light; and if he has done so sometimes at the expense of Protestant prejudices, we are bound to say, that all the zeal and industry of Mr. Todd has failed to convict him of any deliberate falsification of historical truth, or even of any very important mistake.

In the minuter details of history, whether with respect to characters or to events, there is always a difficulty arising from the doubtfulness or discordancy of original authorities. Some personal partialities are inevitable; and some diversity of opinion even upon the same evidence. It is enough if Dr. Lingard has exerted all due diligence of research, and has practised no uncandid arts to delude the judgment of his readers.

Mr. Todd does not scruple to charge him with the worst vices of an advocate. If, by a short examination of the points at issue between them, we shall be able to vindicate the historian from this heavy accusation, it must give pleasure to every honest mind; for surely among the lowest of mankind is he in whom the love of truth is not superior to the love of party.

Of the twelve separate charges into which Mr. Todd's publication is divided, it can scarcely be expected that we should examine each separately. Nor, indeed, can we consider it at all necessary; for multiplied as the topics in controversy are, the dispute itself appears to us to lie in a narrow compass. How little, for instance, can it concern the character of Cranmer, whether he delayed assuming his archbishopric for seven weeks, or for six months! If he was so earnest in declining it, as he is represented by Mr. Todd, it would seem that he was conscious that there would be something wrong in his accepting it, and his delay only proves that his virtue lasted two or three months longer than Dr. Lingard has represented it as lasting. Many more of Mr. Todd's charges seem to us equally immaterial; we shall, therefore, hope for the thanks of our readers if we compress the bill and answer into a much smaller compass than that to which parties in the cause have extended them.

The really important points in dispute are, in our apprehension, these-1. The Protest of Cranmer. 2. The condemnation of Lambert. 3. The conduct of the Archbishop with respect to the statute of the Six Articles. 4. The characters of Gardiner and Bonner as represented by Dr. Lingard. And, lastly, The conduct of Cranmer immediately before his death.

To the insincerity with which Dr. Lingard had charged Cranmer in the affair of his protest, Mr. Todd has, as far as we can judge, opposed no very valid objection. The cavils (and we think the term, though somewhat harsh, by no means unmerited) which the latter has thrown out in his first pamphlet, the Romish historian has refuted, we think, at once happily and satisfactorily.

With regard to the morality of the fact, it matters little whether it were done in private or in public. In either case it was a secret to him, to whom the oath was taken, and by whom it was imposed. He had empowered no one to receive it with any limitation. He had issued the bulls for the Archbishop elect, on the express condition, that he should take the oath in the usual manner previously to the episcopal consecration. Undoubtedly, as far as regarded the pontiff, the protest was a fraud.

We are aware that Mr. Todd has, in answer to this, attempted to prove that the protest was known to the Pope. But he neither proves, nor attempts to prove, that it was known to him before Cranmer was consecrated. And he rests his defence on the ground that the Pope did not issue a bull of suspension against the Archbishop, when the fact was known to him. But it is clear, that had the Archbishop acted fairly and honestly, he would have communicated his intended protest to the Pope, and waited for his answer before he assumed the mitre. The fact of the Pope's silence may implicate his firmness-it can never vindicate the honour of Cranmer.

With respect to the execution of Lambert, it seems one of those points where the natural mildness of Cranmer was not sufficient to withstand either the common bigotry of the age, or the personal danger which attended a refusal to comply with its dictates. To Dr. Lingard's accusation of him on this head, Mr. Todd opposes only his probable reluctance to condemn the unfortunate heretic to the flames; and this, as it appears to us, no one ever denied. But that he protested against the deed was never asserted: that he complied with it, is, to our apprehension, proved beyond a doubt, by his silently acquiescing in the charge, when he replied to Martin's question, "What doctrine taught you when you condemned Lambert, the sacramentary ?"—" I maintained then the Papists' doctrine."

