Part 3

“Cranmer concurred no less in other [misdoings] and disorders of this infant reign, than he did in those stated above. He gratified Somerset by subscribing to the death warrant of his brother. He was afterwards as forward as any of the other courtiers in paying his homage to the rising power of Dudley, when he found the interest of the latter growing stronger than that of Seymour: and he carried his ingratitude to his deceased benefactor Henry, and his infidelity in the discharge of that prince’s last will, to such a length as to concur in excluding his two daughters from their lawful inheritance and right to the crown, in order to place it on the head of Dudley’s daughter-in-law, the lady Jane. If Elizabeth [therefore] had succeeded to the throne immediately after Edward, she would no more have spared Cranmer and Ridley than Mary did.” {656b}

“In conclusion, if Cranmer was _burnt_ to death for heresy, instead of being beheaded for rebellion, [his advocates ought to] reflect, how many persons he himself, whilst he had power in his hands, had condemned to this punishment, on the selfsame accusation.” For it is undeniable that be was instrumental in the execution of many persons for religions opinions, and that some of them held the very tenets for which he himself afterwards suffered. “Though this part of his conduct has keen kept out of sight as much as possible, yet we have certain proofs of his having been one of the chief instruments, under Henry, in bringing to the stake John Lambert, Ann Askew, John Frith, and William Allen, {657a} for denying the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, besides a great number of anabaptists, &c. for their respective opinions.”

“In the reign of Edward VI, besides other most severe persecutions which he carried on against Gospellers, Anabaptists, and other sectaries, amongst whom two at least were Sacramentarians, he was the active promoter and immediate cause of the burning of Joan Knell, {657b} and George Paris or Van Parr, {657c} for certain singular opinions. Amongst those who escaped with their lives, a great part of them were forced to recant, through the fear of torments, and to carry lighted tapers and faggots, in testimony of their having merited burning. {658a} As to the fate of Joan Knell, or Butcher, commonly called Joan of Kent, (and whose innocent blood was evidently shed by the procurement of Cranmer,) Dr. Milner thinks that when it is considered with all its attendant circumstances, a more cruel and wanton act of persecution (he might have said _murder_,) is not to be found upon record. {658b} “The doctrine for which she suffered (he adds) was of an abstract nature, not calculated to gain proselytes or to occasion any public disturbances. She was barely accused of maintaining, that “Christ passed through the blessed Virgin’s body as water through a conduit, without participating of that body through which he passed.” {659a} For no other cause than persisting in this opinion, she was convented in the church of St. Paul, before archbishop Cranmer and his assistants, convicted and delivered over to the secular arm. We have the sentence that he pronounced on the occasion, which is rigorous beyond the usual terms; and we have a certificate of it, addressed to the king, in which instead of petitioning for mercy, in the usual style of such instruments, the convict heretic is expressly recommended “to receive due punishment.” Nor is this all, for the royal youth being unwilling to sign the warrant for her execution, Cranmer employs all his theological arguments to induce him to comply; amongst other things telling him that “princes, being God’s deputies, ought to punish impieties against God.” In the end Edward sets his hand to the warrant, but with tears in his eyes, telling Cranmer, that “if he did wrong, he (the said Cranmer) should answer for it to God.” At length, by a change in circumstances, the archbishop himself being condemned as a heretic to suffer that cruel death, to which he had condemned so many others on the same account, “he was far from imitating the firmness of the greater part of them.” {659b}

His recantation of his former or protestant principles, at Mary’s accession, is well known. The prevailing notion is, that it was the effect of “a momentary weakness,” or the act and deed of “an unguarded hour:” but that appears very far from being correct or true. On the contrary, “he is proved to have deliberately subscribed six different forms of recantation, at so many different periods, {660a} each one of which was more ample and express than the preceding one; and he remained during the whole five or six last weeks of his life, and until the very hour of his death, either a sincere catholic or an egregious hypocrite. At length finding that, notwithstanding so many retractations, he was upon the point of being executed, he revoked them all, and shewed a resolution at his death which he had exhibited in no one occurrence of his life.” {660b}

SECTION V.

_View of the first fruits of the English reformation_, _or its immediate and subsequent effects on the public manners and morals—system defective—reasons for introducing these subjects into this work_.

