Ver.04.29.93*END*
HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
VOLUME II
by Rev. JAMES MacCAFFREY
Lic. Theol. (Maynooth), Ph.D. (Freiburg i. B.)
Professor of Ecclesiastical History, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth
Nihil Obstat:
Thomas O'Donnell, C.M.
Censor Theol. Deput.
Imprimi Potest:
Guilielmus,
Archiep. Dublinen.,
Hiberniæ Primas.
Dublini, 16 Decembris, 1914.
HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
From the Renaissance to the
French Revolution
CHAPTER I
RELIGIOUS CONDITION OF ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORMATION
Wilkins, /Concilia Magnae Britanniae/, iii., 1737. /Historia Regis
Henrici Septimi a Bernardo Andrea Thosolate/ (André of Toulouse),
edited by J. Gairdner, 1858. Capella-Sneyd, /A Relation or True
Account of the Isle of England ... under Henry VII./ (written by
Capella, the Venetian Ambassador, 1496-1502, and edited by C. A.
Sneyd, 1847). /A London Chronicle during the reigns of Henry VII.
and Henry VIII./ (Camden Miscellany, vol. iv., 1859). Sir Thomas
More's /Utopia/ (written 1516, edited by E. Arber, 1869). More's
English works, edited by William Rastell, 1557. Bridgett, /Life
and Writings of Sir Thomas More/, 1891. Busch-Todd, /England under
the Tudors/, 1892-95. Gasquet, /The Eve of the Reformation/, 1900;
/Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries/, 1888; /The Old English
Bible/, etc., 1897; /The Great Pestilence/, 1893; /Parish Life in
Mediaeval England/, 1906; /English Monastic Life/, 1904. Capes, /A
History of the English Church in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Centuries/, 1909. Seebohm, /Oxford Reformers/ (3rd edition), 1877.
Stone, /Reformation and Renaissance Studies/, 1904. Gairdner,
/Lollardy and the Reformation/, vol. i., 1908. Lilly, /Renaissance
Types/, 1901. Bridgett, /History of the Holy Eucharist in Great
Britain/ (new edition, 1908). Rivington, /Rome and England/, 1897.
Lingard, /History of England/, 10 vols., 1849. Hunt-Poole,
/Political History of England/, v., 1910. /Cambridge Modern
History/, vol. i., 1902.
With the advent of Henry VII. to the throne (1485) a new era opened in
the history of England. The English nation, weakened by the Wars of
the Roses and tired of a contest that possessed little interest for
the masses, was not unwilling to submit itself without reserve to the
guidance of a strong ruler provided he could guarantee peace both at
home and abroad. Practically speaking, hitherto absolutism had been
unknown. The rights that had been won by the barons on the plains of
Runnymede were guarded jealously by their descendants, and as a result
the power of the king, more especially in regard to taxation, was
hedged round by several restrictions. But during the long struggle
between the houses of Lancaster and York many of the great feudal
barons had fallen on the field of battle or by the hands of the
executioner, and the power of the nobles as a body had been
undermined. While the Lords could muster their own retainers under
their standard and put into the field a strong army almost at a
moment's notice, it was impossible for the sovereign to rule as an
absolute monarch. It was because he recognised this fact that Henry
VII. took steps to enforce the Statute of Liveries passed by one of
his predecessors, and to provide that armies could be levied only in
the king's name.
The day of government by the aristocracy had passed for ever to be
succeeded by the rule of the people, but in the interval between the
sinking of one and the rise of the other Tudor absolutism was
established firmly in England. In selecting his ministers Henry VII.
passed over the nobles in favour of the middle classes, which were
gaining ground rapidly in the country, but which had not yet realised
their strength as they did later in the days of the Stuarts. He
obtained grants of tonnage and poundage enjoyed by some of his Yorkist
predecessors, had recourse to the system of forced grants known as
benevolences, set up the Star Chamber nominally to preserve order but
in reality to repress his most dangerous opponents, and treated
Parliament as a mere machine, whose only work was to register the
wishes of the sovereign. In brief, Henry VII., acting according to the
spirit of the age, removed the elements that might make for national
disunion, consolidated his own power at the expense of the nobility,
won over to his side the middle and lower classes whose interests were
promoted and from whom no danger was to be feared, and laid the
foundations of that absolute government, which was carried to its
logical conclusions by his son and successor, Henry VIII.
