Part 12 (1/2)
There is no more striking ill.u.s.tration of the power of the personal equation in the interpretation of history than that afforded by the conflicting opinions respecting the overthrow of monasticism in England.
Those who mourn the loss of the monasteries cannot find words strong enough with which to condemn Henry VIII., whom they regard as ”unquestionably the most unconst.i.tutional, the most vicious king that ever wore the English crown.” Forgetting the inevitable cost of human freedom, and lightly pa.s.sing over the iniquities of the monastic system, they fondly dwell upon the departed glory of the ancient abbeys. They recall with sadness the days when the monks chanted their songs of praise in the chapels, or reverently bent over their books of parchment, bound in purple and gold, not that they might ”winnow the treasures of knowledge, but that they might elicit love, compunction and devotion.”
The charming simplicity and loving service of the cloister life, in the days of its unbroken vows, appeal to such defenders of the monks with singular potency.
Truly, the fair-minded should attempt to appreciate the sorrow, the indignation and the love of these friends of a ruined inst.i.tution.
Pa.s.sionless logic will never enable one to do justice to the sentiments of those who cannot restrain their tears as they stand uncovered before the majestic remains of a Melrose Abbey, or properly to estimate the motives and methods of those who laid the mighty monastic inst.i.tution in the dust.
_The Character of Henry VIII_
Before considering the actual work of suppression, it may be interesting to glance at the royal destroyer and his times. The character of Henry VIII. is utterly inexplicable to many persons, chiefly because they do not reflect that even the inconsistencies of a great man may be understood when seen in the light of his times. A masterly and comprehensive summary of the virtues and vices of the Tudor monarch, who has been described as ”the king, the whole king, and nothing but the king,” may be found in ”A History of Crime in England,” by Luke Owen Pike. The distinguished author shows that in his brutality, his love of letters, his opposition to Luther, his vacillation in religious opinions, King Henry reflects with remarkable fidelity the age in which he lived, both in its contrasts and its inconsistencies. ”It is only the previous history of England which can explain all the contradictions exhibited in his conduct,--which can explain how he could be rapacious yet sometimes generous, the Defender of the Faith yet under sentence of excommunication, a burner of heretics yet a heretic himself, the pope's advocate yet the pope's greatest enemy, a bloodthirsty tyrant yet the best friend to liberty of thought in religion, an enthusiast yet a turncoat, a libertine and yet all but a Puritan. He was sensual because his forefathers had been sensual from time immemorial, rough in speech and action because there had been but few men in Britain who had been otherwise since the Romans abandoned the island. He was superst.i.tious and credulous because few were philosophical or gifted with intellectual courage. Yet he had, what was possessed by his contemporaries, a faint and intermittent thirst for knowledge, of which he himself hardly knew the meaning.” Henry was shrewd, tenacious of purpose, capricious and versatile. In spite of his unrestrained indulgences and his monstrous claims of power, which, be it remembered, he was able to enforce, and notwithstanding any other vices or faults that may be truthfully charged against him, he was, on the whole, a popular king. Few monarchs have ever had to bear such a strain as was placed upon his abilities and character. Rare have been the periods that have witnessed such confusion of principles, social, political and religious. Those were the days when liberty was at work, ”but in a hundred fantastical and repulsive shapes, confused and convulsive, multiform, deformed.” Blind violence and half-way reforms characterized the age because the principles that were to govern modern times were not yet formulated.
Judged apart from his times Henry appears as an arrogant, cruel and fickle ruler, whose virtues fail to atone for his vices. But still, with all his faults, he compares favorably with preceding monarchs and even with his contemporaries. If he had possessed less intelligence, courage and ambition, he would not now be so conspicuous for his vices, but the history of human liberty and free inst.i.tutions, especially in England, would have been vastly different. His praiseworthy traits were not sufficiently strong to enable him to control his inherited pa.s.sions, but they were too regnant to permit him to submit without a struggle to the hierarchy which had dominated his country so many centuries. Such was
”the majestic lord, That broke the bonds of Rome.”
_Events Preceding the Suppression_
Many causes and incidents contributed to the progress of the reformation in England, and to the demolition of the monasteries. Only a few of them can be given here, and they must be stated with a brevity that conveys no adequate conception of their profound significance.
Henry VIII. ascended the throne, in the year 1509, when eighteen years of age. In 1517, Luther took his stand against Rome. Four years later Henry wrote a treatise in defence of the Seven Sacraments and in opposition to the German reformer. For this princely service to the church the king received the t.i.tle ”Defender of the Faith” from Pope Leo X.
About 1527 it became known that Henry was questioning the validity of his marriage with Catharine of Aragon, whom he had married when he was twelve years old. She was the widow of his brother Arthur. The king professed conscientious scruples about his marriage, but undoubtedly his desire for male offspring, and later, his pa.s.sion for Anne Boleyn, prompted him to seek release from his queen. In 1529, Henry and Catharine stood before a papal tribunal, presided over by Cardinal Wolsey, the king's prime minister, and Cardinal Campeggio, from Rome, for the purpose of determining the validity of the royal marriage. The trial was a farce. The enraged king laid the blame upon Wolsey, and retired him from office. The great cardinal was afterwards charged with treason, but died broken-hearted, on his way to the Tower, November 29, 1530.
The breach between Henry and Rome, complicated by numerous international intrigues, widened rapidly. Henry began to a.s.sume an att.i.tude of bold defiance toward the pope, which aroused the animosity of the Catholic princes of Europe.
