WAS HENRY OF MONMOUTH A PERSECUTOR? -- JUST PRINCIPLES OF CONDUCTING
THE INQUIRY, AND FORMING THE JUDGMENT. -- MODERN CHARGE AGAINST HENRY.
-- REVIEW OF THE PREVALENT OPINIONS ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. -- TRUE
PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM. -- DUTY OF THE STATE AND OF
INDIVIDUALS TO PROMOTE THE PREVALENCE OF TRUE RELIGION. -- CHARGE
AGAINST HENRY, AS PRINCE OF WALES, FOR PRESENTING A PETITION AGAINST
THE LOLLARDS. -- THE MERCIFUL INTENTION OF THAT PETITION. -- HIS
CONDUCT AT THE DEATH OF BADBY.
WAS HENRY OF MONMOUTH A PERSECUTOR?
In estimating the character of an individual, nothing is more
calculated to mislead ourselves, or to subject him to injustice at our
hands, than a disregard of the time, and country, and circumstances in
which he lived. It is equally unwise, and unfair, and deceitful, for a
human judge to establish one fixed standard[246] of excellence in any
department whatever of scientific or practical knowledge, and (p. 320)
then to try the merits of all persons alike with reference to that
one test. The injustice and absurdity of estimating the talents for
investigation and acumen, the skill, and industry, and perseverance of
a chemical student, many centuries ago, by the knowledge of the most
celebrated men of the present day, and to pronounce all who fell below
that standard to have been deficient in natural talents, or in a
faithful exercise of them, would be seen and acknowledged by all. At
this time, errors in navigation would be unpardonable, which would
have implicated a pilot in no culpability at all, who lived before the
invention of the mariner's compass, and when half our globe was as yet
unknown. The same observations are applicable when we would estimate
the moral excellence of an individual, his worth in a private or a
public capacity, his character as a subject or a governor,--as the
framer, or the guardian, or the administrator of the laws. Many a
practice in ordinary social intercourse, which would not be tolerated,
and would fix a stigma on those who were examples of it as persons to
be shunned and excluded from society in one age or country, might in
another not only be endured, but be even countenanced and encouraged
by those who would take the lead in the improvement and refinement (p. 321)
of civilized life. The grand broad fundamental principles of right and
wrong must abstractedly be acknowledged always and in every place; but
in the interpretation[247] of them, and in their practical
application, we shall find in the records of successive ages every
conceivable diversity. If, in these days, we are tempted to brand with
the mark of ignorance, and superstition, and cruelty, those among our
predecessors who enacted laws against witchcraft, and condemned to
death those who were found guilty of dealings with the spirit of
wickedness, we must at the same time remember that persons who are
examples of every Christian excellence, of reverence for God's law, of
justice and charity, are now engaged in occupations which those men
held in abhorrence. They believed in the reality of witchcraft, and
condemned those who were pronounced guilty of the crime; we believe
that the crime cannot be committed, that it is merely a creature of
the imagination, and we denominate those who pretend to the power of
committing it impostors: just as by the Mosaic law they were condemned
as deceivers, pretending to possess a power and knowledge independently
of the Almighty. Our predecessors considered the lending of (p. 322)
money upon interest as an offence against the law of God, and
reprobated those who so employed their capital as usurers, who had
forfeited all title to the name of merciful Christians;--whilst in the
present day the most scrupulous person does not hesitate, as in a
matter of conscience, to depend for the means of subsistence on such a
source of income. Assuming that in each of these two cases our views
are formed on a sounder principle of moral and religious philosophy,
we have no more right to disparage the character of any individual,
who did his best in the midst of less favourable circumstances, than
we should have to reprobate the helmsman of former days, because in
the darkness of a starless night he had no compass wherewith to save
his ship from wreck.
[Footnote 246: The Bible is always and everywhere
the standard of divine truth; but to condemn an
individual for wilful ignorance of its heavenly
doctrines, to whom no opportunity has been afforded
of learning them, would be unreasonable and unjust.
A corresponding principle applies to the
interpretation of the Bible. Our responsibility in
every case increases with our privileges and
opportunities.]
[Footnote 247: It will be borne in mind, that the
question here is not whether there be not one
immutable principle, nor whether there ought not to
be one uniform interpretation of that principle; we
are inquiring only into the nature of that rule by
which we may equitably judge of the moral and
religious characters of men.]
