Skip to main content

Full text of "The life, times, and writings of Thomas Cranmer, D.D. : the first reforming archbishop of Canterbury"

See other formats 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 
in  2014 


littps://arcliive.org/details/lifetimeswritingOOcoll 


LIFE  OF  CRANMER. 


THE 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS 


THOMAS  CRANMER,  D.D., 


THE  FIRST  REFORMING  ARCHBISHOP  OF  CANTERBURY. 


BY 


CHARLES  HASTINGS  COLLETTE. 


Omnes  Homines— qui  de  rebus  dubiis  consultant,  ab  odio,  amicitia,  ira,  atquc  misericordia 
\acuos  esse  decet.— Ca-ia;-  nf>.  Sailnst. 


LONDON: 

GEORGE  REDWAT,  YORK  STREET,  COVENT  GARDEN. 

1887. 


THE  MOST  REV.  EDWARD  WHITE, 

NINETV-THIRD  ARCHBISHOP  OF  CAXTERHURY, 
AND  PRIMATE  OF  ALL  ENGLAND, 

Cbie  Xdorl^  is  respectfully  I)cC»tcatc&, 

liY 

A  SINCERE  AND   DEVOTED   St:»N   OF  THE 
CHURCH  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


PREFACE. 


"  It  will  be  admitted  by  all  who  are  in  any  degree 
acquainted  with  it,  that  there  is  no  period  of  our  history 
which  is  more  interesting  than  that  of  the  Reformation. 
And  this  is  not  merely  considered  in  an  Ecclesiastical,  but 
in  a  Political  and  Philosophical  point  of  view  :  and  as  bear- 
ing on  our  constitution,  our  laws,  habits,  modes  of  thought 
and  action,  on  the  whole  history  of  our  country  since  that 
time,  and  our  own  state  and  circumstances  at  the  present 
day."  Such  was  the  utterance  of  the  Rev.  Dr  Maitland. 
The  name  of  Cranmer,  as  our  first  Reforming  Archbishop, 
is  necessarily  connected  with  the  history  of  that  period. 
Whatever  his  personal  merits  or  demerits  may  have  been, 
we  are  mainly  indebted  to  him  for  laying  the  foundation 
of  that  Reformation  which  entirely  revolutionised  the 
Ecclesiastical,  Political,  and  Social  position  of  this  country. 
The  "  Life  and  Times  of  Cranmer,"  therefore,  whatever 
individual  opinions  may  be — whether  for  good  or  evil — 
must  be  of  vital  interest  to  every  Englishman ;  but  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  subject,  opinions  will  difter;  espe- 
cially where  theological  questions  are  involved. 

Cranmer  stands  the  most  prominent  character  in  the 
history  of  the  Reformation  in  this  country,  and  has  in  con- 
sequence been  equally  the  object  of  virulent  attacks  and 
of  fulsome  praise.  To  undertake  the  Biography  of  such  a 
character,  and  to  be  entirely  impartial,  is  difificult.  It  was 
Descartes  who  said  that  "  the  prime  condition  for  discover- 
ing the  truth  is  to  be  free  from  all  prejudices."    But  every 


Vlll 


PREFACE. 


writer  on  such  a  subject, — be  he  a  member  of  the  Reformed 
or  the  Unreformed  Church  —  will  naturally  have  his  own 
peculiar  views  and  prejudices.  How  is  he,  then,  to  hold  an 
even  balance  between  opposite  opinions  Such,  however, 
is  the  task  upon  which  I  have  ventured.  It  is  not  an  easy 
one.  This  protestation  will  of  course  be  taken  for  what 
it  is  worth,  coming  from  an  avowed  member  of  the 
Reformed  Church  of  England  ;  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to 
appropriate  the  sentiment  of  Dean  Hook,  who  said,  in  his 
Preface  to  the  "  Life  of  Archbishop  Cranmer ",  "  I  have 
no  inclination  to  vindicate  the  character  of  Cranmer,  for  in 
his  conduct  there  was  much  which  was  indefensible ;  but  it 
is  my  duty  as  an  historian  to  guard  against  the  distortion 
of  facts,  while  as  Christians,  we  are  bound  to  make  due 
allowance  for  a  person  who,  in  a  position  not  sought  for  by 
him,  was  surrounded  with  peculiar  and  unusual  difficulties." 

The  number  of  "  Lives  "  and  "  Biographical  Sketches  " 
that  have  been  already  published,  renders  the  task  more 
embarrassing  from  the  diametrically  opposite  views  taken 
of  Cranmer'S  actions  and  motives.  Again,  with  so  many 
details  before  us,  a  further  difficulty  presents  itself,  the 
fear  of  wearying  the  reader  :  —  "  Opere  in  longo  fas  est 
obrepere  somnum,"  as  Horace  truly  remarked  —  by  a 
recapitulation  of  well-known  historical  facts.  Under  these 
circumstances  I  have  not  considered  it  necessary  to  trace 
Cranmer's  life  step  by  step,  in  all  its  details,  which  would 
be  but  a  compilation,  culled  from  the  Avorks  of  many 
excellent  biographers  such  as  Strype,  Todd,  Le  Bas, 
Gilpin,  and  Dean  Hook.  I  have  therefore  determined,  if 
possible,  to  mark  out  a  new  line  of  proceeding,  by  taking 
the  more  prominent  incidents  of  the  Life  and  Times  of 
Cranmer,  viewed  with  the  surrounding  circumstances 
wherein  he  has  been  both  censured  and  commended,  and  I 


PREFACE. 


have  endeavoured  to  arrive  at  an  equal  and  just  judgment 
between,  what  may  be  described  as,  the  two  extremes. 

Cranmer  has  bequeathed  to  us  Writings  which  speak 
for  themselves.  These  I  have  endeavoured  to  analyse ;  and 
the  reader  will,  I  trust,  have  a  fair  estimate  of  his  labours, 
and  appreciate  the  great  work,  which  appears  to  have  been 
the  object  of  his  life  to  accomplish. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  avoid  controversy ;  and  the  many 
opponents  of  Cranmer  will  find  that  I  have  not  omitted  to 
blame  him  where  blame  is  deserved.  He  lived  in  cruel 
and  most  exceptional  times,  when  corruption  in  the  Church 
was  at  its  height,  and  persecutions  for  conscience'  sake  were 
fiercely  enforced;  but  it  is  a  fact  that  all  the  charges  brought 
against  Cranmer  relate  to  acts  done  by  him  while  a  Roman 
Catholic  in  doctrine,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  princi- 
ples of  that  Church,  and  participated  in  by  all  his  Epis- 
copal contemporaries. 

Our  earliest  notice  of  Cranmcr's  life  and  ultimate  fall 
we  derive  from  Fox's  "Book  of  Martyrs,"  which  may  not 
inaptly  be  described  as  "  the  red-rag  "  of  "  Ritualists  "  and 
"  Papists,"  at  whose  hands  Fox  has  received  severe  castiga- 
tion,  being  accused  of  wilful  perversion  of  facts,  and  even  of 
mutilating  documents.  I  have,  therefore,  considered  it  not 
out  of  place  to  add,  in  an  Appendix,  a  few  observations  on 
the  Life  and  Writings  of  the  Martyrologist,  but  I  have 
limited  my  observations  principally  to  testimonies  of  that 
writer's  truthfulness,— a  virtue  in  which  he  is  accused  of 
being  lamentably  deficient  as  an  historian. 

A  Biography  can  scarcely  be  said  to  be  complete  with- 
out the  writer  giving  an  estimate,  according  to  his  view,  of 
the  character  of  the  person  whose  life  is  reproduced.  To 
come  to  a  just  conclusion,  we  ought  to  place  ourselves,  so 
far  as  may  be  possible,  in  the  same  situation,  and  under 


X 


PREFACE. 


the  same  circumstances,  and  consider  both  the  times  and 
the  surroundings  of  the  period.  We  are  too  ready  to  form 
an  opinion,  judging  from  our  own  present  stand-point,  and 
according  to  our  own  present  accepted  notions  of  moraHty. 
Having  perused  many  different  "  Lives  "  and  "  Historical 
Sketches "  of  Craxmer,  and  observed  the  diametri- 
cally opposite  views  and  opinions  arrived  at  by  different 
writers,  I  feel  that  any  individual  expression  of  opinion  on 
my  part  might  have,  perhaps,  even  less  weight,  than  that 
expressed  by  others.  In  order,  however,  that  a  member  of 
the  Unreformed  Church  may  arrive  at  a  proper  estimate 
of  his  character,  and  judge  of  his  motives  and  actions, 
he  must  take  into  consideration  that  every  act  of  the 
Primate,  for  which  he  has  been  condemned,  was  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  principles  and  practice  of  his  Church, 
or  shared  in  by  his  clerical  and  lay  contemporaries,  all 
members  of  the  same  Unreformed  Church,  even  if  he 
be  charged  with  Schism.  Apostacy,  the  result  of  honest 
conviction,  cannot  be  fairly  deemed  a  crime,  so  long 
as  each  party  seeks  to  make  converts  to  his  creed.  What 
one  sect  calls  conversioji,  the  opposite  sect  calls  pei-- 
version.  From  a  Protestant  point  of  view,  it  might  be 
said  that  every  single  act  of  Cranmer  brought  in  judg- 
ment against  him,  having  been  perpetrated  while  a 
member  of  the  Unreformed  Church,  and  in  accordance  with 
Papal  laws  and  customs  in  which  he  had  been  brought  up, 
must  be  condemned,  but  with  a  rider  to  the  verdict,  of 
"  extenuating  circumstances."  Members  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  on  the  other  hand,  glory  in  Cranmer's  alleged 
apostacy.  They  esteem  him  for  his  work's  sake,  and  point 
to  his  Martyrdom  as  a  practical  vindication  of  the  truth  of 
iiis  doctrines. 

Cranmer  commends  himself  to  us  as  a  Churchman,  as 


PREFACE. 


XI 


the  founder,  and  "  great  Master  Builder,"  of  our  Reformed 
Church  of  England  ;  and,  whatever  his  frailties  and  short- 
comings may  have  otherwise  been,  his  Writings,  which  he 
has  bequeathed  to  us,  we  prize  as  a  lasting  monument  of 
his  greatness.  To  borrow  the  eloquent  words  of  his 
biographer,  Strype  : — 

"  The  name  of  this  Reverend  Prelate  deserves  to  stand 
upon  eternal  record,  having  been  the  first  Reforming 
Archbishop  of  this  kingdom,  and  the  greatest  instrument, 
under  God,  of  the  happy  Reformation  of  this  Church  of 
England,  in  whose  piety,  learning,  wisdom,  conduct,  and 
blood,  the  foundation  of  it  was  laid." 

C.  H.  COLLETTE. 


April  1887. 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  I. 

PAGF 

INTRODUCTORY      .......  I 

CHAPTER  II. 

CRANMER  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CAMBRIDGE  .  .  5 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  PROCEEDINGS  LEADING  TO  THE  DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII. 

FRO.M  CATHERINE       .  .  .  .  .  .12 

CHAPTER  IV'. 

CRANMER'S   participation   in   the   proceedings   OF  THE 

DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE         .  .  48 

CHAPTER  V. 

CRANMER'S  SECOND  MARRIAGE  AS  A  PRIEST    .  .  .68 

CHAPTER  VI. 

CRANMER'S  OATHS  ON  CONSECRATION  AS  AN  ARCHBISHOP   .  78 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  FATE  OF  ANNE  BOLEYN  ;  HENRY's  MARRIAGES  WITH 
JANE  SEYMOUR,  ANNE  OF  CLEVES,  CATHERINE  HOWARD, 
AND  CATHERINE  PARR;  AND  CRANMER'S  ALLEGED  PAR- 
TICIPATION IN  THESE  ACTS  .  .  .  .94 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

I'AGE 

HENRV    VIII.'S    POLITICAL    AND    SOCIAL    REFORMS  UNDER 

CRANMER'S  ALLEGED  GUIDANCE      .  .  .  .  Il8 

CHAPTER  IX. 

PERSECUTIONS,  AND  CRANMER'S  ALLEGED  PARTICIPATION  IN 

THEM    ........  l6o 

CHAPTER  X. 

THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  VIII. 

AND  EDWARD  VI.        .  ,  .  .  .  -195 

CHAPTER  XI. 

CRANMER'S  FALL  AND  MARTYRDOM  ....  222 
CRANMER'S  ALLEGED  RECANTATIONS — APPENDIX        .  .  246 

CHAPTER  XII. 


CRANMER  S  WRITINGS 


250 


APPENDIX. 

JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTYROLOGIST  ....  295 


THE  BEATIFICATION  OF  BISHOP  FISHER,   THE  CHANCELLOR 

MORE,  AND  OTHERS,  AS  MARTYRS     ....  306 


LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  CRANMER. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

"  To  write  History  truly  is  an  office  little  less  than  sacred.  To 
indite  justly  the  records  of  the  bygone  is  a  duty  upon  which 
honour  and  honesty  impose  the  inevitable  responsibility  of 
faith  and  truthfulness."— S.  Hubert  Burke. 

Two  notable  characters  stand  forth  prominently  in  the 
history  of  the  REFORMATION  of  the  sixteenth  century,  on 
whom  unmeasured  abuse  and  equally  fulsome  praise  have 
been  bestowed.  These  two  characters  are  LUTHER  and 
Cranmer.  The  truth  would  possibly  lie  equi-distant  from 
the  two  extremes.  At  present,  we  are  only  concerned 
with  Cranmer.  Party  spirit,  enhanced  by  theological  ani- 
mosities, has  gone  far  to  embitter  the  controversy.  A  late 
biographer  of  Cranmer,  Dean  Hook,  observed  Ihat,  "  the 
fault  is  not  so  much  in  misstatement  of  facts,  but  the  in- 
ferences drawn  from  them."  Would  that  such  were  the 
case !  It  is  far  otherwise.  Human  failings  are,  on  the  one 
hand,  dwelt  upon  and  even  exaggerated  by  the  opponents 
of  the  Reformation.  Every  act  of  the  reforming  Arch- 
bishop's life  has  been  closely  scrutinised,  dwelt  upon,  and 
advanced  as  a  cogent  reason  for  condemning  even  the 
Reformation  itself,  which  Cranmer  was  one  of  the  principal 
instruments  in  effecting  in  this  country.    Where  Cranmer 

A 


2 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER, 


cannot  be  made  personally  responsible,  he  is  made  so  in- 
directly, by  associating  him  with  others  with  whom  he  is 
alleged  to  have  been  in  close  relation  or  friendship.  Every 
questionable  act  of  which  the  King  and  his  Parliament  are 
charged,  and  the  several  persecutions  and  confiscations, 
are  laid  at  the  door  of  Cranmer,  as  the  King's  principal 
adviser,  and  also  his  ready  tool  in  all  his  questionable  and 
alleged  nefarious  transactions.^  While  it  must  be  admitted 
that  some  of  the  charges  brought  against  Cranmer  can  be 
substantiated,  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  does  not  re- 
quire us  to  justify  the  failings  of  our  Reformers.  The 
ready  reply  has  been,  that — 

"  The  Reformation  in  England  is  founded  upon  doctrines  which 
revert  back  to  the  fountain-head — Christ — as  revealed  to  us  in  the 
New  Testament  ;  and  if  that  doctrine  be  true,  it  cannot  be  overthrown 
by  railing  accusations  against  our  Reformers,  the  teachers  of  these 
doctrines,  nor  even  by  the  exposure  of  their  infirmities  and  sins. 
Yet,  unhappily,  such  has  been  the  course  taken  by  many  who  have 
resorted  to  that  line  of  argument  to  shake  our  faith  in  the  justice  and 
desirability  of  such  a  reformation  to  which  we,  in  England,  are  mainly 
indebted  to  Cranmer."  ^ 

This  is  the  view  maintained  by  members  of  the  reformed 
Churches,  who  confidently  challenge  their  opponents  to 
point  out  one  single  doctrine  embraced  in  the  three  accepted 
Creeds  of  the  Christian  Church,  or  maintained  by  the  first 
four  General  Councils,  which  was  rejected  by  the  Re- 
formers. 

"  Cranmer's  fate  has  been  peculiarly  hard.  Living  in  evil  days,  and 
exposed,  after  his  death,  to  the  malice  of  evil  tongues,  he  has  suffered 
in  almost  every  part  of  his  reputation.  '  Papists  '  have  impeached  the 
sincerity,  while  Protestants  have  doubted  the  steadfastness  of  his  prin- 
ciples ;  and  a  too  general  idea  seems  to  prevail  that  his  opinions  were 
ever  fluctuating,  or  at  least  were  so  flexible  as  to  have  rendered  him 
little  better  than  a  weak  instrument  in  the  hands  of  those  who  pos- 

1  See  S.  Hubert  Burke's  "  Historical  Portraits  of  the  Tudor  Dynasty." 
London,  1883.    Vol.  ii.  p.  4  ;  vol.  iii.  pp.  32  et  setj. 

2  Todd's  "  Vindication  of  Cranmer. "    London,  1826.    P.  14. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


3 


sessed  more  talent  and  more  consistency.  But,  if  we  are  to  be  guided 
by  the  result  of  his  ministration,  the  fact  was  far  otherwise.  He  was, 
in  truth,  the  chief  promoter  and  ablest  advocate  for  the  Reformation, 
planning  it  with  the  discretion  of  a  prudent,  and  the  zeal  of  a  good 
man,  and  carrying  it  on  towards  perfection  with  a  firmness,  a  wisdom, 
and  liberality  which  obtained  for  him  (by  those  who  value  the  result  of 
his  labours)  no  less  credit  for  the  endowments  of  his  head,  than  for  the 
impressions  of  his  heart."  * 

Occupying  a  more  distinguished  position,  as  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  than  his  contemporaries,  Cranmer's  actions 
become,  as  it  were,  public  property,  and,  therefore,  legiti- 
mate subjects  for  criticism.  But  it  must  ever  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  acts  of  Cranmer,  which  have  been  brought  in 
accusation  against  him,  were  equally  shared  by  a  vast 
majority  of  the  ecclesiastics  and  nobles  of  the  land,  who 
were  all  members  of  the  unreformed  Church,  and  professed 
to  hold  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  that  Church.  If 
persecution  for  heresy  is  laid  to  his  charge,  the  practice 
was  in  strict  accordance  with  the  Canon  Law  of  his 
Church.  If  a  reputed  sorcerer  or  witch  was  to  be  burnt,  it 
would  be  in  strict  conformity  with  the  statute  law  enacted 
in  times  essentially  under  Church  rule.  If  schism  be  laid 
to  his  charge,  it  was  equally  shared  by  the  leading  clerical 
and  lay  members  of  the  King's  Council  and  Convocation. 
In  fact,  nothing  can  be  more  disastrous  to  the  cause  of  the 
then  dominant  Church  and  religion  than  the  ruthless 
attacks,  justly  or  unjustly,  made  on  Cranmer  and  his  con- 
temporaries in  office,  by  their  modern  assailants,  members 
of  the  same  unreformed  Church.  Such  an  argument,  it 
must  be  admitted,  could  only  be  advanced  in  "  contro- 
versy," but  not  as  a  justification  where  censure  is  justly 
due,  and  where  censure  is  due,  let  each  bear  his  fair  share  ; 
but  let  the  judgment  be  a  righteous  judgment. 

*  Richard  Lawrence,  LL.D.,  "  Bampton  Lectures,"  pp.  23,  24  (a.d.  1804). 
Third  edition.    Oxford,  1838. 


4  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

While  nothing  new  can  now  be  advanced  on  the  more 
than  "  thrice  told  tale "  of  the  "  Life  and  Times  of 
Cranmer,"  there  is  still  room  left  for  criticism  on  the 
merits  and  demerits — the  virtues  and  failings  of  a  man, 
who,  after  LUTHER,  has  perhaps  occupied  more  considera- 
tion, as  well  from  the  opponents  as  the  advocates  of  the 
Reformation,  than  any  other  of  the  Reformers. 


CHAPTER  II. 

CRANMER  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CAMBRIDGE. 

Little  is  known  or  recorded  of  Thomas  Cranmer's^ 
early  history.  He  was  born,  2d  July  1489,  at  Aslacton, 
Northamptonshire.  He  was  the  second  son  of  Thomas 
Cranmer,  who  is  said  to  have  been  a  descendant  of  ances- 
tors who  had  for  many  centuries  resided  in  the  same 
county.  Cranmer,  the  subject  of  this  biography,  was 
placed  by  his  parents  under  the  tutelage  of  a  harsh  precep- 
tor, "  a  rude  parish-clerk,"  from  whom  "  he  learned  little, 
and  had  to  suffer  much."  When  relieved  from  the  super- 
vision of  this  task-master,  Cranmer's  father  encouraged  his 
son  in  the  pursuit  of  field  sports,  with  hawk  and  hounds. 
He  became  a  good  marksman,  and  a  bold  and  skilful 
horseman.  These  accomplishments  he  seems  to  have 
retained  even  after  he  had  risen  to  the  highest  office  in 
the  Church  as  Archbishop.  His  father  died  when  Cranmer 
was  about  fourteen  years  old.  He  was  then  [a.d.  1503] 
placed  in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  entered  Jesus 
College,  with  the  ultimate  vievy^  iiccording  to  his  mother's 
wish,  of  becoming  a  priest.  His  inclination,  however,  did 
not  seem  to  turn  in  that  direction,  for  he  gave  himself  up 
to  the  dry  study  of  logic,  and  scholastic  philosophy  of  the 
day,  and  to  Civil  La\\^  These  studies  seem  to  have 
occupied  his  time  until  he  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty- 

'  In  the  Letter  which  stands  first  in  the  list  of  "Cranmer's  Remains,"  by 
Jenkyns  (p.  6,  vol.  i.,  Oxford,  1833),  the  name  appears  at  foot  as  Cranmar, 
and  is  noted  by  the  editor  as  being  the  only  exception. 


6  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


two.  He  also  made  the  Canon  Law  a  special  branch 
of  his  studies.  He  obtained  a  "Fellowship"  of  Jesus 
College  in  1511.  His  attention  was  then  turned  to  the 
study  of  Latin,  Greek,  and  Hebrew,  in  all  of  which  he 
became  proficient.  One  of  his  favourite  authors  was  the 
eminent  Dutch  priest  ERASMUS,  at  that  time  a  resident 
at  the  University  of  Cambridge.  On  these  subjects  he 
was  occupied  for  four  or  five  years,  taking  such  full  notes 
and  copious  extracts  from  his  books  of  study  as  were 
worth  preserving.  When  the  writings  of  Luther  began  to 
excite  public  attention,  these  also  engaged  Cranmer's 
close  examination,  which  first  led  him  to  enquire  into 
the  great  controversies  of  the  day,  for  he  then,  as  Strype 
relates : — 

"  Considered  what  great  controversy  there  was  in  matters  of  religion, 
not  in  trifles,  but  on  the  chiefest  articles  of  our  salvation,  and  bent 
himself  to  try  out  the  truth  therein.  And  forasmuch  as  he  perceived 
he  could  not  rightly  judge  in  such  weighty  matters  without  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  before  he  was  influenced  with  any  man's 
opinions  or  errors,  he  applied  his  whole  study  for  three  years  therein. 
After  this  he  gave  his  mind  to  good  writers,  both  new  and  old  ;  not 
rashly  running  over  them  ;  for  he  was  a  slow  reader  but  a  diligent 
marker  of  whatsoever  he  read,  seldom  reading  without  pen  in  hand. 
And  whatsoever  made  either  for  the  one  part  or  the  other,  of  things  in 
controversy,  he  wrote  it  out  if  it  were  short,  or  at  least  noted  the 
author  and  the  place,  that  he  might  write  it  out  at  leisure,  which  was 
a  great  help  to  him  in  debating  matters  ever  after." 

Such  was  Cranmer's  course  of  study. 

In  his  twenty-seventh  year  (a.d.  15 16),  while  still  a 
"  Fellow  "  of  his  college,  he  married  the  daughter  of  a  re- 
spectable farmer  of  a  neighbouring  county,  a  niece  of  the 
hostess  of  the  "  Dolphin  "  Inn.  There  is  nothing  on  record 
to  show  that  there  was  any  impropriety  either  in  this 
alliance  or  leading  to  it ;  nor  was  the  marriage,  as  some- 
times alleged,  a  secret,  for  he  did  not  attempt  to  conceal  the 
fact.    He  resigned  his  Fellowship  on  his  marriage,  in  pur- 


CRANMER  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CAMBRIDGE.  7 


suance  of  the  college  regulation.^  The  lady  was  not,  as 
frequently  asserted,  a  bar-maid.  She  was  of  respectable 
parentage,  on  a  visit  to  her  aunt  at  the  time  of  her 
marriage.  The  visits  of  Cranmer  at  the  "  hostelry  "  could 
not  have  been  considered  derogatory,  since  it  is  admitted 
that  the  tavern  was  much  frequented  by  the  alumni  of  the 
University.  Stephen  Gardyner  was  amongst  the  students 
who  dined  and  supped  at  this  hostelry ;  and  Bonner  and 
Edward  Foxe  lodged  there  at  times.  In  those  days  such 
establishments  were  owned  or  kept  by  men  of  position,  and 
respected.  The  lady,  in  derision,  has  been  called  "  Black 
Joan  "  from  the  fact  of  her  having  dark  eyes  and  black 
hair,  a  "  nick-name  "  perpetuated  by  Cranmer's  assailants 
to  the  present  day.  So  great,  however,  was  the  estimation 
in  which  Cranmer  was  held  for  his  learning  in  the  Univer- 
sity, that  although  he  had  forfeited  his  Fellowship  he  was 
appointed  Lecturer  at  Buckingham  (afterwards  Magdalen) 
College,  his  wife  still  residing  at  the  "  Dolphin  "  with  her 
aunt  until  her  death  in  child-birth,  which  took  place  within 
a  year  of  her  marriage. 

On  this  subject  two  specific  charges  are  brought  against 
Cranmer — first,  that  he  committed  perjury  in  marrying 
while  a  Fellow  of  his  college  for  breaking  his  vow  of  chastity. 
And  second,  that  he  was  in  consequence  "  expelled  "  from 
his  college.2  In  the  first  place,  at  this  period  monks  and 
friars  alone  were  required  to  take  vows  of  chastity,  no 

'  The  Rev.  Dr  Littledale,  "  Priest  of  the  Church  of  England,"  in  his  Lecture 
on  "  Ritualistic  Innovation,"  p.  37,  London,  1868,  thus  comments  on  this 
marriage  :  "  Cranmer's  first  appearance  is  his  detection  after  he  had  privately 
married  '  Black  Joan,'  the  bar-maid  of  a  pot-house  in  Cambridge,  at  a  time 
when  he  was  Fellow  of  Jesus  College,  and  of  course  pledged  to  celibacy.  He 
thus  showed  himself  as  a  liar,  by  holding  his  fellowship  under  false  pretences, 
and  as  a  thief,  by  cheating  his  lawful  successor  to  the  vacancy."  The  italics 
are  the  Doctor's. 

2  Burke's  "  Tudor  Dynasties,  &c.,"  vol.  ii.  p.  4.  1880. 


8 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


priest  on  taking  Orders  was  so  required.  Cranmer  was 
not  a  monk,  and  at  this  time  was  not  a  priest ;  and  further, 
a  Fellow  of  a  college  is  not  required  to  take  any  such  vow. 
The  penalty,  then,  as  now,  was  simply  forfeiture.  Celibacy 
of  the  priesthood,  even  at  the  present  day,  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  accounted  a  matter  of  discipline,  and  not  of 
doctrine,  and  may  be  changed  as  circumstances  might 
require.^ 

Fuller,  an  admitted  authority,  in  his  History  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cambridge,  says,  "  Thomas  Cranmer  was  oiisied 
of  his  Fellowship  in  Jesus  College  for  being  married."  ^ 

The  subject  is  referred  to  in  Cooper's  valuable  "  Athenae 
Cantabrigiensis "  ^  : — "He  was  elected  fellow  of  Jesus 
College,  but  soon  vacated  his  fellowship  by  marriage." 

Le  Bas,  in  his  life  of  Cranmer,*  thus  alludes  to  the  sub- 
ject : — "  The  marriage  of  Cranmer  was,  of  course,  attended 
with  the  forfeiture  of  his  fellowship.  It  did  not,  however, 
disqualify  him  from  his  office  of  a  college  Teacher  and 
Lecturer." 

Dr  Hook,  Dean  of  Chichester,  makes  the  following 
observations  on  this  marriage  in  his  "  Lives  of  the  Arch- 
bishops" ^  : — "  Cranmer's  marriage  was  not  regarded  as  dis- 
reputable, for  although,  as  a  matter  of  course,  he  forfeited 
his  fellowship,  he  found  at  once  an  income  to  support  his 
wife  by  accepting  the  appointment  of  Reader  or  Lecturer 
at  Buckingham  Hall." 

'  See  "Faith  of  Catholics."    London,  1846.    Vol.  iii.  p.  228. 

^  New  edition,  1840,  pp.  150,  151.  Fuller  continues  to  observe  on  this  sub- 
ject— "  His  wife  was  kinsman  to  the  hostess  at  the  '  Dolphin,'  which,  causing 
his  frequent  repair  thither,  gave  the  occasion  to  that  impudent  lie  of  ignorant 
Papists,  that  he  was  an  ostler.  Indeed,  with  his  learned  Lectures,  he  rubbed 
the  galled  backs  and  curried  the  lazy  hides  of  many  an  idle,  ignorant  friar, 
being  now  made  Divinity  reader  in  Buckingham  College.  But  soon  after,  his 
wife  dying  within  the  year,  being  a  widower,  he  was  re-elected  into  Jesus 
College." 

3  Vol.  i.  p.  145.    London,  1858.  ^  Vol.  i.  p.  29.    London,  1833. 

s  Vol.  vi.  p.  433.    Edit.  i868. 


CRANMER  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CAMBRIDGE.  9 


On  the  death  of  his  wife,  Cranmer  was  re-appointed  a 
Fellow  of  his  College ;  and  here  again  it  is  asserted  that  it 
was  on  the  presentation  of  "  a  penitential  petition."  I  can 
find  no  authority  for  any  such  assertion.  Such  was  the 
reputation  which  Cranmer  had  gained  at  the  University,  that 
Cardinal  Wolsey,  who  had  established  a  new  foundation  at 
Oxford,  and  had  induced  some  of  the  more  eminent 
scholars  of  Cambridge  to  remove  to  his  new  establish- 
ment, nominated  Cranmer  as  one  of  them  ;  but  though 
this  appointment  would  have  proved  more  advantageous 
in  a  pecuniary  point  of  view,  Cranmer  declined  to  abandon 
his  own  College. 

On  what  apparently  trifling  circumstances  great  events 
hang !  Had  Cranmer.  accepted  this  tempting  offer,  he 
would  have  been  removed  from  the  atmosphere  of  the 
plague,  which  drove  him  to  Waltham  Abbey,  where  he 
met  the  King's  two  secretaries,  which  led  to  his  engage- 
ment as  the  King's  advocate  for  the  divorce,  then  in  active 
agitation,  and  his  subsequent  elevation  to  the  See  of  Can- 
terbury. He  would  have  been  spared  the  odium  of  any 
participation  in  the  King's  intervening  marriage  compli- 
cations, and  perhaps  his  ultimate  martyrdom  at  the 
stake  ! 

Cranmer  now  resolved  to  pursue  his  studies  in  Divinity 
with  a  view  to  enter  the  priesthood.  He  was,  as  before 
stated,  re-elected  a  Fellow  of  his  College  and  appointed 
Examiner  in  Divinity.  He  was  ordained  Priest,  and 
took  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  in  his  fortieth  year 
(a.d.  1523),  and  was  appointed  Public  Examiner  in  Theo- 
logy. Strypc  informs  us  that  he  became  a  "  model  of 
propriety,  goodness,  and  piety  to  those  who  were  placed 
under  his  charge."  We  are  further  informed  that  in  the 
capacity  of  Examiner  in  Divinity, — 


rO         LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


"  He  did  much  good,  for  he  used  to  question  the  candidates  out  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  by  no  means  wou'd  he  let  pass  if  he  found  they 
were  unskilled  therein,  or  unacquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Bible. 
The  Friars,  whose  study  lay  only  in  school  authors,  especially  were 
so,  whom  therefore  he  sometimes  turned  back  as  insufficient,  advising 
them  to  study  the  Scriptures  for  some  years  longer,  before  they 
came  for  their  degree,  it  being  a  shame  for  a  professor  in  Divinity  to 
be  unskilled  in  the  book  wherein  the  knowledge  of  God  and  the 
grounds  of  divinity  lay.  Whereby  he  made  himself  from  the  begin- 
ning hated  by  the  Friars  ;  yet  some  of  the  more  ingenuous  afterwards 
rendered  him  great  thanks  for  refusing  them,  whereby,  being  put 
upon  the  study  of  God's  Word^  they  att  uned  to  more  sound  know- 
ledge of  religion." 

From  this  time  until  the  incidents  we  are  about  to  re- 
late, which  brought  Cranmer  into  public  notice,  he  appears 
to  have  passed  an  uneventful  life  at  the  University,  princi- 
pally acting  as  tutor,  and,  according  to  all  accounts,  with 
satisfaction  to  his  superiors  and  credit  to  himself 

And  here  I  may  be  permitted  to  borrow  an  extract  from 
Mr  Burke's  late  work,  "  Historical  Portraits  of  the  Tudor 
Dynasty,"  which  he  purports  to  give  from  a  Letter  of  one 
John  Alcock,  a  student  and  contemporary  of  Cranmer, 
and  a  chess-player  at  the  "  Dolphin,"  "  abbreviated  and 
modernised  as  to  diction."  If  genuine,  we  may  take  it  as 
an  interesting  description  of  Dr  Cranmer  at  this  period  : — 

"At  this  time  Father  Cranmer  looked  oldish  ;  he  was  of  dark  com- 
plexion, with  a  long  beard,  half  grey  ;  part  of  his  head  had  no  hair  ; 
he  spoke  little ;  his  amusement  at  times  was  chess.  He  was  ac- 
counted an  admirable  hand  at  that  game,  which  he  enjoyed  very  much. 
His  habits  were  temperate,  and  he  frequently  admonished  young 
gentlemen  '  for  indulging  in  the  use  of  strong  liquors ' — a  vice  then 
making  progress  amongst  the  students  of  Cambridge.  Father  Cranmer 
was  reckoned  a  good  horseman,  and,  like  most  early  risers,  was  much 
given  to  walking  on  a  summer  morning  ;  his  manners  were  cold  and 
disdainful,  unless  to  those  to  whom  he  considered  it  his  interest  to  be 
the  reverse.  He  seems  to  have  had  no  desire  for  the  society  of  edu- 
cated women.  1  must  state,  however,  that  he  had  no  opportunity  of 
meeting  them.  '  Black  Joan,'  as  his  wife  was  styled  from  her  hair 
and  complexion,  was  a  woman  of  no  education — a  peasant  girl  from  a 


CRANMER  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CAMBRIDGE.      I  I 


neighbouring  farm.  During  the  long  years  Thomas  Cranmer  was 
attached  to  Cambridge,  he  had  many  acquaintances,  but  was  never 
known  to  have  formed  what  might  be  called  a  friendship  for  any 
fellow-student." 

Such,  then,  was  Cranmer  when  he  was  unexpectedly  and 
unwilHngly  called  upon  to  enter  upon  more  public  duties. 
It  was  Cranmer's  misfortune  that  his  lot  in  life  should 
have  fallen  on  unhappy  and  troubled  times,  and  to  serve 
under  a  monarch  represented  to  be — though  not  without 
considerable  exaggeration — cruel,  tyrannical,  and  lascivious. 

It  was  justly  remarked  by  the  late  Rev.  Joseph  Mend- 
ham,  that,  with  the  vindication  of  Henry  VIII.,  we,  as 
members  of  the  Reformed  Church,  have  little  concern. 
Our  opponents,  with  whom  he,  as  little  as  ourselves,  is  a 
favourite,  would  gladly  impose  on  us  the  necessity  of  his 
defence.  But  in  one  respect — ^his  effectual  renunciation  of 
the  usurped  authority  of  the  Papal  See  and  its  Bishops — - 
that  which  constitutes  his  main  if  not  only  offence  in  the 
eyes  of  Romanists,  we  do  and  always  will  defend  him  ;  for 
the  rest  he  is  more  their  client  than  ours.  He  wanted  to 
establish  a  royal  Papacy  as  absolute  and  persecuting  as  the 
purely  ecclesiastical  one  which  he  was  rejecting;  but  he 
was  in  reality  making  loopholes  for  liberty,  and  laid  the 
foundation  on  which  the  Reformation  was  erected. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  PROCEEDINGS  LEADING  TO  THE  DIVORCE  OF 
HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE. 

We  are  now  come  to  the  period  of  Dr  Cranmer's  first 
appearance,  in  1529,  as  a  public  character.  It  was  in 
connexion  with  the  complicated  circumstances  "  which 
were  destined  to  occupy  a  prominent  place  in  the  history 
of  this  country,"  attending  the  marriage  of  Henry  VIII. 
with  his  brother's  widow,  Catherine,  the  daughter  of  King 
Ferdinand  of  Spain  and  Isabella  of  Castile,  his  wife — 
Henry's  divorce  and  his  second  marriage  with  Anne 
Boleyn,  the  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas  Boleyn,  afterwards 
created  Earl  of  Ormond  and  Wiltshire.  The  part  taken 
by  Cranmer  in  these  events  has  furnished  fruitful  subjects 
of  censure  both  of  the  King  and  Cranmer. 

There  is  no  action  of  Cranmer's  life  which  has  been  so 
much  under  contention,  to  his  disparagement,  as  his  parti- 
cipation in  these  transactions ;  nor  have  any  events  in  the 
history  of  our  Kings  been  so  misunderstood,  indeed  misre- 
presented. Considering  the  important  results  which  fol- 
lowed, we  need  scarcely  express  any  surprise. 

In  order  to  make  this  clear,  it  will  be  necessary — as  per- 
haps the  most  eventful  period  of  Cranmer's  life — that  we 
should  enter  into  a  minute  examination  of  all  the  facts  and 
circumstances  connected  with  those  transactions,  and  the 
part  which  Cranmer  took,  in  order,  as  is  alleged,  to  further 
Henry's  cruel  and  lascivious  propensities. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE. 


13 


The  popular  version  is  shortly  as  follows :  We  are  told 
that  Henry  was  a  monster  in  his  appetites  and  passions. 
After  some  eighteen  or  twenty  years  of  married  life,  with 
Catherine,  who  had  ever  been  to  him  a  virtuous  and  affec- 
tionate wife,  Henry  suddenly  fell  in  love,  and  carried  on  an 
illicit  intercourse  with  Anne  Boleyn,  the  Queen's  maid  of 
honour.  Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  insinuate,  the  scandal 
boldly  proclaimed  by  Sanders,  a  secular  priest,  that  Anne 
was  Henry's  daughter — that  Henry  applied  to  the  Pope  of 
Rome  to  grant  him  a  divorce  on  the  plea  of  religious 
scruples — that  the  Pope  peremptorily  refused  his  sanction — 
that  Henry  could  not  restrain  his  passions,  but  with  the  aid 
of  Cranmer  obtained,  in  England,  a  declaration  of  divorce, 
on  the  pretence  of  having  sudde^dy  discovered  that  his  first 
marriage  was  contrary  to  the  Divine  law  according  to  the 
Scriptures — that  Cranmer  aided  and  abetted  the  King  in 
these  views,  and  took  upon  himself  to  pronounce  the  decree 
of  divorce;  whereupon  the  King  married  Anne  Boleyn, 
whom  he  had  previously  "  taken  under  his  protection  " — 
that  the  King  rewarded  Cranmer  for  his  services  by  making 
him  Archbishop  of  Canterbury — that  Henry  thus  forfeited 
Pontifical  favour,  and  turned  Protestant,  threw  off  the 
supreme  sway  of  the  Pope,  proclaiming  himself  to  be  the  head 
of  the  Church  in  England,  and  thus,  with  the  further  aid  of 
Cranmer,  introduced  the  Reformation,  and  founded  the 
Church  of  England,  "  which  "  (according  to  Cobbett)  "  he 
cherished  and  maintained  by  plunder,  devastation,  and  by 
rivers  of  innocent  blood," — and  that  the  Pope  issued  his 
Bull  of  "  excommunication  and  damnation  against  the 
heretic  Henry,  as  a  punishment  for  his  past  disobedience, 
and  as  an  expression  of  his  virtuous  indignation." 

Cobbett  adds  :  "  The  tyrant,  now  both  Pope  and  King, 
made  Cranmer  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  a  dignity  just 


14         LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


then  vacant;"  and  the  same  writer  throws  on  Cranmer  the 
whole  responsibility  of  the  divorce  and  of  the  second 
marriage.  The  moral  of  the  tale  is  thus  curtly  and 
elegantly  summed  up  by  Cobbett :  "  The  Reformation,  as 
it  is  called,  was  engendered  in  beastly  lust,  brought  forth 
in  hypocrisy,  and  cherished  and  fed  by  plunder,  devastation, 
and  by  rivers  of  innocent  blood."  ^ 

Such  is  the  popular  statement  of  the  case  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  consider  in  the  sequel.  We  have  to  encounter 
popular  tradition,  popular  prejudice,  popular  romancers ; 
and  more  than  all,  an  instinctive  and  honest  repugnance  to 
an  alleged  cruel  persecutor,  universally  represented  as  hav- 
ing been  abandoned  to  sensual  gratification.  If  it  be  true 
tliat  Cranmer  aided  and  abetted  Henry  in  any  such  nefari- 
ous transaction  as  thus  popularly  represented,  he  would 
deserve  all  that  has  been  said  of  him  in  his  condemnation. 
It  will  be  a  difficult  task,  in  the  face  of  such  allegations 

^  See  Ince's  "  Outlines  of  English  History."  This  little  work  was  re-edited 
by  a  member  of  the  Roman  Church,  formerly  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  published  by  Gilbert,  a  Roman  Catholic,  1856.  The  emenda- 
tions relating  to  Henry  VIII.  and  Cranmer  in  the  original  edition  are  found 
in  pp.  62,  64.  This  book  was  adopted  by  the  Society  of  Arts  as  a  text-book 
for  examinations,  and  was  withdrawn  on  the  falsifications  being  exposed. 

Dr  Milner's  "  End  of  Religious  Controversy,"  Letter  viii.  p.  106,  and  Letter 
xlvi.  p.  445.    Derby  stereotyped  edition. 

"  La  Chretienne  de  nos  jours,"  pp.  15,  16.    Paris,  1861. 

"  Father  Paul  Maclachlin  "  in  his  controversy  with  R.  W.  Keimard,  Esq. 
Letter  xiv.  p.  202.    London,  1855. 

Keenan's  "Controversial  Catechism,"  12th  edition,  p.  23. 

Cobbett's  "  History  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,"  Letter  ii.  sec.  60,  61, 
and  "  Introduction,"  Letter  i.  sec.  iv, 

"The  Church  and  the  Sovereign  Pontiff."  Dublin  and  London,  1879. 
This  work  is  issued  under  the  patronage  and  recommendation  of  two  arch- 
bishops and  twenty-one  bishops  of  the  Roman  Church  in  Ireland.  We  are 
told  on  page  60  :  "  The  cause  of  this  ever -deplorable  schism  was  the  refusal  of 
Clement  \TI.  to  declare  null  the  marriage  of  Henry  VIII.  with  Catherine 
of  Aragon,  his  true  and  lawful  spouse,  and  to  grant  that  Monarch  liberty  to 
marrj'  Anne  Bole}Ti.  The  means  he  afterwards  employed  to  destroy  religion 
in  England,  were  imposture,  calumny,  violence,  robbery,  and  punishments  the 
most  terrible."    There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  these  assertions. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.         1  5 


confidently  put  forward,  to  unravel  historical  facts,  without 
appearing  to  be  an  apologist  for  Henry  VIII.  and  his 
alleged  "  chief  adviser,"  Cranmer.  But,  however  tedious 
minute  details  may  be — and  dates  are  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance— it  seems  necessary,  in  relating  the  history  of 
"  The  Life  and  Times  of  Cranmer,"  that  this  first  episode 
in  his  public  career  should  be  clearly  understood  and 
thoroughly  sifted  out,  and  more  particularly  as  this  divorce 
led  to  the  final  rupture  with  the  Pope,  and  the  separation 
and  independence  of  the  Church  in  England. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  acts  in  which  Henry 
was  involved  resulted,  first,  in  casting  off  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  which  made  way  for  the  Reformation 
in  religion  which  followed.     It  would  be,  however,  per- 
fectly futile  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  antecedent  facts, 
and  the  character  of  the  several  agents  in  this  historical 
drama.    But  happily  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  does 
not  impose  on  us  the  necessity  of  vindicating,  or  even 
palliating,  the  vices  that  too  often  intruded  themselves  in 
the  work.     The  Reformation  is  perpetually  reproached 
with  the  alleged  vile  agency  by  which  the  change  was 
brought  about.    That  which,  they  assert,  was  engendered 
in  sin  cannot  be  of  God,  or  receive  His  blessing.  But 
supposing  all  to  be  true,  as  related  of  Henry,  of  Cranmer, 
and  of  the  other  prelates  and  statesmen  of  those  days,  will 
such  facts  disprove  the  necessity  of  a  Reformation,  such  as 
subsequently  was  effected,  under  which  we  have  enjoyed 
complete  civil  and  religious  liberty,  liberty  of  conscience, 
and  an  emancipation  from  various  acknowledged  supersti- 
tions, in  worship  and  in  practice,  which  darkened  the 
pre-Reformation  era  in  this  country }    Further,  is  it  to  be 
believed  that  this  country,  but  for  these  acts  which  tran- 
spired in  Henry's  reign,  would  have  continued  under  the 


1 6         LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


subjection  of  a  foreign  priest,  and  that  the  eyes  and  under- 
standing of  the  people  would  not  have  been  opened  to  the 
"more  sure  way"  of  the  primitive  simplicity  of  the  Gospel, 
rather  than  placing  reliance  on  a  complicated  sacramental 
sacerdotal  system,  in  which  the  priest  practically  supple- 
ments the  office  of  a  "  Saviour,"  and  the  Virgin  and  saints 
that  of  "  Intercessors  "  ?  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  that 
the  overruling  tyranny  of  the  court  of  Rome,  fully  described 
in  a  subsequent  chapter,  could  have  much  longer  existed. 

Not  even  the  cruel  extermination  of  the  helpless  peasants 
of  the  south  of  France  and  Piedmont,  and  of  the  massacre 
of  the  Protestants  in  the  Netherlands,  or  on  St  Bartholo- 
mew's day,  could  have  arrested  the  progress  of  the  Refor- 
mation, though  thousands  of  Protestants  were  extirpated. 

It  is  proposed  to  consider  the  circumstances  connected 
with  Henry's  first  marriage  with  Catherine  of  Aragon,  the 
widow  of  his  brother  Arthur ;  his  divorce  and  second  mar- 
riage with  Anne  Boleyn ;  and  the  parts  which  the  Pope  and 
Cranmer  respectively  took  in  these  transactions. 

At  the  period  preceding  that  on  which  we  are  engaged, 
namely,  the  latter  end  of  the  fifteenth  and  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  Spain  held  a  prominent  position  among 
the  nations  of  Europe,  being  governed  by  Ferdinand,  too 
well  known  in  history  to  need  further  mention  in  these 
pages. 

Catherine  of  Aragon  was  the  fourth  daughter  of  King 
Ferdinand  and  Queen  Isabella  of  Castile.  She  was  the 
aunt  of  Charles,  afterwards  Emperor  Charles  V.,  who 
played  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  history  of  those  times. 

Henry  VII.  was  the  reigning  King  of  England.  He  had 
two  sons,  Arthur  and  Henry  (afterwards  King  Henry  VIII.). 
An  alliance  between  Spain  and  England  was  considered 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.         I  7 


to  be  to  the  mutual  advantage  of  both  nations,  by  the 
marriage  of  Arthur  with  Catherine — Arthur  as  heir  pre- 
sumptive to  the  throne  of  England,  Catherine  as  endowed 
with  the  proverbial  riches  of  an  heiress  of  Spain.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  these  considerations  were  the  motives 
which  actuated  the  respective  monarchs.  Catherine  was  to 
be  sacrificed,  for  no  affection  for  her  future  husband  could 
possibly  have  existed.  The  marriage  of  Arthur  and 
Catherine  took  place  in  England  on  the  14th  November 
1 501,  with  great  pomp  and  splendour.  Bishop  Warham  is 
said  to  have  performed  the  marriage  ceremony.  The 
marriage  settlement  is  supposed  to  have  secured  a  hand- 
some dowry,  the  gift  of  Catherine's  parents,  but  which,  it 
appears,  was  never  realised. 

Catherine  was  then  in  her  sixteenth  year  ;  Arthur,  born 
20th  September  i486,  was  therefore  fifteen  years  and  two 
months  old.  The  marriage  was  received  with  universal 
joy  and  approbation  both  in  England  and  Spain,  and 
Queen  Isabella  wrote  a  most  cheering  and  afi"ectionate 
letter  to  the  King  of  England  on  the  occasion.  After  the 
marriage  the  royal  couple  took  up  their  abode  at  Ludlow 
Castle.  It  is  stated  that  Catherine  had  great  misgivings 
as  to  this  union.  In  a  letter  she  wrote  to  a  friend  she 
expressed  her  doubts  of  her  future  happiness,  and  a  wish 
that  she  had  never  seen  the  shores  of  England.  Neither 
of  them  could  speak  the  other's  language.  Within  a  fort- 
night after  this  marriage,  Arthur,  in  a  weak  state  of  health, 
readily  succumbed  to  the  plague,  which  had  then  set  in. 
Catherine  was  thus  left  a  widow. 

Questions  now  ensued  between  Henry  VII.  and  King 
Ferdinand  as  to  the  dowry  of  the  Princess.  Henry  was 
naturally  most  anxious  to  retain  this  prize  ;  and,  guided  by 
this  mercenary  consideration,  further  projects  of  a  con- 

B 


1 8         LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


tinued  union  between  the  two  houses  were  set  on  foot. 
Henry  VII.,  then  a  widower,  even  proposed  himself  to 
marry  his  son's  widow  ;  but  this  was  strenuously  opposed 
by  her  parents.  The  next  scheme  set  on  foot  was  to  effect 
a  marriage  between  Catherine  and  the  King's  second  son, 
Henry,  who  was  then  twelve  years  old,  Catherine  being 
eighteen.  The  Court  of  Spain  was  eventually  induced  to 
accede  to  the  proposal,  provided  the  dispensation  of  the 
Pope  could  be  obtained — a  union  with  a  brother's  widow 
being  forbidden  lay  Canon  Law  of  the  Church,  and,  as  was 
considered,  equally  forbidden  by  Divine  law.  The  same 
difificulties  were  raised  to  the  proposed  union  in  England 
by  the  leading  members  of  Convocation  and  by  the  King's 
Council,  the  principal  opponent  being  Warham,  then 
Bishop  of  London,  afterwards  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
The  union,  however,  was  strenuously  advocated  by  Cardinal 
Wolsey,  Foxe,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Hereford,  and  by  Gardy- 
ner,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Winchester.  On  the  assumption  of 
a  consummation  of  the  marriage  of  Arthur  and  Catherine 
during  that  fortnight's  residence  at  Ludlow  Castle,  the 
Pope's  dispensation  was  necessary.^ 

It  must  be  understood  that  the  Pope  claimed,  and  still 
continues  to  claim,  the  absolute  right  of  declaring  not  only 
divorce  between  husband  and  wife — even  where  no  legal 
grounds  are  assigned,  as  sanctioned  by  our  present  laws — 
but  of  dispensing  with  prohibited  degrees  of  affinity  in 
sanctioning  marriages.  Several  notable  examples  may  be 
cited,  to  say  nothing  of  private  licences  of  no  public  inte- 
rest. The  King  of  Saxony  received  a  dispensation  from  the 
Pope  (but  of  which  he  did  not  avail  himself)  to  marry  again, 
during  the  lifetime  of  his  wife,  an  Austrian  archduchess. 

1  See  Pocock's  edition  of  Burnet's  "  History  of  the  Reformation,"  vol.  iv. 
pp.  545-6.    Oxford,  1865. 


\ 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE. 


19 


Pope  Stephen  withdrew  his  anathema  and  sanctioned  the 
divorce  of  the  French  monarch,  Charles,  from  his  then 
wife,  to  marry  Bertha,  Princess  of  Lombardy ;  and  when 
the  same  Prince  divorced  Bertha  to  make  room  for  another, 
this  act  also  was  sanctioned  by  the  French  Bishops,  and 
was  not  condemned  by  Pope  Adrian.  Innocent  IV.,  in 
1243,  authorised  the  divorce  of  Alphonsus  of  Portugal  from 
his  Queen,  to  marry  Beatrice.  Again,  we  have  the  noto- 
rious case  of  Don  Alphonsus  II.,  King  of  Portugal.  This 
monarch  opposed  the  Jesuits  ;  they  first  induced  his  wife, 
Dona  Maria,  to  abandon  him  ;  the  Parliament,  then  still 
under  the  influence  of  the  Jesuits,  decreed  the  deposition 
of  the  King  on  the  ground  of  his  being  imbecile  and  impo- 
tent, and  promised  that  his  brother  should  be  proclaimed 
King  under  the  title  of  Don  Pedro  II.  During  his  deposed 
brother's  lifetime,  Pedro  married  his  brother's  wife,  after 
Pope  Clement  IX.  had  granted  the  necessary  dispensation  ; 
he  bestowed  his  blessing  on  the  new  marriage.  Alexander 
VI.,  in  his  Brief  dated  8th  June  1501  (the  very  year  of  the 
marriage  of  Arthur  and  Catherine),  authorised  Alexander, 
Duke  of  Lithuania,  and  afterwards  King  of  Poland,  to  put 
away  his  wife  to  marry  Ann  de  Foix,  on  the  ground  that 
she  belonged  to  the  Eastern  Church,  in  direct  violation  of  his 
solemn  oath,  given  when  wedding  her,  that  he  would  never 
subject  her  to  any  compulsion  on  account  of  their  religious 
differences.  For  thirty  thousand  ducats  the  same  Pope 
allowed  Louis  XI.  of  France  to  dissolve  his  marriage  with 
the  Princess  Jane,  and  to  marry  Anne  of  Brittany.  We 
shall  have  presently  to  record  a  similar  dispensation 
granted  to  Henry  VIII.  to  marry  again,  "even  within  the 
prohibited  degree  of  affinity,"  during  Catherine's  lifetime, 
and  the  Pope's  repeated  offer  to  recognise  the  legitimacy 
of  Elizabeth,  the  issue  of  the  second  marriage. 


20  LIFE,  TIME?.  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRAXMER. 


Again,  Cassimir  the  Great,  of  Poland,  had  married  Ann, 
daughter  of  the  Duke  of  Lithuania,  and  on  her  death 
married  Adelaide  of  Hesse,  who,  in  1356,  returned  to  her 
father,  being  indigTiant  at  her  husband's  infidelities. 
Cassimir  then  became  enamoured  of  his  cousin,  daughter 
of  Henr}',  Duke  of  Lagin,  whom  he  married,  although 
Adelaide  was  still  living.  Urban  \'.,  by  Brief,  licensed  this 
second  marriage. 

These  are  a  few  well-known  facts  in  histor}-.  How  many 
private  dispensations  ha\  e  been  given  we  have  no  public 
record  ;  we  do  know,  however,  of  a  dispensation  recently 
granted  to  the  Prince  of  Monaco  to  be  divorced  from 
Lady  'Mary  Hamilton,  though  there  was  issue  of  their 
marriage.  There  was  no  legitimate  cause  assigned.  She 
was  allowed  to  marr}-  again.^ 

We  might  also  record  several  cases  in  which  the  Pope 
has  exercised  his  assumed  dispensing  powers  of  permitting 
persons  to  marrj-  within  the  prohibited  degrees  of  affinitj-. 
For  instance,  we  have  the  well-known  case  of  Philip  IL  of 
Spain  marr\-ing  his  own  niece  under  Papal  dispensation. 
The  Duke  of  Bouillon  paid  to  the  Pope  one  hundred 
thousand  crowns  to  enable  him  to  marr\'  the  widow  of  the 
Duke  his  brother.  Scipio  de  Ricci,  the  pious  and  amiable 
Bishop  of  Pistoia,  in  his  "  Memoires,"  -  gives  a  description 
of  the  lax  conduct  of  Rome  in  marriage  dispensations 
within  the  prohibited  degrees,  for  monej-  considerations, 
which  he  designated  an  "  infamous  traffic  !  " 

It  will,  perhaps,  startle  the  uninitiated  reader,  to  be  told 
that  the  question,  whether  the  Pope  may  allow  a  marriage 
between  brother  and  sister,  has  been  gravely  discussed. 

1  "  Le  marriage  religieux  a  ete  annuls  par  le  cour  de  Rome  le  3  Jan.  iSSa  " — 
"  Almanac  de  Gotha,"  1SS3,  p.  53,  title  "  Monaco." 
*  Tnm  iL  cap.  33.    Paris  1S26. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.        2  1 


The  Jesuit  writer  Escabor,  in  his  notorious  work,  "  Liber 
Theolog.  Moralis,"  published  in  Brussels,  1651,  proposes 
and  answers  the  question  ;  and  we  may  note  that  up  to 
that  date,  the  work  appeared  in  thirty-two  editions  in 
Spain,  and  three  in  France,  and  has  never  been  con- 
demned by  the  Pope,  or  placed  in  either  the  "  Prohibi- 
tory"  or  "  Expurgatory  "  Indexes. 
The  question  is  gravely  asked  : — 

'■'  Can  the  Pope  give  a  dispensation  for  a  marriage  between  a 
brother  and  sister?" — "Answer.  Prapositus  denies  that  he  can, 
because  it  is  first  degree  of  relationship,  forbidden  by  the  law  of 
nations.  But  Hurtador  affirms  that  such  a  marriage  is  valid  by  the 
law  of  nations,  and  may,  on  just  grounds,  be  allowed  by  the  Pope, 
e.g.,  if  the  king  of  Spain  could  not  form  an  equal  foreign  match  unless 
with  a  heretic,  or  one  suspected  of  heresy." — "  If,  however,  the  Pope 
were  to  reply  that  he  could  not  give  a  dispensation  within  the  degrees 
prohibited  by  law  of  God  ? " — "  You  would  have  to  explain  that  he 
means  he  ought  not  to  do  so  without  a  considerable  reason." 

It  will  be  thus  seen  that  the  Pope  of  Rome  arrogated 
to  himself  a  power,  not  only  of  granting  divorces,  but 
also  of  dispensing  with  the  laws  of  affinity,  permitting 
marriages  within  the  prohibited  degrees.  This  assumed 
dispensing  power  becomes  important  in  our  present 
history. 

In  England,  opinions  appear  to  have  been  divided  as  to 
the  extent  of  the  power  of  Popes.  Some  maintained  that 
the  Pope  had  no  power  of  dispensation  contrary  to  Divine 
law.  If  the  marriage  of  Arthur  had  been  consummated, 
the  Pope,  they  maintained,  had  no  jurisdiction  ;  if  other- 
wise, the  previous  marriage  was  deemed  no  marriage,  but 
only  a  contract,  put  an  end  to  by  the  death  of  one  of  the 
parties,  and  in  that  case  the  dispensation  would  operate  ; 
or  indeed,  it  would  seem  not  to  be  required.  Prince 
Henry,  in  December  1503,  was  formally  betrothed  to  the 
widow,  Catherine,  and  a  formal  contract  and  settlement 


2  2  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


were  entered  into  between  the  parties.    This  formal  act 

was,  according  to  law,  deemed  a  legal  marriage,  and  would 

have  been  a  plea  for  annulment  on  the  occasion  of  any 

subsequent  alliance  of  the  lady  with  any  other  person,  in 

the  lifetime  of  the  other  betrothed.     For  this  betrothal  the 

Pope's  dispensation  appears  to  have  been  obtained  in  March 

1504,  and  as  Le  Bas  curtly  remarks,  "  Little  did  the  Pope 

imagine  that,  by  this  tortuous  policy,  he  was  charging  a 

mine,  the  explosion  of  which  was  eventually  to  rend  the 

English  Empire  from  his  spiritual  dominion." 

This  betrothal,  or  second  marriage,  was  opposed  by 

many  Cardinals  and  divines  as  illegal  according  to  the 

Canon  Law.    Notwithstanding,  Julius  IL  granted  to  Prince 

Henry  a  dispensation  by  "Brief"  to  marry  his  brother's 

widow.    This  document  ^  was  reluctantly  granted  by  the 

Pope,  and  still  more  reluctantly  accepted  by  the  English 

clergy.    The  document  "  dispensed  with  the  impediment 

of  their  affinity,  notwithstanding  any  apostolic  constitution 

to  the  contrary."    The  Pope  permitted  them  to  marry,  or, 

if  they  were  already  married,  he  confirmed  it,  requiring 

their  confessor  "  to  enjoin  some  healthy  penance  for  their 

having  married  before  the  dispensation  was  obtained."  It 

was  on  this  authority  that  Prince  Henry  married  Catherine 

when  under  age.    He  was  then  only  twelve  years  old. 

Collier  observes  on  this  subject  : — 

"  In  these  instructions  the  impediments  of  affinity,  the  objections 
of  Catherine's  cohabitation  with  Arthur,  the  supposition  of  her  being 
already  married  to  Prince  Henry,  are  all  overruled  and  dispensed 
with.  For  though  there  was  no  matter  of  fact  to  rest  the  last  case 
upon,  yet  the  Court  of  Rome  was  resolved  to  make  all  sure."  - 

Modern  apologists  have  sought  to  exculpate  or  excuse 
the  Pope  by  declaring  that  Catherine's  first  marriage  was 

1  Minute  of  a  Brief  of  Julius  II.,  dated  13th  March  1504. 

2  Collier's  "  Eccles.  Hist.,"  vol.  ii.  pt.  ii.  bk.  i.    London,  1714. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE. 


23 


not  consummated,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Pope  acted  as  if 
no  lawful  prior  marriage  existed.  This  is  a  fallacy.  But 
the  fact  either  way  does  not  affect  the  question  in  the 
light  they  desire  to  place  it,  to  shield  the  Pope.  The  Pope 
was  not  influenced  by  any  such  consideration  one  way  or 
the  other,  for,  in  his  Brief  of  License,  he  actually  refers  to 
the  fact  as  probable.* 

The  fact  seems  to  have  been  known  to  the  parents  of 
the  parties.  This  is  evident  from  the  marriage  contract 
itself,  executed  in  June  1503,  which  has  recently  come  to 
light,  and  has  been  published  in  the  Kimbolton  collection, 
which  is  given  in  the  Duke  of  Manchester's  book  as  fol- 
lows^:— -"Ferdinand  and  Isabel,  as  well  as  Henry  VII., 
promise  to  employ  all  their  influence  with  the  Court  of 
Rome,  in  order  to  obtain  the  dispensation  of  the  Pope, 
necessary  for  the  marriage  of  the  Princess  Catherine  with 
Henry,  Prince  of  Wales.  The  Papal  dispensation  is  re- 
quired because  the  said  Princess  Catherine  had  on  a  former 
occasion  contracted  a  marriage  with  the  late  Prince 
Arthur,  brother  of  the  present  Prince  of  Wales,  whereby 
she  became  related  to  Henry,  Prince  of  Wales,  in  the  first 
degree  of  afiinity,  and  because  the  marriage  with  Prince 
Arthur  was  solemnised  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  afterwards  consumtnated." 

On  comparing  this  document  with  the  Pope's  license  for 
the  second  marriage,  and  his  subsequent  written  con- 
sent to  their  separation,  as  we  shall  have  to  notice  pre- 

1  "  Carnali  copula  forsam  consumma  vissetis,  Dominus  Arthurus  prole  ex 
hujusmodi  matrimonio  non  suscepta  decessit. "  Cott.  Lib.,  Vitel.  b.  xii., 
cited  by  Burnet,  "  Hist,  of  the  Reformation."  Records,  b.  ii.  vol.  iv.  p.  5. 
Nare's  edit.  London,  1830.  The  authority  of  this  document  has  been  ques- 
tioned. See  Quarterly  Review,  January  1877  ;  and  see  Mr  Friedman's 
"  Anne  Boleyn,"  vol.  ii.,  Appendix,  note  C,  p.  328  et  seqq.    London,  1884. 

^  "  Court  and  Society,  from  Elizabeth  to  Anne."  Edited  from  the  papers 
at  Kimbolton.    London,  1864,  pp.  60  and  62. 


24  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


sently,  it  is  very  probable  that  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
result  of  the  first  marriage  with  Arthur  were  fully  made 
known  to  the  Pope.  The  circumstance  is  mentioned  as  a 
fact  in  the  Statute  28  Henry  VIII.  c.  vii. 

If  the  marriage  was  in  itself  contrary  to  law  and 
morality,  how  could  it  be  made  legal  and  just  by  the  act 
of  the  Pope  The  marriage  was  believed  to  be  contrary 
to  the  law  of  God  ;  certainly  contrary  to  the  Canon  Law, 
the  law  of  the  Romish  Church  established  by  decrees  of 
Councils.  The  law  of  the  Church  seems  to  have  been  fully 
established,  following  the  law  of  Moses,  which  forbade  mar- 
riages with  the  widow  of  a  deceased  brother.^  The  mar- 
riage of  a  brother's  widow  was  forbidden  by  the  Emperor 
Constantine,  and  the  children  of  those  who  were  thus 
married  declared  illegitimate.*  This  law  was  confirmed  by 
Theodosius  the  Younger.'  By  the  canons  of  the  Church 
(of  which  Henry  was  not  only  a  professed  member,  but 
afterwards  styled  "  Defender  of  the  Faith  ")  such  marriages 
were  condemned  as  incestuous,  and  the  contracting  parties 
were  obliged  to  undergo  public  penance.  Thus,  in  the 
year  314,  the  Council  of  Neo-Cesarea,  in  Pontus,  excommu- 
nicated any  woman  who  married  two  brothers  in  succes- 
sion, and  she  was  not  permitted  to  partake  of  the  sacrament 
except  on  condition  that  she  dissolved  her  marriage,  and 
submitted  to  public  penance.*  So,  likewise  the  Council  at 
Rome,  under  Pope  Zachary,  A.D.  743,  anathematised  any 
one  who  should  marry  his  brother's  wife,  founding  the  pro- 
hibition expressly  on  the  law  of  Moses,  which  the  Council 
declared  to  be  binding  on  all  Christians  ;  and  they  forbade 

'  Leviticus  xviii.  16  ;  xx.  21.    But  see  Deut.  xxv.  5-10. 

^  Cod.  Theod.,  lib.  iii.  tit.  12.    "  De  Incest.  Nup.,"  Leg.  2. 

^  Ibid.,  Leg.  4. 

^  Labb.  et  Coss.  "  Concil.  Cone.  Neo-Cesarencis,"  can.  2,  torn.  i.  col. 
1480.    Paris,  167 1. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  25 


the  clergy  to  administer  to  such  the  sacraments  of  the 
Church,  unless  they  consented  to  break  the  tie  and  do 
public  penance,  and  to  which  the  whole  assembly  of 
Bishops  thrice  chimed  in — "  Let  him  be  anathematised."  ^ 
And  the  same  prohibition  was  confirmed  by  the  Popes 
Eugenius  II.  and  Leo  IV.,  and  taught  by  the  early  Chris- 
tian writers,  now  called  the  "  Fathers "  of  the  Church. 
In  confirmation  of  this  opinion,  we  need  only  refer  to 
Basil's  194th  Epistle  to  Diodorus  Tarsensis,  wherein  he 
argues  against  such  marriages  as  incestuous  and  void. 

Thus,  then,  the  union  of  Henry  with  Catherine  was  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  accounted 
equally  contrary  to  the  law  of  God  ;  but  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  assumed  apostolic  power, 
set  aside  both,  for  the  interest,  as  he  then  supposed,  of  the 
Church,  which  was  paramount.  The  result  proved  a  just 
retribution  on  the  Pope.  This  illegal  marriage,  and  the 
subsequent  divorce,  were  the  original  causes  of  the  compli- 
cations which  ultimately  led  to  a  separation  of  the  Church 
in  England  from  the  dominion  of  Rome,  and  with  it  the 
suppression  of  the  Pope's  spiritual  jurisdiction  in  this 
country. 

The  betrothal  of  Prince  Henry  and  the  widow  of  Arthur 
was  completed  24th  June  1504,  in  the  presence  of  the 
Bishop  of  Salisbury.  It  is  stated  that  Catherine  was  much 
taken  by  the  handsome  figure  of  Prince  Henry,  and  fell 
desperately  in  love  with  him. 

Henry  VII.  was  subsequently  persuaded  by  Warham, 
then  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  that  the  marriage  of  Prince 
Henry  with  Catherine  was  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. 

>  Labb.  et  Coss.,  torn.  vi.  col.  1546,  and  "Edit.  Mansi,"toni.  xii.  col.  383. 
Florent.,  1766;  and  see  ibid.,  Eugenius  II.,  ann.  824.  Leonis  IV.,  ann.  847, 
referred  to  in  the  margin  of  the  last  cited  place. 


26  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


He  also  foresaw  and  pointed  out  to  the  King  the  troi'bles 
that  would  ensue  on  a  controverted  title  to  the  thrc  .le,  as 
the  issue  of  such  a  marriage,  it  was  represented,  could  not 
succeed  to  the  Crown  ;  a  very  serious  consideration.  Ac- 
cordingly Prince  Henry,  on  coming  of  age  (27th  January 
1 505),  that  is,  at  the  age  of  fourteen,  by  his  father's  command, 
declared  before  a  public  notary,  "  That,  whereas,  being 
under  age,  he  was  married  to  the  Princess  Catherine,  now, 
on  coming  of  age,  he  protested  against  the  marriage  as 
illegal,  and  annulled  it,"  ^  and  accordingly  the  two  sepa- 
rated to  meet  only  as  friends.  Prince  Henry  is  further 
said  to  have  acted,  in  taking  this  step,  on  the  advice. of  his 
confessor,  Longland.  It  will  be  thus  seen  that  Henry's  first 
separation  from  Catherine  was  effected  on  the  same  grounds 
as  were  advanced  on  his  ultimate  divorce,  full  a  quarter 
of  a  century  before  Cranmer  was  consulted  on  the  subject. 

Henry  VH.  died  22d  April  1509,  when  he  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son,  under  the  title  of  Henry  VHI. 

The  question  now  began  to  be  seriously  discussed  as  to 
the  importance  of  continuing  an  intimate  alliance  with  the 
House  of  Aragon.  The  Council  of  Henry  VHI.,  there- 
fore, prevailed  on  him  to  re-marry  Catherine  (then  still  re- 
maining in  England),  which  he  did  about  six  weeks  after 
his  accession  to  the  throne,  i  ith  June  1509.  This  marriage 
took  place  at  Greenwich  privately,  but  there  appears  to  be 
no  record  of  the  event,  nor  is  it  ascertained  who  were 
present.  It  is  not  probable  that  Warham  performed  the 
ceremony,  as  suggested  by  Dr  Lingard,  for  Warham,  we 
know,  strenuously  opposed  the  marriage. 

