A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L 0 D Z 1 E N S I S
F O LIA L IT TE R A R IA ANG L1CA 8, 2009
M arek Sm oluk
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE “HENRICIAN” CHURCH
AND THE NATIONAL CONVERSION TO ANGLICANISM UNDER
THE MONARCH’S SEVERE SCRUTINY
M ost historians nowadays tend to agree th at the starting point o f the English R eform ation was the fiasco of the divorce proceedings in London. The Legatine C ourt, which Cardinal Campeggio presided over, came to a decision th at “ the case was too high, and notable know n through all the world, for us to m ake any hasty judgem ent.” 1 H aving consulted on this m atter with Clement VII, the Legate instructed th at the court was adjourned and the case was referred to Rome. Henry V III, determined not to give in, em barked on a course o f implementing all possible tactics - from persuasion to threatening - in order to m ake the Pope change his m ind. Undoubtedly, one o f the m eans of exerting pressure upon Clement VII was calling a meeting o f the English clergy in Canterbury in 1531, which acknowledged th at their m onarch was, “ so far as the law of Christ allows, supreme head o f the English Church and clergy” (Hughes, vol. I, 227-229; Delumeau, vol. I, 98). This, however, had no effect and the Pope remained unmoved. In response to no reaction, Henry VIII went further and forced Parliam ent to pass the Act of Annates, on the basis of which certain papal revenues were halted. One m onth later the English clergy resigned from the Pope’s judicial power over them and accepted the king’s jurisdiction. T h at course o f events prom pted Charles V’s am bassador to reflect th a t “ it looks as if the king [Henry VIII] had proclaimed himself a new pope in E ngland” (Lecler 303). T he am bassador confided his observation to his Em peror, but suffice it to say the link between England and Rom e still existed, at least officially. A t the end of 1532 the necessity o f pronouncing H enry’s m arriage
1 Q uoted after the article: S t. John Fisher, Bishop and m artyr available from: w ww .catholictradiion.org, p. 2.
to Catherine annulled became urgent because Anne Boleyn had been pre gnant. M eanwhile and unexpectedly, archbishop C ranm er, who was a devo ted and obedient servant o f the Crown, was authorised by the Pope to handle any theological disputes occurring in England. The decision was confirmed and even enlarged by the Act o f Appeals passed in the English Parliam ent. These decisions enabled Thom as C ranm er to perform his duties speedily. N o sooner had he granted his consent for the divorce with Catherine o f A ragon than he crowned A nne Boleyn queen o f England. In 1534 Parliam ent voted on another law - the Act o f Supremacy, which in a way completed the English Reform ation. H enry VIII was m ade the Supreme H ead o f the Anglican Church, but this newly established institution had no doctrines, which would regulate canons o f faith.
Fig. 1. T he picture depicts the English clergy accepting the king’s jurisdiction (U nknow n author)
The essential aim o f this paper is to present the evaluation o f the consequences o f the doctrinal reform in the king’s realm, with reference to Anglicans and those who dared profess a different religion. T o m ake this assessment, the paper first shows how a form ulary o f faith was created and how under the pressures o f time, new versions o f doctrinal reform were being debated and which one and why, finally met with the king’s approval. This analysis should also give an answer to the question o f whether or not the doctrinal reform paved the way for Protestant Christianity. Additionally, the paper attem pts to assess to what extent the new doctrine differed from the one prior to the Reform ation.
Under normal circumstances the setting up of a new Church is preceded by form ing an ideology, which becomes the basis o f a new religion. W ith the establishment o f the Anglican Church it was different. First, Henry VIII was m ade the H ead of his Church and then the churchm en faced the task of working out and fitting doctrines into the “Henrician” Church. The doctrinal reform , which had to be carried out, was by no m eans easy. Whilst form ula ting a form ulary of faith, at least two crucial issues had to be taken into account. First and forem ost, from the point of view o f Rom e, England was now a heretical country, and this was a good enough pretext for a Christian king o f France o r a R om an Em peror to declare a war on England. Second, H enry VIII and the m ajority of his subjects, though they m ay have been somewhat anticlerical, were still devoted greatly to the C atholic Church. Despite the fact th at the English disapproved o f hypocritical and uneducated priests as well as corrupt and worldly m onks, at the time o f H enry’s rift with Rome and ultimate break-up, the majority were on the whole satisfied with the teachings o f the Catholic Church. M oreover, the English clergymen were conscious equally o f the evils, which had spread within the church and needed to be rooted out. This rather general understanding o f religious abuses, clear to all Englishmen, did not resolve the existing problems. All churchmen agreed however, that those who would be made responsible for formulating faith must do it with great caution so as to meet the expectations o f all subjects of the Crown, who after all, presented a variety o f opinions. Above all, the outcome o f this work m ust provide a sound basis for the unity o f the English Church.
