Chapter 17

The following statement from a paper published byParkin, and written, as he took it, in the reign of Elizabeth, may be here subjoined, as it may cast some further light on the state of the possessions of this Hospital at that period—

“Robert Wylson master of this house, married Isabel, late wife of Thomas Hesket late master—hath six acres joining to the said house now in their hands, which is all that they have in occupation in their own hands.—Also Mr. Thorisbye occupies one marsh lying in Geywode and Myntlyn, the old rent thereof was 20s.per annum, at least, and he is to have of the house for rents belonging to the manor of Geywode 42s.3d.per annum.—Mr. Spence occupies one close lying in Gannock, which is called 10 acres, but in truth is 14 acres at the least, and he pays but 33s.and 4d.per annum.—Park of Holme holdeth 11 acres in Sechyth, and pays but 33s.4d.per annum, well worth 4l.13s.4d.per annum.—Also Mr. Strange hath a fold course and lands in Lexham, which wont to pay to the said house 23s.per annum, and by the space of 80 years hath [remained] unpaid, and by the report of them that know it, it is well worth 4l.per annum.—Other lands in Congham and Creake Abbey, the value whereof is not yet made.—Also Wrothes of Gaywode holdeth one pigthtle worth 6s.per annum, and pays nothing.—Item, one close or pigthle lying in Geywode by South Wotton, hath been let for 8s.per annum, but now none will give above 3s.or 2s.3d.per annum.—Item, One rede dole in Geywode containing 8 acres, the old rent is 8s.—Item, Mr. Pell occupieth 3 acres by the house; the old rent was 10s.and now 20s.—Item, Thomas Gybson of Lynne occupies one close of 3 acres by the house; the old lent was 20s.now 40s.—Item, He occupies . . . acres lying by Maudelyn Bank, and pays 24s.per annum, and it is worth 50s.—Item, two acres by Dersingham Lane, worth 20s.per annum, the old rent 10s.—Item, In Geywode fen 3 acres, the old rent 6s.now 15s.per annum. Roger Lauson has an acre and a half, old rent 10s.now 26s.8d.per annum.—Six acres lying by Salters Load; the old rent 10s.now 20s.per annum.—Item, A whole piece there, and pays 4s.6d.per annum.—Item, 5 acres in Narford, old rent 9d.now 3s.—Item, 5 acres in Hockold, let for 2s.per annum, worth5s.”—[SeeParkin 148.]

[546a]We cannot learn when this change look place.

[546b]Asisterhood only, consisting of amaster, &c. has a somewhat of an Hibernian sound.

[546c]Mr. King’s MS. volume.

[546d]Parkin, 145.

[547]It is taken from Mr. King’s MS. volume almost verbatim, though not always in the exact order in which it there stands.

[548]There are not properly two courts: the space between the portal and the proper court, consists of two rows of little gardens divided by the walk, or entrance into the said court.

[549]At the time referred to above, that is, about 1720, or 1724, the allowances to the pensioners residing in the said house, were as follows—

To the Master of the Hospital, per week

To eleven poor widows per week, at 2s.6d.each

To the Master yearly, one Chalder and half of coals

10.

To eleven widows yearly, one Chalder of coals each

11.

For 15 Sheaves of Sedges to the Master for kindling

For 10 Sheaves to each of the Sisters (in all 110)

18.

Total.

£96.

14.

10.

Besides repairs and other contingencies. [See Mr. King’s MS. and Mackerell.]

