as an act of repentance or recantation. In the same way he had a copy of the abjuration at the close of the seventh, but he made no use of it. It only remains to notice the way in which the case may be stated by the Avvocato del Diavolo:-" Garcina," says Dr. Lingard, "had submitted to his consideration" the seventh document already so often mentioned. Of this he supposes Cranmer to have taken an exact copy, and then to have provided himself with another copy, to which he subjoined a new tail-piece as he actually delivered it. "Of his motives," says this historian, "we can only judge by his conduct. Probably he now considered himself doubly armed. If a pardon were announced, he might take the benefit of it, and read the original paper; if not, by reading the copy he would disappoint the expectatious of his adversaries, and repair the scandal he had given to his brethren."* Now we are informed that at nine o'clock on that same morning Lord Williams and the other justices and councillors were assembled, and sent for the archbishop from prison to be brought to St. Mary's. Before this, early in the morning, but not before daybreak, as far as it appears, he had been visited by Cole, and some time later by Villagarcia. Let us suppose that both these visits were over by seven, they could not well have been earlier, it must have given tolerably rapid employment to an old man's fingers to have written out two copies of a paper in two hours, which takes up about four quarto pages in the old black-letter tract, and three closely-printed octavo pages in Mr. Jenkyn's edition of Cranmer. To say nothing of interruptions to be expected, and the narrow chance of escaping detection, and the inevitable shame of discovery; all which prudence might have thought of, if honesty had been quite extinct. The supposition of such complicated dissimulation as would prove the victim of Romish bigotry to be alike insincere in both professions, is under the circumstances indeed an impossible supposition; but it is a hateful proof of the eagerness of modern Romanists to blacken a character whose memory is unacceptable, and to justify, as far as will now be tolerated, the deeds of their forefathers. A member of Lingard's communion cannot indeed imagine with what force the truth which he had wronged must have vibrated on the sufferer's conscience at that agonizing moment; but this is a very different thing from inventing a purely fictitious statement to make the motives wear the character he wants. It is not the object of the writer of this paper to represent the motives of the agents in the procuring of Cranmer's recantations as worse than they appear to have been. As far as the Spanish ecclesiastics are concerned, they executed their office as their master would have desired; and except the prime iniquity of their system in punishing heresy with death, (for I must beg to think in this, against the opinion of Lingard, that persecution is originally a papal and not a protestant heresy,) they acted no doubt with a view to the spiritual benefit of the prisoner, not desiring to put him to shame, but to bring him to repentance. * Lingard, ubi supr. "I found in the port of Madagascar," says a good-humoured Spanish Dominican of the following century,* * 64 some Frenchmen, who talked of the tribunal of the holy inquisition. They complained of it strongly enough; the reason was, some ill-disposed persons had told them many harsh unpleasant stories, and some very ridiculous ones, which have no existence in nature. I talked with one of them, the Chevalier D., and informed him of the truth, the mode of proceeding, the secrecy, the pity, and mercy of the tribunal,-the authority, gravity, zeal, virtue, and learning of its ministers, &c. He was well content with what I said, and thought it would be a very good thing if it could be introduced into France." Such no doubt was the opinion of Soto and Villagarcia. The case of Carranza is somewhat different; and the moral of the history is so much concerned with it, that I must reserve it for another paper, when I hope also to explain some facts illustrating the intention of the famous Court-Sermon of Alphonso de Castro, so ingeniously used by Lingard to puzzle the question. (To be continued.) ANTIQUITIES, ETC. DISPOSAL OF HIGHER CHURCH PREFERMENT. (Continued from vol. xvi. p. 519.) THE provisions of the Commission which was given at length in the last Number, as well as the circumstances which led to the issuing of that commission, may be briefly stated in the words of the Life of Bishop Burnet, prefixed to the History of his Own Time. Speaking of Queen Mary, the writer says, " During her life, the affairs and promotions in the church had wholly passed through her hands; it was an article of government for which the king thought himself unqualified, yet was unwilling to commit to the care of his ministers. Upon her death, therefore, a commission was granted" to the two archbishops and four bishops, "whereby they, or any three of them," (the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the time being, it should be added, being always one, and the Archbishop of York, for the time being, also in cases where the vacant office was in any church in his province,)" were appointed to recommend to all bishoprics, deaneries, or other vacant preferments in the church, signifying the same to his majesty by writing, under their hands; and during the king's absence beyond sea, they were empowered, of their authority, to present to all benefices in the gift of the crown that were under the value of 401. a-year."