History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin, Vol. 4 of 8
HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN EUROPE IN THE TIME OF CALVIN.
BY
J. H. MERLE D’AUBIGNÉ, D.D.,
AUTHOR OF THE ‘HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY,’ ETC.
‘Les choses de petite durée ont coutume de devenir fanées, quand elles ont passé
leur temps.
‘Au règne de Christ, il n’y a que le nouvel homme qui soit florissant, qui ait de
la vigueur, et dont il faille faire cas.’
Calvin.
VOL. IV.
ENGLAND, GENEVA, FRANCE, GERMANY, AND ITALY.
NEW YORK:
ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS,
No. 530 BROADWAY.
1866.
PREFACE.
This volume narrates the events of an important epoch in the Reformation of England, Switzerland, France, Germany, and Italy. From the first the author purposed to write a History of the Reformation in Europe, which he indicated in the title of his work. Some persons, misled by the last words of that title, have supposed that he intended to give a mere biography of Calvin: such was not his idea. That great divine must have his place in this history, but, however interesting the life of a man may be, and especially the life of so great a servant of God, the history of the work of God in the various parts of Christendom possesses in our opinion a greater and more permanent interest.
Deo soli gloria. Omnia hominum idola pereant!
In the year 1853, in the fifth volume of his History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, the author described the commencement of the reform in England. He now resumes the subject where he had left off, namely, after the fall and death of Wolsey. The following pages were written thirteen years ago, immediately subsequent to the publication of the fifth volume; they have since then been revised and extended.
The most important fact of that epoch in Great Britain is the act by which the English Church resumed its independence. It was attended by a peculiar circumstance. When Henry VIII. emancipated his people from the papal supremacy, he proclaimed himself head of the Church. And hence, of all Protestant countries, England is the one in which Church and State are most closely united. The legislators of the Anglican Church understood afterwards the danger presented by this union, and consequently declared, in the Thirty-seventh Article (Of the Civil Magistrates), that, ‘where they attributed to the King’s Majesty the chief government, they gave not to their princes the ministering of God’s word.’ This did not mean that the king should not preach; such an idea did not occur to any one; but that the civil power should not take upon itself to determine the doctrines of the divine Word.
Unhappily this precaution has not proved sufficient. Not long since a question of doctrine was raised with regard to the Essays and Reviews, and the case having been carried on appeal before the supreme court, the latter gave its decision with regard to important dogmas. The Privy Council decided that the denial of the plenary inspiration of Scripture, of the substitution of Christ for the sinner in the sacrifice of the cross, and of the irrevocable consequences of the last judgment, was not contrary to the profession of faith of the Church of England. When they heard of this judgment, the rationalists triumphed; but an immense number of protests were made in all parts of Great Britain. While we feel the greatest respect for the persons and intentions of the members of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, we venture to ask whether this judgment be not subversive of the fundamental principles of the Anglican Church; nay more (though in this we may be wrong), is it not a violation of the English Constitution, of which the articles of Religion form part? The fact is the more serious as it was accomplished notwithstanding the opposition (which certainly deserved to be taken into consideration) of the two chief spiritual conductors of the Church—the Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and the Archbishop of York, both members of the council. Having to describe in this volume the historical fact in which the evil originated, the author is of opinion that he ought to point out respectfully but frankly the evil itself. He does so with the more freedom because he believes that he is in harmony on this point with the majority of the bishops, clergy, and pious laymen of the English Church, for whom he has long felt sincere respect and affection.
But let us not fear. The ills of the Church must not prevent our acknowledging that at no time has evangelical Christianity been more widely extended than in our days. We know that the Christians of Great Britain will not only hold firm the standard of faith, but will redouble their efforts to win souls to the Gospel both at home and in the most distant countries. And if at any time they should be compelled to make a choice—and either renounce their union with the civil power, or sacrifice the holy doctrines of the Word of God—there is not (in our opinion) one evangelical minister or layman in England who would hesitate a moment on the course he should adopt.
England requires now more than ever to study the Fathers of the Reformation in their writings, and to be animated by their spirit. There are men in our days who are led astray by strange imaginations, and who, unless precautions be taken against their errors, would overturn the glorious chariot of Christian truth, and plunge it into the abyss of superstitious Romanism or over the abrupt precipice of incredulity. On one side, scholastic doctrines (as transubstantiation for instance) are boldly professed in certain Protestant churches; monastic orders, popish rites, candles, vestments of the fourteenth century, and all the mummeries of the Middle Ages are revived. On the other side, a rationalism, which, though it still keeps within bounds, is not the less dangerous on that account, is attacking the inspiration of Scripture, the atonement, and other essential doctrines. May we be permitted to conjure all who have God’s glory, the safety of the Church, and the prosperity of their country at heart, to preserve in its integrity the precious treasure of God’s Word, and to learn from the men of the Reformation to repel foolish errors and a slavish yoke with one hand, and with the other the empty theorems of an incredulous philosophy.
I would crave permission to draw attention to a fact of importance. A former volume has shown that the spiritual reformation of England proceeded from the Word of God, first read at Oxford and Cambridge, and then by the people. The only part which the king took in it was an opposition, which he followed out even to the stake. The present volume shows that the official reformation, the reform of abuses, proceeded from the Commons, from the most notable laymen of England. The king took only a passive part in this work. Thus neither the internal nor the external reform proceeded from Henry VIII. Of all the acts of the Reformation only one belongs to him: he broke with the pope. That was a great benefit, and it is a great honor to the king. But could it have lasted without the two other reforms? We much doubt it. The Reformation of England primarily came from God; but if we look at secondary causes, it proceeded from the people, and not from the sovereign. The noble vessel of the political constitution, which had remained almost motionless for centuries, began to advance at the first breath of the Gospel. Rationalists and papists, notwithstanding all their hopes, will never deprive Great Britain of the Reformation accomplished by the Word of God; but if England were to lose the Gospel, she would at the same time lose her liberty. Coercion under the reign of popery or excesses under the reign of infidelity, would be equally fatal to it.
A distinguished writer published in 1858 an important work in which he treated of the history of England from the fall of Wolsey.[[1]] We have great pleasure in acknowledging the value of Mr. Froude’s volumes; but we do not agree with his opinions with respect to the character of Henry VIII. While we believe that he rendered great services to England as a king, we are not inclined, so far as his private character is concerned, to consider him a model prince, and his victims as criminals. We differ also from the learned historian in certain matters of detail, which have been partly indicated in our notes. But every one must bear testimony to the good use Mr. Froude has made of the original documents which he had before him, and to the talent with which the history is written, and we could not forbear rejoicing as we noticed the favorable point of view under which, in this last work of his, he considers the Reformation.
After speaking of England, the author returns to the history of Geneva; and readers may perhaps complain that he has dwelt longer upon it than is consistent with a general history of the Reformation. He acknowledges that there may be some truth in the objection, and accepts his condemnation in advance. But he might reply that according to the principles which determine the characteristics of the Beautiful, the liveliest interest is often excited by what takes place on the narrowest stage. He might add that the special character of the Genevese Reform, where political liberty and evangelical faith are seen triumphing together, is of particular importance to our age. He might say that if he has spoken too much of Geneva, it is because he knows and loves her; and that while everybody thinks it natural for a botanist, even when taking note of the plants of the whole world, to apply himself specially to a description of such as grow immediately around him; a Genevese ought to be permitted to make known the flowers which adorn the shores upon which he dwells, and whose perfume has extended far over the world.
For this part of our work we have continued to consult the most authentic documents of the sixteenth century, at the head of which are the Registers of the Council of State of Geneva. Among the new sources that we have explored we may mention an important manuscript in the Archives of Berne which was placed at our disposal by M. de Stürler, Chancellor of State. This folio of four hundred and thirty pages contains the minutes of the sittings of the Inquisitional Court of Lyons, assembled to try Baudichon de la Maisonneuve for heresy. To avoid swelling out this volume, it was necessary to omit many interesting circumstances contained in that document; we should have curtailed them even more had we not considered that the facts of that trial did not yet belong to history, and had remained for more than three centuries hidden among the state papers of Berne.[[2]] De la Maisonneuve was the chief layman of the Genevese Reformation,—the captain of the Lutherans, as he is frequently called by the witnesses in their depositions. The part he played in the Reformation of Geneva has not been duly appreciated. No doubt the excess of his qualities, particularly of his energy, sometimes carried him too far; but his love of truth, indomitable courage, and indefatigable activity make him one of the most prominent characters of the Reform. The name of Maisonneuve no longer exists in that city; but a great number of the most ancient and most respected families descend from him, either in a direct or collateral line.[[3]]
Another manuscript has brought to our knowledge the chief mission of the embassy which solicited Francis I. to set Baudichon de la Maisonneuve at liberty. The head of that embassy was Rodolph of Diesbach: M. Ferdinand de Diesbach, of Berne, has had the kindness to place the manuscript records of his family at our disposal; and the circumstance that we have learnt from them does not give a very exalted idea of that king’s generosity.
The project of Francis I. and of Melancthon described in the portion of the volume devoted to France and Germany, and the important letters hitherto unknown in our language, which are given there, appear worthy of the attention of enlightened and serious minds.
We conclude with Italy. We could have wished to describe in this volume Calvin’s journey to Ferrara, and even his arrival at Geneva; but the great space given to other countries did not permit us to carry on the Genevese Reformation to that period. Two distinguished men, whose talents and labors we respect, M. Albert Rilliet, of Geneva, and M. Jules Bonnet, of Paris, have had a discussion about Calvin’s transalpine expedition. M. Rilliet’s essay (Deux points obscurs de la vie de Calvin) was published as a pamphlet, and M. Bonnet’s answer (Calvin en Italie) appeared in the Revue Chrétienne for 1864, p. 461 sqq., and in the Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français for 1864, p. 183 sqq. M. Rilliet denies that Calvin ever visited the city of Aosta, and M. Bonnet maintains that he did. Data are unfortunately wanting to decide a small number of secondary points; but the important fact of Calvin’s journey through Aosta, seems beyond a doubt, and when we come to this epoch in the Reformer’s life, we will give such proofs—in our opinion incontestable proofs—as ought to convince every impartial mind.
