,^^;?^i«T«7i^ BR 375 .M6 1890 Moore, Aubrey L. , 1848- 1890. Lectures and papers on the history of the Reformation LECTURES AND PAPERS ON THE FIISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINl'XT BY THE LATE AUBREY LACKINGTON MOORE, M.A. HONORARY CANON OF CHIUST CHURCH EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE LATE AND PRESENT LORD BISHOPS OF OXFORD FELLOW, TUTOR, AND DEAN OF DIVINITY OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE AND TUTOR OF KEBLE COLLEGE, OXFORD LO X I) OS KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUr.NER & CO., Lr?, 1890 (7"A< ri^hti c/ tramlaticn and oj >tpn\iu>: lien art rturxtd.) PREFACE Immediately after Mr. Aubrey Moore's lamented death, on January \y last, many requests were made for the publication of the lectures on the Reformation, by which, perhaps, he was most widely known among the junior members of the Uni- versity. This volume is the result ; but it must in nowise be looked upon as presenting the lectures in anything like the final form contemplated by Mr. Moore, who had expressed his intention of rewriting them before publication. It is offered to his friends, known and unknown, as a memorial, and not as a finished and elaborate work on the subject of which it treats. Mr. Moore delivered these lectures as the deputy of Canon Bright, the Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History. He began to act in that capacity in Hilary Term, 1880, and from that time lectured regularly without a break in two out of the three terms of the academical year (the third term being devoted to "informal instruction"). He was announced to lecture in the Hilary Term of 1890, on the first day of which he passed to his rest. The first two courses of lectures are dated 1882, at which time, if not before, the larger part of the fourth course was also committed to paper. The third course was written towards the end of 1883, or the beginning of 1884. All have been much revised, and in parts remodelled and condensed— the first course in 1888, the second in 1886, the third in 1887— while various notes show that the same treatment was being applied to the fourth course as late as the November of 1889. VI PREFACE. The manuscript of tlic lectures was found to be unexpectedly perfect, thouf^h there are several ^Mps which have, to a lar<;e extent, been filletl u[) from the note-books of some of his pupils, and various scattered papers and memoranda of his own, which he had never worked into the text. All such additions have been carefully indicated in their proper places. The lecture now printed as the Introductory Lecture originally stood, in two sections, at the head of an early recension of the course on the Continental Reformation, which was found in a separate note-book. The latter portions of this early sketch have been worked up into and utilized for the course as actually delivered in recent years, but the open- ing lectures were omitted, probably through want of time. They are now put in the forefront of this volume, not only because they seemed well worth preserving in themselves, but because they strike the key-note of the whole of Mr. Moore's lectures and writings on Reformation history. Of the other lectures, three consisted, in ]\Ir. Moore's manuscript, of printed matter already published. That on Wolsey (Course I. lect. 7) is made up of the revised proofs of an article by Mr. Moore, which appeared in the CIiurclL Quarterly Review, and that on Zwingli (Course IV. lect. 10) of a reprint of one of his Guardian articles. The third (Course III. lect. 18) is a copy of a Guardian article of my own on Cardinal Allen. It has been thought best to reprint these three articles intact, rather than mere outline notes taken from his pupils' note-books. It is obvious that there were many parts of the vast subject on which Mr. Moore lectured that could only be touched upon in the time at his disposal. As to some of these points he had happily put his views on record, and hence the lectures arc followed in this volume by some papers, the publication of which was asked for by different persons. The first five of these were originally published in the Guardian, the sixth is a set of notes prepared apparently for some popular lecture, while the last is a paper read before some society and now published for the first time. Though some of the thoughts — and a few phrases — contained in this PREFACE. vil last essay have appeared in Mr. Moore's Introduction to his " Holy Week Addresses " (being probably borrowed from the address now printed), it has been included in this volume in order that Mr. Moore's views on the four great Reformers — Wyclif, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin — might be put in a connected form before his friends. My own share in this volume has not been very large. I undertook the task of editing the lectures, partly because I had often talked with Mr. Moore about Reformation matters, and partly because I had myself paid some attention to the subject. I have not tried to write them up or to make a complete text-book out of them. My aim has been to place Mr. Moore's views before a larger circle of his friends than the audiences which used to throng to his lectures. Hence while correcting any absolute slips and inserting a few con- necting words where necessary, I have as a rule confined myself to adding some references and occasional notes, while I have not felt myself at liberty to strike out a certain number of repetitions which occur in the original manuscript. I have carefully collated the manuscript with five note-books that have been placed at my disposal by three of Mr. Moore's pupils, inserting in the text here and there passages which had been spoken by Mr. Moore, though not written down in his manuscript. All insertions and additions — whether my own or derived from note-books — have, when extending to more than two or three words, been carefully distinguished from the rest of the lectures and enclosed within square brackets. I have verified Mr. Moore's references, as well as thoroughly revised and somewhat expanded various tables scattered through his lectures. Two of these — " The Ecclesi- astical Legislation of Henry VHL," and "The Tabular View of Non-Catholic Confessions, 1530-1555" — were printed by Mr. Moore for distribution to his pupils. Another, that giving the sessions of the Council of Trent, was found among his papers in a rough draft, but does not seem to have been actually employed by him for his lectures. The titles of the lectures are in each case the most recent indicated in Mr. Moore's manuscript. Finally, I have compiled a list of the b viii PREFACE. chief works referred to in the text or in the notes, and liave added an Index at the close of the volume. I have to express my sincerest thanks to Mrs. Moore for her courtesy in allowing me to use her husband's books, and for her unwearied kindness in supplying me with various important pieces of information as to Mr. Moore's papers, etc. My editorial labours have been much lightened by her great consideration. I have also to thank, for much help and encouragement, a brother Fellow of Mr. Moore's and my own, who does not wish to be named publicly. I must also acknowledge the readiness with which the editors of the Church Quarterly Review and of the Guardian acceded to my request to be allowed to reprint several of Mr. Moore's contributions to those periodicals. My hearty thanks are also due to the Rev. B. J. Kidd, M.A., of Kcble College, Mr. L. Pullan, B.A., of Christ Church and St. John's College, and Mr. R. G. Mullins, B.x-\., of Kcble College, for allowing me to make use of the full and accurate notes of Mr. Moore's lectures in their possession. I have only to add that I alone am responsible for any slips in this volume, and to ask the indulgence of all who may read it for the unavoidable shortcomings of a laborious work carried out in the midst of many interruptions and engrossing occupations, but undertaken as a last tribute of respect and affection for one who had long been a dear friend of mine, and who was, for one short month, the last of his life on earth, a brother Fellow as well. \V. A. B. COOLIDGE. Magdalen Collrge, Oxford, June 9, 1890. TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. LECTURES. FAGS Introductory Lecture i COURSE I. THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND DURING THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII, (1509-1547). LECTURE -I. The English Reformation Ecclesiastical and Political, not Doctrinal 21 11. Relations of England and Rome up to the Granting of Magna Charta (1215) 27 III. Relations of England and Rome from Henry III. to Henry VIII. 35 IV. Relations of Church and State before the Reformation — Benefit of Clergy . . 42 V. Relations of Church and State before the Reformation — Ecclesias- tical Temporalities . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 48 VI. Relations of Church and State before the Reformation — Taxation of Clergy — Investiture — Ecclesiastical Courts . . . . . . 52 VII. State of England (i 509-1 529) — Wolsey's Greatness and Fall . . 58 VIII. The Reformation Parliament (1529-1 536)— Ecclesiastical Legis- lation of 1529. . .. .. 87 IX. The Reformation Parliament (i 529-1 536)— The Clergy under Prae- munire {1530) — Legislation of 1 53 1 .. .. .. •• 98 X. The Reformation Parliament (i 529-1 536)— Supplication against Ordinaries — Submission of the Clergy — Restraint of Annates (1532) 103 XI. The Reformation Parliament (1529-1536)— The Separation from Rome (1533-4) 107 XII. The Royal Supremacy .. .. .. .. •• .• ..114 XIII. The Royal Supremacy and the Changed Relations of Church and State 118 XIV. The New Court of Final Appeal and its Subsequent History . . 122 XV. The Suppression of the Monasteries — The Monastic System in England — Its Rise and its Fall .. .. .. •• .. 125 XVI. The Suppression of the Monasteries— The General Visitation .. 131 X COXTEXTS. LECTURE PAOK XVII. Be<:;iiinings of the Doctrinal Reformation — Formularies of Faith in Henry VIII. 's Reign 137 Will. Beginiiinjjs of the Doctrinal Reformation — Bej^inninj^s of Doctrinal Changes in Henry \I II. 's Reign .. .. .. .. .. 142 COUR.SE II. THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND DURING THE REIGNS OF EDWARD VI. AND MARY (1547-I558). I. The Spiritual and the Civil Power 147 II. The Royal Supremacy 153 III. Review of the Ecclesiastical Changes made in Henry VIII. 's Reign 159 IV. Henry VIII. 's Will — The Succession and the Council . . . . 162 V. History of the Reformation on the Continent (1547-1 553)— Bishops' Licences — The Homilies and the Paraphrase .. .. .. 167 VI. The Royal Visitation and Injunctions— Opposition of Bonner and Gardiner .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..171 VII. Parliament and Convocation in 1547 — Communion in both Kinds — C^w^6'W7/Vr and Chantries Acts .. .. .. ..174 VIII. The New Communion Office and Cranmer's Catechism (1548) . . 179 IX. The First Prayer-book of Edward VI. and the First Act of Uni- formity (1549) 182 X. Other Ecclesiastical Statutes (1549) — Reformatio Legum Ecclesias- //V^r;//;/ (1549-1552) 187 XI. The English Ordinal (1550) 191 XII. From the First Prayer-book to the Second — Attack by Hooper and Ridley on Vestments and Altars . . . . . . . . 200 XIII. The Foreigners and their Influence — The Second Prayer-book . . 204 XIV. Mary's Accession and its Causes — Outline of History from 1553- 1558 210 XV. The Reconciliation with Rome (1554) and its Two Phases . . 213 XVI. The Persecution of the Protestants 217 X\TI. Edwardine Orders — Convocation under Mary 222 COURSE III. THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND DURING THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH (1558-1603). I. Introduction and Retrospect .. .. .. .. .. .. 229 II. The First Year of Elizabeth's Reign (1559) 238 III. The Act of Uniformity and the Restoration of the Prayer-book ('559) 243 IV, Consecration of Archbishop Parker (1559) .. .. .. .. 245 V. Roman Ol)jections to Parker's Consecration . . . . . . 247 \T. Provision for the Immediate Needs of the Church (1560-1562) .. 253 VII. The Thirty-nine Articles — Their Histor)- and Meaning .. . . 256 VIII. The Canon I^w of the English Church .. .. .. .. 257 l.\. The Beginnings of English Puritanism — The Troubles of Frankfort 202 CONTENTS. XI I-ECn-RE PAGE X. The Puritans in England — The Vestiarian Controversy . . . . 263 XI. The "Advertisements" and the First Schism (1566) .. .. 266 XII. The Papists and the Bull of 1570 270 XIII. The Reformation in Scotland ( 1 560-1 592) .. .. .. .. 271 XIV, The Reformation in Ireland up to 1603 .. .. .. .. 275 XV, The Four Stages of Puritanism . . . . . . . . . . 282 XVI. The Struggle of the Church with Puritanism— The Prophesyings (1571-1577) 288 XVII. The Mar-prelate Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 XVIII. The Church and the Papists . . . . . . 295 From Theodore to Cranmer . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 COURSE IV. THE REFORMATION ON THE CONTINENT. I. The Characteristic Differences between the English and the Con- tinental Reformation .. .. .. .. .. ..319 II, The Growth of the Papacy — (a) Church and State . . .. . . 325 III. ,, ,, ,, ()3) The Pope and the Council . . 336 IV. The Renaissance in Italy and Germany .. 351 V. The Political State of Europe at the Opening of the Sixteenth Century 355 Period I. — From the Ptiblicatioji of the Theses to the Diet of Augsburg (1517-1530). VI. The Personal Phase of the Reformation (1517-1521) .. .. 361 367 371 373 381 VII. Political Complications (1522-1525) . . VIII. Disintegration of the Non-Catholic party (i 522-1 525) IX. Crystallization of Protestant Doctrine ( 1 526-1 530). . * X. The Swiss Reformation (1517-1531) . . Period II. — From the Formation of the Schmalkaldic League to the End of the ScJivialkaldic War. XI. Negotiations for a General Council ( 1 531-1538) .. .. .. 395 XII. The Period of Conferences — Hagenau, Worms, and Ratisbon (1539-1541) — Preparations for the Council (1542-1545). . . . 402 XIII. Opening of the Council of Trent and the Schmalkaldic War (1545-1547) — Luther's character and work .. .. .. 413 Period III, — Period of the Council of Trent ( 1 547- 1 563). XIV. From the Battle of Miihlberg (1547) to the Peace of Augsburg (1555) 422 XV. From the Peace of Augsburg (1555) to the Close of the Council of Trent (1563) 427 XVI. Spread of Reforming Opinions in and around Germany up to 1563 434 Period IV.— The Post-Tridentine Period. XVII. The Resources of the Papacy for the Coming Struggle : (a) The Council of Trent ; (/3) The Inquisition . . . . . . . . 439 XVIII. The Resources of the Papacy for the Coming Struggle : (7) The New Orders of the Reformation Period . . . . . . . . 445 xii CO STENTS. II. PAPERS. PAGE I. The Condemnation of John Wiclif .. .. .. .. .. 455 II. Mr. R. L. Poole's '* Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval Thought" 463 III. Wiclifs " De Benedicta Incarnacione" 471 IV. Luther and the Luther Commemoration . . . . . . . . 475 V. Mr. Wace's *' First Principles of the Reformation" .. .. 482 VI. The Influence of Luther on the English Reformation . . . . 498 VII. The Influence of Calvinism on Modem Unbelief . . . . . . 501 TABLES AND GENEALOGIES. 1. From the Norman Conquest to the End of the Thirteenth Century . . 25 2. Chronology of Parliament and Convocation, 1529-1536. . .. .. 87 3. Ecclesiastical Legislation of the Reformation Parliament ( 1 529-1 536). . 90 4. Origins of the Monastic Orders .. .. .. .. .. .. 125 5. Statistics of Religious Foundations in England .. .. .. .. 127 6. Genealogy of the Tudor Dynasty .. .. .. .. .. ..163 7. Ecclesiastical Legislation of Edward VI. . . . . . . . . . . 165 8. „ ,, ,, Mary 212 9. The Bishops in 1554-1555 218 10. Summary of the Reformation Settlement . . .. .. .. .. 235 11. Ecclesiastical Legislation of Elizabeth .. .. .. .. .. 236 12. Chronology of the Reformation on the Continent (1517-1555). . . . 313 13. List of CEcumenical Councils .. .. .. .. .. .. 339 14. Genealogy of the House of Saxony .. .. .. .. .. 358 15. Chronology of the Council of Trent (1542-1 563) .. .. ..411 16. Elvents between the Battle of Miihlberg (1547) and the Close of the Council {1563) .. .. .. .. 420 17. Tabular View of the Non-Catholic Confessions, 1530-1555 ..End of book LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME. [The exact editions used are specified when necessary ; but a few quotations taken second hand from a book which is named have been omitted.] Amos ( ). (It has not been possible to identify the book mentioned on p. 1 20, though it may be " Observations on the Statutes of the Reformation Parliament in the Reign of Henry VIII. ," by Andrew Amos, 1859.) Anglia Sacra. Edited by Henry Wharton. 2 vols. 169 1. Arber (Edward). An Introductory Sketch to the Martin Mar-prelate Con- troversy, 1 588-1 590. 1879. Baeda. Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. Edited by G. II. Moberly. 1869. Bailey (T. J.). A Defence of Holy Orders in the Church of England. Large edition (in Latin), 1870. Small edition (in English), 1871. Balan (P.). Monumenta Lutheranse Reformationis, 1521-1525. Ratisbon, 1883, 1884. Baronius (Cardinal Ctesar). Annales Ecclesiastici. Vols, i.-ix., 1589; x.-xii., 1609-16 1 3. Bayne (Peter). Martin Luther : his Life and Work. 2 vols. 1887. Beard (Charles). The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in its relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge. The Hibbert Lectures for 1883. 1883. Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany until the Close of the Diet of Worms. Edited by J. Frederick Smith. 1889. Bellesheim (A.). History of the Catholic Church of Scotland. Translated by Dom Oswald Hunter-Blair. 3 vols. 1887-1889. Bingham (Joseph). Antiquities of the Christian Church, etc. 10 vols. 1855. Blackstone (Sir W.). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Bloxam (J. R.). A Register of the Presidents, Fellows, Demies, etc., of Saint Mary Magdalen College, in the University of Oxford, since the Foundation of the College to the Present Time. 7 vols, and index. 1853-1885. Blunt (J. H.). The Reformation of the Church of England. New edition. 2 vols. 1882. The Annotated Book of Common Prayer. Revised edition. 1884. (J. J.). Sketch of the Reformation in England. New edition. 187S. Bramhall (Archbishop). Works. Edited by A. W. Haddan. 5 vols. 1842- 1845. (Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.) Brewer (J. S.). The Reign of Henry VIII. 2 vols. 1884. English Studies; or, Essays in English History and Literature. 18S1. XIV LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. Bright (Canon). History of the Church, 313-451. i860. Canons of the First Four General Councils. Greek text and English translation. 2n(J edition. 1869. Chapters of Early English Church History. 1st edition. 1878. Brj'ce (Professor). The Holy Roman Empire. 4th edition. 1873. Bucer (.Martin). Scrijita Anglicana. 1577. Burke (Hubert). Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty and of the Reformation Period. 2 vols. 1879, Burnet (Bishop). A History of the Reformation of the Church of England, with " Records" at the end of each volume. 3 parts. Revised edition. 1679. Burrows (Professor Montagu). The Relations of Church and State historically considered. Two lectures. 1866. C. (W. A. B.). Papers in the Guardian of August 18 and December 29, 1886, and December 4, 1889. Calvin (John). InstitutioChristianae Religionis (originally published in 1536). Campion (W. M.) and Beamont (W. J.). The Prayer-book Interleaved. Cardwell (Edward). Two Books of Common Prayer set forth by authority in the Reign of Edward VI. compared with each other. 1st edition, 1838 ; 3rd edition, 1852. Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England. 2 vols. 1843. Synodalia. 2 vols. 1842. The " Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum." Edited by E. Cardwell. 1850. Church (Dean). Life of Saint Anselm. 1870. Church Quarterly Ri'virw, January, 187S, July, 1SS3, January, 1885. Collier (Jeremy). An Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain. 2 vols. 1708-14. Constitutional Essays. Essays introductory to the Study of English Constitu- tional History. Edited by A. Hassall and H. O. Wakeman. 1887. Contemporary Review, October, 1878, March, 1879. Cranmer (Archbishop). Remains. Edited by H. Jenkyns. 4 vols. 1837. Letters of. 4 vols. 1 833. Memorials of. Edited by J. Strype. Catechism of. Edited by E. Burton. 1829. Works. Edited by J. E. Cox. 2 vols, (of which one is frequently re- ferred to as '♦ Remains "). 1844- 1846 (Parker Society). Creighton (Canon). The Mediaeval Church and Rome: a Paper read at the Church Congress of 1S87. A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation. 4 vols. 1882-1887. Cardinal Wolsey. 1888. (Twelve English Statesmen Series.) Curtcis (Canon). Dissent in its Relations to the Church of England. 3rd edition. 1874. (Bampton Lectures for 1871.) D'Aubigne (Merle). History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in Switzerland, Germany, etc. English translation. 3rd edition. 5 vols. 1S40. Digby (K. E.). An Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property. 2nd edition. 1S76. Dixon (Canon). Histoiy of the Church of England since the Abolition of the Roman Juristory of the Reformation. New edition by J. C. Robertson, 1849. (Ecclesiastical History Society.) Aerius Retlivivus ; or, The History of the Presbyterians. 1670. Historische Aufsatze dem Andenken an Georg Waltz gewidmet. 1886. Ilistotische Zeitschrifty Von Sybel's. 1890. Article by Julius Weizsacker. Hook(Dean). Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, 11 vols. 1860-1875. (Particularly vols, vi., Warhani and Cranmer ; vii., Cranmer ; ix., Parker; x., Grindal.) Hooker (Richard), Works. Arranged by John Keble. 3 vols. 1874. Hovedene (Roger de). Chronica. Edited by Bishop Stubbs. 4 vols, 1868-1871. (No. 31 in the Master of the Rolls' Series of "Chronicles and Memorials.") Hume (David). History of England. Hussey (R.). The Rise of the Papal Power traced in Three Lectures. 1863. Hution (A, W,), The Anglican Ministry, 1879, "Janus." The Pope and the Council. New edition, 1873, Joyce (J, W,). The Sword and the Keys, 1869, (2nd edition, 1881.) Kostlin (Julius). Life of Martin Luther, English translation, 1883, Laurence (Archbishop), An Attempt to illustrate those Articles of the Church of England which the Calvinists improperly consider as Calvinistical. 1805. (Bampton Lectures for 1804.) Lear (H. L. Sidney). The Revival of Priestly Life in the Seventeenth Century in France. 1873, Lee (Vernon). Article in the Contemporary Review for ^L1rch, 1879, Lewes (G, H,). History of Philosophy, 2 vols, 4th edition, 187 1. Lewis (John). History of the Life and Sufferings of John Wycliffe, D.D. 1720. New edition. 1820, Liddon (H, P.), A Father in God. A sermon preached at the consecration of Dr. King to the see of Lincoln. 2nd edition. 1885. Limborch (Phil.). Historia Inquisitionis. 1692. Lingard (John). History of England. 10 vols. 1855. Littledale(R. F.). The Petrine Claims. S.P.C.K. 1889. A Short History of the Council of Trent. S.P.C.K. 18S8. Macaulay (Lord). Essay on Ranke's '* History of the Popes." Machiavelli (Niccolo). Discorsi sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio. Mant (R.). History of the Church of Ireland from the Reformation to the Revolution, 2 vols, 1840, Martene(E,). De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, 1700, Maskell (W.), Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesia; Anglicanx. 2nd edition. 3 vols. 1882. The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, 3rd edition. 1SS2. A History of the ^Lartin Mar-prelate Controversy in the Reign of (^ueen Elizabeth, 1845. Massarclli. See Thciner. Mendham (Joseph). Memoirs of the Council of Trent. 1834. Translation of Palcotto's Report of the Council of Trent. 1S42. Mill (J. S.). On Liberty. People's edition. 1871, An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy. 4th edition. 1872, Milman (Dean). History of Latin Christianity. 9 vols. 4th edition. 1S72. Savonarola, Erasmus, and other Essays. 1870. LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. XVll Mivart (St. George). Contemporary Evolution. 1876. Mohler (J. A.). Symbolism : or Exposition of the Doctrinal Dififerences between Catholics and Protestants, as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings. Translated by J. B. Robertson. 2 vols. 1843. Monumenta Lutheranse Reformationis. See Balan. Monasteries, Three Chapters of Letters relating to the Suppression of the. Edited by Thomas Wright. (Camden Society.) 1843. Mullinger (J. Bass). The University of Cambridge. 2 vols. 1873-1884. Myers (F. W. H.). Lectures on Great Men. 1856. Neal (Daniel). History of the Puritans. 3 vols. 1837. Niemeyer (H. A.). Collectio Confessionum in ecclesiis Reformatis publica- tarum. Leipsic. 1840. Oman. See English Historical Review. Original Letters, relative to the English Reformation. Edited by Hastings Robinson. (Parker Society.) 2 vols. 1846, 1847. " Oxoniensis." Romanism, Protestantism, and Anglicanism. 1882. Pallavicino (Sforza). Istoria del Concilio di Trento. Latin translation of 1673. 3 vols. Palleotto. See Mendham and Theiner. Palmer (Sir W.). A Treatise on the Church of Christ. 2 vols. 1838. Parker (James). The First Prayer-book of Edward VL compared with the Successive Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer. 1877. An Introduction to the Successive Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer. 1877. Did Queen Elizabeth take "other order" in the Advertisements of 1566 ? A Letter to Lord Selborne. 1878. With a Postscript. 1879. Shilling Reprints of the First and Second Prayer-books of Edward VL 1883. Parker Society. Cranmer's Works. 2 vols. 1844-1846. Original Letters relative to the Reformation. 2 vols. 1846, 1847. Liturgies of Edward VL, 1549 and 1552. Edited by the Rev. J. Ketley. 1844. Correspondence of Archbishop Parker. Edited by John Bruce and T. T. Perowne. 1853. Zurich Letters. Edited by Hastings Robinson. 2 vols. 1842-1845. Pearson (A. H. ). The Validity and Regularity of Anglican Orders. A Lecture. 1870. Pennington (Canon). Preludes to the Reformation. R.T.S. 1886. (Church History Series.) Perry (Canon). History of the English Church from Henry VHL to 17 17. 1878. (Murray's Student's English Church History.) Life of Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. S.P.C.K. 1871. Philippson (Martin). La Contre-Revolution Religieuse au ib*'""^ Siecle. 1886. Plowden (Francis). Historical Review of the State of Ireland from the Invasion of Henry H. to 1801. 2 vols, in 3 parts. 1803. Poole (R. L.). Illustrations of the History of Mediceval Thought. 1884. Wyclif and Movements for Reform. 1889. (Epochs of Church Histor)-.) Procter (F.). A History of the Book of Common Prayer. 15th edition. 1880. Pusey (Dr.). The Royal Supremacy. 1850. Putter (J. S.). Development of the Constitution of the Ciermanic Empire. Translated by P. Dornford. 3 vols. 1790. xv:il LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. Quarterly Revinu. Vol. 42. Ranke (Leopold von). The History of the Popes in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. (Transl. in Bohn's Series.) 3 vols. 1856. History of the Reformation in Germany. Translated (up to 1535) by Mrs. Austin. 3 vols. 1845- 1847. A History of England principally in the Seventeenth Century. Trans- lated by C. W. Boase and G. \V. Kitchin. 6 vols. 1875. Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. Edited by E. Cardwell. 1850. Reichel (O. J.). See of Rome in the Middle Ages. 1870. Renouf (P. Le Page). The Case of Pope Honorius reconsidered, with reference to Recent Apologies. 1869. The Condemnation of Pope Honorius. 1868. Robertson (J. B.). See Mohler. Robertson (J. C). Lectures on the Rise of the Papal Power. S.P.C.K. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. New edition. 1875. Robertson (Joseph). Concilia Scotix, Ecclesioe Scoticanje Statuta tam Pro- vincialia quam Synodalia qux supersunt, 1225-1559. 2 vols. 1866. (Bannatyne Club.) Robertson (William). History of the Reign of Charles V. Edited by W. H. Prescott. 2 vols. 1857. Roscoe (\V.). Life and Pontificate of Leo X, 2 vols. 1S53. (Bohn's Series.) Rymer (T,). Foedera. 1st edition. 1 727-1 735. 20 vols. Latest edition. (1066-1377.) 3 vols, in 6 parts. 1816-1830. Sanders (Nicholas). Rise ancl Growth of the Anglican Schism. Translated by Lewis. 1879. Sarpi (Paolo). History of the Council of Trent. Translated by Sir Nathaniel Brent. 1676. Savonarola, Life of. (Anonymous.) 1843. Scudamore (W. E.). Notitia Eucharistica. 2nd edition. 1876. Seebohm (F.). The Era of the Protestant Revolution. 1875. (Epochs of Modern History Series.) Selborne (Lord). A Defence of the Church of England against Disestablish- ment. 1886. Ancient Facts and P'ictions concerning Churches and Tithes. 1888. Short (Bishop). Sketch of the Hi^tory of the Church of England to the Revolution of 1688. 1875. Sismondi (J. C. L. de). Fall of the Roman I\mpire. English translation. 2 vols. 1834. Socrates. Historia Ecclesiastica. Edited by Canon Bright. 1878. Southey (R.). The Book of the Church. 5th edition. 1849. Stephen (Sir James). Lectures on the History of France. 2 vols. 1857. Strype (John). Memorials of Cranmer. New edition. 2 vols. 1S40. Life of Parker. 3 vols. 1821-1828. Ecclesiastical Memorials. 6 vols. 1822. Annals of the Reformation. 4 vols. 1824. (The references to Stryi)e are in all cases to the volumes of the Svo edition, and to the paging of the folio edition, which is indicated on the margin of the 8vo editi(m.) Slubbs (Bishop). See also Hard wick, and Hovedene. The Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. 1st edition. 1S74-7S. LIST OF J FORKS REFERRED TO. xix Stubbs (Bishop), Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History. 1st edition. 1886. Select Charters. 2nd edition. 1874. Historical Appendix to Vol. I. of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission. 1883. Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum. 1858. Letter on Apostolical Succession in the Church of England. (For the Eastern Church Association.) 1865. Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus Reformandse Ecclesise editarum. 1827. Symonds (J. A.). The Renaissance in Italy. \'ol. L, The Age of the Despots. 1875. Theiner (Father Augustine). Acta Genuina SS. CEcumenici Concilii Triden- tini. 2 vols. Zagrab in Croatia. 1874. Travers-Smith (Canon R.). We ought not to alter the Ordinal. Dublin, 1872. (A pamphlet.) Trent. Canons and Decrees of the Council of. Handy edition by Roger, at Paris, 1883. Ueberweg (F.). History of Philosophy. English translation. 2 vols. 1884. Villari (Pasquale). Life and Times of Savonarola. English translation by Linda Villari. New edition. 2 vols. 1888. Wace (H.) and Buchheim (C. A.). First Principles of the Reformation. 1883. Ward (A. W.). The Counter- Reformation. 1889. (Epochs of Church History.) Waterworth (Father). The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. English translation. 1848. (Reprinted very recently.) Weizsacker. See Historische Zeitschrift. Westcott (Bishop). A General View of the History of the English Bible, 2nd edition. 1872. Wilkins. Concilia Magnse Britanniae et Hibernise. 4 vols. 1737. Willis (E. F.). Pope Honorius and the New Roman Dogma. 1879. Wright (Thomas). See also Monasteries, Suppression of the. Political Poems and Songs relating to English History. Edward 111. to Richard HL 2 vols. 1859-1861. (No. 14 in the Master of the Rolls' Series.) Wylie (J. A.). History of Protestantism (sine dato Cassell). Zurich Letters, The. Edited by Hastings Robinson. 2 vols. 1842-1845. (Parker Society.) I. LECTURES. HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. [This lecture, originally forming several divisions, was found in an old note-book at the head of an early recension of the course on the Continental Reformation. It does not seem to have been delivered to Mr. Moore's pupils, at least in 1888 and 1889, but it has been thought best to print it in this place, as it is of a general character.] The object of this Introductory Lecture is to offer certain clear and distinct points of view from which the history of the Reformation may be approached, and to suggest central subjects round which others will naturally group themselves. Probably no period of history has been more differently handled than the period of the Reformation, and this diver- sity seriously complicates our study of it. The remedy for this is to know beforehand the different points of view from which the writers approach the subject, and having chosen our own, to bring others into comparison and relation with it. (Explain.) First, a wide difference in results is caused by the difference between the secular and religious view of history. From a purely secular point of view history represents an endless concatenation of cause and effect. Great movements arc 2 inSTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN found in the c,^crm in the prccedin^cj age. Great men are the product of their time. Freewill is a mere name for the balance of motives in the individual, and so on. Flav InTiv avOf)(i)7rog fTvfi^opi}'. only the ancient Destiny or Fate is ex- changed for circumstances and the inviolable law of causation. The religious view, \vhile admitting that effects must have causes, and tracing back great movements to their proximate causes, is not afraid to recognize the presence of God as a Supreme Cause, ordering great movements for His own pur- poses, raising up great men for the work that they have to do, bringing good out of evil, and making pride, and ambition, and vice subservient to the Divine Will. In ecclesiastical history, of whatever period, the point of view chosen will affect the result infinitely more than in any other branch of history. It is possible, no doubt, to treat man as a money-getting animal as Political Economy does, or as a pleasure-seeking animal as some systems of Ethics do, and yet still to arrive at approximately true results. But to treat of any period of ecclesiastical history without believing in the Church as a Divine Society, is at once to place ourselves out of rapport with the thoughts and feelings of those who were the chief actors in the history, and so far to misunder- stand the import and course of events. Any ecclesiastical history must of necessity be religious, or it will fall short of being a true history. It must recognize the fact that the Church was, and was believed to be, an institution of Divine origin, not merely the religious department of imperial or national history ; it must admit the belief in the promised presence of its Founder, rendering it not indeed infallible (for the human is never sublimated in the Divine), but guarding it,'purif}ing it, reforming it when necessar}-, and using even opposing and anti-Christian forces, as Cyrus was used for the restoration of the Jcws.^ Now, the views of the Reformation with which we most ' Luther, in a passage from his "Tabletalk" quoted in D'Aubigne's " Reforma- tion in Germ.," vol. i. prcf. xiv., compares the history of the world to a game of cards in which God "dealt" ! On the general subject of a Religious v. the Fatalist and Positive view of History, sec Sir Jnnics Stephen's "Lectures (in the Hist, of France," Lect. i. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 3 frequently meet fall under three heads, two of them religious, the other non-religious.^ The first two are broadly distin- guished, the Papist and the Protestant ; the last we may call the sceptical, or secular [including under either name the literary and philosophical], I. The Papist View. From the point of view of the Papist, which may be gathered, for instance, from such a standard book as Mohler's " Symbolism," the Reformation (so called) was the throwing off from the sound body of the Catholic Church the parts which were diseased and infected with the poison of heresy. It is usual for those who write from this point of view to emphasize the badness of the motives by which many of the Reformers acted, and even to assume bad motives where they are not known to exist. Few people would in our day defend the character of Henry VI I L, for instance, but to say that the English Reformation was the work of ambition and lust^ is as convenient and as true as for a Protestant to say the same of the policy of some of the Popes. From the Papist point of view, it is common to represent the Reformation as a sudden and violent outburst of heretical opinion, instead of being, as it was, the last term in a series of reforming move- ments within and without the Roman Church. Consistently with this one-sided conception of the movement we find an absolute ignoring of the reformation effected by the Council of Trent. Mohler contrasts the decisions of that Council with the various Protestant Confessions, forgetting that the bulk of the practical abuses against which the Protestants protested were recognized, admitted, and, in theory at all events, reformed. It is a remarkable fact that a reconciliation with the Protestants was considered possible long after the earlier meetings of the Council, and Contarini, as Legate of Pope Paul III. at Ratisbon in 1541, actually agreed with the four primary articles of the Lutherans, viz. Jiuman nature, ' Sec also Wylie's " History of Protestantism," pp. 57, 58. 2 As Father Hutton in his book on the Anglican Ministry. 4 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION I\ original SIN, yedonptiou, ^ndjustijicatioi} Political complica- tions and, above all, the fear of giving too great unity to Germany contributed largely to the breakdown of these negotiations, but the fact remains that the more moderate Roman Catholics did not consider even the fundamental articles of the Protestants heretical, or incapable of being expressed in the old terminology of the Catholic Church. After the breaking off of these conciliatory negotiations the breach became constantly wider, many of the Protestant sects pro- ceeding to the plain denial of the existence of a Holy Catholic Church. It is noticeable, too, that Roman Catholic historians of this period '^ exaggerate the connection of the Reformation movement with the literary and philosophical reaction against Scholasticism. The connection is no doubt a real one, but to represent Voltaire^ and the Encyclopedists as the logical outcome of the Reformation movement is as irrational as to speak of scepticism as the last term in philosophy, instead of as the 7'eductio ad absurdiim of its own premisses. We shall say more of this under the third head, the sceptical view of the Reformation. II, The Protestant \^iew. Under the head of a Protestant view of the Reformation many and widely different views are included, inasmuch as the name " Protestant," being the negative of Roman Catholic, may lawfully be claimed by many who reject as a relic of mediaeval barbarism everything that relates to the Church, and speak of the Bible and Christianity in a way which would have horrified Luther or Calvin. Still it is quite possible to single out a representative point of view which may rightly be called the Protestant view, and which, speak- ing generally, for in detail they differ widely, is the point of view of our own Church and of the German Lutherans."* The * See ihc whole section in Ranke's " Popes," i. pp. 110-128. * See on this point Robertson's memoir of Mohler, pp. xxxiii.-xxxvi., contrasted with the much more temjierate remarks of Mohler himself. * See ([notation from Comle in Stephen's " Lectures," i. jx 9. * A fair and moderate statement of the German point of view will be found in Hagenbach, ** Hist, of the Reformation," vol. i. p. 4 sqq. See Hardwick, closing paragraph of Introductory ( haptcr to his Reformation volume, p. 10. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 5 Protestant view of the Reformation regards it as "a return to Biblical Christianity, to the simple and pure doctrine of the Gospel, divested of all which Protestants regard as a later addition, as the " ordinance of men " and as a disfigurement of the primitive apostolic type of religion." ^ No break with the Roman primate was contemplated, any more than a break with the primitive Apostolic Church.^ It was at first, like numerous previous movements which we shall notice in their place, an attempted reformation ab intra^ an effort to get rid of admitted abuses, which afterwards proved to be so intimately connected with the very nature of the Papacy, that the leading Reformers felt compelled to attack the system of Romanism. How far a real reformation with- out renouncing the papal supremacy was possible will always be a subject on which men will take different sides. The conference at Ratisbon, to which we have already alluded, was an important crisis in the history of the Church. It seemed for a moment as if a reconciliation was possible, and if it had been brought about it must not only have prevented an open breach in the Church of Christ — it would have secured a real reformation of abuses, and probably a resetting of doctrines within the Roman Church. Such a reconciliation in God's ordering of His Church was not to be, and the Reformation took the form of an open break with the Church of the Popes. How bitter the opposition became from that time we know. The Roman Church, while still boasting its semper eadeui, had the wisdom actually to reform many of its abuses, and to promise a more perfect reformation. The Protestants by the force of reaction were carried in many cases into a denial of the existence of a Church and of a divinely appointed ministry. In the Church of England the form which the Reforma- tion took was so different from the Continental form, that, while accepting in the main the Protestant view of the Reformation, the English Church approaches it in a much ' Hageiibach, i. p. 2. 2 See and quote Luthei'b letter to Leo X, which accompanied his Thc>e> (Hagenbach, voh i. p. 104}. 6 niSTORV Ul- THE REI'ORMATIOX IX more conservative spirit. The rejection of Roman jurisdic- tion on the f^rounds of the ancient rights of the EngHsh Church was the prominent feature, doctrinal and even prac- tical questions being, at all events at fu'st, of subordinate importance. The existence of errors in doctrine and practice, emphasized by the German Reformers, was, of course, freely used as an argument against the Roman claims, but they had been recognized, and attempts to reform them had been made in earlier years, by Grosseteste for instance, without any thought of throwing off the Roman allegiance. The point of view, then, that would be most natural to an English Churchman would be this : that the Reformation was the reassertion of the ancient independence of the English National Church, an independence which had never really been lost sight of since the days of the British Church, and that with the rejection of interference from " any foreign person whatsoever," the reforms so often attempted were made possible. A recasting of Catholic doctrine was not contem- plated by Henry VIII., nor was any part of the Roman teaching rejected except that which was inseparably con- nected with the Pope's claim of universal jurisdiction, or with those abuses, financial or otherwise, on which so much of his power rested. This accounts for the fact that the English Church avoided all that is distinctly Lutheran or Calvinistic in the reconstruc- tion of its formularies, going back in every case to the primi- tive and Catholic in appeal from Roman doctrine on one side and the Reforming Confessions on the other.^ To compare the points of view of the English Church and the Lutherans 2 we must keep in mind the fact that Luther and his followers began with a protest dig^inst practical dbiiscs, were led on from that to discover actual errors in doctrine, and finally were driven to renounce the papal allegiance. The English Church may be said to have begun at the other ' Illustrate by the doctrine of the Real Presence. ' From a Roman Catholic point of view a sharp distinction would be drawn between the heresy of Luther and the English schism. Many modern Roman Catholics speak of England as schismalical, but not heretical. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. y end, first renouncing the Pope's jurisdiction, and then only gradually proceeding to a reconstruction of doctrine. Both hold the Protestant view that the Reformation was a necessity, that without a break with Rome no real reform was practi- cable. Both are steadily opposed to the theory of the various Protestant sects that the farther from Rome the nearer to truth, a theory which finds its logical development in pure rationalism on the one hand, or pure mysticism on the other.^ (Explain.) III. The Secular or Sceptical View. What I have called the secular or sceptical point of view '^ is that which hails the Reformation as a great step, but only a step, towards an ideal end — the first impulse to a move- ment which, supported by the acquired privilege of free in- quiry,^ is pressing on continually, throwing down all barriers, rejecting all authority, whether human or Divine, casting dogma aside as the formulation of error, and gradually reach- ing on to its goal, the emancipation of the human spirit from all restraint, by breaking the bonds which connect it with the past.* This point of view is avowedly anti-Christian, though it admits of some kind of development of the religious instinct as necessary or useful in some cases. Anything like a creed is of course impossible, for a creed is a restraint, and dogmatism is stagnation. * [This last paragraph was transferred by Mr. Moore to Course iv. lecture 2, and is printed here also simply for the sake of completeness.] ^ A modern exposition of this point of view may be found in Mr. G. H. Lewes' •' History of Philosophy," vol. ii., "Transition Period," chap. iii. §§ iii.-vi. He thinks it an advantage on the whole that men did not at once exchange the authority of the Church for the supremacy of Reason [i.e. scepticism), but made a stepping-stone of the purely human authority of the ancients, which was certain eventually to give way before " the necessary insurgence of Reason insisting on freedom" ("Hist.," vol. ii. chap. iii. § v. p. 90). See also a quotation from Comte in Stephen's ** Lectures on the History of France," i. p. 8. ' [This calls to mind that old distich in which the consequences of unrestrained free inquiry are vividly described : " Tota jacet Babylon ; destruxit tecta Lutherus, Calvinus muros, sed fundamenta Sucinus."] * Sec llagcnbach, i. p. 2. 6 HJyJOKY OF THE KEtOKMAI lO.\ IN The element of truth in this point of view is to be found in the fact that, as a matter of history, such a transition from the Protestant to the secuhir position has frequently taken place, not only in individuals,^ but in entire sects. The Reformation was a great reaction, and it is inseparable from all reactionary movements that the new side of truth which is brought forward is exaggerated till it becomes an error. To many a revolt against Roman doctrine and discipline was the beginning of a revolt against all authority, and the claim to appeal from Rome to the Bible or to primi- tive Christianity was supposed to justify the right of private judgment in the individual as to the choice of his religion or the rearranging of the Church's creeds." This is no doubt the strongest argument against the Reformation that the Romanist can bring forward, that it served as a step towards secularism. Here the two opposites meet and separate. The Secularist rejoices in the identity of the reforming spirit with his own ; the Romanist, admitting the identity, quotes it as an argument against the Reformation. The answer to both is to be found in the fact that real liberty may always become licence ; but that is not an argument in favour of bondage. The Apostle, vindicating the liberty or freedom of the Spirit in contrast with the bondage of the law, does not forget to remind men that this liberty is often made a cloak for licen- tiousness. The %'ia media is always the hardest to keep, and many are ready to prefer the least dangerous extreme. Ab- solute submission to Church authority, though it means the blind acceptance of many errors, is better, no doubt, than the wayward assertion of private judgment, which ma}' mean absolute unbelief; just as, if we may compare heresies, Docetism is less dangerous to most than Arianism, but Catholic truth holds its course between the opposing extremes of Romanism and Secularism, of blind obedience and antinomianism. ' Sec memoir of Mohler, /oc. cit. ' "'They who let the ocean in to new beds,' snid Erasmus, * are often de- ceived in the result of their toil.' ' Semel admi^sum non ea fertur, qua destinarat admissor'" (Epp. i. 953, quoted by D'Aubigne, i. 120). See parallel passages in Hagenbach, vol. i., p. 78. See Hardwick's remarks on the evil consequences ot t) . " T' f.^iniation," p. 9. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 9 Still it is necessary, in fairness, to admit that the Reform- ation, and the critical and literary study of the Sacred Writings, though at first undertaken in reverence and good faith, made possible that free and open discussion of sacred truth by men of all beliefs or none, which lends itself most easily to anti-Christian ends. But the Tiibingen theology is not the necessary result of that study of the Bible which the Reformers revived, as the Roman authorities and the secularists assert, nor is it fair to judge the Reformation by a result of which it was only the occasion, not the cause.^ Coming now to the literary point of view, we can hardly, among secondary causes, allow too much importance to the connection of the Reformation with the Renaissance.^ Of course, it would be as one-sided a statement to say that the Reformation was merely the religious side of the Renaissance, as to represent it as merely a step towards the destruction of Church and Creed. The Renaissance ^ marked the destructive and sophistic, the Reformation proper the constructive ele- ment in sixteenth-century thought. Still the old saying that ** Erasmus laid the ^gg and Luther hatched it " is a very pregnant one. The Protestantism of reason naturally led to the Protestantism of religion. But the Protestantism of art and poetry had been the forerunner of both. Scholasticism reached its climax in the thirteenth century. In the hands of Thomas Aquinas a harmony between ecclesiastical Pla- tonism and Aristotelianism was effected, Averroes was over- come, and the philosophy of Aristotle received the ii)ipriinatur of the Church. But an undercurrent of pure Platonism still ' See memoir of Mohler, especially p. xxxix. 2 In many ways there is a parallel to be drawn between the sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries. Both maiked what in philosophical language would be called a wave of sceptical thought ; old things were passing away, all things were becoming new, and in the transition period between destruction and reconstruction there was an unsettling of old-established beliefs, an age in which many were "destitute of faith but terrified at scepticism, a state in which men feel sure, not so much that their opinions are true, as that they should not know what to do without them" (Mill's "Liberty," p. 13), and such an unsettling of opinions is naturally taken advantage of by those to whom the restraints of religion arc- regarded as something to be got rid of at any cost. ^ For a Roman Catholic's view of the Renaissance, see St. Geo. Mivart, " Contemp. Evolution," p. 24, sqq. 10 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN existed, and was soon to assert itself. From the end of the tliirtecnth century a tendency in this direction was apparent. Cimabue (a.D. i 240-1 300), revived the art of painting on canvas, and Giotto (A.D. 1 276-1 337), that of fresco painting ; while in poetry Dante (1265-132 1), the student of Virgil, gave to the world the " Inferno" ; Petrarch (1304-1374), the singer of love, showed his enthusiastic passion for ancient writings; Boccaccio (1313-1375), in literature, showed how light a hold the Papal Church had over the morals of the day, and the same eagerness to study ancient models. In all alike there is the ardent desire to go back from the present to the past. But the study of the ancient models brought with it the old vices. " Men of the Renaissance discovered the antique world, and in their wild blind enthu- siasm, in their ardent insatiable thirst for its literature, swallowed it eagerly, dregs and all, till they were drunk and poisoned."^ This was what Erasmus feared.^ Mr. J. A. Symonds '^ writes : " The contrast between the sacerdotal pretensions and the personal immorality of the Popes was glaring. . . . We find in the Popes of this period what has been already noticed in the despots — learning, the patronage of the arts, the passion for magnificence, and the refinements of polite culture alternating and not unfrequently combined with barbarous ferocity of temper and with savage and coarse tastes." " The corruption of Italy was only equalled by its culture. Its immorality was matched by its enthusiasm." Religion seemed to have been for a long time losing its hold on the moral life of the people. Vet this age of moral corruption was the age of Leonardo da Vinci (1452- 15 19) and Michael Angelo (1475-1564) among the Floren- tines; of Raphael (1483-1 520) among the Romans ; of Titian (1477-1576), Paul Veronese (i 530-1 588), and Tintoretto ' Cont. /vVz'., March, 1879, P- 657. ' See quotation in Mihuan's *' Krasnius," p. 148, f.n. " Unus adhuc scrui)ulus habct aninuini nicum, nc sub obtcntu priscie litcratur;v renasccntis caput erigere conctur r.-iganismus ; ut sunt inter Chrislianos qui titulo pcne duntaxat Christus agnoscunt, cxtcrum intus Gcntiliiatem spirant." Cf. Savonarola's attitude towards the New Learning. ' Renaissance, vol. i. p. 304-306. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. II (15 12-1594) among the Venetians. It was a significant in- dication of the state of feeling at the time that Pope Julius 11. was able to demolish the venerable Basilica of St. Peter, " the metropolitan church of Christendom," in order to rebuild it in the style of a classical heathen temple.^ The presence of this profane element in Renaissance art and literature, while it marked the protest against the narrow ecclesiasticism of the previous period, indicated at the same time the breakdown of religion and morality. When Leo X. succeeded Julius, in 1513, itwas at its height. Leo himself, the patron of art, the friend of Ariosto, of Machiavelli, of Raphael, with his passionate love of music, with his gentle kindness and ready sympathies, would have been " a Pope absolutely complete," says Sarpi in his " History of the Council of Trent," " if with these he had joined some knowledge in things that concern religion, and some more propension unto piety, of both of which he seemed careless."^ His ''intellectual sensuality," as Ranke calls it, which made him so easily throw himself into the Renaissance spirit, blinded him to the fact that he was fostering that which was undermining the Catholic Church. In the cultivated intellectualism of the day, and the general diffusion of knowledge through the discovery of printing, it was the fashion to discuss all questions, apart from their Christian solution, on premisses drawn from the ancients. While the lower classes were sunk in the merest ceremonia- lism, it was characteristic of good society to doubt the Christian verities.^ So Bandino writes, " One passes no longer ^ Contrast this with the converse movement, when the apsis of the old basihca, with its Augusteum, became the chancel, with its images of Christ and His apostles. See Ranke's '* Popes," vol. i. pp. 6 and 52. 2 p. 4. See Mr. Gladstone's article in the Cont. AVt^., October, 1878, for a com- parison between the Leonine and the Elizabethan age. The Renaissance showed the perfect separation between religion and morality. In some, as in Boccaccio, the result was simply paganism. It was a survival of the Epicurean carpe diem. In Bojardo and Ariosto it was but little better. But when the wave reached England, the paganism has gone, though the reaction against the monkish life and the vigorous assertion of the reality of the world of fact and of family life is the same. Boccaccio, Aretino, Bojardo, and Ariosto are pagan and anti-Christian ; Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Spenser are at least negatively Christian. ^ See Ilagenbach's sketch uf the general condition of religious feeling, i. 35- 12 niSIORY UJ' JJIE REFORMATION IN for a man of cultivation, unless one puts forth heterodox opinions regarding the Christian faith." ^ When we come to look at the Reformation movement from a philosophical point of view, wc naturally expect that theolo- gical animus will disappear, and that we shall be able to gather up into a unity the truths one-sidedly expressed by those who took an imperfect view of the whole. A few words of preface are necessary. The history of thought is a progress, not a mere oscillation between opposite poles, but constantly a progress by reactions. One side of a truth is seized, exaggerated, and made the whole ; a reaction comes ; a new or forgotten truth is advanced, which in turn is in danger of forcing the old truth out of the field and provoking a new reaction. The extreme poles of thought are commonly spoken of as dogmatism and scepti- cism, both words being used, not in the theological, which is also the popular, sense, but in a technical and well-defined meaning. Dogmatism asserts the authority of certain dis- covered or revealed truths, and demands unhesitating sub- mission to them. Scepticism questions everything, and asserts the right of the individual in his private judgment to accept or reject as he pleases. Dogmatism in its extreme form leaves no question open ; scepticism in its extreme form suspends its judgment on all subjects. The dogmatic tone of Scholasticism had determined all questions by refer- ence to the Church's decisions. Questions which fell alto- gether outside the ecclesiastical limits — questions, e.g., of science and observation — were decided by an appeal to Ari- stotle, *' the Philosopher " as he was called, or determined a priori by considerations of fitness in the teleological point of view. The revival of science, like the appeal to ancient originals in art and literature, was terribly fatal to this mode of reasoning. Facts were found to be opposed to the received theory as to what they ought to have been, and few men had the courage to say, " Taut pis pour Us faits!' Hence, with the revival of learning, the old scholastic doginatism, wliich had for four centuries held undivided swa}', broke down, and the ' Kankc, i. 56, note. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 3 sceptical tendency, in the form of free and almost defiant inquiry, challenged all received truths. In the sphere of art and literature this spirit first appeared, then in natural science, and finally within the sacred precincts of ecclesiastical truth. The legal maxim falstis in imo^ falsiis in omnibus, was ap- pealed to. The Church was proved false in its science — might it not be false in its theology as well } The revival of learning, in the existing state of things, naturally took an anti-ecclesiastical turn, in spite of Leo's attempts to be its foster-father. In the sphere of religion this revolt naturally took the form of an uprising of the subjective against the objective element. In all morals and religion two things are necessary. A really moral act must be both right in itself and done with a right motive. Real religion implies both the holding a true creed and the conscious acceptance of it as true. But these two elements easily separate, and then comes the question, which is the more important — to do what is in itself right, though the motive is not pure, or to act conscientiously, though the act itself be wrong ? This is the form the ques- tion takes in morals. Aristotle states the question thus : ^ Z,nTUTai 06 TTOTapov KvpiMTipov Tijg aperrig 1) irpoaipimg ij at 7rpaE,eig, ujg Iv ufK^olv ovcrrjg. To S17 reXsiov Sr/Xoy wg h> ttficpoTv av iir} : but while admitting that an act to be perfectly moral must involve both these elements, he is also driven to admit that, if we must choose between the two, the intention has more to do with morality than the objec- tive act, oIk^lotutov yap ilvai ^oksX (17 Trpoaip^aig) ry apeT)j, Koi luaXXov Tci i]6ri Kpiveiv tCov irpa^eiov.'^ Such a view easily lends itself to the theory that as long as the motive is good the means used to gain the end are relatively unimportant, and hence we are not surprised to find the Jesuits basing their morals exclusively on Aristotle. In religion exactly the same question appears. A perfect religion implies a true creed and an honest, or, as we say, a ' "Eth. Nic." X. viii. 5. - //'id., in. ii. i. 14 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX conscientious and intelligent, belief in it. The first without the last is formalism, a resting in that which in itself is true and right ; the last without the first exalts conscientiousness above truth, and " honest doubt " above a true creed. The Roman Church had undoubtedly held fast the faith once delivered to the saints in the three Creeds. It had taught, what is after all one of the most difficult of all truths to accept, that God can give great gifts without a quid pro quo. In the grace of Holy Baptism, at least in the case of infants, we all admit this ; but when the same truth was extended to the Mass, and the opus operation was allowed to supersede the no less necessary preparation in the individual, a reaction was the natural result. This reaction then took the form of an assertion of the need of faith in the individual in what he professes, as against the blind acceptance of a system and a creed in itself true. "Better a living dog than a dead lion " was the watchword of this position. Better an honest and conscientious faith in some essential and fundamental truths of Christianity, than the unreal acceptance of all the decisions of Councils, however true. Such an assertion of the subjective element in religion was no doubt necessary, but it had its dangers. If Romanism as it then existed encouraged formal- ism and Pharisaism, the doctrine of the supreme importance of the subjective element, without any strong safeguards, opened the door to rationalism. The doctrine of" faith only," true as it is in one sense, easily gets perverted into a glorifica- tion of doubt. From this point of view we are able to harmonize to some extent the conflicting theories [as to the Reformation] of Romanist, Protestant, and Secularist. To the Romanist this new wave of thought could mean little less than a revolution, a protest against all which they had come to identify with religion. To the Protestant it meant the revival of spiritual as against formal religion, the life of faith against the life of works. To the Secularist it was the breaking of the bonds of ecclesiasticism, and the admission of the right of the in- dividual to choose his view of truth. And)'ct, while Rnnianism is constantl\- represented at this ENGLAND AND OX THE CONTINENT. 1$ time as a religion of barren forms and observances, there was always within the Church, and not unfrequently in the Popes themselves, an undercurrent of spiritual religion as real as any which was introduced by the Reformers. The spiritual life was not in its nature opposed to the forms and observances of the dominant religion. Often in the form of religious mysticism,^ often in a devout life in the cloister, the truth of the immediate access of the soul to God was kept alive. Savonarola, Contarini, Sarpi, together with the authors"-^ of the most highly spiritual books of devotion, are all instances of the existence of what some would call " Gospel truth " side by side and held consistently with the forms of the Roman Church. To quote these as foreshadowings or effects of the Reformation is not more fair than to speak of them as proofs that Romanism was not all formalism. As the wave of thought broke upon the religious world, its effects were seen both within and without the Catholic Church. The " Oratory of Divine Love"^ in the pontificate of Leo X. was an attempt to reform the Catholic Church ab iiit^-a. Among its members the doctrine of justification by faith, commonly assumed by both Papist and Protestant to be the exclusive property of Luther and his followers, held a prominent place. Reginald Pole, writing to Contarini, who had elaborated this doctrine in a treatise, says, " Thou hast brought forth that jewel which the Church was keeping half concealed." ^ In Naples Juan Valdez, in Modena Bishop Morone, Folengo the Benedictine, Bernardino Ochino, and Isidoro Clario,^ are quoted as holding opinions analogous to, though probably not derived from, those of the Reformers. • It is remarkable that Luther's devotion to the mystics, Tauler and others, was only balanced by his devotion to the Bible as the objective truth of God. Mysticism, whether in Plato, or the Catholic, or the modern Quaker, is that which seizes on the truth that the individual has immediate access to God or Truth, independently of "means of grace" or systems of philosophy. ^ St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bonaventura, Eckhart, Tauler, Nicolas of Basle, St. Catherine of Siena, Gerson, and Thomas a Kempis. 3 See Ranke, vol. i. p. lOl. ■* JbhL, p. 103, quott. ^ These represent the " Reform without Schism " party, all of them prob- ably influenced by Savonarola. See Hausser, ** Reformation," ch. xix., and the Life of Paleario. 1 6 HISTORY OF THE REFORM ATIOX IX The same wave of thought had reached them, but their hope was to regenerate the Roman Church from within, while Luther lived to believe this impossible. The words of Isidoro Clario are typical. " No corruption can be so great," he says, " as to justify a defection from the hallowed communion of the Church. Is it not better to repair what we have than to endanger all by dubious attempts to produce something new?"^ But it was not only in individuals that the signs of a reaction against formalism in religion and irregularity in practice showed itself. The rise of religious orders,^ each with a rule stricter than that of the Church in which they were included, marked successive attempts at internal reform — to say nothing of the earlier Dominican and Franci.scan societie.s. Both the Thcatine and Barnabite orders, which arose at the Reformation period, are a sign of the same ten- dency, but more than all the institution of the Jesuits under Ignatius de Loyola. We shall have to speak of this order and their work in a later lecture ; for the present it is sufficient to remark that the Jesuits, the avowed and successful oppo- nents of the Reformation in ItaK', in Spain, in Germany even,^ were influenced by a tendency of thought identical with that which influenced the Protestants. We have seen that the Reformation consisted in bringing into prominence the sub- jective element in religion in counterpoise to the undue promi- nence previously given to the objective. If the immediate effect of this was to revive personal religion, its ultimate effect was often to exalt conscientiousness and a good purpose above truth and right action. In the Reformers this showed itself in a readiness to abandon the old faith, and change much that was good through fear of that which was bad, and, in extreme cases, to make faith a substitute for a holy life ; in the Jesuits it led to subtle distinctions and casuistical avoidance of the ' Ranke, vol. i. p. 109. • On the restoration or regeneration of Catholicism in the thirteenth century by St. Francis and St. Dominic, see Machiavelli, " Disc," iii. i. For an accoimt of St. Dominic, see the Quarterly Rn'icu\ vol. xxii. p. 79, by Soulhey. For the new orders of the Reformation age, see Hagenbach, chap. xxxv. [and Course iv. lecture 18 below]. ' See Ranke, bk. v. sects, iii.. iv.. ix., etc. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1/ consequences of truths which they professed to accept. The Jesuit doctrine of " intention " is well known through the " Provincial Letters " of Pascal, and their readiness to do evil that good may come was a logical corollary of that doctrine.^ But theological animus usually fails to see that these were connected with the Reformation spirit in the same way as were the conclusions of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, not indeed as a logical and necessary consequence, but as an exaggerated and one-sided development. ^ "Jesuitism was only rendered possible by the Reformation ; it was by reflex action the Reformation's child." — Mr. Gladstone, Contemporary Revieiv, October, 1878, p. 446. COURSE I. THE REFORMATION IN THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII (1 509-1 547.) LECTURE I. THE ENGLISH REFORMATION ECCLESIASTICAL AND POLITICAL, NOT DOCTRINAL. The ecclesiastical changes which took place in the reign of Henry VIII., were nothing more nor less than a revolution under tJie forms of law. A Reformation, if by that term we understand a recasting of Church doctrine and a rejection of what was distinctively Roman, it was not. The Formularies of Faith published in the reign, viz. the Ten Articles in 1536, the " Institution of a Christian Man " (Bishops' Book) in 1537, and the "Necessary Erudition" (King's Book) in 1543, were protests against Protestantism rather than against Romanism ; while the Law of the Six Articles, passed in 1539, showed how thoroughly Roman in its doctrine the National Church of England still was. Throughout the conflicts which raged between Church and State, or Church and king, there was unanimity on one point, viz. the opposition to heresy. Wolsey, Fisher, More, as well as Henry himself, had entered the lists in controversy. Warham, Tunstall, and others issued orders for the discovery and burning of suspected books.^ The king, by proclamations and commissions, vindicated his right to the title " Fidel Defensor!' "Heretic" was the common name given at the time to those who held reforming opinions. Whether Lollard, Lutheran, or Anabaptist, all were grouped under the one head, and fell under the lash of the " whip with six thongs." Many of these heresies have been idealized, whereas not un- frequently they were communistic and socialistic rather than * See Dixon, i. 34-36. See, too, Peny, p. 10, and quote from Brewer [i. 5^ 52]. 22 HISTORY OF 7 HE REFORM AT/OX IN theological. Yet, so far as these opinions attacked the abuses and the errors of the prevailing beliefs, they were leavening the minds of those who in the succeeding reign were to attempt a doctrinal reformation. Turning to the literary reformers, as Perry calls them, there seems to have been a far less sharp opposition between the Old and the New Learning in England than on the Con- tinent. On the Continent the attack of Erasmus and Von Ilutten upon the friars had led to a false identification of the New Learning with reforming opinions. In England one of its most conspicuous defenders was Sir Thomas More, the friend of Colet and Erasmus. Reformation in head and members had been the watch- word of the fifteenth century ; but all attempts at reforma- tion had been checked by the prescriptive rights and vested interests of the Roman Curia. Separation from Rome, either local or constitutional or violent, had [not been dreamt of]. The freedom for reformation ab intra, which Luther won by a defiant rejection of Roman authority, England seemed to have gained by falling back on the constitutional and historical in- dependence of the English Church. But in each case reforma- tion was marred by the development of sects in which liberty degenerated into licence, while in England the newly recovered rights of the Church were wrested from her by the tyranny of Henry. We shall find, then, that the ecclesiastical changes of Henry' VIII. 's reign fall under two heads: I. The vindication of the constitutional rights of the English Church as against the Pope of Rome ; and II. The unicarrantable attack upon the nnvly reco-cercd rights by king and Parliament, which made the reaction in Mary's reign possible. The people of Enq; land, in religious matters, always steadily sought to hold tlu balance between the two rival extremes of a Papacy, which tt)uchcd their national independence, and a sectarianism, which touched their national life. They could make common cau.se with Henry so long as his war was with papal encroach- ments. Henry always had the tact to avail himself of the national feeling. In carrying out a .selfish and unjustifiable end, he seemed to be checking papal encroachments. In the ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 2 1 same way they supported him in his proceedings against the heretics. The separation from Rome, while it vindicated the constitutional liberties of the Church, made possible that comprehensive scheme of internal reformation which Warham had begun and Convocation was ready to carry out. Any spoliation of the Church or infraction of her rights from the side of the king seemed impossible as long as an Arundel or a Wolsey or a Warham was archbishop ; but when Cranmer, the servile tool of Henry VI 1 1., succeeded them, the Primate was the first to betray the liberties of the Church. Then all the forces of secularism or Erastianism, latent in England at the time, were let loose upon the Church, and the Defender of the Faith directed them. As he had before taken advantage of the national love of independence, so now he made use of the lawless and socialistic tendencies which Lollardism and Lutheranism had fostered, in an organized attack on the National Church. In the former case he wanted a divorce, and renounced the Roman Obedi- ence because the Pope would not grant it ; in the latter he wanted money, and stole it from the Church. The laity were too powerful to be attacked ; the Church, separated from Rome, and deserted by its natural guardians, was not strong enough in its newly recovered liberty to withstand the attack. Character of Henry VI IT. — It is the fashion to whitewash the character of Henry VIII., either with a view of reversing the judgment of former historians, or as a means of defend- ing the Reformation against those who speak of it as "engen- dered in beastly lust " (Cobbett), or " the work of ambition and lust " (Hutton). Such attempts are as unhistorical as they are unnecessary. The usurped power of the Bishop of Rome was repelled by a power as unscrupulous and usurping.^ The good that accrued to the Church of England was certainly not included in Henry's project, while the subsequent re- jection of certain Roman doctrines was distinctively opposed to such beliefs as he had. In truth, Henry's divorce was the occasion rather than the cause of the separation of England ' There is a curious parallel l^etween Henry's procedure and Hildebrand's. See Southey, p. 77. 24 J/ISTOKY Of "HE REIOKMATION IX Irom the Roman Obedience. While Rome still clun^ to the old imperialistic theory, the principle of nationalism had already supplanted it in Europe, and the tie which bound England to Rome was so slight that the mere will of the monarch was suHicient to break it.^ The prerogative of the Crown, no less than the liberties of the Church, had been assailed by successive pontiffs, and Church and State were ready to agree to renounce the papal yoke. It only needed the strong hand of a Tudor to guide and direct the anti-papal feeling of the English nation. Looking back over the history of whi:h Henry's reign marks the crisis, we shall see the English Church between two fires — her liberties attacked now by king and now by Pope. At one time, by royal tyranny, she is driven into the arms of Rome; at another she sides with the king and State in defence of her national independence. In the reign of Henry we find open war between king and Pope, which ended in favour of the king ; but the prize for which they fought belonged to neither. The Supremacy was, indeed, the con- stitutional right of the king, and in vindicating this he did but repel a papal encroachment ; but the revenues of the Church, which the Pope had unlawfully appropriated under the forms of provisions, annates, Peter pence, etc., were as unlawfully claimed by the king, whose only right was might. [The following pencil notes are the latest recension— probably that of iSSS — of Lecture I., with some extracts, placed within brackets, from a pujiil's notes of the lecture as delivered.] Distinguishing characteristic of English Reformation throughout, the continuity of English Church. This continuity was (a) legal ; (/3) ecclesiastical ; ^7) doc- trinal ; (8) devotion.-il. Illustrate and quote Beard's Lectures, p. 311, and Selborne, "Church of Kngland," ch. ii., § I, [and p.] xx., and cf. p. x. ; also Freeman's •'Disestablishment and Di»cnd.)wment." (a) and (/9) never in danger. (7) and (8) endangered in Ktlward \ !.'> reign. Wc arc dealing only with Henry VIIL and the Reformation under Henry VIIL called a revolution under the forms of law. Not in any Jicnsc a tloctrinal change. Shown by (i.) Formularies ; (ii.) Opposition to heresy. Even the op|K»ition between Old and New Learning less sharp in England. ' Sec Kanke's ** History of the Popes," vol. i. p. 96. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 25 The Reformation in Henry* s reign means two things : — (a) Vindication of the constitutional rights of Church against Pope. ()8) Attack upon rights and property by king. Part played by Henry — (a) Under cover of constitutional acts he excused his own immorality. ()8) Under cover of readjustment he introduced a reign of terror. Part played by Luthcranisju and Lollardistn very slight. Why? Lollardism suspected for its "socialistic" tendencies. Lutheranism repudiated by Church and State and king. But incidentally the English and Continental Reformers played into one another's hands. [If Charles V. had had a united Germany, certainly he would have taken strong ground in defence of his aunt. So if the Pope could have reckoned on Henry instead of having a quarrel with him, he could have crushed Lutheranism in Germany.] Character of Henry VHI. Roman and Protestant views.* [Romans anxious to make out that English Reformation stands or falls with character of Henry. Ultra-Protestants assent and try to whitewash Henry. Both xuihistorical. Pligh theological learning ; moral nobleness at first, later a man " who never spared a man in his anger, or a woman in his lust."] The Divorce the occasion, not the cause. (a) Development of Nationalism v. Imperialism. {&) The weakening of the Papacy morally as well as politically. (7) The growing " obstructiveness " of the mediieval idea embodied in the papal creed, [Old and New Learning on Continent. So in England, though less marked, hence most orthodox. English Churchmen were themselves champions of the New Learning.] The separation from Rojne not (i.) a schism, nor (ii.) a differentiation from an earlier unity, but (iii.) the rejection of a claim which had never been admitted without protest, and had grown to a point at which it became unbearable. The usurped power of the Papacy opposed by a no less unscrupulous king. The prize they fought for— the "goods," not the "good" of the Church. FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TO THE END OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. King. Akchbishop of Can- terbury. Pope. 1066 1070 1080 William I., 1066-1087. William II., 1 087-11 00. Lanfranc, 1070-1089. See vacant, 1089-1093. Hildebrand, 1073-10S5 (Gregory VH.). 1090 Anselm, 1 093-1 109. See Brewer, i. 4 sqq., and the Church Quarterly Ko-'icic, No. 38, pp. 363, ^(^t 26 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IN 1 100 lliO II20 1 130 1140 1 150 1160 1 170 iiSo 1190 1200 1220 1230 1240 \ z< > 1280 1290 1300 King. Archbishop of Can- TERUURV. Henry I., 1100-1135. Stephen, 1135-1154. Ilcni) II., 1151-11S9. Kichaid, 11S9-1199. John, 1199-1216. [Magna Charta, 1215.] lienry III., 1216-1272. Pope. Edward I., 1272-1307. See vacant, 1109-1114. Ralph of Escurcs, 1 1 14- II 22. William de Corbcuil, I123-1136. TheobaKl, 11 39-1 161, Beckct, 1162-1170. Richard, ii 74-11 84. Baldwin, 11S5-I190. Reginald Fitz Jocelyn, 1 191. Hubert Walter, 1193- 1205. I Innocent 111. 1198- 1216. Stephen Langton, 1207- 1228. Richard Ic Grand, 1229- 1231. Edmund Rich, of Abing- don, 1234-1240. Boniface of Savoy, 1 240-1 270. I Robert Kilwardby, 1273- 1278. John Peckham, 1279- 1292. Robert \Vinchelscy, Boniface VIII., 1294- 1294-1313. 1303. Avignon Popes, 1305- 1376. Schism, 1378-1414. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 2/ LECTURE II. RELATIONS OF ENGLAND AND ROME TO THE GRANTING OF MAGNA CHARTA (1215). a. Theodore and Wilfrid.— '^^ have said that the repu- diation of the Pope's power in England in Henry VII I. 's reign was a vindication of the historical independence of the English Church. To justify this statement it is neces- sary to review the previous relations of England with the Roman see.^ i. With regard to the ancient British Church, which flourished from the middle of the second century, and sent its deputies to the Council of Aries (314), and was driven into Cornwall and Wales by successive irruptions of the barbarians from Schleswig-Holstein, etc., Anglo-Saxons and Jutes, it is plain that, as Blackstone says, this Church, by whomsoever founded, was a stranger to the Bishop of Rome and all his pretended authority. More than that, in its liturgies, baptismal rites, and ecclesiastical customs, it showed its Galilean rather than Roman origin. ii. But the Italian mission of St. Augustine (597), and the beginnings of the National Church in the days of the Hept- archy, brought about the first collision between Roman and British Christianity. In those days Pope Gregory I. was on the throne, and his wise and liberal policy did much to neutralize the distinctly "Roman" views of St. Augustine. If Roman Christianity eventually triumphed over British Christianity, the English Church was independent of the Pope, protected in great measure by local separation from Koman interference. The primacy of Rome was undoubtedly allowed at a very early period, but this was something dif- ferent, both in degree and in kind, from the claims made by later Popes. ' See Canon Creighton's paper on the Mediaeval English Church and Rome, read at the Church Congress of 1887, 2S HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION TV iii. About three-quarters of a century after St. Augustine's mission to the Anglo-Saxons, a priest was chosen to fill the vacant sec of Canterbury, the metropolitical see of England. He was one of those who had been trained by the Roman disciples of Pope Gregory, "a good man and fit for the episco- pate." ^ The choice of such a man, and still more the deter- mination to send him to Rome for consecration, show already a Romish bias on the part of " the Church of the English race." The priest selected died of malaria at Rome, and the Pope, never backward to use an advantage, appointed a monk then living at Rome to the vacant see. This was Theodore of Tarsus, the first Archbishop of All England, who was consecrated on IMarch 26, 66S, and who became the reformer and organizer of the English Church, and in some sense its second founder.- iv. Appeal of Wilfrid, A.D. 678.— So far it seemed as if the Roman influence was making rapid way in England, and that by the will of the English people. Yet it was only a few years after Theodore's appointment that the celebrated appeal of Wilfrid took place. Wilfrid, as " Bishop of the holy Church of York," objected to the subdivision of his diocese, which was part of Theodore's scheme of re-organization, and deter- mined to appeal to Rome (a.d. 6^^). In a provincial council under Theodore he would have had no prospect of success, and he therefore left his diocese, and threw himself into the arms of the Apostolic sec, which even Theodore must respect.^ The reigning Pope, Agatho, supported the appeal, and ordered the reinstatement of Wilfrid in his original diocese. The appellant returned triumphant with the Roman decree, with its leaden "bullnc" and "apostolic" seal, only to find that both king and Witan refused to recognize it and, with the consent of the bishops, committed Wilfrid to prison,* from which he was not released till the death of Alfred, King of Northumbria. If the Roman appointment and consecration ' Rriglit, •• Early Chapters," p. 217 ; Bcdc, iv. i. » Sfc Hook's ••Life of Theodore;" IJright, "Early Chapters," pp. 220, s. 298. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 29 of Theodore point in one direction, the rejection of papal authority, in the case of Wilfrid's appeal, points as definitely in the other, V. Regulars and Seculars — St. Du7istan. The beginning of the English Church fiwnastic — By degrees two orders, regulars and seculars — Abbeys v. rural deaneries, archdeaconries, etc. — Monasteries devastated by Danes — Seculars take the place of regulars — St. Dunstan and monastic revival.' Three centuries later, in the days of St. Dunstan (arch- bishop 961-988), we find the Church rent by the schism between the seculars, or parish clergy, and the regulars, or monks, chiefly of the Benedictine rule. St. Dunstan, with the Pope at his back, and strong in Divine revelations,^ as first abbot of the Benedictine rule in England, restored the monastic system which the Danish inroads had almost de- stroyed, and inaugurated an attack upon the seculars, en- forcing celibacy on all ; and, after enlisting the king, Edgar, in his cause by a miracle,^ ousted them from the cathedrals and churches, and filled their places with monks. The Roman influence in England now rapidly, but secretly advanced, though, as far as we can see, the sympathies of the people, and of the king himself, were with the oppressed seculars. It is soon after this time that we hear of exemptions specially granted to monasteries by king or Pope. The Conqueror exempts Battle Abbey (St. Martin de Bello) from episcopal control, and a similar exemption is granted, at his request, to the Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's by Pope Alexander II. This exemption from episcopal control brought with it lax disci- pline and lax morals, and it was the exempt monasteries which were always attacked by pre-Reformation kings.* Exemption from episcopal visitation, and consequently from any inspection whatever, was the beginning of moral dete- rioration. The centuries which intervened between the revival of ' Dixon, i. 313, sqq. ' Southey, pp. 57, 65. ' Ibid., p. 65. * See Lecture XV. See too, J, J. Bhuit, pj). 24-34; Dixon, pp. 313-315' 30 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX LV monastici-sm by St. Dunstan and the advent of the Friars, \22\ and following years, witness the rise and fall of the mo- nastic system in England. Cluniacs, Cistercians, Carthusians, the military orders of the Hospitallers and Templars, besides those who followed the original Benedictine and Augustinian rules, threatened to absorb the Church of England. They constituted the strength of the Papacy in England, since their first duty was to their order, and the head of each order was an alien. But their enormous wealth, wrung from the almost ruined seculars, was fatal to them, and, long before the Mendi- cant Orders came, had made them an object of dislike to the people of England. vi. The later phase of monasticism represented by the iM'iars was a new means of extending Roman influence in England. The four chief orders — the Franciscans, or Friars Minor, or Grey Friars ; the Dominicans, or Black Friars ; the Carmelites, or White Friars ; and the Augustinians — came as religious reformers, attacking the wealth and luxury of the regulars on the one hand, and the ignorance of the seculars on the other. They were mission priests who introduced a reformation, and in their best days had the sympathies of the nation with them. But their reformation engendered schism, and their sectarian hatred and jealousy of one another made their degeneration rapid, till, in the time of Erasmus and Luther, they were the butt of every tavern idler, despised for their vice and ignorance, and hated, as even more dis- tinctly Pope's men than the older monks.^ 1^. Nonuan Conquest — Magna Charta. — But while Rome had thus been secretly gaining ground in England through the monastic system and the Mendicant Orders, more than one direct collision had been taking place between England and the Pope. The rapid development of papal power which we will later sketch (see Course IV., lectures 2 and 3) was mainly the work of three Popes, Ilildebrand (i 073-1085), Innocent III. (119S-1216), and Boniface \1 1 1. ,1294-1303). ' For the Friars in their best clays, see Grossctcstc's " Letters ;" on tlie other Rif rr;vmunire was passed in 1393.] * [.See Bishoj) Stubbs' "Constitutional History," i. 230; ii. 32S, 415.J ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 39 commuted, and was claimed as a right by the Popes. Several of the kings of England had, however, expressly refused to recognize it as other than an act of grace, and under both Edward I. and Edward III. it was discontinued, though paid in later reigns, till it was abolished by Henry VIII. (1534).-^ Baronius and others represent Peter pence as a quit-rent paid to Rome for the kingdom of England ! (4) Annates, or first-fruits, were originally sums paid only on livings in the Pope's gift, but the system of papal provisions had so increased this abuse, that the first-fruits of many bishoprics went to the Pope's treasury.^ Amongst the inferior clergy, every promotion involved the payment of annates. In 1246, according to Lingard,^ Boniface, Arch- bishop of Canterbury, obtained from Innocent IV. the first year's income of all benefices in his province which should fall vacant during the next six years ; other bishops did the same, and Clement V., in Edward I.'s reign, reserved all the first-fruits of the next two years, while John XXII. (temp. Henry IV.) extended this to three years. This payment of annates had been abolished by Gregory the Great, and was declared illegal at the Council of Basle, 1435, but in the interval they were a growing burden on the clergy. A com- promise was effected in the reign of Edward III., by which the Pope agreed to remit the first-fruits, the king remitting the penalties incurred under the statutes against provisors. The payment of annates was, however, definitely limited by a statute (6 Hen. IV. c. i, 1404), which spoke of the "horrible mischiefes and damnable customs " of compounding with the Pope's treasury. (5) The grant of the CENSUS, amounting to a thousand marks, had been made by King John in acknowledgment of his dependence on the Pope. This had been paid or refused according to the varying relations of Pope and king, till, at the death of Edward I., seventeen thousand marks were due, and in 1366 Pope Urban V. demanded the arrears of the last * See Dixon, i. 183, 186. ' Lingaid, iii. 127. 3 [Bishop Stubbs, in his "Constitutional History," iii. 337, says 1256, l.e Alexander IV.] 40 HISTORY OF HIE REFOKMATIOX I.V thirty-three years. This Edward refused, and the prelates, with whom the temporal peers concurred, determined that " neither John n(jr an)' other ])erson could subject the nation to another power without the consent of the nation."^ WiCLIFir: on this occasion appears as the champion of national independence,- thou<^di, according to Lingard, it was on Erastian, if not socialistic grounds. At all events, it was because of the attitude which he assumed on this matter that he was sent as ambassador to the Pope (i374) o" the subject of papal provisions. Erom this time nothing more is heard of the tribute promised by John. Hut Rome continued to draw large sums from England, by bulls, dispensations, the pallium, appeals, and provisions which still set the statutes at defiance, and made them, in spite of their constant confirmations in succeeding reigns, little more than a dead letter. In the following reign (Richard II.), the former statutes against provisions and appeals were confirmed. Several glaring evasions led to more strict legislation, particularly in 1390 (Provisors) and 1393 (Pntmunire). Before the last of these, the three estates of the realm were consulted as to what they would do (i.) if the Pope were to employ excom- munication, or (ii.) if he were to attempt to translate the prelates to foreign sees ; and the answer was that such excom- munication would be to invade the rights of the Crown, which they were determined to support. The result of this was the great Praemunire Act, 16 Ric. II. c. 5, which finally settled the matter. Provisions in favour of aliens (except cardinals) were abolishetl, and the Pope, while still clinging to the right of " provision," appointed the nominee (^f the Crown.^ The wording of this great anti-papal statute is remarkable as show- ing the pre-Rcformation view of the Ro}al Supremacy : •' And so the Crown of England, which hath been so free at • Liii^.-xni, iii. 127. (.Sec the extract from the rarlianient.iry Rolls jirintcd l)y Bi!«ho|> Stiibbs in his ** Constitutional History," ii. 415, f.n.] • See Lewis' " Wiclifle," p. 363. [.\lso .Mr. Moore's articles on Wyclif, included in Tart II. of the present volume, ami Mr. R. L. roole's volume on Wylif, in the *' Kpochs of Church History '' .Scries.] • Lin^ard, iii. 173. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 4 1 all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but im- mediately subject to God in all things touching the Regality of the said Crown and to none other should be submitted to the Pope, and the Laws and Statutes of the Realm by him defeated and avoided at his will, in perpetual Destruction of the Sovereignty of the King our Lord, his Crown, his Regality, and of all his realm which God defend " (16 Ric. II. c. 5, 1393)-^ In the succeeding reigns, we get little more than con- firmations of the Provisors '^^ and Praemunire statutes ; for the great schism in the Papacy had already begun, and Western Christendom was divided into a French and an Italian Obe- dience, recognizing different Popes, till the breach was healed by the Council of Constance, 14 14. 2 Hen. IV. c. 4. No papal bulls to have force, even with royal licence, 7 Hen. IV. 4 Hen. V. c. 4. Pope's bulls and licences void. Pope Martin V. demands a repeal of the "execrable" Statute of Praemunire from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and writes to the king that the Statute of Provisors is " an abominable law, which will infallibly damn every one who observes it." ^ Yet, in spite of legislation, no less than i^i6o,ooo was paid to the Pope for first-fruits, palls, bulls, etc., between the second year of Henry VII. and the rejection of papal authority by Henry VIII., that is, in forty-eight years. [l"he following notes, in ink, are the latest recension — that of 1S88 — of the earlier portion of Lecture III.] From Henry III. to Henry VIII. The beginnings of Patiiatncnt and statutory opposition to fa/al claitns.* * [See Bishop Stubbs' "Constitutional History," iii. 331, f.n. On the same page the bishop expresses his opinion that the legislation as regards Pra-munire and provisors "was not a mere bmtiini ftd/nen, though evaded by the kings," and though the Statute of Provisors was occasionally suspended by Parliament. "In the hands of Henry VIII. it became a lever for the overthrow of papal supremacy. It furnishes in ecclesiastical history, the clue of the events that connect the Constitutions of Clarendon with the Reformation."] * On the evils aris.ng from the statutes of provisors, see Lingard, iii. 265, 266. ' [See Bishop Stubbs' "Constitutional History," iii. 301, 330.] * See Ranke's "History of England," vol. i. ch, 4; and "Constitutional Essays," pp. 166, sqq., and pp. 300, sqq. 42 /r IS TORY OF 77/ E REFORMATION TV The rcijjn of Kinjj John had seen the cf)m])ination of Pope and king 7-, Church and barons. The result, two parties in the Church : (a) the/rr/a/; (j8) ftalional} Henry III. had sworn fealty to the Pope, and received the homage paid by John, but,/V/- contra, he is coniptllcd to confirm Magna Charta. Soon a new cause appeared, widening the gap between the Pope and English people. Henry's schemes and the Provisions of Oxford, A.U. 1258.' Simon de .Montfort and the barons, 1264-1265. Represcntotion, and origin of Parliament. (Cf. Louis IX. and the first summoning of the three estates in France.'') Many grievances in Henry III.'s reign. Tallages and provisions. Opposition of Bishop Grosseteste, etc. ErnvARD I,, 1272-1307. The first Parliament, 1295; end of feudalism;* limited monarchy.* (The first ecclesiastical Parliament was the Synod of Hertford, 673, under Archbishop Theotlore.) Edward I. the Henry \III. of the thirteenth century. LFXTURK IV. THE REl.ATTOXS OF CHURCH AND STATE IX EXGLAND 15 E FORE THE RE FOR MAT I OX. I. Benefit of Clergy. [The first part of this lecture in Mr. Moore's manuscript is cancelled, and marked in red ink " Rewrite." It has been necessary to supply this gap — which takes in all before the table of questions at issue between Church and .State — by the following notes, taken by one of his pupils in 18S8.] Friction between Church and State. FeeHng of State against Church, as well as of Fnij^land ac^ainst Rome, con- tributed to the Reformation. Relations of Cluirch aiul State before the Reformation. (1) Controversy never appeared in EnLjlaiKl in the form in which it aj^peared on the Continent, and Church and Slate al\va\s work tonrcther, but no attempt to place one above the oth(?r in theory or act. Every now and then we find an ecclesiastic holding the Con- tinental view (see Hcckct's expressions quoted below). ' [Sec iJishop Stubbs' "Select Charters," 31-33, and his •'Constitutional History," i. 539-542; ii. 2, 3.) • Sec kankc, i. ch. 4, p. 59. • [.Sec Hi&hup Stubbs' "Constitutional Histoiy," ii. 161--166, 221-225.] • ••Constitutional Ewiays,*' p. 167. * //vV., p. 302. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 43 (2) From the time when England acquired national unity, Church and State grew side by side. Insular posi- tion made it natural to transact ecclesiastical and State business within the limits of the island. English people had their own " Vicar of Christ," the title which King Edgar claims,^ meaning that he must see justice done. According to laws of Ina, Alfred, etc., king and council protected Church and State alike ; while in civil matters the bishop sat in the shire court. Friction begins with separation in idea and thought of Church and State, viz. with the separation of the ecclesiasti- cal and civil courts by William I.^ So — (i) Church and State now thought of as separate societies, though composed of the same members. (2) Church identified (illogically) with the clergy. (3) Jealousy between the two parts of the body politic, because, through Norman ecclesiastics introduced by William, the Church gets a foreign character. Hence, when the friction became intense, these foreign eccle- siastics naturally appealed to the Continental power of Rome ; so national jealousy directed against the Church. The Church and State were at issue on two questions as to ecclesiastics, which will be best understood when thrown into the following tabular form : — CHURCH AND STATE AT ISSUE ON Ecclesiastics. I .1 .1 Their persons. Their i)ioperly. Benefit of clergy. Ecclesiastical temporalities. I. II. I Accumulation of Exemption from The right of land (mortmain) taxation. investiture. * See Dixon, i. 315. « [See the text of this ordinance in Bishop Stubbs' *' Select Charters," p. 85. For his comments, see his "Constitutional History," i. 283-285, and the " Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 25, 26.] 44 HISTORY or the re /-ok mat/ox ev 1. Benefit of Clergy} — Here the question at issue was, Is an ecclesiastic to claim exemption from the law of the land if he is f^uilty of a crime? The Church contended that in such cases the ecclesiastical courts must pass sentence ; but, in practice, this became a means of escaping punishment almost entirely. The deprivation or other ecclesiastical sentence passed upon a criminous clerk was light, compared with the punishment of the same crime in a layman. Here, again, it might be argued, as in the case of ecclesiastical temporalities, that an ecclesiastic, b)' committing a crime of which the civil courts took cognizance, ipso facto put himself outside that spiritual order to which he belonged. We shall find that, in fact, this was the compromise eventually accepted. The criminal, being unfrocked, fell under the lay arm. 15ut this was really destroying benefit of clergy. Benefit of clergy was, in like manner, appealed to to exempt ecclesiastics from civil taxation. But this really falls under the head of ecclesiastical temporalities. Both these were practical matters. The theoretical ques- tion of the relation of the civil and ecclesiastical powers was not debated in England as it was upon the Continent. An echo of it is, indeed, heard in Becket's words: "Tell the king that the Lord of men and angels has established two powers — princes and priests ; the first earthly, the second spiritual : the first to obey, the second to command,"^ which recall the later utterance of Boniface VHI. : " Oportet gladium esse sub gladio, et temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici potestati." lUit it was only a Becket who could proclaim a view as un-I'jiglish as it was unhistorical. * [Hisihop Stubhs* "Constitutional History," iii. 343. 344.] • Hovcdm, i. 261. (The reference is to the edition in the .Master of the' Rolls series of "Chronicles and Memorials." The words occur in a letter addressed in 1167 by St. Thomas to Gilbert Koliot, the Hishop of London, and run thus; **Sciat ergo ct inielligat, te intimante, dominus meus, quml (^)ui dominatur in regno hominum, scd et angelorum, duas sub .Se potestates ordinavit, principes ct saccrdoies ; unam terrenani, alteram spirilualem ; unam ministranlem, alierani pracmincntem ; unam cui potcniiam concessit, alteram cui reverenliam cxhiberi voluil." The letter is No. 124, and the words in vol. v. pp. 518, 519 of the " Materials for the History of Archbishop Thomas liecket," eilited, in the Rolls' scries, by the late Canon Robertson, who dates the letter 1166.] ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT, 45 From the time when England became a nation and Chris- tianity the national relie^ion, down to the end of the Anglo- Saxon period,^ Church and State grew up together harmoniously enough. Matters were transacted between the four seas. According to the laws of Ina, Alfred, Edmund, and Edgar, the king or the Great Council protected the estates of the clergy, punished sacrilege, determined the union and division of dioceses, and so on ; while in civil matters, the bishop or his deputy sat in the county, the hundred, the borough, and the parish courts, thus giving the judicial decisions spiritual as well as temporal authority. But William I. not only separated the civil and eccle- siastical courts, but paved the way for a rivalry between them by the importation of Norman ecclesiastics in the place of the dispossessed Saxons. From this time we get constant jealousy between Church and State,^ the Pope being called in to act by his legate against a king who seized on Church property, or an archbishop who, like Anselm, refused to do homage to the king. The first cause of quarrel was the already-mentioned Benefit of Clergy? This seems to have been a privilege which grew up gradually, but was only felt as a grievance after the separation of the civil and ecclesiastical courts.'* The clergy included not only those who served the altar, either as regu- lars or seculars, but all who had received the tonsure. All these could claim, or did claim, the right to be tried by canon ' On the Saxon spirit as showing itself through the Church and State con- troversy, see Burrows, "Church and State," pp. 14-17, and quote. King Edgar actually calls himself the Vicar of Christ when speaking of his "elimination" of the seculars : " Vitiorum cuneos canonicorum a diversis nostri regiminis coenobiis Christi Vicarius eliminavi" (Spelman, "Conc.,"i. 438; ap. Dixon, i. 315). * See Burrows, p. 19. " Henceforth we find it scarcely possible to think of Church and State, except as represented by the civil government on the one hand, by the clergy on the other." ' Cf. the old privilege of sanctuary : Dixon, i. 73, and the Act 21 Hen. VHI. c. 14. * The Roman canon law (see Perry, p. 28) was introduced, according to Bishop Stubbs, in the reign of Stephen [see his ''Constitutional History," i. 284; ii. 171 ; his "Lectures on Medieval History," p. 301 ; and his statements in the " Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 24, 25]. 46 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX law by the ordinary, instead of by the justice in the civil court. Probably under the term "clerk" were included not only ecclesiastics, but all who could read and write.^ On pleadincj benefit of cler^^y, the criminal was delivered to the ordinary. If he desired to clear himself, he did so by choosing certain "compurgators" to prove his innocence. If the canonical purgation was unsatisfactory he suffered the bishop's doom, or sentence of the ordinary. In spite of the abuse- to which this privilege was liable, especially when, after the invention of printing, clerks became numerous, two facts have to be recorded in its favour : — 1. It was thoroughly English, had received the recog- nition of all the best kings from Alfred to the Edwards, and was historically the origin of trial by jury. 2. It was a counterpoise to the barbarous trial by ordeal;^ and in later days served as a loophole of escape from the bloody rigour of the English criminal code. If the ordinaries erred on the side of laxity, Henry VIII.'s Act, limiting benefit of clergy, was passed at a time when the justices were killing at the rate of two thousand a year. The dispute first came into prominence in the time of Becket (1163). A gross case of crime had been remoxed from the civil tribunal under plea of benefit of clergy. The king demanded the surrender of the criminal, which Becket refused. A council of bishops was summoned, but they maintained that " no one ought to be punished twice for the same offence,""* and ecclesiastical censures were in themselves a heavy punishment. It was allowed, however, that a degraded cleric would, for an offence conimitted after his degradation, be amenable to the common law. The Constitutions of Clarendon^ were passed in the following year, 1164, and it ' Dixon, i. 124. For the consequence of this see William of Malmcshury, a monk of Hcckct's time, p. 311 (ap. Southcy, p. 88) ; Short, sects. 