NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. (A) FOREIGN DIVINES BROUGHT TO ENGLAND BY CRANMER. Some of the more distinguished of the foreign divines who came to England at Cranmer's invitation, in order to hold a sort of Protestant Council, were the following: I. PETER MARTYR. He was born at Florence, of a good family named Vermigli, in 1500, and named Peter Martyr in honour of Peter the martyr, a Milanese saint. He entered the order of canons regular of St. Augustine, and became a very popular preacher. Being attracted by the writings of Zuinglius and Bucer, he became gradually inclined to adopt reforming views. At Naples he was made visitorgeneral of his order. Having been appointed prior of the House of Canons at Lucca, he applied himself to the exposition of the Scriptures, and gave utterance to such strong reforming sentiments that he was summoned before a chapter of the order at Genoa. This determined him openly to embrace the reformation. left Italy and made his way to Zurich, where he was hospitably received by Bullinger. He then became divinity professor at Strasburg, in conjunction with Bucer, with whom he always lived in the utmost harmony. In 1546 he married a nun who had escaped from her convent; next year he came to England, on the invitation of Cranmer, and became divinity professor at Oxford. He was allowed to quit England on the death of Edward, and became professor at Zurich, where he died in 1562. He was among the most learned and eloquent of the reformers, and distinguished for the moderation of his views, occupying a sort of middle place between the position of Zuingli and Luther. He II. MARTIN BUCER. Bucer (or Kuhorn) was born in 1491 near Strasburg. He entered the order of Dominicans, and went to reside at Heidelberg for learned studies. Here he became acquainted with the writings of Luther and Zuingli. His idea was to unite the two sets of opinions. Becoming known as a theologian with these views, he was invited to Strasburg, his native place, and here for twenty years he taught divinity with much applause. Declining to sign the Interim, it became | unsafe for him to remain in Germany, and he accepted Cranmer's invitation to come to England in 1548. He was sent to Cambridge as divinity professor, and became very popular there. At his death, in 1550, the whole University attended his funeral, and the most famous of the doctors spoke orations in his praise. Bucer may be regarded as holding much the same senti ments as Peter Martyr. III. BERNARDINO OCHINO was born at Sienna in 1487. He took the habit of a cordelier; afterwards, he became vicargeneral of the Capuchins, and confessor to Pope Paul III. He was induced to accept reforming views by John Valder, a Spaniard. He was summoned to Rome, and was on his way thither, when, at Florence, he met with Peter Martyr, who was about to quit Italy for Switzerland; he accompanied him, and afterwards settled at Geneva. He went to England with Peter Martyr in 1547. Archbishop Cranmer gave him a prebend at Canterbury. He wrote a dialogue on the usurped primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and in other ways laboured to advance the Refor. mation. At Edward's death he left England with Martyr. He was a brilliant but unstable man; he wrote in defence of polygamy, and ended by joining the Socinians. IV. PAUL FAGIUS (or Buchlein)was born at Rheinzabern in 1504. He studied Hebrew at Strasburg, under Wolfgang Capito, and became especially distin guished for his proficiency in that language. In 1542, when Capito died, Fagius was appointed to succeed him as professor. Frederick, Elector Palatine, induced him to come to Heidelberg, where he zealously laboured to advance learning and the Reformation. In 1548 he went with Bucer to England, at the invitation of Cranmer; he was sent to Cambridge, where he was to teach Hebrew and undertake a new translation of the Old Testa ment. He died at Cambridge in 1550. V. JOHN A LASCO was by birth a nobleman of Poland. In his travels he came to Zurich, where he was brought under the influence of Zuingli. Returning to Hungary, he was nominated to a bishopric, on which he openly avowed reforming views, and, leaving Hungary, became minister of the church at Embden. The publication of the Interim compelled him to leave Germany. Cranmer, who was previously acquainted with him, invited him to England. He was made superintendent of all the foreign communities in London, and had a church in Austin Friars. Of all the reformers, he was probably the one who had most influence with Cranmer; he was a very able and attractive person, as well as learned. He was allowed to leave England with his congregation on Mary's accession. He died at Frankfort in 1560. (B) THE BOOK OF BERTRAM: ITS REAL AUTHORSHIP. The treatise on the Lord's Supper, known as the Book of Bertram, is commonly said to have been composed by Ratramnus, a monk of Corbey, in the ninth century. There is good reason, however, for believing that it was the work of Joannes Scotus Erigena. This view was first advocated by the learned Peter de Marcâ, Archbishop of Paris, and may be found fully stated by Cossart, in Labbe and Cossart's Concilia. Additional evidence, greatly confirmatory of the view, has been discovered since Cossart wrote, by the finding of the treatise of Berengar, of Tours, on the Lord's Supper. Berengar professes to have learned his views from the book of Joannes Scotus, which, it appears, from his references to it, can be no other than this work. As the work of Scotus was condemned by the Church, and ordered to be destroyed, it is supposed that the name of Ratramnus was prefixed to it to preserve it, a practice of which there are many instances. (C) COMPARISON OF THE 42 ARTICLES WITH THE 39 NOW IN FORCE. The principal differences between the articles as now