTIO.
CANTOR.
RESPON.
WIGORN.
JOHN.
Fol. i6a.
QUESTIO.
JOHN 6.
OBJECTIO.
ROFFENSIS.
What bread meant he when he said
Ego sum pant's.
Panis quem ego dabo.
WIGORN.
The \vorking 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.)
42 o Appendix V.
AUGUST. Cum edunt ipsam carnem.
Judas received ipsam 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 vtnum.
WIGORN.
The Scripture is received because the
Church hath received it. Likewise the Sa
crament.
ELIENSIS.
DE ELEVATI- There is no visible thing that is God.
The question to the sick whether he be-
Fol. i6b. 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.
ClCISTRENSIS.
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. 1 7 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. iyb. If it be a trope, it is in Cor pits.
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 quern ego dabo pro mundi &c.
CHRYSOST. in The word body thus signifieth the very
EPISTOLAM i. body.
To touch a great man's gown with (de)filed
CAP. I O. - ,
hands is not sufferable. Even so to eat the
D D
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. J
Touching Hoc.
Material bread cannot be the substance
of Christ.
Fol. i8a. Therefore Hoc must needs praedicare Cor
pus non pancui.
SMYTH.
It is more horrible to eat flesh than to
break it. To drink blood than to shed or
pour it out. 2
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.
1 " 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
intensge dilectionis fuit." (S Joannis Chrysost : in Ep: I. ad Cor. Cap.
10. Horn: XXIV (4) ed. Migne x 2034).
a This is really a quotation from St. Augustine " Quamvis horri-
bilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere, et humanum
san<minem 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
Erasnms 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. i8b. inconvenient, since 1 by Scriptures and old
writers it was agreed that these arguments
should first be proved.
ClCESTREXSIS.
Intendeth not to make Erasmus his author,
but to shew his mind how he understood
a place in Scripture.
DEUTERO. A7 - 7/ , . , .
CAP. 14. Non alhgabis os boms trtturantis.
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 thft children shall not have
life except they eat the Sacrament. 2
JOHN. 6. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis.
SMYTH.
AUGUST. Non dubitavit Chris tus dicere, Hoc est
Corpus ui nun, cum signum corporis sui
daret. 3
1 "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 Peccat. meritis ed. Migne X. 124).
3 See the passage already quoted (note 3 on fol. 4. b.).
424 Appendix V.
CYCESTRENSIS.
Fol. iga. Saint Austin also is not afraid to say he
saw Christ's body when he saw the Sacra
ment. l
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. igb. 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.
1 "Panis ille quern 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 III 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 Cup is my blood must needs be
figurate.
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 Pants 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.
WlGORN.
We see a thing and there is a thing hid
also.
There is both Signum and Corpus.
CANTOR.
AUGUST. Quid paras vcntrem et denies f Crede et
manducasti. 2
AUGUST. Carnaliter intelligere est verba ut dicuntur
iutcUigerc. 3
1 Ibid.
2 "Hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quern misit ille. Hoc est
ergo manducare cibum non qui peril sed qui permanet in vitam eternam.
Utquid paras denies 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. Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans ter-
renum et celeste &c. x
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.
Panis in quo gratiae actae sunt quoddam 3
terremun est et supcrnum.
He blessed not his natural body but
panem.
And of a phantastical body there is no
figure.
"Quoniam quisquis ilium diem nunc usque observat sicut littera sonat,
carnaliter sapit". (S. Aug. De Spiritu et Littera. ed. Migne X. 216).
1 " 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 Hares: 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 Hares. IV. c. 18.
ed. Bened. 251.)
3 quondam in MS. See the passage of St. Irenaeus quoted by Ely.
App en dix V. 427
TERTULLIAN. Non desinit esse substantta panis.
Nee panem in quo ipse suum corpiis
representat &c. J
Renatus confesseth that Tertullian was of
this opinion and defended it.
CANTOR.
TERTULLIAN. Appellavit panem suum Corpus. 2
WESTMONAST.
IRENAEUS. Eucharistiam appellat Corpus, non panem. 3
LINCOLN.
Eucharistia is more than Panis communis
i CORIN. io. for it is Mysticus. As in Paul Calix bene-
dictionis.
IRENAEUS. De pane qui est Corpus ems. 4
1 "Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus ilium suum
fecit, Hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est, figura corporis mei. Figura
antem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum, 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.)
2 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. 1534 for the arguments on this point.)
3 " Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex
suis creaturis, non quasi indigent!, sed ut ipsi nee infructuosi nee
ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est, accepit et gratias egit dicen?,
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
universe mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis prsestat, primitias
suorum munerum in novo testamento." (Irenreus. Contra Haeres. IV. c.
17. ed: Bened. 249.)
4 " Spiritus enim neque ossa, neque carnes habet, sed de ea disposi-
428 Appendix V.
Fol. 2 1 a. WEDNESDAY. THE FOURTH DAY.
WlGORN.
Irenacus called it bread because it was
bread before.
CANTOR.
QUESTIO. What is it that he calleth bread and wine ?
ClCESTRENSIS.
Allegeth Plilarius.
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. 2ib. should have a solemn prayer and a solemn
fasting.
CANTOR.
TERTULLIAN. Docendo vocans pancm Corpus suum, id
est figuram Corporis.^
WlGORN.
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.
Appendix 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. J
CANTOR.
Hoc est Corpus.
If that it were meant by Corpus, then
were Corpus a figure of the body.
Fol. 2 2 a. But the bread is the 2 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 terrain revertcris.
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 Magdalenae tanquam hortulanus apparuit,
non prius agnitus quam earn 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. Jtaque qui
arguit in Sacramento Corpus Christi non esse, quod nculis non videatur.
resurrectionem Christi negare videtur." 'Tunstall De Veritate Corforls.
ed. 1554. fol. 2ja.)
2 " bodye" erase// 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. Ergo 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 meiim, 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. 2 3 a.