These principles must be borne in mind, and acted upon whenever we
would examine the spirit and character of any individual on the charge
of superstition, bigotry, cruelty, and unchristian persecution. Had
not these principles unhappily been laid aside for a time and
forgotten, we should scarcely have been pained by so severe a portrait
of Henry of Monmouth, as a writer who ought to have known better has
drawn, not in the warmth of debate and the hurry of controversy, but
in the hour of reflection and quietude. "In the midst of these
tragedies died Henry V, whose military greatness is known to most
readers. His vast capacity and talents for government have been (p. 323)
also justly celebrated. But what is man without the genuine fear
of God? This monarch, in the former part of his life, was remarkable
for dissipation and extravagance of conduct; in the latter he became
the slave of the popedom,[248] and for that reason was called the
Prince of Priests. Voluptuousness, ambition, superstition, each in
their turn, had the ascendant in this extraordinary character. Such,
however, is the dazzling nature of personal bravery and of prosperity,
that even the ignorance and folly of the bigot, and the barbarities of
the persecutor, are lost or forgotten amidst the enterprises of the
hero and the successes of the conqueror. Reason and justice lift (p. 324)
up their voice in vain. The great and substantial defects of Henry V.
must hardly be touched on by Englishmen. The battle of Agincourt
throws a delusive splendour around the name of this victorious
King."[249]
[Footnote 248: The attachment of Henry to the See
of Rome, and the countenance given by him to the
encroachments of the Pope, have been greatly
exaggerated. Rapin took a different view of his
measures. "The proclamation" (he says) "made by
Henry, prohibiting the Pope's provisions, was a
death-blow to the court of Rome." On the death of
Henry, the Pope wrote a letter of condolence to the
council, in which he says, "We loved our son of
famous memory, Henry King of England, for there
were many and royal virtues in that Prince for
which he ought to be loved;" and then adds a strong
appeal to the council to abrogate the obnoxious
statutes which had so materially entrenched upon
his assumed prerogative. In a letter to Henry
himself (Kal. Nov. xiv. An. iv.) nearly two years
before his death, the Pope refers to a promise made
by Henry that he had no desire to curtail the
authority of the Roman See in his new dominions;
and also to an undertaking that he would bring the
obnoxious statutes under the notice of his
parliament; and that, "_if they could not be
supported on honest and lawful grounds_," he would
satisfy the Pope in that particular. Surely these
are not the expressions of one who was "the slave
of the Popedom."--See "Annales Ecclesiastici."]
[Footnote 249: Milner's Church History, vol. iv. p.
196.]
It is very painful to read this sentence; but the historian and
biographer must not be driven by such sweeping condemnation into the
opposite extreme; nor be deterred by the apprehension of unpopularity
from laying open his views both of the moral and religious question in
the abstract, and also of the acts, and character, and spirit of the
individual subject of inquiry.
The principles of religious liberty were ill understood through many
years before, and subsequently to, the time of Henry V. The sentiments
of persons in every rank of life in those days seem to have been built
upon an understanding, that the authorities, ecclesiastical and civil,
were bound in duty to expel heresy by force. It was not the case of a
dominant party enacting penalties abhorrent from the sympathies of the
mass of the people; "the people themselves wished to have it so, and
the priests bore rule by their means." So thorough a triumph had the
gigantic policy of Rome achieved over the freedom, and the wills, and
the judgments of the inhabitants of Europe! Like her other victories,
this too was the work of progressive inroads on the liberties (p. 325)
of Christians. Never at rest, ever active, the arch-conqueror fastened
to her chariot-wheels, one by one, the most valued rights and most
solemn duties of responsible agents. The right of private judgment in
matters of religion had been resigned by the vast majority of the
people of Christendom, and the duty and responsibility in each
individual of searching for the truth himself had been laid aside long
before Henry V. was called to take a part in the affairs of this
world. Bold and noble spirits, indeed, were found in successive
periods to assert their own rights and to declare the privileges and
the duties of their fellow-creatures, and to think for themselves in a
matter which so deeply involved their own individual and eternal
welfare; whilst the bulk of mankind in Christendom not only resigned
their faith to the absolute control of the priesthood, but exacted
also from their fellow-citizens a similar surrender, on pain of losing
their share in the protection and advantages of the state. Thus had
heresy, in various nations of Europe, become synonymous with rebellion
and treason; a rejection of the determinations of the church in
matters of doctrine was identified in most men's minds with rejection
of the authority of the civil magistrate;[250] and every one who dared
to dispute the jurisdiction of Rome was regarded as a dangerous (p. 326)
innovator, and an enemy to his own country.
[Footnote 250: This view of heresy we find to have
been at a very early date propagated and encouraged
by the Pope and the See of Rome. Walsingham
records, that, three years before Richard II.'s
deposition from the throne, "the Pope wrote to him
with a prayer (orans) that he would assist the
prelates of the church in the cause of God, and of
the King himself, and of the kingdom, against the
Lollards; whom he declared to be traitors, not only
of the church, but of the throne. And he besought
him with the greatest urgency (obnixiùs) to condemn
those whom the prelates should have declared
heretics.--Ypod. Neust. 1396.]