Before describing Calvin’s residence at Ferrara, the author had to narrate the movements which had been going on in Italy from the beginning of the Reformation. Being obliged to limit himself, considering the extent of his task, he had wished at first to exclude those countries in which the Reformation was crushed out, as Italy and Spain. On studying more closely the work there achieved, he could not make up his mind to pass it over in silence. Among the oldest editions of the books of that period which he has made use of is a copy of the works of Aonio Paleario (1552), recently presented by the Marquis Cresi, of Naples, to the library of the School of Evangelical Theology at Geneva. This volume wants thirty-two leaves (pp. 311 to 344), and at the foot of p. 310 is the following manuscript note: Quæ desunt pagellæ sublatæ fuerunt de mandato Rev. Vicarii Neap.; ‘the missing pages were torn out by order of the Reverend Vicar of Naples.’ This was an annoyance to the author, who wished to read those pages all the more because the inquisition had cut them out. Happily he found them in a Dutch edition belonging to Professor André Cherbuliez.
Some persons have thought that political liberty occupied too great a space in the first volume of this history; we imagined, however, that we were doing a service to the time in which we live, by showing the coexistence in Geneva of civil emancipation and evangelical reform. On the continent, there are men of education and elevated character, but strangers to the Gospel, who labor under a mistake as to the causes which separate them from Christianity. In their opinion it arises from the circumstance that the Church whose head is at Rome is hostile to the rights of the people. Many of them have said that religion might be strengthened and perpetuated by uniting with liberty. But is it not united with liberty in Switzerland, England, and the United States of America? Why should we not see everywhere, and in France particularly, as well as in the countries we have just named, religion which respects the rights of God uniting with policy which respects the rights of the people? It is not the Encyclic of Pius IX. that the Gospel claims as a companion, it is liberty. The Gospel has need of liberty, and liberty has need of the Gospel. The people who have only one or other of these two essential elements of life are sick; the people who have neither are dead.
‘The greatest imaginable absurdity,’ says one of the eminent philosophers and noble minds of our epoch, M. Jouffroy, ‘would be the assertion that this present life is everything, and that there is nothing after it. I know of no greater in any branch of science.’ Might there not, however, be another absurdity worthy of being placed by its side? The same philosopher says that, so far as regards our state after this life, ‘science and philosophy have not, after two thousand years, arrived at a single accepted result.’[[4]] Consequently, by the side of the absurdity which M. Jouffroy has pointed out, we confidently place another, as the second of ‘the greatest imaginable absurdities,’ namely, that which consists in believing, after two thousand years of barren labors, that there is another way besides Christianity to know and possess the life invisible and eternal. The essential fact of the history of religion and the history of the world: God manifest in the flesh, is the ray from heaven which reveals that life to us, and procures it for us. We know what a wind of incredulity has scattered over barren sands many noble souls who aspire to something better, and for whom Christ has opened the gates of eternity; but let us hope that their fall will be only temporary, and that many, enlightened from on high, turning their eyes away from the desert which surrounds them, and lifting them towards heaven, will exclaim: I will arise and go to my Father.
We must, as Jouffroy says, ‘recommence our investigations;’ but ‘first of all,’ he adds, ‘we must confess the secret vice which has hitherto rendered all our exertions powerless.’ That secret vice consists in considering the question in an intellectual and theoretical point of view only, while it is absolutely necessary to grapple with it in a practical way, and to make it an individual fact. The matter under discussion belongs to the domain of humanity, not of philosophy. It does not regard the understanding alone, but the conscience, the will, the heart, and the life. The real vice consists in our not recognizing, within us, the evil that separates us from God, and, without us, the Saviour who leads us to Him. The royal road to learn and possess life invisible and eternal is the knowledge and possession of that Son of Man, of that Son of God, who said with authority: I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.
MERLE D’AUBIGNÉ.
La Graveline, Eaux Vives, Geneva:
May, 1866.
CONTENTS OF THE FOURTH VOLUME.
BOOK VI.
ENGLAND BEGINS TO CAST OFF THE PAPACY.
CHAPTER I.
THE NATION AND ITS PARTIES.
(Autumn 1529.)
Diverse Religious Tendencies—Evangelical Reformation and Legal Reformation—Creation of a mighty Protestantism—Election of a new Parliament—Alarm of the Clerical Party—The Three Parties—The Society of Christian Brethren—General Movement in London—Banquet and Conversations of Peers and Members of Parliament—Agitation among the People [1]
CHAPTER II.
PARLIAMENT AND ITS GRIEVANCES.
(November 1529.)
Impulse given to Political Liberty by the Reformation—Grievances put forward by the House of Commons—Exactions, Benefices, Holy-days, Imprisonments—The House of Commons defend the Evangelicals—Question of the Bishops—Their Answer—Their Proceedings in the matter of Reform [9]
CHAPTER III.
REFORMS.
(End of 1529.)
Abuses pointed out and corrected—The Clergy reform in self-defence—Fisher accuses the Commons, who complain to the King—Subterfuge of the Bishops—Rudeness of the Commons—Suppression of Pluralities and Non-residence—These Reforms insufficient—Joy of the People, Sorrow of the Clergy [15]
CHAPTER IV.
ANNE BOLEYN’S FATHER BEFORE THE EMPEROR AND THE POPE.
(Winter of 1530.)
Motives of Henry VIII.—Congress at Bologna—Henry sends an Embassy—Cranmer added to the Embassy—The Pope’s Embarrassment and Alarm—Clement grants the Englishmen an Audience—The Pope’s Foot—Threats—Wiltshire received and checked by Charles—Discontent of the English—Wiltshire’s Departure—Cranmer remains [20]
CHAPTER V.
DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THE DIVORCE AT OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
(Winter of 1530.)
Parties at Cambridge—A noisy Assembly—Murmurs against the Evangelicals—A Meeting declares for the King—Honor paid to Scripture—The King’s severe letter to Oxford—Opposition of the younger Members of the University—The King’s Anger—Another royal Mission to Oxford—The University decides for the Divorce—Evangelical Courage of Chaplain Latimer—The King and the Chancellor of Cambridge [29]
CHAPTER VI.
HENRY VIII. SUPPORTED IN FRANCE AND ITALY BY THE CATHOLICS, AND BLAMED IN GERMANY BY THE PROTESTANTS.
(January to September 1530.)
The Sorbonne deliberates on the Divorce—The French Universities sanction the Divorce—The Italian Universities do likewise—Opinion of Luther—Cranmer at Rome—The English Nobles write to the Pope—The Pope proposes that the King should have two Wives—Henry’s Proclamation against Papal Bulls [38]
CHAPTER VII.
LATIMER AT COURT.
(January to September 1530.)
Latimer tempted by the Court; fortified by Study—Christian Individuality—Latimer desires to convert the King—Desires for the Church, Poverty, the Cross, and the Bible—He prays the King to save his own Soul—Latimer’s Preaching—No Intermingling of the two Powers—Latimer’s Boldness in the Cause of Morality—Priests denounce him to the King—Noble Character of the Reformers [45]
CHAPTER VIII.
THE KING SEEKS AFTER TYNDALE.
(January to May 1531.)
The Ivy and the Tree, or the Practice of Popery—Vaughan looks for the invisible Tyndale—Vaughan visited by a Stranger—Interview between Vaughan and Tyndale in a Field—Tyndale mistrusts the Clergy—The King’s Indignation—Tyndale is touched by the royal Compassion—The King wishes to gain Fryth—Faith first, and then the Church—Henry threatens the Evangelicals with War [52]
CHAPTER IX.
THE KING OF ENGLAND RECOGNIZED AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH.
(January to March 1531.)
Supremacy of the Pope injurious to the State—All the Clergy declared guilty—Challenged to recognize the royal Supremacy—Anguish of the Clergy—They negotiate and submit—Discussions in the Convocation of York—Danger of the royal Supremacy [60]
CHAPTER X.
SEPARATION OF THE KING AND QUEEN.
(March to June 1531.)
The Divorce Question agitates the Country—A Case of Poisoning—Reginald Pole—Pole’s Discontent—The King’s Favors—Pole’s Frankness and Henry’s Anger—Bids Henry submit to the Pope—Queen Catherine leaves the Palace [66]
CHAPTER XI.
THE BISHOPS PLUNDER THE CLERGY AND PERSECUTE THE PROTESTANTS.
(September 1531 to 1532.)
Stokesley proposes that the inferior Clergy shall Pay—Riot among the Priests—The Bishop’s Speech—A Battle—To conciliate the Clergy, Henry allows them to persecute the Protestants [72]
CHAPTER XII.
THE MARTYRS.
(1531.)
The repentant Bilney preaches in the Fields—His Enemies and his Friends—Bilney put into Prison, where he meets Petit—Disputation and Trial—Bilney condemned to die—The parting Visit of his Friends—He is led out to Punishment—His last Words—His Death—Imprisonment and Martyrdom of Bayfield—Tewkesbury bound to the Tree of Truth—His Death—Numerous Martyrs [77]
CHAPTER XIII.
THE KING DESPOILS THE POPE AND THE CLERGY.
(March to May 1532.)
Character of Thomas Cromwell—Abolition of First-Fruits—The Clergy bend before the King—Two contradictory Oaths—Priestly Rumors—Sir Thomas More resigns—The two Evils of a regal Reform [86]
CHAPTER XIV.