We have seen already what were the first fruits, or immediate effects of the continental reformation; and as our own reformation was only the counterpart of that, or, as we might say, its offspring, it was hardly to be expected but that the effects or fruits of both would be similar. We accordingly meet with undeniable evidence that that was really the case. Among those competent witnesses who describe the effects of the reformation in this kingdom, the first place or first hearing, no doubt, is due to that memorable prince who laid the foundation of it, Henry VIII. His majesty speaks very plainly and pointedly upon this subject, in a speech which he delivered to parliament the year before his death. Having then complained of the abuse which the people made of the permission he had granted them to read the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, by “their own phantastical opinions and vain expositions,” instead of consulting him their spiritual head, he goes on: “I am sure that charitie was never so faint amongst you, and vertuous and godlie living was never less, nor God himselfe amongst christians was never less reverenced, honored, or served.” {661}

“That the state of morality was not rendered better, but rather infinitely worse, in the following reign, when the protestant religion was fully developed and established, we have abundant and undeniable evidence in the confessions of the most zealous advocates and abettors of that cause. The following is _bishop Burnet’s_ account of the state of morality under Edward VI: “The sins of England did at that time call down from heaven heavy curses on the land. They are sadly expressed in a discourse that _Ridley_ wrote soon after, under the title of _The Lamentation of England_: he says that “lechery, oppression, pride, covetousness, and a hatred and scorn of all religion were generally spread amongst all people, but chiefly those of the higher ranks.” {662a}

Ridley’s fellow-bishop, _Latimer_, speaks still more openly as to one particular vice, in a sermon preached before the king, and quoted by Heylin. His words are these: “Lechery is used in England, and such lechery as is used in no other part of the world. And it is made a matter of sport, a trifle not to be passed on or reformed.” To remedy this he begs that the church may be reinstated in “her right of excommunicating notable offenders, by putting them out of the congregation.” {662b} In another of his court sermons he seems to glance at corruption in high places or offices—such as judges taking bribes: “I would wish,” (says he) “that of such a judge in England now we might have the skin hanged up. It were a goodly sight, the sign of the judge’s skin.” {662c}

“The laborious collector _Strype_, though a most zealous advocate for the cause of the reformation, yet draws the most frightful picture of the wickedness which prevailed throughout the nation after its first establishment that is to be met with in history. The account is too long to be here inserted at length, but it is comprised under the following heads: “The covetousness of the nobility and gentry; the oppression of the poor; no redress at law; the judges ready to barter justice for money; impunity of murders; the clergy very bad from the bishops to the curates; and above all, the increase of adulteries and whoredom. {663a} The historian _Camden’s_ description of these times agrees with that of the former writers. He says, “The sacrilegious avarice of the times rapaciously seized upon colleges, chantries, and hospitals, under the pretence of superstition: whilst ambition and jealousy amongst the great, and insolence and sedition amongst the people, swelled to such a pitch that England seemed to be raging mad with rebellions, tumults, party zeal, &c.” {663b}

During the reign of Elizabeth, when Camden wrote, and when the reformation had arrived at full maturity, though the civil state of the realm was better regulated, yet in private life, as Dr. Milner observes, “the vices of individuals in every rank rose to the same height of profligacy as before.” In corroboration of this he refers to contemporary protestant testimonies. _Stubbs_, the author of a piece entitled “Motives to Good Works,” with an epistle dedicatorie to the lord major of London, an. 1596, asserts, among other things, that the observation of Luther, (quoted above, p. 628,) still holds good: and he further says; “For good works who sees not that they (the papists of former times) were far beyond us, and we far behind them.” p. 44. To the same effect speaks _R. Jeffery_, in his sermon at Paul’s Cross, an. 1604. Many other writers, particularly of the puritan party, have given similar testimonies in reference to the reign both of Elizabeth and also of her successor James. {664}

From the preceding facts or premises we may venture to affirm that the effects of the reformation on those who first embraced it were not such as might be expected, or such as would have appeared, had the religion which the reformers introduced been of divine origin, or the same with that which the apostles promulgated, and which is contained in the New Testament. The latter, like a good tree, produced good fruit; and its effects, wherever it prevailed, or was heartily received, were very different from those above described, and of the very opposite character. It must follow therefore, that the religion of the reformers was so radically and materially defective as not to be adapted to answer some of the chief or most important ends which the religion of Christ was designed to promote—and even that its whole scope and tendency were actually subversive of those very ends.

This will not appear very wonderful when it is considered what manner of spirit the reformers were of, or how their religion was constituted, and that they appear to have paid far more attention to the sayings and dictates of Athanasius and Jerom, Ambrose and Austin, and the rest of those old women called _fathers_, than they did to those of the apostles and evangelists, or even of Jesus Christ himself. Nothing therefore very good and excellent could be expected from them; nor indeed any thing superior to, or better than such a farrago as they did produce, or such articles, creeds, confessions, directories, formulas, &c. as they thought proper to impose on their disciples and followers. To have produced what was right good, and excellent, they must have drawn from a purer fountain, and partaken of another and very different spirit.

