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 Winchester and Durham. That the resolution of the house might declare auricular confession to be a command by Christ, and a part of the sacrament of penance, was the object of Gardiner and his associates: but the debate produced no more than the simple declaration, that this

a

z Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. Addend. p. 369, and Rec. p. 366. ed. 1681.

* 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.

confession was expedient and necessary to be retained in the Church of God. Of the intended 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 successful 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 was 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 intended purpose, &c." The whole letter, denying auricular confession to be of divine institution 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

The king's Letter to Tunstall. Burnet, ut. sup. Rec.

p. 366.

that I have more cause to think you obstinate, than you me, seeing your authors and allegations 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; "that the Scripture 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 "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;

c Burnet and Collier. In 1540.

Vindic. pp. 88, 89.

this belief, as it were, of how little value anonymous 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.

66 f

3. Dr. Lingard proceeds to represent me as

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 as one of the peers," (to use the expression of Burnet,) it by no means follows that such the writer was. The fragment is of an equivocal cast in the circumstance after the words an act of parliament, where a space appears to have been at first left, and the word spiritual subse

e Life of Cranm. B. i. ch. 19.

f Vindic. p. 89.

s Hist. Ref. vol. iii. Suppl. 1539.

h

Original, Brit. Mus. Cleopatra, E. 5. fol. 128. b.

quently inserted. But the writer of this fragment, 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;" 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 favourable 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 refusing 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