proceedings in Scotland relative to the Reformation claim attention. Cardinal Beatoun was assassinated, in 1545, by his political opponents, whom he persecuted on account of religion. In Scotland, the popish ecclesiastics had proceeded to such gross acts of depravity and persecution, that the conflict was fierce and cruel when it once began. The papists effected a union with France against the true interests of their land, to support their power; it was clear that a political contest must be the result.

In England, Henry again tried to bring both parties to his own peculiar views. He allowed the papists to enforce the act of the six articles. They succeeded in bringing a lady of rank and family, Ann Askew, to the stake; but, as already stated, failed in their attack upon the queen. The examinations of Ann Askew, who was burned for denying transubstantiation, show her courage and firmness. She was put on the rack to extort accusations against others. Wriothesly, the lord chancellor, a bigoted papist, himself put his whole force to the instrument of torture, when the lieutenant of the Tower directed the executioners not to treat her with severity.

The papists could not succeed in preventing the reading of the Scriptures in English, but, by a preposterous enactment, all persons under the degree of a gentleman, and all females, were forbidden to study the word of God. Such laws could not be executed. On the other hand, many superstitious services were done away, and part of the public prayers ordered to be recited in English-an important advantage to those who desired reformation. The efforts of Cranmer during the latter part of this reign, were less directed to political measures than to giving solid instruction to the people, and encouraging the preaching of the gospel. He had much opposition from the Romish clergy, but the records of his visitations show that he proceeded with firmness and discretion.

The inconsistent proceeding of Henry, to restrict the use of the English Bible, after he had so expressly encouraged it, doubtless proceeded from the influence

the

of the Romanists, though he was then at variance with pope. The church and clergy of antichrist, in all its forms, especially that of Rome, ever have opposed the free circulation of the Scriptures. At present many advocates of the church of Rome attempt to disguise this, stating that several translations of the Bible into German, French, and Italian, had appeared before any Protestant versions. This is not denied; but it is still more plainly manifest, from indisputable records of history, that as soon as the supremacy of the pope was disputed, as soon as his authority to interpret Scripture was denied, and the addition of human traditions was objected to, from that time the versions in the modern languages were restricted and suppressed. Where a version in a vernacular tongue exists, there will be a general desire in the people to study Scripture; but ecclesiastical domination in every form is opposed to this: and wherever there is a determination to rule over the consciences of men, there the simple study of the Scriptures will be objected to. We see this fully exemplified in our own day; but in the early times of the Reformation it was acted upon without any disguise. Brandon, the duke of Suffolk, died in 1545; he was the king's brother-in-law, and had maintained a beneficial influence over him in many cases. After his death, Henry said of him, that he never attempted to injure any one, or to whisper away their characters; adding, Which of you, my lords, can say the like?" Selfaccused, like the Pharisees of old, they shrunk under the rebuke. The removal of this prudent counsellor, and the equal division of the ruling parties at court, with the king's increasing infirmities, caused the display of his capricious temper. He was so infirm from disease and corpulency, that he could only be moved from place to place in a chair, while noisome ulcers in his legs defied all medical skill.

66

The nobles were active against each other. The Seymours, whose head was the earl of Hertford, strove procure the ruin of the Norfolk family, who were

to

leaders of those attached to the errors of popery. The earl being maternal uncle to prince Edward, also was desirous to remove those who might dispute his power when a new reign should commence. He availed himself of Henry's jealousy against the ancient nobility, who in former reigns so often exercised authority over the kings themselves. The earl of Surrey was condemned under frivolous pretexts, chiefly supported by his having included the royal armorial bearings with his own. Thus perished a learned and accomplished nobleman. His father, the duke of Norfolk, was also accused of treason, but nothing could be proved against him; though his wife gave evidence against her husband and son, and his daughter against her father and brother! By the promise of pardon, Norfolk was induced to sign a sort of confession, on which an act of attainder was brought into parliament, and hurried forward. He was ordered to be executed. January the 27th, 1547, found him expecting death on the morrow-a fate which he inflicted on many during the long period he assisted in guiding the king's councils. While presiding in parliament, he repeatedly urged forward bills of attainder like that which so nearly sent him to the scaffold.

