c 
 
 U r A < 
 
 
 REP L Y 
 
 TO 
 
 DR. LINGARD'S VINDICATION 
 
 OF HIS 
 
 fjjtotory of isttQiatin. 
 
 AS FAR AS RESPECTS 
 
 ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. 
 
 BY THE REV. H. J. TODD, M.A. &c. 
 
 CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY, 
 AND RECTOR OF SETTRINGTON, COUNTY OF YORK. 
 
 " Forasmuch as Archbishop Cranmer was a principal means of the Pope's 
 expulsion, the Papists did hate him worse than a scorpion, heaping upon him 
 whatsoever wit sharpened with malice could devise." 
 
 Mason, Vind. of the. Church of Eng. 1013, p. 73. 
 
 ~r»- 
 
 :..•■' LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR C. AND J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH- 
 YARD, AND WATERLOO-PLACE: J. AND G. TODD; WOL- 
 STENHOLME ; AND BARCLAY, YORK! BELL AND BRAD- 
 FUTE, EDINBURGH: AND R. MILLIKEN, DUBLIN. 
 
 9 3 3 3 ] ff 
 
 27.
 
 • * - • . 
 
 • • t • • 
 
 • , • 
 
 . I 
 
 ■ • • « » « , 1 
 
 Printed by R. Gilbert, St. John's-square, London.
 
 DA 30 
 LlA-WZt 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 i 
 ^ 
 
 In the spring of the year 1825, 1 published 
 
 . a Vindication of Archbishop Cranmer against 
 
 ; some of the allegations which had been 
 
 g made by the Rev. Dr. Lingard, the Rev. 
 
 Dr. Milner, and Charles Butler, Esq. The 
 
 Vindication contended more especially 
 
 against the labours of the first of these 
 
 ^gentlemen ; because I considered him to 
 
 ~have spoken, in his History of England, 
 
 ^with unfairness of the Archbishop, and 
 
 <because in the popular form of National 
 
 Memoirs the injury to his character was 
 
 widely spreading. Others also thought 
 
 that certain portions of this history, re- 
 
 } specting distinguished facts or persons, were 
 
 j vulnerable ; and therefore opposed the his- 
 
 torian. In the winter of last year, Dr. Lin- 
 
 a2 
 
 301255
 
 IV 
 
 gard endeavoured to silence his opponents, 
 and assigned to me the honour of a place 
 among them, in " A Vindication of Certain 
 Passages in his History of England." This 
 has given rise to the following pages. 
 
 Dr. Lingard boasts of having " delineated 
 the character of the Archbishop with fide- 
 lity." I do not hesitate to question the 
 accuracy of this statement ; resolved, on 
 the authority of facts and indisputable docu- 
 ments, to rescue from disparagement the 
 
 FATHER OF OUR REFORMED CHURCH, and to 
 
 guard the unsuspecting Protestant against 
 the consummate artifice employed to depre- 
 ciate the religion of his country. The import- 
 ance of the subject must apologize for the 
 length of this Reply to the Romish histo- 
 rian of England ; and the reconsideration 
 of those passages, which occasioned the 
 gauntlet to be thrown down and accepted, 
 will still be found, I trust, " to do right 
 unto the memory of the truly great and 
 good archbishop."
 
 The fate of Cranmer, it has been justly 
 observed by the present archbishop of 
 Cashel, " a has been peculiarly hard. Liv- 
 ing in evil days, and exposed after his death 
 to the malice of evil tongues, he has suf- 
 fered in almost every part of his reputation. 
 Papists have impeached the sincerity, while 
 Protestants have doubted the steadiness, of 
 his principles ; and a too general idea 
 seems to prevail, that his opinions were 
 for ever fluctuating, or at least were so 
 flexible, as to have rendered him little 
 better than a weak instrument in the hands 
 of those, who possessed more talent and 
 more consistency. But the fact was far 
 otherwise. He was in truth the chief pro- 
 moter and the ablest advocate of the Reforma- 
 tion, planning it with the discretion of a pru- 
 dent and the zeal of a good man, and carry- 
 ing it on towards perfection with a firmness, 
 a wisdom, and a liberality, which obtained 
 
 I Laurence's Bampton Lectures, Serm. I.
 
 VI 
 
 him no less credit for the endowments of his 
 head, than for the impressions of his heart" 
 As a general answer to the observations 
 of modern writers upon his life and labours, 
 a new biography of the archbishop seems 
 requisite ; and it is my purpose to attempt 
 it. The criminations of him by the writer 
 of the life of Cardinal Pole, by b Dr. Mil- 
 
 b Dr. Lingard observes, in a note, Vindic. p. 74. " I 
 do not notice the strictures of Mr. Todd on Dr. Milner 
 and Mr. Butler, which he frequently mixes up with his 
 animadversions on my work. Of these two writers the 
 first can make no defence ; death has removed him from 
 the petty quarrels, which agitate the inhabitants of this 
 earth." 
 
 Dr. Milner was unable, I say it with confidence, to 
 answer at least one grievous charge I brought against him. 
 He lived many months after the accusation. He was 
 silent, as I am sorry to add he was, upon other occa- 
 sions, when the fidelity of his references and assertions 
 was questioned. 
 
 " The latter, (Mr. Butler,) Dr. Lingard continues, 
 though seventy-seven winters have passed over his head, 
 still wields the pen with the energy of youth. He has re- 
 plied, and as far as I can judge, most satisfactorily replied, 
 to Mr. Todd, in his Letters to Charles Blundell, Esq." 
 
 That is, in his Book of the Roman Catholic Church ; 
 in a second edition of which he has favoured me with 
 additional observations, which first met my eye while
 
 VII 
 
 ner, Dr. Lingard, Mr. Butler, and other 
 Romanists of minor name, may thus be 
 concentered ; and the system of aggression, 
 which has been adopted against him, be 
 overthrown. 
 
 the following pages were passing through the press. 
 They are courteous, they are even complimentary, as 
 the manner of Mr. Butler always is ; but they seem to 
 require no separate answer, like the present to Dr. 
 Lingard ; they contain indeed a considerable portion of 
 animadversion similar to what the latter has bestowed 
 upon me ; and there the reply to one is the reply to 
 both. I might indeed, by a regular address to Mr. 
 Butler, give further occasion to the exercise of his good 
 opinion of me ; for as he acknowledges in the first edi- 
 tion of his Book, that he should not have said what he 
 did say of bishop Taylor, if he had known what I pro- 
 duced upon the subject ; and as in his second, he thanks 
 me for detecting an unjust reprehension of myself in the 
 matter of bishop Gunning ; so now I should lead him, I 
 think, at least as to one or two of his passages, ingenu- 
 ously to grant that they might be withdrawn. That I 
 should misrepresent him in the smallest degree, was cer- 
 tainly never my intention : but I notice this, because he 
 is pleased to say, " Mr. Todd cites my expression, 
 wickedly-treated prelate, as the expression of Dr. Parr." 
 It is a satisfaction to find, that this venerable and enter- 
 taining writer is himself of opinion, that Cranmer was 
 wickedly treated.
 
 CORRECTIONS. 
 
 Page 6 line 8 from bottom, read, to understand or misunderstand my 
 statement 
 
 42 — 8 from bottom, read, double perjured 
 
 135 — 10, the reference in the note to Bale's Yet a Course, &c. should 
 
 be to p. 119, instead q/p. 120.
 
 REPLY TO DR. LINGARD'S VINDICATION, fee. 
 
 I. " a The fast objection. — The elevation of 
 Cranmer to the see of Canterbury is thus de- 
 scribed by Dr. Lingard. ' I know not why 
 Burnet is so anxious to persuade his readers 
 that Cranmer was unwilling to accept the arch- 
 bishopric, and found means to delay the matter 
 six months. There were few instances of the 
 see of Canterbury being filled so soon after a 
 vacancy. Six months, indeed, elapsed before 
 his consecration ; but that arose from the nego- 
 tiation with Rome to procure his bulls. He 
 must have given his consent at least three 
 months before.' Lingard, 2d ed. vol. vi. pp.253, 
 254. " Now," proceeds Mr. Todd, " ought 
 not Dr. Lingard here to have given Cranmer's 
 own account of his declining the archbishopric ? 
 And is not Burnet right in believing the solemn 
 asseveration of the primate, made in the pre- 
 sence of his enemies ? / protest before you all, 
 said Cranmer, there never was a man came more 
 unwilling to a bishopric than I did to that ; inso- 
 
 1 Dr. Lingard's Vindication, 2d edit. p. 72. 
 
 R
 
 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 be 
 forgetful of me in the mean time.'" 
 
 To the former part of the preceding extract, 
 Dr. Lingard, in his Vindication, replies, that 
 what he had said as to vacancies of the see of 
 Canterbury, (which b appears to have been 
 said to bring discredit upon Cranmer's own 
 assertion,) " e is stated too broadly. I should 
 have excluded cases of translation. But Mr. Todd 
 will pardon the inaccuracy, when he reflects that 
 he has fallen into a similar error. He asserts 
 that the predecessors of Cranmer, for more than 
 a century at least, were not thus impeded ; that 
 is, took possession of their sees within a shorter 
 space than sir months; and forgets that Warham, 
 his immediate predecessor, translated from 
 London, did not succeed, till about a year after 
 the death of Archbishop Dene." 
 
 I continue my assertion, and deny that I have 
 here fallen into any error. Let the candid 
 reader judge; and, at the same time, let him 
 not fail to observe the endeavour of Dr. Lingard 
 to throw dust into the reader's eyes. 
 
 Now, in order to evade the application to 
 
 b See my Vindic. of Cranmer, 8vo. edit. p. xxxvii. l2mo. 
 edit. p. 39. 
 
 Dr. Lingard's Vindic, ut supr.
 
 3 
 
 Cranmer's case of the striking facts, that within 
 six months after a vacancy d Islip, and Chichele, 
 and Stafford, and Kemp, and Bourchier, and 
 Dene, did fill the see of Canterbury, (from 1349 
 to 1501,) Dr. Lingard names a single archbishop 
 who waited about a year for the complete pos- 
 session of the primacy. But my object was to 
 shew what Dr. Lingard unfairly concealed, and 
 what every ingenuous inquirer after truth will 
 admit that I have satisfactorily shewn, no 
 novelty in this official part of Cranmer's eleva- 
 tion, no want of precedents as to the time in 
 question. I could add earlier cases in point. 
 But enough : the Romish historian of England 
 is content to console himself in the present ex- 
 posure with the gentle admission of his " state- 
 ment being too broad" but overlooks his unfortu- 
 nate apology for it, " that he should have excluded 
 cases of translation ;" that is, in order to allow 
 such cases as exemplifying the short period of six 
 months for possession of the see of Canterbury ; 
 for he introduces Warham, whose case, by his 
 own shewing, exhibits the very reverse of his ex- 
 ception. So much for the puny aim to nullify 
 what has been said for Cranmer as to this part 
 of his story. 
 
 " e 1. Here I may be allowed to ask," Dr. 
 
 A See my Vindic. of Cranmer, 8vo. edit. p. xxxviii. 12mo. 
 edit. p. 40. " Dr. Lingard's Vindic. p. 73, 
 
 B 2
 
 Lingard however says, u why Mr, Todd repre- 
 sents the passage, which he has quoted, as my 
 description of Cranmer's elevation to the see of 
 Canterbury. I have, indeed, described his ele- 
 vation to the archbishopric in the two pages, 
 253, 254 ; but the passage in question is no part 
 of that description. It is merely a portion of a 
 note, subjoined to the text, for the purpose of 
 pointing out the ingenuity of Burnet, who, to 
 the time elapsed from Cranmer's receipt of the 
 king's letter in Germany to his acceptance of 
 the archbishopric, added the three months 
 which intervened between that acceptance and 
 his consecration." 
 
 Dr. Lingard here tells us that his note is for 
 the purpose of pointing out Burnet's ingenuity, 
 though he makes no allusion therein to ingenuity 
 either in expression or sentiment ; while at the 
 same time he professes, that he knew not why 
 Burnet was so anxious in stating the delay 
 before us. This is amusing enough. But let 
 us hear Burnet himself: " f Neither the delays 
 of Cranmer's journey, nor his entreaties to be 
 delivered from a burden which his humility 
 made him imagine himself unable to bear, could 
 divert the king. So that though six months 
 elapsed before the thing was settled, yet the 
 king persisted in his opinion, and the other was 
 
 f Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 128, ed. 1681.
 
 forced to yield. In the end of January," Burnet 
 continues, " the king sent to the pope for the 
 bulls for Cranmer's promotion ;" and the death 
 of Warham in the preceding August, a period 
 of only five months, is related g just before. 
 So that, in order to be ingenious in imposing 
 upon his readers, the historian of our Reforma- 
 tion must have submitted to falsify himself 
 within the space of a few lines, (if any one can 
 believe him so absurd,) when he stated in a 
 general way, that six months elapsed before 
 the thing was settled ; that is, before Cranmer 
 was completely archbishop. He might, indeed, 
 have said seven months. But, like Dr. Lingard 
 himself, he has disregarded the h minutice of time 
 in respect to this promotion. Still, however, 
 Dr. Lingard's is " a good note" for his purpose, as 
 it is now illustrated by a happy after-thought ! 
 
 " ' But Cranmer was *■ preconized' in the 
 consistory in January," Dr. Lingard observes, 
 '■' (Becchetti, viii. 234.) and, of course, must have 
 signified his consent at the latest in December." 
 Be it so. There are then k four months elapsed, 
 
 s Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 127. 
 
 h Six months only are described by Dr. Lingard, as having 
 elapsed before the consecration of Cranmer. See before, p. 1 . 
 Seven certainly elapsed. Dr. Lingard errs in good company. 
 
 1 Dr. Lingard's Vind. p. 73. n. 
 
 k Dr. Lingard has allowed but three. See before p. 1. 
 and the preceding note.
 
 G 
 
 since the death of his predecessor, before he 
 signified the requisite consent for proceedings in 
 order to his elevation. This serves to strengthen 
 his memorable assertion, " that he came un- 
 willingly to the bishopric ;." a point, which Dr. 
 Lingard finds it convenient not to admit. 
 
 " ' 2. If I rightly understand the reasoning 
 of Mr. Todd/' Dr. Lingard accordingly pro- 
 ceeds, " it follows, that because Cranmer said 
 that he came unwillingly to the bishopric, he there- 
 fore declined it ; and that, because he prolonged 
 his journey by seven weeks, Burnet was right in 
 saying that he delayed his consent for six 
 months. By what argumentative process these 
 two conclusions are deduced from the premises, 
 I cannot comprehend." 
 
 Dr. Lingard, we see, struggles hard to depreci- 
 ate, or to disprove, the unwillingness of Cranmer 
 to be made archbishop. He is certainly at 
 liberty to understand my statement, or reason- 
 ing, in any way he pleases. Burnet's words, 
 accompanied with Cranmer's and his own, are 
 m before the reader. 
 
 Another ingenious effort, in the suggestion of 
 two menacing questions, to invalidate the evi- 
 dence of this unwillingness, now presents itself; 
 and, after a sneer at the solemn asseveration of 
 
 1 Dr. Lingard's Vind. p. 73. 
 m See page 1. and p. 4.
 
 Cranmer, Dr. Lingard dryly dismisses the sub- 
 ject with the plea, that he is not the biographer 
 of the archbishop. 
 
 " n 3. But to proceed to the criminal omission 
 with which I am charged," Dr. Lingard says, 
 " I anwer, that, if I had been writing the life 
 of the archbishop, I should certainly have no- 
 ticed this solemn asseveration, as it is termed, 
 [that Cranmer came unwillingly to the bishop- 
 ric ;] but, at the same time, I should have 
 thought it a duty to investigate two questions 
 intimately connected with it ; namely, whether 
 more credit be due to the assertion of Cranmer 
 in defence of himself before the commissioner, 
 or to the contradictory assertion of Pole in his 
 expostulatory letter to him ; and then, whether 
 his hesitation to return to England arose, as 
 some pretend, from the moderation of his cha- 
 racter which aspired not to ecclesiastical honours, 
 or, as others maintain, from certain misgivings 
 which taught him to fear the consequences of 
 his late illegal marriage in Germany. But I 
 was not his biographer ; nor did I see the neces- 
 sity of introducing into my pages the discussion 
 of questions, which could throw no light on the 
 general history of the times." 
 
 The present questions, however, court dis- 
 cussion, in vindicating the character of him at 
 
 " Dr. Lingard's Vind. pp. 73, 74.
 
 8 
 
 whom they point. When his name was first 
 mentioned to the king, and he was desired to 
 wait upon his majesty, instead of gladly seizing 
 an opportunity so favourable to ambition, Cran- 
 mer ° endeavoured to avoid the introduction. 
 But he was bound to submit; and the intro- 
 duction led him to the see of Canterbury. Yet 
 this unassuming man, whom Dr. Lingard can 
 behold only as " posting with dexterity" to 
 his promotion, tried all manner of ways by his 
 friends, when he was assured of the king's in- 
 tention, that he might not be made archbishop. Of 
 this we are minutely informed by Fox, the 
 contemporary of Cranmer; and, next, by the 
 celebrated Archdeacon Mason, who, thirty years 
 
 ° Fox, Acts and Mon. p. 1861. col. i. "Dr. Cranmer was 
 sent for ; and being removed from Waltham to Cambridge, 
 and so towards his friends in Nottinghamshire, a post went 
 for him. But when he came to London, he began to quarrel 
 with his two acquaintances, (Fox and Gardiner,) that he by 
 their means was thus troubled and brought thither to be cum- 
 bered in a matter, wherein he had nothing at all travailed in 
 study ; and therefore most earnestly intreated them, that they 
 would make his excuse in such sort, that he might be dis- 
 patched away from coming in the king's presence. They pro- 
 mised, and took the matter upon them, so to do, if by any 
 means they might compass it. But all was in vain. For the 
 more they began to excuse Dr. Cranmer's absence, the more 
 the king chid with them for that they brought him not out of 
 hand to his presence ; so that, no excuse serving, he was fain 
 undelayedly to come to the court unto the king."
 
 9 
 
 only after the martyrdom of the archbishop, 
 was p fellow of Merton College, Oxford ; who, 
 doubtless, relates what then was well remem- 
 bered, and who would have contradicted Fox 
 if he had written falsely. That both therefore 
 have given a true account of this reluctance, it 
 is just to believe, because no contradiction of it 
 has ever been proved. It has, indeed, been q in- 
 
 p Elected in 1586. A. Wood, Ath. Ox. Wood says, and 
 most truly, that this excellent person " is worthily styled 
 Vindex Ecclesice Jnglicance." His Vindication of the Church 
 of England concerning the Consecration and Ordination of 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, was first published in English, 
 in 1613. It was answered in English very feebly, and with 
 a scoffing dedication to Abbot then archbishop of Canterbury, 
 by Anthony Champney or Champneys, a Romish priest ; and 
 soon afterwards, (in 1618,) that his imagined victory over 
 Mason might be spread over all Europe, in Latin. Mason 
 immediately translated his own book into Latin, and augmented 
 it ; but died before he could print it. By the care of the 
 warden of his college, and at the desire of the archbishop of 
 Canterbury, it was, however, printed in 1625, and again in 
 1646. This enlarged edition of his admirable work has been 
 translated and published with notes by the Rev. J. Lindsay, 
 1728. The exceptions of Champney and other Romanists 
 are fully answered by Mason. This luminary of the Church 
 of England was archdeacon of Norfolk, rector of Orford in 
 Suffolk, and chaplain to king James I. The reference above 
 is to his Latin edit. p. 153 ; to the translation, p. 132. 
 
 "* I copy the insinuation of Pole, from one of the most useful 
 publications of the present time, compiled with great accuracy 
 as well as research, and written with ease and perspicuity.
 
 to 
 
 sinuated by Cardinal Pole and others, that 
 Cranmer was made archbishop upon condition 
 of annulling the marriage of his sovereign. San- 
 ders also says, that to the cardinal himself the 
 primacy had been first offered upon this con- 
 dition, and had been refused ; an assertion which 
 is suppressed in the second edition of Sanders's 
 book, published in the year following the first ; 
 for then the index which had triumphantly 
 pointed to this refusal of the royal offer, and 
 the studied words which had so exalted the 
 cardinal, are no r longer to be found. The 
 
 " Cardinal Pole insinuates pretty plainly, that Cranmer was 
 made archbishop upon condition of annulling the king's mar- 
 riage. ' Ecquis autem ignorat, te, oh hanc unam causam, 
 archiepiscopum esse factum ? Quis ambigat te, non per ostium, 
 sed per fenestram, vel potius per cuniculos, tanquam furem et 
 latronem intrasse?' Poli Ep. ad Tho. Cranm. inter MSS. 
 Harl." Soames's Hist, of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 358. 
 n. 182G. Cbampney says, as Sanders had instructed him, 
 that Cranmer was promoted " eo nimirum consilio, ut si Papa 
 sententiam divortii ferre nollet, iste saltern ex cathedra archi- 
 episcopali illam pronunciaret." A.Champna?i, Angli, De 
 Vocatione Min. Tract. 1618, p. 392. See the next note. 
 
 r After noticing the death of archbishop Warham, the first 
 edition of Sanders thus proceeds : " Rex, tanti honoris locum 
 sibi perire nolens, omnino decrevit nemini eum prseterquam 
 tali viro dare, qui suae libidini summis viribus obsequeretur. 
 Nihil autem fuit in toto Angliae regno cum Reg'maldo Polo 
 conferendum. Huic igitur primum rex archiepiscopalem praero- 
 "•ativam obtulit, si tamen disertis verbis ante sponderet, se 
 divortium regis omni studio provecturum. Quam turpem
 
 11 
 
 slander in question was indeed revived, in the 
 way of conjecture, by Martin, the commissioner, 
 when Cranmer appeared before him as a 
 prisoner. " s What," said this illiberal com- 
 missioner, " may we conjecture hereby, [the 
 king's sending for Cranmer from Germany,] but 
 that there was a compact between you, being- 
 then queen Anne's chaplain, and the king : 
 Give me the archbishopric of Canterbury, and 
 I will give you licence to live in adultery." 
 The archbishop, with all the firmness of insulted 
 veracity, replied : " You say not true." Cranmer, 
 indeed, attained his dignity, as Fox truly re- 
 lates the matter, " * not by flattery, not by 
 bribes, nor by any other unlawful means." 
 
 conditioncm adjectam ubi Polus audivit, meritd recusavit in 
 pestilentiae cathedra sedere." De Schism. Anglic, ed. 15S5. 
 fol. 59. Not a syllable of this offer to Pole, and of his refusal, 
 is to be found in the edition of Sanders in 1586. But in p. 82 
 of this second edition, after the sentence "Rex tanti, &c." to 
 " obsequeretur" as in the former, the narration proceeds to 
 the falsehood of Cranmer's introduction to the king by the 
 earl of Wiltshire, and of his consent to what was required. 
 This second edition, however, in a preceding part of the history 
 presents us with Pole declining the sees of York and Winches- 
 ter, about three years before, when vacant by the death of 
 Wolsey. The calumny, however, in the first edition, has been 
 circulated by other writers, eager to build the credit of Pole 
 upon the ruin of Cranmer's. I consign it, therefore, to the 
 reprobation of every honest reader. 
 
 " Fox, Acts and Mon. p. 187G. col. 2. 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 1862, col. i.
 
 12 
 
 Now to the first of Dr. Lingard's questions, 
 as intimately connected with the assertion of 
 Cranmer's unwillingness ; namely, " Whether 
 more credit be due to the assertion of Cranmer 
 himself, or to the contradictory assertion of 
 Pole." 
 
 When we consider the behaviour of Pole to 
 the archbishop., together with some parts of his 
 character ; and when we revert to the testimony, 
 which has been produced, on the side of Cran- 
 mer ; there will be no difficulty in deciding to 
 which assertion credit is due. We have seen 
 the cardinal, forgetful of the polished manners 
 and liberality which have been ascribed to him, 
 ° calumniating the archbishop on the acceptance 
 of the see of Canterbury. We find him x im- 
 
 See before, p. 10. And the next note. 
 
 x See Pole's own letter to the archbishop, Strype's Life of 
 Cranmer. App. No. 89. " You bring forth a privy protesta- 
 tion, made with privy witnesses, &c." A shameless assertion, 
 as Pole could have received (if he did not coin it) such report 
 only from Cranmer's enemies. See also the App. to Burnet, 
 Hist. Ref. vol. iii. No. 4. where a correspondent addresses the 
 historian upon the words describing Cranmer's " protestation, 
 repeated when he took the oath to the pope ; that is, publicly, and 
 at his consecration," this correspondent observes ; and he pro- 
 ceeds, " I know this has been said ; but I wish it could be proved. 
 I have two letters (MSS Latin) of Cardinal Pole to Archbishop 
 Cranmer, wherein he charges him with having done it only in a 
 private manner, and brands his proceeding therein with such 
 expressions as I am unwilling to transcribe. I have likewise
 
 13 
 
 puting to the prelate, what is not true, a secret 
 protest against the papal authority. We find 
 him addressing Cranmer, too, on the fall from 
 his high estate, in another letter, which, it has 
 been justly said, " y does very little honour to 
 his memory ;" in which " he inveighs against 
 the poor prisoner with some seeming tenderness, 
 but with a great acrimony of style, and in an 
 insulting manner, like one that knew lie might 
 say what he pleased." We read of him, indeed, 
 as a z hypocrite, as one who could often stoop to 
 a scurrility, as well as defamation, and whose 
 
 seen a copy of this protestation, attested by public notaries ; 
 wherein it is said to have been made in St. Stephen's chapel ; 
 but nothing of its being repeated at his consecration. If your 
 lordship has met with any thing to destroy these testimonies, I 
 shall be very glad." — Burnet made no reply to this corres- 
 pondent and his remarks. These testimonies, it will presently 
 be seen, are completely destroyed by the evidence of the 
 proceedings against the archbishop. It is probable, that the 
 abusive letter, which is noticed, may be a copy of that in the 
 British Museum, from which the extract is taken in p. 10. 
 or may be the letter itself now deposited there. 
 
 » Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. iii. p. 175. ed. 1733. 
 
 z See Jortin's Life of Erasmus, 1758, p. 384. And arch- 
 bishop Parker's designation, " ficta et adumbrata Poli sancti- 
 tas," Vit. Cranm. p. 511. 
 
 a I need only refer to his volume Pro Ecclesiastical Unilatis 
 Defensione, of which Mr. Turner has given a very interesting 
 analysis, and therein of Pole's delight in slanderous and coarse 
 expressions, in his recent Hist, of Hen. VIII. pp. 620 — G24.
 
 14 
 
 extreme virulence has occasioned him even to 
 be thought " b not credible in any case" Cer- 
 tainly, in the case of Cranmer, his assertion is 
 false and contemptible. 
 
 The second question, as connected with 
 Cranmer's own assertion of unwillingness to be 
 archbishop, is, " Whether his hesitation to re- 
 turn to England arose, as some pretend, from 
 the moderation of his character which aspired 
 not to ecclesiastical honours, or, as others main- 
 tain, from certain misgivings which taught him 
 to fear the consequences of his late illegal mar- 
 riage in Germany." 
 
 It is not certain that Cranmer was married, 
 when the offer of the see of Canterbury was 
 made to him. Dr. Lingard, in his History, cites 
 from Godwin c two passages, which leave the 
 time of the marriage in doubt ; one of which 
 mentions only the d intention of Cranmer towards 
 
 b Turner's Hen. VIII. p. 624. 
 
 c Hist, of Eng. 2d edit. vol. vi. p. 253. n. " There appears 
 some doubt as to the time of his marriage. Godwin, in his 
 Annals, says : Uxore jamdudum orbatus, quam adolescens 
 duxerat, puellae cujusdam amore irretitus tenebatur (hsec erat 
 neptis uxoris Osiandri) quam etiam sibi secundo connubio 
 jungere omnimodis decreverat, p. 49. De Praesulibus Angli- 
 canis, he says : Quod maxime angebat, conscientia fuit ductae 
 uxoris, (neptis ea fuit uxoris Osiandri.) p. 198." 
 
 d After several reasons are assigned for Cranmer's wishing
 
 15 
 
 the object of his regard when the promotion 
 was proposed to him, and afterwards the fulfil- 
 ment of that intention. Cranmer perhaps de- 
 termined a second time to prefer love to 
 ambition, in being privately united, even after 
 the splendid offer from England, to the niece 
 of Osiander ; and in thus affirming, with the 
 divines of Germany, that the profession of celi- 
 bacy was unnatural, and not obligatory. How- 
 ever, his reluctance to be made primate of all 
 England, being at length in all respects over- 
 ruled, still he remembered the absurd tenet not 
 then relinquished in his own country, that he 
 who had been e twice married should not be 
 made even a priest, much less a bishop ; and so 
 at first might be perplexed with the apprehen- 
 sion of clamour being raised against him, because 
 he had thus vindicated the liberty of every 
 
 to avoid the great offer made to him, the last is, that he had 
 taken a liking to this niece of Osiander's wife, whom he in- 
 tended to make his second wife. Godwin's Engl. edit. 1630, 
 p. 121. Soon afterwards it is said, that he " privately married 
 her at Nuremberg." 
 
 e This is evidently the reason of Godwin's saying, in the 
 note given by Dr. Lingard, of Cranmer, " Id ver6 quod 
 maxime angebat, conscientia fuit uxoris ductce;" for it fol- 
 lows, " cum ne in sacros quidem ordines admitti conjugatum 
 fas fuerit, multo minus archiepiscopum creari, itlque prasertim 
 postquam bigamus prima; alteram superduxisset uxorem." De 
 Pracs. ed. 1G1G, p. 198.
 
 1G 
 
 Christian. For, as Gilpin observes, " f however 
 liberal his own sentiments might be on the sub- 
 ject of the marriage, he knew the prejudices of 
 the world ran strongly against him. I call them 
 prejudices only, because I think, it does not ap- 
 pear, that the secular clergy, at that time, were 
 absolutely required to take the vow of celibacy. 
 Whether he urged his scruples to the king, who 
 in a matrimonial business could not surely be a 
 rigid casuist, does not appear. It is certain, how- 
 ever, that the affair of his marriage was made easy 
 to him." Possibly the words of Godwin, " g that 
 the king's importunity prevailed with Cranmer 
 beyond all scrupulous difficulties" may have in- 
 tended some reference to the marriage. Fox 
 asserts, that Henry was " ''not ignorant" of 
 Cranmer's connection with the niece of Osian- 
 der ; and that he defended the prelate through- 
 out his reign. That the danger of the royal 
 proclamation, in 1538, against the marriage of 
 priests, might also i not affect him, the penalty 
 was limited, not to such as were then married, and 
 kept their wives privately, but to such as kept 
 them openly, and to such as should subse- 
 quently marry. Dr. Lingard is content to sug- 
 
 f Life of Cranmer, p. 25. 
 
 5 Godwin, ut supr. p. 121. 
 
 h Acts and Mon. p. 1870, col. i. 
 
 ' Strype, Life of Cranmer, B. I. chap, xviii.
 
 17 
 
 gest, that, " k whether this marriage had ever 
 come to the knowledge of Henry, or was con- 
 sidered by him invalid according to the canon 
 law, is uncertain." From the year 1534, however, 
 1 when Cranmer privately sent for the lady, 
 whom he had left in Germany, she lived with 
 him, certainly, as his known, though not ac- 
 knowledged, wife till the promulgation of the 
 Six Articles in 1539. For when, in 1543, " m the 
 king asked him about his wife," Cranmer 
 answered, that (in submission to the bitter law) 
 " he had sent her to Germany upon the pass- 
 ing of the Act against priests having wives." 
 Champney, one of the Romish reVilers of the 
 archbishop, converts these simple facts into an 
 ■ account of the wife coming from Germany 
 with Cranmer, and of a ° ridiculous kind of 
 
 k Hist, of Eng.'Sd ed. vol. vi. p. 253. 
 
 1 Strype, ut supr. B. 1. ch. 3. ,' 
 
 m Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. 1. p. 328. ed. 1681. 
 
 " De Voc. Min. Tract, ut supr. p. 393. 
 
 ° That she was carried about in a chest. The invention of 
 Sanders, eagerly adopted too from him with grateful refe- 
 rence by the Jesuit Persons, who interweaves in the story, 
 " such a good fellow was Cranmer, the first pillar of Protestant 
 reformation in England," (Warn-word, &c. 1602, fol. 37.) 
 Ay, there's the rub : Protestant reformation in England. 
 Hence also, the ribald Ward, in his England's reformation, 
 has repeated it. Sir John Harington and Archdeacon Mason, 
 at the beginning of the seventeenth century, duly noticed and 
 refuted this absurd calumny. See Lindsay's Transl. of Mason's 
 Vind. p. 136. 
 
 C
 
 18 
 
 secrecy adopted, because the king, whom he 
 greatly dreaded, enacted the punishment of 
 married priests, p a year or two after the arch- 
 bishop's elevation, in the Six Articles ! There 
 was nothing too absurd, too open to immediate 
 refutation, which the Romanists of elder days 
 did not invent against Cranmer, because he had 
 dared to marry. They were incensed at his 
 return to England, in despite of the misgivings 
 which they had imputed to him on account of 
 his marriage. They renewed their fury in their 
 objections against him, when they had him in 
 their power; to which the great, but fallen, 
 prelate, with honest exultation, in referring to 
 this marriage from the time of its celebration, 
 gave replies, that put to shame the conduct of 
 those, who then professed celibacy, and prac- 
 tised adultery. " q It was objected against him, 
 that, in the time of king Henry the eighth, he 
 kept his wife secretly, and had children by her. 
 He answered, that this he granted; affirming that 
 it was better for him to have his own, than to do like 
 other priests, holding and keeping other mens 
 wives" 
 
 " Item, in the time of king Edward, he 
 brought out the said wife openly, affirming and 
 professing publicly the same to be his wife. 
 
 p " Post unum vel alterum annum, &c." Champn. De Voc. 
 ut supr. p. 393. 
 
 ' Foxe, Acts and Mon. p. 1877. col. 2.
 
 19 
 
 He answered, he denied not that he so did, and law- 
 fully might do the same, forasmuch as the laws of 
 the realm did so permit him. 
 
 " Item, that he shamed not openly to glory 
 himself to have had his wife in secret many 
 years. He answered, and though he did so, there 
 was no cause why he should be ashamed thereof? 
 
 The enemies of Cranmer, however, taunted 
 him not, upon this occasion, with any misgivings 
 he had entertained on account of this marriage ; 
 which gladly and insultingly, as their manner 
 now was, they would have done, if there had 
 been real grounds for such belief. 
 
 II. " r Charge the second. Mr. Todd, in the 
 next place, selects the following passage. ' By 
 what casuistry, could the archbishop elect, who 
 was well acquainted with the services expected 
 from him, reconcile it with his conscience to 
 swear obedience to the pope, when he was al- 
 ready resolved to act in opposition to the papal 
 authority ? With the royal approbation, he 
 called four witnesses into St. Stephen's chapel 
 at Westminster, and, in their presence, declared, 
 that, by the oath of obedience to the pope, 
 which, for the sake of form, he was obliged to 
 take, he did not intend to bind himself to any 
 thing contrary to the law of God, or prejudicial 
 to the right of the king, or prohibitory of such 
 
 ' Dr. Lingard, Vindic. p. 74". 
 c 2
 
 20 
 
 reforms as he might judge useful to the church 
 of England/ Hist. vi. 254. On this passage, 
 Mr. Todd comments, through the six following 
 pages, for the purpose of shewing that the pro- 
 testation was made openly and publicly, and 
 was not a ' secret protest,' as Dr. Lingard calls 
 it. 
 
 " 1. I am sure," Dr. Lingard continues, " that 
 my reverend adversary has no intention to mis- 
 represent : but neither the offensive words ■ secret 
 protest? nor any others of similar import, are to 
 be found in my pages T 
 
 What will the reader think of Dr. Lingard 
 and his history after this assertion, not made in 
 haste, (for more than eighteen months elapsed 
 before this answer was given to my vindication ;) 
 what will the reader think, I say, when I bring 
 the historian before him, convicted by his own 
 pages of untruth ? s " If the reader think," 
 Dr. Lingard says, " that Henry must be now 
 satisfied, let him recollect the secret protest, the 
 theological legerdemain, by which Cranmer 
 pretended to nullify the oath of obedience, 
 which he was about to make to the pontiff." 
 ■ I here leave Dr. Lingard to his own and to 
 the consideration of every honourable mind ; 
 and proceed to notice his opinion, w r hich, he 
 says, " l he ought to have stated, that the pro- 
 
 * Dr. Lingard's Hist, of Eng. 2d edit. vol. vi. p. 282. 
 6 Vindic. p. 75.
 
 21 
 
 testation was made in private, and that its 
 purport was carefully concealed from the pub- 
 lic. Otherwise, the news would quickly have 
 reached Rome ; the archbishop would have 
 been suspended from the exercise of his office ; 
 and his judgment, in the great cause of the 
 divorce, would have been liable to the same 
 objection, as if he had, in the first instance, 
 been consecrated without the papal approba- 
 tion. The motives, which induced Henry to 
 solicit that approbation, equally required that 
 the protest should be kept secret" 
 
 Thus, to the alleged secrecy of Cranmer's 
 protest is ascribed extensive influence upon 
 great national events. It cannot, therefore, be 
 too minutely investigated. 
 
 First, then, the opinion of Dr. -Lingard is not 
 worth a straw. It is but the echo, indeed, of 
 Phillips's u words in his Life of Pole, to which 
 
 u " The oath of obedience to the see of Rome, is a rite 
 observed on that occasion, (the consecration of a bishop;) 
 and Cranmer retired into a private place, and entered a protest 
 against the oath he was going to take, and then took it. 
 Phillips, Life of Pole, sect. 10. Dr. Lingard here is somewhat 
 shy of being associated with Phillips; and, by way of apology 
 for being now found in agreement w ith him, amuses the reader 
 with an account of " my lashing most unmercifully" (and im- 
 partial readers, I am persuaded, will say very justly) " the 
 unfortunate biographer of Pole," and of " my imagination 
 seeming to he haunted by his ghost." But, not forgetful of
 
 22 
 
 Mr. Butler * also has given implicit credit. 
 It is but the clamour, raised from this mislead- 
 ing writer, of many inferior Romanists against 
 the archbishop, the king, and the country ; 
 denouncing the secrecy as a disgrace to the 
 Protestant name and cause. But the transaction 
 was public ; and the publicity of it forms part 
 of the charges against the archbishop, in the 
 official proceedings of the papal commissioners 
 at Oxford. But, before I copy this portion of 
 the proceedings, it will be right to state the 
 diversified objections which have been urged in 
 contradiction to publicity; to shew how Dr. 
 Lingard's " well-placed words," and Mr. Butler's 
 " lawyerly mooting," the eloquence of the his- 
 torian, and the acuteness of the jurist, have 
 been wasted in their support of the calumny 
 against Cranmer. 
 
 " y Mr. Todd contends," Dr. Lingard accord- 
 ingly observes, " that the protest was not a 
 private transaction, because it contains the fol- 
 lowing words : ' in his scriptis palam, public^, et 
 expresse protestor.' But Mr. Butler has shewn 
 that such is the usual language of these instru- 
 
 some obligations to Phillips, Dr. Lingard at last condescends 
 to " remember the poor ghost" with the friendly application of 
 a pun upon the name in " his days of nature." See the close 
 of the note, Vindic. p. 75. 
 
 * Book of the Rom. Cath. Church, Lett. 14. 
 
 y Vindic. p. 76.
 
 23 
 
 meats, though subscribed with the greatest 
 privacy."' 
 
 Yes ; and this is the usual language too of 
 instruments subscribed, as Cranmer's protest 
 was, with all requisite publicity. Such are they 
 which record the z appeal of archbishop Chi- 
 chele, to a general council, from the sentence 
 of the pope ; and Adrian's a oath of fidelity to 
 Henry the seventh for the bishopric of Bath and 
 Wells; and archbishop Warham's b protesta- 
 tion against all acts passed in parliament to the 
 prejudice of the church ; in all which the words 
 " palam, public^, et expresse y " are in like manner 
 found ; words that evidently were used, as those 
 of Cranmer were, to denote a solemn, open, and 
 undisguised transaction. Mr. Butler, however, 
 to substantiate the pretended privacy, suggests 
 an evasion to have been practised, we see, 
 which Cranmer disdained ; and Dr. Lingard, 
 with the happy talent of strengthening his po- 
 sitions by gratuitous c addition or substraction, 
 presently introduces the archbishop a d second 
 time, with /bar witnesses of this alleged evasion ; 
 when, in truth, there are five, before whom the 
 
 * Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. ii. Rec. P. II. B. II. No. 35. 
 
 * Ibid. vol. i. Rec. B. I. No. 1. 
 
 b Ibid. vol. iii. Rec. P. III. B. V. No. 22. 
 c Substraction in the present instance ; addition in that of 
 Cranmer's retractations, as we shall presently see. 
 d See before, p. 1 0. \ 
 
 8
 
 24 
 
 protest was publicly made, expressly named by 
 e Strype, in unison with the official proceedings. 
 
 " 3. f Mr. Todd tells us," Dr. Lingard pro- 
 ceeds, of " ' the refutation of the clandestinity 
 by Fuller,' and of ' the masterly vindication of 
 the publicity by Neve and Ridley.' Now, what 
 is this ' refutation by Fuller V A mere as- 
 sertion unsupported by authority, that the 
 protestation was made thrice ; once in the 
 chapter-house, then before the consecration, 
 and, lastly, at the reception of the pall ! And 
 what is * the masterly vindication of Neve ?' A 
 repetition of that assertion, supported by the 
 pretended authority of Fuller, who produces 
 none himself, and of Fox and Strype, neither 
 of whom mentions the renewal of the protesta- 
 tion ! With Ridley's 'vindication' I am un- 
 acquainted : but of this I am sure, that if he 
 had produced any additional testimony, it would 
 not have been suppressed by Mr. Todd." 
 
 Certainly I placed full reliance upon Fuller, 
 and Neve, and Ridley. I considered both their 
 assertions, and their reasoning, as irrefutable; 
 I called to mind what Fox, and Mason, and 
 Strype had offered in confirmation of their 
 words, and I was content. The official account 
 of the proceedings against Cranmer, which is 
 
 * Life of Cranmer, B. I. ch. 4, 
 f Vinclic. p. 76.
 
 2o 
 
 subjoined to Strype's Lite of him, published 
 by the University of Oxford in 1812, with 
 which s I dutifully supplied the learned press 
 from the manuscript in the Lambeth Library, 
 did not then occur to my mind as requisite to 
 be consulted. I have now referred to it; and, 
 with unspeakable delight, have found it to 
 prove, beyond all question, the open conduct 
 of the archbishop, as well as the veracity of 
 those excellent men, whose words have hitherto 
 been impugned by the scoffs and cavils of 
 Romish opposition. Neve has said, that 
 " "instruments were made, at Cranmer's request, 
 recording his repeated protestations." Dr. Lin- 
 gard here allows, that " * this, were it true, 
 would set the question at rest. But where," 
 he adds, " are those pretended instruments V* 
 Dr. Lin^ard will hear of them, after I have stated 
 all his arguments against the existence of them. 
 " 5. k Allow me then to ask," Dr. Lingard 
 says, " where is the authority for these pre- 
 tended iterations? There is none in the in- 
 strument itself. It professes to be made before 
 Watkins, the king's prothonotary, not the con- 
 
 E Being at that time keeper of the Lambeth manuscripts, 
 and his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury having most 
 liberally consented to the publication of these proceedings. 
 
 h Animadversions upon Phillips's Life of Pole, p. 511. 
 
 1 Vindic. p. 76. n. 
 
 k Ibid. pp. 76, 77.
 
 26 
 
 secrating bishops : Coram vobis authentica per- 
 sona. There is none in the altercation between 
 Cranmer and Martin, the commissioner. Though 
 the repetition of the oath is distinctly men- 
 tioned, no hint is given by either that the 
 protestation was made more than once. There 
 is none in Fox, or Parker, or Godwin, or, as far 
 as I can discover, in any writer within the next 
 1 eighty years after the transaction. Strype 
 informs us, that, * having withal his said pro- 
 testation, Cranmer, before the aforesaid wit- 
 nesses, (those in whose presence he had made it 
 in the chapter-house,) asserted, and protested, 
 that he would read the schedule, and perform 
 the oath therein contained under the said pro- 
 testation, which, he said, he made the same 
 
 1 Dr. Lingard here means Archdeacon Mason, " the first, 
 he says, with whom he is acquainted, who mentions repeated 
 protestations, (De Minist. Angl. 154.) but he produces no 
 authority." Mason will be found, however, to have written 
 correctly. Dr. Lingard here endeavours also to weaken the 
 testimony of Archbishop Parker, by observing that " he 
 speaks of only one protestation : he says, indeed, that it was 
 made in sacratione ; but it is plain that he means the protesta- 
 tion privately made in the chapter-house, as it was made coram 
 testibus fide dignis notariisque publicis." Vindic. p. 77. n. But 
 Archbishop Parker meant, undoubtedly, what was the fact, 
 the protestation, to which all possible publicity was given, 
 at the time of the consecration ; which was officially attested, as 
 the proceedings against the archbishop will presently convince 
 us, " coram testibus fide dignis notariisque publicis."
 
 27 
 
 day in the chapter-house before those witnesses, 
 and no otherwise, nor in any other manner. 
 And then presently after, kneeling on his knees, 
 read the schedule containing the oath to the 
 pope.' Where Strype learned these particulars, 
 or whether they are true or not, we are unable 
 to discover : but it is evident, that even, ac- 
 cording to his narrative, the protestation was 
 not repeated. All that Cranmcr did, teas to say 
 before the four witnesses, that he meant to take the 
 oath in the sense of the protestation, ivhich he had 
 already made in their presence. Its purport was 
 still kept secret.'''' 
 
 Such is Dr. Lingard's account, and such his 
 confidence, delivered as precisely as if he had 
 witnessed the ceremony; and evidently with 
 contempt for the counter-statements of all, 
 upon whose sound authority I maintained the 
 publicity of the protest. We shall soon read 
 the testimony of those who really were present 
 at the transaction. But I must here notice 
 Dr. Lingard's unjust treatment of Strype in the 
 preceding extract, in pretending that the bi- 
 ographer admits the protestation to have been 
 not repeated. If Dr. Lingard had condescended 
 to look into the compilation of this learned 
 person (B. iii. ch. 20.), he would have found 
 him asserting, most correctly, that the pro- 
 testation " was done in the most open and 
 public manner that could be, two or three times
 
 28 
 
 over, before public notaries, and by them entered 
 on record, that all might take notice of it." 
 Nor may I yet part with Dr. Lingard's ob- 
 jections ; for, in the last of them, his imaginary 
 triumph leads him to a kind of'* leering flout;" 
 the retort upon which, however, will be only 
 an exposure of a malicious charge without 
 foundation, and the dispersion of " darkness " 
 falsely deemed '■' impenetrable." 
 
 " 6. m Even the jurist, Dr. Martin, the enemy 
 of Cranmer, says Mr. Todd, is opposed to the 
 secret protest. But where," Dr. Lingard asks, 
 " is the proof?" He answers, with a sneer, " in 
 the following dialogue. 
 
 " Martin. Did von not swear obedience to 
 the see of Rome ? 
 
 " Cranmer. Indeed, I did once swear unto 
 the same. 
 
 " Martin. Yea, that you did twice, as ap- 
 peareth by records and writings here ready to be 
 shewn. 
 
 " Cranmer. But I remember that I saved all 
 by protestation that I made by the counsel 
 of the best learned men I could get at that 
 time. 
 
 " Mr. Todd occasionally soars/' Dr. Lingard 
 continues, " beyond the ken of ordinary under- 
 standings. Here he infers that Martin believed 
 
 'cr 
 
 Dr. Lingard's Vindic. p. 78.
 
 29 
 
 the protest to have been public, because he 
 said that Cranmer had twice sworn obedience 
 to the see of Rome, as appeared by records 
 and writings. How is this conclusion drawn ? 
 I know not. I can see the two extremes ; but 
 the chain which connects them together is lost 
 in impenetrable darkness." 
 
 I can help Dr. Lingard through the ob- 
 scurity to find his way, if he will more atten- 
 tively observe the time and the occasion of 
 Martin's dialogue with Cranmer. Martin was 
 now, as one of the royal proctors, proceeding 
 in the final examination of the archbishop be- 
 fore the representative of the pope. He was 
 provided with all the documents and evidences, 
 ("the records and writings" which have so amused 
 Dr. Lingard,) that were to be produced against 
 his prisoner. Among these were the oath and 
 the accompanying protest, which, therefore, 
 are embodied in the formal account of this 
 process, transmitted to Cardinal de Puteo, the 
 immediate delegate of the pope on this occasion, 
 from Brookes, bishop of Gloucester, the acting 
 sub-delegate in England. Hence it was that 
 Martin reminded the archbishop of his repeated 
 oath and protestation with reference to proofs, 
 " here ready to be shewn" Dr. Lingard may 
 now, perhaps, incline a little to my inference 
 respecting Martin ; may welcome me as de- 
 scending to the ken of ordinary understandings ;
 
 30 
 
 and finally with Mr, Butler (to whom, how- 
 ever, his thanks are due for the well-meant but 
 useless exposition of palam, publick, See), con- 
 sent to give up the slander against the arch- 
 bishop, which they have been so fond of main- 
 taining in n various shapes. — 
 
 " Nulla fugam reperit fallacia." 
 
