having previously invoked the name of Christ, and having God alone "before his eyes,' pronounced definitively that the marriage formerly "contracted, solemnized and consummated between Henry and Anne Boleyn was and always had been null and void. The whole process 66 was afterwards laid before the members of the convocation and the "two houses of parliament. The former dared not to dissent from the "decision of the metropolitan: the latter were willing that in such a case their ignorance should be guided by the learning of the clergy. By both the divorce was approved and confirmed. To Elizabeth, the "infant daughter of Anne, the necessary consequence was that she, "like her sister, the daughter of Catharine, should be reputed illegi"timate." (See the Record in Wilkins. Con. iii. 801.)

66

66

66

The same historian in a note observes, "Burnet, unacquainted with this instrument, informs us that the divorce was pronounced in con"sequence of an alleged pre-contract of marriage between Anne'and Percy, afterwards earl of Northumberland: that the latter had solemnly denied the existence of such contract on the sacrament; but "that Anne, through hope of favour, was induced to confess it. That Percy denied it, is certain from his letter of the 13th of May; that "Anne confessed it, is a mere conjecture of the historian, supported by no authority. It is most singular that the real nature of the objec ❝tion on which the divorce was founded, is not mentioned in the decree itself, nor in the acts of the convocation, nor in the act of parliament, though it was certainly communicated both to the convocation "and the parliament. If the reader turn to p. 118, 133, he will find "that the king had formerly cohabited with Mary, the sister of Anne Bo"leyn: which cohabitation, according to the canon law, opposed the same impediment to his marriage with Anne, as had before existed to his marriage with Catharine. On this account he had procured a dispensation "from pope Clement; but that dispensation, according to the doctrine "which prevailed after his separation from the communion of Rome, was "of no force: and hence I am inclined to believe that the real ground of the "divorce pronounced by Cranmer, was Henry's previous cohabitation "with Mary Boleyn: that this was admitted on both sides: and that in consequence the marriage with Anne, the sister of Mary, was judged "invalid. Perhaps it may be thought a confirmation of this conjecture, "that in the parliament, as if an alarm had been already created, Henry, "at the petition and intercession of the lords aud commons, assented "that dispensations formerly granted by the pope should be esteemed "valid, and all marriages made in consequence of such dispensations "before November 3, 1534, should stand good in law, unless they were "prohibited by the express words of scripture. St. 28 Hen. VIII. 16.”

66

Let us pause here a moment, and look into the conduct of Cranmer towards this unhappy woman.-We see him introduced into Harry's favour, through the influence of the earl of Wiltshire, father to Anne Boleyn; we see him working zealously to place her on the throne of England, and we find it stated by Burnet, that "they that loved the reformation, looked for better days under her protection;" while Cranmer is represented by the same historian as the head of the reforming party in England; yet what do we here see? Do we not behold the vile and hoary ingrate, not only sacrificing the child of his friend and bene

factor to please the whim of an inexorable tyrant, but even consenting to wound her tenderest feelings on the verge of death, by annulling that marriage which he had solemnly pronounced good and valid, and declaring the child she had brought forth, and which had been christened by him with all the pomp and splendour of religious and royal cere'money,-a bastard. This " courtly sycophant," who is described by Burnet and the modern editors, as forming "the only honourable exception" of attachment to Anne's cause, who is stated by the same authorities to have assured the king by letter, that next to him, "he was more bound to her than to all persons living;" this idol of the refor ́mation, scrupled not to desert her the moment he found himself in jeopardy, and not only to desert, but even to stab her feelings by his base treatment, in officially tarnishing her character with infamy and her offspring with disgrace. Is there a human being impressed with the feelings of honour that can refrain from execrating the miscreant who could act so infamous and ungrateful a part? Yet this is the man who is put on a level, by Fox, and Burnet, and their copiers, with a Chrysostom, an Ambrose, and an Austin. It was well for him that he did not live till the infant Elizabeth, he thus bastardized came to the crown, as that virgin queen would most assuredly have given him a Roland for his Oliver, had he fallen in her way.

