Note 604 — HISTORY OF LYNN. PART III. (continued 5)

One circumstance, mentioned as having occurred in the course of this examination, seems not a little difficult to account for. Fox says, that Arundel enquired of Sawtre, “Whether he had abjured the foresaid heresies and errors objected against him before the bishop of Norwich, or not; or else had revoked and renounced the said or such like conclusions or articles, or not?” and that the latter answered and affirmed that he had not. [p. 672.] Also four days after, when the fore-cited process of the bishop of Norwich was read to him before the convocation, and it was urged that he had then abjured, among other errors, the heresy, that in the sacrament of the altar, after the consecration made by the priest, there still remained material bread, “Whereunto the said William, answered, smiling, or in mocking wise, and denying that he knew of the premisses.” [Ib. p. 674.] In all this there is evidently some mystery, which one knows not how to unravel, except on the supposition, that there was some material mistake, or designed misrepresentation in the statement which bishop Spencer sent to the convocation of his process against Sawtre, and of the tenor of the latter’s retraction, which might, in his opinion, justify his said denial.