believed that the pontiffs would desire their observance to be sworn to otherwise; and custom and the general understanding seem to have explained the oath in this sense, not merely as regards this article, but the rest also, namely, that the things contained in those articles be observed, as far as the rights and customs of provinces permit them."

It is plain therefore that the oath contains many clauses which require to be understood with conditions and exceptions; and we are informed by Rechberger, that as "it did not appear free from all danger to the state," it was ordained by the imperial statute of Joseph II., emperor of Germany, that in the Austrian states it should only be taken, on condition that it be understood to relate simply to canonical obedience. The Austrian bishops also must previously take a particular oath of allegiance and fidelity to the emperor; and in Spain the oath to the pontiff is always taken with certain conditions. In fact, every other bishop of the Roman communion must make some mental exceptions, unless he means to bind himself to absolute obedience to the pontiff in temporals as well as spirituals; and therefore archbishop Cranmer, so far from deserving blame for taking it with certain qualifications, merits approbation for making an open protest of the sense in which he took it, while others contented themselves with merely mental reservations. His protest was to this effect, that he did not mean to oblige himself by it, "to say or do any thing against the law of God, the king, or state of England, or the laws or prerogatives of

e Van Espen, Jus Eccl. Univ. pars i. tit. xv. c. 2.

Report from Select Committee on Roman Catholic sub

d Rechberger, Enchiridion Jur. jects (1816), p. 313. Eccl. Austriac.

the same;" or to prevent himself from freely speaking, consulting, and consenting to all things concerning the reformation of the Christian religion, government of the church of England, or prerogatives of the crown or commodity of the state; and from reforming what seemed to him ought to be reformed in the church of England'. It is impossible to discover in this any

fraud or hypocrisy.

"But," says Bossuet, "either this oath is an illusion, or it obliges to acknowledge the spiritual power of the pope. The new archbishop therefore acknowledged it, though he did not believe it." I reply that he certainly did acknowledge and believe the spiritual power of the pope, but only as depending on the grace and favour of the king and church of England: not otherwise. He bound himself, according to Van Espen's interpretation, to obey the pope as far as the rights and customs of our churches permitted, that is, until they should legitimately revive their ancient rights and customs, and suppress the papal jurisdiction. The oath would from that time be null, because the condition supposed in it had come to an end.

66

II. Bossuet endeavours to fix on Cranmer a charge of the most odious dissimulation in the following points". His opinions being Lutheran, and therefore opposed to the mass and the catholic doctrines," he carried his dissimulation so far that the pontiff made him his penitentiary, an office which he accepted, notwithstanding his Lutheran opinions. He concealed his marriage in Germany (which was contrary to his promise and the canons) from king Henry VIII. He accepted the papal bulls for the see of Canterbury against his con

f Cranmer's Works, vol. iv. p. 248.

Bossuet, Variations, liv. vii. sect. 9, 10, 11. 30. 32. 37, 38, 39.

science. He performed mass, which he regarded as an abomination, during the whole reign of Henry VIII., and in ordaining priests made use of the terms of the Roman Pontifical, giving them power to "change by their holy benediction the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ, and to offer sacrifice and say mass as well for the living as the dead." "Behold him then at once a Lutheran, married, concealing his marriage, archbishop according to the Roman Pontifical, submitting to the pope whose power he abhorred in his heart, saying the mass which he did not believe, and giving power to say it. . . a man who practised during so long a time that which he believed to be the height of abomination and sacrilege." And further: the Articles devised by Henry VIII. in 1536, the Confession of 1538, and that of 1543, comprised the doctrine of penance, the real presence, transubstantiation, mass for the dead, the seven sacraments, the honouring of images, invocation of saints, adoration of the cross, use of ceremonies, &c. Yet Cranmer subscribed all these articles which he disbelieved in his heart, and even drew up regulations published by Cromwell for their enforcement, and himself aided in executing them in every way.

Such is the sum of the charges of this kind advanced against Cranmer, and they would certainly suffice to blacken his character most effectually, were they not evidently founded on a misrepresentation of his real sentiments. I shall notice them in order.

Admitting then as not impossible, that in 1529 or 1530, he was inclined in some points to Lutheran opinions, it remains to be considered what these opinions were. Certainly Luther himself approved of

penance", therefore if Cranmer's opinions agreed with his, he could not have held it wrong to accept the office of papal penitentiary, especially while the pontiff was still in communion with the church of England, and exercised ordinary jurisdiction here. With reference to his marriage it may be observed, that there is no evidence that he ever denied it; and I shall elsewhere show that such a marriage was lawful, and that there was no obligation to reveal it. It is, besides, a matter of dispute even among Roman theologians, whether the obligation of clerical celibacy be ex præcepto ecclesiæ, or ex voto; and Ligorio declares that both are probable opinions, and cites Mastrius, Bosco, Herinx, Scotus, Palaus, Valentia, Aversa, Sanchez, &c., as allowing that clerical celibacy is not obligatory from any vow'.

That Cranmer really maintained doctrines in matters of faith different from the pontiff himself, when his bulls were forwarded to him at the request of king Henry, not his own, may be asserted, but has never yet been proved. The celebration of mass, and the offering of sacrifice for the living and dead', in a

h See the forms of Confession and Absolution in his Catechis mus Minor (pars iv.).

i Part VI. Chapter on the celibacy of the Clergy.

A. M. De Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, lib. vi. tract. v. art. 808.

The Lutheran Confession of Augsburg says: "Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the mass, for the mass is retained among us and celebrated with the greatest reverence; and almost all the accustomed ceremonies are preserved, except that in some parts German hymns are intermingled with the Latin

for the instruction of the people." -Pars ii. art. iii. The Apology of the Confession says: "It must be premised that we do not abolish the mass, but religiously retain and defend it. Masses are celebrated among us on all Sundays and other feasts, in which the sacrament is distributed to those who desire it, after they have been examined and received absolution. And the customary public ceremonies are preserved, the order of lessons, prayers, vestments," &c.- Art. xi de Missa.

The Apology of the Confes

certain sense, need not have been inconsistent with a Lutheran's conscience. Melancthon and the ministers of Wittemburg, and the Lutheran Universities of Leipsic and Wittemburgh submitted in 1549 to the Interim, which obliged them to celebrate mass in the customary manner, and to use all the ceremonies of the church. They regarded these as " adiaphora,” indifferent matters. Further, it is plain that Cranmer did not hold the office of the eucharist as then administered in England, to be an abomination; because, after king Henry's death, when he was at liberty to proceed in the Reformation, he agreed with the other bishops and divines in very nearly translating that office into English; giving it the title of "the mass," and leaving in it both a verbal oblation of the elements, and prayer for the departed faithful. And so little did this office vary from the essentials of that previously used, that even Gardiner expressed his approbation of it in his subsequent controversy with Cranmer. The fact is, that Cranmer was, in the very last years of his life, induced to verge too much towards sacramentarian errors, by the conversation of Alasco and Peter Martyr: but his opinions during the whole reign of Henry VIII. were widely different. In 1533 he held Frith to be a heretic for doubting the corporal presence in the sacrament of the altar ".

sion of Augsburg admits that the fathers call the eucharist a sacrifice, which it explains to be a eucharistic sacrifice; and observes that the term "oblation," if understood of the whole service, the prayers, and thanksgivings, gives them no offence.Art. xii. de Missâ. "We know the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohi

In

bit, but the application of the Lord's supper for the dead ex opere operato we reject."—Ibid. In the same place the opinion of Aërius that such prayers are useless, is given up.

m Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, vol. iii. p. 99. 114. 155. n Cranmer's Works, vol. i. p.

32.