known to exist.* As Pole might have said, the recantation of a heretic preceded the heretic who made it to the doom of heresy. No satisfactory reason has been assigned hitherto for this severity, though historians have hazarded imperfect conjectures. † And, without respect

"At Greenwich, the 13 of March, 1555, Willielmus Ryddale and Willielmus Coplande de London printers recognoverunt se debere dominis Regi et Reginæ quadraginta libras bonæ et legalis monetæ Angliæ solvendas, se et nisi, &c. The condition of this recognisance is such, that if the above bound Ryddale and Coplande do deliver forthwith to Mr. Cawood, the Queen's Majesty's printer, all such books as they of late printed, containing Cranmer's recantation, to be by the said Cawood burnt And do also from henceforth print no such book as is already condemned, or made within forty years passed, nor no other thing hereafter to be made, except the same be first seen by some of the council, or allowed by their ordinary; that then this present recognisance be void, or else, &c." Council Book, 385, quoted in Pocock's Burnet, iii. 431. Fox knew nothing of this: which was first put into history by Burnet. By another entry in the Council Book, of March 16, it appears that the two printers entered into the recognisances. Soames, iv. 524 : Todd's Historical and Crit. Introd. cvii.

The

+ Why suppressed the Council the recantation as first published by Rydall and Copland? Todd and Lingard suggest that it was imperfectly printed; Lingard adding that Rydall and Copland may have infringed Cawood's copyright. Soames labours to confute this (iv. 524). suggestion of imperfection was very acute; for it now seems from the "Recantacyons" that Cranmer afterwards amended the Recantation: but the imperfection may have been in the thing itself, not printing errors. There are some differences observable in it, as it is in Fox (i. e. Rydall and Copland), and as in "All the Submissions" (i. e. Cawood). See below, p. 527 note. Perhaps I have suggested the real reason that the publication was made by the theologians in Oxford in a precipitate manner that displeased the Court. There is a curious passage in one of the letters of Michiel the Venetian ambassador, who says that the recantation was attested by none but Spaniards, and was therefore doubted by the English, and that Soto was one of the witnesses. "An English translation of this writing was published in London and as it was signed by Father Soto and his associate, both Spaniards, resident in Oxford on account of the University, where Father Soto is public lecturer in holy writ, and had long laboured to convert Cranmer, the Londoners not only had suspicion of the document, but openly pronounced it to be a forgery: so the lords of the council were obliged to suppress it, and to issue another witnessed by Englishmen. This circumstance, coupled with the execution, will cause greater commotion, as demonstrated daily by the way in which the

to this, upon other grounds the circumstances that surrounded Cranmer's recantation have appeared so mysterious and suspicious, that the genuineness of the document, though now universally admitted, was once debated in a vigorous controversy; wherein was involved the question whether the inveteracy of malice had proceeded to the crime of forgery.*

preachers are treated, and by the contemptuous demonstrations made in the churches." 24 March. Ven. Cal. p. 386. The reader will perceive that this is inaccurate as to the witnesses, who were Garcia and Sidall : he will also notice that the suspicion of foul play was early entertained. Above all, he will remark that this passage is important as apparently fixing the date (before March 24) of“ All the Submissions," the subsequent publication of Cawood the Court printer, of which I have already given a description: but to which I shall have to recur. The expression“ witnessed by Englishmen" may refer, inaccurately, to the authentication of Bonner, which "All the Submissions" bore on the title-page.

