VOL. CONTINUATION OF BOOK The reign of HENRY VIII. continued.

The Story, Examination, Death, and Martyrdom, of John Frith The Sum of John Frith’s Book of the Sacrament A Letter of John Frith to his Friends, concerning his Troubles, etc The Sentence given against John Frith The Letter of John, Bishopof London, to certify the King of the Condemnation of John Frith and Andrew Hewet Andrew Hewet burned with Master Frith The History of the Persecution and Death of Thomas Benet, burned in Exeter: collected and testified by John Vowel, alias Hoker The Pope’s Curse with Book, Bell, and Candle The Matter between Gregory Basset and Thomas Benet A Table of certain Persons abjured within the Diocese of London, under Bishop Stokesley, with the Articles alleged against them William Tracy, Esquire, of Gloucestershire, with his Testament.

The Table of Abjured Persons continued A Note of Richard Bayfield above mentioned; with the Accusation of Edmund Peerson against him A compendious Discourse, comprehending the whole Sum and Matter concerning the Marriage between King Henry and Queen Anne Bullen; and Queen Katherine divorced The King’s Oration to his Subjects Queen Katherine’s Answer to the Cardinals The King’s Oration to the Legates A Proclamation of the King, that nothing should be purchased from Rome The Oaths of the Clergy to the Pope and to the King The Abolishing of the Pope out of England Certain Acts provided, concerning the Pope’s Laws A Table of Degrees prohibited by God’s Law to marry An old Prophecy of the Fall of the Pope; an Act for the King’s Supremacy, and a Proclamation for abolishing the usurped Power of the Pope The Oaths of Stephen Gardiner, John Stokesley, Edward Lee, and Cuthbert Tonstal to the King A Letter of the University of Cambridge, against the usurped Power of the Bishop of Rome The Book of Gardiner “De Vera Obedientia;” with his Reasons against the Pope’s Supremacy The Preface of Edmund Bonner, Archdeacon of Leicester, prefixed to Gardiner’s Book Notes on Tonstal’s Sermon against the Pope’s Supremacy Testimonies out of the Bishop’s Book against the same Testimonies of Bishops and Doctors of England against the same The True Copy of a Letter of Cuthbert Tonstal, Bishop of Durham, and John Stokesley, Bishop of London, to Cardinal Pole, proving the Bishop of Rome to have no special Superiority over other Bishops The Oration of Sir Ralph Sadler, Ambassador to the Scottish King Message of King Henry VIII. to the French King, by his Ambassador, Dr.

Edward Foxe, in defense of his Proceedings.

Another Message from the same, by his Ambassador Stephen Gardiner The King’s Answer to the French King’s Request The Oration of the King’s Ambassador before the Emperor in defense of his Cause The Life and Story of the True Servant and Martyr of God, William Tyndale; who, for his notable Pains and Travail, may well be called the Apostle of England in this our Later Age The Testimony of John Frith, in his Book of the Sacrament, concerning William Tyndale; with Tyndale’s Supplication to the King, Nobles, and Subjects of England A Letter sent from William Tyndale unto Master Frith, being in the Tower; followed by another under the name of Jacob.

The Death of the Lady Katherine, Princess Dowager; also that of Queen Anne, with her Words at her Death A Protestation in the Name of the King, the Council, and the Clergy of England; why they refused to come to the Pope’s Council, at his call The King’s Answer to the Rebels in Lincolnshire A Letter of Dr. Bonner, the King’s Ambassador in France, sent to the Lord Cromwell, declaring the Order of his Promotions and coming up Another Letter from the same, complaining of Winchester; and also declaring how he was promoted, by the Lord Cromwell, to the Bishopric of Hereford A Letter of Dr. Thirleby to Heyues and Bonner A Declaration from Bonner to the Lord Cromwell; describing to him the evil Behaviour of Stephen Gardiner, with special causes why he misliked him The Oath of Dr, Bonner when he was made Bishop of London, together with Ecclesiastical Matters in 1536, The Contents of a Book of Articles devised by the King The King’s Injunctions, restricting the number of Holy-days: also Injunctions to the Clergy for the Reformation of the Church; with others The Sermon of John Longland, Bishop of Lincoln, on Good Friday, before the King at Greenwich, A.D. 1538; the Theme from Hebrews Friar Forrest executed for rebelling against the King’s Supremacy The History of the Worthy Martyr of God, John Lambert, otherwise named Nicholson; with his Troubles, Examinations, and Answers, as well before Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, and other Bishops, as also before King Henry, by whom at length he was condemned to Death, and burned in Smithfield, 1538; also Articles laid to Lambert The Answer of John Lambert to the Forty-five Articles A Treatise of John Lambert upon the Sacrament, addressed to the King The Death of Robert Packington, with the Burning of Collins in London, and of Cowbridge at Oxford Putteden and Leiton, Martyrs The Burning of N. Peke, at Ipswich A Letter of King Henry to the Emperor, containing his Reasons for refusing to take part in the Council of Vincenza Certain Injunctions set forth by the authority of the King, against English Books, Sects, and Sacramentaries also; with the putting down the Day of Thomas Becket The variable Changes and Mutations in Religion in King Henry’s Days The Act of the Six Articles; the Penalties upon them, with the Oath of the Commissioners Allegations against the Six Articles: and first of Transubstantiation The Words of Elfric, written to Wulfsine, Bishop of Sherbourne, against Transubstantiation Another Epistle of Elfric, Archbishop of Canterbury, to Wulfstane, Archbishop of York; in Saxon, with the English A Sermon translated out of Latin into the Saxon Tongue, by Elfric, against Transubstantiation, A.D. 996: followed by the English Translation Verses in praise of Berengarius The Words of the Council whereby Transubstantiation was first established The Second Article: of both kinds The Third Article: of Private Masses, Trental Masses, and Dirige Masses The Fourth and Fifth Articles: of Vows and Priests’Marriage The Epistle of Volusianus, Bishop of Carthage, for Priests’Marriage, translated from the Latin; with two Latin Epistles Answer to Anselm’s Reasons against Priests’Marriage The Sixth Article: touching Auricular Confession A Copy of Philip Melancthon’s fruitful Epistle, sent to King Henry, against the cruel Act of the Six Articles A Note out of an old Martyrology of Canterbury; also another.

An Act against Fornication of Priests The History concerning the Life, Acts, and Death of the famous and worthy Councillor, Lord Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex The Effect and Contents of the Boston Pardons Cromwell’s Oration to the Bishops assembled in the Convocation House The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Oration to the Bishops, followed by that of Alexander Alesius, and of Foxe, Bishop of Hereford The Answer of the Bishop of London against Alesius The Story of one Frebarn’s Wife longing for a piece of Meat in Lent How the Lord Cromwell helped Cranmer’s Secretary The Lord Cromwell not forgetting his old Friends and Benefactors A notable Story, of the Lord Cromwell and an Italian Lord CromwellWords on the Scaffold; with the Prayer that he said at the Hour of his Death A Booke entitled “The Fantassie of Idolatrie” Of the Bible in English, printed in the Large Volume: also of Edmund Bonner preferred to the Bishopric of London, by means of the Lord Cromwell The King’s Brief for setting up the Bible; with a Letter of Edmund Bonner, for the execution of the King’s Writ The History of Robert Barnes, Thomas Garret, and William Jerome, Divines The Story of Thomas Garret, or Gerrard, and of his Trouble at Oxford; testified and recorded by Anthony Dalaber, who was there present the same time Articles objected against Thomas Garret, some time Parish Priest, Curate of All-Hallows in Honey Lane The Life and Story of William Jerome, Vicar of Stepney, and Martyr of Christ The Story of Barnes, Jerome, and Garret, continued; with the Causes of their Martyrdom Winchester’s Articles against Barnes The Protestation of Dr. Barnes at the Stake The Exhortation of Jerome to the People, and the concluding Protestation of Thomas Garret A Note of Three Papists, Powel, Fetherstone, and Abel, executed at this same time A Note how Bonner sat in the Guildhall in Commission for the Six Articles: also of the Condemning of Mekins Richard Spencer, Ramsey, and Hewet, Martyrs, who suffered at Salisbury A brief Table of the Troubles at London, in the time of the Six Articles; containing the Persons presented, with the Causes of their Persecution Certain Places or Articles gathered out of Alexander Seton’s Sermons by his Adversaries The Story of John Porter, cruelly martyred for reading the Bible in St.

Paul’s A Note of one Thomas Sommers, imprisoned for the Gospel Thomas Bernard and James Morton, Martyrs; also Master Barber who recanted A merry and pleasant Narration, touching a false fearful Imagination of Fire, raised among the Doctors and Masters of Oxford, in St. Mary’s Church, at the Recantation of Master Malary, Master of Arts of Cambridge The King divorced from the Lady Anne of Cleves, and married to the Lady Katherine Howard, his fifth Wife The King’s Letter to Archbishop Cranmer, for the Abolishing of Idolatry; also a Proclamation concerning eating White Meats, etc The Trouble and Persecution of four Windsor Men, Robert Testwood, Henry Filmer, Anthony Peerson, and John Marbeck, for Righteousness’sake, and for the Gospel The Original of Robert Testwood’s Trouble, with other causes of the same The Original of Henry Filmer’s Trouble, followed by that of Anthony Peerson The Examinations of John Marbeck The Suit of Marbeck’s Wife to the Bishop of Winchester, for her Husband Other Examinations of Marbeck The Suit of Filmer’s Wife, to the Bishops who sat in Commission, for her Husband The Martyrdom of Peerson, Testwood, and Filmer; with the manner of their Condemnation, and how they died:—also the sparing of Marbeck after he was sentenced to Death How all the Adversaries’Conspiracies were known An Answer to the Cavilling Adversaries, touching John Marbeck The Persecution in Calais, with the Martyrdom of George Bucker, otherwise called Adam Damlip, and others Part of a Speech delivered by Thomas Brook, in the Lower House, on the Bill of the Six Articles Master Hale, of Gray’s Inn, in Reply to Brook The Story of William Smith, Curate; also the Trouble of John Butler, Commissary; and the Recantation of divers Calais Men A new Commission appointed and sent over to Calais, with the Second Trouble of Thomas Brook, William Stevens, and others The Second Apprehension of Adam Damlip; with his Martyrdom The Story of a Poor laboring Man, and also of one Dodd, a Scotchman, burned at Calais The Story of William Crossbowmaker, bearing a Billet in Calais; followed by an Example of Dr. London’s Despite against the Gospellers, as also the Fidelity of a Matron to her Husband Qualifications of the Act of the Six Articles The Recantation of John Heywood Kerby, and Roger Clarke, of Suffolk, Martyrs The Bill set upon the Town-house Door at Ipswich, the Night before they were condemned The King’s Oration to the Parliament-House, with Notes thereupon The two Examinations of the worthy Servant of God, Mistress Anne Askew, daughter of Sir William Askew, knight, of Lincolnshire: martyred in Smithfield for the constant and faithful Testimony of the Truth The latter Apprehension and Examination of the worthy Martyr of God, Mistress Anne Askew, before the King at Greenwich “The Confession of me Anne Askew, for the Time I was at Newgate” The Sum of her Condemnation, her Letter to the Lord Chancellor, and her Faith; with her Cruel Handling and Racking after her Condemnation Anne Askew’s Answer to John LaceIs, followed by her Purgation, her Confession of Faith, and her Prayer The Martyrdom of John Lacels, John Adams, and Nicholas Belenian; followed by a Letter of Lacels, written out of Prison Verses on Anne Askew; also the Story of one Rogers, Martyr, burned in Smithfield The Story of Queen Katherine Parr, late Queen and Wife to King Henry the Eighth: wherein appearith in what Danger she was for the Gospel, by means of Stephen Gardiner, and others of his Conspiracy; and how gloriously she was preserved by her kind and loving Husband the King A Discourse touching a certain Policy used by Stephen Gardiner, in staying King Henry from redressing certain Abuses in the Church; also a Communication concerning the Reformation of Religion as well in France as in England A brief Narration of the Trouble of Sir George Blage A Proclamation for abolishing English Books, after the Death of Anne Askew; with the Names of the prohibited Books Heresies and Errors collected by the Bishops out of the Book of Tyndale, named “The Wicked Mammon” Other Heresies and Errors from “The Obedience of a Christian Man” · Others also from “The Revelation of Antichrist” Others also from “The Sum of the Scripture” A Private Letter of the King to Bishop Bonner A History touching the Persecution in Scotland, with the Names of those who suffered after the time of Patrick Hamelton; especially concerning Sir John Borthwike, knight, with his Articles and Answers The Story of Thomas Forret, Priest, and his Fellows The Manner of Persecution used by the Cardinal of Scotland, against certain Persons in St. John’s Town, or Perth The Condemnation of Master George Wisehart, Gentleman, who suffered for the Faith of Christ at St. Andrews, in Scotland, A.D. 1546; with his Articles and Answers Brief Account of the Sermon of Dean Winryme, followed by the Examination of Wisehart The just Judgment of God upon Archbishop Beaton, with the Story and Martyrdom of Adam Wallace in Scotland The Schisms that arose in Scotland for the Pater-Noster The Martyrdom of the blessed Servant of God, Walter Mille, with his Articles Persecution in Kent. A Table of certain true Servants of God, and Martyrs, omitted, who were burned in the Diocese of Canterbury, under Archbishop Warham; with the Names of their Persecutors and Accusers The Order and Form of Process used against these Martyrs; and, first, of William Carder, A.D. Three divers sorts of Judgments amongst the Papists, against Heretics as they call them The Martyrdom of Launcelot, John Painter, and Giles Germane: also of one Stile, burned in Smithfield with the Apocalypse The Sentence of Pope Clement against the Divorce of Queen Katherine A Copy of the Bull of Pope Leo X., no less slanderous than barbarous, against Martin Luther and his Doctrine The Answer of Martin Luther to the same The Tenor and Form of the Appeal of Martin Luther from Pope Leo to the next general Council The Death of King Henry VIII. with the manner thereof A Tragical History of certain Friars in France, in the City of Orleans, A.D.

Bonner’s Letter to Cloney, Keeper of the Coal-house for the abolishing of Images BOOK CONTAINING THE ACTS AND THINGS DONE IN THE REIGN OF KING EDWARD THE SIXTH.

EDWARD VI The Words of Cardanus in commendation of King Edward Certain Ecclesiastical Laws, or General Injunctions given by King Edward to the Church of England; followed by others to Thomas, Bishop of Westminster, as well from the King as also from the King’s Commissioners A Letter of Edmund Bonner to the Bishop of Westminster, concerning the abolishing of Candles, Ashes, and Palms, and other Ceremonies Letter of the Council to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the abolishing of Images; followed by one from Edmund Bonner Letters Missive from the Council to the Bishops, concerning the Communion to be ministered in both kinds Substance of the Petition of the Lords and Commons, in Parliament assembled, to the King Letters to and from Edmund Bonner, concerning the Abrogating of Private Masses; especially the Apostles’Mass An Admonition of Lord Chancellor Rich to Justices of the Peace A Letter from the Council rebuking Bonner for Negligence in setting out the Service Book; with Bonner’s Letter to the Dean and Chapter Certain Private Injunctions, Admonitions, and Articles given to Bonner by the Council Articles of the Commons of Devonshire and Cornwall to the King; with the King’s Answer Matter concerning Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London, with Declaration of the Acts and Process entered against him in King Edward’s time The King’s Letter to the Commissioners concerning the Recantation and Pardoning of Bonner Matters put to Bonner to redress; with special points to be treated by him, in his Sermon The Denunciation of John Hooper and William Latimer, against Bonner, to the King’s Majesty, for leaving undone the points before mentioned The King’s Commission for the Examination of Bishop Bonner The First Act or Session against Bishop Bonner, by the King’s Commissioners; with the Tenor and Form of his Protestation The Second Appearance of Bonner at Lambeth; with his Answer to the Denunciation of Latimer and Hooper The Third Session against Bishop Bonner The Answer of Bonner to the Articles objected to him by the King’s Commissioners the first time Certain Interrogatories exhibited by Bonner against the Witnesses, upon the Articles above mentioned A certain Declaration of the King, respecting his former Commission, with Licence given to the Commissioners, as well to determine as to hear, in the case of Bonner The Fourth Session in the Hall at Lambeth; with matter exhibited by Bonner why he ought not to be convicted The Information given against William Latimer by Bonner Interrogatories educed and ministered by Bonner against the Witnesses The Fifth Session against Bonner, with his Answers The Recusation of the Judgment of Thomas Smith made by Bishop Bonner The First Appellation intimated by Edmund Bonner The Sixth Session; in the Great Hall at Lambeth The Second Appeal of Bonner, with a Letter to the Lord Mayor The Seventh Session, at Lambeth; with Bishop Bonner’s Declaration to the Commissioners; his Third Appeal, and his Supplication to the Chancellor His Sentence of Deprivation, Supplication, and other Documents\parAPPENDIX to Vol. 5 ACTS AND MONUMENTS VOL. CONTINUATION OF BOOK PERTAINING TO THE LAST THREE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE LOOSING OUT OF SATAN.

CONTINUING THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH MATTERS APPERTAINING TO BOTH STATES, AS WELL ECCLESIASTICAL, AS CIVIL AND TEMPORAL. THE STORY, EXAMINATION, DEATH, AND MARTYRDOM OF JOHN FRITH.

PICTURE: The Burning of John Frith and Andrew Hewet Amongst all other chances lamentable, there hath been none a long time which seemed unto me more grievous, than the lamentable death and cruel handling of John Frith, so learned and excellent a young man; who had so profited in all kind of learning and knowledge, that there was scarcely his equal amongst all his companions; and who besides, withal, had such a godliness of life joined with his doctrine, that it was hard to judge in which of them he was more commendable, being greatly praiseworthy in them both: but as touching his doctrine, by the grace of Christ we will speak hereafter.

Of the great godliness which was in him, this may serve for experiment sufficient, for that notwithstanding his other manifold and singular gifts and ornaments of the mind, in him most pregnant, wherewithal he might have opened an easy way unto honor and dignity, notwithstanding he rather chose wholly to consecrate himself unto the church of Christ, excellently showing forth, and practising in himself, the precept so highly commended of the philosophers, touching the life of man: which life, they say, is given unto us in such sort, that how much the better the man is, so much the less he should live unto himself, but unto others, serving for the common utility; and that we should think a great part of our birth to be due unto our parents, a greater part unto our country, and the greatest part of all to be bestowed upon the church, if we will be counted good men.

First of all he began his study at Cambridge; in whom nature had planted, being but a child, marvellous instinctions and love unto learning, whereunto he was addicted. He had also a wonderful promptness of wit, and a ready capacity to receive and understand any thing, insomuch that he seemed not only to be sent unto learning, but also born for the same purpose. Neither was there any diligence wanting in him, equal unto that towardness, or worthy of his disposition; whereby it came to pass, that he was not only a lover of learning, but also became an exquisite learned man; in which exercise when he had diligently labored certain years, not without great profit both of Latin and Greek, at last he fell into knowledge and acquaintance with William Tyndale, through whose instructions he first received into his heart the seed of the gospel and sincere godliness.

At that time Thomas Wolsey, cardinal of York, prepared to build a college in Oxford, marvellously sumptuous, which had the name and title of Frideswide, but is now named Christ’s-church, not so much (as it is thought) for the love and zeal that he bare unto learning, as for an ambitious desire of glory and renown, and to leave a perpetual name unto posterity. But that building, he being cut off by the stroke of death (for he was sent for unto the Ling, accused of certain crimes, and in the way, by immoderate purgations, killed himself), was left partly begun, partly half ended and imperfect, and nothing else save only the kitchen was fully finished. Whereupon Rodulph Gualter, a learned man, being then in Oxford, and beholding the college, said these words in Latin: “Egregium opus, cardinalis iste instituit collegium, et absolvit popinam.” How large and ample those buildings should have been, what sumptuous cost should have been bestowed upon the same, may easily be perceived by that which is already builded, as the kitchen, the hall, and certain chambers, where there is such curious graying and workmanship of stonecutters, that all things on every side did glister for the excellency of the workmanship, for the fineness of the matter, with the gilt antics and embossings; insomuch that if all the rest had been finished to that determinate end as it was begun, it might well have excelled not only all colleges of students, but also palaces of princes. This ambitious cardinal gathered together into that college whatsoever excellent thing there was in the whole realm, either vestments, vessels, or other ornaments, beside provision of all kind of precious things. Besides that, he also appointed unto that company all such men as were found to excel in any kind of learning and knowledge; to recite all whose names in order would be too long. The chief of those who were called from Cambridge were these: Master Clerk, master of arts, of thirty-four years of age; Master Frier, afterwards doctor of physic, and after that a strong papist; Master Sumner, master of arts; Master Harman, master of arts, afterwards fellow of Eton college, and after that a papist; Master Bettes, master of arts, a good man and zealous, and so remained; Master Cox, master of arts, who conveyed himself away toward the north, and after was schoolmaster of Eton, and then chaplain to doctor Goodrich, bishop of Ely, and by him preferred to king Henry, and, of late, bishop of Ely; John Frith, bachelor of arts; Bayly, bachelor Of arts; Goodman, who being sick in the prison with the others, was had out, and died in the town; Drumme, who afterwards fell away and forsook the truth; Thomas Lawney, chaplain of the house, prisoner with John Frith.

To these join also Taverner of Boston, the good musician,2 besides many others called also out of other places, most picked young men, of grave judgment and sharp wits; who, conferring together upon the abuses of religion, being at that time crept into the church, were therefore accused of heresy unto the cardinal, and cast into a prison, within a deep cave under the ground of the same college, where their salt fish was laid; so that, through the filthy stench thereof, they were all infected, and certain of them, taking their death in the same prison, shortly upon the same being taken out of the prison into their chambers, there deceased.

The troublers and examiners of these good men, were these: Dr. London; Dr. Higdon, dean of the said college; and Dr. Cottesford, 1 commissary.

Master Clerk, Master Sumner, and sir Bayly, eating nothing but salt fish from February to the midst of August, died all three together within the compass of one week.

Master Bettes, a witty man, having no books found in his chamber, through entreaty and surety got out of prison, and so remaining a space in the college, at last slipped away to Cambridge, and afterwards was chaplain to queen Anne, and in great favor with her.

Taverner, although he was accused and suspected for hiding of Clerk’s books under the boards in his school, yet the cardinal, for his music, excused him, saying that he was but a musician: and so he escaped.

After the death of these men, John Frith with others, by the cardinal’s letter, who sent word that he would not have them so straitly handled, were dismissed out of prison, upon condition not to pass above ten miles out of Oxford; which Frith, after hearing of the examination of Dalaber 3 and Garret, who bare then faggots, went over the sea,2 and after two years he came over for exhibition of the prior of Reading (as is thought), and had the prior over with him. Being at Reading, it happened that he was there taken for a vagabond, and brought to examination; where the simple man, who could not craftily enough color himself, was set in the stocks. After hehad sitten there a long time, and was almost pined with hunger, and would not, for all that, declare what he was, at last he desired that the schoolmaster of the town might be brought to him, who at that time was one Leonard Cox , 4 a man very well learned. As soon as he came unto him, Frith, by and by, began in the Latin tongue to to bewail his captivity.

The schoolmaster, by and by, being overcome with his eloquence, did not only take pity and compassion upon him, but also began to love and embrace such an excellent wit and disposition unlooked for, especially in such a state and misery. Afterwards, conferring more together upon many things, as touching the universities, schools, and tongues, they fell from the Latin into the Greek, wherein Frith did so inflame the love of that schoolmaster towards him, that he brought him into a marvellous admiration, especially when the schoolmaster heard him so promptly by heart rehearse Homer’s verses out of his first book of the Iliad; whereupon the schoolmaster went with all speed unto the magistrates, grievously complaining of the injury which they did show unto so excellent and innocent a young man.

Thus Frith, through the help of the schoolmaster, was freely dismissed out of the stocks, and set at liberty without punishment. Albeit this his safety continued not long, through the great hatred and deadly pursuit of sir Thomas More, who, at that time being chancellor of England, persecuted him both by land and sea, besetting all the ways and havens, yea, and promising great rewards, if any man could bring him any news or tidings of him.

Thus Frith, being on every part beset with troubles, not knowing which way to turn him, seeketh for some place to hide him in. Thus fleeting from one place to another, and often changing both his garments and place, yet could he be in safety in no place; no not long amongst his friends; so that at last, being traitorously taken (as ye shall after hear), he was sent unto the Tower of London, where he had many conflicts with the bishops, but especially in writing with sir Thomas More. The first occasion of his writing was this: 5 Upon a time he had communication with a certain old familiar friend of his, touching the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; the whole effect of which disputation consisted specially in these four points: 1. First, That the matter of the sacrament is no necessary article of faith under pain of damnation. 2. Secondly, That forasmuch as Christ’s natural body in like condition hath all properties of our body, sin only except, it cannot be, neither is it agreeable unto reason, that he should be in two places or more at once, contrary to the nature of our body. 3. Moreover, thirdly, it shall not seem meet or necessary, that we should in this place understand Christ’s words according to the literal sense, but rather according to the order and phrase of speech, comparing phrase with phrase, according to the analogy of the Scripture. 4. Last of all, how that it ought to be received according to the true and right institution of Christ, albeit that the order which at this time is crept into the church, and is used now-a-days by the priests, do never so much differ from it.

And forasmuch as the treatise of this disputation seemed somewhat long, his friend desired him that such things as he had reasoned upon he would briefly commit unto writing, and give unto him for the help of his memory.

Frith, albeit he was unwilling, and not ignorant how dangerous a thing it was to enter into such a contentious matter, at last, notwithstanding, he, being overcome by the entreaty of his friend, rather followed his will, than looked to his own safeguard.

There was at that time in London a tailor named William Holt, who, feigning a great friendship towards this party, instantly required of him to give him license to read over that same writing of Frith’s; which when he unadvisedly did, the other, by and by, carried it unto More, being then chancellor: which thing, afterwards, was occasion of great trouble, and also of death, unto the said Frith; for More, having not only gotten a copy of his book of this sycophant, but also two other copies, which at the same time, in a manner, were sent him by other promoters, he whetted his wits, and called his spirits together as much as he might, meaning to refute his opinion by a contrary book.

THE SUM OF JOHN FRITH’S BOOK OF THE SACRAMENT.

This in a manner was the whole sum of the reasons of Frith’s book; first, to declare the pope’s belief of the sacrament to be no necessary article of our faith; that is to say, that it is no article of our faith necessary to be believed under pain of damnation, that the sacrament should be the natural body of Christ: which he thus proverb; for many so believe, and yet in so believing the sacrament to be the natural body, are not thereby saved, but receive it to their damnation.

Again, in believing the sacrament to be the natural body, yet that natural presence of his body in the bread, is not that which sayeth us, but his presence in our hearts by faith. And likewise, the not believing of his bodily presence in the sacrament, is not the thing that shall damn us, but the absence of him out of our heart, through unbelief. And if it be objected, that it is necessary to believe God’s word under pain of damnation: to that he answereth that the word taken in the right sense, as Christ meant, maintaineth no such bodily presence as the pope’s church doth teach; but rather a sacramental presence. And that, saith he, may be further confirmed thus:

ARGUMENT Celarent. 7 None of the old fathers before Christ’s incarnation were bound under pain of damnation to believe this point.

All we be saved by the same faith that the old fathers were. Ergo, None of us are bound to believe this point under pain of damnation.

The first part, saith he, is evident of itself; for how could they believe that which they never heard nor saw?

The second part, saith he, appeareth plainly by St. Augustine, writing to Dardanus, and also by a hundred places more; neither is there any thing that he doth more often inculcate than this, that the same faith that saved our fathers, sayeth us also. And therefore upon the truth of these two parts, thus proved, must the conclusion, saith he, needs follow.

ANOTHER ARGUMENT.

None of the old fathers before Christ’s incarnation, did eat Christ corporally in their signs, but only mystically and spiritually, and were saved.

All we do eat Christ even as they did, and are saved as they were. Ergo, None of us do eat Christ corporally, but mystically and spiritually in our signs, as they did.

For the probation of the first part, Frith, proceeding in his discourse, declareth as follows:— The ancient fathers, before Christ’s incarnation, did never believe any such point of this gross and carnal eating of Christ’s body; and yet, notwithstanding, they did eat him spiritually, and were saved; as Adam, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, and other godly Israelites besides. All which, saith he, did eat the body of Christ, and did drink his blood as we do. But this eating and drinking of theirs was spiritual, pertaining only to faith, and not to the teeth: ‘For they were all under the cloud, and drank of the rock which followed them; this rock was Christ, (1 Corinthians 10) who was promised them to come into the world. And this promise was first made unto Adam, when it was said unto the serpent, ‘I will put hatred between thee and the woman, between her seed and thy seed, (Genesis 3) etc. And afterwards again unto Abraham: ‘In thy seed shall all people be blessed,’ (Genesis 26) etc.: adding also the sacrament of circumcision, which was called the covenant; not because it was so indeed, but because it was a sign and a token of the covenant made between God and Abraham: admonishing us thereby, how we should judge and think touching the sacrament of his body and blood; to wit, that albeit it be called the body of Christ, yet we should properly understand thereby the fruit of our justification, which plentifully floweth unto all the faithful by his most healthful body and blood. Likewise the same promise was made unto Moses, the most meek and gentle captain of the Israelites, who did not only himself believe upon Christ, who was so often promised, but also did prefigurate him by divers means, both by the manna which came down from heaven, and also by the water which issued out of the rock, for the refreshing of the bodies of his people.

Neither is it to be doubted, but that both manna and this water had a prophetical mystery in them, declaring the very self-same thing then, which the bread and the wine do now declare unto us in the sacrament. For this saith St. Augustine, ‘Whosoever did understand Christ in the manna, did eat the spiritual food that we do. But they, who by that manna sought only to fill their bellies, did eat thereof, and are dead.’ So, likewise, saith he of the drink: ‘For the rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10) And, by and by after, he inferreth thus: 8 Moses did eat manna, and Phinehas also; and many others also did eat thereof, who pleased God, and are not dead. Why? because they did understand the visible meat spiritually. They did spiritually hunger, and did spiritually taste of it, that they might be spiritually satisfied. ‘They all did eat the same spiritual meat, and all did drink the same spiritual drink: all one spiritual thing, but not all one corporal matter (for they did eat manna, and we another thing), but the self-same spiritual thing that we do; and although they drank the same spiritual drink that we do, yet they drank one thing, and we another: which nevertheless signified all one thing in spiritual effect. How did they drink all one thing? The apostle answereth, ‘Of the spiritual rock which followed them, for the rock was Christ.’ And Bede also, adding these words, saith, ‘Behold the signs are altered, and yet the faith remaineth one.’ Thereby a man may perceive that the manna which came down from heaven, was the same unto them, that our sacrament is unto us; and that by either of them is signified, that the body of Christ came down from heaven; and yet, notwithstanding, never any of them said that manna was the very body of Messias; as our sacramental bread is not indeed the body of Christ, but a mystical representation of the same. For like as the manna which came down from heaven, and the bread which is received in the supper, do nourish the body, even so the body of Christ coming down from heaven, and being given for us, doth quicken up the spirits of the believers unto life everlasting.

Then, if the salvation of both people be alike, and their faith also one, there is no cause why we should add transubstantiation unto our sacrament, more than they believed their manna to be altered and changed. Moreover because they are named sacraments, even by the signification of the name they must needs be signs of things, or else of necessity they can be no sacraments.

But some may here object and say, If only faith, both unto them and also unto us, be sufficient for salvation, what need then any sacraments to be instituted? He answered, that there are three causes why sacraments are instituted. The first St. Augustine declareth in these words, writing against Faustus: 9 ‘Men,’saith he,‘cannot be knit together into one name of religion, be it true or be it false, except they be knit by the society of signs and visible sacraments, the power whereof doth wonderfully prevail, in so much that such as contemn them are wicked: for that is wickedly contemned, without which godliness cannot be made perfect, etc.

Another cause is, that they should be helpers to graft and plant faith in our hearts, and for the confirmation of God’s promises. But this use of sacraments many are yet ignorant of, and more there be who do preposterously judge of the same, taking the signs for the thing itself, and worshipping the same: even by like reason in a manner, as if a man would take the bush that hangeth at the tavern door, and suck it to slake his thirst, and will not go into the tavern where the wine is. Thirdly, they do serve unto this use, to stir up the minds and hearts of the faithful to give thanks unto God for his benefits.

And these in a manner are the principal points of Friths book. When More (as is aforesaid) had gotten a copy of this treatise, he sharpened his pen all that he might, to make answer unto this young man (for so he calleth him throughout his whole book), but in such sort, that when the book was once set forth, and showed unto the world, then he endeavored himself, all that he might, to keep it from printing: peradventure lest that any copy thereof should come unto Frith’s hands. But notwithstanding, when at last Frith had gotten a copy thereof, by means of his friends, he answered him out of the prison, omitting nothing that any man could desire to the perfect and absolute handling of the matter. And as it were a great labor, so do I think it not much necessary to repeat all his reasons and arguments, or the testimonies which he had gathered out of the doctors; especially forasmuch as Cranmer, the archbishop of Canterbury, in his apology against the bishop of Winchester, seemed to have collected them abundantly, gathering the principal and chiefest helps from thence that he leaned unto against the other; and I doubt much whether the archbishop ever gave any more credit unto any author of that doctrine, than unto this aforesaid Frith.

What dexterity of wit was in him, and excellency of doctrine, it may appear not only by his books which he wrote of the sacrament, but also in those which he entitled Of Purgatory. In that quarrel he withstood the violence of three most obstinate enemies; that is to say, of Rochester, More, and Rastal, whereof the one by the help of the doctors, the other by wresting of the Scripture, and the third by the help of natural philosophy, had conspired against him. But he, as a Hercules, fighting not against two only, but even with them all three at once, did so overthrow and confound them, that he converted Rastal to his part.

Besides all these commendations of this young man, there was also in him a friendly and prudent moderation in uttering of the truth, joined with a learned godliness; which virtue hath always so much prevailed in the church of Christ, that, without it, all other good gifts of knowledge, be they ever so great, cannot greatly profit, but oftentimes do very much hurt. And would to God that all things, in all places, were so free from all kind of dissension, that there were no mention made amongst Christians of Zuinglians and Lutherans, when neither Zuinglius nor Luther died for us; but that we might be all one in Christ. Neither do I think that any thing more grievous could happen unto those worthy men, than for their names so to be abused to sects and factions, who so greatly withstood and strove against all factions. Neither do I here discourse which part came nearest unto the truth, nor so rashly intermeddle in this matter, that I will detract any thing from either part, but rather wish of God I might join either part unto the other.

But now, forasmuch as we treat of the story of John Frith, I cannot choose, but must needs earnestly and heartily embrace the prudent and godly moderation which was in that man, who, maintaining his quarrel of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, no less godly than learnedly (and so as no man in a manner had done it more learnedly and pithily), yet he did it so moderately, without any contention, that he would never seem to strive against the Papists, except he had been driven to it even of necessity. In all other matters, where necessity did not move him to contend, he was ready to grant all things for quietness’sake, as his most modest reason and answers did declare. For when More, disputing in a certain place upon the sacrament, laid against him the authority of doctor Barnes, for the presence of the body and blood in the sacrament, he answered unto More and his companions, that he would promise under this condition, that if the sentence of Luther and Barnes might be holden as ratified, he would never speak more words of it: 4 for in that point they did both agree with him, that the sacrament was not to be worshipped; and that idolatry being taken away, he was content to permit every man to judge of the sacrament, as God should put into their hearts: for then there remained no more poison, that any man ought or might be afraid of. Wherefore, if they did agree in that which was the chief point of the sacrament, they should easily accord and agree in the rest.