From the above period to the present time, the weekly allowance to the master and sisters has been gradually advancing, but not in proportion to the advance in the price of the necessaries of life; at least not so during the present reign, and especially this latter part of it. For the last fifty years the weekly allowance of the sisters, has been from 3s.6d.of 4s.to 5s.till the commencement of the present year [1810] when it was advanced from 5s.to 7s.and the master’s allowance from 7s.to 10s.—This pleasing change in the situation of these pensioners has been ascribed to the laudable and humane exertions of the present acting governor and treasurer,Edmund Rolfe Elsden Esq., who is supposed to have acquitted himself, in this situation, more respectably and commendably than any of his predecessors, for the last fifty years at least. Besides advancing the weekly allowance of the pensioners, he has also put the hospital itself and premises in a state of thorough repair, at the expence of 400l.or more. All this he has been enabled to accomplish by advancing the rent of the lands according to their present value: and it is expected that he will be able soon to make an additional augmentation to the weekly allowance and comforts of the poor pensioners, whose concerns he so laudably superintends. Till he was appointed to this situation their condition was very miserable, and every year getting worse and worse, with little or no hope of amendment. In short, Alderman Elsden, in the character of acting governor and treasurer of our Magdalen Hospital, has deserved well, not only of the pensioners of that home, but also of the public at large. His successors it is hoped will not fail to profit by his praiseworthy examples and it is to be wished that the managers of all similar charities would make a point of acting in like manner. Very different, indeed, by all accounts, has been the conduct of too many, if not of most of those entrusted with the superintendence and management of our charitable institutions throughout the kingdom, by which they have proved themselves utterly unworthy of the confidence reposed in them, and rendered their very names and memories detestable in the eyes of all honest men.

[550]Mackerell, 194, &c.

[553a]The builder or founder, probably, of the old parsonage house there, which has the name still over the door: in which case, that house must have stood between 3 and 400 years.

[553b]Parkin 164, 165.

[554]The author of the Norfolk Tour, speaking of the Red Mount, gives the following account of the said king’s visit to this place—

“When Edw. IV. and his brother, the duke of Gloster, fled before the great earl of Warwick, on passing the Washes in Lincolnshire, at an improper time, they lost their baggage and money; and arriving at Lynn, October 2. 1470, [other accounts say 1469] lodged one night in this building, which the historian erroneously calls acastle.” [But the historian was, perhaps, more correct than his corrector.]

[555a]But though the said chapel is confessedly an ecclesiastical structure, there might be once about it erections of a military, or castellated character, which would account for its obtaining the name of acastle.

[555b]Beauties of England, vol. xi. p. 294.

[556]“What led to the great celebrity which this place obtained for centuries, was the widow lady ofRicoldie Faverchesfounding, about 1061, a smallchapelin honour of the virgin Mary, similar to the Sancta Casa, at Nazareth. Her son confirmed the endowments, made an additional foundation of aPrioryfor Augustine canons, and erected aconventual church. At the dissolution, the annual revenues of the monastery were valued, according to Speed, at 446l.14s.4d.That its wealth should have been immensely great, is not surprising, when the fame of the image of our Lady of Walsingham is taken into the account; for it was as much frequented, if not more, than the shrine of St. Thomas a Becket, at Canterbury. Foreigners of all nations came thither on pilgrimage; many kings and queens of England also paid their devoirs to it; so that the number and quality of her devotees appeared to equal those of the Lady of Loretto, in Italy.—The celebrated Erasmus represents it as a place of such transcendent splendor as would lead one to suppose it the seat of the gods. The monks had contrived to persuade many, that thegalaxyin the heavens was a miraculous indication of thewayto this place: hence that was calledWalsingham Way.”—See Beaut. Engl. xi. 313.

[558]Having again touched on the subject of the Gilds, the author begs leave here to correct an inaccuracy or error that escaped him in mentioning St. Ethelred’s Gild at page439. It now appears to him that this fraternity took its name from a female personage, namedSt. Etheldreda; and he has, since the above page was printed off, observed the following notice of it in Parkin (134.)—“John Alcock, bishop of Ely, June 3, 1490, granted 40 days pardon, or indulgence, to all the brethren and sisters of the guild of St. Etheldreda, in St. Nicholas’s chapel of Lynn, at the altar of St. Etheldreda the most holy virgin, there founded, and to all who should hear mass at the said altar, and to all who saidquinquiesbefore the said altar, the Lord’s prayer and the Salutationquinquies.Reg. Alc. Ep. El.”—So great, in the said bishop’s time, was the encouragement to enter into St. Etheldreda’s Gild, and to hear mass at her altar, or sayquinquiesbefore it!

