When this miracle was objected against Berenger, he merrily deriding the fable answered, "A godly piece of a varlet, that whom he kissed before with his mouth, by and by he goeth about to tear him with his teeth."

Another miracle is reported of a Jew-boy, who, upon entering the church with another lad who was his playfellow, saw upon the altar a little child broken and torn in pieces, and afterwards in portions distributed among the people. When the young Jew coming home told this to his father, he was condemned to be burned.

Being inclosed in a house, and the door fast where he was to be burned, he was found and taken out from thence by the christians, not only alive, but also not having one hair of his head hurt with the flames. Being asked by the christians how he was so preserved from the burning fire: "There appeared," said he, "to me a beautiful woman sitting in a chair, whose son the child was which was divided and distributed in the church among the people, who reached to me her hand in the burning flame, and with her gown kept the flame from me; so that I was preserved from perishing," &c.

And these were then commonly the arguments of the monks, wherewith they persuaded the people to believe their transubstantiation. But to leave these monks' fictions, and to return to Berenger. Malmesbury reports of him, that after he had once or twice recanted, yet this doctrine of the sacrament remained still in the minds of his hearers.

Although in the time of Berenger, which was about A.D. 1060, this error of transubstantiation began to grow in strength, by the support of certain monks; as Lanfranc, Guimund, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Fulbert (of whom it is said in histories, that, when he was sick, our Lady gave him suck with her own breasts), and others; yet all the while transubstantiation was not decreed for public law, or doctrine to be held by any general consent, either by the church of Rome, or any other council, before the council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent III., who, A.D. 1215, made the decree, as follows:

"There is one universal church of the faithful, without which none can be saved; in the which church the self-same Jesus Christ is both priest and also the sacrifice; whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar, under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood, by the power and working of God. So that to the accomplishing of this mystery of unity, we might take of his, the same which he hath taken of ours. And this sacrament none can make or consecrate, but he that is a priest lawfully ordained, according to the keys of the church, which Jesus Christ hath left to his apostles, and to their successors," &c.

And thus was the foundation laid for the building of transubstantiation, and the doctrine intruded for an article of faith into the church, necessarily to be believed of all men under pain of heresy!

nocent; and afterwards elevation and adoration by Honorius; and last of all came the oblation meritorious and propitiatory for the quick and the dead in remission of sins, ex opere operato!

Which things being thus constituted by the usurped authority of the church of Rome, shortly after followed persecution, tyranny, and burning among the christians; first beginning with the Albigenses, and the faithful congregation of Toulouse, about the time of Pope Innocent.

The second Article

As to the second article, which debars from the laypeople one-half of the sacrament, understanding that under one kind both parts are fully contained (as the world well knows that this article is but young invented, decreed, and concluded no longer since, than at the council of Constance, A.D. 1414,) I shall not need to dwell long upon the matter; especially as sufficient has been said before in our discourse on the Bohemian history.

First, let us see the reasons of the adversaries in restraining the laity from the cup of this sacrament.

When they allege the place of St. Luke, where Christ was known in breaking of bread, &c. citing, moreover, many other places of scripture, wherein mention is made of breaking of bread; we answer, although we do not utterly deny but that some of these places may be understood of the sacrament: yet that being granted, it follows not that only one part of the sacrament was ministered to the people without the other, when by the common use of speech under the naming of one part the whole action is meant. Neither does it follow that because that bread was broken among the brethren, therefore the cup was not distributed to them. For we find by the words of St. Paul, (1 Cor. xi. 26), that the use of the Corinthians was to communicate not only in breaking of bread, but in participating of the cup also.

It can be proved and demonstrated that this new-found custom differs from all antiquity and prescription of use and time; and even although the custom were ancient, yet no custom may countermand the open and express commandment of God, which saith to all men, " Drink ye all of this," &c.

Again, seeing the cup is called the blood of the New Testament, who is he that dare or can alter the testament of the Lord, when none may be so hardy to alter the testament of a man, being once approved or ratified?

