Henry the 8th book

52 Occasi on, Or ig in and Moti ve ofthe “A sser ti o the Pope could well be considered as able to dispense with by virtue of the power vested in him by the com m on con sen t of C hristendom, whether the Papal su p r em acy were of divine institution or n ot. The secret which Hen ry divulged to More may therefore have bee n, what afterwards bec ame the ground for the di vorce, viz . , that the previous marriage wi th Prin ce A rthur havin g been consumm ated was an impediment ‘ jure divino, ’ and consequently , could n ot be dispensed with by the Pope unless the Papal power of dispens a tion were held to be ‘ jure divi no . ’ Mr . B rown ] : seems inspired by the same idea when he writes that Henry was n ot sincere in his book, espe ci al ly about the authority of the Pope, bu t that he had an “ul terior aim . ” What truth is in this alleged motive it i s sur ely diffi cult , n ot to say impossible, to decide, for while Hen ry ’ s after life would incline one to believe him capable of a deep ulterior purpose, hi s earlier life would lead on e to believe him sincere and earnest . Was his motive in writing the “A sser tio ” to save his own E nglish people an d E urope from the new religious movement ? Was it to check Luther, or at least to be avenged on him ? Was i t to obtain a Papal title ? Was it to strengthen the foun dation of the Papal authority ? The latter may have been the predominant motive in the King ’ s mind, without exclusion of the others ; the relative force of each it would be difficul t n ow to estimate with any de gree of accuracy. *C onf. “ Th e Era of the Pr otestant Revolu tion , by S eebohm , pp . 172 and fol . , Scr i bner ’ s, 1 874. The execu tion of the D u ke of Bu ckingham at this tim e by Henry is attribu ted by S eebohm to Bu cki ngham ’ s havi ng spoken of th e i nvalidi ty of Henry ' s m arriage wi th C atharine. fRoy . Hist. So. Transaction s, VI II 257 .

Huthorship oi the tissertio WH O wr ote the “A sserti o ” ? That i s, who composed or compile d it ? F or the authorship i s far from a settled question . The chief testimonies adverse to Henry ’ s authorship are first given and then those maintaining it, that the reader may be convinced by both the greater authority an d number of the latter that, to say the least, it i s m or e probable that Henry wr ote the book : ver y prob able that he compi l ed it, at any rate . First, then, the testimonies again st Hen ry ’ s author ship . I n the “C alendar of S tate Papers between E n g land and edited by B er g en r ath, we read the followi n g “The King of E ngland has sent a book again st Martin Luther to the Pope . It i s said that all the learn ed men in E ngland have taken part in its com position . Hears that it is a good book. The Pope has given to the King of E ngland the title of ‘D efen der of the C hristian Faith . ’ This title prejudices n o on e, as all C hristian princes are, or ought to be, defenders of the faith . “ [Written on the margin by Gattin ar a z] I t i s true that all prin ces ought to be defenders of the Christian faith . A s, however, this title has been given to the Kin g of E ngland, it makes it seem as if he deserved it more than others , and as if others do n ot defen d the faith so well as he does . ” 1 *Henry VI II . , Vol . I I . , p . 881 . +S ee also Lives of the E ngli sh C ardinals, by Folkstone Wil liams, Vol . II , p . 870, n ote, who qu otes “ Ju an Manu el writes, 17th Octob er , 1521 The King of E n glan d has sen t a b ook against Mar

54 A u thor ship of the “ A sser ti o ” While personally Pocock believes Henry to be the author, yet he is fair and honest enough to quote the following “A letter of C ardinal Wol sey ’ s to King Henry wi th a copy of his book for the Pope . A n original . . ‘ I do send Mr . Tate unto your Highness with the book bound and dressed which ye purpose to Send to the Pope ’ s holiness . I do send also un to your highness the choice of certain verses to be written in the book to be sent to the Pope of your own hand : with the subscription of your n ame . B y vour ‘Most hum ble chaplain, ‘T . OA R L I S E ROR . This i s certainly rather strong testimony, and ad verse to Henry ’ s authorship . A n d yet its corrective swu ng Poc ock ’ s decision to the other side of the ques tion . B u t judgment must be suspended till all the evidence , both against and for Henry, is fully and fairly heard . S o, then, to proceed . A u din ] L says : “The literati of the day were supposed to have had a hand in the composition of the work, ” and he continues, in a note, saying that C alvin said : This book was written by some monk well versed in cavilling, and the King, havi ng been influenced by his advisers, consented that it should be printed in hi s nam e, and though he has since repented of hi s rash and in c on siderate act, he allowed it to pass under hi s name for thirty years . ti n Lu ther to th e POpe . I t i s said that al l the lear ned m en of E n g lan d have taken par t in its c om position . H e hears that it i s a good b ook. The Pope has given to th e Kin g of E nglan d th e title of D efen der of the Chr istian F aith . ” Written on th e margi n by Gattinara. " London , Allen , 1 868 . *Bu r n et ’ s Reform ation , by Pocock, Vol . VI No. 3 . {Henry VIII . , p . 92.

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 55 A humorous con fession, in frankn ess characteristic of its authors, is said by Worsley * to have been made by Luther ’ s countrymen . It is as follows “To the German s especially it appeared marvellous that a crowned head should contain so much learning. ” I n the “C atalogue of the Noble and Royal A uthors of E n gland, ” in two volumes (London, Vol . I , p . 9, we read an insidious inn uendo : “HE NRY T H E E I GHT H . A s all the succe ssors of this Prince owe their un changeable title of D efen der of the Faith to his piety and learning, we do n ot presum e to question hi s pretensions to a place in this catalogue . Otherwi se a little skepticism on hi s Majesty ’ s talen ts for such a performance , mean as it is, mi ght mak e u s question whether he did not write the defen ce of the S acramen ts against Luther , as on e of hi s S uccessors [C harles I ] is supposed to have written the E z ’mfw Bri e f/turf) ; that is, with the pen of some court - prelate . ” Mr . Richard Watson D ixon, in hi s “History of the C hurch of E ngland, ” Vol . I , page 4, says rather disparag i ngly of Henry, that he was a m an of force wi thout grandeur, of great ability but n ot of lofty in tellect, cun n ing rather than sagacious . ” In other words, that on the principle “nemo dat quod n on habet , ” Henr y did n ot write the “A ssertio. ” H ow di d it come about then ? H ow did Hen ry ’ s n ame g et to be popularly appended to it as the author ? Here is on e answer zj “C ardinal Wolsey, having a mind to engage the Kin g to act against Luther, whose opin ions daily spread and got ground here in E n glan d, con tr ived that an answer should be written to this book, which the Kin g should own for hi s, an d be presented to the Pope in his name . ” This i s al so stated by *Worsley, D awn of the Refor mation , p. 1 60. {Lewis ' s Fisher , Vol . I . , p . 107.

56 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” Turn er in hi s “History of where he says that Hen ry ’ s book “i s n ot unlikely to have originated, less from Henry ’ s literary conscience, than from Wol sey ’ s crafty contrivan ces . ” The famous John Foxe, in hi s “A cts an d Mon u ments, J r says “This book, albeit i t carried the King ’ s n ame in the title, yet it was another that admi nistered the motion, an other that framed the style . ” An d here ends the direct testimony again st Henry ’ s authorship . F or though what follows—i . e . , the grounds on which rest the claims of others to be the author of the “A sser ti o ” —might at first sight be ex pected to tell against Henry, yet eventually it will prove in favour of the King of E ngland . B ecause as n one of these other claims can be substantiated, they on ly add, by elimination, a new indirect argument in favour of Henry ’ s being the author . B u t if n ot Henry who else could have composed the A sser tio ” ? Passing by the allusion to Wol sey ’ s hav in g a hand in the authorship, as not sustain ed by au thor ities, B lessed John Fisher, the B ishop of Rochester, is the most likely, and for the following reasons : The “A sser tio ” is boun d up with his works in the Wi r ce burg edition f Pall avicini says z§ S ome have attributed to him [Fisher] the book which King Henry had had prin ted against Luther . ” The B ishop of La Rochelle, C lement Vill ecourt, says *Henry VII I Vol . I . , p . 280. Wei . N , p . 293 . IR. D . D . Joan nis Fi scher n Rofiensis in Ang lia episcopi opera (Wircebu rgi , Asser tio S eptem S ac ram entorum adver su s Martinum Lu theru m , ab Henrico VI I I Ang lim Regs, Rofiensi s tamen nostri hortatu et studio edits . §Tome I col . 848 .

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 57 most decidedly that Hen ry was n ot the author bu t that Fisher very probably was. His words ar e : Jc crois volontiers qu ’ il [Henri] est mort sans en avoir bien connu un e seule page [de la C aptivité de B abyl on e ] . “S i la D éfense des sept S acrements a été écrite par c c prince [Henri] , ma conviction bien prononcée est qu ’ il n ’ en a été que l e copiste, ou qu ’ il s ’ est bor né a l ’ écr i r e sous l a dictée de qu elqu ’ u n . “C e n ’ est pas a quinz e ans, et avant cet ag e, qu ’ on peut étr e capable de quelque succes dans celle étude . “Je suis per su ade qu e Henri n ’ a j amais ouvert n u volume du docteur angélique . ” Further, the bishop says that Fisher could write the A sser ti o ” in a few months, whereas it would take Henry as many years ; that Henry ’ s life was so different from the principles of the “A sser tio ” that he could n ot have written it . With this unhesitating statement of Villecourt, Thomson, in his “Memoirs of the C ourt of Henry agrees partly, adding another name to the list of probable authors . He says : “The world has attributed all that i s valuable in this work to the as siste nce of B ishop Fisher and of S i r Thomas More . ” S o much for Fisher ’ s claims ; those of More may be given next . A n d ther e are indeed strong testimonies in favour of More ’ s authorship , as m ay be seen from the followi ng citations . The “A n nals of E n g l an dm r says of More : Thomas More cultivate d literature, an d being introduced at court about 1 521 , he soon became a favourite with the King, whom b e assisted in the composition of hi s work against Luther . ” B u t this i s n ot the onl y testimony in favour of More ’ s *Vol . I . , p. 380. 13 vols Oxfor d , 1856, Vol . H . , p . 137, note.