The first attem pt to define the creed for the Anglican C hurch was m ade in July 1536 by the English Convocation, which issued the Ten Articles. The docum ent upheld traditional teachings of the Catholic C hurch on the sacra ments of the Eucharist, baptism and penance. The remaining four, although not entirely discarded, were passed over in silence (Elton 256-260). The Catholic rituals as well as pictures of saints were retained intact. N either did the reform question the m eaning of prayers for the dead. However, holy masses were no longer considered to be a way o f helping the dead souls to reach salvation, consequently a definition of purgatory was carefully avoided (Dickens 243-245).
The Ten Articles defined new doctrines of faith but in num erous parts they were either not well-thought through or left considerable room for am biguous interpretations. Thus the docum ent of July 1536 m anaged neither to suppress the fears arising in conservatives nor satisfy the ambitions of advocates o f reforms. Six m onths after com pletion o f the Ten Articles English church officials were ready to gather again to deliberate on a new, and this time m ore acceptable definition o f faith. Form ally, it was Thom as Cromwell who supervised the meeting, but he m et with little success in his attem pts to impose his m ore radical views on the conservative participants.2 Several m onths o f heated debates resulted in yet another questionable comprom ise, the tangible fruit of which was The Institutions o f a Christian
Man, known also as The Bishops’ Book.3 The previously defined doctrines
were revised and set out in The Institutions o f a Christian M an. T he keynote o f this book was the sufficiency of Scripture in doctrine and the Bible being asserted as the highest and ultim ate authority in m atters of religion. The other four sacram ents, previously rejected, were brought back but transub- stantiation was not explicitly defined. In a general overview, both the Ten
Articles and The Bishops’ Book failed to m ake a decisive step, either forward
to m ore radical changes or backward to traditional doctrines. Henry VIII came to the conclusion th at The Institutions o f a Christian M an could not be a basis o f belief for his newly founded Church (?). Thus the outcom e of the bishops’ deliberations was never presented to Parliam ent. The Bishops’
Book was, however, published by Berthelet in September 1537 and was only
recom mended for the private use of the parish clergy. A t present, m any historians see little historical value in this publication, yet they point to its im portance in terms o f linguistic and literary studies. J. A. Froude speaks o f The Institutions o f a Christian M an in the following words:
in point o f language beyond question [The Institutions o f a Christian M an is] the most beautiful com position which had as yet appeared in English prose. (F roude 245)
Assistance in working out a form ulary o f faith for the Anglican Church was offered to H enry by foreign theologians and reformers. F o r instance, H. Bullinger and W. C apito sent to the English court their books dedicated to the m onarch, simultaneously presenting their views on doctrinal reforms. The works offered, though accepted gladly, came in for m uch criticism. It became self-evident that Henry VIII could not afford to be influenced and m uch as he disapproved o f his own churchm en’s judgem ents, he acted in
2 A m ongst those notable and em inent church officials there were orthodox bishops of English dioceses: R. Strokesley, S. G ariner, H. Latim er, N. Shaxton, W. Barlow, W. Repps, R. Sampson and T. G oodrich.
the same way with European theologians. On behalf o f the king I homas Cranm er advised W. C apito th at his Responsio de M issa, M atrimonio et jure
Magistrates in Religionem had been cordially received and deeply appreciated,
but regrettably the m onarch did not share the a u th o r’s opinion in terms of holy masses (C ranm er 340). Similarly, a Swiss reform er H. Bullinger was informed th at the receipt o f his De Scriptvrae Sanctae Avthoritate had pleased H enry VIII, who even requested the book to be translated into English. Nonetheless, the king found some o f the a u th o r’s statements unacceptable.4 The rejection of both offers m ust be viewed not in the sense o f H enry’s conceit and pride, but rather in a wider context: in the light of theological attrition am ongst the Crow n’s subjects and the uncertain political situation, any overt sympathy tow ards G erm an or Swiss reformers would have been an act o f light-mindedness.
