avowed by those who told them, and recorded by their friends and admirers, is sufficient evidence that such a practice was not considered discreditable. This will be best proved and illustrated by a few facts, which require no further general introduction than what has been already given; and it is hoped that the reader will understand, that in thus bringing them forward the object is, not to criminate any person or class of persons; but to inquire how far we may rely on statements resting on the authority of those who adopted puritan principles.

"When the Party," says Bishop Burnet, "became so considerable, that it was known there were societies of them, not only in London, but in both the universities, then the Cardinal [Wolsey] was constrained to act. His contempt of the clergy was looked on as that which gave encouragement to the heretics. When reports were brought to court of a company that were in Cambridge, Bilney, Latimer, and others that read and propagated Luther's book and opinions, some Bishops moved, in the year 1523, that there might be a visitation appointed to go to Cambridge, for trying who were the fautors of heresy there. But he, as Legate, did inhibit it (upon what grounds I cannot imagine), which was brought against him afterwards in Parliament, (Art. 43. of his impeachment.) Yet, when these doctrines were spread everywhere, he called a meeting of all the Bishops and divines, and canonists about London; where Thomas Bilney and Thomas Arthur were brought before them, and articles were brought in against them. The whole process is set down at length by Fox in all points according to Tonstall's register, except one fault in the translation. When the Cardinal asked

Bilney whether he had not taken an oath before, not to preach, or defend any of Luther's doctrines, he confessed he had done it, but not judicially, (judicialiter in the register.) This Fox translates, not lawfully. In all other particulars there is an exact agreement between the Register and his Acts."-Hist. Ref., vol. i. p. 31.

Fox, who, as Burnet says, has set down the whole process at length, begins by telling us that, on the 27th of November, 1527, "Cardinal Wolsey with his complices," that is to say, "a great number of Bishops, as the Arch'bishop of Canterbury, Cuthbert [Tonstal] of London, John [Fisher] of Rochester, Nicholas [West] of Ely, John [Voysey] of Exeter, John [Longlond] of Lincoln, John [Clerk] of Bath and Wells, Harry [Standish] of St. Asaph, 'with many others, both divines and lawyers, came into the 'chapter-house at Westminster," to examine Thomas Bilney and Thomas Arthur as to their having "preached or taught to the people the opinions of Luther or any others con

demned by the church." With the details of this process, however, we have no business at present; and perhaps the story is so well known, that it is almost unnecessary to say that, according to Fox, " Bilney was a Cambridge man, and the first framer of that university in the knowledge of Christ1;" and that he converted many of his fellows to the knowledge of the gospel, amongst which number were Thomas Arthur, and Master Hugh Latimer; and at length "forsaking the university, went into many places teaching 'and preaching, being associate with Arthur, which accom'panied him from the university."

Thus it was that Arthur and Bilney came to be called before the cardinal "and his complices; " but I do not want to say more about them at present; and, indeed, I only mention the august tribunal before which they were summoned, in order to introduce a person who was not there, though he had received a very particular invitation to attend, and had, to a certain extent, accepted it. This person was George Joye, who was then a fellow of Peter House, in Cambridge, and who is now not quite unknown, from his connexion with Tyndale's translation of the New Testament, and from several works which he published, especially an attack on Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, which elicited a reply, entitled, "A Declaration of such true articles as George Ioye hath gon about to confute as false."

Fox does not appear to have known that Joye was cited with Bilney and Arthur; and I refer to the account of that process, in his Martyrology, only that the reader may better comprehend what here follows, and perceive that I am not selecting, for an illustration, the story of a person inconsiderable or unknown. George Joye was well known, and a man of some consequence, among those who followed the new learning.

The facts which led to his being summoned with Bilney and Arthur seem to have been these. The Prior of Newnham Abbey, near Bedford, told the suffragan of the Bishop

1 Edit. 1596, p. 910.

2 I suppose that most of what is known of him is collected in Lewis's History of the Translations of the Bible, p. 79, et seq. On the ground that one of his works is professedly" Printed at London by George Joye," Herbert gives him a place in his edition of Ames's Typographical Antiquities, vol. i. p. 567.

of Lincoln, that George Joye held some heretical opinions. The suffragan told the bishop; and the bishop wrote direct to the prior for further information. The prior replied fully to the bishop, and the consequence was, that Joye was cited to attend at that meeting in the Chapter House, at which, as we have seen, John, Bishop of Lincoln, was one of the "complices" of his friend and patron the cardinal. What Joye did on that occasion he shall tell in his own words, as soon as I have explained how we come to have the prior's letter to the bishop, and given some account of its

contents.

It seems that, by some means or other, that letter came into the hands of Joye; and when he considered himself safe from his pursuers, he printed it, with a commentary replying to the charges which it contained. His little book is entitled "The Letters whyche Johan Ashwell, Priour of 'Newnham Abbey besydes Bedforde, sente secretly to the 'Byshope of Lyncolne, in the yeare of our Lord M.D.xxvii. 'where in the sayde Pryour accuseth George Joye that tyme 'beyng felowe of Peter College in Cambrydge, of fower opinyons: with the answere of the sayde George vnto the 'same opynyons." It consists of about fifty-eight small pages, and is dated at the end, "At Straszburge, the 10. daye of June;" and beneath is added, "This lytell boke be delyuerd to Johan Ashwel Prior of Newnhã Abbey besydes Bedforde with spede." On the back of the title, George Joye gives a brief synopsis of the errors and heresies with which he was charged, in the following form:

"The fyrste opinion is (as M. priour sayth) that a symple preyst hath as large and as greate power to bynde and to lose, as hath a byshope, or the byshope of Rome.

The seconde that he imputeth vnto me is that fayth is sufficient wythout workes.

The thyrde that he fayneth on me, is that euery preist may have a wyfe or a concubine.

The fowerth, that euery laye man maye heare confessions.

3 It may be proper to say, with respect to books of this period, that while I endeavour to give all extracts as correctly as possible, I do not feel bound to copy exactly the punctuation, (where there is anything that can be properly so called,) or all the contractions, misprints, and obsolete spelling which would render them tiresome, if not unintelligible to most readers. For words in brackets, unless otherwise explained, I am responsible.