the one case it arose mainly from the weakness and disgrace of the Papacy itself, in the other from the self-will and determination of the King. Henry IV. persecuted the Lollards chiefly as a matter of policy, because he sought to fortify his precarious tenure of the throne by conciliating the Church, as one of the strongest powers of the State. Henry VIII. persecuted Catholics and Gospellers alike only in carrying out the general scheme of making himself absolute ruler both in Church and State, pope and king at once.
The reign of Henry V., though only nine years in duration, formed a turning-point in ecclesiastical affairs. The King himself, a great soldier, a vigorous governor, a man of strong character, whether for good or for evil, had in him a large element of the fanatic, and the policy which he inherited from his father warned him to stand well with the Church and the priesthood. Within about three years of his accession followed the final acts of the Council of Constance, the deposition of the three scandalous popes, the election of Martin V., and the commencement of the great revival of the Papacy; and following upon it, as might have been expected, the close of the era of antipapal legislation in England, and the gradually more and more complete desuetude of the antipapal laws which remained upon the statute-book.
Throughout what may be called the age of papal depression the English nation had retained its devotion to Christianity and to the Church, mixed up, no doubt, with no small amount of superstition, and would, had it been possible, have retained its loyalty to the Pope also. But the position and conduct of the popes themselves forbade it. When the popes were maintaining an openly dissolute court; when they were throwing aside their impartiality and becoming mere dependants
