CHAPTER X. THE REACTIONARY PERIOD. 1539-1547. PART I. EXTERNAL HISTORY.-§ 1. The practical answer to the 'Abuses of the Lutheran divines. § 2. The Six Articles referred to a committee. § 3. The committee fails to agree. § 4. The draft of the bill. § 5. Convocation consulted. § 6. The Six Article Law. § 7. Its character. § 8. Act to legalise proclamations. § 9. Other acts of this session. § 10. Latimer and Shaxton resign. § 11. Cranmer reassured of the king's favour. § 12. Bonner promoted to London. § 13. Crumwell's attainder and execution. § 14. How this affected the interests of the Church. § 15. The divorce from Anne of Cleves. § 16. Six Article Law modified. § 17. Act anticipatory of a change in the authorised teaching. § 18. Attainder of Barnes, Gerard, and Jerome. § 19. Their execution, together with those who denied the supremacy. § 20. Other executions at this period. § 21. Act to restrain the use of the Bible. § 22. Intrigues against Cranmer. § 23. The archbishop loses political power. § 24. Act to inaugurate review of the Canon Law. § 25. Act to give to the king Chantries, Hospitals, and Guilds. § 26. Other Acts of this Parliament. § 27. The obsequiousness of Henry VIII.'s Parlia ments and Convocations. General estimate of the effect of this. PART II. INTERNAL HISTORY.—§ 1. History of English Bible during this period. § 2. The second and third Primers of this reign. § 3. Formation of the "Erudition of any Christian man.' § 4. History of the liturgical changes during this period. § 1. THE censure of the Lutheran divines who were in England in 1538, upon the abuses still tolerated in the Church of England, had evidently produced much indignation in King Henry. Not only had he caused a sharp and biting answer to be made to them by the pen of Tonstal, but he now designed to set forth a more practical and telling reply to them, and to those who in England sympathised with them.1 Those things which they had stigmatised as abuses he determined to establish and guard under the sharpest and severest penalties. On the 28th April 1539 the new Parlia ment met. § 2. On May 4, Lord Chancellor Audley brought a message to the House of Lords from the king. His Majesty was most desirous to have all his subjects of one mind in religion, and to quiet all controversies about it, and with a view to this he had 1 The evident connection of the Six Article Law with the German paper of abuses has, I think, escaped the notice of all historians of the period. bidden him to move that a committee should be appointed for examining the different opinions, and for drawing up certain articles of agreement which might be reported and considered by the House. Accordingly Crumwell, Archbishops Cranmer and Lee, Bishops Tonstal, Clerk, Goodrich, Bird, Aldrich, and Latimer, were appointed a committee for this purpose. Certain queries, probably drawn up by the king, were referred to them, which they were to answer by statements in the form of Articles. I. Whether in the eucharist Christ's real body was present, without transubstantiation? II. Whether that sacrament was to be given to the laity in both kinds? III. Whether the vow of chastity made either by men or women ought to be observed by the law of God? IV. Whether by the law of God private masses ought to be celebrated? V. Whether by the law of God priests might marry ? VI. Whether by the law of God auricular confession was necessary? § 3. As the committee was composed of representatives of the two parties then striving for the mastery, and as the questions were on the very points of difference between them, it was hardly to be expected that they should come to an agreement. Its debates continued for eleven days, when the Duke of Norfolk announced in the House of Lords that the committee had made no progress, and that there was no probability of its coming to a decision. The questions were then referred to the House of Lords, and were debated there for three days, the king being present and taking part in the debate. Archbishop Cranmer contended earnestly to obtain a negative decision on some of the questions. The enforcement of the monastic vow of celibacy when the monastic life had been taken away; the lawfulness of private masses; the prohibition of marriage to the clergy, were the points on which he most zealously contended. As to the corporal presence in the eucharist he was as yet in favour of the Lutheran view. On one point he carried the king with him that, viz., of auricular confession.1 § 4. The arrangement arrived at in the Lords was that Cranmer and those who thought with him should draft one bill; Archbishop Lee of York and those who agreed with him should 1 Bishop Tonstal, after contending for this in the House of Lords, had sent the king a paper with his reasons. To this the king replied, "Methought, my Lord of Durham, that both the bishops of York and Winchester and your texts were fully answered the other day in our house. I marvelled not a little why you eftsoon have sent to me this now your writing, being in a manner few other texts or reasons than there were declared, both by the Bishop of Canterbury and me, to make smally or nothing to your intended purpose."-Burnet, Records, addenda. xi. draft another. The lay lords do not appear to have shown much interest in the matter. The two bills were drafted, but neither of them was accepted. The ultimate form which the bill took was due to a draft made by the king. § 5. On June 2, the Convocation of Canterbury was consulted on the six points, and answered them all affirmatively. Bishops Latimer and Shaxton, Doctors Crome and Tailour,1 being dissentient. § 6. The bill was brought into the Lords on June 7, and was much debated there. During these debates Cranmer was silent. It would appear that the king desired that he should absent himself from the house. This he declined, but he abandoned further opposition to the bill, without, however, in any way giving it his approval.2 The bill reached its final stage June 28. Beginning with a preamble touching unity, it asserted that Parliament and Convocation had come to an agreement on six points— (1) Transubstantiation in the eucharist. (2) Communion in both kinds not needful for all. (3) That priests may not marry. (4) That all vows of chastity must be observed. (5) That private masses were to be commended. (6) That auricular confession is necessary. The penalty for the offence of holding an opinion contrary to the first article to be death by burning. First offences against the other articles to involve loss of goods and imprisonment. Second offences, death as felons. Marriages of priests and those who had vowed chastity to be dissolved. If they married again, the offenders to be hanged. Vows not to bind those who had taken them under twenty-one years of age. Abstaining from the mass at the accustomed time, or from confession, to be held an offence against the articles. Commissioners appointed by the bishops to hold quarterly courts of inquiry; presentments to be made to them. § 7. By thus making heresy an offence against the statute law, there was taken away from the accused the refuge which had often saved life under the old system, viz. the resource of abjuration. Under this statute this did not avail. It is perhaps the most bloodthirsty statute ever inscribed on the books of our legislature, and it is evident that its promoters were heartily ashamed of it, for they did not enforce it strictly, and they soon proceeded to modify it. It is, however, a mistake to argue that 1 Wriothesley's Chronicle, iii. 101. 