First, John Blomstone was openly and publicly infamed, accused, reported, and appeached as follows:
That he was a very heretic, because he had preached, taught, holden, and affirmed, that the power attributed to St. Peter in the church of God by our Savior Jesus Christ immediately, did not flit or pass from him, to remain with his successors.
Item
, That there was as much virtue in a herb, as in the image of the Virgin Mary.Item
, That prayer and alms avail not the dead; for incontinent after death, he goeth either to heaven or hell: whereupon he coneludeth there is no purgatory.Item
, That it was foolishness to go on pilgrimage to the image of our Lady of Doncaster, Walsingham, or of the Tower of the city of Coventry: for a man might as well worship the blessed Virgin by the fire-side in the kitchen, as in the aforesaid places, and as well might a man worship the blessed Virgin, when he seeth his mother or sister, as in visiting the images; because they be no more but dead stocks and stones.Item
, That he said in English, with a frowning countenance, as it appeared: ‘A vengeance on all such horson priests, for they have great envy that a poor man should get his living among them.’Richard Hegham of the same city was accused, as under:
That he was a very heretic, because he did hold that a Christian man being at the point of death, should renounce all his own works good and ill, and submit him to the mercy of God.
Item
, That it was fondness to worship the images of our Lady of the Tower, in the aforesaid city, or of other saints; for they are but stocks and stones.Item
, That if the image of our Lady of the Tower were put into the fire, it would make a good fire.Item
, That it were better to deal money unto poor folks, than to offer to the image of Christ and other saints, which are but dead stocks and stones.Robert Crowther of the same city was accused as follows:
That he was a heretic, because he did hold, that whoso receiveth the sacrament of the altar in deadly sin, or out of charity, receiveth nothing but bread and wine.
Item
, That neither bishop, nor priests, nor curates of churches, have power in the market of penance to bind and loose.Item
, That pilgrimage to the image of our Lady of the Tower is foolishness: for it is but a stock or a stone.John Smith was accused, as under:
That he was a very heretic, because he did hold, that every man is bound to know the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed in English, if he might; for all these false priests.
Item
, That whoso believed as the church then did believe, believed ill: and that a man had need to frequent the schools a good while, ere that he can attain to the knowledge of the true and right faith.Item
, That no priest hath power to assoil a man, in the market of penance, from his sins.Roger Brown of the same city was also accused as follows:
That he was a heretic, because he did hold that no man ought to worship the image of our Lady of Walsingham, nor the blood of Christ at Hales, but rather God Almighty, who would give him whatsoever he would ask.
Item
, That he held not up his hands, nor looked up, at the elevation of the Eucharist.Item
, That he promised one to show him certain books of heresy, if he would swear that he would not utter them, and if he would credit them.Item
, That he did eat flesh in Lent, and was taken with the manner.Item
, If any man were not shriven in his whole life long, and at the point of death would be confessed, and could not, if he had no more but contrition only, he should pass to joy without purgatory:and if he were confessed of any sin, and were enjoined only to say for penance one Pater-Noster, if he thought he should have any punishment in purgatory for that sin, he would never be confessed for any sin.
Item
, Because he said all is lost that is given to priests.Item
, That there was no purgatory, that God would pardon all sins without confession and satisfaction.Thomas Butler of the same city was likewise openly accused to this effect:
That he was a very heretic, because he did hold that there were but two ways, that is to say, to heaven and to hell.
Item
, That no faithful man should abide any pain after the death of Christ, for any sin, because Christ died for our sins.Item
, That there was no purgatory; for every man immediately after death passeth either to heaven or hell.Item
, That whosoever departeth in the faith of Christ and the church, howsoever he hath lived, shall be saved.Item
, That prayers and pilgrimages are nothing worth, and avail not to purchase heaven.John Falks was accused as follows:
That he was a very heretic, because he did affirm that it was a foolish thing to offer to the image of our Lady, saying, Her head
shall be hoar ere I offer to her: What is it but a block? If it could speak to me, I would give it an half penny worth of ale.
Item
, That when the priest carrieth to the sick the body of Christ, why carrieth he not also the blood of Christ?Item
, That he did eat cow-milk upon the first Sunday of Lent.Item
, That as concerning the sacrament of penance and absolution, no priest hath power to assoil any man from his sins, when he can not make one hair of his head.Item
, That the image of our Lady was but a stone or a block.9 Richard Hilman was accused, as under:That he was a very heretic, because he did say and maintain that it was better to part with money to the poor, than to give tithes to priests, or to offer to the images of our Lady; and that it were better to offer to images made by God, than to the images of God painted.
Item
, That he had the Lord’s Prayer and the salutation of the angel and the Creed in English, and another book did he see and had, which contained the epistles and gospels in English, and according to them would he live, and thereby believed to be saved.Item
, That no priest speaketh better in the pulpit than that book.Item
, That the sacrament of the altar is but bread, and that the priests make it to blind the people.Item
, That a priest, while he is at mass, is a priest; and after one mass done, till the beginning of another mass, he is no more than a lay-man, and hath no more power than a mere lay-man.After they were enforced to recant, they were assoiled and put to penance.