 The last proceedings with Cranmer com- 
 menced on the ° twelfth of September, 1555. 
 On that day he was cited into court, when the 
 bishop of Gloucester first made an oration at 
 the opening of the commission to try the arch- 
 bishop. Dr. Martin was the next speaker. 
 After his speech, he produced, against the 
 prisoner, p articles respecting his marriage and 
 his oath to the pope. Interrogatories were then 
 put to him ; among which, was the memorable 
 one " q concerning his being twice sworn to 
 the pope," when Dr. Martin " shewed a copy 
 of his protestation against the pope at his con- 
 secration, under a notary's hand." The inter- 
 rogatories were closed with insults upon the 
 answers of the archbishop ; and the meeting 
 
 n Compare the preceding arguments of Dr. Lingard, and 
 Mr. Butler's Mem. of the English, Scotch, and Irish Rom. 
 Catholics, his Book of the Rom. Cath. Church, &c, 
 
 MS. Processus, and Strype's Life of Cranm. B. III. 
 ch. xix. 
 
 p Fox, and Strype. 
 
 •« Strype, Life of Cranm. B, III. ch, xix.
 
 31 
 
 was adjourned. The next day, witnesses were 
 introduced, and sworn to declare what they 
 knew, or could remember, against him. The 
 depositions of these persons, the articles before 
 produced by Martin, and all the forms observed 
 upon the occasion, are extant, as I have before 
 said, in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth. 
 What concerns the point before us, is faithfully 
 copied in the note r below. 
 
 (1.) Martin exhibited, first, the copy of the 
 
 r MS. Processus. No. 1136. Lambeth MSS. It is written 
 on thirty-six pages of parchment of a folio size, and is the 
 official dispatch of the bishop of Gloucester to Rome, authen- 
 ticated in the usual manner by notarial attestation. See the 
 Catal. of Lambeth MSS. 1812. And the Pref. to the Oxford 
 edit, of Strype's Life of Cranmer, in the same year, p. vi. 
 Extracts, in confirmation of what is related in the text, now 
 follow. 
 
 (1.) " Deinde prenominatus Thomas Martyn, procurator an- 
 tedictus, in subsidium probacionis contentorum in dictis arti- 
 culis exhibuit quoddam instrumentum publicum manu propria 
 Richardi Watkyns, notarii publici, ut apparuit, subscriptum, 
 et ejus signo, ut apparuit, signatum, continens in se inter 
 cetera tenorem juramenti fidelitatis obediencie per ipsum 
 Thomam Cranmerum tempore ejus prefectionis, sive consecra- 
 sionis, in archiepiscopum Cantuar' beato Petro et sedi apos- 
 colice ac domino nostro pape Clementi, etc. 
 
 (2.) " Item ponit et articulatur, et, si negatum fuerit, prohare 
 intendit sepedictus procurator, quod prefatus Thomas Cran- 
 merus auctoritate sedis apostolice et domini nostri pape 
 Cantuar' archiepiscopus, ut prefertur, consecratus et prcfectus, 
 inter cetera tempore consecrationis sue hujusmodi paulove 
 antea aut citra, fidelitatem et obedicnciam beato Petro etc.
 
 32 
 
 instruments attested by Watkins, the king's 
 prothonotary. 
 
 i 
 saltern in effectu prestitit, et in ea parte juramentum ad sancta 
 Dei evangelia subivit. 
 
 (3.) "In Dei nomine Amen. Per presentis publici instru- 
 ment! seriem cunctis appareat evidenter, et sit notum, quod 
 anno Domini millesimo quingentesimb tricesimo tercio, etc. 
 mensis verd Marcii die tricesimo, in domo Capitulari Collegii 
 sancti Stephani prothomartyris prope palacium Regium Westm. 
 etc. constitutus personaliter reverendissimus in Christo pater 
 dominus Thomas in Cantuar' Archiep' (ut dicebat) electus, 
 in mea [Watkins] prothonotarii Regii ac notarii subscript]', ac 
 venerabilium virorum magistri Johannis Tregomvell legum 
 doctoris, et Thome Beclyll clerici a consiliis dicti domini nostri 
 Regis, Richardi Gwent decretorum doctoris Curie Cantuar' 
 officialis principalis, et Johannis Cocks legum doctoris etc. 
 vicarii in spiritualibus generalis, testium in hac parte specialiter 
 adhibitorum presentia, protestationes quasdam fecit, legit, et 
 interposuit, ac cetera fecit, prout in quadem papiri scedula, 
 quam tunc ibidem in manibus suis tenuit et perlegit, plenius 
 continebatur. Cujus quidem scedule verus tenor (nil addito 
 vel dempto) de verbo ad verbum sequitur, et talis est. ■ In 
 Dei nomine Amen. Coram Vobis,' " etc. The protest as it is 
 given by Strype and Collier from the archbishop's Register, 
 and recently by Mr. Townsend in his Accusations of History 
 against the Church of Rome, here follows. Then Watkyns 
 adds, " Super quibus omnibus et singulis premissis dictus rev, 
 pater me prothonotarium et notarium predictum unum vel plura 
 publicum seu publica instrumentum sive instrumenta exinde con- 
 Jicere, ac testes superius nominatos testimonium perhibere 
 rogavit et requisivit. 
 
 (4.) " Et deinde die mense et anno predictis dictus rev.dom. 
 Thomas electus, in mea et prelibatorum ven. virorum presentia 
 testium ad hoc etiam adhibitorum, diet' domum Capitularem
 
 33 
 
 (2.) He then asserts, and offers to prove, that 
 Cranmer took the oath of obedience to the 
 pope. 
 
 exivit, et ad gradus summi altaris dicti Collegii vestibus sacer- 
 dotalibus amictus ad recipiendum munus consecracionis perrexit," 
 etc. Then follows the recital of the oath of obedience to the 
 pope, and Watkins's account how Cranmer, as he had protested, 
 understood it : " Manibus suis tenens, ante lecturam ejus- 
 dem scedule et juramenti in eadem contenti prestacionem, in 
 mea et eorundem testium presentia asseruit et protestatus est, 
 se dictam scedulam lecturum ac jur amentum inibi insertion jirestitu- 
 rum sub premissis protestacionibus alias per eundem eodem die in 
 dicto domo Capitidari in mea et eorundem testium presentia 
 habitis et factis, et non aliter neque alio modo. Et incontinenter 
 post premissa eandem scedulam perlegit, et ut in eadem conti- 
 netur juravit. Super quibus assertionc et protestacione per 
 eundem modo premisso tunc ibidem factis unum vel plura publicum 
 scu publica exinde conficere instrumentum sive instrumenla, ac 
 testes prescriptos testimonium perhibere etiam tunc rogavit et 
 requisivil. 
 
 (5.) " Quibus sic peractis die mense et anno predictis, ac 
 solenni consecracione ejusdem rev. patris finita et expedita, 
 idem rev. pater dom. Tho. Cantuar. Archiepiscopus ante 
 dictum summum altare pallium rccepturus, in mea et diet. Joh. 
 Tregonwell, Tho. Bedill, et Rich. Gwent, testium predict, ad hoc 
 specialiter adhibitorum, ante prestacionem juramenti infrascripti 
 iter urn protestatus est se hujusmodi sequens jur amentum sub eisdam 
 protestacionibus ut premittitur in dicto domo Capit. habitis et 
 factis," etc. Then follows the oath as it is printed, from the 
 Register of Cranmer, by Strype and others; and Watkins 
 continues, " Super qua protestacione sic ut premittitur per 
 eundem reverendissimum lercio facta et habita, idem rev. pater 
 me prothonotarium et notarium publicum subscriptum unum 
 vel plura publicum scu publica instrumentum exinde conficere, 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 (3.) He afterwards brings forward the depo- 
 sition of the prothonotary, Watkins, in which 
 the protest of Cranmer is copied ; and the pro- 
 thonotary states the order by the archbishop 
 for the proper instruments to record it. This is 
 the first reading of the protest in the chapter- 
 house of St. Stephen's before Watkins and 
 others, specially named. 
 
 (4.) The archbishop proceeds, as the same 
 witnesses again officially testify, (and, doubt- 
 less, as numbers generally testified ; for the 
 church at the time, Pole has told us, was as full 
 of persons as it could be,) from the chapter- 
 house to the altar in the church to receive 
 consecration ; holding in his hand the schedule 
 containing the papal oath ; against which, after 
 it had been read, he, a second time, protested 
 in form and manner as in the chapter-house. 
 
 (5.) Lastly, after his consecration, and being 
 about to receive the pall, his oath and pro- 
 testation were, a third time, publicly repeated, 
 and commanded to be recorded. 
 
 Thus complete, in regard to his protest, is 
 the proof of Cranmer's fair dealing, transmitted 
 
 ac testes predictos testimonium perhibere de et super eisdem 
 etiam tercio rogavit et requisivit. Acta fuerunt hec omnia, etc. 
 Et ego Richardus Wathyns in legibus baccalaureus dicti dom. 
 nostri Regis prothonotarius etc. ea omnia et singula sic fieri 
 vidi et audivi ac in notam sumpsi. Ideo hoc presens publicum 
 instrumentum confeci, publicavi, etc."
 
 35 
 
 to Rome in the detail of the judicial process 
 against him. What may we think, then, of the 
 calumny, which we have traced to s Pole, (after 
 whom it is insinuated by Sanders ; then affirmed 
 by the Romish historian, assuming the name of 
 Dod ; next by Phillips, the biographer of Pole, 
 and since cordially adopted by Mr. Butler and 
 Dr. Lingard,) as to the secret protest ? What, 
 but that it was intended unjustly to stain the 
 very entrance of Cranmer upon his office, and 
 so to strengthen any other reports which malice 
 might dictate, and ingenuity would colour^ 
 against the man " ' that so bravely shook off 
 the pope and his appendages." 
 
 " 6. ' However," Dr. Lingard proceeds, 
 " with regard to the morality of the fact, it 
 matters little whether it were done in private, 
 or in public. In either case, it was a secret to 
 him, to whom the oath was taken, and by 
 whom it was imposed. He had empowered no 
 one to receive it with any limitation. He had 
 issued the bulls for the archbishop elect on the 
 express condition that he should take the oath 
 in the usual manner, previously to the episcopal 
 consecration. Undoubtedly, as far as regarded 
 the pontiff, the protest was a fraud." 
 
 Let us see whether there was fraud or not. 
 
 • Sec before, p. 12. 
 
 1 Strype's Life of Cranm. Pref. 
 
 u Vindie. p. 78. 
 
 D 2
 
 30 
 
 Clement knew that the person, for whom his 
 bulls were demanded, was an open x enemy to 
 his power, and had every where disputed 
 against it. He could not, therefore, be sincere 
 in this promotion. But he had no wish, by 
 impeding it, to force the king into an absolute 
 quarrel. He had felt the blow, too, at the 
 papal dominion in the decision of parliament, 
 that prelates might be consecrated in England 
 without the sanction of the pope, if that sanction 
 were delayed ; though, in the present case of 
 Cranmer, Dr. Lingard insinuates the nullity of 
 " y being consecrated without the papal appro- 
 bation." The bulls for this promotion were 
 accordingly not delayed ; and to Cranmer's 
 resistance in regard to the oath in the pontifical, 
 as it would be prescribed, was opposed, at the 
 king's command, the advice of certain eminent 
 civilians ; " z who said, he might do it by way 
 of protestation, and so one be sent to Rome to 
 take the oath and do every thing in his name." 
 Fearing, however, that this proxy might have 
 taken the oath without limitation, the arch- 
 bishop declares, in his personal protest, " a that 
 whatever may be the oath, which my proctor 
 has already taken to the pope in my name, it 
 
 * Burnet, Strype, Collier. 
 y See before, p. 21. 
 
 * Fox, and Strype. 
 
 * See the Protest in Strype and Collier.
 
 37 
 
 was not my intention or will to give him any 
 power, by virtue of which he might take any 
 oath in my name b contrary to, or inconsistent with , 
 
 b Cranmer, in the same spirit, rebuked his papal judge, the 
 bishop of Gloucester : " You, my lord, are perjured : for now 
 you sit judge for the pope, and yet you did receive your 
 bishopric of the king. You have taken an oath to be adversary 
 to the realm ; for the pope's laws are contrary to the laws of 
 the realm." To the pitiful reply of the bishop, that Cranmer 
 caused " him to forsake the pope, and to swear that the kinor, 
 and not he, ought to be his supreme head ;" the answer of the 
 archbishop is, " You report me ill, and say not the truth. 
 The truth is, that my predecessor, bishop Warham, gave the 
 supremacy to the king, and said that he ought to have it 
 before the bishop of Rome ; and that God's word would bear 
 him, &c" Fox, Acts and Mon. Warham, therefore, did not 
 consider this acknowledgment as any violation of the papal 
 oath. He considered, no doubt, that the king had a right 
 unquestionably from Scripture to the obedience of his subjects, 
 as Dr. Ridley argues in the case of Cranmer ; and therefore 
 that the pope's assumed authority over the same subject, re- 
 quiring an obedience inconsistent with his allegiance to an 
 acknowledged superior, was void by the implied conditions of 
 the oath itself. The authority of the pope was now daily 
 sinking in estimation. The king, it may be thought, might 
 have wholly dispensed with the present expiring form ; but 
 as Gilpin observes, to get rid of forms is often the last work 
 of reformation. We conclude, accordingly, with Ridley, that 
 Clement having ceased to be superior to the king in England 
 at the very time of Cranmer's taking it, the oath was a cere- 
 mony pro forma, and as such the archbishop looked upon it; 
 that therefore a Papist has no right to censure him, even if he 
 had taken the oath (as Warham did) without a protest ; but 
 he thought it more honest, before he took the oath imposed, 
 
 3( ) I -2. r >. r >
 
 38 
 
 the oath by me already taken, or hereafter to be 
 taken, to our illustrious king of England: and in 
 case he has taken any such contrary or incon- 
 sistent oath in my name, I protest, that the 
 same, being taken, without my knowledge, and 
 without my authority, shall be null and void." 
 We cannot, therefore, think the determination 
 of the protest to have been " a secret to the 
 pontiff." Well acquainted with the persevering 
 opposition of Cranmer, and afraid of provoking 
 the king, Clement would be prepared for the 
 renunciation in question. Evidently he acqui- 
 esced in it ; and no thunder from the Vatican 
 followed. Dr. Lingard, indeed^ contends c that 
 the purport of Cranmer's protest was carefully 
 concealed from the public, because, otherwise, 
 the news would quickly have reached Rome, 
 and the archbishop would have been suspended 
 from the exercise of his office. Nothing could 
 have been more public than this protest. How 
 could it be concealed, therefore, from the pon- 
 tiff? Doubtless, an account of the whole cere- 
 mony was carefully transmitted to him : for, I 
 argue from Dr. Lingard's own words, if the 
 protest was public, then the news or relation 
 of it would quickly have reached Rome : but 
 
 to declare in what sense he took it, and what his exceptions 
 were, without any mental reservation. Nor does it appear 
 that those, hefore whom he took it, were dissatisfied 
 c See before, p. 21.
 
 39 
 
 the protest was public ; therefore the news of 
 it did quickly reach Rome. I will adopt a 
 syllogism, too, from Cardinal Pole's assertion, 
 who reminds Cranmer of the oath taken at his 
 consecration ; than which, he says, nothing- 
 could be " d more solemn, being made in the 
 hand of a bishop, with the testimony and as- 
 sistance of other bishops, openly in the chu?*ch, in 
 the presence of as much people as the church could 
 hold, at such time as you, arrayed with the 
 sacred vesture of a bishop, came afore the altar 
 to be consecrated archbishop." Now, if the 
 protestation accompanied this oath at the pre- 
 cise moment mentioned, then the multitude 
 present witnessed both : but the oath and the 
 protestation, we have seen, were inseparable ; 
 therefore both were witnessed by all the people 
 in the church. And yet Pole is so misled, or 
 so malicious, as to e charge the archbishop with 
 a privy protest. Public as it certainly was, I 
 may now therefore ask, where is the menaced 
 suspension from office? In the imagination only 
 of Dr. Lingard. Clement and his conclave 
 adopted no measure to punish what to some of 
 them would be no news. They made no com- 
 
 d Pole's Lett, to the Archbishop. Strype's Life of Cranm. 
 Rec. No. 89. 
 
 * Sec before, p, 12.
 
 40 
 
 ment upon this prelude to the f extinction of 
 bulls from Rome, but 
 
 " all sat mute, 
 " Pondering the danger with deep thoughts." 
 
 Cranmer, in the last proceedings against him, 
 reverted to this protest with the consciousness 
 of having acted fairly and without disguise. 
 " g I indeed," said he before the papal commis- 
 sioners who were trying him, " I indeed bona 
 fide, made my protestation, that I did not ac- 
 knowledge the pope's 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 inrolled ; 
 and there I think it remaineth." It remaineth 
 to this day in his Register at Lambeth, a proof 
 of his sincerity. 
 
 III. " h Charge the third. The third passage, 
 which calls forth the reprehension of Mr. Todd, 
 refers to a letter from the new archbishop to 
 his sovereign. ' As soon as the convocation 
 had separated, a hypocritical farce was enacted 
 between Henry and Cranmer. The latter wrote 
 
 ' These bulls for Cranmer were the last that were received 
 in England in the reign of Henry. Burnet. 
 * Fox, Acts and Mon. 
 h Dr. Lingard, Vindic. p. 79.
 
 41 
 
 a most urgent letter to the king, representing the 
 evils to which the nation was exposed from a 
 disputed succession; and begging for the ex- 
 oneration of his own conscience, and the per- 
 formance of his duty to the country, the royal 
 licence to examine and determine the great 
 cause of the divorce. The king readily granted 
 the request.' Hist. vi. 256. 
 
 " 1. To this passage, Mr. Todd opposes the 
 entire letter of Cranmer : not that he objects to 
 the accuracy of my statement, but to shew that 
 the transaction does not deserve the name of 
 being a hypocritical farce. j He also asks, • why, 
 as the business of the divorce is called a hypo- 
 critical farce, is not Gardiner also said to have 
 enacted a part in it.' I am surprised that 
 Mr. Todd did not observe, that the expression 
 is not applied to the business of the divorce, but 
 to the correspondence between Cranmer and 
 the king, in which Gardiner had no concern. 
 As to the part which Gardiner acted in the 
 business of the divorce, I have stated that he 
 acted with seven others as counsel for the king." 
 Hist. vi. 257. 
 
 The discrimination between the correspond- 
 ence and the business of the divorce is truly 
 diverting; as if the letter had nothing to do 
 with that business ? But it must be the letter 
 
 1 Dr. Lingard, Vindic. p. 80. n.
 
 42 
 
 only, it seems, to which the dramatic character 
 belongs, in order that Gardiner, the greatest 
 hypocrite that ever walked the earth, may be 
 rescued from any prominency in " the farce 
 which was enacted," or, as Phillips also dra- 
 matically words it, " k the impious farce of 
 conscience which was acted." Gardiner, in the 
 business of the divorce, acted as counsel for 
 the king, Dr. Lingard tells us ; but he tells us 
 not, that, out of court too, this cunning prelate 
 was a loud and strenuous advocate for the very 
 measures which Cranmer had suggested, and. 
 which expedited the divorce. He tells us not, 
 that Gardiner was considered, as I have stated, 
 " ' a principal doer in all parts of the business:" he 
 conceals also what an accomplished actor this 
 counsel for his majesty then and afterwards was, 
 " ra false in king Henry's time, a dissembler in 
 king Edward's time, perjured and a murderer 
 in queen Mary's time, mutable and inconstant 
 in all times;" upon whom even the joint ac- 
 cuser of Cranmer with Dr. Lingard, I mean the 
 biographer of Pole, has recorded the compliment 
 bestowed both by Contarini and the cardinal, 
 " n that Gardiner's book in defence of the king's 
 supremacy was set off with great art, and that 
 
 k Life of Card. Pole, vol. i. p. 127. 
 
 1 Vindic. of Cranmer, 8vo. ed. p. li. 12mo. ed. p. 55. 
 
 m Fox, Acts and Mon. 
 
 n Sec the Life of Pole, vol. i. p. 127.
 
 43 
 
 he (the cardinal) must apply to the author what 
 is said of gamesters, tJiat their dexterity only 
 enables them to be greater cheats." Recurring to 
 the charge of hypocrisy brought against Cranmer 
 alone, in the present question, by Phillips and 
 Dr. Lingard, with whom too Dr. Milner°may be 
 joined ; I may observe, that this partial indig- 
 nation of Romanists has been excited in conse- 
 quence of the papal authority being no longer 
 required in the cause. Their pride is mortified, 
 in beholding Cranmer upon the judgment-seat, 
 which the pontiff thought his own : 
 
 " Manet alta mente repostum 
 " Judicium Paridis." 
 
 Phillips indeed relates, though not without a 
 sort of sneer, that the archbishop " p acknow- 
 ledged Henry VIII. to be the sole source of all 
 spiritual jurisdiction, and that it was by Jus suffer- 
 ance that he, the primate, could judge and determine 
 a mere spiritual cause ; and, at his most humble 
 request, the king grants him this power in the 
 commission to proceed on the divorce." 
 
 " q But the true point at issue between us," 
 Dr. Lingard says, " is, whether the conscien- 
 tious motives, alleged by Cranmer, were real or 
 pretended. To decide this, we must look at 
 
 • See Vindic. of Cranmer, 8vo. cd. p. xlvi. 12mo. ed. p. 50. 
 > Life of Pole, vol. ii. p. 213. 
 11 Dr> Lingard's Vindic. p. 70. 
 
 8
 
 44 
 
 the facts. Henry had failed in all his attempts 
 to obtain a divorce from his wife. Fortunately, 
 archbishop Warham dies ; and the king, instead 
 of translating some prelate to the vacant see, 
 as had been the practice for the last hundred 
 and fifty years, pitches upon a clergyman in 
 priest's orders, a dependant on the family of his 
 mistress." 
 
 Let us look a little closer at these facts, and 
 at circumstances connected with them. Cran- 
 mer was now a dignitary also of the church, 
 being r archdeacon of Taunton ; and not without 
 other preferment. His elevation, however, at 
 once to archiepiscopal honour might be chal- 
 lenged as irregular, if there really had been no 
 precedent for it (as Dr. Lingard would insinu- 
 ate) within the last hundred and fifty years, or, 
 indeed, if there had been none within his own 
 time. Walden, dean of York, was at once 
 s advanced to the archbishopric of Canterbury 
 in 1397, and held it nearly two years. About 
 half a century earlier, * Bredwardin and Islip 
 were consecrated primates without the passport 
 of an inferior see. Lee attained the northern 
 primacy at once, and was ' consecrated arch- 
 bishop of York in 1531. And why has Dr. 
 Lingard withheld from notice the leap of Cran- 
 
 r Le Neve's Fasti, p. 47. ' Ibid. p. 7. 
 
 * Ibid. p. 6. u Ibid. p. 310.
 
 45 
 
 mer's successor, cardinal Pole ; who, " * on 
 the same day, whereon Cranmer ended his life, 
 was ordered priest at Greenwich ; and the next day, 
 Naboth being dead, took possession of his vine- 
 yard, being consecrated archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 But Cranmer was " a dependant," Dr. Lin- 
 gard says, " upon the family of the king's 
 mistress," as he is pleased to designate Anne 
 Boleyn. This is a part of the atrocious fictions 
 of Sanders respecting her family ; who y relates 
 that her father, the earl of Wiltshire, (whom 
 however he slanderously calls her reputed 
 father,) introduced Cranmer to the king as 
 having long lived with him in the capacity of 
 chaplain, whom he could recommend as learned, 
 grave, and modest, devoted to his majesty's 
 cause, and therefore a proper person to be 
 
 1 Godwin's Annals, Engl. ed. p. 323. 
 
 y De Schism. Angl. 1585, fol. 57. ed. 1586, p. 82, in 
 which latter edition it is pleasant enough to observe that the 
 earl, who in the former edition is said merely to have heard 
 of the king's intention to supply the place of Warham only with 
 one who would be entirely subservient to his will, is now said, 
 with some addition, to have had an inkling of it ! " Hoc ubi 
 Thomas Bolenus, qui putabatur Annae Bolenae pater, aecepisset ; 
 Jamdudum, inquit, O rex, domi mese habeo Presbyterum," 
 &c. ed. 1585. " Hoc Tho. Bolenus, &c subodoratus, ratusque 
 pulcherrimam sibi nunc dari occasionem suam suocque filia? 
 causam provehendi, rcgem adit, sicquc affatur; Jamdudum, 
 &c" ed. 158G. A touch was wanting to colour the tamer 
 scenery of the picture in its first representation.
 
 46 
 
 archbishop of Canterbury ; as if the king had 
 never heard of him before ! Thus the first of 
 the causes, enumerated by Dr. Lingard in his 
 History, which now led to the primacy, is, 
 " z that Cranmer had long been a dependant on 
 the family of the earl of Wiltshire, and had 
 assisted the father and the daughter with his 
 services and advice, &c." Now a Fox and arch- 
 bishop Parker inform us, that the introduction 
 was the very reverse of what has been stated : 
 The king b introduced to the earl this learned 
 ecclesiastic, after his majesty had been informed 
 by others of his notion respecting the divorce ; 
 the king then sent him to this nobleman's house ; 
 the king directed the attention which should 
 there be shewn to him. Great friendship after- 
 wards was certainly formed between Cranmer 
 and the family of the Boleyns ; but he had now 
 won c the respect of the nobility in general, and 
 with his company the sovereign also was so 
 delighted, as rarely to excuse his absence. He 
 was one of the royal chaplains too, and was 
 
 * Hist, of Eng. 2d ed. vol. vi. p. 252. 
 
