up their minds under Edward, had to recant or go to the fire. But in the days of the quarrel between Henry VIII. and Rome, the writings of the German reformers were new to the English, and the Bible was as yet little known. Men were still hesitating and making up their minds, not yet united by the tender yet dreadful bond of a common enthusiasm and danger. Not only the tailors and weavers of the towns and the young men at the Universities were attracted by the new doctrines, which were regarded by dignitaries of the Church and middle-aged men generally as no less vulgar than dangerous; those of the clergy themselves who were interested in the new learning, those who liked novelty and the excitement of unorthodoxy, those also who shared in the genuine feeling which caused the Reformation, love of truth and hatred of superstition, were unable to resist the temptation to eat of the tree of knowledge, soon to be thickly laden with fruit like that which hung dans le verger du roi Louis.

Cromwell kept a cool head in the midst of the turmoil. He protected Protestants where he could or thought it worth while; he let others suffer, as Frith, whose heresy was too notorious or outspoken to be endured. His own opinions he kept to himself; an easier task for him than for Cranmer, whose merciful heart must have ached for the sufferers, and whose subtle intellect must even now have threaded the labyrinths of reason by which men persuade themselves that false and true are one, and that what they wish to do is the same as what they ought.

It would have been strange if Henry's ecclesiastical action had not reflected this movement, influenced as it was by a man so sensitive to change as Cranmer. The common opinion, that he wished to retain the ancient form of religion but abolish the Pope's authority, is only partly true. He destroyed the Papal supremacy; the Royal supremacy which he put in its place extended further than the Papal power, though not over exactly the same ground. His ideal 'policy,' says Stubbs, was that of an ecclesiastical despotism ' operating through the framework of the old Convocation 'system.' He asserted in practice the right of the King to interfere personally in all religious matters; he subjected the legislative power of Convocation to the royal prerogative, and imposed ritual and doctrine upon the Church by his personal authority; and he went several steps, and those important

* Report of Ecclesiastical Courts Commission, 1883, i. 147.

steps, in the direction of Protestantism. We have seen his advances towards Lutheranism. He drew back here; but if he had lived he must have gone further. His religious action was always coloured by politics, and the trend of politics was to set England on the Protestant side. Henry VIII.'s intention was to create an ecclesiastical polity different from the ancient constitution of the Church of England; and to make England independent of foreign princes and churches by giving her a form of confession of her own, cast into the mould, not of an agreement of divines, but of an Act of Uniformity, passed by the Estates in Parliament. Henry never reigned by means of Intendants or Major-Generals. He did not interfere with local machinery, circuits of judges, ecclesiastical courts. His Acts of Attainder were within the limits of the constitution, his wife-murders were transacted in legal form, his spoliation of the monasteries was carried out with the advice and consent of Parliament. He made the clergy and legislature of England parties to his crimes, and, though it may seem a paradox, he kept alive the idea of responsibility while he destroyed their liberty of action. But as Henry VIII. grew more despotic in State affairs, so in spiritual matters he transgressed the limits set by himself, and appeared as a teacher of religion, a critic of doctrine, a judge of heresy, a represser of superstition, an ordainer and corrector of service and ceremonial, and a compiler of creeds: a modern Constantine, combining, like him, the characters of Pope and King according as his lordly caprice suggested.

In spite of the Six Articles, the work of reform, destructive and constructive, did not stand still. The last monasteries and pilgrimage places were taken away. Shrines were broken down and abbots hanged. New editions of the English Primer or book of private devotion were brought out; some alteration was made in the public services, including the use of Cranmer's English litany and the abolition of certain superstitious' prayers, ceremonies, and observances; the English Bible was ordered to be set up and read in the churches; and progress was made in a statement of doctrine, the last form of which was the 'King's Book' of 1543.

These measures, though the King had no such intention, encouraged the Protestant sectaries; nor must we omit the influence in the same direction exercised by the new Bishops, many of whom favoured Protestantism; while the separation from Rome and setting up of the royal suprema cy

broke down the ancient belief in the stability of the Church. The forces set in motion by Henry VIII. could not be held in check. A popular movement deepens and widens the channels of religious sentiment and directs their course; it does not alter the slope of the ground. Henry VIII. had let the upper waters out and then tried to dam the stream below. Cranmer was the oxernyòs ȧvýp, who set his hand to guide the course of the stream. He found the water gathering fast at heel,' and was overtaken and borne away with the tide.

The most interesting part of Mr. Gairdner's work is his general survey of the reign. He says truly that 'Henry VIII. was really a monarch of consummate ability, who, if his 'course had not been misdirected by passion and selfishness, 'would have left a name behind him as the very founder of 'England's greatness.' Henry VIII. may not unfairly be called the founder of England's unity, completing in this his father's work, and crowning it by his victory over the Church for in truth this great ecclesiastical revolution was 'that which completed and consolidated the fabric of Henry's despotism'; and, as things were, a despotic government was the best means to creating unity.