Thus much he wrote, in the treatise entitled “The Exile of Barnes, against More;” which words of this most meek martyr of Christ, if they would take place in the seditious divisions and factions of these our days, with great ease and little labor men might be brought to a unity in this controversy; and much more concord and love should be in the Church, and much less offense given abroad than there is. *But 5 I know not what cruel pestiferous fury hath secretly intermeddled herself in these matters, so corrupt in all things, that there is almost no so light a cause or occasion wherein one man can bear with another, if he dissent or disagree from his opinion. And whilest every man doth seek, even by the teeth, to defend his own quarrel, many men would rather seek to give occasion, than, in any case, seek to relent or remit. There are also some, which will seek to assuage the matter, but other some will willingly take the bellows in hand to blow the fire, but few there are that will seek to quench it. But if we had but a few like unto this John Frith, these factions, peradventure, would easily be accorded, or at the least if the opinions could not be agreed, their minds, notwithstanding, might be united and joined. Albeit, I do not think their opinions to be of so great force and effect that they should seem to be worthy of all these tragedies, for so much as they do not of necessity touch neither the damnation nor salvation of souls: and again, they are not so far discrepant amongst themselves, but that they may by reason be reconciled, so that there be some temperature of Frith’s moderation adhibited thereunto, which may something impetrate and obtain on either part.

Those which judge the reason of the sacrament to be spiritually understanded, do think well, and, peradventure, do draw near unto Christ’s mind and institution; but, notwithstanding, they be never a whit better men than they, which, following the letter together with them, do take away the superfluity of the ceremonies. They take away transubstantiation from the sacrament; the like doth other also. They take away the sacrifice of the private mass; the same also do the other. These men put away all false worshipping; the other also do not suffer it, but both parts do affirm the presence of Christ in the mystical supper.

Hitherto they both have agreed in these articles: what cause is there then of discord, when as they both, as I said, do confess the presence of Christ, and disagree only upon the manner of the presence, which the one part doth affirm to be real, and the other spiritual? But how much were it better, in my opinion, if that, by a common consent of either party, they would come to this point; that every man being contented with his own opinion, we should all simply agree upon the presence of Christ, that, as touching the manner of his presence, even as though all manner of disputation should cease for a time, and so, by little and little, all controversies turned to truce and quietness; until that time should breed more love and charity amongst men, or that love and charity should find a remedy for these controversies.

But this shall now suffice for this present, being more than I was determined to speak; and, brought hither by occasion of John Frith, I know not myself by what wind or weather, and peradventure was somewhat too far passed into the German seas. But now, casting the helm about, we will hold our course that we had begun into England, and intreat of the death and examination of Frith.* John Frith, after he had now sufficiently contended in his writings with More, Rochester, and Rastal, More’s son-in-law, was at last carried to Lambeth, first, before the bishop of Canterbury, and afterwards unto Croydon, before the bishop of Winchester, to plead his cause. Last of all, he was called before the bishops, in a common assembly at London, where he constantly defended himself, if he might have been heard.

The order of his judgment, with the manner of his examination and the articles which were objected against him, are comprised and set forth by himself in a letter written and sent unto his friends, whilst he was prisoner in the Tower.

A LETTER6 OF JOHN FRITH TO HIS FRIENDS, CONCERNING HIS TROUBLES; WHEREIN, AFTER HE HAD FIRST WITH A BRIEF PREFACE SALUTED THEM, ENTERING THEN INTO THE MATTER, Thus he writeth:— I doubt not, dear brethren, but that it doth some deal vex you, to see the one part to have all the words, and freely to speak what they list, and the others to be put to silence, and not be heard indifferently. But refer your matters unto God, who shortly shall judge after another fashion. In the mean time I have written unto you, as briefly as I may, what articles were objected against me, and what were the principal points of my condemnation, that ye might understand the matter certainly.

The whole matter of this my examination was comprehended in two special articles, that is to say, Of Purgatory, and Of the substance of the Sacrament.

And first of all, as touching purgatory, they inquired of me whether I did believe there was any place to purge the spots and filth of the soul after this life? But I said, that I thought there was no such place: for man, (said I) doth consist and is made only of two parts, that is to say, of the body and the soul, whereof the one is purged here in this world, by the cross of Christ, which he layeth upon every child that he receiveth; as affliction, worldly oppression, persecution, imprisonment, etc. The last of all, the reward of sin, which is death, is laid upon us: but the soul is purged with the word of God, which we receive through faith, to the salvation both of body and soul. Now if ye can show me a third part of man besides the body and the soul, I will also grant unto you the third place, which ye do call purgatory. But because ye cannot do this, I must also of necessity deny unto you the bishop of Rome’s purgatory. Nevertheless I count neither part a necessary article of our faith, to be believed under pain of damnation, whether there be such a purgatory or no.

Secondly, They examined me touching the sacrament of the altar, whether it was the very body of Christ or no?

I answered, that I thought it was both Christ’s body and also our body, as St. Paul teacheth us in 1 Corinthians 10. For in that it is made one bread of many corns, it is called our body, which, being divers and many members, are associated and gathered together into one fellowship or body. Likewise of the wine, which is gathered of many clusters of grapes, and is made into one liquor. But the same bread again, in that it is broken, is the body of Christ; declaring his body to be broken and delivered unto death, to redeem us from our iniquities.

Furthermore, in that the sacrament is distributed, it is Christ’s body, signifying that as verily as the sacrament is distributed unto us, so verily are Christ’s body and the fruit of his passion distributed unto all faithful people.

In that it is received, it is Christ’s body, signifying that as verily as the outward man receiveth the sacrament with his teeth and mouth, so verily doth the inward man, through faith, receive Christ’s body and the fruit of his passion, and is as sure of it as of the bread which he eateth.

Well (said they) dost thou not think that his very natural body, flesh, blood. and bone, is really contained under the sacrament, and there present without all figure or similitude? No (said I), I do not so think: notwithstanding I would not that any should count, that I make my saying (which is the negative) any article of faith. For even as I say, that you ought not to make any necessary article of the faith of your part (which is the affirmative), so I say again, that we make no necessary article of the faith of our part, but leave it indifferent for all men to judge therein, as God shall open their hearts, and no aide to condemn or despise the other, but to nourish in all things brotherly love; and one to hear another’s infirmity.

After this they alleged the place of St. Augustine, where he saith, ‘He was carried in his own hands.’ 9A Whereunto I answered, that St. Augustine was a plain interpreter of himself; for he hath in another place, ‘He was carried as it were in his own hands:’ 8 which is a phrase of speech not of one that doth simply affirm, but only of one expressing a thing by a similitude. And albeit that St. Augustine had not thus expounded himself, yet, writing unto Boniface, he doth plainly admonish all men, that the sacraments do represent and signify those things whereof they are sacraments, and many times even of the similitudes of the things themselves, they do take their names. And therefore, according to this rule, it may be said, he was borne in his own hands, when he bare in his hands the sacrament of his body and blood.

Then they alleged a place of Chrysostome, 10 which, at the first blush, may seem to make much for them, who, in a certain Homily upon the Supper, writeth thus: ‘Dost thou see bread and wine? Do they depart from thee into the draught, as other meats do? No, God forbid! for as in wax, when it cometh to the fire, nothing of the substance remaineth or abideth; so likewise think that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body,’etc.

These words I expounded by the words of the same doctor, who, in another Homily, saith on this manner; ‘The inward eyes,’saith he, ‘as soon as they see the bread, they flee over all creatures, and do not think of the bread that is baked by the baker, but of the bread of everlasting life, which is signified by the mystical bread.’

Now confer these places together, and you shall perceive that the last expoundeth the first plainly. For he saith, Dost thou see the bread and wine? I answer by the second, Nay. For the inward eyes, as soon as they see the bread, do pass over all creatures, and do not any longer think upon the bread, but upon him that is signified by the bread. And after this manner he seeth it, and again he seeth it not: for as he seeth it with his outward and carnal eyes, so with his inward eyes he seeth it not; that is to say, regardeth not the bread, or thinketh not upon it, but is otherwise occupied. Even as when we play or do any thing else negligently, we commonly are wont to say, we see not what we do; not that indeed we do not see that which we go about, but because our mind is fixed on some other thing, and doth not attend unto that which the eyes do see.

In like manner may it be answered unto that which followeth; ‘Do they avoid from thee,’saith he, ‘into the draught as other meats do?’I will not so say, for other meats, passing through the bowels, after they have of themselves given nourishment unto the body, be voided into the draught: but this is a spiritual meat, which is received by faith, and nourisheth both body and soul unto everlasting life, neither is it at any time avoided as other meats are.

And as before I said that the external eyes do behold the bread, which the inward eyes, being otherwise occupied, do not behold or think upon, even so our outward man doth digest the bread, and void it into the draught; but the inward man doth neither regard nor think upon it, but thinketh upon the thing itself that is signified, by that bread. And, therefore Chrysostome, 9 a little before the words which they alleged, saith; Lift up your minds and hearts: whereby he admonisheth us to look upon and consider those heavenly things which are represented and signified by the bread and wine, and not to mark the bread and wine itself.

Here they said, that was not Chrysostome’s mind; but that by this example he declareth that there remained no bread nor wine. I answered, that was false: for the example that he taketh tendeth to no other purpose, but to call away our spiritual eyes from the beholding of visible things, and to transport them another way, as if the things which are seen were of no force. Therefore he draweth away our mind from the consideration of these things, and fixeth it upon him who is signified unto us by the same. The very words which follow, sufficiently declare this to be the true meaning of the author, where he commandeth us to consider all things with our inward eyes; that is to say, spiritually.

But whether Chrysostome’s words do tend either to this or that sense, yet do they indifferently make on our part against our adversaries, which way soever we do understand them. For if he thought that the bread and wine do remain, we have no further to travel: but if he meant contrariwise, that they do not remain, but that the natures of the bread and wine are altered, then are the bread and wine falsely named sacraments and mysteries, which can be said in no place to be in the nature of things: for that which is in no place, how can it be a sacrament, or supply the room of a mystery?

Finally, if he speak only of the outward forms and shapes (as we call them), it is most certain that they do continually remain, and that by the substance of the body they are not consumed in any place: wherefore it must necessarily follow that the words of Chrysostome be to be understood in such sense as I have declared.

Here peradventure many would marvel,10 that forasmuch as the matter, touching the substance of the sacrament, is separate from the articles of faith, and bindeth no man of necessity either unto salvation or damnation, whether he believe it or not, but rather may be left indifferently unto all men, freely to judge either on the one part or on the other, according to his own mind, so that neither part do contemn or despise the other, but that all love and charity be still holden and kept in this dissension of opinions: what then is the cause, why I would therefore so willingly suffer death? The cause why I die is this: for that I cannot agree with the divines and other head prelates, that it should be necessarily determined to be an article of faith, and that we should believe, under pain of damnation, the substance of the bread and wine to be changed into the body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, the form and shape only not being changed. Which thing if it were most true (as they shall never be able to prove it by any authority of the Scripture or doctors), yet shall they not so bring to pass, that that doctrine, were it ever so true, should be holden for a necessary article of faith. For there are many things, both in the Scriptures and other places, which we are not bound of necessity to believe as an article of faith. So it is true, that I was a prisoner and in bonds when I wrote these things, and yet, for all that, I will not hold it as an article of faith,11 but that you may, without danger of damnation, either believe it, or think the contrary.

But as touching the cause why I cannot affirm the doctrine of transubstantiation, divers reasons do lead me thereunto: first, for that I do plainly see it to be false and vain, and not to be grounded upon any reason, either of the Scriptures, or of approved doctors.

Secondly, for that by my example I would not be an author unto Christians to admit any thing as a matter of faith, more than the necessary points of their creed, wherein the whole sum of our salvation doth consist, especially such things, the belief whereof hath no certain argument of authority or reason. I added moreover, that their church (as they call it) hath no such power and authority, that it either ought or may bind us, under the peril of our souls, to the believing of any such articles. Thirdly, because I will not, for the favor of our divines or priests, be prejudicial in this point unto so many nations, of Germans, Helvetians, and others, which, altogether rejecting the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, are all of the same opinion that I am, as well those that take Luther’s part, as those that hold with OEcolampadius. Which things standing in this case, I suppose there is no man of any upright conscience, who will not allow the reason of my death, which I am put unto for this only cause, that I do not think transubstantiation, although it were true indeed, to be established for an article of faith.

And thus much hitherto as touching the articles and whole disputation of John Frith, which was done with all moderation and uprightness. But when no reason would prevail against the force and cruelty of these furious foes, on the 20th day of June, A.D. 1588, he was brought before the bishops of London, Winchester, and Lincoln, who, sitting in St. Paul’s, on Friday the 20th day of June, ministered certain interrogatories upon the sacrament of the supper, and purgatory, unto the said Frith, as is above declared; to which when he had answered, and showed his mind in form and effect, as by his own words above doth appear, he afterwards subscribed to his answers with his own hand, in these words: 12 “I Frith, thus do think; and as I think, so have I said, written, taught, and affirmed, and in my books have published.”

But when Frith by no means could be persuaded to recant these articles aforesaid, neither be brought to believe that the sacrament is an article of faith, but said, “Fiat judicium et justitia:” he was condemned by the bishop of London to be burned, and sentence given against him; the tenor whereof here ensueth.

THE SENTENCE GIVEN AGAINST JOHN FRITH.

In the name of God, Amen. We, John, by the permission of God, bishop of London, lawfully and rightly proceeding with all godly favor, by the authority and virtue of our office, against thee, John Frith, of our jurisdiction, before us personally here present, being accused and detected, and notoriously slandered of heresy; having heard, seen, and understood, and with diligent deliberation weighed, discussed, and considered, the merits of the cause, all things being observed which by us in this behalf, by order of law, ought to be observed, sitting in our judgment seat, the name of Christ being first called upon, and having God only before our eyes,13 because by the acts enacted, propounded, and exhibited in this manner, and by thine own confession judicially made before us, we do find, that thou hast taught, holden, and affirmed, and obstinately defended, divers errors and heresies, and damnable opinions, contrary to the doctrine and determination of the holy church, and especially against the reverend sacrament; and albeit that we, following the example of Christ, ‘which would not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should convert and live,’have oftentimes gone about to correct thee, and by all lawful means that we could, and most wholesome admonitions that we did know, to reduce thee again to the true faith, and the unity of the universal catholic church, notwithstanding we have found thee obstinate and stiff-necked, willingly continuing in thy damnable opinions and heresies, and refusing to return again unto the true faith and unity of the holy mother church, and as the child of wickedness and darkness, so to have hardened thy heart, that thou wilt not understand the voice of thy shepherd, who, with a fatherly affection, doth seek after thee, nor wilt be allured with his godly and fatherly admonitions: We therefore, John, the bishop aforesaid, not willing that thou who art wicked, shouldest become more wicked, and infect the Lord’s flock with thy heresy, which we are greatly afraid of, do judge thee, and definitively condemn thee, the said John Frith, thy demerits and faults being aggravated through thy damnable obstinacy, as guilty of most detestable heresies, and as an obstinate impenitent sinner, refusing penitently to return to the lap and unity of the holy mother church; and that thou hast been and art, by law, excommunicated, and do pronounce and declare thee to be an excommunicated person: Also we pronounce and declare thee to be a heretic, to be cast out from the church, and left unto the judgment of the secular power, and now presently so do leave thee unto the secular power, and their judgment; most earnestly requiring them, in the bowels of our Lord Jesus Christ, that this execution and punishment, worthily to be done upon thee, may be so moderated, that the rigor thereof be not too extreme, nor yet the gentleness too much mitigated, but that it may be to the salvation of thy soul, to the extirpation, terror, and conversion of heretics, to the unity of the catholic faith, by this our sentence definitive, or final decree, which we here promulgate in this form aforesaid.

This sentence thus read, the bishop of London directed his letter to sir Stephen Peacock, mayor of London, and the sheriffs of the same city, for the receiving of the aforesaid John Frith into their charge; who, being so delivered over unto them the 4th day of July, in the year aforesaid, was by them carried into Smithfield to be burned. And when he was tied unto the stake, there it sufficiently appeared with what constancy and courage he suffered death; for when the faggots and fire were put unto him, he willingly embraced the same; thereby declaring with what uprightness of mind he suffered his death for Christ’s sake, and the true doctrine, whereof that day he gave, with his blood, a perfect and firm testimony. The wind made his death somewhat the longer, which bare away the flame from him unto his fellow that was tied to his back: but he had established his mind with such patience, God giving him strength, that even as though he had felt no pain in that long torment, he seemed rather to rejoice for his fellow, than to be careful for himself.

This truly is the power and strength of Christ, striving and vanquishing in his saints; Who sanctify us together with them, and direct us in all things to the glory of his holy name! Amen.

The day before the burning of these worthy men of God, the bishop of London certified king Henry VIII. of his worthy, yea, rather wolfish, proceeding against these men: the tenor whereof hereunder ensueth:

THE LETTER OF JOHN, BISHOP OF LONDON, TO CERTIFY THE KING OF THE CONDEMNATION OF JOHN FRITH AND ANDREW HEWET. * Unto 14 the most noble prince and lord in Christ, our lord Henry the eighth, by the grace of God king of England and of France, and lord of Ireland, defender of the faith: John, by the permission of God, bishop of London, with all manner of reverence, honor, and subjection. Whereas we, in a certain business of inquisition of heresy against certain men, John Frith and Andrew Hewet, heretics, have judged and condemned either of them, as obstinate, impenitent, and incorrigible heretics, by our sentence definitive, and have delivered the said John and Andrew unto the honorable man, sir Stephen Peacock, mayor of your city of London, and John Martin, one of your shrives of the same city (being personally present with us in judgment, according to the order of the law); and therefore all and singular the premises so by us done, we notify, and signify unto your highness, by these presents sealed with our seal.

Dated the third day of July in the year of our Lord 1533, and in the third year of our consecration.”

ANDREW HEWET BURNED WITH MASTER FRITH Andrew Hewet, born in Feversham, in the county of Kent, a young man of the age of four and twenty years, was apprentice with one Master Warren, a tailor in Watling-street. And as it happened that he went upon a holyday into Fleet-street, towards St. Dunstan’s, he met with one William Holt, who was foreman with the king’s tailor, at that present called Master Malte; and being suspected by the same Holt, who was a dissembling wretch, to be one that favored the gospel, after a little talk had with him, he went into an honest house about Fleet-bridge, which was a bookseller’s house. Then Holt, thinking he had found good occasion to show forth some fruit of his wickedness, sent for certain officers, and searched the house, and finding the same Andrew, apprehended him, and carried him to the bishop’s house, where he was cast into irons; and being there a good space, by the means of a certain honest man, he had a file conveyed unto him, 1 wherewith he filed off his irons, and when he spied his time, he got out of the gate. But being a man unskilful to hide himself, for lack of good acquaintance, he went into Smithfield, and there met with one Withers, who was a hypocrite, as Holt was. This Withers, understanding how he had escaped, and that he knew not whither to go, pretending a fair countenance unto him, willed him to go with him, promising that he should be provided for; and so kept him in the country where he had to do, from Low-Sunday till Whitsuntide, and then brought him to London, to the house of one John Chapman in Hosier-lane beside Smithfield, and there left him for the space of two days.

Then he came to the said Chapman’s house again, and brought Holt with him. And when they met with the said Andrew, they seemed as though they meant to do him very much good; and Holt, for his part, said that if he should bring any man in trouble (as the voice was that he had done the said Andrew), it were pity but that the earth should open and swallow him up: insomuch that they would needs sup there that night, and prepared meat of their own charges. At night they came, and brought certain guests with them, because they would have the matter to seem as though it had come out by others. When they had supped, they went their way, and Holt took out of his purse two groats, and gave them to the said Andrew, and embraced him in his arms. As they were gone out, there came in one John Tibauld, who was banished from his own house by an injunction, for he had been four times in prison for Christ’s cause. And within an hour after that Holt and Withers were gone, the bishop’s chancellor, and one called sergeant Weaver, came, and brought with them the watch, and searched the house, where they found the said John Chapman and the beforenamed Andrew, and John Tibauld, whom they bound with ropes which sergeant Weaver had brought with him, and so carried them to the bishop’s house: but Andrew Hewet they sent unto the Lollards’tower, and kept Chapman and Tibauld asunder, watched by two priests’servants. The next day bishop Stokesley came from Fulham, and after they were examined with a few threatening words, Chapman was committed to the stocks, with this threat, that he should tell another tale, or else he should sit there till his heels did drop off, etc.: and Tibauld was shut up in a close chamber; but, by God’s provision, he was well delivered out of prison, albeit he could not enjoy his house and land because of the bishop’s injunction, but was fain to sell all that he had in Essex; for the tenor of his injunction was, that he should not come within seven miles of his own house. And the aforesaid Chapman, after five weeks’imprisonment (whereof three weeks he sat in the stocks), by much suit made unto the lord chancellor, who at that time was lord Audley, after many threatenings was delivered: but the said Andrew Hewet, after long and cruel imprisonment, was condemned to death, and burned with John Frith. The examination of Hewet here followeth.

On the 20th day of the month of April, Andrew Hewet was brought before the chancellor of the bishop of London, where was objected against him, that he believed the sacrament of the altar, after the consecration, to be but a signification of the body of Christ, and that the host consecrated was not the very body of Christ. Now, forasmuch as this article seemed heinous unto them, they would do nothing in it without the consent of learned counsel: whereupon the bishop of London, associated with the bishops of Lincoln and Winchester, called him again before them; where, it being demanded of him what he thought as touching the sacrament of the last supper; he answered, “Even as John Frith doth.” Then said one of the bishops unto him, “Dost thou not believe that it is really the body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary?” “So,” saith he, “do not I believe.” “Why not?” said the bishop. “Because,” said he, “Christ commanded me not to give credit rashly unto all men, who say, ‘Behold, here is Christ, and there is Christ; for many false prophets shall rise up, saith the Lord.’ “ Then certain of the bishops smiled at him; and Stokesley, the bishop of London, said, “Why, Frith is a heretic, and already judged to be burned; and except thou revoke thine opinion, thou shalt be burned also with him.” “Truly,” saith he, “I am content therewithal.” Then the bishop asked him if he would forsake his opinions; whereunto he answered, that he would do as Frith did: whereupon he was sent unto the prison to Frith, and afterwards they were carried together to the fire. The bishops used many persuasions to allure this good man from the truth, to follow them: but he, manfully persisting in the truth, would not recant. Wherefore on the 4th day of July, in the afternoon, he was carried into Smithfield with Frith, and there burned.

When they were at the stake, one doctor Cook , 11 a parson in London, openly admonished all the people, that they should in no wise pray for them, no more than they would do for a dog; at which words Frith, smiling, desired the Lord to forgive him. These words did not a little move the people unto anger, and not without good cause. Thus these two blessed martyrs committed their souls into the hands of God.

THE HISTORY OF THE PERSECUTION AND DEATH OF THOMAS BENET, BURNED IN EXETER:

COLLECTED AND TESTIFIED BY JOHN DOWEL, ALIAS HOKER.

This Thomas Benet was born in Cambridge, and, by order of degree, of the university there made master of arts, and, as some think, was also a priest; a man doubtless very well learned, and of a godly disposition, being of the acquaintance and familiarity of Thomas Bilney, the famous and glorious martyr of Christ. This man, the more he did grow and increase in the knowledge of God and his holy word, the more he did mislike and abhor the corrupt state of religion then used; and therefore, thinking his own country to be no safe place for him to remain in, and being desirous to live in more freedom of conscience, he did forsake the university, and went into Devonshire, A.D. 1524, and first dwelled in a market-town, named Torrington, both town and country being to him altogether unknown, as he was also unknown to all men there; where, for the better maintenance of himself and his wife, he did practice to teach young children, and kept a school for the same purpose. But that town not serving his expectation, after his abode one year there, he came to the city of Exeter; and there, hiring a house in a street called the Butcher-row did exercise the teaching of children, and by that means sustained his wife and family. He was of a quiet behavior, of a godly conversation, and of a very courteous nature, humble to all men, and offensive to nobody. His greatest delight was to be at all sermons and preachings, whereof he was a diligent and attentive hearer. The time which he had to spare from teaching, he gave wholly to his private study in the Scriptures, having no dealings nor conferences with any body, saving with such as he could learn and understand to be favorers of the gospel, and zealous of God’s true religion: of such he would be inquisitive, and most desirous to join himself unto them. And therefore, understanding that one William Strowd, of Newnham, in the county of Devonshire, esquire, was committed to the bishop’s prison in Exeter, upon suspicion of heresy, although he were never before acquainted with him, yet did he send his letters of comfort and consolation, unto him; wherein, to avoid all suspicion which might be conceived of him, he did disclose himself, and utter what he was, and the causes of his being in the country, writing among other things these words: “Because I would not be a whoremonger: or an unclean person, therefore I married a wife, with whom I have hidden myself in Devonshire, from the tyranny of the antichristians, these six years.” But, as every tree and herb hath its due time to bring forth its fruit, so did it appear by this man. For he, daily seeing the glory of God to be so blasphemed, idolatrous religion so embraced and maintained, 2 and that most false usurped power of the bishop of Rome so extolled, was so grieved in conscience, and troubled in spirit, that he could not be quiet till he did utter his mind therein. Wherefore, dealing privately with certain of his friends, he did plainly open and disclose how blasphemously and abominably God was dishonored, his word contemned, and his people, whom he so dearly bought, were, by blind guides, carried headlong to everlasting damnation: and therefore he could no longer endure, but must needs, and would, utter their abominations; and for his own part, for the testimony of his conscience, and for the defense of God’s true religion, would yield himself most patiently (as near as God would give him grace) to die and to shed his blood therein; alleging that his death should be more profitable to the church of God, and for the edifying of his people, than his life should be. To whose persuasions when his friends had yielded, they promised to pray to God for him, that he might be strong in the cause, and continue a faithful soldier to the end: which done, he gave order for the bestowing of such books as he had, and very shortly after, in the month of October, he wrote his mind in certain scrolls of paper, which, in secret manner, he set upon the doors of the cathedral church of the city; in which was written, “The pope is Antichrist; and we ought to worship God only, and no saints.”

These bills being found, there was no small ado, and no little search made for the inquiry of the heretic that should set up these bills: and the mayor and his officers were not so busy to make searches to find this heretic, but the bishop and all his doctors were as hot as coals, and enkindled as though they had been stung with a sort of wasps. Wherefore, to keep the people in their former blindness, order was taken that the doctors should in haste up to the pulpit every day, and confute this heresy. Nevertheless this Thomas Benet, keeping his own doings in secret, went the Sunday following to the cathedral church to the sermon, and by chance sat down by two men, who were the busiest in all the city in seeking and searching for this heretic; and they, beholding this Benet, said the one to the other, “Surely this fellow, by all likelihood, is the heretic that hath set up the bills, and it were good to examine him.” Nevertheless, when they had well beheld them, and saw the quiet and sober behavior of the man, his attentiveness to the preacher, his godliness in the church, being always occupied in his book, which was a Testament in the Latin tongue, they were astonished, and had no power to speak unto him, but departed, and left him reading in his book. As touching this point of Benet’s behavior in the church, I find the reports of some others a little to vary, and yet not much contrary one to the other. For in receiving the letters and writings of a certain minister, who at the same time was present at the doing hereof in Exeter, thus I find moreover added, concerning the behavior of this Thomas Benet in the church. At that time, saith he, as I remember, Dr. Moreman, Crispin, Caseley, with such others, bare the swinge there. Besides these, were also preachers there, one Dr. Bascavild, an unlearned doctor, God knoweth; and one Dr. David, as well learned as he, both grey friars, and Doctor I-know-not-who, a black friar, not much inferior unto them.

Moreover, there was one bachelor of divinity, a grey friar named Gregory Basset, more learned indeed than they all, but as blind and superstitious as he which was most; which Gregory, not long before, was revolted from the way of righteousness, to the way of Belial: for in Bristol, saith the author, he lay in prison long, and was almost famished, for having a book of Martin Luther, called his Questions, which he a long time privily had studied, and for the teaching of youth a certain catechism. To be short, the brains of the canons and priests, the officers and commons of that city, were very earnestly busied, how, or by what means, such an enormous heretic, who had pricked up those bills, might be espied and known: but it was long first. At last, the priests found out a toy to curse him, whatsoever he were, with book, bell, and candle; which curse at that day seemed most fearful and terrible. The manner of the curse was after this sort. One of the priests, apparelled all in white, ascended up into the pulpit. The other rabblement, with certain of the two orders of friars, and certain superstitious monks of St. Nicholas’house standing round about, and the cross (as the custom was) being holden up with holy candles of wax fixed to the same, he began his sermon with this theme of Joshua, “There is blasphemy in the army; 3 and so made a long protestation, but not so long as tedious and superstitious: and so concluded that that foul and abominable heretic who had put up such blasphemous bills, was, for that his blasphemy, damnably accursed; and besought God, our lady, St.

Peter, patron of that church, with all the holy company of martyrs, confessors, and virgins, that it might be known what heretic had put up such blasphemous bills, that God’s people might avoid the vengeance. The manner of the cursing of the said Benet was marvellous to behold, forasmuch as at that time there were few or none, unless a shearman or two, whose houses, I well remember, were searched for bills at that time, and for books, that knew any thing of God’s matters, or how God doth bless their curses in such cases. Then said the prelate thus:

THE POPE’S CURSE, WITH BOOK, BELL, AND CANDLE.

By the authority of God the Father Almighty, and of the blessed Virgin Mary, of Saint Peter and Paul, and of the holy saints, we excommunicate, we utterly curse and ban, commit and deliver to the devil of hell, him or her, whatsoever he or she be, that hath,—in spite of God and of St. Peter, whose church this is, in spite of all holy saints, and in spite of our most holy father the pope, God’s vicar here in earth, and in spite of the reverend father in God, John our diocesan, and the worshipful canons, masters, and priests, and clerks,who serve God daily in this cathedral church,—fixed up with wax such cursed and heretical bills, full of blasphemy, upon the doors of this and other holy churches within this city.

Excommunicated plainly be he or she plenally, or they, and delivered over to the devil, as perpetual malefactors and schismatics. Accursed may they be, 4 and given body and soul to the devil. Cursed be they, he or she, in cities and towns, in fields, in ways, in paths, in houses, out of houses, and in all other places, standing, lying, or rising, walking, running, waking, sleeping, eating, drinking, and whatsoever thing they do besides. We separate them, him or her, from the threshold, and from all the good prayers of the church; from the participation of the holy mass; from all sacraments, chapels, and altars; from holy bread and holy water; from all the merits of God’s priests and religious men, and from all their cloisters; from all their pardons, privileges, grants, and immunities, which all the holy fathers, popes of Rome, have granted to them; and we give them over utterly to the power of the fiend: and let us quench their souls, if they be dead, this night in the pains of hell-fire, as this candle is now quenched and put out (and with that he put out one of the candles): and let us pray to God, if they be alive, that their eyes may be put out, as this candle light is (so he put out the other candle); and let us pray to God and to our lady, and to St. Peter and Paul, and all holy saints, that all the senses of their bodies may fail them, and that they may have no feeling, as now the light of this candle is gone (and so he put out the third candle) except they, he or she, come openly now and confess their blasphemy, and by repentance, as much as in them shall lie, make satisfaction unto God, our lady, St. Peter, and the worshipful company of this cathedral church: and as this holy cross-staff now falleth down, so may they, except they repent and show themselves.

Here, one first taking away the cross, the staff fell down. But Lord! what a shout and noise was there; what terrible fear; what holding up of hands to heaven: that curse was so terrible!

Now this fond foolish fantasy and mockery being done and played, which was to a christian heart a thing ridiculous, Benet could no longer forbear, but fell to great laughter, but within himself, and for a great space could not cease; by which thing the poor man was espied. For those that were next to him, wondering at that great curse, and believing that it could not but light on one or other, asked good Benet, for what cause he should so laugh. “My friends,” said he, “who can forbear, seeing such merry conceits and interludes played by the priests?” Straightway a noise was made, Here is the heretic! here is the heretic! hold him fast, hold him fast! With that, there was a great confusion of voices, and much clapping of hands, and yet they were uncertain whether he were the heretic or no. Some say, that upon the same he was taken and apprehended. Others report, that his enemies, being uncertain of him, departed, and so he went home to his house; where he, being not able to digest the lies there preached, renewed his former bills, and caused his boy, early in the morning following, to set the said bills upon the gates of the churchyard. As the boy was setting one of the said bills upon a gate, called ‘The little Stile,’it chanced that one W.

S., going to the cathedral church to hear a mass, called Barton’s Mass, which was then daily said about five o’clock in the morning, found the boy at the gate, and asking him whose boy he was, did charge him to be the heretic that had set up the bills upon the gates: wherefore, pulling down the bill, he brought the same, together with the boy, before the mayor of the city; and thereupon Benet, being known and taken, was violently committed to ward.

On the morrow began both the canons and the heads of the city joined with them, to fall to examination; with whom, for that day, he had not much communication, but confessed and said to them, “It was even I that put up those bills; and if it were to do, I would yet do it again; for in them I have written nothing but what is very truth.” “Couldst not thou,” said they, “as well have declared thy mind by mouth, as by putting up bills of blasphemy?” “No,” said he, “I put up the bills, that many should read and hear what abominable blasphemers ye are, and that they might the better know your Antichrist, the pope, to be that boar out of the wood, which destroyeth and throweth down the hedges of God’s church; for if I had been heard to speak but one word, I should have been clapped fast in prison, and the matter of God hidden. But now I trust more of your blasphemous doings will thereby be opened and come to light; for God will so have it, and no longer will suffer you.”

The next day after, he was sent unto the bishop, who first committed him to prison, called ‘The Bishop’s Prison,’where he was kept in stocks and strong irons, with as much favor as a dog should find. Then the bishop, associating unto him one Dr. Brewer, his chancelor, and other of his lewd clergy and friars, began to examine him and burden him, that, contrary to the catholic faith, he denied praying to the saints, and also denied the supremacy of the pope. Whereunto he answered in such sober manner, and so learnedly proved and defended his assertions, that he did not only confound and put to silence his adversaries, but also brought them in great admiration of him; the most part having pity and compassion on him. The friars took great pains with him to persuade him from his erroneous opinions, to recant and acknowledge his fault, touching the bills; but they did but dig after day; for God had appointed him to be a blessed witness of his holy name, and to be at defiance with all their false persuasions.

To declare here with what cruelty the officers searched his house for bills and books, how cruelly and shamefully they handled his wife, charging her with divers enormities, it were too long to write. But she, like a good woman, took all things patiently that they did unto her; like as in other things she was contented to bear the cross with him, as to fare hardly with him at home, and to live with coarse meat and drink, that they might be the more able somewhat to help the poor, as they did to the uttermost of their power.

Amongst all other priests and friars, Gregory Basset was most busy with him. This Gregory Basset, as is partly touched before, was learned, and had a pleasant tongue, and not long before was fallen from the truth, for which he was imprisoned in Bristol a long time; at whose examination was ordained a great pan of fire, where his holy brethren (as the report went abroad) menaced him to burn his hands off: whereupon he there before them recanted, and became afterwards a mortal enemy to the truth all his life. This Gregory, as it is said, was fervent with the poor man, to please the canons of that church, and marvellously tormented his brains, how to turn him from his opinions; yea, and he was so diligent and fervent with him, that he would not depart the prison, but lay there night and day, who notwithstanding lost his labor: for good Benet was at a point not to deny Christ before men. So Gregory, as well as the other holy fathers, lost his spurs, insomuch that he said in open audience, that there was never so obstinate a heretic.

THE MATTER BETWEEN GREGORY BASSET AND THOMAS BENET.

