meeting and although Cranmer (March 20, 1552), was himself desirous of extending the discussion to a variety of controverted topics,-to all the heads of ecclesiastical doctrine, and not only to the things themselves, but also to the forms of speech,'—he looked on the dissensions respecting the 'sacrament of unity' as the sorest evil of the Church1. It is not easy to ascertain the precise time when this project of a General Confession was finally abandoned in England, but there is reason to believe that it was still cherished by the Archbishop and his friends long after they had actually begun to frame a domestic Formulary of Faith. of the XLII. 1551: The first sketch of this document was prepared as First sketch early as the summer of 1551, the king and his privy Articles, council having 'ordered the Archbishop to frame a book of Articles of Religion, for the preserving and maintaining peace and unity of doctrine in this Church, that, being finished, they might be set forth by public authority 3.' It is indisputable that the principal burden of the work was borne by archbishop Cranmer; for when questioned on this point in the following reign, he did not hesitate to admit that the book of Articles was one of the productions which had been framed under his own eye1. The rough draught, however, as soon as it came sent to the influence over the Archbishop was looked forward to with apprehension by Burcher (who considered them to be Lutherans): 'I wish they may not pervert him, or make him worse.' Original Letters, ed. P. S. 652. 1 Letter CCLXXXIV. passim. 2 The last letter of invitation is the one above mentioned, bearing date, March 20, 1552, and in a subsequent communication of Calvin the project is spoken of as relinquished. Cranmer's Works, I. 347: Laurence, Serm. II. note (4). Calvin himself revived it early in the reign of Elizabeth (Strype's Parker, I. 3 Strype, Cranmer, lib. II. c. 4 Fox represents the Archbishop as declaring that the work was one of 'his doings,' but the official report of his language is somewhat different: 'Quoad Catechismum et Articulos in eodem fatetur se adhibuisse ejus consilium circa editionem ejusdem.' Lambeth MS. quoted by Todd, II. 286. bishops: from his pen, was transmitted to the rest of his episcopal brethren for their criticism and corrections. It remained in their hands until the spring of the following year, when a letter (May 2) was sent from the council to the Archbishop, requiring him to send the Articles that were delivered the last year to the bishops, and to signify whether the same were set forth by any public authority, according to the minutes'. They were forwarded to the council in obedience to this order, but soon afterwards returned to the Archbishop, in whose possession they remained revised by the till Sept. 19. He now digested them still more carefully, and after adding titles and introducing supplementary clauses, placed a copy of them in the hands submitted to of the two distinguished laymen, Sir Wm. Cecil and Sir John Cheke2, desiring them to take the work into their serious consideration. After a careful revision from these two great patrons of the Reformation at the court,' it was again submitted to the King, with the request that it might be published, and enforced upon the clergy. archbishop; Cheke and Cecil; chaplains: A fresh delay, however, intervened; for on the 21st of October following, a letter was addressed to the six to six royal royal chaplains, Harley, Bill, Horne, Grindal, Perne, and Knox, to reconsider the projected Formulary, and to make report of their opinions touching the same3.' It was now remitted (Nov. 20) to the Archbishop at one of his country-houses for the 'last corrections of his judgment and his pen,' and on the 24th of the the Council, same month he returned it to the council, accompanied by the following observations: 'I have sent unto the same [your good lordships] the Book of Articles, finally returned to Nov. 24, 1552. 1 Strype, ubi sup. 2 I have sent the book of Articles for Religion unto Mr Cheke, set in a better order than it was, and the titles upon every matter, adding thereto that which lacked.' Cranmer to Cecil, Sept. 19, 1552: Strype's Cranmer, II. App. No. LXVI. 3 Ibid. II. 367: Todd. II. 288, who remarks that a version of the Articles in Latin, with copies of their names subscribed, is now in the State-Paper Office. It has been collated for the present work (App. No. 11), and has supplied a number of important variations. which yesterday I received from your lordships. I have sent also a schedule inclosed, declaring briefly my mind upon the said book; beseeching your lordships to be means unto the King's majesty, that all the bishops may have authority from him to cause all their preachers, archdeacons, deans, prebendaries, parsons, vicars, curates, with all their clergy, to subscribe to the said Articles. And then I trust that such a concord and quietness in religion shall shortly follow thereof, as else is not to be looked for many years'.' subscription, A further delay of six months ensued before this authority was publicly accorded, but on the 19th of June, 1553, a mandate in the name of the King was Mandate for directed to the officials of the Archbishop of Canter- June 19, bury, requiring them to see that the new Formulary should be subscribed2; which was accordingly carried into effect, at least in two or three dioceses of the realm3. 