That this was a state of things to be deplored by every friend of
liberty and lover of truth, is not questioned; that domination over
the consciences of men has ever been the object of the church of Rome,
and that the spirit of persecution will ever be characteristic of her
principles, is not here denied; nor are these observations made for
the purpose of softening the feelings of abhorrence with which any
persons may be disposed to view the proceedings of a persecuting
spirit in those things which concern our most momentous interests so
awfully. We refer to these historical reminiscences solely for the
purpose of forming a more correct estimate of the individual character
of one who lived in those times, and was born, and cradled, and
educated in that atmosphere. It is easy to charge Henry V. with "the
ignorance and folly of the bigot, and the barbarities of the
persecutor;" but it were more worthy of a historian (his eye bent
singly on the truth) to substitute inquiry for assumption, and (p. 327)
careful weighing of the evidence for indiscriminate condemnation.
There is such a thing as persecution, though the dungeon and the stake
be not employed for its instruments; and true charity will be tender
of the character of a fellow-mortal, though he is removed from this
scene of trouble and trial, and has no longer the power of answering
the accusations with which his good name is assailed. We may be as
honest as those who write most bitterly, in our abhorrence of
persecution; and yet think the individual who put its most rigid laws
into effect, deserving of compassion and pity that his lot had fallen
in such days of bigotry and ignorance, rather than of reprobation for
not having discovered for himself a more enlightened path of duty.
It is not because we are obliged to confess that even the outward acts
of Henry V. have been those of a persecutor, that these preliminary
remarks are offered; it is rather to prepare our minds for a fair
examination of his conduct, with reference to the only just and equal
standard; for a candid and searching analysis of the evidence drawn
from original sources, before it has become turbid and coloured by the
channel through which it is often forced to flow; and for an
unprejudiced judgment on his character,--a judgment perverted neither,
on the one hand, by the dazzling splendour of his victories, nor, on
the other, by that very common but most iniquitous principle of (p. 328)
adjudication condemns the accused from hatred of the crime laid to
his charge. The Author's sentiments on the character of religious
persecution in general, and of the persecuting spirit of the church of
Rome in particular, need not be disguised. He would never be disposed
to acquit Henry V, or any other person, from a feeling of sympathy
with the spirit of persecution.
The religion of the Gospel abhors all persecution. The faith of Christ
must be maintained and propagated by more holy and heavenly weapons
than those which can be forged by human authority and power.
Persecution prevails in a Christian community only so far as the
genuine spirit of the Gospel is quenched or checked among its members.
The church has a power of compelling men to come to Christ, and to
embrace the true faith, but its instruments of compulsion must be
spiritual only: its sword must be supplied from God's own armoury. The
sentence, "Having the terrors of the Lord, we persuade men," conveys
an idea of tremendous consequences in store for those who refuse to
obey the truth; but the consequences are reserved for the immediate
dispensation of Him "who knoweth the thoughts." That believers, when
possessed of temporal power, should have recourse to bodily restraint,
and torture, and death, as the earthly punishment of those who
entertain unsound doctrine, is a monstrous invention, which can (p. 329)
derive no countenance from "the Word," and must be supported only
by a worldly sword, and the arm of man wielding it. If, indeed,
Christians are so far forgetful of the spirit of the Gospel as, on the
plea of defending and spreading its genuine doctrines, to disturb the
peace, and shake the foundations, and threaten the overthrow of
society, the civil magistrate, whether Christian or heathen, will
interpose. But neither has he, more than the church, any authority
whatever for interfering by violence with the faith of any one. It is
the duty of a Christian magistrate to provide for his people the means
of religious instruction, and worship, and consolation; but, on the
principles which alone can be justified, he must leave them at liberty
to reject or to avail themselves of the benefit. Their neglect, or
their abuse of it, will form a subject of inquiry at another tribunal;
and the final, irreversible judgment to be pronounced there, man has
no right to anticipate by pain and punishment on earth. These are the
true principles of Christianity, and a church departs from the Gospel
whenever these principles are neglected.
