ELDER G BEEBE - HISTORY OF PROTESTANT PRIEST-CRAFT IN AMERICA AND EUROPE part 1

[T Adams]

Dear Brethren and Friends,

I finally got a scanned copy of the book by Elder Gilbert Beebe entitled "THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANT PRIEST-CRAFT IN AMERICA AND EUROPE" published in his son William's periodical "BANNER OF LIBERTY". Below is the Introduction and Chapter 1. I hope to send a chapter a week and then when I am finished typing it up I will send the completed pdf. I'm also contemplating adding it to LULU so that a printed version can be purchased (only for the cost of the printing - I will make nothing) It has been a very interesting and eye opening read so far. Please keep in mind that this is not a spiritual document but an Historical one.  

As you read you will notice that I have placed this "(?)" in a couple of places. That is there because I could not read the word or phrase because the page either had part of it missing or the scan caused the page to crease or something else. I did not want to guess or assume what the word was and therefore I felt it better to just leave it out.  In chapter one G. Beebe quotes an author and I have that quote tabbed in so it stands out. In the original it was not tabbed in but was arranged in the same format as the rest of the writing. I felt it would help recognize the quote but if any of you feel that it doesn't need the different format please share your thoughts with me. I am not fully convinced either way yet. And if you happen to see any blatant typographical errors please, I beg of you, share that with me. It may be that the word was spelled that way in the original but more than likely it was my fault. And I would love to catch any before I send out the completed book as a pdf. :)

I'm hoping that this might cause some good discussion. If any have any thoughts or comments please do so but I ask that you reply to the group and not just to me. That way we as a group can discuss this. This is a DISCUSSION forum and not just a POSTING forum. :)  Everybody's input is valuable!

A Sinner in Hope,
Tom

THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANT PRIEST-CRAFT IN AMERICA AND EUROPE
Elder Gilbert Beebe
BANNER OF LIBERTY
1865

INTRODUCTION

Before entering upon our proposed History of Priestcraft in America, we desire to apprise the reader that under the name of Priestcraft we in no case run to true Religion, its ministers, pastors, or their practices: for in true religion there is no craft nor transgression or oppression, to (?) our opposition. It is dovelike and lamblike, proclaiming, “Peace on earth and good will to men,” while Priestcraft, or false religion, is foxy, wolfish and viperous, full of fraud to deceive, ferocity to forcibly effect its objects, and venom to hiss from the fork tongues of its satanic emissaries, against all who will not yield to its roar, do homage to its Dagon, or the insurgence of its drag. True Religion appeals to the heart and conscience, teaching love to God and man, while Priestcraft appeals to the basest missions, and addresses itself to the fears of its victims, endeavoring to frighten them into giving up their gold and silver to build and maintain gaudy Sunday theatres, pay priest tax, &c., by threatening their disobedience with eternal torture in the world to come, or, wherever it possesses political power, it plunders dissenters as well as its dupes, and seeks to compel conformity by means of fines, imprisonment, racks, and even the murder of its most implacable opponents. Indeed the difference between true Religion and Priestcraft is as great as between good and evil – light and darkness, or heaven and hell. As we shall however, have frequent occasion to trace the contrast, in the course of our proposed History, we shall at present pursue it no further than to remark that, while the great Author of the Christian Religion foresaw and forewarned us of such impostors as would seek to make a profession of Religion the means of procuring political power, by proclaiming, “My kingdom is not of this world,” yet Priestcraft, under the cloak of christianity, has ever sought to unite Church and State, in order to employ magisterial power to plunder, oppress and put down its opponents. In this effort, Priestcraft has caused nearly all the most bloody and disastrous wars that have deluged Europe in blood, and devastated formerly happy countries, during nearly two thousand years. In fact, Priestcraft, or false Religion, has produced more misery in the world than all other causes combined – it has enlisted in its service the most unscrupulous, soulless, cruel and accursed fiends in human form, such as Calvin, Cromwell, Cotton Mather, of former days, or Cheever, Tilton, Beechor, et id omne genus, of the present day. It was introduced into America by the Puritans, whose narrow-brained and silly dogmas were enforced by such arguments as fining, banishing, whipping, imprisoning or hanging Baptists, Quakers and Catholics, or burning or drowning obnoxious persons under the pretense of the clergy and their dupes, that they were witches! The oppression of the Colonies by Great Britain, however, at length, provoked an outbreak and rebellion, in the course of which, the watchword of Liberty having become the battle cry, the rule of the Puritanic clergy was broken down, or so much weakened that it went by the board soon after the organization of the Republic, under the wise teachings of Paine, Henry, Jefferson, and other patriots of that period. In the Conventions which formed the Federal and most of the State Constitutions, there was patriotism and intelligence enough to exclude all pwer of the clergy of the Constitution of the United States, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Priestcraft and kingcraft were thus overthrown together in the glorious epoch of the first American Revolution. All restraints having been removed from the tongue and the press, so that the falsity and hideousness of Priestcraft could be exposed and denounced with impunity – reason being thus left free to combat error – it was a long while before the monster recovered sufficient strength or confidence to struggle with the young giant of American Liberty, fresh from his well fought fields, with the bird of victory upon his banners.

