fuch project had the countenance and benediction of these two holy, perfecuting, popish martyrs.

Going to execution, Fifher opened the New Teftament, and prayed fuch a place might turn up, as might comfort him in his laft n moments. The words that occurred were, "This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou haft fent." He fhut the book, and continued meditating upon to the laft. And do they not exhibit thefe words a ftrong reproof? As much as to fay, "What is the pope to thee, or thou to the pope? Why doft thou murder thyfelf for what thou haft no concern in ? Wouldst thou obtain eternal life, know the only true God, and that Jefus is his meffenger."

For the fame filly caufe died Sir Thomas More. "A man." (faith that faithful and laborious martyr Tindal, who lived at that time,) nothing inferior to Wolfey, for lying, feigning, and bearing two faces in one hood." That happy expreflion, Tavo faces in one bood, exhibits a more lively picture of the man, than any of those left us by his friend Hans Holbein.

More was chancellor, his father a judge. His cuftom was, in a morning, in Westminster-hall, to afk a bletting from his father on the kings-bench, and then to enter the court of chancery. Was this humility or vanity? Did not the father exult in having his fon chancellor? Was not the chancellor pleafed in having a judge for his father? Was it not an illaudable oftentation of filial piety? A blowing the trumpet before alms? A fafting with a dirty face, to be seen of men.

Facetious he was, and a joker, to fuch a degree of affectation n as not to refrain even upon the fcaffold: yet fo gloomy a bigot, as in defence of monks and monafteries, to write a fupplication in behalf of the fouls in purgatory. His friend Eraf

mus calls him another Democritus, fays "he had a perpetual grin upon his face, and affectedly walked with one fhoulder. higher than the other." And, "A man's attire, excessive laughter, and gait fhew what he is," faith the wife fon of Sirach.---When lord chancellor, he was caught in the quire in at furplice, amongst the finging men, by Norfolk. "God's body, quoth the duke, What! A parifh clerk! You dishonour the king and his officer."---And what had an old fellow past fifty, enjoying a fpirited fecond wife, to do with a hair fhirt, and a. whip with knotted cords to flog himself withall? Did he un- › : derftand the use of that difcipline? had he read the lives of the faints? was all fair? That flogging affair fo tickled the fancy :: of that proud and furly Jefuit, Petavius, that he was fometimes obliged to fend for a furgeon. Whether More went to that extremity, fon Roper doth not fay.

f More,

More, in his Utopia, an imaginary kingdom of his own creating, allows liberty of confcience: but in England, he was a fierce and bloody perfecutor. Which thews, he knew what was right and approved it, but acted the contrary. "If men cannot pull that malicious folly [herefy] out of his poifoned obftinate heart, I would rather be content, that he were gone in time, than over long to tarry, to the deftruction of others." That is the cafe. Murder the fincere, the pious creature, and fend him to the devil, out of pure charity, and to do God fervice.

So honourable, in his estimation, was the office of a perfecutor, that he would have it infcribed upon his tomb, that he was a plague to thieves, murderers, and heretics, "furibus, homicidis, hæreticis moleftus." Surely in the net that thou fpreadeft, in the same waft thou taken. And hadft thou known one of the first principles of nature and of grace, inftead of cutting filly jokes upon the scaffold, thou wouldft, with that better inftructed Canaanite, have cried out, with deep contrition of foul, "As I have done, fo God hath requited me."---Though a man of parts and learning, he had an opinion of the Kentish prophetefs, as was just before obferved: and when the cheat was detected, owned, and punifhed, he believed her under the influence of an evil spirit. He either had not fenfe to fee, or honcfty to confefs; that it was a politic and party piece of roguery.---Seeing Henry's book against Luther in manufcript, he advised him to put out what he had faid of the pope's power, left upon a future quarrel, it fhould be turned against him; yet himself died for the pope's power. So that there feems to be two faces in one hood throughout.

But the punishing of poor heretics by the fcourge and fire, did not fatisfy More's zeal, or rather his thirst after the applause of men; but he must also turn fcribbler against them. Behold a fpecimen.

}

Mayfter Martin Luther, himself beying fpecially borne agayne, and new created of the Spirit, whom God, in many places of holy fcripture, hath commanded to keep his vowe made of chastity.--- So far contrary thereunto, toke out of reli gion a fpoufe of Chrift, wedded her himself, in reproach of wedlock called her his wife, and made her his harlot and in double despite of marriage and religion, both liveth with her openly, and lyeth with her nightly, in fhameful inceft, and abominable bitchery."---Such the delicacy of a courtier.And in his Latin answer to Luther, he has thrown out the greateft heap of nafty language, that perhaps ever was put together. The book throughout is nothing but downright ribaldry, without a grain of reason to support it. Yet fo highly pleased were

the

the clergy, to have their mumpfimus defended in any manner; that in their convocation, they made a collection for him, of four or five thousand pounds. Which at this day would be worth forty thoufánd. But More was too juft, or too proud, to accept of a farthing.

In a vifit to More, did Erafmus, in feven days, write his celebrated Moriæ Encomium, or, Praise of Folly. Which he alfo infcribed to More. In which performance, Folly juftifies herfelf with much wit and learning, by fhewing, in how great repute fhe is with all ranks and orders of men. But triumphs indeed, and indicates uncommon pleasure, at her conformity with the catholic church, and in the number and variety of fooleries, to be met with in popery. Now Erafmus was too good natured, and too well bred a man, to have made so free with thofe holy fooleries, in a book dedicated to More, and wrote under his roof, had he not known, that More had the fame contempt for them, that he himself had. Which yields farther grounds for fufpicion, that he really bore two faces in one hood: and that he wrote, and perfecuted, and died, to gain the praise of men, rather than from any motive of religion. And if fuch was really the cafe, let others determine which was moft predominant in him, the knave or the fool.'