LIBERTY OF INQUIRY AND PREACHING IN THE 16TH CENTURY.
(1532.)
The Perils of a prosperous Nation—Lambert and free Inquiry—Luther’s Principles—Images or the Word of God—Freedom of Preaching—St. Paul burnt by the Bishop—Latimer disgusted with the Court—More Thieves than Shepherds—A Don Quixote of Catholicism—Latimer summoned before the Primate—His Firmness—Attempt to entrap Him—His Refusal to recant—Excommunicated—Expedient of the Bishops—Latimer saved by his Conformity with Luther [91]
CHAPTER XV.
HENRY VIII. ATTACKS THE PARTISANS OF THE POPE AND OF THE REFORMATION.
(1532.)
The Franciscans preach against the King—Henry likened to Ahab—Disturbance in the Chapel—Christian Meetings in London—Bainham persecuted by More—Summoned to abjure—The fatal Kiss—Bainham’s Anguish—The Tragedy of Conscience—Bainham visited in his Dungeon—The Bed of Roses—The Persecutor’s Suicide—Effect of the Martyrdoms—The true Church of God [103]
CHAPTER XVI.
THE NEW PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND.
(February 1532 to March 1533.)
Who shall be Warham’s Successor?—Cranmer at Nuremberg—Osiander’s Household—His Error—Cranmer marries—Is recalled to London—Refuses to return—Follows the Emperor to Italy—Date of Henry’s Marriage with Anne Boleyn—Cranmer returns to London—Struggle between the King and Cranmer—The Pope has no Authority in England—Appointment of Bishops without the Pope—Cranmer protests thrice—All Weakness is a Fault—The true Doctrine of the Episcopate—The Appeal of the Reformers [112]
CHAPTER XVII.
QUEEN CATHERINE DESCENDS FROM THE THRONE, AND QUEEN ANNE BOLEYN ASCENDS IT.
(November 1532 to July 1553.)
Clement suggests that Henry should have two Wives—His perilous Journey to Bologna—His Exertions for the Divorce—King’s Marriage with Anne becomes known—France and England separate—A threatening Brief—The Pope perplexed—Parliament emancipates England—Cranmer’s Letter to the King—Modification demanded by the King—Henry expresses himself clearly—Meeting of the Ecclesiastical Court—Catherine’s Firmness—Her Marriage annulled—Queen Anne presented to the People—Her Progress through the City—Feelings of the new Queen—Catherine and Anne—Threats of the Pope and the King [125]
CHAPTER XVIII.
A REFORMER IN PRISON.
(August 1532 to May 1533.)
Fryth’s charming Character—He returns to England—Purgatory—Homer saves Fryth—The eating of Christ—Fryth goes over England—Tyndale’s Letter to Fryth—More Hunts after Fryth—More’s Ill-temper—More and Fryth—Fryth in Prison—He writes the Bulwark—Rastell converted—Fryth’s Visitors in the Tower—Fryth and Petit—Cause and Effect [139]
CHAPTER XIX.
A REFORMER CHOOSES RATHER TO LOSE HIS LIFE THAN TO SAVE IT.
(May to July 1533.)
Fryth summoned before a Royal Commission—Tyndale’s Letter to Fryth—Cranmer attempts to save him—Lord Fitzwilliam, Governor of the Tower—Fryth removed to Lambeth—Attempt at Conciliation—Fryth remains firm—A Prophecy concerning the Lord’s Supper—The Gentleman and the Porter desire to save Fryth—Their Plan—Fryth will not be saved—Fryth before the Episcopal Court—Interrogated on the Real Presence—Cranmer cannot save him—Fryth’s Condemnation and Execution—Influence of his Writings [150]
CHAPTER XX.
ENGLAND SEPARATES GRADUALLY FROM THE PAPACY.
(1533.)
Sensation caused by Anne’s Marriage—Henry’s Isolation—The Protestants reject him—Birth of Elizabeth—A new Star—English Envoys at Marseilles—Bonner and Gardiner—Prepare for a Declaration of War—The Pope’s Emotion—Henry appeals to a General Council—The Pope’s Anger—Francis I. and Clement understand one another—The Pope’s Answer—Bonner’s Rudeness—Henry’s Proclamation against the Pope—The dividing Point [163]
CHAPTER XXI.
PARLIAMENT ABOLISHES THE USURPATIONS OF THE POPES IN ENGLAND.
(January to March 1534.)
Henry desires to separate Christendom from Rome—A Buffet to the Pope—The People, not the King, want the Reformation—The Pope tries to gain Henry—Cranmer presses forward—The Commons against Papal Authority—Abolition of Romish Exactions—Parliament declares for the faith of the Scriptures—Henry condemned at Rome—The Pope’s Disquietude—A great Dispensation [175]
BOOK VII.
MOVEMENTS OF THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND, AT GENEVA, AND IN FRANCE, GERMANY, AND ITALY.
CHAPTER I.
THE BISHOP ESCAPES FROM GENEVA NEVER TO RETURN.
(July 1533.)
The Bishop desires to bury the Sect—Animated Conversations—Plan to transfer the Prisoners—Great Animation—German Merchants and Maisonneuve—He desires to rescue the Prisoners—Constitutional Order restored—The Bishop wishes to get away—His last Night in Geneva—The Flight—Deliverance—Joy and Sorrow—A Proverb [184]
CHAPTER II.
TWO REFORMERS AND A DOMINICAN IN GENEVA.
(July to December 1533.)
Arrival of Froment and Alexander—The Charitable Solomon—Order to preach according to Scripture—Sermons in the Houses and the Streets—The Bishop forbids the Preaching of the Gospel—Silent Answer—Invitation to a Great Papist Preacher—Arrival of Furbity—He declaims against the Reading of the Bible—Janin the Armorer—Reformers insulted; Exultation of the Priests—Furbity challenges the Lutherans to Discussion—Froment’s Reply—Tumult—Froment and Alexander banished—De la Maisonneuve departs for Berne [194]
CHAPTER III.
FAREL MAISONNEUVE AND FURBITY IN GENEVA.
(December 1533 to January 1534.)
Report that Popery had triumphed—Arrival of Farel—His Character—Baudichon de la Maisonneuve—Bernese Complaints and Demands—A Plot breaks out—Armed Meetings of Huguenots for Worship—Christmas and the New Year—The Dominican’s Farewell—Arming for the Bible—Arrival of Ambassadors from Berne—Three Reformers in Geneva—Bernese demand a Public Discussion [206]
CHAPTER IV.
THE TOURNAMENT.
(January to February 1534.)
The Dominican refuses to speak—Liberalism and Inflexibility—The Colloquy begins—Various Accusations—Were the Bernese pointed at?—The two Champions—The Pope and the Scriptures—Interpretation of the Councils—The Priests would be Everything—Farel’s Irony and Vehemence—The Roman Episcopate—Preaching and Conversation—Stories about Farel—The Landlord and his Servant—Legends and Rhymes—A Change in Preparation [217]
CHAPTER V.
THE PLOT.
(January and February 1534.)
Supreme Interest of History—The Bishop meditates a Coup d’État—Meeting of his Creatures to carry it out—The Sortie from the Palace—Two Huguenots assassinated—The Defenders of the Middle Ages—Tumult in the city—Consternation in the Council—Justice, not Rioting—Search at the Palace—Scenes and Discovery—The Murderers sought in the Cathedral—The South Tower—The Criminals discovered—Seizure of Documents relating to the Plot—Condemnation and Fanaticism of the Murderer—He is hanged; his Brother is saved—The Episcopal Secretary accused—The People elect a Huguenot Council [229]
CHAPTER VI.
A FINAL EFFORT OF ROMAN-CATHOLICISM.
(February 10 to March 1, 1534.)
The Dominican before his judges—A staggering Recantation—Dominicans and Franciscans—Father Coutelier, Superior of the Franciscans, arrives—His first Sermon—He talks white and black—Has recourse to Flattery—A Baptism at Maisonneuve’s—Evangelicals ask for a Church—Farel visits the Father Superior—The Pope, the Beast of the Apocalypse [243]
CHAPTER VII.
FAREL PREACHES IN THE GRAND AUDITORY OF THE CONVENT AT RIVE.
(March 1 to April 25, 1534.)
Huguenots in the Convent of Rive—Arrival of the Crowd—Farel preaches—Two opposite Effects—Inspiration of God—Joy of the Evangelicals—Farewell of the Bernese—Portier’s Execution—The two Preachers—The Friburgers break the Alliance—Farel’s three Brothers in Prison—The Reformer’s Anxiety—Human Affections [251]
CHAPTER VIII.
A BOLD PROTESTANT AT LYONS.
(1530 TO 1534.)
The Reliquary—A Table d’Hôte—Who is Petrus?—Struggle with two Priests from Vienne—They abandon the Field—Maisonneuve must be burnt—Danger—Arrival of Baudichon and Janin—They are sent to Prison—Formation of the Court [261]
CHAPTER IX.
BAUDICHON DE LA MAISONNEUVE BEFORE THE INQUISITIONAL COURT OF LYONS.
(From April 29 to May 21.)
Examination—First Witnesses—Emotion at Geneva—The Merchants protest to the Consulate—The Bernese—Interrogatory—Open-air Session in Front of the Palace—The King shall be informed—The Inquisitors desire to convict Baudichon—Alleged High Treason against Heaven [269]
CHAPTER X.
THE TWO WORSHIPS IN GENEVA.
(May to July 1534.)
Morality in the Reformation—Apparition of the Virgin—A Savoyard Procession—A second Procession enters Geneva—Images thrown down—The old and the new Worship—The first Evangelical Pentecost—A Priest casts off the old Man—Transformation—A Knight of Rhodes—Street Dances and Songs—Preaching on the Ramparts [277]
CHAPTER XI.