Although some relics of Puritanism remained upon the statute books of some of the States, they were not of a very important character, and were but dead letters, as nobody though to enforcing them, until another generation should arise in place of that which had won liberty at such cost. Priestcraft, however, like Satan, its author, is ever busy; and if it cannot work openly, it operates by stealth. Sunday schools had been established by a benevolent Scotchman for the education, in useful branches, of poor children, who had not time to attend school on other days, and many an ornament to society received his rudiments of education at the old Scotchman’s school; but Priestcraft denounced schools on Sunday as sacrilegious, like the Pharisees of old did the healing of the sick man by the Savior on their Sabbath day.

Nevertheless, these school became very popular, in Great Britain, and began to spring up in America. Priestcraft, ever on the alert, perceiving it impossible to stem the tide of popular favor that had set in favor of the Sunday schools, conceived the crafty idea of imitating the Scotchman’s Sunday schools, but substituting catechisms and superstitious teachings, tending to render the young victims its subservient tools, as they should grow up – in place of arithmetic, geography, grammar, and other useful branches: thus counterfeiting Education as well as Religion. Thus Sunday schools, emasculated of their virtues and inoculated with the virus of Puritanism, soon became the chief hobby of the clergy, and were spread throughout the land. Too well did the future attest the shrewdness of clerical craft, for “just as the twig is bent the tree ’s inclined,” and a new generation had scarcely grown up, ere Priestcraft felt emboldened to attempt to secure political power, and render the State subservient to its dogmas, to be ruled by its minions. Its first grand onslaught was against the Sunday mail, assuming that Sunday the first day of the week was a Christian Sabbath, similar to Saturday the seventh day Sabbath among the Jews. But it was confronted by some good men of the day, and the Sunday mail movement was finally squelched in Congress by Col. Johnson’s celebrated Report. The Sabbatical war was continued, however, and for some time the clergy ranted and raved dreadfully to drive State Legislatures into the enactment of laws prohibiting people from traveling on Sunday, except to church, and compelling all other places of resort to be closed on that day, in order that “the corn should all come to their mill.”

The experiment of prostituting Sunday schools from their primitive purpose of educating poor children in useful branches of science to the debauchery of the minds of the rising generation with all the slavish and fanatical superstition, cant and hypocrisy of Priestcraft, was so successful that the Puritanic and Pharisaic clergy were emboldened to attempt the subversion of all the public schools, academies and colleges. Accordingly, all of a sudden, the clergy, who had ever been the worst enemies of popular education, in Europe as well as America, began to profess an extraordinary interest in the cause of Education; and, as Priestcraft ever seeks connection with political power, they sought to unite School and State, as they had ever sought the union of Church and State. How far it has been able to blight and curse the cause of Education in our land, even in the course of a single generation, it shall be our object to show in the course of our History, but shall now only remark that the success of Priestcraft in placing the public schools under legislative control, which it has succeeded in having delegated to itself, and thereby substituting its fanatic teachings for true science, we are indebted, more than to any other cause, for the dense ignorance and demoniac bigotry and intolerance that have so nearly ruined our once happy country, and overthrown its free institutions.

