The story of Sawtre is thus introduced by Fox—

“The next yeere after followed a parliament holden at Westminster:” [i.e. in 1400; for he has also, like his predecessors, assigned February to the preceding year:] “in which parliament one William Sautre, a good man and a faithfull priest, inflamed with zeale of true religion, required he might be heard for the commodity of the whole realme. But the matter being smelt before by the bishops, they obtained that the matter should be referred to the convocation; where the said William Sautre being brought before the bishops and notaries thereunto appointed, the convocation was deferred to the Saturday next ensuing. When Saturday was come, that is to say, the twelfth day of February, Thomas Arundell archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of his councell provinciall, being assembled in the said chapter-house [i.e. that of St. Paul’s] against one Sir William Sautre, otherwise called Chatris chaplaine, personally then and there appearing by the commandment of the aforesaid archbishop of Canterbury, objected; that the said William before the bishop of Norwich had once renounced and abjured divers and sundry conclusions hereticall and erroneous; and that after such abjuration made, he publicly and privily held, taught, and preached th same conclusions, or else such like, disagreeing to the catholic faith, and to the great perill and pernicious example of others. And after this he caused such like conclusions holden and preached, as is said, by the said Sir William without renunciation, then and thereto be read unto the said archbishop, by master Robert Hall, chancellor unto the said bishop, in a certain scrole written, in tenor of words as followeth—“Sir William Chatris, otherwise called Sautre, parish priest of the church of Saint Scithe [Osith] the virgin in London, publikely and privily doth hold these conclusions under written—Imprimis, he saith, that he will not worship the crosse on which Christ suffered, but only Christ that suffered upon the crosse—2. Item, That he would sooner worship a temporall king, than the foresaid woodden crosse—3. Item, That he would rather worship the bodies of the saints than the very crosse of Christ on which he hung, if it were before him.—4. Item, That he would rather worship a man truly contrite, than the crosse of Christ.—5. Item, That he is bound rather to worship a man that is predestinate, than an angell of God.—6. Item, That if any man would visit the monuments of Peter and Paul, or go on pilgrimage to the Tombe of Saint Thomas, or else any whither else, for the obtaining of any temporall benefit; he a not bound to keep his vow, but he may distribute the expences of his vow upon the almes of the poore.—7. Item, That every priest and deacon is more bound preach the word of God, than to say the canonicall houres—8. Item, That alter the pronouncing of the sacramentall words of the body of Christ, the bread remaineth of the same nature that it was before, neither doth it cease to be bread.” [603]

These articles or charges being publicly read and exhibited, the archbishop then called upon Sawtre to answer to them; but he desired that he might first have a copy of them, and that sufficient time might be allowed him to prepare his answer and defence. A Copy was accordingly delivered to him, and the next Thursday was then fixed upon for him again to appear before his judges. But on that day, owing, it seems, to the archbishop’s being then necessarily engaged in the parliament-house, the business was adjourned till the next morning at eight o’clock. The convocation, or rather its upper house, being then assembled, Sawtre appeared again before them, and produced a written defence, and answer to those articles, which were then publicly read by Robert Hall, before mentioned. He no longer thought of retracting, as he had done near two years before, at Lynn and other places. On the contrary, he now openly avowed his principles, and appeared neither afraid nor ashamed to defend them. It is therefore, not to be wondered that the writing, or answer, which he laid before them, and which was now publicly read in their hearing, proved no way satisfactory or conciliating.

After the said Robert Hall had read that paper, or answer, aloud, in the audience of the Convocation, the archbishop, being dissatisfied with the contents, proceeded to question Sawtre on what he deemed the most material points, which chiefly related to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Among his questions were the following—[604]

“Whether in the Sacrament of the altar, after the pronouncing of the Sacramentall words, remaineth very materiall bread, or not?—Whether in the sacrament after the sacramentall words, rightly pronounced of the priest, the same bread remaineth, which did before the words pronounced, or not?—Whether the same materiall bread before consecration, by the sacramentall words of the priest rightly pronounced, be transubstantiated from the nature of bread into the very body of Christ, or not?”

To none of these interrogatories did the prisoner return an orthodox or satisfactory answer. His answers being therefore deemed insufficient, and the day, probably, too far gone to finish the examination at that time, it was thought proper to adjourn the business till the next day. Of what then occurred Fox gives the following account.

