innovation by committing the clergy individually to marriage, and by
enlisting the popular feeling in its support. During the discussion
they had not been idle. Much controversial writing had occurred on
both sides, in which Poynette, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, took
an active part, while Bale, Bishop of Ossory, distinguished himself
on the same side by raking together all the foul stories that could
be collected concerning the celibate clergy—a scandalous material
not likely to be lacking in either quantity or quality. Burnet
declares that no law passed during the reign of Edward excited more
contradiction and censure, and the matrimonialists soon found that,
even with the act of parliament in their favor, their course was not
wholly a smooth one. Cranmer ordered a visitation in his province, and
directed as one of the points for inquiry and animadversion, “Whether
any do contemn married priests, and, for that they be married, will
not receive the communion or other sacraments at their hands,”[1223]
which distinctly reveals the difficulties encountered in eradicating
the convictions of centuries from the popular mind. Sanders says, and
with every appearance of probability, that the Archbishop of York
united with Cranmer in ordering a visitation of the whole kingdom,
during which the visitors investigated particularly the morals of the
clergy, and used every argument to impel them to marriage, not only
declaring celibacy to be most dangerous to salvation, but intimating
that all who adhered to it would be regarded as papists and enemies of
the king.[1224] The active interest which Cranmer took in the question
is manifested by the fact that when Dr. Richard Smith, who had fled to
Scotland in consequence of having endeavored to stir up a tumult at
Oxford against Peter Martyr, desired to make his peace and return, the
inducement which he offered to the Archbishop of Canterbury to obtain
for him the king’s pardon was that he would write a book in favor of
priestly marriage, as he had previously done against it.[1225]
The Reformers speedily found that they were not to escape without
opposition. The masses of the people throughout England were in a state
of discontent. The vast body of abbey lands acquired by the gentry and
now inclosed bore hard upon many; the raising of rents showed that
secular landlords were less charitable than the ancient proprietors of
the soil; the increase of sheep-husbandry threw many farm laborers out
of employ;[1226] and the savage enactments, already alluded to, against
the unfortunate expelled monks show how large an element of influential
disaffection was actively at work in the substratum of society. Those
priests who disapproved of the rapid Protestantizing process adopted
by the court could hardly fail to take advantage of opportunities so
tempting, and they accordingly fanned the spark into a flame. The
enforcement of the new liturgy, on Whitsunday, 1549, seemed the signal
of revolt. Numerous risings took place, which were readily quelled,
until one in Devonshire assumed alarming proportions. Ten thousand
men in arms made demands for relief in religious as well as temporal
matters. Lord Russel, unable to meet them in the field, endeavored to
gain time by negotiation, and offered to receive their complaints.
These were fifteen in number, of which several demanded the restoration
of points of the old religion, and one insisted on the revival of the
Six Articles. On their refusal, another set was drawn up, in which not
only were the Six Articles called for, but also a special provision
enforcing the celibacy of the clergy. This was likewise rejected;
but during the delay another rising occurred in Norfolk, reckoned at
twenty thousand men, and yet another of less formidable dimensions in
Yorkshire. Russel finally scattered the men of Devon, while the Earl
of Warwick succeeded in suppressing the rebels of Norfolk, when the
promise of an amnesty caused the Yorkshiremen to disperse.[1227]
The question of open resistance thus was settled. Cranmer and his
friends had now leisure to consolidate their advantages and organize a
system that should be permanent. In 1551, he and Ridley prepared with
great care a series of forty-two articles, embodying the faith of the
church of England, which was adopted by the convocation in 1552, and
was ordered to be signed by all men in orders and all candidates for
ordination.[1228] Burnet speaks of it as bringing the Anglican doctrine
and worship to perfection. It remained unaltered during the rest of
Edward’s reign, and under Elizabeth it was only modified verbally in
