The account given by Mr. Allibone of Foxe’s life is to some extent fabulous, inasmuch as he accepts Mr. Townsend’s statements as to the authorship of Foxe’s Life by his (Foxe’s) son. Mr. Allibone ought to know that Foxe’s son did not write the Life in question. In the article Maitland, Rev. S. R., keeper of the Lambeth MSS. and Librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Mr. Allibone enumerates as (13) of his works Notes on the Contributions of the Rev. George Townsend to the new Edition of Foxe’s Martyrology. We would advise Mr. Allibone—since he needs must raise an unnecessary discussion about this man Foxe—to go beyond the title of this work of Maitland’s into its contents. He will be rapidly enlightened concerning both Foxe and Townsend. This Dr. Maitland is also the author of the admirable Dark Ages. Mr. Allibone does mention it, “only this and nothing more.”
Mr. Allibone has the hardihood to assert that, “as regards conscientiousness of performance and adherence to records, the faithfulness of the ‘Book of Martyrs’ cannot intelligently be questioned,” and his principal witness to prove Foxe’s veracity is—Gilbert Burnet, commonly known as Bishop Burnet! Throw literature to the dogs! It is “keeping alive the Protestant feeling” we look upon as our mission. That, as we read it, appears to be Mr. Allibone’s controlling idea. But what is to become of us if the faithfulness of every suspicious and fishy chronicler is to be discovered and vindicated by every compiler of every literary dictionary? However, we need not, we believe, be alarmed, for our author’s affections are enlisted for a select few, Foxe in particular, because of “his influence in keeping alive, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.”
Here is one of the latest of the many honest Protestant exposures of the character of Foxe’s book, from the pen of Professor Arnold, of University College, Oxford:
“It is now indeed well understood that Foxe was a rampant bigot, and, like all of his class, utterly unscrupulous in assertion;—the falsehoods, misrepresentations, and exaggerations to which he gave circulation are endless. Take, for instance, his account of the death of Wolsey, which we know, from the testimony of George Cavendish, an eye-witness, to be a string of pure, unmitigated falsehoods.”
As to the worthlessness of Burnet’s testimony we have abundant Protestant evidence. Mr. Allibone himself quotes Dr. Johnson to this effect:
“I do not believe that Burnet intentionally lied; but he was so much prejudiced that he took no pains to find out the truth. He was like a man who resolves to regulate his time by a certain watch, but will not inquire whether the watch is right or not.”
Whereupon Mr. Allibone indulges in this astounding piece of withering sarcasm:
“One might imagine that the doctor had roomed with the bishop at least, he seems to be so perfectly informed as to his habits”!
As to Burnet the man and the theologian, we are sufficiently enlightened by the use he consented to be put to by Buckingham and Lauderdale, at the time when, as royal chaplain, he preached before “the king and his harem” every Sunday. This use was the preparation of a work in which he undertook to set forth the queen’s barrenness as “a good cause for divorce.” Starting at the period of Henry VIII., England had become gradually pagan and profligate; but whatever of goodness and virtue was then left in the country joined in denouncing the author of the vile principles set forth in Burnet’s book.
Mr. Allibone neglects to record that it was because Charles II., bad as he was, despised Burnet and his advice, and when, losing his office in the Chapel Royal, Burnet suddenly awakened to a sense of the king’s wickedness, and wrote a remonstrance to him on his bad life, Charles treated him with silent contempt.