HARFORD.
You confer the Sacrament of the Old
1 In his Liber de Corp ore et Sanguine Domini written against Beren-
garius ed. Migne 407442.
Appendix V. 43 1
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 Dentate 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. 230. 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 when they demon
strate what 1 is meant here. Caro, id est>
Terra conversa in figurant suain.
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.
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.
Fol. 24a. No man sayeth instead of Hoc put in Pants,
but we say that Hoc meaneth Pants.
AUGUST. AdJubuit Jiidam couvii'io stto in quo com-
mendnbat figurant Cordon's sui. 1
How the body is present and in what
manner.'
Qitia dii'initas infundit se clemento.
Therefore the human nature being in
heaven may be said to be here, non in
CYPRIAN. ^tnitate naturae sed in imitate pcrsonae.
Where the one nature is the other may
be said to be.
There are four kinds of bread :
1. One natural; when he said Non in solo
pane vivit homo.
2. The second Sacramental, as Pant's quern
frangiunis.
The third flesh ; when he saith Panis qucni
JOHN 6 ego dabo caro mca cst.
Fol. 24b. 4. The fourth divine, as Ego sum pants vivus
LUKE 22. qui dc coelo descendi.
When I was daily with you in the temple
ye stretched out no hands against me, but
this is even your very hour.
HARFORDE contra LINCOLN.
SUPER JOHN. That thing that thou seest, Christ would
MATT.
PAUL AD.
10. CORIN.
1 See passage quoted an/c (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. 2 5 a. But that it signified! 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 tibi signum 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 1 but a figure and
1 "not" erased in MS.
434 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.
i. CORIN. 10. Saint Paul saith: Panis quern frangimus
est communicatio Carport's. Even so Christ
when he said: This is my body he meant
communionem corporis. For Christ when
he bids us eat his body it is 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.
Pol. 26a. He presseth him that he thinks there is
nothing more than he was before J 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.
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 judicinm.
So MS. =: 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 divinai/i in a great Canon
he proponeth \ Also the question of Charles
to Bertram: Cliristus manducatur in Sa
cramento licet totus sit in coelo.
It is transformed; for of the common
bread before, it is made a divine influence.
Fol. 26b. The natural substance of bread remains
as it was before.
CYCESTREXSIS.
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-
padins for the verity of the body of the
Sacrament.
And sayeth also that Cyprian was wrong
recited.
CYPRIAN. Pant's ipse omnipotentia vcrbi sccundniii
natnram non in specie factus est caro &c. "
Natura vel substantia non desunt. Whether
natura be substance or property.
ROFFEXSIS.
Alleged Cyprian right for the words are
here.
i So in MS.
- " 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". Strmo de coena Domini in Cy-
friani op. ed. Basileae 1530. p. 445.)
V.
Fol. 2 7 a. It is changed in nature, that is to say in
property.
CYI-KIAN. Vocat corpus panem propter membrorum
convenientiam.
Panis est propter nittriinentum corporis.
Carnem vocat propter assuniptae carnis pro-
prietatem.
Proprietas assumptae carnis vita erat.
Divina essentia infitdit 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 Ruse-
bins upon this text : " Touch it with thy
faith ".
ROFFEN.
Eusebius saith that it is necessary to make
a Sacrament of his body to the intent that
Fol. 275. 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
est ilium da non specie. 2
* "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
aeterniii, cujus secundum haec visibilia corporali communicavit naturae".
(Ibid. pp. 4445).
2 " 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 offerebatur 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.
HILARIUS.
And for this word in substantiam I un
derstand it thus in proprietatem ; in virtutem
substantiae.
Nee dubitatur conversa in naturam Dimm
Corporis dicere, quando homo fit membrum
Christi Corporis. l
ClCISTRENSIS.
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 domi-
nico accipimus 2 .
ROFFENSIS.
Verbum carnem, id est Christtim.
ClCISTREN.
Et naturam carnis sub Sacramento eter-
nitate nobis communicandac admiscuit &c. 2
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. 44-b.)
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
fsece 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 suse ad naturam eternitatis sub
sacramento nobis communicand?e carnis admiscuit?" (S. Hilarius. De
Trinitate lib. VIII. ed. Migne u. 246.)
E E
438 Appendix V.
ROFFEN.
Naturaliter Christus habitat in nobis, l
Not only in unity and charity but real in
his benefits.
ClCISTREN.
If the body taken of the Virgin Mary be
Christ.
WlGORN.
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 suae id est
in substantiae proprietatem, *
SMYTH.
ORIGENES. It" it did sanctify of its own nature then
it doth make holy the wicked man that
doth receive the sacrament. 3
1 " 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 cituis, sed conscientia cum hesitatione ves-
centis polluit edentem, eo quod qui hzesitat, 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.
Scrutamini Scripturas. As we seek and
hear, what shall we do then when we have
searched? Believe then we must.
AVhat shall we do then? Marry there
abide, and go no further than our holy
Fol. 2ga. 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 comederimus non abundamus, neque
si non comederimus quicquam nobis deerit. L
LlCHFELD.
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. 2gb.
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 occidit^ 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
EUTVCHEN. man.
Fol. 3oa. Two natures in Christ hath been ever
received by the Church.
DUNELMENSIS.
Authors say that Christ is here invisible :
CHRYSOST. & J
BASIL. that doth appear by the Canon in their
masses.
1 " Consuetude 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 visibilis Christi natura invisibilis sit
in Sacramento. 1
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.
SuCh bread Calleth Christ his bod y as is
EPIPHA. common among us, made with flour and
water, and wine likewise. Such bread as
feeds the body, that cannot hear nor see,
but round, broad, thick and white. 2
It is material bread that hath these qua
lities; his body was not so.
As the baker maketh it so doth the
altar descrive 3 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 4 signify bread, Christ said not that bread
was his body.
