new content added: Apr. 26, 2009

"The Acts and Monuments"
of John Foxe

Originally published in 1563 under the title: "Actes and Monuments of these latter and perillous days, touching matters of the Church, wherein are comprephended and described the great persectutions and horrible troubles, that have bene wrought and practised by the Romishe Prelates, speciallye in this Realme of England and Scotlande, from the yeare of our Lorde a thousande, unto the tyme nowe present. Gathered and collected according to the true copies and wrytinges certificatorie as wel of the parties themselves that suffered, as also out of the Bishops Registers, which wer the doers therof. by John Foxe. Imprinted at London by John Day, dwellyng over Aldersgate. Cum privilegio Regie Majestatis."

by John Foxe

(1517-1587ad, English Protestant and Martyrologist)

1838-41 Edition in Eight Volumes

VOLUME I

HAIL & FIRE REPRINTS 2009

If you are unable to view content in the frame at right: Acts and Monuments, by John Foxe (Originally published in 1563, 1841 Edition in 8 Volumes, VOLUME 1)

EXCERPT: On the Authenticity of the Accounts of Foxe

The attack on the history and martyrology of John Foxe by Robert Persons (Jesuit, famous companion of Edmund Campion, and instigator of the 'Spanish Armada')

The contemporary, and the most unsparing and inveterate of the enemies of the church of England, and of the antagonists, therefore, of John Foxe, is the next on my list of the assailants on "the veracity and fidelity" of the martyrologist. I beg the more especial attention of the reader to the labours of this remarkable Jesuit. Distinguished when tutor of Baliol, for six years,[1] as the most learned and zealous of the opponents

"No fact recorded by Foxe is denied. The victims are ridiculed and despised, because they were poor, vulgar, mean, and low."

of popery, and as the most indefatigable introducer of Protestant books into the college library, he changed his religious principles, and became the consistent and conscientious papist. He transferred to the church of Rome the same zeal and devoted attachment, which he had hitherto dedicated to the church of England. He believed, and he acted upon the belief, that the bishop of Rome was the divinely-appointed head of the church of Christ, and that he possessed, as such, the power to excommunicate, not only subjects, but kings and princes, if they refused submission to his supremacy. It was beautifully said of Fletcher of Saltoun, that he would have given his life to serve his country, but he would not have done a base thing even to save it. With Parsons, and the other Jesuits, half the saying is true - they would give their lives to serve Rome, but they believed they might do many base things both to serve, and to save it. The mistakes of the conscientious are the tares in the field of the church. Such was Parsons. He believed that if the bishop of Rome did excommunicate a prince, such prince is from that moment deposed, and his subjects are freed from all their oaths of allegiance; and not only so, but they may, and they ought, to remove him from his authority, as an apostate, a heretic, a forsaker of Christ, and an enemy to the common wealth.[2] This doctrine, as I have elsewhere formerly shown,[3] was taught in the canon law - preached by the Jesuits - approved by their superiors - and acted upon by their agents and partizans. The queen of England had been excommunicated by the bishop of Rome. The curse of Pius V had been denounced against every member of the church of Rome who obeyed her as queen after the 25th of February, 1569. The northern rebellion took place in England in the same year. Dr. Story was executed in 1570, for the plot to organize a foreign invasion of England. The Spanish ambassador fled the country in the following year on having been detected, contrary to the law of nations, in a plot against the life of the sovereign, to whom he had been sent as the messenger of peace. Rebellions were planned and broke out in Ireland, on the same account, in the year 1574, two years after the massacre of St. Bartholomew in Paris, and in the very year when Parsons changed his principles, resigned his tutorship, and proceeded to Louvaine, Padua, and Rome. The history of the reign of Elizabeth I derives its principal interest from the fact that England was the protector of the Christianity of antiquity and of the Reformation, against the novelties, and the unchanging errors of Rome, - and that one universal war, both of secret conspiracy and open violence, was maintained against her, to restore the ascendancy of Rome and the supremacy of its bishop over the church and state of England. And England never fulfils its high destiny, more certainly, as the benefactor and example to mankind, than when it thus acts as the defender of the true faith against the "world in arms." Three times already it has thus been honoured. It defended Christianity against popery, though all the power of the continent was arrayed against it, in the reign of Elizabeth I. It protected the same faith against the same enemy, and against the armed continent, in the reign of William. It rescued the common Christianity against another enemy - the French infidelity, when the continent was again armed for the destruction of England. It is greatest in the hour of the greatest danger, when it thus remembers its lofty rank, as the Canaan of the latter days. Many, however, even of its own subjects, in the reign of Elizabeth I did not comprehend this high destiny of their country; and the danger of the sovereign was greater at one period from the domestic traitor, than from the foreign enemy. One bond of religious agreement united both. Both were sincere. Both were the enemies of England. The papist of the continent was joined together with the papist of England. Both believed that the end justified the means. Both imagined that he who killed a royal heretic, did God service. Both changed their "religion into treason, and their faith into faction." Both were convinced that they would save their own souls, and the souls of others also, if they could overthrow the heretical state, and the heretical episcopacy of England. Both were persuaded that the destruction of the Protestancy in the church, state, and people of England, was essential to the happiness of mankind, and the honour and glory of God; and that such destruction, therefore, was to be accomplished by all means, and at all hazards.

