clusive study for three years, before he allowed himself to extend his reading more generally to other books. In the prosecution of his inquiries he read few books; but of these he made himself master. Reading indeed was a slow operation to him, as he always accompanied it with the use of his pen; though not in such a manner as to prevent the exercise of his memory. * When Master of Arts he married a gentleman's daughter, and thus lost his preferment in Jesus College, of which he had been elected a Fellow. But he then obtained a lectureship in Buckingham College, which he held with great reputation. His lectures, which were chiefly directed against the Romish superstitions, were attended by a numerous academical audience of every description: being highly esteemed for their ingenuity and learning. He had only been married a year, when his wife died in child-bed; and such was his reputation in the University, and particularly in his own College, that he was re-elected into his former station. In gratitude for this favour, he refused to leave the College for a better preferment afterwards offered to him, at Christ Church, in Oxford, then newly founded by Cardinal Wolsey. In the year 1526 he took the degree of Doctor in Divinity. He was now appointed by the University one of the Examiners in Theology. In this situation he did eminent service to religion-exercising a scrupulous severity, in excluding all from their degrees, who did not shew an acquaintance with the Scriptures themselves. By this practice he incurred the hatred of the Friars; yet some of the more ingenuous sort of them took occasion afterwards to express their thanks to him for his rejection of them, which Strype adds, "before that called Monks' College, because Monks studied there; but now Magdalen College." had led them to a better mode of study. While he was thus employed, about the year 1529, au epidemical distember, attended with many symptoms like the plague, broke out at Cambridge. The alarm which it produced causing a dispersion of the members of the University, Craumer retired into Essex, to the house of Mr. Cressy, a gentle. man of fortune, at Waltham, whose sons had been his pupils at Cambridge, and whose education he still continued to superintend. These circumstances were the foundation of all his future fortunes. For Henry VIII. being on his progress through some of the southern Counties of England, Fox, Provost of King's College, the King's Almoner, and Gardiner, now Secretary of State, were invited as part of his retinue to the house of Mr. Cressy, where they passed the evening with Cranmer. Here the conversation turned on the subject of the divorce which Henry had hitherto ineffectually endeavoured to obtain from the Pope, in order to his marriage with Anne Boleyn. On this occasion, Cranmer suggested the expediency of referring the matter to all the Universities of Europe, proposing to them the simple question,-Whether it was lawful to marry a brother's wife? "Since their approbation," he said, "would satisfy the king's scruples, or their disapprobation bring the Pope to a decision." This opi nion was reported within two days after to the King, who immediately sent for Cranmer, and after some conference with him, commanded him to put his sentiments in writing with regard to the divorce. The King hesitated not immediately to put the proposed plan in execution. A commission accordingly was ap * We are not to regard the proposal as altogether new on the part of Cranmer, as the question had been already debated by the King's order, at Oxford and Cambridge. It does not appear to have been proposed to the foreign Universities before his suggestion. pointed for this purpose, consisting of Cranmer, the Earl of Wiltshire, father of Anne Boleyn, Chief Embassador, Dr. Lee, Archbishop Elect of York, Dr. Stokesly, Bishop Elect of London, Trigonel, Karn, and Be. net, Doctors of Laws. Before, however, his proceeding on this commission, Cranmer, by the desire of the King, had been received into the family of the Earl of Wiltshire at Durham House; where an intimacy began between that Nobleman and himself: which, while it greatly tended to promote the knowledge of true religion in the Earl's family, was especially influential on the opinions of her who was soon afterwards to be advanced to the throne. Then, having first visited Cambridge with the Secretary and the Almoner, and other learned men, and there argued the question of the divorce, bringing over to his opinion five out of six who before opposed him, he joined his associates in the embassy. The Commissioners directed their course first to France, and from thence passed on to Italy, and afterwards to Germany, leaving Cranmer alone at Rome, to dispute the point in question at the Papal Court. Here he abode some months; and, though he failed to gain over the partizans of the Pope, so highly recommended himself by his conduct, that his Holiness, in order to conciliate him to his interest, conferred on him the office of Penitentiary-General of England, with full power to bind and loose. At the end of the first year, when the Delegates had now traversed the universities of Italy, the commission was dissolved; and a new one made out, directed solely to Cranmer, who was styled "Consiliarius regius et ad Cæsarem Orator*." He now pursued his applications alone, and was successful in almost every instancet: * Dated January 24, 1531. + Oxford alone and Cambridge made some difficulty, dreading a defection from REMEMBRANCER, No. 71. collecting the hands and seals of such Universities as favoured the King's intentions. This was not the only foreign business in which he was employed. He was intrusted with many private dispatches from the King. He had matters of trade also to negociate for the merchants of England trading to the Low Countries. Once he was obliged to furnish himself with camp equipage, and attend the Emperor, who had taken the field against the Turks. In every employment he shewed himself to be a man, whose knowledge was by no means totally confined to his profession, but was of a more general cast, than the simplicity of his character led men to suppose. The favourable opinion, which he had previously conceived of the Reformation, was entirely confirmed in the course of his travels, and particularly by his intercourse with Osiander, at Nuremburgh.