58 Zu thor ship ofthe “A sser ti o ” authorship . In the “A r chaeol og ia, published by the S ociety of A ntiquaries of London, in Volume XXIII . there i s a transcript of an original MS . containing a memorial from Geo. C on sten tyn e to Thos . Lord C rom well , etc . (p . 55 and note) . It speaks of “the doubt which he entertains as to the authorship of the book against Luther, which bears Henry ’ s name—a doubt which appears to have arisen partly from common r e port, but more directly from his knowledge of the extent of the King ’ s scholarship . It may be seen that he at tributes the work to S i r Thomas More . ” A gain W. H . Hutton, in his “S i r Thomas More, says : “He [More] had assisted him [Henry] in hi s book against Luther . A fourth author, or co- worker at least, has been sug gested . S chafi] says : “Henry VIII. wrote in 1 521 (probably with the assistance of hi s chaplain, E dward Lee ) a scholastic defence of the seven S acraments, against Luther ’ s ‘B abylonish C aptivity . ’ S chaff prob ably bases this statement ou the words of Luther, who “believed it to be the book of D r . E dward Lee, after wards A rchbishop of York, and he struck at Lee through the King . ” Luther says z§ “There are some who believe that Hen ry i s not the author of the work . My opinion is that King Henry, perhaps , gave on e or two yards of cloth to Lee , and that Lee had made thereof a cape, to which he has sewed on a lining . What i s there so wonderful in a King of E ngland hav ing written against me 9 If a King of E ngland spits forth his lyin g insults in my face, I have the right, in self - defence, to thrust them down hi s throat . ” *P . 189. {Hi story of th e Chri stian Chu r c h , VL , 70. i Gaird ner , E n gli sh Chu r ch i n S ixteenth C entu ry, p . 80. §Au din , Henry VIII . , pp . 96, 97 .

60 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” Quoique Henri se r épu tat u n des plus solides théo l og i en s de son temps , il avait, avant de l s publier , soumi s son écrit al ’ exam en et ala correction du cardinal Wol sey, de Fisher, eveque de Rochester, et sur tout du sa vant C hancelier Thomas This is adm itted, but it would be a groundless deduction to conclude that Henry did not write the “A sser ti o. ” We are told by the most recent and dec ided of Henry ’ s adversaries , the B ishop of La Rochelle, that be fore Henry was fifteen he was too young to have ac quired the knowledge ; that after that age he had not leisure from his duties of state . A s to the first, remem bering that Henry had wise , capable parents, and would have the best tutors and aids that the kingdom coul d give, that he had been prepared , at least remotely, to be A rchbishop of C anterbury, that if he simply kn ew the sources where to go for his materials and argum ents, e . g . , S t. Thomas ’ s “S umm a, ” that with this granted and it is certainly probable enough— one can see, if he will read the “A sser tio, no very great difficulty in Henry ’ s authorship . A s to the objection of the B ishop of La Rochelle, that it Would take Henry three years to write the “A sser ti o, ” this is exactly what Mr . Hutton and Mr . B rewer say was the case, i . e . , that as early as 1 51 8 Henry had begun the work, and finished it in 1 521 . A fter all, it is a simple treatise, probably almost all culled from some standard work, e . g . , S t . Thomas S t. B onaventure, Peter Lombard, etc . , as D ’A u big n e says, some breviary of collected texts on the subjects treated . B u t to answer the suggested authorships other than that of Henry : Wolsey can hardly claim a refutation . A s to Fisher being the author, it is to be supposed that *D ic tion n air e d e l a Théologi e C atholiqu e, Wetzer et Welte, art . Henr i VI II .

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 61 he ought himself to know whether he wrote it ; and as he was a man who laid down hi s life for the truth , it is to be further supposed that we may believe him when he denies em phati c al l v that he is the author . “It had been rum oured abroad that the prelate had dictated while Henry wrote ; ‘ this , ’ exclaimed Fisher indign antly, ‘ i s a cal umnious falsehood . Let Henry eu joy his mee d of praise wi thout any participation in it . ’ A s to the “A sser ti o ” being bound up with Fisher ’ s works, at least in the Wi r c ebu r g edition , and while it i s said to be edited by “the care and zeal of ours of Rochester, yet it is said first to be by the King of E ngland : “A sser tio A ngliae Rege, Rof en si s tamsu nostri hor tatu et studio edita . M oreover, if Fisher , not Henry, were the author , Fisher, not M ore, would have been “the sorter - out and indexer, ” for the humble bishop would hardly ask the C hancellor of E ng land to make an index for him . A n d yet More says that he [More] was the “sorter out, etc . Furthermore C ollier criticiz ed the style of the “A s ser ti o, ” saying that the Ki n g “l ean s too much on his char acter as monarch, argues in his garter robes , and writes , as it were, wi th his sceptre . ” Now surely the gentle Fisher would wr ite in any style but this , would not rely on character , but give a cold, calm reason for the faith that was i n him, as his other works show he did . B u t if n ot Fisher , More, the glory of the age,+ was perhaps the author , for “French and E nglish , keen logic , wide kn owledge , merciless wit make M ore an u n surpassed controversialist of his kind . ” 1 In rebuttal *Au din , Henr y VI I I . , p . 92 , qu otes S acon ay ' s i ntr odu ction to the A sser tio. tPoc ock ' s Bu r net ’ s Reform ation , Vol . II I . , p . 1 72 . iMor e, by Mason , p . 85 .

62 A u thor ship ofthe “A sser tio ” of this, More, who, if anything, was an honest, “plain , blun t man, ” replied : I was only a sorter - out and placer of the prin cipal matters therein contain ed . ” S o he i s quoted by his sonin - law, Wm . Roper, E sq . * Pocock, in his edition of B urnet ’ s “Reformation , says zf “It is plain More wrote it n ot. ” A long, full passage in C ollier] : is in terestin g an d strong, and is quote d here at length “Fisher and More are reported by several of the Church of Rome to have made the book which goes un der King Henry ’ s name against Luther ; bu t the Lord Herbert is n ot of this opini on. He only thin ks they might look it over at the King ’ s instance, an d in te rpose their judgment in some passages . B u t that the King after all was governed by his own sen timen t, and that More had no hand in the composition appears pretty plainly from this gentleman ’ s letter to C romwell dated March, 1 533 . He acquaints this minister ’ twas for merly his opinion that the Pope ’ s supremacy stood only on C ouncils and pr ze sc r iption , and was n ot jure divin o . That when the King showe d him his book against Mar tin Luther he desired his Highness either to omi t the poin t of the Papal supremacy or tou ch it more ten derly at least. For the assertin g the privilege of the Pope ’ s see to that height might afterwards prove unserviceable, in case any disputes should happen between the court of Rome an d his Highn ess : that the stretch of the Pope ’ s pretensions had been unfortun ate to some prin ces, an d that it was not impossible the same occasion s might be revived. *Life of S ir Thom as Mor e , S in ger , p . 65. S ee also Lewis ' s Fisher , Vol . I . , pp . 1 09 , 1 10. +1I I . , p . 171 . tPt . II . , Bk . II ., p . 99. S ee also Turn er, Henr y VIII Vol . I . , p . 281 , note .

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sserti o ” 63 To this the King answered he had resolved not to alter an ything upon that head, and gave S i r Thomas a reason which was altogether n ew. This book of the King ’ s, it seems, and hi s farther reading upon the con tr over sy, made him change hi s opinion in some measure, and rather conclude, the Pope held hi s Primacy by di vine right . However, as he continues, he still thought the Pe p e under the jurisdiction of a general council , and that he might be deposed, and another set up, at the pleasure of such an assembly . By this letter it ap pears More had n o share in the book against Luther and that he believed the King the author of that tract. ” Finally, as sum ming up, we quote from Mr . B rown, who says “Mr . B rewer seems to believe the book to have been written by Henry because it i s so bad . The B ishop of La Roc helle, who wr ote an introduction to the French edition of 1 850, considers it impossible that he could have produce d the work , because it i s so good . Horace Walpole pronoun ces the book a bad on e, and yet too good for Henry to have written . ” May n ot these three opinions be explained on the grou nd of subj ective r e l ig iou s bias ? Mr . B rewer dee ming it bad ” for Pr otestan ts because so C atholic ; the B ishop of La Ro chel l e “ g ood for C atholi cs because so C atholic ; and Mr . Walpole “ bad ” because against Protestants, and yet too “ g ood ” for Henry, lest Henry be shown to have been so thoroughl y C atholic . A s for the claims of Lee, Gardiner, Pace an d E ras m u s—if Luther believed Lee to have written it, why did Luther excoriate not Lee, but the King ? F or Luther n eeded the King ’ s aid in the new religious fight, and if he did not believe Henry an en emy of his, in all shrewd n ess he should have tried not only n ot to attack him u n “In Royal Historical S oc iety ' s Transaction s, Vol . VI II .

64 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” nec essarily, but to placate him . B esides Luther later apologized to Henry, showing that he believed him and not Lee to be the author. A s to Gardiner ’ s claim—it is a mere pretty pun . A n d Pace was only hin ted at by Hutton as p ossi bly, with More, having corrected the Latin mi stakes . E rasmus , as said above, disclaimed the authorship, and, besides, we may add, by way of explanation, that E rasmus had visited Henry when Henry was nine years old and Henry studied E rasmus as a master and model, hence the similarity of Henry ’ s style to that of E rasmus might be explained, if indeed there be any need of an explanation . These are the main reasons why neither Fisher , nor More, nor Lee, nor Gardiner, nor Pace , nor E rasmus wrote the A sser ti o. Probably n ot all objections have been answered : difficulties may still exist in some minds ; doubtles s not all are convinced ; but Henry ’ s claims have not yet been presented . This wi ll n ow be done . For the sake of clearness the various testimonies have been grou ped under the followin g heads of proof I . Henry ’ s own statements , found in his writing s most closely connecte d with the “A sser ti o. II . S tatements of others in documents closely c on n ected with the “A sser ti o. ” III . Other works of Henry, showing in a general way his ability to have written the “A sser ti o. ” IV . The great number of wi tnesses declarin g that Hen ry wrote the “A sser ti o. ” V . A summary of the arg uments . I . A s to Henry ’ s own words in the documen ts most closely connected with the “A sserti o, ” the following qu o tati on is taken from Henry ’ s letter to Leo X . , prin ted elsewhere in this volume . He says “We have thought that this first attempt of ou r

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 65 modest abili ty and l ear n in g could n ot - be more worthi ly dedicated than to your Holiness . In the “E pistle D edicatory ” sen t with the A sser tio to Leo i s found the followi ng passage, unquestionably claiming the authorship for Henry “We n ow undertake the task of a man that ought to have em p l oved all his time in the studies of learning . We have proposed to ourself to employ ou r force and power in a work so n ecessary and so profitable . “Though We know very well , that there are every wher e several more expert, especially in Holy Writ, who could have more comm odiously undertaken this great work, and performed it much better than We, yet are We n ot altogether so ignorant as not to esteem it ou r duty to employ with all ou r might, our wit and pen in the comm on cause . F or having, by long experience, found that religion bears the greatest sway in the ad m inistration of public af airs , and is likewise of n o small importance in the commonwealth, We have employed n o little time, especially since We came to years of dis cretion, in the conte mplation thereof ; wherein We have always taken great delight : and though n ot ign orant of ou r small prog r ess therein made ; yet, at least, it i s so much, as, We hope, will suffice for reasons to dis cover the subtleties of Luther ’ s heresy. We have there fore entered upon this work, dedicating to your Holiness what we have meditated therein “If We have erred in any thing, We offer i t to be corrected as m ay please your Holiness . ” The next quotation, likewi se clearly and strongly im plying that Henry wrote the “A sser ti o, ” is from Henry ’ s To the Reader ” It says : I cannot bu t think m y self obliged to defen d my mother, the S pouse of C hrist . Which, though it be a subject more copiously

66 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” handled by others, never theless I accoun t it as much my own duty, as his who is the most learned, by my u t most endeavours , to defend the C hurch, and to oppose myse lf to the poisonous shafts of the enemy . That there were disputes as to the author of the work even in Henr y ’ s own day i s clear from what we have already quoted and that, when Henry ’ s own ears had heard them, be promptly took occasion flatly to deny these reports is clear from the following quotation from the King ’ s letter to Luther . He says “A n d although ye sayn e your self to thyn ke my boke nat myn e own e, but to my rebuke (as it l yketh you to afiyr m e ) put ou t by su btel l sophi sters, yet it is well knowen for m yn , and I for myn e avowe it . ” A n d again from the same docu ment, quoted by A u di n zj ' “A s to my letter, which in your opin ion was the work of a captiou s sophist, it i s my own production, as many witnesses worthier of credit than yourself can testify, and the more i t di s pleases you , the greater pleasure do I feel in ackn owl edging myself its author . S o that Henry ’ s own words show that he claimed, an d proved, or c ertainly tried to prove, that he was the au thor of the “A sser ti o. ” II . An d to confirm thi s may be adduced in the second place the words of others who were very close to Henry an d kn ew the inner history of the wr iting of the “A s ser tio. ” These words are found in the documents c on n ec ted with the “A sser tio, and published in full else where in this volum e . Here are a few passages from Mr . John C lark ’ s Oration at the presentation of the “A sserti o ” to Leo X . : Henry, “under the charge of the best tutors, an d a father none of the most indulgent , *D ibdin , I I . , pp . 488 an d fol No. 619, A c opy of th e letter, etc of Henry to Lu ther . {H enry VIII . , p . 1 01 .

68 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” sum im pias haer eses m un itam esse vol u i sti A n d the Pope further speaks of the book as a “Nobil em p ar tu m ingenii tu i . ” A n d again he goe s on to say that men “ tu i s scr ip ti s ad san i tatem debean t reduci . Finally, exhorting Henry to continue ever faithful, the Holy Father says : “Fides quoque C hristiana quae nunc doc trinae tu ce clyp eo adversus sc el er atas ha r etic or u m in sau ias c om m u n ita est . ” This personal , spontaneous and therefore very strong testimony is confirmed by Leo ’ s B ull to Henry, “B ulla de g r atii s pro libro per regem contra Lu ther u m In this B ull Leo wrote apropos of Henry ’ s authorship “John C lark in ou r consistory un to Us a book which you r Maj esty p ose . “Your Majesty has with l ear n i n g an d e l oq u en c e wr i t against Luther . “Render your Majesty so illustrious and famous to the whole world, as that our judgment in adorning you with so remarkable title may n ot be thought vain or light by any person whatsoever . ” Really, these documents should be fir st - class proofs, and they could scarcel y be stronger and clearer in tr y ing to show that C lark and Leo believed the author of the A sser tio ” to be Henry. III . In the third place , besides the “A sser ti o, ” there are other works attributed to Henry, and showing that consequently he might well have written the “A sser tio ” also . In D ibdin t and the “D ictionnaire de B iblio g r aphic C atholique i we read of “Henrici VIII . , A n g l iae regis , ad S axon iae principes de c oer c en da abigen *Rymer , Fwd er a, pr in te d elsewher e in this volum e . fII . , p . 485 . fTom e I . , c ol . 868 Tome II I . , col . 431 , and T om e II I col . 675 .

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 69 daqn e Luther an a faction e, et Luthero ipso epistola; cum Georgi i, S axon iae ducis , ad eun dem r escr iption e ; A rgen tor ati , 1 523 in 4to . ” A lso Leipsim ( sine ann o ) in 4to. That is , The epi stl e of H enr y VI I I Kin g of E nglan d, to the princes of S axony about checking an d doin g away with the Lutheran faction , and Luther him self: with the reply of George, D uke of S axony, to the same . ” A gain D ibdi n * records : “Henrici Octavi Regis A n glia et F r an ciaa. A d C ar ol u m C aesar em A ugus tum, ” etc . “A n E pistle of Henry VIII. to the E mper ou r ’ s M ai esti e , to all C hristian princes , etc . Then there are other works by Hen ry recorded :1 ' E xemplum l itter ar u m Hen rici VIII . ad Lu ther u m , et Lu ther i ad ipsum 1 525 in A lso edited by Pyn son in 1 526, small 8vo, and by Pyn son 1 527, in small SW , an d at C ologn e by Q u en tel l in 1 527 in Al ta i B esides these, in the “D ictionnaire de B ibliographie C atholique, ” we r ead z§ “Opus exim i u m de vera dif er en ti a r eg iaa potestati s et ec cl esi asticae, et qu a: sit ipsa veritas ac virtus utriusque ; Lon din i , in sedibu s Thom. B er thel eti , 1 534, pet . in 4 de 63 if. Ouvrage attribué par B ale aHen ri VIII . , r oi d ’A n g l eter r e, et par Lelan d aF ox, eveque de Winchester. B run et . ” Gasquet, “E ve of the Reformation, p . 1 01 , n ote 1 , refers to a book called “A Glass of Truth, wr itten i n favour of the divorce, and says : “The work was pub l ished by B erthelet anonym ously, bu t Richard Croke, in a letter wr itten at this period (E llis , Historical Let *II I . , p . 808, Nos. 1207 1208 . fD ic . de Bib . C ath I 868 . tLowndes, Biog . Man u al , Part IV . , p . 1 039 . S ee also D ibdl n , II 61 6. § Tome II I col . 1 099.

70 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” ters, 3d S eries, II . , says that the book was wr it ten by King Henry himself. I t was generally said that Henry had wr itten a defence of his divorce . Watts speaks of it in the following entry as Henry ’ s work : “Opus exi m i um de vera differentia regia potesta tis et ecclesiastica , et qu a sit ipsa veritas, ac virt u s utriusque, Henrico VIII . , A nglia reg . au ctor e. Lond . 1 534, 4m. ” A necessary doctrine and erudition for any C hris tian man . Lond . 1 543, 4to . Lond . 1 545, 8vo. In Latin, Lond . 1 544, 4m. ” S o that from these several writin gs , stated on good authorities to be Henry ’ s, we m ay conclude that Henry might well have written the “A sser tio, ” thus solidifyin g and confirming the direct statements of Henry himself, as well as those direct or implied statements made by C lark and Leo. IV . In the fourth place come the great number of fir st - class testimonies of historians of recogn ized abil ity and trustworthiness, who either imply or say di r ectly that Henry is the author of the “A sser ti o. ” A n d first of all should be placed the followi ng statement in the “A dvertisement ” to the ol d E nglish translation of the A sser tio ” that is here reprin ted . It says : “Hen ry the E ighth was a Prince of great learning, considering the age in which he lived . He had well studied both Philosophy and D ivinity in his youth, hi s father, Henry the S eventh, having in tended him for the ecclesiastical state . His writings against Luther ( I mean the fol lowing work, so much approved of by Leo the Tenth) , shew a fun d of ec clesiastical erudition, an d a stren gth of un derstanding un comm on in persons in hi s high station . ” Next shoul d come the remarks of Gabriel de S acon ay in hi s Preface to hi s Latin reprint of the “A ssertio,

