Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2

J >> J. Endell Tyler >> Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30

The Chronicle of London, from which, in all probability, Fox drew the
materials for his description, makes one shudder at the reckless,
cold-blooded acquiescence of its author in the excruciating tortures
of a fellow-creature suffering for his faith's sake. In his eyes,
heretics were detestable pests; and an abhorrence of heresy seems (p. 346)
to have quenched every feeling of humanity in his heart. It must be
observed, that this contemporary document speaks not a word of Henry
having been "in a rage," nor of his having commanded the sufferer to
be "straight put into the ton," nor of his having used "horrible
menaces of vengeance," nor, even in the milder expression of Fox,
"threatenings which would have daunted any man's stomach."

"A clerk," (says the Chronicle,) "that believed nought of the
sacrament of the altar, that is to say, God's body, was condemned
and brought to Smithfield to be burnt. And Henry, Prince of
Wales, then the King's eldest son, counselled him to forsake his
heresy and hold the right way of holy church. And the Prior of
St. Bartholomew's brought the holy sacrament of God's body with
twelve torches lighted before, and in this wise came to this
cursed heretic; and it was asked him how he believed, and he
answered that he believed well that it was hallowed bread, and
nought God's body. And then was the tonne put over him, and fire
kindled therein; and when the wretch felt the fire he cried
mercy, and anon the Prince commanded to take away the ton and to
quench the fire. And then the Prince asked him if he would
forsake his heresy, and take him to the faith of holy church;
which if he would have done, he should have his life, and goods
enough to live by; and the cursed shrew would not, but continued
forth in his heresy: wherefore he was burnt."[265]

[Footnote 265: The chronicler adds, "A versifier
made of him in metre these two verses:

"Hereticus credat, ve perustus ab orbe recedat,
Ne fidem laedat: Sathan hunc baratro sibi praedat."]

There probably will not be great diversity of opinion as to the (p. 347)
conduct of Henry, and the spirit which influenced him on this
occasion. He was present at the execution of a fellow-creature, who
was condemned to an excruciating death by the blind and cruel, but
still by the undoubted law of his country. Acting the "part of the
good Samaritan," he earnestly endeavoured to withdraw him from those
sentiments the publication of which had made him obnoxious to the law;
and he employed the means which his high station afforded him of
suspending the King's writ even at the very moment of its execution,
promising the offender pardon on his princely word, and a full
maintenance for his life. He could do no more: his humanity had
carried him even then beyond his authority, and, considering all the
circumstances, even beyond the line of discretion; and, when he found
that all his efforts were in vain, he left the law to take its own
course,--a law which had been passed and put in execution before he
had anything whatever to do with legislation and government.

CHAPTER XXX. (p. 348)

THE CASE OF SIR JOHN OLDCASTLE, LORD COBHAM. -- REFERENCE TO HIS
FORMER LIFE AND CHARACTER. -- FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS. -- THE
ARCHBISHOP'S STATEMENT. -- MILNER. -- HALL. -- LINGARD. -- COBHAM
OFFERS THE WAGER OF BATTLE. -- APPEALS PEREMPTORILY TO THE POPE. --
HENRY'S ANXIETY TO SAVE HIM. -- HE IS CONDEMNED, BUT NO WRIT OF
EXECUTION IS ISSUED BY THE KING. -- COBHAM ESCAPES FROM THE TOWER.

1413.

The death of Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, and the circumstances
which preceded it, require a more patient and a more impartial
examination than they have often met with. But it must be borne in
mind throughout that our inquiry has for its object, neither the
condemnation of religious persecution, nor the palliation of the
spirit of Romanism,--neither the canonization of the Protestant
martyr, nor the indiscriminate inculpation of all concerned in the sad
tragedy of his condemnation and death,--but the real estimate of
Henry's character. The pursuit of this inquiry of necessity leads (p. 349)
us through passages in the history of our country, and of our church,
which must be of deep and lively interest to every Englishman and
every Christian. It is impossible, as we proceed, not to fix our eyes
upon objects somewhat removed from the direct road along which we are
passing, and, contemplating the state of things as they were in those
days, contrast them fairly and thankfully with what is our own lot
now.

