The Parliament that a.s.sembled in November 1549 was distinctly radical in its tendencies. In the House of Lords the bishops complained that their authority had been destroyed, and that their orders were set at naught. In reply they were requested to formulate a proposal for redress, but on such a proposal having been submitted, their demands were regarded by the laymen as exorbitant. A commission was appointed against the wishes of a strong minority of the bishops to draw up a new Ordinal as a complement to the Book of Common Prayer. The committee was appointed on the 2nd February 1550, and it appears to have finished its work within a week. In the new /Ordinal/[61] (1550) the ceremonies for the conferring of tonsure, minor orders, and sub- deaconship were omitted entirely, while the ordination rites for deacons, priests, and bishops were considerably modified. Just as the sacrificial character of the Ma.s.s had been dropped out of the Book of Common Prayer, so too the notion of a real priesthood disappeared from the forms for ordination. In spite of the opposition of a large body of the bishops, an Act was pa.s.sed ordering the destruction of all missals, antiphonals, processionals, manuals, ordinals, etc., used formerly in the service of the Church and not approved of by the king"s majesty, as well as for the removal of all images "except any image or picture set or graven upon any tomb in any church, chapel or churchyard only for a monument of any king, prince, n.o.bleman or other dead person who had not been commonly reputed and taken for a saint."[62] As a result of this measure a wholesale destruction of valuable books and ma.n.u.scripts took place in the king"s own library at Westminster and throughout the country. The royal visitors, entrusted with the difficult work of Protestantising Oxford, acting under the guidance of Dr. c.o.x, chancellor of the University or "cancellor" as he was called, ransacked the college libraries, tore up and burned priceless ma.n.u.scripts or sold them as waste paper, and even went so far as to demand the destruction of the chapel windows, lest these beautiful specimens of art might encourage loyalty to the old religion that had inspired their artists and donors.
As it had been determined to abandon completely the religious conservatism of the former reign it was felt absolutely necessary to remove the Catholic-minded bishops, to make way for men of the new school on whom the government could rely with confidence. Gardiner of Winchester and Bonner of London were already in prison. Heath of Worcester, who had refused to agree to the new Ordinal, was arrested in March 1550, as was also Day of Chichester in October. Tunstall of Durham, whose conservative views were well known to all, was placed under surveillance in May 1551, and thrown into prison together with his dean in the following November. In a short time a sentence of deprivation was issued against Bonner, Heath, Day and Gardiner. Bishop Thirlby of Westminster, who had given great offence by his uncompromising att.i.tude regarding the Blessed Eucharist, was removed from Westminster, where his presence was highly inconvenient, to Norwich, and the aged Bishop Voysey was forced to resign the See of Exeter to make way for a more reliable and more active man. At the same time steps were taken in the universities to drive out the men whose influence might be used against the government"s plans. The Sees of Westminster and London were combined and handed over to Ridley of Rochester, one of Cranmer"s ablest and most advanced lieutenants.
Hooper, who looked to Zwingli as his religious guide, was appointed to Gloucester; but as he objected to the episcopal oath, and episcopal vestments, and as he insisted on his rights of private judgment so far as to write publicly against those things that had been sanctioned by the supreme head of the Church, it was necessary to imprison him[63]
before he could be reduced to a proper frame of mind for the imposition of Cranmer"s hands (March 1551). Ponet was appointed to Rochester, and on the deprivation of Gardiner, to Winchester, where his scandalous and public connexion with the wife of a Nottingham burgher[64] was not calculated to influence the longing of his flock for the new teaching. Scory was appointed to Rochester and afterwards to Chichester, and Miles Coverdale to Oxford.
The zeal of the new bishops in seeking out the suppression of papistical practices and their readiness to place the property of the churches at Northumberland"s disposal soon showed that those who selected them had made no mistake. On Ridley"s arrival in London he held a conference for the purpose of compelling the clergy to adopt the new liturgy in place of the Ma.s.s. He issued an order for the removal of altars, and for the erection in their places of "honest tables decently covered," whereon Communion might be celebrated. The high altar in the Cathedral of St. Paul was pulled down, and a plain Communion table set up in its stead. As such a sacrilegious innovation was resented by a great body of both clergy and people, the council felt it necessary to instruct the sheriff of Middles.e.x to enforce the commands of the bishop. The example thus set in the capital was to be followed throughout the country. In November 1550 letters were sent out to all the bishops in the name of the youthful head of the Church, commanding them to pull down the altars in their dioceses, and for disobedience to this order Bishop Day was arrested. Hooper, once his scruples regarding the episcopal oath and vestments had been removed, threw himself with ardour into the work of reforming the clergy of his dioceses of Worcester and Gloucester, but only to find that nothing less than a royal decree could serve to detach them from their old "superst.i.tions" (1552). While the wholesale work of destruction was being pushed forward care was taken that none of the spoils derived from the plunder of the churches should go to private individuals.
Warwick insisted on the new bishops handing over large portions of episcopal estates to be conferred on his favourites, and royal commissions were issued to take inventories of ecclesiastical property. During the years 1551 and 1552 the churches were stripped of their valuables, and the church plate, chalices, copes, vestments, and altar cloths, were disposed of to provide money for the impecunious members of the council.