Of  this  marriage  a  son  was  born  in  January  1 5 11,  who 
died  the  following  month.    Another  son  was  born,  and 

1  This  document  is  in  the  Cotton  Library,  Vitel.,  b.  xii.,  and  is  cited  in  full 
by  Burnet,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Reformation."  Records,  b.  ii.,  vol.  iv.  p.  5. 
Nare's  edition,  1830. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE, 


27 


died  in  November  1 5 14.  The  queen  had  many  miscarriages ; 
thus  seeming  to  fulfil  the  prediction,  according  to  Levitical 
law,  that  if  a  man  took  his  brother's  wife,  he  should  die 
childless. 

Our  attention  is  now  drawn  to  the  appearance  on  the 
scene  of  another  important  character, — Anne  Boleyn, 
the  daughter  of  Sir  Thomas  Boleyn  (Viscount  Rochfort), 
and  of  Lady  Elizabeth,  his  wife.  The  date  of  birth  of 
Anne  Boleyn  is  variously  given  as  1501,  1502,  1507,  and 
151 1.  Lady  Elizabeth  died  14th  December  1512.  In 
order  to  throw  discredit  on  every  thing  connected  with 
Henry  VIII.  and  Queen  Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Anne 
Boleyn,  Sanders,  a  renegade  secular  priest,  impudently  put 
forth  the  infamous  libel  that  Anne  Boleyn  was  the  King's 
bastard  daughter  by  the  good  Lady  Elizabeth.^  The 
statement  of  Sanders  was  subsequently  taken  up  by 
Phillips,  a  Canon  of  Tangers,  in  his  "  Life  of  Cardinal 
Pole,"  then  repeated  by  Bayley,  and  subsequently  per- 
petuated by  the  priest  T.  Bradly,  in  his  "  Sure  way  to  find 
out  the  true  Religion,"  ^  a  work  embellished  with  extra- 
vagant abuse  heaped  on  Cranmer. 

The  following  earnest  protest  against  this  slander  is 
from  the  pen  of  Mr  S.  H.  Burke,  himself  a  member  of  the 
Roman  Church  : — 

"  I  must  now  enter  upon  an  investigation  of  the  shocking  narrative 
put  forward  by  Sanders  against  the  stainless  character  of  Lady  Eliza- 
beth Boleyn  [mother  of  Anne  Boleyn].  The  writer,  whose  reputation 
for  truth  is  on  a  par  with  that  of  John  Foxe,'  alleges  that  Lady  Eliza- 
beth Boleyn  made  a  confession  to  her  husband  that  she  had  'criminal 
intercourse  with  King  Henry  ;  and  that  the  monarch  was  the  father  of 
her  daughter  Anna.'  The  allegations  of  Sanders  have  been  added  by 
Campion,  Throckmorton,  Allen,  and  other  violent  partisans  on  the 

*  "Sand,  de  .Schism.  Anglic,"  p.  14,  edit.  1628. 

2  Manchester,  1823.    Third  Edit.,  p.  29. 

3  "John  Foxe."    See  Appendix  at  the  end  of  the  present  volume. 


28  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


[Roman]  Catholic  side.  Truth,  however,  must  not  be  concealed,  for 
it  triumphs  in  the  long  run.  Justice  should  be  measured  out  to  all 
parties  with  an  even  and  firm  hand.  Dr  Lingard  gave  much  con- 
sideration to  this  shocking  story,  and  pronounced  the  statement  to 
have  no  foundation  in  fact.  The  question,  he  contends,  is  abundantly 
disproved  by  Racine.  Dates,  however,  form  the  most  important  key 
to  facts.  Anna  Boleyn  was  born  about  the  close  of  1501  ;  Camden 
contends  that  it  was  in  1 507  ;  Lord  Herbert  states  expressly  that 
Anna  was  twenty  years  old  when  she  returned  from  France  in  1521  ; 
so  that  she  must  have  been  born  in  1501.  The  researches  of  Miss 
Strickland  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion.  Mr  Hepworth  Dixon 
approaches  the  subject  with  a  chivalrous  indignation,  and  states  that 
the  'whole  edifice  of  slander  rests  on  a  false  date.'  He  argues  the 
question  with  the  ability  and  enthusiasm  which  characterises  his  mode 
of  defence. 

"  '  It  was  not,'  writes  Miss  Strickland,  *  till  long  after  the  grave  had 
closed  over  Lady  Boleyn  that  the  indignant  spirit  of  party  attempted 
to  fling  an  absurd  scandal  on  her  memory,  by  pretending  that  Anna 
Boleyn  was  the  offspring  of  her  amours  with  the  King  during  the 
absence  of  Sir  Thomas  Boleyn  on  an  embassy  to  France.  But,  inde- 
pendently of  the  fact  that  Sir  Thomas  Boleyn  was  not  ambassador  to 
France  till  many  years  after  \}^&  birth  of  all  his  children,  Henry  VIII. 
was  a  boy  under  the  care  of  his  tutors  at  the  period  of  Anna's  birth, 
even  if  that  event  took  place  in  the  year  1507,  the  date  given  by 
Sanders.'  Henry,  Duke  of  York,  who  appeared  at  the  wedding  of  the 
Infanta  and  Prince  Arthur  in  November  1501,  was  at  that  period  in 
his  tenth  year.  Is  it  not  then  quite  manifest  that  Sanders  has  put  for- 
ward an  untrue  statement,  in  order  to  add  intensity  to  sectarian 
feeling — a  sentiment  that  should  be  avoided  in  historical  relations  ? 
Sanders  has  impeached  the  character  of  Anna  Boleyn  whilst  connected 
with  the  French  court.  At  the  time  Anna  left  the  convent  at  Brie  her 
character  was  without  '  spot  or  stain  ;  the  tongue  of  slander  did  not 
touch  her.'  Such  were  the  words  of  one  of  her  beloved  school-fellows, 
who  was  in  after  years  an  abbess.  .  .  .  The  young  English  ladies 
fondly  called  Anna  '  Sister  Nan.'  When  at  last  a  '  command  came 
from  Hever  Castle  for  her  return,  all  the  little  maidens,  the  stately 
dames  of  quality,  and  the  various  domestics,  fell  a-weeping.'  This 
was  the  time  and  the  place  Sanders  and  other  untruthful  writers 
describe  Anna  Boleyn  as  '  leading  an  impure  life.' "  ^ 

^  "  Historical  Portraits  of  the  Tudor  Dynasty  and  the  Reformation  Period," 
2nd  edit.,  vol.  i.  pp.  92  94  ;  and  see  Pocock's  Edit,  of  Burnet's  "  History  of 
the  Protestant  Reformation,"  vol.  iv.  pp.  556-551.  Oxford,  1865.  The 
calumny  is  of  greater  consequence  than  at  first  sight  appears,  for  it  brings  in 
question  the  legitimacy  of  Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Anne,  and  indirectly 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  29 


It  is  a  lamentable  fact  to  find  such  writers  as  Charles 
Butler,  Esq.,  and  Dr  Lingard  giving  an  indirect  counte- 
nance to  this  slander  ;  the  latter  refers  to  "  an  attempt "  to 
refute  it,  "  of  its  being  problematical,"  and  a  "  probability 
of  its  being  in  favour  of  the  accused."  1  Mr  Butler  refers 
to  "the  powerful  arguments  of  Le  Grand,"  and  the  strong 
assertions  of  Sanders.- 

To  continue  our  narrative  : — 

Mary  (subsequently  Queen)  was  born  19th  February 
1 5 16,  who  alone,  of  all  the  children  of  this  marriage,  lived 
to  attain  a  mature  age. 

It  should  be  here  noted  that  Catherine's  nephew, 
Charle.s,  became  King  of  Spain  in  15 16,  and  Emperor 
under  the  title  of  Charles  V.,  in  15 19. 

We  now  come  to  the  real  cause  of  the  second  separation 
from  Catherine  ;  and  it  will  be  seen  that  it  had  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  Henry's  affection  for  Anne  Boleyn,  or 
of  Cranmer's  suggestions  or  interference.  Roman  Catholic 
prelates  alone  were  responsible  for  the  act,  long  before 
Cranmer  was  ever  consulted.  It  was  the  custom  in  those 
days  to  betroth  princesses  at  an  early  age.  When  Mary 
was  about  eleven  years  old  (April  1527),  she  was  to  be 
betrothed  to  one  of  the  sons  of  the  King  of  France.  The 
treaty  of  marriage  had  already  been  drawn  up,  on  the  24th 
December  previously  (1526),  but  the  Bishop  of  Tarbes,  the 
French  king's  Ambassador  in  this  country,  denied  the 
legality  of  Henry's  marriage  with  Catherine,  as  being  con- 
trary to  divine  precept,  with  which  no  human  authority 
could  dispense  ;  as  also  being  contrary  to  the  law  of  the 

would  support  the  atrocious  attack  made  by  Wm.  Cobbett,  that  the  Reforma- 
tion was  engendered  by  "beastly  lust." 

•  Lingard's  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  vi.  p.  153.    London,  1848. 

2  "  Book  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,"  p.  191,  1825. 


30 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Church  ;  and  he  therefore  denied  the  legitimacy  of  Mary, 
and  pointed  out  that  she  could  not  legally  succeed  to  the 
crown  of  England. i  This  put  an  end  to  the  proposed 
marriage.  In  consequence  of  this  startling  objection, 
revived  in  this  solemn  and  practical  manner,  the  King's 
scruples  were  again  roused.  His  sincerity  at  this  time  has 
never  been  questioned,  on  any  reliable  authority.  Acting 
under  the  advice  of  Cardinal  Wolsey,  and  Longland  his 
confessor,  who  declared  the  union  sinful,  Henry  was 
induced  by  these  considerations  to  examine  into  the 
legality  of  the  marriage ;  and  let  it  be  noted  that  Anne 
Boleyn  had  not  then  been  heard  of  at  court.  This  ought  to 
have  some  weight  in  the  consideration  of  Henry's  motives. 
Indeed,  there  is  evidence  that  the  King,  for  three  years 
before  this,  had  abstained  from  all  intercourse  with  the 
Queen. ^  He  considered  the  death  of  his  children  in  suc- 
cession as  a  curse  from  God  for  his  unlawful  marriage. 
He  consulted  the  canonists  and  divines  of  the  day,  who 
testified  against  the  legality  of  the  union  ;  he  consulted 
also  his  favourite  author,  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  here,  again, 
he  found  the  opinion  deliberately  recorded  that  the  laws 
laid  down  in  Leviticus,  with  reference  to  the  forbidden 
degrees  of  marriage,  were  moral  and  eternal,  and  binding 
on  all  Christians  ;  and  that  the  Pope  could  only  dispense 
with  the  laws  of  the  Church,  but  not  with  the  laws  of  God. 
The  interests  of  the  kingdom,  it  was  urged  upon  the  King, 
were  involved  in  the  question,  which  required  that  there 
should  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  succession  to  the  crown.  If 
Mary  were  illegitimate,  there  was  no  immediate  successor. 

'  It  has  been  asserted  by  some  modern  writers  of  the  unreformed  Church, 
that  this  was  a  concocted  plan  between  Henry  and  the  French  Ambassador, 
but  there  is  no  evidence  of  this. 

2  See  the  Letter  to  Bucer,  referred  to  by  Burnet  in  his  "  History  of  the  Re- 
formation," pt.  i.  b.  ii.  p.  60.    Vol.  i.,  edit.  1830. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  31 


The  horrors  of  a  civil  war,  such  as  had  raged  between  the 
Houses  of  York  and  Lancaster,  buried  with  his  father, 
might  be  revived  in  another  channel  after  his  death. 
James  of  Scotland,  the  enemy  of  England,  would  be  the 
next  heir  to  the  English  throne.  Henry,  by  leaving  no 
legitimate  heir  to  the  throne,  would  be  bequeathing  to  his 
country  a  contested  succession,  and  probably  a  civil  war 
between  rival  claimants.  He  accordingly  longed  for  a  son 
and  heir  to  succeed  him.  The  want  of  such  an  heir  was 
a  bitter  disappointment  to  him.  There  was  no  hope  of 
such  heir  by  Catherine.  The  entire  nation  was  inter- 
ested in  the  question  ;  opinions  were  freely  expressed. 
Henry's  subjects — that  is,  those  who  could  appreciate  the 
position — desired  him  to  marry  again,  that  there  might  be 
a  legitimate  heir  to  the  throne.  The  necessities  of  the 
times  required  this.  The  urgency  of  the  case  was  felt, 
and  the  importance  of  setting  at  rest  the  question  of  suc- 
cession was  pressed  on  the  King.* 

Thus  doubts  and  difficulties  were  raised,  commenced 
even  from  the  King's  accession,  and  now  revived  in  a  most 
practical  manner.  To  suggest  that  Henry  was  now  moved 
by  conscientious  scruples  would  be  at  once  to  create  an 
incredulous  smile,  so  prejudiced  are  all  our  conceptions  of 
Henry's  character.  But  we  shall  presently  see  that  the  Pope's 
own  Legates  gave  him  credit  for  sincerity  in  his  motives, 
and  it  is  a  fact  that  he  was  still  guided  and  advised  by 
Archbishop  Warham,  and  by  his  Confessor  Longland,  in 
all  he  did.    All  the  English  Bishops  except  Fisher,  Bishop 

*  There  is  no  desire  so  justify  or  palliate  an  act,  if  in  itself  immoral  or 
illegal,  merely  on  political  grounds,  to  meet  a  temporary  difficulty  ;  but  if 
example  may  be  pleaded  in  justification,  such  an  emergency,  in  the  Roman 
Church,  has  been  deemed  sufficient  for  the  interference  of  the  Pope. 
Napoleon  did  not  hesitate  to  set  aside  Josephine,  without  even  the  excuse  of 
an  illegal  union,  to  marry  another,  with  the  sole  view  of  perpetuating  the  suc- 
cession, and  this  act  was  sanctioned  by  the  French  bishops. 


32 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


of  Rochester — all  of  the  unreformed  Church — concurred  in 
declaring,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  that  the  marriage 
with  Catherine  was  illegal.  The  opinion  advanced  by  the 
bishops  was  endorsed  by  all  the  leading  nobles  of  the  land, 
including  the  united  bench  of  the  jurisprudence  of  the 
country,  who  were  agreed  on  the  subject,  save,  perhaps.  Sir 
Thomas  More,  but  of  this  we  have  no  evidence.  He  stre- 
nuously opposed,  with  Fisher,  the  supplanting  of  the  Pope's 
jurisdiction  in  this  country.  Both  Fisher  and  More,  there 
is  no  doubt,  would  have  readily  acquiesced  in  the  general 
opinion  but  for  the  original  dispensation  of  Julius  II.  The 
Pope  with  them,  right  or  wrong,  in  his  decrees,  was 
supreme,  and  his  decision,  with  them,  was  accounted  above 
the  law.  It  was  not,  in  fact,  the  divorce  they  would  oppose, 
but  the  questioning  the  legality  of  the  original  act,  conse- 
crated, as  it  had  been,  by  the  sanction  of  the  Pope,  and  the 
acting  in  an  ecclesiastical  matter  without  his  permission. 
Cardinal  Wolsey,  a  politician  as  well  as  a  divine,  differed 
in  opinion,  insomuch  that  in  July  1527  he  personally  under- 
took to  procure  from  the  Court  of  Rome  a  decree  for  a 
divorce,  and  for  this  purpose  armed  himself  with  the  safest 
passport,  ^240,000,  to  negotiate  with  ;  but  the  existing 
Bull  presented  a  difficulty  of  which  the  Court  of  Rome 
availed  itself  as  a  temporary  excuse.  Many  subtle  points 
of  law  were  raised  on  the  validity  or  sufficiency  of  the  dis- 
pensation ;  and  these  points  were  argued  with  a  vigour  and 
apparent  earnestness  as  if  important  questions  of  interna- 
tional law  had  been  in  dispute.  The  Cardinal  did  not 
despair  of  success  in  getting  the  required  consent.  A  fee 
of  40CX)  crowns  was  paid  to  the  Cardinal  Sanctorum 
Quatuor  (sometimes  called  Santi  Quattro)  at  Rome.  In 
a  letter  of  advice  to  Gregory  Cassalis,  the  King's  Ambas- 
sador at  Rome,  Wolsey,  cunning  and  worldly  in  all  his 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE. 


33 


acts,  expressed  a  great  sense  of  the  service  rendered  to  the 
King  by  this  Cardinal,  bade  CassaHs  inquire  "  what  were  the 
things  in  which  he  deUghted  most  —  whether  furniture, 
gold,  plate,  or  horses — that  they  might  make  him  accept- 
able presents,  and  assure  him  that  the  King  would  contri- 
bute largely  towards  carrying  on  the  building  of  St  Peter's 
Church."  Cardinal  Wolsey's  negotiation,  in  that  quarter  at 
least,  proved  successful,  as  the  Sanctorum  Quatuor  now 
found  the  King's  demand  most  reasonable.  This  he  freely 
expressed  to  Cassalis. 

These  negotiations,  nevertheless,  were  allowed  to  linger  ; 
for  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Pope  at  this  time  was 
a  close  prisoner  in  the  Castle  of  St  Angelo,  placed  there 
by  Catherine's  own  nephew,  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  The 
Emperor  had  defeated  the  army  of  Francis  I.,  King  of 
France.  The  Pope  had  aided  Francis.  This  had  greatly 
offended  Charles,  who  charged  the  Pope  with  ingratitude 
and  perfidy.  He  besieged  Rome,  and  in  May  1527,  after 
the  battle  of  Pavia,  took  the  Pope  prisoner,  and  detained 
him  for  about  six  months.  The  Pope,  who  had  formed  the 
Clementine  League  between  the  various  European  Powers 
against  the  Emperor,  and  had  absolved  the  King  of  France 
from  the  oath  which  he  had  previously  taken  at  Madrid, 
to  enable  him  to  join  this  League,  was  now  punished  for  his 
perfidy  and  duplicity. 

In  December  1527  the  King  sent  a  deputation  to  the 
Pope,  of  which  Dr  Knight  was  one.  They  found  him  still  a 
prisoner  in  the  Castle  of  St  Angelo,  at  the  hands  of  Charles 
V.  They  got  admission  to  him  by  bribing  his  guards. 
The  King's  demands  to  obtain  a  divorce  were  made  known 
to  the  Pope,  who  promised  under  his  hand  to  grant  the 
dispensation  required — namely,  for  a  divorce — and  further 
promised  that  the  Bull  should  follow  in  due  course.  The 

c 


34  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

Pope's  consent  for  a  divorce  was  thus  obtained  in  December 
1527.  He  was  actuated  in  this  again  solely  by  motives  of 
expediency,  hoping  to  secure  the  assistance  of  Henry  in 
his  troubles.  It  appears  by  a  letter  from  Dr  Oritz  to  the 
Emperor  Charles,  that  the  Pope  was  informed  by  Dr 
Knight  of  the  King's  intention  to  marry  again,  and  what 
was  the  exact  nature  of  the  impediment'  It  appears, 
however,  that  Dr  Knight  was  outwitted,  for  it  was  dis- 
covered that  Santi  Quattro,  the  able  lawyer  and  canonist 
above  named,  introduced  into  the  two  documents  executed 
by  the  Pope  some  changes  which  made  them  of  no  force. 
On  this  being  discovered,  a  second  mission  was  undertaken 
by  Foxe  and  Gardyner.  The  Pope  had  in  the  meantime 
escaped  to  Orrieto  ;  and  in  this  second  mission  the  Pope 
was  induced  to  sign  two  documents  without  any  equivo- 
cation. 

The  popular  statement  is,  that  Henry  "vainly  attempted 
to  obtain  from  the  Pope  his  consent  to  a  divorce  from 
Catherine."  In  answer  to  this  assertion  we  cannot  do 
better  than  quote  the  authority  of  Dr  Lingard,  a  priest  of 
the  Roman  Church,  and  who  is  accepted  by  members  of 
that  Church  as  a  good  and  reliable  authority.  He 
writes  : — 

"  The  Pope  signed  two  instruments  presented  to  him  by  the  envoys 
of  King  Henry,  the  one  authorising  Cardinal  Wolsey  to  decide  the 
question  of  divorce  in  England,  as  the  Papal  Legate,  granting  to  Henry 
a  dispensation  to  marry,  in  the  place  of  Catherine,  atiy  other  woman 
whomsoever,  even  if  she  were  already  promised  to  another,  or  related 
to  him  iti  the  first  degree  of  affi.nityr  ^ 

'  See  Letter  of  Oritz,  7th  February  1533,  British  Museum  MSS.,  vol. 
28,585,  fol.  217.    Quoted  by  Friedman,  "  Anne  Boleyn,"  vol.  i.  p.  65.  1884. 

2  Dr  Lingard  gives  the  date  January  1528.  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  vi. 
pp.  128-9.  Edit.  1848.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  words  in  italics  were 
purposely  inserted  by  the  envoys  of  Henry  to  meet  the  alleged  case  of  his 
supposed  illicit  intercourse  with  Mary,  Anne  Boleyn's  sister,  which,  if  it  hap- 
pened, would  render  void  his  marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn,  as  being  within  the 
decrees  of  prohibited  affinity  according  to  the  law  of  the  Roman  Church.  But 
this  is  only  supposition. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE. 


35 


According  to  the  same  authority  (Dr  Lingard)  the  Pope 
further  expressed  his  opinion  in  these  unmistakable  terms: — 

"  If  the  King  be  convinced,  as  he  affirms,  that  his  present  marriage 
is  null,  he  might  marry  again.  This  would  enable  me  or  the  Legate  to 
decide  the  question  at  once.  Otherwise  it  is  plain,  that  by  appeals, 
exceptions,  and  adjournments,  the  case  must  be  protracted  for  many 
years." 

Such  being  the  case,  we  cannot  account  for  the  strange 
inconsistency  which  condemns  Henry  for  eventually 
following  the  Pope's  own  advice  ! 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  solemn  promise  of  the  Pope 
given  to  sanction  the  divorce,  with  the  unholy  permission 
to  marry  again,  even  within  the  degrees  of  prohibited 
affinity,  before  Cranmer  appeared  on  the  scene  of  action. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  had  the  Pope  been  a  free 
agent  in  his  Vatican  Palace,  and  not  under  fear  of  the 
Emperor,  the  Bull  itself  would  have  been  forthwith  issued. 
The  Pope,  however,  repudiated  his  promise ! 

On  the  17th  May  (previous),  1527,  both  Cardinal 
Wolsey  and  Archbishop  Warham,  at  a  secret  court  at 
Westminster,  held  that  the  marriage  with  Catherine  was 
incestuous.  Bishop  Fisher,  on  the  other  hand,  held  that 
such  a  marriage,  with  the  Pope's  dispensation,  would  be 
valid.^ 

Here  we  must  draw  attention  to  a  most  notable  per- 
version of  this  part  of  our  history,  advanced  by  the  Rev. 
G.  R.  Gleig,  M.A.,  late  "  Chaplain-General  to  the  Forces," 
and  "  Prebendary  of  St  Paul's,"  and  "  Instructor-General  of 
Military  Schools,"  all  of  which  titles  are  paraded  on  the 
face  of  his  "History  of  England — School  Series"  (a 
manual  still  in  use).    Of  this  circumstance  he  says  ^ : — 

*  "  Letters  and  Papers."    Brewer,  vol.  iv.  pp.  1426-1429  and  1434. 
"First  Book  of  History  of  England,  in  two  parts."    I'art  i.  p.  97.  New 
Edition.    Longman  &  Co.  1866. 


36  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


"a.D.  1527.  Henr}-  never  liked  his  marriage  with  the  widow  of  his 
brother.  As  the  thing  was  done,  however,  he  did  not  try  to  undo  it, 
and  for  eighteen  years  he  and  his  consort  lived  on  good  terms.  She 
bore  him  children,  one  of  whom,  the  Princess  Marj',  lived  to  reach 
mature  years.  But  at  the  end  of  this  term  the  Queen  took  into  her 
household  a  young  lady  of  great  beauty,  by  name  Anne  Bolejm,  whom 
the  King  tried  for  a  whole  year  to  corrupt,  and  when  he  failed,  he  cast 
about  for  some  plan  by  which  he  might  wed  her.  His  old  doubts  on 
the  head  of  marriage  with  a  brother's  wife  began  to  revive.  He  spoke 
to  Wolsey  about  them,  and  was  advised  to  write  to  the  Pope  for  a 
divorce.  He  took  that  advice,  and  wrote  to  the  Pope,  who  put  the 
case  into  the  hands  of  Wolsey  and  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
Henry-  now  thought  that  all  would  go  smooth  with  him  :  but  he  was 
wrong."  ^ 

It  is  a  lamentable  circumstance  that  a  person  who  puts 
forth  a  book  of  education — "  to  remedy  a  defect  in  school 
literature "  (as  stated  in  the  Preface) — should  scramble 
together  popular  fallacies,  without  bestowing  the  most 
ordinary  pains  to  collate  his  statements  with  authentic 
sources.  It  is  not  in  this  passage  only  that  Mr  Gleig  has 
allowed  himself  to  be  misled  in  this  part  of  our  history,  as 
we  shall  have  again  occasion  to  note. 

The  Pope's  promise  having  been  thus  obtained,  the  King, 
in  February  1528,  sent  his  representatives  to  Rome  to 
prosecute  his  suit,  and  obtain  the  formal  Bull  from  the 
same  Pope,  Clement  VIII.  But  alas  !  the  Pope  was  only  a 
fallible  man — a  weak,  impotent  priest !  He  found  himself, 
as  he  himself  quaintly  observed,  "  like  a  red-hot  piece  of 
iron  between  the  hammer  and  the  anvil."  If  he  issued  the 
promised  Bull  of  divorce,  he  would  risk  the  renewed  persecu- 
tion of  his  old  oppressor,  Charles,  the  nephew  of  Catherine, 
from  whom  he  had  just  escaped  ;  indeed,  he  feared  for  his  own 
title  to  the  "  Chair  of  Peter,"  which  was  invalid  by  reason 
of  his  being  the  bastard  son  of  Julian  de  IMedicis,  and 

^  The  reader  is  referred  to  the  several  citations  from  popular  works  given  in 
the  note  to  p.  14,  ante. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  37 


having  obtained  his  seat  by  notorious  simony,  which 
invalidated  his  election.  These  objections  might  have 
been  raised  by  the  Emperor,  Accordingly  the  Pope 
began  to  temporise,  and  delays  were  purposely  interposed. 

What  could  the  poor  old  man  do He  did  not  act  on 
principle ;  it  was  a  question  of  expediency  with  him.  It 
was  at  this  period  that  the  French  and  English  combined 
had  defeated  the  Imperialists  in  the  north  of  Italy ;  and 
when  ultimate  success  seemed  probable  against  his  oppres- 
sor Charles,  the  Pope  took  heart,  and  told  Sir  Gregory 
Cassalis,  then  still  Henry's  Ambassador  at  Rome,  that,  if 
the  French  would  only  approach  near  enough  to  enable 
him  to  plead  compulsion,  he  would  grant  a  commission  to 
Wolsey,  with  plenary  power  to  conclude  the  cause.^ 

If  the  original  documents,  which  are  stubborn  witnesses, 
were  not  in  existence  to  prove  these  facts,  one  would 
scarcely  believe  that  a  professed  Christian  bishop,  arrogat- 
ing to  himself  the  title  of  CHRIST'S  ViCAR  ON  EARTH, 
could  have  acted  with  such  duplicity,  and  that  such  a 
clatter  should  be  made  of  the  Pope's  alleged  refusal  "  to 
consent  to  such  a  violation  of  Gospel  morality !  "  The 
Pope,  in  his  perplexity,  communicated  his  wishes  to,  and 
consulted  the  Cardinals  Sancti  Quattro,  and  Simmeta ;  the 
result  of  this  conference  was  a  proposal  from  the  Pope  to 
Gregory  Cassalis  (which  was  communicated  by  the  latter  to 
the  King  on  the  13th  January  1528),  to  the  effect  that : — 

"  If  the  king  found  the  matter  clear  in  his  own  conscience  (on 
which  the  Pope  said  no  doctor  in  the  world  could  solve  the  matter 
better  than  the  King  himself),  he  should,  without  more  noise,  make 
judgment  be  given  (either  by  virtue  of  the  commission  the  secretary 
had  obtained,  or  by  the  legatine  power  that  was  lodged  with  the  Car- 
dinal of  York),  and  presently  marry  another  wife,  and  then  send  for  a 
Legate  to  confirm  the  matter  ;  for  it  would  be  easier  to  ratify  all  when 

'  See  Froude's  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  i.  p.  126.  London,  1856,  and 
the  authorities  cited  by  him. 


38 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


it  was  done,  than  to  go  on  in  a  process  from  Rome.  Otherwise  the 
Queen  would  enter  a  protest,  whereupon,  in  the  course  of  law,  the 
Pope  must  grant  an  inhibition  while  the  suit  at  law  was  pending,  and 
require  the  cause  to  be  heard  at  Rome.  But  if  the  thing  went  on  in 
England,  and  the  King  had  once  married  another  wife,  the  Pope  would 
then  find  a  very  good  reason  to  justify  the  confirming  a  thing  that  was 
gone  so  far  ;  and  thereupon  promised  to  send  any  Cardinal  whom 
they  should  name."  ^ 

This  message  the  Pope  desired  Cassalis  would  convey  to 
the  King  as  coming  from  the  two  Cardinals,  but  he  himself 
was  not  to  be  implicated  or  compromised  in  the  matter. 
The  affair,  however,  was  not  to  be  so  easily  settled  ;  other 
influences  were  put  in  action.  The  Pope  was  pressed  by 
those  who  represented  the  Emperor  Charles  for  an  inhibi- 
tion, which  he  refused  on  the  technical  ground  of  no  suit 
pending. 

Let  us  proceed  in  the  history  of  these  exceptional 
events.  The  Pope  escaped  from  the  Castle  of  St  Angelo 
and  fled  to  Orvieto,  his  escape  being  connived  at,  it  is  sup- 
posed, by  Charles  himself,  where  he  signed  the  two  docu- 
ments referred  to  by  Dr  Lingard,  but  unknown  to  the 
Emperor.  In  May  1528,  the  Pope  sent  his  Legate,  Cardi- 
nal Campeggio,  with  a  decretal  Bull,  to  England,  empower- 
ing the  Legates,  of  whom  Wolsey  was  one,  to  decree  in 
the  matter  publicly,  as  an  earnest  of  his  proposal  to 
Cassalis  ;  but  in  real  fact  this  was  only  for  delay.  He  had 
his  private  as  well  as  his  public  instructions.  The  wily 
Cardinal  first  sought  to  solve  the  difficulty  by  endeavour- 
ing to  persuade  Catherine  to  retire  to  a  convent.  There 
she  would  be  dead  to  the  world ;  but  nothing  could  induce 
her  to  lay  aside  her  character  as  a  wife  of  Henry,  or  to 
admit  the  invalidity  of  her  marriage.  The  Queen,  backed 
by  the  Emperor  Charles  V.,  who  undertook  to  maintain 

1  "Cotton  Lib.  Vitel.,"  b.  x.  Quoted  by  Burnet,  "Records,"  vi.  b.  ii. 
vol.  iv.,  edit.  1830. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  39 


her  title,  adhered  to  her  rights.  The  Legatine  Court 
was  opened  to  consider  the  matter  on  31st  May  1528. 
Diplomacy  ensued,  delays  again  were  interposed.  Had 
Catherine  been  unsupported  by  the  Emperor,  all  this  delay 
would  have  been  needless.  She  would  have  found  no 
sympathy  with  the  Pope.  Indeed,  it  is  supposed  that 
Campeggio  brought  with  him  the  formal  Bull  of  confirma- 
tion, to  be  used  as  circumstances  might  dictate,  and  that  it 
had  been  shown  to  Wolsey  ;  but  there  is  no  direct  proof  of 
this.  The  alleged  existing  copy  is  supposed  to  be  spuri- 
ous. Campeggio's  baggage  was  searched  at  Dover  on  his 
return  home,  but  the  document  was  not  found. 

Further  pretences  for  delay  were  raised  by  Campeggio, 
and,  when  in  July,  nothing  remained  to  be  done  but  for  the 
Legates  to  give  their  decision,  they  unexpectedly  adjourned 
the  Court  until  October,  alleging  that  the  vacation  of  the 
Law  Courts  at  Rome  had  commenced  :  and  on  the  4th 
August  an  injunction  was  received,  forbidding  any  further 
proceedings,  as  the  Pope  would  himself  try  the  Cause  at 
Rome,  where  the  King  and  Queen  were  cited  to  appear. 

Thus  matters  remained  until  October  1528.  This  date 
is  selected  because  it  was  in  this  month  that  the  King  is 
said  to  have  first  given  any  evidence  of  his  affection  for 
Anne  Boleyn.  Dr  Lingard  puts  this  date  at  1526,  but 
without  sufficient  authority. 

Anne  Boleyn  went  at  an  early  age  to  France,  and  lived 
with  the  French  King's  sister,  A.D.  15 14.  On  the  King's 
death,  the  Queen  Dowager  returned  to  England;  but  Anne 
was  so  much  liked  at  the  French  Court  that  the  wife  of 
King  Francis  I.  kept  her  in  her  service  for  some  years,  and 
after  this  Queen's  death  the  Duchess  of  Alen^on  kept  her 
in  her  Court  while  she  was  in  France.  These  facts  at  least 
refute  the  calumny  as  to  Anne's  levity,  if  not  direct  im- 


40  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


morality,  w  hile  she  was  in  the  French  Court,  as  these  royal 
personages  were  celebrated  for  their  virtues.  It  is  supposed 
that  Anne  returned  to  England  in  the  spring  of  the  year 
1527,  and  entered  the  service  of  the  Court  as  maid  of 
honour.  She  was  then  young,  beautiful,  sprightly,  and 
accomplished.  It  was  not  until  the  end  of  the  following 
year  that  the  first  symptoms  of  affection  were  shown  by  the 
King  for  Anne  Boleyn — nearly  two  years  after  the  public 
protest  by  the  Bishops  of  Tarbes  as  to  Princess  Mary's  ille- 
gitimacy, and  nearly  five  years  after  Henry's  virtual  separa- 
tion from  the  Queen,  if  the  letter  to  Bucer,  before  alluded 
to,  is  to  be  admitted  as  evidence.  The  facts  as  above 
related,  in  connexion  with  dates,  clearly  show  that  the 
King's  affection  for  Anne  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
his  separation  from  Catherine.  There  is  no  record  of 
evidence  that  the  Queen  had  any  complaint  against  Anne's 
conduct  at  that  time,  and  so  little  was  a  marriage  with  the 
King  contemplated  that  there  were  other  suitors  for  her 
hand ;  and  one  of  the  charges  subsequently  brought  against 
her  at  her  trial  was  a  previous  betrothal  to  another,  which 
in  those  days  appears  to  have  been  a  ground  of  objection 
to  her  subsequent  marriage. 

The  assertion  that  Anne  was  Henry's  mistress  before 
their  marriage  is  a  cruel  slander.  Dr  Lingard  writes ; — 
"When  Henry  ventured  to  disclose  to  Anne  his  real  object, 
she  indignantly  replied,  that  though  she  might  be  happy 
to  be  his  wife,  she  would  never  consent  to  be  his  mistress." 

'  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  vii.  p.  155.  London,  1823.  It  has  been  long 
asserted  that  Mary  Boleyn,  Anne's  sister,  was  the  mistress  of  Henry  VIII.  Mr 
Froude  opposes  this  assertion  as  unproved,  while  Mr  Friedman,  in  his  recent 
work,  "Anne  Boleyn,"  1885,  Appendix  B,  vol.  ii.,  seems  to  establish 
this  as  a  fact,  though  he  admits  that  Crumwell  publicly  denied  it  at  the 
time  (p.  326).  The  Act  of  1 536  (28  Henry  VIII.,  c.  vii.)  has  been  repeatedly 
quoted  as  having  been  passed  specially  to  meet  the  case  of  Henry's  alleged 
intercourse  with  Mary,  Anne  Boleyn's  sister,  declaring  such  a  marriage  on  that 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.        4  I 


And  here  we  must  again  draw  attention  to  the  same  writer, 
as  to  Henry's  motives  and  Anne  Boleyn's  character.^  "  It 
had  been  intimated  to  Pope  Clement  that  the  real  object  of 
the  King  was  to  gratify  the  ambition  of  a  woman  who  had 
sacrificed  her  honour  to  his  passion  on  condition  that  he 
should  raise  her  to  the  throne.  But  after  the  perusal  of  a 
letter  from  Wolsey,  the  Pontiff  believed,  or  at  least  pro- 
fessed to  believe,  that  Anne  Boleyn  was  a  lady  of  unim- 
peachable character,  and  that  the  suit  of  Henry  proceeded 
from  sincere  scruples."  Mr  Froude,  who  has  given  this  part 
of  the  subject  a  deep  and  impartial  consideration,  with 
reference  to  Henry's  motives  for  a  divorce,  says  : — 

"  The  King's  scruples  were  not  originally,  I  am  persuaded,  occa- 
sioned by  any  latent  inclination  on  the  part  of  the  King  for  another 
woman  ;  they  had  arisen  to  their  worst  dimensions  before  he  had  even 
seen  Anne  Boleyn,  and  were  produced  by  causes  of  a  wholly  different 
kind."  2 

account  invalid,  and  is  therefore  cited  to  prove  that  Mary  Boleyn  was  Henry's 
mistress.  In  a  review  of  Friedman's  book  in  the  C^^ara'/aw  newspaper  of  nth 
February  1885,  we  are  told  "That  Parliament  passed  an  Act  (28  Henry  VIII. 
c.  vii.)  ordering  every  man  who  had  married  the  sister  of  a  former  mistress 
to  separate  from  her,  and  forbidding  such  marriages  in  future."  I  think  this 
inference  is  scarcely  fair,  in  the  manner  this  Act  of  Parliament  is  cited. 
True,  the  Act  declares  that  the  marriage  was  void  from  the  beginning.  But 
it  deals  with  several  other  circumstances.  In  section  vii.,  a  long  list  of  degrees 
of  affinity  in  which  marriage  is  prohibited,  every  possible  relationship  is 
mentioned,  among  others,  "  brother  and  sister."  The  Act  then  proceeds  : — 
"  That  if  chance  any  may  to  know  carnally  any  woman,  that  then  all  and 
singular  any  persons  being  in  any  degree  of  consanguinity  or  affiancy  (as  is 
above  written)  to  any  of  the  parties  so  carnally  offending,  shall  be  deemed  and 
adjudged  to  be  within  the  cases  of  the  prohibitions  of  marriage."  As  the  Act 
itself  annulled  the  marriage,  there  could  be  no  necessity  for  this  underhand  and 
doubtful  way  of  going  to  work.  If  the  King  notoriously  had  had  intercourse 
with  Anne's  sister,  why  should  they  go  through  the  farce  of  reciting  a  long  list 
of  consanguinity  in  this  surreptitious  manner,  and  intend  the  clause  to  apply  to 
the  King's  special  case.  And,  further,  the  Act  was  not  retrospective.  I  con- 
sider it  therefore  unfair  broadly  to  cite  this  Act  to  establish  the  accusation 
against  Mary  Boleyn. 

1  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  vii.,  p.  155,  London,  1823,  and  see  vol.  v. 
p.  137.    Edition  1S48. 

^  Froude's  "History  of  England,"  vol.  i.  p.  106.    London,  1856. 


42 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


This  opinion  is  confirmed  by  Dean  Hook,  who  said  : 
"  The  idea  of  a  divorce  did  not  originate  in  the  King's 
passion  for  Anne  Boleyn."^ 

The  Pope's  own  Legates  bear  out  this  view,  who  wrote  to 
their  master  in  May  1529  : — 

"  It  was  mere  madness  to  suppose  that  the  King  would  act  as  he 
was  doing  merely  out  of  dislike  to  the  Queen,  or  out  of  inclination 
for  another.  He  was  not  a  man  whom  harsh  manners  and  an  un- 
pleasant disposition  could  so  far  provoke  ;  nor  can  any  sane  man  be- 
lieve him  to  be  so  infirm  of  character  that  sensual  allurements  would 
have  led  him  to  dissolve  a  connexion  in  which  he  has  passed  the  flower 
of  his  youth  without  stain  or  blemish^  and  in  which  he  has  borne  him- 
self in  his  present  trial  so  reverently  and  honourably."  ^ 

This  was  the  sober  opinion  uttered  by  the  Pope's  own 
representatives,  who  could  have  had  no  motive  in  view  to 
mislead  or  deceive  their  master  :  on  the  contrary,  they 
were  fully  aware  of  his  critical  position ;  they  were  eccle- 
siastics of  high  station,  sent  here  by  the  Pope  himself  to 
conduct  this  delicate  and  difficult  matter.  Gardyner  him- 
self maintained  that  the  motives  of  the  King  were  "  most 
conscientious  and  virtuous." 

Those  who  defend  the  conduct  of  the  Pope  for  refusing 
the  suit  of  Henry  on  the  grounds  of  the  sacredness  of 
matrimony,  and  of  Henry's  alleged  licentious  demands, 
would  do  well  to  remember  that  at  this  very  time  the  Pope 
gave  his  ready  sanction  to  the  most  impudent  request  for 
a  divorce  ever  presented  to  a  court  of  justice — namely,  the 
divorce  of  Queen  Margaret  of  Scotland  from  the  Earl  of 
Angus,  who  thereupon  forthwith  married  the  worthless 
Methuen.  This  was  a  scandal  and  a  disgrace  to  the  Papal 
Court ;  but  we  hear  nothing  of  this,  because,  forsooth,  no 
great  results  followed  affecting  the  Papal  power.^ 

1  "  Lives  of  the  Archbishops,"  vol.  vii.  p.  358. 

-  Quoted  by  Fioude  as  above  ;  and  see  Burnet's  "  Records,"  b.  ii.  n.  xxiv. 
^  Froude's  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  iv.  p.  32.    London,  1858. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE. 


43 


When  King  Henry  was  informed  of  the  limited  authority- 
held  by  Campeggio,  and  of  his  tergiversation/  he  took  the 
matter  into  his  own  hands,  and  sent  Sir  Francis  Brian  to 
the  Pope  publicly  to  announce  to  him  that,  if  the  formal 
consent  were  not  forthwith  given,  he  would  act  inde- 
pendently of  the  Pope,  and  lay  the  cause  before  his 
own  Parliament,  to  be  settled  by  the  laws  of  his  own 
country. 

The  Pope's  difficulties  increased  ;  the  Emperor  Charles, 
in  January  1529,  publicly  interposed,  and  conveyed  his 
threats  in  strong  terms.  The  affrighted  Pope  repented  him 
of  his  promises  to  Henry ;  and,  while  he  declared  to  the 
Emperor  that  he  would  not  confirm  the  sentence,  he  con- 
tinued to  "  feed  the  King  with  high  promises  and  encour- 
agements," temporising  with  both,  afraid  to  offend  either  ; 
and  as  Strype  has  it,  "  the  Pope  said  and  unsaid, 
sighed,  sobbed,  beat  his  breast,  shuffled,  implored,  threat- 
ened."^ At  the  dictation  of  the  Emperor  he  proposed  to 
excommunicate  Henry,  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  com- 
municated with  the  Bishop  of  Tarbes  (still  the  ambassador 
of  France  in  England)  that  he  would  be  happy  to  hear 
that  the  King  had  got  married  without  consulting  him, — 
in  fact,  on  the  King's  own  responsibility, — so  that  he,  the 
Pope,  was  not  committed  by  the  act.' 

The  Pope  still  instructed  his  Legates  to  procrastinate, 

^  Campeggio  was  leading  a  debauched  life  in  England,  and  spent  his  time 
in  hunting  and  gaming.  His  illegitimate  son  was  knighted  by  the  king.  See 
"  Dictionnaire  Historique,"  art.  Campeggio  (Laurant). 

^  "Memorials,"  Appendix  iv.,  No.  6l,  p.  loo,  folio  edition. 

*  "  A  ce  qu'il  m'en  a  declare  des  fois  plus  de  trois  en  secret  il  seroit  content 
que  ledit  mariage  fust  ja  faiet,  ou  par  dispense  du  Legat  d'Angleterre  ou  outre- 
ment  ;  mais  que  ce  ne  fust  par  son  autorite,  ni  aussi  diminuant  sa  puissance 
quant  aux  dispenses  et  limitation  de  droict  divin." — Dechiffre?neut  des  Lettres 
de  M.  de  Tarbes.  Legrand,  vol.  iii.  p.  408  ;  quoted  by  Froude,  "History  of 
England,"  vol.  i.  p.  241.    London,  1856. 


44 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


who,  in  May  1529,  wrote  to  their  master  urging  him  to 
grant  a  Bull  of  divorce.  This  document  is  extant,  and  is 
important.^    They  told  the  Pope  : — 

"  It  pitied  them  to  see  the  rack  and  torments  of  conscience  under 
which  the  King  had  smarted  for  so  many  years  ;  and  that  the  disputes 
of  Divines  and  the  decrees  of  Fathers  had  so  disquieted  him,  that  for 
clearing  a  matter  thus  perplexed  there  was  not  only  need  of  learning, 
but  of  more  singular  piety  and  illumination.  To  this  were  to  be 
added  the  desire  of  issue,  the  settlement  of  the  kingdom,  with  many 
other  reasons  ;  that  as  the  matter  did  not  admit  of  delay,  so  there 
was  not  anything  in  the  opposite  scale  to  balance  these  considerations." 

These  reflections  are  important  as  evidence,  delivered  at 
the  time,  of  the  opinion  entertained  by  the  Pope's  own 
representatives  : — "  There  were  false  suggestions  surmised 
abroad,  as  if  the  hatred  of  the  Queen  or  the  desire  of 
another  wife  were  the  true  cause  of  the  suit.  But  though 
the  Queen  [Catherine]  was  of  a  rough  temper  and  an  un- 
pleasant conversation,  and  was  passed  all  hopes  of  child- 
ren, yet  who  could  imagine  that  the  King,  who  had  spent 
his  most  youthful  days  with  her  so  kindly,  would  now,  in 
the  decline  of  his  age,  be  at  all  this  trouble  to  be  rid  of  her, 
if  he  had  no  other  motives  But  they,  by  searching  his 
sore,  found  there  was  rooted  in  his  heart  both  an  awe  of 
God  and  a  respect  to  law  and  order  ;  so  that,  though  all 
his  people  pressed  him  to  drive  the  matter  to  an  issue,  yet 
he  would  still  wait  for  the  decision  of  the  Apostolic  See." 
They,  however,  urged  on  the  Pope  to  give  a  speedy  deci- 
sion, "  considering  this  a  fit  case  to  relax  the  rigour  of  the 
law  ;"  and  they  significantly  added,  that  if  the  dispensation 
were  not  granted,  "  other  remedies  would  be  found  out,  to 
the  vast  prejudice  of  the  ecclesiastical  authority,  to  which 
many  about  the  King  advised  him  ;  there  was  reason  to 

1  It  is  given  in  Burnet's  "  Hist,  of  the  Reformation,"  in  full,  vol.  i.  pt.  i.  b. 
ii.  p.  no;  and  vol.  iv.,  "  Records,"  No.  28.  Nare's  edition,  1830. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  45 


fear  that  they  not  only  lose  a  king  of  England,  but  a  De- 
fender of  the  Faith." 

It  was  evident  that  the  Pope  was  acting  the  part  of  a 
cunning,  though  short-sighted  politician,  looking  after  his 
own  temporal  ends  ;  it  is  only  surprising  that  the  King, 
who  is  represented  as  being  a  very  vehement  and  impetu- 
ous tyrant,  bore  with  him  so  long  and  patiently.  It  was 
necessary  to  do  something.  Accordingly,  a  court  was  held 
in  England,  on  the  subject  of  the  divorce,  in  June  1529,  in 
the  presence  of  the  Legates,  when  Campeggio  declared,  in 
his  official  capacity,  that  the  King  and  Queen  Catherine 
were  living  in  adultery,  or  rather  incest  ;  but,  nevertheless, 
no  Bull  was  issued.  It  was  at  this  court  (i8th  June  1529) 
that  the  King  declared  : — "  That  in  the  treaty  for  the 
marriage  of  his  daughter  with  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  it 
was  excepted  that  she  was  illegitimate ;  on  this  he  was 
resolved  to  try  the  lawfulness  of  his  marriage,  as  well  as  to 
quiet  his  own  conscience,  as  for  clearing  the  succession  to 
the  throne.  If  the  marriage  were  found  lawful,  he  would 
be  well  satisfied  to  live  with  the  Queen.  He  was  first 
advised  in  the  matter  by  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  and  at 
his  desire  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  [Warham]  had 
obtained  the  opinions  of  all  the  Bishops."  The  court  was 
adjourned,  and  on  the  25th  the  Queen,  with  the  concur- 
rence of  Campeggio,  appealed  to  Rome,  and  thereupon, 
and  to  create  further  delay,  in  August  1529,  the  Pope,  on 
the  appeal  of  Catherine  and  the  Emperor  Charles  V. 
(with  whom  the  Pope  had  now  entered  into  an  alliance), 
issued  an  inhibition  from  proceeding  with  the  divorce  in 
England,  and  cited  the  King  and  Queen  to  appear  at 
Rome,  in  person  or  by  proxy,  menacing  spiritual  censures, 
which  were,  however,  subsequently  withdrawn.  The  King 
of  England  very  properly  refused  to  obey  the  summons,  or 


46  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


to  humour  the  Pope's  whims  and  schemes.  This  was  the 
first  act  towards  questioning  the  Pope's  authority  in 
England.  Henry  then  proposed  to  the  Queen  to  remit  the 
case  to  any  four  prelates  and  four  secular  men  for  decision, 
but  she  refused  the  offer. 

At  the  Queen's  request  a  second  inhibition  was  issued  in 
1529-30,  in  stronger  language,  but  which  was  equally  im- 
potent of  purpose. 

Cardinal  Wolsey,  then  Prime  Minister,  went  so  far  as  to 
threaten  the  Pope,  in  a  letter  dated  July  1529,  addressed  to 
Cassalis,  at  Rome,  that  if  the  question  was  not  settled  in 
England,  and  his  Highness  should  come  at  any  time  to 
the  Court  of  Rome,  he  would  do  so  with  an  armed  force.^ 
In  fact,  he  took  an  active  part  in  forwarding  the  King's 
views  for  a  divorce ;  indeed,  according  to  Cardinal  Pole, 
the  idea  originated  with  him.  It  appears,  further,  in  a  pre- 
vious despatch  from  Wolsey  to  Gregory  Cassalis,  dated 
5th  December  1527,  that  the  King  had  already  consulted 
learned  divines  and  canonists  in  England  and  abroad  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  the  Pope's  dispensation 
could  give  validity  to  his  marriage  with  Catherine.  But 
Wolsey's  scheme  had  no  reference  to  Anne  Boleyn.  He 
entertained  the  idea  of  a  marriage  between  Henry  and 
Renee,  the  daughter  of  Louis  XII.  of  France.  He  is  said 
to  have  afterwards  gone  on  his  knees — a  daring  act  under 
the  circumstances — to  persuade  the  King  to  give  up  Anne. 
Motives  of  an  unworthy  character  have  been  attributed  to 
Wolsey  in  bringing  about  the  divorce  from  Catherine.  He 
aspired  to  the  Papal  chair,  in  which  he  was  thwarted  by" 
Catherine's  nephew,  Charles  V.,  in  breach  of  promises 
given  in  that  behalf.  He  was  also  offended  with  the 
Queen  for  having  rebuked  him  for  his  luxuriousness  and 

"  State  Papers,"  vol.  iii.  p.  193. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  47 


lax  life.  By  this  advocacy  of  the  divorce  he  sought  to 
humiliate  the  two.  It  is  difficult,  at  this  distant  period,  to 
speculate  on  motives  in  the  absence  of  precise  evidence. 
It  is,  nevertheless,  the  fact  that  Wolsey's  secret,  compro- 
mising correspondence  with  the  Pope,  was  discovered,  which 
exasperated  the  King  against  the  Cardinal. 

Archbishop  Warham  ultimately  decided  in  favour  of  the 
King's  divorce.  He  said  that  "truth  and  judgment  of  law 
must  be  followed."^ 

We  now  hear  for  the  first  time  of  the  appearance  of  Dr 
Cranmer  on  the  scene,  which  will  form  the  subject  of 
another  Chapter. 

'  "  State  Papers,"  vol.  i.  pp.  195,  196. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


cranmer's  participation  in  the  proceedings  of 

THE  divorce  of  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE. 

We  left  Dr  Cranmer  acting  as  Lecturer  on  Divinity  and 
Tutor  at  the  University  of  Cambridge. 

In  September  1529  a  plague,  known  as  the  "  sweating 
sickness,"  broke  out  with  great  violence,  especially  at  Cam- 
bridge. Dr  Cranmer  had  then  under  his  charge  two  of  the 
sons  of  Mr  Cressy,  who  was  in  some  way  related  to  his  wife. 
Mr  Cressy  was  living  at  Waltham  Abbey,  in  Essex.  To 
avoid  the  contagion,  Dr  Cranmer  went  on  a  visit  with  his 
two  pupils  to  Mr  Cressy. 

By  chance — but  as  Bishop  Hall  said,  "  God  lays  these 
small  accidents  for  the  ground  of  greater  designs" — the 
King,  on  his  journey  northwards,  or  as  some  assert,  to  avoid 
the  plague-stricken  districts,  passed  through  Waltham 
Cross,  where  he  remained  for  the  night.  The  King's 
secretary,  Stephen  Gardyner,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Win- 
chester, and  Foxe,  the  royal  almoner,  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Hereford,  were  also  the  guests  of  Mr  Cressy  while  Dr 
Cranmer  was  there.  At  supper,  the  King's  matrimonial 
position  and  the  protracted  negotiations  with  Rome  for  a 
divorce  were  naturally  the  subjects  of  conversation,  when 
Cranmer  expressed  his  opinions  freely,  that  it  was  contrary 
to  Scripture  to  marry  a  brother's  widow,  and  recommended 
that,  instead  of  a  long  and  fruitless  negotiation  v/ith  Rome, 
it  were  better  to  consult  all  the  learned  men  of  the  univer- 
sities of  Europe ;  for,  if  they  declared  the  marriage  illegal, 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  49 


then  the  Pope  must  needs  give  judgment,  or,  otherwise, 
the  original  Bull  being  void,  the  marriage  would  be  found 
sinful,  notwithstanding  the  Pope's  dispensation.  This  ad- 
vice was  communicated  to  the  King,  who  eventually  com- 
manded that  Cranmer  should  commit  his  opinion  to  writ- 
ing. Cranmer  was  placed,  at  the  request  of  the  King, 
under  the  care  and  hospitality  of  Sir  Thomas  Boleyn,  with 
leisure  to  prosecute  his  work.  Sir  Thomas  was  then  as 
well  a  friend,  as  also  a  prominent  character  in  the  Court,  of 
the  King.  This  circumstance  has  given  occasion  to  the 
charge  that  Cranmer  was  made  a  creature  of  that  family, 
introduced  by  Henry  to  promote  his  own  erotic  views. 
Dr  Lingard,  without  the  slightest  evidence,  asserts  that 
"  Cranmer  was  a  dependent  on  the  family  of  the  King's 
mistress."  If  this  be  applied  to  Anne  Boleyn,  it  is  a  most 
dastardly  libel  on  the  fair  fame  of  Sir  Thomas  Boleyn  and 
of  his  virtuous  wife,  suggesting  that  they  could  be  parties 
to  such  a  base  transaction  as  is  here  insinuated.  Sir 
Thomas  Boleyn  was  a  man  "  most  honourably  distinguished 
for  his  piety,  intelligence,  and  learning."  His  friend 
Erasmus  describes  him  not  only  as  an  accomplished  Peer 
(then  Earl  of  Wiltshire),  but  as  a  person  of  quiet  and 
unambitious  habits,  and  above  all  suspicion  of  having 
instigated  the  divorce.  ^ 

While  a  guest  of  Sir  Thomas  Boleyn,  Cranmer  drew  up 
a  treatise,  maintaining  that  the  marriage  of  Henry  with 
his  brother's  widow  was  condemned  by  the  authority  of 
the  Scriptures,  Councils,  and  Fathers,  and  by  the  Canon 
Law ;  and  he  further  denied  that  the  dispensing  power  of 
the  Pope  could  give  validity  to  an  union  expressly  prohi- 
bited by  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  he  declared  his  readiness 
to  defend  his  opinion  before  the  Pope  himself  if  the  King 

^Erasmus.    "Ep."  1253.    Vol.  iii.  col.  1472.    Edit.  Lug.  Batav.  1703, 

D 


50  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


desired  it.  This  work  is  said  to  have  been  executed  with 
great  ability,  and  excited  much  attention.  It  was  laid  be- 
fore the  Universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  and  the 
House  of  Commons.  Notwithstanding  this  wide  publicity, 
not  a  copy  now  exists.^ 

The  King  availed  himself  of  Cranmer's  suggestion,  and 
accordingly  sent  him  to  Rome,  where  he,  with  a  deputation 
of  English  divines,  after  presenting  the  Pope  with  a  copy 
of  his  book,  offered  to  contend  with  him  the  two  proposi- 
tions :  "  That  no  man  jure  divino  could  or  ought  to  marry 
his  brother's  widow,"  and  "  That  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ought 
by  no  means  to  dispense  to  the  contrary'."  The  Pope  was 
interested  so  far  only  as  his  personal  safety  was  concerned. 
His  position  was  embarrassing  for  the  reasons  before 
alleged,  and  he  wearied  out  the  embassy  by  delays,  refus- 
ing permission  that  Cranmer  should  maintain  his  opinions 
in  public  ;  but,  in  order  to  reward  Cranmer,  or  conciliate 
him,  the  Pope  conferred  on  him  the  title  of  the  "  King's 
Supreme  Penitentiary  of  England." 

In  1530  Dr  Cranmer  proceeded  to  seek  the  opinions  of 
the  Universities.  The  judgment  of  the  English  bishops 
(except  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester)  had  been  obtained 
4th  April  1530,  declaring  the  nullity  of  the  King's  mar- 
riage with  Catherine.  This  decision  was  approved  of, 
ratified,  and  confirmed  by — 

The  Universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge. — 8th  April 
1530. 

The  University  of  Orleans. — 7th  April  1530. 

^  I  ma)'  here  mention  that  Cranmer  is  accused  of  having  advocated  the 
divorce  and  second  marriage,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  King's  alleged  illicit 
intercourse  with  one  or  other  of  Sir  Thomas  Boleyn's  daughters,  Mary  or 
Anne,  and  this  is  attempted  to  be  established  on  the  authority  of  a  manuscript 
in  the  British  Museum,  attributed  to  Cranmer.  Not  to  interrupt  the  narra- 
tive, I  have  placed  my  objections  to  this  document  in  an  Appendix  to  the 
present  chapter. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VHI.  FROM  CATHERINE.        5  I 


The  Faculty  of  the  Civil  and  Canon  Law  at  Angers. — 
7th  May  1530. 

The  Faculty  of  Divines  at  Bruges. —  lOth  June  1530. 

The  Divines  of  Bologna. — loth  June  1530. 

The  University  of  Padua. —  loth  July  1 530. 

The  celebrated  Faculty  of  Sorbonne  at  Paris.'' — 2nd  July 
1530. 

The  Divines  of  Ferrara. — 29th  September  1530. 

The  University  of  Toulouse. — ist  October  1530. 

By  the  most  famous  Jewish  Rabbis,  and  by  a  large 
number  of  the  Canonists  in  Venice,  in  Rome  itself,  and 
many  other  places. 

Many  of  the  Cardinals  at  Rome  sided  with  the  King. 
Even  Cardinal  Pole  at  one  time  warmly  espoused  Henry's 
divorce.- 

It  is  important  to  note,  to  the  credit  of  the  Reformers, 
that  Luther,  Melancthon,  and  others,  gave  their  opinion 
that  the  marriage  was  void ;  but  they  maintained  that  the 
King  should  not  marry  again  during  Catherine's  lifetime.^ 

It  is  asserted,  and  perhaps  on  good  grounds,  that  the 
two  English  Universities  were  coerced  in  giving  their  judg- 
ment. But  when  it  is  also  asserted  that  the  Continental 
Universities  were  bribed  to  give  their  decision  in  favour  of 
the  divorce,  such  a  statement,  if  true,  must  leave  us  to 
arrive  at  the  unpleasant  conclusion  that  the  entire  Roman 
Catholic  community  on  the  Continent  was  devoid  of  every 
principle  of  justice  and  honour;  an  admission  most  damag- 

^  The  Faculty  declared  "that  the  marriage  of  the  King  of  England  was 
unlawful,  and  that  the  Pope  had  no  power  to  dispense  on  it ;  "  and  to  this  they 
attached  their  common  seal. 

^  See  Pocock's  edit,  of  Burnet's  "History  of  the  Reformation,"  Preface,  p. 
XXX.    Oxford,  1865. 

^  See  "Colloquia  Mensallia "  [or  Table  Talk].     Bell's  2d  Edit.,  folio, 

1 79 1,  pp-  398 -g- 


52 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


ing  to  the  cause  of  the  unreformed  Church,  and  to  that  of 
the  detractors  of  Cranmer. 

On  the  13th  July  1530  the  King  caused  a  Memorial  to 
be  prepared,  to  be  submitted  to  the  Pope,  to  which  Arch- 
bishop Warham,  Cardinal  Wolsey,  four  other  bishops, 
forty  noblemen,  and  eleven  commoners,  put  their  sig- 
natures, representing  the  justness  of  the  King's  cause,  the 
concurrence  of  the  English  and  foreign  Universities,  the 
unwarrantable  delays  interposed  ;  and,  in  fact,  they 
threatened  other  remedies  if  further  difficulties  were 
interposed. 

The  matter  was  then  referred  to  the  House  of  Commons 
and  to  Convocation,  both  of  which  bodies  decided  the 
marriage  to  be  illegal. 

It  appears  that  Sir  Thomas  More  at  first  considered 
the  marriage  with  Catherine  illegal,  and  indeed  "  approved 
of  the  divorce,  and  had  great  hopes  of  success  in  it,  as  long 
as  it  was  prosecuted  at  Rome,  and  founded  on  the 
defects  in  the  Bull "  of  Pope  Julius.  When  the  opinions 
of  the  Universities  were  brought  to  England  against  the 
marriage,  he  took  them  down  to  the  House  of  Commons 
and  had  them  read  there,  and  requested  them  to  convey 
the  information  to  their  several  constituents,  "  and  then 
all  men  would  openly  perceive  that  the  King  had  not 
attempted  this  matter  of  his  will  and  pleasure,  but  only  for 
the  discharge  of  his  conscience.  More  was  a  man  of 
greater  integrity  than  to  have  said  this,  if  he  had  thought 
the  marriage  valid ;  so  that  he  had  either  afterwards 
changed  his  mind,  or  did  at  this  time  dissemble  too  arti- 
ficially with  the  King.""  Burnet  points  out  the  fact  that 
Henry  would  scarcely  have  raised  More  to  the  Chancellor- 

'  See  Pocock's  edition  of  Burnet's  "  History  of  the  Protestant  Reformation," 
vol.  iv.  p.  552.    Oxford,  1865. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE. 


53 


ship  had  he  opposed  the  divorce  by  maintaining  the 
vaHdity  of  the  first  marriage. 

Can  any  one  be  surprised  that  the  King  of  England  now 
entertained  a  supreme  contempt  for  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
for  his  vacillating  and  time-serving  conduct Accord- 
ingly, in  September  1530,  the  King's  Ambassadors  at 
Rome  were  commanded,  in  the  King's  name,  to  refuse  to 
pay  submission  to  the  Pope,  or  to  appear  to  a  citation 
before  the  Court  of  Rome. 

Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  in  his  history  of  "  The  Life 
and  Reign  of  Henry  VHI.,"  gives  the  text  of  a  letter, 
under  date  17th  September  1530,  written  to  Henry  by 
Gregory  Cassalis,  his  agent  at  the  Court  of  Rome,  the 
original  of  which  he  declares  to  have  himself  examined.  In 
this  letter  Cassalis  informs  the  King  that  Pope  Clement 
Vn.,  admitting  the  importance  of  the  matter,  had  pro- 
posed to  concede  to  his  Majesty  the  permission  even  of 
having  two  wives,'  under  the  supposition,  perhaps,  of  being 
unable  to  revoke  the  act  of  his  predecessor,  Julius  H.,  by 
granting  a  divorce  from  a  marriage  sanctioned  by  a  Papal 
Bull,  but  that  he  might  exercise  his  assumed  prerogative 
by  granting  additional  privileges  without  running  counter 
to  existing  impediments. 

On  the  1st  June  1531  a  deputation,  consisting  of  the 
Duke  of  Norfolk,  the  Earls  of  Shrewsbury,  Northumber- 
land, and  Wiltshire,  with  several  other  Peers,  the  Bishops 
of  Lincoln  and  London,  Drs.  Lee,  Sampson,  and  Gardyner, 
waited  on  the  King,  supporting  the  divorce. 

^  "  Superioribus  diebus,  Pontifex  secreto,  veluti  rem  magni  fecerit,  mihi  pro- 
posuit  conditionem  hujusniodi,  concedi  posse  vestras  Majestati,  et  duas  uxores 
habeas." — Herbert's  "Life  and  Reign  of  Henry  VIII."  p.  130.  London, 
1683.  Pope  Clement's  Bull,  issued  in  1528,  authorised  Wolsey,  jointly  with 
Warham,  or  any  other  Bishop,  to  give  sentence,  and  to  grant  the  King  and 
Queen  permission  to  marry  again. 


54  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


It  may  here  be  noted  that  Cardinal  Wolsey  died  on  the 
27th  November  1530,  which  accounts  for  the  fact  of  his 
name  not  appearing  in  these  transactions  after  that  date. 

On  the  14th  July  1531,  the  King  publicly  and  finally 
separated  from  Catherine  ;  having  practically,  and  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  done  so  previously  in  1527,  if  not 
before. 

7th  February  1532,  the  Cardinal  of  Ravenna  was  bribed 
to  advocate  the  King's  suit ;  and  the  Cardinals  of  Ancona 
and  Monte  (the  latter  afterwards  Pope  Julius  III.)  sided 
with  the  King. 

We  would  now  ask  any  reasoning  man,  why  Dr  Cranmer 
should  be  singled  out  and  stigmatised  for  holding  an 
opinion,  which  was  supported  by  such  a  phalanx  of 
prelates  and  divines,  indeed  by  the  learned  of  universal 
Christendom 

Warham,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  died  22d  August 
1532. 

On  the  25th  January  1533,  the  King  married  Anne 
Boleyn,  six  years  after  his  virtual  separation  from 
Catherine ;  and  this  took  place  while  Dr  Cranmer  was 
abroad.  We  would  urge  the  reader  to  weigh  well  all  the 
events  of  the  intervening  period  ;  the  Pope's  conduct,  the 
want  of  a  legitimate  heir  to  the  throne,  the  anxiety  of  the 
King's  subjects  on  this  head,  and  the  ominous  fulfilment, 
as  it  appeared,  of  Scripture,  by  the  successive  deaths  of 
the  issue  of  this  first  marriage.  To  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses the  King  was,  according  to  Roman  Canon  Law, 
legally  severed  from  Catherine.  The  Pope's  sanction  had 
been  virtually  pledged,  and  all  that  was  wanting,  accord- 
ing to  the  then  accepted  notions,  was  the  formal  Bull  of 
Divorce,  which  was  withheld,  not  from  motives  of  religion, 
or  for  conscience'  sake — nothing  of  the  kind — but  from  fear 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  55 


of  the  Emperor  Charles.  An  appeal  to  the  court  of  Rome 
would  only,  as  the  Pope  himself  suggested,  have  compli- 
cated matters.  Was  not,  therefore,  the  King  of  England 
fully  justified  (even  if  no  other  considerations  led  to  the 
important  step)  in  passing — not  all  of  a  sudden,  as  untruth- 
fully alleged  —  the  Act  prohibiting  appeals  to  Rome  ? 
It  was  not  until  November  1534  that  the  Act  (26  Henry 
VIII.  c.  i)  was  passed,  declaring  the  King  of  England  the 
Supreme  Head  on  Earth  of  the  Church  in  this  country. 
And  here  again  attention  is  drawn  to  the  Rev.  W.  Gleig's 
version,  in  the  School  Series  before  referred  to,  as  a 
further  illustration  of  the  fact,  that  our  prejudices  are  influ- 
enced by  early  training,  and  that  the  popular  elementary 
histories  of  the  present  day  perpetuate  known  fallacies. 
Mr  Gleig  makes  the  declaration  of  Henry  as  being 
"  Head  of  the  Church  of  England,"  previous  to  January 
1533,  the  date  of  the  marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn,  whereas 
the  Act,  as  stated,  was  passed  in  the  year  1534  (26  Henry 
VIII.  c.  i),  Wolsey  having  died  1530.  Mr  Gleig's  version 
is  as  follows  (p.  99) : — 

"  The  death  of  Wolsey  seemed  to  cut  away  the  King's  last  tie  to 
Rome.  He  at  once  threw  off  the  primacy  of  the  Pope.  He  declared 
himself  to  be  head  of  the  Church  in  England,  and  passed  sharp 
laws  against  such  as  should  dare  to  deny  that  he  was  so.  In  regard 
to  the  marriage,  he  acted  as  if  the  point  were  settled.  In  January 
1533  he  took  Anne  Boleyn  to  wife,  and  in  April  of  the  same  year  he 
had  her  treated  as  Queen  ;  and  then,  but  not  till  then,  he  caused 
Cranmer,  now  raised  to  the  See  of  Canterbury,  to  give  sentence '  that 
this  marriage  with  Catherine  had  been  against  law  from  the  first.  An 
Act  of  Parliament  confirmed  this  decree,  and  Catherine,  with  her 
daughter,  withdrew  from  public  life." 

We  now  come  to  another  important  fact ;  namely,  that 
on  the  2ist  February  1533  the  Pope  of  Rome  himself 

1  The  "sentence"  attributed  to  Cranmer  was  given  on  the  23d  May, 
Anne  was  not  crowned  till  1st  June  1533. 