the recension which resulted in the famous Thirty-nine Articles—the
foundation stone of the Episcopalian edifice. Of these forty-two
articles, the thirty-first declared that “Bishops, priests, and deacons
are not commanded by God’s law to vow the estate of a single life or to
abstain from marriage.”[1229]
The canon law had thus invested the marriage of the clergy with all
the sanctity that the union of man and wife could possess. Yet still
the deep-seated conviction of the people as to the impropriety of such
proceedings remained, troubling the repose of those who had entered
into matrimony, and doubtless operating as a restraint upon the
numbers of the imitators of Cranmer. Among the interrogatories drawn
up by John Hooper for the visitation of his diocese of Gloucester, in
1552, is one which enquires whether any midwife refuses to attend the
confinement of women who are married to ministers of the church[1230]—a
suggestion which indicates how rooted was the popular aversion to
such matches. If Strype’s description of the clergy of the period,
indeed, be correct, there was nothing in the character of the body
to overcome the popular aversion in consideration of its purity and
devotion to its sacred duties.[1231] The act of 1549 had to a certain
extent justified these prejudices by admitting the preferableness of a
single life in the ministers of Christ, and it was resolved to remove
every possible stigma by a solemn declaration of parliament. A bill
was therefore prepared and speedily passed (Feb. 10th, 1552), which
reveals how strong was the popular opposition, and how uncertain the
position of the wives and children of the clergy. It declares “That
many took occasion, from the words in the act formerly made about this
matter, to say that it was only permitted, as usury and other unlawful
things were, for the avoidance of greater evils, who thereupon spoke
slanderously of such marriages, and accounted the children begotten in
them to be bastards, to the high dishonor of the King and Parliament,
and the learned clergy of the Realm, who had determined that the laws
against priests’ marriages were most unlawful by the law of God; to
which they had not only given their assent in the Convocation, but
signed it with their hands. These slanders did also occasion that
the Word of God was not heard with due reverence.” It was therefore
enacted “That such marriages made according to the rules prescribed in
the Book of Service should be esteemed good and valid, and that the
children begot in them should be inheritable according to law.”[1232]
A still further confirmation of the question was designed in a body
of ecclesiastical law which was for several years in preparation by
various commissions appointed for the purpose. In this it was proposed
to make the abrogation of celibacy even more distinctly a matter of
faith, for, in the second Title, among the various heresies condemned
is that which, through the suggestion of the Devil, asserts that
admission to holy orders takes away the right to marry. This work,
however, though completed, had not yet received the royal assent, when
the death of Edward VI. caused it to pass out of sight until 1571, when
it was printed by Foxe and brought to the attention of Parliament, but
was laid aside owing to the opposition of Queen Elizabeth.[1233]
* * * * *
If the Protestants indulged in any day-dreams as to the permanency of
their institutions, they were not long in finding that a change of
rulers was destined to cause other changes disastrous to their hopes.
Even the funeral of Edward, on the 8th of August, 1553, afforded them
a foretaste of what was in store. Although Cranmer insisted that the
public ceremonies in Westminster Abbey should be conducted according
to the reformed rites, Queen Mary, still resident in the Tower, had
private obsequies performed with the Roman ritual, where Gardiner
celebrated mortuary mass in presence of the queen and some four hundred
attendants. When the incense was carried around, after the Gospel,
it chanced that the chaplain who bore it was a married man, and the
zealous Dr. Weston snatched it from him, exclaiming, “Shamest thou not
to do thine office, having a wife as thou hast? The queen will not be
censed by such as thou!”[1234]
Trifling as was this incident, it foreboded the wrath to come. Though
Mary was not crowned until October 1st, she had issued writs for
a parliament to assemble on the 10th, and, as an entire change in
the religious institutions of the country was intended, we may not
uncharitably believe the assertion that every means of influence and
intimidation was employed to secure the return of reactionary members.
