when he was sent beyond the seas for ambassador, as well to the emperor, as to the French king; at one of which times, the said bishop was at Louvain, when there was a commencement, wherein proceeded two doctors of physic; at which said commencement, the said bishop was desired to be the Father of the Act, and was at the same Act present.

"And after the said Act done, in the selfsame day, after dinner, the rector of the university accompanied with four or five learned men, came to the said bishop, to his house. And, there and then, the rector brought with him the book, which the said bishop had set forth, concerning the supremacy of the king's majesty, and the abolishment of the bishop of Rome's authority; with the which book, the said rector, and the other persons, were offended, and came to the said bishop, to see what he could speak for the defence of the said book. Unto whom the said bishop said, that he would gladly hear what they could object against it, and he would make them answer. And thereupon, the said bishop, with the said rector, and the other persons, went unto his chamber, and there continued in disputation; wherein this deponent heard the said bishop very earnest and loud in the defence of the said book; which said book, this deponent saith, he hath seen and read, and was in the house with the said bishop, when he did make the same book.

"And further he saith, that the said bishop, within his diocese, hath set forth all such acts, statutes, injunctions, and proclamations, as have been made and set forth by the king's majesty that dead is, and the king's majesty that now is.

"And further saith, that for the setting forth of the same, he hath had an expert chancellor, Dr. Steward, who hath caused the same accordingly to be set forth within the diocese, and specially within the city of Winchester, and within the hospital of the Holy Crosses, whereof this deponent is master; and for such a man, the said chancellor hath been and is commonly reputed and taken, within the diocese of Winchester, to this deponent's knowledge.

"And saith, that the said bishop, at divers and many of his said sermons whereat this deponent hath been present, hath set forth the king's majesty's supremacy, and the abolishment of the bishop of Rome's authority.

"And otherwise he cannot depose upon the statutes of the said article."-Fox, vol. vi. p. 202.

The second is "a Letter written from Louvain by one Francis Driander, the contents whereof," says Fox, "are hereunder expressed in Latin as he wrote it, and the English whereof, as much as to the present purpose appertaineth, here followeth translated;" and for us it will be enough to extract the English translation, without criticising it, and only premising that the letter was dated September 22, 1541, and addressed to Edmund Crispin, a person of whom I believe little or nothing is known, except what is to be learned from Anthony a Wood's not very complimentary

notice of him'. But the value of the letter arises from its having been put in as evidence by Bishop Gardiner himself, during the process for his deprivation.

"Before my departure from the city of Paris, I wrote unto you by our friend the englishman, &c. Now the narration of your bishop of Winchester, shall satisfy and content you. He (the said bishop) as appertained to the ambassador of so noble a prince, came to Louvain with a great rout and bravery, and was there, at a private man's house called Jeremy's, most honourably entertained and received; where the faculty of divines, for honour's sake, presented him wine in the name of the whole university. But our famous doctors, and learned masters, for that they would more deeply search and understand the learning and excellency of the prelate, perused and scanned a certain Oration made by him, and now extant, intitled 'De vera Obedientia,' which is as much as to say, in our english tongue, 'Of true Obedience,' in the which his Oration he did greatly impair and subvert the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and preferred his Lord and King's authority before the holy apostolic see as they were wont to term it: which being read and considered by them, they did not only repent them, for attributing such their honour unto him, but also recanted what they had done before; and, like impudent persons, did not so much honour him afore, but now twice so much with many obloquies and derisions, disabled and dishonoured his person.

"But, in conclusion, Richard Lathomus interpreter of the Terms, with the favourers of this fraternity, and other the champions of the falling church, boldly enterprised to dispute with him concerning the pope's supremacy. The Bishop stoutly defended his said Oration. The divines contrary did stiffly maintain their opinion, and, divers times openly with exclamation, called the said bishop an excommunicate person, and a schismatic; to the no little reproach and infamy of the english nation.

"I will not here repeat the arguments and reasons which were alledged on both parts, for the defence of the opinions of each side, for that lest, perhaps, to learned men, they shall not seem all of the strongest; and also, because it becometh me to save and preserve the estimation of either party. The bishop not long after, minding to say mass in St. Peter's church, they did deny unto him, as to an excommunicate person, the ornaments and vestments meet for the same; wherewith being highly offended, he suddenly hasted his

1 Under the year 1547 he tells us that "Edmund Crispyne of Oriell coll. lately a shagling lecturer of physic, now one of the proctors of the university, did supplicate to be licensed to proceed in physic," and he adds, that though he found no registration of their license he has no doubt that it was granted, as he found the supplicant afterwards "written and stiled" a doctor of physic. Fast. Ox. Part I. col. 126. One would like to know how the letter came into Gardiner's possession. Strype seems to take it for granted that this Crispin was the divine of the "popish stamp" bearing that name, whose services the Devonshire rebels required in the year 1548.-Cran., vol. i. 265.

journey from thence. The dean the next day after, made an eloquent oration, wherein he openly disgraced and defamed his person. I lament greatly their case, who so rashly, without any advisement, gave themselves to be mocked among grave and witty men. have heard now a true story for our doctor was the chief and principal doer of that tragedy."-Fox, vol. vi. p. 139.

