1607 
 
 F79 
 
 M23 
 
($arnell Intoetaitg 2Itbr 
 
 3tl|ata. S9'eu Qnrk 
 
 miiitt historical Slibcacy 
 
 THE GIFT OF PRESIDENT WHT 
 
 MAINTAINED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN AC 
 ANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS 
 OF THE GIFT 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BR1607.F79 M23 
 
 olln 
 
 3 1924 029 262 775 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029262775 
 
TWELVE LETTERS 
 
 FOX'S 
 
 ACTS AND MONUMENTS,, 
 
 ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE BRITISH MAGAZINE, 
 DURING THE YEARS 1837 & 1838. 
 
 REV. S. R. MAITLAND, 
 
 LIBRARIAN TO HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON, 
 
 SI. Paul's church yaed, 
 
 AND TVATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. 
 
 1841. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 In the first volume of the edition of Fox's Martyro- 
 logy, lately published by Messrs. Seeley and Burnside, 
 Mr. Townsend and Mr. Cattley have made frequent 
 mention of the first sia; letters of a series of twelve 
 which I published in the years 1837 and 1838 in 
 the British Magazine ; but, as far as I have observed, 
 they take no notice whatever of the others. I can 
 only suppose that they have not seen, or forgotten 
 that they ever saw, them. The first six were re- 
 printed, soon after their publication, in the form of a 
 pamphlet ; but the others exist only in the old num- 
 bers of the Magazine, and as it may be necessary for 
 me to refer to them in remarking on what Mr. 
 Townsend and Mr. Cattley have said and not said, 
 I now reprint them; As they really are the conti- 
 nuation of what was in the Magazine an unbroken 
 series, I have thought it best to print them as such. 
 To render reference to the contents of the Letters 
 more easy, the paging is continued and a common 
 index is given ; and for the convenience of those who 
 may already possess the first six letters, a second 
 title-page is added. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The course pursued by the parties concerned in the 
 new edition of Fox's Acts and Monuments, requires 
 that I should reprint, in a collected form, the letters 
 which I have published in the British Magazine, in 
 order to meet the question respecting the real value 
 of their woi'k in the shape in which they have seen 
 fit to place it, or to allow it to stand, before the 
 public. 
 
 So far are they from admitting that they have 
 failed to perform all that the prospectus engaged 
 for, and all that reasonable persons could expect, 
 either with or without any particular pledges — so 
 far are they from acknowledging, though they have 
 not ventured to deny, any one error which I have 
 pointed out, that the most recent language of the 
 publishers (their letter in the British Magazine, 
 dated the 22nd Sept., that is, nearly a month after 
 the fourth of these letters was published) insinuates 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 disbelief of all. They are only brought so far as 
 to say that they "fear" (and therefore doubt) 
 whether some mistakes may not have been "left 
 uncorrected." They still affect the querulous tone 
 of injured persons who while quite unexceptionably 
 and creditably performing their engagements with 
 their Subscribers and the public, are attacked un- 
 reasonably, and from ' personal dislike,' not to their 
 edition, but to the work which they edit. 
 
 How many persons they will convince of this, 
 and how they can believe it themselves, I do not 
 know ; but when they suggest the probability of 
 finding an equal number of mistakes in " any other 
 work of a similar class," I feel bound to meet, and 
 attempt to fix, what I apprehend to be a mere ran- 
 dom assertion of that which happens to be conve- 
 nient and plausible, (for I do not believe it to be a 
 deliberate attempt to impose on the presumed igno- 
 rance of their subscribers by a false and dishonest 
 pretence,) with a plain and public request that they 
 will explain what they mean by works of " a similar 
 class," and name some one or more as authority for 
 their suggestion. 
 
 I think it is reasonable to ask this question ; but 
 I do not know that I should have felt it necessary 
 to take so much notice of the statements of the pub- 
 lishers, though they seem to me to go far beyond 
 the bounds of respectable advertising, and what 
 custom has in some degree sanctioned as the legiti- 
 mate puffing of one's wares, — at least I should not 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 have thought it necessary to notice it by putting to- 
 gether what I have said with particular reference to 
 the new edition, before I proceed, as I hope to do, 
 in the British Magazine, to offer some remarks on 
 the work of Fox itself, — were it not for the entire 
 silence of the gentlemen who came forward after a 
 volume had been published, openly to avow that 
 they were " concerned in requesting Messrs. Seeley 
 and Burnside to bring out a new edition of Foxe's 
 Acts and Monuments ;" and who then vouched to 
 the public that by the volume then already issued, 
 the publishers had " commenced the undertaking in 
 a manner truly worthy of that admirable work." 
 They stated that they made this declaration in order 
 to promote " a more extended circulation of the 
 improved edition." They represented it as present- 
 ing " the only complete impression of Foxe's text, 
 having been carefully collated with the best edition" 
 — they pledged themselves that the publishers 
 " spared no pains or expense in securing the most 
 able assistance," and for " the certainty that the 
 book will be the best edition of Foxe ever seen." 
 
 This letter which they published in the Record 
 of the 16th of January, was reprinted by the pub- 
 lishers several months afterwards, as part of a reply 
 to strictures on the volume which it so highly 
 commended. One cannot suppose this to have been 
 done without the consent of the writers, yet I do 
 not know that they have withdrawn or qualified one 
 single word, — true or not, it stands just as it did, — 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 can they mean us to" understand that they are pre- 
 pared to repeat word for word what they have said? 
 
 I think I have a right to put this question, merely 
 on the ground that I am one of the public for whom 
 the prospectus, and the letter in the Record, were 
 written ; but as the publishers in default of any real 
 ground of defence, endeavour (as persons so circum- 
 stanced very commonly do) to make one of a per- 
 sonal nature out of my prejudices and dislikes, and 
 the animus which has set me to work, I think it 
 right to say a few words on the circumstances which 
 have involved me in the controversy. 
 
 The appendix to the Christian Observer for the 
 year 1835, contained a letter under the signature of 
 "Arnauld de Bonneville," (written I know not by 
 whom, but certainly by some person of great read- 
 ing and research,) on the " Origin and tenets of 
 the Valdesi or Vaudois." In a note on this letter, 
 the Editor said, " we have not the necessary inforT 
 mation to decide between our learned correspondent 
 and the writers whom he censures ; nor do we dis- 
 tinctly gather the bearings of some portions of his 
 papers." This was no doubt true ; and considering 
 the kind and degree of information required for the 
 purpose, neither wonderful nor discreditable. That 
 he did not understand that first letter, or the subject 
 of which it treated, or even the authorities to which 
 it referred, will be easily believed ; but, when the 
 second letter, under the signature of A. D. B. ap- 
 peared in the number for February, 1836, he seems 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 to have gathered so much light as led him to sus- 
 pect that the subject was not in the way to be 
 treated in accordance with the popular cant about 
 the Vaudois, and he thought fit to add some re- 
 marks of his own. They begin with an affectation 
 of knowledge still more absurd than the disavowal 
 contained in his first note, "We have not the 
 minute historical acquaintance with Waldensian 
 annals requisite to answer at the moment the ques- 
 tion of our learned correspondent." Certainly not 
 — his learned correspondent, after stating that he 
 had no wish to misrepresent the Waldenses while 
 opposing the popular view (which he was certainly 
 ' doing with much labour and specific reference) 
 had added " but this is the question. Have we been 
 imposed upon ?" Of course the editor was so far 
 from being able to answer the question either " at 
 the moment," or in a month — so far from having 
 " the minute historical acquaintance" requisite to 
 answer it at all — that when, some months after, he 
 came to shew his own learning on the subject, an 
 ambiguous expression of his oracle Fox made him 
 mistake our English historian, Roger Hoveden, for 
 an Albigensian martyr.* Why could he not say 
 
 * Fox says, " Moreover, in the reign of King Henry, about 
 A. D. 1178, I find in the story of Roger Hoveden and others, 
 that in the city of Toulouse there was a gi-eat multitude of men 
 and women whom the Pope's commissioners .... did persecute 
 and condemn for heretics." ii. 262. The editor evidently under- 
 stood Fox to mean a. story, not written by, but of and concerning, 
 Roger Hoveden, and says, " In introducing the story of the Wal- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 (if he thought it necessary to say anything) that he 
 had not studied the subject, without this affectation, 
 which was obviously meant to lead, or at least to 
 allow, the reader to believe that he was well ac- 
 quainted with the matter in general, though not 
 able to speak to a minute point just "at the moment" 
 when suddenly and unexpectedly called upon. It 
 is by this mode of insinuation and pretence that 
 something very little better than literary imposture 
 is carried on, and it ought to be openly resisted. 
 It is a mischievous thing ; not more comical or 
 contemptible in one point of view, than it is grievous 
 and terrible in another. It is the string by which 
 the blind lead the blind, the forged stamp which 
 gives currency to all sorts of trash, the trick by 
 which ignorance bears rule and dictates. It is the 
 worst enemy of truth and learning, which it is con- 
 stantly at work to counterfeit, to perplex, and to 
 confound ; and it has attained such power in this 
 age — there is among the infinity of anonymous 
 writing, compiling, concocting, editing, and criti- 
 cising, so much pretence (if I may make a word 
 which will better express what I mean, so much 
 
 denses, in his first volume (p. 260) and alluding to Hoveden and 
 others in the city of Thoulouse, whom the popish party ' did per- 
 secute.' " Chris. Ohs. July, p. 408. From such a mistake as this, 
 it would seem as if the Waldensian were not the only annals with 
 which the editor had not a yery minute historical acquaintance. 
 Had it ever occurred to him to enquire where Hume and Rapin 
 got their materials, or did he think that they wrote their histories 
 out of their own heads ? 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 ultracrepidizing) that, if it be not fairly met and 
 resisted by some plain enquiry into the real nature 
 and grounds of men's pretensions, there is too much 
 reason to fear that (at least on all subjects where 
 popular feeling can be excited) truth may be out- 
 faced by ignorance and falsehood. 
 
 When the third letter of A. D. B. was pub- 
 lished in the Christian Observer for June, the 
 editor announced his intention to " break oflP " what 
 he called " minute discussion about early Walden- 
 sian dates ;" but he was not satisfied to prevent and 
 misrepresent the discussion, without adding" more 
 than four pages of his own in very small type, con- 
 taining a variety of matter, for which his chief 
 authority seemed to be Fox's Acts and Monuments. 
 
 I had taken no part in the controversy, but as 
 my name and what I have written respecting the 
 Waldenses had been repeatedly mentioned, I not 
 only felt that I had a right to do so, but that when 
 the editor was stopping the discussion of an im- 
 portant subject, under the frivolous pretence that it 
 was a minute discussion about early dates — when 
 he was writing of what he so obviously did not un- 
 derstand, and setting up Fox's authority to efface 
 any impression that might have been made by the 
 statements of a really learned writer — when with 
 the reckless boldness of ignorance he was vouching 
 for the fact that Fox had made a " laborious exami- 
 nation of testimony when the facts were compara- 
 tively recent" — when he was going on at this rate. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 it seemed necessary to offer some remarks tending 
 to shew the real value, or rather the entire worth- 
 lessness, of Fox's authority on the subject. This I 
 did in a small pamphlet entitled "A Review of Fox 
 the Martyrologist's History of the Waldenses," to 
 which as far as I know the editor of the Christian 
 Observer has not made any reply. 
 
 My reason for here referring to that pamphlet 
 is this; — on the same 1st July, 1836, on which the 
 four pages of the Editor which gave rise to it 
 appeared, there came out also (stitched up with the 
 British Magazine and I believe with other periodi- 
 cals) a Prospectus of the new edition of Fox's work. 
 As I here subjoin it, I need only say (as I said in 
 the pamphlet) that I was led by its high tone to 
 suppose that it would be at least iiseless, perhaps 
 hardly fair, to enter on a criticism of Fox's history 
 of the Waldenses, while an editor of whom I had 
 never heard, and of whose competency I had no 
 reason to doubt, was employed with able assistants 
 in correcting it. I waited therefore until a volume 
 was published, by which I found to my great sur- 
 prise, that instead of being removed, the mistakes 
 of Fox, were to be perpetuated and increased by the 
 new edition. I therefore printed the pamphlet; and, 
 though my immediate object was not to criticise the 
 new edition, and I did in fact say very little about 
 it, yet the hints which I gave, and the instances 
 which I specified, might have been sujfficient to make 
 any editor or publisher look about him. The pam- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 phlet was shewn without my knowledge, and the 
 mistakes which it noticed (and I believe some others) 
 were pointed out to the publishers long enough 
 before the publication of the succeeding volume, to 
 have permitted of some acknowledgement or correc- 
 tion ; but that volume came out with only one single 
 erratum, which, while it seemed to acknowledge the 
 principle and duty of noticing and correcting errors, 
 naturally implied that it was the only one worthy 
 of correction which had been observed in the pre- 
 ceding volume. Was not the personification of 
 Cadomus, or the metamorphosis of Minerius, worth 
 mentioning ? 
 
 The reader may naturally suppose that when I 
 saw the errors which I was thus led to observe 
 respecting the Waldenses, I was curious to look at 
 some other parts. In cursorily turning over the 
 pages, mistakes perpetually shewed themselves ; and 
 when it appeared by the second-published volume 
 that the work was to be carried on in that way, and 
 with no acknowledgement of errors, or one merely 
 delusory, I felt it right to seek some public channel 
 through which to draw attention to the subject. I 
 found one in the British Magazine ; in which, also, 
 as I seem to be required to account for the 'per- 
 sonal dislike' of Fox's work (of which according 
 to the statements of the publishers I have been 
 'convicted') I hope to offer some remarks on the 
 style and spirit of the work which may justify what 
 I have no desire, to deny or even to conceal. 
 
Xll PREFACE. 
 
 In the mean time, I repeat, that as the only- 
 species of defence offered for the new edition is that 
 the errors are few, arid that the charges are frivolous, 
 I think it right to reprint in a collected form what 
 is at present scattered through six numbers of the 
 British Magazine. The letters are reprinted verba- 
 tim : at least I have not intentionally changed any 
 word but one, which, by some mistake of mine or 
 the printer, made me to say what I never thought 
 of saying, and gave a tone to the sentence which 
 might be justly considered offensive. As, however, 
 I do not know that it has been observed by anybody 
 but myself, it is not worth while to specify it. I 
 am not aware of any alteration of more importance 
 than the correction of one or two references, and the 
 addition of a few which had been accidentally 
 omitted. Whatever other matter is added in note, 
 or parts of notes, is distinguished by being included 
 in [brackets]. I have also added such documents as 
 may tend to render the matter more intelligible to 
 those who have not seen it in the British Magazine. 
 The Prospectus and. Letter referred to, are as follows ; 
 
 *' DEDICATED, BY PERMISSION, TO HIS MAJESTY, 
 
 FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS. 
 
 172, FLEET STREET, JUNE 25, 1836. 
 R. B. SEELEY and W. BURNSIDE beg leave respectfully to announce 
 that they are making an'angemente for the publication of a new and complete 
 Edition of 
 
 THE ACTS AND MONUMENTS OF JOHN FOX: 
 
 And it will be their object, in pursuit of which no pains or expense will be 
 
PREFACE. XUl 
 
 spared, to render this Edition the most perfect that has yet appeared. The 
 various Editions will be collated ; the latest corrections of the Author introduced ; 
 while the errors which have crept into the copies published after his decease 
 will be removed. 
 
 They are happy to be able to state that they are enabled to calculate on the 
 most important assistance, in the facilities offered by Public Libraries, and also 
 in the access given to the best copies of the work which are known to be ex- 
 tant in the hands of private individuals. 
 
 High as is the character which he deservedly maintains for veracity and 
 correctness, still Fox has not been without assailants. The Publishers are 
 therefore gratified to be able to announce that the present Edition will be pre- 
 faced by a full Vindication of the pious Martyrologist from these various attacks. 
 That duty has been undertaken by 
 
 THE REV. GEORGE TOWNSEND, M.A. 
 
 PREBENDARY OF DURHAM; AND VICAR OF NORTHALLERTON, YORKSHIRE. 
 
 The general superintendence of the work, and its accurate and faithful per- 
 formance, will be undertaken, with the aid of experienced Assistants, by 
 
 THE REV. STEPHEN REED CATTLEY, M.A. 
 
 OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, RECTOR OF BAGTHORP, NORFOLK ; 
 AND DOMESTIC CHAPLAIN TO LORD SCARBOROUGH. 
 
 The most interesting of the curious Wood Engravings, executed under Fox's 
 superintendence, and containing Portraits of the leading Martyrs of his day, 
 will be carefully copied. A Memoir of the Martyrologist himself will also be 
 appended ; together vfith the best Portrait that can be obtained. 
 
 The whole work, including Mr. Townsend's Prefetory Dissertation, the 
 Appendices, Indexes, &c., will be comprised in Eight very large volumes, demy 
 octavo, of good type and paper, containing, in the whole, above five thousand 
 pages. But it is the earnest desire of the Publishers that the present Edition 
 should be not only a most comphte, but also an extremely cheap work. There- 
 fore, though each volume will extend to between six and seven hundred pages, 
 the price to Subscribers will be only Ten Shillings and Sixpence, neatly done 
 up in cloth. An advance to Non-subscribers will obviously be necessary, but 
 those who now give in their names may rely upon the entire work being com- 
 pleted for the stipulated sum of Four Guineas. 
 
 It is proposed to deliver the volumes, to Subscribers only, as they come from 
 the press, which, it is hoped, will be at the rate of one every second month ; 
 commencing at a very early period. 
 
 Communications and suggestions relating to the Work, and also the Names 
 of Subscribers will be thankfully received by the Publishers, at No. 172, Fleet 
 
XIV PEEFACE. 
 
 Street; or by Messrs. L. and G. Seeley, 169, Fleet Street. A List of the 
 Subscribei-s will be appended to the Work. 
 
 The Publishers are happy to inform the public that 
 
 HIS MAJESTY 
 
 has been gi-aciously pleased to permit this new edition to be inscribed to himself; 
 and, to more than four hundred names, appended to last month's advertisement, 
 they have now to add the following list of additional Subscribers, — " &c. 
 
 TO THE EDITOR OF "THE RECORD." 
 
 " Sia, — Having been concerned in requesting Messrs. Seeley and Burnside 
 to bring out a new edition of FoxE's Acts and Monuments, and they having 
 commenced the undertaking in a manner truly worthy of that admirable work, 
 we feel called upon to state the case to the various friends of the principles of 
 the Reformation, so as to conduce, we trust, to the more extended circulation of 
 this improved edition. 
 
 " When we consider the high character of the work for accuracy of detail ; 
 its full exhibition of the Gospel in all its holy and triumphant efficacy ; the 
 bulwark it has proved to our Protestant feith ; its peculiar seasonableness to 
 meet all the fresh dangers from Popery in the present times ; and its intrinsic 
 value, as forming a sound standard of Reformation divinity, we feel it an 
 exercise of christian responsibility to call the public attention to it. We might 
 further adduce the imprimatur of our own Church, by her act of convocation 
 appending it to all the ecclesiastical establishments in the land, as giving to 
 Foxe's work an additional claim of regard. 
 
 " The merits of this edition may be briefly enumerated. It may be said to 
 present the only complete impression of Foxe's text ; having been carefiilly 
 collated with the best edition) and combining the valuable matter (afterwards 
 suppressed) in the early copies of unique rarity (and which have been kindly 
 lent from public libraries for the express use of the editor), with the latest cor- 
 rections of the Martyrologist. A Memoir, drawn from the most authentic 
 sources, will be prefixed to the work, together with a dissertation upon the main 
 principles and facts involved, from the pen of Mr. Prebendary Townsend, whose 
 ability to do justice to the subject will not be questioned. The whole work, 
 with the principal engravings beautifiilly executed, is given at as low a price as 
 possible ; such, indeed, as will scarcely, if at all, save the publishers from actual 
 loss, even after the sale of the whole impression. 
 
 " One clergyman has stated his determination to take two copies ; one for 
 his own use, the other to lend in successive volumes throughout his parish, and 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 ultimately to place in his parochial library. A consideration, also, of the 
 younger clergy, and of our beloved Irish brethren (for whose use the book is 
 especially suited, and yet whose circumstances too often must preclude them 
 from the purchase), will suggest valuable channels for distribution to the more 
 wealthy Christians. The sound principles of the Protestant Reformation 
 would be effectually disseminated through this medium. 
 
 " The list of more than sixteen hundred names, collected within the short 
 space of eight months, affords a satisfactory encouragement to this important 
 undertaking. At the same time, it is highly desirable at once to circulate the 
 whole impression of two thousand copies ; and as many of our largest spheres 
 have furnished but a scanty number of subscribers, we hope to stand excused 
 for recommending the matter to the early and cordial support of those who love 
 the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We have the best evidence that the publishers 
 were guided by no selfish motives in undertaking the work, and that they have 
 spared no pains or expense in securing the most able assistance for the prosecu- 
 tion of it. We feel, therefore, that the manner in which they have done their 
 part, as well as the certainty that the book will be the best edition of FoxE ever 
 seen, and one of the cheapest publications ever produced, may be feirly adduced 
 as reasons for recommending the undecided at once to enrol their names in the 
 list of subscribers. 
 
 "JOSIAH PRATT, 
 
 " EDWARD BICKERSTETH, 
 
 "CHARLES BRIDGES." 
 
LETTEES, &c. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 My Dear Sir, 
 
 In your notice of some remarks which I lately pub- 
 lished on Fox's History of the Waldenses, you suggested 
 that I might, perhaps, be led to enter further into the ques- 
 tion respecting the value of the Acts and Monuments gene- 
 rally. At that time I was really so far from having formed 
 any such resolution, that I was under a full expectation that 
 the next volume which should appear would render such a 
 step unnecessary. Another volume, however, has been pub- 
 lished, which, as far as I see, corrects only one error in the 
 former ; while " the Editor avails himself of this opportunity 
 of acknowledging, with respectful thanks, the many gratifying 
 communications and valuable suggestions with which he has 
 been favoured" relating to it. I did not expect that the 
 second published volume would contain a foil list and correc- 
 tion of all the errors which I had observed in the first ; but 
 I did expect to find something in the way of apology and 
 emendation — some notice of some, at least, of the grosser 
 mistakes, either carelessly reprinted, or ignorantly added to 
 the accumulation contained in the old edition, which has been 
 chosen as the basis of the new one. As, however, nothing 
 like this has been done, or appears to be in contemplation by 
 those who are responsible — as, on the contrary the Editor 
 
 B 
 
LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 appears to be quite satisfied, and to suppose that everybody 
 else is so too — it seems to me to be (if I may borrow the 
 language of the gentlemen who so earnestly recommended 
 the work in a newspaper) an " exercise of Christian respon- 
 sibility to call the public attention to it." I feel it due to 
 myself to give some explanation of what I have already said 
 respecting a work so warmly eulogized by men so respectable. 
 It is due to the subscribers, many of whom, it may be pre- 
 sumed, rely on the prospectus, and believe that " no pains or 
 expense" have been " spared to render this edition the most 
 perfect that has yet appeared," without having the means of 
 judging for themselves. It is due to the literary character of 
 our country, which is disgraced by now reprinting what it is 
 hard to account for, even in Fox's time, with all allowance 
 for careless printing since. It is due also, I hope and believe, 
 to many most sincere and zealous protestants among the sub- 
 scribers, to ask them whether they have fully considered what 
 they are doing in supporting the republication of a work 
 which is, to say the least, characterized by (I would not wish 
 to believe that by any it is prized for) the strain of bitter in- 
 vective which runs through it— whether supposing that they 
 could hope for success, they would be satisfied to maintain 
 protestantism as a mere party question by declamation and 
 abuse, railing and scoffing, and a species of banter often 
 coarse and sometimes profane — and whether they wish to dis- 
 seminate and to ^ve ther sanction to those views of church 
 discipline which Fox had adopted, and which it is the ten- 
 dency of his work to maintain ? Above all, it is due to the 
 cause of truth, which, in whatever form, whether doctrinal or 
 historical, is indeed the cause of God ; and which (whatever 
 a lamentable expediency may suggest or defend) cannot be 
 violated without ofionce to Him. 
 
 But I believe that a little illustration will supersede the 
 necessity of any apology. If Fox's Acts and Monuments 
 
LETTER I. 3 
 
 are to be drawn from their obscurity, urged into circulation, 
 and made a popular book, it behoves us maturely to consider 
 three things : — 
 
 I. Whether the authorities on which Fox relied were 
 worthy of credit ; and the documents which he transcribed, 
 authentic and genuine. 
 
 II. Whether Fox, in his use of those authorities and 
 documents, did justice to them. 
 
 III. Whether this new edition, in which we may presume 
 that Fox will henceforth be generally read, does justice to 
 him. 
 
 Do not be alarmed at this formal proposition of the sub- 
 ject. I am quite aware that to discuss these questions fully 
 would require a pretty large volume ; but still I say that they 
 are questions which should be very deeply considered. I have 
 mentioned them in the order in which they naturally suggest 
 themselves, and which is indeed the order of their intrinsic 
 importance ;- but since, in the desultory remarks which I hope 
 to offer, they cannot be kept entirely distinct, it will render 
 the discussion more intelligible, and perhaps more useful, if I 
 reverse that order, and begin with what relates to the present 
 edition. 
 
 There are cases in which it is proposed to publish a fac 
 simile of a document or a book, and for that purpose to re- 
 print all its verbal, and even literal, errors ; but this is not 
 one of them. On the contrary, the second volume (the 
 first published) is prefaced by a statement that, " for the con- 
 venience of general readers," not only " modern orthography 
 is introduced," but also " grammatical errors" are corrected, 
 and some other variations, which are specified, are made. 
 But it must be understood that the Editor's idea of correct- 
 ing the orthography does not appear to extend much beyond 
 the omission of a final e, the turning a final ie into y, or an 
 u into a v, and similar petty changes. The general reader, 
 
LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 however, for whose convenience the alterations are made, will 
 probably know no more of Archbishop Lanfranc's origin by 
 being told that he was « Abbot of Cadomonency" ii. 109, 
 than if « Cadomonencie" had remained unaltered. It would 
 have been much more for his convenience to have been told 
 that the word was a barbarism somehow made out of Cado- 
 mensis, a word signifying something of or belon^ng to the 
 town of Caen in Normandy, and therefore applicable to 
 Lanfranc's monastery of St. Stephen. But how much soever 
 there may be about the place, I do not believe that the word 
 Caen occurs in the second volume. We read of Cardoyne 
 692, Cadane or Cardoyne 693, Cadonum 138, 139, Cadomus 
 239 ; but many a general reader who may know the Norman 
 town well, would never dream that he was reading about it. 
 In fact, the Editor himself so little suspected it, that in the 
 latter place he has turned Cadomus into a person, and put a 
 note to tell the reader that he w.as the king's confidant.* 
 Again, suppose that, instead of modernizing, and stLU fiirther 
 barbarizing, the Bishop of "Eduen" into "Edven," (under 
 which name he appears repeatedly between p. 613 and 639,) 
 he had told the general reader that it was Fox's way to 
 abbreviate Latin names which he did not know how, or was 
 too careless, to translate — or suppose that even, vdthout any 
 such notice, he had quietly changed it into Autun, (saying 
 nothing about the ancient ^dui or their country) would it 
 not have been more for that general reader's convenience ? 
 These are only instances from an almost innumerable multi- 
 tude. 
 
 » Fox's words " when we came to Cadomus first to the King's speech," are 
 cei-tainly a very awkward translation of " Cum igitur apud Cadomum prime 
 jam dicto Regis Anglise colloquio frueremur," ( Bai-. an. 1 168. n. xxiii. ; ) but 
 where did the editor ever hear of such a phrase as " first to the king's speed}" 
 being used to convey the idea of " a oopfidant" ? 
 
LETTER I. 
 
 But in fact, to talk of giving " modern orthography" for 
 the " convenience of general readers," while the Latin names 
 of persons and places are left — and left so as not only to be 
 unintelligible to general readers, but (from their barbarous 
 corruption) scarcely cognizable by those vi^ho are familiar 
 with them, is in the highest degree absurd. It is indeed 
 worth while just to notice one of the causes which has led to 
 the strange state in which they appear. Were it not for a 
 single instance, I should suppose that some of the earlier 
 editions of Fox must have been left entirely, (as I do still 
 suppose that they were, in a great measure,) at the mercy of 
 the printer, without any oversight of an editor, or even a 
 corrector of the press.* In consequence, many errors crept 
 in, and not a few were occasioned by the inversion of the 
 letters n and w.f It is obviously inconvenient that those 
 letters should be interchanged ; but the old mode of spelling 
 has rendered the mischief much more extensive. The u, in 
 Fox, represents both u and v ; and, therefore, we often find 
 
 * The case to which I allude is this : a^ p. 149 of vol. ii. we read of the 
 Council of Sayonne, a place where I believe no council ever was held, and 
 which is far enough from the place really meant. On turning to the corres- 
 ponding part in the edition of 1583, which the Editor professes to follow, we 
 find (p. 186) the council called Baron in the text and Baronense in the mar- 
 gin, which is so much better, as it approximates nearer to Barense, the place 
 intended being Bari, in Italy. But if we look (as the Editor seems to have 
 done) at the edition of 1596, we find Baton in the text and Baionense in the 
 margin. I should have supposed the i to be a misprint for an r, were it not 
 that the word in the margin is divided Bai-onense, which looks as if that word 
 was intended (for I think no printer would have divided the other at that place) 
 by some corrector who could not find any such word as Baronensis, and did 
 not know that it was as naturally derived, and by the same canon, from Barense, 
 as Cadomonencie, from Cadomense. This is very slight, but I mention it as 
 the only circumstance which, in cursory inspection, has led me to suspect any- 
 thing like intentional emendation of the text. 
 
 f Thus, in the second volume, Aadegavensis, p. 791 ; Aredomar, 809 ; 
 King Endo, 34.; Gawdavo, 755; Landensis, 705 ; Misuensis, 780 ; Belna- 
 pen, 595. 
 
6 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 an n interchanged with a v, as well as with a u.* Besides 
 this, the Editor's idea of modernizing includes (as in the 
 case of « Bishop Edven") the turning of many m's into «'s. 
 fti some cases, indeed, he found this already done by compo- 
 sitors or correctors, who were probably startled at words 
 which they met with, and who exercised their powers of con- 
 jectural criticism with more ingenuity than success. Juimw- 
 ensis, though correct, is certainly an odd looking word ; and 
 a printer might be forgiven for altering what he might sup- 
 pose to be an n ^hat had been turned. This is accordingly 
 done in the editibn of 1583, and followed by the editor, ii. 
 485, who also gives Juvanensis, ii. 475, where the old edition 
 is correctf As the Editor was unfortunate in telling us 
 where one Archbishop of Canterbury came from, so, by this 
 modernizing, he almost conceals the place which another 
 went to — he tells us, that he was made " Bishop of Porvensis" 
 ii. 720 — that is, Bishop of Porto, Episcopus Portuensis ; but 
 the t is lost in the old edition, and the imperfect word is mo- 
 dernized in the new one. Laudunen had, in the old edition, 
 become corj-upted into Landuiren ; and the modernization 
 makes it Landviren, ii. 595. King Ina, as we generally call 
 him, but, as Fox more Saxonically called him, Im, had the 
 misfortune to get the middle letter of his name turned in the 
 old edition, and is now introduced as King Im. ii. 7, 89. 
 
 But it would be tedious, as it is unnecessary, to point out 
 single instances ; instead of this, I will give a wholesale spe- 
 cimen, both as it stands in the edition of 1583, and in the 
 
 * Auicen, 595 ; Calae, 70, 808 ; Lemonice, 318 ; and Lemo;iicen, 595 j 
 Lexonicen, 595 ; Preuest, 692 ; Ilade«ico, 193 ; Temisium, 479. 
 
 t By correct, of course I only mean rightly spelt; for where it is wrongly 
 spelt, that is not the worst of it. What can be more absurd than to talk of con- 
 sulting the general reader's, convenience, and then telling him about "the high 
 prelate or Archbishop of Boiora, whose name was Juvanensis" ? ii. 485. Will 
 he dream that he is reading about the Archbishop of Saltzburgh, the same un- 
 lucky primate who, at p. 501, lurks under the alias of " Philip Jovavensis" ? 
 
LETTER I. 7 
 
 new edition, which is professedly reprinted from it ; and I 
 
 really believe that, during the two centuries and a half that 
 
 elapsed between their being printed, no compositor on earth 
 
 set up any half dozen lines containing so many errata : — 
 
 " We, Archbishoppes of Nicosen, Remen, Senoren, Narbonen, Turonen, 
 and bishops of Landuiren, Belnacen, Catolacen, Antisiodorem, Meldimen, 
 Nurmen, Carnotem, Aurelianen, Ambianen, Morinen, Silanen, Andeganen, 
 Abricen, Constant, Ebroicen, Lexonicen, Sagien, Caloromont, Lemonicen, 
 Auicen, Masticoren. And we. Abbots of Cluniac, promostraten of the greater 
 monasterie of the court of S. Dionise in Fraunce, Camped S. Victors, S. 
 Genoueue, S. Marten, Landmoen, Figiacem and Bellicem in Lemociuio," 
 &c. (p. 346.) 
 
 This passage was evidently not for the convenience of the 
 
 general (to say nothing of the particular) reader, and it is 
 
 reprinted thus : — 
 
 " We, archbishops of Nicosen, Remen, Senorem, Narbonem, Tm-onem, and 
 bishops of Landuiren, Belnacen, Catolacen, Antisiodorem, Meldimen, Nurmen, 
 Carnotem, Aurelianen, Ambiawen, Morinen, Silanen, Andeganen, Abrieen, 
 Constant, Ebroicen, Lexonicen, Sagien, Caloromont, Lemonicen, A»icen, 
 Masticoren ; and we, abbots of CluniacA, Premonstraten of the greater monas- 
 tery of the court of St. Dionese, in France, the Camped St. Victors, St. 
 Genoveve, St. Marten, Landmoen, Figiacem, and Bellicem in Lemocinio," 
 &c. ii. 595. 
 
 The reader will perceive eleven variations, which I have 
 marked by italics ; of which one (Pre for pro J is a correc- 
 tion ; the insertion of the may also be one, for I have no 
 idea what is meant by " Camped ;" three of the other varia- 
 tions are indifferent, being merely an exchange of one wrong 
 letter for another ; and the other six (a majority of the 
 whole) are additional errors, making wrong just so much of 
 the small part that was right before. How little that was, 
 may be seen by the following, which (though I have not at 
 present an opportunity to refer to the original document) is, 
 I believe, tolerably correct — that is, it is what Fox, on his 
 plan of sometimes abbreviating, and sometimes translating, 
 the Latin names, may be said to have meant to write : 
 
 " We, archbishops Nicosien. Remen. Senonen. Narbonen. Turonen. and 
 bishops Laudunen. Beluacen. Catalaunen. Antissiodoren. Melden. Nivem. 
 
8 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 Carnoten. Aurelianen. Ambianen. Morinen. Silvanecten. Andegaven. 
 Abrincen. Constant. Ebroicen. Lexovien. Sagien. Claromonten. Lemovi- 
 cen. Anicien. Matisconen. ; and we, abbotts Cluniac. Premonstraten. Majons 
 Monasterii, Curiae, S. Dionysii in Francia, (Camped, as I have said, I do not 
 understand,) S. Victoris, S. Genovefae, S. Martini Laudunen. Figiacen. and 
 Bellilocen. in Lemovicino" [pago] &c. 
 
 But, surely, considering how many general readers have 
 visited the principal places in France without learning their 
 Latin names, it would have been more for their convenience 
 to have translated the titles. They would have better under- 
 stood what parties made the "protestation" if they had read— 
 
 " We, Archbishops of Nicosia in Cyprus, Rheims, Sens, Narbonne, Tours, 
 and Bishops of Laon, Beauvais, Chalons sur Mame, Auxerre, Meaux, Nevers, 
 Chartres, Orleans, Amiens, Teroilanne, Senlis, Angers, Avranches, Coutanees, 
 Evreux, Lisieux, Seez, Clermont, Limoges, Le Puy, Majon ; and we. Abbots 
 of Clugni, Premontre, Marmoutier, Cour-le-Dieu, St. Denis iu France, 
 (Camped) St. Victors, St. Genevieve, St. Martin of Laon, Figeac, and Beau- 
 lieu (dr Bellec) in the Limousin." 
 
 In this, as I have already said, I may probably have made 
 some mistakes ; but if I have, it only strengthens the general 
 argument, for I have bestowed more trouble than most 
 general readers would give, and am probably better provided 
 with such books of reference as the case requires than they 
 may be. At the same time, I have not " the facilities offered 
 by public libraries," or any such " experienced assistants" as 
 are said to share the labours and responsibility of the Editor. 
 Could not one of them have turned to the original document?* 
 But of such a process the Editor seems scarcely to contem- 
 . plate the possibility. This fact, so important in our inquiry, 
 
 * [I have not been able to get a sight of it ; but the list of names as given in 
 Velley's History of France (Tom. iv. p. 138) agrees with what I here gave on 
 conjecture, except that instead of Cour-le-Dieu, it has Citeaux, which is I sup- 
 pose right, though one does not see by what process Fox or his authority turned 
 it into "the Court;" and also that for Camped, it has Compeigne. Perhaps 
 Fox copied it from the abbreviated Latin Compend. or (as was very common in 
 MSS. and early printed books, with the n omitted) Comped. without observing 
 the mark intended to give notice of such an omission, if there was any.] 
 
LETTER I. 9 
 
 is SO clearly shewn in an instance which is worth notice on 
 other accounts, that I must mention it. 
 
 In the edition of 1583, p. 326, Fox tells us, that on the 
 pope's designing to disinter the bones of Robert Grosthead, 
 Bishop of Lincoln, the ghost of that prelate appeared to him 
 in the night, and addressed him in the following terms : — 
 " O thou scourfie, lazie, old, bald, lousie, wretched, doting 
 pope." This he calls " the pope's new and true style, ^ven 
 by Grost. Bish. of Lincoln ;" and he adds in the margin. Ex 
 Mat. Paris. Ex Flor. hist. Senibalde papa miserime." But 
 however new or true this might be when Fox wrote it, the 
 Editor scrupled to reprint it, and was happily relieved from 
 the necessity of so doing by the marginal authority. The 
 address to the pope stands, therefore, in the new edition, 
 thus — " O thou lazy, bald, wretched, doting, old pope," 
 ii. 533, and the variation is accounted for in a note, which 
 tells us — "As our author gives 'Senibalde papa miserrime,' for 
 the substance of this speech, a less free and harsh translation 
 is here retained. — Ed." The very idea of referring to 
 Matthew Paris, or Matthew of Westminster, does not appear 
 to have occurred to this Editor of the early history of Eng- 
 land. But, as the author luckily gave the original in the 
 margin, he takes upon him to alter the free and harsh trans- 
 lation. How he gets even his own " less free" translation 
 out of the words, is to me altogether unintelligible. They 
 seem to me only to mean " O Senibald most miserable pope." 
 It was certainly making " free" to address Pope Innocent by 
 his personal name, Senibald; it would sound still more 
 " harsh" to our ears to call him by his family one, Fieschi ; 
 but where are we to find all the epithets ? The passage is in- 
 structive as to Fox's mode of translating, for we cannot doubt 
 that he got the epithets "old, bald," from "Senibalde;"— 
 as to his careless mode of compiling, for he had before told 
 us, at p. 496, that " when the cardinals were all assembled at 
 
 G 
 
10 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 Avignia Iread Anagni] they made Sinibald, a Genoese, 
 
 pope ;" — as to the little benefit which would have arisen from 
 
 the Editor's referring to the original, — and as to several 
 
 other matters ; but I mention it here only as shewing how 
 
 little he seems to have dreamed that such a reference was 
 
 any part of the duty which he had undertaken ; of which, 
 
 indeed, there is plenty of other evidence. 
 