By nature Henry VII. was neither overbearing nor devoid of tact, and
from the doubtful character of his title to the throne he was obliged
to be circumspect in his dealings with the nation. It was not so,
however, with Henry VIII. He was a young, impulsive, self-willed
ruler, freed from nearly all the dangers that had acted as a restraint
upon his father, surrounded for the most part by upstarts who had no
will except to please their master, and intensely popular with the
merchants, farmers, and labourers, whose welfare was consulted, and
who were removed so far from court that they knew little of royal
policy or royal oppression. The House of Lords, comprising as it did
representatives of the clergy and nobles, felt itself entirely at the
mercy of the king, and its members, alarmed by the fate of all those
who had ventured to oppose his wishes, would have decreed the
abolition of their privileges rather than incur his displeasure, had
they been called upon to do so. The House of Commons was composed to a
great extent of the nominees of the Crown, whose names were forwarded
to the sheriffs for formal confirmation. The Parliament of 1523 did
show some resistance to the financial demands necessitated by the war
with France, but the king's answer was to dissolve it, and to govern
England by royal decrees for a space of six years. Fearing for the
results of the divorce proceedings and anxious to carry the country
with him in his campaign against the Pope, Henry VIII. convoked
another Parliament (1529), but he took careful measures to ensure that
the new House of Commons would not run counter to his wishes. Lists of
persons who were known to be jealous of the powers of the Church and
to be sympathetic towards any movement that might limit the
pretensions of the clergy were forwarded to the sheriffs, and in due
course reliable men were returned. That the majority of the members of
the lower House were hostile to the privileges of the Church is clear
enough, but there is no evidence that any important section desired a
reformation which would involve a change of doctrine or separation
from Rome. The legislation directed against the rights of the Pope
sanctioned by this Parliament was accepted solely through the
influence of royal threats and blandishments, and because the
Parliament had no will of its own. Were the members free to speak and
act according to their own sentiments it is impossible to believe that
they would have confirmed and annulled the successive marriages of the
king, altered and realtered the succession to meet every new
matrimonial fancy of his, and proved themselves such negligent
guardians of the rights of the English nation as to allow him to
dispose of the crown of England by will as he might dispose of his
private possessions. Henry VIII. was undisputed master of England, of
its nobles, clergy, and people, of its Convocation, and Parliament.
His will was the law. Unless this outstanding fact, royal absolutism
and dictatorship be realised, it is impossible to understand how a
whole nation, which till that time had accepted the Pope as the Head
of the Church, could have been torn against its will from the centre
of unity, separated from the rest of the Catholic world, and subjected
to the spiritual jurisdiction of a sovereign, whose primary motive in
effecting such a revolution was the gratification of his own unbridled
passions.
It is not true to assert, as some writers have asserted, that before
the Reformation England was a land shrouded in the mists of ignorance;
that there were no schools or colleges for imparting secular education
till the days of Edward VI.; that apart from practices such as
pilgrimages, indulgences, and invocation of the saints, there was no
real religion among the masses; that both secular and regular clergy
lived after a manner more likely to scandalise than to edify the
faithful; that the people were up in arms against the exactions and
privileges of the clergy, and that all parties only awaited the advent
of a strong leader to throw off the yoke of Rome. These are sweeping
generalisations based upon isolated abuses put forward merely to
discredit the English mediaeval Church, but wholly unacceptable to
those who are best acquainted with the history of the period. On the
other side it would be equally wrong to state that everything was so
perfect in England that no reforms were required. Many abuses,
undoubtedly, had arisen in various departments of religious life, but
these abuses were of such a kind that they might have been removed had
the Convocations of the clergy been free to pursue their course, nor
do they justify an indiscriminate condemnation of the entire
ecclesiastical body.
It is true that the Renaissance movement had made great progress on
the other side of the Alps before its influence could be felt even in
educated circles in England, but once the attention of the English
scholars was drawn to the revival of classical studies many of them
made their way to the great masters of Italy, and returned to utilise
the knowledge they had acquired for the improvement of the educational
system of their country. Selling and Hadley, both monks, Linacre, one
of the leaders of medical science in his own time, Dean Colet of
Westminster whose direction of St. Paul's College did so much to
improve the curriculum of the schools,[1] Bishop Fisher of Rochester
described by Erasmus as "a man without equal at this time both as to
integrity of life, learning, or broadminded sympathies" with the
possible exception of Archbishop Warham of Canterbury,[2] and Sir
Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England and one of the earliest
martyrs for the faith in the reign of Henry VIII., were but a few of
the prominent men in a movement that made itself felt throughout the
entire country. Nowhere did Erasmus find a more enthusiastic welcome
or more generous patrons and nowhere were his writings more thoroughly
appreciated than in England.
