Chapter XIII: Pilgrimages and Relics (2)

The bishops the writer considers to be the greatest obstacles to the reformation of religion in England on the model of what had already taken place in Germany. “You wicked mammon,” he continues, “your inordinate riches was not of your heavenly Father’s planting; therefore it must be plucked up by the roots with the riches of your other brethren of the Romish church or church malignant, which of late were rightfully plucked up. I would to God that the distribution of the same lands and goods had been as godly distributed as the act of the rooting up was; which distribution of the same I dare say all Christian hearts lament. For the fat swine only were greased, but the poor sheep to whom that thing belonged had least or nothing at all. The fault will be laid to those of the Parliament House, especially to those who bear the greatest swing. Well, I touch this matter here, to exhort all that love God’s word unfeignedly to be diligent in prayer only to God to endue the Lords, Knights, and Burgesses of the next Parliament with His spirit, that the lands and goods of these bishops may be put to a better use, as to God’s glory, the wealth of the commonalty and provision for the poor.”[412]

The above lengthy extracts will show what the advanced spirits among the English followers of Luther hoped for from the religious revolution which had already, when the tract was written, been begun. It will also serve to show that even in London, which may be supposed to have been in the forefront of the movement, the religious changes were by no means popular; but the civic authorities and people clung to the old faith and traditions, which the author well and tersely describes as “the Romish religion.”

* * * * *

The readers of the foregoing pages will see that no attempt has been made to draw a definite conclusion from the facts set down, or expound the causes of the ultimate triumph of the Reformation principles in England. It has already been pointed out that the time for a satisfactory synthesis is not yet come; but it may not be unnecessary to deprecate impatience to reach an ultimate judgment.

The necessary assumption which underlies the inherited Protestant history of the Reformation in the sixteenth century is the general corruption of manners and morals no less than of doctrine, and the ignorance of religious truths no less than the neglect of religious precepts on the part of both clergy and people. On such a basis nothing can be easier and simpler than to account for the issue of the English religious changes. The revival of historical studies and the alienation of the minds of many historians from traditional Christianity, whether in its Catholic or Protestant form, has, however, thrown doubt on this great fundamental assumption--a doubt that will be strengthened the more the actual conditions of the case are impartially and thoroughly investigated. Many of the genuine sources of history have only within this generation become really accessible; what was previously known has been more carefully examined and sifted, whilst men have begun to see that if the truth is to be ascertained inquiries must be pursued in detail within local limits, and that it does not suffice to speak in general terms of “the corrupt state of the Church.”

If we are to know the real factors of the problem to be solved, separate investigations have to be pursued which lead to very varying conclusions as to the state of the Church, the ecclesiastical life and the religious practices of the people in different countries. It is already evident that the corruptions or the virtues prevailing in one quarter must not straightway be credited to the account of another; that the reason why one country has become Protestant, or another remained Catholic, has to be sought for in each case, and that it may be safely asserted that the maintenance of Catholicity or the adoption of Protestantism in different regions, had comparatively little to do with prevalence or absence of abuses, or as little depended on the question whether these were more or less grievous.

Unquestionably those who desire to have a ready explanation of great historical movements or revolutions, find themselves increasingly baulked in the particular case of the Reformation by the new turn which modern historical research has given to the consideration of the question. Recent attempts to piece up the new results with the old views afford a warning against precipitation, and have but shown that the explanation of the successful issue of the Reformation in England is a problem less simple or obvious than many popular writers have hitherto assumed. The factors are clearly seen now to be many--sometimes accidental, sometimes strongly personal--whilst aspirations after worldly commodities, though destined not to be realised for the many, were often and in the most influential quarters a stronger determinant to acquiescence or active co-operation in the movement than thirst after pure doctrine, love of the open Bible, or desire for a vernacular liturgy. The first condition for the understanding of the problem at all is the most careful and detailed examination possible of the state of popular religion during the whole of the century which witnessed the change, quite apart from the particular political methods employed to effect the transition from the public teaching of the old faith, as it was professed in the closing years of the reign of Henry VIII., and the new as it was officially practised a dozen years after Elizabeth had held the reins of power.

The interest of the questions discussed in the present volume is by no means exclusively, perhaps to some persons is even by no means predominantly, a religious one. It has been insisted upon in the preceding pages that religion on the eve of the Reformation was intimately bound up with the whole social life of the people, animating it and penetrating it at every point. No one who is acquainted with the history of later centuries in England can doubt for a moment that the religion then professed presented in this respect a contrast to the older faith; or as some writers may put it, religion became restricted to what belongs to the technically “religious” sphere. But this was not confined to England, or even to Protestant countries. Everywhere, it may be said, in the centuries subsequent to the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, religion became less directly social in its action; and if the action and interference of what is now called the State in every department of social life is continually extending, this may not inaptly be said to be due to the fact that it has largely taken up the direct social work and direction from which the Church found herself perhaps compelled to recede, in order to concentrate her efforts more intensely on the promotion of more purely and strictly religious influences. It is impossible to study the available sources of information about the period immediately preceding the change without recognising that, so far from the Church being a merely effete or corrupt agency in the commonwealth, it was an active power for popular good in a very wide sense. At any rate, whatever view we may take of the results of the Reformation, to understand rightly the conditions of religious thought and life on the eve of the religious revolution, is a condition of being able really to read aright our own time and to gauge the extent to which present tendencies find their root or their justification in the past.

FOOTNOTES

[1] _Opera_ (ed. Frankfort), tom. x. p. 56, quoted by Janssen.

[2] J. L. Andre, in _Sussex Archæological Journal_, xxxix. p. 31.

[3] The use of the expression “New Learning” as meaning the revival of letters is now so common that any instance of it may seem superfluous. Green, for example, in his _History of the English People_, vol. ii. constantly speaks of it. Thus (p. 81), “Erasmus embodied for the Teutonic peoples the quickening influence of the New Learning during the long scholar-life which began at Paris and ended amidst sorrow at Basle.” Again (p. 84), “the group of scholars who represented the New Learning in England.” Again (p. 86), “On the universities the influence of the New Learning was like a passing from death to life.” Again (p. 125), “As yet the New Learning, though scared by Luther’s intemperate language, had steadily backed him in his struggle.”

