El ss‘er tio S eptem 5 acr amentor um OIt D E FE NC E OF TH E S EVE N S A C RA ME NTS meat? mm R ing of E nglanb RE- E DI TED . WITH AN INTRODUC TION, REV . LOUI S Q ’D ONOVA N, S . T . L . PREC E DE D B Y A PREFACE H IS EMINENCE JAME S CARD INAL GIBBONS NE W YOR K, CrNcrNNA ' r I , C H I CAGO B E N Z I G E R B R O T H E R S PRINTE RS TO TH E H OLY APOSTOLIC S E E 1 908
E ebication IN ME MORY OF MY FATHER, CHA RLE S O ’D ONOVA N, M. D . , IN LOVING GRATI TUD E F OR MANY GIFTS, FIR ST A ND FOREMOST AMONG THEM, T H E PE ARL OF GREAT PRIC E , TH E FAITH DEFENDED BY HE NRY, THI S WORK IS AFFE C T I ONA TE LY
C ONTE NTS D E DI C ATI ON PRE FAC E D Y H I S E MI NE NC E C ARDI NAL GI B B O NS INTROD UC T I ON BY T H E E DI TOR FO R EWOR D S YNOPS I S O E T H E “A S S E RTI O OC C A SI ON, ORI GI N A ND MOTI V E OF TH E A S S E RTI O A UT HORSHI P O F T H E “A S S E RTI O E DI TI ONS A N D VE RS I ONS TH E PRE SENTATI O N T O T H E POP E T H E TI TLE D E FE NDE R OF T H E F AI TH —WA S I T To B E H E RE DI TARY ? C RI T I C I SM A ND E FF E C TS O F TH E “A S ' S ERTI O B I BLI OGRAPHY TH E “A SS E RTI O I N E NGLI SH A ND LAT I N INDE X
[preface TH E A sser ti o S eptem S acr am en tor u m , or “D e fen c e Of the S even S acraments, ” by Henry VIII , King of E ngland, and “D efender of the Faith, ” here r e edited by Rev. Lou i s O ’D on ovan , i s a rare, roy al , C atholic book. It is rare, inasmuch as it has probably been printed but twice in nearly 200 years, and so no wonder that lately a copy of the work was listed for sale at It is a royal book, by reason of its kingly author, whose claim i s shown to be, if n ot certain, at least very probable . I t is C atholic, because n o C atho lic could write a more orthodox treatise on the subjects here explained by King Henry VIII . Yet he expounds such crucial dogmas as the primacy of the B ishop of Rome , indulgences, the mystery of the Real Presence and the M ass, the S acrament of C onfession, divorce, etc . A n d al l this he has unfolded in as C atholic a man n er as S t . Thomas, or S t. Francis de S ales, or S t. A l phon su s Liguori could have done . B u t besides the matter of the treatise, the period also when it was composed—a most interesting, even if sad dening, epoch in the history of the C hurch—makes the work most valuable . F or just at that date—1 521 the cauldron of the so- called Reformation was boiling furiously in Germany . B u t in E ngland, Henry boasted that its horrors had n ot yet begun, and, more over, he posed as the champion of the C hurch, to see that Luther ’ s novelties should n ot appear there . A n d this freedom from the “reform ” he was ready to main tain by hi s sword if later need be, but at any rate now
1 0 Pr efac e by hi s pen . A n d Henry was quite well equipped for his self- assumed task, having improved his natural tal ents by an education intended to prepare him to be A rchbishop of C anterbury . Little won der then that he should have written such a book as the “D efence of the S even S acraments , ” which , after all , is only a simple, plain, yet strong explanation of the C hurch ’ s teachin gs on some of her most vital points . A s the originator of what was in its origin a schis m atic al rather than an heretical church (however much later on heresies developed within it) , and as the first head of that church, Henry is of special interest to the student Of religions and of C hurch history . In act the first, Henry is a young, brilliant, powerful, C atholic king with the best of C atholic women for his queen, ruling in peace over C atholic, M erry E nglan d . In act the second, he has become the adulterer , the divor ce, the wife - killer , and with it all , and becau se of it all , he has become a schismatic, the head of a schism, dragg ing his subjects away from C atholic unity, and making them acknowledge himself not only their earthly king, but their Spiritual head . A n d yet it was only a few years before that Henry had wr itten this book, , for which Pope Leo X . had given him the title D efender of the Faith, ” a title prized and used by every subsequent sovereign of E ngland, down to E d ward VII . to—day . In his exh austive Introduction to Henry ’ s work, Fr . O ’D on ovan has quoted the views of many different wr iters bearing on the occasion, orig in and motive , the authorship, the editions and versions, the presentation of the book to the Pope , and the question whether or not the title “D efender of the Faith ” was intended to be hereditary . References to the places in the various originals from which he qu otes are copiously given .
Pr eface 1 1 The bibliography of over a hundred works gives the au thors, editions, date and place of publication of the works used . This book, therefore, from so many points of View, is on e that must be of interest to every student of e ither E nglish history or of the history of religion in general . The presence of the original Latin text and somewhat ol d E nglish version, together with the complementary documents, should appeal to and reach many readers, n ot only in this country but especially in E ngland . I n E ngland many solid works on the Reformation period have lately appeared, and I hope that the move ment will inspire ou r A merican scholars . B ooks on this period of history have, in the past, been u n duly biassed, but a refreshing change for the better is notice able in recent years . S uch a work as the present, giv ing the original texts of the authors who have a right to be adm itted as reliable witnesses , i s a Sign of the times, for Fr . O ’D on ovan here brings before you King Henry and a hundred critics and lets them speak for them selves in their own words . He has endeavored to place before the reader the original documents in the case, and then allow him to draw his own conclusion . He goes to the root of the matter of contention between C atholics and members of the Church of E ngland , showing in Henry ’ s own words that he who later be came the first head of the Protestant C hurch in E n g land was, together with all the people of E ngland in those olden days , trul y C atholic and vi olently opposed to Luther and hi s destr uctive and murderous reform . I hope, therefore, that the work may be widely and carefully read, especially in this country, bu t indeed also in E ngland, the land of its birth . J . C ARD . GI BB ONS . BALTI M ORE , I . S UNDA Y or AD VE NT, 1 900.
jforevoorb TH E Renaissance in Italy, the heart of Christendom, sent something of a pulse even as far as that member of the body of E urope called E ngland . F or there such men as M ore , Fisher , C olet, Lilly, Linacre, and Gr ocyn lived, studied , and taught . E rasmus speaks most flatter in g l y of King Henry VIII , surrounded by a chosen, able coterie of savants and litterateurs , the modern Maecenas, who himself contended for and won his laurels— and that from the hands of the cultured Pope Leo X . — i n reward for the royal literary feat, the “A sser ti o S eptem S acr am en tor u m , ” i . e . , the “D efence of the S even S acraments . ” The evil that m en do lives after them ; the good is oft interred with their bones . S o let it ” n ot be with Henry . Generally he is remembered as on e who “spared neither man in his hate, nor woman in his lust . ” B u t this is the roué , the non - C atholic, theProtest ant, the schismatic Henr y . Let us not forget that at least once he had been the beau - ideal Henry ; in body, tall, straight, broad- shouldered , a master of every gentle manly accomplishment ; in mind naturally clever, an acc omplished linguist, a learned theologian , a faithful son of the C hurch . A s such he wrote his famous book, the “D C IC D C L of the S even S acraments . ” In reprint ing this work several topics of interest seemed to need notice and explanation, and these have grown and shaped themselves into an Introduction grouped u n der the following head s : C arwithen ’ s Hist. of the Chu rch of E ngland , I . , p . 38 .
