testants than gain volution the fall of The desire so far was only to check the reck- CH. 6. less and random accusations of persons whose A.D. 1529. offence was to have criticised, not the doctrine, but the moral conduct, of the church authorities. The protestants, although from the date of the The promeeting of the parliament and Wolsey's fall rather lose their ultimate triumph was certain, gained nothing in the rein its immediate consequences. They suffered which folrather from the eagerness of the political refor- lowed on mers to clear themselves from complicity with Wolsey. heterodoxy; and the bishops were even taunted with the spiritual dissensions of the realm as an evidence of their indolence and misconduct.* Language of this kind boded ill for the Christian brethren;' and the choice of Wolsey's successor for the office of chancellor soon confirmed their apprehensions; Wolsey had chastised them with whips; Sir Thomas More would chastise Sir Thomas them with scorpions; and the philosopher of the chancellorUtopia, the friend of Erasmus, whose life was of ship. blameless beauty, whose genius was cultivated to the highest attainable perfection, was to prove to the world that the spirit of persecution is no peculiar attribute of the pedant, the bigot, or the fanatic, but may co-exist with the fairest graces of the human character. The lives of remarkable men usually illustrate some emphatic truth. Sir Thomas More may be said to have lived to illustrate the necessary tendencies of Romanism in an honest mind convinced of its truth; to show that the test of sincerity in a man who The true *Petition of the Commons, cap. 3. More's test of sincerity in a Catholic. CH. 6. professes to regard orthodoxy as an essential of salvation, is not the readiness to endure persecution, but the courage which will venture to inflict it. A.D. 1529. The seals were delivered to the new chancellor in November, 1529. By his oath on entering office he was bound to exert himself to the utmost for the suppression of heretics:* he was bound, however, equally to obey the conditions under which the law allowed them to be suppressed. Unfortunately for his reputation as a judge, he permitted the hatred of 'that kind of men,' which he did not conceal that he felt,† to obscure his conscience on this important feature of his duty, and tempt him to imitate the worst iniquities of the bishops. I do not intend in this place to relate the stories of his cruelties in his house at Chelsea, which he himself partially denied, and which at least we may hope were exaggerated. Being obliged to confine myself to specific instances, I choose rather those on which the evidence is not open to question; and which prove against More, not the zealous execution of a cruel law, for which we may not fairly hold him responsible, but a disregard, in the highest degree censurable, of his obligations as a judge. * The acts under which heretics were liable to 2 Hen. V. stat. I. enemy that they could have, if they would not repent.'-MORE's Life of More, p. 211. See FoxE, vol. iv. pp. 689, 698, 705. punishment, were the 15th of the 2nd of Henry Cп. 6. IV., and the Ist of the 2nd of Henry V. A.D. 1529. were In cases of By the act of Henry IV., the bishops bound to bring offenders to trial in open court, within three months of their arrest, if there were legal period heresy, the of impri sonment trial was months. no lawful impediment. If conviction followed, previous to they might imprison at their discretion. Except three under these conditions, they were not at liberty to imprison. indict ments before the By the act of Henry V., a heretic, if he was In cases of first indicted before a secular judge, was to be delivered within ten days (or if possible, a shorter chancellor, period) to the bishop, 'to be acquit or convict' the accused by a jury in the spiritual court, and to be dealt to be deli with accordingly.* person was vered to the bishops within ten The secular judge might detain a heretic for days. ten days before delivering him to the bishop. The bishop might detain him for three months before his trial. Neither the secular judge nor the bishop had power to inflict indefinite imprisonment at will while the trial was delayed; nor if on the trial the bishop failed in securing a conviction, was he at liberty to detain the accused person any longer on the same charge, because the result was not satisfactory to himself. These provisions were not preposterously lenient. Sir Thomas More should have found More's no difficulty in observing them himself, and in ness in securing the observance of them by the bishops, these proat least in cases where he was himself responsible for the first committal. It is to be feared that careless observing visions. * 2 Hen. V. stat. I. A.D. 1529. CH. 6. he forgot that he was a judge in his eagerness to be a partisan, and permitted no punctilious legal scruples to interfere with the more important object of ensuring punishment to heretics. The first case which I shall mention is one in which the Bishop of London was principally guilty; not, however, without More's countenance, and, if Foxe is to be believed, his efficient support. In December, 1529, the month succeeding his appointment as chancellor, More, at the instance of the Bishop of London,* arrested a citizen of London, Thomas Philips by name, on a charge of Philips. heresy. Case of It The prisoner was surrendered in due form to his diocesan, and was brought to trial on the 4th of February; a series of articles being alleged against him by Foxford, the bishop's vicargeneral. The articles were of the usual kind. The prisoner was accused of having used unorthodox expressions on transubstantiation, on purgatory, pilgrimages, and confession. does not appear whether any witnesses were produced. The vicar-general brought his accusations on the ground of general rumour, and failed to maintain them. Whether there were witnesses or not, neither the particular offences, nor even the fact of the general rumour, could be proved to the satisfaction of the jury. Philips himself encountered each separate charge with a specific denial, declaring that he neither was, nor ever had been, * John Stokesley. เ A.D. 1529. other than orthodox; and the result of the trial CH. 6. was, that no conviction could be obtained. The prisoner was found so clear from all manner of infamous slanders and suspicions, that all the people before the said bishop, shouting in judgment as with one voice, openly witnessed his good name and fame, to the great reproof and shame of the said bishop, if he had not been ashamed to be ashamed.'* The case had broken down; the proceedings were over, and by law the accused person was free. But the law, except when it was on their own side, was of little importance to the church authorities. As they had failed to prove Philips guilty of heresy, they called upon him to confess his guilt by abjuring it; 'as if,' he says, 'there were no difference between a nocent and an innocent, between a guilty and a not guilty.'+ He refused resolutely, and was remanded to prison, in open violation of the law. The bishop, in conjunction with Sir Thomas More, sent for him from time to time, submitting him to private examinations, which again were illegal; and urged the required confession, in order, as Philips says, 'to save the bishop's credit.' The further they advanced, the more difficult it was to recede; and the bishop at length irritated at his failure, concluded the process with an arbitrary sentence of excommunication. From this sentence, whether just or unjust, there was * Petition of Thomas Philips to the House of Commons: Rolls House MS. + Ibid. FOXE, vol. v. pp. 29, 30. |