STATE OF THE CHURCH. -- HENRY A SINCERE CHRISTIAN, BUT NO BIGOT. --
DEGRADED STATE OF RELIGION. -- COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. -- HENRY'S
REPRESENTATIVES ZEALOUS PROMOTERS OF REFORM. -- HALLAM, BISHOP OF
SALISBURY, AVOWED ENEMY OF THE POPEDOM. -- RICHARD ULLESTON: PRIMITIVE
VIEWS OF CLERICAL DUTIES. -- WALDEN, HIS OWN CHAPLAIN, ACCUSES HENRY
OF REMISSNESS IN THE EXTIRPATION OF HERESY. -- FORESTER'S LETTER TO
THE KING. -- HENRY BEAUFORT'S UNHAPPY INTERFERENCE. -- PETITION FROM
OXFORD. -- HENRY'S PERSONAL EXERTIONS IN THE BUSINESS OF REFORM. --
REFLECTIONS ON THE THEN APPARENT DAWN OF THE REFORMATION.
1414-1417.
Some writers, (taking a very narrow and prejudiced view of the affairs
of the age to which our thoughts are directed in these Memoirs, and of
the agents employed in those transactions,) when they tell us, that
Henry was so devotedly attached to the church, and so zealous a friend
of her ministers, that he was called the Prince of Priests, would have
us believe that he "entirely resigned his understanding to the
guidance of the clergy." But his principles and his conduct (p. 033)
in ecclesiastical matters have been misunderstood, and very unfairly
exaggerated and distorted. That Henry was a sincere believer in the
religion of the Cross is unquestionable; and that, in common with the
large body of believers through Christendom, he had been bred up in
the baneful error of identifying the Catholic church of Christ with
the see of Rome, is in some points of view equally evident: but that
he was a supporter of the Pope against the rights of the church in
England and other his dominions, or was an upholder of the abuses
which had then overspread the whole garden of Christ's heritage, so
far from being established by evidence, is inconsistent with the
testimony of facts. The usurpations of the Romish see called for
resistance,[32] and Henry to a certain extent resisted them. The
abuses in the church needed reformation, and Henry showed that he
possessed the spirit of a real reformer, bent on the correction of
what was wrong, but uncompromising in his maintenance of the religion
which he embraced in his heart. He gave proof of a spirit more
Catholic than Roman, more Apostolic than Papal.
[Footnote 32: In the early part of his father's
reign, an ordinance was made, charging the King's
officers not to suffer aliens to bring bulls or
other letters into the kingdom, which might injure
the King or his realm.--Cleop. F. III. f. 114.]
In his very first parliament strong enactments were passed forbidding
ecclesiastics to receive bishoprics and benefices from Rome, on pain
of forfeiture and exile. And on complaints being made against (p. 034)
the ordinaries, Henry's answer is very characteristic of his
principles of church reform: "I will direct the bishops to remedy
these evils themselves; and, if they fail, then I will myself take the
matter into my own hands."
He had been little more than half a year on the throne,[33] when he
sent a peremptory mandate to the bishops of Aquitain, that they should
on no account obey any provision from the court of Rome, by which
preferment would be given to an enemy of England. And in the following
month, Dec. 11, 1413, Henry issued a prohibition, forbidding John
Bremore, clerk, whom the Pope had recommended to him when Prince of
Wales, to return to the court of Rome for the purpose of carrying on
mischievous designs against the King and his people, under a penalty
of 100_l._ And among his own bishops, countenanced and confidentially
employed by himself, were found men who protested honestly and
decidedly against the tyranny and corruption of Rome, and were as
zealously bent on restoring the church to the purity of its better
days, as were those martyrs to the truth who in the middle of the next
century sealed their testimony by their blood. To what extent Henry V.
must be regarded as having given a fair promise that, had he lived, he
would have devoted the energies of his mind to work out such an
effective reformation as would have satisfied the majority of the
people in England, and left little in that way for his successors (p. 035)
to do, every one must determine for himself. In forming our judgment,
however, we must take into account, not only what he actually did, but
also whatever the tone, and temper, and turn of his mind (from such
intimations as we may be enabled to glean scattered up and down
through his life) might seem to have justified persons in
anticipating. It would be vain to build any theory on what might have
happened had the course of Providence in Henry's destinies been
different: and yet we may without presumption express a belief that,
had his life been spared, and had he found himself seated in peace and
security on the united throne of England and France, instead of
exhausting his resources, his powers of body and mind, and his time,
in a fruitless crusade to the Holy Land, (by which he certainly once
purposed to vindicate the honour of his Redeemer's name,) he might
have concentrated all his vast energies on the internal reformation of
the church itself. Instead of leaving her then large possessions for
the hand of the future spoiler, he might have effectually provided for
their full employment in the religious education of the whole people,
and in the maintenance of a well-educated, pious, and zealous body of
clergy, restored to their pastoral duties and devoted to the ministry.
That the church needed a vigorous and thorough, but honest and
friendly reform,--not the confiscation of her property to personal
aggrandizement and secular purposes, but the re-adjustment of what
had degenerated from its original intention,--is proved by (p. 036)
evidence most painfully conclusive. Indeed, the enormities which had
grown up, and which were defended and cherished by the agents of Rome,
far exceed both in number and magnitude the present general opinion
with regard to those times. The Conventual system[34] had well nigh
destroyed the efficiency of parochial ministrations: what was intended
for the support of the pastor, was withdrawn to uphold the dignity and
luxury of the monastery; parsonage houses were left to fall to decay,
and hirelings of a very inferior class were employed on a miserable
pittance to discharge their perfunctory duties as they might.
