All words Any words Exact phrase

Chancellor of England, who was in a position to know and appreciate
the relations between clergy and people, the division was neither so
acute nor so serious as it was painted by those who wished to favour
religious innovations or to ingratiate themselves with the king and
his advisers.[11]

But, even though there existed some differences of opinion about
matters concerned with the temporalities of the Church or the
privileges of the clergy, there is no indication during the thirty
years preceding the revolt of any marked hostility to the doctrines
and practices of the Church. In an earlier age the Lollards, as the
followers of Wycliff were called, put forward doctrines closely akin
to those advocated by the early Reformers, notably in regard to the
constitution of the Church, the Papacy, the Scriptures,
Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and Tradition, but the severe measures
adopted by both Church and State had succeeded in breaking the
influence of Lollardy in England. Very few if any followers of this
sect remained to disturb the peace of the community in the early years
of the reign of Henry VIII., though it is quite possible that the
memory of their teaching and of the sturdy struggle which they had
waged did not fail to produce its effects at a later period. It is
true that in 1512 the statement is attributed to the Bishop of London
in connexion with the trial of an ecclesiastic, that on account of
their leaning towards heresy any twelve men of the city would bring in
a verdict of guilty against a cleric placed on his trial before
them,[12] but it is impossible to believe that such a statement
conveys an accurate view of the state of affairs. It is out of harmony
with the results of the episcopal visitations, with the records of the
few trials for heresy which took place, most of which resulted in the
repentance of the alleged culprits, and with the considered judgment
of such a well qualified contemporary authority as Sir Thomas More.

It is certain that during the first quarter of the sixteenth century
the student of history will search in vain for any evidence of
opposition among the clergy and people of England to the spiritual
supremacy of the Holy See. Disputes there had been, some of which were
peculiarly bitter in their tone, between the English sovereigns and
the Pope. Complaints had been made by the clergy against what they
considered the unwarranted interferences of the Roman Curia in
domestic affairs; but these disputes and complaints were concerned
either with purely secular matters, as for example the annual tribute
claimed by the Holy See since the famous surrender of the kingdom made
by King John, or with the temporal side of the spiritual jurisdiction.
The clergy and people resented generally the wholesale rights of
reservation exercised by the Pope in regard to English benefices, the
appointment of foreigners to offices in England, the heavy taxes
levied by the Roman Curia directly or indirectly in the shape of
Annats or First Fruits, the withdrawal of comparatively trivial cases
from the local courts, and the exercise of jurisdiction over the
highest dignitaries of England by the legates commissioned by the Holy
See. But it is one thing to criticise the actual working of papal
supremacy as interpreted by Roman officials, or to seek to limit its
exercise in the every-day life of any particular church, and another
to call in question the supremacy itself. The English clergy and
people did, indeed, object to allow papal supremacy to be pushed too
far in what they regarded as purely domestic affairs, but even in the
most prolonged and heated discussions they never once questioned the
fact that the Pope was Supreme Head of the Church in England, or that
he was Supreme Head of the Catholic Church throughout the world.

The Statute of Provisors (1350-1), by which all appointments to
English benefices were to be made by canonical election or by the
nomination of lay patrons to the exclusion of papal provisions, is
cited sometimes as a proof that the English nation disregarded the
claims of the Holy See, but with equal justice and for a similar
reason it might be maintained that the Council of Trent rejected the
Supremacy of the Pope (Session xxiv., chap. 19). The Statute was
called for, owing to the spiritual and economic losses inflicted on
the country by the appointment of foreigners, and its passage was
secured mainly by the lay patrons, whose rights of patronage were
infringed by the constant stream of papal provisions. It was neither
inspired by hostility to the Holy See, nor by any doubt about the
supremacy of the Pope, and in itself it was a piece of legislation
that might have merited the approval of the most loyal supporters of