57 and 102. • I'rohahly much exaggerated. See Dixon, i. 73. Ordeal abolished 1215 by the Fourth Council of the Lateran. [See generally on compurgation and the history of the jury of presentment of criminals, Bishop Slubbs, "Constitutional History," i. 617-619.] • Southcy, p. 92 ; Short, sect. 57. • •* The first great step towards making them (the clergy) real >ubjectj of the realm" (iJurruws, p. 24). ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 47 was asserted in the preamble that they were but a recognition of existing customs {recordatio vel recognitio ciijusdam partis consuetudiniun et libertatiiin et dignitatiim anteccssonun suorum). Magna Charta, while apparently endorsing the Constitutions of Clarendon, left " the rights and liberties of the Church of England " undefined.^ Possibly this was intentional on Stephen Langton's part, for it covered as much or as little as Becket's reservation, "saving the privileges of his order." At all events, benefit of clergy still existed, and the friction between ordinaries and justices continued undiminished, the former complaining that their jurisdiction was disregarded and their privileges ignored, while the justices complained that convict clerks were set at liberty without due purgation, in consideration of a money payment.^ In the reign of Edward III., Archbishop Islip issued a mandate for the better discharge of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and Archbishop Arundel in the reign of Henry IV., on the occasion of the clergy appealing to the king against justices, had been re- quired to make a constitution for this purpose.^ The con- stitution which had been promised in Henry IV.'s reign was never made, and was the cause alleged for Parliamentary intervention in the Reformation period. Parliament had made sundry attempts to enforce ecclesiastical discipline. Thus, under Henry VI., instead of the bishop or ordinary claiming an accused clerk, he was compelled to plead his privilege either at arraignment or conviction, and by 4 Hen. VII. c. 10, clerks convicted of felony were burnt in the hand. A later Act in the same reign, 12 Hen. VII. c. 7, refused benefit of clergy to all in minor orders who attempted to murder the king, and by a temporary Act of Henry VIII. — 4 Hen. VIII. c. 7 (January 26, 15 13) — this was extended to ' Rights and liberties of the Church afterwards explained. Election of bishops, archbishops, etc., free from Pope and king, 9 Hen. IV.; on the king's conge cfelire, 25 Edvv. III., confirmed by 2 Hen. V^I., see Burrows, p. 26. ' Dixon, vol. i. p. 125. [25 Edw. III. c. 4 is the first limitation of this privilege so far as regards clerks convict of treason or felony touching other persons than the king (Perry, p. 28).] ' Wilkins, i;i. 13 and 335, q.v. 48 HISTORY or the reformatio y lv all murderers, robbers, etc. But it was not till i;}) Hen. VIII. c. I that the term clergy was definitely limited to those who were in Holy Orders. Now ncj one under a sub-deacon could claim exemi)tion. No canonical pur^^ation was to be accepted, unless two sureties of ^^ood estate, b)^ recognizance before two justices of the peace, were found for his good clearing. Fail- ing this, the convict was to suffer perpetual confinement in the prison of his ordinary. By 25 Hen. VHI. c. 11, clerks convict breaking prison, if under the rank of sub-deacon, were guilty of felony, with loss of life and goods without benefit of clergy, while clerks in Holy Orders were sent back to their ordinaries for perpetual imprisonment without purgation. The ordinary might in any case degrade a convict clerk, and send him back to the justices to be condemned to death. ^ Privilege of clergy finally abolished, 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 28, s. 6. Case of Richard Hunnc,^ Abbot of Winchcomb, who preaches against 4 Hen. VIII. Opposed by Dr. Standish. Convocation and Parliament opposed. Evil May-day, 1516.^ LECTURE V. TIIK RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORMATION — ECCLESIASTICAL TEM- PORALITIES. But the main cause of contention between Church and State in luigland, as elsewhere, was the possession of tem/^ora/i tics by fci/i'siiis/ics, [as to which three questions arose]. I. How far was property to be allowed to accumulate in the hand of ecclesiastics, to the detriment of the country, or the king, or the lord of the fee .^ II. Were ecclesiastical properties to be exempted from taxation? III. Was the king to have no ' Sec Dixon, i. 126, 127, .and rcfi". ; IVrry, p. 21 and f.n., .also pp. 27, 28 J. H. Blunt, i. 407-410: Ii.ill.im, " Constitutional History," i. 56. ' r-crry, p. 21. , Sec /W., pp. 21 25. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 49 rights of lordship or patronage? The Statute of Mortmain and the innumerable legal fictions resulting from it were the attempted answer to the first question, while the quarrel between Philip le Bel and Boniface VIII., and the earlier quarrel about investitures and the exemption of ecclesiastics from doing homage to their sovereign, show how openly- Church and State were at issue on the later questions. I. At the time of the Norman Conquest it is said that the whole country was divided into 60,215 fiefs,^ the half of which were dvi/, the other hdXi ecclesiastical and royal Of the entire number of fiefs, fourteen hundred were granted to crown vassals, the great barons, secular and ecclesiastical. All these were bound to support the king as their feudal lord, by rendering military service in person, except in the case of bishops and abbots, who were required only to send their dependents. Each great baron was a feudal lord over his vassals, who took an oath of alleq;iance, both to him as their immediate superior, and to the king as the supreme feudal lord. Under this system, not only was military service due to the feudal lord, but there were at every vacancy " inci- dents," e.g. wardship, escheats, relief, etc., due to the Crown or the lord. Side by side, however, with this feudal tenure, there was a survival of Anglo-Saxon days, tJie tenure of frankalmoign. Lands might be given to a religious house or monastery *' in pure and perpetual almesse." Lands so given were freed from military service, and also from incidents, escheats, etc.^ The tenant secured a much easier holding, and thus, just as benefit of clergy modified the rigour of the criminal cede, so the tenure of frankalmoign mitigated the evil of feudalism. Such a transfer was called an "alienation in mortmain." It was as great a gain to the tenant as to the monastery, for the abbots and priors were the best of land- lords ; but it was a serious loss to the State and to the king, and rapidly tended to that disproportionate division of landed ^ [Bishop Stubbs, in his "Constitutional History," i. 264, considers this state- ment of Ordericus Vitalis as "one of the many numerical exaggerations of the early historians." See, too, Dixon, i. 250, note.] ^ Dixon, i. 131 ; Blackstone, book i. part i. ch. 2. E 50 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX LV property between Church and State, which at the time of the Reformation was a real evil, especially as so much Church property was farmed by the Bishop of Rome and his undcr- lini^s. It was to recover the feudal rights of the lords and the State that the various Mortmain Acts ^ were passed. [The re- issue] of JA?^;/^ Cliarta in 1217 (clause 43) forbade all donation of lands to religious houses, and made such donations the pro- perty of the lord. This was confirmed by the famous Statute of Mortmain of 7 Edw. I. st. 2, c, 13, "de Religiosis," which enacted the forfeiture of all lands " aliened to any religious person," whether by gift, sale, or lease. This was eluded by a suit of recovery being brought by the persons to which the donation was to be made, which suit went (by collusion) by default, a practice which was again met by an Act (13 Edw. I. c. 32) requiring a previous trial by jury, as to the primd- facie right of the claimant. To evade these Acts, a new tenure was invented. Feudal holders now conveyed their estates to nominal feoffees, to hold to the use of themselves and their heirs. The religious houses and spiritual persons profited, as did others, by this tenure, till a new Mortmain Act (15 Ric. II. c. 5)^ made it mortmain to be seised of lands to the use of religious or spiritual persons, as well as of lay corporations.^ It was an addition to the number of these Mortmain statutes, as we shall see, by which Henry VIII. began under a show of legality his attack on Church property, and indirectly on the property of every corporation in the realm (23 Hen. VIII. c. 10, and 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10), "the well-tuned prelude of spoliation."* Wealth of the Monasteries. — This disproportionate increase in the amount of property held by the Church was made more evident by an abuse which had grown up in the dis- tribution of money within the Church itself. The clergy, from a very early date, were supported by tithes, which were made compulsory by Charlemagne in 779. In England they ' .Sec Dixon, i. 130-136. .See, loo, Digby, cli. iv. sect. 2, ami ch. vi. • BLickstonc, book ii. cc. 18 and 20. » Dixon, i. 134. « /cr 21, 1214. Sec Hishop Stubbs' " Select Charters," p. 2S9 ; and '• Constitutional History," i. 529.] • 25 Hen. VHI. c. 20. See bixon. i. 1S2, and f.n. ; lUirrows. p. 26. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 55 metropolitan, as supreme spiritual head in England, If in this matter the Church before the Reformation vindicated this right at the cost of her national independence, when that independence was asserted by Henry VIII. this right was tyrannically wrested from her by the Defender of the Faith. Two only of the post-Reformation sovereigns have attempted to limit this abuse, which certainly lays the Church of Eng- land open to the charge of Erastianism. James I. ordained in Scotland that, when a bishop died, the archbishop should convene his fellow-bishops, who should name to the king three persons, from whom he should choose one for the vacant see ; and William III. appointed a commission of bishops to recommend fit persons for bishoprics and deaneries, as well as for Regius Professorships.^ In later days it is obvious that the abuse is increased a thousandfold when the king has delegated his power to his premier, who may, in the present state of things, be a Jew, Turk, infidel, or heretic. But the revolution con- sisted in making the '' letter missive " a part of the statute, so rendering the conge d'elire a fiction and violating the constitutional liberties of the Church.^ One other point in the relations of Church and State has to be noticed, not as a matter occupying, like the persons and property of ecclesiastics, debateable ground, but because in Reformation times it added greatly to the ill feeling of the laity towards the clergy. This was the state of the ecclesi- astical coiirts, and clerical extoi^tions generally. The common charge brought against the clergy was that they got too much and did too little;^ especially that the fees in the probate courts and mortuaries were excessive. " To prove a single will in which I was executor," said Sir H. Guildford, speaking in the Lower House of Parliament, " I was compelled to pay a thousand marks to the Lord Cardinal and the Archbishop of Canterbury ; " * while the clergy, it was said, would take a dead man's only cow as a mortuary fee, and leave his children in ' Burrows, p. 53 [but see Grub, ii. p. 309]. ^ See Dixon's note on capitular and royal elections, i. 1S3. * Dixon, i. 1 1. * Ibid. 56 HISTORY OF THE REFORMAT 10 \ JX beggary rather than forego their due. The endless questions of precedence between bishop and legate, each of whom asserted an exclusive right of probate ; the regulations re- garding marriage and legitimacy, and the frequent dispensa- tions from Rome, the result of ai)peals which in spite of the Praemunire Acts were still made ; the venality of the supreme papal courts, in which, if the decision could not be bought, an early hearing had to be paid for with a great price — all tended to prejudice the State against the Church, and to make laymen identify it more and more with the Roman system and its abuses. The course of Henry's own divorce, dragging on through seven years, is a conspicuous instance of the " law's delay." ^ The day had gone by when the ecclesiastical courts were the refuge for the poor. The suit of a poor man might be delayed for years, though it is doubtful whether the ecclesiastical courts were not at least as pure and as expeditious as the temporal. The matter had been vigorously taken in hand by Archbishop Warham, and great reforms had been effected (1518) ; he had even inhibited judges expressly delegated by the Roman pontiff- The rivalry, however, between Warham {icgatits natiis) and Wolsey {Jcgattis a latere) brought back and increased the old abuses. The very grievance to which Sir H. Guildford alluded arose out of the contending claims of the primate and the cardinal- legate, the latter seeking to simplify the old procedure by superseding rather than reforming it. Thus at the time of the Reformation these ecclesiastical courts were in great need of reformation, and the admitted abuses served as a useful pretext for State interference.^ This State interference in the matter of the ecclesiastical courts was the beginning of Henry's ecclesiastical legislation. Summing up, then, wc fuid that, altogether independently of the anti-papal feeling of the nation, there were certain • J. J. lUunt, p. 58. « Dixon, i. iS. •Sec Dixon, i. ii-iS; Perry, pp. 25, 26; Hook's "Life of Warh.ani," pp. 233-260 ; Act alwul Probates, 21 Ikn. VIII. c. 5. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 5/ matters affecting the relations of Church and State which absolutely needed readjusting. 1. The old privilege of benefit of clergy, which, once a real benefit to the people, had become an abuse. 2. The disproportionate distribution of wealth between Church and State, which the various Mortmain statutes had in vain attempted to correct. 3. The wealth amassed by the regulars to the detriment of the seculars. 4. The uncertain relation in which ecclesiastics stood to the king, since they had gradually come to regard a foreigner as their spiritual superior ; and 5. The abuses which had become numerous in the ecclesi- astical courts, and clerical extortions generally, which were made the pretext for legislation. It was under the plausible pretext of reforming these abuses that we shall find King Henry covering his spoliation of the Church and his infringement of her liberties. We may say of him, as has been said of Hildebrand, that " in preparing the way for an intolerable tyranny and for the worst of all abuses, he began by reforming abuses and vindicating legal rights."^ His was "a revolution by solemn procedure."^ I was met by 23 Hen. VHI. c. i ; 2 and 3, by the Uses and Act of Feoffments, 23 Hen. VHI. c. 10, by 21 Hen. VHI.c. 13, against Pluralities, and by the Suppression of Monasteries ; 4, by the Royal Supremacy Act, 26 Hen. VHI. c. I ; 5, by the Probate and Mortuaries Acts, 21 Hen. VHI. cc. 5 and 6. * Southey, p. 77. ^ Dixon, i. 6. 58 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION EV LFXTURi: VII. STATE OF KNGLAND, 1509-1529 — WOLSEY'S GREATNESS AND FALL. [This lecture in the original manuscript is made up of some brief headings jolted down on half a sheet of note-paper, and the revised proofs of a review (by Mr. Moore) of Brewer's "The Reign of Henr)' VIII.," which appeared in No. 38 of the Church Quarterly Revitw (January, 18S5). Both are reprinted here intact. Consult also Canon Creighton's sketch of Wolsey's career in his volume on the cardinal in the " English Statesmen Series."] State of England, i 509. Internal. luid of feudalism. The new nobility servants of the king. The old barons the check to royal tyranny. Relations ivith the Continent. England nowhere. League of Cambray. War of 1512-13. Tournay taken. The young king and Wolsey. Francis I, king, 15 15. Charles, king, 15 16 ; Emperor, 15 19. The Papacy and the Reformation. Luther's Theses, 1517. Influence of foreign Protestantism. The king's answer, '' Assert io sept em sacramentontmy Wolsey s policy— foreign, domestic, ecclesiastical. The divorce. Wolsey under Praemunire. Art. v.— Brewer's Reign of Henry \TII. The Rrinn of Hmry VI 11., from his Accession to the Death of Wolsey. Reviewed and lUustratctl from Original Documents. By the late J. S. Brewer, M.A. Editcil by James Gairdner, of the Public Record OtVice. In two volumes, with portrait. (London, 1SS4.) " The history of England," it has been said, " has yet to be ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 59 written," but there are some periods of that history which have to be umvrittcn and rewritten if we are ever to arrive at the truth. Probably no century has occupied so-called historians more, and with less permanent results, than the century of the Reformation. Ignorance and traditional inter- pretations of traditional facts have combined with violent prejudice and uncritical partisanship to obscure the facts, or to give a false colouring to facts which cannot be denied. To write, therefore, the much-needed history of the Reforma- tion, far more of critical and destructive power must be brought to bear than has hitherto been thought necessary. Apart from the a priori theorizings of certain living writers, whose noble indifference to the facts almost justifies Canon Kingsley's words that history is so overlaid with lies, that we can make nothing of it, there is an enormous amount of early evidence which the truth-loving historian must discredit and discard, though it comes to us with the imprimatur of Poly- dore Vergil, Hall, Foxe, Burnet, and Strype. And in this destructive work, it is not enough to trace the filiation of different writers to their common parentage, and to show that the authority on which they depend was biassed and untrust- worthy. This in itself is hard enough, especially when the malignity of the authorities commonly accepted gives to their statements an appearance of independence, if not of truthfulness. But we must be able to appeal to some trust- worthy source of information, something which is above the petty animosity of personal spite. We must, in short, have a final court of appeal, by which we may test the utterances of ancient animus and modern theorizing. Such a court of appeal, for the first half of the reign of Henry VHL, Mr. Brewer has given us. And it is certainly not too much to say, that, in the light of this work, the Reformation and the great actors in it assume a new cha- racter. The two volumes which Mr. Gairdner has now given to the world are a reprint of the invaluable prefaces which Mr. Brewer prefixed to the successive volumes of the State Papers.^ Well known and valued, at their true worth, by ' There is a curious survival of the older arrangement in vol. i. p. 261, which 6o HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX Students, these huge cjuartos were practically out of the reach of ordinary persons ; nor would any casual visitor to a library have dreametl that under the unattractive title of " Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic," there lay concealed a continuous history of W'olsey's administration, in a form which was not only readable, but fascinating in the highest degree. Little idea of Mr. Brewer's work can, however, be gained merely by the reading of these volumes, containing though they do more than a thousand closely printed pages. For the}' are the mature result of years of unwearying effort. It may, however, help the general reader to gain some notion of what Mr. l^rcwer has done, to know that, in the four volumes of State Papers which he lived to publish, we have more than ticenty t/ionsand letters, dealing with the most intricate political complications of an age, in which political intrigue had been reduced to a science, some of them being written in cipher to which there was no key, many undated or mis- dated, numbers mutilated by damp or mildew and the ravages of rats and mice. In an interesting article contributed to the Quarterly Revieiu for April, 1871, Mr. Brewer gives a sketch of the history of these documents, till they were safely lodged in the new Record Office. As early as the reign of Charles II., Prynne, who had been appointed Kee[)cr of his Majesty's Records, tells how he tried to rescue the documents '* which had for many years lain bound together in a confused chaos, under corroding, putrefying cobwebs, dust, and filth, in the darkest corner of Caesar's Chapel in the White Tower." lie employed, he says, " many soldiers and women to remove and cleanse them from their filthiness, who, soon growing weary of this tedious work, left them almost as foul as they found them." In "raking up this dunghill" Prynne found " many rare, ancient, precious pearls and golden records ; " yet when, less than a century afterwards, reference had to be made to certain documents of the age of Charles I., nothing at all was known of them, till a venerable clerk was dis- has apiurcntly cbcapcd the editor's notice. The words *' this volume " {i.e. vol. ii. of the old arrangement) refer only to chaps, iii.-ix. in vol. i. of this etiition. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 6[ covered, who had a dim recollection that he had heard, in his youth, of the existence of some old books in the room near the gateway of Whitehall, and suggested a search, which, after many adventures with decayed staircases, locksmiths, flocks of pigeons, and accumulations of filth, proved eventually to be successful.^ Three-quarters of a century later, in 1836, a committee of the House of Commons was appointed to investigate the present state of the records of the United Kingdom, and produced a Blue Book of 946 pages, in which it is stated in evidence that some of the public muniments were " in a state of inseparable adhesion to the stone walls ; there were numerous fragments which had only just escaped entire consumption by vermin, and many were in the last stage of putrefaction. Decay and damp had rendered a large quantity so fragile as hardly to admit of being touched ; others, particularly those in the form of rolls, were so coagu- lated together that they could not be uncoiled. Six or seven perfect skeletons of rats were found embedded, and bones of these vermin were generally distributed throughout the mass." ^ Even when the Record Office was built and the documents from their various repositories were transferred to it, this huge mass of invaluable material was almost useless from the want of proper catalogues and indexes. It is to the late Lord Romilly that we owe the '* Calendars of State Papers," of which more than one hundred volumes have already appeared. In 1855 he obtained from the Lords of the Treasury leave to employ qualified persons in the work, and it is from this time that Mr. Brewer's labours begin. The entire correspondence of the reign of Henry VIII. was put into his charge, with the following result. In 1862 his first volume appeared, with the correspondence of the years 1509-14 and a preface of 122 pages. The second volume, in two parts, each of which is itself a volume, appeared in 1864, and carried on the history to the year 15 18. Three years later the third volume, again in two parts, appeared, and the fourth volume, in three parts ' Edwardes, quoted by Dr. Brewer. * "Report," p. 427, quoted by Brewer. 62 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION^ IN and with a separate introduction of nearly seven hundred pages, completed the history to the death of Wolsey. Few can appreciate, except those who, like ]\Ir. Gairdner, have taken part in the work, the amount y^i labour implied in this. The ag^gregation of materials in one office was but the first step in the process. A far more difficult task remained. Many documents had been abstracted by Sir Robert Cotton for his library in the British Museum ; others had been carried to the Chapter House at Westminster, to the Rolls House and the State Paper Office ; and when from these last places the documents were brought together, there seemed no possi- bilit)' of restoring the broken series to its original order. There was, of course, no catalogue of the whole. The cata- logues of detached parts, made at different places by different men, were constructed on different principles. Not only parts of the same correspondence, but even fragments of the same letter, had found their way to different offices, and w^re cata- logued (if catalogued at all) according to the arrangement which was adopted in the place where they were. And here Mr. Brewer must speak for himself as to the method which he has so successfully employed. " A return to the primitive arrangement of the papers, however desirable, was altogether impossible, for no memo- randa had been kept of these changes (of place, arrangement, etc.). To have catalogued the papers as they stood was scarcely more possible. Nothing remained except to bring the different series together and patiently proceed dc novo to arrange the whole in uniform chronological order. The task was extremely difficult and fatiguing. The labour was increased by the dispersion of the papers, the variety of ex- periments to which they had been subjected at different intervals, and the total obliteration of all traces of their original sequence. The letters are seldom dated ; their dates had to be determined by internal evidence. ... To the difficulty arising from a general absence of dates in papers of this early period must be added the uncertainty in the different modes of calculation adopted by different nations. Some states followed the Roman, some the old st\'le. Some ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 63 commenced the year on Christmas Day, some at the variable feast of Easter. In some instances the same writer followed no rule, but wavered between two styles, like the Emperor Maximilian ; some adopted the style of the place where they chanced to be staying, or of the correspondent to whom their letters were addressed. This uncertainty in the chronology of the times involved the necessity of numerous researches among the Privy Seals, patent rolls, and other muniments at the Record Office. It was indispensable to arrive at some certain data for determining the shifting dates of uncertain papers. At last, by one method or another, and finally by comparing the entire series of despatches of this or that ambassador, wherever such a comparison could be made, the date of each separate document was determined with tolerable exactness. Step by step the whole series emerged from confusion." ^ It is impossible fairly to assess the value of Mr. Brewer's results, without some knowledge of the laborious methods by which he arrived at them. It was only after all the documents had been chronologically arranged, their date and authorship determined, and the letters printed, entire or in summary, that Mr. Brewer sat down to write his prefaces. Even then he undervalued the work he was about to do. " It is not my business," he says, " to write history, but to show the bearings of these new materials upon history." ^ And yet no one who reads these volumes — certainly no one who attempts to utilize for himself the materials which Dr. Brewer has provided — will hesitate to allow that ordinary criticism is here impossible. If ever there was a case in which ava-KoZuKToi (paaEig are to be received with reverence, it is when, as here, they are the utterance of one, whose great experience in such matters has become an instinct, and whose intuitive judgments on doubt- ful questions of sixteenth-century politics are the expression of that fine tact which is the product of laborious and con- scientious work. It was not likely that the new materials, which Mr. Brewer's ' Brewer's preface to vol. i. State Papers, pp. ix., x. * Quoted in Gairdner's preface, p. i. 64 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX work placed at the disposal of students, should lie long unused, or that, when used, they should be used only by those who took the same view of the Reformation as he did. Roman as well as Anglican writers appeal to the State Papers, as confirming their own view. Canon Dixon's elaborate volumes are balanced by the brilliant, if somewhat one-sided, studies of Mr. Hubert Burke. Even Dr. Nicholas Sanders and his continuator, Mr. Rishton, find themselves re-edited with an elaborate preface and foot notes which bristle with references to the "Calendars of the State Papers." Documents "indiffer- ently minister justice, "and it is no wonder that representatives of opposing views take them, like the Articles, "to be for them." There is, however, one view of the Reformation which, in the face of Dr. Brewer's researches, seems to have become no longer tenable, at least for members of the Eng- lish Church, — the view, namely, that the Reformation repre- sents a kind of spiritual arcJiibiosis, when, from the dead matter of Roman Catholicism, was evolved the pure spiritual life of the Protestant faith. Some writers from this point of view have indeed doubted the arcJiibiosis, and prefer to believe that the new life which manifested itself in England, was not indeed brought by some wandering aerolite from another world, but introduced into the country with the con- traband goods of German Protestantism. To say that such a theory is inconsistent with Dr. Brewer's view is to speak of matter of fact, as if it were matter of opinion ; for it is im- possible to read the documents of the reign of Henry VHI., without being struck by the unique character of the English Reformation. No one, with competent knowledge of the pre- Reformation Church, could help being amused at the view, which, before now, has found defenders, that the Church of England dates its existence from the Divorce. The view is fortunately as unhistorical, as to Churchmen it is offensive, and the publication of the State Papers will have done much to render it untenable. It is, indeed, a remarkable fact that the Hibbert lecturer of 1883, speaking of the English Re- formation, declares it to be "both in its method and in its result a thing by itself, taking its place in no histc^ical sue- ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 65 cession and altogether refusing to be classified." ^ And when he comes to ask why this is so, and what it is which differen- tiates the English Reformation, his answer is that it is " the continuity of the Anglican ChurcJi!' ^ " There is no point," he says, " at which it can be said, Here the old Church ends ; here the new begins. ... It is an obvious historical fact that Parker was the successor of Augustine, just as clearly as Lanfranc and Becket. Warham, Cranmer, Pole, Parker — there is no break in the line, though the first and third are claimed as Catholic, the second and fourth as Protestant. . . . The Church may be Protestant now, as it undoubtedly was Catholic once, but it is impossible to fix the point at which the transition was legally and publicly made." But it is essential to the ultra-Protestant as to the Roman view, that there should be such a break in the spiritual history of England, whether it date from the Divorce, or the assertion of the Royal Supremacy, or the influx of Puritan opinions in the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth. It is therefore not sur- prising that those Churchmen who take the Puritan view of the Reformation, have felt little called upon to make use of Dr. Brewer's materials. They go on repeating the misstate- ments of Hall and Foxe and Burnet and Strype ; they still find the forerunners of the Reformers in the heretics of earlier ages, and their most logical successors in the Protestant sects of to-day. Such a view, however appropriate and natural to a Nonconformist, is strangely inconvenient for those who, in any sense, profess and call themselves Churchmen. The break in the history of England, which some people put down to the Reformation, dates from the death of Henry VII. That there was such a break it is impossible to deny, and the documents bear unmistakable witness to it. It was only natural that the change should be reflected in the religious life of the nation, and perhaps it is not strange that those who interpret English Church history in the light of Continental Protestantism should mistake the effect for the cause. " The Middle Ages," says Dr. Brewer, " came to a * Beard's " Ilibbert Lectures," p. 300. - Ibid., p. 311. 66 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION FV close in KiiL^land with the death of Henry VII." Feudalism was dyini;. The old nobility had been destroyed in the civil wars. A few, like the Duke of Norfolk, survived as connect- ing links between Tudor and Plantagcnet ICngland. But the future of the country was in the hands of a new nobility, just rising into prominence, men who were servants of the Crown, raised from a lower level in return for personal services rendered to the king. Under such conditions it is obvious a new era was at hand. The system of checks, for which the I'Lnglish Constitution is remarkable, was for the moment out of gear. The new nobility, instead of seeking to limit and restrain the absolute authority of the Crown, as their pre- decessors had done, saw in its extension an increase of their <:)wn greatness ; and Parliament, so far from being the ex- pression of the will of the people, existed only for registering the wishes of the sovereign ; the fancied freedom and inde- pendence of the Reformation Parliament being a fiction of historians. Everything thus tended to throw all the power into the hands of the king. He was the one refuge from the evils of civil war and a disputed succession. If we except the still smouldering elements of disaffection in the north, the king had become " the poise and centre of the nation." His was the strong hand which alone was able to hold, in equilibrium, the opposing factions of the day. The Royal Supremacy was no longer a tradition or a theory ; it was a fact. But this was not all. The internal troubles of England had caused her to drop out of Continental politics. She ranked only as a third or fourth-rate power. Henry \TI. had indolently acquiesced, and the League of Cambray recognized the virtual exclusion of luigland from the great Powers of Europe. She was only '* a wealthy parvenu in the great family of nation.s."^ But, with a new king, men's eyes and thoughts began to turn to foreign affairs, and Henry VHI. was admira- bly fitted to be the national ideal. " Had he lived in a more poetic age," says Mr. Ihewer, "and died before the divorce, he might, witliout an\' great effort of imagination, have stood for the hero of an epic poem."'- Unsurpassed in the tourna- * Brcwi ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 67 ment, a match for the tallest archers in his guard, in stature and in muscular strength without a rival, he was no less pre-eminent in the accomplishments of the day. He spoke French, Italian, and Spanish, could write Latin, was pas- sionately fond of music, and though devoted, as it seemed, to mummeries and masquerades and the gorgeous pageantry for which his court became famous, he was yet regular and business-like, reading and noting despatches, signing warrants, letters, etc., only after careful perusal. Such a view is difficult to reconcile with the popular account of the easygoing, plea- sure-loving monarch, anxious only to spend the wealth which his father had so laboriously amassed. The concreteness and reality of a history, drawn directly from the letters of contemporaries, is nowhere better seen than in the descriptions of the young monarch. In our century, newspapers form no inconsiderable item in political history. A modern ambas- sador does not fill his despatches with descriptions of the personal attractions of a newly crowned king. Three centuries ago it was different, and it is to the secret memoir of the Venetian ambassador Giustinian that we owe the following- description of Henry VIII. : ^ — " His Majesty is twenty-nine years old and extremely handsome. Nature could not have done more for him. He- is much handsomer than any other sovereign in Christendom, a great deal handsomer than the King of France ; very fair, and his whole frame admirably proportioned. On hearing that Francis I. wore a beard, he allowed his own to grow, and, as it is reddish, he has now got a beard that looks like gold. He is very accomplished ; a good musician ; composes well ; is a most capital horseman ; a fine jouster; speaks good French, Latin, and Spanish ; is very religious ; hears three masses daily when he hunts, and sometimes five on other da)-s. He hears the Office every day in the queen's chamber — that is to say, vesper and compline. He is very fond of hunting, and never takes his diversion without tiring eight or ten horses, which he causes to be stationed beforehand along the line of country he means to take ; and when one is tired he mounts • Giust., "Desp.," ii. 312, a]i. l>rewer, i. 8, 9. 6S HISTORY Of 'J HE REFORMATION IX another, and before he j^^cts home they arc all exhausted. He is extremely fond of tennis, at which «rame it is the prettiest thinc,^ in the world to see him play, his fair skin glowing throuL^h a shirt of the finest texture." ICven as late as the year 1530, when the king was nearly forty, and age and indulgence had begun to leave their marks upon him, Lodovico Falier writes — " In this Eighth Henry God has combined such corporeal and intellectual beauty as not merely to surprise but astound all men. ... His face is angelic rather than handsome ; his head imperial and bold ; and he wears a beard, contrary to English custom. Who would not be amazed when contem- plating such singular beaut)* of person coupled with such bold address, adapting itself with the greatest ease to ever}' manly exercise ? " ^ To another Venetian, Pasqualigo, writing in 1515, we owe the description of Henry at a solemn reception. " He wore a cap of crimson velvet, in the T^rench fashion, and the brim was looped up all round with laccts and gold- enamelled tags. His doublet was in the Swiss fashion, striped alternately with white and crimson satin, and his hose were scarlet, and all slashed from the knee upwards. Very close r(jund his neck he had a gold collar, from which there hung a rough-cut diamond the size of the largest walnut I ever saw, and to this was suspended a most beautiful and very large round pearl. His mantle was of purple velvet lined with white satin ; the sleeves open, with a train more than four Venetian yards long. His mantle was girt in front like a gown with a thick gold cord, from w liich there hung large golden acorns like those suspended from a cardinal's hat : over the mantle was a ver}- handsome gold collar, with a pendant St. George entirely of diamonds. IkMicath the mantle he wore a pouch of cloth of gold, which covered a dagger ; and his fingers were one mass of jewelled rings."- Such was the new King of luigland, all the more dazzling wiien contrasted with the other sovereigns of Europe at the time of his accession, the prematurely old and gouty Louis, ' Hrown's " Vcn. C.nl.,' iv. p. 293. = Brewer, i. 9, 10. ENGLAND AND ON THE C0NTINEN7\ 6g the bankrupt Maximilian, and the timid and niggardly Ferdi- nand. Yet the first attempt of England to assert itself among European nations resulted in the ignominious failure of the invasion of Guienne. This was in 15 12, and from that year dates the greatness of Thomas Wolsey. It was he who was the moving spirit in the expedition of 15 13, noted for the heroic death of Admiral Howard and the subsequent sur- render of Terouenne and Tournay ; while at home, under Queen Katharine, Lord Surrey was conducting the war which ended with Flodden Field. The rapid success of England, as a military power, had remarkable results. It frightened Ferdinand into treacherous negotiations with France, while France became anxious for an alliance with England. The rupture that ensued between Henry and Ferdinand, and the timely death of the French queen, led to the negotiations for a marriage between Louis XII. and Mary Tudor. She had been betrothed to Prince Charles, on condition that he should marry her when he was fourteen years of age, but the dilatori- ness of his grandfather, Maximilian, gave England an excuse for an open repudiation of the engagement, and Mary, in all the freshness of youth and beauty, was transferred from the sickly prince of fourteen to a royal roue of fifty-two, — her only consolation being the promise that, if she married this time to please her brother, she might marry the next time to please herself. A single letter ^ from Louis reveals a further scheme, which was only cut short by the French King's death soon after. Henry and Louis were to join in expelling Ferdi- nand from Navarre, while Henry, by right of his wife, was to take to himself the kingdom of Castile. This union of the royal families of France and England was a stroke of states- manship of which England might well be proud. It was the recognition of the fact that, within five years of his accession, Henry had taken his place in the front rank of European sovereigns. If we attempt to discover to whom the credit of thus raising England in the scale of action is due, the answer of the State Papers is unhesitating. The central figure among * State Papers, i, 5637. 70 nisTOR\ or rifE reformatiox ix the kiiv^'s councillors is Thomas Wolsc}-, then Dean of Lin- coln. It was on him and on Ruthal, Bishop of Durham, who " sanjT treble to the cardinal's base," ^ that the weight of public business fell. The Duke of Norfolk, of Flodden fame, was Wolsey's great rival, Charles Brandon his intimate but faith- less friend. It seems almost a pit)- that Dr. Brewer's two volumes should not have been called a history of the public life ^>i Wolsey ; for this is the central thought of the whole, and the wearisome complications and intricacies, through the mazes of which the author threads his way, arc but the setting of the picture. Dr. Brewer makes no secret of the fact that he holds a brief for Wolsey, the great cardinal to whom pos- terity has done such scant justice, being content to accept the biassed statements of private enmity or theological animus. But the strength of a chain is, after all, that of its weakest link, and while it is interesting to find contemporary documents bearing out the substantial truth of the history of William Shakespeare and David Hume, it is all the more surprising when we remember the line of succession by which these writers were connected with Wolse}''s own time — Vergil, Hall, r'oxe,'- Burnet and Strypc, Hume on the one side ; Vergil and Hall, Holinshcd, Shakespeare on the other. Of these Hall and Vergil arc contradictor}- authorities, the common calumnies against Wolsey being due to the latter. The State Papers show us what Polydore Vergil's testimony is worth. X'ergil was factor to Hadrian, formerl}- papal collector in Imgland and absentee Bishop of Bath and Wells. According to the common story, Wolsey, on failing to receive Hadrian's assistance in his efforts to attain the cardinalatc, revenged himself on the deputy and imprisoned him in the Tower. There is not a vestige of producible evidence for this, but the true cause of lV)l}-dore's disgrace becomes clear. He seems ' tliust., *' I)c>i).,'' i. 260. - Dr. iJrcwcr's opinion of Fo.\c is worth quoting. " Had Foxc, the M.Trtyrolo- Ki^i, iKTcn .in honcit man, his carelessness and credulity would have incapacitated hi in from Ixring a trustworthy hislori.an. Unfortunately he was not honest ; h. tampered with the documents that came into his Jiands, and freely indulged ii; those very fatdts of supjiression and equivocation for which he condemned his opponr"' ~ " (i r > f M \ ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 71 to have been in the habit of writing to his patron, Cardinal Hadrian, letters in which he freely criticized both the king and Wolsey as well as the Pope. One of these letters, being intercepted, was sent to the Pope, and by him sent on to Wolsey. The result, not unnaturally, was that Polydore was imprisoned and deprived of his office. From the Tower he wrote abject letters to Wolsey, which became ecstatic when Wolsey received the cardinal's hat. He only longed to gaze and bow in adoration, that his spirit might rejoice in Wolsey " as ill God my Saviour!' Yet no sooner is he at liberty, and out of the cardinal's reach, than he writes the caricature ^ which has been taken for history and embellished by successive writers.^ A truer picture of what Wolsey really was is now possible. We may differ in our estimate of the value and ultimate success of his work as a whole, but of his tremendous power in England, and on the Continent, there is no room to doubt. The following description of him is given by Sebastian Giustinian in 15 19: — " He is about forty-six years old, very handsome, learned, extremely eloquent, of vast ability, and indefatigable. He alone transacts the same business as that which occupies all the magistracies, offices, and councils of Venice, both civil and criminal ; and all State affairs likewise are managed by him, let their nature be what it may. " He is pensive, and has the reputation of being extremely just. He favours the people exceedingly, and especially the poor, hearing their suits and seeking to despatch them in- stantly. He also makes the lawyers plead gratis for all paupers. He is in very high repute, seven times more so than if he were Pope. ' Brewer, i. 266. - It is to the indiscriminate satire of Skelton that we probably owe the story of Wolsey's "greasy genealogy," for which there is little or no evidence. Even Vergil does not notice it. On the other hand the Privy Seal, Feb. 21, 15 10, granted to Edmund Dandy, empowers him to found a chantry in the southern nave of St. Lawrence, Ipswich, "to pray for the good estate of the king and the queen, and among others for the souls of Robert Wolsey and Joan his wife, father and mother of lliomas Wolsey, Dean of Lincoln '' (Brewer, i. 61). 72 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX ♦• lie is the person who rules both the king and the entire kingdom. On the ambassador's first arrival in England he used to sa>', ' His Majesty icill do so a/id so ; ' subsequently he went on forgetting himself and commenced saying, ' JVe shall do so and so;' at this present he has reached such a pitch that he says, * / sliall do so and so! " ^ It was natural that jealous rivals should charge Wolsey with ambition, especially when his sun had set, and it was possible to point the moral at a vaulting ambition which over- leaps itself But we are concerned with Wolsey as he was in his greatness, before the days came in which his enthusiastic loyalty, rather than any desire for self-aggrandizxmcnt, plunged him into the miserable divorce litigation which was destined to be his ruin. "The bent of his genius," says Dr. Brewer, "was exclu- sively political ; but it leaned more to foreign than domestic politics. It shone more conspicuous in great diplomatic com- binations, for which the earlier years of the reign furnished favourable opportunities, than in domestic reforms. No man understood so well the interests of this kingdom in its relations to foreign powers, or pursued them with greater skill and boldness. The more hazardous the conjuncture the higher his spirit soared to meet it. His intellect expanded with the occasion."^ At the climax of his power "he saw at his feet, what no Pope had for a long time seen, and no subject before or since, princes, kings, and Emperors courting his smiles. ]5orn to command, infinitely superior in genius to those who addressed liim, piercing their motives at a glance, he was lofty and impatient. But there is not a trace throughout his • "Despatches," ii. 314, apiul 15rowcr, i. 60. This is specially interesting ns bearing on the popular story that Wolsey was guilty of writing " ego et Rex Ulcus," which people have tried to explain as good Latin, but bad policy, at least for a servant of Henry \III. liut as a matter of fact Hall has perverted the real < liargc. In the articles against him Wolsey is charged with using the exj^ression *' the king and I," and is condemned for coupling himself with the King, "using liimscif more like a fellow to your Highness than a subject." Hall, from whom the popular story comes, misrepresents this, stating as the accusation against the cardinal that he said " ' I and my king,' as who should say that the King was his .servant." ( f. Urcwcr, ii. 402, f.n. » i. 57. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. y I correspondence of the ostentation of vulgar triumph or grati- fied vanity. Grave and earnest, it occasionally descends to irony, is sometimes pungent, never vainglorious. Ambassadors from foreign courts, when they first visit England, address themselves to the king and write letters to the council. After a few weeks a little penetration enables them to discover by whose judgment and decision every great question will be •eventually decided." ^ Before, however, Wolsey attained the height of his great- ness the scene of European politics had shifted. In 15 15, the year after the cession of Tournay, Francis became King of France. The year after, Charles ascended the throne of Spain, and on the death of the ''dilapidated Emperor" Maxi- milian, three years later, was elected to succeed him. The future of Europe was thus placed in the hands of three young sovereigns, almost of the same age, whose intrigues and com- binations make up the political history of the next quarter of a century. It is the habit with Protestant historians, in order to justify the action of Luther and his followers, to exaggerate the tyranny of the Popes. As a mere matter of history nothing could be more misleading. John Bunyan is much nearer the truth when he says of Giant Pope that " though he be yet alive, he is, by reason of age, and also of the many shrewd brushes that he met with in his younger days, grown so crazy and stiff in his joints that he can now do little more than sit in the cave's mouth, grinning at pilgrims as they go by and biting his nails because he cannot come at them."^ The days of Hildebrand and Innocent III. and Boniface VIII. had gone, never to return. Interdicts and excommuni- •cations had lost their terrors. In the sixteenth century emperors did not "go to Canossa." The Pope was little more than a makeweight in the political combinations of the day, often a mere shuttlecock between France and the Empire, feebly trying to preserve a balance of power, and violating every engagement he had made when his ally, for the time being, became too strong. The spiritual factor in sixteenth- century politics was reduced to a minimum. * Brewer, i, 58. - "Pilgrim's Progress."' 74 HISTORY OF THE REFORM ATIOX TV Hut there was another power at work, which, however dis- <,mised in the common liistorics, is laid bare by the State Papers. It is a question wliich has been hotly debated be- tween the defenders and opponents of political economy, whether it is possible to " isolate the phenomena of wealth '" and treat man merely as " a mone)'-getting animal." There is no doubt which side the State Papers take. If we except V2ngland, which, relatively speaking, was rich enough to take its own line, the policy of the leading sovereigns of Europe is always resolvable into considerations of /. s. d. Whether it was an imperial election, or a Conclave to elect a Pope, or the disposal of a princess in marriage, or the making or un- making of an alliance, mattered not. Of course all the great sovereigns were intensely orthodox, though the Catholic Monarch sacked Rome and imprisoned the Holy P\ather, and the Most Christian King when it suited him made an alliance with the Turk, and the Defender of the P^iith discovered that he could divorce his wife without papal consent. The warlike Julius, the cultured Leo, Adrian, the "carpet-bag Pope," the ill-fated Clement, were all regarded by the kings of Europe as absolutely supreme, when it suited them, but generally it was a war of intellect, in which the keenest and most un- scrupulous won the day. Neither Henry nor Wolsey were wanting in the duplicity which then passed for diplomacy ; nor was such duplicity inconsistent with plain luiglish honest}' in private matters. International relations were not supposed to admit of ideal morality. The view, which the author of PJirontistcrion fathers on the modern utilitarian, was the commonl}- accepted one in the politics of the sixteenth ccnturw Conscience was treated as if it were "Atui.il.lo in individuals, childish weakness in a n.ition." Vox the science of international politics had become like a game of chess, in which no one expected consideration from a rival, or truthfulness in the statement of motives. That Wolsey could hold his own in this kind of warfare is clear. Witness his unblushing falsehoods to the PVcnch minister about the death of Huckinvham. and the elaborate dishonesty EXGLAXD AXD OX THE COXTIXEXT. 75 of the Calais Conference. But the cardinal, cither from "insular experience of diplomatic chicanery," or from greater subtlety in deceit, secured for his country, on more than one occasion, a great advantage. He sometimes told the truth. And as Mr. Brewer remarks ^ in reference to the negotiations with Charles' ambassadors about the liberation of Francis after Pavia, " the undisguised frankness of his remarks served better to deceive them than the most subtle artifice." Nothing- could be more disconcerting. It had the same effect on his political rivals as a thoroughly bad move deliberately made by a good chess-player. It could only be a cover or a blind for some deep scheme. The Field of the Cloth of Gold deceived no one, least of all the Kings of France and England^ as to the deep-seated rivalry which existed between them ; but it was indeed a refinement of policy to tell the truth, and it was an expedient rarely resorted to. On the other hand, Wolsey did not shrink from carrying with him, on his diplo- matic errands, duplicate sets of commissions, the one set being his real instructions, the other a blind for the court to which he was going, all equally authoritative and bearing the same date.2 England indeed, by reason of her wealth, could afford sometimes to despise the ordinary methods of diplomacy. But the gorgeous pageants began to tell upon the royal exchequer, and on Wolsey devolved the invidious duty of replenishing it. It is doubtful whether the cardinal has ever received full credit for his financial work. Though his great- ness lay in his foreign diplomacy, it is open to men to sa}- that the result was a failure. But of his domestic policy there can be but one opinion. He reduced to order the wasteful expenditure of the king's household, reconstructed the Court of Chancery, wisely diverted monastic propert)- to the cause of education, had schemes for redeeming, or at least commuting, the payment of annates, and even for bring- ing within limits the reckless prodigality of the king himself And when money had to be provided for war with France it was Wolsey who determined on the remarkable method b)" * ii. 64. - i. 419. 76 HISTORY OF THE RET'ORMATION IN which the contributions were assessed. This Parliament was the only one which met diirini,^ Wolscy's greatness. The last had been held in 15 15, when Wolsey was rising into notice, and the next was the great Reformation Parliament of 1529, which met after his fall. The reasons for summoning Parliament in 1523 were of course financial, but it has especial interest for us for two reasons. It is the first of which we get a contemporary account in private letters, and it is the first occasion, on which there were brought into contact Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, and Thomas Crumwell. The last- named was at this time merchant, cloth-dyer, scrivener, money- lender, and attorney. The next year he is found in Wolsey 's service. Without attempting to follow the discussions of this Parliament, in which the cause was as popular as the granting a subsidy was unpleasant, wc cannot help noticing that the Act, as it finally passed, was tJic first attempt at scientific taxation knozvn in England. "After all the studies of the economists during the last two centuries we have reverted to the principles, and almost to the practice, of the great minister, who with no complete statistics, no means, no organization, such as modern financiers can abundantly command, struck out in the necessity of the moment, under the pressure of a great war, a financial scheme which has never yet been surpassed in the sweep and fairness of its operation or the general correctness of its theor)*." ^ That such taxation would stir up ill-feeling was as certain as that Henry would shift the responsibility to his minister. No man ever knew better how to use a faithful servant as a scapegoat. When, two years later, it was again necessary to levy a war tax, Wolse\- hit upon the scheme of an amicable loan. Hall's account of the cardinal's interview with the mayor and corporation of London shows how little freewill was allowed to those whose privilege it was to contribute to the king's nccd.s. " Sirs," said the cardinal, " speak not to break what is concluded, for some shall not pay even a tenth — and it were better that a few should suffer indigence, than the king at this time sliould lack. Beware, therefore, and resist ' IJrcwci, i. 493. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. yy not, nor ruffle not in this case ; otherwise it may fortune to cost some their heads." ^ The highwayman's formula, "Your money or your life," has the great merit of surpassing even Wolsey's speech in brevity, but it is hardly more forcible. It was no wonder that people "cursed the cardinal." Yet, in this unpopular attempt, it was his loyalty which made him act against his own convictions, and when the people in many counties did dare to resist and " ruffle," it was he who inter- ceded with the king and secured the withdrawal of the com- mission. In spite of this the Commons never forgot their grudge to the cardinal, and Henry remembered only the rebuff which he had been compelled to accept. Wolsey's own words, pathetic as they are, are a key to his character. He would not vindicate himself, because to do so he must inculpate the king. " Every man," he says, " layeth the burthen from him ; I am content to take it on me, and to endure the fame and noise of the people, for my goodwill towards the king and comfort of you, my lords, and other the king's councillors ; but the eternal God knowetJi all!' ^ It is sometimes said that the clue to Wolsey's policy is to be found in his hope of the tiara, and that Charles simply outwitted him by promising to use his influence in the elec- tion. Such a charge is difficult to refute, partly because there is so much truth in it. Wolsey's policy was again and again defeated by the stolid selfishness of the Emperor, but it had never been merely a German policy. His object from first to last, or at least till the divorce drove him from his true position, was to keep Francis and Charles in such perfect equilibrium that England could at any moment turn the scale ; but that Wolsey trusted Charles, or believed that the Emperor's influence would be used on his behalf, and for that reason allowed himself to be drawn away from what seemed to him the true English policy, has yet to be proved. There were two occasions on which Wolsey might have had thoughts of the Papacy, and on neither occasion had he any more real chance of it than Henry had of succeeding Maximilian as Emperor. The first occasion was on the death of Leo, the ' Brewer, ii. 49. 2 jj^n's <'Chron.," p. 700. yS HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION TV second on the death of Adrian. \Vc arc now able to sweep away the cobwebs of three centuries and a half of history- writini^ and read the true story. The most secret combina- tions of the Conclaves are now known, and W'olsey appears as a candidate, almost against his will, in a contest in which, from the first, he could have had no hope of success. That King Henry wished it and wrote strongly to Charles, and that Charles wrote back promising everything, is true enough, liut there wc part company with the usual accounts. The stoiy that Wolscy was three times voted on, and had nine, twelve, and finally nineteen votes, is quite untrue. Wolsey was never voted on but o)ice, and then received seven votes. Charles never dreamt of pressing his claims, but, three days before the Conclave met, arranged with De Medici (afterwards Pope Clement VII.) through his ambassador, Don jManuel, that, in the event of the choice not falling on Dc Medici, the Cardinal of Tortosa should be put forward as the imperial candidate. And then Charles writes to Henry,^ " The election fell on a party never contemplated, and appears to have been rather the work of God than of man." This was certainly diplomacy, and the devoutness of the closing sentence was a touch of genius. The same kind of thing happened two years later on the death of Adrian. It was probably part of the late compact that, if De Medici voted for the imperial candidate, the ICmperor would favour De Medici in the next Conclave. Again Charles was full of promises to the King of England. He even wrote to his ambassador at Rome, the Duke of Scssa, desiring him to do all he could to secure Wolsey 's election. This letter arrived long after the election, and a private communication of Charles, now published, explains the reason. 1 Ic had deliberately oviscd the courier li'Jio carried the despatcJi to be detained at Barceloua'r The popular view of W'olsey's anxiety for the tri^^le crown certainly finds no confirmation in the letter he wrote to the kir.g on the election of Clement, or in the contemporary accounts of unprejudiced ambassadors. And it is almost ' .Stale Papers, iii. 2024, .ipud Brewer, i. 447.. - I'.rcwcr, i. 576. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 79 impossible to believe that he really supposed the Emperor to be favouring his cause. Four years later, when the unhappy Clement was in captivity, and the cardinal was about to start on his mission to Francis, the imperial ambassador tried the bait of the pontificate, and Wolsey's only reply was, '' God forbid that I should be influenced by such motives. It is ■enough for me, if the Emperor really intend to replace the Pope, and restore the Church to its former splendour." ^ The last years of Wolsey's administration are darkened by the divorce. His fall began long before his disgrace. It dates from the time when he consented to use against the helpless queen, a stranger in a strange land, all the diplomatic arts which he had long practised in his public policy. Even Mr. Brewer admits that " it is not pleasant to have to chronicle the artifices, the dissimulation, the fraud, the intimidation, employed to hunt down a forlorn and defenceless woman." ^ And there is the less need for us to do so here, because the whole question of the divorce, and Mr. Brewer's contribution to the literature of the subject, have already been thoroughly investigated in the pages of this review.^ It will, therefore, only be necessary to touch upon a few points. The victory of Pavia had overthrown Wolsey's schemes. That Charles should be supreme and without a rival in Europe was not to be thought of, and Wolsey therefore proceeded to play his second card. From this point the imperial alliance recedes into the background, though without any open breach, and h'rancc and England become more closely associated ; till, on April 30, 1527, a treaty was signed by which, in spite of the opposition of Charles, the Princess Mary was to be betrothed to the Duke of Orleans, P>ancis' second son, at that time a prisoner in Spain ; and in return PVance was to give an annual tribute of salt, 50,000 crowns by way of pension, and two millions of gold crowns to be paid by convenient instalments. It was during the visit of the French ambassador, the Bishop of Tarbes, according to the account afterwards circulated, that ' Brewer, ii, 210. - Ibid.^ ii. 185, ^ Church Qnaiicrly Revinv^ Xo. vi., Jan. 1S77. 8o HISTORY OF 7 HE REFORMATIOX IX the question of Mary's legitimacy was fust raised. Apart from its intrinsic improbability, the story is discredited entirel>- b\- what we now know of the chronoloj^y of the divorce. It liad by this time been \o\v^ a subject of secret negotiation at Rome. On September 13, 1526, Clerk writes to Wolsey about the difficulties attending "that cursed divorce" {''circa istud bciicdictuDi divortiiiin ").^ l^ut nearly a \'ear before that, on October 30, 1525, we get dark allusions to matters of correspondence between Wolsey and others which cannot be trusted to writing. It is not too much to assume that an allusion in a letter of Archbishop Warham, under date of April 12, 1525, to "this great matter of the king's grace " - has reference to the proposed divorce or dissolution of marriage. This almost exactly tallies with Henry's state- ment to Grynn:us in 1531 that for seven years — /.r. from 1524 — he had ceased to treat Katharine as his wife. The " royal scruples " thus date back probably to the early- part of the year 1525, and it is just conceivable that they were not suggested by any particular feeling for Anne Boleyn. If so, the king's scruples of conscience might have been con- scientious scruples at first, based upon a real doubt whether the want of a male heir was not a judgment of God on a marriage that was no marriage. But it is worth noticing that Anne Boleyn returned to England from France*' in the early part of 1522, and in March of that year took part in a Court revel with "Mistress Parker" (better known as the infamous Lady Rochford), while in the same year honours began to fall thick upon her father. Sir Thomas Boleyn. Whatever Anne may have been — and she was hardly likely to have received too strict notions at the Court of Francis and his darling sister Marguerite* — she was probabl)' wise * Stale Papers, iv. 1109, apud IJrcwcr, ii. 163. ' //'/cll phonetically. * Margaret, Duchess d'Alen9on, was a patron of- Protestantism and wrote •'The Mirror of a Sinful Soul." She was also the author of the licentious *• Ileptamcron." ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 8 1 cnougli ^ not to surrender herself to the king's passion, as others had done,^ till she had secured from him a written promise to make her " his sole mistress, and remove all others from his affection." Probably Wolsey at first regarded Henry's fancy for Anne Boleyn as merely a passing passion, and when he found that it could only be gratified by making Anne queen, he fell upon his knees and sought in vain to dissuade the king from it. " I assure you," he says to Kingston as he lay upon his death-bed at Leicester Abbey, " I have often kneeled before him in his privy chamber, on my knees, the space of an hour or two, to persuade him from his will and appetite ; but I could never bring to pass to dissuade him therefrom." ^ But Wolsey had not the moral strength to oppose Henry. His was not the stuff of which martyrs are made. In this at least he contrasts ill with the bold Bishop of Rochester. To emphasize his romantic loyalty and enthusiastic devotion to his master, is to blind our judgment to the inherent weakness of character he displayed. One would gladly believe that the well-known words, " If I had served God as diligently as I have served the king, He would not have given me over in my grey hairs," implied more of self-reproach than of dis- appointment at the king's ingratitude. Even when he opposed Henry in the divorce, it was rather from a keen perception of the difficulty of carrying the matter through, than from any real thought of the injury done to the queen, and the blow that such a proceeding must inflict on the sanctity of marriage. There is not the slightest evidence («) Royal that Wolsey suggested the scruples, but he certainly made himself the ready and unscrupulous agent of the king's ^ Henry's seventeen love letters to Anne would decide a good deal if their dates were only certain, but they are not. '^ Of Henry's previous relations with Anne's sister Mary it is difficult to speak with certainty. But the matter cannot be dismissed as the invention of Dr. Sanders in the face of the king's tacit admission of the fact (see letter from Sir Geo. Throgmorton, quoted in Brewer, ii. 240, f.n.) and the extraordinary dis- pensation for which Henry applied, which was not only to dissolve his marriage with Katharine, but also to remove any canonical impediments arising from affinity contracted ex illicito coitii. ^ Cavendish, p. 388, apud Brewer, ii. iSo, f.n. G sive suit. 82 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IS' design, when once it was determined, and thus was not un- naturally rcf^arded by the queen as the cause of her sorrows.^ Dr. Brewer even supposes, on the strenf:^th of a letter of Wolsey's, that the king originally intended simply to declare the marriage null without any trial at all, hoping, if necessary, to get the dispensation of Julius declared illegal, and that it was Wolsey who advised delay even while promising to " stick with " the king usque ad mortem?' Be this as it may, the divorce litigation occupied Wolsey (3) Coilu- till his fall. Dr. Brewer has brought to light " a collusive suit" which took place in May, 1527, in which Wolsey and Warham summon the king to answer to the charge that he is living in sin with his brother's widow. This ingenious farce made Henry appear as defendant in a matter in which he was really plaintiff. It was conducted with the greatest secresy, but apparently news of it reached Katharine, and the whole affair fell through. But the spirit which suggested it reappears in the king's constant asseverations, that he only wishes to be assured that his marriage is lawful, and so his interests and Katharine's were the same. It was by this device, that Wolsey succeeded in deceiving Warham and Fisher, till they came to believe that Katharine was foolishly opposing a scheme which had no object but the justif}'ing her marriage to the world. The collusive suit having fallen through, nothing remained but an appeal to the Pope to annul the dispensation of Julius. (May6-i6, ]iut, in the May of this year, the wild horde of Friindsberg and Bourbon had sacked Rome, ami the Pope was a prisoner in the castle of St. Angelo, closely watched by Spanish guards. It seemed impossible to win from him, what Wolsey wanted, a commission to try the matter without appeal. Meanwhile a short cut had been suggested to the king, and Knight was sent to the l^ope, independently of Wolsey's ' A writer in the Quarterly Rr^'icic of January, 1S77, argiies in favour of the view that Wolsey first suggested the divorce ; but it docs not seem to us that hi» authorities prove more than that he was, as he undoubtedly was, one of " the chcife setters forth of the divorce bitwcriK^ th.^ Uinr: •'•"'' '^^^^ Quecnc Catharine.'' » Brewer, ii. 181, \^2 •527.) EXGLAND AND ON THE COXTLVENT. ^^ negotiations, to apply not for the annulling of the old dispen- sation or a commission to try the case, but for a new dispen- sation allowing Henry to have two wives. The instrument (7) Two chosen was as clumsy as the scheme proposed, and Knight's '''''^'^^^• errand resulted in a ludicrous failure. The matter naturally reverted to Wolsey's hands, and delay was full of danger for him. His unpopularity had rapidly increased. The divorce was distasteful in England, and Wolsey was hated for attempting to further it. On the other hand, the Boleyn party were scheming for his downfall. He was no longer entirely trusted by the king, as was shown by Knight's mission. His new colleges at Ipswich and Oxford were regarded with disfavour not only by the monks, but by English people generally. If the monastic system had seen its best days, men did not yet understand how educational endowments were to take its place. And now the alliance with France increased the cardinal's unpopularity. English broadcloths could not be manufactitred without Spanish oils, and commerce with Spain was at an end. The closing of the Flemish ports put a stop to the lucrative traffic in Lutheran literature, and the attempt to divert trade from Antwerp to Calais caused general dissatisfaction. For Wolsey everything now depended on a rapid and successful issue of the divorce litigation. Yet even when the long-wished-for COMMISSION was appointed, and Wolsey and Campeggio (5) The were authorized to try the case, unexpected delays arose, sl^n""^ An important brief, sent by Pope Julius to Ferdinand in con- firmation of the bull, was known to exist, and till this could be secured, it was useless to point out irregularities in the bull itself. Yet all Wolsey's schemes for getting possession (V of this brief were unsuccessful. Campeggio was constantly ill with the gout, and matters dragged on slowly. Meanwhile the Pope had been again appealed to, to authorize a second marriage without invalidating the first, supposing Katharine could be persuaded to enter "lax religion." The poor Pope was "between the hammer and the anvil," for Charles had now taken up Katharine's cause. But the sack of Rome and a six months' imprisonment were things not easil}' forgotten, delays.) 84 HISTORY OF THE REFOKMATIOX I.V («) Cause and Clement on July 19, 1529, revoked the cause to Rome and Romc!*^ '" annulled the work of the legates, which had now extended over twelve months. With the Legatine Court Wolsey's power was at an end. Mis enemies gathered their forces round him. By a trick of the law, as unjust as it was ungenerous, he is brouc,dit under a pnv))iu)iire^ stripped of his property, his colleges spoiled, and he himself banished to his northern diocese, where in a little while he won all hearts.^ But the malice of the Bole)'n faction would not rest here. The utter incom- petence of the king's new advisers might at any moment necessitate the recall of the great cardinal. By the perverted evidence of the Italian physician, Augustine, a charge of treason is made out. W'olsey is arrested on a warrant by his bitter enemy, the Earl of Northumberland, at Cawood, delivered over at Sheffield House to Kingston, and dies at Leicester Abbey on his way to the Tower. An Englishman to the backbone, he had, in the fifteen years of his adminis- tration, raised his country from the position of a third-rate power till she had become the arbiter of the destinies of Europe. To his loyalty and devotion to his m.aster he would gladly have sacrificed his life, as he had often sacrificed his reputation and his conscience. Yet he died with the brand of traitor on his name. Such is the irony of history, which triumphant malice calls the judgment of God. * A pamphlet puhlislictl in 1 536, quoted by Dr. Wonlsworlh (ap. Brewer, ii. 416), bears ihc following remarkable testimony to Wolsey's behaviour during his banishment : — " Who was less beloved in the north than my lord cardinal — (joil have his soul ! — before he was amongst them ? Who better beloved after he had been there awhile? We hate oftimes whom we have good cause to love. It is a wontlcr to see how they were turned, how of utter enemies they became his dear friends. lie gave bishops a right good example how they might win men's hearts. There were few holy days but he would ride hve or six miles from his house, now to this parish church, now to that, and there cause one or other of his doctors to make a sermon unto the peoj)lc. lie sat amongst them and said mass before all the parish" (unlike the bishops of the time) ; "he saw why churches were made. He began to restore them to their right and proper use. He brought his dinner with him, and bjule divers of the parish to it. He enquired whether there was any debate or grudge between any of them. If there were, after dinner he sent for the parties to the church and made them all one. Men say well that do well. God's laws sliall never be so set by as they ought before they be well known." ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 85 Dr. Brewer has nobly vindicated the character of the great cardinal, but he would be the last to wish it to be thought that this is the only result of his years of research. Cardinal Wolsey is the central figure of the age because he stands midway between the old and the new era. In the height of his greatness he wields the forces of both ; in his decline he is crushed between them. Too much of a reformer for the men of the old learning, he seemed to the reforming party a representative of the ancient superstition. While the old order was changing and giving place to the new, Wolsey for a moment seemed to hold the flood gates ajar ; but it was only for a moment, and then the flood rushed on. " My readers," says Dr. Brewer towards the close of his first volume,-^ " will have perused the events narrated in these pages to little purpose if they think that this new epoch in the world's progress depended upon the election of a Pope or an Emperor, the disappointment of an Augustinian friar at Wittemberg, or the misconduct of a papal nuncio. When life is ebbing, and the advent of a new existence is at hand, advancing as noiselessly and yet as certain as the dawn, blandly tolerant of our small cares and griefs as it sweeps along, but not the more to be diverted from its benevolent and irresistible course, we are apt to think that its progress might have been stayed had our wisdom devised difierent measures and adopted in due time other remedies than those on which we relied. So is it with the death and the new life of the world. We mistake its causes ; we misread its mean- ing. True love, and not less wise than true, will shed a tear, and strew the dead with flowers ; then turning its face to the grey and shivering dawn, bind up its loins for the new race, though different to our seeming, not less full of life, not less divine, than that which has passed irrevocably away." '' At the end of the second volume Dr. Brewer returns to the same thought, and interprets it in a way which suggests an appropriate warning at the present time. The Reforma- tion did not owe its origin to Tyndale or to Parliament — to Lutheran heretics or to royal scruples. The ploughmen and ' i. 580. 86 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN shepherds who read the New Testament under hedges, exist only in the imagination of some writers of our day. The Reformed Church was the reflex of the new England of Henry VIII.'s reign. It was the Church of the middle classes, who were rising into prominence, and it reflects some of the salient features of their character. In it the vigorous spiritual life of the English Church adapted itself to the new conditions of the national existence. The continuity of the Church was as true and real as the continuity of the nation y/but a change had passed over both. An age was beginning "not less full of life, not less divine" than that which was passing away. The Church of the Reformation was the Church of the middle classes, and Dr. Brewer adds, in words which, as we look back, seem almost prophetic, '' It is only when political power shall have been transferred to new hands, and new classes shall have supplanted the old, that the Church of England will cease to be their exclusive representative, or the rigid exponent of the Reformation. Only then will it be called upon to modify its teaching and enlarge its sympathies." ^ But England of the Reformation is as far removed from Englantl of the nineteenth century, as from England under Plantagenet rule. The transference of political power, which is taking place under our eyes, is the result not of civil wars destroying an old nobility, but of the gradual evolution of the nation and the wise extension of the franchise. The methods of the Reformation are a glaring anachronism in our day, nowhere more conspicuously so than in that grotesque modern parody of sixteenth-century legislation, the Public Worship Regulation Act \Vc are rising to a conception of unity, which is higher than that of uniformity ; and what was possible, and perhaps necessary, in the Tudor period, has a strangely antique look in ours. Dr. lirewcr's admirable sketch of the characteristics of the Englishman of the middle class as "moral, but not devout ; religious, but nut fervent ; strictly observant of his duties, but intolerant and impatient of anything beyond them," serves to show us what to avoid ; for, whatever was the case three hundred years ago, a Church which is only the ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 87 Church of the middle classes can no longer claim to be the Church of England. And it is a significant fact that, whereas, within the memory of the present generation, there was a time when the National Church seemed strangled by Acts of Uniformity, and bound hand and foot in the grave-cloths of respectability, now all is changed. And the new phase on which the Church has entered, "not less full of life, not less divine," is marked by two characteristics ; — a more earnest and intelligent grasp of the unchanging truth, the doctrine, discipline, and sacraments of the divine society, and yet, con- sistently with this, a readiness and eagerness so to set forth that truth, that not only the great middle classes, but high and low, rich and poor, may meet together, and the English people may find their home, where their cradle was, — in the English Church. LECTURE VIII. THE REFORMATION PARLIAMENT, 1529-1536 — ECCLESI- ASTICAL LEGISLATION OF 1 529. Chronology of Parliament Parlianie7it. 1529. Nov. 3. Parliament opened. New lord chancellor, More, New Speaker, Audley. Dec. 17. King assents to — Probate Act, 21 Hen. VIIL c. 5- jSIorliiaries Act, 21 Hen. VIII. c. 6. Fhcralities Act, 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13. Fisher's opposition to passing of two formei-. Prorogation. AND Convocation, 1529-1536.* Convocation of Cantcrbtvy. 1529- Nov. 5. Convocation meets at St. Paul's. Nov. 12. Convocation discusses inter- nal reforms. Complaints as to Praemunire.' Dec. 24. Prorogued to April 29, 1531. ' [See the comparative tables by Bishop Stubbs in the " Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," vol. i. pp. 76-11 2. J 88 HISTORY OF 7/IK REFORMATION IN Parliament. 1530. Nov. 29. IX'alh of Wolscy. »53i- Jan. 16. Parliament meets after re- pealed prorogations. King's pardon granted to — Clergy of Province of Can- terbury., 22 lien. VIII. c. 15. Laity, 22 Hen. VIII. c. 16. Opinions of foreign univer- sities on divorce read. Mar. 31. Parliament prorogued. »532. Jan, 15. Parliament meets. Bill of Wards rejected. M;\r. 18. Supplication against the Or- dinaries presented ; i.e. against legislation by the clergy, and against clerical abuses. A p. 30. Answer of the Convocation laid before the Commons. Statutes as to Benefit of Clergy ., 23llcn. VIII. c. I. And as \.o Uses and Feoffments, 23 Hen. VIII. c. 10. And Restraint of Annates,'^ 23 Hen. VIII. c. 20. Pardon granted to clergy of I'rovince of York, 23 Hen. VIII. c. 19. May 14. Prorogued. May 16. .More resigns the chancellor- ship. 1533. ICarly in this year, or on Nov. 14. '532. the king marries Anne llolcyn. Convocation of Canterbury. 1530. Ap. 29. Prorogued. May 24. King present at an informal assembly. Dec, Clergy under Praemunire. 1531- Jan, 21, Convocation meets at West- minster. Jan. 24. Agrees to subsidy of/" 100,044 8.-. Sd. Feb, 7. Supremacy clause suggested. Feb, II, Warham's amendment as to wording of the Supremacy clause unanimously adopted. Mar. 22. Formal grant of the subsidy, in which the Supremacy clause is inserted. Ap, I. Prorogued. (May 4, York grants ;i^ 1 8, 840 oj, \od., and adopts the Supremacy clause ; but Tunstall pro- tests against it.) 1532. Jan, 16. Convocation meets. Busy with practical reforms;' proscribes certain heretical books, including the Con- fession of Augsburg. Ap. 12 and May 6. Debates on an- swers to the Supplication. Ap. 19, First answer, supervised by Gardiner, approved. May 8. Second answer approved. May 10, Three articles as to canons and constitutions provincial sent down by the king. May 15. Prortigued after assenting to these articles amended — the ^^ Submission of the Clergy.'* (Aug. 23. Death of Archbishop War- ham.) 1533- Feb. 5. Convocation meets at West- niinsler. Ibid. 1. 134. Ibid., i. 88-91. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. Parliament. Feb. 4. Parliament meets. Between Mar. 31 and Ap. 10, passes Act in Restraint of Appeals y 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12. Ap. 7. Prorogued. July 9. King's Letters Patent con- firm the conditional aboli- tion of annates. 1534- Jan. 15. Mar. 30, Nov. 3. 1535 (Jan. Feb. Parliament meets. Passes — Act of Siib mission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19. Act for the Restraint of An- nates, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20. Act against Peter Pence and Dispensations, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. And Act of Succession (i), 25 Hen. VIII., c. 22. Parliament prorogued. Parliament meets. Passes — Act of Supreme Head, 26 Hen. VIII. c. i. Act of Succession (2), ,26 Hen. VIII. c. 2. Act giving Annates to the king, 26 Hen. VIII. c. 3. Treasons Act, 26 Hen. VIII. c. 13. Suffragan Bishops'' Act, 26 Hen. Vin. c. 14. 15. King proclaims his title as "Head of the Church.") 4. Prorogued. Convocation of Canterbury. Mar. 26-Ap. 5. The king's matter {i.e. the divorce question) dis- cussed. (Mar. 30. Cranmer consecrated to the see of Canterbury.) April 8. Prorogued. (May 10. Cranmer opens his court at Dunstable.) (May 13. York discusses the king's matter.) (May 23. Cranmer pronounces the sen- tence of divorce between the king and Katharine.) ( June 29. Henry appeals from the Pope to a Genera] Council.) (July II. Clement VII. annuls the marriage with Anne Boleyn.) 1534- Jan. 16. Convocation meets. (Mar. 23. Clement VII. decides in favour of the validity of the marriage with Katharine.) Mar. 31. Decides against the exclusive jurisdiction of the Pope. (May 2. Similar decision by the Uni- versity of Cambridge.) (May 5. York decides in the same sense.) (June 27. Similar decision by the Uni- versity of Oxford.) Nov. 4. Convocation meets. Nov. II. Title of Archbishop of Canterbury changed from "apostolicse sedis iegatus " to " metropolitanus " ; dis- cussion on heretical booksx Dec. 19. Prorogued. 1535- (Oct. 2. Visitation of the monastc^Ic^ bciiun.) 90 HISTORY or I HE REFORMATION TV Tarliamettt. (June 9. King proclaims abrogation of papal power in Ent^laml.) (June 22. libhcr, and July 6, More executed.) 1536. (Jan. 7. Feb. 4. Ap. 14. Death of Queen Katharine.) rarlianient meets. Tasses — Act of Uses and Wills, 27 Hen. VIII. c. lo. Act empo-^i'ering king to name thirty-two commis- sioners to draw up eccle- siastical laws, 27 Hen. VIII. c. 15. And Act giving the king all monasteries of under f2QO annual value, 27 Hen. VIII. c. 28. Dissolved. (.May 19. Execution of Anne liuleyn.) Convocation of Canterbury. 1536. Feb. 5. Convocation meets. Ap. 14. Dissolved. Ecclesiastical Legislation of the Reformation Parliament, Nov., 1529, TO Feb., 1536.* Kcgnal year begins April 22. 1520. I Parliament met Nov. Tf. 2\ Ikii. VIII. c. I. General pardon, except for treason and I ofTences against the Provisois and I the Privmunire Acts. 21 Hen. VIII. c. 5. Probate Act. 21 Hen. VIII. c. 6. Mortuaries Act. 21 Ikn. VIII. c. 13. Pluralities Act. [§ 9 te/^caled by I vSr' 2 Philip and , Mary, c. 8.] >530. (Clergy under Pnemunire, Dec, 1530. 22 H< '^^' Parliament met Tan. 16. .Mil. -•• - General character of Act. Clerical abuses. c. 14. Abjuration of sanctuaries, challeng- \ Benefit of clergy, mg of juries, etc. J ^^ 22 Hen. VIII. c. 15. Pardon of the clergyofthe^ , ' Province of Canterbury Vn ""• 22 Hen. VHI. c. 16. Pardon of the laity J Prxmum. [Sec "Report of the Etclcbiastical Courts Commission," i. 32-40, and 43, 44. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 91 1532. 23 Hen. VIII. c. i. 23 Hen. VIII. c. 9. 21 Hen. VIII. c. lo. 23 Hen. VHI. c. 11. 23 Hen. VIII. c. 19. 23 Hen. VIII, c. 20. 1533- 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12. 1534. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 3. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 12. 25 Hen. VHI. c. \\. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 16. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. Clement's Bull bears date Mar. 23, 1534- 25 Hen. VIII. c. 22. 26 Hen. VHI. c. i. 26 Hen. VIII. c. 2. 26 Hen, VHI. c. 3. Parliament met Jan. 15. " Clergy " limited to sub-deacon at ) least. J No person to be summoned out of his" diocese (with exceptions). (Rider lo Probate Act, 21 Hen. VHI c. 5-) {Repealed by l ^^ 2 F/iilip and Mary, c. 8. Revived by I Eliz. c. I.] An Act of Uses and Feoffments. Convict clerks breaking prison. Pardon of the Province of York under Prcemunire. Restraint of annates (conditionally). \ Ratified July 9, 1533. {Repealed , by I 6^ 2 Philip and\ Mary, c. 8. Revived by i Eliz. \ Parliament met Feb. 4. (King secretly marries Anne early in the year), [or Nov. 14, 1532]. Restraint of appeals. \ [Repealed by i &^ 2 Philip and{ Mary, c. 8. Revived by I Eliz. ( c. I.] ) (Archbishop Cranmer declares the mar- riage with Katharine void, May 23.) Parliament met Jan. 15. Benefit of clergy (standing mute or \ challenging jury). J Attainder of Elizabeth Barton. Heresy Act. Exemption to Pluralities Act (rider to 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13). Act of Restraint of Appeals and Sub- \ mission of Clergy. j Act of Restraint of Annates, conge | d'elire and letter missive. ] Act against Papal Dispensations, ^ Peter pence, etc., etc. Exempt J- monasteries given to the king. j (N.B. — These three great Acts were primarily anti-papal, but also anti- ecclesiastical.) [All repealed by 1 ^ 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8. All revived by i Eliz. c. \.] Act of Succession (i). Parliament met again Nov. 3. Act of Supreme Head. [Rt pealed by \ of 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8. Repeal confirmed by I Eliz. I.] Act of Succession (2) with oath of) su|)remacy (retrospective). / Annates granted to the king. Benefit of clergy. Clerical abuses. Mortmain. Benefit of clergy. Anti-papal. Anti-papal (Proe munire Act). Benefit of clergy. Anti-papal. Anti-papal. Anti-papal. Royal Supremacy. Royal Supremacy. Royal Supremacy. Spoliation (No. i). iriSTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IN 26 1 1 en vni. c '3- Treason"? Act. 26IIen.VHI.c.22. AttainflerofFisher."4 26 1 len. V H I. c. 23. A itaindcr of More./ Royal Supremacy. Royal Supremacy. 26 Hen VHI. 1535. 1536. c. 14. SufTragan bishops. {Repealed by I ^2 Philip and Mary ^ c. 8. Revived by i Eliz. i.] (Visitation of monasteries begun Oct. 2, I535-) Parliament met Feb. 4. 27 Ilcn. VHI. c. 8. Mitigation of annates. [27 Hen .VHI c. 10. .Statute of Uses and Wills. Spoliation (No. 2).] 27 Hen. VHI. c. IS- Commission of thirty-two to be nomi- nated. [^Repealed by \ ^ 2. Philip and Mary, c. 8. Repeal confirmed by I Eliz. I, the commission having expired. ] 27 Hen. VHI. c. 28. Suppression of smaller monasteries. NrM Parliament met June 8, 1536. Spoliation (Xo. 3). \Vc are now in a position to estimate the true bearing of the ecclesiastical legislation of Henry's reign, and also the justice or injustice of the arguments by which the several Acts were sustained. We shall find the vindication of the national independence of England and the attack on Church property interpenetrating each other, though, till the final break with Rome, the spoliation was meditated only, and the king was jireparing for it by an unconstitutional attack on Church privileges. Ecclesiastical legislation in this reign may be said to have begun with the Reformation Parliament, as it is called, which met in November, 1529, and held its last sitting in the spring of 1536. A fourteen months' prorogation made the year 1535 barren of ecclesiastical Icfjislation, though the visitors of the monasteries were engaged in getting up a case for the sup- pression of the monasteries, which was the last important Act of this Parliament. During the five years, 1 529-1 534, all the anti-papal statutes were passed— Benefit of Clergy, Papal Annates, Restraint of Appeals, Act of Supremacy, and Treasons Act, together with the Acts which made dispensa- tion.s, bulls, palls, etc., illegal, and the procuring of them an ofTencc against the Statute of Praemunire. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 93 The question of doctrine we may fairly postpone till we come to compare the different formularies put forth in Henry's reign. It was openly stated that no change of doctrine was intended ; ^ and even when it was found necessary to put forth formularies, they were a protest against heresy and an indication of the orthodoxy of the English Church. These formularies were, as we shall see, mainly the work of the Church itself ; it was only the discipline and temporalities of the Church that as yet the State dared to take in hand. The year 1529 had witnessed the fall of Wolsey. The divorce question, which had already dragged its slow length along for some four or five years, had been his ruin. After the solemn farce of trying the matter in the legatine court of Wolsey and Campeggio had been played out, the case was revoked to Rome (July 19), as had probably been intended all through, and the disappointed king made Wolsey the scape-goat. To those who knew the king, the trick by which the favourite was brought under the Pnnemunire Statute was full of meaning. It was the beginning of a reign of terror. Technically, no doubt, Wolsey might have pleaded exemp- tion from the statute, on the ground that his legatine autho- rity had been not only permitted, but secured to him by the king ; but he knew Henry well enough to perceive that his best policy was submission. On February 12, 1530, he was pardoned, but accused of treason later on in the same year, and died on his way to the Tower (November 29, 1530). A new phase of the divorce case had begun in the year of Wolsey's fall and the year of the first meeting of the Refor- mation Parliament. Thomas Cranmer appears on the scene, advocating a settlement of the question independently of the papal court. This suggestion struck the key-note of nearly all the legislation of this period — the constitutional indcpciid- * See Act for the Abolition of Annates, 23 Henry VIII. c. 20. [The words are, •' And albeit that our said sovereign lorde the king and all his natural subjects as well spiritual as temporal be as obedient devout Catholic and humble children of God and Holy Church as any people be within any realm christened ; yet the said exactions of Annates or First Fruits be so intolerable and importable to this realm," etc. See "Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 211, where the whole statute is reprinted in the original spelling.] 94 II/STORY OF TIFF. REFORMATIOX IX cvcc of nnc;!(i)id frovi Roniau jurisdiction. The vindication of tills liberty, while it was only a rcassertion of what previous kinc^s had contended for, carried with it a final separation from Rome — excommunication on the part of the pontiff, and, incidentally, cruel oppression and spoliation of the Church on the part of the kins^. As for the divorce question, it is only necessary to say that, so far as any principle was involved, the point at issue was not whether the marriage of Arthur and Katharine had been consummated, which was an ex post facto justification of the papal dispensation, but whether the Pope had power to override the moral law. That he assumed such power is clearly proved by the wording of the Bull (January 7, 1504), caniali copiilA forsan consuniiiiavissctis, which assumed the possibility, if not the probability, that the marriage had been consummated ; and it is no less clear that Henry was willing to admit such dispensing power as long as it suited his purpose, conscientious scruples being unheard of till the hope of an heir male from Katharine was gone. *' It is extra- ordinary," says Dr. Brewer, " how Henry's scruples of con- science coincided so nicely w^ith his inclinations." The divorce, or rather the declaration of Archbishop Cranmer that the marriage was null and void, took place on May 23, 1533 ; the judicial confirmation ^ of Henry's union with Anne l^olcyn followed five days after.^ The Pope immediately pronounced Cranmer's decision null, and threatened ex- communication, and ten months after (March 23, 1534) issued a contrary decree, affirming the validity of the marriage with Katharine.^ ])ut the ecclesiastical legislation which made Cranmer's action possible had already by implication declared war against the Pope's jurisdiction. To make the decision of any national court fuial w^s^, as Dr. Brewer' sa\s, to concede the principle of the Reformation ; and this had been already done. The Reformation Parliament, which met in November, * .So Dixon, i. 162. Not rcmarriafjc, as Perry, p. Si. ' For date of Henry's piivatc niarri.igo with Anne, sec Pcrr}', p. 65 ; Burke, i. p. 258, etc. * .'^cc ihc form in Perry, p. 66. * ii. 455, ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 95 1529, was packed with the creatures of the king, and offers a glaring contrast to the manly and independent attitude adopted by Convocation.^ Its anti-clerical character is ad- mitted— it was a Parliament for enormities of clergy. Amongst the rejected Bills of its first session was found a Bill suggest- ing the revival of a proposal of the Unlearned Parliament of Henry IV. (1410) to secularize all Church property, and another to make all possessions, except those of the barons, to be held in fee simple. The question was also proposed (whether discussed or not) as to " whether the pulling down of all the abbies be lawful and good or no." ^ We have traced already some of the causes of ill-feeling of the laity against the Church. But other causes were at work which are worth noticing. (i.) The old nobility had perished in the civil wars, and the new men were all in favour of innovation and an attack on the property of corporations. (ii.) Lollardy and its communistic and socialistic prin- ciples had largely affected the mass of the people. The attack on property was, however, veiled by a pretended desire for the purity of the Church, though the attack on ecclesiastical corporations implied an attack on property generally. During this reign every attack on private pro- perty was repelled, every attack on Church property allowed ;^ but Bishop Fisher in his spirited protest in the House of Lords,^ and Wolsey in his dying words, truly saw the drift of things.^ Fisher boldly said that he feared it was the " goods, not the good of the Church," that was desired, and the consequence he foresaw was that "all obedience would be first drawn from the clergy and afterwards from the State." 6 (iii.) The fall and death of Wolsey, the declining power and age of Warham and Fisher, coincided with the almost simultaneous rise to power of Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Crumwell. Hitherto the attacks of a tyrannical king had * Perr}', p. 67 ; Dixon, i. II and 23. 2 DJxon, i. 2, note. 3 Dixon, i. 40. ■« Perry, p. 70. * See Dixon, i. 56, f.n. « Perry, p. 70. 96 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION I.V been met by a Lanfranc, an Ansclm, a Beckct, a Langton, and such like primates ; but ncnv Enc^land and her Church were to be abandoned by her metropolitan. It seemed as if "the world, the flesh, and the devil" were leagued together in the new triumvirate — Henry, "who never spared man in his anger or woman in his lust;" Crumwell, "the worst enemy the Church of England ever had ; " ^ and Crannicr, the weak, vacillating Cranmcr, the slave of Henry, then of Somerset, the Erastian in Church politics, secretly perhaps a Lutheran, or at least a Reformer, and yet willing to acquiesce in the Six Articles, provided his own marriage was winked at and protected by the king.^ If the Church of England gained, as it did gain, by the separation from Rome, it was at a grievous loss of liberty. Another such victory must have ruined it.^ Yet the separa- tion from Rome made possible all those reforms which the Church had long been anxious for, and which Convocation was actually at work upon when its legislative power was violently taken away. The first session of the Reformation Parliament lasted six weeks. The lay "* lord chancellor. Sir Thos. IMore, had succeeded Wolsey ; a new Speaker, the dexterous but un- scrupulous Sir Thos. Audley, had taken IMore's place in the House of Commons. In the six weeks' session three Bills were passed for remedying abuses in the Church ; these were the Acts about probates y mortuaries, and pluralities. All these touched real abuses, yet Fisher recognized in them a part of that anti-Church legislation which, beginning by an attack on abuses, was soon to attack the Church in her constitutional liberties. The temporal lords, however, de- serted the spiritual ; and after the Hills had been modified by a conference of Lords and Commons, they became law, December 17, 1529 (21 Hen. VIII. c. 5 ; 21 Hen. VIII. c. 6; 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13). * I)ix<»n, i. 46. « See Dixon, i. 154-157. • Sec Irouclc's monstrous assertion, "History," i. 1S8, ap. Terry, p. 67. * Not the first, f<»r, at tl»e re(jucst of the Commons, in Ldward III.'s reign, <37'» ^Villiam of Wykcham resigned the chancellorship into lay hands (see Green's •* Ilistor)-," i. 463) ; [Bishop Stubbs' " Constitutional History," ii. 422]. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 97 The Probate Act enacted that when the propert}- of the deceased was under iooj-., no fee should be charged ; when above lOOi". and under ;^40, 3^-. 6d. ; and above this, ^s. The Mortuaries Act^ forbad fees in kind, and fixed a regular schedule. On goods under 10 marks no mortuary w^as allowed ; on goods between 10 marks and £l0, ^s. 4^. allowed ; ^30 to ^40, 6s. ^d. ; above ^40, io^\ Where the fees had been less than this the Act was not to alter them. The Pluralities and non-residence Act, though opposed by the clergy, would have been a real gain to the Church and the people if it had not been followed by legislation which left few benefices capable, when held alone, of sustaining an incumbent. By this statute any one holding a benefice of ;^8 or upwards vacated it by accepting another ; a papal dis- pensation for holding more benefices than tJuis allozved subjected the receiver to a fine of ;^20 and the profits of the benefices. There were, however, remarkable exceptions made in favour of the lawgivers. All ecclesiastics, being members of the king's council, might hold three livings ; chaplains of the nobility, bishops, and officers of the royal household might hold two, the same privilege being granted to graduates in divinity ; while the king's chaplains may accept as many benefices as the king may give. This Act against non-residence and pluralities was a direct blow at the Roman power in England, though it was only the supplement to the great Provisors and Praemunire Statutes, as depriving the Pope of that power which he had so long used of dispensing with the Constitutions of the National Church ; - but the former statutes attacked abuses which were already in part reformed, and would have been completely removed had not the legislative authority of Wolsey overridden the salutary measures of Archbishop Warham. The vigorous protest against these first infringements of ecclesiastical liberty which Bishop Fisher offered in the * Mortuaries — " soul scot " or " corse presents " — are offerings due to the parish priest. Payment enforced as early as King Canute. Amount determined by custom (Hook, vi. 385). ^ See Constt. of Ottobon, Peckham and others in Gibson's "Codex." H 98 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION TV House of Lords was supplemented by the manly protest of Convocation, which was at that very time engaged on reformation of abuses. (Convocation of the Southern Province met November 5, 1529. That of the Province of York, pro- bably owing to Wolsey's fall, held no session.) They de- manded that their ancient rights should be observed, that offences against the Statute of Praemunire should be defined, and a writ under it not issued from a king's court against any ecclesiastic without a previous prohibition. They complained of the three statutes passed in the present session, and declared that Parliament was in danger of sin in limiting clerical liberties without the consent of the Church.^ This protest took the form of a petition from the Lower House to the Upper ; it never seems to have gone further. Probably the way in which Bishop Fisher's remonstrance had been received showed the Upper House that it was useless to repeat it. LECTURE IX. THE REFORMATION PARLIAMENT, I 529-I 536— THE CLERGY UNDER PR/EMUNIRE, 153O — LEGISLATION OF I 53 1. [The folluwing scattered notes, dated 18S7, appear at the head of Lecture IX. J 1. Heresy Commission. 2. New phase of divorce question. 3. Enforcement of Praemunire Statute. In 1530 the divorce in its second stage. Consultation of universities. Cranmer's first appearance.^ (i.) Is prohibition of marriage with deceased brother's wife part of the moral law? (u.) i\s a matter of fact was it a marriage or a betrothal only ? Tyndale and his views'^; his socialism. • Dixon, i. 31. 32. • nool<, vi. 436-438. ^ Dixon, i. y,, 3S. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 99 Cranmer's treatment of the divorce v. Wolsey's.^ This view stated in Henry's letter.'^ The king's divorce and the consultation of the uni- versities filled people's minds in the following year, while the king was engaged in heretic-hunting by a commission, which published an Index cxpurgatoriiis, including most of the books forbidden by the proclamation of 1529 (which followed on Warham's inquiry). The king himself was present at an informal session of the Southern Convocation, held on May 14. The works of Wicliffe, Knox, Lnther, Zivingle, and the English heretics, Fish, Tyndalc, etc., were forbidden, and at the same time an authorized translation of the Bible ''by great learned and Catholic persons'' was promised, if thought desirable. The commissioners in this matter declared that they all acted freely and unanimously, though on December i of the same year Latimer repudiated his part.