probable, his interference must be supposed to have at least extended to the exclusion of any thing which he thought objectionable. It may therefore be safely referred to as an authentic record of his opinions. But it was never invested with any legal authority; for it was not finished soon. enough to become law under Edward VI, it was of course laid aside in the next reign, and some subsequent attempts to revive it have failed x. The death of Edward VI. produced a total change in the situation of Cranmer. The new Sovereign, instead of valuing him as a wise and temperate reformer, looked on him only as the author of her mother's degradation, as a conspirator against her own right to the crown, and as the indefatigable propagator of heresy and schism. For all this, however, he must have been prepared; but he could not have anticipated the injurious imputations which were cast on the steadiness of his religious principles. It was slanderously reported of him, that he had restored the Mass Declaraat Canterbury, and had also offered to celebrate it himself cerning the before the Queen. This atrocious calumny provoked him Mass. 1553. to draw up a warm and indignant contradiction of it, in which he not only exposed the utter falsehood of the story, but undertook to prove, with the assistance of Peter Martyr and a few others, that the form of worship and doctrine established in England in the preceding reign, was more pure, and more according to God's word, than any that had been used in England these thousand years y." This declaration having become public through 66 66 * See Strype, Parker, p. 323; Todd, Life of Cranmer, vol. ii. pp. 327. 349. It was first printed in 1571, by John Daye, with a Preface by Foxe. Another edition appeared in 1640. Abstracts of its contents may be seen in Burnet, Reformat. vol. ii. p. 405; Collier, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 326; and particularly in Mr Todd's Life of Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 329. y Vol. iv. p. 1. There is so much more vehemence in this paper, than in Cranmer's usual style, that it has been conjectured to be the pro tion con the zeal of a friend, the Archbishop was summoned before the Privy Council, and appears to have been expected to apologize for its circulation. But the only expression of sorrow which could be extracted from him was, that it had passed from his hands prematurely, since he "had intended otherwise to have made it in a more large and ample manner, and minded to have set it "on Paul's Church door, and on the doors of all the "churches in London, with his own seal joined thereto z." Upon this bold avowal, he was removed from Lambeth, Imprison- and sent a prisoner to the Tower," as well for the treament in the son a committed by him against the Queen's Majesty, as Tower. 66 66 nus. duction of Peter Martyr. (Carwithen, Hist. of the Church of Englund.) z Foxe, Acts und Monuments, vol. iii. p. 648. a His treason consisted in signing, with other privy counsellors, King Edward VI.'s will for settling the crown on the Lady Jane Grey. See his own account of the affair in Letter ccxcv. 66 "for the aggravating of the same his offence, by spread"ing about seditious bills, moving tumults to the disquietness of the present state b.” His firmness on this occasion, though it brought suffering on himself, is related to have done good service in reviving the courage of the reformers c. Nor was his own constancy shaken by the increased severity with which he was treated. Although he sued for pardon for his political delinquency, he expressed no regret for his innovations in the Church. He acknowledged indeed, as he had done under the preceding reigns, that it rested not with him but with his Sovereign "to see the reformation of things that be amiss;" and he professed his determination "never to be an author "of sedition, to move subjects from the obedience of their "heads and rulers, which is an offence most detestable :" but he betrayed no disposition to shrink from the defence. of the great changes he had introduced. Confident that they were necessary in themselves, and that they had been sanctioned by lawful authority, he solicited permission to write to the Queen on the subject. He felt it to be his duty, "knowing what he did, and considering the place "which in times past he had occupied," " to show her Ma 66 jesty his mind in things appertaining to God." Having once done this, he said he should "think himself dis"charged d." Henceforward Cranmer's Remains consist chiefly of his Disputations and Examinations, with the various papers arising out of them. The most prominent of these are his Dis b Minutes of the Privy Council, in the Archæologia, vol. xviii. p. 175. See above, note (y). d Vol. i. p. 363. It does not appear that the leave applied for was ever granted, (See Strype, Cranmer, p. 321.); but a Letter addressed to the Queen about two years later, may be supposed to contain some at least of the sentiments which he now wished to express. See Letter CCXCIX. putations at Oxford in April 1554, in which he contended, as Respondent, with Chedsey and others, and as Opponent, with Harpsfield f; his Examination before Brokes, Bishop of Gloucester, in Sept. 15558; his Appeal at his degradation on the 14th of Feb. 1556 h; and lastly, his Prayer, Exhortation and Profession of Faith, at St. Mary's Church on the day of his martyrdom. The DisputaOxford, tions at Oxford in April 1554, were held under a comApril 1554 mission from Boner, as President of the Convocation, by Disputa tions at which Weston, the Prolocutor of the Lower House, with several other of its members, a select number of divines from Cambridge, and a similar body of representatives from Oxford, were empowered to issue their summons to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latymer, and to propose to them certain articles for public disputation. The articles proposed were three in number, all asserting the Romish doctrines on the Eucharist. The proceedings which followed are detailed at length in Foxe's Acts and Monuments, and the part borne in them by the Archbishop, has been reprinted from that work, with a few additions from other authorities k. Foxe's report was collected with great diligence, and is probably as accurate as the confused nature of the discussion, and the unfairness of those who presided at it, allowed 1. But of course it must not be referred to as a satisfactory e Vol. iv. f Vol. iv. p. 67. h Vol. iv. p. 118. k Vol. iv. p. 4. A doubt may perhaps be raised respecting the propriety of inserting in the present publication the copious extracts from Foxe, which describe these closing scenes of Cranmer's life. Yet a Collection of his Remains would be very incomplete, without some report of what fell from him on those trying occasions. If some report is necessary, none is so full as that of Foxe: and this, if adopted, can scarcely be detached altogether from his narrative. It is hoped, therefore, that the reader will pardon the reprinting of much matter, which is the work of Foxe rather than of Craniner. 1 See Vol. iv. pp. 4, 7. notes (a) and (d). record of Cranmer's reasonings on the question. For that purpose, the written controversy with Gardyner, where he could neither be interrupted nor misrepresented, must be consulted. It is however a very interesting memorial both of the manners of the day, and of the learning and ability displayed by the Archbishop on an occasion for which his talents seemed to be little adapted. Being characterised by solidity rather than quickness of thought, he was better fitted for shining in counsel than in debate. Even his friends therefore may have looked forward to the event with some anxiety; and his enemies probably, giving credit to the slander that he was not only slow but ignorant, indulged in anticipations of an easy victory. But here they were disappointed. Though his replies did not equal in readiness and point those of his fellow-prisoner Ridley, he yet maintained his ground with a vigour and spirit for which his antagonists were not prepared, and which disproved most completely the notions in circulation m, respecting the shallowness of his attainments and the narrow range of his understanding. tion for But it was not a case in which an able defence was of any Condemnaavail. As he persisted, together with Ridley and Latymer, heresy, in denying the three Articles, they were all declared guilty 1554. of heresy. It was soon however discovered that this sentence was invalid. The nation had not yet been reconciled to the Pope and the Convocation consequently being itself out of the pale of the Church, could not presume to sit in judgment on others. This obstacle was removed towards the end of 1554, when absolution was formally pronounced by Cardinal Pole". Yet the commission for a new trial of "Where some have reported him to be utterly unlearned, and not "able to answer a Latin text of a doctor, he hath showed himself "learned both in Latin and Greek: for truly he had a better Latin 66 tongue than divers that did oppose him." Letter of an Oxford Scholar, in Foxe, Acts and Monuments, p. 933. (ed. 1563.) "It was pronounced in Parliament on the 30th of November, and |