=RESISTANCE OF THE CARTHUSIANS.=
As the king's government did not wish to hurry on the trial of these illustrious men, they turned from the chiefs to the followers. The Carthusians of London were in great odor of sanctity; they never spoke except at certain times, ate no meat, and affirmed that God had visited them in visions and miracles. Their house was not free from disorders, but many of the monks took their vocation seriously. When the royal commissioners visited them to tender the oath of succession, Prior Haughton, a man of small stature but agreeable appearance and noble carriage, appeared before them. The commissioners required him to acknowledge Henry's second marriage to be lawful; Haughton at first sought a loophole, and answered that the king might be divorced and married without him or his monks having anything to say to it. 'It is the king's command,' answered the commissioners, 'that you and your brethren acknowledge by oath the lawfulness of his union. Call the monks together.'[92] The Carthusians appeared, and all refused to take the oath. The prior and proctor were consequently sent to the Tower. The bishop of London used all his influence to make them change their opinions, and succeeded in persuading them that they might take the oath, by making several reservations. They therefore returned to the Charter House and prevailed upon their brethren to do as they had done.
Immediately all was confusion in the monastery. Several monks in deep distress could not tell which course to follow; others, more decided, exclaimed that they would not yield at any price. 'They are minded to offer themselves in sacrifice to the great idol of Rome,' wrote Bedell to Cromwell.[93] At last, when the soldiers appeared to take the rebels to the Tower, the terrified monks lost heart, and took the oath to the new marriage of Henry VIII. 'so far as it was lawful.' The bitter cup was removed, but not for long.
Whilst England was separating from Rome, Clement VII. was dying of vexation.[94] The hatred felt by the Romans towards him[95] was only equalled by the joy they experienced at the election of his successor. Alexander Farnese, the choice of the French party, was a man of the world, desirous of putting down the protestants, recovering England, reforming the Church, and above all enriching his own family. When Da Casale, Henry's envoy, presented his homage: 'There is nothing in the world,' said Paul III. to him, 'that I have more at heart than to satisfy your master.' It was too late.
=HENRY REJECTS THE PAPACY.=
Clement's behavior had produced an evil influence on the character of the Tudor king. The services rendered by this prince to the papacy had been overlooked, his long patience had not been rewarded: he fancied himself despised and deceived. His pride was irritated, his temper grew fiercer, his violence for some time restrained, broke out, and unable to reach the pope, he revenged himself on the papacy. Until now, he had scarcely been worse than most of the sovereigns of Christendom: from this moment, when he proclaimed himself head of the Church, he became harsh, and cared for nothing but gratifying his evil inclinations, his despotic humors, his blood-thirsty cruelty. As a prince, he had at times shown a few amiable qualities; as a pope, he was nothing but a tyrant.
Henry VIII. observing the agitation his pretensions caused in England, and wishing to strengthen his new authority, had caused several bills concerning the Church to be brought into the parliament, which met on the 3rd of November, 1534. The ministers who had drafted them, far from being protestants, were zealous partisans of scholastic orthodoxy. It was the cunning Gardiner, a furious Catholic; the duke of Norfolk who assisted in the king's movements against Rome, only to prevent him from falling into the arms of the reformers; and the politic Cromwell, who, despite his zeal against the pope, declared at his death, possibly giving a particular meaning to the words, that he died in the catholic faith.[96]
The first act passed by parliament was the ratification of the king's new title, already officially recognized by the clergy. Henry's ministers knew how to make the law strict and rigorous. 'It is enacted,' so ran the act, 'that our lord the king be acknowledged sole and supreme head on earth of the Church of England; that he shall possess not only the honors, jurisdictions, and profits attached to that dignity, but also full authority to put down all heresies and enormities, whatever be the customs and the laws that may be opposed to it.'[97] Shortly after, on the 1st of February, parliament still more imperious, enacted that 'whoever should do anything tending to deprive the king or his heirs of any of their titles, or should call him heretic, schismatic, usurper, &c., should be guilty of high treason.'[98]
=THE KING, NOT HEAD OF THE CHURCH.=
Thus Henry VIII. united the two swords in his hand.—'A Mohammedan union,' says a modern historian.[99] This writer might have contented himself with calling it 'a papal union.' Whether a pope claims to be king, or a king claims to be pope, it comes to nearly the same thing. At the time when the Reformation was emancipating the long-enslaved Church, a new master was given it, and what a master! The consciences of Christians revolted against this order of things. One day—it was some time later—Cranmer was asked: 'Who is the supreme head of the Church of England?'—'Christ,' was the reply, 'as He is of the universal Church.'—'But did you not recognize the king as supreme head of the Church?'—'We recognized him as head of all the people of England,' answered Cranmer, 'of churchmen as well as of laymen.'[100]— 'What! not of the Church?' 'No! Supreme head of the Church never had any other meaning than what I tell you.' This is explicit. If the title given Henry only signified that he was king of the clergy as well as of the laity, and that the former were under the jurisdiction of the royal courts as well as the latter, in all matters of common law, there can be nothing fairer. But how was it that Cranmer did not find as much courage in Henry's lifetime to speak according to his conscience, as when examined in 1555 by Brokes, the papal sub-delegate? An interpretative document drawn up by the government at almost the same time as the act of parliament, corroborates however the explanation made by Cranmer; it said: 'The title of supreme head of the Church gives the king no new authority: it does not signify that he can assume any spiritual power.'[101] This document declares that the words reform abuses and heresies, indicate the authority which the king possesses to suppress the powers which the bishop of Rome or other bishops have usurped in his realm. 'We heartily detest,' said Fulke, master of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, 'the notion that the king can do what he likes in matters of religion.'[102] Even Elizabeth refused the title of head of the Church.[103] Probably these are facts which are not generally known.