[4] _Sermons._ London: Robert Caly, 1557, p. 36.

[5] _The Praier and Complaynte of the Ploweman unto Christ_, sig. Aij.

[6] R. V. _The olde Faith of Great Brittayne, &c._--The style of the book may be judged by the following passages:--“How say you (O ye popish bishops and priests which maintain Austen’s dampnable ceremonies)--For truly so long as ye say masse and lift the bread and wine above your heads, giving the people to understand your mass to be available for the quick and the dead, ye deny the Lord that bought you; therefore let the mass go again to Rome, with all Austen’s trinkets, and cleave to the Lord’s Supper”.… Again:--“Gentle reader: It is not unknown what an occasion of sclander divers have taken in that the king’s majesty hath with his honourable council gone about to alter and take away the abuse of the communion used in the mass.… The ignorant and unlearned esteem the same abuse, called the mass, to be the principal point of Christianity, to whom the altering thereof appears very strange.… Our popish priests still do abuse the Lord’s Supper or Communion, calling it still a new name of _Missa_ or Mass.” The author strongly objects to those like Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Smythe who have written in defence of the old doctrine of the English Church on the Blessed Sacrament: “Yea, even the mass, which is a derogation of Christ’s blood. For Christ left the sacrament of his body and blood in bread and wine to be eaten and drunk in remembrance of his death, and not to be looked upon as the Israelites did the brazen serpent.… Paul saith not, as often as the priest lifts the bread and wine above his shaven crown, for the papists to gaze at.” All this, as “the New Learning” brought over to England by St. Augustine of Canterbury, the author would send back to Rome from whence it came.

[7] Urbanus Regius, _A comparison betwene the old learnynge and the newe_, translated by William Turner. Southwark: Nicholson, 1537, sig. Aij to Cvij.

[8] _Opera_ (ed. Le Clerc), Ep. 583.

[9] Ibid., Ep. 751.

[10] Remigio Sabbadini, _La Scuola e gli studi di Guarino Guarini Veronese_, pp. 217-18.

[11] R. Sabbadini, _Guarino Veronese et il suo epistolario_, p. 57.

[12] The Earl was a confrater and special friend of the monks of Christchurch, Canterbury. In 1468-69, Prior Goldstone wrote to the Earl, who had been abroad “on pilgrimage” for four years, to try and obtain for Canterbury the usual jubilee privileges of 1470. In his Obit in the Canterbury _Necrology_ (MS. Arund. 68 f. 45d) he is described as “vir undecumque doctissimus, omnium liberalium artium divinarumque simul ac secularium litterarum scientia peritissimus.”

[13] Leland (_De Scriptoribus Britannicis_, 482) calls him Tillœus, and this has been generally translated as Tilly. In the _Canterbury Letter Books_ (Rolls Series, iii. 291) it appears that Prior Selling was greatly interested in a boy named Richard Tyll. In 1475, Thomas Goldstone, the warden of Canterbury Hall, writes to Prior Selling about new clothes and a tunic and other expenses “scolaris tui Ricardi Tyll.” In the same volume, p. 315, is a letter of fraternity given to “Agnes, widow of William Tyll,” and on February 7, 1491, she received permission to be buried where her husband, William Tyll, had been interred, “juxta tumbam sancti Thomæ martyris.”

[14] _Canterbury Letters_ (Camden Soc.), pp. 13, 15.

[15] C. C. C. C. MS. 417 f. 54d: “Item hoc anno videlicet 6 Kal. Oct. D. Willms Selling celebravit primam suam missam et fuit sacerdos summæ missæ per totam illam ebdomadam.”

[16] _Literæ Cantuarr._ (Rolls Series), iii. 239.

[17] Leland, _De Scriptoribus Britannicis_, p. 482. _Cf._ also _Canterbury Letters_ (Camden Soc.), p. xxvii.

[18] Leland, _ut supra_.

[19] Umberto Dallari, _I rotuli dei Lettori, &c., dello studio Bolognese dal 1384 al 1799_, p. 51.

[20] Serafino Mazzetti, _Memorie storiche sopra l’università di Bologna_, p. 308.

[21] Leland, _ut supra_.

[22] B. Mus. Arundel MS. 68, f. 4. The Obit in Christchurch MS. D. 12, says: “Sacræ Theologiæ Doctor. Hic in divinis agendis multum devotus et lingua Græca et Latina valde eruditus.… O quam laudabiliter se habuit opera merito laudanda manifesto declarant.”

[23] In the Canterbury Registers (Reg. R.) there is a record which evidently relates to Selling’s previous stay in Rome as a student. On October 3, 1469, the date of Selling’s second departure for Rome, the Prior and convent of Christchurch granted a letter to Pietro dei Milleni, a citizen of Rome, making him a _confrater_ of the monastery in return for the kindness shown to Dr. William Selling, when in the Eternal City. This letter, doubtless, Selling carried with him in 1469.

[24] _The Old English Bible and other Essays_, p. 306.

[25] B. Mus. Cotton MS. Julius F. vii., f. 118.

[26] One of Prior Selling’s first acts of administration was apparently to procure a master for the grammar school at Canterbury. He writes to the Archbishop: “Also please it your good faderhood to have in knowledge that according to your commandment, I have provided for a schoolmaster for your gramerscole in Canterbury, the which hath lately taught gramer at Wynchester and atte Seynt Antonyes in London. That, as I trust to God, shall so guide him that it shall be worship and pleasure to your Lordship and profit and encreas to them that he shall have in governance.”--_Hist. MSS. Com._ 9th Report, App. p. 105.