The events, which occurred at English universities, illustrate best the internal conflict over the form ulary o f faith. The execution of bishop John Fisher, along with six m onks and a dozen priests, who would refuse to swear loyalty to the new regime, gave rise to discontent am ongst a num ber of orthodox lecturers at St. Jo h n ’s College. After the elections o f a M aster in 1537, the scholars stubbornly ignored George D ay - the nom inee ap pointed by T hom as Cromwell and singled out Nicholas Wilson. Their newly appointed candidate who had in the past presented a bad attitude to the royal supremacy was simply pardoned and released from imprisonm ent. The courage th at the fellows of St. Jo h n ’s dem onstrated was shortly conver ted into submissiveness. The following year G eorge Day was replaced with a royal candidate - John Taylor, and this time no one protested.
In the m eantim e, Oxford University became an open arena o f m utual recrim inations about heretical and popery sympathies. R obert Huycke, who in 1535 was dismissed from the position o f the principal at St. A lban’s Hall, returned to grace once he had recanted and regained T hom as Crom well’s favour. Oddly enough, R obert Smith, who was R. H uycke’s successor at St. A lban’s H all, was also accused of holding im proper opinions and sympathising with the Pope’s supremacy. Similarly, the W arden of New College Jo h n London was compelled to defend himself against unfounded slander. The fact th at he m anaged to regain his position after the passing of The S ix Articles suggests that his timely subservience was evidently effective. Jo h n London proved he was worthy o f being a trusted servant by sending two o f his employees from College to the M ayo r’s office for interrogation because they had been overheard discussing the papal supremacy. T he identical atm osphere of m utual distrust and denunciation
4 N icholasa Partridge’s letter [in:] Epistolae Tigurinae [...] 1531-58, Cam bridge 1848, p. 396-398.
perm eated the discussions o f the fellows at Corpus Christi. The example of a group o f evangelicals who were caught red-handed eating m eat in Lent 1538 illustrates clearly the sort of practices people resorted to. In order to pay back old grievances against his colleagues, Longland informed Thom as Cromwell via Thom as C ranm er about the incident of consuming meat during Lent (Cranm er 381-384). N obody would ever have learnt of this, had one o f the m iscreants not been bribed and revealed the names o f the “ offenders.” The accused confessed to comm itting this offence and defended themselves by claiming that they had been eating m eat solely for the sake o f health and in secret so as to avoid tem pting others. It seems unlikely th at any repercussions followed this denunciation, since Longland was calling indignantly for punishm ent for the same offence in August 1539 (Fowler 120-126). This example shows explicitly the overwhelming paranoia o f recrim inations which in the late fifteen thirties began to echo loudly in the kingdom.
U nder existing circumstances the only way o f bringing a halt to these continuous accusations and bickering was a clear definition o f belief and practice. H enry VIII himself stepped in and instructed m em bers of P ar liam ent in the session o f April 1539 to define a satisfactory form ulary of belief. Acting accordingly, a committee o f three evangelicals and three conservative bishops was set up and Thom as Cromwell was chosen to preside over their meetings. Unsurprisingly, this evenly balanced body was unable to compromise, and consequently failed to produce the outcome both the king and nation had expected. Determ ined to sort out this issue, Henry VIII m ade Parliam ent sit in session again in Decem ber 1539. It was then th at the A ct for Abolishing Diversity of Opinion was voted on and passed into a statute (Delumeau, vol. I, 99). The new law defined the fram ew ork and substance o f faith and the whole form ulary was draw n up in The S ix Articles. On the basis o f Article 1 transubstantiation was retained and anyone who questioned it exposed themselves to the death penalty. Article 2 perm itted com m union in one kind to the laity. The next two points stated unequivocally celibacy for priests and the inviolability of m onastic vows. The two final articles regulated issues concerning the legality o f private masses and the necessity for oral confessions to a priest (Dickens 246-247; Elton 284, 286-288). The whole doctrinal reform was written down and published in 1543 entitled: The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition
o f a Christian Man. This publication is m ore comm only known as The King s Book since this one, as opposed to The Bishops’ Book, was authorised
by the king himself. H enry VIII was involved in both form ing its draft and later preparing the final version of which was to become law. The king’s active participation is visible in his m anuscript corrections o f the first draft o f the A ct and in several documents, which formed the basis o f the printed
work. T hus the doctrinal reform was successfully completed thanks to the king’s intervention.