The principal point between Basset and Benet was touching the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, whom in his bills he named Antichrist, the Thief, the Mercenary, and the Murderer of Christ’s Flock: and these disputations lasted about eight days, where, at sundry times, repaired to him both the black and grey friars, with priests and monks of that city. They that had some learning persuaded him to believe the church, and showed by what tokens she is known. The others unlearned railed, and said that the devil tempted him, and spat upon him, calling him heretic; who prayed God to give them a better mind, and to forgive them: ‘For,’said he, ‘I will rather die, than worship such a beast, the very whore of Babylon, and a false usurper, as manifestly it doth appear by his doings.’ They asked, What he did, that he had not power and authority to do, being God’s vicar?’He doth, quoth he, ‘sell the sacraments of the church for money, he selleth remission of sins daily for money, and so do you likewise: for there is no day but ye say divers masses for souls in feigned purgatory: yea, and ye spare not to make lying sermons to the people, to maintain your false traditions and foul gains. The whole world doth begin now to note your doings, to your utter confusion and shame.’ ‘The shame,’say they, ‘shall be to thee, and such as thou art, thou foul heretic! Wilt thou allow nothing done in holy church? what a perverse heretic art thou!’‘I am,’said he, ‘no heretic, but a christian man, I thank Christ; and with all my heart will allow all things done and used in the church to the glory of God, and edifying of my soul: but I see nothing in your church, but what maintaineth the devil.’ ‘What is our church?’said they. ‘It is not my church,’quoth Benet, ‘God give me grace to be of a better church, for verily your church is the plain church of Antichrist, the malignant church, the second church, a den of thieves, and an awmbry of poison, and as far wide from the true, universal, and apostolic church, as heaven is distant from the earth.’

Dost not thou think,’said they, ‘that we pertain to the universal, church?’‘Yes,’quoth he, ‘but as dead members, unto whom the church is not beneficial; for your works are the devices of man, and your church a weak foundation: for ye say and preach that the pope’s word is equal with God’s word in every degree.’ ‘Why,’said they, ‘did not Christ say to Peter, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven?’‘He said that,’quoth he, ‘to all, as well as to Peter; and Peter had no more authority given to him than they, or else the churches planted in every kingdom by their preaching are no churches. Doth not St. Paul say, Upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets? Therefore I say plainly, that the church that is built upon a man, is the devil’s church or congregation, and not God’s. And as every church this day is appointed to be ruled by a bishop or pastor, ordained by the word of God in preaching and administration of the sacraments under the prince, the supreme governor under God, so, to say that all the churches with their princes and governors be subject unto one bishop, is detestable heresy; and the pope, your god, challenging this power to himself, is the greatest schismatic that ever was in the church, and the most foul whore; of whom John, in the Revelation, speaketh.’ ‘O thou blind and unlearned fool!’said they, ‘is not the confession and consent of all the world, as we confess and consent—That the pope’s holiness is the supreme head and vicar of Christ?’‘That is,’said Benet, ‘because they are blinded and know not the Scriptures: but if God would of his mercy open the eyes of princes to know their office, his false supremacy would soon decay.’ ‘We think,’said they, ‘thou art so malicious, that thou wilt confess no church.’ ‘Look!’said he, ‘where they are that confess the true flame, of Jesus Christ; and where Christ only is the head, and under him the prince of the realm, to order all bishops, ministers, and preachers, and to see them do their duties in setting forth the only glory of God by preaching the word of God; and where it is preached that Christ is our only Advocate, Mediator, and Patron before God his Father, making intercession for us; and where the true faith and confidence in Christ’s death and passion, and his only merits and deservings are extolled, and our own depressed; where the sacrament is duly, without, superstition or idolatry, administered in remembrance of his blessed passion and only sacrifice upon the cross once for all, and where no superstition reigneth:—of that church will I be!’ ‘Doth not the pope,’said they, ‘confess the true gospel? do not we all the same?’‘Yes,’said he, ‘but ye deny the fruits thereof in every point. Ye build upon the sands, not upon the rock.’ ‘And wilt thou not believe indeed,’said they, ‘that the pope is God’s vicar?’‘No,’said he, ‘indeed.’ ‘And why?’said they. ‘Because,’quoth he, ‘he usurpeth a power not given to him by Christ, no more than to other apostles; and also because, by force of that usurped supremacy, he doth blind the whole world, and doth contrary to all that ever Christ ordained or commanded.’ ‘What,’said they, ‘if he do all things after God’s ordinance and commandment: should he then be his vicar?’‘Then,’said he, ‘would I believe him to be a good bishop at Rome over his own diocese, and to have no further power. And if it pleased God, I would every bishop did this in his diocese: then should we live a peaceable life in the church of Christ, and there should be no such seditions therein. If every bishop, would seek no further power than over his own diocese, it were a goodly thing. Now, because all are subject to one, all must do and consent to all wickedness as he doth, or be none of his. This is the cause of great superstition in every, kingdom. And what bishop soever, he be that preacheth, the gospel, and maintaineth the truth, is a true bishop of the church.

And doth not, said they, ‘our holy father the pope maintain the gospel?’‘Yea,’said he, ‘I think he doth read it, and peradventure believe it, and so do you also; but neither he nor you do fix the anchor of your salvation therein. Besides that, ye bear such a good will to it, that ye keep it close, that no man may read it but yourselves. And when you preach, God knoweth how you handle it; insomuch, that the people of Christ know no gospel well-near, but the pope’s gospel; and so the blind lead the blind, and both fall into the pit. In the true gospel of Christ, confidence is none; but only in your popish traditions and fantastical inventions.’

Then said a black friar unto him (God knoweth, a blockhead), ‘Do we not preach the gospel daily?’Yes,’said he, ‘but what preaching of the gospel is that, when therewith ye extol superstitious things, and make us believe that we have redemption through pardons and bulls of Rome, a poena et culpa, as ye term it: and by the merits of your orders ye make many brethren and sisters; ye take yearly money of them, ye bury them in your coats, and in shift ye beguile them; yea, and do a thousand superstitious things more: a man may be weary to speak of them.’ ‘I see,’said the friar, ‘that thou art a damned wretch; I will have no more talk with thee.’

Then stepped to him a grey friar, a doctor (God knoweth of small intelligence), and laid before him great and many dangers. ‘I take God to record,’said Benet, ‘my life is not dear to me; I am content to depart from it, for I am weary of it, seeing your detestable doings, to the utter destruction of God’s flock; and, for my part, I can no longer forbear. I had rather, by death (which I know is not far off), depart this life, that I may no longer be partaker of your detestable idolatries and superstitions, or be subject unto antichrist your pope.’ ‘Our pope,’said the friar, ‘is the vicar of God, and our ways are the ways of God.’ ‘I pray you,’said Benet, ‘depart from me, and tell not me of your ways. He is only my way, who saith, I am the way, the truth, and the life. In his way will I walk, his doings shall be my example; not yours, nor your false pope’s. His truth will I embrace; not the lies and falsehood of you and your pope. His everlasting life will I seek, the true reward of all faithful people. Away from me, I pray you. Vex my soul no longer; ye shall not prevail. There is no good example in you, no truth in you, no life to be hoped for at your hands. Ye are all more vain than vanity itself. If I should hear and follow you this day, everlasting death should hang over me, a just reward for all them that love the life of this world. Away from me: your company liketh me not.’

Thus a whole week, night and day, was Benet plied by these and such other hypocrites. It were an infinite matter to declare all things done and said to him in the time of his imprisonment; and the hate of the people that time, by means of ignorance, was hot against him: notwithstanding they could never move his patience; he answered to every matter soberly, and that, more by the aid of God’s Spirit, than by any worldly study. I think he was at least fifty years old. Being in prison, his wife provided sustenance for him; and when she lamented, he comforted her, and gave her many good and godly exhortations, and prayed her to move him nothing to apply unto his adversaries.

Thus when these godly canons and priests, with the monks and friars, had done what they could, and perceived that he would by no means relent, then they, proceeding unto judgment, drew out their bloody sentence against him, condemning him, as the manner is, to be burned. This being done, and the writ which they had procured ‘de comburendo,’being brought from London, they delivered him on the 15th of January, 1581, unto sir Thomas Denis, knight, then sheriff of Devonshire, to be burned.

The mild martyr, rejoicing that his end was approaching so near, as the sheep before the shearer, yielded himself with all humbleness to abide and suffer the cross of persecution. And being brought to his execution, in a place called Livery-dole, without Exeter, he made his most humble confession and prayer unto Almighty God, and requested all the people to do the like for him; whom he exhorted with such gravity and sobriety, and with such a pithy oration, to seek the trite honoring of God, and the true knowledge of him; as also to leave the devices, fantasies, and imaginations of man’s inventions, that all the hearers and beholders of him were astonied and in great admiration; insomuch that the most part of the people, as also the scribe who wrote the sentence of condemnation against him, did pronounce and confess that he was God’s servant, and a good man.

Nevertheless two esquires, namely, Thomas Carew and John Barnehouse, standing at the stake by him, first with fair promises and goodly words, but at length through rough threatenings, willed him to revoke his errors, and to call to Our Lady and the saints, and to say, “Precor sanctam Mariam, et omnes sanctos Dei,” etc. To whom, with all meekness, he answered, saying, “No, no; it is God only upon whose name we must call; and we have no other advocate unto him, but only Jesus Christ, who died for us, and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father, to be an advocate for us; and by him must we offer and make our prayers to God, if we will have them to take place and to be heard.” With this answer the aforesaid Barnehouse was so enkindled, that he took a furze-bush upon a pike, and, having set it on fire, he thrust it unto his face, saying, “Ah! hore-son heretic! pray to our Lady, and say, Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis, or, by God’s wounds, I will make thee do it.” To whom the said Thomas Benet, with an humble and a meek spirit, most patiently answered, “Alas, sir! trouble me not.” And holding up his hands, he said, “Pater! ignosce illis.”

Whereupon the gentlemen caused the wood and furzes to be set on fire, and therewith this godly man lifted up his eyes and hands to heaven, saying, “O Domine! recipe spiritum meum.” And so, continuing in his prayers, he did never stir nor strive, but most patiently abode the cruelty of the fire, until his life was ended, For this the Lord God be praised, and send us his grace and blessing, that at the latter day we may with him enjoy the bliss and joy provided and prepared for the elect children of God.

This Benet was burned in a jerkin of neat’s leather; at whose burning, such was the devilish rage of the blind people, that well was he or she that could catch a stick or furze to cast into the fire.

Hitherto we have run over, good reader, the names, and the acts and doings of those, who have sustained death, and the torment of burning, for Christ’s cause, through the rigorous proclamation above specified, 12 set out, as is said, in the name of king Henry, but indeed procured by the bishops. That proclamation was so straitly looked upon, and executed so to the uttermost in every point, by the said popish prelates, that no good man, “habens spiramentum,” whereof Esdras (4 Esdras 7) speaketh, could peep out with his head ever so little, but he was caught by the back, and brought either to the fire, as were these above mentioned; or else compelled to abjure. Whereof there was a great multitude, as well men as women; whose names, if they were sought out through all registers in England, no doubt it would make too long a discourse. Nevertheless, omitting the rest, it shall content us at this present, briefly, as in a short table, to insinuate the names, with the special articles, of such as, in the diocese of London, under Bishop Stokesley, were molested and vexed, and, at last, compelled to abjure, as here may appear.

A TABLE OF CERTAIN PERSONS, ABJURED WITHIN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON, UNDER BISHOP STOKESLEY, WITH THE ARTICLES ALLEGED AGAINST THEM.

Articles objected against Jeffery Lome, sometime porter to St.

Anthony’s School ; 12a and for which articles he was abjured. 5 A.D.1528.

Imprimis, for having and dispersing abroad sundry books of Martin Luther’s, and others; as also for translating into the English tongue certain chapters of the work of Luther, ‘De Bonis Operibus:’as also, certain chapters of a certain book called ‘Piae Predicationes,’wherein divers works of Luther he comprehended. Item, For affirming and believing that faith only, without good works, will bring a man to heaven. Item, That men be not bound to observe the constitutions made by the Church. Item, That we should pray only to God, and to no saints. Item, That christian men ought to worship God only, and no saints. Item, That pilgrimages be not profitable for man’s soul, and should not be used. Item, That we should not offer to images in the church, nor set no lights before them. Item, That no man is bound to keep any manner of fasting-days, instituted by the church. Item, That pardons granted by the pope or the bishop do not profit a man.

For these articles Jeffery Lome was abjured before the bishops of London, Bath, and Lincoln; no mention being made of any penance enjoined him.

SIGAR NICHOLSON, STATIONER, OF CAMBRIDGE, A.D. 1528.

His articles were like; and moreover for having in his house certain books of Luther, and others prohibited, and not presenting them to the ordinary. The handling of this man was too, too cruel, if the report be true, that he should be hanged up in such a manner as well suffereth not to be named.

JOHN RAIMUND, A DUTCHMAN, 13 A.D. 1528.

For causing fifteen hundred of Tyndale’s New Testaments to be printed at Antwerp, and for bringing five hundred into England.

PAUL LUTHER, GREY FRIAR, AND WARDEN OF THE HOUSE AT WARE, A.D. 1529.

His articles were for preaching and saying that it is pity that there be so many images suffered in so many places, where indiscreet and unlearned people be; for they make their prayers and oblations so entirely and heartily before the image, that they believe it to be the very self saint in heaven. Item, That if he knew his father and mother were in heaven, he would count them as good as St. Peter and Paul, but for the pain they suffered for Christ’s sake. Item, That there is no need to go on pilgrimage. Item, That if a man were at the point of drowning, or any other danger, he should call only upon God, and no saint; for saints in heaven cannot help us, neither know any more what men do here in this world, than a man in the north country knoweth what is done in the south country.

Roger Whaplod, 14 Merchant Tailor, sent, by one Thomas Norfolk, unto Dr. Goderidge, this bill following, to be read at his sermon in the Spital.

A.D. 1529.

A BILL READ BY THE PREACHER AT THE SPITAL. ‘If there be any well-disposed person willing to do any cost upon the reparation of the conduit in Fleet-street, let him or them resort unto the administrators of the goods and cattle of one Richard Hun, late merchant tailor of London, which died intestate, or else to me, and they shall have toward the same six pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence, and a better penny, of the goods of the said Richard Hun; upon whose soul, and all christian souls, Jesus have mercy !’

For this bill, both Whaplod and Norfolk were brought and troubled before the bishop; and also Dr. Goderidge, who took a groat for reading the said bill, 6 was suspended for a time from saying mass, and also was forced to revoke the same at Paul’s cross; reading this bill as followeth.

THE REVOCATION OF DR. WILLIAM GODERIDGE, READ AT PAUL’S CROSS.

Masters! so it is, that where in my late sermon at St. Mary Spital, the Tuesday in Easter-week last past, I did pray specially for the soul of Richard Hun, late of London, merchant-tailor, a heretic, by the laws of holy church justly condemned: by reason whereof I greatly offended God and his church, and the laws of the same, for which I have submitted me to my ordinary, and done penance there-for: forasmuch as, peradventure, the audience that was there offended by my said words, might take any occasion thereby to think that I did favor the said heretic, or any other, I desire you, at the instance of Almighty God, to forgive me, and not so to think of me, for I did it unadvisedly. Therefore, here before God and you, I declare myself that I have not favored him or any other heretic, nor hereafter intend to do, but at all times shall defend the Catholic faith of holy church, according to my profession, to the best of my power.

ROBERT WEST, PRIEST, A.D. 1529.

Abjured for books and opinions contrary to the proclamation.

NICHOLAS WHITE OF RYE, A.D. 1529.

His articles:—For speaking against the priests’ saying of matins; against praying for them that be dead: against praying to God for small trifles, as for the cow calving, the hen hatching, etc.: for speaking against the relic of St. Peter’s finger: against oblations to images: against vowing of pilgrimage: against priesthood: against holy bread and holy water, etc.

RICHARD KITCHEN, PRIEST, A.D. 1529.

His articles:—That pardons granted by the pope are naught, and that men should put no trust in them, but only in the passion of Christ: that he, being led by the words of the gospel, Matthew ‘De via lata, et angusta,’ and also by the epistle of the mass, beginning, ‘Vir fortissimus Judas,’ had erred in the way of the pope, and thought, that there were but two ways, and no purgatory: that men ought to worship no images, nor set up lights before them: that pilgrimage doth nothing avail: that the gospel was not truly preached for the space of three hundred years past, etc.

WILLIAM WEGEN, PRIEST AT ST. MARY HILL, A.D. 1529.

His articles:—That he was not bound to say his Matins nor other service, but to sing with the choir till they came to ‘prime;’ and then, saying no more service, thought he might well go to mass: that he had said mass oftentimes, and had not said his matins and his divine service before: that he had gone to mass without confession made to a priest: that it was sufficient for a man, being in deadly sin, to ask only God mercy for his sin, without further confession made to a priest: that he held against pilgrimages, and called images, stocks, stones, and witches. Item, That he being sick, went to the Rood of St. Margaret Patens; and said before him twenty Paternosters; and when he saw himself never the better, then he said, ‘A foul evil take him, and all other images.’ Item, That if a man keep a good tongue in his head, he fasteth well. Item, For commending Luther to be a good man, for preaching twice a day, etc. Item, For saying that the mass was but a ceremony, and made to the intent that men should pray only. Item, For saying, that if a man had a pair of beads or a book in his hand at the church, and were not disposed to pray, it was naught, etc.

WILLIAM HALE, HOLY WATER CLERK OF TOLENHAM, A.D. 1529.

His articles:—That offering of money and candies to images did not avail, since we are justified by the blood of Christ. Item, for speaking against worshipping of saints, and against the pope’s pardons. For saying, that since the sacraments that the priest doth minister, be as good as those which the pope doth minister, he did not see but the priest hath as good authority as the pope. Item, That a man should confess himself to God only, and not to a priest, etc.

WILLIAM BLOMFIELD, MONK OF BURY.

Abjured for the like causes.

JOHN TYNDALE, 15 A.D. 1530.

For sending five marks to his brother William Tyndale beyond the sea, and for receiving and keeping with him certain letters from his brother.

WILLIAM WORSLEY, PRIEST AND HERMIT, A.D. 1530.

His articles:—For preaching at Halestede, having the curate’s license, but not the bishop’s. Item, For preaching these words, ‘No man riding on pilgrimage, having under him a soft saddle, and an easy horse, should have any merit thereby, but the horse and the saddle,’etc. Item, For saying that hearing of matins and mass, is not the thing that shall save a man’s soul, but only to hear the word of God.

JOHN STACY, TYLER, 16 A.D. 1530.

His articles were against purgatory, which, he said, were but a device of the priests to get money: against fasting days by man’s prescription, and choice of meats: against superfluous holy days: Item, against pilgrimage, etc.

LAWRENCE MAXWELL, TYLER, 17 A.D. 1530.

His articles:—That the sacrament of the altar was not the very body of Christ in flesh and blood; but that he received him by the word of God, and in remembrance of Christ’s passion. Item, That the order of priesthood is no sacrament; that there is no purgatory, etc.

THOMAS CURSON, MONK OF EASTACRE, IN NORFOLK, A.D. 1530.

His articles were these:—For going out of the monastery, and changing his weed, and letting his crown to grow; working abroad for his living, making copes and vestments. Also for having the New Testament of Tyndale’s translation, and another book containing certain books of the Old Testament, translated into English, by certain whom the Papists call Lutherans.

THOMAS CORNEWELL OR AUSTY, A.D. 1530.

His articles:—It was objected, that he, being enjoined afore, by Richard Fitzjames, bishop of London, for his penance to wear a faggot embroidered upon his sleeve under pain of relapse, he kept not the same; and therefore he was condemned to perpetual custody in the house of St. Bartholomew, from whence afterwards he escaped and fled away.

THOMAS PHILIP, A.D. 1580.

Thomas Philip was delivered by sir Thomas More, to bishop Stokesley by indenture. Besides other articles of purgatory, images, the sacrament of the altar, holy-days, keeping of books, and such like, it was objected unto him, that he, being searched in the Tower, had found about him Tracy’s Testament; and in his chamber in the Tower was found cheese and butter in Lent-time. Also, that he had a letter delivered unto him going to the Tower. This letter, with the Testament also of Tracy, because they are both worthy to be seen, we mind (God willing) to annex also unto the story of this Thomas Philip. As he was oftentimes examined before Master More and the bishop, he always stood to his denial, neither could there any thing be proved clearly against him, but only Tracy’s Testament, and his butter in Lent. One Stacy first bare witness against him, but after, in the court, openly he protested that he did it for fear. The bishop then willing him to submit himself, and to swear never to hold any opinion contrary to the determination of holy church, he said ‘he would:’and when the form of his abjuration was given him to read, he read it: but the bishop, not content with that, would have him to read it openly. But that he would not; and said, He would appeal to the king as supreme head of the church, and so did. Still the bishop called upon him to abjure. He answered, That he would be obedient as a christian man should, and that he would swear never to hold any heresy during his life, nor to favor any heretics.

But the bishop, not yet content, would have him to read the abjuration after the form of the church conceived, as it was given him. He answered again, that he would forswear all heresies, and that he would maintain no heresies, nor favor any heretics. The bishop with this would not be answered, but needs would drive him to the abjuration formed after the pope’s church: to whom he said, If it were the same abjuration that he read, he would not read it, but stand to his appeal made to the king, the supreme head of the church under God. Again the bishop asked him, if he would abjure or not. ‘Except, said he, ‘you will show me the cause why I should abjure, I will not say yea nor nay to it, but will stand to my appeal;’and he required the bishop to obey the same. Then the bishop, reading openly the bill of excommunication against him, denounced him for ‘contumax,’and an excommunicated person, charging all men to have no company, and nothing to do with him.

After this excommunication, what became of him, 18 whether he was holpen by his appeal, or whether he was burned, or whether he died in the Tower, or whether he abjured, I find no mention made in the registers.

A LETTER DIRECTED TO THOMAS PHILIP IN THE NAME OF THE BRETHREN,AND GIVEN HIM BY THE WAY GOING TO THE TOWER.

The favor of him that is able to keep you that you fall not, and to confess your name in the kingdom of glory, and to give you strength by his Spirit to confess him before all his adversaries, be with you ever. Amen.

Sir, the brethren think that there be divers false brethren craftily crept in among them, to seek out their freedom in the Lord, that they may accuse them to the Lord’s adversaries, as they suppose they have done you. Wherefore, if so it be, that the Spirit of God move you thereunto, they, as counsellors, desire you above all things to be steadfast in the Lord’s verity, without fear; for he shall and will be your help, according to his promise, so that they shall not minish the least hair of your head without his will; unto which will, submit yourself and rejoice: for the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment, to be punished: (2 Peter 2) and therefore cast all your care on him, for he careth for you. (1 Peter 5) And in that you suffer as a christian man, be not ashamed, but rather glorify God on that behalf, ‘Looking upon Christ the author and finisher of our faith, which, for the joy that was set before him, abode the cross and despised the shame.’ (Hebrews 12) Notwithstanding, though we suffer the wrong after the example of our Master Christ, yet we be not bound to suffer the wrong cause, for Christ himself suffered it not, but reproved him that smote him wrongfully. And so likewise saith St. Paul also. (Acts 23) So that we must not suffer the wrong, but boldly reprove them that sit as righteous judges, and do contrary to righteousness. Therefore, according both to God’s law and man’s, ye be not bound to make answer in any cause, till your accusers come before you; which if you require, and thereon do stick, the false brethren shall be known, to the great comfort of those that now stand in doubt whom they may trust; and also it shall be a mean that they shall not craftily, by questions, take you in snares. And that you may this do lawfully, in Acts 20 it is written, ‘It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man that he should perish, before that he which is accused have his accusers before him, and have license to answer for himself, as pertaining to the crime whereof he is accused.’ And also Christ willeth that in the mouth of two or three witnesses all things shall stand. (Matthew 18) And in 1 Timothy 5, it is written, ‘Against a senior, receive none accusation, but under two or three witnesses.’

A senior, in this place, is any man that hath a house to govern. And also their own law is agreeable to this. Wherefore, seeing it is agreeable to the word of God, that in accusations such witnesses should be, you may with good conscience require it. And thus the God of grace, which hath called you unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, shall his own self, after a little affliction, make you perfect; shall settle, strengthen, and stablish you, that to him may be glory and praise for ever. Amen.

Thus ye have heard the letter delivered to Thomas Philip. followeth the Testament of William Tracy.

WILLIAM TRACY ESQUIRE, OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

A little before this time, this William Tracy, a worshipful esquire in Gloucestershire, and then dwelling at Toddington, made, in his will, that he would have no funeral pomp at his burying, neither passed he upon mass; and he further said, that he trusted in God only, and hoped by him to be saved, and not by any saint. This gentleman died, and his son, as executor, brought the will to the bishop of Canterbury to prove: which he showed to the convocation, and there most cruelly they judged that he should be taken out of the ground, and be burned as a heretic, A.D. 1532. This commission was sent to Dr. Parker, chancellor of the diocese of Worcester, to execute their wicked sentence; who accomplished the same. The king, hearing his subject to be taken out of the ground and burned, without his knowledge or order of his law, sent for the chancellor, and laid high offense to his charge; who excused himself by the archbishop of Canterbury who was lately dead; but in conclusion it cost him three hundred pounds to have his pardon.

The will and testament of this gentleman, thus condemned by the clergy, was as hereunder followeth:

THE TESTAMENT OF WILLIAM TRACY. In the name of God, Amen. I William Tracy of Toddington in the county of Gloucester, esquire, make my testament and last will as hereafter followeth: First and before all other things, I commit myself to God and to his mercy, believing, without any doubt or mistrust, that by his grace, and the merits of Jesus Christ, and by the virtue of his passion and of his resurrection, I have and shall have remission of all my sins, and resurrection of body and soul, according as it is written, I believe that my Redeemer liveth, and that in the last day I shall rise out of the earth, and in my flesh shall see my Savior: this my hope is laid up in my bosom. (Job 19) And touching the wealth of my soul, the faith that I have taken and rehearsed is sufficient (as I suppose) without any other man’s works or merits. My ground and belief is, that there is but one God and one mediator between God and man, which is Jesus Christ; so that I accept none in heaven or in earth to be mediator between me and God, but only Jesus Christ: all others to be but as petitioners in receiving of grace, but none able to give influence of grace: and therefore will I bestow no part of my goods for that intent that any man should say or do to help my soul; for therein I trust only to the promises of Christ: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.’ (Mark 16) As touching the burying of my body, it availeth me not whatsoever be done thereto; for St. Augustine saith, ‘De cura agenda pro mortuis,’ that the funeral pomps are rather the solace of them that live, than the wealth and comfort of them that are dead: and therefore I remit it only to the discretion of mine executors. And touching the distribution of my temporal goods, my purpose is, by the grace of God, to bestow them to be accepted as the fruits of faith; so that I do not suppose that my merit shall be by the good bestowing of them, but my merit is the faith of Jesus Christ only, by whom such works are good, according to the words of our Lord, ‘I was hungry, and thou gavest me to eat,’ etc. And it followeth, ‘That ye have done to the least of my brethren, ye have done it to me,’ etc. And ever we should consider that true saying, that a good work maketh not a good man, but a good man maketh a good work; for faith maketh a man both good and righteous: for a righteous man liveth by faith, and whatsoever springeth not of faith is sin, etc. (Romans 14) And all my temporal goods that I have not given or delivered, or not given by writing of mine own hand, bearing the date of this present writing, I do leave and give to Margaret my wife, and Richard my son, whom I make mine executors. Witness hereof mine own hand the tenth of October, in the twenty-second year of the reign of king Henry the Eighth.

This is the true copy of his will, for which (as you heard before), after he was almost two years dead, they took him up and burned him. THE TABLE CONTINUED. JOHN PERIMAN, SKINNER, A.D 1531.

His articles were much like unto the others before; adding, moreover, that all the preachers then at Paul’s Cross preached nothing but lies and flatterings, and that there was never a true preacher but one; naming Edward Crome.

ROBERT GOLDSTONE, GLAZIER, A.D. 1531.

His articles:—That men should pray to God only, and to no saints: that pilgrimage is not profitable: that men should give no worship to images. Item, for saying, that if he had as much power as any cardinal had, he would destroy all the images that were in all the churches in England.

LAWRENCE STAPLE, SERVING-MAN, A.D. 1531.

His articles:—For having the Testament in English, the five books of Moses, the Practice of Prelates, the Sum of Scripture, the A.

B.C. Item, About the burning of Bainham, for saying, ‘I would I were with Bainham, seeing that every man hath forsaken him, that I might drink with him, and he might pray for me.’ Item, That he moved Henry Tomson to learn to read the New Testament, calling it The Blood of Christ. Item, In Lent past, when he had no fish, he did eat eggs, butter, and cheese. Also, about six weeks before Master Bilney was attached, 21 the said Bilney delivered to him at Greenwich four New Testaments of Tyndale translation, which he had in his sleeve, and a budget besides of books, which budget he, shortly after riding to Cambridge, delivered unto Bilney, etc. Item, On Fridays he used to eat eggs, and thought that it was no great offense before God, etc.

HENRY TOMSON, TAILOR, A.D. 1531.

His articles:—That which the priest lifteth over his head at the sacringtime, is not the very body of Christ, nor is it God; but a thing that God hath ordained to be done.

This poor Tomson, although at first he submitted himself to the bishop, yet they with sentence condemned him to perpetual prison.

JASPER WETZELL, OF COLOGNE, A.D. 1581.

His articles:—That he cared not for going to the church to hear mass, for he could say mass as well as the priest: That he would not pray to our Lady, for she could do us no good. Item, Being asked if he would go hear mass, he said, he had as lieve go to the gallows, where the thieves were hanged. Item, Being at St. Margaret Patens, and there holding his arms across, he said unto the people, that he could make as good a knave as he is, for he is made but of wood, etc.

ROBERT MAN, SERVING-MAN, A.D. 1531.

His articles:—That there is no purgatory: That the pope hath no more power to grant pardon than another simple priest: That God gave no more authority to St. Peter than to another priest: That the pope was a knave, and his priests knaves all, for suffering his pardons to go abroad to deceive the people: That St. Thomas of Canterbury is no saint: That St. Peter was never pope of Rome. Item, He used commonly to ask of priests where he came, whether a man were accursed, if he handled a chalice, or no? If the priest would say, Yea: then would he reply again thus. If a man have a sheep-skin on his hands, meaning a pair of gloves, ‘he may handle it’. The priests saying, Yea. ‘Well then,’ quoth he, ‘ye will make me believe, that God put more virtue in a sheep skin, than he did in a Christian man’s hand, for whom he died.

HENRY FELDON, A.D. 1531.

His trouble was for having these books in English: A proper Dialogue between a Gentleman and a Husbandman, The Sum of Scripture, The Prologue of Mark, a written book containing the Pater-noster, Ave-Maria, and the Creed, in English; The Ten Commandments, and The Sixteen Conditions of Charity.

ROBERT COOPER, PRIEST, A.D. His article was only this:—For saying that the blessing with a shoe-sole, is as good as the bishop’s blessing, etc.

THOMAS ROE, A.D. 1531.

His articles were, for speaking against auricular confession and priestly penance, and against the preaching of the doctors.

WILLIAM WALLAM, A.D. 1531.

His opinion: That the sacrament of the altar is not the body of Christ in flesh and blood; and that there is a God, but not that God in flesh and blood, in the form of bread.

GRACE PALMER, A.D. 1581.

Witness was brought against her by her neighbors, John Rouse, Agnes his wife, John Pole, of St. Osithe’s, for saying, ‘Ye use to bear palms on Palm-Sunday: it skilleth not whether you bear any or not, it is but a thing used, and need not.’

Also, “Ye use to go on pilgrimage to our Lady of Grace, of Walsingham, 22 and other places: ye were better tarry at home, and give money to succor me and my children, and others of my poor neighbors, than to go thither; for there you shall find but a piece of timber painted: there is neither God nor our Lady. Item, For repenting that she did ever light candles before images. Item, That the sacrament of the altar is not the body of Christ; it is but bread, which the priest there showeth for a token or remembrance of Christ’s body.

PHILIP BRASIER, OF BOXTED; A.D. 1581.

His articles:—That the sacrament holden up between the priest’s hands is not the body of Christ, but bread, and is done for a signification: That confession to a priest needeth not: That images be but stocks and stones: That pilgrimage is vain: Also for saying, that when there is any miracle done, the priests do anoint the images, and make men believe that the images do sweat in laboring for them; and with the offerings the priests find their harlots.

JOHN FAIRESTEDE, OF COLCHESTER, A.D. 1531.

His articles:—For words spoken against pilgrimage and images.

Also for saying these words, ‘That the day should come that men should say, Cursed be they that make these false gods,’ (meaning images.)

GEORGE BULL, OF MUCH HADHAM, DRAPER, A.D. 1531.

His articles:—That there be three confessions; one principal to God; another to his neighbor whom he had offended; and the third to a priest; and that without the two first confessions, to God and to his neighbor, a man could not be saved. The third confession to a priest, is necessary for counsel to such as be ignorant and unlearned, to learn how to make their confession with a contrite heart unto God, and how to hope for forgiveness; and also in what manner they should ask forgiveness of their neighbor whom they have offended, etc. Item, For saying that Luther was a good man. Item, That he reported, through the credence and report of Master Patmore, parson of Hadham, that where Wycliffee’s bones were burnt, sprang up a well or well-spring.

JOHN HAYMOND, MILLWRIGHT, A.D. 1531.

His articles:—For speaking and holding against pilgrimage and images, and against prescribed fasting-days.

That priests and religious men, notwithstanding their vows made, may lawfully forsake their vows and marry. Item, For having books of Luther and Tyndale.

ROBERT LAMBE, A HARPER, A.D. 1531.

His article:—For that he, standing accursed two years together, and not fearing the censures of the pope’s church, went about with a song in commendation of Martin Luther.

JOHN HEWES, DRAPER, A.D. 1531.

His articles, For speaking against purgatory, and Thomas Becket. Item, At the town of Farnham, he, seeing Edward Frensham kneeling in the street to a cross carried before a corse, asked, To whom he kneeled? He said, To his Maker. ‘Thou art a fool,’ said he, ‘it is not thy Maker; it is but a piece of copper or wood,’ etc. Item, For these words, Masters! ye use to go on pilgrimage; it were better first that ye look upon your poor neighbors, who lack succor, etc.

Also for saying, that he heard the vicar of Croydon thus preach openly, That there is much immorality kept up by going on pilgrimage to Wilsdon or Mouswell, etc.

THOMAS PATMORE, DRAPER, 23 A.D. 1531.

This Patmore was brother to Master Patmore, parson of Hadham, who was imprisoned in the Lollards’Tower for marrying a priest, and in the same prison continued three years.

This Patmore was accused by divers witnesses, upon these articles:

That he had as lieve pray to yonder hunter (pointing to a man painted there in a stained cloth), for a piece of flesh, as to pray to stocks that stand in walls, (meaning images.) Item, That men should not pray to saints, but to God only: ‘For why should we pray to saints?’said he, ‘they are but blocks and stocks.’ Item, That the truth of Scripture hath been kept from us a long time, and hath not appeared till now. Item, Coming by a tree wherein stood an image, he took away the wax which hanged there offered. Item, That he regarded not the place whether it was hallowed or no, where he should be buried after he was dead.

Also in talk with the curate of St. Peter’s, he defended that priests might marry.

This Patmore had long hold with the bishop of London. First, he would not swear, ‘Infamia non praecedente.’ Then he would appeal to the king, but all would not serve. He was so wrapt in the bishop’s nets, that he could not get out: but at last he was forced to abjure, and was fined to the king a hundred pounds.

Note in the communication between this Patmore and the priest of St.

Peter’s, that whereas the priest objected against him (as is in the register) that priests have lived unmarried and without wives, these 1500 years in the church; he, and all other such priests therein say falsely, and deceive the people, as by story is proved in these volumes, that priests here in England had wives by law within these five hundred years and less.

SIMON SMITH, MASTER OF ARTS, OF GONVILLE-HALL, CAMBRIDGE, AND JOAN BENNORE HIS WIFE, A.D. 1531.

This Simon Smith, and Bennore his wife, were the parties whom Master Patmore, parson of Hadham, above mentioned, did marry, and was condemned for the same to perpetual prison. For this marriage, both the said Simon, and Bennore his wife, were called to examination before the bishop, and he caused to make the whole discourse of all his doings, how and where he married; then, after his marriage, how long he tarried; whether he went beyond sea; where he was, and with whom; after his return whither he resorted; how he lived; what mercery-ware he occupied; what fairs he frequented; where he left his wife; how he carried her over, and brought her home again, and how she was found, etc. All this they made him confess, and put it in their register. And though they could fasten no other crime of heresy upon him, but only his marriage, yet, calling both him and her (being great with child) to examination, they caused them both to abjure and suffer penance.

