§ i. General Statements, and Fuller's in particular. § v. Bonner's dealings with his own prisoners § vi. His dealings with the Court § vii. Those with his own prisoners resumed, with a ESSAY S. 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 B with pitying and loving connivance while he told a lie as to some matter of fact, to save his own life, 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 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 Tonstalls 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 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 condemned 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 Christ';" 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 "for saking the university, went into many places teaching and preaching, being associate with Arthur, which ⚫ accompanied 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 1 Edit. 1596, p. 910. |