No one individual, with the exception perhaps of Edmund Campian, was more deeply impressed with these convictions, than the Jesuit Robert Parsons, after he forsook the church of England, and his tutorship at Oxford. Having been admitted into the society of the Jesuits, in the year following his leaving Oxford,[4] he devoted his great talents, his profound learning, his fierce zeal, his restless turbulence, and his ardent piety,[5] to the cause of the canon law, and the bishop of Rome, as the rule of the discipline, and as the supreme head, of the church of Christ. He is the most illustrious instance on record, that the Romanists are most zealous in their hatred of the church of England, when they are most pious and most religious: and therefore that, in the same proportion as they are to be respected for their sincerity, they are to be dreaded, till they change, for their mistaken enmity to the true Christianity of the gospel and church of Christ. Parsons, immediately on his change of principle, surrendered his soul and body to the work of destroying the purer religion so successfully established in England. He procured the changing of the hospital at Rome, founded in the reign of Mary, into a college, or seminary, for English students; where an oath was taken by the pupils to assume holy orders, and to return into England to convert the English to Romanism. He then ventured, at the risk of his life, to come to England with Campian, to communicate to the adherents of the church of Rome, a dispensation for their outward obedience to the queen, till the time arrived when they might throw off the mask; but he entirely put an end to the custom of attending the parish churches, which had hitherto prevailed among them, in spite of the bull of Pius V absolving the subject from his allegiance to the queen. The Romanist laity would have remained the quiet obeyers of the laws, if the influence of the Jesuits and of the priests had not been exerted to render them disobedient and rebellious. Having succeeded in these great objects, and being in danger of apprehension through the vigilance of Burleigh, he returned to the continent, to the college at Rome, of which he was now made the superior, and in the year 1587, while the Armada was being fitted out for the destruction of the church and state of England, he went to Spain to encourage the invasion of England, to assert the title of the Spanish Infanta to the crown of Elizabeth, and to require the English students and priests in Spain to support the Spanish claim. He procured the expulsion of those English youths from the Jesuit colleges, who refused to be employed against their country; and when the Armada, with its thumbscrews and other instruments of torture, had, by God's mercy upon us, totally failed, he endeavoured to form a continental league against England, in favour of the queen of Scots. He attempted to induce the king of Spain to make another effort: and when that failed, he was no less indefatigable in endeavouring to excite rebellions in England, and to organize confederacies against his own country, under the duke of Parma, the king of France, or the king of Spain. When the chief Romanist ecclesiastic in England, the arch presbyter of England, as the bishop of Rome styled him, Blackwell, had taken the oath of allegiance and supremacy to James the First; father Parsons, as the prefect of the English mission, deprived him of his office. He obtained a brief from Paul V to deprive all priests who took the same oath. He increased the jealousy of the government against the papists. He prevented the possibility of union among the English, by rendering the more moderate of his own party hateful to the more zealous; while the common people, who abhorred the thought of popery, identified the moderate with the zealous. He obtained more influence over the members of his church than any ecclesiastic of his age; and the effects of that influence still remain in the institutions for the education of the partizans of Rome, at Douay, St. Omers, Lisbon, Rome, and Spain; and in the constant supply from those places to that schismatical and papistical intrusion, into the dioceses of the protestant episcopal church, which is impertinently called "the English mission."

Against the efforts of such men as father Parsons and his successors, the English people not only opposed, with success, the laws of the state, the discipline of their church, the freedom of their institutions, and the intense love of truth which has ever characterized the Saxon race; but they opposed also the one deep conviction which was principally enforced upon the public mind by the labours of John Foxe, that the dominion and supremacy of Rome, were alike fatal to liberty, religion, and the common happiness; that it always had persecuted, whenever it was able; and that it always would persecute, by punishing with bodily torments, blameless opinions or undoubted truths, if it again had the power to do so. While the labours of John Foxe, therefore, remained unassailed, the zealous Jesuit perceived that he must despair of succeeding in his endeavours to recommend the supremacy of Rome to the common people. The continent was arming; the Armada was sailing;[6] but Foxe was read in the churches and in the houses of the people; and the voice of lamentation, mourning, and woe, which sounded from the scroll of that prophet, awakened alike the patriotism, the fears, the gratitude, the piety, and the sterner courage of the people. Foxe fanned the flame at home, which darted forth its fires of indignant bravery, and armed the nation both against the Spanish invader, and the papal traitor. When Parsons, therefore, perceived that every intrigue had failed - that the Armada was defeated - that plans of foreign invasion and of domestic treachery had proved alike abortive - he attempted, but too late, to destroy the reputation of the book which had so long excited the people to the love of antipapal freedom, and antipapal truth. Parsons was already well known as an author, and was justly reckoned among the best writers of the age. He had published his Discourse on the Reasons why Catholics should Refuse to go to their Parish Churches; his Defence of the Mission into England; and the Christian Directory. He had published also that book, which, from that time to the present, has rendered his name most familiar to the students of the political history of England, the "Conference of the Next Succession to the Crown of England."[7] He now resolved to attack the ponderous volumes of John Foxe, to proceed through the whole work, and to undeceive the people, if he could prove the martyrologist to be in error. If it had been possible to have shaken the confidence of the English in the details given by Foxe, it would have been done by father Parsons. He had abundant opportunity to collect materials from among the surviving relations, friends, or enemies of the victims of the Marian persecutions. Talent, zeal, the command of the public attention, bitter hatred against the church and cause he had deemed it right to forsake, - all combined to render him the fittest person to test the "veracity and fidelity" of the martyrologist; and he has compiled a work from which nearly all succeeding writers against John Foxe have borrowed their chief materials. It is comprised in five volumes, written with great care; and it is essential to the completeness of this survey of the assailants of John Foxe to review the whole work of father Parsons. The subject indeed is exhausted, but I will proceed with the details of this principal attack on the martyrologist as briefly as possible.

The five volumes were published, with the license of his superiors, in 1603. The slavery in which the papistical authors rejoiced, did not allow them to attain to the privilege of publishing controversial works without permission. He did not, however, prefix his own name to the volumes. He had written or compiled in 1594 the Conference on the Succession of the Throne, under the feigned name of Doleman. In 1599 he published a reply to a treatise of sir Francis Hastings under the title of "A Temperate Wardword." He combined the feigned name and the allusion to this last-named treatise in his title-pages to the five volumes, and published them as the work of N. D., author of the Wardword. It is difficult to assign reasons for his doing so, as the name Parsons was as well known as Doleman. It will be found, on a careful inspection and perusal of the whole work, that Parsons writes on the principle generally adopted by all controversialists. He does not discover, as we might have expected, errors in the facts or narratives of John Foxe, the point in which we are principally interested. He does this: - He takes for granted the certainty, infallibility,orthodoxy, antiquity, and undoubted truth of every opinion he has formed, and every conclusion to which he has arrived; and he freely expresses his no less undoubted conviction that all who differ with him in these conclusions are in damnable error. His work is compiled, therefore, against the opinions rather than against any discovered errors of the martyrologist; and Foxe is regarded throughout as a good authority, or as no authority, as an historian, - not according to his conclusions, not according to his researches, not according to his facts and narratives, - but according to his agreement with father Parsons.

