Dublin Castle, Oct. 28. 1687.  
Let this Discourse be printed  
Tho. Sheridan.   

By the Lords. Diae Lunae 3. Januarii 1680.  
ORdered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, That the Thanks of this House be given to Dr. Burnet, for the great Service done by him to this Kingdom, and the Protestant Religion, in writing the History of the Reformation of the Church of England, so truly and exactly; And that he be desired to proceed in the perfecting what he further intends therein with all convenient speed.  
Jo. Brown Cler. Parliamentorum.   
By the Commons. 
Jovis 23. Die Decemb. 1680.  
ORdered, That the Thanks of This House be given to Dr. Burnet, for the Book Entitled The History of the Reformation of the Church of England.  
Will. Goldesbrough Cleric. Dom. Com.   

Mercurii 5. Die Januarii 1680.  
ORdered that Dr. Burnet be desired to proceed with, and complete that good Work by him begun in Writing and Publishing The History of the Reformation of the Church of England.  
Will. Goldesbrough Cler. Dom. Com.    

A REFORMED CATECHISM, IN TWO DIALOGUES CONCERNING The ENGLISH REFORMATION. COLLECTED For the most part, Word for Word, out of Dr. Burnet, John Fox, and other Protestant Historians. PUBLISHED For the INFORMATION of the PEOPLE. IN REPLY to Master William Kings ANSWER to D. Manby's Considerations, etc.  
The FIRST DIALOGUE.  
By Peter Manby D. of Londonderry.  
Memento dierum antiquorum, cogita generationes singulas, interroga Patrem tuum, & annunciabit tibi, Majores tuos, & dicent tibi.  Deut. 32.7. 
Printed by Nathaniel Thompson, in the Old Spring-Garden. 1687.   

TO THE READER.  
Reader,  
HE, that would undertake to show us a new or better way to Heaven, then either we or our Forefathers have been acquainted with, aught in all reason to recommend himself (as the Apostles did) by some other Authority than a bare pretence to Scripture, which every body claims as well as he: unless we would be tossed too and fro (as Saint Paul speaks) and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine, with the various Lights of all Reformers.  
Cranmer was this new undertaker; who had neither Mission from Heaven, nor consent of the English Bishops to Authorise his Reformation, nor yet any great mind to die a Martyr for the same; as will appear in the ensuing History.  
Now I pray observe these words of Master William King, page 21. of his Answer to Mr. Manby, viz.— We own what he contends for, that both true Doctrine and external and lawful Mission are generally necessary to a regular Preacher of the Gospel, and if either of these are wanting, the Person is not to be received.  
Here if it can be demonstrated that Cranmer had no Orders either as Priest or Bishop, but only to celebrate Mass, to preach the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, to bind and absolve Sinners; there is an end of the Controversy. If he had no Mission at all to preach the Doctrine of XXXIX. Articles, then by Mas William King's own Confession, he was not to be received. And for this (Reader) be pleased to read from page 81. of this Catechism to page 91.  
And where he says, page 25 of his Answer, that Cranmer in all he did, had the unanimous vote and consent of the major part of the Convocation, the universal submission of the Clergy, and approbation of the People, etc. And a little after, but if the Clergy in a National Council, and the people in obedience to them, or from their own Inclinations did comply in earnest, what an idle question is it (for Mr. M.) to ask, by what Authority Cranmer condemned that Church from whom he received his Mission and Holy Orders? when she concurred in all he did, and approved, nay, made all the Alterations in her Liturgy, Sacraments and Constitutions that were made.  
Now if it appear, that all the English Bishops, except a very few (during the Reign of Henry VIII.) were utterly against his pretended Reformation; and that almost all the Bishops under Edward VI. were turned out of their Sees for dissenting from it, and others substituted in their places; what shall we think of Mr. King's Confidence thus imposing upon his Readers? What shall become of his Answer to Mr. M. the whole strength whereof depends upon these words, that the major Vote of the Convocation concurred in all he did, and approved all the Alterations that were made, page 25.  
Read Burnet relating the concerns of the Church upon King Edward's Succession to the Crown; and you shall find all affairs dispatched by the Privy Council and two Houses of Parliament, the Bishops generally dissenting. The Convocation (says Heylin ad annum 1547. the first year of King Edward) was not empowered to act in any public business for aught appearing on Record. Hist. Reform. p. 50. Third Edition.  
And further, Note what he says (ad annum 1551. the fifth year of King Edward) but notwithstanding the remove of so many Bishops, there still remained one rub in the way which did much retard the Progress of the Reformation, the Princess Mary having been bred up in the Romish Religion could not be won by any Persuasions to change her Mind, etc. page 102.  
Burnet says, several of the Bishops under King Edward submitted to the Reformation against their Consciences. Which only amounts to what I affirm in this Catechism, that the Reformation was not the Act and Deed of the old Clergy, but imposed on the Nation by the Power and Interest of a few persons for their own advantage.  
Let us imagine, if the late Duke of Monmouth had prospered, and then summoned an Assembly of the English Bishops to reform the Church, as he and his Party had designed, and (they generally dissenting) should carry all things by strong hand; whether such a Reformation, passing with the consent of a few Bishops and a few other Clergymen, could be reputed the Act aod Deed of the Church of England?  
But if you would see an Instance of Mr. Kings modest way of writing against the Pope and Church of Rome, read pag. 35. of his Answer, where he tells you of the Pope's wicked Management of the Goods of the Church, and giving the Patrimony of the Church to Laymen, to useless and idle Monks and Friars, etc.  
And for an Instance of his Loyalty, see page 37. where he excuses Cranmer, for subscribing to a Letter for Excluding his lawful Sovereign, the Princess Mary, from Succession to the Crown. It was a point of Law (saith he) in which Cranmer was not singular. Mr. M. takes the liberty to question Queen Elizabeth's Title, and sure it was no greater fault in Cranmer to question Queen mary after the Opinion of the Judges given against her (mark that.) There is a great difference between Rebellion against the King of undoubted Title, and being engaged on a side where the Title is really doubtful, etc. that is to say, Cranmer was engaged on the side of Lady Jane Grey, Queen mary Title being really doubtful. And why was it doubtful? Mr. King gives you the reason, pag. 38. It was not only Cranmers' Opinion, but the Opinion of most learned men in Europe, that her Mother's Marriage with King Henry was null. Now whether he understands this matter so well as he thinks, shall appear in the second part of this Catechism.  
Good Reader, I humbly desire this Favour of thee, to set aside Prejudice and Interest for the space of two or three hours, whilst thou art reading this Book, which are but Pearls upon both thy Eyes that will hinder thy sight. Remember that Prayer of the Church of England, From Heresy and Schism good Lord deliver us. Hadst thou never so many Virtues, yet to live and die in Schism, is as much as thy Soul is worth. Think upon the difference betwixt Time and Eternity; the consideration whereof must oblige thee to slight and despise all those things that concern thee only during this momentary Life, in comparison of those things that relate to thy future estate. What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own Soul? That there is a Schism in the Christian world is but too apparent: now you shall find very learned and moderate Protestants acquitting the Church of Rome from erring in the essentials of Religion; and very few now a days, except rank fanatics denying her to be a Christian Church. Why then in the name of God should there be a Schism about matters of no vital importance? Inquire a little further into matters. Read the Mass itself, and other Books of Devotion written by Roman Catholics; pray to God to inflame your heart with the fire of Charity, and to bestow upon you the Grace of Humility, and contempt of your own private Spirit. Listen now and then to the inartificial Sermons of Roman Catholic Priests and Friars, and by the Grace of God you shall find Popery another thing than you take it for. Remember that Popery appears not with so ridiculous a Face to the eyes of Protestants, but the Protestant Principles look as absurdly to the eyes of a Papist.  
The Intention of this Book is to present thee with a Synopsis of the Reformation: and that for the most part (not my own, but) Dr. Burnet's Words; because the Words of an Author so licenced and commended by the Two Houses of Parliament (1680.) cannot, doubtless, but be obliging to most Protestant's. This Favour I desire of thee, that the Printers Mistakes (if any there be) may not be imputed to me.  
In short, as for Mas William King, observe his modest way of writing against Popery, and thou shalt find therein a double portion of Dr. Burnet's Spirit.  
Farewell.   

A REFORMED CATECHISM, OR A PROSPECT OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION, etc.  
THere is no part of History better received, (says Dr. Burnet) than the Account of great Changes and Revolutions of State and Government. Of all Changes, those in Religion, that have been sudden and signal, are enquired into with the most searching Curiosity, where the Salvation of Souls being concerned, the better sort are much affected. And the Credit, Honour and Interest of Parties draw in others, who, though they care not much for the Religious part, yet make a noise about it to serve their ends.  
The Changes, that have been made in Religion the last Century, have produced such effects every where, that it is no wonder if all persons desire to see a clear Account of the several steps in which they advanced, of the Councils that directed them, and the Motives, both religious and political, that inclined men of all conditions to concur in them. Burnet's Preface to his first vol. pag. 1.  A. 
THe Doctor observes very well; and therefore, I pray you, tell us some of those memorable passages that have occurred to you in reading that History (which Protestants say) he hath compiled with so much Industry and Integrity.  B. 
I shall very willingly comply with your desires, provided you will give me leave to do it in my own method.  A. 
What method will you observe?  B. 
In the first place, to entertain you with the Characters of the first Apostles and Evangelists of Reformation under the famous King Henry VIII. and his Son Edward VI and that in the Doctors own words; which I remark to this end, that it may appear how likely Persons they were to have been sent or raised up by God for the Reformation of the World, and Restoration of the ancient Piety.  
In the next place, to give you an Account of the Reformation itself (which began with King Henry's divorcing of Queen Katherine and Marriage with Ann Bolen) with some Observations of my own, as I go along.  A. 
Take your own Method; and since you think it convenient to relate their Characters, I would fain know the Doctor's Opinion of King Henry himself, whom, I am told, he calls the Postilion of Reformation.  B. 
Take it it in his own words, viz. [I am not to defend him, nor to lessen his Faults. The vastness and irregularity of his Expense procured many heavy Exactions, and twice extorted a public Discharge of his Debts: His proud and impatient Spirit occasioned many cruel proceed; The taking so many Lives only for denying his Supremacy, particularly Fisher's and More's, the one being extreme old, and the other one of the Glories of his Nation for Probity and Learning: His extreme Severity to all Cardinal Pools Family: His cruel using first Cromwell, and afterwards the Duke of Norfolk and his Son; besides his unexampled proceed against some of his Wives. Preface to his first vol. pag. 7. The Faults of this King being so conspicuous and the Severity of his Proceed so unjustifiable, particularly that heinous Violation of the most sacred Rules of Justice and Government, in condemning men without bringing them to make their Answers; most of our Writers have separated the concerns of this Church from his Reign; and imagining that all he did was founded only on his Revenge upon the Court of Rome for denying his Divorce, have taken little care to examine how matters were transacted in his time. Preface pag. 6.  A. 
What further account does the Doctor give of him?  B. 
He thought the Germane Princes and Divines should have submitted all things to his Judgement, and had such an opinion of his own Learning, and was so puffed up with the flattering Praises that he daily heard, that he grew impatient of any opposition; and thought that his Dictates should pass for Oracles. pag. 196. of his first vol. He never hated nor ruined any body by halves, pag. 346. and p. 362. I do not deny that he is to be numbered among the ill Princes, yet I cannot rank him with the worst; He is rather to be reckoned among the great than the good Princes. ibid.  A. 
Does the Doctor say nothing in excuse of him?  B. 
Yes; the Reader may observe Burnet straining all his Wit and Learning to find out Apologies and Excuses for him and the rest of the Reformers. [If we consider (saith he) the great things that were done by him, we must acknowledge that there was a signal Providence of God in raising up a King of his Temper for clearing the way to that blessed Work that followed; and that could hardly have been done, but by a man of his Humour. So that I may very fit'y apply to him the witty simile of a Writer who compares Luther to a Postilion in his waxed Boots and oiled Coat, lashing his Horses through thick and thin, and bespattering all about him. This Character befits King Henry better, (saving the Reverence due to his Crown) who as the Postilion of Reformation made way for it through a great deal of mire and filth. Pref. pag. 6.  A. 
What more?  B. 
Whatever Reproaches those of the Church of Rome cast on the Reformation upon the account of this King's Faults, may may be easily turned back on their own Popes, Pref. pag. 8. Gregory 7. Boniface 8. Julius' 2. Leo 10. Clement 7. Paul 3. and if the Lives of those Popes, who have made the greatest advances in their Jurisdiction, be examined, particularly Gregory 7. & Boniface 8. Vices more eminent than any can be charged on Henry 8. will be found in them. ibid. p. 8.  A. 
So that all he has to answer for Henry 8. amounts to this, that others were as bad as he; this is a sort of Apology which we call Recrimination. Does that excuse any man's Crimes?  B. 
No, the blemishing them (viz. the Popes) will not (I confess) excuse our Reformers; therefore other things are to be considered for their Vindication, saith the Doctor, pag. 10. Pref. to his first vol.  A. 
What are those other things?  B. 
Why may not (saith he) an ill King do so good a work, as to set a Reformation forward? God's ways are a great deep, who has often showed his Power and Wisdom in raising up unpromising instruments to do great Services in the world; not always employing the best men in them. Jehu did an acceptable Service to God in destroying the Idolatry of Baal, though neither the way of doing it is to be imitated, being grossly insincere; nor was the Reformation complete, since the Worship of the two Calves was still kept up. And it is very like, his chief design in it was to destroy all the party that favoured Ahabs Family, yet the thing was good, and was rewarded by God. So, whatever this Kings other Faults were, and how defective soever the Change he made was, and upon what ill motives soever it may seem to have proceeded; yet the things themselves being good, we ought not to think the worse of them because of the Instrument, or manner by which they were wrought, Pref. pag. 9 Thus the Doctor thinks he has sufficiently justified the English Reformation against the Objections that may arise from the Impieties or Vices of Henry 8.  
NOTE, Let the Reader observe here, how the Doctor takes that for granted, which is the matter in question; namely, that the English Reformation was a good work; and that God raised up Henry 8. to set it forward. Nay, the Doctor knows, it is utterly denied by the most considerable part of Christendom, both Greeks and Latins, that God raised him up otherwise than he is said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart, when he only gave him up to the Lusts and Cruelties of his own Heart. If the Doctor's meaning be, that Henry 8. was raised up by an impulse or inspiration of God's Spirit, to reform the Church, let him make that appear by some other Evidence than this further Character, and we will believe him.  A. 
What is that further Character?  B. 
It will surprise some (saith the Doctor concerning his first Volumn) to see a Book of this bigness written of the History of our Reformation under the Reign of Henry VIII. since the true beginnings of it, viz. Reformation, are to be reckoned from the Reign of Edward 6. (mark the Antiquity of the Protestant Church) in which the Articles of our Church and the Forms of our Worship were first compiled and set forth by Authority (by what Authority shall appear anon) and indeed in King Henrys time the Reformation was rather conceived than brought forth; and two Parties were in the last eighteen years of his Reign struggling in the Womb, having now and then advantages on either side, as the inconstant humour of that King changed, and as his Interests and often as his Passions swayed him: For being boisterous and impatient naturally, which was much heightened by his most extravagant Vanity, and high Conceit of his own Learning (strange Evidence of a Divine Mission) he was one of the most uncounsellable Persons in the World. Pref. pag 5, and 6.  A. 
What was King Henry's Religion to his dying day?  B. 
Indeed in the whole Progress of those Changes (saith our Historian) the King's design seemed to have been to terrify the Court of Rome, and cudgel the Pope into a compliance with what he desired. For in his Heart he continued addicted to some of the most extravagant opinions of that Church, such as Transubstantiation and the other Corruptions of the Mass; so that he was to his Lives end more Papist than Protestant. page 7. Preface to 1 Vol.  
NOTE Reader. King Henry went to Mass to his dying day: So did all these three Kingdoms to the first or second year of Edward VI Here is yet no Evidence of God's having raised him up by any Impulse or Inspiration of his Holy Spirit to Reform the Church (if that were the Doctor's meaning) only that God permitted him as he does other Sinners to Act those things for which they shall one day pay dearly. That some Popes have been no Saints, I shall not dispute it with the Doctor: But let him show, if he can, that any of the first Reformers, Henry VIII. Ann Bolen, Cranmer, Cromwell, Somerset, Northumberland, Ridly, etc. were sent or raised up by God to reform the Faith or Manners of the Church, and there is an end of the Controversy. The Doctor instances in David, Solomon, Jchu, who all had their failings; but how does that recommend or excuse our Reformers, who without any Commission or Inspiration from God presumed to reform, that is to say, subvert the Church wherein they were Baptised, and set up another after their own Fancies; who said let us take to ourselves the Houses of God in Possession, Psal. 83.12. Never any Pope had the Wickedness to do such things. And therefore to affirm, that God raised up such Persons to Plunder the Church under pretence of Reforming it, what is it better or worse than to make God the Author of their Sacrilege and Hypocrisy?  A. 
But what say you to the Doctor's words, Pref. page 7. that every National Church is a complete Body within itself; so that the Church of England with the Authority and Concurrence of their Head and King may examine and reform all Errors, whether in Doctrine or Worship, etc. [If this be true, what needs any special Commission or Inspiration from God to Reform the Church? Why may not every National Church do it by their own Authority?] For saith the Doctor, a common Concurrence of other Churches was a thing scarce to be expected, and therefore this Church must be in a very ill condition, if there could be no endeavours for a Reformation till all the rest were brought together, ibid. page 7.  B. 
The design of this Catechism, is to show by the Doctors own Confession, that the English Reformation was not the Act and Deed of the National Church or Clergy of England; neither in the days of Henry VIII. nor of his Son Edward VI, nor of Queen Elisabeth; but imposed upon the Nation by the Interest and Power of a few Persons for their own advantage, viz. the raising their Fortunes out of Church Lands. And when I have done this, I shall leave you to think what you please of Mr. King's Modesty, the Preacher of St. Warbroughs; who in a late thing which he calls an Answer to Dean Manby's Considerations, affirms very confidently, page 25. He (viz. Cranmer) in all he did, had the unanimous Vote and Consent of the major part of the Convocation, the universal Submission of the Clergy, and Approbation of the People. And a little after, But if the Clergy in a National Council, and the People in Obedience to them, or from their own Inclinations, did comply in earnest; what an idle Question is it to ask, by what Authority Cranmer condemned that Church from whom he received his Mission and Holy Orders? when she concurred in all he did, and approved, nay, made all the Alterations in her Liturgy, Sacraments and Constitutions that were made, etc.  A. 
But I pray go on in the method which at first you prescribed to yourself; and tell us in the Doctor's words, the History of those who promoted the Reformation under Henry VIII. and his Son Edward VI and then what observable passages you have met with touching the Reformation itself. I am satisfied that King Henry (by the Doctors Account of him) had little thoughts of Reformation whilst he had the least hopes of the Pope's compliance in the matter of his Divorce from Queen Katherine.  B. 
The chief Apostles under Henry VIII. were Ann Bolen, Cromwell, Cranmer, Latimer, Shaxton, Barlow.  A. 
What were the extraordinary Virtues of Ann Bolen.  B. 
She favoured the Reformers; their chief Encouragement was from her, who reigned in the King's Heart as absolutely as he did over his Subjects, and was a known Favourer of them: She took Shaxton and Latimer to be her Chaplains, ad soon after promoted them to the Bishoprics of Salisbury and Worcester; and in all other things cherished and protected them, and used her most effectual endeavours with the King to promote the Reformation, page 171 of his first Vol. second Edition.  A. 
What more?  B. 
Every Body admired Queen Ann's Conduct, who had managed such a King's Spirit so long; and had neither surfeited him with great freedom [the Doctor speaks of her cunning behaviour before the King married her,] nor provoked him by the other extreme: For the King who was extremely nice in these matters, conceived still an higher opinion of her. And her being so soon with Child after the Marriage, as it made people conclude she had been  till then, so they hoped for a Blessing upon it, since there were such early appearances of Issue. Those that favoured the Reformation expected better days under her Protection, for they knew she favoured them, page 132. 1 vol.  A. 
But how did this Zealous Reformer behave herself after her Marriage?  B. 
This being (saith the Doctor) one of the most memorable passages of King Henry's Reign, I was at more than Ordinary pains to learn all I could concerning it.— She was of a very cheerful temper, which was not always limited within the bounds of exact Decency and Discretion. She had rallied some of the King's Servants more than became her; her Brother the Lord Rochfort was her Friend as well as Brother. But his spiteful Wife was jealous of him, and being a Woman of no sort of Virtue; she carried many Stories to the King, or some about him, to persuade that there was a familiarity between the Queen and her Brother, beyond what so near a Relation could justify. Henry Norris that was Groom of the Stool. Weston and Brereton that were of the King's Privy-Chamber, and one Mark Smeton a Musician, were all observed to have much of her Favour. And their Zeal in serving her was thought too warm and diligent to flow from a less active principle then Love. Many Circumstances were brought to the King which working upon his aversion to the Queen, together with his Affection to Mrs Seymeur made him conclude her Guilty. Yet somewhat which himself observed, or fancied at a Tilting at Greenwich, is believed to have given the Crisis to her Ruin. It is said, that he spied her let fall her Handkerchief to one of her Gallants to wipe his Face being hot after a course. See the rest page 197. 1 vol.  A. 
Did she confess nothing?  B. 
She confessed this odd passage between herself, and Sir Henry Norris. That she once asked him, why he did not go on with his Marriage? Who answered her, that he would yet tarry some time; to which she replied, you look for Dead men's Shoes; for, if ought come to the King but good, you would look to have Me: He answered, if he had any such thought, he would his Head were cut off: Upon which she said, she could undo him if she pleased, and thereupon she fell out with him, page 199. As for Mark Smeton, who was then laid in Irons, she said, he was never in her Chamber but when the King was last at Winchester. And then he came in to play on the Virginals: She said that she never spoke to him after that, but on Saturday before May-day, when she saw him standing in the Window; and then she asked him, Why he was so sad? he said it was no matter. She answered, you may not look to have me speak to you as if you were a Noble Man, since you are an inferior person. No, no Madam, said he, a Look sufficeth me, ibid. page 199. She seemed more apprehensive of Weslon then of any Body. For on Whit-Sunday Morning last, he said to her, that Norris came more to her Chamber upon her account than for any body else that was there. She had observed, that he loved a Kinswoman of hers, and challenged him for it, and for not loving his Wife. But he answered her, that there were Women in the House whom he loved better than them both; she asked, who is that? yourself said he, upon which she said, she defied him ibid. page 197.  A. 
