That

consent of Christendom, on account of heretical writings published by the latter of the two, and on account of the heretical sermons delivered by both against transubstantiation. Of his own discourse, he then proceeded to give some account. From this it appears, that he enlarged upon the sinfulness of the rebellious, and upon transubstantiation. He also inculcated the duty of obedience to the King, but it does not seem that he touched upon the pretence then so rife among the agitators, drawn from Edward's minority. fact, he observed, was known to the whole world, and he added, that he certainly should not have inculcated the danger and iniquity of disobeying the royal authority, unless he had been fully persuaded of its validity under a minor sovereign. This was, however, evidently nothing else than an artful evasion; for no man of information can suppose, that persons in superior life are liable to such gross delusions as are contrived for the most ignorant of the vulgar. At the same time, it is clear, that if men of influence, when called upon to expose a mischievous pretence notoriously prevalent, choose to preserve silence, upon the ground that the matter in question is too stupid for notice, they virtually take effectual means for propagating the error. The Bishop's apology, therefore, was justly deemed unsatisfactory, and the case proceeded. As for his two principal accusers, Cranmer said, that if there were any law against receiving the evidence of such persons, it must be a bad law, proceeding from the Bishop

"No,

"Well,

had

of Rome, and one of which a man unjustly accused would not readily avail himself. Sir, it is the King's law;" said Boner. my Lord," replied the Primate, "I wish you less knowledge in that law, and more knowledge in God's Law, and in your duty." The accused rejoined: "Seeing your Grace falleth to wishing, I can also wish many things to be in your person." In order to stop this unseemly recrimination, the two secretaries interposed, one after the other, and informed the Bishop, that since he objected so strongly to the evidence of the two principal witnesses against him, the case could be established by other means, and that no attention would be paid to the legal quibbles by which it was sought to delay the proceedings. Petre then asked him, "Did you write your sermon, my Lord, or no?" The answer was, "I wrote it not: I merely drew up some notes for my direction in the delivery of it." The business of the day soon after closed without the farther occurrence of any thing material.

Within three days afterwards, the court being. met again in the Archbishop's chapel, Latimer declared that he had been falsely accused of heresy and of conspiring with Hooper; he never having holden any communication with that divine until after the day on which the Bishop delivered his sermon. Hooper also defended himself from the imputation of having preached or published heretical doctrines, by shewing that he had maintained no opinions at variance with Scripture.

In his defence he termed Boner, reprehensibly it must be admitted, "That ungodly man." The accused prelate, however, retorted upon him by saying, "I have here this varlet's books, against the blessed Sacrament; and from them I will convict him of heresy." He then proceeded to turn over the leaves of some books which he drew from his sleeve. While thus engaged, Hooper began to speak again: “Put up your pipes," said Boner," you have spoken for your part." He then proceeded to read extracts from the books in his hands, but in a manner so light and ridiculous, that the spectators behind began to laugh. This disconcerted him, and turning round with a strong expression of anger, he said, "Ah, woodcocks: woodcocks." After this sally of intemperate absurdity, Cranmer addressed the spectators to warn them against believing, that the Bishop was brought into trouble for his opinions upon transubstantiation. The commissioners, however, would not permit Boner to reply; but it was found impossible to prevent him from charging the Archbishop with having published at different times two books respecting the Eucharist, which contradicted each other. This Cranmer denied. After some farther altercation between the two prelates, it was determined to call for the defence without more delay. His apology proved very lame. He had begun to write his sermon, he said, but becoming weary, had soon contented himself with merely making notes; that these contained many examples, both

scriptural and from profane histories, of kings obeyed during their minority; that his notes, however, unfortunately proved of inconsiderable use to him, partly, because his little practice in preaching, rendered his memory in the pulpit not so effective as he could have wished, partly, because the council had sent to him to read a long account of successes obtained over the rebels, and partly, because some of his papers slipped away from him while he was engaged in the delivery of his discourse. Such excuses being deemed of little value, the proceedings continued, and at the fifth session, the accused prelate was committed to the Marshalsea by order of Sir Thomas Smyth, for refusing to answer some interrogatories offered to him. At the seventh session, holden on the 1st of October, by the act of all the five employed in the investigation, who call themselves commissioners, or judges delegate, he was deprived of the bishopric of London, together with all its rights and emoluments. The grounds of this sentence, are, his connivance at adultery within his diocese, and at the conduct of those who followed foreign religious rites disapproved by the national Church; his absence from the sermons at St. Paul's Cross, and moreover his letters advising the lord mayor and aldermen to absent themselves; and his omitting to inculcate in his prescribed sermon the duty of obeying a mi

* "Qui externos et non probatos Ecclesiæ ritus in hoc regno sequerentur." Sent. depriv. Edm. Ep. Lond. Foxe, 1209.

nor sovereign. His offences, therefore, must be considered as chiefly political. Since, probably, he was thought to have been remiss in repressing immorality, from a desire to see disgrace brought upon the Reformation'. His connivance at the conduct of those who followed the rites of Romanism, accurately designated as foreign, his refusal to attend the reformed preachers, and his letters to the civic magistrates, were all plain indications of a resolution to resist the government in its ecclesiastical policy, to the utmost of his power. His omitting to notice the absurd pretence advanced among the insurgent peasantry, could hardly have flowed from any other cause than a desire to abstain as much as possible from topics likely to discourage the rebellion. It does not

It was, and is still, a favourite point in Romish tactics to dwell upon the immoralities which shewed themselves with unwonted impudence at the time of the Reformation. The modern Romanists cite Protestant authors as vouchers for such facts, with a great appearance of satisfaction. To such testimony, however, these polemics are sufficiently welcome, for it is evident, that at a time when the principles of men are in an unsettled state, the frailty and corruption of human nature will be likely not only to embolden offenders, but also to multiply offences. After all, however, it is not improbable, that the complaints of immorality heard among those who conversed with the Reformers are somewhat exaggerated. The Romanists naturally made the worst of evils which appeared to flow from the ruin of their own system, and leading members of the other party, being chiefly very pious men, looked upon the vices of their contemporaries with a degree of concern which could hardly fail of disposing them to represent these delinquencies in colours more unfavourable than the case strictly warranted.