* The question of the authenticity of the Recantation, and with it the wider question whether Cranmer recanted at all, was first opened, so far as I know, by Whiston in a tract entitled "Enquiry into the Evidence of Cranmer's Recantation," in 1736. His main arguments are that the recantation is without date: that the witnesses who attested it were obscure persons, a Spanish friar and an undistinguished Sidall: and that Fox printed it in his great work without the names either of these witnesses or of Cranmer : and with an expression which might be taken to imply incredulity as to the fact that the instrument was ever signed and witnessed. Near a hundred years after this, in 1823, when Lingard published the volume of his History of England which contains the reign of Mary, the somewhat cold and incriminating treatment, that he gave to Cranmer, drew from Todd a "Vindication" of Cranmer. To this Lingard replied, in 1826, by a "Vindication of certain passages" in his history: and, I think, another pamphlet or two was exchanged between them. In the thick of the battle came Soames, in 1828, with the fourth volume of his History of the Reformation: and succoured Todd, and repeated all Whiston's arguments without reference to Whiston, and was inclined to be more positive than Todd in denying that Cranmer ever signed the Recantation. Then Todd, in 1831, published his Life of Cranmer, in which he mentions as facts the former arguments, but without drawing a conclusion. Of the arguments, or facts, on which these writers relied, the main ones are the Foxian ones. Fox certainly gives the Recantation without Cranmer's name, and the names of the attesting witnesses and then adds, "This recantation of the Archbishop was not so soon conceived, but the doctors and prelates without delay caused the same to be imprinted and set abroad in all men's hands. Whereunt for

:

Astonishment, grief, and indignation oppressed the friends of Cranmer: his enemies were exalted in triumph. The Queen was pleased that he had so humbled himself, even though she regretted that his recantation was published, and is said never to have believed in the sincerity of it: * a most fearfully tyrannous position for a magis

better credit, first was added the name of Thomas Cranmer with a solemn subscription, then followed the witnesses of this recantation, Henry Sydall and Friar John de Villa Garcina." And yet that Whiston, Todd, and Soames should have advanced an argument on the absence of the names in Fox, and that Lingard should have been unable to meet it, is a curious example of simplicity. Because there is a Latin Fox as well as an English one. And the Latin Fox is older than the English one. It was published in 1559 at Basil, and is the germ which he expanded on his return from exile into his vast English work. If any of those conten ing writers had looked at the Latin Fox they would have seen the Recantation in the original Latin with the names of Cranmer and of the two attesting witnesses at the en l. Fox then, it is true, goes on to make in Latin the curious' sceptical remark, which, in his English work, further struck those writers. He says, "Theologi, nihil mɔrati 'amplius, recantationem typis exceptam primo quoque tempore per manus omnium evulgant. Additur ad majorem fidem cum solemni inscriptione Thoma Cranmeri nomen simul et recantationis testes Henricus Sidallus et Joannes Frater Hispanus de Villa Garcina” (p. 717). Observe, I. That Fox got the recantation, and, very likely, the English translation of it that he afterwards published, from the immediate and hasty publicat on of the recantation by the "theologi," which we have been considering: and that the reason why in his English translation there are no names at the end may have been merely that the names were not repeated at the end of the English translation in this immediate and hasty publication. II. That Fox says nothing of the four previous short submissions of Cranmer (as I have already remarked), and seems (when he wrote, if not afterwards) to have been unacquainted with All the Submissions. He knows of no other recantation than this. III. That he entertained a suspicion that this recantation, signatures and all, was a fabrication: whence his curious expression, "additur ad majorem fidem.” This suspicion was prevalent at the time among the exiles, among whom he was. Sampson wrote to Bullinger, April 6, sixteen days after Cranmer's death," Recantatio quædam absurda et a papisticis conficta cœpit eo vivente spargi, quasi ille eam palinodiam cecinisset: sed auctores ipsi eam eo vivo revocarunt, et ille fortiter reclamabat vivens pernegabatque." Orig. Lett. 173. The exiles mistakingly thought that Cranmer at his death not recanted his recantation, but denied that he had ever made it.

Michiel the Venetian, in the letter above quoted, says after Cranmer's

trate to take for what security can exist if, when men make or sign declarations, the opinion of their sincerity is to decide the acceptation or validity of what they have done? Some intimation of the dissatisfaction of the Court, of more to be required where so much had escaped from secrecy, may have been conveyed to Oxford, if the report of the French ambassador Noailles is to be received: who sent his master a copy of the recantation, adding that the Archbishop, expecting in a few days to go to the fire, had sent to Pole to suspend his execution, hoping meantime to be inspired with something: and the Queen and the Cardinal were content, trusting to strengthen religion by his public repentance.* And yet what evacuation could be more complete, as it regarded doctrine, than

death, that "he had fully verified the opinion formed of him by the Queen, that he had feigned recantation." Ven. Cal. p. 386.

