is a more firm adhesion of the flesh to the bones; a contact and union formed between both, that seems to admit of no separation; not unlike the case of fruit and other bodies, whose moisture has been exhaled by the sun's heat; we find their component parts more compact and united, and the disunion of them difficult. An instance of this kind, we had some years ago, in the workhouse of this parish.It was the case of Margaret Patten, who lived to the age of 113. Nature's heat and moisture had been so far exhausted in this woman, that she might be said to have lived in two different bodies: her muscles, tendons, sinews, and other ramous parts, a long time before her death, being entirely ossified. Should her remains be viewed at this time, they would probably afford an entertainment to a rational curiosity, no ways inferior to that which we have lately experienced in this church.

Among many instances, that might be produced to confirm this hypothesis; that the incorruption of dead bodies is sometimes owing to old age; I shall mention but one. It occurs in a book, entitled, The History of the Church of St. Peter, Westminster; published by Mr. Widmore, librarian to the dean and chapter of that church. The book is only in the possession of the subscribers, and therefore I shall transcribe the passage:

'Abbot Estney, died in 1498, and was buried on the south side of St. John the Evangelist's chapel. August 17, 1706, by digging near Estney's tomb, in a large coffin, lined with lead, his corpse, cloathed in crimson silk, was found entire.'

The incorruption of Estney's body and that of this woman, were certainly owing to the same cause. The dry season of old age had entirely absorbed the radical moisture, the cohesion of all the parts became more uniform and contracted and by these means, putrefaction was resisted. Such persons as these had possibly a vigour of constitution, equal to that of old Massinissa, introduced by Tully, in his inimitable treatise De Senectute. Arbitror te audire,' says this master of language, Scipio, hospes tuus avitus Massinissa quæ faciat hodie, nonaginta annus natus: nullo imbre, nullo frigore adduci, ut capite operto sit: summam in eo corporis siccitatem.'

Yours, &c.

EDGAR BOCHART.

[Dugdale, in his history of St. Paul's church, remarks that among the rubbish of the old fabric, when it was pulled

down, the body of bishop Braybroke was found in a leaden coffin; and though it had been buried more than 260 years, as by the inscription appeared, yet it was not in the least inclined to putrefaction; the flesh, sinews, and skin being so dried to the bones, that when it was set upright it stood as stiff as a board. The same author tells us of two other bodies found at the same time dried in the same manner; and mentions besides, the corpse of William Parr, marquis of Northampton, found in the choir of St. Mary's church, Warwick, in whose coffin, though interred 50 years before, the rosemary and bays were also as fresh as if they had not been laid in it ten days. This he ascribes to the heat and dryness of the dust in which the bodies lay, and not to the sanctity of the persons, as was the prevailing opinion in his time.]

1758, Dec.

XXXIX. On Bishop Fisher's Grave.

MR. URBAN,

IT is surprising upon what slight grounds the Roman Catholics, so addicted to marvels, will obtrude their sham miracles upon the world. To omit many others, I will here report you one very remarkable instance. Dr. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, it will be allowed on all sides, was a very learned, pious, and good man, but his warmest advocates, the Papists, will find it difficult to persuade us that any extraordinary or miraculous appearance (for such The grave. they would suggest it to be) was seen at his account given of the matter, by one of those authors, runs thus:

And touching the place of his burial, in [Allhallows] Barking church-yard, it was well observed at that time by divers worthy persons of the nations of Italy, Spain, and France, that were then abiding in these realms, and more diligently noted and wrote the course of things, and with less fear and suspicion than any of the king's subjects might, or durst do, that for the space of seven years after his burial, there grew neither leaf nor grass upon his grave, but the earth still remained as bare as though it had been continually occupied and trodden.' Baily's Life of Bishop Fisher, London, 1655, 12mo. p. 212.

This Dr. Baily, the publisher of bishop Fisher's life, was

a plagiary, for the book was written by Dr. Richard Hall, as we are informed by Anth. a Wood, Athen. Oxon. I. col. 568. However the miracle, you see, is vouched by one doctor in divinity, and countenanced by another; but how groundlessly will appear from the following remarks:

First, The truth of the fact is very disputable, even upon the footing of Dr. Hall's report; for why was it not observed by the English, as well as those foreigners, Italians, Spanish, and French? Why not by the neighbours as well as by the strangers?-This nation was all Romanist at that time of day, and bishop Fisher wanted not friends and wellwishers enough amongst them to observe, to speak, and write of, and even to give an air of miracle to this contingency, had there been any such, and yet nobody has ever taken notice of it till this writer; from whence I conclude there never was any such thing. But says Dr. Hall, the king's subjects were more subject to fear, and liable to suspicion, than these foreigners, and therefore durst not, or could not make the remark; a mere empty surmise; for the people, as this author will allow, talked freely enough of the king's dealings with the bishop of Rochester, who had friends sufficient, and zealous enough, had there been any thing extraordinary in the case, to have noted it, and even then to have given it this turn.

