loved by his people, the Pope stepped in and helped him out of his dilemma. He proposed that the Bishop should be honourably got rid of by being translated to the Bishopric of Samos, in Greece. But, as Fuller remarks, "Before his translation was completed, he was translated to another world."*

The last days of the unfortunate Richard are involved in great obscurity. The writers of the time, although they agree in thinking he died a violent death, differ as to the mode in which he suffered. I think the account given us by Thomas Walsingham, a monk of the time, is most likely to be the true one.t One day, Henry was more than usually disturbed and irritated by the news that insurrections were ready to burst out all over the land. Richard, now that he was deposed and imprisoned, excited the sympathy and compassion of the fickle people, who forgot all his faults in his misfortunes. As Henry paced uneasily up and down the room, the door opened, and Piers Exton, a knight, softly entered. "Have I then," murmured the King, no faithful friend who will deliver me of him whose life will be my death, and whose death would be the preservation of my life?" The fatal words were but too easily interpreted. Piers Exton withdrew, and with a guard of armed men proceeded to Pontefract Castle, where the unfortunate Richard was confined. The assassins rudely entered the King's presence. Their drawn swords and mailed armour bespoke too truly their bloody errand. But Richard sold his life dearly. All the old fire of his nature returned; and with dauntless courage he prepared to face the eight armed ruffians, his only weapon a three-legged stool. It was a cruel and unequal

combat. But the brave man slew four of the assassins before he was himself overcome. The brutal Piers Exton was his murderer. By a cowardly manoeuvre he contrived to get behind Richard, and with one blow of a poleaxe laid him dead at his feet.

* Fuller, vol. i., p. 472.

+ Collier appears to think that Walsingham believed Richard to have died by starvation; but Holinshed attributes the account I have here given of Richard's murder to the learned monk. I have chosen Holinshed's opinion in preference to Collier's, because he lived nearer the time, and therefore his testimony is most likely the correct one.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

HENRY IV. continued.-1399 TO 1404.

ARCHBISHOP ARUNDEL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE KING, PASSES A LAW, BY WHICH ANY ONE CONVICTED OF HERESY MIGHT BE CONDEMNED TO DEATH -SUCH A LAW CLEARLY CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE AND THE CUSTOM OF THE EARLY CHURCH-WILLIAM SAWTRE-HE IS CONVICTED OF HERESY, AND CONDEMNED TO BE BURNT THE LOLLARDS FALL INTO FURTHER EXTREMES-ERRONEOUS VIEWS WITH REGARD TO DIVINE WORSHIP, HOLY MATRIMONY, AND THE OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S DAY-THE LOLLARDS INTERFERE IN POLITICS GROWING AVERSION TOWARDS THE BISHOPS AND CLERGY-SPIRITED CONDUCT OF ARCHBISHOP ARUNDEL-THE COMMONS PROPOSE THAT THE KING SHOULD APPROPRIATE THE REVENUES OF THE CHURCH-ARUNDEL MANFULLY DEFENDS THE CAUSE OF THE CLERGY-THE SCHEME OF THE COMMONS FOILED FOR A TIME-THE LORDS PROMISE THE PRIMATE THAT THEY WILL PROTECT THE CHURCH FROM SPOLIATION.

As soon as Archbishop Arundel was reinstated in the Primacy, he began in earnest to set about the work of his diocese. The Lollards were daily becoming more popular; and as in many of their opinions they were drifting still further away from the true faith, Arundel considered it his duty to do all in his power to repress them. Although we cannot be surprised that the Primate should have taken alarm, we must deeply deplore the means he adopted, in conjunction with the King, to put a stop to the evil. Henry IV. was the first sovereign of England who permitted heretics, as they were called, to be punished by death, unless they consented to recant or give up their opinions. In the year 1400 an Act of Parliament was passed, by which those who obstinately held opinions contrary to the Church of England might be delivered over to the secular judge, who had power to condemn the offender to be burnt to death. Now, although we have fully seen the difficulties under which, at this period, our ancestors laboured, and that many excuses are to be made for them, I am sure that no defence can be urged for such a sanguinary law as this. Neither God's word, nor the custom of the early Church, sanction such extreme persecution for the sake of religion. You remember how our Lord rebuked the Apostles St. James and St. John, when they would have called down the vengeance of heaven on those who refused to listen to His Divine words. “Ye know not,” he says, "what spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."* Surely then His followers, who preach His gospel, which proclaims "peace on earth, good-will towards men," ought to follow their Divine Master in this respect. The

*St. Luke ix. 55, 56.