 • Fox, p. 1861, col. i. and Parker, p. 482. 
 
 b " Calling the earl of Wiltshire to him, the king said, Let 
 Dr. Cranmer have entertainment in your house for a time, &c. 
 Let him lack neither books, nor any thing requisite for his study, 
 &c." Fox, ut supr. See also Strype's Life of Cranmer. B. I. 
 ch. I. 
 
 c Strype, ut supr.
 
 47 
 
 presented by the king to a parochial benefice. 
 Who indeed will believe that a prince would 
 suffer the person so serviceable to him as 
 Cranmer had been, and with whom he held 
 frequent communication, to be dependent on any 
 other than himself? 
 
 " d By the time Cranmer's bulls arrive," ac- 
 cording to the next statement of Dr. Lingard, 
 '* the king's mistress is several months gone with 
 child ; not a moment is to be lost." The kind's 
 mistress ! Yes, from Sanders the attack upon 
 the maiden fame of Anne Boleyn has indeed 
 been borrowed by e other Romish writers. The 
 virulence of this early slanderer still serves to 
 keep alive the old assertion of Romanists, that 
 her daughter, our great Elizabeth, is illegi- 
 timate. Now, what authentic evidence is there, 
 that she really stooped to be " the king's 
 mistress ?" Would she have been permitted 
 to become his wife, if thus she had fallen ? 
 Let us see how the legend of her disgrace has 
 first been penned, and how it has been since 
 supported. " f The Romish legend of Anne 
 Boleyn," (I adopt the words of a valuable 
 
 d Vindic. p. 80. 
 
 e The cardinal Quirini, editor of Pole's Letters, in 1754, 
 scruples not to reflect upon Sanders and other Romish writers 
 in respect to their calumnies of this description. See Ridley's 
 Review of Phillips's Life of Pole, p. 13. 
 
 f Soames, Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 380.
 
 48 
 
 writer,) " up to the time of her marriage, may 
 be thus abridged. Henry, when a boy of 
 fifteen, and possessed of as much political 
 power as the generality of boys, sent a gentle- 
 man of distinction (afterwards earl of Wiltshire) 
 abroad upon an embassy, in order that he 
 might carry on an amour with that gentleman's 
 wife : By the time when the youthful adulterer 
 became sixteen, the lady presented him with 
 a daughter, who, though disfigured by personal 
 blemishes, discovered, at an early age, so much 
 humour and such a good taste for dress, that 
 her father fell in love with her when she was 
 nineteen at the farthest ; and determined upon 
 repudiating a princess solely upon her account : 
 that her morals had hitherto been most licen- 
 tious ; but that, for the purpose of mounting a 
 throne, she continued, during two years, in- 
 flexibly chaste; that then, for no imaginable 
 purpose, she relapsed into her former habits of 
 infamy; and that, after three years spent in 
 this manner, proving pregnant, she was married 
 in a garret, before day-light, one winter's morn- 
 ing, to her said father, who told an infamous 
 falsehood, in order to persuade a clergyman to 
 perform the ceremony !" There lived, however, 
 at the time when Sanders was forming most of 
 these profligate stories, the impartial biographer 
 of Wolsey, George Cavendish, who had been 
 his gentleman-usher, and wrote his memoirs,
 
 49 
 
 distinguished for their strict adherence to truth, 
 in the time of Mary. He was no stranger to 
 the enmity borne by Anne Boleyn towards the 
 cardinal ; but while he makes reflections upon 
 the gaiety of her dress and manners, he makes 
 none upon her maiden chastity. In his bio- 
 graphical pages that honour is unimpeached, 
 although in his g Metrical Visions he sides with 
 those who have thought her an unfaithful wife, 
 but who have failed to prove it. Now, would 
 he have declined to record the belief, or report, 
 of Henry's triumph over her virtue, if he had 
 known that there was foundation for such report 
 or belief? An expression, however, used by 
 Wolsey to this biographer, has been recently 
 cited by Dr. Lingard, as bearing the evil sense 
 of " h her secret and nocturnal influence" with 
 the king ; namely, " J that she was the night- 
 crow that cries ever in the king's ears against 
 me." Then Cavendish must have been the 
 
 6 Published by Mr. Singer, with Cavendish's Life of Wol- 
 sey, &c. 1825. vol. ii. p. 39, seq. 
 
 b Vindic. p. 102, in answer to the Quarterly Reviewer. 
 
 1 The whole passage should be observed. " There was a 
 continual serpentine enemy about the king that would, I am 
 well assured, if I had been found stiff-necked, have called 
 continually upon the king in his ear (I mean the night-crow) 
 with such vehemency, that I should with the help of her assist- 
 ance have obtained sooner the king's indignation than his law- 
 ful favour." Cavendish, Singer's edit. vol. i. p. 249. 
 
 E
 
 50 
 
 most careless and stupid of observers ; for he 
 has not so much as glanced, in reciting this 
 expression, at the delicacy of accusation now 
 first discovered in it. Cavendish, indeed, knew 
 better : he knew the k superstitious turn of his 
 master's mind ; he knew that " the night-crow" 
 signified nothing more than the x ominous name 
 for Anne Boleyn, opposed as she had been to 
 Wolsey's fortunes. Let us look to another 
 account of the lady, " ra believed at the 
 
 k See Cavendish, ut supr. p. 233, seq. and p. 274. And 
 Fiddes, Life of Wolsey, p. 515. " Shaking his head at a ma- 
 lum omen, the cardinal rose from the tahle, and went into his 
 bed-chamber, there lamenting," &c. Cavendish. 
 
 1 The night-crow, or night-raven, has long been decked 
 with the superstitious honour of being " an ominous bird, as he 
 was to Agrippa, and again in the council of Constance to Pope 
 John xxii." See Swan's Speculum Mundi, 1635, p. 403. 
 Hence the poetical and dramatic use of him in the following 
 instances, the first of which is cited, in agreement also with 
 the opinion I have above expressed, by the learned and 
 elegant writer of Lux Renata, A Protestant's Epistle in verse, 
 1827. 
 
 " The owl shriek'd at thy birth, an evil sign, 
 " The night-crow cried, aboding luckless time." 
 
 Shakspeare, Hen. VI. P. III. 
 
 " I pray God, his bad voice bode no mischief! I had as lief have heard the 
 night-raven, come what plague could have come after it." 
 
 Much Ado About Nothing. 
 
 m Turner's Hist. Hen. VIII. p. 474. From the Sloane MSS. 
 No. 2945. Brit. Mus. " A manuscript of the century in 
 which she lived, and purports to be a life of Hen. VIII, from
 
 51 
 
 time, and transmitted to us by one of her 
 adversaries, and, therefore, the more credi- 
 ble;" in which, this is her answer to the so- 
 licitations of the king : "I will rather lose 
 my life than my virtue, which shall be the 
 greatest and the best part of my dowry that I 
 shall bring to my husband." Yet one more 
 testimony, nearly coeval, may be adduced in 
 proof of her honourable mind ; given, as it has 
 been, by a writer who is n thought to have de- 
 signed a complete exposure of such parts of 
 Sanders's book as came within her own imme- 
 diate knowledge. " ° After so many billets of 
 cunning politics, surmounted by the guiding- 
 providence of God ; after so many trials of her 
 truth, passed through by her wise and virtuous 
 governance ; the king having every way made so 
 
 Tiis falling in love with Anne Boleyn to the death of queen 
 Catherine. Like Cavendish, it takes the papal side." Ibid. 
 p. 472. And yet it slanders not her maiden fame. The writer, 
 as well as Cavendish, was in this respect an honourable enemy. 
 See more also, in Mr. Turner's history, from this writer in 
 favour of her. 
 
 u George Wyatt, Esq. son and heir of Sir Thomas Wyatt the 
 younger, who was beheaded for rebellion in the first year of 
 the reign of queen Mary. What he wrote concerning Anne 
 Boleyn was privately printed in 1817, and in 1 825 was ap- 
 pended to Mr. Singer's valuable edition of Cavendish's Life of 
 Wolsey, &c. vol. ii. p. 177, scq. Where see an interesting 
 account of the writer, who died in 1624, at the age of eighty. 
 
 9 Singer, ut supr. vol. ii. p. 200. 
 
 £ 2
 
 52 
 
 thorough proof how deep root honour had taken in 
 her bosom, and having found it not to be shaken by 
 him, this royal and famous prince Henry the 
 eighth, resolving her matchless perfections meet 
 alone to be joined with his, now, at the length, 
 concluded forthwith to knit up this marriage, 
 although, for certain causes, the same was 
 thought more convenient to be performed some- 
 what privately and secretly. On the twenty- 
 fifth of January, (1532-3,) therefore, the cere- 
 mony was consummate. The king also shortly 
 after having himself more ascertained, and by 
 more inward trial more assured, her spousal faith, 
 would yet further testify that his opinion of 
 her, by giving her that highest honour he could 
 give her virtues, in having her solemnly and 
 royally crowned. And thus we see they lived 
 and loved, tokens of increasing love perpetually 
 increasing between them. Her mind brought 
 him forth the rich treasures of love of piety, 
 love of truth, love of learning. Her body 
 yielded him the fruits of marriage, inestimable 
 pledges of her faith and loyal love." 
 
 But we must revert to the arrival of the 
 bulls ; namely, in the month of February, and 
 what followed thereupon. For this lady is 
 then described by Dr. Lingard, (with the 
 breathless haste of an active parish-officer,) as 
 " several months gone with child; and so not a 
 moment was to be lost /" Well ; the bulls for 
 
 2
 
 53 
 
 Cranmer are arrived, but not a single hint is 
 given to him for any extraordinary dispatch, 
 either in regard to his own business, or to the 
 pretended hazardous state of the lady. He 
 delays, indeed, his consecration, after the re- 
 ceipt of these notable bulls, more than a month ; 
 which Dr. Lingard expedites into " a few days,'' 
 for the sake of losing no time ; although his 
 labour is as fruitless, as his computation is ma- 
 licious. Anne Boleyn was delivered of her 
 daughter Elizabeth in September, and is now 
 said by the Romish historian of England to 
 have been several months gone with child in 
 the preceding February! The historian has 
 since resorted in aid of his design to give her 
 no quarter, and with another calculation that 
 sadly sinks his former one, to the circumstance 
 of Elizabeth's birth being seven weeks before the 
 full time. But this, it has been rightly ob- 
 served, " p is an argument which medical experi- 
 ence will pronounce to be wholly inconclusive, 
 and which has more than once been advanced 
 in favour of her chastity." So much, at least, 
 in denial of her being " the king's mistress," 
 until authentic evidence can be produced to 
 prove the dishonour, which still rests solely 
 upon partial assumptions, and upon narratives 
 teeming with obvious supplies for the sus- 
 
 v Lux Renata, &c. ut supr. p. 31.
 
 54 
 
 picions, and objections, of all who read care- 
 fully, and judge dispassionately. 
 
 The archbishop is now consecrated ; and 
 " q within less than a fortnight, even before he 
 obtains possession of his temporalities" Dr. 
 Lingard proceeds, " asks permission to hear and 
 determine the cause of the divorce.'''' This being 
 the last of the "facts," in the present case to 
 be " looked at;" Dr. Lingard exclaims, " Can 
 any man, who bears these facts in mind, be- 
 lieve that Cranmer was ignorant of the object 
 for which he was placed in the see of Canter- 
 bury ? that he intruded himself into this difficult 
 and odious business, merely for the exoneration 
 of his conscience ? or that he sought to deter- 
 mine the cause for any other reason than because 
 he knew that it was expected from him ?" 
 
 Cranmer, in the first place, now thought 
 little about the temporalities. His object was 
 to proclaim without delay, what he had long 
 conscientiously believed, and fearlessly asserted, 
 the spiritual supremacy of his sovereign ; he 
 was now glad to shew, that, under his permis- 
 sion, he was " to judge and determine mere 
 spiritual causes within the realm ;" and that the 
 papal usurpation would be thus defunct. His 
 opinion of the supremacy, as well as of the 
 divorce, was well known to the public. He 
 
 q Vindic. p. 80.
 
 50 
 
 held it his duty, therefore, to remind the kin«- 
 of the censures passed upon his marriage " r by 
 the mouths of the rude and ignorant common 
 people of the realm, few of them fearing to report 
 and say, that thereof is likelihood hereafter to 
 ensue great inconvenience, and danger, and 
 peril to the realm, and much uncertainty of 
 succession ;" that consequently he required of 
 his majesty a commission to form a judicial 
 court, at once to settle the matter which had 
 so long been artfully delayed by the pope, who 
 yet had before granted a similar commission 
 that ended only without the delivery or determi- 
 nation of any judgment. Cranmer therefore 
 now observed, that " 5 after the convocation had 
 agreed, and determined this matter in the 
 king's behalf, according to the former consent 
 of the universities, it was thought convenient 
 by the king and his learned council, that I 
 should repair unto Dunstable, and there call 
 queen Catherine before me to hear the final 
 sentence made." Cranmer indeed was now fol- 
 lowing the steps of his predecessor Warham in 
 the present business ; for that primate assured 
 the king of his ' entire assent to the divorce, 
 
 * Cranmer's Letter to the king. See my Vindic. 8vo. ed. 
 p. xlvi. 12mo. ed. p. 60. 
 
 ' Cranmer's Letter to Hawkins, Ellis's Orig. Lett. vol. ii. 
 p. 35. 
 
 * Cavendish, ed. Singer, vol. i. p. 157. Burnet, Hisi. 
 Rcf. vol. i. p. 73. cd. 1681 '
 
 50 
 
 when before Wolsey, Campeggio, the bishops, 
 and the counsellors, assembled by the papal 
 commission, his majesty delivered his senti- 
 ments. Gardiner could even applaud this mea- 
 sure of the king, and the fulfilment of it by 
 Cranmer. " u There is a commandment," said 
 this shrewd prelate, who had been one of the 
 counsel for his majesty, (and it is to him I 
 consider the application of learned council as 
 specially pointing in the words of the arch- 
 bishop just cited,) "there is a commandment, 
 that a man shall not marry his brother's wife. 
 What ought, or could the king of England have 
 done otherwise than by the whole consent of the 
 people and judgment of his church, he hath done ? 
 that is, that he should be divorced. — He was 
 content to have the assisting consents of men 
 of notable gravity, and the censures of the most 
 famous universities of the world : and all to 
 the intent, that men should think he did that 
 which he both might do, and ought to do, 
 uprightly well, seeing the best-learned and 
 worthy good men have subscribed unto it." 
 Would not this man, would not Warham, if 
 either of them had been appointed to the task, 
 have then determined the cause as Cranmer did 1 
 But the circumstance furnishes Dr. Lingard 
 
 u Gardiner's De Vera Obedientia, translated by Michael 
 Wood, 1553, fol. 16.
 
 57 
 
 with an opportunity of leaning to Sanders, in 
 saying that the archbishop so determined it for 
 no other reason, than because he knew it was 
 expected from him ! " x Porrd Thomas Cranme- 
 rus ex domo Annae Bolenae ad solius actoris 
 arbitrium ex lege delectus judex, ut sententiam pro 
 divortio ferret ;" but not willing that the promo- 
 tion of the Archbishop should be untouched, the 
 second impression of this infamous book im- 
 proves the passage into y " ex lege delectus archi- 
 episcopus et judex, ut sententiam pro divortio 
 ferret !" 
 
 2. Dr. Lingard is, in this division of the 
 charge, dissatisfied at my placing Cranmer at 
 the head of the commissioners in the process at 
 Dunstable, when he was the sole judge ; and 
 at my introducing the remark of Gilpin, (one 
 of the archbishop's biographers,) upon the oc- 
 casion, who says, that the circumstance " % gave 
 great offence to the queen, and shocked the 
 archbishop himself." Gilpin, I admit, may be 
 mistaken in the latter part of his supposition, 
 but is not in the former. The queen denied the 
 authority of Cranmer, contemptuously affirm- 
 ing " tt that she was not bound to stand to that 
 
 x De Schism. Angl. ed. 1585, fol. 72. b. 
 
 » Ibid. ed. 1586, p. 82. 
 
 7 Gilpin, p. 29. 
 
 a Lord Herbert, Hist. Hen. VIII. p. J74.
 
 58 
 
 divorce made by my lord of Canterbury, whom 
 she called a shadow /" Nor is it of any conse- 
 quence, that the archbishop is termed sole 
 judge, instead of the principal person in a com- 
 mission. It is well known that b with him, and 
 for what purpose, came the bishops of London, 
 Winchester, Bath, Lincoln, and many other 
 great clerks, to the process ; and, as Strype 
 expresses it, '? c though he pronounced the 
 sentence, he was but the mouth of the rest ; 
 and they were all in as deep as he." 
 
 3. The last division of the present charge 
 contains a facetious illustration, by Dr. Lingard, 
 of the king's marriage to Anne Boleyn in a 
 garret at the western end of Whitehall. It 
 consists of a polite offer to substitute " d a room 
 in the attic story," as being " a more attic 
 phrase, and, therefore, more befitting the dig- 
 nity of the subject." But to the solitary 
 unknown manuscript, said to have been pre- 
 sented to Mary thirty years before Sanders's 
 book was printed, not the slightest corrobo- 
 ration is added. The reference is merely to 
 
 b Cranmer says, " I came unto Dunstable, my lord of 
 Lincoln being assistant unto me, and my lord of Winchester, 
 Dr. Bell, Dr. Claybrook, &c. with divers other learned in the 
 law ; and so there at our coming kept a court, &c." LetU to 
 Hawkins, ut supr. p. 35. 
 
 c Life of Cranm. B. i, ch. 4. 
 
 d Vindic. p. 82.
 
 59 
 
 Le Grand, whom no Romanist of succeeding 
 times, till Dr. Lingard, has thought fit to trust 
 as to the narrative. Davanzati would have 
 gladly availed himself of the information, as a 
 choice addition to the trash he has collected 
 from Sanders, (who now, however, stands him 
 in no stead,) in his Scisma d' Inghilterra ; Phil- 
 lips would not have overpassed, in his Life of 
 Pole, the opportunity of exhibiting what throws 
 a light so ludicrous upon the secret marriage : 
 but they have disregarded the reference in ques- 
 tion, which will never be considered of any other 
 value, than as the parent of a very witty obser- 
 vation won by the pretended local circumstance 
 from the pen of Dr. Lingard. " c The king's 
 object," Dr. Lingard adds, " was certainly to 
 conceal the ceremony from the prying eyes of his 
 household." And yet he tells us, that f Norris 
 and Heneage, two of the king's household, and 
 Anne Savage, the train-bearer of Anne Boleyn, 
 were then present in the garret. Lord Herbert 
 relates, (from Bellay, as it should seem in the 
 margin of his history,) that " e the duke of Nor- 
 folk, and her father, mother, and brothers, &c." 
 were also witnesses of the ceremony, " which 
 yet (he adds) was not published till the Easter 
 
 * Vindic. p. 81. 
 
 1 Hist, of Eng. 2d edit. vol. vi. p. 250. 
 
 ? Lord Herbert, ut supr. p. 841.
 
 60 
 
 following." Godwin, who lived nearer the time, 
 says, " h the king's love brooked no delays. 
 Wherefore, on the five-and-twentieth of January, 
 privately, and in the presence of very few, he 
 married the Lady Anne Boleyn." It will be 
 difficult to imagine, after these statements, that 
 the ceremony could escape the prying eyes of 
 the king's servants ; and it will be difficult to 
 believe, that the officiating minister, who hesi- 
 
 b Annals, 1630, p. 126. 
 
 1 The first edition of Sanders represents the marriage as 
 solemnized according to the Romish rites : " Rolandus (Lee) 
 accersitur, ac rem divinam Catholico et Romano ritu facere 
 jubetur." De Schism. Angl. ed. 1585, fol. 60. b. The 
 second edition withholds from the ceremony, as if in anger or 
 contempt, the "Catholico et Romano ritu;" but tallies with 
 the former, in pretending that Rowland Lee, (the officiating 
 minister) was persuaded to perform the ceremony, by the 
 king's assuring him that he had obtained the pope's bull for 
 the marriage which was then lying in his cabinet, and which, 
 it being not then light, the king desired to excuse himself 
 from fetching; upon which, giving credit to the pretence, 
 Lee married them ! Burnet considers this as coined in excuse 
 for Lee, who, though he now complied absolutely with the 
 king, turned afterwards to the Romish party : all the world 
 now saw that the pope and the emperor were so linked to- 
 gether, that Lee could not but know that no such thing was 
 possible; and he was so obsequious to the king, that such arts 
 were needless to persuade him to any thing the king had a 
 mind to. (See Burnet's appendix to the first vol. Hist. Ref.) 
 The second edition of Sanders indeed confesses, what at once 
 betrays the fabrication of the narrative as to this absurd 
 account of the hesitating priest, that for this especial service,
 
 Gl 
 
 tated on other accounts to proceed with it, 
 should not in the first instance have also de- 
 murred at his introduction into a garret for the 
 purpose. Private, indeed, the marriage was 
 intended to be ; but a garret would have awak- 
 ened stronger suspicions in the mind of Lee, 
 than those which Sanders has expressed, that 
 the king was deceiving him. Cranmer, too, 
 was said to have performed the ceremony. How 
 gladly, then, would Sanders have exhibited 
 him in the garret ! I will finish this notice of the 
 present fiction with again citing the words of 
 the archbishop himself, the close of which ought 
 ever to be in the memory of every Protestant, 
 when he reads the history of Cranmer; espe- 
 cially too as the Romish historian of England 
 has k cited so much of the letter from which 
 the words are taken, as concerns the mar- 
 riage, but not the venerable primate himself. 
 Cranmer is writing, in the month of June 1533, 
 to his friend Hawkins, ambassador at the em- 
 peror's court, on the subject of the recent divorce 
 of Catherine and the coronation of Anne ; and 
 he says, " ' You may not imagine that this 
 
 (in other words, for performing the ceremony without objection 
 or demur,) the king afterwards made him bishop of Lichfield 
 and Coventry : " Propter hoc obsequium in episcopum Lichefel- 
 diensem cooptavit." ed. 158G, p. 90. 
 
 k Hist, of Eng. 2d. ed. vol. vi. p. 252. 
 
 1 Cranmer's Lett, to Hawkins, ut supr. p. 39.
 
 62 
 
 coronation was before her marriage, for she was 
 married much about St. Paul's day last, as the 
 condition thereof doth well appear, by reason 
 she is now somewhat big with child. Notwith- 
 standing it hath been reported throughout a great 
 part of the realm that I married her; which 
 was plainly false, for I myself knew not thereof 
 a fortnight after it was done. And many other 
 things be also reported of me, which be mere lies 
 and tales." 
 
 IV. " m The fourth charge. Mr. Todd's ob- 
 jections, under the head of the king's supremacy, 
 are of such a nature, that I know not what 
 answer to return. He inquires why I have 
 asserted this thing, why I have omitted that ? 
 and attributes both assertions and omissions to 
 motives, which never had existence, except 
 in his own imagination. To refute such trifling, 
 would be to insult the discernment of the 
 reader : and I feel that an apology is due for 
 the brief notice which I mean to take of the 
 most prominent passages. 
 
 ** 1. I am charged with suppressing the fact 
 that Gardiner wrote a book in defence of the 
 king's supremacy. Now this is plainly inti- 
 mated in the passage quoted by Mr. Todd, and 
 is expressly stated in pages 426 and 482 of my 
 sixth volume." 
 
 "' Vindic. p. 82.
 
 (33 
 
 The passage which I quoted, is this: " "Henry 
 called on the most loyal and learned of the 
 prelates to employ their talents in support of 
 his new dignity ; and the call was obeyed by 
 Sampson and Stokesley, Tunstal and Gardiner ; 
 by the former, as was thought, from affection to 
 the cause, by the latter from fear of displea- 
 sure." It is not the pretended trifling, it is the 
 principal subject of this charge, which repels 
 Dr. Lingard, and hurries his offended imagina- 
 tion into a belief " that I have asked why he has 
 asserted this thing, and why he has omitted 
 that," under the head of the king's supremacy. 
 He " knows not what answer to return." True : 
 because I have asked no question upon the sub- 
 ject. But as my learned adversary was here 
 determined, if not compelled, to be brief, he has 
 therefore chosen a preliminary kind of flourish 
 as a compensation for the short measure of ani- 
 madversions which follow. 
 