BOLDNESS OF TWO HUGUENOTS IN PRISON AND BEFORE THE COURT OF LYONS.
(May to June 1534.)
The New Testament in the Prison Garden—Discussion—The Procession and the Rogations—False Depositions—Janin’s Depression—Search for more conclusive Evidence—Inquiries of De Simieux at Geneva—-Baudichon’s Pride before the Court—Put into Solitary Confinement—The Prisoner threatens his Judges—Heroic Resistance [286]
CHAPTER XII.
SENTENCE OF DEATH.
(July 1534.)
Severity to Maisonneuve—Coutelier’s Deposition—Maisonneuve accused of relapsing—The Crime of being a Layman—Lyon and Chambury contend for him—Final Summons—Sentence of the Court—Condemned to Death—No sword in Religion—The effectual Remedy [295]
CHAPTER XIII.
NIGHT OF THIRTY-FIRST OF JULY AT GENEVA.
(July 1534.)
Festival of Corpus Christi—Marriage of an Ex-Priest—Discussion before the Council—Baptism—The two Powers change Parts—An Attack preparing—A Hunting Party—A Monk in the Pulpit confesses his Faults—Plan of Attack—Projects of the Enemy—Arrival of the Savoyards—Warning given by a Dauphinese—The Canons—Savoyards wait for the Signal—The Torch—Savoyards retire—The Bishop—The Hunchback—The Conspirators flee—Meditation and Vigilance—Catholics quit Geneva—Title to Citizenship—Alarm of the Nuns—Tales about the Reformers [303]
CHAPTER XIV.
AN HEROIC RESOLUTION AND A HAPPY DELIVERANCE.
(August and September 1534.)
The Diesbachs of Berne—Mission of Rodolph of Diesbach to France—a terrible Necessity—Resolution to destroy the Suburbs—Approaching Danger—A Refugee from Avignon—Strappado at Peny—Effects produced by the Order of Demolition—Opposition of Catholics—Maisonneuve is liberated—Session at the Tour of Perse—The Prisoners restored to their Families—Letter from Francis I.—Furbity demanded and refused [320]
CHAPTER XV.
THE SUBURBS OF GENEVA ARE DEMOLISHED AND THE ADVERSARIES MAKE READY.
(September 1534 to January 1535.)
Disorderly Lives of the Monks of St Victor—Ruins and Voices in the Priory—Lamentations—Ramparts built—Asylums opened for the Poor—Threats—Famine and a Circle of Iron—Brigandage—No more Justice—Excommunication—Genevans appeal to the Pope—Firmness for the Gospel and Liberty—Everything conspires against the City—Energy and Moderation—Switzerland against Geneva—Confidence in God—Wisdom above Strength—The Song of Resurrection [332]
CHAPTER XVI.
THE KING OF FRANCE INVITES MELANCTHON TO RESTORE UNITY AND TRUTH.
(End of 1584 to August 1535.)
Minority and Majority—Joy and Fear—Difference between Henry VIII. and Francis I.—Erasmians and Politicians—The Moderate Evangelicals—Effect of the Placards—The King tries to excuse himself—Protests of the decided Protestants—Opinion of the Swiss—All Hope seems lost—A reforming Pope—Papist Party in France—The Moderate Party—The two Du Bellays—What is expected of Melancthon—Two Obstacles removed—Efforts of the Mediators—What they think of Francis I.—An eloquent Appeal—Importance of France for the Reformation—Melancthon tries to gain the Bishop of Paris—The Bishop delighted—Francis I. to Melancthon—Is he sincere?—Martyrdom of Cornon and Brion—Cardinal Du Bellay departs for Rome—Hope of Reform in Italy—The diplomatic Du Bellay to Melancthon—Two Natures in France—Fresh Entreaties—The King’s Idea—Applies to the Sorbonne—Alarm of the Sorbonne—Trick of Cardinal de Tournon—Is a Mixed Congress possible? [346]
CHAPTER XVII.
WILL THE ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH UNITY AND TRUTH SUCCEED?
(August to November 1535.)
Individuality and Catholicity—Events in Germany—Importance of the Mission to Germany—Melancthon’s Incertitude—Earnestness of the French Envoy—Opposition of his Family—Melancthon’s Self-examination—Final Assault—Melancthon consents—His Character—He goes to the Elector—Solicits Permission—The Elector refuses—Melancthon’s Sadness—-Luther agrees with him—Intervention with the Elector—Agitation in Germany—Singular Fears of the Germans—The Elector’s Arguments—The Elector prevails—Severe Letter to Melancthon—Melancthon’s Sorrow—Luther’s Apprehensions Keeping aloof from the State—The Elector to the King—Melancthon to Francis I.—He does not relinquish his Design—His Ardor—The King resumes his Project—Opposition of the Catholics—The Elector receives Du Bellay—Du Bellay before the Assembly—His Speech—Intercession in Behalf of the Evangelicals—The Two Parties come to an Understanding—The Papacy—Transubstantiation—The Mass—Images—Free Will—Purgatory—Good Works—Monasteries—Celibacy—The two Kinds—The Sorbonne and Justification—The Reform of Francis I.—Intervention in behalf of the Oppressed—Political Alliance—Francis I. plays two parts—The Communion of Saints [372]
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE GOSPEL IN THE NORTH OF ITALY.
(1519 TO 1536.)
Flames in Italy—The Bookseller of Pavia—The Books of the Reformers—Enthusiasm for Luther—Alarm of the Pope and Cardinals—Venice—Roselli to Melancthon—Many Springs of living Water—Curione—His studies and Spiritual Wants—Reads Luther and Zwingle—Departs for Germany—Is arrested and sent to the Convent of St. Benignus—The Shrine and the Bible—Curione during the Plague—The Preachers of Popery—Attack and Defence—Curione sent to Prison—Chained to the Wall—He recognizes the Room—Seeks a means of Safety—Singular Expedient—His Escape—He teaches at Pavia—Renée of France—Mecænas and Dorcas—Resurrection of Christianity—The Duchess’s Guests [406]
CHAPTER XIX.
THE GOSPEL IN THE CENTRE OF ITALY.
(1520 TO 1536.)
Character of Occhino—Seeks Salvation in Asceticism—A Contrast—Scripture—Occhino’s Itinerant Ministrations—Crowded Congregations—His Preaching—A Child of Florence—Ambitious of Learning—-Study and Preaching—Aonio Paleario—Leaves Rome for Sienna—Poem on Immortality—Paleario crosses the Threshold—His Wife and Children—Love of the Country—His friend Bellantes—Conspiracy against Paleario—Faustus Bellantes informs him of it—Paleario remains firm—His Wife—The Reformers—Twelve Accusers—They appear before the Archbishop—Everything seems against Paleario—His Fears—He appears before the Senate—He defends himself—The Germans—Plea for the Reformers—Revival of Learning—Jesus Christ a Stumbling-block—The Martyr’s Words—Paleario’s Wife and Friends—His Acquittal and Departure—The Evangelicals of Bologna—Their Address to the Saxon Ambassador—St. Paul explained [428]
CHAPTER XX.
THE GOSPEL AT NAPLES AND AT ROME.
(1520 TO 1536.)
Alfonso Valdez at Worms—A Dialogue by Valdez—The Chastisement of God—Approbation and Disapprobation—Mercury and Charon—Satan—Juan Valdez at Naples—Influence of Juan Valdez—Chiaja and Pausilippo—Conversion of Peter Martyr—His Method of Preaching—Purgatory—Opposition—Galeazzo Caraccioli converted—A Letter from Calvin—Illustrious Women at Chiaja—Ideas there discussed—Occhino preaches at Naples—The Triumvirs—Charles V. arrives at Naples—Conversation between Giulia Colonna and Valdez—Perfection—Assurance of Salvation—Humility—The royal Road—Meditations—Preachers of Fables—Valdez’ good and bad Qualities—Edict against the Lutherans—Carnesecchi—Secretary to Clement VII.—Interview with Charles V.—Carnesecchi’s Conversion—Divers Categories—Flaminio—A poor Student—Values the Treasures of Heaven—The Guest of Ghiberto and Caraffa—Flaminio’s Faith—Opposes and loves Carnesecchi—Approximates Catholicism—Oratory of Divine Love—Its Members—An Evangelical Monk—A Venetian Senator—Contarini’s Influence—Strange Call—He accepts the Cardinalate—Preserves his Independence—Contarini’s View—Dawn in Italy—The two Camps—Hopes—The Times of Rome—Glory to the Martyrs [454]
BOOK VI.
ENGLAND BEGINS TO CAST OFF THE PAPACY.
CHAPTER I.
THE NATION AND ITS PARTIES.
(Autumn 1529.)
England, during the period of which we are about to treat, began to separate from the pope and to reform her Church. In the history of that country the fall of Wolsey divides the old times from the new.
The level of the laity was gradually rising. A certain instruction was given to the children of the poor; the universities were frequented by the upper classes, and the king was probably the most learned prince in Christendom. At the same time the clerical level was falling. The clergy had been weakened and corrupted by its triumphs, and the English, awakening with the age and opening their eyes at last, were disgusted with the pride, ignorance, and disorders of the priests.
While France, flattered by Rome calling her its eldest daughter, desired even when reforming her doctrine to preserve union with the papacy; the Anglo-Saxon race, jealous of their liberties, desired to form a Church at once national and independent, yet remaining faithful to the doctrines of Catholicism. Henry VIII. is the personification of that tendency, which did not disappear with him, and of which it would not be difficult to discover traces even in later days.
Other elements calculated to produce a better reformation existed at that time in England. The Holy Scriptures, translated, studied, circulated, and preached since the fourteenth century by Wickliffe and his disciples, became in the sixteenth century, by the publication of Erasmus’s Testament, and the translations of Tyndale and Coverdale, the powerful instrument of a real evangelical revival, and created the scriptural reformation.