servants of the householder were indignant to see tares growing up amongst their master's wheat, and would fain, in their zealous haste, have rooted them up. But their Lord's answer was, "Nay, lest, while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them: let both grow together until the harvest; and in time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.”* No mortal, nor even angel, dare give the word of command; it belonged of right only to the Son of God. Full of wisdom were the words of Gamaliel would that our Church had always acted in his spirit. He addresses those Jews who, in their blind fury, would have slain Christ's holy Apostles: "Ye men of Israel, I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought; but, if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." Nor can we find that the Bishops of the early Church ever punished heresy by death. Christian Bishops, it is true, in those early ages, stedfastly set their faces against what was false and unscriptural, and, acting upon St. Paul's advice, "marked those which caused divisions, and avoided them." Such offenders they excommunicated-that is, deprived them of their religious privileges; but they would have shrunk from condemning them to death. St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, one of the holiest and best fathers of the Church, refused to communicate with those who had sentenced a heretic to death; and we find that most of the Bishops contemporary with St. Ambrose agreed with him in this matter. For, as the learned writer who is my authority for this statement says, "This roasting men into orthodoxy, and enlightening them with fire and faggot, was a discipline not understood in those early ages." In this respect, therefore, it is clear that our forefathers were in error. But one thing I would have you guard against. Many who have been satisfied with a one-sided view of the case have stated that the clergy alone were the authors of this abominable law. Such is not the case. The record states that not only the clergy, but also the Lords Temporal, as well as Spiritual, the Commons in Parliament assembled, and the King, all giving their assent."§

The first victim of this most unhappy enactment was William Sawtre, parish priest of St. Osyth, in London. He was accused of holding heretical opinions with regard to the Holy Com*Matthew xxiii. 29, 30. † Acts v. 38, 39.

Collier, vol. iii., p. 258.

§ Dr. Hook's Lives of the Archbishops, vol. iv., p. 501.

munion and other points, and at first appears to have satisfied his accusers by explaining away, if not recanting his opinions. But doubts being again entertained of his orthodoxy (or sound views of religion), he was summoned before Archbishop Arundel, and required fully to state his opinions. The doctrine of the Holy Eucharist is involved in such deep mystery, and ought ever to be approached with such reverent awe, that one shrinks from the apparently careless way in which the subject was handled at these examinations. Perhaps on no point ought Christian charity to be more carefully exercised; and yet we find that in all ages this most blessed and life-giving mystery has been the cause of endless contention, and, by Satan's agency, has been made the means whereby many innocent people have suffered death. Surely the enemy of our souls loves most to ensnare us through our holiest things. From all accounts, Sawtre appears to have held less extreme opinions than many of the Lollards. He certainly used words different from those which the Archbishop would have made use of in explaining his belief with regard to the Holy Eucharist, but in spirit I do believe that they were not so widely separated. It is therefore the more to be regretted that Archbishop Arundel, in his zeal for what he believed to be the truth, altogether overlooked the necessity of showing Christian charity. Sawtre's explanation, with regard to this point, was not considered satisfactory; and, as he still refused to use the exact words required by Arundel, he was declared a heretic, and handed over to the secular magistrate, who condemned him to suffer death by burning. The horrible sentence was duly carried into effect. Sawtre suffered as a Christian martyr should do, with constancy and calmness. As the flames shot up higher into the air, shutting out the writhing form of the martyr priest, those who stood by must have turned with horror from the new and appalling spectacle. It was a searching test for the sincerity of Wiclif's followers; a test which the mere outward believer and dissembler could never endure. We must therefore conclude that all who now openly professed themselves Lollards were brave, honest-minded men, though on some points they may have erred. This law, which Archbishop Arundel had hoped might have somewhat lessened the difficulty under which the government laboured with regard to the Lollards, only served to increase it. As is usually the case with those who dissent from the faith of the Christian Church in less important matters, their errors grow, instead of diminishing. The Lollards now put forth opinions which all must own were calculated to inspire both the rulers of the Church and the government with serious alarm. Among

other things, they actually asserted that the "parish church is no better than the synagogue of Satan ;" and for this reason they declined going thither, either to say their prayers, or to receive the Sacraments, especially the Sacrament of the altar, which, as they blasphemously expressed themselves, was no better than a morsel without life or significancy, and the very top and pinnacle of Antichrist. The views of the Lollards with regard to holy matrimony were equally heretical. They declared that if a man and woman mutually agreed to live together, the holy rite of matrimony-the blessing which God Almighty freely bestows on the couple who kneel in prayer before His altar— was not necessary, and little better than an idle superstition. While the Bishops of our Church at this time have been freely accused of disregarding the Lord's Day, I never remember to have heard the followers of Wiclif blamed for not showing proper reverence for it. There is no doubt, however, that at this time they set at naught even this holy day, and, in common with the other festivals of the Church, condemned its observance. In avoiding one extreme, therefore, they fell into another equally hurtful. "No festival of the Church," say they, "ought to be kept holy or particularly regarded, not even the Lord's Day; for a man may take the liberty to eat, drink, and work upon one day as well as another."*

To make matters worse, the Lollards interfered more and more in political matters, and by disloyalty to the King and government became as obnoxious to the State as they were to the Church. But the more they were hunted down and oppressed the more they gained ground; and hundreds who would have disowned the name of "Lollard" were yet influenced by their opinions. Nothing shows this more than the growing indifference, and even dislike, which was felt towards the Bishops and clergy of the Church. This spirit of opposition showed itself in various ways. But Archbishop Arundel was the champion of the ecclesiastical party. He was not the man quietly to sit down and see the rights of the Church ignored and trampled upon. The following anecdotes show us that he was possessed of no small amount of energy and resolution.

In the year 1403 a formidable insurrection was set on foot by Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester, who encouraged the report that Richard was still alive. The King levied an army with all expedition, and came up with the enemy near Shrewsbury. The battle was fought on both sides with great resolution, but Henry at length was victorious. Having quelled the rebellion in the north, he proceeded towards Wales, which was

* Collier, vol. iii., p. 264.