1 Quoted in Bishop Tunstall's De Veritate Corj>oris ff. 35 to 3 6a.
" Videmus enim quod accepit Salvator in manus suas, veluti Eva'n-
gelium habet quod surrexit in coena et accepit hsec, et ubi gratias
egisset dixit, hoc meum est hoc et hoc. Et videmus quod non equale
5t neque simile non imagini in carne, non invisibili deitati, non linea-
mentis membrorum. Hoc enim est rotundse forms et insensibile quantum
d 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. 154^. p. 558.)
3 So in MS.
4 "not not" in MS.
442
Appendix V.
WlGORN.
RESPON. They keep the name as it was before it-
was converted and Christ did it in a thought,
CANTOR.
Fol. 310. 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. 1
AUGUST. We must believe that there is bread and
the body.
LINCOLN.
Fol. 3ib. 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 rcnuntiant : quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est
corpus Christi, calix sanguis Christi." (S. Aug. Sermo 272. ed. Migne.
V. 1246.)
Appendix V. 443
it because they knew them blind before.
Likewise of bread : my senses see it is bread.
The other was, the omnipotency of God,
that we should believe it there because that
Christ did say it.
AUGUST. But Dcus 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. 3 2 a. It is carnal reason that letteth us. Carnal
reason cannot believe that bread is his body.
Therefore grossly he imagineth, that think-
eth bread remaineth no more. A sacrament
or mystery is not a Do this in the remem
brance 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.
Baptisnms 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 VI.
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
(Who) in the
Unser Herr Je
Jesus Christus in
same night that
sus Christus in
qua nocte trade-
he was betrayed,
der nacht do Er
batur accepit
took bread and
verraten wardt
panem et gratias
when he had
nam Er das brot
agens benedixit
blessed and given
dancket und
ac fregit, deditque
thanks l he brake
brachs und gabs
discipulis suis di-
it and gave it to
sein Jiingeren
cens accipite et
his disciples, say
und sprach :
manducate. Hoc
ing : Take, eat,
Nembt hin und
est corpus meum
this is my body
esset, Das ist mein
quod pro vobis
which is given for
leyb der fur euch
tradetur. Quoties-
you, do this in
gegeben wirdt :
cumque mandu-
remembrance of
das thut zu mei-
caveritis : hoc
me.
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-
Likewise after
Desselben gley-
licem post quam
supper he took
chen namEr auch
coenavit dicens:
the cup and when
den kelch nach
he had given
dem abentmal
thanks he gave
und dancketund
it to them, say
gab ihn den und
ing : Drink ye all
sprach : Trinckt
of this for
alle daraus.
Hie est calix
this is my blood
Das ist mein
novi testamenti
of the new Testa
blut des newen
in meo sanguine
ment which is
testamentes das
qui pro vobis et
shed for you and
fur euch und fur
pro multis effun-
for many for
vil \ ergossen
detur in remissi-
remission of sins.
wirdt zur verge-
onem peccato-
Do this as oft as
bung der siinden^
rum. Ouotiescum-
you shall drink
Solchs thut so oft
que biberitis : hoc
it in remem
irs trinckt zu mei-
facite in meam
brance of me.
nem gedechtnus.
commemoratio-
nem.
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. 1
In his german Mass of 1526 Luther gave another
form of institution 2 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. 3
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. 4
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, 5 and was thereafter proposed by Cranmer as
1 The Mozarabic has, "hie est calix novi testamenti in 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
testamenti est in meo sanguine, dicit Dominus").
2 See Daniel Codex Lit: II 109. For variants see Kliefoth V. p. 109.
3 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).
4 See e.g. Bugenhagen's Kirchen-Ordnung for Brunswick, 1528, (ed.
Hanselmann pp. 253 5); and Luther's greater and lesser Catechisms,
with their latin translations (in J. G. Walch's Christliches Concordienbuch}^
5 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." 1 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. 181.
448 Appendix VI.
sins. Do this as oft as ye drink, in remembrance
of me." l
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. 2
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.
1 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 1 7.) 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 1 08.). 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. ii3,f.
5 a 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, ff. 4 ib 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. 45 1
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.
Arms, royal (in churches), 272.
Articles of religion, 304.
Ash- Wednesday, observance of, 98, 100
Ashes 100, 252.
Baker, Sir John, 63, 66.
Bale, works of, 119.
Baptism, order for, see Prayer Book.
Barbero, Daniele, report of 271276
Beauvais, cathedral of, 13.
Bells, ringing of, 55; 56, 272.
Benediction of Blessed Sacrament, 54 note
FF
454 Index.
Bishops, authority of, derived from the king, 42, 43 note, 45,
66; attitude of, towards change, 71, 74 note, 8388, 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, 3235, 38 note, App. iv, 386388.
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 Ecdesiasticum of, App. iii, 353.
Codex Liturgkus 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, 9093; authorship of, 94;
royal mandate concerning, 135 ; bills relating to, 7074,
76, 121 ; contemporary opinion concerning, 79, 93 ; un
der both kinds, 73, 77, 79, 84, 89, 91 ; confusion resulting
from, 135.
Concilia, Wilkins', 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, 53 note,
26; of 1547, 1, 148, 150 note ; proceedings of, concerning
change, 7377 ; of 1548, 149 ; prorogation of, 149, 285 note-,
general regulations for, 77 ; Prayer Book never submitted to,
456 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, 114;
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 ; office 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 Eationale 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.
Ferrar, bishop, 85, 172 ; consecration of, 144, 260.
Font, manner of blessing, 185.
Foxe, evidence of, 135, 137, 254.
France, churches of, 13.
Frankfort^ troubles at, 305 note.
French ambassador, see Selve.
Fuller, Richard, statement of, on Convocation, 77 ; concerning
Prayer Book, 138.
Gardiner, 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.
Gilby, Anthony, 122.
Gilpin Bernard, 271.