Further, as concerning those places of scripture before alleged, of breaking of bread, whereupon they think themselves so sure that the sacrament was then administered but in one kind in answer we say, first, it may be doubted whether all those places in scripture are to be referred to the sacrament. Secondly, admitting the same, yet they cannot infer, because one part is mentioned, that the full sacrament was not ministered. common manner of the Hebrew phrase is, under breaking of bread to signify generally the whole feast or supper as in the prophet Isaiah, these words, "Deal thy bread to the hungry," do signify as well

The

Again, the sacraments of the Lord's Supper being now consecrated, transubstantiated, elevated, and adored, yet it was not offered up for a sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead; nor for a remedy of the souls in purgatory; nor for a merit operis operati, sive bono motu utentis, &c., before other popes, coming afterwards, added still new additions to the former inventions of their predecessors.

places be taken, yet it makes little for them, but rather against them. For if the sacrament were administered "in breaking of bread," then they must needs grant, that if bread was there broken, there was bread; forasmuch as neither the accidents of bread without bread can be broken; neither can the natural body of Christ be subject to any breaking by the scripture, which saith, "a bone of him shall not be broken." &c.

They object further and say, that the church, upon due consideration, may alter as they see cause, in rites, ceremonies, and sacraments.

besides this example, he added an express commandment, "Do this," and "Drink ye all of this," &c. Against this order, example, and commandment of the gospel, no church nor council of men, nor angel in heaven has any power or authority to change or alter; according as we are warned, "If any preach unto you any other gospel besides that ye have received, let him be accursed," &c.

Among other objections, they allege certain perils as spilling, shedding, or shaking the blood out of the cup, or souring, or else sticking upon men's beards, &c. For which they say it is well provided that the half communion shall suffice.

To this it is soon answered, that as these causes were no hindrance to Christ, to the apostles, to the Corinthians, and to the brethren of the primitive church; but that in the public assemblies they received all the whole communion, as well in the one part as in the other; so neither are these causes so important now, to annul and make void the necessary commandment of the gospel; if we were as careful to obey the Lord, as we are curious to magnify our own devices; to strain at gnats; to stumble at straws; and to seek knots in rushes, which rather are growing in our own fantasies, than there where they are sought.

The Third Article.

Private masses, trental masses, and dirge masses, as they were never used before the time of Gregory, six hundred years after Christ, so they are against our christian doctrine. The mass is a work or action of the priest, applied to men for meriting of grace, ex opere operato, in which action the sacrament is first worshipped, and then offered up as a sacrifice for remission of sins (à pœna et culpa), for the quick and the dead. This definition agrees not with the rules of christian doctrine.

1. The first rule is, sacraments are instituted for some end and use, out of which use they are no sacraments. As the sacrament of baptism is a sacrament of regeneration and forgiveness of sins to the person that is baptized; but if it be carried about to be worshipped and shewed to others, as meritorious for their remission and regeneration, to them it is no sacrament.

2. A sacrament or ceremony profits them only who take and use them.

3. Only the death of Christ, and the work of his sacrifice upon the cross is to be applied to every man by faith. for salvation of his soul. Besides this, to apply any action or work of priest, or any other person, as meritorious of itself, and conducible to salvation, or to remission of sins, is derogatory to the covenant of God, and prejudicial to the blood of Christ.

4. To make idols of sacraments, and to worship dumb things for the living God, is idolatry.

5. Every good work that a man does profits only himself, and cannot be applied to other men.

6. No man can apply to another the sacrifice of Christ's death, but every man must apply it to himself by his own believing.

7. The passion of Christ once done, is a full and a perfect oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; by the virtue of which passion the wrath of God is pacified towards mankind for ever. Amen.

8. The passion of Christ once done, is the only object of that faith of ours which justifies us. And therefore whoever sets up any other object, beside that passion once done, for our faith to apprehend and behold the same, teaches damnable doctrine, and leads to idolatry.

Against all these rules private mass is directly opposed. For, beside that they transgress the order, example, and commandment of Christ (which divided the bread and cup to them all) they also bring the sacrament out of the right use to which it was ordained. For whereas that sacrament is instituted for a testimonial and remembrance of Christ's death, the private mass transfers it to another purpose; either to make of it a gazing idol;

or a work of application meritorious; or a sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sins; or a commemoration for souls departed in purgatory.