[27] I. Noble Johnson, _Life of Linacre_, p. 11. Among the great benefactors to Canterbury College, Oxford, was Doctor Thomas Chaundeler, Warden of New College. In 1473, the year after the election of Prior Selling, the Chapter of Christchurch, Canterbury, passed a resolution that, in memory of his great benefits to them, his name should be mentioned daily in the conventual mass at Canterbury, and that at dinner each day at Oxford he should be named as founder.

[28] Galeni, _De Temperamentis libri tres, Thoma Linacro interpretante_, is dedicated to Pope Leo X., with a letter from Linacre dated 1521. “The widow’s mite was approved by Him whose vicar on earth” Pope Leo is, so this book is only intended to recall common studies, though in itself of little interest to one having the care of the world.

[29] G. Lilii, _Elogia_, ed. P. Jovii, p. 91.

[30] Ibid., lxiii. p. 145.

[31] Sir Thomas More writing to Colet says: “I pass my time here (at Oxford) with Grocyn, Linacre, and our (George) Lilly: the first as you know the only master of my life, when you are absent; the second, the director of my studies; the third, my dearest companion in all the affairs of life” (J. Stapleton, _Tres Thomæ_, p. 165.) Another constant companion of More at Oxford was Cuthbert Tunstall, one of the most learned men of his day, afterwards in succession Bishop of London and Durham. Tunstall dedicated to More his tract _De arte supputandi_, which he printed at Paris in 1529.

[32] Reg. Warham, in Knight’s _Erasmus_, p. 22 _note_.

[33] Encyclop. Brit. _sub nomine_.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ugo Balzani, _Un’ ambasciata inglese a Roma_, Società Romana di storia patria, iii. p. 175 _seqq._ Of this an epitome is given in Bacon’s _Henry VII._, p. 95. Count Ugo Balzani says: “Il prior di Canterbury sembra essere veramente stato l’anima dell’ ambasciata.” Burchardus, _Rerum Urbanarum Commentarii_ (ed. Thuasne), i. p. 257, gives a full account of the reception of this embassy in Rome and by the Pope.

[36] Harl. MS. 6237, and Add. MS. 15,673.

[37] In the same beautifully written volume is a printed tract addressed to the Venetian Senate in 1471 against princes taking church property. The tract had been sent to the Prior of Christchurch by Christopher Urswick, with a letter, in which, to induce him to read it, he says it is approved by Hermolaus Barbarus and Guarini. Christopher Urswick was almoner to Henry VII., and to him Erasmus dedicated three of his works.

[38] Leland, _De Scriptoribus Britannicis_, 482.

[39] This information I owe to the kindness of Dr. Montague James.

[40] _Canterbury Letters_ (Camden Soc.), p. xxvii.

[41] Ibid., p. 36, a letter in which Dr. Langton asks Prior Selling to “attend to the drawing of it.” The draft sermon is in Cleop. A. iii.

[42] Richard Pace, _De Fructu_, p. 27. The work _De Fructu_ was composed at Constance, where Pace was ambassador, and where he had met his old master, Paul Bombasius. He dedicates the tract to Colet, who had done so much to introduce true classical Latin into England, in place of the barbarous language formerly used. The work was suggested to him by a conversation he had in England two years before, on his return from Rome, with a gentleman he met at dinner, who strongly objected to a literary education for his children, on the ground that he disapproved of certain expressions made use of by Erasmus. The tract shows on what a very intimate footing Pace was with Bombasius.

[43] _De Fructu_, p. 99. Pace published at Venice in 1522, _Plutarchi Cheronei Opuscula_, and dedicated the work to Bishop Tunstall. He reminds the bishop of their old student days, and says the translation has been examined by their “old master, Nicholas Leonicus.”

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid., p. 51. “Quas vocant proportionum inductiones … antiquitatem superasse.”

[47] More to the University of Oxford, in Knight’s _Erasmus_, p. 31.

[48] Bishop Fisher’s love and zeal for learning is notorious. He did all in his power to assist in the foundation of schools of sound learning at Cambridge, and especially to encourage the study of Greek. Richard Croke, the protégé of Archbishop Warham and Bishop Fisher, after teaching Greek in 1516 at Leipzig, was sent by Fisher in 1519 to Cambridge to urge the utility of Greek studies at that university. In the _Orationes_ he delivered there, after speaking of the importance of Greek for all Biblical study, he says that Oxford had taken up the work with great avidity, since “they have there as their patrons besides the Cardinal (Wolsey), Canterbury (Warham), and Winchester, all the other English bishops except the one who has always been your great stay and helper, the Bishop of Rochester, and the Bishop of Ely.” It was entirely owing to Bishop Fisher’s generosity, and at his special request, that Croke had gone to Cambridge rather than to Oxford, whither his connection with Warham, More, Linacre, and Grocyn would have led him, in order to carry on the work begun by Erasmus.

[49] Thomas Lupset was educated by Colet, and learnt his Latin and Greek under William Lilly, going afterwards to Oxford. There he made the acquaintance of Ludovico Vives, and at his exhortation went to Italy. He joined Reginald Pole in his studies at Padua, and on his return, after acting as Thomas Winter’s tutor in Paris, he held a position first as a teacher and then in Cardinal Wolsey’s household. In his _Exhortation to Young Men_, persuading them to a good life, “written at More, a place of my Lord Cardinal’s,” in 1529, he gives a charming account of his relation with a former pupil. “It happeneth,” he says, “at this time (my heartily beloved Edmund) that I am in such a place where I have no manner of books with me to pass the time after my manner and custom. And though I had here with me plenty of books, yet the place suffereth me not to spend in them any study. For you shall understand that I lie waiting on my Lord Cardinal, whose hours I must observe, to be always at hand lest I be called when I am not bye, which would be straight taken for a fault of great negligence. I am well satiated with the beholding of these gay hangings that garnish here every wall.” As a relief he turns to address his young friend Edmund. Probably Edmund doesn’t understand his affection, because he had always acted on the principle he has “been taught, that the master never hurteth his scholar more than when he uttereth and sheweth by cherishing and cokering the love he beareth to his scholars.” Edmund is now “of age, and also by the common board of houseling admitted into the number of men, and to be no more in the company of children,” and so now he can make known his affection. “This mind had I to my friend Andrew Smith, whose son Christopher, your fellow, I ever took for my son.… If you will call to your mind all the frays between you and me, or me and Smith, you will find that they were all out of my care for ‘your manners.’ When I saw certain fantasies in you or him that jarred from true opinions, the which true opinions, above all learning, I would have masters ever teach their scholars. Wherefore, my good withipol, take heed of my lesson.”