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 71 done at Lyons, 1 561 . In hi s title S acon ay wrote “Henricus, octavus An glia Rex, inter p au c os reges lite r ar u m et m u l tar u m rerum c ogn ition e c om m en dabil is, hu n c libr um c on scr ipsit . Lu gdu n i , apud Gu l i el . Rovi l lium su b sc u to Veneto . MD LXI . ” On page LXXI he says : “C hristiana tunc pietate il l u str i ssim u s A n g l or um r ex Hen ricus, hu ju s nominis octavus raro nimis, et c u n c ti s secu l is admirando ex em pl o, ex regali fastigio in liter ar iam descendit ar en am , contra m al edic u m dec er tatu r u s m en dic an ti u m fratrum apostatam . S cripsit i taq u e asser ti on em septem sacra ‘ m en tor um adversus c aptivitatem B abyl on ic am Lu ther i ad Leon em , hu j u s nominis dec im um Papam, adeo sane diserte, er u dite ac copiose, u t eo labore p r om er u er it ip sius Papa om n i u m qu e c ar din al iu m judicio , perpetua lan dis titu l um , u t publica dein c eps appel l ation e, fidei c atholi ca defensor n u n c u par etu r . ” O n p . LXXII S ac on ay quotes Luther as saying : “Hic insulto papi stis, Thom i sti s, H en r i cisti s, divina majestas mec um facit u t nihil curem si mille A ugustini , mille C yp r ian i , mi lle ecclesia H en r ic i an ce, contra me star en t . ” A n d p . LXXIII : “I taq u e extor sim u s, et tr iu m pham u s adversus asser tor em sac r am en tor um . Quis est ipse Henricus novu s Thom i sta ? sit ipse defensor ecclesia , sed ejue ecclesia , quam tanto libro jactat et t uetu r . ” On p . LXXIV S acon ay contin ues to quote Luther : “Recte c on j un g itu r simul Papa, et Henricus de A n glia ille p ap atum suum tam bona habet c on sc i en tia, quam hic suum possidet regn u m . I n ter ea dum sic fu r er et Luther n s , quidam Germani , piam et er u ditam r eg is A n glia asser ti on em cceper u n t a Lu ther an i s c al u m n ii s as sere re . ” On p . LXXVIII S acon ay says : “H ac sunt q u a huic libello pr a pon en da duxi , u t n osc as, lector, qu o im p u l su

72 Au thor ship ofthe “A sser ti o ” Rex i ste m an u m hu i c op er i app osu er i t. O n pp . LXXXIII and LXXXIV S ac on ay says : “Per l ege igitur, lector, hoe opusculum an teq u am al iqu od judi c i u m temere feras , videbi s p r in cip i s an im a m , qui mul tum or n avi t nostra studia, et r el ig ion i s causam et pie su sc epit, et diserte defen dit . Olim summa pietas judi c abatu r , si Reges armis tu tati fui ssent C hr i sti an am tr an qu il l itatem , hi e autem i n g en i o et cal am o pr op u g navit. Quomodo ergo n on pu deat eccl esi asticos p l er os que tam oc i ose vitam degere ? cum vi dean t tantum p r in c ipem in his stud1 1 s eo p r og r essu m esse, u t libris eti am e ' di tis c athol ic a religioni p atr ocin ar etu r . A o cipe i taqu e piam sac r am en tor u m asser ti on em . ” This encomium of Henry ’ s ability i s confirmed by S peed in his “History of Great where he says of Henry : His youth so trained up in literature that he was accounted the most learned Prince of all C hristendom, indued with parts most befitting a king. “H i s C ou n cel l or s hee chose of the gravest D ivines, and the wisest nobility, with whom hee n ot onely often sate, to the great encrease of hi s pol iticke experience, ” etc . , etc . A n d Hutton, in hi s “S ir Thomas More, says that among such chosen ones the lovable , religious More was the favourite . His words are zt S o from time to time was he [More] by the Prince [Henry VIII . ] advanced, continuing in his singular favour an d trusty service twen ty year s an d above. A g ood par t wher eofused the King upon holidays, when he had done his own devo tions, to send for him into his travers , and there some time in matters of A stronomy, Geometry, D ivinity, and such other Faculties, and sometime in hi s worldly affairs, to sit and con fer with him . ” *Pp . 982, 983 . QP . 93 .

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 73 Paradoxical as it may seem, we might say that even after death More af ords testimony to Henry ’ s author ship, for to the tomb of More was affixed an inscription composed by E rasmus, and in it Hen ry VIII . is spoken of “To whom alone of all kings the hitherto un heard of glory has happened that he should be deser vedly called the ‘ D efen der of the F ai th, ’ and he has proven himself to be such both by the sword and the Moreover, i n More ’ s reply to Luther in defence of Hen ry ’ s “A sser ti o ” Henry i s Spoken of as “I n victi ssi mum A n glia Gal lia q u e regem, H en r icum ojus n ominis octavum , Fidei D efen sor em , haud li tter i s mi n us quam regn o cl ar um . ” A s He nry was indeed a great king, probably i n on e sense the most influential E ngland had ever seen, this statement of More surely im plies that Henry had written something more than ordin ary letters—that he was the author of the “A sser ti o. “When on e sees the various MS S . in the British Museum , ” says A udin,+ speaking of Henry, “it is im possible to doubt the theological attainmen ts of the m on arch who kn ew the B ible by rote . ” Hen ry ’ s al l eged in ability as a Latinist has bee n made an argument again st the possibil ity of his having written the “A s ser tio, ” bu t the following wi ll show that Hen ry was quite proficient in this language, surely enough to have written the simple Latin of the “A sser tio. ” First, as to hi s tutor and Latin master, Tytl er i: says *S ee E rasm i Oper a, I II . , pars 2, co] . 1441 , E pistola MCCXXII I Thom as Mor us E rasm o Roter odam o : T ab u la afii xa ad sepul chr u m Thom a Mor i . A b i nvic tissim o Reg e, Henrico octavo, c ui u ni Begum omnium g lor ia priu s in au dita contigit, u t fidei defensor , qu al em et g ladio se et cola/"w oer e pr ac ti ti t, mer i to vocar etu r . ” fH enry VI I I . , pp . 91 , 92 , n ote e. tH enry VIII . , p . 29.

74 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” Linacre, a man infinitely superior to A n dré [A r thur ’ s tutor] , who had studied the purest models in Italy, was afterwards selected by Henry the E ighth as his own master ; but the monarch, although an abl e Lati n i st, doe s not appear to have made much prog ress in the other language [Greek] . A lthough perhaps a bit flattering, yet the following testimonial to Henry ’ s ability and even fluency in L atin is very interesting, coming as it does from n o less a per son ag e than Giustinian, the Venetian ambassador at the court of Henry VIII . He says : * “His majesty [Henry VIII . ] is twenty - nine years old and extremely handsome ; nature could not have done more for him ; he is very accomplished ; speaks good French , Lati n , and S panish ; is ver y r elig i ou s ; hears three Masses daily when he hunts , and sometimes five on other days ; he hears the office every day in the Queen ’ s chamber, that is to say, vespers and compline . ” Id . p . 77 , fol . Letter of S ecretary of S ebastian Gius tinian, Knight A mbassador in E ngland , to A lvise Fos cari , May, 1 51 5 : “His M ajesty [Henry VIII . ] sent for the ambassadors, and addressed their m ag n ific en c es, partly in French and partly in L atin , as also in Italian . ” Id . p . 86, Gi u sti n i an ’ s letter saying of Henry VIII . He speaks French , E nglish and Latin , and a little Italian . ” “To the C ouncil of Ten , London, July 3 , 1 51 5 The King [Henry VIII . ] answered us ver y su i t ably i n Lati n . In general , several quotations of the King sp eakin g Lati n , or quoting S cripture in Latin, are given in this same work] *Vol . I . , pp . 26, 27 . 1 1d , p . 101 .

76 A u thor ship ofthe ” A sser ti o ” proud of his theological kn owledge . He “liked the soci ety of m en of letters . ’ He rece ived the benefit of as learned an education as the age could bestow, the Kin g [Henry VII. ] con templ ating his accession to the primacy of E ngland. ’ 1 ' Thomson, in his “M emoirs of the C our t of Henry says :1: “The instructions bestowed upon Prin ce Henry by his preceptor , S kelton, were calculated to r en der him a scholar and a chur chman, rather than an eu lightened legislator . He was tutored in the philosophy of the schools, especially the A ristote lian, then the most in credit with the learned ; he was skil l ed in the Latin . To theological studies Henry devoted his atten tion in early life with ardour, and with success ; at least this part of his attainments is not to be despised, since it enabled him in after times to procure for himself an d hi s successors the title of D efender of the Faith. ” B eckett, in his “E nglish Reformation, says : § “He [Henry] had been carefully educated by good scholars , and he believed himself to be a special master of theol ogy . Henry William Herbert, in his “Memoirs of Hen ry says : “He had been studiously educated a theologian ; he really was more than a tolerable di vine. ” A gain zfl “Henry VIII . received a learn ed education . Having been destined for the Church, he had studied the writings of A quinas an d cul tivated a taste for controversi al divin ity, which sharp en ed hi s intellect . ” “Lilly, Re nai ssan c e, C h . I I I . , p . 1 35 . J (Sir Thomas Mor e, W. J . Walter , Baltimore, p . 29. tVol . I . , p . 213 . § Oh . XV . HP. 121 . 1T ' I ‘ ytl er , Henry VII I . , p . 1 1 1 .

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 77 Not only had Henry had able schoolmasters and wisely selected studies to make him a theologian, but he had profited by the opportunities and delighted to use hi s powers : “He was fond of learned discussions and scholastic sophistry . ” James Gai r dn er , in hi s “E nglish C hurch in the S ix teen th C entury, ” 1 says “From early days Hen ry had shown a taste for theo logical discussion, and the story that hi s father had in tended once to make him A rchbishop of C anterbury is not at all incredible . In 1 51 8, as we learn from E ras mus and some allusions in S tate papers, he composed a treatise on the question whether vocal prayer was n eces sary to a C hristian . Indeed, putting tradition aside, we kn ow quite well that Henry VIII . had all his day s a taste for theological subtleties, and probably could n ot have done the things he did but that he was fully competent to arg ue points— of course with most royal persuasiveness—against Tun stall, Latimer, C ranmer, and any divine in his kingdom . ” Overton , in his ‘hu r ch in E ngland, i says “H i s abilities and attainments were so much above the aver age that long before he had reached the prime of life , he could contend on equal terms with the ablest and most learned writers of the day . ’ S amuel Gardiner , in his “E nglish History for S tu dents , ’ says Henry “took a real interest in learning. ” *Hau sser , Period of the Re form ation , Vol . I . , p . 212 . p . 78 an d 5 . tVol . I . , p . 335 . § “ Mor e wri tes to Erasm u s in the early par t of Henry ’ s r eig n , when h e had b ecom e c on nected with the c ou r t S u c h i s the vir tu e an d lear ni n g of the King , an d his d aily in c r easing pr og r ess in b oth , that the m or e I see hi m i nc r eas e in these ki n gly or nam ents, the less tr ou blesom e th e c ou r tier ’ s life becom es to m e . "By Mu lling er , p . 105.

