V ,.;ry:;*'/ . •

• iLniaiBAisy

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
OF THE
Class of 1896 Fund

WORKS BY ABBOT GASQUET, D.D., O.S.B.
Rome. Second Edition, x«. net from ^ charges
"It is written with no desire to defend therapy fairl claim
which were made even by the faithful *''«£££ aHe has gone carefully
to represent an unbiassed survey of*e £™,f"h historians have too much
through a large body of evld e"«; "h'* « Ser t confirm than to upset
neglected, and that his investigations serve «m« for ;tude_
fjTsTo'o^mbrfnd^eSl^o5^^^^^

Times.

HENRY VIII AND THE ENGLISH MONASTERIES.
Seventh Edition, 8j. 6rf. net.
"The work of Abbot Gasquet on the dissolution of the English Monas-
orTginaTediS are shared by every candid student of the events of that
period."— Scottish Historical Review.
THE EVE OF THE REFORMATION. Studies in the Reli
gious Life and Thought of the English People m the Period
preceding the Rejection of the Roman Jurisdiction. Fourth
Edition, 6s. net. .
" Dr. Gasquet has produced a book which will set many men i thm king
He has done an excellent piece of work, and has offered to students of
history a highly interesting problem."— A thenceum.
THE BLACK DEATH OF 1348 AND I349- Second
Edition, 6*. -
"By far the most interesting and exhaustive record to be found of this
most appalling visitation."— The Morning Post.
THE LAST ABBOT OF GLASTONBURY, and other
Essays. Illustrated. Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
The first essay here reprinted, "The Last Abbot of Glastonbury," was
first published in 1895 as a separate volume, which has long been out ot
print: It gives an account of the destruction of the great Benedictine Abbeys
of Glastonbury, Reading, and Colchester, and of the tragic deaths of the last
abbots of those houses in the reign of Henry VIII. The other essays in the
volume are collected from various magazines, and have not previously
appeared in book form.
THE OLD ENGLISH BIBLE, and other Essays. Second
Edition, 6s. net.
" Full of the learning and research which Father Gasquet has made so
peculiarly his own." — Times.
ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION, and other
Essays. Crown 8vo, 6s. net.
LONDON: G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD
RELIGION
AND OTHER ESSAYS

LONDON : G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.
PORTUGAL STREET, KINGSWAY, W.C.
CAMBRIDGE : DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.
BOMBAY : A. H. WHEELER & CO.
NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.

ENGLAND UNDER THE
OLD RELIGION
AND OTHER ESSAYS

BY
FRANCIS AIDAN GASQUET, D.D.
ABBOT-PRESIDENT OF THE ENGLISH BENEDICTINES

LONDON
G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.
1912

CHISWICK PRESS : CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

TO THE READER
THE papers published in this volume do not seem
to call for any formal introduction. They are
printed in this collected form at the request of certain
friends, because many of them are now not otherwise
accessible. The essay which stands first, and which
gives the title to the volume, was written many years
ago but was not at the time printed. The subject I
subsequently treated at some length in my Eve of the
Reformation, and a great deal of light has lately been
thrown upon it by the publication of Dr. James Gairdner's
three volumes on Lollardy and the Reformation in Eng
land. To this important work I might perhaps have use
fully appealed to strengthen by Dr. James Gairdner's
authority the conclusions I had reached many years ago.
In place of the notes I had prepared for this purpose I
prefer to send my readers to these instructive volumes,
as necessary for all students of this period of our history.
Several others of these papers have not previously
been printed in England. They formed the subjects of
a series of lectures given some years ago in America,
and were printed at the time in a well-known publication
connected with Notre Dame University, Indiana, U.S.A.,
— the Ave Maria. The Essay on Anglican Orders was
likewise printed as a booklet, but it has always been
difficult to obtain in England, and has lately, I believe,

viii TO THE READER
been out of print even in America. For this reason I
have been asked to include it in this volume.
My thanks are due to those who have allowed me to
reprint my papers, and to Dom Norbert Birt who has
seen this volume through the press and has added a
general Index.
Francis Aidan Gasquet.
Campolungo, Le Caldine, Florence.
2nd October 1912.

CONTENTS PAGE
England under the Old Religion i
wolsey and the divorce  57
What, then, was the English Reformation? . . 86
Edward VI and the Catholic Liturgy . . 113
The Question of Anglican Ordinations . . -144
A Commission on the Greek Ordinal in the Seven
teenth Century  175
A Hundred Years Ago: a Glance at the Former
Position of English and Irish Catholics . . . 194
The Holy Eucharist in Pre-Reformation Times . 220
Scotland in Penal Days: a Historical Survey . 239
The Makers of St. Gregory's, Downside . . . 263
France and the Vatican  288
Editing and Reviewing  327
Index  347

ENGLAND UNDER THE
OLD RELIGION1
AT the dawn of the sixteenth century one form of
religion only was recognised in the greater part
of the Western World. Christian Europe, with the soli
tary exception of the Muscovite territory, at that time
professed to be one in faith and one in ecclesiastical
government, the various nations and peoples forming
parts of a single organised Church with its centre at
Rome. Here and there, indeed — as in Bohemia for ex
ample — small bodies of men and women had broken
away from the visible unity of the Catholic Church.
But on all hands these were regarded merely as sect
aries with no call for consideration except as heretics
such as the Church had frequently cast off from itself
in the course of its long existence. In less than half a
century change had come: the state of things, which
whether for good or evil had in fact lasted for many
hundreds of years, had passed away like a dream, and
the ecclesiastical unity of Europe was broken apparently
beyond remedy.
The present sketch deals with the ecclesiastical con
dition of England whilst as yet the country remained
linked in the closest bonds of unity of faith and practice
1 A paper written in 1903, but not then printed.
B

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 3
ishment, as if their founders out of worldly vanity built
temples to God ten times larger than the requirements
of the population." l The energy of its being was patent
to the world in the hospitals, colleges, and schools which
either owed their existence to its initiative, or had grown
and multiplied under its fostering care; whilst in its
parochial system the pulse of its life beat with vigour and
regularity in every hamlet in the land, and gave light
and courage and strength, even human interest and cor
porate existence, to thousands of obscure villages scat
tered over the length and breadth of the country. As an
organisation it went back into the past beyond the ken
of history. It had survived amid turmoil and trouble,
amid national danger and disaster, and it had witnessed
the fall, as before it had witnessed the rise, of the various
dynasties which for periods more or less lengthy had
ruled over the destiny of England.
All this may, and indeed must, be admitted as a fact
by the student of history wholly apart from the question
of the worth of the system itself. Upon this matter
opinions will differ; the existence of the system is not
open to doubt.
We, are not at present concerned with the details of
this vast organisation; nor, indeed, to examine the
purely ecclesiastical action of the Church at this period.
Our desire is mainly to gauge the extent and character
of the influence exerted by the Church on the English
people at the close of the mediaeval portion of our his
tory, and to determine its position before the full dawn
of the modern period had scattered what is called " the
darkness " of the preceding ages, and the new light had
brought about many and perhaps inevitable changes.
1 Brewer, ii, 471.

4 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
What can be said, for example, about the action of this
great and ancient ecclesiastical system upon society at
large? What manifestations of its life, energy, and in
fluence, if any, are to be detected in the closing period
of its supremacy? What was the attitude of its rulers,
for instance, to the intellectual movements which form
a marked feature in the latter half of the fifteenth and
the beginning of the sixteenth century? These and such
like are questions which fully deserve the unbiassed
consideration of the student as a preliminary to the
formation of any fairly accurate estimate of the period of
modern history which immediately follows.
Other matters also, closely connected with the subject
of England at this period, hardly less important than
the foregoing, deserve consideration and examination.
The clergy generally and the religious bodies form but
one part, and that obviously by no means the largest
part, of the Church, and it is consequently necessary to
look upon the subject from the point of view of the
people as distinct, or at least as differing, from the purely
ecclesiastical side of the matter. What, for example, at
this period was the attitude of the English nation at
large towards the religious system as it then existed?
How were they affected towards and by the teachings
and practices of religion as they then knew them in this
country? Does the evidence which we possess show
them to have been on the whole docile to the instruction
of the ministers of the Church, or were they, on the con
trary, eagerly looking out for any chance help which
might serve to emancipate them from a clerical domina
tion which time and custom had imposed upon them?
Were they fairly content with what they had inherited
from their forefathers, or were they ready to free their

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 5
minds from teachings which they had learnt to discredit,
and deliver their souls from practices they had come to
regard as superstitious and degrading to the true Christ
ian character? As a fact, then, were the people in gen
eral fairly careful to observe the forms and practices
of the then religious worship, or were they ever ready to
seize upon any excuse to free themselves from obliga
tions they no longer regarded as binding on the con
science? As a fact, was the nation athirst for what it
conceived to be pure Gospel teaching, free from the
accretions and superstitious practices which had grown
up about it during the lapse of ages?
These are questions which may be discussed, as mere
matters of fact, wholly without bias for or against the
religious system which then prevailed in England. It
must at the outset be confessed that the picture of
Catholic England usually presented in our history books
is drawn with black lines against a dark background. It
is represented that the prevailing ecclesiastical system
had outlived its time, and that, whilst itself manifesting
all the evils, moral and social, inherent in the process of
natural decay, it had become wholly impotent to deal
with or resist the flood of those enlightened views which
came rolling in with the dawn of modern times. The
clergy, secular as well as religious, are described as not
merely themselves ignorant and uncultured, but as the
active and uncompromising foes of learning in others,
seeing in fuller knowledge and light the overthrow of
their supremacy. The people generally at this period
are described as examples of careless disregard of the
forms and practices of religion, and the best of them as
looking forward to emancipation from the existing
clerical tyranny.

6 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
Such is the picture which is very commonly presented
as being a fair representation of the state of things*in
Catholic England immediately before the great change
of religion in the sixteenth century. We have fortunately
ample material at hand to enable us to form for our-
selves an accurate judgment of its correctness. With
out doubt there were defects and difficulties, abuses also
— perhaps even gross abuses — existing, but the question
is whether they were not defects, difficulties, and abuses.
which cannot in fairness be considered inherent in the
system, however much they may be thought to have in
some measure contributed to its overthrow. What does
an examination of the available evidence show? We
begin by a consideration of what is known about the
attitude of the Church authorities to learning in general,
and in particular to the revival of letters in the fifteenth
century, known as " the new learning!'
With the history of this renaissance we have here no
concern beyond recalling certain facts which bear im
mediately upon our present subject and which, if fairly
considered, seem to prove beyond the possibility of
doubt that not only did the ecclesiastical authorities in
England as a body welcome the new light, but that both
in the origin of the movement and in its subsequent
progress they were its chief cause and support. ...
For the attitude of the clergy in general to education^
and to what is known as the " humanist " movement at
this period, it may be here sufficient to refer to the
abundant evidence to be found in the numerous letters
of Erasmus. According to his testimony — and it is im
possible to wish for a better judge — England was then
the promised land of true scholarship, the great hope for
the future. Again and again he names as the chief

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 7
patrons of learning and as those who gave most en
couragement to true classical and critical studies, the
most distinguished English churchmen of the period. It
is impossible to doubt the real sentiments of the church
authorities on this matter when we find Archbishop
Warham, Bishop Tunstal, Dean Colet, William Latimer,
Richard Croke, Thomas Lupset and the saintly Bishop
Fisher, not to mention Grocyn and Linacre (who in the
last years of his life entered the sacred ministry) among
the warmest friends of Erasmus and as the most ardent
and consistent advocates of " the new learning."
That there was opposition might almost go without
saying. Of course there were to be found some who
actively opposed the movement, and others who looked
askance at it, especially after the publication of Erasmus'
translation of the New Testament from the Greek. It
could hardly have been otherwise in a case such as this;
ecclesiastics, for the most part, were then the intellectual
heirs of those who, since the time of Roger Bacon's futile
attempt in the thirteenth century to establish critical
investigation as the surest and most faithful handmaiden
of theology and sacred studies generally, had been ac
customed to accept unquestioned stereotyped scholastic
conclusions. Men with minds trained in this wise sud
denly found an appeal proclaimed to original authorities,
and the demand formulated that theology should be
studied in the text of Sacred Scripture, and in the works
of the Fathers rather than in the well worn manuals of
the schools. What could they think? especially when by
the publication of Erasmus' version of the Testament
they found that the same principles of criticism, which
scholars had been lately applying to the pagan classics,
were now to be considered by the advanced school as

8 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
proper to he applied to the sacred text itself. " Theolp|
gians and monks " are, according to Erasmus, the most
conservative members of the old school, and most actively
opposed to the new movement. Doubtless there were
many such, who regarded with fear and suspicion all
humanist criticism as applied to sacred subjects. In all
movements such as this the hostility -and opposition of
those of an older school of thought is inevitable, and
from their point of view most reasonable. But with all
this the letters sent out of England to Erasmus and
other scholars abroad, on the first publication of the
New Testament, translated from the Greek, prove that
as a body the English Bishops and other distinguished |
ecclesiastics cordially approved the principles of this
critical investigation of the sacred text. Also it is clear
that, under the direct and personal influence of Bishop '
Fisher, the theological studies at Cambridge were at this
time remodelled, and in the opinion of competent judges
vastly improved upon the new principles and methods
introduced by the humanists.
Inevitably under the circumstances, both in England
and among theologians of the old school abroad — at-
Louvain and Paris for example — there was a tendency*'
to find in the rise of the new learning a phase of the
then growing revolt against the existing ecclesiastical:
system. The ugly word " heresy " was uttered somewhat'
freely, and many in their perhaps natural, but unreason
ing, alarm declared that Erasmus, the recognised leader
of the "humanists," was not merely Lutheran in his
spirit and sympathy, but that he had in fact assisted the
German reformer in some of his most drastic attacks
against Rome, and the universally recognised form of
ecclesiastical government. Against such accusations and

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 9
insinuations Erasmus loudly protested. They were, he
contended, warranted neither by fact nor presumption.
Luther, he pointed out, had never shown the least in
clination for the new learning, or its methods; nor in
the whole of the reformer's works, so far as he had heard
(for he himself, he avers, had never read them) had the
German leader ever professed to base his arguments on
the new criticism, or to fashion his attacks in form or
substance upon it. Far from allowing that there was any
alliance offensive and defensive between the spirit of
the new learning and that of the Reformation, Erasmus
plainly and loudly laments the method of Luther's
attacks, as calculated to produce what he frequently
calls a " tragedy," and with true and prophetic insight
predicts that the movements will prove to be not only
the disruption of ecclesiastical unity but the letting loose
of a flood, in which the new spirit of true learning would
be overwhelmed and killed in its early growth. As a
proof that the humanist studies were not in any way
hostile to the spirit of the Church, he claims not only
that in all he had done he was actuated by a desire to
serve it to the best of his power, but that in all things
he was the faithful subject of Rome, working with the
approval of Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops, and having
received encouragement from the best and truest and
most faithful churchmen in England, including the
saintly Bishop Fisher and the most profoundly religious
layman of his age, Sir Thomas More. Whilst recognis
ing, as so many at that period did, the need of church
reform in " head and members,'' this recognised leader
of the new learning more than once recorded his convic
tion that Lutheranism was in reality a revolution, which
must inevitably prove to be to the world religious and

io ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
secular nothing less than a catastrophe, and declared his
determination, that come what might, he would himself
never be anything but a true and loyal son of Holy- 1
Church. Taking then a broad survey of the circumstances, lit
would appear not open to doubt that the intellectual '{
movement initiated in the fifteenth century, and known
as the " new learning," so far from being opposed by the
ecclesiastical authorities in England at that period, re
ceived its chief support from them. The same will appear
on a consideration of its origin. The first name certainly
connected with any systematic attempt to implant in
England the seeds of the humanist studies which had
begun to bear such ample fruit in the soil of Italy is that
of a monk of Canterbury, William Sellyng. After study-.
ing at his monastic college at Oxford, he obtained the
sanction of his Canterbury brethren in 1464 to proceed
to Italy with another monk of the same house, Thomas
Hadley, in search of the learning of ancient Greece,
which some few years before had been brought thither,
and which had inflamed many with an ardour hitherto
unknown for classical and critical studies. From Italy,;
where after sitting at the feet of the best teachers of the
age 'he and his companion took their degrees in 1466
and 1467, the two monks returned to their monastery at
Canterbury, bringing back not merely the knowledge '
they had acquired in the best schools of Italy, but a
precious store of manuscript copies of the ancient classics
and of Greek patristic literature. Other journeys to
Italy followed, and in time Sellyng became Prior, and
Hadley sub-prior of their monastery at Canterbury.
1 Mazzetti Serapino, Memorie storiche sopra V university di
Bologna, 1840, p. 308.

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION n
Through Prior Sellyng's direct teaching and influence
the lamp of learning was handed on to Linacre and
Grocyn, and when in i486 the monk was sent by
Henry VIII as spokesman of an important embassy to
the Pope, he took his young protige", Linacre, with him
to Italy, and induced the celebrated Angelo Politiano
to undertake his training in the classical languages of
Greece and Rome. The fame of the pupil has somewhat
obscured that of his master, but whilst Linacre and his
fellow student Grocyn have long been regarded as the
originators of the English literary renaissance, the real
pioneers of the movement were indubitably the two Can
terbury Benedictines, who more than twenty years before
had recognised the importanceof the new light, had sought
it in Italy, and brought it back to their own country.
There is, moreover, abundance of proof that in the
monasteries of England there were those who were not
backward in profiting by the advance made at this time
in education and scholarship. The name of Prior Char-
nock, the Oxford friend of Colet and Erasmus, is per
haps better known than those of some others with an
equal claim to be considered leaders in the movement.
There is evidence of the existence of real scholarship at
Reading, at Ramsey, at Glastonbury, and elsewhere.
The last named house was presided over by a man ap
parently of real learning, Abbot Bere, who had spent
some time with distinction in Italy. It was to his special
criticism that Erasmus proposed to submit his transla
tion of the New Testament from the Greek; and in the
time of his predecessor in the government of the abbey
a copy of one of the humanist translations was accounted
as a fitting present to a monk from his abbot.1 From the
1 Add. MSS., 15673.

12 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
pen of Prior Sellyng we possess one of the earliest
translations made in England at this time from the
Greek into the Latin. It is a version of a sermon of
St. John Chrysostom, and it is dated at Christchurch,
Canterbury, in 1488, whilst as yet Linacre was a youth
studying with the younger Medicis under Politiano at
Florence. At Canterbury, too, besides the influence of
Sellyng in Christchurch, over which he presided till a
late period in the fifteenth century, we have evidence
that the advantages of classical literature were fully
recognised at the abbey of St. Augustine's. The anti
quary, Twyne, declares that he had been intimately
acquainted with the last abbot of that monastery, and
that he had frequently heard him discourse upon the
ancient classics. He knew him, he says, to have been
the personal friend of the eminent scholar, Ludovico
Vives, and to have sent one of his monks, whom he
afterwards made Prior of his monastery, to Louvain
University to study literature under this celebrated
Spanish humanist.
Nor is the evidence of this literary revival at this
period confined to individuals or to some few monas
teries. The registers of the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge prove, in regard to religious, two things:
first, that a very fair proportion of those who took
degrees were members of some religious Order, and
secondly, that the numbers rather increased than dimin
ished in the closing years of their corporate existence as
monasteries. Moreover, the acknowledged serious diminu
tion in the number of students at the national Univer
sities which followed upon the dissolution of the religious
houses is additional evidence of a fact sufficiently proved
by the various episcopal registers that the monastic

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 13
houses and convents furnished a considerable portion of
the secular clergy with the necessary " title " to enable
them to enter the ranks of the priesthood and to study
at the Universities.
We possess also another test of the attitude of the
Church in England at the close of the fifteenth century
to what, broadly speaking, may be called "progress."
Two things at that time are frequently taken as evidences
of the changed condition of things, the rise of the new
learning and the invention of printing. The position
of the ecclesiastical authorities in regard to the former
has been pointed out, and the evidence compels us to
regard the movement in England as in every way
Catholic in its spirit; just as Jansens has long ago
proved that it was in Germany warmly supported by
churchmen of unsuspected orthodoxy. In regard to the
latter — the invention of printing — which entirelychanged
the intellectual outlook at this period, there is equally
clear proof that it was welcomed by the Church as a
valuable auxiliary. In England the first presses were set
up under the distinct patronage of churchmen, and a
very large proportion of the works which were first
issued from them were intended for the religious instruc
tion of the clergy and people. Volumes of sermons, of
Instructions on the creed and commandments, of medita
tions, of Saints' lives and of Scripture history, like the
Golden Legend, passed quickly through successive edi
tions from the presses of Caxton, Wynkyn de Worde,
and other of our early printers. If we do not include
what might be considered as strictly professional books
intended for the use of the clergy, such as Missals,
Breviaries, and Horae, there is still an ample supply of
religious literature to instruct or to feed the piety of the

14 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
faithful, for the bulk of the output of the English presses
in the first years of the existence of the new art is dis
tinctly religious literature. Our early printers were
clearly men of business, and they are hardly likely to
have made choice of such volumes if they did not possess^
a real commercial value. In other words, this class of
religious literature obviously commanded a sale, and
from the many editions through which some of these
books ran, we are disposed to think a ready sale, which
of course implies a people well affected towards this
class of literature.
Unlike Germany, France, and Italy, England, it is
true, produced no early printed vernacular version of the
Scriptures, and this has frequently been supposed to
have been caused by the marked hostility of the eccle
siastical authorities to the production of any such ver
sion. It would seem, however, more in accordance with
all that can be known upon the matter to conclude that
it was rather that the need was not considered so press
ing, than that the Church was determined to thwart the
endeavours of a people eager to possess the Bible in
their own tongue. It seems certain that some people at
least were then in possession of the Scriptures in Eng
lish with the approval of ecclesiastical authorities. Sir
Thomas More, the most able lawyer of his age, certainly
knew of no prohibition against them, and in books
printed by men of authority and undoubted piety the
reading of the Scriptures is strongly recommended.:
Thus Thomas Lupset, the protege1 of Colet and Lilly,
addresses the following advice to his sisters, two of
whom were nuns: "Give thee much to reading: take
heed in meditation of the Scripture; busy thee in the
law of God ; have a customable use in divine books."

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 15
To a young man of the world, his former pupil, he
writes urging him to avoid " meddling in any point of
faith otherwise than as the Church shall instruct and
teach," and adds : " More particularly in writings you
shall learn this lesson, if you would sometimes take in
your hands the New Testament and read it with a due
reverence." And also: ''In reading the Gospels, I would
you had at hand Chrysostom and Jerome, by whom you
might surely be brought to a perfect understanding of
the text."
It is of course true that on the appearance of the
English Testament printed by Tyndall on the Continent
in 1526, its sale was prohibited in England. But this is
not surprising. Sir Thomas More denounced this version
as plainly heretical, and Archbishop Warham and the
English Bishops generally ordered that all who possessed
copies should give them up to the authorities, because
the heretical purpose of the work was fully understood.
Cochlaeus, with his accurate knowledge of Lutheran
movements, informs us what that purpose was : namely,
that it was no mere translation which Tyndall had
printed, but a work projected and carried out with the
deliberate design of introducing Lutheranism into Eng
land under cover of garbled and mistranslated texts.
Nor, indeed, does it appear at all likely that the popular
mind was in any way stirred by the desire for Bible
reading, or that England was at this period what has
been called " a Bible-thirsty land." The late Mr. Brewer
may be allowed to speak with authority on this matter.
"Nor, indeed, is it possible," he says, " that Tyndall's
writings and translations could at this early period have
produced any such impression as is generally surmised,
or have fallen into the hands of many readers. His

16 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
works were printed abroad; their circulation was strictly
forbidden ; the price of them was far beyond the means
of the poorer classes, even supposing that the knowledge!
of letters was at that time more generally diffused than
it was for centuries afterwards. To imagine that plough
men and shepherds in the country read the New Testa
ment in English by stealth, or that smiths and carpenters,
in towns, pored over its pages in the corners of their
masters' workshops is to mistake the character and ac
quirements of the age." l
It is very probably true that up and down the country
there were some over whom the traditional teaching of
the Church had lost its hold, and who would be inclined
to welcome emancipation from the restraints of what
they had come to regard as ecclesiastical formalism. The
Venetian traveller, in A.D. 1500, describes a certain5
amount of mental unrest when he says that, " there are
many who have various opinions concerning religion.'"
But so far as there is evidence on the matter at all, this
dissatisfaction could only have been slight and confined!
within narrow limits. The common 'notion that on the*
eve of the great change the country was honeycombej
by disaffection to the ancient Church, or that any real
portion of the people were crypto-Lollards, has no basis
of fact on which to repose. In one sense the very
opposite would appear to be certain; for however
striking may be the similarities traceable between the
tenets of the English Wyclifites of the fourteenth cen
tury and those of the reformers of the sixteenth, it may
be taken as certain that, so far as England is concerned,
there is no line of descent from Wyclif and his immedi
ate adherents to the upholders of the English Reforma-
II, 468. ' Camden Soc, 163.

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 17
tion principles. As a body the Lollards had been
extinct long before the advent of Lutheranism, and the
few scattered individuals who may have clung to the
religious tenets of Wyclif were powerless against the
general consensus of opinion among their countrymen.
" Heresy," as Lollard teaching was then held to be, was
repressed by the strong arm of the law ; and it is not
open to doubt that the repression of what was an offence
against the common feeling of the people was popular.
" Wickliffe's preaching, at which all the succeeding re
formers have effectually lighted their tapers," says Mil
ton, " was but a short blaze soon damped and stifled by
the pope and prelates for six or seven kings' reigns."
This, which the insight of Milton's genius divined, is
attested as a fact by the episcopal registers and other
authoritative documents of the fifteenth century. Dr.
James Gairdner, whose studies in this period of our
national history enable him to speak authoritatively on
such a matter, is fully as definitive. " Notwithstanding
the darkness that surrounds all subjects connected with
the history of the fifteenth century," he writes, " we may
venture pretty safely to affirm that Lollardry was not
the beginning of modern Protestantism. Plausible as it
seems to regard Wyclif as ' the morning star of the Re
formation,' the figure conveys an impression which is
altogether erroneous. Wyclif's real influence did not
long survive his own day, and so far from Lollardry
having taken any deep root among the English people,
the traces of it had wholly disappeared long before the
great revolution of which it is thought to be the fore
runner. At all events, in the rich historical material for
the beginning of Henry VI IPs reign, supplied by the
correspondence of the time, we look in vain for a single
c

18 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
indication that any such thing as a Lollard sect existed,
The movement had died a natural death; from the time
of Oldcastle it sank into insignificance. Though still
for a while considerable in point of numbers it no longer
counted among its adherents any men of note; and
when another generation had passed away the serious
action of civil war left no place for the crochets of
fanaticism." I
On a survey of the circumstances and an examinational
of the evidence it would appear, therefore, that the his
torian is bound to hold that under the first two Tudor
sovereigns England was really Catholic in mind and
heart. Ammonius, it is true, speaks in one of his letters
of a rapid growth of religious independence among the
lower and illiterate classes; but, if we except manifesta-?
tions of impatience at the Pope and his Curia, there is
little in the papers of the period to bear out this im
pression. On the contrary, Brewer, the best possible
authority as to this, assures us that in his opinion every
thing proves that " the general body of the people had
not as yet learned to question the established doctrines
of the Church. For the most part they paid their Peter-
pence and heard Mass and did as their fathers had done
before them."1
This is certainly the impression made in 1500 upon
the writer of the Venetian relation before referred to in
regard to the general disposition of the people towards;
the Church. As a foreigner his testimony is particularly
valuable, and he appeals to the experience of his master
and the companion of his travels to confirm his impres
sions. His was no mere praise, for he fully saw the weak
points of the character of the people he was describing.
1 I, p. 51.

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 19
" The English," he wrote, " are great lovers of themselves
and of everything belonging to them; they think that
there are no other men but themselves and no other
world but England, and whenever they see a handsome
foreigner they say that ' he looks like an Englishman,'
or that ' it is a great pity that he should not be an Eng
lishman.' When they partake of any delicacy with a
foreigner they ask him ' Whether such a thing is made
in his country.'" In these sketches of the traditional
Englishman we may recognise the work of an intelligent
observer. In regard to the religious practices of the
people he says : " they all attend Mass every day and
say many Pater Nosters in public. The women carry
long rosaries in their hands, and any who can read take
the Office of Our Lady with them, and with some com
panion recite it in church verse by verse in a low voice,
after the manner of churchmen. On Sunday they always
hear Mass in their parish church and give liberal alms,
because they may not offer less than a piece of money,
of which fourteen are equivalent to a golden ducat.
Neither do they omit any form incumbent on good
Christians." This foreigner's assertion that the English people of
the year 1 500 were, as a rule, present at daily Mass may
offer to some in these days merely one of those strange
tales travellers proverbially tell. Some years later, how
ever, another Venetian attached to the Embassy in
London implies that the story is true and declares that
each morning "at daybreak he went to Mass arm in
arm with some English nobleman or other." 1 And later
still, after the great change had come, one, who should
have best known the common practices previously in
1 Ven. Col., ii, 91.

20 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION >
vogue, holds up to ridicule the traditional observances
of those who run " from altar to altar, and from sacring,
as they call it, to sacring, peeping, tooting, and gazing at
that thing which the priest held up in his hands . . .
and saying, ' this day have I seen my Maker,' and
' I cannot be quiet except I see my Maker once a
day.'"1 To pass to another point : nothing in the history of
English architecture is more remarkable than the great
and increasing activity manifested during the fifteenth
century. From one end of England to the other the
cathedrals and parish churches furnish evidence of skill,
labour, and money expended upon these sacred build
ings. In spite of the civil contentions, which so long
during the same period distracted the country, and which
might naturally have been supposed to have paralysed
all effort, it is hardly any exaggeration to say that every
village church in England manifests some indication of
this marvellous activity. In many cases indeed there
is evidence of personal care in the smallest details.
Prior Sellyng, to take but one "example, in the midst of
the cares incidental to the administration of a large
house like Christchurch, Canterbury, and in spite of the
preoccupation consequent on the student's life he led to
the end of his days, is found discussing with evident
pleasure and intelligence the details of the pinnacles for
the great bell tower at the cathedral, for which he
furnished the Archbishop with various drawings.
The fifteenth century, and the first quarter of the next,
was an age of decoration which may be almost called
lavish. The fondness for straight in place of flowing
lines was more and more developed : groined roofs were
1 Cranmer, Works on the Supper, Parker Soc, p. 229.

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 21
enriched by extra ribs and panels of tracery, and finally
the keystones became pendants, and the springers
branched out like palm trees, and formed the rich and
entirely English variety of groin called " fan-tracery,"
such as we see it at Bath, Sherborne, Eton, and King's
College, Cambridge. " In other respects," says a modern
writer, " the architects of the fifteenth century were very
successful. Few things can be seen more beautiful than
the steeples of Gloucester Cathedral, or of St. Mary's,
Taunton. The open roofs, as for example that of
St. Peter Mancroft, Norwich, are superb, and finally
they (i.e., our forefathers of the fifteenth century) left us
a large number of enormous parish churches all over
the country, full of interesting furniture and decora
tion."1 It is, however, not merely the universality of the
movement which impelled men at this time to lavish
their wealth upon the building and beautifying of God's
sanctuary, and the fact that it was in many ways the
best, and certainly the last, expression of Gothic as a
living art, which deserves notice, but the truth that the
very source of the ecclesiastical benefactions in the later
fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries was different from
what it had previously been. This period, as is well
known, gave rise to the great middle class, and no
longer, as in earlier times, were the gifts to church
building and decoration contributed either wholly, or
even chiefly, by the nobility. Here, as in Germany, the
burgher folk, the merchants and the middle class gener
ally, began literally to pour their gifts into a common
fund from which to beautify their parish churches with a
profusion which corresponds to, and is indicative of,
1 Encyc. Brit., sub verbo.

22 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
the general growth in the material comforts of life, and
would seem to show that religion had in no wise lost its
hold over the hearts of the people.
Those who have not given special attention to the
subject cannot possibly realise how the churches through
out England, from the great cathedrals and abbey,
churches down to the poorest and meanest little village
sanctuary, say away among the Quantock hills on the
borders of Exmoor, or in the wilds of Cumberland, were
simply overflowing with wealth and objects of beauty. ?
The inventories of English churches of this period when
compared, say, with those of Italy, reveal the astonishing'
fact that those of this country were in every way incom
parably better equipped with plate, furniture and vest
ments. The Venetian visitor to England at the begin-^
ning of the sixteenth century was impressed by this very
fact. After speaking of the sums of money regularly _
given to the Church and of the wealth of England gener
ally as compared with other countries — as proved by the
articles of silver plate to be found even in the houses of
men of very moderate means, the writer proceeds : " But
above all are their riches displayed in the church treasures,
for there is not a parish church in the kingdom so mean
as not to possess crucifixes, candlesticks, censers, potents,
and cups of silver ; nor is there a convent of mendicant
friars so poor, as not to have all these same articles in
silver, besides many other ornaments worthy of a cathedral
church in the same metal. Your Magnificence may there
fore imagine what the decorations of those enormously
rich Benedictine, Carthusian and Cistercian monasteries
must be. ... I have been informed that amongst other
things many of these monasteries possess unicorns' horns
of an extraordinary size. I have also been told that they

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 23
have some splendid tombs of English saints, such as
St. Oswald, St. Edmund and St. Edward — all kings and
martyrs. I saw one day being with your Magnificence
at Westminster, a place out of London, the tomb of that
saint, King Edward the Confessor, in the church of
the aforesaid place, Westminster; and indeed neither
St. Martin of Tours, a church in France, which I have
heard is one of the richest in existence, nor anything
else that I have ever seen, can be put into any com
parison with it. The magnificence of the tomb of
St. Thomas the martyr, Archbishop of Canterbury, sur
passes all belief."
Our immediate concern, however, is not to follow this
Venetian visitor in his descriptions of the wealth and
wonders of art to be found in the greater churches of the
kingdom, but to bespeak the reader's attention to the
smaller parish and village sanctuaries. Unfortunately
the documentary evidence is now only very fragment
ary. Most of the papers and books dealing with the
corporate life of the village which centred round the
church before what a modern writer has called "The
Great Pillage," have perished. Sufficient material, how
ever, still exists to enable the student of early records to
form a reliable opinion, not merely as to the state of the
parish churches at this period, but also as to the part
, taken by the parishioners in their adornment and main
tenance. An examination of such Churchwarden's Ac
counts as we possess is sufficient to prove that specific
gifts and contributions towards the purchase of furniture,
plate, and sacred vestments flowed in an ample stream
to the churches from men and women of all classes.
These riches and objects of beauty thus provided ren
dered their parish churches the pride of the country

24 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
folk, who sought to make them, so far as the humble walls
would allow, the fairest places in all the land in which
they dwelt.
From these records we may learn a good deal about
the active and intelligent interest taken in these parish
matters, which were regarded then as the common busi
ness of all. We may see, too, what a constant care it
was in the daily life of the people at large. Was it the
question of, say, a new vestment, and the whole parish,
men and women alike, were summoned to sit in council
and discuss all the details of cost and stuff and make.
If, as would probably have been the case, the work was
put into the hands of the best broiderer in the neigh
bouring town, deputations would be chosen and sent to
examine, criticise, and report progress. Meantime, per
haps, individuals would be stirred up to do something on
their own account for the common good, and the gifts,
however simple they might have been, were long pointed.
out and their donors remembered. To take an example:
the inventory of Cranbrook parish church for 1 509 is in
structive on this matter. All benefactions are regularly
noted down, and the gifts, of course, vary in value: thus
we find a monstrance of silver and gilt of the " value of
^20 of Sir Robert Egelyonnysby's gift, which Sir Robert
was John Roberts' priest thirty years and he never had
other service nor benefice and the said John Roberts
was father to Walter Roberts, Esquire." The foresaid
Sir Robert gave also "two candlesticks of silver and
twenty marks of old nobles." Again, John Hendely!
" gave three copes of purple velvet, whereof one is of
velvet upon velvet, with tunicles of the same colour and
velvet upon velvet, with images broidered," and, adds
the inventory, " he is grandfather of Gervase Hendely of

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 25
Cashorn and Thomas of Cranbrook Street." • Or again,
we are told that " old Moder Hopper " gave the " two
long candlesticks before Our Lady's altar, fronted with
lions, and a towel on the rood of Our Lady's chancel."
In this way the parish treasury was not merely so much
stock, but every article of it called forth affectionate me
mories of the living and dead ; and on a high day or prin
cipal feast, when the church was decked out with all that
was richest and finest, the display of the parish treasures
recalled the memory of the good deeds done by neigh
bours high and low, rich and poor, to the parish at large.
Dr. Jessop's studies of the ancient parish life in England
have led him to say that " the immense treasures in the
churches [were] the joy and boast of every man and
woman and child in England, who day by day and week
by week assembled to worship in the old houses of God,
which they and their fathers had built and whose every
vestment and chalice and candlestick and banner, organ
and bells.and picture and image, and altar and shrine they
looked upon as their own, and part of their birthright."3
The records that remain are, as before stated, the
merest survival from the general wreck, but what is most
remarkable about them is that they are consistent in
their tenour. Where now we should never dream of
looking for anything but poverty and the sordid sur
roundings of a hard life, taken up with daily labour for
bare necessities, the wardens' accounts frequently prove
that even under such circumstances, during the period
preceding the great religious changes, there existed both
the power, will, and taste for things of beauty and of art.
1 E. B.'s Ins. Inventory Collection, i, p. 1331 seqq.
2 Parish Life in England before the Great Pillage, Nineteenth
Cent., March 1898, p. 433.

26 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
To take one example : Morebath is a small and out-of-
the-way parish near the sources of the river Exe. For
this village we possess fairly full accounts from 1530 to
1574, and these documents show the working of an
ordinary hamlet at the very close of our period. In this
poor place there were no less than eight separate ac
counts kept, each of moneys, etc., intended for the sup
port of some special altar or devotion, such as the
chapels of St. George and Our Lady and the guilds of
the young men and of the maidens of the parish. To
the " store," or capital account, of each of these there are
entered numerous gifts in money or kind. The accounts,
as a whole, furnish abundant evidence of voluntary rates
to clear off debts or meet obligations undertaken by the
community, and the spirit of self-help appears on almost
every page of the accounts. When in 1534, for example,
the silver chalice was stolen, " ye yong men and maydyns
of ye parysshe dru themselffe together and at ther gyfts
and provysyon they bought in another chalice without
any charge of the parish." Sums of money, specific
gifts in kind, and the stuff or ornaments used are always
forthcoming to furnish the church better with vestments,
Thus at one time it is a cope that is needed, and Anne1
Tymwell, of Hayne, gave her " gown and ring '' ; Joan
Tymwell, a cloak and girdle; and Richard Norman,
"seven sheep and three shillings and fourpence in
money," towards the necessary expenses. At another
time it is a set of black vestments ; at another, a chalice
for which, as we have seen, the young members of the
flock collected the sum needed.
The truth is that the church was the centre of parish
life, social as well as religious, in a way now almost in
conceivable. "From. the font to the grave," writes an

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 27
authority on village life at this time, " the greater num
ber of the people lived within the sound of its bells. It
provided them with all the consolations of religion and
linked itself with such amusements as it did not directly
supply."1 Parish accounts show that by the influence of
the community spirit disagreements between inhabit
ants of a parish or district, which in these days would
probably lead to long and protracted lawsuits, were fre
quently settled by arbitration, or, in some cases, by
means of a parish meeting. Moreover, documents pre
served almost by chance prove that a vast number of
small cases, such as disputes, brawls, minor immoralities
and libels, with which now the bench of local magis
trates or the Quarter Sessions would be called upon to
deal, were then settled by the ecclesiastical authority.
The Sunday pulpit was used not only for religious in
struction, properly so called, and for the "bedes bid
ding," but for the publication to the community of a
great variety of notices of common interest, as, for
example, the proclamation of the commencement of
some inquiry into a local case, or one in which local
people were concerned ; the citation of witnesses and of
accused persons ; the declaration of the probate of wills
of deceased parishioners; the warning to claimants
against the estate to come forward and substantiate
their demands; proclamations against such as were
charged with unlawfully detaining the goods of others,
and those who had been guilty of defamation of char
acter ; monitions against those who having been joined
in wedlock, had separated without just and approved
cause. The transaction of business such as this made
1 J. W. Cowper, Accounts of Churchwardens of St. Dunstan's,
Canterbury.

28 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
the church a practical reality in the ordinary affairs of
life, and gave it an importance which entered into the
social relations of every member of every parish through
out the country.
In this connection it is useful to bear in mind a fact
now so foreign to our modern conceptions. At that time
the "parish" meant the whole community of a well-
defined area " organised for church purposes and subject
to church authority." In this district " every resident,".
writes Bishop Hobhouse, " was a parishioner and as such
owed his duty of worship and contribution to one stated
church, and his duty of confession and submission to the
official guidance of a stated pastor. There was no choice
allowed. The community was completely organised with
a constitution which recognised the rights of the whole
and of every adult member to a voice in self-govern
ment . . . when assembled for consultation under" the
parish priest. Besides the church itself as a centre the
wardens' accounts and other similar documents bear
witness to the existence of a church-house, if not as a
universal feature in parish life at least as a very common
one. This was the parish club-house, the centre of
parochial life and the place where the community would
assemble for business and pleasure. The modes by
which the church elicited the goodwill of the people
were various and interesting. " After inhibiting the em
ployment of labour on festal days, and requiring all
classes, as a sacred obligation, to attend the church ser
vices," the ecclesiastical authority " busied itself in find
ing innocent amusements for the community, thus
identifying the Holy Day with the Holiday." Each of
the guilds, and few churches had none, had its festival
day on which after due religious service there was held

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 29
the annual feast and money gathering, which, after all
expenses, always added something to the common fund.
Popular bounty was elicited by other inducements : " the
names of benefactors were written on a roll, called the
bede-roll," from which they were read out to the as
sembled parish on great days, and prayers were asked
for the donors — " for their good estate " if living ; " for
the health of their soul " if dead.
In process of time most parishes became possessed of
houses and lands as well as cattle of all sorts. These
were let out at yearly rents, which materially assisted
the common funds, and in so far diminished the neces
sity for voluntary contribution or compulsory rates to
meet common burdens. Of these houses and lands the
wardens chosen by the community at large were the
official trustees. " The land," says Dr. Jessop, " usually
consisted of a number of small and scattered parcels,
which had been left to the community from time to
time, or made over to them by well-disposed parish
ioners, and were sometimes held under conditions of
providing for some special service in the church. Besides
this it was not uncommon for a parish to be possessed
of a small flock of sheep; and many parishes owned a
herd of cows, usually let out to farm, and doubtless to
the highest bidder. Thus ... at Elmscote, in Essex, in
1543 there was a herd of fifteen cows let out to provide
for the lights at the various altars." x
Whilst speaking of the parish life at this period, the
soul and centre of which was the church, the brother
hoods or associations known as guilds must not be for
gotten. If, as has been said, " that in the old days there
was no such thing as a Poor Rate, the poor in the old
1 Nineteenth Cent., March 1898, p. 434.

30 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
days having no need for any special tax or rate or
tribute to insure their being kept from starvation," in
some measure at least this is due to the existence of
these societies, the first principle of which was the asser
tion of the ties of fraternity which existed amongst its
members. Dr. Jessop may be allowed to speak with
knowledge on this matter. The guilds, he writes, " were
benefit clubs, they were savings banks, they were social
unions, and, like every other association in the Middle
Ages, they were religious bodies, so religious that they
were continually building special chapels for themselves,
and they had chaplains of their own who received a
regular stipend. Frequently they were splendidly pro
vided with magnificent copes and banners, and hangings
and large stores of costly chalices and jewelled service
books used on festive occasions in the worship of the
guild chapel ; and I have never met with the least indica
tion that the guilds were at any moment other than
solvent. So far from this, the guilds appear to have always
had money in hand ; and I suspect that in many cases
they must have done some banking business on a small
scale by taking care of thrifty people's savings, and by
lending money in small sums on security. That is,' I
suspect, they did a little in the way of pawnbroking^
guarding, however, against the risk of lending ' upon
usury ' by charging not for the loan of the money, but
perhaps charging fees for the custody of the deposits on
which advances were made. Be that as it may, however,
it is abundantly clear that the guilds were very powerful
supporters of the needs of the parish."
Mr. Thorold Rogers considered that the lands held
by the guilds, probably in every village, in England
were an important economical factor in the social condi-

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 31
tion of England. From the funds of these voluntary
associations impoverished members could be, and were
in fact, aided, and he held it to be certain "that the
town and country guilds obviated pauperism in the
Middle Ages, assisted in steadying the price of labour
and formed a permanent centre for those associations
which fulfilled the function that in more recent times
trade unions have striven to satisfy." It is, indeed,
curious to find in the articles of association of the various
guilds, and in their account books, principles set down
and in full working order, for which modern trade unions
and similar societies are now contending. The rolls of
accounts also prove even in regard to what must be
called trade guilds, established with the specific object
of protecting some business or handicraft, that neither
the ordinary religious purposes of the guild or brother
hood, nor the charitable help extended to the needy
were neglected.
In regard to the general care of the poor of a parish
in Catholic England Bishop Hobhouse writes as follows :
"I can only suppose that the brotherhood tie was so
strongly realised by the community that the weaker
ones were succoured by the stronger, as out of a family
store. The brotherhood tie was no doubt very much
stronger then, when the village community was from
generation to generation so unalloyed by anything
foreign, when all were knit together by one faith and
one worship and close kindred; but further than this,
the guild fellowships must have enhanced all the other
bonds in drawing men to share their worldly goods as a
common stock. Covertly, if not overtly, the guildsman
bound himself to help his needy brother in sickness and
age, as he expected his fellow-guildsman to do for him

32 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
in his turn of need; and these bonds, added to a far
stronger sense of duty of children towards aged parents
than is now found, did, I conceive, suffice for the relief
of the poor, aided only by the direct almsgiving which
flowed from the parsonage house, or, in favoured locali
ties, from the doles or broken meat of a monastery."
Many things in mediaeval days tended to strengthen the
tie of Christian brotherhood between man and man, and
the feeling found expression in works of practical charity
and mutual help. Mr. Thorold Rogers, who certainly
cannot be charged with bias in favour of the old system,
saw this clearly. " In the age which I have attempted!.
to describe," he says, " and in describing which I have
accumulated and condensed a vast mass of unquestionj
able facts, the rate of production was small, the conditions!'
of health unsatisfactory, and the duration of life short.
But, on the whole, there were none of those extremes of
poverty and wealth which have excited the astonishment
of philanthropists, and are now exciting the indignation
of workmen. The age, it is true, had its discontents,
and these discontents were expressed forcibly and in a
startling manner. But of poverty which perishes un
heeded, of a willingness to do honest work and a lack of
opportunity, there was little or none. The essence of
life in England during the days of the Plantagenets and
Tudors was that everyone knew his neighbour, and that
everyone was his brother's keeper. My studies lead me
to conclude that though there was hardship in this
life, this hardship was a common lot, and that there was
hope, more hope than superficial historians have con
ceived possible, and perhaps more variety than there is
in the peasant's lot in our time." J
1 Economic Interpretation of History, p. 63.

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 33
Not the least important among works of Christian
charity is the relief afforded to those in temporary
necessity by means of loans. Dr. Jessop has pointed out
that the guilds in a great measure fulfilled this office in
regard to their members, and this is undoubtedly the
case. Instances, moreover, are not wanting which show
that the idea was in fact even more generally recognised
as one fittingly connected with the pious objects of a
parish, as a religious work. In the days of which I speak
the word " religious " had a wider and, as most people
will be inclined to admit, a truer signification than has
obtained in later times. Religion was understood to in
clude the exercise of the two commandments of charity
— the love of God and the love of one's neighbour, and
the exercises of practical charity, such as the making of
loans to the needy, were considered as much religious
practices as attendance at church or the taking part in
an ecclesiastical procession. From this point of view it is
not surprising to find that in some churches there existed
a common chest under the guardianship of the parish
i priest and the two wardens, out of which, " for the relief
, of the poor of the parish," money might be lent on some
security, but without charge for interest. One document ]
sets out the details for working the scheme, and in this
„ instance the original chest and the necessary funds for
starting the work of benevolence was furnished by one
of the parishioners. In order to maintain " this most
pious object," as it is called, the rector promises to read
out the name of the original donor at the " bedes-bid-
ding," together with all others who subsequently should
be willing to add to the capital sum by alms or legacies,
in order that people might be reminded to offer up
1 Harl. MS. 670, f. 77^.
D

34 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
prayers for them. The three keys were to be kept by
the rector and the wardens, and the borrowers were to
pledge property to the full value of the loan, or else find
sureties for the amount ; no surety to be answerable for
more than six and eightpence, and the parish priest
never to be one of them. The loan was for a year, and
if after that time the pledge was not redeemed, it was to
be sold, and all that it would fetch over and above
the amount of the original loan was to be returned to the
borrower. No adequate picture of village religious life at this
time can be formed without taking into account the
village plays which were so prominent a feature in
almost every hamlet and town in England. These
spectacles were undoubtedly a most useful help to the
Church teaching, representing as they did scenes in
scripture history, or events in the various ecclesiastical
seasons of the Christian year. It is impossible to examine
these " mystery " or " miracle " plays without being im
pressed by the solid instruction imparted by them, and
by the way they were calculated to arouse the deepest
religious feelings in the hearts of the simple people who
listened to them or took part in their production. Whilst
to us some of the provisions and situations may seem
grotesque enough, and at times even approaching to
irreverence, there is no doubt whatever that the people
for whom they were designed undertook them with all
the pious enthusiasm and seriousness which still char
acterise the representation of the Passion Play in the
country districts of Germany. For the most part the
performance of these religious dramas was directed by
the officers of some guild, or, failing that, by the parish
wardens. " So entirely was the life of the parish saturated

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 35
with religious sentiment and with religious observances,"
writes Dr. Jessop, " that even the most frivolous or the
most boisterous amusements of the people were, directly
or indirectly, under the supervision of the church
wardens." The labour of production and the services of
the actors were for the most part voluntary, and the
proceeds went to swell the common parish purse, or for
the benefit of the poor and needy, a relief regarded as
the elementary and necessary duty of every parochial
society and guild. " Even those later religious guilds,"
writes Bishop Stubbs, " in which the first object seems
at first sight, as in much of the charitable machinery
of the present day, to have been the acting of mys-
, teries and the exhibition of pageants, were organised
for the relief of distress as well as for conjoint and
mutual prayer. It was with this idea that men gave
large estates in land to the guilds, which down to the
Reformation formed an organised administration of
relief."1 One source of charitable relief of the poor in these
times, the money derived from the property of the
chantries, has been almost entirely overlooked. Fre
quently these revenues were administered by the officials
of some one or other of the guilds attached to the
church in which the chantry was founded. Mr. Thorold
Rogers says : " The ancient tenements which still form
the property of the London companies were originally
burdened with Masses for donors. In the country the
parochial clergy undertook the services of these chantries
. . . The residue, if any, of the revenue derivable from
these tenements was made the common property of the
guild, and as the continuity of the service was the great
1 Constit. Hist, of England, iii, 648.

36 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
object of its establishment, the donor, like the modern
trustee of a life income, took care that there should be a
surplus from the foundation." This is quite true, but it
may be questioned whether Mr. Thorold Rogers appre
ciated the extent to which chantry funds were intended.;
by the donors to be devoted to purposes other than the
performance of the specified religious service. Certainly
writers generally have treated the question as if chantry
funds had no other object than the keeping of obits or
anniversary services. This is not the case: chantry be
quests were frequently arranged to give a surplus, more
or less, according to circumstances, for the benefit of the
poor of a parish or neighbourhood. To take only one
example : attached to the parish church of Alton in
Hampshire there were, in the early part of the sixteenths
century, some six chantries. The founders' names are
known, and the specified objects of the various chantries!
are clearly stated. In every single case the greater part
of the revenue had to be devoted to the relief of the poor.
In all, the property belonging to the six chantries brought
in more than £36 annually of our money, and of that
sum over ^"28 were for the poor; the residue only being
devoted to the strictly ecclesiastical purposes connected
with the anniversary services. '
Moreover, very frequently, indeed, the priest or priests
paid by the chantry funds were the assistants of the
rector or vicar in the work of the parish. Not only
were such chantry priests bound to be present on Sun
days and Feast days in the choirs of the parish churches,
but they were obliged very frequently by the deed of
foundation to say additional Masses for the benefit of
the parishioners.
In connection with the building and enriching of the

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 37
English parish churches in the fifteenth century, a pro
cess which, as we have seen, was continued up to the era
of the great religious change, a few words must be said
as to the decoration in the way of painting, as distinct
from the furniture and vestments given to them. Just as
the plate, the copes and chasubles and hangings were
undoubtedly renewed and added to during this period
with a lavish generosity, which manifests a general
spirit of devotion, so likewise the fabrics of the parish
churches during the same time were decorated with the
same unstinted liberality, by benefactors corporate and
individual. In screen work, for example, this Perpen
dicular period of Gothic art is allowed to have been the
most prolific over the greatest part of England. In one
county alone, Sussex, an authority in this particular
matter cites as examples of rood screens still existing
which were set up at this time, those of Brighton, Burton,
, Fletching, and Thakeham, and of chapel screens those of
Playden, Rotherfield, Rye, Thakeham Warnham, and
; Westham. " Moreover," this authority writes, during
' this period the screen work was usually " enriched with
gilding and painting or was ' depensiled ' as the phrase
runs ; and many curious works of the limner's art may
still be seen in the churches of Norfolk and Suffolk. In
Sussex the screens of Brighton and Horsham may be
cited as painted screens of beauty and merit . . . both
having been thus ornamented in a profuse and costly
manner, and each bore figures of saints in their panels." 1
What is true of the decoration of screen work at this
time is equally true of the walls themselves; the ornamen
tal paintings in the churches were then multiplied, and
' J- L.Andr6 {Sussex Arch. Journal, xxxix, p.31), Chancel Screens
of Parish Churches.

38 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
the pictorial art reached a higher standard. The churches
very generally became not merely sanctuaries but the
people's picture galleries ; the paintings teaching them
through the eye the Scripture History, and impressing
upon their minds the great truths of religion and the
chief events in the lives of the great Christian heroes/?
The very walls of the churches thus became in fact, what
they have often been called, " The Bibles of the poor."
Two examples of the ecclesiastical art of this period may
be said to attest the high character of the work: the
wall paintings now behind the stalls in Eton College
Chapel and those in the Lady Chapel at Winchester,
now unfortunately wellnigh destroyed by the whitewash '
with which they had been covered up for three centuries,
Those who have had the opportunity of examining the
former, when some years ago they were discovered on
the removal of the old stall work, have testified to
'their excellence. So good indeed were they that it was
long supposed that they must have been executed by
some Italian of the Giotto school. Mr. J. Willis Clarke,:
however, was fortunate enough to discover the name of
the painter in some old Eton accounts, and it turns out
that both these and the Winchester paintings were in
reality executed by an Englishman.
What has been said of painting in general applies
equally to the decoration of church windows. The
golden age of English stained glass, as to both richness
of colour and execution, is placed, by those best able
to form an opinion on the matter, between the years
1480 and 1520, and the art was still developing when it
was put a stop to by the religious changes. During the
previous half century many a window, even in obscure
and out-of-the-way parish churches, was filled with

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 39
painted scenes from the life of Christ or with represen
tations of His saints.
The reader's attention has so far been directed to a
consideration of the attitude of the Church in Catholic
England towards the great intellectual movements of the
age, and to some of the external manifestations of its
influence on the people at large. That this was an era
of real and steady progress in the truest sense, and that
the progress was, at least in great measure, initiated and
fully supported and encouraged by the ecclesiastical
authorities is, in view of ascertained facts, hardly open
to question. So far as the pursuit of letters, known as
" the humanist movement," as the cultivation of the arts
of architecture and painting, or as even the beginnings of
commercial prosperity, are concerned, custom has placed
the renaissance altogether too late. The new life had
not only commenced to manifest its power, but the
movement was in full swing whilst as yet the ancient
ecclesiastical system maintained to the full its supremacy
over the minds and hearts of Englishmen. What Luther
wrote in 1521 about the progress of the world during the
previous century is as fully true in regard to England as
elsewhere in Europe. " Anyone reading the chronicles,"
he says, " will find that since the birth of Christ there is
nothing that can compare with what has happened in
our world during the past hundred years. Never in any
country has there been so much building, so much culti
vation of the land. Never has such good drink, such
abundant and delicate food, been within the reach of all.
Dress has been so rich, that it is impossible it could be
more so. Who has ever heard of commerce as we see it
to-day? It circles the globe: it embraces the entire
earth! Painting, engraving— all the arts— have progressed

40 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
and still make progress. More than all, we have men so'
capable and so learned that their wit penetrates every
thing in such a way that a youth of twenty years now
knows more than twenty doctors knew in old times."
We turn now to consider briefly the moral side of
the question. It has been very readily and generally
assumed that the ancient Church as a whole, in the
fifteenth century and during the first part of the six
teenth, will not bear examination in its moral aspect.
" It was hopelessly and utterly corrupt — a very sink of
iniquity" represents by no means an uncommon ver
dict. That there were scandals and individual cases of
moral delinquency may be admitted without prejudice
to the more general question. Human nature being
what it is, it must be inevitable that in a Church neces
sarily composed of human elements there will be found
at all times those whose practices do not correspond
with the Christian principles they profess. The real
question in regard to the Church in Catholic England;:
is as to the system itself. It is one rather of fact than
of principle. If it can be shown that this system did in
fact result in wholesale moral corruption of clergy and
people, and that this was tolerated or at best secretly.
condoned by public opinion, then such a state of things
would go far to explain and excuse, even if it did not
justify, as many would hold, its complete overthrow.
In regard to this question of fact no authority can be
considered so satisfactory as that of the late Mr. Brewer,
whose intimate knowledge of this period in our history
must be admitted by everyone. Taking first the re
ligious houses, Mr. Brewer considers that many things
at this period had been detrimental to religious dis
cipline.^ The civil disturbances of the Wars of the Roses

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 41
had been specially disastrous; the springs of charity
which had so far supported the lesser houses had ceased
to flow, and a corresponding laxity came in with poverty
and a constant struggle for existence. Many of the
larger houses were compelled by the circumstances of
the time to admit lay inmates or keep open house for
royal or episcopal nominees. In some cases abbots were
forced to endow scholars of the King's nomination during
their studies, or find benefices, pensions, and corrodies
for royal retainers. In these and similar ways the
monastic revenues were consumed and their religious
character impaired. Still, taking a broad survey this is
the historian's verdict: "That in so large a body of
men, so widely dispersed, seated for so many centuries
in the richest and fairest estates of England, for which
they were mainly indebted to their own skill, perse
verance, and industry, discreditable members were to
be found (and what literary chiffonnier, raking in the
scandalous annals of any profession, cannot find filth
and corruption?) is likely enough ; but that the cor
ruption was either so black or so general as party spirit
would have us believe, is contrary to all analogy, and is
unsupported by impartial and contemporary evidence." ]
As to the more general q-uestion the same great
authority is even more explicit. 'He warns students of
history that they will miss the point of many things if
they regard the world of the sixteenth century, whether
in Germany or in England, as wholly and hopelessly
immoral. "In fact," he says, "the sixteenth century
was not a mass of moral corruption out of which life
emerged by some process unknown to art or nature ; it
was not an addled egg cradling a living bird ; quite the
1 I, PP- 5o-i-

42 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
reverse." He points out, too, that Luther's most earnest
remonstrances were directed not against bad works, but
against the stress laid upon good works by the advocates
of the old religion. Further, that an age which can busy
itself about discussions of questions about righteousness,
whether of faith or works, "is not a demoralised or
degenerate age. These are not the thoughts which
trouble the hearts of men buried in sensuality." It is
true that the awakening of minds was somewhat alarm
ing to those who had deemed the old guides sufficient,
and in their fear they cried out for a tightening of
ancient bonds and a repression of the ever-rising spirit.
" ' State super vias antiquas,' cried men who looked back
upon the goodly deeds of their forefathers, as English
men will every now and then cry out by reason of their
conservative instincts; as all men naturally will cry out
who have a past upon which they can and they dare
look back. So the stronger went forward, and the timid
stayed behind ; not necessarily less earnest or less morally
pure than the bolder and more advanced; for among
laymen Sir Thomas More was surely as honest as
Cromwell or Rich, and among churchmen Fisher was
as conscientious as Cranmer." l
It has constantly been said that the success of the
great religious revolution — for whatever view we may
take of the great change, it was nothing less than a
revolution — was " mainly due to the purity of the mor
ality it inculcated, or rather to the general corruption*
of all classes — of the clergy in particular — in the fif
teenth century." Mr. Brewer declares absolutely the
injustice and falsity of such an idea, warning his readers
that the declamations of moralists and theologians, the
1 I. PP- 254-5-

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 43
invectives of satirists, and even the evidence of criminal
courts, are always, whether in this age or in the sixteenth
century, too partial to be decisive in so grave a question.
The real evidence must be looked for elsewhere, and his
studies enable him to assert positively that "neither
authentic documents, nor the literature and character
of the times, nor, if national ethics are essentially con
nected with national art, its artistic tendencies warrant
us in believing that the era preceding the Reformation
was more corrupt than that which succeeded it. It is
impossible that the clergy can have been universally
immoral, and the laity have remained sound, temperate,
and loyal. But if these general arguments are not suffi
cient," he continues, " I refer my readers to a very curious
document, dated the 8th of July 1519, when a search was
instituted by different commissioners, on Sunday night,
in London and its suburbs, for all suspected and dis
orderly persons. I fear no parish in London, nor any
town in the United Kingdom, of the same amount of
population, would at this day pass a similar ordeal with
equal credit." l
In another place — to appeal to the same high au
thority — Mr. Brewer again touches upon this delicate
matter. " Considering the temper of the English people,"
he writes, " it is not probable that immorality could have
existed among the ancient clergy to the degree which
the exaggeration of poets, preachers, and satirists might
lead us to suppose. The existence of such corruption is
not justified by authentic documents or by an impartial
and broad estimate of the character and conduct of the
nation before the Reformation. There is nothing more
difficult than for contemporaries to form, from their own
1 I, p. 600.

44 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
limited experience, a just estimate of the morality of
the times in which they live ; and if the complaints of
preachers and moralists are to be accepted as author
itative on this head, there would be no difficulty in pro
ducing abundant evidence from the Reformers them
selves that the abuses and enormities of their own age,
under Edward VI and Elizabeth, were far greater than
in the ages preceding." J
In close connection with this subject of the laxity of
morals at this period, is the question of the instructions,
if any, given by the priests to their people. It has been
assumed, too hastily as I think, that for all practical
purposes systematic religious and moral teaching had
ceased. That such instruction was ordered by the laws
of the Church and that the clergy were reminded of this
obligation by the provisions of many English Synods,
does not admit of doubt; whilst the publication of
various manuals to assist the clergy in the performance
of this plain duty, in the sixteenth century, would seem
to show that it was not neglected. Set sermons and
ornate discourses were probably rare, but more im
portant for the conveyance of religious and moral in
struction than these were the homely talks of the parish
priest with his people. There is no evidence that these
were neglected to any great extent; and the fact that
the English people, even in those days, were fond of
listening to the voice of a preacher, would point at least
to the improbability of such neglect. Moreover, one
piece of evidence in the shape of the Examinations of
Conscience which exist, is decisive. These are specially
valuable indications of matters regarded as absolute
obligations, the neglect of which was considered grave
' n, p. 470.

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 45
enough to make it a subject of confession. It would
consequently be not at all likely that we should find set
down things not regarded as obligations, or which, in
the event of priests not fulfilling their part, could not be
set down as against the conscience of the lay people.
Yet this is what we find: "Also I have been slow in
God's service and negligent to pray and for to go to the
church in due time . . . loathe to hear the Word of God
and the preacher of the Word of God. Neither have I
imprinted it in my heart and bare it away and wrought
thereafter." r Again : " I have been setting nought by
preaching and teaching of God's word, by thinking it an
idle thing,"2 and, to take one more example: " If you
are a priest be a true lantern to the people both in
speaking and in living and faithfully doing truly all
things which belong to a priest. And seek wisely the
ground of truth and the true office of the priesthood and
be not ruled blindly by the lewd customs of the world.
Read God's law and the expositions of the holy doctors
and study and learn and keep it. And when thou
know'st it, preach and teach it to those that are un
learned." We come now to the question of the general feeling
of the people, in the period preceding the religious
change, towards the ecclesiastical system which pre
vailed. Was it popular, or were Englishmen, on the
contrary, restless and discontented and looking for
emancipation? Without doubt here in England, as else
where in the Church throughout the world, many earnest
men saw things that needed change, but so far as there
is evidence at all on the matter, their wish was to im
prove, not to destroy, the system. Even to the very eve of
1 Harl. MS. 172, f. 12*. a MS. 115, f. 51.

