“ HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION.” 367 
this one instance, Cranmer completely departed from the mildness 
of temper, aud moderation of principle, which usually marked his 
actions. Even the tears of Edward upon signing the warrant, 
which do honour to his memory, made no impression upon this se- 
vere punisher of heresy. Nevertheless, Burnett is still ready to 
play the advocate for the primate ; for he remarks that “ when the 
young king said to him that if he did wrong it was in submission to 
his authority, and he should answer for it to God, this struck the 
archbishop with much horror, so that he was very unwilling to have 
the sentence executed.”!* Great, however, as may have been his 
sensitiveness on that occasion, it did not deter him from committing 
his victim to the flames, as he believed himself obliged, says another 
of his apologists, “‘ for conscience sake.” It may be, and indeed has 
been, said in justification of Cranmer, that he was not present at the 
council board when it was determined to revive the Romish sta- 
tutes, which declare heresy to be a crime punishable with death ; 
but surely his absence entitled him to no praise of superior lenity, 
as he offered no opposition to the sentence. To reconcile such a line 
of conduct on the part of Cranmer with his scrupulous conscience, 
and with his gentle nature, it will perhaps be near to the truth if 
we say that we here witness the prevalence of system over temper : 
for though the great work of ecclesiastical reformation was upper- 
most in Cranmer’s mind, he was unable to guard himself against 
the insidious approaches of that Jesuitical spirit by which the ponti- 
fical power had so long borne down the most precious rights of man. 
Another pregnant indication of malus animus in Burnett, towards 
the archbishop, is discovered by Lowth in his observation respecting 
Cranmer’s celebrated protestation on entering the See of Canter- 
to do by the law of parliament.—See Observations on the Character of Archbi- 
shop Cranmer, p. 21. London, 1686. Now, though it was enacted in the 
constitutions of Clarendon, under Henry II, that no bishop, abbot, or clergy- 
man, was to judge any person to the loss of life or limb, or to give his vote 
or countenance, for that purpose, to others; anda much older canon to that 
effect had been brought into England by Lanfranc—see Stillingfleet’s Eccle- 
siastical Cases, vol. ii, p. 254—yet, as the head of the English Reformers, 
Cranmer might choose to take this occasion to show that it was not required 
of him to be bound by the narrow superstitions of a Roman canon, especially 
as there was no reasonable pretext for accusing him of inhumanity in put- 
ting his name to the warrant, as the council’s order for the execution is made 
conditional on the king’s sanction being obtained: “the king’s writ,” says 
Burnett, being first directed and sent forth for that purpose.” 
‘1 Eleven months elapsed between her examination in April, 1549, and 
her committal to the lames on May 2, 1550.—Strype, Mem. vol. ii, p. 335. 