In spite o f the penalties, which could now be inflicted upon those who dared breach the new law; in practice not too m any m artyrs were created by the Act o f The Six Articles. Am ongst the m ost well know n figures of those days one needs to m ention bishops Hugh Latim er and Nicholas Shaxton, who were forced to resign from their sees. Myles Coverdale, who had previously m ade a name for himself thanks to his vernacular translation o f the G reat Bible, was forced into exile. The m ost sensational trial and execution was undoubtedly th at o f Thom as Cromwell. He was charged and convicted o f heresy, but the real cause o f his fall from grace was the fiasco o f the king’s m arriage with Anne o f Cleeves. H enry VIII had willingly agreed to the proposed m arriage solely on the basis o f H ans H olbein’s picture, which due to Cromwell’s intervention had been m ade “too flattering” (Daniell 101). O n Anne o f Cleeve’s arrival the m onarch set out from Greenwich to Rochester to meet his fiancé. He was so disappointed with her plain looks th at Anne was nicknamed “M y Flanders M are” and Thom as Cromwell, who had singled her out from the European courts, was beheaded (Caw thorne 22).
Thom as Cromwell’s execution ushered in a period o f persecutions, during which neither Catholics, nor Lutherans nor A nabaptists could feel safe in the king’s realm. A lthough there was no drastic increase noticeable in the num ber o f dissenters convicted, still the subjects of the C row n - as Joseph Lecler puts it - were watched and scrutinised “with the aid of a spying and denouncing w hip” (Lecler 310). Neither Lutherans no r A nabaptists could hope for the king’s grace, since according to the “ H enrician” creed they were identified with heretics. Such dissenters were usually charged with crimes o f a religious nature. The Rom an Catholics found themselves in a far worse situation. The English Civil Code regarded m em bers of the Rom an C atholic Church as traitors and loyalty or even sym pathy to the Pope in Rom e was viewed as the worst offence. According to Henry VIII, such people questioned his royal and religious authority, and this m eant th at they were considered to be political offenders (Lecler 311).
U nder these new circumstances Thom as C ranm er happened to be the first target for a savage attack. T hroughout his career the archbishop had dem onstrated unshakeable loyalty to the m onarchy. In 1533, after the downfall o f T hom as Wolsey, he had proclaim ed th at H enry’s m arriage to C atherine o f A ragon was invalid and presided over the wedding ceremony o f the king and A nne Boleyn. In the late fifteen thirties, however, Thom as C ranm er began to reveal his passive agreement to the king’s religious policy and despite his dedication to H enry VIII he dared to criticise the sovereign’s irrevocable decisions on religious matters. Once Thom as C ranm er’s viewpoint
5
* H E N R Y T l i j ! BY G B T
a r t » t c r. a c c o i ç o n h y a t,o f B ig i ? # d c , I rautu*e* attît <Jc* f ę n - J k u u ó f iUc fa y tn * , <k iJ Irt w t l i c u î th e
iiiüfchc o f En g tanie
aîfu of 1 rcUtUc.
