demn the Bibles to which the names of Taverner or Cranmer or Tunstal had been affixed, nor even that of Matthew by name; because this last had been so pointedly sanctioned by his Majesty, and it had prepared the way for all that followed! But, once more roused by the name of Tyndale, it was then enacted,—

"That all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, of this translation, should, by authority of this Act, clearly and utterly be abolished and extinguished, and forbidden to be kept and used in this realm, or elsewhere, in any of the King's dominions." But it was provided, "that the Bibles and New Testaments in English, not being of Tyndale's translations, should stand in force, and not be comprised in this abolition or act. Nevertheless, if there should be found in any such Bibles or New Testaments, any annotations or preambles, that then the owners of them should cut or blot the same in such wise as they cannot be perceived or read, on pain of losing or forfeiting for every Bible or Testament forty shillings; (or equal to £30,) provided that this article should not extend to the blotting any quotations or summaries of chapters in any Bible."

It was farther enacted,-" That no manner of persons, after the 1st of October, should take upon them to read openly to others, in any church or open assembly, within any of the King's dominions, the Bible or any part of Scripture in English, unless he was so appointed thereunto by the King, or by any ordinary, on pain of suffering one month's imprisonment!"

But then the Chancellor of England! Captains of the Wars! the King's Justices the Recorders of any city, borough, or town! and the Speaker of Parliament ! may use any part of the holy Scripture as they have been wont !"3 And every nobleman or gentlewoman, being a householder, may read or cause to be read, by any of his family sercants in his house, orchard, or garden, to his own family, any text of the Bible; and also every merchantman, being a householder, and any other persons, other than women, apprentices, &c., might read to themselves pricately the Bible. But no women, except noble women and gentlewomen, might read to themselves alone; and no artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving-men of the degrees of yeomen, (officers in the King's family between sergeants and grooms,) husbandmen or labourers, were to read the Bible or New Testament to themselves or to any other, privately or openly, on pain of one month's imprisonment."

The burning of the Alexandrian Library, and heating its baths with the books, has been often reprobated as barbarous, but the aim of Parliament was impious in the extreme. As far as they durst venture, they intended to take the bread of life out of the mouths of the common people. The Act has been described as "a net contrived, to catch or let go, whom

3 It was usual, says Collier, for the Lord Chancellor, judges, recorders, &c., to take a text for their speeches on public occasions; but that the captains of the wars, adds Todd, thus opened a campaign, or that the Speaker of the House of Commons thus regulated a debate, the historian does not pretend.

soever they pleased;" but still it may well be inquired, where was the wisdom of their wise men, or the understanding of of the prudent," when they contrived it; as the folly displayed was in equal proportion to the malignity. It might have been compared to an act framed to bind the wind, or intercept the light of day; and whatever may have been its vexatious consequences, it was by far too late in being framed.

Observe its contents. It denounced the translation of Tyndale, and enforced it almost in the same breath; for not only was it his translation, under another name, which was to stand in force, but many of his New Testaments had no such name attached to them. As to the second provision, whether any copies of the Bible were so blotted or cut, is nowhere recorded. If they were, they must have been consumed afterwards, for it is certain that scarcely any copies of all that survive, bear the positive proof of having been so treated.* But the folly of the statute is still more glaring, when both the manner and the degree of reading comes to be regulated by an act of Parliament. While reading in the parish church seems to be in part abridged, the reading at home in thousands of instances, is legalised if not enforced; and reading in the house, as being more deliberate and more retired, was better than reading in the church. Every one knows with what avidity men read, and will read, an interdicted book; but this was only half interdicted! half in numerous families, and half as it regarded the community at large. This was better still. Thus, in the former case, as any family servant was authorised to read the Scriptures to Master or Mistress, of course he might not only repeat what he read, but could the other servants be effectually prevented from snatching a perusal in the morning or evening, or at midnight? And if every nobleman and gentlewoman, every merchant, or any other, being a householder, were fully authorised to possess, and read the Bible, how were the women of the household, how were the apprentices, and journeymen, or other domestics to be guarded and prevented from looking between the Sacred leaves?

But beside these absurdities, there were certain clauses introduced, in mitigation of severity, not unworthy of notice.

4 There are indeed imperfect copies, but these do not convey such proof.

Offenders, if ecclesiastics, were not to suffer death till the third offence; and the punishment of any others was never to extend beyond the forfeiture of goods, and imprisonment for life. The party accused also might bring witnesses, and the accused must be tried within a year after the indictment, while the Parliament, as usual, had to leave the act in the King's power, to annul or alter it at his pleasure! The bloody statute of six articles was in fact thus invaded and softened.

Such a mixture of folly and contradiction demands some explanation. Had Gardiner and his party obtained all their wishes, the Scriptures had been suppressed, and wholly interdicted but it is curious enough that it was Cranmer who had introduced this act, with the view no doubt of legalising what he had enforced in his prologue to the Bible-the perusal of the Sacred volume at home, and hence the mystery of its title is explained. But once introduced into Parliament, and thwarted in his endeavours, it had, in passing through the house, assumed such a grotesque appearance, as to carry in its various clauses, the evidence of two hostile parties fighting with each other. To Cranmer, therefore, may be ascribed the credit of obtaining as much as might be, and of then stultifying the act, to disappoint the devices of the crafty, or carry the counsel of the froward headlong. In short, the passing of this act has been represented by Rapin, as a “mortification" to the adverse party, which "checked their hopes." That its vexatious operation was at least impeded, there can be but little doubt, from what was taking place at the very moment, as well as what soon followed.5