^ [The following notes on the reference of the divorce question to the universities occur in the note-book of one of jNIr. Moore's pupils, though not in his original manuscript.] The putting of the divorce matter before the universities is not to be attributed to Cranmer. It was proposed before Cranmer rose to influence. The phase connected with Cranmer is a later one, viz. that which defended the finality of the English courts.* The questions at issue were — {a.) Of right. Can the Pope override the moral law? Roman theologians of that day would have said no. ib.) Of fact. i. Is marriage with a deceased brother's wife part of the moral law t Could the Pope allow it ? This was the real point at issue, ii. Was the marriage of Arthur and Katharine a real one at all, or was it only a betrothal ? This was a later claim, an argument advanced by Katharine when she saw the validity of the union with Henry questioned. ' Hook's " Cranmer," 371. - Ap. Hook, ibid. 372. ^ See Dixon, i. 43-45. ^ See Hook's "Life of Cranmer," p. 371. lOO HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX When Julius II. granted the dispensation for Katharine to marry Henry the question had not arisen, and, if it had, would not have been con- sidered. Universities, largely on the side of the queen, answered (jb) i. very guardedly. Cambridge said, " No, if it was a real marriage consummated." Oxford determined similarl)-. The decisions abstract and did not help Henry much. Up to this time the question of dispensing with an appeal to Rome altogether was not dreamt of Only attempted at present to bring moral influence of universities to bear on Pope, so that he might reverse decision of his predecessor Julius. But Cranmer carries the matter a stage farther. Cranmer's earlier position (at his meeting with Gardiner at W'altham) was, "If it could be proved that it is against divine law for a man to marr)- his deceased brother's wife, and if it could be proved as a matter of fact that Katharine had been Arthur's wife, then there seemed to be no need for an appeal to Rome at all." Cranmer soon found himself called on to stand by the position. The king makes him chaplain. Result of his treatise was to show that the king's marriage with his deceased brother's wife was not merely voidable, but void. But even at this point there was no idea of ignoring the Pope. Cranmer was to carr}- this view to the Pope, and it was hoped the Pope might acquiesce, and be saved humiliation of re- voking Julius' dispensation. Cranmer made Penitentiary of England on his visit to the Pope, an office ( lK)sition as to the Supremacy question, sec Hook, vi. 416. ENGLAKD AND ON THE CONTINENT. 103 LECTURE X. THE REFORMATION PARLIAMENT, 1529-1536 — EVENTS OF 1532. So far king and Commons had acted harmoniously against the Church. In the January of the next year, 1532, the Commons renewed the attack by presenting their *' SuppHca- tion against the Ordinaries." The king, however, had a httle Bill of his own which he wished passed at once. This was a Bill (of Wards) sent down from the Lords for legalizing the extortions of the Lords in the case of the infancy or prema- ture marriage of wards. But the Commons rejected the Bill."^ The Convocation had submitted to extortion, but fought for principles ; the Commons cared nothing for principles, but a great deal for their purses. Parliament was prorogued till Easter, after which the breach between them and the king seems to have been forgotten, and the " Supplication against the Ordinaries " was again brought forward. This Supplication^ attacked two things : (i.) The right of Convocation to make spiritual laws ; (ii.) The abuses of ecclesiastical courts, fees, etc. — what had been among the " Grievances" of 1529 ; and concluded with a protest against the proceedings of the Ordinaries against " heretics." As far as the " abuses " were concerned, they were nearly all of them removed by previous statutes and by the action of Convocation itself, but they made a good cover for the real attack, which was upon the spiritual freedom of the Church, and her power to make her own canons. Convocation at the very time was at work on canons which, though they never became law, offer a striking comment on the Supplication of the Commons.^ This accusation was received in Convocation, April 12,. ' Dixon, i. 75. "^ See "Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 33, S8-90. ^ Sec Dixon, i. 87, quote. 104 JIISTORY or THE REFORMATION IN 1532, with a rc(iLicst that it might be immediately answered. After several answers conceived in the Lower House had been read in the Upper, one corrected by Bishop Gardiner of Winchester was approved by both Houses, and sent [to the king on April 27, who on April 30 sent it on] to the Commons. It was a noble protest in favour of the constitutional liberties of the Church, which it had enjoyed from immemorial anti- quity ; stating that Scripture was the fountain of all law, ecclesiastical and civil, and therefore both should be in perfect accord. They could not submit the making of their laws to the king; and as to the vague accusation that their canons were against the royal prerogative, they appealed with confi- dence to be judged by God's law, and besought the king, as "the defender of Christ's faith in name, and hitherto, in fact, its special protector," to follow the steps of his most noble progenitors, and preserve the rights of the Church.^ The king pronounced this answer "very slender," and a second answer was demanded. The Bishop of London was now acting for the infirm Archbishop Warham. The second answer was returned on May 8, and was in the same spirit as the first, appealing to the king's own book against Luther.- They were willing to reconsider any laws said to be contrary to the royal prerogative; they consent to publish and put forth no constitutions or ordinances as binding on the king's lay subjects without the royal consent, except what concerned the faith and the reformation of sin. Farther than this they could not go. This second answer was not more favourabl)' received than the first, and (Mi May 10 Fox, the almoner, brought tJiree articles to be signed by all. This was the king's ultimatum. Parliament was prorogued on the 14th, Convocation on the 15111, yet between the lOth and 15th the articles were hotly debated ; but the matter became a dispute between king and clergy, not between Commons and Convocation. The three articles proposed were : — (i.) No constitution or ordinance to be hereafter enacted, promulged, or executed, without the king's approval. • Sec Di.\on, i. 95, etc. - /,V,/., i. 100. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 105 (ii.) Divers provincial constitutions, supposed to be against the royal prerogative, to be submitted to a com- mittee of thirty-two — sixteen from Parliament, sixteen from the clergy, (iii.) That all other of the said constitutions should be in force, the king's assent being given.^ After a hot debate, the three articles were reduced to two, and made up the Submission of the Clergy. (i.) The clergy promise in verbo sacerdotii to enact, etc., no neiv canons or constitutions without the king's writ summoning Convocation, (ii.) They submit to the king and a commission of thirty- two — sixteen from the temporalty, and sixteen from the spiritualty — a review of existing canons thought to be prejudicial to the prerogative royal, or burdensome to the king's subjects. This finally amended schedule was signed by the major part of the clergy on May 15, and presented to the king on the next day by Archbishop Warham, attended by those who had led the opposition. Two years later, this Submission of the Clergy was confirmed by Act of Parliament, though in an altered form. On the day on which the Submission was signed, Sir Thomas More resigned the Great Seal. Archbishop Warham died on August 23. His part in the Submission seems to have broken his heart. He was now over eighty years of age, and left on record, as the last instrument of an English primate who died legate of the see of Rome, a protest against all statutes in diminution of papal power or ecclesiastical liberties.^ It is hardly necessary to say that the Submission of the Clergy promised only to make no nciv constitutions ; all the old canons were to be in force except those found by the ^ [See the text in the " Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 92.] A deputation was sent to the aged Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who advised the Convocation to stand out boldly against at least the third arliclc (Perry, p. 78). ^ Dixon, i. 143. I06 IIISIVRY OF 711 E REI'ORiMATlOX IX commission of thirt\'-t\vo/ under the king, to be against the ro}'al prerogative, and this coinmission, thongJi appoi?ited more tlian ottcc, never produced atiything but the " Rcforitiatio leginn liccU'siasticorujUy' whicli never became law. In this session of Parliament the Act alread}' mentioned, limiting benefit of clergy (23 Hen. VIII. c. i), and enacting that convict clerks breaking prison should be treated as felons (23 Hen. VHI. c. ii), had been passed, [as well as] a Mortmain Statute, *' the well-tuned prelude of spoliation"- {21 Hen. VIII. c. 10),^ and a rider to the Probate Act of 1529, which ordained that no person should be summoned in a spiritual court out of the diocese in which he lived (23 Hen. Mil. c. 9). But far the most important xAct, as showing the feeling of the Church and State towards the Roman pontiff, was the Act for tJie Restraint of Annates (23 Hen. VIII. c. 20). This had preceded the Submission, and is specialK' remark- able because, while it cut away one of the cables which bound ICngland to Rome, it was tJie Church's ozen doing. The clergy petitioned the king against this intolerable burden, which was itself contrary to the Pope's own laws against simon}', and had been condemned by the Council of Basle, 1435. They prayed him " to cause these exactions to cease for ever by Act of his High Court of Parliament, and if the Pope made process against the realm or refused the bulls till the annates were paid, the king is prayed to follow the example of the French king (mad Charles VI.), and withdraw the nation from obedience to Rome." The petition chimed in well with the feelings of the king and the nation. The cases of the Bishops of York and Winchester, who had been obliged to borrow money to pay for their bulls, were related in both Houses,' and it was stated in the preamble of the Act (23 Hen. \'HI. c. 20), which was immediately passed, that as much as ;{^ 160,000 had been paid since the second year of ' Cranmcr's •'CoUccilon of tenets frt.m Canon Law " (sec " Remains," \\ 6S) may have been notes for the commission, but quxrc date. * Dixon, i. 136. ' [This statute limited to twenty years the duration of ♦• uses,'" the method by which llie mortnuain haws were commonly evaded.] * Dixon, i. 137, and note. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. lO/ Henry VII., and, in some cases, the friends of those who had been promoted and died within two or three years had been ruined by these annates. Since then the age and infirmity of many prelates [e.g. Fisher and Warham) made it probable that other such exactions would be made, it was enacted that this payment of annates shall cease altogether, with the exception of five per cent, to be paid for bulls, etc.^ If the Pope refused on these terms to send his bulls, the conse- cration was to proceed without them. If the kingdom was laid under interdict, it was to be disregarded. The Act declares that the king and '' all his natural subjects, as well Spiritual as Temporal, been (= are) as obedient, devout, Catholick and humble children of God and Holy Church, as any People be within any Realm christened," but the exaction of annates is " importable," and the estates of the realm refuse to pay it, and forbid payment under pain of forfeiture. This Act, however, is not to become law till the king has tried to compound with Rome ; failing which, he is to declare this a statute by letters patent. This confirmation took place in the July of the following year, 1533, the king's agents in Rome having meanwhile thrown dust in the e}-es of the pontiff.'^ LECTURE XI. THE REFORMATION PARLIAMENT, I 5 29- 1 536— THE SEPARATION FROM ROME, 1 533, 1 534. Hitherto ecclesiastical legislation (from the earliest Statute against Provisors to the recent Act against Annates) had only limited the power of the Pope in England, and this last Act had openly professed the orthodoxy of the English Church- But the great Act of April, 1533, destroyed the Popes poivev * Yet Cranmer's bulls cost six thousand ducats, and his first-fruits amounted to ten thousand more (Perry, 79). " For the text of the Act, sec Gibson, "Codex," p. 122, [and "Report of Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 210-213]. For the foreign history of this Act, see Dixon, i. 140, sqq. I08 HISTORY OF THE REl-ORMATION AV altogctJuv. Looked at as the culmination of a long series of Acts, it only asserted the historical independence of the Eng- lish Church and nation ; but, looked at in its immediate causes, it is one of the grossest acts of injustice ever perpetrated. The queen had appealed to Rome, therefore appeals were to be made illegal ; Cranmcr was now ready to give a decision in the king's favour, therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury (the see being vacant by Warham's death in the preceding August) is to have no spiritual superior who can reverse his judgment. We shall find both the ecclesiastical legislation and the debates in Convocation in this year bearing directly on the king's matter. (i.) First came the great Act for Restraint of Appeals (24 Hen. VIII. c. 12).^ It was the consummation of all previous PrcXmunire Acts, the open and almost defiant vindi- cation of national independence, and final abolition of the I^ope's appellate jurisdiction. It asserted the imperial cha- racter of England, the temporalty and the spiritualty being under the king, with implied equality with the Emperor of the W'cst and the Basileus of the East. And with this the eccle- siastical division agreed, Anselm being papa alterins orbis ; in other words, England was a patriarchate owning the primacy, but not the supremacy of Rome.'- But while the empire is so far symmetrically divided into temporalty and spiritualty, and the laws of previous kings against papal encroachments are cited, it is an indication of the drift of legislation that while the "judges and ministers" of the temporalty are spoken of, the corresponding officers of the spiritualty {i.e. the Ordinaries) are ignored. The Submission of the Clergy made in the previous )'ear, and in the next year to be embodied in an Act of Parliament, was already assumed to have put a stop to all the constitutional machinery of the Church. " This memorable declaration of the independence of the English Church was made at the very time when her ancient liberties were being taken away.'"' ' [Scclcxl inlhc '* Kcpori of ihc Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 213-216.] ' Dixon, i. 148, f.n. ^ IbU.y i. 150. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 109 (ii.) Yet, as though in mockery, at the very time when this Bill was passing through Parliament, Convocation was asked to decide on the king's matter. They were divided into jurists, or canonists, and theologians.^ The theologians were to decide whether the Pope could dispense with the Levitical law ; the jurists, whether the marriage was complete. The debates lasted from March 26 to April 5. On April i Cranmer for the first time took his seat as archbishop. Few such rapid appointments had been made.^ Cranmer, who was abroad on the king's business when he was appointed, had received from the Pope the office of Grand Penitentiary of England ^ as a retaining fee. He was loth to take the archbishopric, either because he was of a retiring disposition, or because some scruples of conscience made him shrink from a position in which he must be either false to the Pope and violate his oath, or abandon the position he had taken in the king's matter at the risk of his life. He eventually threw himself into the hands of the king. Eleven: bulls were expedited at a great cost from Rome,* and he was consecrated on March 30. The difficulty of the oath he got over by making previously a public statement which in effect nullified the oath itself. The interests and claims of the Pope and king being now perfectly opposed, he promised obedience to Rome and support to papal claims (omitting certain clauses from the usual form), and in his oath to the king he made additions which sufficiently show his servility and dishonesty.^ (iii.) Convocation having by a majority of both provinces declared as the king wished, and the Act of Restraint of Appeals being now passed, Cranmer, in the plenitude of his archiepiscopal powers, proceeded to try the queen (May 10).'' ' Dixon, i. 150. ^ J, J. Blunt cites six instances, p. 123. ^ Dixon, i. 156. ^ Of Cranmer's bulls applied for by Henry in January, the first eight bear date February 21, the ninth February 22, the tenth and eleventh March 2, 1533. * See the oaths compared in Dixon, i. 158, 159, and especially Cranmer's ** Remains," p. 216. •^ Two letters were written by Cranmer to Henry, asking leave to try the I lO HISTORY OF THE REFORMAJION TV The marriage was pronounced null and void on May 21, and the previous marriage of the king with Anne Boleyn was con- firmed within the week. The Pope in vain pronounced this decision null. All appeals to him were forbidden under penalty of rnemunire, and while the king stood cited to appear at Rome by proxy, he first appealed from a Pope to a General Council, June 29 (as did Cranmcr later, November 22^), and in December appealed to the bishops as to whether a General Council was not superior to a l^ope. The answer i favour of the paramount authority of Councils was signed not only by Cranmcr, but by Fisher, Clark, and West, who had opposed the annulling of the marriage.^ The king's appeal to a General Council was published,^ and though he was now meditating a league with the Lutheran princes, he protested that he meant to say and do nothing against the Holy Catholic Church and the authority of the Apostolic See in any way that might be inconsistent with the duty of a good and Catholic prince.^ With a servile archbishop and a still more -servile Parliament, a Convocation robbed of its independence, and a people under a reign of terror, the king now proceeded to complete the breach he had begun. The last attempt of Rome to preserve England in her allegiance by the mission of Bellay, Bishop of Paris, was, as far as Henry was con- cerned, a solemn farce. Intentional or accidental delays caused that the Pope's decision was given (March 2;^, 1534) while negotiations were still pending. Nineteen out of twenty- two cardinals voted against the king.'' But Henry's mind had been made up long before this, and from the time Parliament matter. IJoth, strangely cnougli, arc dated April 11, 1533. (For these letters and llie king's answer sec Cranmer's *' Remains," pp. 237-239.) The case was tried at Dunstable, May 10. On May 12 Cranmer writes to Henry (/^/'. By this time not only were the Mortmain and Praemunire Statutes in force, but there was, on the part of the laity, a great jealousy of the wealth of the religious houses. The monastic system had gradually deve- loped till the reign of Stephen, when monasteries were being founded at the rate of six a year, and then as gradually declined. The Friars who entered England in Henry II I. 's reign rapidly deteriorated, and fell into the same state as the Pnimoustratoisian (White Canons), founded in ii2oby St. Xorbert, at Pre- montre, near Laon. First house in England, Newhouse, 1 147. Military Orders following the Rule of St. Austin. Hospitallers 0/ St. John ofjenisalem (Knights of Malta), founded 1048. First house in England, St. John's, Clerkenwell, 1103. Templars^ founded 1118 ; suppressed by Council of X'icnnc, 1312. First house in England, Temple, 1185. Friars, limited to four orders by Council of Lyons, 1272. Dominicans (Black Friars, or Preachers, or Jacobins), founded 12 15 by the Spaniard St. Dominic (1170-1221). First house in England, Oxford, 1221. Franciscans (Grey Friars or Friars Minor), founded 1209 by St. Francis of Assisi (1 182-1226). First house in England, Canterbury, 1224. Austin Friars (or Friars Eremite), finally organized, 1256. First house in England, Woodhousc, 1250. Carmelites (or White Friars), reformed 1205, and confirmed by the Pope 1224. First house in England, Alnwick, 1240. [The characteristics of the two great orders of monks, of one of the great orders of Friars, and of the chief post- Reformation order, the Jesuits, are summed up in the following distich : — liernardus valles^ montes Benedictus amabat^ Oppida FranciscuSy ceUbres Igitaiius nr/>es.] ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 127 monasteries they professed to reform. (Their average rose to nearly two houses a year up to the end of Edward II.'s reign, after which it rapidly decreased.) From the accession of Henry IV. to the date of the suppression, the tide of munificence set in the direction of colleges, hospitals, and schools, sixty of which were founded in the fifteenth century, while only eight religious houses were founded during the same period.^ The best days of monks and Friars were long past, and the wisest ecclesiastics of the day, Fisher and Wolsey, like William of Wykeham and Waynflete before them, saw that the Church needed to keep pace with the New Learning. > STATISTICS OF RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS IN ENGLAND. (See Dixon, i. 319, note, who takes the figures from Tanner.) Before the Conquest about 330 religious houses had been founded. Reign. Began. Years of Reign. Monas- teries. Friaries. Average yearly. Yearly Average for Century. William I William II 1066 1087 21 13 45 25 :: 2^ 2 almost Henry I Stephen Henry II Richard I IIOO "35 1154 1189 35 19 35 10 150 122 124 44 * ■ 4f 41' i2th cen- tury, 440 monas- teries. Average, 4* per annum. John Henry III Edward I 1199 1216 1272 17 56 35 62 74 16 83 61 3U M. li^, i^ F. Total, 3 nearly M. 1, i\ F. Total, 2\ T3th century7 152 monas- teries, 144 friaries Average, nearly 3 a yr. Edward II Edward III Richard II 1307 1327 1377 20 50 22 5 7 4 20 24 4 M. \, I F. Total, \\ M. I, \ F. Total, i M. i, \ F. Total, \ + 14th century', 16 monasteries 48 friaries 64 Average, less than I per ann. Henry IV... Henry V. . . . Henry VI. . . Edward IV. Edward V. . Richard III. Henry VII. . 1399 1413 1422 1461 1483 1483 1485 Fifteenth century — 8 religious houses, 60 schools, hospitals, etc. [Before fifteenth century, 870 houses, of which 192 were friaries. Besides these 870, there were founded before 1400, 78 colleges and 192 hospitals.] 128 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION TV Hence the munificence of the Lady Margaret was directed by her confessor to the founding of professorships at the universities instead of the endowment of a monastery, and Wolsey's procedure was actuated by the same wise recognition of the fact that monasticism was worn out, and was in danger of being violently assailed. Before Henry IV. there were some yS colleges in existence, and 192 hospitals. At the time of the Reformation, the total number of both was 330. But of the 1200 to 1300 monasteries and friaries which altogether had been established in England, only about half remained for Henry to seize. The first which were exposed to attack were the alioi priories, i.e. the cells which owned as their superior some great house on the Continent.^ These, as being affiliated to some foreign monastery, were naturally looked upon by the king with suspicion. Consequently we fmd King John seizing the revenues of all the alien priories, eighty-one in number, and King Edward I. (1285) and King Edward HI. (1337) following his example. By Henry V.'s time these alien priories, which had considerably increased in number (122), were all finally suppressed and sold to the laity (1414). The Templars, again, w^ith their twenty-three houses or preceptories,^ were seized by Edward H., on the suppression of the order by Pope Clement V. (Council of Vienne, 131 1- 131 2), but afterwards by papal bull and Act of Parliament these were transferred to the Hospitallers, who, however, were compelled to resign the greater part to the king and lords, in the hope of being allowed to keep the rest. Many of the smaller houses had been overwhelmed by debt, and became the property of private purchasers, while the larger ones accumulated wealth by appropriating tithes, and ' Alien priories were the result of the Norman Conquest. They paid a yearly tribute, apportus or acknowledgement, to the forcij^n mother house (Gasfjuct, i. 41). They were 100 lo 150 in number, and included many aliens. During Edward III.'s reign, 1327-1377, /"2cxx> (= /"Co, 000 a year, present value), was sent to Cluny. During the French wars the alien priories were seized, and for fear of foreign spies all houses removed twenty milcN from the- coast (Gascjuet, i. 43). » See Scott's ♦•Ivanhoc.' ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 29 serving the livings either by an underpaid vicar or by one of their own order. An attempt to remedy this abuse is seen in a statute passed in Richard II.'s reign (15 Ric. II. c. 6 (1392) ), which provided that the vicar be ** well and sufficiently en- dowed " and not removable at will, while under the first of the Lancastrian kings it was enacted (4 Hen. IV. c. 12) that vicar- ages should only be held by secular clergy. But it was more than the remedying of abuses in the distribution of ecclesias- tical funds which w^as thought of under the Lancastrian kings. The clergy were alarmed by notices that all Church lands would be claimed by the State, and though Henry IV. assured them that he wanted only their prayers and not their money, they deemed it safer to make large grants of money for the king's use. Under Henry IV. a Bill was introduced (1410), praying for the secularization of Church property, which it was said would maintain for the king's honour and defence 1 5 earls, 150 knights, 6200 esquires, and 100 almshouses, with a surplus of i^20,ooo for the royal coffers.^ The suppression of the alien priories^ was, however, all that was done in this direction, the king's attention being in good time diverted (by Archbishop Chicheley) to the conquest of France. In 1524 Wolsey obtained two bulls allowing him, subject to the consent of the king and the founder's representatives, to suppress forty of the smaller monasteries (of which twenty- four were actually suppressed), and to transfer their revenues to Cardinal College. These smaller houses, especially if alien or in any other way exempt from episcopal visitation, were a constant cause of difficulty. They became burdened with debt and fell into ruins, their inmates illiterate ; in fact, as Wolsey said of them, " neither God was served, nor religion kept " in them. Archbishop Chicheley had previously received permission to transfer the revenues of some of the smaller houses to All Souls' College ; Waynflete did the same for Magdalen as Wykeham for St. Mary Winton or New * Southey, pp. 236, 237; [Bishop Stubbs, "Constitutional History," iii. 64; Gasquet, i. 52]. ' See protests of continental houses against suppression of their English cells (Gasquet, i. 59, 60). K T30 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX College ;^ but Wolsey's agent in this suppression was Thomas Crumwell, who is said to have carried out the work with great corruption, waste, and abomination.^ Four years after Wolsey's suppression of monasteries appeared Simon Fish's work, "The Supplication of Beggars" (1528), with its grotesque misrepresentation of the wealth of the monasteries. Starting with the assumption that there were 52,000 parishes in England (on which Sir Thomas More remarks, " That is one plain He to begin with "), it argues that each parish has on an average ten households, each household gave one penny per quarter to each of the five mendicant orders, and the result is that ^^430,333 6s. Sd. is given annually to the Friars alone. How much more wealth is stored up in the old monasteries? There is a curious arithmetical mistake in this sum, which turns 43,000 into 430,000, and considerably strengthens the case ; but the " Valor Ecclesiasticus," or State return of ecclesiastical and monastic property, including the universities, which was made in 1535, gave the entire revenue of the spiritualty as ^^320,280 los., of w^hich about one-half was monastic. But the wealth of the monasteries was believed to be far greater than it w^as, and the visits of royal com- missioners to administer the oath of Supremacy and Succession had probably suggested the possibility of adapting Wolsey's plan to the needs of the royal exchequer. At all events, the appointment of Thomas Crumwell to be vice-gerent, vicar- general, and official principal, with power to exercise all ' Wykeham suppressed {1379) priories of Takeley in Essex and Hamell in Hants for New College, priory of Andover for Winchester College. Chicheley (1437) suppressed five for All Souls'. Henry VI. endowed Eton, and King's College, Cambridge, with lands of dissolved monasteries. Waynflete (1458) founded Magdalen College, Oxford, and augmented it in 1474 with the house of Sale (Sussex) ; 1484-1487, with the Auguslinian Priory of Selborne (Hants), [.Similarly Jesus, Christ's, and St. John's, Cambridge, and lUasenose, O.xford. See Blunt, i. 363, note]. Tendency to give suppressed monasteries to colleges, t.g. Jesus and Christ's and St. John's. See a curious draft of a bull in Gasquet, i. 66, Extraordinary visitatorial powers given to \V()l>ey (Gascpiet, i. 71). ' l)ix<»n, i. 322. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 131 manner of jurisdiction, authority, or power ecclesiastical which belongs to the Supreme Head, and also with licence to visit or appoint visitors as he may think fit,^ seems to have been made with a definite intent — that of seizing some, if not all, of the monastic property under cover of a reformation of abuses. The suspension of the power of the bishops^ immediately followed, and their authority was restored to them under the royal licence. The Erastianism of the instrument by which this was done can hardly be surpassed.^ LECTURE XVI. THE GENERAL VISITATION OF THE MONASTERIES. The Visitation lasted three years, 1 535-1 538, which were divided into three periods by the Act of Suppression of Small Monasteries in February, 1536, and the Pilgrimage of Grace in the winter of the same year. Before, however, the general visitation began, Layton was sent to Oxford, Legh to Cambridge. The work of Layton, September, 1535, may be seen in his letter.* Legh at Cam- bridge had less to do.^ The GENERAL VISITATION could not have begun before October, 1535, yet, between that time and the February of the following year, sufficient evidence was collected to enable Parliament to pass a Bill granting to the king all monasteries of the annual value of i^200 and under. There is, however, a glaring discrepancy between the wording of the preamble of the Act (27 Hen. VHI. c. 28) and the facts recorded in the commissioners' letters.^ The first county visited was Kent, * See the instrument in Perry, p, 119. * This was suggested by Legh and Ap Rice, See letter of September 24 (Strype, "Ecclesiastical Memorials," vol. i. part ii. pp. 144-146). ' See Perry, p. 119. See, too, Crumwell's commission (Dixon, i. 245). As to the wealth of the monasteries in Edward I.'s reign and Henry's, see Dixon, i. 249. * Wright's " Suppression," letter xxx. ' See Dixon, i. 304. ^ See the preamble quoted in Perry, p. 139, and Wright, p. 107. 132 I/IS70RY OF 7 HE REFORMATION AV Layton and Bcdyl being the cummissioncrs ^ — Langdon, Dover, and Folkestone [Langdon was Praemonstratensian, Dover and Folkestone Benedictine],^ Christchurch (Canter- bury),^ and Faversham, where the aged abbot refuses to re- sign."* Davington Priory, dilapidated and in ruins. Bedyl succeeds Legh in Cambridgeshire ; Layton and Legh go north. Bedyl writes from Ramsey, January 15, 1536.^ Legh takes Pluntingdon, Lincolnshire, and perhaps Chester ; Layton, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, and Leicestershire. Sundry immoralities were discovered or alleged. Legh and Layton met at Lichfield, December 22 ; visited Trent and Southwell.^ York and its archbishop were visited on January 11 ;'' St. IMary's, York, Fountains, and Whitby.® The next month they visited Merton (Augus- tinian) and Hornby (Pra^monstratensian), and obtained their surrender. Parliament met on February 4, 1536, and a digest of the reports of the visitors was made. This Black Book was de- stroyed, either by the papists in Mary's reign, or, more likely, by its authors, when it had done its work. Two manuscripts of Comperta, however, exist. These are themselves apparently summaries, not confessions, and deal with the revenues as well as the morals of the monasteries.^ In the spring Parlia- ment the Act of Suppression {ly Hen. VIIL c. 28) was passed, covering retrospectively the previous suppressions. Reviewing the statement and the evidence, we find that the Black Book charged two-thirds of the religious with the foulest crimes,^^ while the letters of the visitors in no way justify this statement. Cases of immorality, lax discipline, worldliness, or superstition, were no doubt brought forward ; many of the monasteries were burdened with debt, or falling into ruin, and many of the professed caught at the opportunity of returning to the world. The distinction between the greater and smaller monasteries was unreal as far as morality * Sec Icltcr xl. • Sec, too, letter xxxiii., and Dixon, i. 326, 327. * Letter of Christopher Levins, xli. * Letter xlviii. » Letter xlvi. • Sec letter xlii. ^ Letter xliv. ' Letter xlvii. • See Dixon on the Comperta, i. 3.^8, etc. '" Wright, p. 114. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 33 was concerned, and some openly asserted that the little monasteries "were as thorns, but the great abbots were putrefied oaks, and they must needs follow."^ Yet the Act^ clearly drew such a distinction between great and small, and so disarmed the opposition of the mitred abbots, who fancied that the smaller monasteries might be sacrificed to save the greater. But the king and the nation were too logical to stop midway, and the suppression of the monastic system was a certainty from the time the Act was passed which gave the smaller houses to the king. From the passing of the Act for the suppression of the smaller monasteries (376 houses suppressed = ^32,000 per annum) in February, 1536, we find the Vicar-General besieged by two classes of applicants — laymen and others who were greedy for the abbey lands, and abbots and abbesses who wrote hoping that the good order and morals of their houses would entitle them to the exemption specified in the Act. Of the 376 monasteries which came under the Act, 31 were refounded in the August of 1536, viz. 15 abbeys and 16 nunneries, which were founded " in perpetuam eleemosynam!' ^ but shared the fate of the rest in the general suppression three years later. To receive the spoil a special Court of Augmentations was founded, and a large number of private Acts were at once passed for the exchange of lands for the convenience of the king. The Bishop of Norwich being just dead, Dr. Rugg was appointed,^ who surrendered to the king all the estates of the see, except the palace and the cathedral. Among the petitions for a part of the Church property are those of Sir Peter Edgecumbe^ and Lord Delawarr,^ both of which were granted. Humphrey Stafford'^ was unsuccessful. The Arch- bishop of Canterbury also appears humbly praying for like favours.^ In place of the former visitors, Legh, Layton, and Co., mixed commissions were appointed, and the result is remarkable. They find everything in good order, the monas- teries doing much "to the relief of the king's people."^ Of * Wright, p. 107. ^ Ibid. ' Dixon, i. 365, note. * See ibid., i. 367. * Wright, li. « Letter Hi. ^ Letter liv. * See letters clxx., clxxix. ^ Wright, Iviii. 134 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION TV ox\\y one house was any evil reported^ in the three counties of Leicester, Warwick, and Rutland, while for many the com- missioners themselves petitioned that they mi^^dit be spared,^ and even Latimer does the same in the case of Great Malvern Priory.^ On the other side there is nothing to be set, except a case of suspected coining at Walsingham,'* sundry " super- stitions "^ at Buxton Baths and Bury St. Edmund's, and cer- tain disorders at Bodmin^ and the Benedictine abbey at Pershore."^ Monks who had been pressed to return to the world in some cases consented, against the will of their superior, and indemnified themselves for the breach of their vow by revealing enormities within their society.^ But the commissioners were far less successful than Lcgh and Lay ton, and the king openly accused them of being bribed — a charge which Giffard indignantly denies in his letter^ to his master, now Lord Crumwell. (Crumwcll raised to the peerage, July 9, 1536.) The old visitors now appear again, and collectors arc appointed for the several archdeaconries, to take inventories, receive or take the convent seal, and dissolve the house.^^ It is calculated that by the suppression of the smaller monas- teries alone, ten thousand persons were thrown on the world. The method of visitation pursued was much the same. The religious were laid under new restrictions, beyond that which their rule imposed, and their life was made a burden. Hence the surrender of monasteries not included in the Act became common, and the Court of Augmentations received the spoil, till even Cranmer took fright.^^ The May of this year witnessed the trial and execution (May 19) of Anne Boleyn. The archbishop's cruel desertion of her cause ^'-^ prepares us for the sentence in which he de- clared the marriage "null and void."^^ On June 8 a new Parliament met, and with it (June 9) a ' Sec Home and Forcif^i Rcvirw^ January, 1S64, ap. Dixon, i. 370, f.n. ' See letters, Wright, Iviii. ; Northamptonshire, Ixii., Ixiv. * Letter l.\xi. * Letter Ixiii. * Letters Ixvi., Ixvii. • Letter lix. ' Letter Ix. ' See especially letter Ix. • Letter Ixii. '<> See Richard Stretc's letter, Ixii., Wright. " See Cranmer's letter, clxxii. " .Sec letter clxxiv. " See Dixon, i. 390. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 35 new Convocation/ which opened with the Mass of the Holy Ghost, followed by a great sermon from Latimer against abuses in the Church. At the next session of Convocation (June 16) the archbishop was superseded, as chairman, by Dr. Petre as deputy vicar-general, Crumwell himself presiding on the 2 1st, when the king's marriage with Anne was pro- nounced null by the House. A protestation against errors and abuses was soon followed by the first English Confession of Faith, commonly known as the Ten Articles, which were designed to " stablish Christian quietness," and to reassure men who feared that England was about to accept the Augsburg Confession. The immediate consequence of the suppression of the monasteries was the rebellion in the north. The rebellion began (October) in Lincolnshire on the suppression of a small Cistercian nunnery, the prioress of which had in vain prayed Crumwell for exemption from the Act, on the ground of the good order, morals, and hospitality of the house.^ The Lincolnshire rising was hardly subdued when a still more formidable one took place in Yorkshire.^ Gentry, clergy, and commons were banded together in the " Pilgrimage of Grace " under Robert Aske. A proclamation was issued, to which were appended the demands already made by the Lincoln- shire insurgents. The grounds of complaint alleged were : (i.) The suppression of religious houses ; (ii.) The Statute of Uses ; ^ (iii.) The fifteenth granted to the king ; (iv.) The men ^ Ten Articles (July ii, 1536) in Convocation. Limiting of holy days. Rejection of Roman primacy, and repudiation of Mantuan Council. 2 Wright, p. 116. ' See Perry, ch. ix. and note A. ; Dixon, vol. i. pp. 456 sqq. ; Hume, vol. iv. ch. xxxi. ; and Hubert Burke, ch. xxxix. * [This statute, 27 Hen. VHI. c. 10 (1536), was passed to secure the grantees of monastic lands, replacing the equitable {i.e. protected by the Court of Chancery only) title of the monks by a common law one. But as the statute put an end to "uses" (grant to A. to the use of B.), recognized only at equity, and the only way in which wills of real property could be made, there was a great outcry against it, and the Pilgrimage of Grace has been called the "Younger Sons Crusade," as their prospects were much damaged by the prohibition of wills of realty. Hence another statute, 32 Henry VUI. c. i (1540), had to be passed, whereby a man could leave by will all his lands held by socage or non-military tenure, and two-thirds of those held by knight service. It was not till 12 Charles 1^6 H r STORY OF THE REFORMAT/OX JX of low birth, such as Crumwcll and Rich, in the kinj^'s council ; (v.) The exaction of tenths and first-fruits of the Crown ; (vi.) The promotion of reforming bishops. The insurgents, numbering thirty thousand, carried a banner with the Five Wounds, the chalice, and the Host. The king addressed them more mildly than the rebels of Lincolnshire, and by promises and negotiations time was wasted, till the enthusiasm was past and the army of pilgrims dispersed. Nothing beyond vain promises were given in answer to the demands. A futile attempt to renew the insurrection in the beginning of 1537 gave Henry a pretext for violating all his agreements, and ordering his general " to cause such dreadful execution to be done upon a good number of every town, village, and hamlet, that have offended, that they may be a fearful spectacle to all others hereafter." ^ Some time after this rebellion was crushed in March, 1537, a son (later King Edward VI.) was born, on October 12, to Henry, his wife, Jane Seymour, dying soon after (October 24). The Pilgrimage of Grace was the pretext for a new visita- tion of monasteries, which, whether small or great, were now doomed. During the years 1537 and 1538 many monasteries were discovered or asserted to have been implicated in the rebellion ; twelve abbots were hanged, drawn, and quartered ; others, by promises and threats, were tempted to make a voluntary resignation. The people were incited against the religious houses bv stories of the evil lives of monks and priors, or by an exposure of some alleged religious impostures.'-^ St. Thomas of Canterbury, whose shrine was the richest in England, and a standing witness to the triumph of Pope over king, was cited to ap[)ear and show cause why he should not be pronounced a false saint, his goods being forfeited to the State. His tomb was rifled on August 19, 1538, twenty- six cartloads of treasure being carried away. Then rapidly followed the suppression of other houses, covered at the close II. c. 24 turned knight service into socage that all lands — not being entailed — could be freely deviseil.] • .State Papers, i. 538, ap. Dixon, i. 4S0, f.n. ' Dixon, ii. 4S j//., 53, 56, 65. See Hume, ii. 221, 222. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 37 of the session of 1539 by an Act of Parliament, 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13 (May, 1539), which devoted all monastic property to the king.^ At beginning of the Reformation Parliament the House of Lords consisted of — temporal peers, 44 ; spiritual, 48 (bishops, 18 ; guardians of spiritualties, 2 ; abbots and priors, 28). When the Act suppressing the smaller monasteries was passed, February, 1536, the abbots and priors numbered twenty-eight. In the Parliament of April-June, 1539, the numbers were reduced to twenty, after which they disappear altogether.^ LECTURE XVII. FORMULARIES OF FAITH IN HENRY VIII.'S REIGN. The three Formularies of Faith put forth in King Henry's reign were called respectively the "Ten Articles," "The Insti- tution of a Christian Man," and " A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man." I. The Ten Articles were originally entitled, "Articles devised by the king's highness majestic to stablyshe christen quietnes and unitie amonge us, and to avoid contentious opinions : which articles be also approved by the consent and determination of the hole clergie of this realme."^ These Ten Articles were passed in the first session of the new Parliament, which met in the summer of 1536. The smaller monasteries had been suppressed in the previous February, ' It was this Parliament which passed the Six Articles Law (31 Hen. VIII. c. 14), and made royal proclamations equal to Acts of Parliament (31 Hen. VIII. c. 8). Quote Dixon, ii. 129. See Perry, pp. 135, etc. * [The constitutional importance of this change is well seen in the following table :— 1509. 46 spiritual and 36 temporal peers sat in the House of Lords. 1547- 27 » 47 In other words, the lay peers were now in the majority.] • So Berthelet's edition. In the Cotton MS. the title is simply " Articles about religion, set out by the convocation and published by the king's authority." 138 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION EV in the last session of the Reformation Parliament. The Articles, having stated their object to be to establish charit- able concord and unity in our Church of England, proceed to draw a distinction between such things as are commanded expressly by God, and are necessary to our salvation, and such others as, although they be not expressly commanded of God nor necessary to our salvation, yet should, for reasons specified, be preserved. This distinction between the necessary and the variable was the real principle of the Reformation. For the constant error of the Roman Church was to extend the list of matters which were de fide, and to minimize the variable element as far as possible. When John Frith was martyred, he died not because he disbelieved the Roman theory of transubstantiation, but because he denied the right of any Church to elevate a theory into an article necessary to salvation. " That this should be a necessary article of the faith, I think no man can say it with a good conscience, although it were true indeed."^ It was long before the Church of England reduced the " necessaries " to their true limits, but the clear defining of a difference between things essential and things indifferent was a real advance and a real protest. The things necessary to be believed are : (i.) The grounds of faith, viz. the Bible, the three Creeds, the Four Councils, and the traditions of the Fathers which are not contrary to God's Word ; (ii.) The Sacrament of Baptism ; (iii.) The Sacrament of Penance ; (iv.) The Sacrament of the Altar ; and (v.) Justifica- tion. The things to be retained, though not necessary to salvation, are : (vi.) Images ; (vii.) Honour due to saints ; (viii.) Praying to saints ; (ix.) Rites and ceremonies ; (x.) Purgatory. All these ceremonies of the Church were defended, but care- fully guarded against abuse, while in the case of Purgatory the limits of our knowledge are clearly pointed out. The Articles were, of course, a compromise between the champions of the Old and New Learning. The Bishops of London, York, Lincoln, Chichester, and Norwich were ranged against Cranmer and the Bishops of Worcester, Sarum, Hereford, and Ely. In the Article on the Sacrament of the Altar, Transub- ' .See rcff. in Dixon, i. 168, and f.n. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 39 stantiatioii is plainly asserted ; ^ the Sacrament of Penance was of Divine institution, and therefore necessary with priestly absolution. In Justification, which was defined in Mclanch- thon's words {Justificatig significat reinissionem peccatoni7n et reconciliationern sen acceptatioiieui personce ad vitain aeternaui)^ the necessity of good works is insisted on. When the draft of the Articles, which was mainly the work of Fox of Hereford, was brought to Convocation on July II, a hot debate took place, especially on the number of the Sacraments. As the archbishop pointed out, it was primarily a question of terms. The name Sacrament had been given to all the seven rites, but they had to decide whether it was a fit title for rites not proved to be instituted by Christ. The question was not settled. Three Sacraments only are mentioned, but there is no denial of the name to the other four, while both the " Institution " and the " Erudition " distinctly recognize the seven. Our own Article XXV. im- plicitly allows the term, though two Sacraments only are " generally necessary." ^ II. The Institution, which was published the following year, 1537, is commonly known as the " Bishops' Book." In its tone it is " pious rather than theological." ^ The Ten Articles are incorporated in it ; the two on Justification and Purgatory almost verbatim. Among the prelates were now several promoted regulars, who were mostly " Henrician," to use Sanders' word. These were Barlow, Hilsey, Rugge, Good- rich, and others, and yet it is difficult to say whether the " Bishops' Book "-shows any real advance in the direction of the New Learning. In the letter addressed by the bishops to the king, which now appears as the Preface, they asked to be allowed to set forth this book as "a plain and sincere doctrine, concerning the whole sum of all those things which appertain * [The term " Transubstantiation," however, is not employed, nor does the statement of the Article on the doctrine of the Sacrament expressly assert (like that of the Six Articles) the desition of the natural substance of the elements. See Blunt, i. 442.] * See Dixon, i. 418 ; and see Laurence, " Bampton Lectures," p. 347. ' See Dixon, i. 410-421. •* Dixon, i. 524. 140 HISTORY OF THE REFORMAT/OX I.V unto the profession of a Christian man."^ It is divided into four parts ; the first an exposition of the twelve articles of the Apostles' Creed ; the second, of the seven Sacraments; the third, of the Ten Commandments ; and the fourth, the seven petitions of the Paternoster, with the Ave and the two Articles on Justification and Purgatory. Here the prominence given to faith was balanced by the seven Sacraments./ There was again much controversy at Lambeth about the Sacraments, but the discussions were in writing, and the three questions proposed by the archbishop in each case were : (i.) Is it a Sacrament of the New Testament .-* (ii.) What were the outward signs ordained and the invisible grace therein con- veyed ? and (iii.) What were the promises on which it was to be believ^ed that the grace should be received } Cranmer and Fox seem to have had most to do with the " Institution"; by them it was brought to Crumwell, and by him to the king. The king, however, left the letter of the prelates unanswered and the book unauthorized, when he wrote back to the effect that he had not had time to overlook the work, but, trusting it was according to Scripture, he ordered it to be read in part each Sunday for the next three years. Some notes and corrections by Henry, with criticisms on them by Cranmer, still exist.^ On the whole there is little observable difference in doctrine between the Ten Articles and the Bishops' Book. The latter, however, had neither the authority of Convoca- tion nor Parliament, but was promulgated provisionally by the king. But between the publication of the " Institution" and the " Erudition " a reaction had set in. In June, 1539, the Six Articles Laiu {'ifi Hen. VIII. c. 14) had been passed, having been introduced by the Duke of Norfolk, the great patron of papal views. In spite of the Confessions of Faith already issued, all the distinctively Roman doctrines were affirmed. Trafisubstatitiation^ covnnunion in o?ie kind, celibacy of iJu clergy\ vionastic vows, private masses, and auricular confession were not only declared necessary, but enforced by pains and penalties. This "Bloody Bill," or " whip with six thongs," as ' Prcf. in •' Form, of Faith," p. 23 ; cf. Dixon, i. 524. ' Cr.inmer'.s ** Remain^," p. %i. • [.Sec note ', p. 13Q.] ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 14 1 it was called, was not the work of the Church. It was intro- duced by a layman to override the deliberations of a com- mittee of bishops actually sitting, and it was forced through Parliament by the personal interference of the king, to whom all, except Shaxton, even the hero Cranmer,^ gave way. III. The last public act of Crumwell was to appoint, in 1 540, a committee, divided into two classes — the first to treat of doctrines, the second of ceremonies. The " Institution " had been declared to be a temporary measure ; the assigned period of three years was just expiring, and a third confession was to be formulated. But it was not till three years after the death of Crumwell that the " Necessary Doctrine and Eru- dition " (or King's Book) appeared. This was in 1543. This formulary differed from its predecessor in having the authority of Convocation. In its tone it was reactionary, though it was a revision of the " Institution." A preface was written in the name of the king, and two texts were on the title-page — " Lord, preserve the king," and " Lord, in Thy strength shall the king rejoice." The preface was followed by an Article on Faith, which was new ; then followed the Creed, with an ex- position and notes, the Seven Sacraments, in which a distinc- tion was drawn between the three greater Sacraments and the other four, the Decalogue, the Lord's Prayer, the Ave, with an explanation, and four Articles on Free-will, Justification, Good Works, and Prayer for the Departed. The chief varia- tion was to be seen under the head of the Sacraments. Under the Sacrament of the Altar, which was now placed first, not only was Transubstantiation affirmed, but also the receiving in one kind and the duty of fasting communion. Matrimony was, for obvious reasons, spoken of as less binding. Celibacy of priests and monastic vows were enforced in accordance with the Six Articles. A far higher view of the sacerdotal function and a far lower view of the function of preaching is found in the " Erudition." The Free-will Article was moderate in its tone ; the old Article on Justification was divided into two, Justification and Good Works ; and Purgatory became an Article on Prayer for Souls Departed, It was the complete ^ See Fox, ap. Dixon, ii. 122. 142 HISTORY OF THE REFOKMATIO.V J.V triumph of the Old Learning over the New, instead of a com- promise, as in the two previous confessions. [From a pupil's notes.] The "Erudition" was the counter- part of the Six Articles, and represents the complete triumph of unrcformed views at the end of Henry's reign. Hence •• the Reformation " did not begin till Edward VI. 's reign. LECTURE XVIII. BEGINNINGS OF DOCTRINAL CHANGES IN [This lecture seems to have been made up later than its predecessors, and exists only in the form of the following headings : — ] I. Relation of Ejiglaud with the Protestants. Here we must distinguish between — (i.) The New Learning as used by More, Colet, Erasmus, (ii.) The Lutheran use of this new learning. With (i.) all the wisest in England sympathized, Henry, Wolscy, Warham, etc. ; with (ii.) neither the king, nor the State, nor the clergy generally agreed till Crumwell rose. (a) Lutheran books came into England, but were contra- band. Lutheran opinions were as far as possible exterminated, especially when they took the extreme form of Ana- baptism. Commissions, etc. Luther himself had been opposed by Henr\'. who on August 25, 1521, was given b}- the Pope the title of Fidei Defensor. (/3) Gradually sympathy with Lutheran ism sprang up. (i.) Rise of Crumwell. Crumwell had no 7'iews — a cold, crafty old politician, whose one idea was to unite iMigland and Germany at all costs, (ii.) Lutheranizcd prelates, ex-regulars, strongly anti-Papal and often Lutheran — Cranmer, Latimer, Sha.xton, Barlow, Hilsey, Goodrich, Fox. (iii.) The king and Mclanchthon.^ ' See Hardwick, "Articles," p. 51, and f.n. 2. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 43 Result of this. Negotiations with " Princes of Augsburg Confession " (1535), frustrated by Gardiner. Private conferences (January, 1536) in Wittenberg. Fox and Heath. The Ten Articles (1536) marked the FAILURE. Renewed negotiations (1538) in fear of continental war. Lutheran embassy, May, 1538. The Thirteen Articles.^ The Lutheran Censnre of Abnses. The reaction — Six Articles Law, June 28, 1539. Crumwell's new scheme. " The Flemish mare " (Anne of Cleves). The marriage, January 6, 1540. At- tainder of Crumwell, June 13 ; execution, July 28. Triumph of Gardiner and Co. Note that as knowledge of Lutheranism grows in Eng- land, English people reject its distinctive tenets. II. History of the English Bible in this reign. III. Liturgical modifications. Prymers, etc.^ ^ Hard wick, p. 6i. * See Perry, ch. x, sects. 2-4. On the Litany in a thirteenth-century form, see Maskell [" Monumenta Ritualia," iii. 227-238]. COURSE II. THE REFORMATION IN THE REIGNS OF EDWARD VI AND MARY. (1547-1558.) LECTURE I. THE SPIRITUAL AND THE CIVIL POWER. It Is impossible to understand the Reformation movement in England, or to distinguish in it that which was constitutional and that which was revolutionary, without a clear view of tJie I'elation of the civil and the ecclesiastical pozver as tuider stood by the English nation. If we can find out the theoretical relation between the two we shall be able to test the actions of various kings, Parliaments, or Popes, and to determine their agreement or disagreement with it. When we speak of the English theory of the relation of the civil and ecclesiastical power, we mean that a certain view of their relation obtained in English history, and that, if this view became obscured for a time, the nation oscillated back to its former view as soon as circumstances made it possible. When we speak of an act or a series of acts as unconstitu- tional, we mean that they are out of keeping with the prin- ciples on which the British constitution rests. We have no difficulty in saying that the Court of Star Chamber or the Court of High Commission was unconstitutional, or that King Henry's Act by which a royal proclamation was made equal to an Act of Parliament was unconstitutional. But such statements imply that there is a theory underlying our national history, a theory developing according to its own laws and yet retaining its identity. The personal govern- ment which was possible in the Stuart period would be an anachronism now. Why ? Because it would be a contradic- tion to the constitutional theory in its present stage of development. Pari i-atione, if we can discover the English theory as to the relation of the civil and ecclesiastical power we shall sec the lines on which it must develop, and have a criterion by 148 insrORY OF THE RErORMATJON IX which wc may judge of what is constitutional and what is not. Was the Act of the Submission of the Clergy constitutional ? Was it constitutional for Henry to spoil the monasteries ? or for the Privy Council of Edward VI. to act as it did? or for Mary to imprison Archbishop Cranmer and declare the see of Canterbury vacant ? Or, in modern days, is the Privy Council constitutionally a court of final appeal in ecclesiastical causes? Is Lord Penzance Dean of Arches ? These questions cannot be answered by a simple '* yes " or " no," for the answers are determined by the theory adopted as to the relation of the civil and the ecclesiastical power. The distinction between civil and spiritual (putting the term ecclesiastical for the moment on one side) is as wide as the difference between the kingdoms of the world and the kingdom of God. The civil power has to deal with rights of property and liberty of person ; the spiritual has to do with men's souls, warning, teaching, punishing, by spiritual cen- sures. Spiritual poiver is ultimately derived from the Divine commission given on the evening of the Resurrection and on the mountain of Galilee. Civil power, while ultimately of course from God, for the powers that be are ordained of God, resides, according to the form of government accepted, in the king or the people, or, in the case of an oligarchy, in a small number of individuals. It is clear that, treated thus abstractly, the civil and the spiritual not only cannot be identical ; they cannot overlap. The spiritual poiccr cannot touch the person or the property ; it cannot fine or imprison or put to death. It can anathematize and absolve ; it can warn and teach and censure ; it can admit to the Divine society or exclude from that society, or appoint to spiritual office within that society or degrade from that office. Civil poiver, on the other hand, cannot do any of these things, though it can fine and imprison, or burn or torture. It cannot absolve, or ordain, or dispense, or decree anything to be necessary to salvation. The State can bind the hands, but not the conscience ; the Church can bind the conscience, not the hands. The State can kill the bod\', but cannot touch the soul ; the Church can condemn to spiritual death, but cannot touch the body. ENGLAXD AN-D ON THE COXTINENT. 1 49 All this, however, is true only so long as the civil and spiritual are distinct. The moment they are combined each is conditioned by the other, and the result is an anomalous one. Spiritual matters find their way into Acts of Parliament, and the Church is found to possess coercive power, and the boundary line between the two is confused. When the Church as such possesses property, it subordinates itself to the State's laws about property. When a bishop as bishop becomes a peer of the realm, the State naturally claims his allegiance as a peer. Every ecclesiastical person is bound to two allegiances and it becomes increasingly difficult for him to " render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's " without denying " to God the things that are God's." In England ^ the difficulty of the two allegiances was not overcome as it was on the Continent, and therefore it is mis- leading to quote the cases as parallel. The parallel existed, no doubt, at a certain period. In the days of Charlemagne, before the Hildebrandine theory was developed, we find the Emperor, the protector of the Papacy, in spite of his reverence for the Pope in spiritual matters, acting as the head of the Church and the source of jurisdiction, appointing bishops, summoning a council (at Frankfort, 794), and, when the Pope, Leo III., is accused of nepotism, acting as judge between the accusers and the accused. The Donation of Charlemagne had made the Pope subordinate to the Emperor in temporal matters, and this was confessed by Leo III. when he recog- nized Charles' supremacy, sending to him the keys not only of the city, with the standard of Rome, but also the keys of the sepulchre of St. Peter. If we compare this with the attitude of King Edgar towards Archbishop Dunstan we shall probably have reached the period at which the parallel between the theory of eccle- siastical and civil power in England and on the Continent began to cease. About the year A.D. 969, King Edgar asserted his view of the relation of the civil to the ecclesiastical power in his well- known words to Archbishop Dunstan : " It appertaincth unto ' See, too, Dr. Puscy's "Royal Supremacy." I50 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX JX US to enquire into the lives of tlie clergy." ... "I bear the sword of Constantinc, you the sword of Peter ; let us join our right hands, ally sword to sword, that the lepers may be cast out of the camp, the sanctuary of the Lord cleansed, and that the sons of Levi may minister in the temple."^ This theory was appealed to again and again by English kings. The separation of civil and ecclesiastical in the administration of justice by William the Norman emphasized the co-ordinate jurisdiction, though accidentally it introduced ill feeling between the two. According to the English theory, the king, who was supreme over the two parts of the body politic, the spiritualty and the temporalty, administered justice to both through Convocation and Parliament. Me had the right of visitatioi or refonuatiofi, as well as the right of appellate juris- diction. He could not make a bishop, a priest, or a deacon, but he could give ''jurisdiction'' in the narrow sense, just as, conversely, Mary could deprive Cranmer, but could not degrade him ; and even the king's power of visitation, reformation, ap- pellate jurisdiction, etc., was limited in practice to the use of lawful machinery. It was what Perry '-^ calls a " regulative " power, and Hooker ^ rightly describes its exercise.** Henry and Elizabeth might therefore fairly assert that in their claim to Supremacy they claimed nothing more than was their consti- tutional right. Side by side, however, with this English theory there was developed on the Continent, in the days of Hildebrand, Inno- cent III., and Boniface VIII., a theory which we may call the papal, or mediaeval, theory. The growth of this from I073" 1 300 we will trace below. In its perfected form, all power was represented as coming from Christ through the Pope, His vicar. The two swords of St. Peter were the temporal and the si)iritual ; the former was inferior to the latter. Oportct o^/adiuni esse sub j^/adio, etc. Tlie battle of /weestitures was fought and won by the Pope, and the mediaeval fabric of the ' .Spclinan, "Cone," i. 417, quoted in Joyce, "Sword and Keys,'' rh. i. ; J. n. Hlunt, "Reformation," vol. ii. p. 44. ' Tage 187, f.n. • " P^cclesiastical Polity," Iwok viii. sect. 4. * .Sec Cardwtll, " Documentary .\nnals," pref. ix. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 151 Papacy was the result. It is of course true that, as soon as this theory reached its cHmax, there was a reaction against it ; but the important fact for us to notice is thit the papal theory was, as it were, in possession of the ground on the Continent, while in England, as a theory, it had never been accepted, and even the practical encroachments on the national inde- pendence were constantly being met by Acts of Parliament, in support of which the spiritualty and temporalty fought side by side. [The following is a later recension — derived mainly from a small loose sheet of memoranda, by Mr. Moore, and partly from notes of the lecture as delivered in January, 1889— of the earlier portion of Lecture I. The portion extending to the words, " Note the contrast between the old and the new Puritanism," is from the loose sheet, some phrases being added from the 1889 notes ; the rest is from a pupil's note-book : — ] At the death of Henry VIII., the English Church was in an anomalous position. (i) It had abandoned the mediaeval theory of the papacy (mediaeval unity) — though not the primacy of Rome, which the English Church never re- nounced— and its relations to the Parliament were not clearly defined. (2) The reaction from Rome and the rise of a middle-class had led to an enormous accession of the royal power, and a reign of tyranny in Church and State. (3) It had attempted no doctrinal reformation, and had retained doctrines which implicitly involved the papal view. (Some things, obviously con- nected with papal claims, were got rid of, but the English Church re- tained many doctrines which involved the mediaeval view — so some say the Reformation did not begin till Edward VI.) Hence the problems — ecclesiastical and doctrinal — of the succeeding age were — (0) To readjust the relations of Church and State, so as to save the spiritual character of the Church without allowing an ittiperhun in imperio. Crumwell said England was a two-headed monster. ()8) To determine the exact doctrinal position of the English Church as against Rome and the various Protestant bodies. This result was only secured after two reactions. (1) te7np. Edward VI., a predominance of reforming views which threatened the Catholicity of the Church (reaction towards advanced Reformers, which tended to make a breach in its continuity). (2) temp, Mary, a return to Romanism (rendered possible by (i)), which de- stroyed for a moment the independence of the Church but guaranteed a real reformation afterwards. Thus, tejHp. Elizabeth, the English Church recognized itself as face to face with two great forces, embodying opposite theories — the papal and medii^val idea of the unity of the Church, making that unity mechanical and unreal, and the Puritan idea, which, ultimately based on individualism, tried to neutralize dis- 152 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN integration by rigid discipline. Note the contrast between the old and the new Puritanism. The new is defended, but is quite different from the old, having given up the old discipline. Puritans opposed the State in the interests of Divine command, as they thought, and this was their great strength against the episco- pacy, which said it was not \\.%eM Jure divino, but yet most tdsc/uU Puritans based their presbyterianism on conscience and faith. Bancroft {i^^oi) recovered right vir.u of episcopacy. Later Puritanism atomistic. The English Church took up a via tnedia — not a compromise, not a colourless fusion of two different systems, but the line to which English Church was deter- mined by antagonism was a theory of the Church as organically one with the Church before the Reformation, its unity being inherent in it, and not forced upon it by a monarchical or papal power. We must remember the difficulty of Church versus State in England, as on the Continent. When we call an action constitutional, we imply it is in contravention of a theory at that time maintained ; if we speak of Henry VIII. 's acts as uncon- stitutional, we imply that he made a new departure, inconsistent with previous claims. Two conceptions of the relations of Church and State. (i.) Hildebrandine. The State owes its existence to the Church. Our Lord gave two swords to St. Peter, and the temporal sword was passed on to the temporal monarch, (ii.) Erastian. (Rather theory than fact.) Cujus regio, ejus religio, which im- plies that the Church is a mere department of the State, and that it rests with the temporal power to determine what is true in religion. Of course the State has the power to ally itself with any religion, but this is not Erastianism, which implies that the religion adopted by the State is right (cf. the Queen in England and Scotland). Names given to any system which seems to approximate to one or the other. Some would say " sacerdotal " for " Hildebrandine ;" but this is nonsense, just as in the case of those who say that it is Erastianism for a Church to be allied with the State. Easy to separate in thought civil and spiritual power, for while both come from God, civil power rests in the king, people, oligarchy, etc., while the spiritual power comes through a different line, either by succession of ministers, or by im- mediate act of laying on of hands, in which God appoints. Spiritual power can warn, degrade, exclude, but not touch person, fine, imprison, burn. Spiritual power moves in its own region. But quite apart from the Establishment, this distinction cannot be maintained, for every member of the State owes allegiance to the king as well as to the spiritual society to which he himself belongs. Hence a collision is suggested between two allegiances. Matter is far more complicated where every religion is recognized by the State as the religion of the land. When the State enforces the decisions of the Church, and bishops as bishops become peers of the realm, it is increasingly impossible to trace the lx)rder-line l)etween Church and State. E KG LAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. I 53 LECTURE II. THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. The theoretical independence of Rome did not imply Eras- tianism any more than the Royal Supremacy did. For, according to the English theory, the spiritualty under the king was as complete as the temporalty under the king, each equally " sufficient and meet of itself, without the inter- meddling of any exterior person or persons," to administer its own affairs. The king, supreme over both, was moderator of both, and to him, as the ultimate source of jurisdiction, the final appeal must lie, as well as the right of visitation. (a) This matter of appeals is of great importance, not only because of the prominence the question assumed in Henry's reign, but because it is one of the burning questions of the present day. An appeal to the king did not mean a subordination of the one part of the body politic to the other An appeal to the king, in an ecclesiastical cause, would no more be handed over by him to a civil court, than an appeal in a civil cause to an ecclesiastical court. Every appeal to Rome in pre- Reformation days was an appeal to the king, which he allowed to be settled by Rome instead of by the home machinery. As a matter of fact, however, and in defiance of Praemunire statutes, appeals to Rome had become more frequent ; but they were not lawful except with the king's leave. By the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) the gradation of appeals was this — from the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the archbishop, and if the archbishop should be slack in doing justice, recourse must be had to the king, by whose order the controversy is to be settled in the archbishop's court, in such sort that no further process can be had without 154 HISTORY OF THE REFORMAllOX IX the ro}'al assent, i.e. the king might allow or refuse a further appeal to Rome.* The celebrated statute, 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, made all appeal to Rome treasonable, and the Cler^^y Submission Act of 1534 (25 Hen. VHI. c. 19) established tJie Court of Delegates. All causes touching the king were finally, and without appeal, to be decided by the Upper House of the Convocation of that province in which they arose. [So 1 533-4 only.] In all matters not touching the king, there was an appeal from the archbishops' courts (which by the previous Act, 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, had been final) to the king in Chancery, who appoints delegates for the hearing of each case [this provision being ex- tended by 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, to matters touching the king]. For two hundred and ninety-eight years, i.e. from 1534 to 1832, with the exception of Mary's reign, this was the law of appeals in England, tJiat ecclesiastical matters should admit of au appeal to the king, ivJio should appoint delegates for each case. Interpreting the statute of Henry by the Reformatio Lcgum^ we find that the intention was that the king should conclude the matter b}' a provincial synod, if it is a grave cause, or by three or four bishops to be appointed by him for the purpose.^ That the Delegates subsequently included laymen is no doubt true, but it is also true that few cases involving doctrine came before the Court of Delegates, and in none of such cases did they reverse the decision of the ecclesiastical courts. The subsequent history of ecclesiastical appeals is a series of blunders. In 1832, by 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 92, the Court of Delegates was abolished, and appeals not touching the king were given to the Crown in Council, i.e. the Privy Council. In 1833, by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 41, the Judicial Committee was substituted for the Privy Council. In 1S40 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 86, s. 16), b)' the Clergy Discipline Act, prelates being privy councillors were added to the Judicial Committee for ' Sec Joyce, p. 62, "Appeals to Rome." See Bishop Stubbs' "Appendix to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 30. The absolution of Henry II. was granted on condition of the annulling of the Constitutions of Clarendon, cf. Pra.'munire statutes, 7 Ric. II. c. 14 (13S4); 16 Ric. II. c. 5 (•393). ' In justification of which sec Joyce, p. 86. ' Ref. l.cg., p. 302. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. I 55 appeals arising 7tnder that Act. In 1876, by the Judicature Amendment Act, this provision was repealed, and spiritual assessors to the Judicial Committee were appointed in a fixed rota.^ (/3) The king's right of visitation, although irreconcilable with the mediaeval theory of the Papacy, was distinctly a part of the royal prerogative. It had been claimed by Edgar at the end of the tenth century, as we have seen, and he had exer- cised his visitatorial powers through the archbishop and the Bishops of Winchester and Worcester. Such a power might be exercised justly or unjustly. It might be made the pre- text for sacrilege and spoliation of the Church, or it might be exercised according to the intention specified in the Acts of Henry (25 Hen. VIII. c. 21, s. 20; cf. 26 Hen. VIII. c. i). This power, like that of final appeal, had been gradually absorbed by the Pope, and visitations had for many years been made in his name, the power of the bishops being for the time superseded. Wolsey's visitation was under papal powers secured to him as legatiis a latere. Henry's visitation of the monasteries was made under authority of an Act of Parliament reviving the ancient prerogative. No one defends the suppression of the monasteries under Henry VI H. If the money were misapplied or wasted, it was open to the visitor to regulate, but not to appropriate it. Wolsey's suppression of priories for the new foundation of Cardinal College implied no spoliation. Henry's suffragan bishoprics and Edward's endowed schools, if the plans had ever been carried out honestly, might have saved the visitors from the crime of sacrilege.^ Difficult to say where acts began to be illegal. Was it when money was misapplied that appointment of visitors was made with a view to make the case against the monasteries as bad as possible ? This proved. In theory, visitation was conducted through the ecclesiastical authorities, and Henry VIII. seems to have felt that in order to justify his * See Joyce, especially pp. 64, 65 ; and Gibson's " Codex," Introd. p. xxi. ; and, above all, Bishop Stubbs' "Appendix to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," vol. i. p. 46, sqq., ^ [The following sentences to the end of the section on the power of visitation come from a pupil's note-book.] 156 HISTORY OF THE REFOR.VA770X TV irregular mode, he had to prove that the circumstances were exceptional, and therefore used new machinery. The Royal JnJHfictions come under the same head as visitation. Their meaning may be discovered from episcopal Injunctions which were issued to regulate and secure the subordinate clergy, having in view the reformation of abuses and restoration of discipline. T/iey did 7iot make new laws, but enforced those already existing. But Royal Injunctions, beginning with suppression, lucre new laivs cither impossible for the monas- teries to accept, or which, if accepted, would have made life unbearable. Hence we often find a voluntary cession by a monastery rather than obey Injunction. Instead of enforcing the law of the community, a new law was enforced. (7) Jurisdiction. One other question has to be touched upon in connection with the English theory of the relation of the ecclesiastical and civil power, and that is the question of jurisdiction. According to the papal theory, jurisdiction comes from the Pope;^ according to the English theory, it comes ultimately from the king.'-^ Jurisdiction is "the limitation and restriction within certain geographical bounds of spiritual powers which are exercisable in all parts of the world." ^ A bishop is by consecration a bishop wherever he is, and cannot cease to be a bishop till he is degraded. A missionary bishop qna bishop is equal to the Pope or the Archbishop of Canter- bury, but he is without jurisdiction. Me is a bishop, but not a bishop of any see. A bishop when he receives jurisdiction is limited to a see, but within that see he is supreme. It is an open cjuestion among canonists whether election to a see con- fers jurisdiction,^ but an election being impossible without the royal coiigi^ d\Hirc^ it may fairly be argued that jurisdiction ' On jurisdiction, see Hutton, appendix, p. 498. Vocation, ordination, mission. F'our theories: (i.) jurisdiction from I'opo ; (ii.) from king; (iii.) from orders ; (iv.) inherent in see. * See Iluiton, p. 212, who draws a p.arallcl from secular juristiiclion, hut ignores the English view of jurisdiction. ' J. II. Hlunt, ii. 38. * See Gibson's " Codex Jur. Ecclesiastical Ang.," Tit. v. c. 2, ap. J. II. Blunt, ii. 38, f.n. * In any case election is not complete in an Established Church till it is confirmed. Rarlow is said to have been never consccratctl — objection is not worth discussing — but spoken of as bishop elect ; this docs not mean not consecrated, but not conhrmed. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. I 57 comes from the king through the chapter or the appointing body.^ It cannot come from consecration, for in the case of a translation a new jurisdiction is conferred without a new consecration. When the fear of the papal view died out, jurisdiction was understood to come from " the definitive sentence " of the metropolitan, by which he commits to the newly elected bishop " the care, government, and administra- tion of the spirituals " of the diocese.^ Royal Supremacy thus implies : 1. The final appellate jurisdiction. 2. The right of visitation and reformation. 3. That the Crown is the source of episcopal jurisdiction. But none of these powers inherent in the Crown are exer- cised by the king in person, and the lawful or unlawful use of the Supremacy depends on the legal or illegal machinery used for its exercise. If the king were to hear ecclesiastical appeals in person, or through a lay tribunal, such exercise of the Supremacy would be iinconstiUitional. If the king visits through a lay person, such as Crumwell, his right of visitation is exercised iinconsiitutioiially. If the king grants jurisdiction by letters patent, his exercise of that power is iinconstiUitional. [The following rough pencil notes may be preserved as suggesting an interest- ing line of inquiry : — ] (a) Power of Visitation. (j3) Supreme Head. (a) indeterminate ; (/3) determinate. References — Bishop Stubbs, in the " Report of the Eccle- siastical Courts Commission," vol. i. 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12. 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19. 26 Hen. VIII. c. i. * [The extract from Gibson's ^^ Codex" given below may enable the reader to see what powers are and what are not conceived by Mr. Moore to be thus derived.] 2 See J. II. Blunt, ii. 2,^, 158 HISTORY OF THE REFORMAT/ON FV Headsliip. *• Institution," pp. 120, 121. "Necessary Doctrine," pp. 248, 2S6, 287. Extension of the power [by] 37 Hen. V'lII. c. 17 (1546). (a) Prerogative. (/3) Supremacy. (7) Headship. (?) Vicegerency.^ * See a valuable passage in Gibson's "Codex," Introduction, pp. xni. and xviii., on the meaning of the statement that "All ecclesiastical authority is in the Crown ; " King Edward's commissions, and why they were not revived ; juris- diction in foro extcrno. " When therefore the Laws relating to the Royal Supremacy, which were made in the Reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Elizabeth, say, — That all Ecclesiastical Authority is in the Crcnvn, and derived from thence, or use any Expressions of the like Import; it is to be remembered, that i\\Q principal Intent of all such Laws and Expressions, was to exclude the usurped Power of the Pope, and that they must be interpreted consistently with that other Authority, which our Constitution acknowledges fo belong to ever)' Bishop by the Word 0/ God. And it is by way of Distinction from this, that Judge Hales (speaking of the Legal Power of Bishops) called it Jurisdiction in Eoro Exteriori ; which is confessed on all hands to be derived hom the Crown, viz. the External Exercise and Administration of Justice and Discipline, in such Courts, and in such ways and methods, as are by Law or Custom Established in this Realm. And after all the stress that has been laid upon the forementioned Statute of Edward VI., in order to prove the Church to be a meer Creature of the State ; whoever attends to the language and tenor of that Statute, will find it highly probable that no more was originally intended by it, than what Judge Hales meant by jurisdiction /// Foro Exteriori. There, the Grievance recited is. That the Bishops did use (to do what? not to plead that they had a general Authority /r^w the If'ord of God, to exercise Discipline in the Church, but) to make and send out their Summons, Cit'itions, and other Process in their oxvn names. And because all Courts Ecclesiastical he kept by no other Po-wer or Authority, either Foreign or within the Realm, but by the authority of His most excellent Majesty, therefore it is enacted. That all Summons, Citations, or other Process Eccle.siastical shall be made in the King's Name. " All this \%forinsick Language : as is also the Seal of Office, and the Seal oj Jurisdiction, in the next Clause ; in which Seal the Arms of the King were to be ingraven, that it might appear in the Course of every Process, that they held not their Courts (as the People had been accustomed to think they did) by Virtue of a Foreign or Papal Power. But, the Act having been abrogated in the Reign of Queen Mary, there was no occasion to revive it under (^)ueen Elizabeth, after the Supremacy was fully established, and the Popish Bishops were deprived, and no thought or suspicion remained, of English Prelates holiling their Courts by authority from Rome. " But we need nut have recourse to Arguments, the force of which depends upon Implication and Construction : since (.xs we have seen) the very Office of Consecra- ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 59 LECTURE III. REVIEW OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL CHANGES MADE IN HENRY Vin.'S REIGN. This being the English theory of the relation of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, and of the Crown to both, we are able to estimate the character of the acts of the previous reign. King Henry in his anti-papal acts vindicated the ancient constitutional rights of the Crown, and by so doing vindicated the independence of the English Church. In finally disallowing appeals to Rome, Henry acted con- stitutionally and on historical grounds, nor can his action in putting the Upper House of Convocation in place of the arch- bishop's court as a court of final appeal in matters touching the king [this only 1533-4], and the Court of Delegates in all other ecclesiastical causes, be found fault with, though, contrary to the intention of the Act, laymen were slowly introduced and thus made the Act of 1832 possible. But the application of the PrcBmiinire Lazu was (a) in any case sharp practice ; (/3) in Wolsey's case gross injustice ; and (7) to the English people mere terrorism. Similarly, the vindication of the con- tion, so often confirmed by Parliament, warrants every Bishop, in the clearest and fullest terms, to claim Authority by the Word of God, for the correcting and punish- ing of such as be unquiet, disobedient and criminous {i.e. for the exercise of all manner of Spiritual Discipline) within his Diocese. And as to other matters, which, though not of a spiritual nature, have been thought by Princes most properly cognisable by spiritual authority, (such are Causes Matrimonial, Causes Testamentary and the like) ; in these, the Church, as such, is not at all concerned ; nor is any one so unreasonable, as to set the Right of Cognisance in these cases, on any bottom, but the Concessions of Princes, enforced by the Authority of Law and Custom," Cf. " Ref. Legum," '' Jurisdictio regis'' (p. 200) '' omnisjurisdictio et ecclesias- tic a et secularis ab eo.'' See, too, quotation from Lord Coke (Gibson, p. xix.) : " Certain it is that this kingdom hath been best governed and Peace and Quiet preserved, when both Parties, that is, when the Justices of the Temporal Courts and the Ecclesiastical Judges, have kept themselves within their proper Jurisdiction, without encroaching or usurping upon one another." See, too, the whole of Gibson's comment on the Statute of Appeals. l6o lUS'JORY OF THE REFORMATION LV stitutional independence of the English Church was aimed at Queen Katharine. This point noticed by Shakespeare. Henry could act in accordance with law, yet against its spirit ; e.g. after he imprisoned More and Fisher he got a retrospective Act. In his visitations he made unconstitutional use of a con- stitutional right. He had a right to visit, but only by lawful machinery. The appointment of Thomas Crumwell, in spite of the statement that it was not intended to interfere with "those parts of episcopal authority which are of Divine bestowal,"^ was unconstitutional, because it put a layman in an ecclesiastical office. The actual work of the visitation and the suppression of the monasteries was, of course, simple robbery, as was the grant of annates to the king by Act of Parliament. Similarly, the compelling the bishops to take out licences from Crumwell was not only a clumsy, but an unconstitutional way of vindicating the claim of the Crown to be the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But the fact that Lee, Stokesley, Gardiner, Longland, Tunstall — all bishops of the Old Learning — as well as such men as Bonner and Cranmer, took out these licences is a proof that they did not necessarily imply an Erastian view of the bishops as State officers.^ Two Acts, however, had been passed in the late reign which were not only in excess of the royal prerogative, but in contra- diction of the first clause of Magna Cliarta, and both of these still disgrace the statute book. The first (25 Hen. VHL c. 19) deprived the Church of her immemorial right of legislation ; the second (25 \\, in (".ir.lwfiri "Documentary Annals,'" i. No. j,, where see f.n. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 169 reign, were a clumsy expedient for bringing home to the clergy the fact of the Royal Supremacy, and the claim of the king to be the ultimate source of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction, how- ever, derived from the king is exercised through the arch- bishop, or rather by the establishing of a religion its chief minister receives the right of administering jurisdiction in the king's name for the National Church. Till the Hildebrandine theory was developed it was the same on the Continent. Then it was discovered that all power temporal as well as spiritual came from the Vicar of Christ, and therefore jurisdiction also came from him. This theory had gained ground in Eng- land,and to restore the old theory the bishops were compelled to take out licences directly from the king. That it w^as the recognition of an existing fact is implied in the older licences : " If we have conferred jurisdiction upon any persons it is their duty to acknowledge it to be derived from us, and to resign it at our will." ^ And the new licences of Edward VI. were an acknowledgment of the fact that all jurisdiction came from the king. There was no infringing on spiritual powers. These were carefully guarded by the phrase, '' prceter et ultra ea qnce tibi ex sacris Uteris divinitus commissa esse dinosaintiirr All else was " vice, nomine et auctoritate nostris^ ^ This licence to Cranmer bears date February 7, 1547, the coronation being on the 20th [of the same month]. These com- missions were probably suggested by the new patents made out for the judges. The Lord Chancellor gave up the seals and received them again from Edward's hands on February i, and was instructed to make out the judges' patents. The commissions were the new patents for the bishops.^ The commission, after stating that all authority of jurisdiction and jurisdiction of every kind, as well ecclesiastical as secular, flows from the king, gives leave to ordain within the diocese * Dixon, ii. 167. ' Froude says of the licenced clergy, " They were to regard themselves as pos- sessed of no authority independent of the Crown. They were not successors of the Apostles, but merely ordinary officials ; and in evidence that they understood and submitted to their position, they were required to accept a renewal of their com- missions " (v. 10, apud Dixon, ii. 167, f.n.). This is worthy of Sanders or Cobbett. ^ Blunt, ii. 34. I70 HISTORY OF HIE RETORMATIOX IN of Canterbury, to institute, to grant probates, and to hear ecclesiastical causes. The power of ordaining was the only one which could be claimed as inherent by the Divine law in the episcopal office, and this power the king could neither give nor take away. The licence recognized, deprivation was the refusal of the State to recognize this spiritual function.^ (Here we get the analogue of investiture by ring and crozier, which was not the giving of episcopal powers, but the recognition of an individual's right in a special sphere.) -"" The next ecclesiastical move was probably (as was possibly the granting of licences) the work of Cranmer. This was the enforcing by royal authority the use of two books for the religious education of the people — (i.) a book of HoDiilies, and (ii.) Erasmus s ParapJirase. The Homilies had been prepared by several prelates in the previous reign and presented to the Convocation of 1543, which passed the last English formulary, the " Necessary Erudi- tion ;" but they were not passed then, and now, with no authority but that of Cranmer, they were printed (July, 1 547) and ordered by royal authority to be read every Sunday in churches.'^ The book made no allusion to the Sacrament of the Altar, and only incidentally to Holy Baptism, and Gardiner fairly argued that it was irreconcilable with the " Erudition." See Gardiner's criticism.^ TJie ParapJwase of Erasmus was translated partly b}' Queen Katharine Parr, partly by the Princess Mary,^ and published with a preface by Nicholas Udal, which compared Henry to Philip of Maccdon, Edward to Alexander, and the Seymours to Aristotle.-' The book itself used the New Testament as a covert religious satire in favour of the New Learning. But the Paraphrase did not agree with the Homilies, and the Homilies did not agree with the King's Book." Yet the volume was ordered to be set up in every parish church. So did the Privy Council override the law of the Church and the law of the land. \ ' See a good pass.igc in Ilcylyii, i. 106, and f.n. lo p. 105. ' See Dixon, ii. 423 and f.n. * See /VvV/., ii. 451-453. * See Strypc, "Ecclesiastical Memorials," ii. i, p. 53. * See Dixon, ii. 425. " Ibid., ii. 452. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 171 LECTURE VI. THE ROYAL VISITATION AND INJUNCTIONS — OPPOSITION OF BONNER AND GARDINER. In the spring of this year (1547) a violent attack on images took place, and, though as yet it was unauthorized, Cranmer in his coronation speech, and Bishops Barlow and Ridley at Paul's Cross in Lent, suggested their demolition. Bishop Gardiner came forward to defend them, and the council was obliged to issue a proclamation to the justices to enforce order. This shows the growth of Swiss influence. From the beginning of Zwingli's career an attack on images held a chief place, while Luther retained crucifix, vestments, ritual, and service. Sharp contrast in England. Whenever an attack on images, altars, and vestments takes place, it is due to the Swiss. Everything, however, was to be set right by a royal visita- tioiiy the commission for which was issued as early as May 4, 1 547, a Privy Council mandate suspending for the time the ordinary jurisdiction of the archbishops.^ The visitation was to be conducted by means of the Injimctions of Edzvard VI. As we have seen, the power of visitation resides in the Crown, and therefore, it was argued, in the Privy Council. The In- junctions owed their authority to the most unconstitutional statute of Henry's reign which made a proclamation equiva- lent to an Act of Parliament. This statute, together with the Treasons Acts, was repealed as soon as Edward's Parliament met. The commissioners, thirty in number, were some clerical, some lay. They were divided into six companies, a licenced preacher being included in each company.^ Only ten were clerics, three of whom were strong party men, Ridley, Taylor, and Ferrar. The commissioners were to carry with them and ^ See that issued to the Archbishop of York, " Documentary Annals," i. Zli No. iv. ^ For the list see lilunl, ii. 48, 49. 172 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION TV sell the new books; they were also armed with Articles of Enquiry, thirteen for bishops, archbishops, and ecclesiastical officers, thirty-five for parish priests, twenty-two for laymen, and five for chantry priests.^ These Injunctions were embodied in those of Elizabeth (1559), and many of them reproduced in the Canons of 1604.^ The Injunctions included a form of Bidding of the Beads (Bidding Prayer), and special injunctions to the bishops, commanding them (i) to enforce the king's Injunctions ; (2) to preach once a year in the cathedral and three times else- where ; (3) that they should have none but learned chaplains ; (4) that they should ordain only men learned in Holy Scrip- ture ; and (5) that they should preach nothing contrary to the Homilies.''^ The visitation was delayed, first by negotiations with the Continent, and then by the war with Scotland, which began about the end of August, and ended in the bloody victory of Pinkie, or Musselburgh (September 10, 1547), after a cam- paign of fifteen days. Opposition oi Bonner and Gardiner} These two prelates represented the growing party of those who wished for no change during the king's minority ; so far they were entirely in accord with Henry's will. It was Gardiner who led the opposition against the iconoclasts, and he who opposed the Scotch war. *' Let Scots be Scots till the king be come of age." ^ In his opposition to the new Injunctions he was equally con- stitutional.^ Being summoned before the council to answer for his objections, made in a letter to Somerset, he left orders with his representatives that the visitors should be received * See the Injunctions and Articles of Enquiry in " Documentary Annals," i., Nos. ii. and iii. See, loo, a careful comparison of these Injunctions with the eleven published in 1536, and the seventeen jiublished in 1538, in Blunt, ii. 52-59. ' For the Injunctions of Eliz.ibeth see *' Document.nry Annals," No. xlii., i. 215. * See "Documentary Annals," i. 31 ; Blunt, ii. 50. * See ** Documentary Annals," i. ; Nos. xvi., xvii., council's letters to Bonner ; ibid.^ Nos. xviii., xix., two commissions on Bonner : ibid.^ No. xxiii., king's order to (iardiner, with Articles to be signed. * Letter to the Protector, ap. Dixon, ii. 440. * See quotation from Fnxe, ap. Blunt, ii. 127. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 73 with all respect. He appeared before the council on Sep- tember 23, and, his answers not being satisfactory, was com- mitted to the Fleet.^ On Saturday, January 7, 1548, he was set free by the general pardon. A fortnight later he was committed by the council again, on the matter of Justifica- tion,^ and was ordered to preach a test sermon on St. Peter's Day, June 29.^ The sermon failed to identify the council with the king. He dared not " limit the king's power by council." " He only is to be obeyed, and I would have but one king." ^ This did not harmonize with the Protector's theory, and Bishop Gardiner, now sixty-five years old, was sent to the Tower, June 30, 1548. Two years afterwards, six Articles were pressed upon him, which, like Sir Thomas More, he consented to sign, but not the preface,^ June 8, 1 550; and on June 13, twenty Articles, with the same preamble, which were also refused. On July 19 his bishopric was sequestered for three months. A commission, partly lay and partly clerical, sat from December 15, 1550, to February 14, 15 5 1, when Gardiner was deprived by Cranmer. He remained in the Tower, without books, ink, or paper, until August 5, 1553, when he was liberated by Queen Mary. (Gardiner was in prison five years and nine months.) Bonner's opposition was more violent and more short-lived. His diocese was visited on September 3, 1547, and the bishop consented to receive the Injunctions and Homilies, and observe them, " if they be not contrary and repugnant to God's laws and the statutes and ordinances of this Church." The council compelled him to retract,^ and then committed ' See Dixon, ii. 442, 443, and order of committal in f.n., 443 ; Perry, pp. 190, 191. ^ See Dixon, ii. 450, for Gardiner's comparison of the Privy Council to the Pope. ' See, too, Perry, p. 195, § 20. See it in Blunt, ii. 137, etc. * Dixon, ii. 519. Bishop Hooper writes from Ziirich a refutation of Gardiner on the mass, Strype, " Eccl. Mem." II. i. p. 55. See, too, "A Pore Help." Strype, ibid. II. ii. p. 59. Gardiner, in the songs of the time, was considered popish; " He hath been a Pardoner, also a Gardener." This disproved by his conduct under Mary. He was merely attacked on the Sacrament, which, under Edward, was the great question — the whole question between the First and Second Prayer-books in this. * Sec these in Blunt, ii. 146, f.n. * See his retractation in Rhnit, ii. 120. 174 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX AV him to the Fleet, where he lay till the general pardon (January 7, 1548). New charges were trumped up against him and failed,^ and then he, too, was ordered to preach a sermon on a scheme provided by the Privy Council. This was on September i, 1549. Hooper and Latimer sat under the pulpit, and the sermon was reported unsatisfactory. A commission (September 8-October i) condemned him, and Archbishop Cranmer deprived him. He was then sent to the Marshalsea,^ where he remained till Mary's reign.^ Tunstall of DurJiavi was got out of the way, and lodged in the Tower about the time the visitation began, September, 1547. Archbishop Cranmer was thus the only ecclesiastic left in the council ; and the question of alliance with the Pro- testants was reopened.^ Nine months of Edward changed the whole atmosphere. Henry reached the extreme limit of tyran- nical power both in Church and State. Same power claimed by the Privy Council both in Church and State, specially un- constitutional with regard to the Church in the Injunctions. LECTURE Vn. PARLIAMENT AND CONVOCATION IN 1 547 (l EDW. VI.). All this had taken place before Parliament and Convocation met ; and though, on the strength of Henry's Act, the council might claim that a proclamation had the force of statute law, it certainly had no ecclesiastical authorit}', except in so far as Convocation had by previous acts given its approval. Parliament met November 4, and Convocation the day after. Convocation had been practically silenced since March, ' See Blunt, ii. 121. ' railed down in 1S42. * For Bonner's history, see Perry, ch. xi. sect. 9 ; Blunt, ii. 1 19-123 ; Dixon, ii. 443-445- * Proposed alliance with Protestants discussed purely as a political question ; cf. Paget's '* Consultation," ap. Str)pe, •' Ecclesiastical Memorials," vol. ii. part i. p. 55. Princess Mary's protest, and the Protector's answer (Strype, ibid., p. 59). ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 75 1544.^ When it met on November 5, and the archbishop exhorted the clergy to reformation, " that so the Church might be discharged of all popish trash not yet thrown out," ^ they told him that they dared not, so long as the Six Articles Law was unrepealed. This was reported to the council. In their second session, November 22, four remarkable petitions ivere sent np from the Loiver House to the bishops : (i) That the committee of thirty-two be revived ; (2) that the clergy be present, according to the ancient writ, in Parliament ; (3) that tJic ivork of the Committee on Chnrch services^ be laid before them ; and (4) that some mitigation of annates be allowed. Receiving no answer, they, after three weeks, in their seventh session, December 9, appointed " solicitatores " to repeat their demands, and to obtain the royal licence to deal with ecclesiastical laws.^ No formal notice seems to have been taken of these demands. But the third resulted the next year in the Eng- lish Prayer-book ; and though the " Reformatio Legum," which grew out of the commission of thirty-two, never became law, the first petition was in substance granted when, in the Parliament then sitting, by the Act I Edw. VI. c. 12, the various Treasons Acts and the Six Articles Law were repealed. First-fruits are still paid, but being computed by the value of the benefices, in Henry VIlI.'s reign they only amount to six or eight per cent.^ With regard to the second petition, the clergy are still the only class unrepresented in the Lower House. In the fifth and sixth sessions (November 20, Decem- ber 2) of this Convocation, communion nnder both kinds zvas ^ See ["Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 138;] Blunt, i. 499 ; ii. 73 ; Dixon, ii. 466. 2 Cardwell's " Synodalia," ii. i, f.n., from Burnet. ' This must mean the Rationale (see it in Collier, ii. 191, fol.), which seems to have been suppressed or ignored byCranmer (Foxe, apud, Strype, " Memorials of Cranmer," i, 75, says, " confuted by him "). See Dixon, ii. 313. For Crum- well's original commission, a.d. 1540, see Dixon, ii. 234. * Dixon, ii. 474. For this remarkable constitutional struggle, see Cardwell's " Synodalia," ii. 419-424; Dixon, ii. 466-477; Blunt, ii. 73-75. ' Blunt, ii. 75, f.n. These, with tenths, were given by Anne to poor clergy, 11704 [and form Queen Anne's Bounty]. 