“Then the said archbishop assigned unto the said Sir William time to deliberate, and more fully to make his answer till the next day; and continued this convocation then and there till the morrow. Which morrow, to wit, the 19th day of February, being come, the foresaid archbishop of Canterbury, in the said chapter house of St. Paul in London, before his councell provinciall then and there assembled, specially asked and examined the same Sir W. Sautre, there personally present, upon the sacrament of the altar, as before. And the same Sir William again, in like manner as before, answered. After this amongst other things the said bishop demanded of the same William, if the same materiall bread being upon the altar, after the sacramentall words being of the priest rightly pronounced, is transubstantiated into the very body of Christ, or not? And the said Sir William said, he understood not what he meant. Then the said archbishop demanded, whether that materiall bread being round and white, prepared and disposed for the sacrament of the body of Christ upon the altar, wanting nothing that is meet and requisite thereunto, by the virtue of the sacramentall words being of the priest rightly pronounced, be altered and changed into the very body of Christ, and ceaseth any more to be materiall and very bread, or not? Then the said Sir William, deridingly [605] answering, said he could not tell.”

“Then consequently the said archbishop demanded, whether he would stand to the determination of the holy church, or not, which affirmeth that in the sacrament of the altar, after the words of consecration being rightly pronounced of the priest, the same bread, which before in nature was bread, ceaseth any more to be bread? To this interrogation the said Sir William said, that he would stand to the determination of the church, where such determination was not contrary to the will of God. This done, he demanded of him againe, what his judgement was concerning the sacrament of the altar: who said and affirmed, that after the words of consecration, by the priest duly pronounced, there remained very bread, and the same bread which was before the words spoken.”—This examination commenced at eight o’clock in the morning, and lasted about three hours: and as the prisoner would not now retract, or recede from his Lollardism, and receive what was called Catholic information, but chose to persist, at all events, in his own way of thinking, the archbishop, as we are told, “by the counsell and assent of his whole covent then and there present, did promulgate and give sentence by the mouth of Robert Hall, against the same Sir William, being personally present, and refusing to revoke his heresies, but constantly defended the same.” [606]

After passing the said sentence, an adjournment took place, till the week after, when the prisoner was again brought before them, two or three different times. On the Wednesday they read to him bishop Spencer’s statement of his process against him, near two years before. The archbishop and divers others now reproached him for holding opinions which he had before abjured; as if it were a mighty crime for a man, after having been once so weak as to renounce or abjure the truth, afterwards to repent and embrace it—or, after having once been so overseen as to resign the right of private judgment, ever any more to think of resuming it! As all the stratagems and means they could use proved now too feeble to shake him from his integrity, or induce him to sacrifice his conscience to their unrighteous and infernal pleasure, they resolved he should be forthwith degraded: and a sentence of degradation [607] was accordingly passed upon him that same day. The execution of this sentence was deferred till the Friday following; and as the archbishop could not then attend, owing to his detention in parliament, it was further deferred till the morrow after. They then proceeded to business in good earnest, and a most curious process it certainly was—They first deprived him of his priest’s order, next of his deacon’s order, next of his subdeacon’s order, then of his acolyte’s order, then of his exorcist, or holy-water-clerk’s order, then of his reader’s order, then of his sexton’s order, and finally, of his privilege of clergy: in token of which his tonsure was erased, a layman’s cap put on his head, and himself so entirely secularized, or reduced to the state of a lay person, as if he had never been in orders.

All this was certainly absurd enough; [608] but as it was also very curious, we shall here give it more circumstantially, in the words of the historian so often referred to in these pages—