"Provisions" from Rome had exempted so large a proportion of the
spirituality from episcopal jurisdiction, that, even had all the
bishops been appointed on the principle of professional excellence,
their power of restoring discipline would have been lamentably
deficient. But in their appointment was evinced the most reckless
prostitution of their sacred order. Not only was the selection of
bishops made without reference to personal merit and individual
fitness, whilst regard was had chiefly to high connexions and the
interests of the Papacy; but even children were made bishops, (p. 037)
and the richest dignities of the church were heaped upon them:
foreigners unacquainted with the language of the people were thrust
into offices, for the due discharge of the duties of which a knowledge
of the vernacular language was absolutely necessary. The courts
ecclesiastical ground down the clergy by shameless extortions; whilst
appeals to Rome put a complete bar against any suit for justice. Their
luxury and excesses, their pride and overbearing presumption, their
devotedness to secular pursuits, the rapacious aggrandizement of
themselves and their connexions, and the total abandonment of their
spiritual duties in the cure of souls, coupled with an ignorance
almost incredible, had brought the large body of the clergy into great
disrepute, and had filled sincere Christians (whether lay or clerical,
for there were many exceptions among the clergy themselves) with an
ardent longing for a thorough and efficient reformation. It is true
that their indignation was chiefly roused by the prostitution of the
property of the church, and its alienation from the holy purposes for
which the church was endowed; and that gross neglect of discipline
rather than errors in doctrine called into life the spirit of
reformation: but even in points of faith we perceive in many clear
signs of a genuine love of Evangelical and Catholic truth; among whom
we are not without evidence sufficient to justify us in numbering the
subject of these Memoirs. Henry of Monmouth, whilst he adhered (p. 038)
constantly to the faith of his fathers, yet manifested a sincere
desire to become more perfectly acquainted with the truth of the
Gospel; and spared no pains, even during his career of war and
victory, in providing himself with the assistance of those teachers
who had the reputation of preaching the Gospel most sincerely and
efficiently. Henry's, indeed, was not the religion which would
substitute in the scale of Christian duties punctuality of attendance
on frequent preaching for the higher and nobler exercises of
adoration. Many an unobtrusive incident intimates that his soul took
chief delight in communing with God by acts of confession, and prayer,
and praise. He seems to have imbibed the same spirit which in a
brother-monarch once gave utterance to expressions no less valuable in
the matter of sound theology, than exquisitely beautiful in their
conception:[35] "I had rather pass an hour in conversation with my
friend than hear twenty discourses in his praise." And yet Henry
delighted also in hearing Heaven's message of reconciliation
faithfully expounded, and enforced home.
[Footnote 33: November 7, 1413.]
[Footnote 34: By a statute (4 Hen. IV. 1402), after
the Legislature had complained that the Convents
put monks, and canons, and secular chaplains into
the parochial ministry, by no means fit for the
cure of souls, it is enacted, that a vicar
adequately endowed should be everywhere instituted;
and, in default of such reformation, that the
licence of appropriation should be forfeited.]
[Footnote 35: Henry III. is said to have assigned
to Louis IX. this reason for his preference of
devotional exercises to sermons.]
Whilst, for example, he was pursuing his conquests in Normandy, the
report no sooner reached him of a preacher named Vincentius, (who was
labouring zealously in the cause of Christ in various parts of
Brittany, and who was said by his earnest and affectionate (p. 039)
preaching to have converted many to the Lord their God,) than Henry
sent for him, and took great delight in hearing his faithful
expositions of the word of truth and life. And we have good reason for
believing that the consolations of the pure doctrines of the Gospel,
as a guardian angel ministering the cup of Heaven, attended him
through life and in death.
There is no intimation dropped by historians, nor is it intended in
these Memoirs to intimate, that Henry's eyes were opened to the
doctrinal errors of the church of Rome. But there are circumstances
well worthy of consideration before we pronounce definitively on that
point. When we bear in mind that, in those days, prayers and vows were
habitually made to the Virgin for success, and, after any prosperous
issue of the supplicants' exertions in war or peace, offerings of
thanksgiving were addressed to her as the giver of victory and of
every blessing; and whilst, at the same time, we find in Henry of
Monmouth's letters and words no acknowledgment of any help but God's
only; the question may be fairly entertained, whether he had not
imbibed some portion of the pure light of Gospel truth on this very
important article of Christian faith. The Author is well aware of the
words at the close of his Will, referred to hereafter; and is very far
from saying that he should be surprised to find other instances of a
similar character. Still Henry's silence as to the power and (p. 040)
assistance of the Virgin, the absence of prayer to her in his
devotions, many of which are especially recorded; the absence of
praise to her after victory and success, though he was very far from
taking praise to himself, always ascribing it to God Almighty only,
may seem to justify the suggestion of an inquiry into this point.
For a knowledge of the degraded state to which the church had sunk,
and her inefficiency as the guardian and dispenser of religious truth,
we are not left to the vague representations of declaimers, or the
heated exaggerations of those by whom everything savouring of Rome is
held in abomination. The preambles of the laws which were intended to
cure the evils, bear the most direct and full evidence of their
existence and extent. One parliamentary document, after prefacing that
"Benefices were founded for the honour of God, the good of the
founders, the government and relief of the parishioners, and the
advancement of the clergy," then states "that the spiritual patrons,
the regular clergy throughout the whole realm, mischievously
appropriate to themselves the said benefices, and lamentably cast to
the ground the houses and buildings, and cruelly take away and destroy
divine service, hospitality, and other works of charity, which used to
be performed in the said benefices to the poor and distressed; that
they exclude and ever debar the clergymen from promotion, and
privately convey the treasure of the realm in great sums to the court
of Rome,--to the confusion of their own souls, the grievous (p. 041)
desolation of the parishioners[36] and the whole country, the ultimate
ruin of the clergy, the great impoverishment of the realm, and the
irrecoverable ruin of the holy church of England."[37]
[Footnote 36: It is curious at the same time to
observe what extraordinary notions the Commons, who
presented this petition, had formed of freedom; how
jealous they were of the lower orders, and how
determined to exclude them from sharing with
themselves the good things of the church's
temporalities. The Commons pray that (no nief or
vileyn) no bondswoman or bondsman, be allowed to
send a son to school with a view of being advanced
in the church; and that for the maintenance and
safety of the honour of all the free men of the
land.]
[Foonote 37: 15 Richard II. (1391.)]