6 1553. of the Ar Before this period, however, the Articles had been already put in general circulation; as we learn, among other sources, from the following title: Articles Publication agreed on by the bishops and other learned men in the ticles. synod at London, in the year of our Lord God 1552, for the avoiding of controversy in opinions, and the establishment of a godly concord in certain matters of religion. Published by the King's Majesty's command 1 Strype's Cranmer, II. App. No. LXIV. 2 See the mandate in Wilkins, IV. 79. It extended also to schoolmasters, and apparently to members of the university on admission to degrees. Todd, II. 293. 3 On the 22nd of June (not the 2nd, as in Strype), the clergy of Canterbury were cited for this purpose, but it is uncertain how many of them actually subscribed. According to Burnet, the Articles were not circulated How far we can trace the changes in during their formation. : ment, in the month of May, 1553. Rich. Graftonus, typographus regius excudebat. Lond. mense Junii, 1553.' This work was printed separately', and in English but another edition of 1553, from the press of Raynold Wolfe, exhibits the Articles in Latin, appended to a distinct treatise, bearing the title Catechismus Brevis Christianæ Disciplinæ. These two works, similarly connected, but in an English version, were published in the same year, by the King's Majesty's authority,' and the royal Injunction prefixed to the Catechism is dated May 20, 15533. The Articles are in both cases said to have been agreed on by the bishops and other learned and godly men in the last Convocation' (in ultima synodo), a.d. 1552; but their object is described with a slight variation from the copy as it was printed by Grafton1. In It has been remarked already, that the original the Articles draft of this document was made by archbishop Cranmer, and by him submitted to a number of revisions during an interval of eighteen months. what particulars it was modified or augmented by this long and varied criticism we are unable to ascertain precisely; and yet the letter of the King to Ridley, bearing date June 9, 1553, as well as that of the Archbishop to Cecil in the previous September, would lead 1 An important consideration, proving (as Dr Cardwell remarks) that the Articles were not treated as a mere appendage to the Catechism, with which they were often combined. Synod. 1. 6. 2 The author of the Catechism is unknown. It has been ascribed to Ridley, Ponet, and Nowell; but the reasons are strongest in favour of the second. See a Letter of Sir John Cheke, June 7, 1553, and the remarks upon it, in Cranmer's Works, ed. P. S. 1. 422, note (2). 3 A very short interval must have elapsed between this order and the actual publication, for in a letter of Utenhovius to Bullinger, dated London, June 7, 1553, he remarks that 'Articles are now printed in the king's name, to which all persons must subscribe who are to be appointed to any office in the Church, as also those who are already appointed, under pain of deprivation.' Original Letters, ed. P. S. 594. 4 For to roote out the discord of opinions, and stablish the agreement of trew religion.' us to suppose that the amount of alteration had been very considerable; for it describes the Articles, which were then publishing in their final form, as 'devised and gathered with great study, and by counsel and good advice of the greatest learned part of our bishops of this realm and sundry others of our clergy'. We cannot, therefore, resist the conclusion, that they had been exposed to a searching review, and freely discussed and amended by a number of auxiliary hands, before the date of their general circulation. Hooper's vi But some of the uncertainty in which this ques- Records of tion has been thought to be enveloped, is dispelled by sitation,1551; the records appertaining to the visitations of bishop Hooper in 1551 and 15522; i. e. during the time when the Articles were in process of formation, but had not been publicly sanctioned by the Crown. In a pastoral letter to the clergy of Gloucester, in the year 1551, signifying the intention of the bishop to visit that diocese in the summer, he informs them that according to the talent and gift given him of the Lord, he had collected and gathered out of God's holy Word, a few Articles, which he trusted would much profit and do them. good.' In the course of the visitation he exacted subscription to these Articles, as he himself wrote to Cecil in a letter dated Gloucester, July 6, 15523. This, however, must have been upon his individual authority; for in the same communication he expresses the strongest wish that a document still more binding on the clergy may proceed from higher quarters. For the love of God,' he writes, 'cause the Articles, that the King's majesty spake of, when we took our oaths1, to be set forth by his authority.' In October, 1552, he pro- and in like ceeded to Worcester in continuation of the same visit, 1552. 1 Strype, Eccl. Mem. II. 421. 2 Strype, Cranmer, Book II. ch. xviii., and Documents. 3 Ibid. App. No. xlviii. One of his 'interrogatories' on the same occasion was: 'How many priests in the deanery have subscribed unto the Articles that I put II. 355. 4 i. e. on his appointment to the bishopric of Worcester (which he held in commendam'), May 20, 1552. manner of |