¦B- .*lh "ieiiV." JL. . - ¦sa»'"«'.? 1 luKdi. -it" Sr^fcs " "f -V -» - ¦ ' 1* ffli* ^WCfiSp •M I* «.¦ -« Ui A- n . ^4 *."¦" r^ 'Ji -» r 'SSL. : «i" rs. > I '^ jaw l!3ailPin B 11. « "^T — « ( Ii W «lh .f rt. * -'TIS .J. i . m^' '" "TSs* t. An** « Sf^ aOi Ml ¦!¦¦¦¦¦ " £^ iirflLJ"""- ^ ¦ ¦ "¦¦fc ¦ J !-*,«"¦ - :^^^^' F**^ i*r5".^ "'rtx*. ,1' L'Si!3if''3Kr''*'**' . YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY CHURCH AND STATE IN ENGLAND TO THE DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE BY THE SAME AUTHOR THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY (EPOCHS OF CHURCH HISTORY) Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. London, New York, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, CHURCH AND STATE IN ENGLAND TO THE DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE BY HENRY MELVILL GWATKIN, D.D. lATE DIXIE PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, CAUBRIDGE LATE GIFFORO LECTURER, EDINBURGH AUTHOR OF "the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD," " EARLY CHURCH HISTORY," ETC. WITH A PREFACE BY THE REV. E. W. WATSON, D.D. REGIUS PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN THE UNI7ERSITV OF OXFORD LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON FOURTH AVENUE & 30th STREET, NEW YORK BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS 1917 PREFACE De. Gwatkin had been engaged for some years before his lamented death, on November 14, 1916, upon a survey of English Church History. The writing was done at intervals, especially during his vacations, and each section seems to have been com pleted, and laid aside, before the next was begun. Hence the earlier part may in one or two points be open to the criticism that it is not quite up to date. For instance. Dr. Gwatkin has ignored the revolution in our ideas of the origin of the parish and its priest that has been accomplished by the French scholar Imbart de la Tour and the Swiss Ulrich Stutz. How fully this recent view is now accepted appears from the fact that it has received an almost official recognition in the Report of the Archbishops' Committee on Church and State, 1916. Doubt less, had he lived to revise his earlier pages, Dr. Gwatkin would have made full use of such an addition to our knowledge ; and if respect for the author has forbidden any change in his text, the reader may fairly be asked to make allowance for some few statements that were adequate, so far as men knew, at the quite recent date when they were committed to writing. The readers to whom this book is addressed will, indeed, be fully capable of making such allowance. It is not a text-book for beginners. It omits matters that would be necessary for them; it offers much that they could not require. But an informed and intelligent student will find in it what, so far as I know, has never been published in England on a scale both modest and comprehensive — a survey of our secular and ecclesi astical development, in due co-ordination and proportion. Dr. Gwatkin, as a lecturer, would insist on the reciprocal influ ence of Church and State, and claimed for himself full liberty of entry upon domains of history that might be regarded as clearly separate from his own ecclesiastical sphere. Of his competence, and of the interest with which he could invest «vi PREFACE pohtical or economic topics, showing their influence upo Ufe of the Church, this volume is witness. r^« His verdicts upon movements and characters, given wi knowledge and in trenchant words, must speak for themse • It is deeply to be regretted that death has deprived us ot ^• Gwatkin's delineation of the men and the events of the eig j teenth and nineteenth centuries. It would have been impa ^^^ and philosophical, and would have inculcated the lesson, n more needed than by our own generation, that progre divinely ordered to come through change, and that m t of a national Church no phase can be final. The book, as it is printed, represents ahnost exactly Dr. Gwatkin's manuscript. A few dates that he had left blank have been filled in, a few obvious lapses of the pen have been corrected. Otherwise, everything stands as he left it. So tar as it had gone, the volume was practically ready for pubHcation, and it would have been presumptuous to supply omissions that were no doubt dehberate, or to modify the assertions and judgments of a scholar so distinguished as Dr. Gwatkin. E. W. Watson. CONTENTS CHAP, PACE PEEFACE , , . V I, THE BRITISH CHUEOH 1 II, THE ENGLISH CONQUEST 5 III. THE CONVERSION OP THE ENGLISH , . , . 8 IV, THE DANES, — I 22 V. THE DANES, — II 29 VI, THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS 37 VII. THE ANGEVINS. — I 55 VIII. THE ANGEVINS. — II 66 IX. HENEY III 71 X. EDWAED I 83 XI. EDWAED II AND EDWAED III 94 XII. JOHN WYCLIFFE 109 XIII. LANOASTEE AND YOEK 116 XIV. HENEY VII 132 XV. HENEY VIII — THE EARLY YEARS .... 137 XVI. HENEY VIII — THE SEPAEATION FEOM EOME . .145 XVII. HENEY Vni — THE LAST TEARS .... 157 XVIII. EDWAED VI 181 XIX, MAEY 200 XX. ELIZABETH. — I 217 XXI. ELIZABETH, — II 237 vii vm CONTENTS OHAP, XXIL ELIZABETH, — III XXIII, JAMES I . XXIV. CHARLES I XXV. THE CIVIL WARS XXVI. THE COMMONWEALTH XXVII. THE RESTORATION . XXVIII. JAMES II . XXIX. THE REVOLUTION XXX, WILLIAM III AND ANNE INDEX PAOB 249 . 265 , 284 . 306 . 329 346 , 367376 . 383 , 393 CHURCH AND STATE CHAPTER I THE BRITISH CHURCH Several centuries before the Christian era there came a race of conquerors to Britain, or whatever was then the island's name. These were the tall and warlike Celts, with grey eyes and hair of fiery red. With weapons of bronze and iron, till then unknown in Britain, they partly drove the older settlers to the western and northern mountains, partly ruled them as a warrior-class, as the Normans ruled the English, and partly amalgamated with them — for the dark " Iberian " strain is prevalent in Wales, and common even in England. The first great wave of invaders, the Gaels or Goidels, had overspread the country long before Caesar's time : the Brythons came later, and had scarcely yet estabUshed themselves in Wales and Scot land. These, then, were the peoples whom the Romans found in Britain, the peoples to whom the Gospel was first delivered in the island.^ If Britain had long been dimly known to Phoenicians and Greeks, the raids of Julius Caesar 55 and 54 B.C. fairly brought the country to the knowledge of the Romans. But the actual conquest was only begun by the Emperor Claudius a.d. 43; and it was completed (so far as it ever was completed) when the last great revolt was put down by 180, at the latest. Thence forth Britain was a province of the Roman Empire till some time soon after the removal of the legions by the usurper Constantine in 407. But one of the first determining facts of English History is that the Romans never quite made the land their own. No doubt it was conquered, in the sense that there was no revolt B 2 CHURCH AND STATE of the provincials. Wales itself was firmly held from Cserleon on-Usk and Ceerleon-on-Dee. Even the mutineers— for the' legions of Britain were the most turbulent in the Empire--were not rebels against Rome, for they never dreamed of setting up a British empire. But in the first place, the Roman province was bounded northward by the Wall of Hadrian, which ran from the Solway to the Tyne, or at utmost it might sometimes reach the line of his successor Titus Antoninus, which joined the Firths of Clyde and Forth. All that lay beyond was left to the barbarians. What is more, even the province was never fully Latinized like Gaul or Spain. It contributed not a single name to Latin literature before the fifth century, Latin was no doubt spoken in the capital at York, in the colonies of Lincoln or Colchester, in the settlements which gathered round the legions, or in such a mart of merchants as London soon became, and it may have spread widely in the cities of the south, from Viroconium to Durovernum; but it was not the language of the people. The Romans seem to have organized the country as they organized Gaul, in cantons of the old Celtic tribes ; only the cities were less important. So Roman civilization was never firmly rooted in Britain ; and when the cities decayed after the first ravages of the barbarians, the country was still Celtic, and the old tribal customs of the Celts resumed their sway. How and when the Gospel came to Britain is more than we can say. There are legends in abundance, as how Joseph of Arimathsea landed at Glastonbury, or how the centurion who stood by the cross found his way to Ireland, or how King Lucius sent envoys to Bishop Eleutherus of Rome (c, 170), but certain story there is none. Our first clear trace of it is where Ter- tullian tells us (c. 208) that Christianity was known in parts of Britain inaccessible to the Roman arms. As this would mean that Christian merchants had by that time found their way to' Ireland and Caledonia, such persons may well have landed on the shores of Kent a century or more before. Be that as it may, these were only individuals here and there. As churches were hardly organized in Gaul north of the Rhone* valley in the time of Ireneeus (c. 180) we cannot expect to find them in Britain till some time later. To the Council of Aries in 314 there came three British bishops from London, York and a corrupt name which seems to stand for Lincoln. We also THE BRITISH CHURCH , 3 find British bishops at Ariminum in 359, but some of them were so poor that they were allowed to accept for their expenses the emperor's aid, which the rest of the Council had agreed to refuse. If to this we add a few allusions by Origen and Atha- nasius, and the story of St. Alban, who was martyred, more likely under Decius than in the time of Diocletian, we have before us nearly the whole of our direct information about Chris tianity in Roman Britain. There are also ruins of churches, at Silchester and elsewhere, and a few inscriptions and other remains. It is only near the fall of the Roman power that a few rays of light come through the thick darkness. First, the heretic Pelagius came to Rome from Britain some time before the sack of the city by Alaric in 410. We know also that Pelagianism was rife in Britain in 429, when the Gaulish bishops Germanus and Lupur came over to oppose it. But it was soon extinct, and its revival, c. 447, when Germanus came over again, seems rather to have been Semipelagianism ; and Gildas a century later does not mention even this among the plagues of the land. Then there is the life of St. Patrick, for St. Patrick was of British birth. He was bom, as he tells us himself, at Bannavem Tabernse (or Banna venta), which some have taken for Dum barton, though it more likely lay south of the Wall, perhaps on the coast of Gwent or in the Severn Valley. His father Cal- purnius was a deacon of the church and a curialis or councilman of the city,^ and his grandfather Politus was a presbyter. At the age of sixteen he was carried away by the Scots (or Irish pirates) to six years of slavery in the Irish Dalriada, tending cattle near the hill of Slemish in Antrim. The misery of those years left a deep spiritual mark on Patrick; and after awhile he came back to preach the freedom of the Gospel in the country where he had been himself a slave. It is not our business to trace his mission work in Ireland, or to tell the story of his adven tures with King Laoghaire, and with King Laoghaire's daughters, who sought to see the face of Christ. Suffice it that the typical 1 The umon of these two offices, so contrary to the fixed policy of the emperors, seems to show that the Roman power in Western Britain was in deep decay some time before 405, and probably a generation earlier, for Politus also must have been a curialis, unless the qualifying land was acquired by Calpurnius, Bury, St, Patrick, p. 290, hardly meets the difficulty. 4 CHURCH AND STATE Irish saint came from a clerical family of a city in Roman Britain. Putting together as well as we can our scanty informa.tion, we may form some dim idea of Christianity in Roman times. As the middle class was always the backbone of the churches, and this was weaker in Britain than in the more commercial parts of the Empire, we may pretty safely assume that the average Christians were poorer, less cultured, and more inclined to superstition. The churches must for a long time have been missionary societies, and are not likely to have had much character of their own till Christianity spread upward to the great officials, and outward to the native Celts. The officials matter little, and even the Latinized Celts of the towns were hardly the real people. The conversion of Britain and the change from a missionary to a Celtic church seems to have been caused, or at least completed, by the pressure of the English invasion. But the Celtic influence must have been felt long before it became dominant ; and the Celtic spirit differs widely from the Latin. We can see something of it in the almost mystic piety of Fastidius (c. 420), who lived before the great age of British saints — Patrick and Illtud and Dyfrig and David —and in the seventh century Aidan and Cuthbert are very unlike Augustine and Wilfrid. The prevalence of " Pelagianism " is significant, though only as illustrating this difference of temper, for the Greek influence from Lerins and Marseille belongs to the next generation. Everything goes to show that the foreign element in Roman times was purely Latin. The Britons used the old Latin version of the Bible, and (except for the sermon) there never was anything but Latin in their services. So far as we know, they followed Gaulish and therefore Western usages, so that such differences of practice as we find in the seventh century were not made in deliberate opposition to Rome, but grew up during the long isolation of Britain (454-597) between the times of Pope Leo and Augustine's mission. CHAPTER II THE ENGLISH CONQUEST On the far side of the forests of Germany, beyond the Elbe and the Eider, dwelt the ancestors of the English people. The Saxons looked westward from Slesvig over the North Sea, the Angles eastward on the Baltic and the Danish islands till they conquered the Saxons of the western shore about the end of the fifth century. Their civihzation in Roman tinies was not unlike that of the Greeks in the Homeric age. As compared with Goths or Franks, they were strangers to the grandeur of Rome, to her civilization and her Christianity. The rough teaching of the legions had never come near them, and even the wandering traders had scarcely reached them, so that they were still as wild as the Northern vikings of later times. Indeed, they were vikings themselves. From the low shores and the sandy islands of Slesvig their keels came forth to the coasts of Britain to slaughter and to destroy, tiU the downfall of the Roman power enabled them to enter on the long struggle which was in the end to make the land their own. The traditional date of Hengist and Horsa's landing at Eb"bs- fleet is 449, though it hardly pretends to be exact, and in any case the inroads of the Saxon pirates had/ begun before the usurpation of Carausius in 286, which first indicated the future of Britaia on the sea. In the fourth century a Count of the Saxon Shore guarded the coast from Brancaster in Norfolk to Southampton Water ; and it was not till 367 that the province began to be hard pressed by the Picts from the north, the Scots of Ireland from the west, and the Saxons from the east. By 402 the west of Britain seems to have been left to its own resources, and in 409 the Emperor Honorius told the cities that Rome could .i^ive them no further help. Here, then, was the end of Roman government in Britain. The records of the English Conquest are scanty and obscure, 6 6 CHURCH AND STATE vague and full of legends, like those of Rowena and of Cerdic. But we seem to see a vigorous attack on the whole country from Southampton Water to the Pictish coast beyond the Forth —for the frail vessels of the pirates could hardly face the iron- bound cUffs of Dorset or the swirhng tides of the Pentland Firth, The Britons fought manfully, and the battle of Mount Badon (c. 500) brought the invaders to a stop for nearly half a century; but not till the south-eastern part of Britain had been lost. By this time the Jutes in Kent were flanked westward by the South Saxons of Sussex, and by the little colony of Jutes in the Isle of Wight and on the Meon, soon to be overshadowed by the West Saxons of the upper Thames, who before long came down on Win chester. Northward lay the East Saxons of Essex and the East Angles of Norfolk and Suffolk. Still further north the Angles were raiding the coast, before they foimded Northumbrian kingdoms — Deira from the Humber to the Tees, Beroicia from the Tyne to the Forth— and came up the Trent to set up Mercian kingdoms in Lindsey and the Midlands. The conquest of Eastern Britain was completed in the sixth century, and the Celtic West was soon broken into fragments. The West Saxons in 577 won the lower valley of the Severn, dividing Wales from West Wales — a huge Cornwall which they gradually pushed back to the Mendips, the Poldens, the Quantocks, and the Tamar. Then came the Northumbrian Angles, and broke the connexion of Wales with the northern Celts of Strathclyde by the capture of Chester (c. 615) and the conquest of Ehnet (c. 630). After this the deadly strife of Celt and Saxon resolved itself into a chronic state of border warfare, varied with uncertain intervals of quiet and frequent meddlings of the Welsh in English civil strife. In course of time Strathclyde was cut down from Dumbarton and the Peak and reduced to the Vale of Eden, while the Welsh were thrown back, first on Offa's Dyke, then to the mountain- fortress of Snowdon. At last the long contest was brought to an end with the reduction of Cornwall by Egbert, the capture of Carlisle by Rufus in 1092, and the conquest of Wales by Edward I in 1282. The Britons fought with stubborn courage. They had not lost their manliness under Roman rule ; but no (jfforts of their quarrelling clans could do more than delay the advance of the invaders. They could only hate with the hatred of the dis- THE ENGLISH CONQUEST 7 inherited. The English on their part came to settle on the land, and wanted it to themselves. So they destroyed the cities, and drove out the Britons. Yet the clearance was not complete, for many Celtic women and slaves must have remained even in the East; and we know that the settlement resolved itself more and more into an ordinary political conquest as the invaders pushed westward. The massacre of Anderida was not repeated at Exeter. So there must have been a mixture of races from the first, and soon a considerable mixture. But the transformation of the country was complete. In language, institutions, religion, and civihzation generally, the main part of Britain from Southampton Water to the rock of Edinburgh became Teutonic — if not purely Teutonic, at least in many ways more Teutonic than Germany itself, for the Celtic West of England is more than balanced by the Slavonic East of Germany, and the long connexion of Germany with Italy and the Holy Empire, and later with France, was quite as strong a foreign influence as anything that England has ever undergone. Thus the English were separated from the rest of the world by something worse then twenty miles of sea. On one side the Celts of the West and the North had nothing but curses for the hated Saxon. On the other the Saxon himself lost his seafaring habits when he settled down in the land. Thus the English had little communication with their kinsmen in Ger many and Denmark after the middle of the sixth century. Even with the Christian Franks across the Channel they had no very active intercourse. Gregory of Tours does not even seem to know the name of Bertha's husband. Beyond Italy Britain was quite forgotten. At Constantinople Procopius could tell how the country beyond the Wall is so full of serpents that no man can live a day in it, and how the souls of the dead are ferried over by night from the mouth of the Rhine to the island of Brittia. Yet it was from Britain that Constantine himself had started on his great career of victory, and Roman soldiers had mounted guard on the Wall within a century of the day Procopius was born. So utterly had Britain become a legend at th^'centre of the civihzed world. CHAPTER III THE CONVERSION OF THE ENGLISH " Gregory our Father, who sent us Baptism," was the first of the great mediseval popes; and his very name marks well the beginning of an age of Christianity, The immediate cause of the fall of the Empire was the old heathen hatred of the barbarians, which even Christian bishops could not shake off; and that ancient feud was renounced when Gregory stooped to welcome the fiercest of the northern nations to the Christian fold. His mission went forth from a city of ruins to a world of barbarism : but its outcome was a spiritual empire wider than Augustus ever dreamed of. The conversion of the English led straight to the conversion of Germany, and that again to the restoration of the Empire and the rise of the mediseval Papacy, Gregory was a statesman before he became a monk; and if the monk was dominant in him, the statesman was not for gotten. His thoughts were early turned to Britain, " Not Angles but angels," he said of the fair English boys on sale in the Roman slave-market. He started himself to preach; but Rome could not spare him, and the Pope recalled him; and when he became Pope himself in 590, other cares long delayed the mission on which his heart was set. It was not till 596 that he was able to send his friend Augustine, the prior of St. Andrew's, the monastery which he had himself founded, on the CseUan Hill. It was a momentous step. The Britons were doing splendid mission work — ^witness Patrick and Columba — northward and westward and southward, among the Picts and the Irish and on the continent ; but they would send no mission eastward to the English, Let them go to hell in their ignorance. It was Rome who showed the way, and Rome who shamed them into following, Augustine's monks shrank back in terror as they neared the savage EngUsh ; but Gregory rebuked them, and sent them on 8 THE CONVERSION OF THE ENGLISH 9 again. In truth, there was little danger. The great king Ethelbert of Kent, whose influence reached the Severn and the Humber, was no stranger to the Gospel. He had a Christian wife in the Frankish king's daughter Bertha, and she had the Frankish bishop Lindhard for her chaplain. In 597 Augustine landed on the Isle of Thanet, and Ethelbert came to meet him — in the open air, for fear of magic. The monks came forward chanting litanies, with a silver cross and a picture of the Saviour borne aloft before them. Ethelbert received them kindly, gave them leave to convert any one they could, and settled them in the old Roman city of Durovernum, now beginning to be called Canterbury. Within the city stood the old Roman church of St. Martin, which he gave them, so that it is the mother-church of England. Before long the king accepted Baptism, and his people with him, and Kent became a Christian kingdom. A few years later Essex followed its example. So far well; and Gregory had a grand scheme for Britain. There was to be an archbishop in London with twelve bishops, ruling as far as the Humber, and an archbishop in York, ruling with twelve bishops to the extremity of Scotland, The British bishops were ignored. But the conversion of the EngUsh was not for that generation, Gregory died in 604, Augustine soon after, Ethelbert in 616; and then came the heathen reaction, Christianity was driven out of Essex; and though it held its ground in Kent, it showed no sign of spreading further. In truth, the key of the position was in the old Roman capital of York, The future was not with the petty kingdoms cooped up along the Saxon shore, but with the three great Welsh marches which had room to expand, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex in succession took the lead among the EngUsh peoples : and of these three Northumbria was much the greatest in the seventh century. Little is known of the northern Angles before the reign of Ethelfrith (592-617). There seems, however, to have been a war of detail, in which the Celts were gradually pushed back from the coast. They did not lack a champion. As far back as 574 Aidan the son of Gabhran was consecrated at an jangel's bidding by Columba's own saintly hand as King of the Scots in Dalriada, the Irish colony in Argyle; and thenceforth for nearly thirty years he waged successful wars. It was not till 10 CHURCH AND STATE 603 that Ethelfrith was able to turn back the tide of Scottish conquest by the decisive victory of Degssestan, which broke the power of the northern Celts, So far EtheKrith ruled Bernicia only; but his next step was the conquest of Deira m 604. Ihe capture of Chester (c. 615) separated for the moment the Celts of Wales from the Celts of the north, and completed the founda tion of a Northumbrian kingdom which ultimately stretched from the HoUand of Lincolnshire to the coasts of Galloway and Fife. Meanwhile young Edwin of Deira was a fugitive hunted out from place to place till his last protector Redwald of East AngUa was sore beset with the threats and promises of Ethelfrith. Edwin was weary of Ufe, and went out into the dark before the king's door while his fate was decided. He would not flee. " Better Redwald slay me than a meaner man." Then came a stranger to him. " I know thy griefs, and what shall be the end of them. What wilt thou give, if a man shall free thee from them ? And what if he shall promise thee that thou shalt be a greater king than all the kings of the EngUsh that have been before thee ? And what if he shall give thee better counsel for Ufe and soul than any of thy kindred ever heard before? Wilt thou obey him, and hearken to his good counsel?" "I win." Then the stranger laid his hand on Edwin's head — " Remember this sign " — and vanished in the night. And Edwin knew that it was not a man who spoke with him, but a spirit. Redwald kept faith with the exile, and accepted the war with Ethelfrith. The battle was decisive, " Foul ran the Idle with the blood of the Angles," Ethelfrith was killed, and Edwin reigned in his stead, and became according to the stranger's promise the greatest of the EngUsh Idngs yet seen , His superiority was acknowledged everywhere except in Kent : and in Kent he sought a wife. They gave him Bertha's daughter Ethelbui^, with the ItaUan PauUnus for her chaplain; and Edwin pro mised to consider seriously of Christianity, Still he hesitated long, till one day PauUnus came and laid his hand on Edwin's head, " Remember you this sign ? " Had he heard the story from the queen, or was he himself the stranger? So Edwin was baptized, and his Deiran chiefs with him. But Edwin's power was shaken. An unholy alUance was formed, Cadwallon THE CONVERSION OF THE ENGLISH 11 the Christian of North Wales and Penda the heathen of Mercia revolted, and Edwin fell in battle at Hatfield Chase, by the Isle of Axhohne (633). Then came the year of shame. Two Northumbrian kings renounced Christ and perished, Cadwallon spread slaughter and destruction, PauUnus and the queen fled to Kent, and Chris tianity seemed rooted out. The deUverance came from the north, Columba himself had not Uved to see the catastrophe of Degssestan — he died in peace, June 9, 597, within a few weeks of Augustine's landing — but his monastery of lona ^ still flourished. Thither fled Oswald the son of Ethelfrith, there he gave himself heart and soul to Christ, and thence he came to deUver Northumbria from the slaughter. Gathering a small and trusty force at the Hevenfeld near the Roman Wall, he fought and slew Cadwallon. The power of the Welsh was for ever broken, and Oswald became almost as great a king as Edwin. And with Oswald Christianity returned : not this time the Roman Christianity of Kent, but the Celtic or Irish of lona. Its apostle was not the ItaUan PauUnus but the Scottish Aidan, and his see was no longer the city of York but the lonely isle of Lindisfame. The move is significant. This Irish Chris tianity was very unlike the Latin. With all its passion, it was often exquisitely deUcate and tender. It was mystic and dreamy, and its austerity was not the asceticism which kills the love of God's creation. When Columba came wearily home to his death, he stayed to let the old horse caress him once more. Ansehn or Francis might have done as much, but hardly another of the Latin saints. But the Irish temper wanted self-respect and self-control : it had nothing of Roman dignity and Roman reverence for law and order. The Irish church reflected Irish anarchy. We cannot imagine a Latin bishop allowed to wander over the country, Uving on his ordination fees; or a Latin monastery turning out, monks and tenants and women and all, for a pitched battle with the next house of holy men. But the Irish mission to the EngUsh never sank into this confusion, for the spirit of Aidan kept it pure and high for the short time it lasted. Oswald and Aidan were twin saints, and worked together to make Northumbria a Christian land. But if Cadwallon had perished, Penda remained, grim and ^ I use the common erroneous name. It ought to be Hy or Hii, 12 CHURCH AND STATE 642 merciless as ever. On the Maserfield near Oswestry mo* Oswald shared the fate of Edwin, and Northumbria was deso lated again. Oswald's brother Oswy (642-671) was not qmte a saint— he murdered Oswin of Deira— but his poUcy was cnns- tian, and it was marked by his marriage with Edwin's daugMer Eanfled. Meanwhile for thirteen years Penda played the tyrant over Northumbria. There were intervals of quiet and even marriages between the royal houses, but he would accept no terms of settled peace. But Aidan had done his work more soUdly than PauUnus, This time people as well as thanes were Christian, and in Bernicia as well as Deira, The more the heathen ravaged, the more firmly Northumbria clung to Chris tianity, Thence it spread to Mercia. Savage as Penda was, he was no fanatic, and let it spread. Only he had a healthy con tempt for unworthy Christians— " the mean creatures who would not take the trouble to serve their own God." At last the slayer of kings was slain himself. Two Northumbrian kings and three East AngUan had faUen before Penda when he marched northward in November 655 to make an end of Oswy's kingdom. But this time the grim heathen fell at Winwsedfield in Loidis (most Ukely Leeds) and with him thirty men of royal kin, and the swollen torrent of the Winwsed swept away the fugitives. Mercia declared at once for Christianity, and Essex followed its example with some wavering. As East AngUa was already Christian, and Wessex (also with relapses) had been converted by the mission of Birinus from Rome in 634, heathenism only lingered for awhile in Sussex, behind the shelter of the forests of the Weald. We see the weakness of heathenism in England. But for Penda, it hardly struggled at aU. We know something of four EngUsh heathens. Of these, Ethelbert and the thane at Edwin's court are frankly inquirers : if the strangers could tell them anything useful, they would be glad to hear it. Coifi the priest stands for common sense : he had served the gods with zeal, and they were no good at all. Even Penda was no zealot : he objected rather to Northumbria than to Christianity. Upon the whole, the victory was easy, because there were only the old gods to contend with. The strength of heathenism is in the local deities and superstitions; and Britain was a recent con quest where these had not had time to grow up. It was the THE CONVERSION OF THE ENGLISH 13 same with the Franks and the Lombards; and even the conti nental Saxons resisted Christianity chiefly as a badge of Frankish conquest. But Ireland, France, Italy, and Rhenish and southern Germany had another population devoted to local deities ; and these lived on, partly as superstitions, partly christened by the Church as saints, and are still worshipped for the same purposes, with the same ceremonies, and sometimes with the same images, as in heathen times. St. Agatha of Catania thinly veils the goddess Ceres, and CathoUc Germany is full of similar saints. The only coimtries the Teutons had to themselves were England and Saxony : and these are the two centres of Protestantism. The fall of Penda decided that Christianity was to be the faith of the EngUsh. But was it to be Roman or Irish Christianity ? Were they to look up to the bishop of Rome or to the abbot of lona ? There was no difference of doctrine, and none of practice more serious than that concerning the time of Easter. It arose on this wise. The Crucifixion was at the full moon of Friday, Nisan 14; the Resurrection on Sunday, Nisan 16. The Jewish calendar being lunar, the full moon must always fall on Nisan 14, but the Sunday after it may be any day between Nisan 15 and Nisan 21. In the second century the Quartodecimans of Asia, pleading St. John's example, kept Nisan 14 (whatever the day of the week) in memory of the Crucifixion, while Rome and the rest of the churches kept the Sunday (whatever the day of Nisan) in memory of the Resurrection. The Council of Nicsea in 325 decided for the more usual practice, and fixed the Sunday for that which follows the first full moon after the vernal equinox, in order that Easter should always come after the Jewish Passover of Nisan 14. The Irish imagined themselves to be Quartodecimans ; but they kept the Sunday of the Resurrection Uke the Latins. Only during the long isolation from the continent they had got the rule wrong, and kept their Easter on Nisan 14 when that day was a Sunday, instead of putting it off Uke other churches to Nisan 21. Thus once in seven years they kept the same day as the Jews, which was the very thing the Council had intended to make impossible. Minor differences in the manner of baptism and the form of the tonsure need not detain us : the chief dispute was over Easter. There was, however, an important difference of church govern ment between the Latin and the Celt, though it does not seem to 14 CHURCH MiD BTATJKJ have caused much trouble till the churches came into closer con tact in Norman times. The Latin churches, and therefore t EngUsh, were essentially episcopal ; the bishop governed, ana tne monks were subject to him. The Celtic churches ^^^^^J^^f^" tially monastic. The mission work which made them Chnstmn was done by monks ; and these founded monasteries, not churcHes. Thus the Welsh Llan was a monastery, and only later ^ame to mean a church. Llan Illtud is the monastery founded by lUtud, not the church of St. Illtud. Thus the abbots were the leaders (hardly governors) of the Celtic churches, and m the larger Scot tish and Irish monasteries they might be bishops themselves, or they might keep a bishop or two on the staff to do the ordina tions. In that case the bishop would be subject to the abbot. Wales also had a monastic organization. Every mother church had its abbot and his claswyr, roughly answering to canons, but monks, not priests, living in separate ceUs within the Llan^ or enclosure, but holding the property in common without dividing it into prebends. One of them was in priests' orders for the service of the church, and there might be others for similar service in outljdng chapels. The bishops were numerous, and seem to have had {qua bishops) no particular functions of government. In Wales, however, the bishop always ranked higher than the abbot, and some abbots were also bishops, Uke those of the four great monasteries of Ty Ddewi,Llan Daf ,Banchor, and Llan Elwy, though it was not tiU much later times that (under Norman in fluences) they became the four diocesan bishops of St. David's, Llandaff, Bangor, and St. Asaph. But it is important to notice that while the Celtic churches are bitterly denounced in the seventh century for their heterodox Easter and many other forms of wickedness, we hear no complaints that they were not governed by bishops, or that their organization was monastic. Pope Gregory seems to have known Uttle or nothing of the changes which had passed over the British churches since their last formal communication with Rome in Leo's time (454). He directs the great sees to return to the old capitals of London and York, and Augustine is to take the British bishops under his own authority. He therefore invited' them to a conference, and presently a second was held, perhaps at Chester. If they would adopt the Roman Easter and the Roman mode of baptism, and join (of course under his authority) in preaching to the EngUsh THE CONVERSION OF THE ENGLISH 15 he told them that he would tolerate the rest of their difference from Rome. But the British bishops acknowledged no Roman jurisdiction, and saw no need to change their customs at the dictation of an insolent stranger; for Augustine was rude and overbearing, and ended by breaking up the conference in fierce anger. His friends saw the fulfilment of his threats in Ethel- frith's great slaughter of the British monks at the capture of Chester in 617. Augustine had done more mischief than he knew. Instead of differences, there was now a deadly quarrel'; and his successors could not heal it. The overtures of Lalirentius were refused, and the friendly interest of Honorius was thrown away on the insulted Briton. So for many years Celt and Roman went their separate ways. The Irisb*converted Northumbria, Mercia, Essex and East AngUa— by far the largest part of England — only Kent and Wessex looked to Rome. The question was made acute by the rise of a Roman party in Deira, which thought it something worse than unseemly that Oswy should be keeping Easter while his Kentish queen was deep in Lent, So Oswy called a conference at the place now known by its Danish name of Whitby, early in 664, On the Irish side stood Aidan's successor Colman and the abbess Hild of Whitby, and Oswy himself leaned that way. For Rome were James the Deacon, an old companion of PauUnus who had not fled in the year of shame ; the Frankish bishop Agilbert of Wessex, and the young abbot Wilfrid of Ripon. As Agilbert was not a good speaker of EngUsh, he made Wilfrid his spokesman, Colman claimed St, John ; Wilfrid St, Peter, " and all the world besides, except a few fooUsh people in these out of the way islands. You follow neither John nor Peter, neither Law nor Gospel," But could Columba have been mistaken ? " Your Columba — ours if he was a saint ! Peter was the very chief of the apostles, to whom the Lord said. Thou art Peter, and imto thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," Was that true ? Colman admitted it. Then Oswy with a smile, " I will not gainsay the doorkeeper of heaven, lest he shut me out when I come there," It was a wise decision to accept the Roman usages, though Oswy put it in jesting form, England was not yet even a nation, far less a great Empire looking back on a thousand years of memories as proud as those of Rome herself. It was better for 16 CHURCH AND STATE her infant churches to take their place in the great world of Rome than to share the isolation of lona by the Western sea. So Cohnan departed, and the Irish mission with him, and the see of Lindisfarne was vacant. • j- j After awhile young Wilfrid was chosen— yet not to Lindisfame, for the return of Roman influence was fitly marked by the return of the Northumbrian see to York. But Wilfrid would accept no consecration from the EngUsh bishops, most of whom were tainted in his eyes by the imposition of Celtic hands. So he went to Gaul, was consecrated with much pomp at Compiegne, and Ungered there till the summer of 666. Oswy treated him as an absentee, and placed in his deserted see a disciple of Aidan, the saintly Chad. So Wilfrid was obliged to retire to Ripon for the present. Two main steps had now been taken towards the formation of an EngUsh church. It was settled first that the whole country — Sussex excepted for the moment — was to be Christian and not heathen ; then that Jts Christianity was to be Roman and not Irish. But things were still in sad confusion. The Irish could preach devotedly, and they could found monasteries, but they hardly attempted the prosaic work of organizLag churches . What they left behind was a chaos, so Egbert of Kent and Oswy made a new departure. They chose Wighard for archbishop and sent him to Rome to be consecrated by the Pope's own hands ; but he had scarcely reached Rome when he died of the pestilence. What then was Pope VitaUan to do ? The custom was, that if a bishop died at Rome, a successor was sent from Rome for the comfort of the widowed church : and as he could not well refer back again all the way to Canterbury, this was evidently the best thing to do. So VitaUan chose first an African monk named Hadrian, and then on his refusal Theodore, a man of Tarsus Uke St. Paul, and already sixty-six years old. But he did not quite trust the orthodoxy of a Greek — Monotheletism was rampant in the East — so he insisted on sending Hadrian with him to England. His misgivings were vain. Theodore was a good Latin in spite of his Greek birth— a born king of men with the Latin genius for law and order, and something of the autocratic hardness of the Latin and the monk. On May 27, 669, Theodore took possession of Augustine's chair, and began the one-and-twenty years of work before him His first step was to restore Wilfrid to York. Chad retired meekly THE CONVERSION OF THE ENGLISH 17 and before long Theodore found him a bishopric in Mercia. In 673 he called the first council of EngUsh bishops at Hertford, and laid before them certain canons chosen from the canons of older councils. There was to be one Easter. No bishops to invade the " parish " of another, or to rob the monasteries by force. No vagrant monks. No vagrant clerics. Foreign bishops not to act officially without leave from the bishop of the "parish," Bishops not to claim precedence except by date of consecration. No man to put away his wife, except as the Gospel teaches, for fornication. These canons are significant. There is always a good deal of moral laxity among new converts ; but the eccle siastical confusion impUed is characteristically Irish, Every one of these abuses was rampant in the Irish churches, Theodore passed all these canons, but withdrew another which provided for the subdivision of unwieldy dioceses. As yet there were only seven bishops in England, nearly corresponding to the kings — two in Kent, one each for Wessex, Mercia, Essex, and East AngUa, while the great Northumbrian diocese covered the whole distance ¦from the Fens to the Forth, It was therefore Theodore's object to get them divided : and this presently brought him into colUsion with Wilfrid, Wilfrid was the son of a Northumbrian thane, born in the disastrous year 634, Under the patronage of Queen Eanfled he became a monk at Lindisfarne, It was still under the Irish rule, but Wilfrid's heart was already hankering after Rome, and to Rome he went. In 658 he returned, full of admiration for Rome and contempt of the uncouth Irish, and formed a close friendship with Oswy's son Alchfrid, the under-king of Deira who gave him the monastery of Ripon, We have seen the commanding place he took at Whitby, his appointment to the bishopric of York, and his confirmation in it by Theodore, The next ten years (669- 679) were a time of intense activity. He repaired the minster at York, built another at Hexham, put glass windows in them, and made them some of the finest churches north of the Alps, Their splendour contrasted well with the mean buildings of the Irish. Meanwhile he was constantly riding about his diocese, baptizing, confirming, ordaining, and settling the first beginnings of what grew into the parish system of England. A priest was settled first at one point, then at another, till by the later middle ages the whole country was fully mapped out in parishes. Even his riding c 18 CHURCH A5SU BiAxi^ was a contrast to the Irish, Chad always went on foot, till Theodore lifted him on a horse with his own hands, Oswy died in 671, and troubles arose under Egfrid his son. Even Irish humility would scarcely have saved Wilfrid from the dangers of his invidious elevation ; and humihty was not one ot Wilfrid's virtues. The imprudent liberaUty of benefactors had made the bishop of York too great for a subject of Egfrid, and the dormant claims of the old Roman capital may well have roused Theodore's jealousy for his own upstart see of Durovernum, Egfrid had also a domestic grievance. His queen was Etheldred the daughter of Anna the king of the East Angles. Anna was one of Penda's victims, and his family was as famed for ascetic piety as that of Penda himself. From her first husband came the Isle of Ely for her morning-gift ; but when she came to Egfrid's house she steadily refused her wifely duty, and Wilfrid consecrated her disobedience by giving her the veil. At last she fled to her own country ; and there, on the hill which rises like an island from the vast expanse of the Fens, she built a double monastery which was the beginning of the cathedral church of Ely. Thus Egfrid and his new wife Ermenburg had cause to hate Wilfrid. Theodore also saw in him the chief hindrance to his plans for the welfare of the churches. Indeed, the diocese of York was too much for even Wilfrid's restless energy. But Theodore went to work in his own imperious way. With Egfrid's help he got a few bishops together, divided York without consulting Wilfrid, and consecrated bishops for Lindsey, Lindisfarne and Hexham, limiting Wilfrid at York to a part of Deira, This was in 678, Wilfrid appealed to Rome, If he could not get justice in England, he would override EngUsh law by the authority of the apostolic see. He was the first who appealed to Rome from England, and the last before the time of William Rufus, He gave deep offence. To Theodore and Egfrid, respect for Rome did not mean subjection to Rome, If they observed the Roman Easter, they admitted no Roman jurisdiction, Wilfrid was at once de prived of York and driven out of Northumbria, and Ebroin the Frankish mayor was stirred up to kill him on his way through Gaul, He spent the winter in Frisia, there beginning the con version of Germany. Adalgis of Frisia and Peretarit the Lom bard king refused to give him up to Ebroin, and in due course he came safe to Rome, THE CONVERSION OF THE ENGLISH 19 Pope Agatho was nothing loath to receive his appeal; and presently a council at Rome decided that Wilfrid must be re stored and the intruding bishops expelled ; but that he was then to choose for himself assistant bishops, and Theodore was to consecrate them. In itself the award was excellent, for it recog nized at once the need of dividing the diocese and the injustice done to Wilfrid. So he brought it back to England in the fond belief that others would reverence it as he did. But Egfrid scorned to receive it, aijd — as he did not want to be rude to the Pope — threw Wilfrid into prison for having obtained his bull by bribery. After some months he drove him out of the country, and induced friendly kings to drive him out from Mercia and Wessex also. As no refuge was now left for him in Christian England, Wilfrid betook himself to Sussex, where he found a Christian king with a heathen people, Wilfrid's exile (681-686) is a nobler part of his Ufe than the years of splendour at York, for his conversion of Sussex completed the conversion of England, While Wilfrid was away at Rome, Theodore held another council at Hatfield in 680, This time the EngUsh church declared its faith, accepting the five General Councils of Nicsea, Constanti nople (381), Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople (555), and the Lateran Synod of 649 against the Monotheletes, " beUeving as they believed, and anathematizing those whom they anathema tized," Here is de facto agreement with the five Councils, but no doctrine is laid down about the authority of General Councils as such. The Irish influence was not yet quite extinct. Though Cuth bert came from the Lammermoors, his early training and his late career were more Irish than EngUsh, As early as 651 he pre sented himself to Boisil for admission to Melrose, and on Boisil's death in 665 Cuthbert took his place as prior of Melrose, whence he was removed a few years later to Lindisfarne, But Cuthbert was not content with ruUng well his monastery and doing a marvellous work of preaching among the Northumbrian country people. In 676 he retired to the Isle of Fame, and for nine years lived a hermit's life. His energy might be EngUsh, but his tenderness, his love of Nature, and above all his passion for ascetic soUtude belong more to the Irish type of piety. Such was the man whom Theodore consecrated in 685 to the see of 20 CHURCH AND STATE Lindisfame, This was a defiance of the Roman aj^^^'^' b^ no man seems to have thought any the worse of OuthDert for it. He held the see only two years, but he remamed the great saint of the North. r -kt ii, Cuthbert was only just consecrated when the power of North umbria collapsed. It had reached its height in England when Oswy conquered Mercia after the defeat of Penda. But though Mercia had been a dangerous enemy since its revolt m 659, and finally recovered Lindsey in 679, Northumbria kept her primacy, and was still a conqueror on her Pictish border. Egfrid could even send a fleet to ravage Ireland. But in 685 the Picts revolted also ; and when Egfrid marched against them, he perished with nearly all his army in the defile of Dunnechtan near Forfar. The blow was decisive. Pictland was lost, and Galloway, and even part of Lothian. The greatness of Northumbria was at an end. It did not cease to be the chief home of learning in England, but poUtical power passed away to Mercia, Meanwhile Theodore in extreme old age sought a reconciUa tion with Wilfrid, invited him to Canterbury, and induced Egfrid's brother and successor Aldfrid to restore him to Northumbria, Yet not to his former huge diocese, but only to York and Ripon, Lindsey was lost to Northumbria, and though Wilfrid held Hex ham for a short time, and Lindisfame after Cuthbert's death, it was only as administrator during the vacancy. So for some years there was peace. But Wilfrid had never given up his claims; and when Aldfrid required him in 691 to confirm the acts of Theodore — the partition of 678 — he refused, and was at once deprived, and driven out from Northumbria. This time he found a safe retreat with Ethelred of Mercia. There he had great possessions, and there he spent the next ten years, chiefly in administering vacant sees. Things came to another crisis in a council held at Easterfield in 702. Would he accept the acts of Theodore ? Yes — according to the rule of the canons — that is, so far as they were consistent with the Roman decision. Would he leave everything without reserve to the decision of Bertwald, Theodore's successor ? Yes— with the same condition. This again meant No. The council was furious. They proposed first to deprive him of everything, then to leave him nothing but Ripon, Then Wilfrid appealed again to Rome, Aldfrid threatened to break his safe-conduct; but in the end THE CONVERSION OF THE ENGLISH 21 they deprived him of his episcopal dignity and sent him back to Mercia. So Wilfrid, now a man of nearly seventy, once more made his way to Rome. But the Roman court had learned caution. After seventy sittings. Pope John VI decided that Bertwald and Wilfrid were to hold a council in England, and that if they could not agree, all the bishops concerned were to come to a larger council to be held at Rome — an award which practically shelved the difficulty. Meantime the anti-Roman feeUng ran high in Northumbria. But a moderate party was growing up. No zealot of Rome was Ald- helm of Malmesbury, the first English scholar of his time ; and he openly condemned the violence of the anti-Roman party. But Ethelred of Mercia, now retired as abbot of Bardney, pleaded in vain with Aldfrid. Then on Aldfrid's death in 705, Bertwald himself came forward to mediate. A new council on the Nidd in 706 restored Wilfrid to the bishopric of Hexham and the minster of Ripon, These terms were less favourable to him than those of 686, and fell far short of Pope Agatho's award ; but they were final. The long strife was ended, Wilfrid's death in 709 may fitly mark the end of the age of the conversion of the EngUsh, To its literary and other aspects we must soon return : meanwhile it is worth notice that we have already seen most of the permanent types of EngUsh churchmen. Wilfrid unites in himself the prince of the church, the great builder and the zealot of Rome — Wolsey, Wykeham, Thomas of Canter- vbury. Theodore is a churchly statesman like Lanfranc or Lang- ton, and the unchurchly bishop is represented by Wini, who bought his office for a price. The common sense of the English layman, often genuinely devout, but seldom caring much for dogma, comes out in Ethelbert and Oswy, and perhaps in Penda too : his strong individualism is represented by the monasteries, and EngUsh intensity and energy are everywhere conspicuous. CHAPTER IV THE DANES. — I None of the Northern nations will bear a moment's comparison with the EngUsh for the vigour of the start they made in civihza tion. Looking back from the opening of the eighth century, the Goths had been Christians for three hundred ypars or more, and even the Franks and the Lombards had been converted long before the English : yet in a single century the EngUsh far excelled them all. Popular songs were the common heritage of all the Teutonic peoples, but the literature of the continent was almost entirely Latin in spirit as it was in language. England on the contrary could already show men of learning — Bede had no rival in ah Europe — and native poets of a high order in Csedmon and per haps Aldhelm, and Cynewulf a little later. Wilfrid and Benedict Biscop brought back better things than bulls from Rome — manuscripts, musicians, and skilled workmen who made the churches they built a credit to the West. The great Codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate was Abbot CeoUrid's companion on his last journey to Rome, and Codex Laudianus of the Acts is the copy used by his disciple Bede. But no men did more for learn ing than Theodore and Hadrian. Under their guidance a great school grew up at Canterbury, distinguished from most of the Western schools by the teaching of Greek. Nor were they with out worthy rivals— Ceolfrid at Wearmouth and Aldhelm at Malmesbury ; and these were only the most conspicuous of the schools of England. These schools were in monasteries ; and indeed monasticism is a main feature of early EngUsh Church Ufe. One of Augustine's first cares was to found St. Peter's monastery at Canterbury, and before long monasteries sprang up all over the land. On the stormy coast of Bernicia were Coldingham and Lindisfame and Melrose lay inland by the Eildon Hills. Wearmouth and Jarrow 22 THE DANES 23 and Whitby crowned the Deiran cliffs, and inland were Lasting- ham'on the Wolds, and Wilfrid's abbeys of Hexham by the Roman Wall and Ripon on the Nidd. Lindsey had Bardney, and in the Fens were Peterborough and Ely and Crowland ; and far away in the south rose the primal monastery of Canterbury. All these were built by English hands ; but the ^Vestern monasteries of Malmesbury and Glastonbury were taken over from the Celts, and the latter long remained a resort of Celtic students and pilgrims. And these were only the chief of the old EngUsh monasteries. It was a grand burst of enthusiasm, far beyond anything else among the early Teutons. Kings Uke Oswald and Oswin and Anna of East AngUa lived the Ufe of saints, Ethelred of Mercia laid down the kingly lance to take the abbot's staff, and from Wessex the savage Cadwalla and the lawgiver Ine made their way to Rome to end their days before St. Peter's tomb. The Irish had shown the way ; and they seem to have left something behind of Irish intensity, of Irish zeal for learning, perhaps also of Irish disorder. For the movement had its dangers. Monas ticism is misinformed and misdirected piety at best, and the English energy thrown into it withdrew the best of Englishmen from their higher duties to their country and their kindred. Moreover, the high- wrought enthusiasm which alone can balance the mischief is in itself an unnatural and unhealthy life of morbid struggle with temptations chiefly of our own making. Worst of all, unnatural holiness easily becomes unreal. Every great man founded a monastery, endowed it richly, gave it such rule or no- rule as best pleased him, and often came to it to enjoy the evening of life in unholy retirement among his minions and flatterers. These were the sort of evils denounced by Bede near the end of his life in his letter to Egbert bishop of York — soon to become its first archbishop. The bishops are gone after filthy lucre, and will abate nothing from dioceses much larger than they can manage. The priests are rapacious hireUngs, exacting all their fees while utterly neglecting their duties. The monasteries are too many, too rich, luxurious, disorderly, refuges of bad characters and often downright immoral. Even the state suffers, for the kings have given to the church the lands which ought to be the reward of good service for their followers, so that these either cross the sea in quest of adventures or fall into poverty, and as 24 CHURCH AND STATU; they cannot marry, abandon themselves to vice— he might have added plots and rebeUions, for Northumbria was sinking mto aaarchy, Bede's remedy is to suppress the houses that were useless to God and man, and make some of them seats of new bishoprics, and to regulate the rest of the monks and keep them in order. . • •, • Bede's picture may be a Uttle too dark, but m the mam it is truly drawn, and may be strictly tme for Northumbria, where things seem to have been worst. We can already trace the decUne which made England a prey to the Danes, a decUne which Alfred himself could not arrest for long. In the eighth century the EngUsh did better abroad than at home. It is the age of WilUbrord and Boniface, the apostles of Frisia and Germany, and of Alcuin, the chief restorer of learnmg under Karl the Great . Even at home Northumbria had a brilliant king and a brilUant primate in the sons of Eata — King Eadbert (737-758) and Archbishop Egbert (734-766)— though Eadbert's reign ended in disaster. But upon the whole the eighth century is an evil time. Mercia became supreme from the battle of Dunnechtan to the opening of the ninth century. Three strong kings— Ethelbald (716-757), Offa (757-796) and Cenwulf (796- 82 1 ) cover more than a hundred years . As Northumbria decUned after Aldfrid's death in 705, and fell into anarchy after Eadbert's time, Wessex was the only possible rival, and Ethelbald subjected even Wessex in 733. But the West Saxons recovered their in dependence at Burford in 752, and maintained it. Yet in Offa the Mercian power reached its height. He made no attempt to recover Wessex, though he conquered Oxfordshire in 779. His aim was to build up a strong central power between the Humber and the Thames, controlUng East AngUa : and in this he succeeded for a time. Only two of his works need mention here — Offa's dyke, which marked a Umit for the Welsh, and the archbishopric of Lichfield. As he could not always effectually control Kent, he determined to have an archbishop of his own for Mercia and East AngUa. So a comicil at Chelsea in 787 made Higbert of Lichfield an archbishop. But he was the only archbishop of Lichfield, for on his demission in 803 Cenwulf returned to the obedience of Canterbury, Offa had relations, mostly friendly, with Karl the Great THE DANES 25 though he did not Uve to see the imperial coronation at Rome in 800, and it was not till two years later that Karl let loose from his court the exile who was to overthrow the Mercian power, Egbert the West Saxon (802-839) waited his time, and kept the peace for twenty years, except that he did the main work of the conquest of Cornwall, Wessex was now a compact state under a strong ruler; but Mercia fell into confusion after Cenwulf 's death, and Egbert destroyed her power in a single battle at Ellandun in 825, This was decisive : Northumbria submitted without fighting in 829, England was now united, in the sense that the whole country, from the Channel to the Forth, acknow ledged a single overlord at Winchester, But it was a mere con glomerate of subject kingdoms : only the church was a real unity. The under-kings were replaced by earls in Danish times, and the Conqueror broke up the great earldoms into single counties ; but it was long before a sense of national unity grew up in England, The sluggish course of EngUsh history in Mercian times was grimly interrupted by invaders from the north — Scandinavia lay further than Germany from Roman civihzation, and was barely known to Ptolemy as an island of Scandia, In the age of the great migrations it comes out for awhile into the half-lights of legend and saga ; and then we hear little more of it till near the end of the eighth century. The Northmen reappear but little changed, and very like the EngUsh of the past. They were nearly as ferocious pirates, and more enterprising. In a general way, the Swedes went east to the Baltic lands and Russia, the Norse men sailed west to Iceland and the Shetlands, the Orkneys and Caithness, and down by the Hebrides to Ireland and the West of England, while the Danes infested the East coast and both sides of the Channel, and found their way to the shores of Spain and into the Mediterranean, But this is only a rough statement : RoUo of Normandy was a Norseman, and " the army " was often very mixed. Now that the EngUsh had become a nation of lands men, the Northmen had the coasts at their mercy. There was no lack of courage in the EngUsh, but they were seldom quick enough to catch the nimble sea-rovers, and when they did, their hasty levies often had the worst of it. The hardest of the fighting was when the invaders came inland. So the work of the Northmen 26 CHURCH AND STATE in history may be seen partly in the huge slaughter and destruc tion they made, for hardly a city in Gaul or Britain or northern Germany escaped their ravages; partly in the adoption ot the feudal system on the continent as the only means of getting a Ught force to resist them ; partly in their settlement of Normandy and northern and eastern England ; partly again m the conquest from Normandy of England and Sicily. They gave a dynasty to Russia, narrowly missed the capture of Constantinople, and were the main element in the crusading kingdom of Jerusalem. The Northmen (or Danes) are said to have first appeared about 790 on the shore of Wessex. A few years later (793) they struck a dreadful blow by the sack of Lindisfarne, and thenceforth for near three hundred years their invasions never ceased. Egbert in his old age had some hard fighting to do ; and they fully tasked the energies of Ethelwulf his son (839-858). But under the sons of Ethelwulf (858-900) the EngUsh had to fight for bare existence as a people, and for many years they fought with poor success. The Danes captured York in 867, and four years later they over ran East AngUa, slaying King Edmund with their arrows for his refusal to forswear Christ, Year by year the hard struggle grew harder stiU, Three sons of Ethelwulf reigned in succession : the fourth was Alfred (871-900), After the dreadful year of battles with which his reign began, the Danes turned aside for awhile to secure their hold on Mercia and Northumbria, Only Wessex now remained unconquered, and Wessex had to bear alone the brunt of battle. Presently Guthrum and his Danes burst in, and early in 878 drove Alfred to the Isle of Athelney, behind the Somerset marshes. For three months he stood at bay, till the Western counties gathered to him. With one decisive blow he crushed "the army" at Ethandun, Wessex was saved, Guthrum sued for peace, and was required to receive baptism and depart from Wessex. The crisis was over, and Alfred, too, had peace. But peace at a fearful cost. The ill-compacted conglomerate of Egbert's empire had become the prey of Danish kings and jarls, Only Wessex remained in Alfred's hands, to which a few years later (885) he added London and Mercia south-west of Wathng Street. Worse than this, the land lay ruined. The cities had been sacked, the monasteries destroyed, the whole country searched out with fire and sword. The valuables were carried off, and even the necessaries of civiUzed Ufe were destroyed whole- THE DANES 27 sale. Worse again — worse than desolation and slaughter — was the demoralization revealed and deepened in the years of blood shed and confusion. It was almost a relapse to barbarism. We cannot greatly blame the bishops who were the natural leaders of their flocks for leading them against such enemies as these; but they were the worse for doing it. We may guess the state of the lower clergy. Alfred complains that when they had books they did not read them, and now that the books were destroyed along with the monasteries, he found no priest south of the Thames, and very few north of it, who could understand the mass-books. Yet the situation was not entirely bad. The out standing fact was that Wessex had beaten off the Danes. Be sides this, the Danes were not an alien race. They were Teutons, Uke the EngUsh, speaking much the same language and looking up to EngUsh civihzation ; and Alfred had made easy their fusion with the EngUsh by insisting on Guthrum's baptism. If the actual invaders made no very satisfactory Christians, their children soon forgot heathenism, and rose to high place in church and state. Oda of Canterbury (942-958) was a Dane. True, the fusion was not complete till after the Norman Conquest, and the Danelaw country north and east of Watling Street is to this day full of traces of the Danish settlement ; but the Danes have never been a public danger since the eleventh century. This, then, was the state of things which Alfred had to deal with. First he reorganized the army, and afterwards built a fleet. Then he issued a code of laws, chiefly selected from those of his predecessors, Offa of Mercia, Ine of Wessex, and Ethelbert of Kent, but all modified as he thought needful. He starts from moral duties and the Law of God, explaining that the Councils have in Christian mercy commuted the Mosaic penalty of death for money in all cases but that of treason to a man's own lord. Indeed, Alfred was as genuinely reUgious as St. Louis himself, and more free from monkish narrowness. It was a layman's religion, concerned more with substance than with form. But leaming was Alfred's chief care. In past time, as he says, Eng land sent scholars to teach the continent ; now she needed con tinental scholars to teach herself. Tme, there was Plegmund the Mercian, whom Alfred made archbishop : but the rest of his scholars were mostly foreigners — Grimbald from St. Omer, John the Old Saxon, Asser the Welshman. But Latin learning was not 28 CHURCH AND STATE enough. Alfred was convinced that much of the evil had arisen from the want of books in EngUsh ; and this want he set hirnseU to supply. He chose his books for translation in no narrow spirit. Gregory's Pastoral Care was a manual for the clergy. The History of Paulus Orosius was the best available summary of history and geography, and AUred enriched it with Othere's story of his voyage round the North Cape to the mouth of the Dwina, where the modem city of Archangel stands. Bede's Ecclesiastical History gave the EngUsh an account of the beginnings of Christianity in England, while the Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius stood for general edification. Alfred, however, gave it a more Christian turn by reading God for Nature and inserting many character istic remarks of his own. He also set on foot the great Enghsh Chronicle, which begins with Hengest and is continued (in one text) to the end of Stephen's reign . All this work was done, much of it by the king himself, and the rest under his direction. Alfred had given the Danes their first decisive check at Ethan- dun : England was not to be a Danish country. Then for ten long years they ravaged Gaul as they never had ravaged it before, till they were brought to a stop for the second time of their failure in the great siege of Paris (884-887). Neither was Gaul to be a Danish land. Then the tide of war came rolling back on Eng land. But Alfred was prepared, his people had learned his value, and he kept the upper hand through five years (891-896) of sharp fighting. Though the Danelaw helped the invaders, they never brought him into such straits as they did before. The last four years were years of peace. The greatest of EngUsh kings passed away in 900. Edward I comes nearest to him, but Alfred's character was not stained by lawyer-Uke sharp ness and terrific bursts of wrath. Alfred was in his own phrase a mild-hearted king, except where stem justice had to be done on pirates or on traitors to their lords. He had a harder battle to fight than any of the kings that came after him, Edmund Iron side excepted, and he won it. He not only rescued Wessex from the Danes, but laid firm foundations for a power that not only recovered the lost heritage of Egbert, but extended it. Great in war, still greater in peace, and greatest of all in simple sense of duty to his people and his God, Alfred ranks among the few blameless kings whose virtue seems to belong to legend rather than to history. CHAPTER V THE DANE S. — 1 1 The task of the West Saxon kings in the tenth century was the recovery of the Danelaw and the poUtical amalgamation of the Danes with the EngUsh. It was far from easy work, for the Danes as yet were neither firmly settled nor firmly Christian, so that the old viking spirit broke out in continual revolts, helped by their countrymen from Ireland and the North, and often by the Scots and other Celts. But Alfred's successors steadily extended and consoUdated their conquests; and if Edmimd (940-946) was really thrown back on WatUng Street, it was only for a moment. Wessex was never seriously assailed till the general catastrophe under Ethelred the Redeless, in which Edgar's empire vanished as Egbert's empire had vanished before. Alfred's daughter Ethelfled, the " Lady of the Mercians," conquered a good deal of the Western Danelaw, from Runcorn and Chester and Shrewsbury to Derby and Leicester ; and after her death in 918 her brother Edward reduced East AngUa and what was left of Danish Mercia. In 921 he reached and passed Egbert's Umits, for Constantine the Scottish king and the Danes and Northmen of Northumbria and the Welsh king of Strathclyde " chose him to father and lord," This would seem to have been a purely personal relation, roughly answering to the feudal custom of commendation, and not to the homage for land read into it by the lawyers of Edward I, Then came three of Edward's sons, Athelstan (924-940) held a splendid European position. He gave one of his sisters to Otto, the future German king and Roman emperor, though she did not live to wear the imperial crown ; and another to Hugh the Great, duke of France, though neither was she the mother of kings ; and yet another was the wife of Karl the Simple (898-929), Revolts of the Danes were plenty ; and in 937 a great league was formed by " the old de ceiver " Constantine 6f Scots, two Danish Anlafs from Ireland, 29 30 CHURCH AND utaiihj and the king of Strathclyde, Athelstan crushed them aU in the fight of Brunanburh, and the memory of that great victory is enshrined in one of the grandest of the old EngUsh battle-songs. But the work had to be done again by Edmund, and yet again by the ruthless Edred (946-955), At last it seemed complete, for Edgar (959-975) feigned in peace, undisputed lord of all Britam, It was the culmination of the old EngUsh monarchy : yet Edgar is no such glorious figure as Athelstan, He is quite overshadowed by his great statesman and archbishop, Dunstan, Dunstan was born near Glastonbury about 924, and in a high rank of Ufe, Unpleasant experiences at Athelstan's court de cided him to became a monk. He was no ordinary monk; for besides the usual prayers and singing, he devoted himself to music and painting, and made himself so skilful a workman that men accused him of a compact with the Evil One, Edmund gave him the abbey of Glastonbury, at the age of about twenty-one, and he remained in favour with Edred ; but Edwy drove him over the sea in 957, He was soon recalled by Edgar, and after Oda's death received the see of Canterbury in 960, For nearly thirty years he governed the church, and more or less the state also, though it is not easy to judge of his poUtical influence from Lives which his admirers have fiUed with tales of miracle. The chief ecclesiastical question of the time concerned the monks. The disorders of Bede's time had not been improved by the destruction and confusion of the Danish wars. But now there was a new spirit in the world. It was one of the first faint movements of the Hildebrandine Reformation of the next cen tury. The aim of the reforming party was to replace the various rules, almost as numerous as the monasteries themselves, by the one uniform Benedictine rule rigorously enforced. They de sired also to turn the secular canons of the minsters into regulars or monks. These secular canons Uved a common Ufe under vows of chastity and obedience, but not of poverty, so that the monks looked down on them as intruders and half-hearted ascetics. The cehbacy of the clergy, which is a main feature of the full blown movement, was hardly aimed at j'-et, Edgar favoured reform, but twenty years of contest left the work very incom pletely done. It was a bitter contest, Dunstan indeed was too much of a statesman to go the full length of the zealots, or even to turn out the seculars from Canterbury, Ethel wold of THE DANES 31 Winchester was less scrupulous. He not only purified of seculars the minsters of his own diocese, but held a commission from the king to reform others, Oswald of Worcester (afterwards of York also) took the intermediate course of building a new minster with regulars, and leaving the old one of seculars to popular neglect, Edgar the Peaceful died in 975, and his empire perished with him. His successor Edward was foully murdered three years later, and for that murder justice was never done. His step mother Elfrida was more than suspected, and the people canon ized her victim ; but the magnates let her place her own son upon the throne. So we reach the long and miserable reign of Ethelred the Redeless (978-1016), Dunstan soon retired from pubUc life, and died in 988, Then the Danes came back again, more terrible than ever, for behind the pirates great kingdoms had arisen in the North since Alfred's time, and there was now no Alfred to rally his people round him. They still fought stoutly when they found a worthy leader ; but Ethelred was vicious and unjust, his advisers were cowardly, his favourites traitors and double traitors. Even his fits of energy were insanely misdi rected. When the Danes were ravaging England, Ethelred was at one time capturing Carlisle, at another marching on St, David's. For years the Witan did Uttle more than buy off the enemy with constantly increasing Danegelds; and when they built a fleet, it was destroyed by domestic intrigues. At last in 1013 even Wessex and London gave up the contests, Ethelred retired to Normandy, and Christian England bowed for need to Swegen of Denmark, a heathen and a renegade. When Swegen died suddenly — the EngUsh said it was the vengeance of St. Edmund on him — Ethelred recovered his kingdom for a moment : but the Danes returned under Cnut the son of Swegen, and it was more than Ethelred's son Edmund Ironside could do to drive them out, though he fought them with courage and tenacity worthy of Alfred himself. He was forced to accept a partition of the country, and his early death in the autumn of 1016 left Cnut the Dane master of England. She fell into good hands. If Cnut began with bloodshed, he soon settled down into a civiUzed and peaceful EngUsh king. He dismissed " the army," and threw himself on the loyalty of the EngUsh — and not in vain, for they soon learned to love him as 32 CHURCH AND STA'iJ^ they loved the best of their native kings. In 1018 Danes and EngUsh agreed to Uve together under King Edgars laws; and the outward sign of their reconciUation was the solemn bunal at Canterbury of St, Aelfheah (Elphege) the archbishop whom the Danes had slaughtered in the days of Ethelred-riot indeed for Christ's sake, but because he refused them a ransom that would have ruined his people. Cnut was hardly twenty when he began to reign, and well knew that England was better than Denmark. So the Danish conquest of England practically came to something very Uke an English conquest of Denmark. The complaints in Cnut's later years come from Denmark, not from England. Even the Danish guards he still kept were not unpopular. In 1027 he kept himself secure enough to do what no king since Ethelwulf had done before him. In the winter of 1026 he went on pilgrim age to Rome; and, unlike Ethelwulf, he returned in peace to England. His death in 1035 was a national calamity, though no man could yet discern the little cloud that was rising out of the sea towards Normandy. WilUam the Bastard was still a child. On church affairs there is but Uttle to record, Cnut seems to have appointed good men for bishops, though such men were very scarce. Perhaps it was as much necessity as poUcy which so often joined the sees of York and Worcester, The thing for us to note is the lasting mischief done by the great destruction and slaughter of the time of Ethelred the Redeless, It was more than the peace of Cnut could repair. The ruined homesteads might be rebuilt, the stocks replenished, the gaps of population filled ; but nothing could undo the fact that the elders of England after Cnut's death had grown up amidst the shames and horrors of the Danish wars. Small wonder if that generation was unheroic, both in church and state. Its greatest man was Harold Godwineson; and he must have been one of the best generals of his time. The conquest of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn and the march on Stamford Bridge are achievements of the highest order, and even the unsuccessful defence at Senlac does him credit : yet even Harold never showed signs of any such con structive genius as would place him in the foremost rank of EngUsh kings. The sons of Cnut were sons of BeUal, Bad and cruel as they were, they did the best they could for England by dying young. In 1042 the old house came back in the person of Edward the THE DANES 33 son of Ethelred the Redeless, But it came back with a difference, Edward was a man of thirty-seven who had spent most of his Ufe in Normandy, and was a Norman in almost everything but his father's blood. In piety and weakness he reminds us of Henry VI ; but Edward had better health and a narrower mind. The country was governed in the main by the three great earls, Godwine of Wessex, Leofric in Mercia, Siward in Northumbria. Of these Earl Godwine was the greatest in his own time ; and he gave his daughter Edith to the king to wife. As the marriage was childless, Edward's admirers explained that he had preferred ascetic pietism to his plain duty of continuing the royal house. A son of Edward might have reigned without dispute when the crisis came. But Gfodwine's power was shaken by his opposition to Edward's Norman favourites; partly also by the scandalous outlawry (for good cause) of .his eldest son Swegen, and his still more scan dalous restoration. The king carried against him his Norman favourite Robert of Jumi&ges for the see of Canterbury in 1051 ; and in the next year Godwine and his sons were exiled, and the Lady of the EngUsh was sent to a nunnery. But before long the excesses of the Normans made Godwine a national champion, and in 1053 he came back again. Edith returned, Robert of JumiSges fled to the continent, and Stigand of Winchester (still holding Winchester) took the see of Canterbury, though the strict churchmen counted him an intruder, on the ground that the see was not canonicaUy vacant. Godwine died soon after, passing on the king to the gentler guidance of his second son Harold — ^for Swegen was dead. Edward was aUowed to have Norman favourites again, but they were not suffered to control affairs of state. The years passed quietly : it was the calm before the storm. There is Uttle to tell of them but the work of Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester (1062- 1095) in preaching down the Bristol slave-trade. Leofric's place in Mercia was fiUed by his grandson Edwin, and when Siward of Northumbria, the conqueror of Macbeth, died in 1055, Northum bria was given to Harold's brother Tostig, one of Edward's EngUsh favourites. But Tostig was a tyrant, and a rebeUion in 1065 placed Edwin's brother Morcar in the earldom. Thus England was divided. Mercia and Northumbria fell to the house of Leofric, while Harold had Wessex, and the Eastern D 34 CHURCH AND STATE and South-eastern counties were held by his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine. Meanwhile the saintly king was growing old. As his weakness increased, he hurried on the dedication of the West Minster (December 28, 1065), but the Lady Edith had to take his place. On Epiphany eve (January 5, 1066) King Edward died, commending his kingdom and his friends to Earl Harold's care. There could be no doubt of his successor. For twelve years Earl Harold had stood next the throne, Danish royal blood was in him from his mother Gytha, and the House of Cerdic had no better candidate than the atheUng Edgar, a grandson of Edmund Ironside, and no more than a boy. So the next day in a winter morning's dawn the Witan of England buried King Edward ; and then Earl Harold was chosen king and consecrated at mass that day by Aldred of York. It was by the will of the whole Witan that Harold (Jodwineson sat on Alfred's throne; and when Edwin and Morcar accepted him for king, there seemed to be no danger of civil strife. But in the summer two invasions were preparing. Harold Hardrada came from the north, Duke WilUam from the south. Harold Hardrada, " the Thunderbolt of the North," had commanded in the Varangian Guard at Constantinople and fought in almost every land from Sicily to Russia ; and now that he was king of Norway, he came to recover Tostig's earldom for him, and to be himself as Cnut had been, the conqueror of England. But Hardrada himself was less terrible than the duke of the Normans. That WilUam was a bastard would have mattered Uttle in that land of " Danish " marriages if he had not lost his father (1035) at the age of nine. So he grew up in a welter of feudal anarchy, but with a stern determination that there should be no more anarchy in his time. The fierce barons of Normandy quailed before the strongest will in Europe, Wilham spared no man in his wrath : the punishment of revolt was not death indeed, but wholesale confiscation, bUnding, and mutilatiofl. Yet the grim duke was not without a sense of duty, though it grew weaker as he grew older. In most cases he chose good bishops, and he aUowed no lawlessness. Oppressive and cruel as he was, the good peace he kept was regretted in the days of Rufus, Wilham had long had his eyes on England, In 1052 he paid THE DANES 35 a visit to his cousin Edward, who gave him hopes — WilUam said a promise — of the succession. In 1065 he took advantage of a storm which drove Earl Harold to Normandy, and made him swear that he would support his claim. When therefore Harold was chosen by the Witan, WilUam pleaded Edward's promise and Harold's perjury, and further secured the blessing of Pope Alexander II (1062-1073), who was anxious to put down Stigand and bring schismatic England to obedience according to the Hildebrandine model. So the churchmen preached a holy war, the barons hasted to the spoil of England, and a force was col lected far beyond the resources of Normandy itself, Harold watched the south coast, leaving Edwin and Morcar to guard the north, till (September 8) he could no longer feed his sailors, and had to dismiss them. The next news was that Hardrada and Tostig had come up the Humber with three hundred ships, then that they had defeated Edwin and Morcar, and at last that York had surrendered to them. But Harold did not wait for this, Down he flew upon them, " resting neither day nor night," There had been no such march as that since the consul Nero fell on Hasdrubal at the Metaurus (207 b,c,). On September 25, Harold marched from Tadcaster straight through York till he came upon the enemy at Stamford Bridge — ^the last and the greatest of the victories of the West Saxon Dragon stan dard. There Earl Tostig fell, Harold of Norway got his seven feet of EngUsh earth, and the remnant who made peace with Harold of England could man no more than four-and-twenty ships. The danger from the north was for ever ended. But there was WilUam still to reckon with. In that great crisis the south coast was left undefended; and the Normans landed before Harold could get back to London, Hastily filUng the gaps in his ranks, Harold marched southward, and on St, CaUxtus' Day (October 14, 1066) took his stand on the hill of Senlac, Uke WelUngton on the ridge of Waterloo, The fight was a Waterloo, but without the success of Waterloo. All day long the stubborn battle raged ; but in the end King Harold was killed, and Gryrth., and Leofwine, and the Normans held the place of slaughter. The defeat of Senlac was by no means of itself decisive. It made no such desperate situation as that which Alfred or Edmund Ironside had faced. The blow had fallen on Wessex : the rest 36 CHURCH AND STATE of England was hardly touched. Here was the fatal mischief : it was not for want of men that England fell, but for want of leaders. Edwin and Morcar were masters of the situation, and though they allowed Edgar the AtheUng to be chosen king, they only played their own selfish game. They drew off their forces, and made a general submission unavoidable. WilUam received them graciously at Berkhamsted, and the English tried hard to make beUeve that he was a king of their own choice. On Christ mas Day he was crowned at Westminster by Aldred of York. But the Normans mistook the acclamations of the EngUsh for cries of revolt, and rushed out to fire the houses round the Abbey. Amid the noise of tumult and the glare of flames even the Con queror trembled as the trembUng bishops laid the crown on his head. The solemn rite was hurried through, and WiUiam the Bastard was king of the EngUsh. CHAPTER VI THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS. Willelmus Conquestor is rather WilUam the Claimant than WiUiam the Conqueror : and this is the fact which partly shielded the EngUsh from the worst horrors of conquest. If his claims looked imposing to outsiders, they were worthless in EngUsh eyes. If Edward promised him the crown, he promised what he had no right to give. If Harold forswore himself, how did that help WilUam's case? If the Pope had blessed the expedition, what business had the Pope to meddle with EngUsh politics ? According to WilUam's own account, he desired nothing better than to present himself peaceably for election at Westminster; and it was his misfortune that certain men of BeUal had arisen and compelled him to fight at Senlac before he could get to West minster. But this claim obUged him to take the position of a lawfuUy elected EngUsh king. He confirmed aU officials who made their submission, and maintained all the laws he found in force. He stood for law, claiming everything that the kings of the EngUsh had held before him, and nothing that they had not held. When Gregory VII (Hildebrand) complained that Peter's pence were not paid, and demanded homage from him, WiUiam repUed (in substance) : " My predecessors the kings of the EngUsh paid Peter's pence, and therefore so will I ; but my pre decessors the kings of the EngUsh never did homage to the Pope, and therefore neither wiU I." He regrets that Peter's pence had been neglected during his absence in Normandy, promises to collect the arrears and send them to Rome, and finishes by asking for Gregory's prayers. WilUam was the only king in Europe who foiled Hildebrand : and by taking this legal ground, he foiled him without even being rude to him. So far we see no reason why the Norman Conquest should not have ended Uke the Danish, or even more happily, for Cnut began with bloodshed, whereas WiUiam was gracious. But in the first 37 38 CHURCH AND STATE place, the men differed. Cnut was young— about twenty— and plastic to new impressions. WilUam was a man of forty, with character and habits formed and fixed by an eventful reign in Normandy. His endeavours to learn EngUsh did not come to much. So he looked on England from a Norman standpoint, and construed EngUsh institutions by Norman ideas. If their forms remained, they were worked in a different spirit. Besides this, Cnut looked up to his new subjects : WiUiam looked down on them, EngUsh civihzation was without question better than Danish; but was it also higher than the French culture which the Normans had picked up ? The Normans were quite clear on this matter, and despised the EngUsh as unpoUshed rustics : and the highest classes despised them most, because they saw least of them. This one fact is enough to account for abundance of oppression, and abundance of disaffection. Yet the breach between EngUsh and Normans, was not too great for time to heal. There was no great difference of reUgion, or even of race. The Normans were neither Turks nor infidels, j nor even heterodox Celts, but Teutons who, as Freeman would say, had picked up a bad habit of talking French, Intermarriages began at once, at least in the lower ranks, Odelerius the priest of Orleans was settled near Shrewsbury with an EngUsh wife before 1075 ; and his son, the chronicler Orderic VitaUs, always counted himself an EngUshman, though he was sent to the monastery of St, Euroul in Normandy at the age of ten, and never returned to England, The courtiers might scoff at King Henry and his EngUsh wife, but in another generation or two it was seldom possible to distinguish Normans and EngUsh, The antagonism of Normans and " Saxons " in Scott's Ivanhoe is a gross anachronism for the time of Richard Coeur-de-Lion, The worst of the matter was that Duke WilUam did not come alone. The Norman knights and the Norman churchmen looked for their reward in England, and they were not disappointed. In the first place, repeated revolts convinced WilUam that the EngUsh were not to be trusted. He therefore filled offices as they became vacant with Normans and other foreigners, so that before the end of his reign no EngUsh earl was left, and only one EngUsh bishop. What was more than this, a steady poUcy of confisaation after every revolt placed in his hands nearly aU the land of England, so that he could make lavish grants to his THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS 39 knights on feudal tenures. But this feudaUsm was no more than the tenure of land : its vexatious incidents were chiefly developed in the next generation by Rufus and Flambard. In three several ways he checked its tendency to anarchy. He retained the old EngUsh army (thefyrd) as a useful help against the feudal levy. He scattered the fiefs of the great barons all over the coimtry to prevent them from concentrating their forces, though we cannot be quite sure how far he did this with dehberate purpose. Again, in the Gemot of SaUsbury (1086) he imposed on all men capable of bearing arms an oath that they would obey the king against all mesne lords. But after all, the chief security was the king's own strong hand. The chronic disorders of the middle ages never amounted to anarchy in England, except under weak kings. The Norman churchmen also brought new ideas. FamiUar as monasticism was to the EngUsh, they had never taken its asceti6 side very seriously. They looked on it rather as a way of serving God without distraction ; and this view of it suited well the good sense and moderation of the Benedictine Rule. But to Cluny in a darker age this kind of reUgion seemed but half in earnest. The world was not simply an ungodly discord to be avoided, but a Satanic enemy to be fought and conquered. And by the world they meant not only the world of sinners, but God's own creation of earth and air and sea, and most of all the tender relations of this Ufe, on which the higher Ufe must chiefly feed. Hence a new and merciless asceticism, which went unheard-of lengths in austerities and self-inflicted penances. Everything must be otherworldly, and therefore everything selfish, for the man who thinks only of saving his own soul turns charity itself to selfishness, by making it a payment for his sins. The aim, then, of the Hildebrandine Reformation was threefold — to separate the church from the world, to make it independent of the world, and to make it dominant over the world. For the first, the monks were already separated from the world, and needed nothing but a strict Rule and the utter banishment of everything " worldly " from their Ufe, But the secular clergy were connected with the world by ties which would have to be broken. The priest must be holy, and separate from sinners; whereas marriage was not only inconsistent with serious hoUness, but entangled him in family and social relations which were incitements to sin. Therefore marriage must be forbidden to 40 CHURCH AND STATE the clergy. This, however, was more easily said than done, and it was not tiU 1075 that Gregory VII took the decisive step of appeaUng to the people by annulUng aU sacraments performed by married priests. In the next place, the world had a hold on the church, which would have to be broken. Bishops and abbots were great tem poral lords, who received their offices from the kings, and held their lands on feudal tenures. This enabled kings to spoil their revenues during a vacancy, to give spiritual offices for purely poUtical services, and even to sell them for money. For some time the reformers were content with putting down the actual sales (simony), and only after a time they advanced to the pro hibition of appointments by laymen : e. g. the investiture of bishops with the ring and the staff by the king. It must give place to " canonical election," which in the case of bishops had lately come to mean that none but the cathedral clergy were to have a say in the matter. Thirdly, how was this great scheme to be carried out? The church could only overcome the world by ruhng it. The plan was outUned on the False Decretals of the ninth century, which made the priest unassailable to the layman, the bishop to the priest, and gave the Pope a direct supremacy. So Leo IX (1049- 1054) made the Papacy an active international power ; and when Gregory VII had brought the German king to submission (of whatever sort) at Canossa (1077) he might feel that legend would soon complete his victory. The priest also in his humbler sphere was Uf ted far above princes by the new doctrine of Transubstan- tiation, which made him work the most imposing of miracles at every mass he said. It was sacrilege to bring such a man before worldly courts of justice. Here again the process was gradual, Gregory VII himself hardly saw the importance of Transub- stantiation, and the subjection of the laity to the priesthood was not completed till auricular confession was made compulsory in 1215, Two views of the Church and the World have been contending ever since the apostoUc age. According to one, the Church seeks peace with the powers that be, and recognizes the State as ordained of God, and a fellow-helper in the work of righteousness. In the other, the Church is at war with the powers that be, and sees nothing in the State but a diaboUcal device for the promotion of THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS 41 wickedness. It was not unnatural that reformers should take the second view in that age of violence and grossness, Gregory's denunciations of the kings as robbers and sons of robbers might have won applause from the Jacobins, But if the Church wiU have no fellowship with the works of darkness, is it to stand aside and let the World go its own wicked way ? This had been the ascetic plan tiU now ; and it is to the credit of the Hildebrandines that they were not content with such a poUcy of selfishness. No, the Church must rule the World, and turn it into a kingdom of righteousness. It must rule as the soul rules the body — of the ascetic ; or as the rider rules a stubborn beast. It was no fault of the Church if its rule was Ukely to be ungentle. Hard and narrow, as the Hildebrandines were, they had a noble ideal before them. Little could they foresee that the victory of the Church would prove even more corrupting, than the rampart anarchy of the tenth century. Asceticism was the ideal of the age, whatever might be its practice : and with this the Normans were in sympathy. There was a vein of piety in all but a few of the very worst of them, Uke the cruel Robert of Belleme. Even Rufus could be pious — till he got well ; and not a few of the fiercest kmghts gave up a Ufe of rapine and slaughter for the peaceful obedience of the cloister. Nor was piety confined to the monastery. Men Uke Gulbert of Hugleville, Roger of Toesny, and Herlwin as a layman, seem to have been as good saints as any that were canonized. And the Norman was before aU things a man of might — a mighty eater, a mighty drinker, a mighty fighter, a mighty builder, a mighty ruler, and upon occasion a mighty penitent and saint. But neither WilUam nor the Normans generaUy admired all things Hildebrandine without distinction. Setting aside such crimes as the invasion of England and the desolation of the North, WilUam was in the main a righteous king with a real sense of duty and a real interest in reUgion, and much respect for the Pope and other holy men. His Ufe too was pure, and he never sold a bishopric. These were merits which even from the Hildebrandine point of view might cover many shortcomings. But shortcomings there were. True, he secured the Pope's blessing on his expedition, and as soon as things were fairly settled, he sent for legates from Rome in 1070 to repeat his coronation, to get rid of the schismatic Stigand, and to place the 42 CHURCH AND STATE Lombard Lanfranc in Augustine's chair. Thenceforth legates and church councils were frequent. The bishoprics also were gradually filled with foreigners Uke the earldoms, so that after 1075 Wulfstan of Worcester stood out conspicuously as the only EngUshman left in high position. In that year the sees which lay in viUages were ordered to be removed to important towns. Thus, Sherborne, Selsey, Lichfield, Dorchester (on Thames), Wells, and Elmham gave place to Old Sarum, Chichester, Chester, Lincoln, Bath, and Thetford (before long Norwich), Another important concession to the church was the separa tion of the spiritual from the secular courts. Until now the bishop and the earl sat side by side in the shire-moot, and judged all causes jointly. But WilUam, apparently in 1076, ordered that the bishop should hold a court of his own, and administer Canon Law, Spiritual cases to the spiritual court, secular to the secular, seemed a simple rule, and answered pretty well as long as church and state were on friendly terms ; but it covered a dangerous ambiguity, A secular offence by a secular person or a spiritual offence by a spiritual person were clear cases, and there was no dispute that a spiritual offence by a secular person must go to the spiritual court : but what was to be done if a spiritual person committed a secular offence? The king must hang murderers, but the church would neither hang a priest nor allow a layman to hang him. And as the priests did their share of the murders, the question was certain soon to become acute. In fact, WilUam was not quite sound on any one of the three great Hildebrandine positions. A Council in 1076 ordered that no cleric should marry, and that no married man should be ordained; but its refusal to disturb existing marriages gave up the principle that marriage and priesthood are incompatible. As regards lay investitures, he not only appointed bishops himself, but gave them the ring and the staff and required them to do homage and perform their feudal services. In short, WilUam was fuUy determined to be master in England. With aU his reverence for Pope and Church he kept their action within very definite Umits. No pope was to be recognized and no papal 1, letters were to be received without his consent. No council 1 was to enact a canon without his consent given beforehand. / None of his barons or servants were to be excommunicated ' without his consent. If these three rules ascribed to him by THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS 43 Eadmer were not formally laid down they certainly express his practice. That Wilham was able to hold his ground in this way was chiefly due to his choice of Lanfranc for his primate and spiritual father. Lanfranc in his early years had been a great lawyer at Pavia. Thence he found his way across France to Normandy, and became a monk in Herlwin's monastery of Bee. He soon made his name as the best teacher in Europe. Anselm was his disciple, Berengar of Tours, the heretic, he twice convicted of denjdng Transubstantiation. This was the man whom WilUam chose in 1070, for the primacy of England — a keen dialectician, with a dialectician's hardness and a foreigner's disUke of the Enghsh. He would not aUow that Elphege was a martyr till Anselm convinced him. But Lanfranc was also an able bishop and a born diplomatist. WilUam and he were strong men who fuUy understood each other and agreed not to quarrel. They were both zealous for the church, but neither the one nor the other was a zealot of the church. So they managed somehow to avoid all the burning questions. If a cleric committed a murder, no question of jurisdiction was allowed to arise ; and if a bishopric was vacant, WilUam and Lanfranc agreed on their man, and nobody dreamed of refusing investiture from the king. But this harmony required a churchly king Uke WiUiam and a diplomatic archbishop Uke Lanfranc : it remained to be seen what would become of it with a blasphemer for king and a saint for primate. The last scenes of Wilham's reign were stormy Uke the first. The last of his evil deeds, and one of the worst, was the merciless destruction of Mantes in 1087. A stumble of his horse among the smoking ruins brought him to his end. The Conqueror was not even laid to rest in peace : the very ground for his grave was challenged as unjustly seized, and had to be paid for before the service could proceed. Of his sons, Robert was well-meaning and a vahant knight, but too weak and too wasteful to keep any sort of order in his duchy of Normandy He was more than any one the hero of the First Crusade, and refused the kingdom of Jerasalem before it came to Godfrey of Boulogne ; but his Ufe as a whole was a miserable failure. WilUam, called Rufus from his florid face, was essentially a captain of mercenaries. He had his father's vigour and military skill, but nothing of his father's 44 CHURCH AND STATE tenacity, and nothing of his sense of duty. Rufus was a creature of impulse, who always overcame his enemies and never earned out his plans. As a ruler he kept good peace, but for his contempt of justice and the Ucence he allowed his following. His conver sation was mostly sneering and outrageous blasphemy, and his private Ufe was stained by vices too foul for mention. Tl;ie Uttle that can be said for him is that he was a good son, that he was not a lover of cruelty, and that he had a point of honour, though no oaths could bind him. Men of that age were used to wickedness, but even they stood aghast at the shameless and defiant wicked ness of one " who feared God but Uttle, and man not at aU." Rufus was accepted at once in England, but within the year most of the barons were in revolt. Men who had lands in England and in Normandy naturally wished both countries to be under one ruler, and that ruler to be Robert, who would let them do what they Uked. But WilUam had Lanfranc and Wulfstan — ^the church and the EngUsh — on his side, and the great rebeUion did not come to very much. Rufus could afford to be merciful. In fact, he was not only a strong ruler in England, but more of a conqueror than any of his next six successors. His capture of CarUsle in 1092 fixed the northern frontier of England. In 1097 he wrested Scotland from the hostile power of Donaldbane, and set up Edgar as a vassal king, the first of the three sons of Margaret who made Norman influence dominant in Scotland. In Wales the Lords marcher nearly conquered South Wales, and for a moment Gwynedd also. With true Norman insight they had seized the key of the position in Anglesea, and were only driven out by a chance attack from Magnus of Norway, the ally of Donaldbane (1098). Rufus himself however failed Uke Henry II in his frontal attacks on Snowdon. But wars require money, and the exactions of Rufus were in the highest degree oppressive. After Lanfranc's death in 1089 the primacy was kept vacant, and the King's chief minister was Ranulf Flambard, a man with a genius for making money out of the King's feudal rights. During a baron's Ufetime every point was stretched in the king's favour by fair means or by foul; and after his death the king dilapidated the fief at his pleasure during the vacancy, and made the heir pay an extor tionate rehef to get possession of it. Or if the heir was a minor, THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS 45 the king might seU the wardship or the daughter's marriage to the highest bidder. " He would be every man's heir." These exactions naturally fell most heavily on the church. Bishops were barons, and the only difference Rufus cared to see was that their fiefs could be more easily wasted during a vacancy, because there was no heir clamouring for admission. So he kept sees vacant for years together, enjoj^ng and wasting their revenues at his leisure, unless he found that he could sell them to advantage. It was rapidly becoming a question, not whether pope or king was to govern the church, but whether Rufus would leave any church to be governed at all. In England at all events the Hildebrandine churchmen had some reason for entirely repudiating feudal obhgations which the King system atically misused. Canterbury in particular remained vacant. It was quite understood that Anselm was to be chosen when a choice was made, for to do Rufus justice, nobody imagined that he would choose a weak primate. But if the barons wanted the first place in their order fiUed up, Rufus wanted no spiritual father and adviser. At last they asked permission for pubUc prayers, that God would put it into the King's heart to fiU the vacant see. " You may pray as you please, but I shaU do as I please." For four years this went on, tiU in 1093 Rufus feU dangerously sick at Gloucester. Now he was all penitence and wilUngness to redress the wrongs he had done. Anselm was brought to the King's bedside, and the ring and the staff were forced upon him. As soon as Rufus was himself again, he broke all his promises, exacted afresh the moneys he had forgiven, and blasphemed worse than ever : but the choice of Anselm he allowed to stand. The outlines of Anselm's career is not unUke that of Lanfranc, Born at Aosta beneath the Alps in 1033, Anselm also wandered across Burgundy and France to become a monk at Bee, He succeeded Lanfranc as prior, Herlwin as abbot in 1078, and now he took Lanfranc's place at Canterbury, But here the Ukeness ends. If Lanfranc was the greatest lawyer of his time, Anselm is unsurpassed in the middle ages as an original thinker. In his Monologion and Proslogion he had already set forth his new ontological proof of the existence of God— that the idea of perfection within impUes a perfect Being without. In his 46 CHURCH AND STATE Cur Deus Homo, which he wrote as primate in exile, he developed a new theory of the Atonement, based on the Roman law of debt. If Anselm's reasoning is not quite successful, it was a vast advance on earUer theories of a ransom paid to the Father, or of a transaction by which the devil was cheated. Again, Lanfranc was a diplomatist and a statesman who always knew how far he could go : Anselm was a saint — one of the few gentle saints of the middle ages. A more irritating opponent could hardly have been found for such a man as Rufus, To a blame less character and unruffled temper Anselm added an inflexible sense of duty and an utter want of worldly pmdence. If Rufus picked a quarrel, Anselm generaUy took it up by throwing down an ultimatum which left no room for diplomacy. Quarrels in great variety broke out at once, but- there was no decisive rupture till 1095. There had been a schism in the church since the days of Gregory VII, and up to this time neither Gregory's successor Urban II nor the antipope Guibert of Ravenna had been recognized in England. But Urban was obeyed in Normandy, and Anselm had stated from the first that he could not cease to obey him when he came to England. Rufus held to his father's custom, that the king, not canon law, must decide who was pope in England, so that Anselm would be traitor if he went to Urban for his paU. The Great Council met at Rockingham in 1095. Anselm had the bishops against hipi ; and when they threatened him, " I wiU answer as I ought, and where I ought." This meant an appeal to Rome — the first serious appeal from England since Wilfrid's. It was not abso lutely the first, for WilUam of St. Calais, bishop of Durham, had appealed in 1088. But that appeal was neither made nor taken seriously. Lanfranc evaded it, and now WiUiam was actually leading the attack on Anselm. Rufus had a fair case with the barons, till he threw it away by threatening them so recklessly that in sheer self-defence they swayed round to the side of Anselm. In the end they refused to condemn him : and so did the bishops, though only on the technical plea that they could not judge their metropoUtan. Only, to please the King, they disowned Ansebn's authority and renounced his friendship. For the first time since the Conquest, the King was checked in his own Council. Foiled at home, Rufus turned to the Pope. If he made the appeal, Anselm might be deposed. Urban THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS 47 repUed that he could not receive the appeal till he was recog nized as Pope. Rufus had to concede this ; and then the Pope decided in Anselm's favour. Rufus had failed at every point. He had offended the barons, disgraced the bishops, and himself made the appeal to Rome which he ought by all means to have prevented ; and after all, Anselm was firmly seated in his place. In the final quarrel also (1097) Rufus threw away a fair case by indecision and petty mahce. The Conqueror's custom was that a bishop should not go to Rome without his leave : and if Anselm could say that he needed to consult the Pope, the King might well reply that the primate was a poUtical person who could do mischief abroad. However, when Anselm asked permission, Rufus refused him more than once ; and when he said that he must go in any case, Rufus accepted his blessing, and did not forbid him. But he ordered his baggage to be searched on the sea-shore and seized the lands of the see, dilapidating them in his usual way. In 1095 the First Crusade was proclaimed at the Council of Clermont. The crusades brought East and West together, yet sharpened the antagonism of Latins to Greeks and MusUms : they combined the nations for a common purpose, yet separated them by a closer knowledge of their differences. But they mark a new development of church doctrine. Hitherto sins are paid for by good works, and ascetic observances are by far the most effective of good works. Henceforth forgiveness of sins is promised to the crusader; and the knights of Latin Europe found this a much pleasanter way to heaven than the painful routine of a monastery. England indeed was never very generally touched by the crusading enthusiasm, and of all men Rufus was least Ukely to care what became of the Holy Sepulchre. But Robert of Normandy took the cross, and raised the needful money by pledging his duchy to Rufus, who there upon entangled himself in wanton and resultless wars with HeUas of Maine and PhiUp of France. StiU greater schemes of conquest opened out when WilUam of Poitou foUowed Robert's example, and pledged his duchy of Aquitaine. Rufus was pre paring to take possession of it when the unknown arrow in the New Forest (August 2, 1100) cut short his career of wickedness. His burial was an astonishment, for men felt instinctively that the rites of the church were not fitting for so foul a sinner. No 48 CHURCH AND STATE bell was rung, no mass was said, no prayer was ventured by the wondering crowd which laid the Red King's carcase to its unhonoured rest in Winchester cathedral. The atheUng Henry rode straight from the hunting-field to Winchester to seize the royal treasure. Next day he got a few barons to elect him, and two days later (August 5) he was hastily crowned at Westminster by Maurice of London. The new King was now a man of thirty, born on EngUsh soil and hailed as EngUsh in spirit by the EngUsh. Cool and calculating as Rufus was reckless and wanting in self-respect, Henry had neither the mihtary genius of Rufus nor his point of honour, nor yet his nameless vice. Morally he may have been rather the worse man of the two. His Ufe was scandalous, his promises untrust worthy, and he could show a cold calculated cruelty unknown to Rufus. On the other hand, he made a much better king. A calm and gracious manner thinly veiled his father's iron wiU and tenacious purpose; and if he had not inherited the Con queror's sense of duty, he was shrewd enough to see that good order and heavy taxation paid better than the irregular exactions of Rufus. As a man of business and as a diplomatist he far exceUed his predecessors; and chiefly in this way he gave England peace for more than thirty years. The first measures of the new reign declared its character. Within a week or two a charter was issued, Flambard thrown into prison, Anselm recalled. In the charter the King recites that the kingdom had been oppressed by evil customs, promises that the lands of the church shall not be wasted, that feudal aids shall be reasonable, and Umited to the customary cases, that rights of wardship and marriage shall not be abused, nor extor tionate reUefs exacted. Fines in the king's courts shall be reasonable, peace maintained, and the laws of King Edward enforced, subject to the Conqueror's amendments. And what the king grants to his own vassals, they shall grant to theirs. Only on the forest laws Henry relaxes nothing of his father's severity. The ruUng class in England has always been speciaUy tenacious of its hunting rights. If Henry was not strict in observance of the Charter, his government usually went by law, and his Charter foreshadowed and outUned the Great Charter of John. Meanwhile the Anselm who returned in September was very unUke the Anselm who THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS 49 left England in 1097. He had heard the decree of the Lateran Council against lay investiture, and meant to carry it out. Not that he was troubled with personal scruples : it was simply a matter of duty. He had himself accepted investiture from Rufus, and he was quite mlUng to ignore the decree if the Pope's consent could be gained : but so long as it was the law of the church, Anselm was inflexible. So was Henry; but he never allowed things to come to an unseemly quarrel. Henry began by demanding homage before restoring the possessions of the see. If it was his father's custom, Anselm rephed that the church had forbidden it. But he was not unfriendly : he accepted Henry's proposal to refer the question to the Pope. So the King gained time. First he married Edith the daughter of Edgar AtheUng's sister Margaret of Scotland : and Anselm helped him in this by his decision that though Edith had sometimes worn the veil as a protection, she was not a nun, and was therefore free to marry. Edith (or as queen, Matilda) was personally insignificant : but the King's marriage into the old royal house marks a stage in the fusion of Normans and EngUsh. Then there was the old danger from Robert, who had returned with glory from Jerusalem and resumed his duchy. Once again most of the barons wanted him for king; but the church and the EngUsh held to Henry as they had held to Rufus, and Robert gave up his claims for a pension (1101). But Henry had stiU to face the revolt of the three great Mont gomery earls of Shrewsbury, Lancaster, and Pembroke, with the Welsh behind them, and half the baronage only held back by fear from helping them. A hard struggle was needed before their leader, the able Robert of BeUeme, could be deprived of his Shrewsbury earldom (1102). But after that, there was peace in England for more than thirty years. Meanwhile Henry had been spinning out negotiations at Rome. But Pope Paschal would not relax the law of the church forbidding lay investiture. So in 1103 Henry proposed a new plan. Would Anselm go himself to Rome and try what he could do? He went, failed, and received a hint not to return tiU he could accept the Conqueror's customs. So Henry kept him out of the kingdom without any open breach. Negotiations went on till both parties were ready for concessions. The church had gone too far in forbidding homage, while Henry 50 CHURCH AND STATE found his own nominees refusing to accept investiture from him. An agreement was reached in 1105, but it was not ratified tiU after Henry's victory of Tinchebrai and conquest of Normandy in 1106. On the Hildebrandine theory the bishop must be entirely independent of the king. He must be chosen by the church according to church law, he must rule his diocese according to church law, and he must hold the possessions of the see without homage or duty to the king. In a word, he must be indepen dent, both spiritually and temporally. Now the King did not claim to meddle with purely spiritual functions; but he could not give up the feudal duties of those great fiefs, or allow them to fall into unfriendly hands. So now the King, gave up the investiture with the spiritual symbols of the ring and the staff, while the church withdrew its demand that the bishop should do no homage and owe no feudal duties. The election might be made according to church law, but it must be held in the king's presence, and the bishop was not to be consecrated tiU he had done homage. Thus the King gave up a ceremony, and controlled the bishops as before : the church won a principle, but advanced no practical step towards its ideal. The rest of Henry's reign (1107-1135) was for England a time of peaceful development in church and state. The papal power grew steadily, and indeed the strongest of kings could hardly make head against it without a real nation behind him. The Pope's claims were not left unchallenged by imperiaUst writers on the continent and by Gerard of York in England : but even Gerard of York allowed that the Vicar of Christ had a right to regulate the EngUsh churches, and ended by going over entirely to the papal side. The Pope was not sustained only by definite doctrine and indefinite awe of Rome, but by the forces of the whole army of persons in reUgion, inspired by an organized system of education and of church law which directly traversed the Erastian and national church poUcy of the Anglo-Norman kings. As the Norman Conquest had more or less assimilated the state to continental models, so the ecclesiastical movement was making the church more Uke foreign churches. The gain was of the same sort in both cases ; and so was the loss. Much was doubtless gained when the country was brought into closer touch of the great world of Latin thought and action beyond THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS 51 the sea; but something was also lost when a stop was put to the natural development of EngUsh reUgion and Uterature, If it was good that the sluggish islanders should feel the thriU of continental enthusiasms, it was not good that new thoughts should come to them in foreign dress and foreign language. The balance may not be so easy to strike as some suppose ; but upon the whole it was good that cathoUc and papal ideas should encroach for the present on a royaUst and national system worked by rapacious kings unchecked by national control. The changes of these years merely developed admitted prin ciples, and partly removed some checks on papal action in England, As early as 1102, when Henry was temporizing with Anselm, he allowed him to hold a council and pass a canon entirely forbidding marriage to the clergy, so that a priest who refused to put away his wife was not to be recognized as a priest at aU, Lanfranc had thought it enough to prevent future marriages, but Anselm carried out the whole theory with merci less cruelty by breaking up existing marriages, A further canon disinheriting sons of priests was equaUy futile. There is ample evidence that most of the secular clergy all through the middle ages Uved in a state which lacked nothing of marriage but the sanction of the church, Henry professed zeal for the good cause, and allowed the canon to be renewed in 1127; but he only wanted to levy a tax on the women which might pass for a penalty on the practice, but was also a Ucence for its con tinuance. The other canon was just as futile : sons of priests often held bishoprics, Uke the sons of Roger of SaUsbury and Samson of Worcester, Upon the whole, there was Uttle prac tical change : only the marriages of priests were now officially called by a bad name. This, however, was enough to debase society generally, for it did worse than demoraUze the priest hood by an unnatural colUsion of church law with the plain intent of God that men generally should marry. It poisoned all the pure family relations of the laity by its perpetual sugges tion that the marriage from which they spring is inconsistent with serious hoUness, In vain they called it holy, and in the thirteenth century made it a sacrament : the refusal of it to the clergy made it practically unholy for the laity, Anselm was one of the few gentle saints of the middle ages- there are very few outside the mystics — and yet his sense of 52 CHURCH AND STATE duty made him harder than the lawyer Lanfranc. He was rapidly becoming as quarrelsome as St. Thomas himself. His death in 1109 was followed by a five years' vacancy, and then came two weak primates— Ralph of Escures (1114-1122) and WilUam of Corbeil (1123-1138). They saw a considerable re laxation of the Conqueror's rule, that no communication from Rome was to be received without his approval. In 1125 a papal legate, John of Crema, came to England, held a visitation, and presided in a council. The mischief, however, was mitigated by the appointment of WilUam of Corbeil as permanent legate (legatus natus) in England, and after an interval in Stephen's time, the two offices were combined in the person of each successive archbishop. It was thus made impossible for one of his suffragans to rank before him as Henry of Winchester ranked before Theobald; but there was a great confusion of discipUne and a great increase of appeals to Rome when the highest dignity of the EngUsh church was not the primacy of England, but the commission of a Roman legate. The succession question became urgent when Henry's only son, the atheUng WilUam, perished (1120) in the wreck of the White Ship. By far the best choice would have been the King's natural son, the able and cultured Robert of Gloucester, the Lord of Glamorgan and the patron of WiUiam of Malmesbury. But the age of " Danish marriages " was past : the bar sinister was now a fatal obstacle. Presently Henry's plans centred on his daughter Matilda, widow since 1125 of the emperor Heinrich V, and married again in 1129 to Geoffrey count of Anjou. Twice the barons swore to her, headed by the King's nephew Stephen of Boulogne. But feudal ideas would not suffer a woman to reign, though her husband might govern for her, and she might transmit her rights to a son. In this case, however, the future Henry II was only two years old, and the Angevin was an im possible governor for England. So the moment Henry was dead (December 1, 1135) Stephen crossed to England and seized the crown, and all went weU with him tiU his weakness was found out. Personally, Stephen was much the most attractive of the Anglo-Norman kings. Like Robert of Normandy, he was generous and weU-meaning, and a splendid fighter ; and unhke Robert he saw his duty, and strove with restless energy to do THE ANGLO-NORMAN KINGS 53 it. There was no sloth in him. But Stephen never knew where to strike, and scarcely ever struck straight and hard. He had the instabiUty of Rufus without his miUtary genius. His pro mises were not to be trusted; and he broke them for weakness, not for poUcy. Above aU, he was chivalrous to a fault, and much too mild for that turbulent baronage. When treason is a safe game, there are many to play it. StiU he got on pretty well till the arrest of the three bishops in 1139. By one blow he had destroyed the administration and quarrelled with the church. His own brother Henry of Winchester went over to Matilda : and Henry was the leader of the EngUsh church, for the legate's commission had wandered for once to Winchester, leaving a secondary place to the new primate, Theobald of Bee. Stephen lost control of the situation, and never regained it; and when Matilda's turn came, she proved even more incapable than Stephen. So the wretched civil war dragged on, and neither side was strong enough to put an end to it. Feudal anarchy reigned. There is just one splendid feat of arms to iUuminate this miserable time and show that the EngUsh people were better than their lords. The Second Crusade in 1147 went off with pomp and circumstance to the East. It had kings for its leaders — Louis of France and Conrad of Germany — and the brilhant array straggled in disorder to an ignominious failure. The EngUsh crusaders had no leaders of the first or even of the second rank ; but they kept strict discipUne, and their capture of Lisbon in 1147 is the one success that reUeves the dismal failure of the Crusade as a whole. The true meaning of the nineteen years that pass for Stephen's reign is in their educational and reUgious movements, 'We are coming to the age of Bernard and Abelard, of Vacarius and Gratian, John of Sahsbury and Nicolas of Langley, to the begin nings of Oxford and the codification of the canon law by the Decretum of Gratian, For Uterature, we are in the fuU tide of romantic imagination which seemed let flow by the wonderful story of the First Crusade, We already have the Chanson d'Antioch and the Gesta, and we shaU soon have the whole romance of Charlemagne and Arthur; and a Uttle later comes chivalry shaped by the ideas of Welsh song which the Normans chose with their unerring instinct to spread upon the continent. But all this was in French, The last entry of the last MS. of the 54 CHURCH AND STATJi old EngUsh Chronicle describes the horrors of the anarchy to 1154; and thenceforth we have no more EngUsh for another century. Stephen's reign is the great age of new orders and new monas teries in England, The Cluniacs were going the way of the Benedictines and sinking, if not into vice, at aU events into luxury and a sleepy routine. The decUne of Cluny began with the death of Abbot Hugo in 1109, and its place was soon taken by Citeaux, from which the influence of St, Bernard overshadowed Europe, The first of the new orders to reach England was the Norman order of Savigni; and their first house was Furness Abbey, founded by Stephen himseK in 1124, when only Count of Mortain, Then came the Cistercians in 1129 and 1131 to Waverley (Hants) and Rievaux, The two orders were united in 1147. There was also the purely EngUsh order founded by Gilbert of Sempringham in 1131, chiefly for women, though it had canons for teachers and chaplains, and lay brethren to do the menial work. Robert of Gloucester died in 1147, and Matilda retired to Normandy. Stephen had now the upper hand, and might have flnished the war if the barons had not preferred their game of anarchy. At last the church went over to the Angevin side. For some years the primate Theobald was chiefly occupied with the school of students he had gathered round him : at last he came forward as peace-maker. The first step was to bring back the legate's commission from Winchester to Canterbury, where it remained. Then Theobald refused to prolong the strife by crowning Stephen's son Eustace. At last, when Henry Fitz- Empress came over to England in 1153, Theobald negotiated the Treaty of Wallingford. Stephen was to remain king for his life, and Henry (Eustace was just dead) was to be the King's adviser and successor. The mercenaries on both sides were to be disbanded, good peace was to be restored, and all the un licensed castles were to be destroyed. Stephen was more of a king now than he had ever been before ; but he had- not done much more than begin the work of restoring order at his death in 1154. CHAPTER VII THE ANGEVINS, — I Henry Fitz-Empeess — they called Matilda the Empress, though she was never crowned at Rome — was born at Angers in 1133, At the age of nine he was brought to England to spend four years in study at Bristol, under the care of his cultured uncle Robert of Gloucester, In 1150 he was thought old enough to receive the duchy of Normandy from his father Geoffrey, who had conquered it during the anarchy. Next year Geoffrey's death made him Count of Anjou; and in 1152 his marriage with Eleanor the heiress of Aquitaine, just divorced by Louis VII of France, gave him the whole country from the Loire to the Pyrenees, His title to England was acknowledged by the Treaty of WalUngford, and Stephen's death in 1154 put him in possession. Thus the empire of the Angevins had four main parts- England, Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine — each with sundry dependencies, all held on Afferent tenures, all hostile to each other, all full of disorderly barons. Such as it was however the conglomerate was no unequal match for the Holy Roman Empire in the strong hands of Frederick Barbarossa (1152-1190) while France was a second-rate power. The transfer of Aquitaine by Eleanor made Henry much stronger on the continent than his suzerain; and his poUcy was mainly continental, England was no more than an item — an important though only a sub ordinate item — of a great empire. Of this continental poUcy two parts chiefly concern us. One is the steady hostiUty of Louis VII to his overgrown vassal : and with all his weakness, personal as weU as poUtical, Louis had a great advantage in being Henry's suzerain for every foot of land he held on that side of the Channel, The other is that when Barbarossa fell out with Alexander III (1159-1181) the Pope drew his chief suppUes from England, so that he could 65 56 CHURCH AND STATE not afford to quarrel with Henry, On the other hand, when Henry feU out with Thomas of Canterbury, the EngUsh church was so clear for Alexander that neither could Henry venture to quarrel with the Pope, So the negotiations closely foUowed the ups and downs of the war in Italy. When Frederick seemed to carry aU before him, Thomas was sent back to his books at Pontigny: when Frederick's army was destroyed by the pestilence, Alexander could take a bolder poUcy. The new King's first duty in England was to put an end to the anarchy. So he began by demolishing the unUcensed castles, sending away the mercenaries, and reorganizing the adminis tration shattered by Stephen's arrest of the three bishops in 1139. This done, and the conquest of Ireland adjourned, he , stood ready for the main work of his life — ^Henry's conception \ of good government required the complete subordination of the ! feudal army, the feudal courts, and the spiritual courts to the royal power. The feudal levy was disorderly at best, and a service of forty days was not enough for serious operations Uke sieges of the strong castles now beginning to be built. Henry therefore balanced it first with mercenaries, whom however he could not bring into England, then by remodelhng the old national army or fyrd which had survived the Norman Conquest. It was of some value in the field, though not yet the formidable force it became when the longbow was adopted from South Wales ; and it was at any rate entirely at the King's disposal. Money for the mercenaries he found by developing the system of tscutage — by first allowing and then compelling the barons to pay money instead of doing their forty days of feudal service. It soon became a regular and oppressive tax on land generally. The anarchy of the feudal courts, each with its own idea of law, he abated partly by withdrawing certain chief causes to the King's Court, partly by extending the use of itinerant justices. In this way he made a notable advance towards the idea of having no army but the king's, no law but that of the King's Court. The last great revolt of the barons was crushed with ease in 1174; and thenceforth the monarchy was supreme. It survived even the exactions of Richard, and only broke down under the oppression of John : and when it did break down, a chief element of resistance was the national consciousness called forth by Henry's systematic use of local knowledge to assess the taxes. THE ANGEVINS 57 He was less successful with the Church. Henry Fitz-Empress came of no very churchly stock on either side, and the church men awaited his pohcy with some anxiety. The primate Theobald looked round his school for a safe man to place at the king's right hand, and chose his own archdeacon Thomas. The future saint came of an undistinguished Norman family; and though his father had once been sheriff of Middlesex, he had been reduced in Ufe. Young Thomas entered the service of Theobald, and went more than once on important missions to Rome. In particular, he had a share in the return of the legate's commis sion from Winchester to Canterbury, and in the Pope's refusal to aUow the coronation of Eustace. After a year's study of law at Bologna and Auxerre, he became archdeacon of Canterbury in 1154, and in the next year was made chancellor by Henry. If the chanceUor ranked after the justiciar, his office was even more important. It was entirely secular, except that he had the care of the King's chapel, and administered the estates of vacant bishoprics and abbeys. He was a general secretary of state in charge of the King's Seal, supervising all charters and all orders of the Curia Regis and the Exchequer. In addition to this, Thomas became the King's close personal friend, and chief counsellor in all his doings — except his amours, for in that regard Thomas was blameless. He made a brilUant chancellor. His embassy to Paris in 1158 was of splendour beyond all prece dent, and in the next year he brought seven hundred knights to the war of Toulouse. Once the stout chancellor unhorsed Engelram de Trie with his own hand. Nor did his worldly Ufe cause much scandal, for Thomas as yet was no more than a deacon. Theobald died in 1162 : and now who but Thomas for primate ? Who would help the King so weU as he ? Henry quite mistook his friend, for with aU his love of pomp and vanities, Thomas was at bottom devoted to the Church. In vain he warned the King that the duties of his new office would turn their friendship to bitter enmity. In vain the zealous churchmen (understand ing Thomas no better than the King) protested against having so worldly a man for the primacy. Henry would be obeyed, and in due course Thomas was made priest and primate (June 2, 1162), first securing from the King a full quittance of his accounts as chancellor. 