The Roman Catholic Restoration In The Reign Of Mary (1553-1558).

The Roman Catholic Restoration In The Reign Of Mary (1553-1558).

The harm which resulted to the Protestant cause from the defective administration under Edward VI. was augmented by the plot of the Duke of Northumberland to change the succession. An unscrupulous ambition was the mainspring of the plot, though the Duke made it appear to the dying King and to others that he was consulting for the perpetuity of the noble system of faith and worship just completed. Lack of public sympathy wrecked his enterprise, and the outcome was a sad list of executions, among which was finally included that of the guileless, devout, and accomplished girl,--victim to the intemperate scheme of those who placed the crown upon her reluctant brow, --the Lady Jane Grey. To add to the disheartening effect of his futile attempt, Northumberland upon the scaffold abjectly recanted his Protestant faith, or rather declared that it had never been his except in pretence.

The accession of Mary though immediately threatening to the reforms which had been accomplished in the preceding reign, was not understood by the nation to imply a reunion with Rome. Since the death of her mother Catharine, that is, for nearly twenty years, she had professed to accept the Anglo-Catholic system devised by Henry VIII. It was felt, therefore, that she might be content to carry the nation at least no farther back than to that system. Had a different conclusion been entertained, no small amount of that friendly assistance of all parties which eased her way to the throne would have been withheld.

But the nation misjudged the mind of the Queen. While in her public acts Mary at first recognized the ecclesiastical independence of England, and bore the title which had been conferred in the Act of Supremacy, she at the same time entered into secret communication with the papal court. The national feeling found little response with her. Her heart was with Rome and Spain. By inheritance from her Spanish mother, as well as by memory of the wrongs which her mother had suffered, she was rendered in disposition and sympathy more Spanish than English. Her Spanish bent was speedily revealed in her obstinate determination, contrary to the will of Parliament and the nation at large, to accept the hand of Philip II. The marriage was consummated about a year from the beginning of her reign, the most that the opposition could effect being a careful limitation of the powers of the foreign consort. On the Spanish side the marriage was regarded as a politic step toward the universal monarchy which Charles V. was aspiring to found, and Philip II. treated it as little else than an accessory to political advantage. He remained in the country not much over a year, quite to the satisfaction of the people, but much to the anguish of the Queen, who lavished an affection upon him that he in no wise returned.

The Spanish match was rightly regarded by the discerning as a prophecy of a relentless assault against Protestantism. There was no long waiting for the fulfillment. Toward the close of the year 1554 Cardinal pole returned to England as papal legate.

1 Pole, who was related to the royal family, and in his earlier years was highly regarded by Henry VIII., had resided on the Continent since 1532. His return at an earlier date had been rendered impossible by his attempts to concert an armed invasion of England, for the purpose of bringing back the country into the unity of the Church. For a complete account of Pole's career see W. F. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, vol viii., or vol. iii. of the New Series.

Measures were now hastened through for subjecting the kingdom to the papacy and the Roman Catholic faith. A subservient Parliament responded to the demands of the court. The whole ecclesiastical legislation of the preceding reigns was swept away, with the exception that it was provided that the property which had been confiscated and secularized should not be restored. Full connection with Rome was resumed. The sanguinary laws against heresy were revived, and a fierce crusade was begun against the Protestants.

The character of the persecution is no subject for doubt or speculation. It was persecution for heresy, for the crime of believing contrary to the mediæval dogmas. The insurrectionary attempts which occurred may have exasperated the authorities. But those who shared in rebellion were hung for that crime. Those who were sent to the stake were condemned on the specific charge of heresy. In many eases the denial of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass was the sole ground of sentence to the fire. No record and no profession of loyalty had any power to rescue. The persecution was not even in pretence anything else than a means of avenging defection from the Roman Catholic faith and of restoring that faith to supremacy.

The chief responsibility for the persecution admits of more inquiry. Some differences of opinion have been elicited. But most of the grounds needed for a probable conclusion are at hand. These grounds lead us to divide the responsibility between the Queen, her chancellor Stephen Gardiner, Cardinal Pole, and the Queen's Spanish advisers. While Bonner, Bishop of London, won peculiar infamy in the persecution, there is reason to conclude that he was rather the harsh executioner of the victims than a responsible author of their apprehension and arraignment. 1 "What made him odions was the vulgar, bullying personalities in which he indulged when the heretic, brought before him as a judge, provoked his angry passions" (Hook, Lives of the Archbishops,. vii. 311).

That the Queen took a leading part in initiating and urging on the severities cannot be questioned. No one of her subordinates excelled her in intolerant zeal or fanatical preference for the Romish Church. As she declared to Parliament, she believed that "she had been predestined and preserved by God to the succession of the crown for no other end save that He might make use of her above all else in the bringing back of the realm to the Catholic faith." In pursuing this end she identified pity with criminal weakness. Edicts issued under her authority express surprise at a relaxation of the prosecutions against heretics, and authorize extreme rigor in dealing with the guilty. 2 Burnet, Collection of Records, part ii. book ii. nos. 20, 32; Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 177. With a zeal mounting into ferocity, a few months before her death she ordered the sheriff of Hampshire immediately to execute a convicted heretic, whose recantation had caused the officer to withhold him from the flames." 3 Burnet, Reformation, ii. 568.

Gardiner's share in the persecution was probably not so great as has sometimes been represented. In restoring the severe laws against heresy he no doubt fulfilled an active part. But in this, however agreeable it may have been to his own way of thinking, he was urged on by the will of the sovereigns. 1 Ranke, History of England i. 204, 209; Massingberd, The English Reformation, p. 429. That he was really in favor of persecution is implied by the correspondence of Renard, the ambassador of Charles V. 2 Such at least is the inference from Froude's references to that correspondence (History of England, vi. 196, 197). On the other hand, we have the fact that he stood aloof after the first executions, and that his death, near the end of 1555, placed no check upon the carnival of intolerance. The conclusion seems to be that Gardiner, who was more politician than dogmatist, favored at the outset the execution of some of the influential leaders of the Protestants as a means of terrorism.

Pole has frequently been praised as an exponent of mild and tolerant principles. No doubt his position in previous years had been that of a somewhat liberal Roman Catholic, as opposed to the party of uncompromising bigotry. No doubt he preferred gentle measures when they would avail. But the fact remains that when he was the Queen's most trusted and influential adviser, the executions continued, and that men and women were burned in his own See of Canterbury. He evidently connived at the whole ungodly proceeding, and, more than that, helped it on in its later stages. 3 Wilkins, Concilia iv. 173, 174. He either did not wish to check the persecution, or else did not dare to do so, lest he should give countenance to the charge of heresy which was cast out against himself by the fanatical Pope. 1 Hook, Lives of the Archbishops, viii. 384-391.