176 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IN agreed upon, '' ucini)ie reelamautCy' (November 3, 1547), and this carried with it the necessity of a new Communion Office. Strype ' says that Henry, shortly before his death, commanded Cranmer "to pen a form for the alteration of the Mass into a Communion;" and the same Convocation, which authorized the receiving in both kinds, adopted "a form of a certain ordinance, delivered by the Most Reverend the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the receiving of the body of our Lord under both kinds, viz. of bread and wine." ^ The statute "against revilers of the Sacrament, and for receiving thereof in both ki}ids, I E(i:i'. VI. c. i, made the Act of Convocation the lazu of the land. The first six clauses of the Act, i Edw. VI. c. i, provided for the imprisonment of those who " contemn, despise, or revile the said most blessed Sacrament," and this was sup- plemented by 2, proclamation^ (December 27, 1547), which shows the doctrine of the English Church at this time on this debated subject — Real Presence as opposed to Transub- .stantiation, and to the Swiss figurative view. Two other Acts of this session were directly anti-ecclesi- astical. The first abolished the congd d\Hire ; the second gave the chantries to the king. The congt^ d'elire Act^ (i Edw. VI. c. 2). This was the fitting pendant to the Act of Henry VIII. (25 Hen. VHI. c. 20), which had reduced the cong/ dUVire to a mere form by the incorporation of the letter missive with the statute. The Act of I Edw. VI. c. 2 professed to be passed in the interests of the persons appointed who suffered by the " long delay and great cost" attending that which was " in very deed no election " and served no purpose. The Act substituted direct nomination of bishops by the Crown, and ordered that judicial processes in ecclesiastical cases should be carried on in the name of the king instead of that of the bishops. This Act was repealed by I Mary, c. 2 ; and subsequent attempts to do away with the congt^ d'/lire in 1606 (James I.) and 1636 (Charles I.),^ and again in the present reign, have failed. * •• Memorials of Cr.inmer," i. 139. ' Blunt, ii. 87. * App. to Cranmer's ** Remains," No. xxvii. p. 505 (Parker Soc. ) ; Dixon, ii. 482. * Hcylyn, i. 104, 105 ; Hhmt, ii. 39, etc. ; Dixon, ii. 458, 459. * Blunt, ii. 42, f.n. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. I// Blunt ^ notices that seven bishops were nominated under this Act 2 {viz. Ferrar of St. David's, Poynet of Rochester and Winchester, Hooper of Gloucester and Worcester, Cover- dale of Exeter, Scory of Rochester, Taylor of Lincoln, and Harley of Hereford). Only two, Coverdale and Scory, survived to the later reigns, and these, with Barlow and Hodgkins, consecrated Archbishop Parker. Between 1547 and Scory's death, 1585, sixty-six bishops were consecrated. Coverdale assisted in Parker's consecration and no other ; Scory in this and the consecration of Grindal, Cox, Meyrick, and Sandys.^ The Chantries Act (i Edw. VI. c. 14). The chantries were chapels built round the choir, sometimes outside, more often within the church. If the church was monastic they were served by the monks ; if not, they were specially endowed and supplied with chantry priests, who were often school- masters or assisted the parish priest.'^ These chantries had been given to Henry by 37 Hen. VHI. c. 4, and though the king's death prevented it being completely carried out, the fall of the monasteries had suggested the voluntary surrender of chantries, twenty-two of which were surrendered between 1 541 and 1547.^ The avowed object of the Act of Edward VI. was the diversion of ecclesiastical funds from superstitious practices (i.e. from masses for the dead to good and godly uses, e.g. grammar schools) ; and the Act was hurried through Parliament and passed, December 14, in spite of the opposi- tion of the bishops and even Cranmer. Cranmer wished to have saved the money to the Church and to have given it to 2 Ferrar the first bishop coiisccrated under this Act. But Barlow had been translated on the king's nomination, February 3, 1548 (Dixon, iii. 197). Ferrar consecrated September 9, 1548, with the old Pontifical; Poynet consecrated on June 29, 1550, with the Ordinal of 1550. Hooper was consecrated on March 8, 1551 ; Coverdale and Scory were consecrated on August 30, 1 55 1, at Croydon (see Cranmer's " Remains," letter 281); Taylor consecrated on June 26, 1552 ; Harley on May 26, 1553. ' See the passage in Blunt, I.e. * See "Articles of Enquiry for Chantry Priests," '*Documentar>' Annals," ii. 31. ^ S«e Dixon, ii. 3S2, f.n. N 178 HISTORY OF 7 HE REFORMATION TV the impoverished seculars/ but the council was too strong for him. The grammar schools, eigliteen or twenty in number, barely made up for those suppressed, many of the chantries being educational foundations. The value of the whole number suppressed is unknown. In St. Paul's Cathedral there were forty-seven chantries, of the average value of £2^ per annum, exclusive of the value of plate and vestments.^ If, as Heylyn says, 2374 chapels and chantries were sup- pressed, we get a sum of ;{^70,ooo, out of which to found twenty grammar schools. These chantries were, as Fuller puts it, " the last dish of the last course, and after chantries, as after cheese, nothing is to be expected." ^ Strype says the whole amount realized from the chantries was ;^ 180,000.* Towards the end of his life (June, 1553), after hearing a sermon by Bishop Ridley, Edward is said to have been moved to found three institutions for the benefit of the poor by " impotcncy," by " casualty," and by " extravagance." For the first he founded Chris fs Hospital ; for the second he dis- solved the Savoy Palace, and transferred its revenues to St. Thomas' and St. DartJiolomeivs Hospitals ; while for the third he gave the palace of Bridczuell, to be a workhouse to which " ramblers, dissolute persons, and sturdy beggars " might bo sent, and compelled to work.^ The hospitals, which were included in the Act of Henry, were not included in that of Edward ; but when the visitation took place no distinction was made. ' .See Ileylyn, i. 103, f.n. ' Hlunt, ii. 65. ^ Quoted in Hlunt, ii. 66. * [It must be remembered in taking these calculations into account that, besides chantries, hospitals and free chapels were suppressed.] * Perry, p. 218. "So that," Ileylyn remarks ("Reformation," i, 275), "by the donation of Bridewell, which he never built, and the suppression of the hospital in the Savoy, which he never endowed, he was entitled to the foundation of Bridewell, St. Bartholomew's, and St. Thomas' without any charge unto him- self." A good instance of "robbing Peter to pay Paul " (on which see Ileylyn, "Reformation," i. 257; see, too, Dixon, iii. 456 jyy.) On the chantries, see Heylyn, i. 102-104; Dixon, ii. 460-463 ; Blunt, ii. 6o-{>6. On the wrong done to education and the poor by the Chantries Act, cf. Slrype, " Eccles. Mem.," ii. part i. p. 63. "The king had the lands, the poor had the lack." ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 179 vS*^ ended the first year of King Edzvard VI. and the first session of his Parliament, the general pardon setting free the imprisoned Bishops Gardiner and Bonner for a time. LECTURE VIII. THE NEW COMMUNION OFFICE AND CRANMER'S CATECHISM (1548). The early part of this year was marked by a series of procla- mations, which show the state of lawlessness into which England was falling. The proclamation for the observance of Lent} bearing date January 16, is remarkable for the ground on which fasting is recommended, viz. the good of the fisheries.^ Another, dated February 6, is directed against innovators, apparently clergy, or, as they are called, "certain private curates, preachers, and other laymen," ^ who bring in new orders according to their fantasies. But the most impor- tant was a mandate, issued on Febntary 24, for the destruction of images.* The Injunctions had drawn a distinction between images that were abused and those that were not. The mandate ordered the destruction of all alike. It was only a few days after that the NEW COMMUNION Office appeared, and was enforced by a new proclamation, March 8. This was the first work of what is known as the Windsor Commission, NOT the commission appointed by Crumwell in 1540, to which we owe the Erudition and the Rationale? The Windsor Commission was appointed in January, 1548. The new Communion Office, authorized by anticipation by ^ Cranmer's •' Remains," App. p. 507. ^ This proclamation of January 16 may be compared with 2 & 3 Echv. VI. c. 19, passed in the spring of this year, in which it is stated that though no one kind of meat is "better nor cleaner than another," "but still, if fish were eaten in Lent, on Fridays and Saturdays, on Vigils and Ember Days, much flesh would be saved." Cf. "Let Lent be kept for policy's sake," h propos of John Hales's Bills (Strype, Eccl. Mem. II. i. p. 135 ; Dixon, ii, 547). ^ Cranmer's "Remains," App. p. 508. * Ibid., p. 509. •^ See Dixon, ii. 315. l80 HISTORY OF THE KEFORMATIO.V LV Convocation, and ordered by proclamation of March 8, was the authorized Communion Service of the English Church till June 9, 1549. It was authorized "till other order should be provided,"^ i.e. till the new Prayer-book should be pub- lished. The Mass luas not translated, or altered m any way, but r^xhortations, etc., were added. The Notice before Cele- bration, the Exhortation, Invitation, Confession, and Absolu- tion, and the Comfortable Words stand almost as at present. These were mainly from Hermann's " Deliberatio" which was chiefly Bucer's work.^ The new Communion Office was translated into Latin by Miles Coverdale,'* but probably the printed translation is by Alex. Ales. The Act for giving chantries to the king came into operation about the same time, a speeial visitation for this purpose being ordered. Cranmer, too, seems about this time to have visited his diocese, ostensibly to see how far the royal visitation and the Injunctions of the previous year had been carried out."* He also at this time put forth what is known as Craxmer'S Catechism, which was really a translation of a translation. An unknown German Catechism was translated into Latin by Justus Jonas (probably the elder, not the younger), and the Latin version was translated into English by Cranmer, and published with a preface to the king. It is chiefly remarkable as showing what Cranmer's views were at this time. The Real Presence, the power of the keys, the Apos- tolical Succession are all plainly stated, but the pictures arc changed ! e.i!^. the priest celebrating Mass in vestments is replaced by a picture of the Last Supper.^ The proclamation authorizing the new Communion Service was followed, March 13, by a letter missive from the council ' Sec the proclamation, "Liturgies of Edward VI." (Parker S(x:icty). ' See Dixon, ii. 494-497 ; Procter, pp. 336-339, for comparison with Salisbury Missal. See, too, Cardwell's "Liturgies," and Scudamorc's " Notitia Eucha- ristica;" Dixon, ii. 513; and Articles in full, Cranmer's "Remains," 154 sqq. [For the complete text of the 1548 Order, see Maskcll, "Ancient Liturgy -^f the Church of England," pp. 294-302. Procter gives a summar)*, pp. 336-339.J • See his letters, "Original Letters," xix. p. 31. • Sec his questions, ap. Dixon, ii. 513. • See the hook, Latin and English, edited by Burton, 1829. See the intro- duction by Burton, and Dixon, ii. 513 and f.n. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. l8l to the bishops enjoining administration in both kinds, and on May 13 a letter was sent to licenced preachers charging them to suppress all innovations.^ Foreign events'^ concurred to disturb England. The Augsburg Interim^ enforced in July, 1548, led to new arrivals of Protestants. Peter Martyr was already in England ; Bucer now joined him with Fagius (a great Hebraist) and a Lasco the Pole (John Laski). /It was already in Cranmer's mind to balance the Council of Trent by a Protestant synod,^ and with this view he was attempting, as he told k Lasco/ by the help of learned foreigners, to " do away with all doctrinal controversies and build up an entire system of true doctrine." ^ But Melanchthon certainly did not come, and the other foreigners could hardly have reached England before the new Prayer-book was far advanced, if not completed. Towards the end of September (23rd) a new prodaination appeared, inhibiting preachers and recommending the people to " a patient hearing of the godly Homilies," that they may be fitted to receive " a most quiet, godly, and uniform order to be had throughout all the realm." ^ This was the First Prayer-book of Edward VI.^ * Both in Cranmer's "Remains," pp. 511, 512. 2 Influence of foreigners. See Dixon, ii. 521-528; Perry, pp. 203, 204, and note A. ; Blunt, ii. 162-170. ' See his letter written four years later to Bullingcr, Cranmer's " Remains," p. 431- « See ibid., letter 285, p. 420. ' His letters to Hardenberg, Bucer, and Melanchthon, inviting them to Eng- land, are extant. Ibid., letters 286, 287, 289, p. 422, sqq. * " Documentary Annals," vol. i. ch. xiii. ; Cranmer's " Remains," p. 513. ^ [It has been often reprinted. For the complete text, see Mr. James Parker's large edition (where the successive revisions are compared), and also his shilling edition of the First Book only. The Communion Office may also be found in an abstract in Procter, pp. 339-345, and complete in Maskell's "Ancient Liturgy," pp. 303-333. For minute historical details as to its origin, and a comparison with later English Prayer-books, see Mr. J. Parker's "Introduction to the Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer."] 152 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX LECTURE IX. THE FIRST PRAYER-IJOOK OF EDWARD VI. AND THE FIRST ACT OF UNIFORMITY (l549)- Who were the compilers ? There are three theories. (i) It is supposed by some to have been the work of the commission proposed by Archbishop CraJinier in 1543. But Canon Dixon has shown that this was never appointed.^ Cranmer's proposal was that the Bishops of SaHsbury (Capon) and Ely (Goodrich) were to take three each, to be appointed from and by the Lower House, for the " castigation " of mass- books, etc. But the Lower House refused to appoint. (2) It has been assumed that tJie commission of 1540, which had been appointed by Crumwell just before his fall, was still sitting. It had produced the third Formulary, the " Necessary Erudition',' in 1 543, which had been authorized by Convocation and Parliament ; and also the Rationale^ which had never received authority. Burnet assumes, without evidence, the existence of a liturgic commission, running on from Henry's reign to Edward's. Archdeacon Freeman has based an elaborate theory on this assumption. But the Pri\y Council, speaking of the appointment of the Windsor Com- mission, in 1548, as the result of the Act of 1547, ordering communion in both kinds, makes no mention of any existing commission. It is probable that Crumwell's commission of 1540 ceased to exist when it had produced the "Necessary Erudition." The Rationale, which had not been authorized, was probably that referred to by Convocation in 1 547, and which had probably been suppressed by Cranmer. The answers to questions on the Mass probabK' date from 1547, and SEEM to have been given by Convocation, i.e. the whole Upper House and the Prolocutor of the Lower House, or ' ii 315. ' Which sec ap. Collier, vol. ii. y. 191, etc. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 183 by the Prolocutor and such bishops, including three from the Northern Province, as were attending Parliament. They need have no connection either with the commission of 1540 or the Windsor Commission.-^ (3) The third possibility is that it was the work of the Windsor Connnission, appointed for the drawing up of the new Communion Office, and proceeding to a complete re- vision of the devotional system of the English Church. It consisted of the archbishop, with six bishops and six doctors — Archbishop Cranmer. Goodrich, Bishop of Ely \ Ridley, Bishop of Rochester \ New Learning. Holbeach, Bishop of Lincoln ) Thirlby, Bishop of Westminster \ Skip, Bishop of Hereford > Old Learning. Day, Bishop of Chichester ) Dr. May ^ * , \ Advanced Reformers, Dr. Taylor Dr. Haines (or Heynes) Dr. Robertson ) Dr. Redman (or Redmayne), Master ; Old Learning. of Trinity College, Cambridge ) TJie materials out of wJiich the Prayer-book zuas constructed were threefold — (i.) The old service-books, (ii.) Cardinal Quignon's Bre- viary, (iii.) Archbishop Hermann's Consultation. (i.) The old service-books!^ These consisted of (o) the Legenda, or book of Lessons ; (/3) the Antiphoner, or book of Antiphons ; and (y) the Psalteritun, or Psalter. These together made up the Breviarium or Portiforium. For Holy Communion four books were required — (a) An AntipJioner (commonly called Graduale) ; (/3) the Lectio7iary ; (7) the book of tJie Gospels ; and (3) the Sacramentary. Of these the Lectionary was known as the Epistolarium, the book of ' Dixon, ii. 476, f.n. 2 See Maskell, " Mon. Rit.," i. iii., sqq. ; Procter, pp. 8, sqq. 184 HISTORY OF THE KEFORMATIOX IN the Gospels as the EvangcHstarium ; while the Liber Sacra- mentorum included the rites necessary for the other Sacra- ments, as well as for the Holy Eucharist.^ Besides these we have the Ordiuale, or the Pie, regulating the devotions of the Canonical Hours ; and the Coiisiietii- . 100. ' Ibid.^ p. 246. 'i he '''■traditio instntmcntoruni^^ was retained in the hrst Ordinal, and combined with the giving of the Bible. On the revision in 1552, the " traditio"" was omitted. * Church Quarterly Rcvinv, 1 878, p. 265. Moreover, the Council of Florence, in the fifteenth century, recognized the validity of Oriental Orders conferred without the giving of the chalice and paten (see Mutton and his note upon this, p. 142, f.n.). This Florentine council was a continuation of the Council of Ha^le, and is recognized by the Greeks as the Eighth CEcumenical Council. * See Blunt's " Prayer-Book," p. 691, f.n., and Maskell, ii. 226, f.n. * See here Maskell, " Mon. Rit.," ii. 231, 232, and f.nn. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 1 97 in the Salisbury and Roman Missals the ordination was com- pleted by the first imposition of hands in silence. Our Ordinal has retained the '' Accipe," though not essential, and added it to the first imposition of hands, which is essential. There is then in our Ordinal, as in the ancient Pontificals, only one imposition of hands, and this is accompanied by the words interpretative of the meaning of the ordination, though not essential to it. The question of intention. — But many Roman controver- sialists, in face of these facts, incline to the view that the actual forms of the English might possibly be valid,^ only it is hopelessly invalidated by the lack of " intention " on the part of the ordaining bishops. If they did not mean to ordain priests, the mere words, it is argued, could not make priests ; and that they did not mean to m.ake priests is proved by the omission of what was inseparably bound up in those days with the priestly commission, the giving of the chalice and paten, and the putting on the priestly vestments. Now, " intention " is a difficult test to apply. What was the " intention " of the Apostles when they ordained priests ? Not, the makers of the English Ordinal would say, the ordain- ing of " mass-priests," as the Roman Church understood the term. The " traditio insti'unientoriivi " symbolized that one part of the priestly duty which the mediaeval Church had made everything, and therefore came to be thought the essential. According to the Church of England, the cele- brating the holy mysteries was an essential part of the priest's office, but not the whole. The function of teaching was essential, for "the priest's lips should keep knowledge."^ The power of the keys was an essential part too ; the duty of ' " So far as the material words of the Edwardine forms go, they are sufficient ; i.e. they are words capable of being used in a sense in which they would be sufficient ; but the words are ambiguous " (American Catholic World, quoted ap. Ilutton, p. 168). Toumely, a doctor of the Sorbonne (quoted by Hutton, p. 100), decides against both Schoolmen and Bellarmine, that the actual '* form " of ordination is " Accipe,'^ etc., and decides that though the Anglican Ordinal retains these words, they do not bear the orthodox (= Roman) sense. ^ Malachi ii. 7. IqS IJIS'JORY of the REFOKMATIOX LV preaching, of blessinf,^ of baptizing, all of which, in the old Pontifical, were spoken of as part of the priest's duty, were, in fact, all overshadowed by the *' offering of the Mass." And the Church of England deliberately restored the lost balance. Its " intention " may be gathered from the summary of the priest's duties in the ordination formula, and from the preface to the Ordinal, while the " intention " of individuals must be subordi- nated to and overruled by that — " intentio generalis, qua vult quod Christ us instituit, prcevalct intent ioni provenienti ex er^'orc privatoy ^ While, therefore, it is obvious that a rite performed by a bishop in jest, if such a thing were possible, or when he was mad, or drunk, or in any sense irresponsible, would be invalidated, it would not be invalidated so long as the authorized form was used, because his private opinion differed from the intention of the Church. By using the Church's "form" he so far submits his intention to hers in the minis- terial act.'"^ The difficulties involved in the theory that the validity of the rite depends on the intention of the " indi- vidual " are shown in Hutton,^and the parallel is easily traced in the Roman Church. On this theory, " the strength of a chain being that of its weakest link," the want of intention will invalidate not only the act, but all others that owe their validity to that act. The intention of tJic CJiurch of England \9> clearly stated in the preface to the Ordinal : " It is evident," etc. ; and the Ordinal is put forward "to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed, in the Church of England." " We have here a distinct witness to the generally good intention with which the Anglican Ordinal was devised."^ It was the intention of the Church to hand on that Divine succession which she believed her then bishops, priests, and deacons possessed. It was not her intention to continue that onesided, and therefore false, view which had obtained in the mediaeval period. The ministry instituted by Christ was not lost by the Roman Church, but its truth and meaning was obscured. If we ask what was the Church of ' Busscmbaum, ap. Hufton. p. i^iv = See tSid., pp. 176. 177, ' Hutton, p. 145. ENGLAXD AXD ON THE CONTIXEXT. 199 England's conception of a priest, and put it side by side with that of the SaHsbury Pontifical, we get this result : — Sacerdotem oportet offerre, Receive the Holy Ghost, benedicere^ prceesse, prcedicare, etc. Whose sins thou dost for- conficei'e, et baptizare. ^ive, etc. And be thou a faith- ful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacra- ments ; In the Name, etc. Accipe Spiritiim Sajictuin : Take thou Authority to quoru7n peccata, etc. preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacra- ments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto. Here we get, in both, the administration of the two great Sacraments, the stewardship of God's word, the power and commandment to preach. The power to absolve, which was in the Pontificals given after the Communion, with the ''Accipe!' is added by the English Ordinal. The "giving of the instruments" was omitted in the 1552 revision, the Bible only being given to each. To suppose that this meant to make preaching the sole duty of the English priest is to interpret the Ordinal by the spirit of Protestant formularies which are wholly different.^ The " intention " of the Ordinal, as of the Articles, is to be judged not only by what is said, but by what was consciously and deliberately rejected ; and, judged by such standards, it intended to retain, and not to reject, the Apostolical Succes- sion and the true priesthood of the Catholic Church. On September 9, 1 548, Bishop Ferrar was consecrated to St. David's with the old Pontifical. " Some months after- wards," according to Blunt,^ *' Cranmer held an ordination with the new Ordinal as it now stands." But (i.) the new ' See especially Bucer's de ordinatione legitime ministrortwi ecclesia revocandd {" Scripta Anglicana," p. 238) ; and see quotation in the Church Quarterly Review, January, 1878, p. 270. 2 See Blunt, ii. 93, f.n. 200 HISTORY OF THE REFORM ATIOX JX Ordinal was not completed till the sprinj:^ of 1550, and was legalized by anticipation, not retrospectively; and (ii.) "the Ordinal as it now stands" is the revised Ordinal appended to the Pra>'er-book of 1552. LECTURE XII. FROM THE FIRST PRAYER-BOOK TO THE SECOND (FEBRUARY I, 155O-JANUARY 23, I 552). Edward VI. With the completion of the Ordinal, the English liturgical reformation reached its climax. Though it had not probably received synodical authorit}^ Convocation had suggested and authorized by anticipation a work of the kind. Gardiner, who was now in prison, spoke of it as " the Book of the King's Proceedings,"^ yet said he would accept and enforce it, though it was not altogether to his mind. He was satisfied with the doctrine of the Sacrament. In the Ordinal his main objection was the omission of the unction.^ For nearly two years Parliament was prorogued, from February i, 1550, to January 23, 1552, and in the interval a strong Puritan reaction was taking place, the result of which was that the first act of the new session was the passing another Act of Uniformity, which made the Second Prayer- book of Edward VI. authorized by law. Bishop Bouncr'^ had been deprived October i, 1549, and was succeeded on April 12, 1550, by Nicholas Ridley, chap- lain to Archbishop Cranmer. Bishop Heath of Worcester, who was one of the committee engaged on the Ordinal, refused to sign it when it was com- plete, though he consented to use it. lie was .sent to the Fleet. March 4, 1550, where he remained till the next reign. ' Dixon, iii. 222. s //;/,/., iii. 223. • Hooper speaks of Bonner as "the most bitter enemy of the Gospel'' ("Original Letters," No. x\xv., p. O9) EycLAyn and oy the continent. 201 his see being a year afterwards taken charge of by Hooper, who was by that time Bishop of Gloucester. Bishop Gardiner was deprived on February 14, 1551, his place being taken by Poynet. Bishop Tunstall of DurJiam at the end of the same year (December 20, 1551) was sent to the Tower on a trumped-up charge of rebellion, the real reason being that the Duke of Northumberland coveted his lands. (See the Act passed in the year 1553 (6 & 7 Edw. VI. c. 17), which, owing to Edward's death, fell through.) Bishop Day of OiicJiester was also deprived and imprisoned (see below), and there was no one to oppose the mob of Zwin- glian opinions. The sees of Lincoln, Chichester, Hereford, and Bangor were vacant, apparently because no men of re- forming views could be found of sufficient learning to fill them. Worcester for the time was held by Hooper, conjointly with Gloucester. The Puritan attack was directed mainly against three things — altars^ vestments^ and the Prayer-book. The attack was begun by John Hooper,^ who for two years had been living at Zurich with Bullinger. He had been a Cistercian monk at Cleeve in Somerset till the Dissolution ; left England for Strasburg in 1545, and in 1547 went on to Zurich. In May, 1549, he came back to England, was made chaplain to the Duke of Somerset,^ and then to the king. He at once^ began to attack the Prayer-book, which he thought a thing " to be borne with for the weak's sake awhile."'* His strongly anti-sacerdotal line^ led him to de- nounce kneeling at communion, and even to deny that sacra- ^ See Blunt, ii. 95 sqq. Hooper, the " Father of Nonconformity " (Dixon, iii. 184, etc.). See, too, meaning of Nonconformity. "Nonconformity was caused by the premature issue of Hooper's letters patent " (ibid., iii. 254). For Hooper's Presbyterianism, see ibid., iii. 219 and quotation; wickedness of the bishops, "Original Letters," p. 55. 2 Somerset sent to the Tower, October 13, 1549. ' December 27, 1549, "Original Letters," No. xx.wi., p. 72, and quote. * Blunt, ii. 97. * Hooper's an^z-sacramcn/at vt'cios (" Original Letters," No. cclxi., p. 563, May 28, 1550). His objection to the oath was that "the saints" were included {7'b/d., p. 81, and see p. 559). 202 HISTORY OF J HE RLI-ORMATIOX IX inents "confer" grace, though he allowed that they** seal" or " testify to " grace. (Explain.) When nominated to the bishopric of Gloucester (April 7, 1550), he refused to take the oath or to be consecrated in the " Aaronic habits."^ Cranmer refused to dispense with them, and though both Peter Martyr and Bucer- condemned him, Hooper refused to wear them (a Lasco alone sup])orted him).^ Hooper was forbidden to preach, and when he disobeyed was handed over to Cranmer, and early in 1551 (January 27) committed to the Fleet. On March 8, 1551, he gave way, and was duly consecrated at Lambeth in a scarlet chimere.'^ Hooper's opposition to the Prayer-book and the vestments ^ had made him the hero of the Puritan party, who were rapidly gaining strength. Ridley, on the other hand, who had tried to persuade Hooper to conform, was in disfavour with them.^ Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of Rochester, though he defended the vestments, had as early as 1 549 begun to pull down the altars in his diocese."^ Hooper thoroughly approved, and when, on April i, 1550, Ridley was translated to London, hoped that he would destroy the " altars of Baal " there too.^ While Hooper was disputing about vestments, Bishop Ridley was "visiting" his new diocese — "omission is prohibition" his maxim. This was between April i and June 28. It would seem from Bishop Ridley's injunctions'** that the older ritual ' "Aaronic habits" ("Original Letters," No. xxxix., p. 87). For Peter Martyr's view, see ibid.. No. ccxxx., pp. 487, 488. ' John ab Ulmis [ibid.^ p. 410) says, "I hear that great contests took place on each side respecting ceremonies and the vestments of the popish priests — I should have said of the stage-players and fools. Hooper at length gained his cause." He himself thinks the less said the better (ibid.^ p. 91). The invocation of saints erased by Edward (ibid., p. 416). For Hooper's objection, cf. ibid., p. 81. » Ibid.^ No. xl,, p. 95. ♦ /bid., p. 271. • .See his letters to Bullinger, etc. ("Original Letters," Nos. xxxviii.-xlviii.), and those written before his consecration (letters Nos. xxi.-xxxvii.). The contest was between the council -f bishops and H«ioper -f Ziirich {ibid., p. 573). • On the quarrel between Hooper and Ridley, and its reconciliation in Mary's reign, sec ibid., No. ccxxx., p. 486, and f.n. ' Hlunt, ii. 407 : Dixon, iii. 199. • "Original Letters,'' No. xxxviii., March 27, 1550. • *' Docuinenlaiy .\in»als," i., No. \\i. p. 03. ENGLAXD AXD ON THE CONTIXENT. 203 of the altar had survived, and was used with the new Prayer- book ; that many priests "counterfeited the popish Mass" in various ways.-^ Moreover, there was already a divergence of use, some using an altar, some a table ; and therefore the bishop, in his desire for a "godly unity," ordered that "the Lord's board, after the form of an honest table, decently covered," should be set up. This order, instead of securing godly unity, led to utter confusion, both as to the Lord's Table and its position ; but the plan was adopted by the council by an order of November 24, 1550, which was sent to all the bishops.^ Here, again, the desire for uniformity was the avowed object, and the result was confusion. The " honest table" became a board on trestles, with a dirty cloth on it, which the profane called an " oyster-table." ^ The reredoses were wrecked, and the " tables " put wherever was most " con- venient." In St. Paul's Cathedral this had already been done on St. Barnabas' Day, June 11, 1550, under the superintend- ence of the bishop, who " brake down the wall standing then by the high altar's side." * This plucking down the altars, even in the early part of the year, seems to have been done under the council's influence ; King Edward's journal on June 23, 1550, mentioning the fact that the Sheriff of Essex went "to see the Bishop of London's Injunctions performed, which touched plucking down of superaltaries, altars, and such-like ceremonies and abuses." ^ Bishop Day of Chichester could not in conscience obey the council's order, and therefore he was committed to prison, December 10, 1550, as Gardiner, Bonner, and Heath had been, and as was done to Tunstall in the following year (December 20, 1551).^ ' See " Documentary Annals," i. p. 93. ^ See the Order in ibid.^ i., No. xxiv. p. 100. ' Blunt, ii. 412. * Ibid.^ ii. 410; Dixon, iii. 201. * Blunt, ii. 410, from Foxe. * For the case of Tunstall, see Dixon, iii. 467 and reff. 204 < inSTORY OF THE RErORMATIOX LV LECTURE XIII. THE INFLUENCE OF THE FOREIGNERS— THE SECOND PRAYER-BOOK. The attack on the Prayer-book, which had been begun by Hooper, was taken up by t/ie foreign refugees, of whom a great number had now arrived in England. Of these, the most important were Bucer and Martyr, the two Regius Pro- fessors at Cambridge and Oxford respectively, Valerandus Pollanus, and John a Lasco. Besides these, Bullinger, the representative of Ziirich, was in constant correspondence with the English Puritans, and exerted considerable influence on them. Calvin, in spite of his long letter to the Protector, October 22, 1548,^ seems to have had but little weight in the construction of the Prayer-book. Fagius, a great Hebraist, who had been driven from Germany by the Interim, and had come with Bucer to England on April 25, 1549, was appointed Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, but died soon after, November 15, 1549.''^ His successor, also a refugee, was foJin Emanuel Tremellio, a Jew converted to Christianity by Pole, and perverted to Calvinism by Peter Martyr. Neither of these, however, seem to have exercised any overt influence on the Prayer-book. Valerandus Pollanus [Pullain] had been pastor of the Church of Strangers at Strasburg, and had been driven thence, with his congregation of weavers, by the Interim. The Duke of Somerset offered them a home in the abbey buildings of Glastonbury, and while there Pullain published (February, 1 551) their order of service in Latin, which is supposed to have furni.shcd hints for the revised Prayer-book.^ fohn a Laseo, a.s ear!^- as 1548, had spent six months with ' .Sec (juotations froi.i th.s and anolhcr letter uiul.nteil, ap. Dixon, ii. 525 ; iii. 278. Calvin also wrote U) the kin{^, January I, 1551 ("Original Letters," No. cccxxxvi.). * Sec Cranmer's " Remains," letter rcxc, ]\ 425. ' Trocter, p. 50; Dixon, iii. 236. ENGLAyn A.VD OX THE CONTINENT. 205 Cranmer, and he returned from Friesland on May 13, 15^0, to settle in England. He was appointed " superintendent," i.e. Presbyterian Bishop, of foreign Protestants in London, St. Augustine's monastery being piil: at his disposal. He was, however, a true bishop ; nephew of an archbishop and legate, brother of the kingmaker of Hungary and of a bosom friend of Francis. The Walloon Church was an attempt on the part of Cranmer to save the Sacramentarians from Ana- baptism.^ He also published in Latin the form of service used by him.^ Peter Martyr f an Augustinian prior, vdio had adopted reforming views, was made Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford in 1549 (according to Blunt, he gave up the professor- ship because the undergraduates annoyed him,"* but returned on being made a canon), and at once began to write against the doctrines of the First Prayer-book. His criticism of the book, written January 10, 1551, to Bucer, shows that he had little opportunity of being acquainted with it. He did not know English, and judged of it by a Latin version (by Cheke).^ Martin Bucer (his real name was Butzer, not Kuhhorn) gives an elaborate criticism,^ which, while professedly an answer to Cranmer's request, really gathers up the adverse results arrived at by a Lasko, Martyr, Hooper, and himself. Bucer was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Cam- bridge in 1550, and on January 5, 1551, two months before his death (February 28, 1551), appeared the "Censura." Bucer' s Censure'^ is that of a moderate Lutheran, who, while objecting to everything in dress or gesture which im- plied '' sacerdotalism," is willing to bear with them for a time. ^ See Dixon, iii. 232-234. 2 See Procter, p. 51. ^ See Perry, p. 219 ; Blunt, ii. 165 ; Procter, p. 47. •• He lived near the great gate of Christ Church, leading to Fish Street. But the undergraduates broke his windows, and he moved to the cloister, where he fortified his garden. Dean Cox was not better loved. Dixon, iii. 245, f.n. ^ See his letter to Bucer, ap. ibid., iii. 280. ^ For his views of the Eucharist, see ibid., iii. 244, f.n. ^ See Procter, pp. 44, sqq. On Bucer's " Censura " see Dixon, iii. 244, 2S2, etc., where he points out the changes in the Second Prayer-book for which the "Censura" is responsible. For his name see ITaganbach, ii. 225. 206 HlsrORV OJ- 7 J//: R K FORM Alio X JX Every scenic practice is to be removed ; anything which may be superstitiously interpreted, e.g. the putting the wafer into the mouth, the benediction of the water in Holy Baptism, even the separation of the clergy and the laity in church, is to be done away. On the other hand, while rejecting all sym- bolism, there is a strong tendency to emphasize the '* godly discipline " and everything which brings out the more Puritan side of truth, e.g. the Commination, which he would have oftener than once in the year, oftener even than the "General Sentence,"which was read four times in the year.^ Bell-ringing, and the keeping of festivals, except those of our Lord, and a few others, he objects to. Churches he would have closed to prevent irreverence. In the Ordination Service he would have more minute questions asked of the candidates, especially as to controverted points. There is little doubt that this criticism, approved by P. Martyr,'' made a revision of the Prayer-book the great object with the advanced Reformers, and the year 1551 was devoted to the work. Bucer died on February 28, 1551, but Peter Martyr and John a Lasco re- mained. Cranmer, Ridley, Holgate, and Goodrich, with Peter Martyr, were, perhaps, mainly responsible for the Second Prayer-book. The archbishop ^ had by this time passed into his Zwinglian phase. The Zwinglian John ab Ulmis,"* writing toBullinger from London, August 18, 1548, accuses "Thomas" of having fallen into a heavy slumber. This was at the time of the publication of Cranmer's Catechism. Later on, in the same year, November 27, he reports that Thomas, " by the goodness of God, and the instrumentality of that most up- right and judicious man, master John a Lasco, is in a great measure recovered from his dangerous lethargy." On the other hand, the bishops generally were opposed to these views.''' rjcnkyns thinks it was Ridley, not a Lasco, who aroused Cranmer.) ' Compare this with the ( ommination Service, and see Cranmer's " Remains.'" p. 281, f.n. ' .Strype's " Cranmer," ii. 462, (luuled in Hlunl, ii. 102, f.n. Teicr Martyr's anti-Sacramental views objected to by the bishops, even Gosptllcrs (" Original Letters," No. cclx. p. 561). ' Cranmer agreed with Hooper (" Original Letter^," p. 71). * "Original Letters." p. 380. ' //vV., p. 383. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 20; (In 1 55 1 Hamilton, the Archbishop of St. Andrew's, pub- lished his Catechism.^) The foreign Protestants were schem- ing to get influence, which end they generally attempted by der^icating books to those in authorit}" in England \^^ Hooper, however, was in disfavour with Cranmer and Ridley. Thus in the two years which immediately followed the publication of the First Prayer-book of Edward VI., we notice : (i.) a rapid elimination of those who were inclined to contend for a conservative and constitutional Reformation ; and (ii.) a correspondingly rapid influx of foreign Protestants, whose only object was to assimilate the doctrine and dis- cipline of the English Church to the sects of Zurich and Geneva. Bucer, for a time, represented the moderate Lutheran ; but even he, if we may judge by the " Censura," had gone far to meet the " Helvetians." We are not surprised, therefore, to find that the revision, under such influences, resulted in such a book as the Prayer- BOOK OF 1552.^ What part Convocation had in it, or whether it had any, is uncertain.^ Joyce ^ says that Convocation met on October 14 and November 5, and John ab Ulmis, in the "Original Letters,"^ speaks of Convocation as sitting on ^ [For Mr. Moore's views as to this book, see his review of a recent reprint, Guardian, January 28, 1885.] 2 See letters of John ab Uhiiis, " Original Letters,"' p. 449, etc. ' [Mr. Parker has published a shilling edition of it. See generally the works referred to under the heading of the First Prayer-book.] * Convocation met in 1551, while Parliament was prorogued (Heylyn our only authority for this), and mooted the question of Prayer-book revision. Cardwell (" Synodalia," pref. x.) says Convocation was not allowed to pass judgment on the vSecond Prayer-book, htCTcw^^ it wotdd have thrown all possible difficulties in the way of its publication. [See Lord Selborne's "Defence," pp. 58-61, for a summary of the evidence one way and the other. Archbishop Ban- croft, in his sermon, implies that Convocation had approved the Second Book, as does, perhaps, the thirty-fifth of the Forty-two Articles of 1533. Bishop Stubbs ("Report of Eccles. Courts Comm.," i. 143) thinks that the committee which revised the book may possibly have been a sub-committee of Convocation.] Parliament should have met on November 4, but it was prorogued, probably on account of the sweating sickness, till January 23 (Peter Martyr in "Original Letters," No. ccxxxiv., p. 500). It is possible that Convocation was summoned by the same writ, and appointed the commission mentioned by John ab Ulmis {ibid.. No. ccix., p. 444). The commission consisted of the two archbishops, Ridley. Goodrich of Ely (afterwards Lord Chancellor), and Peter Martyr. * Quoted by Perry, p. 211. Page 444. 208 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN December 12. Parliament, however, did not meet till the next year, January 23, 1552, the day after the execution of the Duke of Somerset, and Convocation met on the 24th. The revised Prayer-book, and the Act of Uniformity (5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. i), authorizing^ it, passed both Houses on April 14,^ but was not to come into force till the next All Saints' Day. The printing of the book was suddenly stopped for further corrections ; and, at the last moment, the *' Declaration con- cerning kneeling at Communion," commonly called the Black Rubric, was added.^ What did it mean ? Probably not so much against Roman as Lutheran doctrine, which involved Ubiquitarianism. So the English Church was kept straight by antagonism. Lutheran theory as technical and rationalistic as the Roman, or worse. The second Act of Uniformity (5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. i) ex- plained that there was nothing in the First Prayer-book which was not agreeable to the Word of God, but that doubts having been raised, it had been perused and made fully perfect.^ The Ordinal of I 5 50 was revised and added to the Prayer- book. The greatest change of doctrine was seen in the Com- munion Service. The earlier formula, "The Body of our Lord," etc., " The Blood of our Lord," which had been used in 1 548 and 1549, is now exchanged for the Zwinglian formula, "Take and eat," " Drink," which implicitly denies the Sacramental Presence. Prayers for the Dead, the Anointing of the Sick, exorcism at Baptism, the threefold immersion, the Eucha- ristic vestments, were all omitted. Even kneeling at the Communion was apologized for ; and even then, if God's providence had not ordered it otherwise, the Reformers would have gone further, and severed the last ties which bound the English Church with the Church of the Apostles. The Second Prayer-book was authorized from November • [.Sec ihc text in the " Report of the Eccles. Courts Commission," i. 223, 224, Note that whereas the first Act of Uniformity applied to clerics and laymen who abetted them, the second apjilies to all recusants whatsoever. .See Dixon, iii. 3, 43»] » Ibid., iii. 43S. f-"- ' //'/V/., iii. 475 sijq. * See the extract, apud ibid., iii. 433, note. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 209 I, 1552, till the repeal of all Edward's ecclesiastical Acts in October, 1553, by Queen Mary. Two other ecclesiastical documents of this reign remain to be noticed : (i.) the Forty-two Articles ; and (ii.) Poynet's Catechism.^ [The manuscript breaks off abruptly here, and the following jottings are taken from the note-book of a pupil.] (i.) Forty-two Articles, 1553.^ Cf the Ten Articles of 1 536. Lutheran influence. Our Articles more influenced by Luther than Calvin, yet avoided all things Lutheran, and not Catholic. The Articles were not a summary of doctrine, but the decisions of the English Church on certain debated questions of the time. Behind these Articles lay the Creeds and the definitions of the first four General Councils. These are taken for granted, and the Articles in contrast with the Augsburg or Helvetic Confessions, which just dealt with certain views inconsistent with Catholic teaching. The Preformation not a reaction against Catholicism, but against its mediaeval mode. The nearer it got to primitive Chris- tianity the safer. If the Articles only treated of questions then in dispute, why do they speak of the Trinity, etc. ? Because these doctrines were disputed at the time by Soci- nians and Anabaptists. Calvin later rejected the Nicene Creed, not in matter, but in form. (ii.) Poynefs Catechism, 1553.^ Good account of the Eucharist, but contains several propositions since abandoned. Transubstantiation at an end, says Peter Martyr, and shows dissension about grace through sacraments. Real or corporal presence as opposed to transcript [sic, circumscript] presence "* out of heaven. * Dixon, iii. 512-532. * See Hardwick's "History," and Laurence's "Bampton Lectures^" on the English Articles supposed to be Calvinistic ; Blunt, ii. 148, sqq. ; also Dixon, iii. 513 sqq., who holds that they had no synodical authority, against Cardwell, Hardwick, etc. ' See Liturgies published by the Parker Society ; Dixon, iii. 528 ; and Procter, PP- 399, 400. * Dixon iii. 524. 2IO HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX LECTURE XIV. QUEEN MARY'S ACCESSION AND ITS CAUSES. The five years of Ultramontanism under Queen Mary may be dealt with in less detail [than previous reigns] for two reasons : — I St. Because they form an interlude in the natural development of the English Church ; and 2nd. Because they marked the reversion to a type with which we are already familiar. Still some questions naturally suggest themselves, such as — What were the causes which led to a return to the Roman form of Christianity ? (i.) Undoubtedly the conservative tendency of the Eng- lish people. Nothing could have made the cause of Romanism more popular than the fatal attempt to divert the succession in the interests of Protestantism. All the Succession Acts of Henry had tended only to alter the succession in the dim future. If Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth all died childless the descendants of the younger sister of Henry were to be preferred to those of the elder. But L^d ward's attempt, under Northumberland's guidance, to place Jane Grey on the throne above the rightful heirs was enough to alienate the sympathies of the people from Protestantism.^ (ii.) Strangely enough, the very same power \\hich had co-operated with Henry to throw off the Roman Obedience co-operated with Mary to restore it. The strong insular and national feeling of England had resented the intrusion of "a foreign person," though he was clothed with the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Western world. Now foreign ' " They were Protestants chiefly that placed her in her kingdom " (Strype, *' Ecclesiastical Memorials," vol, iii. part i. p. ii). ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 211 persons of all sorts, with no authority whatever, with no object apparently but the assimilation of the ancient English Church to the modern Protestant and Presbyterian sects, were re- casting the doctrine and ritual and eliminating all the symbolism which was dear to the hearts of the people. The Second Prayer-book had hardly time to supplant the first before Edward's death, but if the First Prayer-book had stirred up rebellion which had only been appeased by the assurance that the new Prayer-book was only the old service- books translated and simplified, it is hardly likely that the Second Prayer-book would have been accepted without a murmur. (iii.) No doubt, too, many smaller influences were at work. The tyrannical action of the council, their illegal treatment of the bishops of the Old Learning, and their intolerance towards the Princess Mary, the heir to the throne, joined no doubt, however illogically, with poverty and distress, of which the dissolution of the monasteries in the late reign was the actual cause, but which was only fully realized now, all helped to bring the new religion into disrepute. If " Articles to stablish Christian quietness " were necessary even in the year 1536, they were far more necessary after all the changes of Edward's reign, and the forty-two published in 1553 were hardly likely to assure Englishmen that they were not being handed over to the foreign refugees. On the other hand, Mary was — (a) A Papist, and claimed by the papal party, and her virtues exaggerated. They " highly extolled her " ; and delighted to style her " Mary the Virgin." (/3) A woman, and women, according to Knox, ought not to rule,^ especially if they were idolaters ; for "in the midst of thy brethren shalt thou choose thy king, and not from among thy sisters." This tract (" Monstrous Regiment of Women ") defeated its purpose, and Elizabeth would have nothing to do with the author because of it. [The sentences from "especially" are from a pupil's note-book.] ' Strype, "Ecclesiastical Memorials," iir. i, p. 12. 212 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX LV [From a pupil's note-book.] At the end of Edward VI. 's reign there were three parties struggling — (a) Those who protested against all reformation under Henry and lulward — the Roman party, not strong, but reinforced in the latter da)'s of Edward by those who preferred a return to Rome to the adoption of a Protestant theology. Many preferred to be Roman Catholics rather than not be Catholics at all. (fi) The party of those in favour of the English Reforma- tion which culminated in the First Prayer-book — the constitutional party, willing to renounce the Roman Obedience when this did not involve any sacrifice of what was primitive and Catholic. (y) Those, either foreigners or under foreign influences, whose object was to assimilate the Reformation in England to the Reformation in Switzerland. The Parliaments of Mary's Reign, 1553 1558. Regnal year begins July 6. First Parliament. Sess. i. October 5-21, 1553. I Mary, st. i. c. I. Annulling of Treasons Acts of Henry VIII. Sess, ii. October 2Af-December 6, 1553. 1 Mary, st. ii. c. i. Legitimation of Mary. I Mary, st. ii. c. 2. Repeal of nine ecclesiastical statutes of Edward VI. I Mary, st. ii. c. 3. Act for protection of Preachers. I Mary, St. ii. c. 12. Act against rebellious assemblies. I Mary, st. ii. c. 16. Attainder of Northumberland, Cranmer, etc. Second Parliament. April 2-May 5, 1554. I Mary, st. 3, c. i. Act for securing Royal Power. 1 Mary, st. 3, c. 2. Queen's marriage. I Mary, st. 3, c. 3. See of Durham reconstituted. Marriage of Philip and Mary, July 25, 1554. Third Parliament. November 12, i 5 54-/rt;///^r|' 16, 1555. I & 2 Philip and Mary. c. 6. Revival of H**-"-- * ■ EXGLAND AND ON THE COXTINENT. 213 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8. Act repealing all statutes against Rome. Fourth Parliament. October 2i-December (^, 1555- 2 & 3 Philip and Mary, c. 4. Tenths and first-fruits restored. Fifth Parliament. Jamiary 20-Mai'ck 7, 1558. Death of Mary, November 17, 1558. LECTURE XV. RECONCILIATION OF ENGLAND WITH ROME. During the five years of Mary's reign five Parliaments met, only one of which, the first, held a second session. Perhaps this is to be explained by the fact that it was not easy to find a Parliament willing to rescind the protective statutes against Rome. In Mary's policy towards Rome two phases are marked, the first aiming only at a return to the English Church [as it was] at the end of Henry's reign, the second deliberately returning to a pre-Reformation date, 1529. The explanation is to be found in the " Spanish Match." The question of legitimacy; religious belief;^ cruel treatment in Edward's reign ; attempt to disinherit her — all tended to concentrate her hatred on Cranmer and the side he represented, yet her first proclamation ^ was full of toleration. Though she "cannot now hide that religion which God and the world knoweth she hath ever professed from her infancy hitherto," yet she " mindeth not to compel any her subjects thereunto until such time as further order, by common assent, may be taken therein." Meanwhile people are exhorted to * The Princess Mary in Edward's reign. Fears of her marriage with Spain as early as 1551 (see Blunt, ii. p. 171). The real controversy a religious one. But this intensified by the question of legitimacy. The Lady Mary's Mass. Orders of Council, June 16, 1549, and in 1551. Her loyalty to the Crown and her contempt for the council (see p. 183 in Blunt, vol. ii.). Dixon, iii. 145-147, 298-317. ' " Documentary Annals," i., No. xxviii. 214 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX JX quietness, " leaving those new-found devilish terms of papist and heretic and such like," while the evil disposed per- sons who without sufficient authority take upon themselves to preach and interpret the Word of God after their own brains are strictly commanded to cease. This proclamation is dated August i8, 1553. At her coronation by Gardiner on October I, a sermon on Transubstantiation was preached by Weston (Prolocutor), and high Mass sung in Latin. ^ The liberation of the imprisoned bishops and of the great lay champions of the old religion soon showed what the " other order" to be taken was. Cranmer was hopelessly im- plicated in the Lady Jane Grey rebellion, and though he was not yet deprived, he was confined to his palace in Lambeth and soon after (September 14) committed to the Tower. When Parliament met a month later and he was attainted of treason (by i I\Liry, st. ii. c. 16), he as a traitor lost his juris- diction, and for three years, till Pole's consecration (March 22, 1556), the see of Canterbury was vacant. Gardiner naturally succeeded to the chief place in ecclesiastical matters. Gar- diner, however, was by no means in favour of a return to Rome, and we may believe that a large proportion of Parlia- ment agreed with him, for the scheme proposed in the first session was withdrawn. The jealousy between Gardiner and Pole, and the natural expectation of the former that he would succeed Cranmer, staved off for a time the advent of Pole.^ Still Gardiner's policy implied a reversal of all the ecclesias- tical changes of the late reign. He had consistently con- tended fur the status quo, at least till Edward came of age, and his protests having been disregarded, he now proceeded to reverse the polic}- of his enemies. Gardiner restores religion to the last year of I/enry. Pole goes back to the twentieth year, i.e. behind the Reformation Parliament. [These two names serve as landmarks for the two periods of Mary's reign.] ' Disputation on the Mass, Canlwcll, " Synodalia," p. 425 ; rejection of the *• Catcchismus." ' As early as August 6, 1553, an emissary from Pole had arrived. Hlunt, ii. 306. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 21 5 Three characteristics distinguished the earUer or Enghsh phase (Gardiner in power) — (i.) Retention of the royal style [of '' Supreme Head "]. (ii.) Toleration. (iii.) Ignoring of the Pope.^ In the second session of Mary's first Parliament the queen is declared to have been born in lawful matrimony, the sen- tence of divorce being annulled, without reference, however, to the Pope (i Mary, st. ii. c. i) ; and then the same Parliament proceeds to repeal nine ecclesiastical Acts of the previous reign — the Act for receiving in both kinds, the abolition of conge d'elire, the Act against Images, the Act about holy days, the two Acts legalizing marriage of priests, the two Acts of Uniformity, and that authorizing the Ordinal.^ The same Par- liament passed two Acts against disturbers of preachers, and against unlawful assemblies, and finally the Act of Attainder, in which were included Cranmer, Lords Ambrose, Henry, and Guildford Dudley, Lady Jane, the Duke of Northumberland^ the Marquess of Northampton, the Earl of Warwick, Sir John Gates, Sir Henry Gates, and Sir Thomas Palmer. Of these three, Duke of Northumberland, Sir John Gates, and Sir Thomas Palmer, had been already executed (August 22). On November 13 five of the remaining eight, viz. Cranmer and the Dudleys, were found guilty of treason. The proceedings of this first Parliament had by law restored the religion zvhich existed in the last year of Henry VIIL, but the laws had yet to be enforced, and with a view to this the queen published her Injunctions, consisting of eighteen Articles,^ in March, 1554. It is noticeable that Mary here used the Royal Supremacy, retaining even the style adopted by her father.^ Of these Articles, the fifteenth, for supplying the defects of those ordained by the late form if the persons be meet, we shall refer to later on. The seventh, * See Blunt, ii. 199-204. ' [See the list in the " Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 43.] ' "Documentary Annals," i., No. xxx. p. 120 ; Blunt, ii. 208. * This was a purely State act, not sanctioned by Convocation. Would it have been possible to pass these regulations through Convocation, or was Mary more Erastian than Henry ? 2l6 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION I.V eighth, and ninth deal with the marriap^e of clcrf^)-. All married clergy were to be deprived, and, if regulars, divorced, while widowers after due penance may be readmitted. This first stage in the return to Rome lasted only till the second Parliament met. Then the Spanish match was openly recognized. The English people opposed it.^ Sir Thomas Wyatt and the Duke of Suffolk headed (January, 1554) a rebellion against it, which only led to the execution of the Lady Jane and her husband on February 12 (1554), and of her fatlier and Wyatt ten days later. Gardiner, who had opposed the match, was now anxious to guard against Spanish influence, as the marriage was already a certainty. The new Parliament, having passed an Act to secure the royal power (i Mary, st. 3, c. i), proceeded to the matter of the queen's marriage with Philip, which was solemnized at Winchester on July 25, 1554. The question of reconciliation with Rome was now decided. Pole, who was under attainder passed in 1536, had been appointed ^ by the Pope legate, with full powers, as soon as Mary's accession was known ; but Gardiner had, partly from rivalry, partly from policy, opposed his coming, and even persuaded the Emperor to detain him lest too great haste should ruin all. Now, however, the attainder was reversed (November 22) on the ground that he had been attainted only for not assenting to the divorce of Henry and Katharine, which divorce had already been declared illegal. Pole was of the English royal family, being grandson to George, Duke of Clarence, Edward IV\'s brother. He was thus second cousin to Henry VHI. and second cousin once removed to Queen Mary. He was one of the little company of moderate Roman Catholics, of whom Contarini was another, and which held "justification by faith" in a form which, if not Eutheran, was not Roman.® He entered Eondon on November 24 while Par- h'ament was sitting.* ' Strype, "Keel. Mem.," vol. iii. part i. pp. 55, 124-5: a supcrn.atural voice uttered seditious things in Aldcrsgate through a hole in a wall ; U>i(i.y p. 99. • In August, 1553. See bull in " Documentary Annals," i.. No. xxix. p. 117. • Ranke's "Popes," i. iii si/q. • Blunt, ii. 211. For the bull empowering Pole to reconcile England, see " Documentar)' Annals," i., No. xxxii. p. 128. It bears date March 8, 1554, the original bull appointing him Ifgatc a latere being dated August, 1 553. EXGLAXD AND OX THE COXTIXEXT. 21/ The remaining- steps in the reconciliation were as follows. On November 27 he addressed the two Houses of Parliament explaining the leniency of the Pope in sending- a legate instead of an army. Two days afterwards (November 29), the Parlia- ment petitioned the queen to intercede for their reception into the bosom of the Church, and the result was that on St. Andrew's Day, November 30, 1554, it was absolved by the Pope's legate. The immediate result of this was a Bill, which passed the Lords on December 26 and the Commons on January 4, 1555, and was placed on the statute book as "an Act repealing all Articles and Provisions made against the See Apostolick of Rome since the 20th year of King Henry the Eighth, and for the establishment of all Spiritual and Eccle- siastical Possessions and Hereditaments conveyed to the laity." The last part was known to be a sine qua non of recon- ciliation, and thus the very safeguard which Henry had pro- vided against a return to Rome was destroyed.^ The anti- papal Acts abrogated by this Act were eighteen in number.^ Pope Julius HI. died (March 23, 1555) before the news of the reconciliation of England reached Rome. His successor, Marcellus H., died (May 3) twenty-one days after his election, and Paul IV. (elected May 23, 1555) received the English ambassadors. LECTURE XVL THE PERSECUTION OF THE PROTESTANTS. Cranmer was attainted of treason on the queen's accession. When Parliament met and the ecclesiastical laws of Edward were repealed, not only were the queen's Injunctions made to carry out the change, but a special commission was appointed ^ to deal with married bisJiops^ and those who had received * See Ranke, "Hist, of Eng.," i. 203, * [See the list in the " Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 43.] * See Burnet, ii. 274, and the two documents. 2l8 HISTORY OF THE KEFOR.VATIOX IN their sees under letters patent during good beJiaviour. Under the first head fell Holgate, Archbishop of York, with the Bishops of St. David's, Chester, and Bristol ; under the second, the Bishops of Lincoln and Hereford, and Bishop Hooper of Gloucester. Besides these, however, the restoration of the imj)risoncd bishops to their sees deprived those who had succeeded them. Durham was given back to Tunstall, and Worcester (which Hooper had held in cominendam) to Heath. The restoration of Gardiner ousted Poynet, who escaped to the Continent, and that of Day to Chichester ousted Scory. Bonner found the see of London vacant, Ridley having vacated it by accepting the new see of Durham, to which he was never inducted. Barlow resigned his see of Bath and Wells and escaped. The result of these early changes were as follows : — Twelve bishops were deprived or displaced ; two other sees, Ely and Coventry, were vacated by death in the spring of 1554; Bath and Wells was vacant by Barlow's resignation, and Rochester was void. Sixteen new bishops, therefore, had to be appointed, if wc include Gardiner, Bonner, Heath, Day, and Tunstall, who were restored to their sees. The following table shows the state of things in the beginning of Mary's reign. Six bishops were consecrated on April I, 1554, one on October 28, 1554, two on November 18, 1554, and there were two translations in the same year. Canterbury .. .. Vacant by Cranmer's attainder. Durham Tunstall restored. York Holijate.* St. David's . . . . Fcrrar ' . . . . . . . . Morgan. Chester liird ' Cotes. Bristol Bush ' . . . . . . . . Holyman (consec. No- vember iS, 1554). Lincoln Taylor* .. .. .. .. White, Warden of Win- chester. Hereford .. .. Ilarlcy' .. .. .. .. Parfew translated from St. Asaph. Gloucester . . . . j I Brokes. j Hooper ' . . . . . . . . I Worcester . . . . ' ' I hath. * Married bishops deprived, March 16, 1554. ' Bishops appointed under letters patent deprived, March 15, 1554- ENGLAXD AND ON THE CONTINENT. 2ig Winchester . . . . Gardiner ousts Poynet, who escapes to Continent. Chichester . • . . Day restored (supersedes Scory), London Vacant (Ridley having accepted Bonner. Durham) Norwich .... Hopton(consec. October 28, 1554). Ely \ /" Thirlby, translated from I Vacated by death, 1554. j Norwich. Coventry .. ..( .. .. .. .. ..j Bayne (consec. Novem- ) \ ber 18, 1554). Bath and Wells . . Barlow resigned Bourne. Rochester . . . . Void . . . . . . . . Griffyn. [No change took place in Salisbury, Peterborough, LlandaflT, or Carlisle. Exeter, Oxford, and Bangor were void ; St. Asaph vacated by translation.] Foreign refugees were ordered at the very opening of Mary's reign, under pain of imprisonment and loss of goods, to leave the realm within twenty-four days,^ and it is said that as many as eight hundred fled.^ We see two policies at work in Mary's reign, the policy of Gardiner and the policy of Pole. The one aimed at undoing the work of Edward's reign ; the other aimed at a return to Rome. The ascendency of these two men cha- racterized the earlier and later phases of the reign. When "the Spanish match" was effected, Gardiner fell into the background and Pole came to the front. The queen's mar- riage was on July 25, 1554. Till that time Gardiner was supreme,^ and till that time no person was executed in England for Jieresy.^ But the Parliament which met in the autumn of that year, November 12, 1554-January 16, 1555, struck the key-note of a new ecclesiastical policy. Not only was the reconciliation with Rome embodied in a statute (i & 2 Phil, and Mary, c. 8), but the Parliament, " which was much set on severities,"^ revived (i & 2 Phil, and Mary, c. 6) the statutes of Richard II., Henry IV., and Henry V. against heretics. * Hardwick, "Reformation," p. 218; Wilkins, iv. 93. ^ Burnet says, " above one thousand " (ii. 250), amongst whom he probably includes men like Cox, Sands, Grindal, Home, etc., who were English. * See Poynet's description of Bishop Gardiner, ap. Strype, "Ecclesiastical Memorials," ni. i. pp. 271-2. * Blunt, ii. 214, 215. * Burnet, ii. 296. 220 HISTORY OF THE REfOR.VATIO.V IX The next four years, 1555-1558, include the most un- Engh'sh period of Enghsh history.^ Rogers, the translator of the Bible, was burnt on February 4, 1555; Bishop Hooper and Dr. Taylor on February 9 ; Bishop Fcrrar on March 30 ; Bishops Ridley and Latimer at Oxford on October 16; while Archbishop Cranmer's execution was postponed till March 21 in the following year. The last burnings took place on November 10, 1558, the queen dying on November 17, and Pole next day. Including these, nearly 300 burnings for heresy took place. Speed ^ makes the total ly/y viz. 5 bishops, 21 divines, 8 gentlemen, 84 artificers, lOO husband- men, labourers, etc., 55 women, and 4 children. Burnet makes the number 284, and some papers of Lord Burleigh's make it 290. Localization of iJicse persecutions. — It is remarkable that these burnings were confined to a comparatively small area. In the west and north of England hardly any executions took place. When we come to map out the places we find that all the towns conspicuous for persecution were on the old roads between London and the seaports at which continental refugees would arrive. The old hypothesis that the number of persecutions in London and the eastern counties was due to the exceptional severity of certain bishops will probably have to yield to the alternative hypothesis that Anabaptists and heretics of all kinds, who had come as refugees from the Continent, abounded in these places.^ [From a pupil's note- book.] Most of the persecutions took place in the eastern counties, the stronghold of the Anabaptists, who were anti- sacramcntal, and the fact tliat most of the martyrs were common people shows that the persecution was quite as much political as religious. Anabaptist answers to the Socialist now, say. When the doctrine of Transubstantiation was the test of orthodoxy, it was natural that these Ana- baj)tists should furnish most victims. There is something to be said for this \icw, hut it need not be entirely accepted.^ This is no justification of the persecution, but it explains why it raged so unequally. ' See generally Blunt, ii, 214-332. • Quoted in Ileylyn, ii. 224. • See Rlunt, ii. 222-225. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT, 221 Who was responsible for tJie persecjitions f The old answer was Bloody Bonner and Wily Winchester {i.e. Gardiner). Gardiner pulled the strings and Bonner got the credit of the work. Against this some facts have to be weighed. First, as to Gardiner ^ — (a.) He was in the ascendant in the queen's counsels till the Spanish match, and up to that time no heretic was burned in England. (j3.) He was opposed to the Heresy Act of 1554, as he had been to the Spanish match. (-y.) He lived on till November 12, 1555, a month after the execution of Ridley and Latimer, and till his death no execution took place in the diocese of Winchester. (8.) He was never on any commission for trying heresy except that which tried Rogers and Hooper, on which as Lord Chancellor he was obliged to sit. With regard to Bonner'^ we have fewer facts to go upon. London, whoever was bishop, was sure to be the home of strange doctrines, and we know from extant letters that many heretics from the provinces were sent up to London for trial. We know, too, that Bonner was reprimanded by the Privy Council for not being more strict in carrying out the law, and his letter in answer shows him in a new character. Ev^erything tends to throw the blame not on the Church, but on the State. The bishops were notoriously backward in executing the law, and a strong inductive argument tends to the general conclusion that persecution generally, and the Six Articles Law in particular, came from the State.^ Queen Mary's half-Spanish blood explains her well-known views on persecution enunciated as early as ISSS-'* The Heresy Act was parallel to the Six Articles Law, only that the English nation revolted from the carrying out of the one, * Blunt, ii. 229. 2 Ibid., ii. 230. ' D. Whitehead, writing from Frankfort, September 20, 1555 ("Original Letters," No. ccclviii.), considers " that outrageous pamphlet of Knox's" ("An Admonition to Christians ") gave the signal for persecution. * See Perry, p. 237. 222 HISTORY OF THE REFORM ATTOy FY while the stront; Spanish influence of Philip and his inquisitors explain the fires of Smithfield. IMiilip's sentiments are not a question of doubt, and his familiars, Alphonsus da Castro, and the Dominicans, Pedro di Soto, and Juan di Villagarcia, may be judged by their views and actions in Spain. ^ The persecutions can in no way be made intelligible to Englishmen except on the assumption of strong foreign influence. LECTURE XVII. EDWARDINE ORDERS AND CONVOCATION UNDER MARY. Were Edwardine orders recognized in Marys reign ? [Mr. Moore's manuscript lecture contains merely the enumeration of the four sources, so that the following summary is practically taken intact from a pupil's note-book.] On this subject our sources of information are fourfold. (i.) Queen Mary s I?tJHnctions {JsldiVch, 1554).^ No. 15 provides that the bishops "may supply the thing which wanted in them before" to those ordained by the Edwardine Ordinal of 1550, and "admit them to minister." (ii.) Bull of Pope Jidins III. appoiniifig Pole legate (August, This lays down principles for the exercise of Pole's power of reconciliation, and seems to empower him to deal with four classes of persons : — {a) Those lu/io before tJic Separation icere *' legitime provioti et ordinatir i.e. Practically those bishops {e.g. Latimer) who held sees before the Separation, but who accepted the Separation. Pole was simply to absolve them and to restore them to their former status if matters were otherwise satisfactor}-. ' See Blunt, ii. p. 251 and following. ' " Documentary Annals," i., No. xxx. p. 120. ' Ibid., i. No.xxix. p. 117. Father Hution has got this question into confusion by quotations from the bull without reference to the context. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 223 {b) Those zvhose orders were not doubted. i.e. Ordained according to the Pontifical, but after the Separation, so that according to the Roman view they had no jurisdiction — would be bishops, but without sees. {c) and {d) Those whose ordination itself is either irregular, or null and void. *' Qui ordines mmquaui aut male szisceperunty Niinquam. i.e. those ordained without the true form prescribed by the Church. This prob- ably refers to any one ordained without " traditio instrumcntoruvi " — line drawn be- tween the First and the Second Prayer- book. Male. Probably refers to those ordained by the 1550 Ordinal, with only some Roman sym- bolism, but without traditio instruinentorum. The orders of this class could be supple- mented, (iii.) Bishop Bonner's Visitation Articles (after the recon- ciliation). Article 29 asks whether married clergy celebrated, also those " ordered schismatically and contrary to the old order of the Catholic Church." Burnet has missed the point of the " traditio instrumen- torumr (iv.) Actual treatment of those who were executed. Cranmer was consecrated, 1533, before the schism, and had the Pope's bulls ; his rank was therefore recognized, and the Pope himself had to excommunicate him. Latimer's rank as bishop was also recognized,^ as he was consecrated 1535. Ridley, Ferrar, Hooper, were treated as priests only, and degraded from the priesthood. Ridley (1547) and Ferrar (1548) both consecrated according to the Pontifical, Hooper (1551) by the Ordinal of 1550, so that either we must say that Pole made everything turn on jurisdiction, or acted irregularly. There is a special difficulty about Ridley, as the * [But see Blunt, ii. 312.] 2 24 HISTORY OF THE KEFOKMAT/O.V LV Pope himself recognizes him as a brother bisliop. Later, they probably got indifferent to Order, and made all turn on jurisdiction. Convocation in Queen Mary's Reign. Convocation had been summoned to meet on September 19, 1 553, by a writ dated January 19, but, owing to Edward's death and Mary's accession, was again summoned for October 6 (1553). Thinned out by the deprivation of the married clergy, and the flight to the Continent of the more extreme, it was entirely in favour of a reaction. (Note that Henry VIII. frightened Convocation ; Edward VI., Mary, Elizabeth, elimi- nated adversaries from it). It seems at once to have reasserted Transubstantiation, and to have rejected the Catechism ap- proved in the last Convocation. In April, 1554, it met under Bonner, the see of Canterbury being vacant by Cranmer's attainder, and appointed delegates to confer with Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer ; and on Decem- ber 7, certain bishops applied through Gardiner, the chan- cellor, for the restitution of their jurisdiction. It was in the latter part of this year that the Lower House petitioned the Upper for the abolition of heretical books, in which they included Cranmer's book on the Sacrament, the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and suspect transla- tion of the Bible ; that the statutes against heretics be revived ; that the Submission of the Clergy Act be repealed, the canon law revived, married priests divorced, vestments restored, etc.^ The cjuestion has been raised whether the Convocation was formally absolved, as Parliament was. Pole only men- tioned the Parliament. Burnet and Strype are silent on the subject. But Bishop Bonner, in his declaration to the lay people,'-^ says the reconciliation was also most gladly and joyfully embraced, as well by all the clergy and Convocation of the province of Canterbury, as by many other persons. In the vacancy of the see of Canterbury, Bonner, as Bishop ' See Cardwell, *• Synodalia," vol. ii., Nos. iii., iv., and v. * •* Documentary Annals," i., No. .\xxv. p. 171. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 225 of London, presided, and there is no reason to suppose it impossible that he may have been deputed by the legate to absolve Convocation, as he certainly was to absolve the clergy and laity of the diocese of London. The depriving of the married clergy, the flight of the extreme reformers, and the deprivation of many bishops, left the party of the Old Learning supreme. COURSE III. THE RE FORM A TION IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH ■ (1558-1603,) LECTURE I. INTRODUCTION AND RETROSPECT. Voltaire, speaking of England during the Reformation period, says that the English people changed their religion four times — under Henry, under Edward, under Mary, and under Elizabeth. Mr. Beard, with far truer insight into history, singles it out as the distinctive characteristic of the English Reformation that it ''followed no precedents, and was obedient only to its own law of development." ^ In other words, iJie contvmity of the English Omrch was the first principle of the English Reformation, and the Apostolical succession^ so carefully preserved through all changes, was the answer to the charge of schism, as the retention of the three Creeds and the recognition of the four councils was the answer to the charge of heresy. In the archiepiscopate we have Warham, Cranmer, Pole, and Parker, without a breach of continuity, though Warham and Pole were Roman, and Cranmer and Parker anti-Roman. Parker was the true suc- cessor of Augustine as much as Becket was. Here the German and Swiss Reformation is marked off. While all claimed to appeal to what was Catholic against what was merely Roman, the Church founded by Luther and that founded by Zwingli and Calvin were utterly indifferent to any organic relation with Catholic antiquity. The rejection of episcopacy was only a sign of this indifference, as the careful guardianship of episcopal succession in England was a note of Catholicity.'-^ The same characteristic of the English Church is seen in the way in which its Prayer-book ivas gathered from ancient English sources, and was in no sense a new book ; while even the Thirty-nine Articles have only to be put side by side with the ' " llibbert Lectures," p. 301, and see p. 300. * See and quote Beard, p. 311. 230 HISTORY OF THE KEFORMATIOX TV Protestant Confessions of the Continent to show how different is the spirit of the En^^h'sh Church. (So especially of the English Ordinal, as compared with the Pontifical and Bucer's formulary.) We have traced the course of the Eni^lish Reformation up to the opening of Elizabeth's reign, but it is worth summarizing it in onler to understand exactly what the problem was, for we shall find the reign of Elizabeth gathering up into itself the work of the previous reigns. Henry VIII. — The great work of Henry's reign was i/ie vindicatiLVi of tJie constitutional and historical iiidcpcndoicc of tJic CliurcJi of England, This great work was done by the Reformation Parliament of 1 529-1 536. What had Parlia- ment to do with it ? It vindicated the constitutional rights of the Church of England from foreign interference. These interferences of the Papacy had always been resisted by the greatest English Churchmen, had always been illegal, but connived at. They were now again declared illegal, and the promoters or favourers of such interference were guilty of Praemunire. Henry's own motives were as selfish as could be, but his own selfish and sensual schemes were providen- tially used to vindicate the ancient freedom of the English Church. When, therefore, it is said that the claim of Supre- macy made by Henry " was but the last stage of a process \\hich had been going on for almost five hundred years," ^ this only means that the Supremacy, which had been taken as a matter of course, was gradually formulated as the encroach- ments of the Papacy made it necessarw The fabric of the Papacy was the work of men like Hildebrand and Inno- cent HI. and Boniface VIH. in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. But the battle which had been fought and won by the Papacy against the temporal power had never been fought out in Englantl, though there had been numerous collisions. A king like John might for a moment cringe to the P.ipacv, but the Kings of England, as a rule, had the same supremacy as Charlemagne had. The reason why the conflict took place on the Continent was this. ' Heard, p. 308. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 231 On the Continent the Papacy and the Empire were rival powers. First the Papacy was the subject, then the rival, then the sovereign ; but, according to the insular theory of Eng- land, the king was supreme over both parts of the nation — the temporalty and the spiritualty, represented respectively by Parliament and Convocation in later days. And thus, though there was friction between the two parts, the king as supreme over both gave a unity to the empire of England, which otherwise must have been secured by the subordination of either Church to State or of State to Church. The three great Acts, however, which separated England from the Roman Obedience (without, of course, denying the primacy secured to it by the early councils), were by no means so much clear gain. So far as they were anti-papal these Acts w^ere strictly constitutional, but they were saddled with re- strictions which showed the beginnings of an Erastian sub- ordination of the spiritual to the secular. As a reaction, this was to be expected, perhaps even necessary ; but the fact that they are on the statute book in the nineteenth century, lays the English Church open to the charge of being depen- dent on the State, a charge which both Romanists and Dissenters are always ready to urge. Thus the Act for Restraint of Appeals (25 Hen. VIII. c. 19) carried with it the Submission of the Clergy, which robbed the Church of her immemorial right to frame her own laws. The Restraint of Annates (25 Hen. VIII. c. 20) was accompanied by a tyrannical denial of the right secured by Magna Charta to elect to bishoprics. The Act against Papal Dispensations, Peter Pence, etc. (25 Hen. VIII. c. 21), gave the exempt monasteries to the king, and by implication all the rest. So far, however, though the property and liberties of the Church were interfered with, there was no tampering with doctrine. The formularies of faith put forth were simply Roman Catholicism minus the Pope. The Six Articles Law (1539) showed clearly that neither Henry nor the English Church or State intended to deviate from Catholicism as then understood. 232 HISTORY OF THE KEfORMATIOX TV Edicard VI. — Hence Ileylyn says plainly that the Refonnation dates from Edward VI' s reign, what was done in Henry's time being "accidental only, and, by the by, rather designed on private ends, than out of any settled purpose to reform the Church." ^ This is an overstatement, for the Church in its Convocation was busy with schemes of Reformation to be conducted on Catholic lines even before tlie breach with Rome, but it only gradually became clear how much reconstruction was involved in the rejection of the Papacy. Thus, just as in Henry's reign the reaction against the Papacy opened a door to State tyranny, so the reaction against doctrines distinctly connected with the papal claims paved the way for various Protestant innovations. The First Prayer-book of Edward VI. was the ripe result of the Eng- lish Reformation ; the Second Book was due to foreign and Protestant influences. Was the Second Prayer-book ever accepted by the Eng- lish Church .^ It was authorized by Act of Parliament, and therefore was legally the Book of Common Prayer from November i, 1552, till all the ecclesiastical Acts of Edward were repealed by Mary in October, 1553. England tried the Puritan Prayer-book for ten months, and, so far from be- coming more Puritan, it preferred to accept Catholicism with the Papacy rather thaii Puritanism without it. There were only five divines who opposed.^ Humanly speaking, if it had not been for the Spanish match the reign of Mary might have undone the whole work of the Reformation, but here again the unwisdom of persecution was an instrument in God's hand for the preservation of the English Church. As Mary's accession had been for the time the death-blow of Puritanism in I'.ngland, so her reign was destined to be the death-blow to the Papacy there. No doubt an insular hatred of foreigners had much to do with the rejection of Puritanism, as it had with the rejection of the Pope. But there was more than this, for the Puritan attack in the reign of Elizabeth was steadil}' ' *' Kcforinalion," vol. i, jircf. ix. ' I'crry, p. 257. , ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 233 repelled, though its champions were not foreign refugees, but English exiles who had returned from abroad. What was the attitude of the Church as expressed by- Convocation ? The answer is difficult to give after the time of the Reformation Parliament ; for men lived under a reign of terror, and with the penalty of Prsemunire always hanging over their heads. The tyranny of successive kings made Convocation no true representative of the Church. Henry- put to death those who had the courage to protest against his Erastian policy. The Privy Council in the next reign weeded out the representatives of the Old Learning, and appointed to the episcopate men who had no sympathy with the principles of the English Reformation. Mary only carried out the same policy, though in a more un-English way, when she burned, or compelled to fly the country, all those who sympathized with the changes of the last twenty-five years. The ecclesiastical history of the reign of Queen Elizabeth deals with three main subjects — (i.) The repudiation of the papal claim of supremacy. (ii.) The consolidation of the National Church of Eng- land. (iii.) The secession from it of those who were eventually called Puritans. In repudiating the Roman claims, Elizabeth had to travel over the ground which her father had trodden. But ex- perience had shown that the Papacy might now be braved with impunity, and excommunication and interdict had lost their terrors. In consolidating the National Church the first question was the election and consecration of the new arch- bishop. Archbishop Pole having died the day after Queen Mary. When this and various matters of discipline had been attended to, the question of doctrine succeeded, first the restoration of the Prayer-book, and tJien the revision of the Articles. The struggle with Puritanism led to secession in 1566, and the bull of excommunication in 1570 separated the 234 HISTORY OF THE KET0RMA7 10\ JX Roman Catholics from the lui^rlish Cliurch. Thus, within eleven years of Elizabeth's accession, the Church of T^ngland is found in sharp contrast to Rome on the one side and Puritanism on the other. In both cases the act of separation came from without the Church of Kni^dand. For eleven years Ivoman Catholics communicated^ and ministered in the re- formed Church of England, while the Puritans, the first Eng- lish schismatics, separated from the Church on a matter which even the Puritans of the Continent considered unimportant. State of England at the Accession of Queen Elizabeth. The accession of Elizabeth was welcomed by those who had been driven into exile in the late reign as if it meant a return to the Reformation in the form which it had assumed at the end of Edward's reign. But the queen was far too cautious for this, and had too much knowledge of the mind of the luiglish people. More than this, she knew that Con- vocation, thanks to the persecutions of the last reign, was almost to a man on the side of Romanism. Parliament was careless about religion (except, of course, in the case of the spiritual peers) ; and the queen herself, though she had shown her opposition to Romanism by refusing to allow the elevation of the Host,^ was very far removed from sympathy with Puritanism. Still every one knew that the accession of Elizabeth meant separation from Rome. The legitimacy of the two sisters was a religious question. If the Pope's supremacy were admitted, Elizabeth was illegitimate ;•* if the jiapal supremacy was rejected, she was not only rightful monarch by the Act of Succession and her father's will, but was also, by Cranmer's judgment in the divorce case, the king's lawful daughter. If any doubt on this question remained, it was removed by the answer of Pope Paul IV., who, when the queen announced her accession to him by Sir Edward Kane, ' Ilcylyn, ii. 272, f.n. ' //>{,/., ii. 2S6, and rc(T., ,/.f. ' •* She knew full well that her le^iiimaliou ami the Pope's supremacy couKl not stand together." //'/ [Blunt, ii. 350, says 189 out of 9400.] ^ See "Documentary Annals." 240 I/ISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX April 28, I Eliz. c. 2. The Act of Uniformity restoring the Prayer-book. I Eliz. c. 3. An Act for recognition of the Queen. February 4, I Eliz. c. 4. An Act for restoring First-fruits to the Crown. Of these Acts, the first was directly anti-papal, and the third indirectly, for the Act which legitimated the queen ipso facto declared that the English ruling on the divorce case was final, and could not be reversed by the Pope. Besides these Acts there was one which (according to Heylyn) "never had the confidence to appear in print," ^ and which was distinctly a spoliation Act. This was i Eliz. c. 19 (April 17), which is not to be found in the statutes, but is printed in full in Gibson's " Codex. "^ This Act empowered the queen, in the vacancy of any see. to exchange for any manors, lands, etc., she might like to have, an equal amount of impropriations, tithes, etc. The iniquity of this is not at once apparent. For the Church lands were valued at the ancient rent, and therefore were far more valuable than ap- peared, while the impropriations given in exchange were at their full value, often irrecoverable, and always saddled with deductions and charges.^ More than that, the sees were kept vacant while the survey and valuation was made, and the Act also provided that the bishops might not let lands for more than twenty-one years, except to the Crown, when a lease of ninety-nine years was lawful. So keenly was this injustice felt by Parker and the other bishops elect, that they pra\-ed the queen to accept from the province of Canterbury instead the sum of a thousand marks, which she refused."* The Act for restoring I'^'rst-fruits to the Crown was the first Act passed. The Bill was offered to the House on January 30, and pas.sed on February 4. 1559.'' Tliis was in spite of the opposition of the bishops. ' " Reformation," ii. 307. ' p. 770. • Heylyn, ii. 307. * .Strype's " P.irkcr,' p. 44. * For the history of ann.ntcs, see Gibson, p. 122, etc., and ji. 870, etc. Summary : Clergy appeal for relief from payments to Rome. .Act p.issed 23 Hen. VIII. c. 20 (conditional; not in printed statutes, see (ubson, p. 122). ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 24 1 I Eliz. c. 3. The Act for recognition of the Queen (omitted in Perry) and her just title to the Crown passed without difficulty. The queen had been declared illegitimate, as was Mary, by the Act passed 28 Hen. VIII. c. 7, though by the Succession Act of 35 Hen. VIII. c. i, both were to succeed in the event of failure of issue from Edward. The Succession Act did not legitimate the two daughters. Consequently, when Mary came to the throne, an Act was passed (i Mary, St. ii. c. i) declaring her legitimate, and cancelling all Acts to the contrary. Sanders' continuator makes capital out of the fact that Elizabeth was never declared legitimate by Act of Parliament,^ and Heylyn almost admits as much, and says that men blamed the Lord Keeper for it.^ But, first, to reject the Roman Supremacy was ipso facto to establish her legiti- macy ; secondly, the Act by which she had been declared illegitimate, together with Mary, had been repealed in the late reign ; and, finally, the Act of recognition speaks of Elizabeth as "rightly and lineally and lawfully descended and come of the blood royal of this realm of England," while in the concluding paragraph all sentences, judgments, and decrees, together with all Acts or clauses repugnant to the recognition, are repealed. The only objection which could fairly be made is that Parliament repealed an ecclesiastical sentence pronounced by Cranmer under pressure of royal authority. The Act of Supremacy, i Eliz. c. i,was two months before Parliament, and passed on April 26, only a few days before the Act of Uniformity, the two being under discussion together. The Papists naturally opposed it ; the Puritans were no less opposed to the claim of headship over the Church. Calvin, in his commentary on Amos vii. 13, speaks of the blasphemers who called Henry " summtim caput ecclesicn sub Christo,'' ^ but when the title was changed from "Head" to "Governor," the Bill passed in spite of the opposition of the bishops.* Annates restrained, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20; granted to the king, 26 Hen. VIII. c. 3 ; utterly extinguished, 2 & 3 Phil, and Mary, c. 4 ; restored to Crown, I Eliz. c. 4. Queen Anne's Bounty, 2 & 3 Anne, c. ii. ' Page 230. "^ ii. 278. ' Sanders, p. 244. ♦ See Hook's "Parker," pp. i8a-i. On the change of title, see «* Zurich R 242 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX What did the Royal Supremacy imply ? (i.) Rejection of papal claims. Hence repeal of Mary's statutes and revival of Henry's.^ (ii.) It was a restitution, not a new claim.^ (iii.) It avoided the easily misunderstood language of Henry's Act, and so conciliated both Puritan and Papist. (iv.) It did dc facto go beyond its constitutional right, above all in establishing the English Inquisition.^ Heylyn speaks of this as the principal bulwark and preservative of the Church of England against the practices and assaults of all her adversaries, whether popish or Puritan.^ After the Act was passed, nineteen ecclesiastical commissioners were appointed, six to form a quorum, who were known as the Court of High Commission in Causes Ecclesiastical.^ For eighty years this unconstitutional court existed, and was finally abolished by i6 Chas. I. c. ii, on the ground that it had come to exercise power not belonging to the restored jurisdiction of the Crown ; i.e. the Court was unconstitutional from the first, but was only discovered to be so when it began to exercise its power on the laity.^ Letters," i. 14, Jewel to Bullinger, and i. 9. The scruple was suggested by Lever {" Tarker Correspondence," p. 66). ' [See '* Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commissioti," i. 44 ; and for text of the statute, ibid.^ pp. 224-228.] ' Queen Elizabeth's Admonition, "Documentary Annals," i. 212; and see Injunction. ' See sect. viii. of i Eliz. c. i. * ii. 284. * See the warrant, dated July 19, 1559, " Documentary Annals," i. 255. • [As to its general nature and history, see " Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission," i. 49, 50.] For a contemporary exposition of the Supre- macy, sec Injunctions of Elizabeth, and especially the Queen's Admonition, in " Documentary Annals." ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 243 ^^ LECTURE III. THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY AND THE RESTORATION OF THE PRAYER-BOOK. The question of the restoration of the Prayer-book was one of the earliest which pressed upon Elizabeth and Lord Bur- leigh. And they knew what such a restoration implied. They looked forward to excommunication and interdict, and were prepared to face it.^ Hence, as soon as Parker could be brought to town, which was not till January, 1559, after many imperious letters,^ a commission for liturgical revision was ^^ointed, consisting of Parker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, Grindal, Pilkington, Cox, May, Bill, Sir Thomas ^*S- Smith, Whitehead, Sandys, and Guest.^ All of these were priests, and represented the two parties (exclusive of the papists) which were included in the Church of England. Such men as Parker and Guest represented the type of Anglican Churchmanship ; Grindal, Cox, and Sandys, the returned exiles, who were tainted with Ziirich views. The intention of the queen and Cecil was to restore the Prayer-book of 1549, but Parker soon found that this was impossible. The returned exiles were too strong and im- portant a party to be ignored, and Parker's illness threw the main work of the committee on Guest, a man who, though holding views like Parker's, was more inclined to give way and compromise matters.^ Cecil had foreseen, but perhaps underestimated, the opposition of the exiles.^ But it proved so formidable that it became necessary to adopt, not the First * See Cecil's "Device" (Burnet, part ii., book iii. "Records," i), and charges of '* cloked papistry " from the other side. ^ Strype's " Parker," p. 36. ' See Blunt, ii. 346-7. * Hook's " Parker," p. 163, * See his *' Device," ibid. 244 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX I.V Prayer-book, but the Prayer-book of 1552, as the basis on which to proceed. The Convocation, which met the day after Parliament, showed itself uncompromising.^ Nicholas Harpsfield was chosen prolocutor (February 3), and on P^ebruary 25 certain articles were presented to the Upper House ** ad exonerationem conscientice, et protestationem fidei suce!^ In these " articuli cleri'^ the objections of Convocation were stated under five points.- To meet this difficulty, a conference was arranged to take place in Westminster Abbey. Eight papists and eight non- papists were appointed to discuss certain questions.^ The discussion began on March 31, and broke down in the second session, April 3.** Bishops White and Watson were sent to the Tower for contumacy. The new Prayer-book was now^ before Parliament, an^ was scheduled on to the Act of Uniformity, which passed the House of Lords on April 28, the book being ordered to come into use on June 24. The Act speaks of the alterations.^ The Puritans were satisfied at getting the 1552 Prayer-book again, and apparently did not see that the alterations, slight as they seemed, converted the Prayer-book into that of 1549. (i) TJie Real Presence was restored in the words of ad- ministration. (2) The vestments were brought back by the Ornaments Rubric.^ Thus the Parliament of 1559 had vindicated the constitu- tional freedom of the English Church, and revived the Prayer- book, which had grown up in the reigns of Henry and Edward out of the mediiL'val English service-books. It only remained * Sec the Acts in CardwcU's '* Synodalia," ii. ix. 490. ■ Card well, " Synodalia," ii. 493. " Perry, p. 259. Sec, too, "Zurich Letters," i. 4, 5, 1 1 ; and " Records" in Burnet, vol. ii. * On which see Hurnct, ii. Records 3-5. • q.v. I Eliz. c. 2, and Perry, p. 261. [For text see " Report of the Ecclesias- tical Courts Commission," i. 229-231.] • For other and minor alterations, i>ee CardwcU's "Conferences on the Prayer- book," and Procter, pp. 59, 60, ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 245 to enforce this by the administration of the oath. When we remember that the oath itself [i EHz. c. i, s. 9] was much less stringent in form than the one which the clergy had taken in Edward's reign, it becomes easy to understand why it was that only 189 out of 9400 clergy refused it. All the remaining bishops, except Kitchen of Llandaff, refused and were deprived. Except the two already in the Tower, the bishops were kindly treated.^ Bonner was sent to the Mar- shalsea, but the rest were billeted on the Reforming divines, or allowed to reside on their own estates. LECTURE IV. CONSECRATION OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER. Of the twenty-seven English sees, seven were vacant by death at the time of Elizabeth's accession. Pole died within a few hours, and the Bishops of Gloucester, Rochester, and Bristol before the end of the year. There were thus eleven sees vacant by death early in 1559. Of the remaining six- teen bishops, all, except Kitchen of Llandaff, and Barlow, were deprived, but not at once. They were summoned before the queen on May 15, and refused to take the oath of Supremacy ; ^ but nothing was immediately done. But in the course of the next two months, June and July, eigJit of the sixteen were deprived {BonJter, June 2 ; Oglethorpe and Scotty ]wnQ 21 ; Baynes, June 24; Pate, June 30; Watson, July 2 ; Goldwell, July 15 ; White, ]^\\Y \%)? Of these. White and Watson had distinguished themselves in the Westminster Conference ; Pate and Goldwell had fled abroad, and were deprived in absence (.''). Of the others, all, except Barlow, who resigned, and Kitchen, were deprived by the end of September. The queen's first care was to secure one who would * See Grindal's letter, " Zurich Letters," ii. x. ' See Hook's " Parker," pp. 190-194. • Perry, p. 284. 246 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX represent the constitutional freedom of the English Church as against Roman interference, and orthodoxy against the various heresies of the Continent. Her choice was Matthew Parker, one who had lived in England during the Marian troubles, and had thus never been tainted with Zijrich theo- logy. As early as December 9, 1558, we find the Lord Keeper sending for him ; and when he declined to take a prominent position, Secretary Cecil summoned him, and he came to London early in January. His unwillingness seems to have secured him a respite till May 17 (for in the Prayer- book Commission his ill health prevented his taking much part), when he was again summoned to town and informed that he was nominated to the primacy. In the interval the primacy had been offered to the Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Nicholas Wotton, and then (probably) to Feckenham, Abbot of Westminster.^ Such names are sufficient proof that Elizabeth, if not a Papist, was certainly not a Protestant. These failing, Parker's objections were overruled, his letter and petition to the queen was disregarded, and he was peremp- torily summoned to town. Every step from this point is clear. Letters patent {congt^ d'dire) were issued, July \%\^ Chapter meeting, July 22 ; election, August I ;^ and Parker's consent on August 3. On September 9 the Queen issued her letters patent for the confirmation and consecration of the archbishop elect. These were addressed to Tunstall of Durham, Bonner of Bath and Wells, Poole of Peterborough, Kitchen of Llandaff, Barlow, and Scor)% bishops without sees. Only four were necessary by English use, even if no metro- politan were present ; but the commission had omitted to insert " vos ant ad minus quatuor vestnnn'' The refusal, therefore, of any one of the six would render a second com- mission necessary. As a matter of fact, the first three named were unwilling or unable to act, and, therefore, even if the letters had been regularly worded, the consecration could not have proceeded. It is interesting to notice, as bearing upon ' .See Hook's " P.arkcr," pp. 207, 208. ' Ibid., p. 212 ; Str>pe's '* Parker," p. 52. ' By compromise, see Strype, ibid. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 247 the question of jurisdiction, that Barlow had been deprived by Mary of the see of Bath and Wells, to which see Bonner had been appointed. If Mary had power to do this, her sister might reverse the process. If she had not, then Barlow was at that moment Bishop of Bath and Wells. The second connnission is dated December 6, and is ad- dressed to Kitchen of Llandaff ; Barlow, Bishop elect of Chi- chester ; Scary, Bishop elect of Hereford ; Cover dale, formerly Bishop of Exeter ; the Snffragaji of Bedford, the Suffragan of Thetford, and Bale of Ossory.^ These, or any four of them, were to proceed to consecrate. By this time the remaining eight bishops had been deprived (Tunstall, September 29 ; Poole, November ii; Turberville, November 23; Thirlby, November 23, as well as Bonner, Heath, Morgan, and the Bishop of Man). Kitchen alone remained, together with the Irish bishops. On December 9, three days after, the archbishop elect was confirmed in Bow Church.^ He was now archbishop elect, with '^ potestas jurisdictionis,'' but not '^ potestas ordinisT Of the actual consecration on December 17, we have elaborate and minute accounts in the Lambeth Register.^ LECTURE V. ROMAN OBJECTIONS TO PARKER'S CONSECRATION. The Roman objections to Anglican Orders, so far as they affect Parker's consecration, we may divide into four groups. (i.) Objections historical — as to the fact of Parker's conse- cration, or that of his consecrators. * See the document, Hook's " Parker," p. 215 ; " Documentary Annals," only a part. "^ See the account, Hook's "Parker," pp. 218, 219. ' q.v. ap. " Documentary Annals," i. 276 ; Strype's " Parker," p. 57. See too, the archbishop's note in his diary, "17 Dec. A" 1559, consecratus sum in Archie- piscopum Cantuar. Heu, heu, Domine Deus, in quce tempora servasti me " (" Correspondence of Archbishop Parker," p. 484). For the Nag's Head story — its history and different forms, see Strype's " Parker," p. 59, and Perry, p. 283. 248 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX /.V (ii.) Objections ecclesiastical — as to the jurisdiction of the consecrators. (iii.) Objections liturgical — as to the adequacy of the Anghcan Ordinal. (iv.) Objections theological — as to the " intention " of the consecrators. Of the last two classes I do not propose to speak now. Both were discussed under the general heads of the Ordinal and the Edwardine bishops,^ With regard to the liturgical objections, we may say, in short, that there is no test which can be applied which will invalidate the Anglican Ordinal without invalidating also the Roman succession ; while as for intention, there is the double answer — (a) it can be applied with deadly effect to the Roman bishops, and (/3) by the con- sensus of canonists the " intention" of individuals is subordi- nated to the intention of the Church in the name of which they act, and the intention of the English Church to preserve the Apostolic Succession is plainly stated in the preface to the Ordinal. We have thus only to deal with the historical and eccle- siastical questions — the question oi fact, and the question of aiithority. The fact of Parker's consecration is now absolutely beyond doubt, and the Nag's Head fable has relapsed into its original condition of myth. No better summary of the facts can be given than that of Dr. Lingard.'^ It is only fair to add that educated Roman Catholics are ashamed of the legend. The historical objection, however, goes further back, and challenges the fact of Barlow's consecration. It is said he never received episcopal ordination, (i.) because there is no record of his consecration, and (ii.) because both he and Cranmer held views about the priesthood which would make them indifferent about consecration.^ ' [Sec Course ii., lectures 11 and 17 above.] * •' History of England," vi, 326-330; Pirmingham Catholic Afagazitif, 1S34, quoted in full in Hook's "Parker," p. 251. See, too, Bishop Stublis' tract on *' Apostolical Succession" (in Keble College Library). • This case is strongly put (e.g.) in the tract, " Are the Anglican Orders valid ?" pp. 20, 21 (hound up in same volume with Bishop Stubbs' " Aposti>lical Succession " in Kcl)le College Librar)'), PS'GLANi) AND ON THE CONTINENT. 