58 CHURCH AND STATE When a man of business reaches high spiritual dignity, he sometimes magnifies his office by taking as a matter of course the highest church doctrine he finds, and working it out as a matter of conscience with a true theorist's disregard of charity and moderation. So Thomas turned out more impracticable than Ansehn, though it must be allowed that Henry in his fury was worse than Rufus. Thomas was sincere enough, and fought for the highest of current ideals — ^there is nothing against him but his reckless violence and unforgiving temper. With aU his austerities, his saintUness was never quite natural. The Old Adam of the brilUant chanceUor came out too often. In his flight from England he nearly betrayed himself by his knowing criticism of a hawk; and the last altercation in Canterbury cathedral began with a blow of his fist which laid Fitz-Urse on the pavement. Yet if a fair cause and dauntless courage are enough to make a saint, Thomas was not unworthy to become for three hundred years and more the most renowned of EngUsh saints. Thomas began by resigning the chanceUorship. He could not serve two masters, and was not prepared to forward the King's further plans. Next year (July 1163) an open quarrel broke out in a great council at Woodstock, The cause is obscure, but the King seems to have proposed that certain moneys then paid to the sheriffs should now be paid into the royal treasury. For some reason Thomas indignantly refused, and the proposal had to be dropped. In minor matters also Thomas was aggressive and unconciUatory, and at every opportunity pushed the claims of the Church to the uttermost. It was not long before a second great quarrel arose. This time it was over the old question of jurisdiction between the spiritual and secular courts, which the Conqueror had left un settled. What, then, was to be done with a cleric who com mitted murder ? The Church could not shed blood, and it had now fully estabUshed its claim that a priest can in no case be judged by a layman. The King proposed to save " Church principles " by allowing the spiritual court to decide the question of guilt, but requiring it to degrade a convicted priest and hand him over as a layman to the secular court for punishment, Thomas repUed that no crime could deserve more than degrada tion, and moreover it was forbidden to punish twice for the THE ANGEVINS 59 same offence. The King shifted his ground. Would the bishops observe the old customs of the realm ? Yes, saving their order — which meant No. But the bishops were not resolute, and the Pope was an exile in France, chiefly anxious to secure Henry's support against the emperor. So Thomas gave up his proviso, on the understanding that his promise was to be no more than a form. The next step was to ascertain what the old customs were. The sixteen Constitutions which the King laid before the Great Council at Clarendon amount to a general settlement in his own favour of the outstanding questions between Church and State. Amongst other things : Questions of advowson, even between clerics, must be decided by the King's Court. Criminous clerics were to be dealt with nearly as the king had already proposed. Magnates were not to leave the kingdom without the king's Ucence. No tenant in capite (direct vassal of the king) to be excommunicated without what amounted to the king's consent. Appeals were to go in regular course up to the archbishop, and then to the king, but no further {i. e. not to Rome) without the king's permission. Magnates (e, g. bishops) must perform their feudal services. Bishops to be elected as agreed by Henry I and Anselm, Sons of serfs were not to be ordained without the consent of their lords. Most Ukely these actuaUy were the old customs, except the rule about the crimi nous clerics; but Thomas cared nothing for custom or law, if it Umited the privileges of the clergy. Was it not written, " Touch not mine anointed " ? In the end, however, Thomas pelded again, swore to the customs, and soon was very much ashamed of himself. Before long the Pope absolved him from his oath, and he set the King at defiance. The quarrel was now deadly, Henry's blood was up — the demon blood of Anjou — and he resolved to crush his faithless primate once for all. When the Great Council met again at Northampton in October, Thomas was required to account for aU the money that had passed through his hands as chancellor. The quittance he pleaded was disowned, and the composition he offered was refused. So Thomas rose in defiance, forbade even the bishops to judge him, and appealed to Rome, For this open breach of the Constitutions, the secular barons condemned him unheard : but when the Justiciar came to read the sentence to 60 CHURCH AND STATE him, Thomas interrupted fiercely, refused to hear it, and swept out of the court with his cross in his hand. That night he fled to France, We need not trace the negotiations of the next six years, Henry was violent and maUcious, wreaking vengeance on Thomas' dependents, while Thomas was violent and fanatical to the extent of sometimes disgusting even his natural protector, Louis of France, But neither of them could do anything effective without the Pope ; and Alexander, hesitating between zeal for church privilege and fear of losing EngUsh help, always managed to avoid a decision. At last Henry made a mistake, by ordering Roger of York to crown the young Henry, early in 1170, This was a clear breach of the primate's right ; and it was taken up at Rome, So Henry met Thomas at Fr6teval in June, and sent him back to England without settUng any of the disputes, Thomas was so far con- ciUatory that he asked the Pope not to revive the question of the Constitutions : but he was so much the more eager on the other questions. He came back pronouncing excommunications on all concerned in the coronation, from Roger of York downward, and not forgetting private enemies Uke Ranulf de Broc, who had cut off his horse's tail, Henry burst out in fury : four knights took up the hasty word, and crossed to England before they could be stopped, Thomas refused with dignity to take back his excom munications at their lawless bidding; but he was defiant and scurrilous when they sought him out in the cathedral, and a stormy altercation ended in a brutal murder (December 29, 1170), Western Europe shook with horror at the news, Thomas was a martjrr now, and a saint indeed, as was proved by the filthy state in which his body was found, " See what a saint he was," said the enraptured monks, Henry himself was horrified, and sent to Rome the strongest asseverations of his innocence. Alexander was not inexorable. Thomas was more useful as a saint in heaven than as a marplot on earth; and it was better poUcy to make good terms with Henry than to quarrel with him. So they came to an agreement at Avranches in 1172, after Henry's return from Ireland. The Constitutions of Clarendon were dropped, and Henry conceded the two main points in dispute. Appeals to Rome were allowed, subject to appeUant's oath that he meant no breach of the King's rights or of the Uberties of the Enghsh Church ; and it was understood that the lay courts were not to THE ANGEVINS 61 IJudge criminous clerics, but (this not tiU 1176) to visit with severer Ipenalties the offences of laymen against clerics. On other matters the King held his ground. He kept the election of bishops un changed — which in practice enabled him to nominate them — and he defeated an attempt of Lucius III (1184) to tax the clergy. Upon the whole Henry came off better than could have been expected after the murder of Thomas : better also than he de served, for the Constitutions of Clarendon were utterly selfish. For the King's convenience, they restrained the excommunication of tenants in capite — the men in high place who most needed to be excommunicated. Nor were the common people, who had seen Nicolas of Langley in St. Peter's chair Ukely to be conciUated by the constitution restraining the ordination of sons of serfs, which struck at their one chance of reaching high position through the church, in an age when every man's rank in the state was fixed once for all by his birth. The time was not yet come when kings had nations behind them in their confficts with the papacy. We turn now to the conquest of Ireland, Ireland was no longer the light of the West, John Scotus Erigena was the last great Irish scholar, though Cormac of Cashel's Qhssairy shows that Greek and Hebrew learning were not extinct in the tenth century. Something survived even in the twelfth ; but the main story is one of anarchy and rapine. The royal hall of Tara was a ruin long before the Danes came, and the holy sanctuaries of Kildare and Clonmacnois were devastated again and again with fire and sword in the merciless faction- fights of Christian septs before the heathen laid his hand upon them. Ireland suffered as much as England from the Danes. Turgesius (831-845) conquered the north and the west, turned the church at Armagh into a temple of Thor, set up the kingdom of DubUn, and was only stopped by assassination. True, Ireland had her Brunanburh at Clontarf (1014) and Brian Boru was no unworthy match for Athelstan : but the grand old king was murdered in the evening of his crowning victory. If the Danes were defeated, they were not driven out. They stiU held the ports of Dubhn Wexfiord, Wat&tfiord, and Limerick, and stiU embroiled the feuds of Welsh and Irish kinglets, though their main poUcy was now commercial. The viking had settled down as a fairly peaceful trader. The Danes of Ireland were mostly converted in the tenth 62 CHURCH AND STATE century, though there were Christians in the ninth, and heathens in the eleventh. But they looked to Rome and Canterbury, not to Armagh. Sitric of DubUn, who headed tlie great Danish League at Clontarf, was a payer of Peter's pence, and founded the see of DubUn about 1040. After the Norman Conquest of England, the bishops of DubUn from 1084 became subject to Canterbury. From this time a reforming party endeavours to reduce Irish confusion to Roman order. The work gathers round the names of Patrick and Gregory and Laurence 0' Toole at DubUn, Gilbert at Limerick, Celsus and Malachy at Armagh ; and the church was organized on the Roman model by the Synod of Kells in 1155, which recognized Armagh and DubUn as archbishoprics indepen dent of Canterbury, and constituted two more at Cashel and Tuam for Munster and Connaught. But it was one thing to set up bishops, quite another to make the Irish pay tithes, abandon their tribal customs, and give up marriages forbidden by Roman Canon Law. The reforming party had no doubt that Roman customs were the best ; and if the Irish were perverse enough to prefer their own, they must be made to receive the blessings of peace at the point of the sword. The Norman kings had their eyes on Ireland. Rufus boasted at St. David's Head that he would bridge the sea with his ships, and Hadrian IV in 1155 invited Henry II to reduce the disorderly island. But the actual conquest began as a private enterprise. The Norman barons who had carved out earldoms in Wales were quite ready to carve out kingdoms in Ireland, Conspicuous among them was Richard de Clare, sumamed Strongbow, Lord of Striguil, an old adherent of Stephen, and therefore out of favour with Henry, To him came Dermot MacMurrough, the exiled king of Leinster, with the offer of his daughter Eva, and the rever sion of his kingdom. The Norman knights were irresistible — even the Danes went down before them, Wexford, Waterford, and DubUn were captured, Leinster was conquered, and the High King Roderic 0' Conor beaten off from DubUn, Then came Henry II in 1172, These adventurers were too successful, and must be brought to reason. He took DubUn from Strongbow, made him change his kingdom for an earldom, and received the submis sion of all the Irish princes, except 0' Conor behind the Shannon, Then he set de Lacy in Meath and de Courcy in Ulster to balance Strongbow in Leinster, and so departed. Then the Norman THE ANGEVINS 63 barons did that which was right in their own eyes, quarrelhng in the Irish fashion, and becoming more Irish than the Irish them selves. The anarchy was made hopeless by the invasion of Ed ward Bruce in 1315, and the general coUapse of the later years of Edward III compeUed the EngUsh to retire behind the Pale and confess their defeat (1369) by the Statute of Kilkenny, which forbade aU kinship or aUiance, and well-nigh all friendly relations with the Irish, So Ireland went on from bad to worse. Some forty years of peace in England followed the suppression of the last great revolt of the barons in 1173, There was heavy and increasing taxation, but very Uttle fighting, England was quiet enough during Henry's dreary struggle with his rebelUous sons and his new suzerain PhiUp Augustus (1180-1223), Even Richard's reign is Uttle more than a continuation of his father's : only under John we come to the collapse of the Angevins in Normandy and England, King Richard's crusade is a brilhant episode ; but it is no more than an episode. It concerned his continental dominions more than England, except that there was heavy taxation for his outfit, and still heavier for his ransom. Nor will the primates detain us, though they were notable men, Richard of Dover (1174-1184) guided the church through the difficult times which foUowed the murder of St, Thomas; Baldwin (1185-1190) was a good and learned man, and when he died in the camp before Acre, his place was presently taken by Hubert Walter (1193-1205), who had made the truce with Saladin and led the army home, raised the ransom and foiled the intrigues of John, More significant for ourselves are Giraldus Cambrensis and Hugh of Avalon, Among the numerous mistresses of Henry I was Nest, a daughter of the Welsh prince Rhys ap Tewdwr, the victor of Mynydd Carn (1081), She afterwards married Gerald, the casteUan of Pem broke; and their daughter Angharad was the wife of WilUam de Barri, a Norman knight of Glamorgan, so that her son Gerald de Barri (1147-1220) was the grandson of Nest, and the Fitz- Henrys and the FitzGeralds of Ireland were his near relations. But, for aU his pride in his Welsh blood, Gerald had the disdain of a Norman and a churchman for the uncouth and unchurchly Welsh and Irish. It comes out everywhere in his accounts of Ireland itself, of the Conquest of Ireland, and of his Journey through Wales with Archbishop Baldwin to preach the Crusade 64 CHURCH AND STATE in 1189. These are strangely modern works, fuU of the sort of stories a modern reporter Ukes to get hold of. But what most concerns us is his election to the see of St. David's in 1176. The Welsh bishops had now become subject to Canterbury; for they never had a Synod of KeUs to free them. Llandaff had always been in a nearer relation to England, so that the change was not so great when Anselm consecrated Urban in 1107. But St. David's was the centre of learning in Wales, worthily represented in Anglo-Norman times by Bishop SuUen (1073-1078, and 1080- 1085) and his family. It was not till 1115 that Henry I forced the clas of St. David's to choose Bernard, a chaplain of Queen Matilda. Bangor followed in 1120. St, Asaph was kept vacant for more than half a century by the border warfare, but EngUsh influence was strong enough to place a bishop there in 1143, even in the midst of the great Welsh rising which nearly undid the work of Henry I. By 1176, then, the Welsh bishops Uke the EngUsh were theoretically chosen by the chapters and confirmed by the kings, and took the oath of canonical obedience to Canterbury, But the spirit of independence was still strong in Wales, Even Bernard of St. David's had claimed imaginary metropoUtan rights over the other three sees. His successor David Fitz- Gerald had been compeUed to drop the appeal to Rome and pro mise never to revive the claim. Gerald was now elected in his uncle's place to reassert it. Precisely for that reason Henry II refused to accept him, and ordered a new election. His pohcy was to allow no primate in Wales, much less a Geraldine for pri mate. The contest was renewed on Peter de Leia's death in 1198. Gerald was again elected, and again King John refused him. He appealed to the Pope in vain, for the English influence at Rome was too strong for him ; and when he was chosen a third time in his old age, he decUned the election himseK, The result of the long contest finally confirmed the subjection of the Welsh to the see of Caer Gaint — their name for Canterbury. In strong contrast to the brilUant Welsh archdeacon stands Hugh of Avalon. We pass straight from the bustUng man of the world to the quiet saint — though Hugh's tact and gentleness made him a man of the world in a, higher sense than Gerald de Barri. Henry II founded the monastery of Witham (1178) for Carthusians, but troubles arose, when funds were found wanting. The monastery was going to ruin when the King sent THE ANGEVINS 65 to the Chartreuse for Hugh of Avalon, and made him prior of Witham. Hugh obeyed with a heavy heart, but he gradually brought the monastery into order, and with much courage and for bearance obtained the necessary funds from the King. In 1186 he was moved much against his will to the bishopric of Lincoln. Here he excommunicated a Chief Forester, and as if that was not offence enough, he refused the King's request to give a prebend of Lincoln to a courtier. Yet he excused himself with so much dignity and faithfulness that the quarrel only confirmed him in the King's high esteem. With Richard also he had his quarrel. The single successful resistance to a king during the forty years of royal supremacy (1174-1213) was in 1197, when Hugh of Lincoln refused to furnish knights or money for service outside England. But Hugh not only overcame Richard's wrath, but reproved him for his Ucentious Ufe. When John came to see his brother's tomb at Fontevrault, Hugh told him plainly that he did not trust him, and showed him the picture of the Last Judgment over the porch, where kings were being sent down into heU. Yet even John treated him with outward respect, though his patience was not tried long, for Hugh died in 1200. CHAPTER VIII THE ANGEVINS. — II There was good reason for Hugh's forebodings. John was already a traitor to his father and a rebel to his brother, an intri guer and a Ubertine ; and he was now to show himself the worst of all our kings, adding the defiant profanity of Rufus to the craelty of James II. Yet after aU he was not very much worse than Henry I, and with a Uttle self-control and foresight he might have done as well, John was no weakUng, He had a good deal of Richard's generalship, and in diplomatic skill far surpassed him. Resourceful and clear-sighted for the interest of the moment, and more than once the national champion in spite of himself, he was an overmatch for his enemies throughout his reign, and nothing but his brutal infamy made him the ghastly failure that he was, John may be regarded as a dangerous beast gradually let loose. His mother EUnor kept his continental dominions, and her death was followed by the loss of Normandy, The primate Hubert Walter partly shielded the church, and his death led to the quarrel with the papacy. The Justiciar Geoffrey FitzPeter partly shielded the state, and he died in the first days of the revolt of the barons; and then John "was king indeed," Thus his reign falls into four well-marked periods of deaUngs chiefly with Arthur (1199-1203), with PhiUp of France (1203-1205), with Pope Innocent III (1205-1213), and with the barons (1213-1216), We need not take the first two periods in detail, but there are a few things to notice. Whatever misgivings Wilham MarshaU or Hubert Walter may have had, John was the lawful king, and Arthur a mere pretender outside his own duchy of Brittany, John had a strong position, and he ruined it by two characteristic blunders. He began by divorcing his wife, Hawise of Gloucester, and carrjdng off Isabelle of Angouleme, the betrothed of Hugh de la Marche, the head of the great house of Lusignan, which had given kings to Jerusalem Uke the Angevins themselves. By this 66 THE ANGEVINS 67 outrage on feudal duty he ahenated at once the Gloucester interest in England, and the Lusignans in France. Then he captures Arthur : what will he do with him ? The proper thing was to make him give up his castles and let him go : but John thought otherwise. Arthur disappeared — a. second outrage on feudal moraUty. PhiUp saw his opportunity, and entered Normandy. With the fall of Chateau Gaillard, all serious resistance was at an end, and' John fled to England. The loss of Normandy was the end of the Angevin empire. John and Henry III might struggle for a time to recall the past ; but sooner or later EngUsh kings would have to pass from a continental to an Enghsh poUcy. Normandy and Aquitaine together might more than balance England : Aquitaine by itself could never be more than a depend ency of England. In 1205 Hubert Walter died. Who was now to be primate ? The monks of Canterbury thought to steal a march on John; so they secretly elected their sub-prior Reginald, and sent him to Rome for confirmation by the Pope himself. But they turned against him when he boasted on the way, so presently they held a regular election, and chose John de Gray, bishop of Norwich, the King's confidant and nominee. Yet John de Gray was not a worthless favourite. If he was very secular Uke Hubert, he had more learning and was a fine general and a skilful engineer, and his government of Ireland (1210-1213) sets him among the greatest statesmen of his time. Traces of his work stiU remain in the castles of Athlone and Randon and Clonmacnois. Shortly, he was just the sort of primate Henry II had expected to find in Thomas. It is something to John's credit (and he sorely needs it) that men Uke Wilham MarshaU and John de Gray and Hubert de Burgh never deserted him. Innocent III began a great pontificate before the age of forty. He had already brought PhiUp to obedience and seen Constanti nople humbled, and many triumphs— with some defeats— were stiU before him. Innocent was in no hurry to decide the case, and induced John to let the monks send proxies with fuU powers for a regular election at Rome. Then he set aside Reginald's election as irregular, John de Gray's as vitiated by the King's undue influence, and persuaded the monks to elect Stephen Langton, his old companion at the University of Paris, whom thereupon he consecrated at Viterbo (1207), 68 CHURCH AND STATE John refused to receive Langton, and drove out the monks of Canterbury, Then came the Interdict (1208), All over Eng land the churches were closed except for baptisms. Marriages took place in the church-porch, and the mass was said in the churchyard and on Sundays only. The dying were not refused the offices of the church, but the dead were buried without them, and in unconsecrated ground, John repUed by confiscating the property of aU the clergy, from the bishops downward, allowing them a bare subsistence, and conniving at outrages upon them. Some priests undertook to disregard the Interdict, but aU the bishops fled the country, except John de Gray and Peter des Roches of Winchester. The laity partly resented Roman action, though not as they did in the next reign, partly rejoiced in the intermission of scutages which the great conflscation enabled John to give. Excommunication foUowed (November 1209), but John put down the Welsh, made his own terms with the Scots, took oaths and hostages of the barons, resumed oppressive taxa tion, crushed every sign of discontent with savage cruelty, and even found time to set Ireland in order. And when the Pope invited PhiUp of France to conquer England, John formed a great coaUtion against him, and faced him with a mighty army on the Downs. Never did an EngUsh king seem so strong and so terrible as when John defied at once the Pope, the barons, and France. But John's power was undermined. A despot, says Machia- velU, can do almost anything with his subjects : only he must not tax the men too heavily, and he must not dishonour the women, for these are the deadly provocations. So John found it. Llywelyn ap lorwerth revolted in May 1212, and the barons were not to be trusted. So John made up his mind to divide his enemies by coming to terms with the Pope. He pronused to receive Langton, restore the exiled monks and bishops and com pensate their losses, and give an amnesty to the rest, and on these terms received absolution May 13, 1213. Two days later — ^it was his own motion, no demand by Innocent — ^he gave up his kingdom to the Pope, and received it back from the legate Pandulf as the Pope's Uegeman, subject to an annual payment of 1000 marks. The submission of John, foUowed as it was by the Charter, marks a permanent change in the relations of Pope and King. Hitherto they have most commonly been at variance, and the Pope was often a power for good in checking tyranny. Henceforth THE ANGEVINS 69 they are more often in alUance, and ready to connive, each at the other's exactions. No doubt they had their quarrels after this, but in a general way they tended to agreement against the pohcy outUned in the Charter. However, the submission was an astute move, and for the moment a great success. John had secured the Pope's protection, and made doubly sure of it by taking the cross ; and now he could complete the coaUtion against PhiUp, But the barons took Hugh of Lincoln's ground, that they were not bound to foreign service, and refused to foUow him abroad. So far the movement was no more than a revolt of the barons as in 1173, But Geoffrey FitzPeter had already pointed to something better ; and after his death (October 1213) Stephen Langton turned it into a national rising by inducing the barons to base their demands on the charter of Henry I, John was busy in Poitou, If he could only crush PhiUp, he could deal with the barons at his leisure. But PhiUp made an end of the coahtion by the victory of Bouvines (July 27, 1214) and John came back defeated. Truces foUowed, during which John endeavoured to conciUate the church by promising free election of bishops — the royal veto not to be used without good cause. At last the barons renounced their fealty and marched on London, which joined them. John found himself deserted, and had to sign the Great Charter (June 1215). The Charter is a feudal contract between the King and his vas sals, and the ideal it points to is not modern democracy, but some such a government as that of the eighteenth century, with the King weU checked and equal laws for all free men administered by the upper classes. It begins by confirming the Uberties of the church. Then follow the specific demands of the barons for precise Umitations of feudal incidents, on the Unes of the charter of Henry I. Then come general clauses. No man shaU be tried on bare suspicion, or punished without lawful trial. Fines shaU be reasonable, and justice shaU not be refused or sold or delayed to any man. Finally, five-and-twenty barons are appointed to guard the Charter, and to make war on the King if he breaks it. We see here very Uttle of the machinery of EngUsh constitutional Uberty ; but its guiding principle is clear. The king is subject to the law, and still more his subjects are subject to the law and to nothing else. Canon Law was never popular in England, and the attempt of the Stuarts to estabhsh administrative action was a 70 CHURCH AND STATE failure. The entire future of Church and State is already shad owed out, for EngUsh Erastianism and EngUsh constitutionaUsm are based aUke on the EngUsh beUef that the law of the land ought to be supreme. Sooner or later, an EngUsh nation would reduce to obedience both church and king, if they presumed to go outside the law of the land. Hence the Reformation and the Revolution, John behaved well for the next few weeks; but he was not used to acting in good faith, and soon broke down ; and indeed he was not without provocation from the more violent of the barons. By August he was collecting mercenaries, and the Pope annuUed the Charter as extorted by violence, and in itself unjust : he even preached a crusade for John, He intimidated the clergy, but at the cost of deep offence to the laity. When civil war broke out in October, John carried all before him tiU the barons took the desperate step of offering the crown to Louis the son of PhiUp of France, and the husband of John's niece, Blanche of Castile, Then the tide turned, John and his mercenaries ravaged the country with frightful cruelty ; but Louis gained ground. Then came another reaction, when it was found that Louis meant to govern in the interest of his French foUowers. John stiU stood for EngUsh rule, and the country might have ralUed to him if he had been a shade less infamous. The dilemma was solved by John's death (October 1216). If he Uved with the wicked, he made his grave with the righteous, for he was buried between St. Oswald and St. Wulfstan, before the high altar of Worcester cathedral. The Reformation swept away the saints, and the sinner remains. The tiny royal party met at Gloucester ; and there Henry III, a boy of nine, did homage to the legate Gualo and was crowned by him. The regency was given to WiUiam Marshall, earl of Pem broke. The earl had been the loyal counsellor of the three brothers, Henry and Richard and John, and his voice had always been for moderation and peace. Now in the close of Ufe (he was Hearing eighty) the old earl began by reissuing the Charter and promising an amnesty. The barons graduaUy came over. One battle in the streets of Lincoln and one sea-fight off Dover compeUed Louis to accept easy terms in the Treaty of Lambeth (September 1217), and Ms departure left England free to recover as best she might from the calamities of the civil war. CHAPTER IX HENRY in The long reign of Henry III is not without some reason counted a duU period of EngUsh History, On the surface we see first the struggles of WiUiam MarshaU and Hubert de Burgh to restore order, then the'bickerings caused byTiEe"Kin'g's inoapacity and bad faith, and then the great failure of the Barons' War, Only Robert ojjincoln andJEarl Simon stand out conspicuously; and they both died in disappointment. But we see also the coming of the^riars and the beginnings of „the_Universities, the revrvaTof the %igUsh language and the first rough sha]^gs of the EngUshJEariiani^nt, an'dllTesettUng of EngUsh agriculture on hnes which were not obsolete in the eighteenffi century. The task of Wilham MarshaU was not unUke that of Henry II, for the civil war had fiUed the country with lawlessness and rapine; and there was the further difficulty, that some indis pensable supporters of the government were among the worst offenders. And though Rome through the legates Gualo and Pandulf did good work in the cause of order, she paid herself so weU for her services that it was felt as a reUef when Langton induced the Pope to send no more legates. The great regent died in 1219; and after a while his place was taken by the Justiciar Hubert de Burgh, the hero of the sea-fight off Dover. The restoration of order is marked by the resumption of the castles in 1223 and the faU of Falkes de Breaute, the last and most dangerous of John's captains of mercenaries. It was about 1228 that the King's personal influence began to disturb the government. Henry III inherited nothing of John's abihty, and not much of his vice. If he had personal courage, he was neither general nor diplomatist, and if he resembles Richard in building skill, his monument is Westminster Abbey, not Chateau GaiUard. He reminds us most of Edward the Confessor in his piety, his foreign tastes, his petulant temper, 71 72 CHURCH AND STATE and his love of favourites. But Henry's foreign tastes led him into an ambitious foreign poUcy, while a combination of thrift- lessness and piety made him conmve at Papal exactions, and his incorrigible bad faith in breaking the Charters roused an increasing constitutional opposition. Hubert was overthrown in 1232 by^Pgter des Roches and the foreign favourites, and the King's marriage in 1236 to Eleanor of Provence brought in a fresh swarm of foreigners. The chief of these was the Queen's uncle Boniface of Savoy, primate 1241-1270, a man as secular and as unlearned as Hubert Walter, but with a violent temper, and no great capacity for business. StiU he turned out better than he might have done. He was a friend of Adam Marsh, and often supported Grosseteste. After 1246 came the King's Poitevin half-brothers, for IsabeUa of Angouleme had gone back to Hugh of Lusignan after John's death. The most scandalous of these was the ilhterate Bthehnar of Valence, whom the Bang forced into the see of Winchester in 1250. Bishop-elect he remained for ten years, tiU Alexander IV consecrated him with his own hands. He did not long survive. Such were the " ungodly curs " who preyed on England. For some twenty years Henry did pretty much what he pleased, filUng the great offices with nobodies, and squandering the taxes on empty pomp. The barons had no leaders. The regent's son, Richard Marshall, was cut off (1234) by treachery in Ireland : and though the King's own brother, Richard, earl of CornwaU, was drawn to the barons by his first marriage with a daughter of the regent, he swayed back to the Court when he married the Queen's sister, Sanchia of Provence. Neither had they much of a poUcy, except that they would not help the King to recover Normandy. Poitou had been conquered by Louis VIII in 1224, and Henry strove in vain to regain it in 1230. In 1242 he led the barons of France to their last great feudal rising : but the barons of England refused to go with him, so that he led but a small force to the rout of TaiUebourg. Peace was not made tiU 1259, when the EngUsh barons were in power, and found St. Louis ready to meet them half-way. By this treaty Henry was to renounce Normandy and Anjou and receive some new territory further south, and then to do homage and take his place as Duke of Aquitaine among the peers of France. HENRY III 73 The barons had a harder task at home. The Charter laid it down that the King was to govern by law : but how was that to be enforced? The Charter itself provided nothing better than the crude remedy of civil war, and the barons wavered helplessly between the plan of making the King swear again and again — ^which was quite useless — and that of claiming to appoint the great officials — which meant an ohgarchy. They got no further under Edward II ; and the solution begun by the claim of the Commons to control taxation, was only completed by the Reform BiU of 1832. The civil war of John, Uke that of Stephen, led to a great increase of Papal interference in England. The Pope was now suzerain, and the legates Gualo and Pandulf, not only ruled the church, but took a large share in ruUng the state. Henry II had foiled an attempt of the Pope to tax the clergy in 1184; but now there was none to oppose it. The Pope now " provides " for Enghsh sees — i. e. puts in his own nominee without regard to King or Chapter ; but Langton in 1225 defeated a new demand for two prebends (or their value) in every conventual or collegiate church. Then came two changes for the worse — ^in 1227 the accession of Gregory IX, who meant to fight out the contest with the Empire and needed all the money he could get — and in 1228 the death of Langton, which removed the chief barrier to Papal and other reactionary influences. His successor, Richard, died in 1231 ; and then the Pope quashed three elections, and gave the primacy to Edmund Rich, the first D,D. of Oxford, and a noted ascetic, Edmund supported the national party, and even reformed the King for awhile. But Papal exactions in creased, especiaUy when the King himself invited a new legate in 1237, For four years Cardinal Otho plundered church and state. In 1240 the Pope demanded that the next three hundred preferments should be reserved for ItaUans of his own choice, and that bishops and nobles should pay him one fifth of their goods, Edmund gave up the contest in despair, and retired to end his days in the odour of sanctity at Pontigny, He was canonized in 1248, and one of his first worshippers was— Henry III, Papal exactions went on. The Pope's next envoy, one Master Martins, was so outrageous that even the King flared up, and drove him out of the country " with a passport to heU," This however was an exceptional show of spirit : other envoys came. 74 CHURCH AND STATE and the exactions went on as before, But^ppressivetaxation was not the only evil that came %22^.SS' though in 1245 the Pope is said to have taken five timeTas much as the wasteful King, Even worse was the confusion he made in the Church, St, Peter himself could not have governed the Church from Rome ; and Innocent IV was more Uke the pther Simon, True, he did not buy sacred things; but he sold them. There were appeals on elections and on every sort of dispute among church men. And an appeal to Rome was long and costly, and more often than not decided by corruption. An abbot, for instance, with a journey to Rome and fees and presents to Pope and cardinals, could seldom get into his office for less than two years' revenue of his monastery. It must have been much the same for others. The Canon Law enforced in the ecclesiastical courts was certainly more merciful than the Civil Law ; but it was foreign, compUcated, costly, and dilatory, and therefore it soon became impopular. The marriage cases were among the worst of the scandals. It was, indeed, right and good that the Church should regulate marriage in times when the State could not ; but it was not right to make it a sacrament without warrant from St, Paul, and to make it indissoluble in direct defiance of Christ Himself,^ But an impossible law had to be tempered by dispensations; and ample room was made for them by all sorts of questions about precontract, espousals, relations of kindred, affinity, and gossipred — by blood, by marriage, and by sponsorship — all of them to the seventh degree. Thus reasons could always be found for annulUng any inconvenient marriage; and the Church was generally wilUng — ^for a consideration — ^to annul a marriage for any one who wanted to marry again. In this way divorce became unnecessary, for nobody could ever be sure that he was Uving in lawful marriage! The abolition of these compUcations and the Umitation of the forbidden degrees was not the least of the gains of the Reformation, We have now reached the general position with regard to the ^ Of course nobody in those days doubted of our Lord's exception in Matt, V. 32 ; and even now there is no serious reason against it, except that the Latin CJhurch disagrees with Qtrist, Even if it were certainly spurious, the whole structure of the Sermon on the Mount forbids us to take anything contained in it as a definite law to be literally enforced on CJhristian men. HENRY III 75 court of Rome which lasted through the later middle ages. Changes, of course, there were. The annates, for instance, or first-fruits, being the first year's income of bishoprics or other ecclesiastical offices, were devised by Pope John XXII (1316- 1334) and the later popes were rather more systematic in their exactions, often reserving pensions for foreigners out of EngUsh offices instead of conferring the offices themselves on foreigners. On the other hand, their activity was Umited by statute law, though the kings could not always be trusted to enforce this. Upon the whole, however, the theory of papal jurisdiction under went Uttle change from this time till the Reformation, The_ great movement of the earUer half of the thirteenth century was the coming of the Friars, ' Monasticism in the ages of its Uving power was the form taken by the individual's desire of a freer and directer access to God than that mediated by the great corporation of the priests, EssentiaUy it was mystic and individuaUst : historically it was gregarious, because societies were needed for mutual comfort and for protection in those disorderly times ; and it was ascetic, because the piety of the age was ascetic. But neither the gregariousness nor the asceticism was more than a means to an end. The gregariousness was not essential, for it was aUowed that hermits might be saints ; and the asceticism was not essential, for the man who seeks to serve God in his own way wiU not necessarily be more ascetic than others. True, the monks were the most zealous of churchmen, seeming to Uve for reUgion only, while the secular clergy who Uved in the wicked world were obhged to compromise with it, Tme also, the popes balanced priests and monks against each other for centuries, freeing individual monasteries and even the whole Cistercian order from episcopal jurisdiction, but never giving the power of ordina tion to the most lordly of abbots. None the less the monks represented an individuaUsm which directly contradicted the Latin principle of authority. It was kept orthodox for the present by the common ideal of asceticism; but when that was weakest, the individuaUsm showed itself as heresy, and the disruption of the Church became a question of time. It would, therefore, be misleading simply to construct an ascending scale of asceticism, as that while the priest promised chastity and canonical obedience, the monk took upon him the 76 CHURCH AND STATE whole yoke of chastity, obedience and poverty, while the friar went a step further, with corporate as weU as personal poverty, A deeper difference is that while the monk was busy with his own soul, seldom doing much more, unless it were to admonish his brother-monk, the friar frankly threw himself on his feUow- men, and went out into the world to minister to them. Much foUowed from this. In the first place, the men who sought to serve God in their own way naturaUy belonged more to the upper classes, so that the monasteries always had an aristocratic flavour, though in the later middle ages their inmates were rather dependents of the great than the great themselves. But the friars who went in and out among the people were more men of the people. So far the two great orders agreed. The Dominicans, indeed, were not at first mendicants, but preachers — the Lord's dogs {Domini canes), to bite the wolves of heresy, and preachers and inquisitors they remained. The Franciscans went into the slums of the towns, then, as now, the home of misery, to minister to the sick and the poor. The difference of the orders is the difference of Dominic and Francis, of Spain and Italy, ' The Dominicans were always more theological and more bigoted, the Franciscans more practical and more humane. The Dominicans came to England in 1221, the Franciscans in 1224, and soon settled down in Stinking Lane, near Newgate, and similar places in other towns, and rapidly increased. They were welcomed everywhere; and, indeed, the humihty and unworldUness of the earUer friars contrasted strongly with the wealth and comfort of the monks, who were throwing the hard work on an inferior class of lay brethren. Then came an un foreseen development. Both Dominic and Francis had dis couraged learning, but active work in the world soon proved the need of it. Before long the friars had among them many of the most learned men of the time; and in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries England had more than her share of the great scholars. Of the Dominicans, indeed, there were none to compare with Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus : but nearly all the great Franciscans were EngUsh, except Bonaventura and Raymund Lull, Neither France nor Italy could show anything Uke the brilUant Ust of EngUsh names, from Alexander of Hales, Adam Marsh, Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, and WilUam of Ockham downward. Nor were the friars the only repre- HENRY III 77 sentatives of EngUsh learning in their time. The Une of great scholars is uninterrupted from Grosseteste to Bradwardine and Wychffe ; and the series was only broken when freedom of thought was destroyed in the suppression of LoUardy. A notable feature of the movement is the strength of the early Franciscans in the eastern counties from Lincoln to Essex. Nor is it hard to see why so many of them came from the region where lay in after times the strength of LoUardy and Puritanism. Though the friars were neither heretics nor Nonconformists, they represented a simpler and more personal type of reUgion than the priests, and an idea of the Church essentially inde pendent of the bishops, and in practice often rebelhous against them. The Reformers were foUowing the friars when they centred pubUc worship on a preaching ministry, and even when they aboUshed bishops. Many a time the Puritan fighting the battles of the Lord of Hosts is echoing the Franciscan baUads of Earl Simon's time, and even the fanatics of the Commonwealth were much more Uke the friars than they knew. If further proof were needed that the mendicants suppUed a real want, we might find it in the cordial support given to them by the greatest scholar and the greatest statesman of the time — Robert GTOsseteste, bishop of Lincoln, and Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester — Grosseteste was the son of a" peasant, "born about 1175'- at Stradbroke in Suffolk. Little is known of his early Ufe and Oxford studies, tiU in 1199 he was recommended by Giraldus Cambrensi^.^ ^^e UsL^op of Hereford. But the bishop died soon after, anftnxossetes^te went on to Paris for further study. Returning t%-^{old, l|e became the first ChanceUor of the University, or Ma^.-^ r,f tjhe Schools, as he was properly caUed. He also held various 0-arch preferments, tiU a severe iUness in 1232 compelled him to give up aU but a prebend of Lincoln. By this time he had made his name as the first scholar of Oxford. He had mastered the whole circle of the leaming of the time— Theology, Philosophy, Mathematics, Natural Science —and added to it the rare accompUshments of Greek and Hebrew. Roger Bacon is a stern judge of great schoolmen Uke Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas himself; yet even Roger Bacon has the deepest respect for " the Lord Robert of Lincoln, who exceUed aU men in his knowledge of the sciences." Few have attained perfection in philosophy— only Solomon, 78 (JMUKUH AJNL» fSXAiJi Aristotle, Avicenna, " and in our own days Robert of Lincoln and Adam Marsh." In those days the great diocese of Lincoln stretched over nine counties, from the Humber to the Thames at Oxford and Windsor. It had been fortunate of later years. Hugh of Avalon was a saint, and Hugh of WeUs (1209-1235) was an earnest man and a good administrator. But Grosseteste (1235-1253) was the greatest of its bishops. He came with a high standard of duty, and an inflexible determination to put down the scandals — for scandals there were in abundance. Adam Marsh had good reason for his Itis diebus damnatissimis. Grosseteste was masterful and severe, and his visitations were a terror to evil-doers. He "thundered terribly," and sometimes went beyond his rights; but his high character overawed much opposition. The laity were bad enough, given to drink and worse things, and not amenable to church discipUne, to which, indeed, the EngUsh have never taken kindly. The secular clergy were often as bad as their flocks, but the monasteries were decidedly better — ^there were only two cases of gross immoraUty, though there were several of malversation. Apart from these things, Grosseteste had one special quarrel with the seculars, and another with the monks. The difficulty with the seculars was that church offices were given to scandalously unfit persons, perhaps foreigners or children, who neither resided nor took orders, and often held a papal dispensation from doing either. They took the money, and might or might not study a^; 'iOh^ Versity, or get their duty done by deputy. The fort dgneisd the children were aboUshed at the Reformation, l| i out thggergraduate rectors lasted another generation, and re , .^iu'cfe was not fuUy enforced tiU the nineteenth century. Tk,. monks were in a similar case. The tithes of a parish were often appropriated, that is, assigned to a monastery, which took the money and was supposed to provide for the duty. The cheapest plan was to send over one of the monks every Sunday to say mass. But the better sort of churchmen objected to this, because the rest of the priest's work was left undone. So the Lateran Council of 1179 com manded the appropriators to provide resident vicars and to pay them suitable stipends. But it took a long time to overcome the resistance of the monasteries. Hugh de WeUs had done something, Grosseteste did more, and gradually a general system HENRY III 79 was estabUshed, giving the smaUer tithes to the vicar and re taining for the monastery the great tithe of corn. The only change made at the Reformation was the transfer of the appro priations from the monks to laymen, A General Council was held at Lyons in 1245, The great contest with Frederick II was at its height, and Innocent IV had been driven out of Italy. Opinions were naturally divided, for the Pope was corrupt and implacable, the Emperor a sceptic and an evil Uver, and both claimed almost divine honour as the sole vicegerent of God, Henry III was devout and weak, and therefore a tool of the Pope : St, Louis was devout and strong, and made his neutraUty respected. He received the Pope with aU respect, but would not let him stay in France : so he took up his quarters in what was then the imperial city of Lyons, for it did not become French till 1310. Thus from Lyons was issued the great anathema which struck down the Hohenstaufen Empire. Besides this, there was a crusade intended. The capture of Edessa by the infidels in 1144 had led to the Second Crusade, the faU of Jerusalem in 1187 called forth the Third; and now the Holy City had been lost again in 1244, and as it proved, this time finaUy. To the Council came Grosseteste. As a strong churchman, he was a zealous opponent of Frederick, and a firm supporter of the crusade — which ended in the defeat and capture of St. Louis in Egypt. He also got decided in his favour his long dispute with the Chapter of Lincoln, about his right to visit them. But— perhaps in consideration for a Pope in exile— he forbore to press strongly the reforms which the Church so sorely needed. Things were different when he came again to Lyons in 1250. Frederick was now less dangerous, and in fact was dead before the end of the year. So this time he placed in the Pope's hands and had read openly before him his famous " sermon," or sum mary of the chief evils of the misgovernment of the Church. Never was a bolder or more outspoken indictment. He com plains that instead of a Christian world, we see one part in the hands of misbeUevers, while schismatic Greeks hold another part, and even the rest is largely given up to heresy and vice— and all for want of good pastors, for the priest has not only to say masses, but to do pastoral work which cannot be left to needy hireUngs. And the higher his rank, up to the Pope himself, the greater his 80 CHURCH AND STATE sin. And the source of aU these evils is this Roman Court, not only because it wiU not do its duty of cleansing these abomina tions, but StiU more because by its dispensations, provisions and coUections, it openly appoints men of the worst kind — ^not pastors, but destroyers of souls. In most parishes, a good priest may chance to succeed a bad one; but if the monks get hold of the appropriation, the mischief never ceases. And what can a bishop do ? The secular courts protect the laity, the exemp tions shield the monks, and the continual appeals to the primate and the Pope cause intolerable vexation and delay of justice, especiaUy when the offender is one of the men in high place who most need exemplary punishment. The Curia has filled the world with Ues, and even destroyed the confidence of men in docu ments. He ends with an earnest exhortation to the Pope to think over these things and to remember his own supreme responsibiUty for them. Innocent Ustened patiently, and even sent him away with a very satisfactory decision of the Vicarages Question. But Grosseteste recognized his failure, and departed in deep depres sion. He was an old man now — ^perhaps seventy-five — his health was broken, and for awhile he entrusted the business of the see to Robert Marsh, But two great events of his Ufe were stiU to come. One was the great confirmation of the Charters in 1253, The King swore to them as a man, as a Christian, as a belted knight, and as an anointed king, the bishops pronounced the solemn curse on aU who broke them, and the whole multitude flung down their candles on the pavement — " As these candles stink on earth, so may his soul stink in heU," It was of evil omen that the King alone had refused to take a candle. The other was the cuhnination of his struggle for pastoral efficiency. Innocent went on in his evil way. He sent for institution first an ItaUan who knew no Enghsh, then a boy-^ both of whom were refused. At last in 1253 he signified to Grosse teste that a prebend of Lincoln had by his special order been conferred on his own nephew, Frederick de Lavagna, a clerk in Holy Orders, and peremptorily commanded the bishop to admit him to the same, Grosseteste repUed in a strain of complete devotion to the Pope's authority, but with a flat refusal of this particular command, " It is out of fiUal reverence and obedience that I disobey, resist, and rebel." Innocent let the matter drop, HENRY III 81 and Robert of Lincob died in peace (October 1253), " Only at the point of the sword wiU the Church be freed from her Egyptian bondage." Grosseteste looked for the catastrophe " in a short time, perhaps three years," but near three centuries had passed before it came, Grosseteste's work was greater than he knew. He had done more than any man for the revival of learning, more than any man to set a lofty ideal before the Church, more than any man to keep ahve the spirit of EngUsh Uberty during the misrule of Henry III, Its next champion was a layman and a foreigner. Simon, eari of Leicester, was a son of that Simon de Montfort whose slaughter of the Albigenses is one of the hugest horrors of history. He came over as one of the King's favourites, and in 1238 married the King's sister Eleanor, the widow of the younger WiUiam MarshaU. The barons cried out; but the King soon quarrelled with Simon. The quarrel was made up in 1244, but their relations were never again cordial. The earl was StiU on the King's side in the Committee of 1244 ; but he drifted to the barons, and became a close friend of Grosseteste. Presently the King sent him out as Governor of Gascony (1248- 1252) and picked a final quarrel with him over his administration. Earl Simon decUned the regency of France, and came back to lead the barons of England. It was not long before the Bang involved himseK in hopeless difficulties by accepting Sicily from the Pope for his second son, Edmund. It had to be conquered from Manfred : and this brought the barons to a decisive move. The Proyiaons^of Oxford •(12&8) took the government out of the King's hands and estabUshed an oUgarchy, which, however, settled the old quarrel with France. After four years of imsettlement, the King in 1262 repudiated the Provisions of Oxford. The question was referred to St. Louis, who by the Mise of Amiens (for 1264) quashed the Provisions, and decided that the King might employ foreigners as he pleased, but that he must keep the Charters — ^as if Henry could keep a promise. In the uprightness of his heart, St. Louis had so entirely missed the question that Simon refused to accept the award. Many of the barons deserted him, but London and the cities ralUed to him, and the Franciscans and the Oxford students were on his side. With him also were the bishops of London, Chichester, and Worcester, old friends of 82 CHURCH AND STATJJi Grosseteste Uke himself. The armies met near Lewes (May 14), the King and Prince Edward were^c^gtSe37a5H EarrSimon was master of "England; Simon had wider views than most of the barons. He caUed the knights of the shires to his first ParUament, and the burgesses of the town to his second. Against him were the Pope, the King, Gilbert of Gloucester and other Lords marcher, and most of the barons ; and when he felLaiLEvesham (August 4- 1265) lii.ii plans seemed to perish with him. Yet it was not so. The people made him a saint in spite of the Pope, and Prince Edward had learned from him something better than mere generalship. Meanwhile the royaUsts pushed too far their desire of revenge. A desperate garrison held out in Kenilworth, and the whole country was in confusion. But the strongest of the barons was Gilbert of Gloucester, an old aUy of Simon, who had been won over to the royaUsts by promises of reform. He revolted when he found that the King did not mean to keep them. So, with the help of the legate Ottobon, tolerable terms were arranged for Simon's friends, and some reforms were embodied ,(J^268) in the statute of Marlbor(5ugh. The rest of Henry's reignv^as' peace: — WEen" hedied'^T^TZ)'' Prince Edward had taken the cross— the last great crusader — and was far away in Palestine : but the country was so quiet that he had no occasion to hasten his return. He did not set foot in England till 1274. CHAPTER X EDWARD I In many ways Edward I reminds us of the Conqueror — ^in his indomitable energy and miUtary skiU, in his masterful temper an3ruhbMding"winnS his tremendous wrath — ^at one outburst the dean of St. Paul's feU dead at his feet — and not least in his stainless privatfi-life, Ms, zeal for_ reUgion, and his love of justice and good faith. But the times were changed. Edward was not a foreign invader, but an EngUsh king. The system summed up in Domesday Book had been rudely shaken by Henry II. The lawyers had broken into it, the towns were breaking loose from it, and the feudal suzerain was being changed into a national king. Then Norman barons had become EngUshmen, and the gap which separated them from a subject people was filled up by a crowd of knights and yeomen. The Cistercians and the friars, the lawyers, the universities, and the schoolmen, stood for movements unknown in the Conqueror's time, and the con troversies of two hundred years had left their mark on Church and State. The Crown had been worsted by the Pope and by the barons, and Edward knew the Umits of his power. At heart he resented restraint Uke his father ; and even his maxim, that what touches all should be discussed by all, meant to himself httle more than the best way of getting money. The worst part of his character was his legal sharpness. He kept his promises — the Pactum serva inscribed in later ages on his tomb was not flattery — but he kept them too often only in the letter. Yet he could be generous to an old enemy once conquered, Uke Llywelyn in 1277. Edward was the successor at once of Henry II and of Earl Simon. From the one he inherited the pohcy of subordinating the barons and the Church to a strongly organized monarchy : from the other he took over the beUefs that EngUsh interests must be preferred to continental, and that the knights of the 83 84 CHURCH AND STATE shires and the burgesses of the towns might with advantage be allowed a voice in the granting of suppUes. Henry's work had been partly undone by the strong tyranny of John and the weak tyranny of Henry III, while Simon's plans were born in civil strife, and seemed to perish with him in the slaughter of Evesham. It was now for Edward in happier times to resume and to develop both. But every item of his poUcy provoked resistance, and we shaU get the best view of his reign by seeing how all the elements of opposition at home and abroad converged upon the critical times of 1294-1297. Edward's first care was to consoUdate the State on the Unes of Henry II, He failed, indeed, to aboUsh the baronial franchises which obstructed the king's justice, but his oro worrowJo investiga tions made it impossible that any new franchises of the sort should be created. Similarly the statute Quia em^QXSsJ-Ti 1290 stopped the creation of new manors by enacting that the buyer should not hold of the seUer, but step into his place and hold of the higher suzerain. And while the feudal tenures were weak ened, the king's justice was strengthened by the division of the Curia Regis into the three courts of the King's Bench, Excheqiier, and Common Pleas, which remained tiU our owh"times. The success of his measures is proved by the growth of the wool trade. If the best of mediseval order was far below the modern standard, England was the only country which had sufficiently good order to keep large flocks of sheep. But we must now take up Edward's foreign pohcy before we turn to church affairs. That poUcy centred on Wales and Scotland. Edward troubled himself but little with Ireland, and had no aggressive designs in Gascony : his main object was to bring the whole of Britain under one rule. Wales he conquered permanently, Scotland only for a moment. The Conquest of Wales faUs into four distinct stages. For a century after the Norman Conquest the kings backed up the Lords marcher. South Wales was conquered, and Gwynedd itself was only saved by the chance attack of Magnus of Norway in 1098. The Welsh were kept very low by the arms and pohcy of Henry I, and his settlement of Flemings in South Pembroke was permanent. But a great part of the conquered land was lost in the great Welsh rising which foUowed his death; and even Henry II could not recover much of it. His efforts were EDWARD I 85 brought to an end by the storm on the Berwyns in 1165, which scattered the EngUsh host in wild confusion. Henry recognized his failure, bUnded his hostages, and never attacked Wales again. Then came the conquest of Ireland by the Norman adventurers from Wales, Henry took alarm, and reversed his pohcy. Instead of backing up the Lords marcher against the Welsh, he used the Welsh princes to keep in check the Marchers, The Lord Rhys of South Wales was his trusty friend, and actuaUy received the title of Justice of South Wales in 1172, Rhys main tained his power tiU his death in 1197; and presently a third stage began, John's tyranny brought the Welsh princes for the first time (1212) into hearty aUiance under Llywelyn ap lorwerth, prince of Gwynedd, As first it was the King and the barons against the Welsh, and then the King and the Welsh against the barons, so now it is the barons and the Welsh against the King, It was Llywelyn ap lorwerth who gave the signal in 1212 for the rising of the barons against King John, and Llywelyn supported Richard Marshall against Henry III in 1234, The revolt of Stephen's time had been foUowed by a grand burst of poetry and romance in Wales, A national spirit was at last beginning to gather round the Lord of Snowdon, and a fair vision rising of a single ruler " from PUnUmmon top to Chester gate," and from the Severn Sea to royal Aberffraw, But it was too late now to resist indefinitely the overwhelming power of England, The Great Llywelyn (Llywelyn Tawr) set aside the dream, though it lured his grandson, Llywelyn of Gruffydd, to his ruin. After Llyweljm ap lorwerth's death in 1240 Henry III was almost as much master in Wales as Henry I had been, tiU Llywelyn of Gruffydd became undisputed prince of Gwynedd in 1255, and the Barons' War gave him his opportunity. Of course he sided with the barons, and was a firm aUy of Simon, So he recovered the whole country south as far as Brecon, and marked his new position by the new title of Prince of Wales, Even after the defeat of Simon, Edward was in no condition to chaUenge Llywelyn's power : he exacted a formal homage, and confirmed his conquests to him by the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267, The dream seemed almost reaUzed, But Llywelyn had gone too far. Skilful as his management had been in Enghsh civil strife, the fact remained that his con quests had been won chiefly from the Lords marcher. So now 86 CHURCH AND STATE we reach the final stage, with King Edward and the barons together against the Welsh, When Llywelyn steadily refused the homage due to the new king by the Treaty of Montgomery, a great army in 1277 laid siege to Snowdon, while a fleet cut off suppUes by. the conquest of Anglesey, The effort strained England, but it broke Llywelyn's power. The Peace of Conway left him his title of Prince of Wales, but deprived him of aU his conquests beyond the Conway and the Mawddach, A few more years of quiet : then the oppressions of Edward's officials caused another rising, Llywelyn was killed in an obscure skirmish near Builth (1282), and before long the whole country was at Edward's feet. He girdled Snowdon with a ring of mighty castles — Conway, Carnarvon, Criccieth, Harlech, Dolwyddelen — and ruled the conquered districts by EngUsh Law, saving some local customs. The Welsh, like the Irish, resented the abohtion of their ancient laws, and long remained unreconciled. The rising of Rhys of Maredudd in 1286 ended only in the downfall of the Lords of Dinefwr, but the revolt of Madog of Llywelyn in 1294 added greatly to Edward's difficulties at the crisis. The exploits of Owen of Wales in the dark times of 1372 remind us of the Irish exiles in the eighteenth century ; and even then the great revolt of Owain Glyndwr was still in the future. The country never settled down till Tudor times, after it had given a king to England, After Wales came Scotland, The beginnings of the mediseval kingdom may be traced back to the Uttle colony of Scots (Irish) in Argyle, dating back to the beginning of the sixth century. In 844 the Scottish king, Kenneth MacAlpin, became king also of the Picts, east of the Mounth and north of the Forth, and his successors gradually extended their power over the Celts of Strathclyde, north of the Solway, the Picts of Galloway, and the EngUsh settlers of Lothian (1018), Modern Scotland was com pleted by the conquest of the Western Islands in 1266, the acquisition of the Orkneys and Shetlands in 1468, and the final loss of Berwick to the EngUsh in 1482, But the Scottish kings, Celts as they were, saw the value of Enghsh Lothian, and made it the centre of their power. The Celtic reaction represented by Macbeth and Donald Bane was overcome, and the Enghsh influence which became dominant when Malcolm Canmore (c, 1068) married Margaret, the sister of Edgar AtheUng, was EDWARD I 87 made permanent by her sons (1094-1153), So Scotland became essentially EngUsh, and its development foUowed EngUsh Unes tiU the age of the French alUance, The Celts of the Highlands contribute Uttle to its history, except that their discontent constantly threatened in the twelfth century to spUt the kingdom in two, and it never ceased to be dangerous till the roads were made and the hereditary jurisdictions aboUshed after the battle of CuUoden in 1746, It was not long before the Enghsh influence became Anglo- Norman, Margaret was EngUsh, and it was the EngUsh Edgar Athehng who put down Donald Bane and placed her son Edgar on the throne. But the AtheUng led a Norman army, and Edgar and his brothers were frankly vassals of Rufus and Henry I, In fact, the Scots kings never ceased to be vassals of England till the interregnum (1296), Homage was undoubtedly due for the lands they always held in England : but was it due for Scotland also ? So the EngUsh said, and so it was decided by the Treaty of Falaise in 1175 : but when Richard annulled the treaty in 1189, the question became uncertain again. The Enghsh kings accepted homage " for the lands I hold of you," or in some other ambiguous form — and waited their time, Scotland was invaded Uke Wales by Norman adventurers. Even under Alexander I we find Norman names Uke Bruce and MoreviUe, Lindsay and Umfraville; and before long most of the best land was held as in Wales by Norman barons and Norman churchmen. Even the famiUes are often the same. We have BalUols and Morevilles on the Welsh border ; and while one Fitz- Alan was Lord of Oswestry, his brother founded the royal house of Stuart, True, they were brought in by native kings instead of coming on their own account ; but the general result was much the same. The kings gained a powerful force of Norman knights, and transformed themselves from Celtic chiefs to feudal suzerains, while the Lowlands were dotted with Norman castles. And beneath the shelter of the Norman castle rose the Norman church, served by a foreign priest, and the Norman monastery, ffiled with foreign monks and often dependent on some foreign abbot, Coldingham and Scone and Melrose answer to Margam and Neath and Strata Florida, In course of time the foreign character wore off, but neither Cistercians nor friars were the same powbr in Scotland as in the South, 88 CHURCH AND STATE The old Celtic Church in Scotland was Uke the Celtic Church in Wales and Ireland in its monastic origin and character, in its indefinite number of unattached bishops, in its want of govern ance, and in its independence of Canterbury and Rome, Its Keledei or Culdees were like the Welsh claswyr, and the first object of the Norman churchman was to turn them into monks of some recognized order, or to replace them by such monks. The work was mostly done in the twelfth century, though traces of the old conditions are found much later. The next thing was to set up a regular system of diocesan bishops. This again was a gradual process, but David I (1153) left the country parcelled out among nine bishops with clearly defined jurisdiction. Then came, as elsewhere, the question of their subjection to Canterbury and Rome, On this hpwever even Alexander I was not pliant : and there was a further difficulty. Pope Gregory had assigned to York aU the country north of the Humber ; but Canterbury as Papa alterius orbis claimed jurisdic tion to the furthest extremity of Britain, so that Scotland was entangled in the long dispute of Canterbury _and York, At St, Ahdrews Alexander I appointed his mother's confessor and panegyrist, the EngUshman Turgot, but presently turned him out for recognizing the supremacy of York, Then he chose another EngUshman in Eadmer, the historian of Anselm, and before long turned him out too for subservience to Canterbury, At last in 1188 Pope Clement III set aside the claims of York and Canterbury, and made Scotland immediately subject to the Holy See, Ultimately the bishoprics were grouped under the two metropoUtan sees of St. Andrews for the East, and Glasgow for the West. The thirteenth century is the golden age of Scottish history. While England suffered from the misrule of Henry III, and Ger many was in confusion after the fall of the Hohenstaufens, and even France was disturbed by many wars, Scotland, under the two Alexanders (1214-1286) had almost unbroken peace for seventy years, and prospered accordingly. Berwick ahnost rivaUed London, and Inverness itself was a place of ship-building, AU this fair promise was destroyed by the glorious but desolating and demoraUzing war of independence, which left behind the standing feud with England, and as its necessary consequence the unruly nobles who kept the country in disorder through the EDWARD I 89 long minorities of the early Stuart kings ; and these were followed by the troubles of reUgion which occupied the later Stuarts, During these four hundred years of perpetual unrest there was an advance in humanity, in education, and in reUgion ; but in material civiUzation the Scotland of James II may have been actuaUy behind the Scotland of Alexander III, ¦When Alexander had faUen from the cUff at Kinghorn, and the Maid of Norway's death had frustrated the marriage with Edward of Carnarvon which might have saved so many years of enmity, there were plenty of claimants for the Crown, but none with a clear title; and civil war was averted only by referring the question to the lord paramoimt in England, But the EngUsh kings had always claimed something more than an empty suzerainty, and Edward was determined to enforce his rights to the full extent of feudal law. After getting those rights fuUy acknowledged by the Scottish nobles, he proceeded by strict feudal law. He first took the castles into his hands, then appointed a commission (chiefly Scots) to investigate the question. When the decision was given in favour of John of BalUol, Lord of GaUoway and Barnard Castle, Edward declared him king of Scotland, took his homage, and restored the castles according to feudal law. The whole trouble seemed lawfully and happily ended (1292) ; and aU might have been weU, but for Edward's determination to enforce to the uttermost aU his lawful rights. He claimed as suzerain to receive appeals from Scotland at his pleasure. This might be law, but it was neither custom nor pohcy. No such appeals had ever gone before to England ; and if BalUol had been wilhng to endure them, his subjects would not have aUowed him. So he prepared for war, expeUed the Enghsh nobles, aUied himself with France (1295) and renounced his homage. The next element of the crisis was the discontent of the clergy, Boniface of Savoy had been succeeded in the primacy by the Dominican Robert Kilwardby, and when he laid it down in 1279 to become a cardinal, he was followed by the Franciscan, John Peckham, a disciple of Adam Marsh, and a reformer of the school of Grosseteste, imperious and tactless, and bent on extending the jurisdiction of the Church, On his first indiscretion, Edward rephed with the Statute of Mortmain (1279), the first of the great statutes which hmited the encroachments of the Church 90 CHURCH AND STATE in the later middle ages. It forbade the aUenation of land to ecclesiastical corporations without licence from its feudal superiors. The reason given is that the superior lost the benefit of reUefs, wardships, and such-like consequences of the holder's death; but its permanent value was to prevent the acquisition of too large a part of the land by the Church, In 1281 Peckham attempted again to enlarge the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts by claiming for them all suits concerning patronage, Edward made him withdraw this, and issued in 1285 the writ Circumspecte agatis, which finally laid down the Umits of spiritual jurisdiction. There stiU remain the Commons, They had escaped for some years with Ught taxation ; but a great effort had to be made for the conquest of Wales, and now still heavier taxation was plain in view. Thus then by 1294 the King was beset with difficulties on all sides. Wales and the Welsh march were in fuU revolt, and the great castles of Carnarvon, Cardigan, and Carmarthen had been taken ; Scotland, under BalUol, was fast drifting into war ; and behind them both stood PhiUp IV of France, who had got possession of Gascony by what the poUce call the confidence trick. To war on three sides was added discontent at home. Edward had humiUated the great earls of Norfolk and Hereford, and irritated the whole baronage by his quo warranto pohcy. The clergy under the new primate, Winchelsey (1294-1313), saw in his difficulties their opportunity for getting the statute of Mort main repealed ; and even the Commons were estranged from him by the heavy and increasing burden of the taxes needed for his wars. In this great crisis Edward threw himself on his people in a way no EngUsh king had done before him. The revolt of Madog had been already crushed when the-^^^iodel " ParUament met at Shrewsbury (November 1295). Besides the barraTaGdrTwo knights from every shire, there were two burgesses from every town summoned. The clergy also came, archdeacons and deans in person, with one proctor for every cathedral chapter, and two for the beneficed clergy of every diocese. This made three Estates, as in France a Uttle later. But two momentous changes followed in the fourteenth century. On one side the knights and the burgesses coalesced into a strong House of Commons : on the other, the clergy preferred to vote their own taxes in their own Convocation. As the kings were wilUng, they continued to EDWARD I 91 grant suppUes in Convocation till 1663, when they were brought under the ordinary taxation by an arrangement between Claren don and the primate Sheldon. The bishops however were barons, and continued to sit in ParUament as barons. In this way a States General of Three Estates became in England a ParUament of two Houses. Edward got rather scanty supplies, and the campaign of 1296 in Gascony was a failure, but Scotland was conquered without much difficulty. The destruction of Berwick was decisive : after a little more fighting, BalUol gave up his forfeited crown, and the kingdom escheated to its overlord. But a new difficulty arose in November. The laity granted suppUes for the French war, but the clergy would grant none. Boniface VIII had issued his BuU Glericis laicos, forbidding spiritual persons to grant suppUes to" temporal princes. This was only the logical result of accepted church principles ; yet it was a disastrous mistake of policy. Boniface had forgotten the rising power of national kmgs when he challenged them aU at once. PhiUp repUed by forbidding the export of gold from France. This cut off the Pope's own suppUes, and forced him to explain that the Bull was not meant for France. Edward put the clergy straight outside the law, and when Winchelsey excommunicated the oppressors of the church, he arrested the men who posted up the notices, and seized the possessions of the see . Winchelsey had the courage of St. Thomas, and was content to live on charity Uke the humblest viUage priest : but he could not safely stand on clerical privilege like St. Thomas, and excommunications had lost their terror, now that every angry churchman threw them out at random against all offenders, down to the naughty schoolboys. Presently Boniface explained again that he had not forbidden the clergy to offer supplies as a free gift. By July 1297 the struggle was over. Edward had conquered, and soon after levied a tax on the clergy by his own authority. Once for all, the clergy were made subject to the King ; and Henry VIII only went one 8tep\ further when he forced them to acknowledge their subjection. Yet stiU the danger thickened. The barons were taking the old ground, that their feudal tenures did not require them to serve in Gascony, and Edward had vainly threatened the earl of Norfolk. " By God, sir Earl, you shall either go or hang." " By God, sir Eng, I will neither go nor hang." Then 92 CHURCH AND -STATE the King in his extremity had recourse to lawless exactions which soon turned feudal discontent into a general opposition. Barons and Commons were united, and Winchelsey was wise enough to see that if clerical privilege had failed him, he might yet win by joining the others in defence of the Charter. Mean while, the oppressions of Edward's officials had caused a national rising in Scotland. It was no longer a discredited king and divided nobles but Wallace and the people who won the battle of StirUng Bridg«, and even raided the northern counties. This brought things to a point in England. The barons under NorfoUs; and Hereford demanded a confirmation of the charters; and the regency in Edward's absence granted not only this but a further petition, drawn in the form of a statute, that no such aids as had recently been exacted should be imposed again without the common consent of the realm. Edward at Ghent confirmed this (November 1297) and the constitutional crisis was over. It was a great victory won by Uttle men, and it weakened Edward's power for some time. He crushed WaUace at FaUdrk in 1298, but Scotland remained unconquered, and in the autmnn the EngUsh army dissolved of itself. During the next few years Edward was clearing his way for further action. He broke Winchelsey's power in 1301, and PhiUp gave up Gascony two years later. The power of the barons was also greatly weakened. Some of the old leaders died, some were won over, and several of the great fiefs escheated to the Crown. At last in 1303 he resumed the conquest of Scotland. He marched right up to the Moray Firth, received the submission of the regent Comyn (whom he replaced in office) and ordered the government of the conquered country on the same Unes as that of Wales. He completed his triumph in 1305 by the execution of Wallace; and in the next year he was able with the help of the new pope, Clement V, to drive Winchelsey into exile. Suddenly came the news that Robert Bmce, earl of Carrick, a grandson of BalUol's chief competitor in 1292, had murdered the regent Comyn in the Greyfriars' Church at Dumfries, and got himself crowned at Scone (1306). Scotland had risen again ; and though Bruce was defeated at Methven and driven from the country, the revolt broke out afresh when he returned in the spring. Edward's health was faiUng, but his determination to EDWARD I 93 recover Scotland was fixed. Northward he marched, but with slower and slower stages, tiU that indomitable wiU was quelled at last by death (July 7, 1307). It was well for England that his reign was not prolonged. His tenacity was degenerating into bUnd obstinacy. If Edward in his decay could not conquer Scotland, Edward in his prime could not have kept the country in subjection, and the effort would have strained England Uke the French war of Henry VI. And this was not all. Edward had always been wrathful and merciless, but his action was legal, and he never wilfuUy sacrified poUcy to passion. His resistance also to papal aggres sion had been steady and upon the whole successful. If his nominations had often been rejected — he could never secure Canterbury for his minister Bumell — ^he had enacted the Statute of Mortmain and won a decisive victory over Boniface VIII. But now he pursued Winchelsey with bUnd vindictiveuess, and secured the help of Clement V by allowing new exactions. The ParUament of CarUsle (January 1307) endeavoured to check this " unbridled multitude of apostoUcal provisions " ; but Edward connived at them, and left the decisions of the Parliament unexecuted. It was time he passed away. CHAPTER XI EDWARD II AND EDWARD IH With Edward I we have passed the culmination of the middle ages in England, and indeed in Europe generally. We enter now on times of disorder and decUne, thinly veiled by the glories of Crecy and Agincourt. The splendid promise of the thirteenth century issued in the hollow magnificence of the fourteenth, and that in the sordid failure of the fifteenth. We shall find exceUent generals in the Black Prince and Edward IV, and able officials Uke Wykeham and Beaufort, and the action of the Commons in the evil time of Henry VI is much to their credit ; but WycUffe is almost the only great man we shall meet before the Reformation. We have before us the misrule of Edward II, the ravages of the Black Death, the overthrow of Richard II, and the reaction of the French wars in the growth of anarchy which neither Lancaster nor York could check. Edward of Carnarvon inherited a magnificent presence and splendid health, but neither statesmanship nor sense of duty nor even common courage. He was an excellent athlete and a skilful workman, and had a taste for music and theatricals; but he was perverse and petulant, a drunkard and a gambler, and an utter trifler on the throne. John as a tyrant, Edward as a selfish fool, may dispute the pre-eminence of being the worst of EngUsh kings. Before him lay the Scotch war. A Uttle sense would have shown him that the choice lay between vigorously taking it up and frankly abandoning it ; but Edward returned to his amuse ments in London, and let it drift. His occasional efforts were foiled by the spirit of faction which his neglect of duty had let loose. When indeed England was roused by the danger of StirUng Castle in 1314, he was able to lead a mighty army north ward ; but he led it only to the rout of Bannockburn, the greatest miUtary disaster in English history. But now that peace was a 94 EDWARD II AND EDWARD III 95 necessity, Edward would have none of it, though the northern counties were ravaged ahnost every year, and the battle of Myton in 1319, brought the enemy south as far as Pontefract — further than they ever reached in Stephen's time. So the Scots war remained an open sore throughout his reign, Edward began by heaping favours on the vain and offensive Gascon knight. Piers Gaveston, tiU the barons drove him into exile. He was allowed Wreturn, but only to involve the King in worse difficulties. Lords ordainers were appointed in 1311, who took all power out of the King's hands. The favourite was exiled again, and on his return besieged in Scarborough Castle, He surrendered on terms, but was lawlessly beheaded in defiance of the capitulation. This outrage brought round some of the earls to the King's side, and in 1313 a sort of peace was made. The barons offered a formal submission, and the murder of Gaveston was left unpunished. Things went on from bad to worse. The disgrace of Bannock burn destroyed such power as Edward had recovered, and the next two years (1315-1316) were a time of terrible scarcity. The country was fuU of private wars, and the barons were as helpless as the King to quiet them. The man who should have led the barons was the King's cousin Thomas of Lj},ncq,ster. The great Edward made a sad mistake when he aUowed his nephew to hold three earldoms in his own right, and two more by his marriage. No subject had so confronted an EngUsh king since the faU of the Montgomery earls. But Earl Thomas had not even the cunning of the devil of Belleme. Unscrapulous and greedy, violent and suspicious, he would neither himself lead nor let others lead. With the commons and the clergy and the northern barons behind him, he had England at his feet ; but his only idea of statesmanship was to thwart the King at every turn. So a third party grew up, equally opposed to the King and to Lancaster, while Edward and his new favourites, the Despensers, formed a Court party. It was Gaveston over again. The Despensers were exiled and returned; but this time the King's victory was complete. Lancaster was defeated and captured (1322) at Boroughbridge, and summarily executed. No severer satire on Edward's misrale can be imagined than the fact that this base burlesque of Eari Simon was made a popular saint. 96 CHURCH AND STATE Once again the King had got his chance, and once again he threw it away. The Despensers ruled in his name, and finally ruined him. They quarrelled with the nobles, treated the queen Uke a prisoner, offended the Church in trying to punish the traitor bishop Orleton, and estranged the Commons by their failure to put down disorder. Meanwhile, the enemies of England were astir. Bmce captured Berwick in 1318, and in the next year Douglas routed the levies of Yorkshire at Myton. Edward himself was very nearly captured at Byland Abbey in 1322, and at last had to buy off the Scots with an ignominious trace. Then Charles IV of France (1322-1328) seized Gascony, and Edward sent over his offended queen to mediate with her brother. She plotted with the EngUsh traitors in Paris, and formed an adulterous connexion with Roger Mortimer, the lord of Wigmore. In 1326 the queen and Mortimer came over from Holland, There was no resistance : the King's own brother, Earl Thomas of Norfolk, joined the invaders, Edward was deserted and captured and compeUed to abdicate. The tragedy of Berkeley Castle completes the history. If ever a man brought on himself a hard fate by persistent foUy, it was Edward of Carnarvon; and his enemies were no better than himself. It is a sordid story. The anarchy may have been no worse than that of Stephen's time, and the mass of selfish greed no greater ; but the redeeming touches are fewer. Not a trace of reUgious enthusiasm lights up those twenty years of misery and shame. The Church fared Uttle better than the "State. The Papacy indeed had met with a terrible shock. Boniface VIII was not daunted by the failure of the Clericis laicos, but pushed his claims higher than ever, laying it down in the Bull Unamsanctam that it is necessary for salvation that every soul be subject to the Pope. But when he interposed in the Scots war, claiming Scotland as a fief of the Holy See, because it was converted by the reUcs of St. Andrew, the ParUament of Lincoln (1301) answered with a strong protest. A fresh quarrel with PhiUp of France led to the bratal outrage of Anagni (1303) from the shame of which Boniface never recovered. After awhile PhiUp secured the election of Bertrand de Goth, archbishop of Bordeaux, and therefore a subject of Edward, but a wiUing tool of France. Clement V (this was the name he took) debased the Papacy more than any of his predecessors. He managed indeed to avoid a EDWARD II AND EDWARD III 97 formal condemnation of Boniface VIII, but he gave up 'V^inchelsey to Edward's revenge, the Templars to the greed of Philip the Fair. The trials of the knights and the suppression of the order in 1312 horrified the world. Had the champions of Christendom mingled with the misbeUevers and corrapted themselves, or was their wealth their real crime? In either case, the first great spoUation of the Church was sanctioned by the Pope . In England the trials were less horrible, and the property — or so much of it as escaped the depredations of Edward and his barons — was duly handed over to the Kiiights of St. John. Another condition which PhiUp made with Clement had pohtical significance for England. The papal court was removed from Rome to Avignon, just outside French territory, but well within French influence. So for the seventy years of the " Baby lonish Captivity " — ^till 1378 — ^the popes were French, and^their pohcy was French. The EngUsh were jealous enough of France already, and when the great war broke out in 1337, the popes seemed no better than partisans of France. Their exactions were oppressive at best ; and now there was the further grievance that they were not much better than suppUes for the enemy. The Avignon popes pitched their claims higher than ever, and the rapacity, cormption, and meddlesomeness of the Curia increased accordingly; and if the popes themselves were not entirely scandalous, they were at best no saints. Edward II was on much better terms with the popes than his father had been, for he never troubled himself to oppose them. So neither did they trouble themselves to do more than get as much money as they could out of the bishops he nominated : and indeed the men whom Edward deUghted to honour were seldom worth much more than their money. Louis of Beaumont, who succeeded Antony Bek at Durham, was too ilhterate to read his profession of obedience to the archbishop ; and Burghersh of Lincohi was much the same, besides being a young fool of twenty-four. Edward's chosen primate Reynolds (1313-1327) is almost the only thoroughly bad man who has ever held Augus tine's chair. Ilhterate and worldly, incapable and jealous, rapacious and ungrateful— he was good at theatricals. Abler men were set aside, or got their sees in defiance of the King. Stratford was sent to Avignon to obtain Winchester for Baldock the chancellor; and he secured it for himself instead. Orieton 98 CHURCH AND STATE of Hereford was a cUent of the Mortimers, and was always faithful to them. He certainly deserves no pecuUar infamy for the prominent part he took in the revolution. He owed much to the Mortimers, nothing to the King ; and in tmth better men than Reynolds and Orleton might fairly doubt whether an adulterous queen could possibly do worse than the worthless king who was visibly bringing the country to destruction. His deposition was necessary, however base and selfish were the men chiefly concerned in it. '¦- Edward duke of Aquitaine was proclaimed in his father's place as Edward III, but the queen and Mortimer ruled in his name. They cared nothing for the disorders caused by twenty years of misgovernment. Mortimer's ambition was to gather the whole of the Welsh march into a single earldom ; and his mistress was equally rapacious. So there was no improvement. Charles of France continued his encroachments in Guienne, and one more devastating Scots raid enabled Robert Bruce in 1328 to dictate the Treaty of Northampton, by which aU claims to suzerainty over Scotland were abandoned. In 1330 Edward seized and executed Mortimer, and relegated his mother to a decent retire ment from public affairs. But the next few years were not eventful. Edward was a brilliant and popular young king, chivalrous and full of energy, but without his grandfather's statesmanship and sense of duty. So there was jousting and feasting at court, while the King's ministers put down the worst of the disorders which the revolution had left behind. Edward's first ambitions were toward Scotland, where he won the battle of HaUdon Hill in 1332, and nearly estabUshed his creature Edward BalUol on the throne. Then came the usual reaction, and Robert the Steward of Scotland was recovering the country for David Bruce when Edward's energies were called away to the south, and henceforth Scots wars became a side-play of the French wars. I In 1328 died Charles IV of France. Isabella claimed the crown for her son ; but the barons of France awarded it to PhiUp of Valois as the next heir in the male line, and presently Edward did his homage for Guienne to PhiUp VI. But there was deep distrust between the kings, and a bitter rivalry between French and EngUsh seamen. So things drifted into war, and in 1337 Edward assumed the title of King of France, which his successors EDWAED. II AND EDWARD III 99 retained till 1802. The first years of the war were indecisive. Edward leaned first on the Empire, then on Flanders, then on Brittany ; and all these poUcies were costly failures, except that the victory of Sluys in 1340, gave him the command of the sea. It was not tiU 1346 that Edward led an EngUsh army to within fifteen miles of Paris, and covered the hardships of his retreat with the dazzling victory of Crecy. And when David of Scotland assailed him in the rear, he was not only defeated but captured by the levies of the North at NeviUe's Cross. Crecy broke the speU of France like Blenheim, and Calais was taken in the next year. Then the grim spectre of the Black Death stayed the war for awhile. These twenty years (1327- 1348) left their mark on EngUsh History, They saw the con- soUdation of the Commons, and the estabUshment of their right to grant suppUes, never again disputed till quite recently. They saw also a new growth of national consciousness, of national hatred of France, and of national distrust of the pope as a partisan of France, His mediations were ahnost openly in the French interest, and the fleet which threatened England in 1337 was built in part mth English money subscribed for a crusade. The bishops left by Edward II commanded Uttle respect, and mostly deserved less. The worthless primate Reynolds did not long survive the patron he had deserted ; and his successor Simon Mepeham (1328-1333) was at any rate a man of piety. But he was weak and tactless, quarrelling with the pope, with the archbishop of York, with other bishops, and finally with the monks at St. Augustine's, who refused to produce their charters, and set him at defiance. An appeal to Rome was given against him with enormous damages, and he died excommunicate for not paying. Devout as he was, he cared Uttle about getting absolu tion. Even the churchmen were beginning to see that " The curse causeless " shall not come to pass. Excommunication became an absurdity when it was made an ordinary means of collecting debts, and every priest who had the impudence excommunicated his bishop. With the next primate JohficStiatfoid (1333-1349) we go back to the episcopal men of business of the twelfth century, for Stratford was a trae successor of Roger of SaUsbury and Hubert Walter. For ten years he held the threads of EngUslf poUcy; and Edward's bitter quarrel with him in 1340, when he failed to provide funds for the French war, was not a lasting 100 CHURCH AND STATE one. The king had to give way when Stratford sustained his claim to be tired only by his peers in ParUament. The next two primates belong to 1349, the year of the Black Death. John Ufford died before consecration, the great schoolman Thomas Bradwardine shortly after it. Simon IsUp (1349-1366) was more lawyer than divine, and the chief work of his primacy was the settlement of the long dispute for precedence between Canterbury and York. Simon Langham (1366-1368) was a Benedictine; but before long he laid down the primacy as Kilwardby had done for a cardinal's hat. WiUiam Wittlesey (1368-1375) was in bad health, and Simon Sudbury, the last of Edward's primates, belongs rather to the next reign. But the significance of the time is not in the succession of second-rate primates, often overshadowed by prelates of lower rank Uke Grandisson and Brantingham at Exeter, Thoresby at York, or WilUam of Wykeham at Winchester, but in the changing conditions of church Ufe and the growth of a poUtical resistance to the Papacy. The secular clergy went on much as before. Some of them were as gross as their flocks ; and a ceUbate priest hood always does more than its share of the crimes of violence. The appropriated churches were now mostly served by vicars, but the evils of pluraUties and non-residence were very much increased by papal interference. The friars were now past their prime. There were still great schoolmen Uke Bradwardine and WilUam of Ockham; but the Scotist defence of the church tended to rest on the Agnostic position that God is inscrutable, and therefore we must beUeve what the church teUs us. Moreover, now that the first zeal of the Mendicants was cooUng, their Ufe among the people exposed them to temptations. The monks were becoming unpopular. Their routine went on as of old ; though the rule was often relaxed, yet bad scandals do not seem to have been very common. But now the monks were not labourers but landlords, often with vexatious rights. When the towns people attacked the abbey of St. Albans in 1328, the chief en deavour was to burn the title-deeds of the monks. The deep division of the church is shown by the presence of several priests among the rioters, and the known sympathy of the friars with them. As men of the people, they commonly took the side of the people. The attack on St. Albans was more than an incident of the EDWARD II AND EDWARD III 101 revolution. It shows the church divided against itself, and marks \ an early stage of the social unrest which broke forth in the i Peasants' Risings of 1381. More than this, it is one of many ' signs which reveal the immense change of reUgious thought in England since the last great anarchy in Stephen's time. In those days the monks were respected ; now they were unpopular^ Then the monasteries were refuges from lawless violence ; now\ they were its victims. In Stephen's time half a dozen new/ houses were founded every year ; now there were very few, and the new endowments were scanty. In fact, the monks seemed more or less of impostors, now that they had almost abandoned even the pretence of Uving up to their professed ideal. Their fat and jolly looks and love of comfort and good Uving suggested anything rather than the austerity of the old Rules. Small wonder if scandal made them out worse than they were. The devotions of the later middle ages took a new form which was not ascetic. Instead of a monastery, the pious founder estabUshed a chantry — endowed a priest to say mass at a particular altar for himself and his departed relatives : or a gild would estabhsh a chantry for its departed members. These chantries first appear in the middle of the thirteenth century, and their number became enormous, for new ones continued to be founded till the Reformation. The masses might be said at the altar of the church, but more commonly separate altars were built in corners of the church, or in side chapels erected for them ; and the priest might help in parish work, or he might have nothing to do but sing his masses. Often also there were several priests, commonly forming a college. These foundations were much more numerous than the monasteries, and one parish church might have half a score of chantries. It will be seen how the thoughts of men were turning from ascetic observances to prayers for the dead as the safest way to heaven, ' This indeed was the deepest reason for the discredit into which the monasteries were faUing, Now that the worst of the mediseval anarchy was over, doubts of the mediseval ideal arose. They were scarcely yet formulated, but they were none the less real. Was the " reUgious " Ufe so certainly the most pleasing to God ? Was reUgion the one proper business of life, so that secular work and secular leaming were evils to be Umited as much as possible ? In short, Igarmng had become a rival to " religion." 102 CHURCH AND STATE The schools of the early middle ages were attached to monas teries and cathedrals, and the reUgious foundations of Oxford would seem to have attracted students in Anglo-Norman times. There must have been a considerable gathering by 1149, when Vacarius came from Bologna to lecture on the Civil Law, and the teachers of theology and philosophy induced Stephen to forbid him. By this time the students were by no means only those connected with the monasteries, for the town was full of lodging- houses densely packed with students under no supervision, and therefore very disorderly. Presently the Civil Law came back, and joined with Medicine and Canon Law to distract students from Theology. There were no colleges yet, but we may count Oxford as a university from about 1220, when its list of chancellors begins. At first it was quite secondary to the older university of Paris, where many of its best scholars completed their studies. It was not even firmly fixed at Oxford. As the university had no large endowments, there was nothing to hinder frequent secessions of students. One of these took root at Cambridge_in_1209, though similar migrations at various times Id Stamford and Northampton came to nothing. But a secession from Paris to Oxford in 1228 had permanent results. Scholars gathered round~GrosseE'estg~^nd Adam Marsh, and Oxford became the leading university of Christendom. Cam bridge followed at a distance, and for a time produced no scholars of the first rank. But there were serious inconveniences in the herding of students in unregulated lodging-houses, and presently coUeges were founded. The pattern was given by Walter de Merton in 1274. He formed a corporation of students ; not monks, for he required no asceticisms, and even forbade them to take vows : they were simply to study as long as they resided. Merton's model was followed by Hugh de Balsham at Peterhouse in 1284, and with modifications by most of the early colleges at Cambridge, Thus a new ideal of leaming was deUberately set up in opposition to the old ideal of asceticism. The Mendicants had already given up the seclusion of the monks ; and now the students went a step further, for there was nothing essentially ascetic in their colleges. The Black Death came from the East, and had already ravaged Italy and France when it reached England in August 1348. The EDWARD II AND EDWARD III 103 Scots called it the foul death of the Enghsh tiU it reached them selves in 1350. For something hke a year the plague was at its worst ; but its returns in 1362 and 1369 were only less de structive than its first visitation. We have statistics only of the clergy; and of these we can definitely say that considerably more than half were swept away. In the diocese of Norwich more than eight hundred parishes lost their parsons, eighty-three of them twice, within the year ; and the devastation was even greater in some of the monasteries. But the priests died honour ably at their posts, and it may not be safe to assume that other classes lost as heavily. Yet upon the whole it seems Ukely that nearly half the population perished. An immediate result of the Black Death was a relaxation of > church rules. Priests were too few; so confession was allowed to laymen, deacons might give the consecrated bread, and faith was to supply the place of extreme unction. Men were ordained under age and with slender learning, and laymen (free from wives) were pressed into the serAdce. Yet for all this, many churches remained unserved. The terrors of the pestilence abated : and with them vanished ahke the high-wrought enthusiasm of the fanatics who saw in them the coming of the day of doom, and the reckless desperation of the ungodly who said. Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. But the social and econonuc results of the Black Death were permanent. The working classes had been so thinned by the pestilence that the survivors could make better terms for themselves. The labourers in the country and the artisans in the towns looked for better wages, and the unbeneficed clergy demanded higher stipends. But the government was against them in Church and State. ParUament passed a long series of Statutes of Labourers, with heavy penalties on men who demanded aim ernpl^ers who paid higher wages than those current before the Plague, while the bishops denounced the greed of priests, and tried to punish those who took more than five or six marks a year. It was all in vain. As prices rose, wages rose and stipends rose, and landlords and rectors had to pay. But there remained a social discontent which exploded in the revolt of 1381, and smouldered for a long time in LoUardism. The monasteries especiaUy suffered. They had long since given up the labour prescribed by the Benedictine Rule, and 104 CHURCH AND STATE employed lay brethren and common labourers to cultivate their farms. But now that lay brethren were fewer and labourers more costly, they were compelled to change their system and have tenant-farmers paying rents. Thus the busy workmen of past time become sleepy corporations of idlers — mere landlords and encumbrances on the soil. This was at best an invidious posi tion, and it was full of danger in times of social and reUgious unrest. It was not long now before John BaU, the Essex priest, was preaching revolutionary sociaUsm, and John WycUffe, the northern student, was learning the doctrines which were to destroy the religious unity of England. Meanwhile the war in France went on. There was plenty of desultory fighting, and plenty of ravage and destruction, but no regular campaigning, and nothing decisive tiU 1356, when the Black Prince was overtaken at Poitiers Uke his father at Crecy, and won a stiU more brilUant victory, for it was gained against greater odds, and King John of France was captured. But the exhaustion of England was becoming evident. David of Scotland was released in 1357 for an impossible ransom, and there was no more serious fighting in the North. In Ireland the ground lost in the invasion of Edward Bruce was never recovered, and in 1361 the EngUsh government confessed its failure by the Statute of Kilkenny, which practicaUy gave up to the native Irish everjrthing beyond the Pale — ^the old diocese of DubUn. A similar confession had already been made in France. In itself indeed the Treaty of Calais in 1360 was a splendid peace, for it gave Edward Calais, Ponthieu, and the whole of Aquitaine in fuU sovereignty; but none the less it marks (though not ex- phcitly) the failure of his claim of the crown. Moreover, the gain was more apparent than real, for Aquitaine was disaffected, and Charles V (1364-1380) was watching his time. He had not very long to wait. The Black Prince held a splen did court at Bordeaux ; but he failed to make Aquitaine loyal, and wasted his resources and ruined his health in restoring Peter the Cruel and expelling Henry of Trastamara from Castile. When Charles V renewed the war in 1369, Edward was old, the Black Prince an invaUd, Pope and Emperor hostile, and Henry of Trastamara's return that year added Castile to the Ust of enemies. Moreover, the French had learned their lesson, and would fight no pitched battles. They made rapid progress, and EDWARD II AND EDWAED III 105 with CastiUan help, won the command of the sea in a fight off RocheUe in 1372. After this, no reUef could be sent to Aquitaine except by land, John of Gaunt led a great army from Calais in 1373 through France ; but the French would fight no battles, the army wasted away in the devastated country, and only a remnant reached Bordeaux, By the time a truce was made at Bruges in 1375, nothing was left of the Enghsh conquests but Calais, Brest, Bordeaux, and Bayonne, The pope always pushed his claims against weak or wicked kings Uke Rufus, Stephen, John, or Edward II, and even the strong kings who came after them rather lost than gained ground. For a long time indeed there was no steady resistance. The kings connived at aggressions when it suited their purpose ; and their subjects found the pope at a distance a useful check on the king near at hand. What brought matters to a crisis was the French partisanship and the increasing rapacity of the Avignon popes. The annates or firstfruits, being the first year's revenue of every ecclesiastical office, were oppressive enough, especially when they were worked in a sort of chain. If for example York was translated to Canterbury, Lincohi to York, and another to Lincoln, four bishoprics and some fat Uvings would have to pay firstfruits. Even more offensive was the system of pro visions and reservations, by which the pope " provided " at his pleasure for ecclesiastical preferments when vacant, or reserved them for his pleasure or granted pensions out of them when they should become vacant. And his pleasure was nearly always to give them to foreigners — ^in that age commonly to our enemies the French, Grosseteste had resisted at an early stage of the usurpation, and Swinfield of Hereford had foUowed his example ; but by this time things were much worse. Innocent IV was moderate as compared with Clement VI, Legal security was not wanting, for the king's courts had always had jurisdiction in questions of patronage since the time of Henry II, For laymen this was enough : but spiritual patrons would not appeal to secular courts against the pope, and therefore needed further protection. The Commons of England took up the matter in 1343, and after vain remonstrances to the pope, the great Umit- ing Statftte,^^rovisorswas passed in 1351, If the pope nomi nated to any eccIesiasticar'prBfemient "against the rights of its lawful patrons, the preferment should be forfeited for that turn 106 CHURCH AND STATE to the king : and if any one with a papal provision disturbed the lawful holder of such preferment, he should be arrested and punished by the king's courts. There was still another grievance, in the frequent appeals to Rome in suits concerning ' the temporal possessions of the Church : and in J353-the next great Umiting statute, the Statute of Pmmmm§^_ena,cted that any one who drew out of the realm aTcase which belonged tblffifi king's courts should be Uable kiiorfeit.urej3ilands.and.,gaads, with outlawry and imprisonment, Rome was not expressly mentioned .till 1365, and the statute only received its final form in 1391, jThese two statutes of Provisors and Prsemumre are a^reversion ; to the Constitutions of Clarendon; but the force behind them is no longer the king's wilt— it is tlie will of the nation expressed by ParUament, Thus papal interference was shut out as far as law could shut it out ; and if there was further ground for com plaint, it was because the king connived at it, instead of enforc ing the law. Thus in the case of bishops, the king nominated, and the pope provided commonly the same person, and the election by the chapter was not more free than it is now. Passing over some other quarrels. Urban V in 1366, demanded the arrears of King John's tribute of 1000 marks. Edward laid the matter before ParUament, which repUed— and even the bishop agreed — that King John had no right to promise tribute without their consent. This was the original contention of the barons in 1213, but it was now affirmed as the decision of the nation in ParUament assembled. The question came up again in 1374, when Gregory XI asked for a subsidy as suzerain of England. Archbishop Wittlesey acknowledged his right, and the clergy were divided, for some friars leaned as usual to the popular side. Next day Wittlesey " did not know what to say," but when hard pressed by the Black Prince, he decided that the pope was not lord paramount. So said they all ; and the claim was never seriously raised again. The closing years of Edward's reign were years of disaster, and disgrace. The King was sinking into a shameful old age, with AUce Perrers at his side instead of Queen PhiUppa, and the nation, demorahzed by pestilence and war, was ready to vent its wrath on the King's ministers and on a corrupt church whose wealth invited spoUation, and all over the country rose deep murmurs of peasant discontent. So when Edward died in 1377, EDWARD II AND EDWARD III 107 there were stormy times ahead for his grandson Richard II, a boy of eleven. When Henry III made Prince Edward Earl of Chester, and gave the three earldoms of Lancaster, Leicester and Derby to his younger son Edmund, he began the system followed by his three successors, of gathering the great earldoms into the royal family. They forgot that even if sons and brothers are loyal, cousins are apt to quarrel, and cousins of royal blood are Ukely to quarrel for the crown. The house of Lancaster in particular faced the monarchy almost Uke a rival power. Earl Thomas was too strong for Edward II, but even more incapable. His successors were loyal. Earl Henry compassed the fall of Mortimer, and his son Duke Henry did good service in Gascony. So Edward III seemed to have won a great success in 1359, when he gave the heiress of Lancaster to his third son, John of Gaunt. Yet John of Gaunt led the opposition to the Court in the last year of Edward's hfe; and when the Peasants' Rising of 1381 drove him out of EngUsh poUtics, his place was taken by his son, Henry of Derby. But when Henry of Derby came to the throne as Henry IV, another royal Une had to be considered. Edward's second son Lionel of Clarence left a daughter PhiUppa, who married Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, the heir of IsabeUa's paramour. Thus the lords of Wigmore, the old enemies of Lancaster, became another royal house. On the Black Prince's death in 1376, John of Gaunt was next heir male after Richard of Bordeaux, but PhiUppa's son Roger was next of kin. John indeed proposed at once to exclude his niece, but Parhament shelved the question, and Roger was killed in Ireland in 1398. The new earl of March, whom Richard had designated as his successor, was a child in 1399, and proved a loyal subject. But on his death in 1424, the Mortimer lands passed to his sister Anne, widow of Richard of York, the conspirator of 1415, so that her son, Richard Duke of York, claimed a double descent from Edward III, through Edmund of York as well as through Lionel of Clarence. Thus the Mortimer claim became serious when it was taken up by the enemies of Henry IV; and though there were several plots in the time of Henry V, it was never dangerous again till the incapacity of Henry VI brought Richard Duke of York to the head of affairs. Thus the reign of Richard II was in large part the struggle of 108 CHURCH AND STATE Henry of Derby with the crown. First the King's favourites were overthrown in 1387 by the five Lords Appellant — Henry among them. Eichard bore the yoke, and showed no resentment when he shook it off in 1389, For eight years he governed weU, with the Lords AppeUant in full favour : then came a sudden change. Was Eichard's mind unhinged by the loss of his first ' wife Anne of Bohemia in 1394, or was he a deep dissembler ? It is hard to say : his savage maUce may point either way. Certain it is that in 1397 he suddenly arrested three of the Lords Appellant. Gloucester was murdered, Warwick imprisoned, Arundel executed, and his brother the archbishop was displaced from the primacy. The other two, Nottingham and Derby, were made Dukes of Norfolk and Hereford : but when Hereford accused Norfolk of treason a Uttle later, Eichard took the opportunity to exile both. Eichard was now a reckless tyrant. He not only believed but continuaUy boasted his divine right to govern as he pleased without regard to law, and practicaUy got rid of ParUament by inducing it to delegate its powers to a small committee of his favourites. He disregarded even MachiavelU's elementary cau tion, for though he dishonoured no women, he systematically forced men to give bonds for arbitrary and unlawful exactions. True, he preferred keeping the bonds to taking the money, but his arrogance and contempt of law and justice made him intolerable, ' The crowning mistake was his confiscation of the Lancaster lands, ', contrary to his express promise, on the death of John of Gaunt. All England felt that Henry of Lancaster had right on his side , when he landed with a handful of men at Eavenspur in July 1399, By the end of August Richard was a prisoner and forced to abdicate, and on the last day of September Lancaster claimed the crown and was accepted by ParUament as Henry IV. Of the French war httle need be said. The French held the sea, and seriously molested the coast of England in the early years of Richard II, But there was no fighting to much purpose — England was distracted by civil strife, and France was soon disabled, first by the minority of Charles VI (1380-1422) and after 1392 by his insanity, A long truce was made in 1394, and two years later Richard agreed to marry Charles' daughter Isabella, then aged seven. But the marriage came to nothing at Richard's faU, and the national hatred remained — a, card to be played by the next king who found it convenient. CHAPTER XII JOHN WYCLIFFE We come now to a greater man than Richard II, and a move ment of deeper meaning than the revolution of 1399. John WycUffe was born in the north country about 1320, and came up to Oxford ; but the details of his university career are obscure. For many years his reputation was academic, as a great scholar and a great teacher. As a schoolman he stood in the front rank with Duns Scotus, Ockham, and Bradwardine, and as a man of learning none but Robert of Lincoln surpassed him. His first pubUc appearance was in the King's service at the debate on the Pope's Tribute in 1366, and for the next dozen years he worked for the Crown and latterly in alhance with John of Gaunt, and was rewarded for his services in 1374 with the rectory of Lutterworth. In holding that the pope had no right to tribute, or that Parhament might forbid the incomes of non-resident clergy to be sent abroad, WycUffe had the country with him. But the weakest point of the Church was its overgrown wealth. If many of the parish priests and vicars were the poorest of the poor, the monks — especiaUy in the larger houses — ^Uved in comfort, the bishops in luxury and pomp, while pluraUsts, abbots, and papal officials, were Uttle behind them. The attack in the fourteenth century came from three different quarters. First were the men who envied the rich, and the vulgar politicians who saw only that there was a good deal of money which might be used for the French war. At the other extreme were the more earnest of the Franciscans, who held that poverty in the mediseval sense is a necSBSary condition of the higher Christian hfe. This was logical, for it was one of the three essentials of the entire monastic system ; only it made every secular cleric an offender, from the pope downward. So when the question was fairly raised, in 1317, Pope John XXII had no choice but to decide 109 110 CHURCH AND STATE that the Lord and His Apostles had possessions. But in doing this he discredited the mediseval ideal of poverty precisely as the Reformers discredited that of chastity when they aUowed the clergy to marry. The theory of monasticism was destroyed; and graduaUy the better men turned away to other caUings and less ascetic associations, or sought refuge in mysticism or heresy. It is not without a cause that so many of the Reformers, from Brother Martin downward, came from the friars. The baser sort yielded to the temptations of their mendicant Ufe, and made the friars a byword of shameless greed and vulgar quackery. There was yet a third class of opponents in the reforming churchmen who simply thought that the Church would be the better for the loss of its superfluous wealth and the severance of its demorahzing connexion with the State. The austere spirit which inspired the Church itself in Hildebrandine times had now passed over to the enemies of the hierarchy. The change is well marked by Paschal II's repudiation of the Convention of 1111, by which the Church gave up the regalia, while the emperor renounced his claims on holders of spiritual offices. To this class of reformers WycUffe belonged; and it was on charges of this nature, of course called heresy for the occasion, that he was brought to trial in February 1377, by Bishop Courtenay of London. But WycUffe appeared in St. Paul's with John of Gaunt and the earl marshal Percy at his side, and the trial resolved itself on the first day into a violent altercation between the duke and the bishop ; and the next morning it was broken off by a riot of the Londoners against the duke. In May 1377, Gregory XI sent BuUs to the King, the primate, the bishop of London, and the university of Oxford, ordering fresh proceedings against WycUffe. But the King was dead before the BuUs reached England, the primate and the university were not very wilUng, and when the bishops brought Wychffe to trial again, they were overawed by the noisy demonstrations of the Londoners in his favour, and let him off with a perfunctory warning. But Wychffe was a poUtical reformer on principles which now led him to a direct attack on the doctrines of the Church. In the first place he appealed to the Bible ; and if he deferred as late as 1376 to the doctors of the Church, before long he came to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is the only interpreter of Scrip ture, and that no custom of the Church is praiseworthy unless it JOHN WYCLIFFE 111 is confirmed by Christ. The true Church is of the elect who are known only to God; and the visible Church has been sadly corrupted by its endowments since the donations of Constantine. Then comes his famous position. Dominion is founded on grace. God is Lord Paramount, and all men hold of Him directly, for there are no mesne lords in His kingdom, and by tenure of service/ to Him. So the righteous who renders that service is lord of all/ and the wicked who do not may rightfully be deprived of their lordship. This however is ideal, for if God tolerates the present evil order, so must we. But in any case temporal rule belongs ] to earthly lordship, so that pope and priest have no right to meddle with it. But he did not therefore break with the Papacy, ' even after the Schism of 1378, till the crimes of Urban VI con vinced him that the pope is antichrist. With the Papacy went the whole hierarchy. There were no bishops in early times, and none are needed now, for simple priests have as much right as they to ordain and confirm. Archdeacons and the rest of them simply make gain of the sins of the people, and are worse than the harlots. The monks are fat and luxurious, wasters of great posses sions, and useless to the state and to the poor. They get their appropriations by flattery and fraud, and send fools as vicars. Worst of aU are the friars, for their pretensions are the highest, and yet they are not only as rapacious and as worldly as the monks, but more busy in preaching and defending all superstitious and corrupt practices, Transubstantiation (though he only came to this in 1381) is bad philosophy, for it gives us accidents without substance, and substance without accidents; and it has led to an idolatrous worship of the Host, and given rise to many super stitions and impostures. His own behef was more Uke Luther's Consubstantiation. Penance as then administered was a sacra ment of the devil. It was an antichristian bondage to the priest, and the whole traffic of satisfactions for sin was base and abomin able. Priests ought to Uve by freewill offerings and to preach, and should be allowed to marry, . WycUffe comes very near to the miUtant Puritanism of Thomas Cartwright in his demand that every custom must be sanctioned by Christ : and indeed his doctrine is broadly Puritan in his rehance on Scripture for all things, his behef in predestination and a church of the elect, his denunciation of the hierarchy, his popular sympathies, and his insistence on preaching. But the 112 CHURCH AND STATE Puritan would have modified his Erastianism, rejected his Con- substantiation, and laid more stress on the idolatry of image- worship and the unworthiness of the minister as hindering the efficacy of sacraments. Wychffe made clear to all men the fact already indicated by the success of the mendicants — that England has never been quite of one mind in reUgion. The Protestant tendency to individual reUgion is more genuinely EngUsh than the CathoUc tendency to corporate reUgion, and the Reformers failed in their endeavour to comprehend both on equal terms within the Umits of a single national church. But WycUffe's greatest work is the EngUsh version of the Bible which has always been connected with his name. There were indeed translations of certain parts into the old Enghsh of Saxon times or into Norman French ; but the Latin Vulgate was the Bible of the Church, and there is no sufficient evidence that there was any EngUsh version of the whole Bible. " WycUffe's " version certainly came from WycUffite quarters, though we cannot say what personal share he took iu the work. There seem to have been two editions, one issued in WycUffe's Ufetime, and a cor rected one finished after his death by Purvey. It is a fine version in vigorous Enghsh, and sometimes Catches points missed by all its successors.-'- The churchmen were cold at best. The trans lation itself was fairly done, but it had Wychffite prefaces, and what was worse, it was meant for the common people, and spread among them by the Poor Priests, whom Wychffe trained to preach hke the Mendicants, but to preach the Bible and not to beg. So while persons of rank were naturaUy treated with courtesy, from Queen Anne downward, a Wychffite version in the hands of common people was a pretty conclusive proof of heresy. The rapid spread of WycUffite opinions met with two serious checks in 1381-1382. Though the confused risings summed up in .^at Tyler's name were mainly economic, the reaction which followed them was hostile to rehgious reform. It was a time of strikes and trade unions and labour unrest Uke our own. The artisans of the towns and the peasants in the country had a common grievance in the Statutes of Labourers, which kept dovra their wages. Besides this, the peasants were gaUed with 1 Thus WycUffe's is the only English version which steadily distin guishes the twelve K6ipivoi of the Five Thousand from the seven iripvptSes of the Four Thousand, JOHN WYCLIFFE 113 numerous feudal dues, often the more vexatious for their small- ness ; and they were especially provoked when the lords repudiated the commutations of labour rents for money made in times when labour was cheaper, and exacted the labour instead of taking the money. Then there were the journeymen (not yet so caUed) who were systematically hindered from becoming masters in their trades ; and the problem of casual labour was as pressing then as it is now. And there were further elements of disorder in the towns which chafed under the rule of oUgarchies, and in the towns which had failed to obtain charters of Uberties from their lords — ^always abbots. The risings were naturally most formidable in Kent and the Eastern Counties : in the North and the Midlands they were much less serious, and there were none to the west of Bridgwater. The government was utterly incompetent, and allowed the rioters to enter London and even seize the Tower, where they beheaded the primate Sudbury. The situation was desperate when the mayor Walworth cut down Tyler in the presence of his followers, audit was only retrieved by the splendid courage of King Richard himself, then a boy of fourteen. Of course there was a good deal of pillage and murder of lawyers, foreigners, and specially ob noxious persons, but upon the whole the rioters were much more intent on burning the court-roUs and securing charters of free dom for the serfs. The charters were revoked and a bloody revenge was taken by the upper classes in the restoration of order. The risings were a complete failure, and rather hindered than helped the natural causes which swept away most of the serfdom before the next great riots were stirred up by Jack Cade in 1450. The rioters had sohd grievances, and were not without friends among the clergy. The friars were men of the people, and some of the priests were sons of serfs, only emancipated by ordination. John Ball, the Essex priest, had for years taught something Uke SociaUsm, so that he naturaUy joined the Kentish rioters, preached incendiary sermons, and was hanged in due course, Wychffe himself seems to have had some sympathy with the rioters. But it would have availed him nothing if he had de nounced them as Luther denoimced the Peasants' Rising of 1522, Reactionaries always confound reformers with anarchists, and do their best to drive them into anarchism, Wycliffe was no I 114 CHURCH AND STATE revolutionist. The paradox, " God must obey the devil," was his version of " All they that take the sword shaU perish -with the sword." But his foUowers under stress of persecution went further, and the LoUards were not always peaceful citizens. The other check on WycUffite opinions was the cggulation of the uaiyersity of Oxford in 1382. Wychffe had now attacked the citadel oftEe^liole church system by his denial of Transub stantiation, and a cry of horror rose. This at all events was flat heresy. John of Gaunt tried in vain to make him hold his peace, and thenceforth became his enemy. The new primate Courtenay took -vigorous measures at Oxford. The chancellor Rygge and Wychffe's three chief supporters, Hereford, Aston and Repyngdon, were reduced to submission, and the rest of the Wychffites were hunted out from Oxford. They all recanted — martyrs are always few in the early days of persecution. Here ford ended his days as a canon of his own cathedral city : Repyng don became bishop of Lincoln and a cardinal, and an active enemy of the Lollards. The suppression of heresy took a long time, but it was thoroughly done. Oxford was the light of Europe in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries : in the fifteenth it was orthodox and insignificant. Wychffe retired to Lutterworth, and died in peace on the last day of 1384. He was still formidable, and Courtenay did not venture to try conclusions with him. The Council of Constance could only dig up the heretic's bones and scatter his ashes. His last years were spent in issuing tract after tract, revising his translation of the Bible with the help of Purvey, and denouncing the scandalous issue of indulgences for the crusades of the bishop of Norwich against the antipope in 1383. The remaining years of Richard's reign were a time of repres sion, but not of bloodshed, for the Lollards were still pUant, and the bishops were not fanatics. They knew that the heretics had influence at Court as well as with the people, and that the Commons were incUned to the WycUffite doctrines that the Church was best reUeved of its property. Anne of Bohemia favoured learning; and leaming in the later middle ages was apt to be heretical. Certain it is that the Bohemian scholars who came over with her brought back the Wychffite doctrines taken up by Huss and the Hussites, for Huss did Uttle more than copy Wychffe. After Anne's death there was a panic. Two conspicuous WycUffites JOHN WYCLIFFE 115 of the House of Commons posted up in 1395 a memorial calhng for drastic reforms — ^the temporal possessions and secular em ployments of the clergy to be aboUshed, auricular confession, pilgrimages and vows of chastity to be condemned. It found no favour -with the Commons, but Convocation took alarm, and the bishop brought back Richard from Ireland to sup press it. It is one of the signs that the leaders of the Church were coming to the conclusion that heresy could not be put down without severer measures. Richard indeed was no Lollard ; but during his reign they do not seem to have found the way clear for vigorous action. CHAPTER XIII LANCASTER AND YORK The revolution of 1399 has many points of Ukeness to that of 1688. In each case a king was practicaUy deposed for tyranny, and his place taken by a relative who could not do -without ParUament, yet fretted under its control. Henry IV resented the harangues of Sir Arnold Savage as WiUiam III resented the dismissal of his Dutch guards. In each case also the acute struggle of the next few years was foUowed by a long period of greater or less unsettlement, which indeed proved fatal to the House of Lancaster. But there were also great differences. France indeed was hostile and strong at sea, while Wales played the part of Ireland; but Charles VI was not Louis XIV, and the beggar in Scotland who did duty for Richard II cuts a sorry figure beside even the forlorn court of the exiled Stuarts. What is more, the Commons of England in 1399 had neither strength nor states manship to maintain the position they had taken up. They always voted niggardly suppUes tiU they came to the French war ; and that ruined them, for they could not check the flood of lawlessness which it poured back into England. In the end they were swept along by it, and the weak constitutional Lan castrians gave place to the stronger and more enUghtened adminis tration of the Tudors. Another striking difference is that which most nearly concerns us. Wilham III had no great love for the Church, and indeed no great cause to love it ; but the House of Lancaster was always in alUance -with the Church. Henry IV was a pohtician, Henry V a zealot, Henry VI a simple-minded man, but they all worked in harmony with the Church. If the revolution of 1688 was conservative, that of 1399 was reactionary. Whatever LoUardism reaUy meant in the fifteenth century, it was at all events a bugbear of anarchism and heresy ; and Henry IV came in pledged to put down both. 116 LANCASTER AND YORK 117 We need not trace in detail the troubled history of his reign. Its first crisis was the conspiracy of the four earls, within three months of the coronation. But the country was loyal, and the earls were lynched. Then came the revolt of Owain Glynd-wr, who made himself Prince of Wales, held his court in Harlech Castle, and alUed himself on one side with France, on the other -with Edmund Mortimer, uncle of the earl of March, To this was added in 1403 the rebelhon of the Percies in the North ; but Hotspur was killed at Shrewsbury, and his father submitted. Two years later came another great revolt, Northumberland was in arms again, and escaped when Nottingham and Archbishop Scrope of York were executed. When he came a third time he was killed at Bramham Moor in 1408, and then the land had rest. Meanwhile Prince Henry was struggUng year after year with Owain Glyndwr, and at last broke his power by the capture of Harlech in 1409, Thenceforth Glyndwr was an outlaw refusing pardon and never taken tiU his death in 1415, Henry's last years were not eventful. It cannot be said that the revolution of 1399 was generally cruel, for the only victims were Richard himself and three of his minions. The rest were only degraded a step in the peerage, and even Merke of CarUsle escaped with the loss of his see — till he plotted again. Of course later conspiracies and rebelUons were punished with greater severity. Yet if Henry grew merciless, it was only to traitors. Even Scrope had fairly forfeited his hfe, though the hasty execution of an archbishop by an irregular court was a lawless outrage. Chief Justice Gascoigne declared it illegal, the primate Arundel never forgave it, and the common people made a saint of Scrope ; yet, after all, no great disaster foUowed, Times were changed since the murder of St, Thomas, Arundel was the leading statesman of the time, A Church- manlndr an aristocrat, and even more a man of affairs than a Churchman, he is the very type of reaction in the fifteenth cen tury. As bishop of Ely he was chancellor for Gloucester and the Lords Appellant of 1386; but Richard dissembled with him, and even made him primate on Courtenay's death in 1396, Next year, however, he saw his brother the earl put to death, and himself driven into exile. He came back with the Ravenspur band, was at once restored to the primacy, and with his own hand led Henry of Lancaster to the throne. And as Henry came back 118 CHURCH AND STATE pledged to the Church, so Arundel returned with a fuU determina tion to put down LoUardy, He was not indeed a man of learning or of any conspicuous piety : but LoUardy offended the Church man by its disobedience, the aristocrat by its -vulgarity and its leanings to social unrest. Neither was Henry a genuine zealot. He was quite wilUng to let Arundel burn a few obscure offenders ; but great men like Oldcastle and Cheyne remained in favour throughout his reign; and if the Lollard earl of SaUsbury perished in 1400, he was not condemned for heresy, but lynched for treason. The punishment prescribed by the Church for heresy was death by fire ; and it had been in use on the continent since 1017, and in extensive use during the last two centuries. So far as the systematic destruction of the records allows us to judge, there may have been many more heretics burned in the thirteenth century than in the sixteenth. But there were none in England, In 1166 certain heretics at Oxford were scourged and branded and driven out to perish in the snow ; and in 1212, again at Oxford, a deacon was actually burned — but this was not for ordinary heresy, but for turning Jew, Severe measures were taken with the Lollards in 1382 ; many of them had since suffered imprison ment, and only the poUtical troubles of 1397 hindered Arundel from going further. But now in 1401 Convocation besought the King to put down LoUardy, and the Commons made a peti tion to the same effect. So the Council drew up a statute de hwretico comburendo — ^that if a heretic refused to abjure, or relapsed after abjuration, the sheriff (or in towns the mayor) should take him and burn him before the people in some pubUc place. The Lords approved, the consent of the Commons was taken for granted, and the royal assent was given March 11, But Arundel did not wait for the statute. It was important to assert the law of the Church apart from that of the State. WilUam Sa-wtre, priest of St, Osyth's, Walbrook, was convicted of sundry heresies, and especiaUy of holding that the wafer re mained unchanged after consecration, but that " it was then both very bread and the very body of Christ : the material bread had not ceased to exist, but had become the bread of Ufe," Arundel at once degraded him and referred the case to the King, The writ was issued, and the first Enghsh martyr was burned March 2, before the Act came into operation. LANCASTER AND YORK 119 The cry of heresy and the example of Sawtre were effectual. Sir Le-wis Chfford and other conspicuous Lollards not only conformed, but turned against their old friends. Nor was the Church severe on those who saw the error of their ways : Repyng don and Fleming became bishops of Lincoln, and the latter founded Lincoln CoUege, Oxford, to be a centre of sound teaching against LoUardy. Many were imprisoned, but only one more came to the fire in Henry IV's time, John Badby, a tailor of Evesham, was con-victed in 1410 of the same heresy as Sawtre, Prince Henry pulled him out of the fire when he was half burned, and when he had recovered consciousness offered him pardon and a pension if he would recant, Badby refused, and the prince put him back in the fire. But if the Commons detested the doctrines and social sides of WycUffe's teaching, another aspect of it was more to their taste. Complaints of the overgrown wealth of the Church are continual. In 1403 a forced loan from the richer clergy was proposed, and in the next year the question of complete disendowment was raised. It was repeated in 1405 ; and in 1410 an estimate was made, showing the enormous sums which might be obtained for the war -with France if the lands of the Church were confiscated. These plans came to nothing ; but the persistence of a consider able party in the Commons is significant. The spoUation under Henry VIII did not come -without warning. There were grave misgi-vdngs at the accession of Henry V in ^, 1413, Of his soldiership indeed and general abihty there could be no question, for he was the conqueror of Owain Glyndwr : but he had also shown himself arrogant and quarrelsome, and given to pleasure, so that it was hard to say what sort of a king he would be. But Henry brought to the throne a stern sense of duty, and seemed to become a model king in a moment. Henceforth the fiery temper was curbed, the old quarrels were forgotten, the frivolities laid aside. And yet we feel something wanting. His grave courtesy was no expression of his real self, but thinly veiled his utter lack of sympathy and kindUness. In fact, he was a cruel king. Even Henry IV would scarcely have hanged foreigners for fighting bravely, or for personal insults to himself, though James II might have done it. Nor was his rehgion of a sort to soften him, though it was more real than his father's, and a greater influence on his Ufe, It was a hard and narrow 120 CHURCH AND STATE orthodoxy — he was nearly the last founder of monasteries in an age which had turned away to better things — and though it might brace his sense of kingly duty, it made him no gentler, but increased his cruelty. If Henry IV served the Church a Uttle in the matter of perse cution, Henry V served it much. As Prince of Wales he had strongly opposed an attempt of the Commons which would have weakened the Act de hceretico comburendo ; and now as King he was determined to enforce it rigorously, without regard to rank or past ser-vices. One of his first acts was to send for the chief of the Lollards, Sir John Oldcastle, who had been one of his father's best captains. But he could not -win him over : Oldcastle was a well-read man and more than a match for the King in argument. So he was left to Arundel, who soon con-\dcted him of denying Transubstantiation, of holding that confession to a priest is not necessary, that Christ is to be worshipped and not the wood of the cross, and that the pope was antichrist. The bishops were members of the beast, and the friars were his tail. He was duly handed over to the secular arm, but escaped from prison, and lay hid for four years on the Welsh border. When recaptured in 1417 he set the Eng at defiance as a usurper, and was first hanged as a traitor, and then burned as a heretic. It is not easy to say how far the LoUards were now mixed up with treason, or how far they still reflected the social unrest of 1381, If persecution turned Oldcastle into a traitor, it may have had a similar effect on others : but reactionists in power are always ready to treat their opponents as rebels and revolutionists, and are commonly in enough of a panic to believe the worst of their own imaginations. But there may have been a real plot some three months after Oldcastle's escape : at aU events there was a real gathering in St, Giles' Fields, near Charing Cross, The King promptly dispersed it, executing thirty-seven of his prisoners — seven burned as heretics — ^nextday, while thirty-two more escaped -with imprisonment or fines. The whole matter is obscure ; but the smaU number of heretics among the prisoners would seem to show that the LoUards played no great part in it. Of course Oldcastle had the credit of being its leader ; but that may be left in doubt, Arundel was the last great primate of the middle ages — the most successful man of action between Langton and Parker. LANCASTER AND YORK 121 Henry Chichele (1414-1443) was another sort of man— no aristo crat and no genius, but a poor scholar of New CoUege, Oxford, overshadowed even as primate by the cardinals, Beaufort and Kemp, but a man -with more than usual sense of spiritual duty, and a true lover of learning. He strove to amend the decay of Oxford by his noble foundation of AU Souls' CoUege in 1438, but the causes of that decay were too deep to be remedied by any new foundations, Henry's interest in Church matters was not Umited to the persecution of heresy. The great Schism which began in 1378 still di-vided Europe, Urban VI and Clement VII had long since gone to their account, but there were stiU for thirty years a pope at Rome, supported by England and Germany, and a pope at A-vignon, acknowledged by France and Spain and Scotland, As they showed no real wilhngness to end the schism, their cardinals called a Council at Pisa in 1409, to which Henry IV sent Bishops Hallam of SaUsbury and Chichele, then of St, David's, The Council deposed both popes and elected a Greek beggar-boy, now archbishop of Milan, who took the name of Alexander V, But on Alexander's death a few months later they chose Baldassare Cossa, Now Cossa was not simply a fighting man Uke Hubert Walter, but a man utterly demoraUzed by the -violence and de bauchery of camp Ufe, Few popes have so infamous a record as John XXIII, He soon got into difficulties, and was at last com pelled to summon a General Council, to meet in 1414 at the imperial city of Constance, The emperor, not the pope, seemed as in old times the arbiter of Christendom; and that emperor (as yet uncrowned) was Sigismund of Bohemia, king of Hungary, a grandson of the blind King John who fought at Crecy, There were three popes now, for the two deposed at Pisa were not -without adherents. But even the question of the Schism was not more urgent than that of reforming the Church in head and members. The scandals and disorders were intolerable; and if the popes would not remedy them, the bishops must. Surely their united wisdom, moved in the Council by the Holy Spirit, could not fail to reach a good conclusion. But the bishops did not see, and could scarcely be expected to see, that the bad practices were mostly the outcome of false doctrine. If the pope has absolute authority, he must use it as he pleases ; and if salva tion is by works, men wiU do their good works as a payment for 122 CHURCH AND STATE sin, and if possible, for Ucence to sin. But the Council dreaded heresy more than scandals, and the burning of Huss proclaimed to the world their fixed resolve to put down heresy. More than this : when they broke the emperor's safe-conduct and declared that faith is not to be kept with heretics, they made reUgious wars internecine, and fully authorized the bottomless treachery of the Counter-Reformation. The crimes alleged against John XXIII — we need not believe all of them — were so monstrous that the Council refused for the sake of decency to hear more than a few. So they deposed him, and made him a cardinal. Then came the question. Reform first or a new pope? The EngUsh deputation was headed by the greatest of the EngUsh bishops, HaUam of Sahsbury, In learning and in force of character he had no superior ; and he was one of the few men of his time who opposed persecution. He saw, too, the dilemma on which the Council was wrecked. They could depose a scandalous pope, and they could make reforms during the vacancy ; but they were bound sooner or later to choose a better pope : and a better pope would be master of the Council, and would aUow no reform that touched his revenues, that is to say, no effective reform at all. So Hallam was clear for Reform first. But his death in 1417 left the field clear for weaker men, and for the intrigues of the Curia, Reform was surrendered when Beaufort was allowed to mediate. Cardinal Colonna became Martin V, The new pope soon got rid of the Council by negotiat ing with the separate nations, and things settled down — abuses and aU, very much as they were before. Yet not quite as before, for Martin was a masterful pope, fully determined on securing the repeal of the Pro-visors and Prsemunire statutes, which so seriously checked the flow of gold to Rome, But there was a limit to the pUancy of Henry V, Neither he nor the regency after him would do anything. Then Martin turned furiously on the primate Chichele. It was not want of power but want of will if he did not get the ungodly statutes repealed : and in his ignorance of England, Martin may have beUeved this. Chichele was nahero ; but the Government stood firm, and Martin did not venture to carry out his threat of -withdra-wing the ordinary legatine commission from the primate. He had given Beaufort a cardinal's hat in 1428, and would have been glad to make him a special legate over Chichele 's head ; but under the Statute of LANCASTER AND YORK 123 Prsemunire he could not do it without a permission which the Government was not Ukely to give. So he had to be content -with this assertion of the papal theory — not quite -victorious even at Trent — ^that bishops have their authority from the pope, and are nothing more than papal delegates. The causes of the war with France are not far to seek. It was not got up by the bishops to divert the Commons from heresies and still more dangerous schemes of disendowment, though such effects were doubtless not unwelcome to them. Neither did Henry undertake it to bolster up a tottering throne, for he sat much more firmly than his father, and could afford to be merciful. There was little disloyalty in 1415, and the social discontent had ceased to be dangerous. The truth is simple : Henry was ambi/ tious, and France was weak. War was the game of kings, war with France a passion with the EngUsh people; and now that they had a young and popular king, how could he do better ? And Henry himself was a dreamer of dreams, as became the son of a crusader. The conquest of France was only the first step of a grand scheme to avenge Nicopolis, deUver Constantinople from the Turks, and lead a -victorious army to the recovery of Jeru salem, Meanwhile Charles VI was mad, and the work of his lucid intervals only embroiled the internecine ci-vil war waged by Armagnacs and Burgundians, Both parties were bidding for EngUsh help, and each could be trusted not to help the other against a foreign enemy, Henry began -with exorbitant demands, and invaded France when these were refused. He took Harfleur, and started on a venturesome march to Calais, during which he was not merely overtaken hke Edward III at Crecy, but intercepted, and forced to cut his way through by winning against even greater odds the still more brilUant -victory of Agincourt, But even then he made slow progress. The conquest of Normandy took him two years, and it was not tiU 1419 that the dauphin's murder of the duke ' of Burgimdy laid France at his feet. The young Duke PhiUp joined the Enghsh, and the Treaty of Troyes (1420) gave Henry i Catherine of France, and made him regent, and heir of Charles VI. ( Even his death in 1422 did not greatly cloud the splendid pro spect. The infant Henry VI was proclaimed in Paris on the death of Charles VI, and for six years the regent Bedford made steady progress, tiU the Une of the Loire was reached. 124 CHURCH AND STATE But the conquest of France was a hopeless task. If England and Burgundy joined hands across France, they might be able to hold her down for awhile ; but the alhance was unnatural, and sooner or later Burgundy must drift back to France. What was even worse, the whole enterprise was unnatural. As Suger had said three hundred years before, it was not right for Enghsh to rule the French, or French the Enghsh. Joan of Arc is the one heroic figure of a sordid age ; but if she had not roused the national spirit of France in 1428, some meaner man would have done it a Uttle later. It was Joan who turned the tide of war by her reUef of Orleans and coronation of Charles VII at Rheims. The im pulse was not lost by her capture, and an execution which reflects almost equal infamy on Bedford, who managed the murder, and Charles VII, who did nothing to hinder it. If the Enghsh burned the witch, they still had a losing battle to fight : and they fought it with a dogged courage worthy of a better cause. Burgundy went over to the French side in 1435, Paris was lost next year, and then the war slackened, while France got rid of the devastat ing free companies and organized a standing army. Maine was given up on Henry's marriage with Margaret of Anjou ; and when the Enghsh were rash enough to provoke war again, by the law less plunder of Fougeresi in 1449, they were quite overmatched. One defeat at Formigny lost Normandy, and Guienne foUowed in 1451, But the old inheritance of Eleanor was the one part of France where EngUsh rule was popular. So there was a revolt in 1453, and the veteran Talbot brought an Enghsh army to its aid. It was the last effort, Talbot perished at CastiUon, and Bordeaux surrendered to the French five months after the cap ture of Constantinople by the Turks, Only Calais remained in Enghsh hands tiU 1558. In England the early years of Henry VI were not eventful. The country was overstrained by war, and would not make peace when peace was needed. Upon the whole the Council did fairly well ; but there was an alarming growth of lawlessness and private war. The great lords did not now depend on their own tenants, but gave hvery to as many Ukely men as they could get, so that they had armies of retainers always ready to back up the lord or his chents -with lawless -violence, to seize by force some neigh bours' house or lands, or to overawe the king's justices, or even the king himself. It was an old e-vil, and many statutes had been LANCASTER AND YORK 125 made against it, but aU in vain. So the land was fuU of riots and disorder. There was now very Uttle open LoUardy, but a heretic was burned every now and then aU through the century, and we even hear of an obscure plot in 1431, ascribed to the LoUards. No men of rank were LoUards now, but humble artisans would read in secret some treasured pages of WycUffe's Bible. So the fire of heresy smouldered on tiU it was kindled into flames at the Reformation. Lonely and unlearned men may have made great mistakes, but in the main they were right, for the Church was in a state of deep decay, with piety as rare as heresy. Saints were plenty in the rude seventh century, but hardly any can be named from the second half of the fifteenth. There were good men even in those e-vil days ; and some even of the worst were lovers of learning, Uke Duke Humphrey and the Butcher Tiptoft, but Heai^JJXis almost the only man of rank who gives us the im pression of piety — ^and he, as Alexander VI said truly, was rather too much of a " natural " to be canonized. The House of Lancaster was still on trial, and constitutional government -with it. Henry IV had estabUshed the throne, Henry V had made it glorious, and the regency had tided over a trying time -with no greater failures in England than a -vigorous king could set right : but dangers were gathering round, and everything now depended on the personal character of Henry VI. In some ways he is the most attractive of all our kings — a man of genuine and simple piety, blameless and gentle, merciful to his enemies and only too faithful to his friends. He loved learning, and in no narrow spirit — witness his great foundations of Eton and King's College — and in the campaign of Ludford in 1459 he showed endurance and decision not unworthy of his father. Yet as king he was an utter failure. The taint of Charles VI was in him : he was no leader of men, but commonly helpless, and twice ^ insane. He strove indeed with pathetic earnestness to reconcile deadly enemies, but it was then too late, Margaret ought to have been driven out of poUtics ten years before ; and that was a task in which a stronger king than Henry might have failed. But for Margaret, his innocence might well have carried him through, Richard of York could scarcely have anticipated -with impunity the crime of Richard of Gloucester, If Margaret of Anion was the mainstay of the House of 126 CHURCH AND STATE Lancaster, she was also its ruin. Ambitious and intelUgent, with indomitable courage and true loyalty to her husband, she led him to destruction. Her very presence was a record of national dis grace, and she never sought to make it anjrthing else. She came as a foreigner, and a foreigner in temper she remained to the last. She -wrecked EngUsh constitutionaUsm by insisting on keeping incapable ministers Uke Suffolk and Somerset when the whole country was clamouring for their removal. She made the ci-vil wars internecine by her practice of butchering every man of con sequence taken in battle. The last outrages on EngUsh feehng were the devastation committed by her foUowers, and her own relations with open enemies, giving Berwick to the Scots, and continually seeking help from France. This was a poUcy which made even Henry VI as impossible as Richard IL Margaret was a traitor and a pubhc enemy. The storm was gathering long before it burst. The conquest of France was hopeless after Burgundy's defection and Bedford's death in 1435, and presently the Beauforts were for making peace. They might have had Guienne andNormandy in 1439, and Guienne with some enlargement as late as 1445. This would have given the country some years of rest ; but Gloucester faced them vnth a popular cry for war, and they never made concessions till too late. And if they could not make peace, neither could they wage war. Suffolk brought over Margaret in 1445, but at the cost of a secret cession of Maine which deserved impeachment. Glouces ter's murder and the cardinal's death in 1447 cleared the way for Richard of York and the cardinal's nephew Somerset. Richard held Normandy with fair success, but Somerset lost it by bad faith and gross mismanagement. Suffolk perished in the outburst of indignation which foUowed, and Jack Cade's revolt in 1450 exposed the utter incompetence of the Government : yet Margaret and Henry still kept Somerset at the head of affairs, and sent York into honourable exile in Ireland. Henry was childless, and seemed Ukely to remain childless. Then Somerset (or his niece, the Lady Margaret) was heir, if he could get over the difficulty that the Act of 1407 which legitimized the Beauforts expressly excluded them from the crown. But as the law stood, Richard of York was heir-general of Edward III through Lionel of Clarence, and heir-male through Edmund of York. Hence the rivalry. In 1453 Guienne was lost, the King LANCASTER AND YORK 127 became insane, and Margaret bore a son. York had to be made Protector, and acted -with moderation and scrupulous loyalty. As soon as Henry recovered his senses, he restored Somerset to power and treated York as an enemy. This meant ci-vil war. Somerset was kiUed and the King captured at St. Albans (1455), and York was master of England. Again he used his power with moderation. He was no longer next heir, yet he gave no coun tenance to rumours that the Prince of Wales was a changeUng. All might yet have gone weU but for Margaret's fixed determina tion to destroy him. For three years the rivals watched each other, while the King kept them apart, and even contrived a great pubUc reconciUation at St. Paul's. But Margaret had broken too many promises before for any one to trust her now. The only pohtical event of these years was the brilhant success of Warwick against greatly superior Spanish fleets off Calais. As usual, the capable man was a Yorkist. But in 1457 we come at last to something significant in Church affairs. BishopJ?ecock of Chichester was sound enough in so far as he opposed the Lol lards in his Repressor of overmuch Weeting of the Clergy ; but his arguments were anything but orthodox. Whereas the Lollards required Scripture authority for everything, Pecock appealed to reason as a standard much older than Scripture. No doubt he beheved most of the things others beheved ; but he beUeved them on grounds of reason, and not on the authority of the Church, and surely the appeal to reason had been condemned once for all in Abelard. Besides, he doubted of the infaffibihty of the Church, of the necessity of uniformity in local churches, of the descent into hell, and of the apostoUc authorship of the Creed. All this was rank heresy, and he would have been burned if he had not re canted. As it was, his books were burned instead, but he lost his bishopric, made a pubhc confession at Paul's Cross, and was imprisoned for hfe in Thorney Abbey. Pecock was the only man of his time who opposed the LoUards with serious and temperate argument ; but the Church had moved a long way since it had allowed the Schoolmen to defend its doctrines by reasoning. The change of its general position was enormous. In the main, the Church of the fifteenth century was no longer the one beneficent institution which spoke kindly to people outside the circle of chivalry. It had become a privileged class fighting for selfish interests — ^for obscurantism in religion, and for notorious abuses 128 CHURCH AND STATE and heartless wrong in Church and State — and striking at its enemies with a savage maUce which could not fail sooner or later to stir some reUcs of conscience and humanity even in the brutal and ungodly world around. ; In 1459 Margaret was ready for ci-vil war, and King Henry for once showed vigour and decision. York and his friends were driven out of the country, and a ParUament at Coventry passed a huge attainder. Before long Warwick returned, routed the Lancastrians at Northampton, and carried off the King to London. A new ParUament reversed the acts of Coventry ; and then York claimed the crown through Lionel, setting aside the Lancaster kings as usurpers. But even Warwick was not prepared to go that length ; and at last an arrangement was made hke that of Troyes. York was to drop his claim for the present, and to be recognized as heir of Henry VI. This might more easily have been done some years before, but the birth of a Prince of Wales was as inconvenient in 1453 as it was in 1688. Margaret raised forces in the North, overwhelmed York at Wakefield, and beheaded every prisoner of rank. Another victory at St, Albans freed Henry, and the prisoners were dealt with as before, except that she placed the sentence in Prince Edward's mouth — a child of seven. Such was Margaret, Richard of York has a fair record, but for his last disastrous mistakes of claiming the crown : his son was a much worse man. Edward IV was a man of scandalous Ufe and utter selfishness, the best general of his time, and at bottom a lover of pleasure — a Charles II -without his dangerous foreign relations. The battle of To-wton placed him on the throne, and gradually the country settled down, though the Lancastrians continued the war till 1464, The next step was Edward's marriage and gradual aUena tion from Warwick, who preferred a French to a Burgundian alhance, Warwick won over the King's brother George of Clarence and gave him his elder daughter Isabella, but in the end was forced to flee to France, Margaret and Warwick were the bitterest of enemies, for each had butchered the other's nearest friends, and the alUance engineered by the diplomacy of Louis XI was utterly unnatural, Warwick however declared for Henry VI, and gave his younger daughter Anne (to the disgust of Clarence) to Prince Edward, now aged seventeen. The alUes wisely agreed to operate separately — War-wick in the East, LANCASTER AND YORK 129 Margaret in the West— but they failed disastrously, WarwiclS indeed entered London and restored Henry VI, but was soom outgeneraUed and IriUed at Bamet, Margaret landed too late to help him, and the last hopes of the Lancastrians were destroyed at Tewkesbury, Prince Edward was kiUed, Margaret! captured, and Henry VI died the night of Edward IV's return i to London — ^no doubt by violence. The House of Lancaster was extinct, except the Lady Margaret and her young son, Henry earl of Richmond, who was carried off to Brittany for safety. We come now to the obscurest period of EngUsh History since the Norman Conquest, for we know less of Edward IV than of any of his predecessors. Perhaps there was less to know ; but at all events the monastic chronicles had long been thinning out into bare annals, and other contemporary accounts are scanty, while writers of Tudor times are deeply influenced by the desire to lay aU crimes on Richard III. However, we can see that the House of York is a transition to the Tudors. Parliaments are seldom caUed, and have Uttle control on the Government, but legal forms are observed, and their right to vote suppUes is undisputed. Here is the Tudor absolutism already, aggravated by Edward's claim to be King by an hereditary right superior to the Act of 1399. But it lacked the Tudor machinery. The House of Lancaster had faUen " for want of governance " because they could not keep tolerable order in the country. This is why the more civihzed and commercial East and South always leaned to York, while the more unruly West and North generally took the side of Lan-, caster. The House of York was an improvement ; but Edward IV was too much a man of pleasure to do his work properly, and Richard III never got weU settled on the throne, so that they never forged the weapon of the Star Chamber, which alone could curb the turbulence of the nobles. Besides this, they were not helped as the Tudors were from first to last by the -visible fact that the reigning sovereign alone preserved the country from another welter of civil war. Moreover, they were still in the middle ages. They saw the beginnings of printing, a growth of interest in literature, and an increase of commerce ; but the characteristic features of Tudor times — ^the Renaissance, the Reformation, the discovery of America, the Spanish ascendancy, and the full varied Ufe of the next age — were stiU in the future. Hence the great 130 CHURCH AND STATE battle of To-wton is less of an epoch than the comparatively insignificant fight of Bosworth, i\ Edward IV's foreign pohcy of alUance with Burgundy issued /in a great invasion of France in 1475, There was enough of the old fighting spirit in England to welcome -with enthusiasm the prospect of another Agincourt, but not enough to prevent Edward from -withdrawing when he found Charles of Burgundy a useless ally. So Louis XI bought him off -with a pension, Edward dehberately returned to his pleasures and wore himseK out with them in 1483, at the age of forty-one. The only domestic event of importance was the execution and attainder of Clarence in 1477, This was a poUtical necessity, Clarence was a traitor to Edward and a traitor to War-wick, and had since persisted in such a course of reckless insubordination and treasonable intrigue as makes it fairly certain that he would have -wrecked the House of York as effectually as Richard III, and most hkely by the very same crime. Church affairs also were stagnant. The primates Bourchier and Neville were poor crea tures, though Ne-viUe was replaced in 1480 by a better man in Rotherham, Other bishops also were at least men of business, if not men of piety, l' So stagnant was the Church that it could hardly muster a heretic, though John Goos was burned in 1474, It was fast sinking into the dependence on the King which marks the reign of Henry VII, Indeed, it now had none but the King to lean upon, and he gave it dignity and peace for the present. Richard of Gloucester had a very good record in 1483, UnUke Clarence, he had been faithful through aU the ups and downs of ci-vil war, and had sho-wn marked abiUty in the North, especially in the war which for the last time recovered Ber-wick from the Scots in 1482, He bore the character of a serious and capable prince ; and there is really nothing against him so far but reports of Tudor times, mostly plain slanders. Had he come to the throne by fair means, he would certainly have been a strong king, and might have been a good king — ^as those times went. It was the lure of the crown that revealed his -wickedness to the world, ; perhaps also to himself. His arrest of the Queen's relations and seizure of the protectorate was rather popular, and their lawless execution was too much in the fashion of the time to be very surprising. Even his usurpation of the throne seems to have passed without objection. The story of Edward's precontract LANCASTER AND YORK 131 invaUdating his marriage was fairly credible in times when the Church kept all marriages uncertain for the sake of gain ; and there were manifest advantages in ha-ving a king instead of a protector, so that he stiU had a respectable foUowing, It was the murder of the princes that ruined him. Even that callous age stood aghast at the basest and most brutal of all the crimes of the Wars of the Roses, and henceforth Richard could trust none but creatures of his own. The Lancastrians raised their heads again, and the Yorkists were disposed to join them, Richard had rightly counted on the general desire for peace after the civil wars, but now it was turned against him. Henry of Richmond was by this time grown up ; and if he would marry Edward's daughter EUzabeth, there might be peace at last between the rival houses. This was Buckingham's plan; and when he failed, a second attempt was only a question of time, for the country was thoroughly disaffected. Richard found it necessary to disavow a scheme for getting a dispensation from Rome to marry his niece; but he had not found her a husband when Richmond landed among his own countrymen at Miltord Haven, Help came in from every side— even French gold and French mercenaries were welcome — and he pushed on with a growing army till he faced the King at Bosworth (August 23, 1485), Richard's force was stiU double Richmond's, but his men were un-wiffing, and there was treason aU around him. When the royal army broke and fled. King Richard sought a soldier's death, and faced it -with a courage which won admiration even from men who hated him. The crown was on his helmet as he feU ; and when it was found and placed on Richmond's head, the shouts of joy that hailed King Henry 'VII announced to the future that the middle ages were ended in England, CHAPTER XrV HENRY VII If we took a narrow -view of Ecclesiastical History, we might extend the middle ages over the reign of Henry VII, and even over the first twenty years of Henry VIII, for the old Church system underwent httle change before the meeting of ParUament in 1529, But it is always best to bring Church affairs into con nexion with the general history of the time : and if we look to the general history, the division must undoubtedly be made at the coming of the Tudors in 1485, The three great Tudors — ^Henry VII, Henry VIII, and EUza beth — ^have much in common. They were all strong rulers with a clear and settled pohcy of their own, for even the irresolution of Ehzabeth, largely real as it was, formed part of her diplomatic game. The Government went on the old hnes, with administra tion by the King in Council, and legislation by the King in ParUa ment ; but the Tudors could usually do what they wished. The Council was of their o-wn choice ; and though men hke Morton, Wolsey and Cecil could not but speak with weight, the decision was the King's, Still less did ParUament control them. The old nobles had mostly perished in the ci-vil wars, and the new nobles who received the church lands were not Ukely to oppose the King for a long time to come. The Commons chiefly wanted order at home, and were wilUng to trust a king who gave them good government. They seldom needed packing in Tudor times, A good deal of what looks Uke servihty arose from a genuine behef that the King knew best, and must have good reasons for what he was doing. So they passed attainders, and made Henry VIII almost a dictator in the critical years which foUowed the breach with Rome, making treason of words or even of refusal to answer questions, giving his proclamations the force of law, and authoriz ing him to repeal attainders and to settle the succession by will. But all this did not make him a despot. He had no standing 132 HENRY VII 133 army — only a hundred yeomen of the guard — and no large staff of trained officials ; only the wilhng submission of free men. In the long run the Tudors depended on the good wiU of the nation, and knew that there were Umits they could not overpass. Only Mary transgressed them, and she did so to her cost. So they were careful of constitutional forms ; and though they took some forced loans and such-Uke makeshifts, they never disputed the sole right of the Commons to grant their regular suppUes. If administra tive action was often arbitrary, the forms of law were rarely broken, and the legislation was always constitutional. The very statute which gave the force of law to Henry VIII's proclamations in 1539, was itself a declaration that without it they had no such force, and expressly provided that the proclamations must not be contrary to law. The Tudors were content -with the substance of power, and left the Stuarts to devise a theory. The chequered and adventurous Ufe of Henry VII had every element of romance except his own prosaic character. Young as he was — not yet thirty on Bosworth Field — his temper was as cool and practical as it could be. In statecraft and sometimes unscrupulous cunning he could hold his own even with such a master of double-deaUng as Ferdinand of Aragon, But he was a much better sort of man. His Ufe was pure, and for the larger part of his reign he was neither cruel nor oppressive. He spared Simnel, and Perkin twice. But there was always a touch of mean ness in him, and his character seems to have been changed for the worse by his one great pubhc crime, the execution of Warwick in 1499, foUowed by the deaths of Cardinal Morton and Queen EUzabeth, The rest of his reign deserves the odium which attaches to Empson and Dudley, Henry's title to the crown was so bad that he could not venture to state it clearly ; but Parhament made him the stock of a new dynasty, and his marriage -with EUzabeth a few months later joined the rival houses. But the Yorkists were stiU strong, and the disappearance of the princes was an in-vitation to impostors. Had Richard won Bosworth, he would have had much the same trouble. First came Lambert Simnel, backed by Edward's sister, the old duchess of Burgundy and by Richard's designated suc cessor, the earl of Lincoln. The rebels crossed England, and hard fighting was needed to crush them at Stoke in 1487. Perkin Warbeck was eight years on and off the stage (1491-1499), though 134 CHURCH AND STATE he was never so dangerous an enemy as Simnel had been. After his execution for a third offence, and that of Warbeck the son of Clarence, probably for no offence at all, Henry might consider himself weU settled on the throne. But he found the country in a dreadful state. The civil wars had demorahzed all classes, and robberies and murders abounded, while the law was defied by local magnates, whose retainers were always ready for -violence and riot in their lord's cause, or in " maintaining " some other. Juries were packed or bribed or intimidated, justices of the peace were helpless, and even the king's judges could not enforce their decisions. So ParUament in 1487 created the Court of Star Chamber. A few great persons who could not be overawed were to punish these offences -without a jury. It was arbitrary ; but it was effective in putting down livery and maintenance. But it sur-vived too long, and the Stuarts used it for purposes of tyranny. By these and similar measures the country was enabled to start on a new career of prosperity. There was already some growth of trade, and Henry was careful to foster it in his deaUngs with Flanders and the Hansa. In the next generation the treasures of Mexico and Peru went to Spain, those of the East Indies to Portugal, though Cabot's discovery of Newfoundland gave Eng land a footing of some sort in America as early as 1497. But there was much social unrest in Tudor times, for if the upper classes and the merchants grew rich, the country people were not so prosperous. Some of it was the aftersweU of Lancastrian disorder, for however crime might be repressed, law-abiding habits needed time to grow. As Hythloday explains in Utopia before Cardinal Morton, old soldiers and cast-off retainers have ho occupation, and soon become destitute. And then what can they do ? If they steal, they are hanged ; if they beg, they are imprisoned. And the great army of thieves and beggars— some times twenty are hanged at a time — ^is swelled by the troops of agricultural labourers who are turned off when the land is laid down in pasture. Things were bad enough already, though they did not reach their worst till the dissolution of the gilds in the time of Edward VI. They were somewhat better for the next two hundred years, before the Napoleonic wars and the enclosure of the common lands : but it must never be forgotten that the glorious record of Enghsh conquests and settlements has a squaUd background in the misery of the country-side. HENRY VII 135 Of church affairs there is Uttle to record. The chief bishops, as usual, were men of business. The primate Morton had been an active Lancastrian in the ci-vil wars and an exile with Margaret, but after 1471 he made his peace with Edward IV and received the bishopric of Ely, where he made the great drainage channel between Wisbech and Peterborough, stiU known as Morton's Dyke, The Protector arrested him ; and then he played a leading part in Buckingham's revolt and in Richmond's expedition. More gives a "charming picture of him in his old age, when he was chancellor, primate, and cardinal, and Henry's chief adviser. His successor Langton died before he was consecrated. Then came Henry Dean (1501-1503), who had been chanceUor in Ireland when Po3niings was deputy in 1495, and after Mm WiUiam War- ham (1503-1532), another of Henry's lawyers and diplomatists. Fox of Durham (1494-1501) and Winchester (1501-1529) was a chief negotiator of the marriage between James IV and Margaret of England, and had great influence -with Henry VIII before the rise of Wolsey. He also founded Corpus Christi CoUege,' Oxford. Alcock of Ely (1486-1500) had served Edward IV hke Morton and been ahenated by the Protector. He was a man of more pronounced personal reUgion, and also something of a reformer, as when he obtained Ucence to suppress the useless nunnery of St. Rhadegund, at Cambridge in 1497, so that his foundation of Jesus CoUege was among the first of those which employed the buildings and revenues of decayed reUgious houses. But generally, things drifted. The only serious change was that Henry obtained a Bull from Pope Innocent VIII, to Umit the abuses of sanctuary. If the offender were guilty of treason, the king's officers might prevent his escape for forty days and then arrest him ; and if he broke sanctuary to commit a second crime, he might be dragged out at once. This, it -wiU be noted, is an arrangement with the Pope. In fact, the Pope's authority never stood higher in England than on the eve of its faU. Henry's language was always pious and deferential, the Pope was always gracious and accommodating. The Pope was allowed to meddle a good deal in England, while the King could always get the Bulls he wanted. Foreign poUcy was in transition during Henry's reign. In the middle ages France and England were commonly at war, but their wars did not much disturb the rest of Europe. In modern 136 CHURCH AND STATE times France has always had a continental rival, so that England might take either side, or stand aloof. Isolation was a safe poUcy, for the rivals could be trusted to support her against each other : they never combined against her except in the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), which Ues far beyond our present horizon. Lancastrian though he was, and owing much to French help, Henry began with the traditional EngUsh poUcy of supporting Brittany against France. But he made no very -vigorous efforts to prevent its absorption by Charles VIII in 1491, and allowed his great invasion the next year to be bought off Uke Edward IV's by the Treaty of Naples. Henceforth he drew closer his alUance ¦with the Spanish sovereigns, Ferdinand and IsabeUa, and left the work of checking France to them. No alUance in those days was complete without a marriage; and one was arranged as early as 1488 between Arthur Prince of Wales, aged two, and Catharine of Aragon, a year older. This left plenty of time for negotiation, and there was plenty of negotia tion to fiU it. At last (November 15, 1501) Arthur and Catharine were married with infinite pomp, and retired to hold their court at Ludlow, where Arthur died suddenly (April 2, 1502). What was now to be done ? Ferdinand wanted the Enghsh alhance, and Henry wanted Catharine's dowry. So they agreed to pass her on to Arthur's brother Henry, now aged eleven. There were some who objected that marriage -with a deceased brother's -wife was forbidden by the Mosaic Law : but perhaps the marriage with Arthur had not been completed, and in any case Pope Jahus II graciously sent a Bull which cleared away aU difficulties. After this, nothing but Henry's poUcy delayed the marriage as long as he Uved. The protest which young Henry (doubtless by his father's direction) made before Bishop Fox in 1505, was not based on any scruples, but merely alleged that the contract had been made without his consent. The other great marriage of the time, that of James IV of Scotland to Margaret of England, had been mooted in 1495 ; but James was then supporting Perkin, and there were difficulties after Perkin's fall, so that the marriage only took place in August 1502. It secured some years of peace between England and Scotland, and led to the union of the crowns a century later. The possibiUty of a Scots king in England was foreseen, but it did not deter Henry. As he said, the greater always draws the less. CHAPTER XV HENRY VIII — THE EARLY YEABS Chables II himself scarcely received a more rapturous welcome from his people than Henry VIII. The leaden reign was ended, Empson and Dudley had fallen, and the nation looked with hope and admiration to its brilUant young sovereign. They had reason to be proud of him, for Henry VIII was the most accompUshed of the whole line of EngUsh kings. He was now a handsome youth of eighteen, as well skiUed as Edward III in sports and martial exercises. In toumeys and on the hunting field he was a match for the best in England. His natural parts were excellent, and he had every advantage of education. He was a good scholar in Latin, spoke French easily, and understood ItaUan, and (perhaps later) Spanish. He was attentive to his religious duties and liberal in aUnsgi-ying, and had a marked taste for theological questions. If his work against Luther reveals no original genius, it shows a wide acquaintance with at least the stock passages of the Fathers and the Schoolmen. Callous and ungrateful as he was, and in language often coarse — ^most men were coarse in those days — ^he could speak and write with remarkable dignity, and sometimes with much deUcacy. To music he was devoted ; and here again he was a master : one of his anthems is stiU among the best in our cathedrals. If the vulgar were dazzled by their splendid king, thinking men could see the dawning of-a new age. The decline of the Eastern Roman Empire had driven Greek scholars westward, and Italy had been drinking in the new leaming for a century. Greece had risen indeed from the dead, but not with the New Testament in her hand, for the spirit of the Renaissance in its early stages was frankly pagan. The old world of heathenism was as full of ro mance as the new world of America. In three directions the study of Greek impUed an inteUectual revolution. In the first place, the rejection of Latin ideals for others threw doubts on 137 138 CHURCH AND STATE aU distinctively Latin forms of thought and doctrine. Again, the Greek teaching of the beauty of the world and the enjoyment of Ufe directly contradicted the ascetic theory on which the system of the Latin church was based. More than this : if the Classics were to be interpreted by scholarship and not by tradition, must not the New Testament be dealt with in the same way ? And it was very clear that the current doctrines of the Church could not bear the test of reason. Given the Renaissance, the Reforma tion was its necessary sequel. It was not till the end of the fifteenth century that Savonarola in Italy and Colet in England gave the Renaissance a reUgious turn. This did not come to much in Italy, demoralized as the country was by civil strife and foreign invasions, and by the filthy lucre of the Papal Court. But there was more of moral earnestness beyond the Alps, and in Germany it found its best expression in the new university of Wittenberg, founded in 1502 by Frederick the Wise of Saxony. In England, Greek was first taught at Oxford. Though Grocyn and Linacre were both priests, they were not much interested in reUgious questions, and Linacre was a great physician as well as a great scholar. It was John Colet in 1497 who began to lecture on St. Paul's Epistles, taking them as rational works, not Uke the Schoolmen as collections of words which could be made to mean anything required. In a word, he discarded aUegory for scholarship. His appointment as Dean of St. Paul's in 1504 gave him a conspicuous position, and next year he came into wealth which enabled him to found St. Paul's School on the Unes of the New Learning. Colet was a bold critic of the Church, and Lollards loved to hear his sermons ; but he was no heretic. His eyes were quite open to the practical scandals, but he never fairly faced the fact that they were not simply the sins of indi-viduals, but natural results of a church system which rested on false principles, and that it was not enough to put do-wn abuses or even to teach true principles, without a drastic reform of the practical system. This indeed was the mistake of the Humanists generaUy, and of Erasmus in particular. He began as a purely classical scholar, and was turned to Christian -writings partly by the influence of Colet. His printed Greek Testament appeared in 1516, and gave an immense impetus to the movement. The spirit of the Renaissance in its later stages is best seen in the poUshed satire of More's Utopia in 1515, and in HENRY VIII— THE EARLY YEARS 139 the bitter satire of Erasmus in his Praise of Folly in 1511. But they quailed before the dangers of an effective reformation. After all, they were men of Meroz. Colet died before the Reformation reached England, Erasmus refused to take a side, and the tolerant More of the Utopia became a bitter persecutor. He had seen Ught, and turned his back on it. Henry began by marrying Catharine, and seemed for several years given up to sports — ^war included — and festivities. They were not always innocent, for he gambled a good deal, seduced Mary Boleyn, and had a son by Bessie Blount in 1519 ; but we have no proof of any further lapse from virtue. He was certainly not a Ubertine in the same sense as Charles V or Francis I. He was a keen judge of men, and chose able ministers from the first : meanwhile he was leaming his business. Twenty years were needed to reveal fully the iron wiU that carried England safely through the storms of the Separation from Rome, to develop the unerring tact which told him how far he could safely drive his people, and to ripen the colossal selfishness which enabled him to do all his crimes -with a good conscience. Yet he was not more selfish or more tyrannical than other kings of his time. He even Uked independent counsel, though when once his mind was set on a thing, even Wolsey strove in vain to turn him from it. Henry's first guide was Ferdinand of Aragon, at whose instiga tion he plunged idto war with France. The campaign of 1513 in Flanders raised high the reputation of England ; and when the Scots attempted a diversion from the rear, they were crashed on Flodden Field. But Henry was terribly shocked when he foimd that his worthy father-io-law was plotting against him. The blow feU hea-vily on the Queen, for Ferdinand had put her in a false position by accrediting her as his ambassador and the guar dian of Spanish interests in England. Some thought that Henry in his fury would put her away ; and though the storm blew over, we may be sure it was not forgotten. Meanwhile the diplomacy of Ferdinand was countered by the diplomacy of Wolsey, who formed a French alUance, cemented by the marriage of Louis XII to Henry's blooming sister Mary. The two kings, Ferdinand and Louis XII, hardly survived the wedding feasts ; and four years later (1519) the election of Charles of Spain as Roman emperor determined the poUtical outlook for a long time to come. Charles V was by far the greatest of Christian sovereigns. 140 CHURCH AND STATE Holding Spain and America, the Netherlands and Italy, he so encircled France that she might seem an easy conquest. But his vast dominions were scattered, and he was hampered by the German princes and often taken in the rear by the Turks. France on the other hand lay compactly in the midst : she had a standing army, and her king wielded all the resources of the country, so that the contest was less unequal than it seemed. It ended at the peace of Cateau Cambresis in 1559 with the expulsion of the French from Italy. But Charles' invasions of Provence in 1536 and Champagne in 1553 were failures. France lost nothing more than the suzerainty of Flanders in 1529, while she gained Metz, Toul and Verdun from the Empire in 1552, and Calais from the EngUsh in 1558. England under Wolsey strove to hold the bal ance, but afterward she had to look to her own defence. So her poUcy was very unsettled. Ancient enmity and the connexion of France with Scotland drew her to the Spanish side ; but after the Separation from Rome it began to appear that while her quarrel with France was political, with Spain it was also a war of reUgion. If France was Romanist by reUgion, her policy was neutral, for she made her alUances indiscriminately -with CathoUc or Lutheran or Turk, till Louis XIV took up a CathoUc poUcy, and by it re-vived the enmity of England. For fifteen years (1514-1529) Wolsey seemed to wield the royal power and govern England almost at his -wiU. Henry had his way when he chose to assert himself, but he left most things to his minister. Wolsey was a splendid man of business and a great diplomatist, and a Uberal patron of learning ; yet he lacked both the insight and the courage of a true statesman. His scheming for the Papacy was just as visionary as Henry's candidature for the Empire in 1519. Nor did he venture on any serious reform in the Church. He got a number of monasteries suppressed to find funds for his Oxford foundation of Cardinal College, after wards taken up by Henry as Christ Church. But he was not a heretic to question its doctrines, and his bad character — ^unscrupu lous, corrapt, and flagrantly immoral — ^forbade him to stand for moral reform. So things still drifted on, though the storm was -visibly gather ing. The Reformation had broken out in Germany and S-witzer- land. Luther and ZwingU arose almost together. The theory of Indulgences is disputed; but in practice they were simply HENRY VIII— THE EARLY YEARS 141 Ucences on easy terms for every imaginable sin. Luther was no heretic when he posted up his Theses against them in 1517 ; he could not beUeve that the good Pope reaUy meant to build St. Peter's on such unclean gains. Leo X soon vmdeceived him ; and he passed step by step to the open war he declared by pubUcly burning the BuU of excommunication in 1520. ZwingU began at Einsiedeln about the same time as Luther, but he was treated with more tact, and his breach -with Rome was not complete till 1525. The personal contrast of the men ran through their teachings. Luther was a profoundly reUgious man, driven to the monastery by the overwhelming need of peace -with God, seeking it in a vain struggle of ascetic works, and finding it only in St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, which is Christ's gospel of free forgiveness. Z-wingU's nature was less deep than Luther's. He was essentiaUy a Humanist with a scholar's disUke for the scandals and unreason of the church system. If he once thought of entering a monastery, it was to enjoy the music ; and the reUgious change he underwent in 1519 was not Uke Luther's deep experience of works and faith. On the other hand, Luther was naturally conservative. He began with fuU trust in the church system, and was only driven from it step by step by experience that one part after another was a hindrance to practical reUgion, ZwingU had no such conservatism, but took a freer -view, altering whatever seemed to savour of unreason. So Luther- anism flourished chiefly in northern Germany, where the princes ruled and the Lutheran churches were subject to them. Each prince organized his church as he thought fit, and Luther preached obedience, denouncing savagely the Peasants' Rising of 1522. ZwingU's work was done in the cities of south-western Germany, where the burghers ruled ; and when it was taken up by Calvin, he organized a church in Geneva which almost ruled the state, and became a model for the Reformed churches of Scotland, France, and the Netherlands, and for the EngUsh Puritans. But Calvin was the one great Reformer not of Teutonic blood : Lutheranism was too German to flourish outside Germany, except in Scandinavia. Luther and Calvin held in common the main principles of the Reformation — ^that access to God is direct, not through a priest, that salvation is by faith and not by works, and that the final appeal is not to human authority, but to the sense of Scripture 142 CHURCH AND STATE determined by sound learning. But Luther did his work piece meal, and was dominated to the last by some of the ideas of the old system. In particular, he never shook off the beUef that the words of the Institution of the Lord's Supper are not honestly dealt with if they are not taken Uterally. If the Lord said, " This is My body," must it not be Uterally His body ? But this raises a serious difficulty. Bread may very well symboUze a di-vine pre sence, but how can that presence be locally connected with it ? Rome got over the difficulty in one way, Luther de-vised another, and some think it more reverent to leave the doctrine irrational. Rome works by bad philosophy, sharply separating the accidents of form, weight, colour, etc., perceived by the senses from a presumed underlying substance of which the senses can tell us nothing. Then the whole unknown substance of the bread and the whole unknown substance of the wine are both transformed by the words of consecration into the unknown substance of the body and blood of Christ : and this is Transubstantiation. Luther was more subtle. Why should not that body occupy the same space as the bread, even as for a moment it occupied the same space as the door it passed through ? Ha-ving got rid of the bad philosophy, he had to meet a further difficulty which Rome ignores, " The flesh profiteth nothing " : how then can there be life-gi-ving power in the Lord's humanity — ^for we cannot eat His di-vinity ? His answer is the pecuUar Lutheran doctrine of the Communicatio idiomatum, which means that by the Incarnation the life-gi-ving power of the divinity was communicated to the humanity. This is Consubstantiation. But all the UteraUst theories agree to centre Christian worship on a physical miracle not witnessed like other miracles by the senses but assumed on authority, and therefore standing in no relation to reason. Cal-vin started from the sovereignty of God, and worked out a rounded system. Luther asserted in the strongest manner the slavery of the will to sin; but Cal-vin -viewed the problem in the Ught of the divine sovereignty, and came to a doctrine of predestination — ^but some are chosen from eternity to salvation, while the rest of the massa perditionis is left to its deserved danmation. Further, if God is sovereign, He must also be law giver, so that the constitution of the church is of divine appoint ment. Thus Cal-vinism agrees -with Rome in claiming a jus divinum, one for presbyters, the other for bishops, while the HENRY VIII— THE EARLY YEARS 143 Church of England has bishops without claiming for them more than the divine sanction given to " the powers that be " of every orderly government ; and the Lutheran churches have bishops in some parts, consistories in others. We shall return to these questions presently ; but here it may be noticed that all the Reformers took over from the Latin Church two principles of mischievous effect. One was the impe rial conception of God's sovereignty as a despotism inscmtable to reason and often contrary to reason, having some other purpose and some other glory than the highest welfare of His creatures. Only on this principle of the irrationaUty of the divine can we reach such doctrines as church infalUbiUty or verbal inspiration, transubstantiation or election to perdition, or unending fires of heU, For the other, they failed as completely as the Latins to reaUze that there is a meaning in such words as, " God -willeth aU men to be saved," " I -will draw aU men unto Me," " Christ is the Sa-viour of all men," Yet if God is sovereign. His will must finally prevail with all men : and if He is not sovereign, there is no real God at all. On the continent the Reformation made rapid progress. Saxony, Hesse, and Brandenburg were remodelled in Lutheran form from 1524 onwards ; and it was a powerful group of princes which presented the famous Protest ^ to the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, Nor was the movement confined to Germany. Denmark followed in 1527, and in 1525 Albert of Brandenburg converted the spiritual dominion of the Teutonic knights into a Lutheran and secular duchy of Prassia. In Sweden Gusta-vus Vasa sent for Lutheran teachers early in his reign, and in 1527 broke the * "Protestants" originally meant the Lutherans who protested their belief at Augsburg in 1630, but soon became a general term for the Western churches which stood in opposition to Rome, so that the doctrine on which they are generally agreed was fairly (though loosely) called the Protestant Religion in 1689, It is not a negative word: a protest is essentially an open witness, not necessarily a witness against something else. The word was already used in literature by the middle of the sixteenth century as a description of the English Church. It was employed to define their own religious attitude, by Laud on the scaffold, and by Evelyn under Commonwealth persecution. Though it does not occur in the Prayer Book or Articles, it fairly describes their position of dissent from Rome and general agreement with the Continental Reformation. It is still found in the Coronation declaration of 1689, even in its present modified form. 144 CHURCH! AND STATE power of the bishops in the Diet of Linkoping. Northem Ger many and Scandina-via became Lutheran, while the south-west was Reformed, and slower advances were made in France and Poland, and heretics could be found even in Spain and Italy. CHAPTER XVI HENRY VIII — THE SEPARATION FROM ROME England meanwhUe was fairly quiet. In Tudor times no change could be made without the King ; and Henry was a loyal Papist. It was not for nothing that Leo X sent him a cap and^ sword in 1514, with an offer of the title of Most CathoUc King,' and at the end of his pontificate in 1521 rewarded his book against Luther with the new title of Defender of the Faith. But a move- , ment was growing which even Henry could not ignore. It was not a reUgious movement, for Lollards were few, though some Luther anism came over presently from Germany. For the present, the exactions of the churchmen were much more of a grievance than their doctrinal errors, and the Commons of England showed a growing determination to put a stop to them. In 1514 a respected citizen of London named Richard Hunne had a quarrel with the priest about some mortuary ^ for a dead child, and cited him into the secular courts. The church authori ties repUed by imprisoning Hunne on a charge of heresy, and presently he was found dead in his cell. It was said that he had hanged himself, but the jury found that he was murdered by the contrivance of CJi^'ncellor Horsey, The matter made a great stir ; but when Horsey was at last brought to trial and pleaded not guilty, proceedings were stayed and he was given a pardon. We may doubt whether it was murder or suicide,^ but the City had 1 The mortuary was a hiat from the old heriot, where the dead man's best posse.'ssion had to be given up, " The detailed and explicit finding of the jury, that Hunne could not possibly have hanged himself, is not discredited if Foxe has mixed up later documents -with the depositions, or if many false rumours were current) and we have no right to assume that they forgot to make sure that the stool had not been moved. Either their circumstantial story is a circumstantial falsehood from first to last, or else the Kiug must have had reasons of his own for letting the matter drop. The latter seems more likely, for we know that he did not then mean to push a quarrel L U5 146 CHURCH AND STATE no doubt at aU, Bishop FitzJames wrote plainly to Wolsey that if " my clerk " were tried by a London jury, they were so infected with heresy that they would find him guilty if he were as innocent as Abel. By heresy he means disUke of the churchmen, for there was not much doctrinal heresy in 1515 ; and this disUke must have been already of some standing. It is amazmg to find Sir Thomas More telUng us in 1532 that it was a growth of the last half dozen years or so. This however was the time chosen by the clergy to put forward new claims. Henry VII had arranged with the Pope that traitors should not have sanctuary or benefit of clergy, and the ParUament in 1511 extended this to robbers and murderers not in priests' orders : but when it was proposed in 1515 to make the statute permanent, the Abbot of Winchcombe preached at Paul's Cross that it is contrary to the Law of God for a layman even to summon a clerk — much less to try him. His opponent Standish, Warden of the Grey Friars in London, was presently brought before Convocation for heresy. Standish appealed to the King. The judges decided in his favour, and that Convocation had incurred the penalties of a prcemunire by prosecuting Standish for advice he had giveruto the King. The churchmen were furious ; even Fox of Winchester lost his temper. Then Wolsey interceded. Henry refused to refer the question to the Pope, saying : " Kings of England have never had any superior but God alone." Here was the royal supremacy already ; but this time a general peace was made— Standish escaped, but the obnoxious Act was not renewed, and ParUament was soon dissolved to prevent any further attack on the clergy. Then the years passed -with little change, though men felt that the storm would burst whenever Wolsey's power came to an end. Meanwhile the question of the succession became serious when the sons of Catharine all died in infancy. Even if Mary were allowed to succeed without a ci-vil war, there would be trouble over her marriage, and if she left no son, the trouble would recur. Henry showed his anxiety by putting Buckingham to death as a possible claimant — his first great judicial murder — in 1521, and with the Church to extremity, and Horsey's escape may seem a sort of balance to that of Standish. The last discussion of the case is by Miss E. Jeffries Davies in E.H.B., XXX. (1915), 477. It does not seem to call for any change, except the important correction of my clerh for any cUrh in the bishop's letter. HENRY VIII— THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 147 by making Bessie Blount's son Duke of Richmond in 1525. But by 1527 Henry saw clearly that an illegitimate son was not sufficient — ^that he must get rid of his -wife and marry again. Thus arose what is usually caUed the Divorce Case, though the decision he wanted was not a divorce, but a declaration that Catharine had never been his lawful -wife at all. Reasons of state were of the gravest ; and there was something more. Henry's scruples of conscience need not be counted insincere. The marriage seemed clearly forbidden by the Law of God (Lev, xx, 21), and the death of his children was the very punishment denounced on it, Henry always had a good con science, for he could always persuade himself that what he wanted to do was no more than his bounden duty. In this case his conscience was marvellously helped by the fact that somewhere about this time he became enamoured of Anne Boleyn, a niece of the Duke of Norfolk — a, ffighty person, and a sorry contrast to Catharine's queenly dignity. Henry was for once infatuated. Anne hardly impresses us as more -virtuous than her sister ; but in any case a mistress would not have served Henry's purpose. At first sight the matter seemed easy. Dispensations and divorces were on sale every day at Rome, and Clement VII was the last man to refuse a Idng so ordinary a favour, Francis had been given a divorce for trifling causes, and so had Henry's sister the Queen of Scots. True, a flaw would have to be fomid in the dispensation of JuUus II ; but if that were aU that needed to be done, the Curia would no doubt have found one, as they did next year for Henry's brother-in-law Suffolk, The one real difficulty was poUtical, Cathajrinejva^_theJEn^)eror^ai^ and the sack of Rome in 1527 not only made Clement for awhile his prisoner, but secured his dominance in Italy. So the Pope was in a dilemma. If he decided one way, the Emperor would be aggrieved : if the other, the quarrel would be -with Henry. His policy therefore was to avoid deciding at all, and trust to the chances of delay. A French -victory in Italy, for instance, as Clement said plainly, would clear the question at once. This was a shameful evasion of duty, and only sharpened Henry's determination to get a decision. The Pope's counsel was to marry Anne -without waiting for a divorce, and take the risk of it; but this was just what Henry could not do. However, would Clement let Wolsey decide the case in England? Yes, 148 CHURCH AND STATE but with useless commissions and reservations of an appeal to Rome. So time was gained. Presently the French came nearer Rome, and Clement (who had no cause to love Charles) could venture a Uttle further. In October 1528 Cardinal Campeggio arrived in England to try the case along with Wolsey. The Pope had promised not to revoke it to Rome, but he gave Campeggio secret instructions to pronounce no final sentence. The next delay was caused by the discovery^ of a brief of JuUus II_to_Catha- rine's mother Isabella, which (if geniune) showed that the dispen- sation_had notieen granted as Henry's lawyers maintained,, on the supposition that her marriage with Arthur had never besa conaummated. As Henry would not change his purpose, and Catharine utterly refused to enter a monastery, the trial began. Catharine addressed the King in words to which Shakespeare has not done more than justice, and then with an appeal to the Pope swept out of the court. In due time Campeggio stood up, not to pronounce sentence, but to adjoum the court for the summer vacation. It never met again. The French had been defeated in Italy, so that Clement was now quite under the Emperor's influence. In July 1529 he revoked the case to Rome, and cited Henry to appear before him. This was decisive. Henry had maintained the Pope's authority against Luther in terms which even More had thought too strong ; but now he was utterly sick of Clement's evasions and double- deaUngs. If Rome would not do him justice, he must look else where. In August he got an important hint from Thomas Cranmer, a learned Cambridge divine with Lutheran leanings. Let him refer the question to the Universities of Europe. In our own time we should have to decide for ourselves whether aU the Le-vitical degrees belong to the immutable law of God ; and then the State would have to decide whether it is good pohcy to make our opinion a law for those who disagree with it, or to dissolve even a bad marriage of so long standing. But in the sixteenth century the only questions ^ were whether the law in Leviticus was 1 Of course the King's connexion with Mary Boleyn created the same impediment of affinity for Anne which the marriage with Arthur had created for Catharine. This however was only church law, from which it was not doubted that the Church could dispense, and in fact had dis pensed, for Clement in 1528 had given Henry a dispensation (if he got his divorce from Catharine) to marry in spite of any such connexion. The permission, we may note, was made void by the separation from Rome — which was good technical ground for annulling Anne's marriage in 1536. HENRY VIII— THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 149 stiU binding, and if so, whether the Pope could dispense from the Law of God, or (what came to the same thmg) whether he had fuU and final authority to declare its meaning. So Cranmer's counsel went to the root of the matter, for it meant that such meaning is not to be finaUy determined by authority, but by sound leaming — ¦ which is the principle of the Reformation, nowhere more clearly brought out than in England. Henry caught at the suggestion : he was a scholar, and this side of the Reformation always appealed to him. Cranmer and others were sent abroad to collect opinions, and decisions in Henry's favour were received from Paris, Orleans, Bourges and Toulouse, Bologna, Ferrara, Pa-via and Padua : and these decisions must stand for the general opinion of the learned, unless the di-vines of France and Italy were more generally venal than is commonly supposed. Henry now had fuU in -view the possibiUty of a breach -with Rome. But he was not yet himself resolved on it, and in any case needed time to try the feeUng of the country. Meanwhile he could change parts with the Pope, and use every means to delay the sentence now openly prejudged at Rome before the trial, and make it plain to Clement that he would lose England if he gave it at the Emperor's dictation. Taking a broad -view of the EngUsh Eeformation from the raising of the Divorce question in 1527 to the ratification of the Articles in 1571, we find its extemal course (we are not just now looking deeper) chiefly determined by the action of three great parties, which we may conveniently call PapaUst, CathoUc, and Reforming. The first party held to the Pope's supremacy and to the old system generally. They were not always rigid on all questions, but those who were not firm for the Pope must be classed elsewhere. The CathoUc party held to the old system, and the more stiffly for having accepted the King's supremacy. They could not help seeing that this involved further changes, but while some of them -wished to make the Church almost independent of the State, others were frankly Erastian. All however were more or less amenable to the pressure of the royal power, tiU it was overstrained by Northumberland. The Eeform- ing party was Erastian to a man, and aimed at a revision of doctrine in accordance with Scripture interpreted by sound leaming. But there were also three great powers which cannot be classed with the parties — ^the King above them, the courtiers 150 CHUECH AND STATE beside them, the nation around them. For the King : Henry was a CathoUc to the last, though he was wiUing to have a great reform of abuses, involving a considerable reform even of doctrine. Edward went heartUy -with the Eeformers, Mary was as Papalist as the Pope would allow her to be, and EUzabeth was a trimming Eeformer. For the courtiers and nobles : — -as a class they were corrupt and greedy, -with a full share of the coarseness and immoraUty of the time. They were stout reformers as long as there was plunder from the Church, and joined the Papalists in Mary's time on condition of ha-ving it secured to them. The great inert mass of the nation spoke seldom, but its voice was decisive when it did speak. It was a real national decision which placed Mary on the throne in 1553, and it was a real national decision at her death that the fires in Smithfield were very bad arguments, and must be made to cease. North umberland was swept away in a moment by the first, and Mary herself would most Ukely have been swept away by the second, if she had Uved much longer. Therefore the history faUs into three periods of advance, separated by two of reaction. First (1527-1539) the King leads the CathoUcs, with the Eeformers for the tad of the party, against the PapaUsts. The royal supremacy is estabUshed, the monasteries are dissolved, the doctrinal system is loosened, and a great clearance is made of superstitions, abuses, and church property. Presently Henry finds himself going too fast, and calls a halt -with the Six Articles, The rest of his reign (1539- 1547) is a Catholic reaction, soon changing into a Umited and slow advance. Under Edward VI the royal power faUs into the hands of the courtiers, and for reasons of their o-wn they aUow full scope to the Eeformers, so that the advance is rapid. The Common Prayer of 1549 is a transition, and that of 1552 with the Articles completes the change of doctrine. But the pace is too fast. The CathoUcs swing back to the Pope, the Eeformers are discredited by the plunderings of the courtiers, and Northumberland's attempt to change the succession com pletes the overthrow. Under Mary (1553-1558) aU parties are united against the Eeformers. But Mary blundered even worse than Northumberland. First the Spanish marriage leading to the loss of Calais, then the submission to Eome, then a persecu tion which at once and permanently shocked the coimtry. The HENEY VIII— THE SEPAEATION FEOM EOME 151 very first of the martjrrs was conducted to the stake by a friendly crowd " as if it were his wedding." By the time of Mary's death everjrthing papal was hopelessly discredited, and the moral superiority was so vastly with the Eeformers that EUzabeth (1558-1591) had no choice but to follow them, softening a few details to soothe the CathoUcs, The royal supremacy was restored, omitting the offensive title Head of the Church, the Common Prayer of 1552 was re-enacted " with three changes and no more," and the Articles were rearranged a Uttle, and finally ratified in 1571, But to return to 1529, The first result of the citation to Eome was the fall of Wolsey, He was desperately unpopular, he had failed to obtain the divorce, and the great nobles who hated him had Anne to speak for them. Besides this, his foreign pohcy of holding the balance between France and Spain was now given up, and for domestic affairs the King needed a different sort of minister. So in October 1529 he was charged -with a bie.ach of the Statuta of Prsemunire by acting as Legate. He knew better than to plead that he had so acted for years with thfe "King's full consent. He made submission and was deprived of his offices, Winchester was given to Gardiner, the great seal to More, but Wolsey was aUdwed to retire to his archbishopric of York, He seemed a new man there, and an excellent prelate : but his enemies were active, and he made the unpardonable error of asking Francis to intercede for him. He was arrested on --the charge_of treason , (November 1530) and conducted south in broken health, only to die at Leicester Abbey on his way to the Tower, Henry was saved the scandal of an execution. By this time Henry's popularity was gone. The country was seething with discontent at his exactions, and the divorce was detested. Men felt that Catharine was wronged, and hailed her -with acclamations, while Anne Boleyn was hardly safe from the crowd. Wolsey had avoided ParUaments lest they should attack the Church, and had called but one in the fourteen years since 1515; but henceforth Henry systematicaUy secured their consent to his actions. He knew what he was doing. The citation to Eome had made him the champion of the EngUsh nation against the Pope ; and if he came forward as the cham pion of the laity against the church, he could carry all before 152 CHUECH AND STATE him. His Long ParUament (it sat-till April 1536) met Noyember .3, 1529, as fuU of grievances against the church as that.xii. Charles I (November 3, 1640). At last the Commons were free to deal with them. There were the oppressive probate duties and mortuaries, the arbitrary and inquisitorial prosecutions for heresy, the scandals of pluraUties and non-residence. So the PluraUties Act forbade the clergy to hold more than one benefice without the King's licence, though they were aUowed to retain four if already acquired; and the Probate and Mortuaries Act Umited those exactions. The bishops in the Lords denouBeed these sacrilegious infractions of church pri-vilege, but Henry had. lately created a majority, of temjioial^efirs. These sided with the Commons, and the bishops had to jdeld. So the principle was estabUshed that these things were to be settled by law, not managed by the clergy in their own interest. The King's next discovery was that aU persons who had recognized Wolsey's legation were as Uable as himself to a prcemunire. The laity were graciously pardoned, but the Con vocations had to buy themselves off by an enormous grant, finally fixed at £100,000 for Canterbury and £18,000 for York. Then came the decisive trial of strength. Henry refused to accept even this grant unless he was recognized in the preamble as the Only Supreme Head of the Church. In substance, the Anglo-Norman kings had always_ made .this daim, and the Plantagenets had never abandoned it. The Statutes of Pro visors and Prsemunire were quite clear that whatever, might be the Pope's spiritual authority, he could exercise 'no jimsdiction in England without the King's permission. But the assertion was now put in the harshest way, trenching even on the dignity of Christ Himself, " for He is the head," ^ and the King plainly meant to enforce it -vigorously. Convocation hesitated, till at last the primate Warham devised a sort of escape by adding the words, " so far as the law of Christ aUoweth." Silence was taken for consent, and in this form the King accepted it for the present. The Church had stood for pri-vilege, and few mourned its fall. Of those few however were More and Fisher, The blow was followed up in 1532, The Commons presented a " SuppUcation against the Ordinaries," complaining of the Ulegal canons made by Convocation, the arbitrary prosecutions 1 Col. i. 18. HENEY VIII— THE SEPAEATION FEOM EOME 153 for heresy, the excessive number of holy days,^ and of the ecclesiastical courts and their excessive fees. Convocation repUed that ecclesiastical law belonged to the clergy alone, and that they were even then investigating abuses. But when ttey asked the King's protection, their labours were radely cut short. The King required a promise that they would make no new canons without his permission, and would submit such of the old canons as conflicted with statute law to a committee (half laymen) to be named by himself. This again was only a return to the Conqueror's old rule, with pro-vision for rectifying the neglect of the past. The " inherent and di-vine right " of Convocation to be a legislature co-ordinate -with Parhament was never recognized by EngUsh law. After a straggle, the promise was given, and More resigned the chancellorship. ParUament also strack a direct blow at the Pope's revenues by the Annates Act, reducing his fees on promotions from a whole year's value of the see or benefice to a tax of five per cent. This however the King was authorized to suspend for awhile, pending what the Pope might do. The primate Warham died in August; and now who but Cranmer for Canterbury? As usual, Henry knew his man. Cranmer was by nature a student, with great leaming and exquisite taste — as witness his work in the stately cadences of the Common Prayer. His character was blameless, his temper gentle and forgi-ving. " Do my Lord of Canterbury an iU turn, and you make him your friend for life." He could foUow Henry without serviUty, for he was heartily in favour of the Divorce and of the new church poUcy ; and if he had a student's leanings to heresy, he had no doubts for a long time yet on the cardinal point of Transubstantiation. Eefined and sensitive he was ; but it is a brutal error to caU him cowardly, for no man of his time gave so many proofs of courage. There is much to be said even for his reluctant support of Queen Jane, and the real weakness of his last days was gloriously redeemed at the end. Time after time Cranmer raised his voice alone, even to Jebuke Henry himself. CromweU was amazed : " You can say what you please to the King, and he never takes it iU, whatever you say." ^ The excessive number of holidays was an old complaint since the times of Langton and Meopham. As nobody was allowed to work after the noon of the day before, they seriously limited industry, and caused much idleness and vice. 154 CHUECH AND STATE Cranmer and Henry respected each other, and their mutual respect is honourable to both of them. Cranmer had no -wish for the primacy, and lingered abroad in hope of escaping it. In fact, he had lately put a difficulty in the way by taking a niece of the Eeformer Osiander for his second wife — his first died while he was still a layman. This was lawful in Lutheran Germany, though not yet in England, where Warham, however, had had a -wife in fact. Meanwhile Clement was interpreting the law of marriage in a sense more offensive to Henry than Cranmer's act, when he answered the Annates Act by an apostoUc monition to the King to reinstate Catharine in all her rights as his -wife. This was in Febraary 1533. About a month before this, Henry found that Anne Boleyn was with child, so that there was no time to be lost. The first thing he had to do was to marry her, if he had not done so already : but it was also necessary to keep the marriage secret for awhile, and so secret was it kept that its date is even now uncertain. The next step was to get the bulls from Eome for Cranmer's appointment. Clement hesitated, as well he might ; but he sent them. There was another difficulty in the primate's oath of obedience to the Pope, still required by law. Cranmer sent in a protest to the Council, that it was not to interfere with his duty to the King, or to hinder the reformation of the church. The protest was accepted, so on that condition he took the oath and was duly consecrated (March 30). There was nothing unscrupulous in this : had he said nothing, he might have trusted for a lawful release to what ParUament was plainly on the eve of doing. A few days later the Act in Restraint of Appeals was passed. Following the old Unes of EngUsh law as expressed in the Statutes of Prsemunire, it made it penal to take appeals out of the country without the Bong's permission. The only novelty, was the enactment that the King was never again to give permission. Convocation ha-ving now decided the Divorce Case in. the King's favour — ^Fisher alone venturing opposition — the new archbishop promptly took up the question. Catharine refused to appear, and he gave sentence that her marriage was null. He then pronounced Anne's vaUd, though the facts of time and place were not made known. All was clear now. Anne was cro-wned HENRY VIII— THE SEPARATION FROM ROME 155 as queen in June, and on September 7 she bore a daughter — ^the future Queen EUzabeth. Clement at once _ annulled Cranmer's sentence, and in March 1534 pronxmnced -his own, that Catharine's marriage was yaUd. Next year (1535) the new.Pope Paul IILdrew up a bull deposing Henry, excommunicating him and all Ms accompUces and Supporters without excuse of age or sex or ignorance, absolving all his subjects from their allegiance and forbidding them to obey him. But JUharles and Francis were not prepared to carry it out ; so it was held back, for the present. Meanwhile Henry appealed (not very seriously) to a general council, and proceeded to complete the separation from-Rome. ParUament in the winter of 1534 confirmed the Submission of the Clergy made in 1531, and the Act of Restraint of Appeals ; but the whole of the Canon Law was now to be re-vised by the Commission, and the appeal from the archbishop's court was not to be to the King in Chancery, but to delegates speciaUy appointed by him. These delegates remained the final court till the appeals were transferred in 1832 to the Judicial Committee of the Pri-vy Council. The Annates were given to the Crown, wMle the election of bishops was to be by cwige d'elire as formerly, but the Chapter were Uable to a prcemunire if they elected any one but the King's nominee, and he could appoint by letters-patent if they failed to elect -within twelve days. Further, Peter's Pence were aboUshed, papal dispensations were forbidden, and the super- -vision of the exempt monasteries was transferred to the King. Henry was now recognized as Head of the Church without Warham's sa-ving clause, and henceforth the Bishop of Rome was to have no jurisdiction in tMs realm of England. It only remained for the bishops to give up their buUs, and require the clergy individually to renounce the Pope. TMs then completed the greatest revolution in EngUsh Mstory since the Norman conquest. Henry was indeed a trae successor of the Conqueror, for it was in substance to the Conqueror's system that he had now returned. If the King became Pope as weU as King, the Church lost no Uberties wMch it had possessed in WilUam's time; and if Henry was its master, he was not more its master than WiUiam, though he made a more tyrannical use of Ms power. So far aU that had been done was to sweep away the papal encroachments of the last four hundred 156 CHURCH AND STATE years, and to replace the divided rule of Pope and King by a single authority wMch at aU events had the merit of making order possible in the church. But though this was a return to the past, it was not a simple return, for so many beUefs and institutions had gro-wn up round the papal power that its over throw necessarily involved further and far-reaching changes whose full significance no man U-ving could then foresee. CHAPTER XVII HENRY Vni — THE LAST YEARS We are entering on a time of storms, of which the afterswell was felt for ages. The poUtical outlook never cleared tiU the defeat of the Armada, reUgious peace had to wait for the Tolera tion Act, the contest with Rome was finally decided only on CuUoden Moor, and the agrarian questions which became acute in Tudor times are still unsolved. And if there was a strong king at the helm, the succession remained for seventy years uncertain. The monarchy was strong, and something Uke a dictatorsMp was wisely placed in Henry's hands for the most critical years ; but the Stuarts tried to keep the strong monarchy after its work was done, so that there could be no internal peace till it was overthrown, and meanwhile its influence was demoral izing. The two great ages of peculation in England were under Edward VI and Mary, and again under Charles II. But perhaps the subtlest miscMef it did was in perpetuating the mediseval conception that God is arbitrary, and His purpose as well as His methods unsearchable as the heart of kings. It is not accidental that Cal-vinism dominated the next age. Foreign relations were threatening and uncertain. The Pope had cut off Henry from the church and deUvered him to Satan, though he did not formaUy depose Mm till 1538. The Divorce had embroiled Mm -with Charles, the separation from Rome was an offence to both Charles and Francis, the Scots were hostile, and even the Lutherans were not friendly. Yet nobody ven tured a serious attack till near the end of Henry's reign. Charles might have strack a heavy blow; but it would have recoiled on himself in the ruin of Flanders, and it would at once have brought a French army into Italy. Similarly Francis could not move without risking an imperial attack on Provence or Cham pagne. Moreover, England was still a serious enemy, though she had fallen from the mediating position of Wolsey's time. 157 158 CHURCH AND STATE Henry could intrigue with Denmark and Lubeck, aM with the Lutheran princes, though he and they disUked each other too much to form any effective alliance. Catharine's death and Anne's execution in 1536 opened the way for better relations with the Emperor, but by 1539 Charles and Francis had made up their quarrel, and the outlook was so threatening that Henry considered seriously of a Lutheran alUance, and married Anne of Cleves. But the old enemies soon quarrelled again, and the troubles of Henry's last years were with France and Scotland. James V grew more and more hostile as Henry's reforms went on, and alUed Mmself with France by marrying fijst Madeleine of France, then Mary of Guise. But his designs were cut short by the disgraceful rout of Solway Moss in 1542. The shame was fatal to Mm, and the crown passed to the infant Mary Stuart, then a week old. There was no further danger from the Scots, though they defeated an EngUsh force at Ancram Moor in 1545, War -with France meant alUance with Charles, and a joint cam paign was planned for 1544. Henry took Boulogne, wMle Charles penetrated deep into France. Then he got into diffi culties. As a French prisoner told him, it might be eight days to Paris, but they would be days of fighting. So he made a separate peace at Cr^py in 1545, and left England in the lurch. But Henry had built up a na-vy and strengthened the defences of the kingdom, so that when a French fleet rode outside Spit- head, it could do no serious harm. The admiral who foiled the invasion was Lord Lisle, the future Northumberland. Peace was made in 1546, and Henry kept Boulogne. Now that the King had carried through Ms revolution, he had to secure it and to reap its gains ; and for tMs purpose he needed a less churchly minister than Wolsey. Thomas Cromwell had been a trooper in Italy, a merchant in Flanders, and an attorney in England before he entered Wolsey's ser-vice; and his bold defence of his faUen master recommended him to Henry. Crom well was indeed a good deal of an ItaUan. Utterly unscrupulous and utterly merciless, he was frankly a disciple of MacMavelU, ¦with the Turk for his model of an English king. So his years of power were an EngUsh Reign of Terror, He did much to demoraUze Henry ; and his e-vil influence lived after him. The Act of Succession in 1534 recited that Catharine's marriage was void, settled the cro-wn on Anne's issue, and required all HENRY VIII— THE LAST YEARS 159 men to swear to it. More and Fisher refused, and suffered forfeiture and imprisonment. They were wilUng to swear to the succession,, but contended that the Act did not require them to diso-wn the Pope. Cranmer's counsel was to accept this; but the King was much too good a churchman to understand the modem doctrine that no opinion can be criminal till it is put into action. The ¦w;orst distinctions of Tudor from Plan- tagenet law — ^the inquisition into opinions, the judicial use of torture, the making crimes of words and even of refusals to answer — were not adopted from the Civil Law, but from the procedure of the Church against heretics. Henry's reUgion and Cromwell's irreUgion agreed in the poUcy of destroying every one who might possibly become dangerous. They had a for midable weapon in the Act of 1534, which made it treason " maUciously to will by words or writing to deprive the sovereign of any of his royal titles (e. g. Head of the Church) or to caU him a scMsmatic." Yet even so, the prisoners might have escaped -with their lives, if the new Pope Paul III had not taken the opportimity to make Fisher a cardinal — an insult which would have fired a milder king than Henry. When they were brought to trial, Fisher plainly denied the royal supremacy, while More refused to answer the question. After his conviction he spoke his mind, declaring that the Act was not binding, " because it was made without the common consent of all Christendom." Their execution (July 1535) horrified Europe, and with reason. Fisher was the old counsellor of the Lady Margaret : More had been Speaker, had held the seals after Wolsey's faU, and was the foremost scholar of England — and these were the men put -to death for a pious opinion. Yet Henry was more in the right than he knew. He may have suspected, but we know certainly, that Fisher had more than once invited Charles to invade England, assured him of much support, and proposed Reginald Pole as king in Henry's place. This was treason by any law. The year 1536 opened with the death of Catharine, She had borne herself throughout with blameless digmty, and Henry had more than once borne -witness to her wifely -virtues : but now Ms comment was, " God be praised, we are free from aU fear of invasion," The next night he and Anne appeared at a dance in festive yellow, Anne's indecent joy did not last long. She was frivolous and arrogant, bad-tempered and maUcious— 160 CHURCH AND STATE and she bore no son. Henry tired of her, and had lately given her good cause for jealousy by Ms attentions to Jane Seymour, the daughter of a Wiltshire knight. Early in May five men, including her brother, were arrested for adultery with her, wMch was treason by the statute of Edward III. Only one confessed, but they were all found guilty, and Anne herself a few days later. Her guilt must remain in doubt. Her bearing was that of innocence, and the more monstrous charges were no doubt only the usual makeweights of the time. Her letter to the King would go far to clear her, if we could be sure that it was not written for her, perhaps by her chaplain, Matthew Parker. But if we Ughtly set aside the unanimous verdict of six-and-twenty peers, headed by her uncle Norfolk, we put a hard strain on the theory of unUmited baseness and serviUty in Tudor times. The day before the execution, Cranmer pronounced her mar riage null. No reason was given; but Henry's connexion with her sister was a vaUd canomcal impediment, for recent legisla tion had made void the Pope's dispensation granted for such a case in 1528. On the day itself Cranmer gave the King Ms o-wn dispensation to marry Jane Seymour, for she too came witMn the wide sweep of the prohibited degrees. They were con tracted next day, and the marriage took place ten days later. There was Uttle deUcacy in those days about remarriage, and Henry was not much worse than others. Of Jane we hear nothing but good. Hitherto she had kept the King at a distance, re turning his presents and refusing to see Mm alone. As queen she was a gentle and Hndly influence, and her record is for those times unique — she was no fool, and yet she had no enemies. Edward VI was bom October 12, 1537, and the queen died twelve days later. The succession question was clear for the moment ; but it was not quite solved, for Edward was a sickly cMld, Mary and EUzabeth were now both iUegitimate, the duke of Richmond was dead, the Hng of Scots was impossible, and after him there might be half a score of claimants. ParUament may have done wisely when it gave Henry a power never held by any other EngUsh king, of settUng by Ms -wUl the devolution of the crown in case of Edward's death. That wiU prescribed the succession of Mary and EUzabeth, and then of the Suffolk Une of Henry's younger sister Mary ; so that the title of the Stuarts in 1603 rested on a general consent in direct defiance of law. HENRY VIII— THE LAST YEARS 161 So far we have had Uttle need to mention the " heretics " or doctrinal reformers. The EngUsh Reformation began with a revolt of the laity, headed by the King, against the tyranny of an obsolete church system. The overthrow of the Pope's authority made reforms possible, but time was needed to make it clear that the abuses were not simply personal sins, but natural results of false doctrines. It is significant, that the cMef Reformers in England had given up nearly aU the distinctive medieval doctrines before they began to doubt of Transubstan tiation. But it is clear that the doctrine of the Church had very Uttle hold on thousands who had no idea of disputing its authority. BeUef in an authority is not the same as behef in a doctrine set forth by that authority. Indeed, behef upon authority is not behef at all, for there can be no real behef with out a final appeal to reason and conscience to verify the authority and the doctrine. Systems wMch disdain to rest on reason can have no support but custom and fear of heresy and its temporal consequences. This is why the mediseval Church crumbled away when custom was broken, and some freedom was allowed to reason, if not to conscience. It showed an imposing front, only because a vast amount of assent to authority was mistaken for belief in the doctrine set forth by authority. The one reaUy dangerous enemy of the church system was the study of the Bible. PoUtical and Uterary criticism did not reach the -vital questions, but there is no escape from words of Christ. 