drawn up and those afterwards agreed to under Elizabeth are as follows: (1) The article on the incarnation expressed the divinity of our Lord somewhat less clearly than that at present in force. (2) The article on Holy Scripture did not contain the specific names of phrase, "the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner;" but it had a statement as to the impossibility of Christ's natural body being in more places than one at the same time, and also denying "a real and corporal presence, as they phrase it.' (13) The present articles xxix. and xxx., as to the wicked not receiving, and as to "both kinds," were not in the 42. (14) The article on tradition did not contain the sentence beginning, "every particular and national church." (15) The article on the Homilies was of necessity different. (16) Article xxxv. of the 42 contained not only an approval of the Ordinal, but also of the "book lately delivered to the Church of England by the authority of the king and Parliament, containing the manner and form of public prayer, and the ministration of the sacraments." (17) The article on civil magiscontain the carefully trates did not weighed and most valuable statement of our present article xxxvii., but had in its place, "The King of England is, after Christ, the supreme head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland." (18) There were four articles in the 42 which have been altogether omitted in the 39— namely, "That the resurrection of the dead is not past already;" "That the souls of the deceased do not perish with their bodies, nor sleep idly" "Of the millennarians;" "All men not to be saved at the last." the books of the Old Testament. (3) The (D) TREATMENT OF THE PRINCESS article on the Old Testament did not contain the clause beginning, "Although the law given by God to Moses." (4) The article on free-will did not contain the first clause of that article in the 39. (5) The article on justification did not define it, but merely referred to the homily. (6) The present article on "good works" was not in the 42. (7) The article on the authority of the Church had not the first sentence of the present article. (8) There was an article on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, now omitted. (9) The article on purgatory called it the doctrine of the Schoolmen on purgatory, not the Romish doctrine. (10) The article on the tongue to be employed in ministering was worded less strongly than the present. (11) The article on the sacraments was differently worded, and condemned in terms the phrase, "ex opere operato." (12) The article on transubstantiation did not contain the phrase, "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament;" nor the MARY DURING THE REIGN OF EDWARD VI. Mary refused to yield in any point, to the religious changes authorised by law, and had mass regularly said for her by her chaplains. This was at first winked at; but the young king felt scandalised by it, and determined to make her yield. A qualified promise had been given to the emperor that she should not be disturbed in her religious duties, and the Council earnestly endeavoured to induce Edward to be quiet in the matter. However, he would not consent to this, and Mary had to endure a sort of persecution because she would not yield. Her chaplains and servants were sent to prison, but without avail. Bishop Ridley visited her at Hunsdon, and offered to preach before her; but she would not hear him, and remained inflexible throughout the reign. The whole of the transactions between Mary and the Council will be found at great length in Archæologia, vol. xviii. CHAPTER XIII. THE RESTORATION OF THE UNREFORMED RELIGION. 1553-1555. § 1. The Church did not oppose the accession of Mary. § 2. Mary not personally popular. § 3. First proceedings of the Queen in matters of religion. § 4. Proclamation to prohibit preaching. § 5. License to preachers in the Queen's name. § 6. Conduct of the reforming clergy. § 7. Proceedings in the case of Cranmer. § 8. His declaration. § 9 Cranmer, Latimer, and Holgate committed to the Tower. 10. Bonner exults over the change of circumstances. § 11. Proceedings of the first Parliament. § 12. Disputes in the Convocation. § 13. Cranmer convicted of treason and pardoned. § 14. The Queen's injunctions. § 15. Proceedings against the married clergy. § 16. Reforming bishops deprived. § 17. Appointment of new bishops. § 18. Views of Cardinal Pole and the Queen. § 19. Convocation settles some test propositions on the Eucharist. § 20. Disputation of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer at Oxford. § 21. The reformers refuse to dispute at Cambridge. § 22. Provocations of the zealots. § 23. Cardinal Pole arrives with a dispensation for the holders of Church lands. § 24. Parliament and Convoca. tion absolved and reconciled with Rome. § 25. The Act of Parliament embodying the dispensation. § 26. The laws against heresy revived. § 27. Rejoicings in Rome and in London. § 28. The Cardinal Legate directs the absolution of the people. § 29. Condition in which the Church of England now stood. § 1. THE Church was in some measure compromised by the disastrous attempt to put the Lady Jane Grey on the throne, inasmuch as the archbishop had signed the settlement as a councillor, and Bishop Ridley had preached in its favour in London, and Dr. Sandys at Cambridge. But there is no good reason to believe that the clergy generally, any more than the lay people, approved of this violent effort to upset the hereditary succession. Probably they did not anticipate any special mischief from the accession of Mary. The great majority of them, indeed, would still be in favour of the old Latin services in preference to those English forms to which they had been but a short time accustomed, while those of a distinctly reforming type did not anticipate any peculiar danger, inasmuch as the Princess Mary had plainly assured the Suffolk men that she did not intend to compel her subjects to any change in religion.1 The people were decidedly bent to uphold regular succession and hereditary right. 