1 6 F or eword 1 . A S ynopsis of the “A sser tio. 2 . Its Occasion , Origin and Motive. 3 . Its A uthorship . 4 . The Various E ditions and Versions . 5 . The Presentation of it to the Pope . 6. IVas the Title “D efender of the Faith Heredi tary ? 7 . C riticism and Influence of the A sser ti o. 8 . B ibliography . Following this Introduction comes the “A sser ti o proper, preceded by a few documents reprinted in E n g lish, some of them in the Latin too, in the following order : 1 . The Introduction to the E nglish version here r e printed, in E nglish only . 2 . Henry ’ s Letter to Leo, in E nglish and L atin . 3 . The Oration of John C lark, in E nglish only . 4 . Leo X . ’ S Reply , in E nglish only . 5 . Leo X . ’ s B ull , in E nglish and Latin . Leo X . ’ s Letter to Henry, in E nglish and L atin . Henry ’ s D edicatory E pistle, in E nglish and Latin . 8 . Henry ’ s “To the Reader , ” in E nglish and Latin . 9 . Henry ’ s Two Preliminary C hapters , on I n du l g en c es and the Papacy, respectively, in E nglish and Latin . 1 0 . Henry ’ s A sser tio S eptem S ac r am entor u rn, or “D efence of the S even S acraments , in E nglish and Latin . 1 1 . The In dex to the “A sser ti o, in E nglish and Latin . The first reason for reprinting this work is a moral one —namely, that the readers m ay see , from so illus trions an example , that loss of faith comes from loss of morals . The second reason is that non - C atholics , those ~ T O §
F or eword 1 7 “other sheep which are n ot of this fold, ” may return to the rich, green pastures which they left four hun dred years ago, and which are still as rich, as green , because still watered by the peren nial streams of the seven sac ramen te, just as in the days of Henry ; they are “ever an cient, yet ever new. ” The editor regrets that this piece of work has been made much after the man ner of the good housewife ’ s rag carpet—c omposed of pieces and patches , at difier en t times an d places, when and where a busy min istry would permi t. There i s n o pretence at style . Indeed, while tryin g to be brief, and yet give all the testimonies collected, the matter has, it is feared, often grown heavy ; while tryi ng to teach on e is apt to forget to amuse . A ll that the editor asks is a careful readin g and in du lgen ce for his defects . The writer takes pleasure in ackn owledgin g his i h debtedn ess to the r ich treasures of the Library of the Peabody Institute of B altim ore ; the kind loan of on e edition of the “A sser tio ” from the C atholic Un iversity of A merica ; also D r . Healy ’ s ol d English version of the “A sser tio, ” here reprinted ; above all , the en cou r agin g in terest and learned advice of that richly g ifted hi storian that gentle, hard- workin g teacher Very Re veren d Thomas J . S hahan, Professor of E cclesiastical History in the C atholic University Of A merica . To the Rev. Lucian Johnston , of B altimore, the writer i s grateful for helpful criticism an d advice ; also to the Rev. C harles Hogue, S . S . , of S t. Charles ’ C ollege, M aryland ; to Rev. Hen ry J . Sban della, S . J . , of Georgetown, and Rev. Fr . E hrle, S . J . , of Rome . A n d though last, not least, most pro foun dly does the writer appreciate the graciousn ess of that providen tial modern defender of the FAI T H O F
1 8 F or ewor d FAT HE RS , been g ood enoug h his latter days to introduce this book—His Emi nence Gibbons, A rc hbishop B altimore . TH E CAT H E DRAL , BA L TI M ORE , F EAS T OF PE NTE C OS T, 1 907 .
20 S yn op si s ofthe “ A sser ti o ” The work may not only be very profitably p e r u sed, but is also extremely curious, when we c onsider its author ’ s very remarkable and inconsistent character . The London edition, from whence the present is taken, has bee n carefully corrected throughout, in the or thog r ap hy and punctuation , and the text, obscure in some parts, has been elucidated . This edition is vastly preferable to all former ones in the E nglish tongu e The publication of a work, hitherto so extremely scarce, will be satisfactory to the curious . ” l etter of went? lD1l1l 1l . to l ee g. ® n tbe S ubject of tbe ‘ E sser tio. ’ 1 52 1 . “Most H oly F ather : A s We C atholic sovereign s should uphold religion, when We saw Luther ’ s heresy r unning wild, for the sake of Germany, and still more for love of the Holy A postolic S ee, We tried to weed ou t this heresy. “S eeing its widespread havoc, We called on all to help Us to eradicate it, particularly the E mperor and the E lectoral Princes . Lest , however, this be not enough to Show Ou r mind on Luther ’ s wicked books , We shall defend and guard the Holy Roman C hurch not only by force of arms, but also by Ou r wits . An d therefore We dedicate to Your Holiness Ou r first fruits , confident that an abundant harvest will be gathered, should Your Hol iness approve Ou r work . “From Ou r Royal Palace at Greenwich, May 21 st, 1 521 Your Holiness ’ most devoted and humble son , Henry, by the grace of God King of E n g l and and France, an d Lord of Ireland .