Professor Pollard's account of the reign of Edward VI. is interesting and full of life. The accredited view of the events with which the reign began is that Henry VIII., treating the kingdom as his own property, which under Act of Parliament he could bequeath like any other property, deliberately chose as his executors, and therefore administrators during his son's minority, a council composed in equal proportions of the dull and the rash,' Conservatives and Reformers, so as to keep affairs quiet till Edward came of age. But Henry could not have supposed that a Council of Government would remain in a state of equilibrium for nine years, taking no part in the politics of the world. We think it more reasonable to suppose, with Professor Pollard, that he looked forward to the progress of Protestantism.

This interpretation of the facts, however, agreeing as it does with some of Henry's latest acts, such as the attainder of Norfolk and Surrey and the introduction of the English Bible, leaves an inconsistency between the general tenor of his later government and that of the men whom he appointed to carry on his work after his death.* Henry was

* We may notice that Stubbs, in his 'Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History' (lect. xi. p. 299), thinks it unlikely

now broken in health, though not old in years; his wife had much influence with him, and Hertford's popularity was growing, as well as his favour with the King. May we conclude that Henry had found the new men better servants than the old, and that his object in nominating the executors was to surround his son with the ablest counsellors he could find, who would best be able to deal with circumstances as they should arise; in short, that knowing that he could not control events by the dead hand, he chose his most capable servants to succeed him? If these men proved unprincipled statesmen, it is the fate of tyrants to be less and less well served, and to leave no successor.

Professor Pollard puts the Protector Somerset as a statesman higher than the usual estimate of him, by giving him the credit of correct views, if his action was not strong enough to bring them into full effect.

'Few rulers of England have been more remarkable than the Protector into whose hands thus passed the despotic power of the Tudors. Many have been more successful, many more skilled in the arts of government; but it is doubtful whether any have seen further into the future, or have been more strongly possessed of ideas which they have been unable to carry out. He was born before his time, a seer of visions and a dreamer of dreams. He dreamt of the union of England and Scotland, each retaining its local autonomy, as one empire of Great Britain, "having the sea for a wall, mutual love for a defence, and no need in peace to be ashamed or in war to be afraid of any worldly power." Running himself the universal race for wealth, he yet held it to be his special office and duty to hear poor men's complaints, to redress their wrongs, and to relieve their oppression. He strove to stay the economic revolution which was accumulating vast estates in the hands of the few, and turning the many into landless labourers or homeless vagrants; but his only success was an Act of Parliament whereby he gave his tenants legal security against eviction by himself. Bred in an arbitrary Court and entrusted with despotic power, he cast aside the weapons wherewith the Tudors worked their will, and sought to govern on a basis of civil liberty and religious toleration. He abstained from interference in elections to Parliament or in its freedom of debate, and from all attempts to pack or intimidate juries. He believed that the strength of a King lay not in the severity of his laws or the rigour of his penalties, but in the affections of his people; and not one instance of death or torture for religion stains the brief and troubled annals of his rule.' (P. 478.)

Somerset was a man of ideas; and Englishmen have that Henry would have 'developed more in the direction of Protestant doctrine.'

always been impatient of ideas. Security attracts them more than enterprise, and any attack upon institutions makes them suspicious. When Somerset confiscated the chantries on the ground that they were superstitious and useless, the people remembered the intentions of their founders, and noted that the money, which maintained many poor schoolmasters, went to enrich the King's ministers, not to found schools. When he tried to carry out his scheme of union with Scotland, they saw that the only immediate result of the battle of Pinkie was the removal of the little Queen of Scots to France. The appearance of his English Prayer Book led to insurrections in the West, the southern counties, and the Midlands. His attempt to deal with agrarian grievances encouraged the population of Norfolk to rise. His action in repressing this movement was half-hearted; the reactionary party overthrew him.

Professor Pollard finds in Somerset's Church reforms not a revolution, but a movement on lines laid down by Henry VIII.; 'the real break in religious policy came, not at the 'accession of Edward VI., but after the fall of Somerset ' and the expulsion of Catholics from the Council.'* But though the Book of Homilies and Udall's Erasmus might contain moderate doctrine, the outward action of Somerset's government, that which appeals to the people, was violent. Roods and images of the saints were removed from the churches, painted windows broken, and altars destroyed. In a short time the Order of Communion,' followed by the English Prayer Book, turned the Mass into the Communion. The whole outward appearance of religion was changed; and this affects men's minds more than statements of doctrine.

The question has been raised whether the framers of formularies in this reign intended the First Book to be a final settlement, but were gradually drawn on to a fuller formulation of doctrine in the Genevan or Zwinglian sense, or looked forward to such a developement and prepared the way for it by degrees. Cranmer was by position, learning, and ability so much the foremost of these that the Prayer Book may be called his work-we do not forget Froude's noble tribute to him †-and Cranmer's mind was always moving onward. He held much counsel with foreign divines, whom he always recognised as his brethren in the

* P. 479.

+ History of England, v. 391.