Abbildungen der Seite

We have neither the space, nor the inclination, to deal separately with Dr. Littledale's thirty accusations against Cranmer, of which some have been long since abandoned by every historian of any reputation; some consist of statements respecting facts diametrically opposed to the authorities to which Dr. Littledale appeals;* whilst some have been lately discussed in our own columns, in exposition of the misstatements of Mr. J. H. Blunt, in his so-called "History" of the English Reformation.

We should not have reverted here to the part which Cranmer played in the tragedy of Queen Anne Boleyn, were it not for the recent revival, by the Lambeth Librarian,f in an article entitled "Lambeth and the Archbishops," of some of the charges which have been so often preferred, on such slight and inadequate grounds, against Cranmer. Dr. Littledale's accusation is, that the Archbishop "extorted" a confession from the Queen, "whom he accounted innocent;" and that on the strength of that confession he "pronounced a decree of divorce between Henry and Anne, declaring that they never had been lawfully married." Dr. Littledale asserts further, on the alleged authority of Burnet, that Cranmer " did this, believing his own statement to be false."

Our reply to these accusations is: (1) that there is no evidence that Cranmer "extorted" any confession from the Queen whatsoever; (2) that there is no proof (rather the contrary) that Cranmer held the Queen to be innocent after he had heard the evidence adduced against her; (3) that if Cranmer had any discretionary power left, after hearing the Queen's confession, as to the sentence which he should pronounce, it is but reasonable to presume that he thought that, by declaring the marriage null and void, he might at least ameliorate the fate of one whom he could not save; and lastly, that we have failed to discover in Burnet any shadow of ground for the assertion that Cranmer "believed his own statement to be false."

puted even now among Roman theo- confirmation of his statement. In a

logians whether there is any obligation note appended to this 6th indictment

to celibacy from any vow." See Sir against Cranmer, Dr. Littledale appeals

W. Palmer's Hist- of the Church, to an "infamous document," which he

(1842) vol. ii. p. 337. minutely specifies, in which Cranmer

* Amongst them we may refer, by provides for an "abominablo contin

way of illustration, to the alleged gency." "We leave it to our readers to

knowledge possessed by Cranmer of one, pronounce the verdict to which the

if not two fatal obstacles to Henry's lecturer is entitled, when we assure

marriago with Anne Boleyn (see No. fi). them, (1) that the document in question

Those of our readers who are familiar has no reference to Henry's marriage

with Mr. Froude's able and elaborate with Anne Boleyn; and (2) that there

disquisition on this subject, contained is no evidence (rather the contrary) of

in the Appendix to the fourth volumo Cranmer's connexion with it, beyond

of his History, will probably need tht- fact that he was the otrnrr of tho

ocular demonstration (and wo are far MS. in question, which still bears his

from bUiming them for remaining in- autograph.

credulous without it), that Dr. Little- t See Macmillan's Magazine, Nov.

dale actually appeals to Mr. Froude in 1869.

