[This article is No. 21 in the series entitled "A Review of Sunday Legislation in Century Nineteen," but it will be of equal interest to those who have not read preceding numbers.—ED. S. OF T.]
As IN the case of the Church of Rome the lives of the popes, the so-called vicegerents of God, were introduced in evidence that the Catholic faith was a bad one, so in the case of the Church of England the lives of the founders of that church may fairly be admitted to prove that she was not Christian and Protestant, that she was not the product of the grand doctrine of RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH, but that she was a "political job."
The character of Henry VIII. is so well known, and so universally admitted to be bad, that it needs no comment here.
How stands the case with Cranmer? By many he is regarded as a saint. His recantation of the Church of England faith is considered to be the only blemish of his life; but his subsequent death at the stake is accounted an atonement for that. We will let Macaulay present his character in its true light:—
"If we consider Mr. Cranmer merely as a statesman, he will not appear a much worse man than Wolsey, Gardiner, Cromwell, or Somerset. But when an attempt is made to set him up as a saint, it is scarcely possible for any man of sense who knows the history of the times to preserve his gravity. But since his admirers claim for him a place in the noble army of martyrs, his claims require fuller discussion."
The origin of his greatness, common enough in the scandalous chronicles of courts, seems strangely out of place in a hagiology. Cranmer rose into favor by serving Henry in the most disgraceful affair of his first divorce. He promoted the marriage of Anne Boleyn with the king. On a frivolous pretense he pronounced that marriage null and void. . . . On a pretense, if possible still more frivolous, he dissolved the ties which bound the shameless tyrant to Anne of Cleves. He attached himself to Cromwell while the fortunes of Cromwell were flourishing. He voted for cutting off Cromwell's head without a trial, when the tide of royal favor turned. He conformed backwards and forwards as the king changed his mind. He assisted while Henry lived in condemning to the flames those who denied the doctrine of transubstantiation. He found out as soon as Henry was dead that the doctrine was false. He was, however, not at a loss for people to burn. The authority of his station and of his gray hairs was employed to overcome the disgust with which an intelligent and virtuous child regarded persecution. Intolerance is always bad. But the sanguinary intolerance of a man who thus wavered in his creed, excites a loathing to which it is difficult to give vent without calling foul names. Equally false to political and to religious obligations, the primate was first the tool of Somerset, and then the tool of Northumberland. When the protector wished to put his own brother to death, without even the semblance of a trial, he found a ready instrument in Cranmer. In spite of the canon law, which forbade a churchman to take any part in matters of blood, the archbishop signed the warrant for the atrocious sentence. When Somerset had in his turn been destroyed, his destroyer received the support of Cranmer in a wicked attempt to change the course of the succession. . . . [He was mixed up in a plot to exclude the papal claimants to the English throne.] The plot failed; popery triumphed; and Cranmer recanted. Most people look on his recantation as a single blemish on an honorable life, the frailty of an unguarded moment. But, in fact, his recantation was in strict accordance with the system on which he had constantly acted. It was part of a regular habit. It was not his first recantation that he had made; and, in all probability, if it had answered his purpose, it would not have been the last. We do not blame him for not choosing to be burned alive. It is no very serious reproach to any person that he does not possess heroic fortitude. But surely a man who liked the fire so little should have had some sympathy for others. A persecutor who inflicts nothing which he is not ready to endure deserves some respect. But when a man who loves his doctrines more than the lives of his neighbors, loves his own little finger better than his doctrines, a very simple argument a fortiori will enable us to estimate the amount of his benevolence.422But his martyrdom, it is said, redeemed everything. It is extraordinary that so much ignorance should exist on this subject. The fact is that, if a martyr be a man who chooses to die rather than to renounce his opinions, Cranmer was no more a martyr than Dr. Dodd. He died solely because he could not help it. He never retracted his recantation till he found he had made it in vain. The queen was fully resolved that, Catholic or Protestant, he should burn. Then he spoke out, as people generally speak out when they are at the point of death and have nothing to hope or to fear on earth. If Mary had suffered him to live, we suspect that he would have heard mass and received absolution, like a good Catholic, till the accession of Elizabeth, and that he would then have purchased, by another apostasy, the power of burning men better and braver than himself."
"We do not mean, however, to represent him as a monster of wickedness. He was not wantonly cruel or treacherous. He was merely a supple, timid, interested courtier, in times of frequent and violent change."
We most gladly concur with Macaulay in the sentiments expressed in the last paragraph quoted. Cranmer, from a worldly standpoint, was not a grossly bad character. But the life of Jesus Christ was not the ruling passion of his soul. The citations given will at least prove this much, and we have purposely taken them from one of the most moderate and ingenuous of writers. Macaulay wrote long after the time of Cranmer; and he had nothing to gain and nothing to lose by telling the truth about him. Nor have we the slightest inclination to blackmail this prelate's character. So we will simply dismiss his case by saying that he did not manifest the Christianity of Christ, and beyond that we will aver nothing.
Another of the charter members of the Church of England was Somerset. No more need be said of him than that he possessed less of the spirit that makes men martyrs than did Cranmer.
As for Henry VIII., he desired to be his own pope, and considering the character of the man to whom he formerly owned allegiance as 'supreme pontiff,' we cannot blame him much. But he was not a Christian, and therefore any church which he might form could not possibly be a Christian, Protestant church.
Queen Elizabeth also played a prominent part in the formation of the Church of England. She was the daughter of Henry VIII., and she shared her father's feelings. She considered it was her right to be pope in her own dominions. And pope she was. A glance at her character will be sufficient.
Elizabeth was sagacious enough to see clearly that there were great advantages to be derived from a close connection between the throne and the altar. That is, great advantages to herself.
At the time of her accession, indeed, she evidently meditated a partial reconciliation with Rome; and, throughout her whole life, she leaned strongly to some of the most obnoxious parts of the Catholic system. But her imperious temper, her keen sagacity, and her peculiar situation, soon led her to attach herself completely to a church which was all her own. She supported it by severe penal laws, not because she thought conformity to its discipline necessary to salvation, but because it was the fastness which arbitrary power was making strong for itself, because she expected a more profound obedience from those who saw in her both their civil and their ecclesiastical chief, than from those who, like the Papists, ascribed spiritual authority to the pope, or from those who, like some of the Puritans, ascribed it only to heaven. To dissent from her establishment was to dissent from an institution founded with an express view to the maintenance and extension of the royal prerogative.
Such were the motives which dictated the religion of Elizabeth. Her character was far superior to that of her father, but her religious system, wherever it differed from his, differed for the worse. Her pride and arrogance illy became one professing to be a follower of the meek and lowly Jesus. Her system of 'favorites' savored not of heaven. Her treatment of Essex hardly corresponded with the precepts of the Man of Calvary.
Now these four, Henry VIII., Elizabeth, Somerset, and Cranmer, were the charter members of the Church of England. From them it received its mould. They were not Christians, as every man acquainted with the history of the times knows. Therefore the Church of England could not possibly have been, at the time of its conception, a Protestant church. Protestantism in its essence relies solely upon the power of the word of God. It emanates from the word of God. The Church of England has ever relied upon the arm of the State; and it was from a State 'political job' that it emanated. Therefore again we say that the Church of England at its origin was not Protestant. It did afterwards imbibe into its liturgy some Protestant traits; but even these it never lived up to.
Nevertheless we consider it far better than the Romish system, for reasons which we will furnish in our next paper. Suffice to say in conclusion in regard to its origin that it was merely a scheme 'to transfer the full cup of sorceries from the Babylonian enchantress to other hands, spilling as little as possible by the way.'