Furthermore, the institution of Christ is broken in this, that whereas the communion was given in common, the private mass suffers the priest alone to eat and drink up all, and when he has done, to bless the people with the empty cup.

2. Whereas sacraments properly profit none but them that use them; in the private mass the sacrament is received in the behalf not only of him that receives it, but of them also who are far off, or the dead in purgatory.

3. When nothing is to be applied for remission of sins, but only the death of Christ, the private mass comes in as a meritorious work done by the priest; which being applied to others, is available ex opere operato, both to him that does it, and to them for whom it is done.

4. Private masses and all other masses now used of the sacrament make an idol; of commemoration make adoration; instead of a receiving, make a deceiving; in place of shewing forth Christ's death make new oblations of his death, and of a communion make a single supping, &c.

5. Whereas in this general frailty of man's nature, no man can merit by any worthiness of working for himself, the priest in his private mass takes upon him to merit both for himself, and for many others.

6. It stands against scripture, that the sacrifice and death of Christ can be applied any otherwise to our benefit and justification, than by faith. Wherefore it is false that the action of the mass can apply the benefit of Christ's death unto us, by the mere act of its being offered.

7. Whereas the benefit of our salvation and justifying stands by the free gift and grace of God, through our faith in Christ; the application of these popish masses stops the freeness of God's grace, and makes that this benefit first comes through the priest's hands to us.

The eighth contrariety between private mass and God's word is in this; that where the scripture saith, Unica oblatione consummavit eos, qui sanctificantur in per petuum, "With one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified;" the private mass proceeds in a contrary doctrine; makes of one oblation a daily oblation, and that which is perfectly done and finished now to be done again; and finally, that which was instituted only for eating and for a remembrance of that oblation of Christ once offered, the popish mass maketh an oblation and a new satisfaction daily to be offered for the quick and the dead.

To conclude, both the private and public masses of priests turn away the object of our faith from the body of Christ crucified, to the body of Christ in their masses. And where God annexes the promise of justification but only to our faith in the body of Christ crucified, they do annex promise of remission from both the guilt and pu nishment of sin, to their masses by their application; besides divers other horrible and intolerable corruptions, which spring of their private and public masses.

The Fourth and Fifth Articles,-of Vows and Priests' Marriage.

As we have discoursed before of the antiquity of transubstantiation, of the half communion, and of private masses; so now coming to the article of vows, and of priests' marriage, the reader will wish to be satisfied in this likewise, and to be certified from what time these vows and unmarried life of priests have continued. For the better establishing of the reader's mind against this wicked article of priests' marriage, it shall be no great labour lost, here briefly to recapitulate in the recitation of this matter, either what before hath been said, or what more is to be added. And that the world may see the law and decree of priests' single life, to be a doctrine of no ancient standing in this realm, but only since the time of Anselm, I will first allege the words of Henry Huntington, here following:

"The same year, at the feast of St. Michael, Anselm,

the archbishop of Canteroury, held a synod at London; in which synod he prohibited priests here in England to have wives, which they were not prohibited before to have. Which constitution seemed to some persons very pure and chaste. To others, again, it seemed very dangerous, lest, while men should seem to take upon them such celibacy more than they should be able to bear, by that occasion they might fall into horrible filthiness, which should redound to the exceeding slander of the christian profession," &c.

as a defence of his cause, but also as a glory to himself.

3. Pope Sericius, about the year of our Lord 390, wrote to the priests of Spain about the matter of putting their wives from them, if his epistle be not counterfeit. These Spanish priests had then with them a bishop of Tarragona, who answering to Sericius, alleged the testimonies of St. Paul, that priests might lawfully retain their wives, &c. To this Sericius replied again, (if his writing is not forged) most arrogantly, and no less ignorantly, reproving the priests that were married; and for the defence of his cause, alleging this sentence of St. Paul," If ye shall live after the flesh, ye shall die," &c. Whereby may appear not only how they in Spain then had wives, but also how blind these men were in the scriptures, who shewed themselves so great adversaries against priests' marriages.