The title to the first volume of Parsons is - "A Treatise of Three Conversions of England from Paganism to Christian Religion; the First under the Apostles in the first age after Christ; the Second under Eleutherius and Lucius; the Third under Gregory the Great and King Ethelbert; divided into three parts, and dedicated to the Catholics of England, with a New Addition to the said Catholics on the News of the late Queen's Death, and Succession of his Majesty (King James the First) to the Crown of England. By N. D., author of the Watchword." Deut. iv. 23, is quoted as the motto - "Inquire of antient tymes before you," &c. &c., or, as it is rendered in our translation, "Ask now of the days that are past, which were before you," &c. &c. It is the text which is usually quoted by those who would clothe in the language of the Scriptures their opinion that the fathers were wiser than the sons, in retaining opinions, which the sons may be supposed anxious to reject. Foxe's name is not mentionod in the title-page.

The book opens with an account of the general contents of the treatise, which he divides into three parts, all of which he declares to be written against Foxe. The first part, concerning the three conversions, he informs us "was begun against sir Francis Hastings, but it is enlarged against John Foxe, his false Acts and Monuments."

The second part "searcheth out the beginning, state, and progress of the Protestant religion from age to age, and is against the whole course of John Foxe his said Acts and Monuments, from Christ's tyme to this, especially against the former part thereof, from the primitive church downward to the tyme of king Henry the Eighth."

The third part "examineth more particularly the second volume of Foxe his Acts and Monuments, wherein he treateth of new martyrs and confessors of the church, placed by him in an ecclesiastical calendar."

The whole of Parsons's five volumes, therefore, are expressly written against the work of John Foxe: with what success we shall now proceed to examine.

Vol. I. - He dedicates the first volume to the catholics of England, meaning by the word "catholic" the papal, not the antipapal Christians of the country; the true episcopal, anti-arian catholics. In this dedication he lauds their "loyal behaviour of duty towards their temporal prince in all worldly affairs." Yet he calls Elizabeth their "old persecutor," and expresses his hope in an additional paper, that James would become a convert to papalism. After a preface on the general subject of Christianity, he begins by stating, that the scope of the work is to show that, upon three several occasions, England has received the christian faith from Rome; first, under the apostles; secondly, under Eleutherius; and thirdly, under Gregory; and that the faith received at each period was identically the same as that of modern Rome. The argument is this. St. Peter came to Rome in the third year of the reign of Claudius; Claudius went into Britain; there probably were many Christians at Rome at this time; it is probable that some of them would go with him into Britain. Christianity would necessarily extend in England in proportion with its extension in Rome. At page 14, he conjectures that St. Peter himself may have preached here.

This is the amount of his proof, upon which we need not waste many words; for, admitting that all his conjectures, as to the fact, that many Christians came from Rome to Britain, were undoubtedly true, as I believe they were, we have not the shadow of a proof that they taught any other doctrines than those which the antipapal church of England teaches. This is not the place to discuss the question, yet I shall observe here, that even Baronius, a.d. xxxv. § 5, quotes a MS. in the Vatican, which says that Joseph of Arimathea founded our church. Gildas says that the light of Christianity reached us "tempore summo Tiberii Caesaris." Now, Tiberius died 17 cal. April, a. d. xxxix. (Sueton. in Tiber, cap. lxxiii.;) and Baronius fixes the origin of the church of Rome, 15 cal. Feb. a.d. xlv. (Baron. a.d. xlv. § 1.) The church of Christ therefore in England, is the elder sister of the church of Christ in Rome, according to the very best papal, not Protestant, authority.

Parsons then enters upon a long discussion, the object of which is to prove that the Britons did not at the beginning differ from the Romans in the celebration of Easter, but that this error arose at a comparatively late period of their history. It is unnecessary to trace him through all this.

The second part begins with an account of the conversion under Lucius by pope Eleutherius. The whole story is mysterious. Its truth depends upon the authority of Gildas. From him it is adopted by Beda. Usher has already shown the chronological difficulties with which it is beset, and his work should be consulted. It seems strange that, if Lucius had Roman teachers, and conformed to the church of Rome, there should have been such a prejudice in the minds of the British bishops against Augustine, and that there should have been such striking differences in doctrine and discipline. The speech of Colman[8] gives us a key to the whole, by referring the origin of the British mode of celebrating Easter to St. John. From Ephesus it came to Gaul, and from Gaul to Britain.

All the subsequent discussion upon this question may be safely omitted, for we cannot argue upon the doctrines of Lucius when we have no documents whereon to rest a single opinion; though Foxe is called the "jangling Foxe" for rejecting the supposed tradition.

The conversion under St. Augustine follows, and it is the most important discussion of all, as far as Foxe is concerned. At the outset it must be admitted that Augustine and Gregory have scarcely had justice done them by Foxe. He seems to have been afraid of them. It is very important for us, to admit the authority of Gregory, since he is a highly valuable witness against Rome as she is now. Yet Parsons admits that Foxe sometimes did Augustine justice. On the next page he is displeased with Foxe's impartiality in first praising what he considered a miracle, and then finding fault with his hauteur towards the British bishops. Yet this is the true way to estimate character; Foxe neither blindly praised, nor blindly censured.

I may add here, in reference to the miracle mentioned by Beda, (and admitted by Foxe,) that the person on whom Augustine performed it, was an Angle; that the proposed proof of the superior claims of Augustine was suggested by Augustine himself,[9] and that the Britons were unwilling to have their orthodoxy tested by such a criterion. If all Augustine's miracles were of a similarly doubtful character, they do not make out a strong case for him.