46 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
the change there is no sign of any desire to alter the
basis of the ancient system ; and even those who at
tacked what they considered abuses were actuated by
the wish to make the edifice of the Church in Catholic
England more solid, more like Christ's ideal. So far as
the people were concerned the change, when it came,
was, to use a familiar phrase, " like a bolt from the blue."
On this point the testimony of Mr. Brewer is again con
clusive. " There is no reason to suppose," he writes,
" that the nation as a body was discontented with the
old religion. Facts point to the opposite conclusion.
Had it been so, Mary, whose attachment to the Faith of
her mother was well known, would never have been per
mitted to mount the throne, or have found the task
comparatively easy, seeing that the Reformers under
Edward VI had been suffered to have their own way
unchecked, and to displace from honour and influence
all who opposed their religious principles. Long down
into the reign of Elizabeth, according to the testimony
of a modern historian, the old Faith still numbered a
majority of adherents in England. . . . This rooted
attachment to the old Faith, and the difficulty every
where experienced by the government and the bishops
in weaning the clergy and their flocks from their ancient
tendencies, is a sufficient proof that it was not un
popular." x
The influence of the Church in regard to clerical
education was exercised in a way which could hardly
fail to render it generally popular in Catholic England.
The ecclesiastical body was largely recruited from those
in the lower ranks of society whom either directly or in
directly the authorities had assisted to their first foot-
1 VI, p. 470.

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 47
hold on the ladder by which they might rise to the
highest ecclesiastical preferment in the land. This was
the case not only in regard to the early education which
they received in the cathedral and monastic schools, and
in regard to the assistance bestowed by individual
churchmen, but even more so in regard to university
endowments. There can be no question that a large
proportion of the old college revenues at Oxford and
Cambridge were intended by the original donors to help
poor students to receive a higher education . " The
Church," says a writer by no means favourable to the
system which existed before the great religious change,
" The Church, as all know, was the one body in which
equality of conditions was the rule from the start. There
at least men of ability could rise. . . . Sixtus V was
picked up out of the gutter; our Englishman, Nicholas
Breakspeare, Adrian IV, was a poor labourer's son,
and these are but two instances out of thousands of
distinguished ecclesiastics of humble birth." Then, after
speaking of the way the influence of the ecclesiastical
system which prevailed in mediaeval England was ever
exerted "for the people," he continues: "All this was
trifling compared with the work done in the way of
general education. The conventual establishments and
the parish priests did far more than is commonly sup
posed in the direction of elementary teaching. But the
higher education at the universities? Where would
Oxford be to-day but for the splendid munificence of
bishops, monks, and nuns? Fourteen of the finest col
leges were founded by these celibate ecclesiastics and
recluses for the benefit, above all, of the children of the
people." A few examples taken at haphazard may be given of

48 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
this ecclesiastical patronage of education. Richard Pace,
the well-known Greek professor at Cambridge, was a
poor boy in a school which Thomas Langton, Bishop of
Winchester, had established in his own house. The boy
was fond of music, and the Bishop, attracted by this sign
of ability, sent him to Italy, paying for him whilst study
ing at Padua and Ferrara. Canterbury College, Oxford,
the monastic establishment at the University connected
with Christchurch, Canterbury, affords, at the period of
the revival of studies in the fifteenth century and later,
many examples of the help extended to youths in the
prosecution of their studies. At this college there were
not only the monastic students, but also some clerics and
even laymen who had been sent thither by the Archbishop
or the convent of Christchurch to receive free quarters
at the University. In all probability Linacre, after re
ceiving his early education at Canterbury from Sellyng
the monk, was lodged at the Canterbury Oxford College;^
certainly the university career of the celebrated Sir
Thomas More was passed there, and that he to the last
retained his affection for the brethren of Canterbury.is
evidenced by the fact that in the height of his fame he
became a " confrater " of that house, as his father, Sir
John, had been before him.
In the Christchurch letter-books there are to be seen
many instances of the care taken by the Prior and com
munity to provide at the University for their protigh. ',
Prior Sellyng, for instance, in the midst of all his busi
ness, writes about the clothes and money set aside for a
lay student who had been sent there. We have elsewhere^
examples of boys educated in the Canterbury free school*.
being elected by the monks into the number of their
community, and being thus provided with the means of a

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 49
higher education at Oxford, and given the first step in
an honourable career.
The foregoing pages present, I believe, the outlines of
a fairly accurate sketch of Catholic England — of that
world of life and thought as it was influenced by the
ancient ecclesiastical system on the eve of its overthrow.
It would be impossible, however, to leave the reader
under the impression that there were no shadows or
clouds, and that the picture is all to be painted in rose
colour. That there were drawbacks, and serious draw
backs, which contributed to bring about, if they did not
actually cause, what, with Erasmus, we may call the
" catastrophe," is undeniable, and to the consideration of
some of these we must now briefly refer. We are here,
of course, not concerned directly with the many social
difficulties which at this period began to be felt by
people of all classes. These were for the most part
economic, and their origin is not hard to recognise.
Without doubt here in England, as Jansens has shown
in regard to Germany and M. Philippson and M. Hano-
taux in regard to France, the religious revolution was
but the sequel of political and economic causes, without
which, in the opinion of the last named philosophical
statesman and historian, the religious questions at issue
would not have been able to convulse Europe. Be this
as it may, we are concerned now only with the moral
aspect of the question, and not directly with such
remedies for the ills which were then patent in the
body politic as people who had nothing to lose were
ready enough to suggest. Vicarious charity is easy ; and
when in the sixteenth century poverty, distress, and sick
ness made themselves felt in a degree hitherto not ex
perienced, many writers and talkers were ready with
E

50 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
suggestions for meeting these troubles which need not
be taken too seriously. The jester, for example, in
More's Utopia, who proposed to send all the sick and
aged to be cared for in monasteries and convents, may
be looked on as a type of the irresponsible scribblers of
that day, who need not be taken as really reflecting on
the utility of monastic establishments, or other institu
tions of Catholic England.
It has been pointed out, on the authority of those who
have the best right to speak upon the matter, that the
people were not discontented with their religion as a
religious system. Of course there were many things
which might have been different, might have been im
proved in the system which had come down from the
earliest times, and had grown with the growth of the
nation. It might have been more active and more
spiritual ; but still it was a religion that appealed to the
popular mind and heart. There were unquestionably!
dangers, not the less real because they did not lie upon
the surface, or affect the true loyalty of the people at
large to the ecclesiastical system under which they and
their fathers had grown up. However much, for ex
ample, habit may have familiarised men's minds in
those days to the idea of the principal ministers of re
ligion, and of those on whom the government of the
Church in this country depended, occupying the highest.;
positions in the State and spending their time in civil
business, the least reflection showed that this could not,
at this time, be defended on any true religious principle. ¦:
It was no longer a question of their doing work for their
country for which no other talent was available. At the
close of the fifteenth century a new class of lay officials
and administrators was already in existence; yet in

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 51
practice the old system was continued, and the highest
offices of the State were held by bishops and clergy. In
this way men who ought to have appeared as fathers
appeared almost in every other guise. They were
generally, no doubt, of irreproachable character, and
were possessed of real religious aspirations, but the tra
ditional system was too strong for them, and especially
when it recommended itself as one perfectly suited to
the needs of the State, under kings like Henry VII and
Henry VIII, who had their work in great measure done
at the expense of ecclesiastical revenues. Whilst many
of the bishops and other ecclesiastics were thus con
tinually occupied in civil business, it was impossible
that the people at large could really regard them as the
actual pastors of their souls, responsible for each one of
them. The contradiction implied in the traditional system
was obviously brought to the surface in the person of
Cardinal Wolsey. From his later life it is clear that he
had in him the spirit of a good bishop devoted to the
charge of his Church ; but his career as Cardinal is the
very negation of this character. And, although there
may rightly be a natural disposition to regard Warham
as the antithesis of Wolsey in his public character, yet,
to men of the day, even Warham must have seemed as
overburdened by public duties to the State, as Arch
bishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of England ; and
thus even his true ecclesiastical character, as spiritual
father of his flock, cannot but have greatly suffered, for
the highest spiritual duties of his office must necessarily
have been delegated to subordinates.
In a similar way the position held by the superiors of
the greatest monasteries in England, however imposing
to the public eye, was unquestionably a distinct danger

52 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
to the interests of religion. It was clearly not their
business, nor in accord with the nature of their office, to
be much abroad on embassies, to be called from their
houses on the reception of great potentates, or to sit in
the Parliament of the realm to transact affairs of state.
To the people of their neighbourhood they were known
and doubtless respected ; but it is obvious that all this
must have tended to obscure their purely spiritual
position. Again, to turn to the very churches which should have
been the model churches of the kingdom : great as was
their splendour, it is nevertheless a fact that the persons
who enjoyed the revenues attached to them for certain
specified services in the church itself, were, broadly.
speaking, a body of absentees. They were engaged on
almost every kind of duty except that for which their
benefices had been created. What aggravated the evil
was that practically these absentees formed the most
powerful corporations in which the bishops should have
found their most effectual counsellors and active helpers.
As a fact, however, they were not merely independent of
his control, but not infrequently, standing on their legal
rights and inherited privileges, they set at naught his
authority, and so far as they were concerned defeated
his attempts at reform.
Another source of weakness in the ecclesiastical sys
tem, as it then existed, was the special faculties and
powers of dispensation granted by the Roman Curia to
certain bodies and individuals. This had for generations
been a source of real grievance to the English Bishops;
and as late as 1 506 they and the clergy assembled in
Convocation of Canterbury addressed a memorial to
Rome on the subject. They declared that the monasteries

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 53
proper had never been known to interfere in parochial
rights or in the matter of tithes; but that some, and
notably the four Orders of mendicant friars, had pleaded
papal privileges for many things most prejudicial to the
claims of parish priests and others with ordinary juris
diction. In face of the asserted grants the Bishops were
powerless to deal with what has become a scandal, and
the memorial declares that the Bishops cannot believe
that what is being done is according " to the mind of the
Roman See." If this state of things be allowed to con
tinue unchecked much longer, it will, the memorialists
declare, inevitably lead to the overthrow of all ecclesias
tical authority, and they " the Bishops and clergy of the
Province of Canterbury," assembled in Synod, " beg the
Pope most earnestly to consider their complaint and to
establish some remedy."
In no respect perhaps was the weakness of the then
existing system more perceptible than in the legal edi
fice which had been gradually elaborated by the lawyers
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries on the basis of
the Decretals. Every step in the matter of change and
reform was hampered by the possibility of making legal
exceptions to bar some process, and this often tired out
the efforts of the most patient and persevering of pre
lates, till there seemed to be no longer the possibility
of securing a summary process. On all sides people
seemed to be hampered and bound up by a system, in
itself neither ancient nor venerable, which in practice
there seemed no power capable of mastering. We need
not go beyond the action of the Council of Trent to see
the proof of this. The Fathers of the Council dealt with
the abuses by which authority had for centuries been
baffled if not defied.

54 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
What at this time tended to aggravate these evils was
the ever increasing tendency to centralise all practical
business in Rome. The system had been built up by the
legists of the preceding centuries and had resulted in
establishing the Curia as the effective source of all power.
As the mainspring of the entire ecclesiastical organisa
tion, in the course of years, it had become almost im
possible to initiate any movement towards improvement
or reform without invoking the direct action of the Holy
See. At the same time, however clearly theologiansv
might grasp the true meaning of the position and pre
rogatives of the Pope as the Pastor pastorum, as in the
case of the Bishops, many things tended to obscure this
spiritual character in the minds of Christian people
generally. Notwithstanding the declaration of embassies, :
or the high-sounding titles of official documents, or the
plentiful professions of submission, these were after all
formal rather than the real expression of a living con
nection. In the schools the papal position and powers
were exposed and developed and approved on the
grounds of reason, tradition, and doctrine, but in the
popular mind the position of the Pope depended in the
last resort on his spiritual character and prerogatives,
and this precisely it was which in the papacy as it
appeared to the world between the reigns of Nicholas V
and Leo X, it must have been so difficult to discern in
the blaze of worldly splendour and greatness with which
it was surrounded.
Moreover, with the advent of new ideas came a spirit
of nationality, which ran counter to the old notion that
the Pope must be held in Christendom as the arbiter of
kingdoms. The uprooting of the theory from men's
minds was aided by the very circumstances under which

ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION 55
successive popes had been constructing a temporal
dominion for the Holy See or their families, whereby
the papacy itself became more and more invested with
the character associated with the idea of a great political
power. As a consequence came a natural resistance to
what had so long been felt as a grievance, the constant
and direct appeal to the supreme authority in Rome, and
the diversion of ecclesiastical revenues to the general
purposes of the Holy See. There is ample evidence that
the practice was generally felt to be an evil that called
aloud for remedy. Change, however, was rendered diffi
cult, if not impossible, since the Curia was to a large
extent supported upon the proceeds of these very abuses.
In France the danger was averted by the Concordat be
tween Leo X and Francis I which swept away all rights
of election to ecclesiastical dignities, and vested the
nomination of Bishops in the King subject to papal con
firmation; which required that all appeals should be
carried in the ordinary course to immediate superiors,
and then only to the Holy See; which strictly limited
the papal power of appointment to benefices, and was
generally directed to securing the appointment of edu
cated men to all important ecclesiastical positions, in
cluding even the pastors of the parish churches in towns.
It is to this settlement of economic and administrative
difficulties that so good a judge as M. Hanotaux attri
butes nothing less than the maintenance of the old
religion in France. In his opinion, the Concordat re
moved in considerable measure those grievances, which
elsewhere the reformers skilfully took hold of, and
afforded them a plausible means for furthering their
scheme of change in matters purely religious.
This indeed affected the turn of events in France, but

56 ENGLAND UNDER THE OLD RELIGION
the means adopted, looked at in themselves, are not such
as to commend themselves generally, or in all respects
calculated to promote the interests of religion or the
success of the Church. In England, even in the time of
Henry VIII, the very character of the people would.
have dictated a practical settlement different in its
details. The above are some of the obvious difficulties and
dangers, but the more the subject of Catholic England-:
is examined, the more clearly will it appear that they
were mere difficulties and dangers, \n4 that the change,1;
when it came, was not really in respon.se to any general
discontent of the people at large with the religion of
their ancestors.

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE1
IT is with a certain diffidence that I write on the sub
ject of " Wolsey and the Divorce." I shall be much
astonished if some do not consider it altogether too
archaic and academic a subject to be popular, and if
others, remembering all that has been written in the past
centuries on this " thorny subject," as it was well called
in the days of Fisher and More, do not conclude that all
interest in the matter must long ago have been ex
hausted. But in reality there is much connected with the
divorce of Henry VIII from his queen Katherine which
still remains doubtful, whilst the unfortunate results of
the English King's quarrel with the Pope, in the change
of religion, affects us all too deeply to-day not to make
us interested in the cause. Then, the commanding per
sonality of Wolsey, whose name is so closely associated
with the affair, exercises a fascination over the minds of
most of us. Few men, indeed, have occupied a more
imposing position in the pages of history than has this
great Cardinal. His obscure origin; his rapid rise to
place, power, and position ; the wealth and magnificence
with which in the days of his greatness he surrounded
himself; the sumptuous buildings that he raised for his
1 A lecture given at Notre Dame Univ., Indiana, U.S.A., October
1905. 57

58 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
own use, or in the accomplishment of schemes, conceived
on the lines of a splendour truly regal; and then his
failure, his fall, and his death in disgrace — all help to
fill the imagination and to move the mind with a sense
of wonder, which has added a note of mystery to the true
life of the great Cardinal.
And indeed, strange as it may seem in these days,
when so much has been written about Henry VIII and
his doings, and in particular also about Wolsey himself,
there still remains much uncertainty about many of the
main facts, and even about some of the crucial points, in
this reign. Nearly ninety years ago now, it is true, a
writer of considerable authority declared that there were
few things in history better known than the story of the
divorce of Henry VIII and Katherine. Since that time
greater knowledge has brought greater uncertainty as its
paradoxical result. Archives have been explored, and
papers from Rome, Vienna, Venice, Brussels, Simancas,
and elsewhere, which have been brought together, and
confronted with the documents preserved in the English
Record Office, have helped, to fill up lacunae or to inter
pret obscurities in the old story. Hence it comes to pass
that, although we are not so sure of our judgments as
Hallam was, we can be quite certain that the history of
the " Divorce" which satisfied him will never be told again.
What the exact story is, and how far Cardinal Wolsey
was really responsible for starting the question which has
had such disastrous and lasting results, is not yet quite
obvious. Dr. Gairdner, the editor of Henry's State
Papers, does not hesitate — or, I should say, did not hesi
tate in 1896 — to write: "The story of Henry VIII's
divorce from Katherine of Aragon has not yet been fully
unravelled." Although much has been done, much more

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 59
remains undone. The great, and in fact monumental,
Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic,
for the reign of Henry VIII, commenced by Mr. Brewer,
and still being continued by his assistant and successor,
the present Dr. James Gairdner, has brought together
most of the results of researches in the archives at home
and abroad. So far as it goes, it is an index to, and epi
tome of, the State papers of the time, such as, in the
competent opinion of Dr. Pauli, no other country pos
sesses in so complete a form for any period. Still these
volumes furnish merely the material for the study of the
great questions which arise during this reign ; and, even
with the admirable introductions furnished by the editor,
they do not dispense with the necessity of consulting
other sources of information in order that the exact truth
may be elicited.
What has so far been done? Dr. Gairdner thus gives
what in his opinion is the present state of the case : " No
other English pen during these twenty years [has] done
anything to complete Brewer's work, or correct his errors.
The late Mr. Froude, no doubt as everyone knows, made
a lamentable attempt in 1891 to show that some of the
new evidences, which had come out since he wrote his
History, essentially confirmed the view which he had
taken of the matter forty years before. But the public,
which were not convinced by his History, do not seem
to have been much impressed with a work of which the
sophistries were sufficiently apparent, even though the
innumerable errors of fact were uncorrected. Nor can it
be said that Mrs. Hope's posthumous work supplies any
thing like the thorough investigation that is wanted,
though it may pass muster as a popular account of the
matter."

60 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
Like Mr. Brewer, Dr. Gairdner holds that most cer
tainly Wolsey did not originate the project of the
divorce, nor first put the idea into Henry's head. He
says such a notion " is not only absurd on the face of it,
but is opposed to all the real evidence that we possess
upon the subject." It is with great diffidence that I differ
from the verdict of Dr. Gairdner, but to me the matter
is by no means so clear. Mr. Brewer, in his work on the
reign of Henry VIII, says that there are three chief ex
planations of the origin of the divorce proceedings.
First, that the scruples arose in Henry's own conscience
and were the result of the grief caused by the failure of
male heirs from his union with Katherine; secondly, that
the whole idea of obtaining a divorce, and of thus being
able to marry again, came from the fact of Henry's pas
sion for Anne Boleyn; and thirdly, that it was sug
gested by Anne's friends with the idea of being able
to introduce the new Lutheran doctrines into England.
with the help of a breach with Rome, if the marriage
were not dissolved by the Holy See, or with Henry
married to Anne, if it were.
The fourth explanation, which makes Wolsey the
author, was rejected by Mr. Brewer thirty years ago as
not worth consideration ; and in this he is still followed,
as I have said, by Dr. Gairdner. The point of their ne
gation is this: The report reflecting on the character
of Wolsey was really at a late period set about by Tyn-
dale and Roper for their own purposes. It is con
tradicted by all who knew best at the time — by Bishop
Longland and by the Cardinal himself. Cavendish, indeed,
reports Wolsey as saying, apparently with regard to this
very matter, that he had often " knelt before the King
for hours to make him change his purpose, but could not

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 61
move him." Sanders, almost a contemporary, on the
other hand, says that Wolsey on one occasion confessed
before the King and the Council that he, and no other,
had been the author of the business. But this was in
tended obviously to cover others, and Sanders says that
"this remark was addressed specially to the King's ears."
On the other side, however, Longland, Bishop of Lin
coln, never denied that Wolsey was the original mover in
the matter. When he saw that England was drifting
toward Lutheranism on account of his part in the un
fortunate divorce proceedings, he regretted what he had
done, and denied that either he or the Cardinal was
primarily responsible. Draycott, the Chancellor of his
diocese, conveyed the Bishop's denial to Nicholas
Harpsfield. But this does not seem to have convinced
the latter; for he subsequently wrote that Wolsey, "first
by himself or by John Longland, Bishop of Lincoln and
the King's confessor, putt this scruple and doubt into his
[Henry's] head. At the first hearing whereof the King,
somewhat astonished, held his peace awhile, not a little
marvelling at this matter so moved unto him. At length
he answered thus: 'Take heed, I beseech you, Reverend
Father, and well consider what a great and weighty
enterprise you take now in hand.' . . . After a few days
the Cardinal assaulted the King afresh, and with much
more vehemency, being with him the said Bishop of
Lincoln . . . Thus say some of the Bishop of Lincoln,
though himself (as we have shewed) denied that he was
one of the first movers of this matter." 1
As to the testimony of Cavendish, it is difficult to
place any reliance upon it in respect to the Car
dinal's part in the matter. Indeed, a good deal of
1 The Pretended Divorce, ed. Camden Soc, pp. 175-6.

62 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
the confusion which has entered into the divorce ques
tion may be said to arise from Cavendish's inaccur
acies, and it is by no means certain that the pass
age which is supposed to show that Wolsey did his best
to turn his royal master from his intention really relates
to the question of the divorce at all. It would rather fit
in more exactly with the Cardinal's endeavour to pre
vent the alliance with Anne Boleyn, which he was only
too anxious to do, not only because he considered
it unfortunate from the point of view of statecraft, but
because he must have known, as Harpsfield declares,
that Henry had already had immoral relations with
Anne's sister Mary, and, if report spoke truly, with her
mother also.
Be that as it may, the weight of contemporary evid
ence as to the complicity of Wolsey is overwhelming. 1
say nothing of the testimony of the historian Polydore
Vergil; for he was an undoubted enemy of the great
Cardinal, and because, from a discovery I made some
years ago in the Vatican library, it is now known that
the passage incriminating Wolsey was not in the original
draft of his History. Nor can we lay stress on the Paris
diarist and the Belgian Macquerian, except as to the
existence of contemporary rumours. But against him we
have the direct testimony of Paul Jorius, a prelate at the
court of Pope Clement; and of Guicciardini, who was
closely connected with Casale, the royal agent. We
know, too, what Queen Katherine herself thought. She
may have been wrong, no doubt; but there can be no
question what she thought. She wrote to the Emperor
Charles that Wolsey was the real author of all her mis
fortune and misery, and the Emperor proclaimed it as a
fact everywhere.

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 63
A writer in the English Quarterly Review in 1 877 has
well stated some interesting facts about the tradition
among English Catholics as to Wolsey's culpability. He
points out that if, as a body, they had any bias, it would
have been in favour of attributing all their misfortunes
to Henry's unclean passion for Anne Boleyn. But as a
fact, there is a strong consensus of opinion finding in
Wolsey the origin of the divorce — the fons et origo
omnium malorum. Pole, indeed, bad given an example
of the controversial use of Anne Boleyn's name, by
dwelling on all the troubles which were consequent upon
the guilty loves of the King and his Queen's waiting-
woman. As against this, some maintained that the project of a
divorce originated from causes quite independent of the
royal passion for Anne. No doubt this was the opinion
of Wolsey himself, who could not have known that the
King was inditing ardent love epistles to her, declaring
that he had been smitten with the dart of love for a
whole year, and promising if she would only yield, to
him, to make her his sole mistress and renounce all
others. " What kind of honour he designed for her by
this may, indeed, be a question," says Dr. Gairdner;
" but, in point of fact, Anne was not to be obtained so
cheaply as he, perhaps, believed." No doubt, neither
Wolsey nor any one else then in England could have
believed that Henry desired to divorce the daughter of
Ferdinand of Spain in order to marry into the Boleyn
family. And, we may add, there is really no evidence
whatever that Henry contemplated any such thing him
self when the divorce proceedings were initiated. It is
quite certain that Wolsey had other designs for Henry
if he should obtain his freedom from Katherine, and

64 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
matters had gone very far before he even suspected the
real current of the King's intentions.
The Catholic tradition, then, from the first, undoubtedly
pointed to Wolsey as the originator of the divorce pro
ceedings. Harpsfield, the friend of Warham and Roper
and Rastall, as well as of the family of Sir Thomas
More, and, as has been said, the intimate of a circle of
people " in whom were concentrated the best Catholic
traditions," had no doubt on this point. Sir Richard
Shelley, the son of a judge, wrote an account of the
divorce, which is still extant in manuscript. He attri
butes all the blame to Wolsey. Nicholas Sander, the
Catholic writer, incorporated in his account of the
" Schism," much from works of Rastall and Hilliard,
which are not now forthcoming, but which we cannot
doubt implicated the Cardinal. And, lastly, the writer
in the Quarterly Review, named above, states that the
same is the verdict of Richard Hall, who wrote the life
of the martyred Bishop Fisher. Hall had his informa
tion from Phillips, the last Prior of the Benedictine
cathedral priory of Rochester, who had sat in the Con
vocation of 1529; and from Thomas Harding, who had
been chaplain to Stokesley, Bishop of London. Wil
liam Forest, who was a contemporary, and who became
chaplain to Queen Mary, agrees with Harpsfield and
Shelley and Hall.
From all the evidence that is now procurable, then, it
seems to me that Shakespeare has stated the position
most correctly when he puts into the mouths of his
characters the following: Chamberlain.
It seems the marriage with his brother's wife
Has crept too near his conscience.

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 65
Suffolk. No : his conscience
Has crept too near another lady.
Norfolk.
'Tis so.
This is the Cardinal's doing, — the King Cardinal ;
That blind priest, like the eldest son of fortune,
Turns what he lists. The King will know him one day.
Suffolk.
Pray God he do ! He'll never know himself else.
Norfolk.
How holily he works in all his business !
And with what zeal ! For now he has crackM the league
Between us and the Emperor, the Queen's great-nephew —
He dives into the King's soul ; and there scatters
Dangers, doubts, wringing of the conscience,
Fears, and despairs, and all these for his marriage ;
And, out of all these to restore the King,
He counsels a divorce : a loss of her
That, like a jewel, has hung twenty years
About his neck, yet never lost her lustre.
According to Shakespeare, too, Queen Katherine's
opinion as to the culpability of Wolsey in first moving
the question of the divorce is certain. For example, the
following:
Wolsey.
Be patient yet.
Queen Katherine.
I will, when you are humble ; nay, before,
Or God will punish me. I do believe,
Induced by potent circumstances, that
You are mine enemy ; and make my challenge,
You shall not be my judge ; for it is you
Have blown this coal betwixt my lord and me.
But, after all, the question whether or not the idea of
the divorce first came from the all-powerful Cardinal is
comparatively unimportant; it is of academic rather
F

66 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
than of real interest in the question. Those who are so
anxious to clear Wolsey's honour of this stain forget
that his memory must ever be burdened with heavier
charges. It is impossible, however, not to admire the
restraint with which Mr. Brewer speaks of a Roman
priest and a Cardinal, and how his admiration for the
great statesman tries to soften the hostile verdict that
many of his acts would certainly call for. As Lord
Acton has said : " For Wolsey, as a minister of tyranny,
as a pensioner of foreign potentates, as a priest of
immoral life, he has extreme indulgence. The Cardinal
attempted to obtain from Parliament a declaration that
all things in the land belonged to the Crown — a doctrine
which from the day in which Frederic Barbarossa con
sulted the jurists of Bologna, until Louis XIV caused it
to be sanctioned by the divines of the Sorbonne, has
been the symbol of despotic power. At the moment
when he (the Cardinal) broke off the English alliance
with the House of Burgundy and sought the friendship
of France, he had for four years been denied his pension
by the Power he had abandoned, whilst he required
from the Power that he joined a sum equal in our
money to ^285,000."
So much with regard to Wolsey's particular share in
initiating the divorce question. We may now turn to
the question itself, and to a consideration of the peculiar
circumstances of the times in which it became the ques
tion of the hour. The failure of the English policy in
France was set down against Wolsey. Shakespeare has
no doubt as to this: Norfolk.
France hath flam'd the league and hath attacked
Our merchants' goods at Bordeaux. . . ',

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 67
Buckingham.
Why, all this business
Our reverend Cardinal carried.
Shakespeare's estimate of the way in which Henry's
powerful minister was hated in England is hardly over
drawn. The suspicions at this time, voiced in the play
by Buckingham, that Wolsey had been working for
his own hand, and looking in the first place to his
personal interests, were commonly entertained by the
people at large. If we ask ourselves how it was that
Wolsey withstood the shock of political failure, and, in
spite of all, for a time at least retained his position, we
must certainly confess that it was through the inop
portune introduction of the divorce question that he
was able to do so. Let us understand the situation.
An important change had come over the domestic life
of King Henry. Katherine of Aragon was now past
forty years of age, and, even for a southerner, was pre
maturely old.1 All hopes of a son and heir to the crown
were at an end, and Mary appeared destined to be the
sole issue of the marriage. Henry, a man of strong if
not ungovernable passions, had been estranged from his
Queen since 1524, and even longer. This is hardly re
cognised, but Campeggio, after having heard her con
fession, at her request, says that the estrangement had
lasted gia molti anni — " for many years."
The state of the succession was a matter of grave
anxiety. What would happen on the death of Henry?
The English nation had had no experience of the ruling
of a woman. The safety of the Tudors was in the cer-
taintyof the succession; and the knowledge that Katherine
1 This passage is adapted from the Quarterly Review, January
1877.

68 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
could have no son revived men's fears. The memory of
the havoc wrought during the long civil wars was still
fresh and filled minds with dread of their possible re
newal; and "the murders in the royal house, which in
seven preceding reigns had seven times determined the
succession," came up as ghosts to convey warnings of
what might be again.
Could a Queen reign? This was a question to which
no one was competent to offer a solution. If she could,
then Henry VII, who had no hereditary right except
through his mother, who survived him, was never the
rightful King. The fact is that " until the birth of Eliza
beth no law of the land enabled a woman to wear the
crown; no example justified it." Even in Katherine's
own marriage contract, whilst it was provided that the
crown should descend to her sons, no such provision
was made for the daughters, and it was quite uncertain
whether Mary's right to succeed to her father would be
unchallenged at his death.
It is necessary to bear all this in mind when con
sidering the first beginnings of the " thorny question of
the divorce," as it has been well called. Obvious practical
reasons existed against Katherine's marriage and in
favour of the divorce, if they could be justified by law
and equity. In fact, as has been said, " no man's mar
riage was exposed to more obvious objection." Not
withstanding this, up to 1527, so far as there is evidence,
the idea of such a contingency had occupied Henry's
mind only in a languid sort of way. " Neither aversion
for the Queen nor desire of an heir nor religious scruple
caused him to pursue it with any fixed determination"
Brewer, indeed, has supposed that there was a distinct
allusion to the question in a letter written in 1526 by

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 69
Clerk, Bishop of Bath, in which he declares that " there
will be great difficulty circa istud benedictuvi divortiutn."
But Dr. Eshers, whose researches into the whole question
among the papers of the Vatican have thrown so much
light upon many obscurities in it, has shown that this
remark refers to a proposed divorce of Francis of France
and the Emperor's sister Eleanor, so that he might
marry the Princess Mary.
In 1527 Henry determined to pursue the question of
his divorce to the end. Early in that year Anne Boleyn
returned to England, and at Court she attracted the
notice of the King. She encouraged his attentions, but
made it quite clear that she would do nothing more for
his pleasure until he should be in a position to make
her his wife. Wolsey was not at the time aware of her
influence, and we may take it for granted did not attri
bute the King's determination to obtain a divorce to
this motive. Henry had long led an immoral life, which
was well known, and the Cardinal seems to have thought
that his royal master was only acting towards Anne as
he had been in the habit of doing with others of the
Queen's ladies.
On 17th May 1527 the first formal step in the cause
of the divorce was taken. Wolsey summoned the King
to appear before his Legatine Court to answer to the
charge of living unlawfully in the married state with his
brother's widow. This was a secret proceeding, and
much of it was probably occupied with considering how
the question could be raised decently. At any rate, it
was planned that Henry should attribute his scruples of
mind to a doubt as to the Princess Mary's legitimacy,
expressed by the Bishop of Tarbes, the French Ambas
sador, who had come to England in the spring of this

70 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
year to negotiate her marriage with the King of France.
There is no evidence whatever that the Bishop had ex
pressed any such doubt, but Henry was an adept in
putting responsibility upon others.
It was proposed to keep the Queen in entire ignor
ance of these secret proceedings in the Legatine Court;
but she heard of them and informed the Spanish Am
bassador. In May, whilst the secret Court (which must
be held to reflect indelible disgrace upon both Wolsey
and his royal master) was still sitting, the Imperial
Ambassador reports what would be the effect of the
publication of the news: "The Queen is so beloved
throughout the country, that at any time so iniquitous
a transaction would have caused general excitement;
and now, coupled with the disaffection caused by these
reports of war [against the Emperor], it would give a
double motive for rebellion."
No word was said to the Queen until the 22nd of
June, when Henry told her of his scruples and of the
proposed inquiry. He tried to pacify her by assuring
her that the whole object of the inquiry was not to pro
cure a divorce, but to remove all doubt of Mary's
legitimacy. To carry out Wolsey's advice — to treat
Katherine " gently and doulcely " — the King paid her
another visit on the 22nd of July. He acted his part so
well that her suspicions were removed.
Out of these two visits, however, came an important
issue, for which Wolsey at least was apparently not pre
pared. Granting that there were serious objections even
to a papal dispensation for marrying a deceased brother's
wife, Katherine still maintained that this had no applica
tion in her case, since she had been Arthur's wife in name
only, their marriage never having been consummated.

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 71
This evidently for a time brought little less than con
sternation to the mind of Wolsey. For days there were
consultations and constant messages passing between
the Cardinal and his royal master; and in the end
Wolsey gave it as his opinion that even if the impedi
ment of affinity had not been contracted by actual
marriage, still, since Arthur and Katherine had been
married in faciem ecclesiae (publicly), the impediment
publicae honestatis (public honesty) existed, for which
he believed that the dispensation obtained before Henry's
marriage was insufficient.
Wolsey thus stood fully committed to the King's
" matter " when at the beginning of July he started on
an embassy to France. Passing through Rochester on
his way to the coast, the Cardinal determined to sound
Bishop Fisher as to his knowledge of Henry's intentions.
The Bishop had heard merely a rumour of a proposal
for a divorce, but knew nothing for certain. The Car
dinal thereupon told him positively that Henry had no
such designs, and in the strictest confidence informed
him that all the King wished to do was to prove the
legitimacy of his union with Queen Katherine, since the
legitimacy of the Princess Mary had been called in
question by the Bishop of Tarbes. A rumour of the
necessary inquiries having reached the ears of the Queen,
he said she had become alarmed, and had insinuated
that he, Wolsey, was trying to promote a divorce be
tween them, which was of course untrue.
Fisher was completely taken in by this explanation, and
declared his intention to speak to the Queen about her
suspicions and impetuosity; but allowed himself to be per
suaded hot to do so. We have every reason for believing
that Archbishop Warham, who had allowed himself to act

72 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
as assessor to Wolsey in the secret inquiry, was also de
ceived by the Cardinal's representations as to the real in
tention of Henry. He, too, with all simplicity accepted
the story of the Bishop of Tarbes' reflection on Mary's
legitimacy, and the King's desire to set the matter right.
Wolsey returned to England at the end of September
1527, to find that his position in the kingdom was not
so secure as he imagined. Whilst he had been revelling
in his fancied greatness in France, the ground was in
reality giving way beneath his feet. He had expected
to be received by the King with extraordinary honours,
but in his absence matters had changed at the English
court to his disadvantage. He found Anne Boleyn
closeted with the King, and learned that it was really at
her summons he had been bidden to this interview.
Henry met him without reserve, and forthwith told
him what was indeed now in everyone's mouth, but what
the Cardinal could not bring himself to credit — namely,
that he intended to marry Anne. On his knees Wolsey
besought his master to give up this design, but all his
arguments fell upon deaf ears. Then, seeing that re
monstrances were fruitless, Wolsey, though he was Papal
Legate, Cardinal, Archbishop, and priest, elected to pay
his court to Anne, and gave a splendid banquet at his
archiepiscopal palace to the lady and her royal paramour.
" It would have been well," writes Dr. Gairdner, " if, on
this discovery, he could have thrown off responsibility
for the whole business and left it to other agents who
were deeper in the King's confidence." But this is just
what was impossible, if he would keep even for a time
his ascendancy over a nobility who had long regarded
him with feelings of jealousy and hatred. And, as the
same authority remarks, " Wolsey's fall seemed but too

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 73
likely to lead to his execution." He of all men knew that
failure meant death.
From this time, therefore, Wolsey, against his better
judgment — and shall we say his conscience? — was en
gaged in a desperate attempt to regain his ascendancy
over Henry by lending himself to the promotion of what
the King willed. " It was hopeless now to offer direct
resistance; it was dangerous even to show lukewarm-
ness. Discerning persons, like Cardinal Campeggio,
were convinced long afterwards that the cause to which
he seemed devoted was altogether distasteful; but he
saw no safety for himself except in appearing to be its
very earnest advocate."
Notwithstanding his apparently submissive attitude,
Henry did not trust the Cardinal. And it was soon made
clear to Wolsey that the royal agents were working for
something that was being kept a secret from him. It
was not long before he found out that they were asking
for permission for the King to marry Anne Boleyn,
whether he was actually married to Katherine or not.
In other words, the royal proposal was that the Pope
should give him a licence for bigamy, " which would save
a world of trouble," as one of the agents put it. To
secure this, Knight, the King's agent with the Pope,
offered the Cardinal Sanctorum Quatuor 2,000 crowns,
which was, however, refused. Failing this, Henry asked
for a dispensation to marry one with whom he had
already contracted affinity in the first degree, through
illicit intercourse ; this dispensation to be effective only
if the King's marriage with Katherine was set aside.
A very important letter from Henry to his agent
Knight (first printed in the Academy of 17th March
1879, from the original in Corpus Christi College, Ox-

74 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
ford) helps us to understand that the King felt obliged
by the remonstrances of Wolsey to cancel his instruc
tions in regard to the dispensation to commit bigamy ;
but he suggested another possible Brief, about which, ac
cording to this letter, the Cardinal was to be kept in
complete ignorance. This was to include a dispensation
from the impediment of affinity, asked for with the pro
viso that the King's marriage should be declared null.
To Wolsey, with his knowledge of statecraft, it would
have appeared the most fatal piece of diplomacy to ask
for the dispensation before the first marriage had been
declared invalid, as it disclosed reasons other than those
of a lawful character for endeavouring to secure a judg
ment against the union with Katherine. Notwithstand
ing this, however, Knight really obtained from Clem
ent VII, at Orvieto, on 17th December 1527, a Bull,
which, without naming Anne, granted the dispensation,
in case the first marriage could be dissolved in a legal
manner. " At this stage," says Dr. Gairdner, " it must be re
marked that there was no intention of disputing the
Pope's dispensing power in cases like that of a deceased
brother's wife. On the contrary, Henry had just applied
for a dispensation to deal with a similar case of affinity,
only not so respectable." The question he wished to
raise was, whether the dispensation of Julius II, under
which he had married Katherine, could be impugned
and invalidated on some technical grounds, which did
not, it may be observed, rest on any supposed divine law
or Scriptural prohibition. In fact, the five grounds for
invalidating the dispensation advanced at this stage of the
proceedings are sufficiently foolish, and the reasons are
flimsy in the extreme. As given by Dr. Eshers, they are:

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 75
First, that Henry desired the marriage, — which was
not true ; for he never asked for it, or knew of the ob
taining of the dispensation.
Second, that the marriage was contracted for the
sake of preserving peace and alliance — an insufficient
reason, especially as there had been no war, and there
was no danger of one at the time.
Third, that Henry was only twelve years old when
the dispensation was obtained, and therefore not of
lawful age.
Fourth, that some of the persons named in the Bull
were dead before it was put in force, and therefore the
document must have been surreptitious.
Fifth, that Henry, on reaching the age of fourteen,
had made a protestation that he would not marry
Katherine, by which the previous dispensation was ren
dered null, and a subsequent marriage was not valid
without a new one.
On these it is only necessary to remark that the last,
which perplexed the authorities at the Curia, was no ob
jection, since the protestation was caused by Henry VII's
wish to evade a treaty obligation, and to defer the
marriage until the dower of the princess was in Eng
land. It is wholly unnecessary to enter into the details of
the embassies to the Pope by which the King and Wol
sey sought to obtain what they wished. The treatment
accorded to Clement VII by the English agents — ¦
especially, I am sorry to say, by Gardiner — is one of the
most humiliating episodes of this wholly sordid business.
No doubt it would have been better for all concerned if
the Pope had been more decided, and had sooner made
up his mind to some one course ; but this vacillation can

76 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
furnish no excuse for the language of the royal agents
and their overbearing attitude toward the unfortunate
Pontiff. Their first efforts were exerted to procure from
the Holy See " a decretal commission " addressed to
Wolsey; in other words, to give him full authority to
hear and determine the case.
On Friday the 3rd of April 1528 Gardiner, Fox, and
Gregory Casale, the English agents, were summoned
into the presence of the Pope to hear his decision on this
point. It was to this effect. The reasons for granting a
divorce were not so clear and manifestly just that the
Pope could in justice to the other party give sentence
without hearing that side. Nor could he give a decretal
commission, which hereafter might be a common law
binding the whole world. But he offered a general com
mission to try the case, with a promise that its sentence
would be confirmed. After an. unseemly struggle, the
English agents were bound to accept this solution, and
Wolsey and Campeggio were ultimately named as the
commissioners to hear and determine the cause.
Although the matter dragged on for six years, during
all that time and amid ever-varying incidents, no new
legal or practical point was raised. Henry's motive for
demanding a divorce was known and acknowledged; so
were the grounds upon which he asked for it. The
position of the Pope was clear. He had already declared
that these grounds were insufficient in law ; and, as no
other grounds were ever brought forward (none really
existed), his final sentence was already foreshadowed,
should appeal, in the turn of events, be made to him to
decide the question. Meanwhile the first commission,
which was issued to Wolsey and Campeggio on 13th
April 1528, could not b* acted upon; and on 8th June

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 77
there was granted a second, of precisely the same tenour
as the previous one. The two Cardinals were to inquire
into all the facts bearing upon the validity of Pope
Julius' dispensation, and to pronounce sentence. If
Henry's marriage should be found to be null and void,
they were nevertheless empowered to declare the off
spring of the marriage, and of any second marriage,
equally legitimate.
Gardiner, upon obtaining the original commission,
forthwith despatched Fox, his fellow agent, to England.
The latter arrived at Greenwich on the afternoon of
2nd May 1528, and was directed by the King to go at
once to " Mrs. Anne's chamber " and declare his news.
Henry quickly joined him there; and, although the
agent had to report a failure to obtain the desired
decretal commission, what he had got was sufficient
to fill the hearts of the King and his mistress with great
joy. From Greenwich Fox repaired to Wolsey, whose re
ception was not so hearty as that accorded to him at
court. The Cardinal was ill satisfied and perplexed;
for it seemed to him that the commission might lead to
useless difficulties and dangers. The next day he had
the papers read in the presence of Lord Rochford,
Anne's father, and seemed more satisfied. " But, " says
Dr. Gairdner, "it is clear that he was only making
the best of the existing situation, and that the question
for him now was how long he could stave off ruin."
It was, indeed, a critical situation in which the great
Cardinal now found himself. The commission, on being
studied by the jurists, was not what Wolsey had hoped
to obtain. It did not limit the inquiry to the points set
out by the Cardinal, and it made no change in law of the

78 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
Church as to marriage. On the contrary, it directed
that the validity of Julius' dispensation should be de
termined according to the existing laws. And, worse
than anything, the lawyers pointed out that the words
juris latio gave the Queen the right to appeal to the
Pope, notwithstanding the final clause to which Gardiner
and Fox had ignorantly attached undue value.
Wolsey did not, however, make the King acquainted
with his fears, but, on the contrary, flattered him with
words about the justice of his case. At the same time,
however, he wrote to Gardiner, telling him to consult
with learned men in Italy how best to defeat the Pope's
intention of trying the case according to law and justice.
He instructed the agent still to endeavour, by all means
in his power, to obtain the decretal, in the form already
demanded, authorising him to swear in animam suam
that he would not show it to any one except the King;
though in the same letter he explained to Gardiner how
useful such a document would be to show to those who
were opponents of the King's divorce, in order to con
vince them that their case was hopeless.
The Pope at first promised; and then, being con
vinced that such a document would be unlawful, re
tracted his word. Wolsey pleaded earnestly that his
own life was really in danger; and, finally, Clement sent
by Campeggio some form of a decretal, which was to be
shown to the King and the Cardinal and then to be
burned immediately. All trace of this document has dis
appeared, and it is now impossible to say what it really
contained ; but it is obvious that it could not have been
any declaration of the nullity of Henry's marriage, as
the King afterwards pretended ; nor was it anything
which put any stop to the trial before the Legates.

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 79
In the meantime, whilst matters were in suspense, the
King was making little secret of his intentions in regard
to Anne. His liaison with her became public property,
and he frequently wrote to her letters couched in gross
and passionate terms, which throw a slur on her modesty
and virtue, and leave no doubt as to the guilty nature of
their connection. Under Henry's personal supervision,
magnificent apartments were fitted up for her, where
courtiers worshipping the rising sun paid her more
attention than they had been wont for a long time to
show to the Queen herself.
Campeggio, delayed by illness, did not reach Paris on
his way to England until the middle of September 1528.
He made no secret about the principles that were to
guide him. Much to the surprise of Francis, he declared
that, in the first place, his mission was to try to get
Henry to change his mind and abandon the proceed
ings; but if that were found to be impossible, the result
of the inquiry into the marriage must depend upon the
evidence; and that the only thing certain in the matter
was that there should be no failure of justice. In order
to keep his hands clean, he refused the repeated offers of
the English agents to supply him with money; and this
attitude he maintained during all his stay in England.
On his arrival in London, Campeggio was again suf
fering from the gout; but Henry was so impatient at
the unlooked-for delays that on the very day of the Car
dinal's taking up his abode at Bath Place, Wolsey was
sent to interview him, returning on several successive
days to continue the conference. At the end of all these
meetings, Campeggio reported to the Pope: " I have
had no more success in persuading the Cardinal than if
I had spoken to a rock,"

80 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
On 23rd October the King came privately to see the
Legate, and remained with him four hours. Campeggio
began by exhorting him to give up the idea of a divorce,
and offered him a fresh dispensation confirming his mar
riage with Katherine. Henry at once refused this, and in
so positive a manner that Campeggio informed the Pope
after the interview : " I believe if an angel descended
from heaven, he would not be able to persuade his
Majesty to the contrary."
The two Cardinals visited the Queen two or three
times, in the hopes of being able to induce her to retire
into a convent and not press the question to trial.
Katherine refused absolutely to have anything but a fair
and just trial of the matter at issue.- Both Henry and
Wolsey were disappointed in the Legate. They had ex
pected to have some one who would be a pliant tool in
their hands, whereas Campeggio was wholly incorrupt
ible, and kept his judgment free. He was quite willing
to urge the Queen to sacrifice herself for the sake of the
general interests concerned, but he was determined not
to overstep the bounds of law and justice. Wolsey's
consternation reached its height when Campeggio in
formed him that by his instructions, after concluding the
inquiry into the validity of the King's marriage, he was
obliged to lay his conclusions before the Pope and wait
further orders prior to passing sentence.
Wolsey now thought by delay to obtain further powers
from the Pope, and he demanded permission to show the
secret decretal Bull to some members of the Council. In
fact, he told his agent to pretend that the Pope had
promised to allow this. Clement VII, on hearing this
flat falsehood, declared that it was obvious that Wolsey
was deceiving him. He had asked, he said, for a Bull to

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 81
be shown only to the King; and it had been granted in
order to save his [Wolsey's] life, which he had declared
was really in danger. On the agent's pressing the Car
dinal's request, the Pope manifested anger and forbade
him to refer to the subject again.
This having failed, messengers were despatched from
England with instructions to make fresh efforts to obtain
something that could be satisfactorily substituted for the
very uncertain inquiry now pending in England. The
instructions now given are so astounding that, unless an
original copy of them existed, they could hardly be
credited. First, they were to try again to procure the
decretal commission, more than once before refused by
the Pope. If this failed, they were to try to get the Pope
to recall the cause to Rome, after he had signed a writ
ten promise that within two or three months he would
give sentence in the King's favour. If this also was
found to be impossible, then they were to ask the Pope
" out of the fulness of his power," to declare the King's
marriage null and to authorise him to take another wife;
or, finally, to give him permission to have two wives at
once, or to take another wife if the Queen could be in
duced to enter a convent. After the usual interviews
with the Pope, and repeated attempts to coerce him
into compliance, with which methods he was only too
familiar, the agents were forced to write to say that they
could do nothing with him.
Circumstances showed Wolsey that further delay in
the opening of the Legatine Court would be perilous.
He made one more attempt, however, to secure enlarged
powers for the Legates ; in other words, the Pope was to
be asked to be a party to Wolsey's acting the part of
the unjust judge; and further, the agents were to
G

82 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
secure a positive promise that the Pope would not per
mit any appeal to Rome, but would at once confirm the
finding of the Legates. This concession he endeavoured
to obtain by a series of falsehoods which his agents were
instructed to tell the Pope, and which were backed up
by the usual threats. But by this time Clement had
evidently fathomed Wolsey's character, and he refused
to fall into the trap. On 31st May 1529, he wrote both
to Henry and Wolsey, telling them plainly he could not
act as they wished him to do.
It is unnecessary to enter into the particulars of the
Legatine Court, which sat to try this celebrated "di
vorce" case. Its proceedings are clear and straight
forward when compared with the tangled negotiations
which preceded them. At the end of May, in the year
1529, the Legates obtained the King's sanction to proceed,
and they summoned the King and Queen to appear be
fore them on Friday, the 18th of June. A couple of days
before this, the Queen signed a formal appeal to the
Pope, and a protest against the Legates as judges, which
she presented when summoned on the 18th. On the
2 1 st the Legates decided against Katherine's appeal; and
she, after a protest, and her celebrated appeal to Henry's
honour and affection as a husband, left the court and
took no further part in the proceedings.
When, on 10th July 1529, the news arrived that the
Queen's appeal to the Holy See had been rejected, and
that she had been pronounced contumacious, the Pope
made up his mind to recall the case to Rome; and, in a
Consistory on 23rd July, he issued a Bull terminating
the proceedings in England and removing the cause into
the Curia. Meanwhile in England the King's party
were doing all they could to hurry on a decision; and,

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 83
had it not been for the firmness of Campeggio, this
would have been taken before the arrival of the papal
Bull recalling the cause to Rome.
A decision of the Court was looked for on 22nd July.
But at the critical moment the Legate declared that he
would not be hurried; that, having been a lawyer and
one of the twelve judges of the Rota, he knew that in
cases of importance thirty days were allowed between
hearing the cause and judgment. For his part, he was
resolved " not to proceed in haste, but slowly and safely,
as befitted so grave a question."1 Finally, he let it be
understood that the Roman custom required the Court
to be closed from the end of July to the 4th of October.
This closed the suit in England ; for shortly afterward
the Queen received the papal letters withdrawing the
powers of the legates and citing her and the King to
plead the cause before the Court of the Rota in Rome.
With the closing of the Legatine Court came the
breach of Henry with Wolsey. On the 20th of Septem
ber, when the Cardinal accompanied Campeggio on his
farewell visit to the King, he was received by his royal
master for the last time; and, although the interview
was cordial, there were many indications — not lost upon
those who were present — that the sun of the great Car
dinal was already setting in a bank of darkest cloud.
On the first day of Michaelmas Term 1 529, Wolsey sat
in Westminster Hall for the last time as Chancellor;
and on the same day two Bills were filed against him in
the King's Bench for having transgressed the Statute of
Provisors by acting as the Pope's Legate. On the 15 th
of October the King sent for the Great Seal, and directed
the Cardinal to remove to a house at Esher. Before he
1 Sanders, p. 69.

84 WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE
left York Place, the Cardinal signed a deed making over
to the King all his temporal possessions, under a promise
that none of his spiritual promotions should be touched.
During his stay at Esher, Wolsey led a most devout
life, saying Mass daily, and praising God for having
given him this opportunity of repenting of his sins. He
declared to everyone that he had never enjoyed greater
peace of mind ; and that, were the King to restore him
to his former position, he would return to it most un
willingly. On October the 23rd Wolsey was judicially declared
a rebel and traitor; all his property was forfeited, and
his person was placed at the King's mercy. The Lent
of 1530 the Cardinal spent with the Carthusian monks
of Sheen. He joined the religious in all their offices in
choir, and spent many hours each day in their cells
talking over the affairs of his soul. In Passion Week he
was ordered to go to his see of York, and began his
journey forthwith, spending the Holy Week with the
monks at Peterborough. He here joined in all the
ceremonies of that holy time, walking in the processions,
and washing the feet of fifty-nine poor men on Maundy
Thursday. His brief sojourn in the north was occupied
in works of charity and religion, which won for him
golden opinions from his flock, and especially from the
poorer members, to whose needs, spiritual and temporal,
he entirely devoted himself.
He was not left long, however, in peace. On Friday
4th November 1530, the Earl of Northumberland and
others of the King's household arrived in York and
arrested him for high treason. Wolsey set out at once
for London, in their custody; but he only reached
Leicester on Saturday 26th November, to die at the

WOLSEY AND THE DIVORCE 85
abbey, where he was buried three days later. That his
repentance was true and sincere cannot be doubted ; and
this belief is found recorded in the description Cavendish
gives of his last hours, and more dramatically in Shake
speare's immortal words :
Farewell,, a long farewell, to all my greatness !
This is the state of man. To-day he puts forth
The tender leaves of hope — to-morrow blossoms,
And bears his blushing honours thick upon him ;
The third day comes a frost, a killing frost ;
And — when he thinks, good easy man, full surely
His greatness is a-ripening — nips his root,
And then he falls as I do. I have ventured,
Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders,
These many summers in a sea of glory ;
But far beyond my depth. My high-blown pride
At length broke under me ; and now has left me
Weary, and old with service, to the mercy
Of a rude stream, that must for ever hide me.
Vain pomp and glory of this world, I hate ye ;
I feel my heart new open'd. O how wretched
Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favours !

Mark but my fall, and that, that ruin'd me.
Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away ambition.
By that sin fell the angels ; how can man then,
The image of his Maker, hope to win by 't?
Love thyself last : cherish those hearts that hate thee ;
Corruption wins not more than honesty.
Still in thy right hand carry gentle peace,
To silence envious tongues. Be just, and fear not.
Let all the ends thou aim'st at be thy country's,
Thy God's, and truth's ; then if thou fall'st, O Cromwell,
Thou fall'st a blessed martyr ! . . .
O Cromwell, Cromwell!
Had I but serv'd my God with half the zeal
I serv'd my King, He would not in mine age
Have left me naked to mine enemies.

WHAT, THEN, WAS THE ENGLISH
REFORMATION?1
WHEN Mary died on 17th November 1558, with
her passed away the hope of any permanent
return of England to the unity of the Catholic Church in
communion with Rome. No one probably had much
doubt as to the course that would be pursued by " the
young woman at Hatfield." She had known for some
months that her sister's days were numbered, and she
had made the great choice, which affected not only
herself and her own soul, but thousands of her then
subjects, whilst it decided " the creed of unborn millions
in undiscovered lands." She would be a Protestant, and
the English people were to belong to the Reformed
religion. Before passing on to consider the settlement as to
religion which Elizabeth so successfully imposed upon
the bulk of her subjects, it would be well to understand
exactly what is meant by the Reformation. It will per
haps appear to many of my readers somewhat super
fluous, at this date, to make such an inquiry ; but, what
ever may be the case in America, we Englishmen are
still constantly startled by novel suggestions as to the
exact meaning that is to be attached to the great re
ligious revolution of the sixteenth century.
1 A lecture given at Notre Dame Univ., U.S.A., October 1905.
86

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 87
A very few years ago, Mr. W. H. Hutton, a well-
known writer, holding a position as history tutor at the
University of Oxford, addressed "a small society of
Oxford theologians " on the subject of the English
Reformation. The paper had also been read in London,
at Market Harborough, and at the Church Congress at
Shrewsbury. After having subsequently appeared in
the columns of the Guardian newspaper, it was in 1 899
printed in the form of a pamphlet under the title of The
English Reformation. The lecturer thus states his
object at the beginning of his address : " I cannot but
feel that it would be helpful to many of us to have a
clear impression of what the Reformation was. I venture,
therefore, to offer a contribution to the discussion on the
Reformation, in the form of such conclusions as I have
drawn from the study I have given to the subject. . . .
Several of these conclusions are those that we have all
arrived at long ago ; they are even what people nowadays
call ' obvious ' ; but I am inclined to believe that what is
' obvious ' is not always understood."
Now, when a lecturer on history at one of the great
English universities says, in regard to an event of such
importance in English history as the Reformation :
"These are the conclusions I have drawn from the
study I have given to the subject," we are not unnatur
ally inclined to accord him a respectful hearing, in spite
of the modest warning which accompanies his statement,
that he does " not in any way lay claim to speak with
authority." The mere fact that they are the conclusions
of a man in Mr. Hutton's position, and that he can de
clare that, " so far as I know, so far as I have gone, they
are what I believe to be solid results," — this mere fact, I
say, must certainly cause them to be accepted as such

88 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
without question by many who have not been so fortunate
as to enjoy Mr. Hutton's opportunities for historical read
ing and research. More especially must this be the case
when he adds that, though he does not " now quote the
evidence" for any of these conclusions, he has yet
satisfied himself "that there is sufficient evidence for
them all." These conclusions, therefore, are worth con
sideration, not so much because they are Mr. Hutton's
as because they are apparently accepted as proven by
so many on both sides of the Atlantic.
In brief, the " conclusions " in regard to the English
Reformation at which Mr. Hutton has arrived after
mature study, and which he considers are all borne out
by "sufficient evidence," are the following: "(i) The
English Reformation is utterly different from any other
Reformation. (2) The English Reformation was spread
over two hundred years. It lasted practically from 1485
to 1662. Under Henry VII, all the causes which led to
a breach with Rome were in existence; and in one of its
chief aspects, the dissolution of the monasteries, the
Reformation had actually begun. (3) The so-called
' divorce question ' had very little to do with the Re
formation. (4) The Reformation was inevitable : nothing
could have stopped it."
It will probably be convenient if I make a few remarks
on these first four conclusions, before taking Mr. Hutton's
fifth and last, which is really the important matter. To
begin with the first: " The English Reformation is utterly
different from any other Reformation." It is clear at the
outset that the word " utterly," unless it is to be divorced
from its only recognised meaning, is a mere exaggera
tion, which no one in face of the known facts could
for a moment defend. There are points of obvious

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 89
similarity, doctrinal and otherwise, not to speak of
direct connection, between the English and the various
Continental phases of the Reformation. This no one
who knows anything about the matter can deny ; and it
is quite impossible to claim for the reform movement in
England any unique position or "splendid isolation."
Apart from this adjective "utterly," the assertion is
either a platitude or a truism. The Reformation of the
sixteenth century in each country was, of course, different,
and sometimes widely different, from that of every one
of its neighbours. All of them — the Swiss, the Belgian,
the German, the Italian, the Polish — were each, in a
sense, of course, unique, but no one could say they were
"utterly different"
Secondly, we are bidden to observe that " the English
Reformation was spread over nearly two hundred years.
It lasted practically from 1485 to 1662," — that is to say,
from the accession of the Tudors to the last Act of
Uniformity and the "Black Bartholomew." Why 1662
should be considered as the final effort of the Reforma
tion is not obvious ; for, beyond the " Black Bartholomew,"
and the obligation then put upon the clergy to receive
episcopal ordination for the due exercise of the ministry
in the Established Church, there is no reason why the
history of the movement should stop there and not be
continued to the present day, any more than why it
should begin with 1485. For just as good a reason
might the Lutheran Reformation be considered as ex
tending up to the foundation of the Evangelical Church
of Prussia in our own century, and as starting with the
Council of Basle.
The fact is that " the Reformation " for England, in
the only sense which that term has among ordinary and

90 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
educated men, means that change which was made in
the sixteenth century from what both common and
educated folk call " the Catholic religion " to what they
call and understand by the name " Protestantism "; that
is, such a change as would be implied if the inhabitants,
say, of Southern Bavaria had their religion changed for
them to that of Pomerania. By this it is, of course, not
in the least contended that the change was bad or that
it was good ; but that it was, as a change, a concrete and
definite historical fact, which has been known to all and
spoken of by all — except perhaps by modern professed
controversialists— as " the English Reformation."
It is hard to see how any one acquainted with the
facts can doubt that this revolution, whether for good or
evil, was in reality carried out in England within the
space of, say, twenty years. The real change was an
accomplished fact within this brief period of time; and
other changes, as to higher level or lower level in prac
tice and belief, that have taken place at various times
since, even up to our own days, are wholly insignificant
in comparison. In fact, Mr. Hutton, like every reason
able man who comes to the point, and is not merely en
gaged in " argumenting " (as it has been called) " upon the
Pope and his estate," evidently sees this quite clearly
himself ; for he says : " Elizabeth's reign, if we must be
particular, is the real era of the Reformation settlement."
If this be so, why (except for the purpose of mere " argu
menting upon the Pope ") raise issues or lay down postu
lates that, directly on being examined, prove to be a
mere arbitrary use of words, and misleading?
Thirdly, Mr. Hutton is sure the "divorce question"
was not so important in the English Reformation move
ment ; in fact, that it " had very little indeed to do with

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 91
it." "This is quite plain," he says, "from the dreary
volumes of unsavoury letters and pamphlets which record
every phase of the case, and which I have been wearily
wading through." On this, one observation only seems
called for — viz. : how easy it apparently is for different
people to draw different conclusions from the perusal of
the same documents. Dr. James Gairdner, than whom
no one has a greater right to speak with authority on
these very documents, declares that " when a gentleman
of Mr. Hutton's attainments is able seriously to tell us
this, I think it is really time to ask people to put two
and two together and say whether the sum can be any
thing but four. It may be disagreeable to trace the
Reformation to so very ignoble an origin; but facts, as
the Scottish poet says, are fellows that you can't coerce,
and that won't bear to be disputed. . . . That which we
call the Reformation in England — and it really changed
the status of religion all the world over — was the result
of Henry VIlI's quarrel with the Court of Rome on the
subject of his divorce, and the same results could not
possibly have come about in any other way."
Having got rid of the " divorce " as a cause, or even
as an important factor, Mr. Hutton gives us his mature
judgment as to the real cause of "the Reformation,"
that "the feeling of the people" was such that "the
Reformation was inevitable : nothing could have stopped
it." Fortunately, he does not leave us merely to accept
or reject this broad statement, but tells his readers
how he came to this conclusion. " This is overwhelm
ingly borne in upon one," he says, "as one reads,
as I have recently been doing, the literature of the
fifteenth century — not only Wiclif earlier, but Gascoigne
and Pecock, and the Paston Letters. And, besides that,

92 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
the most pious lay sons of the Church saw that it must
come — More and the scholars of Oxford and Cambridge
who introduced Greek." Over these not very recondite
but instructive sources, I may also claim to have passed
many a busy and many a meditative hour, but most
certainly was not led to the same conclusion. It may be
worth while perhaps to explain why, especially as it may
help to show the reason why many people seem to get
what may be called "tangled ideas" on subjects that
border " upon the Pope and his estate."
" The Reformation," says Mr. Hutton, " was inevit
able." What is wrong here is all in the little article
"the." Writers who deal with "the English Reforma
tion" should beware how they use their parts of speech.
" The Reformation," when we are professedly dealing
with " the English Reformation," is a definite, concrete
fact. We know (or, if we please, we can know) what we
accurately mean when we speak about it. Taking Eliza
beth's reign, for example, we need have no difficulty in
knowing what were its doctrines, its devotions, its dis
cipline, if Sampson, Cartwright, and some other divines
and worthies will pass the word in such a case. In all
this the English Reformation was Protestant, of the left
wing of Protestantism ; whilst in regimen it was that of
the right wing — German, Swedish, Danish; Elizabeth
herself being, let people put it as they like, what in that
right wing was called summus episcopus — " the supreme
authority in religion."
When we talk of " the Reformation," then, in reference
to England, it is this concrete thing, " the Elizabethan
Church," that is in question. To say that in the fifteenth
or early sixteenth century this was inevitable no one
could assert, any more than that Gascoigne, or Pecock,

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 93
or More, or the scholars at Oxford and Cambridge who
introduced Greek, would have had any sympathy what
ever with it. If for " the Reformation " there is substi
tuted "a Reformation" Mr. Hutton may not be far wrong.
" If it be said," writes Dr. Gairdner, " that some reforma
tion must have come quite apart from Henry VIII's
divorce, that is a proposition that I am in no way con
cerned to dispute." It is no new thing that there should
be in the Church need of " reform," and we need have no
hesitation in saying that one of the greatest calamities
that ever befell the Church was the failure of the per
sistent efforts of " reform in head and members " in the
beginning of the fifteenth century. " There were, indeed,"
to quote Dr. Gairdner again, " reformations in the Church
of Rome itself before what we call the Reformation, and
there might conceivably have been another."
As regards what Mr. Hutton says about the existence
of " the strong popular feeling against Rome," here again
generalities are misleading. If Tyndale, and later the
official preachers, be taken as truly voicing English
popular feeling, the case can not be doubtful. If the
tone of the general literature and the new evidence
supplied by the State Papers for, say, 1530 to 1540, is
to be credited, it is impossible to maintain that the
breach with Rome was " popular " — that is, that it was
desired by " the people " at large, or indeed by any con
siderable number who had not a personal motive — who
did not, in fact, view it as a way leading to prospective
personal gains. That there was "any real hostility to
ward the Catholic Church among the great mass of the
people " in England in the sixteenth century, certainly
does not appear in any available evidence. " In point of
fact," says Dr. Gairdner, " all the appearances are the

94 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
other way. Heresy was not popular in England; and
the very heretics themselves who objected to Transub-
stantiation and Purgatory never thought of protesting
against the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, until the
King, for his own purposes, abolished that jurisdiction
altogether." This is the deliberate judgment of
Dr. Gairdner, a non-Catholic, who has spent his life
among the State Papers of this period.
Mr. Hutton's fifth point opens out a newer and much
more interesting series of considerations, and here it is
important to give his points in full. " (5) Quite another
point: We must not forget or minimise the influence on
our Reformation of what may be most conveniently,
though not accurately, called Protestantism — I mean the
distinct effect of English anti-Catholic writers ; and this
not merely through Cranmer and the ragged crew who
tried to man the ship under Edward VI, but through the
writings of Wiclif, and of those who had arrived later at
a distinctly Protestant position. I will give one instance.
It is impossible to read the Latin works of Wiclif, which
are now gradually becoming accessible, without seeing
that the English Reformers must have read them. What
set the Reformers on that quotation which they say
comes from St. Augustine in Article XXIX? I think
without doubt Wiclif 's treatise De Eucharistia, where he
quotes the same passage to the same purpose. Where
did the Black Rubric come from? It bears a striking re
semblance to a passage in the same book."
It will be necessary to say a word or two on these two
points of detail. But, first, what are we to think about
the general question? Were Wiclif 's works a source of
doctrine, in regard to the Eucharist, to the English Re
formers? Was it from him they drew the teaching they

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 95
proclaimed to others? Is there any prima facie evidence
that this was so? The view is novel. If it is true, it is
historically important. If it is not true, it can have no
value for the history of this period. The main question,
however, is, were the early English Reformers, and still
more their followers and successors, students of Wiclif,
and did they derive their doctrine de Eucharistia from
this English source? It might have been thought that
recent research had made two points pretty clear: (1)
that the leaders of the " Hussite " and other movements,
with which the beginning of foreign Protestantism can
be brought into undoubted connection, were much more
profoundly influenced by Wiclif's teachings than had
previously been supposed ; and (2) that in England, to
use the words of Dr. James Gairdner, " so far from
Lollardy having taken any deep root, the traces of it had
wholly disappeared long before the great revolution of
which it is thought to be the forerunner."
In other words, it would seem to be certain that the
intellectual and spiritual heirs of Wiclif are to be sought
for abroad, not at home; and that the influence of his
teaching {De Eucharistia, for instance) is distinctly trace
able among the early foreign Reformers. But as regards
England, in the light of ascertainable facts, the theory
put forward by Mr. Hutton would appear baseless. If it
were true, it would have been possible to find some trace
of such influence in the writings or doings of the early
Reformers during the heyday of " Cranmer and the
ragged crew," as Mr. Hutton calls the first English Pro
testants ; and, later, during the Elizabethan settlement.
Of Wiclif's works we have practically nothing. A print
of the Wiclif at Nuremberg in 1546, another by Foxe
at Strasburg in 1534; and, in England itself, the Prologue

96 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
of the Bible in Henry's reign (if indeed the Prologue be
by Wiclif at all),1 and nothing else, is all that we find in
the way of influences.
The fact is that the lines upon which the English Re
formation was conceived, and the influences which car
ried it forward, were, in the main, foreign; and it is
difficult to see how any one, not moved by controversial
exigencies, can possibly, in view of the patent facts of
history, come to any other conclusions. This is true ab
solutely in regard to the Eucharistic doctrine of the
English established religion. It is to works of the Ger
man and Swiss Reformers that the student of history
must look if he would understand the full meaning of
the movement and rightly gauge its spirit.
It is somewhat difficult for an outsider to understand
why, in certain schools of thought, so much objection is
now raised to the authority of names which in the early
days of the English Reformation were unquestionably
looked upon as those of the apostles and prophets of the
new religious renaissance. There can be no sort of doubt
1 The fact is, the source of the Wiclif cult is in Foxe ; and Mr.
Hutton need not take long in satisfying himself what figure Wiclif
cuts as a doctor de Eucharistia in that lengthy story of his life,
doctrine, and influence. Another book that may be consulted in
this matter is the " General Index" of the publications of the Parker
Society, where are easily found the names of Calvin, Bucer, Bul-
linger, Peter Martyr. And it will be seen that while these names
occupy, each ofjthem, several columns, Wiclif has only three-
quarters of a column. Those who will read (not surmise about) the
works published by the Parker Society, which form the monuments
and records of " the English Reformation," will see that this repre
sents fairly enough the measure of the " influence " exercised over
the English religious movements of the sixteenth century by the
foreign Reformers and the great " English anti-Catholic writers,"
Wiclif or the others.

