following." Godwin, who lived nearer the time, says, "the king's love brooked no delays. Wherefore, on the five-and-twentieth of January, privately, and in the presence of very few, he married the Lady Anne Boleyn." It will be difficult to imagine, after these statements, that the ceremony could escape the prying eyes of the king's servants; and it will be difficult to believe, that the officiating minister, who hesi

Annals, 1630, p. 126.

'The first edition of Sanders represents the marriage as solemnized according to the Romish rites: "Rolandus (Lee) accersitur, ac rem divinam Catholico et Romano ritu facere jubetur." De Schism. Angl. ed. 1585, fol. 60. b. The second edition withholds from the ceremony, as if in anger or contempt, the "Catholico et Romano ritu;" but tallies with the former, in pretending that Rowland Lee, (the officiating minister) was persuaded to perform the ceremony, by the king's assuring him that he had obtained the pope's bull for the marriage which was then lying in his cabinet, and which, it being not then light, the king desired to excuse himself from fetching; upon which, giving credit to the pretence, Lee married them! Burnet considers this as coined in excuse for Lee, who, though he now complied absolutely with the king, turned afterwards to the Romish party: all the world now saw that the pope and the emperor were so linked together, that Lee could not but know that no such thing was possible; and he was so obsequious to the king, that such arts were needless to persuade him to any thing the king had a mind to. (See Burnet's appendix to the first vol. Hist. Ref.) The second edition of Sanders indeed confesses, what at once betrays the fabrication of the narrative as to this absurd account of the hesitating priest, that for this especial service,

tated on other accounts to proceed with it, should not in the first instance have also demurred at his introduction into a garret for the purpose. Private, indeed, the marriage was intended to be; but a garret would have awakened stronger suspicions in the mind of Lee, than those which Sanders has expressed, that the king was deceiving him. Cranmer, too, was said to have performed the ceremony. How gladly, then, would Sanders have exhibited him in the garret! I will finish this notice of the present fiction with again citing the words of the archbishop himself, the close of which ought ever to be in the memory of every Protestant, when he reads the history of Cranmer; especially too as the Romish historian of England has cited so much of the letter from which the words are taken, as concerns the marriage, but not the venerable primate himself. Cranmer is writing, in the month of June 1533, to his friend Hawkins, ambassador at the emperor's court, on the subject of the recent divorce of Catherine and the coronation of Anne; and he says, "You may not imagine that this

(in other words, for performing the ceremony without objection or demur,) the king afterwards made him bishop of Lichfield and Coventry: "Propter hoc obsequium in episcopum Lichefeldiensem cooptavit." ed. 1586, p. 90.

* Hist. of Eng. 2d. ed. vol. vi. p. 252.

'Cranmer's Lett. to Hawkins, ut supr. p. 39.

coronation was before her marriage, for she was married much about St. Paul's day last, as the condition thereof doth well appear, by reason she is now somewhat big with child. Notwithstanding it hath been reported throughout a great part of the realm that I married her; which was plainly false, for I myself knew not thereof a fortnight after it was done. And many other things be also reported of me, which be mere lies and tales."

IV. The fourth charge. Mr. Todd's objections, under the head of the king's supremacy, are of such a nature, that I know not what answer to return. He inquires why I have asserted this thing, why I have omitted that? and attributes both assertions and omissions to motives, which never had existence, except in his own imagination. To refute such trifling, would be to insult the discernment of the reader and I feel that an apology is due for the brief notice which I mean to take of the most prominent passages.

"1. I am charged with suppressing the fact that Gardiner wrote a book in defence of the king's supremacy. Now this is plainly intimated in the passage quoted by Mr. Todd, and is expressly stated in pages 426 and 482 of my sixth volume."

The passage which I quoted, is this: ""Henry called on the most loyal and learned of the prelates to employ their talents in support of his new dignity; and the call was obeyed by Sampson and Stokesley, Tunstal and Gardiner ; by the former, as was thought, from affection to the cause, by the latter from fear of displeasure." It is not the pretended trifling, it is the principal subject of this charge, which repels Dr. Lingard, and hurries his offended imagination into a belief" that I have asked why he has asserted this thing, and why he has omitted that," under the head of the king's supremacy. He knows not what answer to return." True: because I have asked no question upon the subject. But as my learned adversary was here determined, if not compelled, to be brief, he has therefore chosen a preliminary kind of flourish as a compensation for the short measure of animadversions which follow.

66

I have stated, what is beyond the possibility of his refutation, the spiritual supremacy of the king; his right to it; the acknowledgment of it; and the abolition therein of a divided allegiance. I am ready also to answer any inquiries, (although I have proposed none,) which Dr. Lingard may be pleased to make upon a subject so gratifying to every Protestant within his majesty's dominions. I give the historian all the cre

"See Dr. Lingard's Hist. 2d. ed. vol. vi. p. 284.

dit he desires for the intimation which he pleads in his defence. I wish not to deprive him of the advantage he claims, in referring to Gardiner's book expressly named, at a long distance however from the present purpose, in pages 426 and 482 of his sixth volume; although in the former of these pages, it is barely mentioned in a note that has no connection with the subject before us; and in the latter, only in a note also, but, indeed, accompanied with a reference to Sampson's exertion of his talents in support of what Dr. Lingard calls "the king's new dignity," and what Gardiner asserts in direct defiance to the historian, and with truth, to be "no newly invented matter." So then the reader, if he bears in mind what is said in Dr. Lingard's sixth volume, p. 284, will be gratified in p. 486 with the titles of two treatises De Obedientia, &c.; "the one, as was thought, written from affection to the cause; the other, through fear of displeasure:" but with what manner of reasoning, Gardiner, or his compeer Sampson, contended, an ordinary reader is left to guess. Phillips is more communicative; and P tells us that these treatises of Sampson and Gardiner were sent to Pole, who, naturally enough, was out of humour at "the work of the latter," which, while he

• Transl. of Gardiner's De Obedientia, &c. 1553, fol. xviii, P Life of Pole, vol. i. p. 127.