[559]Some have thought that the bishop’s town house stood by the Fort, and that the said stones might belong to that edifice, which must be a mistake, as it appears, from old records, that that house stood by St. Nicholas’s chapelto the west, which must be about where Dr. Redferne or Mr. T. Allen’s house now stands.—That the bishop had a house here in the time of Henry III. appears, according to Parkin, fromPlita Corona apd. Lenn, 41 of that reign. “This same house seems to be alluded to afterwards, inPlita Assis. Norw.4. Hen. IV. when it was found, that John Wentworth, mayor of Lenne Episcopi, and the commonalty, had unjustly disseized Henry, bishop of Norwich, of his free tenement here, 100 acres of land, and 20 acres of pasture, he being seized of it in right of his church,” &c. From this it would appear, that Wentworth was not on good terms with the said bishop, which may account for his competitor, Pettipas, advising his friends to seek his lordship’s interference; and it appears from his Letters, that the bishop was favourable to him and, hostile to Wentworth.—Parkin 155.—also Mr. K’s MS.

[560]Parkin 141.

[561a]Parkin, 152.

[561b]Ib. 165.

[562]Parkin, 125.

[563a]The author is sometimes ready to suspect that the twoanchorages, mentioned in some of the foregoing pages, were in fact no other than the lodges or retreats of some anchorets, though he has there given the word a different explanation. (see p.507.)

[563b]Parkin, 142.

[564a]Beaut. of England, xi. 23.

[564b]Parkin, 140.

[564c]See p. 453.

[565a]Parkin, 140.

[565b]Parkin, as before.

[566a]“Be it known unto all men by these presents, that weJohn Salisbury, dean of the cathedral church of the holy undividable trinity of Norwich, and chapter of the same church, have remised, released, and clearly for ever, for us and our successors, quit claim, and do by these presents remise, release, and quit claim to the mayor of the burgh of Lynn Regis, and to the burgesses of the same; and also toRobert GerviseandJohn Towers, all manner of quarrels, trespasses, variances, controversies, debates, and demands, which we have, and ought to have, for theLead,Glass,Bells,Iron,Brass,Laten,TimberandStones, of theChapel of St. Jamesin King’s Lynn aforesaid, for all and every other cause and causes whatsoever, concerning the same Chapel. In witness whereof to these presents, We the said Dean and Chapter have set our chapter seal this 8th day of January, in the 8th year of the reign of Elizabeth, by the grace of God, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.

Registrator.

Sealed and delivered, to the use of the Mayor and Burgesses of King’s Lynn, and Robert Jervis and John Towers, in the presence of John Debney of Norwich, David Coytmor, Alexander Auger, and Richard Lasher.” [Mackerell, 217.]

[566b]In 1560, five or six years anterior to the date of the above deed, as we learn from Mackerell, “several gentlemen came to Lynn, and would have taken the state of St. James’s church, by order of the Councils Letters, but were opposed and resisted by the corporation.” But if they actually came by the authority of the privy council, as the above seems to imply, it must be rather odd that the corporation should venture to oppose and resist them: but so it is said, see Mackerell 227.—The same writer says, p. 177, that in 1567the pinnacleof St. James’s chapel, (by which we may suppose he meant thespireof it,) “was taken down, and the steeple built flat.” So that the tower appears to have been left for some time in its original state, after the chief part of the chapel had been pulled down.

[570]Mackerell, 222.

[571a]Ib. 178.

[571b]By the above Act, if we are not mistaken, or about the time when it took place, there was also appropriated, as a further adoption to the revenue and maintenance of the said house,four pence per chaldronon all coals imported here by strangers; which is said to amount yearly, one year with another, to 200l.and upwards. [Mackerell, 178.]

[571c]Mackerell, 178.

[572]Grisenthwaite’s Remarks.

[573]The reader will perceive that this is not perfectly correct; but so it stands in Mr. Grisenthwaite’s Pamphlet. The incorrectness, however, is trivial, and cannot affect the main subject. It may be supposed to lie among the separate articles, rather than in the casting up; but it cannot be rectified without a sight of the original account.

[574]This statement also is somewhat inaccurate, but not so as to affect the main subject. The sum total may be presumed to be strictly correct, whatever slight errors may have crept among the separate articles, which might be easily rectified by a sight of the original documents.

[575a]See Grisenthwaite’s Remarks, p. 21, and the last Account of Receipts and Disbursements published by the Corporation of Guardians.

[575b]They were between fire and six score last year, and are supposed to be more now. This is said to have already occasioned to our Lynn house-owners a loss of above 1000l.a year: of course, they have no great reason to exult in the goodness of the times, or to boast of the salutary or beneficial effects of the new poor and paving laws.

