writers that they have been at pains to examine and ascertain the real author of this miserable policy, or to assign some cause for it. The cause which they appear most to favour is the exasperation of the Government at some insults offered to the established religion by a few fanatics, and especially to the conduct of one Ross, or Rose, who was said to have prayed for the death of the queen. That such inadequate motives could be assigned for a course of policy, pursued with zeal for no less than four years, shows well enough the desperate nature of the cause. § 2. The politic character of Bishop Gardiner, and the mild disposition of Cardinal Pole, forbid us to think that the commencement of the persecution was due to either of these. It was certainly, indeed, debated in the Council several times before the cardinal's arrival, and the answer made by the queen to some representation of the Council on the subject indicates the real originator of these fearful proceedings. "Touching the punishment of heretics, we thinketh it ought to be done without rashness, not leaving in the meantime to do justice to such as by warning would deceive the simple; and the rest so to be used that the people might well perceive them not to be condemned without just occasion, by which they shall both understand the truth, and beware not to do the like. And specially within London I would wish none to be burnt without some of the Council's presence, and both there and everywhere good sermons at the same time.” 2 In this calm utterance speaks the concentrated spirit of Spanish bigotry, not untinctured by personal revenge. The queen, encouraged and supported by her husband—a man devoid of every human feeling-has already devoted to the flames, as a piacular offering to heaven, all in the land who could be found still to maintain the doctrines of that reforming movement which had so much troubled her life. It may be said that Philip was not responsible for the persecution, inasmuch as he put up his confessor, Alphonsus da Castro, to preach strongly against it. But it has been well pointed out by a writer on this period that this same Alphonsus da Castro was a most ardent defender of persecution both before and after the preaching of this sermon, and it is 1 See Lingard, v. 84; Dodd, ii. 98; and Tierney's notes. This last very able writer does himself much honour by his unqualified condemnation of these horrors. "To detail them would be a revolting task; the mind would shudder, the heart sicken, at the recital. At times a momentary suspension of cruelty seemed to indicate the presence of a milder spirit. But the illusion was quickly dissipated. New commissions were issued, new barbarities were enacted, and a monument of infamy was erected, which even at the distance of three centuries, cannot be regarded without horror." -Note to Dodd, Church History, ii. 103. 2 Lingard, v. 82. known from Spanish sources that Philip had sent over before himself a band of inquisitors, the most remarkable among whom were Pedro de Soto, a Dominican friar, and Juan de Villagarcia, also a Dominican, for whom an historian of his own country claims the credit that "by his contrivance many were consigned to the flames." About the principles of these men there could be no doubt, and there is every reason to believe that the sermon of da Castro was devised by Philip simply as a politic ruse to throw the blame of the fires, which his own intrigues were lighting, upon the English bishops. There is no reason to credit any of the English bishops, not even Bonner himself, with any special eagerness to burn their unhappy countrymen. § 3. The reformers shut up in prison since the beginning of the reign, losing patience at the long-continued delay, petitioned the queen and Parliament that they might be brought to trial. They declare themselves ready to defend the formularies sanctioned in the late reign, and if they fail in doing so, "by catholic principles and authorities" they are ready to suffer. In a second address they complain bitterly of the harsh treatment they had received, repudiate the charged heresy, declaring that they hold nothing not sanctioned by Scripture and primitive antiquity.2 These addresses furnished a good pretext for the commencement of the auto-da-fé, which had been already resolved upon. § 4. On January 29 (1555) the cardinal issued his commission to Bishops Gardiner, Tonstal, Capon, Thirlby, and Aldrige, to proceed to the trial of heretics. The commissioners sat in St. Mary Overy's church, Southwark. The first to be brought before them were Hooper, late Bishop of Gloucester and Worcester, and Rogers, Prebendary of St. Paul's, and who, under the assumed name of Matthew, had borne so prominent a part in the publication of the English Bible. Though some other points were raised in their examination, their trial really turned upon their admitting or denying the corporal presence in the eucharist, and transubstantiation, which, says Collier, "were the burning articles through this whole reign." They both refused to admit the materialistic doctrine, and having been given a night to deliberate, were, on their persisting in their refusal, condemned as heretics, excommunicated, degraded from the priesthood, and committed to the custody of the sheriff for execution. Rogers, with especial cruelty, was refused an interview with his wife, by whom he had 13 1 See the whole subject fully elucidated in Massingberd's History of the Reformation, from Spanish researches, for which the writer acknowledges himself indebted to the late learned Archdeacon Churton, p. 342, sq. (ed 1866). 2 Collier, vi. 103, 104. 3 Tb. vi. 106. ten children. He had been a year confined in Newgate, and was weary of life. The spirit of fervent piety which possessed him made him rejoice to go through the last terrible conflict. Νο worthier champion could have been found to become the "protomartyr" of the Church of England. He was burned at Smithfield February 4 (1555) amid a scene of intense excitement. The French ambassador writes, "This day was celebrated the confirmation of the alliance between the pope and this kingdom, by the public and solemn sacrifice of a doctor and preacher named Rogers, who was burned alive for holding Lutheran opinions, persisting till death in his sentiments. At this constancy the people were so delighted that they did not fear to strengthen his courage by their acclamations, even his own children joining, and consoling him after such a fashion, that it seemed as though they were conducting him to his nuptials." 