 I feel that I am trespassing on your patience by this long 
 
 letter , but if you consider the matter as important as I do, 
 
 you will pardon its length ; and I shall hope to pursue the 
 
 subject in some others. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 [A correspondent under the signature W. B., of whose communication in 
 the October number of the Br. Mag. p. 604, I shall have occasion to avail 
 myself on another point, asks " whether Senibalde, in Grostete's address, may 
 not have been meant as a pun? [Canusini more.] Matthew Paris writes 
 Senibalde, though he calls the Pope Sinibaldus. I suppose, too, that Cave 
 must have had some authority for calling the Bishop Groshead. At all events, 
 the example of Matthew Paris justifies Fox's change of spelling." I feel much 
 obliged by his communication, but I am not quite sure whom he means to 
 charge with the pun. It must have been either the ghost of the Bishop who 
 used the word, or the Pope who was the only person who heaid and could 
 report it, or some other pereon who has made up the story. I do not know of 
 any evidence that the Pope was either old or bald ; and, setting aside the con- 
 sideration, which must, one would think, have been obvious to the Ghost, — 
 namely, that a purely English pun (like baldus for bald,) would be thrown away 
 on a Genoese Pope — ^it seems so entirely out of character for a clergyman (or 
 the ghost of a clergyman) of those shaven days to adduce either age or bald- 
 ness as a matter of reproach, that I know not how to imagine that he either did 
 it, or was represented as doing it. With regard to the change of name, I think 
 Fox was fully justified; and I will take the opportunity of saying that, if I 
 had not passed by " supposed misspellings," and variations, I should have greatly 
 increased the number of references to Fox's work. Take for instance a case 
 where the same person is mentioned three times consecutively as Hugo de St. 
 Cleare, 229, Hugo de Sancto Claro, 230, Hugh Sentclear, 243. May it not 
 be reasonably doubted whether some readers will know that they are reading 
 about the same person ? Fox himself was, I apprehend, liable to be taken in 
 in this way. He was not, for instance, at all aware that the veiy same 
 Johannes de Rupe Scissa, or Johannes de Rupe, or Rupescissanus, of whom 
 he wrote 707, 708, 748, was the Johmnes Roehetaylada, or Rochetayladus, of 
 whom he had read in the " History of Premonstratensis," and who "made 
 divers books founded on great sciences and clergy, whereof one was made A.r. 
 1346, wherein were written such marvels, that it were hard to believe them. " 711. 
 
LETa'ER 11. 11 
 
 This is pretty evident from the passages here cited ; but it is placed beyond 
 all doubt by the fact, that in a catalogue of " those who stood in open defence 
 of truth against the disordered Church of Rome," Fox treats the friar under 
 his French and Latin names as two distinct persons. I add to this while it 
 passes through the press, what did not occur to me until I was reading the 
 proof— namely, that I have not understood W. B. on a trifling point, owing to 
 his^ having a little misunderstood me. When I wrote the foregoing, I did not 
 see why he should say that Fox was justified in changing the spelling of the 
 Pope's name, as I was not aware of having said anything about it; but I now 
 presume that he understood me to allude to that when I spoke of Fox's " care- 
 less mode of compiling. " But in truth I had no sueh meaning, and virote under 
 the impression (not that Fox had carelessly changed the spelling of the name, 
 but) that he had entirely forgotten that it was the Pope's name ; and that, 
 meeting with an objurgation beginning " Senibalde," it did not occur to him 
 that it was a proper name at all, and he translated the best he could.] 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 In a former letter I gave some specimens tending to 
 prove that the Editor of the new edition, by failing to cor- 
 rect what was obviously wrong, and to explain what must be 
 to most readers unintelhgible, had not done justice to his 
 author. Should they be deemed insufficient, I have more 
 which I shall be willing to produce ; but, to avoid tedious- 
 ness, I proceed to shew that in other cases he has done him 
 positive injustice by attempts at emendation and explanation. 
 Indeed, judging from what I have seen, I cannot but 
 think it a happy circumstance that his attempts at correction 
 have been so few. It may, for instance, be barbarous, and 
 to " general readers" not very intelligible, for Fox to talk of 
 the Archbishop of Turo, or the council of Turon, but it 
 would have been better to let it stand as it is,* than to trans- 
 
 * Or as it does in the third volume, Turnon, or Tournon, p. 646, 649, 652, 
 655, 656, 657. The reader will please to observe, that when I give merely a 
 number, it refers to the page of the second (that is, the first-published) volume 
 
12 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 late it by Turin instead of Tours. 196, 312. The Bishop 
 oi Rennes in Bretagne (Redonensis) is corruptly called iJe- 
 domonsis in the old edition; but it is worse to translate him 
 to Retimo in Crete, 272. Few general readers who should 
 find a person saying that he lived " at Aquis> in Arduenna, 
 which is a wood in France," 192, would suppose that he was 
 speaking of Aix-la-Chapelle ; and they might not discover 
 that place in Fox's Aquisgrane ; but to turn that word into 
 Aquitaine, 457, 468, 663, is clearly misleading them. They 
 might not learn much about the native place of our Arch- 
 bishop Anselm from what Fox tells them; but, surely, if 
 they have any ideas of geography, they will be utterly puzzled 
 by being told that he "was an Italian, in the city of 
 Augsburgh, bom and brought up in the Abbey of Beck, in 
 Normandy," 144. To say nothing of the precise locality of 
 his birth, they will surely wonder how an Italian could be 
 born in Normandy, and will inquire what the German city 
 had to do with it. Fox, however, is not so absurd; he says, 
 " This Anselme was an Italian in the city of Augusta borne, 
 and brought up in the Abbey of Becke in Normandy." (184.) 
 If the editor did not know where to find any account of 
 Anselm, Ainsworth's Dictionary would have told him that 
 Augusta was the name of Aosta, as well as oi Augsburgh, and 
 plenty of other places. If he had let Boloine stand at p. 
 143, some general readers (though more familiar with him 
 under another title) would have suspected who was meant 
 by " Godfrey Duke of Lorraine ;" which the editor does not 
 seem to have done, or he would not have changed it to 
 Bologna. Fox perhaps did not know what episcopal see was 
 
 of the new edition. When the number is in a parenthesis, it refers to the folio 
 edition of 1583, from which the new edition is professedly reprinted ; and it is 
 to this that I refer when I speak of " the old edition," or use any such general 
 expression as " Fox says," as contra-distinguished from what stands in the new 
 edition. 
 
LETTER II. 13 
 
 meant by Monasteriensis, or perhaps he thought it was a 
 long word to write, and so abbreviated it thus, Mon. ; but 
 his editor has removed all mark of abbreviation, added an s, 
 and so erected Mons into a bishoprick at the expense of 
 Munster, 157. When Fox speaks of the Bishop of Castle, 
 meaning Castel-a-Mar della Brucca, in the kingdom of 
 Naples, the new edition has Castile, iii. 438. 
 
 In these cases it certainly was not the editor's intention 
 to change the meaning of his author; neither was it, I am 
 persuaded, in some others, where, either with a view of 
 modernizing the style, or making the matter more intelli- 
 gible, or for some reason not always obvious, though I sin- 
 cerely believe quite harmless, he has in fact altered the 
 meaning of the text. To what extent this has been done it 
 is impossible to say without collation, a labour which I have 
 not performed. I have seldom compared the new with the 
 old edition except when, in a very cursory inspection, some- 
 thing has suggested the probability of a variation : but what 
 I have seen leads me to believe that alterations of meaning 
 are not unfrequent. Some of the following may possibly be 
 errors of the press, but others must be intended for emenda- 
 tions. Fox represents Lord Cobham (after reciting his 
 creed) as declaring that he believed " all the premisses," — 
 the new edition reads, " all the promises." iii. 325. In the 
 old edition we read that the Emperor Louis, having been 
 poisoned, "went to hunt the beare, whereby through the 
 chafing and heat of his body to expel the venim," (374.) In 
 the new we are told that he " went to hunt the boar, whereby 
 through the chasing and heat of his body to expel the 
 venom," 663. Of course it matters very little which is right 
 (though I apprehend that there is no pretence for altering 
 Fox's words) ; but when one casually meets with such varia- 
 tions, does it not excite a suspicion that there may be others 
 more important ? Again, in the epistle of Benno, Fox speaks 
 
14 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 of the emperor Henry's being " excommunicated besides the 
 canonical order." The editor seems not to have understood 
 this, and to have tried to mend it by inserting a word on 
 mere conjecture, (at least we may say without reference to 
 the original) and we now read that the emperor was " ex- 
 communicated besides of the canonical order," 124. I sup- 
 pose that the editor understood and meant to convey the 
 idea, that the emperor was excommunicated by some body 
 of men, designated as " the canonical order ;" an idea totally 
 different from that which Fox meant to convey by his some- 
 what odd translation of " praeter canonicum ordinem." Ac- 
 cording to the old edition, too, this same emperor " suffered 
 this violence with lamentable affliction on his bare feete, 
 clothed in thinne garments, in the sharpe winter, which 
 never was used, and was three days together at Canusium 
 made a spectacle," (178). In the new, the sense (if Fox's 
 translation deserves the name) is quite altered, by our being 
 told that he was " clothed in thin garments, in the sharp 
 winter, to which he never was used, 124. On what ground, 
 and by what authority, did the editor insert these little 
 words ? Might it not have been expected that, coming for 
 the second time in the same document, and on the same 
 page, to an unintelligible passage, he would have had re- 
 course to the original ? Surely he might have made some 
 better emendation of the words, " in the sharp winter which 
 never was used," if he had known that they were the repre- 
 sentatives of " hieme prceter solitum aspera."* I have already 
 noticed that, in the Waldensian articles of faith, the editor 
 
 * Some readers may perhaps be smprised at these translations of Fox, and 
 may doubt whether I am doing him justice ; but the original may be seen in 
 niyricus's Catalogus Testium Veritatis, p. 325. Fox's accuracy of translation 
 is not at present the subject of inquiry, or I should notice his rendering " laneis 
 vestibus" by "thin garments;" and " frusti-a canonicam audientiam imploravit," 
 by "in vain desired he to have the canon read and heard. " Ibid. 
 
LETTER II. 15 
 
 has altered the sense by inserting and ;* and the same con- 
 junction, inserted without any assigned reason, is as mis- 
 chievous to the sense (though the sense may be of less 
 importance) at p. 25 : — " The Danes," according to the old 
 edition, " leaving their strong holdes and castles garnished 
 with men and vitaile : tooke againe shipping,"(142) ; ac- 
 cording to the new, " The Danes, leaving their strong holds 
 and castles, and furnisbed with men and victuals, again took 
 shipping." One can hardly suppose that Moguntius at p. 
 462 is meant for a correction of Fox's Moguntimis, under 
 which title some ' general readers' might not recognise the 
 Archbishop of Mentz ; but when Fox called him " Mogun- 
 tinus Presul" (308), and the editor changed it to " Mogun- 
 tine the Presul," 484, we must suppose that he designedly 
 altered what he did not understand. Indeed, one cannot 
 help thinking that alterations have been sometimes made in 
 an off-hand manner, and for the mere look of the thing, 
 without considering how far the sense might be affected. 
 Thus we read, " By this Pope Sergius I. came up the use to 
 bear about candles," &c., 35 ; where the old edition has, 
 " By this Pope Sergius, first came up to beare about can- 
 dles," &c. (146)f In fact, this Pope Sergius was Sergius 
 the Third. 
 
 * Review of Fox's History of the Waldenses, p. 22 ; where I have also, at 
 p. 37, noticed the editor's changing Fox's ' unskilfiiUy' into ' skilfully,' so as to 
 make a completely different sense. 
 
 \ It is tiresome to enter into such details as are fit only for a table of errata, 
 though the matters to which they refer are not merely a disgrace to the work 
 in a literary point of view, but are often such as to cause uncertainty and em- 
 barrasment to the reader. Why could not the editor have at least divided 
 ' Arpontacus,' 645, into ' Ar. Pontacus,' or have plainly ' named his name' 
 Arnald de Pontac ? Why not put a comma between ' Nauclerus Crantz,' 97, 
 and ' Laziardus Volateranus,' 264, to shew the general reader that they were in 
 each case two persons ? and still more, why omit the comma which Fox placed 
 for that purpose between ' Alanus, Herbert and certain other of his chaplains,' 
 242?^while 'Dante, Aligerius,' 705, is made into two persons'; and so are 
 ' Conradus, Urspergensis, and Hieronymus, Marius' at p. 335 ; by which means 
 
16 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 But if in these matters the editor has not done justice to 
 his author, still less has he done it in his notes, which too 
 often prove that he did not know the meaning of what he 
 undertook to explain. Thus, at p. 92, he says that " wood- 
 ness" means " wilfulness," an exposure of ignorance which 
 would have been saved if he had looked at the ori^nal, 
 "asserens insanum fore alienum solum velle usurpare;"* 
 though even Johnson would have told him that " wood" sig- 
 nifies, not ' wilful,' but ' mad.' Fox tells us that when John 
 Huss was on his way to Constance, the inhabitants of the 
 towns through which he passed filled the streets, being 
 desirous to see " and gratify him ; the editor gives a note, 
 " ' Gratify him,' do him a good turn. Bailey's Etym. Diet. — 
 Ed." iii. 431. Fox says that Thomas Rhedon (as he calls 
 him) when he went into Italy with the hope of finding pe- 
 culiar piety there, met with nothing but mere dissimulation 
 and hypocrisy — "instead of gold, he found nothing but 
 coals," iii. 601. The editor, apparently unconscious of the 
 
 a general reader might be led to suppose that there were four authorities for 
 the astounding assertion in the text, of which it is not our present purpose to 
 speak, but for which I should be surprised to find any respectable authority, if 
 any authority at all. These things, though individujilly small, deserve notice, 
 not only from their perpetual recurrence, and from the superabundance of mis- 
 prints, misspellings, and corruptions of words, but because (to say nothing of 
 the editor and his 'experienced assistants') a common degree of 'care in the 
 most ordinary corrector of the press would have prevented a great part of them. 
 As to the extraordinary and careless manner in which the authorities are given, 
 let the reader take the third volume, and compare those in the middle of page 
 115, with those at the bottom of p. 123, and their repetition at the top of the 
 next page, and I think he will be convinced. At the same time, it is justice 
 to Fox to say that he is not answerable for some which I have observed. He 
 did not write " Ex libro Wigornensis," iii. 293, but " Ex libro Wygo.," 
 (507 0— nor " Ex Chron. Albanensis," iii. 217, but " Ex Chron. Alban.," 
 (573;)_nor "Ex Chron. D. Albanensis," iii. 221, but "Ex Chron. De 
 Alban.," (514 ;)— nor " Ex Chron. Thomas Walsingham," iii. 645, but " Ex 
 Chron. Tho. Wals. ," (368 ; ) Moreover, Fox, in borrowing from Ulyricus 
 what he says of Petrarch's twentieth letter, (" Epistola vigesima appellat Papse 
 curiam Bablonem," &c. Cat. Test. p. 871) put in his margin " Vide 20 epis- 
 tolam," (390;) and not " Vide epistolam viginti," 707. 
 * Hen. de Knyg. 2340. 
 
LETTER II. 17 
 
 allusion, and ignorant of the phrase, " pro thesauro carbo- 
 nem," with which Phsedrus would have supplied him, puts a 
 note to explain that " coals" mean " discord." At p. 437, 
 Fox tells us that the pope gave directions to the provincial 
 of the Grey Friars to execute a certain prsecept, " excom- 
 municating all them by district censures of the church who 
 repugned against it." The editor explains that these were 
 censures " confined to certain districts." As little does he 
 seem to suspect his author's meaning when he says, " Thus 
 Pope Nicolas the 2. well aunswering to his Greeke name : 
 hy might awe? /oj-ce continued," &c. (168.) Not perceiving 
 the play on the pope's name, and apparently ignorant of its 
 meaning, the editor gives a note about " the doctrine of the 
 Nicolaitans," and explains to the general reader that Fox 
 meant to ascribe to the pope " the grossest kinds of immo- 
 rality," 99. 
 
 More absurd, if possible, is the editor's explanation of 
 Fox's allusion when, speaking of a statement of Polydore 
 Virgil, he says that it is " an untruth worthy to be punished 
 with a whole year's banishment (to speak after the manner 
 of Apuleius)." iii. 375. The reference is obviously to the 
 African philosopher of the second century, and in particular 
 to these words of his Apology, " O falsum, et audax nimium 
 mendacium, viginti annorum exilio puniendum !" — but, in- 
 stead of anything like a reference to this, the note tells us, 
 " 'Apuleius,' Apuleia Lex, was enacted by Apuleius the 
 tribune, A. U. C. 652, against seditions and tumults. — Ed." 
 
 Edward the Third, we are told, "granted to release the 
 Scots of all their homage and fealty unto the realm of Eng- 
 land, which by their charter ensealed they were bound to ; 
 as also their indenture, which was called the Ragman Roll, 
 wherein were specified the aforesaid homage and fealty to 
 the king and crown of England, by the said king of Scots, 
 nobles, and prelates, to be made ; having all their seals an- 
 
18 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 nexed to the same," 669. To illustrate this, the editor adds 
 a note, " ' Ragman Roll,' was a statute appointed by this 
 king for hearing and determining all complaints and actions 
 done five years before.'' Here again the editor has been 
 misled by a verbal similarity, and has got hold of a statute 
 which had no kind of connexion with the matter in hand. 
 The statute of Rageman had no more to do with the Rag- 
 man Roll, than Apuleius the platonist had to do with Appu- 
 leius the demagogue. And, as the Lex Appuleia was so far 
 from being against seditions and tumults, that it was an 
 agrarian law, intended to promote the sedition and tumult in 
 which its factious proposer perished, so the statute of Rage- 
 man was not "appointed by this king," but by his grandfather, 
 and the period of its retrospect consisted, not of "five," 
 but of twenty-five years. 
 
 I do not wish to make this letter tedious, for even immo- 
 derate prolixity would not enable me to crowd into it all that 
 it seems right to say ; and on this particular part of the sub- 
 ject I have perhaps said quite enough to prove that the editor 
 has not done justice to his author in his attempts to illus- 
 trate the text by notes ; yet before I proceed to any other 
 point, it seems necessary to notice a class of mistakes pecu- 
 liarly unfortunate in an editor of anti-papal polemics. I mean 
 such as manifest a surprising ignorance of things relating to 
 the church of Rome. It would not be reasonable to expect 
 protestants to be familiar with the language of the Vulgate ; 
 but I think that most general readers, if they had only a 
 slight knowledge of Latin, and found Fox expressing his 
 hope that he should be able to spunge out the dirt with 
 which Harpsfield had "bedaubed and bespotted" him, adding, 
 "at least wise with a little 'asperges' of the pope's holy 
 water, I trust to come to a ' dealbabor' well enough," iii. 376, 
 — most, I say, would be led to think of the verse, " Purge 
 me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, and I shall 
 
LETTER II. 19 
 
 be whiter than snow," even though they might not be pre- 
 viously aware that in the Vulgate that verse stands, "Asperges 
 me hyssopo, et mundabor : lavabis me, et super nivem deal- 
 babor." This does not seem to have occurred to the editor, 
 who turns the verb into a noun, and tells us that a "dealbabor" 
 is " a purger or whitener." But what are we to say to his 
 explanations on the subject of popish vestments ? It is a 
 subject which few protestants can be expected completely to 
 understand; but even those who will only read new books, 
 and English books, and books as handsomely printed in 
 octavo as if they did not contain more learning than most 
 folios, might gain information enough to avoid such gross 
 blunders, from a work which every man (I was going to say 
 who has, but I may certainly say) who officiates from, a 
 prayer-book ought to know. Several of the editor's notes, 
 however, though I most sincerely acquit him of any such in- 
 tention, seem as if they had been studiously framed to mis- 
 lead the reader. 
 
 In a note on p. 257, he tells us that " the Casule is pro- 
 bably the under garment.'' If, instead of this mere conjec- 
 ture, for which he gives no grounds, he had looked only in 
 Du Gauge's Glossary, he would have found that it was quite 
 the contrary, being the uppermost garment of all. He 
 would have found Alcuin saying, " Casula, quae super omnia 
 ponitur," &c., and Rabanus Maurus, " Haec supremum omnium 
 indumentum, et ccBtera omnia interius per suum munimen 
 tegit et servat." 
 
 " The Chimer" says the editor, in the same note, " is a 
 short, light, under dress worn by the bishops." Mr. Palmer, 
 in his work already referred to, says, " The Chimere seems 
 to resemble the garment used by Bishops during the middle 
 ages, and called Mantelletum; which was a sort of cope, 
 [" The cope, as I have remarked, is a cloak reaching from 
 the neck nearly to the feet^' p. 313,] with apertures for the 
 
20 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 arms to pass through. The name of chimere is probably 
 derived from the Italian zimarra, which is described as 'vesta 
 talare de' sacerdoti.' " &c.* Indeed, the editor himself tells 
 us at p. 531 that " ' Simarre' in French is a lonff gown or 
 robe." " The Rochet," continues the editor, still in the same 
 note, " is the lawn sleeves." Mr. Palmer tells us that (so 
 far from its consisting merely of sleeves) it was a garment 
 like a surplice, and differing from it only by having narrower 
 sleeves.f Perhaps it might be doubted whether it had any 
 sleeves at all. 
 
 In the third volume, p. 227, we find some notes of a 
 similar character on a " sentence of degradation" pronounced 
 on a priest; by which, according to the usual custom, he was 
 (if I may so speak) put back through the orders which he 
 had received, of priest, deacon, subdeacon, &c., and those 
 symbolical things which had been delivered to him when he 
 received each of those orders were taken from him in suc- 
 cession. In the first step of his degradation we are told, 
 both in the text and the margin, that they took from him 
 the "patent and chalice;" a blunder continued from the old 
 edition. 
 
 Afterwards, in token of his degradation from the order 
 of subdeacon, they took from him the albe, on which the 
 editor gives a note — " ' Albe,' the surplice." Mr. Palmer 
 says, " the albe is directed by the English ritual to be used 
 by the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in celebrating the 
 eucharist. The first, however, is allowed to use a surplice 
 instead of it in his public ministrations;":]: indeed, if the 
 editor had only looked a few lines forward, he would have 
 seen that the "surplice" was taken from the man at a sub- 
 sequent stage of the degradation ; that is, when he was de- 
 
 • Oi-igines Lituigicae, Vol. II. 318. f Ibid. 
 
 t Ibid. p. 316. 
 
LETTER II. 21 
 
 graded from what Fox is still permitted to call the order of 
 Sexton. 
 
 In the meantime, however, he was degraded from the 
 " order of an acolyte •" and (notwithstanding that ^e had 
 just before been degraded from "the order of a subdeacon") 
 the editor puts a note to inform his readers that an " acolyte" 
 was "an under-deacon."' The symbols taken from him at this 
 step were, according to Fox, "the candlestick and taper, and 
 also urceolum ;" which latter word he either did not know 
 how, or did not see fit, to translate ; nor has the editor, but 
 he goes so far as to say in a note that it was " a vessel used 
 in the celebration of popish services."* 
 
 Again, at p. 380 of the third volume. Fox talks of Harps- 
 field's " popish portues ;" and the editor puts a note — " ' Por- 
 tues,' Porthose, or Mass Book. — Ed." Whether he found 
 or made the word porthose I do not know ; but, from this 
 description of a porthors, it would seem that he did not know 
 the diflerence between a breviary and a missal ; and we may 
 perhaps suspect that he has not much more acquaintance with 
 the canon law, when we find Fox's " Glose" (695) turned 
 into " Glossary," iii. 687 ; and continually, ii. 51 1 and follow- 
 ing pages. 
 
 But one of the errors of this class which it has puzzled 
 me most to account for is this : at p. 634 of the third volume 
 we have a translation of a speech which the Archbishop of 
 Arleis delivered at the council of Basil. He argued that by 
 ancient rule the inferior clergy (priests and deacons) were 
 not excluded from general councils ; and that the words of a 
 certain canon which he specified, and which might seem at 
 
 * " When any alcolythist is ordained, the bishop shall inform him how he is 
 to behave himself in his office : and he shall receive a candlestick with a taper 
 in it, from the archdeacon, that he may understand that he is appointed to light 
 the candles of the church. He shall also receive an empty pitcher, to furnish 
 wine for the eucharist of the blood of Christ." — Bingham Antiq. B. III. c. 
 iii. § 2. 
 
22 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 first sight to favour a contrary opinion, did in fact (when 
 properly understood) only exclude those who were below the 
 degree of deacon, or in what the church of Rome calls the 
 minor orders, — as subdeacons, acolytes, &c. : " nempe hoc 
 non excludit omnes inferiores, sed eos tantum, qui solius 
 primge tonsurae sunt clerici, quos etiam nos excludimus, ser- 
 vantes quod Toletanum prsecepit concilium."* The trans- 
 lation of this as it stands in the new edition is, " For this 
 does not exclude all the inferiors, but only such as have 
 taken Bennet and Collet, whom we also do exclude, ob- 
 serving the order, which the council of Toulousef commanded 
 to be appointed." Now, whatever may be the origin of the 
 phrase "Bennet and Collet," it is quite clear that Fox 
 here used it to express the lesser orders of the church ; and 
 it occurs again, with the same meaning, in a subsequent part 
 of his work. ' John Lambert, in his answer to the bishops' 
 articles, says, "I say the order or state of priests and deacons 
 was ordained by God, but subdeacons, and conjurors, other- 
 wise called exorcistae and accolLtse, which we call Benet and 
 Collect, were instituted by the invention of men.":j; But 
 what is the editor's explanation ? " ' Bennet and Collet,' 
 the orders of St. Benedict and St. Nicholas." I have heard 
 of the " Clerks" of St. Nicholas," and should quite feel the 
 propriety of excluding them from all councils, whether gene- 
 ral or provincial; but of any order of St. Nicholas, I do 
 
 * iEn. Syl. ap. Fasc. Rer. II. 24. 
 \ As this mistake occurs in a passage which the editor has inserted from the 
 edition of 1563, which I have not got, I do not know whether he or Fox 
 changed Toledo into Tolouse, both here and in thfe preceding page. I pre- 
 sume, however, that it was Fox ; for I find the same thing fiirther on in a part 
 which Fox retained in the edition of 1583, (p. 683,) new ed. 641. I notice 
 it here because it is connected with what I quote for another pui-pose ; to point 
 out the very many mistaken, corrupt, and almost unintelligible names of per- 
 sons and places occurring only in the account of the council of Basil, would of 
 itself occupy pages. 
 
 t P. 1009, ed. of 1596. 
 
LETTER III. 23 
 
 not remember to have heard, and shall be glad to know 
 more about it ; but could the editor possibly imagine that the 
 archbishop was maintaining (on such an occasion too, and 
 before such an audience) that a Benedictine would not sit in 
 a general council ? How such a doctrine would have startled 
 "Alexander, [the Benedictine] Abbot of Virgilia, [read Ve- 
 zelai,] who was the first that came to this place, the council 
 beginning when there was no bishop as yet come," iii. 642 ; 
 and surely, instead of hearing that " John, the [Benedictine] 
 Abbot of Sistertia, [read Cistercium, or Citeaux,] made an 
 oration to the Bohemians," iii. 679, we should find that he 
 made an oration in defence of his Order; but what ideas 
 can the editor have of Orders and Councils? 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 [ I should have thought that the instances adduced in this letter, which 
 appeared on the first of July, would have been sufficient to prevent the pub- 
 lishers from attempting to persuade the public that the ground of complaint is 
 merely that they have " left uncorrected " some of Fox's errors. But as they 
 go so far as to express a doubt whether even that is the case, I think it right to 
 add one or two more instances. With those contained in the letter, they may 
 enable the reader to form some idea as to what would be the result of a thorough 
 examination. 
 
 The writer in the British Magazine for October, whom I have before 
 mentioned, notices several departures from the text and from the sense of the 
 Old Edition, even in the specimen page circulated by the publishers, and 
 stitched up with that Magazine for July. He does not, indeed, specify whether 
 his collation was made with the edition of 1583, which the new one professes 
 to follow, and which I have not at hand, but it can scarcely be doubted that, in 
 the following passage, at least, a similar variation exists : Instead of, "Neither 
 can you tell where to find it [i. e, the soul] when you go to mass, nor where 
 you leave it when the mass is done ; how then can you save the soul ?" the 
 new edition has, " Neither can you tell where i/ou find it when you go to mass, 
 nor where you leave it when the mass is done; how then can you have the 
 soul ?" He adds " Can this new text be as Fox penned it ? and even if so, is 
 . it sense ? What do the editors mean by ' having the soul'? " He notices some 
 other faults which he calls, and which are perhaps comparatively, trifling ; but 
 I cannot help thinking it somewhat scandalous for the editor of such a work not 
 to know that " Whitsun-even," was not " Whitsunday even." The fact is, (and 
 the publishers seem determined to have it plainly stated, and fully proved) that 
 the editor has tampered with the text of Fox most unwarrantably, and most 
 ignorantly. He has done this too, without giving the least notice ; so that one 
 is never sure without comparing, that any one sentence is in the words, or even 
 
24 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 has the sense and meaning of Fox. Take two specimens in addition to many 
 which Ihave already given. Fox translating "secundum quod Deus elegit" 
 says rightly enough, though perhaps somewhat harshly to modem ears, "accord- 
 ing to that God hath elected" (242) ; but the new edition reads " according to 
 that God, who hath elected." 297. Again, Fox says "When Frederike had 
 gathered his power, he proposed to set upon Otho his enemy ; of which thing 
 Otho hearing (as he was painfull in travellj came out of Italy with his army 
 into Germany, thinking to have met Frederick at the river of Rhene, and to 
 have stopped his passage : but he was deceived of his expectation, and 
 Fredericus was crowned as the maner of Aquisgrane is, before he came" (297. ) 
 The new edition reads " When Frederic had gathered his power, he purposed 
 to set upon Otho, his enemy. Otho hearing of this, came out of Italy with his 
 army into Germany, thinking to meet Frederic as he was wean/ of travelling, at 
 the River Rhine and to stop his passage ; but he was deceived in his expect- 
 ation and Frederic was crowned, as the manner of Aquitaine is, before he 
 came," 458. I may obsei-ve in illustration of what I have just before stated, 
 that in this short passage Fox gives the emperor's name in three different 
 modes; but this only by the way — ^for the important thing is that through 
 ignorance of his own language, the editor has misunderstood his author, changed 
 the parties, and completely altered the meaning of the passage by making "he" 
 mean Frederic instead of Otho. One would have thought the " great show of 
 piety," and some other things in the second volume, might have been a hint to 
 the editor (or might have procured him one from some friend) that he had 
 better either let alone even English words which he did not understand, or else 
 refer to some respectable dictionary ; and that, at any rate, it was not safe to 
 print and publish his mere guesses. But of the fourth and most recently pub- 
 lished volume I have seen enough to observe that it affords instances as absurd 
 as any heretofore noticed. Fox tells us that a man "was charged to have 
 spoken heinous words against the pope's holy and blessed martyr, Thomas 
 Becket, calling him micher and thief" iv. 179; which the editor explains by a 
 
 note " ' Micher,' a covetous man Ed." Was this anything but a mere guess 
 
 grounded on some similarity to the word miser ? If none of his own parishioners 
 were at hand, the editor might have looked in Todd's Johnson, and would have 
 found " Micher — a thief or pilferer. So used in Norfolk. 2. A lazy loiterer, 
 who skulks about in cornei-s and by-places, and keeps out of sight, a hedge- 
 creeper." Again, Fox says " I, perusing and searching in the story of Richard" 
 Hun what may well be searched, cannot but marvel with myself, either with 
 what darkness the eyes of Master More be dared not to see what is so plain" 
 
 iv. 200. The note is " ' Dared," harmed, or pained Ed." Is this also anything 
 
 but the guess of ignorance ? The same authority would have shewn him that 
 the reference is to a mode of catching birds by dazzling, called daring them. 
 Again, it was charged against a man that " hearing upon a time one Master 
 Bardfield, of Colchester, thus say, ' He that will not worsihp the Maozim in 
 heart and thought, shall die in sight,' he asked aftenvai-ds of William Man, 
 what that word Maozim should mean ? who told him tliat it signified so much as 
 the masing God, to wit, the sacrament of the altar" iv. 21G. The note is 
 " ' Masing,' fanciful — Ed. " I apprehend the explanation to be purely fanciful ; 
 and that the " masing God" meant the God of the Mass ; as, indeed is clainlv 
 stated. '^ ■' 
 
LETTEK II. 25 
 
 With the Magazine for July which contained the foregoing letter was stitched 
 up an announcement of the publication of the Fourth volume of what the 
 editor still ventured to call a " corrected and revised edition ;" accompanied by 
 an announcement (dated the 30th of June) that nearly all the edition was sold, 
 and that the publishers had received " most distinguished tokens of approbation," 
 in particular from Mi-. Pratt, Mr. Bickersteth, Mr. Bridges, and the King, 
 whose approval signified through Sir Herbert Taylor, follows the letter of the 
 other gentlemen already given in this pamphlet, from the Record. After this, 
 they proceed to say : — 
 
 " They have, however, another duty to perform, of a less pleasant description. 
 From the whole body of competent and impartial judges before whom the new 
 edition has passed, they have scarcely received one word of censure, and but 
 few of suggested amendment. But from two quarters, neither of which can 
 lay claim to the main qualification of a critic, — impartiality, — they have had to 
 bear some unkind observationsi These observations they would gladly have 
 received in silence, were it not that a refusal to plead to charges publicly made, 
 might be represented as an admission of the truth of these allegations. 
 
 " First, then, a correspondent of the British Magazine commences a series 
 of verbal criticisms. But, happily, the real motive of his labours is confessed 
 at the very outset. The critic says, ' It is due to many most sincere and zealous 
 ' Protestants among the subscribers, to ask them whether they have fully con- 
 ' sidered what they are doing in supporting the republication of a work, which 
 ' is, to say the least, characterized by the strain of bitter invective which runs 
 ' through it — whether, supposing that they could hope for success, they would 
 ' be satisfied to maintain Protestantism as a mere party question, by declamation 
 ' and abuse, railing and scoffing, and a species of banter often coarse, and some- 
 ' times profane,' &c. &c. 
 
 " No one, after reading these lines, can doubt the real animus of the critic. . 
 He wholly dislikes and disapproves of FoXE's work in the mass. But, rather 
 inconsistently, after having thus assailed the book with all these heavy charges, 
 he turns off, instead of supporting those charges, and begins a long series of 
 criticisms on the supposed mis-spelling of many French and German names ! 
 And this sort of petty criticism forms the bulk of the article. Not one point of 
 the least importance is disputed ; not one error of any consequence pointed out. 
 
 " A second assailant follows in the track of the first. Another journal, though 
 of less note than the British Magazine, adopts the same line of criticism. Not 
 opposed to the work itself, but obviously wishing to assist an abridged edition, 
 lately announced ; it objects to the present complete edition, on the score of the 
 existence of eight or ten trifling errors, in spelling or in dates. 
 
 " However, to neither of these attacks will the Publishers make any answer. 
 They only ask their friends candidly to consider the whole of the facts of the 
 case, and then to say whether such criticisms are any thing else than frivolous. 
 They beg that it may be remembered, that the two volumes already published 
 contain more than sixteen hundred p£^es of very small and close type, and 
 comprehend a larger mass of matter than the whole of Hume's History of Eng- 
 land. And they would ask. What is the real value of that criticism, which 
 merely finds, in such an extensive field, a few errors in the spelling of proper 
 name.s or in the dates assigned to minor circumstances ? 
 
 " There is also another consideration, which they would entreat their sub- 
 
26 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 scribers to keep in view. None can be more sensible than they are, of the 
 value and importance of the minutest accuracy. But there were two other 
 points which were strongly urged upon the Publishers, when they undertook 
 this work, and which in some degree operate against its absolute perfection, — 
 namely, economy and speed. They were warned, that it was important to pro- 
 duce the work at a very low rate, and also to produce it without loss of time. 
 
 " Now, had both these considerations been laid aside, the Publishers would 
 have gladly endeavoured to produce an immaculate edition of FoxE ; but this 
 would have required at least ten years' preparation, and it would have raised the 
 price to eight guineas instead oifour. 
 
 " The Publishers were advised to take a different course. They are bring- 
 ing out the work without delay, — ^they are bringing it out at a price unprece- 
 dentedly low, — and yet the work will be, at the same time, by fer the best 
 edition of Foxe, — ^the most complete, and the most accurate, that ever has 
 been produced. And they trust that this view of the case vrill be satisfectoiy 
 to their subscribers ; and that they will not be induced by those who dislike 
 Foxe altogether, and who would dislike him quite as much were the edition 
 absolutely faultless, — to think meanly of the present republication, merely 
 because it is found impossible to combine, with great cheapness and rapidity of 
 publication, absolute perfection in all the minor details. 
 
 " They would gladly adopt any practical proposition for the still greater im- 
 provement of the work. It would give them the highest gratification to be able 
 to offer, not only the best edition that has ever yet been produced, but one in 
 which every fact had been re-investigated, every quotation verified, every date 
 examined by the registers, and every name adjusted by the most accurate sys- 
 tems of spelling. But they beg to observe that no plan has yet been suggested, 
 by which all these desiderata can be attained, which does not necessarily involve 
 a delay of several years in the completion of the work. They have preferred, 
 therefore, the production of a good edition at the present moment without loss 
 of time, to the attempting an immaculate one, at the expense of an indefinite 
 j5ostponement. "] 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Perhaps I have said enough to shew that the Editor of 
 the new edition has frequently done injustice to his author, 
 and is likely to mislead his readers, by some of the notes 
 which he has appended to the text. At the same time, there 
 are surely many passages which he has reprinted without 
 alteration or remark, which require notes to make them 
 generally intelligible. It may be a matter of doubt how far 
 
LETTER in. 27 
 
 such a system of commenting should be carried, or in what 
 pai-ticular cases it should be used ; but every one will grant, 
 I presume, that an editor fails in his duty if he does not give 
 some explanation where the language of his author is obvi- 
 ously unintelligible, or some caution where it is likely to lead 
 to error. Many instances might be specified, but as most 
 of them would have been rendered clear, by merely consults 
 ing the original and correcting the translation, T will here 
 only mention two or three, though even they might, perhaps, 
 be more fitly discussed under the question respecting P'ox's 
 treatment of his authorities. But, if his work was to be re- 
 printed, without collation with those authorities, and the 
 obscure or erroneous expressions were to be retained, it 
 seems as if some notes should have been added. 
 
 I cannot but think that the general reader will find some- 
 thing unintelligible in the following sentence : — " Thus out 
 of this fountain have gushed out so many prodigious lies in 
 church legends, in saints' lives, in monkish fictions, in fabu- 
 lous miracles, in false and forged relics ; as in pieces of the 
 holy cross, in the blood of hales, in our lady's milk, in the 
 nails of Christ, which they make to a great number." iii. 
 393. (584.) 
 
 Again, unless the reader's knowledge of church history 
 much exceeds the editor's, he will undoubtedly be led into 
 error by the following passage, which stands at p. 775 of 
 vol. ii., without anything in the context to explain it : — " In 
 the fifth year of this forenamed Pope Urban, began first the 
 order of the Jesuits ;" and in the margin, " The order of 
 Jesuits, A.D. 1367." 
 
 Further, I will just mention a sentence which had not 
 attracted my eye, even when I selected the two former, but 
 which I met with just now, on accidentally opening the 
 second volume at p. 69. On this page (as I have before 
 noticed) the council of Calne, is set forth as the council of 
 
28 I,ETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 Calve ; so it stands in the head-line, the text, and the margin; 
 but our business at present is with the council of Winchester, 
 " Jornalensis here maketh rehearsal of an image of the cru- 
 cifix, or a rood standing upon the frater-wall, where the 
 council was holden : to this rood Dunstan required them aU 
 to pray, &c." Will this be generally intelligible? 
 
