START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF LYNN, VOL. 2 [OF 2]*** Transcribed from the 1812 W. G. Whittingham edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org [Picture: Book cover] [Picture: East View of Lynn Regis, pub. May 1, 1812 by W. G. Whittingham, Lynn. Draw J. Sillett, engraved J. Hassell] THE HISTORY OF LYNN, _Civil_, _Ecclesiastical_, _Political_, _Commercial_, _Biographical_, _Municipal_, _and Military_, FROM THE EARLIEST ACCOUNTS TO THE PRESENT TIME, INTERSPERSED With occasional remarks on such national occurrences as may serve to elucidate the real state of the town, or the manners, character, and condition of the inhabitants at different periods. TO WHICH IS PREFIXED A COPIOUS INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNT OF ITS _Situation_, _Harbour_, _Rivers_, _Inland Trade and Navigation_, _the Ancient and Modern State_ OF Marshland, Wisbeach, and the Fens, AND Whatever is most remarkable, memorable, or interesting, in other parts of the adjacent country. IN TWO VOLUMES. _BY WILLIAM RICHARDS_, _M.A._ _Honorary member of the Pennsylvania Society_, _for promoting the Abolition_ _of Slavery_, _and the relief of free Negroes unlawfully held in bondage_. * * * * * VOL. II. * * * * * LYNN: PRINTED BY W. G. WHITTINGHAM, AND SOLD BY R. BALDWIN; PATERNOSTER ROW; LONDON. * * * * * 1812. * * * * * PART IV. FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE PRESENT TIME. CHAP. I. Miscellaneous remarks on the Reformationâits rise and progress on the continentâintroduction into this island, and effects upon this town. The reformation formed a new era in the history of the world, and was one of those mighty revolutionary events which have a most extensive and lasting effect on the affairs and destinies of mankind. But men have been ever since greatly divided in their ideas and judgments concerning it. While some have hailed it as a most happy, admirable, and glorious event, fraught with heavenâs choicest blessings, it has been deemed by others, and even by a large majority of the inhabitants of christendom, as an exceedingly unfortunate, pernicious, and execrable occurrence, which has produced all manner of mischief, and, like the opening of Pandoraâs box, filled the world with calamities and miseries innumerable. The learned and the wise, as well as the illiterate and fly foolish, have been found among each of these opposite and contending parties: their respective opinions and allegations must therefore be entitled to a serious and candid hearing. But it is not intended here to go deeply or largely into this disputed subject: nor would it well accord with the plan or design of this publication. Some cursory hints, however, on a few of the most prominent facts will not, it is presumed, be either impertinent or uninstructive. SECTION I. _Statement of different and opposite opinions respecting the reformationâwith brief remarks_. The information, like the French revolution, seems to have been too much admired by its friends, and too much vilified by its enemies. The former, for the most part, perceive nothing in it but what is praise worthy and divine, and the latter nothing but what is detestable and devilish. The truth, probably, lies somewhere about midway between these two extremes, as is usual in most of the disputes that divide and agitate the world. The reformation had certainly some good points in it, as well as some very bad ones, that can never be too much reprobated and detested. Had they been all bad, its friends would have defended them, for they have actually and unblushingly defended its very worst points; {625a} and had they been all good, its enemies, on the other hand, would not fail to condemn them, for they have really done so with its very best parts, whose intrinsic or essential goodness and beneficial tendency are most obvious and demonstrable. {625b} The friends of the reformation consider the original and chief actors in that great revolutionary work as excellent men, actuated by a right apostolical and christian spirit, with a view to the restoration of primitive christianity, and the promotion of the best interests of mankind. Their opponents, on the contrary, consider them in a very different light, and hold them up as persons of a disreputable character, who were actuated by very unworthy and base motives, from whose thoughts nothing could be further than the restoration of genuine christianity, or the promoting of real benevolence, philanthropy, or human happiness. It will not be safe to give implicit credit to either of these representations. There were, certainly, some good men concerned in the reformation, and there were also some very bad men concerned in it, whose misdeeds ought never to be palliated; and these were probably the most numerous and the most powerful, or the work, surely, would have been more worthy of our praise and admiration. The reformation, in the judgment of its admirers, was eminently calculated to promote the cause of truth and virtue, and inculcate the practice of piety, morality, and all manner of good works. All this, however, is flatly contradicted by the champions of the opposite cause, who positively affirm that the doctrines of the reformers were, in the very nature of them, of an evil, immoral and impious tendency:âalluding to the grand Lutheran tenet of _justification_ by faith _without works_, {626a} and to the famous Calvinian notion of predestination, as extending to all the deeds of men, bad and good, or that all human actions, even the very worst, originate in the _Divine decrees_, or _will of God_. {626b} This opinion of the evil tendency of the reformation, or of the reformed doctrine, they represent as further corroborated and established by undeniable facts, and authentic historical evidence; or in other