Nor is it true to say that the advocates of classical learning were
animated by hostility to the Catholic Church in their demand for an
improvement in educational methods. Some murmurs were, indeed, heard
in certain quarters, and charges of unorthodoxy were formulated
vaguely against Colet and others of his party, but these were but the
criticisms levelled in all ages against those who are in advance of
their time, nor do they require serious refutation. The English
Humanists had nothing in common with the neo-pagan writers of the
Italian Renaissance as regards religion, and they gave no indication
of hostility to Rome. Whatever other influences may have contributed
to bring about the religious revolution in England, it was certainly
not due to the Renaissance, for to a man its disciples were as loyal
to the Catholic Church as were their two greatest leaders Fisher and
More, who laid down their lives rather than prove disloyal to the
successor of St. Peter.
Nor was education generally neglected in the country. The lists of
students attending Oxford and Cambridge[3] in so far as they have been
preserved point to the fact that in the days immediately preceding the
Reformation these great seats of learning were in a most flourishing
condition, and that for them the religious revolt fell little short of
proving disastrous. The explanation of the sudden drop in the number
of students attending the universities is to be found partially at
least in the disturbed condition of the country, but more particularly
in the destruction of the religious houses, which sent up many of
their members to Oxford and Cambridge, and which prepared a great
number of pupils in their schools for university matriculation, as
well as in the confiscation of the funds out of which bishops,
chapters, monasteries, religious confraternities, and religious
guilds, presented exhibitions to enable the children of the poor to
avail themselves of the advantages of higher education. Nor was
England of the fifteenth century without a good system of secondary
schools. It is a common belief that Edward VI. was the founder of
English secondary colleges, and that during the first fifty years
after the Reformation more was done for this department of education
than had been done in the preceding three hundred years. That such a
belief is entirely erroneous may be proved from the records of the
commissions held in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., from
which it appears that there were close on three hundred secondary
schools in England before 1549, and that Henry VIII. and particularly
Edward VI. ought to be regarded as the despoilers rather than as the
patrons of the English colleges. Distinct from the universities and
from the mere primary schools there were in existence at the beginning
of the reign of Henry VIII. seven classes of educational
establishments, namely, cathedral, collegiate, and monastic colleges,
colleges in connexion with hospitals, guilds, chantries, and
independent institutions. These were worked in perfect co-ordination
with the universities, and in most cases exhibitions were provided for
the poorer scholars. "The Grammar Schools which existed," says a
reliable authority, "were not mere monkish schools or choristers'
schools or elementary schools. Many of them were the same schools
which now live and thrive. All were schools of exactly the same type,
and performing precisely the same sort of functions as the public
schools and grammar schools of to-day. There were indeed also
choristers' schools and elementary schools. There were scholarships at
schools and exhibitions thence to the universities, and the whole
paraphernalia of secondary education. Nor was secondary education
understood in any different sense to that in which it was understood
up to fifty years ago. It was conducted on the same lines and in the
main by instruments of the same kind, if not identically the same, as
those in use till the present generation."[4]
It cannot be said with justice that the English people at the time
were either badly instructed in the principles of their religion or
indifferent to the practices of the Church to which they belonged. The
decrees of the Synod of Oxford (1281), commanding the clergy who had
care of souls to explain regularly in simple language, intelligible to
their hearers the articles of the creed, the commandments, the
sacraments, the seven deadly sins and the seven works of mercy, were
renewed more than once, and presumably were enforced by the bishops.
The books published for the instruction of the faithful as for
example, /The Work for Householders/, /Dives et Pauper/, /The
Interpretation and Signification of the Mass/, /The Art of Good
Living/, etc., emphasise very strongly the duty of attending the
religious instruction given by the clergy, while the manuals written
for the guidance of the clergy make it very clear that preaching was a
portion of their duties that should not be neglected. The fact that
religious books of this kind were multiplied so quickly, once the art
of printing had been discovered, affords strong evidence that neither
priests nor people were unmindful of the need for a thorough
understanding of the truths of their religion. The visitations of the
parishes, during which some of the prominent parishioners were
summoned to give evidence about the manner in which the priests
performed their duty of instructing the people, were in themselves a
great safeguard against pastoral negligence, and so far as they have
been published they afford no grounds for the statement that the
people were left in ignorance regarding the doctrines and practices of
their religion. Apart entirely from the work done by the clergy in the
pulpits and churches, it should be remembered that in the cities and
even in the most remote of the rural parishes religious dramas were
staged at regular intervals, and were of the greatest assistance in
bringing before the minds even of the most uneducated the leading
events of biblical history and the principal truths of Christianity.