56  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


signed  the  Bull  of  Cranmer's  consecration  as  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury.  It  was  sent  on  the  2d  March,  and  Cran- 
mer  was  consecrated  on  the  30th  March,  1533.  The  fact 
that  the  Pope  himself  thus  approved  and  ratified  Henry's 
selection  of  Cranmer,  must  be  somewhat  embarrassing  to 
those  who  boldly  assert  that  Henry  made  the  selection  of 
one  he  considered  he  could  easily  use  as  a  pliant  instru- 
ment to  carry  out  his  divorce  scheme  in  opposition  to  the 
Pope's  sanction.  The  Pope  was  perfectly  aware  of  the  part 
Cranmer  was  taking  in  the  matter.  At  this  time  Cranmer 
held  the  appointment  of  Archdeacon  of  Taunton,  and  was 
also  one  of  the  King's  chaplains.  It  is  true  he  received 
the  emoluments  of  his  archdeaconry  without  doing  the 
duties,  but  that  was  a  recognised  abuse  in  those  days, 
extensively  patronised  by  the  Pope  himself  Leo  X.  held 
a  benefice  when  he  was  seven  years  old,  and  he  sub- 
sequently held  thirty  different  preferments  in  the  Church ! 
Pluralities  of  livings  was  one  of  the  great  abuses  while  the 
Pope  held  rule  in  England.  It  is,  however,  a  fact  that 
Cranmer  refused  to  accept  the  Pope's  Bull  for  his  con- 
secration, but  delivered  it  over  to  the  King,  as  he  did  not 
consider  this  form  necessary  to  the  validity  of  his  appoint- 
ment ;  and  on  taking  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  Pope, 
before  his  consecration,  which  was  the  custom  of  the  day, 
he  accompanied  it  with  a  public  protest :  "  That  he  did 
not  admit  the  Pope's  authority  any  further  than  it  agreed 
with  the  express  Word  of  God  ;  and  that  it  might  be  lawful 
for  him  at  all  times  to  speak  against  him,  and  to  impugn 
his  errors  when  there  should  be  occasion."  This  he  thrice 
repeated  in  the  presence  of  official  witnesses.^ 

In  April  1533  the  Upper  and  Lower  Houses  of  Convo- 

1  This  oath  to  the  Pope,  and  a  like  oath  to  the  King,  will  be  the  subject  for 
consideration  in  a  separate  chapter. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  57 


cation  declared  the  nullity  of  the  first  marriage,  and  it  was 
on  the  loth  March  1533  that  the  bishops  and  archbishops 
held  a  consistory,  over  which  Cranmer,  in  his  official  capacity 
as  Primate,  presided.  "  Though  he  pronounced  sentence,  he 
was  but  the  mouthpiece  of  the  rest,  and  they  were  all  as 
deep  as  he."  ^  And  on  the  23d  they  came  to  a  unanimous 
decision,  declaring  that  the  first  marriage  was  void  de  facto 
et  de  jure.  Those  who  sided  with  Cranmer  in  the  decision 
were  (among  others) :  Gardyner,  Stokesly,  Clerk,  and 
Longland  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  Winchester,  London,  Bath, 
and  Lincoln.^ 

It  is  this  solemn  decision  of  the  united  bench  of 
archbishops  and  bishops  in  council  which  has  been 
erroneously  set  down  as  "  Cranmer's  sentence,"  and 
the  Convocation  itself  "  a  sort  of  tribunal " !  It  was 
the  sentence  of  the  entire  court,  the  highest  ecclesiastical 
court  in  this  country,  confirming  the  previous  decision  of 
universal  Christendom.  Cranmer  did  nothing  more  than 
proclaim  or  record  the  decision  of  the  court  over  which  he 
presided  by  virtue  of  his  of¥ice  as  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, or  Primate  of  all  England.  Could  the  court  have 
arrived  at  any  other  result .''  or  could  its  President  have 
recorded  any  other  decision Cranmer's  detractors  seem 
to  overlook  this  ;  as  also  that  the  judgment  was  according 
to  the  rule  then,  as  well  as  now,  almost  unanimously  re- 
ceived and  acknowledged — namely,  that  the  marriage  with 
a  brother's  widow  was  accounted  incestuous,  and  forbidden 
as  well  by  the  law  of  God  as  by  the  law  of  nature ;  a  moral 
precept  insisted  on  more  particularly  by  that  very  class  of 
persons  who  are  most  vehement  against  Cranmer — mem- 

^  Strypc's  "Life  of  Cranmer,"  b.  i.  c.  iv.  p.  21  (folio  edit.). 
^  See  Pocock's  edit,  of  "Burnet's  History  of  the  I'rotestant  Reformation," 
vol.  iv.  pp.  561-2.    Oxford,  1865. 


58  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


bers  of  the  Roman  Communion.  It  is,  therefore,  an  act 
of  injustice  to  impute  to  this  Council  or  to  Cranmer,  who 
only  endorsed  the  opinion  of  the  divines  and  learned  men 
of  Europe,  any  motive  other  than  an  honest  conviction  in 
the  justice  of  their  decision.  They  seem  to  forget  that  if 
Cranmer  "  aided  and  abetted"  Henry  VIII.  in  an  unholy 
cause,  and  that  Henry  pursued  this  course  without  any 
just  ground,  and  only  to  gratify  an  inordinate  passion,^  the 
bishops,  cardinals,  divines,  universities,  canonists,  and 
even  the  Pope  himself,  'were  guilty  as  his  accomplices ! 
All  were  members,  most  of  them  priests,  of  the  unreformed 
Church  of  Rome.  The  Reformation  in  this  country  did 
not  actually  commence  until  the  succeeding  reign. 

After  such  a  unanimous  and  solemn  decision  of  universal 
Christendom,  what  virtue  could  there  be  in  a  Bull  of  con- 
firmation by  a  Pope, — in  a  Bull  already  promised,  but  with- 
held only  from  fear  and  from  worldly  motives 

In  the  month  following,  viz.,  ist  June  1533,  Anne  was 
crowned  Queen.  The  ceremony  was  attended  by  bishops, 
monks,  and  abbots,  among  whom  the  Bishop  of  Bayonne 
took  a  conspicuous  part ;  they  joined  in  the  procession, 
and  the  Bishops  of  London  and  Winchester  bore  the 
lappets  of  her  robe,  thus  giving  this  marriage  their  moral 
support  and  sanction.  Cranmer  in  one  of  his  letters  men- 
tions the  Bishops  of  York,  London,  Winchester,  Lincoln, 
Bath,  and  St  Asaph  as  taking  part  in  it. 

On  the  I2th  May  1533  the  Pope  cited  Henry  to  appear  at 
Rome,  being  urged  on  by  the  Emperor  to  proceed  to  excom- 
munication ;  but  the  Pope  hesitated,  and  waited  the  result  of 
the  proposed  interview  with  Francis  I.  on  the  subject,  which 

1  "  Nothing,"  says  Dr  Milner,  "than  the  King's  inordinate  passion,  and  not 
the  Word  of  God,  was  the  rule  followed  in  this  first  important  chatige  of 
our  national  religion." — "  End  of  Religious  Controversy,"  Letter  viii. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  59 


it  was  hoped  would  bring  about  a  reconciliation.  On  the 
29th  June  the  King  appealed  from  the  Pope  to  a  General 
Council.  On  the  news  of  the  King's  marriage  arriving  at 
Rome,  the  Pope  was  so  exasperated,  that  in  a  fit  of  passion 
he  threatened  to  boil  Bonner,  the  King's  messenger,  in 
molten  lead,  or  burn  him  alive.  But  he  considered  it 
more  prudent  to  reserve  his  wrath  ;  and  he  postponed  his 
judgment  on  the  case  to  the  nth  July,  when  he  issued  a 
Brief  reversing  the  sentence  of  Convocation,  and  com- 
manded Henry  to  cancel  the  process ;  and  if  he  failed  to 
obey,  he  was  to  be  declared  excommunicated  ;  but  he  still 
suspended  his  formal  censures.^     Henry  refused  to  retract. 

Elizabeth,  afterwards  queen,  was  born  7th  September 
1533.  that  is,  ten  months  after  the  King's  marriage  with 
Anne  Boleyn — namely  (according  to  Sanders),  the  14th 
November  previous.  After  that  date  the  King  was  never 
publicly  married  to  the  Queen,  as  alleged  ;  what  Sanders 
calls  a  public  marriage  was  only  the  King's  open  introduc- 
tion of  the  Queen  in  public. '  It  was  on  this  day,  7th 
September,  that  the  Pope,  on  the  interference  of  Francis  I., 
King  of  France,  promised  to  give  his  sanction  in  favour  of 
the  divorce,  provided  the  King  submitted  to  his  (the  Pope's) 
jurisdiction.  Francis  urged  upon  the  Pope  the  necessity  of 
complying  with  Henry's  demand.  The  Pope,  on  this 
occasion,  said  to  Francis — and  which  the  King  of  France 
communicated  to  Henry  by  letter^ — that  he,  the  Pope,  zvas 

"State  Papers,"  vol.  viii.  p.  481.  I  am  now  citing  these  facts  in  chrono- 
logical Older,  more  especially  in  answer  to  the  popular  version  put  forth,  re- 
ferred to  in  the  several  writers  cited  in  note,  p.  14,  ante.  I  shall  have  again 
to  refer  to  some  of  these  events,  more  particularly  affecting  Cranmer  and  the 
part  he  took  in  them. 

^  See  Pocock's  edit,  of  "Burnet's  Ilist.  of  the  Prot.  Reformation,"  vol.  iv. 
p.  563.    Oxford,  1865. 

*  See  Froude's  "History  of  England,"  vol.  ii.  p.  151,  1858,  and  "State 
Papers,"  vol.  i.  p.  421. 


6o  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


satisfied  that  the  King  of  England  was  right,  that  his  cause 
•was  good,  and  that  he  had  only  to  acknowledge  the  Papal 
jurisdiction  by  some  formal  act  to  find  sentence  immediately 
given  in  his  favour ;  a  single  act  of  recognition  was  all  the 
Pope  required.  The  French  monarch  was  commissioned  to 
offer  a  league  offensive  and  defensive  between  England, 
France,  and  the  Papacy.  These  were  to  be  the  terms  of 
proposed  concession  !  Henry  VIII..  however,  replied  with 
calm  dignity  befitting  the  high  position  he  held  in  Europe, 
and  as  King  of  England.  He  rejected  the  proposal  with 
temperate  forbearance,  and  sent  for  reply: — 

"That  all  his  acts,  from  the  commencement  of  his  reign,  proved  that 
he  was  well  disposed  to  the  Pope  ;  but,  as  matters  stood,  he  would 
make  no  conditions.  It  would,"  he  said,  "  redound  much  to  the  Pope's, 
dishonour,  if  he  should  seem  to  pact  and  covenant  for  the  administra- 
tion of  that  thing  which,  in  his  conscience,  he  had  adjudged  to  be 
rightful.  It  was  not  to  be  doubted  that,  if  he  had  determined  to  give 
sentence  for  the  nullity  of  the  first  marriage,  he  had  established  in  his 
own  conscience  a  firm  persuasion  that  he  ought  to  do  so  ;  and  there- 
fore, he  should  do  his  duty  simpliciter  et gratis,  without  worldly  respect, 
or  for  the  preservation  of  his  pretended  power  or  authority."  .  .  . 
"  To  see  him,"  continued  Henry,  "  to  have  this  opinion,  and  yet  refuse 
to  give  judgment  in  our  behalf,  unless  we  shall  be  content,  for  his  bene- 
fit and  pleasure  cedere  juri  suo ;  and  to  do  something  prejudicial  to 
our  subjects  and  contrary  to  our  honour,  it  is  easy  to  be  foreseen 
what  the  world  and  posterity  shall  judge  of  so  base  a  prostitution  of 
justice." 

Henry  declined  to  barter  his  dignity  and  the  welfare  and 
credit  of  his  country  for  a  second  wife  1 

That  the  Pope  of  Rome  was  not  actuated  by  any  prin- 
ciple of  religion  or  morality  in  refusing  to  confirm  the 
original  consent  given  for  the  divorce,  becomes  more  ap- 
parent when  we  find  that  Pope  Pius  V. — the  same  Pope 
who  afterwards  excommunicated  Elizabeth — so  late  even  as 
the  year  1 566,  thirty-three  years  after  the  birth  of  Eliza- 
beth, offered  to  remove  the  impediment  of  her  supposed 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.        6  I 


illegitimacy,  and  "reverse  the  sentence  of  his  predecessor." 
Yes,  "and  that  he  was  extremely  anxious  to  do  so"  on 
condition,  of  course,  that  Elizabeth  should  "  submit  to 
his  rule  "  !  i  The  Spanish  ambassador,  De  Silva,  assured 
Queen  Elizabeth  that — "  She  had  only  to  express  a  desire 
to  that  effect,  and  the  Pope  would  immediately  remove  the 
difficulty."  2 

If  Henry,  as  is  alleged,  was  actuated  by  "  inordinate  pas- 
sion," the  Pope  was  most  certainly  moved  by  an  inordinate 
love  of  power.  But  we  cannot  admit  that  the  Pope  was 
"  conscientiously  inflexible,"  or  that  the  "  creed  of  the  Pro- 
testants "  was  "  more  accommodating  than  the  "  (so-called) 
"  old  religion  which  could  not  tolerate  such  a  scandal,"  or 
that  Henry  "  was  baffled  by  the  incorruptible  virtue  of 
Rome,  "  as  alleged  by  Dr  Milner  ;  the  fact  being  that  the 
Pope  had  fixed  his  price  for  his  consent,  but  it  was 
Henry,  as  also  Elizabeth,  and  not  the  Pope,  who  were 
"  incorruptible." 

Henry  and  his  Parliament  acted  with  becoming  dignity 
and  without  haste.  The  interview  above  alluded  to 
occurred  early  in  September  1533.  The  King's  answer  was 
returned  in  November  following,  and  it  was  not  until  the 
30th  March  1534,  after  the  Pope  had  refused  Henry's  appeal 
to  a  General  Council,  and  that  his  sentence  had  come  into 
force  by  reason  of  Henry's  non-compliance  with  the  order 
of  1 2th  July  1533,  that  the  English  Parliament  passed 
the  Act  abolishing  the  Pope's  jurisdiction  in  England  ;  but 
the  Commons,  by  the  Act  25  Henry  VHI.  c.  21,  expressly 
declared  that  a  separation  from  the  Pope  was  not  a  separa- 
tion from  the  unity  of  the  Church.    The  Pope,  having  no- 

!  Calling  her  his  "  dear  daughter  in  Christ." 

"  See  De  Silva's  letter  to  Philip  II.,  dated  December  1566,  quoted  by 
Froude  in  extenso  in  his  "  History  of  England  ;  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,"  vol. 
viii.  pp.  329,  330,    London,  1863. 


62 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRAMNER. 


thing  better  to  fall  back  upon,  on  the  23d  March  1534 
confirmed  the  sentence  against  the  divorce ;  not  in  conse- 
quence, however,  of  this  Act — they  came  almost  together 
— but  probably  in  consequence  of  Henry's  letter,  backed  by 
the  promise  and  support  of  Charles  V/ 

In  1535,  Paul  III.,  the  very  same  Paul  III.  who,  when  a 
Cardinal,  in  all  the  debates  at  the  Court  of  Rome,  had  un- 
swervingly advocated  the  King's  suit  for  a  divorce,  and 
maintained  the  justice  of  his  demands  ;  and  who,  even  after 
the  sentence  against  Henry  was  pronounced  at  Rome, 
urged  the  reconsideration  of  the  fatal  step,^ — this  same 
Paul  III.  issued  a  Bull  of  Deposition  of  Henry  VIII.,  curs- 
ing and  anathematising  him  and  his  posterity,  absolving 
all  his  subjects  from  their  allegiance, — a  document  which  the 
King  of  France  declared  to  be  a  most  impudent  produc- 
tion, and  that  the  Pope's  "  impotent  threats  could  not  only 
do  no  good,  but  would  make  him  the  laughing-stock  of 
the  world."  3  So  little  was  the  Pope's  "  impotent  threat  " 
estimated  by  the  English  ecclesiastics,  that  the  bishops 
then  in  England,  nineteen  in  number,  and  twenty-five 
doctors  of  divinity  and  law,  signed  a  declaration  against 

1  David  Lewis,  in  his  "  Reformation  Settlement,"  p.  30,  note,  says  : — "  The 
Papal  judgment  affirming  the  validity  of  the  King's  marriage  with  Catherine 
was  given  at  Rome  on  the  23d  March  1534,  or  a  year  after  the  decision  of  the 
English  Church  against  it,  and  a  week  before  the  rejection  of  the  Papal  supre- 
macy and  jurisdiction  by  Convocation,  which  could  not  then  have  heard  of  the 
sentence  passed  at  Rome." 

2  See  the  facts  stated  by  Mr  Froude,  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  ii.  p.  332. 
London,  1858. 

3  "  State  Papers,"  vol.  viii.  p.  628,  quoted  by  Froude.  It  must  not  be  left 
unnoticed  that  the  actual  publication  and  issue  of  this  Bull  has  been  denied. 
Dr  Lingard  denies  that  there  is  any  evidence  to  show  that  the  Bull  of  Excom- 
munication was  published  ;  and  the  Rev.  Richard  Watson  Dixon,  in  his  "  His- 
tory of  the  Church  of  England,"  vol.  ii.  p.  97,  London,  1881,  throws  great 
doubts  on  its  authenticity,  stating  that  Sanders  was  the  first,  in  1588,  who 
gives  a  summary  of  the  Bull,  and  he  states  that  he  is  unable  to  discover  where 
Burnet  obtained  the  text  he  prints.  Froude,  on  the  other  hand,  seems  to 
have  no  doubt  of  its  actual  publication. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  63 


the  Pope's  pretensions  and  his  assumed  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction, which  concluded  with  the  following  remarkable 
words  : — "  The  people  ought  to  be  instructed  that  Christ 
did  expressly  forbid  the  Apostles  or  their  successors  to  take 
to  themselves  the  power  of  the  sword  or  the  authority  of 
kings ;  and  that  if  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  or  any  other 
bishop,  assumed  any  such  power,  he  was  a  tyrant  and 
usurper  of  other  men's  rights,  and  a  subverter  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Christ." '  The  House  of  Lords  passed  a  Bill 
ratifying  the  marriage  of  Henry  and  Anne  Boleyn,  and 
settled  the  succession  on  their  issue. 

It  was  in  May  1537  that  Anne  was  accused  and  found 
guilty  of  adultery,  to  which  we  shall  have  again  to  refer. 
Paul  HI.  attempted  to  take  advantage  of  the  circum- 
stance of  Anne's  misdemeanour.  He  hoped  Henry  would 
have  relented,  and  return  to  his  allegiance.  He  sent 
again  for  Sir  Gregory  Cassalis,  and  renewed  the  former 
negotiations.  He  expressed  his  satisfaction  that  God  had 
delivered  the  King  from  his  unhappy  connexion ;  he 
assured  the  King's  ambassador  that  he  waited  only  for  the 
most  trifling  intimation  of  a  desire  for  reunion  to  send  a 
Nuncio  to  England  to  compose  all  differences,  and  to  grant 
everything  which  the  King  could  wish.  He  hinted  that  a 
union  with  Henry  would  make  them  arbiters  of  Europe, 
and  that  they  could  thus  dictate  their  own  terms  to  the 
Emperor  and  Francis  I.  In  the  contemplation  of  this 
"  holy  alliance  "  he  conveniently  forgot  the  "  Clementine 
League,"  and  carefully  glossed  over  the  formidable  Brief  of 
Dispensation  as  a  mere  official  form,  which  there  had  been 
no  thought  of  enforcing,  reminding  Cassalis  that  from  the 
first  he  had  been  a  constant  friend  of  Henry,  urging  (when 

'  Quoted  by  Burnet,  "  History  of  the  Reformation,"  fol.  i.  b.  iii.,  vol.  i.  p. 
399.    Narcs'  edit.,  1830. 


64  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


himself  a  cardinal)  on  his  predecessor  and  on  the  Emperor 

Charles  to  sanction  the  divorce,  and  only  from  external 

pressure  "seeming  to  consent  to  extreme  measures,  which 

were  never  intended  to  be  enforced."  ^ 

Henry  VIII.  had  emancipated  himself  from  the  thraldom 

of  the  Papacy.    He  had  braved  the  supposed  danger  ;  he 

had  felt  the  extent  of  Papal  wrath,  and  the  anathemas 

passed  by  him  as  the  idle  winds — 

"  His  curses  and  his  blessings 
Touch  nie  ahke  ;  they  are  breath  I  not  believe  in." 

"  Henry  VIII.,"  Act  ii.,  Scene  ii. 

Henry  saw  no  reason  to  retract  his  steps,  and  therefore 
remained  firm  to  his  purpose. 

Such  is  the  simple  and  true  history  of  this  transaction. 
The  Pope  of  Rome,  from  motives  of  expediency,  gave  his 
sanction  to  an  illegal  union  between  Henry  and  Catherine. 
He  gave  his  written  sanction  also  for  a  divorce,  of  the 
same  Henry  from  Catherine,  but  from  fear  of  the  conse- 
quences he  withheld  the  formal  Bull  of  confirmation. 
He  dreaded  his  old  enemy  the  Emperor  Charles  V., 
Catherine's  nephew.  He  temporised  with  both  monarchs  ; 
he  was,  in  fact,  "  between  the  hammer  and  the  anvil ; "  and 
finally,  he  paid  the  penalty  of  his  vacillating  conduct ! 
Henry  very  properly  freed  himself,  according  to  the 
established  law  of  the  land,  from  the  trammels  of  a 
worldly,  time-serving  Bishop.  He  reasserted  the  dignity 
of  the  crown  of  England,  and  its  independence  of  a  foreign 
Priest. 

Cranmer's  share  in  these  transactions  (to  which  we  shall 
have  presently  to  refer  more  particularly),  save  as  Arch- 
bishop, was  no  greater  than  any  other  ecclesiastic  or  noble 
in  the  land. 

^  See  Letter  of  Sir  Gregory  Cassalis  to  Henry  VIII.,  Cotton  MS.  Vitel., 
b.  xiv.  fol.  215. 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  65 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  IV. 
Note  to  p.  50. 

It  has  been  asserted,  on  the  faith  of  a  manuscript  in  the  British 
Museum,  "Cotton  MSS.,  Vespas.,  B.  5,"  that  Cranmer  acted  with  a 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  alleged  fact,  that  Henry  had  had  illicit 
intercourse  either  with  Anne  or  with  her  sister  Mary,  and  that  there- 
fore criminal  intimacy  with  some  members  of  the  Boleyn  family 
formed  no  obstacle,  in  his  opinion,  to  the  marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn. 

The  charge  was  made  by  the  Rev.  Dr  Littledale,  in  his  Lecture  on 
"  Ritualistic  Innovations,"  Lond.,  1868,  p.  38,  and  which  I  challenged 
at  the  time  of  its  publication.  Dr  Littledale  states  that  "  Cranmer 
was  fully  aware  that,  whatever  the  merits  of  the  marriage  question  as 
between  Henry  and  Katharine  might  be,  there  was  one  obstacle, 
if  not  two,  fatal  to  the  legality  of  a  union  with  Anne  Boleyn.  Even  if 
Anne  were  not  betrothed  (some  say  actually  married)  to  Lord  Percy, 
at  any  rate  Henry  had  seduced  her  sister,  Mary  Boleyn,  a  fact  which 
the  law  of  that  day  righteously  held  to  create  a  relationship  between 
the  parties  which  made  such  a  marriage  as  Henry  planned  incestuous. 
Cranmer  drew  up  a  treatise  to  prove  that  the  obstacle  was  insignifi- 
cant." And  in  a  note  he  adds — "The  case  is  even  blacker  if  Henry 
was,  as  is  alleged,  the  seducer  of  Anne's  mother.  Lady  Boleyn,  also. 
The  King  denied  this,  but  it  is  very  significant  that  Cranmer,  in  the 
infamous  document  mentioned  (Cotton  MSS.,  Brit.  Mus.,  Vespas.  B. 
5),  actually  provides  for  this  abominable  contingency,  and  accounts  it 
of  no  moment." 

The  passage  relied  on  is  found  in  p.  81  of  the  MS.  : — 

"  Hence,  neither  the  Roman  Pontiff,  nor  the  whole  Church  together, 
can  convert  into  a  relation  by  birth  and  marriage  any  one  who  is  not 
naturally  such,  nor  divest  of  those  characters  one  who,  by  God  and 
nature,  is  thus  constituted  ;  rights  of  this  kind  being  rights  of  blood 
and  nature,  and  not  susceptible  of  change  and  variation  by  human 
expedients.  With  respect,  however,  to  the  affinity  founded  on  ecclesias- 
tical sanction  only,  the  case  is  different,  whether  it  has  arisen  from  illicit 
intercourse  with  the  sister,  daughter,  or  mother  of  a  wife ;  for  unques- 
tionably, by  no  means  whatever,  does  it  impede  by  natural  and  divine 
law,  but  by  human  law  only,  the  contraction  of  a  marriage,  and  by  no 
means  does  it  dissolve  it  when  contracted." 

"  Hinc,  nec  Romanus  Pontifex  neque  tola  simul  ecclesia  verum 
cognatum  et  affinem  efficere  possunt,  qui  non  est,  nec  ilium  destituere 
qui  a  Deo,  et  natura  constitutus  est,  cum  jura  hujusmodi,  jura  sangui- 

E 


66  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


nis  et  naturse  sunt,  quae  humana  ope  mutari  variarique  nequeunt.  De 
ea  vero  afifinitate,  quae  sanctione  ecclesiastica  solum  inventa  est, 
secus  ;  sive  cum  uxoris,  sorore  aut filia^  sen  maire,  ex  illegitimo  coitu, 
fuerit  orta,  quze  proculdubio  natural!  et  divino  jure,  nullo  quovis  mode 
impedit,  sed  humano  solum,  ne  matrimonium  contrahatur,  et  contrac- 
tum  dissolvit." 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  no  evidence  that  Cranmer  ever  wrote  this 
treatise  ;  it  bears  no  signature  nor  date,  and  is  a  fair  copy  of  some 
other  document.  After  having  carefully  studied  the  context,  I  am 
thoroughly  satisfied  that  the  writer  had  no  such  intention  in  his  mind 
as  imputed  to  him.  This  is  evident  on  the  face  of  it.  Incest,  that  is, 
marriage  within  the  prohibited  relationship,  he  says,  is  contrary  to 
the  law  of  God  and  of  the  Church,  but  affinity  contracted  by  carnal 
connexion  is  created  solely  by  human  institution  of  the  Church.  This 
disobedience  the  writer,  whoever  he  may  have  been,  tells  us  the 
Roman  Pontiff  can  easily  relax  by  the  grant  of  a  dispensation  (and 
Popes  had  repeatedly  acted  in  this  manner),  but  that  neither  the  Roman 
Pontiff  nor  the  whole  Church  together,  can  make  a  man  a  true  relation 
by  blood  or  marrriage  who  is  not  so,  nor  unmake  him  who  by  God 
and  nature  has  been  so  constituted,  since  rights  of  this  kind  are  rights 
of  blood  and  nature  which  no  human  power  can  change  or  varj'.  In 
the  case  of  that  affinity,  however,  he  adds,  which  has  been  invented  by 
ecclesiastical  institutions,  it  is  otherwise.  We,  then,  have  several 
hypothetical  cases  suggested  of  the  very  worst  sort,  the  "  Division  " 
being  the  fifth  of  a  series  of  twelve  propositions,  where  it  is  pointed 
out  that,  as  ihe  teaching  of  the  Rovian  Church,  the  marriage  in  such 
cases  is  not  in  the  slightest  degree  invalidated  ;  and  he  sums  up  the 
whole  with  the  formality  of  Euclid  :  "  Quorum  doctrine  undequaque 
manifestum,"  etc.  From  the  doctrine  of  these  authorities,  it  is  evident 
on  every  ground,  etc.,  that  such  marriages  are  not  invalid.  Now, 
who  are  the  authorities  cited  !  It  is  not  the  Reformer  Cranmer  (at 
that  time  he  was  a  firm  adherent  of  the  Roman  Church)  who  is  sup- 
posed to  be  laying  down  the  law,  but  popes,  divines,  and  schoolmen, 
members  of  the  unreformed  Church  and  the  Canon  Law  of  the  Roman 
Church,  whose  words  are  cited.  That  the  writer  was  stating  hypo- 
thetical cases,  and  not  in  any  way  applying  them  to  any  one  in  particu- 
lar, becomes  more  evident  when  we  find  him  including  in  his  list  "  the 
daughter  of  a  wife"  which  not  even  the  most  malignant  opponent  could 
assert  had  anything  whatever  to  do  with  the  case  alleged  against  Henry 
and  the  Boleyn  family.  The  anonymous  and  unknown  author  was 
evidently  a  learned  canonist  who  discussed,  as  a  thesis,  wholly  apocry- 
phal cases  relating  to  the  law  of  marriage,  but  does  not  appear  to  have 
had  before  him  the  special  case  of  Henry  at  all.  The  insinuation  that 
Anne  was  the  daughter,  by  Henry,  of  Lady  Boleyn  can  never  be  sus- 


DIVORCE  OF  HENRY  VIII.  FROM  CATHERINE.  67 


tained.  It  is  true,  as  I  have  already  remarked,  that  Sanders  quotes 
an  Act  passed  in  1536,  referred  to  in  the  Guardian,  "ordering  every 
man  who  had  married  the  sister  of  a  former  mistress  to  separate  from 
her,  forbidding  all  such  marriages  in  future  ; "  and  on  this  erroneous 
interpretation  of  the  Act  it  has  been  concluded  that  this  Act  was 
passed  in  consequence  of  Mary  Boleyn  having  been  previously  Henry's 
mistress.  The  charge,  however,  forces  upon  us  the  accusation  against 
Pope  Alexander  VI.,  that  Lucretia  was  at  the  same  time  his  daughter, 
wife,  and  daughter-in-law.'    (See  ante  noie,  pp.  40,  41.) 

Were  the  above  document  omitted  to  be  noticed,  I  might  be  charged 
with  avoiding  an  alleged  "conclusive  evidence  against  Cranmer." 
The  reader  must  exercise  his  own  judgment  on  the  facts  before  him. 

*  Pontanus  in  Bray's  "Histoire,"  torn.  iv.  p.  280.  Hague,  1732.  "  Alex- 
andri  filia,  nupta,  nurus," 


CHAPTER  V. 

cranmer's  second  marriage  as  a  priest. 

We  have  mentioned  that  Cranmer  was  commissioned  by 
the  King  to  proceed  to  Rome  to  defend  his  opinions,  as 
maintained  in  his  book,  and  to  obtain  the  views  of  the 
\'ariou3  learned  bodies  abroad  on  the  question  of  the  pro- 
posed divorce.  He  first  went  to  Rome,  as  one  of  an 
Embassy,  with  the  Earl  of  Wiltshire,  as  also  in  various 
parts  of  Italy,  where  he  remained  for  some  time.  This 
journey  was  undertaken  in  the  year  1530.  At  Rome 
Cranmer  presented  the  Pope  with  a  copy  of  his  book,  and 
offered  to  maintain  his  views  by  public  discussion,  which 
offer  was,  as  we  have  seen,  either  evaded  or  refused. 

At  Rome,  like  Luther,  on  his  visit  to  that  city,  Cranmer 
witnessed  many  things  which  opened  his  eyes  to  the  real 
character  of  the  Papacy,  then  in  a  most  degraded  and 
corrupt  state. 

Pope  Clement,  desirous  to  conciliate  Cranmer,  conferred 
on  him  the  title  of  "  Grand  Penitentiary  of  England," 
which  appears  to  have  been  a  mere  sinecure. 

The  King,  in  acknowledgment  of  Cranmer's  services, 
besides  an  ecclesiastical  preferment,  appointed  him,  in 
January  1532  (new  style),  Ambassador  to  the  Court  of 
the  Emperor  Charles  V.^    Cranmer  was  also  employed  in 

*  Here  I  may  be  permitted  to  add  a  few  observations.  Mr  Friedman,  in  his 
late  work  on  "Anne  Boleyn,"  has  taken  occasion,  whenever  he  has  had  to 
refer  to  Cranmer,  to  add  some  depreciatory  epithet.  At  this  very  period, 
without  giving  a  single  example  or  proof  for  his  assertions,  he  thus  describes 


cranmer's  second  marriage  as  a  priest.  69 

negotiations  respecting  the  trade  between  England  and  the 
Low  Countries,  and  the  contingent  to  be  furnished  by  the 
King  towards  the  war  with  the  Turks,  against  whom  a 
crusade  was  then  being  organised.  He  was  also  occupied 
on  other  foreign  affairs,  in  which  he  furnished  Henry  with 
much  curious  intelligence  and  useful  information. 

On  a  second  mission,  Cranmer  proceeded  through  Ger- 
many, in  1 53 1,  to  confer  with  the  leading  German  Re- 
formers. One  of  the  principal  persons  in  the  Imperial 
Court,  Cornelius  Agrippa,  was  convinced  by  Cranmer's 
arguments.  The  Emperor  was  so  displeased  with  the  con- 
duct of  Agrippa  that  he  was  placed  in  confinement.  The 
Reformers,  at  this  time,  had  formed  the  League  of  Smal- 
cald  in  their  own  defence  against  the  exactions  and 
encroachments  of  Papal  power ;  but  Cranmer  found  the 
Protestant  Universities  less  favourable  to  his  theories  as  to 
the  divorce.  We  have  already  referred  to  the  opinions 
attributed  to  Luther.  The  Emperor  bestowed  benefices 
and  other  preferments  on  those  who  opposed  the  King's 
project.  There  is  no  evidence  of  the  alleged  wholesale 
bribery  which  is  said  to  have  taken  place.  The  accounts 
of  Henry's  Ambassadors  show  that  the  payments  did  not 

Cranmer — "  then  in  his  43rd  year,  rather  learned,  of  ready  wit,  a  good 
controversialist,  and  withal  elegant,  graceful,  and  insinuating,  an  admirable 
deceiver,  he  possessed  the  talent  of  representing  the  most  infamous  deeds  in  the 
finest  -words"  (vol.  i.  p.  176,  1884).  He  declares  him  to  be  "  a  most  useful 
tool  of  Cromwell  and  Henry,"  that  "he  had  given  ample  proofs  at  the  Court 
of  Charles  V.  of  his  deceit  "  (p.  178),  and  that  he  "had  a  consummate  talent 
for  dissembling"  (p.  244).  True,  Mr  Friedman  quotes  Eustache  Capius'  Let- 
ters to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  for  his  authority,  but  as  Capius  was  the  Eni- 
peror's  Ambassador,  in  fact  spy,  at  this  time,  watching  the  interests  of  Charles, 
in  all  the  acts  of  the  King  and  his  advisers  to  the  prejudice  of  his  aunt,  Queen 
Catherine,  it  would  have  been  more  satisfactory  had  Mr  Friedman  relied  on 
better  authority  than  an  enemy,  and  stated  a  few  facts  to  support  his  assertions, 
which  he  does  not ;  and  further,  the  documents  referred  to  are  not  accessible 
in  England.    Capius  himself  was  not  over  scrupulous  in  his  own  conduct. 


/O  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

extend  beyond  official  fees.  These  probably  were  exces- 
sive, and  gave  occasion  for  this  charge  of  bribery. 

In  1532  we  find  Cranmer  at  Nuremberg,  where  Osiander 
officiated  as  the  chief  Minister  of  the  Reformed  Church.  Osi- 
ander is  represented  to  have  been  a  pious  and  learned  man. 
He  agreed  with  Cranmer  on  the  question  of  the  divorce. 
These  interviews  with  Osiander  resulted  in  an  intimacy 
which  led  to  the  marriage  of  Cranmer  with  this  Minister's 
niece.  It  was  impossible  for  Cranmer,  in  his  protracted 
sojourn  among  the  Reformers,  not  to  have  imbibed  many 
of  their  notions,  which  he  subsequently  developed. 

This  second  marriage  of  Cranmer,  as  a  priest,  has  drawn 
down  upon  him  unmeasured  abuse.  He  has  been  de- 
liberately charged  with  perjury,  on  the  erroneous  supposi- 
tion that  a  priest  of  Rome  subscribes  an  oath  to  maintain 
perpetual  celibacy.  William  Cobbett  goes  so  far,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  charge  of  perjury,  to  assert  twice  that  this 
second  marriage  took  place  while  his  first  wife  was  alive  !  * 

The  celibacy  of  the  priesthood  is  matter  of  discipline, 
not  of  doctrine,  and  "  therefore  it  may  be  changed,  as  in 
the  alterations  of  times  and  circumstances  it  has  seemed, 
or  shall  seem,  good  to  our  ecclesiastical  rulers."  ^  Monks 
and  friars  are  compelled  to  take  the  vow  of  chastity,  which 
would  include  celibacy,  but  a  priest  of  Rome  takes  neither 
vows  of  chastity  nor  celibacy.  Cranmer,  when  charged 
with  having  entered  into  the  state  of  matrimony,  admitted 
the  fact,  but  at  the  same  time  affirmed  that  "  it  was  better 
for  him  to  have  his  own,  than  do  like  other  priests, 
holding  and  keeping  other  men's  wives." 

During  the  preceding  reign  it  had  been  decided  by  the 
courts  of  law  in  England  that  the  marriage  of  a  priest  was 

^  "  History  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,"  &c.,  §§  104  and  251. 
'  "Faith  of  Catholics,"  1846,  vol.  iii.  p.  228. 


cranmer's  second  marriage  as  a  priest.     7 1 


voidable,  but  not  void,  and,  consequently,  that  his  issue 
born  in  wedlock  was  entitled  to  inherit.  But  such  mar- 
riages were  not  reconcilable  with  the  Canon  Law  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  But  that  Canon  Law,  as  binding  in 
England,  had  been,  so  far  as  it  conflicted  with  the  Common 
Law,  abrogated  by  the  statute  of  20  Henry  III.  c.  9,  though 
apparently  in  active  force  when  Henry  ascended  the  throne. 
Bishop  Skelton  admitted  on  his  death-bed  that  he  was  a 
married  man.  "  We  know,"  writes  Dean  Hook,  "  from 
public  documents,  many  of  the  clergy  were  married  men."  ^ 
And  he  cites  a  letter  written  by  Erasmus  to  Archbishop 
Warham,  the  immediate  predecessor  of  Cranmer  in  the 
See  of  Canterbury,  wherein  he  alludes  to  Warham's  "  sweet 
wife  and  his  most  dear  children."^  The  objection  now 
taken  is,  that  a  priest  (a  widower)  was  not  allowed  to  marry 
a  second  time.  But  as  there  is  no  Scriptural  prohibition, 
Anglicans  were  not  bound  by  any  such  local  regulations. 

While  in  Germany,  Cranmer  received  the  royal  command 
to  return  to  England  to  be  created  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury ;  a  preferment,  as  is  alleged,  reluctantly  accepted  by 
him.^  His  mission  in  Germany  not  being  completed,  he 
sent  his  wife  to  England,  and  delayed  his  own  departure. 
William  Cobbett  did  not  hesitate  to  revive  the  absurd  story 
which  he  borrowed  from  Sander,  that  "his  German  frow  " 
was  sent  to  England  in  a  chest — a  tub — "  bored  with  holes 
in  it  to  give  her  air,"  which  was  upset  by  the  sailors,  to 
their  great  merriment.  Strype  refers  to  the  circumstance 
as  follows  : — 

*  "  Lives  of  the  Archbishops,"  vol.  vi.  pp.  232  and  318. 

^  "  Benevale  cum  dulcissima  conjugali,  liberisque  dulcissimis." — Eras., 
"  Oper.,"  iii.,  1695. 

"  Expected  or  not,  the  Primacy  was  forced  on  him.  Cranmer's  conduct 
was  certainly  consistent  with  his  profession  that  he  did  not  desire,  as  he  had  not 
expected,  the  dangerous  promotion." — "  End.  Brit.,"  9th  edit.,  "  Cranmer." 


72  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


"  The  silly  storj'  comes  through  too  many  hands  before  it  came 
to  Parsons  or  Sander  to  make  it  credible.  Cranmer's  son  tells  it  to 
his  wife,  nobody  knows  when  ;  she,  when  a  widow,  tells  it  to  a  gentle- 
man, nobody  knows  when  ;  and  they  tell  it  to  Parsons,  nobody  knows 
when  !  No  place,  person,  or  time  mentioned  ;  and  so  all  the  faith  of 
this  matter  lies  upon  a  woman's  evidence,  and  hers  upon  those  tiuo 
honest  men.  Parsons  and  Sander.'" 

If  Cranmer's  detractors  are  not  ashamed  of  their  cham- 
pions, we  can  only  add  that  nothing,  in  the  estimation  of 
honest  men,  could  possibly  be  so  damaging  to  their  credit 
than  that  they  should  select  as  their  advocates  and 
patrons  the  secular  priest,  the  "  lying  "  Sander,  the  Jesuit 
Parsons,  and  William  Cobbett,  the  reputed  author  of 
the  "  History  of  the  Protestant  Reformation." 

We  may  here  note  that  after  the  famous — or  rather  in- 
famous— "  Six  Articles  Act,"  to  be  presently  referred  to, 
was  passed,  one  of  which  articles  imposed  the  penalty  of 
death  as  a  felon,  without  the  benefit  of  clergy,  on  those 
who  continued  to  declare  that  the  clergy  might  marry, 
and  which  Act  was  cruelly  enforced,  Cranmer  was  com- 
pelled to  submit  to  this  unnatural  law.  It  is  not  true,  as 
sometimes  alleged,  that  he  at  any  time  secretly  kept  his 
wife  in  the  Palace  at  Lambeth.  He  was  compelled,  in  con- 
sequence of  this  enactment,  to  send  her  away,  and  he  put 
her  again  under  the  care  of  her  parents. 

The  charge  of  perjury  against  Cranmer  on  account  of 
his  marriage  opens  up  the  entire  history  and  question  of 
the  compulsory  celibacy  of  the  clergy. 

It  was  not  until  the  eleventh  century  (a.D.  1084)  that 
the  right  of  marriage  was  taken  away  from  the  priests  in 
the  Western  Church  by  an  arbitrary  decree  of  Gregory 
VII  ^  As  yet,  however,  it  was  an  order  affecting  discipline, 
and  not  a  binding  dogma  of  the  Roman  Church ;  it  was  never 

^  "Memorials,"  b.  iii.  c.  xxxviii.  p.  461.    London,  1694. 

*  "Pol.  Vergil,  De  Rer.  Invent.,"  lib.  v.  cap.  iv.  p.  313.    Amst.  1671. 


cranmer's  second  marriage  as  a  priest.  73 


made  a  doctrine  of  the  Church.  This,  as  a  fact,  is  evident 
from  the  order  issued  by  Innocent  III.  at  the  fourth  Lateran 
Council,  A.D.  1215.  The  fourteenth  canon,  "Of  the  Incon- 
tinence of  the  Clergy,"  says  : — "  But  those  who,  according 
to  the  custom  of  their  country,  have  not  put  away  the  mar- 
riage union,  if  they  have  fallen  let  them  be  punished  more 
heavily,  since  itivas  hi  their  power  to  use  laivful  marriage',''^ 
thus  clearly  showing  that  celibacy  was  not  then  even  the 
law  of  the  Church.  It  was  not  until  A.D.  1563,  at  the 
twenty-fourth  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  legislated  upon  the  subject.  The  ninth 
canon  pronounces  anathema  against  those  who  say  that 
priests,  or  regulars  who  have  solemnly  professed  chastity, 
are  able  to  contract  marriage,  or,  being  contracted,  that  it 
is  valid.  It  will  be  observed  that  this  law  affects  those 
only  zvho  had  taken  the  voiv  of  chastity.  This  law  was 
passed  several  years  after  Cranmer  had  been  made  Arch- 
bishop. Cranmer  never  made  that  vow  ;  and  it  was  after 
his  second  marriage  that  he  was  appointed,  by  the  Pope 
himself,  an  Archbishop  in  the  Roman  Church. 

In  an  historical  point  of  view  there  is  no  vestige  of  a 
prohibition  to  marry  found  in  the  first  three  hundred  years 
after  the  Apostolic  age.  In  325,  at  the  first  General 
Council  (Nice),  an  attempt  was  made  to  impose  this  yoke 
on  the  priesthood,  but  the  proposal  was  rejected. 

Marriage  came  from  God,  and  was  His  earliest  institu- 
tion. The  very  first  page  of  the  Bible  declares,  "  It  is  not 
good  for  man  to  be  alone."  (Gen.  ii.  18,  Douay  version.) 
This  state  was  appointed  to  man  before  his  fall,  and  while 
his  affections  were  pure  and  unsullied. 

Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  Moses,  Samuel,  Ezekiel  (the 
prophet  of  the  Most  High),  were  married  men. 

^  Lab.  et  Coss.,  "Concil.,"  tom.  xi.  col.  168.    Paris,  1671. 


74  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


The  priests  under  the  Jewish  law  were  married,  even  the 
High  Priest  himself.    (Lev.  xxi.  13.) 

Our  Lord  selected  married  men  for  His  Apostles. 

The  early  Fathers  say  the  great  majority  of  the  Apostles 
were  married,  e.g. : — 

Ignatius,  who  lived  at  the  latter  end  of  the  first  century, 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philadelphians,  wrote : — •"  Such  as 
were  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  Joseph,  and 
Isaiah,  and  the  other  prophets  ;  and  Peter,  and  Paul,  and 
the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  which  were  married."  ^ 

Ambrose  says,  "  All  the  Apostles,  with  the  exception  of 
St  John  and  St  Paul,  were  married  men."^ 

Scripture  refers  to  Peter's  wife  on  two  occasions. — Matt, 
viii.  14 ;  I  Cor.  ix.  5. 

Eusebius  describes  a  touching  interview  between  Peter 
and  his  wife,  and  says,  that  St  Peter  and  Philip  begat 
children.^  The  Evangelist  Philip  had  four  daughters.  St 
Luke  was  a  married  man.  St  Paul  did  not  think  the 
married  state  inconsistent  with  the  office  of  a  bishop.* 
Indeed  Bellarmine  admits  that  there  is  no  precept  what- 
ever in  Scripture  for  celibacy.^ 

But  while  the  Church  of  Rome  declares  marriage  to  be 
a  sacrament  instituted  by  Christ,  which  confers  a  grace, 
they  would  deny  that  grace  and  sacrament  to  a  priest, 
under  the  pretence  that  such  a  sacrament  would  be  incon- 

^  "  .  .  .  Sicut  Petrus  et  Paiihis  et  reliqui  Apostoli,  qui  nuptiis  fuerunt 
sociate." — "  Isaaici  Vossii.,"  Amstel.,  1646,  pp.  177-8.  See  James' "  Corrup- 
tion of  the  Fathers,"  p.  127,  Cox's  edition,  1843. 

^  Amb.,  '"Opera,"  col.  1 96 1.    Paris,  1549. 

3  Euseb.,  "Hist.,"  iii.  30.  p.  124.    Cantab.,  1720. 

"*  I  Tim.  iii.  2-4  ;  Titus  i.  5,  6  ;  I  Tim.  iii.  12  (and  see  verse  11  in  reply  to 
the  Douay  note) ;  and  also  see  I  Cor.  vii.  2  ;  Heb,  xiii.  4 ;  I  Tim.  iv.  3  ; 
I  Cor.  ix.  5  ;  I  Cor  vii.  9. 

^  "  In  tota  scriptura  nullum  talc  extat  prKceptum." — Bellarm.  "deCler.,' 
lib.  i.  c.  18.  torn.  i.  p.  113.    Colen.,  1615. 


cranmer's  second  marriage  as  a  priest.  75 


sistent  with  the  holy  state  of  priesthood  !  The  result  has 
been  most  lamentable. 

As  a  matter  of  discipline  : — 

The  5th  (so-called)  Apostolic  Canon  says,  "  A  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon  shall  not  put  away  his  wife  under  pre- 
tence of  religion.  If  he  sends  her  away,  let  him  be  sepa- 
rated from  the  communion  ;  and  if  he  persevere,  let  him 
be  deposed." 

The  Council  of  Gangra  says,  "  If  any  one  thinks  that  a 
married  priest  cannot,  because  of  his  marriage,  exercise  his 
ministry,  and  abstains  on  that  account  from  communion 
with  the  Church,  let  him  be  accursed  "  (a.D.  380).^ 

The  Trullan  Council,  A.D.  692,  ordained  that  whoever,  in 
spite  of  the  Apostolic  Canons,  should  dare  to  prohibit 
commerce  or  living  with  a  lawful  wife,  should  be  excom- 
municated, and  this  applied  to  priests  as  well  as  laity. 

The  seventh  Canon  of  the  Second  Lateran  Council,  A.D. 
1 139,  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  above,  wherein  it  is 
declared,  "  We  command  that  no  one  hear  the  masses  of 
those  whom  he  may  know  to  be  married."  - 

The  Decretum  of  Gratian,  a  book  received  in  the  Roman 

Church  as  the  Canon  Law,  gives  the  names  of  seven 

Popes,  from  A.D.  411  to  641,  who  were  sons  of  priests: 

Popes    Hosius,   Boniface,    Felix,   Agapetus,  Theodorus, 

Silverius,  and  Gelasius  ;  this  last  Pope  was  the  son  of  a 

bishop.^    He  observed  on  this  fact :  "  These  Pontiffs  born 

of  priests  are  not  to  be  understood  as  born  of  fornication, 

but  of  legitimate  marriages,  which  were  everywhere  lawful 

to  priests  before  the  prohibition  came;*  and  in  the  same 

sentence  it  is  admitted  that  in  the  Eastern  Church  to  this 

day  priests  are  permitted  to  be  married. 

*  Lab.  et  Coss  ,  "Concil.,"  torn.  ii.  col.  419.    Paris,  1671. 
^  Ibtd.,iom.  X  cols.  999  and  1012.    Paris,  1671. 
"  Decret,.  Dist."  56,  c.  2.  *  Ibid.,  56,  c.  13. 


76  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


The  English  clergy,  up  to  the  eleventh  centurj^,  were 
generally  married.  The  monasteries  in  England,  except 
Glastonbury  and  Abingdon,  were  colleges  for  married 
priests. 

In  the  time  of  Chichely,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
1413-1441,  married  clergy  still  exercised  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction.  St  Patrick  of  Ireland  states  in  his  Confessions, 
that  his  father  was  a  deacon,  and  grandfather  a  priest.  It 
is  notorious  that  the  office  of  successor  of  Patrick  at 
Armagh,  went  for  200  years,  A.D.  926-1 129,  in  one  family. 

It  was,  therefore,  a  modern  innovation  and  imposition 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  establish  so  unnatural  a  custom 
as  that  of  compelling  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy.  And 
what  reason  was  given  by  the  Doctors  of  Trent  for  passing 
this  law  Cardinal  de  Capri  said,  "  that  married  priests 
would  turn  their  affections  to  love  their  wives  and  children, 
and  they  would  be  drawn  away  from  their  dependence  on 
the  Pope."i 

When  members  of  the  unreformed  Church  censure 
Cranmer  for  having  married  as  a  priest,  they  exhibit  a 
lamentable  ignorance  of  the  history  of  their  own  Church. 
Up  to,  and  previous  to  the  passing  of,  the  "  Six  Articles 
Act,"  under  Henry  VIII.,  the  marriage  of  priests  was  a 
common  occurrence,  and  this  was  under  the  direct  sanction 
of  a  decree  of  a  General  Council  and  the  authority  of  a 
Pope,  specially  extending  to  priests  of  this  country.  Pope 
Alexander  III.  did  not  hesitate  to  allow  the  Bishop 
of  Hereford,  in  England,  to  have  a  multitude  of  married 
men  to  hold  livings  in  his  diocese.  The  licence  of  Pope 
Alexander  HI.  is  considered  of  sufficient  importance  to 
be  recorded  in  their  book  of  Canon  Law,  the  "  Corpus 
Juris  Canonici  ;"  it  appears  even  in  the  last  Leipzic  edition 

^  Paolo  Sarpi.,  "Hist.  Con.  Trid.,"  torn.  ii.  p.  254.    Amsterdam,  1731. 


cranmer's  second  marriage  as  a  priest.  77 


of  1839.    I"  the  second  volume,  column  441,  is  recorded 

the  words  of  Alexander  :  — 

"  Truly,  concerning  the  clergy  of  the  inferior  orders,  who  being  ap- 
pointed in  the  married  state,  have  long  since  held  ecclesiastical  bene- 
fices, by  the  concession  of  your  predecessors,  of  which  they  cannot  be 
deprived  without  a  great  struggle  and  much  shedding  of  blood,  we 
think  that  we  must  give  this  answer  to  your  shrewdness,  that  because 
the  nation  and  the  people  there  are  barbarous,  and  there  is  a  multitude 
in  question^  you  may  suffer  them  under  dissimulation  to  keep  the  eccle- 
siastical benefices  they  have  so  long  held." 

In  the  face  of  these  authorities,  recognised  as  such  in  the 

days  of  Cranmer,  it  is  difficult  to  appreciate  the  objection 

to  his  marriage  as  a  priest.     The  decree  of  the  Trent 

Council,  as  noted  above,  was  passed  after  Cranmer's  death. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


cranmer's  oaths  on  consecration  as  an  archbishop. 

The  consideration  of  Cranmer's  conduct  in  taking  his  archi- 
episcopal  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Pope,  at  the  same  time 
making  a  reservation  of  his  allegiance  under  another  oath 
to  his  Sovereign,  is  reserved  for  consideration  in  a  separate 
chapter.  "  Casuists  may  suggest  divers  expedients  and 
salvos,  but  an  honest  man  has  only  one  method  of  taking 
an  oath."^  Such,  no  doubt,  is  the  view  which  may  be 
taken  of  Cranmer's  conduct  by  every  right-minded  member 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  who  values  the  sacredness  of  an 
oath.  But  a  censure  coming  from  members  of  the  unre- 
formed  Church  amounts,  as  will  be  presently  shown,  to  an 
act  of  inconsistency  most  palpable,  since  the  practice  was 
universally  adopted  ;  otherwise  bishops  could  subject 
themselves  to  the  penalties  of  praemunire.  Both  Mr 
Charles  Butler  and  Dr  Lingard  severely  censure  Cranmer 
for  this  alleged  act  of  duplicity.  But  Dr  Lingard  errone- 
ously states  that  his  "  protest  "  was  secretly  made. 

The  two  oaths  are  palpably  contradictory.    The  arch- 

1  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  eighth  edit.,  p.  482.  Title,  "  Cranmer." 
Such  was  the  opinion  of  the  editor  of  the  eighth  edition.  In  the  ninth 
edition,  however,  this  extreme  view  of  Cranmer's  conduct  seems  to  be  con- 
sideral)ly  modified,  where  we  read — "The  morality  of  this  course  has  been 
much  canvassed,  though  it  seems  really  to  involve  nothing  more  than  an  ex- 
press declaration  of  what  the  two  oaths  implied.  It  was  the  course  that 
would  readily  suggest  itself  to  a  man  of  timid  nature  who  wished  to  secure 
himself  against  such  a  fate  as  Wolsey's.  It  showed  weakness,  but  it  added 
nothing  to  whatever  immorality  there  might  be  in  successively  taking  two 
incompatible  oaths." 


cranmer's  oaths  on  consecration  as  archbishop.  79 

bishop's  oath  to  the  Pope  requires  him  to  swear  that  he 
will  be  faithful  and  obedient  "  to  St  Peter,"  "  to  the  Holy 
Roman  Church,"  and  to  his  "  Lord  the  Pope,"  and  to  the 
rights,  honours,  privileges,  authorities  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and  of  the  Pope  and  his  successors.  The  oath  pro- 
ceeds to  assert  that — 

"  I  will  cause  to  be  conserved,  defended,  augmented,  and  promoted. 
I  shall  not  be,  in  counsel,  treaty,  or  any  act,  in  which  anything  shall 
be  imagined  against  him  or  the  Church  of  Rome,  their  rights,  seats, 
honours,  or  powers.  And  if  I  know  any  such  to  be  moved  or  com- 
passed, I  shall  resist  it  to  my  power,  and  as  soon  as  I  can  I  shall 
advertise  him,  or  such  as  may  give  him  knowledge.  Heretics,  schis- 
matics, and  rebels  to  our  Holy  Father  and  his  successors,  I  shall  fight 
against  and  persecute  {persequar  etimpugnato)  to  my  power. — So  God 
help  me,  and  the  Holy  Evangelists." 

The  oath  taken  by  the  bishop  to  the  King  was  as 
follows  : — 

"  I,   ,  Bishop  of   ,  utterly  renounce,  and  clearly  forsake,  all 

such  clauses,  words,  sentences,  and  grants  which  I  have,  or  shall  have, 

hereafter,  of  the  Pope's  Holiness,  of  and  for  the  Bishopric  of  ,  that 

in  anywise  hath  been,  is,  or  hereafter  may  be,  hurtful  or  prejudicial  to 
your  Highness,  your  heirs,  dignity,  privilege,  or  estate  royal.  And  also 
I  do  swear,  that  I  shall  be  faithful  and  true,  and  faith  and  truth  I  shall 

bear  to  you,  my  Sovereign  Lord,  and  to  you  and  your  heirs  ,  and 

to  live  and  die  for  you  and  yours  against  all  people.     And   your 

councils  I  shall  keep  and  hold,  acknowledging  myself  to  hold  my 
Bishopric  of  you  only,  beseeching  you  of  restitution  of  the  temporali- 
ties of  the  same  ;  pronouncing  as  before,  that  I  shall  be  a  faithful, 
true,  and  obedient  subject  of  your  Highness,  heirs  and  successors, 
during  my  life  ;  and  the  services  and  other  things  due  to  your  High- 
ness for  the  restitution  of  the  temporalities  of  the  said  Bishopric,  I 
shall  truly  do  and  obediently  perform.  So  God  help  me,  and  all 
saints." 

It  will  be  thus  seen  that  the  obligations  embraced  in 
each  declaration  are  incompatible. 

It  would  be  a  hard  and  thankless  task,  according  to  our 
present  notions  of  morality,  to  attempt  to  justify  Cranmer 
in  submitting  to  the  ordeal  of  being  made  an  Archbishop 
under  the  stipulations  required  by  the  head  of  his  Church, 


8o  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


and  at  the  same  time  nullifying  the  essence  of  his  pledge 

of  allegiance  to  the  Pope  by  renouncing  it  in  favour  of  his 

sovereign  in  things  spiritual. 

There  is  a  remarkable  passage  in  the  Letter  addressed  by 

Cranmer  to  Queen  Mary  while  a  prisoner  at  Oxford,  in 

September  1555.^     The  Bishop  of  Gloucester  was  the 

presiding  judge   on   his   trial.     As  Cranmer's  reasons 

alleged  for  his  refusing  to  accept  that  bishop  as  his  judge, 

the  first  was  that  the  bishops  themselves  had  sworn  never 

to  consent  to  the  Pope's  jurisdiction  within  this  realm,  on 

taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  King,  and  contrary  to 

that  oath  he  (Dr  Brooks)  now  sat  in  judgment  under  the 

authority  of  the  Pope.    Cranmer  continues  : — 

"  The  second  perjury  was,  that  he  took  his  bishopric  both  of  the 
Queen's  Majesty  and  of  the  Pope,  making  to  each  of  them  a  solemn 
oath  :  which  oaths  be  so  contrary,  that  the  one  must  needs  be  perjured. 
And  furthermore,  in  swearing  to  the  Pope  to  maintain  his  laws, 
decrees,  constitutions,  ordinances,  reservations,  and  provisions,  he 
declareth  himself  an  enemy  to  the  imperial  crown,  and  to  the  laws  and 
state  of  this  realm  :  whereby  he  declared  himself  not  worthy  to  sit  as 
a  judge  within  this  realm  ;  and  for  these  considerations  I  refused  to 
take  him  as  my  judge." 

Surely  this  statement  is  inconsistent  and  contradictory, 
or  Cranmer's  memory  must  have  been  very  defective. 

There  is  another  curious  circumstance  disclosed  in  the 
"Letters  of  Cranmer"  on  this  subject,^  also  written  to  the 
Queen  while  in  prison  at  Oxford  in  September  1555,  on 
information  conveyed  to  him  by  the  Queen's  Proctor,  Dr 
Martin,  that  the  Queen  herself  Jiad  taken  two  contradictory 
oaths  oil  her  coronation.    The  letter  is  as  follows  : — 

"  I  learned  by  Doctor  Martin  that  at  that  day  of  your  Majesty's  coro- 
nation you  took  an  oath  of  obedience  to  the  Pope  of  Rome,  and  at 
the  same  time  you  took  another  oath  to  this  realm,  to  maintain  the 
laws,  liberties,  and  customs  of  the  same.    And  if  your  Majesty  did 

'  See  Jenkyns'  "Remains,"  vol.  i.  letter  No.  ccxcix.    Oxford,  1833. 
*  Ibid.,  Letter  ccc.    To  Queen  Mary.    Vol.  i.  p.  383. 


cranmer's  oaths  on  consecration  as  archbishop.  8  I 


make  an  oath  to  the  Pope,  I  think  it  was  according  to  the  other  oaths 
which  he  useth  to  minister  to  Princes  ;  which  is,  to  be  obedient  to  him, 
to  defend  his  person,  to  maintain  his  authority,  honour,  laws,  lands, 
and  privileges.  And  if  it  be  so  (which  I  know  not  but  by  report),  then 
I  beseech  your  Majesty  to  look  upon  your  oath  made  to  the  Crown  and 
realm,  and  to  expend  and  weigh  the  two  oaths  together,  to  see  how 
they  do  agree,  and  then  to  do  as  your  Grace's  conscience  shall  give 
you  :  for  I  am  surely  persuaded  that  willingly  your  Majesty  will  not 
offend,  nor  do  against  your  conscience  for  no  thing.  But  I  fear  me 
that  there  be  contradictions  in  your  oaths,  and  that  those  which 
should  have  informed  your  Grace  thoroughly,  did  not  their  duties 
therein.  And  if  your  Majesty  ponder  the  two  oaths  diligently,  I  think 
you  shall  perceive  you  were  deceived ;  and  then  your  Highness  may 
use  the  matter  as  God  shall  put  in  your  heart." 

All  that  can  be  said  in  favour  of  Cranmer  is  that  previous 
to  taking  the  oath  he  consulted  lawyers  and  acted  on  their 
advice,  and  that  he  declared  to  the  King  that  he  could 
receive  the  archbishopric  only  from  his  Majesty  himself  as 
supreme  Governor  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  not  at 
the  hands  of  the  Pope,  whose  authority  within  the  realm 
he  denied.  Before  taking  the  Papal  oath  he  publicly 
declared  the  limitations  by  which  he  secured  himself  in 
his  allegiance  to  the  King,  and  his  determination  to 
reform  the  Church  against  a  power  which  would  neither 
admit  the  supremacy  of  the  former,  nor  the  necessity  of 
alteration  in  the  latter. 

It  is  alleged  that  this  protest  was  taken  in  secret,  what 
Dr  Lingard  designated  as  "  the  theological  legerdemain  of 
a  secret  protest."  There  was,  however,  no  secrecy  in  the 
matter.!  By  this  "  protest  "  itself  Cranmer  declared  that 
he  made  the  same  pnblicly,  "  that  whereas,  on  his  consecra- 

'  The  original  Latin  of  Cranmer's  Protestation  is  in  Cranmer's  Rej^ister, 
Lambeth  Library,  Reg.  fol.  4,  and  is  reproduced  in  Strype's  "Cranmer," 
Appendix  No.  v.  The  words  of  the  protest  are  as  follows  : — "  In  Dei  nomine 
Amen.  Coram  vobis  autentica  persona,  et  testibus  fide  dignis,  hie  presentibus, 
Ego  Thomas  in  Cant.  Archiep.  electus  dico,  allego,  et  in  hiis  scriptis  palam, 
publid,  et  expresse  protestor,"  &c. 

F 


82  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF'CRANMER. 


tion,  he  is  obliged  to  take  the  oath  to  the  Pope  for  forms 
sake,"  he  had  no  intention  to  obHge  himself  by  the  said 
oath,  which  should  seem  contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  to  his 
King  or  country,  or  to  the  laws  and  prerogatives  of  the 
same,  and  that  he  did  not  intend  to  oblige  himself  to  the 
oath,  so  as  to  disable  himself  freely  to  speak,  consult,  and 
consent  in  matters  concerning  the  reformation  of  the 
Christian  religion,  the  government  of  the  Church  of 
England,  or  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown  ;  and  every- 
where to  execute  and  reform  those  things  which  he  should 
think  fit  to  be  reformed  in  the  Church  of  England.  Sub- 
ject to  the  above,  and  his  allegiance  to  his  King,  he  would 
take  the  oath.  This  protest  was  taken  in  the  presence  of 
the  Royal  Prothonotary,  of  two  Doctors  of  Law,  of  one  of 
the  Royal  Chaplains,  and  of  the  official  Principal  of  the 
Court  of  Canterbury,  in  the  chapter  house  at  IVestniinster, 
and  not,  as  alleged,  in  "  an  upper  chamber."  This  protest 
was,  at  his  request,  attested  by  witnesses;  and  on  taking  his 
Episcopal  oath,  he  declared  that  he  took  the  same  subject 
to  his  written  protest.  On  receiving  the  Pallium  at  the 
altar  he  repeated  his  protest. 

That  Cranmer  was  sincere  in  this  protest  that  he  de- 
rived his  authority  from  the  King,  is  coniirmed  by  the  fact, 
that  having  acted  under  a  commission  from  Henry  VIII., 
he  considered  his  authority  was  on  that  King's  death  at  an 
end,  and  applied  to  Edward  VI.  for  its  renewal.^ 

But  was  Cranmer  singular  in  this  proceeding  .''  In  one 
sense  he  was,  for  his  protest  was  made  before  taking  the 
Episcopal  oath,  whereas  Archbishop  Warham,  who  had 
taken  a  similar  oath  to  the  Pope,  subsequently  took  the 
same  second  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  King.  Gardyner, 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  in  the  face  of  his  oath,  published 

^  Jenkyns'  "Remains,"  i.  xxxiv.    Oxford,  1833. 


cranmer's  oaths  on  consecration  as  archbishop.  83 


his  memorable  work,  "  De  Vera  Obedientia,"  ^  not  only  in 
direct  violation  of  his  oath  to  the  Pope,  but  he  wrote  an 
elaborate  argument,  in  the  same  work,  in  defence  of  that 
violation,  on  the  ground  that  no  unlawful  engagements 
could  be  binding,  however  solemnly  incurred.  Fox, 
Bishop  of  Hereford,  also  wrote  a  book  to  the  same  effect, 
entitled,  "  De  vera  differentia  Regine  Potestates  et  Eccle- 
siasticae."  Every  Bishop  under  Henry,  save  Fisher,  volun- 
tarily took  the  same  oath  of  allegiance.  Had  Cranmer 
not  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  he  would  have  subjected 
himself  to  the  penalties  of  Prcemunire  and  Provisors  under 
subsisting  Acts  of  Parliament  passed  in  essentially  Papal 
times. 

Bishop  Bonner,  when  Ambassador  at  the  Court  of  Rome, 
in  an  assembly  of  Cardinals  strongly  insisted  on  the 
King's  independence  of  the  Pope  in  matters  ecclesiastical, 
but  for  this  declaration  he  was  glad  to  save  his  life  by 
flight.  Strype,  in  his  "  Life  of  Cranmer,"*  gives  the  oath  of 
allegiance  taken  by  Bishop  Bonner  at  his  consecration  : — 

"  Ye  shall  never  consent,  nor  agree,  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  shall 
practise,  exercise,  or  have,  any  manner  of  authority,  jurisdiction,  or 
power  within  this  realm,  or  any  other  of  the  King's  dominions  ;  but  ye 
shall  resist  the  same  at  all  times  to  the  uttermost  of  your  power  ;  and 
from  henceforth  ye  shall  accept,  repute,  and  take  the  King's  Majesty 
to  be  the  only  supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England." 

And  yet  one  never  hears  these  Bishops  called  to  account 
for  taking  two  contradictory  oaths,  but  Cranmer  alone  is 
to  be  branded  as  a  perjurer  I 

Cranmer,  for  maintaining  his  opinion,  is,  it  seems,  to  be 
condemned  ;  but  for  Gardyner,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  Dr 
Lingard  has  the  excuse,  "  he  acted  through  fear  of  displea- 

1  See  Lord  Herbert's  "History  of  Henry  VIII.,"  pp.  389-390.  Edit. 
1649. 
*  Fol.  edit.,  p.  87. 


84  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

sure  " — stimulated  by  fear,  "  as  was  thoiight."     Thus  we 

have  the  two  leading  Prelates  of  the  Roman  Church  giving 

an  example  to  their  brethren,  and  to  the  whole  kingdom  ; 

and  the  obsequious  Bonner,  Bishop  of  London,  concludes 

his  "address  to  the  reader"  with  observing,  in  his  Preface 

to  Gardyner's  book  : — 

"If  thou  at  any  time  heretofore  have  doubted  either  of  true  obedi- 
ence, or  of  the  King's  marriage  or  title,  or  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome's 
false  pretended  supremacy  : — having  read  over  this  Oration  (which, 
if  thou  favour  the  truth,  and  hate  the  tyranny  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  his  devilish  fraudulent  falsehood,  shall  doubtless  wonderfully  con- 
tent thee),  throw  down  thine  error,  and  acknowledge  the  truth  now 
freely  offered  thee  at  length."  ^ 

But  Dr  Lingard  adds,  that  Gardyner  "  consented,  in 

order  to  avoid  the  royal  displeasure,  to  renounce  the  Papal 

Supremacy."    Let  us  see  how  Gardyner  showed  his  fear. 

He  writes  : — 

"  The  title  of  Supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England  is  granted  to 
the  King  by  free  and  common  consent  in  the  open  Court  of  Parliament  : 
wherein  there  is  ?to  newly-invciited  matter  sought  :  only  their  will 
was  to  have  the  power,  pertaining  to  a  prince  of  God's  law,  to  be  the 
more  clearly  expressed,  with  a  fit  term  to  express  it  by,  namely,  for 
this  purpose,  to  withdraw  that  vain  opinion  out  of  the  common  people's 
head,  which  the  false  pretended  power  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had,  for 
the  space  of  certain  years,  blinded  them  withal,  to  the  great  impeach- 
ment of  the  King's  authority." 

Dr  Lingard  has  not  the  slightest  justification  for  his 
apology  for  Gardyner's  opinions  freely  expressed.  While, 
therefore,  he  thus  lets  off  Gardyner,  he  does  not  hesitate  to 
speak  of  Cranmer  as  a  fanatic,  and  not  a  man  of  learning. 
The  Doctor's  anger  is  raised  because  Cranmer  is  said  to 
have  declared  the  Pope  was  the  Antichrist  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse.   He  says  : — ■ 

"  Cranmer,  as  the  first  in  dignity,  gave  the  example  to  his  brethren, 
and  zealously  maintained  from  the  pulpit,  what  his  learning  or  fana- 

*  Quoted  by  Todd,  "Vindication  of  Cranmer,"  p.  64,  1827,  from  M. 
Wood's  Transl.  of  Bp.  Gardyner's  "  Oratio,"  &c.,  and  of  Bonner's  Preface. 


cranmer's  oaths  on  consecration  as  archbishop.  85 


ticism  had  lately  discovered,  that  the  Pontiff  was  the  Antichrist  of  the 
Apocalypse  ;  an  assertion  which  then  filled  the  Catholic  with  horror, 
but  at  the  present  day  excites  nothing  but  contempt  and  ridicule." 

Cranmer  was  not  singular  in  his  alleged  fanaticism. 
Wicliffe,  a  century  before,  made  and  promulgated  the  same 
discovery.  The  Poets  Chaucer  and  Dante  were  of  the 
same  opinion.  In  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
the  title  was  so  often  applied  to  the  Papal  power,  that 
Julius  II.  forbade  the  clergy  even  to  speak  of  the  coming 
of  Antichrist ;  whose  coming,  by  the  way,  had  been  long 
before  predicted  by  Pope  Gregory  I.,  in  that  person  who 
should  assume  the  title  of  "  Universal  Bishop,"  which  the 
Pope,  second  in  succession  to  Gregory,  actually  did  assume, 
and  which  title  is  retained  by  Popes  up  to  the  present 
day ! 