Be respects the Spanish advisers of the Queen, two facts might appear to be in favor of their exculpation. The ambassador of Charles V., while he urged to great rigor against rebels, opposed persecution for heresy as being impolitic; and the chaplain of Philip II. publicly criticised the burning of the distinguished victims with which the crusade opened, declaring that such violent methods were contrary to the spirit of the gospel. As to the first of these facts, it may be replied that the politic ambassador could not compel the Spanish theologians who had access to the Queen to see with his eyes. Moreover, a historian of that nation has given credit to Carranza, who became the Queen's confessor, for bringing many, and among them Archbishop Cranmer, to the flames. 2 Fernandez, quoted by Massingberd, p. 436. As to the sermon of the royal chaplain in favor of tolerance, it was simply a piece of official hypocrisy to ward off odium from Philip, whose popularity at best came near a perilous deficit. The same chaplain, Alphonso de Castro, was the author of a book on the Just Punishment of Heretics, -- previously published, and published again after the sermon, -- in which the violent repression of heresy is explicitly advocated.

3 The following will serve as a specimen: "Nullum est gravins haeresi peccatum, nullum est ergo crimen, cujus odium sit Christiano viro magis incutiendum, et inde per consequens sequitur, ut nullum sit crimen pro quo justius aliquis possit occidi, quàm pro haeresi fixa at insanabili. Si Martinus Lutherus cùm primum coepit effundere venenum suum, et legitime admonitus noluit resipiscere, fuisset (ut decebat) capitis animadversione punitus, caeteri timorem habuissent, et non prorupissent tot tanque pestiferae haereticorum factiones, quales, proh dolor, hodie Germania sustinet" (De Justa Haereticorum Punitione, lib. ii, cap. xii., Antverpiae, 1568).

On the whole, it is difficult to escape the conviction that the Spanish advisers of the Queen, Philip himself included, helped to supply fuel to her intolerant zeal.

During the persecution about two hundred and eighty persons were burned at the stake, nearly a hundred, as is computed, died in prison, while many hundreds purchased safety by exile. The stamp of peculiar infamy which attaches to the reign of Mary is due not so much to the number of the victims as to the mode and the grounds of their execution. The burning of two hundred and eighty persons for heresy in the space of three and a half years stands without parallel in English history. The preceding one hundred and fifty years, during which the Lollard Statute had been in force, fails to give record of such an aggregate of victims; while the long reign of Elizabeth presents five instances of burning for heresy, and that of James I. adds two more. Other reigns were disfigured by violent persecutions; but in the unique horror of burning men alive for their religious opinions, the reign of Mary Tudor must bear forever in English annals an odious distinction.

1 Tierney, a Roman Catholic priest, whose learned notes have added much to Dodd's Church History, makes this candid acknowledgment: "As to the number and character of the sufferers, certain it is that no allowances can relieve the horror, no palliatives can remove the infamy, that must forever attach to these proceedings. The amount of real victims is too great to be affected by any partial deductions. Were the catalogue limited to a few persons, we might pause to examine the merits of each individual case; but when after the removal of every doubtful or objectionable name, a frightful list of not fewer than two hundred still remains, we can only turn with horror from the blood-stained page, and be thankful that such things have passed away" (Dodd's Church History, ii. 107).

Among the first to suffer were Rogers, Bishop Hooper, Lawrence Sanders, Bishop Ferrar, Rowland Taylor, and Bradford. It is narrated of Rogers, who was the protomartyr of this reign, that he seemed to be transported above all sense of pain, and bathed his hands in the flames as if they had been cold water. Sanders kissed the stake, and died exclaiming: "Welcome, the cross of Christ! Welcome, everlasting life!" Taylor journeyed toward the place of his execution as toward a place of pleasant fellowship and rest. Coming within two miles of Hadleigh, he cheerfully remarked: "Now I know I am almost at home. I lack not past two stiles to go over, and I am even at my Father's house!"

But the victims, who from their eminence attracted most attention, were Latimer, formerly Bishop of Worcester, Ridley, Bishop of London, and Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. Ridley and Latimer were burned at Oxford, Oct. 16, 1555. Cranmer was burned at the same place, March 21, 1556.

If he was not the most scholarly of the three, Latimer is perhaps the most interesting on account of his strongly marked individuality. As respects doctrine, it was only by slow degrees that he broke sway from the Roman Catholic system. His interest was preëminently on the side of the practical, and the staple of his sermons corresponded. In the pulpit he rarely indulged in theological subtleties, his aim being to quicken the conscience of the people, and to lead them to a devout and upright life. In pursuance of this aim he used plain language and homely illustrations, though never descending into vulgarity. The simplicity and directness of his sermons were a reflex of the man. "He was," says Demaus, "a straightforward, upright man, who meant what he said, and practised what he taught; one who never sunk the man in the mere theological polemic, in whose eyes sin was always worse than error, and a pure life of more importance than a mere orthodox creed. This love of practical religion it was Latimer's mission to infuse into the English Reformation." 1 Biography of Hugh Latimer, p. 525. With this simplicity, honesty, and love of practical piety Latimer joined an equally courageous and humorous bent. He had indeed his hour of weakness, and under the great pressure that was brought to bear upon him (1532) signed a list of articles which carried with them implications that he strongly opposed in heart. But on the whole he was a man of conspicuous courage. He reminded the highest of their duty and responsibility with the same freedom as the humblest. He did not shun to address this bold charge to Henry VIII. while urging him to remove the prohibition against the circulation of the Bible: "Wherefore, gracious King, remember yourself; have pity upon your soul; and think that the day is even at hand when you shall give account of your office, and of the blood that hath been shed with your sword." Latimer had the qualities of the true censor. The moral earnestness, directness, and fire with which he sent home his denunciations of wrong remind of the Jewish prophet. At the same time he escaped the unpleasant impression which is apt to be made by the censor's office, through his abounding humor. His humor, indeed, was a prominent element of his power, a chief means of stamping truth upon the hearts of the people or of putting opponents to rout. Among other instances we have the following: A friar, whom his brethren put forward to answer the popular preacher, had argued from the pulpit that if the people were allowed to read the Bible, they would pervert the meaning and be led utterly astray. The ploughman, reading that no man having put his hand to the plough should look back, would soon forsake his labor; the baker, reading that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, would make nothing but insipid Bread; and simple people, following the command to pluck out the offending right eye, would soon fill England with the spectacle of blind beggars. The next Sunday Latimer undertook to reply to his critic, who was present with his friar's hood. "As for the comparisons," said. he, "drawn from the plough, the leaven, and the eye, is it necessary to justify these passages of Scripture? Must I tell you what plough, what leaven, what eye is here meant? Is not our Lord's teaching distinguished by those expressions which under a popular form conceal a spiritual and profound meaning? Do we not know that in all languages and in all speeches it is not on the image that we must fix our eyes, but on the thing which the image represents? For instance," he continued, as he looked straight at the friar, "if we see a fox painted preaching in a friar's hood, nobody imagines that a fox is meant, but that craft and hypocrisy are described, which so often are disguised in that garb." The confusion of the poor friar at this point can better be imagined than told. Latimer's humor followed him to the end. The chamber of the Tower, where be was confined, prior to his transference to Oxford, being very badly heated, he complained to the jailer, and told him that if the government intended to burn him, they ought to see to it that they did not suffer him first to freeze to death. By this time Latimer had become bowed down by age and infirmity.