2 A great controversy has arisen as to Cranmer's conduct on this occasion, drawn from the somewhat loose statements of Morice, the archbishop's secretary, printed in Nicholls' Records of the Reformation. The matter would hardly repay a long inquiry. none suffered death under this statute, and that it was intended purely for the purposes of intimidation. Fifteen are mentioned by name in Wriothesley's Chronicle as having suffered under it in and about London. Dr. Maitland, who labours hard to diminish the importance of the Act, admits that as many as 28 may have suffered under it. Burnet asserts that 500 persons were in prison at once by virtue of its penalties; and it is agreed on all hands that a general consternation and terror was caused by its ferocious enactments. It was usually called the "Whip with six strings."1 § 8. Before the passing of this terrible Act, another measure had been adopted by this complaisant Parliament which, though it had not so fearful an appearance, was in fact more dangerous to the liberty of the subject than the law of the Six Articles. This was the statute which enacted that the king's proclamations should have the force of Acts of Parliament.2 This was practically to erect the king into an absolute monarch, and to entrust him with an uncontrolled dominion over the lives, liberties, and religion of his subjects. § 9. By another Act of this session the king was empowered to erect bishops' sees and to appoint bishops by letters patent.3 Another vested in him the property of all monasteries dissolved or ceded since the period covered by the first Act.4 § 10. The passing of the Six Article Law was followed immediately by the resignation of Latimer and Shaxton, the Bishops of Worcester and Salisbury. Latimer was committed to the custody of the Bishop of Chichester, and Shaxton to that of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, "to remain in their wards." 5 The former would have retired with more credit to himself and greater claim upon our sympathies, had he not shortly before assisted at the burning of Friar Forrest for denying the king's supremacy; as for Shaxton he quickly changed his mind, accepted the persecuting statute, and became himself a persecutor. 6 § 11. Perhaps Cranmer might also have contemplated retirement at this juncture, as he was well known to be married, and was in fact exposed to the penalties of the new law. But the king, who found his yielding temper serviceable to him, took pains to assure him of the continuance of his protection. The Duke of 1 See Collier's Ch. Hist. v. 37, sq. Wriothesley's Chronicle, pp. 11819-20-26-43-70. Maitland, Essays on Reformation, essay xii. Burnet, Hist. Ref., i. 195. 2 31 Henry VIII. c. 3. 431 Henry viii. c. 13. 3 31 Henry VIII. c. 9. See Chapter viii. 6 On which occasion he wrote to Crumwell to ask him whether he desired that in the pulpit "he should play the fool after his accustomed manner. Norfolk and Crumwell were sent to dine with him at Lambeth to convince him of the king's favourable regard. Unfortunately they quarrelled at the dinner, a matter which had no slight influence on the subsequent fate of Crumwell. § 12. It is a singular irony that it was due to Crumwell's influence at this time that Bonner was raised to the episcopate, first to the See of Hereford, and then, on the death of Stokesley, to that of London. This man, afterwards so remarkable a persecutor, professed now the doctrine of the king's absolute supremacy to the same extent as Gardiner and Sampson. He was content also to hold his episcopal jurisdiction on a license from the king.1 § 13. But the time was now approaching when the great influence which Crumwell had long exercised, both in Church and State, was to come to an end. He had made it a part of his policy to connect the king with German Protestant alliances, and in an evil hour he thought to bind him fast to this policy by inducing him to take a German wife. On January 6, 1540, the king was married to Anne, sister of William, Duke of Cleves. Henry conceived an utter distaste to this lady from the first, and at once began to cast about for pretexts to obtain a divorce from her. Caught in the meshes of this disagreeable alliance, his indignation turned fiercely on those who had helped to involve him in it. There were no more monasteries to seize, the king did not desire the reforming movement to advance any farther, Crumwell was no longer necessary to him, and Crumwell had been the chief instrument in the hated marriage. The Duke of Norfolk and Bishop Gardiner, now his chief advisers, were ready to suggest the most vigorous measures against him, and Henry readily yielded. On June 13 Crumwell was arrested at the council-table by the Duke of Norfolk and conveyed to the Tower, and on June 17th a bill for his attainder was brought into the House of Lords, read a second and third time two days afterwards, and sent down to the Commons. The Commons rejected the Lords' bill, but passed one of their own, which was accepted by the Lords, and received the king's assent the same day. Cranmer ventured to intercede for Crumwell, declaring that "no king of England ever had such a servant." The king would not listen to his appeal. Under the influence of the Duke of Norfolk and of the charms of Catherine Howard, the duke's niece, he hurried Crumwell to his end. was beheaded on Tower Hill, July 28, and the same day the king married Catherine Howard. He 1 See above, Chapter VII. Bonner's "License" still exists in his register. See Burnet, Records, i. iii. xiv. 2 See note on the attainders of this Parliament, in Notes and Illustrations to this chapter. 3 Burnet, Hist. Ref. i. 205. |