[576a]Lynn, unquestionably, owes much of its present declension to the newpoorandpavinglaws, which have so greatly added to those burdens which were already become almost unbearable: they therefore ought not to have been brought forward at such a time; especially as they were disapproved by a large proportion of the inhabitants. Though their bad effects are visible to the most superficial observer, yet that avails nothing: we are too self-sufficient to be taught by experience, or to let the remembrance of past errors correct our future conduct. The present sudden advance, or augmentation of thewater-rent, at the rate of fifty per cent, may serve to illustrate this. Under our present circumstances, this measure must appear exceedingly inconsiderate, unfeeling, and illtimed. It would not have been disreputable in the managers of this concern to pay the inhabitants the compliment of explaining to them the reason of this measure: but, perhaps, they might think that the inhabitants had no light to know the reason, nor yet the reasonableness of their exactions. Private householders are to be charged higher than shopkeepers: this also seems to want explanation. Were we possessed of the whole secret, it would probably appear that abuses exist in the management of our waterworks not very dissimilar to those of our work-house.

[576b]Grisenthwaite’s Remarks, page 40.

[577a]Sixty Stonea week, or more, as it is positively reported.

[577b]Grisenthwaite’s Remarks, p. 41.

[578a]Account of Receipts and Disbursements of 1809, published by the Corporation of Guardians.

[578b]G.’s Remarks, p. 33.

[579a]One would hardly have expected that the cost of cheese alone, in a poor-house, would have been more than one fourth of that of bothbreadandfour.

[579b]Account of Receipts and Disbursements, as before.

[579c]If any thing has been mistated here, the writer will thank any one that will apprize him of it; and he will take care to have it rectified.

[580a]Let no one suppose, from what has been above said or suggested that the present writer would wish our poor to be neglected, or treated unfeelingly. Nothing on earth can be further from his thoughts. Let them, by all means, be sufficiently attended to, and duly provided for: but he sees no reason why they should live better than the poor in all other English work-houses, or even better than what many of those that contribute towards their support can afford to do; which yet seems to be actually the case at Lynn, of late years. Much tender attention, undoubtedly, is due, not only to those of the poor who are entitled to parochial relief, but also to those of them on whom a contribution beyond their power is levied towards that relief. Of these there is said to be now among us no small number.

[580b]Grisenthwaite’s Remarks p. 24.

[581a]Its connection with the history of St. James’s Chapel and Hospital was the sole reason of its being adverted to, or brought forward in this part of the work.

[581b]In the article ofMeat, for instance, the reduction is said to be from 60 stone, or more, to less than 30.

[581c]The expectation of the adoption of a thorough economical system, for our Workhouse, has considerably lowered, with some people, since the recent appointment of a new collector of poor rates; when a person was appointed with a salary of 130l.a year, although another candidate, of equally unexceptionable character offered, as it is said, to execute the office for 50l.less. This, indeed, does not seem to be a good omen; yet we hope it does not augur, or absolutely indicate that things will still go on after the old sort, so as to admit of such vile and infamous proceedings as those of theflour-merchants, mentioned by Mr. Grisenthwaite, or that the expenditure of the next and succeeding years will equal, or nearly equal, that of the last and preceding ones.—No longer, it is to be hoped, are we to hear of “every thing for the use of the House being procured of whom and in such quantities as the governor and master think proper,at the full current market prices—or, that groceries are taken, in small quantities,at the common retail rates—or, thatclothingprovided for the housecosts upwards of30per Cent. more them it might fairly be afforded at—or, thatour female paupers, on holidays, are to be seen associated, in the vilest ale-houses, with the very dregs of society, manifesting by their lewdness of expression, immodest demeanour, and depraved sentiment, an entire dereliction of every virtuous principle.” This last circumstance must have actually reduced our poor-house to awh—house! a character which, sorely it ought no longer to retain; otherwise a great part of our enormous poor rates will be most infamously misapplied.—It is presumed it will also be very desirable thatour new collectorshould not tenaciously imitate every part of the conduct ofhis predecessor; and especially that of harassing the poorer householders, for default of prompt or speedy payment, by indiscriminately issuingsummonses, at the rate of 2s.4d.a piece, and by three and four score at a time. Such a process must bear very hard upon those luckless people, whose poverty or inability constitutes perhaps, the whole of their delinquency. To exact, therefore, an additional 2s.4d.from each of them, must have been, to say the least of it, an unchristian and inhuman deed.—N.B. TheCollectorabove mentioned, with a salary of 130l.a year, is anew officer, as is also theRegistrar, with a salary of 50l.a year. These twin-brothers are the legitimate offspring of the new poor act. To the Registrar is supposed to belong, tochronicle small beer, &c. and write summonses: if so, as the defaulters are charged 2s.4d.for each summons, are they not, in fact, paid fortwice over?