S yn op si s ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 21 ®ration of am. 3ohn (H ark, Orator tor b enrg mum , k ing of B ugl ano, finance ano I rel ano, E etenb er of the f aith ; on his exhibiting this Renal moc k, in tbe consistorg at Rome, to p op e l ee 2 . “Most H ol y F ather : Wh at great troubles from the Hussite s ! Wh at from Luther ’ s works ! especially from ‘The B abylonian C aptivity of the C hurch, ’ in refuting which many grave an d learned men have diligently laboured . Henr y VIII . , most affectionate son of Your Holi ness and of the sacred Roman Church, hath written a book against thi s work of Luther ’ s, which he has dedi cated to Your Holiness, which I here present , but before You receive it , most holy Father, may it please You , that I speak somewhat Of the devotion and venera tion of my King towards Your Holiness , and this most Holy S ee ; as also of the other reasons which moved him to publish this work . ” “Luther rends the seamless C oat of Christ, makes the Pope a mere priest, condemns all ministers, and calls Rome B abylon, makes the Pope a heretic and himself [Luther] equal to S t . Peter . He burnt the dec rees and statutes of the Fathers and published his B ook of the B abylonian C aptivity. It condemns Pope, hierarchy and ‘ the Rock ’ and the C hurch ; abolishes most sacred practices ; institutes sacraments after his fancy, redue ing them to three, if n ot to none at all . Wh at ills are yet to be added to those started by the Hussite s ? My King moved the E m peror to exil e Luther . “My E n gland hath n ever been behind in due obedience to the Roman C hurch, either to
22 S yn op si s ofthe “ A sser tto ” S pain, France, Germany or Italy ; nay, to Rome itself ; so n o nation more impugn s thi s monster . Ki ng Henry, Your Holiness ’ most devoted son , u ndertook this pious work himself, the most learned clergy of this realm have endeavoured to remove all doubts, “so that amon gst us the C hurch of God is in great tran quillity ; n o dif erences, n o disputes, n o ambiguous words, murmurings or complaints are heard amongst the people . ” “The reason that moved my most serene King, who has defen ded with the sword the C atholic Faith and Christian Religion, to un dertake this work, i s his piety — “hi s accustomed veneration to Your Holin ess ; C hristian piety in the cause of God ; and a royal grief and indign ation of seeing religion trodden un der foot also “the desire of glory ” might have induced him to discover by reason the Lutheran heresies . This raging and mad dog i s n ot to be dealt with by words, there bein g no hopes of his conversion, but with drawn swords, cannons, and other habiliments of war . ” A n d this “work of his, though it had the approbation Of the most learned Of his Kingdom ; yet he resolved not to publish until Your Holiness (from whom we ought to receive the sense of the Gospel , by your quick and most sublime judgment ) deem it worthy to pass throug h the hands of men . May therefore Your Holi ness take in good part and graciously accept this little B ook . ” l eo 235 Reply; NO T HING coul d have been se nt mor e acc eptable to Us. We praise an d adm ire that most C hristian King, having the kn owledge, will , and ability of composing
S yn opsi s ofthe “ A sser tto ” 28 this excellent book, who has ren dered himself no less admirable to the whole world by the eloquence of his style, than by hi s great wisdom . ” May the Creator bless him, an d we shall do “an ything that may ten d to the hon our an d digni ty of hi s M ajesty an d to hi s an d hi s ki ngdom’ s glory . ” t he p ope ’ s JBul l l eo, 2. misbop ano S ervant of the S ervants of (Bob: 0 0 our most bear S on in c hrist. fienrv. the il l ustrious k ing of E ng lano, ano E etenber of the f aith, senbs Greeting , anogives his JBenebiction. A S the other Roman B ishops have bestowed par ticu l ar favours upon C atholic Princes ” for constan cy in Faith, and un spotted devotion to the Church in tem pestu ou s times : so also We, for vour Majesty ’ s most excellent works . “Ou r beloved son John Clark did, in Ou r C on sistory, in presence of Ou r ven erable B rethren, C ardinals of the C hurch, present Us a book which you r Majesty did compose as an an tidote agains t the errors of divers heretics, often con demn ed by this Holy S ee, and n ow again revived by Martin Luther . “Having foun d in this book most admirable doctrine We than k God and beg you to enlist like workers . We, the true successor of S t . Peter, presiding in this Holy S ee, from whence all dign ity and titles have their source, have with our brethren maturely del ib er ated on these things ; and with on e consen t unani m ou sly decreed to bestow on your M ajesty thi s title, n amely, ‘D efender of the Faith . ’ We like wise com mand all Christians, that they name your
24 S yn op si s ofthe “A sser ti o ” Majesty by this title . Having thus weighed your singular merits, we could n ot have inven ted a more congruous name . “A n d you shall rej oice in Ou r Lord , showing the way to others, that if they also covet to be invested with such a title, they may study to do such actions , and to follow the steps of your most excellent M ajesty, whom, with vour wife, children, and all who shall spring from you , we bless . “Given at St. Peter ’ s in Rome, the fifth of the Ides of October ; in the year of Ou r Lord ’ s Incarn ation 1 521 , an d in the n inth year of Ou r Papacy . ” VI l etter from l eo x. (l o b enrg 1D1l il il . respecting the ‘ Sisset tio S eptem S acra mentorum. ’ in repl y to the book written :b9 the k ing against l ather . To Ou r d ear est S on i n C hr ist heal th and A postoli c ben edi c ti on . We are deeply grateful for your defence of this Holy S ee, and all but welcome Luther ’ s crime as the occasion of Your noble championship . S uch virtue must not lose its reward . For if praise is due to those who pro teet ou r liberty, as well as to those who defend our sacraments, both of these noble virtues are united in You . What return can We make for Your good will towards Us 2 Your learning, clevern ess and charity should con vince and gain back the heretics . F or You r service “for the g reat God, and this Holy S ee, We give infin ite thanks to Your Majesty, D efender of the Faith . ”
S yn opsi s ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 25 I n a bull of Ou r Own , with the assen t of Ou r Vener able B rethren , We have forwarded to You this title of ‘D efen der of the Faith . ’ Forget not, dearest S on , to act in accordance with Your new and honourable title, remembering that far greater rewards, from Ou r Lord and S aviour, await You in heaven . Let Your defence Of the S pouse of C hrist here on earth remi n d You of, and prepare You for , an etern al reward hereafter . VII t he E pistle E ebicatorv (to ®ar M ost b ol e l ore l ee 2" chief mishap , ‘ b enrp , k ing of B ngl anb , fi ance ano 1i relanb. wisbetb perpetual h appiness. Most H ol y F ather : You will wonder at a man of war and af airs writing against heresy, but love for the faith and respect for You li rge me, an d God ’ s grace will aid me . “Religion bears the greatest sway in the administration of public af airs and i s likewise of no small importance in the comm onwealth, ” and so we have spent much time in the contemplation thereof, and now we dedicate to Your Holiness what we have meditated therein . If we have erred in anything , we of er it to be corrected as may please Your Holiness . ” (l o the 1Reaber THOUGH of limited ability I feel it my duty to defen d the C hurch and C atholic Faith to the best of my power . I arm m yself with a twofold arm our , celestial an d ter
26 S yn ap sis ofthe “ A sser ti o ” r estr ial , to overcome him who perverts S cripture, the S acraments , eCcl esiastic al rites an d ce remoni es—the ih fer nal wolf, who t ries to disperse the flock of C hrist with his B abylon ian C aptivi ty . If Luther do n ot r e pent an d “if Christian princes do their duty these errors an d himself, if he perseveres therein, may be burned in the fire . C H A PTE R I M i nbnlgences anb the [pepe ' s Einthoritp “ I n du lgen tiw su n t adu l ator u m Rom an or u m n e Luther attacks n ot on l v the abuses but the doctrine of indulgences : “they are nothi ng but mere impostures, fit on ly to destroy people ’ s money an d God ’ s faith . ” A s he den ies “indul gences to be profitable in this life, it would be in vain for me to dispute what great benefits the souls in Purgatory receive by them, whereby we are relieved from Purgatory itself. ” “The words of Chr ist remain firm ‘Whatsoever thou shalt loose on ear th, shall be loosed in heaven . ’ B y which words, if it is manifest that an y priest has power to absolve m en from sins, and take away etern al punish ment due thereun to, who wi ll n ot judge it ridiculous, that the Pr in ce of all pr iests should be denied the tak ing away of temporal pun ishment ? ” Wh at con ce rn s it me what that man admits , or den ies , who alon e rejects all thing s which the Holy C hurch has held during so many ag es i ” Luther ' s wor ds, qu oted by Henry.