At page 206, Parsons enters upon his proof that we owe all our religion to Rome, through Augustine. Even if this were true, it proves nothing; but it is not true; for he carefully conceals the fact, that, excepting Kent, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, the whole of England was converted by the Scottish monks, who were essentially the same in doctrine and discipline as the British. There is also another error which runs through the whole argument; it is this - he argues for the truth of modern Romanism, from the truth of primitive Christianity. (See pages 216, 217, &c.) Foxe is abused in every page for affirming an opposite opinion; but his facts are not disputed.

Parsons now passes rapidly over the history of England from Augustine to William the Conqueror, pausing only to notice the liberality of Canute in the building of monasteries, &c. He forgot to mention that Canute's bad title made him glad to have the aid of the clergy. At the beginning of his reign he had seen bishops and abbots in the field of battle against him, and he knew their influence too well to despise it. Nor do we hear anything of the liberties which Canute took with the clergy in legislating for them in spiritual matters, such as celibacy, fasts and festivals, &c.

The remainder of the volume is a general outline of what is afterwards to be discussed in detail. The only thing which appears to be worthy of notice is the quotation made from Riche's Speech, which is said to prove that "the heart of the people was wholly against these innovations in religion, at the commencement of the reformation." If the quotation and inference are correct, we may set against them the better testimony of Tunstall, in his letter to cardinal Pole, where he says that the body of the English nation was weary of the papal yoke. Yet even in this very page where the opinion of Foxe is condemned, he is quoted as an authority, whose "veracity and fidelity" may be depended upon, when he relates the facts of history.

Vol. II. - We come to volume the second. The arrangement of Parsons's materials is here somewhat confused. He professes to inquire where the Protestant church was, up to the time of Henry VIII. The volume exhibits the usual assumptions, false premises, false conclusions, &c. which the Romanists always employ when treating this question.

In page 277, he discusses the importance and value of the apostolical succession, against the notions of Foxe and others, on the invisibility and visibility of the church. As we by God's mercy have retained the succession, without its errors, it is unnecessary to enter upon the question, which, as far as Foxe and Parsons are concerned, is rather one of metaphysics than theology.

Parsons reasons absurdly about the relative bulk of the different parts of Foxe's history. His history is of course fullest upon those passages respecting which he had the fullest information.

The next hundred pages are taken up in an attempt to show that the faith generally professed in Europe (not in England particularly, for Parsons owns that there are no documents for this) was the same as the modern Romish doctrine. This belongs to the general question between the two churches, and is not connected with Foxe.

At page 352, Parsons begins with Gregory and Augustine; and at page 362, he proceeds to test Foxe's historical accuracy by examining his account of the proceedings of one council, and detects two errors at the outset; one in the date, a.d. 680, instead of 673, and another in the place - Thetford instead of Hartford. In the first, Foxe is certainly wrong; in the second it is doubtful, for the place is not exactly known, and "Herutford" may perhaps be "Thetford" as well as "Hartford," for both are conjectures.

Here I meet with the first charge of any real importance against Foxe. It is the accusation of a wilful falsehood. The case is this:

The council of Whitby had decreed that Easter should be observed in England in the manner adopted in the church of Rome. The council of Thetford or Hertford, or Herutford, confirms that decision. Easter-day was commanded to be the first Sunday after the fourteenth day of the new moon, in the first month of the year. The words of Beda are - "Ut sanctum diem Paschae in commune, omnes servemus dominica post quartam decimam lunam mensis primi." Foxe relates all the decisions of the council in an abridged form. Parsons accuses him of so translating the above words of Beda, as to lead his readers to believe that the council decided against the Roman custom of keeping Easter; thereby to justify the oriental error. "Foxe," says Parsons, "without shame or conscience, putteth in, or putteth out, what he thought best, to make these fathers speak in favour of a condemned heresie." This is a serious charge. Let us first extract the very words of Foxe. The decree of the council was, says Foxe,[10] - "That Easter-day should be uniformly kept and observed, through the whole realm, upon one certain day, videlicet, prima 14 luna mensis primi."

The accusation of Parsons is, that "Foxe leaves out the word dominica; and then for 'post 14 lunam,' written at large in Beda, he putteth in 'prima 14 luna,' short, in numbers only, to make it more obscure, adding 'prima' of his owne; and putting out 'post' from the words of the council, thereby to make the sense more clear in favor of the heresy. For that prima 14 luna mensis primi, the words do signifie the fourthtenth day of the first moone of March expressely. And moreouer, he addeth of his owne these words, upon one certayne day, which the decree hath not. Meaninge thereby that this 14 day must be obserued with such certainty as it may not be alterred or differred to any Sunday; but must be obserued as an immoueable feast."

I accept these remarks of Parsons as a proof of his anxious desire to find some undoubted inaccuracy in Foxe; and of the difficulty of his doing so. Foxe has not in any respect altered or falsified Bede. His translation does not vary from that of Bede. By omitting "dominica," and giving "prima," he gives the same sense with Bede, who omits "prima," and mentions "dominica;" whereas both words ought to have been mentioned by the two writers. The oriental opinion respecting Easter-day was, that it might fall on any day of the week, provided only that it was observed on the third day after the fourteenth day of the moon, in the appointed month. There is not one allusion whatever in Foxe to prove that he adopted the oriental opinion; or that he desired to insinuate, in this instance, that the Roman custom was incorrect. The adopting the word "prima," even though the word "dominica" is omitted, makes the decision of the council more clear, rather than more obscure. If he had written "tertia," instead of "prima," there might have been some apparent foundation for Parsons's objection. The omission of the word "post," and writing "14," instead of "quartam decimam," has nothing to do with the question. Parsons's allegation is therefore an indefensible mistake.