Native-Americanism, Maine-lawism, Know-Nothingism and Abolitionism, with the entire brood of other modern ites and isms, will, of course, be treated of in our History, as branches of the evil tree of which Priestcraft is the root and trunk, or as the many heads of the monster hydra of Priestcraft.

Having thus indicated the character and scope of our proposed History, we shall only state further, by way of introduction, that its object is to expose the motives of those by whom war has been made upon our formerly free Constitutional government, and the means by which they have so nearly accomplished its overthrow, in order to enlighten the public mind as to many matters otherwise mysterious in the more recent history of our unhappy country. By thus explaining the cause and character of the curses that have blasted and blighted our political Eden, it is hoped by the author that the proper remedy may suggest itself to every intelligent mind, which must be clearly convinced that the only radical and real cure for the direful ills that afflict our unhappy land, is in striking at the root, and eradicating Priestcraft and all its umbrageous offshoots – root and branch – from the soil consecrated to freedom by the illustrious heroes of the American Revolution of 1776.

CHAPTER I
Its Origin in Europe – The Reformation.

Having indicated, in our Introduction, the character and scope of our proposed History, we shall proceed in the present chapter to show the origin of Priestcraft in America, which, it will be seen, was not indigenous but an exotic, of foreign growth, fully developed in its Upas form and bloody fruits, long before it was transplanted in the Wetern World. In tracing Priestcraft to its origin – for it is and ever has been the same in all ages and countries and under all its thousand names and masks, we must go back to the first generation of man: for it was first exhibited by Cain when, when, for a difference of religious practice, he slew his brother. From that time forward it prevailed among deluded men, and instigated the persecution and slaughter of the prophets and apostles – the casting of Daniel into the lions’ den, and the throwing of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the burning, fiery furnace; and even the crucifixion of the Son of God himself. This crowning horror of its bloody history was openly enacted, acknowledged and avowed by the Pharisees and the chief priests, who were then, as they ever have been, foremost in all acts of cruelty by which true religion has been persecuted in the prostituted name of piety. We shall not dwell upon the details of its dreadful history as developed by divine revelation, any further than to remark that the reflex of modern Priestcraft may be found therein from the history of Cain’s war upon his brother, because he worshipped God differently and more acceptably than himself, down to the day that the self-righteous Pharisees – the orthodox Puritans or Evangelicals of that time – crucified the Savior. Neither is it our purpose to trace and detail the horrors of Pagan or Papal Priestcraft in the dark ages. These have been treated of by hundreds of authors, and romancers, who have not only narrated all authenticated and exaggerated horrors, for the purpose of prejudicing the English and American people and persuading them that everything, except “orthodoxy,” is so horrible that they may be led to entrust political power to its popular clergy, or Priesthood, as a protection against the imaginary dangers of Paganism or Papacy. For our purpose it will be sufficient to commence with the divergence of protestant Priestcraft from Papacy, and, by giving a true history thereof, and of the subsequent professions and practices of the protesting progeny of Priestcraft in Europe, to prepare the reader to properly appreciate the subsequent transfer of the same to America.