in te n te head, vn ta aU Un jaytlifui a «4 îu -
u y u g fuUie ¿ l a fe u d c ih g rcc iy tig *
Iîc as m tljc trim ofûarhencs *
V- I'
fjuïDpfce our piaule H t iiffü
| j
m
lîîO&MlüCU ÎtOUt tl}£ (tilÇflt bl» lil^CufUV
I
û,i° fupt rÎMtott:
ïcc
b? ifje ijdpr o f 503
\
t ^ & C t anołji&toaj&e, fMiir fà K M virttü p u t p
• -
-t ano ch*ufe a ur ra ln ir from tfyf appataiu
rti6;mir(es of
th<uvnc,
urî^ifnu Up o p c ti^ m o f y o o o fs
t r u n li.b .’tf) fcttpngftmi) aut> pui>((n)pttg of ifjc fcupttN
t * 0 ; our labours {t^atitui b v i o p o ; liaut «or lira tmtD
A tiD fiu ftrar: aonotoc prrçàiijmg* tija tu itix tp u t& f
lvtioUiîcO0v. tljrbtuUl (lotjfo rcAifciu not ut ail ijunts io
V d K llK UrO;iDj fjaiii atttütfO (o tth m tc a g a ïu t,im ljC
paraWc m tlu g o fp d
(tfàotüf)
m t o ^ c lio'ttftpmflcot
ckufcfc, acronipamcti but) fcttcti tuo*fr fpauco :
potrtfcadb iuptrftutou brnujm liłOrCt anOptti ai»a»\
toef>*up rtjtfrcî» tu to fonte o f oueproptes fy4t {<,% au tu
clmauou to riniiUfbiiDfii{uO>'»(ioi' ftn p tn w ^^ru jiip -
K o u , arrogant?* ciuuauilrm y, atiftronicu^on; u>*&c
i !ttr to *c C ô tiflra u K ù to ; tbç t rîo .M iJitfo ito f t&tttt tu m u r , titlUfo) .utopïsrn^ci iu 4 iù m a fu i'u to p tm a n p , a s
bv,
fljcrapoctuùrptttun łuptjfjt bc citgcnOiiû ipftc ûurii
liHifi rîji oouifcof out ciiTûF fu rtjrao o * :u u : v Q«!at\ï*
itou of ih ł mu* ŁnatokDtje
o f
tjo & Ï W & jb à j& tM fÿ lt;c
p.tiK tpaii A ^ jik a o fo ù tttlu & to iw s
us> tnaj»
Fig. 2. The cover page o f The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition o f a Christian M an, known also as The K ing’s Book
in this m atter became public knowledge, the opponents conceived a sinister plot against him. The archbishop’s foes from the Privy C ouncil5 suggested to the m onarch th at only if Cranm er was arrested would his accusers not fear to testify against him. H enry VIII granted his permission, and only A nthony D enny’s and William Butts’ intervention6 saved the archbishop from arrest (Cattley Reed 24-29). This failure to have T hom as C ranm er put in custody did n ot stop the conspirators from further attem pts to discredit him. In K ent a special commission was formed, which was to analyse again the charges m ade against the archbishop. The m em bers of this “ self-appoin ted ju ry ” were so biased in favour o f the plotters th at one further interven tion o f Denny and Butts had to be requested to ask for the sending of someone influential from the king’s court, who would successfully defend the accused. Eventually the fabricated charges o f heresies against I homas C ranm er were dropped (Nichols 253).
N o sooner had the conspiracy failed than another attem pt was m ade to discredit C ranm er through the prosecution o f one o f his diocesan priests. Richard T urner, who was a preacher and curator in C hatham , was accused o f holding and expressing in public heretical views. A m ongst the charges m ade against him there was one o f particular interest i.e. he had been suspected o f having translated the holy mass into English and celebrating this new kind o f service in his church. Consequently, he was summoned before the Council, interrogated and crossed-examined by bishop S. Gardiner and finally found guilty on the grounds of The S ix Articles. Since Thom as C ranm er, shortly after his own trouble, was unable to intervene to help his subordinate, again A nthony Denny and William Butts were asked for their assistance.7 Jo hn Foxe in A cts and M onuments presents in detail the way W. Butts approached the m onarch with the intention of helping R. Turner:
spying his time, when the king was in trim ming and in washing, Buts brought with him in his hand this letter. The king asking what news, Buts pleasantly and merrily beginneth to insinuate unto the king the effect o f the m atter, and so, a t the king’s com m andm ent, read out the letter [...] the hearing and consideration w hereof so altered the king’s mind, th at whereas before he comm anded the said T urner whipped out o f the country, he now com m anded him to be retained as a faithful subject. A nd here o f th a t m atter an end (Cattley Reed 34).