Glasier, 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, sergeaut-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, 124128,133, 173, 230,
256 note.
Henry VIH, 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 note, 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, 124128, 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, 8286 >
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, 57, 10 U note, 38; general
arrangement of, 17; burden of, 20; meaning of word, 16 note;
substance of, 18; of the B. Virgin, 20; 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, 250252.
Paget, Secretary 41, 44; letter from, to Gardiner, 45.
Palmer, Sir William, 16, 184 note,
Palm Sunday, 98, 100.
Parish churches, worship 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 Silvia;, 6.
Periyn, 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 formulse, 184; first scheme for, 17, 2327, 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,
3035, 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,
134143; truth concerning compilation of, 143147, 181;
supposed commission for, 94, 136, 138, 140, 146 note, 178,
180 ; place of meeting, 136, 142, 1.43 ; 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, 172177, 181,
232, 236, 271, 304 ; enforcing of, 242, 246 ; 251, 302 ; adherence
462 Index.
of the people to ancient ritual, 171, 246, 251 note, 252258,
269, 303 ; royal injunctions concerning, 52, 5457, 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, 3638, 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,
3235, 38 note, App. iv, 386; comparison of calendars, App.
iv, 388; lights used in services of, 53, 59 note, 104,235,246,
264 ; rubrics of, 31, 39, 189, 191, 199, 234 note, 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, 344, 348 ; with greek liturgies,
186, 187 note; with Sarum use, 191 note, 199212; with
older liturgies, 184, 191 note, 217, 224 ; with liturgies of the
16 th 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 Confiteor, 220 note ; exhortation
in, 192; offertory of, 193195, 221, 270; Gloria in excelsis,
221 ; proper prefaces of, 196, 217 ; prayer of consecration
197, 217: comparison of, with canon of Sarum use, 199 ; Agnus
Dei position of, 213; Pater noster, 212, 223; form of absolu
tion, 214 ; form of institution, 206 note, 223 ; App. vi ,444 ; ad
ministration of, 195, 214, 220 note, 241,272, 273; see also Order
Index. 463
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 ;
gratuitous changes in, 291 ; introits omitted, 291 ; idea of sacrifice
obliterated in, 289; exhortation in, 291 ; Gloria in excelsis, 291,
294 ; alteration of Sanctus, 292 ; consecration prayer in, 289,
292; Agnus Dei 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.
Rationale, 26, 29 note.
Redman, John, 76 note.
Reformed Liturgies, Character of, 217, 291, 301.
Reformers, destruction wrought by, 255.
Responsory, 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 160172, 174; attacks upon, 69, 105, 122, 253; whe
ther to be worshipped, 105, 123, 165, 178, 247; see also Mass.
Sacramentarians, 275,
Sacriflce, 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.
JSecrct, the, 193.
Index. 465
Sequences, omission of, 56.
Selve, Odet de, reports from, 49, 50, 59, 72 note, 113, 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, 104 ;
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, 43 note, 72, 79, 87 ; Cranmers friendship for, 29 ;
in debate concerning the Sacrament, 161, 162; imprisonment
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 note.
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 N1MEGUEN (HOLLAND) BY II. C. A. THIEME OF NIMBOUEN (HOLLAND)
AND 14 BILLITER SQUARE BUILDINGS, LONDON E. C.
Catholic Stanbarb %tbrar.
Under this title is now issuing a series of Standard Works,
consisting of Foreign Translations, Original Works, and Reprints,
printed in the best style of the typographic art, bound in cloth,
in demy 8vo, of from 450 to 500 pages, and issued at short
intervals, price 12s. each Volume, post free to any part of the
^vorld ; or twelve Vols. may be selected for 5, 5s., carriage paid.
The Great Commentary on the Gospels, of Cornelius a
Lapide. Translated and Edited by the Kev. T. MOSSMAN, B.A., Oxon.,
assisted by various Scholars.
SS. MATTHEW AND MARK'S GOSPELS. 3 Vols. Fourth Edition.
S. JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THREE EPISTLES. 2 Vols. Second Edition.
S. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 1 Vol. Second Edition.
"It would indeed be gilding the finest gold to bestow praise on the great Commentary of
a Lapide. It is a work of unequalled we should say unapproached value. We specially
entreat the clergy not to neglect obtaining so vast a treasure of saintly wisdom, even
if, in so doing, they are obliged to sacrifice many volumes far inferior to it in real
helpfulness." John Bull.
"Mr. Mossman has done his part as an able and sympathetic scholar might be expected
to do it, and the volume, both in translation and execution, is worthy of its author."
Saturday Review.
" It is the most erudite, the richest, and altogether the completest Commentary on
the Holy Scriptures that has ever been written, and our best thanks are due to
Mr. Blossman for having givenms, in clear, terse, and vigorous English, the invaluable work
of the Prince of Scripture Commentators." Dublin Review.
"Really the Editor has succeeded in presenting the public with a charming book.
We have been accustomed to regard a Lapide for consultation rather than to be read.
But in the compressed form, clear and easy style, and excellent type in which it now
appears, it is a book we can sit down to and enjoy." The Month.
"We set a high store upon this commentary. There is about it a clearness of thought,
a many-sided method of looking at truth, an insight into the deeper meaning, and a
fearless devotion which lend a peculiar charm to all that he writes. The great value
which his commentaries have for Bible students is in the fact that nowhere else can
they find so great a store of patristic and scholastic exegesis." Literary World.
"It is one of those few 'books which are books,' an unfailing magazine of instruction
and devotion of the profoundest views of Holy Scripture and Theology in general, and
one of the most valuable and important recently issued from the press." Church Retieu:
"The translation is good, the sense is rendered truthfully and in good English; the
sentences are terse and vigorous." Tablet.
"Mr. MOSSMAN has done his work well, and we wish his enterprise the success it
deserves." Guardian.