THOMAS PATMORE, PARSON OF HADHAM, A.D. 1530.

This Thomas Patmore, being learned and godly, was preferred to the parsonage of Hadham, in Hertfordshire, by Richard Fitz-James, bishop of London, and there continued instructing and teaching his flock during the time of the said Fitz-James, and also of Tonstal his successor, by the space of sixteen years or more; behaving himself in life and conversation without any public blame or reproach, until John Stokesley was preferred unto the said bishopric, who, not very long after his installing, either for malice not greatly liking of the said Patmore, or else desirous to prefer some other unto the benefice (as it is supposed, and alleged by his brethren in sundry, supplications exhibited unto the king, as also unto queen Anne, then Marchioness of Pembroke), caused him to be attached and brought before him; and then, keeping him prisoner in his own palace, a certain time afterwards committed him to Lollards’tower, where he kept him most extremely above two years, without fire or candle, or any other relief, but such as his friends sent him; not suffering any of them, notwithstanding, to come unto him, no not in his sickness. Howbeit sundry times in the mean while he called him judicially, either before himself, or else his vicar-general Foxford, that great persecutor, charging him with these sundry articles, viz. first, whether he had been at Wittenberg; secondly, and had seen or talked with Luther; thirdly, or with any Englishman, abiding there; fourthly, who went with him or attended upon him thither; fifthly, also what books he bought there, either Latin or English; sixthly, and whether he had read or studied any works of Luther, OEcolampadius, Pomerane, or Melancthon.

Besides these, he ministered also other articles unto him, touching the marriage of Master Simon Smith (before mentioned) with one Joan Bennore, charging him that he both knew of, and also consented unto their marriage, the one being a priest and his curate, and the other his maidservant; and that he had persuaded his maidservant to marry with his said curate, alleging unto her, that though it were not lawful in England for priests to marry, yet it was, in other countries beyond seas. And that after their said marriage he (knowing the same) did yet suffer the said Smith to minister in his cure all Easter-time, and fifteen days after; and that at their departure out of England, he supped with them at the Bell in New Fish-street; and again, at their return into England, did meet them at the said Bell, and there lent unto the said Smith a priest’s gown.

He objected, moreover, against him in the said articles, that he had affirmed at Cambridge, first, that he did not set a bottle of hay by the pope’s or bishop’s curse; secondly, and that God bindeth us to impossible things, that he may save us only by his mercy; also thirdly, that though young children be baptized, yet they cannot be saved except they have faith; fourthly and lastly, that it was against God’s law to burn heretics.

Unto these articles, after long imprisonment and great threats of the bishop and his vicar, he at last answered, making first his appeal unto the king, wherein he showed, that forasmuch as the bishop had most unjustly, and contrary to all due order of law, and the equity thereof, proceeded against him, as well in falsely defaming him with the crime of heresy, without having any just proof or public defamation thereof; as also, contrary to all justice, keeping him in most strait prison so long time (both to the great danger of his life, by grievous sickness taken thereby, as especially to his no small grief, that through his absence, his flock, whereof he had charge, were not fed with the word of God and his sacraments as he would); and then, to minister unto him such articles, mingled with interrogatories, as neither touched any heresy nor transgression of any law, but rather showing a mind to pick quarrels against him and other innocent people; he therefore, for the causes alleged, was compelled and did appeal from him and all his officers unto the king’s majesty, whom, under God, he had for his most just and lawful refuge, and defender against all injuries. From which appeal although he minded not at any time to depart, yet because he would not show himself obstinate against the bishop, being his ordinary (although he had most just cause to suspect his unjust proceeding against him), he was nevertheless content to exhibit unto him this his answer: First, that howsoever the bishop was privately informed, yet because he was not ‘publice diffamatus apud bonos et graves,’ according to law, he was not, by the law, bound to answer to any of those articles.

And as touching the first six articles (as whether he was at Wittenberg, and spake with Luther, or any other, or bought or read any of their books, etc.), because none of those things were forbidden him by any law, neither was he publicly accused of them (for that it was permitted to many good men to have them), he was not bound to answer, neither was he to be examined of them. But as touching the marriage of Master Simon Smith with Joan Bennore, he granted that he knew thereof by the declaration of Master Smith; but, that he gave his maid counsel thereunto, he utterly denied. And as concerning the contracting of the marriage between them, he thought it not at all against God’s law, who at the first creation made marriage lawful for all men: neither thought he it unlawful for him, after their marriage, either to keep him as his curate, or else to lend or give him any thing needful (wherein he said he showed more charity than the bishop, who had taken all things from them); and therefore he desired to have it proved by the Scriptures, that priests’marriages were not lawful.

Against whom, Foxford the bishop’s vicar often alleged general councils, and determinations of the church, but no Scriptures, still urging him to abjure his articles; which Patmore longtime refused, and sticking a great while to his former answers, at last was threatened by Foxford, to have the definitive sentence read against him. Whereupon he answered, that he believed the holy church as a christian man ought to do, and because it passed his capacity, he desired to be instructed, and if the Scriptures did teach it, he would believe it; for he knew not the contrary by the Scriptures, but that a priest might marry a wife; howbeit by the laws of the church, he thought that a priest might not marry. But the chancellor still so urged him to show whether a priest might marry without offense to God, that at length he granted that priests might not marry without offense to God, because the church had forbidden it, and therefore a priest could not marry without deadly sin.

Now as touching the four last articles, he denied that he spake them as they were put against him; but he granted that he might perhaps jestingly say, That a bottle of hay were more profitable to him than the pope’s curse, which he thought true. Also to the second, he affirmed that God had set before us, by his precepts and commandments, the way to justice, which way was not in man’s power to go and keep; therefore Paul saith [Galatians 3], ‘Quod lex erat ordinata per angelos;’but yet, to fulfill it, it was ‘in manu (id est, in potestate) intercessoris:’That none that shall be saved shall account their salvation unto their own deeds, or thank their own justice in observing the law; for it was in no man’s power to observe it: but shall give all thanks to the mercies and goodness of God; according to the psalm, ‘Laudate Dominum omnes gentes;’and according to the saying of Paul, ‘Ut qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur;’who hath sent his Son to do for us that which it was not in our own power to do. For if it had been in our power to fulfill the law, Christ had been sent to us without cause, to do for us that thing which we ourselves could have done. that is to say, fulfill the law. As for the third he spake not, for he did never know that any may be baptized without faith; which faith, inasmuch as it is the gift of God, why may it not be given to infants? To the last he said that if he spake it, he meant it not of those that St. Bernard called heretics, (with more adulterers, thieves, murderers and other open sinners, who blaspheme God by their mouths, calling good evil, and evil good, making light darkness, and darkness light), but he meant it of such as men call heretics according to the testimony of St. Paul [Acts 24], ‘I live after the way’saith he, ‘that men call heresy,’ whom Christ doth foretell that ye shall burn and persecute to death.

After these answers thus made, the bishop, with his persecuting Foxford, dealt so hardly with this good man, partly by strait imprisonment, and partly by threats to proceed against him, that in the end he was fain, through human infirmity, to submit himself, and was abjured and condemned to perpetual prison; with loss, both of his benefice, as also of all his goods. Howbeit one of his brethren 24 afterwards made such suit unto the king (by means of the queen), that after three years’imprisonment, he was both released out of prison, and also obtained of the king a commission unto the lord Audley, being then lord chancellor, and to Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and to Cromwell, then secretary, with others, to inquire or, the injurious and unjust dealings of the bishop and his chancellor against the said Patmore, notwithstanding his appeal unto the king; and to determine thereof according to true equity and justice, and to restore the said Patmore again unto his said benefice. But what was the end and issue of this commission, we find not as yet.

JOHN ROW, BOOK-BINDER, A FRENCHMAN, A.D. 1531.

This man, for binding, buying, and dispersing of books inhibited, was enjoined, besides other penance, to go to Smithfield with his books tied about him, and to cast them into the fire, and there to abide till they were all burned to ashes.

CHRISTOPHER, 25 A DUTCHMAN OF ANTWERP, A.D. 1531.

This man, for selling certain New Testaments in English, to John Row aforesaid, was put in prison at Westminster, and there died.

W. NELSON, PRIEST, A.D. 1531.

His crime was, for having and buying of Periman certain hooks of Luther, Tyndale, Thorp, etc., and for reading and perusing the same, contrary to the king’s proclamation, for which he was abjured. He was priest at Leith.

THOMAS EVE, WEAVER, A.D. 1531.

His articles: That the sacrament of the altar is but a memory of Christ’s passion. That men were fools to go on pilgrimage, or to set any candle before images. Item, It is as good to set up staves before the sepulcher, as to set up tapers of wax. That priests might have wives.

ROBERT HUDSON OF ST. SEPULCHRE’S, A.D. 1531.

His article: On Childermas-day 3 (saith the register) he offered in Paul’s church at offering time, to the child bishop (called St.

Nicholas) 26 a dog for devotion (as he said), and meant no hurt; for he thought to have offered a halfpenny, or else the dog, and thought the dog to be better than a halfpenny, and the dog should raise some profit to the child; and said moreover, that it was the tenth dog, etc. EDWARD HEWET, SERVING-MAN, A.D. 1531.

His crime: That after the king’s proclamation, he had and read the New Testament in English; also the book of John Frith against purgatory, etc.

WALTER KIRY, SERVANT, A.D 1531.

His article: That he, after the king’s proclamation, had and used these books; The Testament in English, The Sum of Scripture, a Primer and Psalter in English, hidden in his bed-straw at Worcester.

MICHAEL LOBLEY, A.D 1531.

His articles: That he, being at Antwerp, bought certain books inhibited, as The Revelation of Antichrist, The Obedience of a Christian man, The wicked Mammon, Frith against Purgatory. Item, For speaking against images and purgatory. Item, For saying, that Bilney was a good man, 27 and died a good man, because of a bill that one did send from Norwich, that specified that he took his death so patiently, and did not forsake to die with a good will.

A BOY OF COLCHESTER, A.D 1531.

A boy of Colchester or Norfolk, brought to Richard Bayfield a budget of books, about four days before the said Bayfield was taken; for which the lad was taken, and laid in the Compter by Master More, chancellor, and there died.

WILLIAM SMITH, TAILOR, 28 A.D 1531.

His articles: That he lodged oftentimes in his house Richard Bayfield, and other good men: that he received his books into his house, and used much reading in the New Testament: he had also the Testament of William Tracy: he believed that there was no purgatory.

WILLIAM LINCOLN, PRENTICE, A.D 1532.

His articles: For having and receiving books from beyond the sea, of Tyndale, Frith, Thorp, and others. Item, He doubted, whether there were any purgatory: whether it were well done to set up candles to saints, to go on pilgrimage, etc.

JOHN MEL, OF BOXTED, A.D 1532, His heresy was this: For having and reading the New Testament in English, the Psalter in English, and the book called ‘ABC.’

JOHN MEDWEL, SERVANT TO MASTER CARKET, SCRIVENER.

This Medwel lay in prison twenty-four weeks, till he was almost lame. His heresies were these:—That he doubted whether there was any purgatory. He would not trust in pardons, but rather in the promises of Christ. 6 He doubted, whether the merits of any but only of Christ did help him. He doubted whether pilgrimages and setting up of candles to images, were meritorious or not. He thought he should not put his trust in any saint. Item, he had in his custody, the New Testament in English, the Examination of Thorp, The Wicked Mammon, a book of Matrimony. CHRISTOPHER FULMAN, SERVANT TO A GOLDSMITH, A.D. 1582.

This young man was attached, for receiving certain books at Antwerp of George Constantine, and transporting them over into England, and selling them to sundry persons, being books prohibited by the proclamation. Item, He thought then those books to have been good, and that he had been in error in times past.

MARGARET BOWGAS, A.D. 1532.

Her heretics were these:—Being asked if she would go on pilgrimage, she said; ‘I believe in God, and he can do me more good than our Lady, or any other saint; and as for them, they shall come to me, if they will,’ etc. Then Richard Sharples, parson of Milend, by Colchester, asked her if she said her Ave Maria. ‘I say,’ said she, ‘Hail Mary, but I will say no further.’ Then, said he, if she left not those opinions, she would bear a faggot. ‘If I do, better, then, I shall,’ said she, adding moreover, ‘that she would not go from that, to die there-for:’to whom the priest answered and said, She would be burned. Hereunto Margaret, again replying, asked the priest, ‘Who made martyrs?’‘Tyrants,’ quoth the priest, ‘make martyrs, for they put martyrs to death.’ ‘So they shall, or may, me,’ quoth Margaret. At length, with much ado, and great persuasions, she gave over to Foxford, the chancellor, and submitted herself.

JOHN TYREL, AN IRISHMAN, OF BILLERICA, TAILOR.

His articles were these:—That the sacrament of the altar was not the body of Christ, but only a cake of bread. Furthermore, the occasion being asked, how he fell into that heresy, he answered and said, that about three weeks before Midsummer last past, he heard Master Hugh Latimer preach at St. Mary, Abchurch, that men should leave going on pilgrimage abroad, and do their pilgrimage to their poor neighbors. Also the said Master Latimer in his sermon did set at little the sacrament of the altar.

WILLIAM LANCASTER, TAILOR, A.D. 1532.

The cause laid to this man was, that he had in his keeping the book of Wycliffe’s Wicket. Item, That he believed the sacrament of the altar, after the words of consecration, not to be the body of Christ really, etc. Item, Upon the day of Assumption, he said, that if it were not for the speech of the people, he would not receive the sacrament of the altar.

ROBERT TOPLEY, FRIAR, A.D. 1532.

His articles: He being a Friar Augustine of Clare, forsook his habit, and going in a secular man’s weed ten years, married a wife, called Margaret Nixon, having by her a child; and afterwards, being brought before the bishop, he was by him abjured, and condemned to be imprisoned in his former monastery; but at last he escaped out, and returned to his wife again.

THOMAS TOPLEY, AUGUSTINE FRIAR, AT STOKE-CLARE.

By the occasion of this Robert Topley aforesaid, place is offered to speak something likewise of Thomas Topley, his brother belike, and also a friar of the same order and house of Stoke-clare. This Thomas Topley had been converted before by one Richard Foxe, priest of Bumstead, and Miles Coverdale, insomuch that he, being induced, partly by them, partly by reading certain books, cast off both his order and habit, and went like a secular priest. Whereupon he was espied, and brought to Cuthbert, bishop of London, A.D. 1528, before whom he made this confession as followeth.

THE RECANTATION OF THOMAS TOPLEY. All christian men beware of consenting to Erasmus’s Fables, for by consenting to them, they have caused me to shrink in my faith, that I promised to God at my christening by my witnesses. First, as touching these fables, I read in Colloquium, by the instruction of sir Richard Foxe, of certain pilgrims, who, as the book doth say, made a vow to go to St. James, and as they went, one of them died, and he desired his fellows to salute St. James in his name; and another died homeward, and he desired that they would salute his wife and his children; and the third died at Florence, and his fellow said, he supposed that he was in heaven, and yet he said that he was a great liar. Thus I mused of these opinions so greatly, that my mind was almost withdrawn from devotion to saints. Notwithstanding, I consented that the divine service of them was very good; and is; though I have not had such sweetness in it as I should have had, because of such fables, and also because of other foolish pastimes; as dancing, tennis, and such other, which I think have been great occasions that the goodness of God hath been void in me, and vice in strength.

Moreover, it fortuned thus, about half a year ago, that the said sir Richard went forth, and desired me to serve his cure for him; and as I was in his chamber, I found a certain book called Wycliffe’s Wicket, whereby I felt in my conscience a great wavering for the time that I did read upon it, and afterwards, also, when I remembered it, it wounded my conscience very sore. Nevertheless, I consented not to it, until I had heard him preach, and that was upon St. Anthony’s day. Yet my mind was still much troubled with the said book (which did make the sacrament of Christ’s body, in form of bread, but a remembrance of Christ’s passion), till I heard sir Miles Coverdale preach, and then my mind was sore withdrawn from that blessed sacrament, insomuch that I took it then but for the remembrance of Christ’s body. Thus I have wretchedly wrapped my soul with sin, because I have not been steadfast in that holy order that God hath called me unto by baptism, neither in the holy order that God and St. Augustine have called me to by my religion, etc.

Furthermore, he said and confessed, that in the Lent last past, as he was walking in the field at Bumstead, with sir Miles Coverdale, late friar of the same order, going in the habit of a secular priest, who had preached the fourth Sunday in Lent at Bumstead, they did commune together of Erasmus’s works, and also upon confession.

This sir Miles said, and did hold, that it was sufficient for a man to be contrite for his sins betwixt God and his conscience, without confession made to a priest; which opinion this respondent thought to be true, and did affirm and hold the same at that time. Also he saith, that at the said sermon, made by the said sir Miles Coverdale at Bumstead, he heard him preach against worshipping of images in the church, saying and preaching, that men in no wise should honor or worship them; which likewise he thought to be true, because he had no learning to defend it.

WILLIAM GARDINER, AUGUSTINE FRIAR, OF CLARE.

With this Topley I may also join William Gardiner, one of the same order and house of Clare, who likewise, by the motion of the said Richard Foxe, curate of Bumstead, and by showing him certain books to read, was brought likewise to the like learning and judgment, and was for the same abjured by Cuthbert, bishop, the same year, 1528.

RICHARD JOHNSON, OF BOXTED, AND ALICE HIS WIFE.

This Richard and his wife were favorers of God’s word, and had been troubled for the same of long time. They came from Salisbury to Boxted by reason of persecution, where they continued a good space. At length, by resort of good men, they began to be suspected, and especially for a book of Wycliffe’s Wicket, which was in their house, they were convented before Stokesley, bishop of London, and there abjured.

So great was the trouble of those times, that it would overcharge any story to recite the names of all them that during those bitter days, before the coming of queen Anne, either were driven out of the realm, or were cast out from their goods and houses, or brought to open shame by abjuration. Such decrees and injunctions then were set forth by the bishops, such laws and proclamations were provided, such watch and narrow search was used, such ways were taken by force of oath to make one detect another so subtilly, that scarcely any good man could or did escape their hands, but either his name was known, or else his person was taken. Yet, nevertheless, so mightily the power of God’s gospel did work in the hearts of good men, that the number of them did nothing lessen for all this violence or policy of the adversaries, but rather increased in such sort, as our story almost suffereth not to recite the particular names of all and singular such as then groaned under the same cross of affliction and persecution of those days; of which number were these:

THE ABJURED AT BUMSTEAD Arthur and Gefferey Lome. Edmund Tibauld, and his wife Henry Butcher, and his wife William Butcher, and his wife George Preston, and his wife. Thomas Hempsteed, and his wife Robert Hempsteed, and his wife John Hempsteed; their son.

Robert Faire. William Chatwals.

William Chatwals. John Wiggen.

Nicholas Holden’s wife. Alice Shipwright.

Henry Brown John Craneford John Tibauld, his mother, his wife, his two sons, and his two daughters.

Joan Smith, widow; also her sons Robert and Richard, and her daughters Margaret and Elizabeth.

Joan Smith, widow, otherwise called Agnes, widow; also her sons John, Thomas, and Christopher, and her daughters Joan and Alice All these were of the town of Bumstead, who being detected by sir Richard Foxe, their curate, and partly by Tibauld, were brought up to the bishop of London, and all put together in one house, to the number of thirty-five, to be examined and abjured by the said bishop.

Moreover, in other towns about Suffolk and Essex, others also were detected, as in the town of Byrbrook, these following:

MEN AND WOMEN OF ESSEX Thomas Choote, and his wife. Harvie, and his wife.

Thomas, his son. Agnes, his daughter.

Bateman, and his wife. John Smith, and his wife.

Thomas Butcher, and his wife Robert Catlin, a spoon-maker.

Christmas, and his wife William Bechwith, his wife and his two sons.

John Pickas, and his wife. William Pickas, his brother.

Girling, his wife and his daughter.

Matthew’s wife.

Johnson, his wife and his son. Thomas Hills.

Roger Tanner. Christopher Raven, and his wife.

John Chapman, his servant. Richard Chapman, his servant, and brother to John Chapman.

Isabel Choote, widow; also her sons Jonh, William, Christopher, and Robert; her daughter Margaret, and Katherine her maid.

Christopher remaineth yet alive, and hath been of a long time a great harborer of many good men and women that were in trouble and distress, and received them to his house, as Thomas Bate, Simon Smith, the priest’s wife, Roger Tanner, with a number more, which ye may see and read in our first edition. Touching this Richard Chapman, this, by the way, is to be noted, that as he was in his coat and shirt enjoined, bare-head, bare-foot, and bare-leg, to go before the procession, and to kneel upon the cold steps in the church all the sermon time, a little lad, seeing him kneel upon the cold stone with his bare knees, and having pity on him, came to him, and having nothing else to give him, brought him his cap to kneel upon; for which the boy was immediately taken into the vestry, and there unmercifully beaten, for his mercy showed to the poor penitent.

Beside these, divers others were about London, Colchester, and other places also, partakers of the same cross and affliction for the like cause of the gospel, in which number come in these who hereafter follow.

MARTYRS AT COLCHESTER Peter Fenne, priest. Robert Best.

John Turke. William Raylond of Colchester.

Henry Raylond, his son. Marion Matthew, or Westden.

Dorothy Long. Thomas Parker. Robert Necton. Katharine Swane.

Mark Cowbridge of Colchester. Widow Denby Robert Hedil of Colchester. John Toy of St. Faith’s, London.

Richard Foster of London. Sebastian Harris, curate of Kensington.

John Hubert, of Esdonland, and his wife Abraham Water of Colchester. M. Forman, bachelor of divinity, parson of Honey-lane.

Robert Wigge, William Bull, and George Cooper, of London.

Alice Gardener, John Tomson, and John Bradley and his wife, of Colchester.

William Butcher, whose father’s grandfather was burned for the same religion.

All these in this table contained, were troubled and abjured, A.D. 1527, and A.D. 1528. 1532 A.D.

John Wily the elder. Katharine Wily, his wife.

John Wily, son of John Wily the elder. Christian Wily, his wife.

William Wily, another son. Margaret Wily, his wife.

Lucy Wily, and Agnes Wily, two young girls.

These eight persons were accused A.D. 1532, for eating pottage and flesh-meat, five years before, upon St. James’s even.

Also another time, upon St. Peter’s even, as Katharine Wily did lie in childbed, the other wives, with the two girls, were found eating all together of a broth made with the fore-part of a rack of mutton. Item, The aforesaid John Wily the elder had a primer in English in his house, and other books.

Also he had a young daughter of ten years old, who could render by heart the most part of the twenty-fourth chapter of St.

Matthew. Also she could rehearse without book, ‘The Disputation between the Clerk and the Friar.’ Item, The said John Wily had in his house a treatise of William Thorp, and sir John Oldcastle.

A NOTE OF RICHARD BAYFIELD ABOVE MENTIONED.

Mention was made before 12 of Richard Bayfield, monk of Bury, who, in these perilous days, amongst other good saints of God, suffered death, as ye have heard; but how, and by whom he was detected, hath not been showed; which now, as in searching out of registers we have found, so we thought good here to adjoin the same, with the words and confession of the same Edmund Peerson, who detected him in manner as followeth.

THE ACCUSATION OF EDMUND PEERSON AGAINST RICHARD BAYFIELD.

The thirteenth day of September, at four o’clock in the afternoon, A.D. 1527, sir Richard Bayfield said, that my lord of London’s commissary was a plain pharisee; wherefore he would speak with him, and by his wholesome doctrine, he trusted in God, he should make him a perfect Christian man, and me also, for I was a pharisee as yet, he said.

Also he said that he cared not even if the commissary and the chancellor both heard him; for the chancellor, he said, was also a pharisee, and he trusted to make him a christian man.

Also he said he was entreated by his friends, and, in a manner, constrained to abide in the city against his will, to make the chancellor, and many more, perfect christian men; for as yet many were pharisees, and knew not the perfect declaration of the Scripture.

Also he said that Master Arthur and Bilney were, and be, more pure and more perfect in their living to God, than was, or is, the commissary, the chancellor, my lord of London, or my lord cardinal.

Also he said that if Arthur and Bilney suffer death in the quarrels and opinions that they be in or hold, they shall be martyrs before God in heaven.

Also he said, After Arthur and Bilney were put cruelly to death, yet should there be hundreds of men that should preach the same that they have preached.

Also he said that he would favor Arthur and Bilney, he knew their living to be so good; for they did wear no shirts of linen cloth, but shirts of hair, and ever were fasting, praying, or doing some other good deeds. And as for one of them, whatsoever he have of money in his purse he will distribute it, for the love of God, to poor people.

Also he said that no man should give land or praise, in any manner of wise, to any creature, or to any saint in heaven, but only to God; Soli Deo honor et gloria; that is, To God alone be all honor and glory. (1 Timothy 1) Also he said, ‘Ah, good sir Edmund!’ye be far from the knowledge and understanding of the Scripture, for as yet ye be a pharisee, with many others of your company: but I trust in God, I shall make you, and many other more, good and perfect christian men, ere I depart from the city; for I purpose to read a common lecture every day at St. Foster’s Church, which lecture shall be to the edifying of your souls that be false pharisees.’

Also he said that Bilney preached nothing at Wilsdon, but what was true.

Also he said that Bilney preached true at Wilsdon, 29 if he said that our Lady’s crown of Wilsdon, her rings and beads that were offered to her, were bestowed amongst harlots, by the ministers of Christ’s church; ‘for that I have seen myself,’ he said, ‘here in London, and that will I abide by.’

Also he said, He did not fear to commune and argue in Arthur’s and Bilney’s opinions and articles, even if it were with my lord cardinal.

Also he said that he would hold Arthur’s and Bilney’s opinions and articles, and abide by them, that they were true opinions, to suffer death there-for; ‘I know them,’ said he, ‘for such noble and excellent men in learning.’

Also he said, If he were before my lord cardinal, he would not let to speak to him, and to tell him, that he hath done haughtily in imprisoning Arthur and Bilney, who were better disposed in their livings to God, than my lord cardinal, or my lord of London, as holy as they make themselves.

Also he said, My lord cardinal is no perfect nor good man to God, for he keepeth not the commandments of God; for Christ (he said) never taught him to follow riches, nor to seek for promotions or dignities of this world, nor did Christ ever teach him to wear shoes of silver and gilt, set with pearl and precious stones; nor had Christ ever two crosses of silver, two axes, or a pillar of silver and gilt.

Also he said that every priest might preach the gospel without license of the pope, my lord cardinal, my lord of London, or any other man; and that he would abide by: and thus he verified it, as it is written, Mark 16, ‘Euntes in mundum universum, praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae.’ Christ commanded every priest to go forth throughout all the world, and preach the word of God by the authority of this gospel; and not to run to the pope, nor to any other man for license: and that he would abide by, he said.

Also he said, ‘Well, Sir Edmund!’say you what you will, and every man. and my lord cardinal also, and yet will I say, and abide by it, my lord cardinal doth punish Arthur and Bilney unjustly, for there be no truer christian men in all the world living, than they two be; and that punishment that my lord cardinal doth to them, he doth it by might and power, as one who would say, This may I do, and this will I do: who shall say nay? but he doth it of no justice.’

Also about the 14th day of October last past, at three o’clock at afternoon, sir Richard Bayfield came to St. Edmund’s in Lombardstreet, where he found me, sir Edmund Peerson, sir James Smith, and sir Miles Garnet, standing at the uttermost gate of the parsonage; and sir Edmund said to sir Richard Bayfield, ‘How many christian men have ye made, since ye came to the city?’Quoth sir Richard Bayfield, ‘I came even now to make thee a christian man, and these two other gentlemen with thee; for well I know ye be all three pharisees as yet.’

Also he said to sir Edmund, that Arthur and Bilney were better christian men than he was, or any of them that did punish Arthur and Bilney.

By me, Edmund Peerson.

And thus we have, as in a gross sum, compiled together the names and causes, though not of all, yet of a great, and too great a number of good men and good women, who, in those sorrowful days (from the year of our Lord 1527, to this present year 1533, that is, till the coming in of queen Anne)were manifold ways vexed and persecuted under the tyranny of the bishop of Rome. Where again we have to note, that from this present year of our Lord 1533, during the time of the said queen Anne, we read of no great persecution, nor any abjuration to have been in the church of England, save only that the registers of London make mention of certain Dutchmen counted for Anabaptists, 13 of whom ten were put to death in sundry places of the realm, A.D. 1535; other ten repented and were saved.

Where note again, that two also of the said company, albeit the definitive sentence was read, yet notwithstanding were pardoned by the king; which was contrary to the pope’s law.

Now to proceed forth in our matter: After that the bishops and heads of the clergy had thus a long time taken their pleasure, exercising their cruel authority against the poor wasted flock of the Lord, and began, furthermore, to stretch forth their rigor and austerity, to attach and molest also other great persons of the temporalty; so it fell, that in the beginning of the next or second year following, which was A.D. 1532, 30 a parliament was called by the king about the 15th day of January: 14 in the which parliament the commons renewing their old griefs, complained of the cruelty of the prelates and ordinaries, for calling men before them ‘Ex officio.’ For such was then the usage of the ordinaries and their officials, that they would send for men, and lay accusations to them of heresy, only declaring to them that they were accused; and would minister articles to them, but no accuser should be brought forth: whereby the commons were grievously annoyed and oppressed; for the party so ascited must either abjure or do worse: for purgation he might none make.

As these matters were long debating in the common house, at last it was agreed that the temporal men should put their griefs in writing, and deliver them to the king. Whereupon, the 18th day of March, the common speaker, accompanied with certain knights and burgesses of the common house, came to the king’s presence, and there declared how the temporal men of his realm were sore aggrieved with the cruel demeanour of the prelates and ordinaries, who touched their bodies and goods so nearly, that they of necessity were enforced to make their humble suit by their speaker unto his grace, to take such order and redress in the case, as to his high wisdom might seem most convenient, etc.

Unto this request of the commons although the king at that time gave no present grant, but suspended them with a delay, yet notwithstanding, this sufficiently declared the grudging minds of the temporal men against the spiritualty, lacking nothing but God’s helping hand to work in the king’s heart for reformation of such things, which all they did see to be out of frame. Neither did the Lord’s divine providence fail in time of need, but eftsoons ministered a ready remedy in time expedient. He saw the pride and cruelty of the spiritual clergy grown to such a height as was intolerable. He saw again, and heard the groaning hearts, the bitter afflictions, of his oppressed flock; his truth decayed, his religion profaned, the glory of his Son defaced, his church lamentably wasted. Wherefore it was high time for his high majesty to look upon the matter; as he did indeed, by a strange and wondrous means, which was through the king’s divorcement from lady Katharine, dowager, and marrying with lady Anne Bullen, in this present year; which was the first occasion and beginning of all this public reformation which hath followed since in this church of England, to this present day, according as ye shall, hear.

A COMPENDIOUS DISCOURSE, COMPREHENDING THE WHOLE SUM AND MATTER CONCERNING THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN KING HENRY AND QUEEN ANNE BULLEN; AND QUEEN KATHARINE DIVORCED.

In the first entry of this king’s reign ye heard before, how, after the death of prince Arthur, the lady Katharine, princess dowager, and wife to prince Arthur, by the consent both of her father and of his, and also by the advice of the nobles of this realm, to the end her dowry might remain still within the realm, was espoused, after the decease of her husband, to his next brother, which was this king Henry. *Thus 1 then, after the declaration of these things gone before, next cometh to our hands (by the order and process of the time we are now about) to intreat of the marvellous and most gracious work of the holy providence of God, beginning now here to work about this time in England that which neither durst be attempted before of any prince within this realm, nor yet could ever be hoped for of any subject; concerning the abolishing and overthrow of the pope’s supremacy here in the English church: who, through the false pretensed title of his usurped authority, and through the vain fear of his keys and cursed cursings or excommunications, did so deeply sit in the conscience of men; did keep all princes and kings so under him; briefly, did so plant himself in all churches, taking so deep root in the hearts of christen people so long time, that it seemed not only hard, but also impossible, for man’s power to abolish the same. But that which passeth man’s strength God here beginneth to take in hand, to supplant the old tyranny and subtle supremacy of the Romish bishop. The occasion whereof began thus (through the secret providence of God), by a certain unlawful marriage between king Henry VIII. and the lady Katharine, his brother’s wife. Which marriage, being found unlawful, and so concluded by all universities not to be dispensed withal by any man, at length brought forth a verity long hid before; that is, that neither the pope was that he was recounted to be; and that, again, presumptuously he took more upon him than he was able to dispense withal.

These little beginnings being once called into question gave great light to men, and ministered withal great occasion to seek further: insomuch[that] at length the pope was espied, both to usurp that which he could not claim, and to claim that which he ought not to usurp. As touching the first doubt of this unlawful marriage, whether it came of the king himself, or of the cardinal, or of the Spaniards, as the chronicles ,themselves do not fully express, so I cannot assuredly affirm. This is certain, that it was not without the singular providence of God ,(whereby to bring greater things to pass), that the king’s conscience herein seemed to be so troubled, according as the words of his own oration, had unto his commons, do declare; whose oration here[after] followeth, to give testimony of the same.* This marriage seemed very strange and hard, for one brother to marry the wife of another. But what can be in this earth so hard or difficult, wherewith the pope, the omnipotent vicar of Christ, cannot by favor dispense, if it please him? The pope which then ruled at Rome was pope Julius II., by whose dispensation this marriage, which neither sense of nature would admit, nor God’s law would bear, was concluded, approved, and ratified; and so continued as lawful, without any doubt or scruple, the space near of twenty years, till about the time that a certain doubt began first to be moved by the Spaniards themselves, of the emperor’s council, A.D. 1522; at what time Charles the emperor, being here in England, promised to marry the lady Mary, daughter to the king of England; with the which promise the Spaniards themselves were not well contented, objecting this, among many other causes, that the, said lady Mary was begotten of the king of England by his brotherwife.

Whereupon the emperor, forsaking that marriage, did couple himself with lady Isabel, daughter to king Emanuel of Portugal: which marriage was done A.D. 1526. After this marriage of the emperor, the next year following, king Henry, being disappointed thus of the emperor, entered talk, or rather was labored to by the French ambassadors, for the said lady Mary to be married to the French king’s son, duke of Orleans; upon the talk whereof, after long debating, at length the matter was put off by a certain doubt of the president of Paris, casting the like objection as the Spaniards had done before; that was, Whether the marriage between the king and the mother of this lady Mary, who had been his brother’s wife before, were good or no?

And so the marriage, twice unluckily attempted, in like sort brake off again, and was rejected: which happened A.D. 1527.

The king, upon the occasion hereof casting many things in his mind, began to consider the cause more deeply, first, with himself, after, with certain of his nearest council; wherein two things there were which chiefly pricked his mind, whereof the one touched his conscience, the other concerned the state of his realm. For if that marriage with his brother’s wife stood unlawful by the law of God, then neither was his conscience clear in retaining the mother, nor yet the state of the realm firm by succession of the daughter. It happened the same time that the cardinal, who was then nearest about the king, had fallen out with the emperor, for not helping him to the papacy, as ye before have heard; for the which cause he helped to set the matter forward by all practice he might. Thus the king, perplexed in his conscience, and careful for the commonwealth, and partly also incited by the cardinal, could not so rest; but inquired further to feel what the word of God, and learning, would say unto it. Neither was the case so hard, after it began once to come in public question, but that by the word of God, and the judgments of the best learned clerks, and also by the censure of the chief universities of all Christendom, to the number of ten and more, it was soon discussed to be unlawful.

