HENRY VIII., SUPREME HEAD OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH--A MARTYR.
(1538.)
[Sidenote: RETURN OF GARDINER.]
The Romish party in England did not confine itself to preventing
the union of Henry with the Protestants of Germany; but contended
at all points against evangelical reformation, and strove to gain
over the king by a display of enthusiastic devotion to his person
and his ecclesiastical supremacy. This was especially the policy of
Gardiner. Endowed with great acuteness of intellect, he had studied
the king's character, and he put forth all his powers to secure his
adoption of his own views. Henry did not esteem his character, but
highly appreciated his talents, and on this account employed him.
Now Gardiner was the mainstay of the Scholastic doctrines and the
most inflexible opponent of the Reformation. He was for three years
ambassador in France, and during that mission he had displayed great
pomp and spent a sum equivalent, in our present reckoning, to about
sixty thousand pounds. He had visited the court of the emperor, and
had had interviews with the Roman legate. One day, at Ratisbon, an
Italian named Ludovico, a servant of the legate, while talking with one
of the attendants of Sir Henry Knevet, who was a member of the English
embassy, had confided to him the statement that Gardiner had secretly
been reconciled with the pope, and had entered into correspondence with
him. Knevet, exceedingly anxious to know what to think of it, had had
a conference with Ludovico, and had come away convinced of the reality
of the fact. No sooner did Gardiner get wind of these things, then he
betook himself to Granvella, chancellor of the empire, and sharply
complained to him of the calumnies of Ludovico. The chancellor ordered
the Italian to be put in prison; but in spite of this measure many
continued to believe that he had spoken truth. We are inclined to think
that Ludovico said more than he knew. The story, however, indicates
from which quarter the wind was blowing in the sphere in which Gardiner
moved. He had set out for Paris on October 1, 1535; and on September
28, 1538, there was to be seen entering London a brilliant and numerous
band, mules and chariots hung with draperies on which were embroidered
the arms of the master, lackeys, gentlemen dressed in velvet, with many
ushers and soldiers. This was Gardiner and his suite.[253]
The three years' absence of this formidable adversary of the Gospel had
been marked by a slackening of the persecution, and by a more active
propagation of the Holy Scriptures. His return was to be distinguished
by a vigorous renewal of the struggle against the Gospel. This was the
main business of Gardiner. To this he consecrated all the resources
of the most acute understanding and the most persistent character. He
began immediately to lay snares round the king, whom in this respect
it was not very hard to entrap. Two difficulties, however, arose. At
first Henry VIII., by the influence of the deceased queen, had been
somewhat softened towards the Reformation. Then the rumors of the
reconciliation of Gardiner with the pope might have alienated the king
from him. The crafty man proceeded cleverly and killed two birds with
one stone. 'The pope,' he said to the king, 'is doing all he can to
ruin you.' Henry, provoked at the mission of Pole, had no doubt of
that. 'You ought then, Sire,' continued the bishop, 'to do all that is
possible to conciliate the Continental powers, and to place yourself
in security from the treacherous designs of Rome.[254] Now the surest
means of conciliating Francis I., Charles V., and other potentates,
is to proceed rigorously against heretics, especially against the
sacramentarians.' Henry agreed to the means proposed with the more
readiness because he had always been a fanatic for the corporal
presence, and because the Lutherans, in his view, could not take
offence at seeing him burn some of the sacramentarians.
A beginning was made with the Anabaptists. The mad and atrocious things
perpetrated at Munster were still everywhere talked of, and these
wretched people were persecuted in all European countries. Some of them
had taken refuge in England. In October, 1538, the king appointed a
commission to examine certain people 'lately come into the kingdom, who
are keeping themselves in concealment in various nooks and corners.'
The commission was authorized to proceed, even supposing this should be
in contravention of any statutes of the realm.[255]
Four Anabaptists bore the fagots at Paul's church, and two others,
a man and a woman, originally from the Netherlands, were burnt in
Smithfield. Cranmer and Bonner sat on this commission, side by side
with Stokesley and Sampson. This fact shows what astonishing error
prevailed at the time in the minds of men. Gardiner wanted to go
further; and while associating, when persecution was in hand, with such
men as Cranmer, he had secret conferences with Stokesley, bishop of
London, Tonstall of Durham, Sampson of Chichester, and others, who were
devoted to the doctrines of the Middle Ages. They talked over the means
of resisting the reforms of Cranmer and Cromwell, and of restoring
Catholicism.