"We have no hesitation in saying that this is the best and most able Commentary
in the English language." Revisionist.
The Hierurgia; or, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. With Notes
and Dissertations elucidating its Doctrines and Ceremonies. By Dr.
DANIEL ROCK. 2 Vols. A New and thoroughly Revised Edition, with
many new Illustrations. Edited, with a Preface, by W. H. JAMES
WEALE. In the Press.
Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries. An attempt to
illustrate the History of their Suppression, with an Appendix and
Maps showing the situation of the religious houses at the time of
their dissolution. By FRANCIS AIDAN GASQUET, D.D. O.S.B. 2 Vols.
Fourth Edition.
" We may say in brief, if what we have already said is not sufficient to show it.
that a very important chapter of English history is here treated with a fulness, minu
teness, and lucidity which will not be found in previous accounts, and we sincerely
congratulate Mr. Gasquet on having made such an important contribution to English
historical literature." Athenaum.
"The old scandals, universally discredited at the time, and believed in by a later
generation only through prejudice and ignorance, are now dispelled for ever." Academy.
Signed, JAMES GAIRDNEK.
"A most valuable contribution to ecclesiastical history." Saturday Review.
"A learned, careful, and successful vindication of the personal character of the
monks. ... In Mr. Gasquet's skilful hands the dissolution of the monasteries assumes
the proportions of a Greek tragedy." Guardian.
Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty and the Re
formation Period. By S. HUBERT BURKE. 4 Vols. Second 'Edition. "Time
unveils all Truth."
* I have read the work with great interest, and I subscribe without hesitation to
the eulogy passed on it by the Daily Chronicle, as making, as far as I know, a distinct
and valuable aJ lition to our knowledge of a remarkable period." From a letter by
Jlr. GLADSTONE.
"The greatest charm of these fascinating volumes is in the brightness of the style,
for it reads more like a romance than a history." Land and Water.
"We do not hesitate to avow that, in bis estimate of character and events, Mr. Bnrke
is seldom wrong. . . . We heartily wish it a large sale and an extensive circulation."
The Academy. Signed, NICHOLAS POCOCK.
"They are full-length portraits, often so life-like, that when placed beside each
other, we feel no difficulty in realizing the relations which Mr. Burke aims at estab
lishing between them." Annual Register.
"The author writes history as it should be written. The men and women that pasa
before us in these portraits are no hard lifeless outlines, but beings of flesh and blood,
in whom, and in whose fate, we feel a keen and absorbing interest." Tablet.
"This work will excite much interest, obtain many readers, and much extend the
acquaintance with the period the author illustrates." Westminster Review.
"We attach great importance to Mr. Burke's work, as it is, we believe, the first
attempt on any considerable scale to collect and arrange in a living picture the men
and women who made the England of to-day. . . . This effort, seriously and conscien
tiously undertaken, and aided by a graphic and attractive style, must do immense
good." Dublin Review.
"No honest student of a most memorable period can afford to neglect the aid of
Mr. Burke's long and laborious researches, while the general public will find in his pages
all the interest of a romance, and all the charm of novelty, about events more than
three centuries old. He is also what is rare an historian of absolute impartiality." Life.
The History and Fate of Sacrilege. By Sir HEXRY SPELMAN. Kt.
Edited, in part from two MSS., Revised and Corrected. With a Con
tinuation, large Additions, and an Introductory Essay. By Two Priests
of the Church of England. New Edition, with corrections, and some
Additional Notes by Rev. S. J. BALES, D.C.L.
* All who are interested in Church endowments and property should get this work
which will be found to be a mine of information on the point with which it deals."
Nevibery House Magazine.
The History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages.
Drawn from the Secret Archives of the Vatican and other Original
Sources. By Dr. L. PASTOR, Professor of History in the University
of Innsbruck. Translated from the German by FREDERICK ANTROBUS,
of the London Oratory. Vols. I. and II.
The Dark Ages : A Series of Essays illustrating the State of
Religion and Literature in the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Cen
turies. By the late DR. MAITLAND, Keeper of the MSS. at Lambeth.
Fifth Edition, with an Introduction by FREDERICK STOKES, M.A.
" The essays as a whole are delightful ; although they are full of learning, no cue
cand find them dull or heavy: they abound in well-told stories, amusing quotations, and
clever sarcasm. Whatever the previous knowledge of a reader may be, he will be stirred
up by these essays to learn more of a subject they treat so pleasantly." Saturday
Reciew.
"No task could be more worthy of a scholar and divine so eminently distinguished as
the author of this volume, than a vindication of institutions which had been misre
presented for centuries, and a defence of men who bad been maligned by those to
whom they had been generous benefactors. We have read this work both with pleasure
a:id profit." Alhenieum.
"There is scant opportunity for prayer and repose in the restless, commonplace age
in which we live. The whole atmosphere of the times is fatal to that spirit of faith
which is the motive power of all real progress. The reading of JIaitland's pages will
greatly aid in convincing us of the accuracy of this conclusion." American Catholic
Quarterly Review.
Piconio (Bernardino a). Exposition of St. Paul's Epistles.
Translated and Edited by A. H. PRICIIAKD, B.A., Merton College,
Oxford. 3 Vols.
"The learning, the piety, the spiritual-mindedness and loving charity of the author,
which deservedly earned for him a high reputation in France, are everywhere conspicuous,
and there is a freshness in the mode in which he presents much that is suggestive,
helpful, and beautiful." National Church.
"We desire to recommend this book to all. Of course to the priesthood any com
mendation of it is unnecessary; but among the laity there are many souls one of whose
greatest drawbacks in the spiritual life is unfamiliarity with the Word of God. Let
them read the Scriptures daily, if only for a few minutes, let them bear along with
them such guides as Piconio, and the Spirit of God will illumine their minds and
inflame their hearts with a freshness and vigour of Divine life altogether peculiar."
Jfeio York Catholic World.