78 A u thor ship ofthe ” A sser tio ” This seems true of even hi s youn gest days, for E rasmus was “presented to Henry VIII . , then a boy of nin e years ol d, who asks for a tribute of verses, afterwards duly paid . He came back to E ngland again , in the hope, which proved delusive, of patronage and employ men t from the youn g Henry VIII . , in whose love of learning all human ists pu t their trust. ” An d yet he was sometimes more generous in reward of literary ef fort, for the “C ensura Lite r ar i a ” 1 L says : “An d Kin g Henry the E ighth for a few p sal m es of D avid turned into E nglish m eetr e by Ster n bol d, made him groome of his privy chamber and gave him man y other good gifts . “Henry had been educated to some exten t in the n ew l ear n in g . ” f No wonder, then , that “there was a mo ment in the reig n of Henry VIII . when it appeared n ot impossible that E nglish scholars might, n orth of the A lps, lead the van in the restoration of the n ew learn ing . King Henry, too, was within an ace of gath ering in to our libraries those treasures of Greek man u script whi ch Francis I. secured and placed at Fon tain e Naturally enough, the C las sicists might expect everything from on e who at ni ne years ol d had written good Latin , u n cor r ected by tu tor s, the church reformers from a prince with so strong a turn for theology . ”H A n d he was practical, preparing the way, laying a foundation in the young by establishin g lower schools at the same time that he encouraged the uni versities . I n deed he had the most recent A merican ideas of educa *Martin Lu ther and the Re formation i n Germany, Char les Bear d , p . 87 . +Vol . I . , p . 342. i Oxford Reformer s of 1498 , Seebohm , p . 124. § Old E nglish Bible, Gasqu et, p . 814. “The E arly Tu dor s, Mob erly, p . 100 .

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 79 tion—that of subsidizing students to go abroad to study, as we learn from C ollier “Henry founded a great many gramm ar schools ; he likewise founded lectures in both univer sities , where those who read in the faculties of divini ty, law and physi o were encouraged wi th a considerable settlement . The same countenan ce was likewise given to professors of Greek and Hebrew . He built and endowed the famous Trinity C ollege in C ambridge . Lastly, he maintained a great many young scholars in foreign countries . ” The brightest star of the new learning was E rasmus, and thi s star i s drawn to be a satellite of Henry and to sound his praises and declare that he believed Henry truly to be the author of the “A sser ti o. ” Wor sl eyj ' says of him in connection with the “A sser ti o “E rasmus believed, or af ected to believe, that Henry himself was ‘ parent and author . ’ ‘His father, ’ he [E rasmus] wrote, ‘was a man of the nicest judgment ; hi s mother possessed the soundest intellect, etc . Wh en the King was no more than a child he was sent to study. ’ B u t whoever will take up E rasmus ’ s own works will see that he praises Henry ’ s ability, as well as hi s actual work, implying that Henry wrote the “A s ser ti o, ” and answering objec tions against the King ’ s au thor ship , by denying any help from his—E rasmus ’ s hands , eithe r as to matter or style . Here are his words “Tom . Pars 1 a , col . 7 . E pistola X . Gu l i el m u s Mon tjoi u s E rasmo Roter odam o S . D . “Verum si sc i asi quam sap i en ter se gerat q uod studium in literatos p r a se fe r at. Noster Rex *Pt . I I . , Bk . II I . , p . 214. {D awn of the Re formation , p . 160, note . fD esid er ii E r asmi Roter odam i Opera Omnia. Lu gd u ni Bata vor u m , c u rs. et im pen sis Petri Van d er A a. MD C CIII .

80 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” non aurum, n on gemmas, n on metella, se d vi r tu tem , sed glori am, sed a ter n itatem c on c u pi sc it . ” I d . col . 1 45, E rasmus calls Henry aurei sa on li pat entem . Id . col . 1 87, he says of Henry, Nec ipse l iter ar um im per i tu s. Id . col . 253, E rasmus writes to Henry : Nu l l u s tibi pene dies sheat, in quo non al iqu am tem p or i s por tion em libris evol ven di s im per ti as, c u m qu e p r i sci s illis sapien tibu s c ol l oqu i g 0 *au deas. ” Id . col . 402, E rasmus to Paul B ombasin e says of Henry, “bonis libris del ec tatu r . ” Id . col . 440, E rasmus to Henry, A n twerp , May 1 5, 1 51 9 : “E t ts men in l iter i s quas olim, felicissime deg u s tavi t tua majestas, .u t er u diti ssim i s etiam theologie mi raculo sit san itas et acumen ingenii tui . S iq u idem in di spu tati on e, quam n u per animi causa tu a m aj estas i n stitu i t cu m acutissimo simul et docti ssim o theol og o, d e fen dan s. Quis i n ven i r e p oter at ar g u ti u s ? quis col lig er e n er vosius ? q u i s expli c ar e ven u sti us . ” Id . col . 463 , E rasmus writes to Jacob B an i siu s Tr i u m phar en t bona litera , si Pr in cipem haber em u s domi , qu al em habet A nglia . Rex ipse n on i n doctu s, tum ingenio acerrimo, palam tu etu r bonas literas , rabu lis omn ibus silentium in dixit. A ula Regis plus habet homi n u m er u diti on e pr a stan ti u m , quam ulla A cademia . ” B r uxel l i s, 21 Junj i , anno 1 51 9 . Id . col . 533, E rasmus to John Faber, Vicar of the B ishop of C onstance, writes : Ipse Rex felicissime phil osophatu r . Regina literas amat, quas ab infantis felici ter didic it . ” Id . col . 660, E rasmus writes to Richard Pace : I/i br u m , q u em Reg ia m aj estas conscr ipsi t adver sus L u ther u m, vidi tantum in m an ibu s Marini n un cii A postolici . Vehemen ter avec legere . Nee en im dubito quin dig

A u thor ship ofthe “A sser ti o ” 81 n u s sit ill o longe felicissim o ing en io, quod mire valet, u bicu n qu e sese in ten der it. Henricus octavus in g en i o, cal am aqu e p r opu g n at p r o C hr i sti sp on sa. Porro, c onfido fore u t hoc pu l cher r im u m p l an equ e r a r i ssim u m exemplar m u l tos principes p r ovocet ad a mula tion em . A n non pu debit post hoc sacerdotes, m on achos, ep i sc opos nihil scire rei theol og ic a , q u um vider in t Re gem tantum ju ven em , tot n egocii s di str i ctu m , eo pro g r essum in c ogn i tion e sacr ar u m Liter ar u m , u t libris edi tis periclitanti C hristiana religioni p atr ocin etu r 2 ” B r u g i s, 23 A ugu sti , 1 521 . Id . col . 732, E rasmus Roter odam i Georgio duci S axonia . In schol astic or u m theol ogor u m libris ver sar i gaudet, et in con vi vii s aliquid de re theol og ic a di sser er e solitus est. Non n un q u am in multam n octem pr ofer tu r con ten tio literata . Habet Reg in am eleganter doctam . Quod si qua in parte fu i sset adju tu s in c c libro, n ihil er at op us m ei s au xilii s, qu u m au l am habeat er u diti s simis pariter ac el oq u en ti ssim i s viris dif er tam . Quod si styl us habet aliqu id n on abhor r on s a m eo, n ihil mi r am au t n ovu m , q u u m il l e pu er stu di ose vol ver i t m eas l u cu br ati on es. ” Lastly, among the proofs showing in a gen eral way Henry ’ s abil ity to have written the “A sser tio, ” are the records of hi s interest in , and use of, books . A lthough these instances occurred some years later and in an other connection, yet they may fairly be adduced as i n dic atin g his trend of mind and ability . There are many entries for books brought to King Hen ry VIII . , or inventories of books , or books bound for him, or for vellum, etc . , told of in detail in N . H . Nicol as ’ s “Privy Purse E xpenses of King Henry A n d n ow for the more definite an d formal statements of Hen ry ’ s authorship, though it i s difficul t to draw a line *Lon don , 1827 .

82 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” accu rately sep arating these man y witnesses in to distinct classes . D ’A u big n é, in his Reformation, says “Henry the E ighth had just composed a book against the monk of Wittem bu rg . “The King himself was n o stranger to the Rom ish doctrines . Indeed, it would appear that if A rthur had lived, Henr y would have been destined to the ar chi ep i s copal see of C anterbury . Thomas A quinas, S t . B ona venture, tournaments, fetes,E liz abeth B lount, and other court ladies, were all mingled together in the thoughts of this monarch, while masses of hi s own composition were being sung in his chapel . He searched through Thomas A quinas, Peter Lombard, A lexan der de Hale , an d B onaventure . “D oubtless the King con sulted with others, chiefly with Fisher, bu t there is n o reason to doubt that the work was substantially hi s own . ” 1 “ Hutton, in his S i r Thomas More, f has an original an d interesting statement : “A s early as 1 51 8 Henry VI II. had been preparing a book against the heretics, which, if the conjecture of Mr . B rewer be correct , was the original draft of the attack upon Luther, published in 1 521 . It was natural that Pace and More should be frequently consulted during the progress of this work, but it does n ot appear that they took any actual part in the authorship, their aid extending at most to the com position and correction of the Latin style . ” The followin g from Lord Herbert of C herbury i s about as strong and clear a declaration of H en ry ’ s au thor ship as could be asked *Translated by Gill , Part III 011. IV . fC reighton, History of the Papacy, pp . 163, 164, n ote 8 . fP . 196, ed . London . 1895 . § E n gland u nder He nr y VI I I . pu blished by Mu rr ay , London 1 870.