We now turn to the charges of the Lambeth Librarian, against whose extremely graphic and interesting article we much regret to have, as we believe, such abundant cause to take grave matter of exception. And first, it is not, we think, without reason that we enter our protest against the profuse and indiscriminate charges respecting the "baseness" and the "degradation" of his career, with which, on such extremely insufficient evidence, the Librarian has loaded the memory of Cranmer.* Again, we must protest against the Librarian's utter disregard of dates, on the accurate observance of which, in this as in all similar cases, a correct estimate of the motives which directed the course of the actors, so materially depends.f Yet more emphatically wo must record our protest against the Librarian's assumption of Cranmer's deliberate resolution to give sentence against the Queen, before her case was heard, and before, so far as the evidence appears, he even knew what was to be required at his hands. And yet, once more, we think that some unaccountable obliquity of vision must have preceded the following expression of opinion :—" The possible guilt of Anne may acquit her secular judges; but not even the guilt of Anne could alleviate the infamy of the Primate." The writer, no doubt, has some explanation—whether satisfactory or otherwise, we do not pause to enquire—which enables him to reconcile his admission of the "possible guilt" of the Queen with the alleged "mockery of the trial"; and he has, doubtless, some theory, by aid of which he has succeeded in satisfying himself that a Commission, consisting of the highest and noblest in the land,{ can be fairly accused of lending themselves to the "mockery" of a trial, and at the same time acquitted of blame in sentencing their victim to be "burned or beheaded" on the supposition of the bare "possibility" of her guilt. In these strange and monstrous propositions, as they appear to us, the Lambeth Librarian evidently discerns no difficulty and no inconsistency. But very different is the manner in which justice is dealt out to the Archbishop, and very different the principles in accordance with which both his motives and actions are scrutinised. The Librarian has refrained from explaining to what period of Anne's history he alludes when he contemplates the possibility of her "guilt." We submit that, on the supposition of her guilt, the course of the Archbishop, however great his regard for the Queen, was clear, and his duty imperative. On the presumption that the confession related to such a pre-contract as involved "just, true, and lawful impediments" to her marriage with the King,—much more if, as the Emperor was informed, Anne actually was, or declared herself to have been, married to Northumberland,—then we submit thatCranmer had no alternative,* as an administrator of the law, not a legislator, but to pronounce the sentence of nullity. If, again, the evidence on which the Queen had been already convicted was such as was deemed conclusive by Cranmer, we see not how it was possible for the Archbishop to do otherwise than to pronounce a sentence of divorce. In a word, if, as the Librarian puts the case, the guilt of Anne was clear, we maintain that the very reverse of the writer's sentence must be affirmed; so that, whereas he asserts that "not even the guilt of Anne could alleviate the infamy of the Primate," we assert, with equal confidence, that that infamy would justly have attached to him, had he, under the influence of any personal motives, pronounced a sentence of acquittal upon one whom he knew to be guilty.

• "There never was" (says Sir W. Anno would becomo "a quoen in

Palmer) "a more futile or calumnious heaven'' on the day which followed

charge than this, of imputing to Oan- upon her trial, whereas the execution

mcr the profession or practice of things did not really take place until tho

which he considered sinful or unchris- 19th. Once more, the Librarian ro

tian. His opinions changed, and wo presents " the world outside the littlo

are not bound to defend tho soundness circle of the Court" as utterly un

of his judgment on every particular conscious of what was going on, so

point; but his sincerity and honesty late as Tuesday, the Kith May; in

cannot fairly be questioned." Church ignoranco, as it should seem, of tho

History, vol. i. p. 419, 1842. facts, that on tho 10th of May atruo

t E. g.: The Librarian assigns tho bill had been found by tho Grand

delivery of Cranmer's sentence ofnul- Jury of Middlesex, and on the 11th

lity to the day which succeeded "tho hy the Grand Jury of Kent, against

mockery," as he terms it, "of hor the four commoners, and that on tho

trial"; whereas tho trial, as is well 12th tho Commission hid sat and a

known, took place on Monday, the verdict of "guilty" had been given. 15th of May, and the Archbishop's % The court which sat in judgment

sentence was pronounced on Wodnes- on Anno and her brother, consisted of

day, the 17th. Again, the Librarian twenty-six out of fifty-three of the

represents Cranmer as predicting that Peers.

We had marked many remarkable instances of ignorance and of misrepresentation in Dr. Littledale's Lecture, to which we are unable to do more than make the briefest possible allusion. The accusations preferred against Latimer, Hooper, and Ridley, are characterised by the same unfairness and inaccuracy, of which we have given some illustrations in the case of Cranmer. The charges preferred against the leading Reformers, of cherishing, and to the utmost of their power carrying into effect, the principles of persecution, betray the same spirit which is breathed throughout the whole of the Lecture. Misrepresentations are made which the most ordinary attention to the periods at which the views of the Reformers underwent change or modification, would have obviated, the effect of which is to brand their memory with the double infamy of gross hypocrisy and deliberate cruelty. No allowance is made,

"" >8 certain that the case allowed no discretion to the judge." Soames' History of the ltefonwition, vol. ii. p. 138.

when the conduct of the Reformers is reviewed, for the fact, that sincere men, on both sides, verily thought that they were doing God service, whilst committing to the flames those who differed in creed from themselves. The most rigorous, and, as we believe, a false, interpretation is .affixed to the persecuting clauses of the proposed Revision of the Ecclesiastical Laws; and the most incorrect and exaggerated accounts are given of the laws enacted* during the reigns of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth, and of the proceedings against those who were unfavourable to the Reformation.