In adopting, however, these principles, and making them practically
one's own, it must never be forgotten that there is a danger of
confounding them, as they are unhappily too often confounded, with the
results of a philosophy, falsely so called, which would teach
governments to be indifferent to the religion of their people, (p. 330)
and would encourage individuals to take no interest in the
dissemination of religious truth. East is not more opposed to west,
than the spirit of persecution, which would compel others by secular
punishments to make profession of whatever doctrines the government of
a country may adopt, is opposed to that Christian wisdom which
maintains it to be equally the bounden duty of the state to provide
for the religious instruction and comfort of its members, as it is the
duty of a father to train up his own children in the faith and fear of
God. The poles are not further asunder, than that holy anxiety for the
salvation of our fellow-creatures which would impel Christians, to the
very utmost bound of the sphere of their influence, to promote as well
unity in the faith as the bond of peace and righteousness of life, is
removed from that narrow bigotry which fixes on those who differ from
ourselves the charge of wilful blindness, and obstinate hatred of the
truth, to be visited by man's rebuke here, and God's displeasure for
ever.[251] A wise and pious writer of our own has said,[252] (p. 331)
"Show me the man who would desire to travel to heaven alone,
regardless of his fellow-creature's progress thitherward, and in that
same person I will show you one who will never be admitted there." The
principle applies equally to an individual and a commonwealth. Show me
a State which neglects to provide for the spiritual edification and
comfort of its members, and in its institutions proves itself
unconcerned as to the advancement of religious truth, and in that
State you see a commonwealth whose counsels are not guided by the
spirit of the Gospel, and therefore on which, however for a time it
may shine and dazzle men's eyes with the splendour of conquest, and be
making gigantic strides in secular aggrandizement, the blessing (p. 332)
of the God of Truth and Love cannot be expected to descend.
[Footnote 251: For Christians of the present age,
and in our country, to pass through life without
partaking in any persecution, such as once
disgraced our legislature and the executive
government, does not necessarily imply a freedom of
the conscience from a persecuting spirit. The
Christian can now evince the real tone and temper
of his mind only in his behaviour towards his
fellow-creatures, and by the sentiments to which he
gives utterance. The Author hopes he may be
pardoned, if he ventures, in further illustration
of his principles on this subject, to make an
extract from his sermon lately preached at the
consecration of the Bishop of Salisbury. "In his
intercourse with those Christians whose sentiments
do not coincide with our own, the Christian
minister will never by laxity of expression or
conduct encourage in any an indifference to truth
and error, nor countenance the insidious workings
of latitudinarian principles. He will ever maintain
the truth, but never with acrimony; and, whilst his
duty compels him to banish and drive away all false
doctrine, he will feel and show towards the persons
of such as are in error compassionate indulgence
and forbearing tenderness. He knows that truth can
be only on one side, but he acknowledges that
sincerity may be on both; and he will set his mind
on winning back again by mild argument and
conciliatory conduct those who have gone astray,
rather than by severity in exposing their faults,
and a cold, forbidding, and hostile bearing,
indispose them to examine their mistaken views, and
confirm them in their spirit of alienation."]
[Footnote 252: Owen Feltham.]
A Christian legislature is bound by the most solemn of all
obligations to supply with parental care the means which, in the
honest exercise of its wisdom, it deems best fitted for converting the
community into a people serving God; each obedient to his law here,
each personally preparing for the awful change from time to eternity.
But with each individual member of the community, from those who make
its laws or administer them to the humblest labourer for his daily
bread, it must ultimately be left to accept or to reject, to cultivate
or neglect, the offered blessing. The moment compulsion interferes
with the free choice of the individual, the religion of the heart and
the outward observance cease to coincide, and hypocrisy, not faith
working by love, is the result. "Persecution[253] either punishes a
man for keeping a good conscience, or forces him into a bad
conscience; it either punishes sincerity, or persuades hypocrisy; it
persecutes a truth, or drives into error; and it teaches a man to
dissemble and to be safe, but never to be honest."
[Footnote 253: Bishop Taylor's "Liberty of
Prophesying," 13.]
* * * * *
With these observations we would proceed to inquire historically into
the personal character of Henry V. with regard to religious
persecution; a prince who lived when all Christendom was full of (p. 333)
the darkness of bigotry and superstition, and when persecution had
established its "cruel habitations" in every corner of the land.
The first occasion on which Henry of Monmouth's name is in any way
connected with religious intolerance and persecution, is recorded in
the Rolls of Parliament, 7 and 8 Henry IV. The circumstance is thus
stated by Prynne,[254] or whoever was the author of the passage which
is now found in the "Abridgment of Records in the Tower." "At this
time the clergy suborned Henry, Prince, for and in the name of the
clergy, and Sir John Tibetott the Speaker, for and in behalf of the
Commons, to exhibit a long and _bloody_ bill against certain men
called Lollards,--namely, against them that taught or preached
anything against the temporal livings of the clergy. Other points
touching Lollardy I read none; only this is to be marked, for the
better expedition in this exploit, they joined prophecies touching the
King's estate, and such as whispered and bruited that King Richard (p. 334)
should be living; the which they inserted, to the end that by the same
subtlety they might the better achieve against the poor Lollards
aforesaid. Wherein note a most unlawful and monstrous tyranny; for the
request of the same bill was, that every officer, or other minister
whatever might apprehend and inquire of such Lollards without any
other commission, and that no sanctuary should hold them."