84 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser tio ” B ossuet speaks of Hen ry VIII. , King of E nglan d, who refuted his [Luther ’ s] Rohrbacher declares flatl y zj L Le r oi d ’A n g l eter r e, Henri VIII . , fit plus encore ; l ’ ann e suivante ( 1 521 ) il c om p osa l u i m ém e une defense des sept sacrements contre l ’ ou vr age de Luther, de la C aptivi té de B aby lon . ” Moberly says zi: B efore the end of 1 521 Hen ry VIII . wrote his book on the S even S acraments . The King was stimulated to authorship . ” A udin graphically expresses the situation “C loseted with his chancellor, the archbishop of York ; with Fisher, bishop of Rochester, and other prelates, he wrote the D efence of the S even S acraments . ” “Henry was at the acme of animation while defen d ing the In S ecken dor f ’ s History of Lutheranism we read zfl Resc ivit etiam, H en r ic u m VIII . A nglia regem pu l chr u m l ibr u m a se pro septem sacr am en tor u m de fen sion e, adversus tr actatu m Lu ther i de c apti vitate B aby l on ic a con sc r iptu m pon tific i m i si sse, qu o m er itu s est, u t condita ob id bulla g l or iosu m defen sor i s fidei titu l um acc iper et . ” A n other source says “A yant dans sa jeun esse étudié les sciences pour embrasser l ’etat ec cl esi astiqu e, aun e époque oil vivait encore son frere aine, il voulut donner au monde une preuve de son mérite sc i en tifiqu e *Hi story of the Var iations of the Pr otestant Chur ch , Kenedy. 1896, Vol . I . , p . 47 . +Hist . Un iv. de I 'Egl ise C ath , xn . , 105. p oohs of Mod . Hist , E arly T u dor s, p . 1 51 . §Au din ' s Lu ther , Vol . I I . , p . 50, in A l zog ’ s Un iversal C h . Hist , I II . , p . 62. flA u di n , Hen ry VI I I . , p . 91 . 1lC om ment . d e Lu theranism o, l ib . I . , C XI I . H Pr ic e, Vol . I . , p . 13 , qu otes Li n gar d , VI . , 142 .

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 85 dan s une cause si célebre . I l c omposa donc u n livre savan t contre beaucoup des propositions erronées de M arti n Luther, l e fit presenter au pontife en censie t0 1 re l e second j our d ’ octobr e, par son ambassadeur , et l e termina par c e distique , dont nous n ’ avons pas ajuger l e m er ite A n gl or um r ex Henricus, Leo decime , H oc opus, et fidei testem, et amicitia . (B zovi u s. ) This statement i s found in Price ’ s “Nonconformity, taken from Lingard ! * “A fter al l , the probability is that the basis of the work was supplied by Henry ; hi s explicit assertion of the fact , in his reply to Luther ’ s answer, requires an admission to this extent . Had it been wholly the work of others the King would scarcely have ventured so open an assertion of his authorship . Gai r dn er in the “D ictionary of National B iography, article “Henry says : “A s an author, Henry was by n o means contemptible . His book against Luther ( ‘A sser ti o S eptem S ac r am en tor u m , ’ published in 1 521 ) was a scholastic performance of a rather conventional type, but it was the coinage of his own brain . ” A rich and rare ol d book is P olydor e Vergil ’ s H i s tory of E ngland . ” In it we read zj “ Q u oci r c a Henricus r ex, qui habebat reg n um suum maxime omnium religiosum, ve r itu s n e u sp i am labes al iq u a r el ig i on i s fier et, primum libros Lu ther an os, quorum magn u s j am numerus per ven er at in manus su or u m A n g l or u m , c om bu r en dos c u r avi t, dein de li bel lu m contra eam doctr in am l u c u l en ter c om p osu i t, misit que ad Leon em Pon tific em . D el ectavit multum opus *Price, Vol . I . , p . 1 3, qu otes Lin gard , VI . , 142 . fPolydori Vergil ii Urbinatis . Anglia Hi stor ia Libr i Vig i n ti septem , Henrici VI II . , l ib . XXVII .

86 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” Le onis an im u m , partim qui a plen um erat ipsiu s defeu si on i s cau sa , partim vero ob tale patr on um c onsecu tu s foret, qui l ibr u m sua au ctor i tate p r obavit, l egen dum qu e decr evi t, ac u t memori a tam gr ati ben efic n al iqu o nomine per petu ar etu r , tum H enr icu m regem defen sor em fidei app el l avit, qu o ille dein c ep s titul o usus est . ” A udin gives a graphic picture of the inside hi story of the making of the “A sser ti o ” “Henry, divested of the insign ia of royalty, shut up in his study, was spend ing the night in consulting the great doctors of the C atholic A s to the style, the same author says :j “The formal language of the schools might have crippled him, and cons equently S kel ton ’ s pupil cast it of , and fell back on ancient history, for it was highl y necessary that Luther should be aware that Henr y kn ew something more than the ‘ S um ma ’ of S t . Thomas, ” for he knew the B ible by rote . 3; “Henry repeatedly amused his friends by reading to them portions of his MS S . More was one of hi s favour ites , but he did not always flatter his royal master . ‘Your Grace should be guarded in your expre ssions, ’ r e marked More one day, ‘ for the Pope, as a temporal sov er eig n , may one day be opposed to E ngland, and here is a passage wherein you exalt the authority of the Holy S ee to too high a pitch, an d which Rome would surely adduce in case of a rupture . ’ ‘No, n o, ’ rej oined Henry, ‘ that expression is by n o means too strong, nothing can equal my devotion to the Holy S ee, and n o language can be sufficiently expressive, in my opin ion, to speak my sentiments . ’ ‘B u t, S ire, do you n ot remem ber cert ain articles in the Pr a m u n i r e ‘Wh at matter , ’ *Henry VIII . , p . 88. {R 90, id . op . 91 , id . op .

Au thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 87 retorted H en ry, ‘ do I n ot hold my crown from the Holy S ee S o that Henry ’ s views, private whims even , are ex pressed in the “A sser tio, ” and that without brookin g the censur e of even hi s nearest coun sell or . S eebohm, in hi s “E r a of the Protestant Revolution , says : “Whilst the D iet of Worms was sittin g, he [Henry] wrote his celebrated book ag ainst Luther an d in defen ce of the divine authority of the Pope, for do ing which the Pope rewarded him with the title of ‘D e fender of the Faith . ’ Natal i s A lexander speaks of the Pope ’ s rewardin g Hen ry for havi ng written the book in the followi ng terms : “H en r icu m VIII . A nglia Regem, ob eg r eg iu m Libru m contra M artini Lu ther i H a r esim editu m , il lustri titulo D efen sor i s Fidei don avit, D iplomate dato quin to idus Octobr i s ejusdem anni Has c on stitu ti on es et diplomata legere est Tom II B u l l ar ii . ” 1 Pallavi cini most briefly says of Hen ry : “1 1 com posa donc un livre savant . ” 1: Though S ample, in his B eacon Lights of the is as short, de cl ar in g that Henry “sat down and wrote a book. ” Mil n er, in hi s History of the C hurch of C hrist, ” says that Henry wrote in Latin his book on the seven sacraments . ” H erg en r oether , in his Histoire de l ’E g l i se, ” Tome V. , p . 246, says : “I 1 fit presenter son ouvr age it Leon X . ” C harles B utler declares that considerin g hi s theo logical an d classical education it i s n ot to be won dered *Henry VI II . , p . 92. i stor ia, Vol . I X . , p . 28 . fTr ente, T om e I . , c ol . 675 . Migne, 1844. §P . 199 . “Vol . V. , p . 1 61 .

88 A u thor ship ofthe “A sser ti o ” at that the spirit of authorship should fall upon the monarch ; or that he should choose for his subject a theological theme . More indirectly Jaussen, in hi s “History of the German People, ” says : “S o, too, the King of E ngland vaunts himself that he i s a protector of the C hristian C hurch and people . ” j ’ S o that really one could hardly ask for more or weightier testimonies than these presented, declaring that Henry wrote composed was the author of the “A sser tio. Let it not be forgotten, however, that there are those who qualify somewhat the sense of the word “author ” ; for while Hallam says zi l : “Henry had acquired a fair portion of theological lear ning, and on reading one of Luther ’ s treatises, was not only shocked at its tenets, but undertook to refute them in a formal answer, ” yet a foot - note § qualifies this, particularly in regard to the diction : “From Henry ’ s general charac ter and proneness to theological discussion it may be in ferred that he had at least a considerable share in the work, though probably with the assistance of some who had more command of the Latin lang uage . ” Then, too, in A ll i es ’ s “History of E ngland, ” II it is said : “The pen at least was Henry ’ s own , and did the work well . S i r Thomas More furnished it with an index, which was his sole part in the book A s far as genuine authorship went Henry had fairly won hi s hon ours . He possessed sufficient theological kn owledge and acumen to explain the seven sacraments dogmatically *Histor ic al Mem oir s r especting the E nglish , I ri sh an d S cotti sh Catholic s, Vol . I . , p . 23. {Vol . IV . , pp . 41 , 42. fC on stitu tional History, p . 44 . § Id . op . , p . 80. HP . 13 .