 I have stated, what is beyond the possibility 
 of his refutation, the spiritual supremacy of the 
 king ; his right to it ; the acknowledgment of 
 it ; and the abolition therein of a divided alle- 
 giance. I am ready also to answer any inquiries, 
 (although I have proposed none,) which Dr. Lin- 
 gard may be pleased to make upon a subject so 
 gratifying to every Protestant within his majes- 
 ty's dominions. I give the historian all the crc- 
 
 n See Dr. Lingard's Hist. 2d. ed. vol. vi. p. 284.
 
 64 
 
 dit he desires for the intimation which he pleads 
 in his defence. 1 wish not to deprive him of the 
 advantage he claims, in referring to Gardiner's 
 book expressly named, at a long distance how- 
 ever from the present purpose, in pages 426 and 
 482 of his sixth volume ; although in the former 
 of these pages, it is barely mentioned in a note 
 that has no connection with the subject before 
 us ; and in the latter, only in a note also, but, 
 indeed, accompanied with a reference to Samp- 
 son's exertion of his talents in support of what 
 Dr. Lingard calls " the king's new dignity," and 
 what Gardiner asserts in direct defiance to the 
 historian, and with truth, to be " ° no newly 
 invented matter." So then the reader, if he bears 
 in mind what is said in Dr. Lingard's sixth 
 volume, p. 284, will be gratified in p. 486 with 
 the titles of two treatises De Obediential &c. ; 
 " the one, as was thought, written from affection 
 to the cause; the other, through fear of dis- 
 pleasure:" but with what manner of reasoning, 
 Gardiner, or his compeer Sampson, contended, 
 an ordinary reader is left to guess. Phillips is 
 more communicative ; and p tells us that these 
 treatises of Sampson and Gardiner were sent to 
 Pole, who, naturally enough, was out of humour 
 at "the work of the latter," which, while he 
 
 * Transl. of Gardiner's De Obedientia, &c. 1553, fol. xviii. 
 r Life of Pole, vol. i. p. 127.
 
 85 
 
 admitted it to be " set off with great art," he 
 saw would tend to hurl the pontiff from the 
 supremacy he claimed in England. In fact, 
 Gardiner is accordingly screened by Dr. Lingard 
 from notice, as much as may be, when the king's 
 supremacy is the theme, because of a pretended 
 " fear;" while Cranmer is sarcastically brought 
 forward preaching upon the subject, and giving 
 an example to his brethren. And yet Gardiner 
 too was now giving the example, not only to 
 his brethren, but to the whole kingdom ; espe- 
 cially to all who had " q heretofore doubted of 
 the king's marriage or title, or of the bishop of 
 Rome's false pretended supremacy," to all who 
 " favoured truth, and hated the tyranny of the 
 bishop of Rome and his devilish fraudulent 
 falsehood." 
 
 I am correct, therefore, in maintaining that 
 Dr. Lingard has not here, (nor, I may add, in 
 any other part of his volume,) given that in- 
 formation to his readers, which a publication so 
 remarkable against the supremacy of the pope, 
 by so remarkable a person as Gardiner, cer- 
 tainly required, if it were only to have prepared 
 them for " ' his starting, in the time of Man/, 
 from the truth so manifestly known, so pithily 
 
 ' Bonner's Preface to Gardiner's Dc Obedientia, Transl. 
 15.53, sign. b. iiij. b. 
 1 Fox, Acts and Mon. 
 
 F
 
 6G 
 
 proved, so vehemently defended, and (as it 
 seemed) so faithfully subscribed !" 
 
 " 2. s I had said that Tunstal's compliance," 
 Dr. Lingard continues, " was thought to arise 
 from the fear of the royal displeasure : to which 
 Mr. Todd opposes a letter written by that pre- 
 late to Henry, and at the same time twits me 
 with want of research ; otherwise I could not 
 have been ignorant of its existence. I can 
 assure him that I was well acquainted with the 
 letter, though I drew from it an inference 
 greatly at variance with his opinion. It most 
 certainly proves in my favour that Henry him- 
 self did not believe the bishop, who had previ- 
 ously protested, against the supremacy, to be a 
 sincere convert to the cause : nor will the denial 
 of Tunstal be sufficient to remove the suspicion, 
 if we recollect that it was made under the fear 
 of bringing on himself the vengeance of a 
 despotic sovereign." 
 
 Not in the least. I repeat my assertion, that 
 the letter of Tunstal is not that of a man influ- 
 enced by fear. It is true, Tunstal was grieved 
 f * that the king should repute him to be looking 
 for a new world or mutation," as though he 
 wished for the restoration of the papal authority. 
 
 ' Vindic. p. 83. 
 
 * Tunstal's Letter. See my Vindic. of Cranmer, 2d. ed. 
 p. 147.
 
 07 
 
 Henry had been misled by some malicious re- 
 port against the prelate. Tunstal, however, 
 replies, like a man of spirit, and with an honest 
 indignation at his integrity being suspected, 
 that he u had, before the present call upon his 
 talents to the same purpose, set forth the king's 
 supreme title, and caused others to do the 
 same; and that now he had repaired to Durham, 
 where he preached before a great company 
 upon the just claim of his royal master, and the 
 usurped authority of the pontiff. Of what then, 
 as to the present point, had such a man to be in 
 fear ? The suspicion of his sovereign was mo- 
 mentary. He lost not an atom of the royal 
 esteem. It is x certain, Burnet observes, that 
 the king had a very particular regard for him, 
 and finally recorded it by naming him, with 
 Cranmer and others, an executor of his will. 
 But the notion of fear upon the present occasion 
 misleads Dr. Lingard as to another also of the 
 prelates, and makes him contradict himself; 
 for here he says that Stokesley employed his 
 talents from affection to the cause, and afterwards 
 he exhibits him as one of " y the associates of 
 Gardiner, who, to avoid the royal displeasure, 
 consented to renounce the papal supremacy." 
 
 u Tunstal's Letter. See my Vindie. of Cranmer, 2d. ed. 
 p. 147. 
 
 1 Hist. Ref. vol. iii. p. 78. 
 y Hist, of Eri£. 2d. ed. vol. vi. p. .149. 
 
 F 2
 
 68 
 
 " 3. z When I noticed Cranmer's sermon to 
 prove that the pope was antichrist," Dr. Lingard 
 adds, " I observed that a ?mv light had lately 
 burst on the archbishop. Mr. Todd denies it ; 
 because as much had been said by others before 
 him. That is true ; but I spoke with reference 
 to Cranmer's previous conduct. But a little 
 before, in the judgments by which he dissolved 
 the marriage of Henry and Catherine, and con- 
 firmed the marriage of Henry and Anne, he was 
 careful to style himself the legate of the very 
 man, whom now he branded with the title of 
 antichrist. Might I not then say with every 
 appearance of truth, that a new light had burst 
 upon his mind ?" 
 
 The periphrasis of Dr. Lingard, " the new 
 light now bursting upon the mind of Cranmer," 
 instead of the simple " a discovery -'* made by 
 
 z Vindic. p. 83. 
 
 8 These are Dr. Lingard' s words : " Cranmer zealously 
 inculcated from the pulpit, what his learning or fanaticism had 
 lately discovered, that the pontiff was the antichrist of the 
 apocalypse." Hist. Eng. 2d. ed. vol. vi. p. 284.— Cranmer 
 had long known that upon this point the reformation had been 
 begun and carried on. Cochlaeus, in his letter to Bucer in 
 1546, thus dates the hated application of the term twenty-five 
 years back, bewails the mischief it was doing, and trembles at 
 what it would do ! " Hie error (Ro. Pontificem antichristichi 
 esse) omnium fere malorum (quae et contigerunt 25 annis ex 
 hoc religionis dissidio, et nunc prse oculis sunt, quseque adhuc 
 futura timentur) causa, et origo, esse haud vane putatur." In
 
 69 
 
 the prelate in the History, is pretty, but to no 
 purpose. Cranmer had long held the pontifical 
 character cheap. He had shewn " b how cor- 
 rupt the existing pope was both in his person 
 and government, and that he was abhorred 
 even by some of his cardinals, as himself had 
 heard and seen at Rome." But, then, he styled 
 himself " the legate of this very man, whom 
 now he branded with the title of antichrist !" 
 True. He decided causes, while he was thus 
 titled, against the authority of the same person. 
 He could not, in the cases mentioned, have 
 done otherwise. The formal name and style of 
 legate had not then been removed by authority 
 from the description of the archbishop in public 
 acts, though very soon afterwards by his influ- 
 ence it was dismissed. It 1535 it was c ordered 
 in convocation, that, instead of legate of the 
 apostolic see, the archbishop should be de- 
 nominated metropolitan and primate. But so 
 little did Cranmer, either then or before, regard 
 distinctions of this kind, that he solemnly said, 
 " A I pray God never to be merciful unto me at 
 
 XVIII. Artie. M. Buceri, &c. Responsio I. Cochlaci, 1546. 
 fol. 11. b. 
 
 '' Cranmer's speech in 1534, cited by Burnet, Hist. Rcf. 
 vol. i. p. 175, ed. 1681. 
 
 c Burnet, vol. iii. p. 75. 
 
 d Cranmer's Letter to the secretary Cromwell. Strype, Life 
 ot'Cranm. Rec. No. 14.
 
 70 
 
 the general judgment, if I perceive in my heart 
 that I set more by any title, name, or style that 
 I write, than I do by the paring of an apple, 
 further than it shall be to the setting forth of 
 God's word and will." Whether Cranmer and 
 the many who preceded him, historians, poets, 
 and divines, are correct in their opinion, that 
 the bishop of Rome is the antichrist that should 
 come, is another question. The archbishop 
 certainly had not waited for the present oc- 
 casion to illuminate his mind upon the subject. 
 It was familiar to him. It became a prominent 
 assertion afterwards in his great work upon the 
 sacrament. It was the belief in which he closed 
 his voice, and his existence at the stake : " As 
 for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ's enemy 
 and antichrist, with all his false doctrine." 
 
 V. The fifth charge relates wholly to the pro- 
 secution of Lambert for heresy, and to Dr. 
 Lingard's belief of Cranmer having been " e still 
 more instrumental in the accomplishment of this 
 tragedy, than he has asserted in his History. 
 Lambert," he continues, " was first tried before 
 the archbishop, and appealed from him to the 
 king. I will not pretend that he was actually 
 condemned by the archbishop, because the pro- 
 ceedings have been lost ; but it is not very probable 
 that he would appeal from him, till he saw that 
 
 Vindic. pp S4, 85. 
 
 2
 
 71 
 
 an unfavourable judgment would be pronounced. 
 Before Henry, it is admitted, that Cranmer dis- 
 puted against him ; and, if we may believe an 
 authority quoted in the course of a few pages 
 by Mr. Todd, he did more ; he condemned him. 
 ' What doctrine,' says Martin to the archbishop, 
 '■ taught you, when you condemned Lambert, the 
 sacramentary, in the king's presence in White- 
 hall V Now does Cranmer deny that he con- 
 demned him ? No ; he silently acquiesces in 
 the charge, replying, ' I maintained then the 
 papist's doctrine.' Judgment we know was pro- 
 nounced by Cromwell, the king's vicar-general ; 
 but from this passage it is probable that the 
 seven bishops present, of whom Cranmer was 
 the chief, sat as judges on the bench with 
 Cromwell." 
 
 What might have been the judgment of Cran- 
 mer, if the cause had continued in his court, 
 cannot now be known. The proceedi?igs are lost. 
 That he heard the accused with candour, as he 
 had before f addressed him with mildness on the 
 subject of his crime, may fairly be supposed. 
 The gentleness of his g disputation with the un- 
 happy man before the king confirms this suppo- 
 sition. That he ever personally urged his con- 
 demnation, is no where to be found. That even 
 his advice was asked upon this point, does not 
 
 ' Gilpin's Life of Cranm. p. 58. 
 
 c Fox. Acts and Mon. p. 1122. col. ii.
 
 72 
 
 appear. To the taunt of Martin, he gave an 
 answer only that decided what opinion he then 
 maintained. He is silent as to the charge, 
 (though Martin, as well as himself, knew that the 
 king condemned the sacramentary,) because, hav- 
 ing been one of those present at the condemna- 
 tion, which if he could not prevent, he appears 
 not to have desired, he therefore was not able 
 to deny a tacit acquiescence in the martyr's 
 death. He had been officially compelled to re- 
 ceive the accusation. But let the admission 
 made by Pole, that Cranmer was h said by his 
 contemporaries to have killed no one, be ever 
 borne in mind. 
 
 Phillips, however, like Dr. Lingard, retorts 
 upon Cranmer the proceedings against Lambert, 
 when he brings the prelate to the stake. The 
 observations, which were made upon the biogra- 
 pher of Pole, apply to the present historian of 
 England ; especially as the latter is desirous to 
 disprove that Cranmer now, in 1538, held and 
 believed the Romish doctrine of the real pre- 
 sence, although the archbishop himself has told 
 
 h Ne dites point pour votre excuse que vous n'avez tue per- 
 sonne, que vous avez traite tout le monde avec beaucoup de 
 douceur et de bonte ; car je scay que e'est ainsi que Ton 
 parle." Pole's Lett, to Cranmer, from Legrand, &c. Epist. 
 Poli, ed. Quirin. vol. v. 1757, p. 244. I owe this remark to 
 the Rev. H. Soames, who is now publishing the History of the 
 Reformation.
 
 73 
 
 us that till his conference with Ridley, (several 
 years after this occurrence,) he was " ' of the 
 old opinion." But Dr. Liugard elsewhere con- 
 siders the archbishop, even at the later date of 
 1547, as " k leaning more than usual to the 
 ancient doctrines" and among these to that of 
 " the body and blood of Christ in the communion 
 being received with the bodily mouth :" He 
 means in the archbishop's translation of the 
 catechism of Justus Jonas, though he has not 
 named the latter ; and he intends, I suppose, in 
 the present doctrinal allusion, the Lutheran 
 tenet of consubstantiation. This subject, how- 
 ever, more properly belongs to the next charge. 
 Believing, then, that Cranmer was now wholly 
 of the Romish opinion, I may ask Dr. Lingard, 
 as Ridley has asked Phillips ; " ' was it to be 
 wondered at, or does this writer upbraid him 
 for acting like a Roman Catholic, when he was a 
 Roman Catholic V f Again: "Protestants might 
 glorify God in him, as the primitive Christians 
 did in St. Paul, ' that he who persecuted them 
 in times past, afterward preached the faith 
 
 1 The archbishop appears to have hesitated a little, as to the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation, so early as in 1539. See 
 Strype's Cranm. B. I. ch. xviii. But he relinquished not the 
 old error till about 1547, as he confessed to Dr. Weston in his 
 disputation." Ibid. See also Ridley's Life of Bishop Ridley, 
 p. 169. 
 
 k Hist, of Eng. 2d. ed. vol. vii. p. .'57. n. 
 
 1 Ridley's Review of Phillips's Life of Role, p. 300.
 
 74 
 
 which once he destroyed.' Yet may we not ask 
 how far was Cranmer indeed concerned in this 
 execution ? Lambert was brought before him 
 and other bishops for denying transubstantiation, 
 and appealed from them to the king. Thus the 
 matter was taken out of his hands ; and he had 
 no other share in it, than to take his turn in the 
 disputation to defend opinions ivhich he then held."" 
 Yet once more: " Lambert's execution was 
 owing to the subtle cruelty of Gardiner, by whose 
 instigation Henry resolved to dispute with him 
 publicly, after that unhappy man had appealed 
 from the bishops to the king." What a contrast 
 is Gardiner, in the sad story of Lambert, to 
 Cranmer ! Out of his turn for arguing with the 
 accused m Gardiner arose and spoke with fury. 
 And when the disputations were at length dis- 
 continued through the sovereign's impatience, 
 and Cromwell was by him commanded to read 
 the sentence of condemnation, even in this last 
 melancholy office the detestable design of Gar- 
 diner to involve him, who was desired to perform 
 it, in the case of the prisoner, has been recorded ; 
 a circumstance which Dr. Lingard overpasses 
 in his narrative of Lambert, as he conceals also 
 throughout the proceedings the unkind activity 
 of this over-forward prelate. " n This," Fox 
 
 m He was appointed to the sixth place in- the disputation : 
 he seized the second. Fox, p. 1122, col. ii. 
 n Fox, p. 1123, col. ii.
 
 75 
 
 informs us, " undoubtedly was the malicious 
 and crafty subtilty of the bishop of Winchester, 
 who desired rather that the sentence upon 
 Lambert might be read by Cromwell than by 
 any other ; so that, if he refused to do it, he should 
 likewise have incurred the like danger /" He had 
 his eye too now upon Cranmer. He thought 
 that the primate argued but ° faintly on this 
 occasion, and therefore interposed in the argu- 
 ment that he might also lower his metropolitan 
 in the eyes of his sovereign, as well as browbeat 
 the prisoner, and foment prejudices that would 
 help to forward his own almost immediate pro- 
 ceedings in regard to the Romish Six Arti- 
 cles. 
 
 VI. The sixth charge repeats the belief of 
 Dr. Lingard, that, at the time of Lambert's trial, 
 " p Cranmer really held the Lutheran tenet of 
 consubstantiation ; that Strype and Burnet think 
 the same; and that, as far as he can judge, 
 they think rightly." He states, what I still 
 affirm, " that I am positive Cranmer held, at 
 this period, the Catholic doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation." He impugns my affirmation by 
 the re-introduction of Martin's dialogue with 
 the archbishop : " What doctrine taught you, 
 when you condemned Lambert ? Cranmer re- 
 
 ° Burnet, Hist. Ref. ut supr. i. 255. 
 F Vindic. pp. 85, 86.
 
 76 
 
 plied, ' 1 maintained then the Papists' doctrine/ 
 Again Martin said, ' Master Cranmer, you have 
 taught in this high sacrament of the altar three 
 contrary doctrines, and yet you pretended in 
 every one Verbum Domini.' — ' Nay,' replied the 
 archbishop, ' I taught but two contrary doctrines 
 in the same.'— But Mr. Todd, whose eye is so 
 experienced in the detection of verbal niceties, 
 should have observed, that these questions and 
 answers refer to the doctrine which Cranmer 
 openly taught, and that we are inquiring into 
 the doctrine which he inwardly believed. That 
 he taught at this period the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation, is well known. Had he not, the 
 infallibility of the head of the church would have 
 condemned him to the stake." 
 
 It is to the authority only of the calumnies 
 of his enemies, connected with his translating 
 the catechism which has been mentioned, and 
 with the German acquaintance which he had 
 formed, that this assertion of Cranmers main- 
 taining the Lutheran doctrine can be traced. 
 " From a Lutheran you became a Zuinglian," 
 said Martin to the archbishop in continuing the 
 insulting dialogue, and with reference to the 
 condemnation of Lambert. " I grant," was the 
 reply of Cranmer, " that then I believed other- 
 wise than I do now, and so I did, until my 
 lord of London, doctor Ridley, did confer with 
 me, and by sundry persuasions and authorities
 
 77 
 
 of doctors drew me quite from my opinion." 
 Sanders eagerly seized the accusation of Martin; 
 and in his first edition (though the charge is 
 shifted in the second,) has accordingly q repre- 
 sented the archbishop as an enemy to Luther 
 while Henry lived, as wholly a Lutheran upon 
 the death of that Monarch, and as a Calvinist 
 upon the opening of Edward's reign. Champ- 
 ney, glad of every opportunity to slander Cran- 
 mer, r copies this account. 
 
 Now Cranmer himself has explained to us the 
 meaning of the passage, which from his Cate- 
 chism has been cited as either a proof of his 
 Lutheranism, or, as Dr. Lingard terms it, " * a 
 leaning towards it." The explanation at once 
 convinces us, that the archbishop said truly, 
 when he replied to commissioner Martin's as- 
 sumption of three, that " he taught but two 
 contrary doctrines in the high sacrament of the 
 altar;" meaning, beyond all doubt, the two 
 doctrines of the Church of Rome and of the 
 Reformed Church of England. " ' In a Cate- 
 chism by me translated and set forth," he says, 
 
 < De Schism. Angl. ed. 1585, fol. 115. The index to tins 
 edition points accordingly to Cranmer as " Henricianus, postea 
 Lutheranus, postremd Sacramentarius." The succeeding edi- 
 tions withhold this friendly pointer out to calumny ! 
 
 1 De Voc. Min. Tract. 1618, p. 305. 
 
 * See before, p. 73. 
 
 1 Answ. to Bp. Gardiner, p. 2G7.
 
 78 
 
 " I used [[this] manner of speech, that with our 
 bodily mouths we receive the body and blood of Christ. 
 Which my saying divers ignorant persons, (not 
 used to read old ancient authors, nor acquainted 
 with their phrase and manner of speech,) did 
 carp, and reprehend, for lack of good under- 
 standing. For this speech, and others before 
 rehearsed of Chrysostome, and all other like, 
 are not understood of the very flesh and blood of 
 our Saviour Christ, (which, indeed, we neither 
 feel nor see,) but that which we do to the bread 
 and wine, by a figurative speech is spoken to be 
 done to the flesh and blood, because they are 
 the very signs, figures, and tokens, instituted 
 of Christ, to represent unto us his very flesh 
 and blood. And yet as with our corporal eyes, 
 corporal hands and mouths, we do corporally 
 see, feel, taste, and eat the bread and drink the 
 wine, (being the sign and sacraments of Christ's 
 body,) even so with our spiritual eyes, hands, 
 and mouths, we do spiritually see, feel, taste, 
 and eat his very flesh, and drink his very blood." 
 — Gardiner replies in anger to the archbishop, 
 " u that the original of his translated Catechism 
 confutes him in few words, being printed in 
 Germany, wherein, besides the matter written, 
 is set forth in picture the manner of the minis- 
 tring of this sacrament, where is the altar with 
 
 " Ans. to Bp. Gardiner, p. 268.
 
 79 
 
 candle-light set forth, the priest apparelled after 
 the old sort, and the man to receive kneeling, 
 barehead, and holding up his hands, while the 
 priest ministers the host to his mouth ; a matter 
 as clear contrary to the matter of this book, 
 as is light and darkness." The archbishop 
 answers, with an admirable retort, " x it may 
 appear to them that have any judgment what 
 pithy arguments you make, and what dexterity 
 you have in gathering of authors' minds, that 
 would gather my mind, and make an argument 
 here of a picture, neither put in my book, nor 
 by me devised, but invented by some fond 
 painter or carver, who paint and grave whatso- 
 ever their idle heads can fancy ! You should 
 rather have gathered your argument upon the 
 other side ; that 1 7nislike the matter, because I left 
 out of my book the picture that ivas in the original 
 before. And I marvel you are not ashamed to 
 allege so vain a matter against me, which in- 
 deed is not in my book ; and if it were, yet 
 were it nothing to the purpose. And in that 
 Catechism I teach not, as you do, that the body 
 and blood of Christ is contained in the sacrament 
 being reserved, but that in the ministration thereof 
 we receive the body and blood of Christ, whereunto 
 if it may please you to add, or understand, this word 
 spiritually, then is the doct'ute of my Catechism 
 
 * Ans. to Bp. Gardiner, p. 2G9.
 
 80 
 
 sound and good in all men's ears, who know the 
 true doctrine of the sacraments." 
 
 On the other hand, from the tenor of Cran- 
 mer's letters, the one to the ambassador Haw- 
 kins, the other to Vadian, the learned foreigner, 
 Dr. Lingard is inclined to agree with Burnet 
 and Strype, that the archbishop had maintained 
 the Lutheran tenet. To the first of his corres- 
 pondents Cranmer relates the proceedings against 
 the martyr Frith, and says that " y the opinion 
 of this person is of such a nature, that he 
 thought it not necessary to be believed as an 
 article of our faith, that there is the very z corporal 
 presence of Christ within the host and sacrament of 
 the altar ; and [he] holdeth of this point most 
 after the opinion of Oecolampadius : and surely 
 I myself sent for him two or three times to 
 persuade him to leave that his imagination." Now 
 
 7 Letter cited by Dr. Lingard from the Archacologia, vol. 
 xviii. p. 81, (since printed also in Mr. Ellis's Original Letters, 
 vol. ii. p. 33,) Hist. Eng. 2d ed. p. 366. n. 
 
 " That corporal expressly means the doctrine of the church 
 of Rome, that is, transubstantiation, is plain in the Articles of 
 Religion set forth in 1536, and in the Institution of a Christian 
 Man in the following year ; in both which, speaking of The 
 Sacrament of the Altar, the words are, " Under the form and 
 figure of bread and wine the very body and blood of Christ is 
 corporally, really, and in the very substance, exhibited, dis- 
 tributed, and received, &c." See more upon this distinction 
 of corpor aider, in Abp. Laud's Book against the Jesuit Fisher, 
 4th ed. p. 192.
 