What is the Doctor's opinion of this?  B. 
It is certain her Carriage had given just cause of some Jealousy. page 206.  A. 
How did other people Censure her?  B. 
Her Carriage seemed too free, and all people thought (saith the Doctor) that some Freedoms and Levitieses in her had encouraged those unfortunate Persons to speak such bold things to her; since few attempt upon the Chastity, or make Declarations of Love to Persons of so exalted a Quality, except they see some Invitations, at least in their Carriage. Others thought that a free and jovial Temper might with great Innocence though with no Discretion lead one to all those things that were proved against her. page 206.  A. 
I pray tell us the sum of her Story, as well what the Doctor says for her, as against her?  B. 
You may assure yourself he says nothing to her disadvantage, but what the mere force of Truth extorts from him: The only design of his History being to magnify the Reformation, and all the Friends thereof: He tells us page 202. She was indicted of High Treason, the Crimes charged upon her being these, viz. That she had procured her Brother, and the other four to Lie with her, which they had done often, and that she said to them that the King never had her Heart, and had said to every one of them by themselves, that she loved them better than any Person whatsoever, which was to the slander of the Issue that was Begotten between the King and Her, viz. the Lady Elisabeth. It was also added in the Indictment that she and her Complices had conspired the King's Death. But this it seems was only put in (saith the Doctor) to swell the Charge. When the Indictment was read she held up her hand and pleaded not Guilty, and so did her Brother, and did Answer the Evidence that was brought in against her discreetly: One thing is remarkable, that Mark Smeton, who was the only Person that confessed any thing, was never confronted with the Queen, nor was kept to be an Evidence against her, having received his Sentence three days before, and so could be no witness in Law. But perhaps though he was wrought on to Confess, yet they did not think he had Confidence enough to aver it to the Queen's Face, therefore the Evidence they brought, as Spelman says, was the Oath of a Woman that was Dead. Yet this, or rather the Terror of offending the King, so wrought on the Lords, that they found her and her Brother Guilty, page 202. and Judgement was given that she should be Burnt.  A. 
Proceed.  B. 
Now she lying under so terrible a Sentence, it is most probable that either some hopes of Life were given her, or at least she was wrought on by the assurances of mitigating that cruel part of her Judgement, of being Burnt, into the milder part of the Sentence of having her Head cut off. So that she confessed a Precontract (with the Lord Peircy,) and on the 17th of May was brought to Lambeth, and in Court, the afflicted Archbishop (Crammer) sitting Judge, some Persons of Quality being present, she confessed some just and lawful Impediments, by which it was Evident that her Marriage with the King was not valid, upon which Confession her Marriage between the King and Her was judged to have been null and void. The Record of the Sentence is burnt (says the Doctor) but these particulars are repeated in the Act that passed the next Parliament touching the Succession to the Crown. page 203, 1 Vol.  
NOTE. The Record of the Sentence annulling her Marriage, to be sure, was not burnt by the Enemies but Friends of Queen Elisabeth. That her Mother Ann made this Confession, the Doctor is positive, but upon what Reasons, he is not positive; only she lying under so terrible a Sentence, It is most probable (saith he) that either some hopes of Life were given her, or at least she was wrought on by the assurances of mitigating the cruel Sentence of being Burnt, into that of having her Head cut off. ibid. page 203.  A. 
The Doctor is a good Advocate.  B. 
Observe his following words, which are his own witty Reflections on this matter. viz. The two Sentences that were passed upon the Queen, the one of Attainder for Adultery, the other of Divorce because of a Precontract, did so Contradict one another, that it was apparent one, if not both of them must be unjust: For if the Marriage between the King and Her was null from the beginning, then since she was not the King's wedded Wife, there could be no Adultery. And her Marriage with the King was either a true Marriage or not; if it was true, than the annulling of it was unjust. And if it was no true Marriage, than the Attainder was unjust; for there could be no breach of that Faith which was never given. p. 203.  
NOTE But it appears by her own Confession, that she had given her Faith both to the King and the Lord Peircy. Only the Doctor in his Margin there calls it an extorted Confession. Heylin relates the matter thus, History of Reformation pag. 259. The admirable attractions of which young Lady (Ann Bolen) had drawn the King so fast unto her, that in short time he gave her an absolute Sovereignty over all his Thoughts. But so long he concealed his Affections from her, that a great League and Intercourse was contracted betwixt her and the young Lord Peircy, the eldest Son of Henry Lord Peircy, who being brought up in the Cardinal's Service, had many opportunities of confirming acquaintance with her. See the rest pag, 259.  
Sir Henry Norris, Sir Francis Weston, William Brereton and Mark Smeton were tried in Westminster Hall, They were twice indicted, and the Indictments found by two Grand Juries in the Counties of Kent and Mida'lesex; the Crimes with which they were charged being said to be done in both those Counties. The three first pleaded ●…t Guilty, Mark Smeton confessed, he had known the Queen ca●…ally three times: But the Jury upon the Evidence formerly mentioned found them all Guilty. Doctor Burnet pag. 201, 202. first vol.  
NOTE. If Mark Smeton belied the Queen for the saving his Life, 'tis very strange, that at his Execution he did not declare the Truth for the Vindication of the Queen's Honour and his own Innocency. But Heylin gives this account of it, pag. 264. which I will not conceal from the Reader; viz. From none of the Witnesses they (namely the King's Commissioners) were able to get any thing by all their Arts, which might give any ground for her Conviction, but that Mark Smeton had been wrought on to make some Confession of himself to her Dishonour, out of a vain hope to save his own Life by the loss of hers. Concerning which, Cromwell thus writes to the King, after the Prisoners had been thoroughly examined in the Tower by the Lords of the Council. Many things (saith he) have been objected, but nothing confessed, only some Circumstances have been acknowledged by Mark Smeton. It appears also by a Letter of Sir William Kingstons (says Heylin) that he had much communication with her when she was his Prisoner; in which her Language seemed to be broken btwixt Tears and Laughter, out of which nothing could be gathered, but that she exclaimed against Norris, as if he had accused her. It was further signified in that Letter, that she named some others who had obsequiously applied themselves to her Love & Service, acknowledging such passages, (mark this) though not sufficient to condemn her, as shown she had made use of the utmost liberty which could be honestly allowed her.— There was no Evidence against her, but the Confession of Smeton, and the Calumnies of the Lady Rochfort; of which the one was fooled into that Confession by the hope of Life, which notwithstanding was not pardoned, and the other most deservedly lost her Head within few years after. Heylin Hist; Reform. pag. 264, 265. I have added this favourable account out of Heylin, to let the Reader see the mistake of that Character which Doctor Burnet gives of him in the Preface to his first volume. viz. He being wrought on by most violent prejudices against some that were concerned in that time, delivers many things in such a manner, and so strangely, that one would think he had been secretly set on by those of the Church of Rome, etc. If ever Heylin were set on to serve the Church of Rome, it must be surely in the History of Ann Bolen, upon which there is so much depending in reference to the Birth and Title of Queen Elisabeth. But the Reader may find him relating her whole Story so favourably, (I mean this Story of her Misfortunes) that Burnet himself could not say more: yet whoever compares both Writers, shall find I have left out nothing material, that may be observed here in favour of Ann Bolen. Sir Henry Norris was practised with to confess the Adultery, says Heylin, to which he made this generous Answer, that in his Conscience he thought her guiltless of the Crimes objected against her, etc. and the Lord Peircy took the Sacrament, wishing that the same might be his Damnation, if ever there were any Contract or Promise of Marriage betwixt her and him. Heylin p. 255, 256.  A. 
But she justified her Innocency in a Letter to the King from the Tower, dated May 6. 1536. did she not?  B. 
You may find that Letter in Dr. Burnet's Records annexed to his first vol. pag. 155. wherein she thus expresses herself;— But if you have already determined of me, and that not only my Death, but an infamous Slander must bring you the enjoyment of your desired happiness; then I desire of God that he will pardon your great sin therein, and that he will not call you to a strict account, for your unprincely and cruel usage of me, at his general Judgment-seat, where both you and myself must shortly appear, etc.  A. 
What did she say at her Execution, May 19 1536?  B. 
She spoke some words which I am not able to reconcile with that same passage of her Letter.  A. 
What were the words?  B. 
She prayed hearty for the King, and called him a most merciful and gentle Prince, and that he had been always to her a good, gentle, Soveregin Lord: She said, she was come to die, as she was judged by the Law. She would accuse none; nor say any thing of the ground upon which she was judged. And if any would meddle with her Cause, she required them to judge the best. Dr. Burnet, 1. vol. p. 205.  
NOTE. In her Letter from the Tower she objects to him his unprincely and cruel usage of her. And here at her Death she calls him a most merciful and gentle Prince, and that he had been always to her a good, gentle Sovereign Lord. I will not say, she affirmed at her Death what she did not believe, or that she complemented the King as having to the very last some hopes of his Mercy, but the Reader may consult Doctor Burnet, and try if he can sinned aught to reconcile these passages.  A. 
Tell us the rest of her Story.  B. 
The day before she died, upon a strict search of her past Life, she called to mind that she had played the step Mother to the Lady Mary, and had done her many Injuries, upon which she desired the Lieutenant of the Tower's Lady, and with many Tears, charged her, as she would Answer it to God to go in her name, and ask the Lady Mary's Forgiveness for the Wrongs she had done her, etc. page 204. This ingenuity and tenderness of Conscience about lesser matters (this was but a Venial sin perhaps) is a great presumption (saith the Doctor) that if she had been Guilty of more eminent Faults, she had not continued to the last denying them.  
NOTE. It is a wonder she did not assert her own Innocency upon the Scaffold. The Night before she suffered, she sent her last Message to the King, and acknowledged herself much obliged to him, that he had continued still to advance her, from a private Gentlewoman to a Marchioness, from that to a Queen, and now was sending her to be a Saint in Heaven, page 204. 1 Vol.  A. 
What were the several Opinions passed upon her?  B. 
The Doctor tells you, the Popish Party said, the Justice of God was visible, that she who had supplanted Queen Katherine, met with the like measure (he means by Jane Seymour.) Some took notice of her faint justifying herself on the Scaffold, as if her Conscience had then prevailed so far, that she could no longer deny a thing for which she was so soon to Answer at another Tribunal. But others thought her care of her Daughter made her speak so tenderly; for she had observed that Queen Katherine's obstinacy had drawn the King's Indignation on Lady Mary. Therefore she spoke in a stile, (says the Doctor) that could give the King no just offence, page 206. He proceeds; Some have since that time concluded it a great Evidence of her Gild; that during her Daughters (Queen Elisabeths') long and glorious Reign, there was no full nor complete Vindication of her published. For the Writers of that time thought it enough to speak honourably of her, and in general to call her Innecent; but none of them ever at▪ tempted a clear discussion of the particulars laid to her Charge▪ This had been much to her Daughter's Honour (saith Dr. Burnet;) and therefore since it was not done, others concluded, it could not be done; and that their knowledge of her Gild restrained their Pens. But others do not at all allow of that Inference; and think rather, that it was the great Wisdom of that time not to suffer such things to be called in question:— therefore it was prudently done of that Queen (Elisabeth) and her great Ministers, not to suffer any Vindication or Apology to be written, etc. Some Indiscretions (saith the Doctor) could not be denied. p. 207. 1. vel. that is, 'tis confessed on all hands, that Ann Bolen went to the very brink of Dishonesty.  A. 
Is there nothing else of her that is memorable?  B. 
King Henry advanced her (says Heylin) to the Title of Marchioness of Pembroke on the first of September, 1532. assigning her a Pension of a Thousand pounds per annum out of the Bishop. rick of Durham. History of Reform. p. 261. The new Queen considering that the Pope and she had such different Interests that they could not both subsist together, resolved upon that course which Nature and Self-preservation seemed to dictate to her: but finding that the Pope was too well entrenched to be dislodged upon the sudden, it was advised by Cromwell, (made Master of the Rolls upon her Commendation) to begin with taking in the Outworks first (meaning the lesser Monasteries to the number of about 376.) which being gained, it would be no hard matter to beat him out of his Trenches. p. 262. Those Houses were dissolved by Act of Parliament, anno 1535. to the passing whereof the Bishops and Mitred Abbots, which made the prevalent part of the House of Peers, contributed their Votes and Suffrages as others did; whether it were out of Pusillanimity, as not daring to appear in behalf of their Brethren, or out of a weak hope that the Rapacity of the Queen (mark this) and her Ministers would proceed no further, it is hard to say. Heylin, page 263. Certain it is (says he) that by their improvident assenting to the present Grant, they made a Rod for their own Backs (as the saying is) with which they were sufficiently scourged within sew years after, though the new Queen (observe) for whose sake Cromwell had contrived the Plot, did not live to see it. Ibid. page 263.  
NOTE. She makes Cromwell Master of the Rolls, and he to serve her Interest, advises the King to suppress the Religious Houses.  
Heylin remarks further. When she thought herself most safe and free from Danger, she became most obnoxious to the Ruin prepared for her. It had pleased God on the eighth of January 1535. to put an end unto the Calamities of the Virtuous, but unfortunate Queen (Katherine,) into whose Bed she had succeeded. The News whereof she entertained with such Contentment that she caused herself to be Apparelled in lighter colours than was agreeable to the season, or the sad occasion: Whereas, if she had rightly understood her own Condition, she could not but have known that the long Life of Katherine was to be her best preservative against all Changes, page 263.  A. 
I pray let us hear Doctor Burnet's Character of Queen Katherine?  B. 
She was a devout and pious Princess, and led a severe and mortified Life. In her Greatness she wrought much with her own Hands, and kept her Women well employed about her; as appeared when the two Legates came once to speak with her. She came out to them with a Skein of Silk about her Neck, and told them she had been within at work with her Women. She was most passionately devoted to the Interests of the Court of Rome: and in a word, she is Represented as a most wonderful good Woman. But Queen Ann did not carry her Death so decently, for she expressed too much Joy at it both in her Carriage and Dress. Burnet, page 192. 1 Vol.  
When Queen Katherine found her Sickness like to prove Mortal, she made one about her write a Letter in her name to the King. In the Title, she called him her Dear Lord, King and Husband. She advised him to look to the Health of his Soul: She forgave him all the Troubles he had cast her into; and concluded, I make this Vow that mine Eyes desire you above all things. Ibid. page 192.  A. 
Does he relate nothing further of Queen Katherine?  B. 
When her Cause was to be heard before the Legates Anno 1529. the King and she came personally into the Court. When the King and Queen were called on, the King answered Here. But the Queen left her Seat, and went and kneeled down before him, and made a Speech. She said, ‛ She was a poor Woman and a Stranger in his Dominions, where she could neither expect good Council, nor indifferent Judges. She had been long his Wife, and desired to know wherein she had offended him: That she had been his Wife twenty years and more, and had born him several Children, and had ever studied to please him, and protested he had found her a true Maid, about which she appealed to his Conscience. She said, her Lawyers, who were his Subjects and assigned by him, durst not speak freely, for her. So she desired to be excused till she heard from Spain. ' Then she risen up and made the King a low Reverence and went out of the Court, and although they called after her, she made no Answer, but went away and would never again appear in Court. She being gone, the King did publicly declare what a true and obedient Wife she had always been, and commended her much for her excellent qualities. Burnet, page 73. 1 Vol.  A. 
Do you find that Ann Bolen ever repent her Carriage in reference to this good and virtuous Princess?  B. 
Not a Syllable of that have I met with in Burnet or Heylin. After Queen Ann's Death a Parliament was called to Repeal an Act of a former Parliament, concerning the Succession of the Grown to the Issue of the King by her: In this Parliament, (saith the Doctor) the Attainder of Queen Ann and her Complices is confirmed: In the new Act of Succession, she is said to have been inflamed with Pride and Carnal desires of her Body, and having confederated herself with her complices, to have committed divers Treasons to the danger of the King's Royal Person; for which she had justly suffered Death, and is now attainted by Act of Parliament. Burnet, page 210. 1 Vol.  A. 
I pray of what Church did she die?  B. 
The Doctor says nothing of that; the Church of England was not then in being; Mass being said at that time in all Churches of the Nation, and above ten years after. The Church of Rome's Authority was then excluded by Act of Parliament, and that by her interest. So that of what Church she died I cannot resolve you, unless it were King Henry's Church; and that was no Protestant Church; the Doctrine of the six Articles being then in request: However she died 2 Saint if you believe her own words. And some think 'tis no matter of what Church they Live or Dye, provided they be no Papists. But King Henry's Church was then scarcely three years old.  A. 
Enough of your first Reformer Ann Bolen; for whose sake King Henry fell out with the Pope, and made a Rupture in the Catholic Church. She was not the first nor will be the last Female Incendiary of Mischief and Quarrels in the World. Who was the next Reformer under Henry VIII?  B. 
Thomas Cromwell.  A. 
What Tokens of an extraordinary Mission does Burnet observe in him?  B. 
He was a Man of mean Birth but noble Qualities,— only he made too much haste to be Great and Rich. He joined himself in a firm Friendship to Cranmer, and did promote the Reformation very vigorously; Burnet, 1 Vol page 172. The Suppression of the Abbeys was wholly laid at his door, page 276. He was attainted by Act of Parliament, Anno ●540. Wherein it is said expressly, that the King having raised Thomas Cromwell from a base degree to great Dignities and high Tru●…s; yet he had now by a great number of Witnesses, persons of Honour, found him to be the most corrupt Traitor and Deceiver of the King and the Crown, that had ever been known in his whole Reign. That he had received several Bribes, and for them granted Licenses to carry Money, Corn, Horses, and other things out of the Kingdom, contrary to the King's Proclamations; that he being also an Heretic had dispersed many Erroneous Books among the King's Subjects, particularly some that were contrary to the belief of the Sacrament; and when some had informed him of this, and had showed him these Heresies in Books printed in England; he said, they were good, and that he found no fault in them: and said, it was as lawful for every Christian Man to be a Minister of the Sacrament, as a Priest. And whereas the King had constituted him Vice Gerent for the spiritual affairs of the Church, he had under the Seal of that Office Licenced many that were suspected of Heresy to Preach over the Kingdom. And had both by Word and Writing suggested to several Sheriffs that it was the King's pleasure they should discharge many Prisoners, of whom some were indicted, others apprehended for Heresy. And when many particular Complaints were brought to him of detestable Heresies with the names of the Offenders, he not only defended the Heretics but severely checked the Informers. And vexed some of them by Imprisonment, and otherways. And he having entertained many of the King's Subjects about himself, whom he had infected with Heresy, and imagining he was by force able to defend his Treasons and Heresies, on the last of March in the 30th year of the King's Reign, in the Parish of St. Peter's in London, when some of them complained to him of the new Preachers, such as Barnes, and others; he said their Preaching was good; and said also among other things, that if the King would turn from it, yet he would not turn. And if the King did turn and all his People with him, he would fight in the field in his own Person with his Sword in his Hand against him and all others. And then he pulled out his Dagger, and held it up and said, or else this Dagger thrust Me to the Heart, if I would not die in that quarrel against them all: And I trust if I live one year or two, it shall not be in the King's power to resist, or let it if he would. And Swearing a great Oath, said, I would do so Indeed. He had also by Oppression and Bribery made a great Estate to himself, and extorted much Money from the King's Subjects, and being greatly enriched had treated the Nobility with much Contempt. For all which Treasons and Heresies he was attainted to suffer the pains of Death as should please the King, and to forfeit all his Estate and Goods to the King's use. These are the Words of the Act. Burnet, page 278. 279.  A. 
How does the Doctor excuse him?  B. 
Most of these things relate to Orders and Directions he had given, for which it is very probable he had the King's Warrant. And for the matter of Heresy, it has appeared how far the King had proceeded towards a Reformation, so that what he did that way, was most likely done by the King's Orders. But the King now falling from these things, it was thought they intended to stifle him by such an Attainder, that he might not discover the secret Orders or Directions given him for his own justification; page 279.  
NOTE. It is very probable, it was most likely, it was thought, is all the Defence which the Doctor makes for him. Who having seen all his Papers, found it seems none of those Orders or Directions. How far the King had proceeded towards a Reformation was then apparent by the Statute of Six Articles, made purposely against the insolence of the new Preachers, anno 1539. And the King's aversion to Heresy no Man understood better than Cromwell: For in his Heart he continued (as is confessed by the Doctor) addicted to some of the most extravagant Opinions of the Roman Church, as Transubstantiation, etc. so that he was to his Lives end more Papist than Protestant; so the Doctor is pleased to express himself. Pref. to 1 Vol.  A. 
What Religion did Cromwell die of?  B. 
When he was brought to the Scaffold, he acknowledged his Sins against God, and his Offences against his Prince, who had raised him from a base degree; he declared that he died in the Catholic Faith, not doubting of any Article of Faith, or of any Sacrament of the Church; he denied that he had been a Supporter of those who delivered ill Opinions. He confessed he had been seduced (mark this but now died in the Catholic Faith. Burnet, page 284. By what he spoke at his Death he lest it much doubted of what Religion he died: But it is certain he was a Lutheran says Burnet, page 285. The term Catholic Faith used by him in his last Speech seemed to make it doubtful; but that was then used in England in its true Sense, in opposition to the Novelties of the See of Rome, page 285. ibid. So that his Profession of the Catholic Faith was strangely perverted (says Burnet) when some from thence concluded that he died in the Communion of the Church of Rome, ibid.  
NOTE. He died a Lutheran, equivocating with the words Catholic Faith: he knew Lutheranism was not allowed for Catholic Faith in England; King Henry and his Bishops being more Papists than Lutherans. He promoted the Reformation vigorously (saith the Doctor;) so that if the truth were known, he died of Ann Bolens Church, and that was a Church yet unborn; for in King Henrys time (as Burnet observes) the English Reformation was rather conceived than brought forth. Verily the Reformation seems to me a Riddle from first to last. If Cromwell was a Lutheran, he was at the same time both Vicar General and Heretic to King Henrys Church, as you may find in the Act of Attainder compared with the Statute of Six Articles.  A. 
Did he at his Death express any Remorse for destroying the Religious Houses, and alienating the Estates of the Church?  B. 
Not a word of that. I verily believe he thought he did God good Service, and perhaps had done himself some Service out of those Estates.  A, 
What reason have you for that?  B. 