But, Secondly, Supposing the fact to be true, there was nothing miraculous in it: for it is not at all strange or supernatural that grass or weeds should not grow upon a grave in a London church yard, situate within the walls. They do not naturally grow freely in any close places in London, and if it should happen that the earth in a particular place should be cold and steril, should prove to be a clay, or composed, as often is the case, of dead rubbish, which is either unfit for vegetation or includes no seeds in it, there may be no shoot at all, at least not for more than seven years, the space of time mentioned.

Again, Thirdly, Supposing the fact to be true, how does it prove any miracle in the behalf of the good bishop? The bodies of saints are found, as these writers tell us, all fresh and fragrant, from whence one would expect, had there been a real miracle, that the grave would have been overgrown with flowers, or at least with aromatic plants. I have the life of sir Thomas Cantilupe, written by R. S. a Jesuit, and printed at Ghent, 1674, which tells us p. 202, that his body, when his soul first left it, emitted an heavenly fragrance that filled the whole room. So in Osborn's History of the translation of archbishop Elphege.

Accurrunt

itaque admiratione perterriti rex et archiepiscopus, lachrimantibus oculis introrsum aspiciunt, vident organum quondam spiritus sancti incorruptum jacere, nec quicquam putris in toto corpore læsionis inesse.' "The king and the archbishop advance with astonishment, and looking in with weeping eyes they behold the late temple of the holy spirit lying all incorrupt, without one mark of putrefaction in the whole body.' Wharton's Angl. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 145. and yet this was eleven years after his death. And in the search and inspection into the grave of St. Dunstan, by archbishop Warham, printed in the same volume, p. 228. the remains of that saint are said to smell most sweetly, quæ revera omnia odore redolebant suavissimo; and yet this was above 500 years after his decease; from all which one would incline to believe, that a luxuriancy of grass upon his grave, would better have betokened the sanctity of bishop Fisher than a want of it. An observation which I lay the more stress upon, on account of Hollingshed's testimony concerning the murder of Mr. Arden, of Feversham. This one thing seemeth very strange and notable touching Maister Arden, that in the place where he was layd, being dead, all the proportion of his body might be seen: two yeares after and more, so plaine as could be; for the grasse did not growe where his body had touched, but betweene his leggs, betweene his armes, and about the holowness of his necke, and round about his body, and where his legges, armes, head, or any part of his body, had touched, no grasse growed at all of all that time.' There was no sanctity in the case here, nor did any one ever pretend there was: Arden* had been basely murdered, it is true, but he was a man of a bad character in several respects, as the same historian tells us, and in particular had cruelly taken from a poor widow that very field in which his body was laid. Mr. Lewis in a note on the story, which he has printed in the appendix to his history of Feversham, after citing the above passage of Dr. Hall's, thinks it very probable that the grass was kept from growing where Mr. Arden's body lay by art; as was done at Colchester, in keeping the ground bare, where the bodies of those brave gentlemen, sir Charles Lucas, and sir George Lisle fell, when they were shot in the Castle Green, for the sake of getting money by shewing people this lying wonder. Thus, we are

His tragedy, printed in 1529, is acted at certain seasons by the young people of Feversham.

told, the popish priests in king Henry VIII.'s time poured soap ashes on Mr. Petit's grave, in the church yard, to prove him an heretic, affirming that God would not suffer grass to grow on an heretic's grave.' Strype's Memor. vol. i. P: 203. The absence of grass, you observe, Mr. Urban, is esteemed a mark of roguery and villainy in Mr. Arden's, and of heresy in Mr. Petit's case, and was given out to be such, as to the latter, even by the Papists themselves; how then can it be a token of sanctity in bishop Fisher's grave? Certainly, in his case, the weeds and grass ought, by parity of reason, to be more copious than ordinary, rather than deficient.

But, Fourthly, How can this observation argue a virtue inherent in the bishop's bones, when they were removed from this church yard in a short time, into the Tower? The bishop was beheaded 22d of June, 1535. The sixth of July following, sir Thomas More suffered, soon after which, His body was buried in the chapel belonging to the Tower, called S. Peter ad Vincula, by the care of his daughter Margaret; to which place, as it is said, she afterwards removed the body of John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who being beheaded for the same matter on the 224 June going before, was buried in the church yard of Allhallows Barkin.' Wood's Athen. vol. i. col. 39.

The removal of the prelate's body not only precludes the pretended miracle, but also will fully account for the want of grass, on his grave; for from thence, it may be inferred:

Fifthly, and lastly, that the appearance, though it were such as is represented, was no other than what may be accounted for in a natural way. This bishop's grave was made by the halberds of the guards, and consequently was but shallow. See his Life, p. 211. After he had lain there a short time, the earth was moved again, as Mr. Wood writes; which second removal would of course retard all vegetation, nothing in the world contributing so much, as moving of earth, to the destruction of grass and weeds. If then along with this we consider the nature of the place, and the situation of that, there might well be but little grass.

I conclude upon the whole, that there was nothing preternatural in this affair; that the fact itself is doubtful; that admitting it to be true, the bishop's bones were no other way concerned in occasioning the want of grass, than as they caused the earth to be twice removed; and, lastly, that upon the whole matter, this is no other than one of