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 97
that the beginnings at least of the actual religious
changes in England are to be attributed to the introduc
tion of Lutheran principles and ideals from abroad ; and
that for a long time both English churchmen and lay
men, so far from manifesting any sympathy with this
foreign importation, did all in their power to prevent
what they held to be these false and poisonous teachings
from taking root in England. The works of Sir Thomas
More alone show that the English authorities regarded
the spread of Lutheranism as nothing less than a cata
strophe. To them it was a " Lutheran invasion " against
which it was the manifest duty of all in power and office
to defend their country.
Whatever may have been the prevailing views of
responsible statesmen and ecclesiastics as to the desir
ability of " reform " in its general sense, nothing is more
certain than that, up to the very eve of the religious
changes, the common sense of Englishmen would have
indignantly repudiated any leaning to the principles of
" the Reformation " which subsequently obtained. The
most that can be said is that Cranmer, with that peculiar
subtlety of his when shades of doctrine are concerned,
and Cromwell, with his statecraft, did the best they
could to effect a Lutheran lodgment in Catholic Eng
land, and that they were seconded by the efforts of one
or two men like Bishop Foxe of Hereford and Dr. Barnes.
These efforts ended, however, only in defeat ; and in the
case of two at least of the chief actors, in death.
"And now comes Elizabeth," as Mr. Hutton says.
" Hers was the real settlement of the Church. She again,
by every legal power of Church and State, freed England
from Rome. Again we had our English services. The
royal supremacy, less strongly than the Convocations
H

98 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
had stated it in her father's reign, was reaffirmed. The
bishops who refused to accept it were deprived, as by
church law they could rightfully be. I need not describe
the church government, the Prayer Book, the Articles,
under Elizabeth, because they were, speaking broadly,
what they are now."
To understand the full truth of these words, it is neces
sary to examine into the meaning of the Elizabethan
settlement which made the Church, as by law established,
what it has remained ever since. Within a few hours of
Queen Mary's death, the Commons were summoned to
the bar of the House of Lords for the proclamation of
her successor. It was the duty 6f Heath, the Archbishop
of York, as chancellor, to declare that the Lady Eliza
beth was now Queen of England. " Of her most lawful
right and title to the crown," he said, " none could make
question." In point of fact, there was no other candi
date ; and her title to the throne rested upon her father's
will, an unrepealed statute, and the fact that she was the
only descendant of Henry. Still there must have been
many who would have shaken their heads over her legiti
macy. It would not have been forgotten that Parliament
had quite recently declared that Henry had been law
fully married to Katherine of Aragon, with the implied
logical sequence that he was not married to Anne — a
judgment to which the new Queen's godfather, Cran
mer, had previously come ; although his reasons, whilst
suggesting something too bad to make public, remained
unknown. Still, people shut their eyes to the unpleasant position
of Elizabeth from a legal point of view, especially as that
position was not of her own making. No voice was
raised in opposition ; and whatever suspicions Catholics

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 99
might have had as to her religious sentiments, a week
after the proclamation of their new sovereign, when she
made her entry into London, she was met at Highgate
by all the Catholic bishops, who knelt to do her homage
and make profession of their loyalty. But there were
some who noted indications of a change. Hardly was
Mary dead before Bishop White, of Winchester, was
arrested for preaching over her body an inopportune
sermon, in which he extolled her for the restoration of
the ancient faith. "The new Queen," says Professor
Maitland, the most recent and most careful writer on
this period — " the new Queen was an artist to the finger
tips. The English Bible was rapturously kissed; the
Tower could not be re-entered without uplifted eyes and
thankful words; and her hand (it was a pretty hand)
shrank, so folk said, from Bonner's lips."
What the religious convictions of the new Queen were
was not at first considered. Although many had strong
suspicions that her inclination was toward the " reform
ing" party, it was supposed that she had no very strong
views on religious matters, and that the future alone
could determine her religious policy. In fact, men were
divided as to whether or not she had any belief. The
Spanish envoy, puzzled by her shifty replies, once sug
gested that she was in her inmost soul an atheist; and
the history of her religious changes in the previous reigns
would show that her principles were, at least, somewhat
elastic. Under Edward VI, Elizabeth had accommodated
herself to his varied forms of progressive Protestantism ;
under her sister she had returned to the practice of the
Catholic religion; and, according to one contemporary
account, when the late Queen on her deathbed had con
jured her to declare her real convictions, Elizabeth is

ioo WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
said to have " prayed God [that] the earth might open
and swallow her up alive if she were not a true Roman
Catholic." Still, whatever the people at large may have
thought about her religion, all parties united in accept
ing her as their Queen; and, as she herself confessed,
accepted her with true and devoted loyalty.
To-day, I believe, most people have given up the silly
story, believed in by generations of Englishmen, that the
subsequent action of Elizabeth to Catholics was caused
by the Pope's refusal to acknowledge her as rightful
Queen at the beginning of her reign, and by the con
sequent hostile reception of her, in obedience to his
voice, by the English Catholics. Paul IV was supposed
to have informed Elizabeth, amongst other things, that
she was a bastard, and that England was a fief of the
Holy See. This Pope, says a modern historian, "has
much to answer for, but it was no insult from him that
made Elizabeth a Protestant." On the contrary, only a
few weeks after her accession, Sir Edward Carne, the
envoy of the late Queen at the Curia, wrote from Rome
to Cecil to inform him that Paul IV, in spite of the
efforts of the French, had refused to declare himself
against the succession of Elizabeth to the throne, and
would be ready to recognise her if she would first
formally send to acquaint him of her accession. At
Christmas, too, when the new Queen was showing her
mind as to religion by forbidding the Elevation of the
Host, the Pope was still talking kindly of her to the
French ambassador. When, on 1st February, Elizabeth
told Carne to come home, as she had nothing more for
him to do, the question of her attitude to Catholicism
was no longer doubtful; and when, on 27th March,
Paul IV detained Carne in Rome, he did so not because

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 101
the Queen was " base-born," but because she could now
be regarded only as a heretic.
No time was really lost. Matters of religion were soon
under consideration. Two days only after the Queen's
reception in London, on 25th November 1558, the im
perial ambassador wrote to his master that, " though no
change had been made in religion yet" {yet — that is, re
member, in hardly more than a week from her accession),
" it was easy to conjecture in what way lay her desires
and what she intended." And the ambassador was not
mistaken in his estimate of the situation. It was at once
made evident by the constitution of the Council, in which,
while retaining thirteen of Mary's advisers, she placed
eight new ones, all well known as favourers of the " Re
formed " religion. At the head of all, as her Secretary,
she put Sir William Cecil (afterward Lord Burghley),
then in his thirty-eighth year. To him more than to any
one else she owed the complete success of her religious
policy. The Great Seal, which Archbishop Heath re
signed, was given to Nicholas Bacon, who was married
to the sister of Cecil's wife.
By the chief Secretary's advice, there was formed a
secret cabinet within the cabinet, consisting of himself
with four others ; and by this means he and Elizabeth
were able to make all their plans for the change of reli
gion in secret and at their leisure. So carefully guarded
was their design that, though suspicions were rife
enough, nothing was known for certain. In fact, as
Howard, in his Annals, says : " Some colour of hope was
conceived that noe alteratione should be made at all, for
that a proclamatione was presently set forth [on 27th
December 1558] that no man should alter any rites and
ceremonyes at that tyme used in the Church." All the

102 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
time, however, the secret committee was preparing ; and
the general principle upon which it acted, as stated by
the Protestant historian Collier, was " that it was by no
means advisable to allow of more than one Church ; that
the free exercise of different religions would prove an
everlasting principle of sedition and disturbance."
What that one form of religion was to be can not be
doubtful. Within the first few weeks of the reign, Eliza
beth and Cecil had made up their minds as to the pecu
liar form of national religion which was alone to be
tolerated. There is still in existence a paper, by Sir
Thomas Smith, one of Cecil's chief lieutenants, in which
the whole scheme is drawn up in detail. The document
in question gives full instructions to a select committee
of Reformers (most of whom subsequently became Pro
testant bishops), to meet in December and prepare for
the coming " alteration of religion." This change was to
" be first attempted at the next Parliament"; great care
was to be taken to have everything ready, because
" many people of our own will be very much discon
tented," especially those "who governed in the late
Queen's time," and were chosen "for being hot and
earnest in the other religion," as that of the Catholics
was called. To guard against the possibility of failure,
all those who were in authority, " only or chiefly for
being of the Pope's religion," should be got rid of, and
if possible " searched by all law." In place of these,
" such as are known to be sure in religion " were to be
given all authority. And in regard to this, and to secure
success, Elizabeth, " to maintain and establish her reli
gion," must do what Queen Mary did.
As to the existing bishops and clergy, it was thought
that they would be hard to move; and so the Queen

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 103
" must seek, as well by Parliament as by the just laws of
England, in prcemunire and other such penal laws, to
bring them again into order," and not to pardon them
until they throw themselves on her mercy, " abjure the
Pope of Rome, and conform themselves to the new
alterations." A special committee was then appointed
to have " a plat or book " for the New Service " ready
drawn to her Highness; which, being approved of her
Majesty, may be so put into the Parliament house."
Meanwhile it was recommended that all innovations in
religious worship should be prohibited ; and that " until
such time as the book came forth," no alterations were
to be made " further than her Majesty hath, except it be
to receive the Communion as her Highness pleaseth on
high feasts; . . . and for her Highness's conscience till
then if there be some other devout sort of prayers or
memory said ; and the seldomer Mass.'' It was obviously
in consequence of this that the proclamation against in
novations was issued on 27th December 1558, by which
time every preparation for the religious changes was
already made.
Many signs of these coming changes were soon visible.
The reforming divines flocked back to England from
their refuges with the foreign Protestants. According to
the suggestion of Smith's memorandum that the Queen
was free to initiate changes in her private chapel, Bishop
Oglethorpe of Carlisle, whilst robing for Mass on Christ
mas morning received an order from the Queen that he
was not to elevate the Blessed Sacrament in her royal
presence. To this the Bishop replied, " my life is the
Queen's, but my conscience is my own," — intimating at
the same time to the messenger that he intended to con
tinue what the Catholic rite prescribed. The Queen

104 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
thereupon left the chapel, with her suite, after the Gos
pel. Within two months of Elizabeth's accession there was
no room for doubt as to her intention. 15th January
1559 had been appointed for her coronation — the very
time when Calvin was engaged in dedicating to her his
commentary on the Book of Isaias. The bishops met
and unanimously agreed that they could not in con
science crown and anoint her who, whilst still professing
to belong to the old religion, had already shown unmis
takable evidence of a determination to revolutionise the
existing state of things and re-establish the religious
conditions of the reign of Edward VI. At length, how
ever, the Bishop of Carlisle consented to set the crown
upon her head, but not until she had promised to take
the accustomed oath, by which she would solemnly en
gage herself " to maintain the laws, honour, peace, and
privileges of the Church as they existed in the time of
King Edward the Confessor." Elizabeth kept her pro
mise. She was conducted into Westminster Abbey by
" all the byshoppes, and all the chapell with 3 crosses,
and in her copes, the byshops mytered and syngyng
Salve festa dies, . . . and so to the Abbey to Mass." 1
Elizabeth attended Mass, took the old oath, received
the sacred unction, and conformed in everything to the
ancient rites of the Catholic Pontifical — although re
cently some doubt has been thrown on the question of
her reception of Communion.
On 25th January 1559, ten days after the coronation
festivities, Parliament met. As usual in Catholic times,
it was opened by a Solemn Mass, at which Elizabeth
was present; but by her order the sermon was preached
1 Machyn, Diary (ed. Camden Soc), p. 187.

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 105
by Dr. Cox, late of Frankfort, and of old, King Edward's
tutor — a notorious Protestant. The Commons who as
sembled in 1559 were probably to be relied upon, as
they had been summoned under the direct influence of
the crown ; but, on the other hand, there were at West
minster not a few men who were afterwards noted as
" hinderers of true religion," or at best as " faint pro
fessors." The first business transacted was the Parlia
ment's formal recognition of the Queen's right to the
throne. " Elizabeth's painful past," says a modern au
thority, " was veiled in a few words." Unlike Mary, who
had been eager to obtain a reversal of the Act by which
her mother's marriage with Henry VIII was declared
illegitimate, Elizabeth contented herself with a declara
tion of her royal descent, and left her mother still under
the stigma of incest, adultery, and treason. As some one
said, it seemed almost as if she desired to forget that she
ever had a mother, and was content to remember that
she was her father's daughter.
Before the new laws concerning religion were pro
posed, an Act was passed giving back to the crown the
tenths and first-fruits which Mary had surrendered to
their ancient purposes. At the same time Elizabeth
took possession of all the abbey lands and other church
property which had been restored, and upon which she
could lay her hands. When this had been done, the
Act of Royal Supremacy was immediately proposed for
the acceptance of Parliament. Round this the battle
raged for more than two months — from 9th February to
29th April. The object of the Bill was to do away with
the spiritual supremacy of the Pope and substitute that
of the crown. " It went," says Professor Maitland, " the
full Henrician length in its Caesaro-papalism and its

106 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
severity." For, under pain of being accounted a traitor,
every one was to swear that Elizabeth was supreme head
of the Church, from the archbishop to the parish beadle.
No one could henceforth hold any office in Church or
State who was unwilling to renounce the Pope and
acknowledge the royal supremacy. In other words,
every adherent of the old faith was at once excluded
from any and every position if he did not deny his faith
and sacrifice his conscience. " I desire," said one of the
lay Catholics in the Commons at the time — " I desire it
may be remembered that people who suffer for refusing
this oath are not to be considered as common male
factors, thieves, and murderers. They do not offend
from wicked intention and malice prepense. No: it is
conscience and good meaning which makes them clash
with the law."
The measure was promoted in the Lower House, and
with management the Government passed it. In the
Upper House the bishops were obliged to fight strenu
ously against a measure which would place all the
Catholic party at the mercy of the State. Of the twenty-
six English sees, ten were actually vacant on Elizabeth's
accession; and for one reason or another some four
bishops could not attend the sittings; so that the
strength of the episcopal bench was in the debates not
more than a dozen. Still, twelve determined men could
effect much in a house in which, as a rule, not more than
thirty temporal lords were present; and on the 18th of
March the project had assumed the milder form of for
feiture of office and benefice as the punishment for the
offence of denying the Queen's headship of the Church.
In this form it passed with only two temporal lords
against it, though a Catholic declares that there were

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 107
other good Christians absent, feigning to be ill. Thus
the Bill went back again to the Commons, and, with the
bishops still fighting, was read thrice, and became law
on 22nd March 1559.
Meanwhile the convocation of the clergy met at the
same time as Parliament. To strengthen the hands of
the bishops the Lower House drew up a " Declaration
of Catholic Faith." " It became plain," says Maitland,
" that the clergy in possession would not yield." Their
declaration is important and interesting, if for no other
reason than because it was the last solemn pronounce
ment of the English Church in convocation before its
final alteration. By it that Church corporately affirmed
its belief in the existence of the " natural body of Christ,"
under the species of bread and wine, " in the Sacrament
of the Altar, by virtue of the word of Christ duly spoken
by the priest." It declared also its belief in Transub-
stantiation, and in the true sacrificial character of the
Mass; and it affirmed "that to Blessed Peter and to his
lawful successors in the Apostolic See, as Vicars of
Christ, has been given the supreme power of feeding and
ruling the Church of Christ upon earth, and of confirm
ing their brethren." To these articles the English Uni
versities also gave in their adherence. Thus the bishops
were staunch to a man ; and " the English Church by
its lawful representatives, refused to reform itself on the
lines desired by the Queen and Cecil." This being so,
again to quote Maitland, " the Reformation would be an
unprecedented state-stroke."
In 1559 Easter fell on the 22nd of March; and up to
that date, beyond the abolition of Papal Supremacy, the
Government programme for reform of doctrine and wor
ship had not been carried. Apparently some attempts

108 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
had by this time been made to change the services ; and
these attempts, meeting with resistance, had failed.
Elizabeth had secured noted Protestants to preach her
Lent-sermons in the persons of Scory and Sandys,
Grindal and Cox ; and on Easter Day, when she received
Communion publicly under both kinds, the news spread
rapidly over Europe.
Meanwhile a conference between the Catholic bishops
and a body of Protestant divines was ordered to be held.
The rules of the debate were settled by Archbishop
Heath and Nicholas Bacon; and on Friday in Easter
Week the parties met in the choir at Westminster
Abbey, in the presence of Members of Parliament and a
great multitude. The Catholic party were to defend the
Latin Mass, to deny the right of any particular Church
to change rites and ceremonies at will, and to maintain
the propitiatory character of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
This last point was skilfully chosen in place of any dis
pute upon the sacrament generally, since previous ex
perience of such conferences — that at Worms, for instance
— had shown that when the question of the presence of
Christ in the sacrament was raised, the Protestant party
was immediately and hopelessly divided as to its teach
ing. The conference came to a sudden end. On Monday,
the second day, after bitter wrangles about procedure,
two of the bishops were committed to prison for intem
perate language, and thus at the most critical period the
Catholic party in the House of Lords was weakened by
two votes.
On the following day Parliament resumed its sittings.
The first business was with regard to " The Supreme
Head " title. The Queen had determined not to take it,
and Cecil had to propose a new bill. After some diffi-

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? 109
culty on the part of those who considered that she had
the supreme spiritual authority— -jure divino — with her
crown, the phrase was invented, "Only Supreme Governor
in the realm as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical
things or causes as in temporal." Whether this was very
different from the old headship may be doubted, es
pecially as among other statutes of Henry VIII now
revived was one declaring that " the King is head of the
Church, and that by the word of God all ecclesiastical
jurisdiction flows from him." " Catholics," writes Pro
fessor Maitland, "suspected that the Queen's husband
would be the head of the Church, if not head of his
wife, and saw the old title concealed behind the new
et ccetera. Protestant lawyers said she could take the
title when she liked. Sensible men saw that, having the
substance, she could afford to waive the name." There
were debates and further concessions, and the famous
Act of Supremacy was secured finally only on 29th
April 1559.
In the ten days from 18th April to 28th April the
"Bill for Uniformity in Religion" was driven through
the Parliament. By this Act the service contained in a
certain Book of Common Prayer, and no other, was
made compulsory. The old story that the intention of
Elizabeth's Government was to introduce the First
Prayer Book of Edward VI is disproved by facts. From
the outset, with three slight modifications, the liturgy
adopted the Queen's committee — half the members of
which had been refugees from England and dwelling
among the German and Swiss Protestants during the
last reign, and the rest of whom were well known as
earnest and advanced Reformers — was the Calvinistic
Prayer Book of A.D. 1552.

no WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
The Bill for this Book had been introduced into Par
liament in March. The authorities were foiled at this
first attempt (how or why does not appear), but they
were not baffled; and on 17th March a new Bill — "that
no person shall be punished for using the religion used
in King Edward's last year " — was proposed. This was
pushed through the house in two days, and it was even
more than the thin end of the wedge. After Easter, and
the Westminster Conference, the proposed Book was
reintroduced and carried on 28th April by a bare
majority of three votes. " Nine temporal lords, includ
ing the treasurer (the Marquis of Winchester), and nine
bishops (two were in prison) voted against the bill."
The entire body of the bishops was opposed to the
change in religion, and it was by no means clear that
any Act could be legally carried without the consent of
one of the estates of the realm — the lords spiritual.
The famous speech of Bishop Scot and that of Abbot
Feckenham, in which they challenged the world to pro
duce a single instance where the bishops were not con
sulted and listened to in a controversy of this kind, were
practically the last constitutional efforts made by the
legal representatives of the old religion to stay the flood
of innovation. That their weighty arguments were not
wholly unheeded may perhaps be judged by the very
narrow majority by which the Government was saved
from defeat. Had Cecil not created peers with known
Protestant proclivities, and had there not been so
many episcopal sees vacant at the time, there can
be no reasonable doubt that the Government, for a
while at least, would not have carried its project, and
the new liturgy would have been rejected. As it was,
however, with two of the bishops safely in prison, the

WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION? m
Elizabethan settlement rested upon the infallibility of
the odd three.
What was really the effect of this settlement? Let me
give it to you in the words of Professor Maitland, who,
though no Catholic, has proved that he is not afraid to
look facts in the face. " A radical change in doctrine,
worship and discipline has been made by the Queen and
Parliament, against the will of prelates and ecclesiastical
councils. The legislative powers of convocations is once
more subject to royal control. The derivation of episco
pal from royal jurisdiction has been once more asserted
in the words of Henry VIII. Appeal from the courts of
the Church lies to royal delegates, who may be laymen.
. . . Obstinate heresy is still a capital crime ; but, prac
tically, the bishops have little power of forcing heretics
to stand a trial; and, unless Parliament and Convoca
tion otherwise ordain, only the wilder sectaries will be
in danger of burning. There is no ' liberty of cult.' The
Prayer Book prescribes the only lawful form of common
worship. The clergyman who adopts any other, even in
a private chapel, commits a crime, so does he who pro
cures this aberration from conformity. Everyone must
go to church on Sunday and bide prayer and preaching,
or forfeit twelve pence to the use of the poor. Much also
can be done to insure conformity by excommunication,
which has imprisonment behind it. The papal authority
is abolished. Clergy and officeholders can be required
to swear that it is naught ; if they refuse the oath, they
lose office and benefice. If any one advisedly maintains
that authority, he forfeits his goods ; on a third convic
tion, he is a traitor.
" The service book is not such as will satisfy all ardent
Reformers; but their foreign fathers in the faith think

112 WHAT WAS THE ENGLISH REFORMATION?
it not intolerable, and the glad news goes out that the
Mass is abolished  One point was clear. The Henrician
Anglo-Catholicism was dead and buried. It died with
Henry and was interred by Stephen Gardiner. In distant
days its spirit might arise, but not yet."
Such was the Elizabethan settlement of religion, and
its character is marked by its deliberate choice of the
Calvinistic recension of the Edwardine Prayer Book.

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC
LITURGY1
EVEN after this lapse of time men are not agreed
as to what Edward VI, or rather his advisers,
actually did in regard to the ancient liturgy of the
Church. It is asserted that the Book of Common Prayer,
then first introduced, is merely a translated and simpli
fied edition of the Catholic Missal and Breviary; also
that, specifically, the Communion Service is the Catholic
Mass in English; and that the Ordinal, or Ordination
Service, is an English recension of the Roman Pontifical.
I fancy this, in general terms, is believed to be the case
by a good many who should know better ; and I have
heard Catholics as well as Protestants express astonish
ment when told that such a belief, in view of plain facts,
is quite untenable. I propose, then, briefly to consider
the question : What was done with the Catholic Liturgy
by the Reformers in the reign of Edward VI, when the
Book of Common Prayer and the English Ordinal were
in the making? Unless a clear and intelligible idea can
be gained of the liturgical changes at this period, it is
impossible to understand a period which is the turning
point in the religious history of England.
At the outset it must be allowed that the first Prayer
1 A lecture given at Notre Dame Univ., Indiana, U.S.A., Oct
ober 1905. I

ii4 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
Book of Edward VI was on the face of it a revolution,
and that on two grounds. Local and diocesan usage of
every sort was swept away, and an absolute uniformity
of service was prescribed for the whole realm — a thing
unheard of in the ancient Catholic Church in England
no less than in France and Germany. This note of uni
formity is struck emphatically in the Act itself, which
also declares the peace and quiet to be engendered by
the change. Secondly, a book was introduced, the form
and disposition of which were obviously unlike any
hitherto in use for public worship in England.
Whether a nearer examination would show that the
divergence is rather one of outward seeming than of
reality, is a matter involving many considerations.
Amongst these the following must necessarily find a
place: What position does the first Prayer Book hold in
regard to the ancient service books in England, or other
contemporary documents of the same kind? Is it con
servative, is it innovating? And how far is it either?
What was its inspiration? What were its sources? Un
fortunately, all these questions have become involved in
extraneous and notably polemical considerations. These,
as all will allow, are hardly favourable to the investiga
tion or exposition of bare historic truth. But, in spite
of these, it should not be impossible to fix, with a suffi
cient degree of accuracy and certainty, the position
which the Prayer Books of Edward VI really hold in
the religious history of the time, especially when new
documents can be produced to make the task more easy
or the result more sure.
Cranmer had long been contemplating some reform
of the Breviary before the compilation of the Book of
Common Prayer of 1 549. His studies are to be found

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 115
in a manuscript in the British Museum ; and this volume
helps us to understand the connection between the
finished Prayer Book and Cardinal Quignon's Breviary,
to which, fifty years ago, the late Sir William Palmer
pointed out its indebtedness. These projects of liturgical
change, however, need not detain us, and I pass on at
once to the more important schemes of change contem
plated and carried out by the authority of the King's
advisers. The first year of Edward's reign, 1546, saw some
Catholic practices attacked; but, although in the ser
mons preached in Lent plain indications were given of
contemplated changes, the temper of the people made it
imperative to proceed with caution. The expedient
adopted was that of a royal visitation, which had proved
so successful in Henry VIII's reign. The commissioners
were furnished with certain injunctions to be imposed
by the supreme authority of the King as Head of the
Church. The following changes inaugurated at this time by the
King's authority require only mention here. No lights
were in future to be burned before any image. The
Epistle and Gospel at the High Mass were to be read to
the people in English, in the pulpit or other convenient
place. Every Sunday and holyday one chapter of the
New Testament in English was to be read at Matins
immediately after the lessons, and one chapter of the
Old Testament at Evensong after the Magnificat.
" When nine lessons are to be read in the church, three
of them " were to be omitted with their responsories ;
and at Evensong the responses with all the commemora
tions were to be left out. Henceforth no procession was
to be allowed in any church or churchyard or other

116 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
place ; but immediately before the High Mass the clergy
were by the injunctions ordered to kneel in the midst of
the church and sing or say the litany, which had been
set forth in English.
Injunctions, given to the cathedral and collegiate
churches in the autumn of this same year, 1547, were
ordinated to shorten the services. The aim of these pro
visions is clear. They were intended to bring the ser
mon into chief prominence, at the expense of the prayers
and psalmody. They secured also, by the restriction of
all sung Masses to the choir, that such services should
have a congregational character.
One of the first results of this visitation was to bring
Bishops Gardiner and Bonner to the Fleet prison. The
latter, on 12th August, was convened before the Council,
to which Sir Anthony Cooke, one of the royal visitors
in the diocese of London, had reported the Bishop's pro
test against the Injunctions. At the Council; Bonner
agreed to withdraw his protest; but, as a warning to
others, he was kept in the Fleet for a week. " The Bis
hop of Winchester," so runs the entry in the Council
Book, " having written to the lords of his Majesty's
Council, and besides that spoken to others impertinent
things of the King's Majesty's visitation, and refused to
receive the Injunctions and Homilies, because, as he said
on being examined by their lordships thereupon, they
contained things dissident with the Word of God, so as
his conscience would not suffer him to accept them, was
sent under the safe leading of Sir Anthony Wingfield to
the Fleet."
Of the nature of his confinement there, he himself
writes to Somerset on 12th November: "These seven
weeks saving one day I have been here under such

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 117
straight keeping as I have spoken with no man." He
adds that he has been obliged to leave off study and give
himself " to continual walks for exercise." From another
letter written by the Bishop from his prison on 14th
October, 1547, it is clear that his action was deliberate.
He was determined by all means in his power to stay
the course, in which he clearly saw a determined attack
upon the faith as well as the practices of the old Church
of England.
With Gardiner safe in prison, Parliament was sum
moned to meet on 4th November 1 547. The opening of
the first Parliament of the reign was made the occasion
of a state pageant — " his Majesty riding from Westmin
ster Palace to the Church of St. Peter, in his parliament
robes, with all his lords, spiritual and temporal, riding
in their robes also." This opportunity, moreover, was
seized upon to introduce a novelty more significant than
any yet attempted; for it touched the ritual of the Mass
itself. After a sermon by Dr. Ridley, the new Bishop of
Rochester, " the Mass began," writes Wriothesley. " The
Gloria in Excelsis, the Creed, and the Agnus were all
sung in English." The prayers said by the priest, in
cluding of course the sacred Canon, were, as formerly, in
Latin; but the general effect which the service must
have had upon those present is correctly given by
the historian Stowe when he writes: "That same day
Mass was sung before the lords in the English tongue."
This was undoubtedly the most important liturgical
innovation yet attempted. There had been, it is true,
essays in change which at the time must have been
startling enough. The novel ritual of consecration and
coronation before drawn up by the Council had mani
fested a disregard for time-honoured ceremonies.

118 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
Whilst Parliament was actually sitting, the Council
gave their authority to a resumption of the war against
images, which it had been found wise to discontinue in
the previous September. Says the author of the Grey
Friars' chronicle: "Item: The seventeenth day of the
same month of November, at night, was pulled down the
rood in Paul's, with Mary and John, and all the images
in the church. And two of the men that laboured at it
were slain, and divers others sore hurt." At the same
time the pulpit was used to decry the old Catholic
devotion to images. The pulpit comedies of Henry's
days were renewed, and after the sermons the children
were invited to break the " idols " to pieces.
But the public insults and mockeries heaped upon
holy things did not rest here. They were turned against
the Blessed Sacrament, which the whole people through
out the land believed to be our Blessed Lord Himself. It
was nicknamed " Jack in the box, with divers other
shameful names," by which the public conscience was
gravely shocked. To meet the popular feeling, an act
of Parliament was proposed, putting down such profanity
under severe penalties. But Somerset, Cranmer, and
their friends knew how to turn even this into a means
for advancing their own ends.
On 1 2th November a Bill " for the Sacrament of the
Altar " was read for the first time in the House of Peers.
The second reading was taken on the 1 5th, and here for
the moment the matter rested. This Bill may be called
the Catholic half of the Act subsequently passed. Its
object was to put down the growing irreverence to the
Blessed Sacrament. Toward the end of the same month
of November, however, another measure appeared, pro
viding " for the administration of the Sacrament under

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 119
both kinds," which was read for the first time on the
26th. On 3rd December, the former Bill for the reverence
to the Sacrament was read a third time, and in the same
sitting committed to Somerset. The Bill thus passed in
the Lords is the Act which now appears in the statute
book, combining, under one single Act (1) the Bill for
reverence to the Sacrament, and (2) the Bill for Com
munion in both kinds.
The episcopal vote given in favour of and against this
measure deserves consideration. Eleven bishops were
absent from Parliament on the occasion, and seem to
have appointed no proxies; J and, on looking at the list
of absentees, there does not seem to have been one
amongst them who can fairly be classed among the ad
vocates of change.
The votes of the five bishops recorded against the Bill
are more weighty than a mere expression of opinion.
These prelates, above the rest then in Parliament, must
have ardently desired to see as the law of the land that
part of the amalgamated Bill which professed to put
down all irreverences against the Blessed Sacrament.
Believing It to be what they did, it must have cost them
much even to appear unwilling to defend It against
scurrilous unbelief. Their objection consequently to the
portion tacked on by Somerset and his friends must
have been deep indeed to overcome the natural instinct
of a Catholic to welcome legal condemnation of the
current blasphemies.
1 These eleven were : Gardiner, detained in the Fleet ; Vesey of
Exeter; Sampson of Coventry and Lichfield; Kitchin of Llandaff;
Knight of Bath; Thirlby of Westminster; Wakeman of Gloucester ;
Chambers of Peterborough ; Bird of Chester ; Bulkeley of Bangor ;
and King of Oxford.

120 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
Ten bishops voted for the measure. Their intentions
in so doing must be purely a matter of conjecture; but,
looking at after events, it will not be far from the truth
to divide them equally into two parties: one following
the lead of Cranmer, the other of Tunstall of Durham.1
The Bill was read for the first time in the Commons
on ioth December, the very day it had passed in the
Lords. Up to the last moment there was manifested on
the part of the Government a disposition to tamper with
it. " On December 17," says the record in the Journals
of the Lords, " a proviso was sent to the Commons
House, through Mr. Hales, to be attached to the Bill for
the Most Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of
Christ, the which the Commons would not receive because
the Lords had not given their consent." 2
Of this Bill passed in the Commons on 17th December
it is here sufficient to notice that the first portion con-
1 Those led by Cranmer were probably the bishops of Ely, St.
David's, Lincoln, and Rochester ; those led by Tunstall were Salis
bury, St. Asaph, Carlisle, and Bristol.
2 This entry is all that is known on the subject; but it is evident
that the provision in question has nothing to do with the joining
of the two Bills, as the amalgamation was effected before the Bill
was sent down to the Lower House on ioth December; and it was
this Bill which passed there on the 17th.
Perhaps some light may be thrown on the nature of the provision
which at the last moment it was desired to attach to the Bill, by
the report of the generally well-informed French ambassador. " It
was expected," he writes, " that there would be some commotion
in this parliament for the Sacrament of the Altar, which it was
wished to abolish. Nevertheless, it will remain for the present, as
people think ; although the Protector and the chief nobles do not
use it any more at home among their families, where they act as
badly as, or worse than, the Sacramentarians in Germany." (De
Selve, p. 248 : " use" — i.e., they no longer had Mass in their private
chapels.)

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 121
demned all who, " in their sermons, preachings, readings,
lectures, communications, arguments, rhymes, songs or
jests," should call the Blessed Sacrament " by such vile
and unseemly words as Christian ears do abhor to hear."
The second branch of the statute, after declaring that
the administration of Holy Communion under both kinds,
of bread and wine, was conformable to primitive prac
tice, ordered that it should be so administered " except
necessity otherwise requires."
It is now necessary to consider the action of convoca
tion in this matter. On 30th November we read in the
acts of that assembly: "The prolocutor showed and
caused to be publicly read the form of a certain ordin
ance delivered to him, as he asserts, by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, for the taking of the Body of Our Lord
under both kinds, of bread and also of wine." The docu
ment was then subscribed by the prolocutor and fifteen
others out of the fifty-eight present at the session. With
regard to this document, it does not appear that it was
a ritual form; there is nothing whatever to show that
the paper was " sent down from the bishops," as Burnet
has it; or " that it had been promoted among the bishops
of the Upper House," as more modern writers have
asserted. All that is known for certain is that the pro
locutor asserted it " was given him by the Archbishop."
In this connection it must be borne in mind that the
Bill for receiving the Sacrament under both kinds was
read for the first time in Parliament on 26th November,
just four days before it was mooted in convocation. It
may thus be considered as a parliamentary measure;
and it seems not at all improbable that it was raised in
the assembly of clergy as a mere expedient to facilitate
the passing of the Bill by producing some clerical ex-

122 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
pression of approval. This could hardly have been
encouraging, as the attempt to secure even a majority
in favour of the change signally failed.
By the time the Communion Book was ready, matters
had progressed in favour of the Reformers. A set of
questions relating to the Mass were proposed to the
majority of the bishops of both Provinces, probably some
time after 20th December 1547. On examination, the
questions will be found to fall into three categories.
The third and fourth questions may be summed up
thus: "What do you mean by the Mass?" The first,
second, and fifth ask : " What is the Mass/<w — for Sacri
fice or Communion?" The sixth and seventh raise the
practical question : " Shall we do away with the Mass,
offered for the living and the dead, as distinct from
Communion?" The two concluding questions relate to
subordinate matters. The one (No. 8) asks whether the
Gospel should be explained at the Mass to the people;
and the other (No. 9), whether the Mass should be in
English. It has been stated that the questions were tentative.
Their object apparently was to sound the bishops and
see how far the innovators might safely go; and, in par
ticular, to find out whether it would be now possible to
sweep away the Mass altogether, or whether it would
be prudent to temporise yet awhile. The answers given
by the bishops are of great importance and interest.
They show the attitude of mind of each individual
prelate toward the traditional system, and throw much
light on the later sequence of events. It is therefore
necessary to dwell upon them at some length.
As might be expected, Cranmer and Ridley took the
extreme line of innovation in everything. In this they

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 123
were generally followed, although not in all details, by
Holbeach of Lincoln and Barlow of St. David's, with
Doctors Cox and Taylor. Goodrich of Ely stands alone.
He takes the via media, discreetly leaving the settle
ment to the will of those in power; but not so far
leaving the ancient lines as to make retractation, and
the retention of his See in Mary's reign, any very diffi
cult matter.
The rest of the bishops took the Catholic view in their
replies to all the questions submitted. Six of them
answered jointly throughout. The first of these, Bonner
of London, was a practical man, but evidently no theo
logian. The unanimity of Skip of Hereford, Day of
Chichester, and Heath of Worcester, is noteworthy in
view of the subsequent history. A fifth of the number,
Rugg of Norwich, although less known, took a prominent
part, as will be seen, in the discussions which preceded
the introduction of the bill for Common Prayer in the
House of Lords. The sixth was Wharton of St. Asaph.
The replies of Cranmer were throughout laconic and
fitted to the terms of the questions. His mind as to his
answers was probably made up when framing them.
Taking the questions as summarised above, the answer
of the Archbishop to the interrogatory as to the nature
of the Mass is, that the " oblation and sacrifice" of Christ
in the Mass are terms improperly used, and that it is
only a " memory and representation " of the sacrifice of
the Cross. In other words, Cranmer and the four
bishops who went with him rejected the sacrifice of the
Mass as it had hitherto been received in England and
elsewhere. The point of questions 1,2, and 5, taken together, was
to elicit opinions as to whether, apart from Communion,

124 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
the Mass had any virtue in itself, or whether its sole
virtue for the individual was in his own act of com
munion. Cranmer and the rest of the innovating party
answered by saying that the virtue of the Sacrament did
not extend beyond the reception. This struck at the
Mass as a sacrifice propitiatory for the living. Ridley,
however, did not go quite so far as the Archbishop in
this matter, and called attention to the " spiritual par
ticipation amongst all the members of Christ in all god
liness." In so far he approximated to the Catholic idea,
although rejecting Catholic doctrine.
One special question put was as to the use of the
vernacular in the Mass, and the majority of the replies
manifest a disinclination to change. " If the Mass should
be wholly in English," says Bush of Bristol, " I think
men should differ from the custom and manner of all
other regions." Worcester, Chichester, and Hereford,
when further pressed by additional interrogatories, de
clared that " we ought to use such rites and prayers as
the Catholic Church hath and doth uniformly observe";
and they based their objection to " the whole Mass in
English " on the principle that " an uniformity of all
Churches in that thing is to be kept."
As a result, it appears certain that at this time
Cranmer did not feel himself in a position to press upon
the English Church changes in the liturgy beyond the
point to which the more conservative among the bishops
were prepared to go. The result was the printing of
" the Order of Communion," a booklet of three or four
leaves, which, whilst introducing an English form of
Communion, left the Latin Mass in common use as
before. It was ordered to be introduced everywhere on
1st April 1548.

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 125
The change in the liturgy opened the door to many
innovations on the part of the ardent spirits among the
Reformers. The Council issued orders forbidding all un
lawful changes in the liturgy, but at the same time allow
ing it to be understood that such alterations were not
wholly displeasing to them. In fact, the policy of essay
ing further changes under the eye of the court was
revived. At Easter this year (1548) "there began," as
the Grey Friars' chronicle relates, " the Communion, and
confession but of those that would, as the book doth
specify." In May appeared a novelty in the cathedral
church of the metropolis for which as yet there was no
warrant. "Paul's choir and divers other parishes in
London," writes Wriothesley, " sung all the service in
English, both Matins and Even-Song; and kept no
Mass without some received the Communion with the
priest." Also "on the 12th of May [1548] King Henry VII's
anniversary was kept at Westminster; the Mass sung all
in English, with the consecration of the Sacrament also
spoken in English; the priest leaving out all the Canon
after the Creed save the Pater Noster, and then ministered
the Communion after the King's book." The sermon
at this Mass was "made by Mr. Tong, the King's
chaplain." The description of this service at Westminster is strik
ingly like a Mass on the model of Luther's so-called
" Latin Mass," with the addition of the " Order of Com
munion" put forth in the previous March. It is im
possible also not to see in it a first draft of " the Supper
of the Lord, commonly called the Mass," as it appeared
in the first Book of Common Prayer issued the next
year. The question further arises, What " Matins and

126 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
Even-Song " had been used in English by certain Lon
don churches in the May of the year 1548? Were they
a translation of the daily varying offices of the ancient
Breviary, or did they resemble the unvarying services of
the subsequent Prayer Book?
From the Easter of 1548, which saw the introduction
of the new form of Communion, the pulpit and the press
were allowed full licence to attack the ancient doctrine
of the Mass. What they called the " enormities " of the
Canon were inveighed against, and chiefly because of
the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which had brought,
as one pamphleteer declared, " almost the universal world
to open and manifest idolatry."
We may now turn to consider the next step in the
"reform" of the ancient Catholic liturgies — the first
Book of Common Prayer. It is usually asserted that this
Anglican liturgy was drawn up by a committee of
bishops and other ecclesiastics, whose names are given.
It may be safely stated, however, that very little indeed
is known for certain about the composers of the Prayer
Book. We are aware that about September 1548 a
certain number of divines under Cranmer were gathered
at Chertsey and Windsor, " where they are to determine
what is to be held in this kingdom about the Mass and
the Sacrament of the Altar." As to the committee, all
we can say for certain is that Cranmer was at its head;
the other names usually given are mere guesses started
by the historian Fuller in 1657 — a century after the
event. The same may be said in regard to any action
of convocation in this matter so gravely affecting the
religion of the country. Strype was the first ecclesiastical
historian to assert, in 1723, that the convocation of
clergy had actually approved the first Prayer Book. But

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 127
here again it may be taken as certain that convocation
neither appointed any body of divines to compile the
new liturgy, nor gave it any approval after it had been
drawn up, whether before or after the parliamentary
sanction. The opening of the second session of Parliament was
fixed for the end of November 1548. No ecclesiastical
business was taken for the first fortnight ; but the intro
duction of the Bill imposing the new Book of Common
Prayer was preceded by a discussion on the doctrine of
the Sacrament. The burning question was approached
in the House of Lords on Friday 14th December, and
the debate extended over four days. It is, of course, im
possible to enter here in detail into this most instructive
discussion, in the course of which the true meaning of
the minds of the Reformers and the Catholics became
apparent. The Bill came up for the final voting on Tues
day 15th January 1549; and, taking all circumstances
into consideration, the opinion of the bishops upon the
new liturgy may fairly be stated as follows : thirteen of
their number were favourable to the Government
measure; ten were opposed to it; whilst the views of
the remaining four — the Bishops of Llandaff, Bangor,
Gloucester, and Exeter — may be considered doubtful,
although they can hardly be believed to have been
favourable. Before passing on to consider the nature of the new
service and its relation to the Mass, it is worth while
trying to see clearly what we know concerning its com
position, and so forth. It seems practically certain that
the bishops were called together by the Protector Somer
set with the object of coming to some understanding
about the proposed Book of Common Prayer.

128 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
(i) This meeting appears to have taken place in
October, some time after the proclamation in which the
first public notice of intended changes in the liturgy was
made (23rd September 1548). For upon 29th October,
John Burcher at Strassburg already informs Bullinger
that " the Government, roused by " the brawling as to
the Sacrament, " have convoked a synod of the bishops
to consult about religion."
(2) The proposed Prayer Book was submitted to this
meeting, and its terms to some extent were discussed,
though the chief stress seems to have been laid on the
" doctrine." (3) The bishops present at this meeting did not agree
among themselves " as to the doctrine of the Supper,"
and came to no conclusion.
(4) The assembled bishops all signed the book, except
Day of Chichester; but this was on the understanding
that their action was not to imply any assent to the
doctrine of Cranmer and his followers.
(S) The objections to the book centred round this
point : that the adoration of the sacrament was left out.
(6) It was allowed that many things were wanting in
the book as submitted, and it was agreed that these
should be treated of afterwards ; thus affording an oppor
tunity desired by men like Tunstall, Heath, Bonner, and
Thirlby himself, of making it more conformable to the
ordinary practice of the Church, from which, as the book
stood, it was a departure.
(7) The book after the bishops had signed it was
tampered with.
Beyond these facts some conjecture may safely be
made as to the motives which induced the bishops to
sign the proposed liturgy. The whole country had

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 129
been stirred up; it was a scene of confusion and wrang
ling, the continuance of which would seriously jeopardise
" the unity at home in this realm." At the same time
the Government had so managed their foreign policy as
to make domestic tranquillity imperative. The kingdom
was at war with Scotland, and there was in prospect a
breach with France, against which country the Protector
was unable, as Henry had done, to play off the Emperor.
Thus, apart from the religious beliefs and designs of
Cranmer and Somerset, there seemed to be an absolute
need for some English Interim.
The real opinion of the Catholic bishops as to the
proper solution of the difficulty is clear from the report
of the debate and their subsequent action. And what
ever judgment may be passed on them for signing a
book in regard to which they had such manifest scruples,1
it must be allowed that a difficult position had been
prepared for them, and that at the time the appeal to
their love of country must have come with great force.
In fact, it is hardly too much to say that the Catholic
party amongst the bishops were caught in a trap. They
were induced to sign a book which was wholly inade
quate, on extraneous considerations and under a pledge
for subsequent revision. They were then launched on a
public discussion in Parliament, where it was calculated
they would not dare to show themselves inconsistent.
The expectation of the Government, however, was so far
disappointed. And it is not wonderful that when their
false position was made clear to the Catholic bishops,
they, through Bonner, declared " there is heresy in the
book." Before passing on to consider the character of the
1 Royal MSS., 17B. xxxix, f. 6.
K

130 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
new liturgy imposed on the English Church by the Act
of Uniformity, some brief expression of opinion, formed
after careful consideration of the available evidence,
may be expected upon some of the more obscure points
of its history.
(i) It is most probable that no formal commission
was ever issued to compile the Prayer Book. Such a
commission imposes responsibility and confers rights.
This was not the method commonly employed in Ed
ward's reign. It was a time of governmental formulae,
one of which occurs again and again in official docu
ments throughout this period of history to designate the
persons engaged in preparing the liturgical changes.
" The godly bishops and best learned men " covers as
much or as little as those in power might please. With
out issuing a definite commission, they were free to call
whom they would, to what place they would, as well as
to vary at their pleasure the individuals engaged on the
work. In a word, it is doubtful whether any " Windsor
commission," if by that expression it is meant to de
signate any definite body of men formally appointed to
undertake the task, ever had any existence.
(2) Strype is probably right in considering that the
" Prayer Book went through only a few hands." Whose
hands these were is tolerably clear from the result; but
the only positive statement that can be made is that
Cranmer had the chief part in its inspiration and com
position. (3) It is most probable that the compilation was long
meditated, and its progress to its ultimate form gradual.
It would appear likely also that the Matins and Even
song in English at St. Paul's, and the English Mass at
Westminster in the May of 1548, as well as the offices

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 131
in use in the King's chapel in September, were substan
tially those afterwards incorporated in the first Book of
Common Prayer.
(4) For the " certain bishops and notable learned
men " assembled at Chertsey and Windsor by the King's
command, nothing was left to do but to put together
and give the final touches to the material already pre
pared. The book thus completed was submitted in
October, or in the early days of November, to the bishops.
These two assemblages were distinct in regard both to
object and the persons composing them.
(5) The report of the discussion in Parliament does
away with any lingering doubt as to whether or not the
English liturgy was approved by the clergy in convoca
tion. Had such been the case, Somerset and Cranmer
could not have failed to retort that approval upon
Thirlby.1 The Act imposing the new Service is rightly called
the Act of Uniformity. It swept away the various
ancient uses existing in England, and imposed under
penalties one uniform service of worship and praise. In
1 The same may be said of Somerset's letter to Pole — 4th June,
1549 — in defence of the new Prayer Book. He elaborately recounts
"the common agreement of all the chief learned men in the realm,
... as well bishops as others equally and indifferently chosen,"
"first agreement on points," "and then the same coming to the
judgment of the whole Parliament ... by one whole consent of
the Upper and Nether House of the Parliament finally concluded
and approved ; and so a form of rite and service, a creed and
doctrine and religion and after that sort allowed, set forth and
established by act and statute." (Pocock, "Troubles Connected
with the Prayer Book of 1549," ed. Camden Soc, p. x.) Is it pos
sible to suppose that Somerset here, too, would not have pleaded
the formal and synodical sanction of the Book of Common Prayer
by convocation had any such been given?

132 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
this paper I propose, for the sake of brevity and of
clearness, to confine what I have to say about the first
Prayer Book to the portion of it called " the Supper of
the Lord and the Holy Communion, commonly called
the Mass."
In a general way, it may be stated that, up to the
Gospel, the first Communion service followed, outwardly
at least, the old Missals At this point occurs a distinct
break with the ancient practice. At least, as late as the
ninth century, the Roman rite still observed the early
practice of the offering by the people of the bread and
wine for the sacrifice; and whilst this offering was being
made the choir sang a portion of a psalm which became
known as the " Offertory." The bread and wine thus
presented were offered with ritual oblation by the priest,
and the prayer now called the " Secret " was said by him.
These prayers, which vary in every Mass, and which are
still retained in the Roman Missal, express the idea of
sacrifice and oblation. In the later Middle Ages private
devotion introduced a number of prayers, all expressive
of the same idea, to accompany the various ritual acts.
Thus in the Sarum rite the priest is directed " to lift up
the chalice in both hands," offering the sacrifice to Our
Lord, saying this prayer : " Receive, O Holy Trinity,
this oblation," etc.1 The whole, therefore, of this action
was called the " Offertory," and the verse of the psalm
itself became generally known under this name.2
This entire portion of the Mass — constituting the act
of formal oblation, together with the prayers, new and
1 The Sarum rubrics are particularly emphatic in calling by
anticipation the elements so offered "the Sacrifice."
2 Cf. Lydgate's and Langford's meditation in Lay FoWs Mass
Book, p. 233.

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 133
old, which accompanied it — was swept away in the new
service of the Prayer Book. In place of it was put a
verse of Holy Scripture appropriate to what was now
done, namely, the collecting of money " for the poor
man's box," which was called the " Offertory." 1 At the
same time the family to whose " turn it fell to offer for
the charges of the Communion " made their donation in
the ancient way into the hands of the priest.
1 The whole of this question of offertory and offering is so con
fused, by the use of the same word in different senses in the rubrics
of the Prayer Book, that it seems necessary to explain it somewhat
at length.
(a) When the practice of presenting the actual bread and wine
for the sacrifice fell into disuse, an offering in money was substituted.
This partook of a certain ritual solemnity, and was not what is now
understood by a " collection." The people went up to the altar and
placed their " offering " in the hands of the priest. The money was
for his use, as he now had to provide the necessary bread and wine.
This ceremony was known as " the offering " ; or, as it is now called
in France, the offrande. In the Book of 1549 the word "offering"
is used in two senses: (1) of" offering" proper (P. p. 84, last three
lines; G. p. 200, lines 12-14); and (2) the poor box collection (P.
p. 82, last line ; G. p. 198, last line of rubric).
(b) The difficulty is further complicated by the introduction of
another provision. It was the practice in England, as it still is in
parts of France, to bless a loaf of bread, which was then cut up
and distributed to the people during the Mass. The bread was
supplied by each family of the parish in turn. This " blessed bread "
was now (1549) abolished, but the obligation was laid upon each
family who had hitherto supplied it to offer every Sunday, " at the
time of the Offertory, the just value and price of the holy loaf to the
use of their pastors and curates, and that in such order and course
as they were wont to find and pay the said holy loaf." This offering
was to be made to the priest, whilst the collection for the poor was
being made in the church, " in recompense for the costs and charges
he was at in finding sufficient bread and wine for the Holy Com
munion." (c) But this was not all : it was further provided that one person
at least of that house in every parish to which it fell, under the new

134 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
The singing of the verses of Scripture appropriate to
almsdeeds was continued whilst the collection was being
made. And after this " so many as shall be partakers of
the Holy Communion shall tarry still in the choir or in
some convenient place near the choir; the men on the
one side, the women on the other. All other that mind
not to receive the said Holy Communion shall depart out
of the choir, except the ministers and clerks."
It was only then that, without any ceremony whatever,
" the minister" placed the bread and wine on the altar! 1
It will therefore appear that the ancient ritual oblation,
with the whole of which the idea of sacrifice was so in
timately associated, was swept away. This was certainly
in accord with Cranmer's known opinions,2 and the char
acter of the change is unmistakable when the new Prayer
Book is compared with other service books compiled in
the same century.
To understand the full import of the novelty, it must
be borne in mind that this ritual oblation had a place in
all liturgies. It is, moreover, now known, by the debate
in Parliament, that the word " oblation " occurred in the
book when it was presented to the bishops for examina
tion, but had disappeared from it before it came up to
the Lords.3
arrangement, " to offer for the charges of the Communion, or some
other whom they shall provide to offer for them, shall receive the
Communion with the priest."
In this way the word "offertory" has in English come to mean
a "collection"; a sense which is wanting to the word in other
languages. ' The "mixed chalice" was retained in the book of 1549.
2 Cf. his replies to the questions on the Mass.
3 It will be understood that no opinion is expressed on the ques
tion whether or not the " lesser oblation " is to be found in the
present Anglican Prayer Book.

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 135
After the Offertory, the Preface was, with certain
changes, retained in the New Book. We come now to
the most sacred part of the Mass — the Canon. Our
present detailed knowledge of this goes back certainly
thirteen hundred years; and hence we are sure that, with
the exception of one short clause added by St. Gregory,
the Canon has remained practically unchanged to the
present day. This fact, that it has so remained unaltered
during thirteen centuries, is the most speaking witness
of the veneration with which it has always been regarded,
and of the scruple which had ever been felt at touching
so sacred a heritage, coming to us from unknown an
tiquity. It is wholly impossible, without the aid of charts and
parallel printing, to show how the English Reformers
treated this sacred prayer, which was substantially the
same in every Catholic liturgy. Whatever else it can be
called, Communion service is certainly not the Mass in
an English dress. Even in the eyes of the common people,
it was so different that it was called " a Christmas game,"
and this although obvious care was taken by the com
pilers to preserve some outward resemblance to the
ancient liturgy in the disposition of its parts. And when,
on examination, the student penetrates below the surface,
the systematic elimination of everything that is connected
with, or suggests the idea of, oblation and sacrifice be
comes at once apparent. The Canon, so far as ideas go
is a new Canon. It offers prayers to God in place of
" these gifts, these offerings, these holy undefiled sacri
fices." It emphasises the " one oblation once offered " on
the Cross by our Lord in the place where the old liturgy
prayed that the " oblation " then made might " be blessed,
counted, reckoned reasonable and acceptable." The very

136 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
words of Consecration, which had been looked upon as
the most sacred of sacred words, were changed for a new
form taken from the Lutheran liturgy of Brandenburg-
Nuremberg, with which Cranmer was acquainted through
his wife, who was a niece of Osiander, the compiler of the
Church-Order. If, however, the old traditional Canon was abandoned,
as no one can doubt who will set the new Communion
service by the side of the Missal, it is still obvious upon
what lines the English Reformers wrought their
changes. We have a complete model in Luther's "Latin
Mass." In drawing up this, the German Reformer de
clares his intention was to purge the form of worship in
actual use. " For," he continues, " we cannot deny that
Mass and Communion of bread and wine is a rite
divinely instituted by Christ." Consequently he allows
the Mass as it stood in the old Missals, except what
concerns the " Offertory " of the elements, and, what he
called, the "abominable Canon." His great grievance
against the Mass is that it has been turned into a sacri
fice. If the first Communion service be compared with
the Lutheran service, as conceived by the Reformer, it
will be seen that, in all points but one, the two are
similar. Luther swept away the Canon altogether and
retained only the essential words of Institution. Cran
mer substituted a new prayer for the old Canon, leaving
in it a few shreds of the ancient one, but wholly divest
ing it of its character of sacrifice and oblation. Even
the closest theological scrutiny of the new composition
will not detect anything inconsistent with, or excluding,
Luther's negation of the sacrificial idea of the Mass.
Looking, therefore, at the characteristics of the new
Anglican service, and contrasting it on the one hand with

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 137
the ancient Missal, and on the other with the Lutheran
liturgies, there can be no hesitation whatever in classing
it with the latter, not with the former. Passing then from
the Communion office to consider the other sacramental
rites, this affinity will still be found to exist in so ob
vious a way as to leave no doubt whatever that the new
service was composed under the direct influence of the
Lutheran Reformation. This is, moreover, exactly what
we should be led to expect by the letters and documents
of the period.
But the Prayer Book in its first form was only a
transitional document, representing the particular stage
at which Cranmer had arrived in his education in Re
formed Doctrine at the time when it was composed.
Immediately after the passing of the Act enforcing the
Prayer Book, it became obvious that something must be
done to make the ordination service consonant with the
doctrine as to the Communion service contained in it.
As yet no change had been made in the forms for con
ferring ordination which were contained in the old
Pontificals. But at the consecration of Ferrar to the
See of St. David's, in September 1548, when Cranmer
was assisted by Holbeach and Ridley, some changes
were made in the old ritual. In the course of the following
year, after Bonner's deprivation, the Archbishop held an
ordination at St. Paul's, assisted by Ridley. " The old
popish order of conferring of holy orders was yet in
force," writes Strype; "but this ordination, neverthe
less, was celebrated after that order that was soon esta
blished." A bill for a new Ordinal was introduced into the
House of Peers on 8th January 1550. It passed only on
25th January. Of the fourteen bishops present, five dis-

138 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
sented. The other thirteen were absent. The Act simply
approved beforehand of the new Ordinal, which six pre
lates, or the majority of them, appointed by his Majesty,
were to draw up. On Sunday 2nd February the Coun
cil proceeded to appoint " the bishops and learned men"
to devise orders for the creation of bishops and priests.
As no names are entered in the Council book, the
actual members of the committee are, with one excep
tion, unknown.
From the subsequent proceedings, it was certain that
the book was already devised, and all that was left for
the " bishops and learned men " to do was to agree to it
and sign their names. For in less than a week after the
Council meeting at which the appointment of the com
mittee was mooted, on Saturday 8th February, Heath,
Bishop of Worcester, was " convented " before the lords
in Council " for that he would not assent to the book
made by the rest of the bishops and clergy appointed to
devise a form for the creation of the bishops and
priests." *
This statement of the Council register is formal, but it
may be left to the reader to determine for himself
whether in the space of six days it would be possible to
draw up the new Ordinal and conduct the discussions to
which so delicate a matter must inevitably have given
rise.2 Heath could not be moved by any representations to
give his assent to the proposed book. He declared that
if it were imposed he would not disobey, but further he
1 Council Book (Privy Council Office), ii, p. 84.
• 2 Burnet considers that a digested form was already prepared,
probably by Cranmer, which was submitted to the assembly. But
the case as regards this is even stronger than he puts it.