All these censures, books, and writings, of so many doctors, clerks, and universities, sent from all quarters 2 of Christendom to the king, 31 albeit they might suffice to have fully resolved, and did indeed resolve, the king’s conscience touching this scruple of his marriage; yet would he not straightway use that advantage which learning did give him, unless he had withal the assent as well of the pope, as also the emperor; wherein he perceived no little difficulty. For the pope, he thought, seeing the marriage was authorized before by the dispensation of his predecessor, would hardly turn his keys about to undo that which the pope before him had locked; and much less would he suffer those keys to be foiled, or to come in any doubt; which was like to come, if that marriage were proved undispensable by God’s word, which his predecessor, through his plenary power, had licensed before. Again, the emperor, he thought, would be no less hard for his part, on the other side, forasmuch as the said Lady Katharine was the emperor’s near aunt, and a Spaniard born. Yet, nevertheless, his purpose was to prove and feel what they both would say unto it; and therefore he sent Stephen Gardiner 32 to Rome, to weigh with pope Clement. To the emperor was sent sir Nicholas Harvey, knight, embassador in the court of Gaunt. First, pope Clement, not weighing belike the full importance and sequel of the matter, sent cardinal Campeius (as is said) into England, joined with the cardinal of York. 33 At the coming of these legates, the king, first opening unto them the grief of his conscience, seemed with great reasons and persuasions sufficiently to have drawn the good will of those two legates to his side; who also, of their own accord, pretended no less but to show a willing inclination to further the king’s cause. But yet the mouths of the common people, and in especial of women, and such others as favored the queen, and talked their pleasure, were not stopped. Wherefore, to satisfy the blind surmises and foolish communication of these also, who, seeing the coming of the cardinals, cast out such lewd words, as that the king would, ‘for his own pleasure,’ have another wife, with like unbeseeming talk; he therefore, willing that all men should know the truth of his proceedings, caused all his nobility, judges, and counsellors, with divers other persons, to resort to his palace of Bridewell, the 8th day of November, A.D. 1528, where he, openly speaking in his great chamber, and these words in effect, as followeth.

THE KING’S ORATION TO HIS SUBJECTS.

Our trusty and well-beloved subjects, both you of the nobility, and you of the meaner sort: it is not unknown to you, how that we, both by God’s provision, and true and lawful inheritance, have reigned over this realm of England almost the term of twenty years; during which time, we have so ordered us (thanked be God!) that no outward enemy hath oppressed you, nor taken any thing from us, nor we have invaded no realm, but we have had victory and honor, so that we think that you nor none of your predecessors ever lived more quietly, more wealthily, nor in more estimation, under any of our noble progenitors. But when we remember our mortality, and that we must die, then we think that all our doings in our lifetime are clearly defaced, and worthy of no memory, if we leave you in trouble at the time of our death; for if our true heir be not known at the time of our death, see what mischief and trouble shall succeed to you and to your children. The experience thereof some of you have seen after the death of our noble grandfather, king Edward the Fourth; and some have heard what mischief and manslaughter continued in this realm between the houses of York and Lancaster, by the which dissension this realm was like to have been clearly destroyed.

And although it hath pleased Almighty God to send us a fair daughter, of a noble woman and of me begotten, to our great comfort and joy, yet it hath been told us by divers great clerks, that neither she is our lawful daughter, nor her mother our lawful wife, but that we live together abominably and detestably in open adultery; insomuch that when our ambassade was last in France, and motion was made that the duke of Orleans should marry our said daughter, one of the chiefcounsellors to the French king said, It were well done, to know whether she be the king of England’s lawful daughter or not; for well known it is, that he begot her on his brother’s wife, which is directly against God’s law and his precept.

Think you, my lords, that these words touch not my body and soul? Think you that these doings do not daily and hourly trouble my conscience, and vex my spirits? Yes, we doubt not, and if it were your cause every man would seek remedy, when the peril of your soul, and the loss of your inheritance is openly laid to you.

For this only cause I protest before God, and on the word of a prince, I have asked counsel of the greatest clerks in Christendom; and for this cause I have sent for this legate, as a man indifferent, only to know the truth, and so to settle my conscience, and for none other cause, as God can judge. And as touching the queen, if it be adjudged by the law of God that she is my lawful wife, there was never thing more pleasant nor more acceptable to me in my life, both for the discharge and clearing of my conscience, and also for the good qualities and conditions which I know to be in her. For I assure you all, that beside her noble parentage of the which she is descended (as you well know), she is a woman of most gentleness, of most humility and buxomness, yea, and in all good qualities appertaining to nobility she is without comparison, as I, these twenty years almost, 34 have had the true experiment; so that if I were to marry again, if the marriage might be good, I would surely choose her above all other women. But if it be determined by judgment, that our marriage was against God’s law, and clearly void, then I shall not only sorrow the departing from so good a lady and loving companion, but much more lament and bewail my unfortunate chance, that I have so long lived in adultery, to God’s great displeasure, and have no true heir of my body to inherit this realm. These be the sores that vex my mind, these be the pangs that trouble my conscience, and for these griefs I seek a remedy.

Therefore I require of you all, as our trust and confidence is in you, to declare to our subjects our mind and intent, according to our true meaning; and desire them to pray with us that the very truth may be known, for the discharge of our conscience and saving of our soul: and for the declaration hereof I have assembled you together, and now you may depart.

Shortly after this oration of the king, wherewith he stirred the hearts of a number, then the two legates, being requested of the king, for discharge of his conscience, to judge and determine upon the cause, went to the queen lying then in the palace of Bridewell, and declared to her, how they were deputed judges indifferent, between the king and her, to hear and determine, whether the marriage between them stood with God’s law or not.

When she understood the cause of their coming, being thereat something astonied at the first, after a little pausing with herself, thus she began, answering for herself. 3 QUEEN KATHARINE’S ANSWER TO THE CARDINALS.

Alas, my lords (said she), is it now a question whether I be the king’s lawful wife or no, when I have been married to him almost twenty years, and in the mean season never question was made before? Divers prelates yet being alive, and lords also, and privy councillors with the king at that time, then adjudged our marriage lawful and honest; and now to say it is detestable and abominable, I think it great marvel: and, in especial, when I consider what a wise prince the king’s father was, and also the love and natural affection that king Ferdinand, my father, bare unto me, I think in myself, that neither of our fathers were so uncircumspect, so unwise, and of so small imagination, but they foresaw what might follow of our marriage; and in especial, the king my father sent to the court of Rome, and there, after long suit, with great cost and charge, obtained a license and dispensation, that I, being the one brother’s wife, and peradventure carnally known, might, without scruple of conscience, marry with the other brother lawfully, which license, under lead, I have yet to show: which things make me to say, and surely believe, that our marriage was both lawful, good, and godly.

But of this trouble I only may thank you, my lord cardinal of York.

For, because I have wondered at your high pride and vain glory, and abhorred your voluptuous life and abominable lechery, and little regarded your presumptuous power and tyranny, therefore, of malice you have kindled this fire, and set this matter abroach; and, in especial, for the great malice that you bear to my nephew the emperor, whom, I perfectly know you hate worse than a scorpion, because he would not satisfy your ambition, and make you pope by force: and therefore you have said more than once, that you would trouble him and his friends; and you have kept him true promise; for of all his wars and vexations he only may thank you. And as for me, his poor aunt and kinswoman, what trouble you have put me to by this new found doubt, God knoweth; to whom I commit my cause, according to the truth.

The cardinal of York excused himself, saying, that he was not the beginner nor the mover of the doubt, and that it was sore against his will that ever the marriage should come in question; but he said that by his superior, the bishop of Rome, he was deputed as a judge to hear the cause; which he sware on his profession to hear indifferently. But whatsoever was said, she believed him not; and so the legates took their leave of her, and departed.

These words were spoken in French, and written by cardinal Campeius’s secretary, who was present; and afterward, by Edward Hall translated into English. *By 4 these premises it is sufficient to judge and understand what the whole occasion was, that brought this marriage first into doubt, so that there needeth not any further declaration in words upon this matter. But this one thing will I say, if I might be bold to speak what I think: other men may think what they list. This I suppose, that the stay of this marriage was taken in good time, and not without the singular favor of God’s providence. For if that one child, coming of this foresaid marriage, did so greatly endanger this whole realm of England to be entangled with the Spanish nation, that if God’s mighty hand had not been betwixt, God knoweth what misery might have ensued: what peril then should thereby have followed, if, in the continuance of this marriage, more issue had sprung thereof!

But to return again to our matter concerning the whole process and discourse of this divorcement, briefly to comprehend in few words, that which might be collected out of many: after this answer was given of the queen, and her appeal made to the pope, the king, to try out the matter by Scriptures and by learning, sent first to the pope, 35 then to most part of all universities, to have it decised to the uttermost,* as shall be hereafter fully declared . In the next year ensuing, A.D. 1529, on the 31st day of May, at the Black Friars’of London was prepared a solemn place for the two legates: who, coming with their crosses, pillars, axes, and all other Romish ceremonies accordingly, were set in two chairs covered with cloth of gold, and cushions of the same. When all things were ready, then the king and the queen were ascited *personally to appear or by their proctors* 37 before the said legates the 18th day of June; where (the commission of the cardinals first being read, wherein it was appointed by the court of Rome, that they should be the hearers and judges in the cause between them both) the king was called by name, who appeared by two proctors. Then the queen was called, who being accompanied with four bishops,5 and other of her counsel, and a great company of ladies, came personally herself before the legates; who there, after her obeisance, with a sad gravity of countenance, having not many words with them, appealed from the legates, as judges not competent, to the court of Rome, and so departed.

Notwithstanding this appeal, the cardinals sat weekly, and every day arguments on both sides were brought, but nothing definitively was determined.

As the time passed on, the 2lst day of June the king, being desirous to see an end of the controversy and hear the determination of the matter, came to the court, and the queen came also, 38 where he, standing under his cloth of estate, uttered these or like words, *which 6 can best declare his own mind; which here I thought to notify, that they which have not the chronicles present, may here read his mind, and the better understand the matter.* THE KING’S ORATION TO THE LEGATES.

My lords, legates of the see apostolic, who be deputed judges in this great and weighty matter, I most heartily beseech you to ponder my mind and intent, which only is to have a final end for the discharge of my conscience—for every good christian man knoweth what pain and what unquietness he suffereth, who hath his conscience grieved; for I assure you, on my honor, that this matter hath so vexed my mind, and troubled my spirits, that I can scantly study anything which should be profitable for my realm and people; and for to have a quietness in body and soul is my desire and request—and not for any grudge that I bear to her that I have married; for I dare say, that for her womanhood, wisdom, nobility, and gentleness, never prince had such another; and therefore, if I would willingly change, I were not wise. Wherefore my suit is to you my lords at this time, to have a speedy end according to right, for the quietness of my mind and conscience only, and for no other cause, as God knoweth.

When the king had said, the queen departed without any thing saying. *The 7 queen again, of the other partye (who had before appealed to the pope), assisted with her councillors and doctors, who were four bishops, that is Warham of Canterbury, West of Ely, Fisher of Rochester, Standish of St. Asse, 8 with other learned men whom the king had licensed her to choose unto her,* was called to know whether she would abide by her appeal, or answer there before the legates. Her proctor answered, that she would abide by her appeal. That notwithstanding, the councillors on both sides every day almost met, and debated this matter substantially, so that at the last the divines were all of opinion that the marriage was against the law of God, if she were carnally known by the first brother, which thing she clearly denied. But to that was answered, that prince Arthur her husband confessed the act done, by certain words spoken; which, being recorded in other chronicles, I had rather should there be read, than by me here uttered. Furthermore, at the time of the death of prince Arthur, she thought and judged that she was with child, and for that cause the king was deferred from the title and creation of the prince of Wales almost half a year: which thing could not have been judged, if she had not been carnally known.

Also she herself caused a bull to be purchased, in the which were these words, ‘vel forsan cognitam,’ which is as much to say as, ‘peradventure carnally known;’which words were not in the first bull granted by Julius, 39 at her second marriage to the king. Which second bull, with that clause, was only purchased to dispense with the second matrimony, although there were carnal copulation before: which bull needed not to have been purchased, if there had been no carnal copulation, for then the first bull had been sufficient.

Moreover, for the more clear evidence of this matter, that prince Arthur had carnal knowledge of the said lady Katharine his wife, it appeareth in a certain book of records which we have to show touching this marriage, that the same time when prince Arthur was first married with this lady Katharine, daughter to king Ferdinand, certain ambassadors of Ferdinand’s council were then sent hither into England for the said purpose, to see and to testify concerning the full consummation of the said matrimonial conjunction; which councillors here resident, being solemnly sworn, not only did affirm to both their parents, that the matrimony was consummate by that act, but also did send over into Spain, to her father, such demonstrations of their mutual conjunction as here I will not name, sparing the reverence of chaste ears. Which demonstrations otherwise, in those records being named and testified, do sufficiently put the matter out of all doubt and question. Besides that in the same records appeareth, that both he and she not only were of such years as were meet and able to explete the consummation hereof, but also they were and did lie together both here and in Wales, by the space of three quarters of a year. Thus, when the divines on her side were beaten from that ground, then they fell to persuasions of natural reasons, how this should not be undone for three causes, *of 10 policy, of charity, and of time.* One was, because, if it should be broken, the only child of the king should be a bastard, which were a great mischief to the realm. Secondly, the separation should be cause of great unkindness between her kindred and this realm. And the third cause was, that the continuance of so long space had made the marriage honest. These persuasions, with many other, were set forth by the queen’s council, and in especial by the bishop of Rochester, who stood stiff in her cause. But yet God’s precept was not answered; wherefore they left that ground, and fell to pleading, that the court of Rome had dispensed with that marriage. To this some lawyers said, that no earthly person is able to dispense with the positive law of God. *And 10 truly, forsomuch as no reasons, be they never so wise and politic, have any force against the manifest and express word of God, whereunto all things must give place; it had not been hard for the legates speedily to have defined this matter, if they had had the word of God before their eyes, more than the respect of man.* When the *subtil 10 * legates heard the opinions of the divines, and saw whereunto the end of this question would tend, forasmuch as men began so to dispute of the authority of the court of Rome, *under-standing another thing lying in this matter, 11 what derogation might ensue hereby to the court of Rome and to the blemish of their dignity if the pope’s dispensation should not be maintained as forceable in that or any other case;* and especially because the cardinal of York perceived the king to cast favor to the lady Anne, whom he knew to be a Lutheran; they thought best to wind themselves out of that brake betimes, and so *with 12 crafty delays dissimuled the matter, and tracted the time, and drave off the king with many fair words, but performing nothing, notwithstanding the king’s earnest suit and request made to them to make a speedy end, and to give some judgment for the quieting of his conscience: whatsoever it were, he would accept it. Yet they, neither following the cause, nor tendering the king, but only respecting their own gain and glory, from week to week protracted the matter till towards the end of July. 41 Whereupon the king, taking it not well, so to be used at their hand, especially in such a matter, being so full of disquietness in itself, sent the duke of Norfolk and the duke of Suffolk to the court where the legates were, requiring them to hasten to the final end of the matter (what end soever it were), and to defer it no longer.

Now here appeared the false crafty packing of these carnal merchants. It is the manner and custom of Rome about the beginning of August, during the space of the dog-days, to have a solemn Vacation, as they call it, in which time neither schools be used, nor any term kept. Campeius the cardinal therefore, pretending the order of the court of Rome, whereof he was as a member, answered, that he neither would nor could go against the ordinance of the court, whereunto he was bound; so that before October he would proceed no further in the cause. The dukes, hearing the cardinals’words, and perceiving their pretensed excuses, seeing by no ways they would be entreated, brast out in manner of open defiance, as no great marvel was. Insomuch that Charles, duke of Suffolk, 42 clapping his hand upon the table, and swearing by the mass, said in these words, That yet there came never legate nor cardinal from Rome that ever did good in England. And so with him all the temporal lords in an anger departed from the cardinals, leaving them one to look upon other. The king notwithstanding, yet for quietness of his troubled mind abiding the cardinals’leisure, was content to wait their assigned month of October. But before October came, Campeius the cardinal was called home by letters from the pope, whereby the matter was left undiscussed, or rather deluded, to verify the duke of Suffolk’s saying, That no cardinal came yet from Rome, that ever did good in England. The king, seeing himself so deluded, or rather abused,* by the cardinals, took it to no little grief; whereupon the fall of the cardinal of York followed not long after: for *the 13 king, taking more heart unto him, partly encouraged by the treatise afore mentioned, called “The Supplication of Beggars,” which he had diligently read and perused, and partly provoked through the pride and stoutness of the clergy, brake off with the cardinal, caused him to be attainted in the Praemunire, and after also to be apprehended.* This was A.D. 1529. 43 Shortly after it happened, the same year, that the king by his embassadors was advertized, that the emperor and the pope were both together at Bologna. 44 14 Wherefore, *although 12 justly provoked, yet patiently forbearing, he ceased not his suit, but* directed sir Thomas Bullen, late created earl of Wiltshire, and Dr. Stokesley, afterwards bishop of London, and Dr. Lee, afterwards bishop of York, with his message to the pope’s court, where also the emperor was, *desiring 12 to have an answer of his case according to the right and justice. * Pope Clement, understanding the king’s case and request, and fearing what might follow after; if learning and Scripture here should take place against the authority of their dispensations, and moreover doubting the emperor’s displeasure, bare himself strange off from the matter, answering the embassadors with this delay, that he presently would not define in the case, but would hear the full matter disputed when he came to Rome, and according to right he would do justice, *and 15 send an answer agreeing to right and equity.

This done, the king sendeth incontinent to all most famous universities abroad, to hear a resolute answer touching the state and condition of his marriage, whether it could stand by God’s word or no. To this the universities, to the number of twelve, agreeing in uniform consent, make answer again in due form of writing to the king, affirming plainly his marriage, in case as it standeth, both to be unlawful, and repugnant to the express word of God; and that no man is able to dispense with the same.* Although the king ought no such service to the pope, to stand to his arbitrement either in this case, or in any other, having both the Scripture to lead him, and his law in his own hands to warrant him, yet, for quietness’sake, and for that he would not rashly break order (which rather was a disorder indeed), he bare so long as conveniently he might. At length, after long delays and much dissembling, when he saw no hope of redress, he began somewhat to quicken and to look about him, what was best both for his own conscience and the stablishment of his realm to do.

No man here doubteth, but that all this was wrought not by man’s device, but by the secret purpose of the Lord himself, to bring to pass further things, as afterwards followed, which his divine providence was disposed to work. For else, as touching the king’s intent and purpose, he never meant nor minded any such thing as to seek the ruin of the pope, but rather sought all means contrary, how both to stablish the see of Rome, and also to obtain the good will of the same see and court of Rome, if it might have been gotten. And therefore, intending to sue his divorce from Rome, at the first beginning his device was, by Stephen Gardiner his ambassador at Rome to exalt the cardinal of York, as is before showed, to be made pope and universal bishop, to the end that, he ruling that apostolic see, the matter of his unlawful marriage which so troubled his conscience might come to a quiet conclusion, without any further rumor of the world: which purpose of his, if it had taken effect as he had devised it, and the English cardinal had once been made pope, no doubt but the authority of that see had never been exterminate out of England. But God, being more merciful unto us, took a better way than so; for both without and contrary to the king’s expectation, he so brought to pass, that neither the cardinal of York was pope (which should have been an infinite cost to the king), and yet nevertheless the king sped of his purpose too, and that much better than he looked for. For he was rid, by lawful divorcement, not only from that unlawful marriage which clogged his conscience, but also from the miserable yoke of the pope’s usurped dominion, which clogged the whole realm; and all at one time.

Thus God’s holy providence ruling the matter, as I said, when the king could get no favorable grant of the pope touching his cause, being so good and honest, he was forced to take the redress of his right into his own hands, and seeing this Gordian knot 16 would not be loosed at Rome, he was driven against his will, as God would, to play the noble Alexander himself, and with the sword of his princely authority knapped the knot at one stroke clean asunder, loosing, as it were, with one solution infinite questions. For where the doctors and canonists had long disputed, and yet could never thoroughly discuss, the largeness and fullness of the pope’s two swords, both temporal and spiritual, the king with one sword did so cut off both his swords that he dispatched them both clean out of England, as ye shall see more anon. But first the king, like a prudent prince, before he would come to the head of the sore, thought best to pare away such rank flesh and putrefied places as were about it; and therefore, following his own proverb,17 like as one going about to cast down an old rotten wall will not begin with the foundation first, but with the stones that lie at the top, so he, to prepare his way better unto the pope, first began with the cardinal, casting him by the law of ‘Praemunire’out of his goods and possessions: and so at length, by poisoning himself, he procured his own death, which was A.D. 1530. *In 18 the month of September in the same year,* the king, to provide betimes against mischiefs that might come from Rome, gave forth eftsoons this proclamation touching the abolishing of the pope and the establishing of the king’s supremacy: the tenor whereof here followeth.

A PROCLAMATION OF THE KING, THAT NOTHING SHOULD BE PURCHASED FROM ROME. The king’s highness straitly chargeth and commandeth, that no manner of person, what estate, degree, or condition soever he or they be of, do purchase, or attempt to purchase, from the court of Rome, or elsewhere, nor use and put in execution, divulge or publish any thing, heretofore within this year past purchased, or to be purchased hereafter, containing matter prejudicial to the high authority, jurisdiction, and prerogative royal of this his said realm, or to the let, hinderance, or impeachment of his grace’s noble and virtuous intended purposes in the premises, upon pain of incurring his highness’indignation, and imprisonment, and further punishment of their bodies for their so doing, at his grace’s pleasure, to the dreadful example of all other. [September 16th.] *In 18 the mean time nothing yet is heard from Rome. Wherefore the king, assembling his parliament the next year following, which was 1531, in the month of March, sent into the common house the lord chancellor, and divers lords of the spiritualty and temporalty to the number of twelve, whereas the lord chancellor, speaking unto the whole house, had these words in effect as followeth:— ‘You of this worshipful house, I am sure, be not so ignorant, but you know well that the king, our sovereign lord, hath married his brother’s wife: for she was both wedded and bedded with his brother prince Arthur; and therefore you may surely say that he hath married his brother’s wife: if this marriage be good or no, many clerks do doubt. Wherefore the king, like a virtuous prince, willing to be satisfied in his conscience, and also for the surety of his realm, hath with great deliberation consulted with great clerks, and hath sent my lord of London, here present, to the chief universities of all christendom, to know their opinion and judgment in that behalf; and although the universities of Cambridge and Oxford had been sufficient to discuss,the cause, yet because they be in his realm and to avoid all suspicion of partiality, he hath sent into the realm of France, Italy, the pope’s dominions, and Venetians, to know their judgment in that behalf, which have concluded, written, and sealed their determinations, according as you shall hear read.’

Then sir Bryan Tuke took out of a box twelve writings sealed, 46 with the determinations of these universities; that is, The determination of the university of Orleans; of the facultie of decrees of Paris; of the civilians and canonists of Angers; of the faculty of the divines of Paris; of the university of Bourges in Berry; 47 of the university of Bologna; of the faculty of divines of Padua; of the university of Toulouse: besides other universities as well of Germany, as of Oxford and Cambridge. What the tenor and effect of these determinations were, because they are all ready sufficiently expressed in the chronicles, and we have many things else in this book to be comprehended, it shall be sufficient in this behalf to send the reader to the chronicle of Hall, where they are fully to be seen, whoso list to read them.* After this was done, the king then, proceeding further, caused the rest of the spiritual lords to be called by process into the king’s bench to make their appearance, forsomuch as the whole clergy of England, in supporting and maintaining the power legantine of the cardinal, by the reason thereof were all entangled likewise in the Praemunire, and therefore were called into the king’s bench to answer. But before the day of their appearance, the prelates together in their convocation concluded among themselves an humble submission in writing, and offered the king for a subsidy or contribution, that he would be their good lord and release them of the Praemunire by act of parliament, first to be gathered in the province of Canterbury a hundred thousand pounds; and in the province of York eighteen thousand eight hundred and forty pounds and ten pence: 19 which offer with much labor was accepted, and their pardon promised. In this submission the clergy called the king supreme head of the church of England, which thing they never confessed before; whereupon many things followed, as after (God willing) ye shall hear.

But first, forsomuch as we are in hand now with the matter, we will borrow by the way a few words of the reader, to speak of this clergymoney, of one hundred and eighteen thousand eight hundred and forty pounds and ten pence, to be levied to the king, as is above touched. For the levying of which sum an order was taken among the prelates, that every bishop in his diocese should call before him all the priests, parsons, and vicars; among whom Dr. Stokesley, bishop of London, a man then counted to be of some wit and learning, but of little discretion and humanity (which caused him to be out of the favor of the common people), called before him all the priests within the city of London, whether they were curates or stipendiaries, the first day of September, being Friday, 48 20 in the chapter-house of St. Paul; at which day the priests appeared, and the bishop’s policy was to have only six or eight priests together, and by persuasions to have caused them to grant some portion towards the payment of the aforesaid hundred thousand pound. But the number of the priests was so great (for they were six hundred at least, and with them came many temporal men to hear the matter), that the bishop was disappointed of his purpose; for when the bishop’s officers called in certain priests by name into the chapter-house, with that a great number entered, for they put the bishop’s officers that kept the door aside.

After this the officers got the door shut again. Then the priests without said, “We will not be kept without, and our fellows be within: we know not what the bishop will do with them.” The temporal men, being present, comforted and encouraged the priests to enter, so that by force they opened the door, and one struck the bishop’s officer over the face, and entered the chapter-house, and many temporal men with them; and long it was ere any silence could be made. At last, when they were appeased, the bishop stood up and said,— ‘Brethren! I marvel not a little why you be so heady, and know not what shall be said to you; therefore I pray you to keep silence, and to hear me patiently. My friends all, you know well that we be men frail of condition, and no angels; and by frailty and lack of wisdom we have misdemeaned ourselves towards the king our sovereign lord and his laws, so that all we of the clergy were in the Praemunire; by reason whereof, all our promotions, lands, goods and chattels, were to him forfeit, and our bodies ready to be imprisoned: yet his grace, moved with pity and compassion, demanded of us what we could say, why he should not extend his laws upon us. Then the fathers of the clergy humbly besought his grace of mercy: to whom he answered, that he was ever inclined to mercy. Then, for all our great offenses we had little penance; for where he might, by the rigor of his law, have taken all our livelihood, goods, and chattels, he was contented with one hundred thousand pounds, to be paid in five years. And although this sum be more than we may easily bear, yet by the rigor of his laws we should have borne the whole burden. Wherefore, my brethren! I charitably exhort you to bear your parts of your livelihood and salary, toward the payment of this sum granted.’

Then it was shortly said to the bishop, ‘My Lord! twenty nobles a year is but bare living for a priest; for now victuals and every thing are so dear, that poverty in a manner enforceth us to say nay. Besides that, my lord, we never offended in the Praemunire: for we never meddled with the cardinal’s faculties: let the bishops and abbots who have offended pay.’

Then the bishop’s officers gave to the priests high words, which caused them to be the more obstinate. Also divers temporal men who were present comforted the priests, and bade them agree to no payment. In this rumor divers of the bishop’s servants were buffeted and stricken, so that the bishop began to be afraid, and with fair words appeased the noise; and for all things which were done or said there he pardoned them, and gave to them his blessing, and prayed them to depart in charity. Then they departed, thinking to hear no more of the matter, but they were deceived; for the bishop went to sir Thomas More, being lord chancellor (who greatly favored the bishop and the clergy), and to him made a grievous complaint, and declared the fact very grievously. Whereupon commandment was sent to sir Thomas Pargitor, mayor of the city, 49 to attach certain priests and temporal men: and so fifteen priests, and five temporal men were arrested; of the which some were sent to the Tower, some to the Fleet and other prisons, where they remained long after.

The next year, 50 which was A.D. 1532, a parliament was assembled on the 15th day of January, as was mentioned a little before. During the time of this parliament, before the marriage of queen Anne, there was one Temse in the common-house, who moved the commons to sue to the king to take the queen again into his company; declaring certain great mischiefs like to ensue thereof, as in bastarding the lady Mary, the king’s only child, and divers other inconveniences. Which being reported to the king’s ears, he sent immediately to sir Thomas Audley, speaker then of the parliament, expressing unto him, amongst other matters, that he marvelled much why one of the parliament did so openly speak of the absence of the queen from him; which matter was not to be determined there, for it touched (said he) his soul; and he wished the matrimony were good, for then had he never been so vexed in conscience. But the doctors of universities (said he) have determined the marriage to be void, and detestable before God; which grudge of conscience (he said) caused him to abstain from her company, and no foolish nor wanton appetite. “For I am,” said he, “forty-one years old, at which age the lust of man is not so quick as it is in youth. And, saving in Spain and Portugal, it hath not been seen, that one man hath married two sisters, the one being carnally known before: but the brother to marry the brother’s wife, was so abhorred amongst all nations, that I never heard it, that any Christian so did, but myself. Wherefore ye see my conscience troubled, and so I pray you report.” And so the speaker, departing, declared to the commons the king’s saying. *It 22 was touched, a little before, how that the pope had lost great part of his authority and jurisdiction in this realm of England; now it followeth to infer, how and by what occasion his whole power and authority began utterly to be abolished, by the reason and occasion of the most virtuous and noble lady, Anne Bullen, who was not as yet married to the king, howbeit in great favor: by whose godly means and most virtuous counsel the king’s mind was daily inclined better and better.* Insomuch that, not long after, the king, belike perceiving the minds of the clergy not much favoring his cause, sent for the speaker again, and twelve of the commonhouse, having with him eight lords, and said to them, “Well-beloved subjects! we had thought the clergy of our realm had been our subjects wholly, but now we have well perceived that they be but half our subjects, yea and scarce our subjects. For all the prelates at their consecration make an oath to the pope, clean contrary to the oath that they make unto us, so that they seem to be his subjects, and not ours.” And so the king, delivering to them the copy of both the oaths, required them to invent some order that he might not thus be deluded of his spiritual subjects. The speaker thus departed, and caused the oaths to be read in the commonhouse, the very tenor whereof here ensueth.

THE OATH OF THE CLERGY TO THE POPE I John, bishop or abbot of A., from this hour forward shall be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, and to the holy church of Rome, and to my lord the pope and his successors canonically entering. I shall not be of counsel nor consent, that they shall lose either life or member, or shall be taken, or suffer any violence or any wrong by any means. Their counsel to me credited by them, their messengers, or letters, I shall not willingly discover to any person. The papacy of Rome, the rules of the holy fathers, and regalities of St. Peter, I shall help, and retain, and defend against all men. The legate of the see apostolic, going and coming, I shall honorably entreat. The rights, honors, privileges, and authorities of the church of Rome, and of the pope and his successors, I shall cause to be conserved, defended, augmented, and promoted; I shall not be in counsel, treaty, or any act, in the which any thing shall be imagined against him or the church of Rome, their rights, states, honors, or powers: and if I know any such to be moved or compassed, I shall resist it to my power; and as soon as I can, I shall advertise him, or such as may give him knowledge. The rules of the holy fathers, the decrees, ordinances, sentences, dispositions, reservations, provisions, and commandments apostolic, to my power I shall keep and cause to be kept of other. Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our holy father and his successors, I shall resist and persecute to my power.

I shall come to the synod when I am called, except I be letted by a canonical impediment. The dorsels 23 of the apostles I shall visit personally, or by my deputy. I shall not aliene or sell my possessions without the pope’s counsel. So God me help, and the holy evangelists.

This oath of the clergymen, which they were wont to make to the bishop of Rome (now pope Quondam), was abolished and made void by statute, and a new oath ministered and confirmed for the same, wherein they acknowledged the king to be the supreme head, under Christ, in this church of England, as by tenor thereof may appear hereunder ensuing.

THE OATH OF THE CLERGY TO THE KING I John, B. of A., utterly renounce, and clearly forsake, all such clauses, words, sentences, and grants, which I have or shall have hereafter of the pope’s holiness, of and for the bishopric of A., that in anywise have been, are, or hereafter may be, hurtful or prejudicial to your highness, your heirs, successors, dignity, privilege or estate royal: and also I do swear that I shall be faithful and true, and faith and truth I shall bear, to you my sovereign lord, and to your heirs kings of the same, of life and limb and earthly worship above all creatures, for to live and die with you and yours against all people: and diligently I shall be attendant to all your needs and business, after my wit and power; and your counsel I shall keep and hold, knowledging myself to hold my bishopric of you only, beseeching you of restitution of the temporalties of the same; promising (as before) that I shall be a faithful, true, and obedient subject unto your said highness, heirs, and successors during my life: and the services and other things due to your highness, for the restitution of the temporalties of the same bishopric, I shall truly do and obediently perform. So God me help and all saints.

These oaths thus being recited and opened to the people, were the occasion that the pope lost all his interest and jurisdiction here in England within short while after. Upon the occasion and reason whereof, the matter falling out more and more against the pope, sir Thomas More, of whom mention is made before, being a great maintainer of the pope and a heavy troubler of Christ’s people, and now not liking well of this oath, by God’s good work was enforced to resign up his chancellorship, 53 and to deliver up the great seal of England into the king’s hands. After whom succeeded sir Thomas Audley, keeper of the great seal, a man in eloquence and gifts of tongue no less incomparable, than also for his godly-disposed mind, and for his favorable inclination to Christ’s religion, worthy of much commendation.

These things being done in the parliament, A.D. 1532, it followeth moreover the same year, 54 that divers preachings were in the realm, one contrary to another, concerning the king’s marriage; and in especial one Thomas Abel, clerk, who was the queen’s chaplain, to please her withal, both preached, and also wrote a book, in defense of the said marriage; whereby divers simple men were persuaded. Wherefore the king caused to be compiled and reduced into a book the determination of the universities, with the judgments of great clerks; which book, being printed and set abroad, did again satisfy all indifferent and reasonable persons, who were not too much wedded to their wills.

This being done, the king within short time after proceeded to the marriage of the aforesaid lady Anne Bullen, 55 24 mother to our most noble queen now, who, without all controversy, was a special comforter and aider of all the professors of Christ’s gospel, as well of the learned as the unlearned; her life being also directed according to the same, as her weekly alms did manifestly declare; who, besides the ordinary of a hundred crowns, and other apparel that she gave weekly, a year before she was crowned, both to men and women, gave also wonderful much privy alms to widows and other poor householders, continually, till she was apprehended; and she ever gave three or four pound at a time to the poor people to buy them kine withal, and sent her subalmoner to the towns about where she lay that the parishioners should make a bill of all the poor householders in their parish; and some towns received seven, eight, or ten pounds to buy kine withal, according as the number of the poor in the towns were. She also maintained many learned men in Cambridge.

Likewise did the earl of Wiltshire her father, and the lord Rochford her brother, and by them these men were brought in favor with the king; of whom some are yet alive, and can testify the same; who would to God that they were now as great professors of the gospel of Christ, as then they appeared to be; who were Dr. Heath and Dr. Thirlby; with whom was joined the lord Paget, who, at that present, was an earnest protestant, and gave unto one Rayhold West Luther’s books, and other books of the Germans, as Francis Lambert ‘De Sectis; ’56 and at that time he read Melancthon’s Rhetoric openly in Trinity-hall, in Cambridge, and was, with his Master Gardiner, a maintainer of Dr. Barnes and all the protestants that were then in Cambridge, and holpe many religious persons out of their cowls.

It hath been reported unto us by divers credible persons who were about this queen, and daily acquainted with her doings, concerning her liberal and bountiful distribution to the poor, how her grace carried ever about her a certain little purse, out of which she was wont daily to scatter abroad some alms to the needy, thinking no day well spent wherein some man had not fared the better by some benefit at her hands. And this I write by the relation of certain noble personages who were the chief and principal of her waiting maids about her, specially the duchess of Richmond by name.

Also concerning the order of her ladies and gentlewomen about her, one that was her silkwoman, a gentlewoman 25 not now alive, but of great credit, and also of fame for her worthy doings, did credibly report, that in all her time she never saw better order amongst the ladies and gentlewomen of the court, than was in this good queen’s days, who kept her maids and such as were about her so occupied in sewing and working of shirts and smocks for the poor, that neither was there seen any idleness then among them, nor any leisure to follow such pastimes as daily are seen now-a-days to reign in princes’courts.