In the year of our Lord 1488, the third of April, Margery Goyt, wife of James Goyt of Ashburn, was brought before the aforesaid John bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and was there accused as follows:
That she said, that that which the priests lift over their heads at mass, was not the true and very body of Christ; for, if it were so, the priests could not break it so lightly into four parts, and
swallow it as they do; for the Lord’s body hath flesh and bones: so hath not that which the priests receive.
Item
, That priests buying forty cakes for a half penny, and showing them to the people, and saying, that of every of them they make the body of Christ, do nothing but deceive the people and enrich themselves.Item
, Seeing God in the beginning did create and make man, how can it be that man should be able to make God?This woman also was constrained to recant, and so was she assoiled and did penance.
Thus much I thought good here to insert, touching these aforesaid people of Coventry, especially for this purpose, because our cavilling adversaries be wont to object against us the newness of Christ’s old and ancient religion. To the intent, therefore, they may see this doctrine not to be so new as they report, I wish they would consider both the time and articles here objected against these aforesaid persons, as is above-premised.
I should also in the same reign of king Henry VII have introduced that story of Johannes Picus, earl of Mirandula, the mention of whose name partly is touched before. This Picus, earl of Mirandula, being but a young man, was so excellently witted, and so singularly learned in all sciences, and in all tongues, both Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, Chaldee, and Araby, that coming to Rome booted and spurred, he set up ninety conclusions, to dispute in the same with any in all Christendom, whosoever would come against him; of which conclusions divers were touching the matter of the sacrament, etc. And when none was found in all Rome, nor in Europe, that openly would dispute with him, privily and in corners certain of the pope’s clergy, prelates, lawyers, and friars, by the pope appointed, consulted together to inquire upon his conclusions; whereupon they did articulate against him for suspicion of heresy. And thus the unlearned clergy of Rome privily circumvented and entangled this learned earl in their snares of heresy, against whom they durst never openly dispute. He died
being of the age of thirty-two years, of such wit and fowardness, as is hard to say whether Italy ever bred up a better. In his sickness Charles VIII the French king, moved with the fame of his learning, came to visit him. The furniture of his books cost him seven thousand florins. A little before his death his mind was to give all away, and to take a cowl, to go about and preach; but the Lord would not permit him. His story requireth a long tractation, which, if place do serve, we will not peradventure forget. With two popes, that is, with pope Innocent, and Alexander VI, he had much vexation.
The names of the Archbishops of Canterbury110 in this sixth Book contained:
62 John Stafford held the see for 8 years 63 John Kempe for 3 years,
64 Thomas Bouchier for 33, 65 John Morton for 14,
66 Thomas Langton10 held the see for 0 years, 67 Henry Dene for 2,
68 William Warham for 28.
A BRIEF NOTE OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS111 ORDAINED BY ANCIENT KINGS IN THIS REALM
Forasmuch as it is, and hath been a persuasion long engendered in the heads of many, that the bishops of Rome be the universal heads of the whole militant church of Christ in earth, and have always so continued from the beginning of the primitive time; and that no prince, king, nor emperor, in his own realm, hath any interest to intermeddle with matters and laws ecclesiastical, but only the said bishops of Rome: to refell and remove that opinion out of the heads of all Englishmen, as a thing most false, and contrary both to histories of time, and examples of ancient kings and governors of this realm, I thought to fill up a little end of paper here left, with some such brief rehearsal of laws devised and appointed by kings and rulers of this land, for the ordering of the church, and causes
ecclesiastical; to the intent that all the world may see that the government of Christ’s church here in earth under Christ hath not depended only of the pope from ancient time, but hath been rather directed by such kings and princes as God here had placed under him, to govern the people of this realm of England: as followeth here in this present table to be noted.
A BRIEF RECAPITULATION OF ANCIENT ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS, BY SUNDRY KINGS OF THIS REALM ORDAINED, FOR
GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH, BEFORE THE CONQUEST Ecclesiastical Laws of King Inas, or Ina:
1. First, king Inas, who reigned in this land A.D. 712, commanded that ministers should frame their conversation of life, according to the form in laws prescribed.
2. That infants should be baptized within thirty days.
3.
Item,
That no man, lay or spiritual, free or bond, should labor on the Sunday.4.
Item,
He established immunity of churches, and sanctuary. Also he took order for the true payment of church duties, and of the first-fruits of all that was sown, to be paid at the day of St. Martin.Ecclesiastical Laws of King Alured, or Alfred.
1. King Alfred, after he had ordained divers judicial punishments for violating the holy precepts of God commanded by Moses, he also confirmed and enlarged the privilege of sanctuary: he laid double pain upon such as committed offenses in the solemnities of certain feasts;
also against them that committed sacrilege.
2. He made a law against priests committing murder.
3. Also he made a law against whoredom, adultery, and fornication.
4. He appointed days of fasting, and ceasing from labor.
5.