These early developments did not proceed from Calvin,—he was too young at that time; but Tyndale, Fryth, Latimer, and the other evangelists of the reign of Henry VIII., taught by the same Word as the reformer of Geneva, were his brethren and his precursors. Somewhat later, his books and his letters to Edward VI., to the regent, to the primate, to Sir W. Cecil and others, exercised an indisputable influence over the reformation of England. We find in those letters proofs of the esteem which the most intelligent persons of the kingdom felt for that simple and strong man, whom even non-protestant voices in France have declared to be “the greatest Christian of his age.”[[5]]
Reform, Evangelical and Legal.
A religious reformation may be of two kinds: internal or evangelical, external or legal. The evangelical reformation began at Oxford and Cambridge almost at the same time as in Germany. The legal reformation was making a beginning at Westminster and Whitehall. Students, priests, and laymen, moved by inspiration from on high, had inaugurated the first; Henry VIII. and his parliament were about to inaugurate the second, with hands occasionally somewhat rough. England began with the spiritual reformation, but the other had its motives too. Those who are charmed by the reformation of Germany sometimes affect contempt for that of England. “A king impelled by his passions was its author,” they say. We have placed the scriptural part of this great transformation in the first rank; but we confess that for it to lay hold upon the people in the sixteenth century, it was necessary, as the prophet declared, that kings should be its nursing-fathers, and queens its nursing-mothers.[[6]] If diverse reforms were necessary, if by the side of German cordiality, Swiss simplicity, and other characteristics, God willed to found a protestantism possessing a strong hand and an outstretched arm; if a nation was to exist which with great freedom and power should carry the Gospel to the ends of the world, special tools were required to form that robust organization, and the leaders of the people—the commons, lords, and king—were each to play their part. France had nothing like this: both princes and parliaments opposed the reform; and thence partly arises the difference between those two great nations, for France had in Calvin a mightier reformer than any of those whom England possessed. But let us not forget that we are speaking of the sixteenth century. Since then the work has advanced; important changes have been wrought in Christendom; political society is growing daily more distinct from religious society, and more independent; and we willingly say with Pascal, “Glorious is the state of the Church when it is supported by God alone!”
Two opposing elements—the reforming liberalism of the people, and the almost absolute power of the king—combined in England to accomplish the legal reformation. In that singular island these two rival forces were often seen acting together; the liberalism of the nation gaining certain victories, the despotism of the prince gaining others; king and people agreeing to make mutual concessions. In the midst of these compromises, the little evangelical flock, which had no voice in such matters, religiously preserved the treasure entrusted to it: the Word of God, truth, liberty, and Christian virtue. From all these elements sprang the Church of England. A strange church some call it. Strange indeed, for there is none which corresponds so imperfectly in theory with the ideal of the Church, and, perhaps, none whose members work out with more power and grandeur the ends for which Christ has formed his kingdom.
New Parliament Summoned.
Scarcely had Henry VIII. refused to go to Rome to plead his cause, when he issued writs for a new parliament (25th September, 1529). Wolsey’s unpopularity had hitherto prevented its meeting: now the force of circumstances constrained the king to summon it. When he was on the eve of separating from the pope, he felt the necessity of leaning on the people. Liberty is always the gainer where a country performs an act of independence with regard to Rome. Permission being granted in England that the Holy Scriptures should regulate matters of religion, it was natural that permission should also be given to the people and their representatives to regulate matters of state. The whole kingdom was astir, and the different parties became more distinct.
The papal party was alarmed. Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, already very uneasy, became disturbed at seeing laymen called upon to give their advice on religious matters. Men’s minds were in a ferment in the bishop’s palace, the rural parsonage, and the monk’s cell. The partisans of Rome met and consulted about what was to be done, and retired from their conferences foreseeing and imagining nothing but defeat. Du Bellay, at that time Bishop of Bayonne, and afterwards of Paris, envoy from the King of France, and eye-witness of all this agitation, wrote to Montmorency; “I fancy that in this parliament the priests will have a terrible fright.”[[7]] Ambitious ecclesiastics were beginning to understand that the clerical character, hitherto so favorable to their advancement in a political career, would now be an obstacle to them. “Alas!” exclaimed one of them, “we must off with our frocks.”[[8]]
Such of the clergy, however, as determined to remain faithful to Rome gradually roused themselves. A prelate put himself at their head. Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, was learned, intelligent, bold, and slightly fanatical; but his convictions were sincere, and he was determined to sacrifice everything for the maintenance of catholicism in England. Though discontented with the path upon which his august pupil King Henry had entered, he did not despair of the future, and candidly applied to the papacy our Saviour’s words,—The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
A recent act of the king’s increased Fisher’s hopes. Sir Thomas More had been appointed chancellor. The Bishop of Rochester regretted, indeed, that the king had not given that office to an ecclesiastic, as was customary; but he thought to himself that a layman wholly devoted to the Church, as the new chancellor was, might possibly, in those strange times, be more useful to it than a priest. With Fisher in the Church, and More in the State (for Sir Thomas, in spite of his gentle Utopia, was more papistical and more violent than Wolsey), had the papacy anything to fear? The whole Romish party rallied round these two men, and with them prepared to fight against the Reformation.
Opposed to this hierarchical party was the political party, in whose eyes the king’s will was the supreme rule. The Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, president and vice-president of the Council, Sir William Fitz-William, lord-admiral, and those who agreed with them, were opposed to the ecclesiastical domination, not from the love of true religion, but because they believed the prerogatives of the State were endangered by the ambition of the priests, or else because, seeking honor and power for themselves, they were impatient at always encountering insatiable clerks on their path.
Between these two parties a third appeared, on whom the bishops and nobles looked with disdain, but with whom the victory was to rest at last. In the towns and villages of England, and especially in London, were to be found many lowly men, animated with a new life,—poor artisans, weavers, cobblers, painters, shopkeepers,—who believed in the Word of God, and had received moral liberty from it. During the day they toiled at their respective occupations; but at night they stole along some narrow lane, slipped into a court, and ascended to some upper room in which other persons had already assembled. There they read the Scriptures and prayed. At times even during the day, they might be seen carrying to well-disposed citizens certain books strictly prohibited by the late cardinal. Organized under the name of “The Society of Christian Brethren,” they had a central committee in London, and missionaries everywhere, who distributed the Holy Scriptures and explained their lessons in simple language. Several priests, both in the city and country, belonged to their society.
This Christian brotherhood exercised a powerful influence over the people, and was beginning to substitute the spiritual and life-giving principles of the Gospel for the legal and theocratic ideas of popery. These pious men required a moral regeneration in their hearers, and entreated them to enter, through faith in the Saviour, into an intimate relation with God, without having recourse to the mediation of the clergy; and those who listened to them, enraptured at hearing of truth, grace, morality, liberty, and of the Word of God, took the teachings to heart. Thus began a new era. It has been asserted that the Reformation entered England by a back-door. Not so; it was the true door these missionaries opened, having even prior to the rupture with Rome preached the doctrine of Christ.[[9]] Idly do men speak of Henry’s passions, the intrigues of his courtiers, the parade of his ambassadors, the skill of his ministers, the complaisance of the clergy, and the vacillations of parliament. We, too, shall speak of these things; but above them all there was something else, something better,—the thirst exhibited in this island for the Word of God, and the internal transformation accomplished in the convictions of a great number of its inhabitants. This it was that worked such a powerful revolution in British society.
Table Talk.
In the interval between the issuing of the writs and the meeting of parliament, the most antagonistic opinions came out. Conversation everywhere turned on present and future events, and there was a general feeling that the country was on the eve of great changes. The members of parliament who arrived in London gathered round the same table to discuss the questions of the day. The great lords gave sumptuous banquets, at which the guests talked about the abuses of the Church, of the approaching session of parliament, and of what might result from it.[[10]] One would mention some striking instance of the avarice of the priests; another slyly called to mind the strange privilege which permitted them to commit, with impunity, certain sins which they punished severely in others. “There are, even in London, houses of ill-fame for the use of priests, monks, and canons.[[11]] And,” added others, “they would force us to take such men as these for our guides to heaven.” Du Bellay, the French ambassador, a man of letters, who, although a bishop, had attached Rabelais to his person in the quality of secretary, was frequently invited to parties given by the great lords. He lent an attentive ear, and was astonished at the witty, and often very biting remarks uttered by the guests against the disorders of the priests. One day a voice exclaimed,—“Since Wolsey has fallen, we must forthwith regulate the condition of the Church and of its ministers. We will seize their property.” Du Bellay, on his return home, did not fail to communicate these things to Montmorency. “I have no need,” he says, “to write this strange language in cipher; for the noble lords utter it at open table. I think they will do something to be talked about.”[[12]]
The leading members of the Commons held more serious meetings with one another. They said they had spoken enough, and that now they must act. They specified the abuses they would claim to have redressed, and prepared petitions for reform to be presented to the king.
Before long the movement descended from the sphere of the nobility to that of the people; a sphere always important, and particularly when a social revolution is in progress. Petty tradesmen and artisans spoke more energetically than the lords. They did more than speak. The apparitor of the Bishop of London having entered the shop of a mercer in the ward of St. Bride, and left a summons on the counter calling upon him to pay a certain clerical tax, the indignant tradesman took up his yard-measure, whereupon the officer drew his sword, and then, either from fear or an evil conscience, ran away. The mercer followed him, assaulted him in the street, and broke his head. The London shopkeepers did not yet quite understand the representative system; they used their staves when they should have waited for the speeches of the members of parliament.