Violent measures such as these were not likely to win popularity for the new religion, nor to bring about dogmatic unity. Risings took place in Leicester, Northampton, Rutland, and Berkshire, and free fights were witnessed even in the churches of London. Rumours of conspiracy, especially in the north, where the Earls of Shrewsbury and Derby still clung to the Catholic faith, were circulated, and fears of a French invasion were not entirely without foundation. A new Act of Uniformity[65] was decreed (1552) threatening spiritual and temporal punishments against laymen who neglected to attend common prayer on Sundays and holidays. Acts were pa.s.sed for the relief of the poor who had been rendered dest.i.tute by the suppression of the monasteries and the wholesale inclosures, and to comfort the married clergy, whose children were still regarded commonly as illegitimate, a second measure was pa.s.sed legalising such unions. Fighting in churches and churchyards was to be put down with a heavy hand. If spiritual punishments could not suffice for the maintenance of order offenders were to be deprived of an ear or branded on the cheek with a red hot iron.
Though according to some the Book of Common Prayer had been compiled under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, soon it came to be regarded by many as unsatisfactory. The men, who had rejected the authority of the Pope because he was a foreigner to follow the teaching of apostate friars from Switzerland, Italy, Poland, and Germany, clamoured for its revision on the ground that it seemed to uphold the Real and Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Cranmer, who had accepted Transubstantiation in the days of Henry VIII., and had defended a kind of Real Presence in 1549, veered gradually towards Calvin"s teaching on the Eucharist. In order to remove the ambiguities and difficulties of the old Prayer Book, it was determined to subject it to a complete revision by which everything that implied a real objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist should be omitted. The second Book of Common Prayer was submitted and approved by Parliament (1552), and its use was authorised by royal proclamation. It was to come into force in November 1552, but late in September, when some copies of the Book were already printed, the council issued a command that the work should be stopped until further corrections had been made. It seems that by a new rubric inserted by Cranmer communicants were enjoined to receive the communion on bended knees, and John Knox, who had arrived lately in England and was high in the favour of the council, objected strongly to such an injunction as flavouring of papistry.
Notwithstanding the spirited remonstrances of Cranmer, the council without authority from Parliament or Convocation obliged him to insert on a fly leaf the famous "Black Rubric" which remains in the Book of Common Prayer till the present day, except that in the time of Charles II. a change was made, by which "corporeal presence" was inserted in place of the "real and essential presence" repudiated in the first form of the rubric.[66]
One other matter was considered by Cranmer as necessary for the success of the new religious settlement, namely, the publication of an authoritative creed for the English Church. The great diversity of opinion in the country, the frantic appeals of men like Hooper who had tried in vain to make an unwilling clergy accept their own dogmatic standard, and the striking success of the Council of Trent in vindicating Catholic doctrine, made it necessary to show the English people what could be done by the supreme head of the Church at home even though he was only a helpless boy. In 1549 Cranmer drew up a series of Articles to be accepted by all preachers in his diocese.
These he submitted to the body of the bishops in 1551, and later at the request of the privy council to a commission of six amongst whom was John Knox. They were returned with annotations to Cranmer, who having revised them besought the council to authorise their publication. Finally in June 1553 Edward VI., four weeks before his death, approved them, and commanded that they should be accepted by all his subjects. The /Forty-two Articles/ represented the first attempt to provide the English Church with a distinct dogmatic creed.
In the t.i.tle page it was stated that the Articles had been agreed upon "by the bishops and other learned and G.o.dly men in the last Convocation held in London in the year of Our Lord 1552"; but notwithstanding this very explicit statement, it is now practically certain that the Articles were never submitted to or approved by Convocation. In other words, as Gairdner puts it,[67] the t.i.tle page is "nothing but a shameful piece of official mendacity" resorted to in order to deceive the people, and to prevent them from being influenced by the successful work accomplished by the Fathers of Trent.
The Duke of Northumberland, who had scrambled into power on the shoulders of the Catholic party, deserted his former allies, and went over completely to the party of Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper. Taking advantage of England"s peaceful relations with France and Scotland and of the difficulties of the Emperor in Germany, he had risked everything to make England a Protestant nation. He had removed the bishops whose influence he feared, and had packed the episcopal bench with his own nominees. He had destroyed the altars and burned the missals to show his contempt for the Ma.s.s, and his firm resolve to uproot the religious beliefs of the English people. So determined were he and his friends to enforce the new religious service that even the Princess Mary was forbidden to have Ma.s.s celebrated in her presence, and her chaplains were prosecuted for disobeying the king"s law. Once indeed the Emperor felt it necessary to intervene in defence of his kinswoman, and to warn the council that if any attempt were made to prevent her from worshipping as she pleased, he would feel it necessary to recall his amba.s.sador and to declare war (1551). The situation was decidedly embarra.s.sing, and the council resolved to seek the advice of Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper. The bishops replied that though to give licence to sin was sinful Mary"s disobedience might be winked at for the time.[68] The suggestion was followed by the council, but later on when the Emperor"s hands were tied by the troubles in Germany, the attempt to overawe the princess was renewed.