A Commentary on the Holy Gospels. In 4 Vols. By JOHN
MALDONATUS, S.J. Translated and Edited from the original Latin by
GEORGE J. DAYIE, M.A., Exeter College, Oxford, one of the Translat
ors of the Library of the Fathers. Vols, I. and II. (St. Matthew's
Gospel).
" Maldonatus is as yet but little known to English readers, yet he was a man of far
more ability than a Lapide, and is far more original in his remarks and explanations."
Month.
"To those who may not with facility be able to read the Latin, this English version
will be a great boon. The Commentary is certainly one with which a Biblical student
should make himself acquainted." Guardian.
The Church of Our Fathers, as seen in St. Osmund's rite
for the Cathedral of Salisbury. By the late Rev. Dr. ROCK. A New
and Revised Edition by the Benedictines of Downside. 4 Vols.
Preparing.
The Complete Works of St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux.
Translated into English from the Edition of DOM JOANNES MA BILLON,
of the Benedictine Congregation of St. Maur (Paris, 1690), and Edited
by SAMUEL J. BALES, D.C.L., some time Principal of St. Boniface
College. Warminster. Vols. I. and II., containing the Letters of St.
Bernard. Ready.
"In his writings great natural powers shine forth resplendently, an intellect more
than that of the subtle Abelard, an eloquence that was irresistible, an imagination
like a poet, and a simplicity that wins the admiration of all. Priests will find it a
most valuable book for spiritual reading and sermons. The printing and binding of the
work are superb." Catholic World (New York).
"We wish Dr. Kales and his publisher all success in what may be called a noble
undertaking." Church Quarterly Review.
"No writer of the Middle Ages is so fruitful of moral inspiration as St. Bernard, no
character is more beautiful, and no man in any ago whatever so faithfully represented
all that was best in th impulses of his time, or exercised so powerful an influence
npon it. ... There is no man whose letters cover so many subjects of abiding interest,
or whose influence was so widely spread." Athena-urn.
"It is not a little strange that a man of intellect so powerful and character so noble
and selfdenying should have had to wait seven centuries for his works to be rendered
into English. . . . The letters are of great historic interest, and many of them most
touching. The simple earnestness of the man, and his utter freedom from ambition
strike us on almost every page." Notes and Queries.
"Those two volumes are of surpassing interest, both to the theologian and the student
of ecclesiastical history. . . . We congratulate both the publisher and the editor upon
the issue of these volumes, which we predict, will be warmly appreciated liy English
readers, and which tend to make us impatient for the complete fulfilment of the design.
We trust these two volumes, which we can thoroughly recommend, will soon be follow
ed by the rest." Literary Churchman.
" The task which Mr. Bales has undertaken of bringing out an English edition of
Bernard's works is one that is deserving of every praise, and we hope that it may be
carried to completion by the appearance of the remaining volumes without undue
delay." Literary World.
" English readers of every class and creed owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Bales for
the great and useful work which he has undertaken. It is strange that now for the
first time has such a task been even, as far as we are aware, approached. ... in this
the earliest complete English edition of Bernard's works, a reparation, tardy indeed,
but ample, is about to be made for the neglect or indifference of so many by gone
generations of the English-speaking race. . . . We have indeed much to he grateful
for it to the first English translator of S. Bernard's works." The Mouth.
"We are glad that so important and interesting a writer as S. Bernard should be at
last made accessible to non-Latinists, and we hope that the undertaking will achieve
the degree of public support which is needful for its completion." Church Times.
"All who take an intelligent interest in the history of the Middle Ages must be
grateful! to Dr. Eales for publishing this translation . . . We trust that future volumes
will soon appear ... It will be a great advantage to all English-speaking people to
have that magnificent book (on the Canticles) in their mother-tongue. Dr. Eales is a
good translator. We have seen hardly a passage with which it would be reasonable
to find fault." The Catholic News.
The next Vol. of the Catholic Standard Library will be
The Relations of the Bhureh to Society,
A SEKIES OF ESSAYS, BY EDMUND J. O'KEILLY, S.J.,
Formerly Professor of Theology in Maynooth College, at St. Beuno's, North Wales, and
in tiie Catliolic University of Ireland.
EDITED, WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE, BY
THE REV. MATTHEW RUSSELL, S.J.
Always the Same: a Love Storv, by M. E. S. crown
8vo, 2s. 6d.
Autobiography of an Alms-Bag, The; or, Sketches of
Church and Social Life in a Watering-Place. By the Author of
"John Brown the Cordwainer," "Recreations of the People," &c.
Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.
"A clever book. Sketchy, anecdotic, chatty, humorous, and suggestive. We read of
many topics, all full of interest." Literary World.
"The author is a kind of ecclesiastical Dickens and Thackeray combined, and the
work has all the race of Dr. Holmes' 'Autocrat.'" Oldham Chronicle.
"Overflows with good stories effectively told, and most of them brought into good and
useful purpose." Guardian.
A Chronicle of the English Benedictine Monks, from the
Renewing of their Congregation in the Days of Queen Mary to the
Death of .Tames II. ; being the Chronological Notes of Dom. Bennett
Weldon, O.S.B., a Monk of Paris. Edited, from a Manuscript in
the Library of St. Gregory's Priory, Downshire, by a Monk of the
same Congregation. Demy 4to. Handsomely printed. Price 12s. 6d.
A Guide to Advent, being a Guide to the Holy Observance
of the Season of Advent; containing A Practice, A Meditation, Affec
tions, Sentences from Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, and a
Point of the Incarnation. Translated and Adapted from the French
by the Kev. Pere Avillon Neiv Edition Cloth Is., paper wrapper 6d.
Benedictine Calendar, The. From the Latin by DOM
EGIDIOUS RANBECK, O.S.B., edited by JOHN A. MORRALL, O.S.B., Sub-
Prior of Downside.