5 The Privy Council is a body o f the m onarch’s closest advisors on legislation, justice and adm inistration. U nder the reign o f H enry VIII, the m onarch in collaboration with The Privy Council was able to enact laws and injunctions by mere proclam ation. In the 16th century laws were m ade by the Sovereign more frequently on the advice o f the Council, rath er th an on the advice o f Parliam ent.
6 T he incident, however, is full o f obscurities and historians argue who o f these two
influential friends o f the king’s - A. D enny or W. Butts - was m ore genuine in his attem pt to assist the victim o f this plot. See more about this event in: Nichols 263.
Thom as C ranm er and his diocesan priest were saved thanks to such figures as William Butts and A nthony Denny. Interestingly enough, both Butts and D enny, though ridding the king’s court o f powerless preferment, were in fact am ongst the m ost eminent and influential residents o f the court.
The failure to convict Thom as Cranm er and Richard T urner did not discourage the radical faction within the Privy Council, which continued its w itch-hunt for supposed heretics in the king’s realm. T he intensification of their activity commenced at W indsor in 1543. Several people o f humble origin and associated with the Town Council or W indsor chapel such as A nthony Peerson, R obert Testwood or John M arbeck were arrested (McCo- nica 220-222). T heir detention was a p art o f a well-thought through plan. According to which, the interrogators hoped th at those arrested would reveal the surnam es o f prom inent figures who sympathised with religious dissenters in the kingdom. The m ain initiator o f this heretic-hunt was a canon of St. G eorge’s - John London. He suspected that some members o f the Privy Council supported financially such radicals like A. Peerson or J. M arbeck. T he latter was examined with particular rigour in the hope that he possessed some discrediting inform ation about Philip H oby and Simon Heynes. Philip H oby, a diplom at and a m em ber o f the Privy Council, sympathised with evangelicals whilst Simon Heynes, who was W. Butts’ bosom-friend, was a Cam bridge radical who had risen in status during the king’s divorce with Catherine o f Aragon. The attem pt to incriminate these two reformers failed, but those who were to provide evidence for their guilt were executed. T he rescuing factor for P. Hoby and S. Heynes was ironically J. L ondon’s carelessness and overestimation o f his influence. The canon overreached him self in his investigations and was him self found guilty of perjury whilst those whom he had attem pted to oppress were pardoned (Searle 180-191). On August 31st 1544 the king’s court declared a general amnesty for the people who were members o f the Privy Council or its associates and were falsely charged. Thus the vicious attack on the faction o f reformers in or about the Privy Council had fallen through.
William Butts, the royal physician and king’s confidant, died in Novem ber 1545. It is notew orthy and perhaps not mere coincidence th at attem pts to discredit radicals at the court and around it were reinforced one year after B utts’ death. W. Butts m aintained frequent and confidential contact with the m onarch, who trusted him implicitly, and this m ade him an ideal protector o f those who happened to be in trouble. The king’s confidant - though m anaging to save archbishop C ranm er and Richard T urner - was unable to help Edw ard Crome, Anne Askew or Catherine Parr.
Edw ard Crom e, who found favour in both Anne Boleyn’s and Thom as C ranm er’s eyes, delivered controversial sermons both at London churches and the king’s court. A lthough in the past he had been suspended from his
position, it was his preaching against the sacrificial nature o f the mass, given at the M ercers’ Chapel in Lent 1546 which caused him real trouble (Pollard 257-266). He was immediately arrested after the sermon and compelled to recant it.
This incident turned out to be the starting point of a thorough inves tigation carried out at the king’s court and around it, the aim of which was to detect all heretics and their sympathisers. The first victim o f this heretic- hunt was bishop Latim er. This bishop o f W orcester, who had already retired, was charged with persuading Edward Crome to deliver heretical sermons, and on the basis o f these charges H. Latim er was incarcerated in the Tow er o f London.
