Clubs, under the name of a minister | of goods, or a friend to order without who was as bad a representative of the taking under his protection the foulest system which has been christened after excesses of tyranny. His admiration him as Becket of the spirit of the oscillates between the most worthless of Gospel. On the other hand, the cause rebels and the most worthless of opfor which Hampden bled on the field pressors, between Marten, the disgrace and Sydney on the scaffold is enthusi- of the High Court of Justice, and Laud, astically toasted by many an honest the disgrace of the Star Chamber. He radical who would be puzzled to ex- can forgive any thing but temperance plain the difference between Ship- and impartiality. He has a certain money and the Habeas Corpus Act. It sympathy with the violence of his opmay be added that, as in religion, so in ponents, as well as with that of his aspolitics, few even of those who are en- sociates. In every furious partisan he lightened enough to comprehend the sees either his present self or his former meaning latent under the emblems of self, the pensioner that is, or the Jacotheir faith can resist the contagion of bin that has been. But he is unable to the popular superstition. Often, when comprehend a writer who, steadily atthey flatter themselves that they are tached to principles, is indifferent about merely feigning a compliance with the names and badges, and who judges of prejudices of the vulgar, they are them- characters with equable severity, not selves under the influence of those very altogether untinctured with cynicism, prejudices. It probably was not alto- but free from the slightest touch of gether on grounds of expediency that passion, party spirit, or caprice. Socrates taught his followers to honour We should probably like Mr. Hallam's the gods whom the state honoured, and book more if, instead of pointing out bequeathed a cock to Esculapius with with strict fidelity the bright points his dying breath. So there is often a and the dark spots of both parties, he portion of willing credulity and enthu-had exerted himself to whitewash the siasm in the veneration which the most one and to blacken the other. But we discerning men pay to their political should certainly prize it far less. Eulogy idols. From the very nature of man it and invective may be had for the askmust be so. The faculty by which we ing. But for cold rigid justice, the one inseparably associate ideas which have weight and the one measure, we know often been presented to us in conjunc- not where else we can look. tion is not under the absolute control of the will. It may be quickened into morbid activity. It may be reasoned into sluggishness. But in a certain degree it will always exist. The almost absolute mastery which Mr. Hallam has obtained over feelings of this class is perfectly astonishing to us, and will, we believe, be not only astonishing but offensive to many of his readers. It must particularly disgust those people It is vehemently maintained by some who, in their speculations on politics, writers of the present day that Elizaare not reasoners but fanciers; whose beth persecuted neither Papists nor Puopinions, even when sincere, are not ritans as such, and that the severe meaproduced, according to the ordinary sures which she occasionally adopted law of intellectual births, by induction were dictated, not by religious intoleor inference, but are equivocally gene-rance, but by political necessity. Even rated by the heat of fervid tempers out the excellent account of those times of the overflowing of tumid imaginations. A man of this class is always in extremes. He cannot be a friend to liberty without calling for a community

No portion of our annals has been more perplexed and misrepresented by writers of different parties than the history of the Reformation. In this labyrinth of falsehood and sophistry the guidance of Mr. Hallam is peculiarly valuable. It is impossible not to admire the even-handed justice with which he deals out castigation to right and left on the rival persecutors.

which Mr. Hallam has given has not altogether imposed silence on the authors of this fallacy. The title of the Queen, they say, was annulled by the

Pope; her throne was given to another; | fered, not from those which they had her subjects were incited to rebellion; committed, that the existence of disher life was menaced; every Catholic content among them must be inferred. was bound in conscience to be a traitor; There were libels, no doubt, and proit was therefore against traitors, not phecies, and rumours, and suspicions, against Catholics, that the penal laws strange grounds for a law inflicting were enacted. capital penalties, ex post facto, on a large body of men.

In order that our readers may be fully competent to appreciate the merits of this defence, we will state, as concisely as possible, the substance of some of these laws.

Eight years later, the bull of Pius deposing Elizabeth produced a third law. This law, to which alone, as we conceive, the defence now under our consideration can apply, provides that, if any Catholic shall convert a Protestant to the Romish Church, they shall both suffer death as for high treason.