Ridley was less in years and less probably in popular power, but he ranked high in scholarship and general ability. Burnet commends him as being "for learning and solid judgment the ablest man of all that advanced the Reformation." 1 History of the Reformation, ii. 496. He was comely in person, persuasive in address, courteous in manners, and exemplary in the ordering of his life. In debate he was ready and apt. His answer, during his examination, to the miserable pretence that the Church exercises no severity, was perhaps the best that has ever been given. "I thank the court," said he, "for their gentleness, being the same that Christ had of the high priest. He said that it was not lawful for him to put any man to death, but committed Christ to Pilate, yet would he not suffer him to absolve Him, though he sought by all the means he might to do so."

The undaunted spirit with which Ridley looked forward to the hour of supreme trial appears in these words written a few months before his martyrdom:
"All of us here are in good health and comfort, watching with our lamps alight, when it shall please our Master, the bridegroom, to call us to wait upon him unto the marriage feast." At the stake a sermon was preached in honor of the Romish faith. Ridley, wishing to reply, was told that he could not do so unless he would renounce his false opinions. To this he responded, that as long as the breath was in his body, he would never deny his Lord Christ and His known truth. Latimer bore himself with equal bravery, and as he saw a blazing fagot laid at Ridley's feet encouraged his companion with the memorable words: "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."

Archbishop Cranmer was a man to whom unqualified praise cannot be awarded. He exhibited, it is true, highly commendable traits. He was very ready to overlook a personal injury. He was full of kindness to the poor and the unfortunate, and assisted them liberally with his means. He opposed some of the more cruel measures of Henry VIII. with commendable courage. Some of his apparent inconsistencies may be explained as the result of the peculiarities of his position and of the times. He lived in a transition age, and his own mind was in more or less of a transition state. He was not a man like Calvin, pushing his reasonings far and wide into the field upon which he entered, and speedily and decisively grasping a new set of opinions. It was but gradually that he abandoned old opinions for new, so that with good conscience he may have countenanced at one time persecution for articles of faith which he himself finally adopted. A good degree of charity also should be extended to him for apparently acting in some instances below the standard of a courageous and straightforward man. To one so reverent of kingship what temptation more trying than that imposed by the will of a prince from whom he has received abundant favors? How easy to entertain the suggestion that it is better to hold on to one's place in spite of same unwelcome compliance to royal wishes than to give over that place to an utter enemy of the good cause? Such considerations may palliate, but cannot excuse the conduct of Cranmer. He was pliant in a very unworthy degree to the arbitrary will of Henry VIII. His final recantation, also, to save himself from the fate of Ridley and Latimer, argues against his moral heroism and steadfastness. After all that may be said about the subtle arts with which he was plied, about the diligence employed to flatter him and awaken his love of life, it still remains true that he yielded and denied the faith of his heart. No great stress needs to be laid upon the fact that his recantation was sixfold. After the first disavowal, the remaining were drawn on by natural sequence. The probable history of the affair is well expressed by Strype. "The unhappy prelate," says he, "by over-persuasion wrote one paper with his subscription set to it, which he thought to pen so favorably and dexterously for himself that he might evade both the danger of the State and the danger of his conscience too. That would not serve, but another was required as explanatory of that. And when he had complied with that, yet, either because written too briefly or too ambiguously, neither would that serve but drew on a third, fuller and more expressive than the former. Nor could he escape so; but still a fourth and fifth paper of recantation were demanded of him to be more large and particular. Nay, and lastly a sixth, which was very prolix, containing an acknowledgment of all the forsaken and detested errors and superstitions of Rome." 1 Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol, iii. pt, 1. p. 391. The text and the circumstances of the recantations are given by Hook, Lives of the Archbishops, vii. 394-407.

Notwithstanding the recantation, it was decided that Cranmer must die. The man who had taken a leading part in making null the marriage of Catharine of Aragon, and in causing the nation to Stray from Roman supremacy, could obtain no mercy under a Spanish sceptre. Never did malice and bigotry more signally defeat their own intent. In order to make the most of the degraded Primate, he was allowed to address the people prior to his execution, his judges making no question but that he would urge unqualified submission to the Roman Catholic Church. But another spirit was in Cranmer in that hour. The fear of torture and death was at length mastered, and he closed his address with declarations that astonished his judges. After making a total recall of his recantation, he added: "And forasmuch as my hand has offended in writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished; for when I come to the fire it shall be first burned." Cranmer kept his promise. As the flames leaped up about him, the offending hand was stretched forth that it might be first burned. 2 The details of the scene are given in a letter of a Roman Catholic witness, quoted in Foxe's Acts and Monuments, and also in Strype's Memorials of Cranmer.

The pathos of Cranmer's repentance was well-nigh as effectual as would have been an example of true martyrdom. Indeed, weakness atoned for and triumphed over at last in such a signal manner, probably touched the hearts of many, who stood in doubt of their own ability to endure the fiery ordeal, more deeply then would a record of unswerving steadfastness. His death helped on the invincible recoil against Romanism which the work of blood was creating in the minds of the people. It was significant of a profound reaction when a lady wrote to Bonner, "You have lost the hearts of twenty thousand, that were rank Papists, within these twelve months." "The martyrs alone," says Froude, "broke the spell of orthodoxy, and made the establishment of the Reformation possible."

Mary died Nov. 17, 1558. If her reign had been unhappy for her subjects, it was no less so for herself, and her life went out in the midst of deep shadows. Afflicted by ill health, miserably deceived in her hope of an heir, neglected by Philip whom she worshipped, humiliated by national reverses, particularly the loss of Calais, making herself hated by her subjects through a persecution which she counted her bounden duty to God and the Church, opposed and plagued at last by the Pope, compelled in self-respect to shelve the requirements of the very pontiff whom she was laboring to enthrone over the consciences of her subjects, Mary had cause enough to die broken-hearted.

Cardinal Pole survived the Queen but a few hours. The bells which notified him of her departure sounded the knell for his great enterprise. Four years before he had stretched forth his hands over the prostrate representatives of the nation in Parliament, and with quiet but deep exultation had accepted their submission and proclaimed England restored to the unity of the Church. Now he was dying, himself under the papal frown, and every day making it more manifest that the great scene of the nation's reconciliation to Rome was an empty pageant, a solemn farce.

1 The hostility of the Pope to Spain had eventuated in war in 1557. As England assisted Philip II. against France, the Pope's ally,Paul IV. gave token of his displeasure in cancelling Pole's legation. At the same time, reviving an old grudge, he cited him to Rome to prove there his soundness in the faith. "The citation of Pole to appear before the Inquisition, as a reputed heretic, was never revoked. He who in England was condemning to the stake was afraid to appear in Rome, lest the furnace he heated for others might be heated sevenfold for himself" (Hook, Lives of the Archhishops, viii 353, 354).

The Reformation In England During The Reign Of Edward VI.

The Reformation In England During The Reign Of Edward VI.

Edward VI. was only nine years old at his accession, and his death occurred before he had reached his majority as specified in the testament of the late King. The regency, left in the hands of sixteen men, soon centered in the Duke of Somerset, who was appointed Protector of the realm. His discretion did not prove adequate to the difficult position. Means of overthrow were found, and in the closing years of Edward VI. he was superseded by the Duke of Northumberland.