On  the  31st  March  1534  the  Convocation  of  Bishops 
asserted  the  Royal  Supremacy  before  even  the  subject  had 
been  submitted  to  Parliament.  They  declared  that  "  the 
Pope  of  Rome  had  no  greater  jurisdiction,  in  this  kingdom  of 
England,  conferred  on  him  by  God,  in  holy  Scripture,  than 
any  other  foreign  Bishop."  The  proclamation  of  the  King's 
Supremacy  was  issued  on  the  24th  May  1530,  and  had  been 
published  by  the  authority  of  Archbishop  Warham,  who 
asserted  that  it  was  "  the  King's  right  above  the  Pope." 

The  Pope's  Canon  Law  did  not  respect  the  validity  of  an 
oath  taken  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Pope's  usurped  rights  in 
this  country. 

This  Canon  Law  asserted  that : — 

"  Princes'  laws,  if  they  be  against  the  canons  and  decrees  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  be  of  no  force  nor  strength."  "  It  appertaineth  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  judge,  which  oaths  ought  to  be  kept  and  which 
not."  "  He  [the  PopeJ  may  absolve  subjects  from  their  oaths  of 
fidelity,  and  absolve  from  other  oaths  that  ought  to  be  kept." 


86 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


And  oaths  taken  contrary  to  the  interests  of  the  Roman 
Church  are  accounted  as  perjuries. 

Being  educated  in  such  a  school,  Cranmer  and  the  other 
Bishops  of  his  day  adopted  the  same  principle,  but  applied 
it  to  their  own  case,  and  they  had  as  much  legal  right  to  do 
so  as  had  the  Pope.  We  say  nothing  of  the  morality  of 
either  party.  The  King,  by  right  accustomed,  and,  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  England,  was  held  as  supreme  in  Church 
and  State.  Any  oath  taken  by  Englishmen  against  the 
prerogatives  of  the  Crown  was  illegal,  and  amounted  to 
treason.  It  was  only  turning  the  tables  on  the  Pope,  and 
the  Kings  of  England  had  as  much  right  to  enact  their  own 
laws  in  their  own  country  as  had  the  Pope  of  Rome  over 
that  section  of  the  Church  he  claimed  to  rule.  Popes  had 
no  respect  for  oaths  as  such.  The  statute  20  Henry  III. 
c.  9,  passed  in  the  year  1236,  declared  that  the  Pope's 
Canon  Law  had  no  place  in  England,  except  so  far  as  the 
King  or  Parliament  permitted,  or  contrary  to  the  common 
law  of  the  country. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  impossible  to  justify  contradictory  oaths. 
To  every  unprejudiced  member  of  the  Reformed  Church, 
Cranmer's  conduct  must  receive  its  condemnation.  But 
such  a  proceeding  is  highly  inconsistent  when  advanced 
by  members  of  the  Roman  Communion,  since  we  find  all 
the  English  Bishops,  save  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester, 
were  equally  culpable,  and  so  long  as  the  deliberate 
statements  expressed  in  their  books  of  so-called  "  Moral 
Theology  "  remain  unrebuked  or  unrepudiated.  In  these 
books  we  find  amphibiology  and  mental  reservation  in 
taking  certain  oaths  permitted,  when  such  oaths  are 
deemed  hurtful  to  the  interests  of  the  Roman  Church.i 

^  Liguori,  a  canonised  Saint  of  the  Roman  Church,  lays  it  down  as  an 
accepted  principle  of  his  Church  : — "  It  is  a  certain  and  common  opinion 


cranmer's  oaths  on  consecration  as  archbishop.  87 


In  England,  the  only  consistent  Bishop  was  Fisher.  He 
was  "  Papist "  first,  and  "  Englishman  "  after,  and  was  in 
consequence  adjudged  a  traitor  to  his  King  and  country. 
But  what  was  the  position  of  the  Bishops  of  Ireland  .''  The 
history  of  those  Bishops  in  respect  of  their  oaths  is  remark- 
able in  the  history  of  the  Roman  Church  in  Ireland  at  that 
period.  My  observations  will  be  limited  to  those  Bishops 
only  who  were  respectively  appointed  by  Henry  VIII.  and 
Edward  VI.,  who  having  taken,  as  to  Henry's  Bishops,  the 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Pope,  retained  their  Sees  under 
Mary,  and  admitted  the  allegiance  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  survived  her  reign,  and  those  who  were  appointed  by 
Mary,  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Pope,  all  of 
whom  again  renounced  the  Pope,  and  took  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  Elizabeth  in  matters  spiritual  as  well  as  tem- 
poral, in  November  1558,  and  accepted  the  Reformation 
at  her  hands,  1  repudiating  their  oaths  to  the  Pope. 

amongst  all  divines,  that  for  a  just  cause  it  is  lawful  to  use  equivocation  in  the 
propounded  modes,  and  to  confirm  it  (equivocation)  with  an  oath." — Tom.  ii. 
p.  316,  et  si-q..  No.  151,  de jure.  Mechlin  edition,  1845.  Again:  "A  pro- 
mise made  without  such  a  mind  [that  is,  without  intention  to  keep  the  oath]  is 
not,  indeed,  a  promise,  but  simply  proposed  ;  therefore  the  promise  being 
evanescent,  the  oath  is  also  such,  and  is  considered  as  made  without  the 
mind  of  swearing,  which  certainly,  as  we  have  seen,  is  null  and  void." — Ibid., 
P-  330. 

^  For  authorities  the  reader  is  referred  to — 

1.  Camden's  "  Annals  of  Elizabeth,"  p.  17.    London,  1635. 

2.  Leland's  "  History  of  Ireland,"  second  edit.,  1848,  c.  xii.  p.  208. 

3.  Robert  King's  "  Primer  of  the  Church  History  of  Ireland,"  third  edit.. 
Appendix  xxiv.  p.  1208.    Dublin,  1851. 

4.  Second  volume  of  "Tracts  of  the  Irish  Archaeological  -Society,"  p.  134. 

5.  Thomas  More,  "  History  of  Ireland,"  vol.  iv.  pp.  21-2,  edit.  1845. 

6.  Dr  O'Conor  [Roman  priest],  "  Historical  Address,"  part  ii.  p.  275. 
Buckingham,  1812  ;  and  see  Letter  ii.  p.  xxxviii.  "  Colunibanus  ad  Hibernos.'' 

7.  Cox's  "  History  of  Ireland,"  pp.  273-4.    London,  1689. 

8.  Dr  Reed's  "History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Ireland,"  pp.  22,  27, 
vol.  i.,  edit.  1834. 

9.  Dr  Murray's  "  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Ireland,"  second  edit.,  1848, 
c.  xii. 


88 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AXD  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


It  was  in  ]\Iay  1536  the  Irish  Parliament,  on  the  sugges- 
tion of  Brown,  Archbishop  of  Dubh'n,  who  gave  the  first 
vote,  that  the  Ro\  al  Supremacy  of  Henry  was  acknow- 
ledged, and  the  Pope's  authority  over  the  Irish  Church 
was  solemnly  renounced,  and  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  of 
the  King  in  matters  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal  was  freely 
taken  by  the  Irish  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Nobles. 

In  the  year  1537  (28  Henry  VIII.)  several  Acts  of  Par- 
liament were  passed,  both  in  England  and  Ireland,  by 
which  the  Bishops  were  ordered  to  abjure  allegiance  to  the 
Pope,  and  accept  the  authority  of  the  Crown  in  all  eccle- 
siastical matters.  As  affecting  Ireland,  the  Act  28  Henry 
VIII.  c.  5  authorised  the  King,  his  heirs  and  successors,  to 
he  the  only  supreme  head  on  earth  of  the  whole  Church  of 
Ireland.  By  the  Irish  Act,  cap.  8,  it  was  enacted  that  the 
King,  his  heirs  and  successors,  should  ever  afterwards  have 
the  sole  authority  to  appoint  Archbishops  and  Bishops.  By 
cap.  13,  those  who  maintained  and  defended  the  authority 
and  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  should,  on  convic- 
tion, be  deemed  guilty  of  prczvin7tire,  as  enacted  by  Act  16 
Richard  II.  (a.D.  1403)  ;  and  this  Act  further  required  that 
the  Oath  of  Supremacy  of  the  King  in  all  matters  ecclesi- 
astical, and  the  renunciation  of  all  authority  or  jurisdiction 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  should  be  taken.  All  civil,  officers 
and  ecclesiastical  ministers,  and  all  persons  spiritual  and 
temporal,  of  whatever  degree,  should,  before  acceptance  of 
office,  take  the  Oath  of  Supremacy ;  and  their  refusal  to 
do  so  was  constituted  an  act  of  high  treason.  This  Oath 
of  Supremacy  of  the  Crown  was  freely  taken  by  every  Irish 

10.  Froude's  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  ii.  p.  88.  1883. 

11.  The  Tablet,  1 0th  August  1868,  a  Roman  Catholic  newspaper,  quoting 
Dublin  Bevtew,  a  Roman  Catholic  monthly. 

12.  Harrington's  "  Narrative  in  proof  of  the  uninterrupted  Consecrational 
Descent  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  Ireland,"  &c.    London,  1869. 


cranmer's  oaths  on  consecration  as  ARCHBISHOI'.  89 

Archbishop  and  Bishop,  notwithstanding  their  previous  oath 
to  the  Pope,  on  appointment  to  their  Sees,  as  also  by  the 
leading  laity  on  the  passing  of  these  Acts. 

The  eight  Bishops  who  had  taken  the  Oath  of  Supremacy 
under  Henry  VIII.,  and  who  had  survived  the  reigns  of 
Edward  and  Mary,  and  continued  to  hold  their  Sees  under 
Elizabeth,  were — 

1.  Hugh  O'Cervellan,  Bishop  of  Clogher,  Prov.  Armagh. 

2.  Eugene  Magenner,  Bishop  of  Down  and  Conor,  Pro- 
vince Armagh. 

3.  Cornelius  O'Cahan,  Bishop  of  Raphoe,  Prov.  Armagh. 

4.  Alexander  Devereux,  Bishop  of  Ferns,  Prov.  Dublin. 

5.  Christopher  Bodkin,  Archbishop  of  Tuam. 

6.  Roland  de  Burgh,  Bishop  of  Clonfert,  Prov.  Tuam. 

7.  Eugene  O'Flanagen,  Bishop  of  Achonry,  Prov.  Tuam. 

8.  Wm.  O'Shaughnessy,  Bp.  of  Kimacdaregh,  Prov. Tuam. 
Henry  VIII.  died  28th  January  1547,        was  succeeded 

by  Edward  VI.  All  the  above-named  Bishops  who  took 
the  Oath  of  Supremacy  under  Henry  continued  to  hold  their 
Sees  under  Edward.  Edward,  in  addition,  appointed  nine 
Bishops,  who  continued  to  hold  their  Sees  under  Mary  and 
Elizabeth,  taking  the  same  oaths,  viz. — 

1.  Thomas  ,  Bishop  of  Derry,  Province  Armagh. 

2.  Arthur  Magennis,  Bishop  of  Dromore,  Prov.  Armagh. 

3.  J  Brady,  Bishop  of  Kilmore,  Province  Armagh. 

4.  James  Fitzmaurice,  Bishop  of  Ardfert,  Prov.  Cashel. 

5.  Raymond  De  Burgh,  Bishop  of  Emly,  Province  Cashel. 

6.  John  O'Henelan,  Bishop  of  Kilfornora,  Prov.  Cashel. 

7.  Patrick  Walsh,  Bishop  of  Waterford,  Province  Cashel. 

8.  Roland  de  Burgh,  Bishop  of  Elphin,  Province  Tuam. 

9.  Redman  Gallagher,  Bishop  of  Killala,  Province  Tuam. 
Edward  VI.  died  6th  July  1553,  and  was  succeeded  by 

Mary. 


90  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER, 


For  three  years  after  the  death  of  Edward,  the  Irish 
Bishops  continued  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Crown 
of  England.  By  Act  of  Parliament,  4  Mary  c.  8  (1556),  all 
the  statutes  of  Henry  VIII.  requiring  all  to  abjure  the 
Pope's  authority  were  repealed.  From  that  date,  and  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Mary,  the  Pope's  authority  was  revived. 
The  whole  of  the  above  seventeen  Bishops,  appointed  by 
Henry  and  Edward,  repudiated  their  oaths  of  allegiance  in 
matters  ecclesiastical  to  the  Crown  of  England,  and,  in 
conformity  with  the  statutes  of  Mary,  reverted  back  to  the 
authority  of  the  Pope.  The  twelve  Bishops  who  were 
appointed  by  Mary,  who  had  taken  the  oath  to  the  Pope, 
and  the  eight  survivors  appointed  by  Henry,  and  the  nine 
appointed  by  Edward,  who  survived  the  reign  of  Mary,  all 
conformed  under  Elizabeth  (save  two)  and  took  the  oath 
of  allegiance  to  Elizabeth.  These  two  who  refused  were 
Walsh  of  Meath,  and  Leverous  of  Kildare,  who  were 
deposed.  The  names  of  the  twelve  Bishops  appointed  by 
Mary  were  : — 

1.  Patrick  M'Mahon,  Bishop  of  Ardagh,  Prov.  Armagh. 

2.  Peter  Wale,  Bishop  of  Clonmaronore,  Prov.  Armagh. 

3.  Wm.  Walsh,  Bishop  of  Meath,  Province  Armagh. 

4.  Roland  Baron,  Archbishop  of  Cashel. 

5.  Roger  Skiddie,  Bp.  of  Cork  and  Cloyne,  Prov.  Cashel. 

6.  Terence  O'Brien,  Bishop  of  Kildare,  Province  Cashel. 

7.  Hugh  Lees,  Bishop  of  Limerick,  Province  Cashel. 

8.  O'Hirley,  Bishop  of  Ross,  Province  Cashel. 

9.  Hugh  Curwin,  Archbishop  of  Dublin. 

10.  Thomas  Leverous,  Bishop  of  Kildare,  Prov.  Dublin. 

11.  John  Thormey,  Bishop  of  Ossory,  Province  Dublin. 

12.  Thomas  O'Fehel,  Bishop  of  Leighlen,  Province  Dublin. 
The  Archbishopric  of  Armagh  was  vacant. 

On  the  accession  of  Ehzabeth  the  authority  of  the  Pope 


cranmer's  oaths  on  consecration  as  archbishop.  91 


was  again  abolished  by  the  Act  2  Elizabeth,  c.  i  and  2 
(1560).  The  ancient  jurisdiction  over  the  Estate  Ecclesi- 
astical and  Spiritual  was  restored  to  the  Crown,  revoking 
the  Acts  passed  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  and  the  Acts  of 
Henry  VIII.  were  revived.  The  Oath  of  Supremacy  to 
the  Crown  of  England  was  re-enacted,  requiring  the  abju- 
ration of  the  Pope's  authority  to  be  taken  by  every  Arch- 
bishop and  Bishop,  and  all  other  ministers  of  religion, 
which,  as  stated,  was  readily  taken  in  Ireland  by  all  the 
Bishops  then  holding  Sees,  save  Walsh  and  Leverous. 
Swearing,  un-swearing,  and  re-swearing  as  times  required. 

As  to  England,  when  Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne, 
although  the  leading  reforming  Bishops,  Cranmer,  Ridley, 
Latimer,  Hooper,  and  a  noble  army  of  martyrs,  had  suf- 
fered at  the  stake,  during  the  reign  of  Mary,  the  ecclesias- 
tical body,  as  well  as  those  in  educational  and  other 
establishments,  amounting  to  about  nine  thousand  four 
hundred,  all,  except  about  two  hundred,  took  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  Queen,  renouncing  the  authority  of  the 
Pope,  the  Mass,  the  dogma  of  Transubstantiation  (on 
account  of  which  so  many  had  been  sacrificed  during  the 
reign  of  Mary),  the  use  of  images  in  public  worship,  and 
other  Romish  practices.  They  acknowledged  Elizabeth 
as  Supreme  Governor  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
adopted  the  English  Reformed  Liturgy.  No  attempt  has 
been  made  to  refute  or  explain  away  this  astounding  fact, 
of  the  wholesale  conversion  in  England  of  the  Roman 
Priesthood,  but  desperate  efforts  are  made  to  vindicate  the 
Irish  Bishops  from  the  supposed  odium  of  a  similar 
scandal  brought  about  under  similar  circumstances. 

The  example  in  Ireland  of  the  Irish  Bishops  in  1560 
was  followed  by  almost  the  entire  body  of  the  Irish  Priests. 
They  retained  their  respective  Sees,  benefices,  titles,  emolu- 


92  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


ments,  and  endowments.  The  Irish  Royal  Supremacy  Act 
was  passed  not  only  by  the  "Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal," 
but  also  by  the  "  Commons  "  of  Ireland. 

The  first  decided  step  to  throw  off  the  allegiance  to  the 
Pope  was  taken  in  England  under  Henry  in  1532.  The 
manner  in  which  this  change  was  hailed  by  the  clergy 
was  freely  expressed  in  an  address  to  the  King  by  the 
Provincial  Synod  of  the  Province  of  Canterbury ;  "  in 
other  words,  by  what  was  virtually  the  Church  of  England 
by  representation  :  " — 

"  We,  your  most  humble  subjects,  daily  orators  and  beadsmen  of 
your  clergy  of  England,  having  our  special  trust  and  confidence  in 
your  most  excellent  wisdom,  your  princely  goodness,  and  fervent  zeal 
in  the  promotion  of  God's  honour  and  Christian  religion,  and  also  in 
your  learning,  far  exceeding  in  our  judgment  the  learning  of  all  other 
kings  and  princes  that  we  have  read  of ;  and,  doubting  nothing  but 
that  the  same  shall  still  continue  and  increase  in  your  Majesty,  first 
do  offer  and  promise  in  verba  sacerdotii  here  unto  your  Highness, 
submitting  ourselves  humbly  to  the  same,  that  ive  will  never  from 
Iienceforlh  enact,  put  in  use,  promulge,  or  execute  any  new  ca?tons,  or 
constitutions  provincial,  or  any  other  tiew  ordinances,  provincial  or 
synodal,  in  our  convocatiotis,  or  synod,  in  time  cojning,  which  con- 
vocation is,  always  hath  been,  and  must  be  assembled  only  by  your 
high  commandment  of  writ ;  only  your  Highness,  by  your  royal 
assent,  shall  license  us  to  assemble  our  convocation,  and  to  make, 
promulge,  and  execute  such  constitutions  and  ordinances  as  shall 
be  made  in  the  same,  and  thereto  give  your  royal  assent  and 
authority." ' 

In  the  face  of  these  facts,  we  can  better  appreciate  the 
conduct  of  Cranmer  as  being  entirely  consistent  v/ith  "  the 
genius  "  of  the  times  in  which  he  lived,  although  a  recent 
writer  on  this  subject  says  that  Cranmer  acted  as  if  the 
"  laws  of  God,  of  virtue,  and  of  honour  had  become 
obsolete."      The   history  of  the  representatives  of  the 

1  Wilkins'  "Concilia,"  iii.  754,  ex  regist.  Warham.  Quoted  by  the  Rev. 
R.  W.  Dixon,  "  History  of  the  Church  of  England,"  vol.  i.  p.  no.  London, 
1878. 


cranmer's  oaths  on  consecration  as  archbishop.  93 


Papal  Church  in  this  country,  it  would  seem,  confirms 
that  view.    They  were  all  Papists. 

Le  Bas,  in  his  "Life  of  Cranmer,"  in  comparing  Cranmer's 
conduct  with  that  of  the  other  Bishops,  justly  observes  : — 

"  The  distinction  between  Cranmer's  conduct  and  that  of  many 
other  of  Henry's  dignitaries  and  prelates  is  evidently  this  :  they,  in 
spite  of  their  oaths  to  the  Pope,  supported  innovations  morally  hostile 
to  his  authority ;  while  Cranmer  refused  to  shelter  himself  under 
any  secret  reservation  ;  and  declared  distinctly  and  openly,  and 
solemnly,  at  his  consecration,  the  exact  sense  in  which  he  understood 
the  customary  engagement  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  By  this  proceed- 
ing, he  placed  his  own  rectitude  in  honourable  contrast  with  the 
servile  duplicity  of  his  brethren.  And  the  utmost  that  can  possibly 
be  said  to  his  disparagement  is,  that  he  might  have  followed  a  still 
more  excellent  way,  by  declaring  to  the  King  his  inflexible  resolution 
to  reject  the  Primacy,  if  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  to  have  any  concern 
in  his  investment  with  it." 

This  is  the  most  that  can  be  said  for  Cranmer  in  his 
vindication — if  a  vindication.  But  the  Reformed  Church 
is  not  responsible  for  Cranmer's  conduct ;  though,  humanly 
speaking,  the  Reformed  Church  ultimately  reaped  the 
benefit  of  Cranmer's  subsequent  conduct  and  actions. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  FATE  OF  ANNE  BOLEYN  ;  HENRY'S  MARRIAGE 
WITH  JANE  SEYMOUR,  ANNE  OF  CLEVES,  CATHERINE 
HOWARD,  AND  CATHERINE  PARR  ;  AND  CRANMER'S 
ALLEGED  PARTICIPATION  IN  THESE  ACTS. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  the  period  when  Cranmer  was 
created  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  seventieth  in  that 
See,  and  the  last  EngHsh  Archbishop  who  received  the 
"  Pall  "  from  Rorne.  He  received  the  Pa//iia/i,^  the  insignia 
of  his  office,  on  the  2d  March,  and  was  consecrated  30th 
March  1533  at  the  hands  of  the  Bishops  of  London,  Exeter, 
and  St  Asaph ;  Archbishop  Warham  having  died  22d 
August  1532. 

While  in  Germany,  as  detailed  in  a  former  Chapter, 
Cranmer,  most  unexpectedly,  received  the  King's  com- 
mand to  return  to  England,  to  be  raised  to  the  Primacy. 

^  The  Pa/h'HM,  or  Pa//,  is  a  "sacred"  garment,  specially  manufactured  for 
the  Pope,  and  is  obtained  from  the  wool  of  two  lambs  slain  on  the  eve  of  St 
Agnes.  "This  symbol  of  the  plenitude  of  ecclesiastical  power  is  deposited  on 
the  tombs  of  St  Peter  and  St  Paul,  where  it  is  left  all  night.  It  is  afterwards, 
when  duly  consecrated  with  great  ceremony,  laid  aside  by  the  sub-deacon  for 
those  for  whom  it  is  designed.  The  modern  pa//ium  is  a  short  white  cloak, 
ornamented  with  a  red  cross,  which  encircles  the  neck  and  shoulder,  and  falls 
down  the  back.  These  Pa//s  are  purchased  from  the  Pope  at  a  very  considerable 
sum  ;  and  no  archbishop  can  perform  the  duties  of  his  office  before  receiving  this 
garment,  nor  is  it  legitimate  to  use  that  of  his  predecessor,"  ("  Encyclopfedia 
Britannica,"  8th  Edit.,  title  "Pallium,"  p.  22o).  According  to  Mathew  Paris, 
in  the  days  of  Henry  I.,  the  Bishop  of  York  paid;{^io,ooo  for  his  Pa//,  although 
Pope  Gregory  I.  said  :  "I  forbid  giving  any  thing  for  the  Fa//ium."  "  Pro 
ordinatione,  vero,  ve/ pa//io,  sue  charitis  atque  pastello,  eundem  qui  ordinandus, 
vel  ordinatus  est,  omnino  aliquid  dare  prohibeo,"  {"Lab.  et  Coss.,"  torn.  v. 
Epist.  Greg.,  Papte  I.,  lib.  iv.,  ep.  xliv.,  col.  1 199.    Paris,  1671. 


THE  FATE  OF  ANNE  BOLEYN. 


95 


It  is  not  improbable  that  he  owed  his  elevation  to  his  con- 
sistant  advocacy  in  promoting  the  divorce  from  Catherine. 
Cranmer's  detractors,  on  the  other  hand,  assert  that  the 
selection  was  made  of  a  pliant  instrument,  and  one  who 
could  be  made  a  ready  tool  in  the  hands  of  Henry  and 
Crumwell.  Be  this  as  it  may  (for  it  is  a  mere  conjecture), 
the  command  took  him  by  surprise,  and  he  showed  great 
reluctance  in  accepting  the  preferment.  He  delayed  his 
return  for  some  four  or  five  months,  with  a  hope  that  the 
King  might  change  his  mind. 

But  even  in  this  it  is  asserted  that  the  "interregnum  was 
not  unusual  in  appointing  a  successor."  That  may  be, 
but  nominated  successors  "seldom  wait  four  or  five  months 
before  they  accept  office."  We  have  Cranmer's  own  declara- 
tion made  in  his  final  trial  before  the  Papal  Commissioners 
at  Oxford.    He  said  : — 

"  I  protest  before  you  all,  never  man  came  more  unwillingly  to  a 
Bishopric  than  I  did  to  this  ;  insomuch  that  when  King  Henry  did 
send  for  me,  that  I  should  come  over,  I  prolonged  my  journey  full 
seven  weeks  at  the  least,  thinking  that  he  would  be  forgetful  of  me  in 
the  mean  time."  ' 

Cranmer  may  possibly  have  been  apprehensive  that  his 
marriage  might  have  created  some  unpleasantness,  but  as 
that  marriage  was  not  a  secret  transaction,  he  having  sent 
his  wife  to  England  before  his  arrival  here,  the  Pope  no 
doubt  had  cognisance  of  the  fact,  but  that  fact  did  not 
raise  any  objection  in  the  Pope's  mind  in  confirming  the 
King's  nomination. 

The  appointment  gave  dire  offence  to  Gardyner,  then 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  who,  for  his  strenuous  support  of 
the  King's  Supremacy,  considered  himself  entitled  to  the 

^  Notwithstanding  this  statement,  Mr  Friedman,  in  his  late  work,  "Anne 
Boleyn"  (vol.  i.  p.  178.  1884),  asserts  that  "Cranmer  gladly  accepted  the 
office  of  Archbishop." 


96  LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


preferment.  For  ever  after  he  was  the  bitter  enemy  of 
Cranmer. 

The  first  public  duty  forced  on  the  Primate  was  the  de- 
claration of  divorce  from  Catherine,  which  had  been  so 
long  agitated. 

The  King  had  been  privately  married  to  Anne  Boleyn, 
25th  January  1532. 

There  is  conclusive  evidence  that  the  marriage  took  place 
without  Cranmer's  knowledge.  This  is  established  by  his 
Letter  to  his  friend  Archdeacon  Hawkins,  wherein  he  says — 

"It  hath  been  reported,  throughout  a  great  part  of  the  realm,  that  I 
married  her,  which  was  plainly  false.  For  I  myself  knew  not 
thereof  a  fortnight  after  it  was  done  ;  and  many  other  things  be  also 
reported  of  me  which  be  mere  lies  and  tales  ."^ 

According  to  Eustache  Capius,  the  ambassador  of  the 
Emperor  Charles  V.  in  England,  the  ceremony  was  per- 
formed by  an  Augustinian  friar,  who  was  afterwards 
rewarded  by  the  King  making  him  General  of  the  Men- 
dicant Friars. 2  According  to  Lord  Herbert,  Dr  Rowland 
Lee  performed  the  ceremony. 

The  formal  divorce  not  having  taken  place,  the  King 
was  in  the  anomalous  position  of  having  two  wives  ;  a 
position,  if  we  are  to  credit  Gregory  Cassalis,  actually 
sanctioned  by  the  Pope.  Cranmer,  appreciating  this  com- 
plication and  the  scandal  thereby  created,  desiring  to  ascer-. 
tain  the  King's  pleasure,  wrote  to  the  King  that  he  was 
ready  to  discharge  "his  office  and  duty  as  supreme  judge 
in  causes  spiritual."  To  this  the  King  replied  in  grandilo- 
quent terms,  and  appealed  to  his  conscience,  and  that  he 
would  do  nothing  but  according  to  God's  justice  in  the 

1  Jenkyns'  "  Remains,"  vol.  i.  p.  31.    Oxford,  1833. 

2  Letter  from  Capius  to  Charles  V.,  28th  January  1 535,  quoted  by  Mr 
Fried  an.  The  letter  may  be  genuine,  but  little  reliance  can  be  placed  on 
this  decided  partisan. 


THE  FATE  OF  ANNE  BOLEYN. 


97 


cause.'  This  little  episode  is,  of  course,  set  down  by  Dr 
Lingard  and  others  as  an  "hypocritical  farce."  But  howls 
it  that  Gardyner,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  and  Bonner,  Bishop 
of  London,  do  not  come  in  for  a  share  of  the  condemna- 
tion     Bonner,  in  his  preface  to  Gardyner's  book,  writes — 

"  In  this  oration,  Dc  Vera  Obedientid — that  is,  concerning  true  obe- 
dience,— he  (Gardyner)  speaketh  of  the  King's  marriage,  which  by  the 
ripe  judgment,  authority,  and  privilege  of  the  most  and  principal  uni- 
versities of  the  world,  and  then  with  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church 
of  England,  he  contracted  with  the  most  dear  and  most  noble  lady, 
Queen  Anne  :  after  that,  touching  the  King's  title  as  pertaining  to  the 
supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England  :  lastly  of  all,  of  the  false, 
pretended  supremacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in  the  realm  of  England, 
most  justly  abrogated."  - 

Neither  Bonner  nor  Gardyner  is  introduced  in  the  pages 
of  Dr  Lingard  with  any  ridicule  or  reprehension  as  to  the 
conduct  of  either  in  regard  to  the  divorce.  On  3d  April 
1533,  Convocation  gav^e  its  solemn  decision  in  favour  of 
the  King  for  a  divorce.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the 
King's  cause  was  supported  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
nobles,  bishops,  abbots,  judges,  and  secular  priests. 
Bishop  Tunstall  declared  the  sentence  to  be  lawful.  The 
Convocation  of  York,  under  the  influence  of  Archbishop 
Lee,  agreed  with  Canterbury  that  it  was  a  lawful  and  just 
action  to  divorce  Queen  Catherine. 

On  the  lOth  May  1533  a  Court  was  held  at  Dunstable, 
near  Ampthill,  where  Queen  Catherine  was  then  residing. 
She  refused  to  appear  before  the  Court  on  being  summoned. 
Cranmer  presided  at  this  Court  in  his  capacity  of  Primate, 
assisted  by  Bishops  Gardyner  and  Bonner.  The  decision 
of  the  Court  was  unanimous,  and  Cranmer,  as  President,  is 
said  to  have  given  judgment.    The  words  of  this  judgment 

'  See  the  Letter  given  by  Collier,  vol.  ii.,  Rec.  No.  24,  p.  15,  edit.  17 14. 
-  Sec  Michael  Wood's  translation  of  Gardyner's  "  De  Vera  Obedientia," 
quoted  by  Todd  in  his  "  Vindication  of  Cranmer,"  p.  55.    London,  1826. 

G 


98 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


have  been  variously  given  ;  but  whatever  form  was 
adopted,  it  is  said  that  this  judgment  was  drawn  up  by  the 
lawyers  of  the  Crown. 

On  the  1 2th  April  the  King's  marriage  had  been  publicly 
solemnised,  and  on  the  23d  May  Cranmer  confirmed  the 
union  by  a  judicial  sentence,  given  at  Lambeth ;  and 
Anne,  with  great  splendour  and  pomp,  was  crowned  Queen. 
In  the  year  following  (1534)  an  Act  of  Parliament  was 
passed  declaring  the  validity  of  the  marriage,  and  that  the 
issue  of  that  marriage  was  lawful. 

Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Queen  Anne  Boleyn,  was 
born  7th  September  1533.  Cranmer  stood  as  godfather. 
The  Dowager-Duchess  of  Norfolk  and  the  Dowager- 
Marchioness  of  Dorset  stood  as  godmothers. 

With  reference  to  the  divorce,  there  can  be  no  ground 
for  doubt  that  Cranmer  acted  from  the  conscientious 
belief  that  the  first  marriage  was  illegal.  He  had 
privately  maintained  that  opinion  before  he  had  any 
idea  that  he  would  be  called  upon  to  take  an  active 
part  in  the  proceedings.  That  Cranmer  Avas  subsequently 
aware  of  the  King's  ultimate  intentions  towards  Anne 
Boleyn,  we  can  scarcely  doubt.  But  he  had  no  control 
over  the  King's  will  or  affections  ;  nor,  indeed,  maintain- 
ing his  own  opinions  could  he  urge  any  valid  objection  to 
the  second  marriage. 

The  divorce  and  subsequent  marriage  taking  place 
without  the  sanction  of  the  Pope,  the  King  ignoring 
— as  he  had  a  right  to  do — the  Pope's  jurisdiction  in 
England,  and  appealing  from  his  authority  to  a  general 
Council,  set  the  Vatican  in  a  ferment. 

The  form  of  appeal  was  drawn  up,  and  presented  by 
Bonner,  Bishop  of  London,  in  person,  to  the  Pope.  This 
interview  took  place  13th  November  1533.    The  Pope 


THE  FATE  OF  ANNE  BOLEYN. 


99 


was  furious,  but  he  considered  it  prudent  to  limit  his 
action  by  pronouncing  that  the  whole  proceedings  in 
England,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  were  utterly- 
void,  and  that  the  King  had  exposed  himself  to  the 
penalty  of  excommunication,  which  was  threatened  to  be 
put  in  force,  unless  he  submitted  to  the  dictates  of  the 
Pope.  By  the  intervention  of  Francis  I.,  King  of  France,  a 
message  was  conveyed  to  the  King,  that,  if  he  submitted  to 
the  Pope's  authority,  matters  might  be  amicably  adjusted. 
It  is  clear  that  the  Pope  had  no  care  for  the  justice  or 
morality  of  the  case,  if  he  were  only  allowed  to  adjudicate 
in  the  matter,  as  Popes  had  already  done  in  many  similar 
cases.  Ecclesiastical  morality  in  those  days,  from  the  highest 
to  the  lowest  officials,  was  very  lax.  But  it  seems  unjust 
that  the  wrath  of  the  members  of  the  unreformed  Church 
of  the  present  day  should  be  concentrated  on  Cranmer. 
It  was,  however,  unfortunate  for  the  Primate  that  further 
complications  ensued,  which  have  laid  him  open  to  the 
severe  censure  of  his  numerous  detractors. 

The  proposal  through  the  King  of  France  resulted  in 
negotiations  with  Pope  Paul  III. — the  same  Paul  who, 
when  Cardinal,  had  advocated  the  divorce.  These  pro- 
ceedings were  arrested  by  the  accident  of  the  delay  of 
the  King's  envoy  on  his  journey  to  Rome,  which  was 
taken  advantage  of  by  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  On  the 
24th  March  1534,  the  Pope's  Consistory  declared  that 
the  marriage  with  Catherine  was  good  and  valid,  and 
that  the  sentence  of  excommunication  should  issue  against 
the  King.  What  right,  it  may  be  asked,  had  the  Pope  to 
interfere .''  The  rupture  between  England  and  Rome  was 
now  complete. 

Cranmer  had  now  to  put  his  Episcopal  authority  in  force, 
which  he  did  under  the  direct  command  of  the  King. 


lOO       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Various  priests,  "Papalings,"  from  their  pulpits,  vehemently 
condemned  the  conduct  of  the  King,  and  otherwise  slandered 
the  Queen,  calling  them  Ahab  and  Jezebel.  Those  priests 
in  his  diocese  he  interdicted  from  preaching,  an  order  also 
enforced  by  the  Bishops  of  London,  Winchester,  and  Lin- 
coln, in  their  respective  dioceses. 

We  now  come  to  the  next  complication  in  which  the 
Archbishop  was  involved,  and  for  which  he  has  also  been 
severely  censured.  The  matter  had  reference  to  proceed- 
ings previous,  and  subsequent,  to  the  trial  and  execution  of 
Anne  Boleyn. 

Various  versions  of  this  transaction  are  given,  and 
especially  whether  Anne  Boleyn  was  really  guilty  of  the 
charge  of  adultery.  The  King  is  also  accused  of  having 
connived  at  the  crime.  Some  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  he 
was  aided  and  abetted  by  Cranmer.  So  many  contradic- 
tory statements  have  been  made,  that  it  is  difficult  to  arrive 
at  the  truth.  But  Cranmer's  alleged  connivance  of  the 
Queen's  disgrace  is  a  malicious  falsehood. 

It  has  been  alleged  that  so  early  as  Januar)'  1535 
suspicions  had  been  raised  in  the  King's  mind  as  to 
Anne's  chastity.^  In  April  1536  the  Council,  acting  on 
information  they  allege  to  have  received,  which  implicated 
the  Queen,  issued  a  special  commission  on  the  24th  of 
that  month,  comprising  the  Lord  Chancellor,  the  judges, 
and  the  leading  noblemen  of  the  realm.  It  was  on  the 
1st  of  May  1536  that  a  tournament  was  held  at  Greenwich. 
At  this /t'ie  the  Queen,  not  aware  of  the  suspicions  raised 
against  her,  gave  (as  is  also  alleged)  certain  tokens  of 
partiality  for  her  "paramour."  This  was  witnessed  by  the 
King  himself  Suspicions  were  now  brought  home  to  the 
King.    Anne  and  her  (alleged)  paramours,  Seaton  and 

'  It  may  be  noted  here  that  Catherine  died  7th  January  1536. 


THE  FATE  OF  ANNE  BOLEYN. 


lOI 


Morris,  were  arrested  on  the  2d  ^lay  1536.  Though  she 
persisted  in  declaring  her  innocence,  Seaton  made  such  a 
confession,  that  carried  with  it,  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Court,  proof  of  guilt.  The  King  is  said  to  have  twice 
offered  her  pardon  if  she  would  confess  her  guilt.i  It  was 
scarcely  likely  that  she  would  comply  with  such  a  request. 
On  the  contrary,  she  persisted  in  her  declaration  of  inno- 
cence to  the  last. 

That  Cranmer  was  in  any  sense  a  party  to  these  pro- 
ceedings does  not  appear,  but  it  is  certain  that  on  the  3d 
May  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  King,  interceding  on  behalf  of 
the  Queen.  The  very  terms  of  this  letter  precludes  us 
from  supposing  there  had  been  any  previous  collusion 
between  the  King  and  Cranmer.  The  letter  runs  as 
follows : —  - 

"...  And  if  it  be  true  that  is  reported  of  the  Queen's  Grace,  if 
men  had  a  right  estimation  of  things,  they  should  not  esteem  any  part 
of  your  Grace's  honour  to  be  touched  thereby,  but  her  honour  only  to 
be  clearly  disparaged.  And  I  am  in  such  perplexity,  that  my  mind 
is  clean  amazed  :  for  I  never  had  better  opinion  in  woman,  than  I  had 
in  her  ;  which  maketh  me  to  think,  that  she  should  not  be  culpable. 
And  again,  I  think  your  Royal  Highness  would  not  have  gone  so  far, 
except  she  had  surely  been  culpable.  Now  I  think  that  your  Grace 
best  knoweth,  that  next  unto  your  Grace  I  was  most  bound  unto  her  of 
all  creatures  living.  Wherefore,  I  most  humbly  beseech  your  Grace  to 
suffer  me  in  that,  which  both  God's  law,  nature,  and  also  her  kindness, 
leadeth  me  unto  ;  that  is,  that  I  may  with  your  Grace's  favour  wish 

'  It  is  said  that  Anne  made  some  confession  to  Cranmer,  with  the  hope  that 
her  life  would  be  spared  ;  and,  in  anticipation  of  her  release,  she  had  proposed 
to  live  at  Antwerp  ;  but  if  she  made  any  such  confession,  it  has  never  been 
revealed.  It  has  been  most  maliciously  and  shamefully  suggested  that 
Cranmer  bribed  Anne,  in  the  Confessional,  by  offer  of  her  pardon  if  she  con- 
fessed her  guilt,  but  there  is  not  one  scrap  of  evidence  to  support  this  slander. 
According  to  the  testimony  of  Alexander  Ales,  in  his  long  and  interesting 
letter  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  dated  1st  September  1559,  it  was  Anne  herself  who 
sent  for  Cranmer  to  visit  her  in  her  prison.  (.See  Stevenson's  "  Calendar  of 
State  Papers.    Foreign.    Elizabeth,"  1559,  p.  527). 

^  Jenkyns' "  Remains,"  vol.  i.  pp.  164-5.  Oxford  University  Press,  1833. 
"  Cranmer's  Works^"  P..S.  ii.  323. 


I02        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


and  pray  for  her,  that  she  may  declare  herself  inculpable  and  in- 
iiocent." 

This  is  scarcely  the  letter  of  one  conniving  with  the 
King  to  prove  the  Queen  guilty  ! 

There  is  a  remarkable  postscript  to  this  letter,  which 

places  Cranmer's  alleged  participation  in  these  transactions 

in  a  proper  light,  which  is  as  follows  : — 

"After  I  had  written  unto  your  Grace,  my  Lord  Chancellor,  my 
Lord  of  Oxford,  my  Lord  of  Sussex,  and  my  Lord  Chamberlain  of 
your  Grace's  purse,  sent  for  me  to  come  unto  the  Star  Chamber,  and 
there  declare  unto  me  such  things  as  your  Grace's  pleasure  was  they 
should  make  me  privy  unto.  For  the  which  I  am  most  bounden  unto 
your  Grace.  And  what  communication  we  had  together,  I  doubt  not 
but  they  will  make  the  true  report  thereof  unto  your  Grace.  I  am 
exceedingly  sorry  that  such  faults  can  be  proved  by  the  Queen,  as  I 
heard  of  their  relation." 

A  Commission  was  issued  for  the  trial  of  the  Queen, 

consisting  of  the  highest  lay  officials  of  the  realm,  including 

the  Lord  Chancellor,  the  Queen's  own  uncle ;  the  Duke  of 

Norfolk ;  and  the  Earl  of  Wiltshire  (Sir  Thomas  Boleyn), 

the  Queen's  father.^     A  true  bill  was  found  against  her 

by  the  Grand  Jury  of  Middlesex,  and  by  the  Grand  Jury  of 

Kent,  and  the  Petty  Jury  (l 2th  May  1536)  also  found  her 

guilty.    It  was  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  who  gave  sentence 

that  Anne  was  to  be  burned  or  beheaded,  at  the  King's 

pleasure.     In  these  transactions  Cranmer  took  no  part 

whatever.    If  the  sentence  was  unjust,  then  the  Chancellor 

and  judges,  and  the  long  array  of  illustrious  persons  named 

on  the  Commission,  and  three  juries,  were  guilty  of  murder. 

It  is  alleged  that  all  the  actors  in  this  sad  affair  proceeded 

under  fear  and  coercion  of  the  King.    For  the  reputation 

of  Anne,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  it  was  so,  but  this  would  say 

little  for  the  morality  of  the  times.    Cranmer,  on  account 

of  his  known  sympathies  for  the  Queen,  was  during  these 

'  Some  writers  deny  that  the  uncle  and  father  were  on  the  Commission.  Mr 
Froude  records  it  as  an  undoubted  fact. 


THE  FATE  OF  ANNE  BOLEVN. 


proceedings  ordered  not  to  quit  his  residence  at  Lambeth. 
He,  however,  had  an  interview  with  the  Queen,  while  in 
prison,  but  what  took  place  has  never  transpired. 

The  Kingr  was  not  satisfied  to  let  matters  remain  on  the 
footing  of  this  verdict,  but  he  must  have  a  formal  declara- 
tion that  his  marriage  was  void  from  the  commencement  ; 
and  for  this  purpose  Cranmer  was  summoned  by  the 
King  to  hold  a  Consistory  at  Lambeth.  This  mandate 
must  have  gone  hard  with  the  Archbishop,  but  obey  he 
must  the  ro3'al  command.  His  only  alternative  was  to 
resign  the  office  of  Primate.  The  duty  of  condemning,  as 
void,  that  which  he  himself  had  previously  held  to  be 
legal,  was  manifestly  inconsistent,  if  Ave  set  aside  the 
charge  of  adultery.  But  Cranmer  did  not  act  alone,  either 
in  the  initiatory  or  final  proceedings,  with  regard  to  the 
matrimonial  affairs  between  Henry  and  Anne.  His 
opinions  and  actions  were  shared  by  nearly  all  the  lead- 
ing Ecclesiastics  and  Nobles  of  the  period.  It  is  there- 
fore unjust  to  select  Cranmer — who,  by  reason  of  the 
accident  of  his  office,  had  to  preside  at  the  final  meeting 
which  took  place  on  the  14th  May  1536 — for  vituperation 
and  condemnation  as  a  ready  tool  to  carry  out  the  wicked 
devices  of  his  Sovereign.  The  last  scene  is  thus  described 
by  the  Rev.  Richard  Watson  Dixon  :^ — 

"At  the  hour  of  nine.  May  17th,  the  barges  of  the  assessors,  proctors, 
and  other  assistants  in  the  pageant  of  justice,  arrived  at  Lambeth 
stairs.  The  assessors  of  Cranmer  were  the  Lord  Chancellor  Audley  ; 
the  Duke  of  Suffolk;  the  Earl  of  Oxford;  the  Earl  of  Sussex;  the  Lord 
Sandys;  Secretary  and  Vice-Gerent  Crumwell;  SirWilliam  Fitzwilliams; 
the  Comptroller  of  the  Royal  Household,  Paulet  ;  Doctor  Tregonwell; 
Doctor  Oliver  of  Oxford  ;  Gwent,  the  Dean  of  Arches ;  Archdeacon 
Bonner  ;  the  active  Councillor,  Archdeacon  and  Doctor  Bedyl;  the  ac- 
tive Archdeacon  and  Doctor  Layton  ;  and  the  active  Doctor  Legh.  The 

*  "  History  of  the  Church  of  England  from  the  Abolition  of  the  Roman 
Jurisdiction,"  vol.  i.  p.  389.  1878. 


I04       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRAXMER, 


King's  Proctor  was  Doctor  Richard  Sampson,  Deacon  of  the  Chapel 
Royal,  a  man  whose  zeal  in  the  King's  business  was  more  conspicuous 
about  this  time  than  his  ability  ;  and  for  the  Queen  appeared  Doctors 
Wotton  and  Barbour.  Witnesses  and  notaries  were  in  attendance. 
The  Archbishop  led  the  way  into  the  cr)-pt  of  Lambeth  ;  and  in  that 
sepulchral  chamber  the  cause  was  pleaded,  witnesses  were  heard,  the 
sentence  was  pronounced,  within  the  space  of  two  hours.  The  Arch- 
bishop declared  that,  having  first  invoked  the  name  of  Christ,  having 
God  alone  before  his  eyes,  having  carefully  examined  the  whole  pro- 
cess, in  that  case  with  the  help  of  counsel  learned  in  the  law,  he  found 
the  marriage  consummated  between  the  King  and  the  most  Serene 
Lady  Anne  to  be,  and  always  to  have  been,  null  and  void,  without 
strength  or  effect,  of  no  force  or  moment,  and  to  be  held  a  thing  of 
nought,  invalid,  vain,  and  empty." 

The  sentence  of  divorce  was  confirmed  by  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment, 23  Henry  VIII.  c.  7,  and  was  subscribed  by  Convo- 
cation.^  If  the  marriage  itself  was  void  ab  initio,  then  the 
sentence     death  for  treason  was  unjust. 

It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Cranmer,  in  fact,  delivered 
that  judgment ;  for,  according  to  Sharon  Turner  and  other 
writers,  that  duty  fell  on  Crumwell.  In  any  case,  we  must 
conclude  that,  as  President,  Cranmer  delivered  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Court  according  to  the  decision — right  or 
wrong — come  to  by  the  meeting.  He  could  not  have 
done  otherwise ;  the  same  judgment  would  have  been 
delivered  had  Gardyner  or  Bonner  been  Archbishop. 

Cranmer  was  in  no  way  responsible  for  Anne's  last 
tragic  fate. 

The  unhappy  Queen,  and  her  alleged  paramour,  were 
beheaded.  She  protested  her  innocence  to  the  last,  under- 
going her  sentence  with  a  coolness  and  fortitude  becoming 
such  a  protestation. 

In  a  letter  written  by  Alexander  Ales  to  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, in  which  he  enters  into  many  interesting  details  with 
regard  to  these  events,  he  relates  a  visit  he  made  on  the 

*  Wilkins'  "  Concil.,"  vol.  iii.  p.  864,  cited  by  Dixon. 


THE  FATE  OF  ANNE  BOLEYN. 


day  of  execution  of  Anne,  to  the  Archbishop  at  the  Lam- 
beth Palace.  Ales  appears  to  intimate  that  Cranmer  was 
not  aware  that  the  execution  was  to  take  place  that  day  ; 
he  records  Cranmer's  words  in  conveying  this  information  : 
■ — " '  She  who  has  been  Queen  of  England  upon  earth, 
will  to-day  become  a  Queen  in  Heaven,'  so  great  was  his 
grief  that  he  could  say  nothing  more,  and  then  he  burst 
into  tears."  ^ 

Cranmer  had  no  power  to  arrest  the  execution,  nor  was 
he  responsible  for  the  cold-blooded  conduct  of  the  King 
in  marrying  Jane  Seymour  within  three  days  after  the 
execution  of  the  Queen. 

If  we  can  judge  from  popular  feeling,  Cranmer's  partici- 
pation in  these  unhappy  transactions  seems  to  have 
given  dire  offence,  particularly  with  the  womenkind,  so 
much  so  that  it  was  necessary  to  protect  his  person  with 
an  armed  escort  when  he  appeared  to  perform  his  public 
duties.2 

It  does  not  appear  that  Cranmer  has  been  made  respon- 
sible for  any  other  of  Henry's  matrimonial  complications, 
though  even  this  is  attempted.  A  few  observations,  how- 
ever, on  this  subject  may  not  be  out  of  place  in  our  con- 
sideration of  the  "  Times  of  Cranmer."  Resistance  to  the 
King's  wishes,  in  these  matrimonial  arrangements,  never 
seems  to  have  entered  the  imagination  of  any  of  the 
Ecclesiastics,  or  Nobles,  or  Commoners ;  nor  does  it  seem 

'  Stevenson's  "Calendar  of  State  Papers.  Foreign.  Elizabeth,"  1559,  p. 
528. 

The  anger  of  the  populace  may  have  been  directed  against  the  spiritual 
court  system  of  playing  fast  and  loose  with  the  marriage  bond.  Cranmer,  as 
the  embodiment  of  that  system,  received  the  righteous  condemnation  of  the 
vox  poptili,  or  "secular"  conscience,  uncontaminated  by  the  "spiritual" 
system  of  "distinctions."  Every  woman  felt  that  after  such  a  long  union  with 
Catherine,  and  on  secret  charges  as  in  the  case  of  Anne,  any  one  of  themselves 
might  be  in  like  evil  case. 


I06        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER, 


to  have  occurred  to  any  of  them  that  there  was  anything 
disgraceful  or  iniquitous  in  the  proceeding. 

The  marriage  with  Jane  Seymour  was  one  of  affection 
on  both  sides.  She  died  shortly  after  giving  birth  to  a 
son,  afterwards  Edward  VI.  This  event  caused  great  and 
unfeigned  grief  to  the  King,  and  had  he  been  left  to  his 
own  inclination  he  would  not  have  married  again.  He 
repeatedly  declared  his  intention  to  remain  a  widower. 
In  the  three  years  that  intervened  between  the  death 
of  Queen  Jane  and  the  King's  next  marriage,  the  most 
unscrupulous  of  his  detractors  have  found  no  act,  or  indis- 
cretion, on  which  to  fix,  or  can  call  in  question  his  morality. 
But  the  vindication  of  Henry  is  not  our  present  task. 

Edward,  the  infant  son  of  Jane  Seymour,  the  heir 
apparent  to  the  throne,  was  weak  and  sickly,  and,  although 
extraordinary  precautions  were  taken  for  his  safety,  it  was 
not  believed  that  he  would  long  survive.  So  early  as 
November  1537  the  Privy  Council  represented  to  the  King 
the  necessity  of  his  undertaking  a  fresh  marriage  while 
the  state  of  his  health  left  a  hope  that  he  might  again  be  a 
father.  It  is  most  certain  that  the  King  suffered  deeply  on 
account  of  the  loss  of  Jane,  and  he  shunned  the  pressing 
proposals  now  attempted  to  be  forced  on  him  for  yet 
another  marriage.  The  united  judgment  of  the  Privy 
Council  urged  the  necessity  of  it,'  on  account  of  the  youth 
and  sickly  constitution  of  Edward. 

Mary,  the  daughter  of  Catherine,  had  been,  as  we  have 
seen,  declared  illegitimate ;  and,  as  was  then  considered, 
could  be  no  legal  successor  to  the  throne  of  England. 
During  the  trial  of  Anne  circumstances  transpired,  invented 
or  real,  which  gave  rise  to  grave  doubts  as  to  the  validity  of 
the  second  marriage,  and  therefore  as  to  the  legitimacy  of 
1  "State  Papers,"  vol.  viii.  p.  2. 


THE  FATE  OF  ANNE  BOLEVN.  IO7 

Elizabeth  ;  among  other  reasons  the  supposed  existence  of 
a  previous  contract  of  marriage  entered  into  by  Anne ;  the 
fact  of  which  was,  however,  never  established.  In  the 
estimation  of  all  "good  Catholics,"  even  at  the  present  day, 
the  marriage  with  Anne  is  considered  void,  and  Elizabeth 
illegitimate,  notwithstanding  the  subsequent  promise  of 
the  Pope  to  legalise  the  marriage,  and  declare  Elizabeth 
legitimate,  if  she  would  accept  the  Reformation  at  his 
hands !  The  mere  rumour  created  great  consternation  1 
throughout  the  country,  as  Elizabeth  in  that  case  also 
could  not  inherit  the  crown,  which  was  thus  supposed  to 
be  left  open  to  King  James  of  Scotland,  then  at  open 
enmity  against  England.  The  King  was  pressed  on  all 
sides  to  marry  again,  his  Prime  Minister,  Crumwell,  being 
most  active  in  his  importunities,  and  for  which  he  ultimately 
suffered.  The  feelings  and  actions  of  the  King  have  been 
freely  described  by  religious  opponents.  It  is  to  be 
regretted  that  religious  rancour  and  the  morbid  delight 
in  "  sensational  stories "  should  induce  otherwise  gifted 
writers  to  distort  history  merely  to  give  a  zest  to  their 
romances,  and  it  is  a  lamentable  fact  that  history  is  too 
often  learnt  from  romancers.  Happily  the  Reformation, 
or  the  reformed,  are  in  no  way  responsible  for  Henry's 
matrimonial  complications.  There  is  no  proof  that  Henry 
acted  otherwise  than  with  becoming  dignity  in  all  these 
.subsequent  trying  occasions.  This  remark  may  create  a 
smile,  but  it  is  not  the  less  true. 

To  these  remarks  Mr  Froude  adds  the  following  just 
reflections  : — 

"  Persons  who  are  acquainted  with  the  true  history  of  Henry's  later 
marriages  are  not  surprised  at  their  unfortunate  consequences,  yet 

^  If  the  Act  of  1536  declaring  that  marriages  with  the  sister  of  a  former 
mistress  to  be  illegal  and  void  was  directed  to  the  alleged  fact  that  Mary 
Boleyn  was  Henry's  mistress,  then,  indeed,  there  was  cause  for  anxiety. 


I08        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


smile  at  the  interpretation  which  popular  tradition  has  assigned  to  his 
conduct.  Popular  tradition  is  a  less  safe  guide  through  difficult 
passages  of  history  than  the  words  of  statesmen  who  were  actors  upon 
the  stage,  and  were  concerned  personally  in  the  conduct  of  the  events 
which  they  describe." 

Three  years  had  passed  since  the  death  of  Queen  Jane 
Seymour;  the  King's  health  was  on  the  wane,  and  the 
country  had  to  look  only  to  the  sickly  Edward  as  a  suc- 
cessor to  the  crown,  or  to  a  civil  war  if  he  died.  In  May 
1539,  Anne,  Duchess  of  Cleves  was  suggested  as  a  fit 
person  to  bring  forward,  and  a  favourable  opportunity  to 
cement  a  connection  with  the  Protestants.  Crumwell,  the 
King's  Prime  Minister,  urged  the  alliance,  and  Holbein's 
art,  as  a  painter,  was  enlisted  to  impart  charms  where  none 
existed.  Her  portrait  was  forwarded  to  the  King.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  Cranmer  had  any  hand  in  this  transac- 
tion. It  is  impossible  here  to  enter  on  the  complications 
of  European  politics  which  suggested  the  Duchess  of 
Cleves  to  the  King,  in  preference  to  the  Duchess  of  Milan, 
who  was  also  proposed.  This  unhappy  marriage  was 
forced  on  Henry.  Anne  arrived  in  England  in  December 
1539-  The  King's  word  was  compromised  to  the  union — 
it  must  take  place.  He  went  to  meet  his  future  Queen  at 
Rochester.  The  King,  at  first  sight,  was  disappointed  if 
not  disgusted ;  he  was  "  discouraged  and  amazed  ; "  he 
retired  hastily  to  Greenwich,  anxious  to  escape  the  pro- 
jected union,  the  thought  of  which  was  revolting  to  him. 
He  had  been  deceived,  and  now  he  was  to  be  forced  into  a 
marriage  repugnant  to  his  feelings. 

We  must  here  pause  to  censure  Henry  VIII.,  not  on  the 
trite  accusation  of  his  supposed  vice,^  but  because  he  per- 

^  "  Those  who  insist  that  Henry  was  a  licentious  person  must  explain  how 
it  was  that  neither  in  the  three  years  which  had  elapsed  since  the  death  of  Jane 
Seymour,  nor  during  the  more  trying  period  which  followed,  do  we  hear  a 
word  of  mistresses,  intrigues,  or  questionable  or  criminal  conneNions  of  any  kind. 


ANNE  OF  CLEVES. 


109 


mitted  himself  to  be  drawn  into  an  alliance  which  he  had 
so  soon  after  to  repudiate.  Having  engaged  in  such  an 
alliance,  he  was  bound  to  abide  the  consequences.  Never- 
theless it  was,  as  Mr  Froude  quaintly  observes,  "  a  cruel  for- 
tune which  imposed  on  Henry  VHI.,  in  addition  to  his 
other  burdens,  the  labour,  to  him  so  arduous,  of  finding 
heirs  to  strengthen  his  succession."  The  matter  was  too  far 
gone  for  him  to  retreat.  The  future  Queen  had  arrived  at 
Rochester.  After  his  interview  with  the  Duchess,  her  ap- 
pearance and  manner  being  anything  but  prepossessing,  he 
said,  "  I  have  been  ill-treated.  If  it  were  not  that  she  is 
come  so  far  into  England,  and  for  fear  of  making  a  ruffle  in 
the  world,  and  driving  her  brother  into  the  Emperor  and 
French  King's  hand,  now  living  together,  I  would  never 
have  her.  But  now  it  is  too  far  gone,  wherefore  I  am  sorry." 
His  sentiments  were  not  disguised  or  hidden  from  the 
Duchess  of  Cleves.  He  said  openly  : — "  If  it  were  not  to 
satisfy  the  world  and  my  realm,  I  would  not  do  that  which 
I  must  do  this  day  for  no  one  earthly  thing."  She  herself 
would  not  accept  the  hint ;  she  showed  throughout  a  cold, 
heartless  indifference,  not  very  encouraging  to  Henry. 

The  marriage  took  place,  but,  according  to  Strypc,  was 
never  consummated.^ 

The  mistresses  of  princes  are  usually  visible  when  they  exist  ;  the  mistresses,  for 
instance,  of  Francis  I.,  of  Charles  V.,  of  James  of  Scotland  (the  contempo- 
raries of  Henry).  There  is  a  difficulty  in  this  which  should  be  admitted,  if  it 
cannot  be  explained." — Note  by  J^rotide. 

'  Strype's  "  Memorials,"  vol.  ii.  p.  462  ;  and  see  "State  Papers,"  vol.  viii. 
p.  404.  There  is  a  circumstance  affecting  this  statement  by  Strype  which  can- 
not be  fairly  passed  over  without  some  notice.  Dean  Hook,  in  his  "  Lives  of 
the  Archbishops,"  vol.  vii.  p.  75,  1868,  says: — "The  King  delaying  to  put 
away  his  wife,  the  Archbishop  was  required  to  conduct  the  repudiation  of  that 
injured  and  insulted  woman  "  ;  and  in  a  note  adds  :  "  Perhaps  there  is  not  in 
Ecclesiastical  History  a  viler  document  than  that  on  which  he  assigned  his 
reasons  for  seeking  the  divorcement."  This  lax  mode  of  writing  has  given  rise 
to  the  supposition  that  the  document  in  some  way  implicated  Cranmer,  There 
is  not,  so  far  as  my  anxious  researches  can  prove,  the  slightest  evidence  of  the 


I  lO       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Stowe  tells  us  that  from  the  day  of  the  King's  marriage 
"  he  was  weary  of  his  life." 

In  July  1540  a  National  Synod  of  the  two  Convocations 
sat  jointly  as  one  assembly  to  investigate  the  whole 
matter,  over  which  Bishop  Gardyner  presided.  The 
deliberation  was  assisted  by  nearly  two  hundred  clergy, 
and  ecclesiastical  lawyers  were  cited  to  their  assistance. 
They  delivered  their  unanimous  judgment  in  favour  of 
the  divorce.  They  pronounced  the  marriage  null  and 
void,  and  that  each  party  would  be  free  to  marry  again, 
on  the  following  grounds  : — 

1.  That  Anne  of  Cleves  was  pre-contracted  to  the 
Prince  of  Lorraine. 

2.  That  the  King,  having  espoused  her  against  his 
will,  had  not  given  an  inward  consent  to  his  marriage, 
which  he  had  never  completed. 

3.  That  the  whole  nation  had  a  great  interest  in  the 

existence  of  any  such  document.  The  Dean  does  not  intimate  where  that 
document  is  to  be  seen,  or  its  nature,  or  by  whom  it  is  written,  or  how  he 
makes  out  that  it  had  anything  to  do  with  "Ecclesiastical  History,"  or  with 
Crannier.  Miss  Strickland  refers  also  to  a  document  in  the  same  vague  and 
unsatisfactory  terms.  Neither  does  she  give  any  reference.  A  recent  writer, 
Mr  S.  H.  Burke,  twice  intimates,  in  his  "  Characters  of  the  Tudor  Dynasty," 
that  it  was  a  letter  written  by  Henry  VIII.  to  Cranmer,  containing  a  gross 
allusion,  and  on  that  gratuitous  assertion  he  unfairly  charges  that  Cranmer 
must  have  had  as  corrupt  a  mind  as  the  King's  to  have  been  in  a  position  to 
receive  such  a  letter  from  him.  Mr  Burke  likewise  gives  no  authority  or 
reference,  and  on  personal  application  by  me,  he  was  unable  to  do  so  !  After 
several  weeks'  search  at  the  British  Museum,  and  at  the  Rolls  Office,  Fetter 
Lane,  with  the  kind  assistance  of  the  officials,  no  such  letter  or  document  can  be 
found.  There  is,  however,  a  letter  from  Crumwell  to  Henry  \TII.  (Cotton 
Lib.,  Otho. ,  c.  X.),  and  set  out  in  Pocock's  vol.  iv.  of  "  Chronological  Index  of 
Records,"  1540,  part  i.  book  iii.  p.  425,  in  which  Crumwell  narrates  some 
details,  the  acts  of  Henry,  which  are  said  by  him  (Crumwell)  to  have  governed 
the  King's  subsequent  conduct,  and  he  then  quotes  the  King's  words,  "  I  have 
left  her  as  good  a  maiden  as  I  found  her,"  which  may  be  taken  from  the  con- 
text in  two  senses.  It  may  possibly  be  to  this  letter  that  Dean  Hook  refers, 
and  that  Mr  Burke  has  gladly  transferred  the  scandal  to  Cranmer.  But  how 
even  this  letter  can  affect  "  Ecclesiastical  History,"  I  cannot  discover. 


ANNE  OF  CLEVES. 


I  I  I 


King  having  issue,  which  Henry  saw  he  could  never  have 
by  his  Queen. 

This  judgment  for  a  divorce  was  signed  by  two  Arch- 
bishops, seventeen  Bishops,  and  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
nine  Clergy  on  July  9,  and  was  confirmed  by  Act  of 
Parliament  by  a  unanimous  vote  on  13th  July  1540. 
The  decision  (though  it  would  be  rejected  by  every 
Protestant  communion)  was  strictly  according  to  the 
Canon  Law,  upon  which  the  Court  of  Rome  would  have 
readily  acted  had  it  been  consulted  under  other  circum- 
stances. If  precedent  could  justify  this  decision,  there 
are  many  cases  in  which  a  divorce  has  been  granted  by 
the  Court  of  Rome  on  slighter  pretext.  But  then  our 
Romish  brethren  would  object  that,  in  this  case,  a  neces- 
sary ingredient  was  wanting  to  sanctify  the  act — the 
sanction  of  the  Pope !  In  such  cases  they  are  bound 
to  believe  that  the  Pope  can,  by  his  independent  will, 
make  that  lawful  which  in  the  sight  of  God  and  man  is 
unlawful. 

The  decision,  hov/ever  unjust,  was  in  strict  conformity 
with  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  Roman  Church. 
On  the  first  head  a  pre-betrothal  was  deemed  a  fatal  flaw, 
and  the  Queen  herself,  in  an  unguarded  moment — smart- 
ing under  the  shameful  treatment  which  she  was  suffering 
— admitted  her  pre-engagement.  The  second  plea  has 
been  recognised  quite  lately  in  the  case  of  the  divorce 
of  Lady  Hamilton  from  the  Prince  of  Monaco.  In  1880 
a  Committee  of  Cardinals  pronounced  her  marriage,  con- 
tracted in  1869,  and  with  issue,  null  and  void,  on  the 
ground  of  imvard  consent,  on  her  part,  being  wanting, 
although  her  external  compliance  with  the  rite  was  not 
questioned ;  and  she  was  subsequently  re-married  to 
another.^    The  third  reason  is  one  on  which  Popes  have 

^  See  Dr  Littledale's  "Plain  Reasons  against  Joining  the  Church  of  Rome," 


I  I  2        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


repeatedly  acted.  The  French  Prelates  found  no  difficulty 
in  the  case  of  Napoleon,  when,  on  the  same  plea,  he 
separated  from  Josephine. 

While  it  must  be  freely  admitted  that  such  a  divorce 
could  in  no  way  exculpate  Henry  in  a  moral  or  religious 
point  of  view,  though  the  act  itself  was  countenanced  by 
the  entire  bench  of  Bishops,  and  of  the  Clergy,  and  the 
Lords  and  Commons,  politically  and  of  necessity  no  other 
course  could  have  been  taken.  But  no  criminal  desire  to 
get  rid  of  one  wife  to  marry  another  can,  in  this  case,  be 
imputed  to  the  King ;  and  the  attempt  to  cast  blame  on 
Cranmer,  as  the  expression  of  Dean  Hook  would  imply, 
apart  from  the  governing  body  of  the  nation,  is  a  manifest 
injustice.  The  Queen  expressed  her  satisfaction  with  the 
arrangement,  and  wrote  to  her  relations  requesting  them 
also  to  acquiesce.  She  remained  in  England  a  pensioner, 
and  was  well  provided  for.  She  survived  Edward  and 
Mary,  and  was  present  at  the  Coronation  of  Elizabeth.* 

S.P.C.K.,  1884,  p.  22.  The  theory  of  intention  being  in  the  recipient  of  a 
sacrament  is  not  doctrinal.  On  the  administration  of  a  sacrament  in  the 
Roman  Church — and  marriage  is  no-U)  (though  not  in  the  days  of  Henry) 
declared  to  be  a  sacrament — to  give  vahdity  to  the  rite,  there  must  of 
necessity  be  a  right  intention  on  the  part  of  the  officiating  priest  (Concil.  Trid. 
Sess.,  vii.  c.  xi.,  "  De  Sacr.  in  Genera").  Indeed  this  intention  of  the  priest 
to  perform  a  valid  sacrament  is  so  strict,  that  in  their  Sacrament  of  Penance, 
in  which  confession  to  a  priest  is  a  necessary  part,  the  penitent  is  directed  to 
carefully  seek  for  a  priest  who  should  be  serious  in  the  performance  of  his  office, 
and  not  absolve  in  a  joke,  if  the  penitent  values  his  own  salvation  (Sess.  xiv. 
c.  vi.,  "  De  Pcenetentia ").  Some  doctors,  however,  state  that  the  intention 
of  the  contracting  parties  is  the  matter  of  this  sacrament.  If  so,  then  the 
want  of  intention  in  either  would  vitiate  the  sacrament  ! 

^  In  order,  as  it  appears  to  me,  to  bring  Cranmer  into  disrepute  with  regard 
to  the  sacredness  of  the  marriage  contract,  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Pocock,  the 
editor  of  Bishop  Burnet's  "  History  of  the  Reformation,"  and  who  appears  to 
take  every  occasion  to  vilify  Cranmer,  accuses  the  Primate,  Ridley,  and 
others,  of  having  sanctioned  the  alleged  illegal  marriage  of  the  Marquis  of 
Northampton  to  Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Lord  Cobham,  his  wife  being 
still  alive  ;  but  he  omits  to  state  that  the  Marquis  of  Northampton  had  been 
legally  divorced  from  his  wife  for  adultery.    Cuthbert  Tunstall  was  one  of 


CATHERINE  HOWARD. 


Catherine  Howard. — Three  years  were  lost  to  the  nation 
since  the  death  of  Jane  Seymour,  and  Henry's  health  was 
sinking,  and  the  chances  of  James  of  Scotland  increasing. 
The  same  motives  which  impelled  the  Council  to  hurry  on 
the  King  to  marry  the  Duchess  of  Cleves  now  induced  the 
King  to  select  another  wife — Catherine  Howard — who 
promised  to  be  a  fit  and  loving  partner.  Had  he  been 
actuated  by  any  other  desire  than  to  secure  the  succession 
and  satisfy  the  fears  and  hopes  of  the  nation,  there  was  no 
necessity,  on  his  part,  to  hazard  the  perils  and  inconveni- 
encies  of  yet  another  wife. 

Henry  married  Catherine  Howard  in  August  1540. 
They  lived  happily  until  October  1541.  He  desired 
prayers  and  thanksgivings  to  be  offered  up  for  the  happy 
union.  But  the  King  had  scarcely  returned  from  a  jour- 
ney from  the  North,  when  the  bitter  and  sad  intelligence 
was  made  known  to  him  that  his  wife  had  been  unchaste 
previous  to  the  marriage.  This  communication  had  been 
made  to  Cranmer  by  one  Lascelles,  on  second-hand 
authority.  Cranmer  deemed  it  his  duty  to  communicate 
the  information  to  the  King.i  The  question,  of  course, 
suggests  itself.  Was  Cranmer  either  bound  or  justified  in 
interfering  in  the  matter }  Here  morality,  duty,  and 
"chivalry"  come  into  collision!  The  King  rejected  the 
announcement  as  a  vile  calumny,  but,  unhappily,  the 
charge  proved  to  be  too  true,  and  was  confirmed.  Sub- 

the  delegates  who  decided  the  second  marriage  to  be  valid.  Both  Gardyner 
and  Bonner  were  most  active  in  granting  dispensations  in  cases  of  divorce.  It 
is  strange,  therefore,  that  all  this  "  hue-and  cry "  should  be  turned  on 
Cranmer. 