28 S yn op si s ofthe “ A sser ti o ” He is endeavouring to draw all others with him into destruction, whilst he strives to dissuade them from their obedience to the Chief B ishop, whom, in a three fold manner , he himself is boun d to obey, vi z . , as a C hristian, as a priest , and as a religious brother . Luther refuses to submit to the law of God, but desires to establish a law of his own . ” C HA PTE R I I I tl he Defence of the Seven Sacraments TH E preceding two chapters of Luther are but a flourish to his real work . “Of seven S acraments he leaves us but three ; of the three he takes away on e imm ediately after in the same book, he says ‘ that if he would speak accordin g to S cripture, he would have but one S acrament and three sacramental sign s . C HA PTE R I V {the Sacrament of the Elli at LE T us begin where he began himself, with the adorable S acrament of C hrist ’ s B ody. The changing of the Name thereof, calling It the sacrament of bre ad, shows ” Luther ’ s intentions . A S “S t . Am brose says ‘Though the form of bread and wi ne i s seen upon the altar, yet we must believe that there i s nothing else but the B ody and B lood of C hrist . Next comes the c onsu bstan ti ati on theor y of Luther , who was determined with himself to draw the people to worship the bread and leave ou t Christ ’ s B ody . Luther reopened the ol d sore of the B ohemian trouble,
S yn opsi s ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 29 i . e . , that the people should receive C ommunion un der both forms . Luther ’ s charge that the clergy forcibly took away the chalice from the laity against their will is disbelie ved by Henry . If Lu ther objects to the change from the primi tive way of giving C ommunion, he should object also to chi ldren n ot receiving at all , and to ou r receiving in the morning instead of after supper . A n d what authority in S cripture has he to pu t water in the wine, if not tradition ? The chang e i s made by the Holy Ghost. “He that pretended to stand for the com mu nicating u nder both kinds recommends the quite contrary, to wi t, that it may be lawful for them never to receive under any kind . Luther also inculcates that “the substance of true bread and true wi ne remain still after C onsecration . ” “He esteems this to be hi s greatest and chiefest argu ment, to wi t, That S cripture i s n ot to be forced, bu t to be kept in the most simple sig n ification that can be . ’ B u t, ” says he, “the D ivine Words are forced if that which C hrist calls bread be taken for the accidents of bread, and what He calls wine for the form of wine . The evangelists so plainly write that C hrist took bread and blessed it . We confess He took bread and blessed it, bu t that He gave bread to His di sciples, after He had made It His B ody, we flatly deny, and the evangelists do not say He did . ” Luther says : “Take, eat , this, that is, this br ead, ( says He, which He had taken and broken) i s My B ody . This i s Luther ’ s interpretation, but not C hrist ’ s words, n or the sense of H i s words . If the rod ” [of A aron] “coul d n ot remain with the serpent, how much less can the bread remain with the Flesh of Christ ? ” C hrist does n ot say ‘ H oc est S an g u i s Meu s, ’ but ‘ H i c est S an g u i s Meu s. ’ Though wine is of the neu ter gender, yet C hrist did not say ‘ hoc , ’ but ‘ hi c est
30 S yn op si s ofthe “ A sser ti o ” S an gu is Meus . ’ A n d though bread is of the masculine gender , yet , notwithstanding, he says, ‘ H oc est C orp u s Meu m , ’ not ‘ hi c , ’ that it may appear by both articles that He did not mean to give bread or wine, but His own B ody and B lood . ” S o “bread i s not in the E ucha rist , ” concludes Henry . If the A cts speak of the E ucharist as bread, it is because I t was formerly, or still appeared as bread ; just as A aron ’ s rod, though changed to a serpent, is still called a rod . C hrist said “This is My B ody, ” not “My B ody is in this, or “With thi s which you see, i s My B ody . ” Luther says the word “transubstantiation ” has risen up inside the last 300 years . Henry replies that 400 years ago “Hugo de S an c to Vi c tor e writ a B ook of the S acraments, ” and said : ‘B y the word of S an ctific ati on the true substance of bread and wine is turned or changed into the true B ody and B lood of C hrist, only the form of bread and wine remaining, and the substance passing into another substance . ’ “E usebius E m i ssen u s, dyed about 600 years since, said, ‘Now the invisible Priest converteth, by His secret power, the visible creatures into His own B ody and B lood, saying, “Take and eat, this i s My B ody . ” S t. A ugustine : We honour ( says he) invisible thi ngs, vi z . , the Flesh and B lood in the form of the bread an d wi ne . ” “S t . Gregory Ni ssen u s says, ‘That before the con se cration it is but bread ; but when it is consecrated by mystery, it is made, and called the B ody of C hrist . “Theophilus says , ‘The B read is not a fig ure only of the B ody of C hrist , but is changed into the proper B odv of the Flesh and B lood of C hrist . Ou r Lord, condescending to our weakn ess , preserves the forms of the bread and wine , but changes the bread and wine into His own true Flesh and B lood . ’
S yn opsis ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 31 “S t. C yril says, ‘God, condescending to ou r frailties, les t we Should abhor flesh an d blood on the holy altars, i n fu seth the force of life into what is of ered, by changing them into the truth of His own prope r Flesh . ’ “S t . A mbrose said, ‘A lthough the form of bread and wine i s seen, nevertheless we are to believe that there is nothing else after the consecration but the B ody and B lood of C hrist . ’ S o the Fathers teach, n ot consubstantiation, but tran substantiation . Luther “denies it [ the Mass] to be a good work, though “he sees and confesses himself that the opinions of the Holy Fathers are against him, as also the C anon of the M ass, with the custom of the un iversal C hurch, confirmed by the usage of so many ages, and the conse nt of so many people . He strives to excite the comm onalty against the nobility . He says that we ought to receive the ‘ C ommun ion with faith alone . The more clear, pure, and free from the stain of sin our consciences are, in the worse capacity are we to receive . M ass is no sacrifice it is only profitable to the priest, not to the people ; that it is nothing available either to the dead or the living . ’ Hen ry expounds the M ass and Shows “C hrist to be the eternal Priest ' on the cross He c on sum mated the sacrifice which He began i n the supper The consecration in the suppe r and the oblation on the cross is celebrated and represented together in the sacra ment Of the Mass . ” Henry then shows that the M ass said by priests is a good work . “The Mass of every priest helps those to salvation who, by their faith , have deserved . ” The Mass is a sacrifice, for “the priests do not only perform