In page 367, we are presented with what Parsons calls one of Foxe's garbled quotations. Foxe is quoting the proceedings of the same council, on the subject of the celibacy of the clergy. The council decided that no man should put away his wife, but for the gospel reasons; and if he did even this, if he wished to be considered a more perfect Christian, he would not take another. Foxe omits the latter part of the decision of the council. He might otherwise have been led into the discussion of the doctrines of celibate perfection so curiously maintained by Rome; for the words of the council were, "si Christianus esse recte voluerit nulli alteri jungetur," &c. Here is no garbled quotation. He quoted sufficiently for his purpose, and proceeded to other matters.

In page 370, Parsons is angry with Foxe for omitting the proceedings of another synod. It might have been inserted for aught of Romanism that it favours.

Now page follows after page, of most indefinite and vague matter respecting the faith of the church of England. A few quotations from contemporary authors would have been worth all his declamation. He goes on without alluding to anything which tells against the popedom; nothing of William's answer to the pope, nothing of Henry II, nothing of Grostete, nothing of Edward I nor Edward III. All are avoided; and nothing is said to invalidate Foxe.

In page 487, we have Wyclif's erroneous doctrines carefully pointed out, but nothing is said on those errors in faith and practice, in the church of Rome, which Wyclif censured.

In page 547, Parsons commences his survey of the reign of Henry VIII. Parsons here attempts to prove the inconsistency of Foxe in first calling Henry a Reformer, and then showing that he persecuted the Reformers. Both facts are true. He was a Reformer, because he threw off the papal power; and yet he was not a Reformer, for he retained all the doctrines of Rome, excepting some very important ones, respecting the use of the Scriptures.

In page 576 there is the same matter as we shall find in Harpsfield about Colyns, Cowbridge, Erasmus, Mirandula, etc.; and the remainder of the volume is a general history of the times. He does not attempt to deny one single martyrdom mentioned by Foxe, nor to show that in any one fact connected with these cruelties he has departed from the truth; and this is the sole and only question, which is in the least degree interesting to the modern reader.

Vol. III. - We are brought to the Third Volume. The general, object of the whole of this volume is to prove that those individuals whom Foxe has inserted in his calendar as martyrs (witnesses of the truth) were, in reality, executed either for opinions which we would reject as heretical, or for treason, or for some crime against the government of the land. I have already commented on the use of the word "martyr." Foxe calls Wyclif a martyr. In the usual acceptation of the word, the Reformer was not so; he was a confessor. Yet he may be justly called a martyr.

The temper with which this volume is written will appear from a few extracts. In the account of John Tudson, whose martyrdom is placed by Foxe in his calendar on the 14th of January, Parsons observes, - "John Tudson, falling to be a ghospeller, was so obstinate and arrogant as the bishop of London was forced at length to condemne and burne him, under queen Mary." And of another poor victim he says, - "being obstinate in divers hereticall opinions, but especially about the sacrament of the altar, he was burnt also for the same, in Smithfield, after many means first used to reclayme him." And again, - "a poor labouringe man, borne at Histon, . . . married at London, and there becoming a ghospeller, fell to be so forward in sowing and defending Calvinian opinions, as lastly he was burnt for the same, in Smithfield." And again, we read of "a poor woman burned at Canterbury, under queen Mary;" the next were "two willfull poore women, also burned at Canterbury." Of other victims, "the first was an artificer, the second a poore ignorant woman, and burned for like opinions with the former." And so we might go on, page after page, noticing the poor ignorant men and women put to death. No fact recorded by Foxe is denied. The victims are ridiculed and despised, because they were poor, vulgar, mean, and low. The wretched bigot could not see, that whom the world most scorns, God most honours; whom the world most hates, Christ most loves.[11] See especially, at the end of the "Foxian Calendar" in this volume, a notice of the lowly condition of these witnesses, so put as to excite contempt or ridicule.

Parsons now sets about justifying these enormities, and this he does by laying down two propositions, viz. -

1. It was necessary justice, and no cruelty, to punish such wilful and malignant people.

2. Constancy in a "sectary" is not constancy, but pertinacity.

He then proceeds to justify the second of these positions, by proving that it was the theory of the fathers; and to do this, he quotes several passages from their writings. All is penned on the radical error of assuming that the Romanists are the church, and the Protestants are without (extra) the church. Too much time would be consumed, if I were to refer to all his quotations; but I am by no means persuaded, that he has done justice to these venerable writers; the passages are, probably, either not to the purpose, or require explanation by the context. I judge thus from the first of his quotations - that from Cyprian de Unitate Ecclesise. I there find some disingenuous dealing with the original. The translation by Parsons is, - "Whosoever is separated from the church, and joyneth himself to an adultresse conventicle, is separated also from the promises of the church, nor euer shall he come to enjoy the rewards thereof if he leaue her; he is an alien, a prophane person, an enemy; he cannot haue God for his Father, that hath not the church for his mother; yea, though he should be slayne for the confession of Christ's name, yet can he not be saued; macula ista nec sanguine abluitur. This crime of separating himselfe from the church cannot be washed away with bloud; inexpiabilis culpa nec passione purgatur, it is a fault unexpiable, nor can it be purged by death itselfe." Such is Parsons's translation. Now, Cyprian is speaking of the catholic church: - "Quisquis," he says, "ab ecclesia segregatus adulterae jungitur, a promissis ecclesiae separatur, nec perveniet ad Christi praemia qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi. Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est. Habere jam non potest Deum Patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem." So far Parsons goes with Cyprian, inserting, however, the word "conventicle," - translating "perveniet" by "ever shall he come," - and making the "praemia" mean the rewards of the church, not the rewards of Christ, as the text requires. To have pursued the quotation would not have suited his purpose, for the following words would have shown that those who are here condemned are such persons as knowingly and artfully separate themselves from the unity of the catholic church. But Parsons proceeds as if the remainder of his quotation were in immediate connexion with what I have now cited. It is not so. What I have already quoted is in page 121 of my edition (Edit. 1839); the remainder is in page 126. It is as follows: - "Tales etiamsi occisi in confessione nominis fuerint, macula ista nec sanguine abluitur, inexpiabilis et gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur." Here Parsons's words, "yet can he not be saved," are an interpolation, perhaps a natural inference from what follows; but what would have been said if Foxe had been found so tampering with a translation? To come to the text itself. Parsons omits the word "tales." One would have been tempted to ask who these "tales" were; and on turning to the context we see that a definition of them is given. They are such as have not charity. (1 Cor. xiii. 2, 5, 7, 8.) "Ad praemia Christi, qui dixit, (John xv. 12,) pertinere non poterit qui dilectionem Christi perfida dissensione violaverit." Such, then, are those excluded from the rewards; and the whole is a paraphrase of the sentiment of St. Paul in 1 Cor. xiii.; but by this dishonest mode of tacking together two disjointed sentences, a different sense is attached to it.