A case argued before the judges in the time of Henry IV, very
interesting in itself, and closely connected in many points with the
subject of this chapter, is recorded in the Year Books. The argument
arose on a writ of Quare impedit, directed against Halomm (Hallam)
Bishop of Salisbury and Chichel (Chicheley) Bishop of St. David's,
afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. The question at issue regarded
the voidance of a prebend in the church of Salisbury, caused by
Chicheley being created Bishop of St. David's, who held that prebend,
to which he had been presented by Richard Medford, a former Bishop of
Sarum. Against the King's claim of right of presentation to the void
prebend, the defendants answered that the Pope had granted to
Chicheley licence to enjoy all the preferments which he held before,
together with his bishopric. For the King's right it was pleaded, (p. 042)
that the creation of Chicheley took place whilst the temporalities of
Sarum were in the hands of the King, on the translation of Hallam from
York to Sarum;[38] but the question at length turned virtually upon
the power of the see of Rome to dispense with the laws of England.
[Footnote 38: Some persons would probably be
surprised, among the facts recorded in this cause,
(all which however are confirmed by the
ecclesiastical registers,) to find that by a sort
of retrograde promotion, according to our usual
ideas of episcopal preferment, a Bishop of London,
Nicoll Bubwith, was translated from London to
Salisbury, and from Salisbury to Bath and Wells.
The pleading also reminds us of a curious fact with
regard to Bishop Hallam's promotion, not generally
known. The record merely states that "the Bishop of
Sarum, that now is, was translated from York to the
church of Sarum." This latter translation, however,
(if such it can be properly called,) admits of a
more easy solution than the preceding. The fact is,
that Hallam was actually appointed by the Pope to
the archbishopric of York; to which appointment the
King objected. The nomination of the Pope was not
persisted in, and Hallam was consecrated Bishop of
Salisbury.]
In the first sitting (Mich. 11 Henry IV.--_i.e._ 1409), Horton for the
defendants alleged, "We continued in possession of the prebend after
Richard Hallam had received the temporalities from the hands of the
King. Subsequently to which, and before we were created Bishop of St.
David's, our Saint Peter the Apostle, reciting by his bulls that we
were elected Bishop of St. David's, granted us licence to enjoy all
our other benefices." On which, Thirning, Justice, observed, "The
grant of the Apostle in this case cannot change the law of the land."
To which Hankford (who proved himself throughout the most zealous
supporter of the omnipotence of the Popedom) merely replied, "The Pope
can do all things;" his use of the Latin words evidently showing that
he was quoting a dictum,--"Papa omnia potest." After some discussion,
and a reference to former precedents chiefly alleged by Hankford,
Thirning rejoins very significantly, "That was in ancient times, and I
will not raise the question as to the power of the Apostle; (p. 043)
but I cannot see how he by his bulls can change the law of
England."[39] In the third deliberation, Culpeper says, "The intention
of the statute is now to be considered; and I conceive that it was
made to protect the King and other patrons in their rights, and to
restrain the encroachment of the Apostle which he makes against the
law." On the third discussion, Till argued, "Since by the law of the
land the creation of a bishop causes a voidance in fact of a benefice
before held, and by such voidance the title of presentation or
collation accrues to the patron, I say that the Apostle can by no
grant beforehand oust the patron of his right, and restrain the title
which ought to accrue to him upon such creation: for if so, he ought
to restrain and change the course of inheritance by the law of the
land; and that he cannot do, no more than if the King wished to (p. 044)
give or grant to a man that he should hold his lands after he has
entered upon a monastic life, and professed; for such grant would be
contrary to the common law of the land, and therefore would be
altogether void. So also in this case." To this argument Horton
replied, among other points, "I take it that the Apostle may grant to
a man to hold three bishoprics at a time;" in which Hankford agreed,
"provided it were with the consent of the patrons." On which Skeene
observed, "If the Pope made such a grant, the King might retain the
temporalities in his own hands, if he wished it." To this observation,
Hankford, among many other things, said, "The Apostle can in many
cases change the course of the law of the land, and prevent the
occurrence of that which ought to follow." The same judge, pressing
again the argument on which he had before relied, asks, "What say ye?
suppose the Apostle, before a man becomes a professed monk, grants him
a dispensation to hold his benefices after his profession?"--"I say,"
replied Hill, "that in such a case he cannot deprive me of my right of
patronage."
[Footnote 39: "Jeo ne ferra disputation del poiar
l'appost', mes jeo ne scay veier coment il par ses
bull' changer, le ley d'Engleterre."]
The question at issue was found to be so difficult of solution, and
the judges viewed the law of the case in such opposite lights, that it
was argued and debated between them by adjournment in four several
terms; at length the advocates of the Pope's omnipotence gave (p. 045)
way, and judgment was given for the Crown.[40]
[Footnote 40: See Year Book, "Anno xi. Hen.
IIII."--Term. Mich. fol. 37; Hilar. fol. 38; Pasc.
fol. 59; Trin. fol. 76.]
Among many memorable facts recorded by the Year Book during the
progress of this cause, most persons probably will regard with
interest the resistance made by the Crown, at this period, against the
encroachments of the Pope,--the boundless power, ecclesiastical and
political, assumed and exercised by the pontiff, and conceded to him
in England,--and, at the same time, the spirit which shows itself on
the part of some of our judges to vindicate the supremacy of the law
of England over the alleged omnipotence of the court of Rome. The
great difference of opinion also as to the power of the Pope,
expressed by the members of the judicial bench, cannot fail to
interest every Englishman, whether lawyer or not; whilst the terms in
which some of the judges speak of the encroachments of the Apostolic
see, against which the legislature of England had deemed it necessary
to enact some stringent laws, are not a little remarkable. But to
Protestants of the present day, perhaps the most surprising feature of
all may appear to be the title ascribed to the Pope by the judges,
whilst publicly and solemnly dispensing the laws of the country. They
do not speak of him as the Pope, except once in the citation of a
Latin dictum; nor do they refer to him as a sovereign pontiff
exercising the delegated authority of the chief Apostle, and (p. 046)
representing him in the church militant on earth: they do not give him
the title of "successor to St. Peter," or "our father filling the
Apostolic chair:"--they speak of him throughout in direct terms as
"the Apostle;" and in some passages they even call him "Saint Peter,"
and "our Saint Peter" the Apostle.[41] It is however very curious, in
tracing the argument in this cause, to lay the strong terms employed
by the advocates of the Pope's paramount authority side by side with
the striking expressions used by others of those high functionaries on
the supremacy of the English law, and the inability of the Apostolic
see in the plenitude of its power to change or dispense with the
common or statute law of the realm.