-But in the midst of his theological researches, his attention was suddenly recalled to other objects. He received a message, informing him, that the King intended to reward his services by bestowing on him the See of Canterbury, then vacant: Dr. Warham, the late Archbishop, having died August 23, 1532. Whatever expectations he might have formed from the King's favour, he was both surprised and perplexed at this intelligence. The only ecclesiastical dignities which he now had, were those of Archdeacon of Taunton, and King's Chaplain, in addition to a benefice to which he had been presented by the King; so that it seemed a very sudden elevation, to be at once promoted to the Archbishopric. He also felt some difficulty respecting the oath to the Pope which he would be required to take-and his marriage having formed a second alli ance, while abroad, with a niece of the holy See, but their favourable opinion was at last obtained. See Hume's History. Vol. iv. p. 103. 8vo. 1802. 4 O Now this description of the parable particularly applies to us in our Christian capacity as candidates for life and immortality, inasmuch as we are expressly regarded in Scripture as stewards of a master in heaven, who will hereafter call upon us to give an account of our stewardship. We are required accordingly to be diligent and faithful at our post, remembering to whom we are responsible for the goods committed to our charge, and that, unless we can secure an interest for ourselves by their active use, we shall be discarded as unworthy servants from the service of our master, and ruined for ever. Herein, however, differs our stewardship in the service of our heavenly Lord, from that of an earthly master, that while we are most strenuously furthering our own peculiar interests, we are at the same time rightly and fully obeying his commands and doing his work. In our Christian capacity accordingly we are properly excited to imitate the zealous activity of the steward in the parable, in providing for his own interest-because by doing so as Christians, we are at the same time doing our duty. Our heavenly master has no interest in the commands which he gives us to perform, further than the exertion of his benevolence towards his creatures, and when he desires them to serve and please him, he requires their obedience in order that they may best serve their own interests, and obtain pleasures for themselves for evermore. So long then as we restrict the meaning of the parable to our situation as Christian stewards, acting under responsibility to a righteous and benevolent master, whose will is our highest happiness, we cannot err in its application. Self-interest and duty are here coincident and if a man will exercise his utmost ingenuity in providing for his earthly good, we are wisely exhorted to use a corresponding diligence in securing to ourselves spiritual advantage and comfort. But if we extend the lesson of the parable to other cases which bear some resemblance to it, and fancy ourselves authorized to argue from the case of the steward to our domestic relations as members either of private families, or of society in general, we shall be grossly mistaken in its intention-for here to pursue our own interest with the most earnest zeal, either exclusively, or constantly, in preference to that of our neighbour, would lead us often to acts of the greatest injustice, and betray the narrowness of a selfish spirit, instead of the more enlarged sentiment of an enlightened self-love-such as that which is recommended in the parable. Selfishness never can in any case be a proper motive of action; whereas that self-love, which stimulates to acts of devotion and charity, becomes consecrated by the sacredness of the channels through which it flows; and may consequently be rightly recommended and praised, as an incentive to strenuous exertion. By omitting then thus to discriminate between the case which exactly corresponds, and those which bear only some affinity to that described, we should fall into the first error to which I have adverted, that of making the sense of the parable general, when it is intended only to be particular-of asserting that as universally true, which is true only in another case as nearly similar as possible to that which is adduced. But it is to the second error rather, that of laying a stress on incidental expressions, and thus altogether perverting the meaning of the whole, to which this parable seems peculiarly open,-when it informs us that "the Lord commended the unjust steward." We are apt to suppose, at the first glance, that it is his injustice which is here commended-his dexterity in defrauding his master, so as to turn that fraud to his own ultimate advantage. Such is the impression which may be made on the mind of the cursory hearer or reader. -15. "Am I to conclude then,"such a person may say, "that I may be unjust in order to effect a useful end,-that I may seek my own advantage, provided I only partially injure others, as this unjust steward, who artfully subtracted from what was due to his master in order to save himself from ruin, and was praised for the act. Or am I again to suppose, when it is said that his lord commended him because he had done wisely, that the cleverness of a fraud will palliate its grossness, and that the blame and punishment which I deserve for my iniquity, will be sunk in the praise which I obtain, for my versatility in finding expedients to rid me of my difficulties?"Such may be the reasoning which may pass through the mind of many an honest and simple inquirer after Scripture truth, and thus cause some perplexity in deciding on the true state of the case. An attentive consideration of the scope of the parable will shew us, that there is no real ground for such perplexity. The lord commends indeed the unjust steward—but he is termed unjust in this passage, not with any reference to the praise which is bestowed on him, but to his misconduct in fraudulently reducing his master's dues with a view to his own advantage. His lord commends him then, not because he had been unjust, but because he had done wisely -because he had shewn a foresight and shrewdness in providing a refuge against his dismissal from service.