[586a]Were it, indeed, ascertainable, that it was Nicholas who taught England and Europe the use of the Compass, Lynn would have great reason to be proud of him. But the fact is doubtful, if not more than doubtful, as the same honour has been confidently ascribed toFlavio Gioia, a celebrated mathematician of Amalfi, in Naples, who flourished about 1300, which was somewhat earlier than the other, and who marked thenorth-pointin the Compass by aflower de lis, in compliment to the then Neapolitan royal family, which was a branch of that of France. Still our townsman might have a share, and that perhaps not small, if not in the discovery itself, yet, at least, in its improvement, or the application of it to the purposes of navigation. TheChineseare said to have been acquainted with magnetism and the use of the compass long before all other nations.

[586b]The Astrolabe was an instrument formerly in much request, and still very well spoken of. There were different sorts of instruments that bore that name. The above was one of those calledsea-astrolabes, a description of which may be seen in the works ofChaucer, and also in the Cyclopædias.

[587]Bale, however, classes him among theCarmelites; but it seems to be generally agreed that he was mistaken, and that Nicholas certainly belonged to the Franciscans, as was said above. Mackerell imputes Bale’s placing him among the Carmelites to his partiality to them, having himself been of that fraternity.

[590]Which may probably indicate, that he had been educated atOxford, as that university was the great nest, or fountain-head of Lollardism, which seems not to have been much, if at all countenanced at Cambridge.—Abp. Arundel with his commissioners visited Cambridge in 1401, not long, it seems, after the trial and burning of Sautre. . . . One, and perhaps the chief object of their visit was, to enquire, Whether there were among its members “any suspected of Lollardism, or any other heretical pravity.” One solitary Lollard was found out, whose name wasPeter Harford, who was ordered to abjure Wickliff’s opinions in full congregation. (See Mo. Mag. for Oct. 1803, p. 225.)

[592]Let it not be supposed that the vile prison holes, or places of torment, above spoken of, and described, were usedonlyby the votaries of popery, or the roman catholics. Even the member and prelates of the protestant church of England appear also to have made use of them before now; and that, too, at what some seem to deem the era of the utmost evangelical purity of that church—the reign of good queen Bess, as she has been often called. As to our pretended orthodox and evangelical sectaries, if they have not followed the above exampleliterally, yet have they made, and still make no scruple of doing it, as we may say,metaphoricallyorfiguratively, at least.—When any one is pronounced by their petty popes, prelates, priests, exorcists, or consistories, to be possessed with the demon of heterodoxy or heresy, he is immediately reviled, defamed, proscribed, and outlawed, at it were, by proclamation; or pilloried and gibbeted, in their periodical and other publications—in other words, they do all they can to set every body against him, and render him odious in the sight of all men, as one who has forfeited the esteem of his fellow citizens, and is no longer worthy of enjoying the common rights and comforts of society.—In short, they appear to use all their efforts and energies to have him effectually secured in aLittle-Ease, of a most painful and dismal sort.—If our protestant, orthodox, and evangelical sects and parties do thus, who can wonder at the cruelties ascribed to the papists in former times? Instead of inveighing against the intolerant, persecuting, and antichristian spirit of popery, as these very people often do, they ought, surely, to consider how little that spirit differs from their own. While they inveigh or declaim against the injustice and cruelty of imprisoning, banishing, hanging, or burning people for their religion, and yet, at the same time, are in the constant practice of traducing, reviling, defaming, exhibiting as evil-doers, and treating in the most unkind and injurious manner, those whom they are pleased to brand with the name ofheretics, or who differ from them, they discover the self same spirit with the very worst of persecutors, and may be compared to the ancient sect calledCirconelliones, who would not use thesword, because Christ had forbidden it toPeter, but armed themselves withClubs, which they calledthe clubs of Israel, with which they could break all the bones in a man’s skin.—See Jones’ Mem. of bishop Horne, 275.

