Chapter XIV · THE COUNCIL AT PONTEFRACT (continued 2)
Reading edition
All this chorus of condemnation arouses a certain amount of sympathy for the Archbishop in the modern mind. The doctrine of non-resistance at its highest is perhaps the noblest conceivable. Lee was upholding non-resistance, and there is an odd resemblance between his position and that of the Tolstoian hero in Zangwill’s War God. But the likeness breaks down when tested. In order to win acceptance the professor of non-resistance must be unflinchingly brave and absolutely consistent. Lee did not fulfil either of these conditions. He had not dared to proclaim his doctrine, or he would not have been allowed to preach that day, and he did not protest against all war. On the contrary, he praised those who fought for the King and condemned only rebellion. Finally even non-resisters agree that a body of men may unite to indicate peacefully but firmly that they disapprove of the government’s action. At this crisis of the Pilgrimage there was a reasonable hope that the Pilgrims would obtain all they desired by peaceful means if they stood firmly together. Lee’s sermon did a great deal to destroy that hope. This was far from being his intention. Whatever may be thought of his conduct, it is quite certain that he sincerely desired peace. Yet he had adopted a very unfortunate method of bringing it about. His sermon not only exasperated the commons, but increased their constant suspicion of the gentlemen. After the fiasco in Lincolnshire they naturally feared that the gentlemen would make their own peace with the King and abandon the commons to Cromwell’s vengeance. Lee’s condemnation of the Pilgrimage increased this distrust. It seemed only too probable that he had been inspired by the leaders, who might already have secretly come to terms with Norfolk. If this were so, they were now anxious to dismiss the commons to their homes in order that, 382disunited and helpless, they might fall into the hands of the royal troops. On account of these inevitable suspicions Aske deeply regretted that he had allowed the Archbishop to preach. The sermon had the air of an official statement, and though Lee might have made himself safe with the King, he had embarrassed the position of the leaders. Quarrelling broke out among the commons, and tumults arose. Aske’s servants cut the red crosses off the coat of Richard Bowyer, who was in the coat at the time. It does not appear what he had done to annoy them, but he seems to have been a meddlesome fellow. Sir George Lawson expressed a wish to know what the assembly of divines resolved upon, and Bowyer tried to be present at their meeting. He succeeded in entering the room while they were at dinner, but when they came back, they declined his offer to act as secretary and turned him out[1834].
The convocation of divines met in the Priory on Monday 4 December[1835]. They were summoned to the Priory church by Dr William Cliff, chancellor to the Archbishop of York, chaunter of York and rector of Waverton in Cheshire[1836], who was acting for his master, and were led by the Prior of Pontefract into a private chamber. The persons present were John Ripley[1837], Abbot of Kirkstall; his chaplain; Dr Sherwood, chancellor of Beverley minster[1838]; Dr Cliff; Dr Langrege, Archdeacon of Cleveland[1839]; Dr Geoffrey Downes, Chancellor of York; Dr John Brandsby, the Archbishop’s chaplain and master of the collegiate church of Sutton[1840]; Dr Cuthbert Marshall, Archdeacon of Nottingham; James Thwaites, Prior of Pontefract; Dr Waldby, rector of Kirk Deighton and prebendary of Carlisle; Dr Pickering the Friar Preacher; Dr Rokeby; a friar; Dr George Palmes, rector of Sutton-upon-Derwent[1841]; and Dr Dakyn, rector of Kirkby Ravensworth and vicar-general of York, who was requested to sit in the midst and take the minutes. The Prior of Pontefract and the friar seem to have been the only persons present who were not doctors either of law or of divinity[1842].
The divines had before them the questions and propositions which Aske had originally sent to Lee, but Aske said that they made no direct reply to his list, and that he could not remember who drew up 383the questions which they answered[1843]. These questions may perhaps have been Chaloner’s interrogatories concerning heresy[1844].