The brief reign which bears the name of Edward VI. marks a decisive era in the history of the English Church. The untenable scheme of Henry VIII., which could satisfy neither Papist nor Protestant, was at once modified; and before the six years of Edward's rule were concluded, England had exchanged an Anglo-Catholic system for one which, without abuse of terms, may be called Protestant. Laws, articles, and, to a large extent, formularies of worship were made to assume a Protestant cast. The statute under which heretics had been burned since the rise of the Lollards was abolished.

1 The abolition of the statute ought in all consistency to have put a stop to the barbarous practice which it sanctioned. But we have the fact that under this Protestant administration Joan Bocher was burned in 1549 for denying the proper humanity of Christ, and George van Paris met the same fate in 1551 on account of Arian views. In the absence of the statute, appeal was made to the common law in these executions. It was a most impolitic and discreditable severity; and the chief agents, especially Cranmer, soon reaped a bitter recompense. Says Burnet: "In all the books published in Queen Mary's days, justifying her severity against the Protestants, these instances were always made use of; and no part of Cranmer's life exposed him more than this did" (Reformation, ii. 177-179).

The images were ordered to be removed from the churches. Communion in both kinds was enjoined. Marriage was made lawful for the clergy. Readiness and desire for fellowship with the Protestant brotherhood on the Continent were expressed in invitations to distinguished foreign divines to favor England with their presence. Such representatives of the Reformed Church as Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer received much honor, the one being installed at Oxford and the other at Cambridge, in 1549.

Under the new conditions the need of a new service-book naturally received early and emphatic recognition. In the latter part of the reign of Henry VIII. some progress had been made toward revising the old forms of worship. This work was now carried forward with alacrity; and before the middle of the year 1549 the venerated product of English piety and scholarship, the Book of Common Prayer, was brought into use. It was largely the work of Cranmer, and reflects his inclination to a mediatorial position between the old and the new, his reverent love of the past and at the same time his consciousness of the need of change. It reflects also his felicitous mastery of the English language. "As the translation of the Bible," says Froude, "hears upon it the impress of Tyndale, so, while the Church of England remains, the image of Cranmer will be seen reflected on the calm surface of the Liturgy. The most beautiful portions of it are translations from the Breviary; yet the same prayers translated by others would not be those which chime like church-bells in the ears of the English child. The translations and the addresses, which are original, have the same silvery melody of language, and breathe the same simplicity of spirit." 1 History of England, v. 391,

The progress of opinion soon raised a demand that some of the traces of mediæval thought and custom, which had been retained in the Prayer Book, should be corrected. The influence of the foreign divines no doubt helped to strengthen this demand, but there were native theologians who were anxious to cast out the remaining vestiges of mediævalism. Among these was Hooper, to whom a special notoriety attaches as a forerunner of the Puritans in his opposition to the clerical vestments. The learned Ridley was also in favor of such emendations as should make the Prayer Book a more unequivocal exponent of Protestant sentiments. These recommendations succeeded the more easily as Cranmer himself shared in the advance of opinion. Quite early in the reign of Edward VI. his mind seems to have been disabused of the doctrine of the real presence, and he was carried along by the current into enlarging sympathy with the ordinary Reformed type. Accordingly a revision was made, and a somewhat more Protestant cast was given to the Prayer Book, much to the grief of Nonjurors and Ritualists in later times.

1 One of the principal changes effected by the revision of the Prayer Book was in the communion service. The invocation of the Holy Ghost upon the elements was omitted, the prayer of oblation was converted into a thanksgiving, and the words used in the delivery of the elements were so modified as to avoid any implication of a real bodily presence. We may also include among the more noticeable items the discontinuance of exorcism and other usages connected with baptism and the visitation of the sick (Hardwicke, Reformation, pp. 224-229).

The distinguishing characteristic, however, which it bore at its first compilation, was not eliminated. In preserving many elements of the ancestral worship, it continued to serve as a bond of connection with the past. The revived edition was authoritatively published in 1552.

The Articles of Religion, forty-two in number, prepared chiefly by Cranmer and Ridley, served as the basis of the Thirty-Nine Articles which have so long been in force in the Church of England. Being drawn up at the close of Edward's reign, they constitute, as might be expected, a thoroughly Protestant creed. Indeed the Articles, whether in their original or their final form, bear only in slight measure the character of a compromise document. In the Liturgy a mind reverent of the mediæval system can find that which may be interpreted in harmony with its preferences. But the Articles are no mean between Anglo-Catholicism and Protestantism. They constitute a robust Protestant creed, such as a Calvin or a Knox would have found little occasion to criticise.

1 Baur says of the Articles: "The dogmatic decisions contained in them were rather Melanchthonian than Lutheran or Calvinian" (Kirchengeschichte der Neueren Zeit, p. 385). Perhaps moderate Calvinism is as accurate a description of the creed as can be made in a single phrase.

While Protestantism was being enthroned in the minds of theologians and established by act of government, it was not equally successful in winning the firm and intelligent acceptance of the nation at large. Religious reconstruction in the hearts of the people did not keep pace with the formation of prayer books and creeds. While there were able preachers here and there, the demand for the indoctrination of the masses was far from being adequately met. Not a few had gone far enough to lose confidence in the old faith, but had not yet come close enough to the new to feel its virtue. They were thus left practically destitute of the restraints of religion. Many of the nobles were mere policy Christians, and in their view the best policy was that which would yield the largest spoil. The indeterminate form of the government entailed by the minority of the sovereign hindered a vigilant oversight of affairs and the repression of abuses. The consequence was that there was much plundering of ecclesiastical property, much exhibition of irreverence and irreligion. Such conditions were evidently favorable to a Romish reaction. A strong government, allied with a vigorous system of education and evangelism, might have barred out the reaction and secured the structure already reared. But the early death of Edward prevented the application of needed remedies. At the accession of Mary grave causes of dissatisfaction were ready to assist her in the design of a Roman Catholic restoration.

The Reformation In England Under Henry VIII.

The Reformation In England Under Henry VIII.

THE history of the Reformation in England is not the history of a rapid transition to a new order of religious beliefs. The revolt from Rome, however suddenly accomplished in legislative decrees, was but slowly achieved in fact. England, as regards the feelings and established principles of the great body of her people, could hardly be pronounced a Protestant country before the middle of Elizabeth's reign. It is true an essentially Protestant scheme was introduced in the reign of Edward VI.; but the ease with which it was swept away on the accession of Mary shows that it had not taken root in the hearts of more than a fraction of the nation.

That the reform did not proceed more rapidly and radically, was due to several causes. A large element of conservatism was inwoven with the national temper. No theologian of commanding ability and energy, such as a Luther, a Zwingli, or a Calvin, appeared upon the field of agitation. Their disposition, as well as their circumstances, inclined the leaders to depend very largely upon governmental action, instead of making a direct and powerful appeal to the people. The political factor had, therefore, an ample scope. The throne, in fact, exercised a dominant influence over the English reformation. It was not the author of that reformation. The movement was started in the face of its prohibition. But it vigorously asserted its influence in directing, limiting, and organizing the movement.