1 On February 8, Saunders, rector of AllHallows, Bread Street, was burned at Coventry, where he had formerly ministered. On February 9, Bishop Hooper was burned at Gloucester, and Dr. Rowland Taylor, parson of Hadley in Suffolk, was burned in his own parish. Hooper's sufferings were fearfully protracted through the effects of a high wind which kept the flames from him. He displayed, however, an unflinching constancy. Taylor was barbarously treated by some of the bystanders, who hurled faggots at him. But he too suffered with constancy and even with cheerfulness. "An equal constancy," says the Romanist historian, "was displayed by all; and though pardon was offered them at the last moment, they scorned to purchase the continuance of life by feigning an assent to doctrines which they did not believe. They were the proto-martyrs of the reformed Church of England.” 2 § 5. Whether it was that the account of their calm bravery touched the conscience of Gardiner, or that he had disapproved of these massacres from the first, he now abandoned his place on the commission, and left the conduct of these barbarities to the sterner nature of Bonner. On March 30, Farrar, Bishop of St. David's, was burned at Carmarthen. He had been excommunicated and condemned by his successor Morgan, who had received a commission for that purpose. He had put his powers of endurance to a perilous test, for he had told a gentleman of his acquaintance that if he saw him in the least degree shrink when in the flames, he might freely disbelieve all the doctrines which he had taught. No such shrinking was discernible, although his sufferings were greatly prolonged. § 6. The nation stood aghast at these was the public indignation, that the bishops 1 Noailles, Ambassade en Angleterre, iv. 173. horrors, and so great shrank from proceed 2 Lingard, v. 85. ing. A pause occurred in the persecution, but it was of short duration. The fierce bigotry of the rulers was not content to allow the victims to escape. On May 24, came forth from the Council a circular letter to the bishops expressing the surprise of the authorities that though reputed heretics were brought by the justices of the peace to the bishops to be dealt with, yet "they are either refused to be received at their hands, or if received are neither so travailed with as Christian charity requireth, nor yet proceeded withal according to the order of justice." The bishops are therefore admonished "to have such regard to the office of a good pastor or bishop, as when any such offenders shall be brought unto you to use your good wisdom and discretion in procuring to remove them from their errors if it may be; or else in proceeding against them according to the order of the laws."1 There is good reason to believe that many of the bishops continued stedfastly to refuse to act in this matter. Some, however, were of a different mind, and though, perhaps, they might not of themselves have moved, yet they were afraid to disobey the direct orders of the Council. It is said by his apologists that Bishop Bonner himself was of this mind.2 And it may well have been so. For his acuteness could not fail to perceive that by the manœuvres of the Spanish party it was designed to make a catspaw of the English prelates, so as to stave off the indignation of the people from the real authors of the troubles, while they secretly gloried in and took credit for their piacular offerings. § 7. In June the fires of Smithfield were rekindled, and six persons suffered. Their punishment introduced a new element in the persecution which was one of its most shocking features. Five of those burned were mechanics and unlettered men. Of this character, indeed, were the greater part of the victims; and whatever excuses might be offered for sacrificing what were called the ringleaders, whose influence might be supposed to be considerable none could possibly be alleged for the murder of poor, illiterate, and uninfluential persons, whose only crime was a simple scriptural faith which they refused to abandon. § 8. As to the total number of the sufferers, and the places where they suffered, information will be found in the tables appended.3 Dr. Maitland has severely scrutinised the statements of Foxe, but has made no great abatement in his numbers. The Jesuit Persons had made the same attempt before, but with all his 1 Foxe, Acts and Monuments. See Lingard, v. 87. Maitland's Essays on the Reformation. ingenuity he failed to overset the substantial truth of his narrative. The following is the comment upon his labours made by one of his fellow-religionists. "The amount of real victims is too great to be affected by any partial deductions. When, after the removal of every doubtful or objectionable name, a frightful list of not fewer than two hundred still remains, we can only turn with horror from the blood-stained page and be thankful that such things have passed away." 1 The area of the persecution was very partial. It did not extend except in a very few instances either to the extreme north or south. In Durham, under the mild Bishop Tonstal, there was no victim, and in the large diocese of Lincoln there was none. Bath and Wells, Hereford, and Worcester dioceses were also free. In London, under Bonner, there suffered no less than 128. In Canterbury, under the Suffragan-Bishop Thornton, described by Cranmer as a false dissembling monk, there perished 55. In the diocese of Norwich, where Mary's first assurances had been given that she would compel no man in the matter of religion, were burned 46. There is reason to believe that Cardinal Pole, though at first averse to persecution, did during the latter part of the period uphold it, and that for a very discreditable reason. He had been himself accused of heresy and cited by the Inquisition. The pope was his bitter enemy. He had been once or twice near to the tiara of St. Peter. His cause required strengthening. his latest biographer does not hesitate to saddle him with this tremendous charge:-" In the intensity of a selfishness not recognised by himself, the self-deceiver permitted the fires of Smithfield to burn wives into widows and children into orphans, that through these terrible fires it might be known to Rome that his former leniency was no proof of his want of sincerity in the papal cause.” 2 As the persecution proceeded a new element of ferocity was imparted into it. It no longer could claim to be an attempt by the terror of punishment to convince the heretic, it became simply vindictive. In the Council Book of 1st August 1558 there is a letter to the sheriff of Hampshire, signifying "that the queen thought it very strange that he had delayed the execution of the sentence against one Bembridge condemned of heresy, because he had recanted, requiring him to execute it out of hand, and if he still continued in the Catholic faith, which he outwardly pretended, he was to suffer divines to have access to him, that he might die God's servant; and as soon as the sheriff had burned him he was to come to the Council and answer for his presumption in delaying it so long." "3 Thus 1 Tierney's Notes to Dodd, ii. 107. 2 Hook's Life of Cardinal Pole, p. 395. 3 Burnet, Hist. Ref. i. 555. There was also a proclamation issued for. bidding people to pray for the sufferers. R |