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 139
would not go ; and accordingly on Tuesday 4th March
1550 he was committed to the Fleet prison " for that he
obstinately denied to subscribe."1 Here he was con
fined for eighteen months. On several occasions he was
brought up before the Council, which strove by every
means to convince him that his position was unreason
able. But neither threats nor arguments could move
him; and at length, on 22nd September 1551, he
was brought for the last time before the Council and
commanded to subscribe to the Ordinal " before Thurs
day next following, upon pain of deprivation of his
bishopric." To " this command he resolutely answered
that he could not find it in his conscience to do it, and
should well be contented to abide such end either by
deprivation or otherwise as pleased the King's Majesty."
By the very terms of the Act of Parliament, the " new
form and manner of making and consecrating arch
bishops, bishops, priests and deacons " could not be de
layed. It was already in print before 25th March 1550.
Even as early as 5th March Hooper, preaching in Lon
don, had already seen the book, and expressed his won
der at its containing an oath " by saints." " How it is
suffered," he says, " or who is the author of that book, I
well know not."
It is unnecessary to examine the details of the changes
introduced into the new form of " making and conse
crating" bishops, priests, and deacons. Every sugges
tion of a sacrificial kind was carefully removed from the
new Ordinal; and every notion of consecration and
blessing, as well as all prayers which in the ancient
Pontifical expressed the desire that Almighty God would
send down upon the ordinandus His Holy Spirit for a
1 Council Book (ut supra), p. 109.

140 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
definite work, were studiously, and of set purpose, cut
out or mutilated.
The imposition of the new Prayer Book and Ordinal
was soon followed by further changes, which gave addi
tional emphasis to the fact that the "old order had
passed," and that the Mass as a sacrifice was abolished
by Act of Parliament in England. On 24th November
1551 an order in Council directed that, "to avoid all
matters of further contention," every altar should be
pulled down, and " the Lord's board, [which] should be
rather after the form of a table than an altar," should be
substituted. In the same way many of the advanced
Reformers complained that the paucity of rubrics in the
Book of 1549 enabled many to continue the old cere
monies, except where they were not absolutely for
bidden. In fact, Bucer, in his book called the Censura,
says that many of the priests continued to offer up the
old Mass under cover of the Prayer Book services.
Hooper and Ridley, too, complained bitterly of being
forced to make use of vestments. The former declared —
logically, it must be admitted, — that, having taken away
the Mass " from the people," authority should take away
" its feathers also — the altars, vestments, and such like
as apparelled her."
How this advice was taken I need not describe here.
Gardiner had now been long in the Tower, and he de
manded a trial. He was taken to Lambeth in December
1550, to be examined by the Archbishop. In open court
the Bishop gave Cranmer his celebrated "explanation
and assertion of the true Catholic faith touching the
Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar." This was a re
futation of Cranmer's book on the Eucharist published
in the middle of 1550. To this Cranmer replied at once

EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY 141
and at length; but Gardiner's method of attack was cal
culated to annoy the Archbishop, for it consisted in
supposing that the new Prayer Book could be, and must
be, interpreted in a Catholic sense. Cranmer, of course,
denied this most categorically; and, in truth, it is diffi
cult to suppose that Gardiner was really serious. The
Archbishop, however, even whilst the commission was
engaged in dealing with the Bishop of Winchester, was
making preparations for a revision of the new Prayer
Book that should be unmistakably " reformed " as to
doctrine. There is no authentic or sufficient record of the per
sons to whom the revision was entrusted, although there
is little room for doubt as to the inspirers and chief
actors in the business. All that it is necessary to note
in the present case is what was actually done, and especi
ally with the office of Holy Communion, which was not
only the one all important traditional act of Christian
worship, but was at this time throughout Western
Europe the central point round which all the contro
versies of the Reformation turned.
On comparing the first with the second Communion
office, what is obvious at first sight is that, whilst the
former, in spite of the substantial changes which had
been made in the ancient Mass, manifested a general
order and disposition of parts similar to the Mass itself,
the latter was changed beyond recognition. Moreover,
every minute point which in the first Book might per
haps, with some ingenuity, be twisted to a Catholic in
terpretation of the formulae, is carefully expunged in
this second revision. It is not a little significant that
everything in the early liturgy upon which Gardiner had
fixedas evidence that this Prayer Book did not necessarily

142 EDWARD VI AND THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
reject the old belief, was in the revision carefully swept
away and altered.
The date appointed for the introduction of the second
Prayer Book of Edward VI was ist November 1552;
and there are evidences that up to the last moment
changes were introduced with the object of lowering the
reverence hitherto shown by the faithful to the Sacra
ment at its reception. As to the book itself, it will be
sufficient to say that it is undoubtedly Calvinistic in its
conception and in its doctrine. Even the slight outward
similarity to the Mass which the first Communion service
preserved, was now, as I have said, obliterated. To use
the expression of one who lived at the time, the com
pilers of this new liturgy " had made a very hay of the
Mass." Of the ancient Canon, which the Apostolic See from
the earliest ages possessed and had kept inviolate,
nothing was allowed to survive. Great Popes like St. Leo
and St. Gregory had inserted a few words with fear and
reverence into this sacred inheritance of the Church.
They would have considered it sacrilegious and impious
to alter or reject any part of it. Cranmer and the
Edwardine Reformers felt no such scruple. They muti
lated, altered, rejected, and inserted to their hearts' con
tent in the first Prayer Book. In the second they got rid
of every portion, no matter how slight, that could give
any colour to the suggestion that the old Catholic Sacri
fice of the Mass had not been abolished altogether.

TABLE SHOWING WHAT EDWARD VI DID
WITH THE CATHOLIC LITURGY
MISSAL OR PRAYER-BOOK?

[ »

2

3

1 SARUM OR ANCIENT CATHOLIC

FIRST BOOK OF COMMON

SECOND AND PRESENT BOOK OF

MISSAL

PRAYER.

COMMON PRAYER.

A.D. 1549

A.D. 1552 and A.D. 1662

A Psalm

» Lord Have Mercy Upon Us

Our Father
Our Father
Our Father
A Prayer
A Prayer
Hail Mary
A General Confession
Introit
Introit
Lord Have Mercy Upon Us
Lord Have Mercy Upon Us
The Ten Commandments
Glory Be to God on High
Glory be to God on High, eta
Collects
Collects
Collects
The Epistle
The Epistle
The Epistle
Gradual
The Gospel
The Creed
Offertory (i.e.t of the elements)
Collects PrefaceSanctus
Canon of the Mass
(a) Prayer for the Church, Pope,
Bishop and King
(b) Commemoration of Saints
(c) Consecration
(d) Elevation of the Host
(e ) Commemoration of the Bead
(/) Our Father Agnus Dei
Priest's Communion
General Confession and Absolu
tion Communion of the Laity
Communion
Post-Communion
The Gospel
The Creed
(a) An Exhortation
(b) Texts on Almsgiving
(c) Collection for the Poor
Preface Sanctus
Canon of the Mass
(a) Prayer for the Church and
King:
(b) Commemoration of the Saints
{c) Commemoration of the Dead
(d) Consecration
(e) Forbidden
(f) Our Father Agnus Dei
General Confession and Absolu
tion
Commuftion of Ministers and
Laity
Post- Communion
The Gospel
The Creed
(a) Exhortation
(b) Texts on Almsgiving
{c) Collection for the Poor
(a) Prayer for the Church Milit
ant
(£) An Exhortation
(c) General Confession and Ab
solution Preface
" Blessed is he who Cometh " left
out
(a) Consecration
Communion of Ministers and
Laity Our Father
A Prayer
Glory be to God on High
Blessing
NO TE.— The portions of the Mass which are retained in the Communion Service of the Book
of Common Prayer are printed in Columns II and III in roman type. The farts in italic type art
adaptations or new compositions.
THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN
ORDINATIONS1
UPON the question of the validity or invalidity of
Anglican Orders a great many books have been
written and much discussion has been held. When, as
the outcome of the investigation in Rome, Pope Leo XIII,
on 13th September 1896, declared that the Church must
hold them to be invalid, many protests were uttered by
English churchmen against this decision. The cry went
forth that the Pope had outraged every good feeling by
denying to others what he claimed for himself — Apos
tolic Succession. And from time to time since, this com
plaint of wounded sensibilities has been uttered by
many. In the debate in the English House of Lords
upon the Royal Declaration, which is admittedly offen
sive to Catholics, the Bishop of Bristol, Dr. Browne,
defended the retention of the blasphemies of the King's
oath on the ground that the Pope had declared the
Orders of the English Church null and void.
With all due allowance for the feelings of those among
the clergy who hold advanced doctrines and regard
themselves as being " sacrificing priests " quite as really
as ourselves, it is somewhat hard to see what ground of
complaint any one of them has with the Papal decision.
1 A lecture given at Notre Dame Univ., Indiana, U.S.A., Octo
ber 1905. 144

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 145
In the first place, the whole matter was essentially a
domestic question. The question was this: Was the
Catholic Church to regard the English bishops and
clergy of the Established Church as bishops and priests
in the same way and in the same sense as those who
have been ordained according to the rites and cere
monies prescribed in the Catholic Pontifical? Surely the
living authority of the Roman Church had a right — and,
when the question had been formally raised, a duty — to
determine the answer, without being considered either
offensive or aggressive. Personally, I should not feel in
any way aggrieved were I to be told that the united
bench of Anglican bishops did not consider my Orders
the same as theirs. I think they would be right in their
decision; and, if they liked, quite right to give it. Their
forefathers, the early English Reformers, made no secret
about their sentiments in regard to the Orders of those
they designated " Papists." They wished the world to
know that their reformed ministry was wholly different
from the " greasy Orders " of Popish priests. And the
world then had no doubt about the matter ; neither has
it, I think, now.
My purpose in this study is to try to put before my
readers the historical groundwork of the decision given
by the Pope in the bull Apostolicae Curae. Leo XIII
points out that it is of the greatest importance to
determine what had been the constant attitude of the
Roman authorities in regard to the Orders conferred by
the Anglican Ordinal. This is obviously the case, be
cause if it were possible to discover how the Popes
treated them at the time when all the circumstances
were well known, we should have a very strong judg
ment as to their validity or invalidity. With the help of
L

146 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
certain documents, which I was fortunate enough to
discover in the Archives of the Vatican, we are in a
position to know exactly how these Orders conferred
by the newly drawn-up Ordinal were regarded.
In August 1553 — that is, hardly more than a year
from the death of Edward VI, — Julius III appointed
Cardinal Pole to be his Legate a latere for the reconcilia
tion of England with the Church. He sent him, he says,
" as his angel of peace and love "; and it is only reason
able to suppose that everything possible to smooth over
difficulties in the way of the desired reconciliation would
be done both by the Pope and the Legate.
One grave and obvious difficulty in regard to the
clergy must have at once presented itself. The nation
could have been absolved and received into the unity of
the Church easily enough; it was possible to arrange
the difficulties which came from the holding of church
property which in the troubles of the two previous reigns
had found its way into lay hands ; the Book of Common
Prayer, which had been made compulsory under Edward,
had already been relegated into obscurity, and the
Catholic missal was back in its old place in the churches.
But it was obvious that under the Edwardine Ordinal,
during the few years of its use, there had come into
existence a body of bishops and priests whose status it
was absolutely necessary to consider and determine.
Thus at once, in regard to Cardinal Pole's legation, the
distinct question of the validity of Anglican Orders was
raised, and, in so far as was necessary, determined by
the powers and faculties given to the Legate.
Pope Leo XIII puts this quite clearly when he says:
" To interpret rightly the force of these documents, it is
necessary to lay it down as a fundamental principle

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 147
that they were certainly not intended to deal with an
abstract state of things, but with a specific and concrete
issue. For, since the faculties given by these Pontiffs to
the Apostolic Legate had reference to England only,
and to the state of religion therein, and since the rules
of action were laid down by them at the request of the
said Legate, they could not have been mere directions
for determining the necessary conditions for the validity
of ordinations in general. They must pertain directly to
providing for Holy Orders in the said Kingdom as the
recognised condition of the circumstances and times de
manded. This, besides being clear from the nature and
form of the said documents, is also obvious from the fact
that it would have been altogether irrelevant thus to
instruct the Legate — one whose learning had been con
spicuous in the Council of Trent — as to the conditions
necessary for the bestowal of the Sacrament of Orders."
It is here useful to recall the fact that there were at
the time in England two classes of clergy with whom
the Legate had to deal : those who had been ordained
before the publication of the Ordinal in 1550, and those
who had received their Orders during the two and a half
years that the new Ordinal had been in use before
Mary's accession. In the faculties granted to Pole by
Pope Julius III, we find these two classes clearly dis
tinguished as (1) those who had been "rightly and
legitimately promoted and ordained before their lapse
into heresy," and (2) those who had received benefices,
and so forth, although " not promoted to all, even to the
sacred Orders and the priesthood." This distinction was
commonly made and understood at that time in Eng
land; for Queen Mary, in a decree dealing with the
state of things she found on coming to power, says that

148 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
" the Diocesan, in the case of those who had been pro
moted to any Orders according to the method of ordain
ing lately made, seeing that they were not truly and
really ordained, can supply what was previously wanting
to such men, if he find them to be (otherwise) fit and
proper people."
The faculties given by the Bull of 5th August 1553
were amplified and extended in a Bull dated 8th March
1554, which included the former Bull and a Brief of the
same date. In this the Legate is given powers to deal
with all cases of .men who have not received, or who
have badly received, their Orders, and so forth^ and with
those whose ordination was null. " That the mind of the
Pope," says the Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae, " was this,
and nothing else, is clearly confirmed by the letter of
the said Legate (29th January 1553) sub-delegating his
faculties to the Bishop of Norwich." In this letter we
find mention (1) of those "who have received their
Orders from heretic and schismatic bishops, even though
not licitly, provided that in bestowing them the form
and intention of the Church was kept " ; and (2) of those
" who were not promoted to all the sacred Orders and
the priesthood." By this last expression "those only
could be meant who had been consecrated according to
the Edwardine rite, since, besides it and the Catholic form,
there was then," says Leo XIII, " no other in England."
This much, then, would appear to be absolutely clear;
that at the time of Queen Mary, immediately upon the
death of Edward VI, both the Pope and the Legate
contemplated dealing, and having to deal, with two
classes of the clergy — those ordained according to the
old Pontifical and those " promoted " by the new for
mulas of the Edwardine Ordinal.

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 149
Shortly after Cardinal Pole's arrival in England, in
February 1555, he considered that it would be best to
send an embassy to Rome to obtain more explicit direc
tions on many points, and to inform the Pope as to the
true state of the case. The three ambassadors were sent
by the King and Queen, and all three were called " most
illustrious, and endowed with every virtue." One of this
body, be it remarked, would have been peculiarly well
able to let the Roman authorities know what had taken
place under Edward VI, as he was Bishop Thirlby of
Ely, who had taken a prominent part in the debate
which preceded the introduction of the First Prayer
Book of IS49- This embassy took with it a state
ment of what the Legate had up to that time been
able to do to bring the country back to the unity of the
Church. The original document, in which this work was sum
marised for presentation at the Curia, was one of the
papers I was able to unearth in the Vatican Archives
when I was preparing, by the Pope's orders, for the work
of the commission appointed to deal with the question.
In this statement of what had been asked on behalf of
the Cardinal, and what had been granted, one of the
clauses relates to dispensations given to ecclesiastics for
provisions to benefices and as regards Orders. These,
we are told, were granted in the form asked for, with
the proviso that on the return of those so dispensed to
the unity of the Church, either the Legate or his deputy
should make good (restitutae) their Orders, and so forth.
Further, in explanation of the situation, the ambassadors
assured the Roman authorities that there was no thought
of " any change or alteration in anything pertaining to
dogma or the worship of God " ; which shows at least

150 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
that Pole had no thought of making any concession as
to the Ordinal.
In making their request for a Papal confirmation of
Cardinal Pole's acts, the English envoys, as I also was able
to find out, presented a document setting forth the sub
stantive part of the Edwardine " form for making and
consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons." Thus we
now know that the actual question of the validity of the
rite was raised formally at Rome as early as 1555 ; and
the rite, or rather the substantive part, was presented for
examination by Thirlby, who knew better than most
men its history and the intention of its compilers.
A further document, found with other papers relating
to this embassy, was " a summary of what the Holy See
was requested to confirm " in this matter. The third
item of this document requests confirmation of certain
dispensations that clerics, and so forth, " may be pro
moted to the Orders and benefices which they had
received invalidly during the schism."
Before the arrival of the ambassadors, Pope Julius III
had died; but his successor, Paul IV, received them with
great kindness, and gave immediate attention to the
important business upon which they had come to ask
for the decision of his authority. On the 20th of June
1555 this Pontiff issued his Bull Praeclara Charissimi, a
document of the first importance, which I discovered in
the Regesta of the first year of the Pope. In this Paul IV
declares that the evidence had been " diligently dis
cussed " by several Cardinals, and that, " after mature
deliberation," he confirmed and approved what Pole had
done, and, in particular, as to his dispensations in the
case of those who, under the pretended authority of the
English Church, had obtained Orders and benefices in-

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 151
validly and de facto. Further, in the matter of these
ordinations, the Pope declares that "those who have
been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders by any one not
a bishop or archbishop validly and lawfully ordained,
are bound to receive these Orders again from their
Ordinary, and in the meanwhile must not minister in the
said Orders." To enforce this ruling, Paul IV twice in
the Bull made use of the same form of words ; which
clearly declare that the Orders thus received are null
and void.
" Who those bishops not ' validly and lawfully or
dained' were," says Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolicae
Curae, " had been made sufficiently clear by the fore
going documents, and the faculties used in the said
matter by the Legate, — those, namely, who have been
promoted to the episcopate, as others to other Orders,
' not according to the accustomed form of the Church ' ; or,
as the Legate himself wrote to the Bishop of Norwich,
the form and intention of the Church ' not having been
observed. These were certainly those promoted accord
ing to the new form of rite, to the examination of which
the Cardinals specially deputed had given their careful
attention. Neither should the passage, much to the
point, in the same Pontifical letter be overlooked, where,
together with others needing dispensation, are enu
merated those 'who had obtained as well Orders as
benefices nulliter et de facto! For to obtain Orders nulliter
means the same as obtaining them by an act null and
void — that is invalidly, as the very meaning of the word
and as common parlance require."
When the existence of this Bull became known in
Rome in the spring of 1895, it was at once suggested
that, although drawn up and entered in the Papal Regis-

152 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
ter, it had evidently never been despatched, since a
document of this importance would have been certainly
found in some of the English archives. I was, however,
able in a very short time to dispose of this suggestion.
On my way back from Rome to England, I remained at
Douai for a couple of days, to see whether by chance any
notice of this important Bull existed in Cardinal Pole's
Register, now in the town library there. I hardly hoped
to find any such record. These volumes had been speci
ally examined for documents connected with Anglican
Orders, by Canon Estcourt before writing his work on
the subject, and it was scarcely likely that he could have
overlooked so necessary a piece of evidence. But in
this case I found that the unlikely had happened, and
that a copy of this Bull Praeclara Charissimi was entered
in Pole's Register, together with his attestation of hav
ing received it.
In order to remove all doubt as to the exact meaning
of his direction about the ordinations of the English
clergy, Paul IV on 30th October 1555 issued what is
called a " Brief," or letter, declaratory of his decisions
published in the former Bull; and in particular of the
position of those who " had received Orders and benefices
nulliter et de facto" about which the Pope had directed
that " those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical
Orders by anyone not a bishop or archbishop validly and
lawfully ordained, are bound to receive these Orders
again," and so forth. To make the sense absolutely
clear, Paul IV now says: "We, wishing to remove all
doubt, and opportunely to provide for the peace of con
science of those who during the schism were promoted
to Orders, by expressing more clearly the mind and in:
tention which we had in the aforesaid letters, declare

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 153
that it is only those bishops and archbishops who are
not ordained and consecrated in the form of the Church,
who cannot be said to have been validly and lawfully
ordained. It is for this reason that persons promoted
to Orders by such men have not received Orders, and
are bound to receive such Orders again from their
Ordinaries." This " Brief" is endorsed as applying " to some who
have been ordained to sacred Orders in England "; and
the docket, or note, on the back of the document draws
a careful distinction between the two classes of clergy :
namely: (1) those "whose Orders had been given by
bishops not consecrated in forma Ecclesiae — the form ac
knowledged by the Church — and who could not be said
to be rightly and truly ordained " ; and (2) those who had
been ordained by bishops ordained and consecrated in
forma Ecclesiae, from whom, though heretics and schis
matics in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI,
they had received the character of the Orders bestowed
on them. It is clear from this that the Edwardine Or
dinal was the reason for this difference of treatment in
the case of these two classes. In no other way can these
letters have had the practical result they were intended
to have — namely, " the removal of doubt and the restora
tion of peace of conscience."
That this was the sense in which the directions were
understood does not admit of any doubt, in view of the
actions of Pole and his suffragans in regard to clergy of
both classes. In his instructions to the bishops, the
Legate ordered them " to take special care to make all
ecclesiastics show the titles of their Orders and benefices."
In the commission also, given by Gilbert Bourne, Bishop
of Bath and Wells, to his Vicar-general, John Cottrell,

154 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
dated 8th April 1554, the Vicar is instructed to examine
into the state of those clergy who have married, " and
likewise of those married laymen who, under colour or
pretext of the order of priesthood" have unlawfully ad
ministered parish churches and taken on them the cure
of souls.
In the same way, in the juridical processes against
those clergy who had taken to themselves wives, great
care was taken to ascertain whether they were de facto
priests or not. In the forty cases recorded in the Harley
Manuscript 421, in the British Museum, it was always
the practice, before proceeding to any sentence of de
privation, to inquire whether they had been ordained more
than eight years — that is, before the introduction of the
new Ordinal of Edward VI. It may be useful to take
some few instances of individual treatment, and first as
regards the bishops. (1) Cranmer had received all his
Orders, including the episcopate, according to the
Catholic Pontifical ; he is treated as a bishop, and de
graded as such. (2) Ridley in the same way is acknow
ledged and degraded as a bishop. (3) Latimer likewise,
and for similar reasons, was regarded as a bishop. (4)
Bird, (5) Bush, (6) Barlow, and (7) Parfew were also all
treated as bishops.
On the other hand, (1) Hooper was a priest according
to the Catholic Pontifical, but was made bishop by the
rite in the Edwardine Ordinal. He was not regarded as
a bishop, and was degraded only as a priest, his episcopal
character being ignored. (2) The same is true in the case
of Ferrar. (3) James Taylor, made Bishop of Lincoln by
the rite in the new Ordinal in 1552, is deprived "by
reason of the nullity of his consecration." (4) The same
may be said of Harley and (5) of Scory. The only other

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 155
Edwardine reformers who had been consecrated bishops
according to the Anglican Ordinal were Miles Coverdale
and Poynet. These both fled out of England, and their
cases never came up for judgment.
The same absolute distinction is made in the treat
ment of priests and deacons ordained by the rites of the
Pontifical and the Ordinal. John Cardmaker, or Tayler,
was acknowledged as a priest because he had received
that Order as a Friar Minor, according to the Pontifical.
John Rogers, a prebendary of St. Paul's, was degraded
as a priest. Thomas Attolle, formerly a Canon Regular,
was treated as a priest. Robert Samuel also, and a
dozen others, were allowed to be priests, and treated as
such, because ordained by the rite of the ancient Ponti
fical. On the other hand, John Bradford was ordained on
ioth August 1550, as it is expressly declared, "accord
ing to the manner, form and rite of this Church of Eng
land " by Bishop Ridley. He became a prebendary of
St. Paul's on 24th August 1551; but, notwithstanding
this, in the process against him he is styled laicus — lay
man — and in the formal condemnation, where the clerk
had as usual written out the clause ordering his degra
dation " from every priestly Order," this is struck out in
the original as not applicable to his case. It is well to
note that Bradford received his diaconate also according
to the new Ordinal, and thus in the Catholic sense had
no Orders, and was in faciem Ecclesiae merely a layman.
Twelve other cases of clergymen claiming to have
Orders according to the new rite, whose claims were
ignored, could be adduced to confirm the practice.
Moreover, it was some years ago pointed out by the then
Anglican Bishop of Stepney that a search in the Epis-

156 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
copal Registers had revealed fourteen cases (eight being
in the diocese of London) in which clergy, who had
certainly received Orders under the Edwardine Ordinal,
had been reordained again, de novo et integro, during
Mary's reign.
It is therefore evident, not only from the decisions of
the Roman Pontiffs who were sufficiently informed as
to the true state of the case by the English Bishops, but
also by the whole of the acts of Cardinal Pole done
" according to the mind of the Pope " (ad mentem
Pontificis), that the Orders conferred according to the
Ordinal made in the time of Edward VI were held to
be invalid; and they were adjudicated invalid on account
of the insufficiency of the form itself. The practice of
accounting all Anglican Orders invalid is consequently
nothing new, but from the first it has been the invariable
custom of the ecclesiastical authorities of the Catholic
Church so to regard them. " This practice," says the
bull Apostolicae Curae, " is fully proved by the numerous
cases of absolute re-ordination according to the Catholic
rite, even in Rome itself." Moreover, on the occasions
when the question was formerly raised, and the Apostolic
See was asked to give a distinct judgment in the matter,
it invariably took the same view and pronounced for the
invalidity of the Orders bestowed according to the
English Ordinal.
It is unnecessary for me to discuss these decisions in
detail, but it may be useful to remind my readers that
these judgments were not founded upon any question of
doubtful historical fact. Neither the doubtful consecra
tion of Barlow, the consecrator of Archbishop Parker in
the reign of Elizabeth, nor the idle tale of that ceremony
popularly known as the " Nag's Head Story," was a de-

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 157
termining argument for the adverse decisions. Speaking
of the case of Bishop Gordon in 1704, Pope Leo XIII
says: "Nor, in pronouncing the decision, was weight
given to any other reason than the defect of form and in
tention; and, in order that the judgment concerning this
form might be more certain and complete, precaution
was taken that a copy of the Anglican Ordinal should
be submitted to examination, and that with it should be
collated the ordination forms gathered together from the
various Eastern and Western rites." The Pope adds:
" It is important to bear in mind that this judgment was
in no wise determined by the omission of the tradition
of instruments (from the Anglican rite); for in such a
case, according to the established custom, the direction
would have been to repeat the ordination conditionally"
In regard to this " tradition of instruments," a word
may be here interpolated. As all students know, it has
been assumed and is very commonly asserted that from
the rise of scholasticism, and certainly from the time of
the Council of Florence and the celebrated Instructio ad
Armenos of Pope Eugenius IV up to very recent times,
no one in the Latin Church questioned the ordinary
teaching of theologians that the essential matter of Or
ders was this " tradition of instruments." Further, it has
been asserted very confidently that, in view of this official
opinion of the authorities of the Latin Church, many
questions as to the validity of the Sacrament of Orders
were decided in the light of this assumed principle.
Still further, it is said, in regard to the question of Ang
lican Orders in particular, that the Anglican Ordinal
would of course at once have been condemned, by men
who held firmly to its essential necessity, because it did
not contain the traditio instrumentorum.

158 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
As a matter of fact, and indeed as Pope Leo XIII
points out, the condemnation of this Ordinal was not
based upon any such point; and, as I showed some years
ago in the American Catholic Quarterly Review (Oct.
1900),1 the Roman authorities were perfectly well aware
of the strong opinion which held that the tradition of
instruments was not essential. All this comes out quite
clearly in the acts of a commission appointed to deal
with the Greek " Euchologium " in 1636, which are to
be found in the Archives of Propaganda, and which
prove that the Roman authorities were not quite so
ignorant of the question as some people would like to
think. To return to our immediate subject. The groundwork
of all previous decisions about the English Orders was
exactly the same as that pronounced by Leo XIII on
20th September 1896, namely, the invalidity of the rite
itself. To understand what this means it is necessary to
know the history of this ritual and to examine into its
composition. The Anglican Ordinal was published by the authority
of the crown in 1550, as a complement to the Book of
Common Prayer which had been issued the previous
year. It was designed to do in regard to the Pontifical
what the Prayer Book had done in respect to the Missal
and the Catholic Liturgy generally. In this latter book,
as we know, the sacrifice of the Mass was rejected for a
new composition based upon the Lutheran liturgies of
Germany. The very words of Consecration anciently
used were made to give place to a new composition taken
from the Order for church service drawn up for Nurem
berg, of which church the uncle of Cranmer's wife was
1 See the next paper in this volume.

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 159
pastor. In the English Communion service, every care
was taken by Cranmer and the other compilers to make it
absolutely clear that the sacrificial character of the old
service had been changed into a memorial of prayer and
praise ; and, whilst in the general disposition of parts it
retained some outward resemblance to the old service,
all mention of oblation and sacrifice was carefully re
moved. The Ordinal came into existence in 1550, after the
First Prayer Book of Edward VI had been for some
short time in use. As all who know the history of that
time will acknowledge, the sacramental view of Cranmer
and the other Reformers had considerably changed in the
"down-grade" direction toward the Calvinistic doc
trine by the date of the publication of the Ordinal.
This being so, there was no difficulty about attaching it
to the Second Book of Common Prayer, which was
frankly Helvetian or Calvinistic in doctrine, when it
came to be published in 1552. It is consequently reason
able, and indeed necessary, to regard the Anglican
Ordinal as giving a form of ordination to the ministry
corresponding with the doctrinal teaching in regard to
the Eucharist held by those that were its authors.
A critical examination of the ritual for the ordaining
of deacons, priests, and bishops according to this new
Ordinal, will show that in every particular the Catholic
Pontifical was treated in the same systematic way as the
Missal had been in the Prayer Book, to get rid of the
notion of sacrifice and oblation. Thus, just as the de
struction of the material altars emphasised the fact that
sacrificial doctrine was rejected, so the word " altar " is
in all the new rites carefully excluded.
In the address of the bishop, in the Catholic ordination

160 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
rite for a deacon, to those to be ordained it is said " a
deacon must minister at the altar " ; this is deleted in the
new service. In the ordination of priests, the words of
the bishop's address in the old Pontifical run thus : " To
celebrate the Mass and consecrate the Body and Blood of
Christ; . . . that they may know that in this Sacrament
they receive the grace of consecrating . . . and may
acknowledge that they have received the power of offer
ing pleasing sacrifices, since to them pertains the office
of consecrating the Sacrament of Our Lord's Body and
Blood upon the altar of God. ... In this appears the
excellency of the priestly office, by which the Passion of
Christ is daily celebrated upon the altar." None of these
is to be found in the Edwardine rite. They are cut out ;
and, naturally, nothing like them has been inserted.
As regards the most important part of the rite, the
form itself, this is what the Apostolicae Curae says con
cerning the Edwardine Ordinal :
" In the examination of any rite for the effecting and
administering of sacraments, distinction is rightly made
between the part which is ceremonial and that which is
essential, usually called the ' matter and form.' All know
that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and
efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify
the grace which they effect, and effect the grace they
signify. Although the signification ought to be found in
the whole essential rite— that is to say, in the matter
and form — it still pertains chiefly to the form ; since the
matter is the part which is not determined by itself, but
which is determined by the form. And this appears
most clearly in the Sacrament of Orders, the matter of
which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is
the imposition of hands. This indeed by itself signifies

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 161
nothing definite, and is equally used for several of the
Orders and for Confirmation. But the words which until
recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute
the proper form of priestly ordination — namely, ' Receive
the Holy Ghost ' — certainly do not in the least definitely
express the sacred Order of the priesthood, or its grace
and power. . . .
" In vain has strength been recently sought, for the
plea of validity for the Orders, from the other prayers of
the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons which
show them to be insufficient for the purpose in the
Anglican rite, this one argument will apply to all : from
them has been deliberately removed whatever in the
Catholic rite expresses the dignity and office of the
priesthood. And consequently a form which omits what
it ought essentially to signify cannot be considered as
apt and sufficient
" The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For
to the formula ' Receive the Holy Ghost,' not only were
the words ' for the office and work of a bishop,' etc.,
added at a later period, but even these, as we shall pre
sently state, must be understood in a sense different
from that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is
anything gained by quoting the prayer of the Preface,
' Almighty God,' since in like manner it has been stripped
of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium
[high priesthood]. ... So it comes to pass that, as the
Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium of Christ
were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and
hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and
validly in the episcopal consecration of that same rite;
for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no
wise be truly and validly conferred by it ; and this the
M

162 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
more so because among the first duties of the episcopate
is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist
and Sacrifice."
So far, then, in our examination of the question of
Anglican Orders we have, it seems to me, arrived at
this point : a new rite was made, from which every word
and idea suggestive of sacrifice and oblation was care
fully excluded. This exactly corresponds to the doc
trinal standpoint of the compilers in regard to the
Eucharist. The conclusion, then, is irresistible: that, in
drawing up their Ordinal, Cranmer and the other Edward
ine reformers composed a book for the appointment of
ministers suitable to carry out the services designed in
the Book of Common Prayer. Further, to illustrate the
point made in the Praeclara Charissimi as to the want of
definition in the words of the actual form used by the
compilers of the Ordinal (and, in fact, until the year
1662), we should note the following facts:
In every rite acknowledged by the Church, whether
Eastern or Western, three things are invariably found
in the form of consecration of sacred ministers. These
are: (1) a clear and explicit mention of the Order to
be conferred; (2) a prayer for the grace proper to the
Order; (3) the simultaneous speaking of the form and
imposing the hands. These are found in respect to all
the Orders of deacon, priest, and bishop. This is the
case in the Roman Ordinal, the ancient Galliqan, the
Greek, the Syro-Maronite, the Nestorian, the Alexan
drian Jacobite, the Armenian, the Syrian Jacobite, and
in the Liturgy as it appears in the "Constitutions of
the Apostles." In the Anglican rite, on thef other
hand, this definition is entirely absent in the case of
all the Orders. It is true that in another prayer at the

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 163
end of the litany there is mention of " the work and
ministry of a bishop," but there is no moral connection
between this prayer and the imposition of hands. On
the contrary, there is a long interval between them,
and they are separated by the whole series of interroga
tions. Moreover, it is not certain that this prayer is
always said by the consecrator.
A collation of the Ordinal with the Catholic Pontifical,
just as a similar comparison of the First and Second
Prayer Books with the Missal, reveals changes so start
ling that we are justified in supposing that, in the mind
of the original innovators, the ministry they desired to
establish and perpetuate was as wholly different from
the priesthood conferred by the time-honoured Ponti
fical as their brand new Communion service was from
the Mass. This supposition is turned into positive
certainty on an examination of the writings of those
chiefly responsible for these liturgical changes in Eng
land. And all that an unprejudiced reader can say after
such a study is that if the old priesthood was not
destroyed as the result of their work, it certainly was
not the fault of the compilers that it survived in spite of
what they did.
Let us take a few examples of their teaching. To take
Cranmer first. We need not illustrate his teaching about
the Mass and the Sacrifice : it is too well known to all of
us by his controversy with Gardiner. This, however, is
a sample of what he taught about the priesthood:
" Christ's priesthood cannot pass from him to another.
. . . Wherefore the ministers of Christ's Church be not
now appointed priests to make new sacrifice for sin, . . .
but to preach abroad Christ's sacrifice and to be ministers
of His words and Sacraments." Again : " Christ made

i64 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
no such difference between the priest and the layman, that
the priest should make oblation and sacrifice of Christ
for the layman. . . . Christ made no such difference, but
the difference that is between the priest and the layman
in this matter is only in the ministration ; that the priest
as a common minister of the Church doth minister and
distribute the Lord's Supper unto others, and others
receive it at his hands."
It is unnecessary to multiply examples of Cranmer's
views as to the Sacrifice and priesthood : they are well
known to all. One other quotation, however, is useful
as giving very briefly and distinctly his opinion. Being
asked by Henry VIII whether in the New Testament
any consecration of bishop or priest was necessary, or
whether mere institution to office was sufficient, Cranmer
replied : " In the New Testament he who is appointed
bishop or priest does not, according to Holy Scrip
ture, need any consecration, but election or institution
is sufficient." Nicholas Ridley no less clearly condemned the Sacri
fice of the Holy Mass, and termed the Catholic teaching
" blasphemous." He declared that there was no priest
hood but that of Christ, and no sacrifice but what He
once offered. Further, that the Sacrament of the Euchar
ist had no grace except to such as received it rightly ;
that " The Lamb " was present only in a spiritual way.
Ridley it was who was most active in pulling down the
altars and setting up tables in their places, in order
practically to eradicate from the popular mind the idea
of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Another of the makers of the Anglican Ordinal was
Hooper. He, too, categorically denied the sacrificial
character of the Eucharist, speaking of the Mass as a

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 165
" horrible idol." Bishop Goodrich, according to a letter
written to Bullinger by Hooper, was in agreement with
himself, Cranmer, Latimer, etc., as to his teaching on the
Eucharist. He also took an active part in the destruction
of the altars. Ferrar, Bishop of St. David's, declared the
Catholic teaching to be " the doctrine of Antichrist." So,
too, Holbeach of Lincoln, who, in reply to Henry VIII,
maintained the pure Calvinistic doctrine on the nature
of the Sacrament
The same views were likewise held by those divines
who assisted in the revision of the Anglican Liturgy
when it and the Ordinal were re-introduced by Queen
Elizabeth. Richard Cox, afterwards Bishop of Ely, said
that " the only oblation of Christ in the Mass consisted
in prayer, praise and thanksgiving " ; and, in regard
to the priesthood, that "in Holy Scripture there is
no consecration of bishops and priests, but only an
institution to the office of priest by imposition of hands."
Pilkington thanked God that he had " destroyed the
Sacrifice of the Mass." Matthew Parker, Elizabeth's
first archbishop after the settlement of religion, " ordered
that the Eucharist must not be adored," and declared
that the Mass was not a propitiatory sacrifice for the
living and dead. Sandys, Bishop of London, speaks of
the " Papist priesthood " as having no warrant in
Scripture, and adds: " Antichrist is the author of that
priesthood." 1
Of the Elizabethan clergy it is not too much to say
that they would have rejected with scorn the notion
that they had Orders in the same sense as the Catholic
priests. Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, who wrote about
1563, though he used stronger language, does not take
1 Sermons, p. 411.

166 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
views different from those of the rest of his cloth. He
speaks of the Catholic clergy as "shorn, shaveling, shame
less priests"; and of the Catholic bishops as "bite-sheep"
or " horned beasts," (in reference to their mitres), or the
" Pope's belly-gods"; and he characterises Catholic or
dination as " filthy greasing," and sacred Orders as be
stowed by the Catholic rite as " stinking orders." He
had no thought about belonging to the old Catholic
Church of England, and had nothing but sneers and
ribald language for men like Wilfrid and Lanfranc,
Anselm and St. Thomas, the glories of that Church.
Here is what he says about his own Orders: " In Dur
ham, I grant the bishop that now is [i.e., himself]
and his predecessor [Bishop Tunstall] were not one
religion in divers points, nor made bishop after
one fashion. This [i.e., himself] has neither cruche
[crosier] nor mitre, never swore against his prince his
allegiance to the Pope ; this has neither power to christen
bells nor hallow chalices and super-altars, as the other
had ; and with gladness [he] praises God that kept him
from such filthiness."
In a word, no member of the Church established
legally by Elizabeth would for one moment have thought
of claiming to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice or to be a
priest in the Catholic sense. On the contrary, all would
have argued that both the one and the other were un
christian. Their acts and words confirmed their senti
ments. Their denial was threefold: (i) a denial of the
real and objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist;
(2) a denial of the real and propitiatory Sacrifice in the
Mass; (3) a denial of the sacrificial character of the
priesthood in the New Law. These three nega
tions of what Catholics held and taught are obviously

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 167
bound up together, and follow one from the other in a
strictly logical way. In this the English Reformers
agreed in principle with those of Germany and Switzer
land. The acts and words of the Elizabethan bishops and
clergy, no less than those who initiated the religious re
volution under Edward VI, emphasised their beliefs.
Altar-stones were everywhere pulled down with con
tumely, and broken up, or exposed to insult and infamy.
Archbishop Parker even expressed his horror and indig
nation at ministers using for their communions chalices
which had been used for celebrating Mass. If they kept
the names of bishop and priest, it really was because it
was a point of law, because many legal principles required
it; and, even for emoluments and benefices, it was neces
sary to conform to the law of the land. I honestly do
not believe that there was anything more than this in
the preservation of the names of priest and bishop,
especially when ecclesiastics and laymen were loud in
explaining that their ministers were no " Mass-priests."
In this, Catholics were in full agreement with their
Protestant fellow countrymen. They never for a moment
admitted their claim to Orders in the Catholic sense;
and the Catholic writers, in the second half of the six
teenth century and after, were unanimous in declaring
their belief that these bishops and priests were mere
legal and parliamentary clergy, without the true char
acter of Orders. They made no mistake about sup
posing that sacraments given during the time of heresy
and schism were not true sacraments. They knew what
they meant quite well, and drew a clear distinction be
tween the clergy who had been ordained as Catholic
priests, although they had subsequently lapsed into

168 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
schism and heresy, and those who had received their
ministry according to the Anglican Ordinal.
One example must suffice. About 1565 Thomas
Heskin, a D.D., and a Dominican, wrote a book called
The Parliament of the Church, and this is what he says on
this very point : " Understand that in this new-founded
Church there be two sorts of ministers that do minister
the Communion. One sort is of the priests which, law
fully consecrated in the Catholic Church, have fallen to
heresy ; who, although they have authority by their Holy
Orders to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, yet
now, having neither right intention nor faith of the
Catholic Church, they consecrate not. The other sort is
of ministers made after the new manner. These men,
though they would unwisely have intention to consecrate,
yet, lacking the lawful authority, they neither do nor
can consecrate, but (as it may justly be thought), having
neither authority nor due faith and intent, they neither
receive nor distribute to the people any other thing than
bread and wine."
In like manner Nicholas Harpsfield, Harding, Staple-
ton, and a host of other writers, could be quoted to the
same effect ; and there can be no doubt that the stress
of their arguments is laid upon the invalidity of the
Ordinal by which the Anglican clergy were made minis
ters. Hence in all the controversy of those times, the
Catholics were always taunting their Protestant adver
saries with having " parliament bishops," deriving their
authority and every other power from the Crown and
State, and getting nothing from the Church, the Apostles,
or Christ.
Of course the mere opinion of Catholics as to the
Orders of clergy of the Church by law established would

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 169
amount to very little, even when the opinion of the Pro
testant divines practically agreed with them that they
certainly did not possess, nor wish to possess, Orders in
the same sense as that claimed by the Catholics. Still,
when the views of those who drew up the new Ordinal,
and of the first men who used it, are well known as favour
ing a rejection of the Catholic doctrine of Orders, it is
not a very great assumption to suppose that they would
not have had any particular desire or taken any par
ticular care to keep the ancient essential form.
" For the full and accurate understanding of the
Anglican Ordinal," says Leo XIII, "besides what we
have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more
pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances
under which it was composed and publicly authorised.
It would be tedious to enter into details ; nor is it neces
sary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently
eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal
against the Catholic Church, as to the abettors whom
they associated with themselves from the heterodox
sects, and as to the end they had in view. Being fully
cognisant of the necessary connection between faith and
worship, between the law of believing and the law of
praying, under a pretext of returning to the primitive
form, they, in many ways, corrupted the liturgical Order
to suit the errors of the Reformers. For this reason, in
the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of
the Sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium, and of
the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but, as
we have just stated, every trace of these things, which
had existed in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they
had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and
struck out. In such things as these the native character

170 THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
— or spirit, as it is called — of the Ordinal clearly mani
fests itself."
This appears to be the straightforward and common-
sense view as to the Anglican Ordinal. As in the earliest
times of Julius III and Paul IV, so now in our days,
Pope Leo XIII mainly bases his decision against the
reception of Anglican Orders as Catholic Orders upon
the inherent invalidity of the form itself. Moreover, he
strengthens this judgment by a reference to the history
of the times when this form was drawn up, and to the
opinions of those mainly concerned in the work. I have
endeavoured to illustrate this interesting and important
point at somewhat greater length. It remains to note
what the Pope says in the Apostolicae Curae as to the
Catholic doctrine of intention.
" With this inherent defect of the form is joined,"
writes the Pope, "the defect of intention, which is equally
essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge
about the mind or intention in so far as it is something
by its nature internal ; but in so far as it is manifested
externally, she is bound to judge concerning it. When
any one has rightly and seriously made use of the due
form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring
the Sacrament, he is considered by the very fact to do
what the Church does. On this principle rests the
doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the
ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptised, provided
the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the
rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing
another rite not approved by the Church, and of reject
ing what the Church does, and what by the institution
of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it
is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting

THE QUESTION OF ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS 171
to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to,
and destructive of, the sacrament."
In other words, the case seems to me to stand thus.
The early English Reformers rejected the Sacrifice of
the Mass and all that the notion implied — altars, vest
ments, and priesthood. They drew up a rite of ordain
ing ministers, in which, by exclusion, this notion was
strongly emphasised, and which was wholly different
from the ancient Catholic rite. Further, there can be no
doubt whatever that those who were responsible for
drawing up the rite, and those who first used it, would
have rejected with scorn, and by the use of the strongest
language, any idea of making bishops and priests in
the Catholic sense. Why, therefore, do their successors
in religion — the members of the English Established
Church, or those bodies which sprang from it — take it
amiss if Pope Leo XIII, as the result of his examina
tion of the question, came to agree with their forefathers
in all this, and declared that, in his opinion, they suc
ceeded in their design ? He is not, be it remembered, the
first who has come to this decision; for the same judg
ment had already been passed upon the validity of
Anglican Orders by the Greeks and Russians, and by
the Jansenists and Old Catholics.

TABLES SHOWING A COMPARISON OF
THE ANCIENT PONTIFICAL WITH
THE NEW ORDINAL, 1552
I
THE DIACONATE

ANCIENT CATHOLIC
PONTIFICAL
I. Presentation of Candidates.
2. Litany of the Saints.
That thou wouldst i$i bless 4" sanc-
tify >Jl consecrate.

Address on the Office of
Deacon.
Inter alia to minister at the altar.
Imposition of Hands with
Accipe Spiritum Sanc
tum.

9. Prayer for God's Grace
of blessing and consecration.
10. Preface.
11. Vesting in Stole.
12. Presentation of Gospel
Book.
To be read " both for the living and
for the dead."
13. Prayer

14.

for grace to serve with " purity at
the sacred altar.,t
Vesting in Deacon's Vest

ment.

i5- 1 6.

Gospel.Mass.

NEW ANGLICAN ORDINAL
1552
1. Presentation of Candidates.
Somewhat changed.
2. Litany. Invocation of B. V. Mary and Saints
with words sanctify and consecrate
omitted.
3. Prayer. New composition — refers to the
diaconate of St. Stephen, but nothing
about being filled with the Holy Ghost
and power.
4. Epistle.
5. Oath of Royal Supremacy.
6. Interrogation of Candidate
as to his belief in being called to
the office.
7. Address on the Office.
A long new composition. The word
altar omitted.
8. Imposition of Hands with
" Take thou authority to
execute the office of deacon
in the Church of God com
mitted to thee" (anew form).

12. Presentation of the New
Testament.

15. Gospel.
16. Communion Service.
17. Prayer for the good behaviour of the dea
cons thus chosen.

II

THE PRIESTHOOD

ANCIENT CATHOLIC
PONTIFICAL

Admonition to Candidates.
The purity of life necessary for those
" who celebrate Mass and consecrate
the Body and Blood of Christ— ab
solve penitents, and whose hands are
annointed " that they may know that
they receive the grace of consecrating
in this sacrament — who receive the
chalice and paten " that they may
understand they receive the power of
offering sacrifices pleasing to God,
since it belongs to them to consecrate
the sacrament of the Body and Blood
of the Lord on God's altar." The can
didate is reminded of the "excellence
of 'thefriestly office by virtue of which
the Passion of Christ is daily cele
brated upon the altar"

7. Imposition of Hands and
Prayer for God's grace on
the Ordinandi.
8. Preface. Mentions the Sacerdotal Grade and
the dignity of the priesthood.
9. Vesting in the Stole — Veni
Creator Spiritus.
10. Blessing of Hands
to consecrate the sacrifices offered
for the sins and offences of the people.
11. Annointing and Consecra
tion
of the priest's hands.
12. Tradition of Instruments
the power to offer the sacrifice and
celebrate the Mass.
13. The Mass.
14. Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.
" Whose sins ye shall, etc."

17

Blessing of the Ordained.
"That you may be blessed in the
priestly order and offer sacrifices
pleasing to Gcd."

NEW ANGLICAN ORDINAL
1. Exhortation and Examina
tion.
New composition.
2. Prayer for Candidates.
New composition.
3. Admonition to Candidates.
A new composition on the duties of
teaching, etc. From this all mention
or idea of the sacrificial character of
the office is omitted.

4. Interrogation of Candidates.
5. Prayer.
6. Veni Creator Spiritus.

8. Prayer. New composition.
the priesthood.

No mention of

14. Imposition of Hands with
the words Receive the Holy
Ghost.1
"Whose sins, etc."
15. Presentation of Bible.
16. Prayer.

1 In 1662 the words "for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God " were
added.

THE EPISCOPATE

ANCIENT CATHOLIC
PONTIFICAL
I. The Presentation of Elect.
Mention is made of election to
" order of 'episcopate" and that he is
one "who is ordained."

6. Interrogation of Elect
as to the Faith, etc.

Admonition on Episcopal
Office.
The Bishop's work inter alia is to
consecrate', to ordain; to offer sacri
fice. Exhortation to pray for
Elect.
Litany. Imposition of Hands.
Veni Creator Spiritus.
Prayer over Elect
asks that God would " turn over on
this thy servant the horn of sacerdotal
grace" — speaks of one "elected to
the ministry of the High Priesthood "
and of completing "the sum of the
ministry." The Preface.
Sometimes called the "Prayer of
Consecration," followed by the Unc
tion. Prayer for him who is raised to the Sum-
mum Sacerdotium.

10.
II. 12.

13'

14

16.

17- 1 8.
19.

Benediction of the Seven
fold Spirit.
After which the blessing and gift of
various episcopal insignia — crozier,
mitre, ring, etc.
Presentation of the Bible.
The Mass.
Prayer. Pater Sancte.
_ Peculiar to the Sarum rite — men
tions the Summum Sacerdotium, to
which the Bishop has been consecrated
— and begs that the fact that he has
been united to the consecrators in the
Sacerdotium may be a pledge that he
be united to God in the future life.

NEW ANGLICAN ORDINAL
I5S2
1. The Presentation of Elect.
A new composition with some ex
pressions from the old form, the two
characteristic noted opposite omitted.
2. Oath of obedience to Arch
bishop.
3. Prayer for the Elect (new).
4. Litany (as in rite for dea
cons).
5. Prayer (new).
6. Interrogations. New form — as to functions — to gov
ern — instruct and teach named.*

8. Prayer. New composition.

11. Veni Creator Spiritus.
12. Prayer. New composition with some slight
expressions from the old rite : the
characteristics noted opposite being
left out.

15. Imposition of Hands with
' ' Take the Holy Ghost 2 and
remember, etc."

17. Presentation of the Bible.
New form.
18. The Communion Service.
19. Prayer. A new composition founded on the
old prayer of the Sarum rite, but with
the phrases as to the Sacerdotium
omitted.

1 To ordain added in 1662.
2 After Holy Ghost in 1662 was added
Church."

' for the office and work of a Bishop in the

A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK
ORDINAL IN THE SEVENTEENTH
CENTURY1
WHILST in Rome lately awaiting the conclusion
of some business in one of the Congregations, I
obtained permission to make researches in the archives
of Propaganda. Amongst the great mass of papers
which passed under my eyes during the weeks I was able
to devote to the work, one set of documents proved of
special interest to me, as they threw considerable light
upon the state of theological opinion on the question of
"the tradition of instruments" in the Sacrament of
Orders in the early part of the seventeenth century.
As all students know, there has long been a great
difference of opinion as to what is the essential matter of
the diaconate and priesthood. It has been assumed, and
Js very commonly asserted, that from the rise of schol
asticism, and certainly since the Council of Florence and
the " Instructio ad Armenos " of Pope Eugenius IV up
to very recent times no one in the Latin Church ques
tioned the ordinary teaching of theologians that the es
sential matter of Orders was the "tradition of instru
ments," i.e., for the diaconate the giving of the Book of
the Gospels, for the priesthood of the chalice, etc., to the
1 Published in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, Oct.
ober 1900. •75

176 A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK ORDINAL
candidate. Further, it is asserted that inasmuch as this
was practically the universal and official opinion of the
authorities of the Latin Church, many questions as to
the validity of the Sacrament of Orders were determined
in the light of this assumed principle — questions which
might have been decided in a very different manner had
other and, as it is now believed, sounder views as to the
matter of the sacrament prevailed. It is now unneces
sary, of course, to say that this assumption made by some
writers that the tradition of instruments was practically
accepted by all theologians from the thirteenth century
downward as the essential matter of the Sacrament of
Orders, is as a fact not borne out by an examination of
their works. These prove beyond doubt that teachers in
theological schools, and above all the authorities of the
Latin Church, were always aware that there was another
opinion, and that certainly from the sixteenth century in
any decision on the question of the validity of Orders
what is called the scholastic view had no undue weight.
The documents I came across in the Propaganda
archives fully confirm this opinion as to the full know
ledge of the Roman theologians on this matter in the
early seventeenth century. The Congregation de Pro
paganda Fide was established in 1622, and in the early
years of its existence much of its resources and a great
deal of its energy were occupied in the printing and pub
lishing of books which would be useful for the work of
spreading and defending the faith. For this purpose a
press was established and types to print in the Oriental
languages were prepared, and in the volumes of the
Acta appear constant notes from which the history of
the Propaganda press might be written. In 1636 a ques
tion was raised as to the publication by the Congrega-

IN TliE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 177
tion of a, new edition of the Greek Euchologium, or
book of trie Greek services and rites. On 4th March of
that year Cardinal Barberini, then Prefect of the Propa
ganda, pointed out the need of preparing an edition of
the Greek I liturgy for the Oriental Churches in general
and for triose who followed the Greek rites in Italy
in particular. It would appear from his statement that
the editioms of the Euchologium which existed, and
notably thsit printed in Venice " post annum 1557," were
considered jto be faulty and required careful correction,
and a Comfrnission was thereupon appointed by the Pope
thoroughlyi *° exatmne the whole question.
This Coranrnission came together for its first meeting
on 24th Ap^ril 1636, and so seriously did it fulfil its mis
sion that ifcj; terminated its labours only in 1640, having
held some d sixty-five sessions. During those meetings the
whole booiic of Greek rites was taken, part by part, and
the matter 4 and form of the sacraments as well as the
ritual for jlhe celebration of holy Mass was fully gone
into. At tHie commencement it was agreed that, to insure
full consideration, one member of the Commission should
be appohrrted to act as exponent. He was specially to
study the 3 matter for discussion, and was apparently to
take the f^ide adverse to the existing Greek ritual. Father
Vincent ^Richardus, a Theatine, was asked to undertake
this part, land in the various meetings which followed his
censura fcLmed the groundwork of all the debates.
The fai/t of this Commission having sat in the seven
teenth century was, of course, well known by the Preface
of Morinuis in his great work De Sacris Ecclesiae Ordini-
bus, whichl in one sense may be said to have been the
outcome pf studies undertaken as a member of this
Commission. Morinus dedicates his work to the presid-
I N

178 A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK..ORDINAL
ent, Cardinal Barberini, and says that he was. called to
Rome in 1639 by the Cardinal, and a few daysjlater was
summoned to take part in " a Commission appy3"1^ by
Pope Urban VIII to" consider the Greek Euch/ol°gium-"
When he first took his place at the sittings, het says, the
inquiry into the validity of the rite of Greek dVdinations
had begun, and he seems to imply that it wfcas through
his exertions, or mainly through the ligl ^t ne was
enabled to throw on the subject, that the C commission
was saved from making a great mistake in 1 '^s matter.
" It appeared to me," he writes, " not quite se i'fe to settle
a question of such moment on the teach ing of the
scholastics alone." In his view the members '. i13-® no S1"~
ficient knowledge of Greek or of the Greeks, 'It nor had it
entered into their minds to inquire what, how It many, and
of what nature the Greek forms of ordination]
will be seen that in this opinion about his bra
missioners Morinus was hardly fair, although^
the arguments and knowledge of the learnl
Oratorian had great weight with them. He
however, able to remain to the end of the mel
after having been nine months in Rome he was]
recalled to Paris by Cardinal Richelieu. " Wfl
called back," he says, " I know not, but the ordl
a man could not be disobeyed." The interest cVdreated in
his mind by the discussions, however, continuecl 1 after his
return. The matter constantly occupied his fie attention
and finally took the form of the volume pre! ppared for
publication in 1655, in which he set himself to pieirove that
what " many of the scholastics " had taught fieto be the
essential form of Orders were in the old ris huals con
spicuous by their absence. J63
From the Acta of this Roman Commission, \Gto which

.were." It
Dther com-
no doubt
;d French
|jr; was not,
fietings, for
i suddenly
i'hy I was
er of such

IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 179
I now call attention, I believe for the first time, it ap
pears that even before Morinus came to Rome the
fathers were fully aware of the difficulties as to the
scholastic view about the matter and form of the Sacra
ment of Orders, which indeed the mere examination of
the Euchologium must have brought out. We are not
concerned with the early discussions of the Commission,
but early in 1639 — in the thirty-fourth session — the
question of the sub-diaconate was formally raised by the
Theatine, Father Vincent Richardus. The point was
clearly stated by the ponente : in the ordination of sub-
deacon could the old form of the Euchologium be kept,
since it ordered mere imposition of hands, whereas ac
cording to the Latin rite the Order was conferred by the
tradition of the chalice without any such imposition? He
quoted the Council of Florence, or rather Eugenius IV's
ad Armenos, which he considered settled the question
absolutely by declaring the tradition of instruments to
be the essential matter of the sacrament. The ponente
consequently strongly advocated the substitution of this
for the mere imposition of hands found in the Eucho
logium. A certain Cistercian, Abbot Hilarion, another member
of the Commission, although admitting that the import
ant question of the tradition of instruments should be
most carefully examined, was himself of opinion that it
was not necessary or essential, and that the matter of the
sacrament was clearly the imposition of hands as found
in the Greek Ordinals. As proof that the Orders con
ferred without " the instruments " had been regarded as
right and valid, he quoted Clement VIII in his instruc
tion Super ritibus Italo-Graecorum (31st August 1595),
in which the Pope dealt expressly with the orders of

180 A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK ORDINAL
those ordinati ab Episcopis schismaticis according to
Greek forms, and assumes throughout their unquestion
able validity.
At this meeting Cardinal Barberini spoke " at length
and expounded the ground of both opinions. As a prac
tical conclusion he advocated the thorough examination
of the question, because if the Commission were to advise
that the ' tradition of instruments ' should be insisted
upon it was greatly to be feared that such a decision
would be attacked not only by the Greeks, but by many
of the Latins " who did not believe in their necessity.
It is obvious from the above that at this period in the
sittings of the Commission the fathers were fully alive to
the importance of the questions at issue in regard to the
matter and form of Orders, and it was only after two
more sessions, in which the discussion was continued,
that the members determined, in order to sift the matter
to the bottom, to obtain the assistance and advice of
other skilled authorities. On 9th July 1639, conse
quently, three new names were added to the Commis
sion. One was Father Anthony Hickey,1 an Irish
Franciscan, of St. Isidore's, Rome, and another the well-
known French Oratorian, Morinus. On 14th August the
new members for the first time took their seats on the
Commission, which was then holding its thirty-seventh
1 Father Hickey was doubtless proposed by Father Luke Wad
ding, who was at this time constantly consulted by the Propa
ganda officials. Father Hickey's portrait is painted on the walls of
the " Hall of the Theses " in St. Isidore's with the following inscrip
tion: "Admodum R. Pater. Fr. Antonius Hignaslus, Emeritus S.
Theologize Professor : Totius Ordinis Definitor Generalis : Vir in
omni scientiarum genere conspicuus ; studio totus et orationi
deditus : Diversorum author operum : Vita ac morum gravitate
exemplarissimus.''

IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 181
session. The question being debated was, as Morinus
indeed tells us in his Preface, the subject of the Greek
ordinations, and the discussion of the sub-diaconate was
again resumed by the ponente, Father Vincent Rich-
ardus. He, as usual, took the position of uncompromising
hostility to the Greek forms, and in his r61e of advocatus
diaboli maintained (i) that in the Euchologium there was
not sufficient matter and form, (2) that there was no
tradition of instruments which rendered it essentially
defective, and (3) that the words used did not sufficiently
signify the power of the Order bestowed. Further, that
the form of words made use of was " deprecativa et non
efficiunt quod significant, neque significant quod efficiunt."
Moreover, he could not accept the view held by some
authorities that the essential matter of Orders was " the
imposition of hands," for it appeared to him to be dis
tinctly against the Councils, the ancient practice of the
Roman Church, and practically condemned by the words
of Pope Eugenius IV in his Instruction to the Ar
menians. In this opinion he was followed by one other
member of the Commission, who also added that in his
opinion there was no real distinction made in the Eucho
logium between the sub-diaconate and the diaconate.
The other five members, including Cardinal Barberini,
Father Anthony Hickey, and Morinus, held that the
Greek form was certainly sufficient, and that no change
should be made in it. They gave their reasons with
some minuteness, and briefly they amount to the claim
that the imposition of hands was the only essential and
necessary matter of the Sacrament. They refer to the
authority of the learned Greek, Arcudius, whose work
on this very question had not long before been pub
lished in Rome, with the approval of Roman theo-

182 A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK ORDINAL
logians and at the command of Pope Paul V, and their
arguments are mainly drawn from the sixth book of the
learned treatise. They maintained that this authority
fully proves {late probat) that the Greek rites never had
any other matter than " the imposition of hands," and
that in primitive times there could have been no " tradi
tion of instruments," since, to take the case of the
diaconate, the book of the Gospels could not have been
given, nor anything equivalent to it, by the Apostles in
their ordinations.
The principle that Morinus advocated in the examina
tion of the Greek liturgy, as he tells us in the Preface
of his work, was that if the Greek rites were shown to be
the same before and after the schism, then there could
be no doubt that the Euchologium contained all the
essential rites of ordination. If, on the other hand, it
was found that changes had been introduced, it would
be necessary to examine the nature of these introduc
tions, or omissions, and to discover the intention which
had prompted the changes. For this purpose Morinus
obtained copies of the Greek ritual, certainly going back
beyond the days of the schism, and satisfied himself that
the Euchologium then being examined was in its forms
practically identical with these.1
Moreover, the upholders of the sufficiency of the Greek
rites pointed out that although it was well known that
the Oriental Church had never made use of any other
form of Orders than the imposition of hands and prayer,
still the validity of the ordination of Eastern Churches
1 On his return to Paris Morinus told Goar, the Dominican, who
was then engaged in editing the Greek ritual books, of two copies
he had seen in Rome, better than those he had for the basis of his
edition.

IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 183
had never been called into question by the Latins:
neither at Lyons nor at Florence had any doubt been
thrown upon the reality of these Orders, nor the slightest
hint thrown out that the Oriental forms were invalid.
On the contrary, the Greeks had always been accepted
as true priests and honoured as true bishops. Further,
in 1254 Pope Innocent IV, in his letter to a legate who
had been sent to Cyprus to end disputes which had
arisen between the Latin and the Greek bishops in the
island, went carefully into the question of the Greek
rites. In regard to the Orders conferred by the Greek
bishops he merely desired that the three minor Orders,
not specifically given in the Greek ordinals, should be
added " according to the custom of the Roman Church,"
and, in clearly admitting the validity of the Orders in
general, says nothing about the necessity of any tradition
of instruments. This position of Pope Innocent IV in
regard to the Greek forms of ordination was, moreover,
in full accord with his previous teaching in the schools.
As the canonist Sinibaldi, he had maintained that im
position of hands accompanied only by some form to
specify the Order, such as Esto Sacerdos, would be suffi
cient for the valid bestowal of sacred Orders.
The Commissioners, in order to show that their view
as to the tradition of instruments was not necessary, was
not a novel teaching, referred to the authorities adduced
by the learned Arcudius and to the even more recent
teaching of Hallier, a professor at the Sorbonne, who,
whilst urging in practice the necessity of bestowing the
chalice, etc., on the priest with the accompanying form,
as signifying clearly the sacrificial character of the priest
hood, still held that there could be no doubt whatever
that imposition of hands was the necessary and essential

1 84 A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK ORDINAL
matter of the Sacrament. To the authority of Hallier
the fathers of the Commission added the weight of
" other more recent teachers," such, for example, as the
admitted theses maintained in the theological faculty of
Paris in 1633, 1639, and 1640. These are referred to by
Dom Hugo Menart in his edition of St. Gregory's Sac-
ramentary, and are amply sufficient to indicate that the
trend of the then theological opinion was in favour of
the view held by the majority of the Commission.
In summing up their arguments in favour of the Greek
traditional forms, the fathers maintained that " the Sac
rament of Orders was instituted by Christ our Lord in
such a way that the consecration of ministers was effected
by certain words, or symbols, or external signs by which
the ministry to which the candidate was to be ordained
was signified." The determination of specific symbol or
sign, however, was left to the will of the Church. The
one thing which at all times appeared as a part of the
ordination services both in the Greek and Latin Churches
was imposition of hands accompanied with prayer.
Whilst the Latins had added to the ancient forms the
tradition of instruments to emphasise the character of
the Order more clearly, the Eastern Churches had left
them as they were, and there could be no sort of. reason
why they should now be added to make them like the
Western forms.
The majority of the Commissioners met the assertion
of the ponente that at the Council of Florence Eu
genius IV had settled the question once for all by a
denial that the Instructio ad Armenos really taught
what it was suggested it did, namely, that the matter
and form of the Sacrament of Orders was the tradition
of instruments accompanied by the usual form of words

IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 185
and nothing more. " The Council of Florence," they say,
" did not exclude, but rather assumed, the existence of
the Greek rites and merely gave to the Armenians the
more perfect forms which the Latins made use of in
conferring the Sacrament of Orders." In other words
Eugenius IV only intended in this Instructio to state
what, in addition to the imposition of hands, which the
Armenians already made use of, the Latins required
de facto. It was, on the one hand, obvious that the
Council of Florence and the Pope fully and completely
acknowledged as valid the Orders of the Greeks, and, on
the other, that when asked to state the Latin forms it was
only reasonable that the Pontiff should give the addi
tional rite of the tradition of instruments, upon which
the teaching of the scholastics had insisted so strongly.
It cannot be conceived as possible that Eugenius IV
could have intended to suggest that the Orders as given
by the Greeks were invalid, seeing that both he and the
fathers of the Council of Florence admitted their validity.
Neither is it likely that his words were intended to imply
that there was no need of any imposition of hands since
it formed an integral part of the existing Latin rite.
This is all the more certain since the Pope and his suc
cessors, as the fathers of the Commission point out, most
certainly continued to accept the Orders bestowed by
the Greek Church without any tradition of instruments.
Taken by itself, it is possible to misunderstand the
Instructio ad Armenos, but its terms must be inter
preted by the circumstances of the times when it was
given and by the way in which the people of the time
understood its meaning. The action of the Popes in
regard to Greek ordinations leaves no real doubt as to
the meaning to be attached to the direction. If, for the

186 A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK ORDINAL
sake of argument, it be admitted that the Pope did in
tend to lay down as certain the narrow scholastic opinion
that the tradition of instruments only was the essential
matter of Orders, it is still open to disagree with this
opinion. In practice the Pope did not himself maintain
such a view, as the mere fact of his accepting Orders
conferred without this, proves beyond any possibility of
cavil or doubt. If it was Pope Eugenius' opinion (which
it is almost impossible to believe), then we may hold, as
the fathers of this Commission say: "It was a practical
instruction to the Armenians, and no dogmatic definition
on the nature of the sacrament." (In praedicta instruc-
tione definitionem de fide non contineri!)
So far as the Commission was concerned this dis
cussion seems practically to have decided their opinion
on the question of the tradition of instruments, the sense
of the members being clearly that the imposition of
hands was the essential matter of the Sacrament of
Orders. When in the next session, held on 28th August
1639, the rite of ordination to the priesthood was taken
into consideration, the point was raised only in the
general statement of the objections and difficulties at
the conclusion. The point here proposed to the Com
missioners as the first difficulty was whether the second
imposition of hands with its accompanying form, " Accipe
spiritum sanctum quorum remiseritis peccata," which was
not to be found in the Euchologium, was not essential
as conveying the powers of the keys to the priest, which
Our Lord had bestowed on His Apostles after the Re
surrection. Several members of the Commission argued
against the necessity and adduced many strong reasons
to support their contention. The fact that, although in
the Greek forms there never was any such second im-

IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 187
position of hands, and that nevertheless no one had
called in question the validity of their Orders, was in
sisted upon. One of the Commission pointed out that
theologians like Sotus and Valentia held that the Greek
rite implicitly contained the whole of the Latin forms.
" In this latter," he said, " the second imposition of hands
was added at a late period to explain the nature of the
sacerdotal powers more clearly." There were not two
forms, but one, and it was certain that this and many
other additions had been made by the Latins at com
paratively late times in order to emphasise more clearly
the nature of the Sacrament. This he concluded was
obviously the case, since in the most ancient Roman
form of Orders there was mention only of imposition of
hands with prayer, and nothing more.
Father Anthony Hickey, the Irish Franciscan, took
the same view most strongly, saying that it was not
open to doubt that Orders in primitive years were always
given by the imposition of hands and prayer. He sug
gested that as in process of time the sacrificial character
of the Christian priesthood came to be expressed very
definitely by the tradition of the chalice and with its
accompanying words, it became almost necessary to in
troduce something so as to emphasise the ministerial
side of the priestly office and the power of the keys.
In the Greek forms, as indeed in the oldest Western
forms, both were sufficiently expressed in the same
form. The discussion was continued through several sessions,
some of the members allowing that they were doubtful
about the point at issue; but Morinus expressed himself
as clear that the second imposition, etc., was quite a late
introduction in the Western Church, and certainly not

1 88 A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK ORDINAL
to be found in any of the ancient Greek or Oriental
liturgies. Besides this point, upon which all the argu
ment appears to have been on the one side, the ques
tion whether a deprecatory form, such as that in the
Euchologium : " May Divine Grace make thee, N, now
a deacon, into a priest," was raised, and its validity
similarly maintained by Morinus and others, who laid
stress upon the fact that all the Greek forms from
ancient times had always been of this kind and had
nevertheless always been acknowledged by the Roman
Church. Before the close of the arguments on this matter, in
March 1640 Morinus had been recalled to France, but
his departure does not appear to have changed the views
of the Commission. In March, April, and May at the
meetings a considerable portion of the time was taken
up in resuming the discussion on the necessity of the
tradition of instruments. Throughout one thing appears
clearly: that all fully admitted the fact that this was not
an ancient part of the rite, but a comparatively modern
introduction, and that what had always existed from the
days of the Apostles was imposition of hands and
prayer, as then found in the Greek Euchologium. One
of the fathers — Antonius Marulus — who had joined the
Commission shortly before the close of the discussion, at
great length summed up the historical argument by ad
ducing examples of the admission of the imposition of
hands as the essential matter of the sacrament during
the nine previous centuries. In the course of the argu
ment, too, various theologians were quoted, amongst
others the Jesuit Martin Becanus, who taught definitely
at the end of the sixteenth century that " Orders are
bestowed by the imposition of hands and the word of the

IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 189
ordaining Bishop ''; * that " there must be imposition of
hands is absolutely certain and has never yet been ques
tioned by any one," and that " the imposition of hands
would appear to be the essential matter of this sacra
ment instituted by Christ; the tradition of instruments,
on the other hand, would seem to be accidental only and
introduced by the Church."
The position taken by the Commission generally would
appear, then, to be the following: Just as Pope Bene
dict XV considered that in the Greek sub-diaconate all
the minor Orders were implicitly contained, so the Latin
rite had by its introduction of the tradition of instru
ments and the second imposition of hands only amplified
and more clearly expressed what was actually contained
in the simple imposition of hands and the accompanying
words of the Greek rite and the earliest Latin forms.
The latter had not really changed the form, but had
merely expanded and extended it to give it greater signi
ficance. This attitude of mind was mainly formed, as we have
seen, upon the work of Arcudius. This learned Greek
priest, a native of Cyprus, after having done much to
help in the settlement of the Oriental difficulties, died at
the Greek College in Rome, in 1634, two years before
the meeting of this Commission. In 1619 he had pub
lished his folio volume on the agreement between the
Greek and Latin Churches in matters of doctrine, etc.
In this work, when treating the question of Orders, be
sides showing that the Greek priesthood, etc., had always
been acknowledged by the Latins, although given with
out any tradition of instruments, he claims to prove that
even among the scholastics he finds evidence of the
1 His Summa was published in 1619.

190 A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK ORDINAL
principle that imposition of hands was the essential
matter of the sacrament in spite of their common teach
ing. He bases this declaration on St. Bonaventure's
opinion, who in his Commentary on the fourth Book of
the Sentences says: "In sacred Orders, since a high
and excellent power is therein conveyed, imposition of
hands is used, and not mere tradition of instruments, for
the hand is the organ of organs in which in an especial
way the power of action resides. Hence in the primitive
Church, where only the two Orders (of deacon and priest)
were explicitly given, ordinations were conferred in this
way." Again : " To what has been objected on this : that
Orders, as we have them, are given by the bestowal of
the Book or chalice, we reply that as the (virtue of)
every instrument is in the giving of it by the hand, so
where there is no such tradition of instruments their im
port is signified by the imposition of hands alone. Hence
... in the primitive Church all the Orders, which in pro
cess of time were made distinct and more explicit both
as to words and signs and persons, were conveyed by the
imposition of hands. . . .
" It is to be understood that there was always some
word to express the fact that such or such a power was
bestowed; but only in two sacraments did Our Lord
Himself determine the special form of words. In the
case of the rest, though some words are necessary, the
actual form was not determined, but any words express
ing the sense, in so far as it is de ratione sacramenti, are
sufficient, so long as he who uses them does not intend
to introduce any heresy. Now, of course, it is necessary
to keep the forms appointed and approved by the
Church. ... It is untrue to say that in the primitive

IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 191
Church there were none but holy Orders ; the rest were
implicitly given in the imposition of hands."
In some notes on this portion of St. Bonaventure's
teaching the editors of the recent edition say: " Many of
his contemporaries, taking a more strict view than St.
Bonaventure, maintained that the character of Orders
was bestowed by the tradition of instruments with the
accompanying words. This is most frequently under
stood of all Orders, even the priesthood, which is given
by the bestowal of the chalice with wine and the paten
with bread, and the diaconate, conveyed by the Book of
the Gospels. This is even said in plain terms in the
decree pro Armenis. But, on the other hand, the friend
of St. Bonaventure, Peter Tarantesius (afterwards Pope
Innocent V) excepted the diaconate and the priesthood,
which he asserted were given by the imposition of
hands." The same opinion has been constantly main
tained in the Church, either practically by the full re
cognition of Greek Orders, or by the teaching of some
theologians, at all times. The Council of Trent refrained
from settling this question on the ground that the fathers
had not met to arrange disputes between theologians;
but when treating of the Sacrament of Orders the Coun
cil implicitly supports the view maintained by Arcudius,
since it speaks of sub-deacons being ordained by the
bestowal of the cruets and of " priests rite ordinate per
impositionem manuum presbyterii." Moreover, we know
from the history of the Council that the question was
formally raised in the session held in 1562. The Cardinal
of Lorraine at first desired that it should be distinctly
stated that the matter of the sacrament of the priesthood
was the imposition of hands, but subsequently " he con
sidered that where what is necessary for the Sacrament

192 A COMMISSION ON THE GREEK ORDINAL
of Orders is given it would be better not to designate
specifically the matter and form ; not because these did
not exist, but because in this sacrament they could not
easily be determined. On the other hand, he would like
to see some mention made of the imposition of hands,
since it was named so frequently in the Old and New
Testaments. His opinion on this point met with uni
versal approval, although finally, in order not to define
positively that imposition of hands was the essential
part of the sacrament, the more general expression
" words and signs " was determined upon to state the
component parts of the Sacrament of Sacred Orders.
Still the imposition of hands was not wholly passed over
in silence, since in the decree itself the words of St. Paul
to Timothy: " Admoneo te ut resuscites gratiam Dei, quae
est in te per impositionem manuum mearum " are quoted.
It must, of course, be borne in mind that the Council
of Trent had already taught distinctly (Sess. 21, c. ii)
that although " in dispensing the sacraments " the Church
might appoint or change what was proper to their ad
ministration according to times and places, this power
did not, of course, extend to their substance as deter
mined by Our Lord. (Salva earum substantia.)
It is upon this teaching that many theologians of the
seventeenth century, and in particular Morinus and other
fathers of the Commission which sat upon the Greek
Euchologium based their arguments, maintaining that
imposition of hands was the essential matter of the Sacra
ment of Orders. In the West they say, in effect, that
the earliest forms of ordination prove that imposition of
hands only was used, just as we find in the Greek Church
at the present day; and since "the essential matter of
the sacraments is immutable, as the Council of Trent

IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 193
declares," whatever the Church may subsequently order
to be added by way of expansion or explanation, the
essential matter of the Sacrament of Orders must remain
to-day what it was in the first ages, the imposition of
hands.

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
A Glance at the Former Position of English
and Irish Catholics *
HARDLY more than a century ago — that is, at
the very beginning of the year 1801 — Pitt, the
illustrious Pitt, greater son of a great father, felt him
self compelled to resign the office of Prime Minister
of England because King George III obstinately refused
to agree to the measure of Catholic Emancipation pro
posed by the ministry. At the present day, when for
more than two generations we have been accustomed to
enjoy full liberty in religious matters and to claim our
rightful position in the State as citizens, it is somewhat
difficult for us English, and more difficult for you in
free America, to realise the meaning of that term
" Emancipation," and to understand the actual position
of our English and Irish Catholic forefathers at the
dawn of the nineteenth century. They were still suffer
ing under the very real remnants of the penal code
which had been designed to destroy them, and from
which Pitt had pledged himself to his Irish supporters
to free them.
Pitt was not alone in his desire to assist the small
1 A lecture given at Birmingham in 1901, and printed in America
in 1905. 194

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 195
and impoverished body of Catholics to obtain some
relief from the intolerable yoke which they had borne
so long with exemplary fortitude. For the last quarter
of the previous century most, if not all, serious English
politicians had recognised the essential injustice of the
attempt to force men by pains, penalties, and dis
abilities to accept what their consciences rejected ; and
already some measures of relief had eased the pressure
of the previous two hundred years. The success, in
1774, of Lord North's Bill, which practically established
Catholicism in Canada, led Parliament a few years later
to look nearer home. In spite of Chatham's denuncia
tion of the " Quebec Act," as the Canadian measure was
called, which he declared to be an overt " breach of the
Reformation," Sir George Savile introduced a Bill in
1778 to relieve English Catholics from some part of
what Mr. Lecky characterises as " the atrocious penal
laws to which they were still subject."
It is hardly possible to exaggerate the hopeless con
dition to which at this time Catholics had been reduced.
Ingenious repressive measures had taken the place of
more active persecution, and the Catholic at best found
himself an alien in his own country. Whilst the statute
book still recorded against his property, his liberty, and
even his life, laws which were ever held in terror over
him, and which were at times, through spite or religious
fanaticism, even invoked against him, he was sedulously
shut out from all participation in the national life of
his country, and all professions were equally barred
against him. At first, and for generations, Catholics
had struggled to free themselves from the strong grip
of the State upon their throats, which was intentionally
choking the life out of them. Like a suffocating man

196 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
under like conditions, some did not stop to think whether
their efforts were right or politic, or could be justified
by the cut-and-dried principles of casuistry.
It is easy for us, who do not feel the strong arm of
the law ever threatening our existence, to criticise and
condemn the action of this or that individual amongst
them who, as he saw himself and others lying, writhing,
helpless and dying, thought to make terms which would
give them air and life and hope again. But at the time
of which I now speak, even these bids for liberty were
things of the past; and — to carry out my simile — the
Catholic body had ceased to struggle in its agony, and
lay breathless and almost without any visible sign of
life under the mailed hand of the State, assisted by the
studied repression and neglect of the Protestant nation.
Hope had long since departed from the breasts of most ;
and almost the only prayer which in the records of that
terrible time the historian can recognise as uttered by
the rapidly dwindling body of English Catholics, is one
for resignation and for the grace to be left to die in
peace. There were, of course, exceptions; but gloom and
despair seem to have settled down as a black cloud
over English Catholics from the middle of the eighteenth
century. Those who persisted in acting and agitating
were looked on, even by those for whom they fought
and strove, as dangerous disturbers of a tacit truce, and
as men who by their indiscretions might well bring down
again upon the heads of all the rigours of active per
secution. Sad indeed — terribly sad — was the lot of that
band of the faithful few at that time. In all the chron
icles of history I know of no page which records a more
touching, a more heartrending, story than that of this

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 197
yearly diminishing remnant of those who had never
bowed their knees to Baal, who had proved themselves
ready to undergo the long-drawn agony of a life-martyr
dom for the faith of their fathers.
" My thoughts," says the great Daniel O'Connell,
speaking to English Catholics — " my thoughts turn to
that period in your history when religious dissension
assembled all its elements together, and scattered to the
wind the faith and ritual of your forefathers. Sad, in
deed, since that time has been the record of religion and
its sufferings in England. He who would follow it seems
to himself as though present at a shipwreck where naught
may be discerned on every side but scattered and dis
jointed fragments — here perhaps the broken plank, there
the shattered spar. But still the helm was left; it was
fashioned of the heart of oak, and while that survived
there was hope for those who clung to it."
But even hope itself had wellnigh departed; and in
the darkest hours that went before the dawn of better
times the thoughts of many hearts were but little re
moved, except by resignation to God's will, from blank
despair. Still, some souls chafed at the situation, and
were restless under the debasing and precarious con
dition in which they found themselves,
" Shall I," wrote one of the most vigorous of the mal
contents — " shall I sit down silently satisfied, because
the good humour of a magistrate chooses to indulge me,
whilst there are laws of which any miscreant has daily
power to enforce the execution? My ease, my property
and my life are at the disposal of every villain, and I
am to be pleased because he is not at this time disposed
to deprive me of them. To-morrow his humour may
vary, and I shall then be obliged to hide my head in

I98 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
some dark corner, or to fly from this land of boasted
liberty." From time to time this did take place; and, as the
historian of the eighteenth century has recorded, the
poor Papist was forcibly reminded that the harsh meas
ures of the penal code could still with a little ingenuity
be applied to him. Some busybody of an individual —
an enemy or a zealot — not unfrequently exhumed obso
lete and half-forgotten laws for the purpose of extorting
money, of gratifying revenge, or appeasing his thirst for
the persecution of those who differed from him. In 1761
a lady was tried at Westminster to recover a penalty of
£20, under a law of Elizabeth, because she had not been
to a place of worship for the previous month. Down to
the days of Pitt the law still adjudged £100 reward to
any one who would procure the conviction of a priest.
As late as 1767 a priest was tried at Croydon on the
charge of having administered the Sacrament to a sick
person, found guilty and condemned to perpetual im
prisonment. He actually lay in gaol for three or four
years for his offence, and then was banished out of
England. In the same year a chapel in Southwark was
forcibly suppressed, and the priest escaped from the
officers by the back door ; and although probably Father
Malony was the only priest actually convicted and sent
enced for being a priest during the reign of George III,
the attempts were sufficiently numerous to cause con
stant apprehension of what might at any time happen,
and to render the position of Catholics sufficiently pre
carious. Lord Mansfield and Lord Camden, the former in par
ticular, incurred odium, and in fact suffered popular
violence, for the way in which they set themselves as

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 199
judges to defeat the end of such vexatious prosecutions.
In 1768 and 1769 two priests named Webb and Talbot
— the latter a brother of Lord Shrewsbury — were pro
secuted, but acquitted because their Orders were held
by the judge as not legally proven ; and another priest
escaped by Lord Mansfield's suggesting all kinds of
difficulties from the bench. So careful were the clergy
to abstain from attracting notice of any kind that Dr.
Oliver relates that Mrs. Lingard, the mother of the his
torian, who died in 1824 at the age of ninety -two, re
membered the time when her family had to go to hear
Mass at night, with the priest (wearing a smock frock to
make him look like a poor countryman) the driver of
the cart which carried them.
The position of the laity was no better. In 1770 Sir
William Stanley, of Hooton, was indicted at the Assizes
for refusing to part with his four coach-horses for a
;&20 note, under a law that gave the right to any Pro
testant neighbour to claim possession of any horse
owned by a Catholic on the payment of £$. Another
gentleman is said to have shot a valuable hunter thus
claimed by an enemy rather than let him get possession
of it ; and though Sir William Stanley was acquitted by
the jury, it was merely on the technical ground that a
bank note was not legal tender.
As Mr. Lecky has pointed out, the position of every
Catholic landowner was one of extreme precariousness.
He was subject to a double land-tax; he was shut out
of every learned profession and every civil position;
whilst a commission in either the army or the navy of
his country was refused to him. He was at the mercy
of every common informer who could find two justices
ready to tender to him the oath of supremacy; whilst

200 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
the oath of allegiance, which might have saved him and
his forefathers for almost nearly two centuries had he
been allowed to take it, was declared by the keepers of
his conscience to be unlawful. Ground to the dust be
tween the upper and nether millstones of the law and
conscience, the lot of the English Catholic gentleman
during the century about which I speak may well stir
the deepest feeling of pity and evoke our unfeigned
admiration. "They" (the English Catholic gentry),
writes Mr. Lecky, " were virtually outlaws in their own
country, doomed to a life of secrecy and retirement, and
sometimes obliged to purchase by regular contributions
an exemption from persecution."
The Relief Bill of 1778 was intended to redress some
of the most glaring items of legal injustice which the
Catholics had long endured with the fortitude of Christian
martyrs. It did not effect much in the way of actual
freedom, but it repealed such galling provisions of the
penal code as that any Catholic bishop or priest could
be summarily apprehended and tried at the Assizes for
his sacerdotal character; as that any Catholic keeping
a school could on conviction be condemned to perpetual
imprisonment ; as that no Catholic could legally inherit
or purchase land in his native country. Still, no one
could send his boy over the seas, say to Douai or St.
Omer's, except in peril of the law; and every informer
on conviction could still claim his £100 reward. A
Catholic schoolmaster could no longer be put in prison
for life, but he could for a year ; and Catholic chapels
and Catholic meetings of any kind were still contrary
to the law. But it was the beginning of a measure of
justice, or rather the beginning of the end of many
measures of injustice; and Charles Butler, the trust-

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 201
worthy witness to whose account of the troubles of our
Catholic ancestors we owe so much, has recorded that,
"though the legal benefits Catholics derived from the
Act were limited, ... it [the Act] shook the general
prejudice against them to the centre. ... It restored to
them a thousand indescribable charities in the ordinary
intercourse of social life which they had seldom experi
enced." As a sign of their acceptance of this measure
of justice, the Vicars Apostolic, on 4th June 1778,
ordered prayers to be said in all churches for the
King, and even directed that his name be inserted in
the Canon of the Mass.
To obtain relief under Sir George Savile's Act, the
Catholic was required to take an oath abjuring the Pre
tender and rejecting belief in any temporal jurisdiction
or deposing power being possessed by the Pope. He was
required to condemn the doctrine — supposed, falsely, of
course, to be taught in some of the Roman schools — that
faith need not be kept with heretics, and that all such
heretics could at any time be lawfully put to death. It
is hard to imagine that an oath of this kind could ever
have presented any difficulty to the mind of an English
Catholic, except in so far as it was a reflection upon his
intelligent apprehension of his religion. Yet it was pre
cisely there that the difficulty of arriving at any modus
vivendi had lain for generations. The oath of supremacy
framed by Elizabeth was justly rejected by all ; but when
it was explained by the authoritative gloss which rejected
all the ^K«J2-sacerdotal power of the crown, many
Catholics would have taken it if they had been per
mitted. James I never attempted to impose an oath of
supremacy, but only one of allegiance, containing a

202 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
condemnation of the tenet of the deposing power of the
Popes as impious and heretical. But this power was as
serted by many of the canonists and assumed by the
politicians as an axiom. Through them the oath reject
ing it was condemned by the authorities at Rome, who
issued an injunction that all priests who had taken it
should retract on pain of suspension. This attitude de
stroyed every hope of the Catholic Church being able to
assume any other position in England than that of a per
secuted community under the ban of the law. The policy
by no means commended itself to all the clergy, or to
any great part of the laity; but the upholders of the de
posing power were the most powerful, and in practice,
though no article of faith, it became in England an
article of communion. Thus time went on; the Catholic
body continually decreasing under the ravages of a per
secution bravely endured, at the call of the ecclesiastical
authorities, in the cause of a theory (as to the Pope's
dominion over kings and peoples) rather than for the
dogmas of the faith.
The revolution of 1688 shelved the question for a
time, by merging the Catholics in a political party which
on other grounds refused to take the oath of allegiance
to the reigning dynasty. In 1788 the prospect brightened.
The question of the deposing power, raised anew, as we
have seen, by the conditions of the proposed relief, was
happily solved by the English and Irish episcopate.
They first took the oath and then referred the case to
the Pope, who can confirm many an act when done
for which it would be difficult to accord previous per
mission. Thus the question of the deposing power and of the
oath of allegiance, which had troubled and divided

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 203
Catholics, was set at rest for ever. On which side lay the
victory? It is time that the truth should be recognised.
Now that we can look back from a distance upon all the
strifes and quarrels of those days, we can afford to con
fess mistakes. We could almost smile at the strange
contradiction of the final settlement, did we not remem
ber what it had cost the English Catholics, and what
tears of blood they were compelled, generation after
generation, to shed for just one mistaken notion.
The Act of 1778 provoked anti-Catholic agitation, led
to grave difficulties and troubles in England and Scot
land, and culminated in the Gordon riots. It is in the
attitude of so many Catholics at this time of trial that
we have revealed to us in the most striking manner the
pitiable state to which the long-endured persecution had
reduced them. The laity were, with some exceptions,
afraid of courting observation, and reckoned their ob
scurity to be their security. They dared not show their
faces for fear of the law being called in to lash them back
to their holes. They were, according to one who had
every means of knowing the facts and who lived at the
time, " very prudent, very cautious, very provident and
very timid." Writing as he did in 1780, whilst the
echoes of the riots caused by the passing of the Catholic
Relief Bill were still audible in England, he says : " When
the tumults of last summer were raging in the metro
polis, the voice of timid Catholics was heard tremblingly
giving counsel. ' For God's sake,' said they, ' let us in
stantly petition Parliament to repeal this obnoxious
bill ! It is better to confess we are guilty of all the crimes
laid to our charge than to be burnt in our homes.' They
even dared to carry about a form of petition to that
effect, praying for the signature of names. 'We told

204 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
you,' continued they, ' what would be the event of your
addresses to the throne, your oaths of allegiance, and
your repeal of laws.' "
The Catholic clergy appear to have been hardly less
timid. They were anxious to be allowed to remain as
they were, oppressed by the yoke of penal enactments,
on condition of being left alone. They were " educated
abroad," says Joseph Berington ; and were " bred up in
the persuasion that on coming to England they were to
meet with racks and persecution. They landed as in an
enemy's country, cautious, diffident and suspectful." If
they ever had a proselytising spirit, " it has long since
evaporated or become very unsuccessful." It was the
same in Ireland. " There," says the author of the Life of
Bishop Doyle, " the higher order of Catholics sensitively
shrank from participating in any appeal for redress, lest
the very clanking of their chains should arouse those who
had forged them to renewed vigilance and activity.
Accustomed to capricious persecution, they trembled
lest the recent relaxation of the penal code should be
suddenly repealed, plunging them still deeper into the
dark sea of oppression. The Catholic clergy not only
held aloof, but deprecated any attempt to disturb the
general apathy." They were submissive, humble, and
inert; conscious that they were outlaws, they behaved
as if they were convicts whose escape was only con
nived at.
Such was the state of mind in which the riots of 1780
left the Catholics of the three kingdoms. Some of them
died of the shock; many left their religion, among
others nine or ten peers, several baronets, and several
priests. Most of those who came forward in public
" strove to secure, by affected liberality, the smiles and

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 205
patronage of Protestants and especially of men in
power." In Ireland the Catholics, though forming of course the
vast majority of the population, continued still under
the heel of the Protestant minority. Though the revolu
tion of 1782 had placed Ireland, ostensibly at least, in
the rank of free and self-governed countries, " it left
Catholics," writes Mr. Lecky, " with no more political
rights than the serf of Russia or of Poland. In their
case, and their case alone, land was deprived of the
franchise, and the majority was wholly excluded by the
small minority from every executive, legislative or judi
cial function of State. They as Catholics were debarred
from all right of voting at parliamentary or municipal
elections; and, though called upon to pay — oftentimes
double — taxes, they possessed no means of controlling
national expenditure, and were excluded from all share
in crown patronage." "The law," says the same his
torian of this time, " marked them out as a distinct
nation, separated from Protestants, and in permanent
subjection to them."
In 1782, when the Bank of Ireland was established,
the law of incorporation provided that no Catholic should
ever be enrolled as a director, just as he was prohibited
from holding any professorship, or taking up any position
in the national army or navy. But already by 1790 the
position of Catholics was very different from what it had
been even ten years before. Though their keen sense of
grievances unredressed had not diminished, " they were
no longer a crushed, torpid, impoverished body with
scarcely any interest in political affairs." Relaxations of
the penal code had at least enabled them to live in peace ;
and industrial prosperity now retained in their native

206 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
country "enterprising and ambitious men who in a
former generation would have sought a career in France
or Austria or Spain."
" I know well," said O'Connell of the Catholic gentry,
" I know well how difficult their position has hitherto
been; how constantly against them the efforts of the
persecutor have been directed ; how for three centuries,
indeed, they have borne the whole weight of oppression
which crushed down their Catholic fellow countrymen
even to the dust. The blood of their noblest members
rendered its own red testimony upon the scaffold, in de
voted vindication of that faith which the first mission
aries to these shores had preached to their ancestors. . . .
Others survived, but it was only to endure a lingering
martyrdom, never to cease but with the natural duration
of life itself. More happy far were those whose martyr
dom was consummated upon the scaffold; for them at
least their sufferings were ended, and they entered at
once into their reward in bliss. But their less fortunate
survivors saw themselves doomed, without reprieve, to
lives of suffering, contumely, and ignominy of every
kind at the hands of the basest and most ignoble of their
Protestant countrymen. And they stood it nobly."
It is difficult to arrive at any satisfactory estimate of
the number of Catholics in England and Wales in the
latter part of the eighteenth century. The account of
Joseph Berington, however, is in all probability suffici
ently accurate for all practical purposes; for besides his
own means of knowledge, he relied upon the official
returns made at this time to the House of Lords. In 1780,
according to these statistics, the English Catholics num
bered only 69,376; and Berington himself thought this
too high an estimate, and that they were probably

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 207
hardly more than 60,000. Of these, the Bishop of
Chester, who, be it remarked, strongly advocated Catho
lic Emancipation in 1778, claimed to have in his diocese
alone (which of course included Lancashire) 27,228 —
that is, about two-fifths of the entire Catholic population.
It was at the same time estimated that between 1760 and
1780, whilst in the diocese of Chester, where the general
population had greatly increased, the Catholics had like
wise increased by 2,089, m tne rest of England there had
been a slight decrease in their numbers. In many dioceses
there are said not to have been fifty Catholics, in some
not ten left in 1780, when the population of England and
Wales was estimated at about 6,000,000. In other words,
the Catholics formed little more than one per cent, of the
English people.
The particulars which Berington gives are distressing
reading. In the west, South Wales, and some of the
Midland counties, he says, " there is scarcely a Catholic
to be found." The residences of the priests give indica
tions of the whereabouts of Catholics, so there is every
means of ascertaining the facts. After London, the
greatest number were in Lancashire, Staffordshire, and
in the northern counties. Some large manufacturing
towns, such as Norwich, Manchester, Liverpool, Wolver
hampton, and Newcastle, had chapels which were reported
to be rather crowded. In some few towns, particularly
in Coventry, the number of Catholics had increased, but
not in proportion to the general population. Excepting
in the large towns and out of Lancashire, the chief situa
tion of Catholics was in the neighbourhood of the old
families of that persuasion. They were the servants and
the children of servants, who had married from these
families, and who chose to remain round the old mansion

208 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
for the convenience of prayers, and because they hoped
to secure favour and assistance from their former masters.
As a body, in the opinion of this same writer, who
had taken considerable pains to arrive at the truth,
Catholics had rapidly decreased during the eighteenth
century; and the shrinkage was still going on. Many
congregations had disappeared altogether; and in one
district, he says, "with which I am acquainted, eight
out of thirteen missionary centres are come to nothing,
nor have new ones risen to make up in any proportion
their loss. I recollect," he adds, " the names of at least
ten noble families that within these sixty years have
either conformed or are extinct, besides many com
moners of distinction and fortune." At the time when
he wrote ( 1 780) there were " but seven peers " who re
mained Catholic; and before the second edition of his
pamphlet in 1781, Lord Teynham having died, his son
had taken the oath and entered Parliament; and the
eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk — the Earl of Surrey —
had conformed. Besides these peers, the Catholics could
count twenty-two baronets and about a hundred and
fifty gentlemen of property. Some few were men of
wealth, but the rest were so impoverished that they
possessed an average income of only £1,000 a year.
As regards the number of clergy, Berington estimates
them at about three hundred and sixty, " which I think,"
he says, "is accurate." In the Midland district in 1781
there were fourteen mission stations vacant, and some
families had to go five and even ten miles to chapel.
The whole district was declining, and contained only
about 8,460 Catholics, hardly more than two-thirds of
their number thirty or forty years before. In 1816
Bishop Milner puts the number of missions in this dis-

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 209
trict at 120, and the entire Catholic population at 15,000.
Ten years later it is put at 100,000 in round figures.
The Western district, comprising eight English counties
together with North and South Wales, had only forty-
four priests to serve it, and the Catholics were said to be
very few.
In 1773 Bishop Walmesley, the Vicar Apostolic, gives
exactly the same number of priests; and the total num
ber of souls under his care he puts at 3,195. Forty-two
years later, in 181 5, the number is given as 5,500, served
by forty-three priests. Even the London district, ex
tending over nine counties in the south of England, is
reported, in 1780, to have but fifty-eight priests to serve
for all purposes. There were then vacant five places for
which no priest could be found, and Catholics were said
to be dying out in all parts except the metropolis. In
1 8 14 Dr. Poynter sent a minute return to Propaganda
about this district. London itself was then served by
thirty-one priests, ministering in twelve chapels to an
estimated Catholic population of 49,800. In the country
parts of the district the Catholics were put at 18,976.
In 1826 a map in the archives of Propaganda gives
200,000 Catholics in the entire district; and in 1837
Bishop Griffiths states that he estimates the Catholics
of London at 146,000, the general population of the city
being then about 1,500,000.
As regards schools for boys, the mitigation in the
penalties for keeping such establishments did not, for
some few years, lead to any visible increase in their
numbers. Berington knew of only three of any note in
178 1 : " one in Hertfordshire (that is, Standon, now Old
Hall), one near Birmingham in Warwickshire, and one
near Wolverhampton in Staffordshire." In London he
P

210 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
records the existence of some small day-schools for
boys, adding: "In other parts there may be perhaps
little establishments where an old woman gives lectures
on the Hornbook and the art of spelling." For girls, he
knew only of the two long-established schools at Ham
mersmith and at York.
The first advertisement of anything like a Catholic
school appears in the Laity's Catholic Directory for 1789.
It runs as follows: "At Bridzor, near Wardour Castle,
Wilts. — Mr. Jones, writing master and accomptant, begs
leave to inform parents and guardians of children that
he has taken a genteel and commodious house for the
reception of boarders, whom he instructs in reading,
writing and accompts, at the cost yearly of eleven
guineas, payable quarterly in advance. Mrs. Jones looks
after the comforts of the pupils, and undertakes to in
struct a limited number of girls in the mysteries of
housekeeping." The following year, besides Mr. Jones's
notice we have this one : " Mr. Besley has removed his
useful academy for young gentlemen from Chelsea to
the spacious and well-situated mansion, Shrewsbury
House, Isleworth, Middlesex, about eight miles from
London." From this time the list of advertisements for
schools constantly grows larger and more detailed, until
it is augmented into almost its present proportions by
the advent of the colleges from abroad driven over to
their native land by the great Revolution.
Such, briefly, was the position of Catholics after the
Gordon riots. The bolder spirits amongst them were
not daunted by the outburst of fanaticism which the
small instalment of relief had called forth from the
latent Protestantism of the land. They continued their
agitation, and in February 1788 a committee of English

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 211
Catholics appealed directly to Pitt to help them. Pitt
replied by asking them to collect evidence of the
opinions of the Catholic clergy and of recognised Cath
olic universities in regard to the Pope's deposing power.
This they did, and obtained from the Sorbonne, Douai,
Louvain, Salamanca, and elsewhere declarations against
the teaching of that opinion. Acting upon this, the
great body of Catholics, including the Vicars Apostolic
and almost all the clergy, signed the protestation.
This led in 1791 to a further measure of relief being
proposed to Parliament. By this Bill, the legal pro
fession, from barrister downward, was thrown open to
Catholics. Catholic chapels and Catholic schools were
tolerated and legalised. Catholics were freed from the
irksome, expensive, and inquisitorial process of enrolling
the deeds of their estates in the Court of Chancery.
Catholics could no longer be summoned at will by
magistrates to take the oath of supremacy or make the
declaration against Transubstantiation, and they could
not be forcibly removed from London and Westminster.
This was something; but, after all, it was only another
instalment of bare justice; for Catholic churches and
schools were still to be registered, as well as all Catholic
priests and teachers. No Catholic assembly could be
held with closed doors; no Catholic chapel could have
a steeple or a bell; no Catholic school could be en
dowed, and no monastic Order could be established in
England. When the Bill of 1791 passed into law, the Vicars
Apostolic caused to be read in all Catholic chapels
charges in which they state that, on their petition, the
oath required had been changed by Parliament to what
had already been taken by Irish Catholics in 1774. This

2t2 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
being so, the Vicars Apostolic declare that all may take
it with a safe conscience. The pastorals or charges are
set forth at length in the Catholic Directory of 1792; and
the form of oath given explicitly rejects the deposing
power, and the supposed teaching that no faith is to be
kept with heretics.
The further progress of Emancipation was now only
a question of time. Many influences were at work on
the minds of English statesmen which assisted the
efforts of the band of English Catholics who were de
termined to carry the full measure of justice in spite of
every obstacle put in their way. The French Revolu
tion came as an object lesson to English statesmen, and
made them realise that the Catholic Church in reality
made for law and order, and that it was opposed to the
spirit of revolution which seemed to have gained so
serious a foothold in Europe generally. During the
pontificates of Benedict XIV and his three immediate
successors the influence of the Catholic priesthood had
been uniformly employed to support authority; whilst,
as Mr. Lecky points out, nearly all the political insur
rections had been among those professing Protestant
principles. Edmund Burke used the power of his elo
quence in favour of the Catholic cause, and, pointing to
the attitude of the French revolutionary party toward
the Church, said : " If the Catholic religion is destroyed
by the infidels, it is a most contemptible and absurd
idea that this or any other Protestant church can sur
vive the event."
The hospitality extended by England to the French
exiles, and in particular to the Catholic priests who
were driven out of their country by the Revolution, did
much to familiarise the people generally with Catholics

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 213
and the Catholic clergy, and to teach them that many
of the stories they had been taught, either through pre
judice or ignorance, to believe about us and our re
ligion were obviously untrue in fact. In September and
October 1792 more than 6,000 French bishops and priests
had been received in England; and the number was
shortly after increased to over 8,000. Collections for
their assistance and support were made in almost every
parish church in Protestant England, and at one time
some 660 were lodged in the old Royal Palace at Win
chester. Then came the pressure put upon Pitt by
his Irish supporters, which led to his proposal in 1801
of a full measure of Catholic Emancipation. This failed
for a time, through the King's refusal to countenance
such a concession, and led, as I have said, to Pitt's re
signation of office a hundred years ago.
It is not my purpose, of course, to continue the story
of the struggle for liberty beyond the beginning of the
nineteenth century. The history of the controversy that
was waged in the first quarter of that century, which
ended in the Emancipation Act of 1829, is sufficiently
well known to all.
What the Church in England has become during the
hundred years which have elapsed since the fall of Pitt
we can judge for ourselves. The troubles and struggles,
the misunderstandings and harsh words of those who,
like Joseph Berington and Charles Butler and Bishop
Milner, were fighting in different ways for the same
cause, seem far enough away from us now, but were
stern realities when the century began. When we recall
the state to which the long years of existence under the
penal laws had reduced the Catholic body in England
at the dawn of the nineteenth century, which I have

214 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
tried briefly to recall to your minds, we may well wonder
at what has been accomplished. Who shall say how it
has all come about? Where out of our poverty has
come, for instance, the sum of money which has sufficed
for all the innumerable needs which had to be met, and
which has enabled us to take up the position in the
country in which we find ourselves to-day? Churches
and colleges and schools, monastic houses and con
vents, have had to be built, and the support of all these
has had to be secured. How, the Providence of God
can alone explain. There have been many mistakes
and many losses, inevitable during such a century of
reconstruction as we have passed through. It is not
for us to say whether we have gained on the whole
or whether we have lost on the whole, provided that we
as Catholics have done and are doing our duty to God
and His Church. Work is the only test; and, looking
back, there is sufficient evidence of this in England to
make us thankful to God for His mercies.
At the beginning, no doubt, the stress and struggle
were great, and Catholics found that legal emancipation
did not necessarily mean social equality. The first was
in the power of the law to give, the second had to be won
in process of time. Has it been yet fully conceded by
our non-Catholic fellow countrymen? I fancy many
would say that it never has been, and that some of our
fellow countrymen still regard Catholics as a caste — a
caste to be avoided. Still, by the full measure of Eman
cipation, Catholics ceased to be a distinct party in the
State. At the first annual meeting of the Catholic In
stitute held on 6th June 1839, ten years after the Eman
cipation Bill had passed into law, Mr. Charles Weld
declared " that it was ' the passing of that very bill that

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 215
rendered this Institute necessary. Up to that time the
Catholics of Great Britain were bound together by the
hard chain of common sufferings, and still more effectu
ally by their absolute moral separation from the rest of
their countrymen. Emancipation came. We were no
longer a party, nor the subject of a party: we became
part of the people. The bonds which had kept us to
gether were those of misfortune ; and when the external
pressure was removed, each went his way into his own
proper rank of society, to share in those pursuits of
mercantile, professional, and political interest which
were now for the first time opened to him. Our late
friends departed from us. . . . We were each left to
our own resources. ... It was here that the horrible
effects of the penal laws showed themselves. During
the paroxysms of suffering we had not seemed so weak
as in the languor that followed them."
The process of building up has been necessarily slow
and painful, and very gradually indeed have English
Catholics come out into the light of day from the hiding-
places into which persecution had driven them. Many
of us can remember, even in our own days, indications
of the traditional horror Catholics had of publicity. It
was not till about 1 825 that our priests began to wear
cassocks even indoors, and many a religious still living
has had to take his vows to God in churches with closed
doors. Though a list of chapels in and round London, about
eighteen in all, appears in the Laity's Directory for
1793 — that is after the Relief Bill of 1791 — no list of
priests' names was printed till 1806. Even in 1793 a
warning is issued in the same Directory that Catholics
may find themselves in serious difficulties with the

2i6 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
Custom House officers if they attempt to bring into
England such things as Agnus Deis, crosses, primers, or
missals. The first advertisement for money to help to
build any church or chapel was, so far as I know, that
which appeared in 1791 on behalf of the chapel of St.
George's Fields, London. In 1807 a notice "to the
nobility, gentry," etc., states that " the Catholics of the
city of Coventry beg to say that by the death of the late
Mrs. Latham, in whose house their chapel has hitherto
been, they are now altogether deprived of a place of
worship." They consequently appeal for funds to build
some kind of a place for themselves. The following
year the Vicar Apostolic of the Midland district, Dr.
Milner, appointed a second priest to minister in the
populous city of Birmingham ; and a room was taken at
No. 14 Bath Street by Edward Peach (the priest named),
who advertised for subscriptions.
The first poor school of which I find a trace is that of
St. Patrick's, Soho, London, for which help was asked in
1803. A few years later the Abbe Carron appealed for a
similar school attached to the new chapel at Clarendon
Square. In the district there were at the time, he says,
between 120 and 130 poor children in need of instruc
tion. At the same chapel in Somers Town, which was
begun, apparently, in 1806, we have Benediction for the
first time advertised as a regular service. The list of
music printed by the Catholic publisher, Coghlan, of
Duke Street, seems to suggest that this service was pre
viously not unknown; but in 1807 the Abbe Carron
informs the readers of the Laity's Directory that there
" will be Vespers every Sunday at four o'clock, followed
by Benediction; and Benediction every Wednesday at
half-past four."

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 217
These are the first signs of the dawn of brighter
and happier times for the old religion. Slight indeed
were the signs at first — slight, but significant and precious
memories to us now — of the working of the Spirit, of
the rising of the sap in the old trunk, and of the burst
ing of bud and bloom with the life which during the long
winter of persecution had lain dormant. Succisa virescit.
Cut down almost to the very ground, the tree planted by
Augustine quickly manifested the divine life within it,
and put forth fresh leaves and branches.
It is impossible to examine the Catholic literature
of the thirties and forties without finding everywhere
evidence, in the Catholic body, of a genuine enthusiasm,
which enabled them to do so much. We see it at every
turn. Clergy and laity were determined to strive their
utmost to show themselves worthy of the new hope and
the new life Providence had given them. The foundation
of the Catholic Institute in 1838 is a case in point. Away
with apathy! "Organise and pay" were the watch
words of the new institution; and the speeches at the
meetings speak of the enthusiasm which I have noted.
O'Connell addressed the first general meeting on the
great work which the Catholics had before them in as
sisting the new organisation. All should be proud to
bear their share. In England and Wales the Catholics
were then believed to be a million ; and if all would but
contribute one farthing a week, they would have £50,000
a year for Catholic purposes. What he preached to them,
he said, the poor Catholics of Ireland practised ; and he
invited all — rich and poor, aristocracy and commoners —
to unite in forwarding Catholic interests by associating
themselves with an institute the motto of which was
that which Dr. Milner had made his own : " I know

218 A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
of no politics but religion, and of no party but the
Church." Under the influence of this enthusiasm, much was done
in the first half of the century in the task of clearing
away prejudice and in reconstructing Catholic life.
Many circumstances combined to assist the work of
settling the legacy of misunderstanding between Pro
testants and Catholics which the penal times had left
behind. The hospitality extended by the nation to the
French Emigre's, and particularly to the refugee priests;
the alliance of England with the Pope during the great
war ; the sufferings of Continental Catholics ; the revul
sion of feeling when the atrocity of the penal code had
been brought home to the minds of Englishmen; the
conciliatory spirit of men like Berington and Butler,
Lingard and Milner and Doyle; the great Irish immi
gration; the agitation for Emancipation and the need
to meet the attacks of those who feared and hated the
Catholic cause, who were also the chief opponents of
reform of every kind and of all liberal progress — all
these and much more tended to smooth the way for the
Catholic revival.
The influence of the movement may be seen within
the limits of Protestantism itself. In the Established
Church the era of renovation and revival, at any rate,
synchronised in a remarkable manner with what Cardinal
Newman has designated "The Second Spring"; and,
aided by the aesthetic feeling which directed men's minds
with admiration, if not sympathy, to a study of the
Middle Ages, a wide field was by God's Providence
prepared for the seed.
Of all this time, however, with its memories its hopes,
its great men, its work done, its successes and its fail-

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO 219
ures — even of the memorable year 1850, when the Eng
lish Hierarchy was re-established, and when Protestant
England was carried away by the insane panic about
aggression — it is not possible for me to speak, nor, in
this retrospective glance at the position of Catholics at
the beginning of the past century, is there need that I
should.

THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN PRE-
REFORMATION TIMES1
THE dawn of the Christian faith in these islands is
shrouded in much mystery. How the Gospel was
brought to our shores, or when it came, or who were the
early apostles of far-off Britain, must ever remain matters
of conjecture and of more or less uncertainty. Out of
the obscurity, the only thing that is sure is that the
Christian teaching, which affected so great a change in
the hearts and lives of the British race, must have been
received some time in the second century. As early as
A.D. 208, Tertullian declares that the "haunts of the
British, which have been inaccessible to the Romans,
are subject to Christ " ; and from this time onwards till
the coming of St. Augustine in the sixth century, what
ever we know of the British Church manifests it as one
with the Catholic Church throughout, the then known
world. In regard especially to its Eucharistic doctrine, about
which only we are concerned to-day, out of the darkness
which enwraps so much else during the first centuries of
our history — out of the mists of legend, and out of the
necessary obscurity of those ancient times — one or two
points take definite shape and may be accepted by us
1 A paper read at the Eucharistic Congress held in London,
1908. 220

HOLY EUCHARIST IN PRE-REFORMATION TIMES 221
as reliable, historical facts. For instance, we know that
Victricius and Germanus, two bishops of the Church of
Gaul, were sent by the Popes to compose certain reli
gious difficulties which had arisen in this island. The
first-named, in A.D. 390, speaks of the bishops of Britain
as " holy prelates, fellow priests with me." And the
second came hither in A.D. 439, at the bidding of Pope
Celestine, "to keep the island Catholic" in all things.
What the Church of Gaul in communion with the Apos
tolic See believed and taught about the Blessed Sacra
ment, that the British Church in those days held and
proclaimed. This much seems certain.
Fastidius, also, a British bishop, who wrote at this
very time, speaks of " a priesthood anointed " for the
service of God; whilst even from the exaggerated and
querulous language of Gildas it is possible to glean
the important fact that the Church of Britain emerged
from the long continued persecutions of the pagan
Saxons practically as before. Amid the deep shadows
of his picture of the desolation which had overwhelmed
the Church, we hear of a regularly organised hierarchy;
of a priesthood claiming power to bind and to loose ; of
bishops asserting their right to be considered the suc
cessors of the Apostles and especially of St. Peter " the
holder of the keys," of priests whose hands were anointed
for their sacred ministry at the altar — that "place " as he
calls it " of the heavenly sacrifice." Finally, when, in
A.D. 597, St. Augustine and his fellow monks came to
convert the Saxon oppressors of the British Christians,
we have the express testimony of this Apostle, direct
from Rome, that the existing form of religion among
the British was, except in two minor points, the same as
that of the rest of the Christian world. In spite of the

222 THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN
enforced isolation of the persecuted British from other
Christian bodies during one hundred and fifty years,
their doctrines and practices had remained fully Catho
lic ; and except as to their clinging to the old date of
Easter and some peculiar and obviously non-essential
custom in the administration of baptism, these doctrines
and practices were the same as those of all Churches,
which with Rome followed Catholic usage.
Therefore, even in the gloom and obscurity of the
ages prior to the conversion of our Saxon forefathers,
we may discern in regard to the most Holy Eucharist,
the full faith of the Holy Roman Church of to-day.
The sacred Orders, the anointed priesthood, the Chris
tian altar, and, above all, the holy Sacrifice, were to the
British Christian what they are to the Roman Catholic
in this twentieth century. What the full belief of those
primitive times was is adequately expressed by the
ancient Antiphonary of Bangor in the hymn chanted at
the communion of the priests. Here are some few lines
from it: " Holy men," it says, "draw ye nigh and eat
Christ's Body. Drink ye, too, that holy Blood by which
ye are redeemed. Let us sing together our praises to
God — we who are saved by this Body and Blood of
Christ, by which also our souls are refreshed."
To speak to the faith of the Saxon Church in regard
to the Holy Eucharist and in proof of its practical
devotion to the most Holy Sacrament of the altar, we
have the evidence of the writings of the great men who
lived in these islands during the four centuries which
intervened between the coming of St. Augustine and the
Norman Conquest. Take St. Theodore as an example.
St. Theodore came from Southern Italy by order of the
Pope, and was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury.

PRE-REFORMATION TIMES 223
His great work was to organise the Church of this coun
try, and in A.D. 668 he issued his Penitential, in which
(c. xlv) he calls the Mass a sacrifice. " No priest," he
says, " shall offer up in sacrifice anything but what the
Lord has commanded, that is unleavened bread and
wine mingled with water, since blood and water flowed
from our Lord's side." So also, he declares that the
souls of the departed are purged from the stains of sin
by the sacrifice of the priest.
Or take St. Bede — our own Venerable Bede, as our
Catholic forefathers loved to call him. That glorious
doctor of the Church speaks of " the offering up of the
healing Victim " ; of " the Victim of the holy oblation " ;
of " our salutary sacrifice " ; and of " the mysteries of the
most holy oblation." What we now hold, that did Bede
hold and profess, away back in that far-off century, when
the faith was fresh and young and vigorous, that upon
the priesthood of His Church, Christ Himself laid the
injunction to offer up the perpetual Sacrifice, in which
Christ's true, real, and substantial Flesh and Blood were
preserit under the forms of bread and wine. " To His
priests," he writes, in his Commentary on St. Luke,
" Christ has said, thou art a priest for ever according to
the Order of Melchisedech, so that in place of the flesh
and blood of lambs, we may now possess the Sacrament
of Christ's Flesh and Blood under the appearance of
bread and wine, which He Himself tells us is His very
Self." Nor is it possible in this regard to pass over a remark
able passage in St. Bede's letter to Archbishop Egbert
on the question of frequent communion. He speaks in
deed of the practice of daily communion by the laity as
much to be desired and as having been actually the

224 THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN
custom throughout Italy, Africa, Greece, and the whole
of the East. This, he says, has indeed fallen into disuse
through the neglect of instruction, until in England
people have come to think it sufficient if they receive
the most Holy Eucharist on Christmas Day, the Epi
phany, and at Eastertide. But, he goes on, " Since there
are numberless boys and girls, youths and maidens, with
grown up men and women, who lead innocent and pure
lives, these might rightly partake of the heavenly mys
teries without scruple or objection every Sunday and
even on Apostles' days and on the feast of the Martyrs,
as you yourself (i.e., Archbishop Egbert) have seen to be
the practice in the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church."
If there could be room for even a shade of a doubt as
to the precise teaching of the Saxon Church in regard to
Eucharistic doctrine, it would be dispelled by an exam
ination of the Missals and Rituals and Pontificals, the
tracts and the sermons which have been preserved to
our time. " At God's altar," we read in one, " His only-
begotten Son is immolated by the hands of the faithful."
" In the bread," says another, " what is meant but the
living Bread which came down from heaven?" "Our
Lord," says a third, " did not say : take this consecrated
bread and eat it in place of My Body, or drink this con
secrated wine instead of My Blood, but He says without
making use of any figure of speech or ambiguity: This
is My Body and this is My Blood: and to remove any
possibility of error he adds : that Body which was de
livered for you, and that Blood which was shed for you."
It is impossible to multiply here examples of this
plain, Catholic teaching; nor is there any need to do so;
for if we turn to the works of our Anglo-Saxon fathers,
we shall find abundant and absolute proof that the Eng-

PRE-REFORMATION TIMES 225
lish belief in what we now call, with theological precision,
Transubstantiation — that is, the change of the substance
of bread and wine into the substance of our Lord's Body
and Blood — was as clear and determined as it certainly
was in the later Middle Ages, or as we Roman Catholics
have it to-day. " Not only," again says our Bede, " did
Christ wash us from our sins in His Blood when on the
Cross — or when each of us is cleansed in the mystery of
His most sacred Passion by the waters of Baptism ; but
daily does He continue to take away the sins of the
world. Daily, indeed, does Christ wash us from our sins
in His own Blood, when the remembrance of His blessed
Passion is renewed at the altar; when the creatures of
bread and wine, by the ineffable hallowing of the Spirit,
are transformed into the Sacrament of His Body and
Blood." This must suffice as a mere sample of the exact
and clear teaching of our Saxon fathers in regard to the
great and mysterious change which is effected by the
words of the consecrating minister at Holy Mass. " At
that time," writes the illustrious English scholar Alcuin
to a priest friend, " when thou shalt consecrate the bread
and the wine into the substance of Christ's Body and
Blood, be not unmindful of me."
For the closing period of the Saxon centuries, there is
perhaps no better witness to the belief of the English
Church than ^Elfric, the homilist. In his Easter day
sermon — which, by the way, has been so strangely mis
understood and misrepresented by those who would try
to read Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrine into his words —
in this sermon he makes it as clear as the noon-day
sun, that his belief was the same as ours is to-day. One
quotation must be sufficient. " Why," he asks, " is the
holy housel called Christ's Body, or His Blood? Why,
Q

226 THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN
if it be not truly what it is called? But the fact is that
the bread and the wine, which are hallowed in the Mass
of the priest appear one thing to human understandings
without, and cry another thing to believing minds
within. Without, they appear bread and wine both in
aspect and in taste, but they are truly, after the hallow
ing, Christ's Body and His Blood through a ghostly
mystery." The expression Lex orandi est lex credendi has, of
course, only a very general application, because the
prayers of a people need not necessarily express their
beliefs with complete fullness. But, when beliefs do find
expression in popular prayers it is obvious that they are
rooted deep in the minds and hearts of those who make
use of them. In this way, liturgical formulae and other
prayers of a nation are the surest evidence of the doc
trines taught and held. Now, clear and definite as are
the expressions made use of in the Catholic Church to
day in regard to the Blessed Sacrament, those of Anglo-
Saxon times are, if possible, still clearer and more
definite. Let me give one or two examples. What can
be more expressive of Catholic doctrine, for instance,
than the words of a prayer for the consecration of
an altar found in a Pontifical of about A.D. 900? The
Bishop prays : " O Lord, sprinkle with the dew of
heavenly unction this stone prepared for the celebration
of the health-giving mysteries of Redemption; pour
forth on it the unction of Thy divine sanctification ; send
down on it the gift of Grace, hallowing the sacrifice upon
it, that thus truly a hidden power may change upon it
the creatures chosen for the sacrifice into the Body and
Blood of our Redeemer, and secretly transmute them
into the sacred Victim of the Lamb ; so that as the Word

PRE-REFORMATION TIMES 227
was made Flesh, so the nature of the oblation when
blessed, may pass into the substance of the Word."
Again, among our Anglo-Saxon forefathers — as indeed
elsewhere, of course, in the Christian world — nothing
was ever employed on the altar, or in connection with the
Sacrifice, without having been first set apart by prayers
and blessings for so holy a use. The chalice, for ex
ample, in the words of prayers then employed, was hal
lowed to hold the precious Blood ; the paten was " for
the Body of Our Lord to be made in it " ; the corporal,
of the finest linen, was blessed, as it was " to cover and
veil" His Body and Blood, as Joseph's winding-sheet
once had done, and because upon it the mysterious con
secration was to be effected, and this hallowed linen cloth
was then to serve to cover, and wrap up the very Body
and Blood of Jesus Christ. Beyond all else, however, one
practice of the Saxon Church seems to me to demon
strate the lively faith of the Catholics of those days in
the true, real, substantial, and continuous presence of
Christ our Lord in the consecrated Host. This practice,
which, by the way, was continued in certain circum
stances, according to our great English canonist Lynd-
wood, up to the very eve of the religious changes of the
sixteenth century, was the placing of the Blessed Sacra
ment in consecrated altar sepulchres, instead of the relics
of the martyrs.
But I must pass rapidly on. What the faith and
teaching of the Saxon Church was as to the Blessed
Sacrament, that no less clearly was the belief of our
ancestors in the centuries which followed upon the Nor
man Conquest. From the middle of the eleventh century
to the middle of the sixteenth century, the Eucharist
doctrine of Catholic England was as full and as developed

228 THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN
as we have it to-day. I cannot imagine how anyone
who is not wilfully blind can gainsay this patent fact'
A few years after the Normans had settled in Eng
land, the declaration of Archbishop Lanfranc in A.D.
1079 expresses that faith. Indeed, he was called on to
voice the protest of the entire Catholic Church against
the errors of Berengarius in regard to the most august
mystery of the Holy Eucharist. In this declaration are
found the following words : " We hold that the earthly
substances which are divinely sanctified at the Lord's
Table through the priestly ministration, become ineffably,
incomprehensibly, wonderfully changed by the working
of the heavenly power into the essence of the Lord's
Body, the external look of these substances and certain
other qualities being kept, lest people might be horrified
at seeing what was flesh and blood-red; and that be
lievers might get a more abundant reward for their
faith." Let us pass to the days of our Plantagenet kings. In
1 195 Archbishop Hubert Walter held a Synod at York,
the provisions of which are important as manifesting the
faith of the English Church, and showing the extreme
care and reverence which it had for the Most Blessed
Sacrament. The law as to the mixed chalice ; the pains
taken to preserve the sacred Canon of the " Sacrifice of
the Mass" from even the least verbal change; the
stringent provisions as to the reservation of the Blessed
Sacrament, which, out of reverence, was to be changed
each week; the honour with which it was to be carried
to the sick for their Viaticum, are all evidences of the
faith of the English people, and of their devotion to the
Holy Eucharist. Archbishop Hubert's words sum up the
teaching : " Let the Blessed Sacrament," he says, " be

PRE-REFORMATION TIMES 229
consecrated with humility, received with fear, and dis
pensed (to the faithful) with all reverence."
So much with regard to the teaching of the pre-
Reformation Church in England as to the most Holy
Sacrament of the Altar. The evidence of the faith of our
Catholic ancestors in those days when England knew
but one creed, and recognised in the Pope the one
supreme spiritual authority, can be seen in the works of
almost every English writer for a thousand years and
more. Blind indeed are they who cannot read aright
what is there written so plainly. What that faith was ;
how full it was, and how it overflowed with devotion to
Our Lord, ever present in the consecrated Host, can be
seen in the walls of every cathedral, abbey, and parish
church, which were raised by the generous piety of our
Catholic ancestors in every part of the country in honour
of the most Blessed Sacrament. These were truly the
tabernacles of the Lord of Hosts ; shrines set up by gen
erations of Englishmen as the places where the " glory
of the Lord" should dwell in their midst; Himself
hardly hidden by the sacramental veils from the eyes of
their faith. Upon these sanctuaries they lavished all that
was best and most beautiful of their possessions as they
would do on a house prepared for their Lord, their
Saviour, and their God. Even desecrated, dismantled,
and destroyed as many of them are to-day, they still
proclaim the purpose for which they were erected. As
St. Bede has said, they were raised to be " houses of
prayer where the Body of the Lord is consecrated, and
where, as we cannot doubt, the Angels are ever present,"
since "where the mysteries of the Lord's Body and
Blood are wrought, we cannot but believe that there are
the hosts of heaven," who were present when the lifeless

230 THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN
body was placed in the tomb, and who guarded it rever
ently till the moment of its glorious resurrection.
In these sacred buildings stood the altar of the Christian
Sacrifice. As Archbishop Winchelsea of Canterbury
says in his Constitution, it is the altar, " to honour which
each church is dedicated." And so here in England, as
of course elsewhere in the Christian world, the church,
and " God's Acre " round about it, was known as the one
sacred, hallowed spot in every city, town, and hamlet —
hallowed because there stood the altar; there was the
daily Christian Sacrifice offered up for the living and the
dead — hallowed because there, under the veils of the
sacramental species, giving meaning and purpose to
everything, was the abiding presence of the same Lord
Who was born into the world for our sakes and for our
sins, Who lived at Nazareth, Who taught in Galilee, and
Who died for our salvation. They who built these old
English cathedrals, abbeys, and parish churches believed
all this, as we Catholics do now. Of this there can be
no sort of doubt ; and to-day, when we enter any one of
those venerable shrines, from which the Blessed Sacra
ment has been cast forth, and view the place where stood
the altar of the Christian Sacrifice, and where literally it
was overthrown in the religious changes of the sixteenth
century, to typify the " passing of the Mass " — the aboli
tion of the Sacrifice — a sense of desolation comes upon
us, and the feeling of a real absence is experienced at
least by us Catholics. To-day, alas! we look merely
upon the setting, which the piety and devotion of gen
erations of Catholic Englishmen had fashioned, to be
somewhat less unworthy of the precious jewel of the
Holy Sacrament. The very beauty of the setting only
emphasises the absence of the jewel. Like the holy city,

PRE-REFORMATION TIMES 23'
which one of the seven angels of the Apocalypse showed
to St. John, each English church was as a place " coming
down out of heaven from God ; having the glory of God ;
and the light thereof was like to a precious stone, as to
the jasper stone — even as a crystal." Now the light is
gone, the jewel is torn from its place and, even the set
ting, upon which so much love and faith had been
lavished, shows patent proofs of the violence of the
means employed, and seems to proclaim aloud that " the
glory of God, which hath enlightened it, and the Lamb,
and the lamp thereof, is departed." Ichabod! indeed
may we say, for " the glory is departed from Israel, be
cause the ark of God is taken" (1 Kings, iv, 22). As
Cardinal Manning once said, " the old sanctuaries of
England are indeed beautiful ; but they have the beauty
of a face from which the eyes have been ruthlessly
torn." To notice another point. If any one will take the
trouble to study the Wills and Churchwarden's Accounts
for the period immediately before the change of religion,
he cannot fail to admit that even to the end the English
people were vying with one another in adorning and
beautifying the sanctuaries of God. The evidence of the
church walls in almost every village over the length and
breadth of England proclaims that the reparation, re
building, and re-ornamentation of these sacred places was
almost universal. From the warden's accounts we know,
too, that this was not the work of some great noble or
rich landlord, but in every sense this movement on the
eve of the Reformation was a manifestation of sponta
neous popular love of religion in general and of the
Blessed Sacrament in particular, a movement in which
even the poorest wished and claimed to have a share

232 THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN
and take a part. The church was then the very centre
of the Christian family life and of the corporate life of
the parish, because it was the home of the most Holy
Sacrament, the place where our Lord dwelt in the midst
of a believing people. What is commonly and regularly
done is very seldom set down in any record, and we may
look in vain for any evidence of the acts of religion
practised by our forefathers in chronicles or papers of
the period. By chance the truth, however, sometimes
appears. An examination of one of the Pilgrims of
Grace, in 1 5 36, reveals, for example, one Catholic prac
tice in an obscure village in Yorkshire. A party of
workmen, after having finished their daily labour and
refreshing themselves in an alehouse on their way home,
turned in to their village church to say their Pater before
the most Holy Sacrament hanging over the altar before
going to their rest.
It is somewhat difficult to determine what was the
practice of the English Church during the later Middle
Ages in regard to frequent Communion. Many have
argued from Synodical laws and episcopal mandates
that there must have been much neglect of the Holy
Sacrament, and that lay people approached Communion
very seldom, and possibly not more than once a year. I do
not think that these precepts are at all conclusive. From
such laws ar}d exhortations it is impossible to make certain
deductions. We know, for example, that the command
ment of the Church that all the faithful should receive
the Blessed Eucharist " at least once a year " does not
certainly imply now that the majority of good people
are content to communicate only at Easter. There
is a passage in Piers Plowman — a poem, as all know,
written at the end of the fourteenth century — which

PRE-REFORMATION TIMES 233
seems to suggest the practice of monthly Communion.
Expressed in modern language, it says :
" Here is bread that has been blessed and God's Body
is thereunder."Through God's words, grace gave Piers Plowman
power and might to make It.
" And grace gave It to men to be eaten to help in their
salvation once in a month, or as oft as they had need."
It would, too, seem certain that good Catholic Eng
lishmen in those days desired to be present at daily
Mass, where this was in any way possible. The evidence
for this is conclusive; and even where the hearing of
daily Mass was not possible, the mediaeval English
Catholic was taught to join in spirit in this supreme act
of worship and adoration. The little Sanctus bell on the
chancel roof or elsewhere rang out across the country to
warn the traveller on the roads and the labourer in the
fields that the Sacrifice was being accomplished close
by in God's house. In 1281 the celebrated Archbishop
Peckham of Canterbury orders that " at the time of the
elevation of the Body of our Lord (in the Holy Mass), a
bell be rung on one side of the church, that those who
cannot be at daily Mass, no matter where they may be,
whether in the fields or in their own homes, may kneel
down and so gain the indulgences granted by many
bishops " to such as perform this act of devotion.
Of the many incidents in the public and private life
of English people which could be cited as manifesting
a devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, I have time to
speak of only one or two. The first is national. Two
miles beyond Northallerton, in A.D. 1 138, was fought what
has become known in our history books as the " battle
of the Standard." The Scots had espoused the quarrel of

234 THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN
Matilda against Stephen, and in that year they moved
in large numbers southward in her cause. Thurstan, the
old Archbishop of York, exhorted the northern barons
to fight for their families, their country, and their God;
and after three days had been spent in fasting and de
votion, they set out to bar the progress of their enemies.
Their standard was the mast of a vessel fixed into the
framework of a carriage. In the centre of the cross
fastened on its summit was placed a pyx containing the
Blessed Sacrament, and below waved the banners of
their patron saints, SS. Peter, Wilfrid, and John of
Beverley. It was round this standard that the battle
raged ; and the battle they won was ever attributed to
the presence of our Blessed Lord, the God of battles, in
the midst of those who believed and trusted in Him.
Let me take another and a wholly different instance
of this lively faith of our Catholic ancestors in the pre
sence of our Blessed Lord in the Sacrament of the Altar.
In some parts of this country in pre- Reformation days,
the dramatic ceremonies of Palm Sunday show the in
tense belief of the people in the Blessed Sacrament,
and their full realisation of the sacred presence of our
Lord in the consecrated Host. Early in the morning
of Palm Sunday, the Sacred Host was brought from
the church and placed under a richly ornamented tent
set up in the furthermost corner of the burial ground.
Here the precious pyx was watched by the clergy, until
the procession of the blessed palms had issued from the
church and the first Statio, or resting-place, had been
held. At this time the Gospel was sung which told of
the crowd that had come forth from the city to meet
our Lord on the Sunday before He suffered. At its
conclusion, as if re-enacting the sacred drama of that

PRE-REFORMATION TIMES 235
day, the Blessed Sacrament was borne forth from its
resting-place. It was carried in the hands of the priests
under a canopy, surrounded by lights and preceded by
a silver cross and incense; and thus, as of old the Jews
met our Lord at the city gate, so here the people ad
vanced towards Him and saluted Him with their hymns
of praise. The cantors intoned the words of the anthem
En rex noster venit mansuetus, and then kneeling down
and bowing to the ground they one and all saluted the
Blessed Sacrament. The processions then moved to
gether to the churchyard cross, where the Sacred Host
was raised in blessing, whilst priests and people fell down
and adored Him who had died upon the Cross for their
sakes. Then once more the people followed our Lord to
the closed doors of the church, and when, after the
chanting of the Gloria laus the doors flew open, the
priests, who bore the shrine in which the Blessed Sacra
ment was hanging, held their Sacred Burden aloft in the
doorway, and each one as he entered had to pass beneath
It, and had to bow his head in token of reverence and
humble belief.
I cannot conclude without saying something about the
forms of prayer made use of in the popular devotions of
pre-Reformation England in regard to the most Blessed
Sacrament. Even to-day, in my opinion, we cannot pos
sibly have better prayers for our own personal use, than
those in which the deep faith and true love of our
Catholic forefathers found expression. I pass over the
well-known Anima Christi, now commonly known as the
prayer of St. Ignatius and attributed to him, but which,
in reality, is a flower of the devotion of the fifteenth
century, and was much used here in England in pre-
Reformation days. I pass also the Ave caro Christi

236 THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN
cara, etc., " Hail, dear flesh of Christ," etc., so often re
commended for the sacred time of the Elevation at the
Mass, and I take a few examples of prayers to the Blessed
Sacrament, little known in these days, but which were
popular in every sense of the term among English folk
in the Middle Ages. I venture to say that, whether for
the dogmatic expression of faith in the Sacrament of
the Altar, or for the spirit of genuine devotion to the
Bread of Life, we can wish for nothing better.
Here are some ejaculations to be said at the Elevation
in Holy Mass: " Hail to Thee, Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, the Word made Flesh, Son of the Virgin Mary,
Lamb of God, true Saviour of the World, sacred Victim,
source of love! "
"Hail to Thee, Jesus Christ, glory of the angels,
reward of the saints, vision of the Father, true God and
true Man, fruit of the Virgin's womb! "
"Hail to Thee, author of our being! Hail, price of
our redemption! Hail, our guide to holiness! Hail to
Thee, food of our pilgrimage! Hail, reward of our hope!
Thou art the King of Glory. Thou art the everlasting
Son of the Father."
" O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, who
didst take flesh from the Virgin Mary for the redemp
tion of sinners, by virtue of Thy sacred Body and
Blood here sacrificed and received as a memorial of
Thy sacred Passion, I beseech Thee in Thy mercy to
pardon me all my sins, and to grant me perseverance in
good works so that keeping myself unspotted from this
world I may be saved in the life to come when I shall
pass from this perishable life."
Or take these prayers to the Consecrated Elements on
the altar, to be said after the Elevation.