That the people of England as a body hearkened to the instructions of
their pastors is clear enough from the testimony of foreign visitors,
from the records of the episcopal visitations, the pilgrimages to
shrines of devotion at home and abroad, from the anxiety for God's
honour and glory as shown in the zeal which dictated the building or
decoration of so many beautiful cathedrals and churches, the funds for
which were provided by rich and poor alike, and from the spirit of
charity displayed in the numerous bequests for the relief of the poor
and the suffering. The people of England at the beginning of the
sixteenth century were neither idol-worshippers nor victims of a blind
superstition. They understood just as well as Catholics understand at
the present day devotions to Our Lady and to the Saints; Images,
Pictures and Statues, Purgatory, Indulgences and the effects of the
Mass. Nor were they so ignorant of the Sacred Scriptures as is
commonly supposed. The sermons were based upon some Scripture text
taken as a rule from the epistle and gospel proper to the Sunday or
festival, and were illustrated with a wealth of references and
allusions drawn from both the Old and New Testament sufficient to make
it clear that the Bible was not a sealed book either for the clergy or
laity. The fact that there was such a demand for commentaries on and
concordances to the Scriptures makes it clear that the clergy realised
sufficiently the importance of Scriptural teaching from the pulpits,
and the abundant quotations to be found in the books of popular
devotion, not to speak of the religious dramas based upon events in
biblical history, go far to show that the needs of the laity in this
respect were not overlooked.[5]
It is said, however, that the use of the Scriptures in the vernacular
was forbidden to the English people, and a decree of a Synod held at
Oxford in 1408 is cited in proof of this statement. The Synod of
Oxford did not forbid the use of vernacular versions. It forbade the
publication or use of unauthorised translations,[6] and in the
circumstances of the time, when the Lollard heretics were strong and
were endeavouring to win over the people to their views by
disseminating corrupt versions of the Scripture, such a prohibition is
not unintelligible. It should be borne in mind that French was the
language of the educated and was the official language of the English
law courts and of the Parliament till after 1360. The French or Latin
versions then current were, therefore, amply sufficient for those who
were likely to derive any advantage from the study of the Bible, while
at the same time the metrical paraphrases of the important books of
the Old Testament and of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, and the
English prose translation of the Psalms, went far to meet the wants of
the masses. From the clear evidence of writers like Sir Thomas More,
Lord Chancellor of England and one of the best informed men of his
time, of Cranmer, the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, and
of Foxe the author of the so-called Martyrology, it can be established
beyond the shadow of a doubt that prior to the Reformation there
existed an English Catholic version of the Scriptures, which was
approved for use by the ecclesiastical authorities.[7] It is true,
indeed, that the bishops of England made extraordinary efforts to
prevent the circulation of the versions made by Tyndale and Coverdale,
but considering the glosses, the corruptions, and the mis-translations
with which these abound no fair-minded person could expect them to
have acted otherwise. Their action was not dictated by hostility to
the reading of the Scriptures but by their opposition to heretical
doctrines, which it was sought to disseminate among the people by
means of dishonest versions of the Scriptures. The English bishops
were not content merely with prohibiting the use of these works. They
were most anxious to bring out a correct translation of the Scriptures
for general use, and were prevented from doing so only by the action
of Henry VIII. and of the heretical advisers, who urged him to make it
impossible for the bishops to carry out their design.[8]
It would, however, be far from the truth to assert that everything was
faultless during the years preceding the Reformation, or that all the
clergy were as perfect as they might have been. England, like every
other country at the same period, was afflicted with the terrible
evils resulting from the appropriation of parishes by laymen and by
religious establishments, a system which made it impossible for a
bishop to govern his diocese properly, from the non-residence of both
bishops and higher clergy, and from the plurality of benefices, which
meant that a person might be permitted to hold two or more benefices
to which the care of souls was attached, thereby rending impossible
the proper discharge of pastoral duties. More priests, too, were
ordained than could be provided with appointments, and consequently
many of the clergy were forced to act as chaplains and tutors in
private families, where they were treated as servants rather than as
equals, and where it was only too easy for them to lose the sense of
respect for their dignity and for themselves, and to sink to the level
of those with whom they were obliged to consort. It is not to be
wondered at if evidence is forthcoming that in particular cases, more
especially in Wales, clerical celibacy was not observed as it should
have been, or that in several instances the duty of preaching and
instructing the people was not discharged, nor is it surprising to
find that men who were comparatively unlearned were promoted over the
heads of their more educated companions to the disgust of the
universities and of those interested in the better education of the
clergy. Considering the fact that so many of the bishops were engaged
in the service of the State to the neglect of their duties in their
dioceses, and bearing also in mind the selfish use made too frequently
of the rights of lay patronage and the disorganisation to which even
the most enlightened use of such patronage was likely to lead, it is
little less than marvellous that the great body of the clergy were as
educated, zealous, and irreproachable as they can be proved to have
been.