+ Leslie, in his "Case of the Regale," &c., in a passage quoted in the last Number, has pointed out the gain to the church in the constitution and powers of this commission, as compared with that issued by Charles II., of which an account has been given in an earlier Number. Comparing the two cases together, and both with the early days of Navarrete. Descripcion de China, p. 398. Madrid, 1676. Charles's reign, when " Dr. Sheldon," as Isaac Walton tells us, "was by his majesty made a chief trustee to commend to him fit men to supply the then vacant bishoprics," Dr. Cardwell, in his "Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England,"* lately published, remarks," that the warrant issued in 1681 was really serviceable to the church cannot be supposed, when we consider either the composition of the board, who were to select the proper persons, or the general prevalence of intrigue and duplicity among the courtiers of those unhappy times. And a case which Bishop Burnet has recorded respecting himself, and which seems to have occurred a few months after the warrant was issued, shews, in a pregnant instance, the real value of the security that was afforded by it. Lord Halifax pressed me vehemently to accept of preferment at court, and said, if I would give him leave to make promises in my name, he could obtain for me any preferment I pleased. . . . . The mastership of the Temple was like to fall, and I liked that better than anything else. So both Lord Halifax and Lord Clarendon moved the king upon it. He promised I should have it."+ And Burnet's appointment to the Temple, if Lords Halifax and Clarendon had obtained it for him of the king, we have sufficient reason to know would have been against the judgment of Sancroft, who, in the earlier and better days of Charles's reign, would have been made by his majesty "chief trustee" in the matter. The warrant of 1681, however, obtained, as it would seem to have been, by the secretary of state then lately come into office,‡ designed, as the very wording of it shews,§ to be a check on the manner in which the two secretaries of state had lately exercised their influence, as in the case of Barlow's appointment to the see of Lincoln by a coup de main, and without a day's deliberation,|| must so far be looked upon as an essential gain to the church. At the same time, the composition of the board must, doubtless, be regarded as most objectionable, consisting of a majority of laymen, and giving power to act to" any four" of thein, which might be the four lay members, without the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London. We can scarcely suppose, however, that this would ever have been the case; especially considering what, notwithstanding irregularities and invasions on the part of state officers, had been the generally established usage. It was only the year before, (in July, 1680,) that Patrick obtained the deanery of Peterborough, in immediate compliance with a letter of recommendation from Sancroft, which the Vol. ii. p. 299, note. It may be recollected that the terms on which, at another period of Charles's reign, Burnet had the offer of any of the then vacant bishoprics, were, if he "would come entirely into the king's views;" in other words, support the court designs against the church. Vid. sup. vol. xvi. p. 273. Compare the language of the warrant (supra, vol. xvi. p. 279): "We have thought fit, and do hereby declare our pleasure to be, that neither of our principal secretaries of state do at any time move us on the behalf of any person whatsoever, for any preferment in the church, &c. .. without having first communicated both the person and the thing, by him desired, unto the said Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, now, and for the time being," &c. . .... Vid. sup. vol. xvi. p. 145. VOL. XVII.-Jan. 1840. D bishop mentions in a way that would seem to imply that it was according to the usual practice.* The commission issued by William, on Queen Mary's death, in 1695, and renewed in 1700," differs greatly," as Dr. Cardwell observes, "both in its principle and in its effects, from the warrant issued for similar purposes by King Charles II." This commission, as Bishop Leslie points out, in the passage already mentioned as quoted in the last Number, was entirely composed of bishops, "any three or more" of whom were competent to act, the Archbishop of Canterbury being always one, and the Archbishop of York also one, in any case where the vacant office was in one of the churches of his province. The abuse to which a commission of this kind would, especially in the course of time, obviously be liable, is that of the crown arbitrarily selecting bishops of any party bias, political or religious. In its original provisions, committing, at any given moment of time, the patronage of the crown, honestly and unreservedly, into the hands of the metropolitans, with such assistance as would be desired from the episcopal college generally, such a commission would, evidently, be a great security to the church's best interests. It would, at the same time, obviously imply a better and sounder state of things, when no such definite