It is true, that no more was expressed, or perhaps intended, in this
act. But the question is, how the matter was understood by the people
at large, and in particular by the king himself and his flatterers.
Now it seems to me that this transfer of the supremacy would be taken
for a solemn acknowledgment, not only of the ancient encroachments and
usurpations of the papacy, but of the king’s right to succeed to all
the powers of it. And I conclude this from the nature of the thing
itself, from the current notions of the time, and from the sequel of
the king’s government.
If we attend to the nature of the complaints which the kingdom was
perpetually making, in the days of popery, of the _Roman_ usurpations,
we shall find that they did not so much respect these usurpations
themselves, as the person claiming and enjoying them. The grievance
was, that appeals should be made to _Rome_; that provisions should come
from thence; in a word, that all causes should be carried to a foreign
tribunal, and that such powers should be exercised over the subjects
of this realm by a foreign jurisdiction. The complaint was, that the
pope exercised these powers; and not that the powers themselves were
exercised. So, on the abolition of this supremacy, the act that placed
it in the person of the king, would naturally be taken to transfer
upon him all the privileges and pre-eminencies, which had formerly
belonged to it. And thus, though the act was so properly drawn as to
make a difference in the two cases, yet the people at large, and much
more the king himself, would infer from the concession, “that the pope
had usurped his powers on the crown;” that therefore the crown had now
a right to those powers. And the circumstance of this translation’s
passing by act of parliament, does not alter the matter much, with
regard to the king’s notion of it. For in that time of danger, and for
the greater security of his new power, he would chuse to have that
ratified and confirmed by statute, which he firmly believed inherent in
his person and dignity.
Then, to see how far the current opinions of that time were favourable
to the extension of the regal authority, on this alliance with the
papal, we are to reflect, that, however odious the administration of
the pope’s supremacy was become, most men had very high notions of the
plenitude of his power, and the sacredness of his person. “CHRIST’S
vicar upon earth” was an awful title, and had sunk deep into the
astonished minds of the people. And though HENRY’s pretensions went no
further than to assume that vicarial authority within his own kingdom,
yet this limitation would not hinder them from conceiving of him,
much in the same way as of the pope himself. They, perhaps, had seen
no difference, but for his want of the pope’s _sacerdotal_ capacity.
Yet even this defect was, in some measure[16], made up to him by his
_regal_. So that between the majesty of the kingly character, and
the consecration of his person by this mysterious endowment of the
spiritual, it is easy to see how well prepared the minds of men were,
to allow him the exercise of any authority to which he pretended.
And to what degree this spiritual character of head of the church
operated in the minds of the people, we may understand from the
language of men in still later times, and even from the articles of our
church, where the prerogative of the crown is said to be that which
GODLY KINGS have always exercised: intimating that this plenitude
of power was inherent in the king, on account of that _spiritual
and religious_ character, with which, as head of the church, he was
necessarily invested. The illusion, as gross as we may now think it,
was but the same as that which blinded the eyes of the greatest and
wisest people in the old world. For was it not just in the same manner,
that by the policy of the _Roman_ emperors in assuming the office of
_pontifex maximus_, that is, incorporating the religious with their
civil character, not only their authority became the more awful, but
their _persons_ sacred?
We see then, as I said, how conveniently the minds of men were prepared
to acquiesce in HENRY’s usurped prerogative. And it is well known that
this prince was not of a temper to balk their expectations. The sequel
of his reign shews that he took himself to be invested with the whole
ecclesiastical power, legislative as well as executive; nay, that he
was willing to extend his acknowledged right of supremacy even to the
ancient papal infallibility, as appears from his sovereign decisions in
all matters of faith and doctrine. It is true the parliament was ready
enough to go before, or at least to follow, the head of the church in
all these decisions. But the reason is obvious. And I need not repeat
to you in what light the king regarded their compliance with him.