Upon Saturday, being the 26th. of February, the said archbishop of Canterbury sate in the bishop’s seat of the foresaid church of St. Paul, in London, and solemnly apparelled in his pontificall attire, sitting with him as his assistants these reverend fathers and bishops, of London, Lincolne, Hereford, Exeter, Menevensis & Roffensis episcopi, [i.e. the bishops of St. Davids and Rochester] above mentioned, commanded and caused the said Sir William Sautre, apparelled in priestly vestments, to be brought and appeare before him. That done, he declared and expounded in English to all the clergy and people, there in a great multitude assembled; that all processe way finished and ended against the said Sir W. Sautre. Which thing finished, before the pronouncing of the said sentence of the relapse against the said Sir William, as is premised, he often then and there recited and read. And for that he saw the said William in that behalf nothing abashed; he proceeded to his degradation and actual deposition in forme as followeth.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [610] We Thomas by God’s permission archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and Legate of the apostolike Sea, do denounce thee William Sautre, otherwise called Chautris, chaplaine fained, in the habite and apparell of a priest, as an heretike, and one refallen into heresie, by this our sentence definitive by councell, assent, and authority to be condemned, and by conclusion of all our fellow brethren, fellow bishops, prelates councell provinciall, and of the whole clergy, do degrade and deprive thee of thy priestly order. And in sign of degradation and actual deposition from thy priestly dignity, for thine incorrigibility and want of amendment, we take from thee the patent and chalice, and doe deprive thee of all power and authority of celebrating the masse, and also we pull from thy backe the casule, and take from thee the vestment, and deprive thee of all manner of priestly honour.

Also, We Thomas, the aforesaid archbishop, by authority, counsell, and assent, which upon the foresaid William we have, being deacon pretensed, in the habit and apparell of a deacon, having the New Testament in thy hands, being an heretike, and twice fallen, condemned by sentence as is aforesaid, do degrade and put thee from the order of a deacon. And in token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the book of the New Testament, and the stole, and do deprive thee of all authority in reading of the gospel, and of all and all manner of dignity of a deacon.

Also, we Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by authority counsell, and assent, which over thee the foresaid William we have, being a subdeacon pretensed, in the habit and vestment of a subdeacon, an heretike, and twice fallen, condemned by sentence, as is aforesaid, do degrade and put thee from the order of subdeacon; and in token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the albe and maniple, and do deprive thee of all and all manner of subdiaconicall dignity.

Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by counsell, assent and authority which we have over thee the foresaid William, an Acolyte pretensed, wearing the habit of an acolyte, and heretike, twice fallen, by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, doe degrade and put from thee all order of an acolyte; and in signe and token of this thy degradation and actuall deposition, we take from thee the candlestick and taper, and also the urceolum, and do deprive thee of all and all manner of dignity of an Acolyte.—Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by assent, council, and authority, which upon thee the foresaid William we have, an Exorcist pretensed, in the habite of an exorcist or holy water clerke, being an heretike, twice fallen, and by our sentence, as is aforesaid, condemned, do degrade and depose thee from the order of an Exorcist; and in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, we take from thee the book of conjurations, and do deprive thee of all and singular dignity of an exorcist.

Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by assent, counsell, and authority, as is abovesaid, do degrade and depose thee the foresaid William, reader pretensed, clothed in the habit of a reader, an herctick, twice fallen, and by our sentence, as aforesaid, condemned, from the order of a reader: and, in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, we take from thee the book of the divine lections (that is, the book of the church legend) and do deprive thee of all and singular manner of dignity of such a reader.—Also, We Thomas archbishop aforesaid, by authority, counsell, and assent, the which we have, as is aforesaid, doe degrade, and put thee the foresaid William Sawtre, Sexton pretensed, in the habit of a sexton, and wearing a surplice, being an heretike, twice fallen, by our sentence definitive condemned, as aforesaid, from the order of a sexton: and, in token of this thy degradation and actual deposition, for the causes aforesaid, we take from thee the keyes of the church doore, and thy surplice, and do deprive thee of all and singular manner of commodities of a doore-keeper.

Also, by the authority of omnipotent God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and by our authority, counsell, and assent of our whole councel provinciall above written, we do degrade thee, and depose thee, being here personally present before us, from orders, benefices, priviledges, and habit in the church; and for thy pertinacy incorrigible we doe degrade thee before the secular court of the high constable and marshall of England, being personally present; and do depose thee from all and singular clerkely honours and dignities whatsoever, by these writings. Also in token of thy degradation and deposition, here actually we have caused thy crowne and ecclesiasticall tonsure in our presence to be rased away, and utterly to be abolished, like unto the form of a secular layman; and here we do put upon the head of thee, the aforesaid William, the cap of a lay secular person; beseeching the court aforesaid that they will receive favourably [613] the said William unto them thus recommitted.