 81 
 
 Fox informs us, that Frith, to whom " ■ the 
 authority of Dr. Barnes for the presence of the 
 body and blood in the sacrament" was urged, ob- 
 jected not to this opinion " of Luther and 
 Barnes" being received ; contending only " for 
 that point," Frith himself says, " in which they 
 agreed with him, that the sacrament was not to 
 be worshipped ; and that, idolatry being taken 
 away, he was b content to permit every man to 
 judge of the sacrament, as God should put into 
 their hearts : for then there remained no more 
 poison, that any man might be afraid of." If 
 the archbishop then held the Lutheran tenet, he 
 would hardly have said in the letter which has 
 been cited, that as to the point of the real 
 presence he had twice or thrice in vain endea- 
 voured to change the opinion of this learned 
 man. It was with the disbelief principally of 
 transubstantiation, in its entire Romish sense, that 
 Frith was charged. It was, in consequence of 
 the ineffectual conversation with him upon this 
 doctrine, that the archbishop left him to the ex- 
 amination and judgment of his ordinary, Stokcs- 
 ley, bishop of London. — Then as to Vadian, 
 Cranmer's other correspondent, who had written 
 a treatise against the corporal presence, of which 
 he wished the archbishop to be the patron, the 
 
 a Acts and Mori. p. 10.31-, col. i. 
 
 b See also Burnet, Hist. Kef. i. IfiS. Frith wished that 
 there wore no disputes between the Lutherans and Zuinglians. 
 
 (;
 
 82 
 
 reply was, c that he would be neither patron 
 nor approver of that doctrine, until he saw 
 stronger proofs for it; that so much did he 
 dislike the opinion of Oecolampadius, and of 
 Zuinglius, upon this point, that to them he 
 applied the censure of Jerome concerning Ori- 
 gen; where they wrote well, nobody wrote better; 
 and where ill, nobody worse ; and that he wished 
 those learned men had gone no further than to 
 confute papistical errors and abuses, and had 
 not sown their tares with their good corn. Thus 
 afterwards, in the articles of 1536, which are 
 the evidence of the first public and authorized 
 attempt, in the reign of Henry, at a reformation 
 of religious opinions ; while some of the Romish 
 abuses and errors are publicly declared, the 
 doctrine of d transubstantiation remains un- 
 touched ; it also remains in the following year 
 in e The Institution of a Christian Man, a book, 
 which was a fatal blow, however, to the enemies 
 of the Reformation. These Articles, we are 
 sure, were signed by Cranmer ; and we believe 
 the book to have been by him principally pre- 
 pared. 
 
 Whatever Burnet and Strype may have sug- 
 gested, as to the pretended Lutheranism of the 
 
 c Strype, Life of Cranm. B. I. ch. xviii. 
 d See the citation from these Articles in the preceding 
 page 80, note z . 
 
 e See the citation, p. 80, ut supr.
 
 S3 
 
 archbishop in the present respect ; f later writers 
 have not agreed with them, and I think they 
 are right. Dr. Lingard and I differ in opinion. 
 The public will judge which of us is correct. 
 Cranmer, I may add, in consequence of his own 
 words having been not duly observed, and the 
 groundless charge of Martin being regarded 
 instead of them, has been grossly misrepresented 
 by archbishop Laud , in his book against the Jesuit 
 Fisher; where it is said, " g Archbishop Cran- 
 mer confesses that he inclined to the opinioji of 
 Zuinglius, till bishop Ridley convinced his judg- 
 ment and settled him in this point of the sacra- 
 ment!" Till Ridley convinced him, there can 
 be little doubt that he believed, as well as taught, 
 the Romish doctrine. " '' And how zealous 
 soever Cranmer might be for trans instantiation, 
 and how dangerous soever it might be to doubt 
 of that article, yet Ridley very honestly com- 
 municated his discoveries and scruples to his 
 good friend and patron the archbishop ; who, 
 knowing the sincerity of the man and his cool 
 judgment, gave a more open ear to him, than he 
 had formerly done to Joachim Vadianus, and was 
 prevailed upon to examine the doctrine with the 
 utmost care. The event was the conviction of both 
 
 1 Gilpin, Life of Cranmer. Dr. Wordsworth, Eccl. Biogra- 
 phy. Mr. Soanies, Hist, of the Reformation. 
 g Ahp. Laud against Kislier, ut supr. p. 1 93. 
 '' Ridley's Life of Up. Ridley, 1768, p. loi). 
 
 G 2
 
 84 
 
 of them. This was the great and impor- 
 tant POINT OF THE REFORMATION IN DOC- 
 TRINE." 
 
 VII. " ■ The seventh charge. The conduct of 
 the archbishop, with respect to the statute of 
 the six articles, has been highly eulogized by his 
 admirers ; who have described him as persisting 
 in his opposition to the very last, and braving the 
 displeasure of the king in the cause of humanity 
 and truth. 1. It should, however, be con- 
 sidered, that his opposition was not entirely 
 disinterested. The third of the articles de- 
 clared that priests may not marry by the word 
 of God : the statute itself pronounced such 
 marriages of no effect ; ordered the parties so 
 married to be separated; made it felony, if 
 they should cohabit afterwards ; and subjected 
 all persons in priest's orders, who lived carnally 
 with women, to imprisonment and forfeiture on 
 the first conviction, and to death on the second. 
 Now, Cranmer was in priest's orders ; he had 
 married a relation of Osiander in Germany; he 
 still cohabited with her at Canterbury ; he had 
 a family by her. Had he not, then, the strong- 
 est personal motives to oppose these severe and 
 sanguinary enactments ?" 
 
 He had ; and we cannot but believe, that he 
 opposed them with undaunted spirit as well as 
 
 ' Dr. Ling-ard's Vindic. p. 87.
 
 85 
 
 Christian argument, convincing his auditory, 
 among whom was his royal master, that he 
 rejoiced to exclaim with the Apostle, "Art thou 
 bound unto a wife ? seek not to be loosed." 
 In the disputation too, " k he behaved himself 
 with such humble modesty, and with such 
 obedience in words towards his prince, pro- 
 testing the cause not to be his, but the cause of 
 Almighty God," that the king " did not mislike 
 his enterprise" and " well liked Ids zealous de- 
 fence" Henry knew that all he spoke was 
 1 sincere : he considered him as a man of pro- 
 bity, who had the courage to defend what he 
 understood to be true ; and of his arguments, 
 " which could not well be refuted, " (to use the 
 expression of Fox,) he required a copy. To 
 the eloquence and ability of the archbishop on 
 this occasion, the m applause of those, who dif- 
 fered from him in the debate, was also rendered. 
 His opposition has been attributed by Romish 
 writers, solely to the fact of his being married ; 
 but there were other of the Articles to which 
 he could not assent, and especially he abhorred 
 the rigorous penalty of the Act. With the 
 same resolution, when afterwards a conspiracy 
 was formed against him at the n suggestion, it 
 
 k Fox, Acts and Mon. p. 1136, col. ii. 
 1 Lord Herbert, p. 41b. 
 " Strypc, Life of Cranm. 13. I. eh. xix. 
 " Sec Collier, vol. ii. p. 199.
 
 86 
 
 has been thought, of Gardiner, and his obe- 
 dience to the Act was questioned, he told the 
 kin^ ° that he was still of the same opinion he had 
 declared himself when the Bill was passing ; but 
 that he had done nothing against the Act. The 
 king then putting on an air of pleasantry, de- 
 manded whether his chamber would stand the 
 test of the Articles ; and the archbishop replied, 
 that he had sent his wife to her friends in Ger- 
 many. The answer, without evasion or reserve, 
 pleased the king ; who then told the archbishop, 
 " p that the severity of the Act was ?iot> levelled 
 against him, and, at the same time, assured him 
 of his future favour." Dr. Lingard, however, 
 informs us, that, struck with dismay at the 
 passing of the Act, " q the archbishop wrote to the 
 king an apology for his presumption in having op- 
 posed the opinion of his majesty;" and presently, 
 we shall see, " that he came over to the opinion of 
 the head of the church /" It is thus that another 
 Romish writer relates, that Cranmer " r went all 
 the lengths of the court in the Six Articles- Act" 
 having just before said that " he had taken a 
 wife in Germany, and shewn his inclinations by 
 opposing this Act /" Dr. Lingard further asserts, 
 2. " s that it is not true that Cranmer's oppo- 
 
 ° Collier, ii. 200. r Ibid. 
 
 ' Hist, of Eng. 2d ed. vol. vi. p. 386. 
 
 r Eccl. Hist, by the writer assuming the name of Dod. 
 
 5 Vindic. p. 8.
 
 87 
 
 sition was continued to the very last. It ceased 
 on the second day. On the first the archbishop, 
 and several other prelates, spoke with energy 
 and resolution, but the next morning the house 
 was honoured with the presence of Henry : the 
 royal theologian supported the Articles with 
 irresistible eloquence, and Cranmer came over 
 to the opinion of the head of the church." 
 
 That Cranmer disputed against the Articles 
 three days together, is the assertion of Fox, 
 Lord Herbert, Burnet, and Collier. '* l Nor 
 could he be prevailed upon," Burnet adds, 
 " though the king pressed him to it, to abstain 
 from coming to the parliament while that Act 
 was passing. He came and opposed it to the last ; 
 and even after the law was made, he wrote a 
 book for the king's use against these Articles." 
 
 But that " u Cranmer came over to the 
 opinion of the king, is proved," Dr. Lingard 
 continues, " by the following letter, written at 
 the time by one of the lords who was present. 
 
 " Notwithstanding my lord of Canterbury, 
 my lord of Ely, my lord of Salisbury, my lords 
 of Worcester, Rochester, and St. Davyes, de- 
 fended the contrary a long time, yet finally his 
 highness confounded them all with godlie learn- 
 ing. York, Durham, Winchester, London, 
 
 ' Hist. Rcf. vol. iii. Appendix. 
 u Vindic. pp. 87, 88.
 
 88 
 
 Chichester, Norwich, and Carlisle, have shewed 
 themselves honest and well learned men. We 
 of the temporalty have been all of one opinion : 
 and my lord chancellor and lord privy seal 
 (Audeley and Cromwell,) as good as we can 
 devise. My lord of Canterbury, and all his 
 bishops have given their opinions, and have 
 come in to us, save Salisbury, who yet con- 
 tinueth a lewd fool. Cleop. E. v. p. 128. 
 
 " On this letter Mr. Todd makes the following 
 remarks. 1. ' Dr. Lingard has not noticed 
 that this letter was copied from the manuscript 
 by the accurate Strype, and printed by him in 
 the appendix to his life of Cranmer.' Had 
 Mr. Todd compared the two copies, he might 
 have spared this remark. Strype's copy is 
 very inaccurate : mine is correct, and taken, 
 not from that of Strype, but from the original 
 in the British Museum. I did not indeed pre- 
 serve the orthography of the original, which I 
 regret. The word goodlie is a typographical 
 error for godlie" 
 
 It is proper that what precedes the passage, 
 which has been cited by Dr. Lingard from 
 the fragment of an anonymous letter, should 
 here be given. I will copy it, word for word, 
 for the benefit of every reader, without regard- 
 ing the often perplexing ancient spelling. " And 
 also news here : I assure you never prince 
 shewed himself so wise a man, so well learned,
 
 89 
 
 and so catholic, as the king hath done in this 
 parliament. With my pen I cannot express 
 his marvellous goodness, which is come to such 
 effect, that we shall have an act of parliament 
 so spiritual, that 1 think none shall dare say in 
 the blessed sacrament doth remain either bread 
 or wine after the consecration ; nor that a priest 
 may have a wife ; nor that it is necessary to 
 receive our maker sub utraque specie ; nor that 
 private masses should not be used, as they have 
 been ; nor that it is not necessary to have 
 auricular confession. And notwithstanding my 
 lord of Canterbury, &c." Then it follows, as 
 Dr. Lingard has copied the words ; who after 
 reflecting upon the inaccuracy of Strype, and 
 displaying the superfine minuteness of his own 
 copying in converting the goodly in his History 
 into godly here, leaves us to marvel at the 
 achievement, shorn at least of one of its merits, 
 since the original letter reads, " his Highness 
 confounded them all [[not with goodlic, or godlie, 
 but)] with Goddcs (God's) learning /" And thus, 
 indeed, Strype has printed it ; yes, and x Burnet 
 too. Dr. Lingard compliments " y my eye as 
 experienced in the detection of verbal niceties ;' 
 I thank him; and though I could point out 
 another or two in the few lines so pompously 
 
 * Hist. Ref. vol. iii. Records, No. GO, 1$. III. V. 111. 
 
 y Sec before, j>. 7G.
 
 90 
 
 announced to the reader, the single cast is 
 enough. It is of more importance to observe 
 what the writer of the letter avers ; namely, 
 that there was at last an agreement of opinion 
 in all the points he asserts, the bishop of 
 Salisbury only resisting. Now one of these 
 points is, that auricular confession is necessary; a 
 tenet of great effect in upholding the tyranny 
 of the church of Rome, and in subjugating the 
 freedom of the human mind. Cranmer now 
 seized the occasion to assert, that auricular 
 confession was not necessary by any precept of the 
 Gospel; in which assertion he was * supported 
 by the king; and they were opposed by the 
 archbishop of York and the bishops of Win- 
 chester and Durham. That the resolution of 
 the house might a declare auricular confession to 
 be a command by Christ, and a part of the sacra- 
 ment of penance, was the object of Gardiner 
 and his associates: but the debate produced 
 no more than the simple declaration, that this 
 
 z Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. Addend, p. 369, and Rec. p. 366. 
 ed. 1681. 
 
 a See Burnet, ut supr.— The Article was thus proposed: 
 " Utrum Auricularis Confessio sit necessaria de Jure Divino." 
 Journ. H. of Lords, 1539. There is in the State-paper office, 
 an answer in the negative to the question, whether auricular 
 confession be necessary by the law of God or not, bearing the 
 names of Cranmer and nine other prelates, and of the abbots of 
 Westminster and Gloucester.
 
 91 
 
 confession was expedient and necessary to be 
 retained in the Church of God. Of the in- 
 tended dogma the unknown writer of the letter 
 before us takes no notice ; but represents the 
 king as confounding the prelates who sided 
 with Cranmer, yet conceals, or was ignorant, 
 that the opposing prelates of York, Winchester, 
 and Durham, were defeated at least in one of 
 their objects. Tunstal was vexed at this suc- 
 cessful opposition, and afterwards wrote to the 
 king, whose opinion, however, he could not 
 change. " b Since methought, my lord of 
 Durham," the king replied to him, ■•* that both 
 the bishops of York, Winchester, and your 
 reasons and texts were so fully answered this 
 other day in the house, as, to my seeming 
 and supposal, the most of the house ivas satisfied; 
 I marvelled not a little why eftsoons you have 
 sent to me this now your writing, being in a 
 manner few other texts or reasons than there 
 were declared, both by the bishop of Canterbury 
 and me, to make smally or nothing to your in- 
 tended purpose, &c." The whole letter, de- 
 nying auricular confession to be of divine insti- 
 tution is too long to be copied. His majesty 
 concludes it, " I pray you, blame not me, 
 though I be not of your opinion ; and I think 
 
 b The king's Letter to Tunstall. Burnet, ut. sup. Bee. 
 p. 366.
 
 92 
 
 that I have more cause to think you obstinate, 
 than you me, seeing your authors and allega- 
 tions make so little to your purpose." The 
 reverse then of Cranmer's " coming over" to the 
 Romish party, in this important article at least, 
 is obvious. They now came over to him and his 
 sovereign. Cranmer, soon after this memorable 
 debate, confirmed the opinion he had urged 
 with the following assertion ; " c that the Scrip- 
 ture speaketh not of penance, as we call it, a 
 sacrament, consisting of three parts, contrition, 
 confession, and satisfaction ; but the Scripture 
 taketh penance for a pure conversion of a sinner 
 in heart and mind from his sins unto God, 
 making no private confession of all deadly sins to a 
 priest, nor of ecclesiastical satisfaction to be enjoined 
 by him.'''' 
 
 2. Dr. Lingard next observes, that " d the 
 letter is only a fragment which is preserved : 
 had he known the name of the writer, he should 
 certainly have given it : and the omission must 
 have announced to his readers, that the writer 
 was unknown." This is said in answer to my 
 remark, that he has suppressed the circumstance 
 of the letter being " without any name subscribed.''' 
 My meaning was that he had suppressed this 
 especial information, which Strype has given ; 
 
 ' Burnet and Collier. In 1540. 
 * Vindic. pp. 88, 89.
 
 93 
 
 this belief, as it were, of how little value anony- 
 mous information is ; this parallel in the writer's 
 " news" to what Was then " e a flying report" 
 of the archbishop and all the bishops, except 
 Salisbury, having " come in" to the views of the 
 Romish party in the formation of the infamous 
 Act. 
 
 3. Dr. Lingard proceeds to represent me as 
 " f a sinking man catching at a straw," because 
 I have thought it possible that the letter may 
 have been the exaggerated communication of 
 any friend to the papal cause, as it seems to be, 
 since it begins, And also - news here. Let the 
 reader peruse the letter once more, Dr. Lingard 
 adds, and say whether it be possible to believe 
 that the writer was not one of the temporal 
 lords : " We of the temporalty have been all of 
 one opinion : my lord of Canterbury and all his 
 bishops have given their opinions, and have 
 come in to us." I still maintain, that though 
 " he writes g as one of the peers" (to use the ex- 
 pression of Burnet,) it by no means follows that 
 such the writer was. The fragment is of an equi- 
 vocal cast in the circumstance after the words an 
 act of parliament, where a space h appears to have 
 been at first left, and the word spiritual subse- 
 
 c Life of Cranm. B. i. ch. 19. 
 
 ' Vindic. p. 89. 
 
 ■ Hist. Ref. vol. iii. Suppl. 1539. 
 
 h Original, Brit. Mus. Cleopatra, E. 5. fol. 128. I)
 
 94 
 
 quently inserted. But the writer of this frag- 
 ment, Dr. Lingard says, was " one of the lords 
 present at the debate." If this- could be proved, 
 still he is not trust-worthy. He could not have 
 said with truth, if he had been present, " that 
 the king confounded them all f for it is shewn 
 by the king himself, that he and Cranmer were 
 firmly and successfully united in one at least 
 of the disputations against the party not favour- 
 able to the "Reformation ; nor could he have 
 said with truth, if he had been present, that my 
 lord of Canterbury and all the bishops, except 
 Salisbury, had come in to the Romish side ; for 
 Canterbury both then and afterwards disdained 
 to relinquish his opinions, and Worcester as 
 well as Salisbury testified dissent, each in the 
 resignation of their respective sees. I proceed 
 to the remaining remarks of Dr. Lingard upon 
 this letter-writer, whom I consider to be a 
 warm reporter, indeed, of news favourable to his 
 own party, but, of whatever rank, certainly not 
 entitled to the praise of accuracy. 
 
 " 4. The letter affirms what is not true, that 
 the bishop of Salisbury alone persisted in re- 
 fusing his assent ; and that the archbishop of 
 Canterbury, with the bishops who have been 
 already named of his opinion, came in to the 
 opposing party, when the bishop of Worcester, 
 as well as the bishop of Salisbury, rather than 
 conform, resigned his bishopric." These are 
 
 4
 
 la 
 
 my words. Dr. Lingard asks, how do I prove 
 this assertion? He answers for me himself: 
 " * Because they both resigned their bishoprics. 
 That they resigned, is true ; but then comes 
 the important question, When did they resign ? 
 Had it been at the close of the debate, or even 
 soon afterwards, that circumstance might have 
 furnished a presumption in Mr. Todd's favour. 
 But it appears, from the journals of the house 
 of lords, that both prelates continued to sit and 
 vote till the end of the session." 
 
 Now, the resignation of these prelates is 
 k formally recorded as having been admitted on 
 the first of July; that is, about three weeks 
 after the Bill of the Six Articles had been in- 
 troduced into the house of lords, though not 
 without some contest ' subsequent to the debate 
 upon the proposal of the Bill by the duke of 
 Norfolk in May. They had then witnessed the 
 zeal of their metropolitan ; and still they hoped, 
 perhaps, that other modifications than that re- 
 lating to auricular confession might be the 
 fruits of his resistance. They found it other- 
 wise upon the first reading of the Bill on the 
 7 th of June, and therefore would then determine 
 to tender their resignations, still retaining their 
 rank and privilege during the few days they con- 
 
 1 Vindic. p. 89. 
 
 k Le Ncvc, Fast. Angl. pp. 860, 298, ami Godwin. 
 
 1 Burnet, Hist. Ref. i. 2.58, ed. supr.
 
 9G 
 
 tinued lords of parliament, and while the neces- 
 sary instruments of resignation were prepared. 
 Dr. Lingard m affects not to know exactly for 
 what reason they resigned. He has often cited, 
 nor will he now (I am persuaded) disregard, 
 the ancient testimonies of Godwin and Lord 
 Herbert. The former says, " " These laws, (of 
 the Six Articles,) like those of Draco, were 
 writtten in blood, were the destruction of mul- 
 titudes, and silenced those who had been hitherto 
 furtherers of Reformation ; among whom Hugh 
 Latimer and Nicholas Shaxton, bishops of Wor- 
 cester and Salisbury, were remarkable ; who, 
 that they might quietly enjoy themselves, the 
 parliament being scarce dissolved, did both on 
 one day, the first of July, resign their bishop- 
 rics." The latter relates, " ° that they resigned, 
 
 m I say affects; for, in his History, Dr. Lingard tells us, 
 that the French ambassador says, both "prelates refused their 
 assent ; and he himself, that, " by the intemperance of then- 
 language having given offence, they resigned spontaneously, or 
 at the king's requisition, their respective sees." Hist. vi. 384. 
 How are we to reconcile this with the letter-writer, whose 
 fragment exhibits " all the bishops save Salisbury submitting ;" 
 and with Dr. Lingard's reliance upon him, nay, with going 
 further than him, in the vindication of his history, (as we shall 
 presently see,) by placing Salisbury himself too among the 
 conformists ? 
 
 n Annals, Engl. ed. 1G30, p. 172. 
 
 ° Hen. VIII. 449.
 
 97 
 
 being unwilling, it seems, to have a hand in the 
 approbation or execution of these laws." 
 
 Dr. Lingard next objects to the statement 
 which I have adopted from Burnet. " The 
 king desired Cranmer to go out of the house, 
 since he could not give his consent to the bill ; 
 but he humbly excused himself: for he thought 
 he was in conscience bound to stay and vote 
 against it." — " p Of this protest and vote no 
 trace can be discovered in the journals ; nor do 
 I admire," Dr. Lingard continues, " the judg- 
 ment of the man who thus prefers the statement 
 of a professed partisan, (Burnet,) made one 
 hundred and fifty years afterwards, to that of 
 one who wrote at the very time, and was present at 
 the debater Regardless of the assumption (for 
 proof there is none) that this partial writer was 
 present at the debate, I will cite the narration of 
 Fox, who lived at the time, and accordingly 
 tells us, that " q the king, well-liking Cranmer's 
 defence, only willed him to depart out of the 
 parliament-house into the council-chamber for 
 a time, for safeguard of his conscience, till the 
 act should pass and be granted ; which he, 
 notwithstanding, with humble protestation refused 
 to do." This, I admit, is not the parliamentary 
 language for a vote and protest. But Collier 
 
 p Vindic. p. 90. 
 ' Acts and Mon. 1136. col. ii. 
 
 II
 
 98 
 
 seems to have understood the martyrologist's 
 account in Burnet's sense of the occurrence. 
 " r The king would have had the archbishop 
 quit the house, since he could not vote for the 
 bill; but, after a decent excuse, he told the 
 king he thought himself bound in conscience to stay 
 there, and shew his dissent'' 
 
 " s It has always appeared to me," Dr. Lin- 
 gard further contends, " that the advocates of 
 the archbishop confound the debate on the 
 Articles with the passing of the Bill. On the 
 30th of May, after the recess, and it was before 
 the recess that the great debate took place, at 
 which the king attended, the lord chancellor 
 informed the house, that by the conjoined 
 labours of the king and the prelates unanimity 
 had been effected. Thus at least I understand 
 the words in the journal : per dominum cancel- 
 larium declaratum est, quod, cum non solum 
 proceres spirituales, veriim etiam regia majestas, 
 ad unionem in praecedentibus articulis multipli- 
 citer studuerunt et laboraverunt, ita ut nunc unio 
 in eisdem confecta sit, regiae igitur voluntatis esse 
 ut poenale aliquod statutum efficentur. This 
 passage appears to me to shew that not only the 
 archbishop, but all the bishops, even Salisbury 
 himself, had come in to the royal opinion'* 
 
 I know not who the mistaken advocates are, 
 
 r Eccl. Hist. ii. 168. " Vindic. pp. 90, 91.
 