As soon as Elizabeth ascended the throne, and before the least hostility to her government had been shown by the Catholic population, an act passed prohibiting the celebration of the rites We believe that we might safely conof the Romish Church on pain of for- tent ourselves with stating the fact, feiture for the first offence, of a year's and leaving it to the judgment of every imprisonment for the second, and of plain Englishman. Recent controperpetual imprisonment for the third. versies have, however, given so much A law was next made in 1562, enact-importance to this subject, that we ing, that all who had ever graduated will offer a few remarks on it. at the Universities or received holy In the first place, the arguments orders, all lawyers, and all magistrates, which are urged in favour of Elizabeth should take the oath of supremacy apply with much greater force to the when tendered to them, on pain of case of her sister Mary. The Catholics forfeiture and imprisonment during the did not, at the time of Elizabeth's accesroyal pleasure. After the lapse of sion, rise in arms to seat a Pretender three months, the oath might again be on her throne. But before Mary had tendered to them; and, if it were again given, or could give, provocation, the refused, the recusant was guilty of high most distinguished Protestants attemptreason. A prospective law, however ted to set aside her rights in favour of severe, framed to exclude Catholics the Lady Jane. That attempt, and from the liberal professions, would the subsequent insurrection of Wyatt, have been mercy itself compared with furnished at least as good a plea for the this odious act. It is a retrospective burning of Protestants, as the conspistatute; it is a retrospective penal racies against Elizabeth furnish for the statute; it is a retrospective penal sta-hanging and embowelling of Papists. tute against a large class. We will The fact is that both pleas are not positively affirm that a law of this worthless alike. If such arguments description must always, and under all are to pass current, it will be easy to circumstances, be unjustifiable. But prove that there was never such a the presumption against it is most thing as religious persecution since violent; nor do we remember any crisis, the creation. For there never was a either in our own history, or in the religious persecution in which some history of any other country, which odious crime was not, justly or unwould have rendered such a provi- justly, said to be obviously deducible sion necessary. In the present case, from the doctrines of the persecuted what circumstances called for extraor- party. We might say, that the Cæsars dinary rigour? There might be dis- did not persecute the Christians; that affection among the Catholics. The they only punished men who were prohibition of their worship would na-charged, rightly or wrongly, with burnturally produce it. But it is from ing Rome, and with committing the their situation, not from their conduct, foulest abominations in secret assemfrom the wrongs which they had suf-blies; and that the refusal to throw

frankincense on the altar of Jupiter was not the crime, but only evidence of the crime. We might say, that the massacre of St. Bartholomew was intended to extirpate, not a religious sect, but a political party. For, beyond all doubt, the proceedings of the Huguenots, from the conspiracy of Amboise to the battle of Moncontour, had given much more trouble to the French monarchy than the Catholics have ever given to the English monarchy since the Reformation; and that too with much less excuse. The true distinction is perfectly obvious. To punish a man because he has committed a crime, or because he is believed, though unjustly, to have committed a crime, is not persecution. To punish a man, because we infer from the nature of some doctrine which he holds, or from the conduct of other persons who hold the same doctrines with him, that he will commit a crime, is persecution, and is, in every case, foolish and wicked.

generally thought that licentiousness and cruelty of the worst description are likely to be the fruits, as they often have been the fruits, of Antinomian opinions. This chain of reasoning, we think, is as perfect in all its parts as that which makes out a Papist to be necessarily a traitor. Yet it would be rather a strong measure to hang all the Calvinists, on the ground that, if they were spared, they would infallibly commit all the atrocities of Matthias and Knipperdoling. For, reason the matter as we may, experience shows us that a man may believe in election without believing in reprobation, that he may believe in reprobation without being an Antinomian, and that he may be an Antinomian without being a bad citizen. Man, in short, is so inconsistent a creature that it is impossible to reason from his belief to his conduct, or from one part of his belief to another.