PRE-REFORMATION TIMES 237
"Hail! Thou source of our being. Hail! Thou cause
of our redemption. Hail, most pure Flesh of Christ the
Son of God. Take pity on me and grant that I, Thy
unworthy servant, may, at the close of my life, truly
acknowledge Thy most holy Body which hath been con
secrated for me, that in full faith I may adore Thee and
receive Thee into my being.
" Hail! true Body of Christ, which, born of the Virgin
Mary, suffered, and was offered on the Cross for man. . . .
" Hail, dear Flesh of Christ, sacrificed as a victim upon
the altar of the Cross for the redemption of the world.
" Hail, sacred Blood, which flowed forth from Christ's
right side, wash us we beseech Thee from our sins. Hail,
vessel of Christ's love. Hail, cup of sweetness in which
is contained the pledge of all heavenly delight, the true
and entire substance of our Saviour, the sacrament of
grace, the food of divine love. Therefore, we beseech
Thee, come to the aid of Thy servants whom Thou hast
purchased by Thy precious Blood.
"May the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ
bring us to the joys of paradise. Amen."
Or take this example of Saxon piety towards the
Blessed Sacrament at the time of the Canon of the Holy
Mass. "O God, Priest of the true and eternal tabernacle,
who hast offered Thyself as the immaculate Lamb on the
altar of the Cross, may the mystery of Thy life-giving
passion which is now being offered by our priest be an
expiation of all our sins. And, as once Thou didst take
pity on the tears of Peter and the sighs of the thief
crucified with Thee, so now at this moment have mercy
on us, bring us also to that tabernacle where, seated on
the right hand of the Father, Thou, moved with com-

238 HOLY EUCHARIST IN PRE-REFORMATION TIMES
passion for the human race, dost plead for us. O Jesus
Christ, our God and our glory, do Thou offer up each
day in heaven that sacrifice which once Thou hast
offered for us upon the Cross."
But I must draw to a conclusion. I have been able in
the short time at my disposal merely to touch the fringe
of a great and interesting topic, about which a volume,
nay, volumes, might be written. On every side we have
evidence of the belief of the English people in the most
Holy Sacrament, and of their true and sound devotion
to It. The evidence is so obvious that, after all, any
demonstration of it is not needed. If any man may wish
to know exactly what the people of these islands be
lieved in regard to It from the earliest times of which
we have record to the change of religion in the sixteenth
century, let him call to mind what we Roman Catholics
to-day hold to so firmly, and let him know that every
faithful soul in pre-Reformation times in this England
of ours held no less certainly to this most Holy Sacra
ment as the centre and life of our religion.

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS1
A Historical Survey
THIS is indeed an interesting occasion which has
brought us all together. We are met here to recall
the great deeds and the saintly life of the venerable
Bishop Hay, who passed to the reward of his many
labours a hundred years ago. He occupies a great place
in the Church. His figure is indeed the first to come
forth from the gloom which had enshrouded the Catholic
Church in Scotland for more than two centuries, and he
was destined to be the herald of better days for the poor
persecuted Scotch Catholics. His strong will determined
that the penal enactments under which they had suffered
too long must cease, and to secure this he exerted all
the strength of his powerful personality. His efforts
were crowned with succees. Freedom came at last, and
with freedom to serve God according to conscience, came
that wonderful revival of the Church in Scotland, which
the decades since Bishop Hay's death have witnessed,
and evidence of which we see round about us to-day.
Another will speak of the venerated and illustrious
Bishop and of the wonderful work he accomplished.
To-day I am to concern myself with briefly recalling
the memories of those days of sorrow, repression, perse-
1 An address on the occasion of the Bishop Hay centenary cele
brations, held at Fort Augustus, 12th to 14th September 191 1.
239

240 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
cution and even of despair, blank and without hope,
which were the lot of the suffering few faithful Scotch
men, who, strong in the faith of Christ, refused, at the
bidding of the heretical majority of their countrymen,
to abandon the faith of their fathers or to bow their
knees to Baal. If the story of their sufferings is sad, it
has its consolations and encouragement. It makes us
indeed rejoice that we belong not only to the ancient
faith of the Scotch people but to that faith which has
produced examples of heroic courage unsurpassed in the
history of any religious persecution, which has given us
instances of patient endurance without record and of
social proscription gallantly borne in defence of religious
principle, which cannot fail to stir the hearts of the most
callous with admiration and respect. My story alas! is
one of destruction and wellnigh of defeat. I shall have
to speak of constant and bitter persecution, of a seem
ingly hopeless struggle to maintain Catholic ideals under
circumstances the most adverse; of an almost super
human effort to keep the lamp of faith alight amidst
the furious blasts and attacks of those hardly less deter
mined to quench the flame at all hazards; and of a con
stancy and heroism which nothing but the strength of
the great God of Heaven could sustain.
Let us go back to 1560. In that year the great and
glorious Church of Scotland was legally overthrown. I
should be taken far away from my special subject were
I to speak of what had been, or of the causes which had
led up to that catastrophe. Perhaps it was the riches of
the Church's endowments which attracted the covetous
eyes of adventurers towards it ; for in proportion to the
resources of the country, the Church of Scotland was one
of the richest in Europe. There were signs, too, as pre-

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 241
viously in England, of a slackening of spiritual interests,
and of the presence of worldly ideals even in the sanctuary
of God. The evil of commendatory superiors for houses
of religion, from which by their overthrow more than
twenty years before the English monasteries had been
saved, was almost universal ; and to those who could
read the signs of the times, the writing was upon the
wall. Even the most out-and-out defender of the old
regime admits this, and tells us in the words of a con
temporary that the salt had lost its savour and some
remedy was imperative. Even the strictest of the re
ligious Orders are said to have admitted the spirit of
the world somewhat too freely into their cloisters.
These are but indications; after all, this land was
apparently no worse than the rest of Europe, and what
was needed was that which also came too late to save
the glorious Church of Scotland — the great reforming
Council of Trent. Then, too, as we examine the pro
duction of the early printing press in this country, we
must admit that the ecclesiastical authority of the time
apparently did not do much to encourage the issue of
doctrinal or devotional books. With the exception of
the well-known Catechism of Archbishop Hamilton —
" the twapenny faith " — as it was called, only some five
or six tracts of no great importance represent the reli
gious output before the crash came.
Again there appear to have been in Scotland fewer
religious disputations at this period than we should have
expected from men who had read the signs of the times,
and had prepared themselves to fight strenuously for
their faith. And there can be no doubt that the person
ality of John Knox was a great asset upon the side of
the Reformation. " The devil," as Charles Kingsley once
R

242 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
said, "never sends fools on his errands," and the un
bridled fanaticism of the Scotch reformer somehow car
ried away multitudes who never stopped to think of the
truth of his invectives or the logic of his religious
platitudes. Whatever may be, under God, the reason for the over
throw of the Church of Scotland, the fact remains that
in 1560 it was legally suppressed; the old faith of a
thousand years was proscribed, and the people were
commanded by the legal authorities to accept the reli
gious novelties of Calvinistic origin. From that date the
hierarchy does not appear to have exercised any prac
tical jurisdiction. What became of the clergy it is now
impossible to say. The proclamation of King James VI,
twelve years later — in 1572 — declares that the perse
cuting laws are necessary " to protect the professors of
the Evangel [the Gospellers] from the furious rage
and lawless cruelty" of the "bloody and treasonable
Papists," executors of " the decrees of the devilish and
terrible Council of Trent"; and commissions were issued
to seek out all " conjurers and Massemongers." In the
face of the rigid enforcement of the laws of proscription
some of the clergy conformed, some fled abroad, and, of
course, some- remained at their posts. Some of the
bishops, too, lapsed. In 1571, one, John Hamilton, Arch
bishop of St. Andrews, was hanged upon a gibbet from
the walls of Stirling Castle, dressed in full pontificals;
and one, Bishop Chisholm, of Dunblane, survived till
1630, when he died the last of the old Catholic hier
archy. In point of fact, however, the bishops had long
before that ceased to direct the surviving clergy of Scot
land. The proscription of the old faith in 1560 seems
to have completely paralysed the authorities, and for the

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 243
next fifteen years or more, it would appear that little or
nothing was done to stem the flood of heretical teaching
or to repair the ruin caused by the overthrow of the old
religion. Here and there, no doubt, there were devoted
priests who defied the forces arrayed against the old
religion, and who valiantly protected their flocks against
the raging wolves of heresy. Two centuries later, for
instance, the reason of the catholicity of Braemar dis
trict was accounted for because the priest had remained
faithful to death at his post. No doubt he was but one
instance of many men equally true to their duty, but of
these nothing is known to us in these later days; the
record of all such is to be found only in the Book of
Life. For the most part the fierce hatred and intoler
ance of the sectaries, which sprang up immediately the
Holy Mass was put down, made the practices of Catholic
life, especially in the south, practically impossible. Even
Queen Mary, it is said, could hardly get the Sacred
Sacrifice offered in her own chapel ; and with such deter
mination and thoroughness were the missals and litur
gical books destroyed throughout the country out of
hatred and contempt for the Holy Mass, that I be
lieve I am right in saying that the Arbuthnott missal
remains at this day as almost a unique literary curiosity
of pre-Reformation Scotch liturgy. For a time, owing
to the want of instructors, some outwardly conformed,
so far as to take the Sacrament, holding it to be but
bread and wine, as a condition of peace. Still, the
Catholics of Scotland long remained numerous and
powerful. In 1 592, for example, Cecil wrote that " all the
northern parts . . . were either wholly or for the great
part Catholic." But the faith was the object of bitter and
relentless attack ; it was looked upon as a religious duty

244 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
to extinguish the Mass everywhere, and to compel
Catholics to embrace " the purity of the Presbyterian
faith." From 1580 the country was taken possession of by
the missionaries, and for twenty years they worked with
out cessation up and down the land to save the faith
from extinction. The labourers were few and the vine
yard extensive. It was possible to do little more than
afford encouragement to those who remained faithful,
than here and there to reconcile some who had fallen
away, than at long intervals to administer the Sacraments
by stealth to the scattered flocks. At the end of the
sixteenth century, in their extreme sufferings, the Scotch
Catholics sent a piteous petition for help to Rome.
Bishop William Chisholm, the last Catholic Bishop of
Dunblane, who on his expulsion by the heretics had
become Bishop of Vaison in France, and John Leslie,
Bishop of Ross, then residing in Rome, jointly repre
sented to Clement VIII the deplorable state of religion
in Scotland. They declared that in their opinion Scotch
Catholicity would most certainly perish altogether out
of the land, unless some means were not quickly found
to arrest the rapid defection, which was everywhere
apparent. This appeal was not made in vain; and on
5th December 1600 there was begun, "as a nursery for
native missionary priests," the Scotch college in Rome,
to which historic institution the religion of this country
has ever since been so much indebted. The pyrrhic
victory, at Glenlivet, of the Catholic lairds under the
Earl of Huntly over Argyle, brought down on them the
vengeance of the King. All the Catholic houses which
were pointed out by the Kirk ministers as having been
'• polluted " by the Mass, were soon mere smoking ruins.

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 245
In the year 1617 the Jesuit missionary Father Wil
liam Leslie came to work in this vast field. He sub
sequently described the state of the country in a letter
to his General: " How neglected this vineyard was," he
writes, "how long unattended! Very few openly pro
fessed the faith; the Sacraments were rarely used, de
votion seemed extinct, Christian virtues forgotten; in
fact, scarcely a trace of religion was anywhere apparent."
Up to that time (161 7) there had been, it appears, two
Jesuits in the Highlands and two in the Lowlands.
During the winter months these fathers were sheltered
in the houses of the Catholic lairds, like the Earl of
Errol and the Marquis of Huntly — the head of the house
of Gordon — and in the long days of summer they wan
dered forth over mountains and through glens and by
the borders of the lonely lochs, seeking for Catholic
families, which still kept the faith in spite of persecution.
At first the English Bishop of Chalcedon had juris
diction also over Scotland — a jurisdiction which it was
impossible he could exercise, and which was recognised
on his death in 1624 as futile. The first quarter of the
seventeenth century, although a period of persistent
persecution, saw a great Catholic revival. The Pope
appealed to the religious Orders, and in particular to
the Franciscans and Benedictines, to send labourers
into Scotland. By 1627 there were eight Scotch Bene
dictines from Ratisbon at work mostly in the High
lands, and six Franciscans from Ireland, whilst the
Jesuit labouring at Aberdeen had gathered round him
what he described as " a tolerably large mission."
In the year 1628 a Scottish Benedictine voices the
feeling of the Catholics at the desolation of the country.
Lingering amongst the ruins of the glorious abbey of

246 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
Aberbrothock he bewails " the deplorable state of the
defaced and staggering steeples, the battered walls,
broken down pillars, and the floor all overgrown with
grass and defiled with filth. And this," he adds, " hath
been once a most royal, brave, and gorgeous church."
" O God, the house of our sanctification and glorie, where
our fathers did praise and worship Thee, is made desert
and burnt, and all our things worthy to be wished are
turned to ruins." He describes, too, his feelings on visit
ing St. Giles' and " looking at bare walls and pillars all
clad with dust sweepings and cobwebs instead of paint
ing and tapestrie," and in place of the praying multi
tudes, " beholding the restless resorting of people treating
of their worldly affairs, some writing and making obliga
tions, contracts, and discharges."
Puritanism was, from the first, very pronounced and
intolerant; but in spite of every effort at coercion, on
Easter Day 1627, at St. Andrews and at Glasgow, there
were but six or seven communicants. The following
year it was announced that if people would but com
municate " they should have liberty to sit, stand, or
kneel " as they pleased. The attempt by Archbishop
Laud to impose Episcopacy and a liturgy framed for
the Scotch, on the religious level of Anglican Euchar
istic doctrine, was strongly resented and strenuously
resisted by the Kirk, and the poor Catholics were made
to feel the effect of the general anger against what the
ministers regarded as the introduction of plain Popery.
The annual letters to the General of the Society of
Jesus describes 1628 as one of the most terrible years
of suffering and persecution yet experienced. One of
the fathers — John Macbreck — had at that time been six
months in prison, from which he was only released by

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 247
reason of a serious sickness brought on by the squalor
and filth of his dungeon. A general edict appointed
officers to "follow, hunt, and pursue priests with fire
and sword " ; to set in flames all houses in which they
had sought refuge, and to use all other force and war
like engine that can be had for apprehending the said
Jesuits and excommunicate Papists — "the most per
nicious pests in the common weal." The names of nine
teen priests were at this time given who were to be
seized at once, and lists of all Catholics, " who declined
to attend the law Church," were ordered to be sent up
to the authorities twice every year.
From this time (1628) the persecution of those pro
fessing the Catholic religion developed into a system.
Detailed accounts of the poor Catholics with their names
and abodes were furnished to the justices. They were
ordered to quit their houses, which were taken posses
sion of by the King's officials. When the inmates were
out in the roads the hearth fires were extinguished as a
public sign of the final destruction of the family life, and
the expelled Catholics were driven even from the neigh
bourhood of their wrecked cottages. Bishop Forbes of
Brechin thus describes the object of this episode in these
two centuries of scientific persecution : " The complete
extirpation of the Catholic Church, not merely as a
public establishment, but as a tolerated sect," he says,
" was the avowed object of our Scotch Reformers." To
such a point of sectarian fury did they attain, that whole
sale massacres of Catholics, men, women, and children,
were contemplated as a worthy object of religious zeal.
Midwives were encouraged to use their functions to
secure the deaths of Catholic mothers and children.
One Margery Menzies, whilst actually in labour, was

248 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
turned out of her home into the streets with three child
ren suffering from smallpox, and when one child died of
this inhuman treatment it was refused burial in any
churchyard. At this time also, there was invented that terrible
social ostracism known as Excommunication by the
religious authority of the Kirk. With one so pronounced
excommunicate no one was allowed to have any deal
ings or relations. From such no one could buy ; to such
no one might sell; with such no one might hold com
munication, or have any part in the ordinary relations of
civilised life. The flocks and herds of any outlawed
Catholic could be seized by the first comer and driven
off as legitimate booty, and men were sent into the
growing crops of the Catholic farmer to trample them
down and destroy them. In 1628 that valiant woman,
Elizabeth Lady Herries, was in this way declared ex
communicated as an obstinate Papist, and being arrested
was committed to the prison for abandoned women in
Edinburgh. She refused to pass the threshold until com
pelled by force, declaring that all the persecutors' efforts
would be unavailing, if they thought they could force her
by anything they might do to deny her faith. She de
clared, moreover, that she knew thousands of women in
Edinburgh who were ready to do the same and suffer
for their religion. Her child was seriously ill at this time
and died in the prison, whilst Lady Herries herself was
saved from death only by being released and banished.
The following year (1629) the Countess of Abercorn
also was thrown into a dungeon in Edinburgh for her
faith, and when liberated the public were warned that they
must avoid her and refuse to serve or help her in any
way. The year 1630 brought no relief. In spite of the

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 249
prayers of the English Catholic Queen, the King refused
to credit the reports she gave him of the ill-treatment of
the unfortunate Catholics in Scotland. In the July of this
year numbers of men and women were brought before
the Council, and on their refusal to accept the Kirk
teachings as the infallible guide of their consciences,
were sentenced to perpetual banishment. Seven weeks
were given them to prepare for their departure, and one-
third of the rent of their confiscated farms was generously
promised for the support of their families. Even this was
to be forfeited should they return to their native land.
" By God's grace," however, writes Father William Leslie
at this time, "these sturdy Highland Catholics, when
God's call came, were found to rise up and leave ances
tral lands and to turn from their beloved country for
God's sake and for their faith, never to see the hills of
Scotland again."
For many decades of years more, life was destined to
remain quite as hard for the faithful Catholics in Scot
land. In fact the period from 1637 to 1650 is described, by
one who went through it, as a " reign of terror." Of course
the number and influence of the Catholics decreased
under such relentless persecution. Nevertheless there
were not altogether wanting some consoling evidences
of a new life, some indications of the sap once more
rising in the old tree, which helped to support the fail
ing courage of the priests and people, crushed and broken
as they were under the double burden of loyalty to their
King and fidelity to their religious principles. At this
time much pressure was exerted in Rome to obtain the
appointment of a bishop for Scotland, especially a bishop
for the Islands, where the number of Catholics was great
and through the energy of the missionaries was increas-

250 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
ing. The appointment was determined upon by Propa
ganda in 1634, but the choice of the proper person
apparently presented great difficulties and no decision
was taken. The claims of a Franciscan friar — Father
Patrick Haggerty — were urged as those of one who for
many years had laboured with untiring devotion in the
Hebrides. Wandering about from island to island this
zealous missionary had himself reconciled, it is said,
2,294 people to the Church in the years 1630 and 1631.
He was not alone in this heroic service. Other Franciscan
friars, who helped in the work, were Father Bruno, and
Father David Tyrie, and Fathers Archangel Leslie and
Roger, or Epiphanius, Lynsay, Capuchins. This last was
an untiring missioner. He had been thirty-eight years,
first as a secular priest and then as a friar, engaged in
this apostolic work, going about the country disguised as
a drover, a shepherd, or a pedlar.
According to a report made to Propaganda in 1628,
the Franciscan friars had in a few years reconciled no
fewer than 10,269 souls to the Church. The hardships
they had endured in the exercise of their ministry were
desperate. Ever in peril of their lives they wandered
about in the mountains and in the islands for months
together, hardly daring to spend two consecutive nights
in the same shelter for fear of capture; not that they
feared to be taken for their own sakes, for even the
terrors of the loathsome prisons to which as priests they
would be committed would be a welcome change from
their hunted condition — but because their capture would
mean the loss of the shepherd of a scattered flock. For
months together they had little to eat, at the best, beyond
bread and cheese, and they had to quench their thirst at
the mountain brooks. Winter found them sheltering in

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 251
the snow-covered fastnesses, whither even the implacable
hatred of their persecutors hesitated to follow them.
They indeed were heroes of whom we may well feel
proud, but most of their names are known only to God.
A letter written in 1652 from a Lazarist, Father
Dermot Duggan, to M. Vincent, Superior of the newly
formed Congregation of the Mission, known to us as
St. Vincent de Paul, gives us a glimpse of the lives led
by those heroes of the Cross. He and his two com
panions — Fathers White and Thomas Lumsden — all
three Scotch members of the new Lazarist body — had
lived mostly in the islands, being seldom able to cross
over to the mainland. God had visibly blessed the
mission. One laird of property and influence had been
taken into the Church with all his family and retainers ;
a poor Irish priest, who after undergoing great hardships
had abandoned his faith, had been reconciled. God had
chastised him in His mercy — for having lost his sight
and his hearing in a sickness he had turned again to
God, and having been received back again to the bosom
of Mother Church, was now leading a life of penance
in dire poverty, supporting himself by labouring on the
land. One companion, Father Francis White, was work
ing in the Highlands and had plenty to do wandering
about among the scattered population. He himself had
been much in the islands of Egg, Isla, and Canna, where
through the grace of God the harvest had been great;
eight or nine hundred people having returned to the
faith. By reason of the absence of priests and the want
of proper instruction the people had been found to have
little knowledge of their religion, and no wonder, for he
had, he declares, come across people of thirty, sixty, and
even of eighty years of age, who had never been baptised.

252 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
In the island of Isla matters were somewhat better. Some
had a knowledge of the Sacraments of Confession and
the Holy Eucharist, through having been visited long
before by an Irish Franciscan ; but few remembered even
how to make the sign of the Cross. Still, they were all
well disposed to receive instruction. The general poverty
was indescribable, and the conditions of life hard in the
extreme. " As a rule," says Father Dermot Duggan, " I
have to trudge distances of fourteen or fifteen miles
carrying the vestments and other requisites of Holy
Mass in a pack on my back. If I could only get to
gether sufficient money to buy a boat," he adds, " I
could do much good by getting from island to island."
In the same year (1652), another letter to St. Vincent
de Paul from Father Thomas Lumsden gives the in
formation that Father White was living in two hiding
places, in the house of the laird of Aylort. He was
working mainly among the poor fisherfolk, who had
little but the faith, but in their steadfastness in this they
were examples to their more fortunate countrymen. Their
love for Holy Water, the writer described as remarkable,
and its evident effects were wonderful. Three years after
this letter Father Duncan, having ventured into the
Highlands, was taken by the priest-hunters in the house
of the Marquis of Huntly. He was carried first to Aber
deen, where he was lodged in the prison, and thence to
Edinburgh where, on 5 th December 1655, he was still
confined for his faith.
There is no need to repeat this same sad story of
trouble and suffering undergone by generations of
Scotch Catholics for their faith. In 1650 the gallant
Montrose ascended the scaffold saying : " God Almighty
have mercy on this perishing country." And truly it

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 253
must have seemed to those who lived at that time as if
God's hand was indeed shortened, and that in His de
sign the very name of Catholic was destined to be wiped
out of the bonnie land of Scotland. Still, wonderful to
relate, many were reconciled to the Church, even during
this terrible time, when to kill the King and utterly to
suppress the Catholic religion was the recognised pro
gramme of the Covenanters, to which they bound them
selves by oath. Measure after measure was conceived
for their destruction. In 1656 Catholics were univers
ally cited to appear before the judges. All, without ex
ception, fearlessly obeyed. The brave Countess of Niths-
dale, being asked by the officials to repudiate articles
of Catholic faith replied : " You must first cut off my
hand from my arm, and my head from my neck, before
you tear from my breast my belief in those articles of
religion." A few, years later (1665), the young Marquis
of Huntly was taken by force from his Catholic home at
the age of fifteen, and placed under Archbishop Sharp
of St. Andrews in order that his faith might be destroyed.
It was directed that he was to have no Catholic servant
and should hold no communication with any one of that
religious belief. It was useless, however, and after a brief
time, though but a boy, he was found to be so "well
hardened in his prejudice" that he was allowed to go.
For some years in the last quarter of the seventeenth
century, the Scotch islands were confided to the care
of the Archbishop of Armagh, the Venerable Oliver
Plunket, who later became a martyr for his faith. Once,
at least, this distinguished Prelate came to visit his
charge, and from the reports made to him as to the state
of religion we learn much about the position and troubles
of the brave Scotch Catholics at this time. One of these

254 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
reports to Propaganda was written on ioth July i67i,by
a Franciscan, Father Francis MacDonnel, who had long
worked in that missionary field. There was, he says,
great need of vestments, and especially of altar stones,
as the priest was forced to carry one set about with him
from island to island. Altar stones were very scarce be
cause the heretics had made a point of destroying them
whenever they could discover them. For a long time
there had been no regular alms sent to help the mission,
and although Friar MacDonnel had written frequently to
Propaganda he hadhad no reply. Hewas in great poverty,
having many things to pay for, and had constantly to
employ help to carry the chapel things about every time
he moved from place to place. At Bara there had been
a Dominican Father, he says, named George Fanning,
who had been working with great zeal for three years.
He had been protected and supported in his work by
the laird of Bara — MacNeil. Father Fanning had come
to the island, indeed, without the leave of Propaganda,
but finding the people wholly neglected had considered
it a case of grave necessity and had remained on pre
sumed faculties. Another report as to the Hebrides
made on 2nd September 1671, by Archbishop Oliver
Plunket, is taken, as he says, from the account given
him by a Franciscan missionary, when he came to
Armagh to get a fresh supply of Holy Oils. The
general population of the islands, and consequently the
Catholic population, was much diminished by the wars.
On many of the islands the faith had died out for want
of priests. The people were generally well disposed, and
Arran, with its 12,000 inhabitants, would be wholly
Catholic if there were but some priest to instruct the
people. Uist, also with about 1 2,000 people, was about

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 255
half Catholic, and was looked after by the Franciscan
Friar, Francis MacDonnel, who also had the sole care of
the islands of Canna, Rum, Eigg, and Muck. Barra, under
its laird MacNeil, had a population of 1,000 Catholics,
looked after by the Dominican, George Fanning. Else
where there were Catholics, but they were falling away
because there was no one to watch over them, and every
where there was the greatest need for more labourers. The
life was so hard that it required absolute self-sacrifice.
Some of the Scotch youths, who had experienced the
ease of the colleges of France, Italy and Flanders, would,
it was to be feared, not be willing to return to work under
these conditions. In the islands the missionary should
not be too proficient in English. Though the people
generally had the greatest respect for the priests, call
ing them " Coronati " ; if they were too English they were
at once called " Anglo-Scotch." Archbishop Plunket
concluded with a special eulogy on Friar Francis
MacDonnel as a man of great tact and a zealous and
single-minded missionary.
But we must hasten on. Let us pass to the beginning
of the following century — the eighteenth. There was
now at last a bishop for Scotland. In 1694 Dr. Thomas
Nicholson was appointed Vicar Apostolic, and imme
diately began to visit the scattered flocks, or more truly,
individuals of his Vicariate. The new century brought
no relaxation of the penal laws, under which now for
many decades the Church in Scotland had been suffer
ing. In fact, in 1700, new laws were passed dispossess
ing obstinate Catholics of their property altogether, and
children of Catholics were taken by force from their
parents and educated as Protestants. Well might a con
temporary writer liken the new acts of persecution to

256 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
the laws of Diocletian against the first Christians. The
immediate result was disastrous. Many gave up the
struggle as hopeless, and became, outwardly at least,
Calvinists ; others wavered and temporised ; few or none
became reconciled to the Church. The first to begin
active persecution on these new lines was the Marquis
of Aberdeen, and it may be said that in the parts under
his influence, the bitter pursuit of priests and people
was never afterwards relaxed till the greater number of
Catholics had been got rid of altogether.
In 1702 the proctor of Bishop Nicholson, James
Gordon, who had himself worked in the Scotch mission
for ten years, wrote from Paris an account of the reli
gious state of the Vicariate to Propaganda. It is a truly
interesting and sad document. The writer begins by
saying that the condition of the mission had greatly
changed for the worse during the last twelve months.
For two years the laws against Catholics had been en
forced with the utmost cruelty and persistence. Many
had given up hope altogether, and had abandoned
themselves to blank despair. Some of the lairds, upon
whose loyalty to the faith everything had long depended
and still depended, had forsaken the religion of their
forefathers, for which they had so long endured persecu
tion, others were vacillating, and others were keeping to it,
merely because they hoped that some change of politics
might give them a Catholic King and religious peace. If
this was clearly not possible, many would be prepared to
make what terms they could to secure peace and retain
their estates. Catholics among the lower classes depended
on the upper, and the laws pressed more heavily upon
them than upon the lairds. No one was allowed to keep a
Catholic servant, and so all this class was driven, even by

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 257
hunger, to abandon the Catholic religion. All classes
were exposed to the continual temptation to conform to
the new religion.
The ministers of the Kirk, too, strove by every means
possible to destroy the Catholic faith and to eradicate the
very name of Catholic out of Scotland. They contrived
mixed marriages, and forced all to go to their places of
worship to contract any legal marriage. So severe had
been the fury of persecution, that in the cities and bigger
towns there was hardly left a place where a Catholic could
dwell, and generally there was no possibility of people
going to church, and hence, " unless God shall please by
a Special Providence and almost by a miracle to preserve
the faith in Scotland, in thirty or forty years at most, the
faithful will be reduced to only a scattered few in the
entire kingdom."
Last January and February (i.e. 1702), continued
Father Gordon, in the mountainous district where
Catholics were numerous, a more bitter and determined
persecution broke out than had been known for over a
century. Not once or twice only, but again and again
soldiers were sent through the Highland glens to hunt
out priests and schoolmasters. The armed men carried
out their orders with the utmost fury, so that it was im
possible for any priest to remain for two consecutive
nights in the same hiding-place. One priest, old and
worn out by being continuously hunted from place to
place, died on the road ; another was driven mad ; and
a schoolmaster, whom the soldiers were specially desired
to catch, was forced to spend three months of the winter
wandering among hills covered with snow and ice, de
prived of every necessary of life and even of shelter.
February closed with rumours of more severe measures
s

258 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
being concerted against the unfortunate Catholics. A
simultaneous attempt was to be made to seize every
priest in the country. The zeal of the Marchioness of
Seaforth had at this time roused the ministers to anger.
She was warned that her son, a lad of fourteen, was
to be taken away from her ,to be educated by the Pro
testants; but she was just able to get him taken abroad
to a Catholic country.
All this time Bishop Nicholson was moving about
doing all in his power to sustain the courage of his per
secuted flock. He had his consolations in the fervour of
the people and in the wonderful conversions to the faith,
in spite of what the converts had to suffer. Not only did
many who had fallen away return, but a young minister
of the Kirk at Elgin, much thought of and an excellent
preacher, gave up everything and became a Catholic.
At this time in the whole of Scotland there were only
some forty priests in all. The Jesuits had nine, the
Benedictines four, the Irish Franciscans five, and there
were fourteen secular priests, of whom two were Irish.
One old Scotch priest, who had been exiled after long
imprisonment, was then on his way back ; another, Father
Alexander Leslie, after labouring for thirty years, had
just gone to his reward ; and one, Father Robert Gordon,
had only just arrived upon the scene of his mission to
die of decline. The Franciscans and two of the Bene
dictines, who knew the language well, were working in
the islands, where there were many Catholics. Others
were in the mountain districts, where all they had to
live upon were the alms given by Propaganda yearly
since 1699. One Benedictine, still in active work, in
these difficult circumstances, was upwards of seventy
years old.

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 259
Father John Innes, a Jesuit missionary, this same year,
1702, writes of his experiences: " For nearly fifteen years,"
he says, " I have been wandering over different parts of
this my native country with what difficulty, hardship,
and peril He only knows, who knows all things. I have
had to accommodate myself to the manners and customs
of the rudest and most uncouth country people, to be
hid in caverns or in forests, and to travel at nights, and
in winter, over mountains, rocks, and through woods,
over the most difficult roads, often without a guide or
companion, not without peril to my life. And, not un-
frequently, when tired out by these journeys, whether
by night or day, I have had to lie down without food or
drink in barns or stables among the brute animals, upon
a little straw or sometimes on the hard earth. It cost me
immense toil and much time to learn to speak the ex
tremely difficult language of this country, but by God's
favour I am master of it now, and can get through all
the duties of my office by means of it. My business in
these parts has given me and is giving me still the
greatest possible anxiety, has caused and is causing me
many vigils and much time. What disguises have I not
worn, what arts have I not professed : now master, now
servant, now musician, now painter, now brassworker,
now clockmaker, now physician. I have endeavoured to
be all to all that I might save all. I found that such skill
as I had acquired in the medical art was most useful for
the purpose I had in view, and I have cultivated it and
used it generally. But while it readily obtained me
access to the sick of whatever age, condition and sex
they might be, at the same time it involved me in much
anxiety and no little peril."
Bishop James Gordon, after he became coadjutor to

260 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
Bishop Nicholson, wrote to Propaganda in 1732 from
Aberdeen a eulogy upon the devoted Scotch clergy.
" There is not one of them (he says) but does more work
than three could do with any degree of convenience. Of
this, however, they do not complain ; their zeal for the
glory of God and the salvation of souls makes such
fatigues easy to them. But to be in real want of the
most pressing necessaries of life is too much for human
nature to bear. How often since I had charge of the
mission, with a heart pierced with the deepest grief, have
I known these truly apostolic men, after travelling the
whole day through snow and rain from one village to
another, assisting the sick, assisting converts and com
forting the distressed, retire at night to their miser
able habitations, where they had neither fire nor meat to
relieve oppressed nature. Many have had the heroic
charity to lose their lives under these miseries rather
than abandon their charges."
But to draw this long story to a conclusion : The year
1745 saw the rising in support of Prince Charlie, the
suppression of which was so disastrous to the Catholic
cause. That year, however, saw the conversion of that
great and good man, the centenary of whose death we
are celebrating. The first years of his Catholic life wit
nessed so terrible a renewal of persecution that in 175 1
the cry of suffering of the unfortunate Catholics induced
the Pope to appeal to the Sovereigns of Europe to inter
cede with the English authorities for some mitigation of
the oppressive laws. All over the country Catholic
houses were burnt down, the cattle of Catholics seized,
and the owners left in the most dire poverty; priests
were chained together when they could be captured, and
one of them, Fr. James Grant, lay for weeks in 1746 in

SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS 261
the prison of Inverness fastened by irons to the leg of an
Irish officer.
In spite of the Pope's plea for mercy, active persecu
tion did not cease throughout the land, and one of the
first acts of intolerant bigotry, which became known
shortly after Dr. Hay became bishop, was that of the
laird of Boisdale, which is yet remembered with pity for
the perpetrator. Macdonald of South Uist and other
islands determined to get rid of his Catholic tenants. The
choice was given to them to renounce the faith of their
forefathers, or to be evicted from the lands of their clans.
They were all Catholics, and, praise be to God, all heroes ;
for, though their hearts were broken, they chose to leave
their native land and all that they loved, and were
shipped off to St. John's Island, at the mouth of the St.
Lawrence, Father James Macdonald going with them as
their pastor and friend. It was only a few years later
that Bishop Hay took the first steps to put an end to
this tyranny of religious fanaticism.
Dr. Johnson, as late as 1773, thus describes the
spiritual desolation of the Western Islands as he saw
it in his journey through the Hebrides: " It is not only
in Raasay that the chapel is unroofed and useless;
through the few islands which we visited we neither saw
nor heard of any house of prayer, except in Skye, that
was not in ruins. The malignant influence of Calvinism
has blasted ceremony and decency together; and if the
remembrance of papal superstition is obliterated, the
monuments of papal piety are likewise effaced.
" It has been for many years popular to talk of the
lazy devotion of the Romish clergy; over the sleepy
laziness of men that erected churches we may indulge
our superiority with a new triumph, by comparing it

262 SCOTLAND IN PENAL DAYS
with the fervid activity of those who suffer them to
fall." As one looks back over the many decades of persecu
tion, which can only be described by the word " diaboli
cal," we utter the words of the Psalmist : " It is the mercy
of the Lord that we are not consumed." Indeed, it is
impossible to understand how the Catholic faith could
have survived such continuous and long-sustained at
tempts to stamp it out of existence. That it exists and
flourishes to-day is, to all who think, a proof that it is of
God and is His work. Why in His mercy He should
have permitted this long and bitter chastisement it is
not for us to say. We can only confess once more that
" His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways our
ways." To Him be the glory and honour for ever and
ever.

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S,
DOWNSIDE1
" And I heard a voice from heaven, saying to me : Write : Blessed
are the dead who die in the Lord. From henceforth now, saith the
Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; for their works follow
them." — Apoc, xiv, 13.
THE solemn strains of our requiem almost seem to
be lingering still beneath these vaulted roofs. This
cry for mercy and peace for the souls of our departed
brethren and friends in which we have joined our voices
and our hearts will doubtless have carried our thoughts
and imaginations back into the past. Sixty years ago
now, a service such as this, sung in yonder lowly old
chapel, started in the mind of a Catholic layman, who
had " come to seek the grace of the high festival " of All
Saints, a train of thought which led him in spirit back
wards across the Catholic centuries and issued in the
great work, Mores Catholici. In like manner, on an
occasion like this, when, as almost the first celebration
we keep in this glorious monastic church, the Holy
Sacrifice is offered for our dead, we may well give free
dom to our thoughts and let our minds dwell for a while
in the past. Now, if ever, is the time to recall the
1 An address given at the Requiem Mass, during the celebra
tions, on the opening of Downside Abbey Church, 20th September
1905. 263

264 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
memories of those for whom we have been praying to
day, and who were in a true sense the builders of St.
Gregory's — of St. Gregory's as we see it to-day.
Let us go back to the beginnings. Three hundred
years ago — that is, in 1605 — here in England the Eliza
bethan form of religion was fully and legally established
as one consequence of that Queen's long reign. Sixteen
hundred and five, as all will remember, was the year of
the Gunpowder Plot — an event, whatever its origin in
design and detail, which tended to make the lot of the
poor persecuted Catholic, if possible, even more unbear
able than it was before. In that year some Benedictines
of English nationality, who had found in Spain that
liberty to serve God as monks which was denied to them
in England, determined, with the leave of their foreign
superiors, to establish a house of their Order in which
these English men and English monks might work in a
more special way for their own country than was pos
sible in a foreign monastery. There was, it must be
allowed, reason in their yearnings. England had been
— nay, was still, pre-eminently the Benedictine vineyard
— the Benedictine Apostolate. Their ancestor, St. Au
gustine, sent by the Benedictine Gregory, had established
his peculiarly Roman Order in the Primatial See of
Canterbury, and everywhere throughout the length and
breadth of the land, when, but seventy years before this
time, the overthrow of religion had come, their monas
teries were existing, and for centuries had been spread
ing blessings abroad. Westminster, St. Albans, Glaston
bury, Evesham, Bury and Tewkesbury, with the rest of
those great and solemn abbeys as they were called, with
Canterbury and Durham, Winchester and Coventry, Ely
and Bath, and the other great Cathedral priories, were

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 265
ample witnesses of Benedictine activity in the past and
of the identification of the Order with the Catholic
Church in England. All these were, indeed, lost for ever,
but with the courage their forefathers in religion had
ever displayed in the earlier days of the conversion and
civilisation of Europe, there was no thought of repining,
no time or place for useless regrets. What Cardinal
Newman has said of the spirit of the early sons of St.
Benedict, was true of them. " Down in the dust lay the
labours and civilisation of centuries — churches, colleges,
cloisters, libraries — and nothing was left to them but to
begin all over again ; but this they did without grudg
ing, so promptly, cheerfully and tranquilly, as if it were
by some law of Nature that the Restoration came, and
they were like the flowers and shrubs and fruit trees
which they reared, and which, when ill-treated, do not
take vengeance or remember evil, but give forth fresh
branches, leaves or blossoms, perhaps in greater profu
sion, or with richer quality for the very reason that the
old were broken off."
In this spirit our monastery of St. Gregory was begun.
As with all beginnings, there has been something per
haps of obscurity and some elements of doubt about it,
but out of all, these facts appear to be clear and certain.
Just three centuries ago, when St. Gregory's was in the
making, across the seas at Douay, its very foundations
were in God's loving kindness sanctified and, I may say,
laved in the life-blood of our Benedictine martyrs. First
and foremost in the band of those builders of St. Gre
gory's, who were called upon to give the supreme testi
mony of their faith and who washed their robes in the
blood of the Lamb, stands, of course, the Venerable
John Roberts. It was to him, apparently, that the idea

266 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
of establishing the English monks at Douay first came.
Exiled for his priesthood from England, he and Father
Augustine Bradshaw or White, obtained permission to
open a small house in the Low Countries for the English
Fathers of the Spanish Congregation. It is difficult,
and, indeed, useless and idle, to try to divide the
honours between these two monks. We Gregorians ever
desire to look upon both as jointly our founders ; but ac
cording to one account at least, it was the future martyr
who was the first Superior or Prior of St. Gregory's, and
the name of the Venerable John Roberts is carved on
yonder shield as the first of Gregorian builders. Of him
and of Father Bradshaw we are proud, and, as we think,
justly proud ; of the Venerable John Roberts, inasmuch
as when he went forth from the first lowly walls that
sheltered the English monks at Douay, to labour again
in the vineyard of souls in England, he went, as indeed
all his brethren in those days went, with his life in his
hands, I have no need to tell his story. He was arrested,
tried for his priesthood, condemned to death, and on
ioth December 1610 he died as a hero and a martyr
on the Tyburn gallows, glorying, as he said, in being " a
priest and a monk of the Holy Order of St. Benedict,
as were also St. Augustine, St. Lawrence, St. Paulinus
and St. Mellitus. As those monks converted our country
from unbelief, so," said he to his judge, " I have done
what little I could to liberate it from heresy; I leave it
to you, Mr. Recorder, and the rest of you, to judge
whether this is high treason." The Venerable John
Roberts, then, is our first glory. He may be regarded
as the main and principal cause of the existence of
St. Gregory's, and until the catastrophe of the French
Revolution his quartered remains, snatched from an un-

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 267
hallowed grave, rested beneath our monastic altar at
Douay. Before John Roberts, however, in point of time, to
offer the supreme witness of the faith in martyrdom,
was another Gregorian, Father George Gervase, who
must be commemorated to-day. As a secular priest,
who had worked on the Apostolic Mission, Father Ger
vase received the Benedictine habit at Douay in 1606, the
first year after its foundation. There was at this time an
urgent call for priests, and so, returning to England,
Father George Gervase suffered death for his faith on
nth April 1608. A third of this noble band of martyrs
for religion was Father Maurus Scott. Although a pro
fessed monk of the Spanish Congregation, he was never
theless both affiliated to the new house at Douay, and
lived in it for a time as a conventual. He was in prison
with the Venerable John Roberts, and was one of those
who were charged with kissing the martyr's feet, the
night before he suffered. It was on Whitsun Eve,
30th May 161 2, that Father Scott was also himself
dragged on a hurdle through the streets of London to
Tyburn, and there received his martyr's crown.
But even these three heroic sons of St. Gregory's,
destined by Providence to suffer death for their faith in
the first decade of its existence, were but the first of our
Gregorian martyrs. Not to mention the Venerable Mark
Barkworth and the Venerable Thomas Tunstall, who,
though not connected directly with Douay, were brethren
of our other martyrs in the Spanish Congregation, and
whose portraits, along with Roberts, Gervase and Scott,
adorn the Charter of Abbot Caverel — not to mention
these as Gregorians, we have others who in their time
witnessed to the faith by their blood. Let us take them

268 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
in order: first there is Father Ambrose Barlow, the
anniversary of whose death on the scaffold, as a martyr
for religion and conscience, by an unforeseen grace of
Providence we to-day commemorate. He was professed
at Douay in 1616, and laid down his life for the faith on
20th September 1641. Secondly, there is Father Philip
Powel (or Morgan or Prosser), who took the habit at
St. Gregory's in 16 19, and received the martyr's crown
on 30th June 1646; and lastly, in this category, must be
named the gentle, humble Brother Thomas Pickering,
our lay -brother martyr, whose life was sworn away by
the infamous Titus Oates.
Even to this long roll of heroic sons of St. Gregory's
we must claim to add two others. One is Father William
Ildephonsus Hesketh, who was professed at Douay in
161 5, who was worried to death by the Parliamentarian
troops in Yorkshire, and expired on the roadside on
26th July 1644; the other is the well-known Father
Arthur Francis Bell, the Franciscan friar, who for two
years before going on the mission, studied his theology
under our fathers at St. Gregory's. Father Bell was
executed at Tyburn for being a priest, on nth Decem
ber 1643.
Of these first beginnings — these first-fruits — these
makers of St. Gregory's, we who live in happier times
are as justly proud as were our forefathers in religion,
who at the time of their martyrdom were engaged in
laying the first foundations of St. Gregory's, and who
looked on the blood of their martyred brethren as their
best surety of success, as the best pledge that the seed
they planted would grow to maturity and bring forth
much fruit in the service of God. For us, too, it is surely
no empty grace to count so many martyrs among our

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 269
own brethren in the early days of our beloved monastery
—a grace which we should indeed be degenerate sons
not to recognise and not from our hearts to be thankful
for. I know, indeed, of no religious house in Europe, at
least in these later centuries, to which the loving kind
ness of God has accorded such a privilege as He has in
this given unto us.
But the thought of our martyrs has carried me too
quickly forward, and for a moment I return to the be
ginnings of our house at Douay. Whilst Father Augus
tine Bradshaw was labouring for the establishment of his
community, the providence of God was preparing a
benefactor in the person of Dom Philip Caverel, Abbot
of the Benedictine house of St. Vedast at Arras. His
memory must of course be recalled to-day in our
celebration, as the first and chiefest of the great bene
factors of St. Gregory's. Caverel, clarum et venerabile
nomen, had been entrusted with several sums of money
for ecclesiastical purposes, and had already extended
his benefactions to others besides his own Order, when
his attention was called to the existence of the strug
gling little community of English Benedictines. The
Abbot immediately turned to his brethren at Douay, and
determined to provide them at least with a suitable
monastery. The Archduke Albert co-operated with him,
and on 1 5th October 161 1 the community of St. Gregory's
moved into the new building their generous benefactor
had provided for them. Besides handing over to them
the house, Abbot Caverel assigned to the English monks
a yearly revenue, and during the rest of his life he
seemed never to weary of doing kindnesses to his
English brethren at St. Gregory's, and assisting the
monastery of his predilection. The intimate connection

270 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
between the monks of St. Vedast's and those of St.
Gregory's, first formed by Caverel's munificence, lasted
unbroken to the days of the French Revolution, and the
name of Caverel is still, let us hope, remembered by us
all in our prayers. Without his aid, under God, our
House might never have been. By a strange and strik
ing irony of fate, we alone are the heirs of all his works.
What he did for England, alone of all his undertakings,
has lasted to our days. His own immense Abbey of St.
Vedast, which he rebuilt, with all its vast possessions
and all its great resources, with its large community and
with its commanding influence, has passed away, leaving
no trace behind it of its corporate existence. The Abbot's
very tomb, removed from his destroyed abbey church
of St. Vedast, may to-day be seen decaying and neg
lected in Arras Cathedral. St. Gregory's alone re
mains; and so, to-day, as a record to our own eternal
indebtedness to Caverel, we have carved his arms nearest
to our altar in this majestic choir, and in memory of his
abbey we have dedicated a chapel to St. Vedast. These
are but the symbols that his memory is ever green within
our hearts, and that his name is ever remembered in our
prayers. One other name of those early times must be recalled
on a day such as this, not that it is specially connected
with our monastery, except in so far as it is connected
with every monastery of our beloved English Benedictine
Congregation. I need hardly say (at least to you, my
Benedictine brethren) that I refer to the name of Buckley.
Of all the members of the more than three hundred
Benedictine houses overthrown in England between the
years 1536 and 1540, one sole survivor was apparently
left alive in the year 1607. Sigebert Buckley had been

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 271
one of those professed by Abbot Feckenham at West
minster, during the temporary revival of that monastery
in the reign of Queen Mary. In 1607 he was the last
survivor of that old English Benedictine Congregation,
which went back into the past to the very days of St.
Augustine. His life, since the overthrow of religion by
Queen Elizabeth, had been spent mostly in prison ; and
now old, infirm, and almost blind, on 21st November
1607 — our dies memorabilis — he gave the habit to two
priests, and handed on the rights and privileges of the
ancient English Benedictines to us — an act which was
afterwards solemnly ratified by the Holy See. To-day,
I am verysure,we have all recalled this cherished memory,
for it is the glory and the boast of us English Benedic
tines that there never has been with us any breach of
continuity with Catholic England, but through the link
of Dom Sigebert Buckley we go back in an unbroken
Benedictine line to the first Apostle of our race.
And now, in our annals, there appears the name of a
Gregorian who without doubt must be commemorated
to-day— Father Leander a Sto Martino. This great and
saintly man was thrice Prior of our House at Douay, and
also President-General of our Congregation. Father
Serenus Cressy says of him that he was " for his piety
and universal learning famous throughout Christendom."
Father Leander alas! lived in difficult times, not alone
for our Benedictine Congregation, but for the Catholics
in England. He was a man of consummate prudence
and inexhaustible patience, and to him, more than to
any other single individual, was due the issue of the
difficult negotiations by which the Benedictine English
men of Spain and Italy were happily united into the
reorganised English Congregation. The personal friend

272 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
of Archbishop Laud and of the statesman Windebank,
whose esteem and friendship he never lost, Father
Leander was entrusted with a commission from the
Holy See to utilise these connections in an endeavour
to mitigate the hard lot of the Catholics of England, to
smooth their domestic differences, and to bring them
peace. He was a man of great parts, and a religious of
special distinction — one of whom any Church might
well be proud. His days were spent in seeking peace
and ensuing it. He was a lover of his brethren, of the
priesthood, and of his country, and St. Gregory's may
well salute him on this day of many memories, as one
of the most saintly, one of the greatest and most gifted
of its sons.
After Father Leander let me in one sentence recall the
memory of one much connected with him and his work
— Father Rudesind Barlow. He was the fifth Prior of
our house. A man of great erudition and looked upon
as one of the first divines and canonists of his age, he
ruled the English Congregation with firmness and yet
with true Benedictine mildness and consideration. Much
of the early success of St. Gregory's must be attributed
to this true monk. By another happy and wholly unfore
seen chance, we kept yesterday — the first day of this
great celebration — the anniversary of his death.
Two other names in the early days of our monastery
come to the mind to-day and seem to demand a passing
notice. The first is that of Father Augustine Baker, the
second is that of Father Hugh Serenus Cressy. Father
Baker, indeed, was a member of the Dieulouard — St.
Lawrence's — community, but he spent a considerable
time — in fact most of his conventual life — at St. Gre
gory's; and his influence, as an ascetic and as a true

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 273
master of the spiritual life, was, long after he had
passed away, felt and acknowledged by our Gregorian
brethren. He was long revered by our Catholic fore
fathers as one of the chief mystical theologians produced
during the evil days of the religious persecution. He
was likewise a true historian, as well as a writer of
spiritual treatises, and whilst labouring as a collector
of documents he was greatly assisted by the personal
friendship of the antiquarians Sir Robert Cotton, Selden,
Spelman, and William Camden. We have the result of
his researches into Benedictine history in the Apostolatus,
which although ascribed to the name of Father Clement
Reyner, was mainly Father Baker's work. But his chief
claim to fame will always be that of a spiritual writer of
great excellence, best understood by those who desire
most to make progress in the simple paths of perfection.
Among his spiritual children at St. Gregory's was the
future martyr, of whom I have spoken — Father Philip
Powell. It is impossible not to record the deep debt of
gratitude which our House owes to this really saintly
religious. Not alone by his teaching, but by his holy
conversation he drew many souls to God, and his work
at Douay bore much fruit. " He brought many religious,"
says one writer, " from a tepid life to a fervent practice
of prayer, and drew many secular youths from their sin
ful exercises to a life of devotion and some also to a state
of religious profession."
Of Father Serenus Cressy, I here need only say that
he came to us as a convert to the faith, after holding the
dignities of Canon of Windsor and Dean of Leighlin in
the Established Church. He was a model religious,
faithful and fervent in all his duties. Coming to us as a
scholar with a reputation gained in the schools of his
T

274 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
University, he became a distinguished author and his
torian. He was responsible for systematising and ar
ranging Father Baker's spiritual tractates, in the well-
known volume Sancta Sophia; and his own Church
History is a monument of diligence. He died at Somer
set House, in 1674.
I could name many another worthy son of old St.
Gregory's in the first century of its existence; but I
must pass rapidly onward. So far I have said nothing
of the school for boys, which almost from the com
mencement has existed as an integral part of St. Gre
gory's service to the Church in England. Among the
penal laws in force in England in those days was one
directed against Catholic education. If a Catholic kept
a school, he was punished by imprisonment for life; and
to send a child abroad for education rendered the parent
liable to outlawry and to the confiscation of all his pro
perty to the State. The object of the law was to force
compliance to the State religion, to make obedience to
the civil power take the place of conscience, and to
eradicate Catholic principles from the minds of the
young by securing their education in the religion estab
lished by law. Like the Israelites of old in Egypt, who,
when prevented from worshipping the God of their
fathers, went forth out of that house of bondage, many
Catholic families emigrated to foreign lands to secure
liberty of worship according to their conscience, and to
secure for their children the religion of their forefathers.
Other parents, risking for conscience' sake the penalties
of the law, sent their children abroad, to obtain that re
ligious training which was denied them at home. It was,
then, through the demand caused by the action of these
heroic, true Catholics, that it became necessary to estab-

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 275
lish English colleges abroad for the reception of English
youth; and amongst others — such as the great secular
college at Douay and the celebrated Jesuit house of St.
Omer — from the first such a school existed at St. Gre
gory's. In this relation the name of Father Augustine
Moore should be recalled in this celebration. To later
generations of Gregorians Father Augustine is perhaps
best known by the fact that it was he who employed the
musician Faboulier to write what became, during many
generations, our traditional Church music. But there
was really much more than this in his wise rule over the
destinies of St. Gregory's, as prior during the twenty
years from 1755 to 1775, that should be remembered by
us with gratitude. It was to him and to his energy that
was due the erection, in 1769, of the college block of
buildings at Douay, which exists even to the present day,
and which served our brethren of St. Edmund's as their
monastery, and in great part as their college, until the
recent anti-religious movement in France deprived them
of this shelter. Once more let me here record our Gre
gorian indebtedness to the Abbey of St. Vedast. The
community of that abbey subscribed a sum of nearly
£5, 000 to the building of this new college.
Troubles of many kinds marked the last years of St.
Gregory's at Douay. Into these I need not enter, for we
are nearing the great catastrophe. The thunder-cloud
of Revolution, which had long threatened France, was
gathering and at last broke, sweeping the monks away
from the English home they had made for themselves,
during two centuries of life in a foreign land. It was on
Wednesday 16th October 1793 that the community, or
rather the remnant of it then at Douay, was carried off
by the soldiers of the revolutionary government from