It is not unlike (says the Doctor) that some Presents to the Commissioners or to Cromwell made those Houses outlive this ruin, (he means some few Houses which K Henry had restored to the Monks;) for I find great trading in Bribes at this time, which is not to be wondered at when there was so much to be shared. p 224. 1. vol. And the Act of Attainder says, that he had by Oppression and Bribery made a great Estate to himself, and extorted much Money from the King's Subjects, and being greatly enriched, had treated the Nobility with much Contempt. But the Doctor excuses him, pag. 279. For the particulars of Bribery and Extortion, they, being mentioned in general expressions, seem only cast into the heap to defame him. And, pag. 285. he carried his Greatness with wonderful Temper and Moderation; and fell under the weight of popular Odium rather than Gild; for which the Doctor gives this reason, the Disorders in the Suppression of Abbeys were generally charged on him. ibid.  
With his Fall the progress of the Reformation, which had been by his endeavours so far advanced, was quite stopped. p. 285. For all that Cranmer could do after this, was to keep the ground they had gained; but he could never advance much further. ibid. With him the Office of the King's Vicegerent in Ecclesiastical affairs died, as it risen first in his person. And, as all the Clergy opposed the setting up a new Officer, whose Interest should oblige him to oppose a Reconciliation with Rome; so it seems none were sound to succeed in an Office that proved so fatal to him. p. 285.  
NOTE. All the Clergy at that time were for a Reconciliation with Rome, (that was the year 1540) after their Deliverance from the Tyranny of Cromwell. By all the Clergy the Doctor means the major part, nay all, except Cranmer and two or three more, as shall appear by and by out of Dr. Burnet.  
Dr. Heylin remarks, Histor. Reform p. 11. ad annum 1540 King Henry advanceth his great Minister Cromwell (by whom he had made such havoc of Religious Houses in all parts of the Realm) to the Earldom of Essex, and sends him headless to his Grave within three months after. And Dr. Burnet himself cannot but observe the Judgement of God upon Cromwell anno 1540 viz. His ruin was now decreed; and he, who had so servilely complied with the King's Pleasure in procuring some to be attainted the year before, without being brought to make their Answer, fell now under the same Severity. p. 227. 1. vol.  A. 
How did Cromwell govern the Church?  B. 
First as King Henrys Vicar General, afterwards as Lord Vicegerent in Ecclesiastical matters. They were two different Places, and held by different Commissions. By the one he had no Authority over the Bishops, nor had he any Precedence; but the other, as it gave him the Precedence next to the Royal Family, so it clothed him with a complete Delegation of the King's whole Power in Ecclesiastical matters. Burnet p. 181. By virtue of which Authority he sends out his Instructions to the Bishops how to proceed in a Reformation, and his Injunctions to the Clergy, which the Reader will find in Burnet's Collection of Records. 1. vol. p. 181. Bock 3. concluding thus; All which and singular Injunctions I minister unto you and your Successors by the King's Highness' Authority to me committed in this part, which I charge and command you by the same Authority to observe and keep upon pain of Deprivation, Sequestration of your Fruits, or such other Coercion as to the King's Highness or his Vicegerent for the time being shall seem convenient. This was in the year 1538.  
One of those Injunctions was this, viz. You shall suffer from henceforth no Candles, Tapers, or Images of Wax to be set before any Image or Picture, but only the Light that commonly goeth a cross the Church by the Rood Loft, the Light before the Sacrament of the Altar, and the Light about the Sepulchre; which for the adorning of the Church and Divine Service ye shall suffer to remain: still admonishing your Parishioners that Images serve for none other purpose, but as the Bocks of unlearned men, that ken no Letters, whereby they might be otherwise admonished of the Lives and Conversation of them that the said Images do represent. Also that you shall expressly provoke, stir and exhort every person to read the Bible, admonishing them nevertheless to avoid all Contention, Altercation therein, and to use an honest Sobriety in the inquisition of the true sense of the same, and refer the Explication of obscure places to men of higher Judgement in Scripture.  
NOTE. Such Admonitions were to no purpose; the Bible being once permitted into the rude hands of the Multitude. For what (say they) does he allow us to read the Scripture, and then debar us the use of our Understandings! Has not every man a Judgement of Discretion to read and interpret the Scripture for himself, so as not to pin his Religion on the sleeve of the Church?  
Another of his Injunctions was, that you shall in Confessions every Lent examine every person (it seems private Confession was then in practice) whether they can recite the Articles of our Faith, and the Pater noster in English, and hear them say the same particularly; wherein if they be not perfect, ye shall admonish them, that every Christian ought to know the same before they receive the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, and to learn the same more perfectly by the next year following. So you shall declare unto them, that you look for other Injunctions (mark this) from the King's Highness by that time, to stay and repel all such from God's Board, as shall be found ignorant in the premises. Coll. p. 181.  A. 
So much for Cromwell, whose Religion or Church (whatever it was) is passed my understanding. Go on, and tell us who is your next Saint of the Reformation?  B. 
Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury.  A. 
What Signs of an Apostle did appear in him?  B. 
Your Question is but rational, since Burnet affirms so positively, that he was a man raised up by God for great Services. p. 335. 2. vol.  A. 
I know he was, next to Cromwell, the grand Projector of Reformation under Henry 8. but the thing that I expect from Burnet, is the proof of that Assertion, that he was a man raised up by God, in case he would oblige us to esteem the Reformation not to have been the work of Man but of God. Shall Cranmer take upon him to reform, that is, to pull down the established Religion of the Nation, coin 39 Articles, and impose them on the Clergy, as if he had thought the Scriptures obscure or insufficient in things necessary; (the major part of the Christian World protesting against it as new Doctrine) and all this by a mere humane Authority, an Act of Parliament passed under the Childhood of Edward 6?  B. 
As for the marks of his Apostleship, take the History of his Actions compared with Burnet's Character, and then satisfy yourself the best you can. Warham Archbishop of Canterbury dying in the year 1533. King H. saw well of how great importance it was to the Designs he was then forming (viz his Divorce from Q Katherine, etc.) to fill that See with a learned, prudent, and resolute Man; but finding none in the Episcopal Order (that is amongst all the English Bishops) that was qualified to his Mind, (note this) and having observed a native simplicity joined with much Courage, and tempered with a great deal of Wisdom in Doctor Cranmer, who was then Negotiating his business among the learned Men of Germany, he of his own Accord, without any Addresses from Cranmer, designed to raise him to that Dignity; and gave him notice of it, that he might make haste and come home to enjoy that reward which the King had appointed for him. But Cranmer having received this News, did all he could to excuse himself from the Burden which was coming upon him; and therefore he returned very slowly to England; hoping that the King's thoughts cooling, some other Person might step in between him and a Dignity, of which having a just and primitive Sense, he did look on it with Fear and Apprehension rather than Joy and Desire: This was so far from setting him back, that the King was thereby confirmed in his high Opinion of him; and neither the delays of his Journey, nor his Entreaties to be delivered from a Burden which his humility made him imagine himself unable to bear, could divert the King (and good reason why, because amongst all the Bishops he found no Man else for his purpose. So that though six months elapsed before the thing was settled, yet the King persisted in his Opinion, and the other was forced to yield, Burnet, page 127. Now let the Reader observe Doctor Heylin's account of Cranmers backwardness to accept that Preferment, viz. Warham Archbishop of Canterbury dying, Cranmer is designed for his Successor in that eminent Dignity, which he unwillingly accepts of, partly in regard that he was Married at that time, and partly in reference to an Oath which he was to take to the Pope at his Consecration But the King was willing for his own ends to wink at the one, (viz, his Marriage) and the Pope was not in a Condition, as the Case then stood, to be too peremptory in the other. Heylin, Hist. Reform. page 177.  
Burnet says further, though Cranmer was a Man of too great Candour and Simplicity to be refined in the Arts of Policy, yet he managed his Affairs with great Prudence (that is to say, respect to his interest) which did so much recommend him to the King that no ill Offices were ever able to hurt him, page 172. 1 Vol. In the end of January 1533. the King sent to the Pope for the Bulls for Cranmers Promotion; and though the Statutes were passed against procuring more Bulls from Rome; yet the King (says Burnet) resolved not to begin the Breach till he was forced to it by the Pope (that is, whilst there were any hopes of the Pope's consenting to his Marriage with Ann Bolen) On the other hand the Pope had no mind to precipitate a Rupture with England, therefore consented to Cranmers Promotion, page 128.  A. 
I pray let us hear Doctor Burnet's account of his Consecration, and taking the Oath to the Pope.  B. 
Cranmers' Bulls being sent into England, he was on the 13th of March, Anno 1533. consecrated by the Bishops of London, Exeter, and Saint Asaph. But here a great Scruple was moved by him concerning the Oath that he was to Swear to the Pope, which he had no mind to take. And Writers near that time say, the dislike of that Oath (observe this) was one of the Motives that made him so unwillingly accept of that Dignity. He declared that the Obligation which that Oath brought upon him would bind him up from his Duty to God, the King, and the Church. page 128, 129. 1 Vol.  A. 
I would fain hear the words of that Oath before you go any further.  B. 
Ego T. Electus Ecclesiae C. Episcopus, ab hac hera fidelis & obediens ero beato Petro Apostolo Sanctaeque Romanae Ecclesiae, etc. I T. Bishop of C. from this hour forward shall be faithful and obedient to Saint Peter, and to the Holy Church of Rome; and to my Lord the Pope, and his Successors Canonically entering I shall not be of Council nor Consent that they shall lose either Life or Member; or shall be taken or suffer any violence or wrong by any means Their Council to me credited, their Messengers or Letters I shall not willingly discover to any Person▪ The Papacy of Rome, the Rules of the Holy Fathers, and the Regality of Saint Peter I shall help and maintain and defend against all Men The Legate of the See Apostolic going and coming I shall honourably entreat. The Rights, Honours, Privileges, Authority's of the Church of Rome and of the Pope, and his Successors I shall cause to be conserved, defended, augmented and promoted. I shall not be in Council, Treaty, or any Act, in the which any thing shall be imagined against Him or the Church of Rome, their Rights, Seats, Honours, or Powers. And if I know any such to be moved or compassed, I stall resist it to my power; and as soon as I can, I shall advertise him, or such as may give him Knowledge. The Rules of the Holy Fathers, the Decrees, Ordinances. Sentences, Dispositions, Reservations, Provisions and Commandments Apostolic to my Power I shall keep, and cause to be kept of others. Heretics, Schismatics and Rebels to our Holy Father and his Successors I shall resist and prosecute to my Power: I shall come to the Synod when I am called, except I be letted by a Canonical Impediment. The Thresholds of the Apostles I shall visit yearly Personally, or by my Deputy. I shall not alienate or sell my Possessions without the Pope's Counsel. So God help Me and the Holy Evangelists, p. 123.  A. 
Did he take this Oath in Terminis?  B. 
Yes, and you shall hear how: His Scruple being communicated to some of the Canonists and Casuists (saith Burnet) they found a Temper that agreed better with their Maxims then Cranmers' Sincerity; which was, that before he should take the Oath, he should make a good and formal Protestation, that he did not intent thereby to restrain himself from any thing that he was bound to, either by his Duty to God, or the King, or the Country, and that he renounced every thing in it that was contrary to any of these This Protestation he made in Saint Stephen's Chapel at Westminster, in presence of some Doctors of the Canon Law, before he was censecrated; and he afterwards repeated it when he took the Oath to the Pope, by which, if he did not wholly save his Integrity, (note this) yet it was plain, he intended no Cheat, but to act fairly and above board. page 129.  
NOTE Upon the like Protestation he might have taken another Oath to be true to Mahomet. The Dr. is here at his wits end for an Excuse: but confesses he did not swear like a sincere Christian. He intended no Cheat, but to act fairly and above board; viz. He would take the Oath, but so, God help him and the holy Evangelists, if ever he meant to observe one syllable of it. Reader, in all ages those that have been sent by God for the Reformation of the World, and Restoration of ancient Piety, have appeared to be Persons of extraordinary Sanctity at least, if not recommended by Miracles: in this Reformer there is yet no appearance of either.  A. 
After his Consecration what was the first Service he did for the King?  B. 
The Parliament then sitting (anno 1533.) he came and sat in the upper House of Convocation, Burnet p. 129. and there (says Heylin) he propounds two Questions to be disputed and considered by the Bishops and Clergy, concerning the King's Marriage with Queen Katherine: both which Questions were answered as the King would have have it, though not without some opposition in either House, especially the upper. It was concluded thereupon in the Convocation, and not long after in the Parliament also, that the King might lawfully proceed to another Marriage. But  
NOTE. The King was then privately married to Ann Bolen.  
Heylin proceeds. These Preparations being made, and the Marriage (with Queen Katherine) precondemned by Convocation. The new Archbishop (upon his own desire and motion, contained in his Letters of the 11th of April) is authorized by the King under his Sign Manual to proceed definitively in the Cause (mark the Authority upon which Cranmer proceeds to divorce Queen Katherine,) who thereupon, accompanied by the Bishops of London, Winchester, Wells, and Lincoln, and divers other persons to serve as Officers in that Court, repaired to Dunstable in the beginning of May, and having a convenient place prepared in form of a Consistory, they sent a Citation to the Princess Dowager (meaning Q Katherine) who was then at Ampthill, a Manor House of the Kings about six miles off; requiring her to appear before them at the day appointed; which day being come, and no appearance by her made either in person or by proxy (as they knew there would not) she is called peremptorily every day fifteen days together; and every day there was great posting betwixt them and the Court, to certify the King and Cromwell (a principal Stickler in this business) how all matters went; in one of which from the new Archbishop, extant in the Cottonian Library, a resolution is signified to Cromwell for coming to a final Sentence on Friday the 18th of that Month, but with a vehement Conjuration both to him and the King, not to divulge so great a Secret, for fear Queen Katherine, on the hearing of it, either before, or on the day of passing Sentence, should make her appearance in the Court. For (saith he) if the Noble Lady Katherine should, upon the bruit of this matter, either in the mouths of the inhabitants of the Country, or by her Friends or Council hearing of it, be counselled or persuaded to appear before me at the time or before the time of Sentence, I should be thereby greatly stayed & let in the Process; and the King's Grace's Council there present shall be much uncertain what to do therein: For a great bruit and voice of the people in this behall might perchance move her to do the thing, which peradventure she would not, if she hear little of it: and therefore I pray you to speak as little of this matter as you may, and to move the King's Highness so to do, for consideration above recited. Heylin Histor. Reform. pag. 177, 178.  
NOTE. Burnet commends Cranmer for his native Simplicity, joined with Prudence: but what sort of Prudence this was, let any man judge. Thus Heylin sets down the naked truth of this matter, which Burnet colours with all his Art; not mentioning this Letter to Cromwell. p. 130. 1. vol.  
He proceeds, ibid. But so it happened to their wish, that the Queen persisting constant in her resolution of standing to the Judgement of no other Court than that of Rome, vouchsafed not to take any notice of their proceeding in the Cause; and thereupon she was pronounced to be Contumax for defect, of Appearance: and, by the general Consent of all the learned men then present, the Sentence of Divorce was passed, and her Marriage with the King declared void and of no effect. Heylin page 178. Of this more anon.  A. 
But if you please, I would know of what Church or Religion was Cranmer at the time of his Consecration and afterwards? and likewise what were the Words of his Mission and Consecration both as Bishop and Priest?  B. 
First as to his Religion, I will tell you my own opinion: A Papist he could not be at that time, because he denied the Pope's Supremacy and other Doctrines of the Church of Rome. Of the present Church of England he could not be, because he went to Mass then and 14 years after: so that he must be of King Henry's Church, or of none at all. In the year 1538. he was (says Burnet) of Luther's Opinion, which he had drunk in from his Friend Osiander. pag. 252. 1. vol. And sat upon the Trial and Condemnation of John Lambert, one of the new Preachers, for denying the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. After the Death of K. Henry (of whom he stood in awe) he tacked about with the next wind of Doctrine, which was Zuinglianism; and joining with King Edward's privy Counsellors, he reform, that is, subverted the established Religion of the Nation. Yet in the first year of King Edward, Heylin tells you that he with eight other Bishops all in their rich Mitres and other Pontificals sang a Mass of Requiem, for the Soul of Francis the French King then lately deceased, History Reform. page 40. Notwithstanding that he with the rest of the Privy-Council had a good while before sent out their Injunctions and Commissioners into all parts of the Nation, and Preachers to attend them; which Preachers were particularly instructed to dissuade the people from praying for the Dead, from Diriges and Masses, etc. Heylin, p. 34. yet Burnet would persuade you, he was a Person of a native simplicity, and not for Court Policies, vide p. 302.  A. 
And besides all this, did he not hold some strange Opinions?  B. 
Yes, Doctor Burnet says, he had some particular Conceits of his own, or singular Opinions which he delivered with all possible Modesty, page 289. 1 Vol.  A. 
What were those Opinions?  B. 
You shall hear them together, with the excuse which the Doctor makes for him. First, That Bishops and Priests were at one, time, and were not two things, but one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion. In which Opinion all the Bishops and Clergy of England, except two Bishops and two Doctors were against him. Burnet, Collection Records, page 223.  
2. A Bishop may make a Priest, and so may Princes and Governors also; and that by the Authority of God committed to them, and the People by their Election: For as we read that Bishops have done it, so Christian Emperors and Princes usually have done it; and the People, before Christian Princes were, commonly did Elect their Bishops and Priests.  
But all the rest of the Bishops and Clergy, except the Bishop of Saint david's, and two or three Doctors, said positively that they found no example either in Scripture, or the ancient Doctors, that any Man beside a Bishop hath Authority to make Priests.  
3. In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop, or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture; for Election or Appointing thereunto is sufficient. This all the Bishops contradicted (except Saint david's); saying, that the Apostles made Priests by imposition of Hands, with Fasting and Prayer; and Dr. Redmayn said, the Office of Priesthood is too dangerous a thing to be undertaken (to be set upon are his words) when one is but appointed only; therefore for the Confirmation of their Faith who take in hand such a Charge, and for the obtaining of further Grace requisite to the same, Consecration was ordained by the holy Ghost, and hath been always used from the beginning, page 230.  
4. To this Question, whether a Christian Prince having conquered certain Dominions of Infidels, and having none about him but Laymen, He and They may not by the Law of God Preach and Teach God's Word, and also make and constitute Priests? Cranmer Answers positively; It is not against God's Law, but contrary they ought indeed so to do: and there be Histories that witness that some Christian Princes, and other Lay men unconsecrate have done the same. Reader, The English Bishops perhaps were not ware of his design in proposing this and such like Questions; which was to noose them into a Concession under their Hands, that the Prince might Preach himself, and Authorise others to preach Reformation in case of necessity; that is, If his Clergy and Bishops would not comply, as Cranmer knew they would not.  
5. To this Question, Whether a Man is bound by the Authority of this Scripture, Quorum remiseritis peccata, remissa sunt, etc. to Confess his secret deadly Sins to a Priest? He answers point blank, that no Man is bound. All the Bishops and Clergy (three or four excepted) honestly affirming, that by Authority of those words, Christians are bound to Confess their secret as well as open Sins: That Priests are bound to give Absolution, but no Priest can Absolve from that Sin which he knows not. Doctor Tresham answered, Such Confession is a thing most Consonant to the Law of God: and that it is a wise point, and a wholesome thing so to do. And God (said he) provoketh and allureth us thereunto by giving active Power to Priests to Absolve in these words. Whosoever Sins ye remit, they are remitted, etc. It is also a safer way for Salvation to Confess, if we may have a Priest, page 238. Collections. Doctor Edgeworth answered worthily, that to obtain Remission of Sin and Recover the Grace of God, a Man is bound by the Law of Nature to take the surer way. And because (said he) we are bound to Love God above all things, we ought by the same Bond to seek the best and surest Remedy for the Recovery of his Grace. Contrition is one way, but because a Man cannot be well assured, whether his Contrition, Attrition or Displeasure for his Sins be sufficient to satisfy Almighty God, or worthy to obtain his Grace; therefore it is necessary to take that way that will not fail, and by which thou mayest be sure; and that is Absolution by the Priest, which by Christ's promise will not deceive thee, so that thou put no obstacle or bar in the way; that is, if thou do not then actually Sin inwardly or outwardly, but intent to receive what the Church intends to give Thee by that Absolution. Now the Priest can give thee no Absolution from that Sin which he knows not, therefore thou art bound to confess thy Sin. Thus Doctor Edgeworth, page 237. Burnet's Collections. I wish Cranmer had half the honesty or piety of this Man.  
Doctor Leighton answered, I think such only as have not the knowledge of the Scripture, be bound to confess their secret deadly Sins unto a Priest. Howbeit no Man ought to despise such Auricular Confession; for I suppose it to be a Tradition Apostolical, necessary for the unlearned Multitude. Thus he page 238. Collections.  
6. To this Question, Whether only Bishops and Priests may Excommunicate by God's Law; he answers, a Bishop or a Priest by the Scripture is neither commanded nor forbidden to Excommunicate; but where the Laws of any Country giveth him Authority to Excommunicate, there they ought to use the same in such Crimes as the Laws have such Authority in, and where the Laws of the Region forbiddeth them, there they have no Authority at all. And they that be no Priests may also Excommunicate if the Law allow thereunto.  
NOTE. That in Queen, Mary 's days, Catholic Religion being restored by Law, Cranmer had by his own Confession no Power of the Keys. Nay, every Constable might Excommunicate as well as he, if the Law gave power. These were strange Opinions for an Archbishop and Reformer of the Faith; he subscribed thus, ‛ Thom. Cantuariens. this is my Opinion and Sentence at this present, which I do not temerariously define, but do remit the Judgement thereof wholly unto your Majesty, that was Henry VIII.  A. 
How does Burnet excuse him for these Opinions?  B. 
Very oddly, as a Man would think, viz. it seems that afterwards he changed his Opinion, for he subscribed the Book that was soon after set out, which is directly contrary to these Opinions, that is to say, in the year 1540 he subscribed to a Book for seven Sacraments, for Transubstantiation, for the profitable use of Images to put us in mind of the great Blessings we have received by our Saviour; for desiring the Prayers of Saints as Intercessors, being the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. For the use of the Hymn called Ave Maria, in Commemoration of Christ's Incarnation and to set forth the Praises of the blessed Virgin. Of all which particulars he believed not a syllable; though he subscribed with the rest of the Bishops. Nay, Burnet tells you plainly, page 289. that he was then for reducing the seven Sacraments to two, but the Popish Party was prevalent at that time. So the old number of seven was agreed to anno 1540 that is, the major vote of Bishops carried it against him, and he durst not but subscribe for fear of King Henry. In the year 1536, which was but four years before, he gave his subscription to a Book for three Sacraments only; wherein was declared the necessity of Auricular Confession; and that it was good to pray unto the Saints to pray for and with us: Of which he believed not a tittle. See Burnet, page 217. so that by what he subscribed it can never be gathered that he quitted those strange Opinions.  A. 