[Footnote 41: "L'appost'." "Nostre Saint Pier
l'appost'." "Bulls fait par Saint Pier."]
Abuses such as we have referred to in the previous sections of this
chapter prevailed everywhere, and called loudly for vigorous measures
to rectify them. At the same period the church through Christendom was
distracted and torn by contending factions, each supporting a pontiff
of its own.
To put an end to these disgraceful and unhappy feuds, as destructive
of the peace of Europe as they were hurtful to the cause of true
religion, and to effect a full reformation in the church, the Council
of Constance was professedly convened. That synod was summoned
nominally by Pope John XXIII, but in reality by the united voice (p. 047)
of the sovereigns of Europe, especially at the instance of the Emperor
Sigismund himself. It falls not within the province of these Memoirs
to record the proceedings of that council, either in extinguishing the
flame of discord within the pale of the church, or in kindling the
sadder flame of persecution[42] against all who dared to think for
themselves in a matter peculiarly their own, or in its lamentable
forgetfulness of the abuses for the correction of which it was mainly
convened. The records of the Council of Constance, however, abound in
matters of interest in connection with the immediate and professed
object of this work. We infer from them that Henry V. was then taking
a lead in religious matters, and, whilst he was anxious to resist the
overbearing tyranny of Rome, he was at the same time bent on making
the religious establishment within his own kingdom an efficient means
of conveying to all his subjects the blessings of the Gospel; he was
an honest reformer of abuses, but, at the same time, the conscientious
and uncompromising supporter of the religion of his fathers.
[Footnote 42: It is very painful to reflect on the
intolerant spirit of this very Sigismund, who was
so anxious to reform the abuses of the church; but
it is forced upon us whilst we are inquiring into
the times of Henry. Sigismund had paid (as we shall
see) a visit to Henry, and he meditated another.
But he never put that design into execution. A
letter from Heretong Van Clux, Henry's minister,
informed his master that he must not expect to see
the Emperor, for he had employment at home in
putting down the followers of Huss. "Now I know
well he might not come, for this cause, that many
of the great lords of Bohemia have required him for
to let them hold the same belief that they are in.
And thereupon he sent them word, that rather he
would be dead than he would sustain them in their
malice. And they have answered him again, that they
will rather die than go from their belief. There is
a great power of them, lords, knights, and
esquires; but the greatest power is of the
commoners. Therefore the Emperor gathers all the
power that he may, to go into Bohemia upon
them."--See Ellis's Original Letters.]
* * * * *
It was on the 20th of October 1414, that Robert Hallam, Bishop of
Salisbury, the Bishops of Bath and Hereford, the Abbot of (p. 048)
Westminster, the Prior of Worcester, Lord Warwick, and others, were
commissioned by Henry to proceed to Constance, and as his
representatives[43] to treat about the reformation of the universal
church; or, as the Pell Rolls speak, "for the salvation of Christian
souls." Another body of commissioners was subsequently sent, when not
less than four hundred Englishmen went in company of the embassy,
among whom were reckoned two archbishops, seven bishops, and many
other lords and gentlemen. Of those who were first commissioned by
Henry, Robert Hallam (or Allam) was most strenuous in urging (p. 049)
the work of reformation before and above all other matters with which
they had to do. The Cardinals were equally urgent to have the election
of Pope first settled, and then to proceed afterwards to the question
of reformation. The Bishop of Salisbury, acting, doubtless, with the
full approbation, it may be at the immediate suggestion of Henry, was
instant, in season and out of season, in forcing the work of
reformation on the Council. He was called the Emperor's right hand, so
entirely did he and Sigismund co-operate for this purpose. Indeed, the
English generally appear at first to have been among the principal
promoters of reform, and, as long as Hallam lived, to have pursued it
zealously; but on his death[44] they were much less noted for the same
zeal. Previously, however, to that event, a great schism arose (p. 050)
among the English at Constance, and the authority of the bishops
was much disregarded. To remedy these disorders, Henry wrote a
peremptory letter (18 July 1417), commanding all his people to be
obedient to the bishops, and to abstain from all factious conduct;
enjoining them, on pain of forfeiting their goods, either to behave in
a manner becoming his subjects, or to return home; directing also,
that, in all differences of opinion, the minority should conform to
the decision of the majority.
[Footnote 43: This council seems to have entailed,
first and last, on England, a very considerable
expense. Within a week of the date of the
commission, the Pell Rolls record the payment of
333_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._ (a large sum in those days) "to
Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, sent as the
King's ambassador to the General Council held at
Constance before our lord the Pope, the Emperor,
and others, there assembled for the salvation of
Christian souls." Payments also to others are
recorded.]
[Footnote 44: Bishop Hallam died at Constance,
Sept. 5, 1417. On which day the Cardinal des Ursins
addressed a letter to Henry, praying him to appoint
as Hallam's successor at Salisbury, John Ketterich,
Bishop of Lichfield, to whose ability and zeal and
worth the Cardinal bears strong testimony. This
same Cardinal had a personal interview with Henry
in 1418, just before the taking of Rouen.
Le Neve leaves it in doubt whether Bishop Hallam
was buried at Constance, or in Westminster Abbey.
But the Author has been kindly furnished by Sir
Francis Palgrave, who visited Constance last year,
with the following interesting particulars relative
to the resting-place of that excellent man. "The
monument of Bishop Hallam consists of a slab inlaid
with brass, in the usual style of English memorials
of the same period, but quite unlike those of
Germany; and I have no doubt but that the brasses
were sent from England. He is represented at full
length in the episcopal dress, his head lying
between two shields, the royal arms of England
within the Garter, (as Chancellor of the order,)
and his own bearings. But the tomb being placed
exactly in front of the high altar, the attrition
to which it has been exposed in this part of the
church has nearly effaced the engravings." His
funeral, we are told, was attended by the assembled
princes and prelates and nobles of the council, who
followed him to the grave with every demonstration
of respect and sorrow.]