[Footnote 254: This work, "published by William
Prynne, Esq. a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, 1657," is
ascribed by him to Cotton; but it proves not to
have been written by Cotton, but by the two
brothers William and Robert Bowyer. See manuscript
note, by Francis Hargrave, at the commencement of
his copy in the British Museum. What notes and
observations came from the author, whether Cotton
or one of the Bowyers, and what were added and
interwoven by Prynne, it seems impossible to
determine. This passage (p. 456) apparently carries
with it internal evidence that it was penned by
Prynne.]
The Biographer of Henry V. needs not be very anxious as to the real
intention of this petition. The allegation that Prince Henry and the
Speaker of the House of Commons were suborned by the clergy, is a pure
invention; no proof, or probable confirmation of any part of the
charge, is afforded by history. The Speaker is named as the chief
member of the House of Commons; the Prince is named as President of
the Council, and chief member of the House of Lords; each acting in
his official rather than in his individual character.
The petition was presented on Wednesday, December 22, in the
parliament 7 and 8 Henry IV. which was dissolved that same day. The
Roll records that "The Commons came before the King and Lords, and
prayed an interview with the Lords by John Tybetot the Speaker."
Different petitions were presented; one touching the succession of the
crown, and the petition in question. The petition is not drawn up in
the name of the Commons and Lords; it purports to be addressed (p. 335)
to the King by "his humble son Henry the Prince, and the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal in this present parliament assembled;" and the
Speaker, in the name of the Commons, prays the King that the petition
might be made the law of the land until the next parliament: and the
King "graciously assents." Whatever were the real object of this law,
if its aim were merciful, the Prince ought to have no additional share
of the praise; if it were adding to the severity of the existing law,
he deserves no additional blame, from the fact of his name appearing
in the petition. In either case it appears there just as the Speaker's
does, officially. But what was the real drift of this petition?
Suppose it to have been on the side of severity, will it deserve the
character assigned to it by the author of the "Abridgment?" Can it be
called a "bloody" petition? It prayed that after the feast of Epiphany
next ensuing, without any other commission, "Lollards, and other
speakers and contrivers of news and lies, _might be apprehended_ and
_kept in safe custody till the next parliament_, and _there to answer
to the charges against them_." Suppose this to have been an extension
of a former persecuting law, it gave no power of life or death, or any
further severity against the person, than merely safe custody, a power
now given to any magistrate against persons accused of any one of a
large class of offences usually treated as light and trifling. But we
may suppose that the real bearing of this petition were altogether (p. 336)
the other way,--that it was intended to mitigate the severity of the
existing law,--to deprive the real persecutors of the power, which
they would undoubtedly have had, "of citing the suspected heretic,
punishing him by fine and imprisonment, and, in the case of a relapsed
or obstinate heretic, consigning him to the civil power for death."
This power the statute[255] 2 Hen. IV. c. 15, conferred on the
diocesans; and the petition in question might have been virtually a
suspension of that sanguinary law till the next session. If this be
so, we have precluded ourselves from ascribing any individual merit to
Henry of Monmouth above the rest of the peers who drew up the
petition; but he must share it equally with them; at all events, the
charge of his having been suborned by the clergy to present "a long
and bloody petition" falls to the ground. On this question, however,
it were better to cite the opinion of an author certainly able (p. 337)
to take a correct view of such subjects; and who, not having Henry the
Fifth's character before him at the time, but only the historical
fact, must be regarded as an unprejudiced authority. Mr. Hallam,[256]
in his History of the Middle Ages, makes this comment upon the
proceeding in question. "We find a remarkable petition[257] in 8 Henry
IV. professedly aimed against the Lollards, but intended, as I
strongly suspect, in their favour. It condemns persons preaching
against the Catholic faith or sacraments to imprisonment against the
next parliament, where they were to abide such judgment as should be
rendered by _the King and peers of the realm_. This seems to supersede
the burning statute of 2 Henry IV, and the spiritual cognizance of
heresy. Rot. Parl. p. 583; see too p. 626. The petition was expressly
granted; but the clergy, I suppose, prevented its appearing in the
Roll."[258] Certain it is, that, unless the statute framed upon this
petition suspended the power of the existing law, the hierarchy had
full authority, without the intervention of the civil magistrate, (p. 338)
to apprehend any one suspected of heresy, to try him, to sentence him,
and to deliver him over to the secular power for death, upon receipt
of the King's writ.[259] Certain it also is, that, on those who might
be apprehended in consequence of this petition, none of those rigours
could be visited: on the contrary, they would be placed beyond reach
of the ecclesiastical arm. Surely to talk of Prince Henry being
suborned by the priests to present a bloody petition, savours rather
of blind prejudice than of upright judgment.