As a result of the disorganisation wrought by the Black Plague, the
civil strife which disturbed the peace of the country, and the
constant interference of the crown and lay patrons, many of the
religious houses, influenced to some extent by the general spirit of
laxity peculiar to the age, fell far short of the standard of severity
and discipline that had been set in better days. While on the one hand
it should be admitted freely that some of the monastic and conventual
establishments stood in urgent need of reform, there is, on the other
side, no sufficient evidence to support the wild charges of wholesale
corruption and immorality levelled against the monks and nuns of
England by those who thirsted for their destruction. The main
foundation for such an accusation is to be sought for in the letters
and reports (/Comperta/) of the commissioners sent out to examine into
the condition of the monasteries and convents in 1535. Even if these
documents could be relied upon as perfectly trustworthy they affect
only a very small percentage of the religious houses, since not more
than one-third of these establishments were visited by the
commissioners during their hurried tour through the country, and as
regards the houses visited serious crimes were preferred against at
most two hundred and fifty monks and nuns.
But there are many solid grounds for rejecting the reliability of
these documents. The commissioners were appointed by Cromwell with the
professed object of preparing the public mind for the suppression of
the monasteries and convents. They showed themselves to be his most
obsequious agents, always ready to accept as testimony popular rumours
and suspicions founded in many cases on personal dislikes, and, like
their master, more anxious to extract money bribes from the religious
than to arrive at the truth about their lives or the condition of
their establishments. That they were prejudiced witnesses, arrogant
and cruel towards the monks and nuns, and willing to do anything that
might win them the approval of Cromwell and the king is evident from
their own letters and reports, while if we are to credit the
statements of contemporaries, backed by a tradition, which survived
for centuries amongst the Catholic body in England, they were most
unscrupulous and immoral in their attitude towards the unfortunate
nuns who were placed at their mercy. Indeed the charges which they
make are so filthy and repulsive, and the delight with which they
revel in such abominations is so apparent, that one is forced to the
conviction that they must have been men of depraved tastes quite
capable of committing or of attempting to commit the crimes laid to
their charge. Even if it had been otherwise, had the two commissioners
been unprejudiced and fair in their proceedings, it is impossible to
understand how they could have had an opportunity of making a really
searching investigation into the condition of the monasteries and
convents during the short time assigned for the work. They began only
in July 1535 and their work was completed in February 1536.
In favour of the reliability of these reports the fact is urged that
they were placed before Parliament, and that the members of both
Houses were so impressed by the tale of corruption and wickedness
which they disclosed that they decided on the immediate suppression of
the monasteries. If this were true and if Parliament in the days of
Henry VIII. enjoyed the same rights and privileges as it enjoys to-day
such action would be in itself a strong corroboration of the veracity
of the commissioners. But there is no sufficient evidence to prove
that the reports or compilations made from them were ever submitted to
Parliament. The king and Cromwell informed the Houses of the charges
made by the commissioners, and demanded their consent to the bill of
suppression. The whole measure was passed in a few days (11th to 18th
March, 1536) and there is no proof that the /Comperta/ or a "Black
Book" were presented to the members. On the contrary, it is clear from
the preamble to the Act that in the larger monasteries "religion was
right well kept and observed," and that it was only in the smaller
houses with less than twelve members that disorder and corruption
existed, whereas in the reports of the commissioners no such
distinction is observed, the charges being levelled just as strongly
against the larger as against the smaller communities. Had Parliament
been in possession of the reports or had there been any adequate
discussion, it is difficult to see how such an arbitrary distinction,
founded neither on the nature of things, nor on the findings of the
commissioners, could have been allowed to pass. It is noteworthy too
that many of the individuals, whose names were associated in the
/Comperta/ with very serious crimes, were placed in the possession of
pensions on the dissolution of the monasteries, and some of them were
promoted to the highest ecclesiastical offices in the gift of the
crown.
Besides, if the reports of Leigh and Leyton be compared with the
episcopal visitations of the same houses or with those of the royal
visitors appointed in 1536 to carry out the suppression of the smaller
monasteries, it will be found that in regard to the very same houses
there exists a very open contradiction between their findings.