[Sidenote: BISHOP SAMPSON.]
Bishop Sampson, one of Gardiner's allies, was a staunch friend of
ancient superstitions, and attached especial importance to the
requirement that God should not be addressed in a language understood
by the common people. 'In all places,' he said, 'both with the Latins
and the Greeks, the ministers of the church sung or said their offices
or prayers in the Latin or Greek grammatical tongue, and not in the
vulgar. That the people prayed apart in such tongues as they
would... and he wished that all the ministers were so well learned that
they understood their offices, service or prayers which they said in the
Latin tongue.'[256] In his view, it was not lawful to speak to God
except _grammatically_.
Sampson, a weak and narrow-minded man, was swayed by prejudices and
ruled by stronger men; and he had introduced in his diocese customs
contrary to the orders of the king. Weak minds are often in the van
when important movements are beginning; the strong ones are in the
rear and urge them on. This was the case with Sampson and Gardiner.
Cromwell, who had a keen and penetrating intellect, and whose glance
easily searched the depths of men's hearts and pierced to the core
of facts, perceived that some project was hatching against the
Reformation; and as he did not dare to attack the real leaders, he
had Sampson arrested and committed to the Tower. The bishop was not
strong-minded and trembled for a slight cause; it may, therefore, be
imagined how it was with him when he found himself in the state prison.
He fell into great trouble and extraordinary dejection of mind.[257]
His imagination was filled with fatal presentiments, and his soul was
assailed by great terrors. To have displeased the king and Cromwell,
what a crime! One might have thought that he would die of it, says a
historian. He saw himself already on the scaffold of Bishop Fisher and
Sir Thomas More. At this time the powerful minister summoned him to
his presence. Sampson admitted the formation of an alliance between
Gardiner, Stokesley, Tonstall and himself to maintain the old religion,
its traditions and rites, and to resist any innovation. He avowed the
fact that his colleagues and himself stood pledged to put forth all
their efforts for the restoration of degenerated Catholicism. In their
opinion, nothing which the Greeks had preserved ought to be rejected
in England. One day when Bishop Sampson was passing over the Thames in
a barge, in company with the bishop of Durham, to Lambeth Palace, the
latter produced an old Greek book which he used to carry in his pocket,
and showed Sampson several places in that book wherein matters that
were then in controversy were ordained by the Greek Church.[258] These
bishops, who spoke so courageously to each other, did not speak so with
the king. They feigned complete accordance with him; and for him they
had nothing but flatteries. Cranmer was not strong, but at least he was
never a hypocrite. Sampson, however, exhibited so much penitence and
promised so much submission that he was liberated. But Cromwell now
knew what to think of the matter. A conspiracy was threatening the work
which he had been at so much pains to accomplish. He observed that the
archbishop's influence was declining at court, and he began to have
secret forebodings of calamity in which he would be himself involved.
Gardiner, in fact, energetically urged the king to re-establish all
the ancient usages. Thus, although but a little while before orders
had been given to place bibles in the churches, and to preach against
pilgrimages, tapers, kissing of relics, and other like practices,[259]
it was now forbidden to translate, publish, and circulate any religious
works without the king's permission; and injunctions were issued for
the use of holy water, for processions, for kneeling down and crawling
before the cross, and for lighting of tapers before the _Corpus
Christi_. Discussions about this sacrament of the Eucharist were
prohibited.[260] It was Gardiner's wish to seal these ordinances with
the blood of martyrs. He had begun by striking _in anima vili_; the
persecution of the Dutch sacramentarians was merely the _exordium_; it
was needful now to proceed to the very action itself, to strike a blow
at an evangelical and esteemed Englishman, and to invest his death with
a certain importance.
[Sidenote: JOHN NICHOLSON.]