words, by its immediate effects, or the very first fruits it produced wherever it did prevail. Those who advocate the cause of the reformers say that their labours were abundantly fruitful of good works, and that their doctrine produced the happiest effects wherever it was received. But their opponents flatly deny it, and positively assert that the very reverse was actually the case: and they support their assertion, not only by referring to those long and bloody wars which resulted from the reformation, but also to the express testimony of credible witnesses, who affirm, that vice and immorality greatly increased wherever protestantism became predominant. Nor is it a little remarkable that these same witnesses are, for the most part, some of the very chief reformers; so that their evidence comes with a force that cannot well be resisted. Some of them belonged to the continent, and others to this kingdom; but we shall in this place bring forward only the former, reserving the latter till we come to exhibit the rise and progress of the reformation in this country. We shall begin with LUTHER, whose testimony on this occasion is very strong and remarkable.ââThe world (says he) grows worse and worse. It is plain that men are much more covetous, malicious, and resentful, much more unruly, shameless, and full of vice, than they were in the time of popery.â {628a} âFormerly, when we were suduced by the pope, men willingly followed good works, but now all their study is to get every thing to themselves by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, usury.â {628b} âIt is a wonderful thing, and full of scandal, that from the time that the pure doctrine was first called to light, the world should daily grow worse and worse.â {628c}âThe testimony of BUCER, another celebrated reformer, is to the same effect. âThe greater part of the peopleâ (says he) âseem only to have embraced the gospel, in order to shake off the yoke of discipline, and the obligation of fasting, penance, &c., which lay upon them in the time of popery; and to live at their pleasure, enjoying their lust and lawless appetites without controul. They therefore lend a willing ear to the doctrine that we are _justified by faith alone_ and _not by good works_, having no relish for them.ââ{628d} MUSCULUS also, another eminent reformer, is said to have borne much the same testimony. {628e} CALVINâS evidence in this case seems also to be equally forcible and decisive: âOf so many thousands (says he) seemingly eager in embracing the gospel, how few have since amended their lives? Nay, to what else does the greater part pretend, except by shaking off the heavy yoke of superstition to launch out more freely into every kind of lasciviousness?â {629a} Thus said Calvin. When the character of the reformation is duly and thoroughly considered, and especially that of Calvinâs own doctrine, it is no great wonder that such effects should follow. It would have been much more wonderful if they had not followed; at least, when we further consider the abominable conduct, the vile and bloody deeds that were sanctioned by the same reformerâs own example. Had he been a different sort of man, these unsightly fruits of his labours might have led him to doubt the soundness of his faith, or suspect that his creed did not altogether tally with the doctrine that is according to godliness. But from him it could not be expected. Another testimony of no small weight in this case, and which must not be here omitted, is that of the celebrated ERASMUS, one of the greatest luminaries and most eminent characters of that age, who has been reckoned among the principal authors of the reformation as well as restorers of literature. Let us listen then to his evidence on this subject: âWhat an _evangelical_ generation is this? Nothing was ever seen more licentious and more seditious. Nothing is less _evangelical_ than these pretended _gospellers_. {629b} Take notice of this _evangelical_ people, and shew me an individual amongst them all who from being a drunkard has become sober, from being a libertine has become chaste. I, on the other hand, can shew you many who have become worse by the change. Those whom I once knew to have been chaste, sincere, and without fraud, I found, after they had embraced this sect, to be licentious in their conversation, gamblers, neglectful of prayer, passionate, vain, as spiteful as serpents, and lost to the feelings of human nature. I speak from experience.â {630} Upon the whole, it seems impossible to evade the force of this evidence, or deny that vice and immorality increased where protestantism prevailed, and, consequently, that there must have been some radical and essential defect in that system from the very first: so that it must be the very height of folly, absurdity, and arrogance in our present pretended evangelical demagogues to attempt to hold it up to the people as a standard of unadulterated truth and model of christian perfection. It is remarkable enough that these good people, almost to a man, are very loud in their reprobation of the French revolution, although it might easily be proved that that same revolution was nearly, if not quite as honourable in its origin, and respectable in its progress as that which was excited and conducted by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and their coadjutors, and which they seem so much to admire, and so ready to commend and justify. While reprobating the Gallic revolution on account of the licentiousness and crimes it produced, they are not aware how much the protestant revolution is liable to the same imputation. SECTION II. _The former subject continued_, _with occasional and brief remarks_. There does not seem on any point a greater difference of opinion between the admirers of the reformation