66

On the very day Cranmer pronounced his judgment, the companions of Anne, one of them her brother, were led to execution; and two days after Anne herself was taken to the fatal scaffold. In giving the relation of her trial and death, Burnet is scrupulously careful in screening Cranmer from any share in the transactions. His name is not once men tioned in the account, though he took so prominent a part, from his situation, in annulling the marriage. He gives us, however, more cant in a message said to have been sent by Anne to the king, in which she thanked him for all his favours, and particularly "for sending her to be a saint in heaven." Her idea of sanctity must have been a little presumptuons we think, as it does not appear that she ever positively denied or acknowledged her guilt. That she prevaricated is admitted by her panegyrists, and this must be allowed but a hollow kind of holiness to entitle any one to the rank of a saint in heaven. The modern editors, we observe, have suppressed one circumstance connected with the death of this adultress from partiality, we presume to the character of Anne, and hatred to that of the bloody (as she is unjustly called) queen Mary. This princess, it will be recollected, was the daughter of Catharine, and was not allowed to see her own mother after her separation from Henry. Burnet says, that when Anne had intimation of her death, she among other things, "reflected on her carriage to lady Mary, to whom she had "been too severe a step mother; so she made one of her women sit "down, and she fell on her knees before her and charged her to go to lady Mary, and in that posture, and in her name, to ask her forgive"ness for all she had done against her." So, so; this candidate for a saintship in heaven; this protectoress of the reformation; this woman after Cranmer's own heart,‚—was a cruel step mother as well as a faithless wife. How creditable must this be to the reformation of which Anne and Cranmer are allowed to have been the chief props.

Thus, only four months after the death of Catharine fell her rival

OF

For's Book of Martyrs,

CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL.

No. 36. Printed and Published by W. E. ANDREWS, 3, Chapter- Price 3d.

house-court, St. Paul's Churchyard, London.

Anne Boleyn, as little regarded and respected by the people as Catharine was beloved and lamented. Even Henry, a remorseless barbarian, could not receive the news of his virtuous wife's death without émotions of grief and attachment; but the day on which Anne was executed he dressed himself in his gayest apparel, and the next day appeared as a bridegroom, by taking Jane Seymour for his wife. In closing our account of Anne Boleyn, for we have much more to say of Cranmer, it is worthy of observation; and is mentioned by Dr. Lingard in a note at the end of the fourth volume of his interesting History, that, if this queen was innocent, there was something very singular in the conduct of her daughter Elizabeth. 'Mary," he says, no sooner ascended the throne, than "she hastened to repeal the acts derogatory from the honour of her "mother. Elizabeth sate on it five-and-forty years; yet made no at

66

tempt to vindicate the memory of her mother. The proceedings were "not reviewed; the act of attainder and divorce was not repealed. It seemed as if she had forgotten, or wished the world to forget, that "there ever existed such a woman as Anne Boleyn."

66

We must now revert back to the year 1533, the year Cranmer was made archbishop of Canterbury. We find it stated that one Frith was burned in this year for heresy, in which case Cranmer must have had a hand in his death, he being the primate of England and one of the king's council. Frith is described as being a young man much famed for learning, and was the first who wrote in England against the corporeal presence in the sacrament. This admission is not unworthy of notice.Christianity had been part and parcel of the law of the land about 900 years, and the belief in the real presence of the sacrament was part of that system of Christianity, and had, in fact, been received with the system by our pagan ancestors. Well, then, is it not somewhat singular that during this long space of years no one should become enlightened with the truth in this country, though it abounded with learned men, but this young man Frith? We are told, too, that his book falling into the hands of Sir Thomas More, that learned scholar answered it. It is further said that "Frith_never saw the answer until he was put in prison; and then, though he was loaded with irons, and had no books "allowed, he replied." Prodigious! This Frith must have been a very clever man. But as he was not allowed to have any books, how came he by Sir Thomas More's answer to him? And was he allowed pen, ink, and paper, though denied books? This is rather inconsistent. Frith is stated to have followed the doctrine of Zuinglius, and " in his reply he insisted much on the argument, that the Israelites did "eat the same food, and drank of the same rock, and that rock was "Christ; and since Christ was only mystically and by faith received by by them, he concluded that he was at the present time also received 66 only by faith. He shewed that Christ's words, 'This is my body,' were accommodated to the Jewish phrase of calling the lamb the "Lord's passover; and confirmed his opinion with many passages out "of the fathers, in which the elements were called signs and figures of "Christ's body; and they said, that upon consecration they did not cease to be bread and wine, but remained still in their own proper "natures. He also shewed that the fathers were strangers to all the consequences of that opinion, as that a body could be in more places " than one at the same time, or could be in a place in the manner of a spirit; yet he concluded, that if that opinion were held only as a speculation, it might be tolerated, but he condemned the adoration of "the elements as gross idolatry."