[50] John Clement, a protégé of Sir Thomas More, was afterwards a doctor of renown not only in medicine but in languages. He had been a member of More’s household, which Erasmus speaks of as “schola et gymnasium Christianæ religionis.” He is named at the beginning of the _Eutopia_, and Sir Thomas, in writing to Erasmus, says that Linacre declared that he had had no pupil at Oxford equal to him. John Clement translated several ancient Greek authors into Latin, amongst others many letters of St. Gregory Nazianzen and the Homilies of Nicephorus Callistus on the Saints of the Greek Calendar. Stapleton, in his _Tres Thomæ_ (p. 250), says he had himself seen and examined with the originals these two voluminous translations at the request of John Clement himself. He had married Margaret, the ward of Sir Thomas More, and in the most difficult places of his translation he was helped by his wife, who, with the daughters of Sir Thomas, had been his disciple and knew Greek well. Mary Roper, More’s granddaughter, and the daughter of Margaret Roper, translated Eusebius’s _History_ from Greek into Latin, but it was never published, because Bishop Christopherson had been at work on a similar translation. On the change of religion in Elizabeth’s reign, John Clement and his wife, with the Ropers, took refuge in the Low Countries. Paulus Jovius, in his _Descriptio Britanniæ_, p. 13, speaks of all three daughters of Sir Thomas More being celebrated for their knowledge of Latin.

[51] Erasmi _Opera_ (ed. 1703), Col. 40.

[52] Ibid., Ep. 241.

[53] Ibid., Ep. 363.

[54] To take one example, Thomas Millyng, who as Bishop of Hereford died in 1492, had studied at Gloucester Hall, Oxford, as a monk of Westminster. During the old age of Abbot Fleet, of Westminster, he governed the monastery, and became its abbot in 1465. He was noted for his love of studies, and especially for his knowledge of Greek. This, says the writer of his brief life in the _National Biographical Dictionary_, was “a rare accomplishment for _monks_ in those days.” He might have added, and for any one else!

[55] Dennistoun, _Memorials of the Dukes of Urbino_, iii., pp. 415 _seqq._

[56] Erasmus to Abbot Bere. _Opera_, Ep. 700.

[57] MS. Bodl. 80. It is the autograph copy of Free, _cf._ J. W. Williams, _Somerset Mediæval Libraries_, p. 87. It was Abbot Bere who, in 1506, presented John Claymond, the learned Greek scholar, to his first benefice of Westmonkton, in the county of Somerset. In 1516 Claymond became first President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, often after signing himself, _Eucharistiæ servus_. Dr. Claymond procured for his college several Greek manuscripts which had belonged to Grocyn and Linacre, which are still possessed by it. At the end of MS. XXIII., which is a volume containing ninety homilies of St. John Chrysostom in Greek, is an inscription stating that this, and MS. XXIV., were copied in the years 1499 and 1500 by a Greek from Constantinople, named John Serbopylas, then living and working at Reading.

[58] Ludovico Vives had been invited over to England by Cardinal Wolsey to lecture on rhetoric at Oxford. He lived at Corpus Christi College, then ruled by Dr. John Claymond, whom in his tract _De conscribendis Epistolis_ he calls his “father.” The fame of this Spanish master of eloquence drew crowds to his lectures at the university, and amongst the audience Henry and Queen Katherine might sometimes be seen. For a time he acted also as tutor to the Princess Mary, and dedicated several works to the queen, to whose generosity he says he owed much. He took her side in the “divorce” question, and was thrown into prison for some weeks for expressing his views on the matter. Fisher, More, and Tunstall were his constant friends in England, and of Margaret Roper he writes, “from the time I first made her acquaintance I have loved her as a sister.” Among his pupils at Louvain, besides the above-named Canterbury monk, John Digon, he mentions with great affection Nicholas Wotton, whom the antiquary Twyne speaks of as returning to England with Digon and Jerome Ruffaldus, who calls Vives his “Jonathan,” and who subsequently became abbot of St. Vaast, Arras.

[59] J. Venn, _Gonville and Caius College_ (1349-1897), Vol. I.

[60] Ibid., p. xvi.

[61] Ibid., p. 18.

[62] Ibid., p. 23.

[63] Ibid., p. 21.

[64] Ibid., p. xviii.

[65] _Sermons_ (1557), f. 54.

[66] A. Chalmers, _History of the Colleges, &c. of Oxford_, ii. p. 351.

[67] Hearne, _John of Glastonbury_, ii. p. 490; from MS. Cott. Vitellius c. vii.

[68] Saint-German was born 1460. He was employed by Thomas Cromwell on some business of the State, and died in 1540. The _Dyalogue_ was printed apparently first in Latin, but subsequently in English. It consisted of three parts (1) published by Robert Wyer, (2) by Peter Treveris, 1531, and (3) by Thomas Berthalet, also in 1531.

[69] _Dyalogue_, _ut sup._, 3rd part, f. 2.

[70] One of the first Acts of King Henry VII. on his accession, was to obtain from the Pope a Bull agreeing to some changes in the Sanctuary customs. Prior Selling of Canterbury was despatched as King’s Orator to Rome with others to Pope Innocent VIII. in 1487, and brought back the Pope’s approval of three points in which the king proposed to change these laws. _First_, that if any person in Sanctuary went out at night and committed mischief and trespass, and then got back again, he should forfeit his privilege of Sanctuary. _Secondly_, that though the person of a debtor might be protected in Sanctuary, yet his goods out of the precincts were not so protected from his creditors. _Thirdly_, that where a person took Sanctuary for treason, the king might appoint him keepers within the Sanctuary.

