Those divines, to whom, under God, this kingdom is chiefly indebted for its reformation from popery, were Wickliff, who laid the basis; and Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr. Though the two latter were foreigners, yet, as they greatly assisted in that important work, they deservedly stand high on the list of English reformers. Wickliff's Calvinism has been already proved. I proceed, therefore, to the

rest.

I. Dr. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, went as far as he could, or at least as far as he dared, in promoting the protestant cause, during the last boisterous years of Henry VIII. For some time after his elevation to the primacy, he was far from possessing that strong evangelical light, which he afterwards attained. God led him from step to step. He advanced rather slowly, but solidly and surely. He was not (for instance) clear, even as to the manner of Christ's presence in the eucharist, until after the year 1538 (b). But the path of the just is a light that shines more and more to the perfect day. His knowledge of divine things was abundantly brighter, when Edward VI. ascended the throne in 1547. The famous catechism, ascribed to bishop Ponet, and of which I have elsewhere (c) given an account, received the sanction

(b) "The archbishop was not yet convinced of the falsehood of transubstantiation, but continued a stiff maintainer of the corporal presence; as appears from his being unhappily concerned in the secution of Lambert, who was burnt, Nov. 20, 1538." Downes, ubi supra, p. 13.

pro

(e) In my pamphlet, entitled, The Church of England Vindicated, &c.-Dr. John Ponet was translated from Rochester to Winchester, in 1550. According to Godwin, he was one of the most learned persons of the age. "Græcam linguam callebat ad amussim, mathematicarum porrò scientiarum ad miraculum useque peritus:" i. e. a most masterly Græcian, and a prodigy for his skill in mathematics. He excelled also in the mechanic part of philosophy; witness the curious clock, which he constructed for the use of Henry VIII.

of Cranmer's own subscription. We must, therefore, admit, either that Cranmer was as absolute a predestinarian as Calvin himself; or charge the venerable archbishop with such extreme dissimulation and hypocrisy, as are utterly incompatible with common honesty. For, this catechism (as I have shown in my tract referred to below) asserted the doctrines of predestination, efficacious grace, free justification, and final perseverance, in the fullest, strongest, and most explicit terms: and, if solemn subscription to so strict a test be not a sufficient proof of a man's real belief, all integrity and social confidence are at an end. That Cranmer actually did set his hand to it, appears from the unexceptionable testimony of his brother bishop and brother martyr, Dr. Ridley.

"A catechism," says Mr. Strype, "for the instruction of children in the fundamentals of true religion, passed the same synod [viz. the synod of 1552]: but who was the author, was not known in those days. Bishop Ridley was charged to be the author and publisher thereof, by Ward and Weston, in the disputation with him [held, in the succeeding reign of Mary, prior to his martyrdom] at Oxford. Ridley declared, he was not: but confessed, that he saw the book, perused it after it was made, and noted many things for it; and so consented to the book. Weston then told Ridley, that he [viz. Ridley], being then a bishop in his ruff, had made him [i. e. had made Weston] subscribe it.

But

Ridley replied, he [had] compelled no man to subscribe: indeed, he [himself] had set his hand to it,

It not only pointed to the hours, and to the day of the month; but showed the lunar variations, together with the ebbing and flowing of the sea. While Edward VI. lived (who had loved him from his earliest childhood, and had reaped much benefit from his sermons) the good bishop enjoyed an uninterrupted series of honours and repose. But on the accession of Mary, he retired to Germany, where he died at Strasburgh, August 11, 1556, aged only 40 years. Vide Godwin. De Præsul. Angl. p. 237, 238.

and so did Cranmer; and that then it [i. e. the catechism] was given to others of the convocation to set their hands, but without compulsion (d).”, This passage merits a remark or two.

1. The catechism abovementioned (by some, called king Edward's Catechism; by some, bishop (e) Ponet's; by others, Dr. Alexander Nowel's, because afterwards enlarged and republished by that learned dean, in the reign of Elizabeth) was approved and passed by a public synod, held at London, under the express warrant of king Edward himself. 2. The synod, which approved, passed, and subscribed this catechism, was the self-same synod, or convocation, which proved, passed, and subscribed the book of articles (ƒ): though the

(d) Strype's Eccles. Memorials, vol. ii. p. 368.

(e) Mr. Strype believed, that Dr. Alexander Nowel had the chief hand in framing this catechism. I suppose, it is on the authority of bishop Bale, that it is sometimes singly attributed to Dr. Ponet. Possibly, Ponet might digest and throw it into form. But its rough materials were, most probably, furnished by the joint care of the reformers in general, and of Cranmer in particular, who was one of the prime agents, in every thing that related to religion, during this whole reign.