The reformation being destitute of the spirit of christianity, and full of that of popery, which constituted its grand defect, it could not possibly prove that blessing to mankind which it otherwise would have done. It usurped the same dominion over conscience as the old religion did, and persecuted with equal bitterness and violence those who dared to think and judge for themselves, and refused to yield obedience to its authority, or submit to its usurpation. It is difficult therefore to see on what that mighty reverence claimed for the names and memory of the reformers can be founded. Had they actually published and granted liberty of conscience to the people, and allowed every honest man to think and judge for himself, and to serve and worship God according to the conviction of his own mind—then, indeed, might love and gratitude and reverence be justly claimed to their memory, and their names be enrolled among the best and most eminent benefactors of their species. But such was not their conduct.—In fine, considering the spirit which they breathed and the effects which their doctrines produced, it seems impossible to look upon them as promoters of the religion of the New Testament, or promulgators of the genuine gospel of Jesus Christ.

But it may, and probably will be asked, Why introduce these subjects into the present work? To this we beg leave to answer: 1. Because they are in general ill understood, and supposed to be so by many who will probably peruse these sheets, to whom an attempt to place them in a right and true light would be, as it was thought, a reasonable and acceptable service.—2. Because we are now entering upon that part of the work which commences at the reformation, in which of course, many things will occur which have resulted from that event; an introductory sketch of which therefore seemed necessary for the right conception or illustration of such occurrences.—3. Because the discussion of these subjects here will enable the reader to perceive the living image and offspring of the original reformers in those of the present day who assume the character of _evangelical_, and sole promoters of _vital_ religion. Their _principles_ and _spirit_ evince the stock whence they are sprung: and so also do those _filial feelings_ so very visible in their readiness at all times to defend or palliate the very worst actions of those reformers, and even the murderous deeds of a Calvin and a Cranmer.—4 Because it afforded the author an opportunity to bear his testimony against some of the greatest existing evils that have sprung from the reformation, bigotry and intolerance; which have ever since, even in this protestant country and town, and among most of our tolerated sects, usurped the place of religious liberty, and trampled upon the sacred rights of conscience.

SECTION VI.

_Further remarks on the effects of the Reformation_, _especially as they appeared in this town_.

The effects of the reformation were very great and remarkable, not only on those who were rationally proselyted to it, or who received it upon conviction, but also on them who went with the tide without exercising their reason or troubling their heads at all about the comparative merits of the two religions. Neither party had their morals improved, but on the contrary rendered much more dissolute by the change, as we have already seen. The same event had likewise effects no less visible and remarkable on the very aspect or appearance of both town and country; as must necessarily have been the case from the dissolution and demolition of so many religious houses, and the suppression and expulsion of such a multitude of monks, friars, and nuns, who must have had no small influence in preserving social order, regulating the morals, and restraining many of the vicious propensities of the community.

In fact, the licentiousness which appears to have resulted from the reformation is seemingly to be ascribed to the three following causes—1. The real, apparent, or supposed loose tendency of certain leading doctrines of the reformers, as was observed before.—2. The suppression of the religious houses, whose inhabitants used to be the means of promoting public decency, and checking the influence of licentious principles. {668}—3. The revolutionary character of the reformation. All great revolutions, from their very nature, tend to weaken the ties, and loosen the bands which preserve the good order of society and strengthen the moral habits of its members.—It may be reasonably concluded that each of these causes had a material effect on this town and country at the memorable era of reformation, and long after.

We can discover no appearance or indication that the character or disposition of the Lynn people was further christianized, mollified, or any way improved by that extraordinary event; but rather the contrary. Among the principal transactions left upon record as having taken place here since the reformation, one of the first is “the burning of a Dutchman in the Market place for heresy.” This is said to have happened in the year 1335, and so at an early period of our protestantism. It is remarkable enough that the only instance that occurred in this town of putting a man to death for heresy, or burning him for his religion, happened after the reformation, or since the town became protestant; which shews that people may bear that honourable name and at the same time be very far from humanity and righteousness.

The poor hapless sufferer had probably fled to England and made choice of Lynn as a place of refuge from the persecution which then raged in his own country. He might be induced to take this step from the favourable reports he had heard at home of the generosity and hospitality of our nation towards strangers, and particularly the oppressed and friendless. If such was actually the case, he found himself at last miserably disappointed, and learnt by dear bought and bitter experience, that however abundant the liberality and tender mercies of England and of Lynn might be towards some descriptions of oppressed or distressed people, yet that they by no means extended to those called _heretics_:—an appellation which has too often meant no more than that those branded with it differed from the ruling or predominant party, and were consigned by them to the ill opinion and detestation of the public.