1  "When  he  was  made  cognisant  of  the  charges  against  Catherine  Howard, 
his  duty  to  communicate  them  to  the  King  was  obvious,  though  painful,  and 
his  choice  of  the  time  and  manner  of  his  fulfilling  it  was  both  delicate  to  his 
royal  master  and  considerate  to  the  accused." — "  Encycl.  Brit.,"  9th  edit., 
"  Cranmer,"  p.  550. 

H 


I  14       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


sequently  the  Queen  herself  confessed  her  guilt.  It  was 
an  act  of  high  treason  ;  it  affected  the  succession  to  the 
throne,  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  the  issue.  This  led  to 
further  discoveries,  which  placed  her  guilt,  even  after 
marriage,  as  was  alleged,  beyond  doubt.  Henry  combated 
the  evidence,  and  shielded  the  Queen  as  long  as  he  could. 
He  received  the  condolence  and  compassion  of  all  his 
subjects.  The  Queen  pleaded  guilty  to  the  crime  on  the 
first  charge,  but  most  positively  denied  the  charge  of 
adultery^i  Henry  was  moved  to  tears,  and  would  gladly 
have  found  an  excuse  to  save  his  Queen  ;  but  it  could  not 
be.  She  and  the  partners  in  her  guilt  were  executed  for 
high  treason,  on  a  Bill  of  Attainder,  12th  February  1542. 
Cranmer  laboured  earnestly  in  her  behalf,  but  in  vain. 
On  the  Council  which  condemned  the  Queen  were  Lord 
Hereford  and  Lord  Southampton. 

Catherine  Parr. — Henry  lastly  married  Catherine  Parr, 
with  whom  he  lived  in  perfect  happiness  from  1542  till 
1547,  when  she  was  left  a  widow.  Stephen  Gardyner, 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  performed  the  marriage  ceremony. 

Truly  we  may  say  that  Henry's  was  a  "  domestic  life 
unparalleled  in  English  history";  but  were  the  subject 
suitable  for  discussion,  we  might  prove  that  licentiousness 
was  not,  at  this  time  at  least,  one  of  Henry's  vices. 
Enough  has  been  said  to  satisfy  most  minds,  that  had  this 
been  Henry's  ruling  vice,  as  usually  asserted,  he  would  not 
have  encumbered  himself  with  wives,  as  he  had  done,  but 
followed  the  example  of  contemporary  monarchs,  and  even 
that  of  Popes.  An  unhappy  train  of  circumstances — a 
fatality,  as  it  were — blighted  his  matrimonial  alliances,  and 

1  See  Lord  Herbert's  "  Life  of  Henry  VHL,"  p.  534.  Her  confession  was 
made  to  the  Archbishop,  the  Lord  Chancellor,  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  and  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester.  See  Note  /,  Jenkyns'  "  Remains,"  vol.  i.  p.  308. 
Oxford,  1833. 


AS  AFFECTING  THE  REFORMATION. 


each  one,  except  that  with  Anne  of  Cleves,  can  receive, 
if  not  a  satisfactory,  at  least  a  reasonable  solution ;  but 
the  fact  of  Henry  having  married  six  wives  in  succession, 
under  the  circumstances,  is  in  itself  no  justification 
for  his  condemnation,  much  less  a  cause  of  accusa- 
tion against  his  morality,  and  certainly  can  in  no 
way  affect  the  character  of  Cranmer,  or  the  cause  of  the 
Reformation  which  followed  these  events.  It  can  be  of 
no  advantage  to  the  cause  of  the  Reformation  either  to 
justify  or  extenuate  Henry  where  he  is  to  be  blamed  ;  and 
it  is  no  part  of  the  subject  now  in  hand  ;  but  inasmuch  as 
the  fame  of  Cranmer  has,  by  his  detractors,  been  made  de- 
pendent on  Henry's  conduct,  it  is  a  duty  to  divest  the  sub- 
ject of  that  sectarian  phase  which  has  been  imparted  to  all 
the  events  of  his  reign,  in  order  to  damage  or  prejudice 
Cranmer's  character  and  the  Protestant  Reformation  in 
this  country.  The  Reformation  was  undoubtedly  greatly 
accelerated  by  Henry's  defiance  of  Papal  thunders,  and  the 
bold  front  he  assumed  to  break  the  galling  yoke  under 
which  this  country  suffered.  With  the  Papal  party,  supre- 
macy of  the  Pope  is  "  the  sum  and  substance  of  Chris- 
tianity," 1  while,  in  fact,  dominion  and  power  are  the  real 
objects  sought  to  be  gained.  Having  not  only  stopped  the 
supplies,  as  will  be  presently  shown,  but  also  having  cut 
the  Pope  adrift,  and  proved  to  him  that  the  barque  could 
sail  without  his  pilotage,  the  first  and  great  step  to  freedom 
was  taken  by  Henry;  the  rest  soon  followed.    Hence  the 

'  "  De  qua  re  agitur,  cum  de  Primatu  Potificis  agitur  ? — brevissime  dicam, 
de  summa  rei  Christianse." — Bellarmine.  "  Disp.  in  Lib.  de  Prim.  Pont."  In 
Prasfat.  sec.  2  torn.  i.  p.  189.  Colon,  161 5.  M.  de  Maistre,  a  modern  lay 
writer,  in  his  book  "  Du  Pape,"  informs  his  readers  that  "  without  the  Sove- 
reign Pontiff  there  is  no  true  Christianity." — "  Christianity  entirely  depends  on 
the  Pope."  "  Without  the  Pope  the  divine  institution,  Christianity,  loses  its 
force,  its  divine  character,  and  converting  power."  Vol.  i.  pp.  xxii. -xxxviii., 
vol.  ii.  p.  153.    Second  edit.    Paris,  1821. 


I  I  6        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


bitter  attacks  against  Cranmer,  his  alleged  principal  ad- 
viser. In  the  estimation  of  those  who  comprehend  the 
nature  and  genius  of  the  Reformation,  which  immediately 
followed  this  important  separation  from  the  "  spiritual  " 
rule  of  the  Pope,  the  actions  and  motives  of  Henry,  his 
vices  or  other\vise,  detract  nothing  from  the  justice  of,  or 
the  necessity  for,  such  a  Reformation.  But  with  the  pre- 
judiced and  ignorant  it  appears  to  be  different  they 
are  too  often  staggered  with  the  objection  raised — "  How 
can  that  system  be  of  God,  or  hope  to  obtain  a  blessing, 
which  originated  with  a  Henry  VHL,  a  revengeful,  cruel 
tyrant,  who  severed  himself  from  the  '  Catholic  Church  '  in 
order  that  he  might,  without  '  let  or  hindrance,'  gratify  his 
propensities,  and  establish  a  religion  and  hierarchy  of  his 
own  .'' "  This  they  allege  to  be  the  polluted  source  or 
origin  of  the  Established  Church  in  this  countrj' ! — in  fact, 
of  the  Reformation,  Henry  being  the  head  of  the  one  and 
pioneer  of  the  other  !  And  this  leads  us  to  our  next  di- 
vision of  our  history.  But  it  must  ever  be  borne  in  mind 
that  Henry  lived  and  died  a  thorough  Roman  Catholic  i)i 
doctrine,  though  not  a  "  Papist."  He  changed  nothing  in 
the  faith  of  the  Roman  Church  in  this  country.  Indeed, 
we  do  not  see  that  even  the  charge  of  schism  can  be 
rightly  maintained.  The  law  of  the  Christian  Church,  as 
then  acknowledged,  was  laid  down  in  the  Justinian  code. 
All  believers  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  were  entitled  to 
the  name  of  Catholic.  Title  i.  of  the  first  book  is  as 
follows  : — 

"  We  order  that  all  who  follow  this  rule  (that  is,  who  believe  in 
the  Deity  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  in  their  co-equal 
Majesty  and  triune  Godhead,  according  to  apostolic  teaching  and 
Gospel  doctrine)  shall  adopt  the  name  of  Catholic  Christian." 

The  only  Creeds  recognised  in  the  Church  were  the 


AS  AFFECTING  THE  REFORMATION.  I  I  7 

Nicene,  Apostles',  and  (so-called)  Athanasian.  It  was  not 
until  long-  after  this  period,  namely,  in  1564,  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  by  her  Council  of  Trent  formulated  a  code  of 
Doctrine  to  be  received  under  penalty  of  anathema.  And 
it  was  only  in  December  of  the  same  year  that  the  Pope 
took  upon  himself  to  add  a  fourth,  a  distinct  and  independ- 
ent Creed  on  the  Christian  Church.  The  supremacy  was  no 
doctrine,  but  a  usurpation,  in  this  country.  If  the  separa- 
tion was  a  "  schism,"  it  was  a  political  and  social  revolu- 
tion effected  by  Acts  of  Parliament,  and  in  no  way  a 
reformation  in  religion. 

With  regard  to  Cranmer's  alleged  participation  in  the 
acts  of  Henry  in  separating  England  from  the  Church  of 
Rome,  we  cannot  do  better  than  quote  the  words  of  Ridley 
in  his  review  of  Phillip's  "  Life  of  Cardinal  Pole  "  ^ :  — 

"  The  Reformation  builds  on  a  rock,  removing  the  hay  and  stubble, 
the  perishing  materials  heaped  on  it  by  Popes,  to  secure  our  Church  a 
firmer  establishment  on  Christ  the  foundation.  Cranmer  we  look  upon 
but  as  an  instrument  raised  by  God  to  clear  away  the  rubbish  ;  and 
whatever  his  personal  frailties  or  infirmities  may  have  been,  for  Christ 
has  appointed  men,  not  angels,  for  the  work  of  His  ministry  here,  the 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel  by  him  restored  are  not  the  less  pure,  nor  the 
corruptions  he  pointed  out  less  abominable ;  and  the  better  use  we 
make  of  that  blessing  which  he,  by  his  labour  among  us,  procured 
for  us,  we  shall  esteem  him  the  more  highly  in  love  for  his  work's  sake, 
whatever  his  faults  were  in  other  respects." 

>  P.  287.    Dublin,  1766, 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS,  UNDER 
CRANMER'S  ALLEGED  GUIDANCE. 

Heresy,  as  popularly  interpreted,  is  a  negation  or  depart- 
ing from,  or  unauthorised  addition  to  the  orthodox  theo- 
logical belief  as  professed  by  the  dominant  sect  of  the  day; 
Schism,  an  open  revolt  from  ecclesiastical  authority  as 
wielded  by  such  dominant  sect.  The  question  of  heresy  is 
one  of  opinion  ;  that  of  schisju  one  of  fact.  No  religious 
community  or  church — heathen  or  Christian,  Jewish  or 
Gentile — has  been  so  conspicuously,  so  frequently,  divided 
by  internal  factions,  tumults,  and  rent  by  schisms,  as 
exhibited  in  the  history  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  At  the 
period  at  which  our  history  now  arrives  schism  was  rife  in 
this  country,  but  the  charge  of  heresy  was  reserved  for  a 
later  period.  The  schism  led  to  the  emancipation  of  the 
Church  in  England  from  the  control  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  Cranmer  is  credited  as  being  "  the  principal  motor  of 
England's  change  of  ecclesiastical  dominion."  The  charge 
of  schism  lies  therefore  principally  at  his  door.  Indeed, 
in  the  opinion  of  most  of  Cranmer's  detractors,  all  the 
actions  of  Henry  (for  good  or  evil,  according  to  the  religious 
bias  of  parties)  have  been  attributed  to  Cranmer  as  his 
alleged  principal  and  confidential  adviser  and  pliant  tool. 

Du  Pin,  the  Roman  Catholic  ecclesiastical  historian, 
furnishes  a  few  practical  observations  on  "  Schism,"  the 
principal  charge  brought  against  Henry  and  Cranmer. 


HENRY  VIII. 's  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.  HQ 
He  writes  i : — 

"When  Churches  or  Bishops  break  mutually  peace,  there  may 
be  a  doubt  which  is  in  schism,  and  which  ought  to  be  held  separated 
from  the  communion  of  the  whole  Church.  Some  persons  believe 
they  can  easily  reply  to  this  difficulty  by  saying  that  those  should 
be  reputed  schismatics,  and  excommunicated,  who  were  separated 
from  the  communion  of  the  Roman  Church  and  Bishops.  As  for  me, 
while  I  doubt  not  that  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  is  the 
Primate  of  the  Church,  and  therefore  the  centre  of  unity,  has  always 
been  very  great,  I  am  nevertheless  obliged  to  abandon  the  opinion 
of  those  who  say  that  all  those  who  are  separated  from  the  Roman 
See  have  always  been  reputed  schismatics,  and  ought  now  to  be  con- 
sidered such." 

The  then  Bishop  of  Durham,  in  a  letter  addressed  to 
Cardinal  Pole,  maintained  that  "the  separation  from  the 
Pope  is  not  separation  from  the  unity  of  the  Church  ;  the 
head  of  the  Church  is  Christ." 

Cranmer,  on  the  very  first  occasion  when  consulted  on 
the  question  of  the  divorce  from  Catherine,  maintained  that 
the  Church  of  England,  as  a  National  Church,  was  not 
dependent  on  Rome,  and  that  our  ecclesiastical  courts 
should  be  independent  of  the  Roman  Court.  From  time 
immemorial  England  had  possessed  independent  ecclesi- 
astical courts,  and  the  Pope  had  no  right  to  interfere  in 
proceedings  in  England.  Such  were  Cranmer's  views. 
Gardyner  had  previously  declared  his  opinion  that  the 
Church  should  Jiot  be  under  the  control  of  the  Pope,  and 
that,  while  he  held  to  the  doctrines  of  Rome,  he  maintained 
the  supremacy  of  the  King.  Indeed,  it  is  said  he  had  done 
more  to  undermine  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Church  in 
England  than  any  one  of  her  avowed  enemies.  Archbishop 
Warham  maintained  the  same  principle  in  common  with 
every  bishop  (save  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester),  and  they 
were  supported  by  the  nobles  of  the  land  and  by  both 
Houses  of  Parliament. 

1  "De  Antiqua.  Eccl.  Disciplina,"  p.  256.    Paris,  1686. 


I20       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Neither  Cranmer  nor  any  other  of  the  Bishops  established 
any  new  theory.  There  is  no  necessity  to  support  the 
claim  of  "divine  right  of  kings,"  or  to  draw  any  argument 
from  the  Jewish  dispensation,  when  kings  ruled  over  the 
Church  as  well  as  State,  though  such  was  the  discipline  of 
the  Christian  Church  for  many  centuries  from  the  date  of 
the  conversion  of  Constantine.  We  need  only  appeal  to 
the  admitted  law  and  custom  of  this  country ;  and  in  this 
view  of  the  subject  it  is  our  purpose  to  take  a  brief  sketch 
of  the  origin  of  the  Pope's  jurisdiction  in  this  country,  and 
the  justification  of  Henry,  of  Cranmer,  and  of  his  other 
Bishops  and  Parliament,  for  reasserting  the  ancient  rights 
of  the  Crown  of  England. 

In  considering  this  subject,  we  are  naturally  brought 
back  to  Austin's  mission  to  England,  with  his  forty  followers, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century.  There  was  then 
a  regularly-constituted  Christian  and  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  British  Isles,  which  had  subsisted  for  many  centuries 
previous  to  this  mission. 

Our  heathen  Saxon  invaders,  who  located  themselves  in 
the  east,  principally  in  Kent,  had  driven  the  Christian 
inhabitants  to  the  west,  where  at  Bangor  they  established  a 
monastery.  When  Austin  arrived  he  found  encouragement 
in  King  Ethelbert,  who,  though  heathen,  was  married  to  a 
Christian  Queen.  Austin's  interview  with  the  British 
clergy,  and  his  attempt  to  subjugate  them  to  the  rule  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  (Gregory  I.),  their  resistance,  and  the 
subsequent  massacre  of  some  twelve  hundred  priests  and 
monks,  are  matters  of  history. 

Austin  fixed  his  abode  at  Canterbury,  Gregory  subse- 
quently appointed  him  Bishop,  and  the  See  of  Canterbury 
was  thus  founded,  Austin  as  first  Bishop.  He  and  his  suc- 
cessors continued  in  communion  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    12  1 


whose  usurped  authority  took  firmer  hold  as  time  advanced. 
Collier,  in  his  "  Ecclesiastical  History,"  ^  correctly  describes 
the  relative  position  of  the  two  Christian  communions  at 
this  period  : — 

"  It  is  evident  that  the  British  Christians  had  the  spiritual  sove- 
reignty within  themselves,  were  under  no  superintendency,  nor  used  to 
apply  to  the  See  of  Rome  to  pay  their  homage  to  the  Pope's  supremacy, 
to  get  their  metropolitans  consecrated,  or  receive  directions  for  dis- 
cipline or  government  from  thence  ;  and,  which  is  more,  neither  were 
they  declared  schismatics  for  want  of  this  deference  and  application." 

King  Alfred  ruled  supreme,  independent  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  and  appointed  his  own  Bishops. 

The  haughty  and  ambitious  Hildebrand  (Gregory  VI  I.)  had 
succeeded  in  domineering  over  the  greater  part  of  Western 
Christendom.  William  the  Conqueror,  though  he  extended 
his  conquest  under  the  auspices  of  that  Pope,  and  had 
established  himself  as  King  of  England,  at  once  asserted 
his  independence  of  a  foreign  power.  "  I  never  paid,"  he 
said  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  "  nor  will  I  pay  you  homage ; 
because  I  neither  paid  it  myself,  nor  do  I  find  my  pre- 
decessors paid  it  to  your  predecessors,"  ^  declaring  at  the 
same  time  that  none  of  the  Bishops  of  his  realm  should 
obey  the  mandates  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  He  permitted, 
however,  the  Pope  to  pick  up  his  pence  in  England,  with 
which  modicum  of  spiritual  gain  he  was  fain  obliged  to  be 
content.  William's  successor,  Rufus,  in  like  manner  pro- 
hibited all  appeals  to  Rome,  as  "  unheard  of  in  the 
kingdom,  and  altogether  contrary  to  its  usages."  He  and 
his  father  both  retained  the  sole  power  in  themselves  of 
investing  Bishops. 

Ever  watchful  to  gain  an  advantage  where  the  weakness 
of  others  gave  him  the  opportunity,  the  Pope  found  no 

^  B.  ii.  cent.  vii.  vol.  i.  p.  80,  fol.  edit.  1708. 
See  the  authorities  cited  by  Hume,  c.  iv.  an.  1076. 


122        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


difficulty  in  working  on  the  fears  of  Henry  I.  and  King 
John,  over  whom  he  obtained  a  complete  mastery,  and 
with  it  an  unconstitutional  and  usurped  jurisdiction  over 
the  realm.  The  successors  of  John  knew  how  to  regain 
their  own  ;  the  very  excess  of  assumption  created  a  re- 
action. Edward  I.  passed  several  statutes  to  restrain  the 
encroachments  of  Rome.  He  passed  an  Act  (25  Ed.  I.  c.  i.) 
declaring  that  Bishoprics,  Benefices,  Abbeys,  being  endowed 
by  the  King  and  people  of  England,  of  right  belonged  to 
them,  and  that  presentments  and  collections  of  fines  and 
fees  had  been  usurped  and  given  to  aliens,  and  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  Crown  disinherited,  and  the  objects  of  the 
endowments  perverted.  This  Act  declared,  "  that  these 
oppressions  should  not  be  suffered  in  any  manner."  This 
was  an  exercise  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown ;  Rome, 
nevertheless,  clung  like  a  horse-leech  to  the  patient,  and 
was  sucking  the  life-blood  out  of  him.  It  is  said  that  the 
revenue  derived  by  the  Pope  out  of  England  exceeded  the 
King's  revenue.  Edward  HI.  also  tried  his  hand  by  an 
Act,  wherein  he  recapitulated  the  abuses,  declaring  himself 
bound  by  his  oath  to  see  the  laws  kept,  and  did,  "  with  the 
assent  of  all  the  great  men  and  commonalty  of  the  realm, 
ordain  that  the  free  elections,  presentments,  and  collections 
of  benefices,  should  stand  in  the  right  of  the  Crown  or  of 
any  of  his  subjects,  as  they  had  formerly  enjoyed  them,  not- 
withstanding any  provisions  from  Rome."  This  was  called 
the  "  Statute  of  Provisions,"  which  forbade  attempts  of  the 
Pope  to  present  to  benefices  in  England.  This  Act 
(25  Ed.  HI.  c.  6)  declared: — 

"That  the  Holy  Church  was  founded  in  the  state  of  Prelacy  in  the 
Kingdom  of  England  by  the  King  and  his  progenitors,  and  the  Earls, 
Barons,  and  Nobles  of  this  kingdom,  and  their  ancestors,  for  them- 
selves and  for  their  people,  conformably  to  the  law  of  God." 

This  was  also  strictly  in  conformity  with  the  ecclesiastical 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCLVL  REFORMS.    I  23 

custom  of  the  early  Christian  Church.  The  appointment 
of  all  Bishops  and  the  Convocation  of  Councils  were 
centred  in  a  layman  ;  they  were  the  exclusive  prerogatives 
of  Emperors  and  Kings,  who  were  the  supreme  heads  of  the 
Church.  Those  who  lay  on  Henry  the  charge  of  schism 
for  transferring  the  supreme  power  or  jurisdiction  over  the 
Church  from  clerical  to  lay  hands,  must  account  for  this 
Act  of  Edward  III.,  and  show  it  to  be  contrary  to  the 
recognised  ecclesiastical  law  of  Europe  since  the  days  of 
the  first  Christian  Emperor  Constantine,  until  usurped  by 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  at  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh 
century.  Edward  passed  another  Act,  forbidding  appeals 
and  suits  beyond  seas,  "  in  things  the  cognisance  whereof 
pertaineth  to  the  King's  court " ;  both  these  statutes  were 
subsequently  confirmed  by  the  38  Ed.  III.  c.  i.  These, 
however,  proving  ineffectual  to  repress  the  evil,  Richard  II. 
(3  Rich.  II.  c.  iii.)  confirmed,  and  ordered  to  be  put  in 
execution,  with  additional  powers,  the  previous  statutes ; 
and  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign  he  passed  another 
Act,  prohibiting  aliens  holding  benefices,  etc.,  without  the 
King's  licence,  and  the  King  bound  himself  not  to  grant 
licences  for  foreigners;  and  by  the  12  Richard  II.  c.  xv. 
incumbents  were  prohibited  from  obtaining  a  confirmation 
of  their  titles  from  Rome,  and  all  causes  relating  to  pre- 
sentments, etc.,  were  to  be  tried  in  England  ;  those  who 
obtained  their  foreign  appointments  were  called  "  provisors." 
By  16  Richard  II.  c.  v.  it  was  solemnly  declared  that  the 
Crown  of  England  was,  and  had  been,  and  should  be,  free 
from  subjection  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  :  the  lay  Lords  and 
Commons  resolved  to  die  in  defence  of  the  rights  of  the 
Crown  against  the  Pope,  and  the  spiritual  Lords  declared 
themselves  bound  to  the  King  by  their  allegiance.  By 
this  Act  it  was  declared  that  whosoever  contravened  this 


124       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


law  of  the  land  was  to  be  put  out  of  the  protection  of  the 
King,  and  his  goods  were  to  be  forfeited,  and  his  person 
imprisoned.  The  writ  that  was  to  be  prescribed  on  such 
occasions  commenced  with  the  words,  "  Praemunire  facias," 
hence  the  statute  was  called  the  "  Statute  of  Praemunire."  ^ 

The  Pope,  however,  was  still  at  work,  and  the  Cistercian 
monks  procured  Bulls  of  Dispensation  from  Rome  ;  where- 
upon Henry  IV.  passed  an  Act  (2  Henry  IV.  c.  iv.) 
declaring  "  those  Bulls  to  be  of  no  force  ;  and  if  any  did 
put  them  in  execution,  or  procured  other  such  Bulls,  they 
were  to  be  proceeded  against,  upon  the  Statute  against 
provisors ;  "  and  by  the  7  Henry  IV.  c.  8,  any  licences 
which  had  been  granted  by  the  King  for  the  executing 
any  of  the  Pope's  Bulls,  were  declared  to  be  of  no  force 
to  prejudice  any  incumbent  in  his  right.  The  persever- 
ance of  Rome  in  her  usurpations  required  a  confirmation 
of  all  former  Acts ;  ^  and  Henrj'  V.^  again  declared  the 
Pope's  Bulls  and  licences  to  be  void. 

Thus  we  perceive  Henry  VIII.  reasserted  the  former 
prerogatives  of  the  Crown  of  England,  which  had  been 
lost,  or  stood  in  abeyance,  in  consequence  of  the  weakness 
or  superstitions  of  intervening  monarchs.  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  that  Henry,  by  severing  from  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Pope,  was  only  asserting  the  legitimate  right  of  the 
Crown  ;  and,  in  fact,  was  not  in  schism,  so  far  as  the 
"  Catholic  Church  "  was  concerned. 

We  cannot  pass  over  this  part  of  our  subject  without 
making  a  few  observations  on  the  supremacy  in  ecclesi- 
astical matters  which  now  became  vested  in  the  reigning 
Sovereign  over  this  country.    This  has  been  "  a  stumbling- 


'  This  is  still  the  law  of  this  country,  and  all  the  appointments  of  Romish 
bishops  are  illegal,  and  they  are  subject  to  the  penalties  of  this  Act. 
*  17  Henry  IV.  c.  xviii.  ^  4  Henry  V.  c.  iv. 


HENRY  VIII. 's  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.  125 


block  and  cause  of  offence  "  to  many  who  do  not  rightly 
understand  it,  and  has  been  misrepresented  by  others. 

When  the  Parliament  of  England  abrogated  the  spiritual 
rule  of  the  Pope  in  this  country,  and  the  headship  in 
spiritual  as  in  temporal  matters  reverted  back  to  the 
Crown,  Henry  neither  took  the  office  nor  exercised  the 
functions  of  a  Bishop,  but,  as  was  due  to  his  position,  and 
as  "  fountain  of  honour,"  all  nominations  and  investitures 
were  made  through  him,  and  by  his  authority  all  matters 
were  governed  ;  but,  as  it  was  explained  and  agreed  to  by 
the  Bishops,  "so  far  only  as  was  permitted  by  the  law  of 
Christ."  '  In  1536  Convocation  passed  the  following  resolu- 
tion : — - 

"  That  they  intended  not  to  do  or  speak  anything  which  might  be 
unpleasant  to  the  King,  whom  they  acknowledged  their  supreme 
head,  and  whose  commands  they  were  resolved  to  obey  ;  renouncing 
the  Pope's  authority,  with  all  his  laws  and  inventions  now  extinguished 
and  abolished,  and  addicting  themselves  to  Almighty  God  and  His 
laws,  and  unto  the  King  and  the  laws  made  within  his  realms."  ^ 

An  important  document  was  issued  at  the  time  when 

Henry  assumed  his  new  functions,  explanatory  of  the  title 

conferred  on  him,  and  to  avoid  misconception.    By  this 

the  people  were  informed  that  :  — 

"  The  King's  grace  hath  no  new  authority  given  whereby  that  he  is 
recognise  as  supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  for  in  that 
recognition  is  included  only  that  he  have  such  power  as  to  a  King  of 
right  appertaineth  by  the  law  of  God  ;  and  not  that  he  should  take 
any  spiritual  power  from  spiritual  ministers  that  is  given  to  them  by 
the  Gospel.  So  that  these  words,  that  the  King  is  supreme  head  of 
the  Church,  serve  rather  to  declare  and  make  open  to  the  world  that 
the  King  hath  power  to  suppress  all  such  extorted  powers,  as  well  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  of  any  other  within  this  realm,  whereby  his 
subjects  might  be  grieved ;  and  to  correct  and  remove  all  things 
whereby  any  unquietness  might  arise  amongst  the  people,  rather  than 

'  "Quantum  per  legem   Christi  licet  supernum  caput."    See  Collier's 
"  Eccl.  Hist.,"  vol.  ii.  pt.  ii.  b.  i.  p.  62.    London,  1714. 
*  Ibid.f  vol.  ii.  p.  1 1 9. 


126       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


to  prove  that  he  should  pretend  thereby  to  take  any  powers  from  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles."  ^ 

The  document  then  refers  to  the  former  Acts  passed  in 
this  reign  to  curtail  the  abuses  and  exactions  of  the  Court 
of  Rome  and  its  Bishop,  and  states  that  such  Acts  had 
been  passed  with  the  express  reservation  that  no  article  of 
religion  should  be  thereby  affected  or  changed,  and  it 
protests  that  no  such  object  was  intended. 

The  adoption  of  the  new  title  by  the  King  must,  there- 
fore, be  understood  as  assumed  with  the  above  qualification. 

When  Queen  Mary  ascended  the  throne,  an  Act  was 
passed  renewing  in  her,  as  a  female,  all  the  titles  and  pre- 
rogatives of  the  late  King ;  and  she  retained  the  title  of 
"  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  of  England  and  Ireland  " 
for  nearly  a  year  after  her  accession.  ^  But  when  Queen 
Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne,  in  order  to  avoid  giving 
offence  by  a  misconception  of  terms,  the  title  "  Supreme 
Head  "  was  removed,  and  "  only  Supreme  Governor  of  the 
Realm,"  substituted  (i  Eliz.  c.  i).  This  is  the  only  title 
our  rulers  have  since  assumed  ;  and  the  oath  of  supremacy 
was  altered  accordingly. 

"  The  Queen,"  said  Bishop  Jewell,  "  is  not  willing  to  be 
styled  in  speech  or  in  writing,  the  head  of  the  English 
Church  ;  for  she  says  that  that  dignity  has  been  given  to 
Christ  alone,  and  is  not  suitable  for  any  mortal."^  An 
admonition  was  likewise  issued  by  the  Ministers  of  Eliza- 
beth, in  order  to  warn  the  people  against  malicious  misre- 
presentations which  had  been  spread  abroad,  that  the  Queen 

1  Quoted  by  Froude  from  the  "Rolls  House  MSS.,"  vol.  ii.  p.  347. 
London,  1856. 

2  "  See  "Despatches  of  Noailles  "  (the  French  Ambassador  in  England), 
23d  April  1554,  par  Vertot.  vol.  iii.  p.  175.    Leyden,  1763. 

3  "  Zurich  Letters."  First  series.  Ep.  xiv.  ad  Bulling.  May  22,  1559. 
Camb.,  1842. 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    I  27 


challenged  authority  or  power  of  ministry  of  Divine  ser- 
vice in  the  Church — 

"  For  certainly  Her  Majesty  neither  doth,  nor  ever  will,  challenge 
any  other  authority  than  that  challenged  and  lately  used  by  the  King, 
Henry  VIII.,  and  King  Edward  VI.,  which  is,  and  was  of  ancient 
time,  due  to  the  imperial  Crown  of  this  realm, — that  is,  under  God,  to 
have  the  sovereignty  and  rule  over  all  manner  of  persons  born  within 
these  her  realms,  dominions,  or  countries,  of  what  estate,  either  eccle- 
siastical or  temporal,  soever  they  be,  so  as  no  other  foreign  Power 
shall,  or  ought  to,  have  any  supremacy  over  them."  ^ 

It  w^ill  be  thus  seen  how  completely  within  the  Consti- 
tution of  this  country  Cranmer  acted,  in  first  submitting 
his  allegiance  to  his  Sovereign  in  preference  to  that  of  a 
foreign  potentate. 

The  declaration  of  the  Church  of  England  is  now  clearly 
expressed  in  her  37th  Article  : — 

"  The  Queen's  Majesty  hath  the  chief  power  in  the  realm  of  Eng- 
land, and  other  her  dominions,  unto  whom  the  chief  government  of 
this  realm,  whether  they  be  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  in  all  causes  doth 
appertain,  and  is  not,  nor  ought  to  be,  subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdic- 
tion. 

"Where  we  attribute  to  the  Queen's  Majesty  the  chief  government, 
by  which  titles  we  understand  the  minds  of  some  slanderous  folks  to 
be  offended,  we  give  not  to  our  Princes  the  ministering  either  of 
God's  Word  or  of  the  Sacraments,  the  which  thing  the  injunctions 
also  lately  set  forth  by  Elizabeth,  Queen,  do  most  plainly  testify  ;  but 
that  only  prerogative  which  we  see  to  have  been  given  always  to  all 
godly  Princes  in  Holy  Scriptures  by  God  Himself ;  that  is,  that  they 
should  rule  all  estates  and  degrees  committed  to  their  charge  by  God, 
whether  they  be  ecclesiastical  or  temporal,  and  restrain  with  the  civil 
sword  the  stubborn  and  evil  doers. 

"The  Bishop  of  Rome  hath  no  jurisdiction  in  this  Realm 
OF  England ! " 

The  Oath  of  Supremacy  was  abolished  in  the  first  year 
of  the  reign  of  William  and  Mary,  so  that  the  royal  autho- 
rity in  ecclesiastical  matters  rests  solely  on  the  declaration 
of  the  Church  as  expressed  in  her  "  Articles "  as  above 

1  '•  Wilkins'  "Concilia,"  vol.  iv.  p.  188.    London,  1737. 


128        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


quoted,  and  to  which  every  clergyman  of  the  Church  of 
England  must  subscribe.  ^ 

The  prerogative  vested  in  the  Crown  of  England  was 
exercised  by,  and  acknowledged  to  belong  to,  all  Christian 
princes  within  their  own  dominions,  until  voluntarily  relin- 
quished by  special  Concordats  with  the  Pope.  The  Em- 
peror of  Austria,  under  the  Imperial  Constitution  of  i6th 
January  1783,-  held  in  principle  the  same  spiritual  autho- 
rity. All  Bishops  were  appointed  by  the  Emperor  ;  all 
ecclesiastical  statutes  and  ordinances  were  first  submitted  to 
the  State  for  approval  before  publication,  extending  not  only 
to  rescripts  in  regulations  of  discipline,  but  to  those  which 
are  dogmatical,  including  Bulls,  Briefs,  &c.,  of  the  Pope, 
and  also  Indults  for  celebration  of  any  new  festival  or 
act  of  devotion.  All  pastoral  or  circular  letters  of  Bishops 
were,  in  like  manner,  to  be  submitted  to  the  Emperor,  and 
no  excommunications  could  have  effect  without  his  per- 
mission. Austria,  notwithstanding,  was  not  declared  to  be 
in  schism.  And  yet  Henr}-  VIII.  is  accused  of  being 
schismatical  for  reserv  ing  to  himself  these  same  privil^es  ! 
He  was  far  in  advance  of  his  times.  It  is  notorious  that 
the  Galilean  Church  enjoyed  all  these  liberties,  and  was 
jealous  of  her  rights.  In  Spain,  the  patronage  of  all  eccle- 
siastical benefices  is  primarily  in  the  King,  and  he  pre- 
sents to  all  Episcopal  Sees.  Papal  Bulls  are  first  submitted 
for  the  Regiuin  Exequatur,  and,  if  necessarj',  to  the  King's 
Advocate.  By  the  edict  of  Charles  III.,  published  in 
1 76 1,  and  again  in  1762,  all  Bulls,  Briefs,  &c.,  must  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  civil  tribunals  under  pains  and  penalties.  On 
a  Roman  Catholic  episcopacy  being  founded  in  Russia  by 

^  This  fact  may  perhaps  account  for  the  great  desire  evinced  by  a  certain 
class  of  our  clergy  to  do  away  with  our  "  Articles  of  Religion,"  for  with  it  the 
civil  authority  over  the  Church  would  vanish  also  ! 

*  See  "  Catholicism  in  Austria,"  pp.  120-12S.     London,  1S27. 


HENRY  VIII. 'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    I  29 


Catherine  II.,  the  Pope  admitted  her  supremacy.  She 
reserved  to  herself  the  right  of  nomination  of  all  Bishops, 
and  the  Pope  submitted  to  institute  on  her  nomination.^ 

It  is  in  England  alone  that  the  parcelling  out  of  the 
country  into  new  ecclesiastical  dioceses,  with  the  appoint- 
ment of  Bishops,  by  a  foreign  potentate,  without  permis- 
sion of  the  civil  government,  is  tolerated, — a  process  clearly 
illegal,  as  well  by  the  law  of  the  Roman  Church,  which 
prescribes  that  there  can  be  no  two  Bishops  in  one  diocese, 
as  also  by  the  law  of  this  realm,  which  vests  all  authority 
of  appointing  territorial  Bishops  in  the  Queen.  This  right 
of  the  Crown  of  England  has  been  allowed  to  be  over- 
ridden by  the  Pope. 

To  represent  Henry,  therefore,  as  assuming  any  peculiar 
prerogatives,  or  introducing  a  new  order  of  things,  or  form- 
ing a  new  sect  or  community,  is  a  manifest  perversion  of 
the  truth  ;  and  to  censure  Cranmer  for  taking  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  Crown  of  England,  is  only  an  attempt  to 
re-establish,  as  a  right,  the  usurpation  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  over  this  country. 

To  reform  is  to  correct  abuses.  To  say  Henry  was  a 
Reformer  in  this  respect,  is  true  ;  but  the  religion  of  the 
country  was  left  untouched.  Henry  first  judiciously  pared 
down  numerous  existing  abuses  in  the  Church  in  this 
country,  practised  under  the  direction  of  the  Pope,  as  we 
shall  presently  see,  and  eventually  the  country  was  con- 

'  See  "  Report  from  the  Select  Committee  appointed  lo  report  the  nature 
and  substance  of  the  laws  and  ordinances  existing  in  foreign  States,  represent- 
ing the  regulation  of  their  Roman  Catholic  subjects  in  ecclesiastical  matters, 
and  their  intercourse  with  the  See  of  Rome,  or  any  foreign  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction;" ordered  to  be  printed  by  the  House  of  Commons,  25th  June  1816. 
This  Report  shows  that,  notwithstanding  the  virtual  abrogation  of  the  Pope's 
spiritual  jurisdiction  in  this  country,  even  at  the  present  day  the  British  Empire 
is  the  only  one  in  Europe  now  open  to  the  laws  of  the  Pajjacy.  See  Mac- 
Ghee's  "  Laws  of  the  Papacy."    London,  1841. 

I 


130       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


tented  to  be  relieved  of  the  spiritual  supervision  of  the 
Pope,  and  was  quite  willing  to  accept  Henry  in  that  capa- 
city. It  is  this  dissolution  of  partnership  with  the  Pope, 
the  bringing  back  the  English  Church  to  her  original  dis- 
cipline and  independence,  that  is  called  a  schism. 

It  is  a  matter  for  grave  consideration,  and  difficult  of 
explanation  by  Roman  Catholics,  how  it  was  that  all  the 
Bishops  under  Henr}''s  reign,  both  in  England  and  Ireland 
(save  Fisher  of  Rochester),  took  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  ; 
and  that  when  Queen  Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne,  after 
the  short  and  cruel  reign  of  ]\Iary,  out  of  nine  thousand 
four  hundred  ecclesiastics  in  England,  who  were  professed 
members  of  the  unreformed  Roman  Church,  all  but  about 
two  hundred  quietly,  orderly,  and  without  compulsion,  not 
only  transferred  their  allegiance  to  the  Queen,  but  retained 
their  livings,  and  (as  before  obsen^ed)  adopted  the  English 
Liturgy  and  form  of  worship  in  the  same  churches  in 
which  the}-  had  before  celebrated  Mass  !  The  same  whole- 
sale revolution  took  place  in  Ireland.  The  importance  and 
magnitude  of  this  fact  cannot  be  exaggerated.  As  testi- 
fied by  Watson  (a  Priest  of  the  Roman  Church,  who  him- 
self lived  at  the  time  and  other  secular  Priests  of  the 
day,  Roman  Catholics  of  England,  in  the  first  twelve 
years  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  lived  in  perfect  peace  and  har- 
mony; and  they  testify  that  they  might  have  continued  to 
do  so,  had  it  not  been  for  the  treasons  and  rebellions  stirred 
up  by  the  Jesuits  and  their  party  against  the  Queen  and 
her  Government.  Notwithstanding  these  notorious  facts, 
confirmed  by  Rapin,^  Foulis,*  and  even  by  their  Annalist, 

^  "  Imp>ortant  Considerations  ;  or,  a  Vindication  of  Queen  Elizabeth  from 
the  Charge  of  an  Unjust  Severity  towards  her  Roman  Catholic  subjects,  by 
Roman  Catholics  themselves,"  &c.,  printed  in  1601,  pp.  39  and  40.  See  "  His- 
tory and  Authenticity  of  this  Book,"  proved  in  reprint  by  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Mendham.    London,  1S31. 

-  See  Tindals  "  Rapin,"  vol.  i.\.  pp.  6,  39.    Edit.  1729. 

'  "  History  of  Romish  Treasons,"  pp.  420-42S.    Edit.  1671. 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.  I3I 


Bzovius.i  Cobbett,  in  his  unhappy  production,  miscalled 
"  History  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  "  (Letter  IX.),  has 
the  audacity  to  assert,  that  Elizabeth  "  crammed  Cranmer's 
creed  down  the  throats  of  her  people;"  "having  pulled  down 
the  altars,  set  up  the  tables,"  that  she  "ousted  the  Catholic 
Priests  and  worship,  and  put  up  in  their  stead  a  set  of 
hungry,  beggarly  creatures,  the  very  scum  of  earth,  with 
Cranmer's  Prayer  Book  amended  in  their  hands,"  and  that 
she  compelled  them  "  to  acknowledge  the  Queen's  supre- 
macy in  spiritual  matters,  to  renounce  the  Pope  and  the 
Catholic  religion  ;  or,  in  other  words,  to  become  apostate." 
This  veracious  historian  further  tells  us,  that  the  Pope 
declared  Elizabeth  illegitimate,  and  "  could  not  acknow- 
ledge her  hereditary  right."  But  this  last  statement  is  only 
partly  true  ;  for  the  Pope  offered  not  only  to  confirm  her 
title  to  the  throne  of  England,  but  admit  the  Reformed 
Liturgy,  if  she  would  only  submit  to,  or  acknowledge  his 
authority,*  but  she  refused  to  comply  with  his  terms,  as  did 
her  father  before  her.  Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne  in 
November  1558.  It  was  not  until  February  1570 — twelve 
years  after — that  Pius  V.  issued  his  Bull  of  Excommunica- 
tion against  her ;  and  on  this  followed  all  the  plottings  an  J 
intrigues  of  the  Jesuits  to  foster  rebellion,  and  even  the 
compassing  of  her  life  by  secret  emissaries,  who  had  first 
made  their  confession,  obtained  absolution  for  the  contem- 
plated crime,  and  then  pledged  themselves  to  assassinate 
the  Queen.3 

It  was  not  the  renouncing  of  the  Roman  religion,  it  was 

^  "  De  Rom.  Pont.,"  cap.  xlvi.  p.  621.    Edil.  Antv.,  1601. 
^  See  Sharon  Turner's  "  Modern  History  of  England,"  vol.  iv.  p.  165, 
e/sej.  1835. 

*  The  case  of  Parry  is  an  instance  reported  in  the  "  State  Trials,"  Cob- 
Lett's  edition,  An.  1584,  No.  60,  vol.  i.  col.  H05.  And  see  Strype,  "  Annals 
of  Elizabeth,"  vol.  v.  pt.  i.  c.  xxi.  p.  361.  Oxford,  1824.  And  Camden's 
"Annals,"  bk.  iii.  p.  274.    London,  1635. 


132 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


not  the  alleged  sin  of  heresy,  or  even  effecting  the  Reforma- 
tion, which  brought  down  the  wrath  of  the  Pope  ;  it  was 
the  emancipation  from  Papal  authority ;  it  was,  as  in  the 
case  of  Henr^',  the  declaration  of  the  independence  of  this 
country  of  the  Pope — the  disowning  priestly  rule,  and 
abolishing  Papal  exactions — that  gave  offence. 

Previous  to  the  complications  attending  Henry's  divorce 
from  Catherine,  and  the  Pope's  unwarrantable  interference, 
the  liberties  of  this  country  were  subjected  to  the  rule  of 
a  priesthood,  deriving  their  "  Orders  "  from  Rome.  They 
were,  in  fact,  the  Pope's  subjects,  to  carry  out  his  ambitious 
designs ;  and,  in  order  to  appreciate  the  political  and  social 
reforms  carried  out  by  Henr>'  and  his  Parliament,  with  the 
sanction  of  the  English  Episcopate,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
enter  on  a  few  particulars. 

Innocent  III.  (a.d.  1200)  declared  himself  to  be  "the 
Vicegerent  of  the  true  God,"  and  to  profess  a  divine 
judgment,  that  he  could  change  the  nature  of  things  and 
make  new  laws,  and  dispense  with  holy  laws,  and  "  convert 
righteousness  into  unrighteousness  by  converting  and 
changing  ordinances."  ^ 

Pope  Boniface  (A.D.  1294)  "declared,  defined,  and  pro- 
nounced that  it  was  altogether  necessary  for  the  salvation 
of  every  human  creature,  that  he  should  be  subject  to 
the  Roman  Pontiff."  - 

1  Decret.  D.  Greg.,  "  De  Magistate  et  Obedientia,"  tit.  33,  p.  424.  Edit. 
Taurini,  162 1. 

^  lbid.,\\!Q.  i.,  "  De  Translatione  Episcop.,"  tit.  ix.  And  see  "Coqj.  Juris 
Can.,"  torn.  ii.p.  1159.  Edit.  Lips.,  1839.  Bishop  Fessler,  who  acted  as 
.Secretary-General  at  the  late  Vatican  Council  of  1870,  declares  this  to  be  an 
accepted  Article  of  the  Roman  Faith,  by  virtue  of  the  decree  on  Infallibility, 
being  an  ex-cathedra  definition.  "The  True  and  False  Infallibility  of  the 
Popes,"  2d  edit.,  p.  67.  London,  1875.  And  Cardinal  Manning,  in  his 
"Vatican  Decrees,"  says  that  this  decree  has  retrospective  action,  and  was  an 
infallib'e  utterance. 


HENRY  VIII.'s  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.  I33 


Popes  not  only  claimed  but  actually  exercised  in  this 
country  the  power  of  deposing  and  excommunicating 
monarchs,  and  giving  away  their  lands,  and  of  placing 
whole  nations  under  interdict.  When  Henry  came  to  the 
throne  the  Pope  claimed  to  put  in  force  the  Canon  Law  in 
England,  notwithstanding  the  statute  of  Henry  HI.,  which 
had  limited  its  authority  in  this  country.  The  following 
are  a  few  extracts  from  the  Canon  Law,  relating  to  oaths  of 
allegiance  : — 

"  The  Roman  Pontiff  absolves  from  the  oath  of  allegiance,  when  he 
deposes  any  from  their  dignity."  ' 

"  The  pontifical  authority  absolves  from  the  oath  of  allegiance."* 

"  The  same  is  done  frequently  by  the  holy  Church,  when  it  releases 
soldiers  from  the  obligation  of  their  oaths."  ^ 

"  Oaths  of  allegiance  to  excommunicate  persons  are  void." ' 

"  No  one  owes  allegiance  to  any  excommunicate  persons  before  they 
are  reconciled  to  the  Holy  See."^ 

"  No  oaths  are  to  be  kept  if  they  are  against  the  interest  of  the 
Church  of  Rome."  ^ 

"  Oaths  which  are  against  the  interests  of  the  Church  are  not  to  be 
called  oaths,  but  perjuries."'' 

"We  declare  that  you  are  not  bound  by  your  oath  of  allegiance  to 
your  prince,  but  that  you  may  resist  freely  even  your  prince  himself, 
in  defence  of  the  rights  and  honours  of  the  Church,  and  even  of  your 
own  private  advantage."  ^ 

"The  kingly  power  is  subject  to  the  pontifical,  and  is  bound  to 
obey  it."  " 

"  Whoever  resists  this  power  resists  the  ordinance  of  God."^ 
Cranmer  undertook  to  examine  this  Canon  Law.  He 
made  a  collection  of  the  passages  to  submit  to  the  king. 
Cranmer  also   pointed  out  the   following  extraordinary 
passage,  to  which  special  attention  is  drawn  : — 

*  "Decret.,"  pars  ii.  c.  xv.  Q.  vi.  p.  647.    Edit.  1839.  Leipsic. 
2  Ibid.,  p.  648. 

^  Ibid.,  "  Extrav.  Commun.,"  lib.  i.  tit.  viii.  vol.  ii.  p.  1 159. 

*  Ibid.,  "Decret.  Greg.  IX.,"  lib.  ii.  tit.  xxiv.  cap.  xxvii.  vol.  ii.  p.  358. 
^  Ibid.,  cap.  xxxiv.  p.  360. 

*  Ibid.,  "Decret.  Greg.  IX.,"  lib.  i.  tit.  xxxiii.  cap.  vi.  vol.  ii.  p.  190. 

'  See  the  whole  collection  set  out  in  Jenkyns'  "Remains,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  i-iq, 
Oxford,  1833. 


J  34       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


"  The  Bishop  of  Rome  may  be  judged  of  none  but  of  God  only  ;  for 
although  he  neither  regard  his  own  salvation  nor  no  man's  else,  but 
draw  down  with  himself  innumerable  people  by  heaps  into  hell ;  yet 
may  no  mortal  man  in  this  world  presume  to  reprehend  him  ;  for  as 
much  as  he  is  called  God,  he  may  be  judged  by  no  man  ;  for  God  may 
be  judged  by  no  man."  ^ 

Such  were  the  laws  and  prerogatives  claimed  by  the 
Pope  to  be  exercised  over  every  English  subject,  until 
Henry  VIII.  threw  off  his  spiritual  rule  over  this  country. 
It  is  the  Papal  law  Cardinal  Wiseman  desired  so  earnestly 
to  bring  back  into  England,  when  substituting  a  Hierarchy 
for  the  Vicars  Apostolic,  such  as  existed  in  this  country 
previous  to  1850. 

These  laws — the  Canon  Law  of  the  Roman  Church — 
still  remain  unrepealed  by  her.  It  is  the  law  to  which  all 
Roman  Catholics  are  subject  at  the  present  day.  Can  any 
Englishman  who  is  bound  by  this  Canon  Law  consider 
himself  a  loyal  subject  of  the  Queen  of  England,  and  does 
not  the  very  recital  of  the  law,  to  which  Henry  was 
called  upon  to  submit,  present  sufficient  justification, 
if  none  other  existed,  for  the  step  he,  under  the  advice,  as 
is  alleged,  of  Cranmer,  took  in  order  to  free  this  country 
from  its  operation,  which  could  alone  be  done  by  depriving 
the  Pope  of  his  "spiritual"  jurisdiction.' 

But  the  matter  did  not  rest  with  the  supreme  ruler  of 
the  Church  of  Rome;  each  priest,  in  his  district,  assumed 
powers  superior  to  those  of  the  secular  rulers.  The  clergy 
asserted  a  complete  immunity  from  the  administration  of 
secular  justice.  They  were  only  amenable  to  "  the  Church," 
and  the  courts  of  the  king  could  not  call  them  personally 
to  account  for  any  enormity.  Whatever  crimes  they 
might  perpetrate,  whatever  disorders  they  might  commit, 

*  This  passage  still  remains  in  the  present  editions  of  Rome's  Canon  Law 
(Decret  1.  part  i.  Dist.  40.  sec.  6). 


HENRY  VIII, 'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    I  35 

whatever  evil  example  they  might  set  before  the  com- 
munity, they  could  laugh  to  scorn  the  powers  of  national 
law,  so  long  as  they  enjoyed  the  Papal  favour.  Not  only 
were  they  thus  secure  in  their  own  persons,  but  they  were 
the  guardians  of  all  the  villains  in  the  land,  for  every 
church,  with  a  certain  space  around  it,  was  a  sanctuary  of 
refuge,  and  if  the  thief,  the  murderer,  or  any  other  criminal 
could  get  within  the  line  of  protection,  the  officers  of  justice 
were  set  at  nought,  and  thus  the  priests  became  the  stand- 
ing obstacle  to  right,  and  the  safeguard  of  the  grossest 
iniquity.  Our  Henry  VII.  presented  petitions  to  the  Pope 
to  do  away  with  this  nuisance,  but  without  success.  The 
statute  I  Henry  VII.  c.  iv.  was  passed  to  punish  lewd 
Priests  and  Monks.  Most  of  these  escaped  ruffians,  unable 
to  return  to  society,  became  Monks  !  Before  this  period  the 
Courts  had  no  power  to  punish  Priests,  though  convicted 
of  adultery  or  incest.  In  his  first  Parliament,  Henry  VII. 
made  another  step  in  advance  to  mitigate  the  evil  by 
lessening  the  privileges  of  the  clergy;  he  enacted  (a.d. 
1487)  that  all  clerks  convicted  of  felony  should  be  branded 
on  the  hand  :  this  did  not  prove  a  sufficient  restraint ;  and 
it  was  further  enacted  that  all  murderers  and  robbers 
should  be  denied  the  benefit  of  clergy.  But  the  Lords 
(governed  by  priestly  influence)  specially  e.xemjated  from 
the  operation  of  this  law  all  such  as  were  within  "  Holy 
Orders  "  of  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon.  Priests  considered 
their  liberties  were  in  danger,  and  protested,  declaring  that 
their  privileges  were  invaded  ;  and  through  their  influence 
the  statute  was  not  revived  by  the  fifth  Parliament.  The 
Abbot  of  Winchelcomb  declared,  in  a  sermon  delivered  at 
Paul's  Cross,  that  the  Act  was  "  contrary  to  the  law  of  God, 
and  to  the  liberties  of  the  '  Holy  Church,'  and  that  all  who 
assented  to  it,  as  v/ell  spiritual  as  temporal  persons,  had,  by  so 


136        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


doing,  incurred  the  censures  of  the  Church  !  "  The  subject 
created  a  great  disturbance  both  in  and  out  of  the  House. 

Further,  the  country  was  overrun  with  Monasteries  and 
other  ecclesiastical  establishments  of  great  wealth.  The 
Monks  held  in  their  hands  the  greater  part  of  the  wealth 
of  the  country  derived  from  land,  possessing  also  costly 
treasures  in  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones.  The  wealth 
was  derived  principally  from  death-bed  bequests,  depriving 
the  legitimate  descendants  of  their  rights.  The  Statute  of 
Mortmain  was  specially  passed  to  check  this  acquisition  of 
land  by  monastic  establishments,  but  the  cunning  of  the 
Priests  devised  methods  for  evading  the  law.'  They  toiled 
not,  but  they  reaped  a  plenteous  harvest.  The  number  of 
idle  drones  who  inhabited  the  Monasteries  at  the  time  of 
their  suppression  was  upwards  of  fifty  thousand,  form- 
ing about  one  forty-fifth  part  of  the  adult  population.- 
They  appropriated  or  possessed,  according  to  Hume,  one 
twentieth  part  of  the  land  of  the  whole  kingdom.  They 
lived  in  idleness,  without  earning  a  penny,  or  adding  one 
penny  to  the  wealth  or  revenue  of  the  country.  Every 
idle  man  is  a  loss  to  the  wealth  of  the  country.  The 
spoliations  by  Henry  were  not  exceptional.  William  1. 
took  from  the  Abbey  of  St  Albans  all  the  revenues  "  which 
lay  between  Barnet  and  London  Stone."  ^  King  John 
sequestered  eighty-one  Priories.  So  early  as  1360  the 
popular  voice  was  raised  against  the  Monasteries.  Wyclifife* 

^  This  law  is  evaded  at  the  present  day  by  conveying  lands  to  trustees,  and 
by  this  means  also  the  payment  of  succession  duty  is  evaded. 

^  See  Chalmer's  "  Estimate  of  the  Comparative  Strength  of  Great  Britain," 
p.  38.  See  also  Gilbert's  "Social  Effects  of  the  Reformation,"  and  Sir  John 
Sinclair's  "  History  of  the  Public  Revenue,"  vol.  i.  p.  184.  For  an  elaborate 
account  of  the  establishments  suppressed,  see  the  Rev.  Richard  Watson 
Dixon's  "History  of  the  Church  of  England,"  vol.  ii.  p.  11  et  seq.  London, 
1881. 

^  Speed's  "Chronicles,"  3d  edit  ,  1632,  b.  ix.  c.  ii.  p.  24. 

*  See  Froude's  "  History  of  England,''  vol.  ii.  p.  411.    London,  1858. 


HENRY  VIIl.'s  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.     I  37 

denounced  their  existence  as  intolerable.  The  good  Bishop 
Grosseteste  inveighed  against  the  vices  of  the  Monks  ;  and 
Archbishop  Morton  obtained  leave  from  the  Pope  to  visit  the 
Monasteries,  on  proof  being  tendered  of  the  dissipated  lives 
of  the  inmates.  In  1400  the  House  of  Commons  petitioned 
Henry  IV.  for  the  secularization  of  monastic  property  ;  and, 
to  appease  the  public  indignation,  more  than  one  hundred 
Monasteries  were  suppressed,  and  their  possessions  given  to 
the  King  and  his  heirs.  In  1489,  at  the  instigation  of 
Cardinal  Morton,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Pope  Innocent 
VIII.  directed  a  general  investigation  throughout  England 
into  the  conduct  of  the  regular  clergy,  with  power  to 
correct  and  punish.  The  systematic  vice  and  dissipation 
are  described  to  have  been  something  too  shocking  to 
dwell  upon.  In  15 11  another  ineffectual  attempt  was 
made  to  apply  the  moral  besom  ;  and  twelve  years  later 
Wolsey  and  Stephen  Gardyner  tried  their  hands  at  a 
reformation  of  morals  and  ecclesiastical  abuses,  but  failed. 
Under  a  Bull  from  Rome,  dated  lOth  June  15 19,  and 
another,  dated  April  1527,  all  the  minor  Monasteries,  and 
also  several  of  the  larger  Monasteries,  were  suppressed.^ 
At  length,  in  1535,  Henry  VIII.  seriously  set  to  work  to 
cleanse  the  Augean  stables.  He  issued  a  Commission 
under  Lord  Crumwell,  with  power  to  liberate  all  below 
twenty-one  years  of  age  who  desired  to  free  themselves 
from  these  ecclesiastical  prison  houses.  The  Commis- 
sioners reported,  among  other  things,  that  many  poor 
wretches,  who  were  above  the  age  indicated,  most  piteously 
implored  the  Commissioners  to  free  them  from  their 
incarceration,  revolting  against  these  moral  charnel-houses.- 

*  See  Rymer's  "History,"  vol.  v"i.  pt.  ii.  pp.  8  17.    Edit.  1745. 
-  See  Dr  Leigh's  Letter  to  Crumwell,  MSS.  Cotton.  Cleop.,  E.  iv.  fol. 
229. 


138 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRAXMER. 


Wolsey  had  reported  to  the  Pope  the  frightful  state  of 
depravity  which  was  brought  to  light.  Mr  Froude  saj-s  of 
this  report: — "If  I  were  to  tell  the  truth,  I  should  have 
first  to  warn  all  modest  eyes  to  close  the  book,  and  read 
no  further."  The  full  report  of  this  visitation  is  lost. 
Burnet  informs  us  that  he  had  seen  an  extract  from  a  part 
of  it  concerning  one  hundred  and  forty-four  houses  ^  that 
contained  abominations  in  it  equal  to  any  that  were  in 
Sodom.  In  the  confessions  made  by  the  Prior  and  Bene- 
dictines of  St  Andrew,  in  Northampton,  "  in  the  most 
aggravating  expressions  that  could  be  devised,  they 
acknowledged  their  past  ill  life,  for  which  the  pit  of  hell 
was  ready  to  swallow  them  up.  They  confessed  that  they 
had  neglected  the  worship  of  God,  lived  in  idleness, 
gluttony,  and  sensuality.''  The  report  was  called  the 
Black-book,  hence  the  origin  of  the  well-known  expression  ; 
and  when  laid  before  the  House  there  was  one  universal 
shout  of  Down  with  them.  But  Henry  gave  them  a 
chance,  and  with  his  own  hand,  probably  assisted  by  the 
much  maligned  Crumwell,  prepared  a  code  of  regulations 
for  the  guidance  of  all  monastic  establishments,  which  was 
a  wonderful  production,  characterised  by  strong  common- 
sense,  piety,  and  moderation. 

Among  other  regulations,  Henry  prescribed  that  "  women, 
of  whatever  state  or  degree,"  should  be  wholly  excluded 
from  the  monasteries  ;  that  the  monks  of  each  establish- 
ment should  all  dine  together  soberly  and  without  excess, 
with  giving  thanks  to  God  ;  "  that  the  President  and  his 
guests  should  have  a  separate  table,"  but  that,  "  not  even 
sumptuous  and  full  of  delicate  and  strange  dishes,  but 

^  The  reader,  who  may  be  curious  in  such  matters,  maj-  consult  the  following 
MS.  documents  in  the  British  Museum: — Cotton.  Cleopat.,  E.  iv.  fols. 
114,  120,  131,  137,  161,  249;  and  see  also  Sir  Thomas  .Dudley's  Letter  to 
Crumwell,  "  State  Papers,"  vol.  i.  p.  450. 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.     I  39 


honestly  furnished  with  common  meats,"  thus  cutting  at 
once  to  the  root  of  their  leading  vices.  After  admonishing 
them  not  to  encourage  "  valliant,  mighty,  and  idle  beggars 
and  vagabonds,  as  commonly  use  to  resort  about  such 
places,"  they  were  enjoined  to  distribute  alms  "  largely  and 
liberally,"  in  accordance  with  the  directions  of  the  statutes 
founding  the  Monastery ;  that  the  Monks  were  to  have 
single  beds,  and  any  boy  or  child  was  forbidden  to  associate 
with  the  Monks,  "other  than  to  help  them  to  mass."  No 
man  was  allowed  to  wear  the  habit  of  the  Order  under 
twenty-four  years  of  age;  that  "they  entice  nor  allure  no 
men  with  suasion  and  blandyments  to  take  the  religion 
upon  them ;  item,  that  they  shall  shew  no  reliques,  or 
feigned  miracles,  for  increase  of  lucre,^  but  that  they  exhort 
pilgrims  and  strangers  to  give  that  to  the  poor  that  they 
thought  to  offer  to  their  images  or  reliques."  That  men 
"  learned  in  good  and  holy  letters  "  be  kept  in  each  estab- 
lishment to  teach  others,  and  that  every  day  for  the  "  space 
of  one  hour  a  lesson  of  Holy  Scriptures  be  kept  in  the 
convent,  to  which  all  under  pain  shall  resort ; "  and  that 
each  of  the  brethren,  "  after  divine  service  done,  read  or 
hear  somewhat  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  occupy  himself  in 
some  such  honest  and  laudable  exercise."    We  then  have 

'  "There  were  few  religious  houses  which  were  without  one  or  more  such 
objects  of  devotion  [rehcs],  celebrated  in  the  neighbourhood  as  being  efficacious 
in  the  cure  of  disease,  or  prompt  in  the  aid  of  childbirth.  Besides  these, 
which  were  the  relics  proper,  there  were  found  in  many  places  miraculous 
images  or  figures,  some  of  which  not  only  wrought  cures,  but  gave  signs  of 
sensibility  to  adoration.  In  them  the  actions  of  life  were  imitated  by  mechani- 
cal contrivances  ;  and  the  faith  of  the  worshippers  in  the  saint  was  stimulated 
by  beholding  his  body  move,  his  eyes  wink,  his  head  nod,  or  his  arms  expand. 
Some  of  these  also  were  brought  to  London  with  the  rest  of  the  spoil,  and 
exhibited  in  public  to  justify  the  King's  proceedings.  They,  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  were  impostures  for  the  sake  of  gain  ;  but  in  condemning  them,  it 
may  appear  to  an  enlightened  age  that  the  whole  of  the  religion  of  rags  and 
bones  was  nothing  but  the  invention  of  rascality  playing  on  folly." — Dixon's 
"  History  of  the  Church  of  England,"  vol.  ii.  p.  48.    London,  18S1. 


140        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  \YRITIXGS  OF  CRAX.MER. 


special  directions  as  to  the  decent  conduct  of  public 
Avorship. 

Had  Henrj-  been  the  headstrong,  impetuous  tyrant  as 
represented,  or  had  he  been  actuated  by  the  desire  of  gain 
to  appropriate  to  himself  and  his  favourites  the  wealth  of 
these  Monasteries,  his  forbearance  and  anxiety  to  reform 
these  monastic  establishments  was  a  strange  mode  of  giving 
effect  to  these  propensities.  But  Henr}""s  forbearance  was 
of  no  avail ;  the  evil  was  beyond  reformation.  The  minor 
Monasteries  were,  as  stated,  first  suppressed.  This  warn- 
ing was  not  appreciated.  Eventually,  by  a  general  consent 
of  the  nation,  Henry  VHI.  swept  away  the  plague  spots 
from  the  land,  retaining,  nevertheless,  the  Universities  and 
a  few  leading  establishments,  exceptions  to  the  general 
rule.  The  number  of  these  establishments  suppressed 
has  been  estimated  at  three  hundred  and  seventy-six.^ 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Church  property,  properly 
so  called,  was  not  included  in  these  confiscations.  Further, 
the  Supremacy  of  the  Pope  operated  directly  upon  the 
wealth  and  welfare  of  this  countr)-.  Enormous  sums  were 
annually  carried  out  of  the  kingdom  to  Rome,  in  the  shape 
of  "  Peter's-pence,"  first-fruits,  offerings,  annates,  fees,  and 
more  particularly  in  causes  carried  to  the  appellate  juris- 
diction of  Rome,  IMatthew  Paris  and  the  Abbe  Fleury 
give  us  a  sad  description  of  the  miseries  entailed  by  this 

^  The  Rev.  Mr  Gleig,  in  his  "  School  Series,"  before  alluded  to  in  pp.  35,  55, 
gives  the  follo«-ing  version  of  the  popular  tradition  of  these  events  : — "  There 
was  no  reason  after  this  (i.e.,  the  separation  from  Catherine)  for  holding 
further  terms  with  Rome,  and  Henry,  as  if  he  felt  his  ground  to  be  safe,  went 
on  fiercely  with  the  work  of  change.  He  got  up  cases  against  some  convents, 
and  found  others  made  to  his  hands,  and  set  about  a  system  of  wholesale 
plunder  of  their  estates  (a.d.  1534).  He  put  to  death  all  who  refused  to 
chaiige  their  minds  as  he  had  changed  his,  and  among  others  a  good  man,  Sir 
Thomas  More,  Lord  High  Chancellor  of  England.  Yet  he  gave  no  freedom 
of  conscience  to  any  one  (x.D.  1535)." 


HENRY  VIII.'s  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.  I4I 


system  of  extortion.  The  English  presented  petitions  to 
the  Pope  to  mitigate  the  evil.  Matthew  Paris  records 
that '  :— 

"  The  extortions  and  abuses  becoming  so  oppressive  and  unbear- 
able, the  nobles  appealed  to  the  Papal  Court  for  redress,  complaining 
among  other  things,  that  all  the  best  benefices  were  given  to  Italians 
who  did  not  know  the  language  of  the  country.  '  But  now  behold,'  they 
exclaimed,  '  in  addition  to  the  aforesaid  subsidies,  the  Italians,  whose 
number  is  now  infinite,  are  enriched  in  England  by  you  and  your  pre- 
decessors, who  have  no  consideration  for  us  in  churches;  leaving  the 
above-mentioned  religious  persons  whom  they  ought  to  defend,  de- 
fenceless, havmg  no  cure  of  souls,  but  pcrmiiiing  rapacious  wolves  to 
disperse  the  Jlock  and  seize  the  sheep  J  " 

One  of  their  grievances  is  thus  specially  referred  to  : — 

"Also  it  is  aggrieved  in  the  general  taxes  collected  and  imposed 
without  the  consent  and  will  of  the  King,  against  the  appeal  and  oppo- 
sition of  the  King's  Commissioners  and  all  England." 

Matthew  Paris  gives  us  the  Pope's  answer  : — 

"  The  Lord  Pope,  gathering  from  the  past  to  trample  under  foot  the 
poor  English,  imperiously,  and  even  more  imperiously  than  usual, 
demanded  of  the  English  prelates,  that  all  the  beneficed  clergy  in 
England  who  resided  on  their  livings  should  confer  one-third  of  their 
livings  on  the  Lord  Pope,  and  that  those  who  did  not  reside,  should 
grant  one-half." 

Fleury,  in  his  "  Ecclesiastical  History,"  ^  says  : — 

"  England,  fatigued  and  exhausted  by  Rome's  exactions,  began  to 
speak  and  complain  like  Balaam's  ass,  overpowered  with  blows."  The 
same  historian  further  informs  us,  that  the  Pope,  "annoyed  at  the 
firmness  with  which  the  Archbishop  Serval  refused  to  confer  the  best 
benefices  of  his  Church  on  unworthy  and  unknown  {indignes  et  incon- 
nus)  Italians,  caused  him  to  be  excommunicated  by  bell,  book,  and 
candle,  in  order  to  intimidate  him  by  this  degrading  censure." 

England  afforded  to  the  Popes  a  rich  prize,  a  golden 
harvest  ;  it  was  to  them,  as  Innocent  IV.  testified,  "  a  very 
garden  of  delight,  an  inexhaustible  well." » 

^  Matthew  Paris,  "  Historia  Anglioe,"  p.  716,  &c.    Edition  1640. 
^  Lib.  Ixxii.    Nismes,  1779. 

^  Matt.  Paris,  "Historia  Angliae,"  p.  705.    London,  1640. 


142 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Such  was  the  state  of  things  when  Henry  VIII.  came  to 
the  throne  of  England.  He  ascended  that  throne  under 
the  patronage  of  the  Pope  of  Rome,  and  shortly  afterwards 
obtained  the  title  from  him  of  "  Defender  of  the  Faith." 
He  afterwards  fell  under  the  ban  of  his  curse  and  excom- 
munication, not  because  he  had  changed  his  religion,  but 
because  he  refused  to  acknowledge  the  Pope  to  have  a 
supreme  power  in  these  realms  ; — because  he  re-asserted 
the  dignity  belonging  to  the  title  of  ''  King  of  England," 
as  supreme  ruler  of  this  realm  ; — because  he  deprived  the 
Pope  of  his  opportunity^  to  plunder,  and  his  liberty  or 
power  of  working  on  the  feelings  and  fears  of  the  people  of 
this  country. 

Camden,  on  this  separation  from  the  authority  of  Rome, 
remarks  :  ''  By  means  of  this  alteration  of  religion,  Eng- 
land, as  politicians  have  obser\'ed,  became,  of  all  the  king- 
doms of  Christendom,  the  most  free,  the  sceptre  being,  as 
it  were,  delivered  from  the  forraine  servitude  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  and  more  wealthy  than  in  former  ages,  an  infinite 
mass  of  money  being  stayed  at  home,  which  was  wont  to 
be  exported  daily  to  Rome,  being  incredibly  exhausted 
from  the  commonwealth  for  first-fruits,  pardons,  appeals, 
dispensations,  Bulls,  and  other  such  like."  ^ 

Henry  VIII.  freed  this  country-  from  Priest-rule  and  its 
consequent  and  inseparable  corruptions,  not  by  any  sudden 
action  or  caprice,  but  by  well-considered  and  well-digested 
salutary'  laws.  One  of  our  historians  -  has  very  aptly  ob- 
ser\-ed  that  the  cause  which  Henry  was  impelled  onwards 
to  lead  was,  the  cause  of  human  nature,  human  reason, 
human  freedom,  and  human  happiness.  It  was  an  effort  to 
rescue  England,  and  consequently  mankind,  and  the  mind 

*  Camden's  "  Elizabeth,"  b.  i.  p.  20.    London,  1635. 