(ƒ) "While the parliament was sitting this winter, a synod also was held, wherein was framed and concluded a book of articles of religion, purified and reformed from the errors of popery and other sects;-for the avoiding of controversy in opinions, and the establishment of a godly concord in certain matters of religion. A catechism, for the instruction of children in the fundamentals of true religion, passed the said synod." Strype, ut supra.

Dr. Fuller also ascribes the catechism to the same persons who drew the articles: i. e. to the reformers themselves. "With these" up [i. e. with the articles of religion agreed upon in convocation,] "was bound a catechism, younger in age (as bearing date of the next year,) but of the same extraction, relating to this convocation, as author thereof." Where let it be observed, that the reformers presided personally in this convocation, and were the very life and movers of all that was acted in it.-Fuller goes on: "Indeed it" [viz. the catechism]" was first compiled (as appears by the king's patent prefixed) by a single divine, charactered pious and learned:' but afterwards perused and allowed by the bishops, and other learned men, &c. and by royal authority commanded to all subjects, [and] commanded to all schoolmasters to teach it their scholars."

6

latter were not published until the summer following. Consequently, 3. The church of England is indebted for those articles which at this day are subscribed by her clergy, to the care and piety of that very synod who publicly and solemnly set their seal to that catechism. 4. The catechism being fraught with the highest Calvinism, they, who subscribed it (and Cranmer among the rest), were either temporizing hypocrites, or sincere Calvinists. 5. Bishop Ridley evidently had a hand in compiling it: witness his own words, already quoted, testifying that he had "noted many things for it;" i. e. in modern language, he had furnished some hints towards the materials out of which it had been framed. 6. He owned and assented to the contents of it, in the face of the popish court at Oxford, by whom he was tried and condemned to the flames. 7. From what passed on that occasion, it is conspicuous, that nothing gives the church of Rome so much offence, as the Calvinistic doctrines asserted in that protestant catechism: Mr. Sellon, therefore, is prodigiously mistaken in affirming, that, as predestinarians," Our reformers did only say over again those lessons which they had learned in the Romish schools." 8. The use of this catechism was enjoined by the united authority of church and state. Both the synod and the king's privy council, concurred in giving it their sanction. "In May, the

Fuller's Church Hist. book vii. p. 421.-The "single divine," charactered, in the king's patent, as "pious and learned;" was probably bishop Ponet: to whom the care of revising and methodizing the catechism, seems to have been committed: and whom Heylin himself characterises as "an excellent Græcian, well studied with the ancient fathers, and one of the ablest mathematicians which those times produced." Heylin also observes, concerning the catechism itself, that it was "bound up with the book of articles, countenanced by the king's letters patents prefixed before it, approved by many bishops and learned men, and generally voiced to be another of the products of this convocation:" though himself, for reasons sufficiently obvious, affects to doubt of the latter circumstance. Misc. Tracts, p. 551. 553.

next year," says Strype, says Strype, "viz. 1553, the council sent their letters abroad, in behalf of this catechism, enjoining it to be taught to scholars, as the ground and foundation of their [religious] learning; as it is expressed in the Warrant Book (g)." Whence it is evident, 9. That the reformers and protestant clergy of England considered the belief of predestination, and its relative doctrines, as essential and fundamental to the very existence of Christianity itself. 10. The injunctions of the council respecting this catechism, were issued at the same time that the articles themselves were published, viz. in May, 1553. The catechism, therefore, was designed as a larger display of these evangelical principles, which were virtually, but more briefly, contained in the articles. The reason is evident. The articles were intended for the clergy, who were supposed not to need so extended and minute a detail of doctrine: a compendious summary would, to them, answer the end, full as well. But the case was judged to be different with the laity of that time. It seemed necessary, that the church articles should be explained to them in a more particular and expanded manner; especially to young persons: and therefore the catechism was enjoined, as a kind of familiar and copious elucidation of what the articles comprised in a narrower compass. The articles were (if I may so speak) the text: the catechism was the commentary.

Peter Heylin's concession, in favour of this catechism, is very observable. "For my part," says that Arminian, "I can see no possible inconvenience which can follow on it, in yielding so far as to admit the passages before recited," [viz. the passages cited by Prynne from the said catechism, which happened to be the very same passages which I too shall presently cite from it in this section]" to be fully con

(9) Ibid. p. 369.