249 Now, it is quite true that we have no record of the conse- cration. The page is blank or missing from Cranmer's register, which throughout is most carelessly kept, and Barlow's own register (St. David's) has long been lost. But there are numerous cases of bishops whose consecration has never been doubted, though the evidence of their consecration is wanting. This is the case, e.g., as Mr. A. H. Pearson shows,^ with some of the contemporary (Roman) bishops. The facts about Barlow are these. There is no doubt that, if he was consecrated at all, he was consecrated (probably June II, 1536) by Archbishop Cranmer with the old Pontifical, as was Hodgkins, on Dec. 9, 1537, Scory and Coverdale being consecrated (August 30, 155 1) with the Ordinal. The only question then is, Was Barlow consecrated at all ? Barlow was a D.D., and in 1527 was prior of Bisham in Berkshire. At the suppression of the monasteries he took the side of the Reformation,^ and was elected Bishop of St. Asaph by coftge d'elire on January 7, 1536, and confirmed by proxy (being absent in Scotland) the next month (22nd or 23rd of February). Before his consecration to St. Asaph he was elected to St. David's, April 10, and received the temporalities on the 26th, having been confirmed in Bow Church on April 21. On June 30 he took his place as bishop in the House of Lords and in the Upper House of Convocation. If he was consecrated at all, it must have been in the month of June, as he returned to Scotland after his confirmation and remained there till June. Bishop Stubbs places his consecration on June II, though the record is defective. Against the argumentum ex silentio we have to put these facts : — (i.) Bishop Stubbs states that though the official register is wanting, we can ascertain, '' beyond any reasonable doubt," from letters and other records, "the very date and circum- stances of his consecration, and the names of his consecrators." ^ This he states after careful investigation of "nearly two thousand episcopal consecrations." * See his tract bound up in Bodleian with Bishop Stubbs'. ' See Hook's " Parker," p. 237. ' Letter, p. 16. 2 50 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX (ii.) Barlow's episcopal character was never disputed till forty-eight years after his death. He sat in Parliament and Convocation ; he was called by Bishop Gardiner " his brother of St. David's ; " he ordained priests ; he officiated at the consecrations of Dr. Skip (Nov. 23, 1539), and of Dr. Bulkeley (Feb. 19, 1542). (iii.) Finally, Dr. Lingard's judgment^ is this: "Is there any'positive proof that he was no bishop } None in the world. All that can be said is, that we cannot find any positive register of his consecration. So neither can we of many others, particularly of Bishop Gardiner. Did any one call in question the consecration of those bishops on that account ? Why should we doubt the consecration of Barlow and not that of Gardiner ? I fear the only reason is this — Gardiner did not consecrate Parker, and Barlow did." (iv.) With regard to Barlow's and Cranmer's Erastian views, we may admit them, but the facts remain — (i) That individual opinions could not override the law of the land. (2) That the power of the king was absolute, and his CatJiolicity undoubted. (3) That when, in Edward VI. 's reign, consecrations might perhaps have been omitted, they were not. If Cranmer had broken the law which made consecration necessary, he would have incurred the penalty of Praemunire, and Henry would not have suffered the violation with impunity." We may go further. If it could be proved that Barlow had never been consecrated, and therefore could not give what he had not received, the other three bishops, about whose consecration there is no doubt, satisfied the conditions of the Niccnc canon (No. 4), and the use of the English Church.'^ Tres faciunt colirgiuni.^ This rule of three bishops is seen ' Quoted apud Hook's "Parker," p. 241, f.n. ' See Lingard, ap. ibid., p. 241, f.n., and jip. 250-254. • On the valiility but irregularity of consecration by one bishop, see ibid.^ p. 229 ; see too Maskcll, " Mon. Kit.," ii. cxxxv. * Hook, p. 229. ENGLAXD AND ON THE CONTINENT. 25 T in Egberht's Pontifical (Archbishop of York, 734-766), in the Salisbury Pontifical, and in the Pontifical of Edmund Lacy (Bishop of Exeter, 1420-145 5). The Act of 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20 required four bishops if the metropolitan sees were void, which was the case in 1559, for Heath of York had been deprived before the commission was issued. If, therefore. Barlow had been no true bishop, the consecration would have been valid, but irregular ; the irregularity being not a disregard of the Nicene canon, or of the English Church canon law, but simply of an Act of Parliament passed for extra precaution twenty-five years before (1534). If it be argued that the consecrating bishop was Barlow, and the others only his witnesses, this contradicts the highest ritual authorities, e.g. Martene who says, " Omnes qui adsunt episcopi noil tantum testes sed etiam cooperatores esse, citi'a omnem diibitationis aleavi asserendum est ;^'^ and in the case of Parker it was noticed that all the bishops present repeated the words, '' Receive the Holy Ghost," herein follow- ing the mediaeval use, which is specially enjoined by the Exeter Pontifical. On February 3, 1549, Barlow was translated to Bath and Wells. Being a married man, he was deprived in Mary's reign (1554), and being no friend of the Swiss, went to Germany ; and when he returned was not restored to Bath and Wells {Qucere, was this because the see was not vacant when the first commission was issued ?),^ but elected to Chichester, vacant by the death of John Christopherson (January 2, 1559). The Question of Jtirisdiction. — There still remains the question of jurisdiction, of which I have already spoken.^ It is said the consecrators had not the " potestas jiirisdictionis'' even if they had the ^' potestas oi'dinis'' and therefore we are left to infer that the act was schismatical. We have seen that jurisdiction is the bestowal of no new powers, but the restriction to a given area of powers which are inherent in a bishop through consecration. The regula- tions by which sees were distinguished would make it tcchni- ^ " De Antiq. Rit.," lib. i. c. viii. Art. x. ' Quoted in Hook's " Parker," p. 242. ^ Barlow apparently resigned 'Cao. see. See p. 219, supra. ' Supra, p. 156. '3- HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX cally irregular (though the act would be valid) for one bishop to officiate in another bishop's diocese without his permission.^ Such irregularity was not only justifiable, but a duty in ex- ceptional cases,^ e.^: if the bishop were heretical. Thus did St. Athanasius^ ordain in dioceses other than his own while the Church was in danger of Arianism. But in 1 559 there was no question of interference, for all the sees to which the con- secrating bishops were elected were vacant by c/eaf/i. They were bishops by consecration, bishops of those sees by election, and only not confirmed because there was no archbishop to confirm them. Even if they had been purely vacant bishops, like the tiricrKOTroi (T\oXaKovTig of the Greek Church, their powers of consecration would have been the same,* and their act would have been valid. The only theory that will justify the objection that their act, though valid, was irregular and schismatical, is the theory that the Bishop of Rome is a universal bishop (which Pope Gregory repudiated), and therefore that all jurisdiction is from him. * Canon of the Council of Hertford, 673, ap. Maskell, ii. cxxxvii. On the question of Anglican Orders generally, see Bishop Stubbs' " Letter on the Apostolical Succession in the English Church," 1865; Hook's "Parker," pp. 22S-254 ; a tract (English Church Union) by A. H. Pearson, bound up with Stubbs' and others' in Bodleian ; Sir William Palmer's "Treatise," ii. 422 S(/g. ; [No. 2 of English Church Defence Tracts, edited by H. P. L. and W. B., " Are Clergymen of the English Church rightly ordained?" (1S72); T. J. Bailey, "A Defence of Holy Orders in the Church of England," a large (1870) and a small (187 1) edition — many documents as to Parker's consecration. The most exhaustive treatise on the subject of Anglican Orders generally, as well as the special case of Parker, is the learned work by the late A. W. Haddan, entitled "Apostolical Succession in the Church of England" (1869), a storehouse of information. Blunt's genealogical table of the succession from Plegmund of Canterbury (890-914) to Archbishop Benson — an expansion of one on a smaller scale in Bishop Stubbs' tract mentioned above — is very useful and instructive, though unluckily divided into two portions ("Annotated Prayer-book," pp. 656,668-672). For a complete list of all bishops consecrated in or for England from 597 to 1857, with dates of consecration and names of consecrators, see Bishop Stubbs* invaluable work, •' Rcgistrum Sacrum Anglicanum " (1S58).] ' Sec Hook's " Parker," pp. 232, 233 ; and Bingham, ii. cap. 5, § i, and his quott. ' Socrates, ii. cap. 24. * See Hook's " Parker," p. 230. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 253 LECTURE VI. PROVISION FOR THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH (1560, I 561, AND 1562). During the three years which intervened between the con- secration of Archbishop Parker and the reassembHng of Parhament and Convocation in January, 1563, we can trace the gradual settlement of the EngHsh Church, and the begin- nings of the struggle with Papists on the one side and Puritans on the other. The first work of the archbishop was the consecration of new bishops for the vacant sees. Barlow, Bishop elect of Chi- chester, was confirmed on December 20, 1559, and Scory, Bishop elect of Hereford, the same day.^ Coverdale, who was seventy-two years old, refused a see. The day after (December 21), Parker, assisted by Barlow, Scory, and Hodgkins, held his first consecration. Grindal was consecrated Bishop of London, Cox of Ely, Sandys of Worcester, and Meyrick of Bangor. The first three were but lately returned from exile, but the " Zurich Letters " show them to be very different men from Humphrey and Sampson. A month afterwards (January 21, 1560), four more, Nicholas Bulliughain of Y.\nco\n, Jo In i Jewel of Salisbury, Tho^nas Young o^ St. David's, and Richard Davie s of St. Asaph, were consecrated by Parker, assisted by Grindal, Cox, and Hodgkins. Two months later (March 24, 1560), three more consecrations took place — Bentham to Coventry and Lichfield, Berkeley to Bath and Wells, and Guest to Rochester ; the consecrators being Archbishop Parker, Bul- lingham, and Jewel. On July 14, 1560, Alley was conse- crated to Exeter, and Parkhurst'^ to Norwich on September i. Thus by the end of the year 1560 the see of Canterbury and sixteen of its twenty-one dioceses were filled (including Kitchen of Llandaff), Peterborough, Winchester, Gloucester, * Biamh., iii. 227. ' See "Zurich Letters, "/^jj-/>/z. 254 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX Bristol, and Oxford being still vacant. Of the Northern Pro- vince, the metropolitical see and its four dioceses, Durham, Carlisle, Chester, and Sodor and Man, were vacant, apparently because the queen's commissioners had not overhauled their temporalities under i Eliz. c. 19.^ Meanwhile other matters were pressing on the archbishop, as we may gather from the royal proclamations of this period. The revival of the Forty-two Articles of Edward and their revision was impossible till the meeting of Convocation, and therefore the archbishop published eleven Articles for pro- visional use. This was done at an episcopal conclave {assessHs) in April, 1561.^ At the second session, on April 12, other matters were agreed upon.^ The English Bible, too, needed revision. The Great Bible (Cranmer's) of 1540, which had been restored by the Injunc- tions of 1559, was in danger of being superseded by the Geneva Bible (of 1560), but it was not till 1568 that the Bishops' Bible appeared. There were some minor matters connected with the Prayer-book which admitted of easy adjustment. The uni- versities petitioned for a Latin version of it, which was pro- vided for by letters patent of April 6, 1 560,"* and a form was added for funeral celebrations.^ A revised Calendar of Lessons was provided early in the next year (1561, January 22).^ But other and more serious matters were less easy to settle. The pestilence had thinned the ranks of the parish priests, and it was difficult to supply their places. For the present, therefore, lay readers had to be appointed to assist the clergy in reading the Litany, the lessons, etc."' Then, again, the frequent changes had led to great irregularities and negligence in the churches and the services, and also in the churchyards." The queen would have at once restored • Heylyn, ii. 307-8. ' Sec them, ap. "Documentary Annals," i. p. 263 ; and a summary in Hook's *♦ Parker," pp. 274, 275. ' "Documentary Annals," i. 298, etc. * //'/i/., i. 2S0. * q.v. ibid., i. 282. • Ibid., i. 294. ■ Sec the Injunctions, ibid., i. 302. • See Terry, pp. 275, 276 ; " Documentary Annals," i. 2S9, proclamation against desecrating tombs ; and ibid.^ i. 210. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 255 decency of worship and made clerical celibacy compulsory.^ Parker, however, knew that he was between two fires, and hence the caution which marked his policy throughout. The Papists, meaning by that term the Pope and the deprived bishops and priests, had adopted a new policy. Paul IV. had died on August 18, 1559, and his successor (December 25, 1559), Pius IV., saw at once that a new policy must be attempted towards Elizabeth. Paul had called her a bastard, and her kingdom a dependency of Rome. He had even encouraged the Queen of Scotland to claim the crown. Pius writes to her, May 5, 1560, as his "dearest daughter," and offers to receive her back into the bosom of the Church.^ Whether this letter is genuine or not there is little reason to doubt that he offered to approve the Book of Common Prayer, including the Liturgy and Ordinal, and to allow the receiving in two kinds on condition of Elizabeth acknowledging the Roman claims and receiving the book on his authority.^ Elizabeth refused even to admit the nuncio into England. The time had gone by for such a thing, if it ever was possible. Nor would Elizabeth send her prelates to the Council of Trent, because England was summoned as a Protestant and not as a Catholic country. It is thought that Goldwell, the deprived Bishop of St. Asaph, who had fled to the Continent, was, when he returned to England, imprisoned for sitting as bishop in the Council. The deprived bishops, after all hopes of gaining over Archbishop Parker were at an end,^ were kindly treated^ and generally lodged in the palace of some Reforming bishop. TJie Puritans, and their opposition. The cross and crucifix.^ ' See " Documentary Annals," i. 307 ; and Perry, pp. 276, 277. * See the letter, "Documentary Annals," i. 285 ; and Blunt, ii. 429, 430. ' See the authority for this, Hook's "Parker," p. 263, f.n. * See Heath's remonstrance and Parker's answer, ibiJ,, pp. 256-259. * See Grindal's letter, "Zurich Letters," ii. x, ® See ibid., as follows : The cross and crucifix, i. 27, 28, 29, 31 ; ii. 18, 19, and 20. Episcopal dress, ii. 17; i. 35. General view of the period, ii. 17, and 30. 256 HISTORY OF rilE REFORMATION LY Add to this lecture : The Marriage law ;^ Deceased wife's sister; Bishop Jewel. ^ LECTURE VII. THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. [The following scattered notes comprise all that has been found in Mr. Moore's manuscript relating to the Thirty-nine Articles.] The Thirty-nine Articles and their history.^ The Articles not a siimma tJieologice, but an authoritative decision on certain points then in controversy. Hence the Anabaptists being a dying sect, several of the Anabaptist Articles were omitted. The Thirty-nine and the Forty-two. The Thirty-nine directed against — (i.) Papists. (ii.) Solifidians (Lutherans). (iii.).Zwinglians, etc., Arians, etc. (iv.) Anabaptists, etc. Of these, the Anabaptists were the logical descendants of Luther ; the Arians of Zwingli and Calvin. View of Sampson and Humphrey on the twenty-eighth Article^ as it stood in 1553. Four omitted — X. Grace. XVI. Blasphemy against Holy Ghost. XIX. Moral Law (part in VH.). XLI. 7'. Millenarii. Four added — XXIX. Wicked who cat not. XXX. Both kinds. V. Holy Ghost. XII. Good works. ' On which see Hook's "Parker," pp. 296 sqq.\ Strype's " Parker," pp. 87, 88. ' Str)'pe, ibid., p. in. • See Hardwick, and Twenty-one Articles in Jewel's "Apology.' * "Zurich Letters," i. 165. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT, 25/ Seventeen altered. Generally accepted by Convocation, January 12, 1563.^ Forty-two presented on January 19. Three erased, XXXIX., XL., and XLIL, all relating to Anabaptism, January 29 (and also clause in Article III,, Descent into Hell). Sent down to Lower House, and passed before Feb- ruary 5.^ Variation between Parker's manuscript and printed copy. Convocation of York } Archbishop and two suffragans signed (articles formally accepted by Northern Convocation in 1605). XXXIX. readopted on May 11, 1571.^ LECTURE VIII. THE CANON LAW OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. We have traced the gradual consolidation of the English Church between the time of its final rejection of Rome in 1559, and the second meeting of Convocation and Parliament in the spring of 1563. During that period its devotional system had been re- stored with the revised Prayer-book, its hierarchy had been preserved and extended by the consecration of Archbishop Parker and his suffragans, and now, finally, its doctrinal decision on the debated subjects of the day had been com- pleted in the Thirty-nine Articles. But in the meanwhile discipline had been provided for only by irregular, or at least temporary, expedients, by royal injunctions and archiepiscopal Articles, proclamations, etc. The canon law of the English Church was in abeyance. What was the canon law of the Church of England ? It was the growth of many centuries, and may be said to date from the Council of Hertford, the first provincial Council of * Hardwick, p. 133. ' Ibid., p. 141. ^ Ibid., p. 144. S 258 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX the English Church. It met according to the canons of the Universal and Undivided Church, passed at Nicxa and Chal- ccdon, under the first Archbishop of All luigland, Theodore, on September 24, 673. The British bishops had, of course, held their synods all along, but this was the first synod of the whole English Church.^ To this provincial synod Theodore presented a Book of Canons, collected by Dionysius Exiguus early in the sixth century. Out of this Book of Discipline Theodore had selected ten points, or ten capitula (heads or articles),^ as specially needful for the English Church. Of these ten, nine were passed, and may be called the first canons of the Church of England. At this time the English Church consisted of only seven bishoprics, under the metropolitan see of Canterbury. Between this time and the Reformation, English canon law had in its growth assimilated many foreign elements. The great Continental school of canon law on the Continent, Bologna, had elaborated a vast system, based on the Forged Decretals and consolidating the Hildebrandine view of the Papacy. How much of this had been incor- porated into the canon law of the English Church, it is impossible to say, but it became plain to Henry that the Royal Supremacy and the canon law could not stand together. A less constitutionally minded tyrant than Henry would have abolished the canon law altogether, but either he or his advisers knew that it was bound up with the history and independence of 'the English Church, and therefore that the papal elements in it were adventitious and might be separated. Luther burnt the books of canon law ; he and they had nothing in common. Henry was content to revise the canon law and remove what was not of home growth. Hence in the celebrated Submission of the Clergy, Convocation agrees — (i) that the ancient canon law shall be revised by a commis- sion of thirty-two, and those canons abrogated which are contrary to the law of the land ; (2) that no new canons shall be made without the licence of the Crown ; and (3) that canons made after such licence shall be ratified b\- the Crown. ' See Blight's "Chapters of Karly Enghbli Church History,'' p. 240, etc. • q.v. ap. Bright, pp. 243-247. ENGLAXD AXD ON THE CONTINENT. 259 This plainly left the ancient canon law in force, except where it was proved to clash with statute law. Three times in Henry's reign had a statute been passed for the appointment of the commissioners (25 Hen. VHI. c. 19; 27 Hen. VHI. c. 15 ; and 35 Hen. VHI. c. 16), the powers conveyed by the Act being limited to three years. No revision seems to have taken place under Henry ; and under Edward, in the year 1549, a new Act (3 & 4 Edw. VI. c. 1 1) was passed empower- ing the king to appoint thirty-two persons *' to compile such ecclesiastical laws as should be thought convenient." This was a new departure. It implied not a revision of the old law, but a reconstruction. On October 6, 1551, the commis- sion was appointed, consisting of eight bishops, eight divines, eight "civilians," and eight common lawyers ;^ but the com- missioners who were mainly concerned in the work were Cran- mer, Goodrich of Ely, Cox, Martyr, Taylor, May, Lucas, and Richard Goodrick, The work was not finished when the time allowed by the Act expired, and the Act was not re- newed. Apparently the committee could not agree on the disciplinary canons ; ^ at all events, eight sections are wanting. This was in 1552. Nearly twenty years afterwards (in 1571), the work which was known as " Reformatio Legum Ecclesi- asticarum " was revised and adapted to the changed circum- stances of the English Church. It was printed with a preface by John Foxe, and an attempt was made to pass it through Parliament. But the effort was ineffective. The queen was opposed to the Commons' intervention in ecclesiastical matters, and the " Reformatio Legum " remained without authority of any kind. If we have nothing else to thank Elizabeth for, we may thank her for saving us from a new set of ecclesi- astical laws, " written in a most narrow and bigoted spirit, and enjoining such severe penalties, including death for obstinate heretics, as were worthy of the Inquisition."^ It was no codification of the existing canon laws, but an attempt ^ See the list and arrangements in the preface to Cardwell's edition of the '* Reformatio Legum," p. vii., f.n. ; and Blunt, ii. 113. * See Cox to Bullinger, "Original Letters," i. 123. ' Blunt, ii. 115. 260 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION LV to impose new laws on tlic Chiircli ; and it ended in "a \dihonous fiasco." The ancient canon law of the En^^lish Church, except where it clashes with the statute law, is binding on the clergy as much as ever it was,^ and on lay Churchmen too, so far as the canons deal with the duties of laymen. But, besides the body of ancient canon law, the English Church has certain canons which date from the Reformation age. We have seen how in the early part of Elizabeth's reign, before the attempt to revive Cranmer's reformed code, the immediate matters of discipline were provided for by royal Injunctions. This, however, was a provisional and temporary expedient. For more permanent canons, which should be really ecclesiastical law, the conditions necessary were — (i.) A writ requesting Convocation to deal with the subject ; (ii.) the acceptance of the result by both Houses ; and (iii.) the formal assent of the Crown. While the Parliament of 1571 (which, in spite of the queen's objection, compelled subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles framed by Convocation in 1562, and formally ratified by both Houses in 1563) was making its ineffectual attempt to revive the '* Reformatio Legum," Convocation was at work framing such canons as were needed for the circumstances of the age. Parker's Book of Articles of 1565 had been recast as the "Advertisements," ^ but had failed to secure the queen's assent (1566). Indeed, there is no probability that they ever had more authority than that of archiepiscopal injunctions. We shall return to these when speaking of the Puritans. Nor did the canons framed by Convocation in this year, 1571, receive the royal assent. The queen was apparently annoyed at the interference of Parliament in the matter of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, and refused the grant of the " Book of Discipline." It had been mainly the work of Parker. Cox. and Horn, the Zurich sympathies of the two latter inclining them in favour of discipline. But the book was afterwards * "The canons not being corrected to this day, the old ones are in force, with the exceptions above mentioned" (Ncal's " Puritans," i. 11). ' " Documenlnr)- Annals," i. 2S7. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 26 1 signed by the Upper, but not the Lower, House of each province before June 4, 1571. It consisted of sixty canons — nine for bishops, six for deans, six for archdeacons, twelve for chancellors and other officials, elev^en for churchwardens, four for preachers, one on residence, one on pluralities, four for schoolmasters, six for patrons ; the whole being followed by a form of excommunication and the signatures of the two archbishops and twenty bishops.^ Canons of 1575, 1 585, 1 597 ^ all had what the 1571 canons had not — royal and full syno- dical authority. They were not revisions of the canons of 1571, but dealt in a regular and constitutional way with the difficulties which from time to time the Church had to meet. The last set, viz. the twelve published in 1597, to some extent embodied the earlier ones ; but, in spite of their constitutional character, they all fell short of becoming true ecclesiastical laws, because the royal assent was limited to the reign of the sovereign who granted it. When James I., therefore, came to the throne, a complete revision of the canons of the Re- formation period was set about, and the result is seen in the hundred and forty-one canons of 1603, which received the authority of Convocation and the Crown, and therefore take their place as ecclesiastical law. They embodied many of the Injunctions of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, as well as the various canons published in the reign of Elizabeth. For two hundred and sixty-two years they remained unaltered, till 1865, when by regular and constitutional procedure new canons were framed in place of Canons 36, 37, 38, and 40, relating to subscription of the clergy to the Thirty-nine Articles and their declaration against simony, approved by both Con- vocations, and confirmed by the Crown.^ The Reformation canons are a close parallel to the Thirty- nine Articles. Neither professed to cover the whole ground. ' See these canons, Cardwell's " Synodalia." vol. i. For subsequent history of canons in Elizabeth's reign, see Blunt, ii. 370-372. ' q.v. in Cardwell's "Synodalia," vol. i., Const, and Canons, ii.-iv, ' See Blunt, ii. 372. [An alteration in Canon 29, intended to permit parents to be god-parents for their own children, was approved by the Convocation of Canterbury in 1865, but not by that of York ; nor has it yet been confirmed by the Crown.] 262 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX llie Articles were not a suuinia tJicologice, but the authoritative decision of the Enc^Hsh Church on certain points of doctrine then in dispute. The canons could not and did not profess to take the place of the canon law ; they added to it on certain disciplinary matters then under dispute. Whether in doctritie, discipline, or ivorship, in the Articles, the canons, or the Prayer-book, the Reformation presupposed the existence of the English Church. It is only lawyers who work on the assumption that "omission is prohibition," and hence their collision with tJieologians, cajionists, and ritualists. LECTURE IX. THE BEGINNINGS OF ENCiLISH PURITANISM — TROUBLES OF FRANKFORT. [These notes are those of a lecture originally included in this course at this point, but are marked on the cover '* Omitted in Lent Term," doubtless through press of matter. They are printed here as the subject is referred to in the opening words of the next lecture.] (See "Troubles of Frankfort," Magdalen College Library, English reprint, 1846; "Original Letters," ccclvi.-ccclxiii. ; Neal's " Puritans," vol. i. chaps, ii., iii.) The Interim of Augsburg (1548) the beginning of English Puritanism. Ridley attacks altars ; Hooper attacks vestments ; ]Uicer and Martyr attack Prayer-book. John a Lasco, etc. The eight lumdrcd exiles at Zurich, Basle. Aarau, r'rankf(Mt, etc. The Frankfort congregation. Appeal to Calvin. Calvin's letter antl the Prayer-book : '* tolerable fooleries," Janiiar)- 20. 1355. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 263 New Prayer-book constructed by Knox \ ,,„ . . , j accepted Whittingham f „ , u \ Feb- Farry \ \ ruary o. Lever y ^ To be used till end of April. Appeals in the interval to be referred to Calvin, Musculus, etc. Cox arrives and protests, March 13, 1555. Knox banished March 26, 1555. Concession made of things supposed indifferent.^ The English Church at Frankfort ; Cox, Sandys, Whitehead, Becon, Alvey, Grindal, Bale, Horn, Lever, Sampson. The new troubles about discipline. Seventy-three articles of Discipline, March, 1557, sub- scribed by 57. Horn and twelve others dissent. The old Discipline and the new. '' Troubles of Frankfort." LECTURE X. THE PURITANS IN ENGLAND — THE VESTIARIAN CONTROVERSY. On reading the account of the troubles at Frankfort one would be inclined to assume that Cox and Grindal, and those who came with them to defend the Prayer-book, were rigid supporters of the details of the English form. This was the view taken by Calvin. He accused them of being " more given and addicted to their country than reason would," and held that they made " no concession or relation." So far was this from being the case that the English exiles, in a letter written to Calvin, declare it to be " a base and impudent false- hood." " We gave up," it is said, " private baptisms, confirma- tion of children, saints' days, kneeling at the Holy Communion, the linen surplices of the ministers, crosses, and other things of * " Original Letters," ii. 754. 264 niSrORY OF THE RE FORM ATI ox FV a like character." They were given up not as " impure and pa {mistical, " but as things which gave offence, being in them- selves "indifferent." It is plain that those who wanted more than this could liave had no object but to reduce the faith of the EngHsh Church to conformity with the Swiss sects. We are surprised to find this letter to Calvin signed by Cox, after- wards Bishop of Ely ; Sandys, afterwards Bishop of Worcester and of London, and finally Archbishop of York ; Grindal, afterwards Bishop of London, Archbishop of York, and Archbishop of Canterbury ; Bale, Bishop of Ossory ; Horn, afterwards Bishop of Winchester ; as well as by Sampson, WJiitcJicad, Lever, Alvey, and Becoii, who represented the more advanced section.* We have seen from the ZiJrich letters which were written immediately on the return of the exiles, how the fear of a " farrago of religion " showed itself. It was not only the cross and crucifix in the queen's chapel, but the episcopal habits, the copes, and even the surplice which were "relics of the Amorites." They seemed to expect that at least the Reforma- tion would be taken up at the point where it was left at Edward's death, instead of which the Prayer-book of 1559 restored the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, or at least added words which could not have been misunderstood, and revived the ancient habits of the Ornaments Rubric. The returned exiles had, during their sojourn among the Swiss, discovered many imperfections, if not " tolerable fooleries." Consequently as soon as the Convocation met in 1562, we find Bishop Sandys^ proposing a list of changes, all in the direction of Puritanism.^ Petitions of the same kind were sent up from the Lower I louse, signed by thirty-three members ; this being rejected, another was presented to the Lower I louse, signed by forty-three mem- bers. This was, according to Neal,-* only rejected by fifty-nine to fifty-eight, a majority of those actually present ^ being in ' "Original Letters," Nos. 357, 35S, vol. ii. pji. 753 sqq. ' According to N'eal, i. 121. ' See Cardwell, " .Synodalia," ii. 498, f.n. ; and the whole Convocation, pp. 438-537. ' '• "3. * 43 V- 35. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 265 favour of this Puritan creed. This crisis past, the enforcement of the law was Parker's difficulty. Those who "scrupled the habits " included many venerated names, Coverdale and Foxe the martyrologist being the most distinguished. In some cases the irregularity was connived at ; in many cases uniformity could not be enforced. The result was the state of things described in a paper presented to Cecil, dated February 24, 1564.^ The " Vestiarian controversy," as it was called, was raging in England. It was the burning question of the day, as we find from the "Ziirich Letters." The returned exiles were divided among themselves. All agreed that the surplice ought to be got rid of, but some were willing to allow that it was a thing indifferent. The Ziirich divines were wise and moderate in their advice, recommending those who consulted them not to refuse pre- ferment because of the habits, but to labour for the abolition of such " relics of the Amorites." The Genevan party, Beza and Co., were more uncom- promising. They declared that they would not receive the ministry on such terms, and recommended those who had complied to retire into private life. The English bishops were divided, Parker, Horn, Jewel, Pilkington, Grindal, Sandys, Parkhurst, and Guest ^ being willing to conform, but with very different degrees of assent. Lawrence Humphrey (Regius Professor of Divinity, and Presi- dent of Magdalen College, Oxford) and Sampson (Dean of Christ Church), however, and a number of lesser men refused conformity on any terms. Parker summoned them before him and argued with them,^ but in vain. On March 20, 1564. they sent in a protest to the archbishop and commissioners, and also appeal to their profligate patron Leicester. Parker, however, was unyielding, and on April 29, 1564, they [were allowed to sign a compromise].^ * q.7j. ap. Perry, p. 287 ; Neal, i. 125. ' For their views see ibid.^ i, 129, 130. ' See some questions and answers, ibid., i. 137, f.n, * [Parker did not see his way clearly to deprive them. See his " Correspond- ence," p. 241.] 266 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX LECTURE XI. THE ADVERTISEMENTS AND THE FH^ST SCHISM (1566). It was about this time that we first hear of the Archbishop Parker's Articles, better known by their later title as The Adveytiscniciits. The majesty of the law being vindicated by the deprivation of the non-conforming priests, Archbishop Parker interceded with the queen for a dispensing power in the matter of the habits, having already secured for Sampson a prebend at St. Paul's, while Humphrey, persuaded by Cecil to conform, became Bishop Jewel's chaplain and biographer, and afterwards Dean of Gloucester and then 'of Winchester. The queen, however, would hear of no relaxation and com- manded the archbishop to enforce the law. On March 3, 1565, the Articles were sent to Cecil for the queen's signature, which was refused. A year after, March 12, 1566, he made a new attempt to secure the royal authorit\', and, failing, published them under the title oi Advertisements} Had tJic Advertisements authority sufficient to override the Act of Parliament f'-^ They were not signed by the queen at the time, but issued with the new title by Parker. ' The arch- bishop, in his Articles of Enquiry, 1 569, speaks of them as having " public authority," but clearly distinct from that of the Crown. Archbishop Whitgift also speaks of them, 1584, as authoritative, but calls them still Advertisements. The canons of 1571 quote them as authoritative, but those canons were never confirmed by the Crown. The canons of 1575 have a similar reference, which ivas ex/^nngcd by the queen when the)' were confirmed. E. contra the canons of 1603 quote them as authoritative, and these were confirmed by King James. They were also recognized in the canons of 1 640. ' " nocunicntaiy .\nnals," i. 2S7-297, and see f.n. ' See ibid., i. 322, f.n. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 26/ WJiat was the nieaning of the Advertisements f Was it an attempt to take further order ? ^ or was it an attempt to enforce a minimum ? Probably both. The Ornaments Rubric, which made the Edwardian vestments legal, had never been more than a dead letter. Even the surplice was in danger of being disused. Probably the archbishop's intention was to modify the law and enforce it, but the queen's refusal made this im- possible. One thing is plain: the "Advertisements" were directed not against ritualists, but against Puritans. The queen's desire to enforce the letter of the law will explain her refusal to sign them. The archbishop's desire to conciliate the Puritans will explain the middle course adopted by him, and the fact that they were issued by the Court of High Commission would give them authority, or at least moral authority, with both Church and State. Sampson and Lawrence Humphrey had been deprived ^ before the " Advertisements " were published. Parker had also, with some other ecclesiastical commissioners, attempted to reduce some of the recusant clergy to order. One hundred and forty were summoned to Lambeth, and all but thirty conformed. When the "Advertisements" were published, the London ministers, to the number of one hundred, were sum- moned to Lambeth and required to conform.^ " Ye that will subscribe, write Vo/o ; those that will not subscribe, write Nolo : be brief, make no words." Thirty-seven of the hundred refused, and were deprived. This was on March 26, 1566. Two days later, on March 28, the archbishop writes to Grindal, Bishop of London, sending him a copy of the Adver- tisements, charging him "to see her majesty's lawes and injunctions duely observed within your diocese, and allso theis our convenient orders described in these bookes at theis present sent unto your lordship,"* the Royal Injunctions and ' [On this point consult Mr. J. Parker's pamphlet, " Did Queen Elizabeth take * other order ' in the Advertisements of 1566 ? " and his Postscript, both published during his discussion with Lord Selborne in 1878-9.] ' [Humphrey was not deprived of the Presidency. See Bloxanvs *' Register of the Presidents, etc., of Magdalen College, Oxford," iv. 116, note.] * Neal, i. 141. * "Documentary Annals," i. 335-337. 268 HISTORY OF THE REFORMAT/OX TV the Act of Uniformity being clearly distinguished from the archicpiscopal "Advertisements." This letter alludes to the non-conforming clergy as " some few persons, I fear more scrupulous than godly prudent," and speaks of the suspension of the London non-conformists two days before. The attempt to enforce the "Advertisements" was ac- companied by the revoking of all licences for preachers. All preachers were now compelled to promise conformity as a condition of being licenced. There was, however, one curious exception which the archbishop could not touch. The University of Oxford was in the hands of the Anglo-Catholics, but Cambridge was Puritan. By a special privilege (1503) of Tope Alexander VI., " the Nero of the Papacy," the University of Cambridge [and that of Oxford also] had power to licence twelve preachers yearly without episcopal approval. The deprived clergy were not only able in this way to defy the archbishop as to licences, but, as the successors of the monastic preachers or regulars, to preach, not like the parish l^riests in surplice or alb, but in their usual academical dress. Parker in vain tried to get this privilege withdrawn.-^ Meanwhile the deprived clergy were solemnly debating whether the question of habits justified an act of schism. A long correspondence with Bullinger and Gualter had resulted in strengthening such men as Grindal, though it had done little for Sampson and men like him. Still, there were many ^vho, though they could not conscientiously conform, yet con- tinued in the Church, as did Sampson, Mumphrey, P^oxe, Coverdale, Lever, and, indeed, all the more learned among the Puritans. These Strype calls those " of a more quiet and peaceable Demeanour."- ]^ut the other sort "disliked the whole Constitution of the Church lately reformed " ; these separated and met for worship in private houses, where they even celebrated the Holy Coniniunic^n (1566). This was the first schism in the ICnglish Church, and the schisniatics were • [At least one of the twelve, George Withers, of Corpus, was suspended by Tarker, because his licence lacked the signature of the Chancellor of the Lnivcrsity. Mullinger, •' History of the University of Cambridge," ii. 197.] ' .Strypc's "Grind.il." p. 114. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 269 the parents of the three hundred and eighty sects of the present day.^ What was the principle involved in the schism ? Really whether the English Church is a new one, or the old Church reformed. The Anglo-Catholics fought for its continuity and identity. The Separatists wanted a new Church on the Swiss model. They looked upon the English Church as suffering from " arrested development." This was shown when the attack gradually shifted from the surplice to episcopacy. If bishop meant superintendent, the Separatists did not object ; if bishop meant bishop, it was " papistry." The English Church had almost abandoned sacramentalism ; the Anglo- Catholics clung to sacerdotalism and the Apostolical Suc- cession. The Separatists hated both. Behind this was the objection to an " established " Church enforcing spiritual sen- tences with the civil sword. Hence the hatred of uniformity.^ ' For the correspondence between England and Zurich on the Vestiarian controversy, see Burnet, iii., "Records," 75-85. "Zurich Letters," i. Ix,, Humphrey to Bullinger (Are the vest- ments indifferent ?). . .. .. .. Aug. 16, 1563. I. Ixiv., Horn to Gualter (beginnings of Puritan separation) July I7, 1565. I. app. ii., Bullinger to Horn (Churches not to be forsaken) . . . . . . . . Nov. 3, ,, I, Ixviii., Humphrey's questions to Bullinger Feb. 9, 1566. I. Ixix., Sampson's questions to Bullinger .. Feb. 16, ,, I. app. iii., Bullinger's answer .. .. May i, ,, I. app. iv., Bullinger to Horn (refusing to recognize the separatists) .. .. .. May 3, ,, II. xlix., Abel to Bullinger . . . . . . June 6, ,, II. 1., Coverdale, etc., etc., to Farell, etc. .. July ,, I. Ixxi., Sampson and Humphrey to Bullinger (flaws in English Church) . . . . . . ,, ,, I. Ixxiii., Grindal's judgment on the Noncon- formists Aug. 27, ,, II. liv.,Bullinger\ Sept. 10, ,, II. Iv., Gualter V''^^ ^^^^^^ conformity . . g^^^^ ^^^ ^^ I. Ixxv., Grindal and Horn to Bullinger (on thedeprivedanddcfenceof English Church) Feb. 6, 1567. II. lix., Bullinger's view of Sampson. . .. Mar. 15, ,, ' See Neal's (i. icmd-2) points of difference between the Puritans and "the court-reformers " — (i.) Puritans haled the union of Church and State. (ii.) ,, said the Pope was antichrist. English Church said he was a true bishop, but not universal bishop. 270 HISTORY OF THE RKFORMATIOX IX Definition of Terms, (i.) Protestant — (o) On Continent = Lutlicran v. " Reformed." (/3) In England = Anglo-Catholic v. Papist and Puritan, (ii.) Puritan — (a) First used, according to Hcylyn (ii. 421), of "the Zwinglian and Calvinian faction" in the Eng- lish Church in 1565. (/3) Limited to the seceders of 1566. (y) Extended to all who, on the anti-Catholic side, refused conformity to English Church in Elizabeth's reign, (iii.) Nonconformist = the generic name for those who refused the Act of 1662. (iv.) Dissenter, used for all Nonconformists tolerated by the Act of 1689, i.e. all except Papists and Unitarians. LECTURE XII. ROME AND ENGLAND (1558-1570). [These jottings represent, unfortunately, all that has been found of this lecture.] Paul IV., Caraffa, died A?(^?ist 18, 1559. Elizabeth a bastard. England a papal fee. Pius IV. Conciliatory offers to recognize the Pra)'er- book, May 5, 1560. T'ius \\ The bull, April 27, I 570. (iii.) Puritans considered Holy Scripture standard of dcctriuc and DlSCiri.iNE — Hiblc and IJible only, (iv.) ,, acccpte," where the canons of the council are also to be found.] EXGLAXD AXD ON THE CO NT IX EXT, 2/3 Prior of St. Andrew's, the monasteries at Stirling and else- where were destroyed. The death of Henry II. (June 29, 1 559) and the accession of Francis II. and Mary Queen of Scots to the throne of France seem to have had no effect but to intensify the opposition between the regent and the Reformed till, in October, Knox declared her deprived. Her death took place on June 10 of the following year, 1560. But by this time an English army had appeared in Scotland. Elizabeth had little sympathy with Puritanism, and none with John Knox ; but the fear of French influence outbalanced everything, and a league was formed in which England and Scotch Puritanism united against France and Catholicism. After desultory engagements, negotiations were entered into by French and English commissioners, which made arrangements as to religion, government, etc., during the queen's absence. This is known as the Treaty of Edinburgh, July 6. But the Reformed were now predominant, and they now set to work to prepare " the Confession of Faith and Doctrine believed and professed by the Protestants of the Realm of Scotland." On August 17, in spite of the opposition of the primate and the Bishops of Dunkeld and Dunblane, it received Parlia- mentary sanction. Three anti-papal Acts followed on August 25.^ The Confession was followed the next year by a Book of Discipline, divided into nine heads,^ and the Englisk Prayer-book luas superseded by the Order of Geneva. Superin- tendents were appointed in place of bishops ; but as they were not consecrated, a deliberate substitution of Presby tcrian- ism for the Catholic order was implied. On December 20, 1 560, the first General Assembly met. News of the change in religion was sent to Mary by Sir James Sandilands, Prior of the Knights of St. John ; and the death of Francis (December 5, 1560) left the widow of nineteen years of age free to return to Scotland. She with difficulty escaped the English ships and arrived at Leith on August 19, 1561. From this time dates the dreary struggle between the ' For the Confession, see Grub, ii. S9. It had been conijiiled by Knox, Winram, Spottiswood, etc. * See ibid.^ ii. 92. 2/4 HISTORY OF THE RE FORMA TIO.V LV queen and such bishops as held true to the Catholic Church on the one side, and the Lords of the Congregation and John Knox on the other. There was no middle term between Rome and Geneva. The archbishop and others are brought to trial in i 563 for saying Mass and hearing confessions, and many are compelled to fly the country. On July 29, 1565, the Book of Common Order finally supersedes the English Prayer-book. The queen's marriage with Darnley (July 29, 1565), and the birth (June 19) and baptism (December 15) of James VI. in 1566, the year in which Riccio was murdered (March 9). the murder of Darnley in the following year (February 10, 1567), were followed by the imprisonment of the queen (June 16) and her abdication (July 24). A few days after the 1^-ince James is crowned (July 29, 1567). The queen, after her escape from Lochleven, annuls her abdication and takes the field against her rebel subjects. The battle of Langside proved the hopelessness of her cause (May 13. 1568), and she fled to England. Three years after, Hamilton, the Archbishop of St. Andrew's and Primate of Scotland, was taken (April 2, 1571) and hanged (April 7) [on the charge of complicity in the murder of Darnley]. IVesbyterianism was now supreme. Scotland had cut herself off from the Church of Christ and joined the Church of Calvin. The name of bishop and archbishop w^as retained for the time, and a form of ordination was gone through, but the Scotch were as careless as the English were careful about the continuity of the priesthood.^ Scotch Presby- terian ism thus takes its place with the numerous sects which began at the Reformation. It is [established by law as] the Church of Scotland, but it has no organic unit}- with the i)re- Reformation Church. Its indifference to the Apostolical Succession laid it open to the charge of schism ; its adoption of the awful tcachin- of Geneva laid it open to the charge of accepting a new gospel.'- ' Sec Grub on the one fatal deficiency, ii. 180. ' For the Confession, see ih'd., ii. 89, etc. Sec also the Summary of Winzet's cii;hty-threc questions, ihuL, ii. 117, etc. On the relation of Scotch Presbyterianisin nnd l'ni;lish I'uritanism, sec /VvV/., 252. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 275 Why was there in Scotland no middle course between Rome and Geneva ? [The views of the reforming party within the Church represented by Winzet, Quentin Kennedy, and perhaps by the Articles presented to the Provincial Council of 1559, as preserved in the Acts of the council] Add to this a sketch of Scotch history to the establish- ment of Presbyterianism, 1592.^ [January, 1572. Conventicle at Leith.p [1575. Andrew Melville.] July, 1580. Abolition of bishops at Dundee.'^ April 24, 1 58 1. Abolition of bishops confirmed at Glasgow.^ January, 1584. Robert Browne in Dundee.^ Februarys, 1587. Execution of Mary. February 9, 1589. Bancroft's sermon at Paul's Cross.'' 1590. Penry in Scotland. "^ English views of Scotch Reformation.^ June, 1592. Presbyterianism established.'-' Second Book of Discipline on the Orders of the Church.^^ LECTURE XIV. THE REFORiMATION IN IRELAND UP TO 1603. Ireland, after four centuries of English rule, consisted of two nations — the native population on the one side, the Eng- lish settlers on the other. The two nations spoke dififerent languages, but were bound together in an ecclesiastical, if not a national unity. The King of England was King of Ireland, though with the title Doniiims Hibcrnice^ and in all matters touching the royal prerogative Ireland was dependent on England. ' Grub, ii. chaps, xxxviii.-xlii. - Jbid.^ ii. I'j^sqq. 3 Ibid., p. 212. * Ibid., p. 2i6. * Ibid., p. 231. " Ibid., p. 254. " Ibid., p. 249. " /bid., p. 253. •" Ibid., p. 260. '^ Jbid., p. 218. 2/6 HISTORY OF THE REFORMAT lOX L\' The Irish ParHamcnt at this time consisted of a House of Lords and a House of Commons. The House of Lords was composed of EngHsh lay peers, bishops, and twenty-four heads of religious houses. There were, it is said (by Ball), no Irish peers. The House of Commons consisted of less than one hundred members, amongst whom no native, even if elected, was allowed to sit. The Irish Church consisted of four archbishoi)rics, Armagh, Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam, with twenty-six suffragans. The primacy rested with Armagh, but there seems to have been but little ecclesiastical organization, and there was no Irish Convocation. The Irish Church was therefore unrepresented, except by the bishops and the heads of the religious houses, who, till the Suppression, sat in the Lords. In 1534 (November session), Henry was declared Supreme Head, the title being ** recognized by the clergy, and authorized by Parliament." Whether this act was, as some think, valid for Ireland or not, the claim was not asserted in Ireland till the next year, 1535. And it met with great opposition from the primate, Archbishop Cromer of Armagh, who advanced the view that the royal authority could not displace the Pope, whose predecessor, Adrian IV., had given Ireland to the king's predecessor, Henry II., in 11 54. The see of Dublin was now vacant (since July), and the king appointed to it George Browne, Provincial of the Augustinian Friars in England, a Reformer, but of a less advanced type than Bale, later Bishop of Ossory. On March 19, 1536, Archbishop Browne was consecrated [at Lambeth] by Cranmer, [Shaxton, and Hilsey], and became llenr)''s instrument for carrying out the Reformation in Ireland. In Ma)-, 1537, the Irish Parliament met but the proctors of the clergy, two for each diocese, who claimed to vote in the Commons, were excluded as "counsellors, not members." ^ After this high-handed repression of the representatives of the clerg)- three anti-papal Acts were passed, in spite of the ^ Sec the letter of the I.<'il 15, 155S.J ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 279 Hugh Goodacre, was appointed to succeed him, and Bale was made Bishop of Ossory, a see now vacant by death. Good- acre and Bale were the first Irish bishops consecrated by the Ordinal of 1550. Both were consecrated on February 2, 1553, in Christ Church, Dublin. Bishop Goodacre died a few weeks before King Edward VI., so that on Mary's accession the see of Dublin was vacant. Archbishop Dowdall was restored to his see, and the primacy was given back to the see. Archbishop Browne, with Bishops Staples (Meath), Lancaster (Kildare), and Travers (Leighlin), were deprived ; Bale (Ossory) and Casey (Limerick) fled. The archiepiscopal see of Dublin was vacant for two years, till February 22, 1555, when Hugh Curwen was nominated, and consecrated in St. Paul's Cathedral on September 8. The other new bishops were all Irish — Walsh (Meath), Leverous (Kildare), Field (Leighlin), Lees (Limerick), Thorney or Thonery (Ossory). A provincial synod met to restore Roman rites, and Romanism was formally restored by Parliament in June, 1556, Pope Paul IV.'s bull was transmitted through Cardinal Pole, and Ireland reconciled to the Roman see. On the accession of Elizabeth, the Earl of Sussex was appointed Deputy, and received instructions *' to set up the worship of God as it is in England." Archbishop Curwen, who had succeeded Browne, was a man of compliant views. He was what Strype calls *'a complier in all reigns." In Henry's reign he defended the Royal Supremacy and the union with Anne Boleyn. Yet he held strongly to Transub- stantiation, and is said to have been responsible for the death of Frith. In Mary's reign he was a papist, and branded his predecessor's children as " bastards." When Elizabeth suc- ceeded he changed sides once more, and, Archbishop Browne having died soon after his deprivation, continued Archbishop of Dublin. A Parliament met in January, 1560, and passed a Supre- macy Act (2 Eliz. c. i), a Uniformity Act authorizing the 1559 Prayer-book, but allowing a Latin trajislation (Weaker Haddon's, published 1560), and an Act giving first-fruits to the Crown, and decreeing the abolition of the conge d\'/ ire. With 280 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN regard to this last Act, \vc may notice that in Mary's reign it had been decided that, by the Common Law, a conge d\'lire was not required. Dowdall had died (August 15, 1558) just before Queen Mary, but no appointment was made to the primacy till the winter of 1562, when Adam Loftus was ap- pointed, and consecrated the following March. Five years later (1567), when Archbishop Curwen became Bishop of Oxford, Loftus was translated to Dublin. Two bishops only, Leverous (Kildare) and Walsh (Meath), were deprived for refusing the oath of supremacy, and they were succeeded by Alexander Craike and Hugh Brady. The Thirty-nine Articles were never enforced in Ireland, but on January 20, 1566, a ''Book of the Articles" was authorized by the Lord Deputy, the archbishops and bishops, and the High Commissioners. These articles are the Eleven Articles of Archbishop Parker, published five years before, with a twelfth expressing general consent. Nothing was done to give either the Bible or Prayer-book to the Irish in the vulgar tongue. Two copies of the Bishops' Bible in English, the gift of Archbishop Heath of York, were placed in the choirs of the two cathedrals of Christ Church and St. Patrick's, and the Latin version of the Prayer-book of 1559 was allowed to those who did not understand Eng- lish ; but neither the Prayer-book (translated 1608) nor the New Testament (translated 1602) existed [before 1600] in Irish, and the Old Testament was not translated till 16S5. Even before the bull of Pius V. (1570) we find titular archbishops and bishops appointed by the Pope, and these were already scheming for a Spanish invasion. In 1578-80 an iMiglish fugitive was appointed to lead papal and Spanish forces into Ireland, i)lenary pardons being granted to all Irish who took arms against the queen. In 1580 seven hundred Spaniards and Italians landed in Kerry, where they fortified themselves; and when summoned by the Lord Dei)uty to surrender, answered that they held it for the Pope and the King of Spain, to whom the Pope had given the kingdom of Ireland. Rheims, Douai, and Louvain were now sending over their trained emissaries ; and the Irish Church, to judge ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 28 1 by the letters of the Lord Deputies/ was in no state, either of learning or morals, to offer effectual resistance. Under Arch- bishop Henry Ussher, who succeeded to the primacy in 1595, there seemed some hopes of winning over the papists. This Archbishop Ussher was uncle to the great James Ussher, who at nineteen years of age answered the Jesuit Henry Fitz- Symonds. An order was made by the Irish Government in 1599 compelling all papists, under a fine of twelve pence, to attend church every Sunday. The overthrow of the Spaniards in the battle of Kinsale (December 24, 1601) had made them lose heart, and they were beginning to return to the National Church. James Ussher was active in bringing them back, when the English Government reversed its policy just as it seemed to be bearing such fruit as such policy could hope for, and, by the advice of Lord Mountjoy, the Lord Deputy determined not to enforce the Act of Uniformity. It was on this occasion, in 1601, that Ussher is said to have preached a prophetic sermon on Ezekiel iv. 6, " Thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days : I have appointed thee each day for a year." Applying this to the new policy of toleration, he said, *' From this year will I reckon the sin of Ireland, that those whom you now embrace shall be your ruin, and you shall bear their iniquity." It was exactly forty years afterwards that the rebellion broke out, which ended in the massacre of many thousands of Irish Protestants. Yet, in spite of Ussher's protest, it is refreshing in an age of intolerance to learn that " no imprisonment, banishment, or execution of any priest for sake of religion took place." ^ Trinity College, Dublin, founded 1591.^ ' q.v. ap. Mant, i. 297 sqq. and 320 sqq. - Plowden (R. C), " Hist.," i. 331. ^ Trinity College, Dublin, Library : see Mant, i. 340. 282 HISTORY OF THE RETORMATIOX IX LECTURE XV. THE FOUR STAGES OF TURITANISM. Four stages in English Puritanism.^ (i.) Conforming Puritans — Grindal, Sandys, Jewel, etc. (ii.) Non-conforming Puritans — Humphrey, Lever, Samp- son, etc. (iii.) Presbyterians — Cartwright, Travers, etc. (iv.) Independents — Brownists and Barrowites. In the early days of the Reformation in PZlizabeth's reign, it was taken for granted that the cause of the Reformers was the same in England and Scotland, because they were both opposed to the common enemy Rome. In the " Zurich Letters " we find Jewel and Parkhurst rejoicing over the rapid progress of the Scotch Reformation. "The Scots," says Park- hurst in August, 1560, "have made greater progress in true religion in a few months, than we have done in many years ; " - while Jewel, writing in 1562, says, " Religion is most favour- ably received, firmly maintained, and daily making progress in that country."*^ As, however, the Puritan faction in P2ng- land showed their true colours, and the Presbyterian character of the new Scotch Church became clear, English Churchmen realized the fact that John Knox and the Lords of the Congre- gation, while they had much in common with the non-con- forming Puritans, were of a different spirit from the English Church. At the same time, the English Puritans who had seceded from the Churcii in i 566, and formed separate con- venticles, reali/.od their kinship with Scotch Presbyterian ism. The Puritans were, indeed, Presbyterians before they knew it, but it was only gradually that the fact became plain. ' Sec an excellent passage (luotcd from liishop Cooper's "Admonition" in Hooker, i. 142, f.n. = '•/iirich Letters," i. y] . ' Ibid., i. 44. ENGLAXD AND OX THE CONTINENT. 2cS5 From the first the real question concealed by the Vestiarian controversy was — "/y the Englisli C/uirch to retain a real episcopacy and defend its contijmity with the ChurcJi of St. Augustine, or is it to become a Presbyterian sect? " This plain issue was put before Englishmen b}- Thomas Cartwright. He had taken part in the Cambridge "Act " in 1564, when Elizabeth was present, and had apparently been thrown into the shade by a rival from King's College. He soon after retired to Geneva, where he became intimate with Beza, and distinguished himself for his attacks upon episcopacy. When, in 1570, he returned to England, he was replaced in the Margaret Professorship of Divinity, and soon began to ventilate his Presbyterian views. Here, as Fellow of Trinit}'. he came into collision with Whitgift, the master, who was also Regius Professor of Divinit)^ He had persuaded all the Fellows and scholars to refuse to wear the surplice, and had in his lectures made such statements as brought him under suspicion of heresy. On his refusing to recant, Whitgift, as vice-chan- cellor, deprived him of his professorship (December, 1570) and fellowship (September, 1571).-^ Cartwright did not, however, at once separate from the Church. There was yet hope that the English Church might be turned into a Presbyterian sect, and give up Catholicism for Calvinism. The attempt to do this was made in the Parliament of 1 571, the proposal being to substitute for the Thirty-nine Articles a Protestant confession of faith, to carry out various proposed reformations, and to omit the Office for the Consecration of Bishops. This was the scheme of Mr. Strickland, defended by Mr. Wentworth.'-^ The Puritans, however, were in the minority ; and not only did their scheme fail, but the Parliament, in spite of the queen's prohibition, passed a statute (13 Eliz. c. 12) making subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles necessary ; while the parallel attempt ' Neal, i. 175. [Mr. Mullinger, "History of the University of Cambridge," ii. 193, n., rejects the rivalry story, and points out that there is no evidence that Cartwright visited Geneva prior to his removal from his professorship. See also p. 226. In 1565 he retired to Ireland, and on his return to Cambridge in 1569 was elected to the Margaret Professorship. Ibid., pp. 200, 207.] ' See Hook's "Parker," pp. 409, 410 ; Neal, i. 176, etc. ; Perry, p. 295. 284 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IN to create a new canon law in the Rcfoniiatio Legum also failed, thoiic^^h Convocation passed the canons of 1571. It is said that one hundred clergymen were deprived for refusing to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. The Uni- versity of Cambridge was " a nest of Puritans " (Neal), and .gave the vice-chancellor, Dr. Whitgift, much trouble.^ In 1572 Mr. Wentworth again brought in two Bills for Calvinizing the Church ; but the queen now determined to interfere, and refused to allow any Bill respecting religion to be received till it had been approved by Convocation. It was this that called forth the " Admonitions to Parliament," of which the first was drawn up by Mr. Field and Wilcox. It was a scheme for a Presbyterian and democratic Church, attacked with some severity of language the existing episcopate, and prayed Parliament f(jr a discipline more consonant to the Word of God and the Reformed Churches. The authors were com- mitted to Newgate, October 12, 1572, and Cartwright drew up the " Second Admonition." Of Thomas Cartwright, Neal remarks that "he was at the head of a new generation of Puritans, of warmer spirits ; who opened the controversy with the Church into other branches, and struck at some of the main principles of the hierarchy."^ In other words, Puri- tanism was now becoming consciously Presbyterian.^ The " Second Admonition " consisted of twenty-three chapters,"* and was answered by Dr. Whitgift, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Master of Trinity College, and Regius Professor of Divinit}- ; but, as Neal says, the contro- vers}' could not be settled, since the combatants had different ' Mr. Charkc, in 1572, prcatliing at St. Mary's, j)ut down episcopacy to Satan (Neal, i. 187), and had to apologize. 2 /I'iii.y i. 1 89, f.n. ' [From a detached slip by Mr. Moore.] Thougli Puritanism took the form of rresbytcrianisni, the name was given to all who refusetl conformity on the I'rotestant side, just as tion-couforinist was the generic name for all those who refused the Act of 1662, and dissenter for those tolerated by the Act of 1689 {i.e. all except Papists antl Unitarians). According to Ileylyn, ii. 421, the name Puritan dates from 1565 ; [Fuller, ii. 474, says, about 1564. See on the nomen- clature of Knglish Dissent an excellent article in No. 32, July, 1SS3, of the Church Quarterly Rrcir.i>.\ * q.v. ap. Neal, i. 192. EXGLAXD AND ON THE CONTINENT. 285 standards — Cartwrlght contending for the Bible, and the Bible only, as the rule of faith and discipline ; while Whitgift argued that the Bible was the standard of faith, but not of dis- cipline. The Admonitions called forth the proclamation of October 20, 1573,^ and the same year saw the formation of the first Presbytery in England. Two years later (1575), Cart- wright published his second reply to Whitgift, and a second part in 1577, after he had fled from England. While Puritanism was thus passing into Presbytcrianism it was already beginning to give birth to a new form of anti-episcopal Christianity in the sect of the Independents, Robert Browne, the founder of this sect, had been one of the Puritans summoned to Lambeth in June, i57o(?).^ He was domestic chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk, and at first escaped deprivation, apparently through the influence of his family. He was first a schoolmaster, then a lecturer in Islington, and seems to have gone about preaching against the Church in the diocese of Norwich. In 1581 the Bishop of Norwich committed him to the custody of the sheriff, but he was soon after released, and in 1582 published a book on "The Life and Manners of all True Christians," with a preface on " Re- formation without tarrying for any." He was again taken into custody, and released at the intercession of the Lord Treasurer. At length he gathered together a congregation of those who adopted his principles, and for this was compelled to fly from England [to Middleburg in Holland]. In 1589 he returned, and, renouncing his principles of separation, con- formed, and became (1591) a rector in Northamptonshire, where, according to Fuller, he lived a dissolute life, so that at the age of eighty-one he was imprisoned for assaulting the parish constable, and died in 1603 '^^^ Northampton Gaol. Browne was succeeded by Barrowe, whence the name Bar- rowists given to the early Independents, and the sect multi- plied, especially during the time of the Mar-prelate controversy. Between 1583 and 1593 five Independents were put to death — ' "Documentary Annals," i, Iwix. and Ix.w. - See Neal, i. 246-24S. 286 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX Thackcr and Copping in 1583, and, ten years later, Barrowc, Greenwood, and John Penry.^ Persecution of the Iiidcpoideiits. — It was the work of the State, not of the Church, in spite of the persistent misrepre- sentations of their modern successors.'-^ The Barrowists were supposed to be dangerous to the State, and were so con- sidered by the Puritans themselves.^ The first two victims fell under the Libel Act of 1581 ; the other three were sacrificed to the queen's anger at the Mar-prelate libels.^ No execution of Independents took place after 1593.'' Under the leadership of Robinson and Ainsworth they emigrated to Holland, and in 1620, as Pilgrim P^athers, sailed in the Mayjloicer for America. Were they martyrs ? " Causa uon paiia facit mar tyres!' What was their cause } Not liberty of conscience, but a par- ticular theory of the Church, which they wished the State to enforce at the point of the sword.*^ Were they apostles of toleration ? See Curteis on the Pilgrim Fathers,"^ and the attempts to establish Congregationalism in 1657.^ Wc have traced Puritanism in England through its four stages. Appearing first of all among the exiles who " scrupled the habits," it soon parted into two branches — those who con- formed, like Grindal, Jewel, Sandys, etc. ; and those, like Lever, Sampson, and Humphrey, who refused conformity. The name Puritan was limited to those who refused to conform, and who, after the Advertisements in i ^66, began to set up separate conventicles. With Cartwright and Travers, Puri- tanism entered on its third or Presbyterian phase, and with ]k(jwne and Barrowe it took a new shape in the sect of the Independents." ' For Ihc IJrownisls, bce Curteis, 68 sqq ; Ilcylyn, " rrcsbytcrians," p. 295 ; Neal, i. 246-248. [As to the Middlclmrg Prayer-hook of 1584-5, see Procter, p. 86.] * .Sec Curteis, p. 75. ^ Sec the appeal of the Justices, ap. Xcal, 1. 254. ♦ .See, too, Lord Bacon's judgment and Sir Walter Raleigh's (Curteis, \\ 74)- * Ibid., p. 79- • See Neal, i. 247, 24S, on their doctrines, and Curteis, p. 78. 7 Page 82. * Curteis, p. 87. ' See all these clearly distinguished in a quotation from Bishop Cooper, ap. Hooker, i. 142, f.n. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 287 Of all the two hundred and twenty registered sects of the present day, the Presbyterians and the Independents are the only ones which, in their present form, can be traced back to the sixteenth century. But two other sects are to be found in the germ in the Anabaptism of Elizabeth's age. Among these Anabaptists, there was a broadly marked distinction between the Dutch and the German types, while the two forms of German Anabaptism differed widely from one another. Dutch Anabaptism was represented hy the Family of Love, ■or Faniilists, who derived their doctrines from Henry Nicholas, a Dutchman, and published a confession of faith in 1575. They seem to have freely allegorized Holy Scripture, and to have held whimsical views on spiritual perfection, etc., and to have become very lax in morals. This more purely mystical Christianity, which showed itself as Quietism within the Roman Church, reappeared in England as QUAKERISM in the next century. Four days before King Charles surrendered, George Fox was meditating in the fields near Coventry, and there received his revelation, in pursuance of which he founded the Society of Friends (May i, 1646. King surrendered May 5.)' Of the German Anabaptists, one class differed mainly on the question of infant baptism and the necessity of immersion. These were the forerunners of the BAPTISTS of the next century. In 1633 a body of strict Independents, strongly influenced by Anabaptist views, formed themselves into a fresh communion for the maintenance of a stricter Calvinism, a severer discipline, and a more literal adherence to Scripture in baptism.^ The other class of German .\nabaptists are those most commonly intended by that name. They were enthusiasts, with socialistic and levelling views such as those which stirred up the Peasant War. They were persecuted by the State in every reign throughout the Reformation period. A very ' Yo\ the Familists, see Hooker, vol. i. pp. 148, 149, f.n. aiul references. iSee, too, Neal, i. 222, and "Documentary Annals," i. xcii. - See Curteis, p. 212. 288 niSTORY OF THE REI-ORMATIOX IX large proportion of the burninc^^s in Ouccn Mary's reign were the burnings of Anabaptists from Holland and elsewhere, who had settled in the eastern counties. In 1575 twenty-seven. Anabaptists were taken holding a religious meeting in London. Some recanted their errors, among which errors we find the denial of the Incarnation, and of the right to take an oath, or to serve as a magistrate. Eleven of the twenty-seven were condemned to be burnt ; but of these, nine were banished and two were burnt at Smithfield on July 22, 1575. under the writ dc hcretico conihitrendo, now revived after seventeen years. LECTURE XVI. THE STRUGGLE OF THE CHURCH WITH PURITANISM — THE TROPHESYINGS (l57I-lS77)- There was at least one virtue unknown in the sixteenth century, the virtue of toleration. To our minds the attempt to compel belief by law is equally irrational and immoraU whether it take the form of the Six Articles Law, or an Act of Uniformity, or a Public Worship Regulation Act. The consolidation of the English Church was due not to the Uni- formity Acts, but to the constructive apologetics of Bishop Jewel and Richard Hooker. To this Skeats ^ candidly bears witness. "Jewel, Hooker, Burnet, and Pearson." he says. " have probably done more to hold the Church of England together than all its Acts of Uniformit}-.'' lUit, as we have seen, in- tolerance was the order of the da\-. Presbyterians believed that the system of John Calvin was divine!}- revealed, and therefore to be enforced. The Brown ists believed the same of their Congregationalism. Nonconformist historians speak of the intolerance of the Church ; they often forget that the sects were as intolerant when they had the power. Luther liad no pity for Anabaptists ; Calvin burnt Servetus. Skcats'-^ ' " Irec Churches," p. 2S. " Page 20, ajnul Curteis, p. 69, f.n. E.VGLAXD AXD ON THE CONTIXENT. 289 says of Cartwright ^ that " \i he had been in Whitgift's place, he would have dealt equal persecution to Baptists and Inde- pendents." We have seen what the *' Pilgrim Fathers " meant by toleration. The modern Congregationalist poses as the apostle of toleration, but when, under the Commonwealth, the Quakers were imprisoned and pilloried by thousands, the persecutors were Independents and Presbyterians. Oliver Cromwell summed up the case when he said, " Every sect saith, ' O give me liberty.' But give it him, and to his power, he will not yield it to anybody else." ^ The Puritans with whom the Church of England came in conflict during the last thirty years of Elizabeth's reign, were men who had more or less consciously adopted a Pres- byterian theory of the Church. The stages in the develop- ment of their views are shown in the two great controversies of the age ; (i.) the exercises or prophesyings ; (ii.) the Mar- prelate libels. The prophesyings date back as far as the year 1 57 1. They were an attempt to carry out literally the words of i Cor. xiv. 31 : "Ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all be comforted." The rules for these informal gather- ings of clergy, and the confession of faith subscribed by the members,^ sufficiently prove their sectarian character. After the Presbyterian secession of 1573,* the prophesyings became more general, and spread into the dioceses of York, Chester, Durham, and Ely. Though the bishops tried to regulate them, and though they certainly had their good side in dif- fusing a knowledge of Holy Scripture, they became in fact, as Archbishop Parker said, mere " seminaries of Puritanism,"^ and, as such, the queen determined to put them down, beginning with the diocese of Norwich. Archbishop Parker thereupon ' See, too, Green's " .Short History," p. 456. " With the despotism of a Hildebrand, Cartwright combined the crucUy of a Torquemada. . . . ' I deny,' wrote Cartwright, ' that upon repentance there ought to follow any pardon of death. . . . Heretics ought to be put to death now. If this be bloody and extreme, I am content to be so counted with the Holy Ghost.' " = Carlyle, "Cromwell," ii. 298, apud Curteis, p. 70, f.n. 3 See both in Neal, i. 182. * Ibid., 198. ' Ibid., 214. U 290 HI STORY OF THE REFORMATION IN wrote to poor old Bishop Parkhurst, and called upon him to put down the " vain prophesy ings." The bishop took offence and wrote a remonstrance to the archbishop, and at the same time wrote to the Privy Council, which, knowing nothing of the (luccn's part in the affair, authorized Parkhurst to " uphold the prophesyings." Parker, however, was supported by the queen, and the Privy Council had to give way. The Bishop of Norwich obeyed and suppressed the prophesyings, and died P"*ebruary 2, 1575. In the year following, May 17, 1575, just before the burning of the Anabaptists, Archbishop Parker died. What does the English Church owe to him ? ^ During the early part of Grindal's Primacy (1576-1583), the conforming and non-conforming parties headed by Cart- wright and Travers continued their irregular assemblies, and agreed upon a scheme of reformation.'-^ The primate, whose Puritan sympathies made him minimize the evil of these meetings, attempted to regulate them.'^ But the queen was determined to put them down. Grindal, on December 10, 1576, wrote a remonstrance, but in vain,'* and in return the queen, by an order from the Star Chamber, suspended the archbishop. There was even a talk of depriving him, but this was not done. He never recovered the queen's favour, [and his suspension was not removed till just before his death in 1583]. The queen's letter of May 7, 1577, was obeyed with more or less reluctance by all the bishops,^ and from lliat time we hear no more of the prophesyings." ' See Hook's "rarkcr," pp. 586 jyry Sketch" to the^ Controversy.] ' Sec list of forty in M.iskcU, pp. 25 si/i/. * This is answered in '• Alinonil for a ranat," Maskell, p. 31. The statement of the question at issue by Martin in the Kpitome is given, /7'/- on the King of Spain, and all their efforts were devoted to exercising pressure upon him. But the death of Gregory XIIL, in I 585, was a great blow to them, for his successor, Sixtus V., maintained a reserved and cautious policy as regards Philip, fearing n^uch to do anything to help on his ideal of a world- monarchy, despite his character as the most powerful champion of the faith. The growing importance of Allen's position is shown by Gregory's intention (1583) of making him Prince- Bishop of Durham, so as to be a rallying point for the adhe- rents of the old faith, who were special 1}' numerous and powerful in north l^ngland ; and shortly before Gregory's death we find that the Spanish Court was beginning to press for his nomination to the cardinalate. Thus Allen's zeal for the faith drew him closer and closer to Spain ; the old sus- picion of the people of Douai received its justification. Hence we arc not surprised to learn that he was summoned to Rome at the end of i v*^^ to use all his influence with Sixtus V. in EXGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 303 -order that the Pope might be induced to join Spain in the long-planned attack on England and to grant pecuniary aid ; the English throne, too, was to be secured for a member of the Spanish royal family, for all hopes of converting James of Scotland (the son of Mary Queen of Scots) had now been finally given up. Father Parsons and the Spanish envoy in Rome stood behind Allen and directed the course of the negotiations. The execution of Mary o\\ February 8, 1587, had among other effects that of stirring up the plotters to come to terms. On August 7, 1587, as a mark of favour and respect for Philip, Allen was named cardinal priest, the idea being that he was to accompany the expedition as legate, and that the English Romanists would eagerly gather round one who had done so much for the faith. Allen was deeply grateful to Philip for the pertinacity with which he had sought for him a post which was personally distasteful to him, and promised to fill the English sees with men who should be approved by the King of Spain or his representative. As we all know, the Great Armada, the fruit of so much ■scheming and preparation, failed miserably in July, 1588. It is interesting to note that Parsons regarded this breakdown as a judgment of God for the distrustful and suspicious manner in which Philip treated the English Romanists, which led them to believe that he wished to rule over England by right of conquest and strong in his own power. Thus Allen's political schemes had utterly broken down, and the murder of the Guises in December, 1588, further ruined the cause of the Counter-Reformation, for the return blow given in the form of the assassination of Henry III. (August, 1589) simply cleared the way for the accession of the Huguenot Henry of Navarre. Allen, indeed, never despaired of winning back England even when all hope of obtaining material aid from the King of Spain had passed away. Named by Philip in November, 1589, to the vacant archbishopric of Mechlin, he was never consecrated, for the financial embarrassments of the see and the slackness of Philip to discharge them prevented any steps being taken to 304 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX put him in possession of the post. His last years were spent at Rome as the trusted adviser of the Popes, who rapidly succeeded one another, lie was at one time involved in a quarrel with the Jesuits arising out of the affairs of the English college at Rome, and in 1593, true to his Spanish leanings, strenuously opposed the sanctioning of the reception of Henry IV. into the Church by the Pope. In this last point he was over-ridden, and Dr. Bellesheim considers that he was mistaken in his resistance. The same year, 1593, saw too the return of the seminary from Douai to Reims, a change which had become necessary after the fall of the Guises in 1588, though many things had delayed its execution. Allen died at Rome on October 16, 1594, at the age of only sixty-two. His busy life had prematurely worn him out. We cannot sympathize with his aims and objects, but we can appreciate and understand the wonderful doggedness and courage, the marvellous self-sacrifice and single-mindedness, with which he strove to realize his ideal. His long absence from PLngland undoubtedly caused him to form too exagge- rated an idea of the strength of the Roman Catholics there, for to the last he held that the great religious change at home was but a shadow which would pass away at the death of P^^lizabeth. In these days, when energetic action is often paralyzed by doubts of success, by the apparent disproportion of means to ends, it cannot fail to do us good to study the life of one who, without material resources of his own, did all that man could do to restore a vanished state of things, and who summed up in himself the great attempt of the Counter- Reformation to win back England, the very climax of the whole movement in Europe. Allen's great monument is, of course, his college at Douai. The town passed to Erance in 1668, when the Spanish sub- sidies came to an end. The college, however, survived till 1793, when its inmates were expelled as Englishmen, and therefore dangerous to the Revolutionary Government. They were distributed between Old Hall Green (now St. Edmund's College) and Ushaw and Oscott, all of which may claim some share in the glories of a college which in the space of 225 ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 305 years could boast of 160 martyrs and confessors, as well as 33 archbishops and bishops. Parsons founded seminaries in Spain at Valladolid, Madrid, and Seville, of which the former still exists, as does also that at Lisbon. It is to him also that is due the Jesuit College of St. Omer, founded in 1593 under the protection of Philip, which was transferred to Bruges in 1762 and to Liege in 1773, ^"^ to Stonyhurst in 1794, where it still exists. Dr. Bellesheim gives, besides, a very curious list of all the English religious houses founded on the Continent, which number no fewer than 37 — belonging to Jesuits (4), Benedictines (12), Carthusians (i), Dominicans (3), Franciscans (7), Carmelites (4), Austin nuns (4), Brigit- tines (i), and the house of " Marie Ward " (i). Any account of Allen and Douai would be incomplete without some w^ords on the English version of the Bible carried out by the college. The New Testament was pub- lished at Reims in 1582, but the Old Testament not till 1610. The original idea was Allen's, and he had personally a large share in the work of translation, which was mainly done by Gregory Martin, formerly of St, John's, Oxford, assisted by Richard Bristowe, formerly Fellow of Exeter, and others. Thus the translation may be regarded as the work of a band of Oxford scholars exiled for their faith ; and we are therefore not surprised to find that though the Vulgate version was taken as the basis, the Greek and Hebrew originals were constantly consulted. The notes were intended to correct common Protestant misinterpretations, and from their controversial character excited much indignation in England. As to the merits of the translation it may be said that while the Authorized Version of 161 1 is the finer as a piece of English literature, the Reims version is in many points more accurate, particularly as regards the use of the Greek article, which alone would show that its authors did not limit themselves to the Latin text of the Vulgate. It is well known that the Reims version exercised great influence on the Authorized Version of 161 1. Dr. Westcott's or Dr. Moulton's works will supply the detailed proofs of this ; here it may suffice to quote the striking testimony given by the re- 306 HISTORY OF THE REFORMAT/OX LV viscrs of 1 88 1 in their Preface to the Revised New Testament : — ■ " Tlie Translators [of 1611] made much use of tlie Genevan version. They do not, however, appear to have frequently re- turned to the renderings of the other Versions named in the rule, when those Versions differed from the Bishops' Bible. On the other hand, their work shews evident traces of the influence of a Version not specified in the rules, the Rhemish, made from the Latin Vulgate, but by scholars conversant with the Greek Original." A further proof of the estimation in which Allen's scholarship was held is the fact that for two years (i 590-1) he was a member of the committee appointed by Gregory XIV. to revise the Latin text of the Vulgate, as contained in the official edition of 1590, which itself was a mutilated repro- duction of the work of an earlier committee named by Sixtus V. So, too, we find that he was a member of the committee charged by Gregory XIII. with bringing out a critical edition of the LXX. Version, and worked on it from the start in 1579 to the publication of the book in 1587. All historical students are now lamenting the death, at a ripe old age, of Leopold von Ranke, who, in his ** History of the Popes in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," first traced with a master's hand the outlines of the great reaction commonly known as the Counter- Reformation. Those outlines are being little by little filled up and expanded by workers in different lands. The future historian of the English Counter-Reformation will find that one man meets him at every turn ; it is William Allen, who holds in his hands the threads of all the intrigues and plots and schemes for the restoration of England to the Papacy. Scholar, theo- logian, missionary, and politician — his whole life was devoted to the service of God as he understood it, and even his adv^er- saries must atlmit the force of his biographer's boast that he was ''homo tiatus ad AtigliiC salutem!' though they rejoice that it was not given him to succeed. VV. A. B. C. I. Challoner, Richard. " iMemoirs of Missioiiary Priests." Derby : 1843. 2 vols. EXGLAND AXD ON THE COXTIXENT. 307 2. Dodd, Charles. "The Church History of England, from 1500 to 1688." 3 vols. Brussels: 1737. Or Tierney's edition. London: 1839. 5 vols. 3. ''Records of the English Catholics under the Penal Laws." Edited by T. F. Kjtox. Vol. L, "Diaries of the English College at Douai." London : 1878. Vol. II., " Letter Books of Cardinal Allen." 1882. 4. *' Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus." Vol. VI., " Diary of the English College at Rome from 1579 to 1773." Edited by W.Foley. London: 1880. 5. Lazv, T. G. " A Calendar of the English Martyrs of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries." London: 1876. 6. Simpso7i,'K. " Edmund Campion." London: 1867. With regard to the persecutions of the papists, we have to remember that the opposition was political, not theological. After the bull of excommunication (i 570), every devout Papist was bound to believe that Elizabeth was deposed, and that no obedience was due to her. The refusal of the Act of Supremacy by the Papists of this period was a totally different thing from the conscientious scruples of those who, like Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More, refused the Act of Supreme Head in Henry's reign. To call the Papists "martyrs" is to confuse the issue, since it is clear they were put to death not for their religious opinions as such, but for holding views (as no doubt they were in conscience bound to do) dangerous to the safety of the queen. There is no palliating the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, by which, as Mr. Keble says,i the chief hope of the Romanist party was got rid of at the cost of a national crime. But other Papists in England would probably have been left unmolested if they would have repudiated all plans against the throne. When the policy of Rome had declared itself in the Spanish Armada, and specially trained seminarists were despatched into England, it was little wonder that they were treated as traitors.^ ' Preface to Hooker, i. p. Ixiv. 2 For the case of the Roman '* martyrs," see Sanders, iv. ch. 9, etc. ; Curteis, pp. 197, 198, f.n. ; Douai and the seminarists, Sanders, iv. ch, 8 ; List of seminaries, 1569-1624, ap. Neal, i. 221. 30S HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION TV That they were treated as traitors and not as heretics is proved by the fact that every one of them was hanged and not biDiied} From Theodore to Cranmer. [The following notes were found among Mr. Moore's papers relating to his Reformation lectures, and are printed here, as there seems to be no place marked out for them in the general scheme.] The Church of England a part of the Church Catholic, under its primate, recognizing the primacy of Rome, accorded to it by (Ecumenical Councils, recog- nized by the Catholic Church throughout the world. Its hierarchy and organization ; its independence of Rome. Free adoption of Roman use no recognition of Roman supremacy. Between Theodore and Cranmer what had happened ? (i.) Growth of Roman claims. (ii.) Growth of jealousy between Church and State. Church and State united till the Conquest — (a) Effects of Conquest. The struggle tended to make the Church appeal from the State to Rome. So gradually Rome got power, and increased hatred of Church by Slate. Pope v. king— the Church generally the victim. (;8) The growth of monastic system, (a) Strengthened the papal influence ; ()3) alienated the laity. By Henry I.'s reign a papal legate established — Icgattis a latere. Archbishop of Canterbury legatus nattis^ 1 1 26, and Papa allcrius orhis, 1098. The " Aletropolilanus " became " apostolioe scdis legal us ^ 1 164. Constitutions of Clarendon. John and Innocent III. The "census" of 1000 marks granted by John Wicliffe. Increase of papal power meant what ? (i.) Extortions, annates, canons, I'eter pence, fees, etc. (ii.) A|)peals, always illegal, but connived at. (iii.) \'isitation. (iv.) Provisions, always opposed. Anti-papal Acts — Provisors, 25 Kdw. III. st. 4, c. 22 ; 13 Rich. II. st. 2, c. 2 ; 16 Rich. II. c. 5- Pm^munire. 27 Edw. III. c. I ; 7 Rich. II. c. 14 ; 16 Rich. II. c. 5 ; 22 Hen. Vni. c. 15. What hajipcnetl at the Reformation ? Rejection of papal claims, not Roman primacy. * Curtcis, loc. cit. See, too, Lord Burleigh's tract referred to, ap. ** Docu- mentary Annals," i. 455, f.n. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 309 Two principles underlay divorce case : — (i.) Can Pope override law of God ? (ii.) Is not a provincial synod without appeal? Henry re-enacted and enforced the anti-papal Acts which all the great Church- men had maintained. There was no act of schism, but the final refusal to recognize claims which Popes like Gregory the Great had repudiated. The great Acts of 1534. England not excommunicated for four years. Ritiing of Becket's tomb. Church and State were agreed in this repudiation of claims, though many feared the ominous title, " Head of the Church." The Church did, as a matter of fact, lose as well as gain at the Reformation. For the Tudors, professing to restore the ancient power of the Crown, really made 7ircV claims, and used their power for spoliation of Church property. Still the Church were willing to bear, and did bear, much, till in Edward VI.'s reign there was a danger of heretical doctrines, which would have separated the English Church from the Church Catholic. Hence the readiness of the English Church to return even to the bondage of Rome rather than abandon her Catholicity. Five years of Romanism under Mary, and the persecution of her Spanish husband, made the restoration of English independence possible. English Church had now learned that she must vindicate herself against two foes : — Her constitutional freedom as a National Church against Pope and king. Her true and Catholic heritage against Lutherans, Zwinglians, and a tribe of fanatics. The final rejection of the Papacy in 1559 secured her freedom from the Pope. The final rejection of heretical views dates from the reign of Elizabeth. Doctrinal Changes at the Reformation. How did the changes in doctrine affect the Catholicity of the English Church ? Up to end oi Henry VIII.'' s reign, no reform in doctrine. Edzvard VI., services in English. Mass becomes communion in both kinds. Prayer-book of 1549, wherein we find the doctrine of the priesthood and of the .Sacraments pre- served— nothing Catholic lost. Then the Puritans in power. They wish — to make the Church a Protestant sect, to break with antiquity, to formulate a confession of faith, to destroy the canon law, and invent a discipline. Hence, in the Prayer-book of 1552, we find that the Real Presence is not denied, but ignored, while the priesthood is degraded to a ministry. Elizabeth. The 1559 Prayer-book restores doctrine of Real Presence and vestments. Vestiarian controversy. Shall we wear the surplice ? The Nonconformists of 1566. Puritanism shows its true colours, T. C[artwright] and Hooker, 310 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX. The principles between Church and Puritan, and Church and Pope — Papists— Church-rid — Pope and Pope only. Puritans — Pible and BiV)le only. Church of England — Bible in the light of Apostolic usage. The via media — Papists called them Protestants, Puritans called them papists. Something to be learned from Scotch Reformation. No middle party — Rome or Geneva. Is the Church of England guilty of schism ? If rejection of Rome is schism, yes ; but it cannot be. Cf. Africa and Rome. But England rebelled against the Bishop of Rome. Rejection of new claims not rebellion — the primacy formally admitted, the Patriarchate never in question, the Supremacy rejected. Act of Separation— altar v. altar — the work of Rome. COURSE IV. THE REFORMATION ON THE CONTINENT CHRONOLOGY OF THE REFORMATION ON THE CONTINENT (1517-1555). Period /. , 1 5 1 7- 1 530. 1517. Oct. 31. — Luther nails up his ninety-five Theses at Wittenberg. 1518. Aug. 7. — Luther receives the papal citation to appear in Rome within sixty days. Oct. 12-14. — Luther appears before Cajetan at Augsburg. Oct. 16. — Luther appeals to the Pope. Oct. 28. — Luther leaves Augsburg. Nov. 28. — Luther appeals to a General Council. Dec. 13. — Leo X.'s bull about indulgences published (it was dated Nov. 9). 1519- About Jan. 6. — Luther and Miltitz meet. Jan. 12. — Death of the Emperor Maximilian. March 3. — Luther's letter to the Pope recognizing his supremacy. June 27-July 13. — Disputation at Leipsic between Luther and Eck. June 28. — Election of Charles of Spain as Emperor, Sept. — Luther publishes his " Commentary on the Galatians." 1520. June 15. — Papal bull issued condemning forty-one propositions in Luther's works. End of June. — Luther publishes his " Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation." Oct. — Luther publishes his " Babylonish Captivity of the Church." About Oct. 15. — Luther sends a letter to the Pope together with his book on the " Liberty of a Christian Man." Nov. 17. — Luther appeals from the Pope to a General Council. Dec. 10. — Luther burns the papal bull of June 15. 1521. Jan. 3. — Luther excommunicated by the Pope. April 17-26. — Luther appears before the Diet at Worms. May 5. — Luther carried off to the Wartburg. May 8. — Luther put under the ban of the Empire (decree antedated from the 26th). — Edict of Wornts. Dec. I. — Death of Leo X. 1522. Jan. 9. — Election of Adrian VL March 3. — Luther returns from the Wartburg to Wittenberg. Sept. 21. — Luther publishes his German translation of the New Testament. Dec. 22. — Diet of Nuremberg. .:;i4 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX '523- March 6. — The Recess. A demand for a Council, and presentation of the Centum Gravamina. Sept. 14. — Death of Adrian VI. Nov. 19. — Election of Clement VII. 1524- Jan. 14. — Diet of Nuremberg. April 18. — The Diet decrees that the Edict of Worms is to be carried out as far as possible, and that a national assembly is to meet at Spires on November II to discuss the Gravamina. June 24-July 8. — Campeggio's reform conference at Ratisbon and league. July 15, and again on Sept. 30. — Charles forbids the meeting at Spires. Aug. — Outbreak of the Peasants' War. Aug. 21. — Luther and C^rlstadt dispute at Jena. 1525. P'eb. 24. — Battle of Pavia and defeat of Francis. May 5.— Death of the Elector Frederick of Saxony. May 15. — Battle of PVankenhausen and defeat of the peasants. June 13. — Luther's marriage with Catherine Bora. 1526. Jan. 14. — Treaty of Madrid. May 22. — Holy League against Charles. /June 25. — Diet of Spires. - in Mr. Moore's manuscript, written apparently about 18S2. Tiie following notes from the note- books of pupils represent the lecture as actually tleliverevl in 1S88 and 1SS9.] The Reformation is a name which we give to that moral and ecclesiastical movement which was the counterpart of the Renaissance, lioth were in different ways a revolt from ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 323 medlcevalism, the one from its literary and artistic side, the latter from its religious side. In both cases there is a return to an earlier state of things — the Renaissance to classical, the Reformation to Christian antiquity. But while the Reforma- tion implied a revolt from the mediaeval conception of the Church, it took very different shapes, which were mainly determined by local conditions and the relations in which different countries stood towards the Papacy, which was bound up with the mediceval idea of the Church. It was the w symbol of that view of unity which had grown up since Hildebrand ; and, whether in England or on the Continent, the Reformation implied the more or less complete renouncing of that view. Both in England and on the Continent there had been many attempts at reform before the Reformation, and when it began, neither in England nor on the Continent was schism contemplated. Luther himself did not break with the Papacy till he found a reformation impossible with- out it; and Henry VIII., after openly rejecting the papal claims, still claimed to be in the unity of the Roman Church. But the Continental and the English Reformations are widely distinguished both in their origin (or first impulse), their progress, and their result. (i.) Origin. The occasion which brought about the Refor- mation in Germany was a vigorous moral protest against the abuses of the sale of indulgences. Luther at first did not protest against indulgences, but the abuse of the sale of indul- gences, and in his celebrated Theses he distinctly professes belief in indulgences. (Roman Catholics say that his pride was hurt because the sale was entrusted to the Dominicans, and not to his own order, the Augustinian Friars.) He was gradually led on to see that these abuses were bound up with the whole theory of indulgences, and so went farther, one step farther. When he saw that the theory of indulgences was bound up with papal claims, he was compelled to renounce obedience to the Pope in order to secure a moral reformation. In his letter to the Pope he assumes that Leo is on his side ; but finds this course hopeless. The English Reformation began at the other end. The 324 HISTORY OF TlfE REFORMATIO X LV occasion was the unjustifiable desire of llenr}- VIII. to ;get rid of his wife, and the first step was to make a breach with Rome. Any recasting of doctrine was alien from Henry's thought ; any moral protest was confined to Churchmen. Mis breach with Rome made possible the doctrinal and moral reformation that the Church had in vain tried to carry out in l)rcvious periods. Henry rejected papal claims, not in the interest of a moral reformation, but on constitutional prin- ciples. Whatever his motive, he was able to claim that, in rejecting the claims of the Papacy, he was onl}' doing what had been already done by the law of the land, and had been admitted and recognized by previous Popes. (2.) Progress or development. When Luther broke with his superior, he had to reconstruct, whereas in England the constitutional machinery of the Church (archbishops, bishops, and convocations) remained in working order. England was able to claim that it was falling back on its constitutional liberties, that it was the same Church, with the same officers and the same faith. Hence the reformation of doctrine, when it did take ])lace, was not left to the will of one man, but was the work of the National Church. Luther had to erect a system of Church Government, while the Lutheran doctrine was in a state of flux. (3.) Final results. The Reformation on the Continent lost its continuity, its oneness with the historical pre-Refor- mation Church. It seemed careless about preserving con- tinuity, and was anxious only that the Church should be conformed to the primitive model. On the other hand, in England the Church preserved its continuity of order and doctrine through the reconstructions of Edward and Elizabeth, while the Lutheran body had to reconstruct itself upon the basis of the Hiblc. The principle of continuit\' is the distin- guishing feature of the English Church. *' Warham, Cranmer, I'ole, and Tarker — there is no break in the line, thtnigh the first and third are claimed as Catholic, the second and fourth as Protestant." ^ ' Heard's "Iliblicrt Lccturo," p. 31 1, in a remarkable passage which opens wilh the words, ** There is no point at which it can be said, here the old Church ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT, 325 If the English Church was exposed to dangers from a king and Erastian bishops limiting its ancient constitutional freedom, the Lutheran Church was exposed to all the attack of many- headed heresy, against which Luther could only oppose the Bible and his own strong will. Many interpreted the Bible differently from Luther. The Swiss opponents of Rome, while like Luther claiming the Bible and the Bible only, refused to accept it in Luther's sense, and this breach between the Saxon and the Swiss Reformation is traceable at the present day. The Anabaptists professed that in themselves they had higher inspiration than the Bible. The Lutherans could not appeal to Apostolic custom ; but the English Church never took the Bible and the Bible only, revising while not recon- structing. Nothing is more sad than the decay of Lutheran orthodoxy at the beginning of the eighteenth century. In England the Wesleyan revival was followed by a revival lifting men out of subjectivity. Then, in Germany, came the Pietistic move- ment. Spener said that he had a private religion which was untouched, though not very orthodox. Next came Rationalism, in the time of Frederic II., due to the influence of English Deism. Pietism shaded off into Rationalism. It would seem that what is operative in Germany is rather Swiss than Saxon, the latter being watered down. LECTURE n. the growth of the papacy. «. Church and State.^ To understand the enormous power, temporal and spiritual,' possessed by the Popes, in virtue of which kings and ends, here the new begins." See ibid., p. 300 : "■ The English Reformation, both in its method and in its resiUt, is a thing by itself, taking its place in no historical succession, and altogether refusing to be classified." ' Janus, "The Pope and the Council;" Milman's "Latin Christianity," vol. iii. ; Robertson's "Growth of the Papal Power;" Ranke, "Popes," vol. i. ■ch. i. ; Reichel, "See of Rome in the Middle Ages." 326 HISTOKY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX Emperors were deposed or excomniunicatcd, and nations laid under interdict, it is useful to look back to the bef:,nnnings of that power and the means by which it was advanced and secured. (Of course the rise and proi^ress of the papal power can only be traced in outline here.) Two distinct lines ma>- be advantageously followed : («) the first, indicating the way in which the Church triumphed over the State ; ()3) the second, the conflict between I'opc and Council, culminating in the victory of the former. (f/) CJuirch and State. The precedence of the sec of Rome in the early centuries rested not simpl\' on the civil greatness of Rome as the imperial city,^ but on the fact that the Bishop of Rome "held the chair of Peter." The primacy of Rome consisted in four points: (i) Bishop of Rome; (2) patriarch of the suburbicarian Churches, i.e. the ten Churches governed by the " Vicar Urbis'' ; (3) the only Western bishop holding a sec founded by an Apostle ; (4) first in dignity among the bishops.^ In the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea (A.I). 325) the recognized order of the three "dioceses '" "' was this : Rome. Alexandria, Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon (a.i>. 