 With regard to the two former of these passages, I grant 
 that something would have been done for the general reader 
 if they had been only verbally corrected. He would have 
 had a better chance of obtaining a right understanding, if 
 " Hayles" had been honoured with a capital letter, and if 
 " Jesuits" had been corrected to " Jesuates." Yet, even then, 
 he might have been thankful for short notes, telUng him 
 that the Gloucestershire Abbey derived fame and profit from 
 its being supposed to possess among its relics a portion of 
 the blood of Christ, and that he must not confound these 
 Jesuates (of whom he had read before at p. 25, as having 
 white girdles and russet cowls, and who are set forth in the 
 "Rabblement of Religious Orders," as Injesuati, p. 352,) 
 with the followers of Ignatius Loyola, with whom they had 
 nothing to do, and who did not come into existence for nearly 
 two centuries afterwards. As to the third passage, some 
 general readers may not know what is meant by a " rood ;" 
 more, I presume, will not understand the "frater-wall;" at 
 least, I must confess my own ignorance.* 
 
 There is, however, another class of passages in which 
 some obscurity exists, not merely, or perhaps not at all, from 
 the mistranslation, but from laws, or customs, or opinions. 
 
 * I must however add, that, having turned to ' Jornalensis,' I found, as is too 
 often the case in referring to authorities, no information as to the difficulty, but 
 only further proof of what it is charitable to hope was mere carelessness. I see 
 no authority for Fox's statement, that " Dunstan required them to pray to the 
 rood ;" or, indeed, a single word about anybody's praying to it at all : and 
 whereas Fox says that the inscription was placed " under the rood's feet," his 
 authority expressly says that it was put " supra caput. " 
 
LETTER III. 29 
 
 with which general readers cannot be supposed to be ac- 
 quainted. What will a general reader understand when he is 
 told, without the least explanation, or any context which can 
 throw light upon it, that Pope Urban decreed, "That it 
 should not be lawful for husband and wife to christen one 
 child both together; with many more matters," 144. How 
 far will he be helped or comforted by a note consisting of 
 eleven references to the canon law, one of which (if he knew 
 which to choose, and notwithstanding its inaccuracy) would 
 lead him to discover that Pope Urban, being consulted on 
 the subject, replied that he knew of no law to prevent a hus- 
 band and wife from being godfather and godmother together 
 at a baptism ; but that, in order to preserve as pure as possi- 
 ble that spiritual affinity which the church of Rome supposes 
 to be contracted between sponsors, he decided that they 
 ought not to do it ; that is to say, that, as by the law of the 
 church a man and woman who had been sponsors to the 
 same child could not afterwards marry; he thought it right 
 that they should not, after marriage, do that which would 
 have been considered sufficient to prevent their union. Why 
 it was thought worth while to put this (as indeed many other 
 things,) into the book, I do not know; but, if it is to be 
 there, it should be intelligible.* 
 
 Again, Fox tells us that Pope Innocent III. "sent the 
 provincial of the Grey Friars, with other associates of the 
 same order, into England, with his precept authentical, con- 
 taining in it these articles: — I. That the said provincial, or 
 his friars, should enquire about all usurers being alive ; and 
 
 * " Quod autem uxor cum marito, in baptismate simul non debeat susoipere 
 puerum nulla auctoritate reperitur prohibitum. Sed ut puritas spiritualis pater- 
 nitatis ab omni labe et infamia conservetur immunis, dignum esse decernimus, 
 ut utrique insimul ad hoc aspirare minime prsesumant. " Some specimens of 
 Fox's translation which I have given, and more which I have noticed, warrant 
 ray suggesting that Fox did not know what was meant by in baptismate suscipere, 
 and thought it was, to take a child to be baptized. 
 
30 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 of all such evil-gotten goods gained « per usuriam pravitatem," 
 should make attachment, for the use and preparation for this 
 war against the Greeks ; excommunicating all them hy dis- 
 trict censures of the church who repugned against it," 437. 
 I do not quote this passage to repeat what 1 have said of the 
 " district censures," — nor to observe that the pope did not 
 send the provincial into England, (where he was already, as 
 it was natural he should be,) but wrote to him — nor to say 
 that Fox writes correctly, " usurarium," (290) — ^but only to 
 observe, that the general reader, who may not have been 
 called to consider the law or the history of usury, vrill pro- 
 bably wonder why the pope is recorded to have ordered this 
 inquiry about " usurers being alive." 
 
 Much uncertainty and liability of mistake would have 
 been avoided if the names of persons and places had been 
 translated. I do not merely mean when the name is turned 
 into a barbarism, as when Fox says of the pope, " Thus gat 
 he Ferraria, and delivered the keeping -thereof to Azones 
 Astensis, 385," (in whom the reader may not immediately 
 discover Azo Marquis d'Este,) or when he speaks of the 
 Bishops of Roff. 719, or Pody, 142, or of any such disguised 
 sees as Normacia 781, and Neminacem and Nonmacem 809, 
 or Ratheviensis, 484, or such unheard of tribes as "the 
 Manmectans in Britain, Lugdons, Masticons, and other more," 
 617; but I mean where there is a real ambiguity in the 
 Latin name.* Augusta might have deceived other persons, 
 
 * I am not pretending to famish a list of errata, or con-ections ; but I must 
 add one or two remarks on this string of barbarisms. The Mai-quis d'Este, as 
 I have said, is called Astensis, but the bishop of that place is called Bishop of 
 Asce, iii. 420. And, by the way, I may mention a sort of compensatory mis- 
 take which occurs in the same sentence. I noticed in my first letter a case in 
 ■which a council of Bayonne was made out of a council of Bari, owing to 
 Fox's having called it Baron; in the present instance. Fox had really got hold 
 oi Bayonne, but changed it to Baron, and the new edition fartlier altei-s it to 
 Beron. The Bishop of Roff. is not always so unceremoniously curtailed ; he 
 is even translated at full length, into " Mr. Henry Sandford, Bishop of Ro- 
 
LETTER III. 31 
 
 as It did the editor ; and the principle of translating it was 
 obviously right; but why not translate Compania, which 
 stands for both the Campagna de Roma, 117, 121, 134, and 
 for Champagne, 271,* and Vienna, 644, 700, 721, iii. 421, 
 691, by which general readers will be much more likely to 
 understand the Austrian capital, than Vienne in Dauphinyf 
 Indeed, on the subject of geography, Fox had some very 
 peculiar notions ; at least, he expressed his ideas in very pe- 
 culiar language. The specimens which I have already given 
 render it impossible to believe that he knew how to translate 
 the names of places ; or he would surely have done it, at 
 least in those cases where the Latin name is so different from 
 the vernacular, as to give the general reader no clue what- 
 ever. If the suggestion of parochial circulation is adopted, 
 is it to be expected that the parishioners— nay, I am sure I 
 may say, without oifence, with respect to a petty kind of 
 knowledge which few men acquire, or keep up, unless they 
 are led to it by peculiar circumstances, while at the same 
 time the book is absolutely unintelligible without it — is it 
 
 Chester," 421 ; and the other prelate stands at foil length, though untranslated, 
 being " entitled Podiensis," 556. JVormacia, Jacobus Cartsiensis, should be 
 WormoMia, Jacobus Cartusiensis. As to Neminacem and JVonmacem, I sup- 
 pose fliey both mean the Bishop of Nismes, fNemausensisJ who was at that 
 time cardinal of the title of St. Mark ; and Rudicensis JRatheviensis, should be 
 Rudigerus Pataviensis, the person intended being the Bishop of Passau. 
 Manmectans I can only suppose to be a corruption of some odd translation of 
 Namnetenses, (the people of Nantes and its district,) as the Lugdons are, of 
 course, the Lugdunenses, or people of the city and district of Lyons ; and the 
 Masticons the Matiscones, or people of the Maconois. 
 [* And at 634.] 
 f Speaking of Vienna, what will the general reader make of " George 
 Bishop of Austria" ? iii. 419. It is clear that this particular word was noticed 
 in editing ; for it is modernized from the old edition, where Fox says, " letters 
 and instruments were made and set upon church dores, to require and admo- 
 nish Duke Fredericke to restore agayne unto George Bishop of Austriche such 
 lands, rents, and revenues, as he deteyned," (594. ) The " Austria," of course, 
 belonged to the Duke's title, and the prelate, (as the editor might have seen 
 when he modernized the next page, and went so far as to translate the name of 
 his see,) was bishop of ' Trident,' or ' Trent.' 
 
32 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 expected that all the clergy themselves shall know and re- 
 collect that Herbipoli, 708, or HerUpolis (even when not 
 corrupted into Hyperlolis, as it is at 132, and iii. 375,*) 
 Hispalis 95, Insula 698, Argentina 707, Reginohurg 408, 
 and Aurelia 651, 652, mean respectively Wurtzburg, Seville, 
 Lille, Strashurg, Ratisbon and Orleans? The editor is 
 somewhat inconsistent on this point. From his mode of 
 dealing with the Bishop of Burgos, one would suppose that 
 he was most scrupulously anxious at once to keep the text 
 inviolate, and to prevent the reader from being misled. This 
 prelate makes his appearance at the Council of Basil, iii. 608, 
 as " Bishop of Burgos, the King of Arragon's almoner." 
 At p. 610, he becomes "the Bishop oi Burgen, the Ambas- 
 sador of Spain." This, however, the editor thinks may pass, 
 and on the next page he is twice called " Bishop of Burgos." 
 But the next time, I believe, that he is mentioned, 627, he 
 stands, both in the text and margin, as of Bergen. This 
 might mislead the reader from Spain to Norway ; but the 
 editor's mode of preventing that evil is, not to go to the 
 original (which is steady to Burgensis throughout,) but to 
 append a note, "More probablg 'Burgos,' see p. 610. — Ed." 
 In three pages more the prelate becomes again Bishop of 
 Bergen, 630, without any caution to the reader, and at p. 
 643, it is the same, twice in the text, and once in the margin. 
 But after two more pages the editor's caution seems to have 
 revived ; and though he does not venture to correct the error 
 in any of the five places in which it occurs on p. 645, yet he 
 puts a note on the fourth of them, " ' Bergen,' Burgos. — Ed." 
 I know not what claim this Spanish prelate had to so much 
 attention, while many and much greater men are left in a 
 very comical state of misnomer. The Archbishop (or Bishop, 
 
 [* At iv. 393, we read of " Bishop Hirpibolensis," surely something more 
 than a "supposed" misspelling.] 
 
LETTER III. 33 
 
 for in Fox's work, if there is not an intentional disregard, 
 there is, at least, a perpetual neglect, of the distinction) of 
 Bourges, for instance, first appears as " the Archbishop of 
 Bitures" 377, then as "the Bishop of Biturecense" 712, — 
 the Archbishop " Bituriensis" 262 — " the Lord Bituricen," 
 613— "the bishop of Byturien," 639— and as "^gidius 
 Biturigum, the Bishop, 508." Sbinko, Archbishop of Prague, 
 was a prelate with whom, from the part which he took with 
 regard to John Huss, protestant historians should be ac- 
 quainted ; but after having made his appearance as " one 
 Subincus, Archbishop of Prague," iii. 54, and as Archbishop 
 Swinco, iii. 408, 409, and " Swinco the Archbishop," iii. 454, 
 he is thrice called " Archbishop of Swinco," 453, 310, though 
 in the latter of these pages he stands as Archbishop Swinco 
 in the. margin. But it is needless to multiply instances ; 
 while exercising this care over the Bishop of Burgos, the 
 editor seems to have been little aware that he was in the 
 same pages doing, or at least permitting to stand, such 
 things as might have made that Spanish prelate's hair stand 
 on end — such as repeatedly (I believe uniformly) turning 
 Catalonians into Castilians* and sending the Catalonian 
 
 * On the same page, 645, where the Bishop of Burgos is five times de- 
 scribed as of Bergen, the Catalonians are twice called Castilians, (and, by the 
 way, if the reader should turn to the page to look for these seven errors, he 
 may correct an eighth about the middle of it, by turning " the fifteenth into 
 "the twenty-fifth.") As to the Castilians, however, see also, p. 651, but 
 especially p. 630, where one would suppose that the following passage would 
 suggest a suspicion of some mistake : — " Then the other Arragons and Casti- 
 lians [Cathelani], every man willing to speak for himself, said : that they did 
 
 all agree to the desire of their king When a great number had spoken their 
 
 minds, and were heard, and the Castilians [Cathalanomm longus ordo] had 
 made an end, Ludovicus the Cardinal Arelatensis, a man of marvellous con- 
 stancy, and born for the governance of general councils, gathering together 
 the words of all the orators, and turning himself ^rs< to the Castilians, [ad Cas- 
 tellanos] he spake much of their devotion to the sacred council ; in like man- 
 ner he spoke unto the Castilians [de Cathalanis] and Lombards." It is not 
 to our immediate purpose to notice the translation of the Cardinal's speaking, 
 ' ad Castellanos,' and 'de Cathalanis ;' but, being on the subject of the Cas- 
 teUcmi, what will general readers understand by Senibald's predecessor, Ce- 
 
34 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 Bishop of Vich, sometimes to Vicenza, 606, 626, &c., and, 
 at p. 666, to Nice. 
 
 This, and a good deal more, which will, I hope, form the 
 subject of future communication, I had written, when the 
 fourth volume reached me; and though I feel convinced 
 that what I now send, and the preceding letter, which was 
 published since the date of the remarks which the publishers 
 have thought proper to prefix, contain a very sufBcient an- 
 swer, yet I think it right to offer a few observations on them. 
 
 The publishers say that, "from two quarters, neither 
 of which can lay claim to the main quahfication of a critic — 
 impartiality, — they have had to bear some unkind observa- 
 tions. These observations they would gladly have received 
 in silence, were it not that a refusal to plead to charges pub- 
 licly made, might be represented as an admission of th§ truth 
 of these allegations. First, then, a correspondent of the 
 British Magazine commences a series of verbal criticisms. 
 But, happily, the real motive of his labours is confessed at 
 the very outset."* 
 
 I do not know who has made any unkind observations on 
 the publishers. It is almost impossible that they should have 
 read my letter, from which they extract, without having seen 
 my name, which I subscribed, and you prefixed, to it ; and 
 therefore without knowing that it was writteil by the same 
 person who had just printed a pamphlet on " Fox's History 
 of the Waldenses," in which " the taste and liberality of the 
 publishers" of the new edition was complimented, and the 
 work described as " one of the handsomest volumes" which 
 the nineteenth century has produced. They knew of this 
 pamphlet before the third volume, with the single erratum. 
 
 lestine IV., being "born in Mediolanum, amongst the CasteUians"? 495, will 
 
 they guess it to mean that he was of the family of Castiglioni ? " ex Castil- 
 
 loneagente." Slondus. 291. 
 
 *• [See before p. 25.] 
 
LETTER III. 35 
 
 was published ; and I think they will not find, either in that 
 pamphlet, or any where else in what I have written, any un- 
 kind observation on them ; and I hope they will not consider 
 me as making one now, if I say, that they seem to have left 
 their proper place, and stepped into the editor's, as if, after 
 all the great and small capitals which they have employed 
 in announcing him to the public, he were a mere man of 
 straw. 
 
 As to impartiality, it is, in some matters, a very good 
 thing ; though I can by no means admit that it is " the main 
 qualification of a critic." It seems to me that knowledge of 
 the subject, and, perhaps, some other things, will rank before 
 it ; but, be this as it may, I think people will be apt to sus- 
 pect that the publishers are quite as likely to be partial to 
 their own work, as I am to be partial against it. I do not, 
 however, know whether they mean that this partiality be- 
 longs to me, or to the Magazine ; and in case any insinua- 
 tion, such as is more plainly made against " another journal 
 of less note," should be intended by describing me as a " cor- 
 respondent of the British Magazine," instead of by name — 
 that is, if they mean that the suggestion of examining their 
 work came directly or indirectly from anybody connected 
 with the British Magazine — it is right to say (for I am 
 afraid you would not take the trouble) that it is entirely un- 
 warrantable and groundless. 
 
 They inform their subscribers (and, waiving the incor- 
 rectness of the expression, I sincerely rejoice in their having 
 done so) that I have commenced " a series of verbal criti- 
 cisms." It is scarcely worth while to dispute how far all the 
 contents of my first letter are justly described by these terms ; 
 for, since the date of their remarks, a second letter has been 
 published, to which (as well as to this) I think they vrill 
 scarcely apply such a description ; but I must say that it 
 seems to me hardly creditable to suggest by insinuation a 
 
36 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 line of defence, while actually declaring that they will not 
 make any answer. They first of all say, that a refusal to 
 plead might be represented as an "admission of the truth of 
 these allegations"- — that is, those contained in the British 
 Magazine, and "in another journal of less note;" and then 
 they add, " to neither of these attacks will the publishers 
 make any answer." Well, then, .as they have very justly ob- 
 served, their " refusal to plead" (seeing that they seem to 
 have thought it their business to plead,) will be represented 
 as an admission that they admit the allegations to be true. 
 But if they have resolved not to make any answer, let them 
 not attempt to throw dust into the eyes of their subscribers 
 by vain talk about verbal criticism and frivolous charges, 
 while they do not venture to specify one; let them not talk 
 of " supposed misspelling of many French and German [they 
 mean Latin] names ! " as if it required a note of admiration 
 that anybody should think that it mattered how such out- 
 landish things as French, and German names were spelt, or 
 as if they were prepared to shew that the misspelling was 
 only "supposed;" nor let them talk of having "every name 
 adjusted by the most accurate system of spelling," as if I had, 
 on any occasion, cavilled at the mode of spelling adopted in 
 the new edition, or as if they could contend that any one 
 corrupt name which I have mentioned could be defended by 
 any, even the least accurate, system of spelling. If they can 
 shew any such case, it has occurred through my ignorance, 
 and if pointed out, I shall be glad to acknowledge my error. 
 But if such a mode of insinuating, which is to have the efifect, 
 without the responsibility, of an answer, is not quite fair, is 
 it not even going a step further to ask their subscribers 
 " what is the real value of that criticism which merely finds, 
 in such an extensive field, a few errors in the spelling of 
 proper names, or in the dates assigned to minor circum- 
 stances" ? and this after acknowledging that I had commenced 
 
LETTER III. 37 
 
 a series of verbal criticisms, of which they had seen only the 
 first letter ; and is it fair, in order to make the " few" in that 
 letter (more than fifty, I believe,) appear still fewer, to re- 
 present them as collected from two volumes, when in fact 
 they were all taken from one ? not because that was the most 
 incorrect, but because I had not had time to look over the 
 other, which had but just been published. 
 
 Again, they plead (though determined not to make any 
 answer) that two points were strongly urged on the pub- 
 lishers, when they undertook this work, which in some de- 
 gree operate against its absolute perfection [which they would 
 have their subscribers suppose that some unreasonable per- 
 sons have required at their hands] — namely, economy and 
 speed. If by economy they mean that the work would not 
 bear the expense of employing competent persons to edit^it, 
 the plea is legitimate, and, I dare say, true ; for it is difficult 
 to imagine how so large and handsome a volume, to be sold 
 at such a price, could allow much for either editor or pub- 
 lisher. But this plea does not well agree with their own 
 pledge — " it will be their object, in pursuit of which no pains 
 or expense will be spared, to render this edition the most per- 
 fect that has yet appeared ;" or with the certificate which 
 they now republish, that, in fact, "they have spared no 
 pains or expense in securing the most able assistance" for 
 the prosecution of the work. As to speed, it will be obvious 
 that nine-tenths of the errors might have been set right, by 
 any one who knew how to do it, in as short a time as it took 
 the editor to read over the text, and make the perpetual 
 alterations of spelling and phraseology which attest that these 
 strange and incomprehensible words passed under his eye. 
 
 As to motives, it seems unnecessary to say anything, 
 
 except that those who are, or fancy that they are, under 
 
 charges, are very apt to talk about motives, when 'they have 
 
 no defence as to facts. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
38 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 I have already offered a few remarks on the reply of 
 the publishers, which came to my hands just as I was about, 
 to send off my third letter, and it was not my intention to 
 have taken further notice of it ; but, on reflection, it seems 
 best, before I proceed to any other point, to say a few words 
 on a state of opinion and feeling which is avowed by some 
 persons, and seems to exist in a good many others.* As I 
 sincerely differ with them, it may be as well briefly to say 
 how and why, that we may fully understand one another. 
 
 In this and similar cases some would say, " What is the 
 general tendency of the book ? What is its practical effect ? 
 Is it likely, on the whole, to do good ? If it is, ought we to 
 mind, should we notice, should we not rather conceal, any 
 defects which may be discovered, at least if they are such as 
 are not likely to lead the reader into dangerous error ? If 
 they are mere blunders, mere mistakes of well-meaning igno- 
 rance and incompetence, is it not better to say nothing about 
 them, lest we should lower the credit of a good man, and 
 lessen his authority in matters of more importance? A 
 reader who is not told of the mistakes may read the book 
 without finding them out, and be much the better for it. In 
 the present case, for instance, a man may imbibe a very 
 salutary conviction of the idolatries, superstitions, and cruel- 
 ties of popery, and of the reality and power of the faith 
 which sustained the martyrs, even though there should be a 
 thousand errors in the chronology, geography, philosophy, 
 and grammar, of the historian." 
 
 It might, perhaps, be answered that, granting all this, 
 yet a good book would not be the worse for the correction 
 
 * I do not wish to write either ambiguously or personally ; perhaps I shall 
 avoid both by a general reference to the controversy respecting Milner's Church 
 History. 
 
LETTER IV. 39 
 
 even of errors which were deemed unimportant ; though, of 
 course, our right to expect accuracy or correction in any 
 given case, must be in proportion to the pledges of those who 
 undertake it ; and according as it is done, or neglected, will 
 be the place which the book will take in the literature of the 
 country. But, instead of any such reply as this, I feel bound 
 to express what I believe to be the truth on the subject, 
 though I am aware that by such a course I may give offence 
 where I am sorry to do so. I believe that all such feeling, 
 and such argument, as I have attempted to describe, arises 
 from incorrect views on the nature of truth in general, and 
 particularly from an idea that truth has no intrinsic value 
 whatever, but that any particular truth derives such value 
 as it may at any time possess, merely from circumstances. 
 If a matter of fact is not, in the estimation of such persons, 
 of some probable use for some effect which they think that it 
 may produce, they not only consider it of little or no conse- 
 quence whether it is correctly or incorrectly (in plain terms, 
 truly or falsely) stated ; but if, through ignorance or inad- 
 vertence, it has been falsely stated by a writer whose credit 
 they wish to keep up, they are prepared to do everything in 
 their power, to excuse, to conceal, and so to perpetuate, the 
 falsehood, and to deter others from exposing it. The correc- 
 tion of a falsehood is, in their view, a mere matter of expedi- 
 ency. If it is to be set right, it is not because it is wrong, 
 but because it may do mischief; and the question as to 
 acknowledging and amending a fault, is a mere calculation of 
 probabilities. I repeat, that all this is grounded on an idea 
 that truth has no intrinsic value, and derives importance only 
 from its consequences or probable results. 
 
 Holding a totally different opinion, I am quite aware that 
 I may be misunderstood if I express myself very differently 
 (because I feel very differently) respecting books which they 
 admire. For instance, when Fox tells me that our King 
 
40 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 Richard in his way to the Holy Land sent for the Abbot 
 Joachim, and adds, " this abbot was in the year of our Lord 
 1290," iii. 105, I should say, " You had better not aifirm 
 that, unless you are quite sure that he survived his inter- 
 view with King Richard a whole century ;" and I should, 
 perhaps, be answered, " Never mind — probably it is only a 
 misprint for 1190 — what does it matter?" On the same 
 page, again, " There is also the prophecy of Hildegard, (of 
 whom we have spoken before,) in the 29th book of Vincen- 
 tius. 'In the year,' says she, 'after the incarnation of 
 Christ, 1200, the doctrine of the apostles, and the fervent 
 justice which God had appointed among the spiritual Chris- 
 tians, began to wax slack and doubtful.' " I should again 
 venture to suggest, " As you ' have spoken before,' at p. 88, 
 of her having ' flourished about the year of our Lord, 1146,' 
 does it not seem rather odd to make her talk in this retro- 
 spective way of the period since the year 1200 ? " I might 
 be told, " Never mind, the reader is expected to remember 
 what he read at p. 354 of the preceding volume, where ' the 
 thing itself most evidently declareth a great iniquity of time ;' 
 but what does it matter ? " Why, I should answer, if in this 
 case of Hildegard either of the two could be considered as 
 of much importance, one might say that there is some dif- 
 ference between testimony and prophecy — but never mind. 
 Still, on the same page, we are told that Fluentius the bishop 
 did not " doubt openly to preach that Antichrist was bom 
 in his days, as it appeareth by Sabellicus. Also before these 
 days [most readers would of course suppose, before the days 
 of Fluentius, were it not that this Bishop of Florence has 
 been a good deal hacked as one of the ' line of witnesses' 
 against the papal Antichrist ; and therefore those who have 
 read Bishop Newton on the Prophecies, either in his own 
 works or in those of more modern vinriters, may be aware that 
 Fluentius was condemned in the year 1105. I presume, 
 
LKTTER IV. 41 
 
 therefore, that Fox meant before the fourteenth century, of 
 which he was writing,] a.d. 1239, Gerardus, Bishop of Lao- 
 dicea, in his book entitled ' Of the Preservation of the Ser- 
 vants of God,' doth conjecture Antichrist to be even at hand, 
 by the rarity of prophesying and the gift of curing." This 
 Bishop of Laodicea is, I believe, principally known by his 
 being said to have attended a council about a century before 
 the time specified by Fox, (that is, in the year 1142,) and 
 by his having written some books, one of which I have seen 
 described as "De Conversatione Servorum Dei." This, I 
 suppose, Fox had also seen, and read conservatione ; but I 
 believe the title really was, " De conversatione virorum Dei 
 in terra sancto commorantium," — but never mind.* Fox 
 immediately proceeds, " There is also a certain prophecy of 
 Jerome Savonarola, evident (if it be worthy of credit) sixty- 
 nine years before." One would suppose this to mean, " be- 
 fore" the year 1239 just mentioned, or, at any rate, "before" 
 the period of which Fox was writing ; but, in fact, it is only 
 the same effect of a close translation of Illyricus as I have 
 mentioned on a former occasion,-]- and means, that Jerome 
 Savonarola had suffered sixty-nine years before the time 
 when Fox was writing : the words of Illyricus are, " Ante 
 annos 50, exustus est Florentise celeberrimus concionator 
 Hieronymus Savanorola," &c.J Now, when all these blun- 
 ders are crowded into one page, shall we be seriously told, 
 " Never mind ; — these mistakes will not do anybody much 
 
 * It seems likely that Fox confounded this writer with Gerardus JLeodiensis 
 or ieodicensis, who lived nearer to the time which he mentions. This seems 
 the more probable, as he appears to have made the same mistake elsewhere. K 
 the reader turns to vol. ii., p. 193, he will find tiie Bishop of Laodicea intro- 
 duced; and if he turns to Illyricus, (Catal. Test. 371,) he will, I think, be in 
 no doubt that Fox was translating " Nactus occasionem captivitatis Leodiensis 
 episcopi, quem nescio quis coBperat." If he is acquainted with the history, he 
 may be as much surprised to find the Bishop of Liege, as the Bishop of Lao- 
 dicea, so circumstanced. In fact, it was the Archbishop of Lunden — but what 
 diiference can it make ? 
 + Review of Fox's History of the Waldenses, p. 38. i Catal. Test. 988. 
 
 G 
 
42 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 harm ; do not cavil about them, hut look at the doctrine." 
 Well, then, what is the boasted doctrine? Why, that the 
 Abbot Joachim, and " this blessed Hildegard," were divinely 
 inspired prophets. 
 
 Is it for the sake of this precious doctrine that we are to 
 overlook and to excuse all sorts of ignorant blundering ? Or 
 is there some other doctrine, for the sake of which this 
 abominably false doctrine is to be thrown among the heap 
 of misstated fact^, as one of the things which it is expedient 
 to pass over for the sake of something else ? I speak, how- 
 ever, of the principle ; and I cannot conceive that any doc- 
 trine, how good soever, is a sufficient excuse for the misstate- 
 ment of fact. I have the satisfaction of knowing that many 
 are ready to join me in protesting against this form of the 
 expediency system ; and I am full of hope that the glaring 
 specimen presented by this new edition of Fox, may lead re- 
 flecting persons to consider, whether this "never-mind" school 
 of history should be allowed to cut its way through matters of 
 fact, with reckless slaughter of names, and places, and dates, 
 and with any translation or mistranslation of documents, in 
 order to establish any point of faith, or practice, or opinion, 
 which it may see fit to select. Besides I cannot help antici- 
 pating much good from an assurance of the probability that 
 many subscribers, after puzzling over the history of the 
 Christian church, presented to them in so singular a form of 
 undigested and negligent compilation, will be led to desire 
 something like a plain, intelligible narrative of facts, not 
 written for the sake of inculcating any particular view of 
 doctrine, or of exalting or criminating any particular class of 
 persons. 
 
 But what can general readers make of history thus set 
 before them ? Take, for instance, the council of Basil. There 
 are, perhaps, very few parts of ecclesiastical history more in- 
 teresting to those who would be likely to read the acts and 
 
LETTER IV. 43 
 
 monuments of protestantism. It must be a matter of interest 
 to see the papal supremacy openly questioned, publicly de- 
 bated, and even practically disputed, by a council undertak- 
 ing to depose the reigning pope and elect another. And 
 such another — the very idea of taking a Duke of Savoy, 
 shaving him, and seating him in the chair of St. Peter, is 
 surely most singular ; and every reader who desires to un- 
 derstand the facts of which he reads must wish to know who 
 were the electors. If he does, that which the publishers 
 affirm to be " by far the best edition of Foxe — the most com- 
 plete, and the most accurate that has ever been produced," 
 will tell them that first of all a triumvirate was chosen, the 
 first and foremost of which was " Thomas Abbot of Donduno, 
 of the diocese of Candiderace, commonly called of Greece," 
 iii. 662. Did anybody ever hear of such an abbey or such a 
 diocese ? And though he is afterwards called Thomas de 
 Scotia, (which may lead to a suspicion that though ' called 
 of Greece' he came from Scotland,) will one reader in fifty 
 guess that Candiderace is a corruption of Candida Casa, and 
 that, in fact, he was the Abbot of Dundrain, in Galloway ? 
 This abbot, and the other two members of the triumvirate, 
 " associated unto them Christian Gregreginus, President of 
 St. Peter's church in the diocese of Olmutz, in the heart of 
 Germany," iii. 663. Was there only one St. Peter's church 
 in the diocese of Olmutz, and what was the function of the 
 "President" of it? "Nevermind" — but I do mind. Kit 
 does not matter who the man was, or where he came from, 
 why does this long description hold the place of sense ? Why 
 is the general reader to be astonished by a parade of fine 
 words which will not bear pulling to pieces — and from which 
 he gains no idea but the mistaken one, that there is some- 
 thing very learned which the editor did not take the trouble 
 to bring down to the level of his readers? This person 
 filled a considerable place in the council ; and it may, or 
 
44 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 may not, be worth while to specify that he got a surname 
 from the town of Konigin Gratz, and that he was prior of 
 the canons of St. Peter's at Brunn, in the diocese of Olmutz, 
 which (whatever excuse there might be for ^neas Sylvius) 
 is somewhat absurdly described to modem readers as being 
 .in the heart of Germany. 
 
 Thus, however, there were four persons ; and whom did 
 they, in fulfilment of the duty for which they were selected, 
 appoint as electors of the new pope ? Why, - among others. 
 Bishop Epurgimus, and Bishop Faurinensis, and the Bishop 
 of Seben, and Bishop Nicensis. Did anybody ever hear of 
 any one of them ? The unlucky " general reader" seems as 
 if he had no chance with any of them except Nicensis ; but 
 even that is only as he stands here, for in the book he im- 
 mediately follows " George Bishop of Nice ;" so that if he 
 has heard of the council of Nice that will not help him ; but, 
 what is still more unlucky, both are blunders. Nice should 
 be Vich, (Vicensis,) in Catalonia, and Nicensis should be 
 Visensis, or of Viseo, in Portugal. " Never mind — they 
 were popish prelates, what can it matter where they came 
 from ?" Why, really, seeing that they chose the Duke of 
 Savoy for pope, the locality of these prelates seem to be an 
 important feature in the case ; and surely it is not all the 
 same whether an unheard-of bench of bishops descended 
 from the clouds in a machine to do this singular deed, or 
 whether they came from Ivrea, Turin, and Geneva.* They 
 had with them, however, " William Archdeacon of St. Hewes, 
 of Metz." One does not often hear of an Archdeacon of 
 Saint Anything ; but perhaps it does as well for practical 
 purposes as calling him " William Hugh's, (if we may so 
 translate his name, Guihelmus Hugonis,) Archdeacon of 
 Metz." « Henricus de Indeis of CuUen," too, may do as 
 
 Eporediensis, Taurinensis, Gebennensis. 
 
lettj;r IV, 45 
 
 well as if his n were turned, and he were recorded as " Hen- 
 ricus de Judeis, of Cologne." Next to him comes " James 
 de Saltzburgacan, of Ratisbone," who may, perhaps, be con- 
 sidered as only modernized by being docked of nearly half 
 his canonical title, but whom some readers may hardly make 
 out to have been, " James de Saltzburg, a canon of Ratis- 
 bone." -Then, as to abbots, — " the Abbot of St. Beningo" 
 may be guessed to mean " BenignusJ' " Nicholas Crosseta- 
 nus" may do as well as Gi-ossetanus ;" and " John de Thmi- 
 renensis" notwithstanding the grammar, leads us to suppose 
 that he came from somewhere in the diocese of Turin, which 
 is more information as to locality than we are sometimes able 
 to obtain. Indeed, what would be the use of knowing to 
 what particular monastery he belonged ? Yet, when one is 
 aware of the thing, there is something very concise and com- 
 prehensive in turning titles or descriptions into names ; as in 
 the next abbot's case, " Francis Abundance" though, with- 
 out some intimation, the general reader would hardly guess 
 that " Francis" was the name of the man, and " Abundance" 
 (or, Notre Dame d'Aboridance) that of an Augustine mo- 
 nastery in the diocese of Geneva. But not to insist on all 
 these barbarisms, which are contained in about one page, — 
 such as has, I think, seldom been equalled, — I must notice 
 one other thing in it, which will perhaps surprise the general 
 reader, who has been previously called upon to read rather 
 more than he understood about the Soldan of Babylon, the 
 Soldan of Egypt, and other such paynim personages. It is, 
 that these electors, thus assembled to chose a pope, were to 
 have " Peter de Atro [read, Atrio] for the Soldan, who had 
 used the same office before in the council." What business 
 could any Soldan have in the. council where even Benet and 
 Collet were excluded ?* This looks, indeed, like " Turk 
 
 * I have before noticed the editor's explanation of this phrase at iii. 634. 
 It has been since repeated, iv. 364, with the additional absurdity, that the per- 
 
46 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 and Pope ;" and a note about it would have been more to 
 the purpose, and more for the convenience of the general 
 reader, than one to tell him that " Cracovia" means " Cra- 
 cow," or that " Tridentura" means " Trent," or any one of 
 the five notes which attest that this page of blunders was 
 not sent into the world with such purely careless rapidity as 
 the statement of the publishers might lead one to imagine. 
 But two considerations lead me to fear that I am occu- 
 pying too much room with this particular case. I say nothing 
 about trespassing on your pages, because you have the re- 
 medy in your own hands; but there are two other consi- 
 derations. First, that the defence that has been insinuated 
 consists principally, in a suggestion that the faults pointed 
 out are few, while I feel embarrassed by the number which I 
 have noticed, but not yet mentioned. Secondly, while I am 
 working down the number already noted, they are rapidly 
 multipljdng by the publication of fresh volumes. Let me 
 give a specimen from the volume just published. I have as 
 yet scarcely had leisure to pay much attention to it, but a 
 friend, who found it on my table, happened to look into it, 
 and read to me the editor's note on p. 383. The passage 
 which it is intended to explain is this: — "Afterwards, the 
 emperor coming to Brussels, there was a terrible slaughter 
 and persecution of God's people — namely, in Brabant, Hen- 
 negow, and Artois." The note itself is "'Hennegow,' pro- 
 bably Henneberg. — Ed." Why probably? Even if it were 
 not stated in the heading that the persecution was in Flanders, 
 what likeUhood is there that the emperor's coming to Brus- 
 sels should affect the protestants of the county of Henneberg 
 down away in Franconia ? Can it be anything but the mere 
 guess of ignorance, grounded on a little similarity of sound, 
 
 son degraded " from the order of Benet and Collet," was " a religious man of 
 the friars Eremites of the order of St. Austin." [The fact seems to be that the 
 Editor did not know the difference between Monastic, and Hoh/, Orders.] 
 
LETTER IV. 47 
 
 and put forth without even looking at a map ? Surely, the 
 only probability which appears on the surface is, that Hen- 
 negow was some place near Brussels, and between Brabant 
 and Artois ; and anybody who should look at the commonest 
 English map would suspect it to be Hainault. I say an 
 English map, because, if he looked at a German or Dutch 
 one, he would probably find Hainault plainly called Henne- 
 gau, or Hennegouwen. Then, presently afterwards, we are 
 told that " coming to Hennegow, Augustine desired Master 
 Nicholas, because he was learned, to come to Bergis, to visit 
 and comfort certain brethren there." iv. 390. The editor 
 having, as we have seen, previously decided that Hennegow 
 was, probably, Henneberg, and having here, on the opposite 
 page, the plain words " Bergis in Hennegow," now puts a 
 note to inform his readers (without any doubt or probability, 
 and as a mere matter of fact) that Bergis means Bergen-op- 
 Zoom* or, in other words, that Bergen-op-Zoom is in Fran- 
 conia, while, in truth, Bergis (or rather Bergce, but the 
 reader will have perceived that neither Fox nor his editor 
 are very particular about cases) means Mons, the capital of 
 Hainault. If the reader looks in a German or Dutch map, 
 he may probably find it called Bergen, for a reason which 
 will be obvious to those who only know enough of Latin and 
 German to be aware that Mons in one language, is equiva- 
 lent to Berg in the other. 
 
 If I have expended room in noticing this fresh instance, 
 it has had the good effect of bringing us back to the subject 
 of geography, of which it is really necessary to take some 
 further notice, as will, I think, appear by a few specimens 
 which I will give as briefly as I can, — indeed, they require 
 but very little remark. 
 
 We are told that, while on his way to the Holy Land, 
 
 [*I should have said "Berg-op- Zoom."] 
 
48 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 "King Richard won another certain strong hold, called 
 ' Monasterium GrifFonum,' situated in the midst of the river 
 Delfar, between Messina and Calabria," 299. How could 
 there be a river between Sicily and Italy ? Scylla and Cha- 
 rybdis (which, by the way, Fox tells us in the new volume 
 " be two dangerous rocks in the sea," iv. 629,) are got rid 
 of, and not only the Pharos of Messina, but the streight to 
 which it gave a name, are all sunk in " the river Delfar." 
 
 Again, in the history of the same monarch, Fox tells us, 
 " It befel that a certain noble personage. Lord of Lemonice, 
 in Little Britain, (Widomarus by name,) found a great trea- 
 sure," 318. I suspect that he might have kept it, if King 
 Richard had possessed as little information respecting his 
 locality as is here furnished. If it could be supposed that 
 any one really desirous of understanding the history, and of 
 knowing the proper names of the persons and places of which 
 he reads, would study this edition of Fox's work, it would 
 be worth while to lay down a few rules for finding the root 
 of those words which are not to be found in any dictionary. 
 One of the first of these rules should be to invert any w or m 
 which may be found in the word ; and perhaps one of the 
 next should be to turn any u thus found into a u. At all 
 events, these rules would be sufficient for our present pur- 
 pose ; and having applied them to the Lord of Lemonice, we 
 get Lemovice, which we may consider as either a translation 
 or an abridgment of Lemovicensis ; and so we detect the 
 Lord, or Viscount, of Limoges. But when or how his ter- 
 ritory got into, or out of, " Little Britain," I have no idea. 
 In the same paragraph, too, the place where King Richard 
 was slain, and the man who killed him, are both miscalled, 
 and Gdluz and Cordoun should exchange initials. Now 
 (without adverting to higher considerations) shall we not, as 
 a nation, get laughed at all over Europe for reprinting such 
 a History of England, — and that not only without any cor- 
 
LETTER IV. 49 
 
 rection, or any notice of its blunders, but with great solem- 
 nity of recommendation on the precise ground of " the high 
 character of the work for accuracy of detail" ? — But the 
 subject of geography is too copious to allow of my crowding 
 into this letter what I wish to say of it ; I hope, therefore, 
 to resume the subject, and, in the meantime, 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 [In the number of the British Magazine vfhich contained the foregoing letter, 
 the editor added, among the notices to correspondents, some remarks which, 
 not only because they contain a testimony which I highly value and of which I 
 wish to avail myself, but because they produced a reply from the publishers 
 which is referred to in a subsequent letter, I here reprint. He says ; — 
 
 " Me. Maitland has, in this and the preceding Number, said everything 
 which can be necessary in reply to Messrs. Seeley and Burnside's extraordinary 
 advertisement stitched up with the July Number of this Magazine, so far as respects 
 himself. The Editor wishes to add a word with respect to one point which 
 refers more particularly to the Magazine. Messrs. S. and B. say, that this 
 work, in commenting on them, cannot lay claim to the main qualification of a 
 critic — impartiality. 
 