There was at this time in London, a minister named John Nicholson,
who had studied at the university of Cambridge, had been converted by
means of his conversations with Bilney, and had afterwards been the
friend of Tyndale and Frith, and by his intercourse with them had been
strengthened in the faith. He was a conscientious man, who did not
suppose that it was enough to hold a doctrine comformable with the Word
of God, but, conscious of the great value of the truth, was ready to
lay down his life for it, even if there were nothing at stake but a
point looked upon as secondary. Faithfulness or unfaithfulness to one's
convictions--this was in his view the decisive test of the morality
or immorality of a man. In the age of the Reformation there were
greater preachers and greater theologians than Nicholson; but there
was not one more deserving of honor. Having translated from the Latin
and the Greek works which might give offence, and having professed his
faith, he had been obliged to cross the sea, and he became chaplain to
the English house at Antwerp. Here it was that he became acquainted
with Tyndale and Frith. Being accused of heresy by one Barlow, he
was taken to London, by order of Sir Thomas More, then chancellor,
and was kept prisoner at Oxford, in the house of Archbishop Warham,
where he was deprived of every thing, especially of books. On the
occasion of his appearance, in 1532, before the archbishop and other
prelates, Nicholson steadfastly maintained that all that is necessary
to salvation is to be found in the Holy Scripture. 'This,' he said, 'is
the question which is the head and whole content of all others objected
against me. This is both the helm and stern of both together.'[261]
There were forty-five points, and to these he made answer article by
article.[262] Shortly afterwards, in consequence of the death of Warham
and of Cranmer's appointment to the vacant see, the Antwerp chaplain
was set at liberty. He determined to remain in London, took, it seems,
from prudential considerations, the name of Lambert, and devoted
himself to the labors of a teacher, but at the same time adhered to the
resolution to avail himself of every opportunity of maintaining the
truth.
[Sidenote: HIS WORK ON THE LORD'S SUPPER.]
Being informed one day that Doctor Taylor was to preach at St. Peter's
Church, Cornhill, he went to hear him, not only because of his
well-known gifts, but also because he was not far from the Gospel. He
was later appointed bishop of Lincoln under pious King Edward, and
was deprived of that office under the fanatical Mary. Taylor preached
that day on the real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine.
Nicholson also believed, indeed, in the presence of the Lord in the
Supper, but this presence, he believed, was in the hearts of the
faithful. After the service he went to see Taylor, and with modesty
and kindliness urged various arguments against the doctrines which he
had been setting forth. 'I have not time just now,' said the doctor,
'to discuss the point with you, as other matters demand my attention;
but oblige me by putting your thoughts in writing and call again when
I am more at leisure.' Lambert applied himself to the task of writing,
and against the doctrine of the presence in the _bread_ he adduced ten
arguments, which were, says Fox, very powerful. It does not appear
that Taylor replied to them. He was an upright man, who gave impartial
consideration to these questions, and by Nicholson's reasoning he seems
to have been somewhat shaken. As Taylor was anxious to be enlightened
himself and to try to satisfy his friendly opponent, he communicated
the document to Barnes. The latter, a truly evangelical Christian, was
nevertheless of opinion that to put forward the doctrine of this little
work would seriously injure the cause of the Reformation. He therefore
advised Taylor to speak to Archbishop Cranmer on the subject. Cranmer,
who was of the same opinion, invited Nicholson to a conference, at
which Barnes, Taylor, and Latimer were also present. These four
divines had not at this time abandoned the view which the ex-chaplain
of Antwerp opposed: and considering the fresh revival of sacramental
Catholicism, they were not inclined to do so. They strove therefore to
change the opinion of the pious minister, but in vain. Finding that
they unanimously condemned his views, he exclaimed: 'Well then, I
appeal to the king.' This was a foolish and fatal appeal.
