about Hart's seducing and beguiling, is not what Careless said to Dr. Martin, but what he thought fit to observe by way of comment, when he was writing an account of his examination. The evil arises, of course, merely from want of care in reading and copying, and is just like his telling us that "by some accident" the paper of articles fell into the hands of Dr. Martin, when in the next paragraph he tells us that the noise of "such unseemly quarrelsome disputes and heat" reached to "the Council... who sent Dr. Martin to the King's Bench to examine it 10." And when, in the examination itself, he had Dr. Martin's own words, "I tell thee, then, I have commission, yea, and commandment from the Council, to examine thee, for they delivered me thy articles.” . But, setting this aside for the present, let me recal the reader's attention to the four cases which I have mentioned. It seems to me to be quite time to ask him whether they prove anything? If not, perhaps no multiplication of such stories would avail to throw any light on the puritan doctrine respecting veracity. Let me, however, remind him of one thing-namely, that I am not charging Joye, and Dalaber, and Greene, and Careless with falsehood, or attempting to show that they were guilty of it, but merely bringing forward their own statements, respecting their own conduct, made for their own pleasure, and, without the least mark of regret or compunction, addressed to their own friends, and in three cases out of the four, set forth and 10 Cran. ii. 505. I have no wish to cavil at what Strype says, and I think no one feels more strongly than I do the value of his work; but really it is one great inconvenience of the careless way in which he wrote, that one cannot bring one passage to correct another, without a high probability of its containing something in itself which needs correction. It may be a matter of no importance whether Dr. Martin went to the King's Bench, or whether Careless was brought before him elsewhere; but that anybody who had read the examination should affirm the former, seems very strange. The first words (as the reader will see by turning back a page or two) are, "When I came into his chamber, Master D. called me to him," &c.; and in the course of the examination, Dr. Martin having asked him, "Where dost thou dwell?" Careless answered, "Forsooth at Coventry." The Doctor rejoined, " At Coventry? What so far, man? How camest thou hither? [and then, as if sensible that this word might be misunderstood to mean the place where they actually were at the moment, he added] Who sent thee to the King's Bench to prison?" And Careless answered, "I was sent thither by a writ," &c. How could Strype imagine that this dialogue took place in the King's Bench? published by those friends without the least hint of disapprobation. If he duly considers this point, he will, I think, acquit me of any want of justice or charity towards either the individuals or their sect; and will not wonder or blame me if I proceed to inquire what effect the doctrine thus developed had on some of those writers who, whether formally or not, are in fact the Historians of the Reformation. ESSAY III. PURITAN STYLE. No. I. BALE. WHAT kindled and fanned the fires of Smithfield? What raised and kept alive the popish persecution in the days of Queen Mary? Was it her own sanguinary disposition? or was she the slave of her husband's cruel superstition? or were both the tools of foreigners, who certainly hated the English because they were heretics, but more deadly hated the heretics because they were Englishmen? Was it "wily Winchester," or was it "bloody Bonner," or was it something in the spirit of the church of which both were zealous members? Whatever may be said on any or on all of these points, there was undoubtedly one other cause; which, if it be too much to say that it has been studiously concealed or disguised, has certainly never occupied that prominent place to which it is entitled in such an inquiry. I mean, the bitter and provoking spirit of some of those who were very active and forward in promoting the progress of the Reformation -the political opinions which they held, and the language in which they disseminated them-the fierce personal attacks which they made on those whom they considered as enemies --and, to say the least, the little care which was taken by those who were really actuated by religious motives, and seeking a true reformation of the church, to shake off a lewd, ungodly, profane rabble, who joined the cause of protestantism, thinking it in their depraved imaginations, or hoping to make it by their wicked devices, the cause of liberty against law, of the poor against the rich, of the laity against the clergy, of the people against their rulers. In particular, it seems impossible that any reflecting mind, even though misled by partial relations, or prejudiced by doctrinal opinions, should fail to see, as a mere matter of fact, in how great a degree the persecution of the protestants in England was caused by the conduct of their brethren who were in exile. To this point in particular I beg the reader's attention. No man, I suppose, will blame those who, when they were persecuted in their own country, fled to another. Perhaps a severe scrutiny might discover that in a great many cases politics (what some called treason) had more to do with their flight than religion; but, to say nothing of this, it was natural that men who felt that they were in danger of their lives if they worshipped God as they thought right, or refused to obey Antichrist by the commission of what they considered atrocious idolatry, should quit the scene of danger and throw themselves upon the hospitality of foreigners. They did so, and with the happiest success. Banishment from one's country is, no doubt, a hardship in itself, and in the case of many it was probably attended with risk, trouble, and loss; but one would have thought that when the exiles found themselves beyond the reach of persecution, and received with hearty welcome, and fraternal love, by those whom they considered as brethren in their common Lord, they would have sate down under the banner of love thus mercifully spread over them, and poured out their hearts in gratitude and praise to the God of all consolation'. We 1 In his account of Bishop Parkhurst, Strype says, "He and