ately put in motion to unburden many a labouring mind of the indignation, which weighed it down, and a multitude of pamphlets were sent abroad in quick succession. If, in that day, abuse were a good substitute for argument, and ribaldry for sense, some of these authors might have boasted of a signal triumph.

But these were trifling evils compared with others of a different kind, which awaited the author. His work was condemned by a formal decree of the University of Oxford, as containing doctrines false, impious, and seditious; and, as Wood affirms, it was forthwith burnt by the hands of the University Marshal in the Quadrangle of the Schools. This was no doubt an excellent thing for the bookseller, as nobody would fail to buy and read a book, which had been judged worthy of such a distinction by the grave convocation of a university.

To the offending author it brought no such happy presage. He was more fortunate than Servetus, it is true, in not being tied to his own book when it was committed to the devouring element; but even this lucky escape did not place him beyond the reach of the long arm of power, nor out of the influence of the relentless spirit of intolerance. He was arraigned before Bishop Ward, in whose diocess he held his offices in the church, and was compelled to make a formal Retractation. This is so curious a specimen of hierarchical despotism, practised in a

protestant country in the boasted days of protestant liberty, that it is believed the readers of this article will be gratified to see it entire. It not only relates to a remarkable incident in the life of Whitby, but is a prominent feature in the history of the age. The instrument is dated October 9th, 1683, about three months after the burning at Oxford, and is clothed in the following language.

"I, Daniel Whitby, doctor of divinity, chantor of the church of Sarum, and rector of the parish church of St Edmund's in the city and diocess of Sarum, having been the author of a book called the Protestant Reconciler, which, through want of prudence, and deference to authority, I have caused to be printed and published, am truly and heartily sorry for the same, and for any evil influence it hath had upon the dissenters from the church of England established by law, or others. And, whereas it containeth several passages, which I am convinced in my conscience are obnoxious to the canons, and do reflect upon the governors of the said church, I do hereby openly revoke and renounce all irreverent and unmeet expressions contained therein, by which I have justly. incurred the censure or displeasure of my superiors. And, furthermore, whereas these two propositions have been deduced and concluded from the same book, namely; first, that it is not lawful for superiors to impose any thing in the worship of God, that is not antecedently necessary; and,

secondly, that the duty of not offending a weak brother is inconsistent with all human authority of making laws concerning indifferent things;—I do hereby openly renounce both the said propositions, being false, erroneous, and schismatical, and do revoke and disclaim all tenets, positions, and assertions contained in the said book, from whence these positions can be inferred; and, whereinsoever I have offended therein, I do heartily beg pardon of God, and the church, for the same."

This carries back our thoughts at once to the dark ages. It was the tragical farce of the inquisition acted over in miniature; and was equally a disgrace to Ward, and an outrage on religious liberty and the rights of humanity. It flowed from the same spirit of persecution, which condemned and imprisoned Galileo, without the apology of the same degree of ignorance on the part of the persecutors.*

* When Galileo taught the Copernican system of the revolutions of the planets, and the earth's motion, about fifty years before Whitby's book was burnt, he was summoned before seven cardinals, by whom he was condemned, and made to retract his opinions. The case is so nearly parallel to that of Whitby and Ward, that they may very properly be mentioned together. The cardinals, like the bishop, found two propositions among Galileo's doctrines, which they held to be worthy of ecclesiastical condemnation.

"1. That the sun is the centre of the world, and immoveable, is a proposition absurd, false in philosophy, and heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Scripture.

"2. That the earth is not the centre of the world, nor immove

We ought not, however, to judge of the temper of the whole English church at that time by the conduct of Bishop Ward. If report speaks truly, as we have reason to think it does from this example, his character was not one, which the enlightened would praise, or the virtuous envy. As a professor of astronomy at Oxford, and for his mathematical attainments, he was justly eminent; but Anthony Wood, who speaks from personal knowledge, tells us of his shuffling for popular favour, and of his "cowardly wavering for lucre and honour sake, his putting in and out, and occupying other men's places for several years." That such, a man should be a

able, but has a diurnal motion, is also a proposition absurd, false in philosophy, and, theologically considered, not less erroneous in faith."

These were the heresies of Galileo, and he was obliged to abjure them by subscribing the formula here annexed.

"From a sincere heart, and faith unfeigned, I abjure, execrate, and detest the above errors and heresies, and, generally, whatsoever other error or opinion, that is contrary to the Holy Church; and with an oath I declare, that I will not any more say or assert, either by speech or writing, any thing from which it may be possible for a similar suspicion to be entertained of me,—So help me God, and his holy Gospels, which I now touch with my own hands."

Corde sincero et fide non ficta, abjuro, maledico, et detestor supradictos errores et hæreses, et generaliter quemcunque alium errorem et sectam contrariam supradicta Sanctæ Ecclesiæ; et juro me in posterum nunquam amplius dicturum aut asserturum, voce aut scripto, quidquam propter quod possit haberi de me similis suspicio, Sic me Deus adjuvet, et sancta ipsius Evangelia, quæ tango propriis manibus.

tyrant, is not so strange, as that a whole church should have looked on without indignation.

His

If the conduct of Ward was reprehensible in the highest degree, the humiliating submission of Whitby is by no means to be commended. He had written what he believed to be truth, and with the best motives; he had yielded to the impulse of his conscience, and ventured to say what he thought. independence should not have forsaken him at the moment, when it was most needed to maintain the honesty of his intentions, and the stability of his character, and thereby to give weight to his writings. The cause in which he had engaged either did not deserve the labour, which he had bestowed, or it was worthy of the noble sacrifice, which he was called to make, of all worldly considerations when brought in competition with truth and right. It was some apology, perhaps, that he had then published only half of his work, and that what remained was calculated to wear off the rough aspect of his remarks on church authority. Had his enemies been patient, they would have had less occasion for violence. It was his object to bring churchmen and dissenters together by mutual concessions, and his plea was, that each party should yield to the other in things indifferent. As yet he had alluded chiefly to the concessions, which it became the church to make. The affronted dignity and eager nalice of his adversaries found it not convenient to