p. 528.
102
English Works, p. 616.
104
Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries (popular edition), p. 367.
105
In his work against Luther, Bishop Fisher teaches the supremacy of the Pope without any ambiguity. In the Sermon had at Paulis against Luther and his followers, he also put his position perfectly clearly. The Church that has a right to the name Catholic has derived the right from its communion with the See of Peter. Our Lord called Cephas, Peter, or rock, to signify that upon him as a rock He would build His church. Unto Peter He committed His flock, and “the true Christian people which we have at this day was derived by a continual succession from the See of Peter” (fol. e. 4. d.).
106
Simon Matthew, Sermon made in the Cathedrall Church of Saynt-Paule, 27 June 1535 (Berthelet, 1535).
107
Joannis Longlondi Tres conciones (R. Pynson), f. 45.
108
Assertion of the Seven Sacraments against Luther (translation by J. W., 1687), f. a. i.
109
A treatise of the donation or gift and endowment of possessions given (by Constantine) with the judgement of certain great men, 1517, Thomas Godfray.
110
London, Thomas Berthelet.
111
A dyalogue, ut sup., ff. 3-7.
112
f. A. ii.; c. i.; c. iiij. The author recommends those who would understand the Pope’s power to “resort unto The glasse of truth or to the book named the Determinations of the universities.” The book named here A glasse of truth is written in favour of the divorce. “Some lawyers,” the author says, “attribute too much to the Pope – at length there shall be no law, but only his will.” The work was published by Berthelet anonymously, but Richard Croke, in a letter written at this period (Ellis, Historical Letters, 3rd series, ii. 195), says that the book was written by King Henry himself. It was generally said that Henry had written a defence of his divorce; but Strype did not think it was more than a State paper. Croke (p. 198) says that people at Oxford, “Mr. John Roper and others,” did not believe that the king was really the author. He says that the tract has done more than anything else to get people to take the king’s side.
113
Of the olde God and the new, B. 1. As another sample of what was at this time said about the Popes, we may take the following: Rome, says the author, “was by Justinian restored from ruin and decay, from whence also came the riches of the Church. At the coming of these riches, forthwith the book of the gospel was shut up, and the Bishops of Rome, instead of evangelical poverty, began to put forth their heads garnished with three crowns.” This is taken from the preface of Hartman Dulechin, who claims to have “taught the book to speak Latin.” It was originally printed and published in German. The English version is a translation of the Latin.
114
The Defence of Peace, written in Latin more than 200 years ago, and set forth in the English tongue by Wyllyam Marshall. R. Wyer, 1535, folio.
115
The Defence of Peace, f. 42. The well-known anti-papal opinions of Marsilius of Padua are, of course, of no interest in themselves, but their publication at this time in English shows the methods by which it was hoped to undermine the Papal authority in the country.
116
Exposition, &c., ut supra, f. i.
117
Johann Sturmius, Epistle sent to the cardinals and prelates that were appointed by the Bishop of Rome to search out the abuses of the Church. Translated by Richard Morysine. Berthelet, 1538.
A later copy of the Concilium de emendanda Ecclesia, printed by Sturmius with his letter in 1538, in the British Museum, formerly belonged to Cecil. The title-page has his signature, “Gulielmus Cecilius, 1540,” and there are marks and words underlined, and some few observations from his pen in the margin. It is interesting to note that what struck the statesman as a youth were just the points which could be turned against the temporal claims of the Roman See.
The special evils needing correction which the committee of cardinals note, and which they call abuses, are collected under 22 headings, some of which are the following: —
(1) Ordination of priests without cure of souls, not learned, of lower order in life, and too young and of doubtful morals: They suggest that each diocese should have a magistrum to see that candidates are properly instructed – none to be ordained except by their own bishop.
(2) Benefices, and in particular, episcopal sees, are given to people with interest, and not because their elevation would be good for the church. They suggest that the best man should be chosen, and residence should be insisted on, and consequently “non Italo conferendum est beneficium in Hispania aut in Britannia aut ex contra.”
(3) Pensions reserved from Benefices. Though the Pope, “who is the universal dispenser of the goods of the church,” may reserve a part for a pious use, e. g. for the poor, &c., still not to reserve sufficient for the proper purpose of the beneficiary, and still more to give a pension out of a benefice to one rich enough without, is wrong.
(4) Change of benefices for the sake of gain, and handing on benefices by arrangement or always assigning episcopal sees to coadjutors, is the cause of outcry against the clergy, and is in reality making private property out of what is public.
(5) Permission to clergy to hold more than one benefice.
(6) Cardinals being allowed to hold sees. They ought to be counsellors to the Pope in Rome, and when holding sees they are more or less dependent on the will of the kings, and so cannot give independent advice and speak their minds.
(7) Absence of bishops from their sees.
(8) Such religious houses as needed correction should be forbidden to profess members, and when they die out, their places should be taken by fervent religious. Confessors for convents must be approved by the ordinaries of the place.
(9) The use of the keys ought never, under any pretext, to be granted for money.
(10) Questors of the Holy Spirit, St. Anthony, &c., who foster superstition among the poor people, should be prohibited.
(11) Confessional privileges and use of portable altars to be very rarely allowed.
(12) No indulgences to be granted except once a year, and in the great cities only.
Finally they say of Rome: “Hæc Romana civitas et ecclesia mater est et magistra aliarum ecclesiarum,” and hence it should be a model to all. Foreigners, however, who come to St. Peter’s find that priests “sordidi, ignari, induti paramentis et vestibus quibus nec in sordidis ædibus honeste uti possent, missas celebrant.”
Cardinal Sadolet, on receiving a copy of Sturmius’s letter, replied in kindly terms. He had, he declared, a high opinion of “Sturmius, Melanchthon, and Bucer, looking on them as most learned men, kindly disposed, and cordially friendly to him. He looked upon it as the peculiar characteristic of Luther to try and overwhelm all his opponents with shouts and attacks.” He speaks of the great piety of Pope Clement from personal knowledge. His wars were, he said, rather the work of his adversaries than his own (De consilio, ed. J. G. Schelhorn, 1748, p. 91).
He also, in 1539, penned the De Christiana Ecclesia (in Specilegium Romanum, ii. p. 101 seqq.), sending it to Cardinal Salicati, and asking him to pass it on to Cardinal Contarini. It was the outcome of conversations about the troubles of the Church, and the result of the movement was the Council of Trent, to restore, as Sadolet says, ecclesiastical discipline “quæ nunc tota pæne nobis e manibus elapsa est.”
118
Sermon on Palm Sunday, Berthelet, 1539.
119
Lancelot Ridley, Commentary in Englyshe on Sayncte Paule’s Epystle to the Ephesians, L. 4.
120
This important paper was printed for the first