These efforts were crowned with complete success. The Houses had
not sat for three weeks, when a bill was sent down from the Lords
repealing all the acts of Edward’s reign concerning religion, including
specifically those which permitted the marriage of priests and
legitimated their offspring; and after a debate of six days it passed
the Commons.[1235]
The effect of this was, of course, to revive the statute of the Six
Articles, and to place all married priests at the mercy of the queen;
and as soon as she felt that she could safely exercise her power,
she brought it to bear upon the offenders. A day or two after the
dissolution of parliament she commenced by issuing a proclamation
inhibiting married priests from officiating.[1236] The Spanish marriage
being agreed upon and the resultant insurrection of Sir Thomas Wyatt
being suppressed, Mary recognized her own strength, and her Romanizing
tendencies, which had previously been somewhat restrained, became
openly manifested. On the 4th of March, 1554, she issued a letter
to her bishops, of which the object was to restore the condition of
affairs under Henry VIII., except that the royal prerogatives as
head of the church were expressly disavowed. It contained eighteen
articles, to be strictly enforced throughout all dioceses. Of these the
seventh ordered that the bishops should by summary process remove and
deprive all priests who had been married or had lived scandalously,
sequestrating their revenues during the proceedings. Article VIII.
provided that widowers, or those who promised to live in the strictest
chastity, should be treated with leniency, and receive livings at some
distance from their previous abode, being properly supported meanwhile;
while Article IX. directed that those who suffered deprivation should
not on that account be allowed to live with their wives, and that due
punishment should be inflicted for all contumacy.[1237]
No time was lost in carrying out these regulations. By the 9th of the
same month, a commission was already in session at York, which cited
the clergy to appear before it on the 12th. From an appeal which is
extant, by one Simon Pope, rector of Warmington, it appears that men
were deprived without citation or opportunity for defence;[1238] and
that this was not infrequent is probable from the proceedings commenced
against offenders of the highest class, designed and well fitted to
strike terror into the hearts of the humbler parsons. On the 16th a
commission was issued to the Bishops of Winchester (Stephen Gardiner),
London (Bonner), Durham, St. Asaphs, Chichester, and Landaff, to
investigate the cases of the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of St.
Davids, Chester, and Bristol, who, according to report, had given a
most pernicious example by taking wives, in contempt of God, to the
damage of their own souls, and to the scandal of all men. Any three
of the commissioners were empowered to summon the accused before
them, and to ascertain the truth of the report without legal delays
or unnecessary circumlocution. If it were found correct, then they
were authorized to remove the offenders at once and forever from their
dignities, and also to impose penance at discretion. This was scant
measure of justice, considering that the marriage of these prelates had
been contracted under sanction of law, and, if that law had recently
been repealed, that at least the option of conforming to the new
order of things could not decently be denied; yet even this mockery
of a trial was apparently withheld, for the congé d’élire for their
successors is dated March 18th, only two days after the commission was
appointed.[1239]
During the summer the bishops went on their visitations. The articles
prepared by Bonner for his diocese are extant, among which we find
directions to inquire particularly of the people whether their
pastors are married, and, if separated, whether any communication or
intercourse takes place between them and their wives; also, whether any
one, lay or clerical, ventures to defend sacerdotal matrimony.[1240]
Few of the weaker brethren could escape an inquisition so searching as
this, and though some controversy arose, and a few tracts were printed
in defence of priestly marriage,[1241] such men as Bonner were not
likely to shrink from the thorough prosecution of the work which they
had undertaken.
When the convocation assembled in this year, it was therefore to
be expected that only orthodox opinions would find expression.
Accordingly, the lower House presented to the bishops an humble
petition praying for the restoration of the old usages, among the
points of which are requests that married priests be forcibly separated
from their wives, and that those who endeavor to abandon their order
be subjected to special animadversion. This clause shows that many
unfortunates preferred to give up their positions and lose the means of
livelihood, rather than quit the wives to whom they had sworn fidelity,
demanding, as we shall see, much subsequent conflicting legislation.