This remarkable work was first published in 1677, at the cost of
the great Bavarian Monastery in Augsburg.
The Life of a Benedictine Saint is given for every day in the year.
The great merit of the work, however, consists in the beautiful
engravings which illustrate the lives.
In the New Edition these Engravings have been most effectively
reproduced by the Meisenbach Process, and the accompanying Lives,
which will be adaptations rather than translations of the originals,
will be edited by a Father of the English Benedictine Congregation.
The work will be issued in Twelve Parts, beautifully printed by
the Messrs. Dalziel on fine plate paper.
Bonaventura, St. The Live of Jesus Christ, by St.
Bonaventura, Translated from the Latin by the late CANON OAKLEY,
formerley Fellow of Baliol College. Crown 8vo. In the Press.
Beardsley, E.E. - - The Life of the Right Rev. Samuel
Seabury, D.D., First Bishop of Connecticut and of the American
Church. By E. E. BEAKDSLEY, D.D., President of the General Conven
tion of the American Church. Crown 8vo, 5s. net.
"He has tolil in a calm and simple style, witch much dignity arid restraint of
panegyric, the story of a great and good man whose deeds live after him to remote
generations." The Literary World.
" He was a man who was in advance of his ago, to whom the Church must always
look up with admiration and reverent thankfulness, and be grateful also to Dr. Beardsley
for this tribute to his memory." The Guardian.
Benedict, St. - A Sketch of the Life and Mission of St.
Benedict. With an Appendix, containing a complete List of the
Benedictine Churches and Monasteries in England, with the date of
their foundation. By a Monk of St. Gregory's Priory, Downside. Third
Thousand. Is.
Bowden, C. Life and Martyrdom of St Cecilia and
her Companions. Edited by FK. CHARLES BOWDEN, of the London
Oratory. Limp cloth, Is.
Conscience. Henry The Tales of Henry Conscience.
Translated from the Flemish. To be issued in Monthly Volumes. In
Wrapper, Is.; Cloth, Is. 6d.
Vol. I. THE HAPPINESS OF BEING RICH. Now Ready.
Vol. II. THE IRON TOMB. Now Ready.
Vol. III. MONEY AND RANK. In the Press.
" In simplicity and purity of tone it leaves nothing to be desired ; and like all that
Conscience wrote, there is nothing that ordinary people cannot understand. Should have
a place in every parish library. Church Times.
Change in Faith or Development. A Critical Exposition
of St. Vincent of Lerins. Quod ubiqite quod semper quod ab omnihiix.
Addressed to Anglicans. By C. TONDINI DE QUARENGHI, Barnabite.
8vo. Is.
Church Congress Complete Set of Church Congress
Reports. 22 Vols in Half-Calf Antique. Red edges. Price l4 nett.
This would make a handsome present to a Home or Colonial Library.
Gentlemen having incomplete sets of the Church Congress Reports,
and being desirous of completing them, should apply to Mr. Hodges,
who has several of the Volumes that are out of print. Sets can be
uniformly bound in any style at moderate charges. Back Vols. pur
chased or exchanged for others.
Divine Counsels; or, The Young Christian's Guide to
Wisdom, Translated from ARVISENET, by Rev. W. B. CAPARN, M.A.,
with a Preface by JOHN SHARP, M.A., Vicar of Horbury. Cloth. Is.
"A welcome addition to devotional literature, it should be in the hands of all young
persons of an age to be preparing for Conformation and First Communion. The style of
the work is suggestive of the Imitatio C/iristi, and the teaching it contains is thoroughly
plain and practical, while full of religious earnestness and devotion." Church Times.
Drexelius. J. The Heliotropium ; or, Conformity of
the Human Will to the Divine. By JEREMY DREXELIUS. Translated
from the Original Latin. With a Preface by the late BISHOP FORBES.
Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s. net.
" A rational and simple-minded piety runs through the whole work, which forms
excellent material for devotional reading, especially for men." Guardian.
"An excellent book, and one that deserves to be more used than it is." Literary
Churchman.
Evans, A. B. Reflections Delivered at the Mid-day
Celebration of Holy Communion, in the Church of S. Mary-le-Strand.
By A. B. EVANS, D.D., Rector. Crown 8vo. Cloth. 6s. Third Edition
in the Press.
" Let a man, before preparing his own sermon, sit down and read through carefully and
slowly one of these ' Reflections,' and he will certainly derive a lesson in method, and
instruction how to reflect, from a true master of the science, which he could not easily
learn elsewhere." Ecclesiastical Gazette.
DEMY 8vo. PRICE 12s.
Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer.
Iis origin illustrated by hithertho unpublished documents.
With four facsimile pages of the MS.
By FRANCIS AIDAN GASQUET D.D. O.S.B.,
Author of "Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries",
and EDMUND BISHOP.
SECOND EDITION.
Hancock, T. Christ and the People. Sermons on the
Obligation of the Church to the State and to the People. By THOMAS
HANCOCK, M.A., Lecturer at St. Nicholas Cole- Abbey. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
"As compared with the general run of pious, feminine, hazy sermons, they are as a
breeze on the hill-top to the close atmosphere of a sick-room, with its faint smell
medicines and perfumes." Church Times.
Headlam, S. D. Priestcraft and Progress. Lectures
ann Sermons, by STEWART D. HEADLAM, B.A. Second Edition. 2s. 6d.
* These Volumes are uniform with those of the Harleian Society.
Humanity. The Service of, and other Sermons, by STBWABT
D. HEADLAM. Price 2s. 6d.
" Almost every page contains suggestive hints which all will do well to ponder,
especially those brought into contact with secularism and infidelity." Ecclesiastical
Gazette.
" Our advice to the clergy and laity is to get this hook, read it, and preach it, and
live hy it." Church Times.
Hours of the Passion, Including in full the Daily Office
for Morning and Night, chiefly after the Ancient English Use of
Salisbury, with other Devotional forms, for private and household
use. Compiled and Edited by a Priest of the Church of England.