But after all this, did he not renounce the Protestant Religion in Queen Mary's days?  B. 
Yes, the Popish Party have but too great advantages against him (says Burnet) in the last part of his Life. The Fears of Death wrought that effect on him that he did recant, which he signed thrice. Appendix to 2. vol. pag. 400. So, for all his Recantation, he was led out to be burnt; and then he returned back to his former Doctrines, (mark this) and expressed his Repentance for his Apostasy with all the seriousness that was possible, ibid. pag. 400.  A. 
I pray, if you have read Foxes Book of Martyrs, what is his Character there?  B. 
In Causes pertaining to God or his Prince, no man more stout or more constant than he. 3. vol. p. 633.  A. 
Then let us hear the words of his Recantation set down by Fox, which he signed thrice, says Burnet.  B. 
[I Thomas Cranmer, late Archbishop of Canterbury, do renounce, abhor and detest all manner of Heresies and Errors of Luther and Zuinglius, and all other Teachings which be contrary to sound and true Doctrine. And I believe most constantly in my heart, and with my mouth I confess one holy and Catholic Church visible, withotu the which there is no Salvation. And therefore I acknowledge the Bishop of Rome to be Supreme Head on Earth; whom I knowledge to be the highest Bishop and Pope, and Christ's Vicar, unto whom all Christian people ought to be Subject.  
And as concerning the Sacraments, I believe and worship in the Sacrament of the Altar the very Body and Blood of Christ, being contained most truly under the forms of Bread and Wine, the Bread, through the mighty Power of God, being turned into the Body of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. And in the other six Sacraments also, like as in this, I believe and hold as the Universal Church holdeth, and the Church of Rome judgeth and determineth.  
Furthermore, I believe that there is a place of Purgatory, where Souls departed be punished for a time, for whom the Church doth godly and wholesomely pray, like as it doth honour Saints, and make prayers to them.  
Finally, in all things I profess, that I do not otherwise believe than the Catholic Church and the Church of Rome holdeth and teacheth. I am sorry that ever I held or thought otherwise. And I beseech Almighty God that of his Mercy he will vouchsafe to forgive me, whatsoever I have offended against God or his Church. And also I desire and beseech all Christian people to pray for me.  
And all such as have been deceived either by mine Example or Doctrine, I require them by the Blood of Jesus Christ, that they will return to the Unity of the Church, and the Supreme Head thereof. So I submit myself unto the most excellent Majesties of Philip and Mary King and Queen of this Realm of England, etc. and to all other their Laws and Ordinances; being ready always as a faithful Subject to obey them. And God is my Witness, that I have not done this for favour or fear of any Person, but willingly and of mine own mind, as well to the Discharge of mine own Conscience, as to the Instruction of others.  A. 
Did he not afterwards retract these words?  B. 
Yes, when he saw no hopes of his Pardon; and being brought to the Stake, he made a very good Exhortation to the people, saying (as Fox relates it,) [It is an heavy case to see that so many Folk so much dote upon the Love of this false World, and so careful for it, (it seems a Spanish Friar had given him good hopes of his Life, but without any Authority from the Queen, as Fox confesses) that for the Love of God or the World to come they seem to care very little or nothing: therefore this shall be my first Exhortation, that you set not your minds overmuch upon this glozing world, but upon the world to come, (I wish he had seriously thought upon this when he so obsequiously followed all the Appetites of Henry 8. by divorcing him first from his most virtuous and innocent Wife Q Katherine, then from Ann Bolen, then from Ann of Cleves;) and to learn to know what this Lesson meaneth which Saint John teacheth, that the Love of this world is enmity against God, etc. And now for as much as I am come to the last end of my life, I shall therefore declare unto you my very Faith how I believe, without any colour or dissimulation; for now is no time to dissemble, whatsoever I have said or written in times past (mark that;) and now I come to the great thing that so much troubleth my Conscience more than any thing that ever I did or said in my life; and that is, the setting abroad of a Writing (he means his Recantation) contrary to the Truth, which now here I renounce and refuse, as things written with my hand contrary to the Truth, which I thought in my heart, etc. And as for the Pope, I refuse him as Antichrist, etc. Fox 3. vol. p. 669, 670.  A. 
What further instances have you met with in Fox, of his Constancy to his Religion?  B. 
He did adventurously oppose himself against the whole Parliament, disputing and replying three days together against the Statute of Six Articles, pag. 641. that was in the year 1539.  A. 
What was the true Reason of so much Courage, at that time, in a man of such Prudence, that before and after still went along with the Stream.  B. 
Dr. Burnet will inform you. The third Article of that Statute was this, That Priests after the Order of Priesthood might not marry by the Law of God. And if any Priest did still keep any Woman whom he had married, and lived familiarly with her as his Wife, he was to be judged a Felon, etc. This, says Burnet, touched Cranmer to the quick, for he was then married, p. 257, 259. 1. vol.  A. 
Does Fox say nothing of Cranmers' Marriage?  B. 
He tells you, page 647. that the King extended such especial Favour unto him, that being not ignorant of his Wife (Niece to Osiander.) whom he had married at Norimberg, and of his keeping her all the time of the Six Articles contrary to Law; he both permitted the same, and kept Cranmers' Counsel.  A. 
What other particulars have you observed in Fox?  B. 
The Lord Cromwell was wont to say unto Cranmer, My Lord of Canterbury, you are most happy of all men; for you may do and speak what you list; and say what all men can against you, the King will never believe one word to your detriment. I am sure, I take more pains than all the Council besides, and spend more largely on the King's Affairs, as well beyond the Seas as on this side; yea, I assure you, for very Spies in foreign Realms, at Rome and elsewhere, it costs me above a Thousand Marks a year; and do what I can to bring matters to light for the commodity of the King and the Realm, I am every day chidden, and many false Tales now and then believed against me; and therefore you are most happy, for in no point can you be discredited with the King. The Archbishop answered, If the King's Majesty were not good to me, I were not able to stand one whole week. p. 643. 3. vol.  
Fox tells you further, how certain of the Council declared plainly to the King about that time, that the Realm was so infected with Heresies & Heretics, that it was dangerous for His Highness further to permit it; lest peradventure by long suffering, such Contention should arise, and ensue in the Realm amongst his Subjects, that thereby might spring horrible Rebellions and Uproars, like as in some parts of Germany it happened not long ago; the Enormity whereof they could not impute to any so much as to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 641, 642.  
But the King, says Fox, most entirely loved him, and always stood in his defence whosoever spoke against him; and once said to some Lords of his Council, I protest (solemnly laying his hand upon his breast) by the Faith which I owe to God, I take this man, my Lord of Canterbury, to be of all other a most saithful Subject to us, and one to whom We are much beholding. p. 643.  A. 
Wherein had he obliged the King?  B. 
Doctor Burnet tells you (page 127.) that in the year 1533. the King seeing of how great importance it was to the designs he was then forming (namely his Divorce from Queen Katherine, his advancement to the title of Supreme Head of the Church, and seizure of Abbey lands, etc.) to fill the See of Canterbury with a learned, prudent and resolute man, but finding none in the Episcopal Order, that was qualified to his mind, (these are Burnet's words;) and having observed a native simplicity, joined with much Courage in Dr. Cranmer, he designed to raise him to that Dignity, and gave him notice of it. ibid.  A. 
Pray, what did they lay to his Charge in Queen mary time, and what Defence did he make?  B. 
In Saint Mary's Church at Oxford, on the 12th of March, anno 1556. Doctor Brooks Bishop of Gloucester charged him as followeth. My Lord, at this present we are sent by Commission partly from the Pope's Holiness, partly from the King and Queens most excellent Majesties, not to your utter discomfort, but to your comfort, if you will yourself; not to judge you, but to put you in Remembrance of what you have been. Neither come we to Dispute with you, but to Examine you in certain matters, which being done, to make Relation thereof to him that hath power to judge you. And first, as Charity doth move us, I think good to exhort you by the words of Saint John. Remember from whence you are fallen, and do your first works. You have fallen from the universal Church of Christ, from the very true and received Faith of all Christendom, and that by open Heresy: You have fallen from your promise to God, from your Fidelity and Allegiance, and that by open Preaching, by Marriage and Adultery: You have fallen from your Sovereign Prince and Queen by open Treason, etc. and although it may be conjectured that in all your time ye were not upright in the Honour and Faith of Christ; but rather set up of purpose as a fit instrument (note this) whereby the Church might be spoiled and brought into ruin; yet it may appear by many your do otherwise, and I for my part, as it behoveth each one of us, shall think the best. For who was thought to have more Conscience of observing the Order of the Church? More earnest in the defence of the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Altar than ye were? Then all things prospered with you, your Prince favoured you; your Candlestick was set up in the highest place of the Church, and the light of your Candle was over all the Church. But after ye began to fall by Schism, and would stoutly uphold the unlawful requests of King Henry VIII then began you to fancy unlawful liberty. When ye had exiled a good Conscience, when you had forsaken God, God forsook you, and gave you over to your own will, and suffered you to fall into Schism and Heresy, and from that to Perjury, and from Perjury to Treason, and so in conclusion, into the full Indignation of our Sovereign Prince, which you may think a just punishment of God for your other abominable Opinions.  
But here peradventure you will say to me; what Sir, my fall is not so great as you make it. I have not yet fallen from the Catholic Church; for that is not the Catholic Church that the Pope is Head of, there is another Church. To which I answer, you are as sure of that as the Donatists were; for they said, they had the true Church; and that true Christians remained only in Africa, where only their Seditious Sect was preached. And as you think, so thought Novatus, that all who did acknowledge the Supremacy of Rome, were out of the Church of Christ. Saint Cyprian defending Cornelius Bishop of Rome against this Novatus, Lib 2. Epist. 6. saith, Ecclesia una est, quae cum sit una, intus & foris esse non potest. So that if Novatus was in the true Church, than was not Cornelius, who by lawful Succession succeeded Pope Fabian. Here Saint Cyprian intends by the whole process to prove, and concludeth thereupon, that the true Church was only Rome. But you will say perhaps, that you fell not by Heresy; so said the Arrians alleging Scripture for themselves, and going about to persuade their Heresy by Scripture.  
So did the Martions appeal to Scripture, to Scripture not truly interpreted, but wrested according to their own Fancies. And the Church replieth against them qui estis vos? from whence came you? What right have you to the Scriptures, which are the Church's Inheritance? Also ye will deny that ye have fallen by Apostasy and breaking your Vow; and so Vigilantius said, and would admit none to his Ministry, but such as had their Wives bagged with Children. What then? shall we say that Vigilantius fell not, that Donatus and Novatus were no schismatics, because they pretended Scripture in their own Defence? then let every Man believe as he lists, and quote Scripture for it: So that your denial will not avail you. Therefore I tell you, remember from whence you are fallen. Age paenitentiam & prima opera fac. If ye remember how many ye have brought by abominable Heresy into the way of Perdition, I doubt not but very Conscience would move you, as well for them as for yourself to return again; qui convertere fecerit peccatorem ab errore vitae suae salvam faciet animam suam a Morte & operiet multitudinem peccatorum suorum. He that shall convert a Sinner from his Wickedness shall save his Soul from Death, and shall cover a multitude of Sins: So on the contrary, it must needs be true, he that perverteth a Soul, and teacheth him the way of Perdition must needs be Damned.  
Berengarius seemed to fear that danger; provided for it in his Life time, and did not only repent but recant; and not so much for himself as for them whom he had infected by his abominable Heresies. For as he lay on his Deathbed upon the day of Epiphany, he demanded of them that were present, is this the day of Epiphany and appearing of our Lord? They answered him Yes; then (said he) this day shall the Lord appear to me either to my comfort or discomfort. This Remorse argues, that he seared the danger of them whom he had seduced from the Faith of Christ.  
Let this move you even at the last point; as your Case is not unlike to Berengarius, so let your Repentance be like his, unless you will according to the hardness of your Heart treasure up wrath against the day of Wrath.  
Well, what is it then, perhaps shame to unsay what you have said may hinder your return. But Saint Paul, St. Cyprian, and St. Austin thought it no shame to repent and agree with the Catholic Church. You will say perhaps, your Conscience will not suffer you. But what Conscience is it that would separate you from all the rest of the Christian World? to a liberty which hath no ground in the Holy Scriptures. If you judge this liberty to be good, than you judge all Christendom to do evil besides yourself.  
O what a presumptuous Opinion in this! whereupon to forsake the Church of Christ: what is your colour or pretence for this? the Abuses of the Church? as though in your Church there were no Abuses, yea that there were: And if you forsake the universal Church for Abuses, why then do you not forsake your own Church, and so be flitting from one to another? if you had seen Abuses, the way to reform them was not to make a defection from the Catholic Church. He is not a good Chirurgeon who for a little pain in the Toe would cut off the whole Leg. Ye are like Diogenes, who upon a time envying the Garments of Plato said, Ecce calco fastum Platonis. Plato answered, Sed majore fastu.  
But some peradventure have animated you to stick to your Tackle, bearing you in hand that your Opinion is good, and that ye shall die in a good Quarrel, and God will accept your Oblation. But hear what Christ faith, if thou come unto the Altar to offer thy Oblation, and knowest that thy Brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift and go and be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy gift. This he said to all the World, to the end they might understand upon what terms their Offerings should be accepted. Remember therefore, before you offer up your Offering, what not one Brother but many Brothers, even all the Church of Rome and Church of England have to say against you. I say no more than what the Church hath allowed me to say: The Sacrifice that is offered out of the Church is not profitable: The Premises therefore considered; for God's sake I say, Memor esto unde excideris & age paenitentiam & prima opera fac. Cast not yourself away. Spare your Soul, Spare them also whom you have seduced; and let not the Blood of Christ be shed for you in vain; harden not your Heart, submit to the received verity of all Christendom, stand not too much in your own conceit, think not yourself wiser than all Christendom besides, leave off your unjust Cavils, and believe as the Catholic Church Believes and Teaches you, persuade yourself that extra ecclesiam non est salus. And thus much have I said of Charity; if this poor Exhortation of mine may sink into your head and take effect with you, then have I said as I would have said, otherwise not, as I would but as I could for this present, Fox. page 650, 651.  
The Bishop of Gloucester having ended his Speech, Doctor Martin takes Cranmer in hand, viz.  
— These two Princes (meaning Philip and Mary) finding this noble Realm perverted from the unity of the Catholic Church, and perceiving also that you do persist in your detestable Errors, have made their humble Request unto the Pope's Holiness Paulus iv as Supreme head of the Church under Christ; declaring to him that whereas you Archbishop of Canterbury and Metropolitan of England, at your Consecration took two solemn Oaths for your due Obedience to the See of Rome, to become a true Pastor of the Flock; yet contrary to your Oath and Allegiance, instead of unity have sowed discord, instead of Chastity, Marriage and Adultery; instead of Obedience, Contention; and instead of Faith, ye have been the Author of all Mischief. The Pope's Holiness considering their Request and Petition, hath granted to them that Process should issue against you: And whereas in this late time ye have excluded both Charity and Justice; yet hath his Holiness decreed that ye shall have both Charity and Justice shown unto you.  
Also the King and Queen's Majesty have appointed us Doctor Story and Me their Attorneys.— Wherefore I here offer myself as Proctor in the King's Majesty's behalf. I exhibit certain Articles containing manifest Adultery and Perjury. Also Books of Heresy made partly by him, partly set forth by his Authority, and here I produce him as party, principal to Answer to your good Lordship.  A. 
Before you go further, I desire to understand upon what account they laid Treason to his Charge  B. 
In his Trial set down at large by Fox, you shall find him Answering, or rather evading all the other particulars of Heresy, Incontinency, Perjury; but scarce a word of defence as to the matter of Treason.  A. 
What should be the reason of that?  B. 
You must know that Edward VI. dying in the year 1553. all his Privy Council, the chief of the Nobility, the Mayor and City of London, (these are Foxes words) almost all the Judges and chief Lawyers of the Realm, (Justice Hales only excepted,) Cranmer and Ridly Bishop of London conspired to advance the Lady Jane Grey, and exclude their lawful Sovereign the Princess Mary, eldest Daughter to King Henry VIII. Their grand pretence being that otherwise the Protestant Religion could not stand; and having Proclaimed Lady Jane, the Lords of the Council writ a Letter to the Princess Mary. dated July 9th 1553. a Copy whereof you may see in Fox, 3 Vol. Cranmer Subscribing the first Man. The Letter gins thus; Madam, We have received your Letter the 9th of this instant, declaring your supposed Title to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. For Answer whereof, this is to advertise you that forasmuch as our Sovereign Lady Queen Jane, is after the Death of our Sovereign Lord Edward VI a Prince of most noble Memory, invested and possessed with the just and right Title in the Imperial Crown of this Realm— you surcease by any pretence to vex and molest any of our Sovereign Lady Queen Jane, her Subjects, etc.  A. 
How does Burnet Apologise for this?  B. 
Nothing at all for this Letter, which is too palpable and too unfortunate to admit of any colour. He confesses, the Archbishop of Canterbury was the first Man that Subscribed it.  A. 
But I have heard that he refused to set his hand (King Edward being yet alive) to certain Articles for Disinheriting the Daughters of Henry VIII. after they were signed by all the Privy-Council, all the Judges and chief Lawyers, except Justice Hales?  B. 
Take the account of it thus fairly out of Burnet. [Dudley Duke of Northumberland, finding that nothing went so near the King's Heart (Edward VI) as the ruin of Religion, which he apprehended would follow upon his Death, when his Sister Mary should come to the Crown; upon that, he and his party took advantage to propose to him to settle the Crown by his Letters Patents on the Lady Jane Grey, (than newly married to Guildford Dudley, Northumberlands fourth Son) how they prevailed with him to pass by his Sister Elisabeth, who had been always much in his Favour, I do not so well understand. But the King being wrought over to this, on the 11th of June, Montague Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas, Baker and Bromly two Judges, with the King's Attorney and Solicitor were commanded to come to Council. There they found the King with some Privy-Councellors about him. The King told them he did now apprehend the danger the Kingdom might be in by the Succession of his Sister Mary. So he ordered some Articles to be read to them of the way in which he would have the Crown to descend. They objected that an Act of Parliament could not be taken away by any such Device; yet the King required them to take the Articles and draw a Book according to them. They asked a little time to consider of it. So having examined the Statute of the first year of his Reign, they found that it was Treason not only after the King's Death, but in his life time to change the Succession.  
Secretary Petre in the mean time pressed them to make haste; When they came again to the Council, they declared they could not do any such thing; for it was Treason. And all the Lords should be Guilty of Treason if they went on in it. Upon which the Duke of Northumberland, who was not then in the Council Chamber, being advertised of this, came in great Fury, calling Montague a Traitor: But the Judges stood to their Opinion. They were again sent for and came on the 15th of June. The King was present, and somewhat sharply asked them, why they had not prepared the Book, as he had ordered them? They answered, that whatever they did would be of no force without a Parliament. But the King said, he would have it first done, and then ratified in Parliament, and therefore required them on their Allegiance to go about it; and some Councillors told them, if they refused to Obey that, they were Traitors. This put them in a great Consternation; and Old Montague thinking it could not be Treason, whatever they did in this matter while the King lived, and at worst, that a Pardon under the great Seal would secure him, consented to set about it, if he might have a Commission requiring him to do it, and a Pardon when it was done; both these being granted him, he was satisfied. The other Judges being asked, if they would concur, did all agree, being overcome with fear, except Hales.  
— But Cranmer still refused to do it after they had all signed it; and said, he would never consent to the Disinheriting of the Daughters of his late Master. Many Consultations were had to persuade him to it; but he could not be prevailed on; till the King himself set on him, who used many Arguments from the danger Religion would otherwise be in, together with other Persuasions; so that by his Reasons, or rather Importunities, at last he brought him to it.  
NOTE. The Doctor's excuse for this unjust Act of Cranmers (importunity,) the same that naughty Women are said to pretend for their Incontinency. If he did this only as submitting to his Prince's importunity, how came he after King Edward 's Death to Subscribe the aforesaid Letter? And to do both after he had said he he would never consent to the disinheriting of King Henry 's Children? The Reader may now understand the reason why he answered little or nothing to the Treason objected to him by the Bishop of Gloucester, because there was too much Truth in it. And methinks this excuse which Burnet makes for him does him no service; namely, that he stood off a good while, but at last with much a do was persuaded into this Conspiracy against K. Henry 's Children. How does this answer the Character which Fox gives of him, in causes pertaining to God and his Prince no Man more stout, no Man more constant than he. But whether he was in reality so unwilling to this Action, is a question which the indifferent Reader may easily resolve: Since he could not but apprehend that Queen Mary would call him to an account for the troubles he had brought upon her Mother, and indeed upon the whole Church and Kingdom of England. For amongst all the English Bishops (anno 1533. King Henry could not find such another Person (as Burnet confesses) to serve him in the See of Canterbury.  
Now as for Montague Chief Justice of the Common Plea's, and the rest of the Judges who at last consented to the advancement of Lady Jane Grey; you may observe them scrupling the matter not out of Conscience but apprehension of the Law. All that they desired was to be indemnified from the danger of Law.  A. 
Now go on to relate how he acquitted himself of the other particulars laid to his Charge; Heresy, Perjury, Incontinency.  B. 
Although he answered nothing to the Bishop of Gloucester concerning the point of Treason, yet I remember somewhat in Fox which he replied to Doctor Martin the Queen's Proctor, viz. I protest before God I was no Traitor, but indeed I confessed more at my Arraignment than was true. Martin returns, that is not to be reasoned at this present, you know you were condemned for a Traitor Fox, page 653. 3 Vol.  A. 
Is there no more in Fox as to that point?  B. 
Not a word more that I can find.  A. 
Then proceed as to the particular of Heresy.  B. 
John Foxes words are these, [As for the matter of Heresy and Schism wherewith he was charged, he protested and called God to witness that he knew none that he maintained: But if that were an Heresy to deny the Pope's Authority and the Religion which the See of Rome hath published to the World these later years, than the Apostles and Christ himself taught Heresy; and he desired all then present to bear him witness that he took the Traditions and Religion of that usurping Prelate to be most false, erroneous and against the Doctrine of the whole Scripture.]  
