On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    The interpretation i& most irii £ rab&ble ¦} but , continues he , the oath fe conceived in ternis of sailbtgtrofus import , aaid is therefore such , possibly , as a conscientious cler ^ msin may safely take ; especially if he be careful to have * it understood , at the time of this compliance , that he never will consent to interpret this evasive formulary in anjr tnanner inconsistent with his duty as a * Christian arid a citizen . " But by whom understood ? Surely by the party imposing the oath ; and had Clement been present at this protest ,, can it be

    conceived that he would have suffered the Archbishop elect to assume his new dignity ? The conduct of Cranmer , however , on this occasion , is regarded by Mr . Soames as ¦ " a proof of his candour and integrity" ! " With that sincerity by which he was so distinguished , he came forwards publicly before he took an ambiguous oath , to declare that he would consent to interpret it , and to act upon it , in that sense only which was perfectly unexceptionable !"

    That an exceptionable oath can be Tendered unexceptionable by the uncommunicated protest of the party taking it , is one of those refinements in casuistry Which we might expect to meet amongst the disciples of Loyola , but which we could scarcely have anticipated from a Protestant clergyman . Had Cranmer been as sincere in his desire of avoiding his new dignity , as Some writers have supposed , the imposition of this oath would , it may be thought , have- afforded a very plausible ground for refusing the mitre .

    The portion of his work devoted by Mr . Sharon Turner to the History of the Reformation , is inconsiderable , and scarcely evinces the research and indus- * try which are observable through the rest of his pages . He has , indeed , in his preface , given some explanation of this omission . " " The author has left the theological subjects which arose little noticed at .. The author has left the theological subjects which arose little noticed at

    present , that he may more distinctly consider them by themselves at a future period , when the great subject can be more justly and more intellectually contemplated on its moral ana philosophical bearings , and as a completed whole . f n the meantime , the works of Burnet and Strype , the late publications of Mi * . Butler and Mr . Southey , and the recent history of Mr . Soames , will fulfy supply all the religious details which are here deferred . "

    In attributing the Reformation to political rather than to religious causes , Mr . Turner has taken a more correct view of that event than Mr . Soames but . his unfortunate resolution to vindicate the character of Henry ( of which we shall say more hereafter ) forbids us to look for either a candid or a philosophical narrative of that event from his hands . The spirit in which we may expect this subject to be treated may be gathered from the brief- specimen which Mr . Turner has presented to us in the present volumes , and especially from the severity with which he has commented upon the character of Sir Thomas More .

    The limits which we have prescribed to ourselves will not permit us at present to enter into a detailed examination of Dr . Lingard ' s History , so far as it is connected with the Reformation , but we shall probably revert to it on another opportunity . We shall only observe , that it lies open to much remark , more especially in the confidence with which Dr . L . cites the authority of Sanders and Pole , upon whose statements it is difficult to place reliance . We shall , however , conclude by quoting his succinct history of religious intolerance : " The king , Uke all other Reformers , made his own judgment the standard ,

    of orthodoxy , but he enjoyed an advantage which few besides himself could claim—^ he power of enforcing obedience to his decisions . That the teachers of erroneous doctrine ought to be repressed by the authority of the civil magistrate , was amasrim which at drat ' period had been consecrated by the osdtiftt

    Untitled Article

    2 ? 8 Mewefo . ^ EnglishKtiformtition .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1827, page 278, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1795/page/46/