Thus the king, being divorced from the lady dowager his brother’s wife, married this gracious lady, making a prosperous and happy change for us, being divorced from the aforesaid princess, and also from the pope, both at one time. Notwithstanding, as good and godly purposes are never without some incommodity or trouble following, so it happened in this divorcement, that the said princess, procuring from Rome the pope’s curse, caused both the king and the realm to be interdicted, whereof more is hereafter to be spoken.

About the same time died William Warham, 57 archbishop of Canterbury; in whose room succeeded Thomas Cranmer, who was the king’s chaplain, and a great disputer against the unlawful marriage of lady Katharine, princess dowager; being after so called by act of parliament. In the mean time queen Anne, shortly after her marriage being great with child, the next year following, which was 1583, after the divorcement first publicly proclaimed, was crowned with high solemnity at Westminster; and not long after her coronation, the seventh day of September, 59 26 she was brought to bed and delivered of a fair lady; for whose good deliverance ‘Te Deum’was sung in all places, and great preparation made for the christening.

The mayor and his brethren, with forty of the chief citizens, were commanded to be present, with all the nobles and gentlemen. The king’s palace, and all the walls between that and the Friars, were hanged with arras, and the Friars’church. Also the font was of silver, and stood in the midst of the church, three steps high, which was covered with a fine cloth, and divers gentlemen, with aprons and towels about their necks, gave attendance about it. Over the font hung a fair canopy of crimson satin, fringed with gold. About it was a rail covered with say. 27 Between the quire and the body of the church was a close place with a pan of fire to make the child ready in. These things thus ordered, the child was brought into the hall, and then every man set forward. First the citizens, two and two: then the gentlemen, esquires, and chaplains: next after followed the aldermen, and the mayor alone. Next the mayor followed the king’s council: then the king’s chappel: 28 then barons, bishops, and earls. Then came the earl of Essex, bearing the covered basons gilt. After him the marquis of Exeter, with the taper of virgin-wax. Next him the marquis of Dorset, bearing the salt. Behind him the lady Mary of Norfolk, bearing the chrism, which was very rich of pearl and stone. The old duchess of Norfolk bare the child in a mantle of purple velvet, with a long train furred with ermine. The duke of Norfolk, with his marshal-rod, went on the right hand of the said duchess, and the duke of Suffolk on the left hand. Before them went the officers of arms. The countess of Kent bare the long train of the child’s mantle. Between the countess and the child went the earl of Wiltshire on the right hand, and the earl of Derby on the left hand, supporting the said train. In the midst, over the child, was borne a canopy by the lord Rochford, the lord Hussey, the lord William Howard, and the lord Thomas Howard the elder. In this order they came unto the church door, where the bishop of London met it, with divers abbots and bishops, and began the observances of the sacrament. The archbishop of Canterbury was godfather, and the old duchess of Norfolk, and the old marchioness of Dorset, widows, were godmothers, and the child was named Elizabeth.

After all things were done at the church door, the child was brought to the font, and christened. This done, Garter, the chief king-at-arms, cried aloud, “God, of his infinite goodness, send prosperous life and long to the high and mighty princess of England,ELIZABETH.” Then the trumpets blew, and the child was brought up to the altar, and immediately confirmed by the archbishop, the marchioness of Exeter being godmother. Then the archbishop of Canterbury gave to the princess a standing cup of gold: the duchess of Norfolk gave to her a standing cup of gold, fretted with pearl: the marchioness of Dorset three gilt bowls, pounced, with a cover: the marchioness of Exeter, three standing bowls, gilt and graven, with a cover.

And so, after a solemn banquet, ended with hypocras, wafers, and such like, in great plenty, they returned in like order again unto the court with the princess; and so departed.

At the marriage of this noble lady, as there was no small joy unto all good and godly men, and no less hope of prosperous success to God’s true religion, so in like manner, on the contrary part, the papists wanted not their malicious and secret attempts; as by the false hypocrisy and reigned holiness of a false reigned hypocrite, this year being espied and found out, may sufficiently appear what their devilish devices and purposes were.

For certain monks, friars, and other evil-disposed persons, of a devilish intent, had put into the heads of many of the king’s subjects, that they had revelation of God and his saints, that he was highly displeased with king Henry for the divorcement of the lady Katharine; and surmised, amongst other things, that God had revealed to a nun, named Elizabeth Barton, whom they called the holy maid of Kent, that in case the king proceeded in the said divorce, he should not be king of this realm one month after, and in the reputation of God not one day nor hour. This Elizabeth Barton, by false dissimulation, practiced and showed to the people marvellous alteration of her visage and other parts of her body, as if she had been rapt, or in a trance; and in those reigned trances, by false hypocrisy (as though she had been inspired of God), she spake many words in rebuking of sin, and reproving the gospel, which she called heresy; and among them uttered divers things to the great reproach of the king and queen, and to the establishing of idolatry, pilgrimage, and the derogation of God’s glory: which her naughtiness being espied out by the great labor and diligence of the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord Cromwel, and Master Hugh Latimer, she was condemned and put to death, with certain of her affinity and counsel, in the month of April, A.D. 1534. The names of which conspirators with her were these: Edward Bocking, monk of Canterbury; Richard Master, parson of Aldington; John Dering, monk of Canterbury; Hugh Rich, friar, warden of the grey friars of Canterbury; Richard Risby; Henry Gold, bachelor of divinity, and parson of Aldermary; Fisher, bishop of Rochester; John Adeson, priest, his chaplain; Thomas Laurence, the bishop’s registrar of Canterbury; Edward Thwaits; Thomas Abel: of the which persons, the said Elizabeth Barton, Henry Gold, Richard Master, Edward Booking, John Dering, Hugh Rich, Richard Risby, were attainted of treason by act of parliament, and put to execution.

The residue, as Fisher bishop of Rochester, Thomas Gold, Thomas Laurence, Edward Thwaits, John Adeson, Thomas Abel, being convicted and attainted of misprision, were condemned to prison, and forfeited their goods and possessions to the king. Edward Hall, a writer of our English stories, making mention of this Elizabeth Barton aforesaid, adjoineth next in his book the narration of one Pavier, or Pavy, a notorious enemy, no doubt, to God’s truth. This Pavier, being the town-clerk of the city of London, was a man (saith he) that in no case could abide to hear that the gospel should be in English: insomuch that the said Hall himself heard him once say unto him and to others, by swearing a great oath, that if he thought the king’s highness would set forth the Scripture in English, and let it be read of the people by his authority, rather than he would so long live, he would cut his own throat. But he broke promise, saith Hall; for he did not cut his throat with a knife, but with a halter did hang himself. Of what mind and intent he so did, God judge. My information further addeth this, touching the said Pavier or Pavy, that he was a bitter enemy, very busy at the burning of Bainham above mentioned; 30 who, hearing the said Bainham at the stake speaking against purgatory and transubstantiation, “Set fire,” said he, “to this heretic, and burn him.” And as the train of gunpowder came toward the martyr, he lifted up his eyes and hands to heaven, saying to Pavier, “God forgive thee, and show thee more mercy than thou dost to me. The Lord forgive sir Thomas More, and pray for me, all good people;” and so continued he praying, till the fire took his bowels and his head, etc.

After whose martyrdom, the next year following, this Pavier, the townclerk of the city, went and bought ropes. Which done, he went up to a high garret in his house to pray, as he was wont to do, to a rood which he had there, before which he bitterly wept: and as his own maid, coming up, found him so doing, he bade her take the rusty sword, and go make it clean, and trouble him no more; and immediately he tied up the rope, and hung himself. The maid’s heart still throbbed, and so came up, and found him but newly hanged. Then she, having no power to help him, ran crying to the church to her mistress to fetch her home. His servants and clerks he had sent out before to Finsbury, and to Master Edney, serjeant to the lord mayor, dwelling over Bishop’s-gate, to tarry for him at Finsbury-court till he came: but he had dispatched himself before, so that they might long look for him before he could come. This was A.D. 1533.

To this story of Pavier may also be added the like terrible example of doctor Foxford, chancellor to the bishop of London, a cruel persecutor, and a common butcher of the good saints of God; who was the condemner of all those afore named, who were put to death, troubled, or abjured under bishop Stokesley, through all the diocese of London. This Foxford died about this present year and time; of whose terrible end it was then certainly reported and affirmed by such as were of right good credit, unto certain persons of whom some be yet alive, that he died suddenly sitting in his chair, his belly being burst, and his entrails falling out before him.

Ye heard before, 31 how the queen, after called princess dowager, had appealed to the court of Rome; it was doubted whether that appeal was good or not. This question was well handled in the parliament house, but much better in the convocation house; and yet in both houses it was alleged, yea, and by books showed, that in the councils of Chalcedon, Africa, Toledo, and divers other famous councils in the primitive church, yea, in the time of St. Augustine, it was affirmed, declared, and determined, that a cause arising in one province should be determined in the same, and that neither the patriarch of Constantinople should meddle in causes moved into the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Antioch, nor any bishop should intermeddle within another’s province or country. Which things were so clerkly opened, and so cunningly set forth to all intents, that every man that had wit, and was determined to follow the truth, and not wilfully wedded to his own mind, might plainly see, that all appeals made to Rome were clearly void, and of none effect: which doctrines and counsels were showed to the lady Katharine, princess dowager; but she (as women love to lose no dignity) ever continued in her old song, trusting more to the pope’s partiality, than to the determination of Christ’s verity.

Whereupon the archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer above named, accompanied with the bishops of London, Winchester, Bath, Lincoln, and divers other great clerks in a great number, rode to Dunstable, which is six miles from Ampthill, where the princess dowager lay; and there, by a doctor, called Dr. Lee, she was ascited to appear before the said archbishop in cause of matrimony, in the said town of Dunstable. And at the day of appearance she would not appear, but made default, and so was called peremptorily, every day, fifteen days together; and at last, for lack of appearance, and for contumacy, by the assent of all the learned men there being present, she was divorced from the king, and their marriage declared to be void and of none effect; which sentence given, the archbishop and all the others returned back again.

Here note, that although this divorce following after the new marriage 61 needed not at all to be made, the first marriage being no marriage at all before God, yet, to satisfy the voice of the people, more than for any necessity, the king was contented, through the persuasions of some, so to do. For else, as touching God and conscience, what great need was there of any divorce, where before God no marriage was to be accounted, but rather an incestuous and detestable adultery, as the act of parliament doth term it? But to our matter again.

After the dissolution of this first marriage made between the king and the lady princess dowager, she nevertheless, bearing a stout mind, would not yet relent, neither to the determination of the universities, nor to the censure of the clergy, nor of the whole realm: but, following the counsel rather of a few Spaniards, to molest the king and the realm by suit and means made to the pope, procured certain writings, first of monition and aggravation, then of excommunication and interdiction, to be sent down from Rome, wherein the pope had interdicted both the king and the whole realm. But the pope’s curser being not the hardiest man, belike, that ever showed his head, thought it much more sure for him to discharge his popish carriage without the king’s reach; and so, keeping himself aloof off (like a pretty man), set up his writings in the town of Dunkirk in Flanders: in which town first, upon the north door of the church was set up a monition, that the king of England should surcease the suit of divorce; which John Butler, clerk, then commissary of Calais, by commandment took down in the night.

After that, before Whitsun-week, there was set up in the same place an excommunication, aggravation, re-gravation, and interdiction; for the which also the said Butler by commandment was sent to Dunkirk, to take it down. And because the council of Calais would be certified of his diligence therein, they sent a servant of the lord Lisle, then deputy of Calais, whose name was Cranvel; and upon Wednesday in Whitsun-week, at seven o’clock in the morning, he took it down whole, and brought it with him, and delivered the same to the lord deputy aforesaid: which was about the year 1533.

This being known and certified unto the king, he was motioned by his council, that such as were about her, and moved her thereunto, should be put from her. And therefore the duke of Suffolk was sent to Bugden, beside Huntingdon, where the said lady Katharine lay; who, perceiving her stomach to continue froward still, in answering him with high words, and suddenly so in a fury to part from him into her privy chamber and shut the door, brake up the order of her court, and discharged a great sort of her household servants; and yet left her a convenient number to serve her like a princess. They that remained still, were sworn to serve her as princess only, and not as queen; of whom some said, they were once sworn to serve her as queen, and otherwise would not serve; and so were dismissed. The other, who were sworn to serve her as princess, she utterly refused for her servants, and so she remained with the fewer, living after this about the space of two years. *And 32 thus much hast thou, good reader, touching the king’s divorcement; by occasion whereof it pleased God so to work, through his secret and unsearchable wisdom, that the pope, who so long had played ‘rex’in England, lost his whole jurisdiction and supremacy.* THE ABOLISHING OF THE POPE OUT OF ENGLAND.

These things thus finished and dispatched concerning the marriage of queen Anne, and divorce of lady Katharine, dowager, next followeth the year 1534; in the which was assembled the high court of parliament again, after many prorogations, upon the fifteenth day of January.

Mention was made 62 a little before 32a of a parliament begun the 15th day of January, A.D. 1532, in the which parliament the commons had put up a supplication, complaining of the strait dealing of the clergy in their proceeding “ex officio.” This complaint, although at the first it seemed not greatly to be tendered of the king, yet in prorogation of the parliament the time so wrought withal, that the king, having now more clear understanding of the abuses and enormities of the clergy, and, in especial, of the corrupt authority of the see of Rome, provided certain acts against the same. 32b CERTAIN ACTS PROVIDED CONCERNING THE POPE’S LAWS. 32C First, as concerning the laws, decrees, ordinances and constitutions made and stablished by the pretensed authority of the bishops of Rome, to the advancement of their worldly glory, that whoso did or spake any thing either against their usurped power, or against the said laws, decrees, or constitutions of theirs, not approved nor grounded upon holy Scripture, or else being repugnant to the king’s prerogative royal, should therefore stand in no danger, nor be impeachable of heresy. And likewise touching such constitutions, ordinances, and canons provincial or synodal, which were made in this realm in the convocation of bishops, being either prejudicial to the king’s prerogative, or not ratified before by the king’s assent, or being otherwise onerous to the king and his subjects, or in any wise repugnant to the laws and statutes of this realm, they were committed to the examination and judgment of thirty-two persons, chosen by the king out of the higher and lower house, to be determined either to stand in strength, or to be abrogated, at their discretions: and further, that all the clergy of this realm, submitting themselves to the king, should and did promise ‘in verbo sacerdotii,’ never hereafter to presume to assemble in their convocations without the king’s writ, nor to enact or execute such constitutions without his royal assent, etc.

Further, in the same parliament was enacted and decreed, that in causes and matters happening in contention, no person should appeal, provoke, or sue out of the king’s dominions to the court of Rome, 32d under pain of provisors, provision, or praemunire. Item, In the same parliament was defined and concluded, that all exportation of annates and first-fruits of archbishoprics and bishoprics out of this realm to the see of Rome, for any bulls, breves or palls, or expedition of any such thing, should utterly cease.

Also, for the investing of archbishops, bishops, or other of any ecclesiastical dignity, such order in the said parliament was taken that the king should send a license under the great seal, with a letter missive to the prior and convent, or to the dean and chapter of those cathedral churches where the see was vacant, by the virtue of which license or letters missive, they, within twelve days, should choose the said person nominated by the king, and none other; and that election to stand effectual to all intents: which election being done, then the party elect to make first his oath and fealty to the king, if it were a bishop that was elected; then the king by his letters patent to signify the said election to the archbishop of that province, and two other bishops, or else to four bishops within this realm to be assigned to that office, without any other suing, procuring, or obtaining any bulls, breves, or other things from the see of Rome.

Moreover, against all other whatsoever intolerable exactions and great sums of money used to be paid out of this realm to the bishop of Rome, in pensions, censures, Peter-pence, procurations, fruits, suits for provisions, and expeditions of bulls for archbishops and bishops, for delegacies and rescripts in causes of contentions and appeals, jurisdictions legative; also for dispensations, licenses, faculties, grants, relaxations, writs called ‘perinde valere,’ rehabilitations, abolitions, canonizations, and other infinite sorts of bulls, breves, and instruments of sundry natures, the number whereof were tedious particularly to be recited: in the said parliament it was ordained, that all such uncharitable usurpations, exactions, pensions, censures, portions, and Peter-pence, wont to be paid to the see of Rome, should utterly surcease, and never more be levied: so that the king, with his honorable council, should have power and authority from time to time, for the ordering, redress, and reformation of all manner of indulgences, privileges, etc., within this realm.

Where is to be noted by the way, as touching these Peter-pence aforesaid, that the same were first brought in and imposed by king Ina, about A.D. 720, which Ina, king of the West-Saxons, caused through all his dominion, in every house having a chimney, a penny to be collected and paid to the bishop of Rome in the name of St.

Peter; and thereof were they called Peter-pence. 33 The same likewise did Offa king of Mercians after him, about A.D. 794. 34 And these Peter-pence ever since, or for the most part, have used of a long custom to be gathered and summoned by the pope’s collectors here in England, from the time of Ina aforesaid to this present parliament, A.D. 1534.

Finally, by the authority of the parliament it was consulted and considered concerning the legality of the lawful succession unto the crown, in ratifying and inhabling the heirs of the king’s body and queen Anne. In the which parliament, moreover, the degrees of marriage plainly and clearly were explained and set forth, such as be expressly prohibited by God’s laws, as in this table may appear.

A TABLE OF DEGREES, PROHIBITED BY GOD’S LAW TO MARRY. The son not to marry the mother, nor step-mother.

The brother not to marry the sister.

The father not to marry his son’s daughter, nor his daughter’s daughter.

The son not to marry his father’s daughter, gotten by his step-mother.

The son not to marry his aunt, being either his father’s or his mother’s sister.

The son not to marry his uncle’s wife.

The father not to marry his son’s wife.

The brother not to marry his brother’s wife.

No man to marry his wife’s daughter.

No man to marry his wife’s son’s daughter.

No man to marry his wife’s daughter’s daughter.

No man to marry his wife’s sister.

All these degrees be prohibited by the Scripture.

All these things thus being defined and determined in this aforesaid parliament, and it also being in the same parliament concluded, that no man, of what estate, degree, or condition soever, hath any power to dispense with God’s laws, it was therefore by the authority aforesaid, agreeing with the authority of God’s word, assented that the marriage aforetime solemnized between the king and the lady Katharine, being before wife to prince Arthur the king’s brother, and carnally known by him (as is above proved), should be absolutely deemed and adjudged to be unlawful and against the law of God, and also reputed and taken to be of no value nor effect; and that the separation thereof by Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, should stand good and effectual to all intents; and also that the lawful matrimony between the king and the lady Anne his wife, should be established, approved, and ratified for good and consonant to the laws of Almighty God. And further, also, for the establishing of this king’s lawful succession, it was fully by the said parliament adjudged, that the inheritance of the crown should remain to the heirs of their two bodies, that, is, of the king and queen Anne his wife. 64 36 Whereupon was made an Act of succession, 37 for the more surety of the crown, to the which every person being of lawful age should be sworn. During this parliament time, every Sunday preached at Paul’s cross a bishop, who declared the pope not to be head of the church.

After this, commissions were sent over all England, to take the oath of all men and women to the act of succession; 38 at which few repined, except Dr. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester; sir Thomas More, late lord chancellor; and Dr. Nicholas Wilson, parson of St. Thomas Apostle’s in London. Wherefore these three persons, after long exhortation to them made by the bishop of Canterbury at Lambeth refusing to be sworn, were sent to the Tower, where they remained, and were oftentimes motioned to be sworn. But the bishop and sir Thomas More excused them by their writings, in which they said that they had written before the said lady Katharine to be queen, and therefore could not well go from that which they had written. Likewise the doctor excused, that he in preaching had called her queen, and therefore now could not withsay it again. Howbeit, at length, he was well contented to dissemble the matter, and so escaped: but the other two stood against all the realm in their opinion. From the month of March this parliament furthermore was prorogued to the third day of November abovesaid; at what time, amongst divers other statutes, most graciously and by the blessed will of God it was enacted, that the pope, and all his college of cardinals, with his pardons and indulgences, which so long had clogged this realm of England, to the miserable slaughter of so many good men, and which never could be removed away before, were now abolished, eradicated and exploded out of this land, and sent home again to their own country of Rome, from whence they came. God be everlastingly praised therefore. Amen! *AN OLD PROPHECY OF THE FALL OF THE POPE. Papa cito moritur, Caesar regnabit ubique, Et subito vani cessabunt gaudia 40 cleri.* An Act 65 concerning the King’s Highness to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and to have authority to reform and redress all Errors, Heresies, and Abuses, in the same. Cap. 1.

Albeit the king’s majesty justly and rightly is and ought to be the supreme. head of the church of England, and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in their convocations; yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ’s religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirp all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same: be it enacted by authority of this present parliament, that the king our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the church of England, called ‘Anglicana Ecclesia,’ and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities to the said dignity of supreme head of the same church belonging and appertaining. And that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time, to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, abuses, offenses, contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ’s religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquillity of this realm: any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription, or any thing or things to the contrary hereof, notwithstanding.

THE KING’S PROCLAMATION FOR THE ABOLISHING OF THE USURPED POWER OF THE POPE.

Trusty and well-beloved! we greet you well. And whereas not only upon good, and just, and virtuous grounds and respects, edified upon the laws of holy Scripture, by due consultation, deliberation, advisement, and consent, as well of all other our nobles and commons temporal, as also spiritual, assembled in our high court of parliament, and by authority of the same, we have, by good and wholesome laws and statutes made for this purpose, extirped, abolished, separated, and secluded out of this our realm, the abuses of the bishop of Rome, his authority and jurisdiction of long time usurped as well upon us and our realm, as upon all other kings and princes and their realms (like as they themselves have confessed and affirmed), but also, forasmuch as our said nobles and commons, both spiritual and temporal, assembled in our high court of parliament, have, upon good, lawful, and virtuous grounds, and for the public weal of this our realm, by one whole assent, granted, annexed, knit, and united to the crown imperial of the same, the title, dignity, and style of supreme head or governor in earth, immediately under God, of the church of England, as we be, and undoubtedly have hitherto been: which title and style, both the bishops and clergy of this our realm have not only, in convocation assembled, consented, recognised, and approved lawfully and justly to appertain unto us, but also, by word, oath, profession, and writing under their signs and seals, have confessed, ratified, corroborated and confirmed the same, utterly renouncing all other oaths and obedience to any other foreign potentates, and all foreign jurisdictions and powers, as well of the said bishop of Rome, as of all others whatsoever they be, as by their said professions and writings corroborated with the subscription of their names, and appension of their seals more plainly appeareth: we let you to wit, that calling to our remembrance the power, charge, and commission given unto us of Almighty God, and upon a vehement love and affection toward our loving and faithful subjects, perceiving right well what great rest, quietness, and tranquility of conscience, and manifold other commodities might insurge and arise unto them, if the said bishops and others of the clergy of this our realm should set forth, declare, and preach to them, the true and sincere word of God; and without all manner of color, dissimulation, and hypocrisy, manifest and publish the great and innumerable enormities and abuses which the said bishop of Rome, as well in the title and style, as also in authority and jurisdiction, of long time unlawfully and unjustly hath usurped upon us and our progenitors, and also other christian princes; have therefore addressed, our letters unto the bishop of the diocese, straightly charging and commanding him in the same, that not only he, in his own proper person, shall declare, teach, and preach unto the people, forthwith upon the receipt of our said letters unto him directed, every Sunday and other high feasts through the year, the true, mere, and sincere word of God; and that the same title, style, and jurisdiction of supreme head appertaineth only to our crown and dignity royal; likewise, as the said bishop and all other the bishops of our realm have by oath affirmed, and confirmed by subscription of their names, and setting-to their seals, but also have given warning, monition, and charge, to all manner of abbots, priors, deans, archdeacons, provosts, parsons, vicars, curates, and all other ecclesiastical persons, within his said diocese, as well to teach, preach, publish, and declare, in all manner of churches, our aforesaid just title, style, and jurisdiction, every Sunday and high feast through the year: and further to admonish and command all other schoolmasters within his said diocese, to instruct and teach the same unto the children committed unto them; as also to cause all manner of prayers, orisons, rubrics, canons of mass-books, and all other books in the churches, wherein the said bishop of Rome is named, or his presumptuous and proud pomp and authority preferred, utterly to be abolished, eradicated and rased out, and his name and memory to be never more (except to his contumely and reproach) remembered, but perptually suppressed, and obscured; and finally, to desist and leave out all such articles as be in the general sentence which is usually accustomed to be read four times in the year, 66 and do tend to the glory and advancement of the bishop of Rome, his name, title, and jurisdiction.

Whereupon we, seeing, esteeming, and reputing you to be of such singular and vehement zeal and affection towards the glory of Almighty God, and of so faithful, loving, and obedient heart towards us, as you will not only do and accomplish, with all power, wisdom, diligence, and labor, whatsoever should or might be to the preferment and setting forward of God’s word, but also practice, study, and endeavor yourself, with all your policy, wit, power, and good-will, to amplify, defend, and maintain all such interest, right, title, style, jurisdiction, and authority, as is in any wise appertaining unto us, our dignity and prerogative, and the crown imperial of this our realm, have thought good and expedient, not only to signify unto you, by these our letters, the particulars of the charge, monition, and commandment given by us unto the said bishop, as before is specified; but also to require, and straightly charge and command you, upon pain of your allegiance, and as ye shall avoid our high indignation and displeasure, at your uttermost peril, laying apart all vain affections, respects, or other carnal considerations, and setting only before your eyes the mirror of truth, the glory of God, the dignity of your sovereign lord and king, and the great concord and unity, and inestimable profit and utility, that shall, by the due execution of the premises, ensue to yourself and all other faithful and loving subjects, ye make or cause to be made diligent search and wait, 41 and especially in every place of your shirewick, whether the said bishop do truly, and sincerely, and without all manner of cloak, color, or dissimulation, execute and accomplish our will and commandment, as is afore said. And in case ye shall hear, perceive, and approvably understand and know, that the said bishop, or any other ecclesiastical person within his diocese, doth omit and leave undone any part or parcel of the premises; or else, in the execution and setting forth of the same, do coldly and feignedly use any manner of sinister addition, wrong interpretation, or painted color: then we straightly charge and command you, that forthwith upon any such default, negligence, or dissimulation of the said bishop, or any other ecclesiastical person of his diocese, contrary to the true tenor, meaning, and effect of the said charge by us to him appointed aforesaid, ye do make indelayedly, and with all speed and diligence, declaration and advertisement to us and our council, of the said default, and of the behavior, manner, and fashion of the same.

And forasmuch as we, upon singular trust and assured confidence which we have in you, and for the special love and zeal we suppose and think ye bear toward us, and the public and common wealth, unity and tranquillity of this our realm, have specially elected and chosen you among so many, for this purpose; and have reputed you such men as unto whose wisdom, discretion, truth, and fidelity, we might commit a matter of such great weight, moment, and importance, as whereupon the unity and tranquillity of our realm do consist if ye should, contrary to our expectation and trust which we have in you, and against your duty and allegiance towards us, neglect or omit to do, with all your diligence and wisdom, whatsoever shall be in your power for the due performance of our mind and pleasure to you before declared in this behalf, or halt or stumble at any part or specialty of the same, be ye assured that we, like a prince of justice, will so extremely punish you for the same, that all the world besides shall take by you example, and beware, contrary to their allegiance, to disobey the lawful commandment of their sovereign lord and prince in such things, as, by the faithful execution thereof, ye shall not only advance the honor of Almighty God, and set forth the majesty and imperial dignity of your sovereign lord, but also bring an inestimable weal, profit, and commodity, unity and tranquillity to all the common state of this our realm, whereunto, both by the laws of God, nature, and man, ye be utterly bound.

Given under our signet, at our palace at Westminster, the 9th day of June, A.D. 1535.

Furthermore, that no man shall cavil or surmise this fatal fall and ruin of the pope to have come rashly upon the king’s own partial affection, or by any sensual temerity of a few, and not by the grave and advised judgment, approbation, and consent, generally and publicly, as well of the nobles and commons temporal, as also upon substantial grounds, and the very strength of truth, by the discussion and consultation of the spiritual and most learned persons in this realm: it shall be requisite, moreover, to these premises to adjoin the words and testimonies also of the bishops’own oaths and profession made to the king, yielding and rendering unto him only, the style of supreme head, next unto Christ, of the church of England; all other service, subjection, and obedience to be given to any other foreign potentate, which should be prejudicial to the king’s highness in this behalf, being excluded; and that both frankly and freely, of their own voluntary motion, and also upon the faith and fidelity of their priesthood, as by their own words and hand-writing may appear, in form as hereunder followeth, THE OATH OF STEPHEN GARDINER TO THE KING67 I Stephen, bishop of Winchester, do purely, of mine own voluntary accord, and absolutely, on the word of a bishop, profess and promise to your princely majesty, my singular and chief lord and patron, Henry the eighth, by the grace of God king of England and of France, defender of the faith, lord of Ireland, and in earth of the church of England supreme head immediately under Christ, that from this day forward I shall swear, promise, give, or cause to be given to no foreign potentate, emperor, king, prince, or prelate, nor yet to the bishop of Rome, whom they call pope, any oath or fealty, directly or indirectly, either by word or writing; but at all times, and in every case and condition I shall observe, hold, and maintain, to all effects and intents, the quarrel and cause of your royal majesty and your successors; and to the uttermost of my power shall defend the same against all manner of persons, whomsoever I shall know or suspect to be adversaries to your majesty, or to your successors; and shall give my faith, truth, and obedience, sincerely, and with my very heart, only to your royal majesty, as to my supreme prince. I profess the papacy of Rome not to be ordained of God by holy Scripture, but constantly do affirm, and openly declare, and shall declare it, to be set up only by man, and shall cause diligently other men likewise to publish the same. Neither shall I enter any treaty with any person or persons either privily or apertly, or shall consent thereto, that the bishop of Rome shall have or exercise here any authority or jurisdiction, or is to be restored to any jurisdiction hereafter.

Furthermore, that the said bishop of Rome now being, or any that shall succeed him hereafter in the said see, is not to be called pope, nor supreme bishop or universal bishop, nor most holy lord; but only ought to be called bishop of Rome, and fellow brother (as the old manner of the most ancient bishops hath been): this I shall to my power openly maintain and defend.

And I shall firmly observe and cause to be observed by others, to the uttermost of my cunning, wit, and power, all such laws and acts of this realm, how and whatsoever, as have been enacted and established for the extirpation and suppression of the papacy, and of the authority and jurisdiction of the said bishop of Rome.

Neither shall I appeal hereafter to the said bishop of Rome, nor ever consent to any person that shall appeal to him; neither shall I attempt, prosecute, nor follow any suit in the court of Rome, for any cause of right or justice to be had, or shall make answer to any plea or action, nor shall take upon me the person and office either of the plaintiff or defendant in the said, court. And if the said bishop, by his messenger or by his letters, shall make any means or signification unto me of any matter, whatsoever it be, I shall, with all speed and diligence, make declaration and advertisement thereof, or cause the same to be signified either to your princely majesty, or to some of your secret council, or to your successors, or any of their privy council. Neither shall I send, or cause to be sent, at any time any writing or messenger to the said bishop or to his court, without the knowledge and consent of your majesty or your successors willing me to send writing or messenger unto him.

Neither shall I procure, or give counsel to any person to procure, bulls, briefs, or rescripts whatsoever, either for me or any other, from the said bishop of Rome or his court. And if any such shall be procured against my will and knowledge, either in general or in special, or else howsoever they shall be granted unto them, I shall utter and disclose the same, and not consent thereunto, nor use them in any case, and shall cause them to be brought to your majesty, or your successors.

Furthermore, for the confirmation hereof I give my faith and truth by firm promise, and in the faith of a bishop, that against this my aforesaid profession and promise made, I shall defend myself by no dispensation, exception, nor by any remedy or cautel of law or example, during this my natural life. And if heretofore I have done or made any protestation in prejudice of this my profession and promise here made, the same I do revoke at this present, and for ever hereafter, and here utterly do renounce, by these presents.

Whereunto I have subscribed and underwritten the name both of myself and of my bishopric, with my proper hand; and thereto also have put my seal, in perpetual and undoubted testimony of the premises.

Given the tenth day of February, A.D. 1534, and in the twentysixth year of our sovereign lord king Henry the Eighth. Stephen Winton.

THE LIKE OATH OF JOHN STOKESLY, BISHOP OF LONDON.

I John, bishop of London, do purely, and of mine own voluntary accord, and absolutely on the word of a bishop, profess and promise to your princely majesty, my singular and chief lord and patron, Henry the Eighth, by the grace of God, king of England and of France, defender of the faith, lord of Ireland, and in earth of the church of England supreme head immediately under Christ, etc. [Like to the oath before.] Johan. London.

THE LIKE OATH AND HANDWRITING OF EDWARD LEE, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK.

I Edward, by the permission of God, archbishop of York, do purely, of my own voluntary accord, and absolutely, on the word of a bishop, profess and promise to your royal majesty, my singular and chief lord and patron, etc. [like form to the oath before.] Edwardus Eborac.

THE LIKE OATH AND HAND-WRITING OF CUTHBERT TONSTAL, BISHOP OF DURHAM.

I Cuthbert, by the permission of God, bishop of Durham, do purely, of mine own voluntary accord, and absolutely, on the word of a bishop, profess and promise to your royal majesty, my singular and chief lord and patron, etc. [As before.] Per me Cuthbertum Dunelm.

And so likewise all the other bishops, after the same order and form of oath, were obliged and bound to the king, as to the supreme head of the church of England immediately under Christ; renouncing and abjuring utterly and voluntarily the pope’s too long usurped jurisdiction in this realm; testifying, moreover, the same both with their own hand, and also with their seal.

Besides these confirmations and testimonials of the bishops aforesaid, ye shall hear yet moreover the decree and public sentence of the university of Cambridge, written likewise and subscribed, and signed with the public seal of their university; the tenor of which their letter here followeth.

A LETTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE AGAINST THE USURPED POWER OF THE BISHOP OF ROME. To all and singular children of the holy mother church, to whose hands these presents shall come, the whole society of regents and non-regents of the university of Cambridge, sendeth greeting in our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Whereas now of late it hath risen up in question among us, concerning the power of the bishop of Rome, which he doth both claim to himself by the holy Scripture over all provinces and nations in Christendom, and hath now of long time exercised in this realm of England; and forasmuch as our censure concerning the cause is required, to wit, Whether the bishop of Rome hath any power or authority in this kingdom of England, allotted to him by God in the Scripture, more than any other foreign bishop, or no: we thought it therefore good reason, and our duty for the searching out of the verity of the said question, that we should employ therein our whole endeavor and study, whereby we might render and publish to the world, what our reason and censure is, touching the premises. For therefore we suppose, that universities were first provided and instituted of princes, to the end that both the people of Christ might, in the law of God, be instructed; and also that false errors, if any did rise, might, through the vigilant care and industry of learned divines, be discussed, extinguished, and utterly rooted out. For which cause we, in our assemblies and convocations (after our accustomed manner), resorting and conferring together upon the question aforesaid, and studiously debating and deliberating with ourselves how and by what order we might best proceed for the finding out of the truth of the matter; and at length choosing out certain of the best learned doctors and bachelors of divinity, and other masters, have committed to them in charge, studiously to insearch and peruse the places of holy Scripture, by the viewing and conferring of which places together, they might certify us what is to be said to the question propounded.

