VIII. upon other articles. It is true, several abjured before bishop HENRY Longland, in the diocese of Lincoln: and six of them suffered after a relapse. But, Fox, vol. 2. p. 22. 25, A.D. 1521. First. We are to observe, that these men were delated for 26. reading the New Testament in English; and why was this so great a crime? because it was of Wickliff's translation, and condemned by the Church. By the way, the English clergy did not believe this translator had reached the original, and rightly expressed the mind of the Holy Ghost. To this purpose, at a synod held under archbishop Arundel, all unauthorised persons were forbidden to translate any part of the Holy Scripture into English, or any other language: and all persons were forbidden to read any such version, made either in Wickliff's time, or since, under the penalty of the greater excommunication: this prohibition was to continue till such translations should be approved by a provincial council, or the bishop of the diocese. Spelm. Some of secuted in behave them Secondly. These persons that were abjured were charged vol. 2. with denying the corporal presence in the sacrament of the P. 662. altar, speaking against pilgrimages, and the worship of saints. those proThese, especially the first, were trying points in those times: For misbesides, some of these confessors in Fox, held erroneous selves. opinions, and misbehaved themselves very much in language. Fox, vol. 2. p. 33. 54. One of them affirmed, "that God never made priests, for in edit. 1641. Christ's time there were no priests." Others of them are Id. p. 41. very intemperate, not to say profane, in their expressions. For instance, some of them called the crucifix in the rood-loft "block almighty." They called a chapel "an old fair milkhouse," and that a "church bell was good to hang about a cow's neck." Another of them said he "threshed God Almighty out of the straw." These are strange sallies, and very different Id. p. 53. from the modesty and discretion of the ancient Christians. That the English clergy were careful to prevent the spreading of Lollardism we need not wonder: for the Lollards struck at the fundamentals of the Church, and had very dangerous opinions both with respect to faith and property. They had likewise been abetted by a considerable faction, and the government both in Church and State had been almost overturned by of my Ch. them. But then prosecuting people to fire and faggot for Hist. for the matters of pure belief, is going much too far in the other king Hen. 5. See 1st part reign of WAR- extremity. But having declared my reasons against this Abp. Cant. rigour already, I shall not repeat them. See my Ch. p. 635. et alib. death and This year, Dr. Collet, dean of St. Paul's, departed this life. Hist. part 1. To what I have mentioned of him already in my first part, I shall add his founding Paul's school, upon which he bestowed Dr. Collet's four thousand five hundred pounds. It was designed for one benefactions. hundred and fifty-three poor children to be taught gratis. The management and direction of this matter was entrusted with the Mercer's company. Lilly, the famous grammarian, was the first master. This Dr. Collet was son to sir John Collet, who had been twice lord mayor of London. The dean died of the sweating sickness, in the fifty-third year of his age. There are extant, two speeches of his made to the convocation, some "Essays upon Grammar," "Prayers for Daily Use," and an "Exhortation to a Holy Life." Polydore Virgil gives him a great character for his learning, his talent in preaching; for his exemplary life, and engaging temper; and tells us that his founding Paul's school not only improved the Londoners, but awakened an inclination for letters, and polished the whole Whart. de country. Collet was succeeded in the deanery of St. Paul's Decimens. by Richard Pace. To throw in a word or two concerning the manner of the election :—Before the submission of the clergy to the supremacy of king Henry VIII., the election proceeded in this form the choice of the dean was made by the chapter, confirmed by the bishop's vicar-general: then the dean took an oath of canonical obedience to the bishop, after which the bishop issued out his mandate to the chapter and his vicarRegist. Fitz- general for the instalment. In all which proceedings there is james, Londinens. Fuller's 167. The ancient form of electing a dean. fol. 148. not the least mention of the king's nomination or authority. But after the submission of the clergy, the election is charged with a new circumstance. For when Dr. Carew was made dean of St. Paul's, it is said he was chosen by the unanimous votes of the president and chapter. But then in the instrument certifying the election, we are told this was done “regiæ majestatis licentia, consensu et assensu. However, in the bishop's mandate to the apparitor, something of the old privilege appears; for here it is said the president and chapter applied to the bishop to confirm the election. The apparitor is likewise ordered to notify that if any persons have anything to object, they may come in. And lastly, there is a day pre fixed, when the bishop or his vicar-general will proceed either HENRY to confirm or null the election, as they shall see cause. VIII. Regist. Little Book. About two years afterward the king entered the lists against King, Luther, and published a book in defence of the seven sacra- fol. 179, the ments. Now because a royal divine, a king in controversy, is The king very unusual, I shall entertain the reader with part of the per- against formance it is dedicated to pope Leo X. writes Luther. tion to the pope. 12. "In this address, your holiness may be surprised (says the His dedicaking) to find a person bred to war and business of state, engage in a controversy of this nature, especially with a man that has spent his whole time in the improvements of learning." But notwithstanding his majesty owns himself somewhat unequally matched, yet the danger the Church was in by the spreading of heresy and schism, alarmed his zeal, and pushed him forward. That since the enemy appeared in the field, and overran the country with so much ravage and desolation, it was time to draw out against him. He was clearly of opinion, that no sincere Christian ought barely to look on, and stand neuter in the quarrel: and therefore, though his abilities were but moderate, he