'Whatever the Master said, no church can decently con tradict. Now imagine a man brought up in the old system coming to read the Bible as a book he had never heard before, except in scraps of Lessons made uninteffigible by continual interruptions of responds and versicles. His first surprise is to find it so large a book : yet there is nothing about the Pope, not much about the church, and the Blessed Virgin is not pro minent. Purgatory and indulgences are nowhere mentioned, though there is a good deal about images, and something on the worsMp of angels. He finds warnings in abundance against pride and hatred and covetousness, but the deadly sin of heresy is seldom spoken of. He is Ukely to take the Words of Institu tion Uterally : but how is a priesthood of men consistent -with the sole priesthood of Christ, or the sacrifice of the Mass with the completed sacrifice on Golgotha? Above all, he cannot M 162 CHURCH AND STATE help contrasting Christ's Gospel of free forgiveness with the mercenary and often merciless penances of the Church. The theory was not that they are satisfactions to God : and if they are satisfactions to the Church, they only prove that the Church has not learned Christ's first lesson — " as we forgive them that trespass against us." Is it pure maUce and fanaticism if a man who finds himself of a sudden in such a new world as this goes forth to preach his good .news to others, and to do his part in pulUng down a system which undoes the work of Christ ? Real enthusiasts are always few; but it is just those few who shape the thoughts of the future : the rest of the world counts for little. Such enthusiasm is a soUd fact wherever it is found; and if it is not fully understood and allowed for, the Reforma tion becomes a hopeless riddle of unmeaning perversity. Suadente diabolo is not the key of Da-vid, wMch opens all doors. The first enthusiasts were sometimes crude, though they had scholars like Barnes and Tyndale, and the more conservative Latimer was one of the acutest Cambridge schoolmen of Ms time ; and after a few years, the advocates of reaction were altogether outclassed in learning by Ridley and Cranmer, Jewel and Parker. Whatever else the Reformers might be, they were the best scholars of the time. It must also be admitted that most of the first enthusiasts recanted — ^Uke the early Christians, for this always happens in the earUer phases of persecution, and is very conspicuous in the tMrd century. But— again Uke the early Christians — ^many of those who had recanted returned to their heresies, and were burned after aU. If Mother Church had scant mercy for the heretic, she had none at all for the relapsed heretic, except that if he recanted again, he was absolved before the fire was Ughted. It is further true that the Reformers were often, scurrilous, as indeed most men were in those days, from the Pope downward. In this matter More was quite a match for Tyndale, and Luther gave Henry VIII no more than he got. RaiUng for raiUng, the heretic who rails at the risk of his Ufe has more excuse than the Bishop or Keeper of the Seals who raUs from a safe eminence. Bale himself is not more scurrilous than " Slanders " the Jesuit, and Jewel does not rail at Harding. If bad language proves that a case is bad, the Eeformers wUl not have the worst of it. If the temporal factor of the EngUsh Eeformation is a national HENEY VIII— THE LAST YEAES 163 revolt of the laity against the Pope and the Church, the spiritual factor is the influence of the Bible. That influence was at first Umited to a few students; but it soon dominated the chief Eeformers. In their writings. Scripture is not only formally supreme, but its language pervades their thoughts. Bunyan himself is not more thoroughly steeped in Scripture than Jewel. The influence was widely spread by the English translation under Henry VIII, but it was chiefly the work of the Puritan section of the Church in the time of EUzabeth and James which made the EngUshman of the seventeenth century a man of one book. The Greek Testament pubUshed by Erasmus in 1516 was eagerly read by students at Cambridge, and by the Cam bridge students transplanted to Wolsey's College at Oxford. In 1517 a secret society was discovered among them, and their ideas rapidly spread to others like Latimer, who knew no Greek. Scholars soon found that the original differed seriously from the Vulgate as it was then understood. Almost on the flrst page, for example, the Greek made it quite clear that the Baptist's word was not, Do penance; and it was easy to show that the apostles ordained elders and not priests, and that the Lord said. Do this, not Offer this sacrifice. But the message was the same for all, and WilUam Tyndale resolved that " the boy that driveth the plough " should be able to know his Bible as well as any doctor of the schools. T3mdale came from the GloucestersMre hills overlooking the Severn, and studied at Oxford and at Cambridge. Under the patronage of Humphrey Monmouth, one of the London merchants who leaned to Lutheranism, he under took a translation of the Bible. WycUffite translations had been suppressed, and they were based on the Vulgate; and though the Vulgate was one of the best of the old versions, its words had often picked up strange meanings in the middle ages. Tyndale was a good scholar, and translated from the original languages. He had to do his work in exile and under difficulties, and it has since undergone several revisions, but to this day the magmficent language of the English Bible is mostly due to Tyndale. An octavo edition of the New Testament and a quarto with " pestilent glosses on the margin " were smuggled into England about 1526, and the Old Testament followed. Tyndale had reached the end of Chronicles at his death in 1536. The bishops bought up copies and burned them : then as tMs 164 CHUECH AND STATE plan did not answer, they burned the readers also. It was plain heresy to read " a certain heretical and damnable book, called the New Testament." Tjmdale's notes were naturaUy offensive, for they were biting; but the main objection was to the reading of the Bible by the laity. As Bishop Stokesley said, " it was abusing the people to give them Uberty to read the Scriptures." More was of the same opinion, and had a bitter controversy with TjTidale. Cambridge was in a ferment. Cranmer and Bilney and Barnes and Latimer were carried away one after another in the direction of " heresy " by the reading of the Bible. A few years later they were followed by a rather more Uterary group — Smith, Ascham, Cheke, with Cecil and the two Marian bishops, Watson and Christopherson — almost the only Greek scholars who did not lean to the Eeformation. But something of that ferment spread into the country. The man in the street soon hears of the conclusions of the learned, and adopts them in Ms own hasty way. They gave point and direction to the general feeUng that something was wrong -with the teaching of the Church, and helped to prevent the discontent from evaporating in -witticisms and grumbUngs as it did in Italy. The old and ever-new ideal had come back from the mists of the past ; and by that standard the Church of the present was tried and found wanting. Yet the other side had good men and true. Cuthbert Tunstall was the elder and illegitimate brother of Sir Brian Tunstall, almost the only EngUsh knight who fell on Flodden Field. Cuthbert was Master of the EoUs in 1514, bishop of London 1522, of Durham 1530. His plan of buying up the copies of Tyndale's New Testament is a strange piece of simpUcity in a skilled lawyer and diplomatist, and does more credit to his heart than to Ms head. He went heartily with Henry's earlier measures, for he had Mmself seen Pope Julius II worshipped Uke a god in Eome. " When a noble man of great age did pros trate himself upon the ground and kissed his shoe, methinks I saw ComeUus the centurion . . . but I saw not Peter there to bid Mm rise, saying, I am a man as thou art." But TunstaU was no Eeformer, and acquiesced -with increasing reluctance in the later changes. He suffered injustice from Northumberland, but no blood came on his hands in Mary's reign, and he ended a HENEY VIII— THE LAST YEAES 165 long and blameless Ufe by refusing conformity to EUzabeth in 1559. He was -willing to accept the royal supremacy, but he could not bear the removal of the altars and the vestments from the churches. Others of the leaders of the old learning were cast in a baser mould. Stephen Gardiner was more lawyer and diplomatist than bishop, and as much pohtician and intriguer as either. He was active in the Divorce Case, and succeeded Wolsey at Winchester in 1530. He too suffered in Edward's time. In Mary's he did what he could to lessen the political evils of the Spanish marriage, and might have been content with burning some of the ringleaders of heresy. Edmund Bonner was also busy in the Divorce, and reached the see of London in 1539. He too was an acute lawyer rather than a divine. He was brutal, even in a brutal age; yet he was not always unkindly, and had no such fierce lust of blood as the Popes of the Counter- Eeformation. Even Bonner was not up to the Spanish standard. Yet he was the one bishop from whom EUzabeth shrank; and such a character as his people gave him is seldom quite undeserved. The CathoUc opposition was not pure perversity. Well- meaning men were slow to unsettle a vast and ancient system at the bidding of miscreants whom the Church taught them to count more hateful than the "vilest of common criminals. Better sin every sin of the decalogue than be a heretic, for heresy dis puted the only authority wMch could grant forgiveness. No wonder that men shrank from it with horror. Moreover, the Eeformation admits of no defence except as an assertion of truth against error; and that was a plea wMch the Church refused even to discuss. In all countries and in all ages most men go more by custom than by truth, and find it hard to see that what is untrue cannot be right : and they were not likely to see it better when the Church claimed final authority, recog nized no question of truth beyond its own decisions, and con demned every obstinate disputer to the fire in tMs life and to everlastmg danmation in the other. If the Eeformers are far from blameless, the Church was the cMef teacher of maUce and hatred, and the cMef depraver of trath and morals in the world. The new Head of the Church was bound to show Mmself better than the old, and therefore to reform abuses. Something had 166 CHURCH AND STATE been done during the Separation from Rome, but abundance of work stiU lay before Mm. Early in 1535 Cromwell was made vicar-general, with the new powers of the Crown vested in Mm, and presently the -visitations of the bishops were suspended to make room for his visitation. There had just been a large replacement of clerics by laymen in the administration of the State ; and now that of the Church was entrusted to a layman. CromweU's chief tasks were the regulation of monasteries and the removal of superstitions. The -visitation of the monasteries began at once. Cromwell's Articles of Inquiry were searcMng, and his Injunctions stringent. It may be true that they were meant to make monastic Ufe intolerable; yet they only recalled the monks in altered times to the old austerity, and they removed one great abuse by allowing monks and nuns below the age of twenty-four to depart unfettered by their vows. In the autumn of 1535 Cromwell's commissioners traversed the country, and reported a shocMng state of things — ^that most of the monasteries were dens of immoraUty, so vile that notMng could be -viler. Thereupon the Long ParUament in its last session (April 1536) dissolved the monasteries (215) and nunneries (105) whose annual revenues amounted to less than £200, though some of them were specially Ucensed to continue. The larger houses were said to be well conducted (God be praised) and were therefore suffered to remain. But in the course of the next three years (1537-1540) surrenders were obtained from most of these (158 abbeys and 30 nunneries), while the twelve abbeys which proved refractory were reduced by attainder. Some of the northem abbots had openly joined the rebels of 1536, and the three great abbots of Glastonbury, Reading and Colchester were hanged for less manifest treason. The monks were pensioned, sometimes Uberally, though their dependents got nothing, and their revenues were granted to the King. Cromwell had made Mm the richest prince in Europe, as he promised. Some part of these revenues was devoted to education, to the defence of the country, and to the founding of six new bishoprics at Chester, Oxford, Peter borough, Gloucester, Bristol, and Westminster. But by far the larger portion of the spoil was granted or sold on easy terms to courtiers. This is the surface of the Mstory, but there is a good deal HENEY VIII— THE LAST YEAES 167 behind it. The dissolution of monasteries was no novelty. The Templars were suppressed in Edward II's time, and under Henry IV the Commons petitioned more than once for the confiscation of church property to state use. In the next reign the aUen priories were granted (1414) to Henry V, and their property was partly given to schools and colleges. Thus that of St. Clears near Carmarthen was given to All Souls' College, Oxford. Bishop after bishop had diverted the revenues of decayed monasteries to education, and Wolsey had suppressed as many as twenty-nine houses in favour of his new colleges at Oxford and Ips-wich, Since his time seven houses of Observants (strict Franciscans) and nine of Carthusians had been dissolved, and some of their inmates executed as traitors for maintaining the Pope's supremacy. Thus there were plenty of precedents for the suppression, and some for the diversion of the revenues to secular pruposes. The reports of the commissioners do not command respect. They were men of bad character, who did their work in scan dalous haste, accepted evil reports, and frankly made out a case. But there can be no reasonable doubt that in many instances the black picture was substantially trae. The commissioners were not indiscriminate, and what they saw for themselves was enough to make the rest plausible. And it is of a piece with what we know from other sources. In 1489, for example, Cardinal Morton found the great abbey of St, Albans in a state as bad as anything described by the commissioners ; and Ystrad Fflur (Strata Florida), the most famous of the Welsh monas teries, does not seem to have been much better. We have ample e-vidence from the thirteenth century onward that there was a good deal more than the occasional sin wMch individuals will commit in any society. Upon the whole, the just conclusion seems to be that the houses varied greatly, so that while some were as bad as St. Albans, others were well conducted, and though the larger number had scandals, they were much more easy-going and worldly than grossly immoral. Thus the monks dine out so often that the bishops have much ado to enforce dinner in the refectory twice a week. The ser-vices are regular, but the monks only attend in rotation; and the common dor mitory is deserted : they sleep by ones and twos in aU the rooms of the building. Their hunting and hawking, we have 168 CHUECH AND STATE seen. In short, they tended to the ordinary Ufe of the layman. Disorder was to be expected in ages of ecclesiastical disorder, and might have been abated by a stringent reform on the lines of CromweU's Injunctions. So far then as concerns pubUc decency and- order, the houses might perhaps have been aUowed to stand. The real case against them is not that they had drifted so far from their ideals, and even from the practice of earUer times. It is not that they had almost ceased to be homes of leaming, spent Uttle on the poor, and indeed were often crippled with debt. It is not even that the ascetic ideal was worn out, so that the houses were often more than half empty — or impracticable, so that it cannot be steadily maintained -without continual re-vivals or turning the houses into prisons. All this is tme, and every CathoUc country has found it true : but the decisive objection is that the ideal was seen to be an entirely mistaken conception of the highest Christian life. They that " are able to receive it " are not necessarily better than those who are not called to receive it. Moreover, the incidental advantages of the monastic system had lost much of their value, and in some cases had become serious evils. Sanctuary, for instance, always Uable to abuse by criminals and fraudulent debtors, was less useful now that there was better order in the State. So too the monks had ceased to labour on the land, leaming had found a more genial home in the imiversities, and the Elizabethan poor-law was less demoraUzing than the charity, necessarily indiscriminate, of men who gave it simply as a ransom for sin. The monks expressed the ideal of the church, and the church had long ceased to be the one pro-vision for the poor, the one career for the sons of the people, the one home of learning and the one effective check on tyranny. But if there was very good reason for suppressing the monas teries, the disposal of their revenues is another question. There is indeeed no reason of principle against aUenation. " Givien to God " is a metaphor, and means that property is given to certain men that they may serve God In a certain way. If then they fail to do it, or if that way proves unad-visable, or even becomes harmful, there can be nothing of itself -wrong in giving it to other men that they may serve God in a different way, perhaps less directly reUgious than the performance of Di-vine Ser-vice. Thus Cranmer and Latimer wished some of the houses to be retained. HENEY VIII— THE LAST YEAES 169 " not for monkery — God forbid," but to be centres of education. The Eeformers knew the value of education, and it is no fault of theirs if they were not aUowed to do for England what Knox and Mel-ville did for Scotland. Henry thought other needs more pressing, and he was a good judge of poUtical expediency. The courtiers had long been looking for the spoil of the abbeys ; and now he was able to create a new nobiUty pledged to the new order of things. Nor does he seem to have distributed the lands at random. It was rather design than accident which formed so many of them into a circle round London, of about eighty miles distant, which the rebels of the North and the West never were able to break through,'- Mary had no great difficulties in purely reUgious questions, but she found it needful to advise the Pope that the new possessors must be confirmed in their lands, and the fear that a popish king would reclaim them was an element in the resistance to James II, From an economic point of -view the change was probably good, for the new o-wners were Ukely to manage better than the monks, and to make a better use of the land. There was no great loss in the alms distributed by the reUgious houses, and no great gain in giving the inmates a pension and turning them loose in a world for wMch they were unfit. The plague of beggars was not due to the suppression, but had begun long before, and (as we have seen) had more general causes. There was however a clear loss of the pro-vision for decayed depen dants of the great, and for the unholy persons of both sexes who were most conveniently placed in holy retirement. On the other hand, a great educational opportunity was thrown away; and though the secular clergy lost notMng, they also gained nothing by the change. The new owners were harder landlords than the monks ; and though the extension of the change from arable to pasture land was a benefit to the country, it increased the rural distress by throwing labourers out of work. As concerning lay impropriators, the new owners regarded the benefice as family property, and frankly treated it as such. Yet it does not appear that they generally appointed worse men than the monks who regarded it as property of their house, and frankly treated it as such. In one respect however the change was clearly bad, for it was the interest of the new o-wners to save pensions by appointing 1 This is a hint from Bishop Creighton, in a conversation at Peter borough, 170 CHUECH AND STATE old monks, however useless, to the U-vings, This is one cause for the debasement of the parish clergy in the first part of EUza- beth's reign. Their incapacity and disUke of the new ser-vice- books perpetuated the old complaint, that " our curate is naught, an ass-head, a dodipoU, a lacklatin, and can do notMng," and helped not a Uttle to range serious men on the Puritan side. But the worst evil was the impulse given to the spirit of greed in the higher classes. The monasteries indeed and the chantries after them were dissolved for good reasons, however bad the motives might be : but the superstition for wMch the gilds were broken up in Edward's time was a surface thing wMch might easily have been reformed, and the spoUations of the bishoprics, wMch went on till 1604, were no better than the operations of Eufus. On the other hand, the buildings were not demoUshed simply because the new owners coveted the materials, but in pursuance of a deliberate and necessary poUcy of making a return to the old order impossible, and their demolition may be defended on that ground, wMle wholesale destraction of books and docu ments admits of no defence at all. MeanwMle in 1538 shrines and superstitious images were ordered to be destroyed. The rood of Boxley, which opened its eyes by wires from behind, was exMbited in London, and our Lord's blood at Hailes was also exposed. From Wales was brought Darvel Gatheren,^ a huge idol which had power to deUver souls from hell. It was used to bum the obstinate Papist Friar Forest. Our Lady of Ipswich and Our Lady of Walsingham and others were carried off with all their treasures, and there was a general destraction of false reUcs. Above aU, the rich shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury, by far the richest in England, fiUed whole wagons with gold and silver, jewels and vestments. St. Thomas himself was declared a traitor, and his bones and reUcs — the filthy rags Erasmus would not kiss — were bumed. It was a great haul of spoil for the King : to the Pope it was the most horrible of aU his outrages. But the work of these years was not purely destructive. There was not only much rabbish to be cleared away, but much rebuild ing to be done, before the wreck left by the fall of the papal power 1 Derfel Gadarn (the mighty) was one of Arthur's Knights. After the battle of Camlan he turned monk, became a saint, and was worshipped at Llandderfel near Bala, HENEY VIII— THE LAST YEAES 171 could be made good. In the first place, the appeal had been from the Pope to the Law of God ; and this implied that the people must be free to read Scripture. Tyndale's version being offensive, a new one by Miles Coverdale was authorized in 1537. This however was not made from the original languages, but from the Vulgate and the German of Luther. Matthew's Bible, really the work of John Eogers, the first of Mary's martyrs, came out in 1537 ; but it was little more than a reprint of Tyndale, completed from Coverdale. The next step was to revise Matthew's Bible and reissue it in 1539 as the Great Bible or Cranmer's Bible, so that a version which is substantially Tyndale's was not only allowed to be read but set up in the churches by royal authority for all who pleased to read it. Six copies were set up in St. Paul's. This was the Bible of the Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552 ; but it was displaced from the Lessons by the Bishops' Bible of 1568, from the rest of the ser-vices by the Authorized Version in 1662. We still hear it only in the vigorous and flowing language of the Psalms, where it was retained in 1662 as being " smoother and more easy to sing " than the Authorized Version. The next step was to set forth the faith of the English Church. The Ten Articles of 1536 "for the estabUshing of Christian Quietness," are mainly Henry's o-wn work, and therefore represent the old doctrine, but the old doctrine everywhere loosened. The Bible, the three Creeds and the first few Councils were made the sources of doctrine. There were three sacraments, including Penance. Baptism was necessary, even for infants dying without actual sin.^ The Eeal Presence was laid down, but not in the par ticular form of Transubstantiation. The old ceremonies were to be retained, saints to be honoured, prayers to be made for the dead. But images were not to be worshipped, masses could not deliver souls from purgatory, and no saint doth serve for one thing more than another. The Institution of a Christian Man was dra-wn up on similar lines by a committee of bishops in 1537. It explained the Apostles' 1 " Infants, and children dying in their infancy, shall doubtless be saved therein/, and else not.'* This now stands as a rubric to the Service for Baptism, but with the last four words omitted. Thus the statements that infants are saved by baptism, and that they are lost without baptism, are withdrawn, and provision is also made against any survival of the belief that Confirmation is necessary to salvation. 172 CHUECH AND STATE Creed, the three sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Ave Maria, Justification, and Purgatory. It was commonly caUed the Bishops' Book : the King took care to have no direct share in it, though his words were often borrowed from the Ten Articles, The old doctrine then is not much altered in these formularies : yet there were two changes, fundamental and far-reaching. First, a complete breach was made with medisevaUsm when the EngUsh Church defined its faith without reference to the Pope and the " common consent of all Christendom," Besides tMs, a distinc tion was made between things necessary and things laudable but not necessary. This meant that necessary things rested on something more than the church authority claimed for things laudable, so that it was no longer possible to resolve all duties indiscriminately into obedience to the church. Thus wMle the national church asserted its independence of other churches, it accepted an important Umitation of its authority over conscience. Further, though there was no thought yet of aboUshing the mass, prayers for the dead, or the worship of saints, their practical working was much modified by the teaching that masses cannot deliver souls from purgatory, and that no saint is more ready to hear than Christ, or better than another saint for any particular purpose. All tMs directly contradicted the popular idea of reU gion, wMch hardly got beyond the worsMp of saints and the fear of purgatory ; but it would have been vain teaching if it had not been practically enforced by the destraction of images and reUcs, and by the dissolution of the monasteries. On one side then there was Uttle change so far in the system and formal doctrine of the Church : on the other, the rejection of the Pope, the suppression of the monasteries, the issue of the Bishops' Book, and the free circulation of the Bible amounted to something more than a practical reform, for they impUed new fundamental principles. Hence the position was unstable. Scripture and the Church could not remain co-ordinate as final authorities. If Scripture was supreme, the Church needed further reform ; and if the Church had the final voice, there was no room for an appeal to Scripture. Yet Henry neither would nor could take either one course or the other. Had the divorce been the only question at issue, he might have made his peace -with the Pope after Anne's death, but he would not now give up HENEY VIII— THE LAST YEAES pi the supremacy ; yet neither was he wilUng to go forward into " heresy." He could not draw back, because EngUsh feeUng was too strong against the Pope : even Northumberland's mis government gave Mary no more than a passing success. Yet neither could he advance, because there were reactionary classes and " brute and beastly " coimties, and the doctrinal reformers were nowhere numerous. So for the present the best poUcy was to keep things nearly as they were, striking do-wn papaUsts on one side, heretics on the other. But even Henry could only hold the balance for a time. It was inclining in his last years, and it was upset as soon as he was gone. There were many signs of reaction. As early as 1533 EUzabeth Barton, the Nun of Kent, found ready credence for her prophesy- ings against the King. Fisher tampered with her, and if More was cautious, many were -willing to make a seditious use of her. In 1536 came the turmoil of the suppression of the smaUer monas teries, with all sorts of rumours. A smaU rising in Lincolnshire was foUowed by a great revolt in the North, commonly known as the Pilgrimage of Grace. The rebels demanded a complete reversal of the King's poUcy — the subsidy to be remitted, the Treason Act and the Statute of Uses to be repealed, evil counsellors like Cromwell to be punished, Mary to be restored to the succes sion, the Pope to Ms jurisdiction, the monks to their houses, and heretics (bishops included) to be duly pimished. So formidable was the rising that Henry for once was forced to temporize. On promise of a pardon and a free parhament, the rebels dispersed. A further disturbance was made an excuse for wholesale hangings. Henry was resolved to make a terrible example : seventy-four were hanged at CarUsle alone, and similar numbers elsewhere. EeUgion was not the only cause of disorder. The economic unrest of England, the old lawlessness of Wales and the chronic anarchy of Ireland all came to a crisis about 1536. Bishop Eow- land Lee had been hanging tMeves in Wales on a scale which dwarfed even the executions in the North, and now there was a general settlement. The jurisdiction of the lords marcher were aboUshed, seven new counties were formed in Wales, and a Council of the North was estabUshed to keep order beyond the Trent. Tunstall was Its first president. From the failure of the Pilgrimage of Grace it appeared that the King had not overstramed the loyalty of Ms subjects. Only 174 CHUECH AND STATE the backward counties wanted the Pope ; and he might go on if he avoided heresy. But the situation was insecure, and the House of York had not lost all its hopes. The marquis of Exeter was a grandson of Edward IV, and the three Poles were grandsons of Clarence. Eeginald Pole grew up a special favourite of the King. He had the best education in England and in Italy, where he spent most of his time after 1521, and ranked as one of the greatest scholars of his day. But Pole was a hot PapaUst who entirely disapproved of Henry's policy. He refused York and Winchester on Wolsey's fall, but was willing to obtain university opinions on the Divorce. In 1535 the King pressed Mm to declare himself, and next year received the MS. of the de Unitate Eccle- siastica, which was a severe and threatening denunciation of all his actions. Pole was warned that he was endangering his rela tions, but he completed the breach with Henry by going to Eome (December 1538) and accepting a cardinal's hat. He was then made legate, but neither Francis nor Charles would aUow Mm to do anything. Indeed, Pole was one of the hottest of the zealots, holding that the King had been much too gently dealt -with, and ought to have been deposed long ago. Henry struck in 1539, Exeter had given fair ground for suspicion, Geoffrey Pole turned informer, and Montague's caution did not save Mm, The tragedy was completed by the execution of their old mother the countess of SaUsbury in 1541. Foreign affairs were threatening in 1539. Charles and Francis had made up their quarrel, James of Scotland married Madeleine of France, and then Mary of Guise, and an armada was assembling in the Dutch ports. Cromwell strove for an alUance -with the German princes, who had formed the League of Schmalkalden in 1537. If Francis failed, they were Henry's only possible allies. But there was no love lost between Henry and the Lutherans, and he preferred to show Ms orthodoxy by allowing a CathoUc reaction. The Act of the Six Articles, passed in 1539 was for " aboUshing diversity of opinion," formally setting forth the ideal carried over from the middle ages, that there should be one church and no dissent. On this occasion the Umits of the church were fixed in a CathoUc sense to bar the further progress of " heresy." The six doctrines laid down were transubstantiation, the sufficiency of communion in one kind, the necessity of private masses, auri cular confession and the ceUbacy of the clergy, and the perpetual HENEY VIII— THE LAST YEAES 175 obUgation of vows of chastity, even after the destraction of the monasteries. A denial of transubstantiation was to be heresy, an offence against the other articles felony. The Act was ferocious, even for that ferocious reign, and Cranmer fought hard against it. Yet it did not reach all the Reformers as a matter of course. Not a single bishop doubted yet of transubstantiation. Cranmer and Latimer had defended the doctrine when the King sent Lambert to the fire a few months before for denying it. The rest of the articles might be offensive enough, but comparatively few had reached the position that they were bound in conscience to disobey them. Even so, the jails were soon full, and the worst of the savage Act had to be softened ; but for eight years it remained an effective bar to any important change. The Act of the Six Articles marks out Henry's pohcy for the rest of his life. He pursues a via media, hanging papahsts and buming heretics. The Act is fitfully enforced, and minor changes are sometimes for reaction, sometimes for advance, so that neither side gains any decisive advantage till Henry's last year. Mean while the new doctrines gained ground, perhaps the more steadily for the repression of extremes, as Scripture became better known, and the old order became more and more a memory of the past. The earUer changes were mostly reactionary. Foreign affairs were so threatening in 1539 that Henry agreed to connect Mmself with the Lutheran princes by marrying Anne of Cleves, the wife chosen for Mm by Cromwell. Yet even then there was no agree ment in reUgion, for the King would not give up private masses, or allow communion in both kinds or the marriage of the clergy. The danger passed away when Charles and Francis quarrelled again ; but Henry was committed to the marriage, and had to go through the ceremony (January 1540), Cromwell was made earl of Essex for his services, and then attainted and executed in July, Then came the divorce from Anne of Cleves. Henry treated the " Flanders mare " kindly, but pleaded want of con sent. This was a good canonical impediment, and there was some truth in it, but it was a strange plea from Henry VIII. Anne was given a good pension and settled down in England, in favour with Henry and Ms successors till her death in 1557. Thereupon (August 1540) Henry married a fifth wife. Catherine Howard was a cousin of Anne Boleyn, so that the marriage would 176 CHURCH AND STATE have needed a dispensation by the old canon law. Her uncle was the duke of Norfolk, who shared with Gardiner of Winchester the leadersMp of the party of reaction, so that they could claim the marriage as a decided gain. In doctrine also there was a reaction. The Bishops' Book was re-vised by bishops with the King's help, and reissued in 1543 with a preface by the King, as A Necessa/ry Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, or more shortly, the King's Book. In style it is a great improvement, whether its magnificent language is Cranmer's work or Henry's own. It expounds seven sacraments and asserts transubstantiation, defines justification on Roman Unes, enjoins prayers for the dead and the invocation of saints, commends the ceremonies of the church and forbids the marriage of priests. AU the same time it disowns the worship of saints and images, and has many warnings against di-vination, charms, and superstition connected -with images. But all tMs was in vain, if the Bible was freely read ; so the reactionists pressed for a revision of Cranmer's Bible, and Gardiner produced a Ust of a hundred words too holy to be put into EngUsh. We can imagine the effect of a translation " daubed all over -with Latin words " Uke justitia, simplex, poenitentia, ancilla, simula crum, olocausta, pontifex, ecclesia. The bishops of the old learn ing were deUghted -with tMs way of making it useless ; and when they heard that the King wished to refer the matter to the univer sities, they protested that Convocation was much fitter for the work. However, they had to drop it. But they gained one more success in 1543, when a proclamation forbade Tyndale entirely, ordered the notes in other versions to be blotted out, and limited the reading of the Bible to the Mgher classes of society. Of course the Umitation was not very effective. The -widespread eagerness to read which had led to the disorders might safely be trusted to find means of evading the proclamation. On the other hand, we trace to these years of balanced contest the first steps towards an EngUsh, national, congregational Book of Common Prayer. Hitherto the ser-vices were in Latin, except ing parts of the Marriage Service, and they were not coUected into a single book, but scattered over half a dozen, so that " many times there was more business to find out what should be read, than to read it when it was found out." There was no national Liturgy, for the Use of Sarum was neither Umited to England nor HENRY VIII— THE LAST YEARS 177 imiversal in England, for Hereford, Bangor, York and Lincoln gave names to variant Uses, while parts of Normandy followed Sarum. Besides tMs, the priest performed the services before the people, in the sense that the people were not expected to foUow them, but to occupy themselves with EngUsh Primers or manuals of devotion. In fact, the cMef objection to the Liturgy of 1549, after the irreverence of translating from a holy language into the -vulgar tongue, was that a ser-vice In EngUsh " disturbed the devotions of the people." The Pope's name was removed from the ser-vices in 1535. Next year a good many festivals were lowered in rank and ceased to be hoUdays. In fact, they had reduced a large part of the year to idleness, and were an old grievance. The Injunctions of 1536 directed the clergy to teach the Creed, the Pater Noster and the Ten Commandments in the -vulgar tongue, and by 1538 the Epistle and Gospel were read in some dioceses in EngUsh as well as in Latin. Some legends were omitted from the Sarum Breviary in 1541, and in 1543 Convocation ordered two Lessons to be read in Enghsh. A further step was the issue of Cranmer's Litany in 1545. Processions with Latin Utames were not edifying, so this was In EngUsh. It is very nearly our present Litany, with two important differences. The endless prayers of the Latin to the saints were now consoUdated into three, to the Virgin, the Angels, and all the Company of Heaven ; and these were removed in 1549. Also the prayer, " From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and aU Ms detestable enormities. Good Lord deUver us," was omitted in 1559. The fall of Catherine Howard was a severe blow to the reaction. For more than a year it seemed a happy marriage, and the dis covery of her misconduct in 1541 was a terrible shock to Henry A queen's misconduct after marriage was clear treason, and Catherine's case was as bad as it could well be. ParUament entreated the King not to lay it too much to heart, and aUowed Mm to give his assent to the attainder by commission. Catherine's faU went far to discredit the whole Norfolk influence. It was not tiU the summer of 1543 that Henry took for his sixth wife Catherine Parr, the widow of John Lord Latimer, who had played a doubtful part m the Pilgrimage of Grace without losing Henry's favour. like Jane Seymour, Catherine had no great beauty; but she was quite as tactful and kindly, and an 178 CHURCH AND STATE accomplished scholar besides. She might weU be "terrified" by Henry's first advances. In addition to the usual jealousies of that rough and unscrupulous court, she had to face the break up of Henry's health, and of his temper with it, for the ulcer in his leg which brought him to his end was already forming. Be sides this, she leaned to the new doctrines like other students of Greek, so that it was a chief aim of the reactionists to destroy her by fair means or by foul. Once they took advantage of one of Henry's fits of bad temper and got an order for her arrest ; but Catherine had made her peace with Mm before Gardiner came to execute it, and Henry drove Mm off — " Knave ! Fool ! Beast ! " Catherine did much for the education of Henry's children, and something to mitigate the horrors of the Six Articles, for she was a gentle queen. In the last recmdescence of persecution in 1546 one more effort was made to destroy her. Aime Askew was a LincoMshire lady of some rank and Mghly educated. She was accused of heresy in 1545, but Bonner obtained from her a con fession that saved her for the time. Next year she was arrested again, and this time there was no doubt of her heresy. Her ready wit and sharp tongue and command of Scripture were too much for the Council. But she seemed to have been encouraged by persons of high rank; and this might implicate the Queen. She was in great pain when she was sent to the Tower and racked ; and when the Lieutenant refused to do more, the Lord Chancellor Wriothesley and Sir Richard Rich turned the screws with their own hands till they had nearly pulled her in pieces, and then made her sit two hours on the bare floor reasoning with them without their getting any information from her. A month later she was carried to Smithfield, for she could not stand, and bumed hanging by a chain round her middle. Her courage was undaunted to the last — " I came not here to deny my Lord " — and made a deep impression. Cranmer was even more obnoxious than the Queen, and re peated plots were contrived against him, largely contrived by Gardiner. His own prebendaries and certain of the justices of Kent got up articles of heresy against Cranmer and some of his friends, and got a Commission to inquire into them : but to their consternation, the King put Cranmer himself at the head of it. Ultimately Dr. London was convicted of perjury, and died in prison, but the prebendaries got off with short imprisonments. HENRY VIII— THE LAST YEARS 179 Next came Sir John Gostwick's accusation, but Henry crashed it m a moment, and made Gostwick ask Cranmer's pardon. The third attempt led to the famous scene in Shakespeare.' The Council got Henry's permission to send him to the Tower, for no one would dare to accuse him till he was imder lock and key. Next morning they kept him waiting for a long time among the servants outside, and refused to let him see his accusers. Then Cranmer produced Henry's ring, given him by the King the night before. They had to go before the King, and got a severe rebuke in Henry's finest style : and after that no man durst attack the archbishop any more. Henry had been empowered to settle not only the succession, but the regency which was to rule in Edward's name. The King seemed at first to wish his o-wn balancing poUcy continued after him, for both parties were strongly represented on the council of regency. This meant either a stalemate or a struggle for power ; and in fact there was a change before the end of the reign, Gardiner had made himself impossible by his plots against the Queen and Cranmer, and was now in disgrace. Norfolk foUowed. His son Surrey was a brilUant poet, but an intriguer and a reckless boaster who claimed the regency for Ms father and assumed royal arms for himself. This was a more serious offence than it may seem to us, for armorial bearings were then sometMng more than ceremonial trifles. They were both condenmed for treason, Surrey was executed : Norfolk escaped only through Henry's death on the morning of the day appointed (January 28, 1547), Thus the balance on the council was upset, even if the parties were stUl fairly matched in number, for the CathoUcs had no strong man left. Henry's health was faiUng aU through 1546 ; by the folio-wing January Ms condition became alarming, and at last Sir Anthony Denny told him that he had not many hours to live. He sent for Cranmer ; but by the time Cranmer came, the King was speech less. Would he give some sign of his trast in Christ? With his hand on Cranmer's, the great King passed away. For surely great he was — ^great in character and power, great in selfishness and crime, a great and terrible king, if ever there was one. " Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept 1 Shakespeare truly describes it, but dates it in 1533. The real date must have been shortly before the death of Dr. Butts in 1545. 180 CHURCH AND STATE aUve." His statesmanship was far from wholly selfish, and it was clear-sighted enough to guide his country safely through the greatest of the revolutions it had seen since the Norman Conquest. If greatness is to be measured by far-reaching and enduring work, Henry VIII Is -without question the greatest of the kings that have reigned since Norman William. CHAPTER XVIII EDWARD VI With aU his selfishness, Henry VIII had a real sense of duty, and to the last kept England respected abroad, though at the cost of heavy taxation and debasement of the currency ; but under the three weak rulers who followed Mm (1547-1558) she sank almost into a dependency, first of France and then of Spain. Of these three, Somerset had some statesmanUke ideas -without practical sense to carry them out, wMle Northumberland and Mary sacrificed the welfare of the country, one to pure greed, the other to her Spanish fanaticism. Morals are always unsettled and low in a revolutionary period, and these years are made Mdeous with poUtical and reUgious proscriptions and sordid cor ruption and perversion of justice in the governing class. Yet the nation was less unsound than its rulers. It was a sound instinct which seated Mary on the throne, a sound instinct which made the Princess Elizabeth the hope of England. As the capture of Lisbon Ughts up the darkness of Stephen's anarchy, so the expedi tion of Willoughby and Chancellor showed that EngUsh seamen were not degenerate, and the Marian persecution found not a victim here and there, but a whole multitude of undistinguished men and women to whom trath was more than Ufe. Cranmer beUeved that Henry was meditating an advance in the direction of the Reformers ; and there are many signs that he was right. For one, the teachers he chose for his son — Cheke and Cox— were not simply good scholars, but decided Reformers. Nor can he have been Ignorant that he was leaving the Reformers dominant In the Council. Their best man was Jane Seymour's brother Hertford, and before Henry was burled, Hertford was made Protector (January 31) and presently armed -with the fuU power of the monarchy. The judges took out new patents on the demise of the crown, and this time the bishops did so too. A few 181 182 CHURCH AND STATE days later Hertford became duke of Somerset, and Lisle was made earl of Warwick. Edward Seymour earl of Hertford had shown himself a capable general in the Scots wars. As soon as Mary Stuart was bom, Henry determined to unite the two Mngdoms by marrying her to Edward. The idea was statesmanUke enough, but Henry's methods were rough. Hertford sacked Edinburgh in 1544, and in the next years mercilessly ravaged the south of Scotland. Now that he was Protector, he took up Henry's plans, and won the great victory of Pinkie (September 1547). The Scots' reply was to sMp off the young queen to France, to be married in due time to the daupMn. It would have been easy to form an EngUsh party by bribing some Lords or supporting the Reformers or fomenting the Scots' dislike of French soldiers ; but Somerset preferred sheer -violence. Therefore his Scotch poUcy was worse than a failure. Scotland became a dependency of France. At home too Somerset strove to continue Henry's arbitrary poUcy; but fancied he could do so without Henry's terrorism. On his return from Scotland, he allowed ParUament to aboUsh verbal treason and to repeal the heresy laws, the Six Articles, the Proclamations Act, all restrictions on printing, reading or teach ing the Bible, and the Act which empowered Edward on coming of age to repeal any laws passed during his minority. But if the machinery of Henry's terrorism was destroyed, his poUcy was carried on by other Acts, One of these did away the last shadow of election for bishops by aboUsMng the cong6 d'elire and ordering their appointment by letters patent. Another granted to the King the property of chantries and other superstitious associa tions. TMs only re-enacted an Act of 1545, wMch had lapsed on Henry's death. Chantries had lost their meaning since it was declared that masses are not profitable for the dead, and many of them had already been secularized by Founder's kin : but the gilds were not essentially superstitious, and the confiscation of their property was a severe blow to the artisans of the towns. Education however suffered less, for the universities were left untouched, and Edward founded or refounded several schools. The decUne wMch marks the middle of the century was caused rather by the general atmosphere of unsettlement and repression than by any specific legislation. There was no repression in 1547, for Somerset allowed the fullest EDWARD VI 183 liberty of speech; and the ferment was so great that the first Act of Edward's reign was against those " who contemptuously depraved, despised or reviled " what was " commonly caUed the Sacrament of the altar." Somerset's policy was by no means fanatically protestant, and does not seem to have gone much beyond what Henry intended to do. If the Reformers were .stiU comparatively few, they were strongest in London, Kent, and the Eastern counties, and they had the advantage of attackmg a system which demanded impUcit beUef , and therefore could not weU be defended by reason. They also got some help from arrivals of foreign (i-vines, some fleemg from persecution, some in-vited to England by Cranmer, Melanchthon would not come, but Bucer was made Professor at Cambridge, Peter Martyr at Oxford, wMle the PoUsh noble John Laski (a Lasco) took a more mdependent course. But if the foreigners did sometMng to pro mote reform m a general way, they had very little influence in deciding its particular course, Lutheranism had almost ceased to influence England, and Cal-vin was hardly yet the great authority he became some years later. The foreign influence in Edward's time came rather from BulUnger and the ZwingUans of Zurich, and their ad-vice was not often followed. In fact, the English Articles are not consistent with Lutheranism, and reject the " ZwingUan " doctrine as expUcitly as they reject the Romish, Change was in the air. When ParUament met in November (1547) even Convocation petitioned for communion in both kinds, and for the repeal of the laws against the marriage of the clergy, ParUament began by repealing the Six Articles, and then com manded the clergy to administer in both kinds, and to refuse communion to none who should humbly and devoutly desire it, except for lawful cause, any law or custom notwithstanding. This made the whole of the Canon Law inoperative, and put a stop to any requirement of fasting or confession as a condition of communion. This was re-enacted in EUzabeth's Act of Supre macy. But the marriage of the clergy was not made legal till 1549. The Council began in the summer of 1547 by issumg for use in churches the Paraphrases of Erasmus on the New Testament and First Book of HomiUes. The Pa/raphrases represented scholarsMp rather than protestantism, and the HomiUes (largely Cranmer's work) were almost entirely practical. SimUarly the Injunctions 184 CHURCH AND STATE issued in July were in the main uncontroversial. There was to be a sermon every quarter, priests to study the Paraphrases and teach the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Command ments to aU, cMldren to be brought up to some honest calUng, a register of baptisms, marriages and burials to be kept (tMs had already been ordered in 1538), benefices not to be sold. Epistle and Gospel to be read in EngUsh, and the EngUsh Litany to be used in church, not in procession. All tMs is moderate, and represents a serious endeavour to deal with the ignorance and scandals of the clergy. The register in particular did something for the security of marriage, wMch the Church had kept in such demoraUzing uncertainty. There was nothing that need have given offence to a CathoUc, unless it were the wamings against reUcs and false miracles, and " Hssing and UcMng of images." Nevertheless, the action of the Council was ¦vigorously attacked by Gardiner. He took the ground that in the first place the Royal Supremacy was in abeyance during the minority, so that everything must remain as Henry left it. Further, the Injunctions were null, because they had no statutory authority. More unconstitutional positions can hardly be imagined. The Royal Supremacy was vested in the Cro-wn, not in Henry VIII personaUy, and gave the "ung a statutory power of issuing commands Uke these on Ms own authority ; and from the minority of Henry III to the insanity of George III it has been an axiom of law that aU the powers of the Crown may be exercised on behalf of a king who for want of age or health is xmable to exercise them himself, Gardiner further denounced the Paraphrases as an abomination in itself, and as badly trans lated. The Princess Mary was of another opinion, for she had taken a part in the translation. She may have been as good a scholar as Gardiner, and she is not commonly suspected of any leanings to heresy. Against the Homilies he could not say much more than that they Ignored some of the doctrines taught in the King's Book, for they did not contradict even the Six Articles, A factious attempt like tMs, to bring the government of the Church to a stop, could not pass unnoticed ; and when Gardiner refused to -withdraw it, he was sent to prison, Bonner was in the same case, but he frankly gave up Ms protest, and was'released before November. Gardiner had to wait for the general pardon in January, EDWARD VI 185 FeeUng ran high, especially over the images, and there was much fightmg in churches. Irregular destraction had begun before Henry's death, and the attempt of the CouncU to limit it to those " superstitiously used " proved unworkable. So in February 1548 they ordered the destraction of aU images, except of persons never counted saints. Thus Oswald and Wulfstan vanished from Worcester cathedral, while King John remained. Meanwhile EngUsh was creeping into the church services. Not only the Epistle and Gospel and the Lessons, but the Te Dmm and the Gloria in Excelsis were more and more commonly sung in EngUsh, In 1548 there was interpolated by royal authority in the unaltered Latin Mass an English Communion (in both kinds) for the people ; and in 1549 the First Book of Common Prayer came out. An EngUsh national Church needed an EngUsh national ser-vice-book, and the first Act of Uniformity required the clergy to use that book and no other, and tMs was enforced by a Commission wMch caUed in and destroyed the old service books and many other " superstitious " books -with them. The First Book of Common Prayer was practicaUy Cranmer's work, though it was inspected by a committee of bishops, and possibly by Convocation, It was based on the old books, though Cranmer took huits from Quignon's Breviary, Hermann's Con sultation, various Lutheran and Reformed offices, and even from the Greeks, Upon the whole, it marks a transition, estabUshing new doctrine without excluding the old. Thus wMle the Com munion " commonly caUed the Mass," ^ taught something more than the " Z-wingUan " doctrine of a bare commemoration, though the abolition of many ceremomes (including the oblation of the elements), the proMbition to lift up the host, and the stress laid on faith as the means of eating, point rather to the spiritual Presence already reached by Ridley and Cranmer than to the materiaUsm of Rome and the Lutherans, Neither was the priest allowed to say the service by MmseH, On the other hand, he was to wear " a wMte Albe plain -with a Vestment or a Cope " — ^the altematlve cope was not one of the old sacrificial vestments 1 This phrasing must have been meant to discourage the use of the word. If in a formal document we speak of " Mr, J. H, Smith, commonly called Big Smith," we mean that it would be improper to call him simply Big Smith, Even this deprecatory use of the word was abolished in 1552; and now the Sacrament is officially called the Supper of the Lord, with sometimes the Holy Communion as a second title. 186 CHURCH AND STATE —and to stand " afore the altar " —for the word altar was not yet aboUshed. The doctrine was consistent with any sort of Presence effective to faith, so that moderate CathoUcs could use the ser-vice as well as the Reformers with a good conscience. StiU the great change was made. The Latin catholic Mass of the priest was turned into an English national Communion of the people, and there was no more sacrifice for the Uving and the dead, though prayers were still made for the dead as weU as for the Uving. The Black-Letter Saints' Days were entirely aboUshed. The higher devotional spirit of the Reformers is everywhere apparent. They strove to make the people take their part in the serAdce and come to the Communion. They took the Hours of the monks and simpUfied them into Morning and Evemng Ser-vices for common Christians. The Lessons are to be " read with a loud voice, that the people may hear," and they work steadily through the Bible, instead of being continually interrupted with responds and versicles, and varied with legends and uncertain stories. But the glory of the Prayer Book is its lofty tone of piety. True, it has neither the terseness of the Latin nor the exuberant rejoicing of the Greek : but the Latin ser-vices reflect the gloom of the decUning Empire and the ignorance of the middle ages, while the Greek are wanting in concentration. The EngUsh holds a stately course, instinct aUke -with digmty and tenderness, fervour and sobriety. That book has kept the EngUsh Church together for three hundred years and more ; and that book is Cranmer's monument. We are sometimes told that our best collects are " mere translations " from the Latin, But they are something more than mere translations. Only the highest genius could touch the grand old coUects of Leo and Gelasius, and actually improve them. Compare the terse miUtary Latin of Deus audor pacis et amator, quem nosse vivere, cui servire regnare est with the full and stately EngUsh of, 0 God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom. The one point missed by the English might be given by. Whose service is a royal calling : but that might mean rather a king's call than a caU to be kings ourselves, and it would not harmonize with the rest. But this Prayer Book was not a success. It represented no body, and satisfied nobody. Malcontent priests left it unused, EDWARD VI 187 used illegal services and ceremonies along with it, used it seldom, or purposely mumbled it inaudibly; and malcontent bishops encouraged them. Bonner, for instance, was censured by the Council for aUowing the Apostles' Communion and Our Lady's Communion at the side altars of St. Paul's, and in October 1549 he was deprived for -wilful neglect to enforce the Book. On the other hand, its o-wn authors were not satisfied. They needed no urging from foreigners, for Cranmer and Ridley had already reached the doctrinal level of 1552, and Hooper had got beyond it. So when the reactionists refused the compromise, there was no choice but to have the Book " faithfully and godly perased, and made fully perfect." It was under revision witMn a year. Somerset was before Ms time in having some idea of reUgious freedom, and some feeling for the distress caused by the enclosures and debasement of the currency, but he failed to see that he was equally bound to keep order and to reform abuses. So he let the theological discussion sink into Ubels and abuse, did next to nothing to reform the coinage, and allowed the social unrest to break out in dangerous risings without any serious endeavour to stop them. As the labourers had no vote, ParUament repre sented only the classes above them, so that Henry VIII Mmself could not have solved the problem, and Somerset's proclamations against the covetousness of the land-grabbers only irritated them. Nor were his own hands clean. He had taken his share of the spoil, and was building Somerset House in scandalous haste, work ing on Sundays and pulling do-wn a chapel or two for material. And he stood almost alone against the oppressors. He could not look for much help from the CathoUcs ; and even the Reform ers were too busy with reUgion itself to give much attention to its practical bearing on social questions. Certainly Cranmer and Hooper, Lever and Bradford, all spoke strongly on the covet ousness of the higher classes, but upon the whole Hugh Latimer was the Protector's most active ally. Latimer was the son of a yeoman at Thurcaston in Leicester- sMre, old enough in 1497 to buckle on his father's harness when he went to serve against the Comish rebels at Blackheath. He proved one of the acutest Cambridge schoolmen of Ms time, and became Fellow of Clare HaU and University Crossbearer — an office now secularized into that of Esquire BedeU. He was so 188 CHURCH AND STATE far a devout CathoUc, and only " began to smeU the Gospel " when the heterodox BiMey — " Saint BiMey that was " — asked Mm. to hear Ms confession. But he was always a conservative among the Reformers ; he never learned Greek, and was one of the last to give up Transubstantiation. He became bishop of Worcester in 1535 — a diocese where Hooper a few years later found scandalous ignorance in Ms clergy. A good number of them could not say who was the author of the Lord's Prayer, or where it is to be found. He resigned after the Six Articles of 1539, and we next find Mm in prison in 1546, " daily expecting for to die." He was saved by Henry VIII's death, and in 1548 was set to preach at Paul's Cross and before King Edward. Latimer was a great and fearless preacher. He had reproved Henry Mmself ; ^ and now he denounced impartially the unpreaching prelates, the dumb dogs of priests, the greed of the nobles, the corruption of officials, the vice of London, the superstition of the -vulgar. " 'Who is the most diUgent bishop in all England ? It is the devil. He is the most diUgent preacher, he is never out of Ms dicoese, he keepeth residence at all times, ye shaU never find him, out of the way, ye shall never find Mm idle, I warrant you. If ye will not learn of God, for shame learn of the devil." He laments the decline of learning : poor scholars got help from the rich citizens when he was young, but now they get none. It was the same with ahnsgi-ving : covetousness reigned ; and the pictures he drew of the misery caused by the enclosures were so effective that he was kept out of the pulpit after Somerset's fall. It was not enough for the Protector to have a great preacher at Ms side. Devon and Cornwall were in revolt in June 1549. The rising was in the main religious. " We wiU have " the Six Articles, the Latin Mass (for EngUsh was not understood in Corn wall), the EngUsh Bible caUed in (for otherwise the clergy will not be able to confound the heretics). Cardinal Pole to be first or second in the Council, heretics to be bumed if they would not worsMp the host. Somerset tried negotiation, but the rising was put down by Russell In August. More formidable was the agrarian rising in Bast AngUa, for its demands were just, and its demeanour orderly. Ket kept his court on Mousehold HiU near ^ On one occasion his New Year's gift was a Bible with a motto in it from Heb. xiii. 4, Fomicatores autem et moechos judicabit Deus. It was not quite just to Henry, who does not seem to have sinned in that way for a good many years past. EDWARD VI 189 Norwich, and allowed no rapine. Northampton was defeated, and the rising was put down by Warwick with the help of merce naries. MeanwMle France had declared war. It was time to re move the incompetent and arrogant Protector, and the Council arrested him in October. He was soon restored to Uberty, and even to a place on the CouncU, but he never controlled affairs again. The outlook was very dark in the autumn of 1549. With the treasury empty, the currency debased, national defence neglected and the coimtry full of discontent, none the less bitter for its -violent repression, England counted for Uttle in the scale of nations. The Emperor had crushed the Schmalkalden league at Miihlberg (1547) and seemed master of Germany, and was moreover in accord with the new Pope JuUus III. France was the only possible aUy against him, and France had just declared war (August 1549). Peace must be had at any price : so (March 1550) Boulogne was given up for a small ransom, and the EngUsh garrisons were -withdrawn from Scotland. The new govemment had no choice but to lean on France, and if things had come to civil war on Edward's death, Henry II might have been trusted to support Queen Jane against Mary Tudor — ^till he could bring in Mary Stuart. Somerset's fall seemed to promise a CathoUc reaction, for the chief agent in it was Southampton, the Wriothesley who racked Anne Askew. It turned out much the reverse, because Warwick was the real master of the situation, and he had no mind either to share Ms power with strong reactionists Uke Norfolk and Gardiner, or to forbear the plunder of the Church. In fact, Warwick was a bratal and greedy scoundrel, seemingly without a single redeeming -virtue, whose only notion of statesmansMp was to enrich MmseH and Ms gang at the cost of Church and State. So Ms poUcy was reaction in the State, zealous reform in the Church, and nothing at all to remedy the e-vils from wMch the country suffered. ParUament began -with an Act for the removal of images. Then it made felony of assembUes held in order to reduce rents or prices, treason of attempts to alter the law, partly legaUzed enclosures, made treason of acts against members of the Council, and restored verbal treason, if proved by two witnesses. If the Catholics were no longer dominant, they were still strong 190 CHURCH AND STATE on the Council, tiU the more decided of them were removed early in 1550. The bench of bishops underwent a similar change. Gardiner and Bonner had been thrown into prison again in Somer set's time, and there they were joined in course of time by Day, Heath and TunstaU. All these were deprived, and their sees weU plundered before they were given to advanced Reformers. Ponet went to Winchester, and Ridley took Bonner's place at London, with the suppressed see of Westminster added to his diocese. Day was replaced at Chichester by Scory, Heath at Worcester by Hooper of Gloucester, but Durham was still vacant in 1553. Natural vacancies were similarly filled, as Exeter by Coverdale, and Lincoln by Taylor. The whole party of Reform was mo-viag beyond the position of 1549. Cranmer and Latimer, under Ridley's lead, had come to a spiritual Presence, effective only to the faithful, in the Lord's Supper ; and Cranmer admitted no essential distinction of bishops from priests, or need of any canonical appointment for them. They might vaUdly be nominated by kmgs or elected by the people. Hooper and some others went further. They took the position afterwards held by the earUer Puritans, that a ceremony is not lawful unless it is enjoined by Scripture, We see already the rift in the Church. The first step was the new Ordinal of 1550, It aboUshed a great number of ceremonies, and entirely omitted the four minor orders. The form was nearly what we have now ; but the Oath of Allegiance was a long one, expUcitly renouncing the Pope and ending, " So help me God, all saints, and tMs holy EvangeUst," The priest promised to mimster the doctrine and discipUne of Christ " as this Realm hath received the same," The chaUce or cup -with the bread was deUvered to Mm as well as the Bible, and the pastoral staff was put into the bishop's hand. All these things were brought into their present form in 1552, but the office and work for which they were to receive the Holy Ghost was not expressly stated to be that of a priest or bishop till 1662, when also the oath of allegiance was shortened. Its present form was fixed in 1689, and it was separated from the actual Service in our own time. It must be further noted that even in 1550 every trace of a priesthood " to offer sacrifices to God, and masses as weU for the li-ving as for the dead " was carefully rooted out : the bishop's Charge, to be a pastor and student, ran almost exactly as it does EDWARD VI 191 now. This higher conception of priesthood comes out at another pomt. The mediseval priest's promise to read the services is passed on to the deacon, wMle the priest of the new order takes up the bishop's promise to defend sound doctrine and drive away error. The chief events of the next months concern Ridley, Hooper, and the Princess Mary. Bishop Ridley, now holding Bonner's place at London, issued Injunctions (May 1550) forbidding all ceremonies but those enjoined by the Prayer Book, specif3dng a multitude of such ceremonies still practised in some churches. If priests undertook to use the Book, they could not be allowed indefinite licence of turning it mto something different. Ridley also ordered all stone altars to be taken down and replaced by movable tables. John Hooper was first a monk, then a courtier, then an exile at Strassburg and Zurich, whence he retumed an extreme Reformer. When Warwick nominated him m 1550 for bishop of Gloucester, he demuned. The oath by all samts was impious, and the vest ments were Aaronic. King Edward strack the clause out of the oath with Ms own hand; but this did not thereby cease to be binding in law, and first Cranmer and then Ridley refused to consecrate him without the oath. He only yielded after a short imprisonment, and wore the vestments for once at his consecration in March 1551. In January of that year the Council determined to put a stop to the Princess Mary's mass. Strictly, her chaplains were sub ject to the Act of Uniformity, but the Council had promised the Emperor that she should not be molested before Edward came of age. But when Charles refused to let the EngUsh ambassador have an English service for his own household, the Council re taliated by attacking the Princess Mary. In the end a commis sion (Cranmer, Ridley, Ponet) decided that though it was wrong to Ucense sin, yet imder pressure the sin might be allowed for a time. Mary's chaplains were more than once imprisoned, but upon the whole she was allowed with a bad grace to keep her mass. Somerset had always stood for moderation, and now that he was restored to the Council, he was the natural head of the party which resented Warwick's violence. He was always popular with the common people, and his mistakes were now forgotten. He 192 CHUECH AND STATE was wilUng to leave Mary alone ; and he objected to the harsh treatment of Gardiner, who was deprived and kept in prison, though he was -wilhng to use the new Prayer Book. He could do so with a good conscience, because certain phrases in it showed that the Eeal Presence was not excluded. Somerset was over- mled on both questions ; but his increasing popularity determined War-wick (now duke of Northumberland) to get rid of Mm. A charge of conspiracy was got up against him, and though the count of treason had to be abandoned, he was found guilty of felony and executed (January 1552). The compromise of Somerset's time had broken down. The attempt to include CathoUcs and Eeformers in one church was illogical, for their differences were fundamental. If the claims of the old Church were not the most necessary of truths, they must be the most miscMevous of falsehoods ; and if the worsMp of the mass was not our bounden duty, it must be the grossest of idolatry. Moreover, the thing had now become Impossible. CathoUcs were determined to stamp out heresy, and Eeformers would suffer no idolatry. So for the next century reUgious war in England was war to the knife. First CathoUcs and Protestants, then Church and Puritans, each knew that if they did not suppress the other, the other would suppress them. As aU were agreed that there must be one Church and no dissent, the govemment had no choice but to take a side and keep do-wn the other party. Mary did it as thoroughly as she could — Ehzabeth and even Northumberland used some moderation ; ^ but they all did it. If a choice had to be made, poUcy as weU as interest inclined Northumberland to the Eeformers. So he pushed them on, and encouraged the advanced section represented by Knox and Hooper. Yet he must not be counted a Eeformer. Zealots Uke Hooper and Bale might be duped by his loud protestations of reUgion, but Knox imderstood him, while Cranmer and Latimer deeply distrusted and disUked him, and are no more responsibly for his excesses than for those of Mary. The Reformation must be judged like other movements by its best men, not by the selfish ^ There were two executions for religion (sectaries, not Catholics) under Northumberland, forty or fifty (nearly all as traitors) in the forty-five years of Elizabeth, nearly three hundred in the last four years of Mary. EDWARD VI 193 schemers who form the tail of every party that is not entirely hopeless. The two documents which determined the doctrinal position of the EngUsh church are the Prayer Book and the Articles of 1552 ; and that determination stiU holds good, for though both have since been revised — ^the Prayer Book three times — ^no changes of primary importance have been made. They still read nearly as when they left Cranmer's hands. Comparing the Prayer Book of 1552 with that of 1549, we find the Daily Services prefaced by Sentences, Exhortation, Confession and Absolution. In the Order for Baptism the unclean spirit is no longer commanded to depart from the child, the chrism (or wMte vesture) and the anointing are aboUshed, and a new thanksgiving, " Seeing now that these cMldren are regenerate," is introduced. Similarly the bishop ceases to sign with the cross in Confirmation, Also the direction to reserve of the consecrated elements (if there be a Communion that day in the church) for the sick, is withdrawn. But the most important changes are made in the Communion Office itself. It now begins -with the Commandments, wMle the Gloria in Excelsis is removed to a more fitting place at the end. Perhaps no feature of the services has made a deeper impression on the EngUsh character than this solemn repetition of the Com mandments, Then the Canon of the Mass is broken up into three separate portions. First, the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church is Umited by the words " miUtant here in earth " and there is no mention of the dead. The present thanksgl-ving for them was added in 1662. Secondly, the Prayer of Consecration is brought immediately before the Communion of the people by sMfting the Confession and Absolution, the Comfortable Words and the Prayer of Humble Access to a place in Front of it. TMrdly, the Prayer of Oblation and the Lord's Prayer foUow the communion in reversed order. Besides these stractural changes, there are many other significant alterations. Their general effect is to get rid of all the passages quoted by Gardiner as favouring the old doctrine. The minister shaU use neither alb, vestment, nor cope, but shall have and wear a surpUce only, or the bishop a rochet. The priest is to stand at the north side of the Table — ^for the word altar is changed wherever it occurs. The sanction given to private confession in 1549 is now withdra-wn. 194 CHURCH AND STATE Compare the two forms — If a man has an unquiet conscience, then let Mm come to me, or to some other discreet and leamed 1549 priest and confess and open his sin and grief secretly that he may receive . . . ghostly counsel . . . and absolution [Those who are content with a general confession, not to be offended with them that use auricular and secret con fession] In the Visitation of the Sick. The same form of absolution shall be used in all private confessions. 1552 minister of God's Word and open his grief (omitted) that by the ministry of God's Word he may receive the benefit of absolution (omitted) (omitted) Thus he is free to come to a deacon, and need not come secretly. He is no longer required to confess his sin, but only to open his grief, which in the language of the sixteenth century means his grievance — ^that he cannot by these means quiet his conscience. Hereupon by the ministry of God's Word he will receive the com fort and assurance of absolution ; but absolution itself he cannot then receive, because this Church of England has deliberately withdrawn all authority to pronounce an absolution over an individual, except in the Visitation of the Sick. In short, the mediseval church required auricular confession, the EngUsh church left it open in 1549, and aboUshed it in 1552. Instead of confession for the grievous sinner, we find ghostly counsel and comfort for the exceptional case of the unquiet conscience. The most startUng change of all was the aboUtion of the ancient words of Administration, " The Body of our Lord Jesus EDWARD VI 195 Christ," and the substitution of the new formula, " Take and eat tMs" — ^that is to' say, the first sentence of our present form was replaced by the second. Ordinary bread was to be used, and the direction to reserve for the sick was withdrawn. One interesting minor change is the restoration of some of the Black Letter Saints Days aboUshed in 1549. Ehzabeth added most of the rest in 1561. If the list seems capricious, it is because they were meant only for secular purposes, not for reUgious ob servance. They were never included in the " Table of all the Feasts that are to be observed in the Church of England through out the year." The Book was sanctioned by ParUament, and enforced (1552) by the Second Act of Uniformity, which imposed heavy penalties, not only on clerics who did not use the services, but on laymen who failed to attend them. In this last a poUcy was adopted which fiUed the churches with unwilhng worsMppers, debasing religion and doing much to defeat all efforts to secure reverence in church. The revision was Cranmer's work with Ridley's help. Bucer had prepared an elaborate Censura of the old Book, and use was made of it, though Ms proposals were by no means always accepted. Upon the whole, the Book may be taken as expressing the matured views of the EngUsh Reformers generally. Calvui himself found notMng worse in it than tolerabiles ineptias, and did not counte nance the scruples of Elizabeth's time. But Hooper and Knox took alarm at the new rubric, that the Lord's Supper was to be received kneehng. There was no command in Scripture to kneel, and moreover it might mean something idolatrous. Cranmer replied that neither was there any command in Scripture to sit or to stand; but the other objection was more serious. The Council wished Cranmer to omit the rubric, but he refused to tamper with an Act of ParUament. So at the last moment, when some of the copies had been printed off, an explanation (known as the Black Rubric) was inserted : " It is not meant thereby that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either to the Sacramental bread and wine, there bodily received, or to any real or essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood." This satisfied Knox, but it had no Parhamentary authority. The other great document of 1552 is the Forty-two Articles. 196 CHURCH AND STATE The mediseval church had for its standard of doctrine the Creeds and the canon law, including decisions of Councils and decretals of Popes, and the EngUsh Church had now added to these the Prayer Book. But the Creeds did not touch the controversies of the time, the Prayer Book decided them incidentally, and only so far as was needed for purposes of devotion, and the canon law had been thrown into confusion by the aboUtion of the Pope's supremacy. Some shorter and more defimte form was needed as a standard for preaching. Most of the protestant churches abroad had confessions, and Rome issued her o-wn (1564) in the Creed of Pope Pius IV. Cranmer had for some time past (since 1549) imposed some Articles of his own on Ucensed preachers. In 1552 the Council called for them, and after revision by a smaU committee of divines. Forty-two Articles were signed by the King (June 11, 1553) and issued by the Council -with a lying statement, of which Cranmer complained in vain, that they had been " agreed upon in the last Convocation." Neither does ParUament seem to have sanctioned them. The Forty-two Articles are nearly our present TMrty-nine. They taught almost in the same words the supremacy of Scripture, justification by faith, and the falUbiUty of all Churches and Councils. They admitted only two sacraments instead of seven, expressly denied transubstantiation, denounced sacrifices of masses, and recognized the marriage of the clergy. They further maintained right of every particular or national Church to ordain change or aboUsh rites or ceremonies ordained only by man's authority. They also confirmed the Prayer Book, declared the royal supremacy, and repudiated the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. A tMrd document of tMs time was a failure. The Submission of the Clergy, confirmed by the Act of 1534, had estabUshed the principle that canon law is void whenever it contradicts statute law. Now there were a good many such contradictions before the Reformation, the Reformation made a great many more, and nobody could exactly say what remained. To add to the confusion, the study of canon law had been discontinued in the universities since CromweU's Visitation, and degrees in canon law had ceased to be given. So Acts of 1534, 1536 and 1544, provided for a complete revision by a commission of tMrty-two, of whom sixteen were to be laymen. But the commission was EDWARD VI 197 never appointed; and when ParUament took up the matter in 1549, the bUl was opposed by aU the nine bishops present, includ ing four decided Reformers and four men of the old learmng. Nevertheless, it passed, and the commission was appointed (October 1551), and most of the work was done in the foUo-wing year by a committee of eight. Cranmer had a draft ready, but the revision was unfimshed when the commission expired. The Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, which embodies the work of the commission, was not even printed till 1571, and has never had any legal authority. It is no great loss. It represents a weak side of the Reformers — their desire to keep as much of the old discipUnary and coercive system as was consistent with the aboUtion of auricular confession and the separation from Rome. MeanwMle, Northumberland went on in Ms wicked way, plundering Church and State at once. Few rulers of England have been so generally detested, and none more thoroughly deserved their unpopularity. He was the best soldier of Ms time, and a skiUed intriguer, yet he had no party beMnd him but a gang of self-seekers like himself. It was well for him that there was now no foreign danger, Charles was in difficulties. The Diet in 1551 refused to accept his son Philip as Ms successor in the Empire, and next year Maurice of Saxony nearly captured him at Innsbruck and forced him to give toleration to the Lutheran princes by the Peace of Passau, while France declared war and seized the three bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun, He recovered no ground in 1553 : he failed aUke in his siege of Metz and in his march on Paris, So England was safe — as a client of France, The execution of Somerset was no more than a sample of Northumberland's general contempt for justice. In 1550 a flimsy charge of treason was got up against Tunstall : Ms real offence was the rich palatine earldom. He was first sent to Ms house, then to the Tower, where he remamed for the rest of Edward's reign. The Commons threw out a biU of attaMder, but he was deprived by an irregular commission, and in 1553 the diocese was divided. There were to be bishops at Durham and Newcastle, but the cMef part of the spoil was to go to Northumber land, Mary's accession interrupted these and other nefarious plans. 198 CHURCH AND STATE Northumberland's cMef resource was his influence over the young King. We need caution in judging of a boy who did not live to be sixteen ; but Edward's was a weU-marked character not Ukely to have greatly changed. He was able and Mghly educated Uke aU the Tudors, arbitrary Uke his father, fanatic Uke Mary. If he had a softer side, we cannot trace it.'^ Had he grown up in good health, he would certainly have been a determined Protestant and a masterful King, but he would scarcely have leamed on the throne such tact as EUzabeth's. More Ukely he would have wrecked Protestantism as Mary wrecked Romanism. As he was, however, Northumberland could have no better tool, and he was safe as long as Edward trusted him. But Edward's days were numbered. He was always sickly, and a severe ilMess in 1552 was followed by consumption in 1553. Mary was the lawful heir by Henry's will, and from her, Northumberland had no mercy to expect. His only chance was to alter the succession, and get a sovereign to his own mind. If Henry's will were upset, Mary and EUzabeth might be set aside as women and as illegitimate, and the Queen of Scots and her half-sister the countess of Lennox as foreigners, so that the next heir would be Frances Brandon, duchess of Suffolk, daughter of Henry's younger sister Mary. Passing over her too, Northumberland came to her daughter Lady Jane Grey, an innocent and highly educated girl of sixteen, and got her safely married (May 21, 1553) to his only disposable son, Guilford Dudley. If he could set up Jane as queen, he might hope to reign in Guilford's name. Yet even so he might have failed, for Jane had the worst opinion of Mm, and showed a -will of her own by promptly refusing to let her husband be crowned with her. That, she said, was for Parliament to decide. There was no legal means of cancelUng Henry's will, for ParUa ment was not sitting, and would not have repealed the statute which gave it the force of law. So Northumberland attempted to do by royal prerogative what even Henry only did by authority of law. Edward was easily con-vinced of the real danger to Protestantism from Mary. His first plan passed over the four ''¦ Thp story of Cranmer's importunity to make him sign the warrant for buming Joan Bocher is false : the warrant was not signed by Edward, but by the Council. On the other hand, the callousness of the entry in his Joumal of Somerset's execution might be rather prudence than want of feeling.,' EDWARD VI 199 women — Mary, EUzabeth, Frances, and Jane — and de-vised the crown to " the Lady Jane's male heirs bom during his hfe." This was nugatory, for he could not possibly live to see a son of hers : so it was altered to " the Lady Jane and her heirs male." TMs suited Northumberland ; but the judges were aghast when the King commanded them to draw up a will accordingly. They resolved that it was treason to comply. Northumberland was furious, Edward was angry, and at last (June 15) they agreed to do it, on condition of a pardon beforehand. Only Sir James Hales finally refused. The will was signed by the Council, and by Cranmer last of all. He was most unwilhng, though he was not told that the judges had refused. He was not a man to fear Northumberland's rage; but he could not resist the entreaties of a dying king. Edward died July 6, 1553. CHAPTER XIX MARY Never plot came to more disgraceful failure than Northumber land's. Jane was proclaimed against her will July 10 : in nine days she had ceased to be queen, and wanted to go home. Mary needed but a day or two to gather an overwhelming force in Norfolk, for the whole country-side flocked to her. Northumber land took the field July 12, lea-ving Arandel and the rest of the Council protesting their fideUty to Queen Jane. But her cause was hopeless — even London was in revolt — and first her father Suffolk on Tower Hill (July 19), then Northumberland Mmself at Cambridge (July 20) proclaimed Mary. Next morning Arundel arrested Mm in Queen Mary's name. With uproarious welcome and universal joy she made her entry into London (August 3), just four weeks after Edward's death, Northumberland and his creatures were already secured, Jane and her husband remained as prisoners in the Tower, and they were soon joined by Bishop Ridley, who had preached against Mary on the Sunday when Jane was queen. Cranmer also was arrested in September for denying a rumour that he had restored the mass. AU these were traitors whose Uves were fairly at Mary's mercy, though Jane herself and Cranmer could plead extenuating circumstances. But Mary was not cruel by nature : only her reUgion taught her cruelty. Heresy was a sin against the Church : to mere treason against herself she could be con spicuously merciful. Northumberland and three or four of his gang were executed, but even Suffolk was pardoned. The rest remained in prison, though Jane and her husband were formally con-victed of treason, so that they could be executed without trouble if it was found expedient. Northumberland found time once more to discredit the cause of the Reformation. After his conviction he declared Mmself a cathoUc, protesting that he had been misled for seventeen 200 MAEY 201 years to dissemble his real behef. He may have hoped that the merit of a renegade would save Mm from the worst; but upon the whole it- may be better to give him credit for being less of a hypocrite in Ms death than in his Ufe, His defection was a great triumph for the cathoUcs : there was but one man whose recan tation — ^if it could be obtained — ^was more desirable; and that was Cranmer. Mary had the maMngs of a good woman and a good queen. Tudor energy and Tudor courage were hers, as she showed splendidly in Wyatt's rebeUion, and she was as well educated as the rest of her family. She had a conscience and a Mgh sense of queenly duty, and thirsted for her people's love. She was naturally merciful and lo-ving, and it was not the wrongs of five- and-twenty years wMch filled her heart with bitterness and savage lust of blood. She was not unwilling to spare Northumberland, but she never thought of sparing Cranmer. It was her reUgion — and her religion alone — ^which bUnded her aUke to common charity and common prudence, and made her reign a Mdeous tragedy, her name an abiding memory of shame and horror. There is no deeper mark of infamy upon the old reUgion than that it turned Mary Tudor into the ghastly thing she was. Even PhiUp hardly loved the work of blood as this woman loved it, A national movement had set her on the throne; and the protesta';J;s of London and East Angha had done the larger part of the work, for the more cathoUc counties were too far off to give much help. But the protestants had not done it because they loved the mass, and the cathohcs had not joined them because they loved the Pope, They hated Northumberland, and were determined to foil Ms plot against the lawful queen. Mary was received with loyal acclamations; but there was no serious national reaction to CathoUcism, and scarcely any one wished to restore the Pope. What men really wanted was what EUzabeth gave them — a central Church taking in the mass of the people, and as much peace at home and abroad as possible. But for EUzabeth the central position was that of 1552, wMle Mary could safely have gone back to the neutral Book of 1549. For a moment she seemed to understand the situation. She began (August 12) by declaring that though her own faith was fixed, she would not compel nor constrain men's consciences, but trust to the persuasions of the leamed, and meanwhile they must 202 CHUECH AND STATE avoid such abusive words as papist and heretic. There is no need to charge her with insincerity in tMs, for in the flush of triumph she may well have dreamed that the sweet reasonable ness of transubstantiation and the apostoUc blandishments of papal buUs could not fail in the end to win the stubbomest of heretics. Still it would have been every way better for her if that promise had not been broken. Next day an inflammatory sermon of Gilbert Bourne at Paul's Cross provoked a protestant riot. A dagger was thrown at the preacher, and Bradford had much ado to get Mm safely away and calm the tumult. Mary now added the significant pro-viso, "till further order may be taken." If this was a reference to Parhament it was right enough, but it does not excuse her bad faith, for no ParUament would have passed the persecuting statutes if she had not insisted on them. However, the hint was enough to quicken the flight of protestants to the continent. Somerset and Northumberland had set a bad example of treating unrepealed Acts as null, and Mary followed it on a large scale. In her eyes all the laws of Edward on reUgion were invalid, as being made in the King's minority, and as contrary to canon law. Sir James Hales was imprisoned for enforcing them; and though he was released when he turned cathoUc, the shame was too much for him, and he destroyed himself. Mary's first step was to set free Northumber land's prisoners — ^first Norfolk and Edward Courtenay, Jwho had remained in prison since the execution of his father the marquis of Exeter in 1539. She made him Earl of Devon. Then the five bishops, Gardiner, Bonner, Heath, Day, and TunstaU, were not only released but restored to their sees, displacing Ponet, Eidley, Hooper and Scory. Before the meeting of ParUament in October, Latimer, Cranmer and Coverdale had been arrested, and others deposed as married men, so that Harley and Taylor were the only protestant bishops left. These were shut out by an illegal Mass of the Holy Ghost, seemingly the first use of the Sacrament as a poUtical test. ParUament was entirely loyal, but its action by no means came up to the Queen's desires. It began with heaUng measures, aboUshing all treasons created since the statute of Edward III, and all felonies since 1509, including the penalties for denying the royal supremacy. It then reversed some unjust attainders, vaUdated Catharine's marriage, and declared the Queen legitimate. MAEY 203 So far the agreement was general ; and there was no great opposi tion to the repeal of all Edward's laws on reUgion. On the other hand, it rejected the Queen's -wish to aboUsh the royal supremacy, made it clear that no proposal to restore the abbey lands would be listened to, and did not enforce attendance at mass. Above all, the Commons gave deadly offence to the Queen by an address beseeching her to marry an EngUshman. She would not even hear it to the end, but burst out angrily before it was finished. It was taken for granted that the Queen would soon marry — ¦ and at her age of thirty-seven, the sooner the better. Of EngUsh men, Courtenay was unworthy, Pole unwilling, though the Mn- drance of Ms deacon's orders could have been removed by a dispensation, wMle a foreign marriage meant a foreign connexion, with no small risk of subjection to the foreigner. A neutral prince, unconnected with Hapsburg or Valois, might perhaps have been found in Germany or Scandina-via, but Mary would never have married a Lutheran. So the choice lay between France and Spain ; and of the two, Spain was rather less dangerous than France controlUng Scotland. But Mary was half Spanish in blood, entirely Spanish in feeUng, She cared only for reUgion, and valued her crown only as enabling her to impose her own reUgion on her subjects. The one thing she saw was that Prince PMlip of Spain would serve her best for this purpose, and as early as October 29 she solemnly assured the Spanish ambassador before the altar in her private room of her resolution to marry no other than PhiUp, Charles was deUghted, Low as England had fallen, her navy was still respectable, and the alUance would go far to balance the faUures of the last two years. But England was deeply disgusted, CathoUcs and protestants agreed in detesting foreigners, and Mary's popularity was gone for ever. Discontent in the West gathered round Courtenay, while Suffolk tried to raise the Midlands, and Sir Thomas Wyatt headed a dangerous rebelUon in Kent. Wyatt was a soldier of distinction, and an old compamon of Surrey's disorderly Ufe. The risings were poUtical, and the grievance was not the mass but the Spanish marriage. The idea was to make EUzabeth queen, and marry her to Courtenay. Wyatt actuaUy reached London, and was only beaten off from Ludgate (February 1554). The others were easily put down. 204 CHUECH AND STATE This time Mary did not err on the side of mercy. Trae, four hundred rebels were pardoned, and Courtenay was released and aUowed to go to Italy, and Suffolk and Wyatt suffered justly ; but more than a hundred of their followers were hanged. The worst was the execution of Lady Jane Grey and her husband, for they were quite innocent in the matter, and none of the rebels — not even Suffolk — ^had proposed to make Jane queen again. She declined a last inter-view with her husband — ^they would soon meet in heaven — and saw Ms body brought before her own time came. She died in her innocence, with queenly dignity and saintly courage. After all, she was hardly more than sixteen. Technical right notwithstanding, it was a hideous crime, and marks a clear stage of Mary's downward course. Her marriage, Uke her mother's, was " made in blood." It was a Spanish maxim that a prince is never safe wMle a possible rival remains aUve. Ehzabeth had too much sense to countenance a rebelUon wMch promised her nothing more than a fool for her husband and the French king for her master. But the Spanish maxim was more plausible in her case than in Jane's, and the Spaniards clamoured for her death. If she were removed, PMUp would be able in one way or another to succeed Ms wife. Though she had conformed to Mary's changes in reUgion, she was known to be out of sympathy with them, and Gardiner wished to put her out of the succession. She was sent to the Tower, amidst acclamations wMch showed that she was already far more popular than her sister. But the Council would allow no poisomng, and the judges found no treason in her, so that Mary had no choice but to release her. After tMs, PMUp thought it better to pose as her friend. The risings would have given pause to a statesman, for they showed that the marriage was utterly distasteful to the country ; but Mary saw only that she was the stronger for their failure, Gardiner -withdrew Ms fruitless opposition, and Inserted safe guards in the marriage treaty. It was all that he could do, though he must have been too old a diplomatist to fancy that Spaniards could be bound by treaties, Mary's second ParUament met In April (1554), and it was not much more satisfactory to her than the first, BiUs for reviving the Heresy Acts and for restoring the Six Articles were thro-wn out by the Lords, and Gardiner did not venture even to introduce MAEY 205 Ms bUl empowering Mary to set aside EUzabeth and leave the crown by will — ^that is, to PhiUp, On the other hand, the marriage treaty was passed, and in due time PMlip landed at Southampton, and the ceremony was performed (July 25) by Gardiner in Winchester cathedral, PhiUp brought with Mm golden promises, but neither he nor Ms retinue made a good impression on the EngUsh, They had street-fights continually, Charles V was as Uttle of a heretic as Mary herself, but he saw better the difficulty of restoring the church, and urged her to proceed gently; and JuUus III more or less agreed with Mm, However hateful the royal supremacy might be, she must keep it for the present. First the marriage; then the reconciUation with Eome and the suppression of heresy, Pole was less practical. First restore the Pope's authority, for everytMng — even Mary's title — depended on It, Ho was too much of an ItaUan to under stand EngUsh feeUng, too much of a zealot to take account of it. So Charles and the Pope kept him out of the way till after the marriage. Before his return the two parties in the Council came to an agreement. Paget and Howard agreed to the repeal of Henry's laws against Eome and the revival of the Heresy Acts, wMle Gardiner consented that Pole on the Pope's behalf should solemnly confirm the church lands to their new owners. It was a sore trial to Pole, but there was no help for it, Mary's tMrd Parhament met in November, Some packing had been done, and it proved more amenable than the last. Hardly a protestant was retumed, Pole's attainder was reversed and he came in state to WMtehall, A suppUcation passed both Houses — one knight only dissenting — and on St, Andrew's Day (November 30) Pole pronounced the absolution and restored the realm to the communion of the Church — all kneeUng before him, from the King and Queen downward. Then to work. First the heresy laws were re-vived, so that the Church was free to persecute. Then all Henry's church laws were repealed, except the Acts of 1529 against mortuaries and other abuses. The effect of tMs was to restore the Pope's authority, the enacting power of Convocation, the coercive jurisdiction of bishops, and the old mode of appointment. But the church lands were con firmed to their new holders, and to Pole's further disgust, their title was not aUowed to depend on the Pope's dispensation, but the dispensation was made part of the statute. On the other 206 CHUECH AND STATE hand, the clericals were gratified -with a suspension of the mort main laws for twenty years. Further, PhiUp was to be regent in case of a minority : but ParUament refused to place army and navy in his hands, or to let Mm draw England into his war with France. TMs defeated one of the cMef aims of the sovereigns, and they dissolved ParUament in displeasure. Mary had now got her heart's desire. She had restored the Pope and the Church, and gained freedom to stamp out heresy. She had married the man of her choice, and beUeved herself with cMld, and if she could not yet bring England to Phihp's help, she might soon do better, as indeed she did. And if she had done all this against the wUl of her people, still she had done it, and might so far count herself a successful queen. It remained to be seen how the Church would use its recovered freedom. After all, the heresy laws did not enact that heretics were to be burned — only that if the Church thought fit to take action and found a man (or woman) guilty, the State would carry out the punishment prescribed by the law of the Church, The State could not burn them till they were handed over by the Church; and the Church was quite free to hand over many or few or none at all as it thought fit. And the Church practicaUy meant the bishops, subject to influences from above and below. Thus the severity of the persecution in any diocese depended a good deal on the temper of its bishop, Bonner ^ and Pole, Hopton of Norwich and Christopherson of CMchester were active in the work of blood ; and -with them we must count Gardiner as their leading pohtician, though he burned no heretics in his own diocese. Others, Uke TMrlby of Ely, Heath of York and Oglethorpe of CarUsle, did Uttle or nothing, and Tunstall positively refused to do anything at all, " Hitherto we have had a good name among our neighbours, I pray you, bring not this man's blood upon us," No doubt there were many more heretics in London and the South-east, but plenty of -victims might have been found even in Durham, if Tunstall had so pleased. If ParUament was wilUng to leave the heretics at the mercy ^ Bonner has been excused, because he was reproved by the Council more than once for slackness. But he was doing pretty well, buming rather more than a heretic every fortnight, besides bringing others into the right way. He took pains enough, and a large part of his time must have been spent in examinations and whippings of prisoners. What the letter proves is not that Bonner was merciful, but that the Queen was more unmerciful. MAEY 207 of the Church it does not follow that they foresaw the horrors of the next four years, for persecution on Mary's scale was a new thing in EngUsh Mstory, Even Henry in his worst days had never burned more than a few in a year ; Mary averaged seventy or eighty. It is more Ukely that as men of the world, they under estimated on one side the ferocity of the Queen and the baser churchmen, on the other the resolution of the better sort of Eeformers. Why should executions be needed at all? If Northumberland himself had recanted, why could not the rest recant ? If they did not, a few severe examples would be enough to bring them to conformity. So thought some who had a name for sMewdness ; and in fact many did conform to the law simply because it was the law. Cranmer himself had a weak point on this side. Nor are they of necessity to be blamed, for a layman at any rate may well conform to a good deal that he disapproves, so long as he is not personaUy required to say what he beUeves to be false. Ample warning of the persecution was given, and many possible martyrs escaped to the continent ; yet the comparative fewness of the recantations is remarkable. Of the Eeforming bishops, Ponet escaped, Coverdale was begged off by the King of Denmark, Harley and Taylor were dead : only Barlow and Holgate recanted, and for a moment Cranmer. The rest met their fate. The English are not noted for patient endurance of wrong; and the protestants of Mary's time were thorougMy EngUsh, They could retum railing for raiUng and write plenty of scurrilous pamphlets. Occasionally there were treasonable plots, as when Thomas Stafford seized Scarborough Castle in 1557. But these were put down -without difficulty, and had no serious results. There were some religious outrages also. The man who fired a gun at a preacher, and another who hung a dead cat in a priest's dress on the gallows in Cheapside could not be found : a third who committed a murderous assault on a priest was captured. As he was bumed for heresy, he must pass as a martyr, though a very unworthy one. Yet another who was hanged for stealing spoke words of heresy at the gallows, and Ms body was dug up and bumed : clearly we must not count him a martyr. It was exactly as in early Christian times. Some of the martyrs were as defiant as Ignatius, and a few were criminals deserving severe punishment, but the large majority were loyal subjects and 208 CHUECH AND STATE patient sufferers. Mary refused a pardon at the last moment, and nearly aU of them went to the fire with calm courage, and often not without a prayer for their enemy the Queen. The attempt to make out that such men generally deserved their fate for something else than heresy is contrary to all the evidence, and the insinuation that the burnings were really for treason is a slander on Mary wMch would have roused her fiercest anger. As if to give the Ue direct to any theory of that sort, the new year (1555) opened with a pardon for the surviving leaders of Wyatt's rebelUon. Then in lurid contrast came the suppression of heresy. John Rogers, the editor of Tjmdale's Bible, had been thrown into prison in Mary's early days for defending what was still the lawful reUgion of the realm. There were also im prisoned in London Hooper and Coverdale and Ferrar of St. Da-vid's, Dr. Eowland Taylor of Hadleigh, Archdeacon PMlpot, Bradford and Crome. Gardiner -w^s in a hurry to get to work, and examined them before the Act came into operation, but only Crome recanted. The first of the martyrs was Eogers, bumed in Simthfield (Febraary 4), in the presence of Ms wife and cMldren and a friendly crowd ; and before the week was ended, Saunders had suffered at Coventry, Hooper at Gloucester, and Taylor at Hadleigh. The effect was tremendous ; but it was not what the CouncU hoped. The martrys were counted heroes instead of criminals. The Spaniards were aghast. The protestants, they said, were more ready to throw themselves into the fire than to slink away in terror. The few severe examples had failed, and worse than failed; so more must be tried. After a month, the burnings began again. Ferrar of St. David's and five Londoners of low degree were bumed in March, and executions went on all the summer. Amongst them one Warne, a clothmaker, was bumed in May, Bradford in June, and the -widow of Warne in August. Meanwhile Pole became chancellor of both universities, and appointed commissioners to cleanse them even of dead heretics. Bucer and Fagius were dug up and burned at Cambridge, and at Oxford Peter Martjr's wife was thrown on a dungMU, but she was not burned, because no heresy could be proved against her. Foxe credits Pole with warring rather on the dead than on the U-ving ; yet neither was he unmindful of the U-ving, for he burned more heretics than any one, except Bonner. MAEY 209 Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer had been sent to Oxford and subjected to a public disputation (or rather badgering) in St. Mary's. They were condenmed, but kept in prison for the reconciUation with Rome and the revival of the heresy laws. The real trial only began in September 1555. Cranmer as a metropoUtan was reserved for the Pope, but Ridley and Latimer were soon condemned, and bumed in front of BalUol College (October 16). Ridley's brother-M-law was allowed to shorten their sufferings by tying bags of gunpowder to their necks. " Be of good comfort," said Latimer, " we shall tMs day Ught such a candle by God's grace in England as I trust shall never be put out." The old man was soon dead, but Ridley suffered long and terribly. The fire was mismanaged, as in Hooper's case, but in England there never was anything worse than mismanagement. The sentences were carried out by secular officials, not by creatures of the Church ; and it they did their grim duty, they seem never to have added any wanton craelty. Even the case In Jersey of a babe born into the flames, rescued by the bystanders and thrown back again, looks more Uke stupid callousness than pur posed craelty — rather Bumbledom than the Inquisition. Meanwhile, PMUp departed in September, lea-ving the Queen disconsolate. The Spaniards were by this time so hated that it was not easy to keep the peace, and Philip himself was disgusted to find that the Queen's husband might reign, but would not be allowed to govern. Nor was he at all charmed with a doting ¦wife twelve years older than himself, whose hope of issue had proved false. Besides, he had to look after the vast inheritance wMch Charles V was resigning to him. So he retired to the Netherlands, U-ving there a life of flagrant -vice. Mary's fourth ParUament met a few days after the execution of Latimer and Ridley, and the burnmgs were pmdently suspended wMle it was sitting. The settlement of Church property was not yet quite secure. Paul IV wanted to repudiate Ms predecessor's concessions, and the Queen was ill at ease whUe she held church lands herself, and received annates and tenths. At last a com promise was reached. The clergy were to be reUeved of annates and to pay their tenths to the legate, and the Queen was allowed to restore to the Church such of its lands as she was actually holding; but the lay impropriators kept their lands and paid their tenths to the Crown. The Commons also threw out a bill 210 CHUECH AND STATE for confiscating the property of the exiles, and Mary did not venture even to propose PMlip's coronation, though he reduced her to despair by telUng her that it was her fault if the thing was not done. The burnings began again as soon as ParUament was out of the way. There was Cranmer still to be dealt -with. He had saved Mary's life in 1533, when the whole Council quailed before Henry's wrath, and she had not only pardoned but forgiven dozens of treasons worse than Ms, but on Cranmer she meant to have her revenge. He was attainted of treason along -with Lady Jane Grey in November 1553, but Mary scrapled at behead ing a priest, and she could not bum Mm for treason, or even on the strength of Ms condemnation for heresy at Oxford in 1554. She had to wait for the re-vival of the Heresy Acts and the restoration of the Pope's authority. At last In September 1555 the Pope's subdelegate. Brooks of Gloucester, summoned Cranmer to appear at Eome -within eighty days, and proceeded to examine him on charges of heresy, adultery (marrying a second wife sixteen months after the death of the first) and perjury. For the eighty days he was kept a close prisoner without books or counsel or pen and ink, except to write some outspoken letters to the Queen. On December 4 he was formally deprived by the Pope and handed over to the secular arm. There remained only his formal degradation (February 14, 1556). Of the two bishops who performed the ceremony, TMrlby was deeply affected, but Bonner graced Ms triumph with brutal mockery. TMrlby tried in vain to stop him. But even yet his enemies had not quite done with him. It was not in courage that Cranmer was wanting. He had watched the execution of Latimer and Eidley from the roof of Bocardo, and his spirit was unbroken by two years of close im prisonment in overcrowded cells. But Cranmer was gentle and sensitive, shrinMng more than others from the hideous death before him, and more than others responsive to friendly persuasion. He had yielded to the entreaties of his d3dng sovereign, and might by gentleness be brought to yield again. So thought some of the Spaniards at Oxford who fancied they understood Mm, He was therefore removed to the deanery, treated more as guest than prisoner, and well pUed with arguments. In course of time they obtained from him six successive MARY 211 " recantations," ^ The first four merely promised submission to the Pope's authority as now restored by law. However mis chievous that authority might be, Cranmer was only carrjdng out his own doctrine of the royal supremacy if he thought himself bound to obey the new law as he had obeyed that of the Six Articles. But the fifth was a real recantation. He acknowledged the Pope as Vicar of Christ, accepted transubstantiation and purgatory, and anathematized Luther and Z-wingli. He was then sent back to Bocardo, and made to sign a sixth and still more humiliating confession, drawn up seemingly by Pole, in which he was made to declare himself a blasphemer and a perse cutor, repenting only hke the thief on the cross, when he could do no more harm, and " not only worse than Saul and the thief, but most accursed of all whom the earth has ever borne." It is dated March 18. Cranmer had now disgraced himself and the whole cause of the Reformation even more effectually than Northumberland. But he was at all events entitled to absolution, and shrewder enemies would have hasted to give it and set him free before he could change his mind. Cranmer Uving and disgraced would hiave been a monument of shame to Ms friends, and no great help to them if he did return to his heresy. But in their bUnd malice they overreached themselves. By burning a penitent heretic (not relapsed) in defiance of custom, if not of their own canon law, they gave the lie once for all to the pretence of zeal for religion as the motive for the Marian Persecution. They measured Cranmer by their own baseness, and never dreamed of the tremendous defeat awaiting them from the man they had so mercilessly crashed. It is not likely that mere desire of life led Cranmer to his fall, though Brooks had held out hopes in September. The chord on which his enemies played was his exaggerated view of the royal supremacy. Could not the king restore what he had taken away? His weakness was rather logical than physical, and his recantation was not a change of opinions but a shameful submission to authority. However, now that his enemies had got what they wanted, they were in a hurry to be rid of Mm. On Tuesday, March 21, he was brought to St. Mary's, " looMng an image of grief," and set on a platform facing the preacher. ^ The first two may have been written before his removal to the deanery. 