32 S yn op si s ofthe “ A sser ti o ” what C hrist did in His last supper , but also what He has afterwards done on the cross . ” We must accept not only the words of S cripture, but also the tradition of the C hurch . The Mass is a true sacrifice to God, despite Luther ’ s objection that it i s received by the priest ; for so were all of Moses ’ sacrifices received by priests . S t . A m brose and S t . Gregory are quoted to prove the M ass a sacrifice, and A ugustine, who says “The Oblation i s every day renewed, though C hrist has but once suf fer ed . “Othe r sacraments are only profitable to particular persons receivi ng them ; this, in the M ass, is beneficial to all , in general . ” Moreover, even “the wickedness of the minister, be it never so great, i s n ot able to lessen or avert the benefit of It from the people . ” It is to be adored, and also rec eived at least once a year . Henry su ms up this chapter and shows that Luther tries to draw people and even clergy from receiving C ommun ion . C HA PTE R v ®t JBaptism H E has treated of B aptism itself after such a man ner, that it had been better he had not touched it at all . ” Have faith and baptism, an d then no matter what sins you commit . He [Luther] says, ‘The baptized man cannot lose his salvation, though willing to do it , by an y sin whatsoever , except infidelity . ’ Penance is not necessary, though S t . Jerome said, Penance i s the board after shipwreck . ” Next Luther says that faith without the sacrament suffices . The two theories of the cau sali ty of sacramental grace are contradicted by Luther ; he makes faith a cloak for a wicked life ; he
S yn op sis ofthe “ A sser tio ” 33 would undo all authority and order Why does he thus reproachful ly raise himself against the B ishop of Rome ? To demolish C hrist ’ s Church, so long founded upon a firm rock ; erecting to themselves a new church, compacted of flagitiou s an d impious people . ” C HA PTE R VI M the Sacrament of [penance FORGI VE NE SS i s n o new doctrine, as Luther would imply, bu t a very old an d common practice indeed . C HAP TE R VI I ®t ¢ontrition LUT HE R says that “after they are loosed by the word of man here on earth, they are absolved by God in heaven . ” If God has promised forgiveness on l v to those who are as contrite as the greatness of the1 r cri mes requires , then Luther himself cannot ( as he commands all others to be) be assured and ou t of doubt that hi s sins are for given him . I f God has promised pardon to such as are less contrite—attrite s— by that Luther agrees with those b e bu t n ow reprehended . B u t if God has prom ised it to such as have no manner of sorrow for their sins, He has su r el v much more promised it to such as are attrite . If he admi ts but only contrition, that is, a sufficient grief, then can nobody be assured that he is absolved . B esides, Luther ’ s motives for c ontrition are n ot even as good as those always inculcated .
34 S yn op si s ofthe “ A sser tio ” C HA PTE R VIII ®t (tonfession LUTH E R says public sins are to he confessed ; he i s n ot clear on private sins . E cclesiasticus, S t. John C hrysostom, Numbers, S t. James, Isaias, S t. A mbrose, S t. A ugustin e, and custom, all prove confession of secret sin s by “the divi ne order of God . C on fes sion was in stituted and is preserved by God Himself, n ot by any custom of the people, or institution of the Fathers . ” “Now Luther is condemn ing the reservation of some sins so as not to discer n jurisdiction from Or der. Luther says C hrist ’ s words, conferring the power of forgiving sins, apply to the laity ; A ugustine, B ede, Am brose, the whole C hurch deny it ; which do you be l ieve 2 ” C HA PTE R I x ®f Satisfaction LUT HE R says satisfaction i s a renewal of life, an d asserts that the Church doe s n ot teach this He asserts that faith wi thout good works suffices “God does n othing regard ou r works . ” Henry exhorts Luther to repent an d mak e satisfaction for hi s un dervaluin g Pen an ce, an d, indeed, denying it to be a sacramen t at all. C HA PTE R x ®f Confirmation LUT HE R denies thi s to be a sacramen t. Tradition , Hen ry shows, i s authority for ou r faith . Then Hen ry expoun ds the sacrament of C onfirmation .
36 S yn ap sis ofthe “ A sser ti o ” the Church ; for none speaks after this mann er . I t is therefore a n ecessary consequence that this sacrament, which he says is great in C hrist and the C hurch, is that conjunction of man and wife which he has spoken of. ” Luther denies that matrimony gives an y grace. The A postle calls it “a bed unspotted, ” and Henry argues that “marriage should not have an immaculate bed, if the grace, which is infused by it, did not turn that un to grace, which Should be otherwise a sin . ” “The A postle saith, ‘ If any brother hath a wife, an infidel , and she consent to live wi th him, let him n ot pu t her away . A n d if any woman hath a husband, an infi del , and he con sent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband . F or the man, an infidel , i -s sancti fied by the faithful woman ; and the woman, an in fidel , is sanctified by the faithfu l husband ; otherwi se your children should be unclean , but now they are holy. ’ D o not these words of the A postle Show that i n mar r i ag e the sanctity of the sacrament san ctifies the whole marriage, which before was altogether u n clean When it is said of the first marriage, “God blessed them [A dam and E ve ] , did He give no grace to their souls 2 ” ‘Wh at God hath j oined together, l et no man pu t asunder. ’ There must be understood sure something more holy than the care of propagating the flesh, which God performs in marriage ; and that, with ou t all doubt, is grace ; which is, by the Prelate of all sacraments , infused into married people in consecratin g marriage . ” S o reasoning and tradition both prove marriage to be a sacrament .
S yn op si s ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 37 C HA PTER XII M the Sacrament of ®roers LUT HE R denies Orders to be a sacrament . “There is n o difference of priesthood between the laity and priest : all men are priests alike . The sacra ment of Orders is nothing else but the custom of elect ing a preacher in the C hurch whose wicked doc trine all men m ay see tends directly to the destr u c tion of the faith of C hrist by infidelity. ” “The C hurch , ” says Luther, “can discern the word of God from the word of m en . ” Luther ’ s fundamental reduced ad absu r du m . D id not the A postle warn Timothy, “Impose not hands lightly upon an y man ” ? Were not A aron and hi s sons made priests of the Ol d Law ? Luther reviles S t . D ionysius, who calls Orders a sacrament . Testimonies of S t . Jerome, S t . Gregory and S t. A ugustine as to Orders being a sacrament , and of a permanent character . Luther shown to be wrong in saying laym en are equal to priests, for priests only can consecrate . Luther had even said : “That the peo ple wi thout the bishop, but not the bishop without the people, can ordain priests . ” Why, then, says Henry, does the A postle warn Timothy, ‘Neglect not the grace which is in thee, and which has been given thee by prophecy, by the imposition of the hands of the presby ter y ’ A n d in another place, to the same, ‘ I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee, by the imposition of my hands . ’ Résum é .