A u thor ship ofthe “A sser ti o ” 89 H is exam ple bel ied his pen. ” An d yet this is bu t a slight qualification of the term . D u Pin does n ot say Hen ry actually wr ote it, bu t that he might have “Henry VIII . King of E ngland, made most rigorous A cts to hinder the heresy [of Luther] from coming into his realm. This prince did something more to show his zeal for religi on and the Holy S ee, for he cau sed to be m ade in hi s own name a treatise about the S even S acra ments . B u t Henry VIII . mi ght very well wr ite it, having studied di vinity i n hi s younger years . ” P oc ock ’ s B urn et ’ s “Reformation ” gives a good argu ment in favour of Henry ’ s authorship ; at first stating an objection, but then also an answer to it zj “It was also a masterpiece in Wolsey to engage the King to own that the book against Luther was writte n by him, in which the secret of those who, no doubt, had the greatest share in composing it was so closely laid, that it never broke ou t. S ecken dorf tells u s, that Lu ther believed it was writte n by Lee, who was a zealous Thomist, and had been engaged in disputes with E ras m u s, and was afterwards made A rchbishop of York . If any of those who still adhered to the ol d doctrines had been concerned in wr iting it, probably, when they saw King Henry depart from so many points treated of in it, they would have gone beyond sea, and have robbed him of that fal se honour and those exce ssive praises which that book had procured him . ” If Luther assailed Henry so, he must have been the author of the “A sser tio, ” or at least been believed such by Luther, for Luther woul d hardl y attack the King of E ngland un less he believed it to have been Henry who ’ E cc lesiastical History of the S ixteen th C entu ry, Bk . II . , C h . {Vol . I II . , p . 171 .

90 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” struck at him in the “A sser ti o. ” If Henry were n ot the author, Luther would probably have heard, at least by a sec ret hint from E ngland, but yet, “a few year s afterwards, ” when Luther began to su spect that the King was not indisposed to favour his opinions , he wrote to him to excuse the violence and abuse con tain ed in his book, which he attributed to the advice of others . * Indeed, D u Pin sayst that “the King of E ngland was chiefly angry because he [Luther] had said that his book upon the S acram ents was made by another, and put out in his name The case is summed up thus by Lingard , in hi s His tory of En gland ” :i : “That the treatise in defence of the S even S acraments , which the King published, was his own composition, is forcibly asserted by himself ; that it was plann ed, revised and improved by the superior judgment of the cardinal and the bishop of Rochester , was the opinion of the publick . A s for the author, then, of the “A ssertio, it must be admitted that there are some difficult objections and weighty names against Henry ’ s having written it ; that not all of these objections have been satisfactorily an swer ed, and by the very nature and circum stances of the case they could not be answered . However , the great weight of the evidence is decidedly on the side of Henry ’ s claim . C ertainly, he approve d and claimed the work and in this sense n o one will deny hi s author ship . Very probably he selected and composed the ma *Roscoe ’ s Leo X . , Vol . I I . , p . 231 , note 1 68. k . I I . , Ch . XVI I I . tVol . IV . , p . 466. g S ir Thom as Mor e c onfirm s thi s opin ion by sayi n g that by hi s grace ' s appoi ntm en t , an d c on sen t of th e m aker s of th e sam e , he was only a sorter - ou t an d plac er of th e principal m atters ther ein con tained . ’ S ee a note on this su bject by Mr . Br u ce, Ar c h . , XXIV ,

92 A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” of the work, and attributes it to the King of E nglan d ‘not less famous in arms than in letters ’ (D efen sio Reg . A ss. Herbert (Life of Henry VIII . , p . 94, ed . Holinshed, who does n ot seem to im peach Henry ’ s authorship (Vol . II . , p . 872, edit . 1 587) S try pe (E ccles . Mem . , Vol . I . , p . 33 ) and many other authors , who treat the ‘A sser tio ’ as the work of him whose name it bears, without even mentioning any rumour of a doubt upon the subject . “The circumstances under which the book was written will be found to support Henry ’ s claim to the authorship . “Pace, in a letter addressed to Wolsey (C otton M S S . Vitellus, B . IV . , No . date d 1 5th A pril wi thout an y year , but evidently written in 1 521 , gives an s e count of an interview he had that day had with the King . Pace found his M ajesty ‘ l okyn g upon a book of Luther ’ s, and upon such dispraise as his Grace did give unto the said book, ’ Pace took occasion to deliver a B ull which he had lately brought from Rome The King remarked ‘ that it was j oyous to have this tidings from the Pope ’ s Holiness at such time, as he had taken upon him the defence of C hrist ’ s C hurch , with his penne . ’ The King promised ‘ to take more pain to make an end ’ of his book wi thin a specified time . “In a letter from Wolsey to C lerk the C ardinal tells of ‘what pain, labour, and studie his Highness hath taken in devising and making a book for the c on fu tac i on of his [Luther ’ s] said erroneous opinions ‘ the said booke is by his Highness perfected ; ‘ the King ’ s Highn ess has this [way] declared himself as the veray defender of C atholique faith [of] C rist ’ s Churchs as well wt hi s p r eysen ce as wt hi s l em yn g . ’ S o far E llis ’ 3 sum mary .

A u thor ship ofthe “ A sser ti o ” 93 Lewi s, in his by way of summ ing up the argum en t for Henry ’ s authorship of the “A sser ti o ” says that : 1 . Henry in hi s letter to Luther own s it to be his . II . More to C romwell says he knows it to be by Henry ’ s own pen and that “in the composition of it he was governed by hi s own sentiment . ” III . E rasmus says : ( a) “he could never find ou t by whose labour the King was assisted (b) “that the phrase was his own ” ( c ) “that he had a happy and ready genius for everyt hing ; (d) “that but a few years before he wrote a theological disputation on the question ‘whether a lay- man was obliged to vocal prayer ’ ( e ) “and took delight in the books of the school divines and would often at meals discourse on subjects in divin ity . ” S o that while it is not a settled question, yet, con sider i n g Henry ’ s own statements, those of others con n ected with the “A sser tio, ” Henry ’ s other works, and the statements of very many historians , it is more probable that Henry wrote , composed, was the author of the “A sser ti o. Not that he had no help, took no coun sel , consulted no one ( though i t is kn own how he r e j ected More ’ s advice about the strong praise and divine orig in Henry attributed to the Primacy of the P a pacy) , but , as Mr . Over ton i says of the “A sser tio ” It at any rate expressed Henry ’ s sentimen ts and he was quite competent to write it . ” *P . 109 . {C hur c h in E ng land , Vol . I . , p . 357 .

E bttions ano wersions I T is of primary in terest to kn ow where the A s sertic ” has appeared in print ; and, first of all, where the original that Henry sent Leo n ow i s. Roscoe " answers the query . He says : The original in an elegant MS . is still preser ved in the Library of the Vatican, and is usuall y shown to E nglishmen on their visits to Rome . Vide D r . Smi th ’ s ‘Tour of the C ontinent, ’ Vol . II . , p . S tryp ej ' tells us of the book : “This book the King, by the C ardinal ’ s advice, thought fit to have presented to Pope Leo. This was brought about by the means of C ardinal Wolsey ; who procured some copies of the book to be written in a very fair and beautiful charac ter and on e of them to be boun d up splendidly, namely, that that was to be sent to the Pope ; and the said C ardinal sent that especially to the King, for his liking of it, before it went . ” Pe rhaps n o less interesting i s what Rohrbacher writes zf “C ’ est u n beau volume in quarto sur velin, écrit par une calligraphe d ’un e rare habileté . Le roi se fait peindre su r la premiere page du manuscrit ; il est dans l ’ attitu de de la dévotion, a genoux ; Léon X, sur son tr6ne, semble écouter l ’ enfant qui vient oflr i r ason pere l e livre qu ’ il a composé pour la gloire du C hrist . L ’ acte d ’hom m ag e est sign é de la main du prince . A la fin du volum e sont deux vers latins don t l s sen s est : ‘Léon X ! “Leo X p . 167 . {Joh n S tr ype, E cc les. Mem or ials, Vol . I . , p . 51 . i stoir e E c c les. , Vol . X II . , p . 1 12 .

E di ti ons an d Ver si ons 95 C e r oi des A n glais, Hen ri , vous en voie c et ouvrage, témoin de sa foi et de son ami tié . ’ Un autograph du Pape Leo X, daté de S ain t Pierre, l o 1 1 Octobre 1 521 , et que l ’ on conserve dans l es archives de la cour ~ onne d ’A n g l eter r e, don e a Hen ri VIII et a ses su c c esseu r s l e titre de D éfenseur de la F oi . From this original an early copy was printed, as the following n otices of D ibdin * show : “61 3 . A sser tio S eptem S acr am en tor u m adversus Martin . Lu ther u, etc . A pud i n c lytam u rbem Lon din u m in a dibu s Pyn son i an i s . A n . MD XXI . Quarto Idus Ju l ij C um privilegio a rege indulto. Quarto. ” To this B runet adds “E dition tres rare ; la prem 1 ere de c et ouvrage célebre ; de 78 if. “Jos Van Praet en cite trois exemplaires imprimés su r vélin . ” A n d to thi s again Wattsf adds a notice of appar ently two other edition s of the same year 1 521 , and in Lon ‘ don ; he says : “E t cum epistolaad S axon ia duces pie ad monitoria . Lon d . 1 521 , 4to ; ” and also : “E t cum sum m a in dul gen tiar um l ibel l um ipsum l eg en tibu s con c essar um . Lond . 1 521 , 4to . D ibdin gives us details of the contents of on e of the London editions of 1 521 . He says “61 5 . Libello huic Regi o in su n t, etc . A pud in clytam u rbem Lon din u m in a dibu s Pyn son i an i s MD XXI. Q uarto . “Herbert seems to have been indebted to A mes for the followin g acc oun t of this volume *T y pog raph . A ntiq . , Vol . I I . , p . 484. S ee also Au di n ’ s Henry VI I I . , n ote to p . 92 . A l zog , Univers. Chu r c h Hist Vol . I I I . , p . 62, n ote 3. Worsley ' s D awn of th e Re form ation, p . 159, n ote . fJacq u es Char les Br u net, Man u el d u Libraire, Tome I I I col . 1 00. fB ibl ioth . Britannica, Vol . I . Au th or s—article Henry VII I . , King . § Typograph . Antiq. , Vol . I I . , p . 484.