On the conduct of Cranmer during the discussion of the Six Articles, as well as on the subject of the character of Gardiner and Bonner, we are glad to say, that our opinion is on the side of Mr. Todd. The single unsupported evidence of one anonymous letter weighs light in the balance against the united testimony of Fox, Lord Herbert, Burnet, and Collier; and the general words, "ita ut nunc unio in eisdem (articulis sc.) confecta sit," will hardly prove that Salisbury had given up his opinion, when we find that, rather than do so, he soon afterwards, together with Latimer, Bishop of Worcester, resigned his bishopric. And this we consider as proved by the positive assertions of Bishop Godwin and Lord Herbert to that effect. The circumstance that they retained their bishoprics to the end of the session is, we think, sufficiently explained by the words of Mr. Tool:

They had witnessed the zeal of their metropolitan; and still they hoped, perhaps, that other modifications than that relating to auricular confession, might be the fruits of his resistance. They found r otherwise upon the first reading

of the bill on the 7th of June, and therefore would then determine to tender their resignation, still retaining their rank and privilege during the few days they continued Lords of Parliament, and while the necessary instruments of resignation were prepared.

The characters of Gardiner and Bonner form the only other subject in dispute on which we can be said cordially to agree with Mr. Todd. We certainly think, that in this instance Dr. Lingard has been influenced by a very natural, and, in our estimation, by no means an unamiable feeling, in favour of the anti-reformers. Doubtless the cruelties of the two prelates have been much exaggerated by the terror and detestation of the Protestants; but we can see no satisfactory reason why Gardiner in particular should have been so specifically and invariably anathematized, if he had been that "most tender-hearted and myld man" which he is represented to have been by Persons. The testimony of Ridley and Sir John Harrington, one a contemporary writer, the other of a not much later date, and both, though of the opposite party, men of unimpeached veracity, must be sufficient to outweigh that of a single Jesuit, whose character, as a traitor and an apostate, is not much to his credit; and who is proved by Mr. Todd, not to have even the negative corroboration of having gone uncontradicted.

Although we have stated that we agree with Mr. Todd on the two last-mentioned points, we ought to state also how far his success has affected Dr. Lingard's historical reputation. On the subject of the Six Articles, our opinion, as we have said, coincides with that of Mr. Todd; but the "Romish Historian" has much to say for himself, and has said it both with candour and acuteness. But his defence is concise, and as it is almost incapable of abridgment, and yet too long for insertion, we must content ourselves with referring our readers to the work itself, where they will clearly see how well Dr. Lingard can speak, even in what appears to us a losing cause. Of his too good opinion of Gardiner, we can but repeat what we have already said that it is both natural and excusable. The Protestant champions should not monopolize the failing of partiality to their own side.

There remains but one of the topics which we reserved for examination, and we have selected it more out of complaisance to the earnestness with which Mr. Todd seems to press t, than regard to its real importance. As far as we can make out, he quarrels with the historian for having stated that Cranmer made sever recantations instead of six. The historical weight of the fact, as far as regards the Archbishop's character, will doubtlessly be duly appreciated: and we shall accordingly notice the fact in dispute with: becoming brevity. Fox, whose testimony is so much appealed to by Mr. Todd, states the affair thus:

Then

....

there came to him the Spanish friar, witness of his recantation, bringing a paper with articles, which Cranmer should openly profess in his

recantation before the people, earnestly desiring him that he would write the said instrument with the articles, and sign it with his name, which when he had done, the said friar desired that he would write another copy thereof, which should remain with him, and that did he also.

Now, the only objection which Mr. Todd makes to this direct assertion, is contained in the three following interrogatories:

If, as Dr. Lingard states it, the Archbishop really subscribed his name to this pretended seventh recantation, would it not have been (I repeat) exultingly printed, like the rest, with Thomas Cranmer at the close? Would not the Spanish friar have declared that to the whole of the words, as they are printed in Bonner's tract, Cranmer had, in his presence, given a written consent? Would not all this have been produced, to add formally upon the primate's memory yet

one more stain?