No com parable punishm ent to that o f H. Latimer was to be inflicted upon Anne Askew, who rejected the sacrament o f transubstantiation, claiming that it was based on a false concept. According to this woman, the bread and wine o f the L o rd ’s Supper does not alter substance and they should be treated as mere symbols o f the body and blood o f the Lord. A fter her im prisonm ent in the Tower, she was tortured into not only repudiating her firm belief but also revealing the names o f those who shared her viewpoint in this m atter. Despite the inhum ane torm ent she was exposed to, Anne Askew rem ained unmoved and no names were extracted from her. She was eventually released, but her persistence in her faith led to a second incarceration. This tim e she underwent such agonising to rture th at she was unable to walk unaided to the place of her execution. This notorious woman was carried there on a chair and even at the stake she did not recant her faith (Bainton 1973; Bale 1849; Deen 1959). The history o f the last m onths o f her life is closely connected with bishop Nicholas Shaxton. This bishop of Salisbury was also suspected of holding false sacram ental belief, and only m anaged to escape the flames by a timely recantation, which was printed with a preface begging for H enry’s mercy (M cConica 223-225). H aving shown himself harmless, Nicholas Shaxton was sent to persuade Anne Askew to renounce her opinions, and since she proved adam ant, he preached a sermon of recantation at her execution. H ardly had A nne Askew been burnt when another heretical serm on was delivered by a lecturer of St. Jo h n ’s - John Taylor. The preacher dared express his heretical views at St. Edm unds in Berry, for which he was subsequently placed in confinement. Only the signing o f a recantation letter saved his life.
The cases o f Edw ard Crom e’s, Nicholas Shaxton’s and John T aylor’s recantation are only a few examples to illustrate how the political machinery, which H enry VIII set in m otion with the founding of his new church, compelled the subjects o f the Crown to turn down their old faith and accept the one imposed by the king. Those, who in spite of pressure and persuasion, still rejected the new doctrine, as in the case o f Anne Askew, indicates where their obstinacy would have led them to.
In conclusion, it is clear th at the prim ary question o f w hether or not the doctrinal reform paved the way for Protestant C hristianity still leaves much room for further studies. Perhaps, it only showed the light. A new formulary o f faith was introduced in the minimal scope due to H enry V III’s reluctance. The answer becomes even m ore complicated when one takes into account the king’s com m itm ent to orthodox Catholic teachings, and contrasts this with his long-term toleration, if not support, o f the Protestant-m inded subjects o f the Crown such as archbishop Cranm er. Perhaps Henry VIII lived in conviction (and rightly if this was so) th at sudden alterations must not be implemented beyond the nation’s toleration. On the other hand, the m onarch ruled with a harsh hand and sent his wives, m inisters and ordinary subjects o f the Crown to the scaffold irrespective o f their devotion and loyalty. Leopold von R anke’s rem ark illustrates best w hat has been under discussion: “ In H enry VIII there is no [...] inward enthusiasm , no real sym pathy with any living men; men are to him only instrum ents which he uses and then breaks to pieces” (Ranke 169).
D epartm ent o f English Philology University of Zielona G ora
Works Cited
A non. St. John Fisher, Bishop and M artyr. Internet: available from w w w .catholictradiion.org. B a i n t o n R. H. 1973. Women o f the Reformation in France and England. Boston: The
Beacon Press.
B a l e J. 1849. Select works o f John Bale, containing the examinations o f L o rd Cobham, William
Thorpe, and Anne Askewe, and the image o f both churches. Cambridge: The University Press.
[Bishops]. 1537. The Institutions o f a Christian Man. London: Berthelet.
C a t t l e y R e e d S. 1837. Acts and M onuments o f John Foxe. L ondon: R . B. Seeley & W. Burnside.
C a w t h o r n e N. 2000. Życie prywatne angielskich władców. W arszawa: Ballona.
C r a n m e r T. 2002. Miscellaneous writings and letters o f Thomas Cranmer. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing.
D a n i e l i Ch. 1996. A Traveller’s H istory o f England. Gloucestershire: T he W indrush Press. D e e n E. 1959. Great Women o f the Christian Faith. N ew Y ork: H arper and Brothers
Publishing.
D e l u m e a u J. 1986. Reform y chrześcijaństwa w X V I i X V I I w. W arszawa: Instytut W ydaw niczy PAX.