1 Dodd, Ch. Hist. ii. 55, note. § 2. Mary, indeed, had no personal popularity to recommend her cause. "She had no sympathy for the life, the interests, the struggles of her people. She hated them from her childhood. All her sympathies were for the nation from whence her mother came. "1 And she seems to have been universally disliked in return.2 § 3. On the entry of Mary into London, August 3, one of her first cares was to deliver the five imprisoned bishops, and to cause their restoration to their sees. This was done by the same agency which had deprived them, viz. by a commission of laymen. Mary would probably have at once publicly restored the old religion, had not the emperor given her advice to proceed with prudence. Acting on this, she allowed Cranmer to perform the funeral service of the late king according to the reformed rite, and the English Liturgy still continued to be used. But the queen herself had mass said before her, and made no disguise of her sentiments, and soon a trifling incident furnished her with a pretext for imposing silence upon the reformed preachers. Bourne, a canon of St. Paul's and a royal chaplain, took occasion, in a sermon at St. Paul's Cross, to inveigh against the reformed doctrines, and to laud the old superstitions. Some zealot threw a dagger at him in the pulpit. A tumult arose, and Bourne was only protected from violence by the exertions of Rogers and Philpot, two prebendaries of St. Paul's, of reforming views. This trifling affair gave the queen a decent excuse 3 for interfering in religious matters. Again she followed most exactly the precedents of the late reign. § 4. She issued a proclamation (August 18) forbidding religious dissensions, and the use of the "devilish terms of papist and heretic, and complaining that these dissensions were much stirred up by preaching, and by representing plays and interludes. She therefore forbade all preaching and public interpretation of the Scriptures, all printing and representing plays, without her special license." In this proclamation she also declared that she " cannot hide that religion which God and the world knoweth she hath ever professed from her infancy hitherto, which as her Majesty is minded to observe and maintain for herself by God's grace during her time, so doth her Highness much desire and would be glad the same were of all her subjects quietly and charitably entertained." This invitation to all to disobey what was as yet the law of the 1 Von Ranke, Hist. of England, i. 208. 2 Noailles, the French ambassador, says-" Had she left the kingdom (as the emperor desired), she would not have found one solitary friend in all England to aid or favour her return."-Ambassade, ii. 254. 3 Lingard, v. 26. land is somewhat singular in a royal proclamation. Compulsion, indeed, was not as yet to be exercised, as in fact it could not be until the law was changed. This, however, is claimed as an act of clemency in the proclamation :-"Of her most gracious disposition and clemency her Highness minds not to compel any her said subjects thereunto until such time as further order by common consent may be taken therein." "1 § 5. The license given to such as were approved to be preachers is a curious adoption of the Erastian proceedings of the late reign. It ran thus:- "Mary, by the grace of God, on earth supreme head of the Church of England," and granted the power of preaching, “so long as it shall please us, and you shall conduct yourself laudably." "2 § 6. The chiefs of the reforming party came to the conclusion that it was their duty to disobey this inhibition of preaching, and in consequence many of them soon found themselves in prison. Many others, however, foreseeing the storm gathering, thought it more prudent to escape to a place of safety and wait for better times. No opposition seems to have been offered to their leaving the country. Even Archbishop Cranmer might possibly have at this time escaped had he thought it consistent with his duty to do so. § 7. He had been twice summoned before the Council; once in the beginning of August on the matter of his complicity in the business of Lady Jane Grey, and again on August 27, to answer questions as to the possessions of his see. But in neither case had more been done than to order him to keep his house at Lambeth.8 It was of course intended to deprive him of his see, but it does not appear that at the beginning of the reign any personal proceedings had been determined on against him. However, when pressed by his friend Peter Martyr to escape, he firmly declined, on the ground that being by his position placed in the forefront of the battle, he must not abandon the cause. And in a very short time escape became impossible for him. § 8. A report had been raised that he had agreed to accept the queen's religion, and that the Latin mass was again celebrated in the Cathedral of Canterbury. The archbishop, indignant at this rumour, drew up a declaration, in which he condemns with some violence of 1 Cardwell, Doc. Annals, i. 103. In the Council meeting, August 13, in which the disturbance alluded to was considered, it is said: "Albeit her Grace's conscience is stayed in matter of religion, yet she meaneth graciously not to constrain other men's consciences otherwise than God shall put in their hearts a persuasion of the truth."-Archeologia, xviii. 173. 2 Collier, Records, lxviii. It will be observed that Mary adopted and used the style of "Supreme Head of the Church on earth," which Elizabeth afterwards refused to adopt. 3 Strype's Cranmer, i. 439, (fol. ed.) |