The great English sovereigns of the sixteenth century were no friends of radical Protestantism. Even Elizabeth, while her sovereignty served as a bulwark of the Protestant cause in Europe, was averse to a sweeping change from the old system, and would have consented to Rome with quite as little reluctance as to Geneva. As for Henry VIII., it is only by an abuse of terms that he can be called a Protestant. With nearly as much propriety one might call the Hohenstaufen sovereigns Protestants, on account of their quarrels with the Popes. Henry VIII. is properly defined as a refractory Roman Catholic. While he cut loose to some extent from mediæval fetishism, and made concessions to the circulation of the Bible, he still undertook to sustain well-nigh: the whole system of the scholastic dogmas. He never placed foot upon the evangelical basis of Protestantism; and the principal change which he aimed to effect was to substitute his own authority, within English domains, for that of the Pope.

The attempt of the crown to manage religious affairs according to its own behests was greatly assisted by the relative lack of independence which characterized the English people under the Tudors. Before the reign of Henry VIII. had reached its meridian, loyalty had degenerated into servility. The explanation of this pliant attitude is found partly in the preceding history and partly in the personality of the sovereign. The ruinous wars between the houses of York and Lancaster had created an extreme dread of civil commotion. Men thought of civil strife as a worse evil than tyranny. While thus disposed by a consideration of interest to endure a vast stretch of royal prerogative, they were impelled in the same direction by feelings of esteem and admiration. For in the earlier part of his reign Henry VIII. seemed to Englishmen the very pattern of royalty. His personal appearance was noble. He is described by a foreign resident at his court as by far the handsomest sovereign in Europe. 1 Venetian ambassador Giustiniani, Despatches, ii. 312. With courtliness and magnificence he combined an easy and friendly style of intercourse with the people. The faults of his government being charged upon his ministers interfered but little with his popularity. Thus it came about that when his remorseless selfishness began to break through the smooth exterior, few checks were interposed against his arbitrary will. The scheme of Hobbes was practically anticipated. A great Leviathan - lord of men's consciences as well as of their conduct-was on the throne. The will of the sovereign became the standard for the profession and practice of the people. The national trait, upon which the Venetian ambassador commented with so much severity in the time of Queen Mary, had been well exemplified under Henry VIII. "The example and authority of the sovereign," he wrote, "are everything with the people of this country in matters of faith. As he believes, they believe; Judaism or Mohammedanism,-it is all one with them. They conform themselves easily to his will, at least so far as the outward show is concerned, and most easily of all where it concurs with their own pleasure or profit." 1 Giovanni Micheli, quoted by Prescott, Philip II., i. 70. This is, of course, an exaggerated statement. Conviction had its impregnable entrenchments in the hearts of Englishmen, as is well attested by a noble line of martyrs. The remark of the ambassador, however, has its significance as indicating how large a measure of subserviency to royal authority was exhibited, and how gradually the minds of the people became actually possessed by the truths of the Reformation.

It is to be observed that while the conservative spirit, as represented by the crown and some of its more distinguished agents, gave to the English Church a more hierarchical and ritualistic cast than appeared in any other reformed country, a tendency exactly contrary to this was at the same time generated. By a natural reaction, as the hierarchical and ritualistic scheme was enforced, the opposing tendency gathered increasing intensity. Premonitions of the great conflict which convulsed the nation in the seventeenth century reach back almost to the foundation of the established Church.

No single abuse, like the sale of indulgences, started the Reformation in England. But the movement, doubtless, received no small incentive from the prevalence of corruption and malpractice among ecclesiastics. Profitable superstitions, though receiving the scorn of the more advanced spirits, were cherished with shameless tenacity. Pride, arrogance, and avarice were displayed to a degree which provoked the disgust of many a layman. The opening of the sixteenth century was indeed a palmy time with the higher ecclesiastics in England. The influence which the nobility had lost by the Wars of the Roses seemed to have accrued in large measure to the prelates. They held a chief place in the State as well as in the Church. By an enormous abuse of the practice of pluralities they massed great revenues into their hands, and were foremost among examples of showy and luxurious living.

At the head of the ecclesiastical dignitaries stood Wolsey. Brought to notice in the closing years of the reign of Henry VII., he advanced rapidly to the first place in the control of affairs. Offices and emoluments were literally heaped upon him. He had all at once the position of chancellor of the realm, the bishopric of Winchester, the rich abbey of St. Albans, and the archbishopric of York. 1 Jeremy Collier, Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, iv. 125, ed. 1840; Gilbert Burnet, History of the Reformation of the Church of England, i. 12, 13, ed. 1843. He was also made cardinal, and was vested with an authority, as legate, which scarcely fell short of a practical supremacy over the Church of England. To this official elevation Wolsey undoubtedly brought more than common abilities. The Venetian ambassador speaks with admiration of his industry and extraordinary capacity for work, representing him as discharging in person all the varied functions which in Venice were devolved upon the different magistracies and councils. 2 Giustiniani, Despatches ii. 314. His character, too, was not without its favorable side. He was free from the bitterness of dogmatism. Though in his dying message he urged upon the King the necessity of depressing the "new sect of Lutherans," 1 Cavendish, Life of Wolsey, p. 389. he was not, during the period of his authority, directly accessory to any act of bloody intolerance. He cherished also liberal schemes of education and designs of ecclesiastical reform. Some have supposed that if he had reached the goal of his ambition and ascended the papal throne, he would have done much to check the advancing revolution by removing the causes of offense. This is, however, a baseless supposition. Even if Wolsey had possessed the right disposition, the prerogatives of the papacy in his hand would have been no effectual guarantee of reform. To renovate the old Church, vastly more was needed than a well-disposed Pope. But Wolsey did not have the right disposition. This worldly prelate, whose best energies were absorbed in European politics, who never indicated that he was half awake to the crisis which had overtaken Latin Christendom, who made the service of God secondary to the service of the Kings and to his own advancement, was not the man to arrest religious revolution by lifting the Church to a higher plane. In the chair of Peter he would probably have performed a part scarcely more illustrious than that of Leo X.

2 Some members of the Angle-Catholic school have given a much more favorable picture of Wolsey than even their mediæval standpoint will warrant. In opposition to their intemperate praise the following sober estimate of a Roman Catholic historian is pertinent: "We may pronounce Wolsey a minister of consummate address and commanding abilities; greedy of wealth and power, and glory; anxious to exalt the throne on which his own greatness was built and the church of which he was so distinguished a member; but capable, in the pursuit of these different objects, of stooping to expedients which sincerity and Justice would disavow, and of adopting, through indulgence to the caprice and passions of the King, measures which often involved him in contradictions and difficulties and ultimately occasioned his ruin" (Lingard, History of England, vi. 42, ed. 1851).

In considering the beginnings of the English Reformation we may notice three factors: (1) Remnants of the Wycliffite party, or Lollards, still found among the poor in the realm; (2) The learned; (3) The Government.

Respecting the Lollards in the early part of the sixteenth century little information is afforded, except the record of the prosecutions to which they were subjected. Six were condemned to the stake in 1509, and at intervals between this date and 1519 like sentence was passed upon others. C. Geikie, The English Reformation. A considerable number were constrained to recant, and were required to wear during life the fagot badge. The measure of influence exerted by this class was probably not very large. Indeed, it is a question whether the direct inheritance which had come down from the Wycliffite movement was an advantage to the Reformation in England. The Lollards represented a cause which had already been condemned and covered with odium, The resemblance, therefore, of their tenets to the leading doctrines of the new reformers was the reverse of a recommendation to the latter, especially with the middle and higher classes. On the other hand, the Lollards supplied to the Reformation a means of entrance into the humbler ranks; and if their numbers were considerable this was not a small advantage.