and their opponents than that which relates to the real character of the reformers. Volumes have been written on both sides of the question: one party extolling them to the skies, as if they had been all perfect beings or angels of light, and the other degrading them to the lowest point, as if they had been no better than so many demons. Too much, no doubt, has been said both for and against them. We must not believe them to be quite so bad as some catholic writers have represented them; nor yet, on the other hand, altogether so good and perfect as they have been described by the generality of our protestant authors. What is unfounded on either side we wish to explode; but some apparently well established facts relating to the reformers, and not generally known among protestants, ought not here to be passed over unnoticed, as they are well calculated to correct the readerâs ideas, both as to the reformers and the reformation. As to Luther, it seems to be the common opinion among protestants that he was convinced of the errors and corruptions of the church of Rome, and, of course, decidedly hostile to them before the appearance of _Tetzel_ with his indulgences. But this opinion appears to be untenable. It is more likely that he had thought nothing about the said errors and corruptions before the arrival of that memorable vender of pardons; and that either wholly out of detestation of his extravagant and shameless pretensions, or partly also out of spite to the Dominicans, to which order he belonged, he then ventured to oppose that scandalous traffick, without any direct intention to declare against any others of the papal abominations, towards which it does not seem that he had yet begun to conceive any aversion. Accordingly, he appeared for some years after, to have no mighty objection to any thing in the popish religion but the _abuse_ of the traffick of indulgences; and even on that point he actually consented to observe in future a profound silence, provided the same condition were imposed on his adversaries. Nay he went still further, and proposed to write a humble and submissive _Letter to the Pope_, acknowledging that he had carried his zeal and animosity too far: and such a Letter he actually did write. He even consented to publish a _circular Letter_, exhorting all his disciples and followers to reverence and obey all the dictates of the Roman church. He declared that his only intention, in the writings which he had composed was to brand with infamy those emissaries who abused its authority, and employed its protection as a mask to cover their abominable and impious frauds. {632} Such was the hostility to the pope and his cause, and such the anxiety for religious reformation which Luther manifested for some years after he had assumed the character of a reformer, or rather after the commencement of his quarrel with Tetzel and the Dominicans. Had _Leo_ X. been wise and politic enough to accept his proffered submission, about the time of the conferences with _Miltitz_, he would, to all appearance, immediately and gladly have returned into the bosom of holy church, and, most probably, never have given his holiness or the world any further trouble on the score of religious abuses and corruptions. The haughty pontiff, however, instead of embracing the golden opportunity, and receiving readily and kindly his rebellious, but now repentant son, had recourse to the very opposite mode of proceeding. He fulminated his anathemas against him, had him solemnly excommunicated, declared an enemy to the church, and even to the holy Roman empire. Luther having now no alternative, was obliged to make virtue of necessity; and it is easy to see that he was actually forced to take that course which he afterwards pursued, and in the pursuit of which he displayed such wonderful address, and such extraordinary talents as have really immortalized his name. But as to real virtue, it seems hard to see or say how much of that there was in his opposition to the pope and church of Rome, except what is implied in the law of selfpreservation. _Cromwell_ too, had that law on his side, to the full as much, perhaps, as Luther, even while engaged in what has been deemed the most criminal parts of his conduct, the dethronement of the king and attainment of the supreme power. But which of these two men was the most virtuous or most vicious, was the better or worse man, is a point that will not be presumed or attempted to be made here a subject of investigation. They certainly had, both of them, great talents and great defects. Lutheran and other protestant writers have appeared not a little anxious to have Luther acquitted from the imputation of having opposed Tetzel out of spite to the Dominicans, or from resentment for the preference shewn them in the distribution or traffick of indulgences. We pretend not to say that that was the _sole_ cause of his opposition; but that it might be _partly_ the cause seems not at all improbable from what he himself has owned on other occasions. Thus he acknowledges that he had tried to persuade himself of there being no real presence of Christ in the sacrament, âon purpose _to spite the pope_, but that the words of scripture were too plain in favour of it.â Likewise, in his letter to the Vaudois, he says, âI have hitherto thought it of small consequence whether the bread remains in the sacrament or not, but now, _to spite the papists_, I am determined to believe that it does remain.â Thus also, writing against those who had presumed to alter the public service without his authority, he says, âI knew very well that the elevation of the sacrament was idolatrous, but 1 retained it _out of pure spite to that devil Carlostadius_.