The second extract is equally misquoted and misinterpreted. It is this - "He cannot become a martyr who is not a member of the church, neither can they euer come to Christ's kingdom who do forsake his spouse which is there to raigne. Though tyed to stakes they burne in flames, and be consumed with fiar, though throwen to wild beasts they be by them deuoured - non erit fidei corona, sed poena perfidiae sit." In this quotation a large portion is omitted between the words "raigne" and " though," which would have given it a different colouring. That Foxe in every point was faultless we are not concerned to maintain. Thus he did not (in my opinion) do justice to More, to say that he well deserved his bloody end. It was not judicious to compare Tyndale and Frith to St. Paul and Timothy. Yet I do not see that Parsons brings any proof of inaccuracy, still less of fraud, against Foxe; the differences are the differences of the churches of Rome and England, and here Foxe may be permitted to have his opinion as well as Parsons. At page 524, he accuses Foxe of "sundry kinds of falsehood and untrue dealing, and diverse kinds also of lies, some historical, some doctrinal, and other like." We have a specimen of the nature of these at p. 527, such as "the following 4 lies about justification, 2 about hope and charity, 10 about good works by the pope's law, 3 about freewill and good works, etc." Of these I have spoken in my remarks on Andrews, who has copied them. The "veracity and fidelity" of Foxe are still unimpeached; and there are no other observations on the martyrologist worthy of notice, till we may close the volume.

Vol. IV. - The Fourth Volume proceeds with the continuation of the examination of Foxe's Calendar, with that of the church of Rome in juxtaposition, from July to December inclusive. Prefixed is "The Epistle Dedicatory to the glorious Company of English Saints in Heaven," who are supposed to be dreadfully scandalized by the bad company into which Foxe has brought them. They are supposed also to have attained heaven by "fasting, watching, large prayer, lying on the ground, and other such chastisements;" but not one word on the merits of our Saviour. On the next page there is a sneer "faith."

The Calendar itself goes on as before; there are no charges of any inaccuracy brought against Foxe, excepting such as having written Brenbridge instead of Brenbricke, (31 July.) Robert Purcas instead of William Purcas, (20 August.)[12] This is satisfactory as showing how little could be corrected, and that nothing could be denied. Parsons is not accurate; e. g. he says that Ridley was a native of Northamptonshire.

Parsons takes care to repeat the caution to the reader, guarding him against sympathizing with these poor men and women thus put to death: he says that it was necessary justice and no cruelty, and further, that they were influenced by pertinacity, not constancy.

I find very little which requires notice after this, excepting the mode in which Parsons deals with the history of Marbeck. Parsons has the candour to admit that historians "may have many false informations." He goes on to say that he does not often bring accusations against Foxe upon matters of fact, (would he have hesitated had he been able?) but is most indignant about his lies, "which lyes cannot any wayes be excused, whereof you shall see above 120 in one chapter afterwards, (see page 412,) taken out of less than three leaves of his Acts and Monuments, and thereby perceive the credit that may be given to John Foxe his narrations." These "lies" are those on points of doctrine mentioned in the last volume, and have been already noticed.

In page 362 he commences a long disquisition upon the power, the right, and the obligation of punishing heresy with the sword; and affirms, that this sword is in the church. Parsons professes, indeed, to have been moved with compassion for the sufferers, but he suppressed the feeling as improper. If the question be raised at all, it is only in reference to the expediency of the case; and this expediency is questioned only from the want of success of the persecutions under Mary. His interpretation of the parable of the tares, is the necessity of caution in rooting up the heresies, which are the tares. This is the most important passage in the whole treatise. His interpretation is defended from Augustine.

In page 397, Parsons attributes the supposed errors of Foxe to want of judgment, or to mental weakness, rather than to malice; and mentions some infirmities of mind to which the martyrologist was subject, such as, that he imagined himself to be glass, or earthenware, or a bird, - circumstances which proved his brain to be diseased. These things are not mentioned by Foxe's other biographers, and we have now no means of ascertaining their truth. In page 400, speaking of Foxe's errors, he says that many of them have already been specified, (we have seen how many!) and that further proof is given of his errors in the XlXth chapter. This chapter contains the celebrated charge, that Foxe has told one hundred and twenty lies in three pages. These lies, we have seen, are not perversions of facts, but alleged misstatements of doctrines. All the charges of Parsons are equally vague and unfounded.

In pages 400 and 403, are some passages worthy of remark, as showing the result of Foxe's work, which would appear to have been great. At page 401, the fact of it being placed in the churches is mentioned. Parsons attributes the success of the book to the variety of the history itself, - the plates of the martyrdoms, - the hypocrisy of the writer, which is clothed in seeming frankness, - the speeches attributed to the martyrs, - the greatness of the book, - and the placing it in the churches. He assures us, that this miserable man, John Foxe, and his abettors, will have to yield a strait and heavy account to their Redeemer, at the most dreadful "accoumpting day," for the infinite spiritual hurt which they have rendered to the souls of their countrymen. He assures us, (page 404,) that one effect of Foxe's book is to make men have no religion at all; while in page 405, he informs us that this Fox-den book is only fit to make madmen of fools, and heretics of ignorant people; and he exhorts his countrymen to lose no more time in reading his vain pages. This advice his poor foolish countrymen have not hitherto followed. One reason may have been, that it was then submitted to them by the papist. The same advice has been lately enforced upon them by their brother Protestants, who hate the name by which the public law describes them, and prefer the opinions of Robert Parsons to those of John Foxe. I make no remarks on the coarse language which the Jesuit has sometimes adopted. I submitted sufficiently to that degradation in reviewing the pages of Eusebius Andrews. And thus we close the fourth volume.