276 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
Douay to Doullens. Father Jerome Sharrock was then
their prior, and there were with him then but five other
priests in all. Some had been sent over to England with
the boys, on the first signs of the coming storm; others
had escaped during the weeks of suspense; two lay
brothers, whose age and infirmities did not allow them
to travel, were allowed to remain behind. One of them
died shortly after, broken-hearted at the desolation
which had overtaken his old home.
Together with the monks of St. Gregory's, forty-one
members of the secular college at Douay found them
selves companions of their imprisonment. For thirteen
months these secular priests and Benedictines shared all
the hardships of a rigorous confinement in the prison at
Doullens, leading together in fraternal charity and peace
a life of continuous and regulated prayer and study.
" Greater cordiality and union could not exist between
brothers," writes one of these secular priests in after
years, " than existed between the English Benedictines
and us. And at this day I and others cherish the re
collection of the Black Hole, the garret and other cir
cumstances of our confinement, with a soothing satis
faction for the acquisition of six such friends as Mr.
Sharrock, Mr. Lorymer, Mr. Lord, Mr. Baker, Mr. Eld-
ridge, and Mr. Barber. Animas candidiores nusquam
tulit tellus." They all had one great consolation in their
confinement. Our Benedictine brethren had just time,
before the arrival of the gendarmes, to secrete a chalice,
an altar stone and other necessaries for celebrating Mass;
and thus they and their secular brethren were enabled in
their confinement secretly to offer up the adorable Sacri
fice. The account of these Sunday celebrations reads
like a story of the catacombs in the days of the early

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 277
persecutions; and the chalice they used at this time is
still preserved here at St. Gregory's, as one of our most
precious possessions, and was used to-day in the Holy
Mass just offered for the souls of our dead.
Our imprisoned English fathers were released on
24th November 1794. After a brief stay in their ruined
house at Douay, our brethren landed in England on
2nd March in the following year. And here I must
record, with the heartfelt gratitude of all Gregorians,
the name of Smythe. Poor and homeless, the remnant
of the scattered community of St. Gregory's reached
their native land to experience a warm and genuine wel
come from one of their old Douay students. Before the
monks had been imprisoned at Doullens, Prior Jerome
Sharrock had received a warm letter from Sir Edward
Smythe, written at the first rumours of difficulties, in
viting them to come and stay at his family seat of
Acton Burnell. Thither the monks made their way
upon their arrival in England ; and in a very brief time
they gathered together those who had preceded them,
and had settled down to their old life in their new sur
roundings. Their generous benefactor appeared unable to
do sufficient for his old masters and friends. He gave
up part of his mansion, and new buildings were soon
added for their school, which had been started at once
under the title of "Acton Burnell College." "Under
this good confessor for the faith, D. Jerome Sharrock,"
says a modern writer, " monastic observance began once
more to flourish on English soil, and until he died, in
1808, he spent himself in forming his community in
piety and learning. Humble and full of merit, he con
stantly refused the dignity of the episcopal office, which
was offered to him, for he loved more to work for the

278 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
good of his monastery, which was the very apple of
his eye."
And now comes Downside. Obviously the settlement
at Acton Burnell was but temporary. All felt that it
would be impossible to trespass upon the generosity of
the Smythe family for longer than was necessary, and
Father Richard Kendal, who had succeeded to the
priorship on the death of Father Sharrock, had been for
a long time on the look-out for a suitable spot in which
to settle. This was at length found; and on 25th March
1 8 14 Downside was purchased by Prior Kendal. Pro
vidence, however, did not destine the prior to see his
community settle at Downside, for on his return from
purchasing the estate he was taken ill, and died at
Wootton Wawen in Warwickshire. The name of Prior
Richard Kendal should ever be held in benediction by
all Gregorians. The six years of his priorship had been
one long struggle to gather together the ways and
means with which to establish his community in some
permanent home. He had no other thought but that of
serving his brethren. Whatever his right hand found to
do, he did it with all his might. In this he has set us
all an example of single-minded devotion to duty and
a determination to be faithful to our service, even to
the end.
It is obvious that St. Gregory's had to begin once
more to reconstruct everything. The catastrophe that
had befallen it in France left the community in great
financial difficulties, especially as, not so many years
before, much of its small capital had been expended on
the new buildings at Douay now entirely lost to it. If it
was able to meet the strain successfully, this was owing
to the care which had been expended upon the finances

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 279
of the house by three successive Gregorians, who lived
in London and acted as agents and procurators for their
monastery. Their names are, I am sure, well known to
all of us, but even for all that we owe to them their
names should find a mention in this celebration. The
first in order was Dom Placid Howard, of the Corby
branch of the family of that name. He so successfully
watched over the small funded moneys of his House,
during the period from 1738 to 1761, that it doubled
itself in his hands. He was succeeded by Father Bede
Bennet, who had been trained by him, and who for
well nigh forty years spared no pains to carry on this
work for his monastery. Father Bennet's memory is
kept alive amongst us by the yearly Masses we offer for
his soul, in recognition of all we, as a community, owe
to him. He died in 1800, and was succeeded in his
office by Father Michael Lorymer, who had been his
assistant for over ten years, and who continued, till in
turn he became old and infirm, in that zealous service for
his brethren of St. Gregory's. He was succeeded by one
whom many of us have known well — -Father Dunstan
Scot — the last of our London procurators. For all
these we should have a grateful memory and a prayer
to-day. Prior Kendal's death, on the eve of the departure of
the community of St. Gregory's from Acton Burnell to
Downside, was indeed a great blow, and it materially
added to the difficulties of the situation. Father Au
gustine Lawson was chosen his successor, and only a
month later, on 28th April 18 14 the monks and boys
left for their new home. Their leader was an old Maurist
monk and a former disciple of the great Montfaucon,
Dom Leveaux, who had made his home with the monks

28o THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
of St. Gregory's. Spending one night on the way, the
little band arrived at Downside on 29th April, to find
that their furniture and effects which were coming by
canal to Paulton had not yet arrived. What made it
worse was that the large bare house, which had been for
some time untenanted, was neither aired nor warmed,
nor prepared in any way for their coming. It speaks
highly, indeed, for the discipline and monastic observ
ance of those times, to hear that the Superior never
dreamed of allowing the inconveniences and difficulties
of those first days to be an excuse for any mitigation of
the rule. The ordinary routine of St. Gregory's as a
conventual establishment began at once; and from the
first hour choir was observed and studies at once com
menced, although even the books had not as yet arrived
at Downside.
For a moment let us go back in thought to 18 14, and
try to picture to ourselves the condition of Catholics
when Prior Lawson and his community took up their
abode here. This western ecclesiastical district dated
from the time of James II, and the Benedictine Bishop
Ellis of this House was the first Vicar Apostolic. It
comprised eight counties, together with North and South
Wales. It had few Catholics in the entire district; and,
at the time of which I speak, religion was said to be de
clining, and the number of Catholics yearly diminishing.
Indeed, it is described in a report at the beginning of the
nineteenth century, as having but few Catholics and
fewer priests. In 1815, the year after St. Gregory's was
settled here, an account sent to Rome states that in the
whole district there were but 5,500 Catholics, and only
forty-three priests in all, including those belonging to
this community. The position, too, of Catholics gener-

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 281
ally, was thought to be anything but secure at this time,
and there were many who held that repressive measures
against Papists were certain to be re-enacted in Parlia
ment, by which the Catholic body would be again
ground down with all the rigour of enforced penal enact
ments. The outlook, to say the least, was not satisfactory or
hopeful for the chances of a successful beginning for our
House. In these circumstances, and with the chance of
getting back our property at Douay, there were divided
counsels at St. Gregory's in the first years of its estab-
ment at Downside. Some of the community — and the
old men especially who had known and loved their old
home abroad, were for giving up their newly acquired
property at once and returning to France; the greater
part of the then existing community were, however, for
remaining in their own country. The weight and au
thority of General Chapter and of the President and his
advisers was on the side of those who desired to sell
Downside for what it would fetch, and cross the sea again
to their old house at Douay. In fact, an order was actually
given to that effect. By the providence of God, however,
the bulk of the conventuals stood firm in resolutely re
fusing to give up their new establishment at Downside.
Their attitude gave the time necessary for reflection, and
by the close of 18 16 the President was induced to rescind
his former order for their immediate return to Douay,
and the future of Downside was secured.
In 1 81 8 Father Lawson was succeeded as Prior by
Father Luke Bernard Barber, a young man, but one who
was destined to save St. Gregory's and to establish it on
a firm basis. Of him, therefore, we, who have enjoyed
the fruits of his early labours, should be ever mindful,

282 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
and should not forget him in our prayers. It had long
been evident that if the community hoped to prosper at
Downside, the building of a college and of a chapel must
be undertaken without delay. Prior Barber, with all
the vigour of youth, entered into the project, the first
stone of the building was laid on nth July 1820, and it
was opened three years later. For those days, Father
Barber's was a wonderful achievement, and to the boys
and community it was indeed the beginning of brighter
and happier times.
Two or three names among the monks in the com
munity in the time of Prior Barber claim our remem
brance and our gratitude for what they did for St.
Gregory's and to enhance its reputation. Let me first
name John Bede Polding. He had, indeed, finished his
studies and had joined the community when they were
yet at Acton Burnell, and in the first decade of their life
at Downside he may be said to have been the chief main
stay of their existence. As prefect in the new college,
and afterwards as novice master, he impressed his strong
character upon those he had under his charge. " It
would take long," writes one of his first novices fifty
years later — " It would take long to tell of the vigorous
vitality of that novitiate and of the work it accomplished
in your disciples. A stronger will brought ours into
action until we learnt to respond to each call of duty with
promptitude and to abide in peace when duty gave no
sign. Happy, thrice happy were those simple times, when
all around was edification — when the probations and
prunings that we underwent left no wound or sore, so
confident were we of their aim and intention." But even
amidst his cares at Downside, Father Bede Polding had
visions of a call to wider fields of missionary and apos-

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 283
tolic work. The summons came before he could be well
spared from Downside. In 1833 he was nominated to
the see of Madras; but on representations from the
community he was excused for the moment. It was but
for the moment, however; for almost immediately he
was made the first bishop of Australia. His labours
there justly entitle him to be accounted one of the
greatest and most apostolic missionaries of modern
times, and he enjoys the proud distinction of being the
father of the great Australian Church and the founder of
its hierarchy, of which he became the first head, as
Archbishop of Sydney.
Another of the younger monks to come from Acton
Burnell to Downside had already, in 1831, been con
secrated a bishop. This was William Placid Morris, who
was made Visitor-Apostolic of the Mauritius, in those
days a vast district now governed by more than fifty
prelates. In fact, he used to say that at one time he was
bishop of half the world. He retired in 1840, and as
Bishop of Troy, for many years he acted as practical
auxiliary to Cardinal Wiseman. He lies buried in yonder
chapel; and to him, in part at least, Downside is in
debted for its present monastic buildings, so that for this
alone he must be remembered in our present celebration
as one of our chief benefactors.
Connected with the names of Polding and Morris
comes to the mind the memory of Archbishop Ulla-
thorn, the Nestor of our restored English hierarchy.
Coming to Downside late in life, he was one of the five
youths who became Father Bede Polding's first novices
in 1814. Eight years later Father William Bernard
Ullathorne was sent by Bishop Morris to New South
Wales as his Vicar-General, for at that time the vast

284 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
continent of Australia, together with the Colonies at the
Cape, were ecclesiastically subject to the Bishop of the
Mauritius. What Father Ullathorne did in Australians
well known to all Gregorians, if not to the wider world,
for to him more than to any other man is due the
amelioration of the awful conditions under which our
convicts lived ; and subsequently, the abolition of trans
portation to Botany Bay altogether. In Father Ulla-
thorne's opinion, the appointment of a bishop was
necessary for Australia; and by his recommendation his
old novice master, to whose missionary zeal he could
testify, was, as I have just said, appointed. Of Bishop
Ullathorne's work in England I need say nothing. Most
of us have known him as one of the great ecclesiastics
of the Church in modern England. His was a real per
sonality; and there is no Gregorian, I am sure, who is
not proud to think that he was one of ourselves, and who
will not with prayers for his eternal rest, commemorate
his memory on this day, at which he would have so
much rejoiced, especially did he know that the outward
glory of this temple was but a sign of the inward spirit
of all those who worship here.
Once again at this time the call came to St. Gregory's
to give one more of her best sons for the work of the
episcopate. And indeed, it is at least remarkable, that
at a time when there was great need at home for workers
and capable leaders in this community, Alma Mater
never appears to have grudged, or to have repined at, the
claims that were made upon her. Bishop Thomas Joseph
Brown had been the first to take his vows at Downside.
He was a brilliant student, and became an indefatigible
teacher and a true tower of strength both in the mon
astery and in the school. He was deeply versed in

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 285
theology, and was accounted in his day a controversialist
of great power. After filling nearly every office in the
monastery, including, of course, the priorship, he was
appointed Vicar-Apostolic of the Western District in
1840. Ten years later, in the restored hierarchy, he be
came first bishop of Newport and Menevia, which see
he governed till his death in 1 880.
Again in 1848, Father Charles Henry Davis, who had
done and was then still doing good work at Downside,
was selected to be first bishop of Maitland in Australia.
He was a loss to Downside, but he did not live long in
his new sphere of action, dying prematurely in 1854.
Lastly, in this connection, let me recall to your memory
the name of Roger Bede Vaughan. He entered the
school here in the year 1850, and succeeded Father
Sweeney as Cathedral Prior of Belmont In 1873 ne
was consecrated as coadjutor to Archbishop Polding,
and followed him as Archbishop of Sydney in 1 877. His
death, as you will all remember, was sudden. He was
found dead in his bed the day after he arrived in Eng
land on a visit, 18th August 1883. His was, as so many
of us remember, a most captivating personality, and the
good he wrought in Australia will never be fully known.
His lectures were attended by vast crowds, such as have
never been gathered together in Sydney by any other
speaker; and a non-Catholic politician has declared that
there never was any one in the Australian continent to
possess so great an influence and power over the masses
as did Archbishop Vaughan. Many of us have known
him and loved him : let us not forget him in our prayers.
In the persons, then, of Archbishops Ullathorne, Pold
ing and Vaughan, and in that of Bishop Davis, the first
bishop of Maitland, St. Gregory's may justly claim to

286 THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE
have had the making and the founding of the great
Church of Australia in general, and of the Archiepiscopal
see of Sydney in particular. Besides those six archbishops
and bishops whom I have named, as having been called
almost in one generation to the episcopal office from the
ranks of the Gregorian community, three others may be
recorded as having been chosen, but who succeeded in es
caping the dignity and responsibilities. These are Father
James Jerome Sharrock, Father Luke Bernard Barber
and Father Peter Wilson, all of these being at the time
of their selection priors of St. Gregory's.
And now I must finish. Numbers of other names-
names of those who in later times have helped to build
up St. Gregory's, will of course suggest themselves to
you, as they do to me on a celebration such as this. But
thoughts of men like Abbots Sweeney, Smith and Ray-
nal, not to name others like Fathers Oswald Davis and
Placid de Paiva, are not so much memories to most of
us as present and abiding realities. We have come down,
indeed, to the times in which we ourselves have lived;
and which of us can forget those who have had an in
fluence over our own lives and have helped to make
us what we are?
What shall I say in conclusion? For three hundred
years St. Gregory's has existed in sunshine and in storm,
in sorrow and in prosperity. Its history speaks to us all
in the first place, and so clearly, of God's watchful Pro
vidence over our beloved House. Qui confidunt in
Domino sicut mons Sion. As hills were round about
Jerusalem to protect it, so the history of St. Gregory's
surely shows us that God has been the almost visible pro
tector of His servants ; and if He has brought us to see
the days of this solemn dedication of a church less un-

THE MAKERS OF ST. GREGORY'S, DOWNSIDE 287
worthy of the Majesty that is to dwell therein, may we
not think that we have here a pledge and an evidence
that we have not laboured in vain to build the house,
for the mighty God hath laboured with us. And the
past, as we hope and pray, is but the pledge of the
time to come. The work our forefathers were called
upon to do for God and His Church has most certainly
to be continued by us. It is a common work in which
we are all united, in which the least amongst us has his
share and part. It is a work of which the centre and
strength is here, and this monastic church is the symbol
of that strength of spirit by which alone all is to be
accomplished when the call comes. To all sooner or
later God's summons is given, and we should be but de
generate sons of an illustrious line of forefathers in reli
gion, if when our turn comes we are not found ready to
bear our part, and hand on the spirit — the unselfish,
single-minded spirit of St. Gregory's — to those who will
come after us. The need of workmen is not less at the
dawn of the new century than it has been in the past,
and it behoves us to be ready. It is to the example of
the makers of St. Gregory's in the past that we must
look for courage. If it be God's work it will succeed. To
God then let us look. " Praise ye the Lord our God who
hath not forsaken them that hope in Him" (Judith,
xiii, 17). To Him and His name alone be all glory and
praise for ever and ever. Amen.

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN1
FOR some time past the relations between the
French Government and the Pope have been
stretched to the breaking point. For the most part the
press has thrown the blame for the situation upon the
Vatican authorities, and has suggested that, with a new
Pope, unaccustomed to the ways of diplomacy, and with
a youthful and uncompromising Cardinal Secretary of
State as his chief adviser, nothing less could be expected
than that the Church in France would be precipitated
into a serious conflict with a government none too
friendly towards it at any time. The publication recently
of what is called The Vatican White Book, containing all
the official documents which have passed between Paris
and Rome on the questions at issue, has helped to
modify men's opinions as to the quarter which must be
held responsible for the acute tension which exists at
present. They have come to see that the assertions,
made by M. Combes and his followers, that the Pope
had deliberately chosen to break the agreement made
between Pius VII and the Emperor Napoleon in 1801,
by which the relations between Church and State were
to be regulated in France, were untrue in fact. To
1 An address given in the cathedral of St. Paul, Min., U.S.A., in
September 1904: in substance it formed the inaugural address at
the C. T. S. Conference at Liverpool in 1903.
288

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 289
understand, however, the real religious situation in
France it is necessary to recognise the principles at issue
between the French Government and the Vatican. To
grasp these effectively we must go back a long way —
even to the year 1789. Between religion and the world,
or, let us say, between the Church and the State, history
teaches us — even if we had not our Lord's own forecast
of the relations to be expected — that there must at
times arise difficulties more or less grave. Three solu
tions only of the relation between them are possible.
(1) There may be a national religion; (2) or a concordat
between the Holy See and the State; or (3) complete
separation. All these three solutions have been tried in
France since the year 1789.
The first — the nationalisation of the Church — was
tried in the revolutionary period of 1790-95, and of
course it failed utterly for obvious reasons. The civil
constitution of the clergy was drawn up in full accord
with the principles of the Revolution then in vogue.
France had professedly gone back to the pagan world
for its patterns and its models, and the official concep
tion of religion, derived therefrom, was that it was a
function of the State. There was to be a pontifex as
there was to be a consul, and the priest was to be a
moral officer, a preaching magistrate, a " fonctionnaire "
with a State licence and a State position, set apart to
work in the State department of religion. The scheme
failed, mainly because the designers took no account of the
fact that all real religion was essentially something apart
from the natural order. All history teaches us plainly
that religion must exist, and always has existed, only in
so far as it corresponds to a need of humanity which the
state has no power to satisfy. If in 1790 the Catholic
U

290 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
Church could have allowed itself to be absorbed into
the State in the way proposed, it would have lost its vital
principle. It would have ceased to be the Catholic Church.
" It would have ceased to be a faith, or indeed even a
thought or sentiment, and have become a mere fashion."
"From 1790 to 1795," says that acute writer and
eminent member of the Academie Francaise, M. Emile
Faguet, " the clergy and the constituents were entirely
wrong in their idea of a Church." They were wrong pre
cisely because they did not understand that religion has
to do with country and not with government, and that
the functions of the government are not the same as
those of " the country." The Catholic religion, precisely
because it is Catholic, is universal, and is the same re
ligion existing in all countries. It assumes national
characteristics, it is true, in different countries: it is
Spanish in Spain, English in England, Italian in Italy,
and American in the United States of America. It is,
however, the same religion in all countries for this rea
son : if it be Catholic, religion as religion can be fashioned
and formed by no government ; it cannot be cast in any
one stereotyped mould ; it can never be made into an
official department of any one State.
The third solution — separation of Church and State
— was tried in A.D. 1795. The idea had indeed always
been prominent during the period of the Revolution, but
when the actual separation came, the religious regime of
the Directoire lasted only two and a half years. After a
brief period for consideration and experiment, Napo
leon I in 1 801 entered into the Concordat with Pius VII,
about which we have lately heard much, and by which
the government of the Church in France is still regu
lated. Some such agreement between the Pope and the

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 291
temporal rulers of France was of course nothing new.
In one form or other, indeed, it had existed from the
time of the great Saint Louis. The treaty between
Francis I and Pope Leo X as to the government of the
Church in France, endeavoured to remove all ordinary
causes of friction by a careful and well-defined division
of the purely spiritual sphere from those temporal ad
juncts necessary to a Church endowed with great posses
sions. Even up to the eve of the Great Revolution this
method of solving difficulties which might arise between
Church and State was in force, and it was found in
practice to work well. In reality it is to the existence of
this ancient concordat that M. Hanotaux the statesman,
diplomatist, and historian, attributes the fact that France
was saved to the Catholic Church in the sixteenth
century, when the great religious revolt of the Reforma
tion involved so many other countries.
In coming to his agreement with the Holy See about
the government of the Church in 1801, Napoleon was
certainly not actuated by any love for the religion of
his country. To him it was a mere matter of State
politics. It was pressingly necessary, for instance, to
wipe out that great debt which the nation owed to the
Church on account of the confiscations of ecclesiastical
property in the Revolution. This settlement required
the Pope's direct sanction, and the writing-off, or remis
sion of the greater part of this amount was the price paid
by the Church for that measure of protection to religion,
secured by the Concordat. It must be remembered that
the guaranteed, though slender, stipends promised to be
paid to the clergy by the State formed but a small frac
tion of the old ecclesiastical revenues. Napoleon, too,
thought he saw in the Concordat a means of riveting on

292 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
the hands of the priests the chains which already bound
them to the government and fettered their freedom of
action. Had he been dealing with any human institution
this crafty plan for keeping the Church in servitude
would in all probability have succeeded. Looking back,
however, over the century that has passed, it must strike
any reflecting mind how wonderful has been the action
and progress of the Church of France in spite of its
legalised bonds. Napoleon hoped to find in the clergy
so governed, hampered in their action, and kept inten
tionally in practical poverty, what he called his "gen
darmerie spirituelle " — his moral policemen — whose duty
and whose interest it would be to support his new im
perial throne. And certainly the Church of France
during the nineteenth century, in ceasing to be rich, in
being kept dependent upon the miserable State stipends
allotted to the clergy, has indeed lost much of its free
dom. Its clergy indeed would have become — or let us
say might have become — the mere functionaries of the
government, which Napoleon had looked for, but for the
fact that for spiritual purposes they had in Rome and
the Pope a rallying point, outside the limits of their
own kingdom. As the direct, though unforeseen, result
of Napoleon's policy they, in fact, became more and
more part of the great cosmopolitan body of the Church
Catholic. Their very servitude and their poverty are at
least sufficient to account for this most significant fact —
that the very name " Gallican Church " has now become
obsolete, and has passed into the domain of the eccle
siastical archaeologist.
Whether under the Empire, the Monarchy, or the Re
public, the great Church of France during the nineteenth
century has done its duties as well, and as conscientiously,

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 293
as before the Revolution. Its work, however, has not
been accomplished in peace. At times the Church has
had to fight for the very principles of its existence, as it
will now again have to do with vigour and determination.
The Church of Christ has always claimed, and will always
claim, liberty to speak, to write, and to teach. In no
other way could it fulfil its divine mission. It could not
help doing this: and in so acting it necessarily defied
the omnipotence claimed by the State, whenever it en
deavoured to stop its freedom of action in all such
matters as pertained to its spiritual mission. In one
thing, for instance, its protests and struggles were neces
sary for its very life, and at times this brought about
great conflicts in the first half of the last century.
" Liberty of association," about which we have heard so
much during the past years, did not really exist in a
legal sense in France, and the Church's action was
greatly hampered by this. " Association," says a great
French writer, who is not a Catholic, " is the form and
indeed the essence of the Church's life. By definition,
and etymology even, the Church is an association." The
Church in France existed indeed legally as a body, but
in the view and theory of the secular government it ex
isted merely as a body of officials belonging to one ad
ministration regulated by the State. No association,
whether for spreading the faith, for promoting good
works, for purposes even of edification or teaching, was
contemplated by the law, although the Church never
ceased for a moment to vindicate for herself and to claim
this liberty " as essential to her development, her life and
her very existence." Beyond this the clergy claimed full
liberty to teach. Why should they not do so? As citizens,
priests, according to every principle of freedom and

294 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
justice, would seem to have equal rights with every son
of France; and as clergy, they demanded for Christian
parents the right to have their children taught as they
would desire. The State, however, put forward a claim
to manage and control the education of its citizens ; and
then came the conflict. The Church, of course, resisted
the demand of the State to be the sole educator, first,
by resting on claims of freedom, the " Declaration of
the rights of man," and the first principles of citizen
ship, and then by demanding to be treated according
to these principles of liberty. In 1849, after much con
flict, the Church won for herself the right of teaching
her sons; or rather the vote of the people gave it to
her, and it is this liberty to teach which has been
already partially denied to her, and which we to-day
see wholly threatened by the open foes of religion, on
the specious pretext that to allow the Church to teach
is to place too much political power in her hands. But,
whatever may be the outcry raised on this point, it is at
least interesting to note that the present state of political
power in France hardly seems to show that the Church
has, through education, possessed herself of much undue
influence, during the half century she has been occupied
as the chief instructor of the nation.
We may now turn to the situation of the religious
Orders in France, and to a consideration of the legal
status which they possessed since the Concordat of 1 801
and until recent times. It has been frequently asserted
that in the agreement made by Napoleon with the Pope
the religious Orders were purposely excluded. It is, in
deed, true that in the days of the French Revolution, by
the legislation of 1789 and subsequent years, the French
religious Congregations were suppressed, and also that

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 295
they are not specifically mentioned in the restoration
of religion under the Concordat. But it has been
shown conclusively by the Comte de Mun that they
are really included in the first articles of that treaty
between the Pope and the Emperor, which guarantees
the "full and free exercise of the Roman Catholic,
Apostolic religion." How can there be a " full and free
exercise" of the Catholic religion when the regular or re
ligious life is prohibited and excluded? Is not the regular
life, though, perhaps, not absolutely necessary to the
essence of the Christian faith, certainly an integral part
of its full development? Will anyone be found to deny
this? Moreover, the work of the Comte Boulay de la
Meurthe on la negociation du Concordat, makes it certain
that the Pope especially desired and strongly urged that
the case of the religious Orders should be expressly men
tioned in the document, and that the First Consul (i.e.,
Napoleon) was unwilling to include them, not because
they were thought to be prohibited, but precisely because
he desired that they should be regarded as purely reli
gious societies, not needing State recognition and de
pending for their creation and regulation upon " a Brief
(of the Sovereign Pontiff) should he deem it expedient."
If other proof were wanting that the Concordat in no
way contemplated the suppression of the regular Orders
or their prohibition, we should still have the fact that in
spite of the laws of 1789, 1790, and of 1792; in spite of
the silence of the Concordat; even in spite of Article XI
of the Organic Articles, which were no part of the Con
cordat, the religious congregations had already appeared
in France three or four years before the date of the Con
cordat. Houses, convents, schools, and hospitals had
been opened by religious not merely in secret, not merely

296 KKANCE AND THE VATICAN
with the tacit recognition of the Government, but with
the direct approval and encouragement of the State. " I
ask of any man of good faith," writes M. de Mun,
" whether in the face of these facts it is possible to pre
tend that the silence of the Concordat can be inter
preted as meaning the suppression of the religious con
gregations." From the time of the reconstruction of social order
under Napoleon as Consul, for many years, and probably
for half a century, it was, however, considered useful for
religious Congregations to secure the protection of the
State by obtaining authorisation under some Ordon-
nance, or patent, issued by the existing civil authority.
In this way, whether under the Empire, the Monarchy,
or the Republic, large numbers of religious houses and
Congregations became known as authorised. Side by
side with these, however, there grew up other bodies
which did not desire or indeed ask for State recognition.
The tendency certainly has been for these latter — the
unauthorised bodies — to increase in number, especially
since 1877, and in consequence of the uncertainty which
followed the Ferry Laws of 1880. It has been suggested,
and, at least in the British press, it has been frequently
asserted as incontrovertible, or what is the same, assumed
as self evident, that the existence of the non-authorised
religious bodies (which were in 1900 even more numerous
than the authorised Congregations) was undoubtedly
illegal and prohibited by the law of the land. This is a
completely wrong view of their position. The laws of
1817 and 1825 required authorisation only in the case of
bodies which desired to obtain State recognition, in
order to secure advantages which come from the posses
sion of the civil personality secured by a legal existence

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 297
as recognised corporations. Until the recent law of 190 1
the non-authorised Congregations, though not recognised
by the State, were not in any way illicit or illegal. It is
necessary to bear this in mind, because it has been the
policy of M. Combes to suggest the opposite, and to en
deavour to rob the Congregations of the sympathy of
law-abiding people, by representing them as rebels and
law-breakers who did not dare to place themselves in
relation with the State. " It cannot be too often re
peated," says the Comte de Mun, "that until 1st July
1 901, the non-recognised Congregations were within their
rights (in remaining non -authorised) ; their existence
was licit though they could claim no civil personality
or advantage as corporations acknowledged by the
law." Authorisation, then, gave to the religious houses that
possessed it merely a legal status, and it was M. Waldeck-
Rousseau's professed wish by his Bill of 1901 to extend
to all religious the opportunity to regularise their posi
tion — that is, to obtain civil recognition. He was anxious
— if we may accept his reiterated expressions — whilst
making unauthorised Congregations henceforth illegal in
France, to extend the approval of the State to all reli
gious bodies applying for it, and complying with certain
formal conditions, such as making a general statement
of the ends and object of their institutions, and of the
extent of their property and means of support.
Better informed, no doubt, as to the real intentions of
the party possessing power in France than those who
relied upon the words of M. Waldeck-Rousseau and on his
reiterated assertions that the object of his Bill was not
to destroy the Orders, but to afford them a legal position
in the State, some religious bodies found refuge and

298 rKAJNUH. AND THE VATICAN
freedom in other countries to serve God in religion.
They preferred expatriation— which means so much to
the sons of fair France — to those greater evils that might
perhaps befall them if they asked for an authorisation
which they foresaw would certainly be denied them by
the avowed enemies of religion. Many, even among
Catholics, at the time thought those who thus early gave
up the struggle to vindicate the right of every free man
to serve God in religious life, were ill advised, and that
the future would prove them to have read the signs of
the times wrongly. Unfortunately this has not been the
case ; but the fate of those monks and nuns who, with
full faith and trust in the honesty of M. Waldeck-Rous-
seau, made their applications for authorisation, has shown
how little honesty, or justice, or fair dealing remains
to-day in the Government of France.
Of those religious that remained, fifty-four Congrega
tions of men and a great number of Congregations of wo
men (said to comprise in all some six thousand houses)
sent in their applications for recognition. Most of these
had long been established on the soil of France, and could
show a good record of work done for God and their
country. A great many, for three-quarters of a century,
had openly carried out the purposes for which they were
established without let or hindrance; they had been in
constant and official communication with the depart
ments of State in regard to their work, and they had
enjoyed the confidence and respect of the public authori
ties in the places where their good works were carried on.
They came in all good faith to the French Assembly to
submit to the new regulations, and to ask for the authori
sation now for the first time required by the new law.
The case of some was peculiar. Their submission to

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 299
the law was really the result of a scrupulous wish to obey
the State, and they asked for authorisation, not because
they thought they needed it, or that they did not in fact
possess it; it was the natural result of the exact advice
given by M. Waldeck-Rousseau to the religious Congre
gations of Savoy, 28th June 1901. " I think," he said,
"that it would be prudent for them, as indeed for all who
are in any peculiar condition, to ask for the authorisation
which will insure them against every kind of risk." May
I take as an example the case of the College Anglais, at
Douai, in the north of France. The English Benedictine
monks had carried on an English college there, for more
than three-quarters of a century. The property was
British, and had been almost continuously in possession
of the monks since the beginning of the seventeenth
century. In the Reign of Terror of the French Revo
lution its property had been respected as that of English
subjects, and even when in that terrible time French
religious houses were dissolved and their goods confis
cated it was spared until the outbreak of war between
England and France, when it was seized, not because
the monks were monks, but because they were English.1
On the restoration of the property after the " Treaty of
Paris," the recovered property was administered by a
bureau in the capital, as British property; and the
students were, since 1826, appointed to the various
burses or scholarships established in the College with
the full knowledge and approbation of the French
Minister of the Interior. The existence of the College
was thus constantly brought before the officers of the
State and received their official sanction ; and these con
stant dealings with them would, it might be supposed,
1 See Appendix, p. 318.

300 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
have alone Constituted an authorisation in itself. More
over, not so; many years ago it was necessary to obtain a
lease of the buildings at Douai from the bureau for the
purpose of? carrying on the school, purchasing a play
ground anil modernising the entire establishment. This
lease was approved and signed by the President of
the Republic, M. Carnot, and by the Ministers of Public
Instruction and of the Interior. On the faith of this docu
ment, which they naturally supposed pledged the French
Government and nation, they spent large sums of money
— not less than twenty-five thousand pounds — on im
provements of various kinds. As theirs was in some
way considered a special position, it was thought pru
dent to take the advice of M. Waldeck-Rousseau, and
to apply for the "authorisation which would insure (them)
against all risk." Personally, I will confess it, I never
imagined that this application was more than a mere
matter of form, and that in due course they would re
ceive the authorisation. The result was that their appli
cation was not even considered. They were executed
with the rest en bloc, and the first intimation that they
really received of their fate was the appearance of the
liquidator at the English college gates, who proceeded
at once to the seizure of their goods and chattels, though
they were British subjects. To-day the actual state of the
case is that in spite of the State lease, which has yet
many years to run, their property has been sold, their
improvements confiscated, and their movable goods put
up to public auction. They themselves have not received
one farthjing of compensation, though every penny spent
was realljy British money.
The wnole process of the suppression of the religious
Orders "\x\ France has been equally arbitrary and unjust,

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 301
for Douai is but a sample of an immense number of
religious houses. M. Combes arranged things as he
pleased by a sic volo sicjubeo. Just as it pleased him by
a stroke of the pen to close four thousand free schools,
so it pleased him, in assigning to the Senate and the
Chamber of Deputies the demands for authorisation
(which were to be divided between them), to hand six to
the former, which would have regarded the applications
from a more just standpoint, and fifty-four to the latter.
The accompanying suggestion sent to the Chamber of
Deputies, for the rejection of all of them " en bloc " was
agreed to without difficulty or delay, and the " right of
control of the Senate," which exists theoretically accord
ing to the Constitution of the Republic, was in this case,
and by this Parliamentary coup d'e'tat, ignored. The
matter was made simplicity itself by the action of M.
Rabier, the " reporter " of the measure before the Cham
ber of Deputies. "Of what use is it," he asked in sub
stance, "to discuss the ends and objects of the Congre
gations who have asked for authorisation. We have no
call to judge them as we do not mean to authorise them.
Our intention is to condemn them and to refuse their
application, and so to destroy them under the new law."
Such was the view taken by M. Combes' majority; and
thus all those who at M. Waldeck-Rousseau's invitation
and on his explicit advice had presented themselves for
"regularisation," found their petitions rudely dismissed
without consideration. M. Waldeck-Rousseau, the ori
ginator of this law, has lately died, but not before he had
uttered his protest in the Senate and elsewhere against
the work of the Combes Ministry. In the Chamber and
in the -Senate in 1901 he defended his law on the sole
ground that authorisation would be granted or refu.sed

302 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
on the merits of each case, and he rejected indignantly
an amendment which proposed the suppression of all
existing non-authorised Congregations. In the Senate,
in reply to a suggestion that there was a parti pris, that
the whole matter had been arranged beforehand, and
that by the brute force of a majority the Orders would
be condemned, precisely because they were Orders, M.
Waldeck-Rousseau exclaimed : "As to saying that Parlia
ment will not grant authorisation, in my opinion this is
to make short work of its functions. Can you believe
that the French Chambers, in face of honest statutes
showing openly a reasonable, philanthropic end, or one
of social interest, will be animated by any absolute parti
pris and will say : ' This is a Congregation, we refuse it
authorisation.' "
M.Waldeck- Rousseau's speeches also, that were posted
up in every commune of France, bear witness to his
personal pledges in this matter, and to his reiterated
promises in regard to authorisation. The electors of
France, on the strength of his declarations, were assured
again and again by candidates soliciting their votes, that
the Government had no thought of suppressing the reli
gious Congregations in France, and that it was in fact
pledged to authorise those that would merely obey the
new law and take the necessary steps to regulate their
position. It is a complete misrepresentation to say, as
so many journals have done, that M. Combes was re
turned to power with a large majority on purpose to
decree the abolition of the religious orders, and that in
refusing to grant the authorisation asked by them he was
merely carrying out the mandate he had received from
the country. This issue was never before the electorate
at all ; on the contrary, in every part of France the voters

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 303
had before their eyes, in the bills posted up by the
authority of the Parliament, M. Waldeck-Rousseau's
own distinct promises in regard to authorisation, and his
indignant denials that any measure of suppression was
intended ; and if they could have had any doubts upon
the matter at all, these were set at rest by the same
pledges given by those who sought their suffrages.
In an eloquent passage of his pamphlet on the situa
tion, M. le Comte de Mun describes the unfortunate re
sult of this complete confidence in the justice and honest
dealing of M. Waldeck-Rousseau and his successor, M.
Combes. " The flood (let loose by the former) is passing
on its way, sweeping all religious men and women before
it along the obscure paths of proscription, confiscation
and exile, in which those others, whom the first blast of
the tempest had uprooted, had already preceded them.
It is really a vast multitude of innocent victims that we
see; a crowd of men of all ages guilty only of being
faithful to the name they bear and to the religious habit
that clothes them. They are there — fifteen or twenty
thousand of them — men who up to the last moment
were occupied only in serving their God, in praying to
Him, in teaching His law, in educating the children of
the people, in serving the sick and visiting the poor, or
in spreading abroad in every land under the heavens the
name of Jesus Christ and that of France."
Then come the nuns. Already the refusal of author
isation has come upon them as upon their brethren in
religion. Thousands of poor unfortunate ladies have
been turned adrift into the world, whose only fault is that
they have associated together to serve God in prayer
and by their good works. Thousands of them have
grown old in the cloister, and they are thus unfitted to

304 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
begin life again in the world. Most of them are neces
sarily poor and quite unable to support themselves by
their work in any new sphere, still less are they able to
begin life afresh in any new country where they can en
joy that liberty to serve God which is now denied them
in their own, What is before these ladies no man can
tell, and already we hear of nuns whose only course has
been to ask dispensation from their religious vows and
to seek for the necessaries of life by taking up the work of
domestic servants, or of serving as shop-women behind
the counters of Parisian millinery establishments.
Even when by the force of the law monasteries or
convents have been closed, the Congregations dissolved
and the inmates dismissed, the unfortunate religious has
not unfrequently found himself still under the iron heel
of the law. If he preach or lecture after his secularisa
tion, which as a priest he has surely a right to do, he
can be prosecuted as recalcitrant and punished. By M.
Combes' circular of April 1903 the Bishops of France
were directed not to allow ex-religious to use the pulpits
of the churches in their respective dioceses, and their
refusal to be bound by such an arbitrary exercise of
authority has been in certain cases punished by the sus
pension of their very inadequate salaries. In one case
with which I am acquainted, two secularised religious
were received out of charity by the Superior of a dio
cesan college as assistant teachers. Immediately the
college itself was closed by orders received from Paris.
In another instance, two ladies of one family, after ob
taining a dispensation from their vows, went home to
their father's house. Here they incautiously kept up
their pious practices and began to busy themselves in
works of charity, and this becoming known, they received

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 305
a visit from a commissary of Police, who informed them
that two ex-religious living together were regarded as
forming a " Congregation," and that this was against
the law.
Hundreds of other instances could be given of the
harsh and deliberately cruel treatment which has been
meted out to the members of the dissolved Congregations.
Taking the figures given by M. Waldeck-Rousseau in
the debates of 1901 as correct, there were some 75,000
religious to be dealt with in the category of non-
authorised Congregations; and M. Combes is said to
have received applications for authorisation for 12,800
houses. But matters have not stopped here. Religious
life in France is now doomed to destruction. A new law
absolutely forbids religious to exercise the profession of
teaching for which previously they had been authorised.
The Government does not consider previous authorisa
tion by the State as anything more than an approval,
accorded for a period. What the State has once approved
and authorised, says M. Combes, it can at some future
time, if it thinks proper, declare to be non-a.uthorised. It
has been thought proper; and the members of the
authorised bodies, numbering some 55,000 religious, are
now practically added to the list of the proscribed ; and
this means that their property will be seized by the
State, and that they will be cast out into the world. The
other day, the 1st of October, was the date when 750
schools taught by the Christian Brothers, 1,054 schools
for girls taught by religious women, and nearly 600
orphanages where the waifs and strays of the country
were supported by the Christian charity of the faithful
and tended by the devoted care of the Sisters, were to be
closed, and the remaining institutions, in number hardly

306 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
less than 2,000, are doomed to extinction at the will of
the Government.
Nor, we may be sure, will this be the last act in the
tragedy now being enacted before our eyes in France.
Already it has been made clear, even to those who
might have any doubt previously about M. Combes'
object, that the suppression of the religious Orders is
merely an incident in a general campaign against the
Catholic Church. The two circulars addressed to the
bishops of France in April 1903 directing them what
preachers they were to employ in their pulpits, and
ordering them to close all churches and places of pil
grimage which were not strictly parochial, are in them
selves plain indications of the lengths to which M. Combes
is prepared to go; the almost universal refusals of the
bishops to obey these mandates is, however, proof that
they understand the situation in the same way, and are
ready to suffer any pains and penalties rather than be
unfaithful to the duties of their sacred charge. What
possible explanation, too, can be given of M. Combes
prohibition to the priests of Brittany and to those of the
Basque provinces to give religious instruction to the
children of their parishes in their native language, or to
preach, save in the French tongue, except that he desired
to put a stop to religious teaching of all kinds, seeing
that multitudes of the parents and children in these dis
tricts only understand the Breton or the Basque lan
guage? The words of the Bishop of Orleans, addressed
last year on 24th March to the religious of his diocese,
represent no more than the truth. He advised them to
remain at their posts and keep open their schools, their
refuges for the sick and aged, their creches for infants
and their private hospitals, until they were turned out

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 307
by force. " Reverend Mother," he said, " the object of
attack by the decrees against the Congregations is not
you and your communities, but God Himself. It is im
possible now to make a mistake on this point. It is
against God and Christianity that all this persecution is
directed. It is not because the Sisters of St. Vincent de
Paul wear a gray dress — it is not because Sacre Cceur
nuns wear a black one, that they are being driven from
the teaching profession. The reason, and the only reason,
is that you all, Sisters and nuns alike, teach the Christian
faith. God is the enemy. God is to be exiled from the
soul of the young child. ... It is not difficult to foresee
what the future conduct of our present masters will be.
Yesterday they drove out those religious Orders who did
not ask for authorisation. To-day they are driving out
those who did solicit it. To-morrow they will close all
the teaching establishments which are at present author
ised. The day after they will close the central houses,
the maisons meres, whither they are now forcing you to
go. The Congregations of France must understand that,
so long as the present state of things continues in the
political world, their case is prejudged and hopeless,
and that they must endure much desolation and bitter
trial." Since the Bishop wrote those words events have justi
fied his forecast. M. Combes is carried along on the
flood he has let loose. There were, indeed, some indica
tions that even he, like the real originator of the mischief,
M. Waldeck-Rousseau, would have wished to pause in
his career of destruction, and temporarily at least to
close down the flood-gates. The very financial condition
of the country should be sufficient to make him as a poli
tician desirous not to add to its burdens. Having already

308 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
to face large annual deficits in the revenue of the country,
it is hard to understand how any statesman can con
template the additional expenditure necessitated by the
suppression of schools, and hospitals, and asylums which
the religious had supported. An immediate expenditure
of over £1,000,000 for the building of schools; of more
than £190,000 for fitting them up; and of something
like half a million yearly for the payment of new
teachers, is the official calculation of what M. Combes'
policy in regard to schools is going to cost the nation.
Then, it has been stated on authority that there are
at least 250,000 old and infirm people, who have been
hitherto supported by the charity, clothed by the
charity, served by the charity, of the religious. These
can hardly be left to starve on the roads and in the
fields of fair France. What will they cost the nation
annually? What is the least? Shall we say £10 a
head? Even then we have a yearly expenditure of
£2,500,000 and no provision made for sheltering them.
Nothing less than madness — a senseless hatred of re
ligion — could have initiated so suicidal a policy when it
is obvious to the most superficial observer that the public
revenue, in spite of the high rate of taxation, does not
nearly suffice to meet the current and necessary expen
diture. And yet this is only the beginning. Beyond the
mere monetary question there is also the serious doubt
raised by competent men as to the possibility of the
Government being able to furnish proper teaching in
secondary schools to replace the professors they have
exiled. M. Brunetiere in the Revue des Deux Monies
stated his belief that the persecuting policy of the
Government will cost some millions of francs for second
ary education. As for primary education, M. Combes'

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 309
law destroys some 1,650 schools, and the teaching
brothers alone instructed some 300,000 children. M.
Ferdinand Buisson, an authority well known and recog
nised in France, considers that a grave peril to the State
has thus been created, by the necessary appointment of
inexperienced, ill-educated, and untrained teachers to
take the posts rendered vacant by the present policy of
the Government.
But the grave injury inflicted upon the State by the
laws against the Congregations is not our concern as
foreigners. We are interested, of course, only or mainly
in the religious side of the question, and the other matter
is important only as showing how the Government, with
full knowledge of the cost, determined to persevere in
its work of destruction, and is thus revealing its animus
and its real motives. It was obvious enough in the de
bates which accompanied the passing and the execution
of the law. " Whether just or unjust, whether it will
be costly and even ruinous to the nation," they appear
to say, " we will have the law of suppression proclaimed
by the ' bloc ' which supports M. Combes." What is it
that impels them? Can there be any doubt whatever?
It is passion, and it is hatred ; and hatred not merely
of the religious life, but hatred of the Catholic re
ligion, of Christianity; and even apparently hatred of
God Himself. It is the spirit of M. Paul Bert — for
gotten though he may now be, but triumphant and in
activity. It was, of course, impossible that matters could rest
long where the dissolution of the religious Congregations
had left it. Pope Leo XIII has seen in sorrow, but in
silence, the action of the French Government in repres
sing the religious life in France. For fear of greater

310 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
evils which might have befallen the Church in that
country, the Pontiff's voice had not been raised in pro
test. The dominant party in the State, however, were
not content with their success in the campaign against
religion, and clamoured for the abrogation of the Con
cordat between France and the Vatican, which for a
century had regulated the relation of Church and State.
M. de Pressense, an eminent member of the Senate,
even drafted a Bill for its abolition. What this would
mean to religion in the country we are not called upon
to discuss. I mention it merely to show that long before
the late incidents which led to the withdrawal of the
French Ambassador from the Vatican, the abolition of
the Concordat was already being discussed in Paris as a
measure of practical politics, and as an item in the pro
gramme of the Government. " A decent pretext," which
I believe is the phrase used on such occasions, was all
that was needed to precipitate the conflict. This was
found, first in the protest made by Pius X against the
visit of M. Loubet to Rome, which was seized upon by
the irreligious section in Rome as a fitting opportunity
to insult the Pope in his own city, and now, the other
day, by the Pope's action in calling to Rome two of the
French bishops to answer to certain charges which had
been made against them as regards the administration
of their spiritual functions.
The last offence of the Pope and his Secretary of State
was loudly proclaimed as a manifest breach of the Con
cordat. The cry was taken up without consideration,
and it is still repeated in the press of America, as well
as in that of England and other European lands. In an
interview with M. Combes, which one of the leading
New York papers lately published, the fact that the Pope

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 311
had broken the Concordat is stated over and over again.
Last week, in an article on Church and State in France,
printed in the pages of a widely read journal, were state
ments about the Pope's " recent assumption of the right
to revoke at will the French bishops, regardless of the
Concordat!' What are the real facts? It cannot be too
widely known that there is nothing whatsoever in that
famous treaty between Napoleon and Pius VII — called
the Concordat — which prohibits the Pope from dealing
directly with any individual bishop. It is surely a matter
of common sense. How is it possible to conceive for one
moment that any Pope could have surrendered the
exercise of his spiritual functions in governing the Church
in the way suggested by M. Combes? How could the
supreme spiritual authority govern subjects who have
taken an oath to obey him in all matters spiritual, if he
had his hands fettered by such a compact with temporal
authority, as the present French rulers would have the
world believe? It is obvious that no Pope, even when
constrained by overwhelming necessity, or to purchase
any advantage whatever, could sign away so necessary a
power in the administration of the Church of Christ. As
a matter of fact, no such claim to fetter the papal au
thority over the French bishops was ever put forward
by Napoleon or by his agents during the negotiations
for the Concordat, nor was any such restriction introduced
into the celebrated Convention agreed to between the
Pope and the Emperor of the French.
It is indeed true that subsequently certain additions
known as the Articles Organiques were made in France
to the provisions of the Concordat. These may be taken
to cover the point raised by M. Combes' Government ;
but these form no part of the Concordat itself. The

312 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
Popes from Pius VII to Pius X have never for a single
moment accepted these articles, which were originally
framed solely by the French authorities, without the
knowledge or sanction of the Church, and were directed
against the free action of her organisation. M. Emile
Ollivier, in his Manuel de droit Ecclesiastique, says that
no bishop, priest, or instructed Catholic layman ever
attributed the least value to these Articles Organiques.
They were mere State police acts, and at the time of
their first issue Pius VII declared that these new pro
visions formed no part of his agreement with the French
Government: that this argument was embodied in the
provisions of the Concordat only, and that these appended
Articles were altogether " unknown to him."
If as a fact, when no principle was involved directly,
the ecclesiastical authority has bowed to necessity and
carried out the spirit of the Organic Articles, it is be
cause during the years of their existence they have been
administered, on the whole, with moderation, and by
statesmen who, even though not Catholics themselves,
were gentlemen, and sincerely anxious for the welfare of
the Church itself. But with a hostile — not to say irre
ligious — Government in power, and with officials whose
policy is plainly, if not frankly, directed against the
religion of the majority of Frenchmen, it has been long
obvious that the rupture which has now taken place was
inevitable. The Cardinal Secretary of State, in one of the
letters on this matter published in the Vatican White
Book, points out that the very acts now complained of
by M. Combes as forming a breach of the Concordat by
the present Pope, have previously been admitted without
difficulty when it was to the interest of the secular power
to assist the ecclesiastical authorities in the right govern-

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 313
ment of the Church in France. It is abundantly clear
that, if the Popes seem hitherto tacitly to have acquiesced
in the terms of the Organic Articles, at the same time
they have never recognised them as binding. The Con
cordat alone have they admitted as a treaty, and its pro
visions alone they have regarded themselves as pledged
to respect. This being so, it is entirely to misrepresent
the true facts of the case to declare that by the acts of
Pius X, or by those of his Secretary of State, either the
letter or the spirit of the Concordat has been broken.
M. Combes and his followers are so anxious to see the
Concordat set aside, and yet so unwilling to appear as
the culprits themselves, that they do not stop to inquire
into the truth of their statements. They appear also to
forget that by their whole policy against religion in
France they appear, to outsiders, to have set aside the
very first of the articles of the Concordat itself, which
secures to all the full and free exercise of the Roman
Catholic religion.

3i4 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN

APPENDIX
THE ENGLISH BENEDICTINE PROPERTY IN
FRANCE
A STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. — Before the French Revolution
i. In the first quarter of the seventeenth century English
Benedictine houses were established on the Continent at
Douai, Dieulouard in Lorraine, St. Malo in Brittany, and at
Paris. They were intended for the reception of English mem
bers of the Order, and to assist in educating youths whose
parents were compelled, by the penal laws against Catholics
then in force, to seek abroad for their children an education
in accord with their religious principles, which could not be
obtained in England.
2. These English Benedictine houses received the approval
of the State authorities, and were in the beginning materially
assisted by royal and other foreign benefactors. During the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries three of these establish
ments, those of Douai, Dieulouard and Paris, were developed
and supported, and considerable buildings, etc., were erected,
through the generous assistance of English Catholics, and by
funds contributed to them by English members of the Order.
3. At the close of the eighteenth century these establish
ments were regarded in France as English — the creation of
English enterprise and English capital. They were carried on
by Englishmen, afforded education to English children, and
were supported by English money. Neither the members nor
superiors were ever bound by an oath or promise of allegiance
to France, and the places were in fact isolated English estab
lishments existing on French soil.
4. When the French religious establishments and colleges

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 315
were suppressed by the State in 1789, the English houses
were suffered to remain, on the ground that they were foreign
properties, and, as English establishments, they did not come
under the law which declared all French ecclesiastical property
to be national.
5. In 1791 the law regarding French religious establish
ments was applied to Douai, and the student-monks of the
College of St. Vaast, which belonged to the Abbey at Arras,
were sent away, whilst those of St. Gregory's, which adjoined
the College of St. Vaast, who made use of the same church,
were left undisturbed in their possessions as British subjects,
by virtue of a law passed on 28th October and confirmed by
the King on 7th November 1 790.
6. The reasons given for exempting the English establish
ments from the operations of the law which destroyed the
French houses are stated in the Rapport made by M. Chassey
to the National Assembly on Thursday, 28th October 1790.
In this Rapport the following points should be noted as show
ing how fully the Benedictine establishments, amongst others,
were acknowledged as British.
(a) L'Institut de ces maisons ne permet d'y recevoir que
des personnes de la meme nation, et les maisons religieuses
sontcomme celles seculieres, destinies a V education et d I'enseigne-
ment des enfans des Catholiques des trois royaumes ; separ£-
ment les Pretres seculiers et reguliers y font, en outre, des
missions continuelles.
(b) Des Religieux et Religieuses vinrent demander asile
aux Rois qui gouvernoient ces deux pays ; ils leur accorderent
protection et quelques legers secours momentan^s ; mais ces
maisons firent tous les frais de leurs etablissemens ;
avec I 'argent qu'elles apportirent elles acheterent des em-
placemens. D'autres secours de leurs compatriotes les ont
aide a construire, et les rentes qui forment la majeure partie
de leurs biens, ont ete constitutes de leurs propres denier s,
ou de ceux des Catholiques anglais, qui les soutenoient dans
la persecution qu'elles essuyoient.

316 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
(c) Les Benddictins anglais sont cre"anciers de differentes
maisons religieuses franchises, d'un capital exigible de 103,500
livres, produisant interet a 4 pour 100. ... Ce revenu (2.1?.,
of all the English establishments) seroit insuffisant pour faire
subsister tant de personnes, si elles n'avoient pour ressources
les bienfaits qu'elles retirent de leur nation. Tous cependant
demandent que PAssemble'e nationale les conserve, sans autre
revenu que ceux qu'ils retirent des acquisitions ou des place-
mens qu'ils ont faits de leurs deniers ou de ceux de leurs com-
patriotes. (d) The two important questions proposed by M. Chassey
to the Assembly were:
i°. Devez-vous conserver dans le sein de la France des
Etablissemens Strangers?
20 Devez-vous leur laisser des biens qui leur sont
propres? (e) His conclusions, in asking the Assembly to vote in the
affirmative to both questions, are thus stated:
Tant de raisons vous decideront done a conserver dans le sein
de la France des Etablissemens qui n'ont pour objet que I'en-
seignement aVune portion des citoyens d'une nation etrangere,
enseignement qui n'est point contraire a vos principes, et qui
ne sauroit troubler voire tranquilliti interieure.
Mais laisserez-vous a ces Etablissemens les biens qu'ils
possedent? Rien ne paroit s'opposer a. ce qu'ils conservent ceux qu'ils
ont acquis de leurs deniers ou de ceux de leurs con-
citoyens. II ne peut pas entrer dans vos principes de pro-
hiber aux Strangers d'acquenr sous la domination francaise.
On ne peut pas non plus prdsumer que vous les empechiez
de jouir.
7. On the presentation of this Rapport it was stated that the
position as exposed by M. Chassey was so clear that little dis
cussion was needed. One member, M. Andre, said :
"Le projet a 6t6 examine" avec soins dans les comit^s
r^unis; il nous a paru extremement simple. II existe en

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 317
France des Etablissemens irlandais, ecossais et anglais. lis
ont le double avantage d'amener en France des etrangers de ces
trois nations, et d'attirer de temps en temps de nouvelles donations
h, ces Etablissemens. Rien de plus juste que ce que l'on pro
pose: on reprendra les biens francais, dont jouissent ces
etablissemens, en fournissant des pensions aux titulaires."
8. The Dicret of the National Assembly adopting the
Rapport declared in Art. IV : " Tous continueront de jouir des
biens par eux acquis de leurs deniers, ou de ceux de leur nation,
comme par le passe"."
9. It should be noted that M. Chassey and the Assembly
drew a careful distinction between what they allowed to be
English property, and what they considered as French, and so
subject to the same law of confiscation as had affected all the
ecclesiastical property of the country. This appears in the
following passage of the Rapport, amongst others :
"Les Benedictins qui ont des be"ne"fices, ne demandent
point a les conserver. lis ont donne un £tat des biens qui
y sont attaches, pour itre vendus comme les autres biens
nationaux."
Thus, the house of St. Edmund's, Paris, had been endowed
at various times with fourteen benefices, in various parts of
France, all of which were confiscated as French national pro
perty, whilst their own house in Paris and " le surplus de leurs
biens," which is said to have been " en fonds de terre et en
maisons," was left to them as British. In this and in other
cases a careful distinction was made between the " biens de
ces deux genres." II. — During the Revolution.
1. When the National Convention on 8th March 1793
ordered the sale of the property and goods of collegiate and
other places of public instruction in France, the English houses
were exempted, specifically for the reason that they were
foreign establishments.
Art. VI. Sont exceptes pareillement les biens de tout

318 FRANCE AND^THE VATICAN
genre formant la dotation de tous les Etablissemens
etrangers mentionne"s dans la loi du 7 novembre 1790,
lesquels continueront provisoirement d'etre regis par les
administrateurs actuels desdits Etablissemens, comme par le
passe", jusqu'a ce que la Convention ait statue" sur le rapport
qui doit lui etre fait a ce sujet par les comites d'instruction
publique, des finances et d'ali^nation en execution de son
decret du 14 fevrier dernier.
(Addition by a Dicret of 12th March 1793.)
En consequence les administrateurs actuels desdits biens
sont autorisds a recevoir les arrerages e"chus, et qui echerront
jusque audit temps, des rentes de toute nature qui leur sont
dues par la republique, ainsi qu'ils les ont recus par le
passed
Under the protection of this decree the English establish
ments continued until they were seized as English property in
virtue of a special order.
2. The National Convention, on ioth October 1793, con
fiscated the property of all English establishments, the two
countries being then at war with one another. This decree did
not affect any French establishments, all of which had pre
viously been dissolved and their property disposed of as
national property. It dealt only with British establishments
and British property in France, whether held for the purposes
of commerce or education. The English Benedictine property,
whether at Douai, or Paris, or elsewhere, in common with
every other kind of British property, was thus confiscated by
the National Convention, because it was British and held by
British subjects in France.
3. Previous to the passing of this decree, on 18th February,
the English houses at Douai had been visited by commissaries
and seals had been placed on much of the property belonging
to them. In August a siege of Douai appeared imminent and
an order to expel all the English residents within twenty-four
hours was given. A list was appended to this decree in which

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 319
appear the names of the English Benedictine monks resident
at St. Gregory's.
4. On Saturday, 12th October 1793, an edict was published
at Douai to carry out the Order of the National Convention,
passed two days previously. By this it was decreed that (1) all
subjects of the King of Great Britain were to be arrested,
(2) all their property was to be sequestered, and (3) the English
arrested should be treated with tenderness, a provision which
was shortly afterwards cancelled.
5. Whilst the English Benedictines were in prison for some
thirteen months at Doullens, much of their property at Douai
and elsewhere was sold, or otherwise made away with. Their
country house at Equerchin with the land attached had been
disposed of, and their monastery and college wrecked, their
library, furniture, paintings, etc., having been dispersed.
6. On being liberated from their captivity, they returned for
a short time to their Douai house, and then found their way
to England. In some places the decree for the sequestration
of English property had been understood as equivalent to con
fiscation, and by its supposed authority the property continued
to be sold as during the period of the incarceration at
Doullens. In other places, as at Paris and Dieulouard, the
Benedictine property was merely sequestered, and not sold,
although most of the movables disappeared during the troubles
of 1795 and the subsequent years.
7. On the return of the French nation to a saner frame of
mind at the advent of Napoleon this property was recognised
as British. After the Peace of Amiens, in 1802, negotiations
were commenced for the restoration of all sequestered pro
perty to the owners, but they were ended by the renewal of
hostilities. 8. Attention, however, had been called to the matter, and
Napoleon, by decrees of 22nd June 1803, 18th May 1805, and
25th June 1806, ordered that all unsold and recoverable
British property should be gathered together under one
administration, to be known as the Bureau Gratuit.