Although most of our popular histories are mere fictions or fabrications compiled by sectarians and fanatics, or pensmen pandering to their prejudices, in order to make their productions popular and profitable, yet few persons are ignorant of the fact, that the origin of the English or Episcopal church was with Henry the Eighth, whose immorality provoked a Papal bull of excommunication, whereupon that dissipated and infamous monarch broke loose from the Romish church, of which the Pope was the Head, and proclaimed the English or Protestant Episcopal church in its place, with himself and his successors to the crown of England as its head. From this offshoot of Popery Puritanism was a subsequent offshoot, and a war arose between the Dissenters and the English Established church, equal in virulence to that previously raging between the latter and the Church of Rome, so that the Episcopal or English church is equally at enmity with Romish Catholicism, from which it split off, on the one hand, and Puritanism, which split off from it, on the other. Episcopacy is much less powerful numbers than either Romanism or Puritanism, it sides with neither, being equally abhorrent of both, and is generally at present a conservative influence in the United States, acceding to none of the fanaticisms by which Puritanism seeks to obtain political power, while the Romanists, being also in the minority, as compared with the Puritan sects, are also conservative and co-operate with the great body of the English churchmen in resisting the fanaticism of Puritan Priestcraft. But, although such is the case at the present day, and the circumstances have thus arrayed both these denominations against Puritan Priestcraft, from which only we now have cause to apprehend danger to our civil liberties, in the early Colonial history of our country Episcopal Priestcraft was almost as oppressive and persecuting, in Virginia, although not quite as narrow-brained and fiendish as Puritanism in New England. Inasmuch, however, as both have made a history of their Priestcraft in America, we shall have to show up both in turn, and shall recall and record the persecutions of non-conformists to the Episcopal Establishment in Virginia, as well as the more horrible, inhuman, and atrocious Puritan persecutions in New England. Before doing so, however, we shall give a history of what is commonly called the Reformation, in which we shall disclose the rise and character of both the Episcopal and Puritan phases of Priestcraft. This we cannot better do than by copying, as follows, from Cobbett’s “History of the Reformation,” the most able work of the ablest English author:

It was not a reformation, but a devastation of England, which was, at the time when this event took place, the happiest country, perhaps, the world had ever seen; and it is my chief business to show, that this devastation impoverished and degraded the main body of the people: but, in order that you may feel a just portion of indignation against their eulogists of the present day, it is necessary, first that you take of view of things on which their devastating power were exercised.

The far greater part of those books which are called “Histories of England,” are little better than romances. They treat of battles, negotiations, intrigues of courts, amours of kings, queens, and nobles: they contain the gossip and scandal of former times, and very little else. There are Histories of England, like that of Dr. Goldsmith, for the use of young persons; but, no young person, who has read them through, knows any more, of any possible use, than he or she knew before. The great use of history is, to teach us how laws, usages, and institutions arose, what were their effects on the people, how they promoted public happiness, or otherwise; and these things are precisely what the greater part of historians, as they call themselves, seem to think of no consequence.

It is supposed, by some, and, in deed, with good authorities on their side, that the Christian religion was partially introduced into England so early as the second century after Christ. But we know for a certainty, that it was introduced effectually in the year 596.

Englad, at the time when this religion was introduced, was governed by seven kings, and that state was called the Heptarchy. The people of the whole country were Pagans. Yes, my friends, our ancestors were Pagans; they worshiped gods made with hands; and they sacrificed children on the altars of their idols. In this state England was when the Pope of that day, Gregory I., sent forty monks, with a monk of the name of Austin (or Augustin) at their head, to preach the gospel of the English. * * * It was the Roman Catholic religion that was introduced into England in the year 596, with all its dogmas, rites, ceremonies, and observances, just as they all continued to exist at the time of the “Reformation,” and as they continue to exist in that church even unto this day.

Saint Austin, upon his arrival, applied to the Saxon king, within whose dominions the county of Kent lay. He obtained leave to preach to the people, and his success was great and immediate. He converted the king himself, who was very gracious to him and his brethren; and provided dwellings and other necessaries for them at Canterbury. Saint Austin and his brethren being monks, lived together in common, and from this common home went forth over the country, preaching the gospel. As their community was diminished by death, new members were ordained to keep up the supply; and, besides this, the number was in time greatly augmented. A church was built at Canterbury. Saint Austin was, of course, the Bishop or Head Priest. He was succeeded by other bishops. As Christianity spread over the island, other communities, like that of Canterbury were founded in other cities, as at London, Winchester, Exeter, Worcester, Norwich, York, and so of all the other places, where there are now Cathedrals, or Bishops’ churches.