Vol. V. - The Fifth Volume of Parsons is occupied solely with an account of the disputations mentioned by Foxe as having taken place between the Romanists and the Reformers. According to Parsons, the former are always right and the latter always wrong. On these I shall only observe, that, in page 17, Parsons could get no other copies of these disputations besides those preserved by Foxe: and this very fact proves to us the great value of Foxe's work as a storehouse of materials. The whole volume is entirely dogmatical and polemical, having nothing to do with Foxe. It requires no special notice. And so the whole subject ends. No great facts are overthrown. The "veracity and fidelity" of Foxe are still unimpeached; and we may justly believe, that if the attack of Parsons, his inveterate and learned contemporary, has failed to depreciate his work, that they will still remain, not unimpeached, but certainly unimpeachable.

With respect to the character of Robert Parsons, I have assigned to him the credit of high motive and good intentions. I am not ignorant that pope Clement himself is said to have called him - a knave; the Jesuit Fitzherbert - a hypocrite; the secular priests - the worst of villains;[13] and that the Quarterly Reviewer,[14] Southey,[15] the Protestant writers generally, and even the greater number of the papal authors,[16] have deemed him to be unworthy of approbation. I cannot, however, after reading his Christian Directory, come to these conclusions. I believe rather, that he was sincerely convinced that he was doing God service by every act of treason which, he committed against his native country, and against the church of England. I am convinced that he believed the truth of the passage I have already quoted from his work on Foxe; that he believed in the damnation of Foxe and of his abettors; and that he thought that he should be the cause of saving many souls from everlasting perdition, if he could have surrendered England to Spain, rendered the Armada successful, and made his native country a province to the king of Spain, and its church a tributary to the bishop of Rome. The same principles have uniformly led to the same results. The more zealous adherents to the church of Rome, who always obtain the ascendancy over their more quiescent brethren when controversial excitement is greatest, have ever regarded their obedience to the laws of God, as identified with their own submission to the foreign bishop; and they have as uniformly believed that it is no less their bounden duty to convert their countrymen to the same opinion, and to reduce them to the same yoke. They have been convinced, with Parsons, of the truth of the papal maxim,[17] that it is necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the bishop of Rome. They believe, with father Parsons, that the council of Trent, in its catechism, as it is still taught at Maynooth, in Spain, and by Dens, speaks but the truth, when it declares that heretics and schismatics are still under the jurisdiction of the church. The belief in these and similar principles sent the Armada against England, and excited numerous rebellions and insurrections in England and Ireland from the reign of Elizabeth to the reign of George III. Such belief on the part of the papists demands, even to this hour, on the part of the Protestants, the most vigilant and persevering jealousy against the holiest, the best, most pious, and worthiest Romanist. If the church of Rome still produce a pious, holy, virtuous, papal priesthood, then let England beware of the popery which would betray the Protestant church and state to the church and creed of Rome, to please the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even now, in our own day, language has been used respecting the propriety of appealing to the foreigner, - of withholding assistance, in the event of a war, from our own sovereign, - and of bringing England once more under the yoke of Rome, - language which I will not repeat, as I wish to say nothing which may appear to relate to the peculiar divisions of the day in which we live; but if Rome does not, will not change, - if the same principles, which our fathers believed to be the "worst of superstitions and the heaviest of all God's judgments,"[18] are continued, - if the worst maxims of the ancient canon laws are still taught, - if the general conviction be true, that a class of zealous, enterprizing partisans are ever actively employed, secretly, yet perseveringly, to imbue the minds of all whom they can influence with the doctrines in question, - if these things are so: then let England beware, lest other domestic enemies are found who shall imitate the example of the Jesuit Parsons, and betray their country to the foreigner, to please God and to extend the church of Christ. If Rome does not, and will not, change the principles on which this man acted, - and if similar religious principles, always, in the same circumstances, produce the same effects, - then the experience of the past requires us to continue our ancient jealousy, - to beware of popery, - and to value, next to the holy Scriptures and the sacred liturgy of our Protestant episcopal church itself, those writers who paint in their proper colours the consequences of the adoption of the principles of papistry. If Rome does not, and will not, change, every day and every hour deepens the conviction, that jealousy of Rome is still a duty; and the study, therefore, of the volumes of John Foxe, and of all, who, like him, enforce the evil consequences of the dominion of Rome among us, is still both a duty, and a privilege.

_____________________________

FOOTNOTES:

[1]From 1568 to 1574.

[2]See the references which justify my opinion of the character of Parsons in Foulis, Chalmers, and Dodd's Church History. It is customary (see the Quarterly Review), more especially, to speak of Parsons as a profligate hypocrite. I believe him to have been a conscientious traitor.

[3]"Accusations of History against the Church of Rome," second edit. p. 285.

[4]July 5, 1575.

[5]The Christian Directory of Father Parsons, in one closely-printed, thick octavo volume, contains as perfect passages of devotion as" The Christian Year."