Mary, however, showed the true Tudor spirit of independence, and, as it would have been dangerous to imprison her or to behead her, she was not pushed to extremes.
In 1553 it was clear to Northumberland that Edward VI. could not long survive, and that with his death and the succession of Mary, his own future and the future of the religious settlement for which he had striven would be gravely imperilled. In defiance therefore of the late king"s will, and of what he knew to be the wishes of the English people, for all through Edward"s reign the Princess Mary was a great favourite with the nation, he determined to secure the succession for Lady Jane Grey, the grand-daughter of Henry VIII."s sister Mary. Such a succession, he imagined, would guarantee his own safety and the triumph of Protestantism, more especially as he took care to bring about a marriage between the prospective queen and his son, Lord Guildford Dudley. When everything had been arranged the Chief Justice and the two leading law officers of the crown were summoned to the bedside of the dying king, and instructed to draw up a deed altering the succession. They implored the king to abandon such a project, and pointed out that it was illegal and would involve everyone concerned in it in the guilt of treason, but Northumberland"s violence overcame their scruples, particularly as their own safety was a.s.sured by a commission under the great seal and a promise of pardon. When the doc.u.ment was drawn up it was signed by the king, the judges, and the members of the council. Cranmer hesitated on the ground that he had sworn to uphold the will of Henry VIII., but as the situation was a desperate one, he agreed finally to follow the example that had been set (June 1553). The preachers were instructed to prepare the people for the change by denouncing both Mary and Elizabeth as b.a.s.t.a.r.ds. On the 6th July Edward VI. died at Greenwich, but his death was kept a secret until Northumberland"s plans could be matured. Four days later Lady Jane Grey arrived in London, and the proclamation of her accession to the throne was received with ominous silence in the streets of the capital.
[1] /The Life and Death of Thomas Wolsey, written by one of his Servants/; ed. by Simpson, 1901. Cavendish, /The Life of Cardinal Wolsey/, 1885. Creighton, /Cardinal Wolsey/, 1888. Taunton, /Thomas Wolsey, Legate and Reformer/, 1902.
[2] O"Donovan, /a.s.sertio Septem Sacramentorum/, etc., 1908.
[3] Id., 118-26.
[4] On the Divorce proceedings, cf. Harpsfield, /A Treatise on the Pretended Divorce between Henry VIII. and Catharine of Aragon/, (written 1556, ed. 1878). Hope, /The First Divorce of Henry VIII.
as told in the State Papers/, 1894. Ehses, /Romische Dok.u.mente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung/, 1893. Thurston, /Clement VII., Campeggio and the Divorce/ (American Cath. Quart. Rev., 1904).
Id., /The Canon Law of the Divorce/ (Eng. Hist. Review, 1904).
Gairdner, /New Lights on the Divorce/ (Eng. Hist. Rev., 1897, also 1892). Friedman, /Anne Boleyn/, 2 vols., 1884.
[5] Ehses, op. cit., 21-7.
[6] Ehses, op. cit., p. x.x.xiii.
[7] Id., 14-16.
[8] Ehses, op. cit., pp. 28-31.
[9] /Political History of England/, vol. v., 280-1.
[10] Ehses, op. cit., p. x.x.xi., sqq.
[11] Brewer, /Reign of Hen. VIII./, ii., 346-51.
[12] Ehses, 120-5.
[13] Brewer, op. cit., 466-7.
[14] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 301.
[15] /Letters and Papers, Henry VIII./, iv., 64-78.
[16] Rymer, /Foedera/, xiv., 405.
[17] Ehses, op. cit., 163-4.
[18] Ehses, 167 sqq.
[19] Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, i., 300.
[20] Gairdner, /Hist. of Eng. Ch. in XVIth Century/, 114.
[21] /Letters and Papers/, v., 886.
[22] Ehses, op. cit., 200-1.
[23] Haile, /The Life of Reginald Pole/, 1910, p. 88.
[24] For his dying statement against Royal Supremacy, vid. /Dublin Review/ (April, 1894).
[25] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 318.
[26] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 318-19.
[27] Ehses, op. cit., 212-13.
[28] Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, i., 48-52.
[29] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 344.
[30] /Lollardy and the Reformation/, i., 424-35.
[31] Cf. Bridgett, /Life of Blessed John Fisher/, 1888. Stewart, /Life of John Fisher/, 1879. Baily (Hall), /Life and Death of John Fisher/, 1655.
[32] Cf. Roper, /The Life, Arraignment, and Death of ... Sir Thomas More/, 1629 (reprinted 1903). Bridgett, /Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More/, 1891. Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, (chap. iv., v.).
[33] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 361.
[34] Cf. Gasquet, /Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries/. Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation, II./ (chap. ii., iii.).
[35] Turnbull, /Account of Monastic Treasures confiscated at the Dissolution/, etc., 1836.
[36] Gairdner, /Letters and Papers Hen. VIII./, xi., xii.
[37] Haile, /Life of Reginald Pole/ (chap. ix.-xi.).