(logo)
(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Open Source Books | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections

Search: Advanced Search

Anonymous User (login or join us)Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Edward VI and the Book of common prayer : an examination into its origin and early history with an appendix of unpublished documents"

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UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS.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.