[Footnote 255: Much doubt and many mistakes seem to
have prevailed as to the real state of the law in
England before the statute 2 Hen. IV. cap. 15. It
is said by the annotator on Fitzherbert that,
"before the time of Henry IV. no person had been
put to death for opinions in religion in England;"
but the same author himself tells us that, among
the crimes to be punished by burning by the common
law, heresy is enumerated. "No Bishop, indeed, by
the common law, could convict of heresy, as to loss
of life, but only as to penance, and for the health
of the soul, 'pro salute animæ.' In the case of
life, the conviction by the common law ought to
have been before the Archbishop in convocation."
Much information is found on this subject in
Fitzherbert's Book, De Naturâ Brevium.]
[Footnote 256: Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. iii. p.
134.]
[Footnote 257: An antiquary well versed in such
matters says, that for many years previous to this
petition there are several mandates upon the Patent
Rolls, ordering the apprehension of heretics, (who
appeared to have been all monks,) in consequence of
complaints made to the King in council by the
various monasteries. He had never met with any
entry affecting the parochial clergy.]
[Footnote 258: The clergy could not have prevented
its appearance on the Roll, but the judges (it is
said) might have done so.]
[Footnote 259: See, however, Fitzherbert, De Naturâ
Brevium, p. 601.]
The only other occasion which places Henry of Monmouth, whilst Prince
of Wales, before us in conjunction with bigotry, intolerance, and
persecution, is the martyrdom of a condemned heretic, executed in
Smithfield. Fox, and those who follow him, say, that the martyr was
John Badby, an artificer of Worcester, condemned first in his own
county, and then definitively sentenced by the Archbishop, the Duke of
York, the Chancellor, and others in London; the Chronicle of London
records the same transaction, but speaks of the individual as a
"_clerk_, who believed nought of the sacrament of the altar!" There is
no doubt, however, that the two accounts, as well as the Archbishop's
record, refer to the same individual, though the Chronicle of London
is mistaken as to the sphere of life in which he moved. It will be
borne in mind that the question is not, whether John Badby ended his
life gloriously in defence and in testimony of the truth, nor (p. 339)
whether those who charged, and tried, and condemned him, were
merciless persecutors; the only point of inquiry immediately before us
is, Whether, at the death of John Badby, Henry of Monmouth showed
himself to be a persecutor. The circumstances, however, of this
martyr's charge and condemnation, independently of that question, are
by no means void of interest; though our plan precludes us from
detailing them further than they may throw more or less direct light
upon the subject of our investigation. The following statement is
taken from Archbishop Arundel's record.[260]
[Footnote 260: Wilkins' Concilia, Ex reg. Arundel,
i. fol. 15.]
* * * * *
John Badby was an inhabitant of Evesham, in the diocese of Worcester,
and by trade a tailor. He was charged before the bishop with heresy,
and was condemned in the diocesan court. The point on which alone his
persecutors charged him, was his denial of transubstantiation. His
trial took place on the 2nd of January, 1409, and he was subsequently
brought before the Archbishop and his court in London, as a heretic
convict. His examination began on Saturday, the 1st of March 1410, at
the close of which the court resolved that he should be kept a close
prisoner till the next Wednesday, in the house of the Preaching
Friars, where the proceedings were carried on. The Archbishop, for
greater caution, said that he would himself keep possession of (p. 340)
the key. When the Wednesday arrived, the Archbishop took, as his
advisers and assistants, so great a number of the bishops and nobles
of the land, that (in the words of his own record) it would be a task
to enumerate them: among others, however, the names of Edmund Duke of
York, John Earl of Westmoreland, Thomas Beaufort Chancellor of
England, and Lord Beaumond, are recorded.[261] Prince Henry, though
present in London, and actively engaged with some of the same noblemen
as members of the council, was not present at Badby's examination,
either on the Saturday or on the Wednesday.[262] In all his
examinations Badby seems to have conducted himself throughout with
great firmness and self-possession, and, at the same time, with much
respect towards those who were then his judges. Looking to the
circumstances in which he was placed, it is almost impossible for any
one not to be struck by the weight and pointedness of his answers. He
openly professed his belief in the ever blessed Trinity, "one
omnipotent God in Trinity;" and when pressed as to his belief in the
sacrament of the altar, he declared that, after consecration, (p. 341)
the elements were signs of Christ's body, but he could not believe
that they were changed into the substance of his flesh and blood.
