1807. } 
racter; but that he died a Jew js a 
manifest falsehood, for the particulars of 
his pious exit at Cambridge are upon 
record. Dr, Parker, afterwards Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, preached his fu- 
neral sermon; and Dr. Haddon, the.Uni- 
versity orator, in a speech at the funeral, 
drew his character in terms which ‘he 
would hardly have ventured to use, if 
such a cireumstance had even been whis- 
pered or suspected. But how is it that 
this precious anecdote, which would have 
been a rich treat to the inquisitive and 
zealous Romanists, was never brought 
forward in the season of their triumph, 
after the accession of Queen Mary? 
Ilow happened it that when the body of 
Bucer was taken up and burnt, together 
with that of his colleague, Fagius, a 
mean act of revenge worthy of its au- 
fhors,—how happened it, I say, that the 
Judaism of Bucer was not then blazoned 
forth ? 
If the story of his apostacy had been 
true, his enemies would not have failed 
to make the most of it; and that too for 
the purpose of covering the surviving re- 
formers with confusion and disgrace. 
Your correspondent endeavours to 
represent Bucer as a furious persecutor ; 
and atwibutes to him principally the 
burning of two Arians in London, and 
of Servetus at Geneva. With regard to 
the former, I challenge your correspon- 
dent to produce the least evidence, that 
Bucer had any concern in their death ; 
and as to Servetus, every body knows 
that he was tried and burnt treache- 
rously and tyrannically, two years after 
the death of Bucer. So much for the ex- 
tent of this calumniator’s reading, and 
the modesty of his assertions. 
Throughout this whole rhapsody, the: 
reformation of the church of England is 
termed Bucerism; and it is even said, 
that “ our lawgivers employed Bucer, to 
accommodate their statutes to No Po- 
ery.” 
The English Liturgy, in fact, after being 
reformed by the bishops and other di- 
vines, was approved of by the privy 
council, and published with the King’s 
proclamation, March 8, 154%: now Bucer 
and FPagius did not arrive in England till 
the latter end of that year, or the begin- 
ning of 1549; consequently, neither of 
them could have had any hand in that 
Liturgy. , 4 
Tt is true that Archbishop Cranmer 
desired to have Bucer’s opinion upon the 
English Common-Prayer Book, which 
the other ireely gave hun at considerable 
Defence of Bucer and the Linglish Reformation. 
419 
length ; in consequence of which, some 
regard was had to his animadversions in 
the revision of the Liturgy. Tt ought, 
however, to be observed here, that this 
learned and inoderate divine, in his letter 
to Cranmer on this suhject, says, “that 
upon his perusal of the service book, he 
thanked God Almighty for giving the. 
English grace to reform their ceremonies 
to that degree of purity; and that he, 
found nothing in them, but what was 
either taken out of the word of God, or 
at least, not contrary to it, provided it 
was fairly interpreted.” (Collier, E. H. 
vol. 1. p. 296.) Whoafter this will have 
the eifrontery to charge the English re- 
formation with Bucerism? What is said 
of Bucer’s being employed about our 
statutes, I might be excused from an- 
swering. It is for the author of this as- 
sertion to mention the statutes, and the 
particulars of the several accommodations 
made in them tg the spirit of persecu- 
tion; for that, I suppose, is what is in- 
tended, under the cant words 6f * No 
Popery.” When your correspondent 
shall have produced his testimonies in 
support of this, and his other paradoxical 
assumptions, [ will examine them with 
impartiality, though with strictness; and. 
if the truth be on his side, it shall be 
honestly confessed. Let me im return 
expect the same openness and candour 
in him, 
I pass from Bucer to other positions, 
equally curicus and new, im this letter, 
Henry VIII. it is said, put Sir Thomas 
More aud Bishop Fisher to death, that 
we might have No Popery. To this I beg 
leave to add, that though these two vir- 
tuous men were beheaded for denying 
the king’s supremacy, yet at the same 
time the protestants were burnt in Smith- 
field and elsewhere, for denying transub- 
stantiation, Your correspondent says, 
that * Cardinal Beaton was assassinated 
in Scotland, under Edward VI.” Pray, 
Sir, was Edward VI. ever king of Scot- 
land? But to pass over this, the Cardinal 
was murdered im his palace by Lesley: 
and others, May 29, 1546: now Edward 
did not come to the English throne till 
the death of his father, which happened 
January 28, 1543. So much for this 
writer's historical knowledge. eth 
.An affectmg picture is drawn, but 
briefly, of the sufferings inflicted upon 
Tonstal, and other English bishops, in 
the reiyn of Edward. What persceu- 
tions they endured, I am yet to learn. 
That they were deprived is certain; aad 
that some of them were imprisoned. is 
312 equal. y 
