was twice married, his second wife, then living, the niece of Osiander, being kept under a decent veil of secrecy in his palace.1 When, after his fruitless resistance to the Six Articles, the bill was passed, he sent his wife to her friends in Germany, until the death of his master enabled him to bring her back and acknowledge her openly;2 but vast numbers of unfortunate pastors could not have had the opportunity, and perhaps lacked the self-control, thus to arrange their domestic affairs. Even the gentle Melanchthon was moved from his ordinary equanimity, and ventured to address to his royal correspondent a remonstrance expressing his horror of the cruelty which could condemn to the scaffold a man whose sole guilt consisted in not abandoning the wife to whom he had promised fidelity through good and evil, before God and man—a cruelty which could find no precedent in any code that man had previously dared to frame.3

As might be expected, numerous divorces of married priests followed this Draconian legislation, and these divorces were held good by the Act of 1549, which under

1 His first marriage was entered into while he was still quite young, and before he had taken orders. The second, however, shows that he acted with some independence, for it took place in 1531, before Henry's open rupture with Rome, and while he was ambassador to the Emperor. At that time he was King's chaplain and Archdeacon of Taunton, and his nuptials therefore were plainly an indication of heresy. Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, book i. chap. iii., book iii. chap. xxvii.

2 Burnet I. 256-7. It was not until 1543 that he ventured to confess this to the King (Ibid. p. 328). At his trial in 1556 his two marriages were one of the points of accusation against him (Ibid. II. 339).

Saunders, in commenting upon Cranmer's time-serving disposition, which enabled him to accommodate himself to Henry's capricious opinions, and yet to enter fully into the reformatory ideas predominant under Edward VI., does not fail to satirise his connubial propensities. "Unum illud molestissime tamen ferens, quod meretricem quandam suam non poterat palam uxoris loco libere habere, quia id non laturum Henricum sciebat, sed partim domi eam occultare, partim cum foras prodiret, cista quadam ad id affabre facta inclusam, secum una circumferre cogeretur. Iste ergo jam desiit esse Henricianus, et tam ex immatura regis Edouardi ætate quam ex Protectoris in sectas summa propensione, suæ statim simul et libidini et hæresi habenas laxandas statuit ; nam et scorto suo mox est publice pro uxore usus, et catechismum Edouardo dedicatum, falsæ impiæque doctrinæ plenum, in lucem edidit."-De Orig. et Prog. Schismatis Anglicani, p. 193 (Ed. 1586).

3 Melanchthon. Epist. Ed. 1565, p. 34.

Edward VI. granted full liberty in the premises to ecclesiastics. Even Henry, however, began to feel that he had gone too far, and the influence of Cromwell was sufficient to prevent the harshest features of the law from being enforced in all their odious severity, especially as the projected marriage with Ann of Cleeves and the alliance with the German Lutherans rendered active persecution in the highest degree impolitic. When the comedy of Henry's fourth marriage culminated in the tragedy of Cromwell's ruin (June 1540), the reactionary elements again gathered strength. There can be little doubt that the atrocity of the law had greatly interfered with its efficient execution and had aroused popular feeling, for now, although the Vicar-General was removed, the Catholics passed with speedy alacrity a bill moderating the Act of the Six Articles, in so far as it related to marriage and concubinage. For capital punishment was substituted the milder penalty of confiscation to the King of all the property and revenue of the offenders.2

The Six Articles, as thus modified, remained the law of England during the concluding years of Henry's reign, nor is it likely that any one ventured to urge upon him seriously a relaxation of the principles to which he had committed himself thus definitely. The fall of Cromwell and the danger to which Cranmer was exposed for several years were sufficient to insure him against troublesome remonstrants, even if his increasing irritability and capriciousness had not made those around him daily more alive

1 2-3 Edw. VI. c. 21 (Parl. Hist. I. 586.)

2 32 Hen. VIII. c. 10.-Burnet I. 282.-Parl. Hist. I. 575.

3 Richard Hilles, writing in 1541 to Henry Bullinger, assumes that this modification of the Six Articles only applied to those who were guilty of incontinence, and that it did not "appear to the King at all extreme still to hang those clergymen who marry or who retain those wives whom they had married previous to the forme statute " (Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 205)-but both Burnet and the Par liamentory History make no such distinction, and in the abstract of the bill as printed in the Statutes at Large (I. 281) it is described as applicable to "priests married or unmarried."