 When peraons who have no character to support choose to vilify others, it 
 cannot be of any use to take any notice of them ; but as Messrs. S. and B. are 
 not to be considered as coming under that predicament, they are now directly 
 asked on what grounds they have ventured to say that they could only expect a 
 partial criticism of their undertaking in this work, and what they mean by the 
 word impartial. What more could be done than was done about their under- 
 taking in this work, even by a friend, (before its publication, too,) it is hard to 
 see. The publishers were characterized as spirited ; their proposed price, as 
 being " as reasonable as possible," and " all success was wished to the undertak- 
 ing." It was added, that Mr.Townsend was, in this edition, to give a vindica- 
 tion of Foxe, and that he would do it " vpith a spirit and force which no one 
 could exceed." What would Messrs. S. and B. require? What right have 
 they, after all these indications of friendly feeling towards them and their work 
 before a line of it, or any proof of the powers of their working editor, had 
 been seen, what right have they to throw out insinuations of unfairness and 
 want of impartiality ? 
 
 As to the way in which they have thought right to attempt getting rid of 
 Mr. Maitland's charges, they must judge whether it will be likely to reflect 
 credit on themselves, or not. They do not even hint at the very important 
 fact, that the charges proceed, not from an anonymous correspondent, but one 
 who gives the best pledge for his intention to be impartial, — viz., the giving 
 his name, and that a name so well knovm as Mr. Maitland's. They do not 
 even hint at this, but describe the charge as coming from " a correspondent of 
 
 H 
 
50 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 the British Magazine." But what is far more serious, they describe Mr. Mait- 
 land's criticisms as referring wholly to the "supposed misspdling of many 
 French and German names." Now, what is the real fact? Mr. MaiUand 
 charged both Foxe himself, in many cases, and his editor, in at least as many, 
 with being wholly ignorant what cities were described by various Latin words, 
 and, in consequence mistranslating them, and falling into every sort of absurd 
 blunder. For instance, in one place, Mr. Cattley makes the city Caen mean 
 a man called Cadomus ,• and at others, the Abbot or Bishop of Caen is made 
 out to be a prelate of Cadomononcy. Almost regularly blunders of the following 
 kind were made : — We know that the Bishop of Durham, for example, is in 
 Latin, " Episcopus Dunelmensis." What should we think of Mr. Cattley if he 
 let this bishop stand as " Bishop of Dunelmens." Yet this is what is done in 
 hundreds of places ; and what Mr. Maitland, or any one else, may reasonably 
 ask is — " What can you make of a. book which speaks of persons as living at 
 places which you never heard of, and cannot guess where they are, though they 
 must obviously be in countries which you know ?" 
 
 But, again, do Messrs. Seeley and Bumside mean to say, that if the people 
 of Castile are described as the people of Catalonia, or vice versa, and if such 
 mistakes happen in every page, and are left in this edition, that the book does 
 not become absurd, unintelligible, and useless ? 
 
 Do they think that Mr. Maitland's name is so wholly unknown that they cab, 
 as matter of policy, thus get rid of his remarks ? As matter of right, do they 
 think that they act as true and Christian men in attempting it. 
 
 Doubtless, it must have been a great annoyance to them to find out how things 
 were, on the appearance of Mr. M. 's pamphlet respecting the Waldenses, in 
 which all this was stated ; and had they then pursued the obvious course, — viz. , 
 delayed the publication of the next volume till it could be more carefiilly re- 
 vised, and had they promised, in an advertisement, a Ml list of errata for the 
 second volume in the third, every one would have sympathized with persons 
 who must have embarked much capital in the enterprise, and who, in this 
 manner, shewed their wish to do what was just and fair to those who supported 
 it. Certainly Mr. Maitland would not have pursued the subject. As it is, 
 they have taken another couree. It remains to be seen whether it will answer." 
 
 It. p. 355.] 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 " The world," says Fox, " being commonly divided into 
 three parts, Asia, Africa, and Europe ; Asia is counted to 
 be the greatest in compass," iv. 88. Whether we ought to 
 understand from this that Fox had not heard of America, I 
 do not know, and the editor does not undertake to decide. 
 
LETTER V. 51 
 
 He merely appends a note, — " On the 4th of August, 1498, 
 the great continent of America was discovered by Columbus; 
 the above observations were made by Foxe, about 1566. 
 — Ed." One would think that the news must by that time 
 have reached England; but some of Fox's geography might 
 almost lead us to doubt whether it had reached him. To be 
 sure, he elsewhere tells a story of " one Villegaignon, lieu- 
 tenant for the French king, who made a voyage into the 
 land of Brasil with certain French ships," and further states 
 (referring, I suppose, to his followers) that he " sent certain 
 of them away in a ship to the river Plata, towards the pole 
 antarctic, a thousand miles off." iv. 440. But what idea 
 Fox really had, or would be likely to convey to a general 
 reader, respecting those localities, is a matter on which 
 opinions may differ ; and let us, therefore,- proceed to what 
 is more clear. 
 
 In my preceding letter, I noticed a monastery situated 
 " in the midst of the river Delfar ;" and if it should excite 
 surprise to find a river in the sea, and a monastery in the 
 river, it may seem no less remarkable that a pope should 
 select a " deep river" as the place wherein to write a letter ; 
 yet we find that an epistle from Pope Alexander to the 
 Archbishop of York was " given at Venice, in the deep river, 
 the 26th of July." ii. 257. It seems very doubtful whether 
 general readers will guess what this means, any more than 
 they would guess where the "protestation of the prelates," 
 of which I gave the first half-dozen lines in my first letter,* 
 was made, on reading that it was "Done at Paris, at Lupara, 
 in the chamber of the said lord our king," ii. 596. Why 
 are well-known places to be thus masqueraded, as if for the 
 very purpose of puzzling the English reader, who would 
 never dream that he was reading of places which he has 
 
 [* See before p. 7.] 
 
52 LETl'ERS ON FOX. 
 
 probably visited, and whose names, at least, are perfectly 
 familiar to him ? Can any man believe that it was speed, 
 or economy, or anything but sheer ignorance, that hindered 
 either Fox or his modern editor from naming the Rialto and 
 Louvre ? 
 
 After his professions that " modern orthography is intro- 
 duced; grammatical errors corrected," &c., for the conve- 
 nience of general readers, would the editor have suffered such 
 barbarisms to stand in his pages as " the mount Perineus," 
 231, and " the mount Pyrame," 189, (which ought, I sus- 
 pect, if he meant to be faithful to Fox, to have been Pyranie,) 
 if he had known as much of the meaning as he seems to 
 have afterwards discovered, when Fox, more largely, and 
 somewhat comically, described the place as "the mountaynes 
 of Pireney, which be in the uppermost partes of the great 
 ocean in the Brittish sea"? (228.) Here the editor has re- 
 cognised, and has not scrupled to modernize, the Pyrenees, 
 ii. 25& 
 
 It is, perhaps, hardly necessary, after these specimens, 
 to adduce others, to shew that Fox had no very clear idea 
 of the places about which he was writing ; and, in fact, who- 
 ever reads a few pages of his book will see that he very 
 commonly put down the Latin names for the reader to make 
 the best of. The king of France offered to restore to the 
 men of Flanders " these three cities, Insulam, Mowocum, 
 and Betony." 698. The general reader may, perhaps, sus- 
 pect that Betony means Bethune ; and a very little Latin, and 
 some guessing, and consideration of the country, may lead 
 him to translate Insulam, into Lille ; but as to Rowocum, as 
 he may probably he unacquainted with that way of spelling 
 Duacum, there is little chance of his finding out Douay. 
 He will also, probably, suppose (as Fox seems to have done) 
 that Arsacida was a place, when he reads, " how the Chris- 
 tians were oppressed by the Soldan in Syria, and that from 
 
LETTER V. 53 
 
 Arsacida there came a great power against the Christian 
 princes." 467. I am afraid, too, he will he but little edified 
 by being told, without any context to give him the least idea 
 in what part of Christendom the thing occurred, that Pope 
 Innocent VII. caused eight men and six women to be judged 
 as heretics "in the town of Polus apud Equicolos," 738; and 
 when he tries to follow the Tartarians, who, " hearing of the 
 coming of the emperor, left the straight way through Hun- 
 gary, by which they came, and returned by the river Danube 
 to Taurica, and so through the fens of Meotida, and by the 
 river Tanaum, into Sarmatia Asiatica," 495, he will perhaps 
 feel that the modern editor has not given him all the help 
 which he might have expected, by merely translating Fox's 
 Danvbium into Danube. Some readers might even puzzle 
 this out for themselves, guided, as I presume the editor was, 
 by the similarity of the Latin to the English ; but this, 
 though in the present case successful, is not always safe, as 
 I have shewn by many examples. Without particularly re- 
 ferring to them, I may add, for instance, that Herfordia, ii. 
 710, 711, is not the Latin for Hereford, (that is "Hereford 
 in Wales," iii. 337,) but for Herford in Westphalia. 
 
 Fox tells us that the Danes " landed in Sussex, and so 
 came to the port of Lewes" 25. This is remarkable ; be- 
 cause he appears to have been translating (or copying some- 
 body who had translated) Henry of Huntingdon, who says, 
 
 "Ad portum Limene qui portus est in orientali 
 
 parte Cent," p. 351. But if this was ignorance of his own 
 country, it was not greater than is shewn in his telling us 
 that William the Conqueror "in his time, builded two monas- 
 teries — one in England, at Battle in Sussex, where he won 
 the field against Harold, called the Abbey of Battle ; besides 
 another, named Barmondsey, in his country of Normandy," 
 135. One would think that a writer (and even an editor) 
 of English church history might have learned more about 
 
54 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 a monastery so eminent as that of Bermondsey was, up to 
 the very dissolution, than to have told his readers that it was 
 founded by William the Conqueror, or that it was in Nor- 
 mandy. But this case, though it requires notice, as shewing 
 how little Fox knew of the places ahout which he wrote, and 
 and that he was following (if any) some unworthy authority, 
 is yet, I believe, of more importance in our enquiry, as an 
 instance of the extreme carelessness with which he copied. 
 I say, I believe this, because he gives no authority, and 
 therefore may have correctly copied some other careless 
 writer; but I cannot help thinking that he was copying from 
 Fabian, whose words are, — " He buylded .ii. abbeys in Eng- 
 lande, one at Batayll, in Sussex, where he wan the felde 
 agayne Harolde, and is at this daye called the abbey of 
 Batayll : and that other he sette besyde London, upon the 
 south syde of Thamys, and named it Barmoundesay : and in 
 Normandy he builded other .ii." p. 247. Should the reader 
 think it impossible that Fox's vaunted accuracy should have 
 been misled by the juxtaposition of the words " Barmounde- 
 saye" and " in Normandy," (perhaps in his copy without a 
 stop, and with only a contraction for the and between them,) 
 I shall, perhaps, produce matter which may alter his opinion. 
 Is it, indeed, more strange than for an English historian to 
 talk of the "the constitutions made at Clarendon, in Nor- 
 mandy" ? p. 201. 
 
 I must however add, in the meantime, on the subject of • 
 geography, that Fox seems to have been somewhat at a loss, 
 and his editor to have afforded the general reader no help, 
 on the subject of Palatinates and Counts Palatine. Fox 
 tells us that Lewis, son of Otho, obtained of Frederick II. 
 "the dition of Palatinatum Mheni, so called, who gave also 
 Agnes, the daughter of Henry, Earl of Palatine, to Otho, 
 his son, in marriage. This Henry was the son of Henry 
 Leo, the traitor, unto whom Henry VI., the father of Frede- 
 
LETTER V. 55 
 
 rick, gave In marriage dementia, the daughter of his brother 
 Conrad, Palatine of the Rhine, and gave him the keeping of 
 the palace of the same," ii. 488. Is it intended that the 
 general reader should make anything of this? But as to 
 Palatines, we read that " this pope, being thus deposed, was 
 committed unto the County Palatine, and by him carried to 
 the castle of Manheim" iii. 417. And again, that the em- 
 peror, " understanding their intent, sent Louis, the County 
 Palatine of Heidelburgh, and the Lord Frederick, Burgrave 
 of Nuremburg," iii. 450. In another place (and it furnishes 
 a singular instance of Fox's careless copying, and of his 
 ignorance of the persons about whom he was compiling) we 
 read, "that in the island of Cyprus, and in the journey 
 before, died the Earl of Palatine, and one of the twelve 
 peers of France, also the Earl of St. Paul and Blesse," ii. 446. 
 The reader will naturally suppose (and I apprehend that Fox 
 and the new editor never meant anything but that he should 
 suppose) that these were three different persons, one of 
 whom was Earl of Palatine; another, one of the twelve 
 peers of France ; and a third, Earl of St. Paul and Blesse ; 
 but, in fact, they are only two men, one of whom cannot be 
 properly said to be named at all, though he was (like many 
 other persons) both a Count Palatine and one of the twelve 
 peers of France. But if Fox had not really thought that he 
 was reading in Matthew Paris about three persons, when in 
 truth he was reading of only one, common sense would have 
 told him that it would be of less consequence to omit either 
 of these adjunct titles than not to state that this person, who 
 was a Count Palatine and Peer of France, was the Bishop 
 of Noyon. He seems to have thought it not worth while to 
 say what became of the bishop, while he recorded the loss of 
 the Earl of Palatine, the peer of France, the Ear] of St. Paul, 
 and, I may add, (in the same sentence,) Johannes de Denis, 
 a valiant captain," by whom the reader will please to underr- 
 
56 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 Stand, not the critic, but John Earl of Dreux* It is a sup- 
 posed misspelling. 
 
 A somewhat similar case of mistake, arising, as far as 
 appears, from extreme carelessness in transcrihing, and con- 
 tented ignorance as to who and what the people were of 
 whom the historian was writing, may be found at page 472 of 
 the same volume. 
 
 " Of this treason of the pope against Frederick doth also Matthew Paris 
 make mention, during his wars in Asia, who, saith he, purposed to have deposed 
 him, and to have placed ' any other he cared not whom (so that he were a child 
 of peace and obedience) in his stead.' And for the more certainty thereof, the 
 said Matthew Paris repeateth the letter which a certain Earl of Styria wrote 
 unto him concerning the same, which letter hereunder ensueth word for word. 
 
 " To the high and mighty prince, Frederic, by the grace of God, Emperor 
 of Rome, and ever Augustus, and most puissant King of Sicily, Thomas, Earl 
 of Actran, his faithful and trusty subject in all things, humble salutation.' &c." 
 
 If the reader has never heard of any earls of Styria, or of 
 any place called Actran, either in that or any other part of 
 the world, he may perhaps turn to the old edition of Fox, 
 and he will then find that what is here called Styria, there 
 stands Siria. This is, I presume, an intentional alteration, 
 by which the editor thought that he was correcting the text, 
 and for which he took colour from the head-line of the next 
 page, (303,) which runs — "the letters of the Earl of Stiria 
 to Fred.," &c. As to his afterwards describing him (or let- 
 ting him describe himself) as " Thomas Earl of Actran," it 
 would have been much better to call him Thomas Aquinas, 
 (which he really was, though not the angelic doctor who 
 must at that time have been in petticoats, but one of his 
 family,) for he was Earl of Aquino and Acerra, of which 
 latter title Actran is, in the phraseology of the publishers, a 
 supposed misspelling. I should rather suppose it to be a 
 corruption of a barbarous translation of Matthew Paris's 
 " Atteranensis," and that Fox had originally written it At- 
 
 * Matt. Par., an. 1249, torn. II., p. 771. 
 
LETTER V. 57 
 
 teran or Attran, and that the first black letter t had got 
 changed into a c, as that letter is apt to do. Be this as it 
 may, what had this Thomas Aquinas to do with either Siria 
 or Stiria ? And when the editor found one word in the 
 text and the other in his margin, would it not have been 
 better to turn to Matthew Paris than to content himself with 
 merely modernizing Stiria into Styria, and putting that word, 
 on mere chance, in place of Siria ? If he had done this, he 
 would have seen that the earl had nothing to do with Styria, 
 and that even Syria was no more concerned in the matter 
 than that when the earl had written his letter he sent it there 
 to the emperor. The words of Matthew Paris are — " Sed 
 quoniam hujus rei certitudo nobis non nisi per alios constare 
 potuit, ponemus hie literas Thomee cujusdam comitis, quem 
 imperator cum quibusdam aliis in recessu suo, imperii tuto- 
 rem constituit et rectorem : quas imperatori super hoc nego- 
 tio in Syriam destinavit, et quas a quodam fide digno susce- 
 pimus peregrine."* If the matter can be better explained, 
 let it be ; but I can only suppose that, in hastily running over 
 the words of Matthew Paris, Fox took the word Syriam for 
 the title of the person to whom the emperor had destined this 
 business.f 
 
 * Tom. II., p. 353. 
 f [This may be a proper place for a few words on Fox's manner of dealing 
 with names and titles ; or rather his very odd way of confounding them, which 
 arose in a good measure from a barbarous translation (or non- translation) of 
 Latin writers, in whose works he did not himself know what were names and 
 what were titles. Thus he tells us of " Huniades, sumamed Vaivoda, prince 
 of Transylvania," iii. 762, and of "Huniades Vaivoda, the noble captain," Ibid. 
 On the next page this person comes to be " John Huniades the worthy captain 
 above mentioned," and onthe next, simply "Huniades " and at iv. 54, we read 
 that " Vaivoda flying to the Turk desired his aid. " Again at p. 32, we read, 
 " There reigned at the same time in Servia a certain prince, named Georgius 
 Despota .... it was not long after Amurath had married the daughter of 
 Despota, but he, contrary to his league and promise made war upon Despota 
 his father-in-law," &c. At vol ii. 121 , we have "Johannes simamed Primicerius," 
 and Petrus Oblationarius." The first of these one would think Fox must have 
 known not to be a surname, for it stands in the original " Primicerius scholse, 
 
58 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 I see that I am getting, or rather that I have got, into 
 the question of Fox's use of authorities, and the actual fidelity 
 of his translations. On this point I did not mean to have 
 entered without some prefatory observations, which I hope to 
 offer before I proceed further into the subject ; but as we 
 have got this letter in hand, I will give one or two specimens 
 
 eantorum ;" as to the second, he probably did not know what it meant, and so 
 let it stand as it was. At ii. 273, we are told " In the year 1180, there came to 
 the Council of Pope Alexander, one Pisarms Burgundio, a man very cunning 
 both in Greek and Latin," which is really more than can be said for the person 
 who thus translated Robertus de Monte's, " quidam civis Pisanus nomine Bur- 
 gundio." What Fox meant by saying that the pope had a "special trust in 
 Albertus Behavus, of the noble house called Equestri," ii. 481 (unless it im- 
 plies such ignorance as one can scarcely imagine possible) 1 really do not know. 
 Perhaps, too, from the simple literal translation of a word, the general reader 
 may hardly understand the full meaning of the following statement ; " As the 
 Archbishop, on a day when he had said masSj^as standing at the altar, with his 
 garments yet about him, the rude soldiers having little good manners, and less 
 devotion, spared not boldly to rush into the church, and there laid hands upon 
 the Archbishop as he stood ; took him, bound him, and dragged him through 
 dirt and mire (and, as we used to say, through thick and thin), and so committed 
 him to Matthew Clark, their constable, to be kept ; whereat the people greatly 
 disdained, seeing that he was a king's son."ii. 312. The loyal reader, who 
 sympathizes with the popular feeling, and is grieved to see a king's son (to say 
 nothing of the Archbishop) consigned to the hands of a Dogberry, will be 
 pleased to learn that Matthew Clark was a person of somewhat more considera- 
 tion than might at first appear. Mrs. Clark, too, being sister to tlie Bishop of 
 Ely (who was then Lord High Chancellor and Papal Legate) might have some 
 breeding, and some idea of proper behaviour towards an Archbishop in distress. 
 Matthew Clark, however, (or " de Clere," as the editor might as well have 
 called him, instead of modernizing, or for some other reason which I cannot 
 guess, altering, Clerke into Clark) though not a parish constable, did bear the 
 title of Constabularius, being, as Ralph de Diceto calls him, the " municeps 
 principalis castelli de Dovera," p. 671. I am not genealogist enough to know 
 whether he was descended from " Le Sire de Clere" mentioned p. 137, as 
 having come over at the Conquest. I suppose that Fox's turning it into 
 " Clerke" must have been on the same principle that sometimes led him to be 
 amusingly literal in his translations — no' merely such as I have elsewhere 
 noticed of rendering "ante annos 355" by so many "years before," or when he 
 translates with such barbarous fidelity as to talk of the practising of prelates to 
 entangle men in order " to wipe their noses of their money," 469 ; but when 
 he extends it so far as to call the writer generally known as Amoldus de Nova 
 Villa, " Master Arnold of Newton" 591 ; or tells us that " the Cardinal 
 ' Sanctorum Quatuor' or the Cardinal of ' Pouch' was slain" iv. 593 ; which, 
 by the way, I believe Cardinal Pucci was not. ] 
 
LETTER V. 
 
 59 
 
 from it, the rather because Fox pledges himself that it is 
 given " word for vwrd." 
 
 " Thomas, Earl of Actran, his 
 faithful and trusty subject in all 
 things, humble salutation. After your 
 departure, most excellent prince," &c. 
 
 " Thomas Comes Atteranensis, 
 suus in omnibus fidelis ao devotus, 
 salutem, et de hostibus triumphare. 
 Post recessum vestrum, Domine ex- 
 cellentissime," &c. 
 
 This omission is not worthy of notice, except as it shews 
 either the carelessness of the transcriber, or the laxity which 
 he allowed himself when professing to give " word for word." 
 The next is more hard to account for, unless we suppose that 
 Fox meant to speak what is in his parenthesis in his own 
 person, and frankly to say that he did not know how to 
 translate " de thesauris apostolicis." 
 
 " For the aforesaid John Brennus, 
 gathering out of France and other 
 provinces near adjoining a great army, 
 giveth unto them of the treasure he 
 hath gotten together (by what means 
 I cannot tell) great wages, in hope to 
 recover and get from you the empire." 
 
 " Nam Johannes praefatus, de reg- 
 no Francorum, et aliis conterminis 
 regionibus, militiam contrahens non 
 modicam; sub spe Imperii, si vos 
 posset «ubigere, de thesauris apos- 
 tolicis, suis militibus stipendia minis- 
 trat. " 
 
 On this translation, in other respects, it is noj worth 
 while to comment ; but almost immediately after, a clause of 
 a sentence is omitted, for some reason or other. I believe it 
 to have been, that Fox did not know how to translate it. 
 
 " Nulli sexui parcunt, nee cuiquam 
 extra ecclesiam vel camiterium de- 
 ferunt: vices et castella capiunt." 
 
 In the next, one can hardly help thinking that there is 
 the effect of that bitter hatred of the Romish clergy which is 
 so glaring a feature in Fox's work. 
 
 " Your friends and subjects, most 
 excellent prince, much marvel here 
 upon ; yea, and also the clergy them- 
 
 " Neither spare they man, woman, 
 nor child, but take and keep your 
 towns and castles."* 
 
 selves of the empire do marvel with 
 what conscience or upon what con- 
 sideration the Bishop of Rome can 
 do the same, making such bloody 
 wars and slaughter upon Christian 
 men. " 
 
 " Mirantur super his amici vestri, 
 exeellentissime imperator; et praci- 
 pue clerus imperii vestri ; qua con- 
 sideratione et conscientia talia facere 
 potest Pontifex Romanus, et contra 
 Christianos arma movere." 
 
 * [This translation is not merely defective, but false ; for the original im- 
 plies that they did spare those who took refuge in Churches and Church Yards.] 
 
60 
 
 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 Surely the ideas intended to be conveyed by the writer 
 and the translator of the letter are directly opposite. One 
 represents the clergy as particularly scandalized at "the 
 bloody wars and slaughter upon Christian men ;" the other 
 gives us to understand that even the clergy disapproved 
 them. As the following, perhaps the omission arose from 
 mere carelessness, and the mistranslation from ignorance. 
 
 " Wherefore, most mighty and re- 
 renowned emperor; I beseech your 
 highness to consider your own safety, 
 for that the said John Brennus hath 
 laid and fortified all the ports and 
 havens with no small company of 
 men and soldiers ; that if (not know- 
 ing thereof) your grace should arrive 
 in any of them, the same garrisons of 
 his may apprehend and take you as a 
 prisoner, which thing to chance God 
 forefend." 
 
 " Provideatis nunc obsecro, im- 
 perator potentissime, securitati vestrse, 
 et honori super prcemissis: quia inimi- 
 cus vester saspedictus, Johannes de 
 Brennes, omnes portus cismarinos 
 cum exploratoribus armatis non paueis 
 munivit : ut si forte incautus a peii- 
 grinatione redires, ipse vos sub cap- 
 tione conclusum incarceraret. Quod 
 Dominus avertat." 
 
 It will be observed that all these instances occur in a 
 short letter, occupying little more than hsblf a page of the 
 new edition, and which is professedly given " word for word." 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 [In the number containing this letter there was one from the publi^ers to 
 the editor, which I here reprint with the remarks which the editor appended 
 to it. 
 
 To the Editor of the British Magazine. 
 
 Fleet Street, Sept. 2-2nd, 1837. 
 Sm, Although Mr. Maitland's paper was naturally referred to by us immediately 
 the last number of the British Magazine came into our hands, your own re- 
 marks, occurring in a part of the work (the Notices to Correspondents) with 
 which we were not aware that we had any concern, were not seen by us until 
 late in the month, and our reply will therefore necessarily arrive at the latest 
 moment ; but still, we hope, in time for your next publication; 
 
 We think we have some right to complain of the manner in which a com- 
 mon phrase, used by us, has been strained so as to justify two accusations. We 
 had spoken of " a correspondent of the British Magazine" as, by his own lips, 
 convicted of a prejudice against Foxe's work. We consequently demurred to 
 the judgment he seemed inclined to pass upon our edition, as emanating from 
 one who, confessedly, did not like the work itself, and could not, consequently, 
 apply himself with any impartiality to its criticism. 
 
 Now, this remark, which we must contend to have been perfectly fair and 
 natural, as applied to your correspondent, you have chosen, it seems to us very 
 
LETTER OF PUBLISHERS. 61 
 
 strangely, to appropriate to yourself, and demand of us " wlint right we have" 
 to " throw out insinuations of unfairness" against your magazine ? 
 
 In reply, we beg to say that we threw out no insinuations whatever. We 
 simply quoted the very words of your correspondent, shewing that he disliked 
 Foxe himself, whether well or ill-edited ; and then observed, that no one, after 
 reading these lines, can doubt the real "animus of the critic." 
 
 Our obsei-vation, therefore, was strictly limited to your " correspondent" — 
 to " the critic." We had no wish nor intention to include the editor of the 
 magazine in our remark, nor did it ever occur to us that any one reading our 
 specific and strictly defined charge against your correspondent could ever mis- 
 understand so plain an accusation. 
 
 The other point in which the phrase " a correspondent of the British Maga- 
 zine" seems to us to have been strained is, that you almost charge us with having 
 intended to conceal the fact that that correspondent had affixed his name to his 
 criticism. Now the common phrase which we had adopted certainly implies 
 nothing whatever as to whether the said correspondent is anonymous or declared. 
 Very many of your correspondents are accustomed to affix their names. And 
 certainly we could have no wish to conceal the fact, that our principal assailant 
 was Mr. Maitland ; inasmuch as we are very well aware that with a large portion 
 of the public the mention of that gentleman's name would greatly diminish the 
 effect of any criticism. 
 
 You further ask, however, whether we " mean to say, that if the people of 
 Castile are described as the people of Catalonia, or vice versa, and if such 
 mistakes occur in every page, and are left in this edition, that the book does not 
 become absurd, unintelligible, and useless ? We reply that such mistakes do 
 not occur in every page, nor do they occur frequently. That in reprinting, at 
 a rapid rate, so peculiar a work as that of Foxe, some such errors should have 
 been left uncorrected, is, we fear, true, but it is not at all surprising. We have 
 no doubt that if Mr. Maitland had applied the same critical acumen, sharpened 
 by the same personal dislike, to any other work of a similar class, he would have 
 been equally successfiil in detecting faults of this description. 
 
 But, what is more important, we beg to add, that our unceasing attention 
 has been given, for several months past, to the question, how the further re- 
 tention of errors of this kind might be most effectually precluded ; and that we 
 have taken measures which we trust will prove effectual, — not, ideed, in securing 
 a. faultless copy, for that is out of the question — ^but in clearing it, generally, of 
 gross errors. And we trust, too, that the remaining portions of the work will be 
 found, in the original, less marked by blemishes of this description than those 
 which have preceded them. Lists of the errata which have been detected will, 
 of course, be given. — We remain. Sir, your very obedient servants, 
 
 L. B. Seeley and W. Buknside. 
 
 The editor is very happy to admit anything which Messrs. S. and B. have 
 to offer by way of explanation. He conceives, however, that of this proceeding 
 no one will eventually have to complain as much as Messrs. S. and B. them- 
 selves. Can they mean, for example, that their Euivertisement was not so worded 
 (although they had no intention, according to their letter, of so wording it) as to 
 give the appearance of a charge against this magazine of hostility to their 
 undertaking ? Do they further mean, that they would have been glad to affix 
 Mr. Maitland's name, as likely to do their cause good ? If they thought so. 
 
62 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 why did they not do it ? As they disclaim, however, any intention of imputing 
 to this magazine hostility to them, this theme need not be pursued. But a re- 
 mark' or two must be added in reference to Mr. Maitland. They talk of a 
 personal dislike as sharpening Mr. Maitland's critical acumen, of his disliking 
 Foxe himself, and of his prejvdice against Foxe. If those who detect ignorance 
 and errors in a writer are to be accused of prejudice and dislike to him, it is 
 time for all persons to give up reading, writing, or reasoning. Whether the 
 cause of ti-uth is most promoted by indiscriminate .eulogy, or by an impartial 
 investigation, must be left to others to judge ; but the word personal dislike is 
 somewhat extraordinary in such a. case. Messrs. S. and B. have reason to 
 know that there was no personal motive in the case of Mr. Maitland, and that 
 they were fully warned of the nature of the undertaking they were engaged in, 
 and requested to suspend their work till it could be done satisfactorily. As 
 they did not think that worth while, as they chose to carry the work through 
 the press " at a rapid rate," they must charge the consequences on themselves, 
 not on others. On the way in which they represented the nature of the errors 
 in their advertisement, they say nothing, and therefore no further remark is 
 needed. But as to the frequency of the gross blunders which deface this edition, 
 they surely cannot have read Mr. Maitland's letters with any attention, if they 
 can deny that they are frequent. It is a satisfaction, however, to know that 
 some steps are being taken to secure more correctness in future, and to fiirnish 
 lists of errata for the former volumes. Mr. Maitland, to the editor's know- 
 ledge, could add very largely to the number of those he has selected for pub- 
 lication, and that, too, not from having carefully hunted for every fault, but 
 from what he noted in casual reading." Oct. p. 479.] 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 In my first letter I said that if Fox's Acts and Monu- 
 ments are to be drawn from their obscurity, urged into circu- 
 lation, and made a popular book, it behoves us to consider 
 three things, which may' be thus briefly stated : — I. The 
 real value of Fox's authorities. II. His mode of using them. 
 III. How far this new edition, by which the work will pro- 
 bably be henceforth generally known, does justice to Fox. 
 
 I had no idea of discussing these subjects in your pages ; 
 though I felt it right to state them, and to add that they 
 ought to be maturely considered by those who take upon 
 
LETTEE VI. 63 
 
 themselves the responsibility of pushing Fox's work into 
 notice. I felt also, as I then expressed, that the desultory 
 remarks which I was about to offer would, more or less, refer 
 to, and involve, them all ; and would be rendered more in- 
 telligible by my addressing myself in the first instance to the 
 third of them, which was in fact that one on which it seemed 
 most urgently necessary, and on which I felt myself best 
 qualified to speak, 
 
 I must add, however, that this was also the point which I 
 felt myself most at liberty to discuss. For the question 
 whether the new edition was doing justice to Fox was fairly 
 before the world, by the publication of the second and third 
 volumes, containing (according to the statement of the pub- 
 lishers) " a larger mass of matter than the whole of ' Hume's 
 History of England.' " These volumes not only formed a 
 very fair and full specimen of the work, and shewed what the 
 parties concerned in the business of republication had done, 
 but also shewed very plainly the course which they intended 
 to pursue. This was indicated, in a way which could admit 
 of no doubt, by the fact that the third volume, while it con- 
 tained the editor's boast of " many gratifying communications 
 and valuable suggestions" with which he had " been favoured 
 relating to the second volume," acknowledged, and attempted 
 to correct, one, and only one, erratum in that volume. No 
 notice whatever was taken of other mistakes which had been 
 specially and particularly pointed out to the publishers, and 
 which were as absurd as that one which they acknowledged. 
 It was quite clear that the intention was to put a good face 
 on the matter, and trust that the ignorance or negligence of 
 the subscribers would prevent their finding out those blun- 
 ders. The two volumes, however, as I have observed, formed 
 a fair specimen by which to judge how far the new edition 
 was doing justice to Fox ; and I felt that there could be no- 
 thing indelicate or premature in discussing that question. 
 
64 LETTEKS ON FOX. 
 
 But as to the work itself— the value of the original au- 
 thorities, and the use which Fox had made of them — the 
 case was different. Whatever opinion I might have formed 
 of the correctness of the work in general, I did not know 
 what a good many of the authorities were, nor do I think 
 that anybody will, without some difficulty, find them out. To 
 some authorities referred to I had not access ; and, if I had 
 been able to turn to them immediately, I really did not know 
 that it was my business to enter on so laborious, and appa- 
 rently unnecessary, a work. For, in fact, I thought what 
 has been very strongly, but I believe very truly, observed by 
 the editor of the abridgment now published in monthly num- 
 bers, who begins his " Address" on the cover by saying, 
 " There is perhaps no work in our language the title of 
 which is so familiar, and the contents of which are so little 
 knovm to the general reader, as ' Fox's Acts and Monuments 
 of Martyrs.' " I agree with him when he says, " The public 
 generally, therefore, are not aware of the real character of 
 the original work ;" and I thought (and do think) that, 
 being now placed, in a more readable form than it has 
 hitherto assumed, in the hands of so many persons capable 
 of judging, the work must soon come to be very differently 
 estimated, even without any critical exposure of its materials. 
 But even if I had known all the authorities, and possessed 
 the means of referring to them, I should have thought it pre- 
 mature (if not indecent) to enter on the question while a 
 gentleman well known in the literary world stands publicly 
 pledged to the full vindication of Fox. In their prospectus, 
 dated June 25, 1836, the publishers say, "High as is the 
 character which he deservedly maintains for veracity and 
 correctness, still Fox has not been without assailants. The 
 publishers are therefore gratified to be able to announce that 
 the present edition will be prefaced with a full vindication of 
 the pious martyrologist from those various attacks. That 
 
LETTER VI. 65 
 
 duty has been undertaken by the Rev. George Townsend, 
 M.A., Prebendary of Durham, and Vicar of Northallerton, 
 Yorkshire." As to the direct discussion, therefore, of the 
 question respecting Fox's veracity and correctness, (for from 
 some reference to it I could not easily keep clear,) I willingly 
 postpone it. I wait with curiosity ; and though there would 
 be no charity in saying that I hope to see Fox's " veracity 
 and correctness" fully vindicated, (because it must be at the 
 expense of other men whom I believe to have been at least 
 as good as himself,) yet I do hope to see truth elicited by 
 such a sifting of his authorities as must precede anything 
 like a serious and respectable attempt at Ml vindication. 
 
 In the meantime, as the publishers taunt me with bring- 
 ing charges without supporting them, I will turn to another 
 part of the subject. In their advertisement stitched up with 
 the Magazine for July, and also prefixed to their fourth 
 volume, they quote me as saying that " It is due to many 
 most sincere and zealous protestants among the subscribers 
 to ask them whether they have fully considered what they 
 are doing in supporting the republication of a work which is, 
 to say the least, characterized by the strain of bitter invective 
 which runs through it — whether, supposing that they could 
 hope for success, they would be satisfied to maintain pro- 
 testantism as a mere party question, by declamation and 
 abuse, railing and scoffing, and a species of banter often 
 coarse, and sometimes profane, &c. &c. ?"* 
 
 With reference to these questions, they say, "Rather 
 inconsistently, after having assailed the book with all these 
 
 * Instead of these " &cs." which of course convey no idea, I wish that the 
 publishers had added the words which follow those which they quoted, and 
 which are quite as instructive as to my animus respecting the work as any part 
 of their extract : — " Whether they wish to disseminate and to give their sanc- 
 tion to those views of church discipline which Fox had adopted, and which it is 
 the tendency of his work to maintain ?" 
 
 K 
 
66 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 heavy charges, he turns off, instead of supporting those 
 charges, and begins a long series of criticisms on the supposed 
 misspelling of many French and German names ! " Even 
 if this were a fair statement of the case, I do not myself 
 perceive the inconsistency of asking the great body of sub- 
 scribers (consisting, the publishers give us to understand, of 
 nearly two thousand persons) the questions just quoted, re- 
 specting points on which most of them might be considered 
 as able to judge for themselves, and then " turning off," to 
 to shew them how far the promise of " accurate and faithful 
 performance" had been kept in matters concerning which it 
 might be fairly, and not disrespectfully, presumed that many 
 of them were not capable of detecting error. But, if I did turn 
 off, it is very easy to turn on again ; for I would not have 
 " assailed the book with all those heavy charges" without 
 having well considered the matter, and believing that there 
 were strong grounds for them. Nay, I did suppose those 
 grounds to be so obvious, that when once the attention of the 
 subscribers should be roused there would be no necessity to 
 enter into the particulars, or to bring forward proofs. I think 
 so still ; and I cannot express the satisfaction which I felt at 
 seeing that the publishers had done what I so much desired, 
 but knew not how to effect, — I mean, the delivery of those 
 questions to each subscriber, which they have insured by 
 prefixing them to their fourth volume. Still, as I am taunted 
 with not " supporting those charges," it may be right to offer 
 some remarks on two points : — First, the style and spirit of 
 Fox's work ; and secondly, its aspect and tendency as it re- 
 gards the church of England. 
 
 I had proceeded in remarks on the first of these points as 
 far as I conceived that T might trespass on your next num- 
 ber, when I saw the letter of the publishers in this month's 
 Magazine, in which there are some things which I feel called 
 on to notice. 
 
LETTEK VI. 67 
 
 In the first place, as they seem quite surprised that any- 
 body should fall (as I did) into the mistake of supposing that 
 they considered this Magazine as anything more than an 
 innocent and perhaps unconscious vehicle of my malice, I 
 remind them of the following sentence : — " A second assail- 
 ant follows in the track of the first. Another journal, though 
 of less note than the ' British Magazine,' adopts the same 
 line of criticism." 
 