[71] Robert Keilway, _Relationes quorundam casuum_, f. 188, _seqq._

[72] _Dyalogue_, _ut sup._, f. 12.

[73] _Dyalogue_, f. 23.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid., f. 23.

[76] Ibid., f. 21.

[77] Ibid., f. 21.

[78] _A treatyse concerning the power of the clergie and the laws of the realme._ London, J. Godfray.

[79] _A treatyse_, &c., _ut supra_, cap. 4.

[80] _A treatyse_, &c., _ut supra_, cap. xii.

[81] _A treatyse_, &c., _ut supra_, cap. xii.

[82] Ibid., cap. xiii.

[83] Ibid., cap. vi.

[84] _English Works_ (ed. 1557), p. 1017.

[85] _A treatyse_, &c., _ut sup._, cap. vi., sig. E. i.

[86] _Salem and Bizance, a dialogue betwixte two Englishmen, whereof one was called Salem and the other Bizance_ (Berthelet, 1533), f. 76.

[87] Ibid., f. 84.

[88] _English Works_, p. 892.

[89] Ibid.

[90] _A Dialogue_, &c., _ut sup._, f. 8.

[91] Ibid., f. 11.

[92] Ibid., f. 14.

[93] _A Dialogue_, &c., _ut sup._, p. 17.

[94] _History of English Law_, i., p. 93-4. Mr. James Gairdner, in a letter to _The Guardian_, March 1, 1899, says: “There were, in the Middle Ages, in every kingdom of Europe that owned the Pope’s jurisdiction, two authorities, the one temporal and the other spiritual, and the head of the spiritual jurisdiction was at Rome. The bishops had the rule over their clergy, even in criminal matters, and over the laity as well in matters of faith. Even a bishop’s decision, it is true, might be disputed, and there was an appeal to the Pope; nay, the Pope’s decision might be disputed, and there was an appeal to a general council. Thus there was, in every kingdom, an _imperium in imperio_, but nobody objected to such a state of matters, not even kings, seeing that they could, as a rule, get anything they wanted out of the Popes--even some things, occasionally, that the Popes ought not to have conceded.”

[95] William Bond, _The Pilgrymage of perfeccyon_, 1531, f. 223.

[96] Roger Edgworth, _Sermons_, 1557, fol. 102

[97] Edward Powell, _Propugnaculum summi sacerdotii, &c., adversus M. Lutherum_, 1523, fol. 22 and fol. 35.

[98] _English Works_, p. 171.

[99] Ibid. p. 185.

[100] Ibid., p. 528.

[101] Ibid., p. 538.

[102] _English Works_, p. 616.

[103] Ibid., p. 798.

[104] _Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries_ (popular edition), p. 367.

[105] In his work against Luther, Bishop Fisher teaches the supremacy of the Pope without any ambiguity. In the _Sermon had at Paulis_ against Luther and his followers, he also put his position perfectly clearly. The Church that has a right to the name _Catholic_ has derived the right from its communion with the See of Peter. Our Lord called Cephas, Peter, or rock, to signify that upon him as a rock He would build His church. Unto Peter He committed His flock, and “the true Christian people which we have at this day was derived by a continual succession from the See of Peter” (fol. e. 4. d.).

[106] Simon Matthew, _Sermon made in the Cathedrall Church of Saynt-Paule, 27 June 1535_ (Berthelet, 1535).

[107] Joannis Longlondi _Tres conciones_ (R. Pynson), f. 45.

[108] _Assertion of the Seven Sacraments against Luther_ (translation by J. W., 1687), f. a. i.

[109] _A treatise of the donation or gift and endowment of possessions given_ (by Constantine) _with the judgement of certain great men_, 1517, Thomas Godfray.

[110] London, Thomas Berthelet.

[111] _A dyalogue_, _ut sup._, ff. 3-7.

[112] f. A. ii.; c. i.; c. iiij. The author recommends those who would understand the Pope’s power to “resort unto _The glasse of truth_ or to the book named the _Determinations of the universities_.” The book named here _A glasse of truth_ is written in favour of the divorce. “Some lawyers,” the author says, “attribute too much to the Pope--at length there shall be no law, but only his will.” The work was published by Berthelet anonymously, but Richard Croke, in a letter written at this period (Ellis, _Historical Letters_, 3rd series, ii. 195), says that the book was written by King Henry himself. It was generally said that Henry had written a defence of his divorce; but Strype did not think it was more than a State paper. Croke (p. 198) says that people at Oxford, “Mr. John Roper and others,” did not believe that the king was really the author. He says that the tract has done more than anything else to get people to take the king’s side.

[113] _Of the olde God and the new_, B. 1. As another sample of what was at this time said about the Popes, we may take the following: Rome, says the author, “was by Justinian restored from ruin and decay, from whence also came the riches of the Church. At the coming of these riches, forthwith the book of the gospel was shut up, and the Bishops of Rome, instead of evangelical poverty, began to put forth their heads garnished with three crowns.” This is taken from the preface of Hartman Dulechin, who claims to have “taught the book to speak Latin.” It was originally printed and published in German. The English version is a translation of the Latin.

[114] _The Defence of Peace, written in Latin more than 200 years ago, and set forth in the English tongue by Wyllyam Marshall._ R. Wyer, 1535, folio.

[115] _The Defence of Peace_, f. 42. The well-known anti-papal opinions of Marsilius of Padua are, of course, of no interest in themselves, but their publication at this time in English shows the methods by which it was hoped to undermine the Papal authority in the country.

[116] _Exposition_, &c., _ut supra_, f. i.

[117] Johann Sturmius, _Epistle sent to the cardinals and prelates that were appointed by the Bishop of Rome to search out the abuses of the Church_. Translated by Richard Morysine. Berthelet, 1538.

