them. It is not however with Cranmer's fear of death that I here find fault, but with your account of the circumftances that attended it. Is it then true, that his recantation was the effect of "a momentary weakness," as you defcribe it to have been? (1) Was it a fingle act, and that of short continuance? No, Sir, he is proved to have deliberately fubfcribed fix different forms of recantation, at fo many different periods, each one of which was more ample and express than the preceding one; and he remained during the whole five or fix laft weeks of his life, and until the very hour of his death, either a fincere Catholic or an egregious hypocrite. (2) At length finding that, notwithstanding fo many retractations, he was upon the point of being executed, he revoked them all, and fhewed a refolution at his death which he had exhibited in no one occurrence of his life.

Methinks,

(i) P. 79. Dr. S. feems in this, as in many other paffages, to have been misled by that treacherous guide, Hume, whose words are thefe: "He allowed, in an unguarded hour, the sentiments of nature to prevail over his refolution." Hift. of Tudors. [In the notes to his fecond edition, p. 181, my adversary confesses, with a candour that does him credit, his error in defcribing Cranmer's recantation as a momentary weakness.-Si fic omnia!]

(2) The two first of these retractations are without date. The third appears to have been figned Feb. 14. The fourth is dated Feb. 16; and the laft is dated March 18. See Strype's Mem. Ecc. vol. ii, p, 234. Cranmer retracted his recantations and was executed March 2.1.

Dr. S. is guilty of the greatest inconfiftency, as well as uncharitablenefs, where he afcribes the conduct of Cranmer's enemies in making him recant, to a "refinement of cruelty,....in order that infamy might be added to his death." Did then Mary's divines think it infamous to retract heretical opinions? No: they thought it honourable in this world, and advantageous for the next, which latter confideration was the real motive of their perfuafions.

Methinks, Sir, you will hardly forgive me this statement of facts, which bears fo hard on characters that you have celebrated as models " of virtue and integrity." But after all, Sir, reflect, that as I have not invented these facts, or foifted them into the records to which I have referred for their existence, fo neither is it in your power to fupprefs them. And why indeed should you wish to suppress them? You have feen that I have acknowledged and reprobated the crimes of a Sergius, a John X, an Alexander VI, and of every other bad Pope, which I have found recorded in genuine hiftory. Why then should you not be equally liberal in abandoning as indefenfible the characters of a Luther and a Cranmer? I grant indeed, that the truth or falfehood of a religious fyftem is not fo much connected with the behaviour of its later members or fuperiors, as it is with that of its original preachers and founders. For though we find, at all times, many of God's ministers, who go on in ordinary fucceffion to be bad men, yet we never find any but perfons of the most eminent piety and virtue charged by him with any extraordinary commiffion of making known his will to men, fuch as were Noah, Abraham, Mofes, Samuel, the feveral prophets, John the Baptift, and the apoftles. Still however, Sir, the caufe of truth is infe. parably connected with that of religion; and to tell the plain truth ought to be our first concern, both as writers and as Chriftians. Before I conclude I cannot refrain from making one more reflection of the fame tendency with the former. I fee amongst the nobility and gentry of our communion, the pof

terity of feveral men who were the agents and confederates of Henry VIII, Somerset, and Cranmer, in the measures which I find fault with; on the other hand, I behold amongst the nobility and even the clergy of your's the defcendants of those who were inftrumental in the burnings of Mary's reign. Who knows but your progenitor, between two and three hundred years ago, was a retainer of the latter clafs, and mine of the former? Thus much I can confidently affert, that if your boasted martyrs, Hooper and Rogers, were now amongft us and faw you officiating in your proper habit at the cathedral altar, they would turn from you as from a superstitious papist; (1) and if Cranmer and Ridley were alive and fitting in judgment on fome of your publications, which I fhall have occafion to examine, they would infallibly fentence you to the fame cruel fate which they themselves fuffered, (2)

I have the honour, &c.

POST

[(1) It has been fignified that the latter, when led to execution, threatened his fellow Proteftants with everlasting fire if they did not lay afide furplices, and other things belonging to the fervice of the church of England.]

[(2) See the whole of Cranmer's fpeech to Edward VI, concerning the execution of Joan Knell, referred to above in Bur. net's Hiftory of the Reformation, p. ii, b. i.]

POSTSCRIFT TO LETTER V.

[I have to regret that Dr. S. has not thought my vindication of the middle ages from the afperfions which he with moft modern writers has thrown. upon them, "worthy of notice," as he has thereby deprived me of the opportunity of doing more ample justice to them than I have yet done, particularly in what regards their principles of religion and morality. If the ancient church had ceafed to regard the theological and moral virtues as neceffary for falvation, and had fubftituted forms and ceremonies in their place, if there had been wanting in any age a fucceffion of holy perfonages to fupport thefe by their doctrine and to illuftrate them by their example, if the Reformation, as it is called, were fet on foot and embraced by perfons the most eminent for their piety and virtue, when it began, and were followed by a general improvement in the religious and moral conduct of the people, where it prevailed, the occafion most certainly called upon my adverfary in his fecond edition to prove these points from the records of councils and authentic hiftory. His neglecting then to fupport his affertions can be afcribed to no other caufe but a conviction of their being indefensible. It was ftill more incumbent on him to repel thofe formal charges which I have brought against characters for which he profeffes fo much refpect, had this been feasible, becaufe his profeffed object in writing his Reflections was to vindicate them from imputations of the fame nature, which

M 4

which are fuppofed to be contained in my History of Winchefter. It is true he offers a few words in favour of two of these characters, Luther and Cranmer, but they are fo little to the purpose, that they only ferve to place the evidence against the accused in a more striking light.

With respect to Luther, it appears that my antagonist is more anxious concerning his reputation for good manners, than concerning his moral character in points of infinitely greater importance. So far is certain that Dr. S. has not faid a word to justify Luther's motives, doctrine, or conduct from the weighty charges which I have brought against them in the foregoing letter. He has even left this patriarch under the imputation, with which he charges himself, of being the inftrument of the Devil in his grand undertaking. The only article in my accufation to which any answer is made, is that concerning Luther's foul language: "This," fays Dr. S. "did not arife only from the violence of his temper, but alfo from the rude manners of the age and country in which he lived." He adds, "the language which paffed between Erafmus and the monks his opponents, would difguft readers at the prefent

time."

2d ed. p. 176. Now fuch kind of an apology for Luther, I maintain, is highly injurious to the memory of his cotemporaries, and particularly of Erafmus. It is true we do not find in the luminous and nervous ftyle of this great genius the mincing phrafes of a "waiting gentlewoman," or master of ceremonies. Had it been made up of fuch filmy goffamer materials as thefe, it never would have defcended