That he is the very Antichrist so often preached of by the Apostles and Prophets. For it was most evident that he had advanced himself above all Emperors and Kings of the World, whom he affirmeth to hold their Estates and Empires of him as their Chief, and to be deposed at his good Will and Pleasure.— That he hath brought in Gods of his own Framing and invented a new Religion full of Gain and Lucre.— This Enemy of God and of our Redemption is so evidently painted out in the Scriptures by such manifest Signs and Tokens, that except a man will shut up his Eyes and Heart against the Light, he cannot but know him.— He is like the Devil in his do, for the Devil said to Christ, if thou wilt fall down and worship me, I will give thee all the Kingdoms of the World; even so the Bishop of Rome giveth Princes their Crowns being none of his own. Christ saith that Antichrist shall be, and who shall he be? Forsooth he that advanceth himself above all other Creatures. Now if there be none other that hath advanced himself after such manner besides the Pope (he forgot Mahomet) then in the mean time let him be Antichrist. I say the Bishop of Rome treadeth under Foot God's Laws and the Kings, etc. Fox, 3 Vol. page 653, and 661.  A. 
This was strange stuff coming from the Metropolitan of a Nation.  B. 
But Fox admires it, and adds this marginal Note, [the Pope proved Antichrist.  
NOTE. Cranmer little thought that in less than one Century after his Death, his Protestant Successors in the See of Canterbury should be turned out of doors, as the Limbs and Feet of that great Antichrist the Pope: and that by virtue of his own dear Principle of Reformation, the Scripture interpreted according to every Man's Judgement of Discretion. I have seen a Book entitled, The Soldier's Catechism, composed for the Parliaments Army, & published in the year 1644 where this among other Questions being put, What is it that you chief aim at in this War against the King? The Answer is, 1. At the pulling down of Babylon, and rewarding her as she hath served us, Psal. 137.8. 2. At the suppression of an Antichristian Prelacy, consisting of Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, etc. 3. At the Reformation of a most corrupt, lazy, infamous, superstitious, soul-murdering Clergy. 4. At the advancement of Christ's Kingdom, and the purity of his Ordinances. 5. At the bringing to Justice the Enemies of our Church and State. 6. At the preservation and continuance of the Gospel to our Posterity. And to this Question, Is it not a lamentable thing that Christians of the same Nation should thus imbrue their Hands in one another's Blood? The Answer is, I confess it is; but as the case now stands, there is an inevitable and absolute necessity of fight laid upon the good People of the Land.  
2. The whole Church of God calls upon us to come into the help of the Lord and his People against the Mighty.  
3. We are not now to look at our enemies as Country Men, or Kinsmen, or fellow Protestants; but as the Enemies of God and our Religion, and Siders with Antichrist; and so our eye is not to pity them, nor our Sword to spare them, Jerem. 48.10.  
And to this Question. who do you think are the Authors and Occasioners of this unnatural War? The Answer is, the Jesuits those Firebrands of mischief with all the Popish Party. 2. The Bishops and the rotten Clergy with all the Prelatical Party, etc.  
This Book was printed in the year 1644. and licenced by James Cranford, a Presbyterian Ringleader of those times. In the Title page whereof, you shall find these words, viz. Written for the Instruction and Encouragement of all that have taken up Arms in the Cause of God and his People, etc. In which Book the Reader shall find them driving the Nail to the Head, and expounding the Scripture against the Protestant Hierarchy, just as Cranmer had done against the Pope and Church of Rome: For you must know the time when Cranmer answered thus invectively against the Pope, was the year 1556. the Parliament, the National Church and Clergy of England being then actually reconciled to the Church of Rome, (as you may find both in Burnet and Fox,) so that his Authority for saying, the Pope had brought in Gods of his own framing, was then the very same with that of the Presbyterians anno 1644. for calling the English Bishops Antichrists, namely the Scripture inter preted by himself.  A. 
It seems Cranmer was then a schismatic, as well from the established Church of England, as Rome; namely in the year 1556.  B. 
Yes; for Catholic Religion was then restored by Act of Parliament, with all the Catholic Bishops, who had been ejected by the Privy Council of Edward 6. So that I think it no easy matter to resolve you of what Church was Cranmer at that time: a Lutheran he was not, not yet a Calvinist, nor of the Church of England then established by Law.  A. 
His Church was then in Utopia. Go on to the rest of his Story.  B. 
Thus you shall find him answering to the Charge of Dr. Martin, viz. [I will never consent to the Bishop of Rome, (so he would never consent to the Disinheriting of King Henrys Children,) for then should I give myself to the Devil. I have made an Oath to the King, and must obey the King by God's Laws. By the Scripture the King is Chief, and no Foreign person in his own Realm above him. There is no Subject, but to a King. I am a Subject, I owe my Fidelity to the Crown (to the Lady Jane Grey,) the Pope is contrary the Crown. I cannot obey both; for no man can serve two Masters at once, as you in the beginning of your Oration declared by the Sword and the Keys; artributing the Sword to the King, and the Keys to the Pope: but I say, the King hath both. Therefore he that is subject to Rome and the Laws of Rome he is perjured, etc. Fox pag. 653.  
NOTE. In his Opinion the King has both the Power of the Sword and of the Keys. This must needs be a man after King Henrys own heart: but if this Doctrine be true, than Queen Mary had the Power of the Keys; and our present Sovereign King James II. must have the same Power also.  
He proceeds. Now as concerning the Sacrament, I have taught no false Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Altar. For if it can be proved by any Doctor above a thousand years after Christ, that Christ's Body is there really, I will give over. My Book was made seven years ago, and no man hath brought any Authors against it. I believe, that who so eateth and drinketh that Sacrament, Christ is within them, whole Christ, his Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, but not that corporally that sitteth in Heaven— Fox ibid.  
Here Dr. Story, another of the Queen's Proctors, interrupted him, saying, Pleaseth it you to make an end.  
To which he replied, Now I have declared why I cannot with my Conscience obey the Pope; neither say I this for my Defence, but to declare my Conscience for the Zeal that I bear to God's Word trodden under foot by the Bishop of Rome. See the rest in Fox, pag. 654.  
Then Doctor Story stood up and said (addressing himself to the Bishop of Gloucester,) Pleaseth it your good Lordship, because it hath pleased the King and Queen's Majesty to appoint my Companion and me to hear the Examination of this man, to give me leave somewhat to talk in that behalf: although I know that in talk with Heretics there cometh hurt to all men; for it wearieth the steadfast, troubleth the doubtful, and ensnareth the weak and simple; yet because he saith, he is not bound to answer your Lordship sitting for the Pope's Holiness, because of a Praemunire and the Word of God, as he pretends; I think good somewhat to say, that all men may see how he runneth out of his race of Reason into the rage of common Talk. And as the King and Queen's Majesty will be glad to hear of your most charitable dealing with him, so will they be weary to hear the blundering of this stubborn Heretic. And where he allegeth Divinity minling fas nefásque together, he should not have been heard. For shall it be sufficient for him to allege, the Judge is not competent; and shall we dispute contra cum qui negat principia? Although there be here a great company of learned men, that know it unmeet so to do; yet have I here a plain Canon whereby he is convicted ipso facto.  
The Canon is this; Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus, quisquis Apostolicis voluerit contraire Decretis: nec locum deinceps habeat inter Sacerdotes sed exors à sancto fiat Ministerio, etc.  
He hath alleged many matters against the Pope's Supremacy, but maliciously. Ye say that the King in his Realm is Supreme Head of the Church. Well Sir, you will grant me, that there was a perfect Catholic Church before any King was Christened. Then if it were a perfect Church, it must needs have a Head; which must needs be before any King was member thereof. For you know Constantinus the Emperor was the first Christian King that ever was; and although you are bound (as St. Paul saith) to obey your Rulers, and Kings have Rule over the People, yet doth it not follow that they have Cure of Souls: For à fortiori the Head may do what the Minister cannot do; but the Priest may consecrate, and the King cannot: therefore the King is not Head of the Church.— And where the Apostles do call upon men to obey their Princes, cui Tributum, Tributum, cui Vectigal, Vectigal; the Exhortation extendeth only to Temporal matters; they perceiving that men were bend to Liberty and Disobedience, were enforced to exhort them to Obedience and Payment of their Tribute.  
And again, where you say that the Bishop of Rome maketh Laws contrary to the Laws of the Realm, that is not true; for this is a maxim in the Law, Quod in particulari excipitur non facit universale falsum. And as touching that monstrous talk of your Conscience, that is no Conscience that ye profess: it is but privata Scientia and Secta. As yet you have not proved, for all your glorious Babble, that by God's Laws ye ought not to answer the Pope's Holiness: The Canons which be received in all Christendom compel you to answer. And although this Realm of late time, through such Schismatics as you were, hath exiled and banished the Canons, yet that cannot make for you: for you know yourself, that pars in totum nihil statuere potest. Wherefore this Island, being indeed but a member of the whole Church, could not determine against the whole. And the same Laws that were put away by Parliament, are now received again by a Parliament, having as full Authority now as they had then. And these Laws will now that ye answer to the Pope's Holiness. Therefore by the Laws of this Realm ye are bound to answer him. (This was materially replied to Cranmers' words, that he would never consent that the Bishop of Rome should have any Jurisdiction in England.) Wherefore, my good Lord, all that this Thomas Cranmer (I cannot otherwise term him, considering his Disobedience) hath brought for his Defence, shall nothing prevail with you. Require him therefore to answer directly to your good Lordship; command him to set aside his Trifles, and to be obedient to the Laws and Ordinances of this Realm, take witness here of his stubborn Contempt against the King and Queen's Majesties, and compel him to answer directly to such Articles as we shall here exhibit against him; and in refusal, your good Lordship is to excommunicate him. Thus Dr. Story, Fox page 654, 655.  
NOTE. Here his Fidelity to the Laws, so long as they serve his turn; the King, Queen, Parliament and Laws were then Popish. He was for the Laws made by himself and the Duke of Somerset under the Childhood of Edward. 6.  A. 
Did he answer nothing further to the Charge of Heresy.  B. 
Nothing but this; He pulled an Appeal out of his left Sleeve (says Fox) which he delvered to the Court, saying, I appeal to the next General Council— And further, I intent to speak nothing against one holy Catholic and Apostolical Church, or the Authority thereof; the which Authority I have in great Reverence, and whom my mind is in all things to obey, pag. 663. 3 vol. The very words of his Appeal.  A. 
What did he mean by one holy Catholic Church?  B. 
His Definition of it you may find in the Thirty nine Articles of the Church of England; which Articles were framed (as Burnet thinks) by him and Ridley, and first published anno 1551. p. 166. 2. vol.  
The visible Church of Christ (saith the 19th Article) is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly ministered aceording to Christ's Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. Now in the year 1556. when Cranmer presented this Appeal, there could not be in his opinion any such National or Catholic Church visible on the face of the Earth.  A. 
I pray make that appear.  B. 
By an Induction of all the Churches in the world, that then professed themselves Christians; as the Roman, the Eastern, the Church of England, the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, etc. the Roman in his opinion was but the Synagogue of Antichrist. The Greek Church consented with the Roman in most of the Doctrines controverted betwixt Papists and Protestants, as the Sacrifice of the Mass, Adoration of the Eucharist, Veneration of Images, Invocation of Saints, Prayer for the Dead, etc. and do consent at this day. The Church of England was then newly reconciled to Rome, and Catholic Bishops restored to their own Sees by Act of Parliament. The Lutherans did then and at this day adore a corporal presence in the Sacrament; and therefore cannot be said (in his opinion) to have the pure Word of God preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's Ordinance. The Calvinists had no Orders of Priests and Bishops, consequently not Church at all.  A. 
How, no Church at all, for want of Priests and Bishops! let that appear, I pray you  B. 
Read the Church of England's Preface to the Form appointed by her for making and consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and there observe these words, viz. It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons; which Offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man by his own private Authority might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, etc. And Bishop Bramhall affirms with great assurance, Among all the Eastern, Southern and Northern Christians, who make innumerable multitudes, there neither is nor ever was one form Church that wanted Bishops— among all the Western Churches and their Colonies, there never was one form Church for 1500 years that wanted Bishops. If there be any persons so far possessed with prejudice, that they choose rather to follow the private dictates of their own Frenzy than the perpetual and universal practice of the Catholic Church, enter not into their Secrets. O my Soul. Bishop Bramhall, Consecration of Protestant Bishops vindicated, p. 431. of his Works printed at Dublin. And you know the Church of England's practice at this day, which admits of no Calvinian Ministers into her Clergy without Episcopal Ordination.  
NOTE, Thus it appears by an Induction of all the several Denominations of Christians; that in Cranmers' opinion, there could be no such National or Catholic Church extant upon the face of the earth, anno 1556. as that which the Church of England defines (Article 19th) The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. So that his saying [I reverence the Authority of the Catholic Church] was but an illusion or vain pretence to avoid the Censure of Heresy: his Catholic Church at that time being like Terra incognita in our Maps, not as yet found out. What tolerable excuse (Good Reader) canst thou invent for this Reformer? have Lutherans, Papists, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Socinians, Greek Church, etc. all those things that of necessity are requisite to the preaching of God's pure Word, and due Administration of Sacraments according to Christ's Ordinance? If so, then show me a solid reason, if thou canst, why a Church of England man should not receive the Sacraments of all or any of these Sects? If the Church of Rome have all those things that of necessity are requisite, etc. how or where shall Cranmer appear at the day of Judgement? If she have not, then how is she a Member of Christ's visible Church, as Protestants say she is? A corrupt Member perhaps you will call her; but if she wants any thing necessary or essential to a Christian Church, she is no Member at all. If she errs only in matters not Fundamental or non essential (as is confessed by very learned Protestants) she is secure still, but thou art not secured from Schism. If she holds all things necessary to Salvation, and no Error that destroys the Christian Faith, she may be saved, and what more wouldst thou have? But whether she does or does not hold any Errors destructive of Salvation, I pray who shall be Judge? Answer that short Question, if thou wouldst say any thing to the purpose. What Authority had Cranmer to call the Pope Antichrist, more than the Pope had to pronounce him an Heretic? He swore Obedience to the Pope, which the Pope never did to him. He divorced Queen Katherine, styling himself Legatus a Latere, as you may find in Burnet.  A. 
But he appealed to a General Council, what did he mean by that?  B. 
Nothing, but to divert the proceed of the Court; for he valued the Authority of General Councils as little as he did that of the Catholic Church.  A. 
Pray make that out.  B. 
Burnet acquaints you, page 176. 1 Vol. [He (viz. Cranmer,) said some General Councils had been rejected by others; and it was a tender point how much aught to be deferred to a Council— And as all God's Promises to the people of Israel had this Condition employed within them, if they kept his Commandments; so he thought the Promises to the Christian Church had this Condition in them, if they kept the Faith: Therefore (says Burnet) he had much doubting in himself as to General Councils, and he thought that only the Word of God was the Rule of Faith, which ought to take place in all Controversies of Religion. This be said in the year 1534.  
NOTE. The word of God admits of various Interpretations; the Question is, Who shall determine which is the true Interpretation? a General Council, or Cranmer 's private Spirit in Opposition to that Council?  
But his Opinion of General Councils appears further from the XXI. Article of the Church of England, viz. General Councils when they are gathered together, forasmuch as they be an Assembly of men (whereof all be not governed by the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometime have erred in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things Ordained by them as necessary unto Salvation have neither strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.  
NOTE. But who shall take upon him to judge of the Decrees of General Councils, whether they be Consonant to Scripture or not? shall any single Person? Or any particular Church? Where is the Modesty of that? Shall any inferior Authority take upon itself to contradict or reverse the Decrees of a Superior? If so, then why may not any single Minister or Bishop of the Reformed Church protest against the Judgement of a Protestant Convocation? If he may not do it without Censure, how shall the Church of England, being but a particular Church, take upon herself to damn and contradict the Faith of all the rest of the Christian World?  A. 
Show me where she assumes any such Authority.  B. 
Read her XIX Article, viz. as the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. Then see the third part of her Homily against peril of Idolatry, and observe these words.— So that Laity and Clergy, learned and unlearned, all Ages, Sects and Degrees of Men, Women and Children of whole Christendom (an horrible and most dreadful thing to think) have been at once drowned in abominable Idolatry, and that by the space of eight hundred years and more.  
NOTE. Here the Doctrine of the Church of England, that Christ had no Church upon earth for the space of eight hundred years and more before Cranmer: The same Homily teaches further, viz. and at the last the learned also were carried away with the public Error, as with a violent stream or flood: And at the second Council of Nice, the Bishops and Clergy decreed, that Images should be worshipped, and so by occasion of these stumbling Blocks, not only the unlearned and simple, but the learned and wise, not only the People but the Bishops, not the Sheep, but also the Shepherds themselves (who should have been Guides in the right way) as blind Guides of the blind fell both into the pit of damnable Idolatry. In the which all the World, as it were drowned, continued until our Age by the space of above eight hundred years unspoken against in a manner, etc.  A. 
But don't you wrong the Church of England in Attributing this Doctrine to her, that Christ had no Church upon Earth for the space of eight hundred years and more before the Reformation? Since a Church may be drowned in damnable Idolatry, and yet (as Protestants say) be a true Church of Christ at the same time? Does not Mr. King the Preacher of St. Warbroughs Dublin, (a young man of that profound Learning, that he can see as far into a Millstone as another) make it out evidently against D. Manby, as the common sense of Protestant Controvertists, that the Idolatry charged on the Church of Rome is consistent with the Being of a Church? There is a sort of Idolatry which men incur by giving some part of that honour to a Creature (saith he) which God has reserved for himself; or ask those things of Creatures which God only can give; and 'tis with this the Church of Rome stands charged. Answer, page 58.  B. 
Remember the Church of England's Description of Christ's Church (Article 19) [The Visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of Faithful Men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly ministered according to Christ's Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same,] and tell me ingeniously whether you think Mr. King's Charge of Idolatry is consistent with such a Visible Church of Christ? And where that Visible Church of Christ dwelled upon the face of the Earth before the Reformation.  A. 
Well, so much for his defence against the Charge of Heresy and appealing to a General Council. Go on to the other particulars of Perjury and Incontinency.  B. 
As to his Perjury, observe the discourse between him and Doctor Martin. Fox, page 655. 3 Vol. [Martin. 
But Sir, You that pretend to have such a Conscience to break an Oath; I pray did you never swear and break the same?  Cranmer. 
I remember not.  Martin. 
I will help your memory, did you never swear Obedience to the See of Rome?  Cranmer. 
Indeed I did once swear unto the same.  Martin. 
Yea, that ye did twice, as appeareth by Records and Writings here ready to be shown.  Cranmer. 
But I remember I saved all by Protestation that I made by the counsel of the best learned men I could get at that time.  Martin. 
Harken, good people, what this man saith; he made a Protestation one day to keep never a whit of that which he intended to swear next day. Was this the part of a Christian? If a Christian man should bargain with a Turk, and before he maketh his Bargain should protest solemnly before one or two, that he minds not to perform whatsoever he shall promise to the Turk. I say, if a Christian man should serve a Turk in this manner, that the Christian were worse than the Turk. What would you say then to this man that made a solemn Oath and Promise unto God and his Church, and made a Protestation before quite contrary?  Cranm. 
That which I did, I did by the best learned men's advice I could get at that time.  Martin. 
I protest before all the learned men here, that there is no Learning will save your Perjury herein.— Will you have the truth of the matter? King Henry 8. even then meant the lamentable Change which after came to pass. And to further his pitiful proceeding, from the Divorce of his most lawful Wife, to a detestable departure from the blessed Unity of Christ's Church, this man made the aforesaid Protestation.— And on the other side, he letted not to take two solemn Oaths quite contrary; and why? for otherwise by the Laws and Canons of this Realm he could not aspire to the Archbishopric of Canterbury.  Cranm. 
I protest before you all, never man came more unwillingly to a Bishopric, than I did to that; in so much that when King Henry did send for me in Post that I should come over, I prolonged my Journey by seven weeks at the least, thinking that he would forget me in the mean time.  Martin. 
You declare well by the way, that the King took you to be a man of good Conscience, who could not find within all his Realm any man to set forth his strange attempts; but was enforced to send for you in Post out of Germany. What may we conjecture hereby, but that there was a Contract between you (being then Queen Ann's Chaplain) and the King; Give me the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and I will give you Licence to live in Adultery.  Cranm. 
You say not true.  Martin. 
Let your Protestation, joined with the rest of your Talk, give Judgement. Hinc prima mali labes. Of that your execrable Perjury, and his coloured and too shamefully suffered Adultery came Heresy and all Mischief into this Realm. And thus have I spoken as touching the Conscience you pretend for breaking your Heretical Oath made to the King. But of breaking your former Oath, made at two sundry times both to God and his Church, you have no Conscience at all. And now to answer the other part of your Oration, wherein you bring in God's Word, that you have it on your side, and no man else; and that the Pope hath devised a new Scripture contrary to the Scriptures of God. Ye play herein as the Pharesees did, who cried always, Verbum Domini, Verbum Domini, the Word of the Lord, the Word of the Lord, when they meant nothing so: This betters not your Cause; for Basilides and Photinus the Heretics said, they had God's Word to maintain their Heresy; so Nestorius, so Macedonius, so Pelagius, and briefly all the Heretics that ever were, pretended God's Word for themselves: Yea, and the Devil, the Father of Heresies, alleged God's Word for himself, saying; scriptum est, it is written: so said he to Christ, mitte te deorsum; cast thyself downward, which you applied most falsely against the Pope. And if you mark well the Devil's language, it agreed with your proceed most truly. For mitte te deorsum, cast thyself downward (said he); and so taught you to cast all things downward; down with the Sacrament, down with the Mass, down with the Altars, down with the Arms of Christ, and up with a Lion and a Dog; down with the Abbeys, Hospitals, Chauntries and Colleges; down with Fasting and Prayer; yea, down with all that good and godly is: all your proceed and preach tended to no other end, but to fulfil the Devil's request, mitte te deorsum: and therefore tell us not that you have God's Word; for God hath given us by his Word a mark to know that your Teaching proceeded not of God, but of the Devil; and that your Doctrine came not of Christ, but of Antichrist. For Christ foretold there should arise against his Church Lupi rapaces, ravening Wolves, and Pseudo-Apostoli, false Apostles. But how shall we know them? Christ teaches us, saying, ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos, by their fruits ye shall know them. Why, what be their fruits? St. Paul declareth, Post carnem in concupiscentia & immundity ambulant, Potestates contemnunt, etc. they walk after the flesh in concupiscence and uncleanness, they contemn Dominions. Again, in diebus novissimis erunt periculosa tempora, erunt seipsos amantes, cupidi, elati, immorigeri Parentibus, Proditores, etc. in the later days there shall be perilous times, men lovers of themselves, covetous, proud, disobedient to Parents, Treason-workers, etc.  