Notwithstanding the desire of a large body of the English people to remain faithful to Rome, the dangers which menaced their country from abroad and the ecclesiastical abuses at home, which had been a fruitful cause for complaint for many years, tended to lessen the ancient horror of heresy and schism, and inclined them to support their king. Another factor that a.s.sisted in preparing the English people for the destruction of the monasteries was Lollardism. As an organized sect, the Lollards had ceased to exist, but the spirit and the doctrines of Wyclif did not die. A real and a vital connection existed between the Lollards of the fourteenth, and the reformers of the sixteenth, centuries. In Henry's time, many Englishmen held practically the same views of Rome and of the monks that had been taught by Wyclif[I].
[Footnote I: Appendix, Note I.]
A considerable number of Henry's subjects, however, while ostensibly loyal to him, were inwardly full of hot rebellion. The king was surrounded with perils. The princes of the Continent were eagerly awaiting the bull for his excommunication. Henry's throne and his kingdom might at any moment be given over by the pope to invasion by the continental sovereigns.
Reginald Pole, afterwards cardinal, a cousin of the king, and a strong Catholic, stood ready to betray the interests of his country to Rome.
Writing to the king, he said: ”Man is against you; G.o.d is against you; the universe is against you; what can you look for but destruction?”
”Dream not, Caesar,” he encouragingly declared to Emperor Charles V., ”that all generous hearts are quenched in England; that faith and piety are dead. In you is their trust, in your n.o.ble nature, and in your zeal for G.o.d--they hold their land till you shall come.” Thus, on the testimony of a Roman Catholic, there were traitors in England waiting only for the call of Charles V., ”To arms!” Pole was in full sympathy with all the factions opposed to the king, and stood ready to aid them in their resistance. He publicly denounced the king in several continental countries.
The monks were especially enraged against Henry. They did all they could to inflame the people by preaching against him and the reformers. Friar Peyto, preaching before the king, had the a.s.surance to say to him: ”Many lying prophets have deceived you, but I, as a true Micah, warn you that the dogs will lick your blood as they did Ahab's.” While the courage of this friar is unquestioned, his defiant att.i.tude ill.u.s.trates the position occupied by the monks toward those who favored separation from Rome. The whole country was at white heat. The friends of Rome looked upon Henry as an incarnate fiend, a servant of the devil and an enemy of all religion. Many of them opposed him with the purest and best motives, believing that the king was really undermining the church of G.o.d and throwing society into chaos.
In 1531, the English clergy were coerced into declaring that Henry was ”the protector and the supreme head of the church and of the clergy of England,” which absurd claim was slightly modified by the words, ”in so far as is permitted by the law of Christ.” Chapuys, in one of his despatches informing Charles V. of this action of convocation, said that it practically declared Henry the Pope of England. ”It is true,” he wrote, ”that the clergy have added to the declaration that they did so only so far as permitted by the law of G.o.d. But that is all the same, as far as the king is concerned, as if they had made no reservation, for no one will now be so bold as to contest with his lord the importance of the reservation.” Later on, Chapuys says that the king told the pope's nuncio that ”if the pope would not show him more consideration, he would show the world that the pope had no greater authority than Moses, and that every claim not grounded on Scripture was mere usurpation; that the great concourse of people present had come solely and exclusively to request him to bastinado the clergy, who were hated by both n.o.bles and the people.” (”Spanish Despatches,” number 460.)
Parliament, in 1534, conferred on Henry the t.i.tle ”Supreme Head of the Church of England,” and empowered him ”to visit, and repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, or amend all errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, which fell under any spiritual authority or jurisdiction.” The ”Act of Succession” was also pa.s.sed by Parliament, cutting off Princess Mary and requiring all subjects to take an oath of allegiance to Elizabeth.
It was now an act of treason to deny the king's supremacy. All persons suspected of disloyalty were required to sign an oath of allegiance to Henry, and to Elizabeth as his successor, and to acknowledge the supremacy of the king in church and state. This resulted in the death of some prominent men in the realm, among them Sir Thomas More. In the preamble of the oath prescribed by law, the legality of the king's marriage with Anne was a.s.serted, thus implying that his former marriage with Catharine was unlawful. More was willing to declare his allegiance to the infant Elizabeth, as the king's successor, but his conscience would not permit him to affirm that Catharine's marriage was unlawful.
The life of the brilliant and lovable More is another ill.u.s.tration of the mental confusions and inconsistencies of that age. As an apostle of culture he favored the new learning, and yet he viewed the gathering momentum of reformatory principles with alarm, and cast in his lot with the ultra-conservatives. Four years of his young manhood were spent in a monastery. He devoted his splendid talents to a criticism of English society, and recommended freedom of conscience, yet he became an ardent foe of reform and even a persecutor of heretics, of whom he said: ”I do so detest that cla.s.s of men that, unless they repent, I am the worst enemy they have.” When a man, whom even Protestant historians hasten to p.r.o.nounce ”the glory of his age,” so magnificent were his talents and so blameless his character, was tainted with superst.i.tion, and sanctioned the persecution of liberal thinkers, is it remarkable that inferior intellects should have been swayed by the brutality and tyranny of the times?
The unparalleled claims of Henry and his att.i.tude toward the pope made the breach between England and Rome complete, but many years of painful internal strife and bloodshed were to elapse before the whole nation submitted to the new order of things, and before that subjective freedom from fear and superst.i.tion without which formal freedom has little value, was secured.