It has been very far from our intention, or even inclination —for assaults such as that of Dr. Littledale provoke contempt rather than anger — to return evil for evil, or railing for railing. We have deemed it our duty, however, to express without reserve our strong sense of the very gross and palpable perversions of the truth with which this Lecture abounds, of the distinctly Romanizing doctrines which it contains, and of the manifest inconsistency of the position of the writer with the first principles of dutiful allegiance to that Reformed Church of which he professes himself to be a member.


Poems on Subjects selected from the Acts of the Apostles. With other Miscellaneous Pieces. By H. C. O. Moule, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College. Deighton, Bell, and Go., Cambridge.

This volume is the work of a Christian student, and of a scholar who, in addition to his other University distinctions, has just won the Seatonian Prize for the best English poem on a sacred subject.

The main part of the volume is taken up with a series of detached pieces intended to illustrate the Acts of the Apostles. And the writer says:—

"The scheme of the work was suggested by a strong impression of the peculiar importance and interest of the Book of the Acts. By its nature, as well as by the ordinary arrangement of the Canon, it stands between the Gospels and Epistles; a keystone, so to speak, in the midst. On the one side, it illustrates in magnificent historical relief the living power and faithfulness of the Divine Redeemer; 'who had died; yea, rather was risen again; who was also at the right hand of God.' On the other side, it introduces, and so far explains, the growth and appearance of that bright subsequent revelation—the apostolic Epistles."

* Dr. Littledale asserts, p. 53, that be their meaning, it is somewhat superdeath (by burning) is the penalty do- fluous to provide that persons convicted nounced in the Reformatio Legum for of heresy should be incapable of afterheresy. We admit that the words are wards giving evidence in courts of law. ambiguous; but we submit that if such (De Judiciis contra IIa;reses, cap. x.)

Every poem breathes the same deep reverence for Holy Writ indicated in the above extract from the Preface. And there are passages which will, we trust, fulfil the writer's great and first desire of enabling his readers to realize some sacred scenes more vividly. Such appear to na some of the lines on — "When they were come in, they went up into an upper room." (Acts i. 18.)

"Eleven returned
Where Twelve at noon had issued: Twelve at noon
With grave farewells to those within descending
Had traced the shadowy silent lane, and out
Fared at the Eastward gate. The Twelfth in front
Walked as the Shepherd, traversing once more
The favoured stones of Zion, Cedron's wave,
And Olivet's high paths. But with the stars
He came not hence again: the Leader now
Was Cephas, not the Lord." (p. 7.)

It is in these minute touches that the poems excel. Nor are some of them wanting in rhythmical flow and power. We might instance such stanzas as—

"Old ia that promise now: the years

Have circled wide since then:

The face of earth renewed appears;

Renewed the face of men.
Since then the shifting waters roll

Restrained by other bars;
And glide around another pole
The never-setting stars." (p. 2.)

Or the opening lines on Stephen's Burial, which seem to us
among the most melodious of the volume—
"From Cedron to Antonia's tower,

The sudden darkness hush'd the hour;

Nor lamp was seen, nor echo fell

From rock or wall or pinnacle;

Save where a few faint torches shone

Beside a cavern-sealing stone;

Save where a dark-robed weeping twain

Around a youth's ensanguined bier

Raised on the gale, prolonged and clear, Their melancholy strain." (p. 23.) The foregoing specimens may serve as examples of the excellencies of these poems. But we must own that many of them appear to us of very unequal merit. We make this remark in the confident hope that Mr. Moule will enrich our literature by further contributions of religious poetry; and in the same spirit of friendly criticism we direct his attention to some bald expressions; as—

« ZurückWeiter »