Whether these be not the Fruits of your Gospel, I refer me unto this worshipful Audience, whether the said Gospel began not with Perjury, proceeded with Adultery, was maintained with Heresy, and ended in Conspiracy.  
Now Sir, two points more I marked in your raging discourse that you made here; the one against the holy Sacrament, the other against the Pope's Jurisdiction and Authority of the See Apostolic.  
Touching the first, you say you have God's Word, yea and all the Doctors I would here ask but one Question of you, whether God's Word be contrary to itself? and whether the Doctors teach Doctrine contrary to themselves? for you, Master Cranmer, have taught concerning this high Sacrament of the Altar three contrary Doctrines, and for every one ye pretended Verbum Domini.  Cranmer. 
Nay, I taught but two contrary Doctrines in the same.  Martin. 
What Doctrine taught you when you condemned Lambert the Sacramentary in the King's presence at Whitehall.  Cranm. 
I maintained then the Papists Doctrine.  Martin. 
That is to say, the Catholic and Universal Doctrine of Christ's Church. And how, when K. Henry died, did you not translate Justus Jonas' Book?  Cranm. 
I did so.  Martin. 
There you defended another Doctrine touching the Sacrament: by the same token, that you sent to Lynne, your Printer, that whereas in the first Print there was an Affirmative, that is to say, Christ's Body really in the Sacrament, you sent then to your Printer to put in a not; whereby it came miraculously to pass, that Christ's Body was clean conveyed out of the Sacrament.  Cranm. 
I remember there were two Printers of my said Book, but whether the same not was put in, I cannot tell.  Martin. 
Then from a Lutheran ye became a Zwinglian, which is the vilest Heresy of all, concerning the high Mystery of the Sacrament, (and for the same Heresy you did help to burn Lambert the Sacramentary,) which you now call the Catholic Faith, and God's Word.  Cranm. 
I grant that then I believed otherwise than I do now; and so I did until my Lord of London, Dr. Ridley, did confer with me, and by sundry Persuasions and Authorities of Doctors drew me quite from my Opinion.  Martin. 
Now, Sir, as touching the last part of your Oration, you denied the Pope's Holiness was Supreme Head of the Church of Christ.  Cranm. 
I did so.  Mart. 
Who say you then is Supreme Head?  Cranm. 
Christ.  Mart. 
But whom hath Christ left here on Earth his Vicar and Head of his Church?  Cranm. 
No body.  Mart. 
Ah, why told you not King Henry this, when you made him Supreme Head? and now no body is. This is Treason against his own Person, as you then made him.  Cranm. 
I mean not, but that every King in his own Realm and Dominion is Supreme Head: and so was he Supreme Head of the Church of Christ. [Reader, Observe here how he makes the Catholic Church an Hydra of many Heads, instead of that one holy Society which he pretended to believe in the two Creeds.  Martin. 
Is this always true, and was it ever so in Christ's Church?  Cranm. 
It was so.  Martin. 
Then what say you to Nero, was he Head of Christ's Church?  Cranm. 
Nero was Peter Head.  Martin. 
I ask whether Nero was Head of the Church or no? If he were not, it is false that you said before, that all Princes be and ever were Heads of the Church within their Realms.  Cranm. 
Nay it is true, for Nero was Head of the Church; that is, in respect of the temporal Bodies of Men, of whom the Church consisteth; for so he beheaded Peter and the Apostles. And the Turk too is Head of the Church in Turkey.  Martin. 
Then he that beheaded the Heads of the Church, and crucified the Apostles, was Head of Christ's Church; and he that was never Member of the Church is Head of the Church, by your newfound understanding of God's Word. Fox pag. 655, 656 3. vol.   
NOTE. If the Turk be Head of the Church under Christ, he must be so in all Spiritual things or causes as well as temporal, according to the Oath of Supremacy contrived by Cromwell and Cranmer, and at this day sworn by Protestants.  A. 
What is Fox's opinion of this Dialogue?  B. 
It is not to be supposed otherwise, but much other matter passed in this Communication between them, especially on the Archbishop's behalf, whose Answers I do not think to be so slender, nor altogether in the same form of words framed, if the truth, as it was, might be known. But so it pleased the Notary thereof, being too partially addicted to his Mother See of Rome in favour of his Faction, to diminish and drive down the other side, either in not showing all, or in reporting the thing otherwise than it was, as the common Guise is of most Writers (and of Fox himself) to what side their Affection most weigheth, their Oration commonly inclineth. Fox p. 657. 3. vol.  A. 
It seems then Fox likes not these Answers given by Cranmer, and therefore suspects the Penman, or Notary, of partiality in reporting the same.  B. 
But I believe it a true Report for two reasons; first, the cause would admit of no satisfactory answers. 2. Let the Reader see the Contents of Cranmers Appeal, set down by Fox, and there observe these words, viz.— And when I refused the Bp. of Gloucester to be my Judge for most just causes, which I then declared, he nevertheless went on still, and made Process against me, contrary to the Rules of Appealing, which say, A Judge that is refused, ought not to proceed in the cause, etc.— And with this my Protestation made and admitted I made answer, but mine Answer was sudden and unprovided (note this); and therefore I desired to have a Copy of mine Answers, that I might put to, take away, change and amend them; and this was also permitted me; nevertheless, contrary to his promise made unto me, no respect had to my Protestation, nor licence given to amend mine Answer; the said reverend Father Bishop of Gloucester (as I hear) commanded mine Answers to be enacted, contrary to the equity of the Law; in which thing again I feel myself much grieved. Fox p 664.  
NOTE. Here he excuses the weakness of his own Answers, by saying, they were sudden and unprovided. But let the Reader imagine what better Answers in brief could be returned to the Questions of Dr. Martin; Cranmer having sworn that the King was Supreme Head of the Church of England, under Christ, as well in all spiritual things or causes as temporal. what better Answers in brief could be returned to the Questions of Dr. Martin; Cranmer having sworn that the King was Supreme Head of the Church of England, under Christ, as well in all spiritual things or causes as temporal.  A. 
But how did he interpret those words, as well in all spiriritual things or causes as temporal?  B. 
Fox. tells you, p. 662. viz. After this Dr. Martin demanded of him, who was Supreme Head of the Church of England? Marry, quoth my Lord of Canterbury, Christ is Head of this Member, as he is of the whole Body of the Universal Church. Why, quoth Dr. Martin, you made King Henry the 8th. Supreme Head of the Church. Yea, said the Archbishop, of all the people of England, as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal. And not of the Church, said Martin? No, said he, for Christ is only Head of his Church, and of the Faith and Religion of the same; the King is Head and Governor of his People, which are the visible Church. What, quoth Martin, you never durst tell the King so. Yes that I durst, quoth he, and did in the publication of his Style, wherein he was named Supreme Head of the Church, there was never other thing meant. page 662. This is Fox's account of the Dialogue, received, as he says, from a better hand.  A. 
Did he answer any thing further concerning the Perjury objected to him.  B. 
Fox tells you, Others who were present (at his Trial) do thus report the effect of Cranmers' words. viz.— while he in this sort made his Answer, ye heard before how Dr. Story and Martin divers times interrupted him with blasphemous Talk, and would said have had the Bishop of Gloucester to put him to silence; who notwithstanding did not, but suffered him to end his Tale at full. After this ye heard also how they proceeded to examine him of divers Articles; whereof the chief was, that at the time of his creating Archbishop of Canterbury he was sworn to the Pope, and had his Institution and Induction from him; and promised then to maintain the Authority of that See, and therefore was perjured: wherefore he should rather stick to his first Oath, and return to his old fold again, than continue obstinately in an Oath forced in the time of Schism.  
To that he answered (says Fox) saving his Protestation (which term he used before all his Answers) that at such time as Archbishop Warham died, he was Ambassador in Germany for the King; who thereupon sent for him home; and having intelligence by some of his Friends (near about the King) how he meant to bestow the same Bishopric upon him, and therefore counselled him in that case to make haste home; he feeling in himself a great inability to such a Promotion, and very sorry to leave his Study; and especially considering by what means he must have it, which was clean against his Conscience, which he could not utter without great peril and danger, devised an Excuse to the King of matter of great importance, for the which his longer abode there should be most necessary, thinking by that means in his absence, the King would bestow it upon some other; and so remained there by that device one half year after the King had written for him to come; but after that no such matter fell out, as he seemed to make suspicion of, the King sent for him again. Who after his return, understanding still the Archbishopric to be reserved for him, made means by divers of his best Friends to shift it off; desiring rather some smaller Living, that he might more quietly follow his Book.  
To be brief, when the King himself spoke with him, declaring that his full intention was for his Service sake (note this) and for the good opinion he conceived of him, to bestow that Dignity upon him.  
Fox proceeds. After long disabling of himself, perceiving he could by no persuasions alter the King's determination, he broke frankly his Conscience with him, most humbly craving first his Grace's Pardon for what he should declare unto his Highness Which obtained, he said, that if he accepted the Office, he must receive it at the Pope's hand, which he neither would nor could do, His Highness being the only Supreme Governor of this Church of England, as well in causes Ecclesiastical as Temporal (this was a Chaplain after King Henry's own Heart.) And therefore if he might in that Vocation serve God, the King, and his Country; seeing it was his pleasure so to have it, he would accept that Dignity, and receive it of his Majesty, and of no Stranger, who had no Authority within this Realm. Whereat the King, said he, staying a while and musing, asked me, How I was able to prove that. At which time I alleged many Texts out of Scripture, and the Fathers also, approving the Supreme and highest Authority of Kings within their own Realms, showing withal the intolerable usurpation of the Pope of Rome.  
Afterwards it pleased his Highness (quoth the Archbishop) many and sundry times to talk with me about it; and perceiving that I could not be brought to acknowledge the Authority of the Bishop of Rome; the King himself called Doctor Oliver, and other Civil Lawyers to advise with them how he might bestow the Archbishopric upon me, enforcing me nothing against my Conscience; who thereupon informed him, that I might do it by the way of Protestation; and so one to be sent to Rome, who might take the Oath and do every thing in my name; which when I understood, I said, he should do it super Animam suam. And I indeed bona fide made by Protestation: that I did not acknowledge his Authority any further than as it agreed with the express Word of God: And that it might be lawful for me at all times to speak against him, and to impugn his Errors when time and occasion should serve me. And this my Protestation I did cause to be enrolled; and there I think it remains.  
This (says Fox) is the faithful Relation and Testimony of certain Persons that were present at his Trial before the Bishop of Gloucester See page 661, 662.  
Reader, Remember what Doctor Martin observes (page 60.) Harken good People to what this man saith, he makes a Protestation one day to keep never a tittle of that which he intended to swear next day. See the Tenor of his Oath to the Pope, page 28. of this Catechism.  A. 
What did he answer to the particular of Incontinency, or breach of his Sacerdotal Vow?  B. 
Dr. Martin objected, that being in holy Orders, after the Death of his first Wife, he married a second named Ann, and kept her secretly in the days of King Henry 8. Whereunto he answered, that it was better for him to have his own Wife, than to do like other Priests holding and keeping other men's wives. But the Question is, whether other men's vices could be any excuse for him? he seems to suppose here every man to be under a necessity of either marrying or committing the sin of Fornication; notwithstanding his Vow of Coelibate. See Fox p. 657.  A. 
So much for his Charge and Defence before the Bishop of Gloucester, anno 1556. What did the Bishop say upon the upshot of the Trial?  B. 
He made a long Speech, the effect whereof was this; [Master Cranmer, (I cannot otherwise term you considering your obstinacy) I am right hearty sorry to hear such words escape your mouth so unadvisedly: I had conceived a right good hope of your amendment. I supposed that this obstinacy of yours came not of vain Glory, but rather of a corrupt Conscience; but now I perceive by your foolish babble, that it is far otherwise. Ye are so puffed up with Vain Glory; there is such a cauterium of Heresy crept into your Conscience, that I am clean void of hope. God would have you to be saved, and you refuse it. You have uttered such erroneous talk, with such open malice against the Pope's Holiness, with such open lying against the Church of Rome, with such open Blasphemy against the Sacrament of the Altar, that no mouth could have expressed more maliciously, more lyingly, more blasphemously.  
To reason with you, although I would of myself to satisfy this Audience: yet I may not do so by our Commission; neither do I find how I may do it by the Scriptures; for the Apostle commandeth, Haereticum hominem post unum aut alterum conventum, devita, etc. an heretical person after once or twice conferring, eat, knowing that he is perverse, and sinneth, being of his own Judgement condemned. Ye have been conferred withal not once or twice but oftentimes; ye have oft been lovingly admonished, ye have oft been privately disputed with; and the last year in the open School in open Disputations ye have been openly convict. Your Book, which ye brag ye made seven years ago, and no man answered it, Marcus Antonius hath sufficiently detected and confuted: yet ye persist still in your wont Heresy.  
Wherefore being so oft admonished, conferred withal, and convicted, if ye deny yourself to be the man whom the Apostle noteth, hear then what Origen saith, who wrote above 1300 years ago, and interpreteth that saying of the Apostle in this wise, in Apologia Pamphili, Haereticus est omnis ille habendus qui Christo se credere profitetur & aliter de Christi veritate sentit quam se habet ecclesiastica Traditio. Ye rehearsed the Articles of your Faith; to what end, I pray you, but to cloak that Heresy rooted in you, and to blind the poor simple and unlearned people's eyes? for unless (as Origen saith) ye believe all things that the Church hath decreed, ye are no Christian man; in the which, because ye do halt; and will come to no Conformity, from henceforth ye are to be taken for an Heretic, whom we ought to eschew and avoid.  
And first, where you accuse me of an Oath taken against the Bp. of Rome I confess it, and therefore do say with the rest of this Realm, good and Catholic men, the words of the Prophet, Peccavimus cum Patribus nostris,  egimus, iniquitatem secimus. We have sinned with our Fathers, we have done unjustly and wickedly. Delict●… juventutis meae & ignorantias meas ne memineris Domine. The sins of my youth and my ignorances', O Lord do not remember. I was then a young man and a young Scholar here in the University. I knew not what an Oath did mean.  
And where you say I took two Oaths, the one contrary to the other. It is not so; for the Oath I made to the Pope's Holiness, appeartains only to spiritual things: the other that I made to the King, pertains only to temporal things; that is to say, that I do acknowledge all my Temporal Live to proceed only from the King, and from none else; but all men may see, as ye agree in this, so ye agree in the rest of your Opinions.  
Now, Sir, as concerning the Supremacy due to the See of Rome; although there be a number of places to prove that Christ appointed Peter Head of the Church, yet this place is most evident; when Christ demanded of his Apostles, Whom do men say that I am? They answered, Some Elias, some one of the Prophets, etc. but to Peter he said, Whom savest thou that I am? Peter answered, Tu es Christus fiilius Dei, etc. Christ replied, Tu es Petrus & super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. The Doctor's interpreting this place, super hanc Petram, expound it, id est, non solum super Fidem Petri, sed super te Petre. And why did Christ change his Name from Simon to Peter, but only to declare that he was to be (under Christ) the Foundation and Head of the Church.  
Again where Christ demanded of Peter, being amongst the rest of the Apostles, three times, Petre amas me? he gave him charge over his Sheep, Pasce Oves meas, pasce Agnos meos, pasce Agnos meos, three times. Which place Saint chrysostom interpreting, saith, Pasce, hoc est loco mei esto Praepositus & caput fratrum tuorum. And when they came that required Didrachma of Christ; he commanded Peter to cast his Net into the Sea, and to take out of the Fish's Mouth stateram, hoc est, duplex didrachma, & da inquit pro te & me Petre. Which words do signify that when he had paid for them two, he had paid for all the rest. So St. Austin in 75 quaest▪ veteris & novi Testamenti. Salvator (inquit) quum pro se & Petro dari jubebat didrachma, pro omnibus dari censuit, ipsum enim constituit caput eorum. Our Saviour Christ (saith St. Austin) commanding the Tribute to be given for Him and for Peter, meant the same to be given for all the rest. For he appointed him Head of the rest: what can be more plain than this? But I will not tarry upon this matter.  
Now as touching the Pope's Laws, which be contrary, as you say, to the Laws of God; because the Service is in Latin, which ought to be in English. I Answer, whosoever will take the pains to peruse that Chapter, 1 Cor. 14. shall find that his meaning is concerning Preaching, and obiter only of Praying.  
Again, Where you say that the Pope's Holiness takes away one part of the Sacrament from the Laity; which Christ commanded to be given under both kinds, saying, Bibite ex hoc omnes. Now if a Man would be so proterve with you, he might say that Christ commanded it to be given only to his Apostles, into whose places succeeded Priests, and not Laymen.  
And admit that Christ commanded it to be received under both kinds. So he commanded his Apostles, saying, Ite praedicate Evangelium omni nationi, Baptisantes in nomine Patris & Filii & spiritus sancti. But the Apostles, being desirous to publish Christ's name every where, did Baptism only in Christ's name. Again, Christ before his last Supper washed his Disciples Feet, saying, Si ego lavi pedes vestr●s, etc. If I being your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also aught to wash the feet of one another. This was a Precept: yet hath the Church altered it, lest the simple people should think a Rebaptisation in it. (Why do not Protestants observe Christ's Institution of washing one another's feet before they receive the Sacrament!)  
So because the Apostle saith, Accepi a Domino quod & tradidi vobis, etc. I have received of the Lord the same which I delivered unto you, that our Lord the same night that he was betrayed, etc. notwithstanding Christ's Precept, that the Sacrament should be administered after Supper, the Church hath commanded it to be received fasting, (and Protestants do receive it before dinner.) And where Christ did break the Bread, we receive the whole Host. Christ ministered sitting at the Table, we standing at the Altar.  
Likewise it is commanded in the Acts, that Christians should abstain à suffocato & sanguine, from things strangled and from blood; but the Church hath altered it, (nor do Protestants observe it.) God commanded the Sabbath or Seventh day to be kept holy, the Church hath altered it to the Sunday. If then the Church may change things so expressly appointed in Scripture, she may also change the form of the Laitys receiving under both kinds, and that for divers reasons.  
First, That in carrying it to the Sick, the Blood may not be shed, lost or misused.  
Next, That no occasion might be given to Heretics, to think, that there is not so much under one kind, as under both.  
But why would you have it under both kinds? only to pervert and contradict the Practice of the Church? For when you have it under both kinds, ye believed in neither (meaning a real presence in neither.)  
Now, Sir, as concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, where you say, you have a number of Doctors on your side, and we none of ours: indeed one to stop your mouth I think it not possible to find. Nevertheless, whereas your desire is to have one shown you, and then you will recant, I will show you two.  
Ferebatur manibus suis, saith St. Austin super Psal. 33. I find not how this is true in David (saith he) literally, that he was born in his own hands: but in Christ I find it true literally, when he gave his Body to his Apostles at his last Supper.  
Again, St. Cyprian de Coena Domini saith, Panis quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, Omnipotentia Verbi factus est Caro. What can be more plain than this? yet to you it is not plain enough. But give me your figurative, significative and such other like terms, and I will defend, that Christ hath not yet ascended, no, nor yet that he was incarnate. Wherefore I can only put you in the number of those whom S. Chrysostom speaks of, Audi, homo fidelis, qui contra Haereticum contendis, etc. Hear, O thou Christian, canst thou hope to do more than Christ? Christ confuted the Pharesees, yet could not put them to silence. Et tu fortior es Christo? Wilt thou go about to silence him that will receive no Answer? Thus much have I said, not for you, Mr. Cranmer; for my hope that I conceived of you is now past and gone: but somewhat to satisfy the rude & unlearned people, that they, perceiving your Arrogancy, may the better eschew your detestable and abominable Schism. Fox pag. 658, 659. Thus spoke the Bishop of Gloucester, like a Catholic, understanding Prelate. After whom Dr. Story (saith Fox) thus inferred in words.  
Master Cranmer, you have made a goodly Process concerning your Heretical Oath made to the King; but you forget your Oath made to the See Apostolic. As concerning your Oath to the King, if you made it to him only, it took an end by his Death, and so it is released: if to his Successors, well, Sir, the true Successors have the Empire now; and they will have you to dissolve the same, and become a member of Christ's Church again: it was no Oath, for it lacked the three points of an Oath, that is to say, Justiciam, Judicium & Veritatem. Thus Dr Story, ibid. p. 659. Protestants will needs swear the King to be Supreme in all Spiritual things or causes, whether the King will or no; and when they have sworn it, they will obey him in such matters so far as they think good, when he happens to be a Papist.  A. 
What followed after this?  B. 
After all this Cranmer made that Recantation which you have heard, and retracted it again, when he saw no hopes of his Pardon— He had this reason to rejoice (says Fox) that dying in such a Cause, he was to be numbered amongst Christ's Martyrs, (although he had no mind to be a Martyr) much more worthy the Name of Saint Thomas of Canterbury, than he whom the Pope had falsely canonised, meaning Thomas Becker, p. 672.  A. 
Of what Church died he a Member?  B. 
I cannot tell, the Church of England being then abolished, and Catholic Religion restored by Act of Parliament.  A. 
One Question you have not answered, what were the Words of his Mission and Consecration both as Priest and Bishop?  B. 
That you shall hear by and by. Give me leave to observe one or two passages more out of Dr. Burnet.  A. 
As to what Point?  B. 
As to that Candour and Simplicity which Burnet admires in him, page 172. 1. vol. The Story is thus, Burnet p. 172. second volume. viz.  
In the year 1551. the fifth year of Edward the Sixth, the business of the Lady Mary was taken up with more heat than formerly. The Emperor's earnest Suit that she might have Mass said in her House was long rejected— Yet the State of England making his Friendship at that time necessary to the King, and he refusing to continue in his League, unless his Kinswoman obtained that Favour, it was promised, that for some time, in hope she would reform, there should be a Forbearance granted. The Emperor's Ambassador pressed to have a Licence for it under the great Seal; it was answered, that being against Law, it could not be done.— The two grounds she went upon, were, that she would follow the ancient and universal way of Worship, and not a new Invention that lay within the Four Seas (these were her words) and that she would continue in that Religion in which her Father, King Henry, had instructed her. To this the King sent an Answer, (he was then scarce 14 years of age) telling her, that she was a part of this Church and Nation, and so must conform herself to the Laws of it (the Laws made by Cranmer, Somerset, Dudley, etc.) and that the way of Worship now set up, was no other than what was clearly consonant to the pure Word of God, (that was King Edward's first Common Prayer Book, which expressly commanded Prayers for the dead.) After this she was sent for to Court, and pains was taken to instruct her better; but she refused to enter into any Reasonings, and claimed the Promise that was said to be made to the Emperor. But it was told her, that it was but temporary and conditional. Whereupon the last Summer (anno 1550.) she was designing to fly out of England— The Emperor's Ambassador solicited for her violently; and said, he would presently take leave, and protest that they had broken their Faith to his Master, who would resent the Usage of the Lady Mary as highly as if it were done immediately to himself. The Privy Counsellors having no mind to draw a new War on their Heads, especially from so victorious a Prince, were all inclined to let the matter fall. There was also a Years Cloth lately sent over to Antwerp, and 1500 Quintals of Powder, with a great deal of Armour, bought there for the King's use, was not come over. So it was thought by no means advisable to provoke the Emperor, while they had such effects in his Ports: Nor were they very willing to give higher Provocations to the next Heir of the Crown. Therefore they all advised the King not to do more in that matter at present, but to leave the Lady Mary to her Discretion; who would certainly be made more Cautious by what she had met with, and would give as little scandal as was possible by her Mass.  