to the danger of thwarting or resisting his idlest humour. How little progress, indeed, the Reformation had thus far made in England is shown in a letter written in 1546 by John Hooper, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester and Worcester, during the exile into which he was forced by the Act of the Six Articles: "Our King has destroyed the Pope, but not popery; he has expelled all the monks and nuns, and pulled down their monasteries; he has caused all their possessions to be transferred into his exchequer, and yet they are bound, even the frail female sex, by the King's command, to perpetual chastity. England has at this time at least ten thousand nuns, not one of whom is allowed to marry. The impious Mass, the most shameful celibacy of the clergy, the invocation of saints, auricular confession, superstitious abstinence from meats, and purgatory, were never before held by the people in greater esteem than at the present moment.” 1

On 28 January, 1547, Henry VIII. died, and Edward VI. succeeded to the perilous throne. Not yet ten years of age, his government of course received its direction from those around him, and the rivalry between the Protector Somerset and the Chancellor Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, threw the former into the hands of the progressives, as the latter was the acknowledged head of the reactionary party. The ruin of Southampton and the triumph of Somerset, strengthened by his successful campaign in Scotland, soon began to develop their natural consequences on the religion of the country. Under the auspices of Cranmer, a Convocation was assembled, which was empowered to decide all questions in controversy. When the primate was anxious to again enjoy the solace of his wife's company and to relieve both her and himself from the stigma of concubinage, it is easy to understand that the subject of celibacy would receive early and appro

1 Hooper to Bullinger.—Original Letters, Parker Soc. Pub. p. 36.

priate attention; and so confident were the reformers of success that they did not hesitate to enter into matrimony without waiting for any formal sanction.1 Accordingly, on 17 December, 1547, a proposition was submitted to the effect that all canons, statutes, laws, decrees, usages, and customs, interfering with or prohibiting marriage, should be abrogated, and it was carried by a vote of 53 to 22. No time was lost. Two days afterwards a bill was introduced in the Commons permitting married men to be priests and to hold benefices. It was received with so much favour that it was read twice the same day, and on the 21st it was sent up to the Lords; but in the Upper House it raised debates so prolonged that, as the members were determined to adjourn before Christmas, it was laid aside. This might be the more readily agreed to, since on the 23rd an Act was approved which abolished numerous severe laws of the former reign, including the statute of the Six Articles, and was immediately followed by another granting the use of the cup to the laity and prohibiting private Masses."

The repeal of the Six Articles left the marriage of the clergy subject to the previous laws of Henry, imposing on it various pains and penalties, but with the votes recorded in Convocation and Parliament, it is not likely that much vigour was displayed in their enforcement. Those interested could thus afford to await the reassembling of the Houses, which did not take place until 24 November, 1548, but they claimed the reward of their patience by an early hearing in the session. On December 3 a bill was intro

1 Thus Dr. Parker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was married on June 24, 1547, within six months after Henry's death, to Margaret, daughter of Robert Harlston of Mattishall. As he had been in priest's orders since 1527, he assumed a liberty which was not even asked of Parliament until nearly eighteen months later (see his autobiographical memoranda in his Correspondence, pp. vii., x., Parker Soc. 1853).

2 1 Edw. I. c. 1, 12 (Parl. Hist. I. 582-4).-Wilkins IV. 16.-Burnet II. 40, 41 III. 189.

duced, similar to that of the previous year, rendering married men eligible to the priesthood: it passed second reading on the 5th, and third reading on the 6th. Apparently encouraged by the favourable reception accorded to it, the friends of the measure resolved on demanding further privileges. The bill was therefore laid aside, and on the next day a new one was presented which granted the additional liberty of marriage to those already in orders. It conceded to the established opinions the fact that it were better that the clergy should live chaste and single, yet, "as great filthiness of living had followed on the laws that compelled chastity and prohibited marriage," therefore all laws and canons inhibiting sacerdotal matrimony should be abolished. This bill, after full discussion, was read a second and third time on the 10th and 12th, and was sent up to the Lords on the 13th. Again the Upper House was in no haste to pass it. It lay on the table until 9 February, 1549, when it was stoutly contested, and, after being recommitted, it finally passed on the 19th, with the votes of nine bishops recorded against it.1

Cranmer and his friends were now at full liberty to establish the innovation by committing the clergy individually to marriage, and by enlisting the popular feeling in its support. During the discussion they had not been idle. Much controversial writing had occurred on both sides, in which Poynette, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, took an active part, while Bale, Bishop of Ossory, distinguished himself on the same side by raking together all the foul stories that could be collected concerning the celibate clergy-a scandalous material not likely to be lacking in either quantity or quality. Burnet declares that no law passed during the reign of Edward excited more contradiction and censure, and the matrimonialists soon found that, even with the Act of Parliament in their favour, their

1 2-3 Edw. VI. c. 21 (Parl. Hist. I. 586).-Burnet II. 88-9.