The king tolerated this agitation because it forwarded his purposes. There were advisers who insinuated that it was dangerous to give free course to the passions of the people, and that the English, combining great physical strength with a decided character, might go too far in the way of reform, if their prince gave them the rein. But Henry VIII., possessing an energetic will, thought it would be easy for him to check the popular ebullition whenever he pleased. When Jupiter frowned, all Olympus trembled.
CHAPTER II.
PARLIAMENT AND ITS GRIEVANCES.
(November 1529.)
Opening Of The New Parliament.
On the morning of the 3d of November, Henry went in his barge to the palace of Bridewell; and, having put on the magnificent robes employed on great ceremonies, and followed by the lords of his train, he proceeded to the Blackfriars church, in which the members of the new parliament had assembled. After hearing the mass of the Holy Ghost, king, lords, and commons met in parliament; when, as soon as the king had taken his seat on the throne, the new chancellor, Sir Thomas More, explained the reason of their being summoned. Thomas Audley, chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was appointed speaker of the lower house.
Generally speaking, parliament confined itself to passing the resolutions of the government. The Great Charter had, indeed, been long in existence, but, until now, it had been little more than a dead letter. The Reformation gave it life. “Christ brings us out of bondage into liberty by means of the Gospel,” said Calvin.[[13]] This emancipation, which was essentially spiritual, soon extended to other spheres, and gave an impulse to liberty throughout all Christendom. Even in England such an impulse was needed. Under the Plantagenets and the Tudors the constitutional machine existed, but it worked only as it was directed by the strong hand of the master. Without the Reformation, England might have slumbered long.
The impulse given by religious truth to the latent liberties of the people was felt for the first time in the parliament of 1529. The representatives shared the lively feelings of their constituents, and took their seats with the firm resolve to introduce the necessary reforms in the affairs of both Church and State. Indeed, on the very first day several members pointed out the abuses of the clerical domination, and proposed to lay the desires of the people before the king.
The Commons might of their own accord have applied to the task, and, by proposing rash changes, have given the Reform a character of violence that might have worked confusion in the State; but they preferred petitioning the king to take the necessary measures to carry out the wishes of the nation; and accordingly a petition, respectfully worded, but in clear and strong language, was agreed to. The Reformation began in England, as in Switzerland and Germany, with personal conversions. The individual was reformed first; but it was necessary for the people to reform afterwards, and the measures requisite to success could not be taken, in the sixteenth century, without the participation of the governing powers. Freely, therefore, and nobly, a whole nation was about to express to their ruler their grievances and wishes.
Petition Of The Commons.
On one of the first days of the session the speaker and certain members, who had been ordered to accompany him, proceeded to the palace. “Your highness,” they began, “of late much discord, variance, and debate hath arisen, and more and more daily is likely to increase and ensue amongst your subjects, to the great inquietation, vexation, and breach of your peace, of which the chief causes followingly do ensue.”[[14]]
This opening could not fail to excite the king’s attention and the Speaker of the House of Commons began boldly to unroll the long list of the grievances of England. “First, the prelates of your most excellent realm, and the clergy of the same, have in their convocations made many and divers laws without your most royal assent, and without the assent of any of your lay subjects.
“And also many of your said subjects, and specially those that be of the poorest sort, be daily called before the said spiritual ordinaries or their commissaries, on the accusement of light and indiscreet persons, and be excommunicated and put to excessive and impostable charges.
“The prelates suffer the priests to exact divers sums of money for the sacraments, and sometimes deny the same without the money be first paid.
“Also the said spiritual ordinaries do daily confer and give sundry benefices unto certain young folks, calling them their nephews or kinsfolk, being in their minority and within age, not apt nor able to serve the cure of any such benefice ... whereby the said ordinaries accumulate to themselves large sums of money, and the poor silly souls of your people perish without doctrine or any good teaching.
“Also a great number of holydays be kept throughout this your realm, upon the which many great, abominable, and execrable vices, idle and wanton sports be used, which holydays might by your majesty be made fewer in number.
“And also the said spiritual ordinaries commit divers of your subjects to ward, before they know either the cause of their imprisonment, or the name of their accuser.”[[15]]
Thus far the Commons had confined themselves to questions that had been discussed more than once; they feared to touch upon the subject of heresy before the Defender of the Roman Faith. But there were evangelical men among their number who had been eye-witnesses of the sufferings of the reformed. At the peril, therefore, of offending the king, the Speaker boldly took up the defence of the pretended heretics.
“If heresy be ordinarily laid unto the charge of the person accused, the said ordinaries put to them such subtle interrogatories concerning the high mysteries of our faith, as are able quickly to trap a simple unlearned layman. And if any heresy be so confessed in word, yet never committed in thought or deed, they put the said person to make his purgation. And if the party so accused deny the accusation, witnesses of little truth or credence are brought forth for the same, and deliver the party so accused to secular hands.”
The Speaker was not satisfied with merely pointing out the disease: “We most humbly beseech your Grace, in whom the only remedy resteth, of your goodness to consent, so that besides the fervent love your Highness shall thereby engender in the hearts of all your Commons towards your Grace, ye shall do the most princely feat, and show the most charitable precedent that ever did sovereign lord upon his subjects.”
The king listened to the petition with his characteristic dignity, and also with a certain kindliness. He recognized the just demands in the petition of the Commons, and saw how far they would support the religious independence to which he aspired. Still, unwilling to take the part of heresy, he selected only the most crying abuses, and desired his faithful Commons to take their correction upon themselves. He then sent the petition to the bishops, requiring them to answer the charges brought against them, and added that henceforward his consent would be necessary to give the force of law to the acts of Convocation.
Reply Of The Bishops.
This royal communication was a thunderbolt to the prelates. What! the bishops, the successors of the apostles, accused by the representatives of the nation, and requested by the king to justify themselves like criminals!... Had the Commons of England forgotten what a priest was? These proud ecclesiastics thought only of the indelible virtues which, in their view, ordination had conferred upon them, and shut their eyes to the vices of their fallible human nature. We can understand their emotion, their embarrassment, and their anger. The Reformation which had made the tour of the continent was at the gates of England; the king was knocking at their doors. What was to be done? they could not tell. They assembled, and read the petition again and again. The Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of London, Lincoln, St. Asaph, and Rochester carped at it and replied to it. They would willingly have thrown it into the fire,—the best of answers in their opinion; but the king was waiting, and the Archbishop of Canterbury was commissioned to enlighten him.
Warham did not belong to the most fanatical party; he was a prudent man, and the wish for reform had hardly taken shape in England when, being uneasy and timid, he had hastened to give a certain satisfaction to his flock by reforming abuses which he had sanctioned for thirty years.[[16]] But he was a priest, a Romish priest; he represented an inflexible hierarchy. Strengthened by the clamors of his colleagues, he resolved to utter the famous non possumus, less powerful, however, in England than in Rome.
“Sire,” he said, “your Majesty’s Commons reproach us with uncharitable behavior.... On the contrary, we love them with hearty affection, and have only exercised the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church upon persons infected with the pestilent poison of heresy. To have peace with such had been against the gospel of our Saviour Christ, wherein he saith, I came not to send peace, but a sword.
“Your Grace’s Commons complain that the clergy daily do make laws repugnant to the statutes of your realm. We take our authority from the Scriptures of God, and shall always diligently apply to conform our statutes thereto; and we pray that your Highness will, with the assent of your people, temper your Grace’s laws accordingly; whereby shall ensue a most sure and hearty conjunction and agreement.
“They accuse us of committing to prison before conviction such as be suspected of heresy.... Truth it is that certain apostates, friars, monks, lewd priests, bankrupt merchants, vagabonds, and idle fellows of corrupt intent have embraced the abominable opinions lately sprung up in Germany; and by them some have been seduced in simplicity and ignorance. Against these, if judgment has been exercised according to the laws of the Church, we be without blame.
“They complain that two witnesses be admitted, be they never so defamed, to vex and trouble your subjects to the peril of their lives, shames, costs, and expenses.... To this we reply, the judge must esteem the quality of the witness; but in heresy no exception is necessary to be considered, if their tale be likely. This is the universal law of Christendom, and hath universally done good.
“They say that we give benefices to our nephews and kinsfolk, being in young age or infants, and that we take the profit of such benefices for the time of the minority of our said kinsfolk. If it be done to our own use and profit, it is not well; but if it be bestowed to the bringing up and use of the same parties, or applied to the maintenance of God’s service, we do not see but that it may be allowed.”
As for the irregular lives of the priests, the prelates remarked that they were condemned by the laws of the Church, and consequently there was nothing to be said on that point.
Lastly, the bishops seized the opportunity of taking the offensive:—“We entreat of your Grace to repress heresy. This we beg of you, lowly upon our knees, so entirely as we can.”[[17]]
Such was the brief of Roman Catholicism in England. Its defence would have sufficed to condemn it.
CHAPTER III.
REFORMS.
(End of 1529.)
Indignation At The Reply.
The answer of the bishops was criticised in the royal residence, in the House of Commons, at the meetings of the burgesses, in the streets of the capital, and in the provinces, everywhere exciting a lively indignation. “What!” said they, “the bishops accuse the most pious and active Christians of England,—men like Bilney, Fryth, Tyndale, and Latimer,—of that idleness and irregularity of which their monks and priests are continually showing us examples. To no purpose have the Commons indisputably proved their grievances, if the bishops reply to notorious facts by putting forward their scholastic system. We condemn their practice, and they take shelter behind their theories; as if the reproach laid against them was not precisely that their lives are in opposition to their laws. ‘The fault is not in the Church,’ they say. But it is its ministers that we accuse.”
The indignant parliament boldly took up the axe, attacked the tree, and cut off the withered and rotten branches. One bill followed another, irritating the clergy, but filling the people with joy. When the legacy dues were under discussion, one of the members drew a touching picture of the avarice and cruelty of the priests. “They have no compassion,” he said. “The children of the dead should all die of hunger and go begging, rather than they would of charity give to them the silly cow which the dead man owed, if he had only one.” There was a movement of indignation in the house, and they forbade the clergy to take any mortuary fees when the effects were small.
