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 just before. So that, in order to be ingenious in imposing upon his readers, the historian of our Reformation 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 minutia 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 four months elapsed,

8 Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. i. p.

k

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. ' Dr. Lingard's Vind.. p. 73. n.

Dr. Lingard has allowed but three. See before p. 1. and the preceding note.

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 unwillingly to the bishopric;" a point, which Dr. Lingard finds it convenient not to admit.

12. If I rightly understand the reasoning of Mr. Todd," Dr. Lingard accordingly proceeds, "it follows, that because Cranmer said that he came unwillingly to the bishopric, he therefore 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 depreciate, or to disprove, the unwillingness of Cranmer to be made archbishop. He is certainly at liberty to understand my statement, or reasoning, 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 evidence of this unwillingness, now presents itself; and, after a sneer at the solemn asseveration of

'Dr. Lingard's Vind. p. 73.

See page 1. and p. 4.

Cranmer, Dr. Lingard dryly dismisses the subject with the plea, that he is not the biographer of the archbishop.

"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 noticed this solemn asseveration, as it is termed, [that Cranmer came unwillingly to the bishopric;] 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 character 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 necessity 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 discussion, in vindicating the character of him at

" Dr. Lingard's Vind. pp. 73, 74.

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, Cranmer • endeavoured to avoid the introduction. But he was bound to submit; and the introduction 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 intention, 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 cumbered 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 dispatched away from coming in the king's presence. They promised, 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."

only after the martyrdom of the archbishop, was P fellow of Merton College, Oxford; who, doubtless, relates what then was well remembered, 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 a in

q

P Elected in 1586. A. Wood, Ath. Ox. Wood says, and most truly, that this excellent person "is worthily styled Vindex Ecclesia Anglicana." 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.