 As to what is personal, it requires no reply. It might 
 have done prospectively, but now that I have distinctly stated, 
 and given references to, as many mistakes and blunders as 
 would furnish a list of errata containing not much less (per- 
 haps I might say considerably more) than three hundred 
 articles — now that these are plainly specified, it is childish to 
 talk of " prejudice" and the " animus" which has induced me 
 to point them out. The subscribers, who have relied on the 
 guarantee of respectable names for the fulfilment of fair pro- 
 mises, will feel it but small consolation to be told that the 
 person who criticises their bargain is a bad critic, and writes 
 from bad motives, unless it can be shewn that his statements 
 are untrue. 
 
 This the publishers do not venture to do ; unless, indeed, 
 if may be said to be done by insinuation, when they say, 
 " That in reprinting, at a rapid rate, so pecuhar a work as 
 that of Foxe, some such errors" [that is, such as confounding 
 the Castilians and Catalonians] " should have been left un- 
 corrected, is, we fear, true, but it is not at all surprising." 
 They admit nothing whatever ; but after a heap of blunders 
 has been collected, the grossness and absurdity of many of 
 which must be apparent to everybody, they candidly own 
 their _^ars that some errors may — they /ear it is possible that 
 they actually have been left uncorrected. I am sorry that 
 by this delusory talk, and by professing their intention in 
 future to avoid " the retention of errors," they force me to 
 
68 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 speak plainly, and perhaps offensively ; but I think that if 
 they really avoid seeing what must be apparent to most per- 
 sons v?ho have read the foregoing letters, it must be by shut- 
 ting their eyes. The charge against their edition is not (as 
 they would insinuate) that, either from haste, or any other 
 cause, they have "left uncorrected" the errors of the old 
 edition, though it is true that they have done so to a most 
 amazing extent — ^but it is not merely, or principally, with the 
 "retention of errors" that their edition is charged. The 
 charge is, that, though with no ill intention, the text of Fox 
 has been studiously depraved — not merely that a bad text 
 has been followed, but that it has been industriously deterio- 
 rated ; and that beside this many notes have been added, 
 misstating Fox's meaning, and tending to mislead the reader; 
 in short, that whUe they boast of " the production of a good 
 edition," one that is " by far the best edition of Foxe — the 
 most complete, the most accurate — that has ever been pro- 
 duced," they are in fact bringing out a bad edition ; and as 
 far as my knowledge of two or three of the older editions 
 enables me to judge, I think I may add, incomparably the 
 worst that has ever been printed. It is easy to try this 
 question. Let the editor give a list of the corrections which 
 he made in the second and third volumes, (for they are prin- 
 cipally in question, and I have scarcely had leisure to look 
 much at the fourth,) and let us see what proportion they 
 bear to the instances which I have given, in which he has 
 clearly and palpably iwcorrected Fox, and made a blunder 
 where there was none before. I am quite prepared to meet 
 such a list of corrections by a recapitulation of the numerous 
 cases which I have pointed out, and the addition of many 
 more. If this is not done, and if the result does not shew 
 that the blunders now for the first time inserted into the 
 work are trifling both in number and magnitude when com- 
 pared with those which have been corrected, it will be sus- 
 
LETTER VI. 69 
 
 pected that the publishers really " fear" something more than 
 they have chosen to express. 
 
 Further — ^the publishers speak (ironically, I presume — 
 for it requires no great powers of criticism to discern that 
 Cadomus is a town and not a man, that Tours is not Turin, 
 Aix-la-Chapelle not Aquitaine, Aosta not Augsburgh, Bouil- 
 lon not Bologna, Apuleius the philosopher not Appuleius the 
 tribune, Ragman Roll not the statute of Rageman, Bennet 
 and Collet not the orders of St. Benedict and St, Nicholas, 
 Bergen-op-Zoom not in Franconia, and other peculiarities of 
 the new edition — but they do speak, and may mislead by 
 speaking) of " critical acumen," and of its being sharpened 
 by personal dislike to such a degree as to have discovered 
 these errors. In regard to this delusory insinuation, I must 
 say that, as there is no need for critical acumen to detect 
 such gross blunders, so those which I have published, and 
 many others which I have not, have been observed and ac- 
 cumulated, not during a regular and studious reading of the 
 work, or a careful collation of it. I have done nothing of the 
 kind ; and you, I think, who know what my circumstances 
 and avocations have been, will believe me when I say that I 
 have met with them in cursorily turning over the book at odd 
 times, and dipping into various parts when I had leisure and 
 opportunity. Nothing can be a greater mistake than to sup- 
 pose that the field has been reaped because I have gathered 
 some handfuls, such as continually present themselves when- 
 ever I take a turn in it. I believe I have never read three 
 consecutive pages in the work ; but I have hardly ever taken 
 it up and turned it over for five minutes that some gross error 
 has not presented itself, a slight examination of which has 
 commonly brought under notice two or three more.* I men- 
 
 * Perhaps I cannot give a better illustration than an instance which has just 
 occurred since I wrote the preceding letter. Happening to look at p. 493 of 
 
70 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 tion this the more particularly because I would caution both 
 the publishers and the subscribers against supposing that the 
 very imperfect notices which I have as yet given, constitute 
 anything like such " lists of errata" as the publishers must 
 be understood as having now pledged themselves to give. In 
 the meantime, and with a full certainty that, if fairly made, 
 these lists wiU bear me out, I think it due to myself to say 
 that I have not microscopically searched for and collected 
 what are commonly called errata, and what the publishers, 
 of course, include under that name. I have not, to the best 
 of my recollection, (unless it may have been incidentally, and 
 for some other reason than because it was an erratum,) ever 
 noticed a single misprint or error of the press — that is to say, 
 any error which I beUeved that the editor knew to be an 
 error, and would have corrected if he had observed it — and 
 I must add, that in doing this I have (in order to be on the 
 safe side) passed over many things which I beheve that the 
 
 vol. ii., my eye was caught by the " Bishop of Penestram," a see of which I 
 had not heard ; and having a book at hand which contained the document in 
 which it occurs, I turned to it. It is a letter from the King of France to the 
 emperor, on behalf of some bishops whom the latter had intercepted on their 
 way to a council, and was keeping imprisoned. St. Louis, after various argu- 
 ments, tells Frederic that if he vrill not be persuaded by them, yet one good 
 turn deserves another, and he ought to remember that when the person whom 
 Fox calls the Bishop of Penestrum, (for we will not mind about a supposed 
 misspelling,) and other papal legates, came to get help against the imperial 
 cause, he had openly repulsed them, and they had been able to do nothing in 
 his dominions. His words (as given by Raynaldus, an. 1241, No. 77, p. 566) 
 are — " Quod si prcedicta ad vestrae mentis oculos nolitis reflectere, Penestrinum 
 episcopum et alios legates ecclesise in prejudiciura vestrum volentes subsidium 
 implorare manifestissime repulimus ; nee in regno nostro contra majestatem 
 vestram potuerunt aliquid obtinere." Fox translates — " Wherefore, if you will 
 consider and respect the thing that we have said, we doubt not but that you will 
 release the Bishop of Penestrum, with the other legates and prelates of the 
 church, whom you, to our prejudice, do detain. In desiring our aid, doubtless 
 we gave unto them a manifest nay ; neither could they obtain in our kingdom 
 anything at all which seemed to be against or prejudicial to your majesty." 
 What idea could Fox have of the Latin or the history ? 
 
LETTER VI. 71 
 
 editor did not know to be wrong, or purposely altered with a 
 view to correction,* I claim no merit for this forbearance, 
 
 [* My meaning will be more obvious if I add some examples, and the reader 
 will, I think, agree with me, that something more than a slight degree of doubt 
 attaches to a good many of them. When we see in the text " Simon's art to 
 interlard a tale of untruth," and find in the note explaining it, " Read of Simon 
 in the second book of Virgil;" — ^when we find this at p. 644 of the fourth 
 volume, after the exposure of so many ' misspellings' should have put, and 
 obviously had put, the editor and his assistants rather on their guard, we cannot 
 'help suspecting something worse than a misprint. JBeauvieu, fifteen times in 
 four pages, iii. 478-481, looks like an unlucky attempt to correct the Beauiea 
 of the old edition, by somebody who had not heard the name JBeaujeu. The 
 celebrated " Ego Berengarius," may have been changed into " Ergo Beren- 
 garius," iii. 176, by an error of the press ; and the same thing may have three 
 times turned Bernard's discourses on the Canticles into sermons " upon the 
 Canonicals," iii. 474, 477 ; that is, if I am right in supposing that there is no 
 work of Bernard under the latter title ; though I do not affirm that there may 
 not be one analogous to " Jerome upon the Decretals," of which I do not re- 
 member to have read anywhere but at iii. 181, and know no more than I sup- 
 pose " Boniface VIII., the author of the Decretals," ii. 601, to have done. 
 
 I know not, also, whether the editor or the printer has changed the title of 
 the decretal which Fox (though he erroneously calls it an Extravagant of 
 Alexander III. ) correctly ^ves as " Non sine multa" into " Non sine mvlcta," 
 ii. 752. ; or whether it was originally by an error of the press that Fox was 
 made to say, that the Grecians at the Council of Florence were " persuaded 
 to receive the sentence of the church of Rome, concerning the proceedings of 
 the Holy Ghost." iii. 700; but I do not feel sure that the editor did not see 
 the word without correcting it. 
 
 I believe that the editor supposed that he was only smoothing the style of 
 the sentence on Lord Cobham, when he made it say, " Christ we take unto 
 witness that nothing else we seek in this our whole enterprise, but his ovm. 
 glory," iii. 336, instead of " his onely glory" ,- and this the rather because, a 
 few pages before, where, according to Fox, the Archbishop desired Lord Cob- 
 ham, instead of speaking of matters not immediately in question, to address 
 himself to certain points respecting which he was to be on that occasion par- 
 ticularly examined, the time having been set him " only for that purpose," the 
 the editor has changed it into " the only time" appointed for that purpose, 
 iii. 327i I suppose, too, the alteration must have been in some sense inten- 
 tional when the same person is, by the new edition, absurdly made to say, 
 when he had " spread his arms abroad : This is the very cross" instead of " a 
 very cross, yea, and so much better than your cross of wood, in that it was cre- 
 ated of God." iii. 335. 
 
 I dare say the editor would have corrected, if he had remarked, such errors 
 in the Latin as uxorum, 150. sempitumus, 531. padictus, 560. vigilas, 559. 
 asum, 133. sensa, 54. pkerumquce, 148. capui, iv. 78. nundum, iv. 115. uni- 
 versem, iv. 123., and the like ; but I do not feel so certain of Chravaliensis, 
 
72 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 where such and so many more important blemishes disfigure 
 the work ; but had I been influenced by personal motives 
 against either the work, the editor, or the publishers, I 
 should scarcely have passed by so many as I can easily pro- 
 duce if they are called for. I hope soon to see the lists of 
 errata, which will, I am convinced, do me justice on this 
 point. 
 
 I am sorry to observe one omission in the letter of the 
 publishers. I am not, indeed, surprised, because I have ob- 
 served that the acknowledgment of error, even when publicly 
 pointed out and undeniable — even of gross and palpable 
 falsehood, which may have been (as I believe in this case it 
 was) quite unintentional, or only arising from the exaggera- 
 tion too common when people are angry and do not take the 
 trouble to inquire, or to reflect, whether what they say is true 
 or false — ^the acknowledgment of error, I say, even under 
 such circumstances, forms no part of Christian duty in the 
 view of a " large portion of the public,'' and even of too many 
 who profess to be religious men. To shew their subscribers 
 how far and wide I had travelled for a few errors, they told 
 
 ii. 187., or Isodore, iii. 475., or Aquilia, ii. 129. ; and I cannot suppose him 
 to have been aware that Padua, in the next line, should be Passau ; or that 
 two words were united, and the n a turned u, in " Defendo regis," 200. We 
 may doubt whether he knew that Aperius, 21. was the same person whose 
 name is more nearly approximated at p. 30 by Asserion — ^that Sebaudia four 
 times, 128, 628, 720. and Svhaudia, 643. should be Sabaudia — Bedmotmt, 
 
 Beaumont, 668 Nanclems, Nauolerus, 99 Chrysogoim, Chrysogon, 262 
 
 Helmodus, Helmoldus, 174 Putranus, Puteanus, 504 Cambriensi, Cam- 
 
 brensi, 258 Grisortium, Gisortium, 239 Hutnsard, Haunsard, 566 
 
 Mansuanos, Mantuanos, 503. — Postiensis, Hostiensis, 575 Villenorth, Vil- 
 
 vorde, 677.— Mima, Misnia, and Styaia Styria, 484 Michera, Nuchera, 537. 
 
 — Abgatus, Abgarus, iv. 90 — Skiden, Sleidan, iv. 270. — Perecuo, Peucero, 
 iv. 290 — Orinth. Gratian, Orthuino Gratio, iv. 306. &c. Plenty of such 
 of such matter might be adduced ; but it would not be worth while to give even 
 this specimen, were it not to shew (and I thinlc to every candid reader it will 
 shew) that instead of scrutinizing for trifling feults, 1 really avoided specifying 
 such mistakes as I could with the utmost stretch of charity conceive to be mere 
 errors of the press.] 
 
LETTER VI. 73 
 
 them that what I produced were collected from two volumes. 
 Their defence rested on the paucity of errors in so great 
 a quantity of matter, of which, in order to give a suitable 
 idea of its magnitude, they told the public that it exceeded 
 "Hume's History of England." I answered that all the 
 errors were taken from one volume. They dared not deny 
 it, and are silent. Shall we be able to look without mis- 
 trust at their lists of errata ? 
 
 Another vague insinuation, which may mislead readers, 
 and tend to put the question on wrong grounds, is this : 
 after expressing their intention of greater care in future, they 
 say, " We trust, too, that the remaining portions of the work 
 will be found, in the original, less marked by blemishes of 
 this description than those which have preceded them." Of 
 course it is very well for the publishers to " trust" this, and 
 to inculcate that faith on their subscribers ; and perhaps we 
 may admit it if we understand the phrase, " blemishes of this 
 descriptiori!' strictly, because a great part of those blemishes 
 which I have noticed for which Fox himself was to blame, 
 consists of errors arising from ignorance of foreign persons 
 and places, and misconception of Latin documents. When 
 the scene, and the persons, and the authority, are all English, 
 this cannot, of course, happen. But I apprehend that, as it 
 respects the latter part of his history, it is more difficult for 
 us to refer to his authorities ; and the important question — 
 that, indeed, for the sake of which, very principally, it is 
 worth while to notice the early history at all — is, how far we 
 may trust to his fair and intelligent use of authorities when 
 we have not the opportunity of tracing him ? In the earlier 
 parts of his work, whatever difficulty there may be about 
 some of his authorities, we can yet turn to a great many. 
 We can judge how he selected, how he translated, in short, 
 where he found them, and how he used them ; and it is, I 
 presume, in a great degree from this that we must judge 
 
 L 
 
74 I,ETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 how far we ought to trust to his statements in those more 
 recent matters which are peculiarly interesting to English 
 protestants. 
 
 Should Fox's veracity and correctness he fully vindicated, 
 this point will of course be settled ; and I do not wish to an- 
 ticipate any part of a subject which, as I have said, I very 
 willingly postpone. In the meantime, having already occu- 
 pied so much more space than I expected with this subject, 
 I shall not be affronted if you tell me that both yourself and 
 your readers are tired of it. If you do not, I purpose to 
 send you some remarks on the two points which I mentioned 
 just before I began these observations on the letter of the 
 publishers ; for I cannot but think that the style and spirit 
 of Fox's work, and its aspect towards the church of which I 
 am a minister, are quite sufficient to justify what they call 
 «iy " personal dislike" of it. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 S. R. MAITLAND. 
 
75 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 (December, 1837.) 
 
 In proceeding to offer some remarks on the style and spirit 
 of Fox's work, I am sensible that I enter on a matter Very- 
 different from that in which I have been engaged while dis- 
 cussing the merits of the new edition, or that which may 
 employ me if I should be called on to investigate Fox's 
 authorities, and his mode of treating them. 
 
 If, "in the former case, I said that Oadomus, though re- 
 presented as a person, was, in fact, a place ; or that Claren- 
 don, though said to be in France, was really in England, I 
 did it with a full consciousness that I was open to contra- 
 diction ; but then it must be from somebody who would 
 maintain, either that I had misrepresented a particular 
 sentence of a given page in a book which is in everybody's 
 hands, or else, that Cadomus, whatever it may be at this day, 
 used to be a person ; and that Clarendon, if it is now in 
 England, was in France when the Constitutions were made. 
 Such questions may soon be decided. 
 
 Again, if, being called on to examine Fox's authorities, I 
 should ever find it necessary to say, " These twenty pages 
 are (with a very few and slight verbal alterations) a mere 
 reprint of almost every word of a well known book, the 
 author of which is never once named in them, though his 
 references are appropriated," — if I should be led to say 
 anything like this, or to compare transcripts, or translations, 
 with originals, all such questions, like the former, admit of 
 an easy decision. 
 
 But in treating of the style and spirit of a book, we get 
 nearer to something like a matter of taste ; and if in this 
 
 M 
 
76 LETTERS ON VOX. 
 
 discussion I should draw upon the reader's patience rather 
 more than in merely stating obvious mistakes, I hope he 
 will see that it is reasonable to forgive me ; for I cannot 
 expect him to be satisfied with my saying that I dislike this 
 or that passage, without giving the grounds of my dislike ; 
 and, in point of fact, some of the passages which I think 
 the most disgraceful and disgusting are such as some honest 
 and religious readers, unacquainted with facts, and misled 
 by ignorant agitators, may consider as very important and 
 edifying. It may be well, in the first place, to give one or 
 two such instances. 
 
 I do not think that any one who has paid attention to the 
 subject will consider me as speaking too strongly vi^en I 
 say, that the rise of the Mendicant Orders was one of the 
 most important occurrences in the history of the church 
 during the last thousand years. Its causes, circumstances, 
 and consequences, are all worthy of the most diligent study, 
 and the most exact research ; and must be, one would think, 
 subjects of deep and peculiar interest to protestants. It is, 
 however, in many cases very difficult to get a clear idea of 
 the men who were the originators and principal actors in 
 matters which have wrought the greatest revolutions in the 
 church and the world. This is chiefly owing to their false 
 enemies and foolish friends, who have daubed them with 
 alternate coats of dirty slander and childish praise, until one 
 can scarcely guess what they really were. Or, perhaps, 
 they are rather in the predicament of some of the figures 
 in our churches, where, between the Iconoclast rebel, and 
 the whitewashing churchwarden, the features can hardly be 
 traced. One of those persons was, I think, Francis of 
 Assisi, the founder of the Franciscan Order. I have read 
 marvellous things of him in the writings of his seraphic 
 descendants, some of whom, I doubt not, have been as great 
 rogues and liars as any protestant could desire to find in a 
 
LETTER VII. 77 
 
 monastic order ; but when I turn from these legends to his 
 own works, and the authenticated facts of his life, I am led 
 to think that he was a sincere enthusiast, whose fanaticism 
 meant to do good. 
 
 The only part of his history in which I find any difficulty 
 is that which represents him as having, at a late period of 
 his Ufe, received from a seraph, and borne on his hands, 
 and his feet, and his side, the sacred stigmata, or marks of 
 our Lord's passion. This matter, which is the chief boast 
 and glory of his followers, I confess that I do not clearly 
 understand. Whether as in strict and avowed imitation of 
 Him who for our sakes became poor, he had embraced 
 poverty, so he thought himself called upon to " know the 
 fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his 
 death," — whether, as other fanatics have crucified them- 
 selves,* he actually pierced his hands and his feet with 
 nails, — whether he was deceived himself, or meant to de- 
 ceive others, — whether the story is not a fabrication of 
 his followers, — all these are points which I know not how 
 to decide ; but I am sure that they are not to be answered 
 by saying, " Oh, of course he was a lying papist, and was 
 only playing a trick by pretending to perform a lying 
 miracle." The whole tenour of his works, written and 
 acted, seems to me to forbid the supposition of his origi- 
 nating and maintaining an atrocious and impious fraud. 
 
 I do not know that the genuineness of the works which 
 bear his name can be disputed ; and, indeed, I cannot but 
 think that if they had been forged by his disciples they 
 
 * Fox mentions, that a " rude countryman, who had crucified himself, and 
 superstitiously hare about the wounds in his feet and hands, was condemned 
 to be closed up perpetually within walls." ii. 374. Some readers of modem 
 stories about the inquisition and escapes from convents, would suppose that 
 he was bricked up, instead of being merely placed in confinement ; and it 
 may be doubted whether Fox and his editor did not understand something of 
 the kind. 
 
78 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 would have wanted the simplicity and piety by which they 
 are characterized. For instance, I suspect that they would 
 have put something more into these two little prayers — 
 
 " The Prayer of St. Francis at the beg'mrmg of his Conversion. 
 " Great and glorious God, and ray Lord Jesus Christ, enlighten, 1 beseech 
 thee, the darkness of my mind. Give me right faith, assured hope, and per- 
 fect charity. M^ke me to know thee, Lord, so that in all things I may do 
 everything according to thy holy and true will. Amen." * 
 
 " The Daihj Prayer of St. FroMois. 
 " My God and All ! Who art thou, most sweet Lord my God ? and who 
 am I, a worm, thy servant ? Most holy Lord, I desire to love thee. Most 
 sweet Lord, I desire to love thee. Lord God, I have given to thee my whole 
 heart and my body ; and I earnestly desire, if I may but know how, to do 
 more for the love of thee."+ 
 
 As to the rule which he gave to his order, I really think 
 that, except the principle of entire poverty, on which it was 
 founded, there is very little doctrine with which candid 
 criticism could find fault. It is almost entirely in the 
 language of scripture, and I believe that the twenty-third' 
 chapter (which some account not a part of the Eule, but an 
 addition to it, though a genuine work of St. Francis) con- 
 tains more that might give offence to protestants than any 
 other part. At the same time it is so characteristic that I 
 transcribe it — 
 
 " Chap. XXIIL A Prayer to God; or, Thanlcsgimng and Exhortation to the 
 
 Brethren. 
 " Almighty, most holy, most high, and greatest God, holy Father, and 
 righteous Lord, King of heaven and earth, we give thee thanks for thyself, 
 that by thy holy will, and by thine only Son, and Holy Spirit, thou didst 
 ci'eate all things, spiritual and corporeal, and placed us, formed after thine 
 image and likeness, in Paradise, and by our fault we fell. And we give thee 
 thanks that, like as by thy Son thou didst create us ; so by reason of that 
 thy great love wherewith thou hast loved us, thou hast caused him, very God 
 and very man, to be bom of the glorious, ever-virgin, most blessed St. 
 Mary, and hast willed the redemption of ns captives by his cross, and blood, 
 and death. And we give thee thanks, that the same, thy Son, is to come 
 
 Opusf. torn. i. p. 102. f Ibid. p. 119. 
 
LETTER VII. 79 
 
 again in the glory of his majesty, to send the accursed, wEo have not re- 
 pented, and have not known thee, into eternal fire ; and to eay to all who 
 have known and adored thee, and served thee in penitence, 'Come, ye 
 blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the be- 
 ginning of the world.' 
 
 " And because all we miserable creatures and sinners are not worthy to 
 name thee, we humbly pray that our Lord Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, in 
 whom thou art well pleased, together with thy Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, 
 may give thanks to thee, as to thee and to them shall be well pleasing, he 
 who is all-sufficient with thee for all things, by whom thou hast done so great 
 things for us. Hallelujah. 
 
 " And the glorious mother, the most blessed Mary, ever-virgin ; the 
 blessed Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and all the choirs of blessed spirits, 
 seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, virtues, 
 angels, archangels ; St. John the Baptist, John the Evangelist, Peter, Paul, 
 and the blessed patriarchs and prophets, innocents, apostles, evangelists, 
 disciples, martyrs, confessors, virgins, blessed Elijah and Enoch ; and all 
 saints that have been, shall be, and are, we humbly implore, for thy love's 
 sake, that, according to thy pleasure, they may give thanks for these things 
 to the most high God, true, eternal, and living, with thy most blessed Son, 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, for ever and 
 ever. Amen. Hallelujah. 
 
 " And aU tho.se who desire to serve the Lord God in the catholic and 
 apostolic church, and all the following orders — priests, deacons, sub-deacons, 
 acolytes and exorcists, readers and door-keepers, and all clerks, all monks, 
 and all nuns ; all children and little ones, all poor and needy, kings and 
 princes, labourers and husbandmen, servants and masters ; all virgins, 
 single and married persons, laity, male and female ; all infants, youths, 
 young men and old, sick and healthy, all great and small, and all peoples, 
 tribes, and tongues, and all nations, and all men everywhere in the world, 
 who are and shall be ; all we minor friars, unprofitable servants, humbly 
 beg and implore, that we may all persevere in true faith and repentance, for 
 otherwise none can be saved. Let us, from our whole heart, whole soul, 
 ■whole mind and strength, whole intellect, and all powers, with all endeavour, 
 all affection, all bowels, all desire and will, love the Lord God, who has given 
 us all our body, all our soul, all our life ; who has created us, and redeemed 
 us, and by his mere mercy saved us. Who to us miserable and wretched, 
 putrid and foetid, ungrateful, stupid and wicked, hath done, and doth all good 
 things. Let us therefore desire nothing else, let us wish for nothing else, 
 let nothing else please and delight us, but our Creator and Redeemer and 
 Saviour, only and true God, who is the complete good, all good, entire good, 
 true and chief good, who alone is good, merciful, kind, sweet, and delight- 
 ful ; who alone is holy, just, true, and right ; who alone is benign, inno- 
 cent, pure ; by whom, in whom, and through whom, is all the pardon, all 
 the grace, all the glory, of aU penitents and just men, of all the blessed who 
 rejoice together in heaven. 
 
 " Let nothing then hinder, nothing separate, nothing intervene, but that 
 we may all, in every place, every hour, and at all times, every day and con- 
 tmually, truly and humbly, believe in, and keep in our hearts, and love and 
 honour and adore, and serve and praise and bless, let us glorify and super- 
 exalt, let us magnify and give thanks to the most high and most exalted Lord 
 
80 tETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 Lord God eternal, and the Trinity and Unity, Father and Son and Holy 
 Spirit, the Creator of all who believe in him, and hope in him, and love him ; 
 who is without beginning and without end, unchangeable arid mvisible, m- 
 expressible, ineffable, incomprehensible, inscrutable, blessed, and to be 
 praised ; glorious, superexalted, lofty, high ; sweet, lovely, delectable, and 
 altogether to be desired always above all things, for ever and ever." * 
 
 I have admitted that St. Francis was a fanatic, but I 
 cannot help thinking that his fanaticism was of a kind which 
 we might expect to be highly popular with some of those 
 who most blame him. I should have thought that a writer 
 like Fox, whose work is full of declamation about the riches 
 of monks and clergy, and who seems to have been anxious 
 to have the church reduced to actual pauperism, would 
 have at least pardoned a man whose fanaticism principally 
 manifested itself in a flagrant love of poverty. Perhaps he 
 saw, as others certainly did, and we may see from history, 
 that luxury was creeping into the cell and the cloister, and 
 riches were a means of secularizing those who had re- 
 nounced the world without, for a fatter world within ; and 
 he had no notion of any remedy but the absolute and entire 
 repudiation of property. He had no idea of a temperance 
 society; or anything short of "totalism." That he was 
 wrong I do not mean to dispute; but how far, I think 
 is known to God only ; for by him alone are the state of 
 the church, and the world, and the precise acts and inten- 
 tions of the man, fully understood. 
 
 But, however absurd anybody may think St. Francis to 
 have been, I believe that no moderately informed pro- 
 testant has ever pretended that he was insincere in all this. 
 It is acknowledged that he gave up a respectable station in 
 society, and renounced his patrimony, and I do not know 
 that he has ever been charged with the least infraction of 
 his own rule. He chose to be poor, and he was poor. If 
 
 Opusc. torn. ii. p. 152. 
 
LETTER VII. 81 
 
 he had chosen to be rich, men would have praised him for 
 doing good to himself; and no doubt he would have been 
 wiser, and his devotion would have been more acceptable in 
 the sight of God, if he had prayed, "Give me neither 
 poverty nor riches ;" but if his practice and inculcation of 
 poverty was foolish, and even sinful, it should, as I have 
 said, meet with lenient treatment from a writer whose work 
 continually harps on the duty of reducing the clergy to 
 evangelical poverty. 
 
 There is another part of St. Francis's enthusiasm of 
 which I know not how to speak otherwise thanfiniprms of 
 respect ; and I am convinced that the gentlemen mip have 
 avowed themselves as the instigators of the new edition of 
 Fox, would be the last men in the world to ridicule his 
 missionary zeal. It is true that, as soon as he had got 
 seven companions, he thought it right that he and they 
 should set out by pairs to the east, west, north, and south, 
 to preach the gospel. I know of no pretence for charging 
 him with any motive but that of making known the truth of 
 God to sinners. Some proof of sincerity there seems to be 
 in that part of his Rule which relates to missionaries. 
 
 " Chap. XVI. Of those who go among the Saracens and Infidels. 
 " The Lord said, ' Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of 
 wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.' There- 
 fore, let all such of the brethren as by divine inspiration shall desire to go 
 among the Saracens, and other infidels, go with the permission of their pro- 
 vincials, (ministri et servi.) And let the minister give permission, and not 
 oppose, if he sees that they are fit to be sent ; for he will be bound to give 
 an account to the Lord, if in this, or in other things, he shall proceed 
 indiscreetly. The brethren, however, who go may converse spiritually 
 among thein in two ways. One way is, not to make strifes, nor contentions, 
 but to be subject to every human creature for God's sake, and to confess 
 themselves Christians. Another way is, that when they see it to be the will 
 of God, they shall proclaim the word of God, that they should believe in God 
 Almighty the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the Creator of all 
 things, the Redeemer and Saviour the Son ; that they should be baptized, and 
 made Christians, because, ' Except a man be born of water and of the Holy 
 Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' These, and other things, 
 such as are pleasing to the Lord, they may say among themselves and to 
 BtherSjbecause the Lord saith in the gospel,* Whosoever shall confess me before 
 
82 LETTEKS ON FOX. 
 
 men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven ; and who- 
 soever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man 
 be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory, and m his Father's, and 
 of the holy angels.' And let all brethren, wheresoever they are, remember 
 that they have given themselves, and left their bodies, to our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; and they ought, for the love of him, to expose themselves to enemies 
 visible, as well as invisible ; for the Lord hath said, ' He that loseth his life 
 for my sake, shall save it unto life eternal.' Blessed are they who suffer 
 persecution for righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. If they 
 have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. But if they persecute 
 you in one city, fly to another. Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and 
 shall curse you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, and when 
 they shall say all evil against you falsely for my sake. E«joice, and be 
 exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven. But I say unto you, my 
 friends. Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no 
 more that they can do. See that ye be not fri^tened. In your patience 
 shall ye possess your souls, but he that endureth to the end, he shall 
 be saved." * 
 
 And better evidence of sincerity is to be found in his own 
 actions. He not only thus sent others ; he set out himself 
 to preach the gospel in Syria, but was driven back on the 
 coast of Dalmatia. Again, he attempted to get to Africa, 
 and had made his way into Spain, when illness compelled 
 him to return. A third time he was more successful, and 
 if there was anything of enthusiasm in his project, or of 
 presumption in his mode of executing it, yet I cannot think 
 that any true Christian would consider him a fit subject for 
 ridicule. Indeed, I am convinced that if any man were 
 (as far as possible) to do the very same thing, in the very 
 same way, at this present time, whatever abuse he might 
 meet with from infidels and scofiFers, he would be treated 
 with sincere and just respect in the " Missionary Eegister." 
 There might be a word or two about being judicious ; but I 
 am much mistaken if the conductors, or the readers, of 
 that work would be satisfied, or think that justice was 
 done to the man, if the story of his adventures was told as 
 simply as it is by Cardinal Bonaventure, the seraphic doctor, 
 
 Opusc. tom. ii. p. 144. 
 
LETTER VII. 83 
 
 who was the biographer, and (though his junior) for some 
 years the contemporary of St. Francis. He says — 
 
 " But the ardour of charity urging his spirit to martyrdom, he made a 
 third attempt to go to the infidels, that by pouring out his blood, he might 
 extend the faith of the Trinity ; and going to Syria, in the thirteenth year 
 after his conversion, he resolutely exposed himself to many dangers in order 
 to obtain an interview with the Soldan of Babylon. For there was at that 
 time such implacable war between the Christians and Saracens, their armies 
 being encamped on the plain over against each other, that there was no 
 passing over from one to the other without peril of life ; for the Soldan had 
 issued a cruel order, that whoever should bring the head of a Christian 
 should receive a reward of a gold besant. But the intrepid soldier of 
 Christ, Francis, hoping speedily to accomplish his purpose, determined to cross 
 over, unmoved by the fear, provoked by the desire of death. Having first 
 prayed, and being strengthened by the Lord, he confidently sung those words 
 of the prophet, ' Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, 
 I will fear no evil ; for thou art with me.' Having therefore taken a com- 
 panion, named brother lUumiuatus, a man of both light and power, when he 
 began his journey, he met two sheep. The holy man, being cheered by the 
 sight of them, said to his companion, ' Trust in the Lord, brother, for that 
 word of the gospel will be fulfilled in us. Behold, I send you forth as sheep in 
 the midst of wolves.' When, however, they had got further, the Saracen guards 
 met them, who running swiftly upon them, like wolves on sheep, ill-treated 
 these servants of God in a dismal manner, abusing them, beating them, and 
 binding them with chains. At length, when they had been in various ways 
 ill-used and injured, they were, through the providence of God, led, as the 
 man had desired, to the Soldan. When that prince iaqvdred by whom, and 
 for what purpose, and in what capacity, they had been sent, and how they 
 had come, Francis, the servant of Christ, answered with intrepid courage, 
 that he had been sent over, not by man, but by the most high God, that he 
 might shew unto him and to his people the way of salvation, and publish the 
 gospel of truth. And with such constancy of mind, such power of soul, and 
 such fervour of spirit, did he preach to the aforesaid Soldan, the Trine and 
 One God, and Jesus Christ, the Saviour of all men, as clearly shewed that those 
 words of the gospel were truly fulfilled in him, ' I will give you a mouth and 
 wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.' 
 For the Soldan, perceiving the admirable fervour and power in the man of 
 God, not only gave him willing audience, but urgently pressed him to stay. 
 But the servant of Christ, being enlightened by the divine oracle, said, ' If 
 you with your people choose to be converted to Christ I will willingly stay 
 with you from love to him ; but if you hesitate to exchange the law of 
 Mahomet for the faith of Christ, order a great fire to be kindled, and I will 
 enter it with your priests, that you may thus know which faith, as being 
 most sure and holy, deserves to be maintained.' To whom the Soldan replied, 
 ' I do not believe that any of my priests would expose himself to the fire, or 
 undergo any torment for the defence of his faith ;' (for he had just seen that 
 one of his priests, a respected and aged person, on hearing what had been 
 said, had vanished.) To whom the holy man answered, • If you will promise 
 me, for yourself and your people, that you will embrace the Christian faith 
 if I come out of the fire unhurt, I will go into it by myself ; and if I am 
 
 N 
 
84 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 burnt, let it be imputed to my sins ; but if a divine power protects me, you 
 shall acknowledge that Christ is the power and the wisdom of God, true God 
 and Lord, the Saviour of all men.' The Sultan, however, replied, that he 
 could not venture to accept these terms, for fear of a sedition among the 
 people ; but he offered him many precious gifts, which the man of God, who 
 coveted not earthly things, but the salvation of souls, despised like dirt. The 
 Sultan, seeing the holy man to be such a perfect contemner of worldly things, 
 was moved with admiration, and conceived a still greater esteem for him ; 
 and although he would not, or perhaps dared not, come over to Christianity, 
 yet he earnestly besought the servant of Christ to take the things before 
 mentioned to be distributed for his soul's weal (pro salute ipsius) to poor 
 Christians or churches. But he, both because he wished to avoid having a 
 large sum of money, and because he did not perceive any root of true 
 piety in the mind of the Soldan, would by no means agree to this. Moreover, 
 seeing that he did not succeed in the conversion of that nation, nor could 
 compass his design, being premonished by a divine revelation, he returned 
 to Christendom." 
 
 Of course it is quite open to every man to discuss the 
 character of St. Francis, and if he sees ground for consider- 
 ing him a hypocrite and a knave, let him say so in plain 
 terms. I do not want to eulogize him, and much less his 
 followers ; but there is such a thing as speaking fairly of 
 the worst persons ; and I do think that truth and charity 
 are outraged, and the real working of God in his church is 
 concealed or misrepresented, by presumptuous ignorance 
 and party spleen, when men write as Fox does of St. 
 Francis. I give the following as a specimen of that style 
 and spirit to which I have a " personal dislike ;" and I 
 entreat the gentlemen who have caused it to be reprinted, 
 to come forward and tell the church and the world whether 
 they have a " personal liking" for it, and whether,' in their 
 deliberate judgment, it is the way in which the history of 
 the church should be written. 
 
 " The order of the minors, or minorite friars, descended from one Francis, 
 an Italian, of the city of Assisium. This Assisian ass, who, I suppose, was some 
 simple and rude idiot, hearing, upon a time, how Christ sent forth his disciples 
 to preach, thought to imitate the same in himself and his disciples, and so 
 left oif his shoes : he had but one coat, and that of coarse cloth. Instead of a 
 latohet to his shoe, and of a girdle, he took about him a hempen cord, and 
 so he appareled his disciples ; teaching them to fulfil (for so he speaketh) 
 the perfection of the gospel, to apprehend poverty, and to walk in the way 
 
LETTER VII. 85 
 
 of holy simplicity. He left, in writing, to his disciples and followers, his 
 rule, which he called ' Regulam Evangelicam,' the rule of the gospel. As 
 though the gospel of Christ were not a sufficient rule to all Christian men, 
 but it must take its perfection of frantic Francis. And yet, for all that great 
 presumption of this Francis, and notwithstanding this his rule, sounding to 
 the derogation of Christ's gospel, he was confirmed by this Pope Innocent. 
 Yea, and such fools this Francis found abroad, that, not only he had followers 
 of his doltish religion, both of the nobles and unnobles of Rome, but also 
 some there were who builded mansions for him and his friars. This Francis, 
 as he was superstitious in casting all things from him, as his girdle, girding 
 a cord about him ; so, in outward chastising| of himself, so strait he was 
 to his flesh, leaving the ordinary remedy appointed by God, that in the winter 
 season he covered his body with ice and snow. He called poverty his Lady ; 
 he kept nothing overnight. So desirous he was of martyrdom, that he went 
 to Syria to the Saladin,* who received him honourably ; whereby it may be 
 thought that surely he told not the truth, as St. John Baptist did in Heiy)d's 
 house, for truth is seldom welcome in courts,+ and in the world. But it is hard 
 to make a martyr of him who is no true confessor. I will here pass over the 
 fable how Christ and his saints did mark him with five wounds. These 
 Franciscan, or begging friars, although they were all under one rule and 
 clothing of St. Francis, yet they be divided into many sects and orders ; some 
 go on treen shoes, or pattens ; some, barefooted ; some are regular Francis- 
 cans, or observants ; some, minors, or minorites ; others be called 'minimi ;' 
 others, of the gospel ; others, ' de caputio.' They all differ in many things, 
 but accord in superstition and hypocrisy." ii. 351. 
 
 In another place, Fox says — 
 
 " What was in St. Francis (look upon his superstitious life, and presump- 
 tuous testament, wrought no doubt by Satan to diminish and obscure the 
 Testament of Jesus Christ),? why he should be made a saint, and not an 
 enemy, rather, of Christ?" iii. 389. 
 
 I offer this as one specimen, and I hope to produce others, 
 in justification of my disUke to the spirit and style of the 
 work ; but, in the meantime, I must ask all sober-minded 
 men what good can be expected from reprinting such trash ? 
 
