READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

HISTORICAL MEMOIRS RESPECTING THE ENGLISH,

IRISH, AND

SCOTTISH CATHOLICS

FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

By

CHARLES BUTLER

I. General Remark, on the state of Learning and Religion, during the middle ages

II. Preliminaries of the Reformation

III. Henry the Eighth:  Commencement of the Reformation

IV. He receives from, the Pope, the title of Defender of the Faith

V. His Divorce from Queen Katharine 

VI. Introduction to the history of the King's assumption of the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England

VII. Henry the Eighth assumes the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England

VIII. Criminal Prosecutions

IX. Monastic Institutions

X. The Dissolution of Monasteries

XI. Pope Paul the Third excommunicates Henry the Eighth

XII. Ecclesiastical Regulations in his reign. The death of Henry the Eighth

XIII. Edward the Sixth

XIV. Principal Ecclesiastical Occurrences in the reign of Queen Mary, 1553

XV. Queen Elizabeth

XVI. Queen Elizabeth declared head of the Church of England

XVII. Principal Ecclesiastical Arrangements in the reign of Queen Elizabeth

XVIII. Persecution of the Catholics

XIX. Reasons assigned to justify the sanguinary Laws, enacted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth against Catholics and the rigorous execution of them

XX. Alleged Plots of the Catholics against Queen Elizabeth

XXI. Protestation of Allegiance presented to the Queen by Thirteen Priests.

XXII. Two Briefs of Clement the eighth.

XXIII. James the first, his Dispositions towards the English Catholics at the time of his Accession to the throne.

XXIV. The Gunpowder Conspiracy

XXV. The Oath of Allegiance framed by James the first:

XXVI. The Controversy respecting the lawfulness of the Oath

XXVII. The examination of Mr. Blackwell, the Archpriest, before his Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

XXVIII. Ulterior Occurrences respecting the Protestation of Allegiance

XXIX. The Puritans

I.

SOME GENERAL REMARKS ON THE STATE OF LEARNING, AND RELIGION, DURING THE MIDDLE AGES.

THAT some ignorance and superstition existed, in every part of Christian Europe, when the reformation began, must be admitted. But there is more ground, than is usually supposed, for believing: That neither ignorance, nor superstition, prevailed in it at any time, to the extent, which has been generally imagined; And that a much earlier period, than is usually assigned, ought to be affixed to the revival of learning.

IF any person were required to mention the time, in which, during the middle ages, the arts, and sciences, were at their lowest ebb in Europe, he would, probably, fix on the period, which elapsed between the death of Charlemagne, and the accession of the Capetian dynasty. Now, an excellent dissertation by the abbé le Boeuf, on the state of the sciences in the Gauls, from the death of Charlemagne, till the reign of Robert king of France, seems to establish, by very strong proofs, that, during the whole of this period, both sacred, and profane literature, the civil and canon law, and the sciences of arithmetic, astronomy, geography, music and medicine, were extensively cultivated.

It is true, that many instances of gross and risible ignorance may be produced: but, at a time, when there was so little intercourse, either between countries, or individuals, it would easily happen, that learning might exist, where ignorance was not distant. Even, in the present state of society, when roads and posts have rendered every kind of intercourse so easy, a single family, cultivating, in a provincial town, the elegant arts, with distinction, will make it a seat of polite literature; and give its inhabitants a general taste for learning, which no neighboring place will possess. How much more frequently, must something of this nature have taken place, when communication of every kind was so difficult! In such times, it might often happen, that the arts would abound in one monastery, or in one town; and be altogether neglected in the adjacent. This seems to show satisfactorily, that, when we peruse the histories of the times, to which we are alluding, we should not hastily conclude, from particular instances of ignorance in some places, that a considerable portion of learning did not exist, in others.

Another argument against such a conclusion may, perhaps, be drawn from the state of architecture, and its ornamental appendages, throughout this period. No intellectual eye can behold our ancient cathedrals, without being struck with the sublime science and learned labor, which their construction must have required. Our ablest architects confess their ignorance of the means, by which several of their elevated parts were raised, or continue to be supported. To these, we must add the works of gold, silver and bronze, with which, in a less or greater degree, all of them abounded. When we survey these splendid exertions of art and science; and then consider the share of knowledge which they presuppose and imply, it is impossible to deny to the ages, which produced them, a high degree of cultivation; and, when we consider their number, it is equally impossible to imagine, that the knowledge, which raised or ornamented them, was not extensively disseminated.

The history of the English church, during this period, may be divided into three eras;—the first, from the introduction of Christianity, till the invasion of the Danes;—the second, from that invasion, till the Norman conquest;—the third, from the Norman conquest, till the reformation.

1. Except in the accounts, which have been given of the lives, and manners, of the first Christians, the religion of the gospel has never appeared more amiable, than in the account of the early Saxon era of Christianity. “St. Augustine, and his companions”, says Mr. Fletcher, “in his sermon on the holiness of the catholic church, preached, and acted, as once did the first envoys of Jesus Christ. They gained proselytes by the eloquence of truth, assisted by the eloquence of meekness, humility, and piety, verifying, in the whole series of conduct, that pleasing sentence of the prophet, How beautiful on the hills are the footsteps of those who bring glad tidings! Neither were the exertions of their charity, unattended by the approbation of heaven.

Not only contemporary historians attest, but several protestant writers allow, that God rewarded, them with the gift of miracles”. “Their kings”, says the martyrologist Fox, “considered the honest conversation of their lives, and was moved by the miracles wrought, through God's hand, by them”.

After noticing the difficulties, which St. Augustine, and his companions encountered, Fox observes, that “Notwithstanding their seeming impossibilities, they were followed with surprising success. The sanctity of their lives, and the force of their miracles, broke through the difficulties of the enterprise. The fruits, and effects, of their mission were striking. A people, hitherto savage, barbarous, and immoral, was changed into a nation, mild, benevolent, humane, and holy”. “Everything”, says Collier, “brightened as if nature had been melted down, and recoined”. That the preacher, and the flock, deserved this character, most readers will allow, who have perused, The Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon church, by the reverend John Lingard, in one volume 8vo.

2. Such was the happy state of religion, and of manners, at the invasion of the Danes. Those ferocious invaders spread devastation over England, and laid waste almost its whole territory. A necessary consequence of this calamity, was, that the pastor, and the flock, were often separated and that, if they did meet again, it generally was not until after a considerable lapse of time. Meanwhile, every form of instruction, either civil, or religious, was interrupted; and the interruption, naturally, gave rise to error, and superstition.

3. The same scenes must have been renewed, during the convulsions, which followed the Norman conquest; particularly during the period between the death of the conqueror, and the accession of the first Henry; and in the long years of havoc, consumed in the contests between the houses of York and Lancaster. That, in these times, some superstition should prevail, is not surprising. But, it bore no proportion, to the true spirit of religion, with which the nation still continued to abound. What gospel truth did not the ministers of the church then inculcate?—What disorder did they not then condemn?—What crime did they not then reprobate?—What excess did they not then censure?—What passion did they not then endeavor to restrain? They taught every virtue; they encouraged every perfection. In no age, has love of God or charity for man, been more warmly recommended. But, did no superstition, then, exist? Unhappily it did.—But surely, where there was so much instruction, superstition could not predominate.

The reflections, which have been suggested, may, perhaps, incline the reader to think, that, in the times, of which we are speaking, there was less ignorance, and superstition, than is generally represented. It may be added, that there are grounds to suspect, that the dispersion of these was earlier; and that sound learning, and science, began to revive in Europe, sooner than is generally imagined.

We shall shortly state some facts, which may be thought to prove this assertion, as applied to the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, particularly in respect to the state of literature in England, during these periods.

1. So early as the eleventh century, the arts and sciences flourished, under the protection of the Mahometan princes of Persia, Baghdad, Africa, and Spain. In all these countries, the studies of medicine, astronomy, and dialectics, were cultivated with success, and the works of Aristotle, and of some other authors, were translated from the Grecian language, into the Arabic. Something, too, of learning, and science, remained at Constantinople, and in the adjacent provinces. By degrees, they attracted the attention, first of the Italians, and afterwards of the northern states of Europe, and many inquisitive spirits, in quest of learning, travelled from them to the Greeks of the eastern empire; or to the Arabians in Baghdad, Spain, or Africa, and returned, with considerable literary spoil. Of these, Gerbert, who afterwards became Pope, under the name of Silvester the Second, deserves particular mention. A thirst of knowledge had led him to Cordova. In that celebrated seat of Moorish literature, he acquired an extensive knowledge of mathematics, and astronomy. On his return to France, he attracted the notice of Adalberon, archbishop of Rheims; and, under his auspices, opened a school in that city. Hugh Capet, and several of the principal nobility of France, sent their children to it, for education. “France”, says M. de St. Marc, “owes to him her taste for true literature. He was not satisfied, with advancing it by his public lectures, and occasional publications. By an extensive epistolary correspondence, he communicated his discoveries to many, both in France, and in other states; and strove to kindle in them his own literary ardor. At a great expense, he collected a large library of ancient, and modern, books; caused numerous copies of them to be made, and distributed them wherever he thought they might be useful. It is probable, that he first introduced into Europe the Arabic system of notation,—perhaps the most useful of modern discoveries, in science. It is observable, that in the preceding century, Campanus, a mathematician of Lombardy, had translated into Latin the elements and data of Euclid: the former was printed at Venice in 1482, the latter at Basle in 1546.

2. The twelfth century, presents a visible increase of literary ardor. Mr. Berington, in his learned, and interesting History of Abeillard and Heloisa, speaking of these times, observes, that “The schools, as we know, from the histories of the age, were not only filled with students, as at present; but, men in years, persons of distinction, fathers of families, and ministers of state, after the toils of the day were over, crowded to them, as to a theatre of amusement”. The same writer adds, that, “when Abeillard taught, in the Convent of St. Denys, more than 3,000 scholars, are said by some authors, to have attended his lectures. When he left this convent, and retired to the convent of Nogent in Champagne, the lovers of science pursued, and discovered him, and, before the end of the first year, exceeded six hundred. Situated in a forest, exposed to the inclement seasons, without a single convenience to smooth the rugged life, or without one amusement, except what literary pursuits, scientific conversation, and their own society could supply;—in Abeillard, they saw the divine Plato, in themselves, that illustrious group of disciples, which had given renown to the academic walks of Athens”. We may lament, that the instruction, given them, was not more elegant, more sublime, or more useful: But, the thirst of knowledge, the mental activity of the scholars, it is impossible to deny. Ignorant, it would be injustice to call them. “In the twelfth” century, “says Dom Rivet, “men of letters were almost infinitely multiplied; a prodigious number of writings on every subject, and sometimes of a very interesting nature, appeared”.

3. In the thirteenth century the rays of science were brighter, and more generally diffused. The formation of the Italian republics raised, in every part of that ample territory, a spirit of mental energy, which equally discovered itself in commerce, and the polite arts. Many edifices, of the most exquisite gothic architecture, were raised. Cimabue, the father of the modern school of painting, adorned them with the efforts of his art; Brunelleschi revived, at Florence, the forms of ancient architecture; and Dante produced the Divina Comedia. In the Netherlands, the elegant arts equally flourished. No one, who has seen the long line of magnificent towns in Belgium, can have surveyed the many public edifices of exquisite and costly architecture, and the numberless works in marble, gold, silver, iron and bronze, which decorate them, —without admiration. Many of these may be traced to the period, of which we are speaking. In the same period, France discovered equal mental ardor. The church of Notre-Dame, at Paris, the facades of the churches, of Rheims, and Notre-Dame, at Rouen, and the cathedrals of Amiens and Strasbourg show, that in the architecture of the times, France did not yield the palm to Italy. The number of her schools, and the multitudes, by whom they were frequented, make it evident, that she possessed an equal taste for general literature. Libraries began now to be formed. The foundations of the Bibliothèque Royâle, at Paris, were laid at this time; and Robert, (called of Sorbonne, from a village of that name in the diocese of Rheims, in which he was born), founded the university of the Sorbonne;—collecting, moreover, for the use of its members, an extensive library. In 1289, it consisted of upwards of a thousand volumes—which were then valued, at 3,812 livres, 10 sous, and 8 deniers—(about 3,0001, sterling, according to the present value of money.)

The literary spirit of the times was increased by the discovery, in 1137, of a complete copy of the Pandects of Justinian, at Amalfi. The wisdom, and the justice, of the laws, expressed in these, were immediately felt; and the study of them was pursued, with a kind of enthusiasm. They were introduced into several universities: Exercises were performed, lectures read, degrees conferred, in this, as in other branches of science: and most of the nations on the continent adopted the Pendects, if not as the basis, at least, as an important portion of their jurisprudence.

4. If we compare the state of letters in England, with that of foreign countries, at this period, England will not suffer by the comparison. During a great part of this interval, the throne was tilled by Henry the second, the most powerful monarch in Europe. Beside England, and Ireland, he was master, in right of his father, of his mother, and of his wife, and by the annexation of Brittany to his other states, of more than a third part of the provinces, which then composed the French monarchy. He possessed great abilities; and inherited from his father, a taste for literature, and the arts. “When he could enjoy leisure”, says Mr. Hume, “he recreated himself, either in conversation, or in reading; and he cultivated his natural abilities by study, above any prince of his time”. Throughout his reign, England made great advances in learning, and in the polite arts; and, if we were required to name the golden age of the literature of the middle ages, we could not assign any era, better deserving this appellation than the reign of this monarch. It was distinguished by its improvements in architecture; particularly by an universal increase of dimension, the sharp pointed arch, resting on the slender column, and the leafy molding. These Mr. Miller mentions among the characteristics of the Norman style of architecture. He supposes it to have flourished, from the Norman conquest to the reign of John. At the close of his account of it, he says—“Let us not quit this topic, without paying a due tribute of admiration to the liberality, and magnificence, of those, whose mighty works we have been endeavoring to characterize. Almost all the cathedrals in England, and Wales; a prodigious number of splendid monasteries, and parish churches, in every part of the kingdom, were erected by them, in little more than one century”. Considering the concomitant learning, which architectural eminence presupposes, it is impossible, that this should have been a century of ignorance.

One of the most valuable monuments of the literature of the middle ages,—the letters of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and of his correspondents, belongs to this reign. The writers express themselves with a conscious elevation of rank, and character, with sense, and with spirit, and discover an extensive knowledge of sacred, and profane, literature. Their frequent allusions to the classics, show their acquaintance with these precious remains of antiquity. It is surprising, that it did not lead them to a purer style.

The same may be said of many of the historians of these times. Sir Henry Saville preferred William of Malmesbury to all other historians, with whom he was acquainted, both for judiciousness, and fidelity. Bishop Warburton speaks in terms, equally high, of Matthew Paris.

But, the wonder of the thirteenth century is Roger Bacon. It is a disgrace to his countrymen, that neither a complete collection of his works; nor a full and able account of his life, and literary labors, have yet appeared. He first studied, at Oxford; thence, removed to Paris and took the degree of doctor in that university. “After his return to Oxford”, says Mr. Chalmers, in his General Biographical Dictionary, “he was considered, by the greatest men in that university, as one of the ablest, and most indefatigable inquirers after knowledge that the world ever produced, and, therefore, they not only showed him all due respect; but likewise, conceiving the greatest hopes from his improvements in the method of study, they generally contributed to his expenses; so that he was enabled to lay out, within the compass of two years, no less than 2,000 £. (an immense sum for those times),— in collecting curious authors; making trials of various kinds; and in the construction of different instruments, for the improvement of useful knowledge”. He was master of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages; deeply versed in all branches of mathematics, in the sciences of optics, geography, astronomy, and chemistry. The composition and effects of gunpowder were probably discovered by him. He certainly made great discoveries in chemistry. He had enemies: but, he had many powerful friends, and he was patronized by every pope of his time. The patronage, which he received from his countrymen, has been mentioned. A nation, in which there was so much science on one side, and so much patronage of science on the other, could not have been generally unlearned. It must be added, that, while Roger Bacon was employed in the manner we have mentioned, John Holywood, or Johannes de Sacrobosco, as he is sometimes called,—(for whose birth Nithisdale, Yorkshire, Durham, and Dublin, contend),—was considerably extending the boundaries of science. He acquired from the Moors in Spain, and communicated both to England and France, the system of circulating decimals,—the uttermost limit of pure arithmetic.

In fact, so far, at the time of which we are speaking, had the spirit of literary ardor proceeded, and so widely was it circulated, that, in every southern, and several northern states of Europe, there was an irresistible tendency to a new and better order of things. For a time, the religious controversies, which then began to disturb the world, rather retarded than accelerated, the march of science, and the general improvement of the human mind.

II.

THE PRELIMINARIES OF THE REFORMATION.

The diffusion of learning, and the mental activity, which it occasioned, paved the way for the reformation. That there was much ignorance, and many superstitious practices, in the catholic churches; that there was much dissoluteness in the lower, and much luxury in the higher ranks, of the clergy, that the pretensions of the ecclesiastical body in general, and particularly the claims of the see of Rome, were exorbitant, every well-informed and candid catholic may allow. They are described in the strongest colors, by Bossuet, in the first pages of his Variations. They had never been unobserved by the wise or the good. The increase of information, and the new spirit of inquiry, which it produced, now made them every day, more and more felt, and the discussions, at the councils of Constance, and Basil, forcibly called the attention of the public to them.

The chapter, perhaps the most interesting in his works, in which Mr. Gibbon gives an account of the Paulicians, shows, that there had long existed, in a numerous portion of Christians, an anxious wish to simplify both the religious creed, and the religious observances of the times; and several protestant writers have labored to prove, that they would have been satisfied with a moderate reform.

A different opinion is, however, maintained by Mosheim. “Before the reformation”, to use his own words, “there lay concealed, in almost every part of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland and Germany, many persons, who adhered tenaciously to the doctrines, which the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites had maintained; some in a disguised, and others, in a more open and public manner: That the kingdom of Christ was an assembly of true, and real saints and ought, therefore, to be inaccessible to the wicked, and unrighteous; and also exempt from all those institutions, which human prudence suggests, to oppose the progress of iniquity, or to correct and reform transgressions”. From these principles they inferred, that, all things ought to be in common among the faithful, that, taking interest for the loan of money, tythes, and tribute, ought to be entirely abolished, that, in the kingdom of Christ, civil magistrates were absolutely useless; and that God still continued to reveal his will to chosen persons”.

Some writers have gone farther; and have pretended, that, among the maintainers of these opinions, something of the Jacobinical doctrines of liberty and equality, is discoverable. It must, no doubt, be admitted, that the celebrated distich of the English Lollards,

When Adam delv'd, and Eva span,

Where was then the gentleman?

has something of a Jacobinical sound.

It may be added, that the principle was, not only avowed, but carried into practice, by the Jacquerie, in France. This, no one, who has read the Conjuration d'Etienne Marcel contre l’autorité royal par Monsieur Maudet, a very curious, and interesting work,—will be disposed to controvert.

Whatever may have been the principles of the persons, to whom we have just alluded, it is at least certain, that they produced a considerable degree of ferment. “The minds of men”, says cardinal Julian, in a letter to Pope Eugenius the Fourth, “are big with expectation of what measures will be taken, and are ripe for something tragical. I see the axe is at the root: the tree begins to bend: and instead of propping it, whilst we may, we hasten its fall”. The whole of this letter, a copious extract from which is given by Bossuet, in the first pages of his Variations, is inserted in the works of Eneas Sylvius, afterwards pope, under the name of Pius the Second. It is a remarkable monument of political foresight, and deserves the perusal of the reader.

III.

HENRY THE EIGHTH.COMMENCEMENT OF THE REFORMATION.

1517

Whilst the general spirit of the public was in the state, we have described, a circumstance took place, which immediately led to the reformation. Pope Leo the tenth published a General Indulgence, and employed several persons to preach and distribute it, among the faithful. The charge of doing this, in the electorate of Saxony, he committed to Albert, archbishop of Mentz and Magdeburg. This prelate employed on the occasion, John Tetzel, a dominican friar, ignorant, and insolent; but possessing no small share of popular eloquence. The terms, in which he described the indulgences, and announced their effects, excited general disgust.

The celebrated Martin Luther was, at this time, professor of theology, in the university of Wittenberg, on the Elbe. He had taken the degree of doctor; and possessed great reputation, and authority. In the most explicit, and bold language, he harangued, in the great church, both against the indulgences and against the manner, in which they were dispensed. In September, 1517, he published ninety-five propositions, expressing his sentiments respecting them. These were universally read and produced the greatest sensation. The notions, which they conveyed, and the consequences, to which they evidently led, alarmed the see of Rome. Some attempts were made to silence, and pacify Luther. Tetzel was condemned; and, soon afterwards, loaded with general detestation, died of grief and despair. Miltitz, a Saxon knight, a person of learning, prudence and address, was then employed by Leo the tenth to confer with Luther. The conferences seem to have been conducted in a manner, which promised an amicable settlement. But, before they came to a conclusion, Leo the tenth issued a bull, dated the 25th June, 1520. In this memorable document, he solemnly condemned forty-one propositions, extracted from the writings of Luther; ordered his writings to be burnt; and summoned him, under pain of excommunication, to retract his errors, within sixty days. The sixty days expired without any retractation; and it was generally understood, that the Pope was proceeding to issue a formal sentence of excommunication. To anticipate it, the reformer, on the 19th of December, 1520, caused a pile of wood to be erected, without the walls of the city of Wittenberg; and there, in the presence of an immense multitude of people, of all ranks and orders, committed to the flames, both the bull, which had been published against him and those parts of the decretals and canons, which particularly related to the Pope’s jurisdiction. By this proceeding, Luther formally withdrew himself from the communion of the see of Rome. On the 6th of the following month of January, the Pope issued a second bull; pronouncing Lutheran obstinate heretic; and excommunicating him. Some time afterwards, in the execution of the bull, he appointed Luther’s books to be burnt, at Rome. Luther by way of retaliation, assembled all the professors, and students, of the university of Wittenberg, caused a fire to be lighted, and cast the bull of excommunication into the flames.

He proceeded to attack other doctrines, and practices of the church of Rome. Justification, and the efficacy of the sacraments, were the first objects of his hostility. “The justification of a sinner”, to use his own language, “was the principle and source, from which all his doctrines flowed”. So great, in his opinion, was the importance of this article of faith, that he thought himself warranted in asserting, that, “whilst the doctrine upon it was pure, there would be no reason to fear, either schism, or division; but that, if the true doctrine of justification were once altered, it would be impossible to oppose error or stop the progress of fanaticism”.

In the Historical and literary account of the formularies, confessions of faith, or symbolic books, of the Roman-catholic, Greek, and principal Protestant churches, written by the author of these pages, the reader will find a very accurate statement, drawn up by father Scheffmaker, a Jesuit of Strasbourg, of the difference between the Roman-catholic, and the Lutheran churches, concerning this important article.

With respect to the sacraments, the Catholic church believes them to be seven, baptism, confirmation, penance, the Eucharist, holy orders, extreme unction, and matrimony. Luther confined them to two, baptism, and the Eucharist. In opposition to the catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, he contended, that in the sacramental elements, the bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ, existed together. When the language of the epistle of St. James, was opposed to his doctrine, on the subject of justification, he absolutely denied its authenticity.

This short account of the principal religious tenets, in which the Lutheran differs from the Catholic church, was necessary; and will suffice, for the object of the present pages.

IV.

HENRY THE EIGHTH RECEIVES FROM THE POPE THE TITLE OF DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.

1521.