Bishop Hallam entertained a most rooted antipathy to the Pope and the
Popedom; and he once gave expression to his sentiments so freely and
unreservedly to the Pope himself, that his Holiness complained
grievously of him to the Emperor: but Sigismund was himself too
heartily bent on reforming the abuses of the Popedom to chide the zeal
and freedom of the English prelate. On one occasion the Bishop
maintained that a General Council was superior to the Pope (a doctrine
subsequently recognised, but then, as it should seem, new and bold);
on another he is reported to have gone so far as to affirm (p. 051)
that the Pope, for his enormities, deserved to be burnt alive. Bishop
Hallam[45] was by no means singular either in the sentiments which he
entertained with regard to the corruptions of the Romish Church "_in
its head and its members_," and the imperative necessity of an
universal reform, or in the unreserved boldness and plainness with
which he published those sentiments. The whole of Christendom rang
with loud and bitter complaints against the avarice, the sensuality,
the overreaching and overbearing tyranny, the total degeneracy and
worthlessness of the Popes, the Cardinals, and the religious orders;
but in no place were the protests against such deplorable (p. 052)
corruptions more unsparingly uttered than at the Council of Constance
itself: and among those who willingly offered themselves to testify,
in their Saviour's name, against such a prostitution of his blessed
Gospel to the purposes of worldly ambition, such gross depravity and
total neglect of duty, the names of many of our own countrymen are
recorded. These pillars of the church, these lights in the midst of
darkness, seem indeed to have entertained sentiments, as to the duties
and responsibilities of the Christian priesthood, worthy of the purest
age. Some of their recorded doctrines are truly edifying, and find a
response in some of the best episcopal charges and admonitions of the
Protestant church at the present day.
[Footnote 45: Anthony à Wood, referring to the
alleged resolution of the University of Oxford in
favour of Wickliff and his doctrines, refers to
this Bishop Hallam, though with some mistake. "The
prime broacher," he says, "of this testimonial, of
which we have nothing in our registers, records, or
books of epistles, was John Husse in the first tome
of his works, and from him John Fox. Against the
former of whom it was objected in the Council of
Constance, that he had openly divulged the said
commendatory letter in behalf of John Wickliff,
falsely conveyed to Prague, under the title of the
University of Oxford, by two students, one a
Bohemian, the other an Englishman. Whereupon those
of England who were present at the council, of
whom, if I mistake not, Robert Hallam, about these
times Bishop of Oxford [Salisbury], was one,
produce another letter under the seal of the
University, wherein, on the contrary, the members
thereof as much denounce against him as the other
was in behalf of him, and referred the matter to
the council to judge of it as they thought fit; but
how it was decided I find not."]
Among these excellent men, Dr. Richard Ullerston, of Oxford, seems to
have taken a most primitive view of the duties of a Christian bishop.
He wrote a treatise in 1408, by way of memorial for Bishop Hallam, his
friend, who urged him to the work, when that uncompromising reformer
went to the Council of Pisa. At the close of a long and powerful
exhortation to provide for the due execution by the Popes of their own
ministerial duties, and for the restoration of discipline in the
church, he thus expresses himself: "Things being thus restored to
their right order, and all abuses being cut away, the Pope will employ
himself, agreeably to the duties of his charge, in procuring peace for
Christians, not only by praying, but by preaching the Gospel (p. 053)
himself, and sending everywhere good preachers, who by their doctrine
and example might urge on princes and people throughout the world
their several duties, and who might make a holy war upon the passions
of mankind, rooting up those sensual desires which, according to St.
James, are the source of wars and divisions in the church and in the
state." This treatise was published in Germany about the year 1700,
from a manuscript in Trinity College, Cambridge; and may be found at
the end of Van der Hardt's work on the Council of Constance. It
consists chiefly of petitions for the remedy of abuses, and is full
from beginning to end of the true spirit of genuine evangelical
religion. Dr. Ullerston remained in uninterrupted and perfect
communion with the church of Rome; and yet no Protestant, who ever
suffered at the stake for his opposition to her, could have more
faithfully exposed the practical grievances under which Christendom
then mourned in consequence of her dereliction of duty, whilst she
assumed to herself all supreme authority, and paralyzed the efforts of
national churches to remedy the crying evils of the time. The heads of
Ullerston's petitions abound with salutary suggestions; by many of the
items we are apprised of the grievances then chiefly complained of, or
the departments in which those grievances were found.
1. On the election of a Pope.
2. On the suppression of simony.
3. On the exaltation of the law of Christ above all human (p. 054)
authority.
4. Against appropriations, _i.e._ assigning the proceeds of parochial
cures to monasteries.
5. On appointing only fit persons to ecclesiastical stations.
6. Against exemptions of monasteries and individuals from episcopal
jurisdiction.
7. Against dispensations,--those, among others, by which benefices and
bishoprics were given to children.
8. Against pluralities.
9. Against appeals to Rome.
10. Against the abuse of privileges.
11. Against the clergy devoting themselves to secular affairs.
12. Against the prerogatives of chanters[46] and other officers in the
houses of the great.
[Footnote 46: In his arguments on this article Dr.
Ullerston offers some excellent reflections upon
the use and abuse of singing in the church. The
sentiments of Augustin, which he quotes, are truly
judicious and edifying. That eloquent father
lamented that often the beauty of the singing
withdrew his mind from the divine matter and
substance of what was sung; but when he remembered
how, on occasions of peculiar interest to him,
psalmody carried his soul towards heaven in holy
raptures, he could not help voting for its
continuance in the church service. Ullerston quotes
also two lines, not indeed specimens of classical
accuracy, but the spirit of which should never be
absent from the mind of a Christian worshipper,
whether a Protestant or in communion with the see
of Rome:
"Non vox sed votum, non musica chordula sed cor,
Non clamor sed amor, sonat in aure Dei."]
13. Generally against extortions. (p. 055)
14. Against excessive expenses in the persons and the families of the
clergy.
15. For a provision for more efficient divine service in parishes.
16. For the restoration of peace through Christendom.
In his reflections on these points there is so much sound sense and
genuine affection for true religion, such an ardent desire pervades
them of promoting the ends for which alone an establishment can be
justified on warrant of Scripture, or is in itself desirable,--the
salvation of souls through Christ for ever,--that, had it not been out
of place, the Author would have gladly transcribed a great part of Dr.