 * It is very characteristic of this work that one can hardly ever quote a 
 passage for any particular purpose without observing something by the way 
 which shews carelessness, or want of information, on the part of the author, 
 or the editor, or both. Fox evidently thought (and the editor acquiesces) 
 that Soldan and Saladin were the same words, or meant the same thmg. 
 Beside the present instance there are two others, ii. 454. 
 
 t Have we not heard somethmg of Queen Elizabeth's great regard for 
 " Father Fox ? " . . 
 
 t Can anythmg be more absurd and ill-natured ? Would it not be quite 
 as faff to say that Fox's Acts were wrought by Satan to obscure and diminish 
 the Acts of the Apostles ? 
 
86 ' LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 Is it to convert papists, or to instruct protestants ? or to 
 persuade the world that the church of England has no re- 
 source against Rome but railing and calling names ? 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 (January 1838.) 
 
 I HAVE taken a good deal of trouble, and occupied much 
 space, in vain, if I have not shewn by the preceding letter 
 that what I object to in the spirit and style of Fox's work 
 is not coarseness of phraseology, or anything that can be 
 met by talking of an unpolished age, or the language of 
 Fox's contemporaries. I am not complaining of his calling 
 St. Francis an " ass," or a " rude idiot," who found " fools" 
 that followed his " doltish religion," though I do not parti- 
 cularly admire such language, or see why it should be 
 reprinted by those who would not use it ; but, in fact, 
 I am not speaking of language at all, except as it is an 
 indication (as indeed it is the vehicle) of spirit and feehng ; 
 and by " style," I mean the mode in which the work is 
 executed, under the influence of that spirit and feeling, 
 rather than anything relating to taste or literary composi- 
 tion. I mean the light in which persons and events are 
 placed, the constant occurrence of ill-natured insinuation 
 and petulant remark, the incessant mocking, bantering, 
 and insulting of the papists, not merely as if they were 
 enemies, (for they might claim some charity, or at least 
 some compassion, from a Christian,) but as if they were 
 creatures whom it was quite proper to loathe and to deride. 
 All that was said or done by papists, even before there were 
 protestants, seems to have been, in Fox's view, a fair sub- 
 
LETTER VIII. 87 
 
 ject for sarcasm, banter, and ridicule. He appears to have 
 thought that the proceedings of "the wicked and cursed 
 trains of these Eomish rakehells," 367, 393, could not be 
 recorded in language too contemptuous and abusive. Even 
 the most solemn acts of devotion, (or hypocrisy — ^they must 
 have been one or the other,) if performed by the " shaven 
 rabble," the " mischievous progeny of Antichrist," 333, 
 were subjects for raillery; and very rich, though rather 
 coarse fun might be extracted from " the shavelings who, 
 with small devotion or none at all, patter and chatter a 
 new-found song, ' Secundum usum Sarum,' " iii. 289. He 
 seems to have delighted to represent whatever they did in 
 the most invidious and hateful light ; and were it not that I 
 postpone the inquiry about correctness, I should feel bound 
 here to add something more than a mere allusion to a 
 species of colouring which I know not how to reconcile with 
 common honesty. 
 
 To recur to the instance of St. Francis. What can be 
 more childish or more ill-natured than to insinuate that, by 
 drawing up a rule for his followers, he intended to super- 
 sede, or represent as imperfect, the gospel of Christ as the 
 rule of Christians ? or pretending that there was any " dero- 
 gation" of the gospel in the matter at all, or that " his pre- 
 sumptuous testammf was " wrought, no doubt, by Satan, 
 to diminish and obscure the Testament of Jesus Christ?" * 
 
 * When I noticed this in my preceding letter, I asked, " Would it not be 
 quite as fair to say that Fox's Acts were wrought by Satan to obscure and 
 diminish the Acts of the Apostles V I was not then aware (though I think 
 Fox must have been) that the title had been seriously objected to on these 
 very grounds. He made a great deal of use of Crispin's " Actiones et moni- 
 menta Martyrum," in which the compiler says, in the " Admonitio," pre- 
 fixed to the edition of Geneva, 1560, "Ei-unt fortasse Critici, qui inscrip- 
 tionem aliam aliquam quam aut Actorum aut Actionmm desyderent (quani 
 tamen inscriptionem, et in priore olim editione, et in hac posteriore sequuti 
 sumus) quoniam nomen illud augustum, singulari quodam ac proprio quo- 
 rumdam minime malorum hominum prejudicio solis apostohs attributura, 
 
 n 
 
88 LKTTEKS ON FOX. 
 
 It is very curious and illustrative that Fox, who seems so 
 scandalized at St. Francis's publishing a work under such a 
 title, and who, on the ground of its mere name, represents 
 it as an undoubted work of the devil, should elsewhere give 
 us a treatise, written by WiUiam Thorpe, " under the name 
 and title of his testament;' iii. 282. He does not pretend 
 to know what was in the work of St. Francis, but he sets 
 forth the very name as a reason why we should count him 
 an enemy of Christ. He gives Thorpe's treatise at full 
 length, and tells us that he was a " good man, and blessed 
 servant of Grod." We may suppose that he saw some 
 peculiar merit in the work, which overcame his dislike to 
 its profane title. He thought it " not meet to be left out ;" 
 and there are those who think that it ought to be now 
 reprinted ; and, therefore, (though it is rather anticipating,) 
 I wiU here transcribe OoUier's account of it, which may 
 shew that I am not quite singular in my " personal dislike" 
 of some of the doctrines contained in Fox's work. 
 
 " This historian transcrihes another discourse of this Lollard's ; 'tis called 
 Thorp's Tesia/ment : 'tis a violent invective against the hierarchy, and dis- 
 covers a great deal of heat, ignorance, and enthusiasm. He falls blindly 
 upon the whole order, without reserve or exception : he insists mainly upon 
 reforming the church to apostolical poverty, would have the bishops and 
 priests work for their livings ; and when they were past their labour, to 
 subsist upon the charity of the people. He addresses all Idngs and empe- 
 rors, lords and ladies, to reduce the clergy to a state of beggary and 
 dependence. In short, he endeavours to raise the government upon the 
 church ; presses destructive expedients, charges the people to forsake the 
 public communion, and pretends to foretel, that imless the clergy are thus 
 harass'd and renounc'd, they'l draw down the judgments of heaven upon 
 the kingdom, and the nation will be destroy'd with pestilence and famine. 
 His reason for exhorting the people to desert the communion of the then 
 church is founded upon the misbehaviour of the clergy : but this ground is 
 clearly indefensible. To argue in this manner is to make the validity of the 
 
 rerum publico gestarum publicam et popularem memoriam potius, quam 
 privatae rei rationem aliquam contineat. Quibus criticis ut aliquid darem, 
 et interim instituti nostri rationem etiam habere videremur, Actioius libenter, 
 quae quibusque vel rebus vel personis accommodari possunt inscribere 
 maluimus." 
 
LETTER VIIT. 89 
 
 sacraments depend upon the qualifications of the priest, and not upon the 
 institution of our Saviour, which doctrine is a contradiction to Catholic be- 
 lief, and expressly condemned in the Articles of the church of England. 
 However, after all this furious zeal, false reasoning, and intemperate railing, 
 Fox gives Thorp the character of ' a good man and blessed servant of God.' " 
 — Eccles. Hist. i. 625. 
 
 Further as to St. Francis — if my former letter had not 
 been so long, and I had been able when I sent it conve- 
 niently to refer to the edition of 1583, and to see whether 
 my recollection was accurate, I should not have let pass 
 what Fox says of the difficulty of making a martyr of St. 
 Francis, without pointing it out as a specimen of the spirit 
 in which the work is written. It is, he says, hard to make 
 a martyr of him who is no true confessor. But on what 
 ground does he assume that Francis was not a true confes- 
 sor ? Merely the civihty of the sultan ; he does not pre- 
 tend to have any other ground for representing him as one 
 who did not confess Christ, though he admits that he went 
 to the sultan with full knowledge of the risque which he 
 was incurring, "so desirous was he of martyrdom." Of 
 course I do not mean that Fox ought to have represented 
 him as a martyr ; but I mean that it was inconsistent, and 
 illustrative of the spirit of the writer, thus pointedly to 
 deny to a man who really sought martyrdom a name which 
 he was so ready to confer upon anybody who could by the 
 utmost stretch be made to appear an- enemy of Rome, or a 
 sufferer by the practising of proud prelates. I say nothing 
 at present of cases which have been questioned as to fact, 
 and in which it is promised that Fox shall be vindicated ; 
 but what more complete illustration could I give than his 
 contriving to "make a martyr" of Fluentius, whom the 
 pope forbade to preach about Antichrist? Supposing, as 
 those who make out a line of witnesses, without regard to 
 common sense, would have us, that, by preaching the actual 
 birth of Antichrist, he meant any allusion to the pope or 
 
90 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 the papacy— suppose that calling the pope Antichrist, while 
 he acknowledged him as his ecclesiastical superior, was the 
 sum and substance of the gospel, and the true way of 
 preaching it— suppose all this, which is, I believe, entirely 
 absurd and groundless, yet is it not deluding the Christian 
 church to set forth this man as one of the noble army 
 of martyrs, because his acknowledged ecclesiastical superior, 
 without doing him the least injury in person or property, 
 told him to hold his tongue ? * 
 
 I have said that Fox seems to have considered everything 
 done by the papists as a fit subject for raillery ; and having 
 mentioned Collier, I will here transcribe his testimony on 
 that point, before I proceed to some other proofs. He 
 says — 
 
 " And tho' I have no design to charge this historian with insincerity, yet 
 'tis plain his prejudices and passions governed his pen in some cases. To 
 give only two instances : — This martyrologist confesses, that Augustin the 
 monk wrought miracles among the Saxons at his first coming over : and yet 
 after this acknowledgment of a divine attestation, he treats him with very 
 rugged language for refusing to rise to the Welsh hishops, charges him 
 
 * If the reader refers to the new edition, ii. 172, he will see, " Ahout the 
 same time, a.d. 1101, the bishop of Fluence began to teach and to preach of. 
 Antichrist then to be born and to be manifest, as Sabellicus testifieth ; 
 whereupon Paschal assembling a council, put to silence the said bishop, and 
 condemned his books. In this council at Trecas, priests who were married 
 were condemned for Nicolaitans." We may observe by the way that the 
 " general reader" would suppose that the condemnation of Fluentius had . 
 taken place at the council of Trecas ; but let this pass ; the point to be 
 noticed is, that the Editor has omitted Fox's statement in distinct terms 
 that Fluentius was a martyr. The marginal note, "The Bishop of Fluence a 
 martyr," (19fi) is not to be found in the new edition. Why ? It may have 
 been merely put out by the printer for his convenience, as interfering with 
 the date at the top of page 173 : but everybody who knows that a main part 
 of the eonti'oversy about the value of Fox's work has turned upon the 
 charge that he could " make a martyr" with too great facility, must see that 
 such an omission is important, and that if it is to be attributed (as I really 
 believe it should be) to ignorance and carelessness, rather than to any 
 intention of dishonest suppression, it shews that, even on points which have 
 been most controverted, we must not trust to the new edition for a full and 
 faithful representation of Fox's statements. 
 
LETTEK VIII. Ql 
 
 with Pharisaical solemnity, rallies upon his behaviour, and is displeased to 
 find ' his lordship so high, so heavy, or so proud.' p. ISO. 134. Now, grant- 
 ing this prelate had some of the infirmities of humane nature about him, 
 and fail'd in the manner of his salutation : granting he gave too broad signs 
 of his superiority, and pushed his claim too far, which I do not deny ; yet 
 one would have thought the charity and fatigue of the undertaking, his 
 supernatural credentials, and the glorious success of his mission, might have 
 secured a respect to his memory, and skreened him from coarse usage. 
 
 " Another instance of Fox's judgment being misled by his fancy may be 
 met with in the reign of King John. He tells us, ' Among divers conditions 
 belonging to this king, one there was which is not in him to be reprehended 
 but commended rather ;' that is, ' when the king saw a fat stag broken up, 
 he said. How easily and happily he has lived, and yet for all that he never 
 heard any mass.' And thus, in Fox's opinion, the king is not to be blam'd, 
 but rather commended, for talking like an infidel, and passing a profane jest 
 upon the most solemn part of his religion : For notwithstanding the objec- 
 tions Fox and we of the Reformation may have against the mass. King John 
 pretended no dissatisfaction in this matter. This droll therefore upon the 
 worship and belief of his own communion, must be altogether inexcusable." 
 i. 647. 
 
 The same historian makes the following remarks on Fox's 
 mode of relating the proceedings on occasion of the sup- 
 posed pregnancy of Queen Mary : — 
 
 " In the latter end of November, the Queen's being with child was gene- 
 rally believed at court : the council sent a letter to Bishop Bonner, to draw 
 up a form of thanksgiving upon the occasion, and order Te Deum to be sung 
 
 in all churches of his diocese the parUament did not question the 
 
 truth on't : this is plain, by their making an act to provide for the education 
 of the Queen's issue, together with a preamble of thanks to God Almighty, 
 for her being with child. 
 
 " Upon this expectation, there were prayers printed and dispersed about 
 the kingdom. The purport of them was, that God would send the Queen a 
 good hour, support her government, and protect her from rebellion. The 
 address is made immediately to God, without any application to saints or 
 angels. This prayer Fox takes the freedom to ridicule, which is somewhat 
 extraordinary. Did this martyrologist believe dominion founded in grace 1 
 Did he conceive the Queen's title depended on her orthodoxy ? And that 
 she had forfeited her crown by declaring for popery ? If this was not his 
 opinion, he must grant her subjects were bound to pray for the repose 
 of her government. There had been two rebellions in her reign already, 
 and therefore one would think 'twas highly seasonable to pray against a 
 third ; However, Fox thought fit to rally their devotion with this sentence 
 in the margin — ' Cry up louder, you priests, peradventure your god is 
 asleep !' As if their devotions had been directed to Baal or Ashtaroth : as 
 if the papists had worshipped one God, and the protestants another. I 
 can't perceive the martyrologist had any right to Elijah's sarcasm. His 
 zeal, without doubt, was too much unbittered : He was plainly ridden by his 
 passion, and pushed by disaffection towards profaneness." Vol. ii. 374. 
 
 O 
 
92 LETTEES ON FOX. 
 
 Again, suppose such a thing in any cathedral as a dispute 
 between the archbishop and the dean — suppose it to go so 
 far as that they should publickly insult each other in the 
 house of Grod, and even in the time of divine service — 
 suppose that service outrageously broken up — this followed 
 by a popular tumult, the dean and treasurer flying for their 
 lives, and the archbishop excommunicating them. It might 
 be worth while, in local history, or in the details of biography, 
 to relate it minutely, or there might perhaps be circumstances 
 connected with it such as should require it to be noticed by 
 the general historian among the acts and monuments of the 
 church. This I acknowledge, and I will (if it be thought 
 that candour towards Fox requires it) suppose that, in the 
 case to which I allude, the archbishop, and the dean, and 
 all the " shaven rabble," were mere hypocrites, their " divine 
 service, as they call it," blasphemous mockery, and that 
 they are even now sunk in hopeless misery for their pre- 
 sumptuous sin — but still I will ask the reader whether he 
 thinks that any historian, influenced by that spirit which 
 can have compassion on them that are ignorant, and out of 
 the way, could tell the story of their " brawl" as a good 
 jest, in a style of banter and raillery ? If I had not been 
 " convicted" of it, I would freely plead guilty to a " personal 
 dislike" of any history of Christ's church, even in its 
 deepest and darkest ignorance and folly, (or, if men will, its 
 most sinful apostasy,) which is written in such a style and 
 spirit as the following : — 
 
 " In the year next ensuing, a.d. 1190, at the heginning of it, being 
 Twelfth-even, fell out a foul northern brawl, which turned well near to 
 a fray, between the archbishop, newly elected of the church of York 
 and his company, on the one side, and Henry, dean of the said chiu'ch, 
 with his Catholic partakers, on the other side, upon occasion as foUoweth : 
 Gaufrid, or Geffrey, son of King Henry II. and brother to King Richard, 
 whom the King had elected a little before to the archbishopric of York, 
 upon the cTen of the Epiphany, which we call Twelfth-day, was disposed to 
 hear even-song with all solemnity in the cathedral church, having with him 
 Hammon the chanter, with divers other canons of the church. The arch- 
 
LETTER VIII. 93 
 
 bishop tarrying something long, helike in adorning and attiring himself, in 
 the meanwhile Henry the dean, and Bueard the treasurer, disdaining to 
 tarry his coming, with a bold courage lustily began .their holy even-song, 
 with singing their psalms, rufHing of discant, and merry piping of organs. 
 Thus, this catholic even-song, with as much devotion begun, as God's high 
 service proceeding, was now almost half complete, when, at length (they 
 being in the midst of their mirth) in cometh the newly elect with his train 
 and guardians,* all full of wrath and indignation, for that they durst be so 
 bold, not waiting for him, to begin God's service, and so eftsoous commanded 
 the choir to stay and hold their peace. The chanter likewise, whose name 
 was Hammon, by virtue of his office, commanded the same. But the dean 
 and treasurer, on the other side, willed them to proceed ; and so they sung 
 on, and would not stint. Thus, the one half crying against the other, the 
 whole choir was in a roar, their singing was turned into scolding, their 
 chanting to chiding ; and if, instead of the organs, they had had a drum, I 
 doubt they would have ' sol-fa-ed' by the ears together. 
 
 « At last, through the authority of the archbishop, and of the chanter, 
 the choir began to surcease and give silence. Then the newly elect, not 
 contented with what had been sung before, with certain of the choir began 
 the even-song over again. The treasurer not thinkmg to take such a foil, 
 caused all the tapers and candles to be put out, and so their unhappy even- 
 song was ceased again. For like as without the light and beams of the sun, 
 there is nothing but darkness in all the world, even so you must understand 
 the pope's church can see to do nothing, and that the popish even-song is 
 blind, without candlelight, yea, though the sun should shine in the choir 
 never so clear and bright ; by reason whereof they went away even-song- 
 less, and so left their God in the church, that night, unserved. This being 
 so, the archbishop, thus disappointed on every side of his purpose, made a 
 grievous plaint, declaring to the clergy and to the people what the dean and 
 treasurer had done ; and so upon the same, suspended both them and the 
 church from all divine service, till they should make to him due satisfaction 
 for their trespass. 
 
 " Where note, by the way, good reader, that either the singing of the 
 popish service doth little serve to God's honour, or else how could this arch- 
 bishop be so injurious to God, to stop him of his honour because they had 
 dishonoured him ! But to the purpose again. The next day, which was 
 the day of Epiphany, when all the people of the city were assembled in the 
 cathedral church, as their manner was (namely, in such feasts), devoutly to 
 hear divine service, as they call it, of the church, there were also present 
 'the archbishop and the chanter, with the residue of the clergy, looking 
 when the dean and treasurer would come and submit themselves, making 
 satisfaction for their crime. But they, still continuing in their stoutness, 
 refused so to do, exclaiming and uttering contemptuous words against the 
 archbishop and his partakers. When the people heard this, they in a great 
 
 * The Editor puts the following note : — " ' Gardevian,' one who collects 
 the spiritualities of a bishopric during a vacancy in the see." I should like 
 to know where the Editor learned this, or whether he only put it down as a 
 guess. I have been led to suppose that the very person whom the arch- 
 bishop found in the cathedral and his " Catholic partakers" (that is to say, 
 the dean and chapter) were the guardians of the spiritualities in such cases. 
 
94 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 rage would have fallen upon them ; but the archbishop would not euffei* 
 that. The dean then and his fellows, perceiving the stir of the people, for 
 fear, like pretty men, were fain to flee, some to the tomb of St. William of 
 York ; some ran into the dean's house, and there shrouded themselves, 
 whom the archbishop then accursed. And so, for that day, the people 
 returned home without any service." ii. 278. 
 
 I do not know whether the reader may think the forego- 
 ing specimen actually profane ; but I will mention some others 
 which seem to me completely to fall under that description. 
 I have elsewhere noticed Reinerius Saccho's statement, that 
 the early Waldenses undertook to translate the scriptures 
 from the Latin ; and that, being uneducated and ignorant 
 men, they misunderstood several passages, from being misled 
 by a degree of similarity in words which had very different 
 meanings. Among other examples, he specifies that in the 
 passage, " He came unto his own, and his own (sui) received 
 him not," (sui non receperunt eum,) they mistook sui for 
 sues, and translated it by smne. lUyricus, when he quoted 
 the passage in his " Oatalogus Testium," had the impudence 
 to attempt getting over this plain statement about Walden- 
 sian learning, by writing in his margin, " Est pius jocus." 
 Fox, following him, boldly asserts that they so translated 
 intentionally, " rather merrily than unskilfully ;" and we read 
 in his margin, (either because he misunderstood the words 
 of Illyricus, though then one does not see where he found 
 the merriment, or from a misprint in his own book,) " Est 
 pius locus in lascivos sacerdotes." He actually tells us, 
 " They rather merrily than unskilfully [that is, these persons 
 whom he represents as eminently holy, intentionally and in 
 fun, while pretending to translate the word of God] ex- 
 peunded the words of St. John, ' Sui non receperunt eum^ 
 ' swine did not receive him.' " ii. 269. It was a pious joke 
 against lewd priests, whom Fox seems to have considered as 
 very fit subjects for a joke. Indeed, unless it arose from 
 its being levelled against these sinful and unhappy men, I 
 
LETTEE VIII. do 
 
 &m at a loss to conceive wherein the piety of the joke con- 
 sisted. Simply considered, there surely cannot be much 
 piety in a merry quibble on words which record the most 
 dreadful sin that man has committed, the most deplorable 
 truth that has come to his knowledge. 
 
 Again, can any man who believes in the existence of 
 Satan as a serious reality, cordially enter into the fun of 
 " the device or counterfeit of a certain letter, feigned under 
 the name of Lucifer, prince of darkness, written to the 
 proud and persecuting prelates of the popish clergy " ? iii. 
 190. Can any Christian man, I do not say admire, but dare 
 to vindicate, such ribaldry as, " I, Lucifer, prince of dark- 
 ness and profound heaviness, emperor of the mysteries of the 
 king of Acheron, captain of the dungeon, Erebus, king of 
 hell,* and controller of the infernal fire : To all our children 
 of pride, and companions of our kingdom ; and especially to 
 our princes of the church of this latter age and time, (of 
 which our adversary, Jesus Christ, according to the prophet, 
 saith, ' I hate the church or congregation of the wicked,') 
 send greeting," &c. ? Fox tells us that he found this piece 
 of profane jesting " inserted among the tractations of Walter 
 Brute, and devised, as the register saith, by the LoDards." 
 The history of this Walter Brute, to whom, or to his com- 
 panions, Fox clearly supposed the document to belong, 
 though he says, " Who was the true author of this poesy or 
 epistle above written, it is not evidently known, neither doth 
 it greatly skill," occupies more than the fifty preceding 
 pages ; and Fox says of him, " the tractation of whose dis- 
 course, as it is something long, so therein may appear diverse 
 things worthy to be read and considered. First, the mighty 
 operation of God's Spirit in him, his ripe knowledge, his 
 modest simplicity, his valiant constancy, his learned tracta- 
 
 * This turning of a place into a person, by wrong punctuation, is con- 
 tinued from the old edition. 
 
96 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 tions, and manifold conflicts sustained against God's ene- 
 mies." I do not mean to say that there was the least pro- 
 bability of its having been written by this man,* but only to 
 shew Fox's idea of the person of whom he supposed it not 
 improbable that he might be the author. It seems to me 
 that the very date of the letter would lead one rather to 
 suppose that it was written (to say the least) in the style of 
 those who make a mock at sin, than of those who write 
 under the influence of really Christian principles and feelings : 
 — " Given at the centre of the earth, in that our dark place, 
 where all the rabblement of devils were present specially for 
 this purpose called unto our most dolorous consistory ; under 
 the character of our terrible seal, for the confirmation of the 
 premises." I hope I shall not be thought fastidious when I 
 say that this seems to me to be sad stuff", in point of both 
 taste and religion. It may come with " great show of piety" 
 out of Messrs. Seeley's shop, and it may form (without one 
 hint of disapproval) a part of a "truly admirable work," 
 which the gentlemen who recommend it may be anxious to 
 circulate ; but I wonder what would have been said if such 
 a " letter from the fiends infernal to the clergymen" had 
 been issued, by way of a "pius jocus," from Bartlett's 
 Buildings ? 
 
 * Nor do I here enter into any observations on the fidelity of the version. 
 Fox professes to give it " ad verhum" from the Hereford Register, to which 
 I have not at present the means of referring. It may perhaps agree with 
 that better than it does with any copy of the original that I have seen. 
 Illyricus tells us, in his Catalogus Testium (Edit. 1608, p. 1887), that he 
 published it in 1549, and that he had since seen an edition printed in 1 509. 
 I have seen one which was, I think, printed about or in the year 1 498. Fox 
 is obviously copying Illyricus in what follows about these infernal letters ; 
 and the carelessness with which he does it may be seen by the fact, that the 
 letter which he styles one of " diverse others" bearing the title of " Lucifer 
 ad males principes ecclesiasticos," is expressly stated by Illyricus to be 
 '' eandem epistolam ;" at least it is so stated in the edition of the Catalogus 
 tp which I have referred above, and I have no reason to doubt that it stood 
 so in the edition which Fox used, though I have not at present the means of 
 comparing it. 
 
LETTER VIII. 97 
 
 I do sincerely hope that I am not misled by any capricious 
 dislike, or professing any such peevish and pharisaical nicety, 
 as should offend the gentlemen who are the avowed instiga- 
 tors of this i-epublication, if I say that there appears to me 
 to be something awfully and disgustingly profane in a man''s 
 asking, " in the devil's name," why Christ died. Would 
 these gentlemen encourage their children to use such lan- 
 guage ? * 
 
 In Fox''s account of the council of Constance there is 
 another " pius jocus," which I feel some scruple about 
 reprinting, because it appears to me so exceedingly profane ; 
 but I know that many readers of this Magazine may not 
 have access to Fox's work, and that many of those who have 
 would not take the trouble to look out the passage : — 
 
 " This council, therefore, of Constance, which- was summoned by the 
 Emperor Sigismund and Pope John XXIII., about the nativity of our Lord 
 Jesus, anno 1414, began the same year to be assembled, about the latter end 
 of the year ; which first beginning, as the manner is, with a mass of the 
 Holy Ghost, as they were singing, according to their custom, their hymn, 
 ' Veni, Sancte Spiritus,' there was at the same time, a certain bill set up in 
 the church by some well Msposed man, as it seemed, wherein were contained 
 these words following : ' Aliis rebus occupati nunc, adesse vobis non possu- 
 mus ;' that is to say, ' We are otherwise occupied at this time ; we cannot 
 attend to come to you.' " iii. 417. 
 
 And lest this " pius jocus " should be passed over, there 
 is a marginal note — " A writing set up how the Holy Ghost 
 had no leisure to come to the council." I do not complain 
 that Fox, as a historian, thought fit to record this fact ; nor 
 even that he did it without expressing any disapprobation 
 of what seems to me so blasphemous ; my objection is 
 directed against his inference that the person who did it was 
 
 * See a marginal note— indeed, see all the marginal notes, but in parti- 
 cular see this one — on the translation of the canon of the mass, at vol. ii. 
 p. 1401, ed. 1583. When the priest prays that the sacrifice which he has 
 offered may avail to obtain remission for those for whom he has offered it. 
 Fox writes in the margin, " What the masse ? In the dmWs name, for what 
 intent then dyed Christ ?" 
 
 11 
 
98 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 a " well-disposed man." He considered it a creditable thing ; 
 and more than twenty pages further on we find him recur- 
 ring to it, and fairly adopting it. When " Master Paletz" 
 said, in the articles presented to the pope, " Wherefore, 
 most holy fathers, provide and take heed to yourselves, and 
 to the whole flock amongst whom the Holy Ghost hath 
 placed you ;" Fox wi-ites in his margin, " Master Paletz 
 lieth, for the Holy Grhost had no leisure to come to that 
 council.'" 
 
 In this part of the subject I am, of course, somewhat 
 restricted, because I avoid mentioning some cases which I 
 have happened to notice, where I believe the facts are mis- 
 represented or coloured, and which, therefore, come under 
 the question of Fox's correctness, which is, we are told, to 
 be fully vindicated. I am not (and do not wish to feign 
 myself) so simple as to expect that this promise of the pro- 
 spectus wiU be better kept than some others, or that Mr. 
 Townsend will do what I fully believe that no man can do ; 
 yet what he may do towards it I cannot tell until I see. 
 But, indeed, if the instances which I have mentioned, with 
 one or two half hours spent in running over merely the mar- 
 ginal notes, and looking at the caricature prints, do not 
 lead the reader to feel that there is solid ground for object- 
 ing to the style and spirit of the book, our ideas on the sub- 
 ject must be so completely different, that I should despair 
 of convincing him, and proceed at once to what is rather 
 more a matter of fact, and less a matter of taste — namely, 
 the aspect of the work as it regards the church of England. 
 This I hope to do ; and in the meantime I am, &c. 
 
LETTER IX, 99 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 (February, 1838.) 
 
 Considering all the circumstances of its republication, the 
 aspect of Fox's work as it regards the church of England is 
 yery important ; and I think it cannot be doubted by those 
 who will take the trouble to read a few extracts from the 
 volumes already published. Perhaps they require no comr 
 ment ; but at all events it will be best to give them first of 
 all with very little, and just in the order in which they hap- 
 pen to stand in the book — that is, for the most part, in the 
 order of time. I should be justly charged with unfairness 
 if I were to give only one or two specimens, and with pro* 
 lixity if I were to give all that offer themselves. I think, 
 however, that a few will make the matter clear, and that to 
 keep them within compass it will be best for the present to 
 limit them to two points, which are now so perpetually the 
 topics of popular discussion and controversy that it is pecu- 
 liarly important to ascertain, and make known, the bearing 
 of the work upon them. 
 
 What said the noble army of martyrs on these points S 
 What did they think and deliver on questions which are now 
 agitating the church and the world ? What do we find in 
 that " admirable work " which the " friends of the princi- 
 ples of the Reformation" are urged to buy on account of its 
 " peculiar seasonableness to meet all the fresh dangers from 
 popery in the present times ; and its intrinsic value, as 
 forming a sound standard of Reformation divinity;" and 
 which they are recommended to circulate, because "the 
 sound principles of the Protestant Reformation would be 
 ^effectually dissenainated through this medium ?" What is 
 
100 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 the doctrine of the work, or of the martyrs as set forth 
 therein, respecting the endowments and the ordees of 
 the church of England ? 
 
 Let us see by some extracts — " First beginning with 
 that godly man, whosoever he was, the author of the book 
 (his name I have not) entitled ' The Prayer and Complaint 
 of the Ploughman; " ii. 727. Fox thought it best " fo* 
 the utility of the book to reserve it from oblivion," and the 
 new edition calls it an " interesting document." I quote it 
 merely for the first of the two points which I have men- 
 tioned, though it so happens (and naturally enough, for the 
 two opinions are blended throughout, having been commonly 
 held by the same persons) that the first sentence represents 
 an order of priests as a trick of popery ; but let this pass^— 
 we are at present speaking of church property^ and the 
 expediency, nay the imperative duty, of church spoliation. 
 
 " A Lord ! he that clepeth himself thy viear upon earth, hath yordained 
 an order of priestes to doe thy service in church to fore thy lewd people in 
 singing matens, euen Song and masse. And therefore he chargeth lewd men 
 in pain of cursing, to hring to his priests tythinges and offeringes to finden his 
 priestes, and he clepeth that God's part, and due to priestes that seruen him 
 in church. But Lord, in the old law, the tUhings of the lewd people are 
 ever not due to priests, hut to that other childer of Leuye that serueden 
 thee in the temple, and the priest hadden their part of sacrifices, and thi 
 first bygetten beaates and other thinges as the lawe telleth. And Lord. 
 S. Paul thy servaunt saith, that the order of the priesthood of Aaron ceased 
 
 in Christes comming and the law of that priesthood." ii. 734 
 
 •' Lord, what dome is it to curse the lewd people for tythings, and not curse 
 the parson that robheth the people of tythings, and teacheth them not God's 
 
 law." ibid. 'JSJ "«% TO66«te thy sheepe of the tenth part Of 
 
 their trauell, and feden themaelfs in ease." ibid. 744. 
 
 " I doubt not gentle reader," if I may borrow the words 
 with which Fox follows up this document, though he appUes 
 them to another point, " but in reading this goodly treatise 
 above prefixed, the matter is manifest and plain of itself 
 without any further explication;" and therefore I may, as 
 he does, proceed to speak of Wicklifl: 
 
 Amongst the articles against this reformer collected by 
 
LETTER IX. 101 
 
 William Woodford, which Fox says were " collected or 
 rather wrested out of the books and writings" of the 
 reformer — though he adds that his opponents have " im- 
 pugned rather than confuted" them, and tells us that 
 though some wrote against them "as seemeth, for flattery, 
 rather than following any just cause so to do," while " some 
 there were again both learned and godly, who, taking the 
 part of Wickliff, without any flattery, defended the most of 
 the said articles openly in schools and other places " — are 
 the following : — 
 
 " 12. There is no greater heretic or Antichrist than that clerk who 
 teaeheth that it is lawful for priests and Levites, by the law of grace, to he 
 endued with temporal possessions. And if there be any heretics, apostates, 
 or blasphemers, these clerks be such. 
 
 " 13. It is not only lawful for the lords temporal to take away goods of 
 fortune from the churchmen, sinning usually, but also they are bound so to 
 do, under pain of eternal damnation." iii. 63. 
 
 Fox had previously given " The Conclusions of John 
 Wickliff, exhibited in the Convocation of certain Bi^ops 
 ^t Lambeth," and among them we find the seventeenth to 
 be as follows : — 
 
 " Whether they be temporal lords, or any other men, whatsoever they be, 
 who have endowed any church with temporalities, it is lawful for them to 
 take away the same temporalities, as it were by way of medicine, to avoid 
 siu, notwithstanding any excommunication or other ecclesiastical censure ; 
 forasmuch as they are not given but under a condition." iii. 11. 
 
 I do not know that Wickliff is unfairly represented in 
 this, which purports to be one of his conclusions; and I 
 only allude to the possibility of such a thing just to say that 
 in this case it makes no difference, as I quote the statement 
 not to shew or vouch for Wickliff's opinions, but merely as 
 the text on which Fox represents John Huss as comment- 
 ing in a long disputation, " most fruitful to be read ; proving 
 by four-and-twenty reasons out of the scriptures, that 
 princes and lords temporal have lawful authority and juris- 
 diction over the spiritualty and churchmen, both in taking 
 
102 IjETT^IlS.ON FOX. 
 
 from them, and in correcting their abuses according to their 
 doings and deserts." The whole disputation fills more than 
 eight of the small-printed pages of the new edition ; but one 
 or two extracts may be sufiicient for our purpose. The 
 sixteenth reason is as follows : — • 
 
 " Item, It is thus argued ; if God he, the temporal lords may meritoriously 
 and lawfully take away the temporal goods from the clergy, if they da 
 offend. For this point let us suppose that we speak of power as the true 
 authentic scripture doth speak [Matt. iii. 9], ' God is able even of these 
 stones to raise up children to Abraham.'. 
 
 " Whereupon it is thus argued : If God be, he is omnipotent ; and If he 
 so be, he may give like power unto the secular lords ; and so consequently' 
 they may meritoriously and lawfully use the same power. But, lest any 
 man object, that a proof made by a strange thing is not sufficient, it is 
 therefore declared that the temporal lords have power to take away their 
 alms bestowed upon the church, the church abusing the same, as it shall be 
 proved hereafter. And first thus : it is lawful for kings, in cases limited by 
 the law, to take away the moveables from the clergy when they do offend : 
 it is thus proved ; for the temporal lords are most bound unto the works of 
 greatest mercy most easy for them : but in case possible, it should be' 
 greater alms and easier temporal dominion, to take away their alms from 
 such as build therewithal unto eternal damnation, through the abuse 
 thereof, than to give the said alms for any bodily relief. Ergo the* 
 assumption is true. 
 
 " Whereupon first this sentence of the law of Christ in 2 Thess. iii., is 
 noted, where the apostle writeth thus : ' When we were amongst you, we 
 declared this unto you, that he that would not work, should not eat.' 
 Wherefore the law of nature doth license all such as have the governance of 
 kingdoms to correct the abuse of the temporalities, which would be the chief- 
 cause 6f the destruction of their kingdoms ; whether the temporal lords, or 
 any other, had endowed the church with those temporalities or not. It is 
 lawful for them in some cases to take away the temporalities, as it were by 
 way of physic to withstand sin, notwithstanding any excoinmunication, or 
 other ecclesiastical censure ; forasmuch as they are not endowed, but only 
 with condition thereunto aimexed. 
 
 " Hereby it appeareth, that the condition annexed to the endowing or 
 enriching of any church, is, that God should be honoured : which condition, 
 if it once fail, the contrary taking place, the title of the gift is lost, and 
 consequently the lord who gave the alms ought to correct the offence." 
 iii. 82. 
 
 This is, as I have said, the sixteenth reason. I earnestly 
 wish the reader to look at the others, though it does not 
 seem worth while to transcribe them ; and how anybody 
 could think it worth while to reprint such matter, I am at 
 a loss to imagine. The first is that Solomon deposed Abia- 
 
LETTER IX. 103' 
 
 tliar. 2. Nebuchadnezzar carried away the Israelites "to" 
 BabyloDi S. Jehoash sent the treasures of the temple to- 
 Hazael. 4. Hezekiah gave theni to the king of the Assyri- 
 ans. 5. That it is lawful in time of necessity to use any- 
 thing, be it ever so much consecrated. 6. Titus and 
 Vespasian had power given them by God to take away the 
 temporalities from the priests, &c. It is not worth while 
 even to catalogue such rubbish ; but we may just notice the' 
 beginning of the fourteenth reason, which stands rather 
 oddly in a work put forth as containing " the sound princi- 
 ples of the Protestant Eeformation ; " — " Item, the tem- 
 poral lords may take away the temporalities of such as use 
 simony,'" [not because they may properly deprive them of 
 what is not legally theirs, but] " because they are Tmretics!''' 
 The twentieth tells us — ■ 
 
 " Item, by lilce power may he who giveth a stipend or exhibition, with- 
 draw and take away the same from the unworthy labourers, as he hath 
 power to give the same unto the worthy labourers ; forasmuch then as 
 temporaUties of the elergy are tlie stipeiids of the laity, it followeth that tlie Im/^ 
 people may, by as good aidhorUy, take away again the same from the clergy who 
 will not worthily labour, as they might, by their power, bestow the same 
 upon those who would worthily* labour, according to the saying of the- 
 gospel [Matt, xxi.], ' The kingdom shall be taken away from you, saaA given, 
 unto a people which shall bring the fruits thereof.' 
 
 We are told in the recommendatory letter to which I am 
 obliged so frequently to allude, that -this "book is especially 
 suited " for the use of " our beloved Irish brethren," while 
 their " circumstances must too often preclude them from, 
 the purchase." And what has brought them into such 
 circumstances' but anti-tithe agitation I With all my heart 
 and soul I acquit the originators of this new edition of any. 
 intention, or any feeling of the kind ; but how could any 
 man devise more bitter mockery than to throw in their 
 teeth — under the profession, too^ of effectually disseminating 
 
 * [In the Magazine this was erroneously printed " not worthily."] 
 
104 BETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 " the sound principles of the Protestant Eeformation," and 
 under such a head hne as " the defence of wicklifee 
 BY JOHN Hirss," such matter as this — 
 
 "Item, the most easy reformation of the clergy to the life of Christ and 
 the Apostles, and the most profitable to the laity (that the clergy should not 
 live contrary to Christ), seemeth to be the withdrawing of their alms, and 
 the taking away of those things, which had been bestowed upon them. And 
 it is thus proved : that medicine is the most apt to be laid to the sore, 
 whereby the infirmity may soonest be holpen, and which is most agreeable 
 
 to the patients ; such is the taldng away of the temporalities " 
 
 " It seemeth, also, by the law of conscience to pertain unto the lay-people, 
 forasmuch as every man who worketh any work of mercy, ought diligently 
 to have respect unto the ability of them that he bestoweth his alms upon ; 
 lest by nourishing or helping loiterers, he be made partaker of their offence. 
 Whereupon, if priests do not minister in their spiritual things, as of their 
 tithes, first-fruits and oblations, as Hortiensis teaxiheth in his third book, the 
 PEOPLE (mgH to take away the alms of their tithes from them." 
 