Henry VIII., succeeded his father, Henry VII., in the year 1509. He succeeded to a great and prosperous kingdom, a full treasury, and a happy and contented people, who expected in him the wisdom of his father without his avarice, which seems to have been that father’s only fault. Henry VIII., was eighteen years old when his father died. He had had an elder brother named Arthur, who, at the early age of twelve years, had been betrothed to Catherine, fourth daughter of Ferdinand, King of Castle and Arragon. When Arthur was fourteen years old, the Princess came to England, and the marriage ceremony was performed; but Arthur, who was a weak and sickly boy, died before the year was out, and the marriage was never consummated; and indeed, who will believe that it could be? Henry wished to marry Catherine, and the marriage was agreed to by the parents on both sides; but it did not take place until after the death of Henry VII. The moment the young King came to the throne, he took measures for his marriage. Catherine being though only nominally, the widow of his deceased brother, it was necessary to have, from the Pope, as supreme head of the church, a dispensation, in order to render the marriage lawful in the eye of the cannon law. The dispensation, to which there could be no valid objection, was obtained, and the marriage was, amidst the rejoicings of the whole nation, celebrated in June, 1509 in less than two months after the King accession.

With this lady, who was beautiful for her youth, and whose virtues of all some seem scarcely ever to have been exceeded, he lived in the married state seventeen years, before the end of which he had three sons and two daughters of her, one of whom only, a daughter, was still alive, who afterwards was Made Queen of England. But now, at the end of seventeen years, he being thirty-five years of age, and eight yours younger than the Queen, and having his eye on a young lady, an attendant on the Queen, named Anne Boleyn, he all of a sudden, affected to believe that he was living in sin, because he was married to the widow of his brother, though, as we have seen, the marriage between Catherine and the brother had never been consummated, and though the parents of both the parties, together with his own Council, had unanimously and unhesitatingly approved of his marriage, which had, moreover been sanctioned by the Pope, the (?) of the church, of the faith and observances of which Henry himself had as we shall hereafter see, been long since his marriage, a zealous defender!

But the tyrant’s passions were now in motion, and he resolved to gratify his beastly lust, cost what it might in reputation, in treasure, and in blood. He first applied to the Pope to divorce him from the Queen. He as a great favorite of the Pope, he was very powerful, there were many long (?) for yield to his request, but that request was full of injustice, it would have been so cruel towards the virtuous Queen to accede to it, that the Pope could not, and did not grant it. He, however, in hopes that time might induce the tyrant to repent, ordered a court to be held by his Legate and Wolsey, in England, to hear and determine the case. Before this court the Queen disdained to plead, and the Legate, dissolving the court, referred the matter back to the Pope, who still refused to take any step towards the granting the divorce. The tyrant now became furious, resolved upon overthrowing the power of the Pope in England, upon making himself the head of the church in this country, and upon doing whatever else might be necessary to ensure the gratification of his beastly desires, and the glutting of his vengeance.

By making himself the supreme head of the church he made himself, he having the sword and the gibbet at his command, master of all the property of that church, including that of the monasteries! – his counsellors and courtiers knew this; and as it was soon discovered that a sweeping confiscation would take place, the Parliament was by no means backward in aiding his designs, every one hoping to share in the plunder. The first step was to pass acts taking from the Pope all authority and power over the church in England and giving to the King all authority whatever as to ecclesiastical matters. His chief adviser and abettor was Thomas Cranmer, a name which deserves to be held in everlasting execration; a name which we could not pronounce without almost doubting of the justice of God, were it not for our knowledge of the fact, that the cold-blooded, most perfidious, most impious, most blasphemous caitiff expired at last, amidst those flames which he himself had been the chief cause of kindling.