451) created a new patriarchate, that of Constantinople, and placed it second in order over the heads of Alexandria and Antioch. The explanation of this is plainly given in the thirty-eighth canon of Chalcedon. " The Fathers properly gave the Primacy to the throne of the elder Rome because that was the imperial cit}-. And the hundred and fifty most religious bishops" {i.e. tlie Council of Constantinople, Canon III.), "being moved with the same intention, gave equal privi- leges to the most holy throne of New Rome, judging with rea.son that the city which was honoured with the sovereignty and senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like her in eccle- siastical matters, being the second after her." ' The canon • Ilright's " History of the Chmcli,"' 313 451, p. 17S. ' Sec Ibid., p. 177, f.n. ^ The term jiatri-nrch had not yet got its technical mcaniiii,', but was applied^ as by Greg. Nazianzcn, to venerable or ** Abraham-like ' bishops (Bright). * See on this point, "Canons of the Tour Councils," I'.right's edition, p. 73 ; Littlcdale's *• Petrine Claims," p, 96. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 327 of Constantinople (381) here referred to runs thus: "That the Bishop of Constantinople have the prerogative of honour next after the Bishop of Rome ; for Constantinople is New Rome" (Canon III.^). This advancement of the diocese of Constantinople was passed in despite of the protest of the Roman legates, who objected that it altered the original order of the Council of Nica^a. By the Council of Chalcedon Constantinople for the first time became a patriarchate in the technical sense, the order of the four great patriarchates being- Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. But it serves to show how the patriarchs, like the metropolitans, took their order from the civil importance of their sees. Jeru- salem, the most august see of all, and the mother of all the Churches, was, from its political insignificance, not made a patriarchate for four hundred and fifty years (Council of Chalcedon, 451), and then it was reckoned last in order. From this preliminary view of the relation of Rome to the other patriarchates we may pass to the period of the begin- ning of the temporal power of the Pope.'-^ In the eighth century Rome was in extreme peril. On the west, the Saracens, who had crossed the Pyrenees and overcome the south of Gaul, were threatening Italy ; on the north, the Lombards had crossed the Apennines, and were almost at the gates of Rome ; on one side Moham- medanism, on the other Arianism,^ threatened Roman Chris- tianity. The Iconoclastic controversy had made a breach between the Pope and the Emperor of Constantinople. Everything conspired to drive the Pope into the arms of the Franks. Charles Martel,^ in 732, drove back the Saracens and saved Western Christendom, in return for which he was ' Briglit's edition, p. 27. - See Milman's " Latin Christianity,'' vol. iii. ; Rankc's '* I'opes," vol. i. ch. i. ; SisnioncU's "Fall of the Roman Empire," vol. i. For the interval between the Council of Chalcedon, 451, and this time, see Hussey, lect. i. and ii. Italy was reconquered for the Emperor of the East by Belisarius and Narses, a.d. 534-554 ^ The Lombards had adopted Arian Christianity, while the Franks were orthodox. * See summary in Gibbon, vol. vi. pp. 3S7, 388, 390. Charles Martcl was mayor of the palace under some of the last of the Merovingian kings. 328 HISTORY OF THE REFORM^ITIOS' TV excominunicatcci.' Twenty years later (754). ^v^^cn Stephen II. was I'ope. the danger from the Lombards was at its heidit, but between this time and the rci)ulsc of the Saracens by Charles M artel, the bonds which connected the Pope with the Franks had been tightened. Pippin, who had seized the throne two )'ears before, had required and obtained the approv^al of the Church, and was then anointed with holy oil by the Archbishop of Mentz, the saintly Boni- face.'-^ This constituted a claim on his support. The Pope himself left Rome to entreat his aid against the Lombards, who, under Astolph [Aistulf], were pressing to the walls of Rome. A close compact was made, the Pope promising that, under pain of interdict, the nation should never choose a king but of the race of Charles Martcl, and Pippin, in return, was to be the protector of Rome. In face of this alliance Astolph retired and pledged himself to restore the territory of Rome. But no sooner had Pippin recrosscd the Alps than all these promises were repudiated, and Astolph advanced on Rome, saying that "he would not leave the Pope a foot of land." Two letters^ in quick succession were despatched (755-6) to Pippin for aid, promising him "victory over all the bar- barian nations and eternal life." Still succour was delayed, and the Pope, with a wonderful audacity, wrote a third time in the name of St. Peter,* entreating help and, with a strange inconsistency, promising victory against the Lombards, and " in the world to come the everlasting joys of Paradise." Pippin and the l^>anks at once obeyed this apostolic command. The Lombards were driven (756) from the ICxarchate."' The ' It seems Charlejj appropriated certain Church funds for the jiayuK'nt of his soldiers, etc., and thereby incurred a charge of sacrilege. ' [This l.xst statement is doubtful. It is now believed that Tijipin was anointed by Tope Stephen himself at .St. Denis, on July 28, 754.] ' See the letters in Milman's " Latin Christianity," vol. iii. jip. 21, 22. * Kpisllc of St. PtUr. It seems that this plan had been tried before, as early as A.D. 481, by Pope Felix, who wrote to the Mmperor against Peter Mongus, Patriarch of .Alexandria. Sec Husscy's "Rise of Papal Power," lect. ii. p. 85. Sec the letter in full in Milman's "Latin Christianity," iii. 22; and Janus, pp. i.^4» 135- * Lxarchs were appointed by the Pyzantine I'mperors of the East to govern Central Italy after its c. 476, and was now to last from Soo to 1806 [ibid., p. 366).] ' Witness the Council summoned by Charles to meet at Frankfort, .\.D. 794, in which the worship of images was condemned, and the Seventh General Council repudiated. Sec Milman, vol. iii. pp. 94 sqq. ; Ilussey, Icct. iii. pt. ii. p. 158. ' For the Donation of Constantine, see Janus, pp. 130-133 [and liryce, i)p^ 100, 101, and l)ollinj;cr's " Fables relating to the Topes of the Middle Ages," pp. 107-178, where the date is fixed at between 752 and 777]. The story of Constantinc's lej^rosy and miraculous cure was first produced in a letter of Pope Hadrian I. to the Seventh General Council at Nic.va, A.n. 7S7. Sec the story and criticism in Ilu^scy, lect. iii. pt. ii. p. 160. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 33 1 Sylvester, with jurisdiction over Antioch, Alexandria, Con- stantinople, and Jerusalem. The Emperor tells how he served the Pope as his groom, and led his horse some dis- tance. Probably this document was forged for the express object of securing the Donation of Pippin. If the donation was represented to him as a restitution, it will account for what is otherwise unintelligible. At all events, from the time when the Pope became master of the Exarchate, in A.D. 756, it was usual for the Popes to speak of restitutions^ instead of gifts, and neither the Donation of Constantine nor the Epistle of St. Peter was likely to be critically examined at Pippin's court. It was an immense step to have claimed these gifts as a right, and not as a favour. It was a procedure closely parallel to the anointing and crowning of Pippin and Charles — a fact which [apparently] meant little at the time, but had in it the germ of a real papal supremacy. (/3) In the middle of the ninth century arose the monster forgery of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. These purport to be decrees of the earliest Popes, Anacletus, Clement, and others, with acts of synods, etc.^ On the strength of these forgeries, Pope Nicolas I. (A.D. 858-867), about the year 863-4. promulgated the view that all papal utterances were a rule for the whole Church, and all decrees of Councils depen- dent on the Pope's good pleasure, and, consequently, in a synod at Rome {^^i) he anathematized all who .should reject the teaching and ordinances of a Pope.'*' For nearly two hundred years, till Leo IX. (1048-1054). nothing was ^ Janus, pp. 134 Sij<]. ^^ Exarchatiim Ravoiihc c( rclpublidc jura sen loca rcddere''' ("Liber Pontificalis "). - [See Dollinger's " Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages," pp. 94- 100, \vhere the date is fixed at about 845.] Papal forgeries, however, date back to A.D. 424, when the Canons of Sardica (Council of Sardica, A.D. 347) were transferred to Niccea, and, to conceal the fraud, Pope "Julius" is altered into Pope Sylvester. See Hussey, lect. i. pp. 42-52. The spuriousness of these documents is indicated by such anachronisms as the following. A Pope of the second century corresponds with a Bishop of Ale.xandria who lived two hundred years later ; and the earliest Bishops of Rome quote St. Jerome's version of the Bible, made A.D. 400. See Robertson, "Growth of the Papal Power," p. r6r. For the main object of these forgeries, see ibid., pp. 163 sqq. 3 Milman, iii. 162, 163 ; Janus, p. 99. 33^ m STORY OF THE REFORMATION LV oi)enly done to extend the papal i)0\ver. The new discovery, carrying with it by impHcation papal infallibility, was left to germinate, while the Papacy itself was at its lowest point of moral degradation. The "iron age" began with Benedict IV., A.i>. 900,^ and included within it the i)eriod of harlot-rule initiated by Sergius III. (904-911). The Apostolic throne was now occupied by dissolute boys such as John XII. and Iknedict IX.. now the private property of Tuscan counts, till the ICmperor Henry III. ended the scandal by elevating a (lerman. Bruno of Toul (Leo IX.). to the see of Rome. With Leo IX. (i 048-1 054) begins an age of reformation on the one hand and of rapid growth of the Papacy on the other. When two centuries more had gone by, the meridian of papal i)ower was attained, and the crown became the slave of the mitre ;- the most powerful of the Popes, Innocent III. (a. I). 1198-1216). declaring that "the pontifical authority so much exceeded the royal power, as the sun doth the moon." ^ It was in the persons of Gregory VII. (1073-1085). the cele- brated Hildebrand, of Innocent III. (1198-1216). and of l^oniface VIII. (i 294-1 303). that the Pope completed his trium})h over the State. Hildebrand drew out the system of papal omnipotence in twenty-seven theses (called his "Dictate"), many of which were mere repetitions from the False Decretals."* Of these ' .See Milnian, "Latin Christianity,"" iii. 2 84 .»(/'/• J Janus, "rope and Council," p. icx) ; Robertson's "Growth of the Papal Power," pp. iSo, iSi ; liaronius, " Annalcs"— 879, § 4 ; 900, § 1-6 ; 908, ^ 7 ; 912, § 9-11, quoted in Robertson. Raronius admits that the jxapal cliair was fdled by a succession of "monstrous men, mo-,t base in life, most abandoned in morals, an f-"-)- * See Janus, pp. 142 sqq. 334 nisroRY oi- the reformation lv were established in Jerusalem and .\ntioch. The words of (iod to the i)r()|)het Jeremiah (i. lo) were appealed to to describe the power of the Pope : *' See, I have set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down." *' I alone," said Innocent — "I alone enjoy the plenitude of power, that others may say cjf me. next to God, 'And of his fulness have wc received.' " I'Vom these claims there followed naturally the high- handed interference in France and h^ngland (1208), both of which kingd(jms were laid under interdict,^ till Philip Augustus had to submit to the Pope's requirements (1200), and John consented to resign his crown and receive it as the vassal of Rome (12 13). The bloody crusades against the Albigenses (1208-1215),'-^ and still more, the beginning of that censorship of religious beliefs, which was afterwards known as the Inquisition, are characteristic results of the imchecked power. " Christ has committed the whole world to the government of the Popes," said Innocent III. Gregory IX. restated the fact, and on the discovery of America and the Indies, in 1492, the reigning pontiff, Alexander VI., logically enough claimed the right to decide between the contending claims of Spaniards and Portuguese. Nothing more could be claimed for the Pope by Boniface VIII. ( 1 294-1 303). He was lord of heaven and earth, and the new world of Purgator}- had not been explored. It remained only to consolidate and justify the supremac}-. The fu'st was attempted by a free use of the power already assumed ; the latter, 1)\' an api)eal to the Bible, With regard • lor the sentence of inlcrdict on France, sec Ilussey, p. 193. The sentence was passed in 1199, in consequence of I'liilip Augustus liaving forsaken one wife, nnd unlawfully married another. ' This crusade resulted in the concjucst of Toulouse and the adjoining countries. The Count of Toulouse was formally deposed by Innocent, and his terrilor)' con- ferred on Simon dc Montforl. The Albigenses seem to have mixed up and accepted nearly all the early heresies, Manicheanism being predominant. See Limljorch, "History of Inquisition," ch. iii. Similarly, Tope Alexander II. sanctioned William the Norman's invasion of Kngland ; Adrian I\'. gave (1154) Henry II. possession of Ireland; and Innocent IV. (1245) gave the Count of Boulogne the kingdom of Portugal. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 335 to the latter, his violent perversion of the clearest texts was matter for ridicule even among contemporaries ; ^ but as long as the principle was established, its justification was of minor importance. In the bull "Unam Sanctam,"^^ Boniface de- clares that it is necessary for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff;^ The temporal power must be subject to the spiritual, and be judged by it " Oportet gladium esse sub gladio, et temporalcm auctoritatem spirituali subjici potestati. Ergo si deviat terrena potestas judicabitur a potestate spirituali."^ But the attempt to carry out this principle showed that a reaction was at hand. Edward I. of England (i 272-1 307), while avoiding an open breach with Rome, refused to become a papal tool.^ Philip the Fair (1270-13 14) openly opposed Boniface when he attempted to interfere between the king and his vassals — an opposition in which he had been preceded by the saintly Louis IX. Twice were the papal bulls burned. The king summoned " clergy, rxoblcs, and coiiiinons'' to meet at Paris (April 10, 1302),^ and the result was an appeal from the Pope to a General Council. The Pope replied by excommunicating Philip. Philip in turn arraigned the Pope before the States-General, and threatened to get Boniface deposed by a General Council — no less than seven hundred acts of adhesion on the part of bishops, chapters, monasteries, etc., being given to the king. In spite of remonstrances and appeals, Boniface was preparing to depose him, when the papal palace at Anagni was invaded and the Pope taken prisoner. A few days after he was delivered, but died within the month (October 11, 1303) at the age of eighty-six. ' See reference in Janus, p. 162. - For some of the more important clauses of this bull " Unam Sanctam " published a.d. 1302, see Hussey, pp. 178, 179. ^ *' Sithessc Romano pontifici oniucni hunianani creaturain dec hi ramus, dia'mus, diffi/iimiis^ ct pronunciamtis o/uiiiiio esse dc necessitate saint is''' (I laid wick *' Middle Age," p. 253, note 5). * Quoted in Wylie, p. 16, f.n. * Boniface wrote to Edward I., in 1299, that the kingdom of Scotland was the special property of the Roman Church, and therefore he must not touch it. [See Bishop Stubbs' ** Constitutional History," ii. 152. J " [This is the first recorded meeting of the States-General or Legislature of France. ] 336 JiisroRY OF the reform at iox /x Then almost immediately followed the seventy years' exile at Avignon, 1305-1376, and then the Great Schism, which lasted from 1378 till the Council of Constance, 1414.^ LECTURE III. THE GROWTH 01" THE PAPACY. ft. The Pope and the Couxcie. There is still another phase in the development of papal supremacy to be noticed. Under Hildebrand, Innocent II I.^ and Boniface VIII., the Church had triumphed over the State. In theory, if not always in fact, it was supreme ; but t/ir conflict hetrccoi Pope and Council iK.'as still to come. It is noteworthy that all the Councils which were held during the first nine centuries and which were counted CECumenical (even if we include the Fourth Constantinopolitan in 869), were held in the East, at Nicaea, Constantinople^ Ephesus, or Chalcedon. It was nothing unusual for a Council in these early times to override the protest of the Pope or his legates, as we have seen in the case of the Chalcedon canon, which exalted the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the second place. In the same wa>' it was nothing unusual for bishops of other sees to reject the decision of the Bishoi) of Rome, as in the celebrated instances of Pope Victor and Pope Stephen. J5ut the most important illustration of the relation of Pope and Council in the period preceding the separation of ICast and West, is the condemnation of Pope Honorius by tlie Sixth General Council of Constantinople (a.D. 681). This Pope had openly espoused the Monothelitc heresy, officially taught it in pontifical letters, and was \\\ consequence condemned and anathematized, the representa- * The Great StluMii, 1378-1414: sec Janus, p. 293. From 1378 to 1409. Western Christendom was diviiletl into two Obediences (l-'rcnch anateschi, or popular part}', was w ith him."^ The Pope feared • [Villari, i. 159-162.] ' Sec George Kliot's "Romola," "A Pyramid of \'anities," and Villari, ii. 133. 134. ' The three great parties at Florence were: (i.) The /'/<;^/c7w/ (mourners), or Fratcschi (brethren), with Savonarola at their head ; the popular party, which lamented the corruption of morals and discipline, and wished for the restoration of the republic, (ii.) The Arrabbiati (the Frantic), or Compagnacci ; young aristocrats of lax morals, who schemed for the overthrow of Lorenzo and the establishment of an oligarchy, (iii.) The Bigi (grey) ; the Medicean party, which commonly voted with the pi>pular party against the Arrabbiati. (Symonds, i. 462, 463). ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 347 and hated him, the Medici were working against him in Rome, the Signory were constantly changing. At first, indeed, the Pope had favoured him, had encouraged his schemes of reform, and made him chief of his Dominican congregation; but Savonarola's denunciation of Rome and the Papacy could not be endured. The Pope in vain attempted to entice him to Rome, and no less vainly sought to tempt him to be silent by the offer of a cardinal's hat. The mes- sengers who made the proposal were bidden to hear his answer from the pulpit the next day (February 17, 1496). Once more he vehemently denounces the iniquity of Rome and Italy, and declares, " No red hat will I have but the red hat of martyrdom, coloured with my blood." ^ " His triumphal career" (says Milman) ^ " began with the Advent on Haggai and the Psalms in 1494, but it is in the Lenten course of 1496, on Amos and Zechariah, that the preacher girds himself to his full strength." From this time his unsparing attacks on Rome and the depravity of the clergy became, if possible, more vehement. "The scandal begins at Rome, and goes through the whole ; they are worse than Turks and Moors . . . they have won all their spiritual benefices by simony. . . . The priests go for money to the choir, the vespers, and their office. They sell the benefices ; they sell the Sacra- ments ; they traffic with the Mass; in short, everything is done for money. ... If a priest or canon lives well men will make game of him, and accuse him of hypocrisy. . . . At Rome it has become a saying, ' If you will ruin your son, make him a priest."^ But now hostile forces were gathering round Savonarola, and as a last hope he appeals against the Pope to a free Council.^ Letters are written to the Kings of France, Spain, Hungary, and England, and to the Emperor, exhorting them to call a General Council. Two of these letters are extant, and in these he declares^ that Alexander is no Pope, first, because he has bought the » Villari, ii. 49 sqq. ' Apud Synionds, i. 463. ' See the whole passage, Life, p. 322-3. * For Savonarola's view of what a Council is, see ibid,, p. 326. ' See ibid., p. 282. 34^ inSTORY OF HIE REFORMATIOX I.V papal chair by simon}', and, secondly, because he has dis- graced it by abominable vices.^ The controversy became now a struggle of life and death. On May 13, 1497, Savonarola is excommunicated. At first the Signory of Florence defended him against the Pope, and during the famine and plague actually invited him to preach again ; but in March, 1498, the Medici faction secured the ascendency, the aristocratic party joined them, and the end was near. Forbidden by the Signory to preach, he ascends the pulpit for the last time on March 18, and declares that he is God's hammer,^ to be thrown aside when the Master has done His work. On April 7, 1498, his Franciscan opponents challenge Savonarola to the ordeal of fire, and Fra Domenico was prepared to accept the challenge. But a violent storm put out the fire, and popular disappointment revenged itself on Savonarola. The Signory, in obedience to the papal order to put a stop to the " son of blasphemy," seized Savonarola, tortured him again and again, and condemned him to the scaffold. On May 23, 1498, with Fra Silvestro and Fra Domenico, he was hung and then burnt. As they stripped from him the friar's frock, the Bishop of Vaison said, " I separate thee from the Church militant and triumphant ; " to which Savonarola answered, *' Militant, yes ; triumphant, no : that is not yours." •'^ His last words were, " The Lord has suffered as much for me." And so died the great reformer of the fifteenth century, by the command of one whom after generations have named " the Nero of the Papacy." Savo- narola, excommunicate as he was, died a martyr, and was universally reverenced as a saint, while at Florence the name of the patriot-prophet became the watchword of freedom. [The following fragment occurs in the tarly rort'nsidn of Mr. Moore's lectures, though not in that of 1889 : — ] AXTKMrTS AT REFORM AH INTRA. \Vc have seen how, in the Roman CMiurch, the separation between the external and internal elements of religion had been rapidly becoming more complete. ' For Savonarola's last letter to the Pope, March 15, 1498, see Life, p. 326, and Villari, ii. 289. ' See Life, p. 328. ' Villari, ii. 404. eKgland and on the continent. 349 The revived paganism and immorality of the Renaissance showed the schism which existed between orthodoxy and faith. The papal power became great as the Papacy lost its hold on the life and morals of men. The spiritual life was, indeed, kept alive under the more or less suspected form of religious mysticism in such men as Bernard and Bonaventura, Eckhart/ Tauler, Nicolas of Basle, Gerson, Thomas a Kempis,^ and some of the stricter among the religious orders. But the subjective and objective were separated, and the protest against such an unnatural dualism was inevitable. The mystic of the earlier age took refuge in his mysticism from the unreality and formalism of the day. But this was but a temporary phase. Before long this very mysticism joins in earnest vehement protest against the corruptions of the day in Savonarola and Luther. Speaking in the Council of Trent in 1562, the Bishop of Paris declared that for these hundred and fifty years the world has demanded a reforma- tion in the head and the members.* But even before the fifteenth century, and within the limits of the Catholic Church, men had been found to protest openly against the corruptions of the day. As far back as the middle of the thirteenth century, Bonaventura had likened Rome to the harlot of the Apoca- lypse.* In 1274 a statement by Humbert, the (General of the Dominicans, was laid before the Council of Lyons, in which the extortions, and numerous legates, of Rome were openly charged with having prevented the reunion of the Greek with the Latin Church.^ In 1310 Bishop Durandus enume- rated the points of necessary reform in the Roman Church, tracing all its corrup- tions back to the papal court. "While the Curia goes on in this way," he says, "all remedies for the Church are vain." Simony, immorality, and extortion are the abuses which cry for reformation.* This book of Durandus was laid before the Council of Vienne (131 1), but no practical effect was produced.^ Still the more hopeful looked forward to a Council, even Pope Urban V. maintaining that the cessation of Councils was the main cause of the mischief.^ ^ To Master Eckhart two streams of thought are traceable, the one orthodox, the other heterodox. On the one hand he is the father of Hegel ; on the other, of Tauler, Nicolas, and Luther. See Ueberweg, "History of Philosophy," vol. i. pp. 468-484. 2 Canon Farrar, with his usual superficiality, thinks the great merit of the *' Imitation " is its protest against " sacerdotalism," as if the saintly author did not go to confession ! 3 Sarpi, p. 531. * See the quotation in Janus, pp. 227, 228, and in Wylie, p. 16. * See the passage in Janus, p. 321. * Ibid., pp. 223, 224. ' Nothing of reform can be traced to those popularly accounted predecessors of reform. (a) Waldenses. Collision one of discipline for they were Catholic in doctrine till 1532. The whole story of the Apostolic origin is a myth. See an article by W. A. B. C. in the Giiaraian of August 18, 1886, [and another in the same paper for December 4, 1889]. (/3) Albigenses. Wanted not to reform away mediaeval Papacy or distinctive Roman tenets, but to dispense with essential Christian truth. " They repudiated every article of faith which rested on the dogma of the Incarnation " (Pennington, " Preludes to the Reformation," p. 97). ^ Janus, p. 225. 350 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN Vet when the reforming Councils ' of Pisa, Constance, and Basle were held, but little reform was effected. At Pisa, 1409, though only the year before the cardinals had admitted to Gregory XII. that "from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head there was no soundness in the Church,'" no sooner had the rival Popes been deposed and Alexander V. elected, than all schemes of real reform were put aside. At Constance (a.D. 14 14), after the condemnation of Hits and Jerome of Prague, and the deposition of Pope John XXIII., a vigorous attempt was made by the English and Germans to proceed at once to questions of reform before electing a new Pope. But Italian and French influence was too strong, and the new Pope, Martin V., easily evaded any real questions of reforma- tion by "reserving" them for the Pope. At Basle (1431 sqq.), in the same way, the need of reformation was admitted, but no active steps in reform were taken. Pope Kugenius, indeed, issued a bull of reformation, to "shut the mouths of accusers," but as soon as he succeeded (1437) in adjourning the council to Italian soil (Ferrara and Florence), all the schemes of reformation fell through.' N.B. — The strength of this adjourned Council is due to the superficial reunion by compromise effected thereat by Eugenius with the Easterns. The primacy of Rome was admitted "according to Scripture and the sayings of the saints." But this meant to the Romans the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and other forgeries, of which the Greeks coolly said, " All these canons are apocryphal." This Council is by Greeks reckoned the Eighth (Ecumenical. Then from the middle of the fifteenth century we meet still with vigorous protests against abuses, and the almost despairing appeal to a free Council.* In the reign of Pope Gregory XI. (1377), a century before the saintly but fanatical mystic, St. Catherine of Siena, " the spouse of Christ and the ambassadress of the Florentines," * declared to the Pope's face that " the stench of the sins committed in the Curia was more offensive in her native city than to those who daily commit them ; " but in the latter half of the fifteenth century a greater than St. Catherine was to arise in Florence, the mystic and reformer Savonarola^ who made a last effort to secure a reform ab intra. [Here followed the account of the great friar given above.] ' See Reichcl's " See of Rome," chapter headed "The Free Councils of the West." « Janus, p. 303. • See Janus, p. 317, and Sarpi, "Council of Trent." • See quotations in Janus ; pp. 342, 343, Abbot James, and Dionysius Ryckel ; p. 355, opinion of Machiavelli ; p. 356, of Guicciardini. See, too, quotations from same in Symonds' " Renaissance," i. 3S6. • Gibbon, viii. 250. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 351 LECTURE IV. THE RENAISSANCE IN ITALY AND GERMANY. But what the attempted reforms from within could not do was already being done by an external force, a power which many of the Popes had fostered and encouraged, and which was destined to eat out the heart of the papal system. If we look at the Renaissance at its zenith in the latter part of the fifteenth century in Italy, we are struck by the strange mixing up of '' what we love in art and what we loathe in man," ^ but the beginnings of the movement dated back to the previous century. For the fall of the mediaeval Papacy dates from the death of Boniface VIII. in 1303. It had first shown its power by a " great dramatic act," the pen- ance at Canossa. The imprisonment of Boniface at Anagni was the drama which manifested its decline.^ The exile at Avignon (i 305-1 376) covers the period of Dante (i 265-1 321), the student of Virgil ;^ of Petrarch, the singer of love (1304- 1374) ; and of Boccaccio (13 13-1375), the champion of natu- ralism. [This is the Latin Renaissance.] Already the desire to get back from the present to the past was manifest. In art Cimabue (i 240-1 302), Dante's contemporary, had redis- covered the art of painting on canvas, and w^hen the Great Schism followed, the world took refuge in the revived pagan- ism from the glaring anomalies of papal Christianity. When in the middle of the fifteenth century the Greek Empire fell before the Turk (1453), and the new invention of print- ing, twenty years later, diffused knowledge of the ancient thought, the Renaissance [a specially Greek one] reached its height. Art, literature, architecture flourished ; religion and morality were dying. It was the age of Leonardo da » Contemporary Review, October, 1878, p. 645. ' Creighton, i. 28. » Dante's " De Monarchia " asserts the claims of the temporal against the spiritual power, the result of the struggle between Boniface VIII. and Philip IV. See Creighton, i. p. 30 ; [also Bryce, 263 sqq.'X 35- HISTORY or TI/R RF.rORMATIOy LV Vinci (1452-15 19) and Michael Angclo (1475- 1564) among the Florentines, of Raphael (1483- 1520) among the Romans, of Titian (1477-1576), and Paul Veronese (i 530-1 588) and Tintoretto (15 12-1594) among the Venetians. But the age of artistic and literary revival was the age of moral dissolu- tion. The world had realized the glaring contrast between the sacerdotal claims of the Papacy and the vices and immo- rality of the Popes, and the first result was a return to paganism. The study of ancient models brought with it the ancient vices. Yet at the head of all stood Leo X., the cultured sceptic, the man whose character is summed up in "intellectual sensualism," the friend of Raphael and Ariosto and Machiavelli, the patron of art and literature, who would have been a Pope absolutely complete, says Sarpi,^ if he had only added "some knowledge in things that concern Religion, and some more propension unto piety, of both which he seemed careless." The Renaissance did not oust religion ; it only tried to fill the throne which religion had vacated. The ecclesiastical system had become hollow and unreal — the religious con- sciousness had separated from its environment — a swarm of bees had settled in the dead lion's carcase, but there was sweetness instead of strength, corruption in place of lifc.^ But in the less degenerate and more earnest northern sections, the revival of learning was taking a new form which was to attack the Papacy with new weapons, and restore Christianity to something of its ancient vigour.'^ The movement which in Italy took the form of refined sensualism and artistic dilettantism, showed itself beyond the Alps as vigorous, spiritual, and earnest. While Italy was ' I'agc. 4. ' .See Ilagenbach, i. 35, 38, for general condition of thought. See an amusing account of prcacJiiui;^ and of the medley of Christianity and paganism, ibid., i. 39. • "The breach had begun between the Italian and the Teutonic spirit. The Italians were bent upon securing for the individual emancipation from outward systems by means of culture ; the Teutons wished to adapt the system of Christen- dom to the recjuirements of the awakening individual. The Renaissance and the Reformation began to pursue diflferent courses" (Creighton, vol. ii. p. 333). But the starting from the individual was the common element in both. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 353 unconsciously destroying its own powers of resistance, Germany was as unconsciously preparing the means for attack. Three men stand out conspicuously as champions of this more earnest and vigorous revival of letters — Reuchlin (1455-1522), Erasmus (1467-1536), and Ulrich von Hutten (1488-1523). Of these the first was characterized by a genuine love of learning, not only in the direction of Greek language and literature, but even of Hebrew, a language unknown except to the Jewish Rabbins. He did not shrink from studying under a learned Jew, though such a step was at that time looked upon as little less than heretical, and in 1506 he was able to publish a Hebrew Grammar which opened the way to the study of the Old Testament.^ Reuch- lin's friendship and sympathy with the Jews soon brought him into collision with the orthodox theolos^ians of Colocfne. A lengthy controversy ensued. The Pope, Leo X., attempted to withdraw Reuchlin from it, but in vain. On appeal to Rome Reuchlin was acquitted, and his supporters came to be regarded as the champions of learning against ecclesiastical ignorance and prejudice. In the " Triumphus Capnionis " Hutten represented this victory in the language of a Roman triumph.^ The " Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum " (published in 1 5 16 and 1517),^ were in like manner a defence of Reuchlin against the friars, ridiculing the pedantry and satirizing the ceremonial observances of fasts, etc., sometimes raising an earnest protest against abuses such as indulgences, but for the most part written in a mocking, satirical tone. We notice in them, as in the history of Reuchlin himself, the easy tran- sition from the literary protest against ignorance to the moral protest against abuses. ' "Reuchlin and Erasmus gave the .Scriptures to the learned; Luther, to the people'' (D'Aubigne, i. 118). - See Hagenbach, i. 55. ^ The " EpistolK " were written mainly by Crotius Rubianus [Johann JagerJ, though Hutten contributed to the second issue. [Teubner published a cheap edition in 1869.] The difference between Luther and Erasmus is well marked in their attitude towards these " Epistolne." See D'Aubigne, i. 129 ; [Beard's " Life," p. 197, and "Hibbert Lectures," p. 61]. 2 A 354 HISTORY OF the reformation in Erasmus was throughout tlie cautious man of books, using^ freely the weapons of satire and ridicule, but shrinking from any open conflict with the ecclesiastical power.^ His Greek edition of the New Testament (1516) was the complement of Reuchlin's labours on the Old Testament. Yet his attitude towards the Reformation of Luther, like his attitude towards the Catholic Church, was almost that of an outsider ; influen- cing strongly and influenced by the Reformation movement, he was in no sense a Reformer. His celebrated " Praise of Folly" was not so much a protest against the vices of priests and people as a literary satire on people whom he despised. He was too learned to accept Luther's rough-and- ready theories, particularly as to the freedom of the will. Luther said of him, " Erasmus knows very well how to expose error, but he docs not know how to teach the truth '' - The maxim of lirasmus -^ was, '* Give light and the darkness will disperse itself." Ulrich von Hutten, the youngest of the three, had in him far more of the Reformer than either Reuchlin or Erasmus, whom he spoke of as " the two eyes of Germany.'' Not only was he the author in part of the second issue of *' Epistola^ ; " he also wrote (15 19, published 1520) a dialogue called " Va- discus, die romische Dreifaltigkeit " (the Roman Trinity), in which the Protestant Reformer's animus against Rome is plainly marked ;^ and Erasmus, with his characteristic caution, attempted to check the ardour of his youthful follower. Ulrich von Hutten was the connecting link between the men of the sword and of the pen, and was called "the Demosthenes of Germany " for his philippics against the Papacy. These three men may be cited as typical of the literary side of the Reformation movement. The actual collision with the Roman Church had not come, but the germ of it was to be seen in the protest of l^rasmus and the Humanists against monkish ignorance and sloth. The New Learning was ' Sec l)"Aul)i};nc, i. iigsqq. -■ Ibid., i. 118. Sec the context. " Sec Milman's essay on liim, [and nrummontl's Life]. * See Ilagenbach's selections, i. 59. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 355 already being enlisted against the papal throne/ while the reigning Pope fancied himself en rapport with the new move- ment.^ LECTURE V. THE POLITICAL STATE OF EUROPE AT THE OPENING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.^ The death of Savonarola (1498) brings us to the close of the fifteenth century, and we are now able to gather up the various elements which combined in the Reformation move- ment. The Renaissance, now at its zenith, testified to the breach between religion and faith. Paganism was vainly trying to replace a dying Christianity ; the religious mystic retired from the world, or died a martyr to religion in a godless age. The more ecclesiastically minded still hoped against hope for a free Council under an ideal Pope. The kings of the earth were waiting for an opportunity to throw off the galling yoke of the Papacy. In Europe the law of progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous was becoming mani- fest. Imperialism, of which the Papacy was the ecclesiastical counterpart, was giving way to Nationalism. The distinctive characteristic of the Teutonic races, as contrasted with Italians and Spaniards, was becoming more and more evident, and the prospect of a schism more certain. The reigns of three Popes, if we omit Pius III., who ' For Reuchlin, Erasmus, and Ulrich von Ilutten, see Hagenbach, vol. i. pp. 45 sqq.^ 273 sqq. ; D'Aubigne, i. 106 sqq. ; Ueberweg's " History of Philosophy," ii. pp. 10, II ; [Beard's "Hibbert Lectures," lect. ii., and "Martin Luther," ch. iii.]. For the converse, the effect of the Reformation on literature and art, see Roscoe's *' Leo Tenth," vol. ii. pp. 239 sqq. On the relative parts played by Reuchlin, Erasmus, and Luther, seethe account of the Dumb Comedy in Hagenbach, vol. i. p. 78. For the relation of Erasmus and Luther, see Hagenbach, vol. i. jjp. 279 sqq. ^ " The Popes did not at first perceive that what they had taken up as a toy was in reality a sword that might destroy them " (D'Aubigne, vol. i. p. 106). ' [See Bishop Stubbs' Lectures, 9 and 10]. 35^ HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN only reigned for twenty-one days (in 1503;, connect the fifteenth century with the time of Luther's Reformation. Of these, the first was Alexander VI. (1492-1503), whose vices were exposed by Savonarola, and who avenged himself by the martyrdom of the reformer. The openness of his vices was a scandal even to the men of his day, accustomed as they were to license and simony in high places. A current epigram of the time is quoted, "Alexander sells the keys, the altars, Christ. Well, he bought them ; so he has a right to sell them." ^ He was succeeded in 1503 by Julius II., "more of a soldier than a Pope," as Sarpi says. He found all Italy in confusion. I^^or the families of Orsini and Colonna and Vitelli, with many others who had fled from the dagger or the poison of Caesar Borgia, had returned, and carried on their family feuds in the very streets of Rome. Julius reduced these to order with a strong hand, and even seized the castles of Caisar Borgia, and deprived him of his dukedom. Peace being established in Rome, the Pope set about the darling object of his life — the extension of the States of the Church. He stormed Mirandola, rescued his baronies from the Vene- tians, and made himself master of Parma, Placentia, and Reggio.^ Never had the Church possessed so wide a dominion. Then he turned to the beautifying of Rome itself, with all the treasures of Renaissance art. In 1 5 13 the first of the Medicean family, son of the Lorenzo who had rai.sed Savonarola to his position as Prior of San Marco, ascended the papal throne under the title of Leo X. Of his "intellectual sensuality" we have already spoken. He was too much of a Medicean to do more than affect religion, but he was a patron of art and literature, with plenty of that toleration which has its roots in indifference, unwilling even to excommunicate Luther as long as there was an)- hope of bringing the refractory friar to obedience.^ ' .SyiiK.nds, i. 348. - Rankc, i. 40-42. ' Cf. the epigr.nms on the three Topes, Alexander \I., Julius II., .and Leo X., as respectively the champions of Venus, Mars, and Pallas — •• Olim habuil Cypris sua tempera ; tempera Mavurs Olitn habuit ; sua nunc tempera Pallas habet." ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 357 In Europe the principle of Nationalism had superseded the worn-out Imperialism to which the Papacy still clung. England was ruled by the strong hand of a Tudor. The Wars of the Roses had ended with the battle of Bosworth (1485), and Henry VII.'s marriage with Elizabeth of York (i486). The Wars of the Roses had degraded England to a third-rate power, but Wolsey tried hard to make it a first- class one, by playing one continental power off against another. Rise of a new nobility, and of a middle class. Spain had been "unified" by the marriage (1469) of Ferdinand, later King of Aragon, with Isabella, Queen of Castile (1474), and by his accession in 1479; while in 1492 he became King of all Spain by the conquest of Granada. France, under Louis XII., who had succeeded Charles VIII. in 1498, was ready to reassert her claim to Naples and Jerusalem, and was preparing for a new invasion of Italy. Germany, since the Electoral league of Rhense (1338) and the so-called Golden Bull of Charles IV. (1356), had been definitely organized under the Empire, the election to which was in the hand of seven Electors — three clerical, viz. the Archbishops of Mentz, Treves, and Cologne ; and four lay- men, viz. the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Margrave of Branden- burg. This constitution had been still further consolidated by the Emperor Maximilian (1493-15 19), who had organized Germany, with the Netherlands and Burgundy, into ten "circles" (15 12). [Burgundy and the Netherlands were secured to the house of Austria in 1477 by the marriage of Mary, heiress of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, with Maximilian. Their son Philip married (1496) Joan, the heiress of Spain ; the issue of this latter marriage being Charles, who was King of Spain (1516-1556) and Emperor (15 19-1558).] Of the Electors, the most important in the Re- formation history is the Elector of Saxony. In 1485 this state, by the Treaty of Leipsic, had been divided between the sons To which it was answered — "Mars fuit ; est Pallas ; Cypria semper ero." (See Roscoe, vol. i. pp. 219, 313.) 358 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX of Frederick the Mild. Ernest and Albert. Frederick III. was son of Ernest, and Duke George, his cousin, son of Albert. It was Frederick III. who was elected regent on the death of Maximilian, an office which he had alread)' twice dis- charged (in 1496 and 1501).^ Italy alone among the kingdoms of Europe seemed to have made no progress towards national unity. Its fairest towns were the prey of the other European powers, who had been in turns invited by the Italians. Julius II., the warrior Pope, had indeed consolidated the Papal States over which he ruled as one of the sovereigns of Europe ; but this entire secularization of the ecclesiastical power degraded him from the proud imperial position which, as king of kings on earth. Innocent III. and Boniface had assumed. Outside the Papal States there was nothing but confusion, Italy being the battle- ground of France, Spain, and Germany, with whom the Pope for the time being took sides as it suited his convenience. The invasion of Italy by Charles VIIL (1494) had effected nothing, and by the intervention of Spain he had been com- pelled to retire without even restoring Pisa to Florence. The h'lorentines, therefore, undertook the siege, sometimes with French aid, sometimes Spanish, sometimes Venetian. For fifteen years, with intermissions caused by pestilence, or domestic danger from the often-repeated attempts of the Medicean party to return, the siege was carried on till, /// 1509, Pisa rctur)icd to its obedience. Meanwhile a new ' SAXONY DIVIDKI) \\\ TREATY OF LKIl'SIC, 14S5. Electoral line. Ernest, d. i486. Frederick the Wise, d. 1525 I Electoral Saxony, Wittenberg). Frederick the Mild, d. 1464. I Elector. John the Stc.id- fast, succeeds 1525. d. i-si-i (Thuringia, Eisenach, Weimar, Jena"). Albert, Arch- nshoD Elector of IMcnt/ (i4S2-i484\ Ernest, Arch bishop of Magdeburg Ci47<>-«5i3"'- Ducal line. Albert, d. 1500. Duke George, (Misnia, including Meissen, Dresden, and Duke 1541, Leipsic). Elector 1547, Henr>', d. 1541. Maurice, John Frederick, Elector i53?-i347, Duke X547-J554- ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 359 descent on Italy had been made (1499) by Louis XII., who in 1498 succeeded Charles VIII. The French king was leagued with the Pope, the Venetians, and the Florentines,^ and conquered Milan. Ludovico Sforza appealed in vain for help to Germany, and then hired Swiss mercenaries, who treacherously w^ent over to their brethren w^ho were fight- ing for Louis. By treacherous collusion between France and Spain, Naples was taken, and then the robbers quarrelled over their prey. Gonzalo di Cordova takes Naples from the French (1503), but a compromise is effected by the marriage (1506) of Ferdinand (now a widow^er) with Germaine de Foix, the niece of Louis XII. Maximilian now appears in Italy (1507), and the Venetians, faithful to their French allies, oppose him, and compel him to make a three years' peace. Louis XII., displeased at this, determined on the overthrow of Venice. The League of Canibray (1508) united the Empire, France, Spain, and the Pope, for the dismemberment of Venice, even England and Hungary being invited to share the spoil. Maximilian's three years' peace w^as easily repudiated, and Venice, after a vigorous resistance, was compelled to surrender her most precious dependencies (1509). The Pope, having got the Romagna, and fearing the preponderance of the French in Italy if they conquered Venice itself, deserts the allies and schemes against Louis, exciting a rebellion in Genoa and inviting England to attack France. On the dissolution of the League of Cambray, Louis XII. and Maximilian are found opposing the Pope, and actually summoning a Coiuicil at Pisa (151 1). This opposition was met by the Holy League (151 1), in which Spain, Venice, and England w^ere to unite with the Pope against France and Germany. Florence was, of course, against the Pope. Soon after we find Maximilian making terms with the Venetians, and Louis XII. was alone. The arrival of eighteen thousand Swiss in the pay of the Pope made the French cause hopeless, and compelled their retreat ' The Pope (Alexander VI.) had a private pique against the King of Naples for refusing to have Coesar Borgia as a son-in-law ! The Venetians were disgusted with the uncertain policy of Ludovico Sforza of Milan, and the Florentines since the time of Savonarola always looked upon the French as their saviours. 360 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIO X IX from Italy (15 12-13). Florence, the faithful ally of France, was now declared the enemy of the Holy League by the influence of Cardinal dc Medici, who had, as Legate of Bologna, commanded the papal troops, and in 15 12 Giuliano de Medici was restored to Florence, from which he had been banished eighteen years before. The popular government was over- thrown, and everything restored as it was in 1492 before the invasion of Charles VIII. The part played by the Pope in these complications shows how very slight was the tie which bound the kings of Europe to their allegiance. In Reformation days we shall find the same fact illustrated. The Pope, with his limited temporal, but unlimited spiritual power, was a useful makeweight to turn the scale of European parties, and he himself almost avowedly set before himself the preservation of the balance of power among the three great sovereignties of the Continent. It is remarkable that within the ten years from 1509 to 1519, all the great sceptres of Europe had changed hands. In 1509 HciD-y VII I. had succeeded his father Henry VII. Leo X., the Cardinal de Medici, had succeeded (15 13) the warlike Julius II. On the throne of Spain the youthful CJiarles I had taken the place of his grandfather Ferdinand in 1 5 16. Francis /., in 151 5, succeeded to Louis XII., who had died three months after his marriage with Mary Tudor, Henry VIII. 's sister, and when in 1519 the Emperor Maxi- milian died, three royal candidates offered themselves — Charles and r^rancis openly, and, as we learn from the State Papers, Ilcnry \TII. of England secretly and through the great politician of the day, Cardinal Wolscy. It was in 15 17 that Martin Luther published his theses and opened the first act in the Reformation. To sum up, the causes which led to the Reform. ition ■were — I. WitJiin the Roman CJuircJi. (o) Deterioration of morals and religion. (/3) Loss of unity (schism in Papacy ; internal con- flicts of Scholasticism). ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 36 1 II. Ojitside forces. (a) (Moral.) Revived paganism (naturalism) of Re- naissance. (/3) (Literary.) Appeal to antiquity (Bible) v. Church. (7) (Political.) Growth of Nationalism. ill. General tendency to individualism^ which always shows itself in a period of disintegration. This shown (a) in the anti-Catholic Reformers. (j3) in the Jesuits. LECTURE VL THE PERSONAL PHASE OF THE REFORMATION (1517-1521). Luther's protest (October 31, 15 17) against indulgences^ is commonly taken as the beginning of the Reformation. Roman Catholic authorities are anxious to find an unworthy motive for it, and state that Luther the Augustinian was angry at the appointment of the Dominican Tetzel, regarding it as a breach of privilege. Pallavicino, assuming this explana- tion, takes pains to show that the Augustinians never had a monopoly of the farming of indulgences, which is probably true. Protestants, on the other hand, often confuse Luther's later position with his earlier, and ignore the fact that Luther's first protest was not against indulgences,^ but against the abuses of the questors. When from this he was led to question the whole theory of indulgences, we find that within the pale of orthodoxy the opinions were so different that, even five years after (1522, Adrian VL), the cardinals dissuaded the Pope from making any decree on the subject,^ It is said that these indulgences grew out of what was origin- ally a remission, wholly or in part, of ecclesiastical censures, or dispensations from ecclesiastical rules of discipline. The sale was, in any case, an abuse for which the dispensers of * See Kostlin, pp. 91 sqq. • See ibid, p. 95, q.v. ^ See Sarpi, pp. 19-21. Four opinions, and all Catholic. 362 III STORY OF THE REFORMATION TV the indulf^cnccs were often mainly responsible. Pope UrbaiT II. (a. I). 1088) granted an indulgence to all who fought for the Holy Sepulchre. His successors granted it to those who, though not serving personally, yet maintained a soldier. This, again, was extended to those who defended the cause of the Church against heretics. The wars of Pope Julius had so exhausted the treasury that, as the Roman Catholics admit,^ he was compelled to raise funds for the rebuilding of St. Peter's by employing "agents and means but little suited to the spirit of the times," or indeed to the spirit of Christianity; and his example was followed by Leo, who " published indul- gences throughout the Christian regions, with permission to eat whitemeats and eggs on fast days, and leave to choose a confessor" on condition that a voluntary offering was given towards the rebuilding of St. Peter's. The Archbishop of Mentz, Primate of Germany, had been much impoverished b}' the sum he had to pay for his palUuin, and other expenses relating to his election. [Germany was divided into three districts for the sale of indulgences, and] the archbishop appointed Tetzel [who was already notorious as an agent in such matters] for his own district, the proceeds to be equally divided between the Pope and the archbishop. So thoroughly commercial was the process, that the representative of the bankers from whom the archbishop had borrowed went round with Tetzel, having private ke)-s to his money-box.- It is obvious that this was easily abused b)' unscrupulous quaestors such as Tetzel w^as, and we shall find the Council of Trent, while defending indulgences, abolishing the office of quarstors, and entrusting to the Ordinary the publishing of indulgences ' Waterworth, \>. iii. ; Pallavicino, book i. ch. ii. ' See Beard's " Life," p. 203, There are three parts in penance — (i) Rc/^ttifanit', which in its fullest form of "contrition" is sorrow for sin from a recognition of the love of God. ]Uu a lower form, known as " attrition," is sorrow for sin from fear of punishment. (2) Confessiou^ which implies formal confession to a jiriesl. (3) Satisftution^ which may be restitution for wroni,' done, or, when this is impossiljle, a penalty assesseil to remiml the sinner of what his sin had been. The idea that the payment of money was a satisfaction for sin against God hail grown up. This is what L\ilhcr attacked. Repentance had been absorbed in the penalty of satisfaction. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT, 363 and spiritual graces, that people may understand " that these heavenly treasures of the Church are administered, not for gain, but for godliness."^ It was against the abuses of the quaestors ^ that Luther first protested, and these abuses were admitted, and in theory reformed, by the Council of Trent. Luther^ had at first no intention of going further than this protest against abuses, but the defence of the abuses led to an investigation of the general theory of indulgences. Tetzel was followed by Eck ^ in his opposition to Luther's theses, and the matter was soon taken up by the Emperor in the Diet which met at Augsburg, which called on the Pope to deliver judgment on Luther. Luther was summoned to Rome nine months after his first protest (August 7, 15 18) by a monitory of the Auditor della Camera, who was also to judge the cause. By the assistance or collusion ^ of the Elector of Saxony, Luther obtained leave to have the case tried in Germany instead of Rome, and the Cardinal Thomas de Vito, of Gaeta [Cajetanus],*^ was appointed to act as judge in Augsburg. Meanwhile the teaching of Luther was taking shape in Heidelberg,'^ and the legate soon found, in spite (according to Sarpi^) of munificent offers, that the breach could not be healed. Three interviews (the first October 12, 15 18) took place, in which Cajetan refused to argue on equal terms, and Luther refused to submit to the legate's authority, asserting his orthodoxy, and even appealing to the Constitu- tion " Unigenitus " of Clement VI., consenting to submit to ^ See Watenvorth, pp. 151 and 277 ; also Pallavicino, book i. ch. ii. "^ See Sarpi's spiteful but amusing account of the origin of the doctrine of in- dulgences (pp. 6, 7). Waterworth (p. vi.) assures us that Leo was not respon- sible for Tetzel's appointment. He was appointed by the Pope's delegate, Albert of Brandenberg, Archbishop Elector of Mentz. Sarpi (pp. 4, 5), on the contraiy (flatly contradicted by Pallavicino, book i. ch. ii.), says Leo gave the indulgences of Saxony to his sister Magdalen (wife of the illegitimate son of Innocent VIIL), who appointed Bishop Arembold. 2 See letter to Leo, of May 30, 151S; and cf. Hagenbach, i. 104, and Hardwick, p. 18, f.n. * (i.) Tetzel; (ii.) Sylvester Mazzolini of Prierio ; (iii.) Hoogstraten, all Dominicans ; (iv.) John Eck, Professor at Ingoldstadt. * See Waterworth, p. xiii. ; Pallavicino, r. vii. 2. ® See Hardwick, p. 19. ^ See his Paradoxes in Pallavicino, i. vii. 3. ' Page 7. 364 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION I.V the decision of the three great universities of the Empire — Basle, Freiburg, and Louvain, and even the University of l\iris (though afterwards he took no notice of their con- demnation). The interviews ended. Cajetan and Luther separated (Luther leaves Augsburg, October 28) ; and Luther, seeing that his cause with the Pope was already decided, [appealed to the Pope, October 16, and then] determined to appeal to a Council (November 28), which is above the Pope. Prierias {i.e. Sylvester Mazzolini of Prierio) the Master of the Sacred Palace, Hoogstraten the Inquisitor, Dr. Eck the representative of the Schools, Cajetan the papal legate, had all declared against him. His one hope was in a Council. This appeal to a Council is generally represented as the result of a bull of Leo, dated November 9, on indulgences ; but. as Pallavicino points out,^ even if the bull had been promulgated on the day, it could not have reached Wittenberg for a month afterwards. According to Pallavicino, the bull was not published till December 13, or fifteen days after Luther's appeal at Wittenberg. A month later (January 12, 1 5 19) Maximilian died, leaving the Elector of Saxony [acting] head of the Germanic confederation. The year 15 19 witnessed the embassy of Miltitz as Pope's legate to the Elector of Saxony, with the present of the golden rose. Conferences between the legate and Luther were shortly after arranged. The legate admitted the abuses, and censured the conduct of Tetzel. Luther replied that the Pope was the cause of all. The price to be paid for the /'ci//i//;n drove the Elector-.Archbishop of Mentz^ to employ Tetzel. Yet the result of Miltitz's negotiation was to secure from Luther (March 3, 15 19) a full recognition of the Pope's supre- macy •' and a reference of the cause to the arbitration of the Archbishop of Treves, both parties in the mean while refraining from writing on the subject of indulgences. \'arious causes postponed the arbitration, amongst them Luther's disputation with Eck at Lcipsic (June 2/ — July 13, 15 19). With this dis- ' I. xii, 6. ■ Kosilin, p. S6, iiL, p. 304. • JbiJ.^ p. 309. ♦ JbU.^ pp. 316-318. • Jl'iit., p. 522. [On the Peasant War see Rankc's " Reformation in Germany," bk. iii. ch. vi. ; ch. iv. of Mr. Seebohm's '* Era of the Trotestanl Revolution," in the " Kpochs of Modern History ; " and Mr. Oman's article in No. 17— January, 1890— of the English Historuai Rcz'trw.] ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 373 LECTURE IX. CRYSTALLIZATION OF PROTESTANT DOCTRINE, 1526-1530, At the moment when everything seemed prepared for the destruction of Protestantism, the whole aspect of European politics changed. Jealousy of Charles's growing power, and the fear of Spanish influence in Lombardy, together with a hope of giving a national unity to Italy, led the Pope secretly to form what is known as the Holy League {Con- fcederatio atqtie Smictissimum Foedus) which was subscribed at Cognac (May 22, 1526). The imprisoned Francis, Henry of England, Venice, Milan, and the Republic of Florence, were united to preserve the balance of power in Europe. At the very time when Charles was putting pressure upon the Diet, which met at Spires, June 25, 1526, to carry out the Edict of Worms, rumours were heard that the Pope was at variance with the Emperor, and meditating a league with Francis. The first result was a change in Charles's attitude towards the Lutherans, whom it seemed safer to conciliate. The Diet,^ instead of carrying out the Edict of Worms, passed a decree of toleration till the proposed Council. " The legal existence of the Protestant party in the Empire is based on tJie decree of Spires!' ^ Two letters of the Pope, dated June 23 and 25, 1 526, were sent into Spain to Charles, and answered by him three months later, September 17 and 18 ; but no terms could be agreed on,^ and the Emperor determined to avenge himself on his treacherous ally. The dreary story of the SACK OF ' [See the elaborate history of this Diet by Friedensburg.] 2 Ranke, i. 80. Luther's Order of Divine Service dates from 1526 (KostHn, p. 348). The German Mass had been introduced on the Twentieth Sunday after Trinity, 1525. See his three methods of celebrating the Mass (ap. Hagenbach, ii. 10-12) — Latin, German, Esoteric (KostHn, p. 369). 1528, Visitation of the Churches of Saxony by supcrinte7ide7ils {ibid., p. 366). Luther's Catechisms {ibid., p. 369). ^ See the letters in summary, ap. Sarpi, pp. 35-38. 374 HISTORY OF 7 HE REFORMATION TV Rome (May 6-16, 1527) by the barbarian horde of Frlinds- berg and the Spaniards, under the Constable of Bourbon, fills the early part of the year 1527, while the Pope's six months' imprisonment carries us on to Nov e tuber, 1527, during which the question of Henry's divorce first becomes prominent at Rome. A peace between the Emperor and the Pope was arranged on November 26, the Emperor having repudiated all part in the sack of Rome, and professing to honour him as his father ; nevertheless he annexed hard conditions to his release,^ and insisted not only on the cession of certain towns and the giving of hostages, but also on the suninioriing of a Council, in a regular way and at a proper place, and as speedily as possible,^ The Pope's only hope was in Charles, whose power in Italy rapidly increased, By his aid the Medici were restored to Florence, and Clement proposed to retire from temporal matters and concern himself with spiritualthings only. But the Emperor and the Papacy were once more united, and the basis of their union was the extinction of heresy. Charles, now that he had made up his enmity with the Pope, oscillated back to his natural attitude with regard to Lutheranism, from which the treachery of Clement had tempo- rarily driven him. A second Diet at Spires was summoned for February, 1529, but did not meet till March 15. The Emperor, who was at Valladolid, was urgent for the revocation of the Edict of Spires and the enforcing of the Edict of Worms. The l^lector of Saxony, on the contrary, wished to maintain the indefinite decree of 1526. A compromise was effected, which recognized the religious status quo. Where the Edict of Worms had been received, it was to be continued ; where the edict of toleration prevailed, no change was to be made. Stringent measures against the Anabaptists followed. The measure was provisional, and recognized the existing state of things till the Council. It was passed April 2}^, and published May 6.^ It was against this policy that (on April 19) the Elector of Saxony, with George Elector of Branden- burg, ICrncst and I'rdncis the two Dukes of Luxemburg ' Saijii, p. 42. ' Pall.ivicino, 1 1. .\iv. 14. ' Stc it //'/' the executioner of Lucerne. If now we ask what was the place of Zwingli in ecclesias- tical histor)', the first thing which strikes us is that he was the precursor^ not the follower, of Martin Luther. Those who insist on identifying Luther with the Reformation, wherever and in whatever form it appears, will, of course, not bo con- vinced ; but for others it is interesting to record Zwingli's own words, as quoted by Dr. Hagenbach^ : — "In the year 15 16, before a man in our neighbourhood knew *)f Luther's name, I began to preach the gospel of Christ. Who called me a Lutheran then ? . . . I was igno- rant of Luther's name for two years after I had made the Bible my sole treasury. . . . No man can esteem Luther ' [i. 244, 245.J ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT, 387 more highly than I. Nevertheless, I testify before God and all mankind that I never in all my days wrote a syllable to him, nor he to me, nor have I caused any other to write for me. I have avoided doing so, not because I was afraid, but because I desired to show to all men the uniformity of the Spirit of God, as manifested in the fact that we, who are so far apart, are in unison one with the other, yet without collu- sion and without my deriving what I preach from him, for every man does according as he has received from God." A comparison of two men who had so much in common that the one is supposed to have derived his teaching from the other, and who yet had nothing to do with one another till they met to disagree, can hardly be without interest, especially when both were remarkable men and exercised so strong an influence upon the religious history of their respective nations. Both gathered round them men of distinction and learning. If Luther had his Melanchthon, his Bugenhagen, his Justus Jonas, Zwingli had his GEcolampadius, his Myconius, his Leo Juda. But the leaders were cast in different moulds. Their national character, no less than their previous history, had its influence, as Dr. Hagenbach ^ points out, on their theology. " Luther was a thoroughly Germanic nature ; he was a son of Thuringia. Zwingli was a genuine Switzer^ a son of the Alps." Though Luther was a miner's son, his surroundings were monarchical, while Zwingli was the son of a republic, and breathed the air of freedom. Luther, again, had studied in monkish seclusion, Zwingli was the secular priest. Even in their studies the men were widely different. Luther turned to St. Augustine and the mystics ; Zwingli had felt the Humanistic impulse and loved the classics. In a matter of exegesis Luther was, therefore, no match for Zwingli. It was characteristic of Luther that at the Conference of Mar- burg he wrote upon the table the words " Hoc EST CORPUS Meum," and pointed to it as his final answer to Zwingli, when the whole discussion turned upon the question whether " EST " was used in its literal sense or no. Zwingli's Humanism, in contrast with the narrowness of Luther, while it offered many ' [i- 355-] 38S HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX AV points of contact with the learned Erasmus, and gave him considerable advantage in exegesis over the Wittenberg Reformer, also prejudiced him in favour of a liberal, we had almost said a Christian, view of the heathen wc^rld, which shocked the more contracted views of German Protestantism. Thus in his little treatise called " A Brief and Clear Exposition of the Christian Faith," dedicated to King Francis I., when speaking of eternal life, he mentions among the blessed dead, not only the saints of the old and new covenants, and the ancestors of the king back through St. Louis to the days of the Pippins, but Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos, and the Scipios. " No upright man," he says, "has ever lived, no pious heart, no faithful soul has ever existed, from the beginning to the end of the world, whom thou wilt not see yonder in the presence of God."^ This is worthy of St. Paul or St. Clement, but it breathes a different spirit from that of Luther. Few people now study theology as a science, and there- fore doctrinal aberrations arc merely catalogued, instead of being traced back to a principle. And yet the errors of Zwingli, no less than those of Luther, are capable of a scien- tific determination, which is rarel)- given to them. It is, indeed, s(Hiietimes said that, though both Zwingli and Luther held the doctrine of justification by faith, and the absolute supremacy of Holy Scripture irrespective of Church authority, the difference between the two men and the two schools may be found in this — that these truths were put in a different order. With Luther the doctrine of justification, as he had realized it in his own spiritual history, was the fixed point from which he criticized even the Bible ; with Zwingli the Bible came first, and, therefore, we never find the same disproportion between faith and works as we do in Luther. According to this theory, Zwingli's tendency to refer everything to the letter of the ]^ible is appealed to in explanation of his Icgalistii, and his op[)osition to heathen lawlessness rather than to Judaic formalism, which has led one of his Swiss admirers to say that if Luther wa- like the .\postle Paul. Zwingli was ' [Hafjcnbach, ii. 171, 172. J ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 389 like *' honest James." About the legalism of the Swiss school there is no doubt. Thus, while the Augsburg Con- fession deals very freely with the Christian Sunday, and speaks of it, not as a renewal of the Old Testament sabbath, but as a convenient arrangement for public worship which nobody supposes to be necessary, English Sabbatarianism comes from Zwingli, through Calvin, who exaggerated the craving of Zwingli after an Old Testament legalism. The same tendency, emphasized, no doubt, by Calvin's legal mind, will of course explain, what is otherwise so difficult to recon- cile with their defiance of Church authority, the tremendous discipline of Puritanism, whether as seen at Zurich and Geneva, or in the English Puritans of Hooker's day, or in the rigid Church system of Scotch Presbyterianism. However we may account for it, there is an Old Testament atmosphere around Zwinglian and Calvinistic theology which is not found in Lutheranism, and devotion to the letter of the Bible is not enough to explain it. Nor are we, by the help of this theory, any nearer understanding why it was that Calvinism, with its awful and anti-Christian doctrine of predestination, developed itself on the basis of Zw^nglianism and not on that of Luther- anism, though both Zwingli and Luther agreed in denying the freedom of the will. We must look deeper for the principles which worked them- selves out in Saxon and Swiss Protestantism ; and we shall find that Zwingli, no less than Luther, had seized a truth in the light of which he interpreted the Bible, and to which everything else was compelled to bend. That principle Calvin took up and carried on ; and as Luther found fault with the sacred writers whose utterances failed to fit in with his view of justification, so did Zwingli, and Calvin even more consis- tently than Zwingli, explain away all that seemed to limit or condition the truth on which they built. At the close of the celebrated Marburg Conference, Zwingli held out his hand to Luther, in token that brotherly love was greater than theological differences ; and Luther refused it with the words, " Ihr habt eincn andern Geist als wir " — " You are of a different spirit from us." It was true in the 390 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX sense in which Luther meant it, but it had a deeper meaning. For, if we may put in sharp contrast the principles from which Luther and Zwingli started, and from which their theoloi:^y was developed, we should say — The be-all and end- all of Luther's theology was tJie absolute freedom of God's gift of grace in Christ fesus ; that of Zwingli was the absolute and unlimited sovereignty of God. Both were true when conditioning one another, both found ample justification in the inspired Word of God ; taken separately, both were developed into heresy. This dominant thought of the absolute monarch}- of God stands in the forefront of all Zwingli's great theological treatises. It is the pivot on which Zwinglian and Calvinistic theology turns. God is One, Omnipotent, Absolute. He is as unknowable to man, except when lie condescends to reveal Himself, as " man is to a beetle." This idea of the unapproach- ableness of God.^ and His absolute unconditioned power, will explain the peculiar characteristics of the Swiss Reforma- tion. It was the principle of Swiss theologx*. We see in it at once the key to what we have 'noticed as the legal and fudaic views of Zwingli and his followers ; and the conse- ([uences of this legalism we have already traced. It is, at the same time, the safeguard of the Swiss Reformers against that coarse familiarity with God and sacred things which shocks us so in Lutheranism. It explains, too, the pro- minence of iconoclasm in the early days of the Swiss Reformation, which found an echo in England only when the connection with Zurich was intimate. What indul- gences were to Luther, images and even the emblems of the Blessed Virgin and the saints were to Zwingli. If the buying of indulgences was an insult to the freedom of Christ's lo\x. images, or "idols," as Zwingli called them, were an insult to the majesty of the one God. Even Zwingli's views on religious wars may be thus explained. While Luther till his death opposed war as alien from the spirit of Christianit}', Zwingli believed it to be his duty to wield " the sword of the Lord and of Gideon." It would be too much, perhaps, to say ' [Ilagcnluch, i. 170 ; ii. 139.] ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 39 1 that Zwingli was unsound on the doctrine of the Person of Christ, since he accepted the definitions of the Four Councils, and certainly speaks of Christ as God, though he also uses the more ambiguous phrase, Dei de Deo Filius, But it was a true instinct which made Luther distrust Zwingli, and accuse him of stripping the Divinity of the Humanity, and making God put it on or lay it aside ''as a peasant does his coat." For Luther had a strong hold on the Incarnation as the central fact of Christianity, and therefore a firm grasp of the reality of sacramental grace, though his theory of the ministry was out of keeping with both. Zwingli, on the other hand, held a Christianity which was on the verge of Unitarianism. Luther said that that " old storm-raiser, Madam Reason " (Anglice, rationalisvi), was at the bottom of it all. And " Madam Reason " finally had her way, as she was bound to have, when Calvin followed Zwingli, and Servetus had to be burnt for being too logical, and Socinus and Socinianism rose out of his ashes. A tendency to a Unitarian or Arian Christianity has, as its natural consequence, an indifference to sacramental media. Zwingli's sacramental views are, of course, well known, but people forget that such views are an indication of a more deeply seated error. A truer view of the mediation of Christ might have saved Zwingli from his false views of the Sacra- ments. He is never tired of telling us that Sacraments are external to us. Not only do they not effect forgiveness of sins, they are not even mediatory thereto. They are signs of that which is already given. '^vX pari ratione the Incarnation of Jesus Christ should be, not the reconciliation of man with God, but a sign that the reconciliation has been effected. It is noticeable, however, that Zwingli's views on the Holy Eucharist deepen as he goes on. Though to the last he denies the Real Presence, as he did at Marburg, yet in the Confession of Faith presented the year before his death to Charles V. he expresses his belief that to the eye of faith Christ is present. He is now treading close on the heels of Calvin and of the Puritanism of to-day. The same doctrine of the absolute and unconditional 392 HISTORY OF THE REFORM A TIOX IX sovereignty of God carrictl witli it t/ic denial offrcc-zvill, with all its terrible consequences. Luther had also by a different route arrived at the same point, but his followers, notably IMelanchthon in the Augsburg Confession, recoiled from the results of such teaching. Zwingli never went back, he went forward. For the denial of free-will was, if we may say so, a more essential corollary from his first principle than from Luther's. Luther denied free-will lest it should contribute anything to the work of salvation, and so make the gift of God in Christ dependent, in however slight a degree, on man. Zwingli denied free-will as inconsistent with the idea of God as the one absolute Cause of all things. Calvin only took up Zwingli's last word, and carried out Zwingli's own principle. The first consequence of the denial of free-will shows itself in theology in the doctrine of an absolute election and reproba- tion. Here Zwingli is absolutely at one with Calvin : — " They who acknowledge Divine providence," he says, *' must, by so doing, recognize election also. . . . Election is nothing else than the present and eternal appointment (of God) concerning those who shall enjoy everlasting happiness. Rejection is the contrary of this. . . . God, who freely deter- mines all things, blesses whom He will — but b}' Christ, that is by Himself, by His own goodness and grace. For Christ is the pledge of (the Divine) goodness, and the redemption of sins paid to the Divine justice — which must ever be preserved inviolate. . . . Judas and Cain were as much rejected to eternal miser)- before the foundation of the world, as the Blessed \'irgin and the crucified thief were chosen to eternal blessedness." Later on we are told that Esau could not die in infancy because the Divine providence created him in order that he might live, and live impiously. Calvin can hardly impro\e on this, either in theory or expression. It mattered nothing to Zwingli thai, in his anxiety to guard the absolute power of Cjod, he made (jod's exercise of it arbitrar\- and irrational. Yet we find that even Zwingli's charitable view of the heathen world mentioned above is in another passage connected with the absolute will of God. " God's election is free," and His ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 393 power is shown as much in the salvation of the heathen as in that of Christians. Indeed, Zwingli would prefer, he says, to cast in his lot with Socrates and Seneca rather than with a Pope. Charity must have its limits, and Zwingli, like Luther, left the Pope outside. But this view of the absolute sovereignty of God as ex- cluding free-will had moral as well as theological consequences, and Zwingli did not shrink from them. God being the abso- lute AutJior of all things, is the Author of evil, not as per- mitting it, but as impelling to it. " It is He who moves the robber to murder one who is innocent, even though he be unprepared to die." It is He who makes Adam disobedient, and the angel a transgressor. The treachery of Judas, like the adultery of David, is as much God's work as the call of St. Paul. But, then, in order to avoid the conclusion that God is therefore immoral, Zwingli strikes at the roots of morality itself, and declares that what is wrong for man is not wrong for God. For God is above law, and where there is no law there is no transgression. The immediate consequence of this is obvious ; but the cause was simply the wish to magnify God's power in making right and wrong a matter of positive not natural distinction. God by His absolute will ordered that certain things, in themselves indifferent, should be right, others wrong. But He was not bound by His own enact- ments. Therefore He may still do those acts wdiich for men arc immoral, and yet He cannot sin. Well might Mr. J. S. Mill, who had known only the God of Zwingli and Calvin, exclaim — " Whatever power such a being may have over me, there is one thing which he shall not do ; he shall not compel me to worship him. I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow-creatures ; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go." ^ It was the noble protest of the moral nature of man against a false and immoral view of God ; a grand assertion, as has been pointed out by Mr. St. George Mivart, of the ' ["Examination of Sir W. Ilaniilioii's Philosophy," p. 129.] 394 HISTORY OF the KEFORMATIOX IX absoluteness of morality from the lips of the great Utilitarian, He was working;- back to the truth, which Zwingli and Calvin forgot, that God cannot sin because lie is Immutable Good- ness, and not merely uncontrolled and uncontrollable Power. Those who for good or ill have been leaders of men arc more logical than we often think — perhaps more logical than they are themselves aware. What looks like a congeries of opinions, drawn haphazard from different systems, is found, on closer inspection, to have a rational unity. Its parts arc not perfectly articulated at first ; it needs time for develop- ment ; and sometimes the founder of the system leaves it to a follower to complete. With Zwingli this was not so. Calvin and Bcza added little to Zwingli. though the world knows some of his doctrines only through them. Indeed. Calvin seems to recoil from Zwingli's conclusion that God is the Author of sin, though he holds to the principle from which that conclusion follows. Ikit the Swiss school, as distin- guished from the Saxon, from first to last all lowed the truth of God's sovereignty to warp their whole theology. God is Almighty, and God is Love. This is the Catholic faith, as it is the teaching of the Bible. Either God is Omnipotent or He is All-loving, but not both. This is the teaching of heresy. Zwinglianism and Calvinism make II im Omnipotent at the cost of Love. John Stuart Mill and man\- another, miscalled an atheist, would rather think of Him as Love, though at the sacrifice of His Omnipotence. Both claim the Bible on their side. Is not the corrective of both to be gathered from those wise words which have come down to us from the third century of the Christian era — " Whenever men wish to prac- tise deceit, they amputate the Scriptures ; but lot them quote Scrii:)turc as a ivholc " ? A. L. M. EXGLAND AND OX THE CONTINENT. 39$ LECTURE XL NEGOTIATIONS FOR A GENERAL COUNCIL (153I-1538). At the close of 1530 everything seemed ready for civil war^ but Charles still hoped for a more peaceful solution, and again pressed the Pope for a General Council, though the condition imposed, that the Lutherans should first submit, could not be observed. Clement clearly saw that a Council could now effect nothing. The old question of Pope and Council must recur, and unless the supremacy of the Council was admitted, the Lutherans would not consider the Council free. At last, however, the Pope gave way, and consented that a Council should be summoned on the following con- ditions.^ (i) That the business should be limited to the raising subsidies against the Turk, and the extinguishing of the Lutheran heresy. Charles objected to the limitation, and hinted that it was unnecessary, as the Pope could always prescribe what should be discussed. (2) The second condition was that the Emperor should be present. (3) That the Council should meet in one of the Italian cities previously proposed. (4) That the precedent of other Coun- cils should be observed, and no laics allowed to vote. (5) And lastly, that the Lutherans should petition for the Council and promise to obey it. This last condition was obviously impos- sible, and was cancelled. The Emperor's answer is dated October 16, 1530, and the Pope, on December i, issued a Breve to all the Christian princes, expressing his intention to call a Council.^ The Protestants, on the other hand, who had long ceased to hope for a free Council, set about preparing for war, and as a first step the SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE, which had been pro- jected some time before, was made, December 31, 1530, and finally signed on jNIarch 29 following. To this even Zwin- elians, who were held to be unsound on the sacramental * Pallavicino, in. v. ii. - Watenvorth, Iv. 396 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX question, and wlio, with the Tctrapolitans, had refused to accept the Augsburg Confession, were admitted. Letters proclaiming the desire for a free Council were despatched to Francis and Henry, both of whom were invited to join the league, but contented themselves with returning sympathetic answers. While the Schmalkaldic League was gaining strength, Charles was losing it. The election of his brother Ferdinand, January 5, 1531, as King of the Romans gave the Protestants a political zvar-cry. It was a violation of the Golden Bull, an attempt to make the Fmpire hereditary. ^lany of the Roman Catholic princes took offence. Germany was divided against itself. The Turk was again threatening Europe. There was nothing for Charles to do but to conciliate the Protestant.s, and secure their aid against the Turk, instead of enforcing the Edict of Augsburg. Thus the civil war was averted, except in Switzerland, where, as we have seen, the long-smouldering hatred of the Catholic and Protestant cantons at length broke out into open war.^ In Germany, a proposed Diet of Spires, to which Aleander, the papal nuncio to Charles's court, was sent, never met, and was postponed till the spring of 1532, when it was to meet at Ratisbon. The main business of this diet was to get help against the Turk, and to secure the recognition of Ferdinand as King of the Romans. Charles was baulked in both. France and England refused aid, while it is said the Protestants threatened to join the Turks. The result was the Peacjc OF Nuremberg, which was made on July 2^), 1532, and con- firmed in the following month (August 2). By this not only was toleration granted to the Lutherans till the Council, but Charles was pledged to secure a Council within six month.s. I'rom this moment dales his disagreement with the Pope. The Pope had real ground of complaint against Charles. He had conceded to the Emperor more than one of the ' The live Forest Cantons, Uri, .Schwyz, Unlerw allien, Zug, and Lucerne, were surrounded by Protestant Cantons, on which they were dependent for their corn. An obstinate blockade drove them into an alliance with Austria, and at last open war resulted. In October, 1531, a decisive Catholic victoiy was won at Kappd, /winijli being among the sl.nin (October ii). ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 397 conditions on which he consented to a Council, and now Charles, in the face of the remonstrances of those who prayed him not to tarnish the lustre of his edict at Worms,^ con- ceded everything- to the Lutherans, and pledged himself to a Council within six months. On the other hand, we must remember that it was only by pledging himself to this Council that Charles and the Pope escaped the threatened National Synod of Germany. The Turks retreated without a battle before the united Catholic and Protestant forces, and Charles at once set out for Spain. This zuas in tJie autumn of 1532. On his way he met the Pope at Bologna, aud pressed his request for a Council, which, says Robertson, " it was indecent (for the Pope) to refuse and dangerous to grant." ^ No diffi- culties arose as to the conditions, for the Pope would only summon a Council according to precedent, and the Lutherans wished for a conference which should have the authority of an CEcumenical Council. The Pope looked upon Lutheranism as a definite heresy already condemned by Church and State; the Protestants persisted in treating the points at issue as open questions, which were moreover to be discussed on Protestant principles. It was agreed that a papal nuncio and an imperial legate should be sent into Germany to arrange the conditions of the Council (February 20, 1533). At the same time Charles succeeded in persuading the Pope to initiate a league of Italian states for the protection of Italy (February 24, 1533). To Charles this meant protection against any attempts of France to recover Milan; to the Pope it meant a safeguard against the German and Spanish garrisons of Charles. Charles's fear of Francis was not with- out reason. The terms of the Treaty of Cambray (August 5, 1529) were only less hard than those of the treaty of Madrid, and Francis was only waiting for an opportunity of violating them. The first step was to break the close union between Pope and Emperor. With a view to this the union of Cathe- rine de Medici, Clement's niece, with Prince Henry of PVance, which had been for some time discussed, was now pressed by the P'rench king. The Pope through his nephew, who had ^ Pallavicino, iii. i.\. 8. * " Charles V.," i. 421. 398 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN married a natural dauL;htcr of Charles, was already allied with the Emperor, lie now consented to a marriage alliance with Francis, and proceeded to meet the French king at Marseilles. This was on October ii, 1533, the year in which Cranmer had pronounced Henry's divorce from Katharine. Imme- diately after, the cause, which had dragged on for six years, Avas decided in Rome, July 11, 1533 (Cranmer's judgment was May 23), but the sentence of excommunication w^as suspended in the hope that Henry would submit. It was while the Pope was at ?^Iar.scilles that Henry's am- bassadors arrived, and appealed from him to a Council. At the close of 1533 the Pope returned to Rome. No further excuse for postponing the sentence against Henry was admitted by the cardinals, though the Pope refused to pronounce it till the final mission of BcUay had failed. As far as Henry was concerned, these last negotiations were a solemn farce, for while they were pending, i.e. in the first three months of 1534, the three great acts of the Reformation Parliament were passed, which made peace with Rome impossible (25 Hen. VIII. cc. 19, 20, 21). The papal sentence condemning the divorce is dated March i^, 1534, and neither the Pope nor Bellay could secure a re-hearing. The sentence, which was not intended to be generally known, was sent to Inlanders, and exposed on the door of a church at Dunkcrque.^ The loss of luigland was the last blow which the unfortunate Pope received. He was soon attacked by disease, and died on Sep- tember 25, 1534. In Germany two things happened in 1534-5 which further complicated the relations of Protestants and Catholics. One was the violation of the Peace of Nuremberg by the restora- tion of Duke Ulrich of Wiirtemberg. This was the work of Philip of Hesse (June, 1534) against the wish of Luther and ]\Ielanchthon,- [and tlirust] a Protestant wedge into South Ger- many.*' The other was the fact of the excesses of Ana- baptists (John of Leyden, etc.),"* at Munster. Paul HI., Clement's successor in the throne, was elected ' iJixon, ii. 94. - Iliiusscr, p. iSl. •■' Kostlin, yy. 457, etc. * See H.ntjcnb.nch, ii. 217 sqq. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 399 unanimously on October 13. The choice of the cardinals was Alexander Farnese, a born Roman, who had gained ex- perience during the reigns of four Popes. Pope Paul III. was as anxious as Adrian had been for internal reforms, but, with more wisdom, forbade the publication of his schemes of reform lest a handle should be given to the heretics.^ One of his first official acts (May 20, 1535) was to send a cardinal's hat to Bishop Fisher, who was then in prison, on which Henry brutally remarked that Fisher would have to wear it on his shoulders, as he would have no head to wear it on, [and had him executed on June 22]. His other appointments showed more discernment of the spirit of the times. Contarini, Sadolet, Pole, Aleander, Bellay, were all men of conciliatory disposi- tion, many of them members of the Oratory of Divine Love,^ among whom justification by faith was as much a watchword as among the Lutherans. Moreover Paul contrasted well with his predecessor in his ecclesiastical and general policy. He was honestly anxious for a Council, despatched messengers to the various powers to arrange the conditions, and steadily refused to identify himself with either the imperial or the French party, declaring that he was the common father of both.3 With a view to hastening a Council, Vergerius was sent into Germany with letters to all the princes, Protestant as well as Catholic, in November, 1535. The place now proposed was Mantua. Private instructions were given to Vergerius,^ as appears from his letter, that he should prevent any diet being held that year, lest it should bring with it the threatened national synod. Such a synod would mean a certain triumph for Lutheranism.^ Mantua was accepted, and all the Catholic princes, except the Elector Palatine, on condition that Charles, who was now occupied with his African campaign, agreed. The Protestants spoke of Vergerius in the highest terms, and he was honourably received by the Elector of Saxony, who arranged a meeting between him and Luther (November ^ Pallavicino, ill. wii. 3. - See Ranke, i. iii. 3 Ibid., i. 3 Ibid., i. 181. ^ Sec Pallavicino, in. xviii. 2. 400 HISTORY OF THE KEF0RMA7I0X IX 7, 1 535V ^'^^'t on December 21, \^:,y:). fifteen princes and thirty cities met at Schnialkald and definitely refnsed tJic proposed Mantitan Council. Francis'^ and Henry were in secret negotiation with the league against the Council. The legates were Bishop Fox and Bishop Bella}-. Francis was medi- tating war in Italy. Henry hoped to secure the alliance of the league against the Pope, but the league would not approve the divorce, and Henry would not accept the Augsburg Confession.^ Vergerius was now recalled. It was evident that the Protestants were opposed, not to the conditions, but to the Council, and the Pope tJiercfore determined to summon the Council without them. Charles had returned in triumph from Africa, and was now at Rome, and the result was a deter- mination, published on April 8, to hold the Council at Mantua, A bull o{ June 2, 1536, summoned the Council for I\Iay 23, 1537) a"<^ nuncios were sent to inform the Christian princes of the convocation. [The Schmalkaldic articles, prepared on February 15, 1537, for presentation to the Council, were very outspoken and anti-Roman.'*] But the Mantuan Council never took place,^ for (i.) Charles and Francis were again at war, the latter having taken advantage of Charles's absence to violate the League of Cambray and invade Italy. Charles publicly denounced Francis before the Pope, and challenged him to single combat; in May, 1537, he invaded France, where he wasted some months, and in November he had to ' rallavicino, ir. xviii. sects. 7-9, with which cf. Sarpi, pp. 70-72. 2 Francis had for some time been trying to concihate the Schnialkald Pro- testants, but thinking lie had gone too far, he made a show of his orthodoxy. His league with the excommunicated Henry, his negotiations with Schnialkald, and, above all, his giving audience to the envoy of the intulel Solynian, were to be atoned for by the i)ublic burning of six Protestants (1535). ' Publication of Ten Articles in England also took place in 1536. They were the first English formulary of faith, and formed England's ultimatum in answer to the Confession of Augsburg. They were a protest against Protes- tantism, not against Rome. * Ilagenbach, ii. 233, 234. ■■* For King Henry's protest against it, see Collier, "Records,'" xxxviii. , and Dixon, vol. i. p. 308. He imly wished that all the bishops and prelates should be of his way of thinking, and then he would accept the Council (State Papers, vii. 636, quoted f.n. Dixon, I.e.). ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 40 1 retire with the remains of an army. And (ii.) an unexpected difficulty arose on the part of Frederick, Duke of Mantua, who refused to allow the Council unless a garrison was pro- vided (February 24, 1537). As he refused to yield to either Pope or Emperor, the Council was prorogued by bull of April 20, 1537, till the following November, no place being as yet notified. Trent was suggested by the King of the Romans, but the Pope had already agreed with the Venetians to hold the council at ViCENZA, and on the 8/// of October summoned a Council to meet at Vicenza on the Feast of SS. Philip and James (May i), 1538. A scheme of reformation was at once set on foot, and entrusted to a committee of four cardinals and five other prelates. The cardinals were Contarini, Sadolet, Carafifa (afterwards Pope), and Pole ; the prelates, Fregoso, Aleander, Cortese, Badia (all afterwards cardinals), and Ghiberti.^ These heads of reformation, in spite of the Pope's caution, were transmitted to Germany, and soon after printed by the heretics.^ But no Council could assemble zvhile Charles and Fra7icis were at war, and their negotiations came to nothing, though Francis, who had secretly made an alliance with the Turk, found that he must consent to break it, or else be left alone by his Swiss and other allies in Christendom. The papal legates, Campeggio, Simonetta, and Aleander, were indeed sent to Vicenza, but the nuncios who had previously been despatched to negotiate a peace between the Emperor and the king reported that no progress was made, and the Pope himself set out for Nice, to bring about, if possible, a peace between the rival monarchs. News reached him at Piacenza that, though it was within a week of the Council, not a single bishop had arrived at Vicenza. Nothing could be done but to postpone the Council, which was done by bull of April 25 ; and by a later bull, June 28, 1538, it was fixed for Easter, 1539. The Pope's intervention did not secure a peace, but a ten years' truce ivas agreed upon (June 18, 1538).^ It was in this year, 1538, that Henry VIII. had protested ' See a list of the abuses (ap. Sarpi, p. 79 ; and Pallnvicino, iv. v. 5). ' Ibid., IV. V. 12 ; Sarpi, pp. 78, 79. ' Pallavicino, i\'. vi. 3 ; and Robertson, ii, 27. 2 D 402 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX against the Vicenza Council, as he had done agauist tlic proposed Council at Mantua.^ But on Aui^ust 19, 1538, a more open defiance of tlie Pope was sliown in the desecration of TJionias a Beckefs shrine, the monument of the triumph of the Pope over a former King of En<;land (Henry II.). Immediately on the news reaching Rome, the great bull of excommunication and deposition, which had been drawn up in 1535, was launched against him. Pope Clement's sentence of March 23, 1534, was not intended to be published, and the death of Katharine within twenty months (January 7, 1536) might have made it unnecessary for the Pope to proceed to extremities. But in the mean while the execution, in 1535, of P^isher (June 22) and More (July 6) had compelled Pope Paul III. to draft a bull of excommunication (dated August 30, 1535), and the proceedings in England since had made the withholding of it increasingly difficult. Within six months of the destruction of Becket's shrine, on December 17, 1538, P>ngland and its king were excommunicated, and Cardinal Pole was sent to the Emperor and to PVancis to call upon them to break off all communion with Henry VIII. Whether this bull was ever published in England is a matter of great doubt.2 LECTURE XII. THE IT.RIOl) OF CONFERENCES — IIAGENAU, WORMS, RATISliON (l 539-1 541)— PREPARATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL (1542-1545)- At the moment when evcr\thing seemed favourable for the assembling of a Council, Charles, fearing probably the growing power of the Schmalkaldic League, which already constituted * Sec Collier, " Records," xxxviii. ' See Dixon, ii. 97, f.n. Froude (iii. 304), apud Dixon, I.e., compares Clement's sentence to sheet-lightning ; Paul's bull to a forked flash intended to blight and kill. See the bull itself (ap. Dixon, ii. 96), and the negotiations against England which immediately follo\\cd (//'/V, ii. 101-103). ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 403 an imperiuni in imperio^ and the possibility of an alliance between England and the Lutherans, returned to his old policy of colloqiiia^ or conferences. These conferences spread over the next three years (i 539-1 542), and were of special importance as showing the exact theological position of parties when they met, not as judge and criminal, but as theological opponents. In the face of this opposition of Charles, the Pope could do nothing but prorogue the meeting of the Council indefinitely, while declaring his readiness to convoke it at the earliest opportunity (bull of June 13, 1539). In February, 1539, a meeting of Protestants took place at Frankfort, to which the Emperor sent ambassadors. The Peace of Nuremberg, which each party accused the other of having broken, was allowed to be in force for fifteen months from May i, 1539, and a conference was summoned to meet at Nuremberg in the summer, to settle matters of faith. In the mean time no new members were to be admitted to the league. It was the non-observance of this condition which prevented the meeting being held ; but the insult was keenly felt by the Pope, whose name did not even appear, though the orators of Caesar, of the Most Christian King, the representa- tives of the Augustan (Augsburg) confederates, and those of the newly formed Holy League, were to be present.^ The King of England was equally offended at being left out, but was answered that the league had grown tired of that monarch's indecision, and his unwillingness, as expressed by the Ten Articles, to accept the Augsburg Confession. His negotiations with the Lutherans soon after, and in spite of Melanchthon's persuasiveness,^ came to an end, and the same year (June 16, 1539) was passed the terrible Six Articles law (" the first Act for uniformity of religion ").'^ While Charles and the Protestants were preparing for the conference, a new scandal to the Reformation arose in the BIGAMY of the landgrave (December, 1539-March, 1540). Luther and Melanchthon had said that "what was allowed in ^ See quotations from Contarini's letter to Pole, July, 1539, ap. Dixon, ii, 104, f.n. 2 Ibid., ii. 105. ^ Ti'id., ii. 123. 404 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX /A' respect of marriage by the law of Moses was not actually forbidden in the Gospel," but required that the matter should be kept private. This act discredited the Reformation more than anything else.^ But though the colloquy at Nuremberg did not take place, another was arranged to meet at Spires ; but as the pestilence was there, met in the summer of i 540 at Hagcnau, in Alsace.2 No papal legate was present, though thj imperial party pressed for it, and the legate himself, Cardinal Ccrvino, wished to go. Eck and CochUneus represented the Catholics, but the Protestants produced no one of mark. Melanchthon started for Hagenau, but was taken ill.-*^ The chief subject of discussion was Justification, on which the Catholic theologians were willing to make concessions if the Protestants would omit the word " sola!' out this was refused. A new colloquy was arranged to take place at Worms, on October 28, and ended in January of the next year (i540- Campeggio represented the Iloly See, the Pope having yielded to the request of Charles and P^erdinand ; Eck, Cochlreus, and Malvenda the Spaniard were the disputants on the Catholic side ; while for the Protestants there were present Mclanchthon, Capito, Bucer, Osiander, Brenz, and Calvin. This was the first meeting between JMclanchthoii and Calvin. After three days' discussion on original sin, an imperial rescript dissolved the assembly, and ordered it to meet again at Ratisbon (Regens- burg)."* At this conference, which met April 5, 1541, the Emperor selected the speakers. Julius von Pflug, Dean of Meissen, John Cropper, Doctor of Theology at Cologne, with Pxk, who fell ill during the discussion, represented the Catholics ; Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius, the Protes- tants. Frederick, the count palatine, and Granvelle, Charles's ' See Kostlin, pp. 506-509; Hagenbach, ii. 377, f.n. ; and for a coarse statement and an immoral defence, of. P. Hayne, ii. 560. Refer to Luther's views of marriage and divorce in his " Babylonish Captivity " (prefers polygamy to divorce). ' IIagenl)ach, ii. 240. ' It was on this occasion tliat Luther visited him, and made his "powerful" (? blasphemous) jirayer, for which see ibid.^ i. 408. * In this year, 1540, ajipcared the Confcssio I'an'ahi, [a new edition of the Augsburg one, both prepared by Mclanchthon]. EXGLAXD AND OX THE COXTINEXT. 405 minister, were appointed to act as presidents. Never had the chance of reunion been greater. Both sides were willing to make concessions. The Emperor was only anxious to secure unity. The papal legate, Contarini, was exactly the man to meet that general desire for religious peace which for the moment seemed universal. The Pope, however, had refused to appoint his legate with full powers, though con- siderable latitude was given him, of which, at the very opening of the colloquy, Contarini availed himself, to alter the order of procedure. The question of papal supremacy, which the Pope wished to have precedence, was allowed to be taken last, in order that questions which touched the founda- tions of faith might first be settled.^ Charles, through his minister, who was bound to the strictest secrecy, then pre- sented to the conference a Book of Concord, drawn up by learned divines, which might serve as a basis of agreement. This book, which is now generally believed to have been the work of Gropper, was divided into twenty-two heads, as follows: I. Creation of Man; 2. Integrity of Nature; 3. Free-will ; 4. Cause of Original Sin ; 5. Justification ; 6. The Church and her Signs ; 7. The Signs of the Word of God ; 8. Penance after Sin ; 9. Authority of the Church ; 10. Interpre- tation of Holy Scripture ; 11-16. The Seven Sacraments ; 17. Charity; 18. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; 19. The Articles determined by the Church ; 20. Use, Administration, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments ; 21. Ecclesiastical Discipline ; 22. Discipline of the Laity. By mutual concessions and explanations the disputants actually agreed on the four primary acticles, Jinnian nature^ original sin, rcdeniption^ and jnstification^ in which four points Bucer declared that " every- thing requisite to a godly, righteous, and holy life before God, and in the sight of man, was comprehended."^ On the more ecclesiastical articles, the ninth, the tenth, the eigh- teenth, the nineteenth, and the twenty-first, no agreement was arrived at. Still something was done, and Charles was ^ See the instructions quoted by Ranke, i. 120, f.n. ^ See Hardwick, "Reformation," p. 59, f.n. ' Rankc's " Popes," i. 122. 