AT this time, the throne of England was filled by Henry the Eighth. He was zealously attached to the roman catholic faith; and the theological opinions of Luther no sooner found their way into his dominions, than they were marked by his indignation. He had been originally designed for the church; and, on that account, had received an early tincture of scholastic erudition. He particularly venerated the writings of St. Thomas of Aquinas. Most historians observe, that his dislike of Luther was much increased by the contemptuous terms, in which the reformer spoke of that voluminous father. The monarch had also a taste for classical learning; and was a warm admirer of pure Latinity. He loved the conversation of literary men. He was often the subject of their adulation; and to him, many of them dedicated their works. “Learning”, says Erasmus, “would triumph, if we had such a prince at home, as England has. The king is not unlearned; and has a sharp wit. He openly protects literature; and imposes silence upon brawlers”. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at, that the spirit of authorship should fall upon the monarch; or that he should choose, for his subject, a theological theme. Cardinal Wolsey, bishop Fisher, and others, are said to have assisted him, in the composition of this work. It was written in Latin, and entitled, Assertio septum Sacramentorum adversus Lutherum, which may be translated, The defence of the Seven Sacraments against Luther. It is particularly opposed to Luther’s treatise, De Captivitate Babylonica. It is dedicated to pope Leo the Tenth; and treats, under separate heads, of the Eucharist, penance, satisfaction, confirmation, matrimony, holy orders, and extreme unction. It is written with order, and perspicuity; and with such force of argument, that Mr. Collier says that “the king had the better of the controversy and was, generally speaking, the sounder divine; superior to his adversary in the vigour and propriety of his style, the force of his reasoning, and learning of his quotations”. He adds, that “his manner was not altogether unexceptionable and that he leant too much on his character; argued in his garter-robes; and wrote, as 'twere, with his scepter”. It is observable, that the terms, in which Henry expressed himself, respecting the supremacy of the pope, were stronger than sir Thomas More thought it prudent for him to use. “I moved the king's highness”, says sir Thomas, in his letter to Cromwell, “either to leave out that point; or else to touch it more slenderly; for doubt of some things, as might hap to fall in question, between his highness, and some pope; as between princes, and popes, diverse times, have done; whereunto his highness answered me, that he would, in no wise, minish in that matter”.

His majesty sent, by Dr. Clarke, dean of Windsor, his ambassador at Rome, a copy of his work, sumptuously bound, to pope Leo the Tenth. At a solemn assembly of cardinals, the ambassador, after a set speech, delivered it into the hands of his holiness. The pope received it most graciously; expressed himself in high terms of praise, of the zeal, and learning, of the royal author; and caused the copy to be deposited, with great ceremony, in the Vatican. By a bull, dated the following October, he conferred on the king the title of Defender of the Faith; and “ordered all the faithful in Christ, in their verbal and written addresses to the monarch, to add, after the word king,* the words Defender of the Faith”. With this honor his majesty was extremely gratified.

But, neither the arguments, nor the rank of his royal adversary, nor the title conferred upon him by the pope, dismayed Luther. He published a reply, replete with arrogance, and the foulest abuse. At a subsequent period, Luther apologized to the king, for the style of his letter. He seems, by his apology, to discover, that he had then some hopes of the monarch’s favoring the reformation. But he expresses himself, in severe language, concerning the pope, and cardinal Wolsey; and the reader will think, he was a bad politician, in those parts of his letter, in which he intimates, that his majesty was not the real author of his work. This, certainly, was touching the king in a very tender part.

The king returned an answer. But it was not, in general, written in those terms, which were calculated to please Luther. Henry imputes the troubles of Germany to the reformer’s writings; and exhorts him to retire from the world; to quit his engagements with the nun, whom he had married; and to spend the remainder of his life, in discipline and penance. In reply to that part of Luther’s work, in which he intimates, that his majesty's work was written by others, the royal author says, “And although ye fayne yourselfe to thynke my booke not my owne, but, to my rebuke, (as it lyketh you to affyrme), put on by subtell sophistere; yet, it is well knowne for myne, and I, for myne, avouch it”. The style of Henry's answer provoked Luther exceedingly. He declared, he would throw away no more civilities upon him.

It remains to observe, on the subject of this controversy, that, in 1523, Fisher, bishop of Rochester, entered the lists, by a work against Luther, in titled “Assertionis Lutherae Confutatio”. Henry was extremely pleased with it; and by letters patent, conferred on the prelate, the exclusive right of printing it, during the course of three years.

V.

THE DIVORCE OF HENRY THE EIGHTH FROM QUEEN KATHARINE.

1533

The subject of these pages, neither requires, nor admits of, more, than a short mention of the transactions, which attended this interesting event, some observations on the lawfulness of the marriage of Henry the eighth with queen Katharine, some account of the sentence, pronounced by Clement the seventh, for its validity, and of the act of parliament, ratifying the divorce and establishing the marriage of Henry with Anne Boleyn.

Marriage, with the widow of a deceased brother, is prohibited, in Leviticus XVIII. 6. The same prohibition is repeated, in chapter xx. 16; with a denunciation, that such marriage should be unfruitful. This denunciation imported, not that God would miraculously prevent the parents from having off­spring; but, that the children should not be entitled to the rights of heirship: So that, in a civil sense, the parents would be childless. This was the general rule: Moses excepted from it, the case, where the deceased brother left no child, Deut. xxv. 9. Here the legislator not only permits, but commands, as a civil duty, the next brother to marry the widow.

Henry was in this situation. On the 14th of November, 1501, Katharine, the daughter of Ferdinand, king of Spain, was married to prince Arthur, the eldest son of Henry the Seventh. The prince died, in the following April. Soon after his decease, it was agreed, by both parents, that Katharine should be espoused to prince Henry. Her previous marriage was a canonical impediment, as, under the Christian dispensation, marriages, within the degrees prohibited by Leviticus, were unlawful, and the exception of the case, where the deceased brother had died childless, was not admitted. The canonical impediment was, however, removed by a bull of dispensation from Julius the Second, dated the 26th of December, 1503. Soon after it was obtained, the contract was signed: but, for some reason or other, when prince Henry arrived at a sufficient age, it was annulled. Henry the Weventh died, on the 7th day of April, 1509. He was succeeded by his son, Henry the Eighth. The marriage between him and Katharine, was, with the full consent of both parties and the advice of the council of state, solemnized, on the third of the following June. The queen had several miscarriages, as also some children, who were born alive, but, died, almost immediately; and one daughter, Mary, who lived to inherit the crown. The king seems, for the first time, to have expressed scruples respecting the lawfulness of the marriage, about the year 1527. The pope's commission, authorizing cardinal Wolsey, in conjunction with the archbishop of Canterbury, or any other bishop, to examine, juridically, the validity of the marriage and the dispensations, on which it was founded, is dated, the 13th of April, 1528. On the 15th of July, the following year, the pope annulled, by his bull, the power of the commissioners and evoked the cause to Rome. On the 23d of May, 1533, Cranmer, then archbishop of Canterbury, declared the marriage null. On the 14th day of the following November, Henry publicly married Anne Boleyn. One child, Elizabeth, afterwards queen of England, was the issue of this marriage. On the 23d of May, 1534, the pope pronounced the marriage between Henry and Katharine to be valid. On the 6th day of January, 1536, Katharine died.

The circumstance of the lawfulness, according to the Christian dispensation, of the marriage between Henry and Katharine,—considering it as the abstract question of a marriage between a brother and his brother's widow,—was certainly attended with considerable difficulties. The unlawfulness of such a marriage, by the injunctions in the Levitical law, admitted of no doubt. But, were these injunctions of the Levitical law adopted into the Christian code? If they were,—then, besides being a rule of the Christian (economy, were they also a rule of the natural law? If so,—could they admit of dispensation? On each of these points, opinions were divided. It is certain, that doubts had been entertained of the lawfulness of the marriage, before Henry's scruples had provoked the discussion: this is evident from several circumstances: 1. Henry the Seventh caused prince Henry, as soon as he came of age, to enter a protest against it; 2. And, on his death-bed, charged the prince not to make the alliance. 3. At the council, held upon it, after the death of Henry the Weventh, some members, particularly Warham, the archbishop of Canterbury, declared, at first, against it. 4. When the espousal of the princess Mary, the daughter of Henry, with Charles the Fifth, was proposed to the states of Castile, they objected to it, the doubts, which were entertained of the validity of Henry's marriage with Katharine. 5. When the negotiations were opened with France, for betrothing the princess Mary to Francis the First, or the duke of Orleans, the bishop of Tarbe, the French ambassador, made the same objection. 6. And although the unlawful practices, which were used in order to prevail, both on communities and on individuals, to pronounce in favor of the invalidity of the marriage, detract greatly from their weight,—yet, it must be admitted, that several, who objected to it, were men of worth, and learning. The better opinion, however, appears to have been favorable to the marriage.

The generality of those, who pronounced for its validity, grounded their opinion upon the supposition, that the marriage between prince Arthur and Katharine had not been consummated. At the hearing of the cause, evidence was adduced to prove the consummation. But the assertion of Katharine before the king, and the legates, at the hearing of the cause,—that her virgin honor was unstained, when the monarch received her to his bed; her solemn, and affecting, appeal to Henry himself for the truth of her declaration; and his not denying it,—added to her high character, and exemplary conduct, through life,—to which the monarch himself bore repeated testimony,—leave, in the writer's opinion, no doubt of the truth of her allegations.

It has been mentioned, that, on the 15th July, 1529, Clement the seventh, who then filled the papal chair, evoked the cause of the divorce to Rome. At the, end of five years, the cause appeared to verge to a conclusion. The pope, at the earnest solicitation of Francis the first, then gave his solemn assurance, that, if Henry would send a proxy to Rome, and submit his cause to the holy see, he would appoint commissioners to meet at Cambray, and pronounce a final sentence. Bellay, bishop of Paris, was sent by Francis to the English monarch, to apprise him of this circumstance, and to exhort him to submission. The prelate reached London, in the beginning of December and about the beginning of the following February, arrived at Rome, with such an answer, as Francis had suggested.

But the answer was verbal; and the pope required a written agreement, to the same purport, signed by Henry himself; promising that, on its receipt, the proceeding, which was required, should take place. Messengers were accordingly sent; and a day was appointed for their return. Everything then seemed to prognosticate an amicable conclusion. Rainié, the French agent at Rome, was persuaded, that Henry would gain his cause; and expressed himself to this effect, in a dispatch to the grand-master, Montmorency. But the courier, who carried the King’s written promise, was detained beyond the day appointed; and, in the meantime, such intelligence had been brought to Rome, as induced the pope to believe, that no courier was to be expected. Upon this, a consistory was assembled; and the pope pronounced sentence;—declaring, that the marriage of Henry with Katharine was valid; and that the former should incur excommunication, in case he should refuse to adhere to it.—This memorable sentence was pronounced, on the 23d of March, 1534.

From the letters of the bishops of Paris, and Mascou, cited by le Grand, it appears, that, immediately after the first intelligence of the sentence, those prelates waited upon his holiness, and remonstrated against it; that they found him much concerned at the step, which, he said, he had been obliged to take and that he assured them, that in opposition to the advice of many cardinals, he had suspended the signification of the sentence, until the ensuing Easter. It must be added, that, if the courier brought with him any written document from England, the contents of it were never known. On the other hand, if we take into consideration, that, during the whole of this stage of the business, the king persisted in his offensive measures; and even enacted several laws, destructive of papal authority, we shall find no reason to believe, that the pope, although he had conducted himself with ever so great moderation and temper, would have prevented a final rupture. It is probable, that, at this time, Henry considered the pope's decision, as a matter of great indifference.

In a former part of these pages, it has been mentioned, that Cranmer pronounced the marriage of the king with Katharine, to have been invalid; and that, soon after the passing of this sentence, his marriage with Anne Boleyn was solemnized. By an act of the 25th of the monarch's reign, the archbishop’s sentence was ratified; and the marriage with Anne Boleyn, confirmed. The crown was limited to the issue of this marriage; and, in default of such issue, to the king’s right heirs. An oath was enjoined, in favor of this order of succession, under the penalty of imprisonment, during the king’s-pleasure. It is observable, that this act excluded the princess, Mary, from the crown; this seems to have been contrary to the monarch’s avowed intentions, when he first applied for the sentence of divorce.

VI.

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE KING'S ASSUMPTION OF THE TITLE OF SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND —GIVING A SHORT HISTORICAL MINUTE OF THE PAPAL ENCROACHMENTS ON THE SOVEREIGN, AND CHURCH OF ENGLAND; AND OF THE RESISTANCE TO THEM.

We come now to consider the most important part of the reign of Henry; his assumption of the title of head of the church of England. To present the reader with a view of this interesting event, some account of the previous encroachments of the popes, on the rights of the sovereign, and church of England; and of the resistance of each, is necessary. An attempt will, therefore be made, in this chapter, to give a succinct statement of the success, and subsequent decline, of the pretensions of the popes to temporal power, of their occasional abuse of their spiritual power, of the resistance of the sovereigns of England to the former, and of the legislative acts of the parliament of England against the latter.

The beginning of the 14th century, may be assigned, as the era of the highest elevation of the temporal power of the popes since, about this time, their territorial possessions had their largest extent; they had made their greatest progress in exempting the clergy from the civil power; and they experienced the slightest resistance, to their general claim of a divine right to dominion. Thus, at this period, they had attained their highest elevation. Its decline may be dated from the year 1309; when the policy of the French king prevailed on the pope to remove to Avignon. During seventy years, that city continued the metropolis of Christendom. This exasperated the Italians, to the highest degree: they lost their personal affection for the pope; called his residence at Avignon, the captivity of Babylon; and filled Europe with invectives against him.

This was followed by an event, still more detrimental to the popes. Gregory the eleventh quitted Avignon, and established his residence at Rome. He died, in 1378. The Italian cardinals chose a pope; he assumed the name of Urban the sixth; and also fixed his seat at Rome. The French cardinals likewise chose a pope. He assumed the name of Clement the Seventh and fixed his seat at Avignon. Christendom was divided between the two popes; and the schism lasted, from 1378 to 1417: it then ended by the elevation of Martin the Fifth. Throughout the period of this schism, there were two, and sometimes three rival popes; dividing the Christian world by their quarrels, and scandalizing it by their mutual recriminations.

But, nothing contributed so much to the decline of the temporal power of the popes, as the discussions, which took place at the councils of Constance, Basil, and Pisa and the writings of several men of learning, particularly of the Parisian school, who then began to discuss the papal pretensions to temporal power, with wisdom, temper and erudition.

A rougher attack was made upon them by the Albigenses, Wickliffites, and Lollards; and by some other sectaries of the fourteenth and fifteenth, centuries. It must, however, be admitted, on the one hand, that these maintained some doctrines, irreconcilable with those of the gospel, and subversive of civil government;—so that it may be considered a matter of some surprise, that the protestant churches should be so anxious to prove their descent from them—and, on the other, that they brought charges against the temporal usurpations of some popes, and of some churchmen, to which their advocates could make no reply.

The effect of these circumstances was, that the justice of the pretensions of the popes to temporal power, by divine right, became much suspected; the ancient canons were more attended to; and the limits of spiritual and temporal power were better understood.

It is an article of the Roman-catholic faith, that the pope has, by divine right, 1st, a supremacy of rank; 2dly, a supremacy of jurisdiction, in the spiritual concerns of the Roman-catholic church; and, 3dly, the principal authority in defining articles of faith. In consequence of these prerogatives, the pope holds a rank, splendidly preeminent, over the highest dignitaries of the church; has a right to convene councils, and preside over them, by himself or his legates, and to confirm the elections of bishops. Every ecclesiastical cause may be brought to him, as the last resort, by appeal; he may promulgate definitions and formularies of faith to the universal church; and when the general body, or a great majority of her prelates, have assented to them, either by tacit acquiescence, or formal consent, all are bound to acquiesce in them: “Rome”, they say, “in such a case, has spoken, and the cause is determined”. To the pope, in the opinion of all Roman-catholics, belongs also a general superintendence of the concerns of the church; a right, when the canons provide no line of action, to direct the proceedings; and, in extraordinary cases, to act in opposition to the canons. In those spiritual concerns, in which, by strict right, his authority is not definitive, he is entitled to the highest respect and deference. Thus far, there is no difference of opinion among Roman-catholics; but here, they divaricate into the Transalpine and Cisalpine opinions.

The great difference between the transalpine and cisalpine divines, on the power of the pope, formerly was, that the transalpine divines attributed to the pope a divine right to the exercise, indirect at least, of temporal power, for effecting a spiritual good; and, in consequence of it, held that the supreme power of every state was so far subject to the pope, that, when he deemed that the bad conduct of the sovereign rendered it essential to the good of the church, that he should reign no longer, the pope was authorized, by his divine commission, to deprive him of his sovereignty, and absolve his subjects from their obligation of allegiance; and that, even on ordinary occasions, the pope might enforce obedience to his spiritual legislation and jurisdiction, by civil penalties. On the other hand, the cisalpine divines affirmed, that the pope had no right either to interfere in temporal concerns, or to enforce obedience to his spiritual legislation or jurisdiction, by temporal power; and consequently had no right to deprive a sovereign of his sovereignty, to absolve his subjects from their allegiance, or to enforce his spiritual authority over either, by civil penalties. This difference of opinion exists now no longer, the transalpine divines having insensibly adopted, on this subject, the cisalpine opinions.

But, though on this important point, both parties are at last agreed, they still differ on others.

In spiritual concerns, the transalpine opinions ascribe to the pope a superiority, and controlling power over the whole church, should she oppose his decrees, and consequently over a general council, its representative; and the same superiority and controlling power, even in the ordinary course of business, over the canons of the universal church. They describe the pope, as the fountain of all ecclesiastical order, jurisdiction, and dignity. They assign to him, the power of judging all persons in spiritual concerns; of calling all spiritual causes to his cognizance; of constituting, suspending, and deposing bishops; of conferring all ecclesiastical dignitaries and benefices, in or out of his dominions, by paramount authority; of exempting individuals or communities from the jurisdiction of their prelates; of evoking to himself, or judges appointed by him, any cause actually pending in an ecclesiastical court; and of receiving, immediately, appeals from all sentences of ecclesiastical courts, though they be inferior courts, from which there is a regular appeal to an intermediate superior court. They farther ascribe to the pope, the extraordinary prerogative of personal infallibility, when he undertakes to issue a solemn decision on any point of faith.

The cisalpines affirm, that in spirituals, the pope is subject, in doctrine and discipline, to the church, and to a general council representing her; that he is subject to the canons of the church, and cannot, except in an extreme case, dispense with them; that, even in such a case, his dispensation is subject to the judgment of the church; that the bishops derive their jurisdiction from God himself, immediately, and not derivatively through the pope; that he has no right to confer bishoprics, or other spiritual benefices of any kind, the patronage of which, by common right, prescription, concordat or any other general rule of the church, is vested in another. They admit that an appeal lies to the pope from the sentence of the metropolitan; but assert, that no appeal lies to the pope, and that he can evoke no cause to himself, during the intermediate process. They affirm, that a general council may, without, and even against the pope's consent, reform the church. They deny his personal infallibility, and hold, that he may be deposed by the church, or a general council, for heresy or schism: and they admit, that in an extreme case, where there is a great division of opinion, an appeal lies from the pope to a future general council.

The popes had been reproachable, not merely for their unwarrantable pretensions to temporal power, and for the attempts, which they had made to establish it;—but, they had also been long blamed, by the wiser and more respectable part of the church, for their undue exercise, even of their spiritual power. They were particularly blamed for their incessant efforts, to extend the immunities of the clergy; to exempt the regulars from the constitutional jurisdiction of the hierarchy; for their pecuniary exactions, for their interference in ecclesiastical proceedings in the diocesan courts; for their nominations to ecclesiastical benefices in foreign states, contrary to common right; and for the supercilious demeanour, and expensive proceedings, of their legates. The writings of St. Bernard, full as he was of reverence towards the holy see, incontrovertibly show, how reprehensible he sometimes thought the conduct of its pontiffs, and how greatly, in his opinion, it stood in need of reformation. “The Roman church”, says Bossuet, “which had, for nine whole ages, by setting the example of an exact observance of ecclesiastical discipline, maintained it throughout the universe, to the utmost of her power, was not exempt from the general disorder; and, so early as the council of Vienne, a great prelate, commissioned by the pope to prepare matters to be there treated on, laid it down, for a ground work, to the whole assembly, that they ought to reform the church, in the head, and its members. The great schism made this saying current, not only among particular doctors, as Gerson, Peter d'Ailly, and other great men of those times, but even in councils; and nothing was more frequently repeated, in those of Pisa, and Constance”. At the council of Trent, it was loudly pronounced by the wise and holy Bartholomew de Martyribus, archbishop of Braga and several others of the highest dignitaries of the church. Thus, the conduct of the Roman see, had become the subject of general reprehension.

It has often been asserted, that, in England, it had always been more reprehensible, than in any other country.

The papal encroachments had frequently provoked the interference, both of the monarch, and of the legislature. Gregory the Seventh, by Hubert, his legate, had solicited Henry the Second to do homage to the apostolic see for the crown of England. “I will not do it”, was the monarch's answer; “I did not promise it myself; nor can I learn, that any one of my predecessors did it”. During the third expedition of Edward the First to Scotland, he received a letter from Boniface the Eighth, in which he declared, that Scotland was a fief of the holy see; and required Edward to desist from force, and pursue his claim in the court of Rome. To this extraordinary requisition, the king paid no regard. The papal message was, however, laid before the parliament, at Lincoln. “Having diligently read your letter”, say the barons, in answer to the pope, “it is, and by the grace of God shall ever be, our common and unanimous resolution, that with respect to the right of his kingdom of Scotland, or any other of his temporal rights, our aforesaid lord shall not plead before you; nor submit to any trial, or inquiry; nor send any messenger, or prolocutor, to your court, especially, as such proceedings would be to the manifest disherison of the rights of the crown of England, and the royal dignity; the evident subversion of the sovereignty of the kingdom; and to the prejudice of the liberties, customs, and laws, which we have inherited from our fathers; and to the observance, and defence, of which, we are bound by our oaths; and which we will continue to hold to the best of our power; and with the assistance of God, will defend with all our strength. Neither do we, nor will we, nor can we, nor ought we, to permit our lord the king, to do any of the things aforesaid, even were he ever so desirous to do them”. The pope wrote to the king, that “the emperor and king of France, had submitted to him”. “If both the emperor, and the French king should take the pope’s part”, replied Edward, “I am ready to give battle to them both in defence of the liberties of my crown”.

In 1302, the bull of institution of William of Glastonbury committed to his charge, “the spiritualities and temporalities of the bishopric”. This was held an invasion of the rights of the crown. The bishop was immediately summoned before Edward the First, and his council; condemned, in a thousand marks, for having received the bull; and compelled to renounce publicly the obnoxious clause, and to declare, that he held his temporalities of no one but the king. “It is probable”, says Mr. Lingard, “that, to this incident, we are to ascribe the origin of a custom, inviolably observed in the succeeding reigns, till the reformation. The bishop elect, as soon as he had received his bull of institution, appeared before the king, or his deputy; and, in his presence, abjured every clause in the bull, that could be prejudicial to the temporal rights of the crown”. “I expressly renounce”, said the prelate elect, “and totally abjure all, and every word, clause, and sentence, in the apostolic bulls, directed to me, concerning the aforesaid bishopric, which are, or which, by any means hereafter, may be prejudicial to my sovereign lord the king; or his heirs, or the rights, customs, or prerogatives, of the kingdom; and, in this respect, wholly submit, and place myself at the good pleasure of his highness, humbly beseeching his majesty to grant me the temporalities of the said bishopric, which I acknowledge to hold of him, as my sovereign lord”.