Gardiner did not lose a minute, but promptly took the business in
hand, because he saw in it an opportunity of striking a heavy blow;
and, what was an inestimable advantage, he would have on his side,
he thought, Cranmer and the other three evangelical divines. He
therefore 'went straight to the king,'[263] and requesting a private
audience, addressed him in the most flattering terms. Then, as if the
interests of the king were dearer to him than to the king himself, he
respectfully pointed out that he had everywhere excited by various
recent proceedings suspicion and hatred; but that at this moment a
way was open for pacifying men's minds, 'if only in this matter of
John Lambert, he would manifest unto the people how strictly he would
resist heretics; and by this new rumor he would bring to pass not only
to extinguish all other former rumors, and as it were with one nail to
drive out another, but also should discharge himself of all suspicion,
in that he now began to be reported to be a favorer of new sects and
opinions.'[264]
The vanity as well as the interests of Henry VIII. dictated to him the
same course as Gardiner advised. He determined to avail himself of this
opportunity to make an ostentatious display of his own knowledge and
zeal. He would make arrangements of an imposing character; it would not
be enough to hold a mere conversation, but there must be a grand show.
He therefore ordered invitations to be sent to a great number of nobles
and bishops to attend the solemn trial at which he would appear as head
of the church. He was not content with the title alone, he would show
that he acted the part. One of the principal characteristics of Henry
VIII. was a fondness for showing off what he conceived himself to be or
what he supposed himself to know, without ever suspecting that display
is often the ruin of those who wish to seem more than they are.[265]
Meanwhile Lambert, confined at Lambeth, wrote an apology for his faith
which he dedicated to the king, and in which he solidly established
the doctrine which he had professed.[266] He rejoiced that his request
to be heard before Henry VIII. had been granted. He desired that his
trial might be blessed, and he indulged in the pleasing illusion
that the king, once set in the presence of the truth, must needs be
enlightened and would publicly proclaim it. These pleasant fancies gave
him courage, and he lived on hope.
[Sidenote: LAMBERT BEFORE THE KING.]
On the appointed day, Friday, November 16, 1538, the assembly was
constituted in Westminster Hall. The king, in his robes of state,
sat upon the throne. On his right were the bishops, judges, and
jurisconsults; on his left the lords temporal of the realm and the
officers of the royal house. The guards, attired in white, were near
their master, and a crowd of spectators filled the hall. The prisoner
was placed at the bar. Doctor Day[267] spoke to the following effect:
That the king in this session would have all states, degrees, bishops,
and all others to be admonished of his will and pleasure, that no man
should conceive any sinister opinion of him, as that now the authority
and name of the bishop of Rome being utterly abolished, he would also
extinguish all religion, or give liberty unto heretics to perturb and
trouble, without punishment, the churches of England, whereof he is the
head. And moreover that they should not think that they were assembled
at that present to make any disputation upon the heretical doctrine;
but only for this purpose, that by the industry of him and other
bishops the heresies of this man here present (meaning Lambert), and
the heresies of all such like, should be refuted or openly condemned
in the presence of them all. Henry's part then began. His look was
sternly fixed on Lambert, who stood facing him; his features were
contracted, his brows were knit.[268] His whole aspect was adapted
to inspire terror, and indicated a violence of anger unbecoming in a
judge, and still more so in a sovereign. He rose, stood leaning on a
white cushion, and looking Lambert full in the face, he said to him in
a disdainful tone: 'Ho! good fellow, what is thy name?' The accused,
humbly kneeling down, replied: 'My name is John Nicholson, although of
many I be called Lambert.' 'What!' said the king, 'have you two names?
I would not trust you, having two names, although you were my brother.'
'O most noble prince,' replied the accused, 'your bishops forced me of
necessity to change my name.' Thereupon the king, interrupting him,
commanded him to declare what he thought as touching the sacrament
of the altar. 'Sire,' said Lambert, 'first of all I give God thanks
that you do not disdain to hear me. Many good men, in many places,
are put to death, without your knowledge. But now, forasmuch as that
high and eternal King of kings hath inspired and stirred up the king's
mind to understand the causes of his subjects, specially whom God of
his divine goodness hath so abundantly endued with so great gifts of
judgment and knowledge, I do not mistrust but that God will bring some
great thing to pass through him, to the setting forth of the glory
of his name.' Henry, who could not bear to be praised by a heretic,
rudely interrupted Lambert, and said to him in an angry tone: 'I came
not hither to hear mine own praises thus painted out in my presence;
but briefly go to the matter, without any more circumstance.' There
was so much harshness in the king's voice that Lambert was agitated
and confused. He had dreamed of something very different. He had
conceived a sovereign just and elevated above the reach of clerical
passions, whose noble understanding would be struck with the beauty of
the Gospel. But he saw a passionate man, a servant of the priests.