It were a far easier work to assume that all who were engaged in
prosecuting Sir John Oldcastle were men of heartless bigotry,
unrelenting enemies to true religion, devoid of every principle of
Gospel charity, men of Belial, delighting in deeds of violence and
blood; and that the victim of their cruelty, persecuted even to the
death solely for his religious sentiments, was a pattern of every
Christian excellence, the undaunted champion of Gospel truth, the
sainted martyr of the Protestant faith. This were the more easy task,
for little further would need to be done in its accomplishment than to
select from former writers passages of indiscriminate panegyric on the
one hand, and equally indiscriminate vituperation on the other. The
investigation of doubtful and disputed facts, to the generality of
minds, is irksome and disagreeable; and its results, for the most part
removed, as they are, from extreme opinions on either side, are
received with a far less keen relish than the glowing eulogy of a
partisan, and the unsparing invective of an enemy. Truth, (p. 350)
nevertheless, must be our object. Truth is a treasure of intrinsic
value, and will retain its worth after the adventitious and forced
estimate put upon party views and popular representations shall have
passed away.

Sir John Oldcastle, who derived the title of Lord Cobham from his
wife, was a man of great military talents and prowess, and at the same
time a man of piety and zeal for the general good. He was one of the
chief benefactors towards the new bridge at Rochester, a work then
considered of great public importance; and he founded a chantry for
the maintenance of three chaplains. Oldcastle was by no means free
from trouble during the reign of Richard II. Indeed, so unsettled was
the government, and so violent were the measures adopted against
political opponents, and so cheap and vile was human life held, that
few could reckon upon security of property or person for an hour. One
day a man was seen in a high civil or military station; the next
arrested, imprisoned, banished, or put to death. Oldcastle was very
nearly made an early victim of these violent proceedings. Among the
strong measures to which parliament had recourse about the year 1386,
they appointed fourteen lords to conduct the administration, among
whom was Lord Cobham. Just ten years afterwards he was arrested, and
adjudged to death by the parliament;[266] but his punishment, at the
earnest request of certain lords, was commuted for perpetual (p. 351)
imprisonment,[267] a sentence from which the lords of parliament
revolted,--and he was exiled.[268] From this banishment he returned
with Henry of Lancaster, and was restored to all his possessions which
had been forfeited. Through the whole reign of Henry IV. we find him
in the King's service in Wales and on the Continent. In a summons for
a general council of prelates, lords, and knights, dated July 21,
1401, occurs the name of John Lord Cobham.[269] In the Minutes of
Council about the end of August 1404, John Oldcastle is appointed to
keep the castles and towns of the Hay and Brecknock; and when English
auxiliaries were sent to aid the Duke of Burgundy, Oldcastle was among
the officers selected for that successful enterprise. Between the
Prince of Wales and this gallant brother in arms an intimacy was
formed, which existed till the melancholy tissue of events interrupted
their friendship, and ultimately separated them for ever.

[Footnote 266: Monk of St. Alban's.]

[Footnote 267: Monk of Evesham.]

[Footnote 268: The Pell Rolls (22d May 1398)
contain an item of 20_l._ paid to Thomas Duke of
Surrey on account of Lord Cobham, then his
prisoner.]

[Footnote 269: Records of Privy Council.]