In this manner, the king, and the nation, asserted the independence of the realm against the pretensions of the popes, to temporal power within its territories.

Their undue exercise even of spiritual power, they restrained by several statutes, 1. The first of these was passed, in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Edward the first. It is entitled De Asportatis religiosorum; concerning the exportation of money out of the kingdom by religious men. It states, that, “abbots, and other governors of religious houses, were used to set pecuniary impositions on the communities, subject to their government and to dispose of them at their pleasure”. To prevent these abuses, the act directed, that “every religious person, taking, or sending, any such money out of the kingdom, should be grievously punished, and that alien abbots, imposing such a tax, should forfeit their property for the offence”.

Another offensive practice of the see of Rome was to make grants of benefices, before they became actually vacant. The language of these grants was, that “the holy father, out of his great care, for the welfare of the church in general, and of such a diocese in particular, had provided for it, before-hand, a proper, and useful person to preside over it, lest, in case of a vacancy, it might suffer detriment, by being long destitute of a pastor; for which reason, out of the plenitude of his authority, he reserved to himself, for that term, the disposal of the bishopric, decreeing, from that time forward, all interposition, or attempt, to the contrary, of all persons whatsoever, null and void”.

The individuals, obtaining these grants, were called provisors. By the statutes of Edward III, commonly called the statutes of provisors, they were directed “to be attached and, if convicted, to be imprisoned, without bail, till they made fine and ransom to the king at his will; and satisfaction to the party. If they could not be found, the sheriff was to proceed to the outlawry of them; and the king was to receive, in the meantime, the profits of the benefice”.

A still more offensive practice of the see of Rome, was to permit English subjects to sue in its courts, in cases, the cognizance of which belonged to the courts of the king; and to receive appeals from the sentences of such courts. This, by the statutes of the h Edward III was prohibited under severe penalties.

At subsequent times, other statutes, as those of Richard II and Henry IV were passed to strengthen the foregoing laws; and to extend their provisions. These statutes, were generally called the statutes of praemunire. They received this appellation from the language of the writ of citation, preparatory to the prosecution upon them. By this, the sheriff was ordered “to cause the offender to be fore-warned, (praemunire), to appear and to answer the contempt, with which he was charged”; which offence was recited in the preamble to the writ. The contempt was supposed to consist, in paying that obedience to papal process, which was due to the king alone. The punishments, inflicted by these statutes, are various. Collectively taken, they are thus shortly summed up by Lord Coke,—“that, from the time of conviction, the defendant should be out of the king’s protection, and his lands and tenements forfeited to the king; and that his body should remain at the king's pleasure”.

Such were the provisions, by which, when the popes were in the zenith of their authority, our catholic ancestors disclaimed and resisted their claims to temporal power; and even the undue exercise of their spiritual power, within this imperial realm.

VII.

HENRY THE EIGHTH ASSUMES THE TITLE OF SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

1534

From the beginning of the reign of Henry the Eighth, until the period, to which the subject now leads the writer, his majesty gave his entire confidence to cardinal Wolsey. I. The character of that minister; II. The penalties of preamunire, which the whole body of the clergy was adjudged to have incurred by their submission to his legatine authority; III. The steps taken to prepare the mind of the nation for his majesty's ecclesiastical supremacy; IV. And the legislative acts, by which it was conferred upon him, will be succinctly described in the present chapter.

To this distinguished personage his contemporaries, generally speaking, were unjust. The splendor, with which he was surrounded, made him an object of envy; his lofty manners created him many personal enemies; the spirit of domination, which he showed in all ecclesiastical concerns, indisposed the clergy towards him; and the friends of the reformation considered him their enemy. Whilst he lived, nearly all hated him; after his decease, nearly all were hostile to his memory.

His extraction was mean: Henry the Seventh had occasion to discover the penetration and energy of his mind; and conferred upon him the deanery of Lincoln. He was quickly noticed by Henry the Eighth. He soon became his favorite, and the companion of his pleasures, and, before long, his sole and absolute minister. “By this rapid advancement, and uncontrolled authority”, says Mr. Hume, “the character and genius of Wolsey had full opportunity to display itself. Insatiable in his acquisitions; but still more magnificent in his expense; of extensive capacity, but still more unbounded enterprise, ambitious of power, but more ambitious of glory, insinuating, engaging, persuasive, and by turns lofty, elevated, and commanding; haughty to his equals, affable to his dependents; oppressive to the people, but liberal to his friends; more generous than grateful; less moved by injuries than by contempt; he was framed to take the ascendant in every intercourse with others, but exerted this superiority of nature, with such ostentation, as exposed him to envy and made every one willing to recall the original inferiority, or rather meanness of his fortune”. Such is the character drawn of Wolsey, by Mr. Hume. Even, with the dark shades, which it receives from his pen, small is the number of those, that have attained a situation equally elevated, with whom Wolsey will suffer in comparison.

That, in his conduct much was reprehensible, must be admitted. But, surely, much excuse may be found in the ungovernable violence, and obstinacy, of the monarch. “I do assure you”, the cardinal said, a few hours before he expired, to Sir William Kingston, the constable of the Tower, “that, I have often knelt before his Majesty, sometimes three hours together, to persuade him from his will and appetite, but could not “prevail”.

It should also be observed, that the part of Henry’s reign, which was subsequent to the decease of the minister, was much more criminal, than that, which had been directed by his councils.

That Wolsey was a protector of learning, his most violent enemies admit: and, if we think with them, that he was justly chargeable with an excess of magnificence, we should not forget, that, by calling forth the arts, and exciting the industry of the nation, that very magnificence was a public benefit. At the time, of which we are speaking, the benefits which the public receives from individual magnificence like Wolsey's, was little understood.

The whole body of the English Clergy held to be liable to the penalties of Praemunire

The offence particularly imputed to Wolsey, was his exercising in England the power of a legate of the pope. From an early time, it was an acknowledged prerogative of the popes to send persons to represent them, and to exercise their powers in foreign states. The persons invested with this high authority were often delegated to sovereign princes and states, as the guardians of the faith, and discipline of the church, and as the protectors of its general interests. They were the representatives of the pope, holding many of his highest powers.

It is not to be supposed, that prerogatives, such as these, would be exercised by Wolsey, with a very gentle hand. His administration gave great offence to the clergy; and became a subject of general complaint. On this account, as soon as the ruin of the cardinal was determined, his enemies indicted him for procuring from Rome, the bull, which invested him with the legatine authority and for an extravagant exercise of the powers, which it conferred upon him. The charge was ridiculous, but, such were the absolute power of the monarch, and the temper of the times, that the cardinal confessed the indictment, and sentence was pronounced upon him; declaring him out of the king’s protection, his lands and goods to be forfeited; and ordering him into custody. Henry however, granted him a pardon.

This memorable event took place, in November, 1529. In January 1531, the whole ecclesiastical establishment was brought under the same law. It was alleged, that, by submitting to the cardinal's exercise of his legatine authority, the whole national church had offended within the statute of provisors. Upon this statute, therefore, the attorney-general, by his majesty's direction, indicted them. They assembled in convocation; confessed their guilt, and submitted to his majesty's mercy. The king accepted from the clergy of the province of Canterbury, 100,000£; and from the clergy of the province of York, 18,440£. for a pardon. It was expected, that the whole body of the laity would have been considered guilty of the same offence; but, after some demonstrations of anger, the king issued his pardon of them, without requiring any fine. The Commons expressed great gratitude to him for his clemency.

It is surprising, that the nation should have quietly submitted to a proceeding so manifestly unjust and absurd. On what ground, it could be gravely asserted, that either clergy, or laity, had incurred the penalties of the statutes of provisors, or praemunire, it is impossible to conceive. The first of these statutes extended to those only, who obtained from the see of Rome, provisional presentations to benefices, that were not vacant; the latter, to those only, who interrupted the proceedings of the king's courts, or prevented the execution of their sentences, by appealing from them to the see of Rome.

After this, it soon became evident, that the king was determined to abolish, in his dominions, the spiritual supremacy of the pope. He was aware, that it would shock the religious principles and feelings of a large proportion of the nation. He, therefore, proceeded in the execution of his design, with greater caution, than he condescended to use on any other occasion.

Great attempts were made to induce the leading ecclesiastics to cooperate with his views; 2. Many works were published, to dispose the nation favourably towards them; 3. Convocations of both provinces were brought over to them: 4. And the language of the debates, in both houses of parliament, was calculated to promote them.

The king caused the bishops, and all other leading ecclesiastics, to be sounded by his principal courtiers; and every method was employed, that could dispose them to favor his designs. The ordinary means of persuasion and terror were resorted to. Frequent sermons were preached, and every other mode of instruction was used, to make the new doctrine palatable to the people. The superiors of religious houses were required to disseminate it among the members of their communities. The effect of these measures upon the public mind is remarkable. At first, it was thought sufficient to propound, that the council was above the pope. But, “afterwards”, says Burnet, “they struck a note higher; and declared to the people, that the pope had no authority in England”

For the first time, perhaps, the powerful artillery of the press was now brought forward in aid of a great public measure. Many works, advocating the royal views, and indisposing the nation against the see of Rome, were printed and extensively circulated. The most remarkable of these were, “The Institution for the necessary Erudition of a Christian Man”, the treatise of Fox, bishop of Hereford, De vera differentia regies potestatis et ecclesiae, and the work of Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, “De vera obedientia”. The most popular, was a Latin oration of doctor Richard Sampson, printed, in 1553, by Berthelet. Henry himself broke a lance against the pope. “The king himself”, says Strypet, “wrote a book. It was a large and ample treatise of the tyranny and usurpation of the bishop of Rome; and bore this title, De Potestate Christianorum Regum in suis ecclesiis contra Pontificis Tyrannidem et horribilem impietatem”.

Meantime, the advocates of the supremacy of the pope were not idle. Its most distinguished champion was cardinal Pole. He addressed to the king a labored dissertation, “Pro unitate ecclesiastica”; and carefully sent it to him by a private hand. It was afterwards published at Strasbourg, and several copies found their way into England. Some replies to it were published. The harsh terms, in which the cardinal expressed himself, respecting the king, were objected to his work. He defended it against this, and other charges, by his treatise, entitled Unitatis ecciesiasticae Defensio, published at Strasbourg, in 1555; and at Ingolstadt, in 1587. The two works were often printed in one volume. The appendixes to bishop Burnet’s History of the Reformation, and Strype’s Ecclesiastical Memorials, contain several letters written by the cardinal; and several addressed to him. No documents show so well the general tenor of the arguments, by which, at this time, the papal supremacy was attacked, and defended. But, it must be admitted, that, in subsequent times, the subject, if not better understood, has, certainly, been more ably discussed.

The next attempt of the advocates for the royal supremacy was, to procure a formal recognition of it by the convocations of the clergy. Whilst they lay at the mercy of the crown, in consequence of their supposed guilt, in submitting to cardinal Wolsey's legatine authority, it was pressed upon them, as a measure, likely to soothe his majesty’s anger, that they should acknowledge his title of supreme head of the church. A petition was, accordingly, brought into the upper house of convocation of the province of Canterbury. In it, the king was styled, “the protector and supreme head of the church”. Some opposition to this expression was made; and the consideration of the petition postponed. It was then proposed to qualify the obnoxious words, by adding to them, the expression, “so far as is permitted by the law of Christ”. With this qualification, the sentence was adopted; and the petition signed by the convocation of each province. For a time, the king appeared to be satisfied. But, to use the words of Strype, he “finally made them buckle to”.

In the following year, the parliament passed an act, prohibiting appeals to Rome; and subjecting those who made them, to the penalties of praemunire. The convocations ordered the act to be fixed upon the church door of every parish: And, in March and May, 1534, announced, that “a general council represented the church; and was above the pope, and all other bishops: and that the bishop of Rome had no greater jurisdiction, given him by God in the holy scriptures, within the kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop”. In the convocation of Canterbury, this allegation was opposed by four voices only; and by one, expressing doubt. In the convocation of York, it passed, without a dissenting voice. Both the universities, all the capitular and all the conventual bodies throughout the realm, followed their example. Compliance with the royal wishes now became the order of the day. The bishops took out new commissions from the crown: and in these, not only their temporal, but even their spiritual and episcopal, authority, was affirmed to be derived from the magistrates, and to be dependent upon their will.

4. But nothing contributed so much to reconcile the nation to the views of the court, as the general language of the leading members of both houses of parliament, when ecclesiastical concerns were the subject of their deliberations. The care, which the ministers of the crown took to bring the subject, under various forms, into the house of commons shows that, even in those arbitrary times, the weight of this branch of the legislature, the importance of public opinion, and the influence of parliamentary discussion, were on the increase. Hence, in both houses of parliament, severe invectives against the dissolute manners, the ambition and the avarice of the clergy, were not only allowed, but encouraged. Their encroachments, both on the crown, and on the general body of the nation, were represented in strong colors, whilst the immense sums, which were said to be drawn out of the kingdom by the pope, were held out to the view and indignation of the public. Several bills also were passed, restraining some of the most invidious of the impositions of the clergy. The manner, in which they were received by the nation, instigated the crown to still bolder measures.

The ultimate tendency of these proceedings had not been unobserved. In 1529, when the motion was made in the upper house of the convocation of Canterbury, for suppressing the lesser monasteries, —“" Beware, my lords”, exclaimed bishop Fisher, “beware of yourselves, and your country! beware of your holy mother, the catholic church! The people are subject to novelties; and Lutheranism spreads itself among us. Remember Germany, and Bohemia.—Let our neighbors’ houses, which are on fire, teach us to beware of our own”. “An axe”, continued the learned prelate, “came, upon a time into the wood, making his moan to the great trees, that he wanted an handle to work withall; and, for that cause, he was constrained to sit idle; therefore, he made it his request to them to grant him one of their small saplings, within the wood, to make him an handle. But now, becoming a complete axe, he fell so to work, within, the same wood, that, in process of time, there were neither great, nor small trees to be found in the place, where the wood stood. And so, my lords, if you grant the king these smaller monasteries, you do but make him an handle, whereby, at his own pleasure, he may cut down all the cedars of the Lebanons”.

At length, the final blow was struck. In the twenty-sixth year of his reign the statute was passed, which declared Henry head of the church of England. After reciting, that “the king's majesty justly, and rightfully, was, and ought to be, supreme head of the church of England; and so had been recognized by the clergy of the kingdom in their convocation, it was enacted, that the king should be reputed the only supreme head, on earth, of the church of England; and should have, and enjoy, annexed to the imperial crown of the realm, as well the style, and title, thereof, as all honors, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the church appertaining; and should have full power, and authority, to reform, and correct, all manner of errors, heresies, and offences, which might be reformed, and corrected, by any manner of spiritual authority, or jurisdiction”. On the thirteenth of the following January, the king assumed, with great solemnity, his title of supreme head on earth of the church of England.

In a future part of this work, some observations will be offered on the nature of the supremacy conferred on Henry by this act. At present, it only remains to add, that, immediately after the act, establishing his supremacy, was passed, the king issued a proclamation, commanding it to be preached in the most frequented auditories; and taught to little children enjoining farther, that the pope’s name should be erased out of all books;—and that he should be treated no otherwise than as an ordinary bishop. “We have seen”, say the writers of the parliamentary history, “several books, printed before this time, wherein the word pope is entirely obliterated, particularly one in our collection,—Fabian's Chronicle,—in which the name of pope is blotted out by a pen, throughout the volume. It is probable, the book-sellers, durst not sell them, without this alteration”.

VIII.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS ON THE STATUTES REGULATING THE SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN

WE have mentioned each of these statutes,— (25th and 26th of Henry the eighth). The oath, prescribed by the former, was generally taken 5 the title, conferred by the latter, was generally admitted. But the oath respecting the supremacy was refused by cardinal Fisher, Sir Thomas More, and some others. For their refusals they were capitally condemned, and executed.

The most memorable of these victims were Fisher, bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More. Fisher suffered first. In his praise, both Englishmen and foreigners, both the friends and the enemies, of the Reformation are united. Erasmus represents him, as a man of consummate integrity, profound learning; incredible sweetness of temper, and grandeur of soul: “all”, say the authors of the Biographia Britannica, “acknowledge, that he was a sober man; pious, temperate, and charitable, learned, and an encourager of learning”. By his persuasion, the countess of Richmond founded the noble colleges of Christ, and St. John in Cambridge, and the Lady Margaret Professorships in Cambridge and Oxford. He contributed to the expense of building St. John's College, and founded in it two fellowships, a lectureship of Hebrew, a lecture­ship of Greek, four examining readers, and four under-readers, to relieve the principal. He augmented the commons, and presented the college with his library. He was elected chancellor of the University. At first, he was greatly favored by Henry, who called him, “the honor of his nation”, and asked cardinal Pole, on his return from the continent, “whether he had found, in all his travels, a person, either in virtue, or learning, comparable with the bishop of Rochester”. The monarch raised him to that see; and afterwards offered to promote him to the wealthier sees of Lincoln and Ely. But, in conformity to the language and spirit of the canons, Fisher declined the promotion.

He was unluckily implicated in the practices of Elizabeth Barton, commonly called, “the Maid of Kent”. By an appearance of sanctity, and pretended revelations, as well as by the co-operation of some weak, and some designing men, she imposed upon many, and even obtained the esteem of several respectable persons. Among these, were Warham, the archbishop of Canterbury, and Fisher. She declaimed against the king's divorce, and supremacy; and prophesied, that his sins would speedily be visited by the judgment of Heaven. The king caused her and her principal accomplices, to be arrested. They were brought before the star-chamber; confessed their guilt; and suffered for it. An act of attainder was passed against Fisher, and some others, for being acquainted with her practices, and not making them known to the king. To exculpate himself, Fisher addressed a letter to the house of lords, in which, he admitted his having been told by her, that it had been revealed to her by God, that, if Henry persevered in his irreligious measures, he would not, in seven months, be any longer king of England. Fisher seems to acknowledge that he thought favorably of her, and of her revelations; and excuses himself for not having apprised the king of them, in consequence of her assurance, that she herself had already done so and because he understood, that the event, whatsoever it might be, was to be produced, not by any human means, but by the immediate intervention of the Almighty.

Sir Thomas More had casually conversed with her. But he appears to have listened to her with distrust. He wrote her a letter of advice: It was, however, so little favorable to the supposition of her extraordinary sanctity, that, when her advocates endeavored, during the reign of queen Mary, to sanctify the memory of the maid, they thought it advisable to suppress it. On this account, but, not without some difficulty, Sir Thomas More was left out of the bill of attainder and suffered to remain at large.

The confinement of bishop Fisher was rigorous. He was stripped of his clothes; and, to copy the words of Hume, “notwithstanding his extreme age, was allowed nothing but rags, which scarcely covered his nakedness. In this condition, he lay in prison about a twelve month; when the pope, willing to recompense the sufferings of so faithful an adherent, created him cardinal”. This promotion roused the indignation of the king; and he was resolved to display the force of his resentment. Fisher was indicted for denying the king's supremacy ; and, soon after, was tried, condemned, and executed.

Few men, in exalted situations, have been viewed by their contemporaries, or by posterity, with greater reverence, than Sir Thomas More. He was born of respectable parents, and first known to the public, as law-lecturer in Furnival’s Inn; and as a successful practitioner at the bar. It is recorded of him, that, in this employment, “he took no fees of poor folks, widows, or pupils”. He was successively appointed speaker of the house of commons, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and sent on several embassies. His conduct gained him the approbation and confidence of his sovereign; and the esteem of all, to whom he became known. The king was personally attached to him; and took great delight in his instructive and entertaining society. “Henry”, says Erasmus, in a letter written, about this time, to Ulric von Hutten, “holds More in such intimacy, that he never suffers him to leave him. If he want counsel in serious matters, he has not a better adviser. If he desire to relax his mind, he knows not a more festive companion”. But More was sensible of the little reliance that was to be placed on the regard shown him by the king. One day, the king came unexpectedly to dine with More; and, after dinner, walked, an hour, in the garden, with one arm round his neck. Roper, the son-in-law of More, congratulated him, on this mark of his prince’s affection, and familiarity. “Son”, said More, “I thank our lord; I find his grace my very good lord indeed. I believe he doth as singularly favor me as any subject within this realm. Howbeit, son Roper, I may tell thee, I have no cause to be proud thereof; for, if my head would win him a castle in France, it should not fail to go”.

More foresaw the Reformation, and its effects. Mr. Roper once observed to him the flourishing state of the catholic religion within the realm, under so orthodox a king. “Truth it is, son Roper”, he replied. “And yet, son Roper, I pray God, that some of us, as high as we seem to sit upon the mountains, treading heretics under feet, like ants, live not to see the day, that we would gladly be at league, and composition with them, to let them have their churches quietly to themselves, so that they would be contented to let us have ours quietly to ourselves”.

Upon the fall of Wolsey, the king advanced More to the office of lord high chancellor of England. The duties of this high station he discharged with universal applause. By indefatigable application he cleared the court of all its causes. Having, one day, ended a cause, and called for the next, he was told, that there was no other depending. This he was pleased to hear; and ordered it to be entered on the records of the court. It gave rise to the following epigram,—not the worst in the English language,—

When More some time had chancellor been

No more suits did remain;

The same shall never more be seen

Till More be there again.

His sentiments were known to be unfavorable to the divorce. His rank, and high reputation, both at home and abroad, for talents and integrity, made Henry very desirous, that he should pronounce in its favor. On one occasion, being greatly importuned by him upon the subject, More fell upon his knees; and besought his majesty to remain to him the gracious sovereign he had ever found him. “Nothing”, he said, “had been so grievous to him, as his inability to serve his majesty in that matter, with a safe conscience; having ever borne in mind his majesty’s words, in his entry into his service,—(the most virtuous lesson which a prince ever taught to his servant),—first, to look unto God; and after God, to him. Henry answered, that if More could not conscientiously serve him, in that manner, he was content to accept his services in other ways; and to take the advice of others of his council, whose consciences did not revolt at it; that he would continue his favors towards him; and never more molest his conscience on the matter”

Perceiving, however, that the king was bent on his marriage with Anne Boleyn, More resigned his office. “He descended”, says Mr. Hume, “from his high station, with more joy and alacrity, than he had in ascending it. He sported with the varieties of fortune; and neither the pride of high station, nor the melancholy of retreat, could disturb his serenity. When his friends discovered sorrow on his descent from grandeur, he laughed at their distress and made them ashamed of losing a moment’s cheerfulness from such trivial misfortunes”.

He was one of the greatest promoters of classical learning. The letters, which passed between him and Erasmus, are elegant and interesting; those, in which the latter relates his tragical end, and records his great and amiable virtues, are pathetic and beautiful in the highest degree. As a writer, More’s reputation rests principally on his Utopia,—a description of an imaginary commonwealth. It discovers great observation and acuteness, reprobates sanguinary punishments, and describes a system of religious liberty, which few, even in these days, would venture to propose for practice. In his polemic writings, he conformed too much to the bad taste of the times, expressing himself in regard to heretics, in strong terms of abuse;—but, with so much elegance, that he gained the reputation of having the best knack, of any man in Europe, at calling bad names in good Latin.