could not forbear engaging upon such motives. Besides, considering the circumstances of the case, he was willing to give the world a proof of his zeal for the Christian religion, and his regards to the holy see. And though his learning was but small, he hoped God would govern his pen and supply that defect. However, his majesty is pleased to say, he was not altogether unprepared for the contest. For being fully persuaded, that religion is the greatest support to the crown, and the best guide in civil administration, he had spent some time in that study. And that no part of learning entertained him better: and though the length of his progress had not been great, yet he hoped himself sufficiently furnished to inform the generality, and expose the fallacies in Luther's reasoning. It was in confidence of this issue that he had undertaken this dispute: that he had dedicated to his holiness to make the performance more public and serviceable. And that as his holiness had exerted his character, and disabled the heresy by the censures of the Church; so if either the prospect of interest, or the colours of argument, had still left an impression upon any persons, they might be convinced by counter-proof, and reasoned out of their mistake. That he chose to pitch upon this method, con WAR HAM, sidering the nature of men was such that they had rather be Abp. Cant. led, than dragged. As to his success in the attempt, he should determine nothing, but referred that matter to his holiness; to whose censure and correction he likewise submitted what he had written. Luther's assertion of no sacrifice in the holy eucharist. Lib. Regis Henrici adversus Luther, p. 34. endeavours To proceed to the book. And here, by the way, I do not pretend to give the reader a full translation, or so much as an abstract of all the arguments. To go this length would be somewhat foreign to the business in hand. I shall therefore only translate some of the most remarkable passages. The king begins with the holy eucharist, or sacrament of the altar and here Luther pretends, that the affirming the mass to be a sacrifice was a great error. This heterodoxy he offers to disprove from the history of the institution. "Christ," says he, "in his last supper, when he instituted this sacrament and made his will, did not offer himself to God the Father, nor intend an action of merit for the world; but sitting at table, he opened his will, as it were, to his disciples, and exhibited a figure of it." "This is Luther's instance," says the king," and from hence he endeavours to evince, that there is nothing of sacrifice or oblation in the mass." To this the king replies, "that the figure does not destroy the essence of a sacrifice: that This the king a great many sacrifices under the mosaic law were types of to disprove. future benefits, and included the force of a promise. For they promised those things for which they were performed. And besides their emblematical and prefigurating quality, they were expiations and pardons for the people that offered them and for this reason, they were solemnly repeated every year. As to Luther's inference, that since Christ did not offer himself to God the Father at his last supper, therefore there can be no such thing as a sacrifice in the mass." To this the king answers by parts. First, He tells Luther, "that if we must be brought to a strict imitation of our Saviour's example, and tied down to every circumstance, from hence it will follow, that those who consecrate must not receive, for we do not read that our Saviour received the sacrament himself. It is true the Fathers, and the present Church, believe our Saviour did receive this sacrament; but this concession will do Luther no service because the testimony of the ancients and the authority of the whole Church is of no weight with this modern divine he will yield to nothing but an express text. Now it VIII. is no where declared in the Holy Scriptures, that our Saviour HENRY received his own body in the last supper. If he endeavours to disengage himself by affirming the priests ought to receive, because the Apostles did, and were commanded so to do, and that all succeeding priests are bound up in the Apostles; from hence another difficulty will follow: for by this way of arguing, the priests will have no authority to consecrate; for the last supper was not consecrated by the Apostles, but by our Saviour himself. It is plain therefore, that Christian priests do not only represent what our Saviour did at his last supper, but likewise what was done upon the cross. There are also some circumstances used in this sacrament, of which we have no precedent in our Saviour; or at least we do not read of any; and of this kind are some gestures and other particularities practised in the consecration. Some of these the king believes were traditionally handed down from the Apostles. Besides, there are some words in the canon of the mass supposed to be spoken by our blessed Saviour which we do not read in the Holy Scriptures. For our Saviour both spoke and did a great many things unmentioned by the holy Evangelists; some of which have been preserved by uninterrupted tradition. Even Luther himself does not question these following words being spoken by our Saviour; Hæc quotiescunque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.-As oft as you do this, do it in remembrance of me.' Now Luther is so fully persuaded of these being our Saviour's words, that he forms an argument upon them. For from hence he pretends, that the holy eucharist should be left to every person's liberty: that no body should be forced to communicate: the obligation reaching no farther than that whenever they participate in this solemnity, they should do it in remembrance of our Saviour. Now where does he read this command? Not in the words of the institution: it is recorded in none of the gospels: for there we find no more than 'Do this in remembrance of me ;' I desire therefore to know where he reads this sentence, 'Whensoever ye do this or these things.' Is it not in the mass? There, without doubt, and no where else. Since therefore he allows the divine authority of these words, and reasons upon them, because they occur in the canon of the mass, why should he not be governed by the same canon in other passages? Why should he not submit to the same authority, where it calls the mass a sacrifice and an VOL. IV. D |