"If," he said, "a priest can by his word make God, there will be
twenty thousand Gods in England at one time. Moreover, I cannot
conceive how, when Christ at his last supper broke one piece of bread,
and gave a portion to each of his disciples, the piece of bread could
remain whole and entire as before, or that he then held his own body
in his hand." At his last appearance before the large assemblage of
the hierarchy and the temporality, when asked as to the nature of the
elements, he said, that "in the sight of God, the Duke of York, or any
child of Adam, was of higher value than the sacrament of the altar."
The Archbishop declared openly to the accused that, if he would live
according to the doctrine of Christ, he would pledge his soul for him
at the last judgment day.
[Footnote 261: De Roos, Master of the Rolls, was at
the first meeting, and a large number (multitudo
copiosa) of the laity and clergy.]
[Footnote 262: The house (the Friars' Preachers)
where they met, was a place in which the Prince at
this time often presided at the council. On the
10th of the following June, for example, he met the
Chancellor, and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester,
and Bath, with others, at this house.]
The registrar, in recording these proceedings, employs expressions
which too plainly indicate the frame of mind with which this poor man
was viewed by his persecutors. Had the words been attributed either to
the Archbishop himself, or to his remembrancer, by an enemy, they
might have excited a suspicion of misrepresentation or misunderstanding.
"Whilst he was under examination the poison of asps appeared about his
lips; for a very large spider, which no one saw enter, suddenly and
unexpectedly, in the sight of all, ran about his face." To this (p. 342)
absurd statement, however, the registrar adds a sentence abounding with
painful and dreadful associations. "The Archbishop, weighing in his mind
that the Holy Spirit was not in the man at all, and seeing by his
unsubdued countenance that he had a heart hardened like Pharaoh's,
freeing themselves from him altogether, delivered him to the secular
arm; praying the noblemen who were present, not to put him to death for
his offence, nor deliver him to be punished." Whatever force this prayer
of the hierarchy was expected to have, the King's writ was ready. The
Archbishop condemned him before their early dinner, and forthwith on the
same day, after dinner, he was taken to Smithfield, and burnt in a sort
of tub to ashes. The Lambeth Register[263] mentions the mode of his
death, and affirms that he persevered in his obstinacy to the last, but
says nothing whatever about the Prince of Wales. The further proceedings
with regard to this martyr, and which connect him with the subject of
these Memoirs, are thus stated by Fox, in his Book of Martyrs.
[Footnote 263: Dictoque die, immediatè post
prandium, ex decreto regio, apud Smythfield,
præfatus Joh. Badby, in suâ obstinaciâ perseverans
usque ad mortem, catenis ferreis stipiti ligatus,
ac quodam vase concavo circumplexus, injectis
fasciculis et appositis ignibus, incineratus
extitit et consumptus.]
"This thing[264] [the condemnation by the Archbishop, and (p. 343)
the delivery of Badby to the secular power,] being done and
concluded in the forenoon, in the afternoon the King's writ was
not far behind; by the force whereof John Badby was brought into
Smithfield, and there, being put into an empty barrel, was bound
with iron chains, fastened to a stake, having dry wood put about
him. And as he was thus standing in the pipe or tun, (for as yet
Perilous' bull was not in use among the bishops,) it happened
that the Prince, the King's eldest son, was there present; who,
showing some part of the good Samaritan, _began to endeavour and
assay how to save the life of him_ whom the hypocritical Levites
and Pharisees sought to put to death. _He admonished and
counselled him that, having respect unto himself he should
speedily withdraw himself out of these labyrinths of opinions_;
adding oftentimes threatenings, the which would have daunted any
man's stomach. Also Courtney, at that time Chancellor of Oxford,
preached unto him, and informed him of the faith of holy church.
In this mean season, the Prior of St. Bartlemew's in Smithfield,
brought, with all solemnity, the sacrament of God's body, with
twelve torches borne before, and so shewed the sacrament to the
poor man being at the stake: and then they demanded of him (p. 344)
how he believed in it; he answered, that he well knew it was
hallowed bread, and not God's body. And then was the tunne put
over him, and fire put unto him. And when he felt the fire he
cried, 'Mercy!' (calling belike upon the Lord,) and so the Prince
immediately commanded to take away the tun and quench the fire.
The Prince, his commandment being done, asked him if he would
forsake heresy and take him to the faith of holy church; which
thing if he would do, he should have goods enough: promising also
unto him a yearly stipend out of the King's treasury, so much as
would suffice his contentation. But this valiant champion of
Christ rejected the Prince's fair words, as also contemned all
men's devices, and refused the offer of worldly promises, no
doubt but being more vehemently inflamed with the spirit of God
than with earthly desire. Wherefore, when as yet he continued
unmoveable in his former mind, the Prince commanded him straight
to be put again into the pipe or tun, and that he should not
afterwards look for any grace or favour."