You

We may just observe, that in all this, (written several years after the supposed publication at Hamburgh,) there is not a word of Bishop Bonner or his Preface; nor do I recollect that, when he was in circumstances somewhat similar to those of Gardiner, he made any such claim as Gardiner now did, and as he had quite an equal right to make if the Preface was his. If, however, it be said that we ought not to expect anything about Bonner's part of the book in the process relating to Gardiner, it must still be allowed that it would not have been surprising if some word about it had escaped; and that if Gardiner believed himself to be indebted to Bonner for such fervent co-operation and patronage, it was ungrateful in him to pass by so fair an occasion of mentioning it, when it might have been of service to his fellow-sufferer.

But enough has, perhaps, been said to convince the reader that if Gardiner did write the Oration, he had no inconsistency or tergiversation to be ashamed of; and that whether the author of the Preface deserved praise or blame for his work, was a question that in no way touched Bishop Bonner.

ESSAY XX.

BONNER'S CRUELTY.

§ 1. GENERAL STATEMENTS AND FULLER'S IN PARTICULAR.

THE character of Bonner for cruelty is so established, that it is superfluous to collect testimonies from the various writers by whom the charge has been brought; especially considering what I have already had occasion to quote in the course of these Essays'.

1 See what is quoted before from Bale, p. 40; from Ponet, p. 57; and from Traheron, p. 65. After them it is almost needless to quote Burnet, Strype, or even Fox, much less Fuller, Heylin, and more modern writers.

Indeed, these charges have been so often, and so vehemently repeated, and have so passed into a proverb, that it is much less necessary to prove their existence, or exhibit their nature, than to deprecate the appearance of maintaining a paradox by suggesting the idea that they are gross exaggerations, and in a very great degree false, and slanderous.

As, however, I do not see that I can be suspected of any partial motive, in wishing to illustrate this part of our ecclesiastical history, and as my conscience acquits me of all sympathy with any person of whatever party or name (Cranmer, Calvin, or Bonner) in so far as he thought of maintaining or enforcing Christianity by fire and faggot, I shall not dilate on this point; but in order to come to an immediate understanding with the reader, I will at once say, that I not only believe those contemporary writers whom I have quoted, as well as some others, to have indulged in rhodomontade declamation, and in scurrility as odious for its falsehood as for its coarseness; but that I believe their coloured and exaggerated accounts of facts to have been still farther coloured and exaggerated—I will add, perverted and falsified-by more modern copyists. I do not say that it has been done in most cases with bad purpose, or in all even knowingly; I only state my belief that it has, in fact, been done; and that stories have been handed from one careless writer to another, containing monstrous falsehoods, even beyond what might be warranted by the statements of the most loose and declamatory writers of the time. I will give a specimen from one of our most respectable ecclesiastical historians, which will not only explain my meaning, but form a very suitable introduction to what I wish further to state.

Fuller, in his Church History, gives an account of the Marian persecution, which he divides according to Dioceses; and after stating what occurred in several of them he proceeds :

"Cross we the Thames to come into Middlesex, and Essex, the Diocese of London under Bishop Bonner, whom all generations shall call Bloody. St. Paul mentioneth his fighting with Beasts at Ephesus after the manner of men, which some expound, his encountering with people, men for their shape and sex ; but beasts for their cruell mindes, and manners. In the same sense we may say, that Lion, Tiger, Wolfe, Bear; yea, a whole forest of wilde beasts met in

Bonner, killing two hundred in the compasse of three yeers. And, as if his cruelty had made him Metropolitan of all England, he stood not on distinction of Dioceses, but martyred all, wheresoever he met them. Thus Mr. Philpot belonged to Gardiner's Jurisdiction, and often pleaded in vain, that Bonner was none of his Ordinary, yet Bonner (Ordinary, or Extraordinary) dispatch'd him, who cared not whence men came but onely whither he sent them. No sex, quality, or age, escap'd him, whose fury reached from John Fetty a lad of eight years old, by him scourged to death; even unto Hugh Laverock, a Creeple, sixty eight yeers old, whom he caused to be burnt.". Ch. Hist. Book VIII. p. 18.

Now, as to the forest of wild beasts one hardly knows what to say; it is scarcely tangible; but I may be allowed to suggest that if a whole forest of wild beasts, ranging among a crowd of defenceless sheep, devoured only two hundred in three years, they must have been, for wild beasts, rather moderate in their food. But let this stand by till we have looked at more specific statements.

In the first place it must not be passed over-for the greatness of the number, and the shortness of the time, are the points intended to impress the reader-that it would have been more fair to have said three years and three quarters; for there was as much of a fourth year as elapsed between the 4th of February and the 10th of November. Again as to the number; I have no idea why Fuller says that Bonner killed "two hundred." If he means the whole number who suffered, that was considerably greater; and it would have been better for his reputation if he had stuck to the old lie, which he might have put off on Fox, without at all risking his own credit ;

"This cannibal, in three years space, three hundred martyrs slew,

They were his food; he loved so blood; he SPARED NONE he knew."2

There is, however, something in this half-hearted modesty of Fuller which places him in an awkward position; for as the magnitude of falsehoods is not calculated by the laws of arithmetical progression, it is almost as bad to talk of two hundred as of three. I know of no authority but his own caprice for assigning to Bonner this lion's share of the prey. He had enough to render exaggeration perfectly gratuitous. Hume states (I believe quite correctly, I am sure he is not

2 Fox, vol. viii. p. 482.