Perhaps a weak Proteftant may be fomewhat offended at our author's want of delicacy in drawing thofe characters, especially that of More; and perhaps fome expreffions might have been omitted. But furely facts ought to be adopted rather than prepoffeffions or predilections. We have often admired from what fource our Proteftant writers have drawn their partiality in favour of More, while the truth is, that bishop Bonner, whom they affect to deteft, and whofe name is another epithet for cruelty, was even the milkfop of humanity and bigotry, when compared to More. We agree with Mr. Lewis, that the Reformation was not concerned in queen Anne Bullen's character, nor in that of Henry or his minifters. His ftri&tures with regard to that mo narch's religious administration are juft, and well founded in hiftory. But we cannot fall in with the enthusiastic praises he confers upon his hero, nor with the encomiums he lavishes upon Rapin. All the white-wafhing Mr. Lewis bestows upon Henry never can clear him from the charge of being, in civil and domeftic matters, a barbarous and unrelenting ty rant. If he gave way to the law, it was because he knew that his breath was law; witness the fpeech he made to Montague, Speaker of the Houfe of Commons, while kneeling before him, when he told him, "that if his (the king's) bill did not pafs before two o'clock next day, his head fhould pay for it." We cannot agree with our author in the

character

<c
a man

character he gives of Cromwell earl of Effex, as being of fingular humanity, a difcourager of informers, abhorring perfecution, a good, a fincere Proteftant, indifcreetly, yet innocently zealous." We believe, on the contrary, that Cromwell was a low-lived fhuffling fellow, without a fingle accomplishment, (whatever his virtue of fidelity might have been,) either civil or perfonal, which could recommend him to any preferment but what he met with, the block instead of the hal

ter.

Though we recommend this publication, we wish the author had made lefs ufe of fecond-hand authorities: and had confined the conduct of Henry VIII. entirely to facts relating to the Reformation. One of his inftances of Cromwell's judgment and known humanity is contained in the following ftory.

Thomas Freburn's wife of Paternofter row, London, longed for pig. Fisher, a butter-woman brought him a pig ready for the fpit, but carried a foot of it to Dr. Cocks, dean of Canterbury, whilft at dinner. One of the dean's guests was Garter king at arms, Freburn's landlord, who fent to know if any of his family were ill, that he eat flesh in Lent. All well," "quoth Freburn, only my wife longs for pig. His landlord fends for the bishop of London's apparitor, and orders him to take Freburn and his pig before Stockfly the bifhop. Stockfly fends him and his pig to judge Cholmly, who not being at home, he and pig were brought back to the bifhop, who committed them both to the compter. Next day being Saturday, he was carried before the lord-mayor, who faid on Monday next he fhould ftand in the pillory, with one half of the pig on one fhoulder, the other half on the other. The wife defired the might fuffer as the pig was on her account. A ftring was put through it, and it was hung about his neck, which he thus carried to the compter again. Through Cromwell's interceffion, the poor man at laft gained his liberty, by a bond of twenty pounds for his appearance. This mifchief-making pig, was by order of the right reverend father in God the bishop of London, buried in Finfbury-field, by the hands of his lordship's apparitor. And Freburn was by his landlord turned out of his houfe, and could not get another in four years.'

**** There is fomething fo exceffively ridiculous in this ftory, that it, in a manner, proves, that had not Henry interpofed, the people of England, fenfible of the wretched ftate to which they were reduced by the Romish clergy, must have reformed themfelves.

2:

MONTHLY CATALOGUE.

12. A free Examination of the common Methods employed to prevent the Growth of Popery. Part II. 8vo. Pr. 25. Fuller. WE reviewed with fome degree of approbation the first part of this Examination*, but the intermediate publications in favour of a toleration for Roman catholics have been conducted with fo much effrontery, and are founded on fuch grofs falfhood, and perverfions of hiftory, that they call aloud for animadverfion. Our author's defign is to incline the unwary and ignorant, by a plaufibility of language and argument, to believe, that the chief charges against popery are either greatly exaggerated, or entirely groundless. Without his taking any notice of thofe black periods, when thousands of the Albingenfes and Waldenfes were burnt and murdered by virtue of papal commiffions only, he pitches upon the execution of John Hufs, and endeavours to fhew that it was not the act of the council of Conftance, but of the emperor Sigifmund.

Were it not that fo infignificant a publication would take up too much of our reader's time, and too much room in our Review, it would be eafy to prove, from the moft undoubted evidences, that Hufs fell a martyr to his oppofition to popery, and that the emperor in his cafe was no more than the executioner of the papal dictates; a fact fo well known in hiftory, that it requires no uncommon degree of affurance to contradict it in print at this time.

This writer plumes himself greatly in two arguments, which, when he cannot defend the bloody practices of the papifts, run through all his work. The firft is, that the acts of a few individuals, are not to be charged upon the whole body of the Roman catholics. But admitting this reafoning, what does it conclude, but that fome Roman catholics are too wife to follow the bloody practices which are recommended and justified by their religion. The author's next fallacy is, that temporal ambition had greater concern than religion in the maffacre of St. Bartholomew, and the like inhumanities, committed by papifts. We are far from denying that the papifts are as fufceptible as the proteftants of worldly views; but we will venture to affirm, that those barbarities never could have been committed, had they not been dictated by religion, and that they were afterwards approved of by the pope himself. We can go farther, and appeal to the hiftory of feveral ages to prove, whether the religion of Rome has not been always the dictator

* See vol. xxii. p. 446.
Hh

VOL. XXVI. Dec. 1768.

of