afferted in an ale-house he used to frequent; railing at the archbishop, and saying, that he had no more learning than a goofe. Some of the parish, who had a refpect for Cranmer's character, informed the lord Cromwell of this, who immediately fent for the priest, and comnitted him to the Fleet prifon. When he had been there nine or ten weeks, he fent a relation of his to the archbishop, to beg his pardon, and humbly fue to him for a discharge. The archbishop inftantly fent for him, and, after a gentle reproof, asked the priest, Whether he knew him? to which he answered, No. The archbishop expoftulated with him, why he fhould then make fo free with his character. The priest excufed himself by being in drink; but this, Cranmer told him, was a double fault; and then let him know that, if he had a mind to try what a fcholar he was, he should have liberty to oppofe him in whatever science he pleased. The priest asked his pardon, and confeffed himself to be very ignorant, and to understand nothing but his mother-tongue. "No doubt, then," faid Cranmer, " you are well versed in the English Bible, and can anfwer any question of that: Pray tell me who was David's father?" The priest stood still a while to confider; but at laft told the archbifhop, he could not recollect his name. "Tell me, then," fays Cranmer, "who was Solomon's father?" The poor priest replied, that he had no kill in genealogies, and could not tell. Then the archbishop advised him to fre

quent

quent alehoufes lefs, and his ftudy more; and admonished him, not to accufe others of want of learning till he was mafter of fome himself, difcharged him out of custody, and fent him home to his cure.

The fame lenity he fhewed towards Dr. Thornton, the fuffragan of Dover, and Dr. Barbar; who, though entertained in his family, and entrusted with his fecrets, and indebted to him for many favours, had ungrate fully confpired with Gardiner to take away, his life. When he firft discovered their treachery, he took them afide into his ftudy; and telling them he had been bafely and falfely abused by fome, in whom he had always repofed the greatest confidence, defired them to advife him how he fhould behave himself towards them. They, not fufpecting themselves to be concerned in the queftion, replied, That fuch vile abandoned villains ought to be profecuted with the utmoft rigour; nay, deferved to die without mercy. At this the archbishop, lifting up his hands to Heaven, cried out, "Merciful God, whom may a man trust!" and then, pulling out of his bofom the letters by which he had difcovered their treachery, asked them if they knew these papers. they faw their own letters produced against them, they were in the umoft confufion; and, falling down on their knees, humbly fued for forgiveness. The archbishop told them, that he forgave them, and would pray

When

for

for them; but they must not expect him ever to truft them for the future.

It cannot be denied, that the just zeal of fome of our reformers against the ufurped pa pal fupremacy, carried them too far, and made them stretch the regal power to fuch an exorbitant length as was inconfiftent with the divine commiffion of the clergy, and feemed to reduce the church to be a mere creature of the ftate. That archbishop Cranmer ran into this extreme is plain, not only from his answers to fome queftions relating to the government of the church, firft published by Dr. Stillingfleet, in his mischievous Irenicum, but from the commiffion which he took from Edward VI. whom he petitioned for a revival of his jurif diction; and that, as he had exercised the functions of an archbishop, during the former reigns; fo that authority determining with king Henry's life, his majefty would truft him with the fame jurifdiction. On this error of the archbishop, the modern papifts make tragical outcries, forgetting, that it was the common mistake of thofe times; that it is ufual for men, in the first heat of their zeal against any pernicious error, to run too far the contrary way; and that Bonner not only took out the fame commiffion now, but had before taken out another in the reign of king Henry; in which the king was declared the fountain of all authority, civil and ecclefiaftical; and thofe who formerly exercifed ecclefiaftical ju

rifdiction

rifdiction, are faid to have done it precariously, and at the courtesy of the king, and that it was lawful for him to revoke it at pleasure.

And therefore, fince the lord Cromwell, the king's vicar-general in ecclefiaftical affairs, was fo far employed in matters of ftate, as not to be at leifure to discharge his functions every-where, the king gave Bonner authority to exercife epifcopal jurifdi&tion in the diocese of London. This feems to have been the precedent, after which the new commiffions were now formed. Mr. Strype, indeed, confidently affirms the archbishop to have had a hand in drawing them up; but the very words which he quotes to prove it, are manifeftly taken from the preamble to Bon-, ner's commiffion. But from thefe imprimitive and uncatholic notions, our archbishop was happily recovered by that luminary of our reformed church, bifhop Ridley, Henry, who died in the Roman communion (though his imperfections are fo freely charged on the reformation, by the papifts) had, in his will, left fix hundred pounds per annum, for maffes for his foul, with provifion for four folemn obits every year; but by the influence of the archbishop, who was one of the regents, this fuperftitious part of his will, notwithstanding his ftrict and folemn charge for its execution, was rejected. On the twentieth of February, the coronation of king Edward was folemnized at Westminster Abbey. The ceremony was performed by archbishop Cranmer, who made

an

an excellent speech to the king; in which, after the cenfure of the papal encroachments on princes, and a declaration, that the folemn ceremonies of a coronation, add nothing to the authority of a prince, whofe power is derived immediately from God; he goes to inform the king of his duty, exhorts him to follow the precedent of good Jofias, to regulate the worship of God, to fupprefs idolatry, reward virtue, execute juftice, relieve the poor, reprefs violence, and punish the evil doer. It may not be improper, to tranfcribe what he fays concerning the divine original of kingly power, in his own words, to rectify fome prevailing notions amongst us, "The folemn rites of coronation (fays he) have their ends and utility, yet neither of direct force or neceffi ty; they be good admonitions to put kings in mind of their duty to God, but no increasement of their dignity: for they be God's anointed, not in refpect of the oil, which the bishop ufeth, but in confideration of their power, which is ordained, of the fword which is authorised, of their perfons which are elected of God; and indued with the gifts of his Spirit, for the better ruling and guiding of the people. The oil, if added, is but a ceremony; if it be wanting, the king is yet a perfect monarch notwithstanding, and God's anointed, as well as if he was inoiled." Then follows his account of the king's duty; after which he goes on, Being bound by my function, to lay these things before