96 E di tions an d Ver si ons Libell o hui c regio ha c in eu n t. 1 . O ratio Joann i s C lerk apud Ro. p on . in exhibi tione operis r eg ii . ‘ 2 Respon sio roman . pont . ad eundem ex tempore 3 . B ul la r o. pon . ad regiam m aj estatem , pro ej u s operis confir m ation e . ‘ 4. S u mma in du lg étiar u m l ibel l um ipsum r eg i um l eg en tibu s, con c essar um . ‘ 5 . Libel l u s regius adversus Martin u m Lu therum ha r esi ar chon . ‘ 6. E pistola regia ad il l u str i ssim as saxonia duces pie admonitoria . ’ The colophon as above . In the pub lic li brary, C ambridge . ” Lastly, Thomson says " of this 1 521 London edition It was printed in 1 521 by Richard Pyn son , in FRE NC H, in Latin and in E n g li sh, by order of the King . ” S o much for the publications of the “A sser tio ” that year in Lond on ; down in Rom e B r u n et} L says it was printed, and an indulgence of ten years and ten quaran tines was g ranted the readers of it . Here are his words “Parmi les nombreuses reimpressions qui ont été faites de cette r efu tati on de Luther, une de plus rares , et sans doute la plus remarquable, est celle de Rome, ope ra S teph . Gu il l i er eti , 1 521 , in 4, dont l e titre porte : ‘Li brum hu n c A nglia regis fidei defen sor i s l eg en ti bus, dece m an n or um et totidem X L in du lgen ti a apos tolica au thor itate concessa est . ’ Panz er , “A n n al ee Typog r aphici , ” also men tions this edition of Rome 1 521 as in quarto . I may add that a rec ent catalogue of secon d- han d *C ou rt of Henry VI I I . , Vol . I . , p . 381 , note . {Manu el du Libr air e, Tome I II . , col . 1 00.

E di ti on s an d Ver si on s 97 books rates a copy of this edition at 1 30 lire, though Lowndes * men tions on e sold for £3 . 1 3 . 6. In 1 522 there were several editions . Lowndes{ and B r u n etf mention on e in 4to of this date in London . Lown des § and Roscoe ] speak of on e at A ntwerp , the former (Lowndes) saying it was in 4to . The catalogue of the B ritish Museum says this edition was printed by Hillen ( see “Henry VIII . ” Lown des,fl D ibdin ** and the “B ibliotheca E ras tell of one of the same year at S trasburg with a commendatory epistle by E rasmus ; Lowndes adds that A rchbishop Warham also comm ended it . D ibdin and the “B ibliotheca E rasmiana ” say it was in 4to ; and the B ibliotheca ” also says of it : “cum registro n u per addito . ” D ibdi n further says that A mes speaks of an edition at B ruges by E rasmus , and that “E arl S pencer pos sesses a mag n ificent copy of this book, printed upon vel lum, with the title- page elegantly illuminated . I have seen an e dition, ” he says, “of the date 1 522, XVII Ka lendas F ebr u ar ij c um privilegio a rege A udin speaks of “two editions at A ntwerp , with r e prints at Frankfort, C ologn e and many other places . ” A 1 523 edi tion i s spoken of by n o place given , in 4to, £1 . 1 0 . 0 in price . Twenty years later it was published at Rome, according to Lin g ar dflfl “Bibliogr aphical Manu al of E ng lish Liter atu r e, by Wm . T . Lown des, Lon don , 1859, Part IV. , p . 1039. {Opu s citat . *“Loc o c it. fOpu s citat . S eri e, p . 28. §Loco citato. ti op . cit p . 485 . llLeo X loco citato. § §Henry VIII . , p . 92, note e . 1TLoco ei t. llllLoco citato. 1 mHist . of E n gland , IV . , 468 .

98 E di ti on s an d Ver si ons and Walter, * Roscoe{ adding that From this [ i . e . , the original copy sent to Leo X . ] copy it was printed at Rome, in a dibue Fr an ci sci Pr i sc i an en si s Fl or en tin i , 1 543, as appears by the colophon . ” E ightee n years later at Lyons another edition was brought ou t by Gabriel de S ac on ay, “ p r a c en teu r ” of the cathedral at Lyons . The “D ictionnaire de B ibl iog r a phie C atholique ” of Mig n e f says : “P r a fixa est Gab . de S ac on ay p r a fatio : acc edu n t exempla l itter u m H en rici VIII. ad Lu ther u m , et Lu ther i ad H en r i c u m ; Lu g duni , Guill . Rovil li u s 1 561 , in 4to . ” A n d Lown des§ call s it a “valuable historical preface . The editor has been able to loc ate onl y two copies of this edition, one in the B ritish Museum and the other in the Vatican Pontifical Library respectively . From the latter he has had a manuscript copy made , and finds that, for the present purpose , out of the 84 pages of S ac on ay ’ s Preface p . lxxi is the first after the title - page that speaks very distinctly of Henry ’ s “A sser ti o. An d on p . lxxviiii he says that Henry ’ s book had be come so scarce quod j am pene de m an ibu s omn ium el apsum , et ab amico non obscura erga me ben evol en ti a com par atu m , r u r su s in l u cem emisi . ” The next year, 1 562, it was printed at Paris by Will iam D esboys, i n 1 2mo, “cui su bn exa est ejusdem regis epistola, asser tion i s ipsiu s contra eu m dem defensoria ; acce dit quoque P . Joan . Roflens i s contra Lu ther i c aptivitatem B abyl on ic am asser ti on i s regia de It m ay also be seen at the beginning of the “Opera *Sir Thomas Mor e, byW. J . Walter, pu blished by Lu cas, Baltim or e. {Leo X . , n ote 1 67. fTom e I c ol . 751 . § Op . c it. IlMign e, D ic . d e Bibliog . C ath . , Tom e I . , col . 751 .

1 00 E di ti on s an d Ver si on s says in hi s Introduction to it, “vi t - on bien tot n on - seule ment l ’A n g l eter r e, mais l ’ I tal i e, l ’A ll em agn e et la France r epr odu i r e c e chef - d ’ oeuvre, yet he also says “Je me connais aucune tr adu cti on francaise de l ’ ou vr ag e, qui fut publié en 1 521 , a Londres, sous l e nom de Henr i VIII . , r oi d ’A n g l eter r e . Gabriel de S acon ay had r ep r in ted, but n ot tr an sl ated the “A sser ti o ” at Lyons . Mor er i in his “Grand D ictionnaire Historique ” says : “D es Pan 1 561 , il avoi t fait réimprimer l ’ ou vr ag e de Henri VIII . , contre Luther, avec une belle et longue pr efac e de sa facon . A fter considerable patience and expense the editor has been able to confirm this statement, havi ng at length secured a manuscript copy of S ac on ay ’ s “Introduction to the A sser ti o. ” The French version mentioned by A n din j ’ M ain waring B r own ,i B runet , § and the D ictionnaire de B ibliographie C atholique , His thus entitled on its fly leaf “D éfense des S ept S acrements pu bh ee contre M artin Luther par Henri VIII . , Roi d ’A n g l eter r e et S eigneur d ’ I r l an d, traduite par R . J . Pottier , Licencié es - lettres . Précédée d ’ un e p r efac e par L ’A bbé Mau poin t, Vicaire Général du diocese de Rennes . D ’une Introduction su r l ’A u then ti c ité de c e livre, par Mg r . l ’E véq u e de la Rochelle . E t suivie de la C onstitution de Pie VI . , ‘A u ctor em fidei , ’ traduite par l e meme prélat . A ngers : Imprimerie et Libraire de Laine Freres 1 850. *Tom e I X . , S acon ay . tH en ry VII I . , p . 92, n ote b . i H enry VI II . ’ s Book , etc . , in the Royal Hist. So. ’ s Transac tions, VII I . , p . 242 an d fol . § op . c it. , II I c ol . 100. flMign e, Tom e I . , c ol . 507.

E diti ons an d Ver si ons 1 01 A nd now, last, but n ot least, the E nglish versions ! C oll ier * has this entry : “Henry the E ighth—A copy of the letters, wherein the most r edou ted an d mighty price, ou r sou er ayn e lorde, Kyn g Hen ry the eight , Kyn g of E n g l an de and of France, defésor of the faith, an d lord of I r l ade ; made an swers unto a c er tayn e letter of Martyn Luther, sent un to hym by the same, and also the copy of ye for esayd Luther ’ s letter, in suche order as here after fol oweth . B . L . 8vo. 49 leaves . “The colophon to this volume runs thus : ‘ Imprinted at Lon don in F l etestr ete by Richarde Pyn son . ’ A t the back of the title - page i s the list of conten ts . ‘Fyrst a preface of ou r sou er ayn e lorde the C opys of the letter , whiche Martin Luther had The copye of the an swer e of ou r sayd sou er ayn e lorde . ’ The preface fills the first fifteen, and Luther ’ s letter the n ext seven, pages . The answer of Henry VIII . occupies the rest of the volume . ” A n edition in 1 687 in 4to i s mention ed by Gasq u et ‘ r an d Watts ;5p and Lown des§ in this conn ection has the followi n g en try : “A ssertion of the S even S acraments wi th hi s epistle to the Pope, Mr . John C lark ’ s oration, the Pope ’ s answer and B ull , etc . , tran slated by T. W. L on d. 1 687, 4to. B in dl ey, pt. II . , 518 , date 1 688, morocco, 1 8s. 6d. ” S ubstan tiatin g the correctness of this i s the en try in the catalogue of the B ritish Museum, wherein, under article “Hen ry VIII . on e may read : “A sser tio S eptem ”A Biographical and Critic al Accou nt of the Rarest Books in the E ng lish Lang u ag e, J. Payn e C ollier, Vol . I . , p . 368. f E ve of Reformation, p . 95, n ote . tUb i su pr a. § Bibliog . Man loco ci tato.