He is even accused of having caused corporal punishment to be inflicted on heretics. The truth of this accusation seems to rest entirely on the credit of Fox, the martyrologist,—a writer equally bigoted and credulous. In the 36th chapter of his apology, Sir Thomas peremptorily denies the charge; and solemnly appeals to God for the truth of the denial.

His attachment to the catholic church was sincere. But while, in conformity to its universal doctrine, he defined the church to be “the common known congregation of all Christian nations, under one head, the pope”,—he affirms, “that the council is above the pope; and that there are orders in Christ’s church, by which a pope may be both admonished, and amended; and hath been, for incorrigible mind, and lack of amendment, finally deposed, and changed”.

Nothing is more pleasing than the picture drawn by Erasmus of the domestic circle of Sir Thomas More; of his playfulness, simplicity, and universal beneficence. “More”, says Erasmus, “did not know what a stranger was. Most are kind only to their own countrymen; the Frenchman, to the French; the German, to the Germans; the Scot, to the Scots. With More it was otherwise; the Hibernian, the German, even the Scythian, and the Indian, found More their friend”. His general benignity had endeared More so much to all, that his death was deplored, as that of a father, or a brother. “I, myself”, says Erasmus, “have seen it bewailed with tears by several, who had neither seen, nor had the slightest intercourse with him”.

An account of his trial is published in the second volume of the State Trials. The indictment, on which he was tried, has not been discovered. From his speech on the trial, it appears, that the principal charges against him were, that he had disapproved the king’s second marriage; had denied his spiritual supremacy; had confederated against it, with bishop Fisher; and,—(this was particularly urged against him),—had called the law, by which the supremacy was conferred upon his majesty, a two-edged sword, —as, by consenting to it, he would endanger his soul; and, by rejecting it, lose his life. To prove the three first of these charges, no evidence was produced. On the contrary, it appeared, that, when Rich, the solicitor-general, was sent to him, during his confinement in the Tower, he put this question to More,—“If there was an act of parliament, that the realm should take me for king, would you take me for king?”. “Yes; sir”, replied More, “that would I”.

With respect to the expression, that the law against the supremacy was like a two-edged sword the proof of this rested upon the single testimony of Mr. Rich, who swore, that, in a casual conversation with him, in the Tower, sir Thomas had used this expression. Sir Thomas denied his having used the words, in the sense affixed to them by Mr. Rich; and totally discredited his testimony. Upon this evidence, however, he was found guilty ; and executed.

Never, certainly, was the mind of man less moved by a sentence of condemnation, or by the approach of death. True, under every vicissitude of fortune, to his principles, and sense of duty, the recollection of a well-spent life, and the belief of its approaching reward supported him in those awful moments. Without ostentation or display, he met his fate, with the unpretending firmness and constancy, with which he would have discharged the most ordinary duty.

Many others, both of the clergy, and laity, suffered death, for denying the king's spiritual supremacy. Dodd, in his Church History of England, gives a list of fifty-nine. None attracted so much commiseration as the Carthusians. This Order was singularly respected. John Haughton, the prior of the Charter-house, Robert Lawrence, prior of Belleval, and Augustine Webster, prior of the house of Shene, were sent to the Tower, and, soon afterwards, tried. “But the jury”, says Strype, “had such a reverence for these three fathers, that they deferred their verdict till next day. To whom Cromwell sent to know,—what made them so long? and what they intended to do? They sent this answer back, that they could not bring in such holy fathers guilty, as malefactors”. “Which, when Cromwell heard”, adds Strype, “he sent them word immediately, that, if they found them not guilty, they should suffer the death of malefactors, themselves. But, they still persisting in their former judgment, notwithstanding Cromwell’s threatenings, he came to them himself, and so overawed them with his threats, that they, at length, brought them in guilty of treason. And, five days after, they were executed at Tyburn. Other Carthusians were starved to death in prison. Maurice Chauncey, one of their order, fled beyond seas and published an account of the sufferings of his brethren, under the title of Historia aliquot nostri saeculi Martyrum”. “It is not denied, by any knowing, or moderate protestant”, says Mr. Wood, “but that his name is worthy to be kept in everlasting remembrance”.

When the three priors were led to execution, sir Thomas More beheld them from a window in his own apartment, in the Tower. He called to Margery, his favorite daughter, to observe “the blessed fathers, going”, said he, “as cheerfully to their deaths, as bridegrooms to their marriage; the reward”, he called it, “of their days spent in strait, penitential, and painful life”.

It is remarkable, that the denial of the king's spiritual supremacy was first made a capital offence by an act passed in the twenty-eighth year of his reign. The acts in force, when the individuals mentioned were executed, were those of the 25th and 26th of his majesty; which carried the punishment for the denial of the supremacy no higher than praemunire, and misprision of treason. Thus, even in those cases, where the offence was proved by legal evidence,—(and such cases were, certainly, very few),—the offenders were sentenced to a punishment, which the law did not inflict.

IX.

MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS.

THE dissolution of monastic establishments, within the realm, is one of the most important events in the history of the Reformation of England. An attempt will be made, in this chapter, to present the reader with some account, of the origin of the monastic institution; and its principal orders,— 1st. the Benedictines; 2d. the Canons Regular of St. Augustine; 3d. the Mendicant Orders; 4th. the corresponding orders of Nuns; 5th. and the Military Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem; of the advantages derived from the monastic institution; 1st. by the state; 2d. by the persons, by whom their lands were given; 3d. by the general body of the public, from their hospitality; 4th. from their support of the poor; 5th. from their being general seminaries for the education of the youth of both sexes; 6th. from their agricultural labors; 7th, from their encouragement of architecture, sculpture, and other arts; 8th. from their cultivation of sacred and profane literature; 9th. and from their care in preserving and transmitting to us the sacred word of God.

The monastic state originated in the east. Towards the middle of the fourth century, St. Anthony, after having spent many years in perfect solitude, in a desert, in Upper Egypt, permitted a numerous body of men to live in community with him, and lead, under his direction, a life of piety, and manual labor, sanctified by prayer. St. Pachomius was the first, who composed a written rule for the conduct of the monks.

About two hundred years after this, St. Benedict, an Italian monk, framed his religious rule for the government of a convent at Mount Casino, between Rome and Naples, over which himself presided. He adopted the whole of the spirit, and most of the observances, of the rule of St. Pachomius. In consequence of the general devastation, and confusion, occasioned in Italy by the Lombards, in Spain by the Saracens; in France by the wars among the descendants of Charlemagne; and in England by the irruption of the Danes, the Benedictine monks fell from their original fervor into great disorder. But, towards the middle of the eleventh century, several eminent members of the order arose; and endeavored to restore it to its ancient purity. While each added some new statute, or custom, to the original rule, each became the founder of a congregation, or secondary order, adhering, in essentials, to the order of St. Benedict, but differing from it in particular observances. Such were the Carthusians, Celestines and Premonstratenses.

The Canons Regular of St. Augustine derive their origin from certain respectable ecclesiastics, who, in the eighth century, formed themselves into a kind of middle order, between the monks and the secular clergy. They adopted so much of the monastic discipline, as to have in common, the church, and the table, and to assemble at stated hours, for the divine service. But they made no vows; and often discharged the functions of the ministry in churches, committed to their care. Thus, they rendered essential service to religion. By degrees, they too degenerated: But, in the twelfth century, a considerable reformation was introduced among them, under the auspices of pope Nicholas the second. Some, carrying the reformation further, renounced their worldly possessions, and all private property; and lived in a manner, resembling the austerity and discipline, of a monastic life. This gave rise to the distinction between the secular and regular canons.

For many centuries, the Benedictines, the congregations, which emanated from them, and the canons of St. Augustine, constituted the only monastic orders of the west. In the thirteenth century, the Mendicant Orders arose. These were the Franciscan and Dominican friars, the Carmelites, and the Hermits of St. Augustine.

The Franciscan friars were founded by St. Francis, the son of a merchant of Assissium, in the province of Umbria. They were divided into Conventuals, who admitted some mitigations into their practice of their rule; and Observantines, who practiced a stricter observance of it.

The Dominican friars were founded by St. Dominic. He adopted the rule of St. Francis for the groundwork of his institute, but, introduced into it so many alterations, as made it, almost, a new order.

The Carmelites professed to derive their origin from hermits, who, from the time of Elias to the time of Christ and the apostles, and thence, by a regular succession, till the irruptions of the Saracens, inhabited Mount Carmel.

The Hermits of St. Augustine derived their institute from a bull of Alexander the Fourth. This pontiff collected several hermits into one order, to which he gave the above appellation, and prescribed a rule for their government. At first, those orders only were considered to be mendicant, which had no fixed income; but derived their whole subsistence from casual and uncertain bounty. Experience soon discovered, that many spiritual as well as many temporal evils attended mendicity. In consequence of it, some of the Franciscan establishments, and almost all the establishments of the three other orders, began to acquire permanent property. This, the church first permitted; and afterwards countenanced. The council of Trent confined mendicity to the Observantine Friars.

It remains to add, that convents of nuns were founded; whose institutes corresponded with those of the religious orders and congregations, which have been noticed; and with some also of the principal reforms.

The only military order, in England, at the time of the Reformation, was that of St. John of Jerusalem. It was divided into three classes;—the nobles, who followed the profession of arms, for the defence of the faith against the followers of Mahomet, and for the protection of pilgrims;—the ecclesiastics, who exercised their religious functions for the benefit of the order;—and the lay-brothers, whose duty it was to take care of the pilgrims, and of the sick. After the loss of the Holy Land, they successively retired to Cyprus, to Rhodes, and to Malta, from the last of which places they received the appellation of Knights of Malta.

The Knights Templars once flourished in England; and were instituted, for the same purposes as the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. Some account of their suppression will be given in a subsequent part of this work.

The language, which is employed, in describing the characters and manners of the regular clergy, is generally such, as might induce a reader to suppose that they were altogether useless, and a heavy burthen on the public: but, the case was far otherwise.

To every public imposition of the state, both the secular, and the regular, clergy contributed, at least their proportionate share; while, in addition to these, subsidies, not required from the laity, were sometimes, under the name of benevolences, exacted from them. Most of their lands were held by the tenure of knight's-service; and were, therefore, liable to pecuniary contributions, for the ransom of the lord, for making his eldest son a knight, and for portioning his daughters, and to the obligation of finding a certain number of soldiers, to serve in the field, at the charge of the monastery.

The individuals, again, from whose benevolence they had acquired their possessions, and the heirs of these individuals, received back from them some return of that bounty. They had the privilege of quartering a certain number of poor servants, on the religious houses which they had founded: or, in later times, of claiming from them annual pensions for their servants, as commutations for their corodies.

The public was essentially benefited by their duty of hospitality. This obliged the monasteries to receive and entertain their benefactors, and their heirs, and all their followers. So that, to use Mr. Collier's expression, “the monasteries were like houses of public entertainment for the gentry that travelled”. In the present state of society, the practice of this hospitality appears in the light of a festivity; but, in the times, of which we are speaking, it was always considered, as a serious duty, imposing, more than is now imagined, a very heavy, and a very unpleasing obligation.

We must add, that the convents maintained the poor; there being, in these times, no national provision for them.

On such a subject, it is impossible to form even a plausible calculation; but it is obvious that a considerable proportion,—(can it be exaggeration to say one third?),—of monastic property, returned, in the way of direct payment or expenditure, to the public; or to the representatives of their benefactors.

That, in those times, the monasteries were the best schools of education, is a point, now universally admitted. History scarcely mentions a person of either sex, without mentioning, at the same time, the monastery in which that individual was educated. Neither was this education confined to the nobles, or to the wealthy. The children of their tenants; and the very poorest of the poor, were there instructed in religion, and morality. A school was as regular an appendage to a monastery, as a chapel.

But, what was the religion, what the morality, that was taught in them?

If we credit Dr. Robertson, “Instead of aspiring to sanctity and virtue, which alone can render men acceptable to the great Author of order and excellence, they imagined, that they satisfied every obligation of duty, by a scrupulous observance of external ceremonies. Religion, according to their conception of it, comprehended nothing else; and the rites, by which they persuaded themselves, that they could gain the favor of Heaven, were of such a nature as might have been expected from the rude ideas of the ages, which devised and introduced them. They were either so unmeaning, as to be altogether unworthy of the Being to whose honor they were consecrated; or so absurd, as to be a disgrace to reason and humanity. All the religious maxims and practices of the dark ages”, continues the royal historiographer, in a note to this passage, “are a proof of this. I shall produce one remarkable testimony, in confirmation of it, from an author canonized by the church of Rome, St. Eloy, or Eligius, bishop of Noyon, in the seventh century.' He is a good Christian, who comes frequently to church; who presents the oblation, which is offered to God, upon the altar; who doth not taste of the fruits of his own industry, until he has consecrated a part of them to God; who, when the holy festivals shall approach, lives chastely, even with his own wife, during several days, that, with a safe conscience, he may draw near to the altar of God; and who, in the last place, can repeat the creed, and the Lord's prayer. Redeem then your souls from destruction, while you have the means in your power; offer presents, and tithes, to churchmen; come more frequently to church; humbly implore the patronage of the saints, for, if you observe these things, you may come with security, in the day, to the tribunal of the eternal Judge, and say, give to us, O Lord! for we have given unto thee”. The learned, and judicious, translator of Dr. Mosheim's ecclesiastical history, from one of whose additional notes, I have borrowed this passage, subjoins a very proper reflection; “We see here a large, and ample, description of a good Christian, in which there is not the least mention of the love of God, resignation to his will, obedience to his laws, or of justice, benevolence, and charity, towards men”.

A charge, expressed in more direct, or stronger terms against the clergy of the middle ages, for teaching a false and depraved system of morality, cannot be imagined. What, then, must be the surprise of the reader, when, from the perusal of the following passage, in Mr. Lingard’s learned and elegant Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, he finds the whole to be an absolute misrepresentation? “From that period”, says Mr. Lingard,—referring to the publication of Dr. Robertson’s History, “this citation from the writings of St. Eloy, or St. Eligius, has held a very distinguished place, in every invective, which has been published against the clergy of former ages: and the definition of the good Christian has been re-echoed a thousand times by the credulity of writers, and their readers. May I hope to escape the imputation of skepticism, when I own, that I have always been inclined to mistrust this host of witnesses, and their quotations? I, at last, resolved to consult the original document; nor were my expectations disappointed. I discovered, that the bishop of Noyon had been foully calumniated; and that, instead of his real doctrine, a garbled extract had been presented to the public. That the good Christian should pay the dues of the church, he indeed requires: but, he also requires, that he should cultivate peace among his neighbors; forgive his enemies; love all mankind as himself, observe the precepts of the Decalogue; and faithfully comply with the engagements, which he contracted at his baptism”." We insert the text of the bishop in a note; the following is Mr. Lingard's translation of it: “It does not, therefore, most dear Christians, suffice to you, that you have received the Christian name, unless you do Christian works. For, to him, it avails to be called a Christian, who always keeps in his mind the precepts of Christ and fulfils them by his works. Such is he, who does not steal; who does not bear false witness; who does not lie, or forswear, who does not commit adultery, who hateth no one, but loveth all, as himself, who does not return evil to his enemies, but rather prayeth for them; who does not raise quarrels, but recals quarrellers to peace”. “On account of its similarity”, continues Mr. Lingard, “I shall subjoin another description of the good Christian from an Anglo-Saxon prelate, Wulstan, archbishop of York: Let us always profess one true faith; and love God with all our mind and might; and carefully keep all his commandments, and give to God that part, (of our substance), which by his grace, we are able to give; and earnestly avoid all evil; and act righteously to all others, that is, behave to others, as we wish others to behave to us. He is a good Christian, who observeth this”.

Such was the doctrine taught in the monasteries. May it not be confidently asked, whether it be not the morality of the gospel? whether any purer lessons of morality, can be cited? and whether, the institutions, which taught it,—and without which it might not have been taught,—were not, with all the imperfections, justly, or unjustly, imputed to them, eminently useful to the community?

It may moreover, be confidently asserted, that agriculture has not had better friends than the monks. To the truth of this assertion our own country bears the most ample testimony. That the monks were most indulgent landlords; that their tenants prospered under them; and that, at the time of the dissolution of monasteries, the lands belonging to them, were in the highest state of cultivation, which was known at that time, is admitted. Generally speaking, the lands, bestowed upon them, were the refuse of the soil, when they received them. It was by the unceasing and regular toil of centuries, that they brought them to the state, in which they were found at the dissolution. No one can turn over the pages of Dugdale's History of Embankment, without being sensible of the magnitude of their labors, in gaining land from the sea; and in rendering the fen, the morass, and the marsh, both profitable and habitable.

Add to this, that the pious inmates of a monastery, regularly spent almost the whole of their income in its neighborhood. This attracted the laborer, the artisan, and the manufacturer. It seldom happened that a village did not rise, or that a village did not become a town, in any place where a convent flourished.

It is unnecessary to repeat, what has been said in a former page, respecting their encouragement of architecture, sculpture, and the other arts. No intelligent eye can survey any one of the many cathedral churches, which still ornament this island, without being struck with the skill, which was required to raise it and feel how greatly its erection must have contributed to the advancement of art and science, how many poor it must have clothed and fed; how much labor it employed, how much talent it called into action; and how greatly all this must have tended to humanize the boisterous spirit of the times, to dispel ignorance, and to introduce the arts, the habits, and the blessings of peace and industry? It is difficult to imagine an institution, which the spirit of the times would have endured, that was likely to promote, in a greater degree, peaceful and useful occupations,— the great desideratum of the middle ages.

Permit the writer to add:—For several years, the greatest geniuses of this country have employed their talents on the subject of political economy. Their grand discovery appears to be, that nothing contributes so greatly to the wealth, or strength of the nation, as the celibacy of those, who have not the means of providing for the offspring of their marriages. Now, of such persons, monasteries were, and of such they are still, principally composed. Therefore, if the above axiom be founded in truth, it never can apply so well, as in times, when, comparatively speaking, there was so little employment for industry, and consequently, when there existed so few ways, by which a poor man could provide for his family.

That learning was cultivated in the monasteries, is a truth which all candid writers acknowledge and which everyone must own, who has perused with attention and impartiality, the tenth chapter of Mr. Lingard's Antiquities of the Saxon Church—or even the 4th chapter of the third book of Dr. Henry's learned History of Britain. “I am sensible” says Gerardus Tychsen, professor of philosophy, and oriental literature in the united universities of Butzow and Rostock, that, “it is the general opinion, that the study of the fine arts was buried during the middle ages. It is, however, certain, that, while literature was crushed everywhere else, she found a refuge in monasteries”. “There was not one religious person at Woolstrope”, says Mr. Strype, “but that he could, and did, use, either embrothering, writing books with very fair hand, making their own garments, carving, painting, or grafting”. The transcription of useful works considered by the monks to be a useful and a meritorious employment. “To transcribe works”, says the pious Thomas a Kempis, “which Jesus Christ loves, by which the knowledge of him is diffused, his precepts taught, and the practice of them inculcated, is a most useful employment. If he shall not lose his reward, who gives a cup of cold water to his thirsty neighbor, what will not be the reward of those, who, by putting good works into the hands of their neighbors, open to them the fountains of eternal life? Blessed be the hand of such transcribers! Which of the writings of our ancestors would now be remembered, if there had been no pious hand to transcribe them!”. It may be added that Thomas a Kempis was himself an excellent copyist: some of his transcriptions, among them a Latin bible in four large volumes, still remain, and show his eminence in caligraphy.

To proceed,—For almost all that has been preserved to us of the writers of Greece, or Rome; for all that we know of the languages of those invaluable writers, for all the principal monuments of our holy religion, even for the sacred writings themselves, which contain the word of God; as well as for the traditions of the wise and good, respecting it, for all these benefits and blessings, we are almost wholly indebted, under Providence, to the monks of the middle ages. Their merit was their own: all the ignorance, or the bad taste, which is justly imputable to them, was owing to the general ruin and devastation occasioned by the inroads and conquests, of the barbarians; and to the unceasing wars of the barons. But justice, surely, claims our gratitude to these venerable communities, who strove against the barbarism of the times; and who preserved for us all the precious remains of sacred, or profane antiquity, that have reached us all that we know of our own history, and almost all the historical records that we possess.

Far be it from the writer to deny due praise to the biblical exertions of modern times: But it ought not to be forgotten, that these holy men were the principal instruments employed by divine Providence in preserving the sacred volumes which compose the bible. We have the names of seven English monks, who translated the scriptures, or some parts of them, into the English language. The venerable Bede expired while dictating a translation of the gospel of St. John. It has been invidiously observed, that in these times copies of the bible were few. Perhaps the scarcity has been exaggerated. But, that there should have been a scarcity is not surprising. Copies were then only procured by the slow labor of transcription: they were not, as now, instantaneously multiplied by the simultaneous operations of innumerable presses. The transcription of a whole bible must have employed several months; and would, it is supposed, have cost upwards of fifty pounds. Taking this into account, and considering how few among the laity, even in the higher ranks of life, could then read;—considering also the destruction of all monuments of antiquity at the time of the Reformation, we shall rather be surprised at the number, than scandalized at the scarcity, of the ascertained manuscripts of the sacred volume.

Such, then, were the advantages, derived by the public, and by individuals, from monastic establishments. “The world”, says a writer, speaking of the Benedictine monks, “has never been so deeply indebted to any other body of men as to this illustrious order; but historians, when relating the evil, of which they were the occasion, have too frequently forgotten the good, which they produced. Even the commonest readers are familiar with the arch-miracle-monger, St. Dunstan; while the most learned of our countrymen scarcely remember the names of those admirable men, who went forth from England, and became the apostles of the north. Tinian, and Juan Fernandez, are not more beautiful spots on the ocean, than Malmesbury, and Lindisfarne, and Jarrow, in the ages of our heptarchy. A community of pious men, devoted to literature, and to the useful arts, as well as to religion, seems, in those ages, like a green oasis amid the desert. Like stars in a moonless night, they shine upon us, with a tranquil ray. If ever there was a man, who could truly be called venerable, it is he, to whom that appellation is constantly affixed, Bede, whose life was passed in instructing his own generation, and preparing records for posterity. In those days, the church offered the only asylum from the evils, to which every country was exposed; amidst continual wars, the church enjoyed peace: it was regarded as a sacred realm, by men, who, though they hated each other believed, and feared, the same God. Abused, as it was, by the worldly-minded, and ambitious, and disgraced by the artifices of the designing, and the follies of the fanatic, it afforded a shelter to those who were better than the world, in their youth; or weary of it in their age; the wise, as well as the timid and the gentle, fled to this Goshen of God, which enjoyed its own light, and calm, amid darkness and storms”. This just and generous tribute of gratitude, and respect, should be inscribed on every ruin, which still exists, of these venerable establishments.

X.

THE DISSOLUTION OF MONASTERIES.

1540.

Two Events, the suppression of the order of the Knights Templars, and the suppression of the Alien Priories, preceded, and, in some measure, prepared the public mind in England for the general dissolution of all the monasteries in the realm. Succinct historical minutes of each of these events, may, therefore, be acceptable to the reader. An account will follow, of the license granted by the pope to cardinal Wolsey, to dissolve some of the smaller monasteries, of the dissolution of the remaining smaller monasteries, and of the subsequent dissolution of the greater.