D i c k e n s A. G . 1964. English Reformation. New York: Schocken Books. E l t o n G . R. 1977. Reform and reformation: 1509-1558. London: A rnold.
Epistolae Tigurinae de rebus potissimum ad ecclesiae Anglicanae reformationem pertinentibus conscriptae A.D . 1531-1558. Ex schedis manuscriptis in bibliotheca Tigurina aliisque servatis
F o w l e r T . 1893. The History o f Corpus Christi College. O xford: The C larendon Press. F r o u d e J. A. 1969. H istory o f England fro m the fa ll o f Wolsey to the death o f Elizabeth.
New Y ork: G reenw ood Press.
H u g h e s P. 1950. The Reformation in England. London: H ollis and C arter.
L e c l e r J. 1964. Historia tolerancji w wieku reformacji. W arszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy PAX. M c C o n i c a J. K . 1965. English humanists and Reformation politics under H enry V III and
Edward VI. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
N i c h o l s J. G . 1859. Narratives o f the Days o f the Reformation. London: Camden Society. P o l l a r d A. F . 1911. The Letters and Papers o f H enry V III. In: English Historical Review.
Vol. 26, N o. 102. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
R a n k e v o n L. 1875. History o f England. Oxford: T he C larendon Press.
S e a r l e W. G . 1867. H istory o f the Queens' College. Cambridge: T he University Press.
M arek Smoluk
Ustanowienie Kościoła ‘Henrykańskiego’
i narodowe przejście na anglikanizm
pod ścisłym nadzorem monarchy
Bezspornie w historii szesnastowiecznej Anglii reform acja, ja k a d o k o n ała się za panow ania Henryka V III, stanowi jedno z najważniejszych i najbardziej fascynujących wydarzeń dla badaczy cywilizacji brytyjskiej, gdyż zerwanie więzów z Rzymem i ogłoszenie się przez króla głową K ościoła anglikańskiego n a zawsze zmieniło charakter narodow ej religii w kraju.
Jednym z najważniejszych zadań, jakie należało wykonać, a które wynikały z angielskiej reform acji i z ustanow ienia anglikanizm u w Albionie, było opracow anie do k try n religijnych dla tworzącego się Kościoła. Prześledzenie w niniejszym opracow aniu całego procesu form ułow ania się nowej doktryny religijnej dostarcza dowodów na to, że niechęć H enryka VIII do większych teologicznych zmian wynikająca z niepewnej sytuacji dyplom atycznej i ideologicznego napięcia, jakie panow ało w społeczeństwie angielskim, a także niewielkie zainteresowanie ortodoksyjnych hum anistów tym problem em sprawiły, że reform a doktrynalna została przeprow adzona w stop niu minimalnym.
Te niemalże kosm etyczne popraw ki, jakie dokonano w kanonie wiary, nie uchroniły jednak przed prześladow aniam i tych wszystkich, którzy nie przyjęli nowej form uły wiary i pozostali wierni swoim dotychczasowym przekonaniom religijnym. W świetle dekalogu Henrykowskiego od m om entu ustanow ienia „nowej w iary” za heretyków uznaw ano już nie tylko anabaptystów i luteranów , a także katolików K ościoła rzymskiego. Co więcej, ustaw odaw stw o angielskie zaczęło traktow ać katolików rzym skich jak o zdrajców, stawiając ich n a rów ni z przestępcami o charakterze politycznym.
Praca prow adzi d o konkluzji, że osoby najbardziej prom inentne, ja k n a przykład Tom asz M orus, wystawione były zawsze na największe niebezpieczeństwo. Tymczasem osoby niezaj- mujące pierwszoplanowych pozycji, ja k Thom as Cranmer czy N icholas Shaxton, choć niejedno krotnie doświadczali politycznych prowokacji, to mimo to przetrw ali okresy „czystek” . Ich jedynym ratunkiem , by zachować życie, było ukorzenie się i przyjęcie narzuconej odgórnie religii. N atom iast dla dysydentów, takich ja k A nna Askew czy R obert Testw ood, okres królewskiego reżimu stał się okazją, by oddać życie w obronie swojej wiary.
