ing so firmly and resolutely his convictions in the face of all consequences, had conferred upon him the high dignity of a cardinal, he calmly replied, "If the red hat were lying at my feet I would not stoop to pick it up, so small a value do I set upon it." O! what a rebuke, what an admonition, is there in the first of these sayings, to that extreme selfishness and spirit of worldliness which have marked the conduct of many a succeeding prelate, and of which we have saddening glimpses in our own remembrance, and which, it must be confessed, have left an intensely painful feeling upon the humble-minded Christian, while they have called forth protesting voices among the people, even against the episcopate itself. Now a reverend historian of the present day, whose protestant predilections are quite as strong as those of Burnett, is not afraid to make this ample and generous admission, that " cannot fail to respect the man who would never exchange his small bishopric of Rochester for more valuable preferment.”+ If there be, then, still those among our first order of priesthood who are tempted to cast a wistful look upon a wealthier see-to feel a desire of accumulation beyond what Christianity prescribes-and thus to cling to mammon while professing to serve the church-let them shut their eyes, and think of Bishop Fisher's truly evangelical de we Carwithen's History of the Church of England, v. i., p. 143. This Pope died on the 26th of September, 1535, and Paul created Fisher a Cardinal, in a general promotion, on the 21st of May, 15——See Wharton, Contin. Hist. Roff. Angl. Sacr. 1. * The bitter brutal jest which Henry passed upon this offer, might lead one to suppose, that Fisher had earnestly sought to obtain this papal present: "Let the Pope send him a hat when he will; but by God's mother he shall not wear it on his shoulders then, for I will leave him never a head to set it on." Now, from the fact of Fisher's having been named to the purple before the intelligence of his condemnation could have been brought to Rome, it is quite manifest that this appointment was not made "sorely to vex and irritate Henry," but out of respect to his talents and virtues, and steady attachment to the Papal see, of which he had always been the inflexible and uncompromising advocate. "Finally, the said, Machon writeth, that he, expostulating with the Bishop of Rome for that he had made the Bishop of Rochester a Cardinal, knowing him to be the person whom your Grace favoured not, and had most worthily deserved your Grace's highe indignation. The said Bishop of Rome answered, that he had not doon it for any displeasure unto your Highness, but only for that he thought him, for his singular lerning and good lyving to be a personne most mete to be present in the general Counsail, there to have his ayde and assistence in suche doubts as might arrise."-MS. Harl., Baker, 7030, p. 206. + See Short's Sketch of the History of the Church of England, v. i., p. 147. claration. 66 was "To die shamefully rich," as Burnett phrases it, an unholy wish," he tells us, "that possessed many a bishop in his day," and which, no doubt, produced a most injurious effect upon the best interests of our pure scriptural and apostolic church. But in these times of strong political excitement, when the motives as well as the actions of our mitred ecclesiastics are severely, minutely criticised and examined, "when there is no charm in the name of a bishop," when he is no longer regarded as a sacred abstraction-although he is, according to the theory of certain of our clergy, from his residence being a palace, his cathedral seat a throne, his crosier a sceptre, his mitre a crown, to be invested with a sort of regal inaccessible elevation of rank-the heavings of the public mind would be so general, the tide of popular odium would run so strong, against these money-amassing propensities, that no prelate, however inordinate might be his affection of money, would venture to shock our moral vision by giving to religion this hue and colour of earthliness. For he must know little of the signs and tokens of the present age who could expect to find a due reverence paid to his order, should he fail to carry into full efficiency any one of the conditions on which the payment of that reverence is founded. These are still truths of vital importance, though the "ecclesiastical commissioners of England," by so far equalizing the revenues of bishops as almost to set aside the practice of translations from one diocese to another, have contributed, in no small measure, to put an end to all unhallowed strife for pelf. For performing this excellent service, and for lessening the immoderate incomes of Canterbury, London, and Durham, we fervently ejaculate, God speed their labours! The ecclesiastical commission, noisome as it has become to many of our dignitaries, will, in the foregoing respect, be like the carcase of Sampson's lion, the means of conveying much purifying and strengthening aliment, not only to the church, but to Christianity itself. In these remarks, the bigot may fancy that he espies the taint of heresy. Be it enough, then, to tell him, we hold as firmly as he can the truth of the apostolical succession* and of primitive tradi * The Epistles addressed by St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, are decisive evidence of the apostolical sanction to the existence of a three-fold order of the Ministers of the Gospel." We may, I believe, state confidently" says Dr. Shuttleworth, "that from the days of the Apostles until the early part of the sixteenth century, notwithstanding the multitude of discussions which took place on other points, no large community of Christians existed, in which the respective grades of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons were not VOL. VI.-NO. XIX. H tion ;* enough to tell him, we are quite as much opposed as he to that school of divinity called liberal or latitudinarian, although, unlike him, we indulge in no harshness, bitterness, or severity, against those whose religious opinions are different from our own. Under this influence of a degree of similarity of sentiments between us, we may pass with some as papists in disguise, seceders from pure protestantism, and favourers of the undue claims and pestilent errors of the church of Rome. Our earnest wish to do justice, as impartial critics, to the character of Bishop Fisher-to shew how completely it is stamped with the seal of the Christian virtues of humility and self-denial-may, we say, bring upon us these accusations; but those who know how essentially protestant have been the complexion of our religious opinions in all our writings, how unfeigned, undisguised, and unalterable, our attachment to episcopalian protestantism, will smile at any such ill-founded reproaches; nevertheless, we would have no one think that we had imitated the example of Bishop Gunning, who, as Burnett tells us, "by setting himself with great zeal to clear the church of Rome from idolatry, made many suspect him as inclined to go over, though he was far from it." Returning, then, to the subject which has occasioned this digression: Burnett, instead of expressing all the admiration and respect which this noble example set by Fisher to other bishops demands, contemplates it with that freezing indifference which will not allow him to bestow even one cold sentence of approbation. For in reference to a determination which places the character of Fisher in so venerable a light-which so beautifully exemplifies the feelings of a Christian bishop of the primitive times-our historian thinks it sufficient to remark that "he followed the rule of the primitive church, which never changes for a better."