The tyrant, being now both Pope and King, made Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, a dignity just then become vacant. Of course, this advisor and ready tool now became chief judge in all ecclesiastical matters. But, here was a difficulty; for the tyrant still professed to be a Catholic; so that his new Archbishop was to be consecrated according to the usual pontifical form, which required of him to swear obedience to the Pope. And here a transaction took place that will, at once, show us of what sort of stuff the “reformation” gentry was made. Cranmer, before he went to the altar to be consecrated, went into a chapel, and there made a declaration on oath, that, by the oath, that he was about to take, and which for the sake of form, he was obliged to take, he did not intend to bind himself to any thing that tended to prevent him from assisting the King in making any such “reforms” as he might think useful in the Church of England! I once knew a corrupt Cornish knave, who having sworn to a direct falsehood, (and that he, in private, acknowledged to be such,) before an Election Committee of the House of Commons, being asked how he could possibly give such evidence, actually declared, in so many words, “That he had, before he left his lodging in the morning, taken an oath, that he would swear falsely that day.” He perhaps, imbibed his principles from his very Archbishop, who occupies the highest place in lying Fox’s lying book of Protestant Martyrs.

Having provided himself with so famous a judge in ecclesiastical matters, the King lost, of course, no time in bringing his hard case before him, and demanding justice at his hands! Hard case, indeed; to be compelled to live with a wife of forty-three, when he could have, for next to nothing, and open for asking, a young one of eighteen or twenty! A really hard case; and he sought relief, now that he had got such an upright and impartial judge, with all imaginable dispatch. What I am now going to relate of the conduct of this Archbishop and the other parties concerned in the transaction is calculated to make us shudder with horror, to make our very bowels heave with loathing, to make us turn our eyes from the paper and resolve to read no further. But, we must not give way to these feelings if we hae a mind to know the true history of the Protestant “Reformation.” We must keep ourselves cool; we must reason ourselves out of our ordinary impulses; we must beseech nature to be quiet within us for a while; for from first to last, we have to contemplate nothing that is not of a kind to fill us with horror and disgust.

It was now four or five years since the King and Catherine had begun to hatch the project of the divorce; but, in the meanwhile, the King had kept Anne Boleyn, or in more modern phrase, she ad been “under his protection,” for about three years. And, here, let me state, that, in Dr. Bayley’s life of Bishop Fisher, it is positively asserted, that Anne Boleyn was the King’s daughter, and that Lady Boleyn, her mother, said to the King, when he was about to marry Anne, “Sir, for the reverence of god, take heed what you do in marrying my daughter, for, if you record your own conscience well, she is your own daughter as well as mine.” To which the King replied, “Whose daughter soever she is, she shall be my wife.” Now, though I believe this fact, I do not give it as a thing the truth of which is undeniable. I find it in the writings of a man, who was the eulogist, (and justly,) of the excellent Bishop Fisher, who suffered death because he stood firmly on the side of Queen Catherine. I believe it; but I do not give it, as I do the other facts that I state, as what is undeniably true. God knows, it is unnecessary to make the parties blacker than they are made by the Protestant historians themselves, even in a favorable record of their horrid deeds.

The King had had Anne about three years “under his protection,” when she became for the first time, with child. There was not, therefore, no time to be lost in order to “make an honest woman of her.” A private marriage took place in January, 1533: As Anne’s pregnancy could not be long disguised, it became necessary to avow her marriage; and, therefore, it was also necessary to press onward the trial for the divorce; for, it might have seemed rather awkward, even amongst “reformation” people, for the King to have two wives at a time! Now, then, the famous ecclesiastical judge, Cranmer, had to play his part; and, if his hypocrisy did not make the devil blush, he could have no blushing faculties in him. Cranmer, in April, 1533, wrote a letter to the King, begging him, for the good of the nation, and for the safety of his own soul, to grant his permission to try the question of the divorce, and beseeching him no longer to live in the peril attending an “incestuous intercourse!” Matchless, astonishing hypocrite! He knew, and the King knew that he knew, and he knew the King knew it, that the King had been actually married to Anne, three months before, she being with child at the time he married her!