A later copy of the _Concilium de emendanda Ecclesia_, printed by Sturmius with his letter in 1538, in the British Museum, formerly belonged to Cecil. The title-page has his signature, “Gulielmus Cecilius, 1540,” and there are marks and words underlined, and some few observations from his pen in the margin. It is interesting to note that what struck the statesman as a youth were just the points which could be turned against the temporal claims of the Roman See.

The special evils needing correction which the committee of cardinals note, and which they call _abuses_, are collected under 22 headings, some of which are the following:--

(1) Ordination of priests without cure of souls, not learned, of lower order in life, and too young and of doubtful morals: They suggest that each diocese should have a _magistrum_ to see that candidates are properly instructed--none to be ordained except by their own bishop.

(2) Benefices, and in particular, episcopal sees, are given to people with interest, and not because their elevation would be good for the church. They suggest that the best man should be chosen, and residence should be insisted on, and consequently “non Italo conferendum est beneficium in Hispania aut in Britannia aut ex contra.”

(3) _Pensions_ reserved from Benefices. Though the Pope, “who is the universal dispenser of the goods of the church,” may reserve a part for a pious use, _e.g._ for the poor, &c., still not to reserve sufficient for the proper purpose of the beneficiary, and still more to give a pension out of a benefice to one rich enough without, is wrong.

(4) Change of benefices for the sake of gain, and handing on benefices by arrangement or always assigning episcopal sees to coadjutors, is the cause of outcry against the clergy, and is in reality making private property out of what is public.

(5) Permission to clergy to hold more than one benefice.

(6) Cardinals being allowed to hold sees. They ought to be counsellors to the Pope in Rome, and when holding sees they are more or less dependent on the will of the kings, and so cannot give independent advice and speak their minds.

(7) Absence of bishops from their sees.

(8) Such religious houses as needed correction should be forbidden to profess members, and when they die out, their places should be taken by fervent religious. Confessors for convents must be approved by the ordinaries of the place.

(9) The use of the keys ought never, under any pretext, to be granted for money.

(10) Questors of the Holy Spirit, St. Anthony, &c., who foster superstition among the poor people, should be prohibited.

(11) Confessional privileges and use of portable altars to be very rarely allowed.

(12) No indulgences to be granted except once a year, and in the great cities only.

Finally they say of Rome: “Hæc Romana civitas et ecclesia mater est et magistra aliarum ecclesiarum,” and hence it should be a model to all. Foreigners, however, who come to St. Peter’s find that priests “sordidi, ignari, induti paramentis et vestibus quibus nec in sordidis ædibus honeste uti possent, missas celebrant.”

Cardinal Sadolet, on receiving a copy of Sturmius’s letter, replied in kindly terms. He had, he declared, a high opinion of “Sturmius, Melanchthon, and Bucer, looking on them as most learned men, kindly disposed, and cordially friendly to him. He looked upon it as the peculiar characteristic of Luther to try and overwhelm all his opponents with shouts and attacks.” He speaks of the great piety of Pope Clement from personal knowledge. His wars were, he said, rather the work of his adversaries than his own (_De consilio_, ed. J. G. Schelhorn, 1748, p. 91).

He also, in 1539, penned the _De Christiana Ecclesia_ (in _Specilegium Romanum_, ii. p. 101 _seqq._), sending it to Cardinal Salicati, and asking him to pass it on to Cardinal Contarini. It was the outcome of conversations about the troubles of the Church, and the result of the movement was the Council of Trent, to restore, as Sadolet says, ecclesiastical discipline “quæ nunc tota pæne nobis e manibus elapsa est.”

[118] _Sermon on Palm Sunday_, Berthelet, 1539.

[119] Lancelot Ridley, _Commentary in Englyshe on Sayncte Paule’s Epystle to the Ephesians_, L. 4.

[120] This important paper was printed for the first time in the _Dublin Review_, April 1894, pp. 390-420.

[121] _A treatise concerning the division between the spiritualtie and temporaltie._ London: Robert Redman, f. 2.

[122] _English Works_, p. 871. In the quotations made from the works of Sir Thomas More and other old writings, for the sake of the general reader the modern form of spelling has been adopted, and at times the words transposed to ensure greater clearness.

[123] Ibid., p. 875.

[124] Ibid., p. 882.

[125] _Salem and Bizance. A dialogue betwixte two Englishmen, whereof one was called Salem and the other Bizance._ London: Berthelet, 1533, f. 5.

[126] _English Works_, p. 934.

[127] Ibid., p. 870.

[128] Ibid., p. 877.

[129] Ibid., p. 877.

[130] Ibid., p. 878.

[131] Ibid., pp. 937, 938.

[132] _A treatise concerning the division_, f. 8.

[133] _English Works_, p. 880.

[134] Ibid., p. 951.

[135] _A treatise concerning the division_, f. 3.

[136] _A treatise concerning the division_, f. 41.

[137] _English Works_, p. 884.

[138] Ibid., p. 895.

[139] Ibid.

[140] Ibid., p. 896.

[141] Ibid., p. 885.

[142] Bishop Fisher gives much the same testimony to the moral character of the religious generally in his sermon against Luther. After praising the state of virginity, he continues: “And it is not to be doubted but that there is in Christendom at this day many thousands of religious men and women that full truly keep their religion and their chastity unto Christ.… If Almighty God did reserve in that little portion of Jewry so great a multitude beyond the estimation of the prophet, what number suppose ye doth yet remain in Christendom of religious men and women, notwithstanding this great persecution of religious monasteries, both of men and women, done by these heretics by this most execrable doctrine? It is not to be doubted but in all Christendom be left many thousands who at this hour live chaste, and truly keep their virginity unto Christ.” (_A Sermon had at Paulis_, Berthelet, f. g. ii.)

