“’There is much that is palpably improbable in many other parts of the statement (simple as it seems to be) when submitted to the searching spirit of modern criticism.  How ridiculous is the story of Cardinal Wiseman’s pretending that the oath in receiving the Pallium had been modified for his convenience; little less so, indeed, than his challenge to his Presbyterian antagonist to examine it, and that, too, in the very book in which the contested clause was not cancelled!  All this is such a maze of absurdity, that it is impossible to believe it.  In the first place, do we not know that, throughout the whole history of the Papal power, the inflexible character, not only of its doctrines, but of its official forms and solemnities, was always maintained, and that this pertinacity was continually placing it at a disadvantage in the contest with the more flexible spirit of Protestantism?  It would not renounce, in terms or words, the very things which it did renounce in deeds, and never could prevail upon itself to get over this unaccommodating spirit!  Yet here we are to believe that, at the Cardinal’s request a certain part of a most solemn ceremonial—­that of receiving the Pallium was remitted by the Pope!  If it were so, the Cardinal would certainly have desired to conceal it.  If he could not have done that, he would, at least, never have given so easy a triumph to his adversary as to challenge him to inspect the very copy of the Pontifical, in which, after all, the oath was not cancelled, in order that he might be satisfied that it was!  Who can believe that a Cardinal of the Romish Church, Wiseman or fool, would have been simple enough for such a step as this?  It is plain that the historian himself was not unaware that such an objection would immediately suggest itself, and endeavors to guard against it,—­a suspicious circumstance in itself—­which may serve to warn us how little we can depend on the historic character of the document.

“’Again; what can be more improbable, than that, when a great nation was convulsed from one end to the other, as the English are said to have been, there should have been no violence, not even accidentally, attending those huge and excited assemblages; a thing so natural, nay, so certain!  Who can believe that only one man was sacrificed, and he on the predominant side?  I have discovered in my laborious researches on this important subject, that only seventy years before, when a cry of the same nature, but much less potent, was raised, London was filled with conflagration and blood-shed.  Who ever heard, indeed, of commotion such as this is pretended to have been, and its ending in vox et praeterea nihil?

“’It is superfluous to point out the absurdity of supposing a Cardinal of the Romish Church lecturing the people of England on “the claims of religious liberty”; or so great a nation, in such a paroxysm, spending many months in the concoction of a measure confessed to be a feeble one, and suffered to be broken with impunity!