Though, however, the Archbishop intended to maintain (as I believe) the Catholic Doctrine on Consecration; and, as his Letter to the Council proves, upheld the practice of kneeling at the Sacrament; we may well conclude that, under the circumstances of that particular time, he would readily consent to (perhaps suggested) an explanation of the latter act such as that contained in the Declaration. For, considering his anxiety as to what the Roman party had recently been doing at Trent, it was but natural that he should desire not to have the Church of England charged with upholding the Roman doctrine while insisting upon this act of external

reverence.

It was barely seven months before, viz. March 20th, 1552, that he had written to Bullinger, Calvin, and Melancthon expressing his concern at the proceedings of the Council of Trent: addressing Calvin he thus writes:

66

Our adversaries are now holding their councils at Trent for the establishment of their errors; and shall we neglect to call together a godly synod, for the refutation of error, and for restoring and propagating the truth? They are, as I am informed, making decrees respecting the worship of the host [p aproλarpias]: wherefore we ought to leave no stone unturned, not only that we may guard others against this idolatry, but also that we may ourselves come to an agreement upon the doctrine of this sacrament. It cannot escape your prudence, how exceedingly the Church of God has been injured by dissensions and varieties of opinion respecting this sacrament of unity; and though they are now in some measure removed, yet I could wish for an agreement in this doctrine, not only as regards the subject itself, but also with respect to the words and forms of expression "-Original Letters, Parker Society Vol. 1. No. xiv. p. 24, and Lat. Orig. in Cranmer's Remains. Pt. 1, p. 431.

To this Letter Calvin replied from Geneva about a month afterwards, viz. in April 1552; he observes:

I wish it could be effected, that grave and learned men from the principal churches might meet together at a place appointed, and, after diligent consideration of each article of faith, hand down to posterity a definite form of doctrine according to their united opinion. But this also is to be reckoned among the greatest doing this we shall probably save ourselves from the common but, I think, most doubtful and unhistorical conclusion that whatever was not ordered in Edward's 2nd Book ceased to be practised. Rubrical omissions must not be confused with Rubrical prohibitions.

evils of our time, that the churches are so estranged from each other, that scarcely the common intercourse of society has place among them; much less that holy communion of the members of Christ, which all persons profess with their life, though few sincerely honour it in their practice . . .”—Orig. Letters. Vol. 2, No. cccxxxvii. p. 713.

With so little hope, then, of attaining an agreement with other Churches on the Eucharistic question, Cranmer no doubt was the more desirous of securing concord in England; it is likely, therefore, that we see one fruit of this wish in the xxixth Article of the Synod of this very year (1552) already noticed in the Letter p. 32; and nothing can be more probable than that the Archbishop had induced the Convocation to pass the 2nd paragraph (denying Transubstantiation) and the 3rd paragraph (rejecting "the reall and bodelie presence") -that very paragraph upon which, as I argued (Letter p. 36) the Declaration was obviously framed-on account of what he understood the Council of Trent to have been enacting; though it is probable he did not know the precise language of the Decree and Canon which had been passed in its 13th Session, October 11th, 1551.

The Decree, which immediately follows that "On Transubstantiation" and is made to depend upon it, runs thus:

"Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. For not therefore is it the less to be adored on this account, that it was instituted by Christ, the Lord, in order to be received: for we believe that same God to be present therein, of whom the eternal Father, when introducing Him into the world, says; And let all the angels of God adore Him; whom the Magi falling down, adored; who, in fine, as the Scripture testifies, was adored by the Apostles in Galilee."-Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent p. 79, Waterworth's Translation.

It is not improbable that the Archbishop may have been informed of the substance of this Decree: if so, he would no doubt consider that the earlier part of it (especially as based upon the Decree on Transubstantiation) tended to uphold the popular view of a carnal Presence; and thus he would be the more eager to guard the Eucharistic Doctrine in those Articles

which were then passing. The Canon, indeed, which was founded upon this Decree is not, in its first clause, open to this objection for it only declares :

"If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; let him be anathema."

But then, even if Cranmer had known of this Canon, he might naturally fear that the way in which it immediately proceeds to defend the popular practices of adoration would be likely to obscure this statement and foster the prevalent grosser belief: for it runs on, after the word "latria," thus :

"and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema."-Canon vi. Ibid. p. 83.

In the Archbishop's judgment the practices thus maintained under the Council's anathema, and by it tied to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, had been so connected in the minds of the people with the physical Presence, as to be neither safe nor profitable; yet, in marked contrast with the vehemence of the Council, all that he and his Synod, speaking in the name of the Church of England, say, is

"The Sacramente of the Lordes Supper was not commaunded by Christes ordinaunce to be kepte, carried about, lifted up, nor worshipped."-Art. xxix of 1552.