Forasmuch therefore as we, having heated, and well advised, and thoroughly discussed in open disputations, what may be said on both parts of the aforesaid question, those reasons and arguments do appear to us more probable, stronger, truer, and more certain, and sounding much more near to the pure and native sense of Scriptures, which do deny the bishop of Rome to have any such power given him of God in the Scripture. By reason and force of which arguments we being persuaded, and conjoining together in one opinion, have with ourselves thus decreed to answer unto the question aforesaid; and in these writings thus resolutely do answer in the name of the whole university, and for a conclusion undoubted do affirm, approve, and pronounce, that the bishop of Rome hath no more state, authority, and jurisdiction given him of God in the Scriptures over this realm of England, than any other extern bishop hath. And in testimony and credence of this our answer and affirmation, we have caused our common seal to be put to these our aforesaid letters accordingly.

At Cambridge, in our Regent House, A.D. 1534.

THE BOOK OF GARDINER, 44 BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, “DE VERA OBEDIENTIA.”

You have heard before of Stephen Gardiner, of Lee, of Tonstal, and of Stokesley, how of their voluntary mind they made their profession unto the king, every one severally taking and accepting a corporal oath, utterly and for ever to renounce and reject the usurped superiority of the bishop of Rome. Now, for a further testimony and declaration of their judgments and opinions which then they were of, following the force both of truth and of time then present, ye shall hear, over and besides their oaths, what the aforesaid bishops, in their own books, prologues, and sermons, do write, and publish abroad in print, touching the said cause of the pope’s supremacy.

And first, God willing, to begin with Stephen Gardiner’s book ‘De vera obedientia,’ we will briefly note out a few of his own words, wherein, with great scriptures and good deliberation, he not only confuteth the pope’s usurped authority, but also proveth the marriage beween the king and queen Katharine his brother’s wife not to be good nor lawful, in these words. ‘Of which moral precepts in the old law, to speak of some (for to rehearse all it needs not), the Levitical precepts touching forbidden and incestuous marriages, as far as they concern chaste and pure wedlock, wherein the original of man’s increase consisteth, are always to be reputed of such sort that although they were first given to the Jews, yet because they appertain to the law of nature, and expound the same more plainly to us, therefore they belong as well to all manner of people of the whole world for evermore. In which doubtless both the voice of nature and God’s commandment agreeing in one, have forbidden that which is contrary and diverse from the one and from the other. And amongst these, since there is commandment that a man shall not marry his brother’s wife, what could the king’s excellent majesty do, otherwise than he did, by the whole consent of the people, and judgment of his church; that is, to be divorced from unlawful marriage, and use lawful and permitted copulation? and obeying (as meet it was) conformably unto the commandment, cast off her, whom neither law nor right permitted him to retain, and take him to chaste and lawful marriage? Wherein although the sentence of God’s word (whereunto all things ought to stoop) might have sufficed, yet his majesty was content to have the assisting consents of the most notable grave men, and the censures of the most famous universities of the whole world; and all to the intent that men should see he did both what he might do, and ought to do uprightly; seeing the best learned and most worthy men have subscribed unto it; showing therein such obedience as God’s word requireth of every good and godly man; so as it may be said, that both he obeyed God, and obeyed him truly: of which obedience, forasmuch as I am purposed to speak, I could not pass this thing over with silence, whereof occasion so commodiously was offered me to speak.

Moreover, the said Gardiner, in the beforenamed book “De vera Obedientia,” what constancy he pretendeth, what arguments he inferreth, how earnestly and pithily he disputeth on the king’s side, against the usurped state of the bishop of Rome’s authority, by the words of his book it may appear: whereof a brief collection here followeth.

REASONS OF GARDINER, BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, AGAINST THE POPE’S SUPREMACY.

In the process of his aforesaid book, he, alleging the old distinction of the papists, wherein they give to the prince the regiment of things temporal, and to the church that of things spiritual, comparing the one to the greater light, the other to the lesser light, he confuteth and derideth the same distinction, declaring the sword of the church to extend no further than to teaching and excommunication, and referreth all pre-eminence to the sword of the prince; alleging for this the second Psalm: ‘And now you kings be wise, and be learned ye that judge the earth,’ (Psalm 2) etc.

Also the example of Solomon, who, being a king according to his father’s appointment, ordained the offices of the priests in their ministries, and Levites in their order, that they might give thanks, and minister before the priests, after the order of every day, and porters in their divisions, gate by gate. (2 Kings 28) And speaking more of the said Solomon, he saith: ‘For so commanded the man of God; neither did the priests nor Levites omit any thing of all that he had commanded,’ etc. (Exodus 32) Beside this, he allegeth also the example of king Hezekiah. (1 Kings 22) He allegeth moreover the example and fact of Justinian, who made laws touching the faith, bishops, clerks, heretics, and such others.

Aaron (saith he) obeyed Moses: Solomon gave sentence upon Abiathar the high priest.

Alexander the king, in the Maccabees, writeth thus to Jonathan: ‘Now we have made thee this day the high-priest of thy people,’ (1 Maccabees 10) etc. So did Demetrius to Simon. (1 Maccabees 14) Then, coming to the words of Christ spoken to Peter, ‘Thou art Peter,’ (Matthew 16) etc. upon which words the pope pretendeth to build all his authority: To this he answereth, that if Christ, by those words, had limited to Peter any such special state or preeminency above all princes, then were it not true that is written, Coepit Jesus docere et facere; forasmuch as the words of Christ should then be contrary to his own facts and example, who, in all his life, never either usurped to himself any such domination above princes (showing himself rather subject unto princes), nor yet did ever permit in his apostles any such example of ambition to be seen; but rather rebuked them for seeking any manner of majority amongst them.

And where he reasoneth of the king’s style and title, being called king of England and of France, defender of the faith, lord of Ireland, and supreme head in earth of the church of England immediately under Christ, etc., thus he addeth his mind and censure, saying, that he seeth no cause in this title, why any man should be offended, that the king is called head of the church of England, rather than of the realm of England; and addeth his reason thereunto saying, ‘If the prince and king of England be the head of his kingdom, that is, of all Englishmen that be his subjects, is there any cause why the same English subjects should not be subject to the same head likewise in this respect, because they are christians; that is to say, for the title of godliness? as though that God, who is the cause of all obedience, should now be the cause of rebellion?’

At length thus he concludeth with an exclamation saying, ‘To say,’ saith he, ‘that a king is the head of the kingdom, and not of the church, what an absurd and a foolish saying is this!’

And further, adding further for example the subjection of the servant and wife: ‘If the servant,’ saith he, ‘be subject to his master, or wife to her husband, being infidels, doth their conversion afterwards, or the name of Christians, make them less subjects than they were before? As religion therefore doth not alter the authority of the master over the servant, nor of the husband over the wife; ‘no more,’ saith he, ‘doth it between the prince and subject.’ ‘Paul, making no exception or distinction of subjection, save only of that which belongeth to God, willeth all men to obey their princes; and what princes? Those princes who bear the sword. And although we are bound by the Scripture to obey our bishops and spiritual pastors of the church, yet that obedience diminisheth nothing the chief and head authority that ought to be given to the prince, no more than the obedience of the servant to his master, or of the wife to her husband, exempteth them from subjection due to their superior powers.’

And herewithal he inferreth a principle of the law: ‘divers jurisdictions,’ saith he, ‘proceeding from one person, do not mar nor hinder themselves, but rather do confirm and fortify one another.’

Again, whereas the bishop of Rome, under the name of Peter, doth appropriate to himself the highest place in the church, for that he is the successor of Peter; thereunto he answereth in one word, but in that one word he answereth enough, and to the full: ‘I would,’ saith he, ‘he were; for so in very deed he might well exceed and pass all kings and princes, if not in pre-eminency of dignity, yet in admiration and excellency of virtue: in which kind of superiority the Lord Christ would his apostles and ministers to go before all kings and emperors in the whole world.’

After this, in prosecuting the argument 45 of Peter’s confession, he argueth thus and saith, that as flesh and blood did not reveal to Peter that confession, so neither was that prerogative given to the flesh and blood of Peter, but to the better part, that is, to the spirit of Peter; which is to mean in respect of the spiritual confession of Peter, and not in respect of any carnal place or person, etc. Item, If the scholar ought not to be above the master, how then could either Peter take that upon him, which Christ his master so constantly did refuse; or how can the bishop of Rome now claim that by succession, whereof no example is to be found either in the head, or his predecessor before him? for so we read in Eusebius, both of Peter, James, and John, that they did arrogate no such primacy unto them, but were content that James, surnamed Justus, should be the bishop of the apostles. And as for the name and signification of the word ‘primatus,’ i.e. primacy, if it be taken for the first nomination, or the first place given, so he granteth that Peter had the preferment of the first name and place in the order of the apostles. But it followeth not, that with this primacy he had also a kingdom given. And though he were bid of the Lord to confirm his brethren, yet was ne not bid to exercise an empery upon his brethren: for so were they not his brethren, but his subjects.

That Peter was ‘primus,’ that is, first or chief in the number of those who confessed Christ, it is not to be denied; for first he confessed, first he taught the Jews, first he stood in defense of the verity, and was the first and chief prolocutor among them. But yet that maketh not, that he should therefore vindicate a general primacy and rule over all other states, and potestates of the world, no more than Apelles, because he is noted the first and chief of all painters, therefore ought to bear rule over all painters; or because the university of Paris is nominated for the first and chief of other universities, shall therefore the French king, and all other princes in their public administration, wherein they are set of God, become subjects and underlings to that university?

Thus, after many other reasons and persuasions contained in the said book De Obedientia (for I do but superficially skim over the top only of his probations and arguments), finally, in the end of his peroration, he concludeth the whole sum of his mind in this effect; first, denying that the bishop of Rome ‘had ever any such extern jurisdiction assigned to him absolutely from God, to reign over kings and princed: for the probation whereof he hath alleged sufficiently, as he saith, the examples and doings of Christ himself, which ought to be to us all a sufficient document.

And as concerning the term of ‘Primacy,’ albeit it be used sometimes by the fathers, yet the matter, being well considered and rightly expounded, maketh nothing for the large dominion of the bishop of Rome, which now he doth usurp.

Also as for the prerogatives granted unto Peter, by the which prerogatives our Savior would crown his own gifts given unto him, crowning not the flesh and blood of Peter, but the marvellous testimony of his confession, all this maketh nothing for the pope’s purpose.

Likewise as concerning the local succession of Peter, the pope hath nothing thereby to claim. If he will be successor of Peter, he must succeed him in faith, doctrine, and conditions; and in so doing, he neither will seek, nor yet shall need to seek, for honor, but shall be honored of all good men, according as a good man should be; and that much more than he being a good man would require.

And thus Stephen Winchester, taking his leave, and bidding the pope farewell, endeth with a friendly exhortation, willing him to be wise and circumspect, and not to strive stubbornly against the truth. ‘The light of the gospel,’ saith he,’ so spreadeth his beams in all men’s eyes, that the works of the gospel be known, the mysteries of Christ’s doctrine are opened; both learned and unlearned, men and women, being Englishmen born, do see and perceive, that they have nothing to do with Rome, or with the bishop of Rome, but that every prince, in his own dominion, is to be taken and accepted as a vicar of God, and vicegerent of Christ in his own bounds. And therefore, seeing this order is taken of God, and one in the church should bear the office of teaching, another should bear the office of ruling (which office is only limited to princes), he exhorteth him to consider the truth, and to follow the same, wherein consisteth our true and special obedience, etc.

To this book of Stephen Winchester, De Obedientia, we will adjoin, for good fellowship, the Preface also of Edmund Bonner, archdeacon then of Leicester, prefixed before the same; to the intent that the reader, seeing the judgments of these men as they were then, and again the sudden mutation afterwards of the said parties to the contrary opinion, may learn thereby what vain glory and pomp of this world can work in the frail nature of man, where God’s grace lacketh to sustain. The preface of Bonner, before the said book of Winchester, De Obedientia, proceedeth thus in effect, as followeth:

THE PREFACE OF EDMUND BONNER, ARCHDEACON OF LEICESTER, PREFIXED BEFORE STEPHEN GARDINER’S BOOK, DE VERA OBEDIENTIA.

Forasmuch as some there be, no doubt (as the judgments of men be always variable), who think the controversy which is between the king’s royal majesty and the bishop of Rome consisteth in this point, for that his majesty hath taken the most excellent and most virtuous lady Anne to wife, which in very deed is far otherwise, and nothing so: to the intent, therefore, that all true hearty favorers of the gospel of Christ, who hate not but love the truth, may the more fully understand the chief point of the controversy, and because they shall not be ignorant what is the whole voice and resolute determination of the best and greatest learned bishops, with all the nobles and commons of England, not only in that cause of matrimony, but also in defending the doctrine of the gospel: here shall be published the oration of the bishop of Winchester (a man excellently learned in all kind of learning), entitled ‘De vera Obedientia’; that is, Concerning True Obedience. But as touching this bishop’s worthy praises, there shall be nothing spoken of me at this time, not only because they are infinite, 46 but because they are far better known to all Christendom, than becometh me here to make rehearsal. And as for the oration itself (which as it is most learned, so is it most elegant), to what purpose should I make any words of it, seeing it praiseth itself enough, and seeing good wine needeth no tavern-bush to utter it. But yet in this oration, whosoever thou art, most gentle reader! thou shalt, besides other matters, see it notably and learnedly handled, of what importance, and how invincible the power and excellency of God’s truth is, which as it may now and then be pressed of the enemies, so it cannot possibly be oppressed and darkened after such sort but it showeth itself again at length more glorious and more welcome.

Thou shalt see also touching obedience, that it is subject to truth, and what is to be judged true obedience. Besides this, of men’s traditions, which for the most part be most repugnant against the truth of God’s law. And there, by the way, he speaketh of the king said highness’marriage, which, by the ripe judgment, authority, and privilege of the most and principal universities of the world, and then with the consent of the whole church of England, he contracted with the most excellent and most noble lady, queen Anne. After that, touching the king’s majesty’s title, as pertaining to the supreme head of the church of England. Last of all, of the false pretensed supremacy of the bishop of Rome in the realm of England most justly abrogated: and how all other bishops, being fellow-like to him in their function, yea and in some points above him within their own provinces, were beforetime bound to the king by their oath.

But be thou most surely persuaded of this, good reader! that the bishop of Rome, if there were no cause else but only this marriage, would easily content himself, especially having some good morsel or other given him to chew upon. 47 But when he seeth so mighty a king, being a right virtuous and a great learned prince, so sincerely and so heartily favor the gospel of Christ, and perceiveth the yearly and great prey (yea so large a prey, that it came to as much almost as all the king’s revenues) snapped out of his hands, and that he can no longer exercise his tyranny in the king’s majesty’s realm (alas, heretofore too cruel and bitter 48 ), nor make laws, as he hath done many, to the contumely and reproach of the majesty of God, which is evident that he hath done in time past, under the title of the Catholic church, and the authority of Peter and Paul (when not-withstanding he was a very ravening wolf, dressed in sheep’s clothing, calling himself the servant of servants), to the great damage of the christian common-wealth in here, here began all the mischief; hereof rose these discords, these deadly malices, and so great and terrible bustling: for if it were not thus, could any man believe that this Jupiter of Olympus (who falsely hath arrogated unto himself an absolute power without controlment) would have wrought so diligently, by all means possible, to stir up all other kings and princes so traitorously against this so good and godly, and so true a gospel-like prince, as he done? Neither let it move thee, gentle reader! that Winchester did not before now apply to this opinion: for he himself, in this oration, showeth the cause why he did it not. And if he had said never a word, yet thou knowest well what a witty part it is for a man to suspend his judgment, and not to be too rash in giving of sentence. It is an old-said saw; ‘Mary Magdalen profited us less in her quick belief that Christ was risen, than Thomas that was longer in doubt.’ A man may rightly call him Fabius, that with his advised taking of leisure restored the matter. Albeit I speak not this as though Winchester had not bolted out this matter secretly with himself beforehand (for he without doubt tried it out long ago); but that running fair and softly, he would first, with his painful study, pluck the matter out of the dark (although of itself it was clear enough, but by reason of sundry opinions it was lapped up in darkness), and then did he debate it wittily to and fro; and so, at last, after long and great deliberation had in the matter, because there is no better counsellor than leisure and time, he would resolutely, with his learned and consummate judgment, confirm it.

Thou shouldest, gentle reader, esteem his censure and authority to be of more weighty credence, inasmuch as the matter was not rashly, and at all adventures, but with judgment (as thou seest), and with wisdom examined and discussed. And this is no new example, to be against the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, seeing that not only this man, but many men oftentimes, yea and right great learned men afore now, have done the same even in writing; whereby they both painted him out in his right colors, and made his sleights, falsehood, frauds, and deceitful wiles, openly known to the world. Therefore, if thou at any time heretofore have doubted either of true obedience, or of the king’s majesty’s marriage or title, or else of the bishop of Rome’s false pretended supremacy, as, if thou hadst a good smelling nose, and a sound judgment, I think thou didst not: yet, having read this oration (which, if thou favor the truth, and hate the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and his satanical fraudulent falsehood, shall doubtless wonderfully content thee), forsake thine error, and acknowledge the truth now freely offered thee at length, considering with thyself that it is better late so to do, than never to repent.

Fare thou heartily well, most gentle reader; and not only love this most valiant king of England and of France, who undoubtedly was by the providence of God born to defend the gospel, but also honor him and serve him most obediently. As for this Winchester, who was long ago, without doubt, reputed among the greatest learned men, give him thy good word, with highest commendation.

The end of bishop Bonner’s prologue.

What man reading and advising this book of Winchester, De Vera Obedientia, with Bonner’s preface before the same, would ever have thought any alteration could so work in man’s heart, to make these men thus to turn the cat in the pan, as they say, and to start so suddenly from the truth so manifestly known, so pithily proved, so vehemently defended, and (as it seemed) so faithfully subscribed? If they dissembled all this that they wrote, subscribed, and sware unto, what perjury most execrable was it before God and man! If they meant good faith, and spake then as they thought, what pestilent blindness is this so suddenly fallen upon them, to make that false now, which was true before; or that to be now true, which before was false! Thus to say and unsay, and then to say again, to do and undo, and, as a man would say, to play fast or loose with truth; truly a man may say is not the doing of a man who is in any case to be trusted, whatsoever he doth or saith. But here a man may see what man is of himself, when God’s good humble Spirit lacketh to be his guide.

Furthermore, to add unto them the judgment also and arguments of Tonstal, bishop of Durham, let us see how he agreeth with them, or rather much exceedeth them, in his sermon made before king Henry upon Palm- Sunday, remaining yet in print; in which sermon, disputing against the wrongful supremacy of the bishop of Rome, he proveth by manifest grounds most effectuously, both out of the Scripture, ancient doctors, and of councils; not only that the bishop of Rome hath no such authority by the word of God committed to him, as he doth challenge; but also, in requiring and challenging the same, he reproveth and condemneth him with great zeal and ardent spirit, to be a proud Lucifer; disobedient to the ordinary powers of God set over him; contrary to Christ and Peter: and finally, in raising up war against us for the same, he therefore rebuketh and defieth him, as a most detestable sower of discord, and a murderer of Christian men.

NOTES ON TONSTAL’S SERMON AGAINST THE POPE’S SUPREMACY.

First, by the Scripture, he reasoneth thus, and proveth, that all good men ought to obey the potestates and governors of the world, as emperors, kings, and princes of all sorts, what name soever the said supreme powers do bear or use for their countries in which they be; for so St. Peter doth plainly teach us, saying, ‘Be ye subject to every human creature for God’s cause, whether it be king, as chief head, or dukes or governors,’ etc. (1 Peter 2) So that St. Peter, in his epistle, commandeth all worldly princes in their office to be obeyed as the ministers of God, by all Christian men: and according unto the same, St. Paul saith, ‘Let every living man be subject to the high powers; for the high powers be of God, and whosoever resisteth the high powers, resisteth the ordinance of God, and purchaseth thereby to himself damnation.’ (Romans 13) And in the same place of Tonstal it followeth: and lest men should forget their duty of obedience to their princes, it is thrice repeated, that they be ‘the ministers of God,’ whose place in their governance they represent: so that unto them all men must obey, apostles, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, priests, and all of the clergy, etc. ‘And therefore,’ saith he, ‘the bishop of Rome oweth to his sovereign and superior like subjection by the word of God, taught.unto us by Peter and Paul, as other bishops do to their princes, under whom they be,’ etc.

Also, another express commandment we have of Christ, who, upon the occasion of his disciples striving for superiority, discusseth the matter, saying on this wise, ‘The kings of the people and nations have dominion over them, and those that have power over them be called gracious lords; but so it shall not be amongst you: but whosoever amongst you is the greater, shall be as the younger; and whosoever amongst you shall be chief, shall be as a servant and a minister,’ (Luke 22) etc.

And again, Christ speaking to Pilate of his kingdom, declareth that his kingdom is not of this world. (John 18) and ‘therefore,’ saith Tonstal, ‘those that go about to makeof Christ’s spiritual kingdom a worldly kingdom, do fall into the error of some heretics, that look that Christ, after the day of judgment, shall reign with all his saints here in the earth carnally in Jerusalem; as the Jews do believe that Messias is yet to come, and when he shall come, he shall reign worldly in Jerusalem.’

By these and such other places it may well appear, that Christ, neither before his incarnation (as Tonstal saith), nor after his incarnation, did ever alter the authority of worldly kings and princes, but by his own word commanded them still to be obeyed by their subjects, as they had been in the ancient time before, etc.

And for example of the same he allegeth first the example of Christ himself, who, being asked of the Jews, whether they should give tribute to Caesar, or no, he bade them give to Caesar those things that be his, and to God those things that be his; signifying, that tribute was due to Caesar, and that their souls were due to God, (Matthew 22) etc.

Also in the seventeenth of Matthew, it appeareth that Christ bade Peter pay tribute for him and his disciples, when it was demanded of him. And why? Because he would not change the order of obeisance to worldly princes due by their subjects, etc.

Another example of Christ he citeth out of John 6, where, after Christ had fed five thousand and more, with a few loaves, and fewer fishes, and that the Jews would have taken him, and made him their king, he fled from them, and would not consent unto them: ‘For the kingdom,’ saith he, ‘that he came to set in earth, was not a worldly and temporal kingdom, but a heavenly and spiritual kingdom;’that is, to reign spiritually, by grace and faith, in the hearts of all christian and faithful people, of what degree, or of what nation soever they he, and to turn all people and nations, which at his coming were carnal and lived after the lusts of the flesh, to be spiritual, and to live after the lusts of the Spirit, that Christ, with his Father of heaven, might reign in the hearts of all men, etc. And here, in these examples of Christ’s humility further is to be noted, how Christ the Son of God did submit himself not only to the rulers and powers of this world, but also dejected himself, and in a manner became servant to his own apostles: so far off was he from all ambitious and pompous seeking of worldly honor. For so it appeared in him, not only by washing the feet of his apostles, but also the same time, a little before his passion, when the apostles fell at contention among themselves, who among them should be superior, he, setting before them the example of his own subjection, asketh this question: ‘Who is superior; he that sitteth at the table, or he that serveth at the table? Is not he superior that sitteth? but I am amongst you, as he that ministereth and serveth,’ etc. (Luke 22) The like examples Tonstal also inferreth of Peter’s humility. For where we read in the Acts, how the centurion, a nobleman of great age, did prostrate himself upon the ground at the feet of Peter; then Peter, not suffering that, eftsoons took him up, and bade hnn rise, saying, ‘I am also a man as thou art,’ etc. (Acts 10) So likewise did the angel, to whom when John would have fallen down to have adored him who showed him those visions, the angel said unto him, ‘See thou do not so; for I am the servant of God, as thou artr,’ etc. (Revelation 19,22) Again, in the aforesaid Peter, what an example of reverent humility is to be seen in this, that notwithstanding he, with other apostles, had his commission to go over all the world, yet nevertheless he, being at Joppa, and sent for by Cornelius, durst not go unto him without the vision of a sheet let down from heaven; by which vision he was admonished not to refuse the Gentiles: or else he knew in himself no such primacy over all people and places given unto him, nor any such commission so large above the others, etc.

Furthermore, the said Peter, being rebuked of Paul his fellow brother, took no scorn thereof, but was content, submitting himself to due correction.

But here, saith Tonstal, steppeth in the bishop of Rome, and saith that Peter had authority given him above all the residue of the apostles, and allegeth the words of Christ spoken to him, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven.’ (Matthew 16) ‘This said Christ,’ saith the pope, ‘and St. Peter is buried at Rome, whose successor I am, and oughtto rule the church, as Peter did. and to be porter of heaven gates, as Peter was,’ etc. ‘And Christ said also to Peter, after his resurrection, Feed my sheep; (John 21) which he spake to him only, so that thereby he had authority over all that be of Christ’s flock; and I, as his successor, have the same.

And therefore whoso will not obey me, king or prince, I will curse him, and deprive him of his kingdom or seigniory: for all power is given to me that Christ hath, and I am his vicar-general, as Peter was here in earth over all, and none but I, as Christ is in heaven.’

This ambitious and pompous objection (saith Tonstal) of the pope and his adherents, hath of late years much troubled the world, and made dissension, debate, and open war in all parts of Christendom, and all by a wrong interpretation of the Scripture; who, if he would take those places after the right sense of them, as both the apostles themselves taught us, and all the ancient best learned interpreters do expound them, the matter were soon at a point. But otherwise, since they pervert the Scriptures, and preach another gospel in that point to us, than ever the apostles preached, we have therein a general rule to follow: That though an angel came from heaven, and would tell us such new exposition of those places as are now made, to turn the words which were spoken for spiritual authority of preaching the word of God, and ministering of the sacraments, to a worldly authority, we ought to reject him: as St. Paul willeth us in Galatians 1.

To open therefore the true sense of the Scripture in the places aforesaid, and first to begin with Matthew 16, here is to be observed, that the question being put in general of Christ to all his apostles, what they thought or judged of him, Peter, answering for them all (as he was always ready to answer), said, ‘Thou art Christ the Son of the living God.’ To whom Jesus answered again, ‘Blessed be thou, Simon the son of Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven: and I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ That is to say, Upon this rock of thy confession of me to be the Son of God, I will build my church; for this faith containeth the whole summary of our faith and salvation, as it is written in Romans 10. ‘The word of faith that we do preach is at hand, in thy mouth and in thine heart. For if thou confess with thy mouth our Lord Jesus Christ, and with thy heart do believe that God raised him from death to life, thou shalt be saved,’ etc. And this confession being first uttered by the mouth of Peter, upon the same confession of his, and not upon the person of Peter, Christ buildeth his church, as Chrysostome expoundeth that place in the twenty-sixth sermon, of the feast of Pentecost, saying, ‘Not upon the person of Peter, but upon the faith, Christ hath builded his church. And what is the faith? This: Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. What is to say, Upon this rock? That is, Upon this confession of Peter,’ etc.

And with this saying of Chrysostome all ancient expositors (saith Tonstal) treating of that place, do agree; for if we should expound that place, that the church is builded upon the person of Peter, we should put another foundation of the church than Christ; which is directly against St. Paul, saying, ‘No man may put any other foundation, but that which is put already, which is Christ Jesus,’ etc. (1 Corinthians 3) And because Peter was the first of all the apostles that confessed this, That Christ is the Son of God, by the which faith all men must be saved; thereof cometh the primacy; that is, the first place or standing of Peter in the number of all the apostles.

And as Peter was the first of them that confessed Christ to be the Son of God, so was he most ardent in his faith, most bold and hardy in Christ, as appeared by his coming out of the ship in the great tempest; and also most vehement in his master’s cause, as appeared by drawing out his sword; and afterwards the Lord’s resurrection is declared in the Acts, (Acts 2,3,4) where the Jews, withstanding the apostles preaching the faith of Christ, Peter, as most ardent in faith, was ever most ready to defend the faith against the impugners thereof, speaking for them all unto the people, etc.; and therefore hath these honorable names given him by the ancient interpreters, that sometimes he is called ‘the mouth of the apostles;’ ‘the chief of the apostles;’ sometimes ‘the prince of the apostles’, sometimes ‘the president of the whole church,’ and sometimes hath the name of primacy or priority attributed unto him. And yet that the said Peter, notwithstanding these honorable names given to him, should not have a rule, or a judicial power, above all the other apostles, it is plain by St. Paul and many others.

First, St. Paul (Galatians 2) plainly declareth the same, saying, that as the apostleship of the circumcision, that is, of the Jews, was given by Christ to Peter; so was the apostleship of the Gentiles given to me among the Gentiles. Hereby it appeareth that Paul knew no primacy of Peter concerning people and places, but among the Jews. And thereof St. Ambrose, expounding that place, saith thus: ‘The primacy of the Jews was given chiefly to Peter, albeit James and John were joined with him; as the primacy of the Gentiles was given to Paul, albeit Barnabas was joined with him: so that Peter had no rule over all.

Also in Acts 10, when Peter was sent for to Cornelius, a Gentile, he durst not go to him without a special vision given him from heaven by the Lord. Item, That all the apostles had like dignity and authority, it appeareth by St. Paul, where he saith, ‘Now ye are not strangers, nor foreigners, but ye he citizens with the saints, and of the household of Almighty God, builded,’ saith he, ‘upon the foundations of the apostles and the prophets, Christ being the corner-stone; upon whom every edifice being builded, groweth up to an holy temple in our Lord,’ etc. (Ephesians 2) Here he saith that they be builded not upon the foundation of Peter only, but upon the foundation of the apostles: so that all they be in the foundation set upon Christ the very rock, whereupon standeth the whole church.

In the Apocalypse also, (Revelation 21) the new city, and the heavenly Jerusalem of Almighty God, is described by the Holy Ghost, not with one foundation only of Peter, but with twelve foundations, after the number of the apostles.

St. Cyprian 49 giveth record likewise to the same, that the apostles had equal power and dignity given to them by Christ; and because all should preach one thing, therefore the beginning thereof first came by one, who was Peter, who confessed for them all, that Christ was the Son of the living God. Saying further, that in the church there is one office of all the bishops, whereof every man hath a part allowed wholly unto him. Now, if the bishop of Rome may meddle over all, where he will, then every man hath not wholly his part, for the bishop of Rome may also meddle in his part jointly with him; so that now he hath it not wholly: which is against Cyprian.

St. Augustine 50 likewise, expounding the gospel of John, in the fiftieth Treatise, speaketh there of the keys of Peter, which he saith were given of Christ to Peter, not for himself alone, but for the whole church.

Cyril, expounding the last chapter of John, and there speaking of the words of Christ spoken unto Peter, ‘Feed my sheep,’ etc. thus understandeth the same: That because Peter had thrice denied Christ, whereby, he thought himself he had lost his apostleship, Christ, to comfort him again, and to restore him to his office that he had lost, asked him thrice whether he loved him; and so restored him again to his office, which else he durst not have presumed unto; saying unto him, ‘Feed my sheep,’ etc.; with which exposition the ancient holy expositors of that place do likewise agree. So that by these words of feeding Christ’s sheep, the bishop of Rome can take no advantage to maintain his universal pastoralty over all christian dominions.

Again, whereas the bishop of Rome saith that Peter, by these words of Christ spoken to him, hath a pre-eminency above the others, St. Paul (Acts 20) proveth the contrary, where he, speaking to the bishops assembled at Miletus, saith to them, ‘Take heed to yourselves, and to all your flock, in which the Holy Ghost, hath put you to govern,’ etc.

And Peter himself likewise (1 Peter 5) saith, ‘Ye that be priests, feed the flock of God among you,’ etc.

So that by these scriptures conferred together, it may appear, that neither Matthew 16, nor John 21, do prove that Peter had power, authority, or dignity given him of Christ over all the others, that they should be under him. And yet, notwithstanding his primacy, in that he, first of all the apostles, confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God (with which confession all the other apostles did consent, and also preached the same), standeth still; which, confession first by Peter made, all others that will be saved must follow also, and be taught to confess the same. And thus the bishop of Rome’s power over all, which he would prove by those places wrongfully alleged for his purpose, utterly quaileth, and is not proved. And thus much for the Scriptures and doctors.

NOW, FURTHER PROCEEDING IN THIS MATTER, THE SAID TONSTAL COMETH TO COUNCILS, AND EXAMPLES OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, AS FOLLOWETH:

Faustinus, legate to the bishop of Rome, in the sixth council of Carthage, alleged that the bishop of Rome ought to have the ordering of all great matters, in all places, by his supreme authority, bringing no scripture for him (for at that time no scripture was thought to make for it); but alleged for him, and that untruly, that the first council of Nice made for his purpose. After this, when the book was brought forth, and no such article found in it, but the contrary, yet the council at that time sent to Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, where the patriarchal sees were, to have the true copy of the council of Nice, which was sent unto them.

And another copy also was sent from Rome, whither also they sent for the same purpose.

After that the copy was brought to them, and no such article found in it, but in the fifth chapter thereof the contrary, that all causes ecclesiastical should either be determined within the diocese, or else, if any were aggrieved, then to appeal to the council provincial, and there the matter to take full end, so that for no such causes men should go out of their provinces; the whole council of Carthage wrote to Celestine, at that time being bishop of Rome,69 that since the council of Nice had no such article in it, as was untruly alleged by Faustinus, but the contrary, they desired him to abstain hereafter to make any more such demand; denouncing unto him, that they would not suffer any cause, great or small, to be brought by appeal out of their country; and thereupon made a law, that no man should appeal out of the country of Africa, upon pain to be denounced accursed. Wherewith the bishop of Rome ever after held him content, and made no more business with them, seeing he had nought to say for himself to the contrary. And at this council St.

Augustine was present, and subscribed his hand. Read more hereof before.

It was determined also, in the sixth article of the said council of Nice, that in the Orient the bishop of Antioch should be chief; in Egypt the bishop of Alexandria; about Rome the bishop of Rome; and likewise in other countries the metropolitans should have their pre-eminence: so that the bishop of Rome never had meddling in those countries. And in the next article following, the bishop of Jerusalem (which city before had been destroyed, and almost desolate) was restored to his old prerogative, to be the chief in Palestine and in the country of Jewry.

By this ye see how the patriarch of Rome, during all this time of the primitive church, had no such primacy pre-eminent above other patriarchs, much less over kings and emperors, as may appear by Agatho, bishop of Rome, long after that, in whose time was the sixth council general; which Agatho, after his election, sent to the emperor, then being at Constantinople, to have his election allowed, before he would be consecrated, after the old custom at the time used.

In like sort, another bishop of Rome, called Vitalianus, did the same, as it is written in the decrees; distinct. 63. Cap. ‘Agatho.’

The like did St. Ambrose and St. Gregory before them, as it is written in the chapter ‘Cum longe,’ in the same Distinction. During all this time the bishops of Rome followed well the doctrine of St.

Peter and St. Paul, left unto them, to be subjects, and to obey their princes.

Thus, after that bishop Tonstal, playing the earnest Lutheran, both by Scriptures and ancient doctors, also by examples sufficient of the primitive church, hath proved and declared, how the bishops of Rome ought to submit themselves to the higher powers whom God hath appointed every creature in this world to obey; now let us likewise see how the said bishop Tonstal describeth unto us the bishop of Rome’s disobedience intolerable, his pride incomparable, and his malignant malice most execrable.

And first, speaking of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, then of the pride of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Lucifer, at length he compareth the bishops of Rome to them all; who first, for disobedience, refuse to obey God’s commandment, and contrary to his word, will be above their governors, in refusing to obey them.

Secondly, Besides this rebellious disobedience in these bishops of Rome, not sufferable, their pride moreover so far exceedeth all measure, that they will have their princes, to whom they owe subjection, prostrate upon the ground, to adore them by godly honor upon the earth; and to kiss their feet, as if they were God, whereas they be but wretched men; and yet they look that their princes should do it unto them, and also that all other christian men, owing them no subjection, should do the same.