We have already seen that Lord Cobham had given proof of a pious as
well as a liberal mind; and his piety showed itself in acts which the
Roman church sanctioned and fostered. He built and endowed a (p. 352)
chantry for the maintenance of three chaplains. But he had imbibed a
portion of that spirit which Wickliffe's doctrines had diffused far
and wide through the land; and he not only boldly professed his
principles, but actively engaged in disseminating them. It is very
difficult to ascertain the exact truth as to the tenour and extent of
the religious opinions of the rising sect, and the degree in which
they were political dissenters, aiming at the overthrow of the
existing order of things in the state as well as in the church. Their
enemies, doubtless, have exaggerated their intentions, and have
endeavoured to rob them of all claim to the character of sincere
religious reformers; probably misrepresenting their objects, and
confounding their designs with the plots of those turbulent
spirits[270] who then agitated several countries in Europe; whilst
their friends have denied, perhaps injudiciously, any participation on
their part in seditious and treasonable practices. By the one they
have been condemned as reckless enemies to truth, and order, and
peace; by the other they are exalted into self-devoted confessors and
martyrs; in soundness of faith, integrity of life, and constancy unto
death for the truth's sake, equalling those servants and soldiers of
Christ who in the first ages sealed their belief with their blood. The
truth lies between these extremes: their enemies were bigoted (p. 353)
or self-interested persecutors; but many among themselves, as a body,
in their language, their actions, and their professed principles, were
very far removed from that quiet, patient, peaceable demeanour which
becomes the disciples of the Cross. Doubtless there were numbers at
that time in England possessing their souls in patience, bewailing the
gloom and superstition and tyranny which through that long night of
error overspread their country, and anxiously but resignedly expecting
the dawn of a holier and brighter day. It is, however, impossible to
read the documents of the time without being convinced, not only that
the temporal establishment of the Church was threatened, but that the
civil government had good grounds for watching with a jealous eye, and
repressing with a strong hand, the violent though ill-digested schemes
of change then prevailing in England. Undoubtedly the hierarchy set
all the engines in motion for the extirpation of Lollardism, as the
principles of the rising sect were called. They felt that their
dominion over the minds of men must cease as soon as the right of
private judgment was generally acknowledged; and they resolved, at
whatever cost of charity and of blood, to maintain the hold over the
consciences, the minds, and the property of their fellow-creatures,
which the Church had devoted so many years of steady, unwearied,
undeviating policy to secure. The real question, the point on (p. 354)
which every other question between the Protestant communions and the
Church of Rome must depend, is this: "Have individual Christians a
right to test the doctrines of the Church by the written word of God;
or must they receive with implicit credence whatever the church in
communion with the See of Rome, the only authorized and infallible
guardian and propagator of Gospel truth, decrees and propounds?" All
the other differences, however important in themselves, and
practically essential, must follow the fate of this question. The
Romanists are still aware of this, and are as much alive to it as ever
were the most uncompromising vindicators of their church in the days
of Lollardism. They took their resolution, and it was this: "Come what
will come, this heresy must be put down; the very existence of the
Church is incompatible with this rivalry: either Lollardism must be
extinguished, or it will shake the very foundations of Rome." And,
having taken this resolution, they lost no favourable opportunity of
carrying it into full effect.

[Footnote 270: The states of Europe were much
convulsed about this time by an apprehension of
political revolutions.]

Some writers seem to have fixed their thoughts so much on the bold and
ruthless measures adopted, or compassed, by the Church under the house
of Lancaster, as to have left unnoticed their proceedings previously
to Henry IV.'s accession. In 1394, when Richard II. made his first
expedition to Ireland, though he had been absent a very short time, so
alarmed were the heads of the Church at the progress of the new (p. 355)
opinions, that the Archbishop of York[271] and the Bishop of London
went over in person to implore him to return forthwith and put down
the Lollards,[272] his own and the Church's formidable enemies. Many
strong measures were resorted to on that King's return, but all short
of those deeds of guilt and blood which disgraced our country through
the next reigns. The Pope, the King, and the hierarchy put forth their
united exertions, and for a season the growing danger seemed to be
repressed; but it was still silently and widely spreading. In the year
1400, before Henry IV. was settled in his throne, and whilst he was
naturally alive to every report of danger, the several estates of the
realm "pray the King to pass such a law as may effectually rid the
kingdom of those plotters against all rule and right and liberty, (for
so are the Lollards described,) whose aim is to dispossess the clergy
of their benefices, the King of his throne, and the whole realm of
tranquillity and order, exciting to the utmost of their power sedition
and insurrection." And in that year was passed the statute De (p. 356)
haeretico comburendo, which enacted that a suspected heretic should be
cited by his diocesan, be fined, and imprisoned; and, if pronounced a
relapsed or obstinate heretic, be given over by the Church to the
secular power, to be burnt, in an elevated spot, before the people, to
strike terror the more. It was under this statute that Sir John
Oldcastle was summoned, tried, adjudged, and delivered to the secular
power.

[Footnote 271: King Richard seems to have employed
the Irish prelates on many occasions in his
intercourse with Rome. Thomas Crawley, Archbishop
of Dublin, was sent to Pope Urban (1398, May 22nd,)
"for the safe estate and prosperity of the most
holy English church;" and John Cotton, Archbishop
of Armagh, was sent to Rome, (31st of August,) in
the same year, "on the King's secret
affairs."--Pell Rolls.]

[Footnote 272: Otterbourne.]

