adds:[1] 'It is no easy thing to keep a people in revolt against the Holy See and the authority of the Church, and yet free from the infection of the new doctrines, or, on the other hand, if they remain orthodox, to prevent them from looking with attachment to the Papacy. But the Council here will have neither the one nor the other.' And again he says: 'It was a strange spectacle to see the adherents of two opposite parties die there on the same day and at the same hour; and it was equally disgraceful to the two divisions of the Government who pretended to have received offence. The scene was as painful as it was monstrous.' This was the opinion of a statesman, impartial as between the two, but impartially condemnatory of Henry's policy regarded from either one side or the other. What the Papal party thought of it we know abundantly from Paul IH., from Cardinal Pole, and innumerable other writers; while the Protestant view is best explained in the well-known letter of Hooper,[2] afterwards one of Edward VI.'s bishops, to Bullinger, written apparently in 1546, in which he says: ' Our King has destroyed the Pope, but not Popery. … The impious mass, the most shameful celibacy of the clergy, the invocation of saints, auricular confession, superstitious abstinence from meats, and purgatory, were never before held by the people in greater esteem than at the present moment.' This last letter is important. It shows, from strictly contemporary evidence, three things—viz., first, how entirely the schism between the two Churches of ERome and England was completed in Henry's time; secondly, how entirely both parties were conscious of the fact; and, thirdly, it shows what Protestant doctrines really were, and how far the Anglican