[593]The actDe Hæretico Comburendo, did not take place till sometime after; so that its terrors cannot be supposed to have frightened him to recantation.—We can think of nothing so likely to have produced that effect as some intolerably severe private sufferings which he had undergone during the above mentioned interval.

[597]Thatscrolerelated, it seems, to therecantation, of which, according to Fox, the following was the tenor orsubstance—

“Imprimis, touching the first and second, [articles] where I said that I would adore rather a temporall prince, and the lively bodies of the saints, than the wooden crosse whereupon the Lord did hang, I do revoke and recant the same, as being therein deceived.—To this I say, that the article is false and erroneous, and by false information I held it; the which I renounce and ask forgiveness thereof, and say, that is a precious relique, and that I shall hold it while I live, and that I sweare here.—I know well that I erred wrongfully by false information: for I wot well, that a deacon or a priest is more bound to say his mattens and houres then to preach; for there he is bounden by right: wherefore I submit me, &c.—Touching that article, I know right well that I erred by false information. Wherefore I ask forgiveness.—As concerning vowes, I say that opinion is false and erroneous, and by false information I held it; for a man is holden to hold his vow, &c.—To the 7. article I say, that I did it by authority of priesthood, wherethrough I knowledge well that I have guilt and trespassed: wherefore I submit me to God and to holy church, and to you father, swearing that I shall never hold it more.—To the 8. (article) I say, that I held it by false and wrong information. But now I know well that it is heresie, and that bread, anon as the word of the sacrament is said, is no longer bread materiall, but that it is turned into very Christ’s body; and that I sweare here.”

Two more articles were then retracted by him, and pronounced to befalse and erroneous, &c. but it does not appear what they were, (see Fox, 1. 674.)—This recantation, throughout, exhibits evident symptoms of a man so overcome by his fears, or his sufferings, as to be ready to say or do any that his unfeeling persecutors should prescribe or dictate to him.—He appeared much more fearless and intrepid, afterwards, when he was taken up the last time, tried before the arch-bishop and convocation, condemned and committed to the flames.

[598]Fox A. and M. 1. 673.

[599]The Londoners were then distinguished for their partiality to the Lollards; which may, in some measure, account for the facility with which Sawtre appears to have obtained the appointment or situation of minister of St. Osith.—seeFox, 670.

[600]The celebrated Sir William Jones is well known to have been one of our most earnest and warm friends and advocates of reform. The memorable Dr.Johnsonused to call him,the most enlightened of the sons of men.

[603]Fox A. and M. 671, 672.

[604]One circumstance, mentioned as having occurred in the course of this examination, seems not a little difficult to account for. Fox says, that Arundel enquired of Sawtre, “Whether he had abjured the foresaid heresies and errors objected against him before the bishop of Norwich, or not; or else had revoked and renounced the said or such like conclusions or articles, or not?” and that the latter answered and affirmed that he had not. [p. 672.] Also four days after, when the fore-cited process of the bishop of Norwich was read to him before the convocation, and it was urged that he had then abjured, among other errors, the heresy, that in the sacrament of the altar, after the consecration made by the priest, there still remained material bread, “Whereunto the said William, answered, smiling, or in mocking wise, and denying that he knew of the premisses.” [Ib. p. 674.] In all this there is evidently some mystery, which one knows not how to unravel, except on the supposition, that there was some material mistake, or designed misrepresentation in the statement which bishop Spencer sent to the convocation of his process against Sawtre, and of the tenor of the latter’s retraction, which might, in his opinion, justify his said denial.

[605]He might well answerderidingly, for such interrogations were fit only to excite contempt and derision.

[606]See Fox 673, who gives the following as a copy of the said sentence—

“In the Name of God,Amen. We Thomas by the grace of God archbishop of Canterbury, primate of England, and Legate of the See Apostolicall,by the authority of God almighty, and blessed SaintPeterandPaul, and ofholy church, andby our own authority, sitting for tribunall or chiefe judge,having God alone before our eyes, by the counsell and consent of the whole clergie, our fellow bretheren and suffragans, assistants to us in this present councell provinciall, by this our sentence definitive do pronounce, decree, and declare by these presents, thee William Sautre, otherwise colled Chawtrey, parish priest pretensed, personally appearing before us, in and upon the crime of heresie, judicially and lawfully convict, as an heretike, and as an heretike be punished.”