[Footnote 264: Fox makes a curious mistake here. He
says, the examination in London began on _Sunday_,
the 1st of March. But the 1st of March was not on a
Sunday, but on a Saturday, in that year, 1410. Fox
derives his information chiefly from the Latin
record (_v._ Wilkins' Concilia) preserved in
Lambeth; and there we find that the date is Die
_Sabbati_, _i.e._ Saturday, not, as Fox mistakenly
renders it, Sunday. The computation in these
Memoirs is made of the historical, not the
ecclesiastical year.
The King's writ is dated March 5th, and informs us
that Badby was of Evesham in Worcestershire.]
Milner having told us, that "the memory of Henry is by no means free
from the imputation of cruelty," gives an unfavourable turn to the
whole affair, and ascribes a state of mind to the Prince, which Fox's
account will scarcely justify. Milner's zeal against popery and its
persecutions, often betrays him into expressions which a calm review
of all the circumstances of the case would, probably, have suggested
to his own mind the necessity of modifying and softening. Fox
attributes to Henry "some part of the good Samaritan," and puts most
prominently forward his desire and endeavour to save the poor (p. 345)
man's life. Milner ascribes to him a violence of temper, altogether
unbecoming the melancholy circumstances of that hour of death, and
directs our thoughts chiefly to his attempt to force a conscientious
man to recant.
The account of Milner is this: "After he, Badby, had been delivered to
the secular power by the Bishops, he was by the King's writ condemned
to be burned. The Prince of Wales, happening to be present, very
earnestly exhorted him to recant, adding the most terrible menaces of
the vengeance that would overtake him if he should continue in his
obstinacy. Badby, however, was inflexible. As soon as he felt the
fire, he cried 'Mercy!' The Prince, supposing he was entreating the
mercy of his judges, ordered the fire to be quenched. 'Will you
forsake heresy,' said young Henry, 'and will you conform to the faith
of the holy church? If you will, you shall have a yearly stipend out
of the King's treasury?' The martyr was unmoved, and Henry IN A RAGE
declared that he might now look for no favour. Badby gloriously
finished his course in the flames."
The Chronicle of London, from which, in all probability, Fox drew the
materials for his description, makes one shudder at the reckless,
cold-blooded acquiescence of its author in the excruciating tortures
of a fellow-creature suffering for his faith's sake. In his eyes,
heretics were detestable pests; and an abhorrence of heresy seems (p. 346)
to have quenched every feeling of humanity in his heart. It must be
observed, that this contemporary document speaks not a word of Henry
having been "in a rage," nor of his having commanded the sufferer to
be "straight put into the ton," nor of his having used "horrible
menaces of vengeance," nor, even in the milder expression of Fox,
"threatenings which would have daunted any man's stomach."
"A clerk," (says the Chronicle,) "that believed nought of the
sacrament of the altar, that is to say, God's body, was condemned
and brought to Smithfield to be burnt. And Henry, Prince of
Wales, then the King's eldest son, counselled him to forsake his
heresy and hold the right way of holy church. And the Prior of
St. Bartholomew's brought the holy sacrament of God's body with
twelve torches lighted before, and in this wise came to this
cursed heretic; and it was asked him how he believed, and he
answered that he believed well that it was hallowed bread, and
nought God's body. And then was the tonne put over him, and fire
kindled therein; and when the wretch felt the fire he cried
mercy, and anon the Prince commanded to take away the ton and to
quench the fire. And then the Prince asked him if he would
forsake his heresy, and take him to the faith of holy church;
which if he would have done, he should have his life, and goods
enough to live by; and the cursed shrew would not, but continued
forth in his heresy: wherefore he was burnt."[265]
[Footnote 265: The chronicler adds, "A versifier
made of him in metre these two verses:
"Hereticus credat, ve perustus ab orbe recedat,
Ne fidem lædat: Sathan hunc baratro sibi prædat."]
There probably will not be great diversity of opinion as to the (p. 347)
conduct of Henry, and the spirit which influenced him on this
occasion. He was present at the execution of a fellow-creature, who
was condemned to an excruciating death by the blind and cruel, but
still by the undoubted law of his country. Acting the "part of the
good Samaritan," he earnestly endeavoured to withdraw him from those
sentiments the publication of which had made him obnoxious to the law;
and he employed the means which his high station afforded him of
suspending the King's writ even at the very moment of its execution,
promising the offender pardon on his princely word, and a full
maintenance for his life. He could do no more: his humanity had
carried him even then beyond his authority, and, considering all the
circumstances, even beyond the line of discretion; and, when he found
that all his efforts were in vain, he left the law to take its own
course,--a law which had been passed and put in execution before he
had anything whatever to do with legislation and government.