Among the learned a special incentive was derived from the Greek Testament of Erasmus, with its accompaniment of a new Latin translation and free-spirited annotations. In no country, in fact, does the work of Erasmus appear to have been more directly fruitful than in England. A specially hearty welcome was accorded to it by a number of young men in the universities. Their earnest perusal of its pages bore its legitimate fruit in a quickened religious life and a more enlightened faith. At Cambridge, Thomas Bilney, a man of mild and devout temper, was among the first to be awakened to a new sense of evangelical truth. About 1524 Hugh Latimer, who had been noted for his attachment to the Romish system, and on receiving the degree of Bachelor of Divinity had used the occasion to attack Melanchthon, was converted by the influence of Bilney. John Fryth, Robert Barnes, and others were also included in the reforming group at Cambridge. Meanwhile the divergence of these men from the old doctrinal system was not of the most radical sort. They retained some of the Romish dogmas, though bringing to them a spirit which would naturally urge erelong to a wider departure.

The movement was transferred from Cambridge to Oxford, and that by the act of Wolsey himself in selecting some of the more promising of the young men in the former university to help fi11 up the college which he had just founded. The conjecture has been made that Wolsey selected them with the full knowledge of their liberal tendencies, and expected that the soothing effect of patronage would bring them to a quiescent state. But it is more probable that respect for their talents led to their choice. In any case, the Cardinal was chagrined over the result. It was soon rumored that the college which he expected to be a bulwark of the Church and a glory to his name was infected with heresy. Arrests were forthwith made (1526). Clark, one of the foremost in the list, died in prison, and others were taken with mortal sickness. This was a more serious issue than Wolsey desired, and he accordingly gave orders for the release of the imprisoned students.

The evangelical group at Cambridge was likewise assailed. Barnes was apprehended. Threats and persuasions deluded him for the time being into a recantation. The same was true of Bilney; but both at a later date nobly atoned for their weakness. Latimer was also called to account, but was able to satisfy Wolsey without suffering restriction of his liberty. 1 R. Demaus, Biography of Hugh Latimer, pp. 56-58.

Among these early reformers from the universities, the first place as respects breadth and permanence of influence is to be assigned to William Tyndale, the one man among all Englishmen who has left any marked impress of his individuality upon our English Bible. Very soon after leaving the University of Cambridge (which may have occurred at the close of 1521), Tyndale became convinced that the Bible in the language of the people must serve as the great instrument of reform. "I perceived by experience," he says, "how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the Scriptures were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother-tongue, that they might see the process, order, and meaning of the text." 2 Ibid., William Tyndale, p. 71, ed. 1886. To turn the saving light of the Bible upon England became now his absorbing ambition. "If God spare my life," he said to a learned man who urged appeal to the Pope rather than to Scripture, "ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest." Completely foiled in his endeavor to obtain aid for his project from the Bishop of London, and discovering that not so much as tolerance for it was to be expected in England, he crossed over to the Continent (1524). Even there he was subjected to repeated dangers and embarrassments, and was obliged to shift his residence from one city to another. Messengers from England were sent to hunt him out, and, if possible, to destroy both him and his enterprise. The former design was ultimately accomplished. Tyndale suffered martyrdom in the Netherlands in 1536. But his enterprise had already been a great success, and was forthwith to be crowned with new victories. As early as 1526 the New Testament was published, six thousand copies being printed at Worms. 1 A warning that the incendiary literature would soon be in England was sent by Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, who was then on his way to Spain. His letter to Henry VIII. is a significant specimen of the dread of an open Bible which was entertained by zealous adherents of Rome. "I need not advertise your Grace what infection and danger may ensue hereby if it be not withstood. This is the next way to fill your realm with Lutherans. For all Luther's perverse opinions me grounded on the bare words of Scripture not well taken or understood, which your Grace hath opened in sundry places of your royal book. All our forefathers, governors of the Church of England, have with all diligence forbid and eschewed the publication of English Bibles, as appears in provincial constitutions of the Church of England" (Ellis, Original Letters, CL.). These were rapidly distributed, the "Society of Christian Brothers," which bad been formed in London, probably helping to expedite the matter. Reprints immediately followed from the presses of the Dutch printers. Attempts of English bishops to check the circulation by buying up all accessible copies only supplied funds for new editions. Tyndale was able to send forth the Pentateuch in 1530, and it is understood that at the time of his death he had carried the translation to the end of the Books of Chronicles. All this labor was destined to permanent recognition in the English-speaking world. The translations of Tyndale, in very large part, lay at the basis of the editions which were permitted or authorized under Henry VIII., and no later revisions have served to conceal the handwriting of the great translator. Coverdale's translation, which was issued in 1535, was based in part on that of Tyndale. Luther's version and some others were also consulted. Matthew's (or more properly Roger's) Bible embraced all of Tyndale's work, and used Coverdale's version in completing the Old Testament. This was authorized by the Government in 1537-1538. The "Great Bible," published in 1539 under government auspices and the editorship of Coverdale, was a revised edition of Matthew's Bible. Tavener's version, which also appeared in 1539, was largely indebted to Matthew's.

The English Bible was Tyndale's peculiar legacy to his countrymen. But he had a still further relation to the religious revolution in England. He was a pioneer as respects the introduction of the Reformed theology. Several treatises which came from his pen received much attention. They indicate a man of force and thoughtfulness, though the bitter polemic in which he sometimes indulges stands quite in contrast with the calm majesty of the transistor. The importance which opponents attached to his writings is seen in the fact that Sir Thomas More, in his attempted refutations, filled nearly a thousand folio pages.

Thus the Reformation was begun in England by scholars and common people acting in entire independence of the Government, and in the face of its violent opposition. It was not till after the movement had progressed to a very noticeable degree that Henry VIII. rebelled against the Pope; and then self-will and considerations of personal pleasure dictated his course rather than any sympathy with the Protestant theology. As we have seen, he assumed at one time the rôle of the theologian against Luther, and exulted in the title of Defender of the Faith conferred upon him by the Pope. As late as 1527, he was counted a chief supporter of the papacy, and appeared anxious to avenge the imprisonment which his Holiness suffered in that year at the hands of the troops of Charles V. But about this very time a subject was broached destined to result in a rupture with the papal court. This was the famous question of divorce. Arthur, an older brother of Henry VIII., had died soon after marrying Catharine of Aragon, an aunt of Charles V. Reasons of State caused Henry to be married to his brother's widow, a union which required a papal dispensation. After about seventeen years of married life, Henry began to express doubts as to the propriety of his union with Catharine. It is certain that conscience was not the only motive power which urged him to seek a divorce. Still it is not wholly incredible that he may have felt some conscientious scruples on the subject. Of several children by Catharine, all had died in infancy with the exception of one daughter. Being exceedingly anxious for a male heir, Henry might very naturally be led to the suspicion that the death of his children was a visitation from Heaven upon an unrighteous marriage. Whatever the real strength of the King's scruples, they were so reinforced by other influences as to lend to decisive action. According to the belief of Catharine, and a very general opinion of the time, Wolsey's ambition served as an effective spur to Henry's doubts. Having reached the highest summit of power which the realm afforded, the Cardinal aspired to complete the list of honors by ascending the papal throne. Charles V. promised to second his aspirations, but bitterly disappointed him. The enraged cardinal thought it would be nothing more than a fitting recompense to forward the divorce from Catharine and marry Henry to a French princess, thus allying him with the great enemy of Charles. It is certain, as is assumed in this theory, that Wolsey desired to make a firm alliance with France; but the proof that he first suggested the divorce is not so decisive. Probably more effective than conscientious scruples or ministerial advice was the passionate attachment which the King had formed for Anne Boleyn. As this lady refused to be his mistress, he determined to make her his queen. This was a choice to which Wolsey was utterly averse, but Henry was too determined to brook any opposition on this score even from the powerful minister.