It has been mentioned, that the Knights Templars were one of the military orders, established in the church, for the defence of the faith in the east, against the Saracens; and for the protection of the pilgrims, who resorted to the Holy Land. They took their name from a monastery in Jerusalem, given to them by Baldwin, the second king of that city, after its conquest, in the first Crusade. The order was founded in 1118. It was divided into three classes:—To the nobles, was assigned the profession of arms, for the purposes just expressed: the ecclesiastics were appointed to exercise their religious functions, for the benefit of the order: the lay-brothers had the care of the pilgrims and the sick. For several years, the members of the order were distinguished equally for their piety and their valor. St. Bernard composed a panegyric on them in which language seems to sink under him, while he celebrates their virtues. But insensibly their fervor decayed; and luxury found its way among them. This led to the dissolution of the order. The best view of it is given in the Monuments historiques relatif à la condemnation des Chevaliers du Temple, et à l’abolition de leur ordre; par M. Renouard, member de l’institut imperial de France et de la legion d'honneur. This work makes it highly probable, not only, that some laxity of morals prevailed in the order, but that there were also some associations in it, among which the disbelief of Christianity was avowed, and was expressed by grotesque and obscene rites. It however shows equally, that neither this infidelity, nor these infidel practices, were general; and, that the credit of the charges brought against the order is fundamentally shaken, by the very means, which were used to prove its guilt.

On the 13th of October, 1307, the grand master, and every Knight Templar, in France, were arrested, imprisoned, and put in irons. A bare sustenance was allowed them. They were refused counsel; the visit of their friends was interdicted. Life, liberty, and reward were offered to those, whose confessions would charge the order with guilt; and, as an inducement to such confessions, a forged one, by the grand master, of its general guilt, was produced.

The individuals, who denied the charge, were delivered to the most horrid tortures. The most common of these was the torture of the pulley. The hands of the sufferer were tied behind him; enormous weights fixed to his feet; and the cord, which tied his hands, was brought over a pulley. On a signal, he was suddenly drawn up; then, suddenly let fall, to a distance of some feet from the ground. His whole frame was dislocated by the sudden shock; and, in this state, he long remained suspended. The fire, was a still more severe infliction. The sufferer was made to be upon his back, with his body fastened to the ground. Then, the soles of his feet were anointed with an unctuous matter; and exposed to the fire. The feet of others were inserted in an iron shoe, which was gradually compressed, until every bone was broken. The legs of others were screwed into iron boots filled with quick lime. That such proceedings should produce several confessions, cannot excite surprise.

In other kingdoms, proceedings were instituted against the order: but they were conducted with much greater form, and with more humanity. The consequence was, that, in those kingdoms, the knights were either honorably acquitted; or only partially condemned. This circumstance detracts also from the authority of the proceedings of the French tribunals.

At the earnest instance of the French monarch, pope Clement V caused a general council to be assembled at Vienne, in Dauphiné, the knights were solemnly cited to it to defend the order. Nine of them appeared; and were immediately ordered to be imprisoned, and put in irons. At this unjustifiable proceeding, the fathers of the council expressed great indignation.

It is generally supposed, that the order was abolished by the council; but this is a mistake. The pope assembled the cardinals, and several prelates, in a secret consistory; and there, abolished the order by his own authority. At the second sessions of the council he published the decree of abolition. The members present heard it, (it cannot be said they accepted it), in solemn silence. Four days afterwards, the pope, in his bull, Considerantes dudum, announced, that the charges against the order were sufficiently proved, to render them strongly suspected; but, not sufficiently proved, to authorize a judicial sentence. For this reason, he professed to have abstained from a definitive sentence; and only passed a provisional condemnation. It is observable, that Clement XIV in his bull for suppressing the order of the Jesuits, adverts to the above circumstance; and expressly says, that “the general council of Vienne, to whose examination the pope had committed the business, advised him to adopt this provisional mode of proceeding”.

Combining all these circumstances, it seems impossible not to acquit the Templars from the general guilt imputed to their body. If some members were chargeable with irreligion, their number was not great; if some irreligious associations were formed, these must have been exceedingly few. They seem to have been merely meetings of sensuality. It is evident, at least, that nothing of the metaphysical speculations of atheism entered into them.

The last act of the tragedy was the burning of the grand master, Jacques de Molay. He was of an illustrious house in Burgundy and, at the time, when the storm burst on the order, was carrying on with great valor, a war, in the island of Cyprus, against the Turks. By the command of the pope, he quitted it, and, attended by sixty of his knights, all of noble birth, repaired to Paris. Immediately on their arrival, they were cast into prison. The grand master was cruelly tortured. Subdued by the violence of the torments, he confessed the general guilt of the order. He was then remanded to prison, and continued in it during six years. On the 18th March, 1313, he was summoned, with three chief dignitaries of the order, before the three commissaries of the cause; and required to acknowledge his guilt. Turning his face to the assembled multitude, “It is most just”, he said aloud, “that, on this horrible day, and, in these last moments of my life, I should proclaim the iniquity of falsehood; and make virtue triumph. I therefore acknowledge, before heaven and earth, that I have been guilty of the greatest crime. But, it was, when I confessed the truth of the charges made against the order. I now attest its innocence. The love of truth obliges me to declare it. I asserted the contrary, merely to suspend the excessive tortures inflicted on me; and to soften the hearts of those, who inflicted them. I am aware of the torments, which have been inflicted on those who have had the courage to retract their confessions: but, this dreadful spectacle is not sufficient to make me confirm a first lie by a second. Rather than comply with so infamous a condition, I renounce life”.

A knight, who attended him, made a similar declaration. A council of state was immediately assembled by order of the king who condemned both o perish by a slow fire. They were, accordingly, fastened to an iron stake; and a small fire was lighted under them. In this horrible situation they long continued,—protesting their innocence to the last.

Some readers may, perhaps, acquit the Templars wholly of the charges imputed to them. This, perhaps, is going too far: yet it should not be forgotten, that the evidence against them arises, altogether, from the depositions taken before commissioners appointed by their enemies, and extorted from the witnesses by hopes, intimidation, and torture, while every method was used to mislead the judgment; to inflame the imagination, and to rouse the passions of the public against them. If, from such materials, and under such circumstances, arguments, so powerfully vindicating their innocence, have been collected, how would the case have stood, had they been allowed to make their own statements; to urge their own defence; and to expose, in their own manner, the artifices and cruelty, of their adversaries?

The Alien Priories may be considered as filiations from the foreign abbeys. Some of them depended entirely upon their foreign parents, receiving from them their priors and remitting to them all that remained of their income after supplying the necessary wants of the community. The dependence of the others was almost nominal.

They elected their own priors, and were absolute proprietors of their own estates. The former had long been the objects of the jealousy of the English government, on account of their sending out of the country a large proportion of the revenues. In the fourth year of Henry V, when he was at war with France, an act was passed by which all the alien priories were suppressed, and their estates vested in the crown.

To the attacks, which were made upon monasteries by Henry the eighth, Wolsey preluded, by the license, which, in 1525, he obtained from the pope, to dissolve several of the smaller communities. The pope had attached to this license a condition, that no monastery should be dissolved without the previous consent of the king, and its founders. The consent of the king was readily obtained. What arrangements were made with the founders, or their representatives, does not appear. The suppressed houses, and their possessions, became the property of Henry. He conferred them, by new grants, on the cardinal who annexed some of them to the college at Oxford; and others, to the college at Ipswich, which he had founded. The former is called Christ Church; the latter, immediately after the decease of the cardinal, was neglected, and fell to ruin.

Henry determined on the general dissolution of all the monasteries within his realm, soon after he had assumed the title of supreme head of the church. His first attack was leveled at the smaller, institutions, or those, whose yearly income did not exceed two hundred pounds. With this view, he appointed Thomas Cromwell,—(who, from a very low situation, had raised himself by his talents, to the rank of secretary of state),—to be his vicar-general, and vicegerent; with authority to visit all ecclesiastical persons, and communities, within his dominions; to rectify and correct all abuses; and, generally to do everything that the king could do, as supreme head of the church. Henry also authorized him to delegate to others, any portion of the authority thus conferred upon him. Cromwell, accordingly, signed several commissions, authorizing the persons named in them to visit all churches, monasteries, and priories, both of men, and women; and to inquire into the conduct of archbishops, bishops, and other dignitaries as well as into the conduct of all superiors of religious houses, both in spirituals, and temporals; with directions to make their reports to him on all these circumstances. The visitors,—probably, in conformity to the injunctions given to them by Cromwell,—abstained from interfering with the secular clergy: but made a general visitation of all the religious houses. With some exceptions, the report was, in the highest degree, unfavorable to them. The smaller monasteries were said to be the most irregular. The king, already determined on their destruction, dissolved, by an act of the thirty-seventh year of his reign, all the houses of monks, canons and nuns, which had not above two hundred pounds yearly revenue; and which did not contain more than twelve members; vesting, at the same time, in himself, all their real and personal property. The number of houses, dissolved by this act, was three hundred and seventy-six. Their annual revenue was computed at thirty-two thousand pounds, their personal effects, at one hundred thousand pounds.

Is 1537, the king ordered a visitation to be made of the remaining, or greater houses. The commissioners were directed to inquire into the practices, by which the religious, as it was alleged, had deceived the people; and nourished superstition, to enrich themselves.

Many of the monks were so much alarmed at the report of this visitation, that they surrendered their houses, and possessions to the king, without waiting the arrival of the visitors. “The chief employment of the visitors, in this, and the two following years”, says Doctor Henry, “seems to have been settling the surrenders of the monasteries, and the pensions of the abbots, priors, and monks; making surveys of their estates; taking possession of their relics, jewels, and plate, which in some houses was of great value: selling their furniture, pulling down their churches, and such of their other buildings, as were only suited, and useful, to monastics; disposing of their bells, lead, and other materials. It is incredible how many magnificent churches, cloisters, libraries, and other buildings, which had been erected at an immense expense of money and labor, were un-roofed and ruined in the short space of three or four years. To this dreadful havoc, Henry, and his courtiers were prompted, partly by their avarice, and partly to prevent the re-establishment of monasteries. To finish this great affair a parliament was called, which met at Westminster, April 28th, in the year 1540. On the 13th of May, a bill was brought into the house, for granting to the king, his heirs, and successors, all the houses, lands, and goods, of all the abbeys, priories, nunneries, chantries, hospitals, and religious houses, that had been already surrendered, or suppressed; or that should there-after be surrendered, or suppressed. The bill passed both houses, with much less opposition than might be expected and, in consequence of it, all the possessions of six hundred and forty-five convents, ninety colleges, two thousand three hundred and seventy-four chantries, and free chapels; and one hundred and ten hospitals, were annexed to the crown. The yearly rent of their lands was estimated at one hundred and sixty thousand pounds. The jewels, plate, furniture, and other goods, must have amounted to a prodigious sum, of which no computation can now be made”.

A very small proportion only of the property of the convents was appropriated to the service of the public. The whole was soon distributed by the monarch, with a prodigal hand, among his courtiers. The best account of this extraordinary event, which has come to the hands of the writer, is given in Mr. Collier's Ecclesiastical History. He sheds a generous tear over the sufferers; and, while he admits the criminality of some individuals, and the disorders of some houses, he honorably and successfully advocates the general integrity of the body.

In the opinion of the writer of these pages, the report of the commissioners is wholly unworthy of credit. We have seen, how little attention to truth, and how gross a violation of justice, were shown, even in the proceedings of the parliament, and in the highest courts of justice, against the most exalted and distinguished personages, whom the king wished to oppress; and whom all, except the king, wished to save. How much less, then, must naturally have been the attention paid, either to truth or justice, where monks and nuns were to be persecuted? Where obscure individuals were appointed to report upon their conduct; where the king was determinately bent upon their ruin; where his courtiers were indifferent to their fate; and where plunder of them was the general aim;—the immediate expectation of many, and the sanguine hope of almost all!

The loss, which learning sustained by the destruction of books and manuscripts, was great. Bale, a man remarkably hostile to the Roman-catholic religion, and to monastic institutions, says that “a number of them, which purchased these superstitious mansions, reserved of those library books, some to form their jakes; some to scour their candlesticks and some, to rub their boots. And some, they sold to grocers, and soap-sellers; and some they sent over the sea to the book-binders, not in small numbers, but at times in ships. I know a merchant, (who shall, at this time, be nameless), that bought the contents of two noble libraries, for forty shillings price. A shame it is to be spoken. This stuff has been occupied instead of grey paper. I judge this to be true, and utter it with heaviness, that neither the Britains, under the Romans and Saxons; nor yet the English people under the Danes and Nor mans, had ever such damage of their learned monuments, as we have, in this our time. Our posterity may well curse the wicked fall of our age; this unreasonable sport of England’s most noble antiquities”.

XI.

POPE PAUL THE THIRD EXCOMMUNICATES HENRY THE EIGHTH.

IT has been related, that, when Clement the Seventh pronounced his sentence for the validity of Henry’s marriage with Katherine of Aragon, it was accompanied with a threat of excommunication, in case he refused to adhere to the marriage. “But the pope lived not”, says Echard, “to execute any censures against the king. So that, instead of the matter's being past reconciliation, there was only a sentence, annulling what the arch-bishop of Canterbury had done”. Moderate men, therefore, still hoped, that an amicable adjustment between the parties might yet be effected.

Clement the seventh died about six months after he had pronounced the sentence on the divorce. He was succeeded by Paul the Third, of the illustrious family of Farnese; and the hopes of a satisfactory arrangement between the monarch and the see of Rome were increased by his elevation; as, when cardinal, he had favored the cause of Henry. But they vanished on the execution of bishop Fisher. Soon after the news of this event had reached Rome, the pope issued a bull, by which he cited Henry to appear before him within ninety days; failing which, he declared the monarch excommunicated, and laid the whole kingdom under an interdict. Whatever a catholic may think of the prudence of the excommunication, he must admit, thus far, that a right to excommunicate a member of the catholic church, be he sovereign, or be he subject, belongs to the pope. But, unfortunately, the pontiff did not confine himself to excommunication. By an assumption of authority, of which, subsequently to the elevation of Gregory the Seventh, the papal history affords but too many examples, he deprived Henry of his crown; dissolved all leagues of catholic princes with him; gave away his kingdom to any invader; commanded his nobility to take up arms against him; freed his subjects from all oaths of allegiance; cut off their commerce with foreign states; and declared it lawful for anyone to seize them, to make slaves of their persons, and to convert their effects to their own use.

It remains to add, that the pope withheld the publication of the bull till the act of parliament for the dissolution of the greater monasteries had passed, and was carried into execution. Then, by another bull, he confirmed, and established, the former. A full account of each of these bulls is given by Dodd, in his Church History of England.

The separation from the church was now consummated. May the writer be permitted to suggest, that, amid the various causes of this great calamity, not any, perhaps, had greater influence, than the mistaken notions, entertained on both sides, respecting the nature of spiritual, and temporal power. When the pope assumed the temporal, and the king assumed the spiritual, each was equally in the wrong. If, by a happy anticipation, a Bossuet had arisen, and explained to the pope, that he had no right to legislate in temporal concerns, or to enforce his spiritual legislation by temporal power, and to the monarch, that he had no right to legislate in spiritual concerns, or to enforce his temporal legislation by spiritual power, it is possible, that the schism might have been avoided; and a moderate scheme of reformation adopted, which would have satisfied the wise, and the good, of both parties. 

XII.

ECCLESIASTICAL REGULATIONS IN THE REIGN OF HENRY.

TO give the reader a notion of the religious alterations introduced into England by Henry, and his successors, it seems proper to state, succinctly, the different religious systems of the primitive Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, and Anabaptists; a summary account of the ecclesiastical regulations, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, respecting the general reading of the bible in the English language, by the laity; his guidance of the faith, and devotions of his subjects; his persecutions; and his death.

The tenets of the Lutherans are accurately, and fully, expressed, in the confession of Augsburg: a solemn formulary of faith, presented, in 1530, by the Lutheran princes of Germany to the emperor Charles V at a diet, holden in that city. The distinctive articles of the Lutheran creed are,—that, in the sacrament of the eucharist two things are exhibited, and received together—the one, earthly, which is bread and wine; the other, heavenly, which is the body and blood of Christ: That, in Christ, there are two distinct natures, the divine, and the human; and that these remain eternally unconfined, inseparable, and undivided:— That, by baptism God saves us; and works in us, justice, and purgation of our sins; that he who perseveres to the end, in that covenant, and hope, does not perish, but has eternal life;—and that Christ died for all men; and wills that all men should be saved.

In opposition to the Lutheran doctrine on the Eucharist, the Zuinglians maintained, that, in the sacrament, the bread and wine are only signs and symbols of the absent body of Christ so that the Eucharistic rite is merely a pious, and solemn ceremony, instituted or ordained to bring the passion, and the death, of Christ to the remembrance of the faithful. In the doctrines, respecting baptism, the Lutherans and Zuinglians generally agree: With the doctrines, concerning the will of God for the salvation of the whole, or a part only of mankind, the Zuinglians did not meddle.

Calvin maintained, that when the true Christian receives the sacrament of the Eucharist, with a lively faith, he is united indescribably, but yet really, to Jesus Christ incarnate: so that, to him, Jesus Christ is really, though not corporally, present in the sacrament. Thus, when Calvin advocated the reality of the presence, he seemed to hold the language of Luther; When he denied the corporeal presence, he seemed to speak the language of Zwingli. According to Calvin, baptism is not absolutely essential to salvation; and not all, but the elect only obtain by it, the grace of God, and the gifts of faith. Calvin also maintained, without any qualification, that God, from all eternity, predestinated one part of mankind to everlasting happiness; the other, to everlasting misery: and that he was led to make this distinction by no other motive than his own mere pleasure.

On their notions, respecting the use of ceremonies in religion; respecting the gradations of rank in the hierarchy; and respecting the subordination of the ministers of the church to the magistracy, there was a considerable difference of opinion among the first reformers. Much ceremonial, much gradation of rank, much subordination to the magistracy, was allowed by the Lutherans; less, by the Zwinglians; next to none by the Calvinists. In doctrine, and discipline, the Calvinists and the English puritans agreed almost entirely. It is observable, that, though their formularies sound differently, yet the doctrine of Zwingli, that the Eucharist is no more than a solemn rite, has insensibly obtained admission into all the protestant churches.

The Anabaptists were not, at the time of which we are speaking, that peaceable, and respectable community, who are now distinguished by this appellation. They then held, as they hold still, that baptism ought to be administered only to those who have attained to years of understanding; and that then, it should be performed by immersion—harmless doctrine, so far as civil society is interested. But, they were accused, and not without foundation,—of teaching, that all things ought to be in common among the faithful, that taking interest for the loan of money, tithes, and tribute, ought to be entirely abolished; that, in the kingdom of Christ, civil magistrates are absolutely useless; and that God still continues to reveal his will to certain persons, by dreams, and revelations.

Ecclesiastical regulations in the reign of Henry the eighth, respecting the general reading of the Bible, in the English language, by the laity

When Henry assumed the title of head of the church, it was naturally expected that he would have receded much farther, both in doctrine, and discipline, from the see of Rome, than he did, in reality. Respecting the propriety of a farther reformation, his council was much divided. Anne Boleyn, the new queen, Cranmer, who had succeeded Warham in the see of Canterbury, Lord Cromwell, and several other persons of distinction, were warm advocates for it. On the other hand, it was strenuously opposed by the lord chancellor, the duke of Norfolk, and the bishops of Winchester and Rochester. To their opinion, the king was strongly inclined, both from principle and affection. By education he was attached to the catholic church: By his writings in her defence, he had acquired great renown; he was proud of his title of defender of the faith and prouder still of his spiritual supremacy over the church of England. On the other hand, the savage and contemptuous treatment, which he had received from Luther, alienated him from that reformer, and his adherents; while the severe simplicity of the creeds and liturgies, of Zwingli and Calvin, had no attractions for him. Still, he was fond of exercising his spiritual authority; and willingly interfered in the concerns of the church. The chief of his interferences we shall notice. We shall therefore succinctly mention, 1st, his principal proclamations, and legislative enactments, respecting the general reading of the bible by the laity; and 2dly, the most remarkable of his doctrinal regulations.

The new translation of the bible afforded the monarch an early opportunity for the exercise of his spiritual supremacy. It is well known, that, since the troubles, occasioned by the Albigenses, in the 9th and 10th centuries, it has been a point of catholic discipline, to prohibit, to the laity, the reading of the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without the special leave of their respective pastors. The reformers were anxious that such translations of them should be made, and generally circulated.

There are many Anglo-Saxon versions of different parts both of the Old and the New Testament. Of the translation by archbishop Elfric, we have, of the Old Testament, the Heptateuch, published by Edmund Thwayte at Oxford, in 1699; and, of the New Testament, the Gospels only, published by Matthew Parker, London, 1571. They were reprinted by Franciscus Junius, and Thomas Marshal, at Dordrecht, with the Meso-gothic version, 1665, reprinted at Amsterdam, in 1684. An Anglo-saxon version of the Psalms, evidently translated from the Vulgate, was published by Sir Henry Spelman.

It is generally said, that the most ancient English translation of the bible is that of Wickliffe. This is untrue: “The hole bible was, before Wycliffe's days, by virtuous and learned men, translated into the English tong, and by good and godly people, with devotion and soberness, well and reverently read” - Thomas More. In the preface to Wickliffe's Bible, by Lewis, mention is made of two English translations of part of the bible, still existing in manuscript, and anterior to Wickliffe's. His translation was finished about the year 1367; and revised by one of his followers. Both the original, and the revised translation, are still extant in manuscript: the manuscript copies of the latter are more rare, than those of the former.

In compliance with the wishes of the reformers, William Tyndale, a Welshman, settled at Antwerp, assisted by John Fry, a learned layman, and William Roye, a friar, translated the New Testament from the Greek, into English. In 1526, he published his translation and procured several copies to be conveyed to England. The success it met with induced him to continue his labors. In 1530, he published a translation of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew. Numerous editions of the New Testament, and some of the Pentateuch, were printed.

In 1535, Myles Coverdale, an Augustinian friar, published a complete translation, made by himself, of all the Old and New Testament. These translations,—Tyndale's, in particular,—gave offence; and great efforts were made to suppress the copies. Among his assailants, Tyndale had the honor to reckon sir Thomas More. Several propositions, which sir Thomas extracted from the writings of Tyndale, are as opposite to those of the church of England, as they are to those of the church of Rome. “If he is not misreported”, says Collier, "he has failed, both in truth and decency in several material points. In short, his heterodoxies are too visible to reckon him amongst the reformers of the English church”. Coverdale's translation was thought less objectionable than Tyndale's and was, therefore, more favorably received by the public.

At length, the wish to have an authorized version of the Bible was so general, and so strongly expressed, that in 1536 the clergy petitioned the king, that “he would graciously indulge his subjects of the laity with the reading of the Bible, in the English tongue; and have a new translation of it made for that purpose”. Soon after this petition was presented, Cromwell, “the vicegerent of his majesty for and concerning, all the jurisdiction ecclesiastical within his realm”,—(this is the title which he assumed in the instrument in question),—issued his celebrated injunctions to the clergy. By the 9th of these, he ordered, that “every person, or proprietary of any parish church should provide a book of the whole Bible, both in Latin and English; and lay the same in the quire, for every man that would, to loke, and read, thereon and that no man should be discouraged from the reading any part of the Bible, in Latin, or in English”. In consequence of this injunction, a new version of the whole Bible was printed, in 1537. It consisted of the translation of Tyndale, so far as this extended. What Tyndale had left undone, was supplied from the translation of Coverdale. In the title, it was said to be translated by Thomas Mathewe,—a fictitious name. It was printed abroad but, in what place, is not known. The types are certainly German. Amongst bibliographers, it is generally styled “Mathewe's Bible”. A revised edition of it was published, in 1539; which archbishop Cranmer was supposed to have superintended. It is, hence usually called Cranmer's Great Bible.