the other 'exiles being not only most kindly received at their coming, by Bullinger, Zanchy, Wolphius, Gualter, Lavater, and other ministers and rectors at Zurich, but also living easily there among them; so much love and hospitality had such an impression upon him, that he thought he could never sufficiently extol it, nor be thankful enough for it: as he expressed it in these verses : Vivo Tigurinos inter humanissimos: Quibus velis vix credere quantum debeam. "How kind the divines of that city showed themselves (and especially Gualter) to him, John Bale took notice of in the preface to his books of the Acts of the Popes . . . the same writer, an exile also then C might, surely, have expected that, if their Christianity did not rise high enough to enable them to bless those who cursed them, and to pray for those who despitefully used and persecuted them, they would at least have tried to forget their own injuries for the sake of the brethren whom they had left behind, and who, either because they were unable, or because they scrupled, to fly, were still exposed to the fury of Antichrist-that if they addressed anything to the rulers of Eng at Basil, records gratefully the entertainment of the rest of the English there. That they lived together in one house [like a college of students.] "That Bullinger took a fatherly care of them, and that by the full con'sent of the citizens. And he adds, that these that were daily with him 'at Basil, related those ministers care, their trouble, and their paternal 'affection towards them, while they lived under the shadow of that city, 'covered against the heat of persecution with the love of the whole 'people."-Annals, Vol. II. P. i. p. 348. Since this note was first published I have been led to suspect that Parkhurst's demonstrations of gratitude may have been somewhat exaggerated at the expense of his contemporaries. In addition to what I have quoted above, Strype says, "He had a great sense of the favour and protection he received in Helvetia, especially of the learned men of Zurich .. and so delighted was he with the discipline and doctrine ' of that church, that he often wished that our church were modelled 'exactly according to that. And in gratitude to Rodolph Gualter (in 'whose house he and his wife seem to have been harboured) he maintained his son the young Rodolph first at Cambridge, and then at Oxford and in other places, while he was in England at his sole expence," &c.-Ibid. p. 508. It happened that after I had published these Essays, in clearing out a closet in the MSS. Room at Lambeth, I found a parcel, which had been tied up before I was born, and probably never opened since. Its superscription was not particularly inviting, or such as to give it a preference in a collection where it was impossible to pay due attention to so many things that were obviously and highly interesting. One only learned that the dirty brown paper contained "Old Petitions," &c. which the person who put them up characterized as "Useless." Being however at that time very desirous to know as accurately as possible the contents of the room I opened the parcel; and, among old petitions and the like, I found the autograph Account Book kept by Archbishop Whitgift when he was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. By the Archbishop's permission I gave some description of it, and reprinted the whole in the British Magazine for October, 1847, and some subsequent numbers. Among the pupils whose accounts were kept by the Master in this book was this "young Rodolph," and it seems to render the statement in Strype somewhat doubtful. I do not here repeat what I said in the magazine for February, 1848 (vol. xxxiii. p. 192,) but it is curious that while the Master acknowledges and accounts for monies received for the young foreigner's support from "my 1. of London" [Sandys] and "my I. of York " [Grindal], there is no reference of any kind to my Lord of Norwich. land it would be the language of earnest intercession for those brethren-that if they wrote to those brethren themselves, it would be to excite them to faith, hope, and charity, to longsuffering, patience, and resignation, and to invite them to those safe and pleasant cites of refuge which a merciful God had provided and prepared for them. Those who have penetrated at all beneath the general and superficial statements of the popular historians, need not be told that the real case was much otherwise. But I cannot help thinking, that none but those who have paid some attention to the works which were written by the exiled party during the reign of Mary,-I mean the works themselves, in contradistinction to selections, extracts, modernizations, and generalizing accounts, can properly estimate the effect which they were calculated to produce on the measures of the English government in church and state during that period. Before, however, I come to speak particularly of these works, as regards their design and effect, I would offer a few remarks of a more general nature on the style of some of the more popular puritan writers. It is a matter which has certainly been misrepresented, principally, I believe, though not entirely, by ignorance; but it is one which, if we wish really to understand the history of the period, we must look fairly in the face. It must be considered that those parts of the works of writers of this class and period, which are the most contrary to good taste and good manners, have been very seldom, very sparingly, and then commonly with some preface or apology, brought forward by their admirers;-and further that through those admirers almost exclusively, these writers are known to protestants of the present day; and further still, that when any such matter as admirers would not wish to find does come into notice, it is frequently purified from its grossness by the omission of words or sentences, with or without notice to the reader, who thus forms a very imperfect and erroneous opinion of the author whose work he is reading. Of course, I do not mean to find fault with such omissions, as things wrong in themselves, or as less than absolutely necessary in some cases. Occasions may arise on which it may be very right to reprint a work, or extract a passage, of an old writer, containing words or phrases so obscene or profane that common decency requires them to be |