“And that is not all,” said another. “The clergy monopolize large tracts of land, and the poor are compelled to pay an extravagant price for whatever they buy. They are everything in the world but preachers of God’s Word and shepherds of souls. They buy and sell wool, cloth, and other merchandise; they keep tanneries and breweries.... How can they attend to their spiritual duties in the midst of such occupations?”[[18]] The clergy were consequently prohibited from holding large estates or carrying on the business of merchant, tanner, brewer, etc. At the same time plurality of benefices (some ignorant priests holding as many as ten or twelve) was forbidden, and residence was enforced. The Commons further enacted that any one seeking a dispensation for non-residence (even were the application made to the pope himself) should be liable to a heavy fine.
The clergy saw at last that they must reform. They forbade priests from keeping shops and taverns, playing at dice or other games of chance, passing through towns and villages with hawks and hounds, being present at unbecoming entertainments, and spending the night in suspected houses.[[19]] Convocation proceeded to enact severe penalties against these disorders, doubling them for adultery, and tripling them for incest. The laity asked how it was that the Church had waited so long before coming to this resolution, and whether these scandals had become criminal only because the Commons condemned them?
Bishops Accuse The Commons.
But the bishops who reformed the lower clergy did not intend to resign their own privileges. One day, when a bill relating to wills was laid before the upper house, the Archbishop of Canterbury and all the other prelates frowned, murmured, and looked uneasily around them.[[20]] They exclaimed that the Commons were heretics and schismatics, and almost called them infidels and atheists. In all places good men required that morality should again be united with religion, and that piety should not be made to consist merely in certain ceremonies, but in the awakening of the conscience, a lively faith, and holy conduct. The bishops, not discerning that God’s work was then being accomplished in the world, determined to maintain the ancient order of things at all risks.
Their efforts had some chance of success, for the House of Lords was essentially conservative. The Bishop of Rochester, a sincere but narrow-minded man, presuming on the respect inspired by his age and character, boldly came forward as the defender of the Church. “My lords,” he said, “these bills have no other object than the destruction of the Church; and, if the Church goes down, all the glory of the kingdom will fall with it. Remember what happened to the Bohemians. Like them our Commons cry out,—‘Down with the Church!’ Whence cometh that cry? Simply from lack of faith.... My lords, save the country, save the Church.”
This speech made the Commons very indignant. Some members thought the bishop denied that they were Christians. They sent thirty of their leading men to the king. “Sire,” said the Speaker, “it is an attaint upon the honor of your Majesty to calumniate before the upper house those whom your subjects have elected. They are accused of lack of faith, that is to say, they are no better than Turks, Saracens, and heathens. Be pleased to call before you the bishop who has insulted your Commons.”
The king made a gracious reply, and immediately sent one of his officers to invite the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rochester, and six other prelates to appear before him. They came, quite uneasy as to what the prince might have to say to them. They knew that, like all the Plantagenets, Henry VIII. would not suffer his clergy to resist him. Immediately the king informed them of the complaint made by the Commons, their hearts sank, and they lost courage. They thought only how to escape the prince’s anger, and the most venerated among them, Fisher, having recourse to falsehood, asserted that, when speaking about “lack of faith,” he had not thought of the Commons of England, but of the Bohemians only. The other prelates confirmed this inadmissible interpretation. This was a graver fault than the fault itself, and the unbecoming evasion was a defeat to the clerical party from which they never recovered. The king allowed the excuse; but he afterwards made the bishops feel the little esteem he entertained for them. As for the House of Commons, it loudly expressed the disdain aroused in them by the bishops’ subterfuge.
One chance of safety still remained to them. Mixed committees of the two houses examined the resolutions of the Commons. The peers, especially the ecclesiastical peers, opposed the reform by appealing to usage. “Usage!” ironically observed a Gray’s-inn lawyer; “the usage hath ever been of thieves to rob on Shooter’s hill, ergo it is lawful, and ought to be kept up!” This remark sorely irritated the prelates: “What! our acts are compared to robberies!” But the lawyer, addressing the Archbishop of Canterbury, seriously endeavored to prove to him that the exactions of the clergy, in the matter of probates and mortuaries, were open robbery. The temporal lords gradually adopted the opinions of the Commons.
In the midst of these debates, the king did not lose sight of his own interests. Six years before, he had raised a loan among his subjects; he thought parliament ought to relieve him of this debt. This demand was opposed by the members most devoted to the principle of the Reformation; John Petit, in particular, the friend of Bilney and Tyndale, said, in parliament,—“I give the king all I lent him; but I cannot give him what others have lent him.” Henry was not, however, discouraged, and finally obtained the act required.
Pluralism Abolished.
The king soon showed that he was pleased with the Commons. Two bills met with a stern opposition from the Lords; they were those abolishing pluralism and non-residence. These two customs were so convenient and advantageous that the clergy determined not to give them up. Henry, seeing that the two houses would never agree, resolved to cut the difficulty. At his desire eight members from each met one afternoon in the Star Chamber. There was an animated discussion; but the lay lords, who were in the conference, taking part with the commons, the bishops were forced to yield. The two bills passed the Lords the next day, and received the king’s assent. After this triumph the king adjourned parliament in the middle of December.
The different reforms that had been carried through were important, but they were not the Reformation. Many abuses were corrected, but the doctrines remained unaltered; the power of the clergy was restricted, but the authority of Christ was not increased; the dry branches of the tree had been lopped off, but a scion calculated to bear good fruit had not been grafted on the wild stock. Had matters stopped here, we might perhaps have obtained a Church with morals less repulsive, but not with a holy doctrine and a new life. But the Reformation was not contented with more decorous forms, it required a second creation.
At the same time parliament had taken a great stride towards the revolution that was to transform the Church. A new power had taken its place in the world: the laity had triumphed over the clergy. No doubt there were upright catholics who gave their assent to the laws passed in 1529; but these laws were nevertheless a product of the Reformation. This it was that had inspired the laity with that new energy, parliament with that bold action, and given the liberties of the nation that impulse which they had wanted hitherto. The joy was great throughout the kingdom; and, while the king removed to Greenwich to keep Christmas there “with great plenty of viands, and disguisings, and interludes,” the members of the Commons were welcomed in the towns and villages with public rejoicings.[[21]] In the people’s eyes their representatives were like soldiers who had just gained a brilliant victory. The clergy alone, in all England, were downcast and exasperated. On returning to their residences the bishops could not conceal their anguish at the danger of the Church.[[22]] The priests, who had been the first victims offered up on the altar of reform, bent their heads. But if the clergy foresaw days of mourning, the laity hailed with joy the glorious era of the liberties of the people, and of the greatness of England. The friends of the Reformation went farther still; they believed that the Gospel would work a complete change in the world, and talked, as Tyndale informs us, “as though the golden age would come again.”[[23]]
CHAPTER IV.
ANNE BOLEYN’S FATHER BEFORE THE EMPEROR AND THE POPE.
(Winter of 1530.)
Before such glorious hopes could be realized, it was necessary to emancipate Great Britain from the yoke of Romish supremacy. This was the end to which all generous monks aspired; but would the king assist them?
Henry’s Motives.
Henry VIII. united strength of body with strength of will; both were marked on his manly form. Lively, active, eager, vehement, impatient, and voluptuous,—whatever he was, he was with his whole soul. He was at first all heart for the Church of Rome; he went barefoot on pilgrimages, wrote against Luther, and flattered the pope. But before long he grew tired of Rome, without desiring the Reformation. Profoundly selfish, he cared for himself alone. If the papal domination offended him, evangelical liberty annoyed him. He meant to remain master in his own house,—the only master, and master of all. Even without the divorce, Henry would possibly have separated from Rome. Rather than endure any contradiction, this singular man put to death friends and enemies, bishops and missionaries, ministers of state, and favorites—even his wives. Such was the prince whom the Reformation found King of England.
History would be unjust, however, were it to maintain that passion alone urged him to action. The question of the succession to the throne had for a century filled the country with confusion and blood. This Henry could not forget. Would the struggles of the two Roses be renewed after his death, occasioning, perhaps, the destruction of an ancient monarchy? If Mary, a princess of delicate health, should die, Scotland, France, the party of the White Rose, the Duke of Suffolk, whose wife was Henry’s sister, might drag the kingdom into endless wars. And even if Mary’s days were prolonged, her title to the crown might be disputed, no female sovereign having as yet sat upon the throne. Another train of ideas also occupied the king’s mind. He inquired sincerely whether his marriage with the widow of his brother was lawful. Even before its consummation, he had felt doubts about it. But even his defenders, if there are any, must acknowledge that one circumstance contributed at this time to give unusual force to these scruples. Passion impelled the king to break a holy bond; he loved another woman.
Catholic writers imagine that this guilty motive was the only one. It is a mistake, for the two former indisputably occupied Henry’s mind. As for parliament and people, the king’s love for Anne Boleyn affected them very little. It was the reason of state which made them regard the divorce as just and necessary.[[24]]
A congress was at that time sitting at Bologna with great pomp.[[25]] On the 5th of November, Charles V. having arrived from Spain, had entered the city, attended by a magnificent suite, and followed by 20,000 soldiers. He was covered with gold, and shone with grace and majesty. The pope waited for him in front of the church of San Petronio, seated on a throne, and wearing the triple crown. The emperor, master of Italy, which his soldiers had reduced to the last desolation,[[26]] fell prostrate before the pontiff, but lately his prisoner. The union of these two monarchs, both enemies of Henry VIII., seemed destined to ruin the King of England and thwart his great affair.
Henry’s Embassy To Rome.