38 S yn opsi s ofthe “ A sser ti o ” C HA PTE R XIII M the Sacrament of E xtreme “ (auction I F ever Luther was mad at any time, he is certainly distracted here, i n the S acrament of E xtreme Unction, ” says H en r v. “You see how he here en deav ours in two ways to weaken the words of the A postle . First he will not have the epistle to have been wr it by the A postle . S econdly, though it was by him written, yet wi ll he not have the A postle to have authority of instituting sacraments . They are the chief weapons by which he intends to destroy this sacrament . ” B u t Luther is confuted by S t . Jerome and by Luther him self . When E xtreme Unction should be adm i n i s ter ed . It is a sign of grace for the soul ; not necessarily to give health to the body . ‘This Unction, ’ he says, ‘ is no sacrament, bec ause it does n ot always heal the body . ’ Luther has reason to deny S t. James ’ E pistle, for it denies Luther ’ s teaching . B u t Luther goes far ther and denies and defies the whole C hurch . “I ad vi se all C hristians that, as the most exterminating of plagues, they shun him who endeavours to bring into the Church of C hrist such foul prodigies , being the very doc trine of anti - Christ . For, if he who endeavours to move a schism in any on e thing is to be extirpated with all care, wi th what great endeavour is he to be rooted out who not only goes about to sow dissen sion, bu t to stir up the people against the chief B ishop, children against their parents, C hristians against the Vicar of C hrist . ” Though he shows sign s of death, yet he wi ll not let the pious Vicar of Christ act as the Good S hepherd and save him from the wolf of hell . If Luther had spoken privately to the Pope of the errors he condemn ed, the Pope had doubtless blessed him . B u t n o ! He publicly
S yn apsi s ofthe “ A sser tio ” 39 expos ed and p oin ted to the ! shame of hi s father . “After which he was summoned to Rome, that he might either render reason s for hi s writings, or recant what he had inconsiderately written, having any security imag in able of ered him, that he should n ot undergo the pu n i shm en t which he deserved, with sufficient expenses of fer ed him for his j ourney . B u t he refused to go. A n d made hi s appeal to a general coun cil , yet not to every council , but to such as should next meet in the Holy Ghost ! that in whatsoever council he was condemn ed, he might deny the Holy Ghost to be present therein . The most conscientious shepherd has at length been forced to cast ou t from the fold the sheep suf ering with an in curable disease, lest the soun d sheep be c or r u pted by contact . Henry wishes Luther might repent, and exhorts all C hristians to unity : “D o not listen to the in sults and detractions against the Vicar of C hrist, which the fury of this little monk spews up against the Pope this on e little monk, in temper more harmful than all Turks, all S aracens, all i nfidel s everywhere. ”
®ccasion, ®rigin anomotive of the Eiseertio I N this chapter the Occasion, Orig in and Motive of the royal tr actate will be set for th in the words of repu table chroniclers and historians . It is hoped that the reader will not be repelled by the series of quotations their excuse i s the not unreasonable one that it has cost time and labour to bring them together, some from rare and at times inaccessible books ; in a very few cases the wr iter has been obliged to take them at second- hand. To begin, then, wi th I . The Occasi on of the “ A sser ti o A udin * tells us that across the sea Germany n ow, for the first time, beheld her ancient faith attacke d , not by arguments , but by ridicule, for that was the weapon used by Luther . ” That, moreover, “This apostate monk would recogn iz e the existence of n o law for his own personal acts, either moral or physical ; that Luther asserted that a S ingle individual might be right, though opposed to popes , councils , doc tors , the past and the present ‘ that he c om pared the sy llogism to the ass . ” Luther ’ s “B abylonish C aptivity was sent by Luther to the Pope, “with expressions of personal respect , and invoking him to set about a work of reformation in hi s corrupt court . ’ ’ 1 *Henr y VI I I . , Ch . I X . , pp . 88, 89 . {Bec kett ’ s E n gli sh Refor m ation , XVI I .
Occasi on , Or igi n an d Moti ve ofthe A sser ti o 41 James Gai rdn er * says that “Luther in his ‘B abylon i sh C aptivity ’ repudiated the Pope ’ s authority en tirely, attacked the whole scholastic system, an d declared four of the reputed seven sacraments to be of on ly hu m an origin . ” A s to E n g l an d the situation i s briefly bu t clearly stated by Paton :1 ' “The long reign of Henry VIII . , 1 509- 1 547, falls practically into two periods of n in eteen years each : in the former of which he was the champion of Popery agains t all comers, against Luther among the rest, un der the title still worn by ou r sovereig n s , ‘D efender of the Faith . ’ I t was in the former half of his reign that the com position of the King ’ s treatise took place ; a few quota tion s from the best sources will give a reliable outline of the situation which occasion ed the “A sser tio. ” Poly dore Vergil, :t a contemporary Italian historian of E n g lan d, says of Henry ’ s book and its title “ Q u oci r c a Henricus r ex, qui babahat regn um suum maxime omn ium religiosum, ver itu s n e u spi am labes al iqu a r el ig ion i s fier et, primum libros Lu ther an os, quor um magn us j am numerus per ven er at in manus sn orum A n g l or um , c om bu r en dos c u r avit, dein de l ibel l um contra eam doc tr in am l u cul en ter com posu it m i sitqu e ad Leo n em pon tific em , tum H en r icum defen sor em fidei appell avi t, qu o ille dein ceps titulo usus est. ” C onfirming this statement of the large quan tity of Luther ’ s books already in E ngland, is the injun ction *E ng lish Chu rch i n the S ixteen th C entu ry, p . 78. {James Porter , B r itish History an d Papal Claims, Vol . I . , p . 40. tPolydor i Vergilii Urb in atis. An gliae H i stor ies Libri Vigin ti sep tem , lib . XXVI I . , fol . 664. A s to Polydor e Vergil ’ s reliability, Mr . H . E llis, i n the Pr efac e to Polydor e Vergil ’ s E nglish History, pu blished by the C am den Society, says : “ That Polydore Vergil ’ s History is entirely withou t mistakes cann ot b e asser ted, but they are very few. "