But King Edward could not be induced to give way to it, for he thought the Mass was Impious and Idolatrous (as Cranmer, and the rest of his Tutors had instructed him,) so he would not consent to the continuance of such a Sin. Upon this the Council ordered Cranmer, Ridley, and Poinet (the new Bishops of Winchester) to discourse with him about it. They told him it was always a Sin in a Prince to permit any Sin, but to give a Connivance; that is, not to Punish, was not always a Sin. Since sometimes a lesser Evil connived at might prevent a greater. He was overcome by this, yet not so easily, but that he burst forth into Tears, lamenting his Sister's obstinacy, and that he must suffer her to continue in so abominable a way of Worship as he esteemed the Mass. Burnet, ibid.  
Reader, Observe here the Casuistry of these new Apostles Cranmer, Ridley, and Poinet, etc. governing the Conscience of this young King. At his Father's death they all went to Mass: King Henry was no sooner dead, but they represent it to King Edward as the most impious and detestable Idolatry, not to be tolerated by any Christian King He understood not their Knavery, being then (anno 1546.) a Child of nine years old; but verily thought them (what they pretended to be) the most sincere Christians. After four or five years, he is amazed to find the Spirit of Reformation appearing with a Cloven foot, and distinguishing betwixt Permitting and Conniving at the impiety of the Mass for interests sake. He burst our into Tears at the Counsel of these new Evangelists, thus mingling earthly Policy with Religion. But mark what follows.  
Burnet informs you, that King Edward's Council being now less in fear of the Emperor— In July (anno 1551) sent for Inglefield, Walgrave and Rochester, three of the Lady mary chief Officers and gave them Instructions to signify unto her the King's Pleasure to have the new Service in her Family (these are Burnet's words) and to return with an Answer. In August they came back, and said, she received the Message very grievously; and that she would obey the King in all things, except where her Conscience was touched. Upon this they were sent to the Tower. Then the Lord Chancellor, Sir Authony Wingfield, and Sir William Petre were sent unto her with a Letter from the King, and Instructions from the Council. They came to her House at Copthall in Essex. The Lord Chancellor gave her the King's Letter, which she received on her knees, and said, she paid that respect to the King's Hand, and not to the Matter of the Letter, which she knew proceeded from the Council. And when she read it, she said, Ah! Mr. Cecil took much pains here (he was then Secretary of State); so she turned to the Counsellors, and bid them deliver their Message to her, wishing them to be short; for she was not well at ease. The Lord Chancellor told her, that all the Council were of one mind, that she must be no longer suffered to have private Mass or a Form of Religion different from what was established by Law.  
He went to read the Names of those that were of that mind; but she desired him to spare his pains, she knew they were all of a sort. They next told her, they had Order to require her Chaplains to use no other Service than what was according to Law.  
She answered, she was the Kings most obedient Subject and Sister; and would obey him in every thing, but where her Conscience held her, and would willingly suffer Death to do him Service: but she would lay her Head on a Block, rather than use any other Form of Service, than what had been at her Father's Death; only she thought (observe this) she was not worthy to suffer Death upon so good an account. When the King came to be of Age, so that he could order these things himself; she would obey his Commands in Religion. For although he (Good, Sweet King) these were her words, had more Knowledge than any of his years, yet he was not a fit Judge in these matters. For if a Ship were to be set to Sea, or any matter of Policy to be determined, they would not think him fit for it; much less could he be able to resolve Points of Divinity.  
I have transcribed this passage at large out of Burnet, (pag. 173, 174. 2. vol.) for two reasons. 1. To acquaint the Reader how these Reformers steered their course according to their Interest. For (in July 1551.) being now in less fear of the Emperor (says Burnet) they sent 3 Messengers to her, to signify the King's Pleasure, that she must be no longer suffered to have Mass in her Family. 2. To entertain you with this passage of the Christian and Noble Behaviour of the Lady Mary, confessed by Burnet himself. And more of it you shall hear anon.  A. 
You promised another passage out of Burnet.  B. 
'Tis this. On the 12th. of April, 1549. (the third year of Edward VI) a Complaint was brought to the Council, that with the Strangers that were come into England, some Anabaptists had come over, and were disseminating their Errors and making Proselytes: so a Commission was ordered for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Ely, Wircester, Westminster, Chichester, Lincoln and Rochester, etc. and some others, three of them being a Quorum, to examine and search after all Anabaptists, Heretics or Contemners of the Common Prayer. They were to endeavour to reclaim them, to enjoin them Penance, and give them Absolution: or if they were obstinate, to excommunicate and imprison them; and to deliver them over to the secular Power to be further proceeded against. Some Tradesmen in London were brought before these Commissioners in May, and were persuaded to abjure their Opinions, which were, that a man regenerate could not sin; that though the outward man finned, the inward man sinned not. That there was no Trinity of Persons, that Christ was only a holy Prophet, and not at all God: that the Baptism of Infants was not profitable. That Christ took no Flesh of the Virgin, etc.  
One of those, who thus abjured, was commanded to carry a Faggot next Sunday at Saint Paul's, where there should be a Sermon setting forth his Heresy. But there was another of these extreme obstinate, Joan Bocher, commonly called Joan of Kent, she denied that Christ was truly incarnate of the Virgin, whose Flesh being sinful, he could take none of it: but the Word, by the consent of the inward man in the Virgin, took Flesh of her. These were her words. They took much pains about her, and had many Conferences with her; but she was so extravagantly conceited of her own Notions, that she rejected all they said with scorn; whereupon she was adjudged an obstinate Heretic; and so left to the secular Power. This being returned to the Council, the good King was moved to sign a Warrant for burning her; but could not be prevailed on to do it. He thought it a piece of Cruelty too like that (says Burnet) which they had condemned in the Papists, to burn any for their Consciences. Cranmer was employed to persuade him to sign the Warrant. He argued from the Law of Moses, by which Blasphemers were to be stoned: he told the King, he made a great difference between Errors in other Points of Divinity, and those that were directly against the Apostles Creed: That these were Impieties against God, which a Prince, as being God's Deputy, aught to punish, as the King's Deputies were obliged to punish Offences against the King's Persons. These Reasons did rather silence than satisfy the young King; who still thought it a hard thing (as in truth it was, says Burnet) to proceed so severely in such cases. So he set his hand to the Warrant with tears in his eyes, saying to Cranmer, that if he did wrong, since it was in submission to your Authority, you shall answer for it to God. This struck the Archbishop with much horror, so that he was very unwilling to have the Sentence executed. (Her Crime was nothing else but that she had read the Bible, and interpreted it according to that Judgement of Discretion which Cranmer allowed to every one.) But he and Ridley took the Woman then in custody to their Houses, to see if they could persuade her. But she continued to carry herself so contemptuously, that at last the Sentence was executed on her, the second of May next year, and she was burnt.  
This Action (saith Burnet) was much censured, as being contrary to the Clemency of the Gospel; and was oft made use of by the Papists, who said it was plain that the Reformers were only against Burning, when they were in fear of it themselves. And the Woman's Carriage made her be looked on as a frantic person, fit for Bedlam than a Stake.  
Two years after this, one George Pair a Dutchman was burnt, for saying, that Christ was not Very God.  
In all the Books published in Queen mary days, justifying her Severity against the Protestants, these instances were always made use of, and no part of Cranmers' Life exposed him more than this did. Burnet, p. 111, 112. 2. vol.  
He tells us moreover, It was said he had consented both to lambert's and Ann Askows Death in King Henrys Reign, who both suffered for Opinions, which Cranmer himself held now in King Edward's days. Burnet, ibid.  
And now, Reader, observe the Excuse which Burnet makes for him. One thing was certain, that what he did in this matter, flowed from no Cruelty of Temper in him; but it was truly the effect of those Principles by which he governed himself. ibid. p. 112.  
It is plain, that the Reformers were only against Burning, when they were in fear of it themselves. No body can judge of Heresy but themselves.  A. 
Now, I pray, what were the Words of his Mission and Consecration, both as Priest and Bishop?  B. 
His Priestly Function was given him in these Words, Accipe Potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, Missásque celebrare tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis, in nomine Domini. Amen. Take thou Power to offer Sacrifice to God, and celebrate Mass both for the living and the dead, in the name of the lord Amen. Accipe Spritum sanctum, quorum remiseris peccata, remissa sunt; & quorum retinueris, retenta sunt.  
Tunc interrogat Episcopus, promittisne mihi & Successoribus meis Reverentiam & Obedientiam? Respondet Presbyter, Promitto, etc. that is, Receive the Holy Ghost, whose Sins thou dost remit, they are remitted, whose Sins thou dost retain, they are retained.  
Then the Bishop demands, Wilt thou promise to me and my Successors Reverence and Obedience?  
The Priest answers, I promise.  A. 
Had he no other Priesthood but this? I ask this question not without some admiration at this Reformer!  B. 
None but this.  A. 
Then by these Priestly Orders he had received no Power but to celebrate Mass for the quick and dead, and in Christ's name to bind and absolve Sinners, etc.  B. 
True; and accordingly had officiated for many years, until the first or second year of Edward 6. when he was discharged of that Office.  A. 
Who discharged him?  B. 
I cannot undertake to answer all the difficulties of that Question. But you know King Edward was then Supreme Ordinary of the Church of England, although but a Child of nine years old: and Protestants will tell you, Cranmer was no longer obliged to such Priesthood, having found out the Impieties and Corruptions thereof.  A. 
No longer obliged to such Priesthood! you say he had no other, besides what was delivered to him in these words, Accipe Potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, Missásque celebrare tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis, etc.  B. 
They are the express words of the Roman Pontifical, whereby he was ordained Priest, as Dr. Burnet confesses.  A. 

* The Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven, and not here (in the Sacrament,) it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one, saith the Church of England, Rubric after Communion Service.  Then what Priesthood had he to abolish the Mass, to reform Altars into Communion Tables, and the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood into a real absence, or to read Communion Service without a Communion, as Protestants do upon most Sundays and Holidays?  B. 
As for these things, perhaps he had some extraordinary Inspiration and perhaps not; you press too hard with your Questions, as if you had found out the blind side of the Reformation. What he wanted of Priesthood, you know, was supplied to him by Act of Parliament. Remember Mr. King's Admonition, the Preacher of St. Warbroughs; A Fool may ask more Questions than a Wise man can easily answer, Answer to D. M's Latin Questions, pag. 99  A. 
Yes, and I remember what he says moreover, p. 25. He, viz. Cranmer, in all he did, had the unanimous Consent and Vote of the major part of the Convocation, etc.  B. 
You must excuse him for that mistake. He has enough to do (and perhaps more than an ingenious man would desire to undertake) to satisfy the itching Ears of his Congregation with a spick and span new Sermon every Sunday in the year, besides other Parochial Duties, and cannot know every thing as he pretends. Dr. Burnet informs you, how in the year 1534. Cromwell joining himself to Cranmer in a firm Friendship, did promote the Reformation very vigorously; but there was another party in Court that wrestled much against it, whereof the Duke of Norfold was Head; whose great Friend was Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, who despised Cranmer, and hated all Reformation: Longland, that had been the King's Confessor, was also managed by them; and they had a great Party in Court, and (mark this) almost all the Churchmen were on their side. Burnet, p. 172. 1. vol. Here almost all the Churchmen were against Cranmer.  
Then in the year 1540 Cranmer (says Burnet) was for reducing the Seven Sacraments to Two, but the Popish Party was then prevalent; so the old number of Seven was agreed to, pag. 289. 1. vol. and Cranmer subscribed with the rest, though against his own opinion.  
This was far from the unanimous Consent of the Clergy.  
In the Reign of King Edward, anno 1547. while the Parliament was sitting, they were not idle in the Convocation, though the Popish party (these are Burnet's words) was yet so prevalent in both Houses (of Convocation) that Cranmer had no hopes of doing any thing till they were freed of the trouble which some of the great Bishops gave them, p. 47. 2. vol. that is, till those Bishops were purged out. And reckoning the number of Bishops that were of Cranmers' side anno 1547. all he could find were these, viz. Holgate of York, Holbeach of Lincoln, Goodrick of Ely & Ridley elect of Rochester, and Latimer. Others of the Bishops were ignorant and weak men (says Burnet) who understood Religion little and valued it less (meaning his new Reformation); and so though they liked the old Superstition best (that is Catholic Religion) yet they resolved to swim with the stream, p. 25. 2 vol.  
Then anno 1548. of the 8 Bishops who were ordered to draw up the Common Prayer Book, four protested against it, as Burnet confesses, p. 94. 2. vol. And the same year it being brought into the House of Lords, the Bishops of London, Durham, Norwich, Carlisle, Hereford, Worcester, Westminster, and Chichester protested against it. p. 23. 2. vol.  
That same year there was a Committee of selected Bishops & Divines for examining all the Offices of the Church, and for reforming them, (says Burnet.)— The thing they first examined was the Sacrament of the Eucharst, and here they managed their Inquiries in the same manner that was used in King Henrys Reign: in which when any thing was considered in order to a Change, it was put into several Queries, to which every one in Commission was to give his Answer in Writing. Some of the Queries were these, viz. What was the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass? wherein the Mass consisted? etc.  
To these the Bishops made their several Answers, by which the Reader will perceive (says Burnet) how generally the Bishops were addicted to the old Superstition, and how few did agree in all things with Cranmer p. 61, 62. 2. vol.  
Dissenters from the Reformation were generally turned out of their Seas. For the most part the Prelates were changed (says Fox) and the dumb Bishops compelled to give place to others that would preach. p. 1180 And that all things might be carried with as little opposition and noise as might be (saith Heylin,) it was thought fit that Bishop Gardiner of Winchester should be kept in Prison till the end of the Session of Parliament, and that Bishop Tonstall of Durham (a man of a most moderate and even Spirit) should be made less in Reputation by being deprived of his place at Council Table. History Reformation, p. 48. This was anno 1547. the first year of King Edward.  
Heylin adds. And though the Parliament consisted of such Members as disagreed amongst themselves in respect of Religion, yet they agreed well enough together in one common Principle, which was to serve the present Turn, and preserve themselves: For though a great part of the Nobility, and not a few of the Chief Gentry in the House of Commons were Cordially affected to the Church of Rome; yet were they willing to give way to all such Acts and Statutes as were made against it, out of a fear of losing such Church Lands as they were possessed of, if that Religion should prevail, and get up again. And for the rest, who either were to make or improve their Fortunes, there is no question to be made, but that they came resolved to further such a Reformation as should most visibly conduce to the advancement of their several ends; which appears plainly by the strange mixture of the Acts and Results thereof; some tending simply to God's Glory and the good of the Church; some to the present benefit and enriching of particular Persons. And some again being devised of purpose to prepare a way for exposing the Revenues of the Church unto spoil and rapine. Heylin, p. 48.  
Anno 1551. Poynet was made Bishop of Winchester, Gardiner being deprived. Doctor Story was made Bishop of Rochester. Miles Coverdal, Bishop of Exeter. Hooper of Gloucester. So that now (says Burnet) the bishoprics were generally filled with men well affected to the Reformation. Burnet pag. 166. 2. vol. And now let the Reader observe his following words, viz. so now the Bishops being generally addicted to the Purity of Religion, most of this year (1551) was spent in preparing Articles which should contain the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
But many thought (says he) they should have begun 1. with those (Articles;) but Cranmer upon good reasons was of another mind, though much pressed by Bucer about it, till the Order of Bishops (observe) were brought to such a model, that the far greater part of them would agree to it: it was much fit to let that design (of the 39 Articles) go on slowly, than to set out a Profession of their Belief, to which so great a part of the chief Pastors might be obstinately averse. Burnet p. 166. 2. vol.  
In the first year of Queen Elisabeth (1559) the Bill for the Supremacy was passed by the Lords on the 18th of March. The Archbishop of York, the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Bishops of London, Winchester, Worcester, Landaff, Coventry and Litcfield, Exeter, Chester and Carlisle, and the Abbot of Westminster dissenting. Burnet. p. 385. 2. vol.  
He proceeds, p. 386. There was no other punishment inflicted on those that denied the Queen's Supremacy (ann. 1559.) but the loss of their Goods, and such as refused to take the Oath did only lose their Employments. Whereas to refuse the Oath in King Henrys time brought them into a Praemunire, and to deny the Supremacy was Treason. But against this Bill (of Queen Elizabeth's first Parliament) the Bishops made Speeches in the House of Lords; the rest of the Bishops opposed it, the rather because they had lately declared so high for the Pope, that it had been very indecent for them to have revoked so soon, pag. 386, 387. 2. vol.  
The Bishop of Chester said in Parliament, that the Bill was against both Faith and Charity (meaning the Bill for the new Service) that Acts of Parliament were no Foundations for a Church's Belief; that it was an insolent thing to pretend that all our Fathers lived in Ignorance. That the Prophets oftentimes directed the Israelites to inquire of their Fathers. Matters of Religion could not be understood by the Laiety. Jeroboam made Israel to sin when he set up a new way of Worship. Gallie by the Light of Nature knew that a Civil Judge ought not to meddle with matters of Religion. In the Service-Book, that was then before them, there was no Sacrifice for Sin, etc. and for these reasons (says Burnet) he could not agree to it. But if any thought he spoke this because of his own concern, or pitied him for what he might suffer by it, he would answer in the words of our Saviour, Weep not for me, weep for yourselves. p. 393.  
After him spoke Fecknam Abbot of Westminster; he said, There had been great Order and Obedience in Queen mary Reign: but now every where great Insolences were committed by the people, with some very indecent Profanations of the most holy things. He recommended to them in St. Augustine's words the adhering to the Catholic Church: the very name Catholic, which Heretics had not the confidence to assume, shown their Authority. The Consent of the whole Church in all Ages with the perpetual Succession of Pastors in St. Peter's Chair, aught to weigh more with them than a few new Preachers, who had of late distracted both Gemany and England. Burnet pag. 393. 2. vol.  
Then see his Appendix to 2. vol. p. 408. where setting down these words of Nicholas Sanders, That the Laws concerning Queen Elisabeths' Supremacy passed the House of Lords with great difficulty, all the Bishops opposing them. Burnet answers, It is true, all the Bishops did oppose them, etc. But to all the Changes that were made in King Edward's time they submitted, etc. Why then were they turned out by King Edward, and Protestants substituted in their places?  
Thus, Reader, it appears by Burnet's own Confession, that the Reformation was not the Act and Deed of the old Clergy or Convocation of England, or the major part thereof; but imposed on the Nation by the Power and Interest of a few persons. And so I leave you to think what you please of Master William King's Confidence, the Preacher of St. Warbroughs, affirming (as you have heard) that Cranmer in all he did had the unanimous Consent and Vote of the major part of the Convocation, the universal Submission of the Clergy, etc. Answ p. 25.  A. 
But supposing he had the major Vote of his side (as he had not) could that have justified his Reformation?  B. 
Not at all; for being all made Priests after that Form, Accipe Potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo, missasque celebrare tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis, etc. they had no more Authority to abrogate the Mass, than the present Archbishop of Canterbury, with the major Vote of the Protestant Bishops to abolish the Common Prayer. By their Protestant Orders they cannot do it.  A 
So much for his Priesthood. You said he was consecrated Bishop in the year 1533. what were the Words of his Consecration?  B. 
You may find them in the Roman Pontifical. First he was interrogated, Vis Traditiones orthodoxorum Patrum & Decretales sanctae & Apostolicae sedis constitutiones veneranter suscipere, docere ac servare?  
R. Volo.  
Vis beato Petro Apostolo cui à Deo data est Potestas ligandi ac solvendi, ejúsque Vicario Domino nostro N. Papae suisque Successoribus Romanis. Pontificibus fidem, subjectionem & obedientiam secundum Canonicam Auctoritatem per omnia exhibere?  
R. Volo.  
Credis sanctam, catholicam & Apostolicam unam esse veram Ecclesiam, in qua unum datur verum Baptisam & vera peccatorum omnium Remissio?  
R. Credo.  
That is, Will you reverently receive, teach and keep the Traditions of the orthodox Fathers, the Decrees and Constitutions of the holy and Apostolic See?  
He answered, I will.  
Will you show Fidelity, Subjection and Obedience to St. Peter the Apostle, and his Successors the Bishops of Rome, in all things according to the Canons?  
He answered, I will.  
Do you believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in which there is true Baptism and true Remission of Sins?  
He answered, I believe.  
After which the Bishop, consecrating, authorises him in these Words, viz. Accipe Evangelium, vade & praedica populo tibi commisso. Receive thou the Gospel, go and preach to the people committed to thy charge. R. Amen.  A. 
Why, by this Consecration he had no more Authority to preach the Doctrine of 39 Articles, than the present Archbishop of Canterbury to preach the Doctrine of the Council of Trent.  B. 
No more. You see how he obliged himself to pay Fidelity, Subjection and Obedience to the Bishops of Rome in all things according to the Canons then in force. And reverently to receive, teach and keep the Constitutions of the holy and Apostolic See. And upon these terms he received his Commission to go and preach the Gospel.  A. 
The matter is plain. All his Changes were unwarrantable, and his Reformation but a Castle in the air without a Foundation, if you set aside Acts of Parliament.  B. 
And besides all this, he swore that Oath to the Pope which you have heard, page 28. of this Catechism. Then what if all the Bishops had consented with him, they had but violated their Engagements and Vows, as he did, being all scent and ordained after that Form.  
Reader, I pray look into the Form and Manner appointed by the Church of England for consecrating of Bishops and Archbishops; and there observe how Protestant Bishops do oblige themselves to preach God's Word according to the Authority committed unto them by the Ordinance of this Realm, and no otherwise; that is to say, according to the Doctrine of Thirty nine Articles. Then inquire a little further what Commission had Cranmer or Matthew Parker to impose or preach the said Articles.  A. 