 99 
 
 to whom the Romish historian alludes. But 1 
 read that, after the lord chancellor on the 30th 
 of May had moved to introduce the Bill, the 
 lords l appointed the archbishop, the bishops of 
 Ely and St. David's, and Dr. Petre, a master in 
 chancery, to draw one Bill ; and the archbishop 
 of York, the bishops of Durham and Winchester, 
 and Dr.Tregonwell, another master of chancery, 
 to prepare another Bill. That which was drawn 
 by the latter was adopted, as might be expected 
 from the zeal of Gardiner, with whom the pro- 
 ject of the infamous Articles had originated. 
 But u still the matter was contested, still it 
 hung in debate ; for the Bill was not brought 
 before the house before the 7th of June. What 
 followed in regard to Cranmer's further dissent 
 has been already related. And that " Salisbury 
 himself came in to the royal opinion," as Dr. 
 Lingard would make us believe, is of all other 
 wonders in this business of the Six Articles the 
 most wonderful. For he not only resigned, 
 instead of consenting to them, but afterwards 
 gloried in his resistance, predicting also their 
 downfall, which Dr. Lingard seems not to have 
 known; although, some years afterwards, he 
 apostatized from the tenets which till then he 
 had maintained ; among which were " ■ his 
 
 1 Burnet and Collier. u Burnet and Collier. 
 
 1 The true Copie oi" Shaxton's beliefc in the sacrament 
 
 H 2
 
 100 
 
 dissent from all the Sir Articles established, through 
 the bishop's means, by the Act of Parliament, 
 and solemnly read in all parish churches through- 
 out the realm, every quarter of the year, once : 
 which thing, though it be established with as 
 much assurance as my brother my lord of Win- 
 c/iesters wit could devise, yet must it be destroyed, 
 because it is of man, and not of God." 
 
 Yet once more as to Cranmer, in the business 
 of the Six Articles. " Can Dr. Lingard ca]l 
 Cranmer a convert to a cause which he waited 
 for the opportunity only again to oppose ? Of 
 these Articles the archbishop himself afterwards 
 brought in a Bill to mitigate the penalties." 
 Such have been my words. Dr. Lingard now 
 replies to them, " y I called him a convert, be- 
 cause he had given his opinion, and come in to 
 the opposite party." — We have seen upon what 
 authority this assertion rests ; the fragment of 
 a letter with no name subscribed to it, unsup- 
 ported in the assertion by any document or 
 record, private or public ; and the very reverse 
 of the fact in which our legitimate history 
 unites, I mean the firmness with which the 
 archbishop opposed the Articles ; and his de- 
 termination against them, to the last moment 
 of their parliamentary progress, in still remain- 
 before his recantation. Confut. of N. Shaxton, &c. 1546, sign. 
 C 5. b. y Vindic. p. 91.
 
 101 
 
 ing in the house, which he was desired by his 
 sovereign to leave ; and in still exclaiming for 
 the protestant cause, against which the 
 deadly blow was levelled, " 2 It is the cause 
 of God, and not of man." But Dr. Lingard 
 now improves upon the letter-writer, and forti- 
 fies the narrative with a suspicion that the 
 archbishop came in (not as this person, pre- 
 tended to have been present, suggests, with his 
 former opinion fairly subdued, but) hypocritically. 
 " a That he was a sincere convert" the historian 
 therefore pleads, " I neither said nor thought. 
 But does Mr. Todd really suppose, that to 
 mitigate the penalties of dissent, is the same 
 thing as to oppose the establishment of doctrine ? 
 The very bill of mitigation, which was sup- 
 ported, perhaps introduced, by the archbishop 
 four years afterwards, left the doctrine of the 
 Six Articles in full force and established by 
 law." It has been already abundantly shewn, 
 that Cranmer did oppose the establishment of the 
 doctrine in question. He baffled too the argu- 
 ments of all who opposed him ; and he would 
 have been triumphant in his opposition, if the 
 king had not been brought into the house by 
 the persuasion, doubtless, of Gardiner and his 
 party. These Articles, the archbishop aitcr- 
 
 z See before, }>. 85. a Vindic. p. 'Jl.
 
 102 
 
 wards told the Devonshire rebels, " b were so 
 enforced by the evil counsel of certain papists 
 against the truth, and common judgment both of 
 divines and lawyers, that if the king's majesty 
 himself had not come personally into the par- 
 liament-house, those laws had never passed. And 
 yet within a year, or little more, the same most 
 noble prince was fain to c temper his said laws, 
 and moderate them in divers points." Cranmer, 
 in defence of his opposition, is said to have ex- 
 pressed his hope, " d that his majesty in process 
 of time would revoke these laws again." His 
 freedom confirmed instead of ruining him in 
 the king's favour. " e Here," the martyrologist 
 finely observes, " Here is to be noted, that this 
 man's stout and godly defence of the truth 
 herein so bound the prince's conscience, that he 
 would not permit the truth in that man to be 
 clean overthrown with authority and power; 
 and therefore this way God working in the 
 prince's mind, a plain token was declared here- 
 by, that all things were not so sincerely handled 
 in the confirmation of the said Six Articles, as 
 it ought to have been ; for else the prince might 
 have had a just cause to have borne his indig- 
 
 b Strype, Cranm. Rec. No. 40. 
 
 c See also Strype, Life of Cranm. i. 19. " After some time, 
 the king reformed in part the said Six Articles, and somewhat 
 blunted the edge of them." 
 
 d Fox, Acts and Mon. * Ibid.
 
 103 
 
 nation towards the archbishop. Let us pray, 
 that both the like stoutness may be perceived in 
 all learned and ecclesiastical men, where the 
 truth ought to be defended ; and also the like 
 relenting and flexibility may take place in 
 princes and noble men, when they shall have 
 occasion offered to maintain the same, so that 
 they utterly overwhelm not the truth by self- 
 will, power, and authority." — A little onward 
 we find the Romish party endeavouring to 
 establish other articles hostile to the Reforma- 
 tion. Cranmer again made a noble, and now a 
 successful, stand against bigotry. To the bishops 
 of Rochester and Hereford, from whom he had 
 expected support, he replied, on their dis- 
 suading him from his opposition, " f you make 
 much ado to have me come to your purpose, 
 alleging that it is the king's pleasure to have 
 the Articles in that sort you have devised them 
 to proceed ; and now that you do perceive his 
 Highness by sinister information to be bent that 
 way, you think it a convenient thing to apply 
 unto his Highness's mind. — Beware, I say, 
 what you do. There is but one truth in our 
 Articles to be concluded upon, which if you do 
 hide from his Highness by consenting unto a con- 
 trary doctrine, and then after, in process of time, 
 when the truth cannot be hidden from him, his 
 
 ' Fox, Acts and Mon. Strype. Sownes.
 
 104 
 
 Highness shall perceive how that you have dealt 
 colourably with him, I know his Grace's nature 
 so well, that he will never after trust and credit 
 you, or put any good confidence in you." They 
 disregarded, however, their friend and metro- 
 politan. He persevered ; and " e God so wrought 
 with the King, that his Highness joined with 
 him against the rest ; so that the book of Arti- 
 cles passing on his side, he won the goal from 
 them all, contrary to all their expectations, 
 when many wagers would have been laid in 
 London, that he should have been laid up with 
 Cromwell, at that time in the Tower. — After 
 that day there could neither counsellor, bishop, 
 or papist, win him out of the King's favour." — 
 The interest of Cranmer being thus established, 
 the prosecution upon the Six Articles began to 
 h slacken ; and proceeding with his accustomed 
 discretion, his careful attention to opportunity, 
 he at length succeeded in procuring the public 
 enactment, which mitigated the rigours of the 
 bloody statute that had been formed by Gar- 
 diner and his associates; having pressed his 
 arguments to this purpose, Collier fairly ac- 
 knowledges, " * that no honest and well-deserv- 
 ing subject might be obnoxious to such extre- 
 mities for acting with a good conscience " 
 
 s Fox, Acts and Mon. Strypc. Soames. 
 h Collier, ii. 201. » Ibid.
 
 105 
 
 VIII. IX. X. " k Eighth, ninth, and tenth 
 charges. In the eighth and ninth sections of 
 Mr. Todd's Vindication/' Dr. Lingard says, " I 
 see nothing that particularly demands notice : 
 the tenth begins in the following manner. 
 ' Among the many partialities of Dr. Lingard, 
 none can be more revolting than his pretence, 
 by way of contrast to the character of Cranmer, 
 of an unpersecuting temper in Gardiner, and of 
 a mild demeanour in Bonner.' Shall I escape 
 the imputation of rudeness, if I say that the 
 first part of this charge is ridiculous ? In 
 which of my pages is this wonderful contrast 
 to be found? I have spoken, indeed, of Cran- 
 mer, and Gardiner, and Bonner. It was my 
 duty to speak of them, as their actions passed 
 in review before me. But I never brought them 
 into comparison with each other, nor did the 
 idea so much as suggest itself to my mind." 
 
 The first part of the charge would indeed be 
 ridiculous, if the partiality of the historian could 
 not be proved. As to a formal disquisition, by 
 way of contrast, between Cranmer and either 
 Gardiner or Bonner, I had no such meaning: 
 I intended merely to designate the unfairness of 
 the writer in his eagerness to condemn the 
 great reformer, and in his zeal to acquit the 
 reformer's opponents ; in his apologies for what 
 
 " Vindic. p. 9~'.
 
 106 
 
 is objectionable in the papist, in his scorn for 
 what is favourable to the protestant; just as he 
 presently opposes, with a sneer, the proceedings 
 of Gardiner to those of " the mild and charitable 
 Cranmer!" So, in his History, Gardiner for- 
 sooth is a persecutor " l more from conjecture 
 and prejudice, than from real information;" and 
 Bonner not deserving perhaps " m all the odium 
 which has been heaped upon him." Both, it is 
 alleged, have passed in review before the histo- 
 rian : let them again be inspected by other 
 impartial observers. 
 
 " n Of Bonner," Dr. Lingard proceeds, " I 
 have said little : but that little was taken from 
 Mr. Todd's favourite authority, Fox." 
 
 The historian was well aware, that the less 
 he said of Bonner, the better. But where has 
 Fox expressed a doubt of this prelate's guilt ? 
 Even Phillips, the Romish biographer of Pole, 
 with the martyrologist in his eye, (I have ob- 
 served,) impugns not the belief, " that Bonner 
 was the chief incendiary of the flames in the 
 time of Mary." Accordingly we find it related 
 by other historians of that reign, that " p no 
 fewer than two hundred are reported to have 
 
 1 Lingard, Hist. Eng. 2d ed. vii. 259. 
 
 m Ibid. 267. 
 
 n Vindic. p. 92. 
 
 ° Life of Pole, ii. 216. 
 
 p Heylin, Hist. Ref. reign of Mary, p. 5G.
 
 107 
 
 been burnt within three years by this cruel and 
 unmerciful tyrant, (Bonner,) without discrimi- 
 nation of sex or age : — the most eminent of all 
 which was Mr. John Philpot, archdeacon of 
 Winchester, who, though of Gardiner's diocese 
 was condemned by Bonner; Gardiner being 
 well enough contented to find out the game, and 
 leave it to be followed by that bloody hunter-" a 
 circumstance which illustrates another remark 
 of Dr. Lingard, that he could " * find no proof 
 that Bonner was a persecutor from choice, or 
 went in search of victims : they were sent to him 
 by the council." But who was styled " r publicus 
 sanctorum malleus T Bonner. Of whom was it 
 said, " s that a worse prelate over the city of 
 London there could not come, except the same 
 Lucifer that fell from heaven came himself?" 
 Bonner. Of what person has archbishop Parker 
 recorded, " l nemo nequior aut impurior?" Bon- 
 ner. By whom is this miserable being called 
 " u carnifex sanguinarius," and " martyromastix 
 truculentus ?" By bishop Godwin in his valuable 
 treatise of English prelates, an authority which 
 Dr. Lingard himself never disdains. I could 
 
 q Hist. Eng. 2d ed. vi. 267. 
 ' Humphry's Life of Bp. Jewel, 1573, p. 82. 
 • Lamentacyon of a Christian against the Citye of London, 
 &c. 1548. sign. C. i. b. 
 1 Ant. Brit. 390. 
 u De Pracs. Ang. 
 
 2
 
 108 
 
 yet fill a page or two with references to the 
 cruelties of this man, whom, it has been forcibly 
 observed, " x nature seems to have designed 
 for an executioner." I proceed to his colleague, 
 Gardiner, whose proceedings also the Romish 
 historian of England is not eager to communi- 
 cate at large. " y With respect to Gardiner," 
 Dr. Lingard therefore observes, " I had so 
 often seen the epithet bloody attached to his 
 name, that 1 looked on him as a most cruel 
 persecutor; and, having repeatedly seen the 
 mild and charitable Cranmer sitting on the trial 
 and pronouncing the condemnation of heretics 
 in the reign of Edward, I expected to find the 
 bloody Gardiner daily employed in similar 
 atrocities during that of Mary. It, therefore, 
 excited my surprise, when I could discover but 
 one instance in which he had taken part in any 
 such proceedings, and that was on the first 
 prosecution after the revival of the statutes, 
 when it was expected that he, as the chief 
 law magistrate, should attend. On this account 
 I ventured to remark, that the charge against 
 the chancellor was not supported by any au- 
 thentic document, and was weakened by the 
 general tenor of his conduct. The remark has 
 astonished the prejudices of Mr. Todd : my 
 
 * Granger, Biogr. Hist. Eng. 
 y Vindic. p. 02.
 
 109 
 
 readers, I trust, will think, that, with a due 
 regard to truth, I could not have said less." 
 
 They must think, that, with a due regard to 
 truth, the historian ought to have said more. 
 It is the business, as it is the excellence, 
 of history, to relate not only truth, but the 
 whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Where 
 the general tenor too of a distinguished states- 
 man's conduct is the theme, what can be more 
 imperative ? What must have been his conduct, 
 of whom Henry z expressed his utter abhor- 
 rence, and could not a endure the sight ; whom 
 he refused to name in his will, saying to those 
 around him, " b Gardiner would cumber you 
 all, and you should never rule him, he is of so 
 troublesome a nature !" But Dr. Lingard now 
 presents him to us only in the reign of Mary, 
 and employed in only one atrocity. At this time, 
 however, he was distinguished by the title of 
 " c cut- throat Gardiner ;" and if it be objected 
 that this is the scornful phrase only of an ob- 
 scure writer, the severer coeval testimony of 
 Ridley is at hand, who writes, that * avarice and 
 cruelty were Gardiner's characteristics. Is the 
 relation of bishop Godwin too, that Gardiner 
 
 z Fox, Acts and Mon. 
 a Ibid. Abp. Parker, 397. b Fox. 
 
 1 Wood Transl. of Gardiner's De Vcr. Obed. 155S, sign. 
 A. iii. 
 
 a Ridl. de Coena Doni. Assertio, 1556; p. 6.
 
 110 
 
 brought many to the stake, to be overpassed ? 
 " e Pro odio quo veram religionem prosequutus 
 est capitali, multos bonos viros flammis tradidit 
 absumendos" From another unexceptionable 
 writer also, Sir John Harington, I repeat, that 
 " f Gardiner and his fellows did condemn to 
 the fire a number of poor harmless souls, that 
 professed to believe as they were taught but 
 three years before, (that is, before the accession 
 of Mary ;) which great extremity was part the 
 cause of stirring up of Wyat's rising, for which 
 many Protestants were troubled ; among others, 
 my father was committed to the Tower." Dr. 
 Lingard, however, cites a note from Father Per- 
 sons, as corroborative of his opinion, inasmuch 
 as it represents Gardiner "a * most mild and 
 tender-hearted man ;" and to me who cannot 
 rely upon the testimony of the Jesuit, the his- 
 torian replies, " It is not by abusing this 
 writer, that Mr. Todd must expect to put down 
 this testimony. Let him, if he can, produce 
 some instance that contradicts it." Strype, let 
 me first observe, cites the words of the Jesuit 
 as Dr. Lingard has cited them ; and he very 
 justly premises, * h Indeed it is strange to ob- 
 
 e De Praes. Ang. 
 
 f MS. See my Vindic. of Cranmer, 8vo. ed. p. xciii. 
 12mo. p. 106. 
 e Vindic. p. 93. 
 b Eccl. Mem. iii. 281.
 
 Ill 
 
 serve the brazen foreheads of the popish writers 
 concerning this man (Gardiner). Notwithstand- 
 ing he was so notoriously known to be the great 
 instrument of burning and destroying so many 
 Protestants, yet they represent him as a mild and 
 merciful man /" Strype then copies the testimony 
 in question, and adds, " Mark the marvellous 
 confidence of the man in endeavouring to face 
 out a thing, the contrary to which was most no- 
 toriously known and severely felt." But Dr. 
 Lingard asks me for some particular instance 
 that contradicts the Jesuit. 
 
 If I l had not produced the striking instance 
 of Sir John Harington's father, once the friend 
 of this very prelate by whom he was severely 
 persecuted ; if I could not k refer to the same 
 indisputable authority for the notices of Gar- 
 diner's great and inexcusable cruelty towards 
 Cranmer and Ridley, of the plots he laid to 
 entrap the lady Elizabeth, and of his merciless 
 usage of all her followers ; and these too all in 
 the reign of Mary, when Dr. Lingard reduces 
 his guilt to a single atrocity ; if with these cir- 
 cumstances, of which, Sir John Harington in- 
 dignantly adds, u ' he yet (in the latter part of 
 Elizabeth's reign) could scarce think with cha- 
 
 4 See the preceding note, f. 
 
 k His Catalogue of Eng. Bishops. Nug. Ant. ii. 67. 
 
 1 Ibid.
 
 112 
 
 rity, nor write with patience ;" if with these 
 circumstances, I say, I could not have contra- 
 dicted the present historian of England, I would 
 have once more gone back to the stain upon 
 our national history, the barbarous statute of 
 the Six Articles, infixed principally by means 
 of this pretended man of compassion, whom the 
 Jesuit Persons and Dr. Lingard vainly aim to ex- 
 onerate from the charge of blood-guiltiness. Upon 
 the Jesuit I have bestowed, indeed, the notice 
 that he dishonourably left his own country, and 
 became a Romanist ; and I have stated m that 
 he was a slanderer of Cranmer, as well as a 
 n traitor and apostate. Can Dr. Lingard dis- 
 prove this ? Let us hear the character of Per- 
 sons, pronounced by a writer of his own 
 communion. " ° His whole life was a series of 
 machinations against the sovereignty of his 
 country, the succession of its crown, and the 
 
 m Vindic. of Cranm. 8vo. xcii. 12mo. 105. 
 
 n Ibid. See also A. Wood, Ath. Ox. Where the learning 
 of Persons is indeed proclaimed, and his treasonous practices 
 are not concealed. Sometimes he was a soldier, then a private 
 gentleman, at other times as an apparitor, or as a minister of 
 the reformed church, in order to promote the Romish cause. 
 Hence a coeval writer says of him, " After he had cavalier-like 
 ranged up and down this kingdom, for fear of Tyburn he 
 voided the kingdom." Sheldon, Mir. of Antichrist, 1616, 
 p. 25. He fled when Campian was seized. 
 
 Memoirs of Panzani, by the Rev. Jos. Berrington, Introd. 
 pp. 26, 28.
 
 113 
 
 interests of the secular clergy of his own faith. 
 — His writings, which were numerous, are an 
 exact transcript of his mind, dark, imposing, 
 problematical, seditious." Of his contempt of 
 veracity, in relating the famous challenge of 
 Jewell to the papists, and of Harding's answer 
 to it, a remarkable instance is given, and the 
 inference of caution against all his assertions 
 thence rightly drawn, in the learned translator's 
 p preface to Mason's Vindication of the Church 
 of England. But to bear out Father Persons 
 in his laudatory description of Gardiner, Roger 
 Ascham, " q that sound orthodox protestant 
 preceptor to queen Elizabeth," is coupled with 
 him, because Gardiner had befriended him, and 
 paid the proper tribute to a man of his extraor- 
 dinary learning and virtues. But Johnson, in his 
 Life of Ascham, says, that though he always made 
 open profession of the reformed religion in the 
 time of Mary, suspicions and charges of tem- 
 porization and compliance had somewhat sullied 
 his reputation. However, why he was spared, 
 and why he was favoured, cannot now be dis- 
 covered. Many, however, must be the ex- 
 amples of kindness to redeem " the general 
 tenor of Gardiner's conduct ;" a man who 
 could join levity and insult to his cruelty ; 
 
 • Rev. J. Lindsay, Vind. Prof. p. xli. 
 ' Dr. Lingard'i Vind. p. 04. 
 
 J
 
 114 
 
 who, finding the work of r striking terror into 
 the reformers daily multiplying upon him, de- 
 volved the office principally upon Bonner, and 
 then, with a shew of forbearance, " s would rate 
 his deputy" for his proceedings, " l and call 
 him Ass for using poor men so bloodily ;" and 
 who to the martyr Rogers, a prebendary of St. 
 Paul's, desiring to see his wife before he died, 
 could sarcastically reply, u that he was a priest, 
 and therefore could not possibly have a wife ! 
 
 XL " x In the eleventh charge we are directed," 
 Dr. Lingard observes, " to that passage in my 
 history of Mary, in which I have brought to 
 light the persecuting provisions of the Reforma- 
 tio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, the new code of 
 canon law devised by the archbishop, in the 
 reign of Edward, for the government of the 
 reformed church of England. It was certainly 
 an awkward discovery : and when I consider 
 the pain with which Mr. Todd seems to have 
 perused it, I can readily excuse the remarks 
 which it has drawn from his pen. Whether 
 these remarks have done him honour in the es- 
 timation of his readers, I am ignorant : to me it 
 is sufficient, that he dare not deny the accuracy 
 of my statement. I ask no more." 
 
 r Hume. s Sir J. Harrington. 
 
 ' Sir J. Harrington. u Fox. Hume. 
 
 x Vindic. p. 94.
 
 115 
 
 What the historian asks, as well as gives, 
 shall receive due attention. 
 
 He has brought to light, he tells us, the perse- 
 cuting provisions of the Reformatio Lcgum Ec- 
 cksiasticarum ; as if these laws had never been 
 brought before the public by Fox the martyro- 
 logist, under the sanction of archbishop Parker, 
 in 1571 ; and as if in the following century 
 they had not again issued from the press ; as if 
 the historian of our Reformed Church, as well 
 as Collier, had not detailed, and y minutely too, 
 the provisions of this intended code ! Thus much 
 for Dr. Lingard's " awkward discovery ;" or, may 
 I say without rudeness, his awkward statement ? 
 That there are parts of the code, which cannot 
 be read without pain, is undeniable : these are 
 they which were adopted from the Church of 
 Rome, in enacting, or rather proposing to enact, 
 the punishment of death against heretics. " x An 
 idea of this compilation," Dr. Lingard tells us, 
 *' had been entertained under Henry : it was re- 
 duced to practice under Edward." Now, the com- 
 pilation was actually formed under Henry, 
 though it received not his confirmation ; and 
 was revised under Edward, but again failed of 
 the royal sanction, in consequence of the sove- 
 
 7 Hist. Ref. vol. ii. and Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. In both detailed 
 tli rough several pages. 
 
 • Hist, of Eng. .'.'<1 e<l. vii. 127. 
 
 ] 2
 
 11G 
 
 reign's death. This code of laws was therefore 
 never of authoritative force. Of losing any ho- 
 nour in the estimation of impartial readers by 
 what I have said, and am saying, of this intend- 
 ed code, I have not the smallest fear. Such 
 readers will with me at once discern the object 
 of Dr. Lingard's awkward statement : that it is to 
 place upon the same level cases of persecution 
 which were rare, and cases almost a numberless ; 
 to represent " b the power of the sword, by the 
 accession of Mary, merely passing from the hands 
 of one religious party to those of the other;" to 
 palliate the deep atrocities, when, by her ma- 
 jesty and her associates, " c it was deemed ad- 
 visable to revive the statutes which had formerly 
 been enacted to suppress the doctrines of the 
 lollards," a revival, to use the expression of Dr. 
 Lingard, which has thus called forth the indig- 
 nant eloquence of Hume : " d It was determined 
 to let loose the laws in their full vigour against the 
 reformed religion; and England was soon filled 
 
 * I may refer to the account of sufferers whom the Marian 
 persecution committed to the flames, and tortured with other 
 acts of cruelty, in Strype's Eccl. Mem. iii. 281. Hume has 
 collected the substance of much more which has been written 
 upon this melancholy subject. Heylin says, that though many 
 persecutions have lasted longer, yet none since Dioclesian's time 
 ever raged so terribly. Hist. Ref. reign of Mary, p. 57. 
 
 b Dr. Lingard's Hist of Eng. 2d ed. vii. 258. 
 
 e Ibid. vii. 260. d Hist, of Eng. reign of Mary.
 
 117 
 
 with scenes of horror, which have ever since 
 rendered the (Roman) Catholic religion the ob- 
 ject of general detestation, and which prove that 
 no human depravity can equal revenge and cru- 
 elty covered with the mantle of religion." I may 
 not quit this melancholy subject without stating, 
 that Sanders, or rather Rishton, the c infamous 
 editor of his malignant book, apparently rejoices 
 in the revival of the old laivs, and boasts that some 
 hundreds of the false teachers, (he means per- 
 sons in general of the reformed church,) after 
 he has recorded the martyrdom of their leader 
 Cranmer, were burnt. " f Legibus enim antiquis 
 de puniendis hsereticis, iterum zelo principe Chris- 
 tiana dignissimo renovatis. non solum ille sed et 
 aliquot pseudoprophetarum centuriae sunt sub- 
 latse." The first edition of Sanders is without 
 this pious remark. 
 