-Nor does this commendation at all cover the iniquity of the means which the unjust steward employed in effecting his object. The term unjust is rather affixed to his name, to shew that he deserves reprobation even when he is praised. For vice ever remains vice, however gilded over and coloured by the ingenuity of the bad man; and though often accompanied (unhappily for human nature) with shining qualities of intellect, is still as odious and blamable as when seen alone in its native de formity. Nay, indeed, still more so for the crime which is committed in spite of the counteracting force of intellectual talent, must be deeply ingrained in the constitution of the sinner, and aggravated by his better knowledge. It is far then, we may positively decide, from any part of the design of the parable, lightly to pass over the iniquity of the steward, or to sink all mention of it in the praise bestowed on his wisdom. Circumstances may call for our praise of an individual, for some particular act, or the possession of some particular excellence, who in other respects may be most deserving of our dispraise. To dwell, however, on these other respects, at a time when the particular occasion demanded our praise, would be evi. dently irrelevant at the least. So in the parable before us, the object being a forcible appeal to the principle of self-love, and to stimulate us accordingly to zeal and activity in securing our eternal interest;that point in the steward's character, which bears directly on the fact, and forcibly illustrates the precept of providing, at all events, for our well-being after death, is selected as the theme of praise, while the rest of his character is passed by in comparative indifference. Had it been the intention of this passage to teach us the depravity of injustice, his injustice would then have been selected as the object of censure. So also had it been intended to teach us the heinous nature of ingratitude and infidelity to a trust that point again, in which the steward appears so gross an offender towards his master, would have been prominently noticed and marked for our severest indignation. But these lessons are amply unfolded to us, and inculcated in a great many other passages of Scripture. Here the intention is, to illustrate the importance of diligence, activity, foresight,-in short, all those qualities of mental energy Osiander. Neither of these matters however proved any serious obstacle to him, for he returned shortly to England and was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, March 30, 1533. While, however, he took the oath of fidelity to the Pope he openly protested, "that he took it in no sense, but such as was wholly consistent with the laws of God the King's prerogative-and the statutes of the realm-that he did not bind himself from speaking his mind freely in matters of religion -the government of the churchand the rights of the Crown--and that he meant on all occasions to oppose the Pope's illegal authority, and condemn his errors. Very soon after his consecration, he was called on to officiate as Judge in the great cause of the royal divorce. Accordingly he presided officially in a Consistory, at Dunstable, in which Queen Catherine, in default of her appearance, in answer to the summons which had been sent to her, was pronounced contumacious, and a final sentence of divorce was passed. Within a few weeks after the sentence, on the 7th of September, 1533, the Princess Elizabeth was born, and the King ordered the Archbishop to be her Godfather. The Pope had now been openly defied in the matter of divorce. But soon the Archbishop and the Protestant party in general, had cause of alarm from the vacillating conduct of the King, who, by the intercession of France, had been induced to send a courier with his submission to Rome. The Popish party became clamorous for the restoration of the Papal authority, and the fanatical imposture of the Maid of Kent (an instrument in the hands of the party) began to draw the attention of the kingdom. Before however the King's submission could reach Rome, the Pope and Cardinals, assembled in consistory, had proceeded to declare him excommunicated unless he immediately restored things to their former place. The Protes tants thereupon suddenly recovered their confidence; and an act was passed in Parliament abolishing the supremacy of the Pope and declaring the King to be the Head of the Church. This act, to which even several of the Popish Bishops acceded, was carried chiefly by the learning and eloquence of Cranmer. It was the misfortune of the Archbishop not long after to be implicated in the tyrannical conduct of the King towards his Queen, Anne Boleyn. On the degradation of that Princess, he alone of all her former adherents still retained his friendship for her; and as far as the King's impetuosity permitted him, endeavoured to moderate the violent prejudices entertained against her. But his endeavours were so far unavailing, that sentence of death being passed on her, and the dread of death extorting from her a pretended confession of some lawful impediment to her marriage with the King, he was compelled to pronounce her marriage as null and invalid on this plea*. The death of Anne Boleyn, who had been regarded as the head of the Protestant interest, was hailed as a triumph by the Papists. Happily however for the Reformation, Cranmer's influence with the King continued unabated. Among the Bishops who favoured a Reformation, were Latimer, of Worcester,— Shaxton, of Salisbury,-and Barlow, of St. David's-but none of these were calculated to be active coadjutors in the cause-so that the whole weight of it rested on himself. And as a single leader he managed it with great wisdom and address. He had to cope with the conflicting opinions of the different parties into which the Protestants themselves were divided, as well as with the exasperated opposition of the Papists, supported by the King himself; who sided with them *Hume's History of England.-Vol. iv. p. 160. |