Ullerston's sentiments into these pages. His suggestions savour
throughout of genuine piety and true practical wisdom.
To Ullerston must be added Walter Dysse, who was commissioned by Pope
Boniface IX. to proceed to Spain, Portugal, and Aquitain, to preach a
crusade against the infidels. He was a most deadly enemy to the
followers of Wicliffe, and a devoted friend to the court of Rome; yet
he could not pass over in silence the cause of the divisions and
corruptions of the church, nor the means of their effectual
reformation.
But, perhaps, among all those whom the history of this Council records
as zealous promoters of a real reformation within the church itself,
our more immediate object in these Memoirs would require us (p. 056)
to make especial mention of Thomas Walden, because he was one of Henry
of Monmouth's own chaplains,[47] and was employed by him not only in
domestic concerns, but in foreign embassies.[48] He was called the
Netter, from the expertness and success with which he caught and
mastered his antagonists in argument. He was present at the Council of
Pisa as well as of Constance. He proved himself throughout a most
bitter persecutor of heretics; and (as Van der Hardt expresses
himself) the less imbued he was with any affection towards the
disciples of Huss, or influenced by it, so much the more sincere a
censor was he of the ecclesiastical corruptions of his time. He was
bent on reforming the abuses of the church with a strong hand, and so
far the wishes of his royal master coincided with his own; but he (p. 057)
could not prevail upon the King to go hand-in-hand with him in
persecuting the heretics. Walden was bold enough, in his mistaken
zeal, to charge Henry with a culpable remissness in what was then too
generally supposed to be the duty of a Christian sovereign.[49]
[Footnote 47: Thomas Gascoyne, a contemporary
writer, born 1403, ordained 1427, who gives us a
deplorable view of the ignorance and immorality of
the clergy of his time, mentions the appointment of
Walden as Henry's chaplain, in confirmation of his
position that he never could find that any King of
England retained any bishop after consecration as
his confessor or resident chaplain till the time of
Henry VI. "When (he says) Henry IV.'s confessor was
made a bishop, he sent him to his cure and his
bishopric; and Henry V, who was a very prudent King
indeed, and terrible to many nations, had with him
one doctor proficient in divinity, Thomas Walden,
as his confessor, who was burdened with no cure of
souls. Thus were Kings and Lords accustomed to
retain as their chaplains persons who were free
from all cure of souls."]
[Footnote 48: Pell Rolls, Mich. 7 Hen. V, he is
paid for his expenses in an embassy to the King of
Poland.]
[Footnote 49: L'Estrange, Counc. Constance, vol.
ii. p. 282; and Van der Hardt, tom. i. p. 501.]
* * * * *
A communication made personally to Henry from Constance, in the
beginning of the year 1417,[50] deserves in this place our especial
attention. The letter, written by John Forester,[51] may perhaps be
considered a fair specimen of correspondence between Englishmen of
education at that period. As a vehicle of information on the real
state of feeling in England with regard to the church of Rome, it is
very interesting. It is, moreover, impossible to read it without
inferring that, in the opinion of the writer at least, and of those in
whose behalf he wrote, Henry's earnest desire was to reform the abuses
of the church, and to render churchmen zealous servants of the Gospel.
[Footnote 50: Not 1418, as it has been supposed,
but 1417. The date is fixed by the specifying of
Wednesday the 27th January, as also by the mention
of the Genoese ships. These ships were hired, and
they fought under the French against the English,
and were beat in July 1417, after a severe
engagement.]
[Footnote 51: Cott. MSS. Cleopatra, t. vii. p.
148.]
JOHN FORESTER'S LETTER FROM CONSTANCE TO HENRY V. (p. 058)
"My sovereign liege Lord, and most redoubted Prince Christian to
me on earth. I recommend me unto your high royal and imperial
Majesty with all manner [of] honours, worships, grace, and
goodnesses. My most glorious Lord, liketh you to wit, that the
Wednesday, the third hour after noon, or near thereto, the seven
and twentieth day of January, your brother['s] gracious person
the King of Rome entered the city of Constance with your livery
of the Collar about his neck,--a glad sight for all your liege
men to see,--with a solemn procession of all estates, both of
Cardinals of all nations, and your Lords in their best array with
all your nation. He received your Lords graciously, with right
good cheer. Of all the worshipful men of your nation he touched
their hands, [and theirs] only, in all the great press. And then
went my Lord of Salisbury [Hallam] before heartily to the place
of the general Council, where that royal King should rest; and he
entered into the pulpit where the Cardinal Candacence,[52] chief
of the nation of France, and your especial enemy also, had
purposed to have made the first collation[53] before the
King,[54] in worship of the French nation. But my Lord of
Salisbury kept possession, in worship of you and your nation; and
he made there a right good collation that pleased the King right
well: and forasmuch as the King was fasting at that hour, then
would no man occupy him more that day; but on the morn (p. 059)
(my liege Lord) liketh you to wit, that at nine of the bell all
your ambassadors, with all your nation in their best array, went
to worship him in his palace, and that he gave them glad and
gracious audience. There my Lord of Chester, the president of
your nation, had his words to him in such a wise that it was
worship to him and all our nation; and soon after this they took
their leave of him. And on the morrow he sends after them again
at ten of the clock. There he received them again every man by
hand. Then he made a collation to our nation, and he thanked them
especially that they had been so loving, trusty, and true to his
nation in his absence. Also, he rehearsed there how the
brotherhood [friendship] began between him and my Lord your
father; and how it is now so continued and knit for you and your
successors, with the grace of God, for ever. And he told them so
great worship of your royal person, and such of all my Lords your
brethren; and then of the governance of holy church, divine
service, ornaments, and all state thereof, kept as though it were
in Paradise, in comparison with any place that he ever came in
before; so that from the highest unto the lowest he commended
your glorious and gracious person, your realm, and your good
governance. And then my Lord of Chester, our president, in the
name of all our nation (as belongeth to his office) rehearsed
compendiously, and in a gentle wise, all that ever the Emperor
had said; and gave him an answer to every point so good and so
reasonable, in so short avisement, that he has got him the thanks
of your nation for ever. And also, sovereign liege Lord, as I may
understand, my Lords of Salisbury and Chester are fully disposed,
by the consent of all your other ambassadors, to suive [pursue]
the reformation in the church, in the head and the members,
having no regard to no benefices[55] that they have, (p. 060)
rather than it should be left undone. And of this I doubt me
nought that these two lords will abide hard and nigh, always by
the good advice and deliberation of your brother the King of
Rome. Moreover, liketh you to wit, that on Sunday, the last day
of January, your brother, the King of Rome, wore the gown of the
Garters, with your collar, openly at the high mass; and he was
lereth [learned] that the Duke of Beyer and the borough-grave
should eat with my Lord of London the same day, and he said he
would eat with them. Other tidings be there none, but, as it is
said, the ambassadors of Spain should be here in Constance within
a few days. And, on Candlemas eve, came letters from the French
King, commanding to his nation to put out the ambassadors of the
Duke of Burgundy from their nation; also, as it is said openly,
that the foresaid French King hath sent to the city of Genoa, and
forwarded a great sum of gold to [hire[56]] wage great ships and
galleys, to destroy your ordinance and your navy of England. And
further, the day of making this letter, Master Philip Moyar
entered Constance in good health, thanked be God! The which God,
of his gracious goodness, keep your high, honourable, and
gracious person in his pleasance, and send you sovereignty and
victory of all your enemies. Written at Constance, the second day
of February,
"By your poor, true, and continual
"Orator,[57]
"JOHN FORESTER."