4. To be short, the further we go, and the nearer we come to the ancient and primitive time of the church, the less ancient shall we find the deprivation of lawful matrimony amongst christian ministers; beginning even with the apostles, who, although they were not all married, yet many of them were, and the rest had power and

It were tedious to number up the names of all such bishops and priests, who have been married since that time; but as to the time of this devilish prohibition for priests to have their wives, it is to be noted that in the year of our Saviour, 1076, when pope Hildebrand occupied the papal chair, this oath first began to be taken of archbishops and bishops, that they should suffer none to enter into the ministry, or into any ecclesiastical function, having a wife; and likewise the clergy to be bound to promise the same. This was, as I said, about the year 1076. Whereby the prophesy of St. Paul appears truly to be verified, speaking of these latter times, (1 Tim. iv. 1.) where he writes in these words: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

In this prophecy of St. Paul two things are to be observed; First, the matter which he prophesieth of; that is, the forbidding of marriage; and forbidding of meats, which God generally has left free to all men. The second thing in this prophecy, is the time when this prophecy shall fall, that is, in the latter times of the world. So that this concurs right well with these years of pope Hildebrand, being a thousand years complete after the ascension of our Saviour; so that they may well be called the latter times.

This prophecy of St. Paul thus standing, as it does, firm and certain, that is, the forbidding of marriage must happen in the latter times of the world, then must it needs follow, that the married life of priests is more ancient in the church than is the single life,-than the law, I mean, commanding the single life of priests. Which may soon be proved to be true.

1. For, at the council of Nice, it is notorious that this devilish law for restraining marriage was stopped by Paphnutius.

2. Before this council of Nice, in the year 197, we read of Polycrates bishop of Ephesus, who dissenting from pope Victor about a certain controversy of Easterday, alleges for himself that his progenitors before him, seven together, one after another, succeeded in that seat, and he now, the eighth after them, was placed in the same; using this his descent from his parents not only

where he writes of himself; "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as also the other apostles have?" Whereby it is to be seen, both what he might do, and what the other apostles did.

It can be sufficiently proved, and indeed is admitted, that the deprivation of priests' lawful marriage did not enter into the church, either Greek or Latin, at least it took no full possession, before pope Hildebrand's time, 1075; and especially pope Calistus' time, 1120; these were the first open objectors to priests' marriages.

Aventine, a faithful writer of his time, concerning the council of Hildebrand, has these words; "In those days priests commonly had wives, as other christian men had, and had children also; as may appear by ancient instruments and deeds of gift, which were then given to churches, to the clergy, and to religious houses: In which instruments both the priests, and their wives also with them, (which there be called Presbyterissæ), I find alleged as witnesses." It happened moreover at the same time, (saith Aventine,) "that the emperor had the investing of divers archbishopricks, bishopricks, abbeys, and nunneries within his dominions. Pope Hildebrand disdaining both these sorts, that is, both them that were invested by the emperor, and also all those priests that had wives, provided so in his council at Rome, that they who were promoted by the emperor to livings of the church, were accounted to come in by simony; the others, who were married priests, were counted for Nicholaitans. Whereupon pope Hildebrand, in writing to the emperor, to dukes, princes, and other great prelates and potentates, namely, to Berthold Zaringer, to Rodulph of Suevia, to Welphon of Bavaria, to Adalberon, and to their ladies, and to divers others to whom he thought good; also to bishops, namely, to Otto, bishop of Constance, with other priests and lay people,-willed them in his letters to refuse and to keep no company with those simoniacs, and those Nicholaitan priests (for so they were termed then), who had either any ecclesiastical living by the emperor, or who had wives; to avoid their masses; neither to talk; nor to eat or drink with them; nor once to speak to them; nor to salute them; but utterly to shun them, as men execrable and wicked, even as they would eschew the plague or pestilence.

"By this there ensued a mighty schism and affliction among the flock of Christ: For the priests went against their bishops, the people against the priests, the laity against the clergy. Briefly, all fell into confusion. Men and women, as every one was set upon mischief, wickedness, contention, and avarice, took thereby occasion, upon every light suspicion, to resist their minister, and to spoil the goods of the church. The vulgar people contemned the priests who had married wives, despised their religion, and all things that they did; yea, and in many places would purge the place where they had been with holy water. Also such was the mischief, that they

PP

would take the holy mysteries which those married priests had consecrated, and cast them in the dirt, and tread them under their feet: For so had Hildebrand taught them, that those were no priests, neither were they sacraments which they consecrated. So that by this occasion many false prophets arose, seducing the people from the truth of Christ by forged fables, and false miracles, and feigned glosses, wresting the scriptures as best served their own purposes."

To this testimony of Aventinus, above mentioned, we will also add the record of Gebuilerus, a writer of this our latter time, and one also of their own crew, who doth testify that in the time of the emperor Henry IV. (A. D. 1057,) the number of twenty-four bishops, both in Germany, Spain, and in France, were married, as well as the clergy also of their dioceses.

Of these Spanish bishops we read also in Isidore (who died about A.D. 636), in his book, De Clericorum Vita, that they ought either to lead an honest, chaste life; or else to have kept themselves within the bands of matrimony, &c. By this it is evident that the single life of priests was either then voluntary, or else that their marriage was not then restrained by any law.

Thus, if either the voice of scripture might have weight with these men; or if the examples of the apostles might move them (whom St. Ambrose witnesses to have been all married, except only St. Paul and St. John); or else if the multitude of married bishops and priests might prevail with them; it may be here stated:

That Tertullian was a married priest, as witnesses Jerome.

Spiridion, bishop of Cyprus, had a wife and children. Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, was also married.

Gregory, bishop of Nyssa; Gregory, bishop of Nazianzem; Prosper, bishop of Rhegium; Cheremon, bishop of Nilus. All these were married bishops; and also Polycrates, and his seven ancestors, bishops.

Epiphanius, bishop of Constanti ople in the time of Justinian, was the more commended, because his father and ancestors had been married priests and bishops. Jerome saith, that in his time many priests were married men.

Pope Damasus recites a great number of bishops, or popes of Rome, who were priests' sons, during the first ten centuries after Christ: as, Felix III.; Gelasius I.; Boniface; Agapetus; Silverius; Theodorus, whose father was bishop of Jerusalem; Adrian II.; John X. John XV.

And besides these bishops of Rome, many other bishops and priests in other countries might be annexed to this catalogue, if our leisure was such as to admit our making a roll of them all.

The law forbidding priests to marry was never generally received in the church of Rome until the time of Gregory VII. (Hildebrand), that is, since A.D. 1073.

This pope Hildebrand was, of all others, the chief and principal enemy against the marriage of priests. For whereas all other approved canons and councils only enacted, that any clergyman, having a wife before his entering into his ministry, might enjoy the liberty of his marriage, so that he married not a widow, or a known harlot, or kept a concubine, or were twice married: now comes in pope Hildebrand, making the marriage of priests to be heresy, and further enacting, “That whatever clerk, deacon, or minister had a wife, either before his orders, or after, should utterly put her from him, or else forsake his ministry," &c.

And thus much for the antiquity and the bringing in of the celibacy of the priests. It first began, about the time of pope Nicholas 1058, and Alexander II. 1061, to be a custom; and afterwards it was made into a law by pope Hildebrand, and so spread from Italy into other countries, and at length also into England.

Whilst pope Nicholas and Hildebrand were busy at Rome, in introducing that practice, so Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury was likewise engaged in bringing about the same matter in England, although he did not begin altogether so roughly as pope Hildebrand did, as

it appears by his council held at Winchester: where, though he prohibited such as were prebendaries of cathedral churches to have wives, yet he did permit, in his decree, that such priests as dwelt in towns and villages, and had wives, should retain them still, and not be compelled to be separated from them; and that they who had none, should be prohibited from marrying; enjoining moreover the bishops to take care hereafter, that they presumed not to admit into order any priests or deacons, unless they should first make a solemn profession not to marry.

Then after Lanfranc succeeded Anselm in the see of Canterbury, who fiercely and eagerly laboured in this matter, abrogating utterly the marriage of priests, deacons, sub-deacons, and of the clergy generally; not permitting (as Lanfranc did) priests that had wives in villages and towns to keep them still, but utterly commanding, and that under great penalties, not only priests and deacons, but sub-deacons also, (which is against the council of Lateran,) who were already married, to be separated, and that none should be received into orders hereafter, without profession of perpetual celibacy.

And yet notwithstanding all this, the priests did not give much heed to these unlawful injunctions, but still kept their wives almost for two hundred years after, refusing and resisting for a long time the yoke of that servile bondage, to keep still their freedom from such vowing, professing, and promising; as may well appear by those priests of York, of whom Gerard, archbishop of York, speaks, in writing to Anselm, in these words:

"I much desire the purity of my clergymen : yet, except it be in a very few, I find in them the deafness of the adder, and the inconstancy of Proteus. With their stinging tongues they cast out sometimes threats, somewhile taunts and rebukes. But this grieveth me less in

them that are further off. This grieveth me most of all, that they who are of mine own church, as in mine own bosom, and prebendaries of mine own see, contemn our canons, and argue like sophistical disputers, against the statutes of our council. The prebendaries, who irregularly have been taken into orders heretofore, without making vow or profession, refuse utterly to make profession to me. And they that are priests or deacons, having before openly married wives or concubines, will not be removed from them by any admonition from the altar. And when I call upon any to receive orders, they obstinately deny to profess celibacy in their ordering," &c.

Thus, for all this rigorous austerity, Anselm, was unable to enforce his decree made at London, against the marriage of priests; nor had the same monk greater success, either in his life time, or after his death. For although sundry priests, during his life-time, were compelled by his extremity to renounce their wives, yet many refused to obey him.

Many were contented rather to leave their benefices than their wives. A great number were permitted by king Henry VIII. for money to enjoy their wives; but this became so chargeable unto them, (saith Edmer, in his fourth book,) that at length two hundred priests, in their albes and priestly vestments, came barefoot to the king's palace, crying to him for mercy; and especially making their suit to the queen, who, though moved with compassion towards them, yet durst not make any intercession for them.

It is therefore evident, that this violent restraint of the lawful marriage of priests, within this realm of England, is of no such antiquity as hath been thought by many ignorant of the course of history. A brief summary will enable the reader to comprehend the whole

matter.

First, about the year 946, the profession of single life, and displacing of marriage, began to come into practice in England by reason of St. Benet's monks, who then began to increase very much about the time of king Edgar, and especially by means of Oswald, bishop of York, Odo and Dunstan, archbishops of Canterbury, and Ethelwold, bishop of Winchester; so that in divers cathedral

churches and bishops' sees, monks with their professed singleness of life crept in, and married ministers (who were then called secular priests) with their wives, were dispossessed out of sundry churches, not from their wives only, but from their places also; and yet not in all churches, but only in those which have been mentioned.

Not long after that, about the time of pope Nicholas II., A.D. 1060, of Alexander II. and Hildebrand, there came into the see of Canterbury another monk called Lanfranc, who also, being a promoter of this professed celibacy, made the decree more general, that all prebendaries of any churches who were married should be displaced; yet that the priests in towns and villages should not be compelled to leave their married wives, unless they wished to do so; and last of all followed the monk Anselm, A.D. 1106, who made the laws which we have stated before.

I shall now conclude my observations on these articles with some remarks on the sixth article, touching auricular confession :

Of confession three things we find expressed and approved in the scriptures. The first is our confession privately and publicly made to God alone; and this confession is necessary for all men at all times. Wherefore St. John speaketh, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive," &c.

The second is the confession which is openly made in the face of the congregation. And this confession also has place when any thing is committed, which gives a public offence and slander to the church of God.

The third kind of confession is that which we make privately to our brother. And this confession is requisite, when we have injured our brother. Whereof the gospel speaks, "Go and reconcile thyself first to thy brother," &c. Also St. James says, "Confess your faults one to another," &c. Or else this confession may also have place, when any thing lies on our conscience, in which we need the counsel and comfort of some faithful brother. But we must use discretion in avoiding these points of blind superstition. First, that we put therein no necessity for remission of our sins, but that we use our own voluntary discretion, according as we see it expedient for the satisfying of our troubled mind. The second is, that we are not bound to any enumeration of our sins. The third, that we bind not ourselves to any one person more than to another, but that we use our free choice, whom we think can give us the best spiritual counsel in the Lord.

But as there is nothing in the church so good which through superstition may not be perverted; so this confession also has not lacked abuses. First, the secret confession to God alone, as it has been counted insufficient; so has it been but lightly esteemed by many. The public confession to the congregation has been turned to a standing in a sheet, or else has been bought off for money. The secret opening of a man's mind to some faithful or spiritual brother, in disclosing his infirmity or temptations, for counsel and godly comfort, has been turned into auricular confession in a priest's ear, for absolving of his sins.

Now, after having discussed these matters which refer to the six wicked articles, it follows next, in returning to the order of our history, to declare those events which ensued after the setting out of these articles. This brings us to the time and history of the lord Cromwell, a man whose great fame and deeds are worthy to live renowned in perpetual memory.

The History concerning the Life, Acts, and Death of Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex. Thomas Cromwell, although born of a simple parentage, and of an obscure house, through the singular excellency of wisdom, united with industry of mind, and deserts of life, rose to high preferment and authority. By steps of office and honour, he ascended, at length, that not only he was made earl of Essex, but also secret counsellor to King Henry VIII., and vicegerent to his

person.

In the simple estate and beginnings of this man, we may learn that the excellency of noble virtues and heroic prowess which advance to fame and honour, stand not merely upon birth and blood, but proceed from the gift of God, who "raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill; that he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people."

Although the humble condition and poverty of this man was, at the beginning, a great hindrance for virtue to shew herself, yet such was the activity and ripeness of nature in him; so full and ready in wit; in judgment, discreet; in tongue, eloquent; in service, faithful; in spirit, courageous; in his pen, active; that being conversant in the sight of men, he could not be long neglected; nor yet be unprovided of favour and help of friends to set him forward in place and office. Neither was there any place or office for which he was not qualified. Nothing was so hard which with wit and industry he could not compass; neither was his capacity so good, but his memory was as great in retaining whatever he had attained; which well appears in his repeating the whole text of the New Testament, as translated by Erasmus, without any book, in his journey in going and coming from Rome.

Thus in his growing years, as he increased in age and ripeness, he derived a delight in visiting foreign countries, that he might see the world, and to learn experiIn this manner he learned such tongues and languages as might the better serve for his use hereafter.

ence.

He spent his youth at Antwerp, in the situation of secretary, or in some such condition, to the English merchants.

It happened then that the town of Boston thought good to send to Rome, to renew their two pardons; one called the great pardon, the other the lesser pardon; which although it should stand them in great expenses of money, (for the pope's merchandise is always dear ware,) yet they had felt such sweetness thereof, that they like good catholic merchants, and the pope's good customers, thought to spare no cost, to have their pardons renewed. Yet all this was good religion then; such was the lamentable blindness of that time!

It being thus determined and decreed among my countrymen of Boston, to have their pardons renewed from Rome, one Geoffrey Chambers, with another, was sent, well supplied with writings and money, and with all other things considered necessary for so chargeable and costly an exploit; who, coming in his journey to Antwerp, conferred and persuaded with Thomas Cromwell to associate himself in that legation, and to assist in the contriving of it. Cromwell, having some skill of the Italian language, and as yet not grounded in religion in those his youthful days, was content to undertake the adventure, and took his journey to Rome. Cromwell, loth to spend much time, and more loth to spend his money, and perceiving that the pope must be served with some present or other, (for without rewards there is no doing at Rome,) began to think with himself, what to devise wherein he might best serve the pope's devotion.

At length having knowledge how that the pope greatly delighted in new fangled delicacies, and dainty dishes, it came into his mind to prepare certain fine dishes of jelly, after the best English fashion, which to them of Rome was not known nor seen before.

This done, Cromwell observing his time, as the pope had returned to his pavilion from hunting, approached with his English presents brought in with a song in the pope suddenly marvelling at the strangeness of the song, English tongue, and all after the English fashion. The and understanding that they were Englishmen, and that they came not empty handed, desired them to be called in. Cromwell there shewing his obedience, and offering his junkets, such as kings and princes only, said he, in the realm of England use to feed upon, desired the same to be accepted in benevolent part, which he and his companions, as poor suitors to his holiness, had there brought and presented, as novelties meet for his recreation, &c.