42 Occasi on , Or igin an d Motive ofthe A sser ti o against their being read, sent by Leo to Wolsey ; it is as follows “E t quia dicti errores et pl u r e s alii in diver si s l ibell i s per Mar tin u m Lu ther u m haer esi ar cham c om positi s, con tin eban tu r , l ibel l os ipsos in q u oc u m q u e idi om ate r e per ieban tu r , dam n avim u s, n e l ibel l os, hu j u sm odi errores ipsos continentes legere, imprimere , publicare , seu defendere, aut in dom ibu s suis, sive al ii s pu bl i c i s vel p r i vati s locis tenere quomodo pr acsu m er en t ; qui nimmo il l os, statim post l i ter ar u m n ostr ar u m , super his editar u m pu bl i c ati on em u bic u m q u e forent per ordina rios et alios in djetis l i ter i s expressos dil ig en ter q u aesi tos, publice et sol em n i ter in praesenti a cleri et populi sub poenis in ii sdem l iter i s expressis, c om bu r en tu r , ipsiqu e M artino, u t ab omni p r aedic ation e desi ster et, ju ssim u s. ” The following extract describes the condemnation and burning of Luther ’ s books at S t . Paul ’ s C hurch , Lon don, and complements the foregoing quotation ; it shows also that the Pope ’ s mandate was promptly and solemn ly executed . It is from the C ottonian M S S . in the B ritish Museum (Vitel l . b . 4, p . 1 1 1 ) and is entitled : “Pope ’ s S entence against Martin Luther, published at London . ” “The xij daye of Maye in the years of our Lord 1 521 , and in the thirteenth ye ars of the B eigne of our S over aign e Lord Kinge Henry the eighte of that Name, the Lord Thomas Wolsey, by the grace of God L egate de Latere, C ardinal of S ain ct C ec el y and A rchbishop of Yorke, came unto S aint Paul es C hurchs of London, with the most parte of the B yshops of the Real m e, where he was received wi th procession, and sen sid by Rym er , Find er s, Vol . X I II , p . 742. B ul l s Leonis X . C ar di n ali E boru m , de potestatibu s su per l ectione l ibr or um Mar tini Lu theri . ”
44 Occasi on , Or ig in an d Moti ve ofthe “ A sser ti o Lord Herbert of C herbury, a seventeen th- cen tur y hi s torian of Henry VIII. , says “Ou r king, bein g at leisure n ow from wars, and for the rest delighting much in learning, thought he could not give better proof either of hi s zeal or education, than to write against Luther . In this also he was exasper ated, for that Luther had often times spoken contempt u ou sly of the learned Thomas of A c q u in e, who yet was so much in request with the Kin g, that, as Pol ydor e hath it, he was called Thom i sticu s. A n d Roscoe , in hi s Life of Leo X . ,1 adds to this and says “S uch was the reception they [ the new opinions of the Reformation] met with in this country [E ngland] , that Henry VIII . , who had in hi s youth , devoted some portion of his time to ecclesiastical and scholastic studies, not only attempted to coun teract their effects by severe restrictions, but condescended to enter the lists of controversy wi th Luther, in his well - known work, wr itten in Latin , and entitled ‘A Vin dication of the S even S acraments . ’ Henry, then, loved theological learning in general , and S t . Thomas in particular , as its most gifted exp on ent ; for this reason alone Luther must have been odious to the royal E nglish theologian . A udini: Says “Luther again republished his insulting tirade against the ‘A ngel of the S chools ’ in his ‘C aptivity of the C hurch at B abylon A ll Hen ry ’ s kn owl edge of theology, and he was n o bad theologian, he was indebted for to S t . Thomas A quinas , hi s inseparable companion, who, beautifully boun d, oc cupied the most *Life and Reig n of Henry VII I . , p . 85. c hn ed I I . , p . 231 . fH enry VI I I . , p . 89 .
Occasi on , Or ig in an d Moti ve ofthe A sser ti o 45 prominent place in hi s library, an d which he read over and over again , and each time with fresh ardour ; and his chief advisers , Fisher , Wolsey, and More, were as enamoured with S t. Thom as as himself. Hap pily for Henry, the monk, in his ‘ C aptivity of the C hurch at B abylon, ’ had created a new dogma, whence he had excluded the sacraments of order, extreme unc tion and penance ; indulgences , purgatory and the pa pacy. H i s [Henry ’ s] address, ‘A d Lectores, ’ which he placed at the commencement , might have been taken as the production of a theologian of the twelfth century . H i s aged mother had been insulted, and there fore, as an affectionate son , he had hastened to her de fence . ” II. The Or ig in of the A sser ti o. —On this subject B ishop C reighton ’ s * remarks are rich and graphic : “B u t besides ecclesiastical ceremonies ( in London) and bonfires of Luther ’ s books, Wolsey discussed with his master (Henry VIII . ) the theological aspect of Ln ther ’ s teaching . Henry showed such knowledge of the subj ec t that Wolsey suggested he should express his views in writing . The result was that the E nglish King entered the lists of theological controversy . In A ugust the book was printed, though it was not pub l i shed till it had been formally presented to the Pope . A lexander received an early copy. He found the work to be a collection of precious gems . ‘ If kings, ’ he writes, ‘ are of this strength, farewell to u s philosophers . ’ Henry felt aggrieved that the E nglish King had no title to set by the side of ‘ C atholic ’ and ‘Most C hristian, ’ which were enj oyed by the Kings of S pain and France . Wolsey represented to the Pope that the E nglish King deserved some recogn ition of his piety and the claim *History of the Papacy duri ng the Per iod of the Reform ation , Vol . V. , pp. 1 63, 1 64.
46 Occasi on , Or ig i n an d Moti ve ofthe “ A sser ti o ” engaged the serious attention of a consistory on June 1 0 . There was no lack of suggestions : ‘Faithful, ’ ‘Orthodox, ’ ‘A postolic, ’ ‘E cclesiastical, ’ ‘Proctor, ’ are some ou t of the number . The King ’ s book ar rived at Rome, and on S eptember 1 4 was presented to the Pope, who read it wi th avidity and extolled it to the S kies . B u t this was not enough to mark the impor tance of the occasion, and it was formally presented in a consistory . A fter this the Pope proposed ‘D efender of the Faith ’ as a suitable title ; some demurred on the ground that a title ought not to exceed a S ingle word . and still hankered after ‘The Orthodox ’ or ‘Most Faith ful ’ but the P Ope decided in favor of ‘D efender of the Faith, ’ an d all agreed . In a letter written by Pace to Wolsey, November 1 9 (B rewer, C alendar, the King ’ s thanks are conveyed to Wolsey for having suggested this work . D oubtless the King con su l ted with others , chiefly with Fisher, but there i s no reason to doubt that the work was substantially hi s own . ” Pallavicini * also declares that C ardinal Wolsey asked the Pope for some extraordinary title for Henry . A n interesting and rare account of the origin of the A sser tio ” is given in the quaint old book entitled The A nnals of E ngland . ’ 1 It says “The King havi ng written a booke against M artin Luther, sent it as a present to Pope Leo the Tenth . “Henry being of ended wi th Luther ’ s n ew (as the world then deemed them) tenets, thought it would prove to his honour , by writing against Luther , to mani fest his learning and piety to the world . H er u pon under his name a book was set forth , better beseemi n g *Hi st . du C on . de Tr en te, I . , c ol . 676. {I n Latin , by Fr anc is Lor d Bishop of Her eford . E ng lished by Morgan Godwyn , p . 47 .