In May 1540, the king issued a proclamation, requiring curates “to provide themselves with this Bible”. It fixed the price at two shillings, unbound; and directed, that it should not exceed twelve shillings, well bound, and clasped. But his majesty gives the people to understand, that “his allowing them the holy scriptures, in their own mother tongue, was not his duty, but his goodness and liberality, to them”

Other proclamations, of the same import, were issued. But, by the act, passed in the last year of the reign of his majesty, “for the advancement of the true religion”, after reciting in the preamble, that “the people had abused the liberty with which the king had indulged them, of reading the scriptures”, Tyndale's translation is condemned as crafty, false, and untrue; and all the books of the Old and New Testament of that translation, are abolished, and forbidden to be read. Other translations were declared not to be included in the act: but, if there should be found any annotations in them, they were to be cut, or blotted out except summaries of chapters. None, but persons specially appointed by his majesty, were to read them, in any church, or open assembly; but the chancellor, captains of the wars, the king's justices, the recorder of any town, the speaker, and some others, might continue to use them as before. Any noblewoman and gentlewoman might read the Bible privately. Women of lower degree, artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving husbandmen, and laborers, were prohibited from reading the Bible, or New Testament, to themselves, or any other person.

Henry's pastoral solicitude for the spiritual welfare of his subjects was not confined to their reading of the Bible. Formularies also of faith, and some books of devotion, were published by him, or by his direction, for their use. The principal of these are 1, his Primer; 2, his Ten Articles of religious belief: 3, the work called, The Institution of a Christian Man: 4, his Six Articles of religious belief.

The first edition of his Primer is said, in the title-page, to be printed by John Biddle, on the 16th June, 1535. It was published, with the approbation, but without the formal authority, of the king. When, by the act of parliament already mentioned, the reading of the Bible was prohibited to all persons under the rank of gentlemen, the Primer was expressly saved from the prohibition. Abstracting from the circumstance, that it condemns the offering of prayer to angels and saints, its doctrines accord with those of the catholic church.

The innovations in religion occasioning much diversity in the doctrines delivered from the pulpit, his majesty, on the 12th July 1536, sent a circular letter to the bishops, enjoining them to abstain from preaching, until the ensuing Michaelmas. In the meantime he framed Ten Articles of faith; and sent them to the convocation, which was then sitting, at St. Paul's. They were received, with great respect; passed, by an unanimous act, and then signed by his majesty. They run in his name; and were published, by his authority. Baptism, penance, the sacrament of the Eucharist, with the doctrine of transubstantiation, auricular confession, and prayers to the saints, are retained in them. They omit the article of purgatory. The scriptures, and ancient creeds, are made the standards of faith.

The Institution of a Christian Man was published in 1537, by Berthelet. It was recommended, and subscribed, by the two archbishops, nineteen bishops, and the lower house of convocation. It contains an explanation of our Lord's prayer, the creed, the seven sacraments, the decalogue, the ave maria, justification, and purgatory. It is observable, that it maintains, in its fullest extent, the doctrine of passive obedience; and that, in the article of orders, it declares, that, "after the conversion of kings and princes, the bishop had recourse to the assistance of the secular magistrate. This was done to reinforce the jurisdiction of the "church by the civil sanction. For the church has no authority to inflict pecuniary, or corporal punishment”.

In the parliament of the year 1538-9,—the last that was holden in the reign of Henry,—the act passed for abolishing diversity of opinions. After a preamble, it propounds “certain articles concerning Christian religion”. From the number of the articles, and the severity with which the act was carried into execution, several writers have called it, the bloody Statute of the Six Articles.

The six articles are:

1st. That in the sacrament of the altar, after the consecration, there remains no substance of bread and wine; but, under these forms, the natural body and blood of Christ are present.

2dly. That communion of both kinds is not necessary to salvation, to all persons, by the law of God; but that both the body and flesh of Christ are together in each of the kinds.

3dly. That priests may not marry by the law of God.

4thly. That vows of chastity ought to be observed by the law of God.

5thly. That private masses ought to be continued, which, as they are agreeable to God's law, so men receive great benefit from them

6thly. That auricular confession is expedient and necessary, and ought to be retained in the church.

It was, moreover, enacted, that if any person should preach or write against the first article, he should be judged an heretic, burned, without any abjuration, and forfeit his real and personal estate to the king. Those who preached, or disputed against the other articles, were to suffer death, as felons, without benefit of clergy. And those, who, either in word or writing, declared against them, were to be imprisoned, during the king's pleasure; to forfeit their goods and chattels, for the first offence; and suffer death, for the second.

In a former page, a general mention has been made of fifty-nine persons, who received the sentence of death for denying the spiritual supremacy of Henry. The same severity was exercised on those, who denied the doctrine of transubstantiation.

On one occasion, the same cart conveyed three catholics, and three protestants, to execution; the former, for denying the king’s supremacy; the latter for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation. The catholics were hanged, drawn, and quartered, the punishment of treason: The protestants were burned, the punishment of heresy. They all, to the last, persisted in their opinions; and, with their dying breath, forgave their enemies. The execution of the protestants is remarkable, from this circumstance, that several of the council of state, who advised, or consented to the measure, were known to disbelieve the doctrine of transubstantiation; and, in the following reign, concurred in the same sanguinary measures against those who continued to believe it.

Of those, who suffered in the reign of Henry, for the disbelief of transubstantiation, the execution of Lambert was the most remarkable. Being accused of heresy and brought before archbishop Cranmer, for denying the real presence, he appealed to the king, as supreme head of the church of England. The king accordingly ordered him to be tried before himself, in Westminster Hall; and caused letters to be sent to all the prelates, principal nobility, and commoners of England, to attend it. He appeared in great state on the occasion. He sat under a white canopy, arrayed in all the insignia of majesty, and clothed in white garments, emblematic of the purity of faith. The spiritual peers were placed on his right hand; the temporal, on his left. The judges, and most eminent lawyers were placed behind the bishops: The officers of state, and the most distinguished courtiers, were ranged behind the temporal peers.

Lambert acknowledged his disbelief of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament; and, being called upon to defend his opinion, supported it with learning and acuteness. The king replied: “It was a wonder”, Cromwell wrote to Sir Thomas Wyatt, his majesty's ambassador in Germany, “to see, with how much excellent gravity, and inestimable majesty, he exercised there, the very office of supreme head of the church of England! How benignly his grace essayed to convert the miserable man! How strong, and manifest reasons his highness alleged against him! I wish the princes and potentates of Christendom to have had a meet place to have seen it. Undoubtedly, they would have much marveled at his majesty's most high wisdom and judgment, and reputed him otherwise, after the same, than, in a manner, the mirror and light of all other kings and princes in Christendom”. Cranmer, and the other bishops, frequently came to the aid of his majesty: Lambert replied. The trial lasted five hours; at length, quite exhausted, Lambert stood silent: Cromwell, as vicar-general, pronounced sentence upon him, which was executed with uncommon circumstances of cruelty.

Henry finished his reign on the 29th of January 1547. There seems some reason to suppose that, in his latter years, he wished to be reconciled to the see of Rome. By his will, he directed large sums of money to be distributed for prayers for his soul.

Without a clear view of the royal genealogy of England, from the time of the union of the houses of York and Lancaster, in the person of Henry the Eighth, till the reign of James the First, it is impossible to obtain an accurate notion of the events, even in the ecclesiastical history of England, during that period. We shall, therefore, present it to the reader in the form of a Table, simplifying it as much as its complex nature will admit.

The title of Henry the Eighth to the crown was clear and undisputed. In his reign the succession was regulated by several legislative enactments.

1. By an act of the 25th year of his reign, the crown was entailed to his majesty, and to the heirs male of his body, failing these to the lady Elizabeth; who was declared to be the king's eldest issue female, and to the heirs of her body,—(in exclusion of the lady Mary on account of her supposed illegitimacy, in consequence of the divorce of Henry from her mother Katharine of Aragon),—and so on from issue female to issue female, by course of inheritance, according to their age; and failing these to the king’s right heirs.

2.Upon the king’s divorce from Anne Boleyn, the lady Elizabeth was bastardized, and the crown settled on the eldest children of the king by lady Jane Seymour, and his future wives; and failing these, to the persons to whom the king should limit the same by letters patent, or will.

3. But, by a statute of the 35th of his reign, the lady Mary, and lady Elizabeth were legitimated, and the crown limited to prince Edward by name, and the heirs of his body, failing these, to the lady Mary, and the heirs of her body; and failing these, to the lady Elizabeth, and the heirs of her body; and failing issue of both

4. By his will Henry limited the crown, in default of issue of his daughters, to the heirs of the body of lady Frances, the eldest daughter of his sister Mary, and failing such issue, to the heirs of the body of Eleanor, the second daughter of his sister Mary.

5. On the accession of Mary, her title to the throne was recognized by a legislative act; and the same was done on the accession of Elizabeth.

6. On the death of queen Elizabeth, without issue, the line of Henry the eighth became extinct.

XIII.

EDWARD THE SIXTH

1547.

EDWARD the sixth came to the throne at the age of nine years; he had been educated by doctor Cox, who favored the Reformation. The majority of the bishops, and the chief part of the clergy, were on the side of the catholic religion, or of the old learning, as it was then usually termed. But the majority of the government were favorers of the Reformation, these carried the king with them, and soon obtained the ascendancy.

The principal ecclesiastical occurrences in the reign of Edward the sixth, are:

I. The regulations respecting the election of bishops, and the new admissions of the actual bishops to their sees: 

II. The new visitation:

III. The publication of the Book of Homilies:

IV. The forty-two Articles:

V. The book of Common Prayer:

VI. The further suppression of colleges, hospitals and chantries, and the general destruction of their libraries, and of the articles for sacred or secular use, or ornament, belonging to them:

VII. And the religious persecution which took place during this reign.

1.The regulations respecting the election of Bishops, and the new admission of the actual Bishops to their sees.

BY the charter of king John, recognized and con­firmed by his great charter, and by the 25th of Edward the third, stat. 6, sect. 3, the chapters had the free right of electing their prelates. But this statute was virtually repealed by the 25th Henry the eighth, ch. 7, by which the chapters, if they did not elect the person recommended by the king's letters missive, became subject to the penalties of praemunire. In the first year of the reign of Edward the sixth, a new act was passed for the election of bishops. After reciting that the manner of electing bishops by a congé d'elire was but the shadow of an election, it enacted, that, in future, all bishops should be appointed by the king's letters patent only, and should continue the exercise of their jurisdiction during their natural lives, if they should behave well. In the passing of this act, archbishop Cranmer was principally concerned. It was his opinion, that the exercise of all episcopal jurisdiction depended upon the prince. Consistently with this principle, he thought that his own right to exercise the episcopal authority ended with the life of the late king; nor would he act as archbishop till he had received a new commission from Edward the sixth. On the same grounds, most of the other prelates obtained fresh commissions for the exercise of their episcopal authority.

2.The New Visitation.

IMMEDIATELY after the ceremony of the king’s coronation, the regents appointed a royal visitation, and commanded the clergy to preach nowhere, except in their parish churches, without license, till the visitation was concluded. For this purpose they divided the kingdom into six districts, assigning to each, as visitors, two gentlemen, a civilian, a divine, and a registrar. These were directed to proclaim and publish forty-nine injunctions, and to give orders that they should be published, once at least, in every quarter of a year. The spiritual supremacy of the monarch was the leading article, the gospels and epistles were to be read in English, mass and praying for the dead were discontinued: processions, and some ornaments and ceremonies, were set aside. It is observable that, on the death of Francis the first, which happened on the 22nd March 1547, a solemn mass, and funeral service, were sung for him in all the churches in London; the choir of St. Paul's was hung in mourning; Cranmer, the archbishop, with eight other bishops, in their richest habits, sung a mass ad requiem anima: and a sermon was preached by Dr. Ridley, bishop elect of Rochester.

3.The Book of Homilies.

AMONG the injunctions of the visitors there was a direction that they should leave, in every parish, the Book of Homilies. It consisted of twelve discourses upon the principal points of the Christian faith and was directed to be left with every parish priest. The discourses are believed to have been composed by archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley, and Bishop Latimer. Bishop Gardiner declined giving them his approbation. A second volume of the Homilies was published in the reign of queen Elizabeth.

4.The Forty-two Articles.

IN the fourth year of the reign of Edward, it was resolved in council to reform, once more, the doctrine of the church. In pursuance of this order, Archbishop Cranmer, and Bishop Ridley, framed forty two articles of Christian doctrine. Copies of them were sent to several bishops, and to other divines, for their consideration. Being returned by them, the articles were approved in council, and had the royal sanction. In the title-page they were styled, "Articles agreed upon by the bishops, and other learned men, in the convocation held at London in the year 1522, for avoiding diversity of opinion, and establishing consent touching true religion, published by the king's authority". But by Cranmer's own admission, in the subsequent reign, it is certain, that these articles never were submitted, either to the parliament or to the convocation. They are, in substance, very nearly the same as the thirty-nine articles.

5.The Book of Common Prayer.

THAT the Jews had set forms of prayer, which they used in their synagogues, has been satisfactorily shown by doctor Lightfoot. That the earliest Christians joined in the use of the Lord's prayer, and of the psalms, appears from several passages in the Acts of the Apostles, and from the apostolic epistles. That, at an early period of Christianity, liturgies were in use, may be justly inferred from those ascribed to St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James, "which", says Mr. Wheately, in a work of real learning, his Rational Illustration of the Common Prayer, introduction, p. 13,."are doubtless of high antiquity". In the course of time, there was a variety of liturgies; in England, those of York, Sarum and Bangor, were particularly distinguished. The liturgies of the middle ages consisted generally of the missal and breviary. The former contained the service of the mass; the latter, those forms of prayer, consisting of psalms, hymns and lessons, which the clergy were used to recite daily, and parts of which were solemnly sung in the churches every Sunday, and principal holiday, for the edification of the laity.

The liturgy soon attracted the notice of the reformers. In 1537 a book was published, called, "the Godly and Pious Instruction of a Christian Man'' it contained, in the English language, the Lord's prayer, the Ave Maria, the creed, the ten commandments, and the seven sacraments. With some variations it was re-published in 1540 and 1543, under the title of, "a necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man". In 1545, the king's primer was published, containing, among other things, the Lord's prayer, the creed, the ten commandments, Venite exultemus, Te Deum, and several hymns and collects.

Soon after the accession of Edward the sixth a committee of divines was appointed to reform the liturgy. They drew up offices for Sundays and holidays, baptism, confirmation and matrimony, burial of the dead, and other special occasions; forming all these into one book. It was published by the common agreement and full assent of the parliament and convocations. In 1548, it was confirmed by act of Parliament, and declared to have been composed "by the aid of the Holy Ghost." Exceptions however, were soon made to some passages; these were altered by Archbishop Cranmer, with the assistance of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, whom he had invited into England from Germany. Thus revised and altered, the book was confirmed by Parliament in 1551. Both acts, however, were repealed in the first year of the reign of queen Mary.

6.The suppression of Colleges, Hospitals and Chantries: general destruction of their Libraries, and of the sacred or secular articles of use, or ornament belonging to them.

MENTION has been made of the suppression of the smaller monasteries by the act of the 27th of Henry VIII. Several colleges, hospitals, chantries and other religious institutions, within the operation of that act, had been permitted to remain in the hands of their lawful possessors. "The great ones of the court", says Heylin, "not being willing to lose so rich a booty, their suppression was set on foot again. The consequence was, that 90 colleges, and 2,374 free chapels and chantries, with their possessions, were vested in the king, and consumed during his minority."

The suppression of these houses was the occasion of much individual wretchedness. When the monasteries were dissolved, some provision was made for the subsistence of the ejected religious. "But as for the chantry priests", says Mr. Dodd, "the greater part were reduced to the extremities of want; as also many of the laity who depended on them."

"On the pretence", continues the same author, "of rooting out superstition, visitors were sent about; and made a spoil of all things that might conduce to support either learning or piety. Upon this occasion was destroyed the famous Angervilian library, first composed by Angerville, bishop of Durham. The two noble libraries of Cobham bishop of Winchester, and Duke Humphrey of Gloucester, underwent the same fate. Merton college had almost a cart load of manuscripts carried off." Every article in these buildings, which served either for use or ornament, was seized. What could not be removed was destroyed or defaced. Finally, the council gave an order for burning and destroying all the books used in the service of the church". "Sacrilegious avarice", says Camdent, "ravenously invaded church-livings, colleges, chantries, hospitals, and places dedicated to the poor, as things superfluous. Ambition and emulation among the nobility, presumption and disobedience among the common people, grew so extravagant, that England seemed to be in a downright frenzy".

To raise the palace, which the protector Somerset was building in the Strand, the parish church of St. Mary, three episcopal houses, a chapel, a cloister, and a charnel-house in St. Paul's Churchyard, with a church of the order of St. John of Jerusalem, were pulled down, and the materials used in the construction of the palace. Somerset attempted to demolish the church of St. Margaret, Westminster, but the parishioners rose, and drove off the artificers of destruction. From this example alone, some idea may be formed of the general plunder and devastation.

"This gross and insatiable scramble", says Bp. Burnet, "after the goods and wealth that had been dedicated to good designs, without the applying any part of it to promote the good of the gospel, the instruction of youth, and the relieving the poor, made all people conclude that it was for robbery, and not for reformation, that their zeal made them so active. The irregular and immoral lives of many of the professors of the gospel gave their enemies great advantage to say, that they ran away from confession, penance, fasting and prayer, only to be under no restraint, but to indulge themselves in a licentious and dissolute course of life. By these things, that were but too visible in some of the most eminent among them, the people were much alienated from them; and, as much as they were formerly against popery, they grew to have kinder thoughts of it, and to look on all the changes that had been made, as designs to enrich some vicious characters, and to let in an inundation of vice and wickedness upon the nation".

7.Religious Persecution during the Reign of Edward VI.

THE hardships, which the reformers underwent in the preceding reign, should, according to Mr. Neale's just observation, "have made them tender of the lives of those who differed from the present standard". But their conduct showed a very different feeling.

Complaint being made to the council against the anabaptists, a commission was ordered to six of the bishops, and to some other divines, to search after all anabaptists, heretics, and all condemners of the common prayers, with injunctions, that the commissioners should endeavor to reclaim them; and, after due penance, to give them absolution; but that if they should continue obstinate, the commissioners should excommunicate, imprison, and deliver them over to the secular arm. Many were brought before them: some abjured the errors imputed to them, and were dismissed; others persisted in their opinions and were burned. Among these, Joan Bocken particularly attracted the commiseration of the public; she maintained that Christ was not incarnate of the virgin, not having taken any of her flesh. For this opinion she was sentenced to the flames. The humane prince was so struck with the cruelty of the sentence, that he refused, for a long time, to sign the warrant for her execution. "Cranmer", says Mr. Hume, "was employed to persuade him to compliance. He said that there was great difference between errors in other points of divinity, and those which were in direct contradiction to the apostolic creed. These latter were impieties against God, which the monarch, being God's deputy, ought to repress, in like manner as inferior magistrates were bound to punish offences against the king's person. Edward, overcome by importunity, at last submitted, though with tears in his eyes; and he told Cranmer, that if any wrong were done, the guilt should lie entirely on his head. The primate, after making a new effort to reclaim the woman from her errors, and finding her obstinate to all his arguments, at last committed her to the flames."

XIV.

PRINCIPAL ECCLESIASTICAL OCCURRENCES IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN MARY.

1553

EDWARD the sixth died on the 6th July 1553. Dudley, earl of Warwick, who had supplanted the duke of Somerset, the protector, in the favor of the young monarch, had induced him, not long before his decease, to exclude the princesses, Mary and Elizabeth, from the succession, and to substi­tute in their place lady Jane Grey. The protector had married her to Lord Guilford Dudley, his fourth son. She was the daughter of Frances, duchess of Suffolk, and descended, by Charles Brandon, from Mary, the dowager queen of France, and sister to Henry the eighth. She was singu­larly accomplished, and universally respected and beloved. Henry's testamentary disposition having set aside the Scottish line, lady Jane Grey stood next in succession to the crown, after the princesses Mary and Elizabeth. The duke of Northumberland, her father-in-law, with the concurrence of Cranmer, and of the whole privy council, except the lord chief justice, caused her to be proclaimed queen. She did all that depended upon her to refuse the crown; but, at length overpowered by her father-in-law and husband, accepted it with sincere and evident reluctance. Her adherents endeavored to support her title by arms, but they were soon discomfited, and Mary was proclaimed queen. The duke of Northumberland, and two persons with him, were put to death, while eight more were tried and condemned for high treason. Among these were lady Jane and her husband, lord Guilford Dudley. Their execution was more than once put off, and probably would not have taken place, had not the subsequent rebellion of sir Thomas Wyatt caused it to be thought a necessary measure, for the tranquility of the state.

Mary thus became peaceably possessed of the throne.

I. The return of the English nation to communion with the see of Rome:

II. The persecution of the Protestants for heresy: and

III. the condemnation and death of archbishop Cranmer; are the ecclesiastical events in this reign, which seem to require particular notice.

1.The return of the English nation to communion with the See of Rome.

IMMEDIATELY on her accession to the throne, Mary avowed her attachment to the catholic religion, and very soon made public her intention to restore it. She formally signified this to the pope, and his holiness appointed cardinal Pole his legate to England, and furnished him with the most ample powers for effecting the object of his legation. In August 1554, the marriage between the queen and Philip was celebrated. On the 28th of the following November the king and queen, the spiritual and temporal peers, and the commons, assembled in the house of lords. Gardiner, who had been recently restored to the bishopric of Winchester, and advanced to the dignity of Chancellor, announced the arrival of the cardinal, with legatine authority. Being introduced with great ceremony into the assembly, the cardinal addressed the members in a conciliating speech. The chancellor replied, expressing his own wishes, and the general wish of the nation, to return to communion with the see of Rome.

On the following day, the king, the queen, and both houses of parliament, being again assembled in the house of peers, the cardinal was ushered into the house, dressed in his legatine robes. The king was placed on the left-hand of the queen, and the legate on her right, but at a greater distance than the king. All three were placed on seats covered with rich tapestry, and under a very costly canopy. The chancellor then addressed the houses of parliament, recapitulated what he had said the day before, and solemnly asked them, if they desired to return to the unity of the church, and to the obedience due to their chief pastor. The whole assembly assented, by acclamation, to the proposal. The chancellor then presented to their majesties a petition, on behalf of the members of both houses, as the representatives of the whole nation, expressing their sorrow for the schism, and for whatever they had enacted against the see of Rome and the catholic religion, declaring that they now annulled it; and beseeching those, whom God had preserved from the general guilt, to obtain from the lord legate that he would pardon them, and restore them as true and living members to that body, from which they had been separated by their misdeeds.

The king and queen having perused the petition, returned it to the chancellor; he read it distinctly and audibly. The whole assembly then rose, and the queen, in the name and behalf of herself, and of the king, petitioned the legate to grant the pardon and reconciliation sued for. The legate rose from his seat, and every one, except the king and queen, being on their knees, he pronounced the general absolution. They then went to the royal chapel, and a solemn Te Deum was sung, to express the general sentiment of religious joy, with which all the assembly appeared to be penetrated.