Unfortunately the accounts of the visitations have disappeared to a
great extent except in case of the diocese of Norwich. In this diocese
the visitations were carried out very strictly and very minutely, and
although some abuses were detected the bishop could find nothing of
the wholesale corruption and immorality discovered a few years later
by the minions of Cromwell. Similarly the commission appointed in 1536
to superintend the suppression decreed in that year, the members of
which were drawn from the leading men in each county, report in the
highest terms of houses which were spoken of as hot-beds of iniquity
only a few months before. Finally, if the monasteries and convents
were really so bad as they are painted, it is a curious fact that
although Leigh and Leyton were empowered by Cromwell to open the doors
to many of the monks and nuns they could find in the thirteen counties
which they visited only two nuns and fifty-three monks willing to
avail themselves of the liberty which they offered.[9]
As a general rule the monasteries were regarded with kindly feelings
by the great body of the people on account of their charity and
hospitality towards the poor and the wayfarer, their leniency and
generosity as compared with other employers and landlords, their
schools which did so much for the education of the district, and their
orphanages and hospitals. Many of them were exceedingly wealthy, while
some of them found it difficult to procure the means of existence, and
all of them suffered greatly from the financial burdens imposed upon
them in the shape of pensions, etc., by the king or by the family by
whom their endowments were provided originally. For this reason some
of the religious houses, imitating the example of the landowners
generally, began to form grazing enclosures[10] out of their estates
which had been hitherto under cultivation, a step that led in some
cases to eviction and in all cases to a great reduction in the number
of labourers employed. Others of them set up tanneries and such like
industries that had been best left to the laymen. These measures led
to ill-feeling and to a certain amount of hostility, but that the
religious houses were not hated by the people is proved to
demonstration by the rebellions which their suppression evoked in so
many different parts of the country.
It may be said in a general way that the relations between priests and
people were neither particularly close nor particularly strained. The
rights and privileges claimed by the clergy did indeed give rise to
murmurings and complaints in certain quarters, but these were neither
so serious nor so general as to indicate anything like a deep-rooted
and sharp division between priests and people. The question of the
rights of sanctuary, according to which criminals who escaped into the
enclosures of monasteries and churches were guaranteed protection from
arrest, led to a sharp conflict between the ecclesiastical and secular
jurisdictions, but with a little moderation on both sides it was not a
matter that could have excited permanent ill-feeling. In the days when
might was right the privileges of sanctuary served a useful purpose.
That in later times they occasioned serious abuses could not be
denied, and on the accession of Henry VII. the Pope restricted the
rights of sanctuary very considerably, thereby setting an example
which it was to be expected would have been followed by his
successors. The /privilegium fori/, by which clerics were exempted
from punishment by a secular tribunal, was another cause of
considerable friction. In 1512 Parliament passed a law abolishing this
privilege in case of clerics accused of murder, etc., and though it
was to have force only for two years it excited the apprehension of
the clergy more on account of what it heralded than of what it
actually enacted. When it came up again for discussion in 1515 even
those of the clergy who were most remarkable for their subservience to
the king protested vehemently against it. In a discussion that took
place in the presence of Henry VII. one of the friars brought forward
many arguments to prove that such a law was not outside the competence
of the state, much to the disgust of the bishops and of Cardinal
Wolsey. The king was most emphatic in his declaration that he intended
to take such action as would vindicate and safeguard his rights as
supreme lord of England, but notwithstanding this sharp reproof to his
opponents the measure was allowed to drop.
