Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

22

HENRY VIII.

(From a Lithograph after Holbein, by T. R. Way.)

56

SIR WILLIAM PAGET, first Lord Paget .

(From a Mezzotint.)

[blocks in formation]

STEPHEN GARDINER, Bishop of Winchester

(From an Engraving by P. à Gunst.)

130

JOAN BALE, Bishop of Ossory

(From an Engraving by H. Meyer.)

176

CARDINAL WOLSEY

(From a Lithograph afler Holbein, by T. R. Way.)

198

THOMAS CROMWELL, Earl of Essex

(Froni a Lithograph after Holbein, by T. R. Way.)

200

CARDINAL POLE

(From an Engraving after Titian, by H. T. Kyall.)

PAGE

238

EDWARD SEYMOUR, Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector

(From an Engraving after Holbein, by Goldur.)

266

NICHOLAS RIDLEY, Bishop of London.

(From an Engraving by P. à Gunst.)

.

310

EDWARD, Lord HERBERT of Cherbury .

(From a 1 Engraving by 1. Thomson, after a Drawing

by Wm. Derby.)

336

Robert FERRAR, Bishop of St. David's

(From an Engraving.)

362

THOMAS CRANMER, Archbishop of Canterbury

(From an Engraving by Gerbicus Fliccus.)

442

EDMUND BONNER, Bishop of London

(From an Engraving.)

ERRATUM,

Page 67, line 11, for “1544" read "1554"

ESSAYS.

ESSAY I.

PURITAN VERACITY. No. I.

GEORGE JOYE-ANDREW DALABER.

For the history of the Reformation in England, we depend so much on the testimony of writers, who may be considered as belonging, or more or less attached, to the puritan party,-or who obtained their information from persons of that sect,—that it is of the utmost importance to inquire whether there was any thing in their notions respecting truth, which ought to throw suspicion on any of their statements.

The question is one which does not require much research or argument. There is something very frank (one is almost inclined to say, honest) in the avowals, either direct or indirect, which various puritans have left on record, that it was considered not only allowable, but meritorious, to tell lies for the sake of the good cause in which they were engaged, and for the benefit of those who were fellow-helpers in it. The case is not merely that the charitable partizan looked with compassion on the weak brother who denied his faith under the dread of cruel torments, or stood by with pitying and loving connivance while he told a lie as to some matter of fact, to save his own

fe, or lives dearer than his own. It is, that they did not hesitate, without any such urgent temptation, and with great deliberation and solemnity, to state what they knew to be false; and that the manner in which such falsehoods were

A

[ocr errors]

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 inbibit 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 bad 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 Archbishop 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

[ocr errors]
[graphic][ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »