[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. Johnson used 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 answer deridingly, 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 Saint Peter and Paul, and of holy church, and by 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 the indelibility 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 clerical character? some will tell us, that it is a spiritual power, others a habit or disposition, others a spiritual figure, others a sensible metaphorical quality, others a real relation, others a fabric 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 the damned, 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 in Latin by Fox.