[Footnote 52: Cardinalis Camaracensis, or Cardinal
of Cambray.]
[Footnote 53: "Collation" meant discourse, or
speech, generally of a laudatory character.]
[Footnote 54: The Spaniards, the French, and others
were jealous of the English enjoying the privilege
of ranking and voting single-handed as one of the
nations, and insisted upon their being regarded
only as a part of a larger section of Europe, just
as Austria was only part of Germany. But the
English resisted, and preserved their privilege.]
[Footnote 55: This alludes to the intention of
putting a stop to the rich and numerous commendams
which were then heaped on bishops. Our English
prelates were determined to carry on the
reformation, though at their own personal
sacrifice.]
[Footnote 56: This negotiation was successful. The
French hired a fleet of long ships of the Genoese.]
[Footnote 57: Orator.--Petitioner, one who prayed
for the welfare of another.]
It is curious to remark that, on the very Sunday before this (p. 061)
letter was written, the English bishops caused a sort of pious comedy
to be acted in the presence of the Emperor Sigismund. It was one of
those mysteries, as they were called, which had so long mingled
religious instruction (of a very questionable character) with
amusement. The fruits of these exhibitions were probably very
equivocal in that age in England, as they are on the Continent at this
day. The Germans consider this play, which was the representation of
the Nativity,[58] the Massacre of the Innocents, and the Visit of the
Magi, as the first introduction of that sort of dramatic performance
into their country. The English had caused a rehearsal to be performed
before the authorities of the place three or four times previously, in
order to make the actors perfect for their imperial audience.
[Footnote 58: A curious entry occurs (11th July
1390) in the Pell Rolls of 10_l._ ordered by the
King (Richard II.) to be paid to the clerks of the
parish churches, and other clerks in the city of
London, on account of the play of the Passion of
our Lord and the Creation of the World, by them
performed at Skynnerswell after the feast of
Bartholomew last past.]
About half a year after the date of this letter to Henry, his uncle,
Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, reached Constance in the garb of
a pilgrim, on his journey to the Holy Land. His safe-conduct is dated
July 21, 1417. His arrival at Constance was very prejudicial to the
cause of the reform of the church. The struggle then was between the
imperial party (to which the English were closely attached) (p. 062)
and the Cardinals, whether the Pope should be first elected, or
whether the reformations in the church should take precedence of his
election. Henry Beaufort, to whom all parties seem to have paid the
utmost deference, suggested the expediency of first electing the Pope;
the Cardinals pledging themselves, that done, to proceed forthwith to
the reformation. His advice was followed, and the result must have
been a disappointment to all sincere Christians: a death-blow was
given to the hopes which had been entertained of a reform in
ecclesiastical affairs to be effected by that Council. No sooner was
Pope Martin V. elected, than both himself and the Cardinals frustrated
every attempt to secure a sound reformation; and, after sitting three
years and six months, the Council was dissolved.
The records of this Council of Constance bear incidentally most
valuable evidence to the warm interest taken by Henry in everything
over which he had any control, and in which he could beneficially
employ his power and influence. They prove, moreover, that whilst he
was a sincere promoter of a sound and wholesome reformation, and most
zealously attached to the religion in which he had been brought up,
and in which he was a conscientious believer, he was no persecutor.
Though our souls are harrowed up by the unchristian proceedings
against John Huss and Jerome of Prague, (and, could truth allow it, we
would gladly wipe away so black a stain from the annals of ages (p. 063)
and nations called Christian,) it is a source of great satisfaction to
find that the name of Henry of Monmouth is not at all mixed up with
those deeds of blood: we find him neither encouraging nor approving
them. Not one shadow of suspicion is suggested that the persecuting
spirit, which in that Council displayed itself so outrageously and
inhumanly, found any thoughts in his breast responsive to its cruel
aspirations. We know, indeed, that Thomas Walden, his priest and
chaplain, was actuated by the spirit of persecution towards the
Lollards; but we are equally assured that, so far from being
countenanced and encouraged by his master in acts of persecuting
bigotry, he did not scruple openly in public, and solemnly in a
sermon, to charge him with a want of zeal in extirpating the enemies
of the church. From such a witness the testimony so borne to the
charity and moderation of Henry of Monmouth is very valuable and
satisfactory; abundantly outweighing all the declamation of modern
enthusiastic censors. Henry was a reformer,--he could not be persuaded
to become a persecutor.[59]
[Footnote 59: For satisfaction on this point, the
reader is especially referred to the chapter
entitled, "Was Henry of Monmouth a religious
persecutor?"]
