66

66

66

a sermon preached before the court, condemned these proceedings in the most pointed manner*, as contrary both to the text and the spirit of the gospel." He said, that "it was not by severity, "but by mildness, that men were to be brought "into the fold of Christ; and that it was not the duty of bishops to seek the death, but to instruct "the ignorance of their misguided brethren."— Many," says doctor Lingard, "were at a loss to 66 account for the discourse; whether it was the spontaneous effort of the friar, or had been suggested to him by the policy of Phillip, or by the humanity of Cardinal Pole, or by the repugnance "of the bishops: it made, however, a deep im"pression." The preacher was afterwards advanced to a bishopric in Spain. Doctor Lingard also shows, that the discussion related by Hume † to have taken place between cardinal Pole and Gardiner, on the intended persecution, is altogether imaginary; and that there is no foundation for Burnet's assertion, copied by Hume, that the instructions given to the magistrates, to watch over the public peace, and for that purpose, to apprehend the propagators of seditious reports, and the preachers of seditious doctrines, was an attempt to introduce the inquisition. He also shows, that there is no truth in the tale of the martyrdoms of the three women of Guernsey.

"After every allowance," says doctor Lingard, "it will be found, that, in the space of four years, "two hundred persons perished in the flames for * Strype, iii. 209. + Chapter xxxvii.

"religious opinions; a number, at the contempla"tion of which the mind is struck with horror, and "learns to bless the legislation of a more tolerant age, in which dissent from established forms,

though in some countries still punished with civil disabilities, is nowhere liable to the penalties of "death."

66

You mention, in the highest terms of praise, the fortitude with which the Marian martyrs, as you call them, sustained the flames which consumed them. I admire it as much as you; but was not the fortitude of the episcopalian martyrs, in Scotland, in the reign of Charles II.*, equally heroic? and, comparing the demeanour of the Marian martyrs in their sufferings, with the demeanor of the Elizabethan martyrs in theirs, will these suffer by the comparison?

.

I have already declared that these sanguinary executions cannot be justified; yet, it should not be forgotten, that similar guilt is justly imputable to many sovereigns, some of whom enjoy a considerable portion of historic fame; that there was not, at this time, a protestant country in Europe, in which similar executions did not take place; or one, among the primitive reformers, by whom religious persecution was not justified; and that some, who were executed in the reign of queen Mary for heresy, might have been executed for treason:other sovereigns, more politically, but certainly not more justly, converted what they termed heresy

* Laing's History of Scotland, book. vII. & VIII.

into treason, and punished the convicted heretic, not as an heretic, but as a traitor.

You begin your account of the reign of Mary by informing us, that "the Suffolk men were the first "who declared for queen Mary; that the protestant "religion had taken root among them; and that they "had obtained a promise from her, that no altera"tion should be made in the religion which her "brother had established." Doctor Lingard has sufficiently shown that no such promise was made. Mr. John Gage, in his "History and Antiquities of Hengrave in Suffolk," -the work of a gentleman and a scholar,-has inserted Mary's proclamation to the men of Suffolk: it contains no such promise; and they refer to none, in the long petition which they afterwards presented to Mary in favour of their religion.

.

I have now to mention an instance, in which, to aggravate the conduct of queen Mary's government, and the odium which you think it should bring upon the roman-catholics, you introduce a perfect fancy piece. You tell us, that, "on the day on which

66

Ridley and Latimer suffered at Oxford, the duke "of Norfolk dined with Gardiner; and that the "dinner was delayed some hours, till the bishop's "servant arrived from Oxford, post-haste, with

tidings that he had seen fire set to them; that "Gardiner went exultingly to the duke of Norfolk "with the news, and said, Now let us go to dinner;' that, before he rose from table he was "stricken with a painful disease, and being carried "to his bed, lay there in intolerable torments for

66

66

"fifteen days.". ...and died. This tale was quickly refuted. The author of Fox's life, in the Biographia Britannica, mentions it "among the many "facts, in the relation of which Fox is not to be depended upon."-" To disprove this tragical 66 story, it may," says the biographer," be suf"ficient to observe, that Gardiner appeared in "the house of lords after he is reported to have "been seized with the mortal distemper; and the "old duke of Norfolk had been dead above a year, "when Fox makes him at dinner with the bishop of "Winchester; for he died at Framlingham Castle, September 1554, and was succeeded by his grandson, who could not then be an old duke, as the story says. As to Gardiner, he died of the gout, "and not of a suppression of urine, as Fox says.' The important epithet "old," by which the duke of Norfolk is described, you omit. The falsehood of the story was noticed by doctor Lingard *; still it found its place in the first edition of your work. Articles afterwards appeared in different newspapers, showing the falsehood of Fox's narrative: you have, however, retained it in your second edition;—and long may it there remain, as proof of the little reliance that should be placed on those writers, who place their trust in Fox.

66

66

You collect several contumelious expressions, which father Persons, in his Examination of your favourite author, has applied to many of the sufferers in the reign of queen Mary. Supposing your representation of them to be accurate, I sincerely *Note (D.) p. 100 & 106.

"Res

condemn them; but are they as objectionable as those which father Fox,-you have informed us, that queen Elizabeth distinguished him by that appellation,—or, (I am sorry to add),—as those which you yourself, throughout your work, incessantly apply to us? I learn from you, that father Persons calls the generality of the sufferers "contemptible "and pitiful rabblement, . . . obscure and unlearned "fellows,... noxious, wilful beasts, artificers, spinsters, and the like people." I wish father Persons had used no offensive expression: “est sacra miser:" the sufferings,—I willingly add,—the unjust sufferings of those, to whom he applies them, should have led him, whatever were his own opinion of the merits of their case, to mention them with tenderness. But how do you speak of us and our religion? There scarcely is a chapter, in either of your two volumes, which does not contain some expressions much more opprobrious than any used by father Persons. It should also be taken into account, that father Persons wrote in the days of fierce controversy; that he had before his eyes the racks and the gibbets, by which his brethren in faith had suffered, were then suffering, or were to suffer. Does not this greatly extenuate the bitterness of his pen ?-You write in an age of temper and philosophy;-when decency and politeness have banished polemic abuse from all the liberal parts of society; when oblivion of past animosities is universally recommended; when the mention of irritating subjects is avoided; when all denominations of christians wish for good humour,