We do not believe that every EnWhen Elizabeth put Ballard and glishman who was reconciled to the Babington to death, she was not per- Catholic Church would, as a necessary secuting. Nor should we have accused consequence, have thought himself her government of persecution for pass-justified in deposing or assassinating ing any law, however severe, against | Elizabeth. It is not sufficient to say overt acts of sedition. But to argue that the convert must have acknowthat, because a man is a Catholic, ledged the authority of the Pope, and he must think it right to murder a heretical sovereign, and that because he thinks it right he will attempt to do it, and then, to found on this conclusion a law for punishing him as if he had done it, is plain persecution.

If, indeed, all men reasoned in the same manner on the same data, and always did what they thought it their duty to do, this mode of dispensing punishment might be extremely judicious. But as people who agree about premises often disagree about conclusions, and as no man in the world acts up to his own standard of right, there are two enormous gaps in the logic by which alone penalties for opinions can be defended. The doctrine of reprobation, in the judgment of many very able men, follows by syllogistic necessity from the doctrine of election. Others conceive that the Antinomian heresy directly follows from the doctrine of reprobation; and it is very

that the Pope had issued a bull against the Queen. We know through what strange loopholes the human mind contrives to escape, when it wishes to avoid a disagreeable inference from an admitted proposition. We know how long the Jansenists contrived to believe the Pope infallible in matters of doctrine, and at the same time to believe doctrines which he pronounced to be heretical. Let it pass, however, that every Catholic in the kingdom thought that Elizabeth might be lawfully murdered. Still the old maxim, that what is the business of everybody is the business of nobody, is particularly likely to hold good in a case in which a cruel death is the almost inevitable consequence of making any attempt.

Of the ten thousand clergymen of the Church of England, there is scarcely one who would not say that a man who should leave his country and friends to preach the Gospel among

savages, and who should, after labour- | founders of the Church were guilty of ing indefatigably without any hope of religious persecution mean only that reward, terminate his life by martyr- the founders of the Church were not dom, would deserve the warmest ad- influenced by any religious motive, we miration. Yet we doubt whether ten perfectly agree with them. Neither of the ten thousand ever thought of the penal code of Elizabeth, nor the going on such an expedition. Why more hateful system by which Charles should we suppose that conscientious the Second attempted to force Episcomotives, feeble as they are constantly pacy on the Scotch, had an origin so found to be in a good cause, should be noble. The cause is to be sought in omnipotent for evil? Doubtless there some circumstances which attended the was many a jolly Popish priest in the Reformation in England, circumstances old manor-houses of the northern coun- of which the effects long continued to ties, who would have admitted, in be felt, and may in some degree be theory, the deposing power of the Pope, traced even at the present day. but who would not have been ambitious to be stretched on the rack, even though it were to be used, according to the benevolent proviso of Lord Burleigh, "as charitably as such a thing can be," or to be hanged, drawn, and | formation, like every other great cause, quartered, even though, by that rare indulgence which the Queen, of her special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, sometimes extended to very mitigated cases, he were allowed a fair time to choke before the hangman began to grabble in his entrails.

In Germany, in France, in Switzerland, and in Scotland, the contest against the Papal power was essentially a religious contest. In all those countries, indeed, the cause of the Re

attracted to itself many supporters influenced by no conscientious principle, many who quitted the Established Church only because they thought her in danger, many who were weary of her restraints, and many who were greedy for her spoils. But it was not But the laws passed against the Pu- by these adherents that the separation ritans had not even the wretched ex- was there conducted. They were welcuse which we have been considering. come auxiliaries; their support was In this case, the cruelty was equal, the too often purchased by unworthy comdanger infinitely less. In fact, the pliances; but, however exalted in rank langer was created solely by the cruelty. or power, they were not the leaders in But it is superfluous to press the argu- the enterprise. Men of a widely difment. By no artifice of ingenuity can ferent description, men who redeemed the stigma of persecution, the worst great infirmities and errors by sincerity, blemish of the English Church, be ef- disinterestedness, energy, and courage, faced or patched over. Her doctrines, men who, with many of the vices of we well know, do not tend to intoler-revolutionary chiefs and of polemic diance. She admits the possibility of vines, united some of the highest quasalvation out of her own pale. But lities of apostles, were the real directors. this circumstance, in itself honourable to her, aggravates the sin and the shame of those who persecuted in her name. Dominic and De Montfort did not, at least, murder and torture for differences of opinion which they considered as trifling. It was to stop an infection which, as they believed, hurried to certain perdition every soul which it seized, that they employed their fire and steel. The measures of the English government with respect to the Papists and Puritans sprang from a widely different principle. If those who deny that the