66

This disciple must have been learned indeed to make these discoveries, but none but fools and enthusiasts, we think, can give credit to his logic. How the plain words of Christ could be accomodated to the Jewish phrase we cannot divine, but probably Frith had the same being for a teacher that his master had. Zuinglius informs us that he had great difficulty in obscuring the clearness of the expression of our Saviour. This is my body; but in the midst of his difficulty the devil, (whether black or white he could not tell) helped him out of it by assuring him that, in the language of scripture," this is meaned this sig

nifies;" and upon this authority Zuinglius grounded his doctrine. With regard to the passages out of the fathers, we wish that these passages had been given, which we think would have been the case, if truth had been the object of Fox, or Burnet, or the modern editors. Of the fathers of the first five ages we have quoted passages from their works shewing that they believed the same as Catholics now and always did believe, and if Frith had discovered that the passages in the works of any of the fathers had been mistranslated or falsified by Catholic writers in defence of the doctrine of the real presence, why were they not pointed out. This would have been the way to defend the cause of truth; this would have confounded his antagonists, and shamed his persecutors. But such a course was not adopted, and the reason for it was, it could not be so, the fathers being clearly on the Catholic side.Henry himself wrote in defence of the doctrine of transubstantiation against Luther, in which the royal author says, "the most holy fathers "seeing these things, took all possible care, and used their utmost en"deavours, that the greatest faith imaginable should be had towards "this most propitiatory sacrament: and that it should be worshipped "with the greatest honour possible. And for that cause, amongst many other things, they, with great care, delivered us this also: "That the "bread and wine do not remain in the Eucharist, but is truly changed "into the body and blood of Christ.' They taught mass to be a sacri"fice, in which Christ himself is truly offered for the sins of a Christian people: And so far as it was lawful for mortals, they adorned this im"mortal mystery with venerable worship, and mystical rites: They "commanded the people to be present in adoration of it, whilst it is ce"lebrated, for the procuring of their salvation. Finally, lest the laity, "by forbearing to receive the sacrament, should by little and little, omit "it for good and all; they have established an obligation that every « man shall receive at least once a year. By those things, and many of the like nature, the holy fathers of the church, in several ages, have demonstrated their care for the faith and veneration of this adorable cr sacrament." The royal disputant is clearly opposed to Frith, and shews that so far from the fathers being strangers to the consequences of the opinion that a body could be in more places than one at the same time, they held it as a positive doctrine, that as nothing was impossible to God, his body could be in as many places as he pleased, and who can dispute the fact without denying the omnipotence of God?

i

It is a piece of extreme modesty on the part of Frith to allow the toleration of the opinion if held only as a speculation, "but he condemned," we are told, "the adoration of the elements as gross idolatry." What then we are to suppose that if this enlightened reformer had been in possession of power, he would have served the believers in transubstantiation the same as they served him. But these words are put into this man's mouth, or rather they are foisted on him as part of his book.Who are the men that adore the elements of bread and wine? Not Catholics. Indeed we know of no men so simple. It is a gross insinuation intended to impose on the credulous, and make them believe that Catholics in adoring the Host in the great and august sacrifice of the mass, give worship to the elements of bread and wine; whereas the homage is paid to God himself, which he commanded should be given,