He might well, therefore, think it all the more important to explain by way of Declaration that kneeling as ordered by the Church of England did not imply any belief in Transubstantiation; especially as he knew that they who opposed the required practice would, probably, be only too ready to accuse her of maintaining, by a Ceremonial act prescribed to the people, what they would be compelled to admit she had disavowed in a Formulary to be subscribed by the Clergy.

Thus far I have argued Cranmer's probable meaning, upon the supposition that the objections to the Rubric enforcing Kneeling came from the Zwinglian party, and were based upon purely Doctrinal grounds: but, though we have no

positive information on the subject, we are not left wholly to conjecture the source whence they proceeded: there is much reason for thinking that JOHN KNOX was really the objector whom the Archbishop had especially to withstand; yet doubtless he was the mouthpiece of a party and, too, we may be sure he would be no unwelcome advocate for those whom I have already noticed, notwithstanding their Doctrinal differences.

Knox (who had been ordained Priest about 1530) was appointed one of the Six Royal Chaplains in December 1551: in this character he had, in October 1552, to revise the Articles then in preparation, as we learn from Strype, who, quoting the Council Book, says :

66

...I find that October 2, a letter was directed to Mr. Harley, Bill, Horn, Grindal, Perne, and Knox, to consider certain Articles (which must be these Articles of Religion), exhibited to the King's majesty, to be subscribed by all such as shall be admitted to be preachers or ministers in any part of the realm; and to make report of their opinions touching the same.""-Life of Cranmer, Bk. ii. c. 28.

And in a Letter from JOHN UTENHOVIUS to HENRY BULLINGER, dated "London, Oct. 12, 1552," there occurs the following passage:

"Some disputes have arisen within these few days among the bishops, in consequence of a sermon of a pious preacher, chaplain to the duke of Northumberland, preached by him before the King and Council, in which he inveighed with great freedom against kneeling at the Lord's supper, which is still retained here in England. This good man, however, a Scotsman by nation, has so wrought upon the minds of many persons, that we may hope some good to the Church will at length arise from it; which I earnestly implore the Lord to grant."-Orig. Letters, Parker Society, p. 591.

Now, though Knox is not here mentioned by name, there can be little doubt that the passage refers to him; for (1) First, his office of Royal Chaplain would account for his preaching before this congregation: (2) Next, the writer (who does not seem to have known much of the preacher) may, likely enough, have been ignorant of his recent promotion: (3) Thirdly, though there seems no more reliable

record of his having been Chaplain * to the Duke, it may be inferred that he had been, both from his appointment in 1549 "to a preachership at Berwick-on-Tweed" by "the English Privy Council," (of which his Grace was then a most active member,) and also from the circumstance of his preaching "at Newcastle, April 4, 1550, before the Council of the North for public affairs":† (4) Fourthly, Northumberland's interest in Knox, probably because he had been his Chaplain, is shewn by his Letter to Cecil about the same time, (Oct. 28, 1552,) in which he writes:

"I would to God it might please the King's Majesty to appoint Mr. Knocks to the office of Rochester bishopric; which, for three purposes, would do very well. The first, he would not only be a whetstone, to quicken and sharp the Archbishop of Canterbury, whereof he hath need; but also he would be a great confounder of the Anabaptists lately sprung up in Kent......"-Orig. St. P. Off. Domestic, in Tytler's Reigns of Edw. vi. &c. ii. p. 142.

That Knox did preach before Edward the Sixth is certain from the fact that he himself mentions it in his "Admonition to the professors of God's truth in England", published in 1554: he there relates, too, what he had said in his Sermon, as to the character of some of the King's councillors, which, supported as it is by other historical testimony, may fairly lead us to infer that the sympathies of leading members of the Council were not so entirely with the Reforming movement as is commonly supposed, though other motives apparently induced them to forward it, for Northumberland himself died professing to be a Romanist. Knox repeats his conviction of the truth of his allegations in these words:

"I affirme, that under that innocent Kinge pestilent Papistes had greatest authoritie. Oh! who was judged to be the soule and lyfe to the counsel in every matter of weiaghty importance? Who but Sobna. Who could best dispatche busynesses, that the

That he was not Chaplain to Northumberland on the 11th Dec. 1552 may be gathered from the fact, that on that day the Duke recommended his Chaplain "for the King's presentation to the Vicarage of Kidderminster, which Mr. Harley, now Bishop of Hereford, had." (Letter to Cecil. Orig. St. P. Office. Domestic Edw. vi. Vol. xv. No. 70.) At this time the serious dispute (mentioned below, p. 95,) had occurred between Northumberland and Knox.

+ Hardwicke's Reformation, p. 148.