406 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX JX anxious that at least the points agreed upon should be enforced ; but Contariiii reminded him that two things were necessary — the sanction of the Pope, and the consent of Luther. Both of these were refused. At Rome it was thought that Contarini had gone too far on the subject of Justification, or, at least, that the articles were too indefinitely expressed, even if they did not compromise Catholic truth. Luther, with his usual violence, refused to believe that his old antagonist Eck could have accepted justification by faith ; he declared the RATisiiOX Interim, as it was called, to be " a vamped-up thing, poorly pieced and stuck together ; a patch of new cloth upon an old garment, whereby the rent is made worse." ^ But probably the most important opposition to reunion came from outside. Francis trembled at the thought of unity for Germany, and schemed against it. This is plainly stated by Contarini^ and his secretary, who accused the enemies of the l^^mperor of sowing the tares of discord among the divines.^ The result was that the formula of the conference was rejected at Rome, and Charles, when he published the recess of June 29, was compelled, through fear of the Turk, to revive the peace of Nuremberg, and grant to the Protes- tants toleration while he forbade proselytism."* These conciliatory negotiations having failed, Charles re- turned to the idea of an Qlcuuienical Council, or, if not, a national synod for Germany. The Pope, receiving news of this from Contarini, forestalled him by proposing (May zj, 1541) a Council, of which news was sent to the legate. Charles was indignant, and said plainly that the Pope ought to have waited for the will of the Diet. The German princes clamoured for a national synod, the Protestants refused to recognize a Council summoned by the Pope ; but the Emperor, in his Recess, declared plainly for a Council, which he said the legate had promised should be held in Germany. Meanwhile the doctrines agreed upon at Ratisbon were to be approved, and if the Council was not held, a national s}'nod should be ' Letter of May lO, 1541, np. Ilngcnhach, vol. ii. 243, f.n. ' Sec Kankc, i. 125, f.n. » y/v./., i. 126, 127. ♦ Ilagenbacli, ii. 244. ENGLAXD AXD ON THE C0NT2XENT. 407 called.^ In August of the same year (1541), the Pope and Emperor met at Lucca, and the latter made three demands, which the Pope asked time to answer. The demands were that the Pope should summon the Council in Germany, should institute a reformation of the German clergy, and contribute a fourth part to the war against the Turk. The answers to these were to be laid before the approaching Diet of Spires. Early in the following year (1542), Morone was sent to signify the Pope's will in the matter. A reformation is to take place not only in Germany, but everywhere ; for the war against the Turk the Pope would provide 5000 soldiers, provided they were led by Charles, otherwise 2500 ; while for the Council (the Venetians refusing Vicenza) Mantua, or Ferrara, or Placentia, or Bologna are proposed. ]\Iorone arrived with these answers in March and found the Diet sitting. He addressed the Diet on March 23, and, having found that all the four places proposed were objected to as dependencies of the Pope, he suggested two new ones, Cambray or Trent, as a last resort. Trent,^ being in the Tyrol, on the confines of Germany, and its prince-bishop subject to the Empire and to P^erdinand, the King of the Romans [as Count of Tyrol], was accepted by the Diet, and on May 22 a Bull of Convocation was agreed on by the Consistory, summoning the Council for All Saints Day' (November I, 1542). This bull was promulgated on the Festival of SS. Peter and Paul, in which Pallavicino finds a special appropriateness, St. Peter's prerogative being at stake, while it was in the Church of All Saints' [and on that festival] that, twenty-five years before, Luther had enunciated his heresy.^ The bull which summoned the Council of Trent unfor- tunately spoke in as complimentary terms of Francis as of Charles ; and the latter took offence, contrasting his own care ^ Pallavicino, I v. xv. 12. The colloquy Avas followed by a reproduction on the part of Eck of the articles agreed upon, and a defence of them by Von Pllug and Cropper {ibid., 13). ' [Trent had been suggested by Charles as the seat of the Council as early as May, 1524 ; see Balan, p. 352.] ^ Pallavicino, iv. sub Jin. 408 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION TV for the good of the Church and the suppression of heresy with the alhance of the Most Christian King with the Turk and with Henry of England. Francis retahated by reminding the dutiful son of the Church that he had for six months imprisoned his father, while as for his own alliance with the infidel, it was not without a parallel in Old Testament history. The mediation of the Pope effected nothing, and the chances of the Council meeting grew daily less, as the legates Morone, Parisis, and Pole (who received the cross, October 20) were instructed not to open the Council until the arrival of the chief prelates from Italy, Germany, France, and Spain. Indeed, the legates did not reach Trent till November 22, and few bishops had preceded them, the war between Francis and Charles making travelling unsafe. The Emperor's ambassadors, Granvelle and Mendoza, arrived on January 8, 1543, but stayed only a short time, alleging in excuse the fewness of those present. The Pope at the beginning of the summer actually travelled as far as Buxetum {prope Padum ?), in order to have an interview with Charles and persuade him to peace, but in vain.^ P^'rom this point we find the friendship between Charles and the Pope relaxed, while that between the Pope and P>ancis is strengthened ; and when Charles, to the surprise of every one, forgot the wrong done to Katharine, and made llc ul" the rallaviv.ini, between J 'anna and riaccniia. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 4O9 tJie Protestant princes, and, at a Diet held at Spires early in 1544, repealed the Edicts of Worms and Angsbiirg, relieved the Protestants from all disabilities, and allowed them to keep the stolen ecclesiastical property till the CEcumenical Council. In return for these concessions, the Elector of Saxony recognized Ferdinand as King of the Romans. This Diet of Spires giving to the Protestants not only toleration, but absolute civil and religious equality, called forth a long letter (August 24) of rebuke from the Pope (which Pallavicino gives in fuU^), in which the Pope even threatened Charles with ecclesiastical censures. Charles replied in conciliatory terms, exculpating himself, and accusing Francis as the cause of the postponing of the Council. This was in August. A few weeks after (September 18, 1544), the Peace of Crepy was concluded between Francis and Charles. The Pope ordered public thanksgivings throughout Christendom, and, removing the suspension of the Council, summoned it, by bull of November 19, to meet on MarcJi 15, 1545. The legates were men well qualified to represent the head of Christendom. John del Monte, Bishop of Palestrina, and afterwards Pope Julius III. ; Marcello Cervino, who succeeded him as Pope Marcellus 11. ; and Reginald Pole, The legates, on their arrival, found no bishop at Trent, except the Bishop of Cava, who had been specially sent to precede the legates, and the prelates arrived so slowly that it was thought inexpedient to open the Council. They were also anxious for the results of a Diet which was to be held at Worms on March 24, 1 545. To the surprise of the Protestants, Ferdinand, on opening the Diet, called upon them to submit to the Council, and reminded them that the Recess of Spires was a temporary arrangement till the CEcumenical Council, which was now assembling. The Emperor, on his arrival, repeated these demands, but without effect. They would neither acknow- ledge a Council summoned by the Pope, nor assist the Emperor in the Turkish war, unless full liberty of religion was conceded to them. At Trent, on April 20, w^hcn only ten bishops were present, the Pope's order to open the Council ' \. vi. 4IO IllSTOKY OF THE REFORMATlOy I.V on May 3 arrived ; but tlic Icc^atcs, having consulted with Cardinal Farncsc, determined that a further postponement was necessary. This being reported to the Pope, he issued instructions to the legates to open the Council as soon as it seemed expedient. The expedient moment was a difficult one to discover. For Charles, as the Legate Farnese learned, feared that the opening of the Council would give the Pro- testants the signal for war, for which neither he nor the Pope was prepared, while, if no Council opened before the Diet at Worms closed, the threatened Diet for settlinGf all reli^rious questions was almost a certainty. At the beginning of August,^ however, the DECREE OF THE Diet was published, in which Charles, while conceding nothing to the Protestants, either as to protecting them from the Council or granting toleration, or indemnifying them for the ecclesiastical property, yet promised that a conference sJiould be held in the winter at Ratisbon. It now seemed that the Council could no loncrer be delayed. Caesar would hear nothing of transferring it to Italy, and the Pope would not consent to treat of reformation before doctrine. It was therefore determined, in a Consistory held on November 16, that the Council should be formally opened on Deconbcr 13 ; a bull to that effect being issued on the 4th. The prelates of Germany were allowed to appear by proxy. All bishops present were exempted from payment of tithes, and allowed to receive their revenues in absence. The breve issued to the legates instructed them : I. To proceed at once to doctrine. 2. They were to condemn the opinions, not the persons of heretics. 3. They were not to content themselves with a general condemnation, but to pro- ceed to details. Reformation, as of secondary importance, was next to be dealt with ; all suggestions to be graciously received, but all reforms to be left to the Pope. All letters and documents were to be signed by the legates as presidents, and by the Pope whose representatives they were '' adco ut non nicdo convocati Concilii auctor af'parcrct, scd coacti Caput ac Rectory^ Indulgences were to be granted, but not in the name of ihc Council. Fverything was now ready for ' rallaviciiu), \. . i. 2 //,/,/ y, _^^.i_ 2. ENGLAXD AXD OX THE COXTIXEXT. 4I I the opening', when an unexpected difficulty arose, the French bishops being suddenly recalled. It was with some difficulty, and not without threats of a papal breve, that the opposition of Francis was removed. The breve for opening the Council arrived on the iith; a solemn fast was ordered for the next day, in preparation for the 13th. On December 13, 1545, the legates and the fathers, after arraying themselves in their pontificals in the Church of the Trinity, intoned the hymn to the Holy Spirit. Then, in regular procession, the regulars, the seculars, the bishops, and lastly the legates, with the ambassadors of the King of the Romans, attended Mass in the Cathedral of St. Vigilius.^ Del Monte, as first legate, celebrated ; the Bishop of Bitonto preached a Latin sermon. Then the legate gave the blessing, and, after the bull which removed the suspension (November 19, 1544) and the breve appointing the legates had been read by Campeggio, addressed the assembled prelates. The council was then declared opened, and the next session was indicted for January 7, 1546. At the opening there were present three legates, four archbishops, twenty bishops, five irenerals of orders, and Kincr Ferdinand's ambassadors.^ Chronology of the Council of Trent. raid III. {October 13, i^T^^-Xovember 10, 1549). 1542. May 22. — The Council summoned to meet at Trent on November i. 1543. July 6. — The Council prorogued. 1544. Nov. 19. — Council summoned for March 15, 1545, but prorogued April 20 and December 4, 1545. 1545- Dec. 13. — Session I. Formal opening. 1546. Jan. 7. — Session H. Manner of living. " Representing" clause. Feb. 4. — Session HL Symbol of faith (Creed of Constantinople). April 8. — Session IV. Canonical Scriptures, and editions of them. Tradition. June 17. — Session V. Original sin. Preaching to be enforced. * [The actual sessions of this Council were held not here, but in the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore.] ^ Pallavicino, v. xvii. 9. 412 HISTORY OF THE RE FORM ATI OX TV Jan. 13. — Session VI. Justification. Residence of all beneficed clergy to be enforced. March 3. — Session VII. Sacraments in general. March ii. — Session VIII. Transferred to Bologna. April 21. — Session IX. Prorogued. ) Formal sessions at Bologna. June 2. — Session X. Prorogued. ^ The congregations continue their debates. 1549- Sept. 14. — The Council suspended. Julius in. [February ?>, i^^^o— March 23, 1 555). 1550- Nov. 14. — The Council summoned to meet at Trent on May i, 1551. 1551. May I, — Session XI. Prorogued. Sept. I. — Session XII. Protest of Henry II. of France against the Council. Oct. II.— Session XIII. The Eucharist. Nov. 25. — Session XIV. Penance and Extreme Unction. 1552. Jan. 25. — Session XV. Sofe conduct granted to the Protestants. April 28, — Session XVI. Council suspended for two years. Marcdlus II. {April g-T^o, 1 5 55). Paul IV. {May 23, 1555— .-iw^'^j/ 18, 1559)- Pius IK {December 2$, i$e,()— December <), 1565). 1560. Nov. 29. — The Council summoned to meet at Trent on Easter Day, 1561. Dec. 19. — Meeting deferred till January 6, 1562, and then to January 18. 1562. Jan. 18. — Session XVII. Resumption of the proceedings. Feb. 26. — Session XVIII. Choice of books. Safe conduct to the Protestants (published March 4). May 14. — Session XIX. Prorogued. June 4. — Session XX. Prorogued. July 16. — Session XXI. Communion in both kinds, and communion of children. Bishops' fees abolished. Sept. 17. — Session XXII. Doctrine of the Mass. *' Qucestors," or vendors of indulyenccs, abolished. 1563- July 15. — Session XXIII. Sacrament of Orders. Those who have cure of souls to reside. Seminaries for training up clerics to be established in every diocese. Nov. II. — Session XXIW Sacrament of Matrimony. Regulations as to holding benefices. Dec. 3-4. — Session XXV. Purgatory, invocation of saints, relics, indulgences, decrees as to "regulars," tithe, duelling, etc. All decrees of the Council from 1545 onwards read and approved.' * The Catechism ordered to be drawn up by the decrees of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth sessions did not appear till 1566, and was therefore not strictly promulgated by the Council itself. The Breviary and Missal were revised in 1568 and 1570 respectively. ENGLAXD AXD OX THE COXTIXEXT. 413 On January 26, 1564, the Pope solemnly confirmed the decrees of the Council, which had been signed by 255 prelates, viz. 4 legates, 2 cardinals, 3 patriarchs, 25 archbishops, 168 bishops, 7 abbots, 39 proxies for absent prelates, and 7 generals of religious orders. There is only one English name on the list, Thomas Gokhvell, consecrated to the see of St. Asaph, in 1553, and deprived in 1559 on Elizabeth's accession. There were also three Irish bishops who signed. Water- worth (p. 311) gives a list, from which it appears of the prelates who signed, 189 were Italian, 35 Spanish, and 27 French, besides 6 Greeks. No other nationality is represented by more than 3 persons. LECTURE XIII. OPENING OF THE COUNCIL AND THE SCHMALKALDIC ^YAR (1 545-1 547). The Council of Trent lasted from December 13, 1545, to December 4, 1563, during which period five Popes sat upon the papal throne. Paul III., in whose reign the Council opened, was succeeded (February 8, 1550) by his legate, Cardinal del Monte, under the title of JiiliiLs III. After five years (April 9, 1555) he was succeeded by his brother legate, Cardinal Marcello Cervino, who kept his name as Pope Mar- cellus II. But his reign lasted only twenty-two days (April 9-30, 1555), when Caraffa, Pope Paul IV., was elected (May 23, 1555) to succeed him. The last of the five Popes was another of the Medicean family, Giovanni Angelo, who was known as Pope Pius IV. (elected December 25, 1559), and under him the Council of Trent was successfully closed. But if we look back over the eighteen years which intervened between the opening and closing of the Council, we find that the actual work of the Council was done in three periods. Thcfij'st, including Sessions III.-VIL, covers the interval be- tween February 4, 1 546, and March 3, 1 547, or little more than a year, during six months of which (June 17, 1546-January 1 3) no session was held. The second period was in the reign of Julius III., and includes Sessions XIII. and XIV. (October II and November 25, 1551), while the third period includes Sessions XXI.-XXV., and extends from July 16, T5'^2, to 414 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATJOX LV December 4, 1563, with again an interval of ten months (September 17, 1562- July 15, 1563). As far, then, as the in- ternal and theological history ^of the Council is concerned, we have to deal with the five sessions which took place in 1546 and 1547, the two which took place in 1551, and the five sessions with which the Council closed, 1562-63. The other sessions were concerned with formal business — opening, prorogation, suspension, transference, safe conducts, etc., the explanation of which must be sought in the external history of the period. The interval between the earlier and later sittings of the Council, if we except the formal debates and the two sessions of 1 55 1, covers fifteen years, namely, from 1547 to 1562. Luther died February 18, 1546 (two months after the opening of the Council). HENRY VIII. died January 28, 1547, less than a year after Luther. His contemporary, Francis, died March 31, two months after. Charles, ten years later {Fcbniary 24, 15 58), resigns the imperial crown to Ferdinand, his brother, as two years before (January 16, 1556) he had transferred the crown of Spain to his son Philip. All the chief actors in the Reformation seemed to have departed from the scene. WJien tJic Council met for its final scssiouSy the successor of Charles was still reigning ; but Henry II. of France had been succeeded (June 29, 1559) by Francis II., whose short reign (he died December 5, 1560) was followed by that of Charles IX. England had passed through the religious revolutions of Edward VI. (i 547-1 553) and Mary (i 553-1 558), and had seen the Papacy again repu- diated under Elizabeth, whose reign began only a year before Pius was elected Pope. The opening of the Council and the indiction of the second session for Januars' 7, 1546, was the work of the first session. Ik'tween the first and second sessions sundry ques- tions had to be settled, h'irst, as to who were to vote, and second, as to the title of the Council. The first question caused little difficulty.^ It was decided that Cicncrals of the religious orders should have a vote, and that the three abbots ' On llic .inti-Gcrman tactics of the Papacy, cf. Philippson, pp. 309, 310. (i) Votes by nations refused : (2) vot" by proxy rcfuscil. EXGLAAD AND OX THE COXTLVEXT. 415 of the Cistercian order present should have one vote between them as representing one order. The other matter was not so easily settled. Some wished the council to be described as not only "general and cecumenical," but "representing the uni- versal Church." It was ruled, though not without opposition, which reappeared more than once, that the " representing " clause should be omitted. There was, too, as might be expected, some friction between the Council and the legates. Still, notwithstanding disputes in the congregations, the session of January 7, 1546, passed the decree "touching the manner of living " with only two dissentients. The Bishop of Clermont wished to insert the name of the King of France with that of Charles in the appointed prayers, and several Italian and Spanish bishops objected to the omission of the " representing " clause. To prepare for the third session on February 4, 1 546, con- gregations were held on January 13, 19, and 22. In the first " the title of the Council " was discussed ; the others were occupied with a much more important subject — Is doctrine or reformation to take precedence ? The papal commands and the imperial wishes were diametrically opposed. Cam- peggio suggested a compromise, which was accepted, viz. that faith and discipline should go together in each session ; and, when the Pope was displeased at this, it was decided that the new arrangement should not take effect till Session V. The method of procedure was then arranged. The theologians and canonists were divided into three con- gregations or committees, which were to meet severally at the house of the legates, the result being communicated to a general congregation previous to the public session. These began on February 2, but as many prelates were known to be on their way to Trent, nothing was arranged for the third session, except that the Constantinopolitan Creed should be publicly accepted. This decree passed unanimously on February 4, except that some again objected to the absence of the "representing" clause, and others wished that a decree should be framed binding the Council to treat of doctrine and discipline conjointly. 4l6 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX JX During these early sessions of January and February a new colloquy took place at Ratisbon, at which Charles appointed Malvenda, Billicus, Hofmeister, and CochLneus to dispute with Bucer, Brenz, Major, and Schnepff. But it proved as fruitless as its predecessors.^ A Protestant Diet was being held at Frankfort at the same time, and seemed preparing for war. On February i8, after the third session of the Council of Trent, Ltithcr died^ and almost immediately after the war that he dreaded broke out. His words in 1545 were prophetic: "So long as I live, no danger, please God, will arise, and there will be a continuance of peace in Ger- many. But when I die, then pray.^ The useless colloquy at Ratisbon was succeeded by a Diet in the same city in June, to which the Schmalkaldic League sent a petition for the ratification of peace, and a protest against the Council of Trent. The Elector of Saxo7iy and the Landgrave Philip afterwards wrote to Charles (July 4), assuring him of their loyalty to him ; but sentence of outlawry on the leaders of the League was pronounced on July 20. The Council had held two more sessions {^Session IV., April 8, and Session K, June 17), in which they had passed decrees on the canonical Scriptures and the authority of the Bible and tradi- tion, together with the important decree on original sin. Both of these had been followed by decrees of reformation, and the next session was fixed for St. James's Day, July 25, but was afterwards (owing to disputes on Justification) prorogued to January 13, 1547. By the time when the Council should have met, the Pope and the Emperor were in league against the Protestants. They, in fear, applied for help to Venice, to Switzerland, and to the Kings of France and England, who had at length made peace ; but no help was given them. The Ix^ague mustered, it is said, 47,000 ; the imperial army consisted of 8700, to which were added 12,900 as the Pope's contingent. The treacherous Duke * llagenbach, ii. p. 250. ' See his character in ibid., ii. pp. 25S sqi]. ; Watcrwoiih, Ixxxii. ; Palla- vicino, VI. X. • llagenbach, ii. 266. EXGLAXD AXD OX THE COXTIXEXT. ^I'J Maurice of Saxony, cousin of the Elector and son-in-law of the Landgrave, a Protestant, but not a member of the League, joined, forgetting his professed Protestantism, and anxious only to secure the promised spoils of the PLlector of Saxony, and a triumph over his father-in-law, the Landgrave. The miserable break-down of the Schmalkaldic League and the end of the ivar folloived, Charles, avoiding an engagement, waited for the disorganization of the Protestant confederacy. The Elector was pursued into Saxony, where he surrendered, after the battle of Miihlberg, on April 24, 1547. Wittenberg, which had been in a state of siege since October, 1 546, capitu- lated on Ascension Day (the Landgrave having surrendered at discretion), and had to recognize Maurice as its lord. The Elector and the Landgrave were kept as prisoners. Hermann of Cologne was deposed, and Adolph of Schaum- burg made archbishop in his place. The other members of the League offered abject apologies, and submitted to fines assessed by the Emperor. The Schmalkaldic Udr 7i'as at an end, and with it the Schmalkaldic LeagJie} Two more important sessions of the Council had been held in the early part of this year, the sixtJi on January 1 3, in which a long and important decree on Justification was framed and passed, and the seventh on March 3, when the sub- ject of discussion was tJie Sacraments. Many abuses were in the same sessions reformed, strict rules being laid down for residence, visitations, exempt churches, and beneficed clergy. The next session was to be held on April 21, but at a congre- gation held on March 10, the Legate Del Monte suddenly proposed that the Council should be transferred to Bologna. The reason alleged for this was the prevalence of some infec- tious disease, of which the General of the Cordeliers and the Bishop of Cappaccio had died. The neighbouring cities had forbidden all communication with Trent. Some of the bishops had already fled, and others were preparing to leave. But it is worthy of notice that it was in the debates connected with the seventh session that the most decided disagreement between the papal and imperial members became apparent. ' See llagcnbach, ii. pp. 272 sqq. 2 E 41 8 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX LV The legates wished to revoke the whole question of reforma- tion to the Pope. This the imperial party refused to allow. Even the reforms agreed upon in Session VII. seemed to them incomplete, and practically evaded by papal dispensa- tion. Cardinal Pacheco w^as at the head of the Spanish oppo- sition, and, according to Sarpi,^ drew up a protest which was laid before the congregation on P^ebruary 3. The legates applied to the Pope, and the happy device of transferring the Council was hit upon. Sarpi ^ says nothing about the pesti- lence, and Pallavicino^ says nothing about the Spanish Censure, though he denies Sarpi's explanation. The legates left Trent on March 12, two years after their arrival, and were followed to Bologna by all except Cardinal Pacheco, two archbishops, and fifteen bishops. The real cause of the transfer of the Council was political. The war of Charles had gone on too successfully for the Pope, whose old fears revived. He had therefore withdrawn his troops, and suggested to the French king that he should do something to help the Protestants, who were being beaten.^ (Tlic followini; sheet of pencil notes may hml a place at this point.] Luther's Character and Work. Different views -.■' He was a '' jj/ystn'," as Savonarola was. Jealous, there- fore, of all that came or seemed to come between the soul and God ; therefore anti-sacerdotalist. He felt that God had called him for his work. He was "an ciitJiusiastl' as was Savonarola; therefore splendid in attack. \\\?> self-conscious humility often became spiritual pridc.^' Contrast with Savonarola or St. John. " I am the voice." *' I am God's hammer." " I am Luther." He was wanting in balance. P\\ared the "storm-raiser Reason;" hence he was disqualified from being a theologian. ' \^^\ 23S. ' I'aj^e 242. 3 IX. .^v. and xvi. Kaiikc's "I'opcs," i. 192-194. •• Hagenbach, ii. 263-265 ; Watcrworlh, Ixxxij. -^ Ha-'cnbacli, ii. 264. EXGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 419 TJie Reformer and the Theolog ^.^ •^ - SJ3J:^ s- rth «3^ .-v^.<-. c/: <. •->< -g E U 4) B S w . •^f^ EO PHI • rv ■ ■»!? .; t ^l >i 0 555. to N bisliops martyred. burnt Ma onsccratet March 2 i1 § - -J- fi i 2 is hlber up 0 gue. ith ncil. gsbui ipsic ifessi and ubmi 'rent ■aty ( ath 0 s ^ s^.r^t^i QS ^ii^^^.i ■%:^i n. 24— bergens Saxonic legates ig. 2.— ly 12. — l.fc J'w «i< ="rt rt b ^•2 . u 2: c d 5q k :?,c A <-, tC 2 9 ^ -^ ^ '/: &.5. ^0 |s> ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 421 i-i - « s o c . rt 10 fa III -Ts 8 -S C 4)00^ rt ^- . S c C -^ 'J. - Qcx. 422 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATJOX IX LECTURK XIV. FROM THE IJATTLE OF MUHLBERG TO THE PEACE OF AUGSBURG (i 547-1 555). In July. 1547, the so-called "Armed" Diet of Augsburg met. The Emperor professed himself anxious {or peace, and declared that his war against the Schmalkaldic League had nothing to do with religion. He, however, exhorts all to submit to the General Council now being held at Trent. Ikit the Council was no longer there ; onl\- the Spanish pre- lates remained by the Emperor's orders, in the hope that the Pope might be persuaded to recall the Council from Bologna I whither he had transferred it on March 11, 1547]. During the rest of this year the Pope and the Emperor were nego- tiating on the subject, but the Pope refused to give way, and the Council at Bologna supported him lo}'ally. Early in the year 154S (January 23) Charles entered his protest against the Council at Bologna, which was at this time suspended. The histor}' of the Council, as far as business went, is ;///, though much was done in congregations which was afterwards of use. The first session at Bologna (April 21. Session IX.) prorogued the Council till June 2, when it was again prorogued till September 15, 1547. (This was Session X., Bologna 2.) The day before that fixed for this session the Council was suspended (September 14, 1547), owing mainly to the negotiations of the Pope and Emperor. No date was fixed for the resumption of business. Meanwhile the Diet of Augsburg met, and Charles, finding his hopes of restoring the Council to Trent vain, published The Interim [Elector of Brandenburg and Agricola] on Ma\- 15, 1348 EXGLAXD AXD OX THE C0X7IXEXT. 423 (sometimes called the '' Second Interim," or " Interim Augus- tanum," to distinguish it from the Ratisbon Interim of 1541). This Augsburg Interim took the form of twenty-six articles,^ and expressed, if it did not disguise, the Lutheran view in Catholic language. Of course, it was distasteful to both parties, though the Archbishop-Elector of Mentz publicly thanked the Emperor for it, and one of its authors, John Agricola (Master Grickel, according to Luther), who with Von Pflug and Helding concocted it, declared that he had reformed the Pope, made a Lutheran of the Emperor, and introduced the Golden Age.^ The Emperor, in spite of the Pope's dis- pleasure at it, determined to enforce the Interim. Brenz, Schnepff, and four hundred clergy were deprived.^ Brenz declared it was interitus non interim, while a certain learned person discovered that interim was the anagram for mentiri.^ " Hut' dich vor dem Interim, Es lauert ein Schalk hinter ihm."^ The Protestant Maurice determined to enforce the Interim, bul in order to make it less distasteful, he appointed Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and others to draw up another Interim, called the " Leipsic Interim " ^ (Maurice and Melanch- thon), which, while accommodating the principles of Luther to Catholic phraseology, left a considerable margin for things indifferent (a^icKpopa). [It was accepted on December 22.] On September 14th of this year, the Council at Bologna was suspended sine die. This step had become necessary through the departure of many from Bologna, the refusal of Charles's bishops to leave Trent, and the fear of an open rupture with Charles. In the year of the Leipsic Interim, Paul III. died, November 10, 1549, his death perhaps being hastened by the assassina- tion of his son, and the conduct of his grandson, Ottavio Farnese, who, in order to keep Parma and Placentia, had sided ' Hagenbach, ii. 279. - Ibid., ii. 279. ^ It was the Augsburg Interim which compelled all the extreme Reformers to leave Germany, and many of them went off to England. This explains the differ- ence in spirit between the First and Second Prayer-book of Edward VI. •• See ibid., ii. 283. '" Bucer, refusing to accept the Interim, and linding his position dangerous, accepted Cranmer's invitation to England, and became Regius Professor at Cambridge, in 1549. " On which see ibid., ii. 286, etc. 424 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX with tlic Emperor af^ainst the Pope.^ (I'arma and Placentia liad been <;iven by Pope I'aul to liis son, and on that son's death had been resumed.) Early in 1550 (P^ebruary 8j, Cardinal del Monte became Pope Julius IlL Pic at once expressed his gratitude to his predecessor by restoring Parma to Ottavio, and conciliated the P^mperor by recalling the Council to Trent. The Diet of the PLmpire, which met on January 25, to enforce the In- terim, accepted and promised to obey the Council. The cause of Lutheranism seemed hopeless. Maurice, meanwhile, was successful in deceiving both the Lutherans and the Emperor. To please the latter, /le enforced tJie Interim in Saxojiy ; to conciliate the former, he protested against the Council. In October, as general of the papal and imperial forces, he besieges (October, 1550) Magdeburg (surrendered November 3, 1 551), which refused the Interim, while at the same time he is attempting to procure the release of the Landgrave. When the Council was formally summoned by a bull of November 14 to meet in the following May (ist), and the recess of the Diet (February 13, 1551) demanded obedience to its decisions, Maurice seems to have determined to head the Protestants as his predecessor had done, but meanwhile to play a double game. War between P>ance, which was in league with Ottavio Farnese, and the Pope and Emperor, who were now united in the attempt to recover Parma, prevented the Council meeting. Session XI. fMay i, 155 i,) prorogued the Council till September i, and Session XII. continued the prorogation till October 11. At this twelfth session the French king's protest against the ''conventus" was read, and the answer to it deferred. The answer was eventual 1\' adopted at the tJiirtccntli session, October 11, 1 531, together with important decrees on tJie Holy Encliarist^ though four l)oints were still reserved for future consideration.- 'Phe • Kankc s " Topes," i. 203. ' [l. Is Communion in both kinds necessary? 2. Docs .1 man, receiving in one kind, receive less than another receiving in Ixilh kinds ? 3. Is the Church wrong in conununicating lay people and priests who are not celebrating, in one kind only? 4. Are children to be communicated ?J ENGLAXD AXD ON THE COXTINENT. 425 fojirteenth session, on November 25, dealt with Penance and Extreme Unction. The siege of ]\Iagdeburg by Maurice ended, after twelve months, in its capitulation on November 3, 1551. The con- queror was appointed Burgrave, and showed himself gentle and tolerant to the Lutherans. While openly acting for Charles, Maurice now attempted an alliance with England under Edward VI. ; this failed, but he found himself strong enough to take the field against Charles early in the next year. His avowed object was ^ to save the Protestant religion, to preserve Germany from despotism, and to liberate the Landgrave of Hesse. It was now that Henry of France appeared as " Protector of the liberties of Germany and of its captive princes," in close alliance with Maurice against Charles. Before, however, war actually broke out, the Council held its fifteenth session on January 25, 1552, and granted a safe conduct to the Protestants, who had received audience in a general congregation on the preceding day, January 24. These ambassadors were from Wiirtemberg with a new Con- fession {Confessio Wirtenibergensis), and from the Elector ]\Iaurice of Saxony with the Confessio Saxonica, or Repetitio Conf Aug."-^ The Council was then prorogued till March 19, and in a congregation of March 18 postponed till May I. Subsequently it was arranged to hold a Session on April 28, when the Council was suspended for two years, and did not meet again till 1562. The cause of this was the war between Maurice and the Emperor, which broke out in March. Augsburg was taken, Innsbruck threatened. The P^mperor fled, the bishops assembled at Trent scattered, and Maurice was able to make his own terms at the Treaty OF Passau, August 2, 1552. The Elector and Landgrave were set at liberty, and Protestantism was saved by its former persecutor. The next year (1553) witnessed the death (July 12) of ' See Roljertson, "Charles \'.," ii. 263. 2 Tlie former was used by Archbishop Parker when he remodelled the XLII. Articles in 1562-3 (Hardwick, p. 230). For the latter, see "Sylloge Confes- sionum." 426 IJJSTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX Maurice, from a wound received in the battle of Sievershauseii (July 9), and the negotiations for the marriage of Philip. Charles' son, with Mary of England. The Treaty of Passau had left Charles free to revenge himself on Henry of France for his alliance with Maurice, and this war continued through the year 1554, in spite of the negotiations of Cardinal Pole. On July 25 Philip of Spain was married to Mary of England, and on November 30 Pole solemnly absolved England from the excommunication. Early in the next year (February 5, 1555) a Diet met at Augsburg, presided over by P>rdinand, to which Cardinal Morone was sent as papal legate. But on March 23 Pope Julius III. died, and Morone left Augsburg to return to Rome. The short reign of Marcellns 11. {April 9-30) was followed by the election (May 23) of Caraffa as Paid IV. His severe and monastic tastes made him distrust the Emperor^ and the Recess of Augsburg (Peace OF AUGSBURC, 1555. September 25, 26)} proclaiming as it did a religious peace and toleration for the Lutherans and all who accepted the Augsburg Confession, made him readily throw himself into the ambitious schemes of his nephews, and conclude an alliance with France against the Emperor (December 15, 1555) Charles resigned Spain to Philip January 16. 1556, [and Austria to his brother Ferdinand on September 7, 1556], and retired to Spain. * For the terms of the Peace of Augsburg, sec Ilagcnbach, ii. 299 ; Robert- son, ii. 337. [It established the principle ciijus rci^io ejus rc/igiOy that is, that each lay prince could choose his religion if it fell within the limits of the Confession of Aiigsl)urg, and cf>uld force his subjects to adopt it also.] EXGLAXD AXD OX THE COXTIXEXT. 427 LECTURE XV. FROM THE PEACE OF AUGSBURG TO TFIE CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (1555-1563). We may pass rapidly over the events which intervened between the Peace of Augsburg and the later sessions of the Council of Trent. In England the period opened with the death of Arch- bishop Cranmer on March 21, 1556, and the consecration of Pole on the following day. The Pope, however, could not forgive Pole for his candidature for the Papacy or his sympathy with the doctrine of justification, and refused to again appoint him legatus a latere till after the death of Peyto, or Petow, Bishop of Salisbury, in 1558.^ His primacy lasted only two years and a half, till November 18, 1558, when he died, a few hours only after Queen Mary. The same year Elizabeth succeeded, and the papal claims were again repu- diated. Charles resigned the purple in favour of Ferdinand on P'ebruary 24 of this year (1558), and died (September 21)'^ before the year closed. Pope Paul IV. died the year after (August 18, 1559), a few months before the consecration of Archbishop Parker (December 17, 1559). His last year was signalized by a return to those vigorous reforms which he projected at the beginning ' Hardwick, " Reformation," p. 222, f.n. [Peyto legate, from June 20, i557? to 1558.] ^ As the son of Philip and Joanna, Charles V. had succeeded to all the posses- sions of the houses of Castile, Aragon, and Burgundy. In 15 16 he succeeded one grandfather 7v;Y////rt:««/ in his Spanish dominions, and in 15 19 he was elected to the Empire in succession to his other grandfather Maximilian. He thus united the power of Spain, the wealth of the Nelhcrlands, and the dignity of the Empire. Charles was the last Emperor crowned in Italy ; but, instead of taking the two crowns, one at Rome and the other at Milan, he took both together at Bologna, on February 24, 1530. His power in Italy passed not to his brother Ferdinand, the new Emperor, but to his son Philip, King of Spain. 428 J I IS TORY OF THE REFORM ATIOX LV of his reign. " I loly r'athcr," Cardinal Pachcco had dared to say, in an assembly of the Inquisition, '' reform must first of all begin among ourselves.''^ ICighteen days afterwards (January 27), a Consistory was summoned, in which the Pope denounced the evil lives of his nephews, whose anti- Spanish sympathies had blinded him to their vices, deprived them of all offices, and banished them and their families. Then began those vigorous reforms which made Paul IV. the object of hatred to the Romans. No day was passed without some measure of reformation being carried out. The Inquisition assembled before him every Thursday, and it knew no respect of persons. Many of the reforms afterwards decreed by the Council of Trent were initiated by Paul.^ Even cardinals were compelled to preach ; marriage dispensations were not even mentioned ; offices were given by merit, not for money ; while in the conduct of public worship the pontiff proceeded so gravely, and with so much dignity, that he seemed a worthy vicar of Christ.-' It seemed for a moment, if the early part of Paul's reign could be forgotten, that the mantle of .\drian and IMarcelhis had fallen upon him. In the midst of his reforms he died August 18, 1559,** and the Roman populace wreaked their vengeance on his mutilated statue.^ Pius IV., the Cardinal de Medici, who was elected Pope on December 25, i 559, was in many points exactly the opposite of Paul. lie was of a kindly and affable disposition, anxious for peace, with little sympath)' witli the methods adopted by the Inquisition, inclined rather to an easy-going, half-worldly life if the circumstances of the age had allowed it. But a reaction had set in, and the regeneration of Catholicism had begun. Tlie old da}'s of nepotism, when the Pope's sons or nephews were exalted into independent princes, had gone for ever. The nephew of the new Po[)e was a cardinal, but he was also a saint — Carlo l^orromeo. Pius began his reign by reversing the policy of liis predecessor so far as to recognize ' Rankc, i. 229. - Sec //'/,qc il'iif., " I'opcs," i. 238, etc. * Sarpi, l)k. v. p. 390. EXGLAXD AXD ON THE COKTIXEXT. 429 the resignation of Charles and the accession of Ferdinand as Emperor. Then he brought together the nephews of Paul, who were tried and executed. His next thought was the renewal of the Council, which had been suspended since 1552. Nor is it necessary to suppose that he was driven to this by fear of the projected national synod in France. His own words^ are, "We desire this Council, we wish it earnestly, and we would have it to be universal. . . . Let what requires reformation be reformed, even though it be our own person and our own affairs. If we have any other thought than to do God service, then may God visit us accordingly.^ But by this time the position of the Protestants was assured. The Peace of Augsburg had given them religious equality, at least where Protestantism was the received religion, for it was left to the sovereign to determine (unless he was an ecclesiastic) whether the old or the new religion should be adopted. It was impossible, therefore, that the Protestants should submit to the Council, especially if it was avowedl}' a continuation of that Council of Trent in which their main articles of belief had been condemned as heretical. This was the preliminary difficulty which arose immediately the Bull of Convocation summoning the Council for Easter Day, 1561, was published (November 29, 1560). The Protestants who were assembled at Nuremberg, though the most extensive safe conduct was offered to them, at once refused to attend. Elizabeth of England forbade the nuncio sent to her to cross the sea.* Both the Emperor and the king protested against this Council being made a "continuation" of the former, but at the same time ordered their prelates to attend. The King of Spain took exception to the bull on exactly the opposite ground, that it did not clearly state that it was a continuation. The truth was, the bull had been so framed as to please all, and it pleased none.^ On March f/, 1561, all the bishops present in Rome were ' (Quoted by Rankc, i. 249. - Sarpi, p. 398, does not believe the Pope was in earnest, and supposes the Council was talked of to prevent the summoning of the French national synod. 2 Ibid., p. 412. ^ Ibid., p. 408. 430 HISTORY OF 7 HE REFORMATIOX IN ordered to repair to Trent. Gonzaga, Cardinal of ]\Iantua, and Cardinal Puteo were appointed legates with three other cardinals to act with them as presidents, but when three of the presidents arrived on April i6, they found only nine bishops at Trent. The Council was then postponed to January 1 8, 1562. Before the first congregation the Arch- bishop of Granada raised the question of " continuation," and was assured that the bull intended it, though to conciliate Protestants it was not clearly stated.^ A new difficulty arose as to the right of the legates to propose motions, against which the Spaniards again protested.^ But, with this excep- tion, the seventeenth session was held in peace, and the Council duly opened. The business of the next session (XVIII.) was threefold : i. To prepare an Index Expitr gator ins. 2. To invite the authors of condemned books to the Council. 3. To eive a safe conduct to the Protestants. The first matter was referred to a committee of eighteen, and the safe conduct was to be drawn up by a general congregation. The imperial ambas- sadors had now arrived. [They suggested that the Council should not be called] a continuation of the Council of 1 545, and demanded that the Augsburg Confession should not be put on the Index, that the decrees and doctrines should not be passed till the Protestants arrived, and that the safe conduct should be of the most ample form. All these demands were agreed to, and the session passed its decree " On the Choice of books," with only the Archbishop of Granada protesting (February 26, 1562). The safe conduct was published on the following March 4. The chief discussion in the congregation following the eighteenth session turned on a question connected with a proposed reformation — Is residence of those who have cure of souls necessar)- by divine or ecclesiastical law ?'^ At first sight it seems an unimportant question, but the discussion of it showed that the whole question of papal power was involved. The real issue was — Is episcopal power an enianatio)i from tJiat of the pontiff, or is its origin divine?^ ' Waterworlh, cliv. ' Ibid..^ clvi. ' Ibid., clxi. sqq. * Ranke, i. 251. Sec, loo, Waterworth, pp. cl.wi., cl.wii. See, too, Waco on the subject, Introduction to Luther's ihree treatises ; Philipp^on, pp. 473, 511, sqq. EXGLAXD AXD ON THE CONTIXEXT. 431 Must bishops reside jure divino, or because the Pope orders them to do so? If it is j?irc divino, the Pope could not dis- pense with non-residence. While the Council was discussing episcopal residence, the first article on the schedule of refor- mation/ the imperial ambassadors, supported by the ambas- sadors from P^rance, were pressing for the cup for the laity, marriage of priests, the use of the vulgar tongue in church, with other similar demands.^ A division on the question of residence gave sixty-seven^ in favour of its homg j?iro divino, and seventy-eight against it. A messenger had been sent to Rome to inform the Pope of the general desire for reform, and in the mean while the nineteenth session was held on May 14, but no decree was published. The next session was fixed for June 4, but this again passed no decree. The reason of this was the reception of the Pope's answer on the heads of reformation, ninety-five in number. The Pope left the Council free to decide on all the ninety-five matters except eleven, which affected his own tribunal. The article on residence he refused to allow to be discussed till the Council had recovered its judicial calm. This was an implied censure on two of the three legates who insisted on \\\^ jure divino residence. The French ambassadors also required that it should be clearly stated that this Council was not a " continuation " of the Council of Trent. The Spaniards were equally strong on the other side. The imperialists agreed with the French, but a message from the pontiff ordered that the Spanish view should be adopted. The result was the prorogation on June 4, 1562 (Session XX.) The twenty-first session was to deal with the four reserved articles on the Holy Eucharist. The Archbishop of Granada opposed on the ground that the first article — Is communion under both species necessary for all ? — had been settled at the Council of Constance. He also revived the question of residence, which by the Pope's orders had been postponed. The imperialists still pressed for reform, the Spaniards for the " continuation " clause ; the P^'cnch protested * Waterworth, clxii. - See Ranke, i. 251. ^ [Massarelli's report says 67 in favour, 3S against, and 34 more against unless the Pope be first consulted. See Philippson, pp. 473, 474, and Liltledale, p. 78.] 4S2 JIISIORY OF HIE RE FORMA TIOX I.V against any implied condemnation of their own use of com- municating their king at his coronation in both kinds. Still the decrees on the Holy Eucharist were passed at the twent)- first session on July 16, together with important decrees on reformation, and passed with onl)- small objections as to details. The preparatory congregations for Session XXII. were more peaceable. Philip ordered his ambassador not to press the " continuation " clause, and the two legates who had disagreed on the matter of residence were reconciled. More than this, the Pope ordered the legates to yield to the Emperor so far as to grant the cup to the laity ; but they determined that such a concession was ill advised, and framed a general decree conceding the chalice under certain conditions — a compromise which satisfied both Pope and Emperor. The main business of the next session (XXII., September 17, 1562) was a series of questions connected with the sacrifice of the Mass, on which, after stormy discussions, a decree of nine chapters and nine canons were passed. Amongst the articles of reformation which were passed at the same time was one which abolished the ofifice of quaestor. Between the twenty-second and twenty-third sessions there is an interval of nearly ten months (September 17, 1562- July 15, 1563), during which the Council was eight times prorogued. The old opposition between the P>ench and the Spaniards showed itself at every turn in the Council and out of it.^ The old question of rcsidcficc was discussed anew. A new contingent of P^rench bishops was expected, who, it was said, wished to assert the supremac}- of the Council over the Pope, to discuss the method of electing popes, and to limit the number of cardinals. The subject before the Council was the Sacrament of Orders, and it was in this debate that we find \.\\Q Jesuit Laincz taking a prominent part. The P'rench prelates, fourteen in number, under the Cardinal of Lorraine arrived on November 13, and on the 23rd the cardinal addressed the Council as to the state of religion in l^^rance, and recommended a wise and perfect reformation. Later on, ' See Kankc, i. 253. EXGLAXD AXD OX THE COXTIXEXT. 4:; 3 on December 4, he delivered his strictures on the canons and decrees under discussion. The real matter in dispute was again whether the jurisdiction of bishops is from the Pope, or timiiediately from God. The discussion still continued, till in March both the senior legates died. A suspension of business followed till the new legates, Cardinals Morone and Navagero, appeared (April 13). In May the Cardinal of Lorraine attacks the deputies and their proceedings, and proposes a schedule of reformation, in which he is supported by the Archbishop of Granada. This was met by the proposal to deal with special national reforms in national synods. The Pope had intended to declare Elizabeth of England a heretic, and her bishops no bishops ; but the Spaniards prevented this, not from sympathy with the Protestants, but fearing the murder of the English Romanist bishops. The decrees were finally passed with little opposition on July 15, 1563 (Session XXIII.), and a decree on reformation necessitating residence for all who have cure of souls [and ordering the establishment of a seminary in each diocese for the purpose of training clerics] concluded the session. The residence question was got rid of in this way. Residence was declared to be necessary, but whether it is jure diviuo, or by virtue of the power of the Pope, is a matter of purely speculative interest. The moving spirit in these final sessions was Cardinal Morone, to whose tact and decision the successful termination of the Council, in spite of the opposition of the Cardinal of Lorraine, is mainly due.^ The twenty-fourth session, on November 11, 1563, which dealt mainly with marriage, and the closing session (XXV.) on December 3 and 4, deal- ing with the reformation of " regulars," occasioned no serious disagreement, and the eighteen years' Council closed. The Pope is said to have recovered from a dangerous illness at the news of the successful issue of the Council, but the reaction from the strain of the last year showed itself in increased luxury and self-indulgence on his part. But the spirit of reformation within the Catholic Church protested against this : the dagger of the enthusiast Accolti"^ was ready ' See Ranke, i. 260. * Sec ibid., "Topes," i. 268. 2 V 434 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION EV even for the Pope himself, though the attempt failed, and Pius IV. lived for two years after the close of the Council of Trent (died December 9, 1565). LECTURE XVI. THE SPREAD OF REFORMING OPINIONS UP TO 1 563 IN AND AROUND GERMANY. At the close of the Council of Trent the Pope had been dethroned in more than half of Europe.^ England and Scotland, the Scandinavian provinces, a great majority of German states, many of the Swiss cantons, were altogether anti-papal, while Bohemia and Moravia, and Poland, Hungary, Transylvania, the Netherlands, and even France, were leavened by the new doctrines, which sprang from Ziirich and Witten- berg and Geneva.^ Outside Germany it was mainly the Swiss form of doctrine which prevailed ; but the new force of Catholicism was beginning to spread, and its work was bound up with the Jesuits, whose centre was at Rome. Germany. The Empire^ was a complex body of many states inde- pendent of one another, each with its own head. There was as yet no national unity. The states met in the Diet, the "recesses" or decrees of which were binding on all, the Emperor being bound to ratify and enforce them. Originally the Emperor was chosen probably by all these associations, but the right of election gradually got limited to seven electors, whose exclusive right was confirmed by the Golden Bull ■* of 1356. These seven electors were three archbishops and four secular princes. I. Archbishop of Mcntz, Arch-Chancellor of Germany. * llarclwick, "Reformation," p. 301. = See Ranke, i. 406, f.n. • Robertson, i. 132, and note xlii. p. 542. ♦ Explain, and st-c Putter, vol. i. [and Prycc, p. 230.] ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 435 2. Archbishop of Cologne, Arch-Chancellor of Italy. 3. Archbishop of Treves, Arch-Chancellor of the kingdom of Aries. The four secular princes represented all the orders which composed the highest class of German nobility. 4. The King of Bohemia, who was cupbearer. 5. The Count Palatine of the Rhine, who was seneschal. 6. The Duke of Saxony, marshal. 7. Margrave of Brandenburg, chamberlain.^ Of these seven electors the three archbishops and the count palatine had their seats on the Rhine^ the remaining three on the Elbe. But outside the electoral college were princes lay and ecclesiastical, and free cities which held directly of the Emperor. These states and cities (not including the elec- torates and the Emperor's hereditary dominions of Austria and Burgundy) were divided into six circles, viz. FranconiUy Swabia, Bavaria, Upper Rhine-> Lower Rhine (Westphalia), and Saxony ; to which were added by Maximilian in 15 12 four new circles, Austria, Burgtmdy, the electoral cii'cle of the RJiine (which included the four Rhenish electorates), and the circle of Upper Saxony, which included the electorates of Saxony and Brandenburg. Bohemia was not mentioned with the other six electorates, nor was it included in the circles. The King of Bohemia seems to have had no voice in the Diet except in the election of an Emperor.^ All this organiza- tion was, however, more apparent than real, Germany was still under feudalism more than any other European nation. There were constant feuds between the petty sovereigns, and the commercial towns in the north of Germany (Cologne and twenty-nine other towns) had been compelled to join together in the Hanseatic League to protect their commerce. So far as Germany was concerned,^ reforming opinions radiated from Wittenberg in Electoral Saxony, where from ^ [See the lines of Marsilius of Padua, quoted in Bryce's *' Holy Roman Empire," p. 231, note.] 2 See Putter, vol. i. pp. 355. 356- => See Hardwick, " Reformation," pp. 67 sqq. 43^ HIS7VRV OF THE REFORM A TJOX IX the first the Elector, Frederick the Wise, had favoured Luther. When Frederick died (May 5, 1525), he was succeeded by his brother, John the Steadfast (died 1532), whose grandson, John Frederick II., "the Mediate," succeeded in 1554 (his father, John Frederick L, havin[( died ]\Iarch 3, 1554, o^^y eighteen months after his release from captivity). All these electors favoured Luther, and Saxony became the strong- hold of Lutheranism. The electorate of Braudciihuj'g, which was included with Electoral Saxony in the circle of Upper Saxony, did not become Lutheran till the death of Joachim I. (1535). Ducal Saxony was less ready to accept the new teaching. Duke George was the bitter enemy of Luther, but on his death, in 1539, he was succeeded by his brother Henry, who favoured Luther. It was the son of Duke Henry, Maurice, who first of all fought on the Catholic side in the Schmal- kaldic War in order to get possession of the electorate, then played fast and loose at the time of the Augsburg Interim, and finally came forward as the Protestant champion and deliverer of the Elector and Landgrave (1552). Under Maurice the dukedom and the electorate were united, and Pro- testantism was triumphant in both. P^urther north \\\ Lower Saxony, LUneberg by 1527, IMecklenburg, Holstein, Pomerania, and Anhalt by 1530 became Lutheran. From Saxony Lutheranism spread west to Hesse in the Upper Rhine circle. But the Landgrave after the Marburg- Conference (1529) went over to the side of Zwingli. He was father-in-law to Maurice of Saxony, and, with the Elector o{ Saxony, was taken captive in the Schmalkaldic War at the battle of Muhlberg (1547). From North Germany the Reformation passed to Fraii- cofii'a, where not only the government became Protestant, but the Bishops of l^ambcrg and Wiirzburg became Lutheranizcd or lost their influence. In Baran'a the duke was compelled in 1556 to make concessions to those who held the Augsburg Confession. In Swabia several states, of which the most important was Wilrtcmburg, joined the Schmalkaldic League. In Austria the nobilit\' had been Lutheranizcd through the EXGLAND AND OX THE COXT/XEXT. 437 university of Wittenberg ; the colleges were there filled with Protestants till, it is said, not a thirtieth of the people remained Catholic.^ Meanwhile the Archbishop of Salzburg, being on the confines of Austria and Bavaria, struggled in vain to retain the hill-country. On the Rhine the progress was no less rapid. In the Palatinate, where the Swiss rather than the Saxon form prevailed, we find the Elector Frederick formally abjuring the Pope in 1546 ; and for the next sixty years, till the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War, the Eucharistic controversy raged there. The Heidelberg or Palatine Catechism was published in 1563 under the Elector Frederick III. (i 559-1 5/6), and follows the "Confessio Variata" on the Eucharistic question, but is said to combine " the fearlessness of Luther, the lucidity of Melanchthon, and the fire of Calvin."^ (Klewitz (Klebitius), the Crypto-Calvinist, was a Heidelberg professor.) The kingdom of Bohemia was already prepared by the Calixtines (Hussites) for a rejection of Catholicism, and though Luther had little sympathy with their sacramentarian views, he sanctioned their Confession of Faith in 1532; and they are found sending a contingent to the Schmalkaldic League. When the war came to an end, they were ejected by royal edict of May 4, 1548. Later on, the strength of the Jesuits and the Counter-Reformation prevented any real spread of their views ; and a vigorous and effective persecution under Ferdinand II. (1627) practically extirpated Protestantism. Even in the territories of the ecclesiastical electors the doctrines spread, the archbishops either resisting in vain or making damaging concessions, while in the circle of the Lower Rhine, or Westphalia, the Protestants found little resistance. In the Netherlands, included in the Burgundy circle, Calvinism had taken the place of Lutheranism. But when Philip II. succeeded Charles in the Netherlands (October 25, 1555), the irritation and excitement increased. The Spanish garrison, the increase of the episcopate, and, above all, the work of the Inquisition, prepared the way for the revolt of I 568, and the forty years of troubles which followed. Though ' Ranke's " Popes," i. 399. ''■ Soe I lard wick's " KrfDrniatiMn," p. 160, f.n. 438 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATJOX IN it is said that by 1562 thirty-six thousand Protestants had been put to death, yet a formal confession was drawn up, and the Protestants were tolerated, if not admitted to religious equality.^ So rapid had been the spread of reforming opinions in the Empire that a Venetian ambassador calculated that in 1558 nme-tenths of the German people were anti-Catholic.^ Twenty years later, in 1580, another Venetian writes that the number of Protestants [in France] had diminished by seventy per cent. {i,e. ^^^^ Catholics, -^^-^ Protestants), this change being the work of the Jesuits.^ Z>^«;;/^r/['hadbeenLutheranizedbyBugenhagen. Frederic I. (i 523-1 534) had secretly encouraged the Reformation as a counterpoise to the Church system. The nobles were won over, and Lutheranism received toleration in the edict of 1527 (Diet of Odense). The Faroe Isles became Lutheran, and in Ice- land the last representatives of Catholicism disappeared by 1554- In Swedefi Gustavus Vasa (i 523-1 560) had from the beginning of his reign prepared for an attack upon the Church. There was nothing of moral protest or desire for reform, however. Protestantism was a political force which might be used against the powerful '' clergy. He began by causing preachers to attack abuses, indulgences, etc. ; but in the edict of 1526 he showed plainly that he sought *' not the good, but the goods, of the Church ; " and in the next year (1527) he seized upon the property of the Church, and publicly authorized the preaching of Lutheranism. For the time the Church was reduced to insignificance, and Lutheranism rapidly spread. It was a great political revolution which created modern Sweden, and the religious question was its instru- ment.'* France, at the close of the Council of Trent, had already plunged into the religious war, which lasted till the Edict of Nantes (1598). In the early days of Francis I. the Humanists were encouraged, though the Sorbonne looked askance at ' Ilaiisscr, p. 279. ' Ranke's " Popes," i. 401. ' /(*//r^ divino or no, and even more obviously when the question of the jurisdiction of bishops came forward. The Lutheran theory, which reappears in many Dissenting sects, made the minister the representative of the people ; the papal view made him the delegate of the Pope. And both views were one-sided and incomplete. The "Spanish War" had for its object the exaltation of the epis- copate as the counterpoise to the Papacy. The Germans would have carried out a thorough reform. The French ' Rankc, vol. i. p. 305. ' PIiilipi'Min, p. 616. 442 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN were ready to fall back on the secular arm. All in different ways were anti-papal ; but Frenchmen, Spaniards, and im- perialists were incapable of more than a temporary union. The papal legates outwitted all, abandoned no claim, yet satisfied all, and by so doing triumphed over all. This was the greatness of Pius IV. and his legate, Cardinal Morone. 4. Was the Co^oicil generally accepted by the Catholic Jiations ? We have here to distinguish beween the canons and the decrees. The canons of a General Council are binding on the Church. To reject or resist them is to be heretical. But decrees which have to do with discipline have to be published in each country before they are binding there. It was in the decrees of reformation specially that the papal claims came into collision with national liberties. The question of the Royal Supremacy, which had led to the separation of England from Rome, had its echo in the other European nationalities, and, by consequence, the acceptance of the decrees of Trent was by no means a matter of course.^ The Emperor Ferdinand by his representatives accepted the decrees, and received in return the concession of the cup to the laity (1564). But the Diet refused, the Archbishop of Mentz declaring plainly that they accepted the doctrine, but not the discipline. The ambassadors of the Kings of Poland and Portugal, of the Duke of Savoy, of the Venetian republic, and of the Catholic cantons of Switzerland accepted the Council, as did also the Cardinal of Lorraine. But the government of Catherine dc Medici refused to ratify his act. The two main reasons given were the prohibition of livings given /;/ conunendani to laymen, and the fear of the Huguenots, to whom the publica- tion of the decrees of Trent would mean a proclamation of war. But other reasons lay behind. The decrees trenched on the rights of the Gallican Church and the rights of the Crown. On the one side, the Church resented the claim of Rome to universal jurisdiction, and to the right of interfering in French dioceses. On the other side, the Croivn refused to abandon its right of appeal, or to admit the right of the Pope to visitations, patronage, testamcntar}- jurisdiction, etc. Still ' Sec rhilippson, pp. 5S9 sqij. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 443 less could it admit the right of the Pope to excommunicate kings, or recognize the divine character of tithes. From 1576 to 1614 many attempts were made, without result, to persuade the French nation to accept the decrees and canons of Trent ; and, according to Philippson, they have never been accepted in France to the present day.^ The Count de Luna (the Spanish ambassador) alone among those present at the close of the Council refused to accept it. And his action was supported by Philip. The doctrinal definitions were unhesitatingly accepted ; the articles of reformation touched the royal power. Certain chapters also seemed to limit the rights of the Spanish Inquisition, while the extension given to the Pope's jurisdiction conflicted, as in England and France, with the Royal Supremacy. It was not till 1565 that the decrees of Trent were published in Spain, and then it was on the express condition that these decrees should imply no change or modification in existing rights, and that the king, in Sicily at least, should be recog- nized, as of old, as the legatus natus of the Pope. The republic of Venice accepted the Council on similar terms ; the Catholic cantons of Switzerland accepted it with the sole condition that they should not be bound to enforce its decrees on the Protestant cantons. The kingdoms of Poland and Portugal alone accepted it vv^ithout conditions. B. The Inqtiisition. — The reforming spirit which showed itself in the Council of Trent, and afterwards, by the aid of the Jesuits, triumphed in many parts of Europe over the Reforma- tion, had already shown itself in the revived Inquisition. As early as 1536,^ Pope Paul III. had gathered round him a knot of men well known for the severity of their lives and their desire for real reformation ; men like Caspar Con- tarini, Sadolet, Reginald Pole, Ghiberti, and Caraffa ; men whom he had on his accession raised to the cardinalate, almost all of them members of the Oratory of Divine Love, and many of them holding strongly the doctrine of Justification by Faith. In 1537, a commission of four cardinals and five ' Philippson, p. 594. ^ See ibid., pp. 173 Sijq. ; Rankc, i. iio, 157, sqq. 444 HISTORY OF THE REFORMAT lOX TV prelates was nominated for the reformation of abuses, and they dared to attack the abuses of the Papacy itself Gradually they fell into disfavour, and some of them became suspected of heresy. Meanwhile a new method of reformation was to be tried, and this was the revival of the Inquisition. The mainspring of this new movement was Caraffa, the founder of the Theatines. The Inquisition, introduced in the twelfth century and entrusted to the Dominicans in the thirteenth, had declined in the fifteenth. In Spain, since 1477, it had been revived and worked under the secular power ; but in Italy it had little organization and no power. Caraffa's narrow and intolerant zeal had been fired by what he had seen in Spain when papal nuncio, and he dreamed of a Roman Inquisition with universal jurisdiction. The proposal was welcomed by Paul III., but opposed by Cardinal Pole and many of the cardinals, who still hoped much from a General Council. But Caraffa triumphed, and by the bull of July 21, 1542 {Licet ab initio), a supreme commission of the Holy Office was appointed, consisting of six cardinals, under Caraffa as inquisitor-general.^ Among its first victims were Bernardino Ochino and Peter IMartyr, who were compelled to fly the country. The Pope, Paul III., was powerless to oppose the force he had created.- In 1549 IMichael Ghislieri (afterwards Pius V.), a man after Caraffa's own heart, became commissary-general, and the Pope, Julius III., became their tool. When, on May 23, 1555, Caraffa ascended the throne as Pope Paul IV., and when next year Charles resigned the crown of Spain to his son Philip, the triumph of the Inquisition seemed secured. But the anti-Spanish policy of Caraffa, and the war with Spain, prevented such a catastrophe. Paul hated the Habs- burgs, and the Roman Inquisition pursued its course alone. Pole, who had reconciled England to the Roman see, was summoned to Rome to answer the charge of heresy. Morone, the hero of tiic later sessions of the Council, was in 1557 imprisoned with two bishops in St. Angelo, where he retnained ' For the four rules sec Kanke, i. ]>. 159. ' Cf. Philijipson, p. 191. ENGLAXD AXD ON THE COXTINENT, 445 till the death of Paul two years later.^ An Index oi prohibited books was drawn up in 1559, containing (o) a h"st of heretical writers ; (/3) a list of heretical works specially prohibited ; (y) a list of anonymous writings since 1 5 19. As Paul's anti-Spanish policy cut him off from Spain, so his dislike of the Jesuits^ prevented any real co-operation between the Jesuits and the Inquisition. In the first place, the Jesuits were known as " the Spanish priests ;" and, secondly, they were a dangerous rival of the Dominicans, to whom the Inquisition specially belonged. Caraffa and Ignatius de Loyola had been intimate in former days, and seem to have disagreed about some changes suggested by Loyola in the Theatine order. Later on we find Caraffa trying to isolate Lainez from the other Jesuits and to detain him in the Vatican. After the days of Caraffa, the Inquisition was able to avail itself of Jesuit espionage. Under Pius IV. it obtained a great extension of privileges, and under Pius V., " frere Michel de I'lnquisition," ^ it persecuted the Vaudois in Calabria and in Piedmont. But the methods of the Inquisition were methods of extermination ; the methods which ultimately triumphed were methods of conversion. In Spain and Italy the Inquisition was possible ; in Germany a different agency had to be used. LECTURE XVIII. THE RESOURCES OF THE PAPACY FOR THE COMING STRUGGLE — 7. THE NEW ORDERS OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. [Mr. Moore seems to have taken much of the information contained in the following lecture from Hagenbach, chapter xxxv. He also uses Philippson, book i., to a certain extent ; but reference may still profitably be made to it, particularly as regards the Jesuits, whom Mr. Moore had not space to describe fully. Ranke (" History of the Popes," vol. i. bks. 2 and 5) has a compressed but admirable sketch of the whole subject, particularly of the origin and advance of the Jesuits. For details as to all these religious orders, see Helyot's " Histoire des Ordres Monas- tiques," which originally appeared (1714-19) in six quarto volumes, and has several ' Philippson, p. 200. "^ Ibid., p. 99. ' Ibid., p. 214. 446 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION LV times been reprinted. A revised and enlarged edition, under the title of " Diction- naire des Ordrcs Religieux," fills vols, xx.-xxiii. of the Abbe Migne's " Encyclo- pedie Theologiquc." For the Protestant sects of the Reformation, see lecture vi. of Beard's " liibbert Lectures."] C. The new life and energy of the Reformation showed itself both within and without the Papal Church in a variety of forms. It showed itself in the new sects and in the new orders, but it is a remarkable fact that every neiv sect was a source of weakness to Protestantism, while every nezu order was a source of stretigth to the Papacy} From the first the Saxon and the Swiss Reformers were opposed. Later on the German-speaking and French-speak- ing Swiss were divided into two religions. But Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists were by no means an exhaustive division of the non-Catholic party, which also included Anti- nomians, Anabaptists, and Libertines, Miinzer and John of Leyden, Carlstadt and the Socialists; curious views like that of the Schwenkfcldtians; Pantheistic mystics like Sebastian Franck, whom Luther called " a blasphemer, the peculiar and favourite mouthpiece of the devil, a fanatic who cares for nothing but spirit, spirit, spirit, and understands nought of Word and Sacrament ; " ^ [anti-Protestant] rationalists like Thamer and Wicel. And all these, however slight their con- nection with Luther, served to bring discredit on the move- ment, and to give the papal party some colour for the assertion that the Reformation was a mere revolt against authority in the interest of private judgment. On the other hand, the new orders ^ within the Roman Church were the strength of the " reform without schism ' party. First in time were the Thca tines. The Theatincs were called after Caraffa, at that time known as Theate, from the name of his archbishopric (Chieti). The original idea was due to Cajetan, who wished " to reform the world without any person being aware that he (the reformer) ' On the power of Rome to moderate and direct new movements, see Macau- lay's review of Raiike. » Hagenbach, ii. 387, 388. • [Notice that many of them were "regular clerks," their chief object being to act on the clergy, and restore them to their original high estate.] ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 447 was in the world." ^ Cajetan and Caraffa took a vow of poverty, and lived together with a few friends. On June 29, 1524, the order was sanctioned by Clement VII. ; its mem- bers devoted themselves to preaching and the cure of souls and missionary work. The Capuchin Friars, or reformed Franciscans, were next in order. The orders had always been the nurseries of reformation, and this new order, founded by Matthew de Bassi, and recognized formally by the Pope in 1528, was no exception to the rule. As popular preachers they took their part in opposing Lutheranism, though one distinguished member of the order, Bernardino Ochino, was banished for heresy. Both the Theatines and the Capuchins devoted themselves to works of mercy, the Theatines devoting themselves specially to hospitals and prisons, the Capuchins to those who were suffering from the plague or other contagious diseases. Two other orders, or, more definitely brotherhoods of mercy, were worth mentioning. First, the Barnabites, or Congregation of Regular Clerks of St. Paul, who were sanctioned by Pope Clement in 1533. Their special work was to care for the neglected or destitute in time of war, for which purpose they were dispensed from diocesan jurisdiction. In 1545 they moved to the Church of St. Barnabas at Milan, and were hence called Barnabites. The other benevolent order was that of the Somaskers, so called from Somasca, a village between Milan and Bergamo. This order of "regular clerks" was founded about 1528 by a Venetian nobleman, who devoted himself to the care of " waifs and strays," for whom he established refuges throughout Italy, at Verona, Brescia, Ferrara, Como, Pavia, Milan, and Genoa. This order was confirmed by the Pope in 1 540. All these orders, while they showed the new life that was stirring within the Roman Church, had little direct part in the work of the Counter-Reformation. It was different with the OratorianS and the JESUITS. So far we have noticed only those orders which, though * Hagenbach, ii. 402. 44<'^ HISTORY OF THE RKFORMATIOX IX they were a proof of the spiritual activity of the Church of Rome, had httle part in the active work of the Counter- Reformation. Tiieatines, Capuchins, Pauh'nes and Barnabites, Soniaskers, and the saintly Theresa of Avila, witli her Unshod CarmeHtesses (approved by the Pope in 1562), were not fitted for a great campaign. Rut there were other resources ready for the conflict besides the revived Inquisition, viz. the Orato- rians and the Jesuits. The Orntorians in their work were widely distinguished from the Jesuits. Their work was silent, deep, and lasting. It appealed to the deeper spiritual natures, whereas the Jesuit work embraced all. If one extended the boundaries of the Church, the other strengthened the spiritual life of Churchmen. Philip Neri, the Florentine (born July 22, 151 5, died ^lay 25, 1595), was marked in his earliest years by his rare piety and the cheerful geniality of his disposition. After his ordination to the priesthood (May 23, 1551), he instituted prayer-meet- ings, which were brightened with religious music. It is to the '' oratories " of St. Philip that the " oratorio " owes its birth. This cheerfulness he carried with him ev^erywhere, to the sick in the hospitals or in their homes, no less than in his devotional meetings. His motto, we are told,^ was, " Be cheerful, or all thou doest is nought." His " oratory " grew up gradually, by his power of attracting young men to him, and seeing the bent of each mind, and adapting himself to it. There was nothing of the subtlety of the Jesuits, but there was the attractiveness of a deep and real spiritual life. And his method was that which accorded with a simple devotional nature. He did not lecture — he conversed ; he did not com- mand— he advised. This was the secret of his influence as a guide of souls. Perhaps his greatest follower was the ecclesi- astical historian, Baronius, whoni St. Philip appointed to give lectures on historx' in the Orator)'.^ Later on we shall find the Oratorians playing an important part in the revival of priestly life in the seventeenth century.^ ' Ilagcnbach, ii. 410. ' Ranke, i. 384. The order was confirmed by the Pope in 1575. * See a vohime with that title by H. L. Silney Lear. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 449 T\\Q Jesuits, however, were the great power of the Counter- Reformation. Their founder, the Spaniard Don Inigo(Ignatius) Lopez de Recalde (born at the castle of Loyola in the Basque province of Guipuscoa, 1491), had transferred to Christ and the Blessed Virgin all the chivalrous ideas with which he had started in life. Wounded at the siege of Pampeluna (1521), he exchanged the adventures of Amadis for the life of Christ and the saints. Then it was that, after a period of spiritual conflict [at Manresa], and an unsuccessful journey to Jerusalenti (1523), he became associated with Faber and Francis Xavier in Paris about the time of the Diet of Augsburg (i 530). By 1 534 four other names had been added to the little society — James Lainez of Almanza, Alphonso Salmeron of Toledo, Nicholas Bobadilla, a Spaniard, and a Portuguese named Rodriguez. These seven men vowed to renounce the world and [carry out a spiritual crusade in Palestine, this vow being pronounced on August 15, 1534, in the church of Montmartre]. Soon after, with a few others, in 1537, they were ordained priests, and Avere recognized [as an order of regular clerks] by a bull of Paul III. (September 27, 1540). They were bound not only by the monastic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, but also by the vow of obedience to the Pope.^ They thus became the servants of the Pope, and by Loyola's advice assumed the name of Jesuits.^ Three years after their first establish- ment, their institute was unconditionally confirmed (March 14, 1543). The pilgrimage being impossible, the Jesuits began a crusade against Protestantism. Their method was threefold — to preach, to hear confessions, and to instruct youth. It was a practical system, though Ignatius was a visionary, and the result was success far beyond that of the two great orders, the Dominicans and the Franciscans. The rapid increase in their numbers led to a development. The " professed," bound by the four vows, were soon sur- rounded by those whom they were training — the " scholastici," or "novices." But the "professed," being under vow of implicit ' Philippson, p. 55. ^ For the reason, see Ilardvvick, 305, f.n., "A spiritual knighthood." "Jc- suiten " was altered by the Protestants into " Jesuwider" (Hagenbach, ii. 407). 2 G 450 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IN submission to the Pope, might be transferred at any period, and hence a new class grew up, called ''spiritual coadjutorSy' bound only by the three vows (poverty, chastity, obedi- ence), from which they might be absolved ; and later on still we hear of *' secular coadjutors^' bound also by the three vows, whose privilege it was to [manage the temporal affairs] of the order. Thus we get finally (i) novices, or ''scholastici ; " (2) secular coadjutors ; (3) spiritual coadjutors ; and (4) the pro- fessed (four vows).^ From Rome as a centre, the Jesuits proceeded to the Tyrol, to Parma, Piacenza, and Calabria. In Germany they established themselves in Austria and Bavaria, the city of Ingolstadt (in Bavaria) being assigned to them by the duke in 1556. Cologne admitted them ; so did Lyons, though the Parliament opposed them. Even as early as 1542 they had gone to the East Indies, and established a college at Goa. St. Ignatius, who had been elected General, died July 31, 1556, and by that time the Jesuits numbered a thousand members, and could boast a hundred colleges. Of their thirteen provinces, seven (Castile, ten colleges ; Aragon, five ; Andalusia, five, etc.) were in Spain, three (Rome and Naples, Sicily, North Italy) in Italy, one in France, and two (Vienna. Prague and Ingolstadt, and the Netherlands) in Germany.^ By the time of the death of Ignatius, the Jesuits had established themselves in Germany in three metropolitan cities — Vienna, Cologne, and Ingolstadt. From Vienna they spread through Austria, establishing themselves in Prague (1556), Tyrnau (1561), Briinn, and Moravia. From Cologne the two other electoral archbishoprics, Treves and Mayence, were colonized. Even at Spires they secured a settlement, while from Wiirzburg, where they were received in 1559, they spread to Franconia. Munich became by their efforts the Rome of Germany, and Dillingen, in 1563, was given over to their hands. Thus within ten years of the death of Ignatius, and within three years of the close of the Council of Trent, the Jesuits had effectually checked the advance of Protestantism in Germany.'^ ' See Philippson, pp. \i% sqq. * K.inkc, i. 177: Philippson, pp. loi, 102. • See Rankc's remarks, i. 410-41S. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 45 1 [The lecture ends with the following scattered jottings from and references to the first volume of Ranke's " Popes," which do not seem to have been utilized for his lectures, judging from his pupils' note-books : — ] I. Bavaria under Duke Albert. Return to Catholicism (1570- 1571).^ II. The Archiepiscopal Electorates.^ Resistance of Archbishop of Cologne (1577).^ in Bavaria.* in Austria.^ Archbishop of Cologne marries (1582).^ War in the Palatinate.'^ Triumph of Catholicism. Upper Germany. Bishop Julius of VViirzburg (1573- 1587)^ wavers, but on Archbishop of Cologne's failure, becomes Catholic. Acquaviva's report (1586). Other German princes waver.^ First conversion, Jacob of Baden (1590).^^ III. The Netherlands.il War (1583). Victory (1584). IV. France. Reaction against Protestantism (1562).!^ Paris V. Lyons. War (1568). Massacre of Huguenots (1572). Concessions to them (1573).!^ The League.^* [Mr. Moore has noted, at the end of the table of contents of this course of lectures, two sets of events which belong to his subject, but which he expressly marked as "not written," and which were probably never delivered for lack of time. These are *' France and its Religious Wars," 1 562-1 598J and " The Revolt in the Netherlands," 1 568-1609.] ^ Ranke, i. 419-425. ' Ibid., i. 425-431. ' Ibid,, i, 446. 4 Ibid., \. 448. * Ibid., \. 448, 449. ® Ibid., \. 475. ' Ibid., i. 477. 8 Ibid., i. 482-485. « Ibid., i. 496. 'o Ibid., i. 500. '* See the summary, ibid., i. 469 ; also 432-437, 442-445, 461-475. '2 Ibid., i. 437-442, '3 jiid,^ i. 444. I'' Ibid.^ 500-509, i. 519-523. II. PAPERS. I. THE CONDEMNATION OF JOHN WICLIF, ( Guardian, May 2 1 , 1 884. ) There are a good many people who, rather from intellectual inability to see the bearings of an argument than from any moral cause, are in the habit of catching at any conclusions which seem to be in agreement with their own, and assuming that those who hold such conclusions are to be supported through thick and thin, It is to men so constituted that we probably owe the attempts, which just now are so much in fashion, to galvanize into life almost forgotten theological controversies, Careless of the strife which such attempts must arouse, their only anxiety is to flaunt before the world, under cover of some great name, their own opinions. Luther has been commemorated ; Zwingli would have been, only English people knew so little about him ; Admiral Coligny is to have a statue in Paris, and England is expected to contri- bute some ;^I300. But the happiest idea of all is a quingen- tenary of Wiclif. Here at least we have an Englishman, and one whose name every one has heard, Here is a man who was nothing if he was not the enemy of the Pope, who opposed Transubstantiation, who translated the Bible into the English of his day, a man, too, who, if he did not, like the Wittenberg friar, begin the fight single-handed, fought in a great cause, with king and Parliament at his back. Moreover, he never seceded from the Church of his baptism ; he died almost in the very act of hearing Mass, if he was not actually celebrating it. Surely it must be the extreme of intolerance and eccle- siastical narrowness to refuse to sympathize with such a man. It is a curious thing that these commemorations have been I. THE CONDEMNATION OF JOHN WICLIF, (Guardian, May 21, 1884.) There are a good many people who, rather from intellectual inability to see the bearings of an argument than from any moral cause, are in the habit of catching at any conclusions which seem to be in agreement with their own, and assuming that those who hold such conclusions are to be supported through thick and thin. It is to men so constituted that we probably owe the attempts, which just now are so much in fashion, to galvanize into life almost forgotten theological controversies, Careless of the strife which such attempts must arouse, their only anxiety is to flaunt before the world, under cover of some great name, their own opinions. Luther has been commemorated ; Zwingli would have been, only English people knew so little about him ; Admiral Coligny is to have a statue in Paris, and England is expected to contri- bute some ;^I300. But the happiest idea of all is a quingen- tenary of Wiclif. Here at least we have an Englishman, and one whose name every one has heard. Here is a man who was nothing if he was not the enemy of the Pope, who opposed Transubstantiation, who translated the Bible into the English of his day, a man, too, who, if he did not, like the Wittenberg friar, begin the fight single-handed, fought in a great cause, with king and Parliament at his back. Moreover, he never seceded from the Church of his baptism ; he died almost in the very act of hearing Mass, if he was not actually celebrating it. Surely it must be the extreme of intolerance and eccle- siastical narrowness to refuse to sympathize with such a man. It is a curious thing that these commemorations have been 456 HISTORY OF TJIE REFORMAT/OX AV hampered all through by chronological difficulties. Last year we were asked to celebrate the four hundredth anniversary of Luther's birth. But it is absolutely uncertain in what year Luther was born. Roman Catholic authorities settled the question on astrological grounds. Protestants settled it by opposition to the Roman view, and therefore, though indi- rectly, on astrological grounds also. Luther's mother was doubtful about the year, as she told Melanchthon, though she knew the month and the day. There are people who believe that the Luther commemoration has finally settled the ques- tion. It might be supposed that with Wiclif no such difficulty would arise. For, though the year of his birth is conjectural, the quingentenary festival is a commemoration of his death, which took place on December 31, 1384. But the committee, in their wisdom, have decided not only to celebrate the quin- gentenary of his death, but also to commemorate his con- demnation at Blackfriars on May 21. The difficulty here is one which ordinary people might not notice. If he was con- demned on May 21, and died on December 31, it would seem quite natural that the last six months of the present year should be dedicated to a Wiclif Quincentenary Commemora- tion. Only, unfortunately, Wiclif was condemned two years and a half before his death — viz. on May 21, 1382 — which is already 502 years ago ; and, therefore, the quingentenary, so far as the condemnation is concerned, should have been in 1882. Now, we do not propose at present to attempt an estimate of Wiclif 's character and place in history. His claim on Englishmen and English Churchmen as a translator of the Bible, as the vigorous assailant of abuses, and the no less vigorous antagonist of papal encroachments, is so real that it will need much of positive false teaching to counterbalance it. Nor must we he tiivcrted from a true estimate of his work by a natural recoil frf)m the one-sided and unreasoning champion- ship of some modern writers. Wiclif is the chosen hero of the Chichele Professor of History at Oxford. In some lectures published two years ago we were told that "to Wiclif we owe, more than to any one person that can be mentioned, our ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 457 English language, our English Bible, and our reformed reli- gion ; " more than that, " Wiclif may easily be proved to have implicitly put forth a whole system of doctrine, almost identical with that of our Prayer-book and Articles ; " and finally we are told that, at the Reformation, the " English people, though they little dreamt of it, owed far more to Wiclif than to Luther." And even if England had owed far less to Wiclif than she does, this last statement would have been undeniably true. Dr. Lechler, of Leipzig, is also a champion of Wiclif, but his work is of a very different calibre. In his two volumes, which have been translated into English by Dr. Peter Lorimer, he has done real and valuable work. He has said the last word on Wiclif, till the publication of his writings will allow Wiclif to speak for himself. The numerous "Lives of Wiclif" which are now appearing, " Wiclif Anecdotes," and fly-sheets in which the " Morning Star of the Reformation " holds a conspicuous place, all rest on Dr. Lechler as their foundation, and serve as an advertise- ment of his labours. But there is a greater work begun, for which students of Church history will owe a lasting debt of gratitude to the Wiclif Society, long after the momentary excitement which called it into existence has passed away. The complete works of John Wiclif are at last being pub- lished, and may be expected to be completed in the course of the next ten years. Two volumes, containing the polemical writings, have appeared as a first instalment, published under the careful, but somewhat foreign, supervision of Dr. Bud- densieg. Dr. Loserth, Professor of History at Czernowitz, approaching the subject from another side, has traced the influence of Wiclif on Hus and the Bohemians. And yet in spite of all that has been done, it is impossible for us fairly to estimate Wiclif's place in the history of the English Church. The little-known "Summa Theologiae," including the introduc- tory " De Dominio," has never been printed, and without it, or with only second-hand knowledge of it, we cannot determine what Wiclif really was. It is easy, of course, to take one side of his work, and to construct his whole theology from this, and that is what is usually done. He opposed the Pope, he 458 HISTORY OF THE REFORAfATION TV rejected Transubstantiation. He must have been a Protestant Reformer. But this is neither history nor poetry ; and the fact remains as true now as it was fourteen years ago when Dr. Shirley wrote it, that "on most of us the dim image" of Wiclif " looks down, like the portrait of the first of a long line of kings, without personality or expression." Was he the champion of English liberties, or was he a dangerous socialist, who, at a time when discontent was breaking out into rebel- lion, gave to the peasants a religious war-cry ? Was he the gentle and amiable pastor of Lutterworth, who only gave way to righteous indignation in the presence of papal abuses, and the iniquities of the friars, or was he the keen destructive critic, the logical successor of Roscellinus and Ockham, the heir of the revived atomism of Grosseteste, the exponent of a theory which was, indeed, fatal to the form of realism on which Transubstantiation rested, but which, if worked out, was as fatal to a belief in the Trinity and to the existence of an organized society in Church or State ? These arc matters which at present cannot be fully decided. But there is a narrower question which the Wiclif Commemo- ration Committee ought to be prepared to face. We are invited to celebrate this week the Condemnation of John Wiclif, who was condemned in what is known as the " Earth- quake " Council, held in the hall of the Dominican Monastery of Blackfriars in May, 1382. Are we prepared to accept the propositions for which Wiclif was condemned ? They are as follows : — " I. That the substance of material bread and wine doth remain in the Sacrament of the Altar after consecration. " 2. That the * accidents * do not remain without the ' sub- ject ' in the same sacrament after consecration. " 3. That Christ is not in the Sacrament of the Altar identi- cally, truly, and really in His proper corporeal person. " 4. That if a bishop or a priest be in mortal sin, he doth not ordain, consecrate, nor baptize. " 5. That if a man be truly contrite, all exterior confession is to him superfluous and invalid. " 6. That God ought to obey the devil. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 459 " 7. That it hath no foundation in the Gospel that Christ did ordain the Mass. " 8. That if the Pope be a reprobate and an evil man, and consequently a member of the devil, he hath no power over the faithful of Christ given to him by any, unless peradventure it be given him by the Emperor. " 9. That after Urban VI. none other is to be received for Pope, but that Christendom ought to live after the manner of the Greeks, under its own laws. " 10. That it is against the sacred Scripture that ecclesias- tical persons should have any temporal possessions." To these articles, which were condemned as heretical, fourteen others were added, which were judged not heretical, but erroneous. They include such statements as these — (16) "That a man is no civil lord, nor bishop, nor prelate, as long as he is in mortal sin ;" (17) "That temporal lords may at will take away their temporal goods from churches habitually delinquent;" (18) "That tithes are pure alms, and that parishioners may for the offences of their curates detain them and bestow them on others at pleasure ; " and " that tenants may correct delinquent landlords at will." Now, it is clear that these theses fall into two classes, those which were directed against the received view of Tran- substantiation, and those which were connected with Wiclifs theory of dominion as founded in grace. Can we endorse Wiclifs opposition to Transubstantiation ? When we come to examine the question, we notice first of all that Wiclif had absolutely nothing in common with the anti- sacramental teaching of modern Puritans ; and, secondly, when we look at the theses which Wiclif was anxious to defend, we find that it requires a practised metaphysician to discern the difference between the Transubstantiation which Wiclif did hold, and that which, as the received doctrine of the Roman Church, he denied. It was not the first time that Wiclife had been condemned for his views on Transubstantia- tion. In the year before the Peasants' Revolt he had published twelve theses which had been condemned by the University of Oxford. These theses, of which only one manuscript 460 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IiV copy remains, have caused a good deal of trouble to Wiclifs admirers, because in one of them he denies Transubstantia- tion, in another he asserts it, and Dr. Lechler suggests that probably, in the latter case, the reading is corrupt. But the whole controversy looks like an interesting and subtle school- man's quarrel. It is a mere assumption that a schoolman could not have attacked Transubstantiation and, nevertheless, held a form of it, which to us is indistinguishable. Even Luther, after rejecting it, adopted a view which was only different because it was unintelligible. And Wiclif ap- parently had a theory of his own almost as difficult for us to understand. Here, for instance, are three of his theses — " 4. The Eucharist, in virtue of the sacramental words, contains as well the Body as the Blood of Christ, truly and really, at every point." " 5. Transubstantiation, identifica- tion, and impanation — terms made use of by those who have given names to the signs employed in the Eucharist — cannot be shown to have any foundation in Scripture." *' 8. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is in a figure the Body and Blood of Christ into which the bread and wine are transubstantiated, of which latter the nature remains the same after consecra- tion, although in the contemplation of believers it is thrown into the background." Here it is perfectly plain to any one who knows an}'thing of the metaphysic of the schools that Wiclif opposed the prevailing doctrine, not because it reads a metaphysical theory into a Divine mystery, not because it " ovcrthroweth the nature of a sacrament " or even because it " hath given occasion to many superstitions," but because he was opposed to that theory which was generally accepted, and wished to substitute for it one which w^ould not imply that *' an accident could exist without a subject." But when we ask what that theory was, most people would find a difficulty in distinguish- ing it from the Roman view. It had absolutely nothing in common with Zwinglian or Calvinist negations ; and it differed materially from the view of the English Articles, Avhich, while holding fast the Real Presence, reject all meta- physical theories w hatsoevcr as to the mode of that Presence. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 461 When we come to the doctrine of dominion founded in grace we are in an even greater difficulty. With nothing but second-hand knowledge of Wichf s theory, it is impossible to deal thoroughly with the question ; but there is at least strong prhnci facie evidence that the revolutionary views of the Lollards were not their own, but were inherited. Whether John Ball's confession be true or not, there is enough in the theses alone to serve as a text for socialism. Indeed, it would seem that Wiclif's teaching bore much the same relation to the revolt of 1381 as Luther's appeal to the nobles bore to the Peasants' War. If a parish priest in Ireland at the present time were to teach " that a man is no civil lord, nor bishop, nor prelate, as long as he is in mortal sin," and " that tenants may correct delinquent landlords at will," those who felt called upon to carry the theory into practice might not be over-scrupulous in their estimate of a landlord's character. And if, again, it were publicly taught that " it is against the sacred Scripture that ecclesiastical persons should have any temporal possessions," there might be more anxiety than there is now that Holy Scripture should be made the standard of practice. It is hopeless to attempt to put all this on one side by talking of "the cunning skill which fastened upon the Reformer the responsibility for the levelling and socialistic doctrines" of the Lollards. It rests with the defenders of Wiclif to show how the doctrine of the " De Dominio " could be anything but " levelling and socialistic." But it had theo- logical as well as political consequences. It followed logically, as was stated in the fourth of the condemned theses, that a bishop or priest in mortal sin does not ordain, consecrate, or baptize. Those who hold that the Thirty-nine Articles of the English Church are implicit in Wiclif's theology may re- member that the twenty-sixth Article exactly asserts the opposite view — viz. that " the effect of Christ's ordinance is not taken away by the wickedness of those who minister." There still remains one thesis condemned at Blackfriars which we believe not even the most ardent supporter of Wiclif would be willing to assert — '' God ought to obey the devil." It is difficult without the context even to see what 462 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN it means. It is plainly a paradox, and the explanation of it is that Wiclif, seeing the antinomian consequences which must follow from the theory that sin in a ruler deprives him of the right to rule, declared that this was only true in an ideal state, and that as things arc it is necessary to obey the wicked, even as Christ bowed to the Jewish and Roman authorities, and so recognized the duty of obedience even to those who were using their power against God. But, men being what they are, it is impossible to offer with one hand an ideal right of rebellion, and with the other an actual duty of submission. The Scripture to which Wiclif loved to appeal said a great deal about obedience even to wicked rulers, and nothing at all about dominion founded in grace, while the theory was but a strange reappearance of a dying feudalism. God, the feudal King, alone had domiiiiuni. From Him all others held in fief, and mortal sin forfeited the tenure. And yet we cannot wonder that the actual duty gave way in practice to the ideal right. Aristotle, speaking of the warlike training of Sparta, passes upon it the well-known criticism — " They were safe while they were fighting, but a time of peace was their ruin." The same kind of criticism applies to Wiclif and to many later re- formers. While they were protesting against abuses, or opposing positive error, or bringing everything to the test of the Bible and primitive Christianity, they were safe, some- times even heroic ; but when they came to reconstruct they fell into dangerous, if not heretical, theorizing. Sometimes the theory which was afterwards developed was already im- plied in their destructive work, and yet there are some who can only see the work and not the dangerous weapons with which the work was done. A. L. M. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 463 II. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL THOUGHT.^ {Guardian^ September t^O, 1885.) While the new Regius Professor of History in the Univer- sity of Oxford is reminding the world that there is no distinc- tion between ancient and modern history, students like Mr. Poole are doing something to render such a statement not quite a paradox. To speak of ancient history shading off into modern is absurd while there is a dark zone of some thousand years or more, to which, by way of complimenting our ignorance, we give the name of the Dark Ages. It is natural that the period before this should seem very ancient indeed, and the period which follows it comparatively modern. iri political and national history, no doubt, the dark region is neither quite so extensive or quite so dark ; but the history of thought is supposed by most people to make a leap from Aristotle, or at least from the Christian era, to Bacon and Descattes, the fifteen hundred years or so which intervene being conveniently dismissed with a few remarks about "ecclesiastical authority," "want of individuality," ** mere commentaries," etc., with perhaps a hint that the great minds of the period were occupied with formulae like the Barbara, CelareHt, of logic handbooks. Mr. Poole has actually made his way through this dark country, or at least through a part of it, and the result is not a series of ponderous volumes like Father Harper's " Meta- physics of the Schools," but a group of very readable essays on questions of theology and ecclesiastical politics, the inte- rest of the volume culminating in the last chapter on Wiclif s theory of Lordship. The book is the result of two years' residence in Germany and Switzerland, during which the author held a travelling scholarship under the Hibbert trust. ^ "Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval Thought." By Reginald Lane Toole, M.A. Published for the Hibbert Trustees. Williams and Norgate. 