The contradictory items in the famous question of divorce may be seen in the following summary of the main points: (1) As stated above, contemporary opinion, to a noticeable extent, made Wolsey the prime mover in the divorce suit. (2) The King, before the legatine court of Wolsey and Campeggio, expressly asserted that the Cardinal did not first suggest the divorce, but rather opposed it at the start. (3) The King affirmed that his scruples were excited by the fact that the Bishop of Tarbes, the French ambassador, while negotiating respecting the marriage of the Princess Mary to the Duke of Orleans, had raised some question about the legitimacy of the princess. (4) The negotiation with the Bishop of Tarbes occurred in the early part of the year 1527. But in 1531 the King told Simon Grynæus that for seven years he had abstained from the bed of Catharine, evidently wishing to convey the impression that his scruples reached as far back as 1524. (5) According to some of the most thorough investigators, there is evidence that secret action in the direction of the divorce was taken in 1526, and accordingly before the conference with the Bishop of Tarbes. (6) Knight, the King's ambassador to the Pope in 1527, was instructed to inquire whether the King might not contract a new marriage, that with Catharine still standing. From this it would appear that desire for a new marriage, rather than a sore conscience over the old, was the impelling motive in the royal mind. This inference gains double weight it one gives credit to the evidence that the relation of Henry VIII. to Mary Boleyn was such as legally to debar a marriage with her sister Anne. See, on the whole subject, J. S. Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII. from his accession to the Death of Wolsey, vol. ii

The Pope, being plied for a divorce, found himself in a great dilemma. If he should grant the divorce, he would earn the mortal hatred of Charles V.; if he withheld it, he would be visited with equal displeasure from Henry VIII. He adopted, therefore, a policy of delay. The wearisome length to which the negotiations were drawn out, and their unpromising look in the end proved fatal to Wolsey. Failure in a minister to accomplish the royal pleasure was in the eyes of Henry VIII. a capital crime. Wolsey was degraded from the chancellorship in 1529, and died on his way to the Tower in 1530. "On his deathbed his thoughts still clung to the prince whom he had served. 'Had I but served God as diligently as I have served the King,' murmured the dying man, 'He mould not have given me over in my gray hairs. But this is my due reward for my pains and study, not regarding my service to God, but only my duty to my prince.' No words could paint with so terrible a truthfulness the spirit of the new despotism which Wolsey had done more than any of those who went before him to build up. From tempers like his, all sense of loyalty to England, to its freedom, to its institutions, had utterly passed away, and the one duty which the statesman owed was a duty to his 'prince.' " 1 J. R. Green, History of the English People, ii. 150.

The fall of Wolsey was the fall of his order. Churchmen sank at once to a plane of lessened authority. The charge against Wolsey of having accepted and fulfilled the functions of papal legate contrary to the laws against foreign appointments, was at the same time a charge against the ecclesiastics who had become his accomplices by accepting his legatine jurisdiction. The charge in either case was founded in malice rather than in equity; but it had a show of legality, and could be utilized for bending the clergy in general to the royal will. Wolsey, in fact, was a principal author of the ecclesiastical supremacy of the crown. He concentrated in himself the ecclesiastical sovereignty of the realm; being an obsequious servant of the crown, while he was ruler of the Church, he helped to bridge over the interval between the temporal and the spiritual ; he compromised the position of those under him so that his forfeit could be made theirs also. Accordingly, when he fell the ecclesiastical supremacy was within easy reach of the King.

The patience of Henry VIII. having become exhausted by the tedious manœuvres of Clement VII., he determined at length to settle his "great matter" without recourse to Rome. By the advice of Cranmer, the universities, and numerous individuals who were reputed learned in the canon law, were consulted on the validity of the marriage with Catharine. A fair proportion of these reported in the King's favor. The favorable verdict, however, was in some cases the result of bribery or a shameless use of royal authority. In January, 1583, the King celebrated in private his marriage with Anne Boleyn. Later in the same year Cranmer, who had been created Archbishop of Canterbury, passed sentence against the marriage with Catharine as unlawful and invalid, and ratified the marriage with Anne Boleyn, who was publicly crowned queen. To seal emphatically the separation from the papacy, Parliament passed, in 1534, the Act of Supremacy, by which it was ordered that the King "shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England, and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of this realm, as well the title and state thereof as all the honors, jurisdictions, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity belonging; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power to visit, repress, redress, reform, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, contempts, and enormities, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction might or may lawfully be reformed." Three years before Convocation had conceded to Henry the title of "supreme lord and head of the Church and Clergy of England," but had blunted its force by the addition of the ambiguous clause, "so far as the law of Christ will allow." Even in the mind of the King, the title, as then employed, did not seem to mean a positive renouncing of papal authority, for negotiations were still kept up with Rome. The definite abrogation of the papal headship over the English Church is most properly located at the year 1534. 1 For a list of the successive steps by which the papal jurisdiction was abolished, see J.H. Blunt, The Reformation of the Church of England, i. 277, 278. This work is written from an Anglo-Catholic or anti-Protestant standpoint.

The steps taken by the government toward a rupture with Rome were accompanied by no great show of favor toward the Protestants. Indeed, a persecution was inaugurated which was more searching than any which had occurred up to that time. Thomas More succeeded Wolsey in the chancellorship. Contrary to what might have been expected from the free-spirited humanist and layman, he proved a more diligent persecutor than the Cardinal had been, more zealous to suppress both heretics and their writings. Some exaggerated statements may have been made respecting his severities. But it is certain that he considered burning a fit punishment for heretics; that during his administration several were sent to the stake, and that he pursued the memory of some of these after their death with most unfeeling slurs. His acts and his writings combine to convey the impression that his zeal so far got the better of his amiability as to pass over into a species of fanaticism. His controversial tracts against Luther and Tyndale are among the most fertile in scurrility and invective which that intemperate age produced.