Second and Revised. Edition. Cloth. Red edges. 2s. 6d.
In the Light of the Twentieth Century. By INNOMINATUS.
Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
"This book is undeniably clever, full of close and subtle reasoning, lighted up with
keen epigrammatic wit." Literary World.
Jones. Dishonest Criticism. Being a Chapter of Theology
on Equivocation, and Doing Evil for a Good Cause. An Answer to
DR. RICHARD F. LITTLEDALE. By JAMES JONES, S.J., Professor of Moral
Theology in St. Beuno's College. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
"Nothing like it has appeared since Newman's reply to Kingsley." John Still.
Lights and Shadows. Stories of Every-day Life, 1 vol.
containing Thirteen Stories. Cloth. 2s. 6d. or in 3 parts 6d. each.
Mermillod, Cardinal Lectures to Ladies on the Super
natural Life, by Cardinal MERMILLOD. Bishop of Lausanne and Geneva.
Translated from the French, with the Author's sanction, by a Lady,
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
"These addresses are fine specimens of composition which seem to stand midway,
between that of a meditation and a sermon. The spiritual teaching is most direct and,
excellent." Literary Churchman.
Manuals for the People. Nos. 1 to 21. A Specimen Set. Is. 9d.
Mossman, T. W. - - Mr. Gray and his Neighbours. By
T. W. MOSSMAN, D.D., Second Edition. 2 Vols. Crown 8vo. 9s.
"Mr. Gunter, the very unspiritnal Rector, who cares less for principle than preferment,
and who makes his Laodicean principles pay, is a clever caricature." Standard.
"The entire absence of goodiness or sentimentality in the way the matter is bandied,
and the mode in which Mr. Gray and his daughter are depicted as dealing with it,
deserve warm praise." Academy.
" Bishop Stubblegrass is equal to Bishop Prondie himself, which is saying not a
little." Nonconformist.
"Alice Gray is a finely drawn character with all the virtues of a sincere Christian
and the heriosm of a Grace Darling. The style of composition is that of an accom
plished scholar." Stamford Mercury.
NEW MUSICAL WOEKS.
By HENRY F. HEMY. Author of "Hemy's Pianoforte Tutor."
The Children's Musical Longfellow. Containing about 400
Songs. The Words from Longfellow. To be published in Shilling
parts, each complete in itself, and sold everywhere. Part I., containing
25 Songs. Price Is.
The Westminster Hymnal for Congregational use. Part I.,
containing 52 Hymns for Advent and Christmas. Price Is.
Notes on Ingersoll. By the Rev. L. A. LAMBERT, of Waterloo,
New York. Revised and reprinted from the 50th. Thousand. American
Edition, price Is. Gd.
" By far the ablest antagonist infidelity has met with. Every possible objection brought by
Ingersoll against Christianity is clompletely crushed by Lambert." GvarJian.
" We hail with gladness the appearance of this volume, and heartily wish it the
extensive circulation in England it has had in America." Itock.
Order in the Physical World and its First Cause, accord
ing to Modern Science. From the French by T. J. SLEVIN. One Vol.
3s. 6d. net.
Our Vicar's Stories. In Numbers, 6d. Each Illustrated.
Edited by Eev. H. C. SHUTTLEWORTH, M.A.
No. 1. RHODA ST. BARB. A Story in Three Chapters.
No. 2. TRUE AS STEEL, and WINNIE AND GRAND.
No. 3. SUNFLOWER COURT.
No. 4. THE PEARL MERCHANTS.
No. 5. IN THE NEW FOREST.
No. 6 JEM, A REAL REFORMER.
Also the First and Second Series. Cloth, 2s. each. And the Six
Numbers in 1 Volume. Cloth, gilt, 3s. 6d.
"Well adapted for lending libraries and school prizes, and very like our old favourite,
'The Curate's Budget.'" Church Bellz.
Peacock, E. Narcissa Brendon, a Romance. By EDWARD
PEACOCK, F.S.A., etc. 2 vols, Crown 8vo. 12s. Nearly ready.
Pathway, The. A Practical Guide to Instruction and
Devotion in the Elements of the Christian Religion. Demy 18mo.
Limp Cloth, Is. Cloth Board, Is. 6d. Limp Persian, 2s. 6d.
"It is truly a Pathway to the practice of devotion on the lines of the teaching of
the Church of England, and is just such a book as we should like to see in the hands
of every hoy and every girl in the kingdom." Church Times.
Sacristy, The. A Review of Eccesiastical Art and Litera
ture. Two Vols.. handsomely bound in cloth, top edge gilt, 12s. 6d.
each; or One Guinea the Two Vols. on direct application to the
publisher. Only a few copies remain.
" Such a contribution to the folk lore of Europe cannot but he welcomed by all
antiquarians. . . . We do not know when we have experienced greater pleasure, or
learned more from the perusal of any hook. As in matter it is excellent, so in its
get-up it reflects the greatest credit upon its publisher." Weekly Register.
Staniforth, T. W., Carols, Hymns and Noels, for Christ-
mastyde. 20 Selected and Edited. By THOMAS WORSLEY STANIFORTH.
Price Is. Already the book has been adopted for use in several
Churches.
"Some of them are very beautiful, and certain to become popular." Jlforniny Post.
Thoughts for Those that Mourn. Eleventh Thousand.
Cloth, Is. Roan and Red Edges, 2s. 6d.
The Treatise of St. Catherine of Genoa on Purgatory.
Newly translated, with an introduction on Hell and the Future State.
Price 2s.
Thoughts and Suggestions for Sisters of Charity, and for
those desirous of becoming Sisters, with Heads of Mental Prayer
and Consideration. Second Edition. 2s. 6d.
Winter, A. Problems of Life. By Alexander Winter.
Crown 8vo, Limp Cloth. 2s. Just Published.