On the following day a similar ceremony of reconciliation took place in the city of London. Afterwards, the clergy assembled in convocation; and, on their knees, received absolution for all the censures, which they had incurred during the late innovations. By the legislative act of 1st and 2d Philip and Mary, c. 8, the work of reconciliation was completed.

With the unanimous consent of the pope and the clergy, and the sanction of parliament, the possessors of the church property were generally quieted in its detention and enjoyment. The queen restored to the ancient possessors all the church property, which remained in the hands of the crown, and earnestly solicited others to follow her example. Her conduct, if admired, was very little imitated.

Immediately after the ceremony of reconciliation took place, the queen sent viscount Montague, Thirlby bishop of Ely, and Sir Edward Came, ambassadors to Rome. They reached it on the 23d of May 1555; and, on the 23d of the following June, were admitted to an audience with the pope. They prostrated themselves at the feet of his holiness, represented the sorrow of the nation for their schism and heresy, and their desire to return into communion with the holy see. The pope received them graciously, expressed a general approbation of the proceedings of the legate, but complained of the detention of the ecclesiastical property, and intimated his right to the ancient render of Peter-pence. "He himself", he said, " had, when he was young, been employed in collecting it, and even had been edified by the alacrity with which it was paid".

It is observable, that, before Henry the eighth, the kings of England styled themselves only lords of Ireland. That monarch, in the twenty-third year of his reign, assumed the title of king of Ireland, and, two years afterwards, it was recognized by parliament. This the pope considered an invasion of the right, assumed by the holy see, to be the sovereign, and ultimate feudal lord of that kingdom.

To prevent any controversy on this head, Mary accompanied the letter presented to the pope by the ambassadors, with one, in which she solicited him to confer on her the title of queen of Ireland. With this request, by a bull, the pope complied; the bull was dated on the 7th of June,—several days before the presentation of the ambassadors,—and thus, the difficulty, which might otherwise have arisen, was dexterously, but dishonorably, eluded.

2.Persecution of the Protestants for Heresy.

THERE is reason to believe that, when Mary ascended the throne her dispositions towards those who should continue to differ from her in religious opinions, were just, moderate, and wise. Doctor Heylin admits, that before the end of the second year of her reign she practised no violence. The first volume of Dodd's Church History contains the faculties, and instructions, which the pope gave for reconciling the kingdom to the holy see. They are written in the language of moderation, and do not contain a single expression which suggests measures of violence. The lenity of cardinal Pole, her principal adviser, seems to be universally admitted. So much is this the case, that Hume, in a debate which he supposes to have taken place in Mary's reign, on the subject of religious persecution, makes Pole the advocate of toleration.

In 1555 all the bishops, and several of the leading clergy, attended cardinal Pole, to receive his instructions. They were truly pastoral and humane; he had them treat their flocks with tenderness, and make converts rather by example and instruction than by rigor. The councils, which induced Mary to adopt a system of intolerance, were generally attributed to Gardiner, the bishop of Winchester, but he soon ceased to take an active part in them. By Rogers, the first of those who suffered for religion in the reign of Mary, the bishop was asked, "whether he had not preached against the pope, during the best part of twenty years?

"Yes", said Gardiner, "but I was forced to it by cruelty."

"And will you then", said Rogers, "use to others that cruelty, of which you now complain?"

Gardiner made no answer. When he first recommended persecution, he thought a few striking examples would cause a general recantation; but, when he found his error, he left the weight of cruelty on the willing shoulders of Bonner. Gardiner died in great sentiments of repentance. "I" have sinned", he said, "with Peter, but I have not wept with Peter". Bonner was bishop of London; if his conduct has not been greatly exaggerated, he was a perfect monster of cruelty.

It must also be admitted, that Mary met with many provocations. Northumberland's treasons were quickly followed by Wyatt's. For some time, a person was encouraged to personate king Edward, and to dispute Mary's title. Repeated indignities were offered to her religion. "Her preacher", says Mr. Phillips, in his Life of Cardinal Pole, "was shot at, whilst he was preaching in the pulpit of St. Paul's, and her chaplains were mobbed and pelted in the streets. When public prayers were ordered, on a supposition of her pregnancy, a reformed preacher made use of the form, that it would please God either to turn her heart from idolatry, or to shorten her days. A dog's head was shaved, in contempt of the clerical tonsure and by an impiety, which says Mr. Phillips, I have difficulty to repeat, a wafer was put into a dead cat's paws, in derision of the holy sacrament, and hung up at Cheapside. Pretended revelations, and the forgery of the spirit on the wall, were employed to disturb the government, and discredit mass and confession. These and the like impieties were followed by divers acts of rebellion, of which an attempt to rob the treasury, the insurrection in the north, and the seizure of Scarborough Castle, in favor of the French invasion, are instances".

3. Archbishop Cranmer.

THE number of those, who suffered death for heresy, in the reign of queen Mary, has been computed, probably with some exaggeration, at 277. Of these, none certainly was so distinguished as Dr. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury. That, for some of his actions he is entitled to praise, that, for others, his conduct should be strongly reprobated, every candid person must allow.

His protection of the princess Mary from the fury of her father, his endeavors to save sir Thomas More, bishop Fisher, and Cromwell, his resistance to the passing of the sanguinary enactment of the six articles, and his encouragement of letters and learned men, are entitled to praise. But, when we find, that, though he adopted the Lutheran prin­ciples so early as his residence in Germany on the business of the divorce, he yet continued, during the fifteen subsequent years of Henry's reign, in the most public profession of the catholic religion, the article of the supremacy of the pope alone excepted:—That, though, when he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, he took the customary oath of obedience to the see of Rome, he yet, just before he took it, retired into a private room and protested against it:—And that, though he subscribed and caused his clergy to subscribe the six articles, the third and fourth of which enjoined ce­libacy to the clergy, and the observance of the vows of chastity, he yet, though a priest, was married, and continued to cohabit with his wife;—we must pronounce him guilty of dissimulation.—When we find, that, though he knew Anne Boleyn was under no pre-contract of marriage, he yet, to use bishop Burnet's expression, extorted from her, standing as she did, on the very verge of eternity, a confession of the existence of such contract;—we must pronounce him guilty of subserviency to his master's cruelties.—When we see how instrumental he was in bringing Lambert, Anne Askew, Jane Bocken, Van Parr, and others, both catholics and anabaptists, to the stake; and particularly, when we read his successful exertions to induce the young prince, to sign the sentence for Jane Bocken's condemnation,—we must pronounce him guilty, both of the theory and practice of religious persecution.—When we find that previously to Henry's marriage with Anne of Cleves, he declared that the negotiations for her marriage with a prince of the house of Lorraine were not a lawful impediment to her marriage with Henry,—he yet, within six months after it, declared that they had created such an impediment, and solemnized the monarch's adulterous marriage with lady Katharine Howard,—we must pronounce him guilty of sacrilege.—And finally,—when we find, that, notwithstanding the undoubted rights of the princesses Mary and Elizabeth, he yet, on the death of their royal brother, strove to exclude both from the throne, and to place lady Jane Gray upon it,—we must admit the justice of the verdict, and pro­nounce him guilty both of ingratitude and high treason.

Still,—the sentence, which, after he had been pardoned for his treason, condemned him to the flames for heresy, was execrable. His firmness under the torture, to which it consigned him, has seldom been surpassed. It presents an imposing example, and we then willingly forget what history records against him. But, when we read, in the Biographia Britannica, that "he was the glory of the English nation, and the ornament of the Reformation", his misdeeds rush on our recollection: We are astonished at the effect of party spirit, and the intrepidity of the biographer.

XV

THE FIRST MEASURES OF QUEEN ELIZABETH.

THE commencement of the Reformation in England, in the reign of Henry the eighth, its progress in the reign of Edward the sixth; and its interruption in the reign of Mary, have been mentioned. Some account will now be given of its completion, in the reign of Elizabeth. We shall therefore attempt to present the reader, with a general view of her first measures. Under this head, we shall endeavor to give a succinct account,

I. Of her being proclaimed queen of England, and her progress to London:

II. Of her coronation:

III. Of the division of the nation at this time into a catholic and a protestant party;

IV. The subdivision of the latter into Lutherans:

V. Zwinglians:

VI. And the successors of these, the Calvinists, or Puritans:

VII. Of the preference given by the queen to the protestant party :

VIII. Of her notifying to Paul the fourth, her accession to the throne, and the manner in which the intelligence was received by him:

IX. And of the more conciliatory proceedings of Pius the fourth, his immediate successor.

1.The first measures of Queen Elizabeth.

QUEEN Mary died on the 17th November 1558. She was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth, the only child then living of Henry the eighth; Ferdinand of Austria, being at this time Emperor; Henry the second, king of France; Philip the second, king of Spain; and Paul the fourth, filling the Roman See.

At the moment of Mary's decease both houses of parliament were sitting. Information of the event being brought to the house of lords, they sent a message to the house of commons requesting their attendance. When the members arrived, the lord chancellor Heath, archbishop of York, announced the event to them. He observed, that the succession to the crown belonged, of right, to the princess Elizabeth and that she should be instantly proclaimed queen of England. The proclamation was immediately made by the king at arms.

The news of her election reached Elizabeth at Hatfield. On the 29th, she proceeded to London, attended, says Heylin, by a great and royal train; and an infinite concourse of people expressing their feelings by loud acclamations, and every other demonstration of joy. She delighted them by the affability of her manner, and the share which she seemed to take in the general sentiment. At Highgate, she was met by all the bishops: from Bonner, as a man of blood, she turned with disgust: the others she received courteously, and permitted them to kiss her hand. At Bishopsgate she was met by the lord mayor and all the city companies. Thus escorted, she reached the Tower. At her entrance into it, "she rendered", says Heylin, "her most humble thanks to Almighty God, for the great change in her condition, in bringing her, from being a prisoner in that place, to be the princess of her people and now, to take possession of it as a royal palace, in which, before, she had received so much discomfort". Immediately on the decease of Mary the lords assembled in council had given orders for the stopping of all ports and havens, in order that no intelligence of the event might be carried out of the realm, but finding so general a concurrence of the people in favor of Elizabeth, they removed the embargo.

2.Her Coronation.

ON the 13th of January 1559, she made her "triumphant passage," says Dr. Heylin, "through London to her palace at Westminster. Having offered a prayer, she mounted in her chariot with so clear a spirit, as if she had been made for that day's solemnity; entertained all the way she went with the joyful shouts and acclamations of God save the Queen, which she repaid with such a modest affability that it drew tears of joy from the eyes of some, with infinite prayers and thanksgivings from the hearts of all.

"But nothing more endeared her to them than the accepting a Bible, neatly gilt, which was let down to her from one of the pageants representing Truth. With both her hands she received the book, which she pressed and laid to her bosom, (as the nearest place unto her heart), giving the greater thanks for that, than for all the rest which plentifully had that day been bestowed upon her; and promised to be diligent in the reading of it. By which, and many other acts of popular piety, with which she passed away that day, she did not only gain the hearts of them that saw her, but they that saw her did so magnify her most eminent graces, that she found the like affection in the hearts of all others also".

On the following morning, with the like magnificence and splendor, she was attended to the church of St. Peter in Westminster. She was crowned by Doctor Owen Oglethorpe, bishop of Carlisle, according to the form, and took the oath prescribed by the Roman pontifical. The other catholic prelates declined assisting at the ceremony. Three bishops, ordained in the reign of Edward the sixth, and the friends of the Reformation, were then alive; but "those bishops", as doctor Heylin remarks, "were at that time deprived of their sees,—(whether justly or unjustly could not then be questioned)—and therefore not in a capacity to perform that service. Besides there being, at that time, no other form established for a coronation than that, which had much in it of the ceremonies and superstition of the church of Rome; she was not sure that any one of those three bishops would have acted in it without such alteration and omissions, in the whole course of that order, as might have rendered the whole action questionable among capricious men, and therefore, finally, she thought it more conducible to her reputation among foreign princes to be crowned by the hands of a catholic bishop, or one at least that was accounted as such, than if it had been done by any of the other religions".

3.Division of the Nation into a Catholic and a Protestant party

THE nation was divided at this time, into a catholic and a protestant party. From several circumstances it is evident that a great majority of the nation then inclined to the roman-catholic religion. All the bishops, with the solitary exception of Kitchin of Landaff, opposed the change of religion; the whole convocation, which met at the same time with the queen's first parliament, declared against it, and expressed their unanimous adherence to the ancient creed, by a declaration conformable to it, on the five important articles of the real presence, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass for the living and the dead, the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors, and the authority of the pastors of the church, exclusive of the laity, in matters of faith and discipline. They addressed these articles to the bishops, with a request to lay them before the lords in parliament. Both the universities signed a writing, declaring their concurrence in the same articles. Thus the change was in opposition to the wishes of the body of the clergy.

The laity were divided—but several facts seem to show that a great majority must have been in favor of the catholic religion; the single circumstance of the known general attachment, at this time, of the laity for their pastors, renders this highly probable.

Rishton, a contemporary writer, speaking from his own observation, says, that one third of the kingdom was at this time protestant; most of the nobility, the majority of the greater commoners, and the generality of the persons employed in agriculture and husbandry, being catholics.

This conclusion is also favored by the violence, which the court party found it necessary to use, in the ensuing election of members to serve in the house of commons. Five candidates were nominated by the court to each borough, and three to each county; and by the sheriff's authority, the members were chosen from among these candidates. This measure seems to indicate that the court entertained apprehensions that the general sense of the people was against the Reformation. The same conclusion is again rendered probable by the complaints, which are found in the protestant writers of these times, concerning the general dearth of teachers in the universities and the public schools, and of ministers to officiate in the parishes.

4.Subdivision of the Protestants into Lutherans;

IT may be generally said, that, with the exception of the belief of the ecclesiastical supremacy of the monarch, the church of England continued catholic during the reign of Henry. The first seeds of the protestant doctrine were sown by Lutheran hands. The emissaries employed by Henry in ob­taining the opinions of foreigners on the lawfulness of his marriage with Katharine of Aragon became acquainted with Luther and some of his disciples; they returned home with dispositions favorable to his principles; and, in their return, were either accompanied, or soon after followed, by some of their ablest advocates. Several attempts were made by the protestant princes of Germany to induce Henry to subscribe the confession of Augsburg, and to place himself at the head of the league, which had been formed for its support. These attempts did not succeed; but they gave occasion to communications between the Lutheran divines and the English advocates of reform. Thus, therefore, during the reign of Henry the eighth, the seeds of the Reformation sown in this country were Lutheran.

5.Zwinglians

WHILE Henry lived, archbishop Cranmer, the most powerful advocate of Protestantism in this country, outwardly professed, except in the article of the supremacy, the catholic religion; but in the reign of Edward he veered to the creed of Zwingli; and the majority of the royal council adopted and led the infant monarch into the adoption of the same principles. We have before observed, that Zwingli differed from Luther in several articles, particularly in considering the sacrament of the Eucharist merely as a pious rite, established to commemorate the passion and death of Christ, in abolishing religious ceremonies, and in his total subjection of the priest to the magistrate. In conformity with the two former opinions, the ministers of Edward the sixth expunged from their creed the belief of the corporal presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist; and reduced the ecclesiastical orders of the church to bishops, priests and deacons. In the ordination of bishops and priests they used the same ceremonial, omitting every ancient rite, ex­cept the imposition of hands, and some prayers. They laid aside all the vestments of bishops, priests and deacons, with the exception of the surplice. They retained the altar, the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, and the bowing at the name of Jesus. To all that was retained, the disciples of Zwingli seriously objected.

6.And Calvinists.

MEANWHILE, several disciples of Calvin had found their way into England; by degrees they attracted almost all the disciples of Zwingli. It has been mentioned, that, in opposition to Zwingli, Calvin contended for the absolute subserviency of the magistrate to the priest in all ecclesiastical concerns. To the followers of his doctrine it had therefore given great offence, that the acts of parliament of Edward the sixth for ordaining ministers, establishing the common prayer, and constituting the forty-two articles as the national creed, were imposed by the authority of the temporal power. Still, the influence of the disciples of Calvin is very discernible in all the ecclesiastical regulations, which took place during the reign of that monarch; and from the beginning of it to its close, this influence was always on the increase.

It should be remarked, that those, who embraced the doctrines of Calvin, were known by different appellations: from their master, they were frequently called Calvinists, from their innovations on Luther's system, they were styled the Reformed; from their peculiar tenets respecting the real pre­sence, they were called Sacramentarians; in France, for some unknown reason, they were called Hugonots; in England, their alleged improvements in the national worship gave them, soon after queen Elizabeth's accession to the throne, the appellation of Puritans; while their objection to episcopacy gave them, in the reign of her successor, the name of Presbyterians.

7.The Queen's preference of the Protestant party.

SUCH was the division of public opinions on religious concerns, when Elizabeth ascended the throne. For some time the catholics and the protestants waited in a state of anxious uncertainty to discover for which party she would declare. After much deliberation with a council of select advisers, she decided for a protestant establishment, partaking more of the Lutheran than of the Calvinistic economy. But it seems to have been conceived on a conciliating and comprehensive scheme.

8.Notification of her Succession to Pope Paul IV.

ONE of the first measures of Elizabeth was to write to sir Edward Carne, the English ambassador at Rome, to notify her accession to the pope.

At this time the Roman see was filled by Paul the fourth. Unblemished purity of morals, and inflexible integrity, cannot, with justice, be denied to this pontiff. "But all these qualities", says Mr. Phillips, in the sketch which he has given of his character in the life of cardinal Pole, "were vitiated by a fierce and obstinate temper, a haughty and aspiring disposition, and a mind incapable of yielding to opposition, and greedy, above measure, of command". He received the queen's overtures with great loftiness: he told sir Edward Carne, that "the kingdom of England was held in fee of the apostolic see; that Elizabeth, being illegitimate, could not succeed; that he could not contradict the declarations of Clement the seventh and Paul the third; that it was a great boldness in her to assume the name and government without him; yet, that being desirous to show a fatherly affection, if she would renounce her pretensions, and refer herself wholly to his free disposition, he would do whatever might be done with honor to the holy see". This speech was equally unjustifiable and imprudent: in the deliberations which at this time took place, on the important question, whether the catholic or the protestant was to become the religion of England, it was evidently calculated to turn the scale against the former.

9.Conciliatory Proceedings of Pius IV.

IT may not be improper to mention in this place that, not long after this wayward event, another and a better spirit was shown by Pius the fourth, the immediate successor of Paul, In May 1560 he sent Vincentio Parpalia, an ecclesiastic of great merit and conciliating manners, to the queen, with a letter, most earnestly, but respectfully, entreating her to return to the bosom of the church. On this occasion, Parpalia, if we are to credit Camden, was instructed by the pope to offer to the queen, that the pope would annul the sentence of Clement his predecessor against her mother's marriage, settle the liturgy by his authority, and grant to the English the use of the sacrament under both kinds. Parpalia reached Bruxelles: from that place, he acquainted the English ministry with the object of his mission, and proceeded to Calais. The propriety of admitting him was debated in the royal council, and determined in the negative.

The conciliating pope was not disheartened. At a subsequent time he deputed the abbe Martenengo to the queen, to notify to her the sitting of the council of Trent; and to request she would send an ambassador to it, and permit the prelates of England to attend it. Some objected to the pope, that this was showing too great a condescension towards persons, who had formally separated from the church. "Nothing", said the worthy pontiff, "is humiliating, to gain souls to Christ". Both the king of Spain and the duke of Alva seconded, with great earnestness, the pope's request: but the queen was inflexible. "She could not", she said, "treat with any power, whose authority the parliament had declared to be unlawful". She therefore refused to permit the abbe to enter any part of her dominions.

XVI.

QUEEN ELIZABETH DECLARED HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

THE subject now requires,

I. That the principal legislative enactments, by which Elizabeth was declared to be the supreme head of the church of England;

II. With some observations on the nature and extent of her supremacy,—should be placed before the reader.

1.Legislative Acts conferring the Supremacy on Elizabeth; and enjoining the Oath of Supremacy.

1. BY the first act of the first year of her reign it was enacted, "That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, potentate, spiritual or temporal, should, at any time after the last day of that session of parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm, or within any other of her majesty's dominions, or countries that then were or thereafter should be; but that from thenceforth the same should be clearly abolished out of the realm, and all other her majesty's dominions, forever.

"And that such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities and pre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, power or authority, as had theretofore been, or might lawfully be, exercised or used, for visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons; and for reformation, order and correction of the same, and all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, should forever, by authority of that parliament, be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm.

"And that her highness, her heirs and successors, kings or queens of this realm, should have full power and authority, by virtue of that act, by letters patent under the great seal of England, to assign, name and authorize, when and as often as her highness, her heirs or successors, should think meet and convenient, and for such and so long time as should please her highness, her heirs or successors, such person or persons, (being natural-born subjects to her highness, her heirs or successors), as her majesty, her heirs or successors, should think meet to exercise, use, occupy and execute, under her highness, her heirs and successors, all manner of jurisdictions, privileges and pre-eminences, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within those her realms of England and Ireland, or any other her highness's dominions and countries; and to visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all such errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities whatsoever, which, by any manner of spiritual or ecclesiastical power, authority or jurisdiction, could or might lawfully be reformed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or amended, to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue, and the conservation of the peace and unity of the realm, and that such person or persons, so to be named, assigned, authorized and appointed by her highness, her heirs or successors, after the said letters patent to him or them made and delivered as aforesaid, should have full power and authority, by virtue of that act, and of the said letters patent under her highness, her heirs and successors, to exercise, use and execute all the premises according to the tenor and effect of the said letters patent, any matter or cause to the contrary notwithstanding."

2. By the same act, every ecclesiastical person, and every ecclesiastical officer or minister, and every temporal judge, justice and mayor, and every other lay or temporal officer and minister, and every other person having the queen's fee or wages within the realm, were directed to take the following oath, under pain of forfeiting their office, and of being disabled from holding any office in future.

"I, A. B. do utterly testify and declare, in my conscience, that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and all other her highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things, or causes, as temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise, that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the queen's highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges, and authorities granted or belonging to the queen's highness, her heirs and successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of the realm. So help me God, and the contents of this book."

Persons maintaining by writing, word, act or deed, the authority, pre-eminence, power or jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, of any foreign prince, prelate or potentate, were punishable—for the first offence, by forfeiture of goods and chattels, and imprisonment for a year; for the second, by the penalties of a praemunire; and for the third, with death, and the other penalties incident to con­viction of high treason.

3. By an act passed in the fifth year of her reign, persons in general who should maintain the jurisdiction of the see of Rome were subjected, for the first offence, to the penalties of a praemunire; and for the second, to the punishment of high treason.

4. In a future page we shall have occasion to mention the admonition of queen Elizabeth respecting the oath of supremacy, declaring the sense in which it should be taken. The last act which has been cited directs, that the oath shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in that admonition.

2.An Inquiry into the nature and extent of the Spiritual Supremacy conferred by these acts on Queen Elizabeth,

WHEN the Reformation took place, an alliance had long subsisted in England, and every other country in Europe, between the church and the state. In consequence of it, the state had conferred upon the church the power of enforcing several of her spiritual injunctions, by those acts of temporal power, which the civil courts of the king possess for enforcing their sentences. This was done, either by authorizing the ministers of the church to issue process from the civil courts, in aid of their spiritual injunctions; or by erecting courts entirely appropriated to the spiritual concerns of the church, and investing them with the temporal process of the civil courts. The objects, on which such courts exercised their jurisdiction, gave them the appellation of spiritual courts; but the process, by which they carried it into execution, was temporal. To this extent, therefore, they were temporal, or civil courts of the king; and so far as respected their right to this process, the king was the supreme head of their jurisdiction.