How long he had entertained the new opinions, or, by openly
encouraging their propagators, had incurred the anger, and drawn down
upon himself the concentrated violence of the hierarchy, does not
appear. From one circumstance we may fairly infer, that, whilst he was
aiding the Prince in the war against Owyn Glyndowr, he had not been
silent or idle in the dissemination of these principles. In the synod
held in St. Paul's, his offence of sending emissaries and preachers is
said to have been especially committed (beside the dioceses of London
and Rochester) in the diocese of Hereford; and, as we have seen, in
1404 he was especially charged with the safeguard of the town and
castle of Hay, in Herefordshire: he was also sheriff of that county in
1407. Whether he had ever communicated his sentiments to the Prince,
or not, must remain a matter only of conjecture: be this as it may, no
sooner was the first parliament of Henry V. assembled,--and they met
soon after Easter,--than Arundel convened a full assembly[273] (p. 357)
of prelates and clergy in St. Paul's Cathedral.[274] It was there
speedily determined that the breaches in the Church could not be
repaired, nor peace and security restored, unless certain noblemen and
gentry, favourers of Lollardism, were removed, or effectually
silenced, and brought back to their allegiance. Especially, and by
name, was this decree passed against Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham;
and a resolution was taken to proceed against him forthwith. But he
was then in high favour with the King; and the Archbishop thought it
discreet to endeavour first to withdraw from him the royal favour,
before proceeding openly to put the law in force against him. And at
this point our interest in the transactions, and our desire to
ascertain the accuracy of the accounts in every particular begin to
increase; for our estimate of the tone and temper of Henry's mind, and
the real nature of his conduct, will be affected by a very slight
change of expression and turn of thought. Was Henry V. a persecutor
for religious opinions?

[Footnote 273: The Chronicle of London states that
the convocation assembled on the day of St. Edmund
the King, and continued until December; and "that
the archbishop and bishops, at St. Paul's Cross,
accursed Sir John Oldcastle on the Sunday, after
the dirge was performed royally at Westminster for
Richard II., on the removal of his remains."]

[Footnote 274: Archbishop Arundel (says Anthony a
Wood), who never proceeded beyond the degree of
bachelor of arts in this University [Oxford] or any
other, decreed by a provincial council, 1404, that
none should preach except privileged or licensed.]

Perhaps the more satisfactory course will be, first to give the (p. 358)
statements of Fox, and one or two others, who have taken the view
of the case least favourable to Henry, and then to add the account of
the transaction as it is recorded by the Archbishop, on whose record
Fox informs us that the ground and certainty of his own history of
Lord Cobham depended. Almost all subsequent writers copy the
martyrologist exclusively and implicitly, though often with much
additional colouring.

Fox, who certainly follows the original statement in Archbishop
Arundel's register much more faithfully, than those who have taken
their facts from him, and heightened them by their own exaggerated
colouring, gives an unfavourable and an unfair turn to the whole
proceeding by one or two strokes of his pencil. His version of the
affair is this: "The King _gently_ heard those bloodthirsty prelates,
and _far otherwise than became his princely dignity_; notwithstanding
requiring, and instantly desiring them, that in respect of his noble
stock and knighthood, they would deal favourably with him, and that
they would, if possible, without all rigour or extreme handling,
reduce him to the Church's unity. He promised them also, that, in case
they were content to take some deliberation, himself would seriously
commune the matter with him. Anon after, the King sent for Lord
Cobham, and, as he was come, he called him, secretly admonishing him,
betwixt him and him, to submit himself to his mother the holy (p. 359)
Church, and as an obedient child to acknowledge himself culpable. Unto
whom the Christian knight made this answer: 'You, most worthy prince,
I am always most ready to obey. Unto you, next my eternal God, I owe
whole obedience, and submit thereto, as I have ever done. But as
touching the Pope and his spirituality, I owe them neither suit nor
service; forasmuch as I know him by the Scriptures to be the great
Antichrist, the son of perdition, the open adversary of God, and the
abomination standing in the holy place!' When the King had heard this,
and such like sentences more, he would talk no longer with him, but
left him so utterly. And as the Archbishop resorted again unto him for
an answer, he gave him his full authority to cite him, examine him,
and punish him according to their devilish decrees, which they called
the laws of holy church."

In his comment on the answer said to have been made by Lord Cobham to
the King, Milner's zeal in favour of the accused, betrays him into
expressions against Henry which cannot be justified: "The _extreme
ignorance of Henry_ in matters of religion by no means disposed him to
relish such an answer as this; _he immediately turned away from him in
visible displeasure_, and gave up the disciple of Wickliff to the
malice of his enemies."