â {634} A very glaring and most odious trait in Lutherâs character was the ungentlemanly and foul language in which he used to address his opponents, than which nothing could be more unbecoming in one who pretended to be engaged in, or anxious for the reformation of mankind, and the revival or restoration of genuine and primitive christianity. We have just now seen in what style he could speak of his quondam friend Carlostadius: âthat _devil_ Carlostadius:â and it seems he could be sometimes equally uncivil and foulmouthed when he had occasion to speak of _Zuinglius_ and the rest of that party, who did not receive his favourite doctrine of consubstantiation, or the real presence; for whom he had no mercy, but consigned them all to everlasting perdition; just as his modern disciples, our present _evangelicals_, do to the poor Arians and Socinians. As to the _papists_, it was not to be expected that he should be more civil or polite to them than to the Zuinglians. Accordingly, we are told that âthe usual flowers of his speech, when addressing the pope and other catholic prelates, were: villain, thief, traitor, apostle of the devil, bishop of sodomites: and that the extent of his charity to them was to wish that their bowels were torn out, that they were cast into the Mediterranean sea or into the flames, and that they were hurried away to the devil. His treatment of the king of England, Henry VIII, with whom he had at one time a theological controversy, (though afterwards they grew into a better understanding with each other,) was not more respectful than his treatment of the pope. Luther makes no difficulty to call his royal antagonist, a Thomistical pig, an ass, a jakes, a dunghill, the spawn of an adder, a basilisk, a lying buffoon disguised in a kingâs robe, a mad fool with a frothy mouth and a whorish face. He even addresses him as follows: You lie, you stupid and sacrilegious king.â {636a} Another very unamiable and disgustful trait in Lutherâs character was his assuming an extraordinary and apostolic dignity and authority, under the name or title of _Ecclesiastes_: âMartin Luther _Ecclesiastes_ of Wittemberg.âââIt is not fitting, (said he,) that I should be without a _title_, having received the work of the ministry, not from man, or by man, but by the gift of God, and the revelation of Jesus Christ.â {636b} This was evidently putting himself upon a level, at least, with Peter and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, and claiming from professing christians the deference or submission due to them. Accordingly, âhe plainly proclaims to the whole body of protestants, in case they presume to consult together and determine about their common belief, that he will return back to the ancient church, and revoke every word he had ever written or taught against it; telling them that even in acting right, when they acted without his authority, they were plunging themselves into the jaws of hell.â {636c} It is not a little remarkable that this reformer pretended to have some extraordinary intercourse, not only with the Deity, but also with _Satan_. Accordingly, he has published to the world, not only that he held frequent communications with the devil, but also that he learned the most material part of the reformation, namely, the abolition of the mass from him. In his treatise on that subject there is an account of Satanâs appearing to him by night, and of a long dialogue that passed between them, in which Luther defends the mass, and the devil argues against it. The conclusion is that this new apostle yields to the motives suggested by his internal antagonist, and adopts the important reform which he proposes. We are also informed, that Luther in one of his Sermons, according to _Cochleus_, affirmed that he had âeat more than a bushel of salt with Satan;â and that in his Colloquies he describes himself as constantly haunted by the devil, who, he says, âsleeps nearer to me than my wife Catherine.â {637} Luther bears testimony to the unfavourable effects of the reformed religion, not only upon his followers, (as we have seen before) but also upon _himself_. He says that whilst he continued a catholic monk he observed chastity, obedience and poverty; and that being free from worldly cares be gave himself up to fasting, watching, and prayer: whereas, after he commenced reformer, he describes himself as raging with the most violent concupiscence, to satisfy which he broke through his solemn vow of continency, in direct opposition to his former doctrine, by marrying a religious woman, who was under the same obligation. He then proceeded to teach what most people deem shameful and licentious lessons, such as the permission, in certain cases, of concubinage and polygamy, and that pestilential doctrine, which is the utter destruction of all morality, that there is no freedom in human actionsâand that when the scripture commands good works, âwe are to understand it to forbid them, because we cannot do them; that a baptized person cannot lose his soul, whatever sins he commit, provided he believe, inasmuch as no sin can damn except infidelity.