With regard to the time when Parliament was thus acting; it cannot have escaped recollection that we have been called again and again to observe, at certain critical periods, either formerly, when the Scriptures were to be imported from abroad, or since then, when those who prized them were in danger of being molested, that one or more of the bitterest persecutors were either put in check, or sent out of the kingdom, in the character of ambassadors to foreign parts. So it had happened

6 The only thing left for Gardiner to do was to infuse as much of the old leaven as he possibly could, into what he delighted to style the King's Book. This was the treatise already referred to, "The necessary doctrine and erudition of a Christian Man," now coming forth. And here he fully succeeded against Cranmer, who charged him afterwards, under Edward's reign, with having seduced the King. But never must such a man put forth his hand, and corrupt the Scriptures!

with Tunstal and Gardiner, and so it happened now. The focus of persecution had ever been in London, just as it was in Jerusalem of old; and of all men living, Bonner at this moment was most blood-thirsty. He had been very busy for more than a year in his favourite employment of persecution, and would have been so now. But no sooner had they begun to wrangle in Parliament, than he was sent off the ground by the Supreme Ruler.

The occasion of Bonner's removal must not pass unnoticed. It had ever been the policy of Crumwell to cultivate alliance with France and the German princes, with the design of keeping the Emperor in check; but we have seen the first symptom of a change so long ago as 1540, when the Imperial ambassadors suddenly arrived in London, in time to witness his execution, if they were so disposed. Long before then, however, and ever since, the gentlemen of the old learning had been sighing for full alliance with Charles. In such a case, they calculated that their cause must eventually triumph. This year they were to obtain their wishes, and we shall soon see whether the event answered their expectations.

The spring and summer of 1543 exhibited the authorities of Europe in one of the most extraordinary positions. It was a lesson of instruction, which could scarcely pass unimproved by those who thought at all. So far as the power of Sovereign princes was concerned, there were three systems of opinion before the world: that of the Pontiff-of Henry the Eighth-and of the Grand Turk. Francis and Charles were, professedly, alike votaries of the Pontiff, and by him Henry the Eighth had been branded for years as an anathematized heretic; while they all agreed in regarding the Turk as an Infidel, with whom no alliance of any kind, could be formed. Now immediately before Henry determined to espouse his sixth Queen, who was to lean decidedly to the side of the new learning, the position of all these Powers, is well worthy of distinct observation.

At the time in which Parliament was assembled, a very intimate connexion between Henry and the Emperor was already agitated; a circumstance which was the joy of Gardiner's party, in consequence of their ultimate intentions, but most offensive to the Pontiff, who could not know them. He, on the contrary, eager to prevent this step, proposed to buy off the Emperor by an annual payment of 150,000 crowns, and a promotion of Cardinals, such as Charles chose to name! But then it so happened that Charles longed for nothing more eagerly, than a league with the English heretic. Henry's uniting with France and the German princes, had been the Emperor's perplexity for years, as retarding the march of his ambition; but union with England would enable him to bring the

King of France to his knees, and at once destroy all hope of ever recovering Milan by force of arms. By the 11th of February, therefore, a treaty was framed in London, and Bonner, (the most furious persecutor in England,) as ambassador, must be sent off and out of the way, as its bearer. It was sworn to, says Lord Herbert, by the Emperor near Barcelona, on the 8th of April, "in presence of Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London, our King's ambassador;" and it was ratified by Henry on Trinity Sunday, or the 20th of May, though, for certain reasons, it was not made public till June. On the other hand, Francis, the adherent of Rome, to strengthen his hands, had formed alliance with Solyman, the Turkish Sultan; and though the zealous Cardinals took high offence at this "most Christian King," the old Pontiff himself was far from being inimical to the Porte !

Here then was the King of France standing out in alliance before the world, with the PONTIFF on one side, and the TURK on the other! While Charles, the imperial son of ROME, visibly stood in closest union, offensive and defensive, with the condemned HERETIC Sovereign of England! They were now united to oppose and humble them all! To finish the picture it should be observed that while the Emperor had joined with Henry, one of his grounds of complaint against Francis was thus distinctly stated that "he had not deserted the Bishop of Rome, and consented to a reformation, as he once promised." No wonder than the Pontiff was enraged with the Emperor; but then he had his answer ready-that he might with more reason avail himself of the English King's assistance, than Francis, could do of the Turk's.

This singular array of parties may not last long, and the figures may soon change their positions; but it was sufficient that it should be exhibited for ONCE, in the eye of the world, had it been for no other purpose than to show, that there is ONE, who, as "He spreadeth abroad the earth by Himself," so, at any moment, he can expose the hollow hypocrisy of nations, or more correctly speaking, of their rulers.

The wishes and long-cherished aspirations of Gardiner and his adherents were however now, at last, in part fulfilled. They had "set up their rest," says Burnet, on bringing the King and the Emperor to a league, which we may reasonably believe was vigorously driven on by Bonner." But then this royal Master of their's, who was "every thing by turns, and nothing long," may, by only one movement, darken all their prospects; nay, he will soon, to their vexation, take his first step, and Gardiner himself must be called in to bow, and reverentially acquiesce in it!

Parliament had risen on the 12th of May, and Henry having secured an enormous subsidy, as well as settled his foreign affairs on the 20th,

6 Herbert.

7 To show their good will to the Imperial league, though the Pontiff was in opposition, the VOL. II.

L