Catechismus Brevis in 1553, a few weeks before the young King's death. Here, we must make a pause; for as it is assumed on Whitaker's authority, that Nowel drew up this identical Catechism, it is necessary to ascertain that point, before we proceed farther.

The evidence for, and against such an assumption is as follows:-

BALE, Bishop of Ossory, in his catalogue of illustrious writers, attributes the Catechismus Brevis to Poyntz, or Poynet, who was Bishop of Winchester during Gardiner's deprivation. STRYPE follows on the same side in his Ecclesiastical Annals, as does Heylin in his Quinquarticular History. Lastly, ARCHDEACON CHURTON, in his Life of Nowel, Dean of St. Paul's denies him the honour of its authorship. Now, if this be the case, and that Poynet is not the author, as we have also reason to think, why may we not suppose it to have been Cranmer himself; as there is nothing inconsistent with such a supposition contained in his answers to Queen Mary's Commissioners, or with his admission, that that Catechism was formed, and digested under his own eye. Why may we not suppose it to have belonged to the intelligent Ridley, or to the mild, and venerable Latimer? In short, uncertainty about the author seems to have caught hold even of Archbishop Wake; for, although he speaks of three Catechisms, viz. one

for children, who are to be confirmed, a longer one for communicants, and a third in Latin for schools; yet, he says, nothing is known respecting the author of the first of these. But not to dwell longer on this point; let us proceed to those, who give testimony on the opposite side.

The first of these is Mr. Beloe, who maintains in his Anecdotes of Literature, that we are warranted in assigning the Catechismus Brevis to Dean Nowel, from the internal evidence of the book itself. That his Catechism of 1570, was only an ENLARGEMENT of the Catechismus Brevis of 1553, as an exact correspondence existed between the subject matter, and order of both, and frequently an identity in the words, and form of expression.

The second testimony in favour of Nowel, is that of Whitaker. This person, in his Dedication to Nowel, speaks of his having translated two preceding Catechisms of his into Greek, and that he now offered him a version of his third Catechism in the same language:-xa vu τριτον ἑλληνιςι προσφερω. But neither does this afford us any certainty about the matter, as Whitaker gives neither titles, nor dates, of what he calls "the two preceding Catechisms;" and surely, his Translation does not furnish us with grounds for ascribing the Catechismus Brevis to Nowel, as the third Catechism may have been

an edition of either of the preceding two, and particularly, where we have seen stronger probabilities, amounting almost to certainty, at direct variance with such a supposition.

On the whole, therefore, we have no solid data for establishing Nowel's claim to more than two Catechisms; namely, his large one under the title of Institutio Christianæ Religionis, &c. and its Abridgment. The former evidently, was revised, improved, and ENLARGEd, from the materials of the Catechismus Brevis; and yet, although it was presented by him to the Convocation in 1562, in his capacity of Prolocutor, it was not published before the year 1570. Of the ENLARGED one, then, he certainly was the author, as well as of the lesser, and abridged one, he having made an acknowledgment of the matter to Cecil, the Queen's Secretary of State. His title to the authorship of a third, is, as we have seen, involved in obscurity. But taking it for granted, that to him the Catechismus Brevis, the Institutio and its Abridgment are to be ascribed, not one of them possesses an authority equal to the Articles and Liturgy of our Church; notwithstanding, that

* " By Secretary Cecil's advice, Nowel drew up a Catechism in elegant Latin, yet making much use of the Catechism set forth towards the latter end of King Edward's reign, viz. the Catechismus Brevis."-STRYPE'S Annals of the Reformation, 1562, vol. 1, p. 352.

+ In the Preface to his Enchiridion Theologicum, BISHOP

Ꮓ

the first named presents, in Archbishop Wake's opinion, the perfect model of our present English Catechism. Indeed, to the pious and learned individual, whoever he may have been, that produced it, is to be attributed the superior merit of our own; as to his chaste and classical Latinity, we owe that concise, and happy form of expression, so peculiarly characteristic of that office, in our book of Common Prayer.

To this rapid sketch of the history of the Church of England Catechisms, it is proper to add ;—that from first to last, they scarcely differed from one another in form. Subsequently, however, to the Conference at Hampton Court; Dean, afterwards Bishop Overall, had orders from King James, to prepare some additions for our English Catechism on the subject of the Sacraments, as well as some improvements of certain answers, that were objected to by the Puritans. These additions, and improvements were afterwards sanctioned both by the Convocation, and Parliament, at the Review of our Liturgy in 1661. In its present state, our Church Catechism is ever likely to remain ; since after having commanded the admiration of the best judges for upwards of two centuries, it would be idle to look for further improve

ment.

RANDOLPH speaks of Nowel's Catechisms having had "the sanction of public authority."