In astonishment and confusion he kept silence for a few minutes,
questioning within himself what he ought to do in the extremity to
which he was reduced.
[Sidenote: HIS ADDRESS.]
Lambert was especially attached to the great verities of the Christian
religion, and during his trial he made unreserved confession of them.
'Our Saviour would not have us greatly esteem our merits,' said
he, 'when we have done what is commanded by God, but rather reckon
ourselves to be but servants unprofitable to God ... not regarding our
merit, but his grace and benefit. Woe be to the life of men, said St.
Augustine, be they ever so holy, if Thou shalt examine them, setting
thy mercy aside.... Again he says, Doth any man give what he oweth not
unto Thee, that Thou should'st be in his debt? and hath any man aught
that is not Thine?... All my hope is in the Lord's death. His death is
my merit, my refuge, my health, and my resurrection. And thus,' adds
Lambert, 'we should serve God with hearty love as children, and not for
need or dread, as unloving thralls and servants.'[269]
But the king wanted to localize the attack and to limit the examination
of Lambert to the subject of the sacrament. Finding that the accused
stood silent, the king said to him in a hasty manner with anger and
vehemency:[270] 'Why standest thou still? Answer as touching the
sacrament of the altar, whether dost thou say that it is the body
of Christ or wilt deny it?' After uttering these words, the king
lifted up his cap adorned with pearls and feathers, probably as a
token of reverence for the subject under discussion. 'I answer with
St. Augustine,' said Lambert, 'that it is the body of Christ after
a certain manner.'[271] The king replied: 'Answer me neither out of
St. Augustine, nor by the authority of any other; but tell me plainly
whether thou sayest it is the body of Christ or no.' Lambert felt what
might be the consequences of his answer, but without hesitation he
said: 'Then I deny it to be the body of Christ.' 'Mark well!' exclaimed
the king; 'for now thou shalt be condemned even by Christ's own word,
_Hoc est corpus meum_.'
The king then turning to Cranmer commanded him to refute the opinion
of the accused. The archbishop spoke with modesty, calling Lambert
'brother,' and although refuting his arguments he told him that if he
proved his opinion from Holy Scripture, he (Cranmer) would willingly
embrace it. Gardiner, finding that Cranmer was too weak, began to
speak. Tonstall and Stokesley followed. Lambert had put forward ten
arguments, and ten doctors were appointed to deal with them, each
doctor to impugn one of them. Of the whole disputation the passage
which made the deepest impression on the assembly was Stokesley's
argument. 'It is the doctrine of the philosophers,' he said, 'that
a substance can not be changed but into a substance.' Then, by the
example of water boiling on the fire, he affirmed the substance of
the water to pass into the substance of the air.[272] On hearing
this argument, the aspect of the bishops, hitherto somewhat uneasy,
suddenly changed. They were transported with joy, and considered this
transmutation of the elements as giving them the victory, and they cast
their looks over the whole assembly with an air of triumph. Loud shouts
of applause for some time interrupted the sitting. When silence was at
length restored, Lambert replied that the moistness of the water, its
real essence, remained even after this transformation; that nothing
was changed but the form; while in their system of the _corpus domini_
the substance itself was changed; and that it is impossible that the
qualities and accidents of things should remain in their own nature
apart from their own subject. But Lambert was not allowed to finish
his refutation. The king and the bishops, indignant that he ventured
to impugn an argument which had transported them with admiration, gave
vent to their rage against him,[273] so that he was forced to silence,
and had to endure patiently all their insults.
[Sidenote: CONDEMNATION OF LAMBERT.]