â {638} SECTION III. _Further remarks on the reformers and reformationâtenaciously adhered to_, _and retained the very worst part of popery_, _its intolerant_, _persecuting_, _and bloody spiritâthe very first thing whose reformation or expulsion they ought to have attemptedâits omission rendered their whole undertaking illfavored_, _preposterous_, _and ineffectual_. Defective in many parts as Lutherâs character really was, he appears to have been, nevertheless, one of the best among the original and leading reformers. There seemed to be a frankness or unreservedness about him that was somewhat pleasing, and which it is not easy to discover in many of his coadjutors. He was also apparently not so bloodyminded as some of them were, at whose head, it is presumed, we may venture to place the apostle of Geneva, _Calvin_. This man (as is evinced by the tragical case of _Servetus_,) when his favourite dogmas were opposed, and his wisdom, learning, and infallibility set at naught, nothing would satisfy but the _obstruction_ of his opponent: but Luther, (as appears from the affair of Carlostadius,) would be pretty well satisfied with the _banishment_ only of those who happened so to offend him. The spirit of Luther, however, though less vindictive and diabolical than that of Calvin, was yet very dissimilar to that of Jesus Christ, whose followers they both professed themselves to be. It seems to have been then the case, that those reformers who had gone the furthest from the church of Rome in _doctrine_, such as Calvin and the Swiss divines, who denied the real presence, were yet the nighest to that church in _spirit_: for they seemed more addicted to the practice of consigning to destruction those whom they deemed heretics than the Lutherans, though the latter did not depart near so far as the former from the grand popish doctrine of _transubstantiation_. Odd as this may be considered, it appears to be a fact; though to account for it may, perhaps, be attended with considerable difficulty. It cannot however, be supposed, that the denial of the real presence could have any tendency to make people more bloodthirsty, vindictive, or intolerant. The reformers, in retaining the bigotry and intolerance, or the _spirit_ of popery, retained in fact its very worst part, and what may be called its marrow and substance; which the world had most need to get rid of. All therefore that they did, or could do, in such a case, was only like giving a new edition, or an abridgment of an old and bad work, which still contained the essence of the former, and must, of course, have the same defective and evil tendency. They appeared like people undertaking the cure of a demoniac without casting out the demon, or pretending that the evil or scrophula may be healed and eradicated by the royal touch. In short, they began the work at the wrong end, and never meddled with that part at which they ought to have begun. Their first work ought to have been to exhibit to the religious world the meekness and gentleness of Christ, and endeavour to bring those who professed to be his servants back to the spirit of his religion. Had they done so, and succeeded, their work would have beep more than half done. The rest would have followed of course, or, at least, with little comparative difficulty. For when men have once imbibed the spirit of the New Testament, it will not be very hard to persuade them to renounce such doctrines or practices as are not enjoined or countenanced in that sacred volume: and if any errors or misconceptions happen still to remain, they will become in a great measure harmless, through the influence of that divine spirit by which they are now led and governed. The reformers in foisting into their system the impious and horrid principle of intolerance and persecution, gave it a most monstrous and shocking aspect, even more so than that of the centaurs, or minotaurs of ancient fable; for it was like joining God with the devil, or Christ with Belial. But nothing better, perhaps, could be expected from men who knew so little of the temper which christianity produces; and who never discerned the difference between the wisdom that is from above and that which is from beneath; or considered that Jesus Christ came not to destroy menâs lives, but to save them. For men who knew so little of the genius of christianity to take it upon them, as they did, to lord it over the faith of professing christians, was certainly a most gross and iniquitous piece of presumption. The power which the reformers acquired was very great and formidable, and the authority which they sometimes assumed and exercised was not a little remarkable and extraordinary, as appears not only from the permission of concubinage, &c. already mentioned, but also from the _Dispensation_ granted by Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and five others, to the prince of Hesse Cassel to have two wives at a time, and which was afterwards published by a descendant of that prince. This was certainly taking a great deal upon them, and placing themselves, not indeed upon a level with the apostles, as was before observed, but much above them, even with the pope himself. Yet they seemed very angry with his holiness, calling him antichrist, and many other bad names. They appeared very desirous to pull him down, but had no manner of objection to do his work, or act the pope themselves when it suited them, and that was not unfrequently. It is curious enough to hear these men inveigh against the intolerant and persecuting spirit of the church of Rome, at the very time when they themselves were manifesting the selfsame spirit, and pursuing the same tyrannical and murderous course which they so much condemned in the papists. In our own country, John Fox, the martyrologist, was employed in writing huge folios to describe the horrors of popish persecution, while his own protestant sovereign and her bishops and clergy were persecuting the poor puritans with unfeeling and relentless rigour. Protestants can see the hatefulness of persecution in the papists, but very often are quite blind to it in themselves, or those of their own party. {642} They can discern what is bad in their opponents, but overlook what is equally so in themselves. Christianity, in its first aspect and fundamental principles, is a religion of peace and good will towards men, which forbids any to domineer over their brethren, or exercise authority over their consciences, and requires, in all things whatsoever, to do to others as we would they should do to us. But the reformers overlooked all