[143] Ibid., p. 735. Sir Thomas More, in his _Dyalogue_, thinks that the number of priests without very definite work had tended to diminish the respect paid to them by the laity. “But were I Pope,” he says, … “I could not well devise better provisions than by the laws of the Church are provided already, if they were as well kept as they are well made. But as for the number, I would surely see such a way therein that we should not have such a rabble that every mean man must have a priest in his house to wait upon his wife. This no mean man lacketh now, to the contempt of the priesthood, (placed) in as vile an office as his horsekeeper. That is truth indeed, quod he, and in worse, too, for they keep hawks and dogs.” If the laws of the Church were kept, there would not be the excessive number of priests for fit and proper positions, so that “the whole order is rebuked by the priests’ begging and lewd living who are either obliged to walk as rovers, and live upon trentals or worse, or serve in a secular man’s house” (_English Works_, p. 223).

[144] _A treatise concerning the division_, ff. 14-16.

[145] _Dyalogue_, &c., f. 2.

[146] _A treatise concerning the division_, f. 23.

[147] Ibid., f. 25.

[148] Ibid., f. 26.

[149] _English Works_, p. 936.

[150] _English Works_, p. 620.

[151] _A Sermonde … made in 1538._ By John Longlande, Bishop of Lincolne. London: f. 2.

[152] _Henry VIII._, vol. ii. pp. 50-1.

[153] Ibid., vol. i. p. 600.

[154] Ibid., ii. p. 470.

[155] Wilkins, _Concilia_, iii. 717.

[156] _Sermo Exhortatorius_, W. de Worde.

[157] Gairdner, _Calendar of Papers Foreign and Domestic_, v., preface, ix.

[158] Froude’s translation.

[159] _Opera_, ed. Leclerc, iii. col. 102.

[160] Ibid., Ep. 144.

[161] In one of his works Erasmus gives the highest praise to English ecclesiastics for their single-minded devotion to their clerical duties. He contrasts them with clerics of other nations in regard to worldly ambitions, &c. “Those who are nearest to Christ,” he writes, “should keep themselves free from the baser things of this world. How ill the word ‘general’ sounds when connected with that of ‘Cardinal,’ or ‘duke’ with that of ‘bishop,’ ‘earl’ with that of ‘abbot,’ or ‘commander’ with that of ‘priest.’ In England the ecclesiastical dignity is the highest, and the revenues of churchmen abundant. In that country, however, no one who is a bishop or abbot has even a semblance of temporal dominion, or possesses castles or musicians or bands of retainers, nor does any of them coin his own money, excepting only the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a mark of dignity and honour, which has been conferred on him on account of the death of Saint Thomas; he is, however, never concerned in matters of war, but is occupied only in the care of the churches.” (_Consultatio de Bello Turcico._ _Opera_, ed. Leclerc, tom. v. p. 363.)

[162] _Opera_, &c., _ut sup._, Ep. 149.

[163] Ibid., Ep. 175.

[164] Ibid., Ep. 216.

[165] Ibid., Ep. 272.

[166] Ibid., Ep. 474.

[167] Thomas More, _Epigrammata_ (ed. Frankfort, 1689), p. 284 _seqq._

[168] Ibid., Ep. 148.

[169] _Erasmus_, p. 63.

[170] _Quarterly Review_, January 1895, p. 23.

[171] The question about Erasmus’s translation of this word came up in the discussion between Sir Thomas More and Tyndale about the use made by the latter of the word _congregatio_ for Church in his version of the New Testament. More writes: “Then he asketh me why I have not contended with Erasmus, whom he calls my darling, all this long time, for translating this word _ecclesia_ into this word _congregatio_, and then he cometh forth with his proper taunt, that I favour him of likelihood for making of his book of _Moriæ_ in my house.… Now for his translation of _ecclesia_ by _congregatio_ his deed is nothing like Tyndale’s. For the Latin tongue had no Latin word used before for the Church but the Greek word _ecclesia_, therefore Erasmus in his new translation gave it a Latin word.… Erasmus also meant no heresy therein, as appears by his writings against the heretics.” (_English Works_, pp. 421, 422.)

[172] Ep. 384.

[173] Ep. 423.

[174] Ep. 531. Lee’s account of his quarrel with Erasmus is given in his _Apologia_, which he addressed to the University of Louvain. He states that Erasmus had come to his house at that place, and had asked him to aid in the corrected version of his New Testament which he was then projecting. At first Lee refused, but finally, on being pressed by Erasmus, he consented, and began the work of revision, but Erasmus quickly became angry at so many suggested changes. Reports about the annotations and corrections proposed by Lee began to be spread abroad, and Erasmus hearing of them, suspected some secret design, and came from Basle to try and get a copy of the proposed criticism. Lee wished that it should be considered rather a matter of _theology_ than of _letters_. Bishop Fisher wrote, on hearing rumours of the quarrel, urging Lee to try and make his peace with Erasmus, and in deference to this, Lee informed Erasmus that he would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the bishop, and had forwarded to him the book of his proposed criticisms. Erasmus, however, did not wait, but published the _Dialogus Domini Jacobi Latomi_, which all regarded as an attack upon Lee. The latter would have published a reply had he not received letters from England from Fisher, Colet, Pace, and More, begging him to keep his temper. Lee agreed to stop, and only asked Fisher to decide the matter quickly. On returning to Louvain, Lee found that Erasmus had published his _Dialogus bilingium et trilingium_, in which Lee was plainly indicated as a man hostile to the study of letters in general. This Lee denied altogether, and in brief, he does not, he says, condemn Erasmus’s notes on the New Testament so much as the copy he had taken as the basis for his corrections of the later text. “Politian,” says Lee, at the end of his _Apologia_, “Politian declares that there are two great pests of literature--ignorance and envy. To these I will add a third--‘adulation’--for I have no belief in any one who, having made a mistake, is not willing to acknowledge it.”