The excessive fees charged in the episcopal courts for the probate of
wills, the gifts known as mortuaries claimed on occasions of death,
the absence of the bishops and the clergy from their dioceses and
parishes to the consequent neglect of their duties to the people, the
bestowal of benefices oftentimes on poorly qualified clerics to the
exclusion of learned and zealous priests, the appointment of clerics
to positions that should have been filled by laymen on the lands of
the bishops and monasteries, and the interference of some of the
clergy both secular and regular in purely secular pursuits were the
principal grievances brought forward in 1529 by the House of Commons
against the spirituality. But in determining the value of such a
document it should be remembered that it was inspired by the king, and
in fact drafted by Thomas Cromwell, at a time when both king and
minister were determined to crush the power of the Church, and that,
therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that it is exaggerated and
unfair. According to the express statement of Sir Thomas More, Lord
Chancellor of England, who was in a position to know and appreciate
the relations between clergy and people, the division was neither so
acute nor so serious as it was painted by those who wished to favour
religious innovations or to ingratiate themselves with the king and
his advisers.[11]
But, even though there existed some differences of opinion about
matters concerned with the temporalities of the Church or the
privileges of the clergy, there is no indication during the thirty
years preceding the revolt of any marked hostility to the doctrines
and practices of the Church. In an earlier age the Lollards, as the
followers of Wycliff were called, put forward doctrines closely akin
to those advocated by the early Reformers, notably in regard to the
constitution of the Church, the Papacy, the Scriptures,
Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and Tradition, but the severe measures
adopted by both Church and State had succeeded in breaking the
influence of Lollardy in England. Very few if any followers of this
sect remained to disturb the peace of the community in the early years
of the reign of Henry VIII., though it is quite possible that the
memory of their teaching and of the sturdy struggle which they had
waged did not fail to produce its effects at a later period. It is
true that in 1512 the statement is attributed to the Bishop of London
in connexion with the trial of an ecclesiastic, that on account of
their leaning towards heresy any twelve men of the city would bring in
a verdict of guilty against a cleric placed on his trial before
them,[12] but it is impossible to believe that such a statement
conveys an accurate view of the state of affairs. It is out of harmony
with the results of the episcopal visitations, with the records of the
few trials for heresy which took place, most of which resulted in the
repentance of the alleged culprits, and with the considered judgment
of such a well qualified contemporary authority as Sir Thomas More.
It is certain that during the first quarter of the sixteenth century
the student of history will search in vain for any evidence of
opposition among the clergy and people of England to the spiritual
supremacy of the Holy See. Disputes there had been, some of which were
peculiarly bitter in their tone, between the English sovereigns and
the Pope. Complaints had been made by the clergy against what they
considered the unwarranted interferences of the Roman Curia in
domestic affairs; but these disputes and complaints were concerned
either with purely secular matters, as for example the annual tribute
claimed by the Holy See since the famous surrender of the kingdom made
by King John, or with the temporal side of the spiritual jurisdiction.
The clergy and people resented generally the wholesale rights of
reservation exercised by the Pope in regard to English benefices, the
appointment of foreigners to offices in England, the heavy taxes
levied by the Roman Curia directly or indirectly in the shape of
Annats or First Fruits, the withdrawal of comparatively trivial cases
from the local courts, and the exercise of jurisdiction over the
highest dignitaries of England by the legates commissioned by the Holy
See. But it is one thing to criticise the actual working of papal
supremacy as interpreted by Roman officials, or to seek to limit its
exercise in the every-day life of any particular church, and another
to call in question the supremacy itself. The English clergy and
people did, indeed, object to allow papal supremacy to be pushed too
far in what they regarded as purely domestic affairs, but even in the
most prolonged and heated discussions they never once questioned the
fact that the Pope was Supreme Head of the Church in England, or that
he was Supreme Head of the Catholic Church throughout the world.
The Statute of Provisors (1350-1), by which all appointments to
English benefices were to be made by canonical election or by the
nomination of lay patrons to the exclusion of papal provisions, is
cited sometimes as a proof that the English nation disregarded the
claims of the Holy See, but with equal justice and for a similar
reason it might be maintained that the Council of Trent rejected the
Supremacy of the Pope (Session xxiv., chap. 19). The Statute was
called for, owing to the spiritual and economic losses inflicted on
the country by the appointment of foreigners, and its passage was
secured mainly by the lay patrons, whose rights of patronage were
infringed by the constant stream of papal provisions. It was neither
inspired by hostility to the Holy See, nor by any doubt about the
supremacy of the Pope, and in itself it was a piece of legislation
that might have merited the approval of the most loyal supporters of
Rome. But as a matter of fact, lest their acceptance of such a measure
might be misunderstood, the English bishops offered the most strenuous
opposition to the Statute of Provisors and insisted that their
protests against it should be registered, a policy which, it might be
added, was followed by the University of Oxford. The bishops demanded
later on that it should be repealed. Their request was not granted,
but from the numerous provisions made to bishoprics in England and
from the appointments made to English benefices during the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries it is evident that the Statute was allowed to
fall into abeyance. Similarly the Statute of Praemunire (1353) by
which it was forbidden under the penalty of forfeiture and outlawry to
bring cases cognizable in the English courts before foreign courts, or
to introduce into the realm provisions, reservations, or letters
contrary to the rights of the king or his subjects, was passed to
prevent an undoubted abuse at the time, and was enforced rarely as the
frequent appeals to Rome amply prove.