Occasi on , Or ig in an d Moti ve ofthe A sser ti o 47 some antien t and deep divin e, than a youthful prince , (whom although he earnestly endeavoured it , yet hi s af airs would n ot permit to bury him selfe among hi s books) which many thought to have been compiled by S i r Tho. More, some by the B ishop of Rochester , an d others ( n ot wi thout cause ) suspected to be the worke of some other gre at scholler . This booke was so ao ceptabl e to the Pope, that according to the example of A lexander the S ixt, who en titu l ed the King of S pain C atholic ; and of that Pope whosoe ver he were, that gave the French King the title of Most C hristian ; he decreed to grace King Henry and his successors with that honourable on e of ‘D efender of the Faith which sever al l titles are by these princes to this day . The hi stori an S peed * seems to belittle the worth of the title and the King ’ s personal merit . He says C arolus, Henricus, vivant, defensor u ter qu e, Henricus fidei , C arolus E cclesiae. Why the titles D efender of the C hurch and Faith were attributed un to these two Princes, is no marvel] ; for C harles chosen E m per ou r , was scarcely confirmed, bu t to purchase the Pope ’ s favour, he directed forth a solemn e Writ of outlawr y against M artin Luther, who then had given a great blow to the Papal C r own e . A n d King Henry likewi se was renowned in Rome, for wr it ing a B ooke against the said Luther, unpropping the totte ring or downe - cast countenance of the Pope ’ s par dons ; which Luther shrewdly had shaken ; the Pope therefore, to Show himselfs a kinde father unto those hi s sonnes , gave them thes e titles ; which in truth were none other, then the same which they sware unto, whe n the C r own es of their empires were first set upon their heads . ” Luther had said in hi s “B abylonian C aptivity ” : “I *Hist. of Great Brit , p . 991 .
48 Occasi on , Or ig in and Moti ve ofthe A sser ti o must n ow deny that there are seven S acraments, and bind them to three —baptism, the Lord ’ s S upper, and penance . ” A propos of this denial , C anon Flanagan gives the following account * of the occasion of the King ’ s treatise “Henry VIII . himself, assisted, it is thought, by Wol sey, and Fisher the bishop of Rochester, and S i r Thomas More , wr ote a treatise upon the seven S acra ments against Luther . The latter speedily answered , never being at a loss, if n ot for argumen ts at least for fitting words . His answer was replied to by S i r Thomas More . A gain he [Lu ther] took up the pen . I t was in ackn owledgm ent of this defence of the Church ’ s doctrine that Henry rec eived from the Pope what his successors have ten aciously retained, the title of ‘D efender of the Faith . ’ It appears that sometime before wr iting the treatise, he had sued for the title of ‘Most C hristi an ’ which Julius II . had threatened to withdraw from the schismatical Louis XII . D i sap pointed i n this, he presented his treatise to Leo X . for his examination and approval, and petitioned for the other title , promising to be equally zealous against Luther ’ s followers in E ngland as against Luther him self . I t was granted after ‘mature deliberation ’ by Leo in 1 521 , and again by C lement in III . The Moti ve ofthe “ A sser ti o. —~ A s to the motive for which the “A sser tio was composed, Mr . John C lark, Orator for H en r v VIII . , in his address to Leo X . at the presentation of the “A sser ti o ” at the papal court, says “Only first be pleased that I declare the Reason that moved my most serene King to undertake this Work . For I believe it will cause A dmiration in several , that a Prince should now, for the Glory of God , an d “Vol . II . , pp . 24, 25, of his History of the Chu rch in E ng land .
Oc casi on , Or ig i n an d M oti ve ofthe A sser ti o 49 Tran qui llity of the Roman C hurch, by hi s Ingenuity and Pen, pu t a S top to Heresies , which so endanger the C atholic Faith . “These, most holy Father , are the chief Reasons, of hi s entering upon this Work : hi s accustomed Venera tion to Your Holiness ; C hristian Piety in the C ause of God ; and a royal Grief and Indig n ation of see ing Religion trodden under Foot . I confess the D esire of Glory mi ght have been able to have induced him to these Things in the field of learning against Mar tin Luther . ” Henry himself, in hi s “E pistle D edicatory to Leo, states “the Reasons that obliged Us to take upon Us this C harge of Writing . We have seen Tares cast into ou r Lord ’ s Harvest ; S ects do spring up , and Heresies increase, also to declare Ou r great Respect towards Your Holiness, Ou r E ndeavours for the Propagation of the Faith of C hrist, and Ou r Obedience to the S ervice of A lmi ghty God ” A n d in hi s “To the Reader, ” Henry declares : I cann ot but think myself obliged to defend m y Mother , the S pouse of C hrist. ” In the “A r chaeol og i a, ” Vol . XXIII , page 69, E llis, quoting John B ruce, says : “Henry ’ s book was not wr i tten to get the title but was sei zed u p on as a c li n ch in g ar gu m en t for obtaining the title which had been asked— the book being all the while in preparation, but n ot formally for that purpose . ” Father B ridgett thinks that Henry acted from a high and pure intention, i . e . the defence of the Church . He says “In 1 520 Luther published his treatise called ‘The B abylonian C aptivity, ’ in which he finally broke with the C hurch, railed at the Pope, and called on the world to embrace an entirely new religion, under the n ame of genuine C hristianity. * Sir Thom as Mor e, pp . 210—212 .
50 Occasi on, Or igin and M oti ve ofthe “ A sser ti o I n 1 521 , Hen ry printed hi s book called ‘D efen ce of the S even S acraments . ’ Luther replied in a treatise so scurrilous that it has probably no parallel in literature . C ertainly such language had never before been ad dre ssed to a King or Prince . It cannot be said that Henry had drawn this upon his own head . He had n ot attacked Luther, but stepped in as the C hurch ’ s cham pion, to ward Off the blows Luther was aimi ng at her . On the whole his defence is dign ified, and he uses l an guage no stronger than had been used in all ages, by sain ts an d doctors, against inventors of novelties and di sturbers of unity . In this book of Henry ’ s More had n o other share than that, after it was written , he had arranged the index. B u t against his will he was drawn in to the controversy. The Kin g, however, in all probability, himself suggested to More that his wit would be well employed in chastisin g the in solent friar . This I gather from More ’ s own Wol ‘ ds ‘ ‘Nothing could have been more painful to me than to be forced to spe ak foul words to pu re ears . B u t there was no help for it . ’ His book i s n ot a treatise on Lutheranism, for Lutheranism as a system had n ot yet been en un ciated, an d was still incomplete in the brain of its author . He refutes indeed both the denials and assertion s of Luther as they occur, bu t it i s wi th Luther himself and Luther ’ s language to Henry that he is dealing . He did n ot consider that hi s own book was to have any perman ent value . Fin ally as to Henr y ’ s motive in writing the “A s serti o ” a most clever and interesting piece of literary detective work, whether convincin g or n ot, has been don e by S eebohm . It is thi s : G ai r dn er , in hi s “History of the E nglish says that Henry “declared to More a secret reason for maintainin g it [ the Pope ’ s *P. 79.