this, and discovered either an entire ignorance of, or a fixed aversion to these godlike principles. In either case they must have been wretchedly qualified to reform and christianize the world, or form a religion worthy the reception of mankind. A religion, however, they would and did form, and never rested till they got it established by the civil power, and enforced by penal sanctions; and this rendered its native intolerance doubly pernicious and detestable. âNo religionâ (says an excellent writer) âcan be established without penal sanctions, and all penal sanctions in cases of religion are persecutions. Before a man can persecute he must renounce the generous tolerant dispositions of a christian. No religion can be established without human creeds; and subscription to all human creeds implies two dispositions contrary to true religion, and both expressly forbidden by the author of it. These two dispositions are, love of dominion over conscience in the imposer, and an abject preference of slavery in the subscriber. The first usurps the rights of Christ; the last swears allegiance to a pretender. The first domineers, and gives laws like a tyrant; the last truckles like a vassal. The first assumes a dominion incompatible with his frailty, impossible even to his dignity, yea even denied to the dignity of angels; the last yields a low submission, inconsistent with his own dignity, and ruinous to that very religion, which he pretends by this mean to support.â {644} It is very remarkable, and no less true and disgusting, that protestantism was ushered into the world in the very spirit of the religion it strove to supplant. Yet its authors expected to be thought commissioned by heaven to do what they did, and clearly entitled to the gratitude and reverence of mankind, as well as their ready submission to their dictates and authority. But to one who has carefully examined the New Testament, they appear so very different from the first disseminators or propagators of christianity, that they can hardly be supposed to belong to the same cause or family. When _Luther_ is seen _banishing_ conscientious people who differed from him, and _Calvin_, and the Swiss reformers, _burning_ or _hanging_ them, and the French protestants, or Calvinists of France solemnly soliciting their popish sovereign to inflict severe punishment on those whom they were pleased to deem heretics: {645}âwhen one recollects these acts, and that they were all done in the name of the Lord, one is ready to sicken at the thought of the pretensions of the actors, to reform the world and restore christianity to its original state. Nor is it less disgusting to hear our flaming advocates for modern orthodoxy extolling these men, as models of christian sanctity, and unexceptionable or safe guides to pure, undefiled, and evangelical religion. SECTION IV. _Brief account of the rise and progress of the reformation in this kingdom_. No sooner had the reformation begun to gain ground and spread on the continent than its effects began to be felt in this country. The court, or government was at first so far from being disposed to countenance it, that it seemed, on the contrary, quite determined to oppose and crush it. The sovereign himself appeared exceedingly hostile to it: which, from his known character, must have rendered the prospect of its admission and success here very dark and hopeless. So inimical was his majesty then to the cause of the reformers and so hearty in that of their opponents, that he actually took up his pen and wrote a book against Luther; for which important performance and acceptable service the pope thought proper to reward him, by conferring on him the dignified title of _Defender of the Faith_; a title which all his _protestant_ successors have tenaciously, if not proudly retained to this day. This was the book which Luther answered in the rude and uncourtly manner before described. {646} Our royal polemic did not long continue to be that fond and dutiful son of his holy father at Rome of which he had at first exhibited so fair and hopeful a promise. His Holiness not readily favouring his inclination, or gratifying his wish to be divorced from his first wife and marry another Lady, whom he liked much better, he disdainfully threw off that paternal yoke, renounced his connection with Rome, and became himself a great and violent reformer; so as to deserve to be placed in the very first rank among his contemporaries of that denomination. A mighty revolution ensued throughout his dominions: and though we cannot boast of the purity of the source whence it sprung, or of its being distinguished, (at least in the outset,) by much, if any, real virtue; yet it proved eventually of no small advantage and benefit to these nations: and Henry ought to be commemorated as one of the chief and most meritorious of all our royal benefactors. One of the chief objects of Henryâs reformation, like that of Lather, seems to have been to _spite the pope_. He had also in view, no doubt, the gratification of his ambition and caprice, which in a mind like his must have been very powerful springs of action. Nor did he miss his aims: he fairly expelled the pope, obtained full scope for his caprice, boundless as it was, and actually acquired far more power than ever, for he now became a complete and uncontrouled despot in temporal, and a pope in spiritual affairs. The two other branches of the legislature, from whom alone any effectual or legal opposition could have arisen, were so far from daring or attempting to check his soaring career, or cross his capricious humour, that they readily and obsequiously concurred in constituting him supreme head both of church and state. Having reached the utmost point of elevation, or pinnacle of power, he set about reforming the religion, and