[6]May I subjoin here, for the admiration of the devoted friends of the Anglican, Protestant church, the beautiful and eloquent prayer which was offered in the royal chapel, and in English churches, when the Armada was preparing:
"O Lord God, heavenly Father, the Lord of hosts, without whose providence nothing proceedeth, without whose mercy nothing is saved; in whose power lie the hearts of princes, and the end of all their actions; have mercy upon thine afflicted church; and especially regard thy servany Elizabeth, our most excellent queen; to whom thy dispersed flock do fly in the anguish of their souls, and in the zeal of thy truth. Behold! how the princes of the nations do band themselves against her, because she laboureth to purge thy sanctuary, and that thy holy church may live in security.
"Consider, O Lord, how long thy servant hath laboured to them for peace: but how proudly they prepare themselves for battle. Arise therefore, maintian thine own cause; and judge thou between her and her enemies. She seeketh not her own honour, but thine; not the dominion of others, but a just defence of herself: not the shedding of christian but the saving of poor afflicted souls. Come down, therefore, come down, and deliver thy people by her. To vanquish is all one with thee, by few or by many; by want, or by wealth; by weakness, or by strength. O! Possess the hearts of our enemies with a fear of thy servants. The cause is thine; the afflicted thine; the honour, the victory, and the triumph shall be thine.
"Consider, Lord, the end of our enterprises. Be present with us in our armies. Terrify the hearts of our enemies, and make a joyful peace for thy Christians.
"And now, since in this extreme necessity, thou hast put into the heart of thy servant Deborah, to provide strength to withstand the pride of Sisera and his adherents, bless thou all her forces, by sea and land. Grant all her people one heart, one mind, and one strength, to defend her person, her kingdom, and thy true religion. Give unto all her council and captains, wisdom, wariness, and courage, that they may speedily prevent the devices, and valiantly withstand the forces of all our enemies, that the fame of thy gospel may be spread unto the ends of the world. We crave this in thy mercy, O heavenly Father, for the precious death of thy dear Son Jesus Christ. Amen."

May I add too, the contrast to this prayer; those which were offered to God, and to the Virgin Mary, on board the fleet, for the success of the papal efforts, against the heretics of England:
"Versic. Exurge Domine. - Resp. Et judica causam tuam, Kyrie eleison. Christe, eleison Kyrie, eleison. Christe, audi nos; Christe, exaudi nos, &c. - Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis. Sancta Dei Genetrix, ora pro nobis. Sancta Virgo Virginum, ora, &c. Sancte Michael, ora. Sancte Gabriel, ora. Sancte Raphael, ora. Omnes Sancti Angeli, et Archangeli Dei, orate pro nobis. Omnes sancti Beatorum Spirituum ordines, orate. Sancte Joannes Baptista, ora pro nobis," &c.; and then naming each saint distinctly with the petition Ora, &c.; and so to the end of that part of their Litany. And then are Proper Psalms appointed for each day in the week, beginning at Sunday; for which is Psalm iii. "Domine, quid multiplicati sunt, qui tribulant me? Multi insurguiit adversum me," &c.
Then follow certain versicles and responses, and after them some collects composed for the occasion; which were these:
"Da, quaesumus, ecclesiae tuae, miserecors Deus, ut Spiritu Sancto congregata, hostili nullatenus incursione turbetur.
"Concede, nos famulos tuos, quaesumus, Domine Deus, perpetua mentis et corporis sanitate gaudere, et gloriosa Beatae Mariae semper Virginis intercessione, a praesenti libera tristitia, et aeterna perfrui laetitia.
"Ecclesiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine, preces placatus admitte; ut destructis adversitatibus, et erroribus universis, secura tibi serviat libertate.
"Deus, omnium fidelium pastor et rector, famulum tuum N - (quern pastorem ecclesiae tuae praeesse voluisti) propitius respice. Da ei, quaesumus, verbo et exemplo, quibus praeest, proficere; ut ad vitam, una cum grege sibi credito, perveniat sempiternam.
"Quaesumus, Omnipotens Deus, ut famulus tuus Philipus, rex noster (qui tua miseratione suscepit regni gubernacula) virtutum etiam omnium percipiat incrementa. Quibus decenter ornatus, et vitiorum monstra devitare; et ad te (qui Via, Veritas, et Vita es) gratiosus valeat pervenire.
"Deus, qui conteris bella et impugnatores in te sperantium potentia tuae defensionis expugnans; auxilare famulis tuis implorantibus misericordiam tuam; ut haereticorum et omnium inimicorum suorum feritate depressa, ineffabili te gratiarum actione laudemus.
"Deus noster, refugium et virtus ade [adsis] piis ecclesiae tuae precibus, Auctor ipse pietatis. Et praesta, ut quod fideliter petimus, efficaciter consequamur.
"Hostium nostrorum, quassumus, Domine, elide superbiam et eorum contumaciam dexterae tuae virtute prosterne.
"Libera, quaesumus, Domine, a peccatis et hostibus tibi famulos supplicantes, ut, in sancta conversatione viventes, nullis afflciantur adversis.
"Protector noster, aspice, Deus, et propugnatores tuos a paganomm et hsereticorum defende periculis; ut ab omnibus perturbationibus semoti, liberis tibi mentibus serviant.
"Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, moestorum consolatio, laborantium fortitudo; perveniant ad te preces de quacunque tribulatione clamantium; ut omnes sibi in necessitatibus suis misericordiam tuam gaudeant affuisse. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
"Versic. Exaudiat nos, Omnipotens et Misericors Deus.
"Resp. Et custodiat nos semper."

[7]Dodd denies that Parsons was the author of this work. It was compiled by cardinal Allen, Inglefield, and other papists. These committed their materials to Parsons, who prepared the book for the press.

[8]See Beda, iii. 25.

[9]See HiBt. Eccl. p. 100.

[10]Vol. i. p. 138, ed. 1684.

[11]1 Cor. i. 26-28.

[12In my observations on Harpsfleld, I have collated some of these alleged inaccuracies.

[13]Robert. Abbot. Antilog. fol. 14, 2 ap. the Life of Father Parsons, in Foulis's History of Popish Treasons, Let. x. chap. l, p. 506.

[14]Vol. xxxiii. pp. 7, 8, 16, 21, 32, &c.

[15]Vindiciae Eccles. Anglic. I think.

[16]See Dodd, Chalmers, the references in Foulis, and the Lansdowne MSS. 983, fol. 165.

[17]Bonif. Extrav. lib. i. Tit. I. de Major et Obedientia.

[18]Milton.

Exerpt from Volume I of "Acts and Monuments," by John Foxe (1841 Edition in 8 Volumes)