212 CHURCH AND STATE The sermon ended, he stood up to read a seventh and final recantation which he had -written the day before. For a long distance he read steadily from his paper. It began with one of the noblest prayers which even he ever composed. Then came exhortations against covetousness, to obey the sovereign, to love one another, and to be mindful of charity. " And now " — so he had written — " forasmuch as I have come to the last end of my life, whereupon hangeth all my life past and all my Ufe to come, either to Uve with my Sa-viour Christ for ever in joy, or else to be in pains ever with the wicked devils in hell ... I shall therefore declare unto you my faith without colour or dissimulation, for now is no time to dissemble what soever I have written in time past." Then the Lord's Prayer, but in EngUsh and without the Ave Maria. Then he came to " the great thing which so troubleth my conscience, more than any other thing that I ever said or did in my Ufe ; and that is my setting abroad of writings contrary to the trath, wMch here now I renounce and refuse as tMngs written with my hand con trary to the trath wMch I thought in my heart." Then the sudden turn, " all such bills as I have written or signed since my degradation; wherein I have -written many things untrae. And forasmuch as my hand offended in writing contrary to my heart, it shall be first bumed. And as for the Pope, I refuse Mm as Christ's enemy and Antichrist, with all Ms false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament " The church was in an uproar. " Stop the heretic's mouth." Cranmer had not renounced Ms protestant writings, but Ms recantations. He was pulled do-wn tumultuously from the platform, and hurried to the fire. He managed however to complete his unfinished sentence. As for the Sacrament, he beUeved as he had taught in Ms book against the bishop of Winchester — ^that Is, in the spiritual doctrine of 1552. He hastened to the place of death, heedless of the pursuing friars who told Mm he was going straight to heU and slaying souls by thousands, and soon stood ready, with Ms long wMte beard flowing to Ms waist, for he had let it grow in sign of mourning since King Henry's death. He held his hand — " this unworthy right hand " — steadily in the flame, and stood Uke a statue tiU all was over. It is one of the great scenes of history. After all, Cranmer MARY 213 was gone in triumph, as in a chariot of fire. The -victory lost and won again through mortal weakness was even more impressive than the unbending and unfallen constancy of stronger men like Hooper and Bradford. More than tMs. It was not won for Mmself alone, but for the whole future of England and the Reformation. The persecutors themselves had challenged Mm to a decisive trial ; and he had covered them with confusion, and shown all England where the Uving power lay. The Mgh--wrought tension of that great day might pass away; yet something re mained for after generations. On the English people Cranmer's mantle feU ; and if there be trath or godhness in churchmen or dissenters, they stiU owe sometMng of it to the solemn cadences of Cranmer's prayers, and something also to the solemn grandeur of Cranmer's final triumph. The persecution was futile after Cranmer's death, though it maundered on its horrid course for more than two years longer. Persecutors are the blindest of the blind. There was an intel ligible policy in. striking do-wn the leaders of heresy, and there might have been one In wholesale butchery Uke PMUp's in the Netherlands, but It was not even sense to go on buming rustics, prentices, and women M increasing batches of five, six, seven, ten, or eleven at a time. It simply brought round every feeUng of common humanity to the side of the -victims, till they went to the fire cheered by the loud and fervent blessings of admiring crowds. The burnings of heretics only bumed into the character of the English people a fierce and enduring hatred of the Pope and all his works. " From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all Ms detestable enormities. Good Lord, deUver us," was rased In vain from the Litany : it was graven on the hearts of Uving EngUshmen. No writer of that age had a greater Influence than Foxe with his Book of Martyrs, and none has been more bitterly vituperated. It was put up In churches Uke the Bible, and did almost as much as the plots to con-vlnce the EngUsh people that Rome was a deadly and mercUess enemy. On the other side, Harding elegantly calls it " a dunghill of Ues " about " your stInHng martyrs," and some of the moderns say much the same thing. Foxe Is no doubt a partisan who canonizes some very un worthy martyrs, gives the stories told Mm without careful sifting, and generaUy puts the worst construction on the doings 214 CHURCH AND STATE of the other side. But we can hardly expect judicial impartiahty on the morrow of a bloody persecution; and in tMs respect Foxe is no greater sinner than Eusebius or Lactantius. With regard to accuracy, no -writer of that age comes up to the modern standard, but in Foxe the fault is more in his glosses and the glosses of his informants than in his record of facts. If reasonable allowance be made for the errors Ukely to be found in so vast and miscellaneous a collection, he will not be found greatly to exceed it. His general honesty is transparent. Even where he puts unfair glosses on the enemy's words, he plainly does not garble them, but leaves them to tell their own tale to the calmer students of later ages. And the student can afford to pardon all sins but that of garbhng. After all, the failure of the persecution was not quite complete, Mary might have boasted one clear success. She cut off many of those who would have been leaders of the church in the next generation. Cranmer Mmself was under seventy, and the old age of men Uke Ridley and Bradford would certainly have made a mark in history. The martyrs were sMmng Ughts, but the EUzabethan church was the poorer for the loss of them. Meanwhile Pole was ordained priest, said his first mass on the day of Cranmer's death, and on the next day (March 22) was consecrated as archbishop by Heath of York, now chanceUor in Gardiner's place. Mary and Pole were the cMef advocates of persecution : even PhiUp was against it, and so was the Pope. Not on principle, for they were both more savage than Mary in their own domimons, and the Pope was a patron of Theatines and Jesuits and the Inquisition. PMUp was — ^for the present — averse to persecution in England, because it made him unpopular, and hindered Ms further designs. The Pope had a very different reason. He was a Caraffa from Naples, and hated Spain even more than heresy, so that he was not ill-pleased if heretics made trouble for PMUp's wife. Before the end of 1556 he had picked a quarrel with PhiUp, and of course France joined in (January 1559). Gardiner had pro-vided in the marriage treaty that England should not be involved in Phihp's wars, and almost aU Mary's advisers, Pole included, were for peace. PhiUp returned in vain to his neglected wife. She gave Mm some secret help, but could do no more tiU Henry II forced a war upon her by openly support- MARY 215 ing the Dudley conspiracy and the seizure of Scarborough Castle by Sir Thomas Stafford. It was declared in June 1557, For Spain the war was very successful. The great defeat of Mont morency before St, Quentin (August 10) laid open the road to Paris; but while PMUp hesitated to follow up Ms victory, the French recaUed Guise from Italy. This however left the Pope at Alva's mercy : but this time Alva had orders to be merciful, and the Pope was given easy terms. PMlip gained one more victory on the shore at Gravelines (July 1558), decided in his favour by the appearance of an Enghsh fleet. MeanwMle Guise struck a hea-vy blow at England by the capture of Calais (February 1558). The garrison was weak, the defences decayed, the EngUsh ships laid up for the winter, so that the French had it all their own way by land and sea. Even so, the operation consumed six weeks, and rehef might easily have been sent if the war department had not been utterly disorganized. Deep as the disgrace was, graven deep on Mary's heart, it had one advantage for her, such as it was. If the EngUsh hated the war, neither would they now have peace without recovering Calais. Mary's expenditure was more than twice her father's or her brother's, and she was in constant financial distress : yet some of it was not her fault. Heavy debts had come down to her, and she did her best to repay them. But here again her reUgion hampered her, for she had given up the church property in her possession. This enabled her to restore a few monasteries. Westminster Abbey was handed over to monks, a priory of St. John of Jerasalem was estabUshed, nuns were restored to Sion, Carthusians to Sheen, and there were a few more. It is to be noted that these were all of the old orders : there were no Jesuits yet in England. The abbot of Westminster was Feckenham, one of the few men of that stern time who can be called amiable. This was as much as the Queen could do by herself, and the lay owners of church lands had no mind to follow her example. Monasteries had almost ceased to be founded long before the Reformation, and their revival was an anachronism Uke the rest of Mary's poUcy. Loyola was not far wrong in thinking the old orders obsolete, and rather worse than useless. One of Mary's sorest trials came from the Pope. By the spring of 1567 Paul IV had excommunicated PMUp, and was tMnking of deposmg Mm. As this would not do, the next best 216 CHURCH AND STATE thmg was to strike at him through his EngUsh wife by revoking Pole's legatine commission, though he allowed Mm to retain the lower office of legatus natus, commonly held by Ms pre decessors at Canterbury. He even declared Mm suspect of heresy, and summoned him to Rome. Mary kept back the brief, and presently Alva brought the Pope to reason. The Mgher legatine commission had been given to Friar Peto, now retumed to his old monastery of Greenwich. But he was so old and infirm that his new digmty only made him ridiculous, and he did not long survive it. In the whole course of EngUsh History there is no more gloomy time than the end of Mary's reign. Domestic poUcy and foreign were aUke failures, and worse than failures. The treasury was empty, the currency debased, the pubhc ser-vices eaten out with peculation ; army there was none, the navy was not what it had been in Henry's time, and soldiers and sailors were more inclined to desert or mutiny than to fight. Worse than tMs, the nation itself was hopeless and disaffected. Heresy was as bold as ever, and held conventicles in London ; and the persecution caused a general stagnation of thought — ^hardly a book was published wMle it lasted. Nor was It heretics only who watched the govemment -with maUcious interest, and rejoiced in aU its failures. Troubles in almost every county showed that EngUsh loyalty was worn out. Had Mary home a child, or if she had Uved on in good health, there must have been a revolution, most Ukely with French and Spanish landings. Mary was endured only because she was djdng. The fancied signs of pregnancy were signs of dropsy, and her days were numbered. She could stUl offer holocausts well pleasing to the Moloch of the CathoUcs, and spend her last weeks in strengthening their position by packing every available office and transferring advowsons by scores from the Crown to the bishops. Not a ray of hope shone on Mary's death bed. Hated by her people, neglected and wronged by her husband, disappointed of a woman's hope, and haunted by the consciousness that she had wrecked even the cause of her reUgion, the cruel Queen passed to her account In the early morning of November 17, 1558, and the Cardinal followed in the evening. CHAPTER XX ELIZABETH. — I The beUs of London rang out stUl more joyously for Mary's death than they had done for her arrival five short years before. Those years seemed a hideous nightmare, with nothing but the ashes of the martyrs to show its grim reality. It was not for nothing that the seventeenth of November so long remained a popular festival in England. But what of the future? It was clear indeed that EUzabeth must be queen. She was Henry's daughter, designated by Henry's will and by the acclamations of her people, wMle the dauphiness Mary Stuart was impossible, and other candidates were insignificant. It was also clear that the fires in Smithfield would stop of themselves; and in fact the churchmen did not venture to con-vict another heretic. It was further clear that a daughter of Anne Boleyn would have to restore the royal supremacy. A benevolent Pope might vaUdate her title, or even declare her legitimate, but he would have her at his mercy; and Paul IV was much the reverse of benevolent. Beyond this, aU was uncertain. Would she be able to keep her crown at all ? Was she to lean on France or Spain ? What would be her poUcy in reUgion — protestant or moderate catholic ? Would she go back to 1552, to 1549, or to 1547 ? The new Queen, on whom the hope of England rested, was a tall and comely woman of twenty-five, sound and healthy, and passionately fond of hunting. If she was less of a theologian than her father, she was more of a linguist, kno-wing Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French, German and ItaUan, and speaking the last three languages. She could talk ItaUan -with Italians, and answer a LatM speech In LatM, In general she was Uke her father, with his commandmg force, unerring tact, and keen judg ment of men, but also with Ms coarseness and bursts of temper. Indeed — and there may have been a physical reason for it — she had scarcely anything womanly but a double share of Anne 217 218 CHURCH AND STATE Boleyn's vanity and a wayward caprice which was all her own. Sense of truth she had none : when diplomatic lies were wanted, she Ued shamelessly. Nor did she ever show signs of personal reUgion, She belonged indeed to the Renaissance rather than to the Reformation ; but her learning incUned her to Protestantism, and her birth and circumstances determined her. The little tricks in her private chapel were passing fancies, sesthetic or poUtical, and show no real hankering after the old ritual. Yet she was not without a sense of duty to her people, and could return their firm attachment vdth queenly dignity and grace. She was proud of them, and they were proud of her, and always gathered round her in times of danger. In one power she has never been surpassed — the power of turning her o-wn weaknesses to use as parts of her system. Vain as she was of the chivalry and personal devotion wMch surrounds a -virgin Queen, she used it to the full, and her courtsMps were a principal part of the diplomatic game. The capricious irresolution which drove her ministers to despair was partly real, for she understood ends better than means, policy better than administration : but it was also largely calculated. She might be feeUng her way, or simply marking time, or more commonly amusing an enemy with her quick changes and ready Ues, till nobody knew what to make of her ; but in due time she could strike quick and hard. The clincMng proof of her greatness is tMs — ^it so fell that at almost every crisis of her reign the right tMng to do was the very thing she most hated. She made plenty of wry faces, and put it off to the last moment ; but she always did it, and did it in good time from the intervention in Scotland in 1560 to the surrender of the monopolies in 1601. In foreign politics the general situation was fairly clear. Spain was distinctly the strongest power in Europe, and Mary had made a cardinal mistake in throwing the weight of England on the Spanish side. On the other hand, France was the more immediately threatening. She controUed Scotland, and claimed the crown of England by dlArine right for her dauphiness the Queen of Scots, whereas EUzabeth was illegitimate, and at best Queen only by Act of ParUament ; and moreover, France was actually at war with England. PhiUp saw well enough that EUzabeth could not do without Spanish help, and offered to marry her, thinMng she could not afford to refuse Mm. But a marriage ELIZABETH 219 with her sister's husband would have been suicide. It needed a papal dispensation; and tMs impUed the continuance of the Pope's authority, the vaUdity of Catharine's marriage with her husband's brother, and her own illegitimacy. Moreover, the whole country would have risen against it, for the cathohcs themselves were sick of Spain. A second Spanish marriage would have been a huger blunder than the first. So she courteously decUned. Even Paget thought it madness; and Paget was held the shrewdest of Enghsh statesmen. But Ehzabeth was right. PhiUp needed her quite as much as she needed Mm. The weak point of the Spanish monarchy was that Spain is separated by the sea from the Netherlands, from Italy, and from the Indies ; and however the naval power of England had decayed, it was still something that had to be reckoned -with. PMUp was safe as long as England was on his side or neutral; but if he drove Ehzabeth into a French connexion, the alUes would command the sea, and cut his empire in pieces. Thus the main Imes of EUzabeth's poUcy were plain. Lean on PMUp for the present, but make peace with France as soon as possible. Meanwhile she could settle the rehgious question in her own way without fear of Philip, scrape every penny to reorganize the fighting forces of the country, put do-wn peculation, reform the currency, and restore her credit abroad. All tMs was done in her first two years. After that oppose Spain in every underhand way, but maintain peace by every artifice of diplomacy and falsehood. That peace endured for six-and-twenty years. It was the rest wMch the country needed; and when war broke out at last in 1585, a new England confronted Spain. " EUzabeth entered London November 23. , The bishops met her, and she was gracious to them all, except Bonner. WMte of Winchester preached Mary's funeral sermon (December 13). It was a bold warning against the wolves of heresy coming from Geneva, and he gave offence by quoting, " Better is a U-ving dog than a dead lion," and " Mary hath chosen the better part," and by Ms denunciation of the title Supreme Head. He was ordered to keep his house. Ehzabeth had not assumed that title, and evaded the question for the present by a simple " etc." She began by appointing Cecil Secretary, and replacing Heath as Chancellor by Sir Nicholas Bacon as Lord Keeper, at the same time remo-ving from the Council a few prominent Marians hke 220 CHURCH AND STATE Paget, and putting in some others of protestant leanings. But she made no arbitrary changes, and suppressed some small protestant riots. She needed to walk warily. The cathoUcs held the North and the West, and may have been a large majority in the country as a whole. They were also strongly intrenched in official positions, -with Convocation and all the bishops on their side, and every man of any mark in the country had at least conformed under Mary. On the other hand, there were as many as ten sees vacant at the end of the year, so that only sixteen bishops remained, and none of them was much of a statesman ; and even the cathoUcs were tired of Spain, the Pope, and the persecution. Had Mary avoided these three capital mistakes, she could safely have restored Henry's system ; but tMs was not so easy for EUzabeth. In some ways it may have appealed to her, for persons of no reUgious principle very commonly have cathoUc, or at least sesthetic, tastes. But Mary had now brought round the moral superiority so decisively to the protestant side that the best hope of a comprehensive national church was in returning to the position of 1552, with a few secondary changes removing needless offence to moderate cathoUcs. And tMs was EUzabeth's policy. She had already forbidden Oglethorpe of CarUsle to elevate the host on Christmas Day, and when he refused to obey, she left as soon as the Gospel had been read. Then came a proclama tion (December 27) allowing the Epistle and Gospel and the Ten Commandments to be read in EngUsh. The Lord's Prayer and the Creed might also be in EngUsh, and the EngUsh Litany could be used, for Mary had not aboUshed it. But there were to be no sermons, and no other changes till they were made by ParUament. This was not quite effective, for Enghsh services broke out aU over the country during the spring of 1559. Then came the coronation (January 15) according to the old rites, except that the Epistles and Gospel were read In EngUsh after the Latin. Heath and other bishops refused to perform the ceremony, though some of them took minor parts M it, and serious difficulty would have arisen If Oglethorpe had not consented to do it.^ ParUament met January 25, and recognized the Queen's title; but she never cleared her mother's memory, because she had no 1 The refusal of the bishops was on the question of the elevation, which they held that no lay power could forbid. It seems uncertain whether the mass was celebrated without elevation by the Dean of the Chapel Royal, or with elevation while the Queen retired to her private room. ELIZABETH 221 wish to asperse her father's. The crucial questions of Supremacy and Uniformity gave more trouble. After a preUminary failure, clauses annulUng Mary's repeal of Edward's Act of Uniformity were inserted in a Supremacy BiU which passed the Commons Febraary 25. While the Lords were discussing it. Convocation under Bonner's guidance passed unanimously Articles main taining transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, the supre macy of the Pope, and the incompetence of laymen to meddle with faith, sacraments, and discipline. The Bill was referred by the Lords to a reactionary committee, and amended in a reaction ary sense by striking out the clauses restoring Edward's Act of Uniformity and allo-wing the marriage of priests, and the Queen was given her choice about taking the title of Supreme Head. With these amendments the Commons promptly disagreed, so the Lords dropped them ; but then the Queen demurred. Foreign affairs were critical, for the peace with France was still unsigned, and even a strong protestant Uke Lever objected to the Supreme Head. So there was a deadlock. The turn was given by the Westminster Disputation which began March 31, during the Easter recess. As the bishops had denied the right of ParUament to pass Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, they were now called upon to maintain in the presence of both Houses Latin ser-vices, the incompetence of a national Church to change rites and ceremonies, and the sacrifice of the mass. They were to open, the protestants to reply. But the bishops refused to foUow the order laid do-wn by the Council, and fimshed by breaking up the disputation. Even Heath and Feckenham thought them unreasonable. WMte and Watson were sent to the Tower for disobedience, and the Marians were much discredited. When ParUament met again, the Queen sent a message refusing the title of Supreme Head. So a new Supremacy Bill substituted that of Supreme Govemor, and empowered the Queen to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction by commissioners. Only she was not to declare anything heresy unless it were so declared " by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general Councils or any of them,^ or by any other general Coimcil wherein I This is the amount of recognition given by the Church of England to the first four General Councils. It is de facto agreement with them, not acceptance of their authority. Similarly we de facto receive and believe the Creeds, but only " because they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Spripture," They have no independent authority. 222 CHURCH AND STATE the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical Scriptures, or such as shall hereafter be " de clared heresy by ParUament with the assent of Convocation." The oath was to be taken only by civil and ecclesiastical officials, and by those who took degrees or orders. The penalty for a first refusal was incapacity for office, for a second a prcemunire, while the third was treason. This was milder than Henry's action, imposing the oath on all and making a first refusal treason, and the practice was milder still. A second tender of the oath was rare, and the Council protected even the obnoxious Bonner from a third. The Bill passed with ten spiritual peers and one layman dissenting. Then came the Uniformity BiU. It revived Edward's Act of 1552, and (with certain changes) Edward's Prayer Book of 1552. A cleric using any other form in open prayer (pubhc ministrations) was to be imprisoned for six months and forfeit a years' revenue of his benefices. For a second offence he was to be imprisoned for a year and forfeit his benefices, and for a tMrd he was to be imprisoned for Ufe. This came over from Edward's first Act of 1549; Ms second in 1552 subjected the laity to spiritual censures for absence from church on Sundays or holy days, and now there was added to these a fine of twelve pence for every such offence. The Bill passed the Lords by twenty-one votes of lay peers as against nine spiritual and nine temporal, though the proxies would have increased the majority. The adoption of the Prayer Book (and later of the Articles) of 1552 definitely placed the Church of England on the side of the Reformation, for the changes made in 1559 are not of doctrinal importance. The Act specifies three — Proper First Lessons for Sundays, the removal of the petition against the tyr.anny of the bishop of Rome, and two sentences added to the deUvery of the sacrament, " and none other." The two sentences are the words of administration of 1549 combined with, and now placed before, the new form of 1552. The omission of the Black Rubric did not need to be mentioned, for it had no parUamentary sanction. Of these changes, the first is uncontroversial, the second removes a needless offence, and the tMrd is entirely neutral. If the Lord said, " This is My body," all Christians must agree that it is in some sense His body ; and the solemn recital of His words is no decision in what sense they are to be taken. Stronger words than these ELIZABETH 223 were used by the Puritans themselves. Thus the Scotch Direc tory in 1644 and Baxter in 1662 have, " Take ye, eat ye, this is the body of Christ, which is (not was) broken for you." So too the omission of the Black Rubric no more leaves open a corporal presence than the omission of the clause in the Litany leaves open the Pope's authority. The doctrine of the English Church is fixed in one case by the statement of the Articles that the " Bishpp of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England," in the other by their teaching that the eating is only in a heavenly and spiritual manner, and that faith is the means thereunto, so that the wicked do not receive at all. So far then Knox had as little reason for his discontent at the changes as some of the moderns for their satisfaction with them. The Ornaments Rubric is best dealt with separately,^ but it makes no very serious difference. EUzabeth certainly succeeded well in removing needless offence to catholics from the compulsory services. A modern Ultra montane would denounce them as unsanctioned by his church, and as ignoring important duties like prayers to the Virgin and the saints, and for the Pope and the dead ; but he could not fairly disagree with anything in particular, except a single word near the end of the Litany — " our only Mediator and Advocate." In the Communion Ser-vice he might find more to blame; but the Communion was not systematically made a test till after the Restoration. The Act came into force on Midsummer Day, June 24 ; and immediately Injunctions were issued by the Queen, and Visitors appointed to carry them out and administer the Oath of Supre macy. The Injunctions are modelled on Edward's of 1547, with a good many changes and additions. Images, reUcs, miracles and such-like .superstitions were to vanish away, even from private houses. The clergy (that they might be known to the people both in the church and -without) were to use and wear such habits as were commonly and orderly received in the latter year of Edward VI (beginning January 28, 1553) — i. e. in church the surphce, elsewhere cassock, gown, and square cap. Nor were they to marry but " upon good examination by the bishop and two justices, or without the good will of the woman's parents or kinsfolk or her master or mistress, where she serveth." Even bishops must have the approval of the metropolitan and • See note at end of Chapter, pp. 232-236. 224 CHURCH AND STATE the ecclesiastical commissioners.^ All persons to attend their o-wn parish church, and to behave soberly and reverently during the service, occupying themselves -with that, and not with books of private devotion. Shrines, pictures and other monuments of superstition to be destroyed even in private houses. Inventories of church ornaments to be deUvered to the -visitors. There follow four admonitions or directions. The first explains that by the title of Supreme Govemor the Queen does not claim any " power of ministry of divine offices in the church," as some do slander ously say, for she " neither does nor ever -will challenge any other authority than was chaUenged and lately used by " Henry VIII and Edward VI. As the Articles put it, " that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to aU godly Princes in holy Scripture by God himself." A second directs that altars are not to be lawlessly destroyed, but taken down in an orderly way by the curate and churchwardens. A table is to stand in the place, but at the time of communion to be removed for convenience to the chancel. The sacramental bread is to be a wafer, but -without any figure thereupon, and larger in compass and thickness than in the old time. We can imagine the grief and horror of some at this " deface ment and desecration " of churches. There must have been staring gaps left by the removal of altars, the destruction of stained glass, and the aboUtion of pictures and other monuments of superstition. Yet the destraction was by no means pure VandaUsm. Vestments and mass-books were now iUegal, the small chalices for the priest's commimion were useless for the new Service, the pictures were actual and serious incitements to superstition, and they were aU best put beyond the reach of mal content priests who hankered after the abuses of the old order. The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity and the Injunctions form the transition from the old law to the new ; and they were all the work of the laity. Convocation was not even coerced into formal acquiescence as in Henry's time, but simply ignored. The Supremacy Act (the only Act ever passed without the ^ These regulations were not uncalled for. The marriage of the clergy was lawful after 1549, and even Mary allowed the seculars to keep their wives, though not their office. But the old dislike of it persisted, notably in Elizabeth herself, so that for a generation or two it was hardly respect able. Hence the wives even of bishops were sometimes very unsatisfactory persons, like Mrs, Ponet and Mrs, Cooper, ELIZABETH 225 concurrence of the Lords Spiritual) was not laid before it, the new Prayer Book was not referred to it, and the royal -visitation was for the time being an almost complete aboUtion of episcopal govemment. No doubt the changes were accepted by Convoca tion in 1563 ; but there had been an entire change in the char acter of Convocation since 1559, Even Henry scarcely asserted more strongly than EUzabeth the principle of English Law, that the competence of ParUament covers faith and discipline -without regard to Convocation, The reform was not carried out with the assent of the Church, but the State took the Church in hand and reformed it against its will. One inconvenience of burning heretics is that when the heretics come into power, persecutors cannot decently conform to their heresy. So (sometimes after carefully dilapidating their sees) the Marian bishops one after another honourably refused the oath and were deprived. One marked change of the Eeformation was in the character of the bishop. In the middle ages we have lawyers and men of business Uke Lanfranc and Eogers of Salisbury, fighting men Uke Antony Bek, and mere courtiers Uke Lewis of Beaumont and George Ne-viUe, wMle scholars and pastors are rare, though Anselm, Grosseteste and Bradwardme stand out conspicuously, Henry VIII's bishops were of the old type — ^Wolsey, Gardiner, Bonner, Heath, Tunstall, TMrlby, Eowland Lee — and Cranmer and Latimer are the exceptions, Mary's were partly the sur vivors of her father's lawyers and diplomatists, partly divines, including scholars of eminence in Bayne and Christopherson. After this they are mostly preachers and courtiers. But there are still traces of the old type. Laud is almost as much statesman as churchman, Juxon held the Treasurer's staff in 1636, and Eobinson of Bristol negotiated the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Mew of Winchester pointed the guns at Sedgemoor, Compton of London appeared in martial garb in 1688, and Herring of York superintended arrangements against the Pretender in 1746. These however are the exceptions which prove the rule. The transition is weU seen at Durham and Ely in the change from Tunstall to Pilkington, and from TMrlby to Cox. Moderate men Uke Heath and TMrlby went with the rest, and at last even Tunstall refused to conform. He was a man of eighty-five and the sole survivor of the mediseval order, for he Q 226 CHUECH AND STATE had been a bishop since 1522. He was quite wilUng to retum to the royal supremacy, and did not refuse the Prayer Book ; but the old man could not bear to hear of the destruction which the Injunctions were maMng in the churches. He was deprived in October, and died next month. Only Kitchin of Llandaff con formed; there was also Stanley of Sodor and Man, though he hardly counts as an English bishop. Some of the dignitaries also refused to conform. Bitter persecutors like Story and Harpsfield, and shameless renegades like Harding, could scarcely do otherwise; but these were few. The parish priests must have conformed almost in a body, though some of them no doubt very unwillingly. The total number of recusants was officially given as 177, and the real number cannot have been much greater. The exiles are fairly well known, and there are very few traces of deprived priests remaining in England. A Uberal addition to the official figure still leaves it an insignificant proportion of the parish clergy, and gives us one more proof that the Marian reaction had no roots in the country. The deprived bishops ran no risk of the fire. They were not even imprisoned, and Da-vid Pole remained unmolested tiU Ms death in 1568. Goldwell of St. Asaph fled abroad, where he figured as the only EngUsh bishop at the Council of Trent, and was actively organizing the Jesuit invasion in 1584, when Ms death made an end of the Marian episcopate. The other nine (five of the sixteen were dead) gave offence by active opposition, and were sent to prison in the spring of 1560, where their treat ment varied very much -with the activity of their friends outside. Ultimately most of them were honourably quartered as guests of their successors. Heath retired to Ms own house, and even received an occasional visit from the Queen, Bonner remained in prison. The deprivation of all the bishops but Kitchin made it difficult to consecrate new bishops. The Commons proposed to appoint by letters patent and dispense with consecration, Cranmer and perhaps most of the Reformers would not have objected to this, but it did not suit EUzabeth's policy. The succession was as carefully preserved in England as it was carefully cut in Sweden, Its poUtical advantage was e-vident, though its spiritual value was left an open question. As early as December 1558 EUzabeth had selected her mother's chaplain Matthew Parker for the new ELIZABETH 227 primate, Parker was essentially a student, and at Edward's death was Master of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and Dean of Lincoln, and was now U-ving in the country in great obscurity. He had no desire of the primacy, and asked rather to be restored to his mastersMp, but the govemment insisted, and (August 1, 1559) he was duly elected as archbishop. So far well : but now, where were the bishops to consecrate him ? When the last of the Marian bishops failed her, EUzabeth had to fall back on bishops who were not in possession of sees; and there was the further difficulty that Edward's Ordinal had not been expressly revived along with the Prayer Book of 1552, After many delays, a commission was issued to Kitchin, Barlow, Coverdale and Scory, who had been deprived by Mary, with Bate of Ossory and the suffragans Hodgkin and Salisbury, with all defects remedied by royal prerogative in a Supplentes clause. Of these seven, only Barlow, Coverdale, Scory and HodgMn appeared to confirm Parker's election (December 9) and then to consecrate him in the early morning of December 17. The transition from the old to the new was well marked by the dress of the bishops on that occasion. Barlow and his assistants wore copes, Scory, Hodgkin and Parker himself had surpUces, while Coverdale appeared in a cassock. The first consecration of a protestant primate was an important event, and scrupulous care was used to comply with every legal form. In particular, the crucial words were not simply pro nounced by Barlow, but repeated by all the four bishops at once. The legal conditions were certainly fulfilled, for besides the Supplentes clause, the Act of 1566 expressly and retrospectively validated the Ordinal of 1552. The Romanists of course denied the vahdity. In addition to the general argument that the acts of heretics are null, and various particular objections, they invented in the next generation a story of a very irregular conse cration by Coverdale at the Nag's Head Tavern. This is now quite discredited ; and the rest of their arguments are baseless or tri-vial. Their interest is antiquarian, except for those who beUeve the succession to be spiritually necessary. The question really merges in the wider one of the vahdity of Anghcan orders generally, adversely decided by Leo XIII's bull Apostolicce curce in 1896. The main arguments are three : — 228 CHURCH AND STATE 1. The porrection of the instraments (deUvery of paten and chaUce) was declared necessary by Eugemus IV. TMs proves too much, for there was no porrection before the ninth century. 2. The office to wMch the candidate was ordained was not specified by the crucial words in 1552, so that the suc cession had long been lost when the omission was suppUed in 1662. But the whole ser-vice from first to last impUes and repeatedly states that it is the priest's or bishop's offioe. 3. There is no reference in the Ordinal to the priest's distinctive work of " offering sacrifices, as well for the dead as for the Uving " ; and what is worse, all such references were deliberately cut out. TMs is true ; but what it proves is not that the ordina tion is null ; only that the Church of England deUberately refuses to recognize such sacrifices as any part of the priest's duty. And if this is in accordance with the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that no sacrifice is left for Christian men to offer but that of praise and thanksgiving, it is clear that the Roman Church arrogates to its priests a power which belongs to Christ alone. After Parker's consecration, there came fifteen more in a few weeks, notably Grindal to London, Home to Winchester, PilMng- ton to Durham, Cox to Ely, Jewel to SaUsbury. The reformed church was now ready to start on the arduous work before it. The dioceses were in great disorder. The scarcity of clergy, already marked in Mary's time, was greater now, and profuse ordinations of unlearned men — the first remedy tried — very soon had to be given up. Many also of the Marian priests used every artifice to keep up the old ways and discredit the new. The North was worse than the South, and Oxford much more stubborn than Cambridge. On the other hand, over-zealous reformers were none too careful of decency and order, and committed many excesses. It would be a work of time to overcome these confusions. As the Reformation was essentially English, it met with greater difficulties in the Celtic West, where the EngUsh Church stood more or less for a foreign domination, and the local superstitions ELIZABETH 229 were immemorial, and where the rapacity of courtiers had freer scope than in England, StiU, the Reformers endeavoured to do their duty. Of all the cries of the Reformation, none was more effective than that the Bible and the public prayers were in an unknown tongue. The Reformers were therefore bound to issue translations into Welsh and Irish, So in 1563 the four Welsh bishops and the bishop of Hereford (then partly a Welsh diocese) were placed in charge. The New Testament and the Prayer Bbok were completed in 1567 by WUUam Salesbury and Bishop Richard Davies, but the Old Testament was only issued by WilUam Morgan in 1588, vrith the somewhat pecuUar Welsh of Salesbury's New Testament re-vised. Eight hundred copies were sent to Wales, and the church copies were found nearly worn out with use in 1632,^ The losses of the Reformation were great, though less great than is often supposed. It was a loss to be cut off from the comity of Southern Europe, though Spain and Italy were sinking into the Uving death of the Counter-Reformation, and the loss was partly balanced by the healing of the quarrel with Scotland. Insularity in the bad sense is more characteristic of the eighteenth century than of the Reformers, who kept up an active corre spondence with Zurich and Geneva. There was loss also, not much indeed in the aboUtion of the monasteries, but in the squandering of their property, the spoliation of the churches, the suppression of the gilds, and above all in the corruption of the higher classes by the plunder of the abbeys. Low as their standard was, it feU still lower under Henry and Edward. Much was also lost by the close connexion of the Church with the Crown which more and more estranged it from some of the best elements of secular and reUgious Ufe in England, and brought it to the catastrophe of the Civil War. Yet again, the Church was hardened and narrowed by the dire necessities of the deadly struggle with Rome, and fixed in an attitude of stiff orthodoxy wMch has too often placed it on the side of reaction and obscurantism. Yet some of the real and serious e-vils of the ' For other Celtic languages : the New Testament was published in Irish in 1603, the Old Testament translated by Bishop Bedel (tl642), but not published till 1685, and the first Irish Bible appeared in 1690. In Manx nothing was done till the eighteenth century, and only a few chapters were ever translated into Cornish, But Cornish must have been rapidly dying out after the Reformation : yet a Cornish sermon was preached at Landewednack as late as 1678. 230 CHURCH AND STATE Reformation, Uke the debasement of the clergy in the first part of EUzabeth's reign, were in their nature temporary. Revolutionary times are always unsettling and demoraUzing; and the rapid changes of the Reformation brought to light a good deal of the baseness that is commonly veiled in a decent obscurity, A real reform generally begins by maMng things worse, A pestiferous ditch cannot be cleansed without stirring up the mud. We now look at the other side. The aboUtion of a mischievous and often unfriendly foreign authority gave the nation freedom to develop itself, and made better order possible in the Church, The worst abuses of the eighteenth century are scarcely so bad as the common state of tMngs in the fifteenth. Again, it was a great gain to have the Church thoroughly national — if too loyal to the king, yet not disloyal to the nation. The EngUsh char acter was made stronger and more earnest, and gained a new sense of duty from the new responsibiUty laid on every man when the new teaching aboUshed auricular confession, swept away a vast amount of superstition and trading on superstition, and removed the poison from family life by its emphatic rejection of the ascetic ideal. Yet all this would have been vain without a rational worsMp constantly chaUenging comparison -with an open Bible, Abuses enough survived, and there may have been some new ones ; but rehgion ceased to be a shame and a scandal to lovers of tmth and decency. After all, the gains of the Reformation fell far short of what they might have been. In the first place, the Reformers never had a free hand. They were hampered by the dominance of the Crown and the upper classes. Thus they were not aUowed to keep some of the abbeys as refuges for the poor or places of education, and they always had to reckon -with EUzabeth's caprices. What was worse, they were too much men of their own age to escape some serious errors; and sometimes the reaction from the middle ages led them further astray. They took over the despoti" conception of deity, and pitched too high the rights of princes. They inherited the beUef in a rigid -visible Church, and therefore could not give up either the theory of persecution or the disastrous ideal of Church discipUne -with excommunica tion enforced by civil penalties. They took over a mechanical view of inspiration which the next generation shaped into a dogma; and the reaction from allegory to literaUsm often led ELIZABETH 231 them into further error. Upon the whole, they did not go far enough. It is always easier to break the yoke of bondage than to cast out the spirit of slavery. They did a great work, and made possible a greater work. They set the Church in the right way, with its face to the Heavenly, City and its back to the City of Destruction. Whether we appeal to Scripture or to History, there is but one conclusion. The main teacMng of the Reformers was sound and trae, and ]their limitations and mistakes were mostly sur-vivals of medisevaUsm, wMch the teaching of God in Mstory has ever since been correcting. Thus the Gospel of free forgiveness — ^in technical language, Justification by faith — excludes a despotic God, and therefore forbids a despotic prince ; and the growth of freedom is bringing the whole conception of government into better accord with divine unselfishness. The appeal to Scripture carried the supremacy of conscience, and therefore toleration for heresy and freedom for criticism and science. In England, active persecution was made impossible for the Church by the Civil War, impossible for the State by the Revolution; and the ever-growing revelations of truth in criticism and science has brought confusion to the twin powers of Agnosticism within and without the Church, Above all, the appeal to Mstory has shown that the Gospel is vaster and more varied, freer and more loving than our fathers knew, that its record in Scripture is — Uke the Lord Himself — ^none the less human for being divine, and none the less divine for being human, and the Ught of ages -will be needed to show the fuUness of its power. We are only now beginning to enter on the good land which was opened to us by the Reformation, We have now reached a point from which we can look back on the Reformation as a whole, and form some estimate of its results. The great changes of government and doctrine begun in 1529 may be considered complete in 1563, though a long time was needed to settle them down and begin to develop their underlying principles. Shortly, the conception of the visible Church became chiefly national instead of catholic, and Scripture became supreme instead of tradition. The Enghsh nation declared itself spiritually independent of all foreign jurisdiction, and reformed the Enghsh Church accordingly. The decisions of councils might be true or false, the customs of other Churches might be good or bad, but 232 CHURCH AND STATE they were to have no authority in England. There was to be no more dlAdded sovereignty. The law of the land was henceforth to be the law of the Church, enacted by the King in ParUament, and interpreted by the King in Ms Courts of Justice ; and to that law all officials of the Church gave their promise of obedience. Then Scripture was made supreme, so that its meaning was to be determined by grammar and scholarship, and not by any cathoUc tradition. This involved the aboUtion of things evidently con trary to Scripture, like the invocation of saints, the worsMp of images, and generally all attempts to estabhsh our own righteous ness by sacrifices of masses or expiations of penance and other good works. It also meant that nothing is essential wMch cannot be proved by Scripture, and it further impUed the duty of aboUshing everything else that contradicted Scripture — slavery, persecution or verbal inspiration for example — ^whenever the contradiction became apparent. And here we reach the deeper meaning of the Reformation. There was Uttle mysticism in that age ; yet it brought to the front the principle of mysticism, that we are caUed to a direct and personal knowledge of God. Any one may help us with example or spiritual counsel, the priest may minister to us the services of the Church, the Church itself may speak to us the words that are spirit and life, and all created things in Christ are one vast sacrament of Ufe : -^ yet all these are no more than helps and means of grace — beUef and action must be finally our o-wn, in the sense that we must finally judge for ourselves the righteous judgment. Therefore the Bible was translated Into EngUsh, that all might read it, and the ser-vices were put in EngUsh, that all might understand them and join in them. It is all one great endeavour to carry out the principle that neither men nor works of men can be allowed to stand between the Saviour and His people. Note on the Ornaments Rubric The Ornaments Rubric is a thorny question at best ; and it has not been made easier by the vast amount of sopMstry and irrelevant matter that has been brought into it. The broad facts however are not much disputed, and it is pretty clear where the critical questions Ue. * John i. 4, reading h yiyovfn iv 4ut# fw^j ^v. ELIZABETH 233 In 1549 the direction was :— Upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the holy communion, the Priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration ; that is to say, a white Albe plain, with a vestment or Cope, and {the Priests that help) shall likewise have upon them the vestures ap pointed for their ministration, that is to say, Alhes, with tunicles. We may take it as agreed that the vestment altemative to the cope is a chasuble — the distinctive sacrificial vestment. The cope had no such associations, but might be worn even by lawyers if they were clerics. In 1552 the rubric ran : — The Minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministrations, shall use neither Alb, Vestment nor Cope, but being Archbishop or Bishop, he shall have and wear a Rochet : and being a Priest or Deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only. In- 1559 a new rubric was introduced, which was not altered till 1662 :— And here it is to be noted that the Minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times of his ministration, shall use such ornaments in the Church, as were in use by Authority of Parliament in the second year of King Edward VI, according to the Act of Parliament at the beginning of this Book. The rubric itself refers us to the Act ; and there we find the Prayer Book of 1552 re-enacted with three specified alterations, " and none other or otherwise," and all other forms of prayer forbidden after June 24, 1559. As this rubric is not one of the specified alterations, the words of 1552 ought to have been re peated. As it stands, it seems to restore some earUer vestments, and would do so if it were independent of the Act. But it derives its force from the Act, and itself declares that its purpose is to carry out the Act. Reading further, we find in the Act : — Provided further, and be it Enacted, that such Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, shall be retained, and be in use, as was in the Church of England by Authority of Parliament 234 CHURCH AND STATE in the second year of the Reign of King Edward VI, until other Order shall be therein taken by the Authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the Advice of her Commissioners appointed and authorized under the Great Seal of England for Causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of the Realm. Now analysing tMs, Ornaments are tMngs required for the services. Thus Bibles and pyxes are ornaments of the church, surpUces and chasubles ornaments of the minister; but floral decorations or painted windows are not in this sense ornaments at all. In the second year of King Edward VI (January 28, 1548 to January 27, 1549). For the larger part of this year the mediseval services were in use, but Edward's first Book was enacted January 29, 1549, and there is a general agreement that its provisions are those referred to. Shall be retained, and be in use. Were this modern EngUsh, it would indeed be " insane " to put on it any other meaning than, " shall continue to be used." And the ornaments of 1549 could continue to be used in spite of their disuse in 1552, because they were used again in Mary's time, though not exactly as directed in 1549, so that they were ready to hand, and could be retained in continuous use. But being sixteenth- century EngUsh, the words may equally well mean, " shall be retained in safe custody, and held in trust "—not conveyed away. On one theory they are to be used, on the other they are to be kept safe ; but in either case only till other order is taken. Both meanings are good Enghsh; and if one of them suits the Queen's pohcy hitherto, the other agrees better with what followed. However, the difference is not important, if other order was speedily taken. Until other Order be therein taken by the Authority of the Queen's Majesty. Whatever is to be retained, and in whatever sense it is to be retained, it is to be retained only until other order be taken. Usage is decisive, that " taking order " means adminis trative action. The Queen is empowered to end the pro-visional state of tMngs by giving practical directions for carrying out the Act, and therefore for restoring the vestments of 1552. Other order was effectively taken before the end of June — as soon as ever the Act came into operation — when Visitors administering the Queen's Injunctions carried away the vestments (except ELIZABETH 235 some of the copes) and the Marian service books, etc, demolished the altars, and defaced everything deemed superstitious. Is it credible that the vestments of 1549 were first forbidden by the Act restoring the Prayer Book of 1552, then commanded by the rubric, then straightway destroyed, so that the command became impossible? That the Queen took drastic action is clear; but was it the order prescribed by the Act ? With the Advice of her Commissioners appointed and authorized under the Great Seal of England for Causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of the Realm. There was no metropolitan, for Parker was not able to act till December, But the Injunctions themselves speak of Commissioners in London " appointed to hear and determine divers causes ecclesiastical tending to the execution of the Act : and the Visitors themselves were Com missioners under the Great Seal, appointed " to examine, hear, and finally determine, causes of every Mnd." There were also other Commissioners for the deprivation of the Marian bishops. It seems then that the Injunctions are the " other order " prescribed by the Act, Certain it is that the vestments disappeared at once after 1559, and were not revived till near three himdred years later. There is not a single clear and authentic instance of their use, " The surplice " was enforced, and the surplice only. Most of Ehzabeth's earlier bishops would have been glad to abolish even this, and there is no evidence that any one of them wished for more than this. If it had not been universally agreed after 1559 that the old ornaments were iUegal, there were plenty of Marian priests ready to restore them, and plenty of Puritans to tell us if they did so. The Puritans were no dumb dogs, and made a very sufficient outcry against the surpUce, The least hint of the chasuble would have called forth abundance of their most vigorous language : yet the silence is complete. The cope is on another footing, for it was never a eucharistic vestment, except as an alternative in 1549, It was enjoined in cathedrals by the Advertisements of 1566, and survived at Durham till 1759, In 1662 the rubric was altered again : — And here it is to be noted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof at all times of their Ministration, 236 CHURCH AND STATE shall be retained and be in use, as were in the Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the second year of the Reign of King Edward VI. Taken by itself, this is a clear direction to restore the orna ments of 1549, of the church as well as of the ministers. Thus we should have vessels for anointing the sick, though such anointing was aboUshed in 1552, But the rubric still remains subject to the Act of Ehzabeth, expressly re-enacted and pre fixed to the new Prayer Book as an integral part of it, though seldom now printed with it. If the direct reference to it is dropped, its language is exactly copied. The CaroUne bishops showed no more desire than the EUzabethan to restore the vest ments. They never wore them themselves, and never attempted to enforce them in their dioceses. Their Visitation Articles ask one and all for " the surpUce," and the surpUce only. They had just revised the rubric ; and'if they had intended or under stood it to restore the vestments, their action is a flagrant dis obedience not Ughtly to be charged on such men as Cosin and Morley, Sancroft and Ken. Moreover, even the advanced churchmen are never found wearing the vestments, and the Puritans never complain of any attempt to wear them. In short, nobody ever supposed the rubric to restore them. Minor points would fill a volume ; but the general conclusion that the ornaments have been illegal since 1559 seems past all reasonable doubt. There still remains a difficulty. In face of the overwhelming CAddence that neither Ehzabethans nor Carolines had any wish to go beyond the surpUce, why was the rubric left in 1559, and again in 1662, in a form wMch, as the Puritans said, " seemeth to bring back the vestments " ? The answer is that in 1559 the Queen was plajdng a sort of Lutheran game. Lutheranism had gained a certain recognition by the Peace of Augsburg, and the princes of Europe considered it at any rate not nearly so bad as Cal-vinism. Thus she had an interest in so shaping the rubric as to give the appearance of a more or less Lutheran ritual without actually contravening the Act. In 1662 there was no urgent need to alter a rubric which had never caused trouble ; and the bishops would not be sorry to get a fair chance of giving another ungracious refusal . The change they afterwards made was only verbal. CHAPTER XXI ELIZABETH. — II Foreign affairs were compUcated in the age of EUzabeth, because the times were exceptional. From the wars of the Renaissance to those of Napoleon, the cMef antagonism was commonly between France and the Hapsburgs, while England might join one side or the other, or stand aloof, or smk into dependence, as she did under Northumberland and Mary. But now for nearly forty years (1560-1598) France was disabled by wars of reUgion, and could not be more than an occasional and uncertain counterpoise to Spain. There was a similarly un settled time a century later, when the Hapsburgs were disabled by the Thirty Years' War and the collapse of Spain. In each case the burden fell first on the United Provinces ; in each case the alUance of England sMfted slowly round, first from the Spanish Hapsburgs to France, then back from France to the Austrian Hapsburgs; in each case England held the balance; in each case England struck the decisive blows, first at Calais and Gravelines, then at La Hogue and Blenheim. The unsettle ment was terminated, first by the Edict of Nantes (1598), then by the Peace of Carlowitz (1699). EUzabeth's first care was to clear away the wreck of Mary's poUcy by making peace (April 1559) -with France, though she could not obtain it without giving up the claim to Calais. After tMs the danger came through Scotland. Mary Stuart was now married to the dauphin, and became Queen of France in July. In spite of the peace, she assumed the arms of England, and never gave up her claim. Her mother Mary of Guise held the regency m Scotland with French troops to support her; and it might have gone hard with EUzabeth if Scotland had remained sohd for the old reUgion and the old hatred of England. But the regent's hands were weakened by reUgious division and by the unpopularity of the French. 237 238 CHURCH AND STATE The Scottish Reformation had a Lollard stage like the English ; but its later course was very different. Instead of strong sovereigns directing and controlling it by law, we have weak rulers who only -wished to crash it. So it became a popular movement, guided on one side by the preachers, on the other by nobles as rapacious as the English, and even more turbulent. In 1557 they formed a " band," calUng themselves the Lords of the Congregation. But while the Lords took the plunder, the people settled the doctrine. There was not much in England to compare with the riot of Perth and the general destraction of images (1559). Parker was horrified : but the scandals of the church were greater in Scotland, so that the reaction was greater. In doctrine there was no difference from England. Knox had accepted the Prayer Book of 1552, though he after wards preferred more elastic services, and the EngUsh Reformers agreed -with him on Predestination. The extreme Cal-vinism and hatred of Episcopacy which grew up in the next century was largely due to EngUsh influence and Stuart tyranny : it is not without significance that the Confession of the Scottish Church was drawn up at Westminster, and with EngUsh help. But the govemment of flie Church was necessarily entrusted to the ministers, though bishops were not abohshed for some time. But could the new rehgion be set up at all? The French troops were much too strong for the Lords of the Congregation ; and before long Ehzabeth was reduced to the choice between helping rebels and letting Scotland go to France. She struck boldly. An EngUsh fleet cooped up the French in Leith, and an Enghsh army forced them to surrender (July 1560). The Treaty of Edinburgh pro-vided that the French should retum home and Mary renounce the arms of England — ^which she never did. France and Spain looked on with helpless amaze ment. Scotland was now Ehzabeth's ally, so long as the new reUgion could be maintained. Mary Stuart returned to Scotland in 1561, a widow of mne- teen, and more dangerous than ever. As Queen of France she could only win the crown of England at the sword's point : as Queen of Scots she appealed not only to the catholics but to all who thought the union of Britain worth a mass. She temporized with her subjects, and tried to win EUzabeth's recognition as heir of England. When that failed, she married her cousin ELIZABETH 239 Darnley in July 1565, and in the following June bore a son — the future James VI. So far well : Darnley was an EngUsh man, a cathoUc, and next heir to herself — ^the very man she wanted. But Damley was also a vicious fool and miscMef- maker, and insufferably arrogant. The murder of Rizzio in March 1566 — Mary six months with cMld — ^was an unpardonable outrage. When the Kirk o' Field was blovm up in February 1567, Bothwell stood out clear as the chief murderer, and there can be little doubt that Mary played her part in the crime. This might have passed muster, especially in Scotland, but Mary's next step was a scandal to the world. She feU madly in love -with the murderer, let him carry her off in April, and — what was even worse in Cathohc eyes — married him with pro testant rites in May. The tragedy ended in Mary's ffight to England (1568) in quest of help against her subjects. Ehzabeth did no more than any govemment would do now when she detained in honourable capti-vity a dangerous claimant who steadily refused to give up her plotting. All this time Spain and England were perforce alUes, and PhiUp held back the Pope from deposuig EUzabeth : but they were not friends, and did each other as much harm as they could venture on without open war. The Queen persisted in her anti-cathoUc poUcy at home, and allowed her subjects to help the rebels in the Netherlands and prey on Spanish commerce at sea, while Phihp abetted plots in England, hanged every EngUshman found in America, and let the Inquisition seize English sailors in Spanish ports. Things seemed coming to a crisis -with EUzabeth's detention of the Spanish treasure, the revolt of the Northern earls (1569), the Bull of Excommunica tion, the schemes of Norfolk to marry Mary in spite of the Queen, the Ridolfi plot, and the expulsion of the Spanish ambas sador. Still there was no war. Phihp would not deal with England till he had settled with the Netherlands, and Elizabeth stopped just short of compelhng him to fight. But now she drew towards a French alliance, if only France would not make the Netherlands another Scotland. Under Coligny's influence Charles IX seemed to welcome her advances for a great league against Spain. But he soon retumed to another scheme for the extermination of the Huguenot rebels, which had been planning for several years past. This was carried out in the 240 CHURCH AND STATE Bartholomew massacre (August 24, 1572). The Pope ordered a Te Deum and strack medals for the slaughter, and PMUp laughed for joy at the poUtical blunder. Indeed, there was no excuse and little pretence of reUgion for the massacre. Catherine de' Medicis invited EUzabeth to repeat it on the English CathoUcs, and the Guises sheltered heretics in their houses. Still, there could now be no thought of alUance with France for the present, and EUzabeth could only swing back to Spain. But the old quarrels continued, and after a decent interval she renewed her overtures to France, and the long comedy of the Anjou court ships. Then the Netherlands became the centre of the storm. The first great success of the Dutch sea-beggars was the capture of Brill in 1572, and Spanish conquest was brought to a halt which proved final at the dykes of AU^maar in 1573 and before the walls of Leiden in 1575; but Spam kept the upper hand, and constantly threatened to recover her lost ground, especially after Parma had pacified the cathoUc provinces of the South (1579). Elizabeth just kept the revolt ahve by giving (and letting her subjects give) such help as would not force an open war with Spain. The Seven Pro-vinces sought in vain effective help from England, from France, even from Germany, and the assassination of Orange in 1584 seemed to make their position desperate. In the same year Anjou's death left Henry of Navarre heir of France; whereupon he was confronted by the Guises with a catholic League, which was ready to lay the country at Phihp's feet, if only it could keep out a heretic Mng. So for twelve years of ci-vil war France was helpless as a check on Spain. MeanwMle the Enghsh people took the matter into their own hands. The despondency of Mary's reign had long since given place to buoyant confidence and world--wide enterprise. The sea-dogs of England were a terror in the North Sea and the Channel, on the coasts of Guinea and the Spanish Main, and Drake (1577-1580) had brought back plunder from the shores of Pera. However EUzabeth might hesitate, the great sea- rovers never feared the might of Spain. At last their depreda tions forced PMhp to take up the gage of battle. War was not declared in 1585 : it broke out of itself. Elizabeth sent Leicester to the Netherlands, and let ' loose Drake on the West Indies, while PMUp slowly gathered up his forces for a mighty blow at England. First however came a counter-blow from ELIZABETH 241 EUzabeth. Popish plots of all sorts and sizes had been simmer ing for eighteen years round Mary Stuart. For many years EUzabeth alone stood between her and death. The BuU of Excommunication commanded every catholic to be a traitor, the permission given to dissemble threw doubt on every pro fession of loyalty, and the mtrigues of the Jesuits after 1580 roused the nation to fury. The assassination plots of 1584 were answered with a burst of loyalty, and a Protestant Associa tion was formed to defend or avenge the Queen. Had she perished Uke WilUam of Orange, the one tMng certain is that the English would have fought as grimly as the Dutch. Further assassuiation plots, culminating in that of Ballard and Babing- ton, brought the arch-plotter to her fate (February 1587). Full royally she died, lea-ving both her crowns to PMhp, and a legend to posterity. But henceforth James VI was heir of England, and therefore on Ms beha-viour, while the cathoUcs had no candidate but the enemy PMUp — ^for he too traced Ms line to John of Gaunt. At last the field was clear ; but it was not till July 1588 that the Armada was able to appear in Enghsh waters. The sea-dogs were waitmg for it. In size of sMps and number of men the Spaniards had the advantage ; but the EngUsh had swifter vessels, heavier guns, and better seamen. The Armada had the worst of the running fight up the Channel, and its dis comfiture was completed by the fire-sMps in Calais Roads and the great sea-fight off Gravelines. They fought with Spanish courage, but the issue was never for a moment doubtful. With shattered hulls and fearful carnage on their crowded decks, the remnant fled northward, to be chased by disease and famine tMough the stormy Shetland seas and down the rocky coast of Ireland; and few there were who safely reached the shores of Spain. The cloud of half a century was hfted. England had feared invasion ever since the breach with Rome : she has never since had good reason to fear it but in the crisis of her struggles -with Louis XIV, Vergennes, and Napoleon. Trae, the power of Spam seemed only to increase upon the continent; and if it registered a failure at the Peace of Vervins (1598), it still showed an imposmg front, and even seemed to revive in the next genera tion, when Spain and Austria together threatened to hold down France and Germany. But as against England, that power 242 CHURCH AND STATE was for ever broken. Then the work of the Reformation ripened by the Peace of EUzabeth came out in the grandest burst of EngUsh history. The great Queen's last years were for England a time of conscious power and aU-conquering energy. They are the times of Hooker and Bacon, of Spenser and Shakespeare. From the blaze of glory wMch illuminates EUzabeth's decUning years we turn back to the unheroic story of the Church. It is poor in great men. Jewel indeed and Hooker may fairly rank with the great leaders cut off by the Persecution; but even Parker was hardly fiist-rate — ^much less WMtgift. But they had to contend with enormous difficulties. The Church came out of the Reformation -with revenues curtailed and authority shaken — ^its very buildings often ruinous -with neglect — cum bered with Marian conformists and unconforming Puritans, demoraUzed by the long unsettlement, hardened and narrowed by continuing controversy, hindered of its natural development by the poUcy and prejudices of the Queen. If she chose the right pohcy, she persisted in it when it had become the wrong pohcy. She did well to withstand Puritamsm in the revolu tionary phase represented by Cartwright and Travers; but in spite of the Marprelate Ubels, most of the discontent of her later years was more moderate, and a very few concessions would have removed the greater part of it. Gracious words from Gloriana would have told on the Puritans as they told on the Commons of England. TMs however was not to be. Just as the right di-vine of fallen emperors had come down to Mngs of nations, so the right di-vine of the CathoUc Church was taken up by the national Churches of the Reformation. The EUzabethan Church was reformed, not new, and took over from the middle ages a good deal of the old conception of the Church, -with discipUne enforced by ex communication, and excommunication by ci-vil penalties. Was it not the office of the magistrate to maintain truth and to punish sinners? So there was still to be one Church and no dissent : only the Nation was to be the Church, and the Church the Nation. Every man was required to attend the services of his parish church, and no other pubhc worship was allowed. Those services were of the right sort, for they were essentiaUy protestant without needless offence to catholics, and for awMle ELIZABETH 243 the grand ideal of a fully national Church seemed to be reaUzed. The Puritans chafed at the surpUce, but it was not till 1567 that some of them began to hold conventicles : the cathoUcs chafed at the EngUsh Communion, but they seldom refused to attend the ser-vices tiU the Pope definitely forbade them by the Bull ; of 1570. From about this time then there is a double secession, very small at first, of CathoUcs and Puritans from the national • church; and the still unfinished development of this secession , is the fact which dominates the history of the next 150 years, till the great settlement marked by the abeyance of Convocation after 1717. The Ecclesiastical Commission appointed in July 1559 began its work in November. It consisted at first of Parker, Grindal and Bill, with eight lawyers and eight other laymen. It held the power of the Crown as supreme Visitor, and was to the Church nearly what the Star Chamber was to the State, for the Queen had no mind to share her Supremacy with Parliament, and always resented its interference in Church affairs after 1559. Like the Star Chamber, the Court of High Commission (fully constituted in 1583) was arbitrary; Uke the Star. Chamber it became generally odious under the Stuarts, and the two Courts were abolished together in 1641. When the new bishops got to work, they found that opposi tion to the new order was by no means limited to the couple of hundred deprived clergy. London indeed was amenable, Cambridge gave no trouble, and in some places a good deal of damage had been done to the churches by zealous destroyers of altars and images. But Oxford was mutinous, and many ejections were needed to secure conformity. Some resolute malcontents like Harding, Allen and Sanders settled at Louvain, and after 1568 at Douai, where they formed a link between the Marian reaction and the Counter-Reformation. Elsewhere it was the same. Scory had trouble -with the Justices of Hereford shire, and the Chapter and the City set him at defiance. Pil- Mngton of Durham had a " fight -with beasts." Best of CarUsle found the county magnates against him, and seditious papers in circulation. It was some time before the gentry of the North and the West ceased to hanker after the old reUgion, though Gondomar was behind the times when he set them down as Papists at heart some fifty years later. The South-west was 244 CHURCH AND STATE converted by the sea-dogs : it was not for notMng that Drake and Ralegh and Greenvile came from Devon and CornwaU. The Act of Uniformity brought the cathoUcs into sore distress by imposing fines on all who failed to attend their parish churches. Most of them did so for awMle, though with a bad grace and often with uneasy conscience. On one side, there was notMng heretical in the daily services; on the other, the fines were at first very loosely enforced. More rigour was used after the conspiracy of the Poles (the Cardinal's nephews) in 1562. This was in itself so insignificant that the Spamsh ambassador did not think it worth encouraging; but it began the long con nexion of Catholicism with treason wMch did so much to decide the nation for Protestantism. MeanwMle the Pope took a long time to make up Ms mind that EUzabeth was entirely reprobate. PhiUp did not want her excommimicated, and held back the old Caraffa till his death in 1559. The next Pope, Pius IV, who closed the Council of Trent, played a double game with Eliza beth, sending the friendly embassies of ParpagUa and Martinengo (which after some fencing she would not receive) and offering to sanction the Prayer Book, wMle at the same time he sent a legate to stir up revolt in Ireland. If neither cathoUc nor protestant was converted from the error of his ways, it was not for want of active controversy. Passing over minor champions hke Nowell and PiUdngton, the coryphseus of the EngUsh Church was Jewel of SaUsbury. Jewel was almost the only great Reformer who came from Oxford, but in leaming he had no superior. His mind was clear and logical, his language weighty and attractive. He had subscribed in the Marian persecution, but fled at once to the continent, and returned to Ms heresy. In Ehzabeth's time Ms sympathies were with the Puritans, but he was too much of a scholar to cherish triffing scmples or encourage disobedience to law. In the Romish Controversy he strack out a new Une. The older Reformers were content to show that the disputed doctrines are contrary to Scripture : Jewel maintained that they are also contrary to the teacMng of the Early Church, In his famous chaUenge at Paul's Cross (November 1559) he enumerated fifteen of these positions, " If any of our adversaries, or any leamed man ahve, can produce a single sentence clearly showing that any one of these positions was approved in the first six cen- ELIZABETH 245 turies, the conclusion is that I shall then be content to beheve and to subscribe," Repeating his chaUenge in the following Lent, he added twelve more similar positions, Sach a chaUenge could not be left unanswered; and after some preliminary con troversies, the di-vines of Louvain put forward Jewel's old friend Thomas Harding, in Edward's time the noisiest of protestants, in Mary's the nimblest of turncoats. He answered with the maUce of the renegade, and scurriUty remarkable even in that scurrilous age — " Ues " (with scores of adjectives), " your stink ing martyrs," and the like in vast variety. Jewel replied with dignity — perhaps the memory of his own fall checked him — and at still greater length; and so the battle went on. But after all, Jewel had not yet got to the bottom of the matter. However effectively the Roman doctrine was refuted, the EngUsh still needed a direct defence : and this he provided in his Apologia Ecclesice Anglicancs, pubhshed in 1562, and translated into Enghsh by Lady Bacon, the Lord Keeper's wife, the mother of Sir Francis, It is an admirable piece of work, short, clear and cogent, and forms the official defence of the English Reforma tion, Our enemies slander us, that we fetch all the old heresies from hell, whereas our doctrine is that of the Gospel, the ancient bishops, and the primitive Church, We are neither sectarians nor antinomians. We have made no changes but such as were necessary, and such as a national Church is competent to make. When these folks talk of unity, they may find it in the Golden Calf or the cry, " Crucify him " ; and when they talk of the Church, they mean themselves, Uke those of old time who said, " The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord," He denounces the abuses of Rome, shows that the Roman doctrines have antiquity against them, and finishes with a defence of the royal supremacy against Pope and Council, Of course tMs led to a controversy, Harding wrote a Confutation, Jewel repUed with a Defence in 1567, and Harding answered again with an enormous Confutation of the Defence. One more work of Jewel ought to be mentioned here. About the time of Martinengo's mission (1561) and later there were negotiations for England to be represented at the Council of Trent, and Jewel's old friend Scipio, an ItaUan gentle man, wrote to him wondering why the English did not come. The answer was the Letter to Scipio. A general council forsooth ! Where are the Greeks? Where are the Germans? Where are 246 CHURCH AND STATE the rest ? In fact, it was nearly aU ItaUans, with a few Spaniards, As for the Pope's in-vitation to the Protestants, it was insincere, for he required them first to recant. Even the Jesuits did not go so far as tMs, for they were wilUng that heretics should be heard, pro-vided no concessions were made to them. But the years of transition were coming to an end, Rome had wavered strangely in the shock of the Reformation, She still had liberal di-vines like Cajetan, and on some points Pole; Paul III (1534-1549) was half incUned to make concessions, and Caraffa Mmself in 1536 put his hand to a report on abuses which Luther might almost have signed along with Mm. The most furious invectives of the Reformers hardly go beyond the facts admitted in the Report of the Cardinals. But the mind of the Church was clear when the Council met at Trent in 1545. There was a considerable reform of abuses, and a great tightening of discipUne; but the old doctrine was codified, stereotyped and underUned against the Protestants; and now that the Jesuits and the Inquisition were ready, the Counter-Reformation was fairly launched. The new Pope in 1566 was the ferocious GMsUeri, the only canonized Pope of modern times. Moloch's sentence was for open war, and fresh attacks on England were directed from Douai, and after 1578 from Rheims. Yet even GhisUeri held back the final blow till EUzabeth's throne seemed shaken by the Northem revolt, the intrigues of Norfolk and Mary, and PMUp provoked to the limit of Ms endurance. Then came the apostohc thunderbolt to complete her overthrow. The Bull Regnans in Excelsis (February 1570) recited that the wicked queen had usurped the crown, made herself head of the English Church, imposed an oath contrary to the Pope's authority, hved as a heretic, encouraged heresy, partook of the atrocious mysteries of Cal-vin, turned out cathoUc bishops to make room for heretics who were not priests, and replaced cathoUc nobles in her Council with low-bom heretics. Therefore in -virtue of his sovereign authority to plant and to pluck up, to build and to destroy, the Pope declared her excommunicate, deposed her from her throne, and absolved her subjects from their oaths to her. The document was posted up on the bishop of London's gate by John Felton, who was executed accordmg to law for Ms treason. The Bull was a bold move, for every court in Europe disapproved ; and it practically wrecked the cause of Catholicism^ ELIZABETH ' 247 in England, The Queen repUed that she would not molest any man for reUgion, or fail of honourable intention towards all her subjects. But the fact remained that henceforth every cathoUc was forbidden to be a loyal subject; and no protestations of loyalty could clear a man who was absolved in advance from his oaths. Small wonder if the nation burned with fierce and enduring anger against the insolent foreigner who had presumed to depose their Queen, or if the Queen herself could not always distinguish reUgion from the treason with which the Pope had so carefully confused it, especially after the dispensation of 1580 allowed recusants to take the Oath of AUegiance with a mental reserve wMch made it fraudulent and useless. In point of fact, the cathoUcs were by no means generally disloyal : but the Pope had put them in a dUemma, and the ' innocent had to suffer with the gmlty. A new series of Penal ' Laws went far beyond the old system of fines irregularly enforced. In 1571 it was made treason to reconcile or be reconciled to Rome, and prcemunire to be in possession of papal wares. Then came Cardinal Allen's great mission of seminary priests in 1580. Their success caused much alarm, and the Jesuits were wise enough to confuse the issue further by sending enthusiasts like Campion, who cared only for religion, along with such dangerous conspirators as Parsons. Campion was taken and executed; Parsons prudently left the country. ParUament repUed in 1581 by maMng it Mghly penal to say mass or to hear mass, and increased the fines to £20 per month. In 1584, in the time of the assassination plots, it was further enacted that priests who refused to take the oath should be banished, and executed as traitors if they retumed to England. Thus there was a constant stream of -victims from Cuthbert Mayne in 1577 to the end of the reign, and an immense amount of hardsMp in addition. It was clear persecution to forbid the mass and to fine simple recusants, and all that can be said for it is that it was much milder than what was doing on the continent — in the Nether lands, or France, or Spain. All the rest was aimed at an active and dangerous gang of poUtical conspirators — for even recon cilement with Rome was not to be had without a treasonable declaration. It was panic legislation, but the panic was kept ahve by never-ceasing Popish plots. The plea that the victims were mostly traitors is as conspicuously trae for EUzabeth as 248 CHURCH AND STATE it is conspicuously false for Mary.. If ever there was some excuse for deplorable mistakes Uke the execution of Campion, it was when the nation was fighting for its life against the bottomless treachery of the CathoUc Revival.^ But persecution even then was wrong ; and it was bad poUcy, for it gave occasion to the enemy to say plausibly in all cases, and truly hi some, that religion was the real offence. ^ As Bishop Bayly says — " Let Jesuits and seminary priests take heed and fear, lest it be not faith, but fiction; not truth, but treason; not religion, but rebellion ; beginning at Tiber and ending at Tybum, which is the cause of their deaths. And because they cannot be suffered ... to raise rebellion, to move invasion, to stab and poison queens, to kill and murder kings, to blow up whole states with gunpowder, they desperately cast their own bodies to be hanged and quartered ; and (their souls saved, it they belong to God) I wish such honour to all his saints that send them." — Practice of Piety, p. 328 — written about 1608, CHAPTER XXII ELIZABETH — III Though Puritanism began with petty quarrels over ceremomal, it would be a great mistake to conclude either that unreasonable scruples were the staple of it, or that they commonly concealed some anarchist plot for the destruction of the Church, The unreason and the anarcMsm were real, but Puritanism was vastly greater than either of them : it was one whole side of the rehgious hfe of England — ^in religion as well as in race there have always been two peoples in England, but with different lines of division, for here the Teutons of the Eastern Counties join hands with the Celts of Wales and Cornwall, One section prefers forms of prayer and priestly ministrations, episcopal govemment and state control : the other leans to prophesyings and more elastic prayer, freer Church govemment and greater independence of the State in common Ufe : one leans to the parish, the other to the congregation. Both tendencies are genuinely EngUsh and genuinely Christian, and it is futile to put the abstract question. Which is the better? Episcopacy in England, Uke Presbyte- rianism in Scotland, was historically necessary, and therefore the power ordained of God, The mediseval Church kept the two sections in one communion, though hardly in unity, and if the Reformed Church has lost the -visible bond, there is no necessary reason why it should not reach a higher spiritual unity. If CathoUcism had the glamour of the past, the Puritans held the promise of the future. They might be as intolerant as Churchmen and rather narrower, at first mistaken and imreason- able, and always too fond of scmples and introspection; still they were the strongest men of their time, second to none in genuine religion and grim determination to maintain it. Austere they were, and there was no poetry in them ; but they were no enemies of art, except of idolatrous emblems, or of pleasure, except of such as in their day ministered to -vice. If CromweU 249 250 CHURCH AND STATE forbade cock-fighting he attended a Cornish wresthng-match. And they held principles of deep and fruitful meaning. In their short day of power they foreshadowed most of the noblest features of modern England— the love of justice and hatred of oppression, daring enterprise and sober sense of duty to the poor as well as to the rich. They made mistakes and fell, and deserved to fall ; yet fallen Puritanism was still the salt of Enghsh Ufe. It was the spirit of Puritanism wMch rebuked the orgies of the Restoration and decided the contest for hberty at the Revolution, the spirit of Puritanism wMch inspired the Methodist and EvangeUcal Re-vivals witMn the Church, and the spirit of Puritanism underhes the struggle to unloose the bands of wickedness and undo the heavy burden which is the glory of our own time. Nor is its influence the less real but the more so if it has reached men who never heard of the Puritans, and men to whom their very name is a word of loatMng and abhorrence. Hooper is commonly reckoned the " Father of Nonconformity." On his appointment to the see of Gloucester in 1550, he demurred to the oath at ordination, " By God, all saints, and the holy evan- geUsts," and also to the episcopal vestments. Edward struck out the offensive words -with his own hand, and they were removed from the Ordinal in 1552. The " Aaronic " vestments were a more serious matter. Cranmer and Ridley, Bucer and Peter Martyr were all clear against his scruples ; but a short imprison ment was needed before he agreed to be consecrated according to law. Thus the Puritans could quote him as ha-ving scrupled, the Churchmen as having conformed. The next outbreak was during the Marian Persecution. The exiles of England who gathered at Strassburg, Frankfort, Ziirich and Geneva brought with them the Prayer Book of 1552, to which Cal-vin Mmself objected nothing worse than tolerabiles inep)tias. But the bitterness of exile told on them, and a party under Knox wanted to get rid of the empty ceremonies at once. Edward's old tutor Cox opposed this at Frankfort, and there was a sharp contest in wMch Knox had the worst of it, and was driven away to Geneva. One of the first facts that emerged from the general disorder of Ehzabeth's first years was that many of the clergy disliked certain ceremonies of the Prayer Book — kneehng at communion. ELIZABETH 251 the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, and specially the surpUce — ^for there is no sign that any one supposed the chasuble to be legal after 1559. If Parker was hearty for the ceremonies, he stood almost alone among the bishops, though he had the Queen beMnd Mm ; and she gave Mm ungracious though effec tive support. The rest varied. Jewel enforced the law simply as a matter of duty, Grindal and Parkhurst did as Uttle as they could, and such leaders as Coverdale, Foxe and Lever refused to obey it. In this first stage of Puritanism, the objection was that they were " rags of Popery," as if a church could not be pure without aboUshing every ceremony the Papists had used. By the time Parliament met, early in 1563, and Convocation with it, there was a further Ust of grievances — holy days, sponsors, and baptism by women among them. Convocation was vastly changed since it last met with Bonner in the chair. All the bishops were new, for Kitchin was absent, and sometMng like two-thirds of the Lower House were new also. First the Articles were reduced to TMrty-nine and ratified : but when they ap peared in print, the Article of the Wicked wMch do not eat (Art. xxix) was omitted, and the first clause of Art. xx (of the i ower of the Church to decree rites and ceremonies, and its authority in controversies of faith) had been added, presumably by the Queen. The missing Article was restored in 1571. Then came the Puritan petition — to abolish kneehng at communion, organs, crossing in baptism, holy days except the principal feasts of Christ; but the surplice was not attacked. It was carried by 43 votes to 35 ; but when the proxies were counted, it was re jected by 59 to 58. If the old Marians voted against it, the Puritans must have had a large majority in the rest of the House. After this check, the malcontents began to take the new ground, that ceremonies are unlawful unless they are expressly commanded in Scripture. Here we see the beginning of a controversy wMch was taken up by the Deists, and is stiU going on. The Reformers had made too great advances on the middle ages. They had set up Scripture as the supreme authority, so that the church may not ordain anji;hing contrary to it ; and they had settled that its meaning is a question of scholarsMp, and not of tradition. But they never analysed the nature of its authority, or asked precisely , in what sense it is the word of God. They took over the old CathoUc assumption that there must be some infallible authority. 252 CHURCH AND STATE but they found it in Scripture instead of the Church. In other words, they took the old authority of the Church, and transferred it -without more ado to the Bible. When once the meaning of a text had been determined by the best scholarsMp of the time, it was as mechanically infaUible as a canon of a council. The Bible was the Bible : Leviticus was as authoritative as Isaiah, Proverbs as St. John. The Puritans went a step further in the direction of the sortes sanctorum. They took for granted that Scripture contains not only every doctrine that is necessary, but every ceremony that is la-wful, so that for example, it would not be right to wear the surpUce, if no command for it could be found in Scripture. The leaders of the opposition were Oxford men — Humphrey, President of Magdalen, and Sampson, Dean of Christ Church. The Council let them off with a reprimand, but Parker deprived them. Then he issued the Advertisements of 1566, requiring the clergy to wear a surplice in church, a gown, square cap and tippet out of doors. That the Advertisements had the Queen's practical sanction is unquestionable : whether they had her formal autho rity is a further question. So Grindal said, and he cannot well have been mistaken, especiaUy as Ms sympathies were all the other way. When Parker and he summoned the London clergy before them at Lambeth, tMrty-seven out of nearly a hundred refused to conform, and were deprived. A war of pampMets followed, in wMch the malcontents got no support from their friends at Ziirich and Geneva. BulUnger and Beza were them selves against the surpUce ; but they sent word that it was mere wilfulness to lay down their office on that account. Some poor people of the extremer sort — ^more women than men — deter mined to have services of their o-wn heart, as they had in Mary's time; and the first recorded conventicle was held at Plumbers' Hall in 1567. It was suppressed, and we hear very Uttle of others for some time. The Puritans were generally churchmen, even if discontented churchmen : but a beginnmg had been made of protestant nonconformity. The cathoUcs began to follow suit after 1570. The next move — a third phase of Puritanism — ^was to discover that Episcopacy is not commanded in Scripture, and is therefore unlawful, imless indeed " the Holy Spirit had remembered the basons, and forgotten the archbishops." If Scripture is a com- ELIZABETH 253 plete guide, it must prescribe some form of Church government ; and this was found to be " a parity of ministers," or Presbyte- rianism. Geneva joined hands with Rome in claiming a di-vine right, the one for presbyters, the other for bishops, so they were in principle equally opposed to the English Reformers, who held that Church govemment is a matter which every particular or national Church may determine for itself. Yet these extreme Puritans were not so far disloyal to the Church. They con templated reform, not separation, and reform within the admitted competence of a Church where as yet nobody claimed a di-vine right for bishops. Yet the reform would have been something Uke a revolution in the State as well as in the Church, for all ministers were to be made equal, all to be chosen by the people, all to serve a cure. This was the system advocated as of divine obUgation by Thomas Cartwright, Lady Margaret Reader at Cambridge in 1569 — a scholar, a preacher, a man of blameless character, zealous for Puritanism in its hardest and narrowest form. As the younger men of 1559 were Protestants, so the younger men of 1569 were Puritans, and Cart-wright had a large following. Against him stood John Whitgift, Master of Trinity, and Vice Chancellor in 1570. Whitgift also was a scholar of high character, and zealous for the Church. His life was truly summed up in his last words, Pro ecclesia Dei. Calvin's doctrine he accepted as heartily as any Puritan; but Cal-vin's discipline was another matter. As an administrator he ranks Mgh ; hardly as a states man. He could see nothing in Puritanism but the scruples of a very few unreasonable persons, and never miderstood the hold it had on the nation, so that his pohcy was to crash it out. He began by depriving Cartwright of his chair and inhibiting him from the pulpit. Parliament met at a critical time in April 1571. The Bull was fresh, plots were seething round Mary Stuart, and the Puritans were not discouraged by their faUure in 1563. First, as we have seen, came new laws against the recusants, and an attempt (which happily failed) to make the Communion a test. Then came the Puritans, StricMand presented a biU For the Reforma tion of the Book of Common Prayer, which was promptly stopped by the Queen, Nor would she allow ParUament formaUy to ratify the Articles of 1563, though they made subscription 254 CHURCH AND STATE compulsory on all Marian priests, and on aU persons hereafter admitted to benefices. This subscription however was not to aU the Articles, but to those " which only concem the confession of the tme Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments " — not to those on Church government. Meanwhile Convocation took up the case of Cheyney of Gloucester, the only bishop of his time who held a Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper,^ though they allowed him to escape lightly. Then they ratified the Articles, including the omitted Art. xxix and the interpolated first clause of Art. xx. This became their permanent form, practically superseding the Articles of 1563 enjoined by statute, and in this form subscription has always been required. As some sort of Canon Law was needed, and the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum pleased no party, a set of canons was drawn up. The Queen however refused her assent, and let the bishops enforce them -without statutory authority — a reasonable grievance for the Puritans, The crjdng scandal of the time was the ignorance of the clergy, and the low vices naturally connected with it. The Marian priests and the sur-vivors of the monks are not hkely to have been more leamed than in Hooper's day ; and the wholesale employment of readers had not helped to raise the standard. Few could preach the long sermons of those days, and fewer still were licensed to preach, for men of learning were apt to be Puritans. The Injunc tions of 1559 required a sermon every quarter from licensed preachers; others were to read a Homily every Sunday, or if there was no sermon, to teach from the Pulpit the Lord's Prayer, the Creeds, and the Ten Commandments ; and they were to set up the Bible and the Paraphrases of Erasmus, and exhort aU persons to read them. Further, they were not to haunt taverns or alehouses, or " give themselves to drinMng or riot, spending their time idly by day and by night at dice, cards, or tables playing," but hear or read somewhat of Holy Scripture, or occupy themselves with some other honest study or exercise. The Advertisements of 1566 repeat the demand for a quarterly sermon, and expressly forbid the unUcensed clergy to do anytMng at all in the way of preacMng or expounding, ^ He objected to the clause of Art, xxviii : " The Body of Christ is given, .taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner," which directly contradicts (and must have been meant to con tradict) the Lutheran doctrine as well as the Romish, ELIZABETH 255 If the " dumb dogs " were a scandal to the bishops, they were a greater scandal to the Puritans, who set a higher value on preach ing, and the quieter sort of them were much more anxious to have a preaching clergy than to get rid of bishops, ^imong other endeavours to that end, they organized " prophesjdngs," or clerical meetings for the study of Scripture, Their Puritan char acter was marked by the confession which their members signed. This repudiated the Pope, made Scripture (summed up in the Apostles' Creed) the rule of faith, condemned ceremonies brought in without the authority of the Bible, distinctions of meats, days, and apparel, and " the order of papistry which they call the hierarchy," In 1572 the full Puritan plan was set forth in the Admonition to Parliament, by Field and Wilcox, two disciples of Cartwright, They wanted patronage and impropriation aboUshed, a learned minister in every parish, to be chosen by the congregation, not ordained by the bishop, and to be assisted by elders. Lay baptism and wafer-bread to be aboUshed, and the order to kneel at recep tion. Excommunication to be restored to its former force, but Papists and others not compelled to communicate. Generally, nothing to be done without express warrant of Scripture. Set off as it was -with a good deal of vigorous abuse, the book made a great sensation, and Whitgift wrote a long reply. So the con troversy went on ; and meanwhile the bishops went on depriving ministers for nonconformity. There was little change now for several years. When Parker died in 1575, wom out with vexatious Puritans and an ungracious Queen, who could not even pay him a visit without an insult to his wife, she chose Grindal for his successor. The new primate was one of the Marian exiles, had been bishop of London (1560-1570), and was now translated from York to Canterbury. His appointment must be ascribed to some passing turn of pohcy, for he not only had Puritan leanings like Jewel and others, but had shown himself slow and unwilling to enforce the law. He was soon in trouble over the Prophesyings, Even Parker had looked on them with some suspicion, and EUzabeth determined on their peremptory suppression, and on a general dis couragement of preacMng, Grindal was wilUng to have them super-vised and kept out of politics ; but the Queen insisted on their complete aboUtion, Grindal was suspended (June 1577) for 256 CHURCH AND STATE disobedience, though he was allowed to continue purely spiritual functions. He made a sort of submission in 1582; but by that time his health was faiUng, and he died next year. The Queen had shown her power and done serious harm to the Church, though the prophesjdngs were not entirely suppressed. They were to some extent continued under other names or by underground methods. Meanwhile the rift was widening. The Reformers were no Sabbatarians, My duty to God, according to the Catechism, is not to keep Sunday, but " to serve Him truly all the days of my life." Yet they rightly felt that Sunday should not be Uke the old holy days, on wMch the Church required a man to hear mass, and to be idle for the afternoon of the VigU and the whole of the holy day, but left him free to be idle in what manner he pleased. So they made it a day for worsMp establisMng Mormng and Evening Prayer and requiring all persons to attend, but stiU lea-ving them to their own discretion for the rest of the day, TMs however was not enough for the Puritans, They went to the Bible, identified Sunday with the Sabbath, and observed it with Judaic strictness. The other side naturally leaned to laxity, returmng very much to the mediseval -view, that when once the services were over, Sunday was just Uke any other holy day ; so their sports, and games were a perpetual scandal to the Puritans, In truth, both parties were attempting the impossible task of sol-ving the Sunday Question by law. Conventicles began in 1567 ; separation a dozen years later. Robert Browne was a kmsman of Cecil, who more than once deUvered Mm from the troubles brought on him by his restless disobedience, Browne's motto was Reformation without tarry ing for any, Presbyterian ordination was just as bad as episcopal, and every congregation must be independent and self -governed. Hence the Brownists of EUzabeth's time were called Independents in the next generation. After some ineffectual attempts to set up congregations in England, they migrated in a body to Middel- burg (1581), There they quarreUed, first with the Puritan colony under Cartwright, then among themselves, Browne Mmself retumed to England, and (after a good many more troubles) ended his days as a country rector in 1631. But the Brownists '. became a sect, strongest in the Eastern Counties ; and as their doctrine of the independence of congregations involved a denial ELIZABETH 257 of the Royal Supremacy, they were Uable to punishment as ' traitors. Coppki and Thacker were the first victims, hanged in June 1583. Henceforth there were Protestant martyrs to balance the Romish, almost as in the days of the Six Articles. Yet few of them were really martyrs, for Brownists were by law as much traitors as Jesuits, and quite as defiant, so that we need not be surprised if the Government considered them almost as dangerous. Elizabeth made no second mistake when the primacy fell vacant in 1583. Whitgift was a man after her own heart — her Uttle black husband, as she called him — and she could heartily support him, for he entered on his office in the full determination to root out Puritanism. His first step was to issue stringent Articles. PreacMng, reading, catecMzing, and other such-like exercises in private houses to be forbidden as a manifest sign of schism. Preachers to say service at least four times a year. No laymen to preach. None to officiate without subscribing before the Ordmary three Articles of assent to the royal supremacy, the use of the Common Prayer, and the doctrine of the Thirty- nine Articles. It was about time, for the Puritans of the Eastern Counties had lately been organizing an imperium in imperio. There was to be a classis in every parish, with its churchwardens and collectors turned into elders and deacons, and a regular gradation of district and county assembUes leading up to a national assembly side by side with Parhament. These courts were to exercise discipUne and call ministers, ordination by bishops being tolerated only as a formaUty required by law. There was plainly sometMng wrong with the Church, if serious and earnest men could try to carry out such a disloyal scheme as tMs : but Whitgift and Ehzabeth never thought of curing the evil — only of suppressing its outward symptoms. The next step (December 1583) was to get the Court of High Commission reorganized and armed with the whole authority of the Crown for maintaimng Church discipUne generaUy, and in par ticular for the suppression of Puritanism. The Court was estab Ushed by the Act of Supremacy, but its procedure was not on the usual lines of Enghsh law. In particular, it compeUed a man against whom there was no charge to answer on oath questions asked by the commissioners in virtue of their office (the ex officio oath) even when he could not do so -without criminating himself. This was a retum to a practice of the canon law, contrary to the s 258 CHURCH AND STATE whole trend of EngUsh jurispradence. A great outcry arose; but Whitgift went Ms way unmoved. Protests from the Eastem Counties and from Kentish gentry went for nothing; and as for the lawyers who objected to the ex officio oath, WMtgift brashed them aside as too ignorant to be worth attention. Sure of the Queen, he could override even the Council, though Cecil (Lord Burghley smce 1571) complamed that Ms methods showed scant charity, and savoured too much of the Romish Inquisition. WMtgift could not understand the layman's point of view, and went on steadUy, deprivmg and imprisoning Puritan ministers. After the pulpit, the press had to be regulated. The Injunctions of 1559 had forbidden the pubUcation of books without Ucence, and this poUcy had done ser-vice against the Romanists : it was now to be tried on the Puritans. After some preUminaries, aU presses were suppressed in 1586 except in London and one at each Umversity ; and good care waf4 taken that these should print none but Ucensed books. Puritanism was not suppressed : it was only driven to secret methods and greater -violence. The classes were set up quietly in counties where the Puritans were strongest, and unUcensed books issued from secret presses. The most famous of these were the Martin Marprelate tracts which came out in the winter of 1588 and the next year or two. Martin himself is a mystery hke Junius ; but if John Penry was not Martin, he was at any rate Martin's chief helper. Penry (ap Henry) was a Welshman from the neighbourhood of Llangammarch, bom in 1559, and a gradu ate of Cambridge, where he leamed extreme Puritan opinions. Welshman though he was, Ms sympatMes were no more national than those of Giraldus Cambrensis; but his indignation was moved by the low spiritual condition of Wales, where the people were given to idolatrous behefs in fairies and magics, holy wells, watchings in churches and desert places, and Romish superstitions, and their pastors wete often ignorant or non-resident, for the Church in Wales shared the backward state of the country. They had the Prayer Book and New Testament as early as 1567 in Welsh, but there was no Old Testament twenty years later, when Penry laid before ParUament Ms Treatise . . . that some order may be taken for the preaching of the Gospel among those people. Its only result was an appearance before the High Com mission, and a short imprisonment. In the autumn of 1588 ELIZABETH 259 came out The Epistle, in answer to the ponderous work of Dean Bridges, and the rest of the Marprelate tracts rapidly followed. There was nothmg new in their arguments, and their fame, Uke that of Junius, was due rather to the caustic wit and brilhant satire of real scandals, and still more to the outrageous Ucence of the anonjonous Ubeller. WMtgift's whole Ufe was traduced, and similar measure was dealt to Cooper of Winchester, who ventured a reply, to BidUngham of Gloucester, Overton of Lich field and (for good reason) to Middleton of St. Da-vid's. But Martin's hottest anger was reserved for Aylmer of London. Aylmer had been tutor to Lady Jane Grey, and a brave defender of the Reformation in the early days of Mary. He was counted great among the Exiles, and reached the see of London in 1577 ; but in his old age he was covetous and ill-tempered, and a zealous persecutor of Puritans. Not for nothing Martin honoured him with special hatred, and heaped up scandals true and false against " dumb John of London." One charge confessedly trae was that he played bowls on the Sabbath ; but there was no lack of more serious matter. The tracts caused a great excitement, and the authorities could never capture Martin. His press wandered from East Moulsey to Northampton, and thence to various places till it was seized (August 1589) at Manchester. Penry escaped to Scotland for the next two or three years. Returning to England, he was arrested in 1593 and charged with treason, not for compUcity in the Marprelate tracts, but for certain notes found in Ms study, wMch he protested were " confused, unfinished, and unpubUshed," and not even self consistent. They sufficed for Ms con-viction. In prison with Penry, and hanged a little earUer, were Barrow and Greenwood, also charged with seditious writings. They commonly pass for Brownists, though Barrow was more Uke the ordmary Puritan, who might form conventicles, but desired rather a drastic reform of the Church than separation from it. In Barrow's case a dissolute youth was interrupted by a sudden conversion — ^to extreme Puritamsm, as was natural in that age — followed by Brownist influences. He was arrested in 1586 without a warrant, at the mere wish of the primate. He was brutally bullied by Whitgift after his refusal of the ex officio oath, for demandmg his lawful right, that the -witnesses against him should be sworn. He seems to have been kept in prison 260 CHUECH AND STATE without trial till 1593, when he was convicted along with Green wood under the statute of 1581. They were taken to Tyburn with ropes round their necks as if for execution, but they were not hanged till a week later. The defeat of the Armada was followed by a change in the temper of ParUament. For thirty years the Commons had leaned to Puritanism, and would have reformed the Church in a Puritan direction, if they had not been more than once peremptorily stopped by the Queen. She had no mind to share -with ParUa ment the supremacy wMch ParUament had given her. In 1571 she defeated Strickland's BiU for Eeformation of the Book of Common Prayer by keepmg Mm for some days from attending the House, and m 1576 Peter Wentworth was sinularly dealt with. In 1572, and again in 1-581 and 1587, she forbade the Commons to meddle with reUgion, and on the last occasion she sent Peter Wentworth to the Tower for protesting against such a breach of pri-vilege. But by 1593 the temper of the House was changed. The death penalty enacted in 1581 was aboUshed for Puritans; but those who denied the royal supremacy, absented themselves from church, or attended conventicles, were to be imprisoned three months, and then (if not Papists) to conform or to abjure the realm, and to be hanged if they retumed. So the extreme men were mostly driven oversea, forming congregations of their own in Middelburg, Leiden and Amsterdam — ^for in the United Pro-vmces there was toleration for all. The more moderate remained behind. If the Puritan ideal was given from heaven, it was not necessarily their duty to reaUze it at all costs in an e-vil world. They might conform with a bad grace, but they mostly did conform. They were a party mside the Church, not a gang of anarchists bent on its destraction ; and they did more than their share of its best work, for the simple reason that the time-servers and most of the lukewarm were on the other side. The Act of 1593 completes the Penal Code of EUzabeth. It was not carried out with the systematic thoroughness of modem times — no law ever was by the weak executive of that age — ^but so far as the law could do it, nonconformity was thoroughly stamped out in England. Whitgift's task was done, and he could turn to other work. Calvm's influence was Mtherto supreme. Even those who rejected Ms discipUne spoke of Mm with deep respect, and zealously defended Ms doctrine. On Predestination ELIZABETH 261 the Eeformers were all Cal-vinists, though some true instinct prevented them from making their personal behef the official doctrine of the Church. Calvinism was no more than the general opinion ; but general it was. Now however a rift was forming ; and it fitly began at Cambridge. The Eegius Professor Whitaker (1580-1596) was a stalwart Calvinist, and so was Laurence Chaderton, first Master of Emmanuel (1584-1622); the Lady Margaret Eeader (1574-1596) was Peter Baro, a Frenchman ordained by Calvin's hands, but not sound on Cal-vin's doctrine. The question was raised by a short controversy with Chaderton in 1581, and then it rested till 1595, when WiUiam Barret preached a Concio ad Clerum for Ms B.D, degree, in wMch he denied the doctrines of assurance and indefectible grace, and handled Calvin rudely. To stay the controversy, Whitgift adopted nine Articles drawn up by WMtaker, and stating clear Calvinistic doctrine, Baro did not refuse them, but Ms explanations of them dis pleased the Calvinists, and though he was supported by rising men Uke Overall and Andrewes, he did not venture to stand for re-election — ^the Lady Margaret was then biennial — in 1596, MeanwMle the Queen took offence at WMtgift for issuing these Lambeth Articles on his o-wn authority, and they were allowed to drop. As well they were, for they are the one great exception to the general moderation of the EngUsh formularies. They were included in the Irish Articles of 1615, but they have never had any authority in England. The Lambeth Articles mark the extreme wave of Cal-vimsm : we shall soon find a more general reaction than Baro's from the behefs of the Reformers. The only political change of first-rate importance m the last period of EUzabeth's reign was the conversion of Henry IV in 1594, wMch led to the close of the ci-vU wars in France and enabled her to resume her natural position in Europe. Spain was beaten, but she hardly seemed beaten. She kept up the struggle in the Netherlands tiU 1609, and even then only made a truce. So too the war with England went on till 1604 on fairly equal terms. The expedition to Lisbon in 1589 and Drake's attack on Puerto Rico m 1595 were complete failures, and the Last Fight of the Revenge in 1598 was a glorious disaster. The*Spaniards burned Penzance in 1595, but their intervention' in' Ireland in 1601 was a failure. Peace was made at last in. 1604 rather]^becaus^ James I wanted peace than for any very evident poUtical reason. 262 CHURCH AND STATE " One generation passeth away, and another generation Cometh." Leicester and Mildmay and Walsingham died between 1588 and 1590. Aylmer and Scambler, the last of the Marian exiles, followed in 1594, Burghley Mmself in 1598, and in the same year PMUp II. It was hard to remember that he had once been King of England. The Queen remained, sole survivor of a vanished past, a grand figure in her haughty loneUness. Loyalty in England never thrilled Mgher than round tHe glorious Queen who had beaten down the pride of Spain. But EUzabeth was still the same, and still pursued the unheroic policy of crooked moderation which had served her so well in the past. She knew not the greatness of the work she had done. A new England of the sons and grandsons of her old companions had grown up around her ; and -with that England she had no sympathy. With all her tact — never more splendidly shown than in her last ParUa ment, she could not see that the Tudor dictatorship had done its work, and would have to pass away. She could not understand the rising spirit of resistence to arbitrary govemment, or the grow ing discontent at her narrow Church pohcy. The great Queen might ignore for awhile the powers of the future, but when the tactless Stuarts went on to suppress them, they had to be arrested by a revolution. A generation had now passed since the settlement of 1559. The Romish Controversy was nearly exhausted, the Puritan well worked over, and it was becoming possible to look back on the Reformation and survey some of the deeper questions it had raised. One sign of the times was a man who could Uft contro versy to a Mgher level. Richard Hooker (c. 1554-1600) was a Devonshire man, like his patron Jewel, and had a distinguished career at Oxford. In 1585 he became Master of the Temple, and came into collision with the afternoon reader, Walter Travers, and there was a brisk fire of controversial sermons till Whitgift removed Travers from Ms office, on the ground that he had only foreign ordination. WMtgift's action was a stretch of authority; but it was probably not illegal. In our own time a man ordained by a colonial bishop is without question spiritually competent to hold an EngUsh Uving ; but by the Colonial Clergy Art of 1874 no bishop can institute him without the archbishop's permission. Conversely, if Whitgift refused to let Travers hold office, it does not follow that any one doubted the vaUdity of his orders in the ELIZABETH 263 Church of England. Travers was an ordinary Puritan like Cart wright, and Uke him, a man of high character : but Hooker was something more than an ordinary churchman, and soon asked for a country Uving, that he might have leisure to study the question more fuUy. The result of Ms study was the Ecclesiastical Polity, of wMch four books came out in 1594, and a fifth in 1597. Three more pubUshed after Ms death were tampered with, and cannot safely be used as a true expression of his opinions. The Puritan position of the school of Cartwright was that Scripture is the only rale of conduct, and therefore a complete rule, prescribing a single form of church govemment and worship ordained of God, so that all others are everywhere and always imlawful. Hooker replies that Scripture makes no such claim, but is mamfestly an incomplete rule, for it rests on a basis of reason and natural law, and must be read in their Ught. Law is indeed divine; but it need not be everywhere and always the same law. Even a divine law is not always immutable. He expressly denies that Scripture lays down any particular form of polity as binding on aU Churches. Cal-vin did well at Geneva, but it does not follow that we must bring the Geneva discipline into England. Each Church must do what it tMnks fit and con venient for itself, and not put it peremptorily in high command ing form as everlastingly required by the Lord of Hosts. It must be guided by pubhc reason, -with due deference to the judg ment of grave and learned men. Authority is not to be despised, though we are not tied to it when there is reason to the contrary. The fifth book, about equal in length to the sum of the other four, is a detailed discussion on these principles of the order and ceremomes of the Church of England, and shows that there is no valid objection to them if they are not expressly commanded in Scripture, or if they have been misused by the Church of Rome. Thus the discipUne of Geneva is modem and local, whereas Epis copacy dates back to apostoUc times and is universal, so that for us it is a trae expression of the divine order. No man m the Church of England speaks with greater weight than "the judicious Hooker." He stood further than Jewel from the immediate needs of the controversy with Rome, and the argument of the Puritans compelled Mm to take a -wider view of principles, and to -vindicate the authority of reason and natural law beyond the needs of the Reformers. If Jewel is the Apologist 264 CHURCH AND STATE of the Reformation, Hooker is the Apologist of the Church of England, But some were not content to follow Hooker and Whitgift, If Cartwright and Travers maintained the di-vine obUgation of presbyteriamsm, they were not satisfied with the answer, that wMle no particular Church poUty is of di-vine obUgation, the arguments of expediency and antiquity are decisive against the aboUtion of episcopacy in England, Was it not better to turn the tables on a troublesome opponent by maintaining the divine obUgation of episcopacy ? This was a new position, not held by the Reformers ^ or very consistent with the Articles, the Ordinal, or the practice of the Church, It seems first to have been taken in a Paul's Cross sermon (Febraary 9, 1589) by Dr, Richard Bancroft, the future bishop of London and primate. When the shock of novelty was overcome, the new doctrine rapidly gamed ground as a short and easy method with the Puritans. It was approached from tMs side, not as a retum to medisevaUsm, for Bancroft was a predestinarian Uke WMtgift, and Laud Mm self was no traitor to Protestantism. But such a doctrine cannot be merely speculative, for a thmg that is of divine obUgation must colour the whole field of reUgion; and as episcopacy is more easily defended from the Fathers than by Scripture, the Carolines were led to form a new estimate of the poUty of the Early Church as of divine obhgation for all ages. TMs, rather than their general (not universal) abandonment of Predestination, is the mark which more than any other distinguishes the CaroUnes from the Re formers. They never doubted the supremacy of Scripture ; but they read it too much in terms of Tradition. 