+ That the History of the Reformation does equal credit to the talents and industry of Burnett will be readily allowed by all competent judges, but no satisfactory excuse can be made for his withholding praises so justly due, and thus sinking the character of the historian into that of the common polemic, because the Bishop of Rochester lived and died in the Romish communion, because he held the same faith which a acknowledged and retained."-p. 14. See his excellent Sermon On the Voluntary Principle not recognized by the Primitive Church. * Mr. Keble has discussed this much debated point in a most masterly manr er, in his recent Sermon, entitled, “Primitive Traditions recognized in Holy Scripture." We earnestly recommend it to the attention of the young theological student. + History of the Reform., v. i., p. 708. Fenelon and a Pascal afterwards professed. Surely, then, the substantial worth and excellence of Fisher should have beat down those prejudices which concentrated Burnett's religious likings within a narrow circle, instead of loving Christians as Christians, and not those only who agreed with him in judgment.-But to proceed to the notice of those events which, it may be said, directly brought this venerable prelate to a merciless account. On the 21st of February a bill of attainder was brought into the House of Lords" against Elizabeth Barton, the Holy Maid of Kent, then a nun professed in the priory of St. Sepulchre, at Canterbury, and likewise against those ecclesiastics who had given credit or countenance to her pretended prophecies. Among those who were implicated for misprison of treason in this affair was Fisher.† Even his masculine understanding, like that of Archbishop Warham and of More, yielded to the delusion of her neighbours, that the predictions uttered by her were ascribable to some preternatural agency. This prophetess, as the statute informs us, declared that "she had knowledge, by revelation from God, that God was highly displeased with our said sovereign lord, and that if he proceeded in the said divorce, and married again, he should no longer be king of this realm, and that, in the estimation of Almighty God, he should not be a king one hour, and that he should die a villain's death."‡ This prediction of the nun, Fisher, it was said, had concealed from the king. Cromwell, therefore, advised him to confess his culpability and throw himself upon the royal clemency, with the full assurance of his receiving it. But the principles of this aged prelate, then in his seventy-sixth year, were not so pliant and ductile that they could stifle the voice of conscience at the call of safety. He was not a mere machine in the hands of the court to be moved in what direction they willed, to take what course they chose. When the question of the divorce was agitated, he had boldly maintained the legality of the queen's marriage, by publishing a treatise in defence of it. He was early consulted by Catherine on this grand subject, however some historians have denied the fact. At first, Fisher was extremely reluctant to interfere,§ but when he did * See Journals of the House of Lords, p. 68. + History of the Reform., v. i., p. 308, 309. See Hall, Herbert, Strype, and Lingard upon this transaction. § In the first volume of the State Papers, p. 197, 198, there is an interesting conversation between Wolsey and Fisher, on the grand subject of the divorce, upon a visit paid by the former to the Bishop, in which he informs his royal correspondent "he was right lovingly and kindely entertaigned." consent to become a party in her cause he manifested the most unflinching adherence to it. He was one of her councillors upon the hearing before the legate at Blackfriars, and in that capacity so exasperated and envenomed the ire of Henry that this proved the stepping-stone to his tragical end.* And in a speech in the upper house of the convocation of Canterbury he had lifted up a protesting voice against the suppression of the lesser monasteries, with such energy and freedom as must have conjured to his audience the image of most dangerous consequences, from their conviction of the deep and indelible offence which such an address would give to their tyrannical sovereign. If the following were not the words of truth, they were at least the words of undaunted faithfulness to the opinions which he had espoused. "Beware, my lords," exclaimed Bishop Fisher, "beware of yourselves and of your country, beware of your holy mother, the catholic church. The people are subject to novelties, and Lutheranism spreads itself among us. Remember Germany and Bohemia. Let our neighbour's houses, which are on fire, teach us to beware of our own. An axe," continued the learned prelate, "came upon a time into the wood, making his moan to the great trees that he wanted an handle to work withall, and for that cause he was constrained to sit idle; therefore he made it his request to them to grant him one of their small saplings within the wood to make him an handle. But now, becoming a complete axe, he fell so to work within the same wood that, in process of time, there were neither great nor small trees to be found in the place where the wood stood. And so, my lords, if you can grant the king these smaller monasteries, you do but make him an handle whereby, at his own pleasure, he may cut down all the cedars of the Lebanons."† The man who did not shrink from 'giving vent in such an open and frontless manner, to his indignation against measures which, according to his clear and compendious logic, were culpable, because arbitrary and unjust, was not likely to submit to the bent of Cromwell's courtly politics, even though they assumed the colours of goodness, upon an occasion in which his own personal honour and * "John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester," says Fuller, "led here the front, whom some catholics call John the Baptist, because he was beheaded, though on a contrary account, John the Baptist for saying it is not lawful, John Fisher for saying it is lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." This speech was said to be delivered in 1529, upon a motion being made in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury for suppressing the lesser monasteries.-Dr. Hall's Life of Fisher, p. 108. |