-  Sharon  Turner's  "  Modem  History  of  England,"  voL  ii.  pp.  355-6. 
London,  1835. 


HENRY  VIII. 'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    1 43 

and  religious  worship  itself,  from  sacerdotal  despotism  ; 
to  liberate  society  from  the  oppressing  and  debilitating 
dominion  of  dictating  and  inquisitorial  Priests,  intruding 
both  into  domestic  and  civil  concerns,  interposing  them- 
selves between  the  Creator  and  his  creatures.  Though 
Henry  did  not  foresee  or  even  contemplate  the  conse- 
quences of  his  acts,  reformation  was  effected  step  by  step 
by  carefully  weighed  Acts  of  Parliament,  all  which  were 
prepared,  if  not  by  himself  manually,  certainly  under  his 
dictation  and  supervision.  Cranmer  has  the  reputation  of 
being  the  King's  adviser  ;  Cranmer  has  the  discredit  of  all 
Henry's  questionable  proceedings,  why  should  he  not  be 
credited  with  those  actions  which  have  proved  beneficial  to 
the  Avelfare  of  the  nation  } 

The  first  step  taken  by  Henry  to  bring  about  this  great 
social  Reformation  was,  to  clip  the  wings  of  the  clergy.  In 
1529  he  mitigated  one  great  abuse,  by  causing  an  Act^  to 
be  passed  by  which  spiritual  persons  were  debarred  from 
having  pluralities  of  livings  and  from  taking  lands  to  farm. 
The  evil  of  concentration  of  livings  and  lands  in  the  hands 
of  the  clergy  or  Priests  was  greatly  on  the  increase  ;  foreign 
Priests,  nominated  by  the  Pope,  enjoyed  the  fat  of  the 
land,  while  they  held  his  dispensation  to  be  absentees. 
They  were  engaged  in  trade,  in  farming,  in  tanning,  in 
brewing,  in  doing  anything  but  the  duties  w'hich  they  were 
paid  fordoing  ;  while  they  purchased  dispensations  for  non- 
residence  at  their  benefices.  In  some  cases,  single  Priests 
held  as  many  as  eight  or  nine  livings. 

Henry  completely  swept  away  these  abuses  ;  and  the 
Act  declared,  that  if  any  person  should  obtain  from  the 
Court  of  Rome,  or  elsewhere,  any  manner  of  licence  or 
dispensation  to  be  non-resident  at  his  cure  or  benefice, 

'  21  Henry  VIII.  c.  13  (1529). 


144       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


he  should  be  fined.  Here  was  a  bold  and  prudent  step 
in  the  proper  direction  of  reform. 

In  the  24th  year  of  his  reign  (cap.  xii.),  an  Act  was 
passed  for  the  restraint  of  all  appeals  to  the  Coiirt  of  Rome. 
The  evils  resulting  from  appeals  in  spiritual  and  temporal 
matters  became  intolerable.  The  enormous  expense  and 
delays,  not  to  mention  the  indignity  offered  to  the  Courts 
of  Law,  the  Parliament,  and  King,  arising  from  this  usurpa- 
tion of  power  by  a  foreign  prince,  affected  all  branches  of 
society. 

The  Act  declared  : — 

"  From  sundry  old  authentic  histories  and  chronicles,  it  was  mani- 
festly declared  and  expressed  that  this  realm  of  England  was  an 
empire,  and  had  been  so  accepted  in  the  world;  governed  by  one 
supreme  head  and  King,  having  the  dignity  and  royal  estate  of  the 
Imperial  Crown  of  the  same,  unto  whom  a  body  politic,  composed  of 
all  sorts  and  degrees  of  people,  divided  in  terms,  and  by  names  of 
spirituality  and  temporality,  been  bounden  and  owen  to  bear,  next  to 
God,  a  natural  and  humble  obedience." 

And  then,  after  pointing  out  the  evils,  delays,  expenses, 
and  annoyances  resulting  from  this  system  of  appeals  to  a 
foreign  Court,  it  was  by  this  Act  further  provided,  that  all 
causes  determinable  by  spiritual  or  temporal  jurisdiction 
should  be  adjudged  within  the  King's  authority  and  juris- 
diction in  the  realm ;  and  it  was  further  enacted,  that 
whosoever  procured  from  the  See  of  Rome  any  appeals, 
processes,  sentences,  &c.,  should  incur  the  forfeiture  of 
pmtmDiire,  established  by  the  Act  16  Richard  II.  c.  v. 

Impute  what  motive  you  will  to  Henry  and  his  Parlia- 
ment, and  to  his  adviser  Cranmer,  there  is  no  person,  be 
he  Englishman  or  foreigner,  Protestant  or  Roman  Catholic, 
who  will  deny  the  wisdom,  or  the  absolute  necessity  of 
this  enactment. 

By  another  Act  (cap.  xix.),  "  for  the  submission  of  the 


HENRY  VIII.'s  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    1 45 

clergy  and  restraint  of  appeals,"  it  was  declared,  that  the 
clergy  should  not  enact  any  constitutions  or  ordinances 
without  the  King's  assent ;  and  all  Convocations  should 
be  assembled  only  by  the  King's  writ ;  and  all  appeals  in 
spiritual  matters  should  be  according  to  the  statute  last 
mentioned  ;  in  fact,  giving,  for  the  first  time,  an  appeal 
for  lack  of  justice  in  the  Archbishop's  Court,  to  the  Crown 
delegates  in  Chancery. 

By  the  next  statute  (cap.  xx.),  all  fees  theretofore  pay- 
able to  the  Pope  of  Rome  on  appointment  of  Bishops,  and 
for  Bulls,  Palliums,  &c.,  were  cleanly  swept  away ;  and  it 
was  declared,  that  no  man  should  be  presented  by  the  See 
of  Rome  for  the  dignity  of  an  Archbishop  or  Bishop,  and 
that  annates  or  first-fruits  should  not  be  paid  to  the  same 
See.  This  Act  was  eventually  passed  on  a  petition  of  a 
Convocation  of  Bishops  and  Clergy.  The  abstraction  of 
these  fees  from  this  country  robbed  the  clergy,  and  that 
was  sufficient  to  rouse  their  opposition.  It  deprived  them 
of  a  portion  of  their  incomes,  which  was  transferred  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.  It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  remark,  that  the 
first  active  movement  towards  the  separation  from  Rome 
originated  with  the  clergy  themselves.  Their  petition  to 
Parliament  to  remove  this  tax  upon  their  income  con- 
cluded :  ^ — "  May  it  please  your  Highness  to  ordain,  in 
this  present  Parliament,  that  the  obedience  of  your  High- 
ness and  of  the  people  be  withdrawn  from  the  See  of 
Rome." 

The  next  reforming  Act  (25  Henry  VIII.  c.  xxi.)  was 
all-important.  After  stating  that  this  country  had  been 
"greatly  decayed  and  impoverished  by  intolerable  ex- 
actions of  great  sums  of  money  as  had  been  claimed  and 
taken,  and  continually  claimed  to  be  taken,  out  of  this 

*  Strype's  "Memorials,"  vol.  i.  part  ii.  p.  158. 
K 


146        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER, 


realm,  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  his  See,  in  pensions, 
causes,  Peter's-pence,  procurations,  first-fruits,  suits  for  pro- 
visions, and  expedition  of  Bulls  for  Archbishoprics  and 
Bishops,  and  for  delegates  and  rescripts  on  causes  and 
contentions  and  appeals,  jurisdictions  legantine,  and  also 
for  dispensations,  and  other  infinite  sorts  of  Bulls,  breves, 
and  instruments  of  sundry  natures,  names,  and  kinds,  in 
great  numbers,  heretofore  practised  and  obtained,  otJierivise 
than  by  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  realm,  the  specialities 
thereof  being  over  long,  and  large  in  number,"  says  this 
enactment,  "  and  too  tedious,  particularly  to  describe ;  " 
and  this  simple  recital  from  the  Act  of  Parliament  gives 
us  some  idea  of  the  extent  of  scandalous  abuses  then 
existing,  and  "  set  up  by  a  person,"  as  the  Act  continues, 
"  abusing  and  beguiling  the  King's  subjects,  pretending 
and  persuading  them  that  he  hath  power  to  dispense  with 
all  human  laws  and  customs,  to  the  great  derogation  of 
the  Imperial  Crown  and  authority  " — all  these  were  with 
the  united  national  consent  cleared  away ;  and  the  Act 
declared  that  no  impositions  whatever  should  be  paid  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome.  All  abbeys  were  also  relieved  from 
payment  of  pensions  to  the  See  of  Rome ;  nor  were  they 
allowed  to  accept  any  constitutions  from  thence,  and  were 
prohibited  taking  oath  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Will  any 
one  venture  to  question  the  wisdom  or  necessity  of  this 
enactment,  or  to  question  the  motives  of  Henry  or  his 
advisers,  be  they  Cranmer,  Gardyner,  or  Crumwell  ? 

It  must  be  specially  noted  that  the  Act,  last  above 
referred  to,  specially  provides  that  "  no  Article  of  the 
established  religion  of  the  Catholic  Faith  of  Christendom  " 
was  to  be,  in  consequence,  altered. 

Then  followed  the  famous  Act,  26  Henry  VIII.  c.  i. 
(1534),  declaring,  what  the  "Preamble"  of  the  Act  stated 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    1 47 


liad  been  already  recognised  by  tJie  clergy  of  tlie  realm  in 
their  Convocations — that  "  the  King  was,  and  his  heirs  and 
successors  should  be,  the  only  supreme  head  on  earth  of 
the  Church  of  England."  The  Church  of  England  had 
been  from  the  commencement,  from  the  planting  of  the 
Gospel  in  this  country  by  the  Apostles  or  their  immediate 
successors,  and  for  eight  hundred  years,  independent  of  the 
See  of  Rome.  A  submission  was  first  exacted  by  Austin, 
the  emissary  of  Pope  Gregory  I.,  which  was  resisted  ;  but 
this  refusal  was  closely  followed,  as  predicted  by  the  Pope's 
emissary,  by  a  ruthless  massacre  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Monks  at  Bangor.  The  independence  of  England  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  control  of  Rome  was  asserted  by  William 
the  Conqueror,  William  II.,  Edward  III.,  Richard  II.,  and 
Henry  IV.  "  The  King,"  said  the  learned  Bracton,  Lord 
Chief-Justice  in  the  reign  of  Henry  III.,  "is  the  Vicar  and 
Minister  of  God  in  the  land,  and  he  himself  is  under  none 
save  only  under  the  Lord."^  This  independence  was  lost 
or  impaired  by  the  weak  and  vacillating  conduct  of  some 
of  the  intervening  kings,  and  Henry  VIII.  now  only  revived 
a  right  of  independence  of  himself  and  of  the  Church  of 
England.  In  the  following  year  Pope  Paul  III.,  "  filling 
his  belly  with  the  east  wind, "^  and  applying  both  hands 
lustily  to  his  "inflated  wind-bag,"  fulminated  his  impotent 
Bull  of  Deposition  against  Henry  VIII.,  as  a  retaliation  for 
his  rejection  of  the  Pontifical  authority.  He  excom- 
municated and  deposed  Henry,  interdicted  the  nation,  and 
absolved  his  subjects  from  their  oath  of  allegiance.  He 
transferred  the  kingdom  to  any  successful  invader,  and 
prohibited  all  communication  with  the  English  monarch. 
He  deprived  the  King  of  Christian  burial,  and  consigned 

"  De  Legibus  et  Consuetudinibus  Anglia.-,"  lib.  ii.  c.  viii.  sect.  5.  fol.  5. 
London,  1569.  ^Jobxv.  2. 


148        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


the  sovereign,  and  his  friends,  accomplices,  and  adherents, 
to  anathemas,  maledictions,  and  everlasting  destruction  ; 
and  excommunicated,  anathematised,  cursed,  and  con- 
demned Henry  to  eternal  damnation.  He  stigmatised  his 
posterity  with  illegitimacy  and  incapacity  of  succession  to 
the  Crown,  while  he  delivered  his  partisans  to  slaver}'. 
The  English  clergy  he  commanded  to  leave  the  kingdom, 
and  admonished  the  nobility  to  arm  in  rebellion  against 
the  King.  He  annulled  every  treaty  between  Henry  and 
other  princes.  He  enjoined  the  clergy  to  publish  the 
excommunication  by  bell,  book,  and  candle  ;  and  all  who 
opposed  his  infallibilit}'  incurred  the  indignation  of  Almighty 
God  and  the  blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  Henry  at 
once  passed  an  Act,  as  he  had  a  right  to  do,  declaring  all 
Papal  Bulls  published  in  this  country  void. 

Let  us  pause  a  moment  to  consider  this  step.  Of  what 
crimes  had  Henrj',  and  his  Archbishop,  who,  it  is  alleged, 
was  always  at  his  elbow  as  his  adviser,  been  guilty.'  He 
had  followed  the  advice  given  him  by  the  Pope  himself, 
the  predecessor  of  this  anathematiser,  and  had  saved  "  his 
Holiness  "  the  disagreeable  necessity  of  pronouncing  for  or 
against  the  divorce,  by  "taking  the  matter  into  his  own 
hands."  And  even  the  then  Pope  had  himself,  when  a 
Cardinal,  pleaded  Henry's  justification,  and  taken  credit 
for  so  doing.  He  had  done  away  with  pluralities  of  livings, 
and  foreign  licences  permitting  a  non-resident  clergy ;  he 
prohibited  appeals  to  Rome  in  matters  temporal  and 
spiritual ;  he  abrogated  all  fees  paid  to  Rome  on  ecclesi- 
astical appointments ;  he  prevented  the  "  drain  of  gold  " 
passing  from  England  to  Rome  in  the  shape  of  Peter's 
pence,  &c. ;  and,  lastly,  he  re-asserted  the  dignity  and 
authority  of  the  King  of  England  as  supreme  head  "  on 
earth  "  of  the  Church  in  his  own  dominions  :  in  fact,  he  had 


HENRY  VIII.'s  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    1 49 


the  courage  to  brave  the  thunders  of  the  Vatican,  and  to 
place  himself  above  the  prejudices  and  superstitions  of  his 
day,  and  sense  enough  to  withdraw  himself  from  Papal 
jurisdiction  (being  many  years  in  advance  of  his  age),  and 
therefore  he  was  to  be  excommunicated  and  damned  to  all 
eternity.^  Henry's  Parliament  had  done  little  more  than 
what  every  Roman  Catholic  country  has  since  accomplished. 
Henry  and  his  advisers  were  the  pioneers,  simply  because 
England  was  a  more  suffering  victim  to  Papal  rapacity 
than  any  other  country  in  Europe.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  motive  which  put  in  action  these  important 
Political  and  Social  reforms,  England  has  reason  to  be 
thankful  that  a  Henry  VHI.  had  arisen  who  had  the  will 
and  determination  to  uphold  the  dignity  of  his  rank  as 
King  of  England,  the  independence  of  his  throne,  and  the 
courage  to  sweep  from  the  face  of  the  land  the  accumulated 
abuses  which  were  eating  its  very  vitals,  and  to  free  England 
from  a  servile,  galling,  oppressive,  and  degrading  clerical 
despotism.  And,  above  all,  it  cleared  the  way  for  the  reforms 
in  the  religion  of  the  country  initiated  by  Cranmer,  the 
result  of  which  also  freed  this  country  from  equally  gross 
abuses  and  superstitions  fostered  by  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  which  had  for  a  series  of  years  enslaved  the  minds  of 
the  people. 

"  Libertas  :  quje  sera,  tatnen  respexit  inertem." — ViRGlL. 
To  complete  the  chronology  of  events.    The  Suspended 

*  It  is  a  matter  for  curious  speculation  to  consider  whether  Henry  was  excom- 
municated for  passing  these  salutary  Acts,  or  because  he  divorced  himself  from 
Catherine  and  married  Anne  Boleyn  without  a  Papal  Bull.  If  for  the  former, 
then  the  Pope  was  actuated  by  the  love  of  money  and  temporal  power,  though, 
as  the  so-called  Vicar  of  Christ,  his  kingdom  is  supposed  to  be  not  of  this 
world  :  if  for  the  latter,  as  is  asserted  by  the  more  zealous  advocates  of  the 
Papacy,  then  Paul  III.  acted  contrary  to  his  own  expressed  convictions  as  to 
the  legality  of  Henry's  acu. 


150       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Bull  of  Excommunication  of  1535  had  been  published,  but 
not  put  in  force,  for  what  it  was  worth,  until  1538. 

In  reply  to  certain  foreign  objections  raised  to  the  course 
adopted  by  England,  the  "Protestation"  made  in  1537, 
by  the  King  and  his  Council,  and  the  clergy,  stated  the 
argument  as  follows  : — 

"  That  which  the  Pope  hath  usurped  against  God's  law,  and  extorted 
by  violence,  we  by  good  right  take  from  him  again.  But  he  and  his 
will  say,  we  give  them  a  primacy.  We  hear  them  well ;  we  gave  it 
you  indeed.  If  you  have  authority  as  long  as  our  consent  giveth  it 
you,  and  you  evermore  will  make  your  plea  upon  our  consent,  then  let 
it  have  an  end  where  it  began ;  we  consent  no  longer,  your  authority 
must  needs  be  gone."  ^ 

In  1539  an  Act  was  passed  for  the  dissolution  of  monas- 
teries, nunneries,  and  abbeys  (31  Henry  VIII.  c.  xiii.).  It 
has  been  urged  that  the  consequences  of  this  Act  deprived 
the  poor  of  their  best  friends  and  supporters  :  but  when 
rightly  considered,  the  concentration  of  such  enormous 
wealth  in  the  Monks,  created  the  poverty.  Out  of  the 
spoils  Henry  established  several  new  Bishoprics,  and 
retained  a  portion  for  the  Crown,  which  was  principally 
applied  to  meet  public  expenses  ;  funds  being  urgently 
required  to  put  the  country  in  a  state  of  defence,  and 
he  divided  a  portion,  as  is  alleged,  among  his  Courtiers. 

It  is  one  of  the  popular  fallacies  inseparably  attached  to 
these  confiscations,  that  Henry  VIII.  appropriated  to  him- 
self all,  or  a  greater  part,  of  the  spoils  from  the  sales  of  the 
abbey  and  monastic  lands,  &c. ;  and  it  seems  almost  hope- 
less to  attempt  to  turn  the  current  of  the  generally  accepted 
opinion  on  this  head.  It  is  nevertheless  the  fact,  that  the 
lands  were  sold  at  greatly  below  their  value;  this  was  the  in- 
evitable consequence  of  a  forced  sale.  But  to  each  sale  a 
condition  was  attached,  that  the  purchaser  "  should  maintain 

^  See  Strype's  "  Memorials,"  vol.  i.  App.  No.  72. 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.  15I 


hospitality  liberally,  on  a  scale  to  contrast  favourably  with 
the  careless  waste  of  their  predecessors."  The  exchequer 
was  empty.  There  was  a  civil  war  within,  fostered  princi- 
pally by  the  Pope's  militia,  and  a  well-founded  fear  of 
invasion  from  without,  by  a  combination  of  Italy,  France, 
Spain,  and  Germany.  More  than  the  proceeds  of  these 
sales  was  expended  in  suppressing  the  civil  war,  and  in 
erecting  fortifications  and  defences  on  the  coast.  Dover 
Castle  was  principally  built,  and  other  works  of  fortifica- 
tions along  the  south  coast,  with  a  part  of  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale  by  Henry  ;  without  this  timely  aid  this  country 
would  have  been  left  entirely  unprotected.  The  Scilly 
Islands,  then  the  refuge  of  pirates,  were  also  extensively 
fortified. 

If  Cranmer,  as  alleged,  gave  a  willing  assent  to 
the  act  of  "spoliation,"  he  dissented  from  the  applica- 
tion of  the  funds.^  His  recommendation  was  to  erect 
Colleges  and  Seminaries  throughout  the  country,  and 
that  sound  learning  and  religious  education  should  be 
fed  with  a  better  class  of  Priests  than  hitherto  existed. ^ 
But,  however  the  proceeds  may  have  been  applied, 
none  can  deny  either  the  wisdom  of  the  Act  itself,  or 
that  wholesome  results  followed.  In  this,  again,  every 
European  nation  has  followed  the  example  of  Henry. 
France  long  since  did  so  :  Italy  has  recently  followed  suit ; 

*  "  The  dissolution  of  the  monasteries  was  the  work  of  the  Minister  [Lord 
Crumwell],  not  of  the  Archbishop  ;  but  the  latter  showed  a  laudable  zeal  in 
trying  to  secure  as  much  as  possible  of  the  confiscated  monasteries  for  the 
benefit  of  religion  and  learning."  ("  Enc)'cl.  Brit.,"  "Cranmer,"  9th  edit.,  p. 
550).  "  He  had  projected  that  there  should  be  a  provision  made  in  every 
Cathedral  for  readers  of  divinity,  and  of  Greek  and  Hebrew,  and  a  great 
number  of  students  to  be  both  exercised  in  the  daily  worship  of  God,  and  to 
be  trained  up  in  study  and  devotion  ;  and  thus  every  Bishop  should  have  had 
a  college  of  clergymen  under  his  eye,  to  be  preferred  according  to  their  merit. 
But  this  design  miscarried."    ("Biographica  Brit.,"  Keppis.) 

*  See  Froude's  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  iii.  p.  255.    London,  1858. 


152       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

and  even  Catholic  Spain  has  confiscated  the  chief  portion, 
if  not  the  whole,  of  her  ecclesiastical  properties,  and  appro- 
priated the  proceeds  to  the  Crown.  Indeed,  she  has  gone 
even  further  than  this,  for  she  has  passed  a  law  declaring 
void  every  will  which  contains  any  devise  of  property  for 
ecclesiastical  purposes. 

To  come  nearer  home.  No  one  will  deny  the  loyalty 
of  the  Irish  rebel  leaders  of  the  sixteenth  century  to  the 
Pope  of  Rome,  and  their  devotion  to  the  Roman  religion. 
Yet  they  did  not  hesitate  to  share  in  the  spoils  at  the 
expense  of  their  religion.  In  1541,  at  a  full  Irish  Parlia- 
ment, assembled  at  Dublin,  held  by  St  Leger,  and  at 
which  O'Neil,  Desmond,  O'Brien,  O'Donnell,  MacWilliam, 
and  other  Irish  leaders  of  the  revolt  against  England  were 
present,  and  took  an  active  part,  an  Act  was  passed  con- 
fiscating all  the  property  belonging  to  the  (so-called)  reli- 
gious establishments  of  the  country ;  and  the  leading 
Irish  Nobles,  without  the  slightest  compunction,  divided 
the  spoils  among  themselves,  selling  part  at  merely  nominal 
prices.  In  order  to  secure  to  themselves  their  newly  ac- 
quired property,  and  to  enable  them  to  acquire  a  recognised 
title,  they  waived  all  their  former  differences  and  animosi- 
ties, acknowledged  Henry's  title  as  King  of  Ireland,  and 
consented  to  submit  themselves  to  the  rule  of  their  heredi- 
tary enemies,  whom  they  had  sworn  shortly  before  to  ex- 
terminate.^ Surely  our  Roman  Catholic  fellow-countrymen 
are  unjust  when  they  reserve  their  invectives  for  Henry 
VIII.  and  English  Nobles,  and  forget  that  the  Irish 
Romanists  were  equally  guilty,  but  without  even  the  ex- 
cuse, if  such  were  required,  which  Henry  could  advance. 

Why  should  members  of  the  unreformed  Church  of  the 

1  "  State  Papers,"  vol.  iii.  pp.  295-6,  334,  392,  399,  463-5.  474 ;  quoted  by 
Froude. 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    I  53 


present  day  blame  Henry  in  this  so-called  act  of  spoliation  ? 
He  was  only  carrying  out  the  example  set  by  the  Pope 
himself,  and  followed,  as  already  remarked,  by  every 
"  Catholic  "  country  in  Europe.  All  the  minor  monasteries 
had  been  already  suppressed,  and  their  properties  confis- 
cated and  appropriated,  under  no  less  authority  than  a 
Papal  Bull,i  and  by  the  Pope's  license,  given  in  1527? 
eighteen  years  after  Henry's  accession  to  the  throne. 

Even  previous  to  this.  Cardinal  Wolsey,  as  we  have 
stated,  obtained  a  Bull  from  Rome,  dated  lOth  June  15 19, 
empowering  him  to  visit  all  monasteries  and  all  the  clergy 
of  England.  In  the  preamble  of  this  document,  we  find 
severe  reflections  against  the  manners  and  ignorance  of  the 
clergy,  who  were  said,  in  it,  to  be  delivered  over  to  a  repro- 
bate mind ;  and  by  another  Bull  of  Pope  Clement,  dated 
3d  April  1524,  Wolsey  was  further  authorised  to  suppress 
several  specified  monasteries  and  (so-called)  religious 
houses.  2 

These  powers  were  again  revived  by  the  Pope,  in  No- 
vember 1528,  conferring  on  Wolsey  and  Gardyner  together 
the  permission  to  examine  the  state  of  the  monasteries, 
and  suppress  such  as  they  thought  fit. 

The  extinction  of  the  various  orders  of  Monks  and 
Friars,  who  were  a  scandal  to  the  Church,  and  interfered 
with  its  discipline,  by  placing  themselves  beyond  the  autho- 
rity of  the  diocesan  Bishops,  was  hailed  with  approbation 
by  the  greater  portion  of  the  secular  clergy.  They  did 
not  regard  the  spoliation  of  the  Regulars  with  an  evil  eye, 
and,  when  the  property  was  on  sale,  they  did  not  imagine 
that  the  purchase  of  it  was  sacrilege.    This  has  been  an 

*  See  Rymer's  "History,"  vol.  vi.  part  ii.  pp.  8-17,  third  edition,  folio. 
Hagse  Comitis.  1745. 

*  See  Burnet's  "  History  of  the  Reformation,"  p.  i.  b.  i.  p.  36,  Nares' 
edit.    London,  1830. 


154       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


after-thought,  and  we  must  not  approach  the  conduct  of 
the  sixteenth  century  with  a  sentiment  which  only  came 
into  vogue  at  a  subsequent  period.^  Surely  they  were 
better  judges  of  what  was  beneficial  to  the  Church  than 
our  modern  champions  of  the  Papacy.  And  it  is  worthy  of 
note,  that  Bishop  Gardyner  himself,  whose  attachment  to 
Papal  doctrines  was  most  conspicuous,  busied  himself  as 
much  as  any  one  in  declaiming  against  (so-called)  religious 
houses,  and  took  occasion,  in  many  of  his  sermons,  to  com- 
mend the  King  for  suppressing  them.^  If  these  monas- 
teries were  abodes  of  piety  and  virtue  as  well  as  of  wealth 
and  almsgiving,  would  a  whole  Parliament — indeed  a  whole 
nation — have  sacrificed  such  social  blessings  at  the  bidding 
of  a  King  who  had  no  army  at  his  back,  but  rested  solely 
for  his  power  to  fight  Pope  or  Priests  on  the  good-will  of 
the  nation  alone  ? 

If  it  were  lawful  for  the  Pope  of  his  free  will  and  under 
his  assumed  power,  to  sanction  or  take  the  lead  in  permit- 
ting the  act  of  spoliation,  and,  as  we  shall  presently  see, 
confirming  in  the  most  solemn  manner  this  act,  it  was 
lawful  for  Henry  to  follow  up  the  good  work  and  complete 
the  act  of  confiscation.  This  was  the  last  crowning  act  of 
Henry's  reign  towards  the  great  object — REFORMATION. 

"  Heaven  has  had  a  hand  in  all." — "  Henry  VIII.,"  Act  ii.  scene  i. 
"  Methinks  I  could  cry  Amen  !" — Ibid.^  Act.  v.  scene  i. 

It  now  becomes  a  duty  to  give  the  views  taken  by  the 
most  recent  writer  on  the  subject,  on  the  Papal  side,  of 
these  confiscations  of  monastic  properties.^  He  asks, 
"Who  were  the  accusers  of  the  Monastic  Houses.''"  and  in 

1  Hook's  "  Lives  of  the  Archbishops,"  vol.  vii.  p.  124.  1868. 
^  See  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,"  pt.  i.  b.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  403. 
Edit.  1830. 

^  Burke'j  "  Historical  Portraits  of  the  Tudor  Dynasty,"  vol.  ii.  c.  iii.  1S80. 


HENRY  VIII. 'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    I  55 

what  manner  was  Cranmer  innplicatcd  in  these  robberies 
The  writer  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  "  accusations  "  were 
advanced  long  before  Cranmer's  time ;  and  it  is  admitted 
that  Cranmer  was  not  on  the  Commission.  This  writer 
singles  out  each  Commissioner  (every  one  of  them 
members  of  the  unreformed  church),  and  professes  to  bring 
home  the  charge  that  they  were,  one  and  all,  most 
abandoned  characters,  that  they  carried  out  their  duties  in 
a  most  savage  and  cruel  manner,  particularly  in  dealing 
with  convents,  and  in  their  conduct  towards  the  nuns  and 
other  female  inmates  of  their  establishments  ;  that  their 
Reports  were  a  tissue  of  misrepresentations  and  perjuries, 
and  that  even  the  King  himself  was  deceived  !  It  does  not 
appear,  however,  in  what  manner  Cranmer  participated 
in  these  alleged  immoralities  and  perjuries.  Although 
Cranmer  was  not  one  of  the  Commissioners,  his  crime  is 
limited  to  the  alleged  fact  (and  this  is  the  gist  of  the 
accusation)  that  he  was  in  intimate  relations  with 
Crumwell,  the  King's  Prime  Minister,  who  was  the 
Director-General  of  the  "  marauding  expeditions."  We 
are  told  that  Crumwell  was  the  main  instigator  of  the 
dissolution  of  the  monasteries,  and  that  he  was  Cranmer's 
intimate  friend  ;  and  from  this  fact  we  are  asked  to  "judge 
how  far  he  [Cranmer]  adopted  Crumwell's  views  ;"  and  that 
Crumwell  knew  how  to  pick  out  his  "accomplices  and 
advisers.''  Crumwell  being  "the  great  inquisitor,"  and,  we 
are  told,  that  Lord  Crumwell  and  Archbishop  Cranmer 
carried  out  their  programme  by  terror  and  corruption.  In 
this  indirect  manner  Cranmer  is  sought  to  be  made 
responsible.  Selecting  John  Loudon,  Dean  of  Witinford, 
one  of  the  "Inquisitors,"  a  man  of  "most  abandoned 
character,"  though  a  "  bigoted  Romanist  "  and  persecutor, 
as   an  example,  Mr   Burke  further  states,  without  any 


156       LIFE;  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


authority,  that  this  man  also  "  w  as  an  agent  of  Dr 
Cranmer, '  and  that  "  Cranmer  deemed  it  his  pohcy  to 
keep  such  men  attached  to  his  interests,  but  nevertheless 
the  Archbishop  did  not  like  him."  How  is  one  to  meet 
such  reckless  and  unproved  statements,  this  indirect  mode 
of  attack,  granting  that  the  Commissioners  were  all  that 
is  reported  of  them  ? 

The  most  ready  answer  to  those  taking  the  Papal  view 
of  these  transactions,  is  that  the  Pope  of  Rome,  by  solemn 
Bull,  confirmed  the  titles  of  all  the  holders  of  these  con- 
fiscated properties,  granting  absolution  for  the  supposed 
mortal  sin  of  perpetrating  these  same  sacrileges,  and 
confirmed  all  their  titles  with  a  solemn  Bull  of  Dispensa- 
tion. This  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,  who, 
we  know,  was  a  devout,  sincere,  and  consistent  adherent  of 
the  Papacy.  She  and  her  Parliament  restored  all  the  rites 
and  ceremonies  of  the  Roman  Church,  which  had  been 
abolished  under  Edward  VL  She  repealed  the  Acts  of 
Henr}'  which  abrogated  the  powers  of  the  Pope,  and  those 
of  Edward  which  abolished  Papal  rites  and  ceremonies. 
The  Pope's  power  and  supremacy  was,  with  the  consent  of 
Parliament,  restored,  which  were  accepted  on  their  bended 
knees.  The  Queen,  as  an  earnest,  relinquished  such  of  the 
confiscated  properties  as  were  held  by  the  Crown,  but  the 
"plundered"  properties  held  by  lay  and  clerical  owners 
were  retained  by  them.  Neither  the  Lords  nor  Commons 
would  grant  the  Pope  any  rights  in  this  country,  until  he 
confirmed  the  titles  of  the  proprietors,  purchased,  or  other- 
wise acquired  by  them,  under  Henry's  and  Edward's 
confiscations.  The  Act  of  Parliament  i  and  2  Philip  and 
Mary-  c.  8,  which  restored  the  Pope's  power  in  England, 
confirmed  the  title  of  the  "plunderers,"  and  freed  them 
from  all  ecclesiastical  censures,  and  it  enacted  "  that  all 


HENRY  VIII.'S  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    I  57 


holders  of  Church  property  should  keep  it,  and  that  any 
person  who  should  attempt  to  molest  or  disturb  them 
therein  should  be  deemed  guilty  of  prcBm^mire,  and  be 
punished  accordingly."  But  this  was  not  considered 
sufficient,  they  required  the  Pope's  dispensation  and  absolu- 
tioji,  to  clear  them  of  the  supposed  mortal  sin.  On  these 
terms  alone  would  they  admit  the  re-establishment  of  the 
Pope's  authority.  The  bargain,  as  Strype  has  \t}  was 
struck  between  the  Pope  and  Parliament.  Cardinal  Pole, 
who  now  was  again  in  favour,  as  the  Pope's  Legate, 
conducted  the  negotiations,  and  in  his  master's  name 
ratified  that  bargain,  gave  the  "  plunderers  "  a  dispensation 
with  plenary  absolution,  on  account  of  their  iniquities, 
having  obtained  a  special  Bull  from  Pope  Paul  IV.  to 
enable  him  to  act  in  that  behalf^  The  Roman  Catholic 
Historian  Dodd  says,  that  the  Parliament  was  not  satisfied 
with  the  general  Bull  of  Dispensation  which  had  been 
issued,  but  insisted  on  a  special  Bull  to  meet  their 
peculiar  case,  which  was  granted.  Lord  Petre,  the  Queen's 
Secretary  of  State,  was  still  more  particular,  for  he  obtained 
also  from  Paul  IV.,  in  155S,  a  special  Bull  for  himself, 
confirming  his  title  in  particular,  and  was  so  careful  in  the 
matter  that  he  got  his  lands  specially  designated  by  name 
in  the  Bull  of  Dispensation.^  The  present  descendants  of 
the  Queen's  Secretary  of  State,  though  still  staunch 
adherents  of  the  unreformed  Church,  have  no  conscientious 
scruples  in  maintaining  their  lands  thus  acquired. 

1  "  Ecclesiastical  Memorials,"  vol.  ii.  c.  xix.  p.  161,  162,  An.  1554. 
London,  1 721. 

^  See  Strype  as  above,  vol.  iii.  p.  159.  The  Bull  of  Dispensation  is  given 
in  the  same  volume,  p.  60,  and  in  the  "  Harleian  Miscellany,",  vol.  vii. 
p.  267,  280.  London,  181 1.  Wilkins'  "Concilia,"  iv.  102.  Heylin's 
"  Eccksia  Restaurata,"  p.  141-2,  vol.  i.  Cambridge,  1749.  See  Dodd's 
"  History,"  vol.  ii.  p.  115.    Brussels,  1739. 

'  Strype  as  above,  vol.  iii.  p.  162. 


158       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANiMER. 


The  confiscations  in  Henry's  reign  amounted  to 
Romanists  plundering  Papists,  in  which  the  Reformed 
Church  took  no  part.  And  the  confiscations  under 
Edward  were  justified  by  the  Pope's  dispensation  and 
precedent. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  we  have  yet  Ireland  to  deal  with. 
The  like  spoliation,  as  we  have  seen,  took  place  in  Ireland 
in  1 541,  when  Ireland  was  in  full  revolt  against  England. 
And  while  that  country  was  essentially  "  Popish,"  and 
their  devotion  to  the  unreformed  religion  at  that  time 
was  most  conspicuous,  they  did  not  hesitate  to  share  in 
the  spoils  at  the  expense  of  their  religion.  And  in 
order  to  secure  themselves  in  these  spoils,  they  sought  the 
protection  of  Henry,  against  whom  they  had  been  in 
revolt,  acknowledging  his  title  as  King  of  Ireland/  The 
Pope's  Bull  of  Confirmation,  &c.,  extended  to  Ireland. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  of  the  iniquity  and  injustice  of 
these  confiscations,  but  nothing  of  the  Pope's  confirma- 
tion. 

If  truth  is  the  object  of  investigation  into  the  records  of 
those  days,  much  labour  will  be  spared  by  the  perusal  of 
the  "  Letters  relating  to  the  Suppression  of  the  Monas- 
teries," edited  from  the  Originals  in  the  British  Museum 
by  Thomas  Wright,  Esq.,  and  "  Printed  for  the  Camden 
Society,"  London,  1843. 

The  Editor  in  his  Preface  says  : — 

"  I  leave  these  letters  to  tell  their  own  story.  They  throw  light  on 
the  history  of  a  great  event,  which  changed  entirely  the  face  of  society 
in  our  island,  an  event  which  I  regard  as  the  greatest  blessing  con- 
ferred by  Providence  upon  this  country  since  the  first  introduction  of 
the  Christian  religion.  I  will  not  at  present  enter  into  the  history  of 
this  revolution,  but  leave  the  documents  for  others  to  comment  upon. 
I  have  suppressed  nothing,  for  I  believe  that  they  contain  nothing 

1  See  "State  Papers,"  vol.  iii.  pp.  295-6,  334,  392,  399,  463-S.  474- 


HENRY  VIII, 's  POLITICAL  AND  SOCIAL  REFORMS.    I  59 


which  is  untrue  ;  and  the  worst  crimes  laid  to  the  charge  of  the 
Monks  are  but  too  fully  verified  by  the  long  chain  of  historical 
evidence  reaching,  without  interruption,  from  the  twelfth  to  the  six- 
teenth century.  Those  who  have  studied  in  the  interior  history  of 
this  long  period  the  demoralizing  effects  of  the  Popish  system  of  con- 
fession and  absolution,  will  find  no  difficulty  in  conceiving  the  facility 
with  which  the  inmates  of  the  monasteries,  at  the  time  of  their  dis- 
solution, confessed  to  vices,  from  the  very  name  of  which  our  imagin- 
ation now  recoils.  These  documents  are  of  peculiar  importance  amid 
the  religious  disputes  which  at  present  agitate  the  world  ;  and  I  think 
that  even  the  various  lists  of  the  confessions  of  the  Monks  and  Nuns 
of  the  several  religious  houses,  entitled  comperta,  and  preserved  in 
manuscript,  ought  to  be  made  public.  The  great  cause  of  the  Re- 
formation has  been  but  ill-served  by  concealing  the  depravities  of  the 
system  which  it  overthrew." 

If,  then,  we  are  indebted,  even  in  the  slightest  degree, 
to  Cranmer,  directly  or  indirectly,  as  sought  to  be  charged 
against  him,  for  freeing  this  country  from  these  monastic 
institutions,  whatever  his  failings,  faults,  or  motives  may 
have  been,  we  say  again,  that  we  bless  him  for  his  work's 
sake.  But,  as  a  fact,  Cranmer  was  in  no  way  responsible 
for  these  spoliations,  any  more  than  he  was  responsible 
for  the  "massacre  of  the  Pilgrims  of  Grace,"  or  the  "  Im- 
molation of  the  Carthusians,"  also  sought  to  be  charged 
against  him  by  Mr  Burke.^ 

1  I  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that,  in  some  recent  works,  it  is  asserted  that  the 
charges  of  immorality  against  the  occupiers  of  these  Monastic  establishments 
are  grossly  exaggerated.  Be  it  so  ;  still  the  confiscations  met  the  approval  of 
the  Bishops  and  Clergy,  indeed  of  the  entire  nation,  confirmed,  as  we  have 
seen,  by  the  Pope.  The  result  of  such  confiscations  proved  a  lasting  benefit  to 
the  country  at  large,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  Church  properly,  properly  so 
called,  remained  intact.  Every  Bishop  retained  his  See  and  revenue,  and 
every  Priest  his  Benefice,  freed,  however,  from  the  "  black-mail  "  imposed  by 
the  Bishop  of  Rome. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


PERSECUTIONS,  AND  CRANMER'S  ALLEGED  PARTICIPATION 

IN  THEM. 

We  now  come  to  the  most  painful  branch  of  our  subject, 
which  involves  the  consideration  of  persecutions  for  con- 
science' sake.  In  these  Cranmer  is  said  to  have  partici- 
pated. It  is  a  lamentable  fact  that  the  dominant  party  in 
the  Christian  Church  has  been  for  many  centuries  a 
persecuting  sect.  A  peculiar  feature  in  these  persecutions 
is  that  the  denial  of  certain  theological  dogmas  has  been 
deemed  a  crime  worthy  of  a  cruel  death,  while  immoralities 
and  other  vices  have  been  considered  trivial  breaches  of  reli- 
gion in  comparison  with  alleged  heresy.  It  was  Thomas 
Aquinas, — the  "  Seraphic  Doctor," — a  canonised  Saint  of 
the  Roman  Church,  who  laid  down  the  proposition : — 

"  If  falsifiers  of  money,  or  other  malefactors,  are  justly  consigned  to 
immediate  death  by  secular  princes,  much  more  do  heretics,  immedi- 
ately after  they  are  convicted  of  heresy,,  deserve  not  only  to  be  excom- 
municated, but  also  justly  to  be  killed." ' 

Again,  Liguori,  a  recently  canonised  Saint,  whose  works 
have  received  the  most  formal  approval  of  his  Church,  as 
not  containing  "  one  word  worthy  of  censure,"  under  the 
title,  "  What  is  heresy  "  writes  :  "  If  the  accused  confess  his 
crime,  the  sentence  is  given  :  if  not,  he  is  to  be  led  to  con- 
viction or  to  torture."  2  Alphonsus  a  Casteo,  another 
eminent  theologian,  says  : — 

1  "  Secunda  Secundae  Partis  Summ.  Theolog."  S.  Tho.  Aquinatis.  Roms. 
1586.    Quaest.  xi.  art.  iii.  p.  93. 
*  Lig.,  "Theolog.  Moral.,"  torn.  ii.  n.  201,  lib.  iv.    Edit.  Mechlin,  1845. 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  l6l 


"  The  last  punishment  of  the  body  of  heretics  is  death,  with  which 
we  will  prove,  by  God's  assistance,  heretics  ought  to  be  punished.  .  .  . 
From  which  words  it  is  abundantly  plain  that  it  is  not  a  modern  inven- 
tion, but  that  it  is  the  ancient  opinion  of  wise  Christians  that  heretics 
should  be  burned  with  fire." ' 

That  this  is  the  recognised  law  of  the  Roman  Church  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council 
under  Innocent  III.  commanded  the  extermination  of  all 
heretics  in  the  most  emphatic  manner,  and  which  decree 
holds  its  place  in  Rome's  Canon  Law  at  the  present 
day,  set  out  in  full  as  a  decree  emanating  from  a  general 
council?  Devoti,  in  his  "Jus  Canonicum  "  (the  book  now 
in  use  in  England,  Roman  Edition,  1837),  in  the  first 
volume,  p.  379,  tells  us  that  every  thing  contained  in  the 
Decretals  is  laiv.  Qnidqiiid  igitur  in  iis  comprehenditur 
legem  facit.  This  lazv  has  been  painfully  put  in  force  under 
the  Bull  "  Unigenitus."  Further,  Pope  Honorius  III. 
issued  a  Bull  for  the  extermination  of  heretics.  To  the 
like  effect  was  the  Bull  of  Innocent  IV.  Pope  Alexander 
IV.  appointed  Inquisitors,  and  Urban  IV.  instructed  them 
to  exterminate  heretics.  Pope  Clement  IV.  confirmed  the 
constitutions  of  Pope  Innocent  IV.  against  heretics  ; 
Nicholas  III.  issued  a  Bull  for  their  excommunication,  and 
Pope  John  XXII.  for  their  extermination.  Boniface  IX. 
confirmed  the  exterminating  laws  of  Frederick  II.  Pope 
Innocent  VIII.  decreed  the  punishment,  and  Julius  II.  the 
anathematising,  of  heretics.  Pope  Leo  X.  condemned, 
among  other  (so-called)  errors  of  Luther,  his  assertion  that 
"the  burning  of  heretics  was  contrary  to  the  rule  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  "  and  two  of  Luther's  followers  were  publicly 

^  Alph.  aCastro,  "  De  hoeret.  punitione."  Madrid,  1773,  cap.  xii.  pp.  123,  128. 

^  The  decretal  is  headed,  "  In  concilio  Generali,"  vol.  ii.  p.  758.  Edit.  Lips., 
1839.  And  see  "  Colonix  Munatianre,"  Innoc.  III.,  In  Concil.  Generali,  An. 
1216.  Romw  Concil.  Later.,  p.  24.0.  This  edition  is  to  be  seen  in  the 
Library  of  the  Athenaeum  Club,  Pall  Mall. 

L 


I  62       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


burnt,  and  no  doubt  Luther  would  have  shared  the  same 
fate  had  he  not  been  forcibly  protected  or  hidden  away. 
Paul  III.  issued  the  noted  Bull,  "7;^  Cmia  Domini!' 
Pope  Julius  III.  issued  his  Bull  against  all  those  who  should 
oppose  the  Inquisition  ;  and  Paul  V.  called  into  exercise 
all  the  persecuting  decrees,  Acts  of  Councils,  and  Bulls, 
that  had  ever  been  enacted  or  issued. 

I  need  scarcely  weary  the  reader  with  a  recapitulation 
of  the  harrowing  details  of  the  merciless  persecutions  and 
slaughter  of  the  simple  and  unoffending  Waldenses  and 
Albigenses,  the  awful  massacres  in  the  Netherlands  of 
Protestants  by  the  Duke  of  Alva,  and  the  formal  approval 
of  this  act  by  the  Pope ;  and  the  like  approval  of  the 
massacre  on  St  Bartholomew's  day ;  and  the  thousands 
on  thousands  of  victims  of  the  "holy  office"  of  the 
Inquisition,  of  which  the  Pope  even  to  the  present  day 
is  the  "  Prefecture." 

We  might  cite  also  the  numerous  instances  of  the  inflic- 
tion of  the  punishment  of  death,  in  the  most  cruel  manner, 
for  conscience'  sake,  in  pre-Reformation  days,  and  of  the 
numbers  of  men,  women,  and  children  who  expiated  their 
alleged  crime  of  heresy  at  the  stake  during  the  Papal  rule 
in  this  country,  under  Mary.  They  principally  suffered  for 
denying  the  truth  of  that  "  theological  enigma"  (not  of  the 
"  Real  Presence  "),  but  of  the  alleged  7'eal  corporeal  presence, 
in  the  consecrated  elements,  of  "  the  body,  blood,  bones, 
and  nerves  {pssa  ct  uervos),  soul  and  density  "  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  an  entire  change  of  the  substance  of  the 
elements  being  asserted,  passing  under  the  designation  of 
"  Transubstantiation." 

In  strict  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  Roman  Church, 
every  Bishop  takes  the  oath  : — "All  heretics  and  schis- 
matics, and  rebels  against  the  same  our  Lord  (the  Pope) 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  163 


and  his  successors,  I  will  prosecute  and  attack  {pcrscquar  et 
impugnabd)  to  the  utmost  of  my  power."'  And  this  is  the 
oath  which  Cranmer  himself  took  on  his  consecration,  im- 
posed on  him  by  his  Church,— the  Roman  Church.  Pre- 
suming, then,  that  the  charge  against  Cranmer  was  true, 
that  he  advocated  persecutions  for  conscience'  sake,  he  was 
then  a  member  of  the  unreform.ed  Church,  and  would  only 
be  conforming  to  the  law  of  that  Church,  and  the  oath 
which  he  subscribed.  Surely  his  condemnation  in  act- 
ing up  to  that  law,  so  repeatedly  enforced  by  Infallible 
authority,  should  not  be  (if  he  so  acted)  brought  in  judg- 
ment against  him. 

If  the  Reformers  were  also  persecutors,  they  acted  under 
no  law  of  the  Reformed  Church  ;  and  further,  all  the  per- 
secuting laws  which  disgraced  our  statute-books  were 
passed  in  pre-Reformation  times,  and  have  since  been  re- 
pealed ;  even  the,  so-called,  "  penal  laws  "  of  Elizabeth's 
reign,  which  were  enacted  to  protect  the  throne  from 
treasons,  and  the  life  of  the  Queen,  have  also  been  repealed  ; 
but  the  Roman  ecclesiastical  penal  laws  stand  unrepealed, 
though  they  cannot  be  put  in  force,  by  reason  of  her  in- 
ability to  do  so.  The  spirit  still  exists,  as  has  been  fully 
admitted  in  the  successive  numbers  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Monthly,  The  Rambler?' 

Bishop  Milner,  in  his  "  End  of  Religious  Controversy," 
part  iii..  Letter  xlix.,  advances  the  following  apology  for 
his  Church  : — 

"  If  Catholic  States  and  Princes  have  enforced  submission  to  their 
Church  by  persecution,  they  were  fully  persuaded  that  there  is  a  Divine 
authority  in  this  Church  to  decide  in  all  controversies  in  religion,  and 
that  those  Christians  who  refuse  to  hear  her  voice  when  she  pronounces 
upon  them  are  obstinate  heretics.  But  on  what  grounds  can  Protestants 
persecute  Christians  of  any  description  whatever?" 

'  "  Pontificale  Romanum,"  p.  88.    Edit.  Paris,  1664. 

*  See  January  1854,  p.  2,  June  1849,  and  September  185 1. 


1 64       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

The  italics  are  Bishop  Milner's  own. 

There  is  truth  and  reason  in  this  line  of  argument,  for 
the  "  unreformed  "  act  on  the  enforced  authority  of  the  head 
of  their  Church  ;  and  throwing  the  responsibility  on 
"  Princes  "  is  a  mere  subterfuge.  But  "  on  what  grounds 
can  Protestants  persecute  "  asks  Dr  Milner.  We  answer, 
on  no  grounds  whatever  ;  for  there  is  nothing  in  the  reli- 
gion of  Protestants  that  affords  any  grounds  whatsoever  for 
persecuting  others  for  religion.  On  this  principle,  Roman 
Catholic  individuals  who  persecute  are  in  some  degree  ex- 
cusable, because  their  religion  is  to  blame  ;  but  Protestants 
who  persecute  are  inexcusable,  because  their  religion  is 
blameless  in  this  respect.  We  heartily  agree  with  Dr  Milner 
in  this. 

Before  we  pass  on  to  the  immediate  consideration  of  the 
specific  charges  against  Cranmer  on  the  score  of  persecu- 
tion, let  us  pause  for  a  moment  to  record  the  law  of  the 
unreformed  Church  in  England  at  that  period.  We  shall 
see  that  it  was  in  strict  conformity  with  the  acknowledged 
and  established  custom  of  the  Papacy.  In  1539  an  Act  of 
Parliament  was  passed  by  the  King,  Lords,  and  Commons, 
with  the  consent  of  the  clergy  in  Convocation  (which,  how- 
ever, Cranmer  strongly  opposed),  called  the  "  Six  Articles 
Act."  Those  six  articles  are  as  follows  (31  Henry  VIII. 
c.  14)  :— 

"  I  St.  That  in  the  most  blessed  sacrament  of  the  altar,  by  the  strength 
and  efficacy  of  Christ's  mighty  words  (it  being  spoken  by  the  priest)  is 
present  realty,  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  the  natural  body 
and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  conceived  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
and  that  after  the  consecration  there  reniaincth  no  substance  of  bread 
and  wine,  nor  any  other  substance  but  the  substance  of  Christ,  God 
and  man." 

"  2d.  That  the  communion  in  both  kinds  is  not  necessary  ad 
salittem,  by  the  law  of  God,  to  all  persons,  and  that  it  is  to  be  beheved, 
and  not  doubted  of,  but  that  in  the  flesh,  under  the  form  of  bread,  is 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  165 


the  very  blood,  and  with  the  blood,  under  the  form  of  wine,  is  the  very 
flesh,  as  well  apart  as  though  they  were  both  together." 

"  3d.  That  Priests,  after  the  order  of  Priesthood,  received  as  afore, 
may  not  marry  by  the  law  of  God." 

"4th.  That  vows  of  Chastity,  widowhood  by  man  or  woman,  made 
to  God  advisedly,  ought  to  be  observed  by  the  law  of  God." 

"  5th.  That  it  is  meet  and  necessary  that  private  masses  be  con- 
tinued and  admitted  in  the  King's  English  Church  and  congregation, 
as  whereby  good  Christian  people,  ordering  themselves  accordingly  do 
receive  both  godly  and  goodly  consolations  and  benefits,  and  it  is 
agreeable  to  God's  law." 

"  6th.  That  auricular  confession  is  expedient  and  necessary  to  be 
retained  and  continued,  used  and  frequented  in  the  Churches  of  God." 

Every  religious  sect  has  a  right  to  form  its  own  code, 
and  the  members  of  the  unreformed  Church  in  England 
had  a  perfect  right  to  pass  such  an  act  to  bind  themselves, 
"  for  (as  the  act  declares)  abolishing  diversity  of  opinion  in 
certain  articles  concerning  religion."  But  what  they  had 
no  right  to  do  was  to  attach  fearful  penalties  on  all  those 
who  did  not  coincide  with  the  views  of  the  framers  of  this 
enactment.  For  the  Act  proceeds,  in  section  5,  to  declare 
that  all  offending  against  the  first  article,  as  to  the  cJiaiige 
of  substance  of  the  consecrated  elements,  shall  be  adjudged 
heretics,  and  "  every  such  offender  and  offenders  shall 
therefore  have  and  suffer  judgment,  execution,  and  pains 
of  death,  BY  way  of  burning,  without  any  adjuration, 
clergy,  or  sanctuary,  and  forfeit  everything." 

Section  6  enacted,  that  offenders  against  the  other  five 
articles,  by  preaching  or  teaching,  should  be  adjudged 
felons,  and  suffer  PAINS  OF  DEATH,  as  in  case  of  felons 
[that  is,  by  hanging],  without  any  benefit  of  clergy. 

Section  7  enacted,  that  offenders  against  the  last  five 
articles,  by  word  or  writing,  were  to  be  adjudged,  for 
the  first  offence,  to  forfeit  all  their  property  for  life  ; 
and  for  the  second  offence  were  to  suffer  as  FELONS  BY 
DEATH. 


l66       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER 


Section  9  declares,  that  if  any  man,  which  is  or  hath 
been  a  Priest,  shall  keep  company  with  a  wife,  he  shall 
suffer  as  a  felon  [that  is,  by  death]  ;  whereas  (by  section  10) 
if  the  Priest  kept  company  with  any  other  woman,  he  only 
forfeited  his  goods  for  life  ! 

If  it  be  pretended  that  this  was  only  the  tyranny  of  Henry 
VIII.,  and  not  the  act  or  instigation  of  the  unreformed 
Church,  as  often  asserted,  to  cover  over  this  iniquitous 
law,  we  answer  that  Henry  and  his  Parliament  and  Convo- 
cation merely  followed  the  example  of  their  predecessors 
of  earlier  Roman  Catholic  times,  of  a  Roman  Catholic 
Prince  acting  on  the  solicitation  of  Roman  Catholic 
Bishops.  We  refer  to  the  Act  2  Henry  IV.  c.  15  (a.D. 
1400),  an  act  passed  to  suppress  alleged  heresies.  It 
recites  that  a  new  sect  of  heretical  preachers  had  arisen, 
and  that  the  diocesans  could  not,  by  their  jurisdiction  spiri- 
tual, sufficiently  correct  the  said  false  and  perverse  people 
without  the  aid  of  his  Majesty  : — 

"  On  the  prayer  of  the  Prelates,  it  is  enacted  that  none  shall 
preach  without  license,  and  any  offender  against  the  Act  shall  be 
arrested  by  the  diocesan  and  imprisoned  and  fined  ;  and  any  person 
refusing  to  adjure,  or  relapsing,  shall  be  delivered  to  the  Sheriff,  who 
the7i,  before  the  people,  in  an  high  place  go  TO  EE  BURNT,  that  such 
punishment  may  strike  in  fear  to  the  minds  of  others.  So  that  such 
wicked  doctrines,  nor  its  authors,  shall  be  in  any  wise  suffered." 

The  secular  arm  is  always  called  on  to  carry  out  the 
atrocious  persecuting  principles  of  the  rulers  of  the  Church. 
Semper  eadein  is  Rome's  motto. 

So  far  from  Cranmer  being  an  advocate  of  persecution,! 
he  argued  for  three  days  boldly  against  the  passing  of  the 
"  Six   Articles   Act,"   speaking   repeatedly   against  the 

^  "If,  however,  he  was  a  persecutor  both  in  theory  and  practice,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  no  one  of  any  party  in  those  days  had  grasped  the  principle 
of  religious  toleration." — "Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  "Cranmer,"  9th  edit., 
P-  551- 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions,  167 


measure ;  and,  when  desired  by  the  King  to  absent  himself 
from  the  debates,  he  firmly  but  respectfully  declined  to 
comply,  urging  among  other  reasons  that  penalty  of  death 
ought  not  to  be  imposed  for  mere  matters  of  opinion  ;  and 
in  spite  of  his  remonstrance  the  Act  was  forced  through 
Parliament.  He  also  wrote  a  long  treatise  against  this 
Act  to  be  submitted  to  the  King,  but  which  appears  never 
to  have  reached  him,  having  been  lost  by  an  accident. 
Dr  Lingard  throws  discredit  on  Cranmer's  persistent 
opposition  to  this  Act,  and  asserts  that  he  was  eventually 
"confounded  by  the  King's  godly  learning,"  and  this  is 
stated  on  the  faith  of  a  letter  among  the  MSS., ."  Cleopara, 
E.  v.,  p.  128,"  alleged  to  have  been  written  by  one  of  the 
Lords  present  at  the  debate ;  but  this  does  not  so  appear, 
nor  does  the  document  bear  any  name.  It  may  and 
probably  was  written  by  some  person  attached  to  the 
Papal  cause,  from  hearsay.  The  following  passage,  which 
Dr  Lingard  does  not  quote,  would  seem  to  carry  out  this 
view : — "  And  also,  news  here,  I  assure  you  never  Prince 
showed  himself  so  wise  a  man — as  the  King  hath  done  in 
this  parlyment."  \\\  fact,  Strype  properly  designates  this 
letter  as  "  a  flying  report."  Lord  Herbert,  Burnet,  Strype, 
and  Collier  assert  that  "  Cranmer  for  three  days  together 
in  the  open  assembly  opposed  these  Articles  boldly." 

It  is  not  the  fact,  as  alleged,  that  Cranmer  subscribed 
these  "  Six  Articles."  The  clergy  were  not  required  to  do 
so.  They  were  imposed  by  Act  of  Parliament,  and  by  that 
Act  the  clergy  were  enjoined  to  read  them  in  their  churches 
once  a  quarter,  but  they  never  were  required  to  subscribe 
them.^ 

'  I  have  ventured  to  question  the  fact  of  the  "signature."  I  cannot, 
however,  pass  over  the  following  testimony. — It  still  is  a  question  whether 
the  words  of  Cranmer  are  to  be  taken  literally.  In  a  letter  addressed  by 
Alexander  Ales  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  1st  September  1559  (see  Stevenson's 


1 68       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Bearing  in  mind  these  few  leading  principles  and  facts, 
we  have  now  to  examine  the  charges  against  the  Primate 
for  his  responsibility  and  alleged  share  in  the  persecutions 
of  his  day. 

With  reference  to  these  persecutions  for  conscience' 
sake,  Mr  Jenkyns,  in  his  "  Remains  of  Cranmer  "  (Preface, 
p.  Ixxii),  remarks  that  the  Archbishop  was  often  com- 
pelled b}'  his  station  to  be  a  part}-  to  these  proceedings ; 
and  must,  therefore,  have  been  present  at  many  of  the 
theological  discussions  which  were  occasioned  by  them. 
He  adds : — 

''It  may  be  abundant!)'  proved  that  Cranmer.  though  not  sufficiently 
m  advance  of  his  times  to  give  up  the  principle  of  persecution,  was 
yet  continually  exerting  himself  to  mitigate  its  rigour.  He  usually 
endeavoured  to  reason  the  prisoners  into  a  recantation  of  their 
obnoxious  tenets,  or,  at  least,  into  such  an  explanation  of  them  as 
might  screen  them  from  punishment ;  and  it  is  said,  that  sometimes, 
in  despair  of  sa^^ng  their  hves  by  other  means,  he  secretly  furthered 
their  escape.  Can  so  much  be  said  in  favour  of  any  of  Cranmer's 
contemporaries?  We  need  not  be  surprised  that  he  was  driven  to 
such  expedients,  since  James  V.,  King  of  Scotland,  about  this  time, 
was  unable  to  save  one  near  relation  from  death,  and  another  from 
exile,  when  charged  with  heresy,  and  could  only  avert  the  danger, 
from  his  aunt,  hy  persuading  her  to  recant" 

The  specific  charges  are  limited  to  the  cases  of  Frj-th, 
Lambert,  Anne  Askew,  and  Joan  Boucher.  The  first 
three  martjTs  were  burnt  during  the  reign  of  Henr\-  \TII. 

"Callendar  of  State  Papers,  Foreign,  Elizabeth,"  155S-1559,  p.  552),  he 
gives  an  interesting  account  of  his  inters  iew  with  Cranmer,  with  reference  to 
the  passing  of  the  Six  Articles  Act.  He  writes : — "  Before  this  law  was 
published,  the  Bishop  of  Canterbury  sent  Lord  Pachet  from  Lambeth  to  me  at 
London.  He  directed  me  to  call  on  the  Archbishop  early  in  the  monung. 
When  I  called  upon  him,  'Happy  man  that  yon  are,'  said  he,  'you  can 
escape  I  I.  wish  that  I  might  do  the  same ;  truly  my  See  would  be  no  hin- 
drance to  me.  You  must  make  haste  and  escape  before  the  island  is  blocked 
up,  unless  you  are  grilling  to  sign  ike  decree,  as  I  have,  compelled  hy fear.  I  repent 
of  what  I  have  done.  And  if  I  had  known  that  my  punishment  would  have 
been  deposition  from  the  Archbishopric  (as  I  hear  that  my  Lord  Latimer  is 
deposed),  of  a  truth  I  would  not  have  subscribed."    P.  533. 


cranmer's  rarticipation  in  persfxutions. 


169 


for  their  alleged  erroneous  views  on  the  dogma  of  "  Tran- 
substantiation."  Joan  Boucher  was  condemned  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  VI.  for  alleged  heresy  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation. 

Cranmer,  it  has  been  remarked,  was  but  little  in  advance 
of  his  age  on  the  subject  of  toleration  when  the  law  was 
to  be  maintained  ;  but,  whenever  he  was  personally  or 
privately  concerned,  he  evinced  a  liberal  mind  and  a 
mild  disposition,  the  more  remarkable,  as  it  seemed  to 
be  scarcely  intelligible  to  those  with  whom  he  was  con- 
cerned.^ During  the  time  Warham  held  the  See  of 
Canterbury  in  1519,  six  men  and  one  woman  were  burned 
as  heretics  in  Coventry.  In  1521,  Longland,  Bishop  of 
Lincoln,  carried  out  persecutions.  We  have  also  the 
persecution  of  the  Lollards.  In  1527  we  might  record 
the  cruelties  practised  on  poor  Bilney,  and  the  persecu- 
tions by  Tunstal  between  the  years  1527  and  1531.  Sir 
Thomas  More  was  a  noted  persecutor.  Indeed  all  the 
Bishops  in  those  days  were  persecutors  on  principle, 
according  to  their  notions.  Alexander  Ales,  in  his  Letter 
to  Queen  Elizabeth,  calls  Gardyner  "  a  most  violent 
persecutor."  ^ 

FrytJi  was  the  first  Englishman  after  Wicliff  who 
wrote  against  the  received  theory  of  Transnbstantiatioii. 
His  celebrated  controversy  with  Sir  Thomas  More,  and 
his  writings  on  the  subject,  are  supposed  to  have  con- 
siderably influenced  Cranmer  in  changing  his  views  with 
respect  to  that  extravagant  dogma.  Fryth,  with  Andrew 
Hewett,  was  burned  at  Smithfield  on  the  4th  July  1533.^ 

1  Hook's  "  Lives  of  the  Archbishops,"  vol.  vii.  pp.  114-117.  1S60. 

'  See  Stevenson's  "State  Papers,"  "Elizabeth,"  1559,  P-  526. 

^  Foxe's  "Acts  and  Monuments,"  vol.  ii.  p.  309.  London,  1641.  Burnet, 
following  Hall  and  Stowe,  gives  the  date  as  1 534.  If  we  follow  the  date  of 
Cranmer's  letter,  4th  June  1533,  Foxe's  date  would  appear  to  be  more  accurate. 


I/O        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


From  a  letter  written  by  Cranmer  to  Archdeacon  Hawkyns,^ 
it  is  clear  that  Cranmer  was  not  responsible  for  this  cruel 
sentence.  Fryth  being  then  in  prison,  the  King  (Henry 
VIII.)  directed  that  he  should  be  examined  by  the  Arch- 
bishop, the  Bishop  of  London,  the  Lord  Chancellor,  and 
others,  as  to  his  alleged  heresy.  Not  being  able  to  con- 
vince Frj'th,  they  handed  him  over  to  his  ordinary,  Bonner, 
the  Bishop  of  London.  His  examiners  were  Gardyner,  the 
Lord  Chancellor,  Lord  Suffolk,  and  the  Earl  of  Wiltshire. 
Bonner  gave  sentence  against  him,  who,  in  turn,  handed 
him  over  to  the  secular  authorities  to  be  dealt  with  as  a 
heretic.  The  words  of  Cranmer  in  the  letter  to  the  Arch- 
deacon would  appear  conclusive  on  this  head  : — 

"  Other  news  have  we  none  notable,  but  that  one  Frj-th,  which  was 
in  the  Tower  in  prison,  was  appointed  by  the  Kings  grace  to  be  exa- 
mined before  me,  my  Lord  of  London,  my  Lord  of  Wynchestre,  my 
Lord  of  Suffolke,  my  Lord  Chancellor,  and  my  Lord  of  Wylteshere, 
whose  [Fryth's]  opinion  was  so  erroneous  that  we  could  not  dispatch 
him,  but  was  fain  to  leave  him  to  the  determination  of  his  Ordinary, 
which  is  the  Bishop  of  London.  His  said  opinion  is  of  such  nature, 
that  he  thought  it  not  necessary  to  be  believed  as  an  article  of  our 
faith,  that  there  is  the  very  corporal  presence  of  Christ  within  the  host 
and  sacrament  of  the  altar,  and  holdeth  of  this  point  most  after 
.(Ecolampadius.  And  surely  I  myself  sent  for  him  three  or  four  times 
to  persuade  him  to  leave  that  his  imagination,  but  for  all  that  we  could 
do  therein,  he  would  not  apply  to  any  counsel  ;  notwithstanding  now 
he  is  at  a  final  end  with  all  examination,  for  tny  Lord  of  London  hath 
given  setite7ice  and  delivered  him  to  the  secular  power,  where  he  looketh 
every  day  to  go  unto  the  fire.  And  there  is  also  condemned  with  him 
one  Andrewe,  a  tailor,  of  London,  for  the  said  self-same  opinion." 

From  the  cool  and  offhand  manner  in  which  Cranmer 

alludes  to  this  fearful  sentence  of  death,  we  may  fairly 

presume  that,  had  the  case  been  within  his  jurisdiction,  he 

would  have  been  compelled,  by  the  cruel  and  exacting  law 

of  his  Church,  to  give  a  like  sentence.    We  of  the  Re- 

1  See  Jenkyns'  "Remains  of  Thomas  Cranmer,"  vol.  i.  p.  31.  Oxford, 
1833. 


CRANMEr's  participation  in  I'ERSECUTIONS.     I  7  I 


formed  Church  have  a  right,  and  do,  condemn  Cranmer  in 
this,  but  it  is  the  height  of  inconsistency  for  members  of 
the  unrcformed  Church  to  join  in  the  "  hue  and  cry " 
against  Cranmer  for  carrying  out,  or,  as  in  this  case,  tacitly 
acknowledging,  a  sentence  which  was  in  strict  conformity 
with  the  law  of  their  Church,  unrepealed  even  to  the  pre- 
sent day.  To  condemn  Cranmer  is  to  condemn  their  own 
Church  and  her  cruel  laws. 

Lambert  was  another  victim  of  religious  intolerance, 
whose  cruel  fate  is  sought  to  be  laid  to  the  responsibility 
of  Cranmer.  Dr  Lingard,  in  his  "  History  of  England," 
thus  refers  to  the  circumstance  : — 

"  Of  all  the  prosecutions  [he  does  not  call  it  a  persecittioji]  for 
heresy,  none  excited  greater  interest  than  that  of  Lambert,  alias 
Nicholson,  a  clergyman  in  Priest's  orders,  and  a  schoolmaster  in 
London.  Nor  is  it  a  least  remarkable  circumstance  in  his  story,  that 
of  the  three  men  who  brought  him  to  the  stake,  Taylor,  Barnes,  and 
Cranmer,  two  professed,  even  then,  most  certainly  later,  the  very  same 
doctrine  as  their  victim,  and  all  three  suffered  afterwards  the  same, 
or  nearly  the  same,  punishment." 

For  this  charge  against  Cranmer  Dr  Lingard  has  not 
advanced  any  proof,  while  he  admits  that  the  particulars 
of  Lambert's  examination  have  not  been  preserved  !  He 
appears  to  have  borrowed  the  charge  from  Phillips,  in  his 
"  Life  of  Cardinal  Pole,"  who  asserted  that  Cranmer  had 
consented  to  Lambert's  and  Anne  Askew's  death;  and  he  is 
followed  in  the  same  line  by  Dr  Milner  and  Charles  Butler, 
E.sq.,  but  none  of  them  give  any  authority.  There  is  a 
letter  extant  from  Thomas  Dorset,^  written  at  the  time, 
mentioning  the  examinations  of  Lambert.  He  says  that 
Lambert  was  first  examined  before  three  Bishops,  without 
naming  them.  His  second  examination,  he  says,  was  be- 
fore the  Bishop  of  Worcester,  who  "  was  most  extreme 
agaynst  hym,"  and  was  sent  by  him  with  Lambert's  articles 

1  MS.  Cotton.  "Cleop.,"  E.  iv.,  fol.  iio. 


172        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


to  the  Lord  Chancellor ;  and  that  Lord  Norfolk,  the  Earl 
of  Essex,  and  the  Countess  of  "  Oxfforthe  "  wrote  to  the 
Bishop  against  him.  But  Cranmer's  name  is  not  men- 
tioned. Lambert,  when  brought  before  the  Court  of  the 
Archbishop,  appealed  to  the  King  direct ;  the  King  heard 
the  appeal,  and  was  by  him  condemned  to  the  stake. 
There  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  Cranmer  took  any  part 
in  his  condemnation.  Stone  (in  his  remarks  on  Phillips' 
"Life  of  Cardinal  Pole"),  who  had  investigated  all  the 
evidence  that  could  be  adduced  on  the  subject,  writes  : — 

"  Fuller  acknowledges  the  consent  which  Phillips  has  alleged  ;  but 
I  cannot  see  for  what  reason,  as  it  is  not  authenticated  by  any  historian 
that  I  can  meet  with.  Henry  had  disputed  with  Lambert,  and  ordered 
him  to  be  burnt,  or  retract  his  opinion  ;  and  Chancellor  Wriothesley 
prosecuted  Askew,  and  put  her  on  the  rack  ; — but  it  nowhere  appears 
that  Cranmer's  advice  or  consent  was  asked  upon  either  of  them." 