Henry's reputation for having at heart the correction of all abuses in
the church, encouraged the University of Oxford to present to him a
petition, setting forth a multitude of corrupt practices which (p. 064)
were a disgrace to the Christian religion in England; and praying
him, since God had raised him up to such an exalted place in the
church, to put forth his power in effecting a reformation.[60] This
document, preserved in Corpus Christi College in Oxford, abounds in
topics of deep and lively interest; it marks the fearful extent to
which the corrupt practices in the church had been fostered by Rome,
the ardent desire entertained in England for a reformation so early as
the commencement of the fifteenth century, and Henry's anxiety to
bring about such a reform in the discipline of the church as might
safely be adopted without giving countenance and encouragement to the
Lollards, against whom the University seems at this time to have been
decidedly hostile.
[Footnote 60: In this petition of the University,
Henry is told, that what Constantinus, Marcianus,
and Theodosius had been in the East, that was he in
the West; by his eminent Christian piety resisting
the accomplices of Satan, and preventing the
western church from sinking utterly. By his wise
and peaceable government of the church he was (they
say) best providing for the peace and security of
the state, whilst he cut off and cast away the
rank, luxuriant offshoots of offences as they grew.
In marking out the most notable defects and abuses,
they obeyed (they say) his sacred commands; and
they prayed him to exert his authority in
correcting them.]
The points to which Oxford then solicited Henry to direct his especial
care, were partly such as are no longer of general interest among us,
(excepting so far as they remind us of the mass of evils from which
the Reformation rescued us,) and partly such as must be (p. 065)
interesting to Christians of every age.
Among the former grievances were reckoned the Pope's unlimited
creation of cardinals, all to be supported out of the revenues of the
church; the excessive grants of indulgences, by which persons were
encouraged in licentiousness; the privileges and exemptions and
scandalous immorality of the monks. The petitioners complained
bitterly that though the church of England would not admit persons
into sacred orders who were unfit and unworthy, yet the court of Rome
would repeatedly recognise such as lawful ministers.
Among the latter evils were the non-residence of incumbents, the
inadequacy of the stipends of curates, and the commendams of bishops.
The petitioners prayed, that whereas a great number both of regulars
and seculars who were presumptuous and ignorant were ordained, a
decree might be passed that all before ordination should be strictly
examined; and that a remedy should be provided against simony.[61]
They petitioned, also, that foreigners who could not speak English
should have no cures in England; and they complained of the practice
of patrons exacting from the priests whom they nominated to a benefice
a pledge that they would not sue for an augmentation of their (p. 066)
stipend, were it never so small. They closed their petition by
praying that all bishops who were remiss in punishing heresy, and
extirpating Lollardy, might be deposed; and that all magistrates and
officers should be bound by their oath to aid in its extirpation.[62]
[Footnote 61: There was also a prayer to prohibit
the practice of confiscating the goods of Jews and
heathens at their baptism, a practice tending to
debar them from offering themselves at the font.]
[Footnote 62: Cotton. Tiber. B. vi. F. 64.]
Henry, deeply lamenting the gross abuses referred to in this petition,
implored the Pope to suffer them to be redressed. His Holiness agreed
to certain constitutions, by which, if fully acted upon, most of the
evils complained of would have been rectified. The Pope, however,
begged Henry in return to abrogate all the laws which had been enacted
in England to the prejudice of Rome; but the King declared his
inability to meet the wishes of his Holiness.
The extent to which the abuse of the Pope's[63] authority had been
connived at in this country,--a state of things which naturally
indisposed him towards any change for the better,--may be inferred
from two facts: that he (in defiance of the statutes of Edward III.
and Richard II.) had by his own authority created thirteen (p. 067)
bishops in the province of Canterbury in two years; and had appointed
his nephew, Prospero Colonna, a boy of only fourteen years of age,
Archdeacon of Canterbury, with fourteen benefices in England.
[Footnote 63: The fact is, that Henry, during his
wars in France, suffered Pope Martin to exercise
his pretended prerogative in the disposal of
benefices to an extent, if not unprecedented,
certainly most unjustifiable. The Chapter of York
gave the first blow to this growing usurpation by
refusing to admit, in obedience to the Pope's
mandate, Richard Fleming, Bishop of Lincoln, into
the archiepiscopal see.]
* * * * *
Before we leave this subject, we cannot but record an instance
(mentioned by Walsingham) of Henry's personal exertions in reforming
abuses. He had received complaints against the Benedictine monks of
certain grievous corruptions; and, attended only by four persons, he
went into the midst of a full assembly of that order. The meeting
consisted of sixty abbots and priors of convents, and more than three
hundred monks, who were all assembled in the Chapter-house of
Westminster. After a speech from the Bishop of Exeter, (one of those
who accompanied him,) Henry himself addressed them at great length. He
reminded them of the ancient piety of the monks, and the devotion of
his predecessors and others in founding and endowing monasteries; he
expatiated on the negligence and remissness in the discharge of their
sacred duties, which, he said, had become notorious in their times;
and he then exhibited certain articles according to which he required
them to reform themselves; earnestly entreating them to recover the
ancient spirit of religion which they had lost, and habitually to pray
for the King, the country, and the church; assuring them that, if they
followed his directions, they needed fear none of their enemies. (p. 068)
* * * * *
That Henry V, though earnestly desirous of a sound reform in the
discipline of the church, and the lives and ministrations of the
clergy, did never lay the axe to the root of the evil, cannot be
denied. Perhaps he was disheartened by the total failure of the united
efforts of himself and Sigismund, with their honest and zealous
adherents, at Constance. Perhaps he resolved to wait till, at the
close of his continental campaigns, in the enjoyment of peace at home
and abroad, he might be able to devote his concentrated exertions to
an object of such paramount importance. Perhaps the ambition of his
uncle Henry Beaufort, who evidently was looking for personal
aggrandizement in wealth and dignity, and who had given so decided and
unhappy a turn in the council of Constance in favour of the Pope's
party, might have devised some means for seducing his nephew's ardent
thoughts into another channel. To whatever cause we may be disposed to
attribute it, the reality is, that Henry V, when he died, had not
effected reform on any comprehensive scale in his own realm; nor had
he given any decided blow to the dominion and the corruptions of the
church of Rome. His short life was a career of wars and victories.
It pleased the Almighty, in his inscrutable wisdom, to bring (p. 069)
about the reformation of the church in his own way, by his own means,
and at his own appointed time. We recognise his hand in the blessing
which we have inherited, and are thankful.