The King graciously condescended to listen to this ghostly advice of his pious primate, who was so anxious about the safety of his royal soul; and without delay, he, as Head of the Church, granted the ghostly father, Cranmer, who, in violation of his own clerical vows, had, in private, a woman of his own; to this ghostly father, the King granted a license to hold a spiritual court for the trial of the divorce. Queen Catherine, who had been ordered to retire from the court, resided, at this time, at Ampthill, in Bedfordshire, at a little distance from Dunstable. At this latter place, Crnamer opened his court, and sent a citation to the Queen to appear before him, wich citation she treated with the scorn it deserved. When he had kept his “court” open the number of days required by the law, he pronounced sentence against the Queen, declaring her marriage with the King, null from the beginning; and having done this, he closed his farcical court. We shall see him doing more jobs in the divorcing line; but thus he finished his first.

The result of this trial was, by this incomparable judge, made known to the King, whom this wonderful hypocrite gravely besought to submit himself with resignation to the will of God, as declared to him in the decision of the spiritual court, acting according to the laws of the holy Church! The pious and resigned King yielded to the admonition; and then Cranmer held another court at Lambeth, at which he declared, that the King had been lawfully married to Anne Boleyn, and that he now confirmed the marriage by his pastoral and judicial authority, which he derived from the successors of the Apostles! We shall see him bye-and-bye, exercising the same authority to declare this new marriage null and void from the beginning,and see him assist in bastardizing the fruit of it; but we must now follow Mrs. Boleyn (whom the Protestant writers strain hart to whitewash) till we have seen the end of her.

She was delivered of a daughter (who was afterwards Queen Elizabeth) at the end of eight months from the date of her marriage. This did not please the King, who wanted a son, and who was quite monster enough to be displeased with her on this account. The couple jogged on apparently without quarreling for about three years, a pretty long time, if we duly consider the many obstacles which vice opposes to peace and happiness. The husband, however, had plenty of occupation; for, being now, “Head of the Church,” he had a deal to manage: he had, poor man, to labor hard at making a new religion, new articles of faith, new rules of discipline, and he had new things of all sorts to prepare. Besides which, he had, as we shall see in the next number, some of the best men in his kingdom, and that ever lived in any kingdom or county, to behead, hand, rip up and cut into quarters! He had, moreover, as well as see, begun the grand work of confiscation, plunder, and devastation. So that he could not have a great deal of time for family squabbles.

If, however, he had no time to jar with Anne,he had no time to look after her, which is a thing to be thought of, when a man marries a woman half his own age; and that this “great female reformer,” as some of the Protestant writes call her, wanted a little husband-like vigilance, we are now going to see. The freedom, or rather the looseness of her manners, so very different from those of virtuous Queen, whom the English court and nation had had before them as an example, for so many years, gave offence to the more sober, and excited the mirth, and set a-going the chat of persons of another description. In January, 1536, Queen Catherine died. She had been banished from the court. She had seen her marriage annulled by Cranmer, and her daughter, and only surviving child bastardized by act of Parliament; and the husband who had had five children by her, that “reformation” husband, had had the barbarity to keep her separated from, and never to suffer her, after her banishment, to set her eyes on that only child! She died, as she had lived, beloved and revered by every good man woman in the kingdom, and was buried amidst the sobbings and tears of a vast assemblage of the people, in the Abbey-church of Peterborough.

The King, whose iron heart seems to have been softened, for a moment, by a most affectionate letter, which she dictated to him from her death bed, ordered the persons about him to wear mourning on the day of her burial. But, our famous “great female reformer” did not war mourning, but dressed herself out in the gayest and gaudiest attire; expressed her unbounded joy; and said that she was not in reality a queen! Alas! for our “great female reformer!” in just three months and sixteen days from this day of her exultation, she died herself; not, however, as the real queen had died, in her bed, deeply lamented by all the good, and without a soul on earth to impute to her a single fault; but on a scaffold, under a death-warrant, signed by her husband, and charged with treason, adultery and incest!

In the month of May, 1536, she was, along with the King, amongst the spectators of a tilting-match, at Greenwhich, when being incautious, she gave to one of the combatants, who was also one of her paramours, a sign of her attachment, which seems only to have confirmed the King in suspicions which he before entertained. He instantly quitted the place, returned to Westminster, ordered her to be confined at Greenwhich, and to be brought by water to Westminster the next day. But she was met by his order on the river, and conveyed to the tower; and, as it were, to remind her of the injustice which she had so mainly assisted in committing against the late virtuous Queen, as it were to say to her, “see, after all, God is just,” she was imprisoned in the very room in which she had slept the night before her coronation!