These measures serve to indicate at most only the attitude of the
Crown towards the Pope, not the attitude of the English clergy and
people. The loyal submission of the latter is evidenced from the papal
appointments to bishoprics and benefices, from the First Fruits paid
willingly to the Holy See by those who were called upon to pay them,
by the constant interference of the Holy See in regard to the division
and boundaries of parishes, the visitation of monasteries, the rights
of bishops, etc., as well as by the courts held in England in virtue
of the jurisdiction of the Pope. That the Pope was above the law and
that to dispute the authority of a papal decree was to be guilty of
heresy was a principle recognised by the English ecclesiastical
authorities and accepted also in practice by English jurists. The
oaths of loyalty to the Holy See taken by all the archbishops and
bishops, the tone and form of the letters addressed to the Pope, the
assertion of papal rights against the errors and attacks of Wycliff
and Luther, the full admission of papal supremacy contained in Henry
VIII.'s /Assertio Septem Sacramentorum/, and in the formal dying
declaration of Archbishop Warham of Canterbury (1533), and the
resolute attitude of two such learned representatives of the English
clergy and laity as Bishop Fisher of Rochester and Sir Thomas More,
are in themselves sufficient to establish the fact that in the days of
Henry VIII. England joined with the rest of the Catholic world in
recognising the supreme spiritual jurisdiction of the Bishop of
Rome.[13]
The controversies which had raged were not concerned with spiritual
supremacy nor were they peculiar to England. Much worse ones had
arisen to disturb the friendly relations that should exist between the
Holy See and France or Spain, and yet nobody would care to deny that
both of these nations acknowledged their subjection to Rome. Neither
were they between the English clergy or the English people and the
Pope; they were waged rather between the Crown and the Holy See. As
royal absolutism began to develop in Europe the policy of kings was to
increase their power over the ecclesiastical organisation in their
dominions by lessening the authority of the Pope. This tendency is
brought out clearly in the concessions wrung from the Pope by
Ferdinand I. of Spain and Louis XII. of France, but more especially in
the Concordat negotiated between Leo X. and Francis I. (1516),
according to which all appointments in the French Church were vested
practically in the hands of the king. Henry VIII. was a careful
observer of Continental affairs and was as anxious as Francis I. to
strengthen his own position by grasping the authority of the Church.
He secured a /de facto/ headship of the Church in England when he
succeeded in getting Cardinal Wolsey invested with permanent legatine
powers. Through Wolsey he governed ecclesiastical affairs in England
for years, and on the fall of Wolsey he took into his own hands the
control that he had exercised already through his favourite and
minister. Had Leo X. consented to a concordat similar to that
concluded with France, whereby the royal demands would have been
conceded frankly and occasions of dispute removed, or else had he
taken the strong step of refusing to delegate his authority
indefinitely to a minister of the king, he would have prevented
trouble and misunderstanding, and would have made the battle for royal
supremacy much more difficult than it proved to be in reality.
----------
[1] Lupton, /Life of Dean Colet/, 1887.
[2] Gasquet, /Eve of the Reformation/, 142.
[3] Chalmers, /History of the College ... of Oxford/. Mullinger, /The
University of Cambridge to 1535/.
[4] Leach, /English Schools at the Reformation/, 1896, p. 6 (a
valuable book).
[5] Gasquet, op. cit., ix-xiii., English works of Sir Thomas More,
1557, (especially /The Dyalogue/, 1529).
[6] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iii. 317.
[7] Gasquet, op. cit., chap. viii., /The Old English Bible/, iv., v.
Maitland, /The Dark Ages/, 1845, no. xii.
[8] Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, vol. ii., 221-303.
[9] On this subject, cf. Gasquet, /Henry VIII. and the English
Monasteries/. Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, vol. ii.,
3-221. Jessopp, /Visitation of the Diocese of Norwich/, 1492-1532
(Camden Society).
[10] /Cambridge Modern History/, i., chap. xv.
[11] On the relations between the clergy and the laity, cf. Gairdner,
op. cit., vol. i., 243-86. Gasquet, op. cit., chap. iii.-v.
Gairdner, /History of the English Church in the Sixteenth
Century/, 41-59.
[12] Gairdner, /History of the English Church/, p. 31.
[13] On this subject, cf. Lingard, /History of England/, iii., 126-33.
Wilkins, /Concilia/ (for documents bearing on the authority of the
Pope in England, see Index to this work). Lyndewood's /Provinciale
seu Constitutiones Angliae/ (1501, Synodal Constitutions of the
Province of Canterbury). Moyes, /How English Bishops were made
before the Reformation/ (/Tablet/, Dec., 1893). Maitland, /The
Roman Law in the Church of England, and English Law and the
Renaissance/, 1901. Gairdner, /Lollardy/, etc., i., 495-8.