entire absence of regard for either religion, justice, or even common humanity. It seems to have been assumed by historians that because the religious question appeared on the face of the Articles presented by the rebels in Devonshire, therefore the rebellion arose mainly, if not solely, from dissatisfaction with the King's reforms; but it should not be forgotten that the priests were in general the persons who would draw up such documents, being, in fact, almost the only persons of any education to be found in the country districts, and that the priests were of all men, in the nature of things, those most disaffected to religious reforms. It is therefore probable that, although these had a considerable share in the production of the revolts, they had a far less one than they have been generally credited with.
Of the domestic occurrences of the year 1551, besides the squabbles over the Princess Mary's mass, and the execution of the Duke of Somerset, the principal were the preparation of the Forty-two Articles, and the revision of the Book of Common Prayer, neither of which was, however, published till the following year. The two former, if they affected the Church at all, did so only indirectly, and need not occupy us here; but the others were two of the most important events in the history of the English Church.
There has been a vast amount of controversy as to the exact authorship of the Forty-two Articles, which appears hardly necessary, since Cranmer distinctly took it upon himself, when answering Dr. Martin at his second trial at Oxford.[1] They were the earlier form of the existing Thirty-nine Articles, from which they differ but little. It is of more immediate consequence to us to determine, if possible, the exact authority by
- ↑ Foxe, vol. iii. p. 657.