The social complications resulting from the change of religion are also
indicated in the request that married nuns may be divorced, and that
the pretended wives of priests have full liberty to marry again.[1242]
Everything being thus prepared, the purification of the church from
married heretics was prosecuted with vigor. Archbishop Parker states
that there were in England some 16,000 clergymen, of whom 12,000 were
deprived on this account, many of them most summarily; some on common
report, without trial, others without being summoned to appear before
their judges, and others again while lying in jail for not obeying the
summons. Some renounced their wives, and were yet deprived, while those
who were deprived were also, as we have seen, forced to part with their
wives. We can readily believe that the most ordinary forms of justice
were set aside, in view of the illegal and indecorous haste of the
proceedings against the married bishops described above, but Parker’s
estimate of the number of sufferers is greatly exaggerated. According
to Dr. Tanner, in the diocese of Norfolk—then estimated at one-eighth
of the whole kingdom—there were only 335 deprivations on this account;
and at York, from April 27th to December 20th, 1554, there were only
fifty-one ejected.[1243] It is probable, therefore, that the list
throughout England would not exceed three thousand; yet when to these
are added the hosts who no doubt succeeded in retaining their positions
by a compliance with the law in quietly putting away their wives,[1244]
it will be seen that the privilege of marriage had been eagerly
improved by the clergy, and that an amount of misery which it would be
difficult to estimate was caused by the enforcement of the canons.
The proceedings in the case of John Turner, rector of St. Leonard’s,
London, would seem to show that the extremity of humiliation was
inflicted on these unfortunates. Cited on March 16th to answer to the
charge of being a married man, he confessed the accusation, and we
find him on the 19th condemned to lose his benefice and be suspended
from all priestly functions, to be divorced from his wife, and to
undergo such further punishment as the canons required. The sentence
of divorce soon followed, and on May 14th he was obliged to do penance
in his late church in Eastcheap, holding a lighted candle in his hand
and solemnly declaring to the assembled congregation—“Good people, I
am come hither, at this present time, to declare unto you my sorrowful
and penitent heart, for that, being a priest, I have presumed to marry
one Amy German, widow; and, under pretence of that matrimony, contrary
to the canons and custom of the universal church, have kept her as my
wife, and lived contrary to the canons and ordinances of the church,
and to the evil example of good Christian people; whereby now, being
ashamed of my former wicked living here, I ask Almighty God mercy and
forgiveness, and the whole Church, and am sorry and penitent even from
the bottom of my heart therefore. And in token hereof, I am here, as
you see, to declare and show unto you my repentance: that before God,
on the latter day, you may testify with me of the same. And I most
heartily and humbly pray and desire you all, whom by this evil example
doing I have greatly offended, that for your part you will forgive
me, and remember me in your prayers, that God may give me grace, that
hereafter I may live a continent life, according to His laws and the
godly ordinances of our mother the holy Catholic Church, through and
by His grace. And do here, before you all, openly promise for to do
during my life.”[1245] Such scenes as these were well calculated to
produce the effect desired upon the people, but we can only guess at
the terrorism which was requisite to force educated and respectable men
to submit to such degradation.
All this was done by the royal authority, wielding the ecclesiastical
power usurped by Henry VIII. Strictly speaking, it was highly irregular
and uncanonical, but as the papal supremacy was yet in abeyance it
could not be accomplished otherwise. At last, however, the kingdom
was ripe for reconciliation with Rome. In calling the parliament of
1554, the queen issued a circular letter to the sheriffs commanding
them to admonish the people to return members “of the wise, grave,
and Catholic sort.”[1246] Her wishes were fulfilled, and ere the year
was out Cardinal Pole was installed with full legatine powers, and
Julius III. had issued his Bull of Indulgence, reuniting England to the
church from which she had been violently severed.[1247] An obedient
parliament lost no time in repealing all statutes adverse to the claims
of the Holy See, but its subserviency had limits, and one class largely
interested in the reforms of Henry had sufficient influence to maintain
its heretical rights. The church lands granted or sold to laymen were
not revendicated. Indeed, the queen, in her call for the parliament,
had felt it necessary to contradict the rumour that she and Philip
intended the “alteration of any particular Man’s Possessions.” Though
the transactions by which they had been acquired were wholly illegal;
though no duration of possession could bar the imprescriptible rights
of the church, yet the nobles and country gentlemen enriched by the
spoliation were too numerous and powerful, and the reclamation of the
kingdom was too important, to incur any peril by unseasonably insisting
on reparation for Henry’s injustice. The abbatial manors and rich
priories, the chantries, hospitals, and colleges were therefore left
in the impious hands of those who had been fortunate enough to secure
them,[1248] and the miserable remnants of the religious orders were
left to the conscience of the queen, who made haste to get rid of such
fragments of the spoil as had been retained by the crown.[1249]
Whatever tacit understanding there may have been on this delicate
subject between Queen Mary and Pope Julius was not assented to by
the imperious Caraffa who shortly afterwards ascended the chair of
St. Peter. Elected May 23, 1555, he lost no time in proclaiming the
imprescriptible rights of the church, and by his Bull “Injunctum nobis”
issued June 21st, he pronounced null and void “de apostolicæ potestatis
plenitudine” all transactions by which ecclesiastical possessions
had passed into the hands of laymen, who were duly threatened with
excommunication for prolonged attempts to hold their unhallowed
acquisitions.[1250] The effort of course was fruitless, but the spirit
in which the English protestants watched the apparent opening of a
breach between England and Rome is well expressed in a letter of Aug.