 This the Irish clergy are to circulate through their 
 parishes, and if the ignorant people neglect to use their 
 salutary power, they are to send up petitions to her Most 
 Gracious Majesty, praying that she would, as in duty bound 
 on such petition, relieve them, for — 
 
 " Whatsoever any of the clergy doth require or desire of the secular 
 power, according xmto the law and ordinance of Christ, the secular power 
 ought to perform and grant the same. But the clergy, being hindered by 
 riches, ought to require help of the secular power, for the dispensation of 
 the said riches. Ergo, the secular power ought, in such case, by the law of 
 Christ, to take upon it the office or duty of getting, keeping, and distributing, 
 all such manner of riches." iii. 84. * 
 
 But let us proceed from Huss's defence of Wickliff to a 
 disputation of his own which occupies nearly five very close- 
 printed pages, and of which the proposition is that " Tithes 
 are pure alms." Could we be sure that it would only 
 
 * I trust that this reason may not be the less acceptable to those of my 
 brethren for whom the " book is especially suited," because it is the twenty- 
 fifth of the twenty-four reasons. At least, in perfect keeping with the whole 
 getting up of the work it is so called in the margin, and it seems as if there 
 were twenty-four without it. But perhaps as the title speaks of "four and 
 twenty reasons out of the Scriptures," we are to understand that the twenty- 
 fifth is from some other quarter, as in fact it seems to be. 
 
LETTER IX. 105 
 
 injure and mislead those who read and understand the 
 whole, we might consider it as harmless — ^but let us take a 
 specimen. 
 
 " Item, for the proof of this article. That tithes are pure alms, it is thus 
 argued. For this proposition. Tithes are pure alms, is infinite ; taking the 
 truth for many of its particularities. It is most certain that it is not 
 damnable, but most catholic, that God is something ; which being false in 
 all particulars, it is only true for that alone which doth surmount all kind. 
 Ergo, by like reason, this particular is true, tmiths are pure alms : for it is 
 thus proved. These tenths of a good layman being wholly distributed by 
 a faithful minister unto a needy layman, according to a good intent, how can 
 they be but pure alms, yea, and more pure than any alms given by any of 
 the clergy who may be a fornicator 2 The whole antecedent I suppose as 
 possible, and doubtful unto the condemnors, if it be true." iii. 91 . 
 
 He afterwards states in the same disputation ;^ 
 
 " It seemeth to follow, consequently, that all the clergy receiving such 
 alms are not only in respect of God, as all other men, but in respect of men, 
 beggars. For they would not so instantly require those alms except they had 
 need of them : neither ought we to be ashamed thereof, or to be proud 
 rs." ibid. 92. 
 
 And then, having quoted several of the fathers, &c., he 
 adds ; — 
 
 " By these sayings of these holy men it is evidently declared, that not only 
 tithes, but also all oilier substance which the clergy have by gift or itork of 
 mercy are pure alms, which, after the necessity of the clergy is once satisfied, 
 ought to be transported unto the poor." ibid. 93. 
 
 What is meant by satisfying "the necessity of the clergy," 
 will appear more fully as we proceed. In the meantime, I 
 will just say that perhaps the reader can hardly construe it 
 too strictly. Indeed the allowing them anything like super- 
 fluity was one of the faults against which Fox particularly 
 entered his own protest. In a note on the popish reasons 
 of " Bishop Edven " he says 
 
 " Concerning mens giving to the church in these our popish days, four 
 faults I note. 
 
 First that they give superfluously more than is sufficient to necessity of life." 
 u. 621. 
 
 To proceed, however, — Fox gives a list of the articles 
 ^exhibited against a priest named William Swinderby, before 
 
106 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 the Bishop of Lincoln, in a.d. 1389. He says, " in form 
 of words as they put them up, they might seem somewhat 
 strange to be here recited ; yet, to the intent that all men 
 may see the spiteful malice of these spider-friars, in sucking 
 all things to poison, and in forging that which is not true" 
 he gives them, and some are these ; — 
 
 " That if parishioners do know their curate to be a lecher, incontinent, and 
 an evil man, they ought to wthdramfrom him their tithes, or else they be fautors 
 of his sins. 
 
 " That tithes be purely cdtns, and that in case curates be evil men, the 
 Same may lawfully be conferred on other men." iii. 107. 
 
 These articles Swinderby abjured. Fox boldly declares 
 that " he had never preached, taught, or at any time de- 
 fended them, as appeareth more in the process following" 
 — that is to say, a process against him for subsequent pro- 
 ceedings in the diocese of Hereford, in which process (what- 
 ever may be said of some of the other articles) he seems to 
 me to make rather a lame business of these two ; though we 
 are of course to understand that Fox considered his ex- 
 planation quite satisfactory, 
 
 " The second conclusion, that false friars and lecherous priests putten upon 
 me was this : That if the parochiens know her curate to bene a lechour, in- 
 (iontinent, and an euill man, they owen to withdraw from him tithe ; and else 
 they bene fautours of his sinnes. 
 
 Thus I said not, but on this wise, and yet I say with protestation put 
 before ; That if it be knowne openlie to the people, that parsons or curates 
 come to their benefice by simonie, and liuen in notorie fornication, and done 
 not their office and her duties to her parochiens by good ensample of holie 
 life, in true preaching, living and residence, wending awaie from his cure, 
 occupied in secular office, he owes nought to have of the parochiens, tithes, ne 
 ■Offringes, ne hem owes not to hold him for their curate, ny hem owes not to genen him 
 tithes, lest they bin guiltie to God of consent and maintaining of her open 
 siime. ' Nemo mUitans Deo, implioat se negotiis secularibus,' 1. quest. 1. ca. 
 ' Quisquis per pecuniam,' and dist. 80. cap. ' Si quis.' 
 
 The third conclusion was this, that friers and prieates putten upon me ; 
 •That tUlies py/rdy bene almesses: and in case that curates bene euill men, they 
 mowen leefuUie be given to other men, by temporal! Lords, and other tempo- 
 ralties been done away from men of the church actuallie and openlie tres- 
 passing. 
 
 This I said not in these terms, but thus I say with protestation made be- 
 fore : That it were modefull and leeful to secular lords by way of charitiej 
 
 11 
 
LETTER IX. 107 
 
 and power geuen to hem of God, in default of Prelates that amend not by 
 God's lawe, cursed curates that openlie misusen the goods of holy church, 
 that ben poor mens goods and customahlie against the law of God : tlie tehich 
 poore men, lordes ben holden to maintaine and defend, to take ama/y and withd/raw 
 from such curates, poore mens goodes, the which they vyrongfullie holden in helpe of 
 the poore, and their owne willful oiferinges, and their bodily almes deeds, and 
 geue them to such that duly serue God in y^ church, and beene needy in 
 upbearinge of the charge that prelats shouldeu doe, and done it not. ' Alter 
 alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi.' And as anenste 
 taking awale of temporalities I say thus with protestation made before : 
 That it is leefuU to Kings, princes, dukes, and lordes of the worlde, to take 
 awaie fro popes, cardinals, fro bishops and prelates, possessiones in the 
 church, their temporalities, and their almes, that they have giuen them upon 
 condition they shoulden serue God the better, when they verelie sene that 
 their giuing) and their taldng bene contrarie to the law of God, to Chris(eS' 
 huing and his apostles : and namelie in that, that they taken vppon them 
 (that shoulden be next followers of Christ and his apostles in poorenesse and 
 meeknesse) to be secular lords : against the teaching of Christ and St. "Peter. 
 Luc. xxii. ' Reges gentium.' Et 1 Pet. v. ' Neque dominantes in clero.'. 
 And namelie when such temporalties maken them the more proud, both in 
 heart and in araie, then they shoulden bene else, more in strife and debate 
 against peace and charitie, and in euil ensample to the world more to be 
 occupied in worldly busmesse : ' Omnem solicitudinem proiicientes in eum ;' 
 and drawes them from the service of God, from edifying of Christes church, 
 in empouerishing and making less the state and the power of Kinges, princes,, 
 dukes, and lords that God hath set them in ; in wrongful oppression of com- 
 mons for vmnightfulnesse of realmes. For Paul saith to men of the church 
 (whose lore prelates shoulden soveraignlie followen), ' Habentes victum et 
 vestitum, hiis contenti simus.' " iii. 114, and see also p. 122. 
 
 One of the disciples of Swinderby was Walter Brute, 
 " a layman and learned of the diocese of Hereford" against 
 whom certain articles " touching the cause of heresy as 
 they call it" were set forth ; one of them being that ; — 
 
 " The aforesaid Walter hath said commonly, and avouched, and also hath 
 laboured to inform men and companies, that no man is bound to give tithes or 
 oblations ; and if any man will needs give, he may give his tithes and obla- 
 tions to whom he will, excluding thereby their curates." iii. 232. 
 
 Another article charges that ; — 
 
 " The aforenamed Walter hath openly, publicly, and notoriously, said, 
 avouched, and stubbornly affirmed, that the said William's" [that is, 
 William Swinderby's] " answers, (whereof notice hath been given before) 
 are good, righteous, and not able to be convinced in that they contain no 
 ^rror." 
 
 This case is the more worthy of notice, because it appears 
 
 a 
 
108 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 that Fox had occasional qualms about stating this doctrine 
 so very broadly as some of those whom he represents as 
 martyrs very commonly did. I have elsewhere remarked 
 that in the Articles of the Waldenses, which he professes 
 to give with most scrupulous accuracy, and which say that 
 the ministers of the church should be supported by alms 
 only, he has inserted the word tithes ; * and in this case, he 
 endeavours by marginal glosses to make the reader believe 
 that Walter Brute meant only to say (a thing vastly worth 
 saying, and which, I believe, few readers would discover in 
 his language) that Christians were not bound to pay tithes 
 by the Mosaic law. Fox's treatment of Walter Brute's 
 " more ample tractation" belongs however to another part 
 (if in default of vindication it must form a part) of the 
 subject. I am at present only speaking of the doctrine 
 held by those whom Fox represents as eminently holy men 
 respecting temporalities ; and though a great deal might be 
 quoted from this writer, yet perhaps a few words may suffice 
 to shew his opinion, not as stated by his enemies, but as 
 explained by himself ; — 
 
 " Wherefore, seeing that neither Christ, not any of his apostles, com- 
 manded to pay tithes, it is manifest and plain that neither by the law of 
 Moses, nor by Christs law Christian people are bound to pay tithes ; but by 
 the tradition of men they are bound." iii. 152. 
 
 This means only (as a note of Fox would have us believe) 
 " Tithes due, to be paid by the law of men." But as I 
 may have occasion to speak of him hereafter, it may be 
 sufficient now to say of Walter Brute that he is acknow- 
 ledged to have been a disciple of William Swinderby, and, 
 as we have already seen, is said to have affirmed that his 
 leader's answers did " contain no error." 
 
 After this account of Walter Brute, there is an anony- 
 
 * Review of Fox's History of the Waldenses. 
 
LETTER X. 109 
 
 Jnous letter also declaring that " the conclusions of Swin- 
 derby be agreeable to the faith in every part,^'' iii. 189. It 
 is subscribed (apparently without offence to either Fox or 
 his editor) " By the Spirit of God sometime visiting you." 
 I am afraid that these extracts may be rather tedious ; 
 but I cannot bring myself to apologize for their length ; for 
 in a matter so important, I would not make a man an 
 offender for a word, or attempt the proof by one or two 
 detached sentences. On the contrary, I consider these as 
 only prefatory, and serving to introduce some others which 
 I hope to send. 
 
 I am, &;c. 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 (March 1838.) 
 
 Any one who has read the preceding letter, will, I am 
 sure, most willingly forgive a digression ; for it was very 
 dry, and I am only afraid that the menace of continuation 
 which it contained may prevent some readers from looking 
 at this letter at a.11. Those, however, who have the courage 
 will allow me to make a digression, which I am led Into by 
 circumstances that have only just occurred. They lead me 
 to bring forward a part of Fox's work which I have not 
 noticed (though it is one of the first that met my eye in the 
 new edition) because it comes under the class of forged and 
 spurious documents ; and that is a matter which 1 wish to 
 see discussed by the gentleman who is pledged to vindicate 
 Fox's correctness before I say anything about it. 
 
 But really I feel less scrupulous about this than I did, 
 now that nearly seven months have elapsed without the pub- 
 
J 10 LETTKllS ON EOX. 
 
 lication of a single page.* If the work is to proceed at 
 this rate, it will be a long while before we get the prefaces 
 and vindication ; and all the while, some things which many 
 persons believe to be falsehoods, and which have been openly 
 challenged as such, are quietly circulating by thousands, 
 without any vindication at all ; but, at the same time, not 
 only with all the authority which the well-known and 
 respected names of the recommenders can give, but with a 
 certificate that in due time they shall be fully vindicated by 
 Mr. Townsend. 
 
 With regard to the story to which I now allude, I think 
 it probable that some readers may recollect to have heard 
 me say, soon after the appearance of the first-pubhshed 
 volume of Fox, that it would make as good a figure in 
 Exeter Hall as the real pope's letter, or something to that 
 effect ; and as my anticipation seems to be in the way to 
 be fulfilled, I wish first to say a few words about it by way 
 of prologue. I have not indeed heard of its being brought 
 out on the London boards, but it has been performed with 
 great effect on a provincial platform. I am the more 
 induced to notice it, too, because the speaker does not 
 appear to have obtained it from Fox, but shews that it is 
 to be met with in what I suppose to be a modern and popu- 
 lar work, but of which I only know (and that only because 
 he tells me) that it is called " The Protestant," and which 
 seems to have been known, and respected as an authority, 
 by both the speaker and hearers. 
 
 I have just seen the " Second Annual Report of the 
 Hereford Protestant Association, presented at the annual 
 meeting held in the Shire Hall on Tuesday, Nov. 7, 1837, 
 with the speeches of the Revs. Hugh M'Neile and R. J. 
 
 • Since I wrote the above Uie fifth vohune has been published after an 
 interval of just seven months. 
 
LETTER X. Ill 
 
 M'Grhee, &c. fcc." and in the speech of the former of these 
 gentlemen I find the following passage : — 
 
 " Oh, if there be a masterpiece of ingenuity stamped with the malice and 
 cunning of the devil himself, to take advantage of the- infirmities of men, to 
 plunge tliem into the depths of guilt hefore God, and to make them the 
 instruments of heart-broken anguish to their fair penitents, it is the celibacy 
 of the Romish clergy, combined with the confessional. (Shudders and 
 cheers.) It is, as I said, difiBcult to speak on this topic. Some of the facts 
 recorded in history are terrific. There is one you will find recorded in the 
 third volume of the Protestant, with the authority given. I have not the 
 book with me, and L cannot state with exactness where the passage is to be 
 found, but it is on, or near the 96th page of the volume. The authority is 
 there given, and the story relates, that so early as the Pontificate of Gregory 
 the Great^ there were found, in a fish-pond near Rome, 6,000 heads of 
 murdered infants ; that Gregory revoked the law of celibacy ; that it 
 remained revoked for 40 years ; and that it was put in force again by Martin. 
 Oh ! Facts might be put forward that would startle the hearer, but of 
 comrse they would be called calumnies." — p. 19. 
 
 For Mr. M'Neile I have a very sincere respect — one far 
 beyond, and of a higher character than any which could be 
 engendered by my thinking (as I really do) that he is the 
 most eloquent popular speaker whom I have ever heard. 
 But nobody is equally good at everything; and while I 
 think him almost unrivalled in the species of oratory neces- 
 sary to rouse a popular assembly to action, yet I believe 
 there are many others who would beat him at telling a 
 story. At any rate, in this case, either he or " The Pro- 
 testant" has spoiled a capital one. I think it can hardly be 
 his doing : he is anything but a milk-and-water man, and 
 yet the tale of the babes (not in the wood, but the water) is 
 given by him in so diluted a form, that supposing Mr. 
 M'Ghee to have known anything of the matter it might 
 have almost seemed his duty to cast off his colleague as a 
 traitor to the Protestant cause. Why, if the speaker had 
 exerted his very uncommon powers on the real " facts'" of 
 the case, instead of being put off with 'shudders and 
 cheers,' he might have had half the audience in fits ; and 
 if it should be served up to a London audience, I hope it will 
 
112 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 not be in the same meagre and defective way as to facts. 
 " A fishpond near Rome," says the speaker, — yes, indeed, 
 very near Rome ; why, it was the pope's own private, parti- 
 cular, personal fishpond ; and that pope not less a man 
 than Gregory the Great. Does he not know that the pre- 
 tended successor of St. Peter calls himself a fisherman, and 
 seals some of his letters (perhaps Mr. M'Neile's colleague, 
 who aims at nice discrimination in such matters, may tell 
 him which) with the annulus piscatoris ? I do not however 
 mean to say that the pope actually used to fish in this pond, 
 or as the original historian calls it (most unhappily in such 
 a story) this vivarium. Moreover, those who heard Mr. 
 M'Neile might suppose that these unhappy innocents, 
 found in the pond and pontificate of Gregory, had been 
 accumulating for ages, without learning that this very same 
 pope Gregory was the originator of the mischief. The real 
 story is, that he did himself issue the order for celibacy, 
 and afterwards retracted it on this manifestation of its 
 working. And it is highly necessary to notice this, because 
 on it depends another point of great importance, which 
 must aggravate the ' shudders and cheers' amazingly. The 
 whole time of Gregory's pontificate was less than fourteen 
 years. How long after its beginning he ordained celibacy, 
 or how long before its end he found these fruits of his order, 
 we are not told ; but some time must be allowed in regard 
 of both. Supposing him to have issued his edict as soon as 
 he became pope, we must not, I presume, allow any time 
 for a virtuous married clergy to stare at the thunder-clap, 
 and hesitate about putting away their wives, because, of 
 course, in that case, he would have put them, and their 
 wives too, into the inquisition — or if there did not happen 
 to be any inquisition, into the fishpond ; for no doubt, some 
 way or other, it was all fish that came to his net. But if we 
 must not allow any time for hesitation in those who may be 
 
LETTER X. 113 
 
 supposed to have worshipped him, and to have called him 
 (as somebody else is said to have done afterwards,) " Our 
 Lord God the Pope," * we must, I think, allow some time 
 (I had almost said some years) for a virtuous married 
 clergy as a body, to adopt a system. of concubinage, which 
 appears to have been considered by themselves so shameful 
 as to require secrecy, at such a hellish price. Beside this, 
 we must perhaps allow some time for mothers in so great 
 number to take up anything like a regular practice of infan- 
 ticide. I say ' in so great number ;' for can anybody sup- 
 pose that the children discovered accidentally in getting 
 a dish of fish from the pope's pond, were anything hke all 
 that the pond contained — or even that all the children 
 drowned in the pope's own particular pond formed more 
 than a very small part of those who were destroyed during 
 the period that the decree was in force? Supposing all 
 possible inducement (I know not whether to say of compli- 
 ment or insult, but we must suppose some great, though, as 
 far as I see, unexplained inducement) to have led the 
 wretches to a place where one would imagine that they 
 must have been specially exposed to detection — supposing 
 the pope's particular pond to have offered some peculiar 
 attraction, and to have met with a decided preference, yet. 
 
 • I shall be very much obliged to anybody who can give me the autho- 
 rity (if there is any) for this statement so commonly made by protestant 
 writers. In the new edition of Daubeny's Protestant's Companion, 1836, 
 p. 7) I read, "I beg to assure Dr. B. that the term papist is not used by me 
 as a title of reproach, but as an appellation universally understood, and 
 most appropriate to the members of the church of Rome ; it being particu- 
 larly distinctive of that class of religionists who have set up the pope as the 
 idol of their worship ; one of the titles given to this highly distinguished 
 personage being that blasphemous one of ' Ow Lard God the Pope.' " This 
 is of course a most awful charge, and I do not mean to say that it may not be 
 a very just one, but I have not yet been able to find any ground for it. Whaf 
 looks most like an authority is Usher's reference (De Chr. Ecc. Succ. cap. vi. 
 § 11,) to " Zenzelin. in gloss, exl/rav. Johcm. XXII. tit. 14. cap. 4. cum inter 
 prope fin. ;" but I do not see anything there which warrants the charge. 
 
114. LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 can we doubt that there were tens of thousands of priests^ 
 and mothers to whom other ponds were more handy, or 
 who on other grounds preferred some entirely different way 
 of kilUng their children ? And as we must allow some time 
 before the system could be brought into play, so we must 
 suppose that at whatever period of his pontificate Gregory 
 found these unfortunate children, they must have been a 
 good while in the pond, for fish of such stomach and swallow 
 that they could not dispose of the heads, must have been 
 some time making away with the other bones. Yet that 
 they had eaten them clean up seems to be the only supposi- 
 tion by which we can account for heads only being found. 
 
 It would be well then, I say, if we could learn how long 
 the order was in force, because it adds wonderfully to the 
 shudder-and-cheer power of the story to conceive of such 
 extensive wickedness taking place in what may have been a 
 very short, and cannot have been a long, time.* It could 
 hardly be so much as twelve years — but let us suppose it, 
 and it gives just five hundred children per annum — or 
 we may presume nearly a thousand parents (priests and 
 mothers) killing their own children so close under the pope's 
 nose that his own particular pond was selected for the pur- 
 pose. Is not that ' terrific'' ? Talk of ' shudders and cheers' 
 — surely if this had been fully set forth and enlarged on in 
 Mr. M'Neile's most eloquent and forcible manner, the most 
 moderate protestant would have been ashamed to offer less 
 than hysterics. 
 
 And let me observe, by the way, what a curious insight 
 it gives, quite incidentally, into some other matters. In 
 the first place, the pope, poor man, who was at the bottom 
 of all (except his own fishpond), knew nothing of the matter. 
 
 * Baronius quoting the Centuriators gives us their authority for saying it 
 was " paulo post." Not having the edition to which he refers, I have not 
 found the passage. 
 
 11 
 
tETTER X. 115 
 
 So little, even then, did the papists " look at home ;■"* or 
 abroad either, indeed, though one would have thought that 
 such a perpetual splashing would have made him put his 
 head out of window, especially if he sat, as his namesake 
 Hildebrand did, at an open one, "yea, and that in sharp 
 winter," ii. ]32.f Secondly, notwithstanding' the pope's 
 affectation and hypocrisy in keeping a fishpond so pubhcly 
 that anybody might go and put children in (and of course 
 take fish out, if they had not known better reason than he 
 did for letting them alone) can anybody believe that he 
 really kept the fasts of his church ? If there had been 
 regular fishing in his pond, could he have long continued 
 ignorant that it contained something beside fish ? .Indeed 
 we have no proof that there were any fish in it at all. 
 People might call it a fishpond, though it had no fish, just 
 as many protestants in the present day speak of the ' Romish 
 church,' while they do not believe it to be a church of any 
 kind. The pope certainly seems to have supposed that it 
 did ; for " on a certain day" — why we are not told, whether 
 to get such luxuries " as are commonly wont to be frequented 
 at the banquets and feasts of these holy prelates," J or to 
 
 * A bad habit of such long standing is not likely to be broken off at once, 
 or by a single pamphlet ; and it is to be hoped that Mr. Goliglitly will com- 
 municate more at large the information which he possesses. It is particu- 
 larly needed, and would be more likely to be of real service to the pro- 
 testant cause under present circumstances than all the meetings that have 
 been held, or the legends that have been made, since there were popes on 
 the earth. 
 
 + See the exceedingly droll picture of " Henricus the emperour with his 
 wife and chyld, barefoot and barelegged, waiting on Pope Hildebrand, three 
 days and three nightes, at the gates of Canusium, before he could be suffered 
 to come in." (l?!-) Had it been copied in the new edition it would, have 
 come at vol. ii. p. ] 28 ; but perhaps it was thought rather too gross, and 
 that it might raise a suspicion whether some of the other " curious wood 
 engravings executed under Fox's superintendence " do really contain portraits 
 that are worth carefully copying. 
 
 % See a filthy story of some "good prelates" in vol. iv. 485. The facts are 
 briefly these : — that after banqueting with notorious prostitutes sent for to 
 meet them at the house of the Bishop of Rieux, they fell, as usual, to dancing 
 
116 lETTERS ON VOX. 
 
 feign austerity in fasting, or from mere cruelty and desire 
 to destroy the fishes, and because he could not at the time 
 lay his hands on any human victims, — but for some reason 
 or other he " sent to his fishpond to have fish," which he 
 would hardly have done if he had known that it did not 
 contain any. Yet, as I have said, we have no proof that it 
 did; and, to speak my opinion freely, I think it quite as 
 probable that the children had eaten the fish, as that the 
 fish had eaten the children. 
 
 But, either way, is it not a wonderful story, and who that 
 hears the tale of the fishes and the human heads can help 
 ' shuddering and cheering' — spectatum admissi ? — for twelve 
 years, \ei us suppose (for otherwise we make the story too 
 wonderful by bringing too great a daily crowd of infan- 
 ticides round the pond) more than five hundred of the 
 children which were every year born in that most populous 
 and fertile neighbourhood and disposed of without enquiry 
 ■ — ^more, I say, than five hundred of them were every year 
 funded in the pope's own particular fishpond to be served up 
 to him all at once with ' shudders and cheers.' At least 
 we may hope that they produced that eflect, if we beHeve 
 the statement that he "did greatly repent in himself the 
 decree made before touching the single life of priests, which 
 he confessed to be the cause of that so lamentable a 
 murder ; " though how he came to know the parentage of 
 the children so certainly and immediately, I cannot imagine, 
 unless the little heads had shovel hats on. 
 
 I offer no apology for treating this story with the utmost 
 freedom, and endeavouring to hold it up to derision and dis- 
 gust. If there were men in former days who called them- 
 
 and dicing ; then led the women on their arms about the city of Avignon ; 
 and having in the course of their walk bought as many obscene images and 
 pictures " as a mule could well carry," they amused themselves, and their 
 infamous companions, by expounding and laughing over them in the public 
 streets. Do those who reprint this believe it to be true i 
 
LETTER X. 117 
 
 selves Protestants, and thought to assist the cause of reli- 
 gion, or any other cause, by forging dirty stories and father- 
 ing them on good men, we cannot help it now ; but we may 
 perhaps hope that their forgeries will be repudiated with 
 disgust, at least by those who were so greatly shocked at my 
 very excellent and learned friend's " ingenious device ;" be- 
 cause, though they did not venture to deny that the design 
 and execution of it were good, or to insinuate any but the 
 best motives, yet they were afraid of seeming to sully the 
 purity of their agitation by using even innocent fiction. 
 
 But Mr. M'Neile talks of the " authority," and he refers 
 to " The Protestant ;"" with which, as I have already said, 
 I am unacquainted. The origin and history of this dirty 
 stoi'y, however, are so well known, that we should probably 
 learn nothing more than we already know about it from 
 " The Protestant," though we may perhaps suspect some- 
 thing from it about " The Protestant." The " authority " 
 is a letter to a pope, (if it was a letter,) written by some- 
 body, (no one knows who,) at some time, (nobody knows 
 when,) which is given in Fox's work under the title of " A 
 learned epistle of Hulderike, Bishop of Augsburgh, sent to 
 Pope Nicholas I., proving that priests ought not to be 
 restrained from marriage ;" and containing the following 
 passage : — 
 
 " Notwithstanding tliere tie some who take St. Gregory for their defence 
 in this matter, whose temerity I laugh at, and ignorance I lament ; for they 
 know not heing ignorantly deceived, how dangerous the decree of this heresy 
 was (being made by St. Gregory), who afterwards well revoked the same, 
 with condign fruit of repentance. Fox upon a certain day, as he sent unto 
 his fishpond to have fish, and did see more than six thousand infants' heads 
 brought to him, which were taken out of the same pond or moat, he did 
 greatly repent in himself the decree made before touching the single life of 
 priests, which he confessed to be the cause of that so lamentable a murder. 
 And so purging the same with condign fruit of repentance, he altered again 
 the things which he had decreed before," &c. ii. 12. 
 
 > Now, at first sight this "learned epistle" from Ulric 
 Bishop of Augsburgh, to Pope Nicholas the First, looks 
 
118 LETTERS ON TOX. 
 
 very odd, and very like a " learned epistle from Bishop Por- 
 teus to Queen Ann ;" seeing that Nicholas was pope from 
 A.D. 858—867, and Ulric was bishop from a.d. 924 — 973. 
 To people who cavil about dates this is very discouraging ; 
 but the " never-mind " style of history has ineffable conve- 
 niences, and in this case it offers two easy expedients. 
 Screw up the pope or let down the bishop, till you bring 
 them into unison. There is, of course, a third expedient, 
 by which they might be made to meet half way ; but I do 
 not remember that any body has tried that. The others, 
 however, are quite sufficient. " We do not mean Queen 
 Ann I., but Queen Ann II. or III." — though of course the 
 bishop of London could not anticipate that there would be 
 such persons somewhere about one or three hundred years 
 after his time. — Or else, " of course we do not mean Beilhy 
 Porteus, but an earlier Bishop Porteus, who must have 
 lived in the reign of Queen Ann, or how could he have 
 written a letter to her V Either way is very satisfactory, 
 in two cases — first, where there is no record of events, not 
 even a mere list of kings and queens, popes or bishops ; and 
 secondly, when the reader or hearer does not know that 
 there is any. 
 
 Of the two modes of meeting the difficulty, however. Fox 
 adopted the former ; and having given the epistle, he added, 
 " But here, by the way, the reader is to be admonished that 
 this epistle, which by error of the writer is referred to Pope 
 Nicholas I., in my mind is rather to be attributed to the 
 name and time of Nicholas II. or III. ;■" who (the reader 
 will observe) began their pontificates in a.d. 1059 and 1277 
 respectively. The other mode is adopted by the Centuri- 
 ators, who, in their account of the bishop of Augsburgh in 
 the ninth century, tell us " Huldericus, (et non Waldricus, 
 seu Walricus. Nam ille alms est, et inferiori seculo claruit) 
 tempore Nicplai I. Papse, Augustensis episcopus fuit: ui 
 
XETTEE X. 119 
 
 patet ex titiilo epistolse ejus quam ad NIcoIaum scripsit, quaj 
 passim exstat." * No doubt the document was easy enough 
 to find when they wrote, by means of the notorious Illyricus, 
 who had before pubHshed it, first, I believe, singly, and 
 afterwards in his " Catalogus," where it stands with same 
 heading as in Fox's work ; indeed Fox professedly took it 
 from thence. 
 
 But the reader will please to remember, that our present 
 business is not so much to discuss the genuineness of this 
 document, f as to inquire into the truth of a story for which 
 it is, as far as I know, the only authority ; we are not con- 
 cerned so much to discover whether St. Ulric wrote to Pope 
 Nicholas, as with the facts of Gregory the Greafs pontifi- 
 cate, about three hundred years before St. Ulric was born. 
 And as to the story which is our present subject, I should 
 feel it an insult to the reader to talk about authority at all. 
 What can be "authority" for such childish falsehood? 
 Authority?. Why one might as well talk of authority for 
 Jack and the Beanstalk. No ; the very use and office of 
 such outrageous stories, (for everything is good for some- 
 thing,) is to force open people's eyes, and make them look a 
 little into the question of authorities ; and to lead them to 
 see how grossly they may be duped by the rhodomontade of 
 agitation. It is curious that George Psalm anaazar's romance 
 about the island of Formosa, was betrayed by an infanticidal 
 story something like this; only that his children were 
 broiled instead of drowned. He had the assurance to tell 
 
 ' Cent. IX. col. 309. 
 
 + Those who wish to do it may easily find references which will lead 
 them to what has been written on the subject. Among the most accessible 
 are Wharton's tract on Celibacy in the Preservative against Popery, vol. i., 
 p. 278, Cave and Fabricius under name of Hulderic. The document itself 
 is in various collections, as far as I know without any variation, except that 
 the copy given by Martene {Ampl. Coll. i. 449) omits sex and merely says^ 
 " plusquam millia." The fullest collection of references which I have met 
 with is in Theiner's " Einfuhrung der erzwungenen Ehelosigkeit," I. 467. 
 
 11 
 
120 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 the world in general, and the bishop of London, his patron, 
 in particular, that his countrymen were bound, by their 
 idolatrous religion, to sacrifice 18,000 children every new- 
 year's day. What " shudders and cheers ■" might have been 
 produced if Mr. M'Neile had told the assembly, in his very 
 forcible way, the duty of the " chief sacrificator," who, in 
 the Formosan language, which, at the beginning of the 
 eighteenth century, occupied the attention of the learned, 
 was called Gnotoy TarJiadiazar. " The office of the chief 
 sacrificator is to ordain other priests within his own precinct, 
 which is, as it were, his diocese, to rule over them, and 
 to take care of the sacrifices, but chiefly of the infants that 
 are to be sacrificed ; for which end he is to take an accompt 
 how many boys each family can furnish, and to admonish 
 them in time to send in their number. Moreover, he alone is 
 to cut the throats of the infants, and pluck out their hearts ; 
 others are to lay them upon the gridiron, but he is to pray 
 pubhcly all the time they are a burning." p. 187. 
 
 I repeat that it is perfectly absurd to talk about authority 
 for such a shameless falsehood ; and I should think it an 
 insult to the reader to suppose it necessary to say anything 
 on that subject. It deserves nothing but derision, and every 
 broad manifestation of the disgust which every Christian 
 who reflects on it must feel. But there are two points 
 which seem to me to be very important, and for the sake of 
 which, very principally, I have noticed this childish trash. 
 
 In the first place, I would seriously ask those who wish 
 to see a sound and steady opposition to popery, whether it 
 is not a duty to oppose (even at the risk of being called 
 names) the reprinting, and circulating, and arguing upon 
 absurd fabrications, with vague and often delusory talk about 
 ' authority.'' * I say this the rather, because since I had writ- 
 
 * Of com-so I do not mean to refer to Mr. M'Neile, who gave his authority 
 
LETTER X. 121 
 
 ten almost all the foregoing, I have received the fifth vokime 
 
 of Fox ; and, to my great surprise, I find the whole story of 
 
 the fishpond over again, as " The epistle in Latin of Volu- 
 
 sianus, or, as some think, of Hulderic, Bishop of Augsburg, 
 
 to Pope Nicholas," v. 312, with a long, and what is meant 
 
 to be a learned, note by the editor about the authorities, and 
 
 whether the letter was written by the bishop of Augsburgh 
 
 or the bishop of Carthage.* Thus, after all the hints 
 
 which might have led to some suspicion and inquiry, during 
 
 many months occupied (we are given to understand) in 
 
 referring to "many hundred authors and originals," the 
 
 story is again affirmed, and the attention of the reader is 
 
 again called to it, and to the very silly note with which the 
 
 editor had the ignorance and bad taste to accompany it, and 
 
 bind it round the neck of the vindicator. He settled on this 
 
 rich piece of scandal, and began his note by saying : — 
 
 "How far our author is correct in this awful statement the editor has no 
 means of proving. If the standard of religious faith and practice in the 
 Bomish church ' Dens Theology' must he viewed only as an incentive to 
 crimes, the blackest and the deepest, in the nineteenth century, it would be 
 inconsistent to expect that the darker ages of the ninth century f under the 
 
 fairly enough, though it may not be a very good one. Yet I have no doubt 
 that he was really telling us where he found what he was saying. 
 
 * The reader may perhaps have heard of a Volusianus Bishop of Carthage 
 as the correspondent of Augustine in the beginning of the fifth century. If 
 he ever heard of any other, or can give any account of the Bishops of Car- 
 thage in the eighth and ninth century, I shall be glad of information. If 
 there really was a duplicate Volusianus Bishop of Carthage at that period, 
 may we not suspect, both from the story itself, and from the circumstances 
 of his see, that he had in some degree formed his style on the Arabian 
 Nights' Entertainments, which we may suppose to have been better known 
 in that neighbourhood, thau the real history of Pope Gregory ? 
 
 ■f- Gregory was pope a.d. 590 — 604 ; but, I presume, the editor's eye 
 (wherein there was no speculation) was caught by the running date " a.d. 
 858," on the top of the page, the letter being supposed to have been written 
 about that time. The editor, however, would seem to have thought that it 
 was to apply to all the facts and persons mentioned in the page, and reasoned 
 accordingly. Of course St. Gregory might have lived in the ninth century, 
 and how was he to know 1 But, indeed, it is like master, like man ; and the 
 only way to account for a good deal in Fox's work is to suppose (what is 
 naturally and commonly incidental to those who compile on subjects which 
 they do not understand) that in wi-itihg some parts, he had no idea what he 
 
122 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 fostering care of the same church, [a pleasant admission for a true protestant^ 
 that the church was the same then as it is now] would be wanting in the 
 most aggravated instance of human depravity." ii. 13. 
 
 Is it not, I ask, a disgrace to Protestants to rest their 
 cause in the least degree, either in speech or writing, on 
 such rubbish ? Is it not a sin — or perhaps I may gain more 
 attention to the question if I ask is it expedient — to raise a 
 noisy, senseless, ignorant, agitation, which ' shudders and 
 cheers ' without inquiry whether the bouncing story is true, 
 or whether when rightly considered it does not tell for, rather 
 than against, the papists ? By this I do not mean that 
 every falsehood, and every fresh exhibition of ignorance and 
 absurdity still further degrades the self-constituted cham- 
 pions of protestantism, and the cause which they so unhap- 
 pily patronize, in the eyes of all educated Romanists ; nor 
 do I mean merely that it may give the popish priests occa- 
 sion to laugh among themselves, and tell their people, 
 (perhaps now and then overheard by protestants,) " Well, 
 these are pretty fellows to talk of our Golden Legend, can 
 they find a greater lie in it ?" " Yes," says another, " and 
 after all their abuse of our Golden Legend, they have the- 
 impudence to refer to it, and to cite the 'authority of 
 Jacobus de Voragine,' in the matter of this very story." 
 " And that," says a third, " is a blunder." " From 
 whence," adds a fourth, very pathetically, and so as to be 
 scarcely audible by the protestant part of the cqmpany, 
 " we see how heresy and schism are maintained, how the 
 blind lead the blind, and we must pity and pray for the poor 
 dupes, and very kindly receive those who may turn from the 
 error of their ways. People whose ' private judgment ' is 
 
 had said in others. I do not know whether he confounded this Gregory with 
 the seventh of his name, but he says elsewhere, " This Gregory, otherwise 
 called Hildebrand, was he that /)s« took away priests marriage," ii. 326,. 
 though he had said before, at p. II, "By this Pope [now it is Nicholas I.] 
 priests began to be restrauied and debarred from marrying." 
 
LETTER X. 123 
 
 able to swallow such stories must not be treated harshly." 
 It is not because it may give rise to all this and a great deal 
 more, in the way of reaction ; but because the story if it 
 were true is highly creditable to the popish priests. It 
 shews that " the popes owne birdes " have much improved : 
 for nobody doubts that the present generation have lived all 
 their lives under a law of celibacy so complete and rigorous 
 that no priest could think of setting up any thing like a 
 pretence of marriage to paUiate his vice. Vice, too much, 
 there has been, and is, no doubt, among them ; but are the 
 priest and mothers of Ireland anything like as bad as those 
 of the Gregorian age ? Things may be bad, but surely they 
 are better than they were, if that story is true. 
 
