faithlessness of the periods which he describes. He might perhaps have been more guarded and sparing in this respect.

That his work contains much entertainment is undeniable, but Fuller must have been un-Fullerized ere it could have been otherwise.

The roll of Battle Abbey is indeed at the end of the second book, a book of itself. But who would complain that such a supplement was annexed to the preceding history? a supplement in part original, and a subject not deemed unworthy of a place in the voluminous and truly national collections of venerable John Fox in his Martyrology.

We have at this time a party in the Church of England who, whilst professing to exalt above not a few of their brethren, the pure spirit of the Christian religion, patience, meekness, and obedience, are loud in their praises of the deposing and anathematizing pontiffs Gregory VII. and Innocent III. and of the merits of Thomas (with these clergymen of the Church of England, saint Thomas) à Becket. These divines have far outstripped their precursor Heylyn. It is remarkable that he passes over Fuller's censures of Becket without animadversion, though the most trifling defect in his pages could not escape notice.

In the commencing chapter of the fourteenth century, Dr. Fuller gives a brief notice of the great English school-divines, as also of the enormous exactions of the Popes in this age, not overlooking one of the most marvellous of the Jesuit Harding's very numerous falsehoods, that "the Pope's yearly

R

gains out of England were but as a gnat to an elephant." This is that Harding who is more graciously dealt with by the semi-Romish reviewer of the British Critic than the great Apologist of the English Reformation.*

Nothing can more clearly prove the impartial spirit of Fuller than his delineation of Wickliffe and his doctrines; nothing can more clearly evince the Romish tendencies of the school of Laud than Heylyn's uncandid reflections upon this part of the Church-History. "Being to write the History of Wickliffe, I intend," says Fuller, "neither to deny, dissemble, defend, or excuse any of his faults. We have this treasure,' saith the apostle, 'in earthen vessels; and he that shall endeavour to prove a pitcher of clay to be a pot of gold, will take great pains to small purpose. Yea, should I be overofficious to retain myself to plead for Wickliffe's faults, that glorious saint would sooner chide than thank me, unwilling that in favour of him truth should suffer prejudice. He was a man, and so subject to error, living in a dark age, more obnoxious to stumble; vexed with opposition, which makes men reel into violence, and therefore it is unreasonable, that the constitution and temper of his positive opinions should be guessed by his polemical heats, when he was chafed in disputation. But besides all these, envy hath falsely fathered many foul aspersions upon him.Ӡ

* See Art. 1. on Bp. Jewel, his character, &c. The British Critic, July 1841.

+ Church-Hist. B. iv.
p. 129.

In the face of this, Heylyn scrupled not to describe our author's account of Wickliffe and his opinions thus: "The heterodoxies of Wickliffe canonized for gospel."*

Fuller had spoken of Wickliffe's success as the success of the gospel.

"The Romanists observe that several advantages concurred to the speedy propagation of Wickliffe's opinions; as namely, the decrepit age of Edward III. and infancy of Richard his successor, being but a child, as his grandfather was twice a child; so that the reins of authority were let loose. Secondly, the attractive nature of novelty drawing followers unto it. Thirdly, the enmity which John of Gaunt bare unto the clergy, which made him out of opposition to favour the doctrine and person of Wickliffe. Lastly, the envy which the Pope had contracted by his exactions, and collations of ecclesiastical benefices. We deny not these helps were instrumentally active in their several degrees, but must attribute the main to divine Providence blessing the gospel, and to the nature of truth itself, which, though for a time violently suppressed, will seasonably make its own free and clear passage into the world." +

Fuller defends himself by observing that it was "Christ's gospel preached by Wickliffe in a purer manner than in that age (thanks to God it was then so good) impurer than in our age, thanks to God it now is better."

*See The Appeal, p. 45. Appeal, Pt. II. p. 40.

↑ Ch. Hist. B. iv. p. 129.

It was, indeed, no small success which the Almighty then vouchsafed to his own Word, when he raised up a fearless assertor of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture without tradition; the human origin and antichristian character of the Papacy, the blasphemous nature of transubstantiation, and the vanity of the penances and satisfactions which had, in the church of Rome, corrupted the doctrine of repentance. Great was the success of the gospel when Wickliffe gave to his country his translation of the New Testament, of which it has been observed, that "at this day it might be read in our churches without the necessity of many even verbal alterations, and on comparing it with the authorized version of King James, it will be found that the latter was hammered on Wickliffe's anvil."*

The rest of Fuller's defence I reserve to another chapter, that as it forms a single subject, it may be viewed singly.

* Prof. Blunt's Sketch of the Reformation, p. 95.

CHAPTER XV.

Fuller's Church History of Britain.

EYLYN had also said, "If the doctrines of Wickliffe must be called the gospel, what shall become of the religion then established in the realm of England, and in most other parts of the western world?" To this Fuller answers, "Far be it from me to account the rest of England relapsed into atheism, or lapsed in Judaism, Turcism, &c. whom I behold as erroneous Christians in doctrine and practice, and yet still in such a condition, that though so living and dying, if they lead a good life, and being weak, ignorant, and seduced, seriously repented of all their sins of ignorance, they might be saved; closing fully with the moderate judgment of learned Hooker therein."

Fuller, here alludes to the Sermon upon Justification, by some attributed to Hooker, by others disputed. Such is the force of some passages herein, that the internal evidence appears to favour the more general belief, by which it is assigned to Hooker. There is, however, a defect in the method, the sub