[607]See Fox, p. 674. where we find a copy of this second sentence, or sentence of degradation, in the following words . . .

“In the Name of God,Amen. Wee Thomas by the grace of God archbishop of Canterbury, Legate of the See Apostolicall, and metropolitan of all England, doe find and declare, that thou William Sautre, otherwise called Chautris, priest, by us with the counsell and assent of all and singular our fellow brethren and whole clergy, by this our sentence definitive declared in writing, hast beene for heresie convict and condemned, and art (being againe fallen into heresie) to be deposed and degraded by these presents.”

[608]But its absurdity seems of an opposite cast to that of one our late parliaments, which undertook to establish the popish doctrine of theindelibility of the priestly,or clerical character, than which neither the above process, nor even transubstantiation itself, can be more absurd or ridiculous. That such a doctrine should really be recognised, adopted, and established by the British Senate, now in the 19th century, might have occasioned no small astonishment, had not the same august body, within the same period, done so many other things equally strange, marvellous, and disreputable. Should we become inquisitive, and presume to ask, What is this invisible, mysterious, indelible something, called character; the episcopal, priestly, or clericalcharacter? some will tell us, that it is aspiritual power, others ahabitordisposition, others aspiritual figure, others asensible metaphorical quality, others areal relation, others afabric of the mind: by all which, little more, perhaps, can be made out, or comprehended, than that the advocates or supporters of the doctrine are much at variance about this character. But however they may differ in their ideas and definitions of the character itself, they are, it seems, in perfect agreement as to its indelibility; being all firmly persuaded, that though a bishop, priest, or deacon, turn heretic; or schismatic, deist or atheist, he still retains the character; and though not a christian man, he is still a christian bishop, priest, or deacon: though he be degraded and excommunicated, he is in respect to the character still the same. Though he be cut off from the church, he is still a minister in the church. In such a situation, to perform any of the sacred functions would be in him a deadly sin, but these would be equally valid as before. Thus he may not be within the pale of the church himself, and yet be in the church as a minister of Jesus Christ. He may openly and solemnly blaspheme God, and abjure the faith of Christ; he may apostatize to Judaism, to Mahometism, to Paganism, he still retains the character. He may even become a priest of Jupiter, or a priest of Baal, and still continue a priest of Jesus Christ. The character say the Schoolmen, is not cancelled even in thedamned, but remains with the wicked to their disgrace and greater confusion; so that in hell they are the ministers of Jesus Christ, and messengers of the new covenant!! [see the late Dr. Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, for a more full and striking view of this subject.] That our legislature, in sanctioning the said doctrine, did really mean to go the whole length the Schoolmen did, or adopt all their ideas concerning it, may, perhaps, admit of some doubt: but after agreeing with them in the main point, it might be thought hardly worth their while to hesitate about the smaller matters. Be this as it may, the convocation over which archbishop Arundel presided, in the process against Sawtre, seem to have been entirely of a different opinion, both from she Schoolmen and our said late parliament, on this notable question of clerical indelibility.

[610]The sentence printed in italics is given inLatinby Fox.

[613]If there be any one thing more detestable than the rest among the proceedings of Arundel and his inquisitorial associates, against Sawtre, it is their affecting to feel for him, or commiserate his case and recommend him to thefavourof the secular power, at the very time when they were delivering him up as a sheep to the slaughter (or to the butcher) or as a victim for immediate immolation. They felt no pity for him, and knew that the magistrate would shew him no favour.—The judges of theInquisitionalso are said always to express much tenderness and goodwill towards those they condemn to the flames.—Ourprotestant and pretended evangelical sects, likewise, are often heard to use the language of kindness and pity towards those whom they have pronounced to beheretics, at the same time they are doing all they can to render them odious in the eyes of all men, and, deprive them of the kind offices and good opinion of all their fellow-citizens.

[615a]Yes, devilishly so.

[615b]Fox 675.

[626]The Errata has been applied to this eBook.—DP.

Back to Index Next