« السابقةمتابعة »
“ paynt and grave whatsoever theyr idle heades “ can fansy. You should rather have gathered “ your argument upon the other side, that I mis“ like the matter, bycause I left out of my booke “ the picture that was in the originall before. And “ I mervayle you be not ashamed to alleadge so “ vayne a matter agaynst me, which in dede is “ not in my booke, and if it were, yet were it no“ thing to the purpose. And in that Catechisme “ I teach not (as you do) that the body and bloud “ of Christ is conteined in the sacrament being
reserved, but that in the ministration thereof “ we receave the body and bloud of Christ, wher“ unto if it may please you to adde or understand
this word (spiritually') then is the doctrine of my Catechisme sound and good in all mens
eares, which know the true doctrine of the sa“ cramentsų."
The plate, which Cranmer introduced instead of the one objected to by Gardiner, will be found in p. 204. of the English Catechism, and is totally different from that in the Latin. But though his answer is so far completely satisfactory, it must still be acknowledged, and Cranmer himself confessed, that he did not all at once shake off his former errors. The language, which is held concerning the real presence, in p. 208 of the English Catechism, is extremely strong. The author of the Latin Catechism was undoubtedly a Lutheran, and held consubstantiation. Cranmer is supposed at this time to have held the same doctrine;
+ The word spiritually is used in p. 212. u Page 237. though the difference is remarkable, as has been already stated, between the English and Latin Catechisms, the latter speaking of the body and blood of Christ being present in the sacrament, the latter only of our receiving them. Cranmer was charged in his own day with having been first a Papist, then a Lutheran, and lastly a Zwinglian, in his opinion concerning the sacrament *: and Gardiner made much of the contradictions which appeared between the Catechism of 1548, and the Defence of the Sacrament, which was published in 1550. The same inconsistency appears to have been pointed out by Dr. Richard Smithy, in the preface to a work, which he wrote against Cranmer's Defence, and which was entitled, Confutation of a certain book called, A Defence, &c. The Archbishop answered this Preface, and after saying that the writer of it misunderstood Peter Martyr's sentiments, he adds, “ No more than he understood my booke of the “ Catechisme, and therfore reporteth untruly of “ me, that I in that booke did set forth the reall “ presence of Christes body in the sacrament. “ Unto which false report I have aunswered in my “ fourth booke the eight chapiter. But this I con“ fesse of my selfe, that not long before I wrot “ the sayd Catechisme, I was in that error of the “ real presence, as I was many yeares past in di
* See Archbishop Laurence's Bampton Lecture3, p.211.
y He was Regius Professor of Divinity in Oxford, and changed his religion more than once. See Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. II. p. 39.
“ vers other errors as of Transubstantiation, of “ the sacrifice propitiatory of the priestes in the “ Masse, of pilgrimages, purgatory, pardons, and “ many other superstitions and errors that came “ from Rome, being brought up from youth in “ them, and nouseled therin for lacke of good in“ struction from my youth, the outragious fluds “ of Papisticall errors at that time overflowing “ the world. For the which and other mine of“ fences in youth, I do dayly pray unto God for “ mercy and pardon?.”
But the heaviest charge was brought against Cranmer by Dr. Martin, in his examination at Oxford; in which he accused him not only of versatility, but of actual dishonesty. Part of this dialogue has already been alluded to at p. vi; but the whole of it is as follows.
“ Martin. When King Henrye dyed, did you “ not translate Justus Jonas book ?
“ Cranmer. I did so.
“ Martin. Then there you defended an other “ doctrine touching the Sacraments, by the same “ token that you sent to Lynne your printer, that “ where as in the first printe there was an affirm“ ative, that is to say, Christes body reallye in the
sacramente, you sent then to your Prynter to “ put in a not, whereby it came miraculously to “ passe that Chrysts bodye was cleane conveyed “ out of the Sacrament.
? Page 402.
“ Cranmer. I remember there was two Pryn“ ters of my sayde booke, but where the same not “ was put in, I cannot tella.”
It is impossible to say, to which sentence in the Sermon on the Lord's Supper Dr. Martin alluded; for though we find the words, “we receyve trewly “ the bodye and bloud,” and “we eat his veray “ bodye,” yet the word “ reallye” does not occur throughout the whole of it: and if the reader will look to all the places, which appear to favour the doctrine of the real presence, he will find it almost impossible for the word not to have been inserted. Cranmer, it is true, does not actually deny the insertion: but his words may mean, that if it was made, it was without his knowledge; and certainly no copy of the Catechism has as yet been produced, which contains the negative. It has been stated, that one of the Bodleian copies appears evidently to be a different edition from the others; but the negative does not occur in it; and the passage, to which Gardiner alluded, as quoted at p. xix. is not altered. This copy contains no list of errata : but in the other copies, the word not is ordered to be inserted in the place which corresponds to page 139, line 1, of this edition, where it is evidently wanted : but we can hardly suppose Dr. Martin to have confounded the two places. Strype has certainly gone too far, when he said, “ In a second edition the word not was inserted
a Fox, Acts and Monuments, vol. II. p. 1877.
*** in a certain place of the book, to alter the doc“ trine of the real presence, which was asserted in “ the first edition b.” He appears to have taken this from the dialogue with Dr. Martin, in which nothing is said of a second edition; and upon the whole there is great reason to conclude, that the charge was altogether unfounded
It will have been seen from Cranmer's answer to Gardiner concerning the picture, that the subjects of the plates in the English Catechism are not always the same with those in the Latin. Fac-similes of all of them have been engraved for the present edition: and it will be seen, that the subjects in many instances are totally different, though there is a sufficient resemblance in some of them to shew, that the artist employed by Cranmer had the German engravings before him. The latter are much more rude in their execution and design than the plates in the English Catechism: and the superiority is easily accounted for, when it is known that the English engravings
b Memorials of Cranmer, p. 396.
c It is not impossible, that Dr. Martin may have remembered a passage in Gardiner's Answer to Cranmer's book upon the Sacrament, in which, after criticising Cranmer's version of a passage in Theodoret, he says, “I wene the “ Printer left out a (not) and should bave sayd, not changed “ into the godly substance.” p. 125. Cranmer denies that he or his printer had made this omission, p. 322; and since the doctrine of transubstantiation formed the subject of dispute, Dr. Martin may have confounded Cranmer's Defence of the Sacrament with his Catechism.