rectifying the faith of his subjects, after the example of his brother-reformers on the continent; and a most curious, grotesque, and strange piece of work he certainly made of it. Yet it is supposed to be the true foundation or groundwork of our present national establishment, and that Henry himself was the father, or first patriarch of the English protestant Hierarchy. Nor has our established church any just ground or reason, apparently, to disown him in that character, for he was perhaps as holy and good a soul as most of her succeeding patriarchs. But this point we pretend not to determine. King Henry made his own faith or creed the standard or model for all his subjects, male and female, young and old, learned and unlearned. It was at the utmost peril of any of his subjects if their religion did not exactly tally with his; at least, if he happened to find it out. If shorter or narrower than his, it was at the peril of their lives; and the same again if it proved longer or broader. It must not vary a single inch, or even a hairâs breadth from his, or his majesty would deem it a most grievous offence, and a crime deserving capital punishment. Hence he is known to have put some to death for _not_ going so far from Rome or popery as he did, and some again for _going_ further; and both were occasionally burnt in the same fire, or at the same time. In short, it was then a sad and dismal time in this country, and Henryâs reformation must have been a most strange and terrible work. Even the bishops and other religious functionaries, who generally fare better than most other people, could not then have a very pleasant time of it; especially the better sort of them, who could have wished to lead honest lives and act somewhat conscientiously, had they been quietly permitted so to do. To that class bishop _Latimer_ is supposed to belong. He seemed more simple and downright than most of the rest, which might involve him in difficulties which his more wary brethren would naturally escape. Accordingly we find the correctness of his creed repeatedly called in question, and he got frequently into heretical scrapes, which he generally managed to get out of by abjuration: {649}âa method which some would be apt to deem not very creditable to his virtue or integrity, though in general looked upon as unimpeachable and of the first order. âAdmitting himâ (says Milner to Sturges) âto have been conscientiously persuaded of the truth of the Reformation, was it consistent with christian integrity and virtue to dissemble his religion for twenty years together, and repeatedly abjure it, as he certainly did as often as he found himself threatened with any serious danger by adhering to it? Was it consistent with integrity and virtue to accept of one of the highest offices, the bishopric of Worcester, in a church which he so much reprobated, and even to take an oath of opposing, to the utmost of his power, all persons who dissented from, or were disobedient to it? But supposing you inclined to overlook all this, what will you say to the share he took in the religious persecutions both of Henryâs and of Edwardâs reign? What excuse will you make for him when you find him sending christians and protestants to the stake for the very opinion which he himself holds?â {650} These are serious charges, and all apparently well-founded; but the chief and heaviest of them is his being a bloody persecutor. He was moreover one of our chief English reformers, on which account the above brief sketch of his character has been here introduced, along with the rest of his most conspicuous associates, to give the reader an opportunity to judge what veneration is due to their memory, or how well or ill they deserved of their contemporaries and of posterity. _Ridley_ is another of our protestant prelates that appeared at the head of our English Reformation. Dr. _Sturges_ describes him as âactive in the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs.â To which his keen and able opponent replies: âI think, sir, you will grant that he shewed rather too much activity in these affairs, to be consistent with integrity, after I shall have reminded you, that when bishop of Rochester in Henryâs days, and when bishop of London in those of Edward, he was as forward in persecuting protestants and anabaptists as Cranmer, Latimer, and the rest of the prelates were; and that he was one of the most zealous and forward of Dudleyâs partisans in endeavouring to interrupt the regular succession of the throne, and in raising that rebellion which was attended with the loss of so much blood.â {651} _Hooper_, another of our chief reformers, was much less active than Ridley in the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs. He was somewhat scrupulous about certain vestments and ceremonies; and he might have some scruples too on the subject of persecution: at least it is not in the present writerâs recollection that he was very forward, like the others, in harassing those who were called heretics. His character, however, seems not so indefectible as to entitle him to be held up as a mirror of evangelical soundness, or an object of universal admiration. He has been charged with being the founder of the sect called _puritans_, which proved so troublesome to our rulers in church and state for a whole century or more: but this is not mentioned here as a blemish in his character. The following circumstances are of a more blamable nature: 1. His obtaining and holding the bishopric of Worcester, in addition to his former bishopric of Gloucester, after having inveighed very strongly in his sermons against pluralities: 2. His consenting to wear the vestments, after having engaged the young king to write to Cranmer that they âwere offensive to his conscience;â and his taking the oath