he substituted a temporal head: and wished to confer on that temporal head-himself-all the ecclesiastical authority which had been enjoyed by the spiritual. Cranmer was now Archbishop of Canterbury. His character has been differently described by those, who have taken their views of it from different sides of the question. His greatest enemies can scarcely deny him the virtues of mildness, moderation and patience, nor the praise of learning and candour1. His greatest admirers can hardly affirm that he was free from weakness and timidity, and a too ready compliance with the whims and wishes of those in power. But he had a hard post to fill. Henry had thrown off the power of the Pope, and so had thrown himself into the party of the reformers; but he had no mind to throw off all the errors of Popery, nor to go all lengths with the Reformation. Cranmer had often to steer his course warily, lest his bark should make shipwreck altogether; and over zeal for his cause might provoke the hostility of one, whose word was law,

1 His first Protestant successor in the archiepiscopal see has thus described him:-Ut theologiam a barbarie vindicaret, adjecit literas Græcas et Hebræas; quarum sane post susceptum doctoratus gradum constat eum perstudiosum fuisse. Quibus perceptis antiquissimos tam Græcos quam Latinos patres evolvit : concilia omnia et antiquitatem ad ipsa Apostolorum tempora investigavit; theologiam totam, dectracta illa quam sophista obduxerunt vitiata cute, ad vivum resecavit: quam tamen non doctrina magis quam moribus et vita expressit. Mira enim temperantia, mira animi lenitate atque placabilitate fuit; ut nulla injuria aut contumelia ad iram aut vindictam provocare possit; inimicissimosque, quorum vim ac potentiam etsi despexit ac leviter tulit, ab offensione tamen ad inimicitias deponendas atque gratiam ineundam sæpe humanitate duxit. Eam præterea constantiam, gravitatem ac moderationem præ se tulit, ut in omni varietate rebusque, sive secundis, sive adversis, nunquam turbari animum ex fronte vultuque colligeres.-Matt. Parker, De Antiq. Britann. Eccles. p. 495. Lond. 1729.

and whose will would brook no restraint from an archbishop, when it had dethroned a Pope.

During Henry's reign several documents were put forth, varying in their complexion according as Cranmer had more or less influence with him. The Six Articles nearly swamped the Reformation, and endangered even the archbishop. The Bishop's Book, or the Institution of a Christian Man, was a confession of faith set forth when Cranmer and Ridley were in the ascendant. But it was succeeded by the King's Book, the Necessary Doctrine, which was the king's modification of the Bishop's Book, in which Gardiner had greater influence, and which restored some of those doctrines of the Roman communion, which the Bishop's Book had discarded1.

Cranmer was himself not as yet fully settled in his views. He had early split with the Papacy, and convinced himself of the need of reformation, and of the general defection from the faith of the Scriptures and the primitive Church. But he was some time before he gave up the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and other opinions in which he had been bred up. The bishops and clergy in general were far less disposed to reformation than the king or the archbishop. It was rather by an exercise of regal prerogative than by the force of persuasion, that changes were effected, even to the extent which took place in Henry's reign. It was also

1 See Cardwell's Synodalia, p. 34, Note.

2 Ridley was converted from a belief in Transubstantiation to belief in the Spiritual Presence by reading Ratramn's Book, and he was the means of bringing over Cranmer, who in time brought Latimer to the same conviction. See Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 192. The date assigned to Ridley's conviction is 1545. See also Soames' Hist. of Reformation. Vol. III. ch. II. p. 17.

not much to the taste of the clergy, that they should be forced to pay the same obedience to a temporal, which they had hitherto paid to a spiritual head: especially when Henry seemed to claim, and Cranmer, at least for a time, to sanction spiritual obedience to such a temporal authority; and most of all, when Henry had given marked indications that, instead of making lighter the yoke which the Pope had put upon them, his little finger would be thicker than the Pope's loins. But neither clergy nor people were allowed to speak louder than the king chose to suffer. Convocation, both in this reign and in the next, had little weight, and was not often consulted.