They might be violent in innovation and scurrilous in controversy. They might sometimes act with inexcusable severity towards opponents, and sometimes connive disreputably at the vices of powerful allies. But fear was not in them, nor hypocrisy, nor avarice, nor any petty selfishness. Their one great object was the demolition of the idols and the purification of the sanctuary. If they were too indulgent to the failings of eminent men from whose patronage they expected advantage to the church, they never flinched before

persecuting tyrants and hostile armies. | there is one, and one only, whose conFor that theological system to which duct partiality itself can attribute to they sacrificed the lives of others with- any other than interested motives. It out scruple, they were ready to throw is not strange, therefore, that his chaaway their own lives without fear. racter should have been the subject of Such were the authors of the great fierce controversy. We need not say schism on the Continent and in the that we speak of Cranmer. northern part of this island. The Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse, the Prince of Condé and the King of Navarre, the Earl of Moray and the Earl of Morton, might espouse the Protestant opinions, or might pretend to espouse them; but it was from Luther, from Calvin, from Knox, that the Reformation took its character.

England has no such names to show; not that she wanted men of sincere piety, of deep learning, of steady and adventurous courage. But these were thrown into the back ground. Elsewhere men of this character were the principals. Here they acted a secondary part. Elsewhere worldliness was the tool of zeal. Here zeal was the tool of worldliness. A King, whose character may be best described by saying that he was despotism itself personified, unprincipled ministers, a rapacious aristocracy, a servile Parliament, such were the instruments by which England was delivered from the yoke of Rome. The work which had been begun by Henry, the murderer of his wives, was continued by Somerset, the murderer of his brother, and completed by Elizabeth, the murderer of her guest. Sprung from brutal passion, nurtured by selfish policy, the Reformation in England displayed little of what had, in other countries, distinguished it, unflinching and unsparing devotion, boldness of speech, and singleness of eye. These were indeed to be found; but it was in the lower ranks of the party which opposed the authority of Rome, in such men as Hooper, Latimer, Rogers, and Taylor. Of those who had any important share in bringing the Reformation about, Ridley was perhaps the only person who did not consider it as a mere political job. Even Ridley did not play a very prominent part. Among the statesmen and prelates who principally gave the tone to the religious changes,

Mr. Hallam has been severely censured for saying with his usual placid severity, that, "if we weigh the character of this prelate in an equal balance, he will appear far indeed removed from the turpitude imputed to him by his enemies; yet not entitled to any extraordinary veneration." We will venture to expand the sense of Mr. Hallam, and to comment on it thus:-If we consider Cranmer merely as a statesman, he will not appear a much worse man than Wolsey, Gardiner, Cromwell, or Somerset. But, when an attempt is made to set him up as a saint, it is scarcely possible for any man of sense who knows the history of the times to preserve his gravity. If the memory of the archbishop had been left to find its own place, he would have soon been lost among the crowd which is mingled

"A quel cattivo coro

Degli angeli, che non furon ribelli,
Ne fur fedeli a Dio, ma per se foro."

And the only notice which it would
have been necessary to take of his

name would have been

"Non ragioniam di lui; ma guarda, e passa.” But, since his admirers challenge for him a place in the noble army of martyrs, his claims require fuller discussion.

The origin of his greatness, common enough in the scandalous chronicles of courts, seems strangely out of place in a hagiology. Cranmer rose into favour by serving Henry in the disgraceful affair of his first divorce. He promoted the marriage of Anne Boleyn with the King. On a frivolous pretence he pronounced that marriage null and void. On a pretence, if possible, still more frivolous, he dissolved the ties which bound the shameless tyrant to Anne of Cleves. He attached himself to Cromwell while the fortunes of Cromwell flourished. He voted for cutting off Cromwell's head without a trial.