No  fresh  evidence  on  the  subject  has  since  come  to 
light.  It  was  Crumwell,  the  Vicar-General,  according  to 
Collier,  who  delivered  judgment  on  Lambert's  case.  ^ 

The  Court  held  by  the  King  was  attended  in  great  state 
by  Nobles,  Peers,  and  Bishops,  among  whom  was  the 
Primate.  It  appears  that  each  Bishop  was  assigned  a  par- 
ticular point  on  which  to  question  the  wretched  man. 
When  it  came  to  Cranmer's  turn  to  speak,  he  began  by 
addressing  him  as  "  Brother  Lambert,"  and  continued 
mildly  to  lead  him  on  to  consider  an  argument  drawn  from 
the  History  of  St  Paul.  Whereupon  the  impetuous  Gar- 
dyner,  believing  that  the  Archbishop  would  get  the  worst 
of  the  argument,  interposed,  and  took  up  the  discussion 
with  his  usual  vehemence.  Further  than  this,  Cranmer 
took  no  part  in  the  proceedings.  He  was  present  at  this 
mock  trial  v/ith  the  other  Bishops  and  Nobles,  in  his  official 
character.  It  was  Sampson,  Bishop  of  Chichester,  who 
opened  the  proceedings. 

^  See  Collier's  "Ecclesiastical  History,"  vol.  ii.  p.  152. 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  173 


With  regard  to  the  fate  of  Atine  Askew,  Dr  Lingarcl 

refers  to  her  only  in  a  note,  in  which  he  says  tliat  she 

was,  after  two  recantations,  condemned  to  the  flames  by 

Craniner  and  other  Bisliops.    It  is  as  certain  that  Cranmer 

had  no  hand  in  tliis  matter,  as  that  Anne  Askew  recanted. 

Foxe,  in  his  "  Acts  and  Monuments,"  has  preserved  her 

answer  to  the  false  surmises  of  her  recantation  as  follows  : — 

"  I  have  read  the  process,  which  is  reported  of  them  that  know  not 
the  truth,  to  be  my  recantation.  But,  as  the  Lord  liveth,  I  never  meant 
thing  less  than  to  recant.  Notwithstanding  this,  I  confess  that,  in  my 
first  troubles,  /  was  examined  by  the  Bishop  of  Lottdon  about  the  Sacra- 
ment. Yet  had  they  no  grant  of  my  mouth  but  this,  that  I  believed 
therein,  as  the  Word  of  God  bid  me  to  believe  ;  more  had  they  7iever 
of  me.  Then  he  made  a  copy  which  is  now  in  print,  and  required  me 
to  set  thereunto  my  hand.  But  I  refused  it.  Then  my  two  sureties 
did  will  me  in  no  wise  to  stick  thereat,  for  it  was  no  great  matter, 
they  said.  Then,  with  much  ado,  at  the  last  I  wrote  thus  : — I, 
Anne  Askew,  do  believe  this,  if  God's  Word  do  agree  to  the  same, 
and  the  true  Catholic  Church.  Then  the  Bishop,  being  in  great 
displeasure  with  me,  because  I  made  doubts  in  ivriting,  commended 
me  to  prison,  where  I  was  a  while ;  but  afterwards,  by  the  means  of 
friends,  I  came  out  again.  Here  is  the  truth  of  this  matter. — Anne 
Askew." 

Thus,  it  appears,  that  the  courageous  lady  did  not  recant, 
and  it  was  the  Bishop  of  London,  Bonner,  who  undertook  to 
be  her  judge.  Indeed,  in  the  foreground  of  all  these  melan- 
choly proceedings,  should  stand  the  relentless  persecutors 
Bonner  and  Gardyner,  and  not  Cranmer.  The  name  of 
Cranmer,  throughout  the  narrative  of  this  lady's  sufferings, 
is  not  once  introduced  either  by  Foxe,  Lord  Herbert, 
Burnet,  Strype,  Collier,  or  Hume.^  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  sentence  of  condemnation  was  pronounced  by 
Bonner,  in  whose  Register  proceedings  against  her  were 

'  The  Rev.  R.  W.  Dixon,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Church  of  England," 
vol.  ii.,  1 88 1,  pp.  395-401,  goes  into  minute  particulars  of  this  event,  naming 
each  particular  person  before  whom  she  appeared ;  he  does  not  once  name 
Cranmer. 


I  74       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


recorded.  It  was  Bonner,  in  company  with  Mr  Rich,  who 
visited  her  in  person,  and  attempted  by  every  means,  in 
"  flattering  words,"  to  induce  her  to  recant. 

Dr  Hook  seems  to  go  out  of  his  way  to  extenuate,  if  not 
to  apologise  for,  Bonner.  The  verdict  of  Mr  Froude,  who, 
equally  with  Dr  Hook,  aims  to  combine  the  impartiality  of 
the  historian  with  the  indifference  of  a  philosophical  in- 
quirer, is  more  consonant  with  the  generally  received  truth. 
He  has  read  the  "  State  Papers in  which  the  suggestions 
of  this  apology  are  founded  by  the  Dean  of  Chester,  and 
yet  he  maintains  that  the  epithet  of  "  bloody  "  must  ever 
be  associated  with  the  name  of  Bonner,  and  his  "  brutality 
was  notorious  and  unquestionable."  MartjTdom  (in  Mr 
Froude's  emphatic  language) — 

"  Was  often  but  a  relief  from  more  barbarous  atrocities.  In  the  sad 
winter  months  that  were  approaching  'a.d.  1555),  the  poor  men  and 
women  who,  untried  and  uncondemned,  were  crowded  into  Bonner's 
prisons,  experienced  such  miseries  as  the  very  dogs  could  scarcely 
suffer  and  sur\"ive.  They  were  beaten,  they  were  stoned,  they  were 
flung  into  dark  foetid  dens,  where  rotting  straw  was  their  bed  ;  their 
feet  were  fettered  in  the  stocks,  and  their  clothes  were  their  only 
covering,  while  the  wretches  who  died  in  prison  were  flung  out  into 
fields,  where  none  could  burj-  them." 

Why  should  the  Dean  have  gone  out  of  his  way  to  ex- 
tenuate such  conduct  ? 

Had  Bonner  been  a  reforming  Archbishop,  such  as  was 
Cranmer,  his  memor}*  would  have  been  for  ever  execrated 
by  the  opponents  of  the  Reformation;  but,  to  the  end,  being 
a  consistent  follower  of  the  (so-called)  "  ancient  creed  "  of 
the  Roman  Church,  he  closely  adhered  to  the  persecuting 
principles  of  his  Church,  hence  the  vials  of  Papal  wrath  are 
not  poured  on  the  head  of  this  blood-thirsty  and  perse- 
cuting Bishop. 

We  may  note  here  that  Archbishop  Warham,  on  the 
matter  of  persecutions,  cannot  come  out  with  a  clean 


cranmer's  tarticipation  in  persecutions.  175 


conscience ;  and  Sir  Thomas  More,  as  already  observed, 
was  a  notorious  tyrant  and  persecutor.  Voltaire  described 
More  as  a  superstitious  and  barbarous  persecutor,  and  that 
it  was  for  such  cruelties  he  deserved  to  be  put  to  death, 
and  not  for  having  denied  Henry's  Supremacy.^ 

In  1538,  Crumwell  issued  a  Commission,  in  the  King's 
name,  against  the  Foreign  Anabaptists.  This  Commission 
was  addressed  to  the  Primate,  W.  Stokesley ;  to  Sampson, 
Bishop  of  Chichester  ;  to  eight  Archdeacons,  and  to  several 
others ;  commanding  them  to  proceed  with  vigour  against 
all  who  were  infected  with  the  error  of  the  sect.  Under 
this  Commission  some  of  these  enthusiasts  were  burnt. 
Such  was  the  savage  law  in  these  pre-Reformation  days,  to 
which  Cranmer  had  to  conform.  He  then  was  not  better 
enlightened,  and  was  certainly  no  worse,  than  his  Eccles- 
iastic and  Lay  associates.  With  regard  to  the  persecutors 
under  the  "  Six  Articles  Act,"  Cranmer's  name  does  not 
appear.^ 

With  reference  to  persecutions  generally  on  questions  of 
religious  doctrines,  we  have  no  reason  for  doubting  that 
if  any  such  cases  had  come  before  Cranmer  in  his  official 
capacity,  he  would  have  considered  it  his  duty  to  act  up  to 
the  laws  and  customs  of  the  Church  of  which  he  was  then 
a  member.  Members  of  the  Reformed  Church  may,  with 
perfect  consistency,  condemn  Cranmer  for  any  participation 
in  these  atrocities,  but  it  is  a  suicidal  act  on  the  part  of 
members  of  the  unreformed  Church  to  join,  as  I  have  often 
repeated,  in  this  "hue  and  cry"  against  Cranmer, 

'  "  Essay  on  the  Spirit  of  Nations,"  cap.  cxxxv.  vol.  iii.  p.  205.  See  vol. 
xvii. ,  Works.    Paris,  1785. 

The  Rev.  R.  W.  Dixon,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Church  of  England,"  vol. 
ii.  p.  137,  1881,  maintains  that  the  persecutions  which  took  place  under  this 
act  "  were  neither  instigated  by  the  clergy  nor  in  the  main  conducted  by  them, 
— these  were  lay  persecutions,  not  clerical."  Mr  Dixon,  however,  does  not 
establish  this  assertion  by  proofs. 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


The  case  of  Joan  Bouc/ier,  which  occurred  in  the  reign  of 
Edward,  stands  on  a  very  different  footing  to  the  other 
three  already  mentioned,  although  it  may  be  safely  asserted 
that,  had  she  existed  in  pre-Reformation  days,  her  fate 
would  have  been  equally  sealed,  and  more  promptly  carried 
out. 

The  accusation  against  this  unhappy  woman  had  no 
relation  to  the  Sacraments,  but  she  was  condemned  for 
denying  the  Incarnation  of  Christ ;  she  and  Van  Paris 
suffered  for  the  like  offence.  They  were  condemned  under 
an  unrepealed  Act  of  Parliament  (2  Henry  IV.  c.  15) 
passed  long  previous  to  the  Reformation  period,  and  in 
Papal  times  when  England  was  essentially  "  Popish "  in 
doctrines  and  practices.  No  Protestant  will,  it  is  hoped, 
attempt  to  justify  Cranmer  in  the  active  part  he  is  said  to 
have  taken  in  the  transaction.  That  he  urged  on  Edward 
to  consent  to  the  issue  of  the  fatal  mandate,  is  probably 
true,  but  that  he  guided  "  poor  Edward's  shrinking  fingers 
to  sign  the  death-warrant,  is  a  myth.  This  piece  of  scandal 
has  been  entirely  set  at  rest  by  Mr  Bruce  in  his  "  Biography 
of  Roger  Hutchinson,"  as  presently  noted. 

Foxe  seems  to  intimate  that  Cranmer  persuaded  the 
King  to  put  his  hand  to  the  condemnation  ;  Sir  John  Hay- 
wards  mentions  the  alleged  violence  used  by  Cranmer  in 
persuading  the  King.  Strype,  on  the  other  hand,  seeks  to 
exculpate  Cranmer,  and  objects  to  Hayward's  statement  as 
being  incorrect. 

The  entry  in  the  King's  journal  is  as  follows  : — 

"Joan  Boucher,  otherwise  Joan  of  Kent,  was  burnt  for  holding  that 
Christ  was  not  Incarnate  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  being  condemned  the 
year  before,  but  kept  in  hope  of  conversion  ;  and  the  30  of  April  the 
Bishop  of  London  and  the  Bishop  of  Ely  went  to  persuade  her,  but  she 
withstood  them,  and  reviled  the  preacher  that  preached  at  her  death."* 

^  "Saturday  Review,"  No.  622,  vol.  xxlv.  p.  403.    28th  Sept.  1867. 
*  Soame's  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  iii.  p.  544.    London,  1826. 


cranmkr's  participation  in  persecutions.  177 


Ridley  was  then  Bishop  of  London,  and  Goodrich  (the 
Lord  Chancellor)  was  Bishop  of  Ely. 

From  this  extract  it  has  been  justly  argued  that  if  the 
King  had  been  importuned  by  Cranmer,  as  alleged,  to 
sign  the  warrant  for  committing  Joan  to  the  flames,  some- 
thing further  would  have  appeared.  The  following  is  the 
entry  in  the  Privy  Council  Book,  27th  April  15  50: — 

"A  warrant  to  the  L.  Chancellor  to  make  out  a  writ  to  the  Sheriff 
of  London  for  the  execution  of  Joan  of  Kent,  condemned  to  be  burned 
for  certain  detestable  opinions  of  heresie." 

The  persons  stated  to  have  been  present  at  the  Council 
on  that  day  were :  "  The  Lord  Chauncellor,  the  Lord  High 
Treasurer,  the  Lord  Great  Chamberlaine,  the  Lord 
Chamberlaine,  the  Lord  Pagett,  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  the 
Threasurer,  Mr  Comptroller,  Master  of  the  Horse,  Mr 
Vice-Chamberlaine,  Sir  Rauf  Sadler,  Sir  Edward  Northe."^ 
Cranmer's  name  does  not  appear,  nor  is  there  any  evidence 
that  he  was  present  when  the  sentence  was  passed.  Joan 
was  executed  under  the  cruel  unrepealed  law,  on  a  writ  de 
Jioeretico  conibtirendo, — an  old  and  existing  Act  passed  in 
Romish  times, — addressed  to  the  Sheriff  of  London,  on  the 
authority  of  a  warrant  signed  by  the  Council,  issued  from 
the  High  Court  of  Chancery.  Mr  Bruce  further  ob- 
serves : — 

"  It  would  have  been  contrary  to  constitutional  custom  for  the  King 
to  have  signed  any  such  document ;  it  is  quite  clear  from  the  entry 
quoted  that,  in  point  of  fact,  he  did  not  sign  it  ;  and  the  narrative 
which  the  worthy  martyrologist  was  misled  into  inserting,  and  Cran- 
mer's difficulty  to  cause  the  King  '  to  put  to  his  hand,'  and  the  tears 
by  which  subsequent  writers  have  declared  that  his  submission  to  the 
stern  pleading  of  his  spiritual  father  [the  Archbishop  Cranmer]  were 
accompanied,  all  vanish." 

It  would  be  idle  to  attempt  to  palliate  or  defend  Cran- 

'  .See  Bruce's  "  Biog.  of  Roger  Hutchinson,"  prefixed  to  his  works. 
Parker  Society  Edition.    Cambridge,  1 842. 

M 


I  78        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


mer  for  any  participation  in  this  miserable  piece  of  bigotry. 
But,  whatever  part  Cranmer  took  in  the  transaction,  he 
acted  with  others  in  authority  according  to  law,  a  cruel 
Papal  law ;  and  even  this  fact  is  but  a  lame  excuse  to  fall 
back  upon.  But  we  do  protest  against  the  unfair  process 
adopted  by  Cranmer's  detractors  to  shift  the  entire  re- 
sponsibility of  this  execution  on  Cranmer,  in  order  to  bring 
him  into  disrepute,  when  Cranmer  and  the  others  were 
acting  strictly  under  the  law  enacted  by  their  own  sect. 

Again,  the  allegation  that  Cranmer  was  responsible  for 
the  persecution  of  the  "  Carthusian  Monks,"  and  of  the 
"  Pilgrims  of  Grace,"  advanced  by  Mr  Burke,  is  utterly 
without  any  foundation. 

This  bit  of  scandal  is  taken  from  Sander,  and  as  to  the 
tortures  alleged  to  be  inflicted  on  them,  Bishop  Burnet 
declares  the  tale  to  be  "  a  legend  "  : — 

"The  English  nation  knows  none  of  these  cruelties,  in  which  the 
Spanish  Inquisitors  are  very  expert.  I  find  by  some  original  letters 
that  the  Carthusians  who  were  shut  up  in  their  cells  lived  about  a  year 
after  this  ;  so  if  Crumwell  [the  accusation  is  not  brought  against  Cran- 
mer, as  now  sought  to  be  fixed  on  him]  had  designed  to  take  away 
their  lives,  he  wanted  no  opportunities,  but  it  appears  from  what  More 
writ  in  his  imprisonment,  that  Crumwell  was  not  a  cruel  man,  but  on 
the  contrary,  merciful  and  gentle.  And  for  the  Franciscans,  though 
they  had  offended  the  King  highly,  two  of  them  railing  spitefully  at 
him  to  his  face,  in  his  Chapel  at  Greenwich  :  yet  that  was  passed  over 
with  a  reproof ;  from  which  it  appears  that  he  was  not  easily  provoked 
against  them.  So  all  that  relation  which  he  [Sander]  gives,  being 
without  any  authority,  must  pass  for  a  part  of  the  poem."  ^ 

The  Oath  of  Allegiance  to  the  King  and  denial  of  the 

supremacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in  this  country,  was  not 

required  by  Act  of  Parliament  to  be  taken  by  all  these 

persons  of  foreign  importation  until  28  Henry  VIII.  c.  x., 

A.D.  1537.    The  Carthusian  Monks  were  not  compelled  to 

^  See  Pocock's  edit,  of  "Burnet's  Hist,  of  the  Prot.  Reformation,"  vol.  iv. 
p.  568.    Oxford,  1865. 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  179 


take  this  oath,  but  they  publicly  called  in  question  the 
King's  authority,  and  were  guilty  of  high  treason.  Three 
Priors  and  a  Monk  were  committed  to  the  Tower.  They 
had  been  arraigned  at  the  Guild  Hall  and  tried  at  West- 
minster Hall  on  the  29th  April  1535,  found  guilty,  and 
condemned  to  undergo  the  usual  punishment  of  a  traitor ; 
and  they  paid  the  penalty  of  their  treason  ;  for  which 
Cranmer  was  in  no  way  directly  or  indirectly  responsible. 
On  the  contrary,  he  had  a  sincere  compassion  for  them, 
and  this  is  shown  by  a  letter  he  addressed  to  the  King's 
Minister,  Crumwell,  whose  duty,  it  appears,  was  to  main- 
tain the  King's  dignity.  This  letter  is  dated  30th  April 
1535,  the  day  after  their  condemnation.  In  speaking  of 
these  Monks,  he  writes  : — 

"  It  much  pitieth  me  that  such  men  should  suffer  with  so  ignorant 
judgments  :  and  if  there  be  none  other  offence  laid  against  them  but 
this  one,  it  will  be  much  more  for  the  conversion  of  all  the  faulters 
hereof,  after  mine  opinion,  that  their  consciences  may  be  clearly 
averted  from  the  same  by  communications  of  sincere  doctrine,  and  so 
they  to  publish  it  likewise  to  the  world,  than  by  the  justice  of  the  law 
to  suffer  in  such  ignorance.  And  if  it  would  please  the  King's  High- 
ness to  send  them  to  me,  I  suppose  I  could  do  very  much  in  their 
behalf" 

And  yet,  with  this  desire  of  Cranmer  to  plead  on  behalf 
of  these  traitors  to  their  King  and  country  acknowledging 
a  foreign  ruler,  he  is  to  be  credited  with  the  odium  of  their 
condemnation  merely  on  the  ground, — and  none  other  is 
alleged, — of  the  supposed  intimacy  which  is  presumed  to 
have  existed  between  the  Primate  and  the  Prime  Minister ! 

A  recent  writer  who  has  revived  these  accusations  could 
not  possibly  have  overlooked  the  following  account  of  the 
alleged  persecution  of  the  Carthusian  Monks,  as  recorded 
by  Burnet  ^: — 

'  "  Remains"  by  Jenkyns,  vol.  i.  pp.  134-5,  Letter  cxlv. 

History  of  the  Reformation,"  vol.  i.  pp.  551-2.  Pococks  edition. 
Oxford,  1865. 


l8o        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


"  The  Pope's  power  over  the  clergy  was  so  absolute,  and  their 
dependence  and  obedience  to  him  was  so  implicit ;  and  the  Popish 
clergy  had  so  great  an  interest  in  the  superstitious  multitude,  whose 
conscience  they  governed,  that  nothing  but  a  stronger  passion  could 
either  tame  the  clergj-,  or  quiet  the  people.  If  there  had  been  the 
least  hope  of  impunity,  the  last  part  of  Henry's  reign  would  have  been 
one  continued  rebellion  ;  therefore,  to  prevent  a  more  profuse  effusion 
of  blood,  it  seemed  necessary  to  execute  laws  severely  in  some  parti- 
cular instances. 

"  There  is  one  calumny  that  runs  on  a  thread  through  all  the 
historians  of  the  Popish  side,  which  not  a  few  of  our  own  have 
ignorantly  taken  up,  that  many  were  put  to  death  for  not  swearing 
the  King's  supremacy.  It  is  an  impudent  falsehood  ;  for  not  so  much 
as  one  person  suffered  on  that  account  ;  nor  was  there  any  law  for 
any  such  oath  before  the  Parliament  in  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  the 
King's  reign,  when  the  insufferable  Bull  of  Pope  Paul  III.  engaged 
him  to  look  a  little  more  to  his  own  safety.  Then,  indeed,  in  the 
oath  for  maintaining  the  succession  to  the  Crown,  the  subjects  were 
required,  under  the  pains  of  treason,  to  sw^ear  that  the  King  was 
supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  but  that  was  not  mentioned 
in  the  former  oath  that  was  made  in  the  twenty-fifth,  and  enacted  in 
the  twenty-sixth,  year  of  his  reign.  It  cannot  but  be  confessed,  that 
to  enact  under  pain  of  death  that  none  should  deny  the  King^s  title, 
and  to  proceed  upon  that  against  offenders,  is  a  very  different  thing 
from  forcing  them  to  swear  the  King  to  be  the  supreme  head  of  the 
Church. 

"  The  first  instance  of  capital  punishment  was  in  Easter  Term,  in 
the  beginning  of  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Henrj  's  reign  (a.D.  1535). 
Three  Priors  and  a  Monk  of  the  Carthusian  Order  were  then  indicted 
of  treason,  for  saying  that  the  King  was  not  supreme  head  under 
Christ  of  the  Church  of  England.  They  were  tried  in  Westminster 
Hall  by  a  commission  of  oyer  and  terminer;  they  pleaded  Not  guilty  ; 
but  the  jury  found  them  guilty,  and  judgment  was  given  that  they 
should  suffer  as  traitors.  The  record  mentions  no  other  particulars, 
but  the  writers  of  the  Popish  side  make  a  splendid  recital  of  the 
courage  and  constancy  they  expressed  both  in  their  trial  and  at  their 
death.  It  was  no  difficult  thing  for  men  so  used  to  the  legend,  and 
the  making  of  fine  stories  for  saints  and  martyrs  of  their  orders,  to 
dress  up  their  narratives  with  such  pomp,  that  as  their  pleading  Not 
guilty  to  the  indictment,  shows  no  extraordinary  resolution  ;  so  that 
the  account  that  is  given  by  them  of  Hall,  a  secular  Priest,  that  died 
with  them,  is  so  false,  that  there  is  good  reason  to  suspect  all.  He  is 
said  to  have  suffered  on  the  same  account ;  but  the  record  of  his 
attainder  gives  a  very  different  relation  of  it." 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  i8i 

With  regard  to  the  "  Pilgrims  of  Grace,"  they  were  the 
leaders  of  a  wide-spread  disaffection  and  revolt  among 
the  insurgents  of  the  northern  dioceses,  in  order  to  re- 
establish in  this  country  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope. 
Some  of  these  fanatics  also  suffered  for  their  treason. 

Why  Cranmer  should  be  made  responsible  either  for  the 
existing  laws,  or  for  the  enforcement  of  these  laws,  how- 
ever harsh  or  cruel  these  laws  might  have  been,  is  beyond 
comprehension,  except  on  the  unworthy  object  of  making 
the  character  of  Cranmer  as  hateful  as  possible  as  the 
acknowledged  "Master  Builder"  of  the  Reformation. 
The  device  is  weak.  True,  Cranmer  was  a  unit  in  the 
Parliament  by  virtue  of  his  office,  when  the  protective 
laws  against  the  usurpations  of  the  Papacy  were  enacted. 
It  was  only  a  few  years  back  that  hanging  was  the  penalty 
for  sheep  stealing.  It  may  with  equal  propriety  be  said 
that  the  then  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  as  a  unit  in  the 
Legislature,  was  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  that 
law  also. 

There  is  yet  another  case  imputed  to  Cranmer, — the 
attainder,  in  1529,  of  Seymour,  the  brother  of  the  Protec- 
tor, and  Lord  High  Admiral  of  England.  It  is  needless 
to  enter  into  details  of  the  acts  of  this  profligate.  Being 
condemned,  Cranmer  set  his  hand  to  the  warrant,  witJi  the 
other  ineuibers  of  the  Council.  Ecclesiastics  in  those  days 
escaped  the  odium  of  the  direct  charge  of  persecution,  by 
availing  themselves  of  the  pitiful  subterfuge  of  handing 
over  the  delinquent  to  the  civil  tribunal  to  carry  out  the 
punishment  they  had  adjudicated.  Cranmer  did  not  avail 
himself  of  this  subterfuge,  but  joined  his  colleagues  in 
signing  the  warrant,  hence  the  odium  attached  to  the 
act.  But  the  real  question  would  be,  whether  Seymour 
deserved  his  fate  t     That  was  a  question  unanimously 


1 82        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


decided  in  the  affirmative  by  the  Council,  of  which 
Cranmer  was  one. 

All  Cranmer's  unbiassed  biographers  represent  him  as 
being  kind,  benevolent,  amiable,  and  forgiving,  and  in  no 
way  given  to  a  desire  to  persecute  for  conscience'  sake.  We 
have  numerous  instances  recorded  by  Le  Bas  in  his  exhaus- 
tive "  Life  of  Cranmer."  His  hospitality  and  charity  were 
bounded  only  by  his  means,  and  these  were  often  unduly 
stretched.  At  his  own  expense  he  established  an  hospital 
and  appointed  surgeons  to  receive  the  poor  wounded 
soldiers  from  France.  According  to  the  account  given  by 
his  secretary,  Morice,  his  domestic  and  private  life  was  in 
all  respects  as  became  a  Prelate  of  the  Church  ;  his  habits 
regular,  abstemious :  and  laborious  in  his  studies,  and 
patient  and  conscientious  in  the  discharge  of  his  public 
episcopal  duties.  We  cannot  ignore  Cranmer's  sincerity 
when  he  gave  his  persistent  opposition  to  the  passing  of 
the  "  Six  Articles  Act."  When  it  was  being  mercilessly 
put  in  force  he  earnestly  pleaded  for  the  relief  of  the 
prisoners  arrested  under  that  Act. 

Of  course  it  is  stated  that  Cranmer  opposed  the  passing 
of  this  Act,  as  it  would  necessitate  putting  away  his  wife. 
That  may  have  been  one  of  his  motives,  but  we  dare  ven- 
ture to  assert,  no  unprejudiced  member  of  the  unreformed 
Church  of  the  present  day  would  seek  to  justify  the  pass- 
in?  of  such  an  Act  of  Parliament.  Then  why  attribute 
unworthy  motives  in  Cranmer's  opposition  to  it  }  He 
succeeded,  later  on,  in  considerably  modifying  the  terms 
of  the  Act,  and  ultimately,  during  Edward's  reign,  effecting 
its  repeal.  Elizabeth's  (so-called)  penal  laws  were  passed 
to  suppress  treaso7i  against  the  Crown.  This  "  Six  Articles 
Act"  was  to  coerce  men's  conscience.  We  hear  vehement 
denunciations  levelled  against  Elizabeth  for  passing  her 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  183 


laws  for  repression  of  rebellions  and  treasons,  but  none  by 
members  of  the  unreformed  Church  against  Henry  and  his 
advisers  Gardyner  and  Bonner,  for  passing  and  enforcing 
such  a  cruel  law  to  coerce  men's  conscience. 

Witness  also  Cranmer's  generous  bearing  towards  the 
treacherous  conduct  of  Drs  Thornton  and  Barber,  who 
combined  with  Gardyner  to  bring  Cranmer  into  disgrace 
with  the  King, — men  to  whom  he  had  himself  given  prefer- 
ment. On  discovery  of  the  plot,  he  forgave  them,  and 
interceded  on  their  behalf  with  the  King,  dismissing  them 
only  from  his  service.  Cranmer's  forgiveness  of  injuries 
was  so  notorious  that  it  became  a  byword  :  "  Do  my  Lord 
of  Canterbury  an  ill  turn,  and  you  make  him  your  friend." 
That  he  was  no  bigot,  is  exemplified  by  the  counsel  he 
gave  to  Edward,  with  respect  to  the  Princess  Mary,  who 
persisted  in  her  rejection  of  the  Revised  Liturgy,  and  her 
use  of  the  Mass,  and  through  his  instrumentality  the 
Princess  was  exempted  from  all  further  molestation.i 

Cranmer's  generous  feelings  were  also  excited  in  favour 
of  Sir  Thomas  More  and  Bishop  Fisher,  who  persistently 
refused,  as  persons  holding  public  offices,  to  take  the  oath 
of  submission  to  the  King.  He  pleaded  for  More  and 
Fisher,  even  after  he  had  failed  to  persuade  them  to  admit 
the  royal  supremacy.  The  fate  of  Sir  Thomas  More  and 
of  the  Venerable  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  were  impor- 
tant events  in  this  period  of  our  history,  and  have  been 
very  much  misrepresented.  Cranmer  was  in  no  way 
responsible  for  their  cruel  fate.  They  are  esteemed  as 
Martyrs !  A  few  observations  on  the  other  side  of  the 
question  may  not  be  considered  out  of  place.  We  have 
not  to  defend  the  Church  of  the  Reformation  for  the 
execution  of  either  More  or  Fisher,  for  it  was  not  the 

^  See  Strype's  "  Eccl.  Mem.,"  vol.  iv.  c.  i.    Anno  1551. 


184        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Reformed  Church  of  England  that  was  committed  to  this 
act.  Nor  have  we  to  justify  the  act.  We  do  not  attempt 
to  justify  it.  They  were  put  to  death  under  the  laws 
enacted  by  a  Roman  Catholic  King.  Treason,  and  not 
rcligioti,  was  the  crime  of  which  they  were  accused,  con- 
victed, and  executed,  under  a  law  passed  by  a  Parliament 
composed  exclusively  of  members  holding  the  Roman 
Catholic  faith,  and  unanimously  confirmed  by  the  Bishops 
in  Convocation,  who  were  exclusively  of  the  same  religious 
persuasion.  They  both  were  consistent,  uncompromising 
adherents  of  the  Papacy,  and  persecutors.  Sir  Thomas 
More,  when  in  power,  enforced  on  others  his  own  opinions 
on  matters  of  religion  without  even  a  shadow  of  mercy.  He 
was  a  relentless  persecutor ;  he  enforced  and  even  strained 
the  law,  by  every  means,  fair  or  foul,  to  impose  what  he 
called  orthodoxy  on  the  people,  and  in  his  capacity  of 
Chancellor  exercised  his  powers  beyond  their  due  limits.^ 
More,  on  his  own  authority,  committed  Phillips  to  the 
Tower  unconvicted,  where  he  languished  for  three  years, 
on  the  unproved  charge  of  his  having  used  unorthodox 
expressions  on  Transubstantiation,  Purgatory,  Pilgrimages, 
and  Confession.  Phillips  at  length  appealed  to  the  King, 
as  supreme  head  of  the  Church,  through  the  Commons, 
and  obtained  his  liberty. 

Again,  More  most  illegally  and  unwarrantably  com- 
mitted the  "poor  bedeman,"  John  Field,  to  the  Fleet  for 
two  years,  on  a  private  examination  by  himself  of  the 
accused,  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  shamefully 
ill-treated  him  ;  and,  on  his  obtaining  his  liberty,  he  was 
again  imprisoned  by  More  without  trial.  With  More, 
heresy  (so-called)  was  a  crime  deserving  of  death  ;  and 

'  Mr  Friedman,  in  his  late  work  on  "Anne  Boleyn,"  1848,  vol.  ii.  p.  88, 
boldly  asserts  that  "there  is  not  a  tittle  of  evidence  that  More  was  guilty  of 
the  cruelties  imputed  to  him." 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  185 


when  the  seals  were  intrusted  to  his  hands,  Smithfield  fires 
recommenced,  the  offences  being  principally  a  denial  of 
Transubstantiation,  or  an  accusation  of  the  lewdness  of 
Priests.  Abjuration  or  death  was  More's  remedy  for 
heresy.  Poor  James  Bainham,  after  suffering  the  "  black- 
hole  "  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  was  carried  to  the  private 
house  of  Sir  Thomas  More,  where  for  two  nights  he  was 
chained  to  a  post  and  whipped,  and  subsequently  imprisoned 
and  tortured  ;  More  himself  superintending  the  application 
of  the  rack.  Bainham  was  ultimately  burnt  as  a  relapsed 
heretic  by  order  of  More.  At  the  stake  he  solemnly  laid 
his  death  expressly  to  the  credit  of  Sir  Thomas  More, 
whom  he  called  his  accuser  and  judge.  The  accusation 
against  him  was,  "  that  he  had  said  Thomas  a  Becket  was  a 
murderer.  That  he  (Bainham)  had  spoken  contemptuously 
of  praying  to  Saints,  and  saying  that  the  Sacrament  of 
the  altar  was  only  Christ's  mystical  body,  and  that  His 
body  was  not  chewed  with  the  teeth  but  received  in  faith." 

But  why  dwell  on  such  scenes !  This  was  a  sample  of 
many  similar  cases.  More  was  pitiless  in  condemning 
what  he  deemed  a  crime.  What  reason  had  he  to  exclaim 
against  similar  acts  of  others  practised  on  himself,  when, 
with  equal  sincerity,  they  were  visited  on  him.  Political 
necessity  and  national  safety  dictated  the  latter  course, 
but  mere  religious  bigotry  and  intolerance  the  former. 
Bishop  Fisher  was  never  pressed  to  acknowledge  the 
King's  supremacy  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  but  for  denying 
it,  and  speaking  against  it ;  for  had  he  kept  his  opinion  to 
himself  he  would  not  have  been  questioned.  But  denying 
the  King's  titles,  of  which  his  being  supreme  head  was  one, 
was  adjudged  by  the  law  treason  ;  so  he  was  tried  for  speak- 
ing against  it,  and  not  for  his  refusal  to  acknowledge  it.i 

^  See  Pocock's  edition  of  Burnet's  "  History  of  the  Protestant'Reformation," 
vol.  iv.  p.  568.    Oxford,  1815. 


i86 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Burnet  further  says  that  Fisher  was  a  "  remorseless  per- 
secutor of  heretics,  so  that  the  rigour  of  the  law,  under 
which  he  fell,  was  the  same  measure  that  he  had  measured 
out  to  others." 

Sir  Thomas  More  and  Bishop  Fisher  countenanced  and 
encouraged  the  mad  impostor,  "  the  Nun  of  Kent,"  who 
inflamed  men's  minds  with  her  prophecies  against  the 
King,  and  who,  but  for  a  strong  arm,  would  have  raised  a 
rebellion  in  the  land  in  favour  of  the  Pope.  She  gave 
colour  to  her  supposed  divine  mission  by  forged  miracles, 
to  which  she  subsequently  pleaded  guilty.  In  the  Bill 
of  Attainder  against  the  Nun  of  Kent  and  her  accom- 
plices. More  and  Fisher  were  declared  guilty  of  "  mis- 
prision of  treason."  They,  holding  important  public  offices, 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  law  of  the  countr>^  denied 
the  King's  supremacy,  and  otherwise  impeached  his 
title.  And  further,  Fisher  wrote  and  published  a  book 
impugning  the  validity  of  the  King's  marriage.^  This 
declaration  of  "  misprisions  and  treason  "  was  for  a  warning 
only,  and  the  King's  Prime  INIinister,  Crumwell,  intimated 
that  the  King  would  accept  their  apologies.  ]More  was 
pardoned  on  the  charge  of  his  complicity  with  the  Nun  of 
Kent,  on  an  evasive  explanation  which  was  accepted  ;  but 
Fisher  was  obstinate,  and  even  undertook  to  justify  himself. 
He  still  continued  to  foster  the  conspiracy  against  the 
King.  He  was  again  urged  to  apologise,  but  he  again 
refused,  and  there  was  nothing  left  but  to  pass  the  Bill  for 
his  Attainder  (6th  March  1534).  The  Nun  was  executed 
for  treason,  but  Fisher,  in  spite  of  himself,  was  still 
unpunished.  In  March  1534,  the  Bill  was  passed  declaring 
the  marriage  with  Catherine  invalid,  and  the  marriage  with 
Anne  was  confirmed.    It  was  declared  that  whosoever 

'  MS.  Cotton.  Lib.,  Cleop.  E.  iv.  p.  160. 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions,  187 


impugned  by  word  or  deed  the  legitimacy  of  the  issue  of 
that  marriage  would  be  guilty  of  treason,  and  a  Commission 
was  appointed  to  take  the  examination  of  persons  who 
were  suspected,  or  would  not  submit  to  the  Act.  This 
course  became  necessary,  for  it  was  at  this  time  that  news 
of  the  Pope's  decision  against  the  marriage  arrived  in 
England,  the  Convocation  had  declared  the  Pope's  authority 
abolished ;  and  the  Bull  of  Excommunication  against 
Henry  which  followed  absolved  all  his  subjects  from  their 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  King,  inviting  them  to  rebel 
against  him.  A  Commission  sat  to  receive  the  oaths  of 
allegiance  of  all  classes  holding  offices  under  the  Crown, 
ecclesiastical  and  lay.  Fisher  and  More  were  now  required 
to  conform  to  the  law  ;  and  why  not .''  All  the  other 
Bishops  and  officers  of  the  Crown  readily  took  it.  The 
oath  1  was  read  to  them  and  they  refused  to  take  it ;  they 

^  The  following  is  the  oath  that  was  offered  to  be  administered  to  More  : — 
"  Ye  shall  swear  to  bear  faith,  truth,  and  obedience  alonely  to  the  King's 
Majesty,  and  to  his  heirs  of  his  body  of  his  most  dear  and  entirely  beloved  wife 
Queen  Anne  begotten,  and  to  be  begotten.  And  further  to  the  heirs  of  our 
Sovereign  Lord,  according  to  the  limitation  in  the  Statute  made  for  surety 
of  his  succession  in  the  crown  of  this  realm  mentioned  and  contained,  and  not 
to  any  other  within  this  realm,  nor  foreign  authority  or  potentate.  And  in  case 
any  oath  be  made,  or  hath  been  made,  by  you  to  any  person  or  persons,  that 
then  you  do  repute  the  same  as  vain  and  annihilate.  And  that  to  your  cunning, 
wit,  and  uttermost  of  your  power,  without  guile,  fraud,  or  other  undue  means, 
ye  shall  observe,  keep,  maintain,  and  defend  the  said  act  of  succession,  and  all 
the  whole  effects  and  contents  thereof;  and  all  other  acts  and  statutes  made  in 
confirmation  or  for  execution  of  the  same,  or  of  anything  therein  contained. 
And  this  ye  shall  do  against  all  manner  of  persons,  of  what  estate,  dignity, 
degree,  or  condition  soever  they  be  ;  and  in  no  wise  to  do  or  attempt,  nor  to 
your  power  suffer  to  be  done  or  attempted,  directly  or  indirectly,  any  thing 
or  things,  privily  or  appartly,  to  the  let,  hindrance,  damage,  or  derogation 
thereof,  or  of  any  part  of  the  same,  by  any  manner  of  means,  or  for  any  manner 
of  pretence.    So  help  you  God,  and  all  saints,  and  the  holy  evangelists." 

The  oath  tendered  to  ecclesiastical  bodies  generally  seems  to  have  been  a 
little  different.  There  is  still  existing  the  oath  taken  by  the  Priors  of  the 
Dominican  convents  of  Langley  Regis,  of  Dunstable,  of  the  Franciscan 
convents  of  Ailesbury  and  De-Mare,  the  Carmellites  of  llecking,  of  the 
Prioress  of  the  Dominican  nuns  of  Deptford,  in  the  name  of  themselves  and  of 


1 88        LIFE,  TIMES,  AXD  WTUTIXGS  C;F  CRANMER. 


were  thereupon  told,  35  was  the  fact,  that  thev  were  the 
first  to  refuse  it  They  were  allowed  time  for  reflection, 
but  they  still  refused.  Cranmer.  then  Archbishop,  and 
Crumwell,  the  King's  ^Minister,  made  ever}-  endeavour  to 
save  them.  Indeed,  not  only  did  Cranmer  and  Crumwell 
urge  them  to  take  the  oath  of  Supremacy  of  the  King,  but 
we  have  also  the  fact  that  the  Chancellor  Audley,  Lord 
Suffolk,  and  Bishops  Gardyner,  Bonner,  and  Tunstal,  did  the 
like.  It  was  the  preamble  of  the  act  which  so  offended 
Fisher  and  More.  Cranmer  proposed  even  that  they 
should  be  allowed  to  be  sworn  to  the  Act  of  the  King's 
succession,  and  not  to  the  preamble  of  the  Act,  thereby 
allowing  them  to  accept  the  King  s  supremacy,  "  de  facto  " 
and  not  "  de  jure."  They  were  both  deeply  affected  in 
their  interviews  with  them.  More  and  Fisher  were  then 
committed  to  the  keeping  of  the  Abbot  of  Westminster. 
They  were  again  examined,  and,  persisting  in  their  refusal, 
they  were  sent  to  the  Tower.  Fisher  and  !More  refused  to 
do  what  the  Bishops  and  clergy  throughout  the  realm  had 

all  the  breihren,  and  made  under  the  respective  seals  their  convents.  After 
renewing  their  allegiance  to  the  King,  and  swearing  to  the  lawfulness  of  the 
marriage  of  Queen  Anne,  and  to  be  true  to  the  issue  thereof,  and  that  they 
should  always  acknowledge  the  King  as  head  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  no  more  power  than  any  other  bishop  had  in  his 
own  diocese,  and  that  they  should  submit  to  all  the  King's  laws  notwithstand- 
ing the  Pope's  censure  to  the  contrary,  they  further  declare  that  in  their 
sermons  they  should  not  pervert  the  Scriptures,  but  preach  Christ  and  His 
Gospel  sincerely,  according  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  traditions  of  orthodox  and 
Catholic  doctors  ;  and  in  their  prayers,  that  they  should  pray  first  for  the  King, 
as  supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England,  then  for  the  Queen  and  her  issue, 
then  for  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  other  ranks  of  the  clergy. 
Under  the  signatures  is  added  a  declaration  that  the  oath  is  taken  freely  and 
without  compmlsion.  This  document  bears  date  the  4.th  May,  1554- — (See 
Burnet's  "History  of  the  Reformation,"  voL  iv.  Records,  b.  ii.  pt.  iL 
Xo.  5a) 

It  is  evident  that  the  great  bulk  of  the  ecclesiastical  orders  were  at  this  time 
quite  glad  to  free  themselve  of  Papal  rule  and  Papal  exactions.  It  wtis  not 
until  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteri«  was  being  carried  out  that  an  opposition 
was  got  up  by  the  ejected  monks,  &c. 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  189 


readily  consented  to  do,  and  who  did  not  thereby  consider 
that  they  were  acting  against  their  conscience.  The  whole 
country  gladly  submitted  to  the  new  dispensation,  and 
were  happy  in  their  release  from  Papal  tyranny  and  Papal 
rule,  the  clergy  being  released  from  onerous  pecuniary 
exactions,  4:he  laity  from  intolerant  priestly  despotism. 
Some  few  desperate  "  Papists,"  who  openly  and  deliberately 
persisted  in  their  disloyalty  and  treason,  were  executed. 
To  release  such  noted  men  as  Fisher  and  More  would  have 
been  an  injustice  to  those  who  suffered.  It  became 
absolutely  necessary  to  enforce  the  Act  of  Submission  ; 
any  hesitation  on  the  part  of  the  Parliament  would  have 
lost  the  advantage  gained  by  the  nation,  and  have  thrown 
them  back  under  the  power  of  the  Pope.  It  was  now  a 
que.stion  who  was  to  rule  in  England, — the  King  or  the 
Pope.  There  was,  nevertheless,  every  desire  to  spare 
Fisher  and  More.  Fisher,  in  June,  1535,  actually  wrote  a 
letter  to  the  King  questioning  his  supremacy.  Even  this 
the  King  offered  to  overlook  if  he  did  not  publish  it ;  but 
Bishop  Fisher  persisted  in  promulgating  his  views. 

It  must  be  noted  that  the  two  illustrious  prisoners  were 
not  treated  as  criminals ;  they  were  allowed  their  own 
attendants,  and  to  correspond  with  and  see  their  friends  : 
yet  even  here  they  did  not  desist  in  defaming  and  slander- 
ing the  King.  They  were  even  engaged,  while  in  confine- 
ment, in  schemes  of  rebellion  ;^  and  consequently,  in  May 
1535.  they  were  again  called  upon  for  their  submission  to 
the  King.  A  deputation  from  the  Council  waited  upon 
them,  but  they  still  refused  to  take  the  oath.  Their  trial 
was  delayed  to  give  them  a  further  chance  of  escape  ;  but 
the  Pope  (Paul  III.)  at  this  very  time  (21st  May  1535) 
most  injudiciously,  perhaps  purposely  to  insult  the  King, 

1  "  State  Papers,"  vol.  vii.  p.  635.    Quoted  by  Froude. 


190        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


conferred  on  Fisher  the  foreign  title  of  Cardinal,  which 
contravened  the  law  of  the  land,  and  encroached  on  the 
King's  just  prerogative.  This  hastened  the  action  of  the 
Council.  Being  once  again  in  vain  called  upon  to  submit, 
Fisher  was,  on  the  17th  June,  tried  in  the  Court  of  the 
King's  Bench  before  the  Chancellor  Audley  ;  and  the  High 
Commissioners,  Lords  Crumwell  and  Sufford,  were  on  that 
Commission.  Cranmer  was  not  on  that  Commission.  The 
jury  found  Fisher  guilty  of  treason,  in  attempting  to  deprive 
the  King  of  his  title  and  dignity,  and  was  condemned 
accordingly.  On  the  22d  June,  he  was  beheaded  as  a 
traitor  on  Tower  Hill.  All  the  actors  in  this  drama  were 
members  of  the  unreformed  Church.  The  crime  of  this 
murder  is  at  tJicir  door. 

It  must  be  admitted  by  all,  that  it  was  a  sad  spectacle 
indeed,  and  one  which  almost  makes  us  shed  tears,  to  see 
an  old  man,  already  on  the  verge  of  the  grave,  tottering  to 
the  scaffold,  to  lay  his  head  on  the  block,  renouncing  the 
few  years — perhaps  days — left  to  him,  for  a  "  principle," 
the  admission  or  rejection  of  which  could  neither  affect 
his  own  eternal  salvation,  nor  the  good  of  Him  for  whom  he 
sacrificed  himself  The  only  consolation  we  have — if  it 
be  a  consolation  at  all — is,  that  Fisher  died  an  easy  and 
no  ignominious  death.  He  carries  with  him  the  sympathies 
of  all.  But  why  is  not  the  same  sympathy  extended  to 
Cranmer,  Ridley,  Latimer,  Hooper,  and  the  nobk 
host  of  martyrs  of  the  Reformation They  suffered  a 
cruel  death.  They,  too,  were  sacrificed — not  for  a  "  prin- 
ciple," but  for  rejecting  a  comparatively  modern  theological 
speculation,  imposed  by  the  Roman  Church  for  belief  as  an 
Article  of  Faith,  on  pain  of  death  by  fire,  but  the  rejection 
of  which  was  a  case  of  conscience,  and  could  not  affect  other 
than  the  individual  himself. 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  191 


Before  dismissing  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  cannot 
refrain  from  quoting  a  striking  passage  from  the  writings 
of  a  Roman  Catholic  layman,  Mr  Pugin,  on  the  fate  of 
Bishop  Fisher,  and  the  responsibility  of  the  execution.  It 
were  well  if  all  Roman  Catholic  writers  could  afford  to  be 
as  truthful  as  Mr  Pugin  :^ — 

"  It  is  a  fearful  and  terrible  example  of  a  Catholic  nation  betrayed 
by  a  corrupted  Catholic  hierarchy.  ...  It  was  in  a  solemn  con- 
vocation, when  England's  churchmen  were  assembled,  a  reverend 
array  of  Bishops,  Abbots,  and  dignitaries.  .  .  .  Yet  the  fear  of  the 
tyrant,  and  the  dread  of  losing  a  few  remaining  years  of  wealth  and 
dignity,  so  far  prevailed,  that  they  sacrificed  the  liberty  of  the  English 
Church  at  one  blow.  .  .  .  One  venerable  Prelate,  aged  in  years, 
and  worn  with  fasting  and  discipline,  alone  protests  against  this 
sinful  surrender ;  his  remonstrance  is  unsupported  by  his  colleagues, 
and  he  is  speedily  brought  to  trial  and  execution.  His  accusers  are 
Catholics,  his  judges  are  Catholics,  his  jury  are  Catholics,  his  execu- 
tioner is  a  Catholic,  and  the  bells  are  ringing  for  high  mass  in  the 
steeples  of  St  Paul's  as  the  aged  Bishop  ascends  the  scaffold  and 
receives  the  martyr's  crown.  And  yet  how  do  modern  Catholics 
ignorantly  charge  the  death  of  this  great  and  good  man  on  the 
Protestant  system,  which  was  not  even  broached  at  the  time  !  All 
the  terrible  executions  of  this  dreadful  reign  were  perpetrated  before 
even  the  externals  of  the  old  religion  were  altered  or  its  essential 
doctrines  denied." 

Mores  fate  soon  followed.  On  the  7th  May  he  was 
examined.  On  the  26th  June  a  true  bill  was  found  against 
him.  On  the  1st  July  he  was  brought  to  the  bar.  His 
treason  was  established.  In  vain  he  was  again  urged  to 
submit ;  and  thereupon  the  jury  found  a  verdict  of  guilty, 
and  he  was  beheaded  as  a  traitor.  He  was  judged  by  his 
equals.  The  jury  that  convicted  him  were  all  members 
of  the  Roman  Church,  and  were  not  actuated  by  any 
sectarian  views. 

We  cannot,  in  the  present  state  of  society,  measure  the 

1  "  Earnest  Address  on  the  Establishment  of  the  Hierarchy,"  by  the  late  Mr 
Pugin,  p.  2.    Dolman,  1851, 


192 


LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


justice  or  injustice  of  an  Act  of  Parliament  which  brought 
these  eminent  personages  to  the  block.  We  now  hang  in 
cases  of  murder :  this  in  a  future  generation  may  be 
deemed  barbarous.  Only  a  few  years  ago  we  hanged  for, 
comparatively  speaking,  most  trivial  offences.  Queen 
Mar}-,  of  unhappy  memorj-,  seconded,  perhaps  instigated, 
by  her  ecclesiastical  advisers,  for  they  in  fact  ruled,  brought 
to  the  stake  and  burnt  alive  many  hundreds  for  refusing  to 
admit  an  arbitrary  theological  proposition,  that  the  con- 
secrated wafer  was  converted  (transubstantiated  was  the 
term  invented  to  designate  this  new  doctrine)  into  the  body 
and  blood,  bones  and  sinews,  soul  and  divinit}-,  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  chewed  by  the  recipient, 
and  was  the  same  ver}-  God  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin 
'Mary,  and  suffered  on  the  cross,  the  elements,  bread  and 
wine,  ceasing  to  exist  ;  this  alleged  wonderful  change 
taking  place  after  a  manner  they  themselves  could  not  at 
all  explain.  And  they  inflicted  the  same  punishment 
upon  those  who  denied  that  the  Pope  ought  to  have 
supreme  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  this  country  ;  while, 
in  the  previous  reign  of  Henrj-,  the  fate  of  decapitation  (a 
more  merciful  sentence,  at  all  events)  awaited  those  who 
asserted  that  the  Pope  had,  or  ought  to  have,  any  such 
ecclesiastical  or  spiritual  jurisdiction  in  this  countrj-  over 
the  King.    Hundreds  suffered  under  Mary's  laws. 

A  martyr  to  any  cause  excites  our  sympathy  and  com- 
miseration ;  and  to  sacrifice  life  to  maintain  a  principle, 
however  erroneous  we  may  think  it,  is  an  act  of  heroism 
which,  with  many,  covers  the  guilt  which  provokes  the 
blow.  In  Fisher  we  find  the  martyr  sacrificing  himself  to 
maintain  a  principle.  He  considered  himself  bound  by  his 
ecclesiastical  vows,  and  was  firm  and  consistent  to  the 
end,  and  for  this  we  are  now  informed  that  he  is  to  be 


cranmer's  participation  in  persecutions.  193 


canonised,  that  is,  declared  a  saint  in  heaven !  The 
Church  of  Rome  has  been  a  long  time  discovering  the 
fact,  if  it  be  a  fact !  He  was  persistent  in  maintaining  and 
spreading  those  opinions,  which  he,  in  his  conscience,  was 
bound  to  do  ;  but  this,  and  his  refusal  to  submit  him- 
self to  the  laws  of  his  country,  amounted  to  treason  ;  and 
in  addition  he  incurred  the  penalty  of  praemunere,  under 
an  unrepealed  law,  when  those  who  enacted  this  law  were 
all  members  of  the  Roman  Church.  He  knew  the  fate  that 
awaited  him,  and  the  penalty  he  would  have  to  pay.  But 
as  to  More,  we  are  constrained  to  view  his  punishment  in 
another  light.  While  in  power  he  put  in  action  with 
relentless  fury  the  laws  which  enabled  him  to  torture  and 
burn  those  who  did  not  receive  an  abstract  doctrine  as  a 
point  of  faith,  and  those  who  denied  the  authority  of  a 
foreign  Prince,  which  was  called  "  heresy."  The  day  of 
retribution  came  round,  when  he  forfeited  his  own  life  for 
maintaining  that  same  authority,  which  was  declared  to  be 
"  high  treason."  More  may  be  accounted  a  martyr  by 
some  ;  but  with  him  the  honour  was  certainly  shared  by 
those  he  himself  persecuted.  He  was  himself  a  victim  of 
retributive  justice.  More's  case  is  the  more  conspicuous 
from  his  high  position  and  brilliant  accomplishments. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  these  very  qualities,  and 
his  position,  would  have  rendered  an  evasion  of  the  law  in 
his  favour  more  dangerous  to  the  State.  We  lament  the 
necessity  which  gave  occasion  for  such  violent  measures, 
but  the  blame  should  primarily  rest  on  him  who  sought 
to  maintain  a  usurped  power  in  this  country,  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  was  so  grossly  abused. 

The  fate  of  Bishop  Fisher  naturally  suggests  a  compari- 
son with  that  of  Cranmer.  The  circumstances  are  charac- 
teristic of  the  age  they  lived  in.    Henry  and  Fisher  were 

n 


194        LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


both  zealous  "  defenders  of  the  Faith  "  of  the  unreformed 
Church,  but  Fisher  was  "  Roman  ''first  and  "  Englishman  " 
after.  He  set  at  defiance  the  laws  of  his  country  by- 
denying  Henry's  right  to  rule  over  the  Church  in  England, 
— according  to  the  ancient  law  of  the  land.  He  would 
only  acknowledge  a  foreign  ruler ;  he  suffered,  therefore,  as 
a  "  traitor"  to  his  country.  Rightly  or  wrongly,  it  was  the 
law  of  England.  His  death  was  neither  degrading  nor 
painful.  Cranmer,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a  true  and 
loyal  subject  to  his  King  and  country.  He  refused  to 
acknowledge  the  authority  of  a  foreign  Priestly  despot, 
but  following  his  conscientious  convictions,  in  matters  of 
religion,  he  was  adjudged  a  heretic,  and  to  suffer  death  by 
fire.  His  accusers  could  not  put  in  force  the  cruel  sen- 
tence, until  they  had  received  the  confirmation  and  decree 
of  the  Pope,  and  on  his  mandate  Cranmer  suffered  degra- 
dation and  the  torments  of  the  stake  !  Thus  Henry  was 
primarily  responsible  for  the  beheading  of  Fisher ;  the 
Pope  for  the  cruel  tortures  inflicted  on  Cranmer.  Fisher 
was  offered  his  pardon  (and  there  can  be  no  doubt  it  would 
have  been  confirmed)  if  he  had  consented  to  acknowledge 
the  King's  Supremacy  in  Church  as  well  as  State  in  his 
own  country.  Cranmer  signed  his  recantation  on  the  pro- 
mise of  liberty  ;  that  promise  was  shamefully  repudiated. 
Fisher  is  to  be  canonised  as  a  saint  in  heaven  for  his  alleged 
martyrdom,  a  traitor  to  his  King  and  country,  while 
Cranmer  does  not  even  receive  a  sign  of  commiseration.^ 

^  See  Appendix  B. 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION  UNDER 
HENRY  Vin.  AND  EDWARD  VI. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Henry,  Cranmer 
retired  from  public  life,  occupying  himself  in  literary  pur- 
suits, which  marked  the  progress  of  his  views  tending  to 
the  ultimate  development  of  Reformation  principles.  It 
was  probably  on  account  of  these  views  becoming  apparent 
that  he  became  the  victim  of  secret  conspiracies  to  sup- 
plant him  from  his  office  and  bring  him  into  trouble. 

So  early  as  1537,  after  the  fall  of  Anne  Boleyn,  the 
Papal  party  became  most  active,  and  particularly  in  enforc- 
ing their  ancient  rites  and  customs.  While  these  matters 
were  under  discussion  by  Convocation,  the  King  communi- 
cated to  them  his  determination  that  all  things  should  be 
abolished  that  could  not  be  supported  by  Scripture. 
Cranmer  strongly  supported  this  view,  and  urged  the  more 
general  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures.  The  result  was,  that 
in  1537  a  series  of  doctrinal  articles  were  sanctioned  by  the 
clergy  and  published  with  royal  authority,  in  a  work  en- 
titled "  The  Institution  of  the  Christian  Man,"  known  also 
under  the  title  of  the  "  Bishop's  Book."  Though  not 
wholly  carrying  out  the  ultimate  views  of  the  Reformers,  it 
contained  much  of  the  doctrines  laid  down  in  the  Confes- 
sion of  Augsburg  and  in  the  writings  of  Lutheran  divines, 
particularly  in  their  leading  doctrine  of  Justification.  This 
work  still  contained  many  errors  imputed  to  the  unreformed 
Church.    On  this  book  Strype  observes  : — 


196       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


"  We  find  many  Popish  errors  here,  mixed  with  evangelical  truths  ; 
which  must  either  be  attributed  to  the  defectiveness  of  our  Prelates' 
knowledge  as  yet  in  true  religion,  or  as  being  the  principles  and 
opinions  of  the  King,  or  both.  Let  not  any  be  offended  herewith,  but 
let  him  rather  take  notice  what  a  great  deal  of  gospel  doctrine  here 
came  to  light,  and  not  only  so,  but  was  owned  and  propounded  by 
authority,  to  be  believed  and  practised.  The  sun  of  truth  was  now 
but  rising,  and  breaking  through  the  thick  mists  of  that  idolatry,  super- 
stition, and  ignorance  which  had  so  long  prevailed,  and  was  not  yet 
advanced  to  its  meridian  brightness." 

The  form  of  administration  of  the  "  Lord's  Supper," 
called  the  "  Mass,"  and  the  doctrines  involved  in  that  ad- 
ministration, were  retained,  which  resulted  in  the  persecu- 
tion of  Lambert  and  others. 

In  August  of  the  same  year,  Cranmer  witnessed  the  ful- 
filment of  his  longing  desire,  namely,  the  issue  of  a  new  and 
revised  translation  of  the  Bible  in  English,  under  his  own 
patronage.  Coverdale's  version  had  been  issued  in  October 
1535,  sanctioned  by  Royal  authority.  In  1536,  an  order 
was  issued  by  Crumwell  that  the  entire  Bible  in  Latin  and 
English  should  be  provided  for  every  church,  and  laid  in 
the  choir  for  the  more  easy  perusal  by  the  people.  This 
translation  was  strongly  opposed  by  Gardyner  and  the 
anti-reformation  party,  alleging  as  a  reason  that  this  transla- 
tion contained  many  faults  ;  but  to  the  enquiry  of  the  King 
whether  it  contained  any  heresies,  Gardyner  could  give  no 
satisfactory  reply.  "  Then,  in  God's  name  (said  the  King), 
let  it  be  issued  among  our  people."  Cranmer's  joy  was 
unbounded  on  the  issue  of  the  new  translation,  and  for 
which  the  Royal  authority  was  obtained.  Every  Curate 
was  ordered  to  possess  an  English  Bible,  and  every  Abbey 
should  have  six.  The  copies  set  up  in  St  Paul's  and 
other  churches  brought  together  crowds  eagerly  listening 
to  those  who  undertook  to  read  aloud  the  sacred  writings. 
Only  fifteen  hundred  copies  of  this  edition  being  printed 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


the  demand  could  not  be  supplied.  This  was  remedied  by 
the  issue  in  1539  of  another  revised  edition,  going  by 
the  title  of  "  Cranmer's  Great  Bible."  Cranmer's  Preface 
contained  many  excellent  and  practical  suggestions.^  In 
proportion  as  the  popularity  of  this  edition  increased,  so 
was  the  opposition  raised  by  the  anti-reformers.  It  is  a  re- 
markable fact,  with  reference  to  the  issue  of  the  Scriptures 
in  our  native  tongue,  that  Tindal,  the  first  translator, 
Rogers,  the  editor  of  the  first  edition,  and  Cranmer,  the 
great  patron  and  supporter  of  their  work,  forfeited  their 
lives  in  the  great  cause  they  had  at  heart ! 

Cranmer  soon  became  an  object  of  the  envy,  jealousy,  and 
malice  of  the  opponents  of  progress,  and  numerous  com- 
plaints were  conveyed  to  King  Henry ;  and  Crumwell 
himself  was  getting  out  of  favour  with  the  King,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  part  he  took  in  the  Anne  of  Cleves  compli- 
cation. He  was  also  accused  of  heresy,  treason,  etc., 
being  an  active  agent  for  progress  and  reform.  He  was 
proceeded  against  on  Bill  of  Attainder,  on  charges  more  or 
less  true ;  he  was  forsaken  by  all  his  friends,  except  Cran- 
mer, but  whose  advocacy  was  of  no  avail.^    Crumwell  was 

^  The  six  later  issues  of  1540  and  1 541  all  have  Cranmer's  Preface.  Two 
of  these,  of  November  1540  and  November  1541,  bear  also  on  the  title-page 
the  names  of  Tunstall  and  of  Heath,  who  are  said  to  have  "  overseen  and 
perused  the  Translation  at  the  command  of  the  King's  Highness." 

-  There  is  only  a  portion  of  Cranmer's  Letter  to  the  King  on  this  occasion 
preserved.  The  Letter  proceeds  thus  : — "  I  heard  yesterday  in  your  Grace's 
Council  that  he  (Crumwell)  is  a  traitor,  yet  who  cannot  be  sorrowful  and 
amazed  that  he  should  be  a  traitor  against  your  Majesty  ;  he  whose  surety  was 
only  by  your  Majesty  ;  he  who  loved  your  Majesty,  as  I  ever  thought,  no  less 
than  God  ;  he  who  always  so  set  forward  whatsoever  was  your  Majesty's  will 
and  pleasure  ;  he  that  cared  for  no  man's  displeasure  to  serve  your  Majesty ; 
he  that  was  such  a  servant  in  my  judgment,  in  wisdom,  diligence,  faithfulness, 
and  experience,  as  no  prince  in  this  realm  ever  had  ;  he  that  was  so  vigilant 
to  preserve  your  Majesty  from  all  treasons,  that  few  could  be  so  secretly  con- 
ceived, but  he  detected  the  same  in  the  beginning?  I  loved  him  as  my  friend, 
for  so  I  took  him  to  be  ;  but  I  chiefly  loved  him  for  the  love  which  I  thought 
I  saw  him  bear  ever  towards  your  Grace  singularly  above  all  other.    But  now 


198       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITIxMGS  OF  CRANMER. 


beheaded  28th  July  1540.  He  was  a  reformer,  in  one  sense, 
of  abuses,  but  whether  actuated  by  Evangelical  prin- 
ciples is  doubtful.  Bishop  Fox  had  passed  to  another 
world,  Latimer  and  Shaxton  had  been  deprived  of  their 
Bishoprics,  and  imprisoned  under  the  "  Six  Articles  Act." 
Cranmer  now  stood  alone.  While  Crumwell  was  in  prison 
Cranmer  was  sought  to  be  included  in  a  Commission  to 
revise  the  "Articles  of  Religion."  He  refused  to  assent  to 
the  proposed  alterations,  but  he  succeeded  in  obtaining  a 
modification  of  the  Penalties  of  the  "  Six  Articles  Act." 

In  1540  we  find  Cranmer  engaged  in  reforming  the 
ecclesiastical  foundation  in  Canterbury,  and  in  establishing 
a  Grammar  School.  The  Commissioners  sought  to  limit 
the  entrance  to  this  school  to  the  sons  of  the  gentry,  but 
Cranmer  insisted  on  the  establishment  being  equally  for 
the  benefit  of  the  poor,  for  whom  he  successfully  pleaded. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  speech  delivered  by 

Cranmer  on  the  occasion,  to  the  objection  that — 

"  The  children  of  husbandmen  are  meeter  for  the  plough  or  to  be 
artificers,  than  to  occupy  the  place  of  the  learned  sort.  Let  none  be 
put  to  school  but  gentlemen's  sons." 

To  this  Cranmer  replied  : — 

"  Poor  men's  children  are  many  times  endued  with  more  singular 
gifts  of  nature,  which  are  also  the  gifts  of  God  ;  they  are  often  more 
diligent  to  apply  their  study  than  the  gentleman's  son,  delicately 
educated.  Is  the  ploughman's  son,  or  the  poor  man's  son,  unworthy 
to  receive  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost Are  we  to  appoint  them  to  be 
employed  according  to  our  fancy,  not  according  to  the  gifts  of 
Almighty  God To  shut  the  bountiful  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  a 
comer,  and  attempt  to  build  thereon  our  fancies,  is  to  build  the  tower 
of  Babel.  None  of  us  all  here,  but  had  our  beginning  from  a  low  and 
base  parentage.  All  gentlemen,  for  the  most  part,  ascend  to  their 
estate  through  learning." 

if  he  be  a  traitor,  I  am  sorry  that  ever  I  loved  him  or  trusted  him,  and  I  am 
very  glad  that  his  treason  is  discovered  in  time,  but  yet  again  I  am  very 
sorrowful ;  for  who  shall  your  Grace  trust  hereafter  if  you  might  not  trust 
him?"  &.C. — Jenkyns'  "Remains,"  Letter  cclviii.  vol.  i.  p.  298. 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


199 


It  had  been  answered  that  the  most  part  of  the  nobility 
were  made  by  feats  of  arms.  "  As  though,"  replied  the 
Primate,  "  the  noble  captain  was  always  unfurnished  of 
good  learning !  If  the  gentleman's  son  be  apt,  let  him  be 
admitted  :  if  not,  let  the  poor  man's  child,  that  is  apt, 
enter  his  room."  Had  Cranmer  lived  in  these  days  he 
Avould  have  been  a  strong  advocate  for  Board  Schools. 

Cranmer  was  now  also  actively  engaged  in  causing 
various  superstitious  relics  to  be  removed  from  churches  in 
his  Diocese  ;  and  the  suppression  of  superstitious  customs, 
such  as  creeping  to  the  cross,  etc. ;  and  he  succeeded  in 
passing  a  law  intended  to  check  the  luxurious  life  of  some 
among  the  clergy.  In  1541  he  was  engaged  in  correcting 
disorders  which  prevailed  in  All  Souls'  College,  Oxford. 

In  1542  the  Romanising  influence  still  predominated  in 
Convocation.  They  objected  to  the  English  Version  of 
the  Bible,  then  in  use,  and  sought  to  prevent  its  appear- 
ance in  Churches,  under  the  pretence  of  a  desire  of  intro- 
ducing an  improved  version.  Gardyner  was  foremost  in 
this  scheme,  suggesting  that  many  words  could  not  be 
properly  rendered,  and  should  therefore  be  left  untrans- 
lated.i  Cranmer,  however,  defeated  this  scheme,  by 
obtaining  the  King's  direction  that  the  new  version  should 
be  entrusted  to  the  Universities.  In  addition,  Cranmer 
now  urged  the  revision  of  the  "  Service  Book,"  and  to 
divest  images  of  saints  of  their  ornaments.  The  invoca- 
tion of  saints  had  been  already  removed  from  the  Litany. 
And  he  now  urged  the  necessity  of  having  the  offices  of 
devotion  in  the  English  language ;  but  in  this  he  did  not 
succeed  until  the  year  1546,  that  book  being  known  as 
"  Henry  VIII.'s  Primer,"  which,  although  a  great  improve- 

^  This  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  original  translation,  issued  by  the 
College  at  Rheims. 


200       LIFE,  TIME?,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

ment,  still  contained  some  addresses  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 
In  1544  Cranmer  wrote  to  the  King,  proposing  the  intro- 
duction of  congregational  singing. 

From  the  year  1 543  onwards,  the  contest  was  still  pro- 
tracted, and  the  anti-reforming  party  so  far  succeeded  in 
their  views,  that  Tindal's  v'ersion  was  prohibited,  and  other 
versions  were  only  allowed  to  be  read  under  certain  restric- 
tions. None  were  to  read  the  Bible  aloud,  without  licence 
from  the  King  Dr  the  Ordinary.  Noblemen  and  gentlemen 
might  cause  the  Bible  to  be  read  to  their  families  and 
servants,  and  householders  might  read  it  to  themselves 
privately.  But  all  women,  except  those  of  the  families  of 
the  nobility  and  gentrj-,  and  all  artificers,  labourers,  or 
servants,  with  all  persons  of  the  lower  class,  were  strictl}" 
prohibited  from  perusing  the  Scriptures.  This  prohibition 
continued  until  the  end  of  Henr}-'s  reign.  This  led  to 
the  publication  by  the  anti-reforming  part}-  of  an  amended 
Exposition  of  Faith,  containing  more  adv^anced  Romish 
doctrines  than  "The  Bishop's  Book,"  entitled  "A  necessary- 
Doctrine  of  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man."  Gardyner, 
commending  this  book  on  its  adoption,  wrote  that  "  the 
King's  majesty  hath,  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
composed  all  matters  of  religion ; while  Cranmer,  on 
the  other  hand,  wrote  annotations  upon  the  "  Necessar}- 
Doctrine,"  refuting  some  of  the  errors  according  to  his 
views,  and  setting  out  the  truth  as  he  then  conceived  it. 
Thus  it  appears  that  the  battle  of  the  Reformation  was 
now  well  begun. 