320 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
9. During a period of ten years, till 18 16, the general ad
ministrator of these properties received the rents and revenues
and applied them by arrangement with the French Government,
to the support of students in the Irish college at Paris.
10. Meanwhile a distinction had been drawn between, what
was undoubtedly British property and what was held to be
French, though it had previously been used and enjoyed by
British subjects. By a dkret of 3rd June 1804, and another
" du Conseil d'etat approve" le 27 Novembre, 1807," the old
church and monastery of the English Benedictines, at Douai,
or at least the buildings they had occupied for nearly two
hundred years, were declared to be French property, as having
belonged to the suppressed abbey of St. Vaast at Arras. At
the same time the English Benedictine claim to the college
part, etc., was practically admitted. The distinction here made
between parts of the old property held by the English monks
emphasises the fact that the latter portion was indubitably
British. n. Although the English continued to work for the restora
tion of the old church at Douai, from the first their claim was
resisted by the authorities, who claimed it as national property,
A letter from Douai, 8th September 1802, makes it certain
that any restoration of either church or monastery was never
contemplated. At the same time, however, the English claim
to the college part — the " new building," as it was called —
which had been entirely raised by English enterprise and by
English money, was conceded without difficulty.
12. The Treaty of Paris, 30th May 1814 (additional
Article IV), secured the restoration of all unsold sequestered
property to British subjects. It was as follows:
" ' Art. IV du Traite de paix du 30 mai 1814.
" ' II sera accorde de part et d'autre, aussitot apres la
ratification du present traite" de paix, main-levee du sequestre
qui auroit 6t6 mis, depuis Pan 1792, sur les fonds, revenus,

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 321
creances, et autres effets quelconques des hautes parties
contractantes ou de leurs sujets.
'"Les m6mes commissaires dont il est fait mention a
Tart. 2, s'occuperont de l'examen et de la liquidation des
{reclamations des sujets britanniques envers le Gouveme-
ment francais pour la valeur des biens, meubles ou immeu-
bles induement confisques par les autorite"s francaises, ainsi
que pour la perte totale ou partielle de leurs creances, ou
autres propri£t£s induement retenues sous le se"questre depuis
l'an 1792. III. — After the Revolution.
1. Acting upon the above Article of the Treaty of Paris the
English bishops put in their claims to obtain possession of
the unsold properties of Douai and St. Omer's, and restoration
of any confiscated goods and revenues which had not come
into the hands of the general administrator of the Bureau
Gratuit. 2. At the same time the superiors of the other English
establishments, many of whom were in Paris for this purpose,
claimed under the same article of peace to have their property
restored to them, and to be put in possession of their houses
and goods, as they were in 1802, or to be fully indemnified for
destruction or deterioration of buildings, and for loss of
movables or revenues.
3. On 25th January 1816 an Ordonnance du Roi granted
the petition of the English bishops, in so far as they claimed
the management of the property of the secular colleges of
Douai and St. Omer's which still existed. These properties
they restored to them as personal owners, in spite of the old
decrees, which ordered all remaining property of religious
houses and colleges to be administered by the Bureau created
for the purpose.
4. In regard to their claims for compensation for property
which had been sold or dispersed, the King referred the Cath
olic claimants to the Commission which had been appointed
Y

322 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
to consider such demands for compensation of British subjects.
And in granting the Ordonnance, which gave them the adminis
tration of the still existing property, the King adds: "Ze tout
nianmoins sans prejudice de Particle additional du Traite" de
Paris, du 30 mai 18 14 et des Articles ier v de la Convention
de Paris, du 20 novembre, 1815."
5. In this decree the English Benedictine property was not
specifically named; but a supplementary Ordonnance du Roi
was obtained on 7 th September 1816. By virtue of this decree,
in which Fr. Lawson and Fr. Marsh were named as owners,
the Benedictines took over the administration of their property
in Douai and Paris from the above-named Bureau. On nth
October 181 7 Fr. Marsh claimed in virtue of the treaty con
cluded between France and England to regain No. 269, Rue
S. Jacques, which formed part of the Paris house.
6. Great efforts were made on the part of the late adminis
trators to have the general administration of the property re
vived. The ground of the economy of one administration was
urged with success, and the King was induced to revive the
Bureau Gratuit by two Ordonnances du Roi of 17th Septem
ber 1 81 7, and 29th December 1818.
7. By these Ordonnances it was directed that although all the
revenues were to be administered by one person and office,- a
strict account was to be kept of the purposes for which they
were intended. The burses were to be expended in any place
of public instruction approved by the state, " lorsque l'accrois-
sement des revenues en offrira les moyens sur la reunion des
boursiers dans une des maisons existantes."
8. The property thus administered is declared to be British:
" L' Administration des Etablissemens britanniques est confide,
sous la surveillance et l'autorite" de notre ministre secretaire
d'Etat de l'Interieur, au Bureau Gratuit."
9. The administrator was charged by this decree to receive
the nominations to burses made by the English bishops and
others who had the right to present, and to submit them for
approval to the Minister of the Interior,

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 323
10. Finally by an Ordonnance du Roi, of 2nd February 1826,
the Bureau Gratuit was superseded by the present general
admmistration of the "Fondations Anglaises itablies en France
pour l'instruction de jeunes Catholiques d'Angleterre." The
administration was still to be directed by the Minister of the
Interior and the administrator was, " autant que possible," to
be an English Catholic priest and a born British subject. It
was admitted that the property administered was that of
regulars as well as that of seculars in the words, " aura pour
l'administration des biens tant sdculiers que reguliers." The
revenue was to be disbursed " pour la service desdites fonda
tions," and the accounts submitted yearly to the Minister of the
Interior, who also had to approve the names of those nomin
ated to burses, as in the Ordonnance du Roi of 1 7th Septem
ber 1818.
11. For more than three-quarters of a century the British
property saved from the wreck at the French Revolution has
been administered by the Bureau des Fondations Anglaises.
The revenue disbursed is derived from the rents of properties
still existing, like the houses in the Rue S. Jacques at Paris,
formerly St. Edmund's, and the college at Douai, or from
funds derived from the sale of English properties, such as the
lands and woods at Dieulouard and the old English secular
colleges at Douai and St. Omer's. In accordance with the
direction given in the Ordonnance du Roi last cited, the ad
ministrator had had under his charge " des biens tant seculiers
que reguliers " and the funds and accounts have been kept
separate. 12. During all that period the College Anglais at Douai has
been regarded by the authorities as the place, contemplated in
the previous Ordonnances of 18 17 and 1818, where it was
possible to have "la reunion des boursiers dans une des
maisons existantes." From 1826 till the present day the
names of the students holding the burses, whether secular or
Benedictine, have been regularly submitted for approval to the
Minister responsible, and it has been by his authority that they

324 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
have been educated at the College Anglais, Douai, as at an
approved college.
13. Acting on the faith of this full knowledge of the authority
of the State, the English Benedictines have spent large sums
of English money, and still larger sums have been spent by
English benefactors, in establishing and improving their
college. Necessary additions to the original buildings have
been made from time to time during the past three-quarters
of a century, and the entire college has been furnished and
much modernised in the last few years. The whole has been
done for what is acknowledged as British property by British
money, not one penny of which would have been expended if
it had not been supposed that it was at least as safe as capital
expended on any other English business in France.
IV. — The Privy Council Decision of 1825
1. The fact that the decision of the Privy Council of 1825
has been adduced by the present French authorities as a proof
that we cannot claim for our property the protection of the
English Government makes it necessary to point out what this
decision really is.
2. In common with the other English colleges, etc., in
France, the Benedictine houses admittedly suffered great
losses of real estate and funded property, as well as of mov
ables, in the troubles of the French Revolution.
3. The representatives of all these establishments, secular
as well as regular, put in their claims to be compensated for
these losses out of the large sum of money placed in the hands
of the British Government for the satisfaction of all English
claimants whose property had been destroyed or otherwise.
confiscated in the Revolution.
4. That the French Government intended that these Catholic
claims should be met out of the money placed in the hands
of the Commissioners seems certain by the declaration of the
King already referred to above (III, 4). He there says that the

FRANCE AND THE VATICAN 325
restoration of the other property, which could be handed back
'to the representatives of the English colleges, was not to pre
judice their claims to compensation under the Treaty for losses
sustained. Moreover, on 5th April 181 6, the French Minister
of Finance directly urged Bishop Poynter to apply to the Com
missioners. 5. The Commissioners appointed by the English Govern
ment to adjudicate upon the English claims, after consider
able delay, held that the claims of the English Catholic
colleges could not be considered as coming within the terms
of their Commission. The grounds of this decision were that
such establishments were unknown to the English law; they
had been carried on without the sanction of the British
Government, and the purposes for which the funds claimed
were used were to be held " superstitious " in law. The
claimants, therefore, could not be allowed to share in the
distribution of funds intended for the compensation of English
interests. 6. On appeal against the decision, the Privy Council upheld
this technical objection. Lord Gifford delivered the judg
ment on 25th November 1825, and assigned the following as
amongst the reasons why compensation was denied to the
English Catholic establishments in France for injury and loss
of property, which they had admittedly suffered, and to meet
which indemnity the English Commissioners had received
money from the French nation. " Although the members (of
the Catholic establishments) were British subjects," says Lord
Gifford, "... the end and object were not authorised, but
were directly opposed to British law, and the funds dedicated
to their maintenance were employed for that purpose in
France, because they could not be so employed in England.
-,.- . . We think, therefore, that they must be deemed French
^establishments." 7. It is obvious that the Catholic Emancipation Acts re
moved the illegality of the position of our Catholic colleges, and
that the ground of the decision of 1825 no longer holds good.

326 FRANCE AND THE VATICAN
8. It is also obvious that the Privy Council decision was
merely concerned with a claim of the Catholic establishments
to share in the compensation given for injury done to other
English interests during the Revolution. It was not in any
way concerned with, nor did it consider the status of the other
property held by those establishments abroad. Still less had it
any reference to the existing college at Douai, or to the revenues
derived from what is acknowledged by the French Government
to be the British property, administered in the Bureau of the
Fondations Anglaises.

EDITING AND REVIEWING1
THE Boer war has been in many ways a rude awaken
ing. It has taught us — at least such of us as are not
wilfully dense — that it is not the red coat and gold lace
which make the soldier, nor the red tape of officialdom
that is any reliable guarantee of safety when the day of
trial comes. Time may be left to apportion the blame
for the state of things which the test of real warfare has
revealed to the world : at present, however, we can quite
recognise that " the system " has failed us in spite of
the enthusiasm of the entire Empire, the higher qualities
of individual commanders, the bravery of the army at
large, and the personal heroism of so many officers and
men. When we again experience the peace which will
follow upon the ultimate triumph of our arms, no doubt
the country will insist upon the War Office authorities
setting its house in order, and upon reforms long recog
nised by competent critics as imperatively necessary
being forthwith taken in hand. If this be done, the les
sons of the war, expensive and terrible as they have
been, will not have been wholly useless.
Meantime, many are asking themselves whether the
warning may not be usefully taken to heart in wider
circles, and whether the failure of one great department
of State under the stress of trial does not in reality point
1 An article printed in The Dublin Review, April 1902.
327

328 EDITING AND REVIEWING
to the working of causes which surely, though in a less
important degree perhaps, affect detrimentally the whole
life and work of the English nation.
It has frequently been remarked that as a people we
are far too easily pleased with ourselves, that we like to
estimate ourselves at our own value, and neither care to
have our labours and methods contrasted with those of
other civilised nations, nor are able to conceal our resent
ment when this is done for us, or we are invited to do it
for ourselves. Such an attitude of mind — insular, shall
we call it? — is most harmful. It is obviously fatal to the
production of the best kind of work, and it permits us to
remain satisfied with an inferior article until some chance
awakens us to the unpleasant reality, and we too late
become conscious that what has contented us by its out
side showy appearance will not stand the test of examina
tion and analysis. Unfortunately, it must be confessed
that in many branches of work and methods of work, we
English are not as "thorough" as we should like to
think ourselves, and as we must be if we would command
ultimate success, or rather avoid ultimate failure. The
" good enough " policy may perhaps impose upon the
world for a time, but the day must come when it will be
found out and exposed as a fraud and a sham. It is no
doubt humiliating enough to have to confess our own
weaknesses and failings, but it is the wiser course when
there is yet time to learn and time to change. With all
the shrewd practical common sense upon which we so
much pride ourselves, it must honestly be allowed that
we are frequently as ready to accept veneer for solid
mahogany, and shoddy for good broadcloth, as the
Vicar of Wakefield's Moses was to invest in the pinch--.
beck spectacles because they looked like gold.

EDITING AND REVIEWING 329
In energy and earnestness of purpose, too, it can
hardly be denied that we English have, of late, lagged
behind many of our Continental neighbours. We have
but to contrast, for example, what English youths are
wont to do to prepare themselves for the keen business
rivalry of modern times with what is done, say, by
Germans in similar positions, to see how very far we are
from practically possessing — as they do — this one ele
ment of certain success — " the infinite capacity of taking
pains." Germans, Swiss, French, and even Italians, for
instance, think nothing of leaving their own countries
for a period and supporting themselves by acting as
waiters in foreign hotels in order to fit themselves for
future commercial employments by acquiring other
Janguages besides their own. It is almost a thing un
heard of for an Englishman to be found in similar
circumstances. Not, be it remarked, that such a course
is to be necessarily recommended in all cases, but it is
certainly evidence of a spirit of determination to suc
ceed, which foreign nations possess in a higher degree
than ourselves.
What is true of commercial pursuits is equally true in
regard to other things. Germany has set us all an
example in " thoroughness," which other nations have
been quicker to appreciate and copy than we have in this
country. It was an unpleasant revelation to the French
military authorities during the Franco-Prussian war to
find that the German officers had better maps and pos
sessed a more minute and exact knowledge of French
territory than they themselves had. The fact is, that the
Prussians had taken every means to prepare themselves
for the eventuality of an invasion of French territory.
We hear of officers who had been acting as waiters in

330 EDITING AND REVIEWING
Strasburg, Metz, and other places ; and others who had
walked disguised as pedlars through the Vosges and the
hilly country of the Seine and Oise, minutely prospect
ing the land; and of a German colonel who had traded
as a horse-dealer as far from the frontier as Tarbes.
One curious fact is vouched for by a friend as actually
having happened to a relation of his living at Auteuil.
Before the war, the family had been served by a butcher
who employed a well-spoken and civil young German to
carry the meat to his customers. When Auteuil was
taken possession of by the invading forces, the lady of
the family had occasion to go to the market held under
the surveillance of the German troops occupying the
place. Her surprise may be imagined when a young
Prussian officer came forward, and offering politely to
help her, asked whether she did not recognise him as
her former butcher boy. Such facts help to show how
the German military authorities spared no pains to ac
quaint themselves thoroughly with the country they
subsequently occupied, and the complete success of
their arms was undoubtedly due to their previous un
wearied preparation. At the present day there is no
doubt in the minds of those who know, that the Ger
man officer has a fuller and more minute topographica|
knowledge of England than our own officials possess-
not of Germany — but of our own island.
It has been the fashion amongst us to laugh at and
despise this German " thoroughness " ; but the notable
deficiency in this quality among Englishmen at the
present day means that our work is seldom more than
" second best," and in the case of matters of serious im
port this must inevitably end in some such awakening
as we have lately experienced in regard to our military

EDITING AND REVIEWING 331
system. In no department of work is there perhaps
greater evidence of our present national tendency to be
content with mediocre performance, to accept on the
estimate of the giver what is offered us without any real
inquiry, and to shut our eyes wilfully to defects and
blemishes so long as the general appearances of the work
are respectable, than in regard to the more serious side
of literature — if at the present day it can be said to have
a serious side at all. Here, too, it must be admitted that
the Germans set us an example from which we might
with advantage learn something. Those who have had
occasion to labour in any of the great libraries of Europe
will readily admit that not only is the number of German
students greatly in excess of those from other nations,
but that their method of work and their perseverance at
long sustained labour excel that of others. Laugh at
them and dislike them as we may, those who have had
an opportunity of judging must admit this much. We
may, if we please, consider their care and their criticism
needlessly minute and worrying; but, at any rate, along
with rapidity of execution their conclusions are generally
reliable and satisfactory, whilst their work is directed and
arranged and the results of their investigations are con
trolled and checked by other scholars on a system which
experience has shown to be best calculated to secure
accuracy. There may be indications that of late even the
work of German scholars has slightly deteriorated ; but,
be this as it may, they are still able to set us an example
which we might do well to imitate, as French students
have done since the war of 1870. No doubt the number
of German students and the excellence of their methods
are largely due to the State assistance'in training and
assisting research, both at home and abroad, so liberally

332 EDITING AND REVIEWING
afforded by the German Government; but much is also
due to private enterprise, and in the result the wonder
ful accuracy of German scholarship is mainly the out
come of the individual determination to spare no pains,
and to account no trouble too great to obtain a satis
factory result, and, what is much to the purpose, never
to undertake anything for which by previous study the
student has not adequately prepared himself.
Whatever view we may be inclined to take of what
has been called " German methods," we must recognise
that at least it is better than much of the "slip-shod" ',,
work which too frequently of late has been allowed to
do duty for scholarship in England. Editions of texts
and manuscripts are often now undertaken by those who
obviously are quite incompetent, and whose work speaks
for itself, and proves that they neither have had the
training nor possess the knowledge requisite for the task
entrusted to them. There are exceptions, of course, and
even numerous exceptions, but the fact remains that
many serious works have of late come from the English
press and have been welcomed as worthy productions';
by some of our critical authorities, which in reality are
so disfigured by gross blunders as to excuse, if they do
not altogether justify, the very general depreciation on
the Continent of our national scholarship. In some
measure, at least, the reviewer of such works is answer
able for the state of things. If he always did his plain
duty to the author and the public and critically examine^
the volumes sent to him, and bestowed his praise or
blame on their ascertained merits or demerits, and not
on the ground of a good general appearance, a glance at
the table of contents, or even upon some preconceived
notion of the subject matter, editors would hesitate to

EDITING AND REVIEWING 333
expose themselves to censure by undertaking work which
would but display to the world their ignorance and in
competence. With the exception of the great literary
papers, such for example as the Atlienawm, the Guardian,
and others, there does not now appear to be much care
bestowed upon reviewing serious works of this kind,
especially editions of texts in Latin or languages other
than English, by the press at large. The general public
at the present day is ordinarily credited with caring
little for "heavy" literature, and still less with desiring
to read any reviewer's estimate of a book of this class.
The natural consequence is that works of this descrip
tion are not unfrequently placed in the hands of the
class of reviewer whose only consideration, apparently, is
how to gain his honorarium with the least possible ex
penditure of trouble. " Put into the first few pages of
your introduction what you want a reviewer to notice,"
is a common piece of advice to an author ; and the " re
viewer's copy" of such heavy works, nearly new and
with at most the pages of the preface cut, has long been
a feature on our London bookstalls. If report speaks
truly, publishers are at the present moment considering
whether it does much good to send such serious works
for review to any but strictly literary journals. I am, of
course, concerned here only with the class of book such
as, say, the edition of a text or manuscript. Popular
literature, as volumes of travels, biographies, novels, and
such like, appear on the whole to receive fair and just
treatment at the hand of the press reviewers.
It is .clear upon the face of it that the present system
of criticism adopted in the case of serious works cannot
be right A reviewer, often without even taking the
trouble to go over the ground covered by the work he

334 EDITING AND REVIEWING
has in hand, unhesitatingly gives his oracular opinion
on the subject. What is such an opinion worth? His
verdict may indeed be justified : of course, there is that
possibility according to the ordinary laws of chance.
But it may with equal probability be wrong, and in that
case he is unjust both to the author and to the general
public. This rough and ready criticism of such works is,
after all, only another symptom of that general disease
which at the present day is sapping our strength and
destroying the possibility of good work in England—
" want of thoroughness." But it is something more. On
several occasions after reading a review I have been in
duced to buy a work which has proved on examination
to be utterly worthless. This was not because of any
thing which could be a mere matter of opinion upon
which the reviewer's verdict might have been as good as
my own ; but because the book was not what it claimed
to be. There are, of course, books and books. The value
or merit of some may be a matter of opinion or taste;
but in regard to the class of literature I am here con
sidering, such as the publication or edition of a text,
opinion does not enter into the matter: a candid and
thorough examination will settle whether it be good or
bad. To take some examples : on the appearance of the
Clarendon Press edition of Roger Bacon's Opus Majus,
the Times and many other papers gave lengthy and very
laudatory reviews of the work. The Times' notice, which
declared that the editing of the book was in every way
excellent, probably induced others besides myself to
invest a good number of shillings in these two volumes.
Had the reviewer taken the trouble to look at the text
he was praising, he could not have written what he did.
It surely can hardly be questioned that the first duty of

EDITING AND REVIEWING 335
a competent editor is to present as accurate a print of
his author's text as it is possible to procure, and to
esteem no trouble or pains too much to secure this end.
Yet the editor of these two handsome volumes has on
the face of it neglected this plain and primary duty, and
this in such a way that the margins of his pages are
literally too small to contain the necessary verbal and
grammatical corrections. In many instances whole pas
sages are left out altogether, and in the case of some
pages more of the true text is omitted than has been
printed. There are numerous examples also in which, by
the publication of this edition, Bacon's memory has been
unconsciously defamed by representing his grammar as
hopelessly defective, by making him say directly the
reverse of what he did say, and by crediting him with
seriously putting forth arguments obviously inconclu
sive. The other usual editorial functions are throughout
exercised in a similarly unsatisfactory way. To any who
will take the trouble to examine this book, it will cer
tainly appear inexplicable how the editor could ever
have undertaken to edit a work for which on almost
every page he has unmistakably shown that he was in
competent. It is not for me to say how the Clarendon
Press authorities could have given this worthless edition
the distinguished patronage of the high name of the
University of Oxford, or how the reviewers who wrote
the laudatory notices of it in the Times and other high-
class journals could have considered that they were
doing their duty to their readers. Probably, after all, the
explanation is very simple, and is nothing more than
this: it was an acute attack of the disease " want of
thoroughness " which affected all concerned. The editor
did not think it required special training to acquit him-

336 EDITING AJND REVIEWING
self sufficiently well as an editor, and that any print of a
mass of Latin was " good enough"; the Clarendon Press
took the editor on his own estimate of himself, and the re
viewers, looking at the two handsome volumes, and taking
the Clarendon Press as an ample guarantee for efficiency,
never troubled to examine the book at all critically.
To take another case. Not very long ago the Syndics
of the University Press, Cambridge, published in two
large and well-printed volumes The Statutes of Lincoln
Cathedral. How many people, I wonder, tried to trans
late some of the Latin printed in this important work?
It has been, I may remark in passing, much praised by
papers which have noticed it. The editor has been very
liberal with his punctuation, and no doubt one of the
chief functions of an editor is, of course, in this way to
assist his readers to understand the text. But the punc
tuation adopted throughout, say volume II, is ludicrous,
and would absolutely confuse any one who tried to follow
the sense with the help of the editor's commas and stops
generally. In fact it is quite clear that in this edition we
are supposed to regard the printed text as so many
" lumps of Latin," which are to be looked at but not
translated. One wonders as one turns over the pages
whether the editor himself ever tried to make sense out
of his own text. A suspicion that he did not attempt to
do so is borne out by the way some sentences are cut up
into two or three parts by full stops, and others are
united together in meaningless confusion. I say nothing
of the obviously false readings. This bulky book also
makes one rub one's eyes and wonder where are the
authorities of the University Press at Cambridge, when
they, too, can stand sponsors for a book which certainly
does not' reflect credit upon English scholarship.

EDITING AND REVIEWING 337
To take one more instance : a couple of years ago the
Hampshire Record Society issued the second volume of
Bishop William of Wykeham's Register. This book was
edited by a member of Winchester College. The second
volume is a handsome and well-printed book of over
600 pages of text, mostly in Latin, and the editor, on
concluding his work, excuses himself for three mistakes,
which he asks the readers to correct. This great and
praiseworthy apparent accuracy led me to hope that the
editor, having before him the admirable example of Mr.
Baigent's edition of the Registers of Bishops Sandale and
Asserio, published by the same Society, not to name the
monumental edition of the Exeter Registers by Preben
dary Hingeston Randolph, had added another scholarly
volume to the Hampshire Record Series. My hopes were
further raised by such notices of the book as I saw. The
reviewer in The Guardian (3rd August 1899) spoke in
terms of the highest praise of the edition. " The book
before us comes very opportunely to speak in favour of the
great bishop," the writer said. " We cannot speak too
highly of the way the Register has been edited. It is
worthy of its predecessor." This last opinion I afterwards
found to be true ; but hardly in the sense perhaps the
reviewer intended. Again: "The Hampshire Record
Society is doing good work for the English Church by
issuing these careful and accurate editions of the Regis
ters of the Bishops of Winchester."
My expectations were, I regret to say, doomed to dis
appointment. An examination of the first few pages
was sufficient to convince me that "careful and accurate "
were hardly words which, by any stretch of politeness,
could be honestly made to apply to this work. I was
hardly, however, prepared for what afterwards became
z

338 Editing and reviewing
evident : and when I had gone carefully through the en
tire volume, pencil in hand, such were my feelings
that I could only exclaim with Dominie Sampson,
"Prodigious!" The mistakes in the Latin are truly
wonderful! They are there literally by the hundreds,
sometimes five or six and even more are to be found on
a single page. Most of them are so obvious than any
one with an ordinary elementary knowledge of the
Latin language ought to have detected them; all the
more so, because the sentences as they are printed are
frequently untranslatable, and this alone should have
told the editor that something was wrong. One can only
suppose that he did not attempt to construe his own
Latin, and probably it did not occur to him to suppose
that any one would ever try to comprehend what this
mediaeval jargon meant. It is quite impossible to under
stand what can have prompted any one to undertake a
work for which he had evidently never qualified himself
by a study > of manuscripts or, for that matter, by any
extensive knowledge of the laws of ordinary grammati
cal construction. It has been urged in mitigation of
such shortcomings that it is unfair to judge an amateur's
work as strictly as that of a professional ; but surely in
the matter of editing this should be no excuse, and it is
really time to protest against the spirit which is every
where tempting men whose ambitions are greater than
their qualifications to undertake editorial work with, of
course, disastrous results, so far as our English reputation
for scholarship is concerned. It is surely far better that
our priceless records should not be edited at all, than that
they should be edited once for all (for so it must be of
necessity) in an unsatisfactory and untrustworthy manner.
Although it is impossible, within any reasonable com-

EDITING AND REVIEWING 339
pass, to give an adequate idea of the state of the text of
Wykeham's Register, as published by the Hampshire
Record Society, some examples will help the reader to
form his own conclusion. . It would be difficult to find
in the episcopal registers of the mediaeval sees a more
ordinary and common expression than " the sentence of
excommunication" — in Latin, " sententia excommunica-
tionis." Of course, as a general rule, the words are
contracted, having the usual and easily recognised
signs of contraction which no competent editor could
.possibly mistake. Will it be believed that in this edition,
in all but one or two cases (where, I suspect, the original
had the word written out in full), we find the word
" summa " in place of " sententia " ? How the editor
Jjnanaged to make sense in the scores of places in which
he has printed the wrong word, is not for me to suggest:
probably he wisely did not try. The same may be said
of other words which are persistently wrong throughout
the volume. For example : " preter " (unless) is always
printed in place of " pariter " (in like manner), and
" proinde " (hence) for " provide " (prudently). Even the
proper Latin form for the diocese of Winchester is com
monly printed wrongly in the Latin, such expressions
as " Wyntoniensi diocese " being made to do duty for
" Wyntoniensis diocesis," as it does thrice on page 56.
On one page " mons " (a mountain) is made to do duty
for "mens" (a mind) three several times, and one of
these instances is made all the more puzzling to the
reader by the adjective which is joined to it; for
" mons," as every one knows, is masculine, and " monte
pia " should surely have set the editor thinking. In some
cases words are run together, or changed in the most
'curious, and at times bewildering, fashion: thus, on

340 EDITING AND REVIEWING
page 54, Wykeham speaks of a chantry " pie fundatum "
(piously founded) — our editor reads the word " prefun-
datum," that is " founded previously," as I suppose he
would understand the word to mean. So, on page 379,
the ordinary legal phrase " in de et super " becomes "inde
et super "; on page 377, for " in habendo," which is, of
course, nonsense, we must read "inhibendo." The phrase
"cujuscumque religionis vel ordinis eciam Meditancium]'
suggests that our editor was thinking of " contemplative
Orders." The real reading is, of course, " Mendicantium "
(mendicants). So, too, when on page 345, "iterum"
(again) is made to do duty for " iter suum " (his journey),
it obviously detracts from the meaning of the document
printed. So, too, when on page 436 the words of a be
quest in an interesting will are given as "unum par
pectinum," which the editor translates for us as " a pair
of combs," the sense is rather changed, since the real
reading should be " unum par precum," i.e., " a pair of
beads," or a rosary. It is quite obvious in this case also
that the editor must have thought only of producing so
many printed pages, and did not stop to see what his
Latin really meant. Without the manuscript— with
which it has not been possible to confront the present
version — the text as printed is quite unintelligible in
many places, and if it did not puzzle the editor, it ought
to have done so. In others, it is possible, of course, to
guess, by the application of a little common sense, what
the Latin should be. In several places, for instance,
" non parentes mandatis " (not obeying our commands)
becomes in the print " non penitentes mandatis," the
translation of which phrase is quite beyond me. On the
same page (369) on which one of these mistakes maybe
seen, occur the words " sueque gregis prestet auxilium "

EDITING AND REVIEWING 341
in place of " suoque gregi," etc. This little change of a
dative into a genitive by our editor makes the bishop
pray that " God would deliver the English people and
afford them the help of his flock," in place, of course, of
"afford help to his flock."
But if the above and countless other mistakes were
apparent without reference to the original manuscript,
it was to be expected that when compared with it
numberless examples of wrong readings would be de
tected. This proved to be the case when I was able to
collate the first sixteen pages of print with the Register
itself. No wonder that the Latin is hard to construe when
words are left out altogether, or changed beyond the wit
of man to guess at their original form. Thus, on page 5,
in a sentence the construction of which had puzzled
me, the word " intravisset " is in the MS. "intravit";
" habuerit " is " habuit," and the words " dicitur " and
''objecturi" have been dropped out altogether. What
can a poor reader make of the sense when, as on page 7,
the word "habendam " should be " honestorum," " ducen-
dum " should be " integrandum," and " requisita " stands
for "requiruntur "? But perhaps the most curious of this
class of mistakes in the first sixteen pages are to be
found on pages 12 and 13: "negotia," for example, is
made to do duty for "jugiter"; "vel" for "veri";
"accipere" for "recipere"; "peccatorum" for "pecca-
minum"; "inhibicio" for " mulieribus " ; and "nostre
diocesis" for "jure diocesano."
The above are, as I have said, mere samples of what
may be found on every page, and the whole volume
would be absolutely comical were it not for the serious
state of mind it reveals, both on the side of the editor,
the reviewer, and the public, who continue to put up

342 EDITING AND REVIEWING
with this " anything-good-enough " kind of work. The
book as an edition is worse than useless, and it is a
standing reproach to the excellent Society that has dis
tributed it to its members. The only amends that body
can make to the memory of the illustrious Bishop William
of Wykeham is to recall the volumes and republish them
under a competent editor. And yet be it remembered
that this is a work which the Guardian asks its readers
to accept as " a careful and accurate edition."
I am tempted to add one instance of the "learned
notes " which have been given by the editor to assist his
readers. On page 456 the following entry is recorded:
" License granted to William, Lord de Roos, and
Margaret, daughter of Eleanor, wife of Sir Reginald de
Cobham, to marry at the Castle of Cherbourg." To this
we have appended a note: "' Castrum de Sceresburg
nostre diocesis.' It had been placed in the keeping of the
English in 1378 (Walsingham, i, 271 [should be 371]),
and although they made it over to the King of Navarre
in 1 393, it seems to have continued under the ecclesias
tical jurisdiction of the See of Winchester." The place
in question is not Cherbourg at all, but the well-known
home of the Cobhams, Stersborough Castle, in the parish
of Lingfield, in Surrey.
This reminds me of another mistake made by the
same gentleman who has edited (?) Wykeham's Register,
in another volume— the Annals of Winchester College,
published in 1892, "under the sanction of the warden
and fellows." On page 187 we read the following:
" The names of the guests at breakfast at the high table
(at the college) on June 4 1420, are mentioned below.
One of them was the wife of a parish clergyman [italics
are mine], who would scarcely have been of the party,

EDITING AND REVIEWING 343
although her husband .was an Uvedale, if the wives of
parish clergymen had not been generally received in
society at this period: — In jantaclo fact. Joh. Uvedale,
Vicario de Hampton, uxori ejusdem, etc." A truly re
markable entry indeed! and as the editor did not ex
tend the Latin of two previous words, there seemed little
reason to suppose that " Vicario " was not written out in
full. The entry is made no clearer by his note, " Hampton-
on-the-Thames, then in the gift of the college." Was he
(i.e., the Vicar John Uvedale) the father of the two
Uvedale boys who were in-commoners in 1424?
Here, then, we have a pretty story: a married priest,
who was vicar of a college living, is entertained at break
fast together with his wife, at the bishop's college, by the
master, and at the same time two boys of the same name
were in the school, and it is suggested, and with every
probability, that they are his sons. It never seems to
have crossed the writer's mind that something was
wrong. A Catholic would no doubt have suspected a
" mare's nest '' if for no other reason than from the use
of the word " uxor." It is, of course, a mere detail that
there was no vicarage of Hampton-on-the-Thames, and
that it consequently could not have been in the gift of
the college. The point lies in the word Vicarius, who is
said to have had a wife, and that these were both re
ceived in good and clerical society. Unfortunately, how
ever, for this good story, the word Vicarius, in the original,
is Vicecomes, or Sheriff, and it is the Sheriff of Hampshire
who was at the college with his wife, and whose sons
were commoners there in 1424!
If any would desire to see another good example of
the style of work which has done so much to discredit
English scholarship, let him take up the volume of the

344 EDITING AND REVIEWING
Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society for
1900, and try to construe some of the astounding Latin
documents that are printed there in all seriousness.
There are papal Bulls that would defy the most expert
Latinist to put into English. What, for example, on
p. 204, can "prunenda nocabulis Locum ipsum" mean?
Also on the same page we have the Pope speaking of an
English king as "Ex favore Azini in Xto filii nostri
Henrici." Did the editor suppose that the translation is
" that fool of a son "? Of course, "Azini " must have been
" Carissimi " in the original. And of this sort of hopeless
stuff there are pages upon pages. Again, the only thing
to say is, with the Dominie, "Prodigious!" and yet at
the conclusion we are told : " The proof sheets as printed
in the Transactions were seen through the press by at
least three different hands [sic] ; but for want of proper
record type the abbreviations could not be correctly ex
pressed, and commas were used throughout instead. It
would have been far better to have extended the various
Latin documents, but the labour thus entailed would
have been immense, and the length at least doubled." It
would have been much better in the circumstances
had none of the documents been printed at all. It would
require a photographic reproduction to present ade
quately to the reader the hopeless nature of documents
edited on the plan adopted by the Shropshire Archaeo
logical Society.
I have selected the examples named above merely to
illustrate my point, that on the serious side of literary
work, and in the criticism of such work, we are at present
suffering badly from the disease I will call by the name
" want of thoroughness." What has been said will be
sufficient at least to indicate the existence of something

EDITING AND REVIEWING 34S
not altogether healthy and right. It is important that
we should recognise the evil, because it is precisely in
this kind of work, about which people generally are sup
posed to care little, that the first symptoms of the dis
ease may be detected. It is not, however, we may be
sure, confined altogether to this serious side of literature
and literary criticism ; and there are already ample signs
of the spread of the infection, and of its baneful influence,
in almost every branch of our national life. If this war
will but bring home to us English people the truth that
if a thing is worth doing at all it is worth doing well, and
that there is no " good enough '' for Englishmen but the
best, it will indeed be to us, as a nation, a blessing in
disguise.

INDEX

ABERCORN, Countess of, suf
ferings of, 248.
Activity, architectural, in England,
20.
Acton Burnell, monks of Douay at,
277.
Aelfric, on Saxon Eucharistic doc
trine, 225.
Albert, Archduke, benefactor of
St. Gregory's, 269.
Alcuin, on the Mass, 225.
Altar stones defaced, 167.
Altars, to be pulled down, after
Mass was abolished, 140; rever
ence due to, in Archbishop Win-
chelsea's Constitution, 230.
Anglican Orders, condemnation of,
a domestic question, 145.
Anima Christi, date of, 235.
Annals of Winchester College, egre
gious mistakes in, 342.
Apostolicae Curae, Bull, 145, 148,
151, 156, 157, 160, 170.
rArcudius, work of, in favour of
Greek Orders, 181.
Articles Organiques, no value in,
312; not accepted by any Pope,
312.
Association, need for, to Church,
293;
Association Laws, numbers of re
ligious sent adrift, 305 ; cam
paign against Church and re

ligion, 306 ; real object of, 307 ;
subsequent expenditure entailed
by, 308; spirit of M. Paul Bert
in, 309; Leo XIII did not pro
test against, from fear of worse
evils, 310.
Augustine, St., on Christianity in
Britain, 221.
Authorisation of religious Orders,
purpose of, 297.
Authors, advice to, to secure reviews,
333-
Ave caro Christi cara: prayer at
Elevation of the Mass, 235.
Bacon, Roger, attempt of, to estab
lish critical investigation, 7.
Baigent, Mr. J., excellence of edit
ing work of, 337.
Baker, Father Augustine, 272 ; com
piler of Apostolatus, 273.
Barber, Father Luke Bernard, 281 ;
refused mitre, 286.
Barberini, Cardinal, against deci
sion adverse to Greek Orders,
180.
Barkworth, Venerable Mark, 267.
Barlow, Bishop of St. David's, op
posed to the Mass, 123.
Barlow, Father Ambrose, 268.
Barlow, Father Rudesind, 272.
Becanus, Martin, on essentials of
Orders, 188.

347

348

INDEX

Bede, St., on the Mass, 223.
Bell, Father Arthur Francis,
O.F.M., 268.
Benedictine missionaries in Scot
land, 245, 258.
Benedictine, English, property in
France, statement of facts about,
314 stag.
Benediction, service of, advertised,
216.
Bennet, Father Bede, 279.
Bere, Abbot of Glastonbury, patron
of learning, 11.
Berington, Rev. Joseph, on numbers
of Catholics, 206-207.
Bert, M. Paul, spirit of, in Associa
tion Laws, 309.
" Bibles of the Poor," 38.
Boleyn, Anne, attracts notice of
Henry VIII, 69.
Bonaventure, St., on imposition of
hands in conferring Orders, 190.
Bonner, Bishop, sent to prison, 116;
describes his treatment in prison,
117 ; upholds the Mass, 123.
Boulay de la Meurthe, Comte, on
the framing of the Concordat, 295.
Bradford, John, ordained by Or
dinal, styled a laic and not de
graded, 155.
Bradshaw {or White), Father Au
gustine, 266.
Brewer, Mr. J. H., on scandals in
the Church, 40; warns against
declamations of reformers, 42;
defends Churchmen from charge
of immorality, 43 ; his explana
tion of origin of Henry VIII's
divorce proceedings, 60.
Brief of Paul IV explanatory of Bull
Praeclara Charissimi, 152.
Britain, doctrine of Eucharist in,
same as to-day, 222.
Brown, Bishop Thomas Joseph,

284; first Bishop of Newport
and Menevia, 285.
Browne, Dr., defends retention of
blasphemies of King's oath, 144.
Brunetiere, M., on cost of perse
cuting policy of French Govern
ment, 308,
Buckley, Dom Sigebert, 270.
Burke, Edmund, champions cause
of Catholics, 212.
Calendar of Letters and Papers,
Foreign and Domestic, for reign
of Henry VIII, Dr. Pauli on, 59.
Campeggio, Cardinal, mission to
England for divorce proceedings,
79; interviews King, 80; inter
views Queen Katherine, 80; closes
Legatine Court, 83 ; divorce case
withdrawn to Rome, 83.
Canada, Lord North's Bill estab
lishing Catholicism in, 193.
Canon of Mass and Communion
Service contrasted, 135.
Carne, Sir Edward, on Pope's atti
tude towards Elizabeth, 100.
Carron, Abbe, works of, 216.
Catholics, subject to double land
tax, 199; at mercy of informers,
199; estimated numbers of, in
eighteenth century, 206; eman
cipation of, did not imply social
equality, 214; sufferings of, in
Scotland, 247.
Cavendish on Wolsey and the di
vorce, 60.
. Caverel, Dom Philip, Abbot of St.
Vedast's, Arras, Charter of,
adorned with portraits of Gre
gorian martyrs, 267; benefactor of
St. Gregory's, 269.
Caxton, helped by Church to print
works of instruction, 13.
Cecil, Sir W., becomes Chief Sec-

INDEX

349

retary, 101 ; advises formation of
a secret Cabinet, 101.
Chalcedon, Bishop of, held juris
diction in Scotland, 245.
Chalice, reverence for, in Saxon
England, 227.
Chantries, uses of, 35; at Alton,
Hants, 36.
Chamock, Prior, a favourer of
learning, 11.
Chisholm, Wm., Bishop of Dun
blane, last of old Scottish hier
archy, 242; became Bishop of
Vaison in France, 244.
Church, English, commanding in
fluence of, before Reformation,
2; patron of printing, 13; parish
centre of social and religious life,
26; necessary scandals in the,
40; not connived at, 40; senti
ment of laity towards, 45; in
fluence of, on education, 46; al
leged hostility of laity to, dis
cussed, 93 ; nationalisation of,
289 ; in France in nineteenth
century, 292.
Church and State, solutions of re
lations between, 289; separation
of, 290.
Churches, in England, profuse
decoration of, 22 ; gifts to,
JH churchwardens' accounts evid
ence of, 23; decorations of, 37,
39 ; screen work of, 37 ; evidence
of, to belief in Blessed Sacra-
ment, 229.
^Churchmen employed on State
" business, 50.
Churchwardens' Accounts, evidence
. of, as to gifts to churches, 23;
evidence of, to belief in Blessed
; Sacrament, 231.
Clarke, J. Willis, discovers name
of English painter, 38.

Clement VII, threatened by Eng
lish agents, 75; complains of
being deceived by Wolsey, 80.
Clement VIII admits validity of
Greek Orders, 179.
Clergy, Catholic, timid and cau
tious, 204; numbers of, in eigh
teenth century, 208; French, re
ceived in England, 212; begin
to wear cassocks in 1825, 215;
Scotch, fate of, unknown, 242;
claims of, 293 ; freedom of, to
teach, claimed, 294.
Coghlan, Catholic publisher of
Church music, 216.
Colet, Dean, friend of Erasmus, 7.
Collier, onalteration of religion, 102.
Combes, M., and the repudiation
of the Concordat of 1801, 288;
and the religious Orders, 297;
arbitrary in his methods, 301 ;
returned to power to suppress
Congregations, 302; refuses ex-
religious right to preach, 304;
effects breach between France
and the Vatican, 312.
Commission appointed to examine
question of Greek Orders, 177;
on Greek Orders in their favour,
181.
Committee, Catholic, appeal to Pitt
for relief, 1788, 211.
Common Prayer, Book of, com
position of, 126; construction of,
128; no formal commission issued
to compile, 130; when drawn up,
submitted to bishops, 131.
Communion, under both kinds, Act
for, 118; bishops opposed to, 119
and note; Convocation on, 121;
frequent in Middle Ages, 232.
Communion Office of First and
Second Prayer Book, compared,
141.

35°

INDEX

Communion Service, called " a
Christmas game," 135 ; taken
from Lutheran Liturgy, 136.
Concordat, of 1801, repudiation
of, 288; between Napoleon and
Pius VII, 290; M. Hanotaux on
value of, 291 ; what Napoleon
wanted it for, 291 ; and the posi
tion of religious orders, 294;
Comte Boulay de la Meurthe on
the framing of the, 295.
Congregations applied for recogni
tion, 298.
Constitution of Archbishop Win-
chelsea on reverence due to altars,
230.
Convocation opposed to Reforma
tion, 107 ; Professor Maitland on,
107 ; on Act for Communion
under both kinds, 121.
Cooke, Sir A., reports Bonner's
protest against innovations, 116.
Corporal, blessing of, in Saxon Eng
land, 227.
Cox, Bishop, his teaching on the
priesthood, 165.
Cranbrook Church, inventory of,
24.
Cranmer, and reform of the Breviary,
114; leads opposition to the Mass,
122 ; views of, on the nature of the
Mass, 123; devises new Ordinal,
138 and note; consecrated by
Pontifical, degraded from Epis
copate, 154; his teaching on the
Mass and Sacrifice, 163; on the
priesthood, 163.
Cressy, Father Hugh Serenus, 272,
273-
Croke, Ric, friend of Erasmus, 7.
Davis, Charles Henry, Bishop of
Maitland, N.S.W., 285.
Davis, Father Oswald, 286.

Day, Bishop of Chichester, upholds
the Mass, 123.
de Mun, Comte, describes result of
confidence in MM. Combes and
Waldeck-Rousseau, 303.
De Paiva, Father Placid, 286.
Deposing power of Popes, settled
by English Bishops in 1788, 202.
Diaconate in Pontifical and Ordinal
compared, 172.
Dispensation, powers of, abused,
52.
Douay, St. Gregory's, foundation
of school at, 274-275 ; dispersed
at French Revolution, 275 ; Eng
lish College, case of, 299.
Doullens, monks of Douay im
prisoned at, during French Revo
lution, 276 ; , release from, 277.
Downside, St. Gregory's, themakers
of, 263 seqq. ; commencement of,
264; settlement of St. Gregory's
at, 278; difficulties experienced
on arrival at, 280; proposal to
leave and to return to Douay de
feated, 281.
Duggan, Father Dermot, letter of,
to St. Vincent de Paul, 251.
Editing, instances of incompetent,
332, 334 seqq.
Editing and reviewing, 327 seqq.
Education, ecclesiastical patronage
of, 46 ; examples of, 48.
Edward VI and the Catholic Liturgy,
113 seqq.
Elevation in Holy Mass, mediaeval
prayers at, 236.
Elizabeth, Queen, influence of in
the Reformation, 97; legal posi
tion of as to legitimacy and right
to throne, 98; religious con
victions of, 99 ; decides in favour
of reformers, 102 ; coronation of,

INDEX

35'

according to Roman Pontifical,
104 ; meeting of her first Parlia
ment, 104; recognition of her
right to the throne, 105 ; refuses
title of " Supreme Head," takes
that of "Supreme Governor,"
109; restores Edward VI's Prayer
Book, 109.
EUis, Bishop, 280.
England under the old Religion,
1 seqq.; religious unrest in, 16.
Episcopate in Pontifical and Or
dinal compared, 174.
Erasmus, on English love of learn
ing, 6 ; friends of, 7 ; translation
of New Testament from the
Greek, 7 ; protested that ' ' hu
manists" were not opposed to
Church, 8.
Errol, Earl of, a Catholic, 245.
Eton College, ancient paintings in
*? chapel of, 38.
Eucharist, Holy, in pre-Reforma
tion times, 220 seqq.
Euchologium of Greek Church, 177 ;
contains valid rites, 182.
Eugenius IV, and Instructio ad Ar
menos, 157, 175; on validity of
Greek Orders, 184.
Examinations of conscience, 44.

Faguet, M. Emile, on mistaken
1 notions of the Church, 290.
Fan tracery in England, examples
of, 21.
ilastidius, British Bishop, on the
priesthood, 221.
Feckenham, Abbot, speech of,
g against innovations in religion,
?'no.
Ferrar, Bishop, ordained by Pon
tifical, consecrated by Ordinal,
degraded only from priesthood,

154; his teaching on the priest
hood, 165.
Fisher, Bishop, friend of Erasmus,
7; studies at Cambridge re
modelled by, 8; deceived in di
vorce question, 71.
Forbes, Bishop, on persecution of
Catholics in Scotland, 247.
Form and Intention, defect of, in
Anglican Ordinal, 170.
Fox, Bishop, announces Rome's
decision to try divorce case, 77.
France and the Vatican, 288 seqq. ;
breach between, effected by M.
Combes, 312.
Franciscan missionaries in Scotland,
245, 258.
Froude, J. A., on Henry VIII's
divorce, 59.
Gairdner, Dr. James, on Lollardy
and Protestantism, 17; on Henry
VIII's divorce question, 58; dis
cusses adversely grounds set
forth to obtain papal dispensa
tion, 74; on Mr. W. H. Button's
views on English Reformation,
9i-
Gardiner, Bishop, sent to prison,
116; explains Catholic faith on
Sacrament of the Altar, 140.
Germanus sent to Britain to com
pose differences, 221.
Gervase, Father George, 267.
Glastonbury, scholarship at, 11.
Goodrich, Bishop, his teaching on
the priesthood, 165.
Gordon riots, 203.
Gordon, Bishop James, reports to
Propaganda on work of Scotch
missioners, 260.
Gordon, Father James, labours in
Scotland, reports to Propaganda,
256.

352

INDEX

Gordon, Father Robert, dies of de
cline, 258.
Grant, Father James, imprisoned
for his priesthood, 260.
Gregory's, St., community of, settled
in England, 277.
Grocyn, friend of Erasmus, 7.
Guardian, misleading review by, of
Register of Bishop William of
Wykeham, 337.
Guilds, parish, Dr. Jessop on, 30.
Hadley, Thos., career of, 10.
Haggerty, Father Patrick, O.F.M.,
and others, labours of, 250.
Hamilton, John, Archbishop of St.
Andrews, hanged, 242.
Hanotaux, M., on value of Con
cordats, 291.
Harding, Dr., declared Ordinal to
be invalid, 168.
Harpsfield, Nich., declared Ordinal
to be invalid, 168.
Hay, Bishop, centenary of, 239.
Heath, Bishop of Worcester, up
holds the Mass, 123; opposes
new Ordinal, 138; (Archbishop),
proclaims Elizabeth as lawful
Queen, 98.
Henry VIII, writes to his agent
Knight in Rome, 73 ; liaison with
Anne Boleyn known to public,
79 ; visits Campeggio, 80.
Herries, Elizabeth, Lady, sufferings
of, 248.
Hesketh, Father W. Ildephonsus,
268.
Heskin, Thos. , on schismatical and
heretical ministers, 168.
Hickey, Father Anthony, O.F.M.,
added to Commission on Greek
Orders, 180; in favour of validity
of Greek Orders, 187.
Hilarion, Abbot, and tradition of

instruments in Greek Orders,
179.
Hingeston-Randolph, Prebendary,
excellence of his edition of Exeter
Registers, 337.
Hobhouse, Bishop, on mediaeval
parish life, 28 ; on care of parish
poor, 31.
Holbeach, Bishop of Lincoln, op
posed to the Mass, 123.
Holy Water, effects of, and love of
Scotch Catholics for, 252.
Hooper, Bishop, his teaching on the
priesthood, 164; ordained by
Pontifical, consecrated by Ordinal,
degraded only from priesthood,
154.
Howard, Father Placid, 279.
Humanist studies not hostile to
spirit of the Church, 9.
Huntly, Marquis of, 244, 245;
placed under Archbishop Sharp
to be made a Protestant, 253. j
Hutton, W. H., lectures on the
English Reformation, 87; his
conclusions thereon criticised, 87 ;
on Queen Elizabeth's influence
on the Reformation, 97.
Images destroyed, 118.
Innes, Father John, S.J., experi
ences of, as a missioner, 259.
Innocent IV, admits validity of
Greek Orders, 183.
Institute, Catholic, establishment
and aims of, 214.
Instruction, religious, 44. ,
Ireland, state of Catholics in, in
1782, 205 ; Bank of, established,
205.
James I did not impose oath of
supremacy, but only of allegiance, '
201.

INDEX

353

James VI, in favour of persecution,
242.
Jessop, Dr., on ancient parish life
in England, 25 ; on parish posses
sions, 29; on Guilds, 30; on
Guilds as helpers of poor, 33 ; on
village plays, 35.
Jesuit missionaries in Scotland, 245.
Johnson, Dr., on spiritual desola
tion in the Hebrides, 261.
Katherine, Queen, considered
e, Wolsey culpable in divorce ques-
" tion, 65; kept in ignorance of
jf proceedings in divorce question,
" 70; appeals to Pope, 82; pro-
£¦'- nounced contumacious, 82.
Kendal, Father Richard, 278; pur
chases Downside, 278; death of,
278.
Knight, obtains Bull from Cle
ment VII granting Henry VIII
leave to many if first marriage
should be dissolved, 74.
Knox, John, personality of, asset in
Reformation, 24 1.

Laity's Directory, details about,
215; advertisements in, 216.
Lanfranc, on Eucharistic doctrine
'• m England, 228.
Latimer, Wm., friend of Eras
mus, 7.
ner, Bishop, consecrated by
ntifical, degraded from Epis
copate, 154.
Laws, penal, against Catholics,
198.
tawson,'Father Augustine, first Prior
[ of Downside, 279; acknowledged
[ as owner of property in Douai,
r 322.
Leander a Sto Martino, Father, 271;

commissioned to mitigate lot of
English Catholics, 272.
Lecky, Mr., on position of Catho
lics under penal laws, 200.
Leo XIII, and Anglican Orders,
144; lays down fundamental prin
ciples on question of Orders,
146; explains acts of Paul IV,
151 ; on defect of form and inten
tion, 157; criticises Anglican
Ordinal, 169; based his decision
on inherent invalidity of form,
170; did not protest against
Association laws - from fear of
worse evils, 310.
Leslie, Father Alexander, long
labours of, 258.
Leslie, John, Bishop of Ross, exiled,
lived in Rome, 244.
Leslie, Father Wm., S.J., 245.
Leveaux, Dom Martin, 279.
Linacre, friend of Erasmus, 7;
studies of, 11.
Lingard, Mrs., difficulties of, in
trying to hear Mass, 199.
Liturgy, changes in, by Edward VI,
115; innovations in, 117; use of
English in, introduced, 117, 125;
table showing what Edward VI
did with the Catholic, 143.
Lollards and Lutheranism, 17.
Longland, Bishop of Lincoln, on
Wolsey and the divorce, 61.
Lorymer, Father Michael, 279.
Lumsden, Father Thomas, labours
of, 252.
Lupset, Thos., friend of Erasmus,
7; advises use of Scripture,
14.
Luther, not in favour of New Learn
ing, 9-
Lutheranism in reality a revolu
tion, 9.
Lyndwood, Canonist, on Catholic
A

354

INDEX

practices, showing belief in
Eucharist, 227.

Macbreck, John, S.J., sufferings of,
246.
Macdonald, Father James, emi
grates with co-religionists to
Canada, 261.
MacDonnel, Father Francis, labours
¦ of, 254 ; eulogised by Archbishop
Oliver Plunkett, 255.
Maitland, Professor, on the Act of
Supremacy, 105; on Convoca
tion's opposition to Reformation,
107 ; views of, on the Elizabethan
settlement of religion, III.
Malony, Father, last priest tried for
priesthood, 198.
Mansfield, Lord, defeated vexatious
prosecutions of Catholic priests,
198-199.
Marsh, Father, acknowledged as
owner of property in Douai and
Paris, 322.
Marulus, Antonius, on essentials of
Orders, 188.
Mary, Queen of Scots, forbidden
Mass in her own chapel, 243.
Mass, questions relating to the,
122; certain bishops opposed to,
122-123; views, various, on the
nature of the, 123; views on use
of vernacular in the, 124; and
Communion Service contrasted,
132, 136; laity attended daily in
Middle Ages, 233.
Matter and Form, Apostolicae Curat
on, 160.
Menart, Dom Hugo, in favour of
validity of Greek Orders, 184.
Menzies, Margery, sufferings of,
247.
Ministers, Anglican, not " Mass-

priests,'' 167; difference between
schismatical and heretical, 168.
Montrose, prayer of, for Scotland,
252.
Moore, Father Augustine, 275.
More, Sir Thomas, testifies that
Church was not adverse to print
ing of Scriptures, 14; denounced
Tyndall's Bible as heretical, 15. ":•
Morebath Church, accounts of, 26.
Mores Catholici, inspiration of,
263.
Morinus, De Sacris Ecclesiae Ordin-
ibus, and the Commission on
Greek Orders, 177; added to
Commission on Greek Orders,
180; on imposition of hands in
conferring Orders, 192.
Morris, Bishop William Placid, 283.
Nationality, development of spirit
of, 54-
New Learning, The, 6; not op
posed by English ecclesiastical
authorities, 10.
Nicholson, Dr. Thomas, Vicar
Apostolic in Scotland, labours of,
255. 258-
Nithsdale, Countess of, refuses to
deny her religion, 253.
Nuns of France, fate of, 303.
O'Connell, Daniel, on Catholic dis
abilities, 197 ; on position of
Catholic gentry in penal timesv
206; addresses first meeting of
Catholic Institute, 217.
Offertory of Mass and Communion
Service contrasted, 132, 133 note.\
Oglethorpe, Bishop, forbidden to,
elevate Host, 103. :
Opus Majus of Roger Bacon, re
views of, 334; faults in, 335.

INDEX
published

355

" Order of Communion
in 1548, 124.
Orders, religious, in France, 294;
Authorisation of, 296.
Orders, English, conferred by Or
dinal never acknowledged, 148 ;
|, decisions against grounded on in-
~ validity of rite, 158.
Ordinal, legislation for a new, 137 ;
opposed by Bishop Heath, 138;
contrasted with Pontifical, 139;
Edwardine, created body of
bishops and priests different from
those of Catholic Church, 146;
clergy ordained by, reordained in
Mary's reign, 156; published by
authority, 158; got rid of notion
of sacrifice and priesthood, 159;
and Pontifical compared, 159;
details of forms in, discussed, 161 ;
created a new rite, 162; want of
definition in forms of, 162; and
Pontifical, contrast between, re-
- veals startling differences, 163.
Ordination, changes in forms for,
»37-
Ordinations, Anglican, the question
of, 144 seqq.
Palm Sunday, procession of Blessed
', Sacrament on, 234.
Parish life, possessions, 29; poor
< rates avoided, 29; poor, care of,
3i-
Parker, Archbishop, his teaching
on the priesthood, 165.
Parliament, and title of " Supreme
¦; Head," 108; discussion in, on
. doctrine of the Sacrament, 127.
Paul IV, attitude of, towards Eliza-
j. beth's accession, 100; approves
P of Cardinal Pole's measures in re
'•'. Ordinal, 150.
Panli, Dr., on value of Calendar of

Letters, etc., for reign of Henry
VIII, 59.
Peckham, Archbishop, orders ring
ing of sacring bell, 233.
Peers, Catholic, conform or fall
away, 208.
People, attitude of English, to
Church, before Reformation, 4.
Pickering, Brother Thomas, 268.
Piers Plowman, on the Blessed
Eucharist, 232; on frequency of
communion, 233.
Pilkington, Bishop, his teaching on
the priesthood, 165, 166.
Pius X, insulted by French Govern
ment, 310; protests against
breach of Concordat, 310.
Plays, village, 34; "miracle," 34.
Plunket, Archbishop Oliver, put in
charge of Scotch Catholics, 253 ;
report of, on Scotland, 254.
Polding, Archbishop John Bede,
282; founder of hierarchy in Aus
tralia, 283.
Pole, Cardinal, faculties granted to,
and terms of his commission,
147.
Politiano, Angelo, teacher of Lin
acre, 11.
Powel (or Morgan or Prosser),
Father Philip, 268.
Poynter, Dr., on numbers of priests
and Catholics, 209.
Practices, religious, of English lay-
folk in 1500, 19.
Praeclara Charissimi Bull, docu
ment, important discovery of,
150; entered in Pole's Register
as received, 152; points out want
of definition in forms of Ordinal,
162.
Prayer Book of Edward VI re
stored by Elizabeth, 109.
Press, foreign, takes side of French

356

INDEX

Government against the Pope,
310.
Pressens£, M., drafted Bill for aboli
tion of Concordat, 310.
Priesthood in Pontifical and Ordinal
compared, 1 73.
Privy Council, decided against
claim of English Benedictines to
compensation, 324.
Propaganda Fide, Congregation de,
establishment of, 176.
Publishers supposed to be adverse
from wasting review copies of
books, 333.
Puritanism, intolerance of, in Scot
land, 246.
" Quebec Act," 195.
Quignon, Cardinal, Breviary of,
"5-
Rabier, M., "reporter" on sup
pression of Congregations, 301.
Ramsey, scholarship at, II.
Raynal, Abbot, 286.
Reading, scholarship at, 11.
Reformation, English, what it was,
86 seqq. ; difference between the
and a, 93; steps in ensuring, on
Elizabeth's accession, 102.
Register of Bishop William of Wyke-
ham, 337 ; mistakes in, 338 seqq.
Relief Bill, of 1778, 195 ; good
effected by, 200; of 1791, 21 1.
Reviewers, faults of, 334.
Reviewing, system of, in England,
lax, 333.
Richardus, Vincent, officially op
poses Greek Orders, 177; ques
tions Greek subdiaconate, 179;
grounds of his opposition to
Greek Orders, 181.
Ridley, Bishop, opposed to the
Mass, 122; consecrated by Pon

tifical, degraded from Episcopate,,.
154; his teaching on the priest-,,
hood, 164. 4
Roberts, Venerable John, 265^
martyrdom of, 266; relics of.p
266. j
Rogers, Thorold, on parish guilds,_,
30; on care of poor, 32; on uses
of chantries, 35.
Rugg, Bishop of Norwich, upholds',
the Mass, 123. f.
Sander, Nicholas, on Wolsey and.
the divorce, 61.
Sandys, Bishop, his teaching on
the priesthood, 165.
Sacrament, Blessed, insults to, 1 18;
Act for administration under
both kinds, 118; discussion in
Parliament on the doctrine of the,"
127; popular devotion to, in
Middle Ages, 235.
Savile, Sir Geo., Relief Bill of, hr
1778, 195 ; his Act, oath enjoined5
by, 201.
Saxon England, Eucharistic doc
trine of, 224; belief of, in Tran--
substantiation, 225.
Scholarship at low ebb in England,?
332- :
Schoolmasters, Catholic, disabilities
of, 200.
Schools, Catholic, existence of, in:
various secluded places, 209 ; ad~
vertisements of, 210.
Scot, Bishop, speech of, against in
novations in religion, 1 10.
Scotland in Penal Days, 239.^.!:
in 1560, 240; missionaries go to^
244.
Scott, Father Dunstan, 279.
Scott, Father Maurus, 267.
Screens, church, examples df, in Sus
sex, etc., 37. -\

INDEX

357

Sellyng, Wm., career of, io; trans
lator, 12; architect and church
restorer, 20; letters of, 48.
Shakespeare on Wolsey and the
divorce question, 64.
Sharrock, Father Jerome, and St.
, Gregory's during French Revolu
tion, 276; refused mitre, 286.
Skip, Bishop of Hereford, upholds
the Mass, 123.
Smith, Abbot, 286.
Smythe, Sir Edward, offers hos
pitality to exiled monks from
Douay, 277.
Soho, St. Patrick's Catholic Chapel
of, 216.
Somers Town, Catholic Chapel at,
216.
Sotus held that Greek rite implicitly
contained whole of Latin forms,
187.
"Standard, Battle of the," and
Blessed Sacrament, 233.
Stanley, Sir Wm. , indicted for re
fusing to sell coach-horses, 199.
Stapleton, Dr., declared Ordinal to
be invalid, 168.
Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral criti
cised, 336.
Succession, Law of, in England,
68.
Supremacy, Act of, bishops oppose,
106; passed, 105; Professor
Maitland on, 105; scope of, 106.
Sweeney, Abbot, 286.

Tables comparing Pontifical with
Ordinal, for diaconate, 172; for
priesthood, 173; for episcopate,
174.
Tarantesius, Peter (Innocent V), on
imposition of hands in conferring
Orders, 191.

Tertullian on Christianity in Britain,
220.
Theodore, St., of Canterbury, work
of, 222; issues Penitential, 223;
calls Mass a "sacrifice," 223.
Thirlby, Bishop, sent to Rome to
receive directions as to Anglican
Ordinal, 149.
" Thoroughness," lacking in Eng
land, 328; studied in Germany,
329; examples of want of, 339
seqq.
Tombs, saints', in England, 23.
"Tradition of Instruments," 157,
175; not essential, 158.
Transactions of the Shropshire Ar
chaeological Society, egregious
mistakes in, 344.
Transubstantiation, belief in, in
Saxon England, 225.
Trent, Council of, endeavoured to
uproot abuses, 53 ; on imposition
of hands and tradition of instru
ments in conferring Orders, 191.
Troubles connected with the Prayer
Book of 1 549, by Pocock , 1 3 1 note.
Tunstal, Bishop, friend of Eras
mus, 7.
Tunstall, Venerable Thomas, 267.
Twyne, the antiquary, testifies to
learning at Canterbury, 12.
Tyndall's Bible condemned because
heretical, 15.

Ullathome, Archbishop Wm. Ber
nard, 283; labours of, in Australia,
284.
Uniformity, Act of, driven through
Parliament, 109; imposed new
service, 131.
Universities, religious at, 12; re
ligious help secular clergy at, 13.
Urban VIII and commission to

358

INDEX

consider Greek Euchologium,
178.
Vatican White Book, 288.
Vaughan, Archbishop Roger Bede,
and Archbishop of Sydney,
N.S.W., 285.
Vicarius, mistaken reading con
cerning, 343.
Vicecomes, mistaken reading con
cerning, 343.
Victricius, sent to Britain to com
pose differences, 221*
Vives, Ludovico, the humanist
scholar, 12.
Waldeck-Rousseau, M., purpose of,
in forcing authorisation of reli
gious Orders, 297; object of, not
to destroy Orders, 297; advised
Congregations to apply for author
isation, 299; pledges of, to Con
gregations, posted up throughout
France, 302.
Walmesley, Bishop, on numbers of
priests and Catholics, 209.
Walter, Archbishop Hubert, on
reverence to Blessed Sacrament,
228.
Warham, Archbishop, friend of
Erasmus, 7 ; denounces Tyndall's
Bible as heretical, 15; over
burdened with cares of State, 51;
assessor with Wolsey in divorce
inquiry, 72.
Weld, Charles, on aims of Catholic
Institute, 214.
Westminster Conference, 108.
Wharton, Bishop of St. Asaph, up
holds the Mass, 123.
White, Bishop of Winchester, ar

rested after funeral sermon on
Queen Mary, 99.
White, Father Francis, labours of,
251, 252.
Wiclif, heirs of, to be sought abroad,
not in England, 95 ; source of his
cult is in Foxe, 96 note.
Wills, evidence of, to belief in
Blessed Sacrament, 231.
Wilson, Father Peter, 286 ; refused
mitre, 286.
Winchester College, ancient paint:
ings in Lady Chapel of, 38.
Wolsey, Cardinal, good churchman
as well as statesman, 51 j and the
divorce, 57 seqq. ; did not originate
project of divorce, 60; view of his
complicity in the divorce, 62 ; and
the divorce, Catholic traditional
view on, 64; Shakespeare on, 64;
working for his own hand in di
vorce question, 67; summons
King Henry before Legatine
Court, 69 ; loses ascendancy over
King Henry, 72 ; attempts to re
gain ascendancy, 73; perplexed
by Rome's decision to try divorce
case, 77; opens Legatine Court,
81 ; last acts of, as Chancellor, 83;
deprived of Great Seal, 83; de
clared rebel and traitor, 84 ; falls
sick at Leicester, 84; dies, 84;
bewails his fallen greatness, 85;
burial of, 85.
Wriothesley chronicles introduc
tion of English into Liturgy,
125.
Wynkyn de Worde, helped by
Church to print works of in
struction, 13.

CHISWICK PRESS: CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

DD

2U