Lee’s criticism of Erasmus’s translation appeared at Louvain in January 1520. It produced an immediate reply from Erasmus, published at Antwerp in May 1520--a reply “all nose, teeth, nails, and stomach.” In this Erasmus says that 1200 copies of the New Testament had been printed by Froben. In the collation he had been much assisted by Bishop Tunstall, who had, in fact, supplied the exemplar on which he had worked. Erasmus then gives what he thinks is the correct version of the differences between Lee and himself. Lee, he says, was only just beginning Greek, and Erasmus, who had been working at the correction of his version of the Testament, showed him what he was doing. The margins of the book were then full of notes, and here and there whole pages of paper were added. Lee said that he had a few notes that might be useful, and Erasmus expressed his pleasure at receiving help and asked for them. Lee thereupon gave him some miscellaneous jottings, and of these, according to Erasmus’s version of the facts, he made use of hardly anything. Soon, however, reports were spread about that out of some three hundred places in which Lee had corrected the first edition of the translation, Erasmus had adopted two hundred. Bishop Fisher tried to make peace, and to prevent two men who both meant well to the cause of religion from quarrelling in public. His intervention was, however, too late, as already the letter of Erasmus to Thomas Lupset had appeared and thus rendered reconciliation impossible.

[175] Ep. 231.

[176] Ep. 380. This bishop must have been the Spaniard, George de Athegua, who was appointed to the see of Llandaff in 1517, and held it for twenty years.

[177] Ep. 380.

[178] Ep. 453.

[179] Ep. 416.

[180] Ep. 547.

[181] Ep. 529. Erasmus wrote strongly against anything that seemed to favour the idea of national churches. After declaring that national dislikes and enmities were unmeaning and unchristian, he continues: “As an Englishman you wish evil fortune to a Frenchman. Why not rather do your wishes come as a man to a fellow-man? Why not as a Christian to a Christian? Why do these frivolous things have greater weight than such natural ties, such bonds of Christ? Places separate bodies, not souls. In old days the Rhine divided a Frenchman from a German, but the Rhine cannot divide one Christian from another. The Pyrenees cut off Spain from France, but these mountains do not destroy the communion of the Church. The sea divides the English and French peoples, but it cannot cut off the society of religion.…” The world is the fatherland of all people; all men are sprung from a common stock. “The Church is but one family, common to all.” (_Opera._, tom. iv. col. 638.)

[182] Ep. 715.

[183] Ep. 723.

[184] Ep. 477.

[185] Ep. 528.

[186] Ep. 656.

[187] Ep. 334 (second series.)

[188] _Spongia_ (Basle, Froben, 1523), c. 5.

[189] Ibid., sig. d. 4.

[190] Ibid., sig. e. 2.

[191] Ibid., sig. e. 2. The supreme authority of the Pope is asserted by Erasmus in numberless places in his works. For example, in the tract _Pacis Querimonia_, after saying that he cannot understand how Christians, who understand Christ’s teaching and say their _Pater noster_ with intelligence, can always be at strife, he proceeds: “The authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme. But when peoples and princes wage impious wars, and that for years, where then is the authority of the Pontiffs, where then is the power next to Christ’s power?” &c. (_Opera._, tom. iv. p. 635). So too in his _Precatio pro Pace Ecclesiæ_, after praying that God would turn the eyes of His mercy upon the Church, over which “Peter was made Supreme Pastor,” he declares that there is but “one Church, out of which there is no salvation.”

[192] Ep. 478.

[193] Ep. 501.

[194] Ep. 563.

[195] Ep. 600.

[196] Ep. 563.

[197] Ep. 667.

[198] Ep. 501 (Mr. Froude’s translation).

[199] Ep. 793.

[200] Ep. 823.

[201] Ep. 751.

[202] The Pope himself read the _Enconium Moriæ_ and understood the spirit of the author; at least so Erasmus was told. He wrote at the time “the Supreme Pontiff has read through _Moriæ_ and laughed; all he said was, ‘I am glad to see that friend Erasmus is in the _Moriæ_,’ and this though I have touched no others so sharply as the Pontiffs” (Ep. p. 1667). What Sir Thomas More thought about it may be given in his own words, written some years later. “As touching _Moriæ_, in which Erasmus, under the name and person of _Moria_, which word in Greek signifies ‘folly,’ merely touches and reproves such faults and follies as he found in any kind of people pursuing every state and condition, spiritual and temporal, leaving almost none untouched. By this book, says Tyndale, if it were in English, every man should then well see that I was then far otherwise minded than I now write. If this be true, then the more cause have I to thank God for the amendment. God be thanked I never had that mind in my life to have holy saints’ images or their holy relics out of reverence. Nor if there were any such thing in _Moriæ_ this could not make any man see that I were myself of that mind, the book being made by another man though he were my darling never so dear. Howbeit, that book of _Moriæ_ doth indeed but jest upon abuses of such things.… But in these days, in which men by their own default misconstrue and take harm from the very Scripture of God, until men better amend, if any man would now translate _Moriæ_ into English, or some work either that I have myself written ere this, albeit there be no harm therein, folks being (as they be) given to take harm of what is good, I would not only my darling’s books, but my own also, help to burn them both with my own hands, rather than folk should (though through their own fault) take any harm of them.” (_English Works_, pp. 422-3.)

[203] _Opera Omnia_ (Froben’s ed., 1540), i. p. 831.

[204] Pp. 832-33.

[205] P. 837.

[206] A case in point was the finding of the celebrated statue of the Laocöon on January 14, 1506. This discovery was accidentally made in a vineyard, near Santa Maria Maggiore, and no statue ever produced so general and so profound an emotion as the uncovering of this work of art did upon the learned world of Rome. The whole city flocked out to see it, and the road to the vineyard was blocked day and night by the crowds of cardinals and people waiting to look at it. “One would have said,” writes a contemporary, “that it was a Jubilee.” And even to-day the visitor to the Ara Cœli may read on the tomb of Felice de Fredis, the happy owner of the vineyard, the promise of “immortality,” _ob proprias virtutes et repertum Laocohontis divinum simulachrum_ (I. Klaczki, _Jules II._, p. 115). It is not at all improbable that in the above passage Erasmus was actually thinking of the delirium caused by the finding of this statue.

[207] Ibid., p. 838.