Enough of Cranmer. What is Burnet's Character of those few Bishops that were of his Party?  B. 
Those were Latimer, Shaxton, Barlow; who were rather Clogs than Helps to Cranmer (says Burnet.) Latimers' Simplicity and Weakness made him be despised: Shaxtons proud and litigious Humour drew hatred on him. Barlow was not very discreet, Burnet pag. 255. 1. vol. And then it follows; Many of the Preachers whom they cherished (meaning the new Preachers) whether out of an unbridled forwardness of Temper, or true Zeal, that would not be managed and governed by politic and prudent measures (note this) were flying at many things not yet abolished. See the rest Burnet ibid. This was in the year 1538.  A. 
Give me leave to ask you one Question.  B. 
What's that?  A. 
What is your meaning by all this History of Cranmer and his Associates?  B. 
Nothing but to show the unwarrantableness of all the Changes they made in Religion; having neither extraordinary nor ordinary Mission to recommend them; nor yet the major Vote of the Convocation. Ordinary Mission they had none, but what you have heard out of the Roman Pontifical. Extraordinary things they never pretended to, besides what I have told you out of Burnet and Fox.  
Now, Reader, remember that wonderful Answer of Master William Kings, page 18. viz.— Although therefore the first Reformers had their Orders from Bishops in Communion with the Church of Rome: Yet it was as Christian Bishops they ordained, and as English Bishops that they admitted the first Reformers to their Charges. But suppose they (the first Reformers) had no other Orders but what they received from the Bishop of Rome himself; all that can be concluded from thence, is, that we are obliged to own that the Orders of Priest and Bishop given by Roman Catholics are valid, and capacitate a Man to perform all the Duties belonging to those Offices in a Christian Church, which we readily acknowledge, (observe that) and charge the Popish Priests and Bishops not with want of Orders; but with abusing the Orders they have to ill intents and purposes; (by whose Authority do you pass this Censure?) The Roman Catholic Bishops do not confer Orders as Roman, but as Christian Bishops; their Orders are Christian Orders. [Mark Reader what he says, Roman Catholic Bishops are Christian Bishops, and their Orders Christian Orders; why then did the first Reformers so notoriously transgress them?] And those we hold sufficient to all intents and purposes of the Reformation; and must do so till Mr. Manby or some body else prove them insufficient. In short, a Man is ordained neither a Protestant nor a Papist, but a Christian Bishop, his Mission is a Christian Mission, page 19  
Now Roman Catholics will be apt to ask, what needs any more to recommend their Doctrine then Christian Bishops and a Christian Mission? Mr. King allows their Mission and denies their Doctrine. They deny both his Mission and his Doctrine. When Doctrines are disputed and Scriptures alleged by both Parties, how shall a Church prove the verity of her Doctrine but by the certainty of her Mission? Did not our blessed Saviour answer that question of the Jews, by what Authority dost thou these thing? by appealing to the Evidence of his Mission? The works that I do, testify of me that I am sent from God?  A. 
But Mr. King's meaning is this, that Roman Catholics have exceeded their Commission by teaching false Doctrine.  B. 
But I would fain know of him, who shall be Judge of that? he knows very well, that's as easily denied as 'tis affirmed. And I appeal to the indifferent Reader, which of the two Parties have been the greatest Transgressor's of those Orders now mentioned?  A. 
But don't you observe one admirable passage in him?  B. 
What is that?  A. 
Why, that Mr. M. proceeds on an ignorant supposition, that every Man is ordained to preach the Tenets of his Ordainers— Whereas the ordained are no more accountable to their Ordainers upon the account of being ordained by them, than a Man is accountable to a Lord Chancellor for the use of his power, because he set the Seal to his Patent by which he claims his power, page 19  B. 
Very good, then if Mr. King were ordained by the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, or of Tuam, he is not accountable to them for his Doctrine; because the Ordainers are only instruments, but his Power is from Christ.  A. 
Mark what he says, he is not accountable to his Ordainers upon the account of being ordained by them, page 19 What can be the meaning of this but that Ministers are not bound to preach the Tenets or Doctrines of those that sent them? although Our Saviour himself says, my Doctrine is not mine but his that fent me, John 7.16.  B. 
I observe he may prove a showed Man if he lives; and set up for a new Reformer; and then justify it by saying, It's an ignorant supposition to think every man is ordained to preach the Tenets of his Ordainers, or else must have no Mission. The Ordainers being only instruments, but the Power from Christ, page 19  
Reader, May not a Man receive Orders from the Church of England, and afterwards make a step to New England, and there preach against Common Prayer by virtue of this assertion?  A. 
But what say you to that scurrility and uncleanliness of Language wherewith he treats Mr. M. from one end of his Answer to the other?  B. 
You must Pardon him, he had many Reasons for that; first, to show a good example to his Flock. 2. To prove himself a Gentleman and a well bred Scholar. 3. To entertain his Friends, with whom that sort of Language may be more taking perhaps then the most modest Expressions. 4. To show his Zeal for the Church, and how much better a Dutiful Child may love a good Foster Mother the Church of Ireland, than his own natural Mother the Church of Scotland, etc.  A. 
Let us adjourn this Discourse till to Morrow. And Conclude this first Dialogue with Burnet's Character of those two worthy Persons that died for the Catholic Religion under Henry VIII. Sir Thomas More, and the Bishop of Rochester.  
On the first of July (anno 1535.) Sir Thomas More was brought to his Trial. The special matter of his Indictment was, that on the 7th of May preceding, before Cromwell, Bedyll and some others that were pressing him concerning the King's Supremacy, he said, he would not meddle with any such matter. And was fully resolved to serve God and think upon his Passion, and his own passage out of this World. That he had also sent divers Messages by one George Gold to Bishop Fisher, to encourage him in his obstinacy, and said, the Act of Supremacy is like a Sword with two Edges; for if a man answer one way, it will confound his Soul, and if he answer another way, it will confound his Body. That he had said the same thing on the third of June, in the hearing of the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Norfolk and others. And that he would not be the occasion of the shortening his own Life.  
This and other particulars, which passed betwixt him and Rich the King's Solicitor, were laid together, and judged to amount to a Denial of the King's Supremacy. Judge Spelman writes, that More being on his Trial, pleaded strongly against the Statute that made it Treason to deny the Supremacy; and argued, that the King could not be Supreme Head of the Church. When he was brought to the Bar, he pleaded Not Guilty; but being found Guilty, Judgement was given against him as a Traitor. He received it with an equal Temper of Mind, which he had showed in both conditions of Life; and then set himself wholly to prepare for Death. He expressed great Contempt of the World: and that he was weary of Life, and longed for Death; which was so little terrible to him, that his ordinary Facetiousness remained with him on the Scaffold. It was censured by many, as light and undecent; but others said, that way having been so natural to him on all other occasions, it was not at all affected; but shown that Death did no way discompose him; nor so much as put him out of his ordinary Humour. Yet his rallying every thing on the Scaffold, was thought to have more of the Stoic than the Christian in it.  
After some time spent in secret Devotions, he was beheaded on the sixth of July.  
Thus died Sir Thomas More in the 53d year of his age. He was a man of rare Virtues and excellent Parts. In his youth he had freer thoughts of things, as appears by his Utopia and his Letters to Erasmus; but afterwards he became superstitiously devoted (says Burnet) to the Interests and Passions of the Popish Clergy; and as he served them when he was in Authority, even to assist them in all their Cruelties; so he employed his Pen in the same Cause, both in writing against all the new Opinions in general, and in particular against tindal, Frith and Barns. He was no Divine at all (if you believe Burnet,) and it is plain to any that reads his Writings, that he knew nothing of Antiquity, beyond the Quotations he found in the Canon Law, and in the Master of the Sentences; only he had read some of St. Augustine's Treatises: For upon all points of Controversy he quotes only what he found in those Collections. Nor was was he at all conversant in the critical Learning upon the Scriptures (he did not care for the new fangled Conceits of the Reformers.) But his peculiar Excellency in writing was, that he had a natural, easy Expression, and presented all the Opinions of Popery with their fair side to the Reader, disguising, or concealing the black side of them with great Art; (that is, he did not understand, or mistake Popery as Protestants do;) and was no less dextrous in exposing all the ill consequences that could follow on the Doctrine of the Reformers; and had upon all occasions great store of pleasant Tales, which he applied wittily to his purpose. And in this consists the great strength of his Writings, which were designed rather for the Rabble than for learned Men. But for Justice, Contempt of Money, Humility, and a true Generosity of Mind, he was an Example to the Age in which he lived. Burnet's words, pag 356. 1 vol. Second Edition.  
The Bishop of Rochester had been a Prisoner above a year, and was very severely used (says Burnet); he complained in his Letters to Cromwell (than Secretary of State) that he had neither Clothes, nor Fire, being then about fourscore years of age.— If he had kept his Opinion of the King's Supremacy to himself, they could not have proceeded further. He would not do that, but did upon several occasions speak against it. So he was brought to his Trial on the 17th of June. The Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Suffolk, and some other Lords, together with the Judges, sat upon him by Commission of Oyer and Terminer. He pleaded Not Guilty. But being found Guilty, Judgement passed on him to die as a Traitor. But he was by a Warrant from the King beheaded. Upon the 22d of June being the day of his Execution, he dressed himself with more than ordinary care; and when his Man took notice of it, he told him, he was to be that day a Bridegroom. As he was led to the place of Execution, being stopped in the way by the crowd, he opened his New Testament, and prayed to this purpose, that as that Book had been his Companion and chief Comfort in his Imprisonment, so then some place might turn up to him, that might comfort him in his last passage. This being said, he opened the Book at a venture, in which these words of St. John's Gospel turned up, This is Life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. So he shut the Book with much satisfaction; and all the way was reading and meditating on them. When he came to the Scaffold, he pronounced the Te Deum. And after some other Devotions, his Head was cut off.  
Thus died Jon Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, in the 80th year of his age. He was a learned and devour man (says Burnet,) but much addicted to the Superstitions in which he had been bred up, and that led him to great severities against all that opposed them. He had been for many years' Confessor to the King's Grandmother the Countess of Richmond. And it was believed, that he persuaded her to those noble designs for the Advancement of Learning, of founding 2 Colleges in Cambridge, St. john's and Christ's College; and Divinity Professors in both Universities. And in acknowledgement of this he was chosen Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. Henry 7. gave him the Bishopric of Rochester, which he, following the rule of the primitive Church, would never change for a better. He used to say, his Church was his Wife, and he would never part with her, because she was poor. He continued in great Favour with Henry 8. till the business of the Divorce was set on foot; and then he adhered so firmly to the Queen's Cause, and the Pope's Supremacy, that he was carried headlong into great Errors. So Burnet, after his petulant manner, is pleased to character this good man, pag. 354. 1. vol.  
But than adds. Many thought the King ought to have proceeded against him rather upon that which was a point of State, than upon the Supremacy, which was matter of Conscienec: but the King (saith he) was resolved to let all his Subjects see, there was no Mercy to be expected by any that denied his being Supreme Head of the Church: and therefore made him and Sir Thomas More two Examples for terrifying the rest. Burnet ibid.  
But the Courage and Christian Soul of this Bishop appears in those Speeches which he made in the House of Lords, whereof there is no mention in Burnet. Which, for the primitive Simplicity and Honesty thereof, I shall here transcribe out of Dr. Bayly's History.  

The First Speech, concerning the Demand of the Smaller Abbeys for the Kings Use.  
My Lords,  
I Pray you to take good heed unto what you are doing; lest you do you know not what. For indeed the things that are demanded at our hands are not ours to grant, nor theirs to whom we should bestow them, if we should grant them their Desires. But they are the Legacies of those Testators who have given them to the Church for ever, under the Penalty of a heavy Curse, imposed on all those who shall any way go about to altenate their Property from the Church. And besides, if we grant the smaller Abbeys to the King, what should we do otherwise than show him the way how in time it may be lawful for him to demand the greater? Wherefore the manner of these. Proceed puts me in mind of a Fable, how the Axe that wanted a Handle) came upon a time to the Wood, making his moan to the great Trees, how he wanted a Handle to work withal, and for that cause he was constrained to sit idle. Wherefore he made it his request unto them, that they would grant him one of their smaller Saplings to make him a Handle. They, mistrusting no guile, granted him one of the smaller Trees; so becoming a complete Axe, he so fell to work within the same Wood, that in process of time there was neither great nor small Tree to be found there.  
And so, my Lords, if you grant the King these smaller Monasteries, you do but make him a Handle, whereby at his own Pleasure he may cut down all the Cedars within your Libanus. And then you may thank yourselves after ye have incurred the heavy Displeasure of Almighty God.   

His Speech concerning many severe Objections against the whole Clergy, anno 1529.  
My Lords,  
HEre are certain Bills exhibited against the Clergy; and Complaints against the Viciousness, Idleness, Rapacity and Cruelty of Bishops, Abbots, Priests and their Officials; but, my Lords, are all vicious, all idle, all ravenous and cruel Priests or Bishops? Are there not Laws already provided against such? is there any abuse that cannot be rectified? or can there be such a Reformation, that there shall be no Abuses? are there not Clergymen to rectify the Abuses of the Clergy? or shall men find fault with other men's manners whilst they forget their own? or punish where they have no Authority to correct? If we be not executive in our Laws, let each man suffer for his Delinquency. Or if we have not Power, aid us with your Assistunce, and we shall give you thanks. But, my Lords, I hear there is a Motion made, that the smaller Monasteries should be taken into the King's hands, which makes me apprehend, it is not so much the good as the Goods of the Church that are aimed at.  
Truly, my Lords, how this may sound in your ears I cannot tell; but to me it appears not otherwise, than as if our Mother the Church were now to be brought into Servility; and by little and little to be banished out of those dwelling places which the Piety & Liberality of our Ancestors have conferred upon her. Otherwise to what end are those portentous and curious Petitions of the Commons? To no other intent and purpose than to bring the Clergy into contempt with the Laiety, that they may seize their Patrimony.  
But my Lords beware of Yourselves, and of Your Country: Beware of Your Mother the Catholic Church. The People are addicted unto Novelties. And Lutheranism spreads itself amongst us. Remember Germany and Bohemia; what Miseries are befallen them already; and let our Neighbour's Houses that are now on Fire, teach us to beware of our own Disasters.  
My Lords, I will tell you plainly what I think, that except ye resist manfully by your Authorities this violent Stream of Mischiefs offered by the Commons, you shall see all respect first withdrawn from the Clergy, and, secondly from Your 
* This Prophecy was fulfilled anno 1649. when the House of Lords was voted useless and dangerous by the Commons.  Selves. But if you search into the true causes of all these Mischiefs that Reign amongst them, you shall find that they all arise through want of Faith.   

His Speech to the Lords concerning the King's Supremacy.  
My Lords,  
IT is true, we are all under the King's Lash, and stand in need of the King's good Favour and Clemency. Yet this argues not that we must therefore do that which will render us both ridiculous and contemptible to all the Christian World; and hissed out from the Society of God's Holy Catholic Church: What good will it do us to keep the Possession of our Houses, Cloisters and Convents, and to lose the Society of the Christian World? To preserve our Goods, and lose our Consciences? Therefore My Lords, I pray let us consider what we are doing; and what it is we are to Grant, with the Dangers and Inconveniences that will ensue thereupon. Or whether it lies in Our power to grant what the King requires at our hands. Whether the King be an apt person to receive this Power, that so we may go groundedly to work; and not like Men that had lost all Honesty and Wit together with their Worldly Fortune.  
As concerning the first point, viz. What the Supremacy of the Church is, which we are to give unto the King. It is to exercise the Spiritual Government of the Church in Chief, which according to all that ever I have learned both in the Gospel, and through the whole course of Divinity, mainly consists in these two points.  
First, In Binding and Absolving Sinners, according to that which our Saviour said unto Saint Peter, when he ordained him Head of his Church, viz. To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Now My Lords, can we say unto the King, Tibi, to thee will we give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? If ye say, I, where is your Warrant? If you say No, than you have answered yourselves, that you cannot put such Keys into his hands.  
Secondly, The Supreme Government of the Church consists in feeding Christ's Sheep and Lambs; according to that, when our Saviour performed his promise to Saint Peter of making him universal Shepherd, by such unlimited Jurisdiction, feed my Lambs; and not only so, but feed those that are the feeders of those Lambs, feed my Sheep. Now my Lords can any of us say unto the King pasce Oves?  
God hath given unto his Church some to be Apostles, some Evangelists, some Pastors, some Doctors for the Edifying of the Body of Christ. So that you must make the King one of these, before you can make him Head of the Church. He must be such a Head as may edify the Members of Christ's Body; and it is not the sew Ministers of an Island that must constitute a Head over the Universe; or at least by such example we must allow as many Heads over the Universe, as there are Sovereign Powers within Christ's Dominion. Every Member must have a Head. Attendite vobis was not said to King's but Bishops.  
2. Let us consider the Inconveniencies that will arise upon this Grant: We cannot grant this unto the King, but we must renounce our Unity with the See of Rome. And if there were no further matter in it, than a renouncing of Clement VII. (now Pope thereof) then the matter were not so great; but in this we do forsake the first four General Councils; which none ever forsaken. We renounce all Canonical and Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of Christ; we renounce all other Christian Princes; we renounce the Unity of the Christian World (I suppose he means by inventing to ourselves a Church of England divided from all the rest of the Christian World) and so by leaping out of Peter's Ship to be drowned in the unstable Waters of Heresy, Sects, Schisms and Confusions.  
For the first General Council of Nice acknowledged Sylvester the Bishop of Rome his Authority to be over them, by sending their Decrees to be ratifyed by him.  
The Council of Constantinople did acknowledge Pope Damasus to be their Chief, by admitting him to give Sentence against the Heretics, Macedonius, Sabellius and Eunomius.  
The Council of Ephesus acknowledged Pope Celestine to be their chief Judge, by admitting his Condemnation upon the Heretic Nestorius.  
The Council of Chalcedon acknowledged Pope Leo to be their chief Head, and all General Councils of the World ever acknowledged the Pope of Rome (only) to be Supreme Head of the Church under Christ. And now shall we set up another Head? or one Head in England, and another in Rome?  
3. We deny all Ecclesiastical Laws which do wholly depend upon the Authority of the Apostolic See of Rome.  
4 We renounce the Judgement of all other Christian Princes, whether they be Protestants or Catholics. Nay by this argument Nero and Herod must have been Heads of the Church of Christ. The Emperor must be Head of the Protestant Church in Germany. And the Church of Christ must have never a Head at all till about three hundred years after Christ.  
Fifthly. The King's Majesty is not susceptible of this Donation: Ozias, for meddling with the Priest's Office, was resisted by Azarias, thrust out of the Temple, and told, that it belongs not to his Office. Now, if the Priest spoke truth in this, then is not the King to meddle in this business: if he spoke amiss, why did God plague the King with Leprosy for this, and not the Priest?  
King David, when the Ark of God was bringing home, did he place himself in the head of the Priest's Order? did he so much as touch the Ark? or execute any the least Office properly belonging to the Priestly Function? or did he not rather go before, and abase himself amongst the people, and say, that he would become yet more vile, so that God might be glorified?  
All good Christian Emperors have evermore refused Ecclesiastical Authority; for at the first General Council of Nice, certain Bills were privily brought unto Constantine, to be ordered by his Authority; but he caused them to be burnt, saying, Dominus vos constituit, etc. God hath ordained you (Priests) and hath given you Power to be Judges over us; and therefore by right in these things we are to be judged by you, but you are not to be judged by me.  
Valentine, the Good Emperor, was desired by the Bishops to be present with them, to reform the Heresy of the Arrians; but he answered, Forasmuch as I am one of the Members of the Lay people, it is not lawful for me to define such Controversies; but let the Priests, to whom God hath given the charge thereof, assemble where they will in due Order.  
Theodosius, writing to the Council of Ephesus; saith, It is not lawful for him that is not of the holy Order of Bishops, to intermeddle with Ecclesiastical matters. And now shall we cause our King to be Head of the Church, which all good Kings have abhorred the very lest thought of? (and so many wicked Kings have been plagued for so doing.) Truly, my Lords, I think they are his best Friends that dissuade him from it; and he would be the worst enemy to himself, if he should obtain it.  
Lastly. If this thing be, farewel all Unity with Christendom; for as that holy and blessed Martyr St. Cyprian saith, all Unity depends upon that holy See, as upon the Authority of St. Peter's Successors; for, saith the fame holy Father, all Heresies, Sects & Schisms, have no other Rise but this, that men will not be obedient to the chief Bishop; and now for us to shake off our Communion with that Church, either we must grant the Church of Rome to be the Church of God, or else a Malignant Church. If you answer, she is a Church of God, and a Church where Christ is truly taught, his Sacraments rightly administered, etc. how can we forsake, how can we fly from such a Church? certainly we ought to be with, and not to separate ourselves from such a one.  
If we answer, The Church of Rome is not of God, but a Malignant Church, than it will follow, that we, the Inhabitants of this Land, have not as yet received the true Faith of Christ; seeing we have not received any other Gospel, any other Doctrine, any other Sacraments, than what we have received from her; as most evidently appears by all the Ecclesiastical Histories: wherefore, if she be a Malignant Church, we have been deceived all this while; and if to renounce the common Father of Christendom, all the General Councils, especially the first Four, which none renounce, all the Countries of Christendom, whether they be Catholic Countries or Protestant, be to forsake the Unity of the Christian World, then is the granting of the Supremacy of the Church unto the King, a renouncing of this Unity, a tearing of the Seamless Coat of Christ in sunder, a dividing of the Mystical Body of Christ his Spouse, limb from limb, and tail to tail, like Sampsons' Foxes, to set the Field of Christ's holy Church all on fire: and this is it which we are about; wherefore let it be said unto you in time, and not too late, Look you to that.   
The End of the First Dialogue, containing the History of the First Reformers, and Anti-Reformers.  
The Second treats of the Reformation itself, and the natural Fruits thereof, Jealousy and Distraction amongst the People, Decay of Sincerity, etc.  
Now, Reader, (were't thou to choose thy Religion) consider which of these two Guides thou wouldst follow, Cranmer or the Bishop of Rochester; the former having no Mission from Heaven, nor major Vote of the Convocation to authorize his Reformation, nor yet any great mind to die a Martyr for the same; the later frankly exposing his Life to Stem that Inundation of Sacrilege, Schism and Confusion that was breaking in, anno 1535.  
FINIS.