Hall's version is this: "The King, first having compassion on the (p. 360)
nobleman, required the prelates, if he were a strayed sheep,[275]
rather by gentleness than by rigour to bring him back again to his old
flock: after that, he, sending for him, godly exhorted and lovingly
admonished him to reconcile himself to God and his laws. The Lord
Cobham thanked the King for his most favourable clemency, affirming
his grace to be his supreme head and competent judge, and no other."

[Footnote 275: Carte suggests that Lord Cobham
might have been one of Henry's [supposed] rakish
companions. But such a supposition as would stain
his memory with debauchery, is altogether at
variance with his character. Carte has no doubt of
the reality of Cobham's conspiracy in St. Giles'
Field.]

The record, as it is found in the Archbishop's Memoirs, is as follows.
Having stated that, of the tracts which had been condemned to the
flames for their heretical contents, one consisting of many smaller
tracts full of more dangerous doctrine, tending to the subversion of
the faith and the church, was found at an illuminator's in Paternoster
Row, who confessed that it was Lord Cobham's, and another was brought
from Coventry, full of poison against the Church of God, the
Archbishop's record thus proceeds: "The day on which the said tracts
were condemned and burnt, certain tracts, containing more important
and more dangerous errors of the said Lord John Oldcastle, were read
before the King, and almost all the prelates and nobles of England, in
the closet of the King at Kennington; the said Lord John Oldcastle (p. 361)
being present and hearing it, having been especially summoned for this
purpose. Then our King himself expressed his abhorrence of those
conclusions, as the worst against the faith and the church he had ever
heard. And the said Lord John Oldcastle, being asked by the King
whether he thought the said tract was justly and deservedly condemned,
said that it was so. On being asked how he could use or possess a
tract of this sort, he said that he had never read more than two
leaves.

"And be it remembered that in the said convocation the said Lord John
Oldcastle was convicted by the whole clergy of the province of
Canterbury, upon his ill-fame for errors and heretical wickedness, and
how in various dioceses he had held, assumed, and defended erroneous
and heretical conclusions; and that he had received to his house,
favoured, refreshed, and defended, chaplains suspected and even
convicted of such errors and heresies, and had sent them off to
different parts of the province to preach and sow this evil seed, to
the subversion of the faith and the state of the church.[276] And
supplication was made on the part of the same clergy to the Lord
Archbishop and the prelates, that the said John Oldcastle should (p. 362)
be summoned to answer in person to these points. And because it seemed
right to the Lord Archbishop and the prelates, that the King ought
first to be consulted on this point, because he had been his intimate
friend, they waited upon the King at Kennington, and with all due
reverence consulted with him upon the matter. And the King returned
thanks for their obliging kindness, and prayed them, [regratiabatur
benevolentiis eorundem, et eis supplicabat,] for respect to the King
himself, because he had been his intimate friend, and also from
respect to the military order, they would defer process and execution
of every kind against him; promising them that he would labour, with
regard to him, to bring him back with all mildness and lenity from the
error of his way to the right path of truth. And if he could not
succeed in this endeavour, he would deliver him to them according to
the canonical obligations to be punished, and would assist them in
this with all his aid and with the secular arm. And the said
Archbishop and prelates acquiesced in the King's desire, but not
without the dissatisfaction and murmurs of the clergy. Then, after the
lapse of some time, when our said Lord the King had laboured long and
in various ways in the endeavour to bring back the said knight to the
sheepfold of Christ, and had reaped no fruit of his toil, but the
knight continually relapsed into a worse state than before, at length
the King, in the following month of August, being at Windsor, (p. 363)
without further lenity sharply chided the said Lord John for his
obstinacy. And the said Lord, full of the Devil, not enduring such
chiding, withdrew without leave to his castle of Cowling in Kent; and
there fortified himself in the castle, as was publicly reported. After
that, the King sent for the Lord Archbishop, who was then at
Chichester, celebrating the Assumption of the blessed Virgin; and, on
his coming to the King at his house in Windsor Park, the King, after
rehearsing the pains he had taken, enjoined on the Archbishop, and
required him on the part of God and the Church, to proceed with all
expedition against the said Lord John Oldcastle according to the
canonical rules; and then the Archbishop proceeded against him as the
law required."[277]

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30