 And this brings us to the second point, to which, as I 
 have already said, I would most earnestly desire the serious 
 attention of every Christian. It is a question the importr 
 ance of which seems to render all the other points which I 
 have noticed in this letter, comparatively insignificant. 
 What idea are those who thus write and speak giving of the 
 christian priesthood in the age of Gregory ? Is it true, or 
 is it a foul slander, to represent the great body of the clergy 
 at that period as so diabolically wicked that immediately on 
 an order for their celibacy, they broke out into general (I 
 might, perhaps, say universal) lewdness and unnatural 
 murder ? What sort of husbands and fathers had they 
 been before? Were they really just what radicals and 
 infidels tell us that the parsons have always been, a set of 
 sensual hypocrites who only tried to restrain the passions of 
 others that they might indulge their own 1 Is the history 
 of the church of God worth knowing, and if it is, how are 
 we to come at any thing like a true view of it, while such 
 misrepresentations of the state of things at different periods 
 are urgently and indefatigably circulated by men who have, 
 on other grounds, Very just claims to the respect of thos^ 
 
124 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 whom (however undesignedly) they are hoaxing ? It is bad 
 enough when the ' never-mind ' style of history jumps over 
 centuries, or makes men of straw just as its ignorant whim- 
 sies happen to want them ; but it is tenfold worse when 
 it sends forth broad statements which give wrong general 
 views, and lead men to form wrong estimates, not merely of 
 single facts or individuals, but of classes and periods. Thus 
 it is that men, women, and children, and even the editor of 
 Fox, have got up the cuckoo-cry of the dark ages ; and he 
 has the assurance to represent the "most aggravated 
 instances of human depravity " which occurred in the ninth 
 century, as things very naturally to be expected to arise 
 from the fostering care of the church. 
 
 This digression is, however, longer than it should be 
 already, I hope to give further evidence of the aspect of 
 Fox's work with regard to the Church of England, and in 
 the meantime, I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 (April, 1838.) 
 
 I PROCEED to offer some further extracts from Fox's work 
 on the subject of church property, which appear to me to 
 require but little comment. I adduce them as matters 
 which seem to me to justify a " personal dislike" to the 
 work ; and, I must add, as a ground of surprise that any 
 persons who are not advocates for the most unlimited and 
 lawless rapine of church property, should encourage its 
 republication. 
 
 I have already had occasion to speak of Thorpe, and to 
 give Collier's account of the work which he entitled his 
 
LETTER XI. 120 
 
 Testament, In his own account of his examination we find 
 as follows : — 
 
 " For certain, in whatsoever dignitie or order that any priest is in, if ho 
 Conforme him not to follow Christ and his apostles in yMfvl poverty and in 
 other heavenly vertues and speciallie in true preaching of God's word, 
 though such a one be named a priest, yet he is no more ■■• priest but in 
 name ; for the worke of a verie priest, in such a one wanteth. This sentence 
 approueth Augustine, Gregory, Chrysostom, and Lincolne plainly. 
 
 " And the archbishop said to me : Thinkest thou this wholesom learning* 
 for to sow openly, or yet priuilie among the people % Certain, this doc- 
 trine contrarieth plainly the ordinance of holyfather3,+ which have ordained, 
 granted, and licenced priests to be in divers degrees, and to live by tithes 
 and offerings of the people, and by other dueties. 
 
 " And I said : Sir, if priestes were now in measurable measure and num- 
 ber, and lined vertuouslie, and taught busilie and truly the word of God by 
 example of Christ and of his apostles, withovit titltes, offerings, and other d/uties 
 that priests now chalenge and take, the people would giue them freely suf- 
 ficient liuelode.J 
 
 " And a clerke said to me : How wilt thou make this good, that the peo- 
 ple will giue freely to priestes their liuelode ; since that now, by the law, 
 euery priest can scarcely constrain the people to giue them their liuelode ? 
 
 " And I saide : Sir, it is nowe no wonder though the people grudge to 
 giue priests the liuelode that they ask. ' Mekil people know now, how that 
 priests should liue, and how that they Hue contrary to Christ and to his 
 apostles. And therefore, the people is ful heauy to pay (aa they do) their 
 temporall goods to parsons, and to other vicars and priestes, which should 
 be faithfuU dispensatours of the parishes goods ; taking to themselves no 
 more, hit a sca/rse liuing of tithes nor of ofTrings, by the ordinance of the com- 
 mon law. For whatsoeuer priests take of the people (be it tithe or offering, 
 or any other duety or seruice), the priests ought not to have thereof no more 
 hit a baa-e liuing ; and to depart the residue to the poore men and women 
 specially of the parish of whom they take this temporall liuing." — iii. 270. 
 
 No doubt this doctrine was very popular ; and it will be 
 so with some classes of the community at all times. In his 
 
 * I beg to call the reader's particular attention to Fox's notes on these 
 points. I have already alluded to the low, jeering spirit in which too many 
 of his marginal annotations are written ; but what I here refer to is the 
 proof which they afford of his concurrence in doctrine, and of his writing on 
 these subjects, not merely as a historian, but as >^ partisan. His note on 
 this word is, " Wholesome enough, my lord, if your taste were to savour it." 
 
 f Fox's note is, " But it contrarieth not the ordinance neither of God nor 
 of his word." 
 
 J Fox's note on this may perhaps pass for a mere marginal indication of 
 what is contained in the text, a character to which the others cannot pre- 
 tend : " If priests would not slacken their duty, they should not lack in having 
 sufBoient." ' 
 
125 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 work already alluded to, Thorpe has the Mowing sweeping 
 and plain-speaking passage : — 
 
 " From the highest priest to the lowest, all, as they say, Study, that is, 
 they imagine and travail busily, how they may please this world and their 
 flesh. This sentence with many such dependeth upon them, if it be well 
 considered : either God, the Father of heaven, hath deceived all mankind by 
 the living and teaching of Jesus Christ, and by the living and teaching of his 
 apostles and prophets ; or else all the popes that have been since I had any 
 knowledge or discretion, with all the college of cardinals, archbishops and 
 bishops, monks, canons, and friars, with all the contagious flock of the com- 
 monalty of priesthood, who have, all my life time, and mickle longer, reigned 
 and yet reign, and increase damnably from sin to sin, have been, and yet be, 
 proud, obstinate heretics, covetous sinners, and defouled adulterers in the 
 ministering of the sacraments, and specially in the ministering of the sacra- 
 ment of the altar. For, as their works show, whereto Christ biddeth us 
 take heed, the highest priests and prelates of this priesthood, challenge and 
 occupy unlawful temporal lordships ; and, for temporal favour and meed, 
 they sell and give benefices to unworthy and unable persons ; yea, these 
 Simoners sell sin, suffering men and women, in every degree and estate, to 
 lie and continue from year to year in divers vices slanderously. And thus, 
 by evil example of high priests in the church, lower priests under them are 
 not only suffered, but they are maintained, to sell full dear to the people, for 
 temporal meed, all the sacraments. 
 
 " And thus all this aforesaid priesthood is blown so high, and borne up 
 in pride and vain glory of their estate and dignity, and so blinded with 
 worldly covetousness, that they disdain to follow Christ in very meekness 
 and mlful poverty, living holily, and preaching God's word truly, freely, and 
 continually, taking their livelihood at the freemll of the people, of their pure 
 ALMS, where and when they suffice not, for their true and busy preaching, to 
 get their sustenance with their hands. To this true sentence, grounded on 
 Christ's own living, and the teaching of his apostles, these aforesaid worldly 
 and fleshly priests will not consent effectually ; but, as their works and also 
 their words show, boldly and unshamefacedly these before-named priests 
 and prelates covet and enforce them mightily and busily, that all holy 
 scriptm-es were expounded and drawn accordingly to their manners, and to 
 their ungrounded usages and findings ; for they will not (since they hold it 
 but folly and madness) conform their manners to the pure and simple living of 
 Christ and his apostles, nor will they follow freely their learning. Where- 
 fore all the emperors and kings, and all other lords and ladies, and aU tlie 
 common people in every degree and state, who have before-time known, or 
 might have known, and also all they that now yet know, or might know, this 
 aforesaid witness of priesthood, and would not ; nor yet will enforce them, 
 after their cunning and power, to withstand charitably the aforesaid enemies 
 and traitors of Christ, and of his church : all these strive with Antichrist 
 against Jesus, and they shall hear the indignation of God Almighty without 
 end, if in convenient time they amend them not and repent them verily, 
 doing therefor due mourning and sorrow, after their cunning and power." 
 —ill. 283. 
 
 How many of them have expressed such a feeling is, I 
 
LETTER XI. 127 
 
 suppose, best known to the publishers ; but I cannot help 
 thinking that such passages as these must be considered 
 highly objectionable by some of the subscribers to the new 
 edition,* and that they will feel some hesitation in circula- 
 ting such doctrine among their parishioners. Those, at 
 least, of the clergy who are not living in ' wilful poverty ' 
 will scarcely feel it consistent ; even if they should be per- 
 suaded by the argument that it would be a good thing to 
 reduce their brethren to a state which they have not seen 
 fit to embrace. 
 
 To proceed, however : Fox tells us that John Purvey (I 
 suppose the same person who is elsewhere represented as 
 an apostate, iii. 257,) " left divers monuments gravely and 
 exactly written ;" and he gives at great length a variety of 
 articles drawn out of his books. Among them we find the 
 following, in which the reader will recognise the same selfish 
 and rapacious cupidity which goes about in the present day 
 declaiming, and calculating, and telling off its utilitarian 
 statistics on its itching fingers, and teaching a world grown 
 old in wickedness, and wise in sin, how to do the most 
 good, with the least money. 
 
 " By the way, do such passages as these, (and those which I hope to 
 produce^ mamtaining that one man is just as much a priest as another, 
 afford any explanation of the mysterious and unexplained reluctance of the 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge to undertake the republication of 
 Fox's work 2 « It is painful," says Mr. Bickersteth, in his ' Remarks on the 
 Progress of Popery,' p. 36, "to read, in the accounts given of a late meeting 
 of the society, a statement which it would he pleasant to think was un- 
 founded : that when a desire had been expressed for the republication by 
 the Society of Fox's Book of Martyrs, it had been refused, not on account 
 of the expense, (the present protestant feeling of the country is such, that 
 there is no risk on that point) but on some other grounds not explained to 
 the public. Without supposing that those grounds can be merely fears of 
 provoking the papists by that faithful exhibition of their cruelty, or an 
 unwillingness now to confess the truths stated in Fox, let not the Society 
 thus show any departure from tlie principles of the Eeformation. We must 
 not, for fear of man, keep back the truth. We gain nothing by that course.'' 
 What difference should it make if we gained a great deal 1 
 
128 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 " As to the posseseions of the church, in another treatise it is declared, 
 how the Icing, the lords, and commons, may, without any charge at all, keep 
 fifteen garrisons, and find fifteen thousand soldiers (having sufiicient lands 
 and revenues to live upon) out of the temporalities gotten into the hands of 
 the clergy, and feigned religious men, who never do that which pertaineth 
 to the office of curates to do, nor yet to secular lords. And, moreover, the 
 king may have, every year, twenty thousand pounds to come freely into his 
 coflers, and above. Also he may find or sustain fifteen colleges more, and 
 fifteen thousand priests and clerks with sufiicient living, and a hundred 
 hospitals for the sick, and every house to have one hundred marks in lands. 
 And all this may they take oi the aforesaid temporalities, without any charge 
 to the realm ; whereunto the king, the lords, and the commons a/re to be in- 
 mted; for otherwise there seemeth to hang over our heads a great and 
 marvellous alteration of this realm, unless the same be put in execution. 
 Also, if the secular priests and feigned religious, who be simoniacs and 
 heretics, who feign themselves to say mass, and yet say none at all, accord- 
 ing to the canons, which to their purpose they bring and allege, 1 qusest. 3. 
 ' Audivimus,' et cap. ' Pudenda,' et cap. ' Schisma ;' by which chapter such 
 priests and religious do not make the sacrament of the altar : that then all 
 Christians, especially all the founders of such abbeys, and endowers of 
 bishoprics, priories, and chantries, ought to amend this faidt and treason com- 
 mitted against their predecessors, by talcing from thein such secular dominions as are 
 the maintenance of all their sins : and also that christian lords and prmces 
 are bound to take away from the clergy such secular dominion as nousleth and 
 nourisheth them in heresies, and ou^ht to reduce them unto the simple and poor 
 life of Christ Jesus cmd his apostles. 
 
 " And further, that all christian princes, if they will amend the malediction 
 and blasphemy of Hk name of God, ought to take away tJieir temporalities from 
 that sha/ven generation, which most of all doth nourish them in such maledic- 
 diction. And so in likewise the fat tithes from churches appropriate to rich 
 monks, and other religious, feigned by manifest lying,- and other unlawful 
 means ; likewise ought they to debar their gold to the proud priest of Rome, 
 who doth poison all Christendom with simony and heresy. Further, that it 
 is a great abomination that bishops, monks, and other prelates, be so great lords 
 in this world ; whereas Christ, with his apostles and disciples, never took upon 
 them secular dominion, neither did they appropriate imto them churches, as 
 these men do, but led a poor life, and gave a good testimony of their priest- 
 hood. And therefore, all Christians ought, to the uttermost of their power and 
 strength, to swear that they will reduce such shamdings to the humility and poverty 
 of Christ and his apostles." — iii. 290. 
 
 In the account of " The trouble of John Barton and 
 Eobert Chapel for religion," we are told that the latter, 
 who had been chaplain to Lord Cobham, " confessing and 
 submitting himself, desired pardon;" upon which he was 
 directed to stand at Paul's, and pubUsh certain articles to 
 the people. I know not what Fox means by heading them, 
 
LETTER XI. 129 
 
 "Articles obtruded upon Chapel to confess," unless he 
 would insinuate (what I think no one will believe) that 
 they were not a recantation of doctrines which he had 
 actually preached. The first and second articles are as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Imprimis, I confess that bishops, priests, and other ecclesiastical per- 
 sons, having no other profession to the contrary, may lawfully have, receive, 
 and retain lands and possessions temporal, to dispense and dispose the same 
 and the rents thereof, to the behoof of themselves, or of their church where 
 they dwell, according as seemeth good to them. 
 
 " II. Item, I confess, that it were very unlawful, yea, rather unjust, that 
 temporal men upon any occasion, whatsoever it be, should take any temporal 
 lands and possessions from the church, either universal or particular, to 
 which they are given ; the consideration of the abuse of mortal prelates, 
 priests, or other ministers in the church conversant (who are mixt together 
 good with bad), abusing the same, to the contrary notwithstanding." — ^iii. 
 636. 
 
 A little farther on we find, " A fruitful and Christian ex- 
 hortation of the Bohemians, to Kings and Princes, to stir 
 them up to the zeal of the Gospel." The direction which it 
 was intended that the zeal thus stirred up should take, will 
 be apparent from the following extract : — 
 
 "And with such devilish subtlety the pope with all his priests have 
 deceived, spoiled, and disherited, kings, princes, lords and knights, and good 
 householders, and many others, of their lawful inheritances ; because their 
 ancestors and progenitors gave them to colleges, monasteries and churches, 
 that they might make memorials of them, and sing or say prayers or masses 
 for their souls, that they might be redeemed out of purgatory. And with 
 such goods, bishops, canons, and monasteries have made themselves so rich, 
 that now they fall at variance with cities and princes ; and whereas they 
 should procure peace betwixt cities and rulers, there they are the first that 
 begin war ; and as long as they have such goods, they will never cease to be 
 at strife with lords and cities, neither will they begin to teach you the true 
 foundation of the truth. For they do as a dog, which as long as he holdeth 
 a bone in his mouth and gnaweth it, so long he holdeth his peace, and cannot 
 bark ; even so, as long as they have this bone of pleasant riches, it will 
 never be well in the world. Wherefore, all kings, princes and imperial 
 cities would do a great work of godliness and mercy, if by them they were 
 compelled to do this, as the dog is when the bone is taken from him. 
 
 " And, therefore, ye noble men, kings, princes, lords, imperial cities, and 
 all the commonalty, both rich and poor, if ye have been asleep, yet now 
 awake and open your eyes, and behold the subtlety of the devil, how he liath 
 blinded the church of Rome, and take again that which is yowrs and not tlievrs. 
 
 10 
 
130 LETTEES ON FOX. 
 
 And if you will make a good memorial for your souls, then do as the wise man 
 saith, [Eecles. xix.] ' Lay up alms,' &e." — iii. 570. 
 
 Among the articles charged against " John Florence, a 
 turner, dwelling at Shelton, in the diocese of Norwich," is 
 the following : — 
 
 " That curates should not take the tithes of their parishioners, but that 
 such tithes should be divided amongst the poor parishioners." — iii. 584. 
 
 I have already remarked on Fox's marginal notes, and 
 here I would ask the admirers of his work (at least, those 
 who are not avowed advocates for church spoliation, and a 
 priesthood who must live by either begging or bargaining,) 
 to explain how he could put the following words as a note 
 on this article : — " He meaneth they should not claim such 
 riches by any exaction.'''' Indeed — was that all he meant ! 
 Those who have read the foregoing extracts will find it 
 very difficult to believe that he did not mean something 
 more, and not much more easy to suppose that Fox really 
 thought he was giving the full sense of the passage. 
 
 After this. Fox gives " A Catalogue of Good Men and 
 Women that were taken and examined upon suspicion of 
 heresy in Suffolk and Norfolk," which contains the names 
 of most of those who were examined, the whole number 
 being about one hundred and twenty. Of " these before 
 named persons, and soldiers of Christ," he says that, " in 
 their assertions and articles there was almost no difference. 
 The doctrine of the one was the doctrine of all the others." 
 Their doctrine, however, on church property, or even the 
 charge against them on that point, he does not state so 
 fully as one could wish ; but we may, perhaps, gather some- 
 thing from what he is obliged to confess in his attempt to 
 clear them : — 
 
 " Moreover they thought or said pefockenture, That in certain cases titheS 
 might be witholden from wicked pri&ts sometimes, and be conferred to better 
 uses ; to the behoof of the poor. Therefore they are falsely slandered, as 
 
LETTER XT. 131 
 
 saying and affirming, that no tithes are to be given to the ministers and 
 curates of the churches." — iii. 590. 
 
 Is it not more likely that they were of opinion with John 
 Florence dwelUng in the diocese of Norwich just mentioned, 
 and Jacobus Selestadiensis, though they probably had not 
 seen his letter to the Emperor Maximilian, assuring him 
 that, " That which the church hath, is common to all those 
 who have nothing 1" iv. 15; or of George Browne, against 
 whom " another objection was, that he had erroneously, 
 obstinately and maliciously said (for so are their words), 
 that the church was too rich." And what can better illus- 
 trate the spirit of Fox's work, or the views under which it 
 was written than his remark, " This matter, I may tell you, 
 touched somewhat the quick, and therefore no marvel that 
 they counted it erroneous and malicious ; for take away 
 their gain, and farewell their religion." — iv. 177. Why 
 should Fox have been at the pains to gloss over the opinions 
 of others; if he could not conceal his own ? If they say the 
 thing out plainly and honestly, he is frightened ; let them 
 say it, as really, by insinuation, and he cannot suppress a 
 chuckle. 
 
 Again, the first of the articles objected against Richard 
 Hun was this : — 
 
 '' That he had read, taught, preached, published and obstinately defended, 
 against the laws of Almighty God, that tithes, or paying of tithes, was never 
 ordained to be due, saving only by the covetousness of priests." — iv. 183. 
 
 But there is no use in multiplying such extracts. I think 
 I have given enough to shew the spirit of the work, and 
 whether they produce personal liking, or personal disliking, 
 towards it, is a matter of personal taste. I hope next to 
 oifer some extracts shewing the doctrine of the work respect- 
 ing the orders of the church ; and, in the meantime, I am, 
 &c 
 
132 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 (June, 1838.) 
 
 The aspect of Fox's work with reference to the church of 
 England — or I might of course say, with regard to the 
 whole nature and system of the Christian church, were 
 it not that I am WTiting more particularly with a view 
 to the powerful influence which is at work to force the 
 book into circulation in our own country, in our own times, 
 and under the peculiar circumstances in which the chiu-ch 
 exists in England and Ireland, — and therefore I say, the 
 aspect of the book as it regards the orders and constitution 
 of that church of which the editor, the recommenders, and 
 a great portion of the subscribers are ministers, may be 
 easily judged of and fully understood by those who have 
 paid any attention to the times of Fox, to his personal 
 history, and the proceedings of the party to which he 
 belonged. It is not necessary to enter on this subject at 
 present ; and indeed it is the less requisite, because even 
 those readers who have no particular acquaintance with 
 these points, may have derived sufficient information from a 
 letter which recently appeared in this Magazine,* and which 
 contains quite enough to raise their suspicion on the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 I wait, however, with some curiosity, to see whether 
 Fox's conduct, in regard to his personal circumstances, is 
 to be vindicated in the " memoir of the martyrologist him- 
 self," which is to be appended ; and in the meantime it may 
 assist those who are unacquainted with the book and its 
 
 * April, p. 412, under the signature " E. C." 
 
LETTER XII. 13^ 
 
 period, to say that there were two classes of reformers and 
 martyrs, and other persons to whom we ought not perhaps 
 even for a moment, or for the sake of brevity, or by conven- 
 tional use, to give such respectable names, who differed 
 very considerably in theory about the constitution of the 
 church. 
 
 The first of these classes, whatever differences might 
 exist among them, all agreed in a very strong and pointed 
 objection to bishops. They could not bear that they 
 should be so great lordes, and exercise such dominion, or 
 indeed any dominion, in the church. Fox tells us that 
 Marsilius of Padua, in his " worthy work entitled ' Defensor 
 Pacis' ... in that book (both godly and learnedly disputing 
 against the pope) he proveth all bishops and priests to be 
 equal, and that the pope hath no superiority above other 
 bishops," ii. 705. This writer, perhaps, did not mean that 
 bishops and priests are equal, but only that all bishops are 
 equal among themselves, so as merely to exclude all popes, 
 patriarchs, and archbishops ; the language of others, 
 however, is plainer. By plain language I do not mean that 
 coarse foul-mouthed ribaldry which loved to grin and hoot at 
 prelacy, and amused itself with such apt alliterations as the 
 ' blind bishop," the ' bloody bishop,' the ' beastly bishop,' and 
 such sly drollery as talking of ' bishop Judas Iscariot,' iii. 
 84. The language, too, which Fox adopts in his marginal 
 notes — such as, " Belly-cheer of ill-disposed prelates and of 
 monasteries, not to be nourished with temporalities and ap- 
 propriations," iii. 290 ; and " mark reader the practice of 
 prelates, for thy learning," ii. 378 — illustrates the spirit in 
 which he wrote, and which is still more apparent when he 
 has to relate the practising of these prancing prelates. It 
 is indeed so important to notice this, that I must give one 
 out of many specimens which I select because I do not 
 know that it contains (as I suspect that some others do, 
 
134 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 which may perhaps be vindicated, and which I therefore 
 reserve,) any falsification or exaggeration as to facts ; — 
 
 " What can be more conyenient for a true pastor ecclesiastical than humi- 
 lity of heart and spirit, according to the example of the head bishop him- 
 self ? so what greater show of arrogancy and pride could there be, than in 
 this, whom I have oft named before, Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canter- 
 bury 2 who, passing by the high street of London, did not only look and 
 wait for the ringing of the bells, for a triumph of his coming, but tooli great 
 snuff, and did suspend all such churches in London (not only with the steeple 
 and bells, but also with the organs), so many as did not receive his coming 
 with the noise of bells, according as out of his own registers may appear, 
 the words whereof written to his own somner, I have hereto annexed in his 
 own form, as foUoweth. 
 
 " ' A commission directed to the somner, to suspend certain churches of 
 London, because they rung not their bells at the presence of my lord the 
 archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 " ' Thomas, by the permission of God, &c. To our well-beloved Thomas 
 Wilton, our somner sworn, health, grace, and blessing. The comeliness of 
 our holy church of Canterbury, over which we bear rule, deserveth and 
 requireth, that while we pass through the province of the same our church, 
 having our cross carried before us, every parish church in their turns ought, 
 and are bounden, in token of special reverence that they bare to us, to ring 
 their bells : which notwithstanding, yea on Tuesday last past, when we, 
 betwixt eight and nine of the clock before dinner, passed openly on foot as 
 it were, through the midst of the city of London, with our cross carried 
 before us, diverse churches, whose names are here beneath noted, shewed 
 towards us willingly, though they certainly knew of our coming, unreverence 
 rather than reverence, and the duty that they owe to our church of Canter- 
 bury, ringing not at all at our coming. Therefore we, being willing to 
 revenge this injury, for the honour of our spouse, as we are bounden, com- 
 mand you, that by our authority you put all those churches under our in- 
 ditement, suspending God's holy organs and instruments in the same : which 
 we also suspend by the tenour of these presents, till the ministers of the 
 aforesaid churches be able hereafter to attain of us the benefit of more 
 plentiful grace. — Given, &c.' 
 
 " What great reason was in this, why this archbishop either should thus 
 look for the ringing of the bells, or why he should be so displeased with 
 not ringing, I do not see. Belike, his mind, in the mean time, was greatly 
 occupied with some great muse, as feeling of God's fear, with repentance and 
 remembrance of his sins, with zealous care and solicitude for his flock, with 
 the earnest meditation of the passion and life of our Saviour, who in this 
 world was so despised ; or else was set upon some grave study, while he so 
 waited for the ringing of the bells, which were wont to be so noisome to ali 
 students. And why were not the trumpeters also shent as well, because they 
 did not sound before his person? But and though the bells did not 
 clatter in the steeples (and therefore his thunderbolt should have fallen upon 
 the steeples which had deserved), why should the body of the church there- 
 fore be suspended ? At least, the poor organs, me thinketh, had some part 
 of wrong to be put to silence m the quire, because the bells rang not in the 
 tower." iii. 313. 
 
lETTEK. XII. J 35 
 
 Will any one of the admirers of Fox come honestly for- 
 Tvard and say that this was written in the style and with the 
 feehngs of a Christian? Will those who so strongly re-r 
 commend the book tell us what specific benefit they expect 
 from reprinting a work conceived and executed in this spirit 
 of low radical mockery at all ecclesiastical authority, not 
 only without one word expressive of disapprobation, but 
 with everything to lead us to suppose that they consider it 
 highly edifying ? 
 
 To come however to the point, it is plainly and fairly 
 argued in the book, not only that prelates should not be 
 proud arid prancing, and that bishops should not be blind, 
 bloody, and beastly, — not only, as I have already observed, 
 that all bishops and priests are equal and that they should 
 not tyrannize over the inferior clergy, but that there ought 
 to be no inferior clergy, and no bishops, at all. " The meek 
 ministers of Christ,'" says the defence of Wickliffe by John 
 Huss, " have, by a special gift of God, knowledge and mind 
 to preach the gospel ; but it is lawful neither for the pope 
 nor bishop, nor any other man, to let or hinder them, lest 
 thereby they should hinder the word of God, that it have 
 not its free course," iii. 71 ; and a little further on we read, 
 " that whosoever is led by the Spirit of God, although his 
 bishops stand against him, he may proceed unto a better life. 
 Whereby it is evident, that a deacon or priest disposed to 
 preach, and being led by the Spirit of God, may freely 
 preach the gospel of Christ, without the spiritual licence of 
 his bishop. It is evident, forasmuch as it is good, that a 
 deacon or priest do Hve well, and preach fruitfully. Ergo, 
 he may proceed from idleness to the labour and office of 
 preaching, and so to a better life." iii. 73. This is still 
 more plainly stated in a work entitled the Lanthorn of 
 Light, from which certain articles are given. The third is 
 as follows — 
 
136 LETTKUS ON FOX. 
 
 " That the bishop's Ucence, for a man to preach the word of God, is the 
 true elmracter of the Beast, i. e. Antichrist ; and therefore simple and faithful 
 priests may preach when they will, against the prohibition of that antichrist, 
 and without licence." iii. 532. 
 
 Again, one of the articles which were as Fox tells us 
 " obtruded upon Chapel to confess" is thus worded : — 
 
 " Item, I confess, that bishops in their own dioceses may forbid, decree, 
 and ordain, upon reasonable causes, that priests should not preach, without 
 their special licence, the word of God ; and that those that do against the 
 same, should suffer the ecclesiastical censures." iii, 537. 
 
 It may be said of some of this, as it might of a great 
 deal of other matter which Fox thought fit to print, and 
 which others are now reprinting, that he only related, as a 
 faithful historian, what was said by others. This of course, 
 were it true, would make no difference in the present ques- 
 tion, except with those who might attach importance to 
 Fox's personal approbation of those opinions which he re- 
 cords to have been held by others. Our question is the 
 tendency of the book, and whether it contains fair and solid 
 grounds for the personal dislike of those who wish to see 
 the present cons*litution of the church of England preserved. 
 Yet it may be as well for me to give one or two extracts 
 which seem tolerably decisive respecting Fox's own views of 
 the matter. He was evidently as sore on the subject of 
 episcopal interference, and as much affronted by even a hint 
 from a bishop, as Rowland Hill could have been. This is 
 clear from a side note which he annexes to what he calls the 
 " cruel" constitutions of the same archbishop whose proud 
 prancings and heathenish lust after bell ringing have been 
 already noticed. The archbishop said, 
 
 " Moreover like as a good householder casteth wheat into the ground, well 
 ordered for that purpose, thereby to get the more increase, even so we will 
 and command, that the preacher of God's word, coming in form aforesaid, 
 preaching either unto the clergy or laity, according to his matter proponed, 
 shall be of good behaviour, sowing such seed as shall be convenient for his 
 auditory : and chiefly preaching to the clergy, he shall touch the vices, com- 
 
LETTER Xir. 137 
 
 monly used amongst them ; and to the laity, he shall declare the vices com- 
 monly used amongst them ; and not otherwise. But if he preach contrary 
 to this order, then shall he be sharply punished by the ordinary of that place, 
 according to the quality of that offence." iii. 244. 
 
 Surely a man must be of a very quarrelsome turn who 
 could find any very great fault with this archiepiscopal con- 
 stitution, merely on its own merits. But Fox appears to 
 have been horror struck at such an invasion of Christian 
 liberty, and indignantly writes in his margin " What 
 TYRANNY is this, to bind the preacher's mouth what to say ! " 
 Did any man ever hear of such oppression ? But in fact if 
 we may believe another side note of Fox we may consider 
 the " Placing of proud prelates the cause of all mischief." 
 And this side note, whether we are to look upon it as an 
 expression of the historian's own opinion, or only as his 
 indication of the matter in the text to which he wished to 
 draw his readers' attention, is well worth notice, as is also 
 the passage to which it is annexed, and which occurs in 
 the letter of Lucifer, which has been already mentioned. 
 
 " Know ye that in times past certain vicars or vicegerents of Christ, fol- 
 lowing his steps in miracles and virtues, living and continuing in a beggarly 
 life, converted, in a manner, the whole world from the yoke of our tyranny 
 unto their doctrine and manner of life, to the great derision and contempt 
 of our prison house and kingdom, and also to the no little prejudice and 
 hurt of our jurisdiction and authority ; not fearing to hurt our fortified 
 power, and to offend the majesty of our estate. For then received we no 
 tribute of the world, neither did the miserable sort of common people rush 
 at the gates of our deep dungeon as they were wont to do with continual 
 pealing and rapping ; hut then the easy, pleasant, and broad way, which 
 leadeth to death, lay still without great noise of trampling travellers, neither 
 yet was trod wdth the feet of miserable men. And when all our courts were 
 without suitors, heU then began to howl ; and thus, contintiing in great 
 heaviness and anguish, was robbed and spoiled : which thing considered, the 
 impatient rage of our stomach could no longer suffer, neither the ugly 
 reckless negligence of our great captain general could any longer endure ; 
 but we, seeking remedy for the time that should come after, have provided 
 us of a very trim shift. For, instead of these apostles and other their 
 adherents who draw by the same liae of theirs, as well in manners as 
 doctrine, and are odious enemies unto us, we ham caused you to be tJiew suc- 
 cessors, andpmt you in their place, who be prelates of the church w these latter 
 times, by om great mind and subtlety as Christ hath said of you : ' They have 
 reigned, hut not by me.' " iii. 190. 
 
138 LETTERS ON FOX. 
 
 How far Fox agreed in the sentiment here expressed, and 
 really believed that the .bishops of the Christian church, 
 who were considered as the successors of the apostles, had 
 been actually, introduced by the Devil, I do not take upon 
 me to say ; but his own language elsewhere is not entirely 
 dissimilar ; — 
 
 " So did Paul, Peter, and the Apostles ; so did the martyrs of the primi- 
 tive age ; so did the learned doctors and writers after them ; whose learning 
 and labour were great in the church, although their authority was but little, 
 after the manner of this world. For such is the nature of the church, that 
 as it is a spiritual regiment, so by spiritual means it is maintained. But now- 
 a-days, you shall see many who think there is no other means for defending 
 the church against heretics, than the force and majesty of the bishops only : 
 whereby it is come to pass that the ecclesiastical ministration is far alienated 
 from that, which, in times past, was begun in the world by Christ and his 
 apostles ; for now it is grown, as it were, to an image and form of a secular 
 empire, and almost unto a kingly power and riches, and, in a manner, unto 
 most extreme tyranny. But if our desire be so great to dissipate heresies, 
 I see no speedier way or remedy, than that if the fathers of the church 
 would diligently take heed that [one would suppose that he was going to say 
 something about the bishops, but instead of that he opens another pretty wide 
 field of radical reform, and still more fully manifests his own views of the 
 matter by adding that] the church of Christ be not overwhelmed with such 
 a number of abticles : so should it soon be brought to pass that not only the 
 young branches of heresy should be easily cut off, wheresoever they begin to 
 spring, but also, that in short time there should no more spring or rise up." 
 iii. 103. 
 
 Of course where there is no law there can be no trans- 
 gression — but as to our present subject, let us hear what 
 " William Thorpe : that constant servant of God" already 
 repeatedly mentioned, reports himself to have said in his 
 examination ; — 
 
 " And 1 said to the archbishop : Sir, as touching your letter of licence or 
 other bishops, which ye say we shoulde have to witnesse that we were able 
 to be sent for to preach, we know well that neither you, sir, nor any other 
 bishop of this land, will grant to us any such letters of licence, but if we should 
 oblige us to you, and to other bishops, by unleeful oathes, for to passe not the 
 bounds and terms which ye, sir, or other bishops, will limit to us. And since 
 in this matter your terms be some too large, and some too strait, we dare not 
 oblige us thus to bee boundeu to you for to keep the terms, which you wil 
 limit to us, as you doe to friars and s^ch other preachers ; and therefore, 
 though we have not your letter sir, nor letters of anie other bishops written 
 with inke upon parchment, we dare not therefore leave the office of preach- 
 ing (to which preaching, all priests, after their cunnmg and power, are 
 
 10 
 
LETTEIl XII. 139 
 
 bounden by clivers testimonies of God's lawe, and great doctors) without 
 anie mention making of bishoppes letters.- For, as mikle as we have taken 
 Upon us the office of priesthood (though w.e are unworthie thereto), we come 
 and purpose to fulfil it with the help of God, by authoritie of his owne lawe, 
 and by witnesse of great doctors and saints, accordinglie hitherto trusting 
 stedfastlie in the mercy of God. For that he commandeth us to doe the 
 office of priesthood, he will be our sufficient letters and witnesse, if we, by 
 example of his holie living and teaching, speciallie occupife us faithfullie to 
 do our office justlie : yea the people to whom we preach (be they faithfull or 
 unfaithfuU) shall be our letters, that is, our witnes bearers ; for the truth 
 where it is sowne, may not be unwitnessed. For all y' are converted and 
 saved by learning of God's word, and by working thereafter, are witnesse 
 bearers, that the truth and soothfastnesse which they heard and did after, 
 is cause of their salvation. And again, all unfaithfuU men and women 
 which heard the truth told out to them, and would not do thereafter : also 
 all they might have heard the truth and would not heare it, because that 
 they would not do thereafter. All these shall beare witnes against them- 
 selves, and the truth which they would not heare, or else heard it and des- 
 pised to doe hereafter, through their unfaithfulnesse, is and shal be cause of 
 their damnation. Therefore sir, smce this aforesaid witnessing of God, and 
 of divers saintes and doctors, and of all the people, good and evill, sufficeth 
 to all true preachers, we thinke that we doe not the office of priesthood, if 
 that we leave our preaching ; because that we have not, or may not have, 
 dulie bishoppes letters, to witnesse that we are sent of them to preach. This 
 sentence approveth Saint Paule, where he speaketh of himseHe, and of faith- 
 full apostles and disciples, saieing thus : We need no letters of commenda- 
 tions, as some preachers do, which preach for covetousnesse of temporall 
 goods, and for men's praising. And where ye sale sir, that Faule biddeth 
 subjects obei their soveraignes, that is sooth, and may not be denied. But 
 ttiere is two manner of soveraignes, vertuons soveraignes and vicious 
 tyrantes. Therefore, to these last soveraignes, neither men nor women that 
 be subject, owe to obey in two maners. To vertuous soveraigns and 
 charitable, subjects owe to obeie wilfullie and gladlie, in hearing of their 
 good oounsell, in consenting to their charitable biddenges, and in working 
 after their fruitful workes." iii. 260. 
 
 Others as I have already said, went further and main- 
 tained (to borrow the language of " The Articles of divers 
 who were constrained to abjure," iii. 248,) " That as well 
 as the bishop and the simple man, the priest and the lay- 
 man, be of like authority, as long as they live well." One 
 of the articles exhibited against Walter Brute was that he 
 had " openly, publicly and notoriously avouched and com- 
 monly said and taught, and stubbornly affirmed, that every 
 Christian man, yea, and woman, being without sin, may 
 make the body of Christ as well as the priest." iii. 132. 
 
140 LETTERS OX FOX. 
 
 John Badby too " being examined on the third article; con- 
 cerning ' Jack Eakier,' he said, that if Jack Rakier were a 
 man of good hving, and did love and fear God, he hath as 
 much power so to do [that is in the words of the article, 
 ' to make the like body of Ohrisf] as hath the priest." iii. 
 237. One of the articles which John Purvey recanted was, 
 " That every layman being holy and predestinated unto 
 everlasting life, albeit he be a layman, yet is he a true 
 priest before God." iii. 286. JFox, as I have before re- 
 marked, seems to have been sometimes startled when doc- 
 trines which he appears to have been quite ready to in- 
 sinuate, were too broadly stated. On such occasions his 
 conduct is very like that of a child who hides its face in its 
 pinafore, and fancies that nobody can see it. Would any- 
 body conceive it possible that he should have written 
 anything so absurd as the note which he annexes to this 
 article, by way of explaining the doctrine of John Purvey ? 
 " He speaks of priests here, and not of public nunisters, 
 appointed in the church." But unluckily, Eichard Laving- 
 ham hath drawn other articles "out of Purvey's books 
 more at large" in which he tells us — 
 
 " As touching the sacrament of order, Purvey saith. That all good Chris- 
 tians are predestinate, and be ordained of God, -and made true priests to offer 
 Christ in themselves, and to Christ, themselves ; as cdso to teach mid preachthe 
 gospel to their neighbours,!^ well in word, as in example of living. But the worldly 
 shavelings do more magnify the naked and hare signs Of priesthood (in- 
 vented by sinful men) than the true and perfect priesthood of God, grounded 
 by a true and lively faith, annexed with good works. Also, if it were need- 
 ful to have such shavelings, God knoweth how, and can make, when it 
 pleaseth him, priests (without man's working and dnfid signs, that is to say 
 without 'either sacraments or clmracte>-s) to be known and discerned of the 
 people by their virtuous life and example, and by their true preaching of the 
 law of God ; for so made he the first-made priests and elders before the law 
 of Moses ; and so made he Moses a priest before Aai-on, and before the 
 ceremonies of the law, without man's operation at all ; and even so hath God 
 made all such as are predestinate, to be his priests." iii. 288. 
 
 Fox's note, appended to the word ' neighbours' is actually 
 this, " He meaneth of ^n«afe preaching to their neighbours." 
 
LETTER XII. 141 
 
 Is Mr. Townsend going to " vindicate" this? But surely 
 it is unnecessary to accumulate passages to shew the spirit 
 of the book, or to prove that many of the martyrs, and 
 their historian, made a jest of the orders of the church. I 
 think enough has been said for this purpose, and I wait to 
 see how matters, to which I have as yet scarcely alluded, 
 are vindicated. In the meantime, I am, my dear Sir, yours 
 very truly, 
 
 S. R. MAITLANi).