More held his office but a short time. Seeing the unconquerable tendency of the King to revolt against Rome, he pleaded ill health and retired in 1532. Three years later his refusal to give the desired acknowledgment to the King's supremacy brought him to the scaffold (July 6, 1535). A fortnight before, Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, whom the Pope had made a cardinal while he was in prison, had been executed on the same ground. The sacrifice of these two men, whom all parties allow to have been distinguished for their integrity, was justly regarded as a piece of tyranny; for there is no indication that they were disposed to offer anything more than a passive resistance to the new régime. Among the more humble victims to the royal supremacy the monks of the Charterhouse in London won an honorable name by their constancy.

From this point the conduct of Henry VIII. may be described as a somewhat wavering opposition both to the Protestant and the strict Roman Catholic systems. His ideal was evidently an Anglo-Catholic Church; that is, a church conformed in the main to the mediæval model as respects constitution and doctrine, but having an English sovereign for its supreme head in place of the Pope. His measures, however, were tinged not a little by the spirit of the counselors who happened to be in the ascendant. At one time Archbishop Cranmer, for whom the King had a special esteem, succeeded in influencing him in the interest of the Reformation. In this he was seconded by the powerful and despotic minister Thomas Cromwell, who aimed at a political alliance with Protestantism and zealously fostered some of its features, whatever may have been the measure of his sympathy with the Protestant theology. At another time advisers like Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, gained the ear of the King, and decrees extremely hostile to Protestant teaching were issued.

Among the more important measures which signalized the headship of Henry VIII. over the Church of England, the following deserve special mention: (1) The promulgation of the Ten Articles and kindred expositions of doctrine; (2) The dissolution of the monasteries; (3) The enacting of the Six Articles; (4) Provision for the distribution of the Bible in English.

The Ten Articles, signed by members of the Convocation and published in 1536, present the old creed in such a moderate form as might conciliate the party of reform. While they inculcate the doctrine of the real bodily presence in the Eucharist, the full sacrament of penance, with auricular confession included, the veneration of saints, and prayer for souls in purgatory, they do not necessitate the acceptance of transubstantiation, mention only three sacraments, warn against making too much of the saints, dissuade from refinements upon purgatory, and disallow the value of papal pardons and of masses as means of helping the souls of the departed. The Ten Articles were followed the next year by the "Bishops' Book," of the "Institution of a Christian Man." This differed little in tone from the Ten Articles, and its contents were mainly an expansion of the same. Froude has pronounced it, in point of language, "beyond question the most beautiful composition which had as yet appeared in English prose." 1 History of England, iii. 245.

"The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Men," authoritatively published in 1543, bears some traces of the reactionary movement which had been started shortly before.

Cardinal Wolsey, acting under the authority of the Pope, had given an example, on a moderate scale, of suppressing monasteries; a score having been sacrificed for the founding of his colleges at Ipswich and Oxford. After the separation from Rome a further suppression naturally followed, from the conviction that these institutions were alien to the new order of things and formed a dangerous bond of connection with the papacy, as well as from an avaricious appetite for their enormous wealth. Nearly four hundred were dissolved in 1536, and the still larger remainder experienced a like fate in the years immediately following. Some of the monasteries no doubt deserved their downfall, in consideration of the iniquities which they had harbored. But the suddenness with which a large multitude of people were thrown out of their accustomed mode of life bears an appearance of harshness, while the manner in which the crown and its favorites appropriated the greater share of the proceeds can hardly be characterized as anything else than shameless spoliation. In general, it may be said, the dissolution of the monasteries was justified on the score of religious and State policy, but the manner in which the dissolution was effected was cause for national grief and shame. An unbiased historical judgment will subscribe to the following words of Hallam: "If Henry had been content with prohibiting the profession of religious persons for the future, and had gradually diverted their revenues instead of violently confiscating them, no Protestant could have found it easy to censure his policy." Constitutional History of England, chap, ii.

In 1537-1539 the English Bible was published under sanction of the government, and allowed to be freely distributed. This may be counted the greatest indulgence which Henry VIII. awarded to Protestant principles. And even this concession was in part withdrawn. After the execution of Cromwell, in 1540, the anti-Protestant element found opportunity to vent its dislike of the unrestricted reading of the Bible; and in 1543 a decree was issued prohibiting the public reading of the Scriptures except in the authorized services, and the private reading of the same on the part of the humbler classes.

The Six Articles present in a most undisguised manner the mediæval theology which was still entrenched in the mind of Henry VIII., after his revolt against the papacy. One of their designs seems to have been to notify the world that the King had not become infected with Protestantism. They assert transubstantiation, the adequacy of communion in one kind, the celibacy of priests, the perpetual obligation of rows of chastity, the utility of private masses, and the necessity of auricular confession. These Articles were given the force of law by Act of Parliament in 1539, and barbarous penalties were denounced against those who should contradict them. Any denial of the first was to be punished with death by burning. A first offense against the others entailed confiscation of property; a second offense was punishable with death.

The ascendancy of the reactionary party prophesied a gloomy time for the friends of reform. And in truth victims were not wanting, though the onslaught was less extensive than might have been expected from the tenor of the Six Articles. Barnes, Garret, and Jerome were burned in 1540; Testwood, Peerson, and Filmer in 1543. Anne Ascue, a woman of eminent station and talents, was tortured and burned in 1546, for denying the doctrine of the real presence. Three companions perished with her. Latimer was confined in the Tower. Papists and Protestants both suffered, and sometimes were carried on the same hurdles to execution. A stranger in England at the time had occasion to remark that "those who were against the Pope were burned, and those who were for him were hanged." The death of Henry VIII. in 1547 caused a cessation of this anomalous and double persecution.

The character of this monarch has received but little eulogy from the great majority of historians. Mr. Froude, however, while he finds many things in his rule to condemn or to apologize for, makes him out, on the whole, a sovereign quite superior in character as well as in ability. As has been well suggested, Mr. Froude seems to lay too much stress upon contemporary verdicts, and does not make sufficient allowance for the subservient spirit toward the throne which characterized the King's associates and a large proportion of the people in that era. When Parliaments were ready at the royal nod to declare the King released from his debts, and Convocation undertook to dissolve a marriage, without the least show of legal ground, simply because it was distasteful to the monarch,-- when thus the highest powers in State and Church were enslaved, the fact that this or that party helped to give a specious appearance to various deeds of the King does not go far toward his justification. It was understood to be no safe matter to bring in a different verdict from that which was desired. There might be courage to resist an exorbitant tax, for the universal opposition to it relieved each individual from serious responsibility. But where less support could be counted on, conduct was too apt to be determined by dread of the royal displeasure.

No doubt Henry VIII. had some of the qualities of an efficient ruler. To strong resolution he added a degree of compliance with the demands of the times. He knew the value of popularity. He had the discretion not to push any particular policy beyond the bounds of national endurance. But the restraint which he acknowledged lay in policy rather than in any conscientious moderation. His essential temper was that of an Oriental despot. Not to mention other features of his rule, the heartlessness with which he sacrificed the feelings and the lives of his queens, and sent to the scaffold the ministers who had served him with signal devotion, gives an unavoidable impression of devouring egotism and unfeeling tyranny. "In Henry VIII.," says Ranke, "we remark no free self-abandonment and no inward enthusiasm, no real sympathy with any living man; men are to him only instruments which he uses and then breaks to pieces." 1 History of England, i. 169, English edition.