The king's danger had long been known to his personal attendants, but the courtiers refrained from telling him that death was at hand. A recent law had brought such a proceeding within the limits of treason, as an imagining the death of the king. Sir Anthony Denny alone was honest and courageous enough to tell Henry that it was necessary to prepare for his last hour, then rapidly approaching, and counselled him to call for mercy.

The king received the fatal news with composure, and thanked his faithful attendant; he expressed sorrow for his past sins, with reliance on the mercies of Christ alone. Being asked if he wished to see any of the clergy, he desired Cranmer to be summoned. The archbishop was then at Croydon. He hastened to the palace, but found the king speechless. Cran

mer desired him to give some sign whether he died trusting in the faith of Christ. He pressed the archbishop's hand, and shortly after expired. Luther had departed to his rest the year preceding. Charles v. survived about ten years longer, having abdicated his throne previous to his death. Francis 1. died two months after Henry; the pope Paul III. followed him to the tomb in less than two years. Thus rapidly did the great actors in the busy times we have noticed pass away.

It would be very wrong to excuse the faults of Henry VIII., or to extenuate his crimes; but, on the other hand, it is not right to exaggerate them in malice. The facts of his history show, that many of his predecessors were far more blamable in their conduct, and their vices more flagrant. It cannot be concealed, that the chief cause of the obloquy heaped upon him, has arisen from his quarrel with the pope, and his promoting the Reformation. Even before his fame was stained by the death of Anne Boleyn, and the merciless executions which followed, cardinal Pole, whose scurrilous libel is unhesitatingly quoted as authority by Romish historians, represented him as the most infamous of monarchs, who reigned for nothing but evil; while, in the same book, the same writer does not hesitate to say, that he might yet become a plant of God, and bring forth excellent fruit, “if”- -what? (as Turner well expresses it,) "if he would but reinstate the papal supremacy.' The doing away this tyranny was the commencement of Henry's evil deeds in the eyes of popish writers. From that moment he was beset with enemies; his life was aimed at, his fame was openly attacked. He resisted, and inflicted severities, which, though justified by the form of legal proceedings, were tyrannical and unjust. We do not make light of evil when we say, that these actions proceeded mainly from the temper and manners of the age; but it would have been well for the memory of Henry, had he followed the counsel of Francis, not allowing the

laws to be urged to extreme proceedings against his enemies.

Yet amidst all these severities, Henry VIII. was popular with the great mass of his subjects. This should not be kept out of sight, for no thoroughly tyrannical monarch ever enjoyed popularity to the end of his career. Like the kings of Judah, Joash and Amaziah, when monarchs become thorough tyrants, they usually fall victims to conspiracies.

Henry VIII. was a lover of worldly and sinful pleasures; and owing to the manners of that day, his vices were often very offensive and public; but it is also true, that other English monarchs, both before and after his days, have been deeper offenders than himself. He was a lover of pleasure more than a lover of God; but he was not atheistical either in his principles or his conduct. Though he paid some respect to the faithful admonitions and bold reproofs of the Protestant Reformers, it is to be lamented that he did not reform the grossness of morals, if not occasioned, yet encouraged by popery, which is most hurtful to the female mind, and therefore highly prejudicial to the welfare of society, and the best interests of our race. But had he been such a tyrant as some have represented, would Latimer have been favoured? would he have been suffered to escape, after presenting to the king a New Testament in English, doubled down at the passage, 'Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge?"

66

There are many traits recorded of Henry, which show him to have been, as a foreigner wrote in 1519, 'affable and benign, and not offending any one.' There was that sort of good-nature about him when not irritated, which makes those of middle life popular, much more so than those of high rank.

His heartlessness and cruel conduct to his wives, has justly rendered Henry an object of dislike: but the truth should be told. Naturally he desired domestic enjoyment, which caused him to seek happiness in marriage; not a usual proceeding in those of kingly