1 Thus Cranmer : " A bishop may make a priest by the Scriptures, and so may princes and governors also, and that by the authority of Grod committed to them, and the people alsp by their election." — Answer to King Henry VIII. CHAPTER XXIII JAMES I On Queen EUzabeth's death the heir of England was Lord Beauchamp, a nephew of Lady Jane Grey and a grandson of Protector Somerset. So ran the WUl of Henry VIII, wMch had the force of law and was confirmed by EUzabeth's first Parha ment. He was passed over as personally insignificant and of uncertain legitimacy ; nor was ArabeUa Stuart, a niece of Damley, seriously considered — stiU less the Infanta IsabeUa — except by Popish or other plotters. James of Scotland succeeded by no lawful right, but by general consent ; and with him begins a series of foreign sovereigns unbroken, save by Mary and Anne, till George III. For it must be emphasized, that the Stuart kings and pretenders were as un-Enghsh as the early Hanoverians. The grandsons of James were more French than Enghsh, and the Young Pretender took after his PoUsh ancestor, the hero Sobieski. And they all had Romish Queens. Anne of Denmark indeed was a trifler, Catharine of Braganza and Mary of Modena were poUtic- ally harmless; but Henrietta Maria was a deadly miscMef, and they all helped to mark the foreign character of the Stuarts. Scotland was still a foreign country, separated from England by many jealousies ; and even the rehgion wMch had brought the two countries together now threatened to become a fresh differ ence between them. Still they now had one Mng— a Scots kmg peaceably received in England, not an Enghsh kmg imposed by war on Scotland. Britain was an island now, with its last land frontier obUterated. There could be no more border wars, no more using of Scotland for French poUtical purposes. James Mmself strove for a closer imion, with " one worsMp of God, one kingdom entirely governed, one uniformity of law." TMs was aiming at a great deal too much ; and there was sound reason as well as an unworthy jealousy in the Enghsh Parhament's refusal to foUow him. Unity of govemment had to wait for 265 266 CHURCH AND STATE another century, and Scotland even now shows no disposition to part with her presbyterian Kirk and Roman law. James had a great opportunity. The Tudor car was dri-ving hea-vily. The great Queen's imperious will might force it on ward, her tact might smooth the obstacles and the glory of her reign obscure them; but the country was becoming restive for want of a little more Uberty in Church and State. The new nobles and the middle class had gro-wn strong in peace and war, they had tried their strength on the MonopoUes (1601), and now they were looMng for something more worthy of free men than the royal tutelage to wMch their fathers had submitted m times when a dictatorsMp was needed to protect the country from civil war and foreign invasion. They were no revolutiomsts. They would have been satisfied -with a more sympathetic admimstra- tion. The Commons of England only took foreign affairs in hand when they were forced to do so by the mcompetence of James and BucMngham, and assailed the King's prerogative only when it was flaunted in their faces to the utter destraction of old Uberties wMch Henry VIII himself had never chaUenged. Nor were they at bottom more hostile to the Church than to the monarchy. Puritan demands were moderate in 1604 ; and when passion rose much Mgher in 1641, episcopacy was not overthrown till the Scotch alhance of 1643 made its aboUtion a miUtary neces sity. The key of the Ci-vil War is that the quarrel of the nation was not with Monarchy, but with Charles ; not with the Church, but -with Laud. What they called for was not a new system of govemment but a new spirit of administration : the Stuarts brought only a new theory — for in England it was practically new. It meant first of all Monarchy — ^that by di-vine command every state must be mled by a king. Secondly, it meant Legitimism — that the next heir has a divme and mdefeasible right to be king : no lapse of time can bar his claim, and he cannot himself renounce it. Again, it meant Absolutism — ^that the King has a divme right to govern as he thinks fit, and is accountable to no man. Parliaments and laws are of his grace, and do not Umit him. It impUes also Passive Obedience — ^that however tjrrannically he may use his power, resistance to him is always sinful. TMs was not a theory the Tudors could well take up. Monarchy indeed was unquestioned, and legitimism had won a triumph with the House of York ; but JAMES I 267 it hardly favoured the Tudors, and in Elizabeth's time it pointed to Mary Stuart. In 1571 it was actually made treason to defend legitimism by denjdng that Parhament may change the succes sion. Again, though the Tudors ruled very much as they pleased they never denied that Parliament was a very real check upon them. Yet further, though Tyndale and the Reformers had preached almost unUmited obedience, EUzabeth could hardly preach non-resistance after helping the rebels in Scotland and the Netherlands. The theory had grown up on the continent around the Holy Roman Empire, and James took kmdly to it. We can see its attraction for a hard-pressed King of Scots, whom it Ufted to heights divine above turbulent nobles and a domineering Kirk : but how came it to find in England, not merely a cUque of courtiers but a party in the country ? In the first place, it never had much of a party except in the frenzy of the Restoration ; and even then the vehemence with which it was asserted suggests an element of make-believe. Men Uke Sir Edmund Vemey fought for the King without caring much for theories ; but those who wanted a theory were Ukely in that age to put it into a theological form. Again, the memories of Lancastrian constitutionaUsm had been blurred by a century of strong govemment, so that the theory seemed only to provide a divine sanction for the actual state of things. Further, the Reformation had asserted the di-vine right of kings to be at least mdependent of the Pope ; and it had given prosperity to England, whereas France had been deluged with blood by the Romish theories that a disobedient Mng may be deposed by the Pope, a heretical Mng by a cathohc people, and the Scots were not beMnd in calling on the people to depose an idolatrous Queen. These doctrines meant ci-vil war and anarchy, and the natural reaction was to maintain the King's divine right to be independent of both Pope and people. Thus the theory had a real connexion with the Tudor system and the EngUsh Reformation, and might be attractive to a loyal people and Erastian church. It was but an apotheosis of the power which held the State together. True, it contradicted the indi-viduahsm wMch is the essential principle of the Reformation : but time was needed to make the contradiction clear : for a long wMle the opposition was on behalf of civil Uberty. Both Papists and Puritans looked to James for better treatment than EUzabeth had given them. Romanism was stiU a power — 268 CHURCH AND STATE no man could say how great a power — ^in both parts of Britain. The Reformation was not yet so firmly settled but that many would have welcomed or at least accepted a restoration of the old reUgion. On the continent Rome had beeU the winning side ever smce the rising of the Council of Trent in 1563. If Protes tantism had maintained itself in Britain and the United Provmces it had but a precarious toleration in France, and had lost ground everywhere else. So James had held out hopes to the Roman ists; and if he could not be induced to follow the example of Henry IV, he might at least be expected to mitigate the penal laws. There was indeed a fair opening for toleration, or at least for moderation, because the Romanists were deeply di-vided. The Marian Persecution was not the work of the Counter-Reformation, for the Jesuits had not yet reached England. It belonged to the older Cathohcism, and so did the early recusants of Ehzabeth's time. They were mostly loyal men, whose utmost wish was that the Queen would tolerate their own worsMp ; or failing this, that the Pope would at any rate connive at their attendance on the Enghsh services. But the Pope not only forbade it, but deposed the Queen and absolved them from their allegiance. This put them in a cruel dilemma, for the Government could not be sure now of any one. Still the better sort of them were loyal in spite of the Pope, and proved their loyalty in the face of the Armada. Had these been all, the penal laws might safely have been left unexecuted. But after 1580 the semmary priests brought in a new sort of CathoUcism — ^the CathoUcism of the Counter-Reforma tion and the Jesuits, wMch generaUy contained more sedition than rehgion. Men Uke Parsons and Allen and Sanders were much more anxious to stir up rebelUon than to minister to the spiritual needs of the recusants. On one side then was a body of loyal men who deserved every consideration, on the other a gang of plotters whom no govemment could spare. But how to distmguish between them? A strong modem govemment would punish treason and specially dangerous in citements to treason, and ignore everjrthing else. But tMs was beyond the conceptions of a weak sixteenth-century Executive. To do the Govemment justice, they did try to make a distinction ; but mstead of drawing the Une at overt acts, they retamed (m theory — the practice varied) the system of fining all recusants JAMES I 269 as much as £20 per month, and imposed severer penalties on certam classes of recusants — ^priests, especially those who went abroad to be ordained, or those who refused to take the oath of supremacy or to disavow the Pope's claim to depose princes and to absolve from oaths of allegiance. In tMs way they struck at some priests who were not seditious, and some laymen who could not disavow treasonable opinions wMch they had no intention of putting in practice. It was injustice in one case to condemn a whole class of men, in the other to make treason of theoretical opmions. The recusants themselves felt keenly the distmction which the Government could not draw correctly. Speaking generally, the secular priests were loyal, the Jesuits disloyal and overbear ing. The bishop of Ely's palaee at Wisbeach had long been a prison where Papists were kept in loose custody ; and there the old Marians Watson and Feckenham ended their days. Dissen sion came -with the Jesuits after 1580. In 1594 there was an open rupture at Wisbeach, and Soon the quarrel grew general, even among the seminaries abroad. The Jesuits meant to mle the seculars; and the seculars repUed by asking for a bishop from Rome. TMs was refused; but in 1598 BlackweU was ap pomted arch-priest, with private directions to consult the Jesuits on matters of importance. It took a long contest (with some help from the Govemment) for the seculars to get these directions reversed. James was kmdly, and disposed to leniency; but he was promptly welcomed with a plot. This time the traitor was a secular priest, Watson by name, and the information came from recusants, apparently of the Jesuit party. James stiU en deavoured to distmguish loyal and disloyal, and even appUed to Rome for help ; but the Pope could not give up Ms principle that no cathoUc may be loyal to a heretic Mng. After tMs mistake there was no choice but to press the persecution more mercUessly than ever. Hence the Gunpowder Plot. The conspirators got their powder safely lodged m the vaults under the Houses of Par Uament : but when Tresham hesitated to blow up all the catholic peers along with the rest, Ms attempt to warn Lord Monteagle led to the discovery of the plot and the arrest of Guy Fawkes on the eve of November 5, the day when Parhament was to meet. Some of the conspirators were Mlled in resisting arrest : the 270 CHUECH AND STATE others were put on trial. Confessions were obtained, partly by torture and rases, and they were duly executed. The most remarkable case was that of Garnet, the Superior of the Jesuits : but there can be no doubt of Ms compUcity, in the sense that Ms knowledge was not all (perhaps none of it was) obtained under the seal of Confession; or that such seal is not recognized by statute law, or by the Canons of 1604 in the case of crimes wMch endanger the Confessor's o-wn Ufe. Garnet admitted that he had a general knowledge of the plot from Catesby— and did notMng to hinder it — and that he leamed the details " by way of Confession." He evidently meant it to be beUeved that he leamed them in Confession and under the seal of Confession. But in view of the weU- known principles of the Jesuits, and specially of Garnet's own share in a treatise on equivocation, it is quite Ukely that he chose the phrase carefully, in order to give a false impression. Greenway may have confessed them to him, though not in Confession. But even if he heard them in Confession, he cannot be defended by our Canon 113, wMch strictly forbids the EngUsh clergy to disclose knowledge obtained from a penitent. For (1) canons contrary to statute law are null; (2) canons bind in any case the clergy only, and therefore have no reference to a Jesmt Uke Garnet; (3) tMs particular canon contains, and therefore enjoins, an exception in just such a case as tMs, where the confessor's own Ufe would be endangered by concealment. The canon is therefore irrelevant, till it is proved, first that Garnet had no knowledge except in Confession, then that the general (and reasonable) rule of secrecy has an authority wMch overrides not only the law of the State but the law of the Church of England given in the canon itseK. The Gunpowder Plot made a greater impression on the EngUsh people than anytMng of the sort since the Marian persecution. Its dramatic character, its wholesale recMessness, the rank and number of the conspirators, and above all, the public exposure of the Jesuit system of equivocation and mental reserve, made it seem even more dangerous and abominable than the assassmation plots of Ehzabeth's time. It was felt, and rightly felt, that cathohcs of the strongest, party in their church were traitors who JAMES I 271 would stick at nothmg in the way of murder to carry out their treason, at nothing in the way of falsehood to conceal it ; and this beUef was kept m vigour by suspicions of the endless Popish Plots of the next century, and of the Popish and half Popish mfluences, from the Queens do-wnward, which flourished in the Stuart courts. Even the Special Thanksgiving for the Fifth of November was not abolished till 1859. Doubtless that belief was no more tme of all cathoUcs then than it is now ; but it was certamly true of some recusants, and ParUament after its narrow escape was in no mood to make distinctions. A new statute (1608) required recusants not only to attend the ser-vices, but to communicate once a year. Men who could afford the £20 monthly fine were fined a further £10 monthly for harbouring a recusant servant or stranger, and might have two-thirds of their estates taken. An oath of aUegi ance renouncmg the Pope's deposmg power might also be tendered to any recusant but a peer. Another statute forbade recusants the court, or residence -within ten miles of London unless they had a settled home there. They were also forbidden law or medicme, the army or na-vy. They could not be executors or guardians, and being excommunicate, they could not sue. The most that can be said for the statutes is that the danger was real, and that they are much milder than the methods used by continental Eomanists. Of course they were panic legisla tion : but they cannot be excused as such, for the lax execution of them was a standing grievance of ParUament for the next forty years. James himself was tolerant, partly from real good nature, partly from Ms admiration, not mdeed for Eomanism, but for the Romish monarchy of Spain. So the recusants had many ups and downs during his reign. When ParUament had its way, the penal laws were enforced, though James was generally able to keep them in abeyance, or at least to blunt the edge of them, especially during the negotiations for the Spanish marriage. The Puritans seemed to have better reason for their hopes. Was not James a nursUng of the Kirk, brought up m the straitest doctrine of Geneva ? He had denounced the EngUsh ser-vice as an " evil-said mass in EngUsh," coupled " Papistical and Anghcan bishops," exhorted the Scots to stand to their parity of ministers, and quite recently pledged himself to uphold the Kirk. They naturally thought that so sound a presbyterian could not but lean to Puritanism. But James had seen rather too much of the 272 CHURCH AND STATE Kirk, and thoroughly detested it — and with reason, for both in theory and practice it confficted with his ideas of MngsMp. It claimed a di-vme right independent of the King, so that if James was ever able to estabhsh uniformity of reUgion, it was more Ukely to be EngUsh than Scotch. In their ignorance a thousand conformmg Puritan mimsters (the actual signatures were fewer) presented the Millenary Peti tion to James on Ms way to London. Its tone is moderate, very unUke the old summary demand for the abohtion of episcopacy. They ask that the cross in baptism, questions to infants, and the ring in marriage be done away, women be not allowed to baptize, the cap and surpUce be not urged, the longsomeness of ser-vices be abridged, and the Lord's Day be not profaned. That ministers be able and sufficient preachers, and that they be not urged to subscribe but according to law (the statute of 1571), to the doctrinal Articles and the Supremacy only. Then come various abuses — non-residence, pluralism, extortionate fees. That the discipUne and excommimication be admimstered accordmg to Christ's own mstitution, or at the least that enormities may be redressed, such as excommunication by laymen or for triffing causes, and the too frequent use of the ex officio oath. There was good reason in much of this, and the new Mng could not treat the petitioners m EUzabeth's Mgh-handed way, as mere disturbers. So he ordered a conference at Hampton Court (January 1604). As WMtgift's health was faiUng, the bishops were headed by Bancroft of London, while the Puritan spokes man was Rainolds, dean of LmcoM. The Kmg presided, and was well pleased to show Ms leaming, which mdeed was very considerable. The Puritan demands went beyond the Millenary Petition. When they wanted the Articles altered in a Cal-vinistic sense, Bancroft broke in with an ancient canon, that schismatics are not to be heard against their bishops, and James had to rebuke him for his insolence. But as the debate went on, he decided almost every pomt against the Puritans. At last they desired the restoration of the Prophesyings, as the best training for a preaching ministry, -with disputes to be referred to the Episcopal Synod, meaning the bishop and presbj^ters. James flared up at once. " If you aim at a Scottish Presbytery, it agreeth as well with monarchy, as God and the devil. . . . No bishop, no king, ... If this be all your party hath to say, I will make them JAMES I 273 conform themselves, or else I -will harrie them out of the land, or else do worse." With these words James threw away the great opportimity before Mm. Wiser men Uke Bacon had ad-vised concessions : the bishops refused, and James did very Uttle to bring them to reason. Still, three pomts of importance were decided as the Puritans desired. They objected to baptism by women : so the rubric was altered, and ceased to sanction lay baptism.^ They complamed that there was notMng about sacraments in the CatecMsm : so additions were made, drawn up by Dean Overall. They asked also for a new translation of the Bible ; and here the King overruled Bancroft's objection. The official translation was the Bishops' Bible, a re-vision of Cranmer's Bible issued by Parker in 1568, but the Genevan version was more popular. This was drawn up (1557-1560) by the Exiles at Frankfurt, and was recommended by its smaller size, and by its controversial notes. There was also for the Romamsts the Rhemish or Douai version, of which the New Testament came out in 1582, the Old in 1610, This was of course made from the Vulgate ; but it had its pomts of superiority to the others. The new version was a revision of the Bishops' Bible by the best scholarsMp of the time, though one great Hebraist, the eccentric Hugh Broughton, was not among the fifty-four revisers. The work was portioned out among six committees, sitting at Oxford, Cambridge, and West minster, then revised by a central committee, and finally by Bishop Bilson and Dr, Miles Smith, All this took time, and the volume was not issued till 1611. Though commonly called the authorized version, it was never formaUy authorized at aU, but ^ The -validity of lay baptism depends on the general principle that as God is the giver of grace, He is the true minister of sacraments, who ever performs the rite. The Church of Rome, holding that baptism is unconditionally necessary to salvation, is bound in charity to overlook any irregularity that is not vital, and therefore allows it to be adminis tered in case of necessity by a layman, a woman, or even a pagan. The Church of England, holding that it is only " generally necessary," is under no such obligation ; and therefore there was no reason of principle against altering the rubric in Private Baptism. Before 1604 " one of them that are present " was to perform the rite : after 1604, they are to send for "a lawful minister," and " the said lawful minister '' is to do it. Thus the sanction given to lay baptism was deliberately with drawn. It is quite true that the Puritans wanted the change because they held that the minister is not essentially indifferent ; but the Church did not concede this by making it. If lay baptism has ceased to be sanctioned, it is not declared invalid. Fieri non dehuit : factum valet. T 274 CHURCH AND STATE displaced the Bishops' Bible almost at once, though the Genevan held its ground for half a century. After that the new version held undisputed sway as the Bible of the nation.^ The bishops had carried the King, and won their purpose, for the three concessions were not controversial. They foUowed up their victory in Convocation, which issued a code of 141 canons, compiled in the narrow spirit of Bancroft, aimed speciaUy at the Puritans, and scattering excommunications almost as recklessly as the Council of Trent. They received the King's assent, but were never sanctioned by ParUament, and therefore are in no way binding on the laity. How far they bind the clergy is a question on wMch lawyers and High Churchmen differ ; but it may safely be said that many are null, as being contrary to statute law, and that many more are obsolete. It remained (as soon as ParUament was out of the way) to turn out the Puritans — congenial work for Bancroft, who had succeeded to the primacy. The statute of 1571 required only the oath of supremacy and subscription to the doctrinal Articles of ReUgion. They were now required by royal proclamation (not by law) to subscribe ex animo to the Supremacy, all the Articles, and the Prayer Book. Vested in terests were to some extent respected, for beneficed clergy were excused, on condition of strict conformity ; but the enforcement of the new subscription on all others seemed to ensure the extinc tion of Puritanism within the Church. Some three hundred ministers were deprived and reduced to silence, except such of them as formed conventicles. Bancroft had made the first serious schism in the country, for the separatists hitherto were very few ; and he had begun the system of wholesale ejections wMch disgrace the history of the next half-century. Henceforth Church and King formed a close alhance, equally necessary for both. The Church had come to lean on the King before the Reformation; and now that it was losing ground among the gentry and the townspeople without gaining much respect elsewhere, it more than ever needed his protection against the preacMng of the Puritans and the intrigues of the Romanists. The rising school of CaroUne divines took over an Erastian tradi tion from the Reformers, and their own insistence on the authority of the Early Church and the divine right of bishops disposed them 1 It is worth notice that it is not written in any particular English dialect, though it comes nearest to that of the Midlands. JAMES I 275 to look kmdly on the divine right of Mngs and all that it involved. It was not long before the divine right and unUmited prerogative of Mngs and the sinfuMess of resistance became the fasMonable teacMng of the clergy, or at least of the noisy section and the dignitaries, while the defence of Uberty was left to the layman and the nonconformist. The Church had men like Abbot, Shel don and Ken, who could rebuke the sin of kmgs, but it never stood for freedom till the Seven confronted James II. The King on Ms side had equal need of the Church. As the Tudors had neither standing army nor tramed civil ser-vice nor large revenues of their own, they found it necessary to observe the forms of constitutional government, wMle the attachment of the nation prevented those forms from seriously hampering them. But from the time when James informed Ms first Parhament that they held their privileges by his grace, and not of right, it became more and more clear that those forms must again be given the reaUty they had in Lancastrian days. But when the King was thus estranged from his people, only the Church could help him. James said truly, "No bishop, no Mng," and Bancroft might have answered, " No Mng, no bishop " — both meaning a Mng in the un limited sense of James and Bancroft. And the Church could do a good deal in times when very few books reached the people, and there was hardly any instruction on the country-side but from the pulpit. It was a great thing to have a stout royaUst in the rectory, and a sermon declaring that no man could refuse the forced loan of 1627 without peril of damnation. If the Church had not yet won the confidence of the nation, it was still a power in the land. EUzabeth was so penurious that she seldom needed the help of ParUament, and so popular that she could always get the Uttle she wanted. James was thriftless, and irregular sources of revenue scarcely sufficed even m time of peace. This then was the permanent dilemma of the Stuarts — ^theymust either have peace at any price, or they must ask Parliament for suppUes, In the one case they could have no serious foreign pohcy, in the other, Parhament would demand redress of grievances, French subsidies gave Charles II some rehef ; but the difficulty was only overcome when confidence between king and people was restored by the Revolution, And grievances might arise in any depart ment of Church or State. James wanted to rule the Church 276 CHURCH AND STATE through the High Commission, the State through favourites; and this was just what ParUament set its face against. So the quarrel of King and Pariiament opened with successes on both sides. The Commons obtamed the control of their own returns, interfered in foreign policy, and revived their right to impeach corrupt or obnoxious ministers ; but they could determme neither foreign nor domestic poUcy, and could not attack a minister except by impeachment. James on his side secured (for the present) the right of imposing custom duties, and reduced the judges to subservience by a free use of the clause of their com mission " during the King's pleasure." In tMs way he could get rid of inconvement judges, and obtain any decisions he wanted. The drawback was that decisions dictated by the King commanded no respect. To do James and Bancroft justice, they were content with the mischief they had done in 1604. The " silenced brethren " remained silenced — at least in the churches — in spite of the com plaints of the Commons, but there was no attempt as yet to stop up every loophole through which Puritanism could find a hearing. Bancroft grew milder in Ms old age, and turned from the persecu tion of Puritans to admimstrative reform. Even James, though he had a genius for getting into difficulties, was not without a certam shrewdness in stoppmg just short of a catastrophe. If he steered the sMp straight for the rocks, he left his son to wreck it. When Bancroft died in 1610, he chose a prinlate of Puritan lean ings. Later, when he issued the Book of Sports, he -withdrew the command for the clergy to read it m church : and when Laud pressed Mm to impose the EngUsh Liturgy on the Scots : " I durst not do it : he knoweth not the stomach of that people." So his reign, after the stormy opemng, was tolerably quiet. The storm was gathering, but it did n6t break, and if Charles I had been tolerably honest, it need never have broken. Mean wMle, the leadmg figure of the Church was neither Bancroft nor Abbot, but Lancelot Andrewes, bishop of Ely and afterwards of Winchester. Andrewes was born in 1555, and became scholar and afterwards Master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge. He was a man of immense leaming, great eloquence, deep devotion, and charming character. But his piety was of a new type, unhke that of the Reformers. Protestant he was, and not ashamed of it — ^in the Romish controversy he could measure swords with JAMES I 277 Bellarmine Mmself — ^but he was more disposed to call himself CathoUc. To the Puritan Rome was simply Antichrist, idolatrous, abominable, and not fit to be called Christian : Andrewes pre ferred to look at her other side, dweU on points of agreement, and treat her as a Christian church, deeply corrapted, yet not beyond the pale. Hte took the Vincentian rule. Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, and easily showed that Rome had made dogmas of many opinions unknown to primitive antiquity. This was the distinctive ground taken by the CaroUnes, and the argument from Scripture lost with them its prominence. They never quite faced the fact that there is no security till we go quite back to the original revelation, for we have no right to assume without verification that one age is less Ukely to mistake it than another. Though there were no dramatic changes in the later years of James, there was also no stagnation. Sectaries as yet were very few — Papists, Puritans, and Anabaptists. These last were an equal abommation to all the rest. The rejection of Infant Bap tism, from which they had their name, might have passed as an ordinary heresy ; but they could not get over the horror caused by the crimes of the Miinster Anabaptists of 1536. High Church men and Puritans aUke abhorred them. The rankest Popery could scarcely have been a greater scandal to common Enghsh- men than the book dedicated to the King by Leonard Busher on behalf of the Anabaptists m 1614. It was a plea for toleration : and neither Churchman nor Puritan would hear of toleration. The nearest approach to it was the mere humanity which con demned the excesses of the Marian Persecution, and ruled that while heretics ought to be pimished, they should not be bumed for any ordinary heresy. But opinion was still di-vided on extreme cases Uke Anabaptism or demal of the Trinity. As early as 1575 Foxe had endeavoured to save the Uves of some Anabaptists, and as late as 1612 Andrewes joined in the condemnation of Bartholomew Legate, the last heretic burned in Smithfield. Thus Busher had general opinion agamst him. What was worse, he contradicted the whole course of Enghsh history by maintaining that the magistrate has nothing to do -with religion. TMs was new, for the Puritan who denied the King's right to estabhsh episcopacy was quite ready to remind him of his duty to enforce the discipline. The Anabaptist was hated, precisely because 278 CHURCH AND STATE his principles were principles of an age to come. They were not practical poUtics : but one of them was a truth, the other a salutary protest against the systematic use of the Church for purely political purposes. MeanwMle, the Puritans were steadily extendmg their influ ence among serious persons. Baxter's picture of Sunday in the -village is enough to show how the most loyal of churchmen was hkely to be called a Puritan if his rehgion was not strictly Umited to the official ser-vices — ^if for example he read Ms Bible after them, instead of dancing round a maypole till it was dark. Puritanism gained ground because the average Puritan was more earnest than his neighbour, and the minister who leaned to Puritanism was commonly more diligent than others. This he might well be, for the average of clerical hfe and leaming was still very low. The exceptions were brilUant, for men Uke Andrewes and Donne would have adorned any Church ; but in the seventeenth century there was a wide gulf between the best of the clergy and the average parson, who very commonly " read common prayer on Sundays and hoUdays, and taught school and tippled on the weekdays," without much thought of pastoral care. The curate was as poor as ever, but not so ignorant as the mass-priests ; and bemg free to marry, he seems to have been less commonly immoral and given to violence. When he did offend in any way, the dis cipUne of the High Commission was at any rate an improvement on the systematic smothering of scandals in the middle ages. Beyond the sea, the United Provinces were a land of freedom for the victims of persecution ; and thither the exiles of England came to worship God in their own way, not the way of the Church. In 1608 a small knot of sectaries at Scrooby in NottmghamsMre escaped to Holland and settled at Leiden, where presently John Robinson, a deprived minister from Norwich, became their pastor. But they were not at ease m a land of strangers, and longed for a land of their own, where they could not only worship in peace, but shape a commonwealth in godly fasMon : so in 1618 they determined to seek a new home in America. Virgima had been founded by churchmen in 1607, but the Puritans looked to the colder north, where the Govemmient would not thmk it worth while to disturb them. The Pilgrim Fathers sailed in the Mayflowe/r in 1620, and Robinson gave them his blessing m con fidence that " God hath much new truth yet to break out of His JAiviiiis 1 279 Word." They reached Cape Cod and settled at Plymouth in a New England winter, and for years their hardships were of the severest. Yet this tiny colony, rather than Virginia, was the true beginnmg of the mighty commonwealth which now stretches from Maine to Florida, and from Boston to the Golden Gate. MeanwMle the CaroUnes were assaiUng one after another the cMef doctrines of Puritanism. Parity of ministers was directly traversed by the divine right of bishops, the appeal to Scripture was parried by maMng tradition the interpreter, and now pre destination itself was disputed. The flrst sign of the reaction from Calvinism was the failure of the Lambeth Articles; and thenceforth Andrewes and other Cambridge divines formed a growing party of Arminians, as they were called after the Leiden professor, Jacob Arminius. They did not at once become domi nant, and never entirely captured even the CaroUnes. Hammond and Durel for example were predestinarians, yet unquestioned CaroUnes. James himself also was a Calvinist, and sent Enghsh divines to take part in the Sjmod of Dort, a sort of Protestant General Council held in 1619, wMch condemned Armimanism. On the contment, persecution followed : in England, James approved the decision of the Synod, yet a swift reaction foUowed. John Hales of Eton " bade good-night to John Cal-vin " before he came back from the Sjniod, and in a couple of years the Court had swung round to Arminianism. The only marvel is, that they had not come round before 1621, for Calvimsm is an austere doctrine wMch levels all men in the sight of God, and does not go well with the divine right of kmgs or bishops (or of elders, for that matter) or with the appeal to tradition. The change was clear gain, so far as it rejected the claim of Calvmism to be the one permissible doctrine of predestmation.. It had never been more than the general behef, though the Puritans would tolerate no other. Yet when men cannot rise to the faith that the Lord's hand is not shortened that He cannot save aU men, strong natures lean as generaUy to Cal-vimsm as the weak to sacramentahsm. The consciousness of power to do a great work passes easily mto the behef that God has predestined men to do it. The common objections to Calvinism are merely the confusions caused by mixmg it up with Arminian postulates ; the real objection is not that it is false, but that being half the trath, it professes to be the whole. 280 CHURCH AND STATE In the early part of Ms reign James was gmded by Robert CecU, whom he made Earl of SaUsbury. As a son of Burghley, Cecil mherited the Ehzabethan tradition, and was a good states man of the second rank, who kept things fairly straight. The peace with Spain was honourable, and so was Ms attempt to commute the King's oppressive feudal rights (wardsMp, marriage, purveyance) for a fixed revenue. On the other hand, James was already dazzled by Spam, and dreaming of a Spamsh marriage. But in 1612 a double misfortune befell Mm : SaUsbury died, and Henry Prince of Wales died. High hopes had gathered round Prince Henry, and though the Puritan leamngs ascribed to Mm may have been less decided than was thought, he was at all events enough of a statesman to make short work of a Spanish marriage : " Two reUgions shaU not Ue in my bed." Henceforth James was guided by two handsome favourites. Robert Carr, created earl of Somerset, was miscMevous enough, but not pohticaUy so miscMevous as he might have been, and his career was soon closed (1616) by a terrible scandal. The King had married Frances Howard to the earl of Essex when they were hardly more than children. When she grew up, she would have notMng to do with her husband, conceived a passion for Carr, and sought a divorce on shameless grounds. The King was complaisant, and even Andrewes voted for her, though the primate Abbot was unyield ing. So she became countess of Somerset, and all went well till she was convicted of poisonmg Sir Thomas Overbury, who knew too much. James spared her life, but Somerset, as an accessory, was involved m her rain. The other favourite was George Vilhers, duke of BucMngham —the e-vil genius of the Stuarts. He could boast a fine person, with personal courage and some capacity for business ; but he was bad as a general, and even worse as a statesman. His policy was determined by the personal piques and selfish quarrels of the moment, and had no consistency. First a Spamsh marriage^ then a war with Spain ; next a French marriage, then war with France and Spain at once. It was the same at home. No man could be more committed to Stuart absolutism than the obnoxious favourite : yet he encouraged the Commons to make far-reaching claims when he wanted to rain an enemy. Everywhere it was the same le-vity, the same blindness to the danger of heedlessly flitting from one poUcy to its exact reverse. Few royal^favourites JAMES I 281 have been hated with better reason than Buckingham, for few hdve left so bad a record of incompetence and utter worthlessness. About 1618 James took up afresh the Spamsh marriage, and BucMngham and Prince Charles entered zealously into the plan. There was indeed something to be said for a Spanish alUance, for James was not wrong in tMnMng that Spain and England in hearty alUance — as if that were possible — might do much to moderate in Germany the anarchy of Protestantism and the greedy absolutism of the Austrian Hapsburgs. But a Spanish marriage was the most disastrous poUcy imaginable. It would destroy the natural position of England in Europe, make the court a focus of Jesuit intrigue, and probably bring forth a series of Romish Mngs utterly estranged from their people. In 1618 also the long impending rehgious war broke out in Germany, The TMrty Years' War is best understood as a series of four successive attempts to check the Hapsburgs of Austria and Spain — ^for Austria was now the predominant partner. First came the protestant princes of Germany, but their divisions and disorders in-vited defeat. Then Christian of Denmark mterfered rasMy, and was crushed at Lutter (1628), TMs marks the Mghest success of the Counter-Reformation, The tide of Protestantism wMch had threatened to reach the foot of the Alps was rolled back to the Baltic, and the Edict of Restitution and the siege of Stralsund seemed to herald the decisive victory of the Hapsburgs, The dehverance came not from England, but from Sweden, Yet the Swedish intervention was not decisive, Gusta-vus won Ms -victories, and perished. If Breitenfeld (1631) ruled that the north of Germany was to remain protestant, NordUngen in 1634 decided that the south must still be Romish, Then came the French, though it was not till 1635 that RicheUeu could interfere with effect. But a French intervention meant that the war ceased to be one of reUgion, and became a poUtical scramble for the spoils of Ger many. When it was ended in 1648 by the Peace of WestphaUa, France and Sweden became the arbiters of a rmned Germany, and the House of Austria was humbled : but Protestantism was saved. Where was England in tMs war of life and death? James had a family interest m it. In 1612 he gave Ms daughter Ehza beth to Frederick, the elector palatine, and m 1619 the Bohemians 282 CHURCH AND STATE deposed their Hapsburg Mng, and elected Frederick in his place, Rebelhon was odious to James, and he was not entirely dis pleased when Frederick was driven out of Bohemia : but it was another matter when the Austrians went on to conquer the Palatmate itself, James, and Charles after him, were bent on recovering it. But how was that to be done ? ParUament was ready for a naval war -with Spain, and did not see that Austria could only be coerced by a great continental war, James was a man of peace, and pressed the Spanish marriage. The Spaniards were not very willing, but neither did they want a quarrel with England. So they tried to get out of it by makmg hard terms, as that the penal laws were to be repealed witMn three years, James swore to everytMng, and even allowed Charles and BucMngham to make their rash joumey to Madrid (1623), The treaty was arranged, but BucMngham quarrelled with the Spaniards, and Charles ceased to be ardent. The Spaniards were wilUng to go a long way, but they finally refused (as any one might have foreseen) to join m compelling Austria to restore the Palatinate; and when Charles on Ms retum made this a new condition of the treaty to wMch he had sworn, the whole matter was at an end, Charles was for once the idol of Ms people, and BucMngham took his revenge in the form of war with Spam, The old Mng made way for a bad son and an overbearing favourite. ParUament voted -with enthusiasm for war, and 12,000 EngUsh soldiers were sent to the Netherlands. TMs meant alUance with France; but Parhament was not prepared for a French marriage on similar conditions to the Spanish. Henrietta Maria was to have full Uberty of worship for every one who pleased to attend her chapel, a French court of her own, and the education of her cMldren to the age of twelve, Charles had sworn before the Lords that there should be no toleration for Papists except for the Princess and her household; but RicheUeu obtamed from James and Charles a private engagement to give them complete Uberty. Rather than ask ParUament for suppUes, they prorogued it to conceal the treachery ; and before it met again, James was dead (March 27, 1625). With all his shrewdness and all Ms learmng, James was a sad failure. His pedantic absolutism had made a threefold breach, between Crown and ParUament, Church and Puritans, court JAMES I 283 and middle classes; and now the war with Spain under the leadership of BucMngham and Charles was a reductio ad absurdum of all the statecraft of his reign. The discord in the state was deep indeed. On one side a profoundly frivolous court swarm ing with flatterers of Mngs and bishops, contemptuous of Par liaments and citizens and common decency, and wholly given to amusements and drink, and worse. If James himself was never drunk, he was seldom quite sober, and the great ladies were not uncommonly too drunk to act their part in the plays. Even a French ambassador was shocked at the general scene of levity and -vice. On the other side, the citizens, the yeomen, and the gentry who were not at home at court were commonly sober and serious men with Puritan leanings, lovers of old Uberties and deeply scandaUzed by the open profligacy wMch reigned at Whitehall, There were two ideals of life in conflict. But the Stuart failure was not yet irreparable, A kmg of even moderate ability -with some regard for truth, some sense of duty to Ms subjects, and some value set on decency at court, might still have recovered the confidence of Parliament and calmed the threatening storm in Church and State, even if he could not aspire to take up the Swedish hero's work, and make England the Uberator of Europe from the Hapsburgs and the Jesuits. CHAPTER XXIV CHARLES I Charles I had a dignified presence, perhaps a Uttle ideaUzed m Vandyke's portraits, a real and cultivated taste for art, good physical courage, and some idea of strategy. In private Ufe he was blameless, though his court was as gross as his father's, and no pure-minded man would have made a favourite of so coarse a proffigate as Buckingham. Intellectually he was below par, conceahng weakness, vacillation and want of moral courage —he never admitted a mistake — under a mask of reserve and obstinacy, rising in his last years almost to the dignity of passive courage. Even more than his father, he was fiUed with conceit of his royal dignity, coldly looking down on men and things as pawns of a statecraft whose stupid selfishness foredoomed it to failure. He was too full of self to consider what others would thmk of Ms doings, so that when he came on another opimon, he could not but resent it as a personal affront. Hence he was tactless and vmgracious, maUcious and untruthful. He was not indeed a systematic Uar, for he had no system. He made his promises according to the convenience of the moment, without any serious purpose of keeping them, and not uncommonly gave contradictory assurances to different parties at once, in the fond behef that his royal cunning was outwitting them all. We need not doubt that he was as sincere as such a man can be in Ms attachment to BucMngham, and afterwards to the Queen, and also to the Church : yet it is hard to beUeve that any man of common seK-respect, much less a loyal churchman, would have sought to marry the Infanta, or have actuaUy married a daughter of France, under the degrading and impossible con ditions of the marriage treaty. Nor could a Mng^ with the smallest sense of duty to his subjects have schemed repeatedly to crush them with an army of Irish Papists fresh from the massacre of 1641. As a pubhc man, he is always selfish, mean, 284 LiMAitijJiiS I 285 and treacherous, without a trace of the redeeming nobleness which sometimes covers a multitude of sins. The new reign began badly. The Enghsh army, thrown on the Netherlands without supphes, was perisMng of disease and want. Richeheu was -wilhng to help against Spain, but had refused Buckingham's peremptory demand of an immediate alUance for the recovery of the Palatinate. When ParUament met, the King was already married, and the penal laws were in abeyance. So the first grievance was that the Kmg had broken Ms promise to maintam them. A second was the gross mis management of the war. It was useless to vote supplies to Charles and Buckingham, especiaUy when there was no security that they would use the money for its ostensible purpose. In vam Buckingham declared that the promise to relax the penal laws had never been seriously asked or given. Louis XIII was serious, and the House was not deceived by a spasmodic enforce ment of them. So as soon as Buckingham was attacked, Charles dissolved the ParUament. This meant war -without supphes; and the attack on Cadiz was a disgraceful faUure. It further meant a quarrel with France, presently to be aggravated by the summary dismissal of the Queen's French court. They had given good cause; nevertheless it was a piece of gross discourtesy to the Queen, and gross bad faith towards France. Richeheu did his best, but peace became impossible when Charles insisted on being recognized as Protector of the Huguenots. But before the rupture, another Parhament met (1626). Charles imprisoned obnoxious peers — Bristol and Arundel — and Opposition leaders, Digges and EUot ; but he only united both Houses against him. The Commons desired to investigate the mismanagement of the war, and when Charles would not aUow tMs, they impeached BucMngham and refused to grant suppUes without redress of grievances. Again they were angrily dissolved. Then came the war with France, and a forced loan to support it. The expedition to the Isle of Ehe was another disaster; and indeed quarrellmg generals, mutinous men and bad supplies would have been too much for an abler man than BucMngham. His army was of the worst, and he could not pay even the remnant he brought back to England ; so he billeted Ms soldiers up and down the country, and when they committed all sorts 286 CHUECH AND STATE of outrages, he attempted to restrain them by illegal use of martial law. So when Charles summoned a third ParUament in March 1628, there were four mam grievances — billeting, martial law, illegal taxation, arbitrary imprisonment — and these were embodied in the Petition of Eight. Charles fenced for awhile and tried to evade it; but in the end he sold the royal assent for five subsidies, and the four grievances became expUcitly illegal (June 7, 1628). But when the Commons resumed the impeachment of Buck ingham, Charles sent him down to Portsmouth with every mark of honour to command the fleet for the relief of Eochelle; and here he was assassmated, to the unbounded joy of the country. The expedition to EocheUe was a tMrd disgraceful failure, and Charles was glad to make peace. Henceforth he could have no real foreign policy, though he never ceased to intrigue, as with Spain for the partition of the Dutch repubhc : but since he had no suppUes, and therefore no army, nobody took Ms diplomacy seriously. Had Charles been fairly truthful, or even fairly prudent, BucMngham's assassmation would have given Mm a fresh start, for ParUament was quite ready to lay the blame of the past on evil counsellors. Had he merely ceased to flaunt the language of absolutism, he might still have been aUowed sometMng of its substance, for nobody wanted more of him than a decent respect for Law and Parhament. As it was, Buckingham's death only made him stand out before the country as himself the chief author of the misgovernment. Nor was there any im provement when BucMngham's influence was graduaUy replaced by the Queen's, for Henrietta Maria was impulsive and ignorant of England, a zealous papist and a ready tool of catholic intrigue ; and as eager as Margaret of Anjou to call in foreign armies to her aid. But there was a reUgious question behind the constitutional. The High Church party had long been gro-wing in numbers and activity, and now Charles was devoted to men who preached divine right and arbitrary government, and damnation on all who opposed him. They worked through the Kmg, and m-vited him to regulate the Church in his own way, wMch was also their way. Yet their slavish language was rather royaUst fasMon than a paramount behef, for they held that bishops also had a VXUliVUllO 287 divine right, so that there was room for a conflict of Church and State if the King turned against them as James II did. The encroachments of the ecclesiastical courts had been backed up by James ; but they threw most of the lawyers into opposition — not only such Ughts as Coke and Selden, and Speakers from Eichardson (1620) to Glanville and LenthaU (1640), but numbers of the country gentlemen, for most of them had a tincture of law. When Lancelot Andrewes died in 1626, it was WilUam Laud who took Ms place as chief of the court di-vmes. As a young graduate of St. John's College, Oxford, and afterwards as Fellow and President, he stoutly upheld Arminianism, and the divine right of bishops. In 1616 he became dean of Gloucester, where he gave deep offence by remo-ving the Holy Table from the middle of the choir to an altar-wise position at the east end. In 1621 he reached the bishopric of St. Da-vid's, from wMch he was translated to Bath in 1626, and to London in 1628. He soon overshadowed the primate Abbot, Ms old opponent at Oxford. Abbot more than once showed unbending courage; but he was too narrow and ungracious to be popular even with the Puritans, and Laud's party had a grievance of their own against Mm. Out hunting in 1621 he Mlled a gamekeeper by accident. Laud and others refused to be consecrated by him, declaring that Ms position was forfeited by homicide; and though they could not get rid of Mm, they destroyed much of his influence. Laud was a scholar Uke Andrewes, as he showed in his Conference (1622) -with the Jesuit Fisher; but unUke Andrewes, he was a fussy and bustling prelate of imtlring industry and unsleepmg -vigilance. His Ufe was blameless, his smcerity beyond question; and theologically he was less narrow than the Puritans. He could be friendly with Papists, and was a patron of such heterodox persons as CMlhngworth, John Hales of Eton, and Jeremy Taylor. He could be patient with waverers, but he had no charity, for it never crossed Ms mind that a resolute Puritan might have a conscience as good as his own. Puritanism seemed to him notMng more than the irrational perversity and disobedience of a few miscMef-makers, so that it would not be hard to put down every expression of it — ^to stop up all the rat-holes, as he might have said. TMs meant a deadly quarrel; and his temper was none of the best, while some of 288 CHUECH AND STATE the Puritans were abominably scurrilous ; hence he was tactless and overbearing, sometimes bratal — " too cruel for his coat," Moreover, Laud was essentially a Uttle man, who valued cere monies like principles, and lost sight of spiritual rehgion in zeal for the outward signs of it. If he did a work for decency and order, he did it m a way that made decency and order offensive. If the gentry clung to the Prayer Book in the times of trouble, the merchants and the country people were not attracted by the formal services of EUzabeth and James — stiU less by the vexatious tyranny wMch foUowed. It was not the stupid pedantry of Laud but the reaction from Puritan pedantry and otherworld- liness wMch enabled the Common Prayer to win the respect, if not the affection, of the dissenting sects themselves. Of Laud it can only be said that he seemed born to make -virtue odious. In early Stuart times High ChurcMsm found Uttle favour except among the creatures of the court and a section of the clergy. Serious men were mostly Cal-vinists, and had a nervous dread of Eomeward leanings. They wanted the instraction of a sermon, and a " decent " High Church ser-vice could not reconcile them to the catecMzing of an unlearned priest, and then— off to the maypole and the games, if not to the alehouse. Nor was it Puritans only who objected to the meddUng tyranny of the bishops, the encroachments of the ecclesiastical courts, and the preaching of di-vine right and arbitrary power. In tMs sense the Commons of England spoke m every ParUament. They were not zealots : they committed to the Tower a petitioner who described the bishops as antichrists, but they demanded that ministers should be graduates, and should subscribe only the doctrinal Articles accordmg to the Act of 1571 : no more dispensations to be granted for pluralities and non-residence, and no ministers to be deprived only for objectmg to the suiphce and the cross in baptism. The conflict however only became acute under Charles and Laud. Eichard Montague, rector of Stanford Elvers, came upon a Eomish tract — A Gag for the New Gospel, and answered it with A New Gag for an Old Goose (1624). Montague was a Uvely person, and defended absolutism with vigour, but Ms doctrinal positions were not extreme. He rejected Calvinism and Tran substantiation, refused to call the Pope Antichrist or to deny that Eome is a true Church, however corrapt. He denied that ijiiAjnijiuD I 289 Confession is to be enforced, but taught a mysterious presence in the Lord's Supper to the faithful receiver, and allowed images for any purpose but worship. He defended Mmself in a second book, Appello Ccesarem. After various troubles, the Parliament of 1626 took up the matter. Montague had given offence by denying Cal-vinism, and just offence by claiming to cast out Cal-vinists from the Church. The underlying question however was not so much whether Calvinism or Arminianism was the doctrine of the Church, as whether the doctrine was to be defined by the King in ParUament, or as Laud and Charles held, by the King and the bishops in Convocation. The House petitioned for Montague's punishment : Charles made Mm a royal chaplain, and in 1628 bishop of CMchester, and in 1638 translated him to Norwich. The ParUament of 1628 had further grievances. Dr. Eobert Sibthorpe preached the King's right to make laws and the subject's duty of passive obedience. As the sermon might be useful on behalf of the forced loan, Abbot was ordered to Ucense it, and refused. Since his see could not be taken away, Ms jurisdiction was transferred to a commission, or practically to Laud. The licence was issued by the unworthy Monteigne of London, who was rewarded next year with the archbishopric of York. There was Mgher game than Sibthorpe. Unlike the time- servers. Dr. Eoger Manwaring was a genuine enthusiast of royahsm. He preached two sermons before Charles himself, in which he mamtained the Kmg's absolute right unchecked by ParUament to levy taxes in case of necessity (of wMch he was the sole judge) and that resistance to the forced loan was mere perversity, and would receive damnation. This pleased Charles, and though even Laud objected to the printing of such unpopular doctrine, it was printed by the King's special command, and licensed by Monteigne, There was another grievance in Cosin's Collection of Private Devotions. The Eeformation abolished the old Primers, and put nothing in their place but the CatecMsm, GMdance enough was supposed to be given by the pubUc services, and private devotions were left to private discretion. But there were always some, even of the Puritans, who felt themselves wanting in that discretion, and craved further help. Various manuals came out V 290 CHUECH AND STATE in Ehzabeth's time, but a more important one was issued about 1608,^ by Lewis Bayly, afterwards bishop of Bangor (1616-1631), His Practice of Piety went through twenty-five editions by 1630, many more afterwards, was translated into French, German, Welsh, PoUsh, Eoumaunsch, and Indian of Massachusetts. It influenced John Bunyan, and left its mark on reUgion in Wales. Bayly was a Puritan churchman, and shaped his book accord- mgly. He gives many meditations on the misery of the man that is not reconciled to God in Christ, and the blessedness of him that is, and counts seven Mndrances to piety. Then all through the day : a Morning Prayer (with a shorter form, and a still shorter); an Evemng Prayer (with a shorter form) and prayers for a fanuly, with directions " how to walk with God all the day." Then nearly fifty pages on the Sabbath — ^no sports allowed — and directions about fastmg. Then some forty pages on the Lord's Supper, -with the doctrinal part copied from Cal-vin. He deals at last with sickness and death; and mdeed the whole book is pervaded with Puritan seriousness and prepara tion for death. Very different is the work of John Cosin, rector of Brancepeth and canon of Durham in 1627. Cosin was no Eomanist, and Ms model was a coUection pubUshed in 1560 ; but it was drawn up for the Eomanizing ladies of the court, to give them what they wanted without going over to Eome. So in form it was more Eoman than in substance — with its Hours, Seven Sacra ments (only two properly so called) and Prayers for the Dead, wMch last he explained as partly a printer's error, and partly harmless. No wonder that the Commons took up the matter hotly agamst him, especially as he was already obnoxious for the ceremomal of Durham cathedral. As soon as the Petition of Eight had been disposed of, Man- waring was impeached, and condemned to imprisonment during the pleasure of the House {i. e. to the end of the session), a fine of £1000, incapacity to hold any office, or to preach at court for Ufe, elsewhere for three years. This was vindictive, and part of the sentence might weU have been remitted; but a prompt pardon and * rich Uvmg, and a bishopric M 1636, were a dehberate ^ Third edition, 1609; first of imknown date. The internal evidence is curiously conflicting. " The Queen our sovereign " must be Elizabeth} but there was no " reist of the royal family " till after her death. She had no relations nearer than Howard and Carey, cousins. CHAELES I 291 insult to ParUament. About the same time came a series of promotions — Laud, NeUe, Monteigne, Buckeridge, and the obnoxious Montague — ^wMch made it clear that the church was to be packed -with strong Arminians; and His Majesty's De claration, now prefixed to the Articles by Laud's ad-vice, com manded that " all further curious search be laid aside . . . and that no man shall put Ms own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in its Uteral and gram matical sense." As the Uteral and grammatical sense was the question at issue, this meant that the party in power would put their own Arminian sense or comment on the Articles, and allow no other. The Commons rephed by a resolution confirming " that sense of the Articles wMch by pubhc acts of the Church of England, and by the general and concurrent exposition of the writers of our Church have been deUvered to us, and we do reject the sense of Jesuits and Armimans." TMs meant that ParUament, not Convocation, was to decide the meaning of the Articles. As the King strove to suppress Calvinism, so the Commons strove to suppress Armimamsm. Then came disputes over the King's endeavours to evade the Petition of Eight, culminating in the great scene of March 2, 1629, when the Speaker was held down in the chair, and while the King sent for Ms guard to break up the House by force, resolutions were tumultuously passed, that any one who sought to extend or introduce Popery or Arminian ism, or to le-vy taxes not granted by Parhament or consented to pay them, should be reputed a capital enemy to tMs Mngdom and commonwealth. A wise Mng would have paused at so wild a scene as this, and considered whether Ms own pohcy might not have been somewhat in fault. Not so Charles, who saw notMng in it but a personal affront. His first step was to arrest " the -vipers " — nine leaders of the Commons. Valentme and Strode he kept in prison till he was obhged to release them in 1640, and Eliot was done to death with hardsMps. Charles refused the djdng man a respite to recruit Ms health, and again refused permission to bury Mm m the family vault at St. Germans. Death itself could not appease Ms cold mahce. Then the dissolution, and a proclamation. He would respect the Petition of Eight, and aUow no innovations m reUgion; but he would levy tonnage 292 CHUECH AND STATE and poundage in spite of the Commons, and would not caU another Parliament till the nation had retumed to a better mind. Charles was not deUberately resolved Uke Eichard II to abohsh ParUaments; but he was deliberately resolved to do without Parhament tUl it was wilUng to give him what he wanted : and what he wanted was to determine foreign policy at his pleasure, to govern the Church at his pleasure, to levy taxes at his pleasure, to break laws at his pleasure, and to punish indi-viduals at his pleasure — and what could a tyrant wish for more? The battle was now fairly joined in Church and State. If the Commons had made a new appUcation of the Lancastrian theory, Charles was maMng a new extension of the Tudor theory. If Puritans and Calvinists narrowed the Church on one side. Laud and the Armimans narrowed it on the other. For the present it was a direct clash of opposite ideals; but if it came to a civil war, new forces would be set free, wMch might greatly modify the situation. For the next eleven years (1629-1640) Charles ruled without a ParUament, systematically evading the Petition of Eight, and systematically encouraging innovations in reUgion. His whole pohcy was shaped by want of money. Charles was not thrifty like EUzabeth, but kept a splendid court, wMch shocked the Puritans with worse tMngs than a stage-play instead of a sermon on the Sabbath, So he had to make peace as best he could with France and Spain, for he needed to scrape money by aU expedients, even to cover ordinary expenses. First came illegal tonnage and poundage, then obsolete rights of the crown were hunted out in all directions. Landowners were fined for neglect ing to take up knighthood, and all classes were aggrieved by a sudden resumption of claims over royal forests which Edward I had surrendered in the crisis of 1297, The monopohes given up by Ehzabeth were restored wholesale, the only difference bemg that they were sold to companies instead of individuals. The exorbitant fines infficted by the Star Chamber and the High Commission seemed designed rather to fiU the King's pocket than for the punishment of e-vil-doers ; and when a particulariy bad case of bribery was proved against Sir James Bagg, even Laud could not induce Charles to punish Mm, But the crown ing scandal was the ship-money. Amongst the Kmg's numerous CHARLES I 293 intrigues was a secret league with Spain in 1634 against the Dutch : and for this he wanted a fleet. There was indeed need of a fleet to balance the French and Dutch fleets, and to protect the shores of England from the raids of Algerine pirates ; and the need was the more urgent when Charles claimed the sovereignty of the sea in a sense which forbade the French and Dutch to sail past their o-wn coasts. But how to fit out the fleet without suppUes from ParUament ? In Plantagenet times, and as late as 1626, the seaport towns had been required in time of war to fit out ships ; and tMs was now done agam in time of peace in 1634, Still, the fleet was undeniably needed, and the sovereignty of the sea, even in this outrageous form, was a popular cry ; so there was no great resistance. Thus encouraged, Charles proceeded next year to levy ship-money on the inland counties also. This was new — and significant. If Charles was entitled to levy a tax at his pleasure for a fleet, he was equally entitled to levy a tax for an army; and that would at once make Mm absolute. Yet even now the resistance was not great till a tMrd levy in 1637 made it clear that ship-money was meant to be a permanent illegal tax. Then the murmurs were loud and deep; and if a packed bench decided the case agamst Hampden, the chief result was that the judges were finally discredited, Charles got his money, and (to do him justice) fitted out a respectable fleet; but the sailors were neglected, and the country waited its time in sullen discontent. Laud was upon the whole the King's chief ad-viser in these years, though of course others had much influence, Wentworth stood with EUot and Pym in 1628 ; but he agreed only in part with the constitutional, and not at all with the rehgious opposi tion, and soon went over to the King, Charles however dis trusted him, and sent him first to the North and then to Ireland, where he gave a brilUant object-lesson of the way to make the King absolute. He was too able to be thoroughly trusted till Charles was in sore straits in 1639, Laud was in favour enough with Charles in 1625 to be asked for a Ust of di-vines marked 0 and P — Orthodox and Puritan — for future favour or neglect. In 1633, on Abbot's death, he became primate as a matter of course, and three years later he secured the Treasurer's staff for Juxon of London, the first churchman, he said in triumph, since the time of Henry VII, Laud was a busy official with a 294 CHURCH AND STATE taste for routine, and determined to enforce conformity to the rales of the Church, and a few more of Ms own. His ideal was well-drilled decency and order, and he forgot that decency and order forced on an un-willing people may be worse than what does not seem to them indecency and disorder. He despised his opponents too much, and was too impatient of opposition, to reaUze the moral forces working against Mm. The Holy Table at the Commumon-time, as the rubric has run since 1552, " shaU stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancel," and Ehzabeth's Injunctions directed it to remain at other times " in the place where the Altar stood." This then was, and indeed still is the law : but the removal of the Table at Commimion-time from its usual place was inconvenient, and led to scandals, so that it made for decency and order to fix it at the east end, rail it in, and make the communicants " draw near " to the rails : and if it stood there, it was more con veniently placed north and south than east and west. The question was raised in 1627; and when the young vicar of Grantham caused a bitter quarrel in the parish by arbitrarily remo-ving the Table to the east end, WilUams of LincoM decided against Mm, but the matter was settled by Laud and Charles, in 1633, in favour of the new position. The settlement was reason able in itself : yet there were two grave objections to it. The King was misusing the authority of the Ordinary to settle the local disputes of particular parishes when he used it to suppress everywhere an option which the law deUberately left open. Moreover, it was not very sincere to give out that the change had nothing to do with doctrine. As the Puritans preferred the east and west position in the body of the church as embody ing their ideal of " holy feasting " (Bishop Bayly's phrase), so the north and south position inside the rails was held by the Laudians to favour their doctrine of sacrifice, and was for that Very reason advocated by the men who called the Table an altar, and replaced it when they could with an altar of stone. One stronghold of Puritanism was the system of lecturers. As one section of the clergy was too ignorant to preach, and another cMefly preached Arminiamsm and the King, something more was plainly needed, and indi-viduals 'or companies endowed lecturers. The curate* read' the'^ser-vice, and then the lecturer preached. Thus theyr^got their sermons; but the permanent CHAELES I 295 separation of the preacher from the reader was bad for both of them,^ and he was too dependent on his patrons. And — ^what was worse in Laud's eyes, these patrons were laymen, and as the Puritans most felt the need of sermons, the lecturers were mostly Puritans, who evaded conformity by not reading the service, and sometimes not coming in till it was over. A similar Uberty was enjoyed by the numerous private chaplains of peers and merchants, who agam were too dependent on their patrons. So Laud obtained instructions (1629) from the King. In the afternoon there was to be catecMzing and no sermon ; and the morning preacher was required first to read the service in a surpUce, and then to abstam from controversial topics. Nor was there to be any lecturer appointed in a corporate town ¦without a Uvmg -with cure of souls in the to-wn. And none but noblemen and a few officials (not the Puritan merchants and gentry) might have private chaplains in their houses. TMs was followed up in 1633 by a strict enforcement of the canon wMch requires every candidate for orders to have a definite cure of souls.^ In the same year another blow was strack. In 1625 a society was formed m London for buying up impro priated tithes and making grants in aid of ministers and lecturers. The feoffees for impropriations, as they were caUed, were no separatists; but though revocable grants were open to the objection that the ministers who received them were too depen dent on the feoffees. Laud was more impressed by the fact that they were cMefly made to men of Puritan leamngs. So he brought the matter to the Exchequer Chamber, wMch pro nounced the society unlawful, and transferred its patronage to the King. TiU 1633 Laud was only Bishop of London, and whatever he might be able to do in his o-wn diocese, he could not act in others except indirectly, through the King; and however wilUng the King and some of the bishops might be, others were not zealous, and could make more or less obstruction. But he had a freer ^ As Selden points out, the Lecturers were like the Friars. They stood for a more popular form of religion, and stole the affections (and the money) of the people from the parish priest. ^ Canon 33. The exceptions allowed are Fellows and Chaplains of Colleges, and " a Master of Arts of five years' standing, that liveth of his own charge in either of the Universities." In ordinary times " a cure of souls " would cover a master in a school. 296 CHUECH AND STATE hand when he became primate on Abbot's death in 1633. Laud was an antiquarian as well as Charles, and a metropohtan ¦visitation was fished up like sMp-money from the precedents of a distant past. He claimed, by himself or by deputy, to see for himself and to regulate every parish in Ms proAdnce. TMs reduced the bishops to impotence, and WilUams of LincoM pro tested in vain. Laud had his way, and discovered plenty of real scandals, and still more of shortcomings from the new Laudian standard. Law was law to him, and his inquisitorial and unsympathetic enforcement of his own interpretation turned against him the great central mass of men who were neither Puritans nor Laudians, but wilhng supporters of any authority wMch did not go out of its way to stir up trouble, Puritanism was too strong to be suppressed. Private patrons could not be prevented from nominating Puritans to Uvings, and even the bishops were not all soimd Laudians , Most of them were zealous enough, like Neile and Montague, Wren, Manwaring and the trusty Juxon; but Williams and Laud were deadly enemies, Davenant got into trouble for Ms Calvinism, and Joseph Hall did not go the full length, StiU Puritanism seemed well muzzled. If Puritans got into the mmistry, they were compelled to a strict conformity, the more irksome that some of the cere monies enforced were very trifling. Thus Laud made much of a reverence to the altar on entering the church, explaming that it was not worsMp M the consecrated bread, for the consecrated bread was not there — ^it was only copied from the custom of the Knights of the Garter, who made their bow to the throne when the king was not there. But Laud was not satisfied with con formity. Any criticism of his policy, or any reference in the pulpit to controversial questions, was matter for the High Com mission. Nor could the Puritan state Ms case in print. The Star Chamber in EUzabeth's time had forbidden the printing of unUcensed books; and though the lawfulness of the order was doubtful, it was revived m 1629 and rigorously enforced. The natural consequence followed. The Puritans had been upon the whole moderate and m most cases fairly conformist since the ejections of 1604, but now they grew more bitter, separatism increased, especially in the last years of absolutism, and scurri lous pamphlets were widely circulated without a licence. They had an excellent case against the stage. Setting aside coarse CHAELES I 297 language and needless obscenity, it was not good for women to act equivocal situations, and even when the language was decent, the plot (as in one case planned by Charles himself) might be profoundly immoral. But Prjnnne (1632) threw away his case in the Histriomastix by vulgar and indiscriminate mvective against stage-plays and dancing as altogether -wicked in them selves. Abbot's chaplam licensed the book, but the Star Chamber sentenced Prynne to stand in the pillory and lose his ears, to pay £5000, to be incapable of legal practice, to be deprived of his Oxford degree, and to be imprisoned for Ufe, for Ms outrageous attack on the not entirely refined pleasures of the royal couple. Laud was for severity, but he prevented some further aggravations of the sentence. How little Prynne represented the Puritans generally may be seen from Milton's Comus, acted m 1634 at Ludlow : but in Comus we see the stage at its very best. The fine was not paid, and in 1637 Prynne was again before the Star Chamber for a violent attack on Wren of Norwich and the bishops generally. With Mm were Burton, a minister who had written against the innovations, and Bastwick, a physician whose book denounced the bishops as the tail of the Beast, with attendance of scurriUty. They were condemned to stand in the pillory, to lose their ears, to pay each £5000, and to be closely imprisoned for life. The court had only turned criminals into heroes, and almost the first act of the Long Parliament was to bring them back in triumph to London. Charles was not gaming much by a system of cold severity which culminated in such pimishments as these. Obstmacy was met by obstmacy, stupid persecution by furious resistance. If to some minds the mechanical insistence on a partisan ceremonial is no more than the natural and proper expression of rehgious feelmg, others look on the ceremonies with good-natured contempt at best, or find them a continual and irritating distraction from better tMngs. In England the latter class is always much the larger, for the layman is not often a lover of ceremonial, and the man of genume reUgion seldom thinks his own preferences worth enforcing by a breach of charity. So the Laudians were never more than a small minority. They had the King, the courtiers, most of the bishops, a section of the clergy, and aU the time- servers ; against them stood a majority of the peers, most of the country gentlemen, the merchants of the cities and the artisans 298 CHUECH AND STATE of the towns, and nearly all the women , Good and true men stood by Charles and Laud, but the nation was agamst them in an almost sohd mass, till it was cleft in sunder in the second session of the Long ParUament, Two circumstances especially sharpened the anger of the Puri tans. One was the reissue of the Book of Sports in 1633. There was much to be said for it. The people had lost their holy days at the Eeformation, and in times when half hoUdays and Bank hoUdays were unknown, there was a fair case for Sunday sports. But Charles was not content with authorizing the sports : he required the clergy to encourage them by reading the Declaration from the pulpit, and deprived those who refused. TMs order seems the culmination of the bad form of Erastianism wMch treats the clergy simply as officials of the State. James I drew back from the mistake, and James II lost his crown by repeating it in a worse form. Charles I carried it through for the present. The other was a deep suspicion that the court party was not only playmg the Pope's game, but schemmg to restore the old rehgion. It was a natural sur-vival from the Marian persecution, the Bartholomew massacre, the Gunpowder plot, and the Spanish marriage ; yet it did Laud and Charles injustice, though they both dwelt on the side of AngUcanism which looks towards Eome. Laud complained that Eome had made many doctrines of her o-wn mvention, refused a cardinal's hat — " Somethmg dwells in me wMch tells me that I must not accept it till Eome Is other than she is " — and warned Charles that if he went to the Pope, the Pope would not go a step to meet him. Charles had become a fond husband who aUowed Ms Eomish wife all sorts of dangerous mtrigues : but he could draw a Ime for her, and there is no reason to suppose that anytMng would have tempted Mm to restore the royal supremacy to the Pope. But if Laud and Charles were sound themselves, they kept bad company. The penal laws were left unexecuted, and some of the people nearest the King were Eomamsts. Buckingham's mother and -wife were Eoman ists, Colhngton turned Papist as often as he had a serious ilMess, Weston and Windebank died as Eomanists, fashionable peers kept Eomish priests to absolve them in the hour of death; and of the bishops, Montague at least tampered vsith Eome, and Good man of Gloucester not only died a Eomanist in 1656, but had CHAELES I 299 been an all but avowed Eomanist for twenty years before. The Queen's court was a centre of Eomanist intrigue, wMle the friar Santa Clara (Christopher Davenport) explained away the Articles as quite consistent -with Eomanism, and Anthony Stafford's Female Glory came near to a deification of the Virgm Mary. In 1635 the Eoman envoy Panzani had hopeful inter-views -with Windebank and Montague about reunion with Eome and won many converts on the court, till Charles and Laud took alarm. His successor Con, two years later, was on the best of terms with Charles, and agam a number of converts were made, among the ladies and lighter persons of the court. Again Charles took alarm : but this time the Queen got the hostile proclamations softened down, and then pubUcly set it at definace. It was natural that the danger from Eomamsm should seem even to Laud greater than it really was. Though the discontent was deep and general, it was not obtru sive. Lawful expression it could hardly find in the abeyance of Parhament, and the old spirit of revolt had said its last word at the rising of the Northem Earls in 1569, A surface -view showed only a brUliant court and a peaceful and prosperous nation. It was not by choice that such a restless intriguer as Charles kept peace, but because he had no money to make war. It was a peace of helplessness, but peace it was, and brought many of the blessmgs of peace. New mansions were built, the Fens were drained, and commerce grew rapidly. And on that peaceful soil we can already see m outline the great movements of the next half century. One sign of the times was a tendency to increase the singing in pubUc worship, Ehzabeth's time produced much sacred poetry, but very few hymns; and indeed no place was provided for hymns till 1662, except before and after the ser-vice. So there was very Uttle smging except of psalms, in prose or in the version of Sternhold and Hopkins, completed in 1562, The first great hjrmn-writer came from Wales, where the love of song was always stronger than in England, Like Bishop Bayly, Ehys Prichard of Llandovery (1579-1644) was a Churchman, and only in the second place a Puritan, for he went -with the royaUsts in the civil war. His poems were written m famiUar Welsh, and made him the most popular preacher m Wales, They were coUected after his death m the Canwyll y Cymry (Welshman's candle) wMch went through many editions, and long remained 300 CHUECH AND STATE a power in the land, England was first represented in 1623 by George Wither's Hymns and Songs of the Church. The most attractive churchman of the time is George Herbert (1593-1633) a younger brother of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, the " Father of Deism," Born m the old castle of Montgomery, reared by a noble mother, and educated at Westminster and Cambridge, where for eight years he was Public Orator, George Herbert was a finished scholar and a dainty aristocrat,, who must have felt a touch of condescension when he exchanged the hopes of a young diplomatist for the humble calling of a parish priest — for he was almost the first man of birth ordained since the Eeform ation, He had been some years in deacons' orders when Laud persuaded him (1630) to accept the Uttle rectory of Bemerton, near Salisbury, Then he changed his sword and silk clothes for a canonical coat, and gave himself heart and soul to his work. He was already married, and soon took priests' orders, George Herbert and Eichard Baxter, Anghcan and Puritan, are the two great model pastors of the seventeenth century ; and -with all their characteristic differences, the likeness between them is enough to show that, however the baser sort might -wrangle, there was no deep separation between the best of Anglicans and the best of Puritans, Herbert's friends however lay among the AngUcans — Williams and Davenant, and extremer men Uke Laud and Nicholas Ferrar, the founder of an ascetic community at Little Giddmg, near Huntingdon, But Herbert was a nobler character than either. Careful as he was of Church observances and austere as was his Ufe, his fervent and lofty mysticism rises far above the timid pettiness of the ceremonialist and the timid scrupulosity of the ascetic, Herbert was rather the best type of his own time than a herald of the future. We must look elsewhere for the loosening of the rigid mtolerant dogmatism carried over from the middle ages. When Fisher the Jesuit argued that Scripture is only a Law, and therefore useless without a judge to declare its meaning, the Laudian appeal to antiquity was no sufficient reply, and Wil liam CMUingworth went over to Eome. But when he found that Eome's imposing claim is false, he set Mmself to a closer examin ation of the Supremacy of Scripture. He agreed that Scripture is not a judge, but a rule ; only it is a rale " fit to direct every one that wiU make the best use of it to that end for wMch it was CHARLES I 301 ordained." As only reason can teU us whether there is a God, 80 only reason can teU us the meanmg of His message. They that receive a religion -without reason offer to God the sacrifice of fools. Scripture is quite clear on essentials, and there is no great harm if men differ on other questions. All that is necessary is contamed in the Apostles' Creed. The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation was pubUshed in 1638; and Laud was much more tolerant to it than the Puritans. Lord Herbert of Cherbury went further. As CMUingworth reduced Christianity to the Apostles' Creed, so Herbert reduced all religion to the five innate ideas — ^that God is, that He is to be worshipped, that worsMp requires virtue and piety, that a man ought to repent of his sms, and that there is a future life with rewards and punishments. As CMlhngworth denied the existence of an infalUble authority and held that nothing more than the Apostles' Creed was necessary, so Herbert threw over even the Apostles' Creed, sajdng that virtue is sure of future happiness, whatever a man's rehgion may be. CMUingworth was a cautious churchman who made sure of every step of his ground, wMle Herbert was hardly more than formally a churchman at all ; but they were entirely agreed that a large part of the current doctrine was not essential. And this logically impUed that there is no reUgious reason for intolerance among those who differ only on points that are not essential. Behind the rade clash of controversy the thoughts of the future were shapmg in quiet vicarages, in homes of merchants, and in cultured circles Uke FalMand's at Great Tew. But the years of peace were only the calm before the storm. The cultured circles were di-vided and broken up by the ci-vil war, and their voices were lost m the noise of battle. But they did not perish : the revolution which seemed to overwhelm them brought the revela tion of their meaning. Charles could do without a parhament as long as he could make shift to do -without supphes, and the country was qmet because men were con-vinced that makesMfts could not last for ever. Charles was safe if he could avoid war, and there was no risk of foreign war. The decisive blunder was made m Scotland. James I hated " a presbytery, wMch agrees with monarchy as weU as God with the devil." So he said when he was safe in England, and could set about reducmg the Scots Kirk to the EngUsh model . 302 CHURCH AND STATE He was able to set up bishops, give them jurisdiction, and (1610) get them consecrated m England. Andrewes wanted them first to be ordamed priests ; but even Bancroft refused to treat pres byterian orders as nuU, though they were not conferred by lajdng-on of hands. James also forced through a packed Assem bly (1618) the five Articles of Perth, commanding kneeling recep tion, private communion for the sick, private baptism in suitable cases, confirmation by the bishop at the age of eight, and obser vance of five cMef holy days. We have all these ourselves, except confirmation at the age of eight, which differs radically from confirmation at " years of discretion . . . when they begin to be in danger to fall mto sundry kmds of sin." But the opposi tion even in that packed Assembly was so strong that neither James nor Charles ventured to call another. Here however James paused. He left the presbji;eries with their powers Uttle changed, and refused to meddle -with the Book of Common Order, issued by Knox in 1562, wMch was rather a Directory than a Liturgy, for though it contamed forms of prayer the minister was not bound to use the words of the book. As usual, Charles was rasher than Ms father, and his first step in Scotland was the mistake from wMch even Mary Tudor was restrained in England. The Scots Church had been plundered at the Reformation Uke the EngUsh, and for two generations the nobles had held the property when the Act of Revocation (merely by the royal authority) confiscated to the Crown on some techmcal informaUty all grants made since 1542. The outcry was great, but this time Charles was reasonable, and a compromise was reached, though much dlstrast was left behind. After tMs a Court of High Commission, also imposed merely by the King's Authority. When he came up to Edmburgh for Ms coronation in 1633, he determined to give the Scots a Liturgy hke the Eng lish. Some Scotch bishops did the revision, and Laud completed it. Many small improvements were made, but no very important changes except those wMch gave a Laudian colour to the Com mimion Office. The Holy Table (they did not caU it an altar) was to be at the east end, and the " presbyter " was " at Uberty " to take the north side. He was not simply to " place " ^ but to " offer up and place " the elements upon it. The Epiclesis, or i Rubric introduced in 1662, The Scotch form was proposed and rejected. CHARLES I 303 invocation of the Holy Spirit on them, was introduced into the Prayer of Consecration, After this came the Prayer of Oblation (the oblation of ourselves in our first post-communion prayer), then the Lord's Prayer and Prayer of Humble Access, Then the administration — " The Body of , , , to everlasting hfe, Ans. Amen," — ^with the second clause omitted. The elements not consumed were to be covered " -with a fair linen cloth, or corporal," But the Scots made no nice distinctions between one " Popish " Uturgy and another. It was a liturgy, it was sent down from England, and it had no authority of Assembly or Parliament, When the new Service was ready, official Edinburgh gathered in state to St. GUes' to hear it read. In a few minutes there was a stool at the Dean's head, and in a few weeks all Scotland was in commotion. Charles insisted : " I mean to be obeyed." Riots followed, a provisional govemment was set up, and (Febraary 1638) the Solemn League and Covenant was signed by enthusiastic crowds on a tombstone beside the Grey Friars church at Edinburgh. They swore before God to be faithful to the King, to resist Popery, and to suffer no mnovations in the Kirk without the assent of the Assembly and of ParUament. It was soon signed all over the coimtry, except by the Arminian Aberdeen Doctors, and of course the Highland Romanists. Face to face with a national rising, Charles was driven from point to pomt, till he was forced to let a free Assembly meet at Glasgow, which undid Ms work, and his father's also, and set him at defiance when he attempted a hasty dissolution. But he could not conquer Scotland. The Enghsh army was a mutMous and disaffected rabble : the Scots were under Alexander LesUe, the man who had baffled WaUenstein Mmself before the walls of Stralsund, and Leslie was but one of many of the war-worn veterans of Gustavus who came back to fight for Scotland in the hour of danger. But there was no need of fighting when that army faced the King on Dunse Law : Charles had to concede everythmg by the Treaty of Berwick in June 1639. Charles had no idea of keepmg the treaty. His object was " to gain time " to stir up Enghsh feeling agamst the Scots and organ ize an EngUsh army. But that autumn gave a lurid illustration of Ms helplessness. A second Armada came out, this time agamst the Dutch. It got the worst of a running fight in the Channel, 304 CHURCH AND STATE and put into the Downs short of powder. For once Charles could seU sometMng worth ha-vmg, and he made an excellent price for his powder. But before the Spaniards could unload it from the Ughters, Tromp came in and destroyed most of their ships in EngUsh waters — an outrage which the Enghsh admiral had no orders to prevent. It also broke off some negotiations with France and Spain, in which Charles was putting up Ms ser-vices to auction. So he offended France and the Dutch by helping the Armada, Spam by not domg so effectively. A second "Bishops' War" was plain in sight; and Charles resolved at last to summon a ParUament. It could not refuse suppUes when invasion was imminent ; and moreover, he thought he had evidence that the Scots were conspiring with France. ParUament met April 13, 1640. It was almost entirely Puritan ; yet its tone was unexpectedly moderate. The Commons made no attacks on individuals, but insisted on the old rale that griev ances should be redressed before Supply was granted. As Har- bottle Grimston said, a Scottish invasion might be bad, but the invasions of the Uberties of the subjects at home were nearer and more dangerous. Charles insisted that Supply must come before grievances, and offered to sell his claim to sMp-money for twelve subsidies. The Commons held firm against a change wMch would have reduced them to the impotence of a Spanish Cortes, and refused to look at any business but the redress of grievances. For the fourth time Charles dissolved Ms ParUament in anger (May 5). Convocation commonly came to an end with ParUament : but tMs tim.e Charles continued it. Even Laud objected to tMs unusual course. The clergy had proposed to vote six subsidies ; but this needed the concurrence of ParUament, so they made it a benevolence. Then they enacted a series of canons — Laudian, but conciUatory in tone. One however of them was provoca tive — ^at least of ridicule. It imposed on churchmen an oath appro-ving the doctrine of the Church, promising to bring in no Popish doctrine, " nor will I ever give my consent to alter the govemment of the Church by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, etc, as it stands now by law estabUshed," There was much doubt whether Convocation had any right to sit apart from ParUament, but there is no doubt at all that its claims to bind the laity, especiaUy with the Etcetera Oath, were utterly CHARLES I 305 unconstitutional. Its last sittings had to be protected from the mob, and Charles hurried its dissolution (May 29) to avoid worse things. Till the meetmg of the Short Parliament Charles and Laud might flatter themselves that there was no very general discon tent, but it was now plam to all the world that the nation stood in an almost sohd mass against them, and was more inchned to welcome the Scots as dehverers than to repel them as enemies. The royahsts of the future were mostly in opposition — ^Hyde and FalMand as definitely so as Hampden and Pym — and Charles could count on few but courtiers, papists and some of the clergy. Wentworth however, now earl of Strafford, was a host in Mmself. His word was Thorough, If Parhament would not vote supphes to repel invasion, Charles was " loose and absolved from all rules of govemment," and must bring over an Irish army to set up a miUtary despotism. So the next few months were months of naked tyranny. Ship-money for the navy and coat and conduct money for the army were enforced, and when the City refused a loan, four of the aldermen were thrown into prison. Strafford wanted to hang them, and tried to get a loan from Spain, promising EngUsh help against the Dutch. Riots in London were punished as treason, but sMp-money came in slowly, and the army was in an alarming state. The soldiers were unwilhng rastics, iU paid and ill provided, and dangerously mutinous. They deserted, threat ened to shoot their officers, and in more than one case did Mil them . The Kmg planned in vam to seize the bulhon in the Tower, to debase the currency, to get a loan from Spain, France, or the Pope. Even martial law was unworkable. The Scots had no difficulty in forcmg the Tyne at Newbum, and occupied the two northem counties. Charles was now m desperate straits. He called a Great Council of the Peers at York, and announced that writs were issued for a ParUament. The peers did what they could. They raised a small loan for him, and brought down the demands of the Scots by the Treaty of Ripon to a payment of £850 per day till a definite peace was made. CHAPTER XXV THE CIVIL WARS The meeting of the Long ParUament marks the crash of the old English monarchy. The dictatorsMp wMch the Tudors had wielded for the welfare of their people was turned by the Stuarts into a mean and stupid despotism wMch threatened at once the religion, the Uberty, and even the independence of the nation, and made it impossible for any future Mng to govern as the Tudors had governed. The Restoration was only a restoration, for no Boscobel enthusiasm could efface the hnes wMch that great ses sion drew. An Enghsh Mng might stiU impersonate the majesty of England, might still inspire the free and ardent loyalty of all the various peoples of a world-wide empire, but he should never again debase Ms royal calling to the mfamy of a corrapt and selfish Stuart despotism. The Long ParUament was Puritan Uke its predecessors; but tMs time the Commons of England came up for sterner work than petitioning against the mnovations of Laud and Charles in Church and State. The future royaUsts — ^Hyde, Falkland, Capel, Vemey — were as resolute as the future Roundheads — Hampden, Pym, Vane, Holies, Cromwell : and there was no court party. Bishops and courtiers sat in the House of Lords, but there was also a strong group of Puritans. Charles was helpless, for only ParUament could find Mm the £850 a day for the Scots. But the very quahties wMch had made Mm a tyrant now prevented him from waiting Ms time to rally moderate men to a moderate monarchy. He devoted Mmself to scheming at home and abroad to put down Parhament by force, and lost no opportunity of showing Ms bad temper. As he could not dissolve and had not patience to wait, he turned to the army plots wMch gathered round the Queen, He brought up Strafford to London against his will (for Strafford knew Ms danger) and only by a solemn promise of protection, 306 THE CIVIL WARS 307 Strafford always ad-vised lawless -violence and rathless execution ; and now his counsel was to seize the leaders of the Commons, Had the plot succeeded, slaughter would have answered slaughter, and the Scots might have had to restore order in London, But Pym got wind of it, and it was m sheer self-defence that the Com mons impeached Strafford of treason, and the Lords committed him to custody (November 11), They could breathe freely, now that the one dangerous enemy was under lock and key. Then Prjmne and the other -victims of the Star Chamber were released, Falkland and Hyde moved that ship-money was grossly illegal, and that the judges who perverted justice in Hampden's case should be brought to account. Secretly Windebank had already fled to Holland; now Lord Keeper Finch foUowed him, and soon Justice Berkeley was arrested on the bench in his own court. The flrst constructive measure was the Trieimial Act (February 16, 1641), that if the King failed for three years to summon ParUament, it was to meet -without his authority. Then came the trial of Strafford, In an impeachment the Lords are judges, and go by law; and even if Strafford had ad-vised the King to crush the Parliament with an Irish army, this was hardly treason by the statute of Edward III, So the Commons dropped the impeachment for a bill of attainder. But the Lords were still more unwilUng to vote (m effect) that Strafford was such a pubhc danger that he could not be aUowed to Uve ; and the King promised him again : " On the word of a Mng, you shall not suffer in Ufe, honour, or fortune " (April 23), Strafford's bearing commanded admira tion, and he would have escaped with incapacity for office, but for the alarm of contmued army plots and schemes for overawing London, culmmating in an attempt to seize the Tower, It was clear that if the penalty were short of death, Charles would pardon Strafford and put him in command of the army. The City broke out in riots : " Stone dead hath no fellow," said Essex, The Lords passed the attainder now, and next evenmg (May 9) Charles accepted it, in terror of an impeachment of the Queen, Only his own persistent bad faith made the execution necessary ; but it made Strafford a martyr, and Charles was not a man to forgive the pubhc shame he had undergone. Things went faster now. On Hyde's motion the Star Chamber was abohshed ; and with it went the High Commission, the Court of Wales, and the 308 CHUECH AND STATE CouncU of the North, Henceforth there was to be no law in England but that enacted by the King in ParUament. Then the Tunnage and Poundage Act settled the Customs, and Selden carried bills forbidding ship-money, distraint of knighthood, and enlargement of forests. There was to be no taxation but that granted to the Kmg by ParUament. This completed the lasting poUtical work of the Long ParUa ment, for only the Triennial Act was repealed at the Eestoration, There was also a temporary Act passed in the panic of the army plot, and accepted by Charles along with the attainder, that tMs Parliament was not to be dissolved without its own consent. This was really a revolution ; but it was a necessity if the Scots were to be paid off, as they were in August : the rest was a conser vative removal of oppressive innovations. The Commons only reoccupied the position they had failed to mamtain in Lancastrian times ; yet they essentially changed it in the very act of guarding it by law. The law was clear now, but the old problem of the Charter was still unsolved. If the King refused to rale by law, could he be made to do so without ci-vil war ? So far the Commons were nearly unanimous. Even the extreme measure of the attainder was carried by 204 to 59, and Selden is the only name of note in the minority, Falkland voted for it, and Hyde did not oppose it. Commonly there was no di-vision at all. Even on ecclesiastical questions, all were agreed in opposition to Laudian innovations. On November 23 they had a solenm Communion at St. Margaret's, with the Holy Table in the body of the church. So WilUams had decided as bishop of LincoM in the Grantham case, and so he now decided again as dean of Westmmster. When the new canons were debated (December 9), Holbome maintained that canons are bmding even on the laity when not contrary to law ; St. John repUed that they do not bind even the clergy tiU confirmed by Parliament; but nobody dis puted that these particular canons were nuU. A few days later they were declared illegal, and Laud was impeached of treason for his share in them. The Commons were not far wrong in beUe-ving that the man who controUed the Church and education was hardly less dangerous than Strafford Mmself. Then came another impeachment. Wren of Norwich, who was specially obnoxious for " practising superstition " and for vigorous persecu tion. Wren however was never brought to trial, though he did THE CIVIL WAE8 309 not recover Ms liberty till the eve of the Eestoration. He would not accept it from Cromwell. It was agreed on all hands that the Church needed a drastic reformation : so far the House was entirely Puritan. There was a general desire to keep the clergy out of secular office and to abate the pomp and autocratic power of the bishops : but how much further were they to go ? Were the bishops to keep their seats in the House of Lords, or was there any need of bishops at all ? TMs was the rock on which Puritanism was wrecked. The Scots of course preached unity, and therefore Presbyteriamsm, and there was a Eoot and Branch party from the first — strong in London — which wanted to abolish Episcopacy entirely. Sectaries were rapidly increasing, and the ferment of thought set free in these critical years remmds us of France m 1789. The Enghsh moved on Christian Unes, the French on those of Eous- seau, but they both moved in the same direction towards the sove reignty of the people. But the EngUsh ideal was the sovereignty of a sober Christian people, whereas in France the scandals of the Church had discredited Christianity itself, so that nothing re mamed but pohtical ideals and a vague Deism. But however the Puritans might hate the bishops, they had never been generally hostile to Episcopacy. Cartwright and Travers were rather extreme than representative men, and there was not much more of that language till the controversy was mflamed by Laud. As Pym said in January, it was not the mtention of the House to abo hsh Episcopacy. There was force in Selden's question, " What will you put in its place ? " Was it to be an Erastian state Church raled by lay commissioners, or a Presbyterian and clerical state Church, or was every congregation to settle its own belief and worsMp ? The Independents were few, though they were a grow ing party. Perhaps Cromwell spoke for many : " I can tell you what I should not have, but I cannot tell you what I would have." Presbyterian clericahsm had too much in common with Laudian clericahsm to be generally attractive. " New Presbyter was but old Priest writ large." Power lay with men who did not make Church government a matter of conscience, and could not yet see their way. So there were great delays over the peti tion of 15,000 Londoners for the abohtion of Episcopacy, " root and branch," presented in December ; and when the debate came on (February 1641) the House was found so deeply di-vided that 310 CHUECH AND STATE the question had to be postponed. However, a BiU disquaU- fying the clergy from judicial power went up next month to the Lords. Here was the King's opportunity. Had he franMy broken ¦with schemes of military violence and accepted the gmdance of men Uke Hyde and Falkland, the country would have been weU satisfied with a moderated episcopacy and a moderated monarchy. But Charles went on plotting, and the excitement went on grow ing. Petitions poured in on both sides, and a Uterature arose — on one side Joseph Hall, on the other Smectymnuus ^ and Milton, So there was a change when the House retumed to the question on the day of Strafford's execution (May 12), The peers had before them a Bill for excluding bishops from the House of Lords; and there was special reason for removing twenty-six nominees of the King from a House then counting 149 members ; but the Lords shrank from so great a change, and finally threw out the Bill (June 8), As soon as their mtention was kno-wn, a Eoot and Branch Bill prepared by Cromwell and Vane was brought before the Commons, and in due course went into com mittee. Vane proposed diocesan boards, half clerics ; the House would have no clerics, and substituted a commission of nine laymen to have ecclesiastical jurisdiction all over the country, with five ministers to ordain in each diocese. If the new govem ment was not episcopahan, neither was it presbyterian. But the Bill never reached a third reading. Before the session ended, the Laudian mnovations were taken in hand. It was time, for there were brawls in churches — Puri tans breaking images. High Churchmen fightmg to defend the rails. It was ordered — the Holy Table to stand in its old place, and the rails to be removed, pictures of the Trinity and images of the Virgin Mary to be taken away, tapers, candlesticks and basins removed from the Holy Table, bowings at the name of Jesus or to the East End to be forborne, sermons to be allowed in the afternoon, dancmg and sports to be forborne on the Lord's Day, So far well : but an alarm was raised at a proposal to alter the Prayer Book, The Lords -wished to have rails for the Holy Table, to retain images of more than twenty years' standing, and to let every one do as he pleased about bowing. On September 9 ^ Smectynmuus stands for Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcomen, WUliam Spurstow. THE CIVIL WAES 311 they set aside the resolution of the Commons, and issued their own order (only twenty present) that Di-vine Ser-vice should be performed accordmg to law, that is, without Laudian innovations, but also without regard to Puritan grievances. That day the Houses adjourned for October 20, The Puritans of the Long ParUament had now reached the position to which the CavaUers retumed at the Eestoration. They had — so far as law could do it — defeated the King's aim at absolutism, -vindicated the control of Supply for the Commons, aboUshed arbitrary courts and processes, and put an end to the Laudian innovations m the Church. All this was accepted at the Eestoration, on the ground that it had the King's assent, and all that followed was treated as null because it had not. The Cavahers never proposed to restore the Star Chamber, and they even tightened their hold on Supply; but wMle the Triennial Act needed a formal repeal, the bishops and the Prayer Book came back as a matter of course. In a sense, the nineteen years of unsettlement are as complete a blank as the nineteen winters of Stephen's reign, for the questions of Church and State were taken up m 1660 just where they were left in 1641, Yet it was no more possible for England to stop there than it 'was for France to stop at the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, when in the same sense its president Thouret pro nounced the work of the Eevolution complete — and for the same reason. Parties were deeply divided, and all suspicions were inflamed to fever heat by the ceaseless intrigues of the court. Revolution is always near when the Kmg cannot be trusted. If Charles beUeved that his promises to subjects were not binding, and that he might very rightly bring m a foreign army to crush them, ParUament might fairly think that exceptional restraints would have to be placed on him. The right course would have been to depose Mm as Richard II was deposed, and once or twice the httle duke of Gloucester was mentioned, Henry IX might have served the purpose as well as WilUam III ; but the England wMch could hardly make up its mind to depose James II would never have aUowed the deposition of his father. So there was no altemative but to press for new restrictions on the royal power, though they enabled the law-breakmg Kmg to pose as champion of the old law and constitution. The choice lay between civil war and absolutism debased and embittered by the struggle; 312 CHURCH AND STATE and civil war was rightly chosen, even if notMng tangible was finally gained by it. Nothing but t]ie grim memory of civU war gave the control of the Restoration to moderate royaUsts Uke Hyde and Nicholas, whose counsels Charles I so impatiently rejected. So there was an Opposition when the Houses met agam (October 20), It was not separated from Pym and Hampden by any confidence in the Kmg, by any desire to shield the bishop, or by any unwilUngness to guard against the army plots, nor were many of them very zealous for Episcopacy ; but for the Prayer Book they did care, and when once they were separated from their old alhes, they rapidly became a royalist party. In spite of all entreaties, Charles insisted on going to Scotland in August, The Scots had given offence to ParUament by their meddling with Enghsh Church affairs and by the heavy in demnity they had exacted for the war. So Charles was a gracious King at Edinburgh : he conceded aU demands, Ustened to un pleasant sermons, and had a most loyal reception. But when they came to business, the Scots were much too canny to let him take an army back to England, Even worse was Ms fate to be — somehow — ^always dogged with army plots, wherever he went. There was a plot in Scotland, and when he retumed to West minster he was still surrounded with plots and rumours of plots. The spirit of disorder was abroad. In the first days of the new session an infected rag was sent to Pjnn, with a tMeat of a dagger to follow. Early m November came sometMng worse than a rumour. The Irish had risen; and small wonder, for Strafford had stolen their land, and the Puritans were not Ukely to tolerate Papists, For the next few weeks the story of a great massacre came bit by bit. Some 5000 EngUsh men and women were butchered, often with atrocious cruelty, and fully twice that number must have perished of the hardships dehberately inflicted on them : ^ and in the mtense excitement of the time, the numbers were magnified tenfold by report. The nation was horror-struck — except the King. To him it offered a double chance. If the rebelUon was to be put down, he would have a large army, and could do his wiU in England : or he could 1 This is the lowest estimate which can possibly be true. Many times this number must have perished in the later troubles, and hy English retaliation. Sir W. Petty estimates 500,000 in all, from 1641 to 1652. THE CIVIL WARS 313 negotiate with the rebels, and bring them over to crush the Parliament. It was in the deepening shadow of a near catastrophe that ParUament reassembled. Pym no longer commanded the House, only a majority ; and he was moderate. The Root and Branch Bill and the resolutions on ceremonies were dropped, and a new Bill was brought in to exclude the bishops from the House of Lords. Efforts were made m vain to secure that the King should choose ministers agreeable to Parhament. Then the Commons drew up the Grand Remonstrance. It began by declarmg that a malignant conspiracy of papists, bishops, and evil counsellors had estranged the King from his people, encouraged Arminianism and endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws. Then came a review of the enormities of the whole reign, followed by a rather vague proposal for Church reform by a national sjmod ¦with help from foreign divines. It concluded with a petition that the Kmg would employ such councillors, ambassadors and other ministers as have the confidence of Parhament, " without which we cannot give His Majesty suppUes." The recital of enormities passed unchallenged — Hyde declared that it was true — but a fierce debate arose on the Church clauses. It began at noon November 22, and went on far into the night, ending in 159 Ayes, 148 Noes. Then a still fiercer dispute over a proposal to print the Remonstrance. Swords were almost drawn, but Hampden calmed the tumult. As they came out at four in the moming, Cromwell told Falkland (who had absented Mmself) that if the Remonstrance had been lost, he would have packed straight for America. Cromwell was right : that di-vision was decisive. The Remon strance was addressed to the King, who gave an evasive reply a month later ; but it was really a manifesto to the nation, a pubhc declaration of want of confidence m the Kmg. After this the situation grew rapidly worse. Disorderly " Cavahers " flocked to WMtehall, and disorderly " Roundheads^ " came out from the City to try conclusions with them. As if to conflrm the rumours of intended outrage, Charles made Lunsford Lieutenant of the Tower — a man of such ruffianly character that the more decent Cavaliers insisted on his removal. There were daily affrays, and 1 So called from a passing fashion of the time. Puritan peers (Brooke, Essex, Mandeville, Saye, Warwick, Wharton) wore long hair. 314 CHURCH AND STATE the bishops passed to the House through angry crowds. There was a riot when Archbishop WilUams cuffed a rade boy, and twelve prelates entered a protest, that ParUament was not free, and that everytMng done in their absence was null and void (December 27). WilUams had lost Ms temper again, and misled the rest. The second clause was quite unconstitutional — the two great statutes of Ehzabeth had no consent of spiritual peers — but the sting was in the first cJause. If ParUament was not free now, neither had it been free in May — ^the very excuse Charles was wanting for a ¦violent dissolution. The Lords were mediating and trying to keep order; but they fired up now, accepted an impeachment, and committed twelve prelates to custody. Charles coUected CavaUers and placed a guard at WMtehall : the Commons asked protection from the City, for the Kmg had deprived them of their o^wn guard. The new year (1642) brought a crisis. Charles began by takmg Culpeper and Falkland as ministers ; but it was not their counsel which he took. He had never given up the idea of impeacMng the leaders of the Commons. So (January 3) the Attorney- General, actmg on instructions under the King's own hand, exMbited articles of impeachment agamst Pym, Hampden, Holler, Haslerig, Strode, and Lord Mande'ville, and the Serjeant at Arms was sent to demand the surrender of the five commoners. TMs was a triple breach of privilege. The King cannot personaUy order an impeachment, the Commons cannot allow their members to be arrested ¦without their permission, and the Lords cannot suffer others than themselves to arrest impeached persons. Worse was to follow. Charles had just refused to restore to the Commons a guard, assuring them of his full protection. Next day he came down to the House to seize the five members himself, and with Mm several hundred Cavahers who fiUed the haU outside, takmg off their cloaks, cockmg pistols, and impatiently waiting the signal for the attack. That signal was never given. The five members had just been sent away, and as Charles surveyed the House from the step of the Speaker's Chair, he saw for Mmself that " the birds were flown," and left the House with cries of " Pri^vilege ! Pri^vilege 1 ! " ringmg behind Mm. To Ms lawless conception of royalty it seemed no more than his right to seize obnoxious men wherever he found them : he came prepared for violence, and cannot have been bhnd to the certainty that THE CIVIL WARS 315 if the five members had been in their places, there would have been a slaughter on the floor of the House, It was the first great outrage of the revolutionary period. After this there could be no serious hope of peace, and both parties prepared for war, Charles retired to the North, sending Henrietta ¦vdth the cro-wn jewels to ask for Dutch or Danish intervention, wMle ParUament put the Mngdom in a state of defence. The Lords now passed the Rishops' Exclusion Bill (Febraary 5) and Charles gave his assent. It was not worth much, now that he had pubhcly denounced the entire work of the ParUament as treasonable. Then came the crucial question. The miUtia was the only orgamzed force in the country, so that the Houses must in self-defence wrest the control of it from the King, while the King must in self-defence maintain his consti tutional right to command it. Neither side could yield, and angry recriminations filled the mterval before the King raised his standard at Nottingham (August 22, 1642). The rehgious cleavage of the Civil War was sharper than the poUtical. The King had all the Laudians and the Papists, Parhament all the sectaries. But very few of the CavaUers wished to restore the tyranny, hardly any of the Roundheads to destroy the monarchy. There was a common ideal of a good English kmg m harmony -with his Parhament ; but unreasoning loyalty was faced by deep distrust of Charles, attachment to Church and Liturgy by determination to have a drastic reform of both. The Kmg had most of the great landowners, though a respectable minority of the peers declared for Parhament, The smaUer gentry and the yeomen were more di-vided, but in a general way they leaned to the King in the North and the West, against him in the East and the South, But London and the towns, the merchants and the artisans, were for the ParUament, though the royaUsts could plot even in London, and controlled some of the more distant cities. Nor did the sum of the parties make up the nation, or at first even the half of it. Many of the gentry stood neutral as long as they could, and the small farmers and agricultural labourers were always more disposed to resist the depredations of both parties than to jom either. With all classes divided and a large mass of indifference there could be no class-war, and there was no deadly hatred, except of Irish and other Papists, Hence the marked humanity of the war. There 316 CHURCH AND STATE was plunder at first on both sides, but never massacre except in Rupert's sack of Bolton, and there were no executions after the war. But the Roundheads never plundered more than houses and castles — only the CavaUers sacked to-wns — and after awhile even royalist counties found in the strict disciphne of CromweU's Levies a welcome protection from the excesses of Rupert's or Goring's marauding CavaUers. ParUament had a great advantage in money and munitions and the command of the sea, so that with resolute generals it ought to have made short work of the war. But the King had more of the gentry, and m his nephew Rupert a brilhant leader of cavalry. The common soldiers were often of poor quaUty on both sides : the pressed riff-raff of the Eastem towns was worthily matched by the drunkards of the West. The King gained steadily, and in 1643 royaUst armies converged on London from the Scottish border, from the Welsh border, and from Com- wall, and were only held back because the men of distant sMres would not leave far behind them the fortresses of Hull, Gloucester, and Plymouth. Even so, the campaign was disastrous to Parliament. Bristol had fallen, London was threatened from the royaUst centre at Oxford, and Gloucester had only been reUeved by calUng out the tram-bands — an effort wMch dis organized the trade of London, so that it could hardly be repeated. Meanwhile the war was hardening hearts and sharpening animosities. The hcence and disorder of the Cavaliers increased ; but with Parliament the evil took another form. Now that the Laudians and many of the moderates had joined the King at Oxford, a BiU was carried (Febraary 20, 1643) for the entire aboUtion of Episcopacy, and in July an Assembly of Divmes met at Westminster for the further and more perfect reformation of the Uturgy, discipUne and govemment of the Church. First were named thirty laymen, includmg such eminent names as Pym, Selden, Vane ; then one hundred and twenty-one di-vmes. Among these was a group of EpiscopaUans Uke Ussher, West- field, Prideaux, and the future bishops, Hacket, Morley, and Rejmolds, At the other extreme were the Five Dissenting Brethren, who spoke for the Independents, and carried weight far beyond their numbers. But in the main the Assembly was Presbyterian, and in course of time drew up the present standards THE CIVIL WARS 317 of the Church of Scotland, replacing the EngUsh Prayer Book by the Directory, and the EngUsh Articles by the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. But Uke Convocation, it was no more than a commission to discuss and report on such questions as might be laid before it. It was caUed, nominated and controUed by ParUament, and had no enacting power of its own. The military necessity seemed clear, and ParUament called in the Scots. But while the Erastians and the sectaries were fighting for ci-vil hberty as well as religious, the Presbyterians on both sides of the border were wilhng to throw it at'the King's feet, if only he would estabhsh the godly discipUne and put down Papists, Arminians and sectaries. The King could not do this, nor could ParUament without ahenating not only the churchmen and the quiet people, but some of their own active supporters. But the Assembly could subscribe (September 25, 1643) the Covenant with a good conscience. It was for the suppression of Popery, Prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, etc., and even the Independents could agree so far. Then came the treaty with the Scots, binding Parhament, not in so many words to set up the discipline, but to reform the Church " accord ing to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches." On such conditions the Scots came in, and gave important help at Marston Moor (July 2, 1644), but the honours of the day were ¦with the other wing, where Rupert found his match in Cromwell, and the best of the CavaUers went down before the yeomen of East Angha. But the King was not beaten yet. One ParUamentary army under Essex wandered mto ComwaU and had to surrender, for another under Waller was unable to reUeve it, while the Scots had their troubles at home, and could give Uttle further help. Was the alliance really needed ? Might not England be able to do the work alone ? So thought one plain country gentleman of Huntingdon and Ely. OUver Cromwell ^ had passed his fortieth year when he came out as the best cavalry general and the most sagacious statesman of his time. His general temper was noble and unselfish. Kmdly to strangers, and magnanimous as Wilham III to enemies, Cromwell nearly always leaned to mercy, except on two great occasions. In his eyes the massacre of Drogheda was 1 We pass over scandalous tales ad inf. Cranmer himself has not been better slandered than Oliver. 