 XII. " g The twelfth and last charge demands a 
 few preliminary observations," Dr. Lingard pro- 
 ceeds. " Soon after the death of the archbi- 
 shop, a book was published in London with this 
 title : ' All the submyssions and recantations of 
 Thomas Cranmer, late archebyshope of Canter- 
 burye, truly set forth in Latyn and English, 
 agreeable to the originalles wrytten and sub- 
 scribed with his own hand : Visum et exami- 
 
 ' Wood gives his character from Camden, Ath. Ox. 
 
 De Schism. Angl. ed. 1586, p. 3S2. 
 ■ Vindic. p. ')o.
 
 118 
 
 natum per reverendum patrem et dominum, 
 Edmundum, Episcopum London. Anno mdlvi. 
 Excusum Lond. in iEdibus J. Cawodi, Typogr. 
 Regise Majest. cum privilegio.' 
 
 " 1. This book contains the submissions and 
 recantations written and subscribed with the 
 hand of the archbishop. In number they amount 
 to seven. This, I trust, is a sufficient answer to 
 the remark of Mr. Todd, that to the six instru- 
 ments of the archbishop's abjuration, published by 
 Bonner, Dr. Lingard has for the first time in the 
 page of his history mistakenly added a seventh." 
 
 Dr. Lingard must pardon my not accepting 
 what he offers as a sufficient answer. He pre- 
 sently insists upon the number seven as rightly 
 belonging to the recantations, and gives reasons 
 for his assertion. The proper place to shew 
 that I am inefficiently opposed, is there. 
 
 "2. In Mary's reign, as well as the reigns of 
 her successors," Dr. Lingard continues, " no 
 work touching on theological matters could be 
 lawfully published, without the previous exami- 
 nation and licence of the archbishop, or of the 
 bishop of London. This tract bears in the title- 
 page, the licence of Bonner. By most writers it 
 has on that account been considered as his work 
 and publication : but most certainly the ground 
 of their opinion suggests the contrary. Had he 
 been the author, it would not have stood in 
 need of his licence."
 
 119 
 
 Dr. Lingard forgets that there was a royal 
 proclamation in the reign of Edward, of which 
 I know not that there was any alteration in the 
 time of Mary, that " h both printing, and sell- 
 ing, any matters in the English tongue, was prohi- 
 bited, unless the same matter were first allowed 
 by the king's majesty, or six of his privy coun- 
 cil." So that the tract would still have stood 
 in need of the licence attested by himself 
 or some other privy counsellor, (no work by 
 persons of that distinction being excluded,) 
 notwithstanding Bonner himself was the author 
 or framer of the publication. The style of 
 the sixth and last submission induces Strype 
 to suppose, that it was drawn up by Pole, who 
 drew up a similar one for Sir John Cheke. The 
 concluding declaration, in the tract, no doubt, 
 is Bonner's. It is of the character belonging 
 to him. For, among his nefarious practices, 
 he was known before (and was reminded of 
 the barbarity) to have falsified the dying words 
 of a victim. " ' You may sit upon life and 
 death," says the indignant writer to him, " and 
 be both accuser and judge, &c. as you did 
 now of late for Richard Mekyns, a poor sim- 
 
 h Strype's Life of Cranmcr, App. No. 62. 
 
 1 Yet a Course at the Romish Fox, supposed to be written 
 by Bale, under the name of Harrison, 1643i Zurich, fol. "K 
 a, b.
 
 120 
 
 pie lad of seventeen years of age ; and give 
 him a bill of wrong articles in his hand to 
 read, when he cometh to the fire, to shadow- 
 with your mischief." 
 
 " 3. k It (the tract) was published by Ca- 
 wood," Dr. Lingard continues, " cum privilegio, 
 that is, with a patent securing to him the copy- 
 right. Now it appears to me, that this single 
 circumstance will furnish a more probable ex- 
 planation of the two entries in the council book 
 of 13th and IGth of March, than has yet been 
 given. The first is an order that Rydall and 
 Copland should give up the printed copies of 
 Cranmer's recantation to be burnt : the second, 
 a recognizance by the same printers, that they 
 * will deliver to Mr. Cawood all such books as 
 they of late printed, concerning Cranmer's re- 
 cantation, to be by the said Cawood burnt.' 
 By the dates, it appears that these orders refer 
 to the recantation of doctrinal errors made on 
 the 25th of February. But at that time, as ap- 
 pears from the letter of the French ambassador, 
 he was expected to make another recantation of 
 erroneous conduct ; and this he accordingly did 
 make on the eighteenth of March. Hence, as 
 the book of Rydall and Copland was evidently 
 imperfect, we may conclude that it was pub- 
 lished without licence, which would subject it 
 
 k Vihdic p. 96.
 
 121 
 
 to seizure ; and as it was moreover an infringe- 
 ment of Cawood's copyright, the reason appears 
 why the books were delivered to Cawood him- 
 self to be destroyed." 
 
 Of the recantation which Fox has printed, 
 to which there is no date, nor is there any in 
 Bonner's tract, although Dr. Lingard dates it 
 on the 25th of February, the day after the 
 royal writ for burning the archbishop had 
 been issued ; of this recantation, I say, let us 
 first observe what Fox has written l . " This 
 recantation of the archbishop was not so soon con- 
 ceived, but the doctors and prelates without delay 
 caused the same to be imprinted and set abroad in 
 all men's hands. Whereunto, for better credit, 
 first was added the name of Thorn. Cranmer, 
 with a solemn subscription ; then followed the 
 witnesses of this recantation, Henry Sydal, and 
 friar John De Villa Garcina. All this while 
 Cranmer was in ho certain assurance of his life, 
 although the same was faithfully promised him by 
 the doctors. But, after that they had their pur- 
 pose, the rest they committed to all adventure, 
 as became men of that religion to do. The 
 queen, having now gotten a time to revenge 
 her old grief, received his recantation very 
 gladly ; but of her purpose to put him to death 
 
 1 Attb and Moji.
 
 122 
 
 she would nothing relent." — Now, the zeal of 
 the prelates and doctors in causing Rydall and 
 Copland to print the former of these submissions, 
 was a measure certainly not in unison with the 
 designs either of Bonner or of Pole. " m The 
 privy council were concerned, when they heard 
 that Cranmer's paper of recantation was print- 
 ed ;" not because " "it was incorrectly printed, or 
 that they waited for that which God would inspire 
 him to make" as Dr. Lingard from the French 
 ambassador pretends, but that other papers 
 than this, which exhibited him merely as a 
 Romish convert, might be added, in order that 
 he should be reduced to all the degradation 
 that malice had in view. The collection (as it is 
 printed) was concealed till the privy council were 
 no longer concerned, or embarrassed. It satisfied 
 them ; and then by Bonner, with the licence of 
 seen and examined, it was committed to the press of 
 Cawood, the royal printer, who was the printer 
 also of Bonner's own publications ; the simple de- 
 clarationhav'mgbeen destroyed, that such a paper, 
 by itself, might be deprived of effect in the esti- 
 mation of the public ; in a word, that indignation 
 might not be excited by it at the perfidy, as well 
 as cruelty, resolved against him, since even Cole, 
 
 m Burnet, Hist. Ref. iii. 179. 
 
 " Hist, of Eng. 2d. ed. vol, vii. p. 276.
 
 123 
 
 the preacher at the burning-, admitted that 
 " ° pardon and reconciliation was due to him 
 according to the canons, seeing he repented him 
 of his errors ;" he means, his conversion to the 
 Romish tenets, as this single paper expressly- 
 announced. 
 
 Of the authenticity of the fifth and sixth con- 
 fessions " p there can be no doubt," Dr. Lingard 
 says : " One is given by Fox : the other is 
 mentioned by the French ambassador to his 
 court, as une confession publique, et amende hono- 
 rable et volontaire. Indeed they are not disputed 
 by the friends of the archbishop, who confine 
 themselves to the denial of the seventh, a matter 
 of small consequence as far as regards the con- 
 duct of Cranmer; but considered by them of 
 importance, as it furnishes them with a plausible 
 cause of invective against Bonner." 
 
 Fox has certainly given what is called in 
 Bonner's tract the fifth recantation ; and it is 
 the only one which the martyrologist has given : 
 He is evidently of opinion that it was " n con- 
 ceived," or drawn up, for him. The evidence 
 of the French ambassador is the report of the 
 day, and refers to what is named the sixth 
 recantation, which is thought to have been 
 
 ° The heads of the sermon are printed by Fox, Acts and 
 Mon. r Vindic. p. 97'. 
 
 q See before, p. 121.
 
 124 
 
 r constructed by Pole ; to which the name of 
 Cranmer is subscribed, but which, unlike the 
 former, exhibits no subscribing witnesses. The 
 friends of the archbishop have not indeed de- 
 nied, and do not deny, that he recanted ; but 
 they have all along s questioned the extent to 
 which his enemies have carried his recantation. 
 Nor have they confined themselves to a denial 
 of the pretended seventh ; although they have 
 not overpassed the occasion of noticing, in this 
 part of the tract, the shameless effrontery of 
 Bonner, who could publish the very contrary to 
 what Cranmer at his last hour professed, as 
 though it had been what he approved and 
 pronounced. This passage is entitled, " The 
 prayer and sayinge of Thomas Cranmer, a little 
 before his death, all written with his owne handed 
 The tract here pretends no recantation. " The 
 true copye of the fyrste, the second, the third, 
 the fourth, a fyfte, and a syxte submission," as 
 they are all respectively numbered, would have 
 proceeded with the numeration, if the prayer, 
 &c. could have been supported with the title in 
 question. In vain. This concluding part of the 
 
 ' See before, p. 119. 
 
 8 See Fox's Acts and Mon. Strype's Life of Cranm. and 
 his Eccl. Mem. Burnet, Hist. Ref. Gilpin's Life of Cranm. 
 Wordsworth's Eccl. Biography, Southey's Book of the 
 Church, &c. 
 
 4
 
 125 
 
 tract has neither the attestation of Cranmer nor 
 of any witness ; yet Dr. Lingard affirms, that 
 there cannot be a doubt that Cranmer did sub- 
 scribe this confession. Why then, as it is affixed 
 to each of the preceding recantations, should 
 his name have not been joined to this conclu- 
 sion ? Because the material part of it was only 
 «" what he was to have spoken, (and what the 
 papists gave out in a print, falsely, he did 
 speak ;) when what he spoke indeed, the very 
 reverse of the forgery, was notoriously known 
 to hundreds of persons present." 
 
 " u But a few moments of cool inquiry will 
 shew," Dr. Lingard adds, " that the publisher, 
 whoever he was, committed no forgery; that 
 he inserted in his book nothing but what was 
 true ; and that this fabrication, as it is termed, 
 forms in reality, what I have called it, a seventh 
 recantation." 
 
 Romish indignation has also in former days 
 not spared the archbishop in numbering his 
 faults of this description; in aggravating cir- 
 cumstances so as to accumulate dishonour on 
 his name. Thus, with all the exaggeration of 
 Falstaff in his loftier mood, Sanders insists that 
 Cranmer seventeen times subscribed to rctracta- 
 
 1 Strypc, Eccl. Mem. iii. 237. 
 " Vindic. i>. 97.
 
 126 
 
 tions. Dr. Lingard indeed descends to the 
 knight's more temperate but positive asser- 
 tion, " Seven, by these hilts !" And how is this 
 maintained ? " x The book, it should be recol- 
 lected," Dr. Lingard contends, " professes to 
 contain, not the speech which the archbishop 
 made in the church before his death." True : 
 it professes no such thing ; yet it actually con- 
 tains much of what the archbishop did speak 
 in the church, (for Bonner would not fail to 
 possess himself of the paper really produced 
 by Cranmer,) and then the fabrication proceeds 
 to unfold itself in a direction for him to declare 
 the queen's just title to the crown, which he 
 did not declare, and to pretend a public re- 
 cantation, which he did not make. The tract 
 professes, then, to contain, according to Dr. 
 Lingard, merely " the submissions and recan- 
 tations which Cranmer wrote and subscribed. 
 Did he then write and subscribe this seventh 
 recantation ? Of that, there cannot be a doubt. 
 ' Then,' says Fox, ' because the day was not 
 far past, and the lords and knights that were 
 looked for were not yet come, there came 
 to the archbishop the Spanish friar, witness 
 of his recantation, bringing a paper with arti- 
 cles which Cranmer should openly profess in 
 
 x Vindic. p. 98.
 
 127 
 
 his recantation before the people ; earnestly 
 desiring him that he would write the said instru- 
 ment with his own hand, and sign it with his 
 name, which when he had done, the said friar 
 desired he would write another copy thereof, 
 which should remain with him, and that he did 
 also.'' If then, Cranmer actually wrote and 
 subscribed this recantation, where can be the 
 forgery in publishing it as such with his other 
 recantations ?" 
 
 If, indeed, as Dr. Lingard states it, if the 
 archbishop really subscribed his name to this 
 pretended seventh recantation, would it not 
 have been (I repeat) exultingly printed, like 
 the rest, with Thomas Cranmer at the close ? 
 Would not the Spanish friar have declared, that 
 to the whole of the ivords, as they are printed 
 in Bonner's tract, Cranmer had, in his presence, 
 given a written consent? AVould not all this 
 have been produced, to add formally upon the 
 primate's memory yet one more stain? Instead 
 of this, we have only the pretence of it ; the 
 last, but the deepest, of the several suspicious 
 circumstances attending Bonner's publication. 
 
 The fifth paper, which is that in Fox, is the 
 only recantation to which historians ' formerly 
 drew the attention of their readers. It is cer- 
 
 » See Biograph. Brit. Art. Cu an virtu
 
 128 
 
 tainly the most complete, as a profession of 
 doctrine, and was probably the last that was 
 genuine. Collier seems to have been of this 
 opinion, and writes, that " z on the day of 
 the execution Dr. Cole, to whom the queen 
 had sent private instructions to prepare a 
 sermon for the occasion, made a second visit 
 to the archbishop ; and that soon after, the 
 Spanish friar, who was a witness to his re- 
 cantation, proposed the reading his recantation 
 to a public audience, and to this purpose, 
 desired him to subscribe the instrument with 
 his own hand and sign it." Of any new sub- 
 mission on the fatal morning this historian seems 
 to have entertained no belief. Burnet is alike 
 silent. Thus too the Romish biographer of 
 Pole, with the printed submissions of the 
 archbishop at his service, speaks apparently 
 of none but that which is numbered the fifth 
 by Bonner, and is recorded by Fox. After 
 noticing the writ for the execution, a Cranmer," 
 he says, •' had again renewed his subscription, and 
 transcribed a fair copy of the whole; but, 
 having some misgivings of his approaching 
 punishment, he secretly wrote another declara- 
 tion, which contradicted, in every point, the 
 doctrine he had before signed; and carried 
 
 ' Eccl. Hist. ii. 391. " Life of Pole.
 
 120 
 
 it about with him." Of the sixth paper, in 
 which the archbishop is represented confessing 
 himself the most contemptible of men, a blas- 
 phemer, and a persecutor, as a murderer of 
 souls, yet trusting that he should still be as 
 the penitent thief upon the cross, Phillips says 
 nothing : he had probably seen the b conjecture 
 of Strype, who assigns the composition of the 
 paper to Pole, and could not deny it. The 
 coarseness of expressions in it is much in the 
 cardinal's manner ; and in the letters which 
 he wrote to the archbishop, after his trial, 
 several sentiments according with parts of this 
 submission will be found. The sermon too, 
 which Cole delivered at the execution, is in 
 concert, it should seem, with the present pa- 
 per ; noticing, among other resemblances, the 
 allusion (which in the discourse as well as in 
 the paper is repeated) to the thief upon the 
 
 cross. 
 
 Now " the prayer" of the archbishop at his 
 last hour, there can be no doubt, was his own. 
 If other previous circumstances had not led him 
 to expect that he was to suffer, the ambiguous 
 conversation of Cole with him on the day 
 preceding the martyrdom would have suggested 
 it. His prayer, therefore, we may be certain, 
 
 b Sec before, p. 119- 
 K
 
 130 
 
 was prepared ; prepared with caution, and 
 afterwards delivered with firmness. The Ro- 
 manist, who witnessed the self-possession as 
 well as the devotion of the martyr, has given 
 us the words which Cranmer spoke, which 
 confirm what I have stated as to the prayer, 
 and which are not in Bonner's tract : " • And 
 now I will pray for myself," said the archbishop, 
 (( as I could best devise for mine own comfort, 
 and say the prayer, word for word, as I have 
 here written it." He continued his affecting 
 oration, without attending to the direction given 
 in Bonner's tract, " to declare the queen's 
 just title to the crowne," till he came to the 
 declaration of his faith as I have stated it in 
 my vindication of him, and to the revocation 
 of whatever he had subscribed. The publi- 
 cation by Bonner closes, as I have observed, 
 with what himself, by means of the Spanish 
 friar, and perhaps of Cole and others, would 
 have put into the martyr's mouth ; that is, the 
 brief acknowledgment in public of what he 
 had signed in private, the admission of his 
 signature to that especial instrument to which the 
 friar had been a witness, (and there is no 
 other than the fifth submission so attested ;) 
 the acknowledgment being an epitome indeed, 
 
 • See Strype's Cranm. B. iii. eh. 21.
 
 13] 
 
 and nothing - further, of this very recantation. 
 But the acknowledgment before the world was 
 sought in vain. 
 
 Dr. Lingard thus continues : " d The princi- 
 pal objection which Mr. Todd brings against 
 me under this head, is, that I have not noticed 
 ' the subtlety with which the fortitude of the 
 archbishop had been assailed ; the promise 
 that his life should be spared ; and the sugges- 
 tion that he might live many years, and yet 
 enjoy dignity, or ease, or both.' It is evident 
 that Mr. Todd has overloked the note in p. 278 
 of my seventh volume, in which I both mention 
 these rumours, and refute them." 
 
 The refutation, as it is called, is thus repeated. 
 
 " Had such a promise been made, the arch- 
 bishop would have mentioned it, when he re- 
 voked his recantations in his last speech : on 
 the contrary, he attributed the recantations, 
 not to any promise given, but to the hope 
 cherished by himself, that, by making them, 
 he should obtain mercy. * I renounce and re- 
 fuse them,' says he, ' as things written with my 
 hand, contrary to the truth which I thought in 
 my heart; and written for fear of death, and 
 to save my life, if it might be.' From these 
 words it is evident, that he had received no 
 promise." 
 
 * Vindic. p. 
 k 2
 
 132 
 
 So Dr. Lingard says : Let us hear what others 
 have said upon this point. Fox details through 
 several pages " e the flattering and promising 
 and other means," not forgetting the treatment 
 " at the house of the f dean of Christ Church," 
 in order to elicit the recantation. Dr. Laurence 
 Humphrey, the learned president of Magdalen 
 College, another contemporary, tells us also of 
 5 allurement practised, and of promises made, to 
 complete the fall of the primate. Archbishop Par- 
 ker, Heylin, Burnet, and other writers of distinc- 
 tion, entertain no doubt of the arts employed on 
 this occasion. The temptations indeed were first 
 displayed at his trial : " h As for the loss of your 
 estimation," said the bishop of Gloucester, " it 
 is ten to one that where you were archbishop 
 of Canterbury, it is ten to one, I say, that you 
 shall be as well still, yea, and rather better. And 
 as for the winning of good men, there is no 
 
 e Acts and Moo. See also before, p. 122. 
 
 ' Dr. Marshall, a severe zealot for the Romish cause in the 
 time of Mary ; who, it appears, was also employed to seduce, 
 in his younger days, our celebrated bishop Jewell, into the Ro- 
 mish Church. See Dr. Humphry's Life of Jewell, 1573, p. 81. 
 Marshall's tyrannous and miserable character is related both 
 there, and by A. Wood, Fast. Oxon. 
 
 6 " Suasu falsorum fratrum inductus, (speaking of Cranmer,) 
 blandis promissis illectus, &c. articulis quibusdam papisticis 
 subscripsit." Life of Jewell, ut supr. p. 85. 
 
 h Fox, Acts and Mon. 
 
 8
 
 133 
 
 doubt but all that be here present, and the 
 whole congregation of Christ's church also, will 
 more rejoice at your return, than they were sorry 
 for your fall. And as for the other, you need not 
 to doubt ; for they shall come after." Cole too, in 
 the sermon at the burning, declared, " ' wind 
 travel and conference had been used to convert him, 
 and all prevailed not, till it pleased God of his 
 mercy to reclaim him ;" he means, till their ob- 
 ject of seduction was accomplished. And thus 
 " k it pleased God to permit Cranmer to fall for 
 a time, that the papists might publish their own 
 breach of faith as a monument of their disgrace for 
 ever." Who wonders, then, at the pertinacity 
 with which the promises made to the archbishop 
 are denied by a Romish historian, merely be- 
 cause the prelate said that his recantations were 
 written for fear of death, and to save his life, if 
 it might be : as if no pains had been taken to 
 overcome his constancy, as if the Spanish friar 
 had not pestered him with persuasions, as if 
 Bonner had not interfered in at least ' two of his 
 
 1 Fox. Strype. 
 
 k Ridley's Review of Phillips's Life of Pole. 
 
 1 The third and fourth, which are stated to he suhscrihed in 
 lirison before Bonner, who, but two days before the date of the 
 fourth, had insulted the Archbishop with the most malicious 
 mockery. Dr. Lingard overpasses this circumstance ; but else- 
 where he represents Gardiner as contending, that " to talk to 
 him in prison of subscriptions was unfair." Hist, of Eng. 2d ed. 
 vii. 86.
 
 J 34 
 
 brief submissions, as if Pole was unconcerned 
 in the treachery ; in a word, as if the recanta- 
 tions would have ever been made, had not a 
 promise of mercy been given which was broken, 
 and had not subtlety been employed which was 
 successful. " " Human weakness is not the 
 only lesson which this event has taught us, but 
 is also a detestable instance of popish perfidy. 
 They promised him life and honour as the re- 
 ward of his retracting : he complied, and they 
 burned him. The merciful queen forgave him all 
 injuries done to herself, but his heresy she could 
 not pardon : he retracted his heresy, as she 
 called it, and yet she burned him." 
 
 I have thus replied to Dr. Lingard's notices 
 of the twelve charges which I have advanced 
 against him. I have considered them fairly, 
 and, I trust, satisfactorily. If an angry expres- 
 sion now, or in my former vindication of the 
 archbishop, has escaped me, I am sorry. I en- 
 tertain no personal disrespect for Dr. Lingard. 
 Nor am I aware that I have expressed myself in 
 any unbecoming manner, when I have opposed 
 a partial statement or quotation, an evasion or 
 an untruth, artfully clothed with the captivating 
 exterior of much excellent writing and great 
 apparent candour. 
 
 Dr. Lingard has been pleased to designate 
 
 " l Ridley, ut supr,
 
 135 
 
 me as a " n literary Nimrod." I am content. 
 The honours of a literary chase I have long, 
 though indifferently mounted, kept in view. 
 From what is recorded of our Reformers, when 
 any of their skilful adversaries, as Gardiner, were 
 " to be traced like a fox," I imbibed in earlier 
 life this love of " p hunting." Nor am I yet too 
 old occasionally to join in the pursuit, when, as 
 in former days, the awakening shout may be, 
 " ' Yet a Course at the Romish Fox." Finally, 
 Dr. Lingard says, " r Mr. Todd, and I say it 
 with confidence, has produced nothing to im- 
 peach, in any material degree, the correctness of 
 my references, or the veracity of my statements." 
 Of this the reader will judge by the preceding 
 pages. How far the historian will justify the 
 exhibition of himself, caught, not in one of my 
 "•gossamer nets," but in his 'own toils, and 
 thus opposed to the vaunt with which he con- 
 
 Vindic. p. 100. 
 
 It was said of Gardiner, that he was to be traced like the 
 fox, and read like Hebrew backward, &c. — Lloyd's State- 
 Worthies. 
 
 p "The hunting or finding out the Romish fox, &c. 1542. 
 The second course of the hunter, &c." There were other con- 
 troversial books at the beginning of the Reformation with simi- 
 lar titles. 
 
 ' By Bale, 1543. See before, p. 120. 
 
 • Vindic. p. 99. 
 
 • Ibid. p. 100. 
 
 ' Sec before, p. 20.
 
 136 
 
 eludes, I am unable to conjecture. " To me it 
 is sufficient," if I may be allowed to copy one 
 of his own sentences, " that he dare not deny 
 the accuracy of my statement." 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Printed by R. Gilbert, St. John's-square, Loiu!o;iu 
 
 9 8 3 8 13
 
 UINI V tKbl 1 T (_>|- LALIfUKNIA AT LOS ANC5El_fc.5 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF iiNiA 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 III I II illl Hill Hill Hill II II II I I I 
 
 
 AA 000 671 965 2