464 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION LW The period which Mr. I'oole marks out for himself is that which extends from the rejgn of Charlemagne, " the dividing line between ancient and mediaeval history," to the beginnings of a revival of Greek letters in the fourteenth century — a period broken into two unequal halves by the introduction of the works of Aristotle in the beginning of the thirteenth century. In the earlier part Mr. Poole devotes himself to what he calls ''traces of independence" — including a good deal of heresy — " in those regions where philosophy touches religion, where reason meets superstition and where theology links itself with political theory;" in the latter he confines himself — and to most people it will be the most interesting part of his work — to the various theories of the State which were prominent from the days of John of Salisbury to John Wiclif. We are not surprised to find a Hibbcrt scholar speaking with little reverence of Church authority, or indeed authority of any kind, yet he freely admits that — " However generously received, however heroically obtained, the aims of the premature Reformers were often too audaciously, too wantonly, directed against the beliefs of the mass of their fellow-Christians to deserve success. We may admire (he says) their nobility or their constancy, but an impartial judgment can hardly regret that they failed." Similarly, though Mr. Poole, like a good many others, speaks of the want of originality in mediaeval thought, and even of the springs of human reason being " frozen by the rigid strength of theology," he is honest enough to allow that — "The masculine spirit and the confidence with which the philosophers of the period carried on their speculations is hardly suspected by those who are not familiar with the original literature. Men who were least of all inclined to oppose anything that bore the stamp of traditional authority, displayed a freedom of judgment which could not but tend to consequences in one way or another divergent from the estab- lished system." "There was never a time" (he adds) "when the life of Christendom was so confined within the hard shell of its dogmatic system that there was no room left for individual liberty of opinion." ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 465 Mr. Poole's "Illustrations" fully justify these statements. It is not only the independence of thought which strikes us in a period in which most people suppose thought to have run in a groove. There is so much which is extremely modern in mediaeval speculation. The language is, indeed, the little known language of the Schools, but the great ques- tions at issue are often the very questions in which our age is most deeply interested — the relation of reason and autho- rity, of Church and State, of society and the individual. These are questions which never grow old. And if the great thinkers of the Middle Age have not given a final answer, they have at least shown us the logical consequences of some of the empirical solutions which are vaunted as discoveries in the nineteenth century. Indeed, if we may generalize from the books we have read on the Scholastic period, we should not hesitate to say that the less a writer knows about mediaeval thought, the more positive he is in his assertions that there is nothing in it worth knowing, in fact that a con- tempt for Scholasticism usually varies inversely with the knowledge of it. We must pass lightly over Mr. Poole's earlier essays, though they are well worth reading, because we wish to call special attention to the subjects dealt with in the later chapters. The essay, however, on John the Scot — Mr. Poole will not allow us to speak of John Scotus Erigena, because •* the combination of the three names cannot be traced beyond the sixteenth century " — has an especial interest because of the curious anticipation of Hegelianism to be found in the writings of this ninth century pantheist. It is impossible to read John's tract, " De Divisione Naturae," without being struck by this. Indeed, we have sometimes dared to think that when Hegelianized Christianity shelters itself under the venerable name of Scotism it is really far more in sympathy with the teaching of John the Scot than of the great rival of St. Thomas. At all events, if one could imagine an " accommodation " of Hegelianism and Christianity, with a slight touch of Buddhism which is now in fashion, the result would bear a strange resemblance to the theory of the Scot. 2 H 466 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX The belief in the '' proccssio " of the world from God and its final " rcvcrsio i)i Dciiin'' the denial alike of creation and eternal separation from God, the rationalizing or allegorizing of the Bible and the great watchwords of the faith, and the theory of the final resolution of all things into unity, seem to us fully to justify the application of the term pantheist to the " holy sophist." Mr. Poole, indeed, argues that there are passages which show that it was impossible for John to have rested in a purely pantheistic belief Yet in the next paragraph he adds : — " Essentially his system would suffer little if we detached from it all those Christian elements upon which he supposed it rested ; we should find a philosophy in which the idea of God, the idea of evil, and many of its central features re- semble in a remarkable wa}' the thoughts of Spinoza." Theories of the State in the Middle Age begin with John of Salisbury. John, the pupil of Abailard and of William of Conches, the protege of Archbishop Theobald and Thomas a Becket, belongs, indeed, chronologically to the earlier period ; but both the subject with which he dealt, and the method of his dealing with it, connect him more naturally with the political theorists of later days. _ After St. Augustine he was the first to attempt to construct a philosophical theory of the State. A thorough humanist, he rose above the paltry dialectics of his day : — " Logic," says Mr. Poole, '* had for the most part been degraded into idle casuistry and trifling ; it had fallen into the hands of inferior men. The name of Aristotle was dragged down b}' people who, in William of Conches' phrase, were not worthy to be his scullions ; and these conceited pretenders — even Adam du Petit Pont who knew better — designedly made their lessons as obscure and intricate as possible, in order to attract pupils who learned only for display." John, therefore, like Ludovicus Vives some four centuries afterwards, returns to Aristotle in appeal against the pseudo-Aristotelians, and prepared the way for that new era which began with the thirteenth century. If for most people the history of thought makes a leap from Aristotle to the time of Descartes and Bacon, the history EXGLAND AXD O.V THE COXTIXENT. 467 of political theory passes at once from Aristotle to Hobbes and Rosseau. Everybody knows that the Greek sophists made society a (tvvO{iki), or contract, and that the philosophers Plato and Aristotle set themselves to prove that it was an organic growth. Everybody also knows that the atomistic theory reappears in the " Leviathan " and the " Contrat Social," and they have read the criticism of these in Sir Henry Maine's " Ancient Law." But every one does not know how the question was fought out in the Middle Ages, nor have people generally any idea that Wiclif's doctrine of Lordship is only intelligible in the light of that controversy. Now the theories of John Wiclif have, for various reasons, excited a good deal of attention lately. And there has been a good deal of fighting in the dark, owing to the fact that the " De Dominio" exists only in manuscript. Is it true, as we have been told, that "Wiclif begat George," or was he the law- abiding citizen whose theology was a prophetic adumbration of the Thirty-nine Articles ? Mr. Poole has some important information to give us on the subject. More than that, he speaks with authority, for he has been chosen by the Wiclif Society to edit this crucial work of the great Schoolman. We heartily congratulate the society on the selection, though we are not sure the Wiclif Commemoration Committee and their followers have much to rejoice at. Still, a Hibbert Scholar will not take a narrowly ecclesiastical view of the questions at issue, nor will one Vvho welcomes any proof of " independence " fail to sympathize with a parish priest who was condemned for heresy. Mr. Poole has certainly done wisely in giving us the vindemiatio prima of his Wiclif labours in this shape, since there is some hope that the contradictions in the theory of Lordship will be made intelligible, if not justified, in the light of the political speculations of the previous age. First among these, as we have said, is the theory of John of Salisbury. It was natural that John should rest his theory of government on a hierarchical basis. The Hildebrandine view was in the ascendant, and the friend of Becket was not likely to question it. But for that view it was only necessary to hold that all 468 HISTORY OF 7I/E REFORMATION IX civil power was ultimately derived from the spiritual power. *• Oportet gladiuin esse sub gladio et temporalcm spirituali subiici potestatemr What the form of civil government might be was a matter of indifference, so long as it owned its depend- ence on the Papacy. A priest of Alsatia, Mancgold, even went so far as to revive the sophistic theory of a social con- tract, and to argue that, a king being appointed to govern righteously, a king who does not so govern ipso facto absolves his people from obedience. John did not go so far as this. On the whole his view is imperialistic. The king reflects the Divine Majesty on earth. He bears the sword which he has received from the successor of St. Peter. To our ways of thinking a defence of tyrannicide fits in oddly with such a theory ; yet, here, as in Wiclif, the contradiction is due to the difference between the ideal and the actual. Ideally the king is the image of the divine government ; actually he is often a tyrant, and tyrannicide is not only lawful, it is a duty. With the exception of poisoning, which John objects to as abhorrent from English customs, any arts may be employed to .secure a t^Tant's death. The corrective of this dangerously antinomian view was due in scholastic days to a truer reading of Aristotle. It is the greatness of St. Thomas that he defended the more philo- sophical, as it is the more Christian, view, that the State exists not ro/utj) but <^{)au. Society is not a consequence of the Fall — the work of Cain and Nimrod, which was the view of Hildebrand — but a natural development of those social instincts which are a true part of man's nature. St. Thomas is, of course, not a whit less "papal " than John of Salisbury or Hildebrand himself; but he had the wisdom to see that the "spiritual" theory, wliich Wiclif afterwards revived, was fatal first to social order and ultimately to the claims of the Church itself. lie, therefore, laid the foundations of society in man's nature. Tyrannicide, he saw, was a weapon not to be intrusted to individual patriots. An authoritative excom- munication may, indeed, release subjects from their allegiance, but, except in an elective monarchy, subjects cannot release themselves. No less far-seeing was St. Thomas in his recog- EXGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 469 nition of the principle of nationalism, which for centuries afterwards the Papacy attempted to merge in a worn-out imperialism. As a triumph of nationalism, the Reformation itself was the triumph of the views of St. Thomas. It is worth noticing, though Mr. Poole is not responsible for the remark, that Wiclifs defence of national independence was based upon premisses as false as the conclusion was true. Wiclifs doctrine of Lordship, about which so much has been said lately, links itself on naturally to the spiritual theory of earlier days, and appears as diametrically opposed to the teaching of St. Thomas. Mr. Poole speaks of it as " the most ideat scheme of polity conceived in the Middle Ages, and the furthest removed from practical possibility," and yet also one ** modelled closely on the organization of feudalism." The main outlines of the theory are well known. God alone has dominium or lordship ; men hold directly of Him. There is no delegation of that supreme power to a vicar. It is " a feu- dalism in which there are no mesne lords." There is no deri- vation of civil power from spiritual, or of spiritual from civil. All laymen are priests and all priests laymen, because both hold of God on the same terms of service, viz. holiness of life. A sinner is guilty of breach of contract with God his feudal lord. Therefore he is ipso facto disqualified for lordship. He can possess nothing ; nor can anything be aliened to him in mortmain, because it is against the will of his Lord-in-Chief. " By the fact that a man, by omission or commission, becomes guilty of mortal sin, he defrauds his Lord-in-Chief of the service due to him, and by consequence incurs forfeiture; wherefore he is rightfully to be deprived of all lordship what- soever." ^ The possession which the wicked seem to have is not real possession, and " whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have." A righteous man has everything, a wicked man has nothing ; and as there are many righteous men, all goods must be in common. " Charity sceketh not her own " — that is, according to VViclif, "seeketh not to be a proprietor, but to have all things in common." " Wherefore," he concludes, " it appears to me that * "De Dom. Civ,," ap. Poole. 4/0 IIIS'IORY OF THE REFORMAUOX FV the discreet theologian will determine nothin^c,^ rashly as touch- ing these laws (of inheritance), but will affirm according to law that all things should be had in common." If this is not socialism we do not know what is. It was a theory fatal indeed to Papal claims, but at the tremendous cost of being subversive of society. It is quite true that Wiclif, in his well- known paradox that God ought to obey the devils inculcated obedience even to depraved rulers, and it is also true, as Mr. Poole reminds us, that " if wc are startled by the premature socialism of the thesis, we have to bear in mind that Wycliffc had yet to learn its effects in practical life, as displayed in the excesses of the rebels of 1381." But the fact remains that a theory, which, as a whole, was ideal and for most people unintelligible, had unfortunately a very intelligible side. What- ever may be said of Wiclif's theology, " His political theory," l\Ir. Poole says, "noble as it is, rests upon as wilful, as pre- posterous a treatment of the Bible as that of any of his hierarchical adversaries. Carried into practice by those who were not able to appreciate his refinements, it resolved itself into a species of socialism which was immediately seen to be subversive of the very existence of society." There is much which Mr. Poole has, perhaps intentionally, left unsaid, though it is suggested by a comparison of John Wiclif's theory with that of John of Salisbury on the one side, and that of St. Thomas Aquinas on the other. It is perhaps reserved for the edition of Wiclif's " De Dominio" which is shortly to appear. We should have liked to hear more about Wiclifs Platonism, which, it seems to us, is the key not only to his communism, but to his curious theory of the Sacra- mental Presence. In the interests of his ideal theory he reduced civil society to a concourse of atoms as completely as ever the Sophist did, far inore completel}' than those did who, like John of Salisbury, allowed to it a relative existence derived from the spiritual power of the Papacy. For Wiclifs men were «/>prTa equal, all possessing all things. The Fall, introducing the lust for lordship, produced society as it is. And "the powers that be" must be obeyed, though in the beginning it was not so. To theories ancient or modern. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. Ar7^ hierarchical, sophistical, or spiritual, which sap society, the only real answer is that of Aristotle, of Aquinas, of St. Paul — " The powers that be are ordained of God." They do not exist because Christ gave St. Peter two swords, and St. Peter, or his successor, lent one to Constantine ; nor because govern- ment is a necessary evil in a fallen world ; but because order is itself divine and society is the true development of human nature. That this natural order may be taken up into a higher order, a society which, though visible, is itself divine and the sphere of a supernatural life, is a truth which Wiclif, no less than the Puritanism of later ages, failed to realize. Mr. Poole, we believe, will prove to have done good service in dealing a final blow at Wiclif-worship. In Re- formation days nothing did so much to destroy reverence for images as the discovery of impostures. We can hardly imagine the effect on the multitude who saw the miraculous Rood of Boxley taken to pieces and its internal mechanism exposed. Mr. Poole has to some extent done the same for Wiclif. Hitherto all objections have been met by mysterious references to the manuscript at Vienna, which was to clear up any suspicions of socialism from Wiclifs name. Mr. Poole has opened the idol and shown us the works, and, painful as disillusionment is, we thank him for it. III. TRACTATUS DE BENEDICTA INCARNACIONE.^ {Guardian, March 9, 1887.) We are glad to welcome a fresh instalment of the work of the Wiclif Society in the " Treatise on the Incarnation." Now that the so-called Wiclif Commemoration, with its polemical associations, is forgotten, we can dispassionately examine the theology of the great Schoolman, and judge it apart from modern controversies. ^ Johannis Wyclif, " Tractatus de Beuedicta Incarnacione." Triibner. 472 HISTORY or THE REFORM ATIOX EV The treatise before us is one of the seventeen books of Wich'f which, by a Ikill of Alexander V., were publicly burnt at Prague on July lo, 1410. Yet it is hard to find in it any- thing which can be distinctly called heretical, unless it be the per impossibile argument in p. 1S4 that if the humanity of Christ could be separated from the Godhead, which it cannot be, it would still be worthy of Divine adoration. And here the conditions of a per impossibile argument are so difficult to realize, even in thought, that we are inclined to give Wiclif the benefit of the doubt. There are, of course, many passages which, apart from their context, look heretical enough, and this should be a warning to those who, whether as friends or foes, attempt to construct Wiclifs theology from isolated statements. It is startling to modern ears to be told emphatically that it is a part of Catholic belief to hold that " Christ is a creature." And yet, as the context plainly shows, Wiclif is here only vindicating the truth of Christ's human nature. He is as far from Arianism as St. Thomas Aquinas himself The fact that the Word took on Himself, in the Incarnation, not the nature of a man, or of many men, but the co))U)iunis huiiianitas, whereby He became TJie Man, comiiiunis Jiomo, is stated again and again, sometimes almost eloquently, and the hyper-realism, to which Wiclif is com- mitted, is appealed to in order to explain the closeness of the union of Christ with the Christian. The treatise is evidently one of Wiclifs earlier writings and belongs, in the judgment of the editor and of Dr. Shirley, to the period immediately preceding the year 1367 a.D. Yet even here Wiclif is feeling his way to a new position. As a Realist he is the sworn enemy of the Nominalists, whose champion, William of Occam, had died some twcnt\- years before. As a Thomist he is constantly refuting and almost ridiculing Duns Scotus. lUit his advanced IMatonism is already leading him awa>' from St. Thomas Aquinas, though St. Augustine, John Damascenus, lionaventura, and Hugo de St. \'ictor are accepted without question. In i)}). 1S4-190 there is an interesting passage on the luicharist, in which wc can sec the first steps in the transition ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 473 to the view which he afterwards adopted, and which modern sacramentarians unintclligently claim as their own. At the time of the quincentenary commemoration those who looked upon Wiclif as the great opponent of transubstantiation, and, therefore, ipso facto one who denied the Real Presence, were a good deal troubled by the fact that while rejecting tran- substantiation he used the term of his own view. Chapter xi. in the " De Incarnacione " throws considerable light on this. At present his objection to the received doctrine lies entirely in the metaphysical, not, as afterwards, in the moral region. Here he suggests that the " essence " is still bread and wine, though a miraculosa trans sub stanciacio has taken place. But he is not " anxious " about the question, because an exact definition is not necessary for the ''pilgrim " — i.e. the Christian in the world. The passage is worth quoting: — " Sed quoad questionem — quid est de tali essencia ? — non sollicitor ; licet sint quotlibet dicta sanctorum que sonant quod sit panis vel vinum ; que forte intelligenda sunt, quod essencia subiecta illis accidentibus post transsubstanciacionem est panis ante transsubstanciacionem, et virtute transsubstan- ciacionis desinit esse quid vel substancia, et manet eadem essencia conformiter accidentata. Ilia autem non fit corpus Christi sed fit signum signans nobis ineffabiliter quod ad omnem punctum sui sit sacramentaliter corpus Christi et concomitanter anima et omnia alia Christi accidencia abso- luta. Nee est de substancia fidei viatorum scire quid est ilia essencia ; sed satis est cognoscere questionem si est de ista cum transsubstanciacione et ceteris veritatibus que sacramento eucaristie sunt annexe." It would be easy to argue that if the '^essentia " is bread and wine, a real " trajissubstanciacio " does not take place, and that if the term " transsiibstaiiciacio " be rightly used, the " dicta sanctonun " cannot mean what they seem to mean {sonant). But this criticism would not touch Wiclif s position, since he distinguishes between " S7ibstantia " and " essentia'' his real difficulty being that the received view of " transub- stantiation " requires, as St. Thomas asserts, that the acci- dents of bread and wine should exist sold divind virtute 474 HISTORY OF TJIE REFORMATION TV without a subject, or that by a miracle the accident of quantity {qiiantitas duneiisivd) should become the subject for the other accidents. This last view, which is adopted by St. Thomas, W'iclif will not hear of, nor will he allow that accidents can exist without a subject. Out of the meta- physical difficulty he sees but one escape — the theory, namely, that Christ's Body is present with every particle of the bread " sacrainentaliter et coiicomitanter!' together with Christ's Soul and all His qualities. This view reappears at a much later stage in Wiclif's theological development, when, in his con- fession of faith as to the Eucharist, published within two years of his death, he asserts his belief that ** the sacrament of the altar, white and round, and like to other bread, or host sacred, is very God's body in form of bread ; and though it be broken in three parts, as the Church uses, or else in a thousand, each one of these several parts is the same God's body." In the ** De Incarnacione " he is becoming gradually conscious of the metaphysical difficulties of St. Thomas's position ; in the later confession he has repudiated the received view and adopted a theory of concomitance. But, as Dr. Lechlcr allows, he throughout "believes and teaches a true and real objective presence of Christ's Body in the Supper," and quotes the hymn, Pangc lifigiia, as favouring his own view. It is hardly to be supposed that any, except those specially interested in Wiclif's theology, will toil through the present treatise. The Latin is crabbed, the treatment scholastic, and many of the discussions, judged by our standards, frivolous. But there are signs of a growing interest in scholastic theology, and for those who have this interest the present treatise will be invaluable. The editor, Mr. Edward Harris, has done his work well. He has not only collated three Vienna manu- scripts, with one at Oriel College, Oxford, and one in the British Museum — a work which, to judge from the specimen of the Oriel manuscripts given in the frontispiece, required both ingenuity and perseverance — but has also added a valu- able marginal analysis, and a short but useful preface. ENGLAND AND ON THE C0NTINEN7\ 475 IV. LUTHER AND THE LUTHER COMMEMORATION. {Guardian, November 7, 1883.) What does the English Church owe to the great Reformer ? This is the question which the Luther Commemoration forces upon the minds of thinking Churchmen. The Religious Tract Society offers us a long list of books, ranging downwards from handsomely bound volumes by Dr. Stoughton to two- penny tracts. The Luther Commemoration Committee ac- companies its " Outlines of Arrangements for London " by a manifesto setting forth the claims of Martin Luther to the gratitude and admiration of the English people. But perhaps the books which will be most generally interesting will be the cheap edition of the life of Luther, by the German, Julius Kostlin, and a reprint from the Contemporary Revieiv of a short biography by Mr. J. A. Froude. All this literature ought to help us to give an answer to the question, What does the Church of England owe to Martin Luther ? In attempting at such a time to take a dispassionate view of Luther's place in religious thought, we are painfully con- scious that we shall be accused of a want of enthusiasm, of narrowness of view, and a general inability to recognize great- ness outside the little circle of our own beliefs. But if the question proposed is worth answering, we should be wrong to allow the greatness of Luther as a man to obscure those weak points in his position which left room for consequences which he would have been the first to deplore. ''Amicus Plato sed viagis amica Veritas!' It is a remarkable thing that the Romanists and the Rationalists, who rarely fight on the same side, are found in absolute agreement as to Luther's place in the history of religious thought. The judgment which they pass upon him is, of course, widely different, but only because they differently 4/6 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN estimate the value of the work which both agree that Martin Luther did. History shows us that in the irresistible logic of development Tubingen theology was the outcome of Luther's teaching, as Voltaire was the consequence of Locke. Yet it would be as unfair to call Luther a rationalist, in the modern sense of the term, as to credit Locke with atheism. The well- known saying that " Erasmus laid the Q.g^ at Bonn, Bruno Baur, discovered that the bondage to a book was as bad as bondage to a Church. If Luther could loose from one, why should nut others complete his ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 48 1 work ? What security had he given that others would not call liberty what he inveighed against as licence ? Here again we see at once the strength and weakness of Luther's work. Nothing could be grander than his earnest protest in favour of a living and spiritual faith against a religion which had become hollow and formal and unreal. But the reaction led to the losing hold of that body of objective truth, which» overlaid though it was by papal inventions, Rome in all her time of deadness and corruption had faithfully preserved. Luther was meant to be a mystic. He had read Tauler to some purpose. What looks like unbounded self-confidence was really the mystic's conviction of an immediate Divine revelation, and for this reason even his strong belief in the Bible, though it saved him from the extravagances of Ana- baptism, was not enough to prevent that " picking and choos- ing " amongst revealed truths which it is hard to distinguish from heresy. It is therefore only a partial, and, as it will seem, a half- hearted assent, which sober-minded English Churchmen can give, when invited to co-operate with Evangelical Churches of all denominations in a Luther Commemoration. The com- mittee propose co-operation on a fourfold basis, which is as follows : — 1 . The completeness of Holy Scripture as the only inspired ^ perfect, and ij fallible rule of faith. Here we are tempted to borrow an argument from some modern defenders of Lutheranism. " Justification by faith only!' it is said, " does not mean justification by faith alone'' Pari ratione, it is one thing to say that " Holy Scripture con- taineth all things necessary to salvation ; " it is another to isolate Holy Scripture from that Divine revelation of which it is a part, and think that it will prove itself. 2. The right of the people to read the Scriptures and to exer- cise private judgment in the interpretation. We venture to think that no one, be he Churchman or Dissenter, who believes in the One Lord and loves his brother man, can admit this statement in its literal sense, at least in the face of the existence of that method of so exercising 2 I 4S2 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX TV private judgment on Holy Scripture as to make the Bible a fulcrum for overthrowing the Divinity of Christ and the authority of the inspired Word. 3. The duty of a constant protest against the idolatrous, persecuting, and apostate character of the papal system — its blasphemous assumption of the perfections of the Divine Being — its antagonism to the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, to the teaching of Scripture, and to the 7cell-being of mankind. With due allowance for strong language, no English Churchmen will refuse to admit this duty, and the implied recognition of the truth that Luther's greatness lay in his strong and vigorous protest against an unspiritual and formal and even idolatrous worship. 4. When we come to the last point, " The recognition of the rightful authority of the Lord fesus Christ over the Church and the nations,'' we can only say that that truth, thank God, is the monopoly of neither Lutheran nor anti-Lutheran, neither Protestant nor Catholic. What its precise place is in a Luther Commemoration we fail to see, since no Church ever held that truth more strongly than the Church against which Luther protested, and which arrogantly claims for its supreme bishop the title of Vicar of Christ. V. I IRST rUlNCIl'LES Ol- TIIK RKFOR.MATION.^ (Guardian, January 9, 1S84.) WllATEVLR different views ma)- have been held as to the Luther Festival, and the place of Martin Luther in ecclesi- astical and general history, most English people will agree in thanking the new Principal of King's College and Dr. * "First Principles of the Reformation; or, The Ninety-five Theses and the Three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther translated into English." Edited, with Theological and Historical Introiluction, by Henry Wace, B.D., D.D., and C. A. Buchheim, I'h.I). John Murray. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT, 483 Buchheim for introducing to them these great works of the Reformer. It is, indeed, an extraordinary thing, considering the enthusiasm which exists in England on the subject, as shown by the commemoration, that these important treatises have not been edited before. In Germany they are well known as " Die drci grossen Rcformations-Schriften." In England the treatise on Christian Liberty is the only one which has been translated, and that is little known. Thanks to Dr. Wace and Dr. Buchheim, we have now not only the three treatises, but the celebrated Ninety-five Theses, which every one talks of and nobody reads. We could almost have wished that Martin Luther might here have been allowed to speak for himself, without note or comment. But this was not to be. Dr. Wace gives us a theological introduction of about forty pages, and Dr. Buch- heim writes about fifty pages more on the political history of the period. This separation of the historical from the theo- logical has obvious advantages and disadvantages, and we are inclined to think there is a balance on the side of dis- advantage. Dr. Buchheim's Preface travels over well-worn ground, and for the most part adds little to what is generally known. But it was news to us that the Elector Frederick the Wise endowed Wittenberg University with the stolen proceeds of the indulgence traffic in his electorate. There is a curious irony in the fact that a university so founded should be best known through him whose greatness is his attack on indulgences ; or, to put the same thing in a different form, there is a grim, appropriateness in Dr. Martin Luther having owed the advantages he enjoyed at Wittenberg to the sale of indulgences against which he protested. When Dr. Buchheim talks of the burning of the Pope's bull as a thing which no Emperor had dared to do, the statement may be literally correct, but he seems to forget that Philip le Bel had set the example in France some two centuries before. And when in the closing paragraph we are told that "the Reformation is the source, directly or indirectly, by action or by reaction, of everything great and noble which has taken place from about the beginning of the sixteenth century," that 4«S4 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIO \ IX "thr«)U<^^h the Reformation alone men of all creeds have become free and enlightened," and that "the work of the Reformation is one of the greatest blessings ever bestowed on mankind," we are inclined, in mere fairness, to suggest that the dispassionate historian, no less than the theologian, will find a good deal to sa}' on the other side. Still, the sketch of Reformation histor}-, which Dr. Buchheim gives, and which carries us down to the death of Luther, will pro- bably be found useful to those w^ho wish to be reminded of the circumstances which called forth the treatises of 1520. Of the Theological Preface, by Dr. Wace, there is much more to be said. In a history w^hich merely records the course of events, with but few reflections on their causes and consequences, there is little difficult}-. But it is far different when we come to a theological account of Martin Luther's works. This is indeed iiiccdcrc per igiics. For few men ever offered so many opportunities to his enemies as Luther did. Few men wrote more forcibl\-, more unguardedly, more im- pulsivel}'. His very power was due, in great measure, to his onesidedness — his firm grasp of that which was often only a half truth. And theology implies balance, system, scientific reasoning, careful limiting of truth by truth, all o{ which were alien from Luther's nature. To say that " if he was a great reformer, it was because he was a great divine," seems to us to be true neither in history nor in logic. Great divines are rarely, if ever, great reformers ; for reformation means, in most cases, the reassertion of some side of truth which has been lo.st or overlaid, and he who finds it and proclaims it to the world not unnaturally fancies it is the whole. It would be more true to sa)- that Luther was a great reformer because he was not a great divine ; and when Professor Wace finishes up his sentence with the word.s, " if he was a friend of the people it was because he was the friend of God." we feel that the sentence is more antithetical th;in cither intelligible or true. Professor Wace takes as the subject o{ his introductory essay "the primar\- principles of Luther's life and teaching," the treatises thomseK'cs being spoken of later on as Luther's ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 485 " greatest and most characteristic writings." And it is of first importance that we should remember that they are Luther's first writings and not his last. They were in fact all of them written in the latter half of the year 1520; that is to say, between the time when the Bull of Excommunication was published in Rome on June 15, and its actual publication in Wittenberg somewhere in the middle of October. Neither the theological nor the historical introduction helps us as to the relation of these three treatises to one another. They are printed in the following order : — (i) The Address to the Nobility ; (2) On Christian Liberty, with Luther's Letter to Leo X. ; and (3) On the Babylonish Captivity. But this order is more than doubtful. The address to the German nobility was certainly the first of the three, and appeared in June, at the time when the papal theologians were busy pre- paring the Bull of Excommunication. The prefatory letter to Amsdorf is dated June 23. The Babylonish Captivity Luther was at work upon in August, at the time when rumours were afloat that Eck was on his way to Saxony, armed with the Pope's bull. The treatise was published pro- bably on October 6, immediately after Luther heard of the arrival of Eck in Saxony. The tract on Christian Liberty, with the letter to the Pope, was written after the publication of the bull, but was deliberately antedated September 6. The explanation of this is that the letter was the result of the negotiation with Miltitz which had been going on for nearly two years, and had been interrupted by the Leipzic disputa- tion. A final conference held at Lichtenberg on October 1 1 had resulted in the letter, to which the tract on Christian Liberty is attached, and which, by Miltitz's advice, was dated back to the time when Luther first gave his consent to write it, nearly a month before the bull reached Wittenberg, Surely an historical introduction might have found a place for these facts. But it is even more important for a theologian to notice the relation which subsists between these primary writings of Luther and those which he wrote when he was under the ban of the Church and the Empire. It is obviously unfair to take 486 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIO X LV three short treatises, all written within four months, as the full expression of Luther's views, when, as everybody knows* he lived for a quarter of a century after the Diet of Worms, and wrote more violently and more recklessly as his opposi- tion to the Church on the one side and to his brother Pro- testants on the other became more bitter. Ikit in the lurid light thrown upon them by his later writings we are able to see in these earl}- ones all that is characteristic of Luther, his strength and his weakness, his vigorous hold on a truth, and his utter inability to see its limits. It will be no longer possible for those who shudder at Luther's later utterances to excuse them by the persecution from Church and State which he went through ; for, thanks to Dr. Wace and Dr. l^uchheim, we sec that they are only the utterances of the three treatises "writ large." It is not that Luther's principles are false, and are seen to be so more plainly in his later than his earlier writings. It is rather that what in the early writings appears as a want of balance between two principles, which in a true theology must limit one another, becomes in the later works an utter disregard of one in order to emphasize the other. Faith and works, reason and authority, the minis- terial and the sacerdotal, are indeed found together in the three treatises, but the beginnings of the severance are plainly visible and the final result is hardly doubtful. Perhaps if Luther had not lived to work out his principles to their logical conclusions we might have doubted whether the con- clusions followed from the premisses ; but as it is, we have a new and valuable corroboration of the fact than an almost infinitesimal deviation from Catholic truth in the foundations of the faith is enough to throw the whole superstructure out of the perpendicular. There was a great opportunit\' here for Dr. Wace to show where Luther's principles agreed with, and where they differed froin, those of the Church of luiglancl, as they were asserted at the Reformation. Instead of this, the editors have agreed to publish these treatises of Luther's with the general title " First Principles of the Reformation." The ordinary reader would infer, and perhaps was meant to infer, that they are ENGLAXD AND ON THE CONTINENT. 487 principles common to all Reformed Churches, and therefore to the Church of England. But is this true ? We venture to think that it is not. More than that, we should be prepared to maintain and prove that, while Lutheran principles are implicit in these treatises, the principles on which the English Church was reformed are either not recognized or are most insufficiently guarded. This, of course, does not apply to the negative or "protestant" part of the treatises. Here, not only all non-Roman Churches agree, but, so far as abuses are concerned, the Roman Church itself, in the Council of Trent, expressed its agreement with Luther's protest. Dr. Buchheim suggests that " Old Catholic " would have been a better term for Luther's followers than " Lutheran " or " Protestant.'^ And, no doubt, "Old Catholicism" means a better thing than Lutheranism or Protestantism. But for that reason it would have been less appropriate, since Luther's "Old Catholic " phase, if it ever began, ended with the theses. But neither Lutherans nor English Churchmen are prepared to stand by the theses. For they were protests neither against the Pope nor against indulgences, but against that false teaching about indulgences, " that licence in the preach- ing of pardons which makes it no easy thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to the Pope against the calumnies, or at all events, the keen questionings of the laity." ^ What Luther's position was at this time is shown by the following quotations : — Thesis 7. " God never remits any man's guilt, without at the same time subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his representative, the priest." Thesis 71. "He who speaks against the truth of Apos- tolical pardons let him be anathema and accursed." Thesis 72. " But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the wantonness and licence of speech of the preachers of pardons let him be blessed." Thesis 73. "As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind of contrivance to the injury of traffic in pardons." » Thesis 81. 488 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX Thesis 74, " Much more is it his intention to thunder against those who, under the pretext of pardons, use contri- vances to the injur)' of holy charity and of truth." The theses were, indeed, a noble attempt to revive the true meaning of indulgences as the remission of ecclesiastical penalties, and to check and limit the buying of pardons which had now taken the place of voluntary thankofferings. But Luther throughout assumes that the Pope is on his side, and if a Mediccan Pope could have had any beliefs on the subject, Leo X. probably would have agreed with the Augustinian friar that, " Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into the penalt)- of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while the bishops were asleep."^ But prescription had com- plicated the matter, and when some years later the reforming I^ontiff, Adrian VL, attempted to declare the true doctrine about indulgences, the cardinals, if we may for once trust Sarpi,- dissuaded him from it on the ground that there were four different views, and all Catholic. But Luther was in a totally different mind when he wrote to Amsdorf that "The time of silence is past, and the time of speaking is come." In the strict meaning of the terms he was a Protestant when he published the theses ; he was a Refonficr when he wrote the treatises of 1520. What, then, were the principles on which, according to Luther, the Refor- mation of the Church was to be carried out } \\c ])refer to take the treatises in what we believe to be their chronological order, and we find that the appeal to the Nobility proclaims the theory of the priesthood of all Chris- tians ; the l^abylonish Captivity appeals to Holy Scripture against the sacramental system of the Church ; and the tract on Christian Liberty formulates Luther's early views on Justification by I'^iith. The Address to the German Nobility opens with a clear statement of i)apal claims : — " The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round themselves, with which they have hitherto pro- tected themselves, so that no one could reform them, whereby ' Thesis II. • Pages 19-21. EXGLAXD AND ON THE CONTINENT. 489 all Christendom has fallen terribly. Firstly, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the contrary, that the spiritual power is above the temporal. Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scriptures, they objected that no one may interpret the Scrip- tures but the Pope. Thirdly, if they are threatened with a Council they pretend that no one may call a council but the Pope." In other words, the Papacy means supremacy over the State, supremacy over the Bible, and supremacy over the Church as represented by an CEcumenical Council. " Now, may God help us," continues Martin Luther, " and give us one of the trumpets that overthrew the walls of Jericho, so that we may blow down these walls of straw and paper." So far we might be inclined to say with Dr. Buchheim, that Martin Luther was an " Old Catholic " and not a Lutheran ; in fact, on all these points, the English Church is with him. But when we ask what is tho. principle on which Luther opposes papal claims we find that he is neither Old Catholic, nor Anglican, nor Catholic, but simply Lutheran. The principle is a very simple one. All baptized people are, by their baptism, priests. They are all (women as well as men, logi- cally, though Luther does not say this) priests and Popes.^ But— " Since we are all priests alike, no man may put himself forward, or take upon himself, without our consent or election, to do that which we have all alike power to do. ... A priest should be nothing in Christendom but a functionary. As long as he holds his office he has precedence of others ; if he is deprived of it he is a peasant and a citizen like the rest. Therefore a priest is verily no longer a priest after deposition." This theory will gladden the hearts of our Congregationalist friends. No wonder papal walls fell before it. For Rome had held true to the Bible view that, by the imposition of hands according to the will of God and the unchanging order of His Church, an indelible character was impressed upon the ' Page 22. 49^ JIISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX IX priest. Luther's theory of the ministry, for priesthood it was- not. declared liim at once to be the founder of a sect. The theory liad only to be put into practice and the breach with Catholic antiquity becomes apparent. The priest became a pastor, the bishop was replaced by a superintendent. The minister was the deputy of the conc,^regation, told off to preach and minister the Sacraments. Luther was quite logical. So was the Roman Church in excommunicating him, for Luther's principle and that of the Catholic Church are mutually exclusive. Dr. Wace, in his Preface, has some astounding statements on this subject. He apparently accepts the Lutheran view of delegation, and even quotes "our own Hooker" as favouring it, in contrast to the view that the restriction of priestl}' func- tions to the clergy is dependent upon ''regular devolution from Apostolic authority." ^ And as if Hooker was not enough, we have a foot-note referring us to the late Mr. Keble's Preface to Hooker's works.^ If anybody looked at ' Page xxviii. - [It has seemed best to reproduce this article in the form in which it appeared in the Guardian, since Mr. Moore's comparison between Hooker and Luther has a value of its own, apart from the passage which called it fortli ; but it is due to Dr. Wace that some comment should accompany such a reproduction, and accord- ingly the following explanation is reprinted from the GitarJiau of Februar)' 6, 1884:—] First Prinxiples of thi: Rkformation. Sn^, — In a review (admirable as your reviews generally are) in your penulti- mate issue of Drs. Wace and Buchheim's recent edition of Luther's primary w orks you have been, I cannot but think, a little unjust to the editors of that work in your zeal to give it an unusually early notice. It seems, indeed, that some of your criticisms apply rather to some previous and immature form of the book than that in which it issues to the general public from the house of Mr. Murray. Vou refer not only to "our own Hooker" in words which I do not find in Dr. Wace's excellent Introduction, but also to a non-existent footnote referring to Keble's Preface to his edition of that writer ; and then you say {Guardian, January 9, p. 60, c. 1), ** If anybody looked at references not much harm would be done.** Mindful of the legacy of Martin Routh, I have looked in vain for tJusc references, and, having in common with many others a sense of profound obligation to Luther and his work, as well as a feeling of what is due to two worthy friends and colleagues, I am anxious to call attention to the gratuitous nature of your remarks so far as they depend upon the references I have mentioned. With regard to the far more important question at issue, in which "our own Hooker" and others arc involved, I say nothing more than that it would perhaps be better that Luther and Dr. Wace should be suffered to speak for themselves as they do in this book» ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 49 1 references not much harm would be done ; but as things are, the passage is calculated to convey an utterly false view of both Hooker and Mr. Keble. For really Hooker and Martin Luther had the most superficial resemblance in this matter. Hooker's view of the priesthood certainly did not exclude what Dr. Wace calls "regular devolution from ApostoHc authority," Luther's view as certainly did. The priesthood of the baptized Christians was no discovery or rediscovery of Luther's. His discovery was that the priesthood of all destroyed the priesthood of the priest. St. Paul, of course^ recognized the doubly representative character of the priest. He was the representative of God to the people, the ambas- sador, the steward or dispenser, speaking authoritatively " in the person of Christ ; " but he was also the representative of the people to God, " your servants for Christ's sake." Even the Roman hierarchy had, in word if not in deed, preserved the double truth, for the Vicar of Christ was at least in name still serims servonnn. But what about our own Hooker } It seems incredible that a professor of ecclesiastical history should have supposed that Hooker could have had part or lot with the views of Martin Luther in the face of such passages as " Eccl. Pol.," Bk. V. ch. Ixxvii. : — " They (the clergy) are therefore ministers of God, not only by way of subordination, as princes and civil magistrates, whose execution of judgment and justice the supreme hand of Divine providence doth uphold, but ministers of God, as from whom their authority is derived, and not from men. For in that they are Christ's and then, I think, it must be admitted that if, as Dr. Wace says, page xxviii., the restriction of priestly functions as " dependent upon regular devolution from Apostolic authority "is "a secondary point " all will allow that the thing restricted is and must be of higher importance than the forms and conditions restricting it, and in fact that the thing so restricted is ultimately that and that only which gives force or weight to the forms and conditions by which it is restricted. It is the power in the Church derived from Christ's own word, which gives power to those forms and conditions, and not the forms and conditions from which the power is derived. And this, as it seems, was one of Luther's First Principles. Stanley Leathes, D.D. CHffe Rectory, January 26, 1884. [The review was written from "advanced sheets," which contained the words and the foot-note in question. We are glad that they were omitted, but we had no notice of the fact. — Ed. G.\ 492 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX JX ambassadors and His labourers, who should give them their commission but He whose most inward affairs they manage ? . . . O wretched blindness, if we admire not so great power, more wretched if we consider it aright, and notwithstanding imagine that any but God can bestow it ! " One more quota- tion, cut of numbers that would be appropriate, we give in order to point the contrast between the views of Hooker and of Luther. In the Address to the Nobility we have: — '* A priest is verily no longer a priest after deposition. But now they have invented cJiamctercs indelebilcs, and pretend that a priest after deprivation still differs from a simple layman." ^ To the words cJiaractcrcs indckbiles one of the editors appends the foot-note : — " In accordance with a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the act of ordi- nation impresses upon the priest an indelible character, so that he immutably retains the sacred dignity of priesthood." Let us hear what Hooker has to say about this : — " To whom Christ hath imparted power, both over that mystical body which is the society of souls, and over that natural which is Himself for the knitting of both in one ; . . . the same power is in such not amiss both termed a kind of mark or character and acknowledged to be indelibley^ Apparently the author of the foot-note agrees as little with Hooker as Hooker does with Luther. But what did Hooker mean by those passages in which verbally, at all events, he seems to accept the theory of Luther ^ Here, as Mr. Keble points out, he is simply transferring to the eccle- siastical sphere views which were generally received in his day as to the origin of civil government. But while Luther's theory of the priesthood of all was a protest against the monarchical claims of the Roman system. Hooker's theory was an argument in favour of " the hereditary monarchy of the Apostle's successors."^ It is no doubt remarkable, as Mr. Keble notices, that the same theory as to the origin of civil power should be made, as it is b)- Justinian, " the corner- stone of the Ciusarean despotism," and the basis of Liberal ' I'-igc 22. - " Eccl. rol.,' V. ch. Ixxvii. I. Sec Mr. Kcl>lc's Preface, p. Ixxviii. ENGLAND AND OX THE CONTIXEXT. 493. politics in modern times. But it is not without its parallels. For Hobbes and Rousseau both had a quaint theory as to the origin of society. And Hobbes developed Absolutism from it, and Rousseau, we need hardly say, did not. And if Martin Luther and Richard Hooker accepted the same theory as to the priestly power, it is worth noticing that one employed it to overthrow, the other to support, what we may briefly call the Apostolical succession. Those who are familiar with the internal discussions of the Council of Trent will remember that the theory, in the form which Hooker gives it, had strong support within the Roman Church. The constant discussions on " the representing clause " — i.e. as to whether the OEcume- nical Council should be said to represent the whole Church, really involved the question whether the Council derived its authority from the Pope or the Church. We only quote this to show that there is a theory of delegated power which is consistent with a belief in an Apostolical ministry ; but we contend that Luther's setting of that theory is not. Dr. Wace is guilty of using a most misleading phrase when he speaks of laity and clergy possessing powers " the same in kind." Things which are different and yet are " the same in kind " differ only in degree, and something of this sort Luther meant. But Dr. Wace cannot mean to endorse this view. If by *' the same in kind " wc mean that the grace of Baptism and the grace of Orders have a common source, it is obviously true. " There are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit." But to say that the gifts do not differ in kind because they both alike come from God, is either untrue or misleading. It was necessary to Luther's argument, because he wanted the laity to see that powers which they had given they might take away — as a modern congregation of Independents might deal with their minister ; but it is inconsistent altogether with the theory of the English Church. The fact that the Holy Spirit at Pentecost descended upon all who were gathered together, so that "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost," did not suggest to them that they were all apostles. In the Old Testament the promise, " Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" (h'^x. xix. 6), was misused by 494 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN Korah when he said to Moses and Aaron, " Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them " (Numb. xvi. 3), and in the Church of Christ it had an ominous sound when the words of St. Peter, " Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy nation," were used by Martin Luther in appealing to the laity against the clergy. If we were in any doubt as to the aniunis with which Luther applies his principle, it would be removed when we see how he uses it against " the three walls " of the Papacy. Every baptized Christian is a priest. " We are all equal, but guilt makes one subject to another." Hence the secular arm must do its duty and reform the spiritual " without respect of Pope, bishops, or priests." ^ Then, all being priests, all have an equal right to interpret the Scriptures : — " We should boldly judge what they (the Popes) do and what they leave undone, by our own understanding of the Scriptures, and force them to follow the better understanding and not their own. . . . Balaam's ass was wiser than the prophet. If God spoke by an ass against a prophet, why should He not speak by a pious man against the Pope?"-^ This, we need hardly say, was before Carlstadt and Zwingli applied the Lutheran principle in its literalness. Still a lingering respect for Church authority suggested an appeal to a '* true free council," which, at least in his earlier days, Luther professed himself willing to obey. The rest of this Address to the German Nobility is what wc cannot but call an inflammatory appeal to the laity against the Church, and such an appeal is seldom in vain, especially when page after page applies the argument to the pocket. Sec how much good money Rome takes from you and from Germany! If ever a Church was open to accusation from this side it was the Roman Church of Luther's age. .And the nobles were sensitive on the subject. It is not onl>' the "wavering commons," (jf whom it is true that — •'Their love Lies in their purses ; and whoso empties them, Hy so much fills their heart with deadly hate.'' ' Page 24. ^ Tagc 27. E.VGLA.VD AND ON THE CONTINENT. 495 The enormous success of the Address to the Nobility, "the manifesto of the Reformation," as Dr. Buchheim calls it, is surely not very unaccountable. We think " our own Hooker" has enunciated a principle which will go far to explain it, when in the opening words of the " Ecclesiastical Polity " he says — " He that goeth about to persuade a multitude that they are not so well governed as they ought to be, shall never want attentive and favourable hearers." But it would be unjust and ungenerous to Martin Luther, and to those to whose labours we are indebted for the trans- lations of his treatises if, after pointing out what we believe to be the false principle on which his appeal to the nobility rests, we said nothing of the spiritual impulse which originated it. Luther wrote in the fulness of righteous indignation. And the world owes to the great friar a debt of gratitude for his noble reiteration of the truth that the gifts of God are without money and without price. His constant appeal to Holy Scripture, his insistance on the reality of baptismal grace and the greatness of the baptized, his jealousy of every- thing which seemed to throw into the shade the great central fact of Christ crucified, his vigorous protest against the corrup- tions of his age, his denunciations of the evil of enforced celibacy — these are things which the world will never forget. They were truths uttered at the risk of his life at a time when men seemed settling down to a hopeless state of laisser faire. How much other countries owed to these early treatises we shall never know. To say that they owe nothing is as untrue as to say that they owe everything. And if the post-Triden- tine Church of Rome and the Reformed Church of England have nothing which we can call Lutheran in their theology, it is only because we include under that name what is worst and not what is best in Luther's teaching. It would be easy to trace in the two later treatises, as we have done in the first, the way in which a truth, onesidedly grasped, gradually becomes an error. The treatise on the Babylonish Captivity is pre-eminently the appeal to Holy Scripture against the Pope. It discusses the Seven Sacra- ments, and on Scriptural grounds reduces them to three. 49'j HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOX TV The same conclusion is arrived at in the first formulary of faith ever put forth in En<,^land — the Ten Articles. And this is the more interesting because Henry VIII. won his title Fii/ei Defensor for his refutation of Luther's treatise on the Babylonish Captivity (a fact, presumably, so well known that neither the theological nor the historical Introduction, so far as we remember, mentions it), and yet it was Henry's spirit which breathed in the Ten Articles of 1536. The Assertia Scpteni Sacranioitoniin was forgotten, and the Defender of the Faith agreed with his great rival in reducing the seven to three. Of the reality of these three Sacraments, however we reconcile it with his theory of the ministry, Luther did not doubt. Indeed it was to emphasize the greatness of the baptismal gift that he wrote those terrible words : — " We see, then, how rich the Christian or baptized man is, since, even if he would, he cannot lose his salvation by any sins, however great, unless he refuses to believe ; for no sins whatever can condemn him but unbelief alone." ^ It was onh' a year afterwards that he wrote from the Wartburg, " Be a sinner and sin lustil}% but be more lusty in faith, and rejoice in Christ. ... It is enough that, by the riches of the glory of God, we recognize the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the world. Sin will not pluck us away from Him, even though a thousand times, a thousand times a day, we commit fornication or murder." A year had developed his style, but it had not changed his prin- ciple. For the false view of justification by faith, as dis- tinguished from the view of St. Paul, dominates this treatise on the Babylonish Captivity, as it does the later writings. And tiiough the importance of good works is admitted in word, the harmony of the parts of truth is destroyed. Even the appeal to Holy Scripture is often an appeal to the letter rather than to the spirit. And hence Luther's false views on marriage. ()ur Lord spoke strongly against divorce; but in the Old Testament pol\gamy was allowed. Therefore, in the section on marriage we find the words, '* I, for my jjart, detest divorce, and even prefer bigamy to it." - Luther had the " Page 185. = Page 226. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 497 courage of his opinions, and advised his friend the land- grave to have two wives. For a moment, and for a moment only, we get the recognition of Church authority in settling the canon of Scripture. For a moment he touched a prin- ciple which might have corrected the waywardness of his own private opinions, and been a bulwark against the arro- gance of modern criticism. " This power," he says, " the Church certainly has, that she can distinguish the Word of God from the words of men. Augustine confesses that his motive for believing the Gospel was the authority of the Church which declared it to be Gospel." ^ O si sic omnia ! Yet within a few pages he falls foul of the Epistle of St. James. At present he is content to dis- credit it. It was later on that he discovered it was " an Epistle of straw." The '' Christian Liberty " begins with a paradox " charac- teristic of great genius," as Dr. Wace says. "A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none ; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one."^ But if the Pope was more ready to remember that he was Vicar of Christ than " servant of servants," Luther as often forgot that he was "subject to every one." It is quite true that he insists that real liberty must be Christian liberty, or it becomes licence. But he gave no safeguard that was really safe, since he himself began playing fast and loose with the Word of God. So it was in the matter of civil authority. Luther talked of "the murderous robber bands of the peasants." And yet there was a sentence of his which they might have inscribed upon their banners : " If a priest is killed the country is laid under an interdict ; why not also if a peasant is killed ? Whence comes all this difference among equal Christians .? Simply from human laws and in- ventions." ^ The logic of the peasants was instinctive, but it was logic none the less. The title " First Principles of the Reformation " chal- lenges criticism and careful scrutiny at the hands of those 1 Page 228. 2 i..^ge 104. ^ Pnge 25. 2 K 49 3 Iff STORY OF THE REFORMATION /X who are dutiful cliiklrcn of the Reformed Church of England. And examination confirms us in the view that Luther's great treatises embody, not tlie principles of the Reformation, but the principles of Lutheranism. Their teachinc^ on the priest- hood of the baptized transforms a truth into an error ; the doctrine of Justification as stated in them, if it does not pave the way for antinomianism, at least lays down no principles which can oppose it ; the appeal to Holy Scripture offered no safeguard against rationalism ; while even the vindication of Christian liberty leaves "an indifference to a possibilitie of licentiousnesse." The editors have done a great work which perhaps they never intended. They have shown us Luther at his best, and history has completed the picture. It is impossible to read these treatises without admiring the wisdom of the English Reformers, who, while they represented all that was noblest and truest in Luther's impulse, avoided all that was dis- tinctive of Luther's teaching. VL The Influence of Luther on the English Reformation. [The following notes, by Mr. Moore, fill three sides of a sheet of note-paper, and are printed here in order to show what his opinions were on this important point.] Apology. — Luther identified with Reformation. Two diametrically opposed views — the conventional and the historical. Two historical axioms [may be assumed]. (i.) No great revolution without its causes. The desire of reformation "in the air" in the fifteenth century, and the Papacy the great op- posing power. Therefore any deformation impos- sible without an attack on papal claims — hence Pisa, Constance, and Basle, ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 499 (ii.) The same cause under different conditions acts differently. Difference of conditions in England and on the Continent. Political. In England, Reformation was a return to consti- tutional freedom from Rome. On the Continent, a revolt against papal tyranny. In England, national independence no new claim. On the Continent, nationalism was struggling against imperialism. Louis IX. and Philip le Bel a contrast to Edward [I.] and Henry [VIII.]. Religious. Philosophically, the Reformation, as a movement of thought, was the assertion of the subjective against the objective. The religious side of this is faith versus works, intentions verstis acts. Revolt against unreality in England, Germany, and Switzerland, and its counterpart in Jesuitism. The two great Lutherans who influenced the course of the English Reformation were Bucer and Melanchtkon, joint authors of Hermann's [of Cologne] " Consultation " [1543]. The Augsburg Confession [1530], and Luther's [favour- able] verdict on it [Kostlin, p. 411]. Its history — Confessio Variata, 1540, to conciliate the Swiss. Confessio Saxonica^ 1 5 5 1 • Maurice of Saxony. I. Justification by Faith. Luther's " Esto Peccator." St. Paul's view opposed to Roman and Lutheran. II. The reality of sacramental grace. England opposed to Swiss view, which denies ; and Lutheran, which rationalizes. The revival of spiritual life. Subjective against objective was the common, not the Lutheran element, in the Reforma- 503 II I STORY OF THE REFORMATION IV tion, which Hvcs in all the holiest of the Romans — Sadolet, Pole, Juan Valdcz, and even Carranza, to say nothing of the saintly Carlo Horromeo, nephew of Pius IV. At the beginning of the Reformation — England represents the political revolt. The Continent, Germany, and Switzerland, inde- pendently, the religion. Luther and Henry began at different ends. Luther protests against abuses, questioning of doc- trine, breaks with Papacy. Henry VIII. ^ breach with Rome — renewal of Papal abuses — recasting of doctrine. The two movements went on side by side, but distinct. Luther recognized Henry's protest against Rome, but would not accept the divorce. Henry recognized Luther's attack on the common enemy, but would not accept the Augsburg Confession. On doctrine Henry and Luther were opposed. Lutherans, like the Lollards, were persecuted under the term " heretics," while the Reformation in PZngland was making rapid progress. To t/ie end of Heiirys reign, i.e. a year after LutJier s death, the English Church had no sympathy ivitJi Lutheran doctrines. It was Roman Catholic in everything but the asl mission of the papal claims in England. Reformation in doctrine did not begin till Edward \'I.['s reign]. Here we get a point of contact in the Augsburg Interim (I54«). Influx of Lutherans — Bucer, Peter Martyr, fohn a Lasco, etc. [Diflference between] EiRST PRAVER-HOOK AND THE Second [shows] Lutheran influence on Cranmer. Return to Rome under Mary — the result. In Elizabeth's reign the Puritans [looked to] Zurich, not Wittenberg. What fornuilaries had \\eiL;lu '! Augsburg Confession, ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 50 1 1530; Wiirtemberg Confession, 1551. [See Laurence, pp. 43, 229, 233.] What foreigners ? Bucer and Melanchtho7i, VII. THE INFLUENCE OF CALVINISM ON MODERN UNBELIEF. [It is not known before what society the following paper was read. Isolated phrases from it occur in the introduction to Mr. Moore's " Holy Week Addresses," published in 1888.] My object in the present paper is not to assert, or even to prove, the influence which Calvinism has, as a matter of fact, had upon unbelief, but to show the inner inherent connection between the two. It often happens that doctrines are enun- ciated w^hich carry with them conclusions very far from the mind of the author. It is a matter of historical fact that the followers of John Wiclif were socialists, and it is an interesting question to discuss whether there was any inner connection between his teaching and theirs. It is one thing to say that Wiclif was a socialist ; it is quite another to say that he enunciated principles which were developed into conclusions from which he would have recoiled. In the history of specu- lative thought we constantly meet with the same thing. John Locke, whatever he was, was not an atheist ; yet Hume's con- clusions were deduced from Locke's premisses. The question, then, that I propose to discuss is this — What is there in Calvinistic theology which, however little Calvin meant it, works itself out into a rejection of the Faith of Christ ? That I am not inventing a thesis in order to maintain it may be made clear by reference to facts of which we are all more or less aware. Only I must explain at once that by "unbelief" I do not necessarily mean "atheism" or "agnos- ticism." I mean the rejection of that which we all agree to call the Gospel of Jesus Christ ; that is to say, the historical fact of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, the theo- logical truth of the Incarnation and the Divinity of our Lord, 502 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX and all that under various names flows to us from that central fact of revelation. If Calvinism has encouraged the transition from Christianity to Arianism, or Socinianism, or Unitarianism, or any form of non-Christian theism, my thesis will have been proved, whether or no theism passes on into philosophical pantheism, and from that, as with Strauss, to a practical, if not a speculative, denial of God. By unbelief I simply mean the rejection of what is distinctive of Christian theology. Two or three facts have forced the question into pro- minence in my own thought lately. (i.) First of all, in reading the Reformation Histor)', I find that while antinomianism dogs the heels of Lutheranism, it is Unitarianism which is constantly appearing among the Swiss school. Servetus was the first of a long series, followed rapidly as he was by the two Socinuses, all apparently in good faith starting from orthodox Calvinism, and being eventually repudiated by their co-religionists. (ii.) This was one fact which made me think. Another was that [I once had occasion to investigate the history of] a Unitarian chapel. Unitarianism [in the place in question] was dying or dead. It was kept alive by two adventitious causes : (a) A string band, the members of which composed almost the whole of the congregation ; and (/3) an endow- ment. The chapel was supported by a Unitarian minister who drove out every Sunday from [a neighbouring town], and left his people from Sunday to Sunday to the parish priest. There was something so anomalous in this state of things, there being obviously no demand for Unitarianism, that for a long time I was puzzled as to its endowment. At last I discovered that it was a Presbyterian endowment which had passed into Unitarian [hands], and had been recognized as Unitarian by the Dissenting Chapels Act of 1844. On further investigation I found that this was true of a large number of similar endowments — a fact which struck me at the time as strange, but which has since connected itself with other facts. (iii.) Another fact, which came as a corroboration of what was now a growing suspicion in m\- mind, viz. that Calvinism ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 503 was implicitly inconsistent with Christianity, was the recent discussion which has taken place between Mr. Spurgeon and the Baptist Union. We have been told that the sect of the Baptists is honeycombed by unbelief, and Mr. Spurgeon, in order to be true to the Gospel of Christ, feels obliged to separate himself from them. Everybody knows about this controversy as it exists at present, but everybody does not know that it began four years ago in an address by Mr. Spurgeon, which I then cut out of the daily paper, in which he not only stated that the Baptists were " going over to the Unitarians," but gave as the reason of it that they were becoming "too philosophical." It seemed to me that the two things held together — first, that the Baptists were abandoning Calvinism for Unitarianism ; and secondly, that they were *' philosophical " in doing so. To this a few other facts may be added for what they are worth, (a) Calvin, the year after he published the " Institutes," refused to accept the three Creeds, and was charged with being an Arian. (/3) The Westminster Assembly, in revising the English Articles, omitted that on the Creeds, (-y) The great Puritan poet, Milton, abandoned Christianity for Arianism. But there is another line of argument which at first looks very different, and which tends in the same way. For various reasons I have lately studied a good deal of infidel literature, from books like Cotter Morison's " Service of Man," down to Bradlausrh's " Freethinker's Text-book," and the coarser and more blasphemous writings of the Freethinker, and athe- istical tracts. And I have found not only that in one and all the religion which is caricatured is Calvinism, but that the criticism frequently falls to the ground if we are able to say that Calvinism is not Christianity. In this case it is rather by reaction than by direct logical evolution that Calvinism tends in the direction of unbelief At a certain stage of its growth the moral consciousness revolts from Calvinism, and either, under stress of the reaction, abandons its faith altogether, or works back to historical and Catholic Christianity. Few things are more pathetic than the attempts of John Stuart Mill to construct a new theology on the basis of the truth 504 HISTORY OF THE REFORM A TIOX IX tliat God is love when his nature had revolted from his father's creed. The reaction, thoui^h different in def^ree, is the same in kind when we trace it in the noble protest of men like Maurice and Kinf^sley and Robertson, with whom the re- covery of the central truth of Christianity, that God is love, came as almost a new gospel. I am giving what is only my own opinion, which I entirely submit to the authority of the Church, when I say that those who reject the Catholic escha- tology because they have only known it in its Calvinistic dress, certainly cannot be judged as men who w^antonly reject truth. The problem, then, as I put it to myself, was — What is there in Calvinism which leads some men by direct logical result, and others by reaction and revolt, into a rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which Calvin certainly held and intended to set forth ? I am at once met by the difficulty — What is Calvinism ? and in which of its many forms has it influenced English thought ? It is obviously not fair to charge upon Calvin views which belong to a later development, or to credit his followers with views which Calvin may have held and they may have abandoned. Still more unfair would it be to quote the violent utterances of Calvinistic preachers at the present or any other time. We must get back to documents and autho- ritative statements. In the early days of the Reformation it was first Lutheranism and then Zwinglianism which chiefly influenced the English Reformers. The Articles, as Archbishop Laurence has shown, are unintelligible except in relation to those views ; but there is no certain reference to Calvinism, and a strong presumption that in what are commonly called the Calvinistic Articles, c.i^. the seventeenth, on Predestination, the com[)ilers were not dealing with Calvin and his views at all, but with certain scholastic views connected with that doctrine which was the hcte noire of the Reformation, viz. " merit of congruity." Calvin's " Institutes " was published in 1536, but in 1549 he was so little known in England that one of his works then translated was stated to be by " Master John Calvin, a man of right excellent learning, and of no less EN'GLAN'D A.VD O.V THE CO^TmE.VT. 505 conversation." ^ It was in that year, the year of the " Con- sensus Tigurinus," that Calvin freed himself from complicity in the Consubstantiation doctrine, and not till three years afterwards (155 1) that the great Predestination controversy, with which Calvin's name is so closely connected, began.^ It is a well-ascertained and demonstrated fact that the Articles of the English Church in the revision under Archbishop Parker were modelled on Lutheran models ; first on the Augsburg Confession, and then on the Confessio Wirte7nbergensis ; and while they carefully rejected all that was Lutheran but not Catholic— as they avowedly rejected the Zwinglian views — the doctrines of Calvin are neither accepted nor rejected, nor, as far as can be proved, even alluded to. That Calvin's personal influence was felt as early as the beginning of Edward VI. 's reign is seen by the fact that the Communion Office of 1548 was translated into Latin and sent to him by Miles Coverdale.^ After this time we find him sending advice to the king, and recognized as an authority by the Marian exiles both before and after their return. But for an attempt of Calvinism to assert itself in England, we must go to the Lambeth Articles of 1595, to the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, and to the Westminster Assembly of 1643. Both the Hampton Court Conference and the Westminster Assembly are of special importance, because they show exactly what Calvinism was in contradistinction to the teaching of the English Church. Even the Westminster Assembly started with an attempt to revise the Thirty-nine Articles, or, as their own historian puts it, **to render their sense more express and determinate in favour of Calvinism." * The Assembly, however, only got as far as the sixteenth Article, and gave up the task as hopeless. It is, then, to the Lambeth Articles, the Hampton Court Conference, and the Westminster As- sembly that we must turn for English Calvinism. And it is clearly unfair to assume a priori that Calvin is responsible for the later forms of Calvinism. * Laurence, p. 236. ^ Ibid., pp. 236, 237. ' ''Original Letters," No. xix., p. 31, March 26, 1548. * Neal, ii. 215. 506 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IX But though we have no right to assume it a priori, I believe there is but little difficulty in proving it as a fact. We often hear it said the Calvinists went far beyond Calvin. My own study of the question leads to a diametrically opposite conclusion. I doubt whether any of Calvin's followers went as far as Calvin himself. The most profoundly immoral and revoltingtenets of Calvinism are to be found in the "Institutes," and Calvin himself never receded from, but advanced upon the position he originally took up. There seem to me two ways in which we might attempt to state Calvinistic theology. We might either take its central doctrine, the doctrine of Predestination, by which it is chiefly known, and which most clearly distinguishes it from the Zwinglian type of Swiss theology, or we might attempt to present Calvinism as a whole, reasoned out with logical coherence from its fundamental principle. I propose to adopt the latter course, both because Calvin himself was a vigorously logical rcasoner — and we may feel pretty sure that we are in the main working on his lines — and also because it will help us to understand the interaction of all the parts of a theology or an author. Now, we may arrange any theology under these four heads: (i) Theology proper, the doctrine of God; (2) An- thropology, its teaching about man ; (3) Soteriology, its doctrine of salvation and the means of grace ; and (4) Eschatology, its teaching as to the last things. But though we may, for con- venience' sake, map out our subject thus, we cannot keep the parts distinct. For the view which any theologian holds about God must condition his view of man, and sometimes it is through what he tells us about man that we arrive at his fundamental view of God. Religion is a relation between God and man ; theology is a reasoned account of the related terms and of the relation which subsists between them. I begin, however, with Calvin's view of God. And here, explain it as we may, Calvin and Zwingli have in common something which distinguishes both from the theology of l.uther. It seems as if, by an unconscious agreement, the theologies which originated at the Reformation dixided ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT, 507 among them the Christian view of God. Just as in earlier days heretics separated the Gospels and made each severally the basis for a one-sided Christianity, while the Church united them into a harmonious whole, so the Saxon and the Swiss theologies tore asunder the seamless robe of Christian truth. Luther starts with God as love ; Zwingli and Calvin with God as power. Of the two, Luther was infinitely nearer to the Catholic view. " God is love " is the starting-point of all true theology, but the Lutheran view rapidly drifted away into a false view of what love is ; and in preaching the freedom of forgiveness, however little Luther meant it, opened the door to lawlessness and sin. *' Pecca fortiter sed fortius crede " is, to say the least of it, a dangerous teaching in an age of disintegration. On the other hand, no true theology teaches that God is omnipotence. He is omnipotent, yet even that is not true without qualification. There is much God cannot do. He cannot recall the past ; He cannot deny Himself ; He cannot do that which is wrong ; He cannot^ Catholic theology would add, save man in spite of Himself. With Calvin the thought of God's omnipotence throws all His other attributes into the shade. I do not mean that Calvin, totidem verbis, denies that God is good and just and loving, but that the dominant conception is that of Almightiness. There is, indeed, something wonderfully grand in Calvin's conception of the majesty of Jehovah, something which naturally connects itself with Old Testament theology. In fact, Calvin writes in an Old Testament atmosphere when he speaks of God. I think he reads the New Testament through the Old, rather than the Old through the New. It would be quite impossible for Calvin to be betrayed into the coarse familiarity which shows itself in Luther's [notion of his] rela- tions with God. We cannot conceive of Calvin saying, " I told the Almighty I would have no more to do with Him unless a sick friend (Philip Melanchthon) was restored to health." But, on the other hand, Calvin seems to us cold and hard and un- loving when he speaks of God. Clear, cold, logical, — all this he is ; but he is the antithesis of St. Augustine. It seems as if the rational and mystical elements in human nature, which 508 HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN must meet in a true conception of God, had fallen apart ; and while Luther's theology was dominated by an unreasoning and unreasonable love, Calvin's was no less dominated by an unloving and unlovable rationalism. Perhaps I have here overstated the antithesis, but I never read Calvin without feeling that the words, " God is love," are strangely out of harmony with his system, infinitely more out of harmony than with the teaching of Lutheranism, But the Calvinistic conception of God is only intelligible when interpreted by its view of the state of man. And here we may put side by side the teaching of the Catholic Church and the teaching of Calvinism. The Catholic Church teaches that, before the Fall, man as man was in the image of God, i.e. was gifted with reason and free-will ; that he lived in con- scious union with God, and that from that union sprang super- natural gifts. By the Fall this intimate union with God, and therewith the domtni siipcrnaturale^ was lost. Man retained still his natural gifts of reason and free-will, but there is an ara£/a, or loss of order, in his nature. His free-will is weakened, his vision of God is less clear ; there is a bias towards evil in him, because the frceuum cupiditdtis is re- moved. Calvinism teaches instead the Ruin of man. It is the first of the Calvinist's three R's.^ It begins by exaggerating the original state of man. and ends by exaggerating the ruin of the Fall. It denies the supernatural gift and makes original righteousness something inherent in human nature. It attributes to unfallen man free-will, indeed, and gifts of ''reason, intelligence, prudence, judgment, sufficient not only^ for the ordering of his earthly life, but enabling him to pass beyond it to God and eternal life." In JuU intcgritatc libero arbitrio pollcbat homo, quo si vcllct adipisci posset icttrnam vitam? The difficulty of reconciling this with the predesti- nation doctrine will appear later on. But by the Fall all this is l(jst. "The image of God is blotted out.'"' He is "banished from God's kingdom in such sort, that all that bears reference ' [Possibly, Ruin, Reprobation, and I'articular Redemption.] « '♦ Institutes," l. c. xv. § 8. =» IbiJ., iii. c. ii. § 12. ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT. 509 to the blessed life of the soul is extinct."^ Elsewhere he says " that, though the Divine image is not utterly made void and destroyed, it was so corrupted that all that remained was horrible deformity."^ "Nothing survived the ruin but what was confused, mutilated, and defiled." Dei imago sicvitiata acprope delcta est, lit nihil ex mind, nisi confusiun, vintiluni, labeqiie ijifectinn siipersit? Even what there is of reason and will in fallen man is left there, according to Calvin, only that man might not plead ignorance. But the " Institutes," after all, in this matter fall short of the later Calvinistic Confessions, apparently because, as the pre- destination doctrine overshadowed the whole of Calvin's theology, as it did after the controversy with Bolsec, many of the statements of the " Institutes " were treated as survi- vals of the old theology. When, a hundred years after the " Institutes," the Calvinistic Assembly of Divines attempted to revise the English Articles, they proposed to alter the phrase in Article IX., " is very far gone from original righteousness," into " is Vi'holly deprived of," and would have altered the phrase " inclined to evil " into " inclined only to evil." The English Church in this matter refused to adopt the language of the Calvinists afterwards, as in the formulating of her liturgy she had carefully weeded out similar statements from the Lutheran Liturgy of Cologne,* which the compilers of our Prayer-book largely used. It would be unfair to credit Calvinism as a system with the extravagances of Calvinistic preachers, especially as probably no Calvinistic tenet has been more frequently exaggerated than the doctrine of man's total depravity. Yet Calvinism is known by the doctrine of total depravity, and its defiant opposition to the facts of human nature, almost as much as by its doctrine of Predestination. And whatever we may say about the ex- travagances of preachers, they could at least claim the Cal- vinistic Confessions on their side. Thus, in the first Scotch Confession, 1560, it is said^ that God's image in man is " deformed," and men have become " enemies of God, servants » "Institutes," in. c. ii. § 12. 2 jf^ij,^ n. c. ii. § 12. ^ Ibid., r. c. xv. § 4. * See Laurence, pp. 2S3-3, * Art. III. Niemeyer, p. 342. 5IO HISTORY OF THE REFORMATIOy IX of Satan, slaves of sin, so that eternal death has and will have power over them, unless they have been, arc, or shall be born again from above." The [Belgic] Confession, composed in 1561, says that original sin is " the corruption of the whole nature, a hereditary vice by which infants are polluted in the womb, . . . and is so execrable in God's sight that it suffices for the condemnation of the whole race of man." ^ This second con- fession admits that " a tiny spark and meagre traces of his former nature remained, enough to make him inexcusable {adeo Jit lion nisi exiguce illornin scintillce et vestigia exilia illi relicta sint, quce snfficiant ad homines reddendos inexciisabiles)? The Westminster Confession of 1648 says that [Adam and Eve became] "wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."^ By the Fall man "became utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." Yet the worst of the Calvinist Confessions falls short of the Lutheran statement, which describes the state of man as ''Intinia,pessiuia,pi'ofundissi)na {instar cnjnsdain abyssi) inscrutabilis et ineffabilis corrnptio totijts natiirce /uofiancE." ^ We may, perhaps, wonder that the doctrine of total ruin has come to be so closely associated with Calvinism, since Calvin, as compared with Luther, was moderate and almost Catholic, but the explanation is to be found in the doctrine of free-will. Both, at different times, denied free-will. Luther began by denying it (in his controversy with Erasmus), but, without formally retracting, receded from his position, while Melanchthon distinctly recanted,^ and asserted the freedom of the will, which is to be found in most of the Lutheran for- mularies. Calvin, in the " Institutes," ^ recognizes free-will, but as the doctrine of predestination gradually comes to dominate his system, the freedom of the will disappears, and a rigid necessity takes its place. The corruption of man, if not con- ceived of as so complete by Luther, becomes more hopeless, and the passages in which the ruin was said to be partial ' Art. XV. Nicmeyer, p. 370. ' //'/o\\\\f\s plausible enough till we find that spontc sua does not imply any power of choice or any freedom of the will. To say, as l^eza does, that God justly decrees what man is unjust in doing, is to confound moral distinctions. I have dealt with even the part of the subject that I have touched most imperfectly ; and I can only hope that my paper, by its obvious incompleteness, may stimulate others to do what I have failed to do. He will have done a real work for the Faith of Christ who clearly distinguishes between that Faith and the immoralities of Calvinism. INDEX. Adrian VI., 367 " Advertisements," the, 266, 267 Agricola, 371, 422, 423 Albigenses, 349 Aleander, 366, 399, 401 Alexander VI., 269, 343, 356 Alien priories, 128 Allen, Cardinal, 296 sqq. Anabaptists, Dutch, 287 ; English, 220 ; German, 287 Annates, 39, 106, 112, 113, 117, 231, 240 Anselm, St., 32, zz^ 308 Appeals to Rome, 28, 33, 38, 108, ill, ii3» 153, 159, 231 Armada, the Great, 296, 303 Articles: VI., 21, 137, 140, 143, 231, 403; X., 135, 137, 161, 400; XL, 254; XXXIX., 257, 260, 504, 505, 507> 509 ; XLII., 209, 256 ; in Ireland, 280; Lambeth, 505, 511 Augsburg, Confession of, 318, 376, 377, 499, 504; Diet of, in 1530, 375, 380: Diet of, in 1547,422; Interim of, 181, 262, 422, 423, 500 ; Peace of, 426 B Bancroft's sermon, Archbishop, 294 Baptists, 287 Barlow, Bishop, 177, 219, 249-251, 253 Barnabites, 447 Barrowe, 285, 286 Barton, Elizabeth, 114 Basle, Council of, 39, 106, 338, 350 ; Compactata of, 341 Beard's, Mr., books, 64, 65, 230, 308 Becket, 34 Becket's shrine plundered, 136, 402 Benefit of clergy, 44, 106, iii Beza, 512, 518 Bible, English versions of the, 161, 254j 305 ; Irish version of the, 278 ; Welsh version of the, 236 ; study of the, 299 Bishops' Book, 139 Bishops, consecrated, 109, 218, 245, 248-250, 253; lands of, 240; licences to, 131, 160, 168, 169 Black Rubric, 208 Bohemia, 435, 437 Boleyn, Anne, 80, 81, 88, 94, 134 Bologna, 258, 417 Boniface VIII. , 334 Bonner, Bishop, 173, 200, 221 Breviary, 184, 185, 412 \ Brewer's, Mr., labours, 58 sqq. ! Brigittines, 117, 1 19 Browne, Robert, 285 Browne, Archbishop, 276 Bucer, 168, 205, 420, 423, 499, 501 Bugenhagen, 371, 423 Bullinger, 168, 204-206, 420 Burgundy, 357 ,20 INDEX. C Cajetan, 363 Calvin, 7, 204, 288, 382, 389, 439, 501 sqq. Cambray, Council to meet at, 407 ; League of, 359 ; Treaty of, 397 Cambridge, 100, 130, 268, 283 Campeggio, 83, 369, 370, 375, 401, 404 Campion, Edmund, 300 Canon law, 45, 160, 189, 257 Canons, 260-262 Capuchins, 447 Carafla. See Paul IV. Carlstadt, 371 Carthusians, 11 7-1 19 Cartwright, 283 *' Censura," Bucer's, 205, 206 " Census," the, 39 Chantries, 177 Charlemagne, Donation of, 329 Charles Borromeo, St., 428, 500 Charles Martel, 327, 328 Charles V., 25, 365, 368, 369, 426, 427 VIII., 345. 358 Church and State, 42, 57, 126 "Circles," 435 Clarendon, Constitutions of, 33, 47, 153 Clement VII., 369 Clergy, privileges of the, 43 sqq. Communion under both kinds, 175, 176, 377, 431, 432 Office, 179 Confessions of Faith, 137, 168, 383, 384 ; Augsburg, 318, 376, 377, 499, 500, 505 ; Belgic, 510 ; Helvetic, 168, 383 ; Saxon, 168, 425, 499 ; Scotch, 509 ; Tetrapolitan, 377 ; Va- riata, 383, 499; Westminster, 510, 511 ; Wirtcmbcrgensis, 428, 501, 505 ; Zurich, 168, 3S3 Constance, Council of, 32S, 350 Constantino, Donation of, 330 Contarini, 3, 399, 405, 443 Convocation, 101-105, 108, 109, 161, 168, 175, 224, 233, 257, 260 Councils, (k-ncral, no, 326, 327, 336, 339, 347, 3<^4, 368, 369, 379, 380, 395, 489 Counter- Reformation, in England, 295 sqq. ; on the Continent, 439-451 Courts, ecclesiastical, 45, 55, 122 sqq.^ 242 Cranmer, Archbishop, 93, 96, 100, 109, no, 214, 220, 223, 500 Cranmer's Catechism, 180 Crumwell, Thomas, 76, 96, 100, loi, n8, 121, 130, 131 Delegates, the Court of, 122-124, 154 Denmark, 438 Dispensations, n2, 113, 231 "Dissenter," the term, 270, 284 Divorce, Henry's, 23, 25, 64, 79-84, 93, 94, 99, 100, 109, no Doctrinal changes in England, 24, 93, 107, \\l, 137-143, 151, 161, 231, 309, 500 Douai, College of, 299, 305 Dunstan, St., 29, 149 Eckhart, Master, 349 Edgar, King, 149 Edward I., 36 — m., 37 VI., 162 sqq.^ 309 ; ecclesiastical legislation of, 166 ; Reformation be- gins under, 1 51, 232, 500 Election to bishoprics, 35, 54, n2, 121, 160, 176 Electors, the Seven, 434, 405 Elizabeth, 233 sqq., 294, 307, 309; ecclesiastical legislation of, 236 English religious houses on the con- tinent, 30 school at Rome, 38, 300 services, 161, 184, 238 Episcopacy jure diviiw, 294, 430, 431, 433 '* Epistolx Obscurorum Virorum," 353 Erasmus, 354 INDEX. 521 Erasmus's " Paraphrase," 170 Erastianism, 152 Exemption of clergy from taxation, 52 Fagius, 204 Family of Love, 2S7 Ferrar, Bishop, 177, 191, 199, 220, 223 Fish's "Supplication," 130 Fisher, Bishop, 97, 105, 115, 118, 119, 399 Florence, Council of, 350 Foreign influences in the English Re- formation, 181, 205. See Bicce7', Lidher, Melanchthon, Switzerland "Forged Decretals," 331 Foxe, John, 70 France, 438, 439, 442, 451 Frankenhausen, battle of, 372 Frankfort, Council at, 330 ; Diet of, 416 ; meeting at, 403 ; Troubles of, 262 Frith, John, ill, 138 Gardiner, Bishop, 163, 172, 173, 200, 213, 214, 219, 224 Germany, 357, 434, 450, 451 Gibson, Bishop, 158 Goldwell, Bishop, 245, 255, 413 "Gravamina, Centum," 368 Greenwich Friars, 116 Gregory VII. See Hildebraiid. Grindal, Archbishop, 290 Grosseteste, Bishop, "^(i H Ilagenau, conference at, 404 Hamilton, Archbishop, 272, 274 ; his Catechism, 161, 207 Hampton Court Conference, 505, 511 Heidelberg Catechism, 437 Henry I., 32 — n., 33 — ni.,35 Henry VIII. , character of, 23, 25 ; eccle- siastical legislation of, 90 ; excom- municated, 403 ; Reformation under, 19, 22, 230, 309, 320-325, 500 ; reign of, 66 sqq. Heresy laws, in, 219, 221 " Heretics," 21, 99, in Hermann of Cologne, Archbishop, 184, 499, 509 Hertford, Council of, 42, 257, 258 Hesse, 436 High Commission, Court of, 242 Hildebrand, 31, 152, 332, 333 History, religious view of, 2 Holy League, (i) 359; (2) 373 Homilies, 170 Honorius, Pope, 336 Hooker, Richard, 294, 490 Hooper, Bishop, 201, 220, 223 Hospitals, 178 Humphrey, Lawrence, 265, 267 Hutten, Ulrich von, 354 I Ignatius, St. See Loyola. Images, attack on, 171, 188 Independents, 282, 285, 286 Indulgences, 323, 361-363, 483, 487, 488 Injunctions of Edward VI., 171 ; of Mary, 215 ; of Elizabeth, 238, 257 Innocent HI., 345, 333 Inquisition, English, 242 ; Spanish, 221, 444 " Institution of a Christian Man, the," 139 Interim of Augsburg, 181, 262, 422, 423, 500; of Leipsic, 168, 423 Investitures controversy, 32, 53 sqq. Ireland, kingdom of, 33, 275, 277 ; Prayer-book and Bible translated, 278 ; Reformation in, 275 sqq. Isidorian Decretals, 331 J Jesuits, 16, 17, 298, 300, 321, 419, 449» 480 John, King, 34, 38, 334 52 IXDEX. John of Salisbury, 467 the Scot, 465 Julius II., II, 356 III., 424 Jurisdiction, 150, 156, 158, 251 Kappel, battle of, 386, 439 " King's Book," the, 141 Knox, John, 235, 263, 272, 273 L Lambeth Articles, 505, 511 Lasco, John a, 204, 205 Latimer, Bishop, 220, 223 Latin Prayer-books, 204, 254, 279 Legates, 33, 308, 443 Leipsic Interim, 16S, 423 Lent, proclamations as to, 179, 187 Leo X., II, 15, 356 Liturgies, Anglican : Order of 1 548, 1 79, 180, 505 ; First Prayer-book of Ed- ward VI., i82S(/(/.; Ordinal, igos(/(/.; Second Prayer-book of Edward VI., 207, 232 ; Elizabeth's Prayer-book, 244 ; /ris/i, 278 ; Middleburg^ 286 ; Roman, 183, 184, 412 ; Walloon, 205 ; Welsh, 236 Lollards. See Wyclif. Lorenzo de Medici, 344 Loyola, Ignatius de, 126, 449. See yesuits Luther, Martin, 6, 7, 320-325, 341 361 Siji]., 416, 418, 419, 439, 475 Xf/r/., 482 sqi]. ; and Zwingli, 375, 3«7. 389. 507. 5>» Luther's influence on the English Re- formation, 25, 142, 143, 320-325, 475. 477. 478, 486, 498-501 Magna Charta, 35 Mantua, 399-401 Marburg, Conference of, 375, 387, 389 Mar-prelate controversy, 292 jy/. Marriage of priests, 187, 376, 431 Married bishops, 218 sqq. Martin Mar-prelate, 292 sqq. Martyr, Peter, 205 Mary, Queen of England, 151, 210 sqq., 213; ecclesiastical legislation of, 212 , Queen of Scots, 162, 273-275, 295. 303 Maurice of Saxony, 417, 426 Melanchthon, 376, 377, 383, 439, 499, 501,510, 516, 518 Mill, J. S., 317, 393. 395. 503. 517 Miltitz, 364 Milton, 503 Missal, 183, 184, 412 Monasteries, 29, 30, 50 ; suppression of the, in England, 95, 120, 125 sqq., 130, 132, 137 ; in Ireland, 277 Monastic orders, 16, 30, 125, 446 More, Sir Thomas, 22, 115, 118, 119 Morone, Cardinal, 426, 433 Mortmain Acts, 91, 106, 120, 135 Mortuaries, 97 Muhlberg, battle of, 167, 417 Munster, troubles at, 398 Munzer, 372 •* Necessary Doctrine," the, 141 Netherlands, 357, 437, 451 New Learning in England, 22, 25 " Nonconformist," the term, 270, 2S4 Nuremberg, Diet of 1523 at, 367 ; Diet of 1524 at, 369 ; Peace of, 396 O M Magdalen College, Oxford, library of, 129, 130; monasteries given to, 130; President of, 265, 267 Observant Eriars, 116 Old Catholics, 487, 489 Oratorians, 448 •♦Oratory of Divine Love," 15, 399.443 Orders, Anglican, books on, 232 ; INDEX. 523 general objections to, 192 sqcj. ; ob- jections to Ordinal of 15 50, 222 sqg. ; objections to Parker's consecration, 247 sqq. Orders, minor, 192, 193 , monastic, 16, 30, 125, 446 Oxford, 100, 130, 297, 298 **Papa alterius orbis," 32, 308 Papacy, effects of mediaeval, 341 ; growth of the, 326 sqq.^ 489 Parker, Archbishop, 246, 266, 294 ; objections to his consecration, 247 sqq. Parsons, Father, 300 Passau, Treaty of, 425 Paul III., 399, 423 IV., 255, 270, 427, 428, 444 Paulines, 447 Pavia, battle of, 371, t;]-^ Penance, 362 Penry, 286, 293 Persecutions, under Mary, 220 sqq. ; under Elizabeth, 300, 307 Peter, Epistle of St., 328 Peter Pence, 38, 112, 113, 231 Philip Neri, St., 448 of Hesse, 167, 403, 417, 425 Pilgrimage of Grace, 135 Pilgrim Fathers, 286, 289 Pippin, Donation of, 329 Pisa, Council of, 337, 350 Pius IV., 255, 270, 271, 428, 433, 434 Pluralities Act, 97 Pole, Cardinal, 214, 216, 217, 219, 427, 443 Pollanus, Valerandus, 204, 205 Poynet's Catechism, 209 Prjemunire, 38-41, 93, loi, 159, 308 Prayer-book. See Latin and Liturgies. Preachers, 268 Predestination doctrine, 506, 511 sqq. Presbyterians, in England, 282, 285 ; in Scotland, 274, 275 Priesthood, theories of, 489 sqq. Primers, 143, 16 1 Privy Council, 123, 154, 162 Probate Act, 97 Proclamations, 121, 137 " Prophesyings," the, 289 '• Protestant," 4, 5 ; the term, 270, 374 " Provisions," 36, 37, 40, 41, 308 Puritans, beginnings of the, 201, 234, 235, 262, 268, 269, 283, 308-310; four stages in the history of the, 282, 286 ; name, 270, 284 ; new and old, 152, 383 ; separate from the Church, 268 Quaestors, 362, 432 Quakerism, 286 Quignon's Breviary, Cardinal, 185 R " Rationale," the, 175, 182 Ratisbon, conferences at, 3, 370, 404 ; Diet of, 416 ** Reformatio Legum," 189, 190, 259 Reformation ah intra, 349 , books on the Continental, 318 ; causes of the, 319, 360, 361 ; con- trast between Continental and Eng- lish, 5, 6, 319 -^'/^Zm 499 ; itlea of, 322 ; in England, 6, 22, 24, 25, 64, 65, 230, 235, 236 ; in Ireland, 275 sqq. ; in Scotland, 271 sqq. ; origin of, under Edward VI., 151, 232, 500; Parlia- ment, 87 sqq. ; Roman (see Jesnits and Trent, Council of) ; settlement, 235 ; views of the, 3 sqq., 14 Reims, academy at, 299 Religious orders, 16, 30, 125 sqq., 446 Renaissance, 9, 13, 351 ; in England, 22, 25 " Representing clause," the, 415, 441 Residence of bishops, 431, 433, 441 Reuchlin, 353 Ridley, Bishop, 202, 220, 223 Rome and England, 27 sqq., 255, 270, 271, 2()<^sqq., 30S-310 5^4 INDEX. Rome, origin of its power, 326 sqq. ; sack of, 32, 373, 374 Ruskin, Mr., 518 S Savonarola, 341 sqq. Saxon School of Reformers, 318, 382, 394 Saxony, 357, 35S, 435, 436 SchmalkaUlic League, 375, 395, 417 War, 167, 417 Scholasticism, 463, 465 Schools founded by Edward VI., 178 Scotland, Reformation in, 271 sqq. Seminaries, 289, 304, 305, 307, 433 Separatists of 1566, 26S, 269 Septuagint version, 306 Sievershausen, battle of, 426 Six Articles Law, 21, 137, 140, 143, 231. 403 Socinus, 7, 502 Somerset's rule, 163-165 Spain, 357, 429 J'/'/., 443 Spires, Diet of 1526 at, 373, 3S0 ; Diet of 152931, 374, 3S0; Diet of 1544 at, 409; proposed meeting at, in 1524, 371 Spiritual and civil power, relations of the, 147 sqq. Spurgeon, Mr., 503 "Submission of the Clerg}-," 101-106, III, 121 Subscription to the Articles, 260 Succession Acts, 115, 117 Suffragan Bishoprics Act, 118 Supplication of Beggars, 130; of the Ordinaries, 103 Suppression of the monasteries, 95, 120, 125 jyy., 130, 132, 137,277 Supremacy question, 114 sqq., 153 sqq. "Supreme Head," loi, 102, 116, 215, 241 Sweden, 439 Switzerland, influence on Knglish Re- formation, 171 ; reception of the Tridcntine decrees by, 443 ; Reform- ;itiun in, 1 08, 3S1 sqq., 420, 499 Templars suppressed, 1 28 Tetzel, 361, 362 Theatines, 446 Theodore, Archbishop, 28 Thomas of Canterbury, St., 34, 136, 402 Thwinge, Sir Robert, 36 Toleration, 288, 289 Treasons Acts, 113, 117, 121 Tremellio, 204 Trent, Council of, authorities on, 318 ; decrees accepted or refused, 271, 429, 445, 446; opening of the, 411-413 ; suggested, 407 ; translated to Bo- logna, 417; work of the, 321, 441 sqq., 514 Trinity College, Dublin, 281 Tunstall, Bishop, 174, 201 U Ulrich of Wiirtemberg, Duke, 398 Uniformity, idea of, 1S6, 209, 403 Universities consulted on the divorce, 99, 100, 115 " Uses," 50, 106, 120, 135 Ussher, Archbishop Henry, 281 Vesiiarian Controversy, 263 sqq. Vicar of Clirist, 45, m, 482; ^A St. Peter, 333 Vicenza, 401 Visitation, right of, 155 N'ulgaie version, 306 Waldcnses, 349 Welsh, Prayer-book and Bible ni, j^o Westminster Assembly, 503, 505, 509 Confession, 510, 511 Whitgift, Archbishop, 291 Wiclif. Sec Wydif. INDEX, 525 Wilfrid of York, 29 William the Conqueror, 31, 45, 150 Wills, 135 Wolsey, Cardinal, 58, 71-84, 93. 129 Worms, conference at, 404 ; Diet of, in 1 52 1, 366, 380; Diet of, in 1545, 410 Wyclif, 21, 25, 40, 95, 341, 456, 467. 469, 471 Younger Sons' Crusade, 135 Ziiricli, Consensus of, 168, 383 "Zurich Letters," 265, 269 Zwickau Prophets, 371, 372 Zwingli, 381 sqq., 504, 505, and see Switzerland ■RINTED ISY WILLIAM CLOWES ANU SONS, LONDON AND BFXCLES. V Date Due •^^J^P-f-SP HQlti^-^' 1 OB^*^*^ tiriT 1 r IM m J T ftija k -HeiH*-** irf^HMMli QMi«l'<4 APR Z 8 'SI ^^■■fl^^H^^VH MkklK lO^^^^^ni^rf Li.^. FACUW> 1 ^ PRINTED IN U. S. A. 1