From these circumstances, it has been sometimes contended that the pre-eminence, spiritual authority, and spiritual jurisdiction, mentioned in the acts which conferred the supremacy upon Elizabeth, ought to be understood to denote, only that pre­eminence, supremacy, and jurisdiction, which the clergy, or their courts, receive from the state; and that the clauses in the acts, which deny the supremacy of the pope, were intended only to deny his right to that temporal power, which the state, in consequence of its alliance with the church, had conferred upon him.

Those, who contend for this construction of the oath, cite what is termed the admonition of queen Elizabeth. In the very year in which the act enjoining the oath of supremacy was passed, Elizabeth published a body of "Regulations of the discipline and order of the church". In one of these, she professes to notice the misconstructions of her claims to the spiritual supremacy. She then proceeds to say,—"her majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge any other authority than what was challenged, and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, king Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, which is, and was, of ancient time, due to the imperial crown of the realm,—that is,—under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born within these her realms and dominions, so as no power shall or ought to have any superiority over them." In the next parliament this explanation of the oath of supremacy received the sanction of the legislature.

In unison with this exposition of the regal supremacy, the 37th of the Thirty-nine Articles is expressed in the following terms:— The king's majesty hath the chief power in the realm of England, and other his dominions; unto whom the chief government of all estates in this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all cases doth appertain-, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction. When we attribute to the king's majesty the chief government,—by which titles, we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended,—we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word or of the sacraments,—the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth, our queen, do most plainly testify,—but, that only prerogative which we see to have been given always, to all godly princes in holy scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should govern all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal; and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers".

"The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England."

The same description of the nature and extent of the spiritual supremacy of the crown was repeatedly given by king James. This we shall mention in a future page.

As a further testimony in favor of this construction of the oath, its advocates cite passages from the works of many personages of great distinction in the protestant church. Nothing, they say, can be more explicit than the language of doctor Bramhall, archbishop of Armagh, in the reign of Charles the first, in the work intituled Schism guarded. "Neither Henry the eighth, nor any of his legislators", says this eminent prelate, "did ever endeavor to deprive the bishop of Rome of the power of the keys, or any part thereof; either the key of order, or the key of jurisdiction: I mean jurisdiction purely spiritual, which hath place only in the inner court of conscience, as over such persons as submit willingly, nor did ever challenge, or assume to themselves any jurisdiction purely spiritual. All, which they deprived the pope of; all, which they assumed to themselves, was the external regimen of the church by coactive power, to be exercised by persons capable of his respective branches of it. And therefore, when we meet with these words, of the like, (that no foreign prelate shall exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, ecclesiastical within this realm),—it is not to be understood of internal, or purely spiritual power in the court of conscience, or the power of the keys,—(we see the contrary practised every day), but of external and co-active power in ecclesiastical causes, in foro contentioso.—Our kings leave the power of the keys, and jurisdiction purely spiritual, to those to whom Christ has left it.— Our ancestors cast out external ecclesiastical coactive jurisdiction; the same do we. They did not take from the pope the power of the keys, or jurisdiction purely spiritual,—neither do we". Citations of passages to the like effect from other protestant writers, might, it is said, be easily multiplied.

In further support of this construction, its advo­cates notice the conduct of the clergy in the reigns of Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, as well as the conduct of many of the clergy during the first part of the reign of queen Elizabeth, who, they say, did not refuse similar oaths, when these were pressed upon them.

They intimate, that objections to the oath pre­scribed by the parliament of Elizabeth, were first made by the priests, who came to England from the foreign seminaries. In those schools, they say, the ultramontane doctrines on papal power were taught in their utmost extent. In conformity with these, the members of those communities believed the pope to be entitled, at least indirectly, to temporal power by divine right, and must therefore object to every oath, which denied the right of the pope to the exercise of temporal power in the administration of spiritual concerns, or the right of the church to enforce the sentences of the church by temporal process.

These, the writer apprehends, are the principal arguments by which it is contended, that catholics might conscientiously take the oath of supremacy prescribed by the parliament of queen Elizabeth, and similar oaths prescribed by subsequent parliaments. His own impression on the subject is as follows:

Were it quite clear, that the interpretation contended for is the true interpretation of the oath, and quite clear also, that the oath was and is thus universally interpreted by the nation, then, the author conceives, that there might be strong ground to contend, that it was consistent with catholic principles to take either the oath of supremacy which was prescribed by Elizabeth, or that, which is used at present.

He also thinks it highly probable, that, if a legislative interpretation could now be obtained, the interpretation suggested would be adopted. But, that the oaths of supremacy were thus understood by the bulk of the nation, when they were first promulgated, this, the writer considers, at best, extremely doubtful. He cannot reconcile such construction of them, either with that, which the monarchs and their parliaments themselves repeat­edly put on them, by their conduct, or with the powers which the legislature has very frequently attributed to them. Hume says expressly that Elizabeth always pretended that, in "quality of supreme head of the church, she was fully empowered by her prerogative to decide all questions which might arise with regard to doctrine, discipline, or worship; and would never allow her parliaments so much as to take these points into consideration". This appears to the writer to afford a conclusive argument for supposing, that, when the acts conferring the supre­macy on the crown were passed, they were not generally understood in the sense contended for by those, who deem it lawful for catholics to take them, The subject is ably discussed by Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans. His arguments to show, that the acts in question were intended to confer on the monarch some powers merely spiritual, and belonging of right to the church, appear to the writer to be incontrovertible.

That the acts are at this time so understood, both by the general body of catholics, and by the general body of protestants, the writer considers quite undeniable.

"These things", (to use the language of Sir John Winter, in his Observations on the Oath of Supremacy, in which he contended, in the reign of Charles the second, with great force of argument for the construction of it in the sense suggested by its advocates,)—"These things have made it to be firmly believed by the catholics, and those of their profession over all Christendom, that in taking the said oath, with what explanation soever,— (if such explanation be not publicly made known and declared), they give just scandal (which is malum in se),—that they renounce their religion, as indeed the common acceptation of the words of the oath do import no less."

XVII.

PRINCIPAL ECCLESIASTICAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN ELIZABETH.

BOTH the creed and discipline of the church of England were left at the death of Edward the sixth in a very unsettled state. Speaking of their state at that time, bishop Latimer, in one of his sermons said, "it is yet but a mingle-mangle, a hotch-potch, I cannot tell what; partly popery, and partly true religion, mingled together. They say in my country, when they call their hogs to the swine trough, come to the mingle-mangle, come, puz, come!' Even so do they make a mingle-mangle of the gospel".

I, By the book of common prayer,

II, and the thirty-nine articles; with the aid,

III, Of the act of uniformity;

IV, and of the statutes against recusancy, the ecclesiastical Reformation of England was completed:

V, The subject leads to some mention of the translations of the Bible during the reign of Elizabeth.

1.The Book of Common Prayer.

THE two revisals of the liturgy, and the confirmation of the latter by two acts of parliament in the reign of Edward the sixth, have been mentioned. Both acts were repealed in the first year of the reign of queen Mary. The second revisal, but with some alterations, was adopted by queen Elizabeth, and received the sanction of the legislature.

Though it be anticipating the order of events, it may be proper to notice in this place, that alterations were made in it in the first year of James the first, in consequence of some things which had been said of it at the conference at Hampton Court. Under the Common wealth, it was banished from the churches. Immediately after the Restoration, it was solemnly reviewed, some alterations in it made, and, with these, brought to its present state. In December 1661 it was unanimously approved by the houses of convocation of both provinces. In the following March, an act of parliament was passed for its legal establishment. It is there styled The Book of Common Prayer.

2.The Thirty-nine Articles.

IN January 1562, both the parliament and the convocation of the province of Canterbury were convened. It appears, that the draft of the thirty-nine articles was presented to the convocation by archbishop Parker, and that the convocation ap­proved them unanimously. All the registers of the convocation having been burned at the memorable fire of London, our information of its proceedings upon the articles must be derived from other sources, and these unfortunately are very imperfect.

We find that the convocation first met at the Chapter-house, at St. Paul's, on the 12th day of January, and held thirty-six several sittings, sometimes at the Chapter-house, and sometimes, by continuation, at king Henry the seventh's chapel at Westminster. Archbishop Parker presided, and was the great mover of all its proceedings. The convocation began by taking into consideration the articles of Edward the sixth. From forty-two they reduced them to thirty-nine, making alterations in some of them. With these alterations the convocation adopted them unanimously; and thus, they had all the authority that the convocation of Canterbury could confer on them.

In 1566, a bill was brought into parliament to confirm them. It passed the commons, but was dropped in the house of lords, by the queen's particular command. In the year 1571, the convocation revised the articles of 1562, and made some alterations in them. In the same year an act was passed, "to provide that the ministers of the church should be of sound religion". It enacted, that "all ecclesiastical persons should subscribe to all the articles of religion, which only concerned the confession of the true faith, and of the sacraments, comprised in a book imprinted, in titled Articles whereupon it was agreed by the archbishops and bishops, and the whole clergy in convocation, holden at London in the gear of our Lord 1562, according to the computation of the church of England, for the avoiding of the diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion, put forth by the queens' authority." All the acts of parliament made subsequently to this time, which mention the articles, refer to this act, as settling the articles, and the rule of subscription to them.

For some reason, which does not now appear, they were confirmed in 1584, by the convocation of Canterbury. In 1628, an edition of them in the English language, was published by the royal authority. To this edition a declaration of king Charles the first is prefixed. It is the exemplar of all the subsequent editions.

3.The Act of Uniformity.

This act was leveled at least as much against the puritans as the roman-catholics. Elizabeth loved the pomp and ceremonial of the catholic church, and the spirit of subordination inculcated by its tenets and discipline. In her chapel, there was an altar, a crucifix, and lighted tapers; copes and rich garments were, at first, used by the officiating ministers, and the knights of the garter bowed before the altar, a ceremony which had been disused by her brother Edward. Something of a conciliatory disposition towards the catholics was shown, by her expunging from the litany the clause introduced into it in the reign of her brother—"From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good Lord deliver us".

And by omitting in the thirty-nine articles, the long refutation of the doctrine of the real presence, introduced into the forty-two articles; and adopting the general expression, that "the body of Christ is given and received in a spiritual manner, and the means, by which it is received, is faith".

The independent spirit of the puritans,—a spirit which had long strongly manifested itself in ecclesiastical, and now began to show itself in political concerns,—both disgusted and alarmed Elizabeth, she perceived that their dislike to any ecclesiastical restraint was accompanied by strong sentiments of political liberty. To guard against these, she caused the Statute of Uniformity to be passed. One object of it was certainly to guard the church and state against the puritans. It is not a little remarkable, that, while she thought her civil and ecclesiastical government stood in need of so strong a defence against the puritans, her confidential ministers, Cecil, Leicester, and Walsingham, and her favorite Essex, were known to be closely connected with them.

The act of uniformity, (1 Eliz. ch. 2.), enjoined all ministers to use the book of common prayer, and none other, in the celebration of divine service, and that every minister refusing to use it; or using any other; or speaking in derogation of the common prayer, should, if not beneficed, for the first offence be imprisoned one year, for the second, be imprisoned for life; and if beneficed, for the first offence, be imprisoned six months, and forfeit a year's value of his benefice; for the second, be deprived, and suffer one year's imprisonment, and for the third, be imprisoned for life. And that, if any person should speak in derogation of the book, or prevent the reading of it, or cause any other service to be read in its stead, he should forfeit, for the first offence, one hundred marks; for the second, four hundred, and for the third, all his goods and chattels, and suffer imprisonment for life. Sir William Blackstone, (Book 4. ch. 4), mentions the terror of these laws, as a principal means, under Providence, of preserving the purity as well as the decency of the national worship, and he approves their continuance. These observations produced Remarks on some paragraphs in the fourth volume of Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, relating to the Dissenters, by Joseph Priestley, 1769". These remarks sir William Blackstone answered, by A reply to Dr. Priestley's remarks on the fourth volume of the Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1769."

4.The Statutes of Recusancy.

THE acts of the 1st Eliz. ch. 2, and 23d Eli&. ch. 1, subjected those, who absented themselves from divine worship in the established church, to a forfeiture of one shilling to the poor, every Lord's day they should so absent themselves, and twenty pounds to the king, if they continued such absence for a month together. If they kept in their houses any inmate guilty of such absence, they were to forfeit ten pounds for every such month. The penalties were rigorously exacted. Every fourth Sunday of absence was held to complete the month; and thus, in relation to these penalties, thirteen months were supposed to occur in every year. The amount of money thus raised from the catholics was very great. It was chiefly levied on the poorer sort: the rich purchasing from Elizabeth dispensations from attendance on the protestant service. Mr. Andrews computes the annual amount of money thus received by Elizabeth for dispensations, at 20,000£.

It is to be observed, that, during the first ten years of the reign of Elizabeth, the greater number of English catholics, to avoid the rigor of these laws, attended divine service in the protestant churches. On the lawfulness of this occasional conformity, there appears to have been a difference of opinion among their divines. The case was regularly submitted to the opinion of some eminent theologians then attending the council of Trent: these pronounced such occasional conformity to be unlawful. The justice of this opinion being strenuously inculcated by the missionary priests, was soon universally acquiesced in by the laity.

Those, who thus absented themselves from the protestant church, obtained the appellation of recusants. Till the statute of the 35th Eliz. ch. 2, protestants and catholics were equally considered as recusants, and equally subject to the penalties of recusancy: that was the first penal statute made against popish recusants, by that name, and as distinguished from other recusants. From that statute, arose the distinction between protestant and popish recusants, the former were subject to such statutes of recusancy as preceded that of the 35th of queen Elizabeth, and to some statutes against recusancy made subsequently to that time; but they were relieved from them all by the act of toleration in the 1st year of king William's reign. From the 35th Eliz. ch. 2, arose also the distinction between papists persons professing the popish religion, and popish recusants, and popish recusants convict. Notwithstanding the frequent mention in the statute book, of papists, and persons professing the popish religion, neither the statutes themselves, nor the cases adjudged upon them, present a clear notion of the acts or circumstances, that, in the eye of the law, constituted a papist, or a person professing the popish religion. When a person of that descrip­tion absented himself from church he filled the legal description of a popish recusant: When he was convicted, in a court of law, of absenting himself from church, he was termed in the law a popish recusant convict. To this must be added the& constructive recusancy, hereinafter mentioned to be incurred by a refusal to take the oath of supremacy.

5.The new Translation of the Bible.

IN preceding parts of this work, mention has been made of the English translations of the Bible in the reigns of Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, mention will now be made of the translations of it during the reign of queen Elizabeth: these are, 

1, The Geneva Bible;

2, The Bishops0 Bible,

3, The Rheimish Testament.

1. It is remarkable, that, notwithstanding the persecuting spirit, with which the reign of queen Mary is justly charged, Cranmer's Bible was, throughout her reign, permitted to remain on sale.

It has been mentioned, that, to avoid the rigors of her persecution, several, both of the clergy and the laity, left their native country and settled at Geneva, and in its neighborhood. Some employed themselves in making an English version, completely new, of the sacred writings. In 1557, they printed, in a small duodecimo volume, the New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "conferred diligently 'with the Greek and best approved translations. With the arguments as well before the chapters, as for every book and epistle, also diversities and readings, and most profitable annotations of all hard places. Whereunto is added a copious table. Printed by Conrad Badvis, M.D.LVII." It is printed in a small but beautiful character, and is the first New Testament in the English language, with the distinction of verses by numeral figures.

They proceeded to translate the Old Testament. Queen Mary dying in 1558, most of the exiles returned to England; but some, at least, of the persons employed in the translation, remained at Geneva, and completed the work. Father Simon explicitly accuses it of being only an English version, of a French translation made at Geneva some years before. It was published in 1560, in quarto, and is generally called the Genevan Bible.

2. It soon became popular in England. Afterwards, Cranmer's version becoming scarce, a new version was resolved upon. The task was allotted to many; the celebrated Matthew Parker, then archbishop of Canterbury, superintended and regulated their labors. Every section, when completed, was communicated to the whole body, and each person was at liberty to offer his remarks. Few works, of such magnitude and importance, have been executed in so short a space of time. It was completed in two years. In 1568, the impression was finished, and the work exposed to sale: it is printed in one volume large folio, on royal paper, in a beautiful English letter, and embellished with several engravings and maps. A copy of it is in the public library at Cambridge. It is sometimes called Parker's Bible, but is generally known by the appellation of The Bishops' Bible.

Still, the advocates of the Genevan opinions asserted the superiority of the Genevan version, and called the Bishops' Bible a corrupt Bible.— Each version was more than once reprinted.

3. An English version of the New Testament was printed in 1582, in one volume quarto, by the clergy of the English catholic college, first established at Douay, but then removed to Rheims. Their translation of the Old Testament was published at Douay, (to which town the college had then returned), in two volumes quarto, in the years 1609 and 1610.

The Rheimish version of the New Testament, but with some variation both in the text and notes, was reprinted at Douay in 1600.It was reprinted at Antwerp in 1610. In this edition, the text stands by itself: the notes are printed together at the end. The version of the New Testament has been often reprinted. In 1738, it was beautifully printed in London, in one volume folio, and in the title-page is called the fifth edition.

A version of the New Testament, with annotations, was published in 1719 at Paris, by doctor Nary, in one volume; another, in two volumes, by doctor Witham, at Douay in 1730.

In 1750 a translation both of the Old and New Testament, with much alteration in the text, and much more in the notes, was published from the Rheimish version by the late Dr. Challoner, in five volumes 8vo. In various forms, this has been often reprinted.

These repeated editions prove the exaggeration in the charge brought against catholics, of denying to the laity the perusal of the Bible in a vulgar tongue.

XVIII.

PERSECUTION OF THE CATHOLICS.

IN the history of religious persecution, the reign of Elizabeth fills a considerable space

I, The laws against the roman-catholics:

II, The number of those, who suffered capitally under them:

III, And the infliction of the torture on many of these, and on some other catholics, will be succinctly mentioned in the present chapter.

1.Sanguinary Laws against the Catholics.

I. The laws, by which the roman-catholics were subjected to capital punishment, in consequence of their religious principles, may be divided into four classes; 1, Those, which punished persons capitally for refusing to take the oath of supremacy, for acknowledging the spiritual supremacy of the pope, or for denying the spiritual supremacy of the queen; 2, Those, which punished roman-catholic clergymen capitally for coming into or remaining in England; 3, Those, which punished persons capitally, who maintained or assisted such clergy­men; 4, And those, which punished persons capitally, who were reconciled, or who reconciled others, to the roman-catholic church. To these, may be added the laws, which subjected persons to fine and imprisonment, for not attending divine service in the form prescribed by law.

Mention has been made of the act of the 1st year of the reign of Elizabeth, by which persons in office, or receiving the queen's fee, who should refuse to take the oath acknowledging the queen's supremacy, were incapacitated from holding any office; and by which, all who denied the supremacy were, for the first offence, punished by the forfeiture of their goods and chattels; for the second, subjected to the penalties of a praemunire; and for the third, rendered guilty of high treason.

By the act of the 27th of her reign, Jesuits, and other priests, were ordered to depart the kingdom within forty days, and it was ordained, that those, who should remain beyond that time, or who afterwards returned, should be guilty of treason.

By the same act, those, who received, relieved, comforted, aided or maintained a priest, deacon, or other ecclesiastical person, were declared to be felons, without benefit of clergy.

By the act of the 23d of Elizabeth, ch. 1, persons reconciling others to the roman-catholic religion, and persons so reconciled, were subjected to the penalties of treason.

2.Probable amount of those who suffered Death under these Laws.

THE total number of these sufferers, is calculated by Dodd, in his Church History, at one hundred and ninety-one. Further inquiries by Dr. Milner increase their number to 204. Fifteen of these, he says, were condemned for denying the queen’s spiritual supremacy; one hundred and twenty-six for the exercise of priestly functions; and the others, for being reconciled to the catholic faith, or aiding or assisting priests. In this list, no priest is included who was executed for any plot, either real or imaginary, except eleven, who suffered for the pretended plot of Rheims, or Rome; a plot which, as the same writer justly observes, was so daring a forgery, that even Camden, the eulogizing biographer of Elizabeth, allows the sufferers to have been political victims.

Such, then, being the number of the sufferers, we must feel some surprise, when we read in Hume's history, that "the severity of death was sparingly exercised against the priests in the reign of queen Elizabeth".

It is observable, that the punishment of treason by the law of England is, that the offender should be drawn to the gallows, hanged by the neck, cut down alive, his entrails taken out, while he is yet alive, and his head then cut off. Against the atrocious circumstances, attending this punishment, the humanity of the nation has so far interfered, that the offender now is generally permitted to remain hanging till he is dead. But this mercy was often denied to the catholics, who suffered under these laws. Often, they were cut down alive, in that state ripped open, and their entrails torn out.

Besides the sufferers we have noticed, mention is made in the same work of ninety catholic priests, or laymen, who died in prison, during the same reign; and one hundred and five others, who were sent into perpetual banishment. "I say nothing", continues the same writer, "of many more, who were whipped, fined, (the fine for recusancy was 20£ a month), or stripped of their property, to the utter ruin of their families. In one night, fifty catholic gentlemen, in the county of Lancaster, were suddenly seized, and committed to prison, on account of their non-attendance at church. About the same time, I find an equal number of Yorkshire gentlemen lying prisoners in York castle, on the same account, most of whom perished there. These were, every week, for a twelve-month together, dragged by main force, to hear the established service performed in the castle chapel."

Doctor Bridgewater, in a table published at the end of his Concertatio Catholica, gives the names of about 1,200, who had been deprived of their livings or estates, or had been imprisoned or banished, or been otherwise victims of persecution for their religion, previously to the year 1588, the period, when the persecution of the catholics began to rise to its greatest height, declaring, at the same time, that he was far from having named all; and that he mentioned the names of those only, which had come to his personal knowledge. Many of these died in prison, and some of them under sentence of death.

3.The Torture.

INCREDIBLE as it may appear to an English reader, it is unquestionably true, that several of those, who suffered death; and several also who did not suffer capitally, were, previously to their trials, inhumanly tortured,—by the common rack, by which their limbs were stretched by levers to a length,—too shocking to mention,—beyond the natural mea­sure of their frame;—or the hoop, called the scavenger's daughter, on which they were placed, and their bodies bent until the head and the feet met;—or by confinement in the little ease, a hole so small that a person could neither stand, sit, or lie straight in it; the iron gauntlet, a screw, that squeezed the hands until the bones were crushed ; or by needles thrust under the nails of the sufferers; or by a long deprivation of necessary sustenance.

It adds to the atrocity of these inflictions, that, in several instances, when the sufferers were put to trial, there was no legal proof established; and in some, not even any legal evidence offered to substantiate the offence, of which the party was accused.

Recourse was had to the torture, in order to supply this want of legal evidence to convict the accused; and at the same time furnish proofs against others. At the end of Cecil's Execution of Justice is usually printed, a Declaration of the favorable dealing of her majesty's commissioners, appointed for the examination of certain traitors; and of tortures unjustly reported to be done upon them for matters of religion. It first appeared in print in 1583, in black letter; and was comprised in six pages quarto. It admits the use of torture in these cases, and states the grounds, on which it was defended

4.Trial and Execution of Father Campion.