23, 1555, from Sir Richard Morrison to Henry Bullinger—“This anti-Paul,
Paul of the apostasy, the servant of the devil, this antichrist newly
created at Rome, thinks it but a very small plunder that is offered
to him, that he is again permitted in England to tyrannise over our
consciences, unless the revenues be restored to the monasteries, that
is, the pigsties; the patrimony, as he calls it, of the souls that
are now serving in the filth of purgatory. Our ambassadors, who went
to Rome for the purpose of bringing back the wolf upon the sheep of
Christ, are now with the emperor, and bring us these demands of the
chief pontiff: God grant that he may urge them in every possible
way.”[1251] The hopes of the reformers however were disappointed, for
Paul IV. gave way, and on the reassembling of Parliament, Oct. 23,
1555, a Bull was read by which the pope assented to the arrangement
agreed to by Cardinal Pole, confirming the church lands to their new
possessors.[1252]
Cardinal Pole, indeed, was not remiss in giving the sanction of the
papal authority to all that had been done. Convoking a synod, he
issued, in 1555, his Legatine Constitutions, by which all marriages of
those included in the prohibited orders were declared null and void.
Such apostates were ordered to be separated by ecclesiastical censures
and by whatever legal processes might be required; all who dared to
justify such marriages or to obstinately remain in their unholy bonds
were to be rigorously prosecuted and punished according to the ancient
canons, which were revived and declared to be in full force in order to
prevent similar scandals for the future.[1253] As the queen by special
warrant had decreed that all canons adopted by synods should have the
full effect of laws binding on the clergy, these constitutions at once
restored matters to their pristine condition. It was doubtless in order
to mark in the most conspicuous manner his detestation of clerical
marriage that Pole descended to the pettiness of ordering the body of
Peter Martyr’s wife to be dug up from its resting-place, near the tomb
of St. Frideswide in Christ’s Church, Oxford, and to be buried in a
dung-hill.[1254]
It was easy to pass decrees; it was doubtless gratifying to eject
married priests by the thousand and to grant their livings to hungry
reactionaries or to the crowd of needy churchmen whom Italy had ever
ready to supply the spiritual wants and collect the tithes of the
faithful. All this was readily accomplished, but the difficulty lay
in overcoming the eternal instincts of human nature. The struggle to
effect this commenced at once.
It was, indeed, hardly to be expected that those who had entered into
matrimony with the full conviction of its sanctity would willingly
abandon all intercourse with their wives, although they might yield a
forced assent to the pressure of the laws, the prospect of poverty,
and the certainty of infamous punishment. Accordingly we find that
the necessity at once arose of watching the “reconciled” priests, who
continued to do in secret what they could no longer practise openly.
Some, indeed, found the restrictions so onerous that they endeavored
to release themselves from the bonds of the church rather than to
submit longer to the separation from their wives; and this apparently
threatened so great a dearth in the ranks of the clergy that Cardinal
Pole, as Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1556, forbade the withdrawal of
any one from the mysteries and functions of the altar, under pain of
the law.[1255]