* Celui qui fust archeveque de Canterbury, de longtemps prisonnier a Oxford pour la religion, estant despuis deulx ou trois jours prest d'aller au supplice du feu, desjà allumé au dict lieu pour le brusler, sur l'heure envoya prier M. le Cardinal Polus de faire differer pour quelques jours son execution, esperant que Dieu l'inspireroit cependant: de quoi ceste royne et susdict Cardinal furent fort ayses, estimans que par l'example de sa repentance publicque, la religion en fera plus fortiffiée en ce royaulme, ayant despuis faict une confession publicque et amende honorable et voluntaire, telle que l'on trouvera cy-dedans enclose. Noailles au Roy, Lond. 12 Mar. 1555. Ambassades, v. 319. Comp. Todd, ii. 479. A somewhat similar expression to hoping for inspiration, which is used by the Venetian ambassador, seems to confirm Noailles that Cranmer sent such a message to Pole. The Queen, says Michiel, thought that Cranmer feigned to save his life, and not that he had received any good inspiration," et non per buon spirito che le fusse venuto." Venet. Cal. 386. Lingard, implying that it was Cranmer himself who sent the recantation up, boldly says that it was "accompanied with a letter to Cardinal Pole, in which he begged a respite during a few days, that he might have leisure to give the world a more convincing proof of his repentance, and might do away, before his death, the scandal given by his past conduct" (v. 94). foundation than this very passage in Noailles! prayer" was cheerfully granted by the Queen." and says "she only ordered the day of his approaching fate to be concealed from him" (ii. 479). There is no authority either for the cheerful grant or the only order.

For all this he has no other

He adds that Cranmer's Todd animadverts on this,

that which Cranmer had made? It might seem inconsistent to burn him alive for heresy who was known to have abjured so fully that which was accounted heresy but the resolution of the Queen remained unshaken: and the plan adopted was to incriminate him further under his own hand. The Archbishop appears at this time to have been in a state of mind which laid him open to any ignominy. Terrible dreams are said to have visited him; in which his new convictions or professions were mingled with his former career.* The friars continued busy with him. Soto, the special agent of Pole, returned to his side with congratulations.† Richard, another of them, is said to have been assigned by the Legate to be his spiritual adviser. Certainly Pole was not unconcerned with Cranmer at this juncture. If Cranmer sent to Pole the

* "Quo tempore in pœnitentia persistens de nocturnis tentationibus sæpe queritur, sæpe divos supplex compellat," &c. Bishop Cranmer's Recantacyons, p. 79. One of the nocturnal temptations was a dream of two kings, which however so exactly fits the Roman position that it can hardly have visited the brain of Cranmer. "Ostenderunt se illi in somno duo reges, quorum alterius studium in vita sæpe ambitiosa appetisset, alterius ope post mortem egeret hos Christum et Henricum viii. visos esse," &c. p. 84.

+ Petrus Soto qui ante apud Cranmerum nihil profecisset, nunc accurrens de pœnitentia ipsius gratulatur. p. 78.

Cranmer is said to have asked for a learned man "qui sacris interdictum absolvat, cuique peccata sua insusurret"-" qua potestate a Polo Cardinali patribus religiosissimis facta, Petro de Soto et Joanni de Villa Garcya," the office is offered to some one who declines it (p. 79). Friar Richard then accepts it, and puts Cranmer through a sort of catechism of the Mass, to which he answers satisfactorily. It is added that he asked to be admitted: "Missæ sacrificium implorat, sacramenti altaris cupit fieri particeps." It is not actually said however that he was allowed to participate, though this seems to be implied (p. 81). Before this time, before he had written his very first submission, before his degradation, if this book is to be believed, he had been present at the Mass, and at other rites, and had held a candle on Candlemas, February 2. "Templum repente inivit, Missæ affuit, supplicatum una processit, ipsaque die Purificationis beatissimæ Virginis lumea in suas manus acceptum famulo tradidit: prostremo exequias defunctorum suo cantu cohonestavit" (p. 63.) If this be true, it heightens the infamy of those who treated him as a heretic.