of supremacy, after having made his patron, Dudley, write to the same prelate that âit was burdensome to his conscience,â when he found that he could not get promotion otherwise. {652a} But in our English reformation, under Henry VIII, and Edward VI, the chief agent was confessedly archbishop _Cranmer_, whose character, as exhibited by eminent protestant writers, abounded with great and glaring blemishes. âThe first remarkable circumstance we meet in the life of Cranmer is his privately marrying a woman of low condition, whilst he was fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, {652b} contrary to the engagements of his admission. He afterwards, when a priest, [and while his first wife was alive] married a second wife in Germany, by a much more flagrant violation of his vow of celibacy, and having brought her privately into England, he continued to live with her, in equal opposition to the laws of the church and of the land,â [and though he had assured the king that he had sent her home to Germany.] âBeing a Lutheran in principle, as far back as the year 1529, he afterwards accepted the office of popeâs penitentiary, and when named to the archbishopric of Canterbury he was content to accept different bulls from the pontiff to take upon himself the character of his legate in England, and even to make a solemn oath of obedience to him, {652c} with an obligation of opposing all heretics and schismatics, that is to say, according to the received sense of the words, all persons of his own religious persuasion. In like manner he must have said mass, which, in his opinion, was an idolatrous worship, both at his consecration, and frequently at other times, during the fourteen years that he governed the church of England under Henry. He must also necessarily, from time to time, have ordained other priests to perform the same worship, and imposed upon them the obligation of that continency which he himself did not observe. In a word, we see his subscription still affixed to a great variety of doctrinal articles and injunctions, issued during that reign, which we know to have been in direct opposition to his real sentiments.â âEvery one knows that Cranmer owed his rise in the church to the part which he took in Henryâs divorce from queen Catherine of Arragon. Henry tired out with the opposition of Rome, and impatient to be united with his beloved Ann Boleyn, privately marries her Nov. 14, 1532, and Cranmer himself is one of the witnesses of the contract. {653a} On the 11th. of the following March this same prelate writes a letter to Henry, from âpure motives of conscienceâ as he declares, {653b} but from a preconcerted scheme as the fact proves, representing the necessity there was of determining the long depending cause between him and his queen, and demanding of him the necessary ecclesiastical jurisdiction to decide it. {653c} This being granted, he on the 20th of May pronounces a sentence of divorce between the royal pair, and authorises Henry to take another wife; {653d} six months after he himself had officiated as witness to his marriage with Ann Boleyn, and only four months before the latter was delivered of an infant who was afterwards queen Elizabeth. {654a} What a scandalous collusion in so important a matter of conscience and public example!â âIn less than three years however [his sacred majesty] grows weary of the consort whom he had moved heaven and earth to gain, {654b} and becomes enamoured of a new beauty. Nevertheless appearances must be saved; and therefore Cranmer presents himself as the ready instrument in smoothing the way to the gratification of [his sovereignâs] passions. After a feint effort to save Ann, to whose family he had such infinite obligations, in a cold adulatory letter to the king, which he wrote on the occasion, {655a} he lent all his aid to ruin and oppress her, permitting, if not persuading, her, (standing as she then did upon the verge of eternity) to confess what he knew to be false; {655b} and pronouncing a sentence of divorce, which contained that she had never been _validly married to Henry_, at the very time when she was lying under sentence of death for violating his bed by adultery!â {655c} In the transactions relating to Ann of Cleves, Henryâs fourth queen, Cranmerâs conduct appears scarcely less dishonourable than in those relating to Ann Boleyn. Nor does it seem that the death of Henry produced in him any real or material amendment: so that there can be no validity in the excuse usually made for his former misconduct by ascribing it chiefly to that monarchâs despotic will. He appeared just as obsequious to the will of the protector Seymour as he had been before to that of Henry. âTo gratify this he consented to set aside in a great measure the last will of his old master, of which he was the first-named executor. {655d} Having raised this ecclesiastical no less than civil idol to undue power, he was ready to pay homage to him with all the essential authority of the church, taking out a new commission for his archbishopric, under the pretext that his former power had expired with the deceased king, and professing to be a prelate no longer than the child Edward, or rather Seymour himself, should acknowledge him to be so.â {656a} âCranmer 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 princeâs 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 Dudleyâs 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.â {656b} âIn 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.â 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. âThough 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.â âIn 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
{'title': 'The History of Lynn, Vol. 2 [of 2] by William Richards', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}