The sitting had lasted from noon till five o'clock in the evening. It
had been a real martyrdom for Lambert. Loaded with rebukes and insults,
intimidated by the solemnity of the proceedings and by the authority
of the persons with whom he had to do, alarmed by the presence of the
king and by the terrible threats which were uttered against him, his
body too, which was weak before, giving way under the fatigue of a
sitting of five hours, during which, standing all the time, he had been
compelled to fight a fierce battle, convinced that the clearest and
most irresistible demonstrations would be smothered amidst the outcries
of the bystanders, he called to mind these words of Scripture, 'Be
still,' and was silent. This self-restraint was regarded as defeat.
Where is the knowledge so much boasted of? they said; where is his
power of argumentation? The assembly had looked for great bursts of
eloquence, but the accused was silent. The palm of victory was awarded
to the king and the bishops by noisy and universal shouts of applause.
It was now night. The servants of the royal house appeared in the hall
and lighted the torches. Henry began to find his part as head of the
church somewhat wearisome. He determined to bring the business to a
conclusion, and by his severity to give to the pope and to Christendom
a brilliant proof of his orthodoxy. 'What sayest thou now,' he said to
Lambert, 'after all these great labors which thou hast taken upon thee,
and all the reasons and instructions of these learned men? Art thou
not yet satisfied? Wilt thou live or die? What sayest thou? Thou hast
yet free choice.' Lambert answered, 'I commend my soul into the hands
of God, but my body I wholly yield and submit unto your clemency.'
Then said the king, 'In that case you must die, for I will not be a
patron unto heretics.' Unhappy Lambert! He had committed himself to
the mercy of a prince who never spared a man who offended him, were it
even his closest friend. The monarch turned to his vicar-general and
said, 'Cromwell, read the sentence of condemnation.' This was a cruel
task to impose upon a man universally considered to be the friend of
the evangelicals. But Cromwell felt the ground already trembling under
his feet. He took the sentence and read it. Lambert was condemned to be
burnt.
Four days afterwards, on Tuesday, November 20, the evangelist was
taken out of the prison at eight o'clock in the morning and brought
to Cromwell's house. Cromwell summoned him to his room and announced
that the hour of his death was come. The tidings greatly consoled and
gladdened Lambert. It is stated that Cromwell added some words by way
of excuse for the part which he had taken in his condemnation, and
sent him into the room where the gentlemen of his household were at
breakfast. He sat down and at their invitation partook of the meal
with them, with all the composure of a Christian. Immediately after
breakfast he was taken to Smithfield, and was there placed on the
pile, which was not raised high. His legs only were burnt, and nothing
remained but the stumps. He was, however, still alive; and two of the
soldiers, observing that his whole body could not be consumed, thrust
into him their halberts, one on each side, and raised him above the
fire. The martyr, stretching towards the people his hands now burning,
said, 'None but Christ! None but Christ!' At this moment the soldiers
withdrew their weapons and let the pious Lambert drop into the fire,
which speedily consumed him.[274]
[Sidenote: FLATTERIES.]
Henry VIII., however, was not satisfied. The hope which he had
entertained of inducing Lambert to recant had been disappointed.
The Anglo-Catholic party made up for this by everywhere extolling
his learning and his eloquence. They praised his sayings to the
skies--every one of them was an oracle; he was in very deed the
defender of the faith. There was one, not belonging to that party,
who wrote to Sir Thomas Wyatt, then foreign minister to the king, as
follows:--'It was marvellous to see the gravity and the majestic air
with which his majesty discharged the functions of _Supreme head of
the Anglican Church_; the mildness with which he tried to convert that
unhappy man; the force of reasoning with which he opposed him. Would
that the princes and potentates of Christendom could have been present
at the spectacle; they would certainly have admired the wisdom and the
judgment of his majesty, and would have said _that the king is the most
excellent prince in the Christian world_.'[275]
This writer was Cromwell himself. He suppressed at this time all
the best aspirations of his nature, believing that, as is generally
thought, if one means to retain the favor of princes, it is necessary
to adapt one's self to all their wishes. A mournful fall, which was not
to be the only one of the kind! It has been said, 'Every flatterer,
whoever he may be, is always a treacherous and hateful creature.'[276]