Cranmer's  proceedings  in  all  these  matters  gave  dire 
offence  to  the  Papal  party,  and  Gard}-ner  was  the  lead- 
ing spirit  to  create  strife  and  foster  conspiracies  against 
the  Archbishop,  who  now  found  h^pself  in  a  sea  of 
troubles.    The  clerg}^  at  Canterbury  were  instigated  to 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


20I 


SOW  seeds  of  dissension.  Three  men  were  burnt  alive  at 
Windsor  for  alleged  heresy.  A  scheme  was  set  on  foot 
to  implicate  the  leading  reforming  persons  of  rank,  even 
including  the  Queen,  Catherine  Parr,  who  was  a  supporter 
of  the  Reformation,  but  Gardyner's  emissary  was  waylaid, 
his  compromising  documents  seized,  and  the  scheme  failed. 
Cranmer  was  now  sought  to  be  impeached  ;  the  Articles 
and  Depositions  were  presented  to  the  King.  These  papers 
the  King  placed  in  the  hands  of  Cranmer*himself,  which 
took  the  Bishop  by  surprise,  and  he  thereupon  requested 
the  King  to  appoint  a  Commission  to  investigate  the 
charges.  The  King  was  so  confident  in  the  innocence  of 
Cranmer,  that,  in  complying  with  this  request,  he  nominated 
Cranmer  himself  for  one,  and  overruled  his  objections, 
observing  that,  if  there  was  any  truth  in  the  charges,  he 
would  be  honest  enough  to  acknowledge  them.  Dr  Leigh 
and  Dr  Rowland  Taylor  were  sent  for,  who  examined  into 
the  question,  and  Gardyner's  further  plot  was  exposed. 
Two  others,  Dr  Thornton  and  Dr  Barber  (already  men- 
tioned), both  of  whom  had  received  favours  at  the  hands 
of  Cranmer,  were  discovered  to  be  implicated  in  this 
scheme.  On  Cranmer  reproaching  them  for  their  base- 
ness, they  fell  on  their  knees  to  ask  his  pardon.  Acting 
in  his  usual  spirit  of  clemency,  Cranmer  forgave  them.* 

This  scheme  being  frustrated,  another  was  set  on  foot, 
undertaken  by  the  zealous  Romanist,  John  Gostwick,  a 
Member  of  Parliament,  who  charged  Cranmer  in  "  The 
House  "  with  preaching  heresy  in  his  sermons.  The  King 
was  so  incensed  at  this  fresh  attack  on  Cranmer,  that  he 

1  "  It  illustrates  a  favourable  trait  in  the  Archbishop's  character  that  he 
forgave  all  the  conspirators,  though  he  might  doubtless  have  secured  their 
punishment  through  his  influence  with  the  King.  He  was,  as  his  Secretary, 
Morice,  testifies,  '  a  man  thai  delightednot  in  revenge.'" — "  Encycl.  Brit.," 
9th  Edit.    "Cranmer."  ^ 


1 


202       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

compelled  Gostwick  to  sue  for  pardon,  and  to  acknowledge 
his  fault  to  Cranmer. 

Another  remarkable  instance  of  Henry's  kindly  inter- 
ference on  behalf  of  Cranmer  is  thus  recorded  by  a  late 
biographer.  The  Romanists  in  the  Privy  Council  besought 
the  King  to  give  them  leave  to  examine  the  charges  against 
Cranmer,  and  to  commit  him  to  the  Tower  if  they  found 
occasion,  assuring  the  King  if  that  were  done  many  would 
come  forward  figainst  him  with  just  accusations  who  were 
now  afraid  to  do  so.  Henry  discerned  their  purpose,  but 
consented  that  Cranmer  should  be  called  before  the  Council 
on  the  day  following,  and  gave  them  leave  to  commit  him 
to  the  Tower  if  they  saw  sufficient  cause. 

At  midnight  the  King  sent  for  the  Archbishop  to  tell 
him  what  had  passed.  He  thanked  his  Majesty  for  the 
previous  notice,  and  expressed  his  willingness  to  be  con- 
mitted  to  the  Tower,  if  he  might  afterwards  be  fairly  heard. 
Henry  stood  amazed  at  his  simplicity,  and  told  him  that, 
when  once  in  prison,  three  or  four  false  knaves  would  easily 
be  found  to  witness  against  him.  Henry  then  directed 
Cranmer  to  request  the  Council  to  confront  his  accusers 
with  him,  and,  if  they  refused  to  do  this,  he  was  to  produce 
a  ring,  which  the  King  then  gave  him,  by  which  they 
would  know  that  the  affair  was  revoked  from  them  for 
the  Royal  determination. 

The  following  morning,  Cranmer  was  summoned  to  at- 
tend the  Council  at  eight  o'clock,  but  was  kept  waiting  in 
the  ante-room  among  the  attendants  nearly  an  hour.  Dr 
Butts,  the  King's  physician,  informed  Henry  of  this  new 
promotion  of  the  Archbishop  to  be  a  serving-man.  "  It 
is  well  enough,"  replied  Henry,  "  I  shall  talk  wuth  them 
by-and-by."  At  length  Cranmer  was  admitted.  The 
Councillors  told  him  that  a  complaint  was  made,  that  he, 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


203 


and  others  by  his  permission,  had  infected  the  realm  with 
heresy,  and  therefore  it  was  the  King's  pleasure  that  he 
should  be  committed  to  the  Tower  for  trial.  Cranmer  rea- 
soned with  them,  and  urged  that  his  accusers  might  be 
brought  forward  ;  but,  finding  this  was  refused,  he  produced 
the  King's  ring.  At  the  sight  of  it,  they  rose  and  went  to 
the  King,  fearful  of  the  consequences  of  their  conduct. 
Henry  gave  them  that  reception  which  he  was  accustomed 
to  give  to  those  with  whom  he  was  seriously  displeased  ; 
saying,  he  perceived  well  how  the  world  went  among  them, 
and  commanded  them  to  lay  aside  their  malice  towards 
the  Primate.  This  was  the  last  attempt  against  Cranmer 
while  Henry  lived.  The  King  possessed  much  discern- 
ment. Referring  to  a  change  in  Cranmer's  armorial  bearings, 
from  three  cranes  to  three  pelicans,  he  told  him  to  be  ready, 
like  the  pelican,  to  shed  his  blood  for  his  spiritual  children 
who  were  brought  up  in  the  faith  of  Christ,  adding,  "  You  are 
likely  to  be  tasted  at  length  if  you  persist  in  your  tackling." 

There  is  yet  another  plot  against  Cranmer  to  be  noticed. 
Sir  Thomas  Seymour  spoke  against  him  to  the  King, 
accusing  him  of  niggardly  conduct,  and  a  design  to  amass 
wealth  for  his  children  by  adopting  a  penurious  and  im- 
proper style  of  living.^  Henry  took  no  notice  of  this  com- 
plaint till  some  days  after,  when  he  sent  Sir  Thomas  to 
Lambeth  with  a  message,  at  the  Archbishop's  dinner  hour. 
Seymour  now  found  how  widely  different  the  case  in 
reality  was  from  what  he  had  stated,  and  saw  that  ample 
provision  was  made  for  the  household  and  for  visitors,  as 
well  as  a  liberal  supply  for  the  poor,  while  all  was  con- 
ducted with  propriety.    On  his  return  Henry  sternly  in- 

1  According  to  a  letter  Cranmer  wrote  on  this  subject,  he  stated  that  in 
consequence  of  the  large  expenditure  he  was  obliged  to  make  by  virtue  of  his 
office,  and  paying  for  everything  double  their  price,  he  was,  in  fact,  better  off 
when  he  was  a  student  at  Cambridge. 


204       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


quired,  "  Dined  you  not  with  my  Lord  ?  "  Seymour  per- 
ceived the  King's  meaning,  and,  kneehng  down,  entreated 
pardon  for  having  made  a  false  report.  The  King  rebuked 
him  severely,  saying,  that  he  saw  through  their  devices, 
and  knew  that  their  desire  was  to  be  allowed  to  participate 
in  the  Bishop's  lands,  as  they  had  done  in  the  estates  of 
the  monasteries ;  but  in  this  they  should  be  disappointed, 
and  as  for  Cranmer,  he  well  knew  that  the  Archbishop  in- 
jured himself  by  his  liberality  and  hospitality.  Besides 
keeping  a  proper  order  in  his  household,  suited  to  his  sta- 
tion, Cranmer  always  had  several  strangers  staying  with 
him,  particularly  foreigners  distinguished  for  their  learning  ; 
among  these  were  Martin  Bucer,  Paulus  Fergius,  Peter 
Martyr,  and  Bernardine  Ochinus  ;  being  desirous,  by  his 
intercourse  with  them,  to  promote  their  spiritual  welfare, 
and  also  to  forward  the  great  work  of  the  Reformation. 

Thus  Cranmer  retained  the  confidence  and  affection  of 
Henry  until  the  King's  death.  On  his  death-bed  the  King 
sent  for  the  Archbishop,  who  ministered  to  him  in  his  last 
moments.  His  last  act  was  to  press  the  hand  of  his 
faithful  servant. 

Henry  died  a  confirmed  believer  in  every  doctrine  of 
the  Roman  Church  as  then  accepted  as  such. 

Henry  VHI.  died  28th  January  1547,  and  was  succeeded 
by  his  son  EDWARD,  then  ten  years  old,  under  a  Protec- 
torate. At  the  funeral  of  the  deceased  Monarch  the  lead- 
ing part  was  taken  by  Gardyner,  Bishop  of  Winchester. 
He  headed  the  Bishops  and  Priests,  who  prayed  and 
chanted  round  the  royal  hearse  in  the  chapel  of  the  Palace 
at  Windsor.  He,  as  Prelate  of  the  Garter,  received  the 
car-borne  corpse.  On  the  day  of  the  interment  he  stood  at 
the  high  altar,  and  was  the  chief  celebrant  of  the  Mass, 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


205 


while  Cranmer  sat  with  the  rest  of  the  Bishops  on  the 
Bench.  ^ 

On  Edward  being  proclaimed  King,  the  Archbishop 
was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Regency,  acting  with  sixteen 
others,  under  the  will  of  Henry.  On  Somerset  was  con- 
ferred the  title  and  power  of  Lord  Protector,  now  Earl  of 
Hereford.  Cranmer's  first  step  was  to  recognise  his  de- 
pendence on  the  authority  of  the  Crown,  by  taking  out  a 
licence  from  the  King  for  the  discharge  of  his  duties  as 
Metropolitan,  and  he  required  all  his  suffragans  to  do  the 
same. 

Cranmer  was  no  great  politician.  His  energies  were 
directed  to  the  carrying  out  the  Reformation,  which 
only  required  opportunity  for  developing.  This,  to  a 
great  extent,  he  effected,  despite  the  many  opposing  ele- 
ments, and  the  stormy  conflict  of  parties,  each  seeking  to 
promote  individual  interests,  Gardyner  was  one  of  the 
greatest  opponents  in  endeavouring  to  thwart  Cranmer  in 
his  reforming  progress. 

Leaving  the  political  events  of  this  short  but  eventful 
reign,  we  have  only  to  consider  the  progress  of  the  Re- 
formation under  the  guidance  of  the  Archbishop.  On 
his  advice  a  Royal  Commission  was  formed,  with  power  to 
visit  the  entire  Church  throughout  the  country,  which,  for 
this  purpose,  was  divided  into  six  districts.  The  Commis- 
sioners were  to  report  the  state  of  religion,  and  to  carry 
into  effect  the  enactments  of  Parliament  for  the  Reforma- 
tion then  fairly  set  on  foot.  The  articles  and  injunctions 
for  these  visitors  (who  were  accompanied  by  selected 
preachers  of  ability)  show  the  wisdom  and  care  of  those 
entrusted  to  carry  out  this  important  work.    The  result 

'  Dixon's  "  History  of  the  Church,"  ii.  42.    Edit.  1881. 


206       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

exhibited  the  miserable  state  of  corruption  and  supersti- 
tion that  prevailed  throughout  the  countr}'.  The  clergy 
were  in  a  sad  state  of  ignorance,  utterly  incapable  of 
instructing  the  people  by  sermons.  To  remedy  this, 
Cranmer  devised  the  plan  of  preparing  a  series  of 
"  Homilies  "  to  be  read  from  the  pulpits.  He  showed  the 
example  by  himself  preparing  the  Homily  on  "  Salvation." 
A  glorious  work.  When  we  now  peruse  these  magnifi- 
cent compositions,  we  cannot  but  express  our  surprise  that 
the  compilers,  at  this  early  stage  of  the  Reformation,  had 
such  clear  and  decided  views  on  the  various  innovations 
in  doctrines  and  practices,  the  accumulations  of  some 
centuries.  Gardyner's  concurrence  in  this  work  was 
requested,  but  he  gave  it  his  most  strenuous  opposition, 
declaring  that  no  innovation  in  religious  matters  should  be 
made  during  the  King's  minority.  By  reason  of  Gardiner's 
obtrusive  conduct  in  opposing  the  Reformation,  he  was 
confined  in  the  Tower  as  a  state  prisoner  during  the 
King's  reign.  Poynet  was  appointed  Bishop  of  Winches- 
ter in  his  place ;  a  more  disreputable  appointment  could 
not  have  been  made.  Bonner  was  also  committed  to  the 
Tower ;  he,  however,  recanted  and  was  released  from 
prison.  He  was  subsequently  deprived  of  his  See,  and  in 
his  place  Ridley  was,  by  translation,  appointed  Bishop  of 
London. 

We  have  here  again  to  note  the  partial  manner  in  which 
Dr  Lingard,  in  an  oft"hand  manner,  refers  to  Gardyner's 
imprisonment.  He  demanded  a  legal  trial,  whereupon  the 
Council  appointed  a  Commission  to  take  his  examination. 
This  Commission  consisted  of  the  Primate,  the  Bishops 
of  London,  Ely,  and  Lincoln,  Sir  William  Petre,  Judge 
Hales,  and  two  ^Masters  in  Chancer}-.  The  proceedings 
occupied  twenty-two  Sessions,  from  15th  December  1550 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


to  14th  February  1551,  when  the  Commission — not  simply 
Cranmer,  as  often  stated — pronounced  him  contumacious, 
and  his  Bishopric  void.  On  this  Dr  Lingard  observes  : — 
"  Cranmer  cut  short  the  proceedings,  and  pronounced 
Gardyner  contumacious."  ^  He  makes  no  allusion  to  the 
numerous  Sessions,  and  his  observations  would  lead  us  to 
suppose  that,  by  Cranmer's  arbitrary  interference,  Gardyner 
had  not  a  fair  hearing.  No  opportunity  seems  to  be  lost 
in  order  to  make  Cranmer  personally  responsible  for  acts 
done  in  conjunction  with  others,  who  appear  to  escape 
obloquy.  Had  the  case  been  reversed,  under  Papal  rule 
such  a  contumacious  heretic  would  have  been  consigned  to 
the  flames.  Gardyner  and  Bonner,  however,  aftenvards 
had  a  full  opportunity  of  avenging  themselves  in  the  fires 
of  Smithfield,  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  and  on  Cranmer  per- 
sonally. The  apologists  of  Mary  exculpate  her  of  these 
crimes.  She  must,  therefore,  have  acted  under  the  guid- 
ance of  these  two  leading  ecclesiastics,  staunch  adherents 
of  Papal  dogmas. 

Through  Cranmers  influence  the  "  Six  Articles  Act " 
was  repealed.  He  also  obtained  from  Convocation, 
though  not  without  some  opposition,  a  vote  that  all  such 
customs  theretofore  had  or  used,  which  forbade  marriage 
of  the  clergy,  should  be  utterly  void  and  of  none  effect. 
A  majority  of  forty-three  voted  in  the  affirmative,  thirty- 
two  against.  Many  of  this  minority  "  entered  into  the 
Holy  State  of  matrimony  when  the  marriage  of  Priests 
became  legal."  "  Their  concubines,  probably,  insisted 
on  marriage  when  marriage  was  allowable."^  An  Act 
was  introduced  into  Parliament  ultimately  declaring  the 
legality  of  such  marriages.     On   this   the  Archbishop 

'  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  vii.  p.  87. 

^  Strype,  156  ;  Wilkins,  iv.  i5  ;  Collier,  n.  226,  quoted  by  Dean  Hooke. 


2oS       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


sent  for  his  wife,  and  he  and  his  children  ^  were  again 
permitted  the  holy  privilege  of  man  bestowed  by  God  in 
Paradise. 

"  The  controversies  of  the  day  hinged  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  Eucharist.''  From  a  mere  commemoration,  as 
originally  practised  by  the  early  Christians,  "  the  Lord's 
Supper  "  was  in  course  of  time  converted  into  a  sacrifice,  on 
the  assumption  that  on  the  consecration  of  the  elements  of 
bread  and  wine  they  were  converted  respectively  into  the 
substance  of  the  same  body  of  Christ  (including  His  blood), 
soul  and  divinity,  as  was  crucified,  and  for  the  denial  of 
this  alleged  conversion  many  were  brought  to  the  stake  as 
heretics.  Before  a  change  was  made  in  the  service,  certain 
queries  were  prepared  and  addressed  to  the  Bishops  on  the 
subject,  which  were  discussed  in  Convocation  on  20th 
November  1 547  by  the  Lower  House,  and  on  the  same 
day  a  proclamation  was  issued  that  the  Sacrament  was  to 
be  received  in  both  kinds,-  which  was  ratified  by  Parlia- 
ment, and  the  !Mass  Service  was  abolished,  with  its  alleged 
propitiatory  character,  and  for  which  our  simple  and 
beautiful  Communion  Service  was  eventually  substituted. 

The  dogma  of  Transubstantiation,  the  actual  substantial 
change  of  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  into  the  very  body, 
blood,  bones,  nerves,  soul,  and  divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  at  the  bidding  of  a  Priest,  was  the  great  theological 
question  of  the  day  strenuously  opposed  by  the  Reformers. 

^  Cranmer's  family  consisted  of  two  daughters — Ann,  who  died  in  her 
father's  lifetime,  and  Margaret,  who  surv  ived  him  ;  and  a  son,  whom  he 
named  after  himself,  Thomas. 

-  It  is  a  fact  worth  recording,  that  at  the  Covmcil  of  Claremont,  held  Novem- 
ber 1095  A.D.,  under  Pope  Urban  II.,  assisted  by  thirteen  Archbishops,  two 
hundred  and  fifty  Bishops  and  Abbots,  by  the  28th  canon,  it  was  directed  that 
all  who  communicated  should  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  under  both 
kinds,  unless  there  be  necessity  to  the  contrarj-. — Labb  et  Coss.,  "Concil. 
Gen.,"  tom.  .\.  col.  506.    Paris,  1671. 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


209 


It  was  one  not  of  an  empty  speculation,  it  involved  the 
personal  safety  of  every  individual  in  the  realm.  To 
question  the  theory  was  a  cruel  death.  And  it  cannot  be 
too  deeply  impressed  on  the  reader  that  it  was  in  fact  for 
the  refusal  to  accept  this  theological  enigma  that  so  many 
poor  wretches  were  brought  to  the  stake  and  burned  alive. 

Cranmer  appears  to  have  been  awakened  to  a  new  light 
on  the  subject  by  Dr  Ridley's  persuasion,  and  by  reading 
the  Treatise  of  Rabanus  Maurus,  a  writer  of  the  ninth 
century,  who  powerfully  combatted  and  exposed  the  theory 
of  a  substantial  change  in  the  elements,  when,  for  the 
first  time,  it  was  seriously  advanced.  Cranmer  does  not 
seem  to  have  grasped  the  entire  truth  at  once,  which  passed 
through  him  by  a  filtering  process.^  Cranmer  eventually 
published  a  discourse  on  the  Sacrament,  "  a  work  abound- 
ing with  irresistible  argumentation,  as  well  as  impressive 
eloquence,  with  sincere  piety  and  profound  learning." 

Bishop  Gardyner,  while  a  prisoner  in  the  Tower,  attacked 
Cranmer's  discourse  on  the  Sacrament  almost  immediately 
after  its  publication  ;  which  attack,  according  to  Strype, 
was  printed  in  France  under  the  title  "An  explication  and 
assertion  of  the  true  Catholic  Faith  touching  the  most 
Blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  with  confutation  of  a 

1  Fox,  in  his  "Acts  and  Monuments,"  says  : — 

"During  the  time  of  King  Henry  VIII.,  until  the  entering  of  King  Edward, 
it  seemeth  that  Cranmer  was  scarcely  yet  thoroughly  persuaded  in  the  right 
knowledge  of  the  Sacrament,  or  at  least  was  not  yet  fully  ripened  in  the  same, 
whetein  shortly  after,  being  more  groundedly  confirmed  by  conference  with 
Bishop  Ridley,  in  process  of  time  did  so  profit  in  riper  knowledge  that  at  last 
he  took  upon  himself  the  defence  of  that  whole  doctrine,  that  is,  to  refute  and 
throw  down,  first,  the  corporeal  presence ;  secondly,  the  fantastical  Tran- 
substantiation  ;  thirdly,  the  idolatrous  adoration  ;  fourthly,  the  false  error  of 
the  Papists,  that  wicked  men  do  eat  the  natural  body  of  Christ ;  and  lastly, 
the  blasphemous  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  Whereupon,  in  conclusion,  he  wrote 
five  books  for  the  public  instruction  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  which  instruc- 
tion yet  to  this  day  standeth,  and  is  received  in  this  Church  of  England." 

O 


2IO       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


book  written  against  the  same,  1551,"  but  under  an 
assumed  name.  There  was  another  reply  written  by  Dr 
Smith,  then  of  Louvain,  a  miserable  renegade  who  changed 
his  religion  three  or  four  times  as  it  suited  his  purpose. 
They  both  charged  Cranmer  with  inconsistency  by  remind- 
ing him  that  he  had  been  a  "  Papist,  then  a  Lutheran,  and 
lastly  a  Zuinglian  "  in  his  Sacramental  profession. 

The  Archbishop  was  not  long  in  replying  to  these  two 
attacks,  confronting  as  well  the  "  crafty  and  sophistical 
cavillation  of  Gardyner,  and  such  assertions  in  Smith's 
'  Puny  Book  '  as  seemed  anj-thing  worth  the  answering." 
This  answer  was  first  printed  in  1551, — again  in  1552,  and 
was  again  reprinted  in  1580,  such  was  the  popularity  of  the 
work,  and  the  interest  created.  In  his  reply  to  Dr  Smith, 
Cranmer  thus  wrote  : — 

"  This  I  confess  of  myself,  that  not  long  before  I  wrote  the  said 
catechism,  I  was  in  that  error  of  the  real  presence,  as  I  was  many  years 
past  in  divers  other  errors,  as  of  transubstantiation,  of  the  sacrifice  pro- 
pitiator)' of  the  priests  in  the  mass,  of  pilgrimages,  purgator)',  par- 
dons, and  many  other  superstitions  and  errors  that  came  from  Rome, 
being  brought  up  from  youth  in  them,  and  housled  therein  for  lack  of 
good  instruction  from  my  youth,  the  outrageous  floods  of  papistical 
errors  at  that  time  overflowing  the  world.  For  the  which,  and  other 
mine  offences  in  youth,  I  do  daily  pray  unto  God  for  mercj'  and  par- 
don, saying.  Good  Lord,  remember  not  mine  ignorances  and  offences 
of  my  youth. 

"  But  after  it  had  pleased  God  to  show  unto  me  by  His  holy  word  a 
more  perfect  knowledge  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  from  time  to  time,  as 
I  grew  in  knowledge  of  him,  by  little  and  little,  I  put  away  my  former 
ignorance.  And  as  God  of  his  mercy  gave  me  light,  so  through  his 
grace  I  opened  mine  eyes  to  receive  it,  and  did  not  wilfully  repugn 
unto  God  and  remain  in  darkness.  And  I  trust  in  God's  mercy  and 
pardon  for  my  former  errors,  because  I  erred  but  of  frailness  and  igno- 
rance. And  now  I  may  say  of  myself  as  St.  Paul  said.  When  I  was 
like  a  babe  or  child  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  I  spake  like  a  child, 
and  understood  like  a  child,  but  now  that  I  am  come  to  man's  estate, 
and  growing  in  Christ  through  his  grace  and  mercy,  1  have  put  away 
that  childishness."  1 

'  Cranmer's  "Remains,"  by  Jenk3-ns,  vol.  iii.  pp.  13,  14. 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


2  I  I 


In  reply  to  Gardyner,  he  said  : — 

"  It  is  lawful  and  commendable  for  a  man  to  learn  and  embrace  the 
truth.  As  for  me,  I  am  not,  I  grant,  of  that  nature  that  the  Papists 
for  most  part  be  who  study  to  devise  all  shameful  shifts,  rather  than 
they  will  forsake  any  error,  wherewith  they  were  infected  in  their 
youth." 

Cranmer's  theory  was  summed  up  in  the  work  in  ques- 
tion with  the  following  passage  : — 

"  As  our  regeneration  in  Christ  by  Baptism  is  spiritual^  even  so  our 
eating  and  drinking  is  a  spiritual  feeding,  which  kind  of  regeneration 
and  feeding  requireth  no  real  and  corporeal  presence  of  Christ,  but 
only  his  presence  in  spirit,  in  grace,  and  effectual  operation." 

And  again  as  to  the  alleged  change  oi  substance,  he  thus 

expressed  himself : — 

"  The  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine,  as  they  affirm,  be  clean  gone. 
And  so  there  remaineth  whiteness,  but  nothing  is  white;  there  re- 
maineth  colours,  but  nothing  is  coloured  therewith ;  there  remaineth 
roundness,  but  nothing  is  round  ;  and  there  is  bigness,  but  nothing  is 
big  ;  there  is  sweetness,  without  any  sweet  thing ;  breaking,  without 
anything  broken  ;  division,  without  anything  being  divided  ;  and  so, 
other  qualities  and  quantities  without  anything  to  receive  them.  And 
this  doctrine  they  teach  us  as  a  necessary  article  of  faith."  ^ 

Cranmer  might  have  added,  "on  pain  of  being  burnt 
alive." 

The  rejection  of  the  dogma  of  Transubstantiation,  and 
adoration  of  the  Host,  naturally  carried  away  with  it  the 
alleged  propitiatory  character  of  the  Mass  and  Masses  for 
the  dead.  The  new  service-book  was  brought  into  public 
use  in  the  fall  of  the  year  1548.  It  was  grounded  upon 
the  Liturgies  of  the  primitive  church,  omitting  most  of 
the  Romish  additions,  adopting  the  phraseology  of  the 
Scriptures. 

The  order  abolishing  all  Romish  books  of  devotion,  and 
for  the  punishment  of  those  who  interfered  in  the  full  use 
of  the  "  Service-Book  "  was  signed  by  Cranmer,  Chancellor 

^  See  "  Remains,"  Jenkyns,  vol.  ii.  pp.  309-404.    Oxford,  1832. 


2  I  2       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Lord  Rich,  and  by  four  others  of  the  Council,  and  which 
Ordinance  was  confirmed  by  Act  of  Parliament  (3  and  4 
Ed.  IV.  cap.  X.). 

The  King's  "  Primer  "  of  1545  was  not  suppressed,  except 
that  the  passages  relating  to  the  invocation  of  saints  were 
directed  to  be  blotted  out.  The  same  Act  directed  the 
abolition  of  all  images  in  churches  except  those  that  formed 
parts  of  tombs  or  monuments.  Tlie  new  formulary  of 
Ordination  expunged  the  five  inferior  orders  of  the  minis- 
try, Readers,  Subdeacons,  Exorcists,  Acolyths,  and  Door- 
keepers. In  addition,  the  Ordinance  abolished,  among 
other  ceremonies,  gestures,  rites,  &c.,  the  use  of  gloves  and 
sandals,  of  mitre,  ring,  and  crozier,  anointing  with  chrism, 
and  substituted  the  old  form  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost, 
&c.,"  in  the  act  of  Ordination  of  Priests,  in  the  place  of  pre- 
senting the  Cup  and  Paten. ^  Such,  then,  are  some  of  the 
sweeping  reforms  in  the  Church  effected  under  the  super- 
vision and  direction  of  Cranmer.  The  several  changes 
came  into  operation  ist  April  1646. 

In  1550  Hooper  was  appointed  Bishop  of  Gloucester, 
when  an  altercation  took  place  as  to  the  adoption  of  the  re- 
cognised "  priestly  vestments."  Hooper  opposed  the  use  of 
all  such  vestments,  being  more  in  advance  than  Cranmer. 
At  Cranmer's  door  is  laid  the  charge  of  having  caused  the 
imprisonment  of  Hooper  for  his  resistance  to  the  law  in 
this  respect.  To  this  Strype,  ever  ready  to  excuse  Cran- 
mer, says : — - 

*'  Neither  was  Cranmer  any  other  ways  instrumental  to  Hooper's 
imprisonment,  than  by  doing  that  which  was  expected  from  him, 
namely,  giving  a  true  account  of  his  unsuccessful  dealing  with  him." 

*  This  latter  custom  was  established  by  the  Council  of  Florence,  1439,  when 
the  old  form  of  consecration  by  laying  on  of  hands  was  abandoned,  and  this 
altered  form  is  now  in  use  at  the  present  day  in  the  Romish  Church.  The  re- 
introduction  of  the  old  foTTii  of  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination  in  the  Church 
of  England  was  not  added  until  the  year  1646. 


I'ROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATKJN. 


It  was  in  this  year  that  Cranmer  pubh'shed  his  great 
work,  entitled  "  Defence  of  the  true  Catholic  Doctrine  of 
the  Sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour 
Christ,"  before  alluded  to,  and  which  evoked  the  attacks 
of  Gardyner  and  Smith.  This  work  had  a  great  influence 
in  converting  many  to  reformed  views  concerning  the 
Sacrament. 

A  separate  chapter  is  dedicated  to  the  writings  of  Cran- 
mer ;  it  is  therefore  only  necessary  here  to  mention  the 
part  he  took  in  forwarding  the  Reformation. 

In  1552  the  Articles  of  Religion  were  now  published  by 
authority.  Cranmer  subsequently  admitted,  when  ex- 
amined before  the  Commissioners,  that  he  was  the  author 
of  them.  They  did  not  essentially  differ  from  the  XXXIX. 
Articles  as  now  accepted.  Cranmer's  Articles  were  prin- 
cipally compiled  from  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  particularly  that  prepared  in  155 1  by  the  Protestants, 
to  be  laid  before  the  Council  of  Trent.  The  first,  second, 
and  twenty-third,  and  parts  of  the  twenty-fifth,  twenty- 
sixth,  and  thirty-fourth,  are  certainly  taken  from  that 
source. 

During  Edward's  reign,  under  the  influence  of  Cranmer, 
the  total  removal  of  images  from  Churches  took  place 
under  the  order  of  the  Courts  of  Law  in  1 548  ;  in  the 
same  year  the  reformed  Prayer  Book  was  sanctioned  by 
"Act  of  Uniformity";  the  elevation  of  the  consecrated 
elements,  and  their  worship,  were  forbidden  ;  and  for  stone 
altars  were  substituted  tables. 

In  April  1552,  sanctioned  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity, 
changes  were  made  in  the  Service.  The  following  were 
the  omissions  directed  to  be  made : — Introits  ;  the  expres- 
sion commonly  called  "The  Mass";  the  word  "Altar"; 
the  mixing  of  water  with  wine ;  the  invocation  of  the  Holy 


2  14       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  ^YRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Ghost  on  the  elements ;  the  sign  of  the  cross  on  the  con- 
secration of  the  elements  ;  the  "  Agnus  Dei "  sung  during 
Communion  ;  the  allusion  to  the  angels  as  bearing  up  our 
prayers  to  the  heavenly  tribunal ;  prayer  for  the  departed 
in  the  prayer  for  the  whole  Church,  and  in  the  burial 
service  ;  the  option  as  to  auricular  confession  ;  the  reserva- 
tion of  the  consecrated  elements  for  the  sick ;  the  rubric 
as  to  the  use  of  vestments,  cope,  albe,  etc.  ;  the  benedic- 
tion of  water  in  the  baptismal  service  ;  chrism,  or  anoint- 
ing in  baptisms,  and  the  visitation  of  the  sick ;  chrism,  or 
the  white  robe  in  baptism  ;  the  Holj'  Communion  at 
funerals. 

The  following  additions  were  made  : — 

"  The  sentences,  exhortation,  confession,  and  absolution 
at  the  beginning  of  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer ;  a 
rubric  allowing  the  communion  table  to  stand  in  the  body 
of  the  church  ;  the  commandments  and  responses  in  the 
Communion  Ser\-ice  ;  a  new  exhortation  to  the  negligent 
in  the  Communion  Service,  by  Peter  Martyr ;  the  words 
'  militant  here  on  earth '  in  the  title  of  the  prayer  for  '  the 
whole  state  of  Christ's  Church ' ;  the  declaration  against 
corporeal  presence,  appended  by  order  of  Council  to 
Communion  Service." 

The  following  cJiatiges  were  also  made  : — 

"The  Service  appointed  to  be  said  where  the  people 
could  best  hear ;  common  bread  in  the  Holy  Communion 
instead  of  wafer  bread ;  the  words  that  '  we  receive  these 
thy  creatures  of  bread  and  wine,  may  be  partakers  of  his 
most  blessed  body  and  blood,'  instead  of  that  '  they  may 
be  unto  us  the  body  and  blood  of  thy  most  dearly  beloved 
Son,  Jesus  Christ.'  "  ^ 

1  See  Dr  Blakeney's  "Handbook  on  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of 
England,  "  pp.  29,  30.    London,  18S4. 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


Such,  then,  were  the  principal  alterations  under  the 
judicious  guidance  of  Cranmer.  Further  alterations  were 
made  under  Elizabeth,  purging  the  Service  from  the  last 
relics  of  Romanism. 

That  there  could  be  nothing  offensive  or  heterodox  in 
even  the  subsequently  revised  Service,  or  that  thereby  the 
Church  of  England  apostatised  from  the  Christian  faith,  or 
could  be  adjudged  heretical,  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
Pope  himself,  who  offered  to  legalise  the  reformed  Liturgy 
of  Elizabeth  if  she  would  accept  it  at  his  hands.  Lord 
Coke,  in  his  charge  at  the  Norwich  Assizes,  4th  August 
1606,  stated  that  he  had  often  heard  from  Queen  Elizabeth 
that  Pius  IV.  had  offered  to  accept  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer ;  and  that  he  had  also  frequently  conferred  with 
noblemen  of  the  highest  rank  in  the  State  who  had  seen 
and  read  the  Pope's  letter  to  that  effect. 

But  further  than  this.  The  Reformation  itself,  so  nobly 
begun  by  Edward  and  completed  by  Elizabeth,  also  prac- 
tically received  the  sanction  of  the  Pope — on  terms,  how- 
ever, which  Elizabeth  refused  to  accept.  Pope  Paul,  find- 
ing that  Elizabeth  was  firm  and  determined  to  hold  her 
own  against  his  usurpation,  offered  to  her  to  let  things 
remain  as  they  were,  provided  she  would  acknowledge  his 
Primacy,  and  accept  the  Reformation  from  him.^ 

His  successor,  Pius  IV.,  proffered  the  same  conditions  to 
the  Queen  by  letter,  written  Sth  May  1560,  wherein  he 
offered  to  comply  with  all  her  requests  to  the  utmost  of 
his  power,  provided  she  would  allow  of  his  Primacy.^  He 
addressed  the  Queen  as  "  our  most  dear  Daughter  in  Christ, 

*  See  Sir  Roger  Twysden  s  "Vindication  of  the  Church  of  England,"  p. 
148,  London,  1657,  and  Cambridge,  1847,  p.  177. 

The  Latin  letter  is  included  in  Dr  Cardwell's  documentary  "  Annals  of 
the  Reformed  Church  of  England,"  Oxford,  1839,  vol.  i.  p.  233  ;  and  see 
Sir  Roger  Twysden,  as  above. 


2l6       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,"  expressing  his  great  desire 
"  to  take  care  of  her  salvation,  and  to  provide  as  well  for 
her  honour  as  the  establishment  of  her  kingdom."  These 
"  velvet  paws  "  had,  however,  "  claws,"  which  soon  made 
their  appearance.  For  not  complying  with  the  Pope's 
modest  request,  he  solemnly  damned  Elizabeth,  his  "  dear 
Daughter  in  Christ,"  to  all  eternity  with  bell,  book,  and 
candle ;  much  in  the  same  terms  as  contained  in  the  Bull 
anathematising  her  father. 

Under  the  above  circumstances,  it  does  appear  rather 
hard  and  contradictory  that  Cranmer  should  have  been 
charged  with  the  crime  of  heresy,  and  burnt  alive, — the  same 
sentence  the  Pope  passed  on  Elizabeth,  but  as  he  could 
not  execute  it  in  this  world,  he  relegated  that  process  to 
the  next ! 

The  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Edward  was  signalised 
by  political  intrigues,  resulting  in  the  execution  of 
Somerset,  and  the  ambitious  claims  put  forward  by  North- 
umberland on  behalf  of  Lady  Jane  Grey.  Whether 
Somerset  deserved  his  sad  fall  and  fate  are  matters  for 
history.  Cranmer  was  foremost  in  the  defence  of  Somerset. 
His  letter  to  the  Nobles  engaged  in  the  proceedings  against 
the  Protector  induced  them  for  a  time  to  falter  in  their 
determination.  At  the  same  time,  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
remonstrate  with  Northumberland  on  the  vices  and  pro- 
fanity of  his  supporters.  But  we  have  yet  to  learn  why 
Cranmer  should  be  made  responsible  for  the  acts  of 
Somerset  or  Northumberland. 

With  reference  to  Lady  Dudley,  more  commonly  known 
as  Lady  Jane  Grey,  when  the  legal  instruments  for  set- 
tling the  crown  upon  this  unfortunate  Lady  were  completed, 
Cranmer,  as  one  of  the  Council,  was  called  upon  to  sign  it. 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


21/ 


He  at  first  refused  to  do  so,  alleging  his  oath  to  the  King  ; 
he,  however,  ultimately  consented  on  the  urgent  request  of 
Edward,  then  almost  dying,  backed  by  the  assurance  of 
the  highest  legal  authorities  of  the  land.  He  was  the  last 
to  put  his  signature  to  it,  and  after  the  cautious  Cecil  had 
himself  signed.  The  document,  altering  the  succession  of 
the  crown  in  favour  of  Jane  Grey,  is  dated  2ist  June  1553. 
It  is  the  part  Cranmer  took  in  signing  this  document  that 
formed  one  of  the  subsequent  charges  against  him  of  "  high 
treason,"  and,  by  his  modern  assailants,  of  perjury. 

During  Edward's  reign  a  new  code  was  being  prepared 
but  never  completed,  entitled  "  Reformatio  Legum  Eccle- 
siasticarum."  On  the  preparation  of  this  code,  Cranmer, 
as  President  of  the  Commission,  was  assisted  by  Prelates, 
divines,  and  lawyers,  in  all  numbering  thirty-two.  Among 
these  we  find  Thomas  Goodrich,  Bishop  of  Ely  ;  Richard 
Cox,  Almoner  of  the  King  ;  William  May  ;  Rowland  Taylor 
of  Hadleigh  ;  John  Lucas ;  Richard  Goodrich,  and  Peter 
Martyr.  Had  it  passed  into  law,  it  would  have  been  so  far 
an  improvement  on  the  Papal  system,  that  the  punishment 
of  death  was  not  awarded  for  heresy  ;  but  they  appear,  un- 
happily, to  have  incorporated  in  their  proposed  system  the 
provisions  of  the  Act  of  Parliament  passed  in  essentially 
*'  Popish "  times,  that  death  should  be  awarded  to  those 
who  "  denied  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
the  Catholic  faith,  the  doctrine  of  the  blessed  Trinity." 
And  in  this  we  perceive  the  old  leaven  of  hereditary  perse- 
cuting spirit  still  operating.  Members  of  the  unreformed 
Church  should,  of  all  persons,  be  the  last  to  condemn  this 
suggested  code  on  the  ground  of  its  severity. 

On  this  document,  Dr  Lingard,  in  relating  the  persecu- 
tions under  Mary,  observes  : — 

"  Fortunately  for  the  professors  of  the  ancient  faith,  Edward  died 


2l8       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


before  the  code  of  ecclesiastical  laws,  supplied  by  Crainner,  had 
obtained  the  sanction  of  the  Legislature  :  by  the  accession  of  Mary. 
The  power  of  the  sword  passed  from  the  hands  of  one  religious  party 
to  those  of  the  other ;  and  within  a  short  time  Cranmer  and  his 
associates  perished  in  the  flames  which  they  had  prepared  to  kindle 
for  their  opponents."  ^ 

Independent  of  the  gross  misrepresentation  conveyed  by 
the  above  extracts,  that  Romanists  would  have  been  burnt 
as  heretics  had  the  law  come  into  force,  Cranmer  and  his 
associates  are  to  be  condemned  for  a  supposed  intention 
which  might  never  have  been  sanctioned  by  Parliament,  and 
certainly  was  not  included  in  the  proposed  code  of  laws, 
and  we  are  to  acquit  Romanists  for  the  real  act,  to  whom 
"  the  power  of  the  sword "  had  been  claimed  to  be 
transferred,  as  if  they  have  not  all  along  wielded  that 
sword  with  fearful  cruelty  on  alleged  heretics.  It  was  no 
doubt  Dr  Lingard's  hope  to  persuade  his  readers,  that 
persecutors  Avere  equally  busy  on  both  sides,  and  that 
Cranmer  and  his  associates  led  the  way  to  the  atrocities  of 
Mary  or  that  of  her  agents.  Mr  Charles  Butler  charitably 
adds,  "  Mary  did  no  more  than  execute  against  Cranmer 
and  his  associates  the  punishments  to  which  he  had  wished 
Mar}'  and  her  associates  to  be  exposed  to  their  projected 
persecutions."  Mary's  tools  wanted  no  example  to  be  set 
before  them,  they  had  ample  precedent  and  authority, 
without  seeking  shelter  under  the  wings  of  the  Reformers. 
They  acted  on  an  hereditary  prescription  of  six  hundred 
years  ;  and,  judging  from  the  condemnation  of  Cranmer,  by 
his  late  biographers,  for  even  mentioning  in  a  letter  to  a 
friend,  as  the  news  of  the  day,  in  an  offhand  manner  (as  we 
have  seen),  the  condemnation  of  Fryth  to  the  flames,  as 
exhibiting  in  Cranmer  a  frightful  depravity,  they  appear 
jealous  that  any  one  else,  out  of  their  own  communion 

^  "  Historj-  of  England,"  vol.  vii.  p.  258. 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


should  indulge  in  the  questionable  luxury  of  roasting  a  few- 
heretics.  Cranmer  is  justly  condemned  for  this  exhibition 
of  levity,  in  so  important  a  transaction  as  burning  a  heretic, 
but  they  have  not  one  tear  to  shed,  or  one  sympathising 
regret  for  the  cruel  fate  of  Cranmer,  when,  even  after  he 
had  been  betrayed  by  promises  of  pardon  into  recantations 
of  his  alleged  heresy,  he  was  notwithstanding  burnt  alive. 
No  !  Cranmer,  they  tell  us,  only  suffered  by  the  same  fires 
he  would  have  himself  kindled.  Such  is  the  force  of 
religious  prejudice. 

During  Edward's  reign  "  plundering "  of  monastic 
properties  was  continued  with  greater  recklessness  than  in 
the  preceding  reign ;  the  parties  of  the  court  dividing  the 
spoils.  Cranmer  and  the  leading  Reformers  protested 
against  the  work  of  destruction.  The  Primate  expressed 
his  anxiety  that  the  revenues  thus  derived  should  be 
dedicated  to  the  advancement  of  learning  and  religion.^ 
In  fact  Cranmer  actually  surrendered  to  the  King,  under 
the  Act  of  Parliament,  "twelve  good  manors  of  the  See  of 
Canterbury;"  and  he  conveyed  to  him  the  parks  and 
splendid  residences  of  the  Archbishop  at  Oxford,  at 
Knowles  and  at  Mayfield. 

The  vandalism  of  the  times  cannot  be  justified  on  any 
grounds,  except  on  the  excuse  that  they  followed  the 
example  of  their  predecessors.  Martin  Bucer,  in  a  letter  to 
the  Marquis  of  Dorset,  exclaimed  : — 

"It  has  been  well  said  that  no  one  ever  grew  rich  by  pillage  of 
private  or  public  property.  What  sense  of  God  can  that  man  have 
who  hopes  that  permanent  wealth  can  be  built  up  by  the  hands  of 
sacrilege  ?  If  the  drones  must  be  driven  out  of  the  hive,  why  should 
wasps  and  hornets  be  let  in,  to  gorge  themselves  on  its  stores  ?" 

*  See  p.  291  of  the  4th  vol.  of  his  "  Remains,"  Jenkyns'  Edition,  Oxford, 
1833,  and  note  b,  and  his  letter  addressed  to  Crumwell,  dated  29  Nov.  1539. 
2  Quoted  by  Le  Bas.    "  Life  of  Cranmer,"  vol.  ii.  p.  261.  1833. 


2  20       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Latimer  also  raised  his  voice  against  the  sacrileges  ;  in 
the  presence  of  the  King  he  is  reported  to  have  said : 

"Thus  much  I  say  unto  you  Magistrates — if  ye  will  not  maintain 
schools  and  universities,  ye  shall  have  a  brutality." 

Such  was  their  barbarity,  that  valuable  books  were 
destroyed,  which  "  were  guilty  of  no  other  superstition  but 
red  letters  on  their  fronts  or  titles."  These  proceedings 
form  the  blackest  page  in  the  history  of  early  (so-called) 
Reformers,  and  the  subsequent  "  white-washing "  by  the 
Absolution  of  the  Pope  in  confirming  the  titles  of  the 
plunderers,  is  but  a  sorry  justification.  The  clerical 
Leaders  of  the  Reformation  strongly  inveighed  against 
these  outrages. 

It  is  true  that  these  marauders  had  the  example  before 
them  of  their  unreformed  predecessors  of  the  previous 
reign,  both  in  England  and  Ireland,  and  that  they  were 
actuated  by  a  violent  reaction  consequent  on  the  exposure 
of  the  frauds  and  vices  of  the  inmates  of  the  various 
ecclesiastical  establishments  ;  but  that  would  not  justify 
vandalism.  If  the  vandalism  of  some  of  these  so-called 
Reformers  exemplified  their  enthusiasm  for  their  newly 
acquired  religion,  their  conduct  will  bear  favourable  com- 
parison with  the  unreformed,  who  considered  that  they 
were  doing  God  service  in  torturing,  burning,  and  other- 
wise extirpating  those  who  happened  to  differ  from  them 
on  questions  of  abstract  dogmas,  miscalled  religion.^ 

Edward  died  6th  July  1553.  With  the  death  of  Edward 
Cranmer's  public  career  was  suddenly  brought  to  a  close, 
and  his  further  schemes  of  reform  arrested.    While  the 

1  The  Rev.  R.  \V.  Dixon,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Church  of  England,"  vol. 
ii.  p.  71  et  seq.,  1881,  sets  forth  the  vandaHsm  of  the  unreformed  under 
Henr)'  VIII.  in  the  destruction  of  all  the  shrines,  monuments,  and  painted 
windows  relating  to  Thomas  a  Becket ;  and  on  p.  206  their  general  vandalism 
on  edifices,  books,  MSS.  &c. 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 


22  I 


majority  of  Edward's  Bishops  and  Clergy  recanted  and 
again  accepted  the  Pope's  spiritual  jurisdiction,  Crannner, 
Ridley,  Latimer,  and  Hooper  consistently  refused.  True,  the 
progress  of  the  Reformation  had  been  abruptly  checked,  but 
the  seeds  had  been  sown.  Henry  had  weeded  the  garden, 
Edward  sowed  the  seed,  Mary  harrowed  the  ground  and 
fertilised  it  with  the  blood  of  martyrs,  and  Elizabeth  reaped 
a  glorious  harvest !  "  Under  which  we  have  enjoyed  more 
liberty,  we  have  acquired  more  glory,  we  possess  more 
character  and  power,  than  hitherto  has  befallen  the  lot  of 
any  other  country  on  the  globe."  ^ 

F.S. — There  is  a  remarkable  confirmation  of  the  observation  made 
by  Cranmer  (a/iie,  p.  211,  first  paragraph),  in  our  own  times,  found  in 
the  March  number,  1857,  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Monthly,  The  Rambler^ 
under  the  title  of  "  Literary  Cookery."  The  main  object  of  the 
Article  appears  to  be  to  lecture  Roman  Catholic  controversialists  on 
the  necessity  of  cultivating  the  virtues  of  openness  and  truth-telling, 
acknowledging  that  they  are  at  present  too  liable  to  the  charge  of 
"shirking  of  difficulties,  cooking  of  figures,  cobbling  history,  philo- 
sophy, and  science,"  to  meet  their  purpose.  The  Rambler  then  makes 
the  following  startling  acknowledgment : — "  See  how  unfair  we  Roman 
Catholic  writers  often  are — how  we  keep  back  the  strong  points  of  our 
opponents,  and  put  forward,  in  our  own  behalf,  arguments  which  will 
not  bear  to  be  carefully  examined  ;  how  we  think  ourselves  bound  to 
show  that  there  is  not  a  jot  or  scrap  of  truth  in  any  of  the  enemies  of 
the  Catholics  ;  that  all  who  oppose  us,  or  contend  with  us,  are  both 
morally  reprobate  and  intellectually  impotent."  Coming  from  a  Roman 
Catholic  Periodical,  this  I  consider  a  remarkable  confirmation  of  Cran- 
mer's  charge  against  Romanists  of  his  day,  which  is  not  the  less  true 
now  than  at  that  time.  This  I  have  conclusively  proved  in  my 
"  Reply"  (Shaw  &  Co.,  London,  1887)  to  "  Cathohc  Belief,"  a  recent 
work  in  its  sixth  edition,  confidently  recommended  by  Cardinal 
Manning. 

'  Speech  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  in  the  House  of  Commons,  9th  May  1S17. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  dwell  on  the  harrowing  scenes 

which  took  place  during  the  short  reign  of  Queen  Mary. 

She  was  a  devout  "  Papist,"  and,  no  doubt,  acted  under 

the  firm  conviction  that  she  was  doing  God's  service.  She 

and  her  advisers  were  faithfully  and  zealously  carrying 

out  the  Papal  system  of  enforcing  their  religious  belief,  in 

accordance  with  the  recognised  principles  of  the  un reformed 

Church.    Whether  the  Queen  was  personally  responsible, 

or  her  Bishops,  for  the  burnings  of  so-called  "heretics,"  the 

adherents  of  the  Roman  Church  do  not  seem  to  be  agreed. 

An  anxious  desire  is  exhibited  to  shield  the  Queen  ;  while 

Charles  Butler,  Esq.,^  says  : — 

"  There  appears  to  be  reason  to  think  that  Mary's  Bishops  in 
general  did  not  promote  the  persecutions.  Little  blame  seems  imput- 
able to  Cardinal  Pole,  or  Bishop  Tunstal ;  more  is  chargeable  to 
Gardyner  ;  the  greatest  part  of  the  odium  fell  on  Bonner.  Dr 
Lingard  suggests  some  observations  which,  he  thinks,  render  it  very 
probable  that  neither  Bishops  Gardyner  nor  Bonner  were  quite  so 
guilty  as  they  have  been  represented." 

That   the   burnings   took   place  under   Papal  rule  is 

admitted.     Who,  then,  was  responsible .''     Mary  strictly 

conformed  to  the  spirit  of  the  times.    We  have  only  to 

deal  with  the  cruel  fate  of  Cranmer.    There  can  be  no 

doubt  that  for  this  the  Pope  of  Rome  was  ultimately 

responsible.    Cranmer  was  tried  by  a  Papal  Commission, 

and  was  excommunicated  by  a  Papal  Consistory.  The 

'  "  Book  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,"  p.  207.    London,  1825. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


223 


Papal  Commission  deprived  the  Primate  of  his  office  as 
Archbishop,  and  the  Pope  confirmed  the  sentence  of  death. 

Cranmer,  we  have  seen,  signed  the  instrument  settHng 
the  succession  on  Lady  Dudley — ("Lady  Jane  Grey.)  ^  It 
does  not  appear  that  Cranmer  took  any  part  in  placing  her 
on  the  throne.  Her  triumph  was  but  of  short  duration. 
Cranmer,  Lady  Jane,  her  husband,  and  two  of  the  other 
sons  of  the  Duke  of  Northumberland,  were  tried  on  the 
13th  November  1553,  at  the  Guild  Hall,  and  found  guilty 
of  high  treason,  which  judgment  was  confirmed  by  Act  of 
Parliament.  Why  Cecil  and  the  others  who  signed  the 
same  document,  were  not  likewise  prosecuted,  does  not 
appear.  Sir  John  Cheke  obtained  the  Queen's  pardon. 
Lady  Jane  Grey  paid  the  penalty  by  death  on  the  block, 
as  a  traitor,  without  any  mercy  being  shewn  to  her.  Queen 
Elizabeth  has  been  branded  as  a  cruel  tyrant  for  having 
consented,  after  a  long  delay,  to  the  execution  of  Mary, 
Queen  of  Scots,  who  had  notoriously  fostered  dangerous 
rebellions ;  she  had  even  assumed  the  royal  arms  of 
England.  With  these  facts  clearly  established,  Elizabeth 
has  been  the  subject  of  bitter  attacks,  while  the  execution 
of  this  unfortunate  lady  is  scarcely  censured. 

With  regard  to  the  Document  of  Succession,  we  find  a 
long  letter,  written  by  Cranmer,  while  in  prison,  to  the 
Queen,  endeavouring  to  exculpate  himself  from  the  charge 
of  treason,  on  the  ground  principally  that  he  signed  it  after 
protesting  against  the  Act,  that  he  signed  it  with  great 
reluctance,  and  on  the  urgent  importunity  of  the  Council 
and  of  Edward  himself.     He  implored  the  Queen  to 

'  Lady  Jane  Grey  was  daughter  of  the  Duke  of  Suffolk,  and  grand-daughter 
of  Mary,  the  sister  of  Henry  VIIL  She  married  Lord  Guildford  Dudley,  the 
fourth  son  of  the  Duke  of  Northumberland.  Presuming  Mary  and  Elizabeth 
were  illegitimate,  Lady  Dudley  would  have  been  next  in  right  of  succession  to 
the  throne  of  England. 


2  24       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


pardon  him  for  this  act  of  treason,  which  he  stated  only 
carried  out  "the  sentence  of  the  judges,  and  other  his 
learned  council  in  the  laws  of  this  realm."  ^  His  pleading 
was  of  no  avail,  but  he  was  reserved  for  a  more  serious 
charge — in  the  estimation  of  the  Roman  Church — that  of 
heresy.  Cranmer,  it  must  be  observed,  was  then  in  no 
way  concerned  to  repel  the  charge  of  heresy.  He  appeared 
alone  anxious,  as  a  loyal  subject,  not  to  suffer  as  a  traitor 
to  his  Sovereign. 

The  first  act  of  the  Archbishop  under  Mary  was  to  deny 
a  charge  of  having  performed  Solemn  Mass  for  the  repose 
of  the  soul  of  Henry,  according  to  Romish  rites,  in  order 
to  secure  the  favour  of  the  Queen.  He  prepared  a 
document  denying  the  truth  of  the  rumour.  It  was  Dr 
Thornton,  in  fact,  who  performed  the  service  at  Canter- 
bur}-  Cathedral,  and  Day  at  Westminster  Abbey.  A 
copy  of  this  statement  fell  into  the  hands  of  Scory,  then 
Bishop  of  Rochester.  Multiplied  copies  were  extensively 
circulated.  When  charged  with  having  written  this  docu- 
ment, the  Primate  did  not  repudiate  it,  but  only  expressed 
his  regret  that  it  had  prematurely  appeared,  as  it  had 
been  his  intention  to  issue  a  more  perfect  document. 

With  reference  to  this  charge,  the  Archbishop's  denial 
was  headed : — 

"A  declaration  of  the  Rev.  Father  in  God,  Thomas  Cranmer,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  the  untrue  and  slanderous  report  of  some, 
which  have  reported  that  he  should  set  up  Mass  at  Canterburj-,  at  the 
first  coming  of  the  Queen  to  her  reign,  1 553." 

In  this  document  we  find  the  following  passage,  and  it  is 
quoted  here  simply  because  the  accusation  is  repeated  even 
at  the  present  day  as  proof  of  Cranmer's  alleged  incon- 
sistent conduct : — 

^  Cranmer's  "  Remains,"  by  Jenkyns,  vol.  i.  p.  360,  Letter  ccxcv. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom.  225 


"And  as  for  offering  myself  to  say  Mass  before  the  Queen's  High- 
ness, or  in  any  other  place,  I  never  did,  as  her  Grace  knoweth  well. 
But  if  her  Grace  will  give  me  leave,  I  shall  be  ready  to  prove  against 
all  that  will  say  to  the  contrary  ;  and  that  the  Communion  Book  set 
forth  by  the  most  innocent  and  godly  Prince  King  Edward  VI.,  in  his 
high  Court  of  Parliament,  is  conformable  to  the  order  which  our 
Saviour  Christ  did  both  observe  and  command  to  be  observed,  and 
which  His  Apostles  and  His  primitive  Church  used  many  years  ; 
whereas  the  Mass  in  many  things  not  only  hath  no  foundation  in 
Christ,  His  Apostles,  nor  the  primitive  Church,  but  also  is  manifest 
contrary  to  the  same,  and  containeth  many  horrible  blasphemies  in 
it."  1 

It  may  be  mentioned  that  the  Sarum  Office,  which  was 
identical  in  all  essential  points  with  the  Roman  ritual,  had 
been  restored  by  Act  of  Parliament  in  1553.  The  Sarum 
Office  had  been  in  use  in  the  last  year  of  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  Cranmer  never,  as  has  been  alleged, 
acquiesced  in  the  re-introduction  of  that  ritual.^ 

Cranmer  now  saw  that  his  doom  was  sealed.  He  set 
about  at  once  to  put  his  house  in  order.  His  .steward  was 
directed  to  discharge  all  outstanding  debts,  which,  when 

^  "  Memorials  of  Cranmer,"  .Strype,  p.  437.    Oxford,  1812. 

^  It  was  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Pocock,  the  editor  of  Burnett's  "  History  of  the 
Reformation,"  who  said  that  Cranmer  "  was  contented  to  celebrate  the  office  of 
the  Mass  at  the  very  time  when  he  believed  it  to  be  idolatrous  and  blas- 
phemous." The  fact  being  that  from  the  gradual  change  in  his  views  which 
commenced  in  1546,  Cranmer  left  no  stone  unturned  to  get  rid  of  every  known 
accretion  which  then  obscured  and  defiled  the  Lord's  Supper.  Thus,  even  be- 
fore the  repeal  of  the  bloody  Act  of  the  "  Six  Articles,"  he  procured  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  "scaring  bell,"  which  gave  occasion  to  the  "idolatry"  to  the 
vulgar;  and  this  was  followed  by  the  order  of  1548  forbidding  any  elevation; 
and  this  again  by  the  "  first  Prayer-Book,"  from  which  every  expression  which 
implied  a  Real  Presence  and  proper  Sacrifice  had  been  carefully  weeded  out. 
(See  Eascourt's  "Dogmatic  Teaching  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  p.  40.) 
Mr  Pocock,  after  the  manner  of  all  "  Ritualistic  "  Priests,  never  omits  to  abuse 
Cranmer  when  an  opportunity  offers.  Mr  Pocock  is  an  advanced  member  of 
that  school,  and  his  opinions  must  be  accepted  with  caution.  (l.)  He  is  a 
Member  of  the  English  Church  Union.  (2.)  He  signed  the  Petition  for 
Licensed  Confessors.  (3.)  He  signed  the  Petition  to  Convocation  in  favour  of 
Popish  vestments.  (4.)  He  signed  the  Petition  for  the  toleration  of  extreme 
ritual.    (5.)  And  he  signed  the  remonstrance  against  the  Purchase  judgment, 

P 


226       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


effected,  his  mind  was  set  at  rest,  and  he  was  now  pre- 
pared to  meet  the  worst.  He  was  summoned  before  the 
Queen's  Commissioners  to  deHver  an  inventory  of  all  his 
goods.  It  appears  that  the  original  intention  was  only  to 
deprive  the  Archbishop  of  his  See,  and  to  prohibit  him 
from  interfering  in  matters  of  religion,  since  all  the  others 
who  had  signed  the  Succession  document  had  been  dis- 
charged ;  but  evil  counsels  prevailed.  He  gave  advice  to 
others  to  escape  the  coming  persecution  he  clearly  foresaw, 
but  refused  to  act  on  the  advice  of  friends  tendered  to  him 
to  the  same  effect.  He  had  ample  opportunities  of  escape. 
The  charge  against  him  for  treason  was,  either  originally 
withdrawn,  or  considered  to  be  merged  into  the  greater 
crime  of  heresy.  He  was  arrested  in  September  1553,  and 
sent  to  the  Tower,  and  from  thence  to  Oxford,  with  Ridley 
and  Latimer.  Here  he  was  confronted,  and  put  under 
examination,  on  the  12th  September;  and,  after  some 
tedious  disputations  with  Dr  Weston  and  others,  members 
of  both  Universities,  he  was  adjudged  a  heretic,  and  com- 
mitted to  "Bocardo"^  or  common  jail. 

It  was  between  two  or  three  years  before  the  Pope's 
authority  was  again  re-established  in  England,  but  subse- 
quently all  Acts  of  Parliament  passed  by  Henry  VIII.,  on 
that  subject,  were  repealed;  and  until  then  there  was  no  law 
under  which  Cranmer  could  be  legally  adjudged  as  an 
Ecclesiastic,  hence  his  long  and  tedious  incarceration.  It 
was  not  until  September  1555,  after  two  years  of  suffering, 
that  Cranmer  was  again  brought  up  to  judgment,  before  Dr 
Brooks,  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  as  President,  acting  as  the 
Pope's  sub-legate,  and  a  Royal  Commission.  On  appear- 
ing before  this  tribunal,  he  bowed  respectfully  to  the 

1  "  Bocardo  is  a  stinking,  filthy  prison  for  drunkards,  and  harlots,  and  the 
vilest  sort  of  people." — "  Coverdale,"  quoted  by  Le  Bas. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


227 


Royal  Commission,  but  refused  to  recognise  the  Pope's 
representative. 

In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Queen  at  this  time  he 
bitterly  complained  of  being  judged  by  this  foreign  tribunal. 
He  wrote  : — 

"  It  cannot  but  grieve  the  heart  of  any  natural  subject  to  be  accused 
of  the  King  and  Queen  of  his  own  realm,  and  especially  before  an  out- 
ward judge,  or  by  authority  coming  from  any  person  out  of  this  realm, 
where  the  King  and  Queen,  as  if  they  were  subjects  within  their  own 
realm,  shall  complain  and  require  justice  at  a  stranger's  hands  against 
their  own  subject,  being  already  condemned  to  death  by  their  own 
laws.  As  though  the  King  and  Queen  could  not  do  or  have  justice 
within  their  own  realms  against  their  own  subjects,  but  they  must  seek 
it  at  a  stranger's  hands  in  a  strange  land  ;  the  like  whereof,  I  think, 
was  never  seen."  * 

By  this  tribunal  Cranmer  was  charged  with  treason,  for 
having  signed  the  instrument  for  settling  the  crown  on 
Lady  Jane  Grey  (Lady  Dudley),  heresy  for  his  works  and 
public  teaching,  and  adultery  for  having  married  as  a 
Priest.  It  is  needless  to  repeat  here  Cranmer's  defence,  as 
given  by  Fox,  Strype,  and  by  all  of  his  subsequent  bio- 
graphers. As  to  the  charge  of  heresy,  his  argument  may 
be  summed  up  in  the  words  of  the  Apostle  Paul : — "  the 
way  which  they  call  heresy,  so  worship  I  the  God  of  my 
fathers,  believing  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  law 
and  the  prophets."  "  The  Bishop  of  Rome  (he  added) 
treadeth  under  foot  God's  laws  and  the  King's."  2  As  to 
the  charge  of  adultery,  objecting  that  he  was,  as  a  Priest, 
married,  and  that  his  children  were  "  bondsmen,"  he  per- 

1  "Cranmer's  Remains,"  Jenkyns,  vol.  i.  pp.  369-370. 

^  A  late  writer,  a  member  of  the  unreformerl  Church,  thus  curtly  sums  up 
Cranmer's  defence  (the  italics  are  as  in  the  original): — "The  substance  of 
Cranmer's  elaborate  reply  was  to  the  effect,  that  at  no  time  did  he  believe  in 
the  principles  of  the  Catholic  Church,  although  he  had  repeatedly  sworn  to  those 
principles  with  the  most  open  solemnity,  and  sent  men  and  women  to  the  stake 
for  not  maintaining  them."  (J.  Hodges,  Soho  Square.)  A  statement  so 
utterly  devoid  of  truth  that  it  is  surprising  that  the  writer  should  have  had  the 
effrontery  to  offer  it  to  the  public  as  a  historical  fact. 


228       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

tinently  asked  whether  the  children  of  unmarried  Priests 
were  to  be  placed  on  the  same  level  with  his  own  honest 
issue.  There  was  no  law  in  England  to  restrain  the 
marriage  of  Priests.  As  to  denying  the  Pope's  Supremacy, 
with  which  he  was  also  charged,  he  retorted  by  referring 
to  the  fact  that  he  only  followed  the  example  of  his  pre- 
decessor, Archbishop  Warham,  as  also  all  the  authorities 
of  the  University  of  Oxford,  specially  naming  his  judge, 
Dr  Brooks,  himself,  who  directly  preferred  the  above 
charge  against  Cranmer.  They  sought  to  fix  on  him  the 
acknowledgment  that  the  King  was  supreme  head  of  the 
Church.  His  ready  reply  was  that  Christ  was  the  head  of 
the  Church — "  the  King  was  the  head  of  the  people  of 
England,  as  well  Ecclesiastical  and  temporal,  and  not  of 
the  Church."  ^ 

In  his  letter  "  to  the  Lords  of  the  Council,"  23d  April 
1 5  54,"  2  referring  to  his  examination,  he  wrote  : — 

"  But  concerning  myself,  I  can  report  that  I  never  knew  or  heard 
of  a  more  confused  disputation  in  all  my  life.  For,  albeit,  there  was 
one  appointed  to  dispute  against  me,  yet  every  man  spake  his  mind^ 
and  brought  forth  what  to  him  liked  without  order.  And  such  haste 
was  made  that  no  answer  could  be  suffered  to  be  given  fully  to  any 
argument  before  another  brought  a  new  argument.  The  means  to 
resolve  the  truth  had  been  to  have  suffered  us  to  answer  fully  to  all 
that  they  should  say,  and  then  they  again  to  answer  to  all  that  we 
could  say.  But  why  they  would  not  answer  us,  what  other  cause  can 
there  be  but  that  either  they  feared  the  matter,  that  they  were  not  able 
to  answer  us,  or  else  (as  by  their  haste  might  well  appear)  they  came 
not  to  speak  the  truth  but  to  condemn  us  in  post  haste  before  the 
truth  might  be  thoroughly  tried  and  heard.  For  in  all  haste  we 
[Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Latimer]  were  all  condemned  of  heresy." 

If  the  "principles  of  the  Catholic  Church  "  consisted  in 

^  This  is  much  the  same  sentiment  as  expressed  by  Archbishop  Warham, 
who  said  that  he  recognised  the  King  "as  the  supreme  protector,  the  only 
supreme  governor,  and,  so  far  as  Christ  permits,  the  supreme  head  of  the 
■  English  Church  and  clergy." 

*  "  Cranmer's  Remains,"  Jenkyns,  vol.  i.  p.  363,  Xo.  ccxcvii. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


229 


the  assumption  of  the  Pope's  supremacy  in  this  country, 
and  the  power  of  a  Priest  to  create  his  GOD  out  of 
bread,  then  Cranmer  was  justly  found  guilty  of  heresy,  but 
not  otherwise. 

Cranmer's  appeal  to  be  heard  by  a  General  Council  was 

peremptorily  refused,  whereupon  he  was  relegated  to  prison. 

He  was  then  cited  to  appear  at  Rome  within  a  given  time  ; 

but  being  a  close  prisoner  he  was  unable  to  appear  in 

answer  to  the  citation,  and  was  in  consequence  condemned 

as  "contumacious."    In  his  letter  to  the  Queen,  from  his 

prison,  Cranmer  wrote  : — 

"  As  for  mine  appearance  at  Rome,  if  your  Majesty  will  give  me 
leave  I  will  appear  there ;  and  I  trust  that  God  shall  put  in  my  mouth 
to  defend  his  truth  there  as  well  as  here.  But  I  refer  it  wholly  to  your 
Majesty's  pleasure." ' 

The  duty  of  passing  sentence  on  Cranmer  was  intrusted 
to  Bonner,  his  bitter  and  implacable  enemy.  The  sentence 
of  death  at  the  stake  was  pronounced  14th  February  1556. 

Throughout  these  proceedings  Bonner  acted  towards  the 
Primate  in  a  most  brutal  and  cowardly  manner,  subjecting 
him  to  every  possible  personal  indignity.  The  writ  of  exe- 
cution arrived  at  Oxford  a  day  or  two  after  its  date,  24th 
February.  Had  this  sentence  been  at  once  carried  out,  as 
in  the  cases  of  Latimer  and  Ridley,  who  had  been  executed 
some  months  before,  though  all  these  were  tried  at  the 
same  time,  in  all  probability  the  crowning  act  of  humilia- 
tion of  Cranmer's  retractation  would  not  have  taken  place. 
For,  up  to  the  present  time,  having  publicly  and  boldly 
maintained  his  reformed  principles,  and  his  repudiation  of 
the  authority  of  the  Pope,  whom  he  still,  before  his  judges, 
declared  to  be  Anti-christ,  he  must  have  known  that  his 
doom  was  the  STAKE.  Up  to  this  time  he  showed  no  signs 
of  fear  of  death.    He  was  again  sent  to  his  filthy  prison,  but 

'  "Cranmer's  Remains,"  Jenkyns,  vol.  i.  p.  384,  No.  ccc. 


230       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


his  execution  did  not  take  place  until  the  21st  March 
following ! 

Apprehension  of  evil  is  often  more  fraught  with  woe 
than  the  evil  itself;  and  Cranmer  was  now,  and  had  been, 
exposed  to  every  kind  of  temptation  which  could  assail  the 
weakness  of  human  nature.  His  was  no  quick  and  easy- 
passage  from  condemnation  to  execution.  He  was  close 
upon  three  years  a  prisoner,  and  throughout  all  that  long 
period  was  subject  to  every  sort  of  moral  and  physical 
torment  by  which  his  judgment  might  be  perverted,  his 
bodily  frame  exhausted,  his  will  subdued.  He  was  exposed 
for  a  greater  part  of  the  time  to  the  trial  of  solitary  confine- 
ment. He  was  alternately  assailed  with  threats  and  with 
promises  of  a  restoration  to  his  high  position.  Were  these 
no  temptations,  to  put  before  an  old  and  enfeebled  man, 
to  escape  the  horrors  of  the  fiery  ordeal  he  would  otherwise 
suffer  .''  The  prospect  was  held  out  to  him  with  the  promise 
of  his  life,  that  he  might  live  