security were needed, as this commission, like the warrant of 1681, explicitly provides against the applications of secretaries of state and other persons, and when kings and queens, in the exercise of their sacred trust, consulted, as a matter of course, with the church's primates and metropolitans, the natural representatives of the united judgment of the whole episcopal college. Of the consultations which passed between the several members of King William's Commission as to the disposal of vacant offices, we have an instance in the following extract from a letter of Archbishop Sharp to Archbishop Tenison, dated August 3, 1700 :— "MY LORD, "I had the favour of your grace's yesterday, wherein you ask me who I would desire should succeed in the deanery of Norwich, Dr. Prideaux or Dr. Trimnell. "Why truly, my lord, though I have a most high esteem of Dr. Trimnell, and do most heartily love him, knowing his great worth, and goodness, and modesty, with which I have been charmed ever since I have been acquainted with him; yet, as to this particular place, my former obligations to Dr. Prideaux, and his long services to that church, and the circumstances he is in, which are unlikely to be ever mended, if he be disappointed of this place, I say, these considerations sway with me to give my vote for him rather than Dr. Trimnell or any other. But this I say with great submission to the judgment of your grace, and the rest of my brethren the commissioners, and * See Autobiography of Bishop Patrick, pp. 80, 81, quoted above, vol. xvi. p. 274. "In July following I had notice that the Dean of Peterborough was dead, and was earnestly pressed by a neighbouring gentleman to endeavour to be his successor. had never sought anything hitherto, and therefore was unwilling; but was persuaded the next morning to go to Lambeth and acquaint my Lord of Canterbury with his death, who advised me to go to Windsor, (where the king was,) which I did, with his letter of recommendation, and had a grant of the deanery immediately, in which I was installed August the Ist." + Documentary Annals, &c., vol. ii. p. 353. particularly of the Bishop of Norwich, who I wish may have satisfaction in the choice of dean to his cathedral." ”米 Of the influence of other bishops, members of the commission, in the disposal of the crown patronage, we have one or two other scattered notices. Whiston, in his memoirs of himself,+ mentions "a city divine" who" applied himself to the great Bishop Stillingfleet+ for his recommendation, which was then of the highest value at court;" and shortly after, in reference to an appointment in which some of the officers of the crown were concerned, tells us Mr. Halley was "thought of to be a mathematical professor at Oxford, and Bishop Stillingfleet was desired to recommend him at court; but hearing that he was a sceptic or banterer of religion, he scrupled to be concerned till his chaplain Mr. Bentley should talk with him about it, which he did; but Mr. Halley was so sincere in his infidelity, that he would not so much as pretend to believe the Christian religion, though he thereby was likely to lose a professorship; which he did accordingly, and it was then given to Dr. Gregory."S Of Bishop Patrick's influence, first with Queen Mary, during the time that the disposal of church preferment was in her hands, and afterwards as a member of King William's commissions, the continuator of his autobiography || says "I should not forget to mention the great respect that the best of queens, Queen Mary, had for our bishop. As her heart was set upon doing good, so she found in him such a spirit of wisdom and counsel, together with so great a zeal for every good work, that she often consulted him in those momentous affairs in which she was engaged. "King William had also so an high opinion of him, that he not only raised him from one bishopric to another without his seeking, but also honoured him so far as to grant a commission to him in conjunction with several other deserving persons, whereby they had full power to dispose of most of those church preferments which were in his gift; which great, though unusual trust, was managed with great fidelity and judgment. And as his knowledge of mankind, and his great zeal to encourage religion and learning, caused his influence to be very great in such disposals, he was sure to make a proper use of it." In connexion with this commission may be taken the notice of another which is mentioned in Bishop Patrick's autobiography, and which was given for a temporary purpose to six bishops¶ and three di * Sharp's Life of Archbishop Sharp, vol. ii. † Vol. i. p. 122. [Stillingfleet was a member of the commission of 1695, and continued so till his death.] Ibid. p. 123. Dr. Gregory's appointment was in 1691. Whiston adds, "Yet was Mr. Halley afterwards chosen into the like professorship there without any pretence to the belief of Christianity." Whiston's statements are to be received with great caution; so far, however, as the fact of Bishop Stillingfleet's "recommendations," and the value attached to them, Whiston may be taken as a fair witness. || P. 225. Compare the case referred to in the last Number, in which the queen ordered the secretary for Ireland to call a council of six bishops to examine into the character of a person whom he had proposed for an Irish sec. Supra, vol. xvi. pp. 518, 19. |