However, in Henry's reign many important steps were taken. The Church was declared independent of Rome. The Bible was translated into English. So also were many portions of the Church service. Negotiations were opened with the German Reformers, especially with Melancthon, whom Henry and Cranmer besought in vain to come over and help them'. And in 1538, in consequence of conferences between Cranmer and the German divines, a body of thirteen Articles was drawn up, in great measure agreeing with the Confession of Augsburg2.

On the accession of Edward VI., who was himself a zealous partizan of the Reformation, greater changes were speedily made. In 1547 the first book of Homilies

1 Melancthon seems to have known Henry's character too well to wish to become his counsellor. See Lawrence, Bampton Lectures, p. 186, and Dr. Cardwell's Preface to the two Liturgies of King Edward VI. Oxf. 1838, p. iv., Note 6.

2 See Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, Vol. IV. p. 273.

was put forth. In 1548 'The archbishop of Canterbury with other learned and discreet bishops and divines' were appointed by the king to draw an order of divine worship, having respect to the pure religion of Christ taught in the Scripture, and to the practice of the primitive Church.' This commission is said to have consisted of Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury; Day, bishop of Chichester; Goodrich, bishop of Ely; Skip, bishop of Hereford; Holbeach, of Lincoln; Ridley, of Rochester; Thirlby, of Westminster; May, dean of St. Paul's; Taylor, dean of Lincoln; Haines, dean of Exeter; Robertson, archdeacon of Leicester; Redmayne, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge; Cox, almoner to the king, and dean of Westminster and Christ Church'. These commissioners, or a portion of them, drew up the first Service Book of Edward VI., which was approved by Convocation, and confirmed by both houses of parliament. The principal sources, from which it was derived, were the ancient offices of the Church of England, and with them very probably the Liturgy drawn up by Melancthon and Bucer at the request of Herman, arch

1 See Strype's Cranmer, p. 193. Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 221. Collyer's Eccl. Hist. Vol. I. p. 252, &c. Downe's Lives of the Compilers of the Liturgy, prefixed to Sparrow's Rationale. Soames' Hist. Ref. Vol. III. p. 253. The first Service Book was attributed by his contemporary Bale to Cranmer. On Cranmer's approbation of it, see Jenkyns' Cranmer, Vol. I. pp. LIII., LIV.

2 Soames seems satisfied that the parties actually engaged were Cranmer, Ridley, Goodrich, Holbeach, May, Taylor, Haynes, and Cox. 'If,' he says, it be true that Dr. Redmayn did not cordially approve the new Liturgy, that circumstance is to be regretted, for the age could boast of few men more erudite and honest.' Vol. I. p. 256. This witness is

true.

Bishop of Cologne, for the use of his diocese, which had been principally derived from the ancient liturgy of Nuremberg1,

The same year Cranmer translated a Catechism written by Justus Jonas, which he put forth with his own authority, and which is commonly called Cranmer's Catechism. The Calvinistic reformers of the continent made many objections to the Liturgy as drawn up in 1548: and many English divines entertained similar scruples. It is probable, that the clergy at large were not desirous of farther reformation. But the king and the archbishop were both anxious for a revision, which should do away with any appearance of giving sanction to Roman superstitions. Accordingly an order was given to prepare a new Service Book. The king and his council were most zealous in favour of the change, and it is even said that the king declared, in a spirit like his father's, that if the bishops would not make the desired change, he would interpose his own supreme authority to enforce its acceptance.

The new Service Book was put forth in 1552, and, with few exceptions, although these few are very important, it was the same as that we now possess under the name of the Book of Common Prayer.

The convocation was not permitted to pass its judgment on it, because it would, in all probability, have thrown all possible difficulties in the way of its publication. It came forth with the authority of parliament,

1 See Cardwell's Preface to the two Liturgies of Edw. VI., p. xiii., and the authorities there referred to.