From the moment of her imprisonment, her behaviour indicated any thing but conscious innocence. She was charged with adultery with four gentlemen of the King’s household, and with incest with her brother Lord Rochford, and she was, of course, charged with treason, those being acts of treason by law. They were all found guilty, and all put to death. But, before Anne was executed, our friend Thomas Cranmer had another tough job to perform. The King, who never did things by halves, ordered, as “head of the church,” the Archbishop to hold his “spiritual court,” and to divorce him from Anne! One would think it impossible that a man, that any thing bearing the name of a man should have consented to do such a thing, should not have perished before a slow fire rather than do it. What! he had, we have seen, pronounced the marriage with Anne “to be lawful, and had confirmed it by his authority, judicial and pastoral which he derived from the successors to the Apostles.” How as he now then, to annul this marriage? How was hie to declare it unlawful?

He cited the King and queen to appear in his court! (Oh! that court!) His citation stated, that their marriage had been unlawful, that they were living in adultery, and that, for the “salvation of their souls,” they should show cause why they should not be separated. They were just going to be separated most effectually: for this was on the 17th of May, and Anne, who had been condemned to death on the 15th, was to be, and was executed on the 19th! They both obeyed his citation, and appeared before him by their proctors; and after heard these, Cranmer, who, observe, afterwards drew up the The Book of Common Prayer, (used in the service of the Episcopal churches in Europe and America,) wound up the blasphemous farce, by pronouncing, “in the name of Christ, and for the honor of God,” that the marriage “was and always had been null and void!” Good God! But we must not give way to exclamations, or they will interrupt us at every step. Thus was the daughter, Elizabeth, bastardized by the decision of the very man who had not only pronounced her mother’s marriage lawful, but who had been the contriver of that marriage! And yet Burnet has the impudence to say, that Cranmer, “appears to have done every thing with a good conscience!” Yes, with such another conscience as Burnet did the deeds by which he got in to the Bishopric of Salsibury, at the time of “Old Glorious,” which, as we shall see, was by no means disconnected with the “Reformation.”

In the 19th, Anne was beheaded in the Tower, put into an elm coffin, and buried there. At the place of execution, she did not pretend that she was innocent; and there appears to me to be very little doubt of her having done some at least of the things imputed to her: but if her marriage with the King had “always been null and void,” that is to say, if she had never been married to him, how could she, by her commerce with other men, have been guilty of treason? On the 15th, she is condemned as the wife of the King, on the 17th she is pronounced never to have been his wife, and on the 19th, she is executed for having been his unfaithful wife! However, as to the effect which this event has upon the character of the “Reformation,” it signifies not a straw whether she were guilty or innocent of the crimes now laid to her charge; for if she were innocent, how are we to describe the monsters who brought her to the block? How are we to describe that “Head of the Church” and that Archbishop, who had now the management of the religious affairs of England? It is said, that the evening before her execution, she begged the lady of lieutenant of the Tower to go to Princess Mary and to beg her to pardon her for the many wrongs she had done her. There were others to whom she had done wrongs. She had been the cause, and the guilty cause of breaking the heart of the rightful Queen; she had caused the blood of Moro and of Fishers to be shed; and she had been the promoter of Cranmer, and his aider and abettor in all those crafty and pernicious councils, by acting upon which, an obstinate hard-hearted King had plunged the kingdom into confusion and blood. The King, in order to show his total disregard for her, and, as it were, to repay her for her conduct on the day of the funeral of Catherine, dressed himself in white on the day of her execution; and the very next day, was married to Jane Seymour, at Marevell Hall, in New Hampshire.

Thus, then, my friends, we have seen that the thing called the “Reformation” “was engendered in beastly lust, and brought forth in hypocrisy and perfidy.” How it proceeded in devastating and in shedding innocent blood, we have yet to see.