318 CHURCH AND STATE a fitting retribution on the Irish Papists for their murders, and the execution of the King was only the just and necessary punishment of an mcorrigible and dangerous traitor. His reUgion was as genume as that of any samt, and if we measure it by Ms intense behef in prayer, we must rank it very Mgh. If he had his share of Puritan mannerism, and more than Ms share of Puritan clumsiness of expression, still no man could speak straighter to the heart of a question. Some passages of Ms are models of direct and weighty speaking, -with every sentence falling Uke a hammer. His mysticism did not bhnd him as Harrison and Vane were blinded; it was as consistent with practical wisdom in CromweU as m George Herbert or Benjamin Whichcote. Nor was he one of the men whose goodness begins and ends m reUgion. Zeal for justice to the poor and oppressed marked his earUer Ufe, and remamed a striking feature of Ms whole career. He made his nustakes, and some of Ms actions may have no good defence ; but take Mm for all in all, we shall scarcely find Ms Uke agam among the great men hfted by revolution to the dangerous heights of aU but autocratic power. Cromwell threw Mmself heartily into the war, and was the soul of the Eastern Association, wMch had repulsed the northem army in 1643. He saw from the first that tapsters and serving men and the rubbish of the press-gang were no match for the royaUst gentry. The enthusiasm of loyalty could be conquered only by the enthusiasm of reUgion. So he chose for Ms own troop none but honest and God-fearing men who were zealous for the Cause and ready to obey strict discipUne — no outrages, no plunderings, and a fine for every oath. On these terms every man was welcome without inquiry mto his reUgion. Here, in the miUtary necessities of CromweU's levies, is the beginning of practical toleration in England. It was Umited as yet, and unofficial; but the principle was already laid down, for no question of orthodoxy was asked of a man, if only he could be trusted to fight the Kmg. So CromweU's le-vies were by far the best in England, morally as well as in a miUtary sense, and their work on Marston Moor threw a lurid Ught on the irresolution of Presbyterian generals hke Essex and WaUer and Manchester. The clerical Presbyterians hated them for their heterodoxy : the Erastian Presbyterians of the Houses hated them too, but they had sense enough to see that if they did not want the Kmg THE CIVIL WARS 319 to hang them all, they must not only tolerate CromweU's troopers — ^for the present — ^but organize a much larger army on Crom weU's model. After the war they could punish the sectaries at leisure. With simster purpose they called the misbeUevers to deUver them, and the Ironsides under Fairfax and Cromwell started on their long career of victory. The first blow they strack was that which crashed the King at Naseby m 1645, and their last at the Dunes m 1658 completed the downfall of Spam. Rehgious enthusiasm m the New Model meant fighting for rehgious freedom, so that it rapidly became an army of Inde pendents and Sectaries, and after the war was the chief, and at last the only Enghsh army left. Power was forced on them by the folly of men who thought to use but not to tolerate them, and for some twelve years they kept England m the grip of governments unkno^wn to the law : yet they were law-abiding men who not only aUowed no lawless outrages, but never ceased their efforts to restore the rule of law ; and in the end, when law and persecution came back together, they quietly dispersed and sank into the obscurity of peaceful citizens whose sober piety put to shame the carousals of the Restoration. The war was practically decided at Naseby (June 14, 1645). The last royaUst armies capitulated in March 1646, the King fled to the Scots in May, and Oxford surrendered in June, There was now peace, except that a few isolated garrisons held out a Uttle longer. The land was nowhere badly desolated, but it was greatly impoverished by the plunderings of the royalists and the heavy assessments of their conquerors. Both sides had lost some of their best men. Of the royalists, Verney and Falkland had fallen, Hyde and Nicholas were m exile : on the other side, Brooke and Hampden were fallen, Pym and Essex were dead, and the Commons were led by smaUer men Uke Holies and Prynne, and by baser men from Speaker LenthaU downward, who had gone after filthy lucre, and desired chiefly to retain mdefinitely the power which had fallen to them. The problem which arose at the end of the Ci'vil War was hard, and in fact msoluble. Civil hberty was threatened on one side by a false and scheming Kmg bent on revenge, on the other by a ramp of a Parhament which was already a tyrannous ohgarchy, wMle rehgious hberty was an abommation to all but sectaries and Independents. We can see why Falkland threw away his hfe 320 CHURCH AND STATE at Newbury. A truer statesman might have striven to restore the King, though not to any real power, to secure frequent ParUaments and limit their duration, to give reUgious liberty even to Papists, and to put no needless hardsMps on the roya,Ust gentry. This was the wish of Cromwell and the army; but they were not yet in power, and they gained power only by a blow which shattered even such hopes of a peaceful settlement as the intolerance of the Presbyterians and the bad faith of the Kmg had not destroyed already. Disturbances in churches broke out soon after the meeting of the Long ParUament, especially over the Communion rails and the afternoon lecture, which the bishops inMbited, and a good deal of damage was done in the next two or three years. When the war began, paintings and images in churches were not safe from the outrages of passing soldiery. The royaUsts made a fortress of Lichfield cathedral, and the Roundheads often found a church tower useful for the attack on a royalist mansion. Puritan zeal sometimes went beyond all reasonable excuse of superstitious usage, as in the destraction of Charing Cross, the Cross in Cheapside, and even the historic Paul's Cross, wMch so long had been almost the official pulpit of England. Destraction however only became official in August 1643, when an ordinance of both Houses ordered the defacement of crosses, images, and pictures of Persons of the Trinity, and of the Virgin Mary ; but monuments of the dead, not being reputed saints, were to remain. The destruction which followed was large, though unequal. Of the cathedrals, for example, Canterbury and Lichfield suffered severely, Westminster and Winchester fared much better, and no harm seems to have heen done at York or Durham. But the damage must not be exaggerated. Most of the " monuments of superstition " were destroyed by EUzabeth in 1559, so that those which the Puritans found must have been mostly of recent date, set up in Laud's time. Some part also must be set down to the Cavahers, who had no more scruple than the Puritans at turning sacred places to profane use, and much must be aUowed for the neglect of churchwardens. WilUam Dowsing's Journal, wMch is a principal count in the indictment of Puritan Vandahsm, must be set aside as un- Mstorical. Apart from the unsatisfactory e-vidence of trans mission, his tale is quite incredible, as regards both the number THE CIVIL WARS 321 of pictures he found and the speed with which he destroyed them. Sequestrations and ejections of royaUsts began early. Colleges which sent off their plate to the King, preachers who denounced Ms enemies, or laymen who jomed Mm at Oxford, had no favour to expect : nor did it seem unreasonable to obtam money by makmg the " maUgnants " compound for their estates. Pre sently came the Covenant, imposed on mimsters and their congregations, soldiers, and practicaUy all officials, though many, especially the soldiers of the New Model, escaped it in the con fusion of the times. The wording of the Covenant excluded only Papists, Laudians, and sectaries. It upheld not defimtely the Presbyterian disciphne, but the example of " the best re formed churches," so that the Independents could welcome it — at first. Moderate churchmen Uke Ussher could construe " Prelacy, that is, govemment by archbishops, bishops, etc.," as referring to the worldly splendour and autocratic power of the bishops, wMch they were wilhng to abate. Others such as Gauden and Fuller, who made no secret of their preference for Episcopacy, still found nothing m the Covenant against their conscience. Even the Presbyterians of the House did not sign in the sense the Scots intended. They were wilhng enough to set Presbyterians in the churches, to put down scMsm, and to forbid the Prayer Book, but not to let the inmisters exercise any " godly discipUne " mdependent of ParUament. In a word, they were lajmaen and Erastians, who accepted the doctrine of the Scots, but not their clericahsm. But if the wording of the Covenant was ambiguous, its admmis tration was another matter. Enforced as it was by Presby terians as a confession of Presbyteriamsm, Laudians were not the only men who stumbled at it. The most offensive measure was the direct proMbition of the Prayer Book m January 1645. Henceforth its use was unlawful, so that it could only be read by stealth, by permission (as at the burial of Ussher and the marriage of CromweU's daughters), by conmvance, or in retired places. Yet many churchmen managed to obey the law by varjdng the service a Uttle, or repeatmg the prayers by memory. If the Directory told them to use their own words, what words would come so naturaUy as those of the old book ? After all, few of the Puritans had much objection to the 322 CHURCH AND STATE prayers — only to some of the ceremonies and to the reading from a book. Cathedral property was confiscated. The dignitaries were nearly all maUgnants and Laudians, and therefore odious, though a canon of Westminster who conformed was allowed to keep the revenues of his canonry. The bishops fared variously. Juxon, who had no enemies, was not turned out of Fulham till 1647, and then retired to an estate of his o^wn, where he kept the best pack of hounds in the county. A few more were in comfortable circumstances, but others were reduced to great poverty. Wil Uams of York and Wright of Lichfield, who bore arms for the King, could scarcely complain, and Goodman of Gloucester fared as he deserved. The sufferings of others were less merited. Joseph Hall ended his days in a small house at Nor^wich, Bramhall became prize-master at FlusMng for Charles II, and the venerable Morton of Durham might have fared still worse, if he had not been given a home by the Puritan Sir Christopher Yelverton. Wren was imprisoned for many years, but only Laud was put to death. The Scots had not forgotten him. He was first im peached, then the impeachment was dropped for an attainder. The King's pardon, given long after the beginning of the war, was naturally ignored, and he was executed as a traitor (Janu ary 10, 1645). The procedure was the same as in Strafford's case, but without the same justification, for Laud had long ceased to be dangerous, and less ungenerous enemies would have let the old man go in peace to Ms account. As a sample of Parhamentary action, we may look at Cambridge. The University had been strongly Puritan in Ehzabeth's time, but under the influence, first of Andrewes, then of Laud, there had lately been a reaction, and the cMef places were now filled by Laudians, though Emmanuel and Sidney, and a minority in other colleges, continued the Puritan tradition. TaMng broadly the whole period of unrest, we find three mam periods of ejection. The first was early in the war, when Beale and Martin and Sterne, Masters of St. John's, Queens', and Jesus, were sent prisoners to London, and other active royaUsts were turned out of their FellowsMps, All tMs was poUtical, though Steme and Martin, as Laud's chaplams, were speciaUy obnoxious. Then in 1644 came the Covenant, with Manchester to enforce it, and a great ejection of Episcopahans, headed by Cosin and THE CIVIL WARS 323 Laney, Masters of Peterhouse and Pembroke, It was very harsh, for ejected Fellows had to leave Cambridge in three days, and everythmg they left beMnd was sold, Cosin's books were valued at £247. But tMs rigour did not come on all the Epis copaUans. Some, as we have seen, could sign with a good con science, and others by private influence or otherwise escaped the test. The third period of ejections was in the early days of the Commonwealth, when the Covenant was dropped, and the Engagement was imposed instead. TMs was a purely pohtical oath, to be faithful to the Govemment as now constituted, without King or House of Lords, Any one could take it who was not a royahst : but the EpiscopaUans were old royaUsts, and perhaps most of the Presbjiierians had now become royahsts, so that this time also there were many ejections. The vacancies were mostly filled up from the Puritan College of Emmanuel, which furnished (1643-1660) no less than tMrteen Heads, and many Fellows — at Queens' a complete new staff, A similar course was taken at Oxford after the surrender of the city in 1646, There however the ejections were on a larger scale, for Oxford was not only Laud's University, but the head-quarters of the King, so that " malignancy " was rampant, and the Puritan influence was much weaker than at Cambridge, There are scarcely any Oxford Puritans of note but Owen, Rejmolds, and Nye, AU over the country there were similar ejections and similar escapes. The ejected clergy were allowed one fifth of the revenues of their benefices — ^wMch was more mercy than the older generation obtained from Bancroft and Laud, or the younger from Clarendon and Sheldon, The total number of ejections all over the country may have exceeded two thousand, though they were not all ejected for conscience' sake. Some were royaUsts who paid the penalty of pohtical action, and others were scandalous ministers whom Laud Mmself would have punished. But a large remainder must stand for pure and simple persecution, Charles and Laud embittered the Presbyterians of the Cl^vil War, and they in turn embittered the Churchmen of the Restoration, Neither could rise above the spirit of revenge. The King being conquered, the next tMng was to come to a settlement with Mm, for none but a few sectaries dreamed of a repubhc, A Mng of proved bad faith could not be restored 324 CHURCH AND STATE ¦without severe conditions, and so far the terms presented to him at Newcastle (July, 1646) were not unreasonable. Thus he was to give up the miUtia for twenty years, and only to receive it back on terms to be fixed by ParUament, wMch was also to appoint the great officers of state. But the rest was mere revenge and intolerance. Large classes of royaUsts were to be excepted from pardon, or fined two thirds, one half, one tMrd or one sixth of their estates and to lose political rights. The Kmg was to swear and sign the Covenant and enforce it, to put down Epis copacy and execute the laws against Papists. TMs mtolerance was further emphasized by an ordinance in September (not finally passed till May 1648), under which Umtarians and atheists might be put to death, and sectaries imprisoned for life, and another ordinance in December forbade laymen to preach or expound Scripture. The King's reply to the Newcastle proposals did not come tiU the foUo^wing May, and even this was largely evasive. He could not take the Covenant without the ad^vice of his chaplains ; he refused to give up the miUtia, or to sanction Presbyteriamsm for more than three years, and very rightly pomted out that an Act of ObUvion would be a much fitter end to the war than sweeping penalties. But by this time ParUament was in diffi culties elsewhere. The army ha^vmg done its work, they proceeded to disband it unpaid. But the serious men were mostly Independents and sectaries who had fought for the rehgious hberty which Parha ment was bent on destrojdng, and even the ungodly wanted their pay. CromweU strove in vain to mediate : he always preferred getting thmgs by agreement rather than by force. Parhament reUed on the City, the Scots, and the royaUsts : but when the army seized the King and moved on London, they gave way. Eleven Presbyterian leaders were excluded, and when the City mob forced Parhament to reverse their vote, the Speakers, Manchester and LenthaU, m-vited the army to restore order. The occupation of London (August 6, 1647) was momentary : but henceforth power was with the army, and the army took up the negotiation -with the King. They treated Mm much less harshly than the Presbyterians, and let Mm have his own chap lains. The " Heads of the Proposals," drawn up by CromweU's son-in-law Ireton, require a dissolution, and afterward every two THE CIVIL WARS 325 years a ParUament without rotten boroughs, ParUament to control the miUtia and the great offices for ten years. Five maUgnants only to be excepted from pardon ; the rest to have their fines much reduced, and to be mcapable of office for five years. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of bishops and others extending to civil penalties to be abohshed, and neither the Covenant nor the Prayer Book to be enforced, but other means to be taken for disabhng Papists from disturbing the State, Finally, a number of practical reforms. Here was a broad and statesmanUke plan which recognized the danger of ParUament becoming as great a tyrant as the Kmg, and endeavoured to subject it to the People as the true sovereign. Civil discord it strove to heal by gi'ving milder terms to the royalists, and rehgious discord by the grant of full toleration to all but Papists, It was too good to be practical poUtics, Had the King frankly accepted it, Ireton and Cromwell might have been able to carry it through. But Charles (besides incessant intrigues for foreign intervention) played his usual double, or this time triple game of deceit, on one side holdmg out hopes to the army, on another offering ParUament the mihtia and a Presbytery for three years, -with full Uberty for all who differed ; and on yet another making a secret convention with the Scots (December 1647), agam for a three years' Presbytery, but with the effectual suppression of Independents, and sectaries, other blasphemers, on which condition the Scots were to restore him, by force of arms if necessary, to his full royal power, mcludmg the mihtia and his negative voice m Parhament, The Scots had sadly over-reached themselves. They had laid civil Uberty at Ms feet, so that if they could not turn him mto a sound Covenanter -within the three years, he would then (iE not before) make short work of their Presbytery, I Thus emboldened, he rejected the Four Bills (nearly the New castle terms) set him by the Houses ; whereupon they voted that they would have no further addresses to or from him. As a Scots war drew nearer, a cry rose m the army for stern justice on the man of blood, Cromwell still strove for an agreement, till fresh discoveries of treachery convmced him that it had been a sin to hinder the course of justice. The Second Ci-vil War was short. It was an unnatural alhance of Scots and some EngUsh Presbyterians who cared for notMng but the Covenant with 326 CHURCH AND STATE Enghsh royalists who were determmed to suppress it. For a moment the danger was extreme, when Cromwell was held by the siege of Pembroke, Fairfax by that of Colchester, and the Scots were in full march towards London, Cromwell however got free m time to crush the Scots at Preston (August 17, 1648) and then Colchester surrendered to Fairfax, The army retumed more than ever determined to punish " the chief author of all our troubles " for thus a second time stirring up civil war. But the Presbyterians of the House were bhnd. On the eve of the war they passed their ferocious ordi nance against the sectaries, and before it was well over they opened fresh negotiations with the Kmg at Newport, Even then Charles had no idea of Ms danger, and made some concessions " only in order to my escape," Nugatory as they were, the House voted them (December 5) a good basis for a settlement. Next moming broke in the soldiers, without orders from Fairfax and Cromwell, They had no choice, if they did not mean to give up the whole of the civil and religious Uberty for which they had been fighting. Colonel Pride arrested some forty members at the door of the House, and turned back nearly a hundred more. The Rump of about sixty passed (January 1, 1649) an ordinance for the trial of the King ; and when the remnant of the Lords — twelve in number— threw it out, they voted (January 4) that the people are the source of all just power, and that the Commons representing them have the supreme power, so that their enact ments have the force of law without the consent of the King or House of Peers, and in -virtue of tMs they appomted a High Court for the trial. Half its members failed to appear, but the sentence was a foregone conclusion, Charles bore himself virith a dignity which commanded general respect and commiseration for fallen greatness, and at the last scene in front of Whitehall he stood serene. No qualms of conscience troubled him m the face of death, for he had never admitted any claim of subjects on their sovereign's good faith. From a legal point of view the execution was utterly irregular. Neither the Court nor the Rump wMch created it had any legal authority, nor had Charles done anytMng defined as treason by the statute of Edward III, In fact, it was hardly understood in that age how anythmg but a personal mjury to the Kmg could be treason. All that can be said is that law was overthro-wn by THE CIVIL WARS 327 the attack on the Five Members, and all that followed was war, however it was veUed in legal forms. Looking to substantial justice, no fair-minded person ¦will find it easy to deny that his mdictment as " a tjn^ant, a traitor, a murderer, and a pubhc enemy " was absolutely trae in every item. The only question is how far crimes hke these can be excused by bad education or bad influences, and whether any but the wicked would remember such trifles agamst a cro^wned Mng, a good churchmen, or a lover of art. As a question of policy, it was the most disastrous mistake imagmable, Charles was as troublesome a prisoner as Ms grandmother, but the one thing not to do was to put Mm to death, even if it were the righteous retribution wMch the regicides beUeved it to be. They did it in the name of the people of England, and nearly all the leaders of the people of England hated them and all their works — Royalists and Presbyterians were horrified, and some of the Independents and even of the army condemned it, from the Lord General Fairfax downward. It was not that the Commonwealth depended on the army only. The merchants and the yeomen were Puritans, and royaUst mvasions and plots and risings found no support in the country. But the squirearchy was in opposition ; and without their help the govemment was in the long run unworkable, " Nine-tenths of the people are against you," was said to Cromwell, " But if I put a sword in the tenth man's hand, will not that do the business ? " It is just the tragedy of CromweU's life, that it would not do the busmess. Society was too full of class pride and reUgious hatred to hear of reform, toleration, and equal justice to the poor — which were CromweU's aims, A few days after the Bang's execution, there came out one of the books wMch make Mstory, Elxcbv Baaihxifi, The Portraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his solitudes and sufferings, was an edifying account of the royal martyr's holy meditations, as if written by himself. High-flown and morbid as it is, it exactly suited the sentiment of the moment, went through endless editions,^ became the text-book of royaUsm, and did more than anjrthing to form the legend of a saintly sufferer whom the compilers of the Service for the Thirtieth Day of January were not ashamed to place in studied parallel ¦with the Lord Himself, At the Restoration its authorship was claimed by John Gauden, dean of Booking, ^ Almack, E,, Bibliogr. of the King's Booh, counts seventy-six. 328 CHURCH AND STATE a moderate churchman who had conformed in Commonwealth times. His claim seems estabhshed. The tricks of style — and these are many — are Gauden's and not the Kmg's ; and though Charles could put a plausible case, there is no reason to believe that he could have put it ¦with the masterly effectiveness of the Eikon. Nor was it Gauden's first forgery. CHAPTER XXVI THE COMMONWEALTH The news of the Kjng's execution was received on the conti nent with a cry of horror. In an age of despotism, it was an unheard-of atrocity for subjects to sit in judgment on their prmce. The Commonwealth had not a friend in Europe, Its ambassadors were murdered by Cavahers at the Hague and Madrid, and chased away from distant Moscow, Yet neither dared any power openly support the Stuart cause, France and Spam were locked m deadly conflict, and WilUam of Orange was hampered by the merchant aristocracy of Holland, So the Commonwealth was left to consohdate. The first step was the conquest of Ireland m 1650, Cromwell was merciless for once, though not more merciless than the Enghsh usually were in Ireland, He had the murderers of 1641 before Mm, and the massacre of the Enghsh garrison at Drogheda was justified by the laws of war, which witMn the last century allowed a garrison to be put to the sword if it refused to sur render. The last actual massacre was by the Russians at Ismail in 1790; but Welhngton as late as 1820 pronounced it good law, though he never acted on it MmseK, In CromweU's time it was undoubted, and quite recent writers (not Germans) have thought it worth argumg. Then came Scotland, The Scots m-vited Prince Charles, made Mm take the Covenant and confess the sins of his father and mother, and utterly disgusted Mm with the senseless rigour of Presbyterian pedantry. As Fairfax would not serve against them, Cromwell became Lord General; and presently Da-vid LesUe faced him with an army of sound Covenanters, thoroughly purged of heretics and sinners. Crom well was outgeneraUed ; but when the armies met, the Scots were broken m a moment at Dunbar (September 3, 1651). Edinburgh was taken, but Scotland was not conquered. Prince Charles was crowned at Scone, and gained at any rate freedom to enhst 329 330 CHURCH AND STATE uncovenanted royahsts. At last he dashed into England. Nobody joined Mm, and in despair he threw Mmself into Worcester ¦with CromweU close after him. One battle (September 3, 1652) and all was over. Charles escaped, and the story of his escape formed another chapter of the romance of royaUsm. Meanwhile the seas were cleared by the fleet, and the submission of Maryland in 1652 brought the last of the colomes under the rule of the Commonwealth . It was easier to conquer the empire than to find a settlement for England. First (Febraary 6, 1649) the House of Lords was voted " useless and dangerous," as it certainly was when only five or six peers attended. Next month it was aboUshed, and the monarchy two days later; and the Commonwealth was formally proclaimed in May. TMs was logical : but now the Rump remained without a check, the sole remnant of la^wful authority : and the Rump was a mere residuum, cleared of Royahsts by the civil war, of aggressive Presbyterians by Colonel Pride. It could neither represent nor govern the nation. So a Council of State was formed, which soon controlled the Rump and governed England much as the Committee of PubUc Salva tion controlled the Convention and governed France : and it governed England with the same amazmg energy, though not with the same atrocious craelty. But laws could only be made by the Rump, which discussed many needed reforms, and allowed nearly all of them to drop. Thus they tried to make duelhng murder, but left Cromwell to make the law, which the Cava Uers of the Restoration repealed. Some things however they did carry through. They ceased to enforce the Covenant, and abohshed penalties of absence from the parish church for those who attended some other place of worship; but (January 1650) they imposed on all men the Engagement, to " be trae and faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as it is now estabhshed, ¦without a King or House of Lords," This is no more than the allegiance which every government requires of officials; but its general enforcement made it a rock of offence to Presbyterian royalists as well as to the old mahgnants. The Navigation Law may be dismissed as a natural continuation of the protectionist pohcy established by Richard II, Another law of 1650 made fornication a crime, and adultery capital. They had always been offences, and if they were to remain pumshable after the THE COMMONWEALTH 331 abohtion of the Ecclesiastical Courts, a new law was needed. But tMs Judaic severity was futile. Juries refused to con^vict, so that only two executions can be traced, and the law was qmte obsolete by 1657, But there was still the question of a settlement, and we can already see the reaction to monarchy. At a conference in December 1651 the lawyers favoured the duke of Gloucester for Mng, and Cromwell Mmself was for " a settlement with somewhat of monarcMcal power in it," A year later he startled WMtelocke with the question, " What if a man should take upon him to be Mng ? " But there could be no settlement of any sort while the Rump evaded dissolution. For four years Cromwell and the officers urged it with increasing anger, but still they clung to power. At last they proposed, not a dissolution but a filling-up of vacant seats, with themselves to approve the new members. TMs was another evasion, and when they tried one day to push it through in spite of a promise from their leaders that nothing should be done that morning, Cromwell called in the soldiers and turned them out (April 21, 1653), TMs was pure ¦violence ; yet when a detested Rump was bent on maMng itself into a permanent oUgarchy, there may have been some reason to thmk that an equaUy detested council of officers was likely to do better. However, there were few complaints, " At their going," said CromweU, " we did not hear a dog bark," The army contained fanatics hke Harrison, who wanted the Je^wish Law adopted, or a Sanhedrin of seventy Samts; but most of the officers were law-abiding men who wanted a practical settlement. As they could not venture on a general election, wMch would most Ukely have retumed Presbyterian royaUsts, they decided to begin with Harrison's plan, extended to include Puritans of all opinions. The churches sent in names, the Lord General and the Council selected from the list and added others. Fairfax was offered a place, and Vane was sounded, but neither would accept. Thus was formed a Convention of a hundred and forty nominees, wMch the Cavahers called Barebone's ParUament, from Praise- God Barebone, a London leather merchant who sat in it. For Speaker they chose Francis Rous, Provost of Eton and author (1641) of the metrical Psahns stiU used by the Church of Scotland, The Convention represented the same classes as an 332 CHURCH AND STATE ordinary House of Commons, but there were more of the extreme men. Some of its measures were excellent. Thus they made marriage a ci-vil contract, as it is now in most countries, though we have ourselves disguised the fact by maMng the clergy registrars ex officio. Of course the parties were left free to add a reUgious ceremony, and it might be performed by an ejected mimster. But they were too zealous, attempted too much at once, and alarmed the lawyers, the landowners, and even the officers. The Court of Chancery was an old scandal, for (besides its delays and its fees) Equity was very much what the Chancellor for the time being was pleased to make it — " the length of the Chancellor's shoe," as Selden said. The Convention summarily abohshed the Court, and swept away the whole system of Equity. Ecclesiastical Patronage was also to go. Tithes were a real grievance when paid in Mnd, and a strong party wanted the State to find (if it were possible) some other maintenance for mimsters. A committee reported in favour of retaimng tithes ; but when the first clause of the report (recommending a Board of Triers) was thro-wn out by a majority of two, Lambert and the officers took alarm, and induced the moderate party — a real majority, if it had attended steadily — ^to resign the powers of the Convention into the Lord General's hands (December 13, 1653). A rump of about thirty was promptly turned out by the soldiers. Thus the " burden " of a settlement was agam thrown back on Cromwell and the army. The Convention marks the culmination of Puritanism as a pohtical force, for the reaction to mundane things was already begim, though the Restoration hardly became practical pohtics till after the fall of Richard CromweU. But what was to be done ? The King was a tyrant, the House was no better, and Harrison's Convention had turned out unpractical. The need of " something monarchical " was e-vident, and there had been talk in April of making CromweU King. That talk was now renewed, but CromweU scrapled. He had not fought the King to take a crown Mmself. Harrison's plan ha'ving failed, he fell back on Lambert's Instrument of Government. TMs provided for a Lord Protector and a ParUament of one House, with a strong Council interposed between them. It was to be a ParUament of the three Mngdoms without rotten boroughs, wMle the Protector had no veto on laws, and must act by the ad^vice of an independent Council. He had less power than an American THE COMMONWEALTH 333 President, but his tenure was for hfe. EverytMng was set down in writmg, and Parhament had no power to change its " funda mentals." " The Christian reUgion as set forth in the Scriptures " is the pubhc profession of these nations, but " such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, though differing m judgment from the doctrine, worsMp, or disciphne pubhcly held forth " shaU be protected in their faith and worsMp, " pro-vided this Uberty be not extended to Popery or Prelacy " or to riotous or Ucentious practices. This was as far as they could safely go m the way of toleration ; and the exceptions were not so extensive as they may seem, for " Prelacy " did not exclude moderate churchmen Uke Fuller and Gauden, who stopped short of maMng govemment by bishops a matter of conscience. Indeed, there is no sign that any large numbers refused the mmistrations of their parish churches on that ground. The Lord Protector was installed December 16, 1653, and ParUament was to meet on the following September 3, the anni versary of Dunbar and Worcester. Meanwhile he was empowered to issue ordinances vahd until annulled by ParUament. The Church was in confusion, and the Convention had made confusion worse confounded by its attacks on Tithe and Patronage. If the King had triumphed, there would have been a regular Episcopa lian system; if the Presbyterians, a regular Scots disciphne. But the Erastians and the people had frastrated their discipline, and the army had compelled them to take their place alongside of Baptists and Independents, Thus the minister of a parish might be a Presbyterian, a Baptist, an Independent, or an Episcopahan who did not refuse to do without the Prayer Book, and the patron of the hvmg might present any of these, however unfit, though those who did not like the man presented were now free to form churches of their own, CromweU did not meddle with Tithe or Patronage, The Churches might ordam as they pleased, and the patrons might present whom they pleased; but the minister of a parish must be a fit person, A comnussion of Triers was appointed, and any one presented to a h^ving had to produce testimonials of character, and to satisfy the Triers of Ms godliness, learmng, and efficiency. There was no test of doctrine, no mention of sects, and the-Xners would seem to have done their work fairly. Some EpiscopaUans who had refused the Engagement now came m, and were restored to their hvings; 334 CHURCH AND STATE but such cases were afterwards reserved for the approval of the Protector and Ms CouncU, Only the investigation of godhness was a deUcate matter, and there were stories of minute and unseemly questions about personal experiences when it was conducted by Puritan pedants. After tMs came a committee for the ejection of " scandalous, ignorant, or insufficient ministers," Besides immorahty, neglect of duty, or open disaffection, a minister might be ejected for common haunting of tavems or alehouses, frequent quarrelhng or fighting, frequent plajdng of cards and dice, profaning the Sabbath day, pubhcly and fre quently readmg or usmg the Book of Common Prayer, pro fanely scoffing at the strict professors of godhness, or encouraging " WMtsun ales, wakes, morris dances, maypoles, stage plays, or such-like Ucentious practices," There is no persecution here, for the Common Prayer is forbidden only in pubhc mimstrations ; but besides the usual Puritan strictness, some of the definitions are dangerously vague. Upon the whole however the Ejectors also did their work honestly. Baxter was no friend of CromweU ; and in Ms judgment, few were turned out who did not deserve it, and few put in who were not worthy. The result was a conglomerate Church of Presbyterians, Baptists, Independents, and EpiscopaUans who did not pubhcly use the Common Prayer; and outside it sundry sects. TMs Church had no formal confession of faith, and no tests but those of the Triers. The old discipUne was aboUshed ¦with the ecclesi astical courts, and the Presbyterians could not estabhsh a Scots discipUne, though Baxter had a voluntary disciphne at Kidder minster. It was quite as much a happy famUy as an organized Church ; but even so, the peace enforced on sects that were ready to fly at each other did something for the cause of charity and tolerance, and held forth to the future the ideal of a Church of wider scope and nobler comprehension than seems even now withm reach for a long time to come. Even the Romanists gamed sometMng from the Common wealth. They were reheved of the recusancy fines m 1650, but the penal laws were not repealed, and one more priest was executed for reUgion — against CromweU's will — ^in 1654. Upon the whole however the admimstration was much more lement than the law, so that they suffered Uttle for reUgion, though much for royaUsm. The Jews also were tacitly aUowed to retum to THE COMMONWEALTH 335 England after more than three hundred years of exclusion since the time of Edward I. Cromwell cared Uttle for forms of government in Church or State ; but he cared much about practical abuses and open vice — or what he counted vice. He was shocked at the barbarity of the crimmal law. " To hang a man for six and eight pence and I know not what — ^to hang for a trifle and acquit murder ... is a thmg God will reckon." But it was not given to him to do the work of Romilly. With regard to vice and immorahty, one ordmance made duelling murder, a second punished swearing, and a third forbade cock-fighting. Parliament confirmed these, and added acts against vagrants, tavern-fiddlers, gamblers, and sabbath-breakers. Horse races were also forbidden for awhUe, not on grounds of moraUty, but because they were used for royaUst plots. But it was one thing to make laws, another to get them enforced by justices of peace ; and tMs was one reason for the estabhshment of major-generals, who often took drastic measures, as when Pride put down the bearbaiting in London by MlUng the bears.^ Yet the Puritans were no ascetics. They hated vice, not pleasure. The ParUament wMch suppressed the holy days of the Church in 1647 ordered a whole hoUday every month to servants, apprentices, and scholars " for recreation and relaxation." The Puritan gentleman was as fond of hunting and hawkmg as Ms royaUst neighbour ; and if he refused cards, he was qmte ready for bowls. So Cromwell himself. He appreciated pictures and was passionately fond of music. He drank wme, and denounced prohibition as " unjust and unwise." The Parhament wMch met September 3, 1654, proved un manageable. It derived authority from the Instrument of Government, yet claimed the full constituent power wielded by the Rump. Presbyterians wanted a new Assembly of Di-vines with a -view to persecution of sectaries, wMle repubhcans wanted to take the army out of the Protector's hands, so that both were makmg straight for anarchy. Ohver summoned them to sign a recognition of the Instrument, and shut out those who refused. Yet even the renmant would not pass the Instrument ^ Macaulay's sneer, that the Puritans disliked the pleasure of the spec tators more than the cruelty to the bear, is simply untrue. Cruelty to the bear is precisely the reason they give for their abhorrence of it. 336 CHUECH AND STATE into law without amending it in " fundamentals." CromweU had no choice but to dissolve ParUament at the earUest opportunity (January 22, 1655). Then came a troubled time of plots and disturbances by LeveUers, Fifth Monarchy men, Quakers, and royaUsts. Extremes met; LeveUers and CavaUers not uncommonly concerted plots together. The country as a whole was not royahst — Penrad- dock's rising m 1655 was only the work of a few gentry — ^but it was restless and discontented, and too deeply di^vided to have anything more than a general desire for law and order, and to be rid of the army wMch alone preserved the remams of law and order. Order mdeed the Protector could give, but only at the cost of law. The forces that made for anarchy were met by lawless repression — arbitrary taxation, arbitrary imprisonments, fresh le^vies on maUgnants, and a rule of major-generals wMch made a standmg army to stink in Enghsh nostrils for more than a century. Then came a new proclamation agamst ejected clergy. They were not to be chaplams or tutors in private houses, to preach, to celebrate marriages, to minister sacraments, or to use the Common Prayer. After all allowance for the fact that these men were deadly enemies of the Commonwealth, tMs is the worst act of the Protectorate, for it seemed to aim at depri^vmg its victims of all means of subsistence. The most that can be said for it is that it was not enforced. Jeremy Taylor was left un molested at Golden Grove, Bishop Morton at Sir Christopher Yelverton's, and there seems to be no case of any chaplain or tutor disturbed. The Common Prayer had been forbidden since 1646, so that its use was never safe; but there was no very strenuous effort to suppress it. If it was often mterrapted, it was more often connived at. Eveljm's arrest in 1657 was not simply for attendmg an unlawful service, but for the further and quite as heinous offence of observing Christmas Day. The war with Spam obUged CromweU to call a second ParUa ment (September 1656). It was not unUke Ms first. He had to begm by excludmg about a hundred members, though not tMs time by force, but by misusmg the lawful power of the CouncU to verify elections. The remainder were loyal to the Protector, but impatient of miUtary govemment, and threw out a biU for continumg the special taxation of maUgnants, In fact, the cMef change of the last two years was the gro^wth of the reaction THE COMMONWEALTH 337 towards law and constitutional govemment. A monarchy was plain m sight, but it was not yet the monarchy of the Stuarts. The nation in general was content with CromweU personaUy, and wilUng to make Mm King, with the royal power defined nearly as it stood in the autunm of 1641. So by the Humble Petition and Advice OUver was to be Kmg and to nommate a House of Lords ; but he was to govem by law, and to have no power over the elections to the Commons. CromweU hesitated as he had never hesitated in his Ufe before. He might be ¦wilhng to give up the weapon of arbitrary admmistration, but acceptance of the crown meant the disbandmg of the army and the surrender of Ms foreign pohcy. It was not till May 8, 1657, that he finaUy refused the cro^wn. Eepublicans, CavaUers, Presbyterian stal warts, could scarcely have overcome the widespread desire of a return to civil govemment ; but there was the reluctance of the army to reckon with. Yet perhaps the final difficulty was not the army, formidable as that was, but a real scrapie of Ms o^wn. There may be reason to regret Ms decision. Ohver's work was nearly done, and Eichard IV would have been qmte as good a constitutional king as George I, and in Ms long reign (1658-1712) England might have settled down under the new djoiasty. Richard was no fool, and would not have sunk to the Stuart infamy of dependence on France. But the tMng was not to be. The governing class wMch got drunk with Charles II was not worthy of a sober kmg. So the title was dropped, and Cromwell was enthroned on the coronation chair in Westminster Hall ¦with every circumstance of royalty but the one thmg needed to make it real in the eyes of men. But the excluded members had now to be admitted, and removals of CromweU's friends to the Other House left his enemies a majority in the next session (January 20, 1658). Under the guidance of Haselrig and Ashley Cooper, they quarreUed with the Other House, and mtrigued with CavaUers, Fifth Monarchy men, and the malcontents of the army. CromweU at once dissolved the Parhament (Febraary 4). Taking a broad ¦view of the seventeenth century and neglectmg the djmastic schemes of the Stuarts, wMch generally ran counter to national interests as well as to popular wishes, the first deter- mining factor of English foreign pohcy was the rehgious and commercial antagonism to Spain. The rehgious element was strong under Ehzabeth and James, but mercantile hostihty was 338 CHUECH AJND STATl^i strengthened by the growth of trade, wMle the Roman danger feU into the background with the declme of Spain and the Peace of Westphaha. Thus CromweU was behind the times in trjdng to make the war -with Spam a war of religion. Again, commercial jealousy had now found nearer and more dangerous rivals in the Dutch, so that public opimon looked on Spain as comparatively harmless, and was quite ready a few years later to take the great helpless empire under EngUsh protection against the threatening power of France. Thus the later Stuart times were dominated by a new quarrel with France, cMefly poUtical, though partly reUgious, while the commercial jealousy, which had caused two great wars with the Dutch, was so far abated as to allow of the Triple AlUance and the Revolution. Thus the Commonwealth stood at the turn of the tide. The old reUgious current had almost ceased to flow against Spain, wMle the new poUtical current had not yet set m against France. At first sight there seemed to be a natural affinity between the two great Protestant Commonwealths, one of wMch had executed its King, and the other had set aside the House of Orange ; and the Rump actually proposed to unite them. TMs only made mischief, and the commercial rivalry soon led to war (1651-1654). The Dutch fought stubbornly ; but by the time Cromwell made peace, it was clear that England had the strongest fleet as weU as the best army in Europe. What was to be done with it ? Spain still faced France on equal terms, for France was far sunk from the position she held in 1648. The Fronde was to PMhp IV almost as the League to PMUp II. England held the balance, and both powers eagerly sought her help. But for some time Cromwell seemed equally unfriendly to both. He had made treaties with Denmark and the Dutch, and dreamed of heading a great Protestant alhance. That scheme came to nothing when Charles Gustavus of Sweden divided the protestant interest by attacMng Denmark, and driving the Great Elector to lean on the Hapsburgs. What CromweU wanted was a foothold on the continent, and Spain promised Mm Calais; but she positively refused to free Enghsh sailors from the Inquisition, or to aUow trade -with America. So when Cromwell began war m the West Indies, Spain took up the chaUenge in Europe. This brought Mm nearer to France ; and after he had made Mazarin stop the perse cution of the Vaudois by the duke of Savoy, he concluded the THE COMMONWEALTH 339 treaty of 1657, which promised Mm DunMrk. In fact, France was the more natural ally in spite of the Stuart connexion, for wMle Spam carried her rehgion mto pohtics, France under the cardmals was tolerant and pohticaUy neutral in reUgion. The conquest of Jamaica, the forcing of the harbour of Santa Cruz, the dazzling ¦victory of the Dunes, seemed to renew and to surpass the glories of Ehzabeth. The proudest of European princes was less dreaded than the great Rebel of England. But the point for us to notice is that the war with Spain was not popular. The losses of trade made more impression than the glories of protes tantism. The thousand years' procession of the great crusaders from HeracUus downward came to an end in CromweU. Here is one more sign that the Commonwealth marks the turn from an age of religious controversy to an age of trade rivalry. It is easy to condemn the poUcy which helped the rising power of France agamst the dechning power of Spain. But France was not a European danger in CromweU's time. She was sadly torn with civil strife, and could scarcely hold her ground against Spain. Nor would she ever have become the formidable power wMch faced the Grand Alhance, if the Stuarts had not played into her hands for nearly thirty years. The real objection to CromweU's warUke poUcy is different. It may be that the army was needed to keep down the nation, and the war to occupy the army; but the fact remams, that the war caused expenses that could only be met by arbitrary taxation wMch disgusted the merchants, and arbitrary levies on the mahgnants which destroyed aU hope of reconcihng the squirearchy to the Commonwealth. Besides this, if Cromwell had been rich instead of miserably poor, the attempt to be supreme on sea and land at once would have overstramed England as it overstramed France in the next generation ; and after aU, the most brilUant success in such a war as CromweU's would only have made England instead of France a European danger wMch would have had to be abated by a coahtion. After aU, the importance of the Commonwealth for the history of rehgion ia England is not so much in its constitutional experi ments and foreign pohcy, significant as they are, as in the deve lopments of rehgious thought. Here again we see the turn of the tide, between the flow of zeal for dogma and the ebb of indif ference to dogma. Churchman and Puritan had contended each. 340 CHURCH AND STATE for a whole system of dogma ; and if both systems were found wanting, no similar tMrd system was possible, for Churchman and Puritan represented the two sides of EngUsh reUgion. What then was to be done ? The simplest answer seemed to be in the distinction of fundamental doctrines from others, impUed in the Ten Articles of 1536, but only developed in England by ChUUng- worth and Jeremy Taylor under the influence of Episcopius and the Arminians. Perhaps the mistake lay in making tMngs necessary wMch Scripture does not make necessary, and the difficulty might be removed by a judicious reduction of necessary doctrine. Others would go further and challenge not only the in discriminate use of Scripture but the unUmited authority claimed for it. God's word written, they would say, needs to be tested by God's gift of reason, or subjected to God's voice within us. Thus from the chaos of opinions under the Long ParUament arose four great movements, all marked by a lower estimate of scholastic orthodoxy than that m wMch Laudians and Puritans were agreed : and these four movements form two pairs. It was possible then without formally rejecting either the authority of Scripture or a corpus of doctrine, to Umit the essentials, perhaps as Chilhngworth had done, to sometMng like the Apostles' Creed, and throw the stress on common morahty. What is the use of religion but to make men moral ? This is the position to wMch the Latitudinarians tended — a very comfortable reUgion for the coming age of trade. But it unduly narrows the scope of the Gospel by leavmg aside the living power of the love of Christ, and ignoring the extension of morality impUed by this. But why not go further, as Lord Herbert of Cherbury had done? If Christ is only our example. He need not be more than a better sort of Socrates, so that we must fall back on Natural ReUgion and cool reasonmg. This was the Une taken by the Unitarians, and after them by the Deists. In strong contrast to these mere simplifications of dogma stand the Cambridge Platomsts and the Quakers, who appealed from Scripture to an authority ¦within us. To the one, " the spirit of man is the candle of the Lord " ; for the other, it is the indwelUng Spirit which Ughts our darkened understanding. The Platomst starts from human reason quickened by the Spirit, the Quaker from the Spirit quickening human intuition. The one tells us of the di^vine spark, of the image of God ¦within wMch judges of THE COMMONWEALTH 341 God's trath without ; the other discourses more Uke the Puritan, of the stri-vmgs of the Spirit. These four movements cannot mdeed be sharply separated. Both Platonists and Quakers have Unks with the Puritanism before them, wMle the Platonists shade off mto Latitudin arians, and speak of reason much Uke the Deists — only with a different meanmg, including a strong ethical and emotional element very faintly represented m the Deist's philosophy. We have put the more revolutionary movements m their logical place, after the others; but historically they came before the others. New principles often come to the front for awhile, and then we see a reaction to a moderated assertion of the old. The passage from the Platonists to the Latitudinarians is a good sample of this. To begin ¦with the Quakers, George Fox (1621-1691) cannot have leamed his system from foreigners hke Jakob Bohme, but must have found its elements floatmg about among the common people of the midlands. After one escape from ordination, and another from enhstment, he began to form a Society about 1648. The early Quakers succeeded to the unpopularity of the Ana baptists, and not entirely ¦without reason. Their peculiarities of address and manner seemed discourteous, especially to'squires and justices, their refusal to swear was inconvenient when oaths were required for most thmgs; and no govemment could overlook their riotous disturbances of Divine Service, or allow prophets to run naked through the streets as a sign to the wicked world : nor were they free from suspicion of pohtical intrigue. Like the Mora'vians, they took some years in settling down to respect- abihty and decency. In some ways Fox reminds us of Wesley — Ms mcessant missionary journeys, extending to Ireland, America and Holland, Ms admmistrative gifts, Ms knowledge of men, and the enthusiastic devotion he inspired. But Fox knew Ms Bible and httle more, while Wesley was one of the best-read men of his time ; and in rehgion Fox was revolutionary, Wesley conserva tive. Fox threw over the authority of Scripture, discarded ministry and sacraments, and went (or thought he went) by the inner light. Trae, the inner hght spoke largely the dialect of EngUsh Puritanism, and its promptings occasionaUy needed some regulation in the mterest of decency and order, and seemed in course of time to settle do^wn within very proper hmits. As 342 CHUECH AND STATE with Montanists, Mora-vians and Methodists, principles wMch caused some excesses at first and might have led to very mJnch worse things were firmly controlled by serious and sober-minded leaders, so that wMle the movement became more orderly, it lost nothing of its mtense reahty and spiritual fervour. Being mysticism and not re^vivaUsm, it could not mamtain the appeal it made to the lower classes in an age of spiritual revolution, but found a home, Uke the rest of the eighteenth-century dissent, among the middle classes and the rich merchants, forming a small and compact society with an influence far beyond its numbers. The work of the Society of Friends is rather indicated than mea sured by such visible triumphs as the settlement of Pennsylvania, the reform of prisons, and the abolition of the slave trade. It is rather that their righteousness and peace and joy was a silent witness against the wrong and violence of them that know not God, and the hard formaUsm and gloomy otherworldUness of them that crouch before a despot in heaven. The Cambridge Platonists were nurslings of Puritanism. Their chiefs (except Henry More) all came from Emmanuel College, a Puritan foundation, and Puritan also in its great tutor Tuckney, and even in its royaUst master Holdsworth. Nor is it surprising that this fair flower of seventeenth-century religion grew on Puritan soil. As Cal-vinism does not stereotype the tradition of the elders, it does not make a principle of refusing God's message to ourselves ; and the Arminian hberahsm wMch had been the court fashion since 1641 was workmg with more effect among the Puritans. The Cambridge Platonists were all Churchmen ; but if they conformed m Laud's time, they also conformed under Cromwell, and again after the Eestoration. Not one of them refused the Act of Umformity. In trath, they cared Uttle for forms of govemment, and did not insist on using the Common Prayer. They were hke the Quakers in mysticism and practical abihty, and their rehgion was just as intense and full of peaceful joy. They too detested " a false opinion of the Deity that renders him dreadful and terrible, austere and apt to be angry, yet impotent and easy to be appeased again by some flattering devotions, especially if performed with sanctimonious shows and a solemn sadness of mind " — wMch is John Smith's analysis of superstition. But unhke the Quakers, they were cultivated scholars who could take a wider ¦view and set aside THE COMMONWEALTH 343 mannerisms and quamt scruples. There is a startUng Ukeness between the Platonists of Cambridge and the Platonists of Alexandria long centuries before. They had to fight the same battle on behalf of learning, for the Orthodoxasts of Puritanism were of the Eomish opinion, that Ignorance is the mother of devotion. They held the same general position, between a crowd of jarring sects and a Church wMch could see nothing but perversity and mahce in any deviation from its own behef : and they maintamed it in the same way, by an appeal to leaming in aU its range, and an endeavour to construct a pMlosophy of rehgion. Like the Alexandrians, they went back to Plato, unfortunately much adulterated with Plotmus, and to the old gospel of Genesis, of the image of God in man. Yet it was not simply to the indwelhng Spirit that they appealed Uke the Quakers, for trath without is as truly God's as truth withm, and truth without is everything we know. Like the Alexandrians they honoured learmng vnthout makmg it the one tMng needful. " Divinity is not as well perceived by a subtile wit as by a purified sense, as Plotinus phraseth it." But the " purified sense " of John Smith was not the ecstasy of Plotinus. So they reached a rehgion of singular width and purity, and full of the lofty joy of the kingdom of God. John Smith's impassioned sentences read hke the burning eloquence of Clement's Protrepticus. The Cambridge Platonists are a brilUant group of leaders. If John Smith is their greatest preacher, Benjamin WMchcote was one of the deepest thmkers of Ms time, and Ealph Cudworth's massive learnmg is conspicuous even in that age of leaming. But they were leaders who never formed a school. They stood for the calm judgment of academic retirement, and seemed swept away by the torrent of the Restoration, till the last echoes of them died with Norris of Bemerton (1711). Yet their influence was greater than it seemed. They gave their blessing to the rising science wMch was distrusted as profane by Puritans Uke Owen, and even by so Uberal a churchman as Croft of Hereford. But their mam mfluence was mdirect. The Latitudinarians were not the men to understand the noblest parts of the Cambridge teaching — ^TiUotson sat in vam at Cudworth's feet — stiU they did leam sometMng, and passed on a ffickermg torch to the eighteenth century. Trae successors they had none tiU Coleridge and Maurice. 344 UHUKCH AJNU STAT±; The Protectorate seemed settling down in the summer of 1658, and its last months were Ughted by the glory of the Dunes. The most venomous of royalist slanderers could not deny that Crom weU had lifted England to a more commanding position in Europe than EUzabeth herself. If there were plenty of conspiracies, the Protector had them well in hand. His court was daily becom ing more hke a King's court, and even the army was losing sometMng of its former character. Dreamers Uke Harrison and Overton, and at last the ambitious Lambert, had been dismissed, and the cMef general now was the prosaic Monk in Scotland. The country was crjdng for a King, though not yet for a Stuart ; and if Cromwell had been ¦wilhng frankly to throw himself on the nation as a constitutional Kmg, he might very possibly have overcome the opposition of the repubhcans. But CromweU's work was almost done. The labours and anxieties of sixteen years had told upon Mm. He was ¦visibly declmmg in the summer of 1658, and the death of Ms favourite daughter Ehzabeth Claypole brought him to his end. On September 3, the anniversary of Dunbar and Worcester, the great Protector passed away. The omen of the terrible storm before his death was not ful filled. Richard Cromwell succeeded as peacefuUy as any heir of Mngs. In some ways he had a stronger position than his father. He was no Puritan, but a quiet amiable country gentleman, who yet could wear Ms state with digmty, and was a better speaker than Ohver. His ParUament was loyal, and he had all Ms father's friends, and others too, for no man could hate Mm. He was not overthro^wn by any general discontent, but by a cabal of the repubhcan minority m Parhament with repubUcan officers in the army. He might have resisted, for the army was already di-vided ; but he would allow no bloodshed on his account. With Richard's fall in May 1659 went the last fair chance for the Commonwealth. Even then the country was not ready for the Stuarts. Sir George Booth's rising m August was put down with out difficulty. But when the army of England restored the Rump, tumed it out, and restored it again, it became clear that the Restoration was the only alternative to mihtary anarchy. Monk led the army of Scotland to London, and after a good deal of fencing, dissimulation, and mtrigue declared for a free Parhament — which meant the Restoration — and Charles smoothed the way by a conciUatory declaration from Breda (March 1660). He THE COMMONWEALTH 345 promised indemnity to all but those who might be excepted by Parhament, and an Act " for Uberty to tender consciences." The Convention Parliament (April 25, 1660) was not CavaUer. The maUgnants had no votes, though many did vote, and some were elected. It was Presbyterian, and showed its temper by starting a vigorous persecution of the Quakers. But it was also royalist, and voted that the government is and ought to be m King, Lords and Commons. So Charles II was proclaimed, and entered London May 29. With the shouting of the crowds that lined the streets of London we enter on the base and shameful period of the Restoration. The Commonwealth was a noble failure. The vision of the Puritans was of a new and better England, with despotism and popery rooted out, the wrongs of the poor redressed, and above aU, righteousness and trae religion maintained in the land. But they f aUed because they trusted in an arm of flesh ; England was too good to be ruled by the sword, not good enough to appreciate the lofty aims of the Commonwealth. Laws can do much, and the Puritan army never failed to break in pieces all that was opposed to it ; but the spiritual forces always conquer in the end even if they are e^vil. CHAPTER XXVII THE RESTORATION The Restoration is the most sudden change in EngUsh History since the Norman Conquest. The Reformation was a far greater epoch, but it covered a whole generation; and the Revolution wMch closed the constitutional straggle marks no enormous change of outlook in society, m economics, in rehgion, or of the general trend of thought. The nation went into the Civil War protestant indeed, but otherwise less changed from the middle ages than is often supposed; and from the uneasy dreamings of the Commonwealth it awoke almost modem. All seemed new. The King indeed came back in triumph, but the monarchy was not the same without its Courts of Star Chamber and High Com mission. The Church came back too, but it was no longer to cover the reUgious Ufe of the nation. The Puritanism wMch had been atruggUng within it for a century was now to form sects and become a gro^wing power in the State. MeanwMle the castles were in rains, the feudal tenures obsolete, the mahgnant gentry impoverished, and the towns and the merchants had tasted power. To put it broadly, the feature of the age we are coming to is the partial displacement of religion as the centre of interest. There is a transition period, for we begin with a restoration, and some times the old fire of controversy burns as hot as ever ; but after awhile we hear much less about predestination and episcopacy, and even the controversy with Rome falls into the background. It was not that rehgion ceased — ^it never can cease — to be the mightiest of influences ; but its might was seldom roused in the eighteenth century. Yet the Methodist and Evangehcal re^vivals showed its spiritual power, and the Sacheverell and Lord George Gordon riots displayed the abiding strength of bigotry. But the nation was thinMng more of other tMngs. England had begun with the United Provinces, and was presently to finish with France 346 THE RESTORATION 347 the long contest which gave her the empire of the sea and made her the greatest colonial and commercial power of the world. And with commerce came science — Bacon had shown the way; but it was not by accident that the Royal Society was founded just before the Restoration, or that the double star Cor Caroli was discovered on the night of the King's retum, or that Isaac Banow gave up his chair of Greek to take up the chair of Mathe matics, in which Isaac Ne^wton foUowed him. The nation was busy with commerce, its tMnkers with science ; and both com merce and science reacted on religion. Commerce tended to indifference, for if heretics were good customers, they could not be much the worse for their heresy, and there could not be much use in rehgion beyond that of teaching common morality. Science also raised questions far beyond the power of that age to solve. In fact, the cMef task of the eighteenth century was the pre Uminary work of assignmg origins and causes to reUgion and pMlosophy, sequences and phenomena to science. Newton's science was pervaded by reUgion; but when Laplace a century later " had no need of God " in a work Umited to sequences and phenomena, he was not therefore irreUgious, Altogether there was a good deal of hesitation about the distinctive doctrines of Christianity, Comparatively few disputed them or even con sciously doubted them ; but many even of the clergy left them in the background and preached Uttle more than common morahty. They forgot that Christianity at any rate is not a pMlosophy of moraUty, but a power of life. The first work of the Restoration was to clear away the wreck of the Commonwealth, No terms had been made with Charles, but it was qmte understood that he was to be a good English Mng, to work ¦with Parhament and avoid the examples of his sainted father. And Parhament stood for law. The work of the first session of the Long ParUament was recognized because it had the King's assent according to law ; but ordinances of both Houses were ignored because they had not. Thus the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission remamed abohshed, while the Triennial Act needed a formal repeal. On the other hand, the abohtion of the Liturgy was nuU, It was restored at once in the Kmg's chapel, and by zealous churchmen all over the country ; but pending a settlement of rehgion, it was not enforced. So too the clergy deprived by ParUament came back as a matter 348 CHURCH AND STATE of course. Thus Laud's old chaplains Martin and Steme came back to their masterships at Queens' and Jesus, though some of the restorations were hardly more than nominal, for many of the old royaUsts must by now have been past work. Similarly lands granted by Parhament were restored to former owners without compensation; but forced sales, being legal transactions, held good, to the disgust of impoverished Cavahers, Then there was the King's revenue to settle, for the old feudal dues had been so misused by Charles I that they could not now be restored. The proper substitute would have been some tax on land; but the lando^wners of the Houses naturally preferred an excise. The financial reform was completed in 1665, when the clergy gave up their old right of votmg subsidies, and came under the general taxation. The matter was settled between Clarendon and Sheldon, without consulting Convocation. Upon the whole, the Convention Parhament made a clearance of feudal abuses hke that which France owes to the Constituent Assembly of 1789; but the work was done by the landowners, and therefore much less thoroughly done, but by its very want of thoroughness it escaped the dangers of revolution. There was not much bloodshed. Charles could not be expected to pardon the regicides, and few others were put to death. Lent haU got off with a bribe, and Milton was aUowed to Uve in obscurity. But there is no excuse for the execution of Vane in 1662 ; and if CromweU and Ireton were to be cast out of West mmster Abbey, it was hardly decent to dig up with them the hero of Santa Cruz, and throw them all on a dungMU, Some of the CavaUers were for proscriptions, but Charles restramed them, Mahce was not one of his sins. We now turn to Church affairs. The Restoration was cMefly the work of Presbyterians, the EpiscopaUans being at flrst no more than alhes. But these were precisely the two parties agreed on the old pohcy of one Church and no dissent, so that no others could expect any toleration. As a Presbyterian Church was out of the question, the only doubt was whether the Episcopahans would rule alone, or aUow some such " Uberty for tender con sciences" as Charles had promised from Breda. MeanwMle, things were in suspense. The Liturgy was not enforced, and Charles appointed some Puritan chaplains, and even hstened to their sermons. The bishops however came back to the House of THE RESTORATION 349 Lords, and the vacant sees were gradually fiUed up — seventeen in number, for only mne survived from Laudian times. Juxon of course was the new primate, though Sheldon of London commonly acted for the old man, and succeeded him m 1663. Cosm went to Durham, Sanderson to LincoM, Morley rather later to Winchester, wMle Wren retumed to Ely, and Charles' old tutor Duppa was translated to SaUsbury. Three sees were offered to Puritans, and Reynolds accepted Norwich, though Baxter and Calamy refused. Charles repeated from Worcester House (October 25, 1660) the declaration of Breda, and a Bill was brought in to convert it into law. The Kmg wished it to pass — ^for purposes of Ms own — but the Commons threw it out. TMs was ominous for the Puri tans, but Charles had promised a conference of di^vmes, and it remained to be seen what concessions they would be able to obtain. The Conference met at the Savoy (April 15, 1661) with Sheldon for president — ^twelve bishops and sixteen Puritans, with nine coadjutors on each side. The chief Anglicans were Cosin, Morley, Sanderson and Gauden, with Heylin, Hacket, Gunnmg, Pearson, Sparrow and Thorndike. On the Puritan side was Reynolds of Nor'wich, with Baxter, Manton, Calamy, Tuckney, and the mathematician Walhs, and of the coadjutors. Bates and Lightfoot. It was a fair selection of the strongest men on both sides, and with a little good ¦will they might well have come to an agreement. The Puritans were not the rigid Covenanters of the past : as a party they were moderate men Uke Baxter, who wanted only some ceremonies abolished, and some made optional, freedom for extempore prayer, and the power of the bishops hmited by a council of presbyters. They had brought back the King, and thought they could get as much as tMs. The bishops began by declaring that they were content with the Prayer Book as it stood, but were willing to consider objec tions. TMs meant taMng the position of judges, thro^wing the onus probandi on the Puritans, and entirely refusing a conference on equal terms. They further required all objections to be given in together, and all m writing. The ob^vious pohcy of the weaker party was to Umit its demands as much as possible : but Baxter fell mto the trap, and insisted on putting everytMng down, so that the result was a formidable series of objections, whose mere number made a very bad impression. They began by laying down 350 CHURCH AND STATE the general principle that a Liturgy should contam nothmg doubt ful or questioned among orthodox persons — a principle governed entirely by the definition of orthodoxy which was in dispute. They asked for the aboUtion of repetitions, obsolete words, and responses — the minister to pray, the people to say notMng but Amen. The Litany to be consolidated into one long prayer, the Collects expanded. Lent and Saints' Days to be aboUshed. Room to be made for extempore prayer. Epistles and Gospels to be from the new (1611) version, and Apocryphal Lessons to be abohshed. That Sunday be called the Lord's Day, and " minis ter " be used instead of " priest " and " curate." That " the phrases wMch presume all persons (witMn the commimion of the church) to be regenerate " be reformed. They then object to the enforcement of the surplice, the cross in baptism, kneeling for reception, and generally to ceremonies of men's invention. Then follow the objections to particular rubrics, which we need not trace in detail. These are changes of rule and order, not of doctrine, except that the demand for the aboUtion of ceremonies comes very near ^ to a denial that " Every particular or national church has authority to ordain rites and ceremonies." Of the questions they desire thrown open, the Church of England alleges expedi ency and ancient example in many cases, but in none an express command of Scripture. Of the particular demands, some are unquestionable improvements,^ others concessions which might fairly have been made to scruples ; ^ but the larger number, perhaps much the larger number, are either finicking * or clear changes for the worse in very bad taste,® and some exceedingly ^ Not quite, for they only say that " It is doubtful " whether the Church has such authority, though they go on as if it certainly had not. ^ E. g. use of the 1611 translation. Longer notice of intention to communicate. Directions for the manual acts of consecration. These and a few small changes were accepted by the bishops and em bodied in the Liturgy of 1662. ^ E. g. kneeling at reception. It is not even a " catholic practice," for in the Greek Church they stand. * E. g. the objection to prayers for " all that travel," because some travel on bad errands, or that the second chapter of Joel must not be called the Epistle for Ash Wednesday, because the Book of Joel is not an Epistle. ^ E. g. the consolidation of the Litany, the expansion of the Collects, and the weak substitutes for " sudden death " and some other phrases. Also the omission (conceded by the bishops) of " sure and certain " hope. THE RESTORATION 351 miscMevous, hke the attempt to " fence the tables " or the abohtion of " charitable hypothesis." ^ If the Puritan objections are largely unreasonable, the answer of the bishops is largely msolent. They were the ¦winning side, and no consideration was due to rebels and schismatics. They treat all pleas as malevolent or frivolous, and hardly disguise their behef that Puritan professions of loyalty are mere hypocrisy. Sometimes they answer summarily, " We thmk it fit that the rubric stand as it is," though commonly they reason, and then they generally have the best of the argument. The seventeen con cessions they make are all uncontroversial or verbal changes; aU demands of importance are refused. A long disputation fol lowed, and at last the bishops gave good advice. Let Baxter and Ms friends drop minor questions and specify the thmgs they consider sinful. They stated five, of which the first was kneeling for reception ; and they were still debating this when the time aUowed for the conference expired, and they had to report to the King that they could not agree (July 24, 1661). Perhaps the failure of the Conference was not altogether a calamity. The Presbjd;erian demands were fairly moderate. Objectionable as many of them were, they contamed nothing impossible except for those who not only beheve in the divine right of bishops, but count no churchman honest who does not confess it along with them. Had the bishops " shown themselves gentle," men like Baxter might have been kept in the Church ; and if an agreement had been reached, we have no right to assume that they would have upset it -with fresh demands. Anghcans and Presbyterians in alUance would have been stronger than Anghcans alone, and not less persecuting — for Independents, Quakers, and revolutionary sectaries would have had to be shut out. With the Presbyterians they formed a strong dissent : ^ This, it must be noted, is their objection to " Seeing now this child is regenerate." They cEfnnot say it " in faith," i. e. in the belief that it is unconditionally and therefore always true. Their complaint is not that they are forbidden to take the words conditionally, but that it is not expedient to make conditional statements (charitable hypothesis) in a Liturgy. The bishops reply with non ponere obicem, so that we can in faith say it, and elsewhere defend the use of charitable h3rpothesis by Scripture example. But neither Puritan nor Anglican ever maintained that the words cannot be taken conditionally. Those who held the un conditional doctrine never appealed to them, and those who denied it (as all Calvinists must deny it) never found them inconsistent with such denial. 352 CHURCH AND STATE ¦without them they would have been weak. And if there must be dissent, it is better for the Church itself to confront a strong dissent on equal terms than to despise the Uttle ones of a weak dissent. When dissent was strong, it ¦wrung toleration from the Church : when it was weak, we have the Georgian stagnation. The way was now clear for a revision of the Liturgy according to the wishes of the dominant party. Convocation appomted (November 21) a committee of bishops — Cosin, Wren, Sanderson, and five others, ¦with Mr. Sancroft to correct the printmg. Some six hundred changes were made, but the work was completed ¦within a month (December 20), yet it shows no signs of haste. It is at all events a careful and thorough piece of work. The key-note is strack by a new Preface, due to Bishop Sanderson. " It hath been the ¦wisdom of the Church of England ... to keep the Mean between the two Extremes"; and, given the Caroline position somewhere between Popery and Puritanism, this is qmte trae. The Puritans got most of the points conceded by the bishops, and some more added by Convocation, but notMng important, unless it be restoration of the Black Rubric ; ^ and a few changes were made agamst them. Thus church is used for congregation, priest for minister, Bel and the Dragon and Susanna are brought into the Lessons, and (what was really important) episcopal ordination was for the first time made a necessary quah- fication to mimster " in the Church of England," ^ On the other hand, no change at all was made in the Laudian direction. The innovations of the Scotch Liturgy were not adopted, and other proposals of the sort were rejected. The doctrinal standpoint is precisely that of 1604, and substantiaUy that of 1552, Of other changes were the Prayer for all Sorts and Conditions of Men, probably composed by Gunnmg, the General Thanksgi'vmg by Bishop Reynolds, the Prayer for the High Court of Parhament, ^ The change in the disavowal, from a real and essential to a corporal presence, is unimportant. Whether we call the presence real, essential, objective, sacramental, or anything else, it must be corporal if it is not '• only in a heavenly and spiritual manner," or if it is recei-ved by the wicked. Even a ghost is a corporal presence in this connexion, for it is perceived by the senses, not spiritually discerned. ^ The Preface to the Ordinal twice expressly limits its reference by the words " in the Church of England," It contaias nothing inconsistent with the belief that non-episcopal ministrations are perfectly valid in their own Churches, This indeed was notoriously the belief of the Re formers who drew it up, and of some of the Carolines (e. g. Cosin) who revised it. THE RESTORATION 353 possibly Laud's work about 1625, some new Collects, the Thanks giving " for those departed this Ufe in Thy faith and fear " in serted m the Prayer for the Church MiUtant here in earth. Also the Absolution was only to be pronounced m the Visitation of the Sick " if he humbly and heartily desire it," Some disorders of the time were to be remedied by a new office for Adult Baptism, and the new importance of the na'vy was recogmzed by the addition of Prayers to be used at Sea, Upon the whole, the bishops generaUy did the right thmg, even if they did it in a very bad temper. Meanwhile a new Parhament met (May 8, 1661), It was elected on the Mgh tide of royahst enthusiasm, and was almost entirely Cavaher, It began by imposmg the sacrament on its own mem bers, after Queen Mary's evil example. Its next step was the Corporation Act, By tMs all members of corporations were required (besides the oaths of aUegiance and supremacy) to swear that " it is not lawful on any pretence whatever to take up arms against the kmg, or by his authority agamst Ms person " (as in 1642), to declare the Covenant null and void, and to have received the Sacrament accordmg to the rites of the Church withm the past year. Exclusion from the Commons and the corporations destroyed the poUtical power of the Puritans, and a Bill of Uniformity (with the Liturgy of 1604 annexed) passed the Commons (July 9) before the Conference broke up. They wanted to go back to 1604, or even 1552, to make sure of excluding Laudian mnovations, so that they looked with some suspicion on the new Book when at last it came up to them (Febraary 13, 1662). Some clauses of the BiU were much debated, but m the end (by 96 to 90) they accepted aU the changes of the Liturgy undiscussed, reserving their right to discuss them. The Bill passed May 19. By the Act of Uniformity all persons in Holy Orders, all teachers in the Umversities, and all public or. private schoolmasters were to make the same declarations as members of corporations. All pubhc ministers were also to have episcopal ordination, and before St. Bartholomew's Day (August 24) to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to everytMng " contained and prescribed " in the revised Liturgy. This was not quite so stringent as is often supposed, for the lawyers always interpreted the assent and consent as not to the Book itself, but to the use of the A A 354 CHURCH AND STATE Book. It never was a subscription to every incidental state ment of the Book; and the words were altered in 1865 to make tMs clear. It will be noticed that subscription to all the Articles was now first required by law. Bancroft's enforcement of it was illegal, for the Act of 1591 required only assent to the doctrinal Articles. The date was maUciously chosen in order to deprive nonconformists of the half year's tithes, wMch fell due a few days later. So short was the notice that some wilUng con formists had to go out merely because they could not get the Book in time. These however were soon restored to their li^vmgs. Kidder, for one, died a bishop (1703). Many of the Puritans — ^more than Sheldon Uked — conformed. Of these there were three of the Savoy di-vines (Reynolds, Wallis, Lightfoot) and some old Presbyterian laymen, like Denzil HoUes and Harbottle Grimston. Nearly the whole of the squirearchy conformed, and most of the middle class, though many of them retamed the Puritan taste for readmg the Bible and keeping ¦the Sabbath, and the Puritan hatred of everything that looked Romeward. But these were laymen : most of the ministers laid do-wn their office — Baxter, Manton, Calamy, Bates, Wesley's grandfathers John Wesley and Samuel Annesley, and others to a number reported as two thousand. If we count in the dis placements of 1660, the figure cannot be very far ¦wrong. This means about a fifth of the clergy ; mostly of the better sort, for the time-servers all conformed. Thus England retumed once again to the old ideal of one Church and no dissent; but tMs time the Church was no more than a party — ^no doubt much the largest party, but stiU a party representing only one side of reUgion in England. As the theory could only be carried out by persecution, the first step (August 1663) was a proclamation enforcing the Acts for attendance at church, and the sMlUng fines for absence. Next year (1664) the first Conventicle Act was passed, wMch made penal all meetings attended by as many as five persons beyond the household, for rehgious services other than those of the Liturgy. The penalty was imprisonment, and transportation for a tMrd offence. During the plague of 1665 many of the clergy fled from London, and the ejected ministers not uncommonly seized the post of danger. The Commons took alarm, and passed the Five THE RESTORATION 355 Mile Act. By tMs a dissenting minister who refused to take the oath of non-resistance and further to swear that he would at no time endeavour any alteration of govemment m Church or State was forbidden to come withm five miles of any city or corporate town or place where he had formerly been parson, ¦vicar, or lecturer. As the Puritans were mostly townspeople, this meant a separa tion from their old pastors, and the suppression of their reUgious instraction, though, as OUver Heywood pointed out, it incidentally brought some of their best teacMng into remote parishes. The " Clarendon Code " was completed after Clarendon's fall by the I Second Conventicle Act (1670) which rather mitigated the penal ties of the first, but encouraged informers and laid heavy punish ments on magistrates or constables who failed to carry it out. The Test Act of 1673 was no part of the Clarendon policy, but belongs to another movement. The persecution wMch followed was probably the severest since the Marian, especiaUy for the Quakers, and it has left its traces to tMs day. The feud it made between Church and Dissent, renewed as it was by Tractariamsm, is still unhealed. In spite of many links between them and much profession of charity, they still confront each other as enemies. Again, the exclusion of dissenters from education lasted long enough to give their ministers a stamp of social mferiority which lasted into our own times. It further explams why dissent in the eighteenth century was almost Umited to the well-to-do middle class, and lost hold on the people till the rise of Methodism. But in two important pomts this persecution differed from those before it. First, it was the work of ParUament, which had never before been hostUe but m 1593. However heartily the churchmen approved, the dri^ving force was Parhament, not the High Commission. TMs meant that it was the work of laymen, and would die out whenever the Cavaher panic abated, for it was a pamc of men who deemed that Puritans were rebels at heart ; and if they held secret meetmgs, they were no better than Jesuits. The other pomt is that it was no longer a contest on equal terms. Baxter could no more upset the Church than Venner the monarchy. Puritanism was reduced to beg for toleration, the refusal of it was mere revenge on beaten enemies, and of mere revenge decent men would sooner or later be ashamed. Meanwhile, where was Charles ? Sauntering about WhitehaU, 356 CHURCH AND STATE plajdng ¦with his dogs, jesting ¦with his courtiers, tojdng ¦with his mistresses, a fit head for a corrupt and intriguing court, given over to -vice and frivoUty, and all the animal joys of life. Trae, it had grave seniors in Clarendon and Nicholas, fearless bishops hke Sheldon and Ken, blameless laymen in John Evelyn and Robert Boyle, pure-minded women such as Margaret Godolphin and Rachel Lady RusseU; but the tone was given by harlots and buffoons, by drunkards and braggarts, and of its mdecencies and general beastliness the less said the better. Charles Mmself was essentially voluptuous and mdolent Uke Edward IV; but he was also more than half French, with French cleverness and French ways of thinMng. He was not made for a tjorant, for he had neither the masterfuMess of the Tudors nor the cold mahce of Ms father and brother ; but he was coolly regardless of inno cent blood, and utterly void of shame or sense of duty. What he wanted was to enjoy Ms pleasures in his own way, without " a set of feUows looking mto his accounts," But tMs meant a monarchy of the continental type unhampered by Parhaments, such as his cousin Louis XIV was settmg up across the water. As tMs would have to be imposed on the nation by force, a stand ing army was needed, and- French help to give suppUes of money, and armed assistance if required, Charles was Uke Ms father in impatience of ParUament, m determination to allow no constitu tional opposition, and in treasonous appUcations for foreign help against his people. But there was one great difference, Charles I was Anghcan, Charles II was — we cannot credit Mm with much serious reUgion of any sort, but such as he had was Roman, not Anghcan. Was not Romanism the creed of all civihzed courts ? So the new monarchy would be Romish, and the Church would be in opposition when the crisis came, notwithstanding its loud professions of loyalty and passive obedience. So Charles was for toleration, partly in order to push forward the Romamsts, partly that dissent might weaken the Church. Neither Charles nor James can be supposed to have had any real respect for conscience. Thus arose a triangular contest wMch shaped the history of the next tMrty years— King, Parhament, Nonconformists. The Nonconformists wanted comprehension, or at least toleration, Parhament was bent on persecution : Charles and James alter nately aUowed the Nonconformists to be well harried, and offered them (recusants included) an illegal toleration. So came the THE RESTORATION 357 question, "Would they help the Kmg to set himself above the law, or would they see that their toleration would be at the mercy of an absolute Kmg ? " The Scots gave one answer in 1648, the later Nonconformists another at the Revolution. Side by side with this ran a second triangular contest — King, Commons, Louis XIV. France had won her decisive triumph over Spam at the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659, and after the marriage of Loms XIV with the Infanta Maria Theresa, there was nothmg but the fraU Ufe of Charles II of Spam (and the Infanta's solemn renunciation) to bar his claim to the whole Spanish inheritance. Sooner or later the question would come up; and France was no longer balanced by the army of the Commonwealth. The country leaned more and more against France, though for some years it was still more jealous of the Dutch. Charles leaned to his cousin of France, and was hostile to the repubhcans of HoUand, who kept out his nephew William of Orange from the stadtholderate. Louis was on good terms with both. France was an old ally of the Dutch : and when PhiUp IV threw away the last chance of Spain by refusmg the other Infanta to Charles II, Loms found him a Queen in Portugal. The situa tion cleared when the War of Devolution (1667) revealed the ambition of Loms. After that the Stuarts had two poUcies open to them. Had they jomed the opposition to France, they would have been heartily supported by the nation, and the Commons would not have grudged suppUes. But then they would have looked into the accounts and seen that the money was spent on the war, not on the King's mistresses. Further, if Spam was the more cathohc (though Louis was tending more and more to per secution) only France could give him the subsidies needed to make him mdependent. So Charles pursued a French policy, getting from Loms as much money as he could by occasional feints the other way, while Loms endeavoured to keep him in dependence as cheaply as he could, and therefore some of his money went to the Opposition which kept Charles m check. So long however as Clarendon remamed in power, it mattered little what Charles wanted. And Clarendon had a strong posi tion as an old mmister of Charles and Ms father, as Chancellor, and as father-m-law of James duke of York. Moreover, with all its exuberant loyalty, the CavaUer ParUament was fully resolved that the Kmg should go their way and not another way. They 358 CHURCH AND STATE were agreed on the disbanding of the army of the Commonwealth, for the Restoration was not secure wMle that army remained in being. Charles however kept a couple of regiments to be the nucleus of a new standmg army ; and the Portuguese marriage was impopular because Catharine brought Mm Tangier, wMch needed a garrison, and therefore an mcrease of the army. The next point of the royal scheme was toleration — ^for Papists under cover of the Nonconformists : and this the Commons steadily foiled. He had sometMng to go upon, for opinion was not unanimous for the full severity of the Act of Uniformity. The Lords had wished to allow fifths to ejected ministers, and even Clarendon (probably not sincerely) professed Mmself wilUng to give the Kmg some dispensing power for those that were peace able. But it was another matter when Charles took that power to himself in a proclamation (December 1662) that he would apk ParUament to pass a Bill enabUng him " to exercise with more universal satisfaction that power of dispensation which he con ceived to be inherent m Mm." The Commons protested, and Charles gave way. Then came the proclamation for attendance at church, the first Conventicle Act, and the Five Mile Act ; and pubhc opinion was further inflamed by the Great Plague (1665), the Fire of London (1666), and the Dutch m the Medway (1667). It was still the fasMonable creed that dissenters were rebels at heart, and needed firm suppression ; yet signs were not wanting that the fear of Puritanism would soon be overshadowed by fear of Rome and France. The seven years of Clarendon's power were as much a time of restoration in the Church as in the State. First, the ejected clergy came back as a matter of course. The vacancies of twenty years gave a rich shower of preferments, and the new comers reaped a golden harvest from the runmng-out of the leases. Bishop Morley had only £2500 a year from Winchester, but in the first two years the fines on renewals amounted to £50,000. " He ¦wiU be none the richer for it," said Charles : nor was he, for he gave it all away. Sheldon's benefactions were estimated at £66,000, and Cosm, Ward, Ken and others were not behind in munificence. Even Crewe was a princely benefactor at Oxford and Bamburgh, If all this wealth stirred some envy, many to whom it feU used it nobly. The mere restoration of the fabrics was a great work. Parish churches were often decayed. THE RESTORATION 359 and Puritanism had no use for cathedrals, so that they suffered worae — Sahsbury excepted. CromweU's troopers quartered in the choir of St. Paul's, the postmaster stabled his horses in St. Asaph's, and Lichfield had been used by both sides as a mih tary post, and was battered accordingly. Bishop Hacket how ever was a shameless beggar, and collected enough money to restore it before his death in 1670. A great impulse to church-building was given by the Fire of London in 1666, which destroyed Old St. Paul's and eighty-three parish churches. It cleared a space for the greatest of Enghsh arcMtects. Christopher Wren was a nephew of Bishop Wren of Ely. He proved an eminent man of science, figured largely in the early annals of the Royal Society, and succeeded Seth Ward at Oxford as Sa^viUan Professor of Astronomy. But in science he had equals; m arcMtecture he reigned alone. To him we owe not only the new St. Paul's, but fifty-two parish churches in London and many elsewhere, besides pubhc bmldmgs and private houses. Old St. Paul's was a magnificent GotMc cathedral of twelve bays, though the tower bumed in 1571 was never re placed, except by a shabby covermg of lead, and the whole fabric was almost ruinous when the fire completed the work of time, neglect, and misuse. Dean Sancroft had now to rebuild it from the foundation. As GotMc arcMtecture had been gomg out of fashion smce the fifteenth century. Wren adopted the Classical, so that St. Paul's is imique among Enghsh cathedrals. The choir was first used in 1697, and the building was pronounced complete in 1 71 6. Wren's churches are in various styles, but their most common ground-plan is a simple rectangle without a chancel, smgers and organ bemg placed in the western gaUery. Church ser^vices were less routine than under the early Stuarts. Puritanism left its traces in frequent sermons and unfrequent communions. Extempore prayers before sermon and east-and- west Holy Tables were not uncommon, and the rale of kneeUng at reception was not always very strictly enforced. But there was not much trouble about the surpUce and other old scraples. Puritanism had learned something from the Church, and the Church had learned sometMng from the Puritans. Even the Sunday question was not quite what it had been. If the church men loved the sports, they were more and more mfluenced by Puritamsm, and if their observance of the day was too lax for the 360 CHURCH AND STATE fanatics, it gradually became very unUke the Ucence of Laudian times. It was the CavaUer ParUament which passed the Act of 1678 against Sunday Tradmg. At last the Enghsh people were growmg attached to the Church, in a way that was hardly possible under EUzabeth's cramping formaUsm or the meddUng tyranny of Laud. The upper classes were all churchmen, if only for poUtical reasons. To the profane the Church was at any rate not the Puritamsm whose Uvmg power they mocked and feared; to serious persons it brought that Uvmg power m a milder form, and to all it was the great bulwark agamst Popery. The middle classes too were mostly churchmen, though the Puritan tone was widespread, and Nonconformity had its strength among them. Hodge foUowed his betters ; but no reUgious movement after the Mendicants greatly stirred him till the rise of Methodism. The controversy of the time was with the Puritans, and cMefly centred on their plea for toleration — or rather for comprehension, for moderate Nonconformists had no wish yet for separation. That plea was answered with msolence by Sheldon's chaplains, TomMns and Parker (James II's bishop of Oxford), and more in the Laudian style by Herbert Thorndike, who wanted the cathoUc faith enforced, and the law of the primitive Church within the first six General Councils. Others, Uke Patrick and Stilhngfleet, took the ground that the grievances were m any case not such as would justify separation. But the treatise most significant for the future was The Naked Truth, issued (at first anonymously) m 1670, in wMch Bishop Croft of Hereford takes a position the reverse of Thomdike's, denymg the authority of the Fathers and the need of enforcmg anything beyond the Apostles' Creed. Yet neither Croft nor Thorndike represented the general feel ing of the clergy, wMch was neither Broad nor Laudian, but simply impatient of everytMng that savoured of Puritanism, the Commonwealth, or Popery. Charles opened negotiations ¦with the Pope as early as 1662, conditionmg for the Cup and some Enghsh hymns m the Mass. Nothing came of them, and for the next seven years he could not do much to carry out his plan. First came the Dutch war; and France as an old ally of the Umted Provmces could not refuse them some not very effective help. That war was scarcely ended when Louis XIV alarmed Europe by invading the Netherlands. THE RESTORATION 361 It was his first great aggression, and was at once checked by the Triple AlUance (1668) of England, the Umted Provmces and Sweden, which held Loms to moderate conditions. It was the work of ArUngton, Romanist as he was, and Charles consented only because it broke the affiance of the Dutch with France, and made Loms XIV their deadly enemy. Now the plot thickened. After various obscure negotiations Charles (January 1669) secretly avowed Mmself a Romanist in the presence of Clifford, ArUngton, the duke of York, and one or two more. As Romamsm could not be restored without the help of France, the secret treaty of Dover was negotiated next year by the King's younger sister, Henrietta of Orleans. Charles was to declare himself a Romanist as soon as he could safely do so, and Louis was to help him with men and money against his subjects, and meanwhile the two Kmgs were to make war jomtly on the Dutch. Then the three Protestant members of the Cabal were allowed to make a sham treaty, pro-viding only for the Dutch war. A quarrel was picked, and war declared in 1672. The ablest of the Cabal was Anthony Ashley Cooper, now Baron Ashley, and later Earl of Shaftesbury. A man of doubtful reU gion and blameless life, he had all the quahties of a great dema gogue. Unscrupulous as Charles himself, he yet was constant through all his poUtical changes to the cause of religious liberty. He fought first for the King, then for the Parhament, figured as a moderate in the Convention of 1653, and afterwards as a cMef opponent of the Protectorate till its fall. Under the Cavaher Parhament he strove to moderate the Corporation Act and the Act of Uniformity, and along ¦with Bennet (Arhngton) advised Charles to issue the Indulgence of 1663. Smce that time there had been more than one attempt at Comprehension. One of these m 1667, promoted by Lord Keeper Bridgman, Sir Matthew Hale, Dr. Wilson, and the old earl of Manchester, pro-vided that for those who had not episcopal ordmation the form should be, " Take thou legal authority," etc., so that it was not a reordin- ation. The subscription was to be made less strmgent, the disputed ceremomes left mdifferent, and some changes made in the Liturgy, in case it was re-vised. But the Commons would have none of it, they were more disposed to renew the expiring Conventicle Act, which they did in 1670. Thus there was a fairly strong party for toleration, and Charles 362 CHURCH AND STATE ventured a second Declaration of Indulgence a few days before the outbreak of the Dutch war (March 1672). In this, by -virtue of his " supreme power in ecclesiastical matters," he suspended all statutes agamst Nonconformists and Recusants, and allowed Nonconformists to worship in Ucensed chapels, Romanists in private houses. Here was toleration; but here was also an assertion of prerogative wMch went far beyond anytMng ven tured by the Tudors. Even Ashley opposed it, and the dissenters gave the King few thanks for it. Louis had conquered a large piece of Dutch territory when the dykes were opened and a revolution made young Wilham of Orange stadtholder. The naval war was more equal, and want of money at last forced Charles to summon Parliament. It met (Febraary 1673) in a temper of intense anger at the Declaration and the Dutch war, coupled with much suspicion of Romanism in Mgh quarters, especially against the duke of York. The first step of the new " country party " was to quash the Indulgence. The King might dispense occasional mdi-viduals, but a wholesale suspension of statutes was another matter. After a struggle, Charles revoked the Declaration and gave his promise that it should never be made a precedent. His scheme for restoring Romanism had failed, and he never retumed to it. Henceforth the hopes of the Papists and the suspicions of the Protestants were fixed on the duke of York. The next step was the Test Act, wMch disquaUfied Papists from public employment. All ci-vil and military officials were to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to receive the sacra ment accordmg to the rites of the church, and to subscribe the declaration," I do beUeve that there is not any Transubstantiation m the Lord's Supper or in the elements of bread and wme, at or after the consecration thereof by any persons whatever." Such an Act can only be justified, as indeed it is justified, by the real pohtical danger of the time, though it might have been made effective without debasing the sacrament to a political test. The disavowal of Transubstantiation was made necessary by the dupUcity of the Roman authorities, because it was almost the only tMng for wMch they could not give a dispensation. The Test Act was not aimed at the Nonconformists, and m fact the Commons were now ¦willing to reUeve them, if the Lords had not refused. But the fact remained, that the sacramental THE RESTORATION 363 test would naturally shut out Nonconformists as weU as Papists. The law however might be evaded by occasional conformity. The dissenters were stUl parishioners with a right to all the offices of the Church ; and by the statute of Edward VI the sacrament could not be refused to any " who should humbly and devoutly desire it." Nor was the rift between Church and dissent very wide. Not only moderate bishops like Laney and Earle, but stout churchmen Uke Morley and Gunning, and such a persecutor as Seth Ward, were personally Mnd to indi^viduals, and many of the Nonconformists looked with friendly interest on the Church wMch had cast them out of its ministry. Many of those who preferred the preaching of conventicles came to the parish church, at least occasionally, for the sacrament, and the more moderate clergy were glad to welcome them. But the Test Act added to those who came ¦with a good conscience a new class of men who came only to quahfy for office ; and this enabled the extreme men on both sides to denounce both classes as hypocrites. Daniel Defoe argued that if nonconformity is right, every sort and degree of conformity must be sinful, while the Highfliers of Queen Anne's time coimted their presence a " horrible profanation " — but they never for a moment disputed their legal right to come. Profanation there certainly was, for the Test Act brought in unworthy commimicants wholesale; but the unworthy were more hkely to be churchmen, for the churchmen were more in number. Occasional conformity was forbidden by the Baptists as late as 1742; but before that time Walpole had begun the practice of an annual Act of Indemnity for those who had failed to quaUfy. This made the Test Act a farce, but it was only abolished in 1828, on the eve of the Reform BiU. The effect of the Test Act was electric. Chfford laid down the Treasurer's staff, the duke of York retired from the Admiralty, meaner men resigned in multitudes, the Cabal was broken up, and the new mmister, Thomas Osbome, earl of Danby, retumed to sometMng more hke the poUcy of Clarendon— Protestant, royaUst, persecuting, but definitely opposed to France. Peace was made with the Dutch, though Charles would never jom the coaUtion of the Umted Provinces with the emperor and Spain wMch made shift to maintain itself agamst France tiU the Peace of Nimeguen in 1678. MeanwMle, the question of the succession became urgent. 364 CHURCH AND STATE Catharine of Braganza being childless, the next heir was James duke of York, whose Romish leanings were notorious. His first wife, Anne Hyde, died a Romanist, though her two daughters were brought up as Protestants. Of these, Mary was given in 1677 to William of Orange, Anne a few years later to the insig- mficant George of Denmark. James had avoided the sacrament since 1669, and made Ms Romanism a practical certamty by refusmg the Test in 1673, though he did not avow it till 1676. His second marriage therefore to Mary of Modena (November 1673) involved imminent danger of a Une of popish Mngs. No doubt the mass of the nation was firmly Protestant. The stoutest of churchmen — Sheldon, Sancroft, Morley, Compton, Ken — had no leaning to Rome, and for most people the Pope was Antichrist, or somethmg very Uke Antichrist ; and if the Papists made some converts at Whitehall, they scarcely succeeded better than in Laud's times. But the air was so thick with plots and rumours of plots that it was hard to say what Papist was not plotting. No man knew how many concealed Romanists there might be, and even a small number would be dangerous if they got a popish king to head them, and that Mng were backed by the armed power of France. So all was ready for the advent of Dr. Titus Oates m 1678 with Ms story of a Jesuit plot to MU the King. There was a plot, though not to kiU the Kmg, and Oates had heard somethmg of it at St. Omer, but Oates and his imitators bmlt on it a monstrous pile of lies. The panic was increased by the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey (by the Jesuits, it was taken for granted) and by the treasonous correspondence of Coleman, a secretary employed by the duke of York. The flame was fanned by Shaftesbury and his friends. The story is not trae, said even HaUfax, but we must act as if it were trae. So the terror went on, and one innocent ¦victim after another was sent to his death, while Charles looked on coolly. Innocent blood was notMng to Mm : he was only waiting for the reaction after the frenzy. Parhament at once introduced a new test. Members of either House were to declare that there is no Transubstantiation in the Lord's Supper, and that the mvocation of the Virgm or other saints and the sacrifice of the mass as now practised in the church of Rome are superstitious and idolatrous. TMs is the test wMch in 1689 was extended to the sovereign, and was only modified THE RESTORATION 365 in 1911. The Romanists now shut out of Parhament were restored in 1829. Then came the dissolution of the Cavaher ParUament (1661-1679) and the faU of Danby, and then three successive Parhaments dominated by the WMgs, as the country party was beginning to be called. Meanwhile, how was the succession to be settled? The simplest idea was to take a Mnt from Henry VIII — ^to get the Kmg divorced and married again. TMs however Charles firmly refused — " it was a horrid thing." Like Rufus, he had a pomt of honour after all. Then James must be excluded, and an Exclusion BiU was brought in. TMs was the right remedy, though it was a terrible shock to the court preachers of Divine Right and Passive Obedience, and it was the remedy finally found necessary. But if James was excluded, who was to take Ms place ? Clearly the Une of least resistance was to crown Ms daughter Mary, wife of the Stadtholder WiUiam, son of Mary of Orange, and therefore Mmself the next heir after Ms ¦wife's sister Anne. They were all three firm Protestants, and WilUam was the soul of the European opposition to France. But the WMgs wanted a tool, the old jealousy of the Dutch was not yet abated, and there were also real inconvemences in ha-vmg a foreign sovereign for virtual or actual Mng. Here then the fatal mistake was made. After some hesitation, Shaftesbury put forward the Kmg's iUegitimate son, the worthless Monmouth, and spread rumours that Charles had married Monmouth's mother, Lucy Walters. StiU the panic went on increasmg : the Papists tried to counter it, but the Meal-tub Plot did them notMng but harm. At last Oates attacked the Queen, and hopelessly perjured Mmself at the trial of her physician Wakeman . So Wakeman was acquitted, and the speU was broken. James was sent out of the way, and the Exclusion BiU was met by the offer of any number of securities for the Protestant reUgion, if only James were aUowed to reign. They were rightly refused. Shaftesbury had gone too far, and securities were worthless against such a man as James. The WMg ParUament was dissolved; in a second, the Commons passed the Exclusion BiU, but the Lords threw it out after a great speech from HaUfax. A tMrd met at Oxford (March 1681) as determined as ever; and was dissolved in a week. The WMg Terror was past: now came the Tory Terror. 366 CHURCH AND STATE Charles was now supreme. He had secured funds from France wMch made him independent of Parhament, but on condition of complete subservience to France, and at the cost of starving aU the pubUc services. Even the fleet was aUowed to decay. The reaction to passive obedience recalled the enthusiasm of the Restoration. James retumed, Shaftesbury fled to Holland, and the Rye House Plot gave an excuse for the trial and conviction for treason of the WMg Leaders — Lord WiUiam RusseU, the old repubUcan Algernon Sidney, and others — ^with Lord Howard of Ettrick to play the part of Oates. Subser-vient judges found a technical flaw in the charter of the City, and the charters of other towns were forfeited or surrendered, so that the munici- paUties could be remodeUed at the King's pleasure. TMs gave Mm the control of ParUament ; yet he would never again face a Parhament. Even the Cavahers of 1661 had tumed Whigs; and so it would be again. Still there was no opposition when Charles died (February 6, 1685). The WMgs were crushed, Monmouth was in exile, and James succeeded qmetly. With the fall of Clarendon in 1667 we entered on a stormy period of three-and-twenty years, fiUed with intrigue and treason in the Mghest quarters, and below them a nation -wild with suspicions, culminatmg in the alternate murders of the most violent panic in Enghsh Mstory, and ending in final defeat for the schemings of the Mngs to force absolutism on the State and Romamsm on the Church. It is a time of scepticism and cynicism, of peculation and cormption. Puritan enthusiasm was quenched by the major-generals, and CavaUer enthusiasm was perisMng in the mutual distrust of King and Parhament. It was a national enthusiasm when the King retumed : before his death it had sunk into a party-cry. CHAPTER XXVIII JAMES II James II began -with everytMng in Ms favour. As a young officer he won a warm approval from Turenne, and in the Dutch wars he had held his own agamst De Ruji;er. He was also a good man of busmess, and had done excellent work at the Admiralty. The Exclusion BiU seemed unfair in the reaction from the Popish Plot, and the old suspicions only mcreased the deUght with wMch men received Ms declaration that he was no lover of absolute power, but would mamtam the laws and " always take care to defend and support the Church of England." He wielded more power than the Tudors, with a standing army at Ms call, the corporations " regulated " at his pleasure, the judges dependent on Mm, Churchmen and Tories enthusiastic, and the nation ready to make the best of a Mng who " had never been worse than his word." Yet he proved an utter failure in common sense, common honesty, and even common courage. He was as narrow, obstinate and deceitful as Ms father, and as wanting in generosity ; and he was destitute even of Ms brother's good nature. French vice he could imitate hke Charles, but not Ms gloss of tact and wit ; and if he had a pomt of rehgion, it was a reUgion of Mary Tudor's Mnd, wMch stirred Mm to craelty and revenge, and drove Mm into a career of treason against the reUgion and the freedom of Ms people. The baU was at his feet. Parhament was weU packed, and gave Mm ample suppUes for life, so that he was independent of Louis, and could have Ms own foreign pohcy. If only he kept Ms rehgion out of poUtics, Churchmen and Tories would have given Mm at least practical toleration for Papists, and aUowed occa sional breaches of the Test Act. If he must needs undertake the conversion of England, any one but James and the Jesuits could see that it would be at best a work of time requirmg mfinite 367 368 CHURCH AND STATE caution and patience. Haste was plain madness after the Popish Plot. The court was instantly fiUed with priests and Jesuits, and (February 15) the King went in state to mass in the Queen's chapel. TMs was impradent, but it might pass ; and if anjrthmg could strengthen Ms position, it was the senseless enterprise of Monmouth. The clergy were zealous loyaUsts. Bishop Mews of Winchester pointed the cannon at Sedgemoor, and Sir Jonathan Trelawny gamed the see of Bristol by Ms activity in ComwaU. But the country was shocked as it had never been shocked smce Mary's time by the wholesale cruelties wMch foUowed. Kirke's Lambs committed outrages in the style of the TMrty Years' War; but these were outdone by the judicial crimes of the Bloody Assize, where hundreds were hanged or transported; and even these are less odious than the execution of Ahce Lisle and the buming of Ehzabeth Gaunt — ^two old ladies — ^for reUe-ving fugitives. The infamy of Jeffreys must be shared m fuU measure by the master who dehghted in Ms cruelties and rewarded them. James could now throw off the mask. He had long ago levied customs without consent of Parhament and forbidden the clergy to preach agamst Romish doctrine, and much resented their disobedience. He now took advantage of Monmouth's rismg to increase the army, coUectmg 30,000 men, organizing another army in Ireland, and giving commissions to Papists. Even that servile Parhament grew restive, and was at once prorogued in anger. Officials were dismissed wholesale : past services went for notMng. HaUfax Mmself, who had defeated the Exclusion Bill, was disgraced for refusing to vote for the repeal of the Test Act and the Habeas Corpus. As it was evident that Parhament would not sanction dispensations, James tumed to the judges. By dismissing half of them, he packed a court wMch decided in Ms favour the test case of Godden v. Hales. So he gave commissions to Papists broadcast, raised a Popish army in Ireland and afterwards formed a camp at Hounslow, bringing over Irish soldiers to overawe England. Under these blows the old alUance of Church and King was dissolved, and the great party of Tories and Churchmen was falhng to pieces. They had for years preached divine right and passive obedience without dreaming that a Mng could ever tum against such loyal subjects. Yet James was tramphng JAMES II 369 on old Uberties as dear to Tories as to WMgs, and maMng it more and more clear that he wanted none but Papists. Not a man about court but was phed with arguments, temporal as weU as spiritual. But apostates were few — ^Dryden was the cMef — and those whom James dehghted to honour were very commonly bad characters. " Thy faith hath saved thee," said HaUfax to one of them. The Romish emissaries were hopelessly overmatched. As Cardinal Howard explained to Bumet, they left England as boys, grew up abroad, and came back to preach French and Itahan sermons in bad Enghsh. They could not do much against men Uke Stilhngfleet and Tillotson, Sharp and Tenison, Atterbury and Wake — ^for the Highest of High Churchmen were as resolute against Romish doctrine as the Lowest of the Low. They preached with one accord agamst Tradition, Transubstantiation, Confession, Purgatory, Saint-worsMp, the Mass, and such-Uke " blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." It was indeed time for the Church to bestir itself. The European outlook was as dark for Protestantism as when WaUen- stem stood before the walls of Stralsund. Louis XIV was at the height of Ms power. Two coahtions had failed to check Mm, and he had filched a good deal of territory — Orange, Strasburg, Luxemburg — since the Peace of Nimeguen in 1678. And Louis was an ignorant bigot, -with many sins to be washed away in heretic blood. So he reversed the pohcy on wMch the cardinals had built up the greatness of France. Instead of toleration at home and purely poUtical alUances abroad, there was to be perse cution at home and general intimidation abroad. Steadily increasmg persecution led up to the horrors of the dragonnades, and culminated in the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (Octo ber 12, 1685). The exiles of France swarmed over the frontiers, and were warmly received in Protestant countries. They had left aU for conscience' sake, and brought treasures of character more precious than gold. They settled the wastes of Branden burg, and fiUed the towns of England with sober craftsmen and thriving merchants. One colony settled at the Cape, and is stiU a power in the country. England was deeply moved. Their very presence was a Protestant sermon, and their cMldren long remained a strong Protestant influence. Unexampled collections were made for them in the churches, and their congregations received not toleration but favour— James affected at first to B B 370 CHCjjkuH AiMJ bxaxjbj fall in with the popular enthusiasm ; but he soon showed a hatred of the refugees wMch gives the Ue once for aU to Ms pretences of tolerance. The Popish danger loomed up tremendous : yet the European outlook was not quite so dark as it seemed, for Cathohcism was a house divided against itself. There was a pohtical cleavage, for Spam and Austria dreaded Louis, and were ready to ally with heretics against Mm. There was a reUgious cleavage, for Louis had quarrelled with the Pope, proclaimed the supremacy of General Councils and the hberties of the GalUcan Church (1682) and seemed going the way of Henry VIII. There was also an internal cleavage, for not only Jansenists but moderate Cathohcs, especially in England, were disgusted by the reckless insolence of the Jesuits. Innocent XI is no exception to the rule that seventeenth-century popes were below mediocrity. But if he was no scholar, he was a good man of business, disUked the Jesmts, and was not overawed by the threats of Louis. WMle Bossuet and the GalUcans tried to prove themselves good cathohcs by urging the persecution of heretics, the Pope saw nothing laudable in the zeal of a schismatic Mng who was rather worse than the heretics themselves. James in England had the Jesuits beMnd Mm ; but most of the Enghah CathoUcs agreed ¦with the Pope, that the King's hot haste would only provoke a disastrous reaction, and the Romamsts abroad saw in Mm no champion of the faith, but a close ally of a lawless and dangerous tyrant. Innocent himself saw more hope for Cathohcs in Wiffiam'a love of toleration than in the headstrong endeavours of James to give them supremacy. So it came about, that Wiffiam's expedition for the dehverance of Protestantism in England had not only the Pope's approval but his active help, for it was he who brought the Emperor Leopold to full concurrence in it. Church and King were now divided. As the Church grew more distrustful of the King, so the King grew more disgusted with the Church. He had counted on passive obedience, and thought to make sure of the Church's aUegiance by letting loose the most violent of all the persecutions of dissenters. Jeffreys railed at Baxter in Ms usual " drunken jack-puddmg " style, and threatened to have Mm wMpped at the cart's taU, but finaUy contented himself with committmg him to prison, where he remained for two years, till the Declaration of Indulgence. Mean- JAMES II 371 wMle James aUowed Obadiah Walker to keep the mastership of Umversity College after Ms avowal of Romamsm, appointed Massey, an open Papist, to the deanery of Christ Church, and would probably have given the see of York to Petre the Jesuit, if the Pope had not refused Mm a dispensation to hold a bishopric. His actual appointments were bad enough— Parker of Oxford was a controversiahst of the baser sort, Cartwright of Chester a sycophant pure and simple, Watson of St. David's the only Eng Ush bishop deprived for gross misconduct since the Revolution. But there was one thing beyond the limits of passive obedience. The Jesuits had filled London with noisy controversy; and the Kmg had forbidden the clergy to reply. But he could not silence the pulpits. He ordered Compton of London to suspend sum marily Sharp, the rector of St. Giles in the Fields, for answering some Papists who had molested Ms parishioners. Compton repUed (in language most respectful) that he was ready to proceed according to law, and had asked Sharp not to preach again for the present ; but that it was neither just nor lawful to suspend Mm unheard. James now (July 1686) reconstituted the Court of High Commission, ¦with all its old arbitrary and inquisitorial powers. This was a double defiance of law, for when the Long Parhament made an end of the ecclesiastical courts, it not only abohshed the High Commission, but forbade any similar court for the future; and tMs part of the statute was dehberately re-enacted by the Cavaher ParUament. Jeffreys was to be president, and to have six assessors, including the bishops of Durham and Rochester (Crewe and Sprat). Sancroft was also named, but dechned to sit, pleading only his age and infirmities. James imderstood him, and forbade Mm the court. The High Commission began with Compton — Sharp was forgotten — but James only obtained a con-viction by telhng the Treasurer Rochester that he must give up the wMte staff unless he found the bishop guilty. Compton was suspended from spiritual functions — ^they dared do no more. But there was a Umit to Rochester's baseness. He stood for Ms father Clarendon, and was more or less the head of the Church party, so that James completed Ms break with the Church when he began the year 1687 by dismissing Rochester for refusing to be an apostate. After tMs he had to look for a fresh alUance, and therefore to profess tolerance and court the Dissenters. 