The deplorable fate of this friendless stranger must stamp indelible disgrace on the memory of his brutal murderers? and it shews what little reason Lynn then had to congratulate itself on its change from popery to protestantism. We have no account what the dreadful heresy was, with which this unpitied victim to protestant bigotry and persecution was charged, and for which he suffered. Whatever it was, it could not be very dangerous or alarming; for as he was a foreigner there could be no danger of his disseminating it here among a people of whose language he can be supposed to have little or no knowledge. In short, every feeling heart must be shocked at the aggravated atrocity of this diabolical deed.

It is sad and mortifying enough to think how much this town has been under the influence of religious bigotry and intolerance, and the most pitiful narrowmindedness almost ever since. The harmless _Quakers_ were here imprisoned and cruelly treated, and the _Baptists_ were harassed in the most unjust and shameful manner even after the revolution. Poor creatures, most wrongfully branded with the odious name of _witches_, were here also for no short period since the reformation, subjected to rigorous prosecutions and capital punishments. These facts are now just glanced at, but shall be more fully related hereafter in the course of the work.

Unfavourable as some of the reformed doctrines undoubtedly were to moral improvement, it cannot be said to be the case with all of them. Some were evidently of the opposite tendency, as were also some of the romish doctrines. But they could not be expected to produce the desired effect unless they were extensively promulgated; and that does not appear to have been the case in this country, at least till a long while after the commencement of the reformation. It was one of the great and glaring defects of the reforming system in England, that it did not provide a sufficient number of religious or public instructors in lieu of those of the old religion who had been suppressed and silenced at the dissolution of the monasteries and other religious houses, or in consequence of their aversion to the new order of things. These are known to have been very numerous, but the number of the reformed ministers, or protestant clergy, who were appointed to succeed them and supply their places as public instructors, appears to have been very inconsiderable; comparatively at least: and, what is not a little remarkable, they were also, for the most part, far less competent than their predecessors for the charge they undertook. In such circumstances, and with such a ministry, it might be expected that vice and licentiousness would increase and abound.

The state of things at Lynn, at, and long after the reformation, does not appear to have been at all favourable to moral and religious improvement. Before that period the town abounded with religious and moral instructors, such as they were, who certainly contributed in no small measure to preserve social order and public decency; and when they were afterwards superseded, their successors did not appear to greater advantage. They were not their superiors in abilities, and they were far inferior to them in number, and probably no less so in the public estimation, and the weight and extent of their influence over the minds of the inhabitants at large, especially those of the middling and lower orders, who constituted the main body or majority of the inhabitants. For among these there did not appear to be many then, as there had been formerly, who were dissatisfied with the old order of things, and anxious for a religious revolution. {672}

Before the reformation the number of ecclesiastics or religious functionaries at Lynn was very considerable, amounting perhaps to sixty or seventy at least. Of them fifteen belonged to the _Austin_ Convent, twelve to the _Dominican_, ten to the _Franciscan_, and eleven to the _Carmelite_: making in all _forty eight_. To these may be added the monks of the _Benedictine_ Priory, those who belonged to the Convent _de Penitentia_, and to the _College_ of Priests, amounting, it may be supposed, on a moderate computation, to twenty or thirty more. Such a number as seventy or eighty, or even _sixty_ clergymen, or public teachers of religion, for this town, would now be thought too large of all reason and conscience. But they were no fewer here before the reformation, if indeed they were so few; and the influence of such a number of ghostly guides and instructors, to restrain immoral excesses, and preserve public decency and social order, must certainly have been very considerable.

At the reformation they were all silenced and suppressed. They were also succeeded, when successors could be found, (which was not always the case) {673} by men who had renounced the spiritual supremacy of the pope, and acknowledged that of the king, which was always an indispensible requirement and qualification. But very generally, it seems, throughout the nation, the protestant successors of the priests, monks, and friars, were poor hands, and ill qualified to instruct and enlighten the people; {674} and such, it is probable, were those who succeeded in this town. There is reason to think that their number too was very small, not exceeding perhaps three or four, or half a dozen at most, which, considering also their deficiency in other respects, was not likely to render them in the eyes of the public of any thing like equal consideration with their expelled predecessors. The state of society therefore could not be expected to be much benefited or improved, or the progress of the reformation facilitated and advanced by their ministration.