And who be these, I pray you, that men may know them? Surely (saith he) the bishops of Rome be those whom I do mean, who, following the pride of Lucifer their father, make themselves fellows to God, and do exalt their seat above the stars of God, and do ascend above the clouds, and will be like to Almighty God. By stars of God be meant the angels of heaven; for as stars do show unto us in part the light of heaven, so do angels, sent unto men, show the heavenly light of the grace of God to those to whom they be sent. And the clouds signified in the Old Testament the prophets, and in the New do signify the apostles and preachers of the word of God; for as the clouds do conceive and gather in the sky moisture, which they after pour down upon the ground, to make it thereby more fruitful, so the prophets in the Old Testament, and the apostles and preachers in the New, do pour into our ears the moisture of their heavenly doctrine of the word of God, to make therewith, by grace, our souls, being sear and dry, to bring forth fruit of the Spirit. Thus do all ancient expositors, and amongst them St. Augustine, interpret to be meant in Scripture stars and clouds, in the exposition of Psalm 147.

But St. John the evangelist writeth in the 19th chapter of the Apocalypse, and in the 22d also, that when he would have fallen down at the angel’s foot, that did show him those visions there written, to have adored him with godly worship, the angel said unto him: ‘See thou do not so, for I am the servant of God, as thou art: give adoration and godly worship to God, and not to me.’ Here it appeareth that the bishops of Rome, suffering all men prostrate before them to kiss their feet (yea the same princes, to whom they owe subjection), do climb up above the stars and angels too, offering their feet to be kissed, with shoes and all. For so I saw myself, being present four and thirty years ago, when Julius, then bishop of Rome, stood on his feet, and one of his chamberlains held up his skirt, because it stood not (as he thought) with his dignity that he should do it himself, that his shoe might appear, whilst a nobleman of great age did prostrate himself upon the ground, and kissed his shoe; which he stately suffered to be done, as of duty.

Where methinks I saw Cornelius the centurion, captain of the Italian band, spoken of in Acts 10, submitting himself to Peter, and much honoring him; but I saw not Peter there to take him up, and to bid him rise, saying, I am a man as thou art, as St. Peter did say to Cornelius: so that the bishops of Rome, admitting such adoration due unto God, do climb above the heavenly clouds; that is to say, above the apostles sent into the world by Christ, to water the earthly and carnal hearts of men, by their heavenly doctrine of the word of God.

Thus Bishop Tonstal, having described the passing pride of the pope, surmounting like Lucifer above bishops, apostles, angels, and stars of heaven, proceeding then further to the latter end of his sermon, cometh to speak of his rage and malice most furious and pestilent, in that he, being justly put from his kingdom here to wreak his spiteful malice, stirreth up war against us, and bloweth the horn of mischief in giving our land for a spoil and prey to all, whosoever, at his setting on, will come and invade us.

But let us hear his own words preaching to the king and all Englishmen, touching both the pope’s malice, and the treason of cardinal Pole. ‘Now,’ saith he, ‘because he can no longer in this realm wrongfully use his usurped power in all things, as he was wont to do, and suck out of this realm, by avarice insatiable, innumerable sums of money yearly, to the great exhausting of the same; he therefore, moved and replete with furious ire and pestilent malice, goeth about to stir all christian nations that will give ears to his devilish enchantments, to move war against this realm of England, giving it in prey to all those that by his instigation will invade it.’

And here, expounding these aforesaid words, “To give in prey,” he declareth what great mischief they contain, and willeth every true Englishman well to mark the same. ‘First, to make this realm,’ saith he, ‘a prey to all adventurers, all spoilers, all snaphaunses, 51 all forlorn hopes, all cormorants, all raveners of the world, that will invade this realm, is to say, Thou possessioner of any lands of this realm, of what degree soever thou be, from the highest to the lowest, shalt be slain and destroyed, and thy lands taken from thee by those that will have all for themselves; and thou mayest be sure to be slain, for they will not suffer thee, nor any of thy progeny, to live to make any claim afterwards, or to be revenged; for that were their unsurety. Thy wife shall be abused before thy face; thy daughter likewise deflowered before thee; thy children slain before thine eyes; thy house spoiled; thy cattle driven away, and sold before thy visage; thy plate, thy money, by force taken from thee; all thy goods, wherein thou hast any delight, or hast gathered for thy children, ravened, broken, and distributed in thy presence, that every ravener may have his share. Thou merchant art sure to be slain, for thou hast either money or ware, or both, which they search for. Thou bishop or priest, whatsoever thou be, shalt never escape, because thou wouldst not take the bishop of Rome’s part, and rebel against God and thy prince, as he doth. If thou shalt flee and escape for a season, whatsoever thou be, thou shalt see and hear of so much misery and abomination, that thou shalt judge them happy that be dead before; for sure it is thou shalt not finally escape: for, to take the whole realm in prey, is to kill the whole people, and to take the place for themselves, as they will do if they can. ‘And the bishop of Rome now of late, to set forth his pestilent malice the more, hath allured to his purpose a subject of this realm, Reginald Pole, coming of a noble blood, and thereby the more errant traitor, to go about from prince to prince, and from country to country, to stir them to war against this realm, and to destroy the same, being his native country; whose pestilent purpose the princes that he breaketh it unto have in much abomination, both for that the bishop of Rome (who, being a bishop, should procure peace) is a stirrer of war, and because this most errant and unkind traitor is his minister to so devilish a purpose, to destroy the country that he was born in; which any heathen man would abhor to do.’

And so continuing in his discourse against cardinal Pole and the bishop of Rome, for stirring the people to war and mischief, he further saith, and saith truly, thus: ‘For these many years past, little war hath been in these parts of Christendom, but the bishop of Rome either hath been a stirrer of it, or a nourisher of it, and seldom any compounder of it, unless it were for his ambition or profit. Wherefore since, as St. Paul saith, that God is not the God of dissension, but of peace, (1 Corinthians 14) who commandeth, by his word, peace alway to be kept, we are sure that all those that go about to break peace between realms, and to bring them to war, are the children of the devil, what holy names soever they may pretend to cloak their pestilent malice withal; which cloaking under hypocrisy is double devilishness, and of Christ most detested, because under his blessed name they do play the devil’s part.’

And in the latter end of his sermon, concluding with Ezekiel 39, where the prophet speaketh against Gog and Magog going about to destroy the people of God, and prophesieth against them, that the people of God shall vanquish and overthrow them on the mountains of Israel, that none of them shall escape, but their carcases shall there be devoured of kites and crows, and birds of the air; so likewise saith he of these our enemies, wishing, that if they shall persist in their pestilent malice to make invasion into this realm, then their great captain Gog (the bishop of Rome he meaneth) may come with them, to drink with them of the same cup which he maliciously goeth about to prepare for us, that the people of God might after live quietly in peace.

We have heard hitherto the oaths, censures, and judgments of certain particular bishops, of York, of Winchester, of London, of Durham, and also of Edmund Bonner, archdeacon then of Leicester, against the pope’s unlawful usurpation. Now, for the more fortification of the matter, and satisfying of the reader, it shall not be much out of purpose, besides the consent and approbation of these aforesaid, to infer also the public and general agreement of the whole clergy of England, as in a total sum together, confirmed and ratified in their own public book, made and set forth by them about the same time, called then ‘The Bishops’ Book;’ in which book, although many things were very slender and imperfect, yet, as touching this cause of the bishop of Rome’s regality, we will hear (God willing) what their whole opinion and provincial determination did conclude, according as by their own words in the same book is to be seen word for word, as followeth, subscribed also with their own names; the catalogue of whom, under their own confession, shall appear.

TESTIMONIES OUT OF ‘THE BISHOPS’ BOOK,’ AGAINST THE POPE’S SUPREMACY.

We think it convenient, that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach the people committed unto their spiritual charge, that whereas certain men do imagine and affirm, that Christ should give unto the bishop of Rome power and authority, not only to be head and governor of all priests and bishops in Christ’s church, but also to have and occupy the whole monarchy of the world in his hands, and that he may thereby lawfully depose kings and princes from their realms, dominions, and seigniories, and so transfer and give the same to such persons as him liketh, that is utterly false and untrue; for Christ never gave unto St. Peter, or unto any of the apostles or their successors, any such authority. And the apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, do teach and command, that all christian people, as well priests and bishops, as others, should be obedient and subject unto the princes and potentates of the world, although they were infidels.

And as for the bishop of Rome, it was many hundred years after Christ, before he could acquire or get any primacy or governance above any other bishops, out of his province in Italy; since which time he hath ever usurped more and more. And though some part of his power was given to him by the consent of the emperors, kings, and princes, and by the consent also of the clergy in general councils assembled; yet surely he attained the most part thereof by marvellous subtlety and craft, and especially by colluding with great kings and princes, sometimes training them into his devotion by pretense and color of holiness and sanctimony, and sometimes constraining them by force and tyranny. Whereby the said bishops of Rome aspired and rose at length unto such greatness in strength and authority, that they presumed and took upon them to be heads, and to put laws by their own authority, not only unto all other bishops within Christendom, but also unto the emperors, kings, and other the princes and lords of the world; and that, under the pretense of the authority committed unto them by the gospel. Wherein the said bishops of Rome do not only abuse and pervert the true sense and meaning of Christ’s word, but they do also clean contrary to the use and custom of the primitive church; and so do manifestly violate, as well the holy canons made in the church immediately after the time of the apostles, as also the decrees and constitutions made in that behalf by the holy fathers of the catholic church, assembled in the first general councils. 53 And finally, they do transgress their own profession, made in their creation. For all the bishops of Rome always, when they be consecrated and made bishops of that see, do make a solemn profession and vow, that they shall inviolably observe and keep all the ordinances made in the eight first general councils; among which it is specially provided and enacted, that all causes shall be finished and determined within the province where the same began, and that by the bishops of the same province; and that no bishop shall exercise any jurisdiction out of his own diocese or province; and divers such other canons were then made and confirmed by the said councils, to repress and take away out of the church all such primacy and jurisdiction over kings and bishops, as the bishops of Rome pretend now to have over the same. 54 And we find that divers good fathers, bishops of Rome, did greatly reprove, yea and abhor (as a thing clean contrary to the gospel, and the decrees of the church) that, any bishop at Rome or elsewhere, should presume, usurp, or take upon him the title and name of the universal bishop, or of the head of all priests, or of the highest priest, or any such like title. For confirmation whereof, it is out of all doubt, that there is no mention made, either in Scripture, or in the writings of any authentical doctor or author of the church, being within the time of the apostles, that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the preeminence of power, order, or jurisdiction, between the apostles themselves, or between the bishops the selves, but that they were all equal in power, order, authority, and jurisdiction. And in that there is now, and since the time of the apostles, any such diversity or difference among the bishops, it was devised by the ancient fathers of the primitive church for the conservation of good order and the unity of the catholic church; and that, either by the consent and authority, or else at least by the permission and sufferance, of the princes and civil powers for the time ruling, etc; And shortly after followeth this:

And for the better confirmation of this part, we think it also convenient, that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach the people committed unto their spiritual charge, that Christ did by express words prohibit, that none of his apostles, nor any of their successors should, under the pretense of the authority given unto them by Christ, take upon them the authority of the sword; that is to say, the authority of kings, or of any civil power in this world, yea, or any authority to make laws or ordinances in causes appertaining unto civil powers. Truth it is, the priests and bishops may execute all such temporal power and jurisdiction as is committed unto them by the ordinance and authority of kings, or other civil powers, and by the consent of the people (as officers and ministers under the said kings and powers), so long as it shall please the said kings and people to permit and suffer them so to use and execute the same. Notwithstanding, if any bishop, of what estate or dignity soever he be (be he bishop of Rome, or of any other city, province, or diocese), do presume to take upon him authority or jurisdiction in causes or matters which appertain unto kings, and the civil powers and their courts, and will maintain or think that he may so do by the authority of Christ and his gospel, although the kings and princes would not permit and suffer him so to do; no doubt, that bishop is not worthy to be called a bishop, but rather a tyrant, and a usurper of other men’s rights, contrary to the laws of God; and is worthy to be reputed none otherwise than he that goeth about to subvert the kingdom of Christ. For the kingdom of Christ in his church is a spiritual, and not a carnal kingdom of the world; that is to say, the very kingdom that Christ, by himself, or by his apostles and disciples, sought here in this world, was to bring all nations from the carnal kingdom of the prince of darkness unto the light of his spiritual kingdom; and so himself to reign in the hearts of the people, by grace, faith, hope, and charity. And therefore, since Christ did never seek nor exercise any worldly kingdom or dominion in this world, but rather, refusing and flying from the same, did leave the said worldly governance of kingdoms, realms, and nations, to be governed by princes and potentates (in like manner as he did find them), and commanded also his apostles and disciples to do the semblable, as it was said before; whatsoever priest, or bishop will arrogate or presume to take upon him any such authority, and will pretend the authority of the gospel for his defense therein, he doth nothing else but (in a manner as you would say) crowneth Christ again with a crown of thorn, and traduceth and bringeth him forth again with his mantle of purple upon his back, to be mocked and scorned of the world, as the Jews did to their own damnation.

This doctrine was subscribed and allowed by the witness and testimony of these bishops and other learned men, whose names hereunder follow, as appeareth in the bishops’ book before named.

TESTIMONIES OF BISHOPS AND DOCTORS OF ENGLAND AGAINST THE POPE.

BISHOPS AND DOCTORS Thomas Cantuariensis Edovardus Eboracensis Johannes Londinensis Cuthbertus Dunelmensis Stephanus Wintoniensis Robertus Carliolensis Johannes Exoniensis Johannes Lincolniensis Johannes Bathoniensis Rolandus Coventr. et Lichfield Thomas Eliensis Nicolaus Saris Johannes Bangor Edovardus Herefordiensis Hugo Wigorniensis Johannes Roffensis Gulielmus Norwicensis Guilelmus Menevensis Robertus Assavensis Robertus Landavensis Richardus Wolman Archidiacon.

Sudbur Gulielmus Knight, Archidiacon.

Richmond Johannes Bel, Archidiacon.

Glocester Edmundus Bonner, Archidiacon.

Leicester Gulielmus Skippe, Archidiacon.

Dorset Nicolaus Heth, Archidiacon.

Stafford Cuthbertus Marshal, Archidiac.

Nottingham Richardus Curren, Archidiacon.

Oxon Gulielmus Cliffe Galfridus Dounes Robertus Oking Radulphus Bradford Richardus Smith Simon Mathew Johannes Prin Gulielmus Buckmaster Gulielmus May Nicolaus Wotton Nicolaus Wotton Johannes Edmunds Thomas Barret Johannes Baker Johannes Tyson Thomas Robertson Johannes Hase These were doctors of divinity, and of both laws.

Judge now thyself, loving reader, ‘per confessata et allegata;’ that is, by these things heretofore confessed, alleged, allowed, proved, and confirmed; by pen set forth, by words defended, and by oath subscribed by these bishops and doctors, if either Martin Luther himself, or any Lutheran else, could or did ever say more against the proud usurpation of the bishop of Rome, than these men have done. If they dissembled otherwise than they meant; who could ever dissemble so deeply, speaking so pithily? If they meant as they spake, who could ever turn head to tail so suddenly and so shortly as these men did? But because these things we write for edification of others, rather than for commendation of them, let us mark therefore their reasons, and let the persons go.

And although the said proofs and arguments, heretofore alleged, might suffice to the full discussion of this matter against the pope’s usurped primacy; yet because many do yet remain, who will not be satisfied, to refel therefore and confute this popish article of the pope’s vain and proud primacy with as much matter and furniture of reasons and allegations as the writings and testimonies of these bishops and others do minister unto us; we mind (the Lord willing) to annex to these former confirmations of the bishops aforesaid, another supplement also of a certain epistle sent by bishop Tonstel, and by John Stokesley, bishop of London, to cardinal Pole, for a more ample confutation of the usurped power. Concerning the argument of that epistle, here is first to be understood, that about this time, or not much after, cardinal Pole, brother to the lord Montague, was attainted of high treason, and fled away unto Rome, where, within a short time after, he was made cardinal of St. Mary Cosmedin; of whom more is to be spoken hereafter, the Lord so permitting, when we come to the time of queen Mary. In the mean time, he remaining at Rome, there was directed unto him a certain epistle exhortatory by Stokesley, bishop of London, and Tonstal, bishop of Durham, persuading him to relinquish and abandon the supremacy of the pope, and to conform himself to the religion of his king. The copy of which his epistle, for the reasons and arguments therein contained, about the same matter, we thought here not unworthy to be put in, or unprofitable to be read. The tenor thereof here followeth.

THE TRUE COPY OF A CERTAIN LETTER WRITTEN BY CUTHBERT TONSTAL, BISHOP OF DURHAM, AND JOHN STOKESLEY, BISHOP OF LONDON, TO CARDINAL POLE, PROVING THE BISHOP OF ROME TO HAVE NO SPECIAL SUPERIORITY ABOVE OTHER BISHOPS. For the good will that we have borne unto you in times past, as long as you continued the king’s true subject, we cannot a little lament and mourn, that you, neither regarding the inestimable kindness of the king’s highness heretofore showed unto you in your bringing up, nor the honor of the house that you be come of, nor the wealth of the country that you were born in, should so decline from your duty to your prince, that you should be seduced by fair words and vain promises of the bishop of Rome, to wind with him, going about, by all means to him possible, to pull down and put under foot your natural prince and master, 56 to the destruction of the country that hath brought you up, and for a vain glory of a red hat, to make yourself an instrument to set forth his malice, who hath stirred, by all means that he could, all such christian princes as would give ears unto him, to depose the king’s highness from his kingdom, and to offer it as a prey for them that should execute his malice; and to stir, if he could, his subjects against him, in stirring and nourishing rebellions in his realm, where the office and duty of all good christian men, and namely of us that be priests, should be to bring all commotion to tranquillity, all trouble to quietness, all discord to concord; and in doing contrary, we do show ourselves to be but the ministers of Satan, and not of Christ, who ordained all us that be priests to use, in all places, the legation of peace, and not of discord. But since that cannot be undone that is done, secondly it is to make amends, and to follow the doing of the prodigal son spoken of in the gospel, (Luke 15) who returned home to his father, and was well accepted; as no doubt you might be, if you would say as he said, in acknowledging your folly, and do as he did, in returning home again from your wandering abroad in service of him, who little careth, what cometh of you, so that his purpose by you be served.

And if you be moved by your conscience, that you cannot take the king your master as supreme head of the church of England, because the bishop of Rome hath heretofore many years usurped that name universally over all the church, under pretense of the gospel of St. Matthew, saying, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church:’ surely that text many of the most holy and ancient expositors wholly do take to be meant of the faith, then first confessed by the mouth of Peter; upon which faith, confessing Christ to be the Son of God, the church is builded, Christ being the very lowest foundation stone, whereupon both the apostles themselves, and also the whole faith of the church of Christ, by them preached through the world, is founded and builded; and other foundation none can be, but that only, as St. Paul saith, ‘No other foundation can any man lay besides that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ (1 Corinthians 3) And where you think that the gospel of Luke proveth the same authority of the bishop of Rome, saying, ‘Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith should not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren:’ surely that speaketh only of the fall of Peter, known to Christ by his godly prescience, whereof he gave an inkling, that after the time of his fall he should not despair, but return again, and confirm his brethren, as he, being ever most fervent of them, was wont to do. The place doth plainly open itself that it cannot be otherwise taken, but this to be the very meaning of it, and not to be spoken but to Peter: for else his successors must first fail in the faith, and then convert, and so confirm their brethren. And whereas you think that this place of the gospel of John, ‘Feed my sheep,’ was spoken only to Peter, and that those words make him shepherd over all, and above all, St. Peter (1 Peter 5) himself testifieth the contrary in his canonical epistle, where he saith to all priests, ‘Feed the flock of Christ which is among you;’ which he bade them do by the authority that Christ had put them in, as followeth: ‘And when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive the incorruptible crown of eternal glory.’

The same likewise St. Paul, in the Acts, (Acts 20) testifieth, saying, ‘Give heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath set you to govern the church of God; where, in the original text, the word signifying ‘regere,’ to govern, poimai>nein is the same that was spoken to Peter, ‘pasce,’ feed, for it signifieth both in the Scripture. And that by these words he was not constituted a shepherd over all, it is very plain by the fact of St. Peter, who durst not enterprise much conversation among the Gentiles, but eschewed it as a thing unlawful, and much rather prohibited than commanded by God’s law, until he was admonished by the revelation of the sheet full of divers viands, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles: whereas, if Christ, by these words, ‘Feed my sheep,’ had given such a universal governance to Peter, then Peter, being more fervent than others of the apostles to execute Christ’s commandment, would of his own courage have gone, without any such new admonition, to Cornelius: (Acts 12) except peradventure you would say, that Peter did not understand the said words of Christ, for lack of the light which the later men have obtained to perceive, and thereby understand the words of Christ to Peter, better than Peter himself did. And strange also it were to condemn Peter as a high traitor to his Master after his ascension; as he indeed were worthy, if his Master had signified unto him that the bishops of Rome, by his dying there, should be heads of all the church; and he, knowing the same by these words, ‘Feed my sheep,’ yet, notwithstanding his Master’s high legacy and commandment, would flee 72 as he did from Rome, until his Master, encountering him by the way, with terrible words caused him to return.

And because this history, peradventure, cannot weigh against an obstinate mind to the contrary; what shall we say to the words of St. Ambrose, declaring and affirming that as great and as ample primacy was given to Paul, as to Peter? Upon these words of Paul, ‘He that wrought by Peter,’ etc., thus he writeth: 58 ‘He nameth Peter only, and compareth him to himself, because he received a primacy to build a church; and that he, in like sort, was chosen himself to have a primacy in building the churches of the Gentiles.’

And shortly after it followeth: ‘Of those [that is to say of the apostles] that were the chiefest, his gift,’ he saith, ‘was allowed, which he had received of God; so that he was found worthy to have the primacy in preaching to the Gentiles, as Peter had in preaching to the Jews. And as he assigned to Peter, for his companions, those who were of the chiefest men amongst the apostles, even so also did he take to himself Barnabas, who was joined unto him by God’s judgment; and yet did he challenge to himself alone the prerogative or primacy which God had given him, as to Peter alone it was granted among the other apostles. So that the apostles of the circumcision gave their hands to the apostles of the Gentiles, to declare their concord in fellowship, that either of them should know that they had received the perfection of the Spirit in the preaching of the gospel, and so should not need either the other in any matter.’ And shortly after saith St. Ambrose, Who durst resist Peter the chief apostle, but another such a one? who, by the confidence of his election, might know himself to be no less, and so might reprove boldly that thing which he inconsiderately had done.’

This equality of dignity which St. Ambrose affirmeth by Scripture to be equally given to Peter and Paul, St. Cyprian and St. Jerome do extend to all the apostles; Cyprian saying thus: 59 ‘All the rest of the apostles were the same that Peter was, being endued with like equality of honor and power.’ And St. Jerome thus: 60 ‘All the apostles received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon them, as indifferently and equally, is the strength of the church grounded and established.’ The same St. Jerome also, as well in his Commentaries upon the Epistle to Titus, as in his Epistle to Euagrius, showeth that these primacies, long after Christ’s ascension, were made by the device of men; whereas before, by the common agreement and consent of the clergy, every of the churches were governed, yea, the patriarchal churches.

The words of St. Jerome 61 be these: ‘Let the bishops understand, that they be greater than other priests, rather by custom, than by virtue and verity of the Lord’s ordinance.’ And in his said epistle to Euagrius he hath the like sentence, and addeth thereunto, 62 ‘Wheresoever a bishop he, either at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople, he is of all one worthiness, and of all one priesthood.’ And that one was elected who should be preferred before others, it was devised for the redress of schisms, lest any one, challenging too much to himself, should rend the church of Christ. These words only of St. Jerome be sufficient to prove that Christ by none of these three texts (which be all that you and others do allege for your opinion) gave to Peter any such superiority as the bishop of Rome by them usurpeth; and that neither Peter, nor any others of the chief apostles, did vindicate such primacy or superiority, but utterly refused it, and therefore gave pre-eminence above themselves to one, that though he be sometimes called an apostle, yet he was none of the twelve, as Eusebius, in the beginning of his second book, called ‘Historia Ecclesiastica,’ doth testify, alleging for him the great and ancient clerk Clemens Alexandrinus, saying thus, 63 ‘Peter, James, and John, after Christ’s ascension into heaven, although they were by him preferred almost before all others, yet they challenged not that glory to themselves, but decreed that James, who was called Justus, should be chief bishop of the apostles.’ By these words, it is clear that James was the bishop of the apostles, not because, as some men do gloss, he was elected by the apostles, but because he had thereby the primacy and honor of a bishop in Jerusalem, above the rest of the apostles.

And one thing is especially to be noted, and also marvelled at, that the bishops of Rome do challenge this primacy only by Peter, and yet St. Paul, who was his equal, or rather superior by Scripture, in his apostleship amongst the Gentiles, whereof Rome was the principal, suffered at Rome where Peter did, and is commonly, in all the Roman church, joined with Peter in all appellations and titles of pre-eminence, and both be called ‘principes Apostolorum,’ ‘the chief of the apostles.’ Upon both is equally founded the church of Rome. The accounting of the bishops of Rome many years agreeth thereunto. For Eusebius 64 saith, that Clement was the third bishop after St. Paul and Peter, reckoning them both as bishops of Rome, and yet therein preferring St. Paul; with like words, saying of Alexander bishop of Rome, that 65 Alexander ‘obtained the governance of the people by succession, the fifth bishop after Peter and Paul.’ Irenaeus also saith, as Eusebius reciteth, that 66 after the church was once founded and builded, the holy apostles charged Linus with the bishopric; whereby appeareth, that they both jointly constituted him bishop of Rome, and received only their apostleship enjoined to them by Christ. And therefore, if the bishops of Rome challenge any pre-eminence of authority by Peter, they should as well, or rather, challenge the same by Paul, because they both founded it, and both there preached, and both there suffered, resigning first that bishopric to Linus, and all at once.

And if peradventure you will lean to the former preaching there by Peter, which by Scripture cannot be proved, yet then at least St.

Paul and his successors in Ephesus should have like primacy, because he founded first that church, though St. John, after that, did build it, as witnesseth Eusebius, saying 67 The church which is at Ephesus, was founded by Paul, but it was built by St. John. And so Peter should have no other primacy in Rome, but as Paul had in Ephesus, that is to say, to be counted as the first preacher and converter of the people there to the faith of Christ. And as well might all the bishops of Ephesus challenge primacy of all nations, both Gentiles and Jews, by St. Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, their founder, as the bishop of Rome, by St. Peter, the apostle only of the circumcision, in case he were the first founder, challenging primacy over all. But undoubtedly, this primacy over all, that the bishops of Rome of late do challenge, was not allowed, nor yet known or heard of amongst the ancient fathers, though they had their church of Rome in high estimation, as well for the notable virtuous deeds that the clergy did there show and exercise abundantly to their neighhors (as witnesseth the said Eusebius, alleging there the epistle that Dionysius Alexandrinus wrote to Soter, bishop of Rome, testifying the same), as for that the city of Rome was the most ample and chief city of the world, witnessing St. Cyprian, saying, 69 ‘Certainly, because that Rome ought, for the greatness thereof, to excel Carthage, there Novatus committed the greater and more grievous offenses.’

This St. Cyprian also, when he had ordained and appointed certain decrees and statutes unto the bishop of Rome, did not submit them to his reformation or judgment, but only signified his own sentence to like him also; and yet adding thereunto, that if any bishops (meaning as well of Rome as others) who were of the contrary opinions to him, would otherwise think or do, he would not then that his sentence should be to them prejudicial, neither would he thereby compel them to any thing, but would that they should follow their own minds and customs; partly, for that every one of the bishops hath liberty of his own will, and partly, for that every governor shall make an account to God of his own deed, as it appeareth plainly in his epistle to Stephen and Julian. And in the third epistle to Cornelius, towards the end, speaking of the appeal that one Felicissimus, a Novarian, after his condemnation in Africa, made to Rome, he impugneth such appeals, saying, 70 ‘Forasmuch as every pastor hath his own flock committed unto him, which every one ought to rule and govern, and must give account to the Lord of his administration, it is decreed by us all, and we think it both meet and just, that every man’s cause and plea should there be heard, where the crime is committed.’ This holy and excellent clerk and martyr, St. Cyprian, would never have either impugned their appeal to Rome from their own primacies, or so earnestly have maintained his determinations in the councils of Africa, contrary to the opinion of the bishops of Rome and to their customs, without any submission by word or writing, if the primacy over all, which the bishops of Rome do challenge and usurp, had been grounded upon the plain Scriptures, as you with some others do think: and it is to be supposed also, that he would in all his epistles have called them ‘Patres,’ or ‘Dominos,’ fathers or lords, as superiors; and not always ‘Fratres’ and ‘Collegas,’ brothers and fellows in office, as but only his equals.

This thing yet more plainly doth appear by the acts of the councils of Africa in St. Augustine’s time: by which it is evident, that though the faith of Christ was by the Romans first brought into Africa (as St. Augustine doth confess) 71 , yet it was not read, nor known, that the bishops of Rome used or challenged any sovereignty in Africa unto this time. And yet then he did not challenge it by the right of God’s word, but by the pretence of a certain canon 72 supposed to be in the council of Nice; which article could never be found, though it were then very diligently sought for through all the principal churches of the east and south; but only was alleged by Julius, bishop of Rome, out of his own library.

And you may be well assured, that if the Scriptures had made for it, neither the bishop of Rome would have left that certain proof by Scriptures, and trusted only to the testimony of an article of that council, being in doubt and unlikely to be found; nor yet St.

Augustine, with his holy and learned company, would have resisted this demand, if it had been either grounded upon Scriptures, or determined in that or other councils, or yet had stood with equity, good order, or reason, 73 Howbeit the largeness and magnificence of the buildings of that city, and the ancient excellency and superiority of the same in temporal dominions, was the only cause that in the councils (where the patriarchal sees were set in order) the bishop of Rome was allotted to the first place, and not by any such constitution made by Christ; as appeareth well by this, that Constantinople, being, at the same time of this ordering of the patriarchal sees, most amply enlarged by the emperors, being before a small town, and of no renown, and by them most magnificently builded and advanced with all worldly titles, prerogatives, and privileges temporal, like unto Rome, and therefore called ‘Nova Roma,’ ‘New Rome,’ was therefore advanced also to the second see and place:—Antioch in the East (where St. Peter first took the chair before he came to Rome, and where christian men had first their name given them); yea, and Jerusalem (which was the first mother city of our faith, and where Christ himself first founded the faith), and also Alexandria, being rejected to the third, fourth, and fifth places; because at that time they were not in so high estimation in the world, though in the faith of Christ all they were ancients, and some of them mothers to Rome.

Truth it is, that the bishops of the Orient, for debates in matters of the faith amongst themselves, made suits to the bishop of Rome; but that was not for the superiority of jurisdiction over them, but because they were greatly divided, and those countries, as well bishops as others, much infected with the heresies of the Arians, whereof the west was in a manner clear: and among them of the orient, none were counted indifferent to decide those matters, but were all suspected of affection for one cause or other. Wherefore they desired the opinions of the bishops of the west, as indifferent, and not entangled with affections of any of those parts, neither corrupted with any of the Arians, as appeareth by the epistles of St. Basil, written in all their names for the said purpose; in which also it is especially to be noted, that their suit was not made to the bishop of Rome singularly, or by name, but (as the titles do show) to the whole congregation of the bishops of Italy and France, or of the whole west, and sometimes preferring the French and Italian bishops, saying, ‘Gallis et Italis,’ and never naming the Romans.

And for a clear proof that the ancient fathers knew not this primacy of one above all, we need no other testimony but their determination in the council of Nice, that Alexandria, and Antioch, and universally all other primates, should have the whole governance of their confine countries, like as the bishop of Rome had of those that inhabited within his suburbs. And this determination proveth, also, that your three Scriptures meant nothing less than this primacy over all: for God forbid that we should suspect that council as ignorant of those plain Scriptures, to which, since that time, all Christendom hath leaned, as the anchor of our faith. And if you like to read the ancient ecclesiastical histories, there you may see, that Athanasius, and other patriarchs, did execute that primacy, as in making, consecrating, and ordering of churches, bishops and clerks, in their countries east and south, as the bishops of Rome in that time did, in the west and north.

And if you would yet any thing object against any of these witnesses, then, to eschew contention, and for a final conclusion, let the bishop of Rome stand to his own confession made many years past by his predecessor Agatho, to the emperors, Constantine, Heraclius, and Tiberius, in his epistle written to them in his name, and in the name of all the synod which he thought to be under the see apostolic; wherein, soon after the beginning of the epistle, he comprehendeth them all under the name of the bishops dwelling in the north and west parts of their empire: so that there, in his own epistle, he confesseth all his subjects and obedienciaries to be only of the north and west. And so it appeareth evidently, by his own confession, that neither by God’s law, nor by man’s law, he had to do with any person of the east or south; and this his high sovereignty over all, challenged (as you and others say) by Scripture, is brought, as by his own confession doth appear, into a little and straight angle. And this Agatho was not a man unlearned, as appeareth by the acts of the sixth synod of Constantinople, in the fourth act, wherein is written at large and expressed the said epistle and confession. And the primacy of Peter, which ancient doctors speak of, which was only in preaching and teaching the faith of Christ, which he, first among all the apostles, and first of all mortal men, did express with his mouth, did afterwards so adhere to his own person, that it was never delivered either to any successor, or to any other apostle, but chiefly to himself; for all others, afterwards professing the same, spake it according unto him who had professed it before. Moreover, all the apostles (as St.

John saith (Revelation 21)) be foundations in the heavenly Jerusalem, and not Peter only. Also Cyprian affirmeth (as is afore said) that all the apostles were of equal dignity and power; which all ancient authors likewise do affirm. For Christ gave the apostles like power in the gospel, saying; Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them, (Matthew 21) etc. And St. Paul (as is said before) knew no other primacy given to Peter to preach in any place but among the Jews, as he himself had amongst the Gentiles, as he wenteth to the Galatians; whereupon St. Ambrose writing (as is afore said), affirmeth the same. And that the mother of all churches is Jerusalem (as is afore said), and not Rome, the Scripture is plain, in the prophet Isaiah; (Isaiah 2) ‘Out of Sion shall the law proceed, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem:’ upon which place St.

Jerome saith, 74 ‘Out of the church, being first founded in Jerusalem, sprang all other churches of the whole world;’ and also in the gospel which Christ, before his ascension, commanded his apostles to ‘preach throughout all the world, beginning first at Jerusalem;’ so that the bishop of Rome’s universal power, by him claimed over all, cannot by any scripture be justified; as, if you have read the ancient fathers’expositions of the said scriptures (as we suppose you have, since your letters sent hither concerning this matter), and would give more credence to their humble and plain speaking, than to the later contentious and ambitious writers of that high, and above-the-ideas-of-Plato’s subtlety (which passeth, as you write, the lawyer’s learning and capacity), we doubt not but that you perceive and think the same.

And where you think that the king cannot be taken as supreme head of the church, because he cannot exercise the chief office of the church in preaching and ministering of the sacraments; it is not requisite, in every body natural, that the head should exercise either all manner of offices of the body, or the chief office of the same.

For albeit the head is the highest and chief member of the natural body, yet the distribution of life to all the members of the body, as well to the head as to other members, cometh from the heart, and it is the minister of life to the whole body, as the chief act of the body.

Neither yet hath this similitude its full place in a mystical body, that a king should have the chief office of administration in the same: and yet notwithstanding, the Scripture speaking of king Saul, saith, ‘I made thee head amongst the tribes of Israel.’ (1 Kings 15) And if a king amongst the Jews were the head of the tribes of Israel in the time of the law, much more is a christian king head of the tribes of spiritual Israel, that is, of such as by true faith see Christ, who is the end of the law. The office deputed to the bishops in the mystical body, is to be as eyes to the whole body, as Almighty God saith to the prophet Ezekiel; ‘I have made thee an overseer over the house of Israel.’ (Ezekiel 3) And what bishop soever refuseth to use the office of an eye in the mystical body, to show unto the body the right way of believing and living, which appertaineth to the spiritual eye to do, shall show himself to be a blind eye; and if he shall take any other office in hand than appertaineth to the right eye, he shall make a confusion in the body, taking upon him another office than is given him of God.