Supposing all these questions answered in the affirmative, we must remind Mr. Todd that his ignorance of the reasons for what did not happen, can never overthrow the testimony of Fox to what did.

We have now gone through this controversy, with impartiality, we trust, and without at all partaking of that bitterness which, we are sorry to see, has tinged the pen of one of the disputants. It is not our intention at present to enter upon the consideration of the character of Cranmer, which has suffered at least as much as it has gained by the lapse of 250 years. The very feebleness of the defence now made for him by Mr. Todd, proves that Dr. Lingard has the advantage in the ground he has chosen, no less than in the spirit with which he maintains it. But let not the former divine think that we hold a similar opinion as to the cause for which the prelate died; and we think it needful to remind him of this, when we find his defence concluded by a passage from Milton in praise of the Reformation :—a splendid piece of declamation doubtless, but which, we must with all due deference remind him, has no reference whatever to his subject. Does he think that because the Reformation was worthy of all praise, the character of each reformer must have been unexceptionable? We are sure he has far too much of the Christian clergyman about him, to maintain the converse of this proposition, and look with an evil eye on every one who holds the Roman Catholic creed. We at least must beg leave to acknowledge a different faith, and continue in our attachment to the tenets of our church, and in our disbelief of transubstantiation, and the infallibility of the Pope, though we consider Cranmer as a man of unstable fortitude, and Dr. Lingard as an historian of deep research, and (in this instance at least) of unimpeached veracity.

MISCELLANEOUS.

ON THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE PUNISHMENT OF

CRUCIFIXION;

And the singular Fulfilment of the Prophecies relating to the Death of our Saviour.

THE punishment for highway robbery, according to the Mahometan law, has suggested some thoughts on the crucifixion of our Saviour, which, if not convincing, may at least be found interesting; and which are offered with an humble desire of making every branch of human learning conduce to the great end of establishing the truth of our religion.

If highway robbers take property to a given amount, they shall, by this law, lose the right hand and left foot; and if they commit murder without robbery, they shall be put to death. But when they are guilty both of robbery and murder, there is a great variety of opinions as to the punishment that shall be inflicted upon them.

Abu Haneefa, the founder of that sect from whom these opinions are taken, and who was born in the year 80, and who died in the year 150 of the Hegira, taught that they should suffer the amputation, and then either be left to bleed to death, or be executed in some other manner; after which the body might either be given up to the family, or hung up on a tree or stake; or that they might be hung up alive, and then put to death.

But his two disciples deem the amputation unlawful. One of them makes the hanging up of the body a matter of discretion; the other holds it to be indispensable, but leaves it to the chief magistrate to determine whether death shall be inflicted before or after hanging up. And it seems to be received as the soundest doctrine, that the criminal shall be hung up alive, and be pierced in the belly till he dies; or, as one book reports it, a spear shall be thrust into him, under the left nipple, and he shall be left to die.

It is generally held, too, that the body shall be left upon the stake three days, as a public example, and then given up to the family for burial; though one of the two disciples just spoken of, is reported to have held, that it should be left to rot and drop in pieces.

We have thought it necessary to give these opinions in detail, because Mahometan lawyers consider this punishment as the right of God; and therefore hold themselves bound to execute it in the exact mode that is prescribed by the law; and would think it sinful to deviate or innovate in the least particular. We may be fully assured, therefore, that those eminent men, on whose authority these various opinions have been recorded, used the utmost diligence and pains to ascertain the precise mode and measure of this punishment, as ordained by their prophet: and they could have had no great difficulty in tracing their enquiries up to his time, as their founder flourished at so early a period.

We may, therefore, take it for granted that Mahomet ordained the punishment, but gave no description of the details; for unless he had ordained it, they would not have dared to inflict it, as the right of God; and if he had defined the manner of the execution, his authority