66

of religion, to be enforced with the severest penalties. This was "the bloody bill," the whip with six strings," and is thought to have been the product of the Bishops who favoured the old learning. Cranmer, we are told by Burnet, fought for three days against it; and, as Morice, his secretary, put it, "argued most dangerously."

The discussion on Confession turned on the Auricular Confession

66

heavy penalties

question, whether Auricular Confession is by enforced by divine law a thing of necessity. The Sixth Article taught that Auricular Confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used and frequented, in the Church of God." In case of conviction, forfeiture of goods and imprisonment for the first offence, and punishment of offenders as felons for the second, were to be enforced. Such was the first English Act of Uniformity: it was the last dying struggle of "the old learning." Reference has already been made to the fact that the King took Cranmer's part on one point in the discussion. The Archbishop had shown from Scripture that Auricular Confession is not compulsory. Tunstall had sent in a re-statement of his arguments that it was so. Burnet gives Tunstall's arguments, the King's marginal criticisms on them, and also the King's reply, in

1 Stat. 31, Henry VIII. c. 14.

66

which he argues the point at length, and on very different lines to those he adopted against Luther. It had been proved, so writes the King, by himself and the Archbishop, that Tunstall's texts make smally or nothing to his intended purpose." Your authors and allegations," the letter concludes," make so little to your purpose." Cranmer's A letter is extant from a member of Parliament, strong opposition describing the part taken by the King and some of the Bishops at the passing of the Six Articles. He eulogizes the wisdom and learning of the King, who "confounded them all with God's learning.' Cranmer and others "defended the contrary long time," but at last all "have come in to us, save Salisbury (i.e. Nicolas Shaxton) who still continueth a lewd fool." Cranmer must therefore have yielded his consent against his judgment.2

The New

1540

The year 1540 saw the fall of Cromwell. In Commission, his last speech to Parliament he announced a new Commission to deal with religious affairs. They began their labours in this year, and in

1 Burnet, I. ii. 547. "I marvelled not a little why eft-soons you have sent to me this now your writing, being in a manner few other texts or reasons than these were declared both by the Bishop of Canterbury and me, to make smally or nothing to your intended purpose." The letter is to be seen in the King's own hand in the Cleopatra MSS. at the Brit. Museum.

2 Strype, Memor. Abp. Cranm. i. 415. See also Dr. A. J. Mason, Cranmer, 109-113.

1543 The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of

a Christian Man was published.

Cranmer proceeded with much pains, and, as Cranmer's Questions in the case of the Bishops' Book, by way of questions in writing to each member of the Commission. Burnet notes this fact as affording strong "evidence of the ripeness of their proceedings." The King, true to his scholarly instincts and training, took personal interest and part in the discussions, traces of which in the royal handwriting remain.

The first two questions dealt with the meaning of the The King's word "Sacrament." The replies of the Bishops acknow- Comments ledged that the word, while used in Scripture, was not defined; and that the Fathers gave no perfect definition." On this the King writes, "Why then should we call them so?"

66

The next questions dealt with the number of Sacraments named in Scripture and in the old authors. On the answer that Scripture so named only Matrimony:1 in effect mo: and at the least seven as we find the Scripture expounded," the King aptly says, "why these seven to have the name more than all the rest?" Again, on the vague and unsatisfactory reply, "whether (the word Sacrament) ought especially to be applied to the seven only, God knoweth, and hath not fully revealed it," the King with blunt honesty asks, then why hath the Church so long erred to take upon them so to name them?"

On Penance the royal comments are fuller and still

1 This is based on the use of Sacramentum in the Vulgate for μvorηplov, as in Eph. v. 32 and elsewhere.

C.A.

225

15

more decisive.

Question seven ran thus,

:

66

"So although the name be not in Scripture, yet whether the thing be in Scripture?" Some Bishops answered, of Absolution manifestly" but the King at once caught at the change of position from Penance to Absolution, and put in his best reply. Then Penance is changed to a new term, i.e. Absolution. Of Penance I read that without it we cannot be saved after relapse: but not so of Absolution. And Penance to sinners is commanded, but Absolution, yea in open crimes, is left free to the askers." In the Necessary Doctrine changes appear, which remind us of this royal comment, and which are probably the result of it. See p. 229.1

Question fifteen directly concerns us. "Whether a man be bound by authority of this Scripture, Quorum remiseritis, etc., and such like, to confess his secret deadly sins to a priest, if he may have him or no? Cranmer replied, "A man is not bound by the authority of this Scripture to confess his secret deadly sins to a priest, although he may have him."

In what is probably a digest of the answers (see p. 268), the following statement occurs with "Abp. Cant.' against it in the margin; "He that knoweth himself guilty of any secret deadly sins must, if he will obtain the benefit of Absolution ministered by the priest, confess the same secret sins unto him." This can hardly be Cranmer's personal expression of opinion, as it differs from that already given; it may be his summary of

1 The King's notes on Confirmation and Unction are worth recording. Henry always went straight to the point. The Bishops had given Scriptural warrant for the Roman doctrine of Confirmation. Laying on of hands," said the King, "being an old ceremony of the Church, is but small proof of Confirmation,” i.e. as a Sacrament. On "Extreme Unction," as grounded on Scripture, Henry simply remarked, "then show where." His notes display much common sense, and a shrewd kind of knowledge of the subject.

the answers prepared for the King.1 There was obviously a great divergence of views, and some of the opinions expressed speak much more strongly of the necessity of Confession of secret deadly sins.2 The King made no comment on the answers to this question. Question sixteen deals with the power of Bishops or Priests to excommunicate. Most answers recognize that the power to excommunicate is subject to the Prince's sanction. Some recognize a spiritual power vested in the Church's ministers, or the Church as a whole. Cranmer and others allow that laymen, if authorised, may excommunicate. "Non tamen pro re pecuniaria uti olim solebant," says Dr. Oglethorpe. It is strange that Henry made no remark on this question.3

estimated

Interesting as these answers are, our chief The King's concern is with the result as expressed in the Book, 1543. Its tendency King's Book. Various estimates have been given variously of the general drift of this volume. By most writers it has been regarded as reflecting that period of reaction of which the Six Articles were the outward sign. Collier says that it "manages with less latitude than the Institution, bends to the Six Articles, and in some points of controversy drives farther into the doctrines of the Roman Communion." Canon Dixon's judgment is that

1 Strype ascribes these answers to a popishly affected bishop, who set certain names in the margin "to signify their judgments as agreeable with his." Strype, Cranmer, i. 175.

2 Nine divines answer," Absolution by a priest is the surest way, if he may conveniently be had." Burnet, I. ii. 360.

3 For refs. to the above, see p. 267 f.