VII ciliar decree on his side, and also quoted from Holy CHAP Scripture the words "Touch not mine anointed" [Ps. cv. 15] as a Divine sanction of the principle he was defending.8 Standish maintained that all such decrees were not practically observed, nor morally binding when they went against the general good of the whole nation, and dismissed the argument from "Nolite tangere Christos meos," by saying that they were not the words of Christ, and referred to God's people at large in the midst of a wicked and persecuting world. When the discussion was brought to a conclusion, the Lords present desired certain bishops to compel the abbot to recant his opinions publicly, which they declined to do, declaring themselves unconvinced by the arguments of Dr. Standish, and fearing to go against a conciliar decree. tion with re Some time afterwards it was alleged that Convo- Convocacation had called Standish to account for what he charged had said before the King, which was of course buking privileged. Their official reply to this serious accusa- Standish tion—a reply made to the King himself at Baynard's Castle-is of sufficient importance to be given in detail, as it was the foreshadowing of that discussion respecting the royal prerogative which ended in the "Act of Submission: of their 1. They deny the charge, but say they summoned Stan- Substance dish for that long since the time of his said counsel given to defence the King's Grace, as well in open lectures as in other open A.D. 1516 places, he read, taught, affirmed, and published divers matters which were thought not to stand with the laws of God and the determination of Holy Church,' by which it was thought he had fallen into the suspicion of heresy. 8 Precisely the same application of this text is found in Dean Colet's Sermon before the Convocation, in 1511. See page 17 of this CHAP VII "2. To the charge of having ministered in the Convocation to Dr. Standish certain articles contrary to the King's prerogative, they answer that they neither said, nor did, nor intended to do any prejudice to the Crown, and they trust the King will not punish them on any such sinister information. "3. They affirm that no articles were delivered to Standish in writing, although they were conceived in writing. "4. As to the charge that articles were ministered to him in the Convocation House, specially that clerks should not be convented before lay judges, they never held any such communication with him, for if it were the thing that needed any reformation, yet the said prelates well perceive that it could neither be holpen nor hurted by the said friar; and so they should have but lost their time in ministering any such article or matter to him. And they say that they think the said friar, examined upon his oath, will not say that there was any such matter moved unto him in the said Convocation House. And if he would so say, yet the said prelates trust that the King's Grace will give more and better credence to all their sayings, in serbo sacerdotii, than to the only saying of one friar. And if the said prelates had said in the Convocation House that the conventing or punition of clerks should not appertain to secular judges (as they said not, nor in any wise intended to treat of that matter), yet they think themselves, though they had so done, not to have fallen thereby into any penalty of any law, statute, or act, forasmuch as at sundry times, divers of the parliament speak divers and many things not only against men of the Church, and against the laws of the Church, but also sometimes against the King's laws, for the which neither the King nor the prelates of the Church have punished them, nor yet desire any punishment for their so speaking.' "Wherefore the said prelates think that it may be as lawful to them in the Convocation House to common and treat of things concerning both laymen, and also the laws of the land (though they so do not), without falling into any penalty of any statute or act, or yet any other punishment in that behalf, as it is for them of the parliament to common or treat of any causes against the clergy and laws of the Church. VII "5. They are bound on their oaths to make investigation of CHAP heresy, and for that cause alone Standish was summoned before them. “6. That the demanding of such a question as this, ‘An exemptio clericorum sit de jure divino, an non,' affirms neither one nor the other, and cannot therefore be contrary to the King's laws. "7. In conclusion, they beseech the King, as they have ever been loyal subjects, nor impeached nor intended to impeach his prerogative, not to credit any sinister information against them, but suffer them to keep their Convocation as his predecessors have done."9 After further argument, in which Dr. Voysey1 took part with Standish, it is alleged that the King wound up the discussion with the following short oration : A.D. 1516 Cf. P. 246 By the permission and ordinance of God we are King of An alleged England, and the Kings of England in times past had never speech of Henry any superior, but God only. Therefore know you well that VIII we will maintain the right of our crown, and of our temporal jurisdiction as well in this, as in all other points, in as ample manner as any of our progenitors have done before our time. And as for your decrees, we are well assured that you of the spirituality go expressly against the words of divers of them, as hath been shewed you by some of our council; and you interpret your decrees at your pleasure, but we will not agree to them more than our progenitors have done in former times." But these royal words appear to be the rhetorical effort of an historian, though fairly enough representing what might have been said on the occasion. Long as this narrative may have seemed, it was desirable not to curtail it, as we have thus given to 9 Brewer's Calend. St. Pap., ii. 1314. 1 It is somewhat singular that Voysey was another of Cranmer's CHAP Middle classes ob 2 us so full an illustration of the relations which existed between the clergy and the rising middle classes at the early dawn of the Reformation. The bitterness was not of a temporary or transient kind, and it is probable that it existed as strongly at any period during the next fifteen years as it is, again, clear that it did when the Church legislation of Henry's reign began in 1529. At the same time it cannot fail to be observed that much unfairness was exhibited on the part of the laity-much of that unfairness towards the clergy which the middle classes as a body have so often since shown. The payment of fees and other dues to the clergy ject to fees and to the officers of ecclesiastical courts was indeed a standing grievance with the mercantile classes, and it became the first subject of legislation in that remarkable tide of law-making for the Church which set in after Wolsey's fall. A complaint of the House of Commons on this subject has been given in the fourth chapter of this volume, and also the reply of Convocation and of Archbishop Warham.* A modern historian, who has done his best to The following note respecting these transactions exists as a colophon to the Journals of the House of Lords, Doctor Taylor being Clerk of the Parliament as well as Prolocutor of the Convocation. It is in his handwriting. "Dissoluta fuit hæc convocatio, xxi Decembris 1515, Johannæ Taylor juris pontificii doctore prolocutore, et eodem tempore clerico parliamentorum domini Regis. In hac convocatione et parliamento periculosissimæ seditiones exortæ sunt inter clerum et sæcularem potestatem super libertatibus ecclesiasticis, quodam fratre minore no 3 exaggerate everything that would tell against the CHAP clergy, says that VII esque his tory "In six weeks, for so long only the session lasted, the Picturastonished Church authorities saw bill after bill hurried up before the Lords, by which successively the pleasant fountains of their incomes would be dried up to flow no longer; or would flow only in modest rivulets along the beds of the once abundant torrents." historical facts Picturesque history is seldom to be trusted, and an examination of the Statute Book will show that the "bill after bill" which were so "hurried up. before the Lords," amounted in number to three, viz., one regulating the fees for proving wills, a second regulating the payment of mortuaries, and a third for checking pluralities and clerical farming. As very The true few of the clergy received any fees for proving wills, and as pluralities flourished and abounded down to our own century with as much vigour as ever, and as mortuaries were only an occasional and by no means abundant "fountain of income" to the clergy; and above all, as there is no historical ground whatever for supposing the "Church authorities" to have been "astonished" at such legislation, it is evident that this historian's imagination provides a very “abundant torrent" for the supply of his history. The real facts may be shortly stated: Act 1. An Act was passed [21 Hen. VIII. cap. 5] Probate declaring "what fees ought to be taken for the pro- A.D. 1530 bate of testaments." After reciting some reforms made in this matter in the reigns of Edward III. and Henry V., this statute enacts that after April 1, 1530, no fees shall be taken for administration where History of England, i. 226. |