The divines’ first resolution was:—
“We thynke yt preachynge agaynste purgatory, worshuppynge of Sayntes, pylgrymage, Images and all bookes set forth agenst ye same or sacramentes or sacramentallis of ye Churche be worthy to be reproved and condempned by Convocacion, and ye payne to be executed yt is devysed for ye doars to ye contrary, and proces to be made herafter in heresye as was in ye dayes of kynge henry ye 1111 th and ye new statutes wherby heresyes now lately have ben greatly norysshed to be annolled and abrogated, and yt ye holydaes may be observed accordyng to ye lawes and lawdable Customes, and yt ye byddynge of beadys and preachinge may be observed as hath ben used by olde Custume.”[1845]
Over this there was little debate, for even Archbishop Lee objected to the abolition of holydays[1846], but the second resolution was that
“ye kynges highnes ne any temporall man may not be supreme hedd of ye churche by ye lawes of god to have or exercise any jurysdiccons or poer spirituall in ye same, and all actes of parliamente made to ye contrary to be revoked.”
There was a long discussion over this. Marshall, Pickering, Brandsby and Waldby maintained the papal cause, urging the primacy of St Peter. The three last named had been present in Convocation when the momentous resolution in the King’s favour was passed. They took out of their purses protests which had been made then[1847], and complained that the saving clause “in quantum per legem Christi licet[1848]” was omitted. Dakyn, Cliff and Rokeby thought that the question ought to be referred to a General Council. Dakyn was not opposed to some limitation of the Pope’s authority, for he had been in the Court of Arches and had learnt there how much trouble and delay were caused by appeals to Rome. Dr Sherwood was more inclined to the royal supremacy than the rest. Finally they agreed that the King might retain the title of “Caput Ecclesiæ,” but that he might exercise no jurisdiction such as visitation[1849].
The third question seems to have referred to Mary’s legitimacy, upon which they resolved
“we be not suffycyently instructed in ye facte ne in ye proces therin made but we refarre it to ye determynation of ye Churche to whom it was appealed.”
384The other resolutions were
“yt no clerke oughte to be put to death withoute degradacyon by ye lawes of ye Churche.
yt no man ought to be drawen owte of sentuary but in certayne causes expressed in ye lawes of ye Churche.
To ye vith we saye yt ye clargye of ye northe parties hath not graunted nor consentyd to ye pamente of ye tenthes or ffyrste frutes of benefices in ye Convocan and also we may make no suche personall graunte by ye lawes of ye Churche and we thynke yt no temporall man hathe auctoryte by ye lawes of god to claym any suche tenthes or ffyrst frutes of any benyfyce or spirituall promocyon.
To ye viith we thinke yt landis gyven to god, ye churche or relygyouse men ma not betaken away and put to prophane uses by ye lawes of god.
To ye viiith we thynke yt dispensacons upon Iuste causes lawfully graunted by ye pope of Rome to be good and to be accepted, and pardons have ben allowed by generall Counsels of lateran and Vyenna and by lawes of ye churche.
To ye ixth we thynke yt by ye lawes of ye Churche, Generall counselles, interpreta [torn] ys of approved doctors and consente of Crysten people ye poope of Rome hath ben taken for ye hedd of ye Churche and Vycare of Cryste and so oughte to be taken.
To ye xth we thinke yt ye examynacon and Correxion of dedly synne belongith to ye mynisters of ye Churche by ye lawes of ye same, wch be consonante to goddes lawes.”
This was the conclusion of the interrogatories, which were ten in number. In the debate Cliff and Palmes were most eager for the repeal of the various statutes, and Dakyn for the restoration of the monasteries, as he had been very much shocked by the profanation of sacred things[1850].
In the afternoon Aske himself brought the laymen’s articles to the divines. He found them sitting with their books before them, and with their articles almost ready[1851]. They read over the laymen’s petition to the King, but they did not consider the temporal articles within their province. Aske offered to lend them a book written by the Bishop of Rochester [Fisher], which would assist them if they were in any difficulty[1852], and besought them to speak their minds on all points openly and without fear[1853]. He himself was ready to fight and die for the old faith and the papal supremacy[1854].
On Tuesday 5 December the divines debated on the first eight articles of the petition, namely (1) the suppression of heresies, (2) the supremacy of the Pope, (3) the legitimacy of Mary, (4) the restoration of the abbeys, (5) the abolition of tenths and first fruits, (6) the 385restoration of the Friars Observants, (7) the punishment of heretics, (8) the punishment of Cromwell, Audley and Rich.