372 CHURCH AND STATE His Declaration of Indulgence (April 4, 1687) recites that " perse cution has ever been contrary to our inclmation " ; and therefore in ¦virtue of Ms royal prerogative, not doubtmg the concurrence of ParUament, he suspends all penal laws in matters ecclesiastical, directs that the oaths of supremacy and aUegiance, and the tests of 1672 and 1678 shaU not be enforced, removes all rehgious disabiUties, and ends with an irrelevant and therefore suspicious confirmation of the abbey lands to their present holders. The jails were emptied, chapels were built, and since that day there has been no active persecution of orthodox Nonconformists. They were of course glad of their new freedom, and some addresses of thanks were sent to the King. He had some supporters. The Quaker Penn was an enthusiast of toleration, and ¦with Mm went some of the simpler and some of the baser sort ; but the great Nonconformist leaders, Baxter, Bunyan, Howe, stood aloof. Presently the case was summed up by Halifax m Ms Letter to a Dissenter. Could they beheve in tMs sudden change ? " The other day you were Sons of BeUal, now you are Angels of Light." Was Popery the only friend of hberty? Would they justify the dispensmg power? So the mass of the Nonconformists preferred the mercies of a Church which persecuted by law to the seductions of a King who claimed to suspend laws at his pleasure. In fact, it was not now a persecuting Church. Toleration was no longer premature as it was in CromweU's time. Most of the new movements of thought pointed tMs way. The old behef in orthodoxy as necessary for the salvation of indi^viduals, or at least for the welfare of the state, was threatened on one side by the reaction to simpler teaching, represented in one form by Baxter and Howe, in another by TiUotson and the Latitudinarians, on a second side by the growth of science and mundane interests, on a third by the con-viction of practical men that persecution had not been a success. Nothing is more significant of the changed feeUng than the way Locke takes it for granted that orthodox profession is of no spiritual value. There remained the narrower Churchmen and Tories, and even these were cowed into charity by the common danger from Rome. Few " i;e- mained in their pee^vishness." Sancroft Mmself preached peace, and all was harmony in the Protestant fold — on the understood condition that the Dissenters were to have toleration certainly. JAMES II 373 and comprehension if possible. Even the Romamsts— the English Romanists— mostly preferred the chances of a free Parhament, so that the Revolution overthrew Uttle more than a camarilla of Jesuits and renegades. On one pomt the camarilla was right — ^the necessity of cap turing the universities and sending out a steady stream of Papists or subser^vient Protestants hke Parker or Cartwright. Romish worsMp was already set up in Oxford by WaUcer and Massey at University College and Christ Church, and in Cambridge by Joshua Basset at Sidney. But more than tMs was needed. The attempt on Cambridge was not very serious. The university refused its M.A. degree to Alban Francis, a Benedictme who refused the oaths required by law ; and when Jeffreys deprived the Vice Chancellor, a stronger man was elected in Ms place. At Oxford the cabal tumed its eyes on i^e splendid foundation of Magdalen CoUege, the old home of Cavaher loyalty. For the vacant office of President, the King's nominee was Anthony Farmer, a man disquahfied by the statutes, and further dis quaUfied by law, because he had covered a multitude of sins by turnmg Papist. The Fellows respectfully declined him, and as no further mandate arrived before the last day aUowed by the statutes (April 15, 1687) they elected John Hough, who was duly admitted by the Visitor, Peter Mews of Winchester. The High Commission quashed the election, but Farmer was too infamous, and the King nominated Parker, whom the FeUows refused to elect. When James in person failed to overawe them, notMng remained but to send down Cart^wright, who ejected Hough by force, and the rest of the Fellows on their refusal to apologize. When Parker died a Uttle later, the whole college was tumed over to the Papists. James had won; but at a cost. Loyal Oxford was seetMng with discontent, and all England saw that no property was safe from a lawless Mng. The succession question was urgent again. James was elderly. Mary of Modena's cMldren died in infancy, and the succession of Mary of Orange would put a natural end to the tyranny. TMs the camarilla plotted to prevent. They tried to convert the Princess Anne, then talked of the Kmg's son by ArabeUa ChurchiU, then schemed to have the crown left in the gift of Loms. James disavowed this last treason ; but he^ was ¦wUUng to separate Ireland under French protection. Towards the end of 1687 the 374 CHURCH AND STATE Queen was with child, and the Jesuits were wild with joy. Their exultant prophecies (¦with a good many suspicious facts) con vinced a wilhng nation that the son born June 10, 1688, was a changeUng. In this they did James injustice : the characteristic stupidity of the Pretender in later years is good evidence of Ms parentage. But at the time the behef was natural, genuine, and nearly universal, that the alleged birth was one more fraud of the Jesuits ad majorem Dei gloriam,. Meanwhile James was entangled in another great blunder. He reissued the Declaration (April 27, 1688) with orders (May 4) to the clergy to read it in church. This was adding insult to injury. His father had done something hke it in 1633 ; but the Book of Sports was much less generally offensive, and Charles I was beyond suspicion of enmity to the Church. Time pressed, for the Declaration was to be read on Sunday, May 20. The great Jiondon clergy — Patrick, Fowler, Sherlock, StilUngfleet — decided not to obey. Then Sancroft summoned the bishops, but only six arrived in time — Turner, Lloyd of St. Asaph, WMte, Ken, Lake, and Trelawny. A petition was drawn up by San croft, statmg that they were loyal subjects, and ready to vote in ParUament for toleration, but they could not in conscience read an illegal Declaration in the House of God. It was late on Friday night when the six presented it to the King at WMte hall. Sancroft being forbidden the court did not go, and Compton being suspended did not sign. The inter^view was stormy. " TMs is a standard of rebeUion," said James. The charge was monstrous, and the bishops warmly denied it. Trelawny gave the King the he direct — " Sir, ¦with respect I say it, you know to the contrary." " I will be obeyed," was the King's final word. He was not obeyed. The Declaration was read in about half a dozen London churches, nowhere at Oxford, and perhaps in tMrty churches about the country. MeanwMle the petition was pubUshed in spite of Sancroft's precautions, and the excite ment was intense. But James was too stupid to see Ms danger, and decided to prosecute the seven bishops for " a false, scan dalous, and seditious Ubel." The petition had since been signed by Compton, Mews, Lloyd of Norwich, Frampton, Ward, and Lamplugh : but these were unmolested. Adding Thomas of Worcester, who refused to send out the Declaration, these JAMES II 375 fourteen are a majority in number, and more than this in im portance. Barlow of LincoM and Croft of Hereford sent it out, but Barlow more than Muted that it was better not read, and Croft was much ashamed of himself. Oxford and York were vacant, and Bangor, Llandaff, and Carhsle are not accounted for. The King's only active friends were Ms courtiers of Chester, Durham, and Rochester, and the two scandalous bishops of Lichfield and St. Da-vid's. The Seven were sent to the Tower, and their passage was a triumph. In due course the trial came on. The story has been told by Macaulay once for aU, and it need not be told here. Suffice it that after another night of eager waiting, the verdict in the mommg was Not Guilty. London was frantic with dehght, and the cries of joy ran through the country tUl the very soldiers at Hounslow took them up the moment the Bang's back was tumed. The bishops went quietly home. Never before or smce has the Church so gloriously represented a united nation. The Seven had stood for freedom, with Church men and Dissenters in serried ranks beMnd them. That great day might well atone for many failures. But James went on Ms e^vil way. He gave the see of Oxford to Timothy Hall, whose sole quaUfication was that he had read the Declaration ; and dis missed the two judges who had not summed up against the bishops, wMle the High Commission ordered a return of the clergy who had not read the Declaration. But the instraments of tjrranny were breaking in Ms hands. He had utterly failed to pack a ParUament. Lords-Lieutenants were dismissed whole sale, corporations " regulated " again and again without success ; and now the High Commission dissolved of itself when retums were not sent in, and Sprat resigned. The whole country was seetMng with disaffection, and only the fear of France prevented a revolt. CHAPTER XXIX THE REVOLUTION William of Orange was watcMng from the Hague, He was hardly fool enough to covet a thorny crown. Far better bring James into the League of Augsburg than risk a civil war among the turbulent islanders. But James was ready to wel come the ruin of HoUand, and still more the destraction of Protestantism, so that if he entered on the war at all, it would certainly be on the side of France, When tMs became manifest, it was also clear that his pohcy of Popery and French partisansMp must be stopped, and it was equally clear that Mary's husband was the man to do it. So all eyes were tumed to Wiffiam, On the night of June 30, wMle London was ablaze with bonfires for the acquittal of the Seven, there went an in-vitation to Mm to come and deUver England from Popery and despotism, signed by Danby, DevonsMre, Shrewsbury, Russell, Sidney, Lumley, and Compton — cMefs of aU parties. But preparations for an invasion of England could not be concealed, and Louis haughtily informed the States that an attack on James was an attack on Mmself. That threat would have stopped the invasion; but James resented French protection when he most needed it, and Louis tumed Ms armies eastward for the great devastation of the Palatmate. The mistake was critical. He expected a civil war in England wMch would leave Mm free for Ms designs on Germany. So WilUam was free too. James took alarm in September, and after sundry hesitations, called the bishops on October 3. They gave Mm good ad^vice. Let Mm appoint quahfied officials, aboUsh the High Commission, restore Magdalen CoUege, revoke Ucences to Papists, restore the town charters, call a ParUament, and give permission for the bishops to attempt his reconversion. James accepted some of it, aboUshing the High Commission and restoring the charter of London and the Fellows of Magdalen. But nobody could trast 376 THE REVOLUTION 377 Mm. WilUam landed at Torbay November 5, and gradually the West gathered to him. Only the clergy held aloof. Lam plugh of Exeter fled to London and was given the see of York, kept vacant smce Dolben's death in 1686. Ken also left Wells, and placed his horses at the King's ser-vice. In due time James reached SaUsbury. His army was ample, and even a defeat by Dutchmen would have sorely wounded Enghsh pride. But it could not be trasted. ChurcMll went over, and the Princess Anne fled to the North, -with Compton in mihtary attire com mandmg her escort. James negotiated, but only to gain time. First sending the Queen and Prince of Wales to France, he left WMtehall himself on the night of December 10, buming the writs for a Parhament, thro-wing the Great Seal into the Thames, and ordering Faversham to disband the army unpaid. So bent was he on ffight, that when the flshermen stopped Mm at Sheemess and he was respectfuUy brought back to WMtehall, he fled again, and openly placed Mmself under the protection of Louis XIV. The King being fled, there was no choice but to ask the Prince of Orange to keep order; and to summon a Convention ParUa ment, wMch met January 22, 1689. Three courses were open : Sancroft's plan was to restore James upon conditions, Danby wished to proclaim the Princess Mary Queen, wMle others were for electing WilUam. There was no thought of a commonwealth, none of the Prince of Wales. The cMld had been removed to Prance with the -witnesses needed to settle the question of his birth. Sancroft's plan suited the Tories, but serious men could hardly face the danger of a weak regency at such a crisis. So they feU back on Danby's plan; but tMs agam broke down before Mary's refusal to reign alone, and the e-vident fact that Wilham could serve England nowhere but on the throne. So it was decided that Wiffiam and Mary were to be King and Queen, the government in Wilham's hands, ¦with remainder to the survivor, then to the Princess Anne, then to WilUam's issue by any future wife. TMs was a natural order; but it cut the neck of divine right, for James was deposed, and Wilham had no claim before the Princess Anne, except what Parhament gave Mm. A Declaration of Right was also drawn up, recitmg the lawless acts of James and forbidding them for the future, and ordermg that the Sovereign should be a Protestant and join in communion with the Church, and make the declaration of 1678, and should 378 CHURCH AND STATE forfeit his rights by marriage with a Papist. On these terms the cro^wn was formally offered to WilUam and Mary by the Speakers, Hahfax and Powle ; and they were crowned (April 13, 1689) by Compton of London. It now remained for the Church to fulfil its promises to Dis senters, and the work was taken in hand at once. The Toleration Act passed without difficulty (May 24, 1689). It repealed none of the persecutmg Acts, but enacted that they should not apply to persons taking the oaths of aUegiance and supremacy and maMng the declaration against Transubstantiation, pro^vided they did not hold meetings with locked doors. Ministers were further to sign the Articles, except those on Church govemment, and Baptists were further excused the clause appro-ving Infant Baptism. The Quakers had to " promise and solemnly declare " themselves good subjects who renounced the authority of the Pope and beheved in the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible. Dissentmg chapels were to be registered as such, and there was to be a fine of £20 for disturbmg them. Papists and those who denied the Trimty were excluded . from the benefit of the Act. Toleration was thus estabhshed in practice, though not in theory even for Protestant dissenters. Persecution was still the law, toleration the exception; and as late as 1787 the Methodists could get no rehef from the penalties of the Conventicles Act till their chapels were not only registered, but registered as ffis- senting chapels. The Papists could hardly expect more than connivance after the Revolution. Such toleration as Wilham or Hahfax would have given them was not practical poUtics when the Tories were against it to a man, and most of the WMgs agreed with them. After Toleration, the Comprehension BiU, wMch also passed the Lords. It relaxed the subscription to the Articles, made the " nocent ceremonies " optional in most churches, and ad mitted Presbyterian ministers without reordination. The form was to be, " Take thou authority to preach ... in the Church of England." The Canons were to be re'vived, and the Liturgy actually was re'vised by a commission. Of the changes proposed, it may be enough to say that they amounted to a pretty general acceptance of the Puritan demands in 1661, and that the verbal ampUfications, largely the work of TiUotson, were in the style of eighteenth-century elegance. However, it soon appeared THE REVOLUTION 379 that Comprehension was impossible. The clergy were mostly Tories and High Churchmen ; and now that they had got over their fit of charity, they were most unwilhng to make any changes to let in Dissenters. If some of their leaders, hke Nottingham, were for Comprehension, it was that the Church might be strong enough to enforce the Test Act by putting do^wn occasional conformity. TMs again raised difficulties on the other side. The veterans of 1662, Uke Baxter and Howe, might look back wistfully to the old Church wMch had cast them out of its ministry ; but by tMs time a younger generation had grown up which preferred to remain outside. Better be content with toleration than become unwelcome guests of a hostile Church. Moreover, there were many Dissenters whom no scheme of comprehension could include, and every such person saw the danger to himself of Nottmgham's pohcy. The greater the success of comprehension, the greater the danger of a retum to persecution. Indeed, the men who raised the Sacheverell riots and passed the ScMsm Act were quite capable of repeaUng the Toleration Act. Thus the Comprehension Bill was attacked on both sides — by the High Churchmen who hated the idea, and by the Dissenters who feared its success, wMle the Whigs were di^vided between Comprehension and a relaxation of the Test Act. So when Convocation met (November 21, 1689) it refused even to discuss changes in the Liturgy. Comprehension dropped of itself. Smce that day it has never been a practical question, though the ghost of " Unity " has never ceased to haunt the Church. But if the problem was hard in 1689, it became harder stiU when the old Puritans passed away. Baxter died in 1691, and Howe, the last of CromweU's chaplains, in 1705. Their place was taken by ministers trained in dissenting academies instead of national universities, whose outlook was narrower, more sectarian, more bitter agamst the Church than that of the old ejected mmisters. The social difference was harder to overcome than the doctrinal. So things remained tiU they were further comphcated in the nineteenth century by the growth on one side of a behef that any connexion of Church and State is sinful, on the other of the Tractarian doctrine that Churches without bishops are no Churches at aU, and have no mercies promised them. The EngUsh Church of the period (1660-1689) we have now 380 chukch and State traversed is Unked to the Laudian times before it by its behef in divine right and intolerance of dissent, and to those of Wilham and Anne by the survival of those doctrmes in Jacobite and Tory forms. Yet it is sharply distinguished from both. Laud led a party, and persecuted by the High Commission; Clarendon had the nation, and could use ParUament. On the other hand, our period marks the transition towards a time of indifference to dogma and general acquiescence in toleration. The Church then was really the church of the nation. The Dissenters were strongest in the merchants of London and the middle classes of the towns, but even so they were very few, though many who did not separate, or were even zealous Church men, had a good deal of the Puritan austerity. The episcopate never stood higher than in the time of Charles II. The nine survivors of Laudian times include Juxon, Wren, and Duppa ; but their successors are a briffiant group. Leaming was represented by Cosin and Sanderson, Morley, Pearson, Gunnmg, and Jeremy Taylor in Ireland. Sheldon also had a name for learmng in Ms younger days, in Falkland's circle at Great Tew. To these we must add the future Nonjurors, San croft, Ken, and Frampton. For secular learning stood the astronomer Seth Ward, who nearly anticipated Newton's discovery of gra-vitation, and was further an accompUshed la-wyer. Then there was the imiversal scholar John Wilkms, who was not re fused preferment for having married CromweU's sister, and, with Sprat of Rochester, was no purely honorary member of the Royal Society. Ifjsaac Barrow never reached a bishopric, he may have been more in Ms place as Master Of Trimty, where Ms eccentricities were better understood.'^ The nominations of Charles II were as generaUy good as his successors were generaUy bad. The two worst were Wood of Lichfield and Crewe of Durham ; and these were creatures of the duchess of Cleveland and the duke of York. To James we owe Trela-wny, but also Cart-wright, Parker, and Timothy HaU, and Watson of St. Da-vid's, the only Enghsh bishop deprived smce the Restoration for gross misconduct, though Wood and Jones of St. Asaph (WilUam's nominee) narrowly escaped. The dignitaries were ^ On one occasion his uncouth appearance in the pulpit frightened the congregation out of the church. Only three remained, of whom Baxter THE REVOLUTION 381 men of varied experience. Dolben and Lake and Mews and Compton had fought in the wars. Archdeacon Basire had traveUed the Levant as a missionary for flfteen years. Frampton had been chaplain at Aleppo, and many another had followed strange trades to get a U-ving in a land of exile. True, they aU spoke the sla^vish language of Carohne royaUsm, and some, Uke Sheldon and Ward, were bitter persecutors; nor is it pleasant to find Sheldon hstemng graciously to a scurrilous parody of Puritanism, or Titus Oates received at Gunmng's table. But few were sycophants or cowards. Sheldon was not the only one who could rebuke a Mng, Ken faced the bratal Kirke, and the Seven confronted James himself. Many of them had gone out in the civil wars to poverty and exile, and others went out as Non jurors at the Revolution. The Bench has never been more fully adorned with splendid examples of learmng, of courage, of princely mimificence, of tme devotion. After aU, the royaUst cant may not have been worse than the Puritan. The condition of the clergy probably varied much. The stipends of the curates were often miserable, and some of them may have been Uttle better than the rastics; but the frequent ordination of men of family, Uke Crewe, Compton, Trelawny, Sir WilUam Dawes, shows a great change smce EUzabeth's time. The complaints of Eachard and the satirists must stand for somethmg, but the mass of the e'vidence points another way. The London clergy confessedly stood highest; but there were scholars Uke Bull and Bmgham in country rectories, and many a humble parish priest had won, hke Mompesson at Eyam, the true respect and attachment of Ms flock. There cannot have been very much " contempt of the clergy." They seem then, as now, to have been respected pretty much as they deserved. The Puritans also went out to poverty. There were fewer exiles, though Howe at one time kept a boarding house at Utrecht : but the persecution at home was much more severe than in Commonwealth times. Bunyan's twelve years in Bedford Jail was no uncommon experience. The persecution had intermissions, notably at the Indulgence of 1672, but its worst period was the last, before the Indulgence of 1687. Separa tion was gradual. The ejected ministers were stiU Churchmen, and so were those who went to hear them— nonconforming Churchmen waiting for better times. It was not tiU about 382 CHURCH AND STATE 1672 that the Presbyterians began to form a real separation by ordaining and administering sacraments. Even then how ever they were but ' rudimentary churches of ministers and flocks, for the elaborate organization of a Scots discipline was impossible in time of persecution. The Baptists would seiem to have fared better "as organized bodies, the Independents worse, though on the other hand-, churches of their loose congregational sort were more easily- started afresh in quieter times. Thus the Church was confronted at the Revolution by three organized bodies of Protestant Dissenters, not to add the Quakers as a fourth; and these carried a moral weight far beyond their numbers. . High, as the best EpiscopaUans must rank, they are wortMly matched in leammg, in courage, in spirituaUty, by the best Dissenters — Baxter, Owen, Goodwin, Howe, Bunyan, Fox. CHAPTER XXX WILLIAM m AND ANNE The reigns of Wilham and Anne, on which we enter now, are still a time of trouble and unrest, though it is no more than the after-sweU of the storm, rapidly settUng down into the Georgian stagnation. The great questions are now answered. Parhament is to be supreme, not the King; the Church is to be Protestant, not Popish; the Dissenters are to be tolerated, not persecuted. But none of these results is yet secure. A Tory reaction would peril the last, and the retum of the Stuarts would ¦wreck all three. We wiU therefore first trace the poUtical Mstory of the time, and then discuss the backwash of the Revolu tion — ^the scMsm of the Nonjurors, the efforts of the Tories to Umit toleration, and the attempt of the Highffiers to make the Church independent of the State. After these the move ments wMch pointed to a later (not always a better) state of tMngs. The saUent feature of the Mstory is the war with France, wMch was to a certain extent a rehgious war in 1689, but ended with a purely pohtical peace at Utrecht in 1713. James had left all pubUc ser^vices demoraUzed except the navy, so that the task of reconstmction was a long one. First, as with the Commonwealth, came the conquest of Ireland— the rehef of Londonderry (1689), the battle of the Boyne (1690) and the capture of Limerick (1692). Ireland was crushed, and was kept crushed for nmety years. Then came the victory of Cape La Hogue (1692), the cleansmg of the pubhc services by the disgrace of Danby (Leeds) and Speaker Trevor, the estabUsh ment of the Bank of England (1694), and the reform of the currency (1696). As England grew stronger, France grew weaker, tiU she had to accept the Peace of Ryswick in 1697, by wMch she engaged not to countenance the Stuarts. When Louis broke Ms promise in 1701 by proclaiming James III at 383 384 CHURCH AND STATE St. Germain, a new England confronted France, even as a new England had confronted Spain in 1585. So came the War of the Spamsh Succession (1702-1713). Wiffiam died as it began, and left Marlborough to win the great battles of Blenheim (1704), Ramiffies (1706) and Oudenarde (1708). Then France in sore distress tumed to bay at Malplaquet (1709), but was only saved by the ¦victory of the Tories in England, who gave her tolerable terms at Utrecht, though even they stipulated that the Pretender was not to be harboured in France. Here then we leave the pohtical Mstory with the last of the wars of reUgion. Later wars hardly rippled the surface of Enghsh Church History; and though the influence of the Napoleomc straggle was profound, it was not direct. Great reforms are seldom the dehberate and spontaneous work of a whole nation. Even the leaders are driven by the stress of facts — ^the teacMng of God in Mstory — wMle others foUow ¦with haltmg steps and many hankerings after the leeks and the onions of Egypt. So most great movements have their backwash. The Jesuits were the backwash of the Reformation : the Tractarians the backwash of the Reform BiU. So it was at the Revolution. Half the Tories had been con^vinced against their ¦will that James was impossible; and EngUsh loyalty was not easily transferred to unattractive foreigners who made no secret of their preference for HoUand or Hanover. All Tories were not Jacobites, but many were, and for a long time there was a vast amount of indifference wMch might easily have been raffied to the Stuarts. The danger was pressmg in the earher years of Wiffiam and at the end of Anne's reign ; but it dimmished with every year of settled govemment, tiU the firmness of the Hanoverian throne was displayed by the faUure of the Pretender's march on Derby (1745). After tMs it decUned rapidly. The Tories were won by George III, the Scotch Episco- .paUans gave in their allegiance on the Pretender's death in 1788, and Henry IX died a pensioner of England in 1807. If there are still Legitimists who caU (or till lately caUed) the Queen of Bavaria Mary IV of England, they are hardly more than a knot of sentimentahsts. The Tories were in a false position for more than half a cen tury. Their ideals were not only impossible, but ¦visibly im possible. The Legitimist King was a Papist, the toleration and WILLIAM III AND ANNE 385 the standing army they detested could not be abohshed, and their patriot King " above party " {i. e. Tory) was in any case not George I. So they had to follow the WMg lead with a bad grace, and showed their independence cMefl^y in personal attacks on mimsters and in endeavours to take back some of the Uberty enjoyed by the Dissenters. They were twice in power before their great catastrophe in 1715 consigned them to opposi tion for two generations. After 1698 they cMefly busied them selves with spiting Wiffiam and insulting Ms memory, with vain attempts to impeach the ministers who had brought the country through the war. But they were not Jacobites. It was a Tory ParUament in 1^91 which passed the Act of Settlement, placmg the Electress SopMa of Hanover and her heirs, being Protestants, next in succession to the Princess Anne. After eight years of WMg predommance, during wMch they could do httle more than send up Occasional Conformitjf^ Bills to be thro^wn out by the Lords, they were floated back to power in 1710 by the SachevereU riots. Sacheverell was contemptible ; but Walpole never forgot that the mimsters who had conquered Louis XIV were overthrown by a fanatic sermon on King Charles the Martyr. There was stiU a WMg majority in the Lords ; but in December 1711 a corrapt bargain was made. The WMgs, who had always opposed the Occasional Conformity BiU, were to let it pass, wMle Nottingham, who had always opposed the war, was to vote, " No peace wMle PMUp remains in Spain." The BiU did not forbid Dissenters to come for the sacrament, for their right to come was undisputed. The High Churchmen who called their presence " a horrible profanation " never attempted to prevent it by refusmg their unwelcome ¦visitors. What the Act did was to-enact that any one who had received the sacrament in church should be Uable to a penalty of £100 (with further penalties) if he attended a conventicle witMn the next twelve months. In tMs way it was hoped to shut out Dissenters from aU offices. The WMg Lords were swamped by the creation of new peers at the end of i711, but it was not tiU June 1714 that BoUngbroke was able to pass the ScMsm Act. The Act of Unifonnity had forbidden aU private teaching by Nonconfonnists, but they had been reUeved from tMs by the Toleration Act, so that they were able to open dissenting academies, to the great annoyance of c c 386 CHUECH AND STATE Tories and High Churchmen. The ScMsm Act pro^vided that nobody should teach without a Ucence from the bishop. As the Dissenters could not teach in the universities or the pubhc schools, tMs proMbition of private teacMng, even to their own cMldren, would bring dissent to a natural end in the next genera tion, without the formahty of repeahng the Toleration Act. TMs was its avowed purpose ; and it was frustrated along with the rest of Bohngbroke's plot, by the death of Anne (August 1, 1714). Nowhere was loyalty stronger than among the clergy, who had for years been preacMng divme right and passive obedience, and in almost every sermon denounced sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion, along with false doctrine, heresy, and schism. Then came the shock of the Eevolution, and the decisive test of the oath of allegiance to William and Mary. Some of the men who had most boldly resisted James felt the more bound not to forsake him now. Nine bishops refused the oath, and some four hundred of the clergy,^ and thus began the schism of the Nonjurors. The bishops were deprived Febraary 1, 1690, Sancroft retired to his native village of Fressmgfield in Suffolk, where he died in 1694, Frampton spent Ms last years (tiU 1708) at Ms old Uving of Standish, where he was aUowed to occupy the parsonage, to preach, and to catecMze the cMldren, Ken took up Ms quarters with Lord Weymouth at Longleat, or in the quieter home of the Misses Kemeyse, and survived tiU 1711. Thus the Nonjurors had to settle their relations, not only to a monarchy wMch had cast off its rightful Mngs, but to a Church 1 The bishops were Sancroft, Ken, Lake, White and Turner (five of the Seven), and with them Frampton, Thomas, and Lloyd of Norwich — all of whom had opposed the Declaration of Indulgence. Cartwright also refused, but he is never counted with the rest. Of dignitaries, we may note Deans Granville (Durham) and Hickes (Worcester), the Camden Professor Dodwell, and (for a time only) Sherlock, the Master of the Temple. Of other Nonjurors we have Kettlewell, Robert Nelson, Lestia and Heame, the antiquary. Thomas Baker and William Law belong to the later ejection of 1714. Of the bishops, the balance of respectability is with the Nonjurots. On the other side were Compton, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Mews, and Trela-wny, who had resisted the King; Lamplugh, Barlow, and Croft, who had played a more or less ambiguous part. Sprat, who had never gone heartily with him, Crewe, and the two scandals of Lichfield and St. David's. WILLIAM III AND ANNE 387 wMch had accepted bishops " uncanonically intraded " by the civil power. They were agreed that they could have notMng to do with Wiffiam or with the intruded bishops, but beyond tMs they were divided. Ken and Frampton regretted the separation, and would do nothing to make it permanent. So when Ken's successor Kidder was MUed in the great storm of 1703, Ken decUned Queen Anne's offer to restore Mm to Ms see, and resigned all his rights to Ms old friend Hooper, who now succeeded Kidder, and pubhcly communicated with Mm in Wells cathedral. As Lloyd died in 1696, WMte and Turner in 1698, only Frampton was left of the other ejected Fathers, and when he too died, in 1708, the way was clear for men hke Nelson and Dodwell and Cherry to return to the communion - of the Church, even if they still refused to join in the State prayers. The antagonism of doctrine was sharp. Ken described Kidder's Latitudmarianism as an " apostasy from the faith, and a common sewer of all heresies " ; and even for the gentle Kettlewell, passive obedience was notMng less than " the doc trine of the cross." Others were more bitter. Turner was concerned in one of the Jacobite plots, though he was allowed to escape : Qu6en Mary was resolved that they should not be martyrs. For men Uke these the Church had ceased to be a church at all. They were themselves the Church of England : the others were a gang of rebels and scMsmatics. So it was a duty to make the separation permanent. Lloyd and Turner with Sancroft's approval (not Ken's) asked WilUam in 1692 to nominate two more bishops. He left the choice to them, and they consecrated Hickes and Wagstaffe. The episcopal succes sion thus estabUshed was kept up first by the help of Scotch bishops, and then, as the sect went on d^windUng, single bishops consecrated others. But long before that, the community was spht in sunder by another dispute. The "trae church of England " at first adhered strictly to the Liturgy of 1662, with the necessary alterations of the State prayers. But certain doctrines hke the sacrificial character of the Eucharist and the utihty of prayers for the dead, were frequently held in High Church circles, and therefore by the Nonjurors, and were also found in ancient hturgies, wMch were much studied by the 388 CHUECH AND STATE scholars of the sect. So they looked ¦with favour on Laud's Liturgy of 1636, wMch suited them better. At last in 1718 " usages " were adopted to express their theological -views; and tMs di-vided the sect into Usagers and Non-usagers. It lingered on till the last Nonjuring congregation disappeared at Shrewsbury about 1805. A new situation arose when James II broke up the old affiance of Church and King. The WMgs dealt with it by bringing back the King to the Church, and the Tories had to foUow them. Now the clergy were nearly aU Tories, many of them Jacobites in spite of their oath to Wilhani and Mary, so that they could only be kept in a grudgmg obedience by givmg the bishoprics and deaneries to the handful of Latitudinarians or Low Church men. Hence a standing quarrel between the two Houses of Convocation. TMs was serious enough even in 1689, when only two Latitudmarian bishops (Burnet and Patrick) had yet been appointed; and Convocation was not allowed to meet again tiU 1701. Meanwhile the position developed. Though the Carolines were in practice as Erastian as the Eeformers, some of their principles pointed another way. If the Church had a constitution of di^vine appomtment, such constitution must be independent of the State. TMs was all very weU as long as the di-vine con stitution was understood to be simply episcopacy and not prea- byterianism; but difficulties arose when the extremer men, such as Thorndike, found the di-vine laws of that constitution m ancient canons transferred bodily to modem times. The claim of the Nonjurors, that the State could not depose bishops who refused to recognize its authority, was a claim that the Church is di-vine by appointment independent of the State; and as such it was dehberately put forward by the Highffiers of Queen Anne's time. Some too who were not Highffiers were more or Isss in sympathy with them. In 1679 a great controversy was started by the Letter to a Convocation Man, ascribed to the Jacobite lawyer. Sir Bartholomew Shower. It confuses Con vocation with the very similar House of Clergy, contemplated in the prcemunientes clause of the ParUamentary writ addressed to the bishops, but never actually summoned since the days of Edward I. On tMs theory it mamtains that Convocation is of WILLIAM III AND ANNE 389 the same power and use with regard to the Church as Parhament is with respect to the State. Like Parhament, it cannot meet without the Kmg's writ ; but that writ implies no more power of hcensing or Umiting debate than it does in the case of Par liament, and canons made by Convocation, not being contrary to common law, statutes, customs, or prerogative, are bmding without the consent of ParUament. The Letter was answered by Wilham Wake, the future primate (1715-1737), and he agam by Francis Atterbury, and the minor controversiahsts on both sides were many. Atterbury in Ms Rights, Powers, and Privi leges of an English Convocation (1700) avoided the mistake of the Later, but derived Convocations from the old councils before the Norman Conquest, and asserted the indefeasible right of the clergy to meet and to discuss any subject that concerned them, notwithstanding the Submission of 1532, though he admitted that they could not make new canons without the King's consent. Atterbury was the movmg spirit of Convocation when it met again under Tory auspices in 1701. It was a stormy session. The Lower House claimed to discuss and to adjoum at its own pleasure, and censured Toland's Christianity not Mysterious. The Bishops insisted on the primate's right of prorogation, and 'pointed out that Toland's book could not be discussed -without the Kmg's licence, and could not be censured without putting an interpretation on the Articles, wMch was beyond the rights of Convocation. The Lower House persisted, in spite of pro tests by moderate High Churchmen Uke Beveridge, and went on to censure Burnet's Exposition of the XXXIX Articles as dangerously Latitudinarian. Unseemly personal quarrels followed between Prolocutor Hooper and the bishops of Sahsbury (Burnet) and Bangor (Evans). A new Parhament met in the first days of 1702, and -with it a new Convocation and a new Prolocutor in Woodward, dean of Sahsbury. Atterbury's party instantly renewed the prorogation quarrel, and a stormy session foUowed. But they were soon paralysed by the death of the Prolocutor (Febraary 13) and then dissolved by that of Wilham III (March 8). We aU know Queen Anne. Devout and kindly, and a stain less character, she strove to do her duty; and no more pathetic 390 CHURCH AND STATE figure ever wore the cro-wn than the childless mother of eighteen. Her abiding memorial is Queen Anne's Bounty. In 1704 she gave up the annates or fixstfraits, held by the Crown since the Reformation, and then amounting to about £16,000 yearly. Mary Tudor had given them up before ; but the surrender was not now improvident, and Anne's was a well-considered scheme for the improvement of the poorest Uvings, Bumet may have suggested it : the cMef credit is her own. But Anne was narrow and rather stupid, and all her Ufe a tool of favourites. Her instincts were often trae, as in her personal dishke of Bohngbroke, but her High Church prejudices were stronger. Hence her reign was to some extent a reaction, with no smaU increase of party bitterness. One sign of the times was a savage pamphlet pubhshed in 1702, The Shortest Way with the Dissenters. Let every preacher be hanged and Ms hearers transported; there would soon be an end of dissent. The High Churchmen were fiUed with dehght, only equaUed by their fury when they found themselves befooled. The author was Daniel Defoe, the most rigid of Dissenters, They put Mm in the pillory; and the pillory was guarded by decent citizens from insult, and became a triumph. We need not trace in detail the dreary Mstory of Convocation under Queen Anne, Every now and then it took up useful work, and even did sometMng to help the rebuilding of the London churches. But the cMef energies of the Lower House were spent in interminable quarrels -with the Upper, They were on the old questions of prorogation and the right of censuring books — Toland, Bumet, Hoadly, WMston, Clarke. In theory they held the di-vine right of bishops ; in practice they were as rebelhous and as insulting as they could well be. For the bishops with whom they had to do were obnoxious to them both as Whigs and as Latitudinarians. We classed Latitudinarians with Deists only because they were agreed that the essentials of rehgion are few and simple, so that there is no need to insist on High Church or Puritan sMbboleths. So far they were agreed, but not much farther. There is difference enough between TiUotson and Tindal. The Latitudinarians were churchmen to whom the Gospel was rather a reasonable and moral revelation than a corpus of dogma. The WILLAM III AND ANNE 391 Deists were more various. They were all nominal Christians— they could not safely be anything else : but while some did httle more than stumble at the critical difficulties of the Bible taken Uterally, Tindal held that everytMng beyond Natural Rehgion is at best superfluous, wMle Bohngbroke masked by loud professions of Tory and High Church zeal the utter unbelief avowed in Ms private letters. Latitudinarianism and Deism both stood for the principle wMch Puritans and High Church were more and more forgetting, that practice is more than orthodoxy, and were therefore systematically confused together by maU cious or unthinMng partisans; but between them, speaMng generally, Ues the broad difference, that one is Christian and the other not. The Latitudmarianism then which came to the front at the Revolution was no new feature of rehgious hfe in England. The lay rmnd, especially the Enghsh mind, is apt to suspect that ministers of reUgion encumber the message of salvation with the technicalities of their craft. If the tree of heresy bore good fruit, it could not be a thorn. So there is a Latitudinarian stram in many men whom it would be absurd to call Latitu dinarians. Hooker Mmself may head the Ust; then men Uke Hales of Eton, FalMand, CMlUngworth, and Jeremy Taylor. Nor was the tendency confined to men of doubtful orthodoxy. Laud was not a narrow man, except in one direction, Sheldon in FalMand's circle at Great Tew was not the hard politician of the Eestoration, and so stout a royaUst as Croft of Hereford was wilhng to leave everji;Mng open but the Apostles' Creed. Baxter was a man of war from Ms youth, yet in Ms old age he tumed more and more to the simplest doctrines of the Gospel; and Howe had always leaned that way. After the Eestoration the tone was given by the demonstration in Stiffingfleet's Irenicon (1659) that no particular form of church govemment is laid down in Scripture. As tMs was never seriously answered, it was accepted as a standing refutation of the High Episcopahan theory. Throughout the eighteenth century, so far as these matters were discussed, Stiffingfleet's authority was unquestioned. " One generation cometh, and another goeth." Early in 1721 died Frances CromweU, the last survivor of the Lord Protector's 392 CHURCH AND STATE court at WMtehall, and a Uttle later Trelawny of Winchester, the last of the seven. Marlborough and Newton followed next year, and Fleetwood of Ely in 1723, though the primate Wake Uved on tiU 1737, Hough of Worcester tiU 1743, and the last echoes of the seventeenth century only died away with Bishop Wilson and Wiffiam Law in 1761. But we are already in the age of Walpole ; and the age of Walpole was an age of stagnation. INDEX Abbot, Archbp., 275, 280, 287, 289, 293, Abbots — status in Celtic churches, 14 Abelard, 53, 127 Absolution, 194 Absolutism, 129, 132, 266, 286 et seq., 311, 366 Acts, Godex Laudianus, 22 Adalgis of BVisia, 18 Ad/imnition to Parliament, 255 Adultery and fornication, la-ws against, 330 Advertisements of 1566, Parker's, 252, 254 Advo-wson, 59 Agatho, Pope, — award in dispute between Wilfrid and Theodore, 19 Agilbert of Wessex, Bishop, 15 Agincourt, battle of, 94, 123 Aidan, 4, 9, 11 Alb, 233 Albertus Magnus, 76 Alchfrid, 17 Aloock, Bp. of Ely, 135 Alouin, 24 Aldred of York, 34 Aldfrid, 20 Aldhelm of Malmesbury, 21, 22 Alexander I, King of Scotland, 88 Alexander III, Kmg of Scotland, 89 Alexander III, Pope, S5, 59, 60 Alexander I'V, Pope, 72 Alexander V, Pope, 121 Alexander of Hales, 76 Alfred the Great, 24, 26 et seq.; at Ethandun, 26; code of laws, 27 ; zeal for learning, 27 ; character, 28 All Souls' CoUege, Oxford, 121 Allen, 243, 268 Altars— removal of, 191, 224; re moval of word in gommunion ofBce, 193; position of table in Communion office, 287, 294, 308, 310; reverence to, 296 Amiens, Mise of, 81 Anabaptists, 277, 341 Anderida, massacre of, 7 Andrewes, Lancelot, 261, 276, 280, 287, 302, 322 Angles, 5, 9 Anglican Orders, validity of, 227 Anjou, 55 ; renounced by Henry III, 72 Anna, King of East Angles, 18, 23 Annates, 75, 108, 16S, 209, 390; Annates Act, 153; surrender by Queen Anne, 390 Anne, Queen, 364r-5, 373, 377, 383; 389; character, 389 Anne of Bohemia, Queen, 112, 114 Anne of Cleves, 175 Annesley, Samuel, 354 Anselm, 11, 43, 45, 51 ; character and attainments, 45, 51 ; relations with William Rufus, appeal to Rome and exUe, 46; recalled by Henry I, 48; differences with Henry over lay investiture, 49 Apostles' Greed— -ChiQingworth's doc trine of its sufficiency, 301 ATpostoUccB curce, bull of, 227 Appeals to Rome : see Papal authority and jurisdiction Appeals, Act iu Restraint of, 154 Aquinas, Thomas, 76 Aquitaine — English position in, 55, 72, 104 Ariminum, Council of, 3 Aries, Council of, 2 Arlington, Lord, 361 Armagh, Archbishopric of, 62 Arminians and Arminianism, 279, 287, 289, 291, 340 Arminius, John, 279 j^iiny — fyrd, 39, 56 ; discontent prior to oivU war against Charles I, 305 ; CromweU's New Model, 318; quar rels with Parliament, 324 et seq., 344; Charles II, and the army of the Commonwealth, 358; James Il'a poUcy, 368 Arthur, Prince — King John's dealings with, 66 I Athur Prince of 'Wales, 136 Arthurian romance, 63 393 ^4 '^articles of Religion— the Ten Articles (1536), 171; the Six (1539), 150, 174; 178, 204; their repeal, 182, 183; the Forty-two (1552), 193, 195; the Thirty-nine (1563), 196, 251, 254 : Declaration of Charles I, respecting their interpretation, 291 ; subscription required by law, 354 Articles of Perth, the five (1618), 302 Arundel, Archbp., 117; persecution of the LoUards, 118, 120 Arundel, Lord 200, 285 Asceticism, 39, 75 Ascham, 164 Ashley, Baron : see Shaftesbury, first Lord Askew, Anne, 178 Asser the Welshman, 27 Aston (WycUffe's supporter), 114 Athanasius, 3 Atheists, ordinance against, 324 Athelstan, 29 Atonement — Anselm's theory, 46 Atterbury, Francis, 369, 389 Augustine : see St. Augustine Authority, 142, 149, 161, 251, 263, 340 Papal authority and jurisdiction : see Papal authority and juris diction Avignon, Papal Court at, 97, 121 Avranches, agreement of (1172), 60 Aylmer, Bp. of London, 259 Babington, 241 Bacon, Sir Francis, 242, 347 Bacon, Sir Nicholas, 219 Bacon, Roger, 76, 77 Badby, John, 119 Bagg, Sir James, 292 Baker, Thomas, 386 Bald-win, Archbp., 63 Bale, 162, 192 BaU, John, 104, 113 Ballard, 241 BalUol, Edward, 98 Bancroft, Dr. Richard, 264, 272, 274, 276, 392; measures against the Puritans, 274 Bangor, diocese of, 14, 64 Bannavem Tabernse (Bannaventa), 3 Bannockburn, battle of, 94 Baptism, 13, 14; 171, 193; infant, 171 ; registration, 184; lay baptism, 251, 255, 272-3 Baptists, 333, 334 Barebone, Praise-God, 331 Barlow, Bp., 207, 227 Barlow, Bp. of Lincoln, 375 Barnes, 162, 164 liMJUiii. Baro, Peter, 261 Barons — ^revolt against Rufus, 44; revolt of Montgomery earls against Henry I, 49; oath of fealty to MaltUda, 52; revolt of 1174 crushed by Henry II, 56; conquest of Ireland, 62; revolt against John and framing of the charter, 69; efforts to control Henry III, 73; rising under Simon de Montfort, 81 ; Edward 1,'s policy of subordination, 83 ei seq. ; position respecting Welsh campaigns, 85; union with Com mons against Edward I's exactions, 92; struggles with Edward II, 95; system of retainers, 124 Barret, WUliam, 261 Barrow, 259 Barrow, Isaac, 347, 380 Barton, Elizabeth (the Nun of Kent), 173 Basire, Archdeacon, 381 Basset, Joshua, 373 Bastwick, 297 Bates, 349, 354 Baxter, Richard, 300, 334, 349, 354-5, 370, 372, 379, 391; proposals for Prayer Book reform, 349 Bayly, Lewis, Bp, of Bangor, 248, 290 Bayonne, 105 Beale, Master of St. John's CoUege 322 Beaufort, Cardinal, 121, 122 Bede, 22; denunciation of bishops and monasteries, 23 Bedel, Bp., 229 Bedford, Duke of, 123 Beggars, plague of, 134, 169 Bek, Antony, 225 BeUarmine, 277 Benedict Biscop, 22 Benedictine rule, 30, 39, 103 Benefices, sale of, 78, 169, 184 (see also Patronage) Berengar of Tours, 43 Berkeley, Justice, 307 Bernard of St, David's, 53, 64 Bertha, 7, 9 Bertrand de Goth : see Clement V Bertwald, 20, 21 Berwick, Treaty of (1639), 303 Best, Bp. of Carlisle, 243 Beveridge, 389 Beza, 252 Bible — the appeal to scripture and doctrine, 110, 141, 231, 251, 262, 279, 340 ; mfluence of Bible study and the Reformation, 161 et seq. Criticism and science, revelations of, 231 INDEX 395 Bible, English versions — WycUffe's work, 112, 114; Tyndale's transla tion, 163; Coverdales', Matthew's, Cranmer's and Bishops', 171; Authorised Version, 171; 273, lim itations on use by reactionaries, 176; restrictions removed, 182 — — Irish translation, 229 Latin version, old — used by Britons, 4 Rhenish or Douai version, 273 Welsh version, 229 BiU, Bp., 243 Billeting grievance, 285 BUney, 187 BUson, Bp., 273 Bingham, 381 Birinus — mission to Wessex, 12 Bishoprics — removal of sees to im portant towns by WUliam the Conqueror, 42 Bishops — status in Latin and Early English churches, 14; first council of English bishops at Hertford, 17 ; Wyclifie's denunciation of the hierarchy. 111; changes in char acter brought by the Reformation, 225 ; Puritans and Episcopacy, 250, 252, 272; historical basis, 263; movement for aboUtion of Epis copacy, 309, 316 Appeals to Rome : see Papal authority and jurisdiction Consecration — difSoulties follow ing deprivation under Elizabeth, 226 Divine right, 142, 253, 264, 274, 286, 388, 390 Election — lay investiture, 40, 49 et seq. ; cro-wn compromise, with Rome, 50, 61 ; John's offer of free election, 69 ; Papal " provision," 73 ; election by the chapter, 106 ; conge d'elire, 155; abolished and ap pointment by letters patent sub stituted, 182; Cranmer's admission, 190 House of Lords— proposed ex clusion from, 309-10 ; their restora tion, 348 — — Lay investiture : see Election, above Seven, prosecution of the, 374 Stephen's arrest of three pre lates, 63, 56 Bishops' Book, 172 Black Death : see Plague Black Prince, 104 BlackweU, 269 Bloody Assize, 368 Blount, Bessie, 139 Booher, burning of Joan, 198 Bohme, Jakob, 341 BoisU, 19 Boleyn, Anne, 147, 151, 154, 159 Boleyn, Mary, 139, 148 Bolingbroke, Lord, 385 Bonaventura, 76 Bonner, Edmund, 165, 178, 184, 187, 190, 202, 206, 210, 218-26; per secution of heretics, 206 Boniface of Germany, 24 Boniface of Savoy, primate, 72, 89 Boniface VIII, Pope, 91, 96 Booth, Sir George, 344 Bordeaux, 105, 124 Bossuet, 370 Bosworth, Battle of, 131 BothweU, 239 Boulogne, 158, 189 Bourchier, primate, 130 Bourne, GUbert, 202 Bouvines, victory of, 69 Boxley, rood of, 170 Boyle, Robert, 356 Bradford, 187, 208, 213 Bradwardine, Thomas, 77, 100, 109 BramhaU, 322 Brandon, Prances, 198 Brandenburg — the Reformation in, 143 Brandenburg, Albert of, 143 Brantingham, Bp. of Exeter, 100 Breda, the declaration of, 344, 349 Brest, 105 Brian Boru, 61 Bridges, Dean, 259 Bridgman, Lord Keeper, 361 Bristol, Bishopric of, 166 Bristol, Lord, 285 Bristol slave trade, 33 Brittany — English aUiance with, 136 British Church, early, 1^ ; missionary character, 4, 8; differences with Rome, 13 et seq.; Roman jurisdic tion not acknowledged, 15 Brooks of Gloucester, the Pope's sub- delegate, 210 Broughton, Hugh, 273 Browne, Robert, 256 Brownists, 256 Bruce, David, 98 Bruce, Edward, 63 Bruce, Robert, 92, 98 Bruges, truce of, 105 Brunanburh, Battle of, 30 Brythons, 1 Bucer, Prof., 183, 195, 208, 250 Buckeridge, 291 Buckingham, Duke of (George Vil- liers), 266, 280, 282, 284-6 BuU, 381 396 INDEX BuUinger, 183, 252 BuUingham, Bp. of Gloucester, 259 Bunyan, John, 163, 290, 372, 381 Burgesses, 82, 84, 90 Burghersh of Lincoln, 97 Burghley, Lord (GecU), 219, 258, 262 Burgundy — Henry V's alliance -with, 123, 130 Burials — ^registration, 184 BurneU, 93 Burnet, Bp. of Salisbury, 369, 388, 389. Exposition of the XXXIX Articles, 389 Burton, 297 Busher, Leonard, 277 Cabal, the, 361, 363 Cade's (Jack) rebeUion, 113, 126 Cadwalla, 23 CadwaUon, 10 Caedmou, 22 Cajetan, 246 Calais, 104, 105, 124, 215; Treaty of , 104 Galamy, 349, 354 Calpurnius, 3^ Calvin and Calvinism, 141, 157, 183, 253, 260, 279, 288 Cambridge Platomsts, 340, 342 Cambridge University, 102 ; influence of Bible study during Reformation, 164; ejection of Royalists, 322 Campeggio, Cardinal, 148 Campion, 247 Canon law, 17, 27, 53, 74, 155, 183, 196, 254, 274, 304, 308 Canterbury — St, Augustine's mission settled there, 9; disputes -with York over jurisdiction and supre macy, 88, 100 Capel, 305 Caraffa, Pope, 214, 244, 246 Carausius, 5 Carolines, the, 279, 388 Carr, Robert : see Somerset, Earl of ' Carthusians, 167 Cartwright, Bp, of Chester, 371, 373, 380, 386 Cartwright, Thomas, 111, 242, 253, 264, 309 Cashel, Archbishopric of, 62 Castile — campaign of the Black Prince, 104 Catesby, 270 Catharine of Aragon, 136, 147, 154, 155, 159 Catholics — the Catholic party and the Reformation in England, 149, 165, 189, 192; strength ki 1550, 189; no national reaction on Mary's acces sion, 201; repeal of Henry's laws, 205 ; position on Elizabeth's acces sion, 220; her anti-catholic policy, 225 et seq., 239; plots against Elizabeth, 241; secession from national church, 243; the bull Regnans in Excelsis, 246 ; the penal laws and measures against recusants, 247, 287, 268 et seq.; plots against James I, 269 ; Charles I, and Laud suspected of Romanist leamngs, 298 ; tolerance under the Common wealth, 334; Romanist leanings of Charles II, 3S6, 361 ; motive of his professions of tolerance, 358; Charles' negotiations with the Pope, 360; Papist plots, 364; James II's Papist policy, 368 et seq.; Declara tion of Indulgence and suspension of penal laws, 372; Papists excluded from Toleration Act, 378 CavaUers, 311, 313 et seq., 320, 348, 357 CecU, 132, 164 CeoU, Lord Burghley : see Burghley, Lord CeUbacy of the clergy, 30, 39, 42, 61, 100, 111, 174, 176, 183, 223; canon against sons of priests, 51 ; Wycliffe and. 111; marriage recognised in the Forty-two Articles, 196 Celsus, 62 Celtic Church in Scotland, 88 Celtic churches — monastic character, 14 Celtic invasion of Britain, 1 Celtic spirit, 4 Cenwulf, King, 24 Ceolfrid, Abbot, 22 Ceremonial — Puritans and, 250 et seq., 255, 274, 288 et seq., 297, 322, 350; Laud's passion for, 294 et seq; measures of the Long Parliament, 310 Ceres, the goddess, 13 Cerfs — ^restraint on ordination, 59, 61 ; aboUtion of serfdom, 113 Chad, 16 Chaderton, La-wrence, 261 CJumson d'Antioch, 53 Chantries, 101, 182 Charlemagne, 53 Chaplains, private — ^restrictions on, 295; 336 Charles I, King, 276, 282, 285-305, 306-28; character, 284; his quar rel with ParUament, 285 et seq.; arrest of ParUamentary leaders, 291 ; suspension of Parliament, 292; ship money, 293; suspected of Romanist leanings, 298; iU- judged Scottish policy provokes revolution, 301 et seq.; Short INDEX 397 Parliament refuses supplies, 304; measures of the Long Parliament, 306 et seq. ; the Grand Remon strance, 313; his attempt to seize leaders of Commons (1642), 314; standard raised at Nottingham, 315; his surrender, 319; the Newcastle terms 324; intrigues with the Scots, ParUament and the Army, 325 ; trial and execution, 326 329 Charles II, King, 329, 344, 346-66; defeats at Dunbar and Worcester, 329; restoration, 344, 345; re lations with ParUament, 347, 356, 362; vice and frivolity of the Court, 355; Romanist leanings, 356, 361; foreign policy, 357, 360; negotiations with the Pope, 360; Declaration of Indulgence, 362; succession question, 363; Papist plots, 364; death, 366 Charles IV, King of France, 96, 98 Charles V, King of France, 104 Charles V, Emperor, 139, 147, 157, 159, 175, 189, 197, 203, 20S Charles VI, King of France, 123 Charles VII, King of France, 124 Charles VIII, King of France, 136 Charles IX, Knag of France, 239 Charms, 176 Charters, the — Charter of Henry I, 48; the Great Charter, 48, 69; Henry HI and, 72, 73, 80; con firmed by Edward I, 92 ; suspended in consequence of Peasant rising (1381), 113 Chastity, vows of, 110, 115, 175 Cheke, 164, 181 Cherry, 387 Chester, Bishopric of, 166 conference at, 14 massacre at, 15 Cheyne, 118 Cheyney, of Gloucester, 254 Chichele, Henry, 121, 122 ChiUingworth, WUHam, 287, 300, 340, 391 Christianity — ^introduction to Britain, 2-12; Irish and Latin differences, 11; 13 Christ Church, Oxford, 140 Christopherson, Bp. of Chichester, 164, 206 Churches — ^restoration of fabrics, 358 Church Services — compulsory attend ance, 195, 221, 242, 330, 354; changes introduced by Reformers, 185; use of EngUsh in, 185; 220 Litiirgy : see Prayer Book ChurchiU, 377, 384, 392 GhurchUl, Arabella, 373 Circumspecte agatis, writ, 90 Cistercian order, 54, 75, 87 Civil war between Stephen and Ma- tUda, 53 iu John's reign, 70 between Houses of Lancaster and York, 107, 116; comparison ¦with revolution of 1688, 116; con sequent demoralization, 134 against the Stuarts, 266, 306-28; general discontent suc ceeds dissolution of Short Parlia ment, 305; work of the Long Parliament, 308, et seq. ; the Grand Remonstrance, 313; Charles raises his standard at Nottingham, 315; lines of cleavage of parties and sects, 315; ejection of Royalists, 321 et seq.; the Newcastle terms, 324 ; between the Army and Parlia ment, 324; Ireton's "Heads of Proposals"; 324; the second civil war, 325; trial and execution of Charles I, 326 Clarence, Duke of, 130 Clarendon, Constitutions of, 59, 106 Clarendon, first Lord, 91, 305-8, 310, 312, 319, 348, 356, 357, 358, 380 Classes, 257, 258 Claudius, Emperor — conquest of Britain, 1 Clement III, Pope, 88 Clement V, Pope (Bertrand de Goth), 92, 96 Clement VI, Pope, 105 Clement VIIL Pope, 147, 154 Clergy — demoraUzation following Danish incursion, 27 ; disinheritance of sons of priests, 51 ; Grosseteste's denunciation of scandals, 78; re laxation of rules foUowing Black Death, 103; memorial against secular employments, 115; claim to immunity from lay summonses, 146; effect of alienation of church property, 169; debased condition in EUzabethan period, 170, 254; ordinal of 1550, 190; habit pre scribed, 223 ; excessive ordinations, 228; ejection of royalists, 321 et seq. ; ejection of ignorant and immoral under Commonwealth, 334; restoration of the deprived, 347; displacement of nonconfor mists, 354; condition during the Restoration, 381 non-residence, 258, 272, 288 CeUbacy : see CeUbacy , Ordination, episcopal, 352, 353, 361 398 INDEX Clergy — Taxation : see Taxation Submission of, 155, 196 Clericis laicos, BuU, 91, 96 Cleveland, Duchess of, 380 Clifford, 363 Clifford, Sir Lewis, 119 Cluniacs, 54 Cnut, 31, 38 Coat and conduct money, 305 Coifi, 12 Coke, 287 Coleman, Secretary, 364 Coleridge, 343 Colet, John, 138 Coligny, 239 GoUington, 298 Colman, 16 Columba, 8, 9, 11, 15 Commerce — fostered by Henry VII, 134; influence on foreign policy, 337; development at the Restora tion, 347 Common Pleas, Court of, 84 Commons, House of : see Parliament Commonwealth, the, 327, 329-45; the Engagement, 330; the Con vention, 332; the Protectorate, 332 et seq. ; plots and disturbances, 336; the foreign policy of Crom weU, 338 ; development of religious thought, 339 Communicatio idiomatum, 142 Communion — in one kind, 174; in both kinds, 183, 186, 193; doctrine of the spiritual presence, 185, 190, 222, 289; kneeling for reception, 195, 366; office as settled under Elizabeth, 222; position of Holy Table, 287, 294, 308, 310 — — ¦ Consubstantiation : see Consub stantiation Transubstantiation : see Tran substantiation Comprehension, 366, 360, 361 ; Com prehension BUl, 378 Compton, Bp. of London, 225, 364, 371, 374, 376, 378, 381, 386 Comyn, 92 Con, the Papal envoy, 299 Confession, 40, 116, 120, 174, 193-4, 220, 230, 279, 369 Confirmation, 302 Conge d'elire : see Bishops, Election Conscience, freedom of, 161, 172, 187, 201 (see also Toleration) Consciences, unquiet — provisions re garding, 194 Constance, Council of, 114, 121 Constantine the Great, 7 Constantine, the Scottish King, 29 Consubstantiation, 111, 142 Conventicles, 252, 256, 274; Con- venticle Acts, 364r-5, 358, 378 Convention, Harrison's, 331 Convocation — ^right to vote subsidies, 90, 348; Commons complains of illegal canons, 152; Henry VII's claim against, 152 ; the supremacy question, 221, 224; disputes with ParUament over jurisdiction, 289, continued after dissolution of Short Parliament, 304; surrender of right to vote subsidies, 348 ; quarrel between two Houses (1701), 388 Conway, Peace of, 86 Cooper, Anthony Ashley : see Shaftes bury, first Lord Cooper, Bp. of Winchester, 259 Cope, 233, 235 Cormac of Cashel, 61 CornwaU — ^reUgious rising (1549), 188 Coronation — primate's right infringed by Henry II, 60 Corporation Act, 353 Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 135 Cosin, John, 236, 289, 322; Collection of Private Devotions, 289 Cossa, Baldassacre : see John XXIII, Pope CouncU of State, the 330, 336 Counter -Reformation, 122, 229, 243, 246 et seq., 268, 281 Courtenay, Archbp., 110, 114, 117 Courtenay, Edward : see Devon, Earl of Courtiers — new order of nobility created by Henry VIII : disposal of church property, 166, 169 Court of Chancery — abolished, 332 Court of High Commission, 243, 257, 276, 278, 292, aboUshed, 307, 347, reconstituted by James II, 371; abolished, 376 Court of Star Chamber : see Star Chamber, Court of Court of Wales, abolished, 307 Courts — ^separation of ecclesiastical and secular by WilUam the Con queror, 42; reforms of Henry II, 56; quarrel between Henry II, and Thomas of Canterbury over jurisdiction, 58 et seq. ; Henry II's compromise with Pope Alexander III, 60; division of Curia Begis into courts of King's Bench, Ex chequer, and Common Pleas, 84; Peokham's attempt to enlarge jurisdiction of Spiritual Courts over patronage frustrated, 90; civil courts and patronage, 106; juris diction of civil courts over clergy in Henry VIII's reign, 146; appeals INDEX 399 from Archbishop's Court to King's delegates, 155; James I's control over judges, 276 Covenant, The, 317, 321, 324, 330; annuUed, 353 Coverdale, MUes, 171, 190, 202, 207-8, 227, 251 ; translation of the Bible, 171 Cox, 171 Cox, Bp„ 225, 228, 250 Cranmer, Thomas, 148, 153, 160, 162, 164, 191, 200, 202, 207-10, 250, 264; character, 153; resistance to Act of the Six Articles, 175; his Litany, 177; plots against, 178; First Book of Common Prayer, 185; revision of the Prayer Book, 195; the Forty-two Articles, 196; trial, denunciation of recantation and death, 210 et seq. Crecy, battle of, 94 Creed of Pope Pius IV, 196 Crepy, peace of, 168 Crewe, Bp, of Durham, 371, 380, 386 Criminal law, CromweU and, 335 Croft, Bp, of Hereford, 360, 375, 386, 391 Crome, 208 CromweU, Frances, 391 CromweU, Oliver, 249, 306, 309, 313, 316, 317 et seq. ; character, 317 ; the new model army, 318; media tory policy between Army and ParUament, 324; the campaign in Ireland, 329 ; and the kingship, 331 et seq., 337 ; dismissal of the Rump, 331; the Lord Protectorate, 333; tolerant policy, 335; and the criminal law, 335; plots and dis turbances, 336; relations with Parliament, 335 et seq. ; foreign policy, 337 ; death, 344 CromweU, Richard, 344 CromweU, Thomas, 153, 158; 166, 173 et seq. Cro-wn — Absolutism : see Absolutism Control — subject to the law secured by the charter, 69 ; barons' efforts to control Henry III, 73, 81; oligarchy established by Pro visions of Oxford, 81; limitations of the monarchy on accession of Edward I, 83; union of barons and Commons against Edward I; no taxation without consent of the realm, 92; Lords ordainers appointed (1311), 95; Richard II's claim to govern without regard to the law, 108; Charles I and ParUament, 292; measures of the Long Parliament, 308; Charles II and Parliament, 347, 356, 362; James II and Parliament, 368; Declaration of Right, 377 Crown,Divine right of kings — Richard II's claim, 108; Stuarts and, 266, 275, 286, 289, 368, 377 Papal authority and jurisdiction, contentions against : see Papal authority and jurisdiction Prerogatives, 266, 276, 362 Royal supremacy — WiUiam the Conqueror's claim, 37, 42; supre macy of monarchy secured by Henry II, 56; Edward I's policy, 83 et seq.; Hemy VIII's claim, 146, 150 ; recognized as head of church, 155; Gardiner and the minority of Edward VI, 184; declaration in the Forty-two Articles, 196; Parliament refuses Mary's invita tion to abolish, 203; restoration of Papal authority, 205 ; Elizabeth and, 217, 221; Jewel's defence, 245; Independents and, 257 Succession questions— difficulty in Henry VIII's reign, 146, 158, 160, 179; Charles II and, 364; James II and, 373 ; the Protestant succession, 377 ; Act of Settlement (1791), 385 Crusades, 47, 53, 62, 79 Cudworth, Ralph, 343 Culpeper, 314 Curialis— desioon, union of office with, 3 Cuthbert, 4, 19, 20 CynewuU, 22 Dalriada : see Irish Dalriada Danby, Lord (Thomas Osborne), 363, 365, 376, 377, 383 Danegeld, 31 Danelaw, 27, 28, 29, et seq. Danish incursions, 22-36 ; consequent demoralization, 27, 32; ravages checked by Alfred, 26-8; position under Alfred's successors, 29; Danish rule restored under Swegen and Cnut, 31 Danish incursions in Ireland, 61 Darnley, 239 Darvel Gatheren, 170 Davenant, Bp., 296, 300 Davenport, Christopher : see Santa > Clara, Friar David 1, 88 Davies, Miss E. Jeffries, 146 Davies, Bp. Richard, 229 Dawes, Sir WUliam, 381 Day, Bp. 190, 202 400 INDEX Dead, prayers for the, 171 Dean, Henry, 135 de Barri, WiUiam, 63 de Burgh, Hubert, 67, 71 Declaration of Charles I, the, 291 de Courcy, 62 Decretals, False, 40 Defoe, Daniel, 363, 390 Degssestan, battle of, 10 Deira, 6, 10, 15 Deists and Deism, 251, 301, 340, 390 de Lacy, 62 de la Marche, Hugh, 66 Denmark — the reformation in, 142 Dermot MacMurrough, 62 Despensers, 95 Devon — ^religious rising (1549), 188 Devon, Earl of (Edward Courtenay), 202, 203 Devonshire, Duke of, 376 Digges, 285 Dioceses, un-wieldy — Theodore's scheme for subdivision, 17 Discipline — absence in the church under the Commonwealth, 334 Disorders and scandals — Bede's de nunciation, 23 ; demoraUzation foUowing Danish incursion, 27, 32 ; Grosseteste's sermon at Lyons, 79 ; WycUffe and. 111 ; visitation of the monasteries, 167 et seq. ; de moralization in EUzabeth's late years, 242 Dispensations, 74, 80, 147, 155 Dissenters : see Nonconformists Divination, 176 Divine right of Kings : see under Crown Divorce, 74, 147 Doctrine and practice — dispute in seventh century over Easter, 4, 13 ; acceptance of Five Councils at Hatfield, 19; Crusades and, 47; WycUffe's contentions, 110, 121; Luther's teaching, 141 et seq. ; Zwingli's teaching, 141; Calvin's teaching, 141, 142 ; doctrinal reform movement of the Reformation, 161 ei seq. ; changes evidenced by First Prayer Book, 185 ; further advance of reform party : ordinal of 1650, 190 ; English church position deter mined by Prayer Book and Articles (1552), 193, 195; Jewel's attack on Roman doctrine, 244 et seq.; distinction between fundamentals and non-essentials, 340 Articles : see Articles of ReUgion Ceremonial, see Ceremonial DodweU, Prof,, 386 Dogma, 230, 339 Dolben, Bp„ 381 Domesday Book, 83 Dominicans, 76 Donald Bane, 86 Donne, 278 Dort, Synod of, 279 Dowsing's (WiUiam) Journal, 320 Drake, 240, 261 Drogheda, the massacre at, 329 Dryden, 369 Dublin — Danish kingdom set up, 61 Dublin, Archbishopric of, 62, 104 Dudley, GuUford, 198, 206 Dudley conspiracy, 216 Duelling, ordinance against, 330, 335 Dunbar, battle of, 329 Dunnechtan, battle of, 20, 24 Duns Scotus, 76, 109 Duppa, Bp,, 349, 380 Durel, 279 Durham, Bishopric of, 197 Durovernum, 9 Eachard, 381 Eadbert, King, 24 Eadmer, 43, 88 Eanfled, 12, 15 Earle, Bp„ 363 Easter ¦ — difference between Rome and lona concerning doctrine and practice, 13 ; Os-wy's decision, 15 Easterfield, CouncU of (702), 20 Eastern Association, 318 Ebroin, 18 Ecclesiastical Commission, 243 Edgar, King, 30 Edgar the AtheUng, 34, 36, 87 Edith, daughter of Earl Grodwine, 33, 34 Edith, daughter of Margaret of Scot land : see MaltUda, Queen Edmund, King, 30 Edmund Ironside, 31 Edmund the Martyr, King, 26 Education — early EngUsh zeal for learning, 22; decline owing to Danish incursions and revival under Alfred, 27; revival under Henry III, 71, 76, 81 ; attitude of friars towards scholarship, 76; 14th century developments, 101 ; the Reformers and scholarship 162; church endowments devoted to, 166, 168, 182; the Cambridge Platonists and, 342 : position of dissenters, 365; position at the Restoration, 380 Edward the Confessor, 32 Edward the Elder, 29 Edward the Martyr, 31 INDEX 401 Edward I, King, 82, 83-93 ; character, 83; policy of consolidating the monarchy, 84; conquest of Wales, 84 ; Scottish poUcy and campaigns, 86-92; poUcy of limiting church jurisdiction, 89; exactions and the " model " Parliament, 90 ; struggle ^ with Boniface VIII over taxation of clergy, 91 Edward II, King, 94-8; character, 94; Lords ordainers appointed, 95; struggles with the barons, 95; relations with the Papacy, 97 Edward III, King, 98-108 Edward IV, King, 128 Edward VI, King, 160, 181-99; character, 198 Edwin of Deka, 10 Edwin, Son of Leofric, 33, 35, 36 Edwy, 30 Eflord, John, 100 Egbert, Archbp,, 23, 24 Egbert, the West Saxon, 25 Egbert of Kent, 16 Egfrid, 18, 20 Ei/tiv 0a(ri\Mii, the Portraiture of his Sacral Majesty in his solitudes and sufferings, 327 Eleanor of Aquitaine, 55 Eleanor of Provence, 72 Eleutherus, Bishop, 2 Elfrida, 31 Elinor, mother of King John, 66 Eliot, 286, 291, 293 Elizabeth, Queen, 155, 160, 181, 217- 64; character and accomplish ments, 217; early foreign policy, 218; refusal of PhUip's offer of marriage, 218; cautiousness of early reUgious policy, 220; supre macy question, 221 et seq. ; atti tude on vestments question, 236; foreign policy (1560-98), 237 etseq.; plots against her, 241, 247; in definite religious poUcy, 242; ex communicated, 239, 241, 244, 246 ; attitude towards Puritans and church reform, 253 et seq. ; policy of " crooked moderation," 262 Ellandun, battle of, 25 Elmet, conquest of, 6 Elphege : see St, Aelfheah Ely Cathedral, 18 Emmanuel, 322 Enclosures, 189 Endo-wments — WycUffe's protest against corrupting influence, 109, llfl; rise of disendowment party, 119; confiscation and disposal of church property by Henry VIII, DD 166, 168; destruction of property during civil war, 320 Engagement, the, 323, 330 English — conquest and settlement of Britain, 6-7; isolation, 7; British hatred, 6, 8; conversion, 8-21 English Chronicle, 28, 54 Episcopacy ; see Bishops EpiscopaUans, 316, 323, 333, 334, 348 Episcopius, 340 Equity system, abolition of, 332 Erasmus, 138, 163, 170, 183, 184, 254 Erastianism, 112, 149, 267, 274, 298, 309, 321, 333, 388 Essex — introduction of Christianity and heathen reaction, 9; rever sion to Christianity after fall of Penda, 12 Essex, Earl of, 280 Essex, Gen., 317, 318, 319 Ethandun, Alfred's victory at, 26 Ethelbald, King, 24 Ethelbert, king of Kent, 9, 12, 21 Ethelburg (Bertha's daughter), 10, 11 Etheldred, Queen, 18 Ethelfled (" Lady of the Mercians "), 29 BtheUrith, 9-10, 15 Ethehnar of Valence, 72 Ethehed of Mercia, 20, 21, 23 Ethehred the Redeless, 29, 31 Ethelwold of Winchester, 31 Ethelwulf, 32 Eton College, 125 Ettrick, Lord Howard, 366 EvangeUcal revival, 346 Evelyn, John, 143, 336, 356 Exchequer, Court of, 84 Excommunication — Henry II's claim respecting royal consent, 59, 61 ; faUs into discredit, 91, 99 ; Puritans and, 242, 255, 272 Fagius, 208 Fairfax, General, 319, 327-31 Faith : see Doctrine Faith, Justification by : see Justifica tion by faith Falaise, Treaty of, 87 Falkes de BreantS, 71 Falkirk, battle of, 92 Falkland, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 314, 319, 391 Farmer, Anthony, 373 Fastidius, 4 Fame, Isle of, 19 Feckenham, Abbot, 215, 221, 269 Felton, John, 246 Ferdinand of Dragon, 133, 139 Ferrar, Bp, of St. David's, 208 Ferrar, Nicholas, 300 402 INDEX Festivals, limitation of, 177 Feudal system, 26; WilUam the Conqueror's poUcy, 39 ; churchmen repudiate obligations under Rufus, 45; remodeUed by Henry II, 56; bishops claim immunity from obli gations, 50, 59; limitations of the Charter, 69 ; abuses abolished, 348 Field, 255 Fifth Monarchy men, 336 Finch, Lord Keeper, 307 Fisher, 162, 154, 159, 173 First fruits : see Annates Fisher, the Jesuit, 287, 300 FitzJames, Bp., 146 FitzPeter, Geoffrey, 66, 69 Five Dissenting Brethen, the, 316 Five MUe Act, 355, 358 Fleetwood, Bp, of Ely, 392 Flodden Field, battle of, 139 Flambard, 48 Flanders, campaign in (1513), 139 Fleming, Bp,, 119 Flemings, settlement in South Pem broke, 84 Forest, the Papist Friar, 170 Forest laws, 48 Forgiveness, 141, 162, 231 Four BUls, the, 325 Fowler, 374 Fox, Bp,, 135-6, 146 Fox, George, 341 Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 208, 213, 251, 277 Frampton, Bp,, 374, 380, 381, 386 France — Ruf us's wars with Helias of Maine and PhUip, 47 ; Henry II and, 54, 62, 67; Henry III and, 72; Scottish aUiance with, 89; Edward I and, 92; Edward Ill's campaigns, 98 et seq. ; English position under Richard II, 106; Henry V and the regency, 123; loss of English possessions during Henry VI's reign, 126; aUiance with Burgundy and invasion of 1476, 130; Henry VII's policy, 136; Wolsey's alliance, 139 ; Henry VIII and, 157; Scotland becomes French dependency, 182; Edward VI and, 198; Mary and, 214; EUzabeth and, 218, 237 et seq.; Charles I's policy, 282, 285; the Commonwealth and, 338; Charles II. 's poUcy, 357, 360 ; exUe of the Huguenots, 369; William III and, 382 Francis, 11 Francis, Alban, 373 Franciscans, 76, 109 Pranks, 22 Frederick, the Elector, 281 Frederick the Wise, of Saxony, 138 Frederick Barbarossa, 66 Frederick II, quarrel -with Innocent IV, 79 Frederick de Lavagna, 80 Freewill offerings. 111 Friars, 71, 75 et seq., 87, 100, 110, Ul Friends : see Quakers Fuller, 321, 333 Fyrd : see Army Gaels (Goidels), 1 Gardiner, Stephen, 151, 165, 176, 178, 184, 190, 191, 202-6, 208, 214; opposition to Injunctions of 1547, 184 Garnet, the Jesuit Superior, 270 Gascoigne, Chief Justice, 117 Gascony, 90, 92, 96 Gauden, John, dean of Booking, 321, 327, 333, 349 Gaunt, EUzabeth, 368 Gaveston, Piers, 95 Geoffrey, Coimt of Anjou, 52, 55 George of Denmark, Prince, 364 Gerard of York, 50 Germanus, 3 Germany — the Reformation in, 138, 140 et seq. ; the Thkty Years' War, 281 Qesta, 53 GhisUeri, Pope, 246 tt seq. GUbert of Gloucester, 82 GUbert of Limerick, 62 GUbert of Sempringham, 64 GUds, 134, 170, 182, 229 GUdus, 3 Giraldus Cambrensis, 63, 77 Glanville, Speaker, 287 Glasgow, see of, 88 Gloucester, Bishopric of, 166 God, sovereignty of, 142 Godden v. Hales, 368 Godfrey, Sir Edmund Berry, 364 Godolphin, Margaret, 356 Godwine of Wessex, Earl, 33 GoldweU, Bp. of St. Asaph, 226 Goodman, Bp. of Gloucester, 298, 322 Goos, John, 130 Gordon riots. Lord George, 346 Gortwiok, Sir John, 179 Goths, 22 Grandisson, 100 GranviUe, Dean, 386 Greek, study of — ^revival at the Renaissance, 137 Greenwood, 259 Gregory, 62 Gregory, Pope, 8, 9, 14 INDEX 403 Gregory VII (HUdebrand), Pope, 37, 40 Gregory XI, Pope, 73, 106, UO Gregory of Tours, 7 Grimbald of St. Omer, 27 Grimston, Harbottle, 304, 354 Grindal, Bp, of London, 228, 243, 251, 252, 255 Grossetest, Robert, 71, 77 et seq. ; 102, 105, 109; denunciation of church misgovernment, 79 Gualo, the legate, 70, 71, 73 Guibert of Ravenna, the antipope, 46 Guienne, 98, 124, 126 Guises, the, 240 Guibert of HuglevUle, 41 Gunning, 349, 352, 362, 380, 381 Gunpowder Plot, 269 Gustavus of Sweden, 281 Gustavus Vasa, 143 Guthrum, 26 Gyrth, 34 Hacket, Bp., 316, 349 Hadrian, 16, 22 Hadrian IV, Pope, 62 Hceretico comburendo, statute de, 118, 120 Hale, Sir Matthew, 361 Hales, Sir James, 199, 202 Hales, John, 279, 287, 391 HaUfax.iord, 364, 366, 368, 369, 378 ; Letter to a Dissenter, 372 Halifax, Speaker, 378 HaU, Bp. Joseph, 296, 310, 322 HaU, Timothy, 375, 380 HaUam, Bp. of Salisbury, 122 Hammond, 279 Hampden, 293, 305, 306, 307, 313, 314, 319 Hampton Court Conference (1604), 272 Hapsburgs, the, 237 Harding, Thomas, 162, 213, 226, 243 ; his dispute with Jewel, 245 Harfleur, 123 Harley, Bp. 202, 207 Harold, King, 32 et seq. Harold Hardrada, 34 Harpsfield, Bp., 226 Harrison, 318, 331, 344 Haselrig, 337 Haslerig, 314 Hatfield Chase, battle of, 11 Hatfield, CouncU of (680), 19 Hawise of Gloucester, 66 " Heads of Proposals," the, 324 Heame, 386 Heath, Bp,, 190, 202, 206, 214, 219, 221, 225 Helias of Maine, 47 Henrietta of Orleans, 361 Henrietta Maria, 282, 284, 286, 289, 316 Henry I, King — accession and char acter, 48; attitude towards lay investiture and compromise -with Rome, 49; revolt of Montgomery earls, 49; growth of Papal power during his reign, 50; Welsh policy, Henry II, King, 52, 64; continental policy, 65; reorganization of ad ministration, 56; quarrels with Thomas of Canterbury, 57 et seq. ; compromise -with Pope Alexander at A-vrauches, 60; conquest of Ireland, 62; Welsh policy, 84 Henry II, King of France, 214 Henry IIL King, 70, 71-82 ; character, 71; loses French possessions of Anjou, Normandy and Poitou, 72; confirmation of the Charters, 80; revolt of barons under Simon de Montfort, 81 Henry IV, King, 107, 116, 119 Henry V, King, 116, 119; character, 119; persecution of the Lollards, 120 ; interest in church affairs, 171 ; wars with France, 123 Henry VI, King, 116, 123 et seq. Henry Vn, King, 129, 131, 132-6 Henry VlII, King, 137-80; character and accomplishments, 137, 139; loyalty to Rome, 145; "Defender of the Faith," 145; refusal to submit question of trial of clergy to Rome, 146 ; succession question, 146; the Divorce Case, 147; challenge to Pope's decision, 148; his claim as Supreme Head of the Church, 152; marriage with Aime Boleyn, 154; bull of deposition and excommunioation, 165, 157; recognition as Head of the Church, 156; succession question, 168, 160; marriage with Jane Seymour, 160; Ten J&ticles (1636) mainly his work, 171 ; intermediate policy of decUning years, 172 et seq., 175; marriage with Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard, 175; with Catherine Parr, 177; his loyalty to Cranmer, 178 Henry, Earl of Richmond : see Henry VII, King Henry of Navarre, 240 Henry of Trastamara, 104 Henry of Winchester, 53 Herbert, George, 300, 318 Herbert of Cherbury, Lord, 300-1, 340 404 INDEX Hereford, Bp,, 114 Heresy, 76, 79, UO, 114, 116, 122, 126; persecution of heretics in WycUffe's time, 114 et seq., sup- Eression and persecution of the loUards, 118, 120; charge against Hunne, 145; Commons complains of arbitrary prosecutions, 152; persecution of doctrinal reformers during the Reformation, 161 et sej., 174, 178; heresy laws repealed during the regency, 182; persecu tion of heretics in Mary's reign, 202, 205 et seq.; revival of heresy laws, 204r-5; effect of Cranmer's denunciation of his recantation, 214; provisions of Supremacy BUl, 221 ; last heretic bumed at Smith- field, 277 Heriot, 145 Herlwin, 41 Hermann's Consultation, 185 Herring, Bp. of York, 225 Hertford : see Somerset, Duke of Hertford, Council of Bishops at (673), 17 Hesse — the Reformation in, 143 Hevenfeld, battle of, 11 Hexham, 17 ; diocese of, 18 Heylin, 349 Heywood, Oliver, 355 Hickes, Bp., 386, 387 Hierarchy : see Bishops Higbert of Lichfield, 24 High Church party, 286 et seq. ; 298, 310, 369, 385, 387, 390 Highfliers, 363, 383, 388 Hildebrand : see Gregory VII Hildebrandine Reformation, 30, 39 et seq. HUd of Whitby, Abbess, 15 Holborne, 308 Holdsworth, 342 Holgate, Bp., 206 Holidays (holy days), 153, 251, 298, 326 HoUer, 314 Holies, DenzU, 306, 319, 354 Homilies, 183, 184 Honorius, Emperor, 5 Hooker, Richard (1654-1600), 242, 262, 391 ; teaching of the appeal to reason, 263 Hooper, 187, 190-5, 202, 208, 213, 260 Hooper, 387, 389 Hopkins, 299 Hopton, Bp. of Norwich, 206 Home, Bp. of Winchester, 228 Horsey, ChanceUor, 146 Host, adoration of the, Ul, 220 Hough, Bp, of Worcester, 392 Hough, John, 373 House of Commons and House of Lords : see under Parliament Howard, 205 Howard, Cardinal, 369 Howard, Catherine, 175, 177 Howard, Frances, 280 Howe, 372, 379, 381, 391 Hugh de Balsham, 102 Hugh de WeUs, 78 Hugh of Avalon, 63, 64, 69 Huguenots, 239, 369 Humanists, 138 Humphrey, Duke, 125 Humphrey, President of Magdalen, 252 Hunne, Richard, 145 Huss, 114, 122 Hy or Hii : see lona Hyde, Anne, 364 Hyde, Lord Clarendon : see Clarendon, Lord Hythloday, 134 Hymns, introduction into public ser vices, 299 Image, worship, Ul; destruction of images, 170, 185; abolition, 223, 231, 310 Imprisonment, arbitrary, 286 Independents, 256, 309, 316, 319, 324, 333-4, 351, 382 Indemnity, Acts of, 363 Indulgence, Declarations of, 362, 372, 373 Indulgences — WycUffe's denuncia tion, 114; Luther's, 140 Ine, the lawgiver, 23 Injunctions— of 1536, 177; of 1547, 183; Queen EUzabeth's, 222-3, 264 Innocent III, Pope, 66 et seq. Innocent IV, Pope, 74, 79, 105 Innocent VIII, Pope, 135 Innocent XI, Pope, 370 Inquisition, the, 214, 239, 246, 338 Institution of a Christian Man, 171 Instrument of Oovernment, The, 332, 335 Inverness, 88 Investiture, lay : see Bishops — Election lona, monastery of, U; differences with Rome concerning Easter, 13 Ireland — condition from 9th to 12th centuries, 61 ; conquest by Strong bow and Henry II, 62; partial English withdrawal, 104; revolt (1641-62), 312; CromweU's cam paign, 329; conquest by WiUiam III, 383 INDEX 405 Irenseus, 2 Irish Articles (1615), 261 Irish Church — zeal for learning, 23; effect of Danish incursions, 61 ; reform movement and organization on Roman model in 12th century, 62 Irish Dalriada, 3, 9 Ireton, 324 Ironsides, the, 319 IsabeUe of Angoulfime, 66 blip, Simon, 100 Jacobite risings, 384 James I, King, 265-283; policy toward catholics and the catholic plots, 269; attitude towards Puri tans, 271, 274; towards the Scots Kirk, 271, 301; mutual interde pendence of king and church, 274; his quarrel -with ParUament, 275; the Spamsh marriage proposal, 280 ; character and faUings, 282 James II, King, 357, 362, 363, 367; Romanist faith, 364 ; the Exclusion BiU, 365; character, 367; Mon mouth's rebeUion, 368; relations with ParUament, 368 ; Papist policy, 368 et seq. ; breach -with the church, 371; professions of tolerance, 371; Declaration of Indulgence, 372, 374 ; succession question, 373; prose cution of the seven bishops, 375; revolution, 376; his flight, 377 James IV, King of Scotland, 136 James V, King of Scotland, 158 James VI, King of Scotland, 239 James the Deacon, 15 James the Pretender, 383 Jane Grey, Lady, 198, 204 Jansenists, 370 Jeffreys, Judge, 368, 370, 371, 373 Jesuits, 241, 246, 268, 291, 370, 373 Jesus CoUege, Cambridge, 136 Jewel, Bp. of Salisbury, 162, 228, 242, 244, 251, 262-3; his attack on Roman doctrine and dispute with Harding, 244^6 Jews — position und«r the Common wealth, 334 Joan of Arc, 124 John, King, 65, 66-70, 85; dispute between Urban V and Edward III over arrears of tribute, 106 John VI, Pope, 21 John XXII, Pope, 75, 109 John XXIII, Pope (Baldassare Gossa), 121 John de Gray, 67, 68 John of BaUiol, Lord of Galloway and Barnard Castle, 89, 91 John of Crema, 52 John of Gaunt, 105, 107; relations with Wycliffe, 109, 114 John of Salisbury, 53 John Scotus Erigena, 61 John the Old Saxon, 27 Jones, Bp. of St. Asaph, 380, 386 Joseph of Arimathsea, 2 Journeymen, 113 Judges : see Courts Judicial Committee of the Privy CouncU, 155 Julius n. Pope, 136, 147, 148, 164 Julius III, Pope, 206 Jus Divinum, 142 Justification by faith, 141, 176, 231 Jutes, 6 Juxon, Bp. of London, 225, 293, 296, 322, 349, 380 Karl the Great, 24 KeUs, Synod of, 62 Kemeyse, the Misses, 386 Kemp, Cardinal, 121 Ken, Bp,, 236, 275, 356, 358, 364, 374, 377, 380, 381, 386 Kenneth MacAlpin, 86 Kent — Jutish conquest, 6 ; converted to Christianity, 9 Ket, 188 ^ KettleweU, 386 Kidder, 354, 387 KiUtenny, Statute of, 63, 104 Kilwardly, Robert, 89 King's Bench Court, 84 King's Book, 176 King's CoUege, Oxford, 125 Kirke's Lambs, 368 Kitchin, Bp. of Llandaff, 226, 227, 251 Knights of the shire, 82, 83, 90 Knights of St. John, 97 Knox, 192, 195, 223, 250, 302 Knox, John, 169, 238 Labour rents, repudiation of com mutations of, 113 Labourers, Statutes of, 103, 112 Lake, Bp., 374, 381, 386 Lambert, 344 ; Instrument of Oovern ment, 332, 335 Lambeth Articles, 261, 279 Lambeth, Treaty of, 70 Lammermoors, 19 Lamplugh, Bp., 374, 386 Lancaster, House of, 107, 116, 125; civil war : see CivU war between Houses of Lancaster and York Land, aUenation of — Umitation by Statute of Mortmain, 90 406 INDEX Laney, Bp., 363 Laney, Master of Pembroke CoUege, 323 Lanfranc, Archbp,, 21, 42-4, 51, 225 Langham, Simon, lOO Langton, Stephen, 21, 67 et seq.; 73 Laoghaire, Kong, 3 Laplace, 347 Laski, John, 183 Lateran Council, 49, 78 Latimer, Hugh, 162 et seq.; 187, 202, 209 Latin churches : EpiscopaUan char acter, 14 Latitudinarians, 340, 372, 388, 390 Laud, Archbp, WUliam, 143, 225, 264, 266, 276, 287, 289, 291, 292, 293, 380, 391; passion for ceremonial, 294 ; accession to the primacy, 296 ; suspected of Romanist leanings, 298 ; impeachment, 308 ; execution, 322 Laurentius, 15 Law — Alfred's Code, 27; supremacy secured by the Charter, 70; and the Reformation, 232, (See also Courts) Law, WUUam, 386, 392 Learmng : see Education Lecturers, Puritan System of, 294 Lee, Bp. Rowland, 173 Legate, Bartholomew, 277 Legates, Papal : see Papal legates Legitimism and Legitimists, 266, 384 Leicester, Earl of, 240, 262 Leith, English victory at (1560), 238 LenthaU, Speaker, 287, 319, 324, 348 Leo IX, Pope, 40 Leo X, Pope, 141, 145 Leo XIII, Pope, 227 Leofric of Mercia, Earl, 33 Leofwine, 34 Leslie, Alexander, 303 Leslie, David, 329 Lestia, 386 Letter to a Convocation Man, 388 Levellers, 336 Lever, 187, 221, 251 Lewes, battle of, 82 Lewis of Beaumont, 225 Liberty, civU, 317, 319 Lichfield — ¦ Higbert's Archbishopric under Offa, 24 Lightfoot, 349, 354 Lincoln, diocese — area in Grosseteste's time, 78 Lincoln, Earl of, 133 Lincoln, Robert of : see Grosseteste Lincoln CoUege, Oxford, foundation, 119 Lindhard, Bishop, 9 Lindisfarne, see of, 11, 16, 18; Cuth bert consecrated by Theodore, 19 Lindsey, diocese of, 18 Linkoping, Diet of, 144 Lisbon, capture of (1147), 63 Lisle, Alice, 368 Lisle : see Northumberland, Duke of Litany, 177, 350 Literature— development arrested in Norman period, 51 ; romantic period of the Crusades, 53 ; revival under Henry III, 71, 75; Eliza- ba,than revival, 242 Liturgy : see Prayer Book Llandaff, diocese of, 14, 64 Llan El-wy : see St. Asaph Llan, Welsh, 14 Lloyd, Bp, of Norwich, 374, 386 Lloyd, Bp. of St. Asaph, 374, 386 Llywelyn of Gruffydd, 85 Llywelyn ap lorwerth, 68, 86 Loans, forced : see Taxfition Locke, 372 LoUard movement, 77, 103, 114, 116, 126, 127, 138; suppression and persecution of Lollards, 118 ei seq. London, Dr., 178 London, Gregory's scheme for an arch bishopric, 9, 14; the Great Fire, 368 Lords, AppeUant, 107 Lords of the Congregation, 238 Lords Ordainers, 95 Louis VII, King of France, 55, 60 Louis IX : see St, Louis (Louis IX) Louis XI, King of France, 128 Louis XII, King of Prance, 139 Louis XIII, King of France, 285 Louis XIV, King of France, 140, 356, 357, 360, 369, 376 Louis of Beaumont, 97 Louis of Prance — offered English Grown by barons during oivU war with John, 70 Lucius, King, 2 Lunsford, 313 Lupur, 3 Luther, Martin, 136, 140, 162, 183 Lyons — Pope Innocent IV in exile during contest with Frederick II, 79 Lyons, General CouncU of, 79 Macaulay, Lord, 335 Macbeth, 86 Madeleine of Prance, 168 Madog of Llywelyn, 86 Magdalen College, Oxford ; resistance to Papist election, 373 Magna Charter : see Charter, the Great Magnates : see Bishops INDEX 407 Magnus of Norway, 84 Maid of Norway, 89 Maine — secret cession of, 126 Major Generals, 335, 336 Malachy, 62 Malcolm Canmore, 86 Manchester, Lord, 318, 322, 324, 361 Mandeville, Lord, 314 Manton, 349, 354 Manwaring, Dr. Roger, 289, 290, 296 Margaret, Lady, 129 Margaret of Anjou, 124, 125 et seq. Margaret of England, 136 Maria Theresa, the Infanta, 357 Marlborough, statute of, 82 Marprelate (Martin) tracts, 258 Marriage — effect of measures against marriage of priests in Norman times, 51 ; unwarranted regulations in Henry Ill's time, 74; registra tion of marriages, 184 ; established as a civil contract, 332 Celibacy of the Clergy : see Celi bacy of the Clergy Marsh, Adam, 71, 76, 77, 102 Marsh, Robert, 80 MarshaU, Edward, 72 MarshaU, WUliam, 66, 67, 70, 71 Marston Moor, battle of, 317 Martial law, iUegal use of, 286 Martin V, Pope, 122 Martin, Brother, UO Martin, Master of Queen's College, 322, 348 Martins, Master, 73 Martinengo, 244 Martyr, Peter, 183, 250 ; persecution of his wife, 208 Mary I, Queen, 146, 150, 160, 169, 181, 184, 191, 198, 200-16; suc cession question, 146, 158, 160; Northumberland's efforts to pre vent accession, 198; character, 201 ; legitimacy declared by ParUa ment, 202; marriage to Philip of Spain, 204; restoration of Papal authority, 205; persecution of heretics, 206-13; restoration of church property, 209, 215; review of reign, 216 Mary II, Queen, 364, 365, 377 Mary Queen of Scots, 158, 218, 237 et seq., 241 Mary of Guise, 158 Maryland— submission to the Com monwealth, 330 Mary of Modena, 364, 373 Maserfield, battle of the, 12 Mass, the, 172, 174, 364, 369; English Communion substituted, 185, 193; denunciation, 196; penalised 247 Massey, 371, 373 Matilda, daughter of Henry 1, 52, 64 MatUda, Queen, 49 Maurice, F, D., 343 Maurice of London, 48 Maurice of Saxony, 197 Mayne, Cuthbert, 247 Meal Tub Plot, 365 Melanchthon, 183 MelvUle, 169 Meon, Jutish colony on the, 6 Mepeham, Simon, 99 Mercia, 6, 9, 12, 20, 24, 25 Merke of Carlisle, 117 Methodists, 342, 346, 355, 360, 378 Mew, Bp., 225, 368, 373, 374, 381, 386 Middleton, Bp. of St. Davids, 259 MUdmay, 262 MUitia, control of the, 315, 324 MiUenary Petition, the, 272 Milton, John, 297, 310, 348 Mompesson, 381 Monarchy : see Crown Monasteries — ^rapid development in early English church, 22; monas ticism discussed, 23; Danish ravages, 26; 10th century reform movement, 30; ascetic character of monasticism, 39, 75; develop ments in Stephen's reign, 64; aristocratic character, 76; Grosse teste and the appropriation of titles, 78; unpopularity of monks in 14th century, 100; relaxation of the labour rule, 103; visitation and dissolution, 166 et seq., 229; Mary's effort to revive, 215 Monk, General, 344 Monmouth, Duke of, 365, 368 Monmouth, Humphrey, 163 Monopolies, 292 Monotheletism, 16, 19 Montague, Richard, 288, 291, 296, 298, 299 Montanists, 342 Monteagle, Lord, 269 Monteigne, Bp., 289, 291 Montgomery Earls, revolt of, 49 Montgomery, Treaty of, 86 Moravians, 341-2 Morcar, 33, 35, 36 More, Henry, 342 More, Sir Thomas, 138, 146, 148, 151-3, 159, 162, 164, 173 Morgan, WiUiam, 229 Morley, Bp., 236, 316, 349, 359, 362, 364, 380 Mortimer, Edmund, 107, 117 Mortimer, Roger, 96, 98 408 1JNDE.X. Mortmain, Statute of, 89, 90, 206 Morton, Bp., 332, 336 Morton, Cardinal, 133 et seq., 167 Morton's Dyke, 135 Mortuaries, 145, 162, 206 Mount Badon, battle of, 6 Myton, battle of, 95, 96 Naked Truth, The, 360 Nantes, Edict of, 360 Naples, Treaty of, 136 Naseby, battle of, 319 Natural religion, 263, 300-1, 340 Navigation Law, 330 Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for Any Christian Man, 176 Neile, Bp., 291, 296 Nelson, Robert, 386 Nest, daughter of Rhys ap Tewd-wr, 83 Netherlands — revolt against Spain, 239 et seq. ; English expedition to, 282, 285; the Commonwealth's war with, 338; Charles II's relations with, 357-8, 363 Neville, Primate, 130 Neville, George, 225 Newton, Sir Isaac, 347 Nicholas, 312, 319, 356 Nicolas of Langley, 53, 61 Nidd, CouncU on the (706), 21 Nonconformists (see also names of different sects) — ^friars not con formists, 77; origins of dissent, 242, 249 eise^., 252, 265; Bancroft's measures and the deprivations, 274 ; position of Puritans under Charles I, 294 et seq., 306 et seq, ; position during the Commonwealth, 329 et seq.; the Act of Uniformity, 354; ejection and persecution of non conformists, 354 et seq.; professions of tolerance by Charles II and James II, 356, 357, 371; the plea for toleration and comprehension, 356, 360-2; the Test Act, 362; Declaration of Indulgence, 372; the Toleration Act, and the Compre hension BUI, 378; condition and position at the Revolution, 381; Occasional Conformity BiUs, 386; Schism Act, 385; Schism of the Non-jurors, 387 ; the Shortest Way vnth Dissenters, 390 Nonjurors, schism of, 383, 386 Non-residence, 258, 272, 288 Non-resistance : see Passive Obedience Norfolk, Earl of, 91 Norfolk, Duke of, 176, 179, 202 Norman adventurers — conquest of Ireland, 62 ; of Wales, 85 ; invasion of Scotland, 87 Norman conquest, 35, 37-54 Normandy, 47, 55, 67, 72, 123-4 Norris of Bemerton, 343 Norsemen, 26 et seq. North, CouncU of the, 173 Northampton, Council of, 69 Northampton, Treaty of, 98 Northumberland, Duke of (Lisle), 150, 158, 182, 188, 189, 191, 198, 200 Northumbrian kingdoms, 6, 9-11, 20, 24 Nottingham, 379, 386 NoweU, Bp., 244 Nun of Kent, the : see Barton, Eliza beth Oates, Titus, 364, 381 Oath of Allegiance, 190, 271, 372 Oath of Non-resistance, 353, 355 Oath of Supremacy, 222, 372 Oath, the Etcetera, 304 Oath, the ex-offkio, 257, 272 Observants, 167 Occasional Conformity BiUs, 385 Ockham, 109 O'Conor, Roderic, 62 Oda of Canterbury, 27, 30 Odelerius the priest of Orleans, 38 Offa, King, 24, 27 Oglethorpe, Bp, of CarUsle, 206, 220 Oldcastle, Sir John, 118, 120 Ordinal : see Prayer Book Ordinaries, SuppUcation against the (1532), 152 Ordination — ^restraint on sons of serfs, 59, 61 ; episcopal, 382-3 Origen, 3 Orleton, Bp„ 96, 97 Ornaments, 223 ; note on the Rubric, 232 Surplice : see Surplice Vestments : see Vestments Orthodoxy, 372 Osborne, Thomas : see Danby, Earl of Oswald, 23 Oswald of Worcester and York, 31 Oswald, son of Ethelfrith, 11 Oswin, 23 Oswy, 12, 16, 16, 21 O'Toole, Laurence, 62 Otho, Cardinal, 73 Ottobon, the legate, 82 Outrages, reUgious, 207 OveraU, Dean, 261, 273 Overbury, Sir Thomas, 280 Overton, Bp, of Lichfield, 259, 344 Owain Glynd-wr, 86, 117 Owen, John, 343 Owen of Wales, 86 Oxford, Bishopric of, 166 INDEX 409 Oxford, Provisions of (1258), 81 Oxford Umversity — origins, 53, 102; regulation in 1382, 114; decadence in 15th century, 121 ; ejection of Royalists, 323; resistance to elec tion of Papists, 373 Paget, 205, 219 Palatmate, the, 282, 285, 376 PanduU, papal legate, 68, 70, 71, 73 Panzani, the Roman envoy, 299 Papacy — rise of mediseval, 8 ; schism in the Uth century, 46; court at Lyons during quarrel between In nocent IV and Frederick II, 79; court at Avignon, 97, 121 ; schism (1378), Ul, 121 Papal authority and jurisdiction — ^not acknowledged by British church, 15; Oswy's decision, 15; not accepted by Theodore and Egfrid, 18; WUfrid's appeal to Rome, 18, 20; WUliam the Conqueror's attitude, 37, 42; provisions of Palae Decretals, 40; Anselm's appeal to Rome, 46; Henry I's differences and subsequent agree ment with Rome on lay investiture, 49; growth of papal power during his reign, 50 ; effect of appointment of papal legates, 52; relations between Alexander III and Henry II, 65; compromise effected at Avranches, 60; Innocent III secures election of Stephen Langton to primacy, 67; interdict against John (1208), 68 ; permanent change in relations of Pope and King marked by John's submission, 68, 73 ; papal exactions in Henry Ill's reign, 73, 75; Boniface VIII's BuU forbiddmg clergy to vote supplies resisted by Edward I and PhUip IV, 91 ; Vnam sanctam, 96 ; exactions of Avignon popes, 97; English national distrust of the Pope during Edward Ill's reign, 99- growth of political resistance under Edward III, 100; Statute of Provisors passed against system of provisions and reservations, 105 ; appeals to Rome limited by Statute of Praemunire, 106; Gregory XI s claim to suzeramty rejected, 10b; dilemma at CouncU of Constance, 121- Martin V endeavours to se cure repeal of statutes of Provisors and Prsmunire, 122; measure of authority in Henry VII's reign, 135; Henry VIII's refusal to submit question of trial of clergy. 146 ; the Divorce Case and Henry's challenge to the Pope's decision, 146 et seq.; Henry's claim as Only Supreme Head of the Church, 152 ; Act in Restraint of Appeals, 154; Pope to have no jurisdiction in England, 165; repudiated in the 42 Articles, 196; restoration under Mary, 205; royal supremacy re stored by Elizabeth, 217, 221 ; the Bull Regnans in Excelsis, 246 Papal envoys, 299 Papal exactions and tribute, 73, 76, 97, 106, 109 Papal legates, 52, 57, 68, 70, 71, 73, 82 ; commission reverted to Canter bury, 54, 57 ; sub-delegate, 210 Papists : see Catholics Paris, Umversity of, 102 Parishes — origin of parish system, 17 ; Laud's regulation, 296 Parker, Bp. of Oxford, 360, 371, 373, 380 Parker, Matthew, 160, 162, 226, 242, 243, 252, 255 Parliament — origins, 71, 82; Edward I's " model " at Shrewbury, 90 ; union with barons against Edward I's exactions, 92; induced to delegate powers by Richard II, 108; lack of strength (1399), 116; faUure to control Gro-wn in Tudor period, 132; Henry VIII secures consent for his policies, 151 ; Mary and, 202, 204, 205, 209 ; Elizabeth and, 260; the quarrel with the Stuarts, 275, 286 et seq.; the Petition of Right, 286; Charles I arrests leaders of the Commons, 291; suppression of Parliament, 292; the Short ParUament, 304; the Long ParUament, 298, 306 et seq.; the Grand Remonstrance, 313 ; Charles' attempt to seize leaders (1642), 314; the Newcastle terms, 324 ; quarrel with the Army after defeat of Stuarts, 324 et seq.; Pride's purge, 326 ; the Rump, 326, 330; CromweU and, 331, 335 et seq.; Barebone's Parliament, 331; disa greements prior to the Restoration, 344; Charles II and, 347, 356, 362; Cavalier Parliament, 353- 65; authority for persecution of Nonconformists, 365 et seq. ; the Whigs and Tories, 365; James II and, 368 Convocation, disagreements with, 152, 221, 289 . Dissolution — limitation of King's powers by Long Parliament, 308, 410 INDEX Parliament, Foreign policy, control over, 266, 276 House of Lords — abolished (1649), 330; exclusion of bishops, 309-10; bishops restored, 348 PrivUege — Charles' action in attempting to seize leaders (1642), 314 Supplies and taxation. Com mons' control of : see under Taxa tion Trienmal Act, 307 ParpagUa, 244 Parr, Catherine, 177 Parsons, 247, 268 Paschal, Pope, 49 Paschal II, Pope, UO Passive Obedience, 266, 276, 286, 289, 368 Passover, Jewish, 13 Patrick, 62 Patrick, Bp,, 360, 374, 388 Patronage, 78, 90, 105, 169, 184, 255, 332 Paul III, Pope, 156, 159, 246 Paul IV, Pope, 209, 216-16 PauUnus (Ethelburg's chaplain), 10, U Pearson, Bp„ 349, 380 Peasant risings— (1381), 101, 107, 112; (1522), 141 Peckham, John, 89 Pecock of Chichester, Bp., 127 Pelagianism, 3, 4 Pelagius, 3 Penal laws, 244, 247, 268 et seq.; in abeyance, 285, 298; suspension by James II, 372 Toleration : see Toleration Penances, 39, Ul, 162, 171 Penda, U, 12, 21 Penn, 372 Penruddock's rising, 336 Penry, John, 258 Percies, revolt of the, 117 Peretarit, the Lombard king, 18 Perkin Warbeck, 133 Perrers, Alice, 106 Peter the Cruel, 104 Peter de Leia, 64 Peter des Roches, 68 Peterborough, Bishopric of, 166 ^ Peter's Pence, 165 Petition of Right, 286, 291 Peto, Friar, 216 Petre the Jesuit, 371 Philip of France, 47 Philip, King of Prance, 66 et seq. PhUip IV, King of France, 90, 91, 92,96 PhUip Augustus — of France, 63 PhUip II, King of Spain, 203 et seq., 209, 215, 218, 239, 262 PhUip of Valois, 98 Philpot, Archdeacon, 208 Picts, 6, 8 PUgrim Fathers, 278 PUgrimage of Grace, 173 PUkingston, Bp., 225, 228, 243, 244 Pisa, CouncU of, 121 Pius IV, Pope, 196, 244 Plague— the Black Death, 94, 99, 102; the Great Plague (1665), 354, 358 Platonists, 340, 342 Plegmund the Mercian, 27 Plotinus, 343 Poitiers, battle of, 104 Poitou, 72 Pole, Cardinal Reginald, 169, 203, 205, 206, 208, 214, 216 Pole, David, 226 Poles, conspiracy of the, 244 PluraUties, 288 Politus, 3 Ponet, Bp,, 190, 191, 200, 207 Ponthieu, 104 Poor Priests, WycUffe's, 112 Pope, Reginald, 174 Pope, Montague, 174 Pope, Geoffrey, 174 Poundage, 292, 308 Poverty, mediseval ideal of, 75, UO Powle, Speaker, 378 Practice of Piety, 248, 290 Prsemunire, Statute of, 106, 122, 146, 151-2, 247 Prayer Book — origins, 150, 176, 185; revision, 187; versions of 1549 and 1552 compared, 193; cathoUc reaction under Mary, 205; Prayer Book re-vived by Elizabeth, 222; Puritan movement for reform, 253, 260; Hampton Court Conference, 272; Laudian innovations, 288, 297; Puritans and, 288; the pro posed reforms, 310, 312 ; prohibition (1645), 321, 336; aboUtion of Liturgy annuUed, 347; the Savoy Conference, 349; revision, 352, 378 Prayers for the dead, 101, 172, 176 Preaching — ^friars and, 76 ; WycUffe's insistence on its importance, Ul; low standard of EUzabethan clergy, 254; Puritans and, 255; sup pressions of private preaching, 257; Puritan system of lecturers, 294; ordinance forbidding laymen to preach, 324 Predestination, Ul, 142, 260, 264, 279, 346 INDEX 411 Presbyterians and Presbyteriamsm, 263, 264, 309, 317, 333, 334; the Covenant, 321; and the Restora tion, 348 Press, regulation of the, 268, 296 Preston, battle of, 326 Prichard, Rhys, 299 Pride, Colonel, 326, 330, 336 Prideaux, 316 Priests : see Clergy Primate, flrst protestant — consecra tion, 227 Probate and Mortuaries Act, 152 Proclamations Act, repeal of, 182 Procopius, 7 Property of exUes — Bill for confisca tion rejected by Parliament, 209 Property, Church : see Endowments Prophesyings, 266, 267, 274 Protest to the Diet of Augsburg (1530), 143 Protestant Association, 241 Reformation : see Reformation Protestants — term discussed, 143 ; persecution in Mary's reign, 202, 206 et seq. Provisions, papal, 105 Provisors, Statute of (1351), 105, 122, 152 Prussia, Duchy of, 143 Prynne, 297, 319 Purgatory, 161, 171, 369 Puritans and Puritanism, 77, Ul, 190, 242 et seq., 342; and vestments, 235, 243; Elizabeth and, 242, 255 et seq.; character and origins, 249 et seq.; the Admionition to ParUa ment, 255; Elizabeth's and Whit gift's policy of suppression, 257; persecution, 257 et seq. ; James I and, 271 et seq.; the MUlenary Petition, 272; Bancroft's measures and the deprivations, 274 ; extension of influence, 278 ; Laud's efforts to suppress, 287 et seq., 296; system of lecturers, 294; movement for abolition of Episcopacy, 304, 316; the Covenant, 321 ; suppression of vicious pleasures and sports, 335; culmination marked by Harrison's convention, 332; its power at the Restoration, 346; proposals for reform of Liturgy at Savoy Con ference, 349; the Act of Uniformity and their persecution, 353 et seq.; plea for comprehension^ or tolera tion, 366, 368, 361, 362 ; the Test Act, 362 Purvey, 112, 114 Pym, 293, 306, 306, 307, 309, 312, 313, 314, 316, 319 Quakers, 336, 340 et seq., 361, 354, 378 Quartodecimans, IU Queen Anne's Bounty, 390 Quia emptores, statute of, 84 Quo warranto investigations, 84, 90 Quignon's Breviary, 185 Rainolds, Deam, 272 Ralph of Escures, 52 Ranulf de Broc, 60 Ranulf Flambard, 44 Raymund Lull, 76 Reason, appeal to, 127, 263, 340 (see also Natural religion) Redwald of East AngUa, 10 Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, 197 Reformation, the Protestant, 70, 74, 79, 101, 137, 140-80; origins in Germany and Switzerland, 140; doctrinal differences discussed, 140 ; the Divorce case and Henry VIII's chaUenge to the Papal decision, 146 et seq.; progress in England : separation from Rome, 149 et seq.; Kmg recogmzed as Head of the Church, 156; influence of Bible study, 161 et seq.; doctrinal reform movement, 161 et seq.; motives of Catholic opposition, 165 ; Henry's intermediate policy in his declining years, 171, 175; Catholic reaction, 174; policy of Somerset the Protector, 182 et seq.; position under Edward VI, 183; further progress of reform party, 190; Somerset's compromise fails : reli gious differences intensified, 192; no national reaction to Catholicism on Mary's accession, 201 ; perse cution of Protestants, 202; the reaction under Mary, 205 et seq.; Church of England definitely com mitted under EUzabeth, 222; difficulties in Celtic West, 228-9; recapitulation of results, 229 et seq., 242; its progress in Scotland, 238; Jewel's defence and controversy with Harding on Roman doctrine, 244 et seq. Begalia, UO Registration of baptisms, marriages and burials, 184 Reginald of Canterbury, 67 Begnans in Excelsis, Bull, 246 ReUgious liberty : see Toleration ReUgious thought — development under the Commonwealth, 339 Remonstrance, the Grand, 313 Renaissance, 137 et seq. 412 INDEX Repressor of overmuch Weeting of the Clergy, 127 Repyngdon, Bp. of Lincoln, 114, 119 Reservations, Papal, 106 Restitution, the Edict of, 281 Eestoration, the, 311, 332, 337, 344, 346-66 Retainers, armies of, 124 Revocation, the Act of, 302 Revolution, the, 70, 373, 376, 382 Reynold, Bp,, 316, 349, 352, 354 Reynolds, Primate, 97, 99 Rh6, expedition to the Isle of, 285 Rhys, Lord, 86 Rhys of Maredudd, 86 Rich, Sir Richard, 178 Richard I, 63, 65 Richard II, 107, 114 Richard III, King, 126, 129, 130; character, 130 Richard, Archbp., 73 Richard, Duke of York, 107, 126 Richard, Edmund, 73 Richard de Clare (Strongbow), 62 Richard, Earl of CornwaU, 72 Richard of Dover, 63 Richardson, Speaker, 287 Richelieu, Cardinal, 281 et seq., 285 Richmond, Duke of — ^title conferred on Henry VIII's Ulegitimate son, 147 Ridley, 162, 187, 190, 196, 200, 209, 250 Right, the Declaration of, 377 Ripon, Treaty of, 305 Rizzio, murder of, 239 Robert of Belleme, 41, 49 Robert of Gloucester, 62, 54 Robert of Jumifeges, 33 Robert of Lincoln : see Grosseteste Robert of Normandy, 43, 47, 49, 52 Robinson, Bp. of Bristol, 225 Robinson, John, 278 RocheUe — sea battle off, 105; the expedition to, 286 Rochester, Lord, 371 Rochet, 233 Rockingham, Great CouncU of (1095), 46 Roger of Salisbury, 51, 225 Roger of Toesny, 41 Roger of York, 60 Rogers, John, 208 RoUo of Normandy, 26 Roman authority and jurisdiction : see Papal authority and jurisdiction Roman Catholics : see Catholics Roman conquest and administration of Britain, 1-6 RomUly, 335 Root and Branch party, 309 Roses, Wars of the : see CivU War of Rotherham, the Primate, 130 Roundheads, 306, 313 et seq., 320 Rous, Francis, 331 Royalists, ejection of, 321 et seq. Royal Society, 347, 380 Royal Supremacy : see under Crown Rufus : see WiUiam Rufus Rupert, Prince, 316, 317 RusseU, Lord WUliam, 366 RusseU, Rachel Lady, 366 Rye House Plots, 366 Rygge, Chancellor, 114 Ryswick, peace of, 383 Sabbatarians, 256 SachevereU riots, 346, 379, 385 Sacraments, 171, 176 Communion : set Communion St. Aelfheah (Elphege), 32 St, Agatha of Catania, 13 St. Alban, 3 St, Albans, abbey of ; the attack on, 100; scandals, 167 St. Andrews, see of, 88 St, Asaph, diocese of, 14, 64 St, Augustine, 4, 8, 14, 15 St, Bartholomew's Eve, massacre of, 240 St, Bernard, 54 St. Davids, diocese of, 14, 64 St. Dunstan, 30 et seq. St. John, 308 St. Louis (Louis IX) of France, 79, 81 St. Patrick, 3, 8 St, Paul's Cathedral — ^rebuUding, 359 St, Paul's School, 138 St, Thomas k Beoket : see Thomas J. Becket Saints — identity with heathen deities in Ireland, France, Italy, and Rhenish and Southern Germany, 13; invocation and worship, 172, 176, 231, 364, 369 Saints' Days, Black Letter — abolition, 186; partial restoration, 195 Salesbury, WUliam, 229 Salisbury, Countess of, 174 Salisbury, Earl of — lynched for treason (1400), 118 Salisbury, first Earl of (Robert CecU), 280 SaUsbury, Gemot of (1086), 39 Salvation by works, 122 Sampson, Dean of Christ Church, 252 Samson of Worcester, 51 Sanchia of Provence, 72 Sancroft, Bp., 352, 359, 364, 371, 372, 374, 377, 380 Sanctuary, abuses of, 135, 146, 168 INDEX 413 Sanders, 243, 268 Sanderson, Bp,, 348, 349, 362, 380 Santa Clara, Friar (Christopher Davenport), 299 Saunders, 208 Savigni, 83 Savonarola, 138 Savoy Conference, 349 Sawtre, WUliam, 118 Saxons, 5 Saxony — the reformation in, 143 Scambler, 262 Scandinavia, 25 Schism of 1378, Ul, 121 Schism Act, 379, 385 Schmalkalden, League of, 174, 189 Scholarship : see Education Schools, monastic, 22 ; mediaeval, 102 Science — Cambridge Platonists and, 343, developments at the Restora tion, 347 Scipio, 245 Scory, Bp,, 190, 202, 227, 243 Scotist defence of the church, 100 Scotland — Campaigns of Edward I, 86 et seq.; English claims to suzerainty, 87, 89; Edward II's policy; Scottish incursions into England, 94-8; English claims to suzerainty abandoned, 98 ; Edward III and, 104; Somerset's policy; dependency of France, 182; with drawal of English garrisons, 189; French connexion and relations with England under Elizabeth, 237 ; the Reformation in, 238; union with England on accession of James I, 265; Charles I's church reform measure provokes revolt, 301 et seq.; Scots and the Civil War, 317 ; support of Charles II, 329 Church — changes and orgaiuza- tion introduced by Normans, 87; question of subjection to Canter bury or York and Rome, 88; the Reformation, 238; James I and the Ku?k, 271, 301 ; Liturgy drafted by Westminster Assembly, 317 Scots, 6 Scott's Ivanhoe — anachronism, 38 Scripture : see Bible Scrooby, the sectaries at, 278 Scrope, Archbp,, 117 Soutage, 56, 68 Selden, 287, 295, 308, 309, 316, 332 Semi-pelagianism : see Pelagianism Senlac, battle of, 35 Services, church : see Church services Seymour, Edward : see Somerset, Duke of (The Protector) Seymour, Jane, 160 Shaftesbury, flrst Lord, 337, 361, 362, 364 et seq. Shakespeare, 242 Sharp, 369, 371 Sheldon, Bp., 91, 275, 348, 349, 356, 364, 380-1, 391 Sherlock, Master of the Temple, 374, 386 Ship money, 292, 305, 307 Shortest Way with Dissenters, The, 390 Shower, Sir Bartholomew, 388 Shrines, destruction of, 170 Sibthorpe, Dr, Robert, 289 Sicily, 81 Sidney, Algernon, 366 Sigismund of Bohemia, 121 SUchester — church ruins at, 3 Simnel, Lambert, 133 Simon de Montfort, 71, 81, 84 Simony, 40 Sitric of Dublin, 62 Siward of Northumbria, Earl, 33 " Slanders " the Jesuit, 162 Sluys, battle of, 99 Smectymnuus, 310 Smith, 164 Smith, Dr. MUes, 273 Smith, John, 342-3 Society of Friends : see Quakers Somerset, Duke of (The Protector), 181, 187, 189, 191 Somerset, Earl of (Robert Carr), 280 Spain — English reUgious differences with, 140; Mary's marriage with PhUip, 203 et seq.; English hatred of Spaniards, 209; English policy under Mary, 314; under EUzabeth, 218, 237 et seq.; the war and the Armada, 240 et seq., 261 ; James X and the Spanish marriage policy, 281; intrigues of Charles I, 303; the Commonwealth's war, 336, 338 ; Charles II's policy, 357 Spanish succession, war of, 384 Sparrow, 349 Spenser, 242 Sports, the Book of, 298 Sprat, Bp., of Rochester 371, 375, 380, 386 Stafford, Anthony, 299 Stafford, Sir Thomas, 207, 215 Stage — Puritan criticisms, 296 Stanley, Bp. of Sodor and Man, 226 Standish, Warden of the Grey Friars, 146 Star Chamber, Court of, 129, 134, 243, 292, 296 ; abolished, 307 414 INDEX Stephen, King, 52-4, 102 Sternhold, 299 Sterne, Master of Jesus College, 322, 348 Stigand, Archbp., 33, 41 StiUingfleet, 360, 369, 374; Irenicon, 391 Stipends, 78 Stirling Bridge, battle of, 92 Stokesley, Bp., 164 Story, 226 Strafford, Earl of, 293, 305, 306 Stratford, John, 97, 99 Strathclyde, 6 Strickland, 263, 260 Strode, 291, 314 Strongbow : see Richard de Clare Sudbury, Simon, 100, 113 SuffoUi, Earls of, 126, 203 Sunday observance, 256, 278, 298, 359; Puritans and, 256 Sunday Trading Act (1678), 360 Supplies, control of : see Taxation Supremacy question : see Crown — Royal supremacy Supremacy, Elizabeth's Act of, 183 Surplice, 223, 233, 235, 243, 261-2, 272, 288, 350, 359 Surrey, Earl of, 179 Sussex — heathenism in 7th century, 12; conversion by WUfrid, 19 Sweden — the Reformation in, 143 Swedes, 26 Swegen of Denmark, 31 Swinfield of Hereford, 105 Switzerland — reformation in, 141 Taxation — oppressive exactions of WiUiam Rufus, 44; of John, 68; of Edward I, 90; iUegal taxes of Richard II, 108; James I secures right to levy customs duty, 276; forced loan of Charles I, 285, 289; his other Ulegal taxes, 292, 305; arbitrary taxes of the Common wealth, 339 Clergy and — Papal exactions, 73, 75, 97, 106, 109; taxes voted by Convocation, 90; arrangement be tween Clarendon and Sheldon, 91; Bull forbidding clergy to vote supplies to temporal princes, 91; Edward I and, 91 ; clergy surren der right to vote subsidies, 348 Crown rights — claims of Charles I and Royalists, 289 et seq., 292 Commons control of supplies, 73, 84, 90, 92, 99, 116, 129, 133, 275, 304, 308 Scutage : see Scutage Ship money : see Ship money Taylor, Bp., 190, 202, 207 Taylor, Jeremy, 287, 336, 340, 380, 391 Taylor, Dr. Rowland, of Hadleigh, 208 Templars, 97 Tenant-farmers, 104 Tenison, 369 TertuUian quoted, 2 Test Acts, 355, 362, 364, 379 Tewkesbury, battle of, 129 Theobald of Bee, 53, 54, 57 Theodore, Archbp., 16, 18-22 Thirlby, Bp. of Ely, 206 Thu-ty Years' War, the, 281 Thomas, Bp., of Worcester, 374 Thomas of Lancaster, 95 Thomas ^ Becket of Canterbury, 21, 56,57-60; shrme, 170 Thomas Aquinas, 76 Thoresby of York, 100 Thorndike, Herbert, 349, 360, 388 TUlotson, 343, 369, 372, 378, 390 Tinchebrai, victory at, 60 Tindal, 390 Tiptoft, the Butcher, 125 Tithes, 78-9, 209, 295, 332; London Society for impropriation, 295 Toland's Christianity not Mysterious, 389 Toleration, reUgious, 112, 157, 161, 268, 277, 318, 333, 348; CromweU and, 318; the Commonwealth and, 333; policy of Charles II and James II, 356, 358, 362, 371; nonconformists' plea for toleration or comprehension, 356, 360, 361, 378; changed attitude of the church, 372; the Toleration Act, 157,378; Tory efforts to limit, 383, 385 Tomkins, 360 Tonnage, 291, 308 Tonsure, 13 Tories, 365, 372, 377-8, 383^ Tostig, 33, 35 Towton, battle of, 128 Tractarians, 355, 379, 384 Tradition, 279, 369 (see also Authority) Transubstantiation, doctrine of, 40, 43, 118, 120, 142, 153, 161, 171, 174, 176, 221, 288, 362, 369, 378; Wycliffe and, Ul, 114; Luther's and Z-wingli's attitude, 142 ; repudi ated in the Articles, 196 Travers, Walter, 242, 262, 264, 309 Treason, 120, 159, 173, 182 (see also Heresy) Trelawny, Sir Jonathan, 368, 374, 380, 386, 392 Trent, CouncU of, 226, 244, 246 et seq. Tresham, 269 INDEX 415 Trevor, Speaker, 383 Triennial Act, 307, 311, 347 Triers, Commission of, 333 Trinity, doctrine of the, 277 Triple AUiance (1668), 361 Tromp, Admiral, 304 Troyes, Treaty of, 123 Tuam, Archbishopric of, 62 Tuckney, 342, 349 Tudors, the, 129, 132 TunstaU, Cuthbert, 164, 173, 190, 197, 202, 206, 225 Turgesius, 61 Turgot, Bp. of St. Andrews, 88 Turner, Bp,, 374, 386 Ty Ddewi : see St. Davids Tyler's (Wat) rebellion, 112 Tyndale, William, 162; translation of the Bible, 163 Vnam sanctam BuU, 96 Uniformity, Acts of (see also Non conformists and Toleration) — the first, 186; the second, 195; re pealed under Mary, 206; renewed under Elizabeth, 221 et seq.; Catholics and, 244; the Act of 1662, 353; Charles II's attempt to secure powers of dispensation, 358; second Declaration of Indul gence, 362 Unitarians, 324, 340 Unitate Ecclesiastica, de, 174 Universities, 71 Urban II, Pope, 46 Urban V, Pope, 106 Urban VI, Pope, Ul Usages and Usagers, 388 Use of Sarum, 176 Uses, Statute of, 173 Ussher, 316, 321 Utrecht, peace of, 383 Vacarius, 53, 102 Valentine, 291 Vandalism, Puritan, 320 Vane, 306, 310, 316, 318, 331, 348, Venner, 355 Verney, Sir Edmund, 267, 305, 319 Vestments, 185, 191, 193, 224, 233 et seq., 250; Bp., John Hooper's attitude, 191; note on the Orna ments Rubric, 232 Vicars, resident, 78, 80, 101 Villiers, George : see Buckingham, Duke of VitaUan, Pope, 16 Vulgate, 112, 163 Vulgate, Codex Amiatinus of the, 22 Wagstaffe, Bp,, 387 Wake, WiUiam, 369, 389, 392 Wakeman, 365 Wales — conquest by the English, 6, 10; conquests of Lords marcher under Rufus, 44; Edward I's campaign, 84 et seq.; development of the national spirit, 85; revolts against Edward I, 90; Owain Glyndwr's revolt, 117; disorders in Henry VIII's reign, 173 ; back ward state of church in later Elizabethan period, 258 Church — early monastic char acter, 14; bishops subject to Canterbury, 64 Lords marcher, 44, 84, 173; jurisdiction abolished, 173 WaUcer, Obadiah, 371, 373 Wallace, 91 Waller, General, 318 WalUngford, Treaty of, 54 Wallis, 349, 364 Walpole, 363, 386, 392 Walsingham, 262 Walter, Hubert, 63, 67, 71 Walter de Merton, 102 Warbeck, the son of Clarence, 134 Ward, Seth, 368-9, 363, 374, 380 Warham, Primate, 135, 152 Warne, 208 Warwick, Earl of, 127, 128, 133 Warwick, Earl of (Lisle) : see North umberland, Duke of Watson, Bp., 164, 221 Watson, Bp. of St. David's, 371, 380 Watson, the traitor, 269 Welsh song, 53 Wentworth, Peter, 260 Wentworth, Thomas : see Strafford, Earl of Wesley, John, 341, 354 Wessex, 6, 9, 12, 25-6 Westfield, 316 Westminster Abbey, 71, 215 Westminster Assembly, the, 316 Westminster, Bishopric of, 166 Westminster Disputation, 221 Weston, 298 Westphalia, peace of, 281 Weymouth, Lord, 386 Whichcote, Benjamm, 318, 343 Whigs, 365, 378, 385 Whitaker, Prof., 261 Whitby, Synod of, 15 White, Bp., 374, 386 White, Bp. of Winchester, 219, 221 Whitelocke, 331 Whitgift, John, 242, 253, 255, 257 et seq.; 261, 272; opposition to Puritanism, 257 et seq. 416 INDEX Wighard, Archbp,, 16 Wight, Isle of — Jutish colony in, 6 Wilcox, 266 Wilfrid, 4, 16-21; dispute with Theodore, 18-21 ; conversion of Sussex, 19; death and character, 21 Wilkins, John, 380 William I (the Conqueror), 32, 37-44, 155; character, 34, 41; claim to English throne discussed, 37 ; atti tude towards Papal supremacy, 37, 42; comparison -with Cnut, 38; his policy of conflscation, 38; his relations with Lanfranc, 43 William II (Rufus), 41, 43 ; exactions 44; his quarrels with Anselm, 46; aspirations for conquest of Ireland, 62 WiUiam III (WUliam of Orange), 116, 357, 362, 364-5, 370, 376, 383 William the AtheUng, 52 William of CorbeU, 32 WiUiam of Ockham, 76 WUliam of Poitou, 47 William of St, Calais, 46 WUliam of Wykeham, 100 Williams, Archbp., 341 WUliams, Bp. of Lincohi, 294, 296, 300, 308, 322 WUlibrord, 24 WUson, Bp,, 392 Wilson, Dr., 361 Winchcombe, Abbot, 146 Winchelsey, 90, 91, 92, 97 Windebank, 298-9, 307 Wini, Bp., 21 Winwaefield, Penda's defeat at, 12 Witham, Monastery of, 64 Withers, George, 300 Wittenberg University, 138 Wittlesey, WUliam, 100, 106 Wolsey, Cardmal, 21, 132, 139 et seq., 146, 151, 167 Wood, Bp-, of Lichfield, 380, 386 Woodstock, CouncU at (1163), 58 Woodward, Dean of Salisbury, 389 Wool trade — development under Edward I, 84 Worcester, battle of, 330 Wren, Bp. of Norwich, 296, 297, 308, 322, 349, 352, 380 Wren, Christopher, 359 Wriothesley, Lord ChanceUor, 178, 189 Wright, Bp, of Lichfield, 322 Wulfstan of Worcester, Bp,, 33, 42, 44 Wyatt, Sui Thomas, 203, 208 Wycliffe, 77, 94, 104, 109-15 Wykeham, 21, 94 Yelverton, Sir Christopher, 322, 336 York, Archbishopric of — Gregory's scheme, 9, 88 ; Aidin appointed to Lindisfarne, U; return of Roman infiuence marked by return of Wilfrid to York, 16; diocese di-vided, 18; disputes with Canter bury over jurisdiction, 88, 100 i York, Great CouncU of the Peers at, 305 York Minster, 17 Ystrad Fflur, 167 ' ZwingU and the ZwingUans, 140, 183, 188 PuiNTLu IK Great Britain by Richard Clay & Sons, Limitbd, BRUNSWICK 8T., STAMFORD ST., 8.E., AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK, YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 08561 6242 _- jjssi'aHSi.pii-ii-i "1 ¦ I!'"' w "¦ Jfi's'-rvi «. II-.. . a^L #_'»!'*afc*'-''.^"-i 5'*'' :" j-t-a^^^^S ¦"— -a if •