And yet, not long before, an ambassador from Charles V. had been received at Whitehall: it was Master Eustace Chappuis, who had already discharged a mission to Geneva.[[27]] He came to solicit aid against the Turks. Henry caught at the chance: he imagined the moment to be favorable, and that he ought to despatch an embassy to the head of the empire and the head of the Church. He sent for the Earl of Wiltshire, Anne Boleyn’s father; Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York; Stokesley, afterwards Bishop of London, and some others. He told them that the emperor desired his alliance, and commissioned them to proceed to Italy, and explain to Charles V. the serious motives that induced him to separate from Catherine. “If he persists in his opposition to the divorce,” continued Henry, “threaten him, but in covert terms. If the threats prove useless, tell him plainly that, in accord with my friends, I will do all I can to restore peace to my troubled conscience.” He added with more calmness,—“I am resolved to fear God rather than man, and to place full reliance on comfort from the Saviour.”[[28]] Was Henry sincere when he spoke thus? No one can doubt of his sensuality, his scholastic catholicism, and his cruel violence:—must we also believe in his hypocrisy? He was no doubt under a delusion, and deceived himself on the state of his soul.
An important member was added to the deputation. One day when the king was occupied with this affair, Thomas Cranmer appeared at the door of his closet with a manuscript in his hand. Cranmer had a fine understanding, a warm heart, a character perhaps too weak, but extensive learning. Captivated by the Holy Scriptures, he desired to seek for truth nowhere else. He had suggested a new point of view to Henry VIII. “The essential thing,” he said, “is to know what the Word of God teaches on the matter in question.” “Show me that,” exclaimed the king. Cranmer brought him his treatise, in which he proved that the Word of God is above all human jurisdiction, and that it forbids marriage with a brother’s widow. Henry took the work in his hand, read it again and again, and praised its excellence. A bright idea occurred to him. “Are you strong enough to maintain before the Bishop of Rome the propositions laid down in this treatise?” said the king. Cranmer was timid, but convinced and devoted. “Yes,” he made answer, “with God’s grace, and if your Majesty commands it.” “Marry, then,” exclaimed Henry with delight, “I will send you.”[[29]] Cranmer departed with the others in January, 1530.
Clement’s Alarm.
While Henry’s ambassadors were journeying slowly, Charles V., more exasperated than ever against the divorce, endeavored to gain the pope. Clement VII., who was a clever man, and possessed a certain kindly humor, but was at heart cunning, false, and cowardly, amused the puissant emperor with words. When he learned that the King of England was sending an embassy to him, he gave way to the keenest sorrow. What was he to do? which way could he turn? To irritate the emperor was dangerous; to separate England from Rome would be to endure a great loss. Caught between Charles V. and Henry VIII., he groaned aloud; he paced up and down his chamber gesticulating; then suddenly stopping, sank into a chair and burst into tears. Nothing succeeded with him: it was, he thought, as if he had been bewitched. What need was there for the King of England to send him an embassy? Had not Clement told Henry through the Bishop of Tarbes: “I am content the marriage should take place, provided it be without my authorization.”[[30]] It was of no use: the pope asked him to do without the papacy, and the king would only act with it. He was more popish than the pope.
To add to his misfortunes, Charles began to press the pontiff more seriously, and yielding to his importunities, Clement drew up a brief on the 7th of March, in which he commanded Henry “to receive Catherine with love, and to treat her in all things with the affection of a husband.”[[31]] But the brief was scarcely written when the arrival of the English embassy was announced. The pope in alarm immediately put the document back into his portfolio, promising himself that it would be long before he published it.
As soon as the English envoys had taken up their quarters at Bologna, the ambassadors of France called to pay their respects. De Gramont, Bishop of Tarbes, was overflowing with politeness, especially to the Earl of Wiltshire. “I have shown much honor to M. de Rochford,” he wrote to his master on the 28th of March. “I went out to meet him. I have visited him often at his lodging. I have fêted him, and offered him my solicitations and services, telling him that such were your orders.”[[32]] Not thus did Clement VII. act: the arrival of the Earl of Wiltshire and his colleagues was a cause of alarm to him. Yet he must make up his mind to receive them: he appointed the day and the hour for the audience.
Henry VIII. desired that his representatives should appear with great pomp, and accordingly the ambassador and his colleagues went to great expense with that intent.[[33]] Wiltshire entered first into the audience-hall; being father of Anne Boleyn, he had been appointed by the king as the man in all England most interested in the success of his plans. But Henry had calculated badly: the personal interest which the earl felt in the divorce made him odious both to Charles and Clement. The pope, wearing his pontifical robes, was seated on the throne surrounded by his cardinals. The ambassadors approached, made the customary salutations, and stood before him. The pontiff, wishing to show his kindly feelings towards the envoys of the “Defender of the Faith,” put out his slipper according to custom, presenting it graciously to the kisses of those proud Englishmen. The revolt was about to begin. The earl, remaining motionless, refused to kiss his holiness’s slipper. But that was not all; a fine spaniel, with long silky hair, which Wiltshire had brought from England, had followed him to the episcopal palace. When the bishop of Rome put out his foot, the dog did what other dogs would have done under similar circumstances: he flew at the foot, and caught the pope by the great toe.[[34]] Clement hastily drew it back. The sublime borders on the ridiculous: the ambassadors, bursting with laughter, raised their arms and hid their faces behind their long rich sleeves. “That dog was a protestant,” said a reverend father. “Whatever he was,” said an Englishman, “he taught us that a pope’s foot was more meet to be bitten by dogs than kissed by Christian men.” The pope, recovering from his emotion, prepared to listen, and the count, regaining his seriousness, explained to the pontiff that as Holy Scripture forbade a man to marry his brother’s wife, Henry VIII. required him to annul as unlawful his union with Catherine of Aragon. As Clement did not seem convinced, the ambassador skilfully insinuated that the king might possibly declare himself independent of Rome, and place the British church under the direction of a patriarch. “The example,” added the ambassador, “will not fail to be imitated by other kingdoms of Christendom.”[[35]]
The agitated pope promised not to remove the suit to Rome, provided the king would give up the idea of reforming England. Then, putting on a most gracious air, he proposed to introduce the ambassador to Charles V. This was giving Wiltshire the chance of receiving a harsh rebuff. The earl saw it; but his duty obliging him to confer with the emperor, he accepted the offer.
The father of Anne Boleyn proceeded to an audience with the nephew of Catherine of Aragon. Representatives of two women whose rival causes agitated Europe, these two men could not meet without a collision. True, the earl flattered himself that as it was Charles’s interest to detach Henry from Francis I., that phlegmatic and politic prince would certainly not sacrifice the gravest interests of his reign for a matter of sentiment; but he was deceived. The emperor received him with a calm and reserved air, but unaccompanied by any kindly demonstration. The ambassador skilfully began with speaking of the Turkish war; then ingeniously passing to the condition of the kingdom of England, he pointed out the reasons of state which rendered the divorce necessary. Here Charles stopped him short: “Sir Count, you are not to be trusted in this matter; you are a party to it; let your colleagues speak.” The earl replied with respectful coldness: “Sire, I do not speak here as a father, but as my master’s servant, and I am commissioned to inform you that his conscience condemns a union contrary to the law of God.”[[36]] He then offered Charles the immediate restitution of Catherine’s dowry. The emperor coldly replied that he would support his aunt in her rights, and then abruptly turning his back on the ambassador, refused to hear him any longer.[[37]]
Thus did Charles, who had been all his life a crafty politician, place in this matter the cause of justice above the interests of his ambition. Perhaps he might lose an important ally; it mattered not; before everything he would protect a woman unworthily treated. On this occasion we feel more sympathy for Charles than for Henry. The indignant emperor hastily quitted Bologna, on the 22d or 24th of February.
The earl hastened to his friend M. de Gramont, and, relating how he had been treated, proposed that the kings of France and England should unite in the closest bonds. He added, that Henry could not accept Clement as his judge, since he had himself declared that he was ignorant of the law of God.[[38]] “England,” he said, “will be quiet for three or four months. Sitting in the ballroom, she will watch the dancers, and will form her resolution according as they dance well or ill.”[[39]] A rule of policy that has often been followed.
Gramont’s Policy.
Gramont was prepared to make common cause with Henry against the emperor; but, like his master, he could not make his mind to do without the pope. He strove to induce Clement to join the two kings and abandon Charles; or else—he insinuated in his turn—England would separate from the Romish Church. This was to incur the risk of losing Western Europe, and accordingly the pope answered with much concern: “I will do what you ask.” There was, however, a reserve; namely, that the steps taken overtly by the pope would absolutely decide nothing.
Clement once more received the ambassador of Henry VIII. The earl carried with him the book wherein Cranmer proved that the pope cannot dispense any one from obeying the law of God, and presented it to the pope. The latter took it and glanced over it, his looks showing that a prison could not have been more disagreeable to him than this impertinent volume.[[40]] The Earl of Wiltshire soon discovered that there was nothing for him to do in Italy. Charles V., usually so reserved, had made the bitterest remarks before his departure. His chancellor, with an air of triumph, enumerated to the English ambassador all the divines of Italy and France who were opposed to the king’s wishes. The pope seemed to be a puppet which the emperor moved as he liked, and the cardinals had but one idea,—that of exalting the Romish power. Wearied and disgusted, the earl departed for France and England with the greater portion of his colleagues.
Cranmer was left behind. Having been sent to show Clement that Holy Scripture is above all Roman pontiffs, and speaks in a language quite opposed to that of the popes, he had asked more than once for an audience at which to discharge his mission. The wily pontiff had replied that he would hear him at Rome, believing he was thus putting him off until the Greek calends. But Clement was deceived; the English doctor, determining to do his duty, refused to depart for London with the rest of the embassy, and repaired to the metropolis of Catholicism.