In this they were going over the same ground as on the day before, and they had only to confirm the lay articles. In addition to their answers to the questions which they had received, the divines passed some resolutions of their own:—
“ffarther we thynke it convenyente yt ye lawes of ye churche may be openly redde in Unyversyties as hath ben used here to ffore, and yt suche clarkys as be in pryson or ffledde owte of ye realme for withstandyng ye kynges supporyorite in ye Church may be set at lybertye and restored withoute danger and yt suche bookys and workes as do entreate of ye primacye of ye Churche of Rome may be ffrely kepte and redde notwithstandyng any prohybyssion to ye contrary and yt ye artycles of praemynire may be declared by actes of parlamente to the entente no man be in daunger therof withoute a prohibicyon fyrste awarded and yt suche apostataes as be goon from relygion withoute suffycyente and lawfull dyspensacyon of ye See of Rome may be compelled to returne to theyre howses, and yt all Sommes of mony as tenthes fyrste frutes and other Arreragis [torn] graunted unto ye kynges highnes by parlyamente or convocacyon and dew to be payed before ye fyrst day of ye nexte parliament may be remytted and forgyven for ye causes and reasones above expressed.
And we ye saide clargie saye yt for lacke of tyme and instruccyon in thies artycles and wante of bookys we declare this our opynyon for this tyme refarrynge our determynacon in ye premysses to ye nexte Convocacyon.
Also we desyre yt ye statute Cammanndynge ye clergye to exhibyte ye dyspensacons graunted by ye pope byfore ye ffeaste of michelmas nexte commynge may be revoked at ye nexte parliamente.”
On Tuesday evening the articles were ready, and the assembled divines carried them to the Archbishop[1855]. Aske was present[1856], as Lee had been urging him to come to terms with Norfolk, to disclose everything, and to inquire whether Lee should proceed with the collection of the tenth[1857]. The Archbishop read over the articles, but when he came to the declaration of the papal supremacy, he objected that it was unnecessary. There was a long debate over this. Marshall and Pickering defended the article[1858]. Aske questioned the Archbishop as to what he really believed on this point. Lee replied that the supremacy touching the cure of souls did not belong to the King, but the punishment of sin rested with him as the head of his people, and therein he was supreme head. Aske was surprised at the distinction, as he had never before heard anyone make it[1859]. In the end Lee permitted the clause to stand, as it expressed the consent of Christian people[1860]. The articles were then delivered to Aske[1861]. 386That night, probably after they had left Lee’s presence, Aske laid before the divines the problem which the Archbishop had solved in so unexpected a fashion. Was it ever lawful for subjects to resist their sovereign? To this they returned no answer[1862], but on the whole their attitude was much more satisfactory, from Aske’s point of view, than Lee’s had been. Their resolutions were certainly bold enough; probably the timid spirits were encouraged and hurried on by the ardour of Pickering and the more enthusiastic priests. It is true that afterwards they all represented themselves as having been in terror of the commons, but the statement of Dakyn, who was a very simpleminded man, throws some light on that point. He explained that when he, Marshall and Cliff were summoned to court to account for their conduct, they agreed together that they would say they had done everything from fear; and Dakyn innocently goes on to repeat exactly the words they had agreed upon, that every man came through fear, and was weary of his part, and doubtful what to do[1863]. If this were true, the reason of the Pilgrims’ failure is not far to seek. No one could drag to victory such very flabby and reluctant upholders of the Church. But a statement made with such an obvious motive does not command much belief. No doubt the priests were anxious and afraid. An assembly of elderly clergymen are very uncomfortably situated in the midst of a rebel army, and very dangerously employed in drawing up a manifesto hostile to the government. But it was the King, not the commons, whom they chiefly feared.
On this point Aske was closely interrogated. After some questions as to the matters laid before the clergy, he was asked, “Was it not a double iniquity to fall into rebellion and also after to procure matter to be set forth to justify that rebellion?”[1864] To which he replied with that touch of humour which is sometimes perceptible in his answers, “If the clergy did declare their minds contrary to the laws of God, it was a double iniquity,” and again, “as he thinks, the spiritual men were willing enough of themselves to declare their minds as they did in those points that they answered unto, but in that point, whether subjects might fight against their prince, he thinks they were not willing, because they made no determination at all touching the same.”[1865]
In short, it is an injustice to the learned men to say that they did 387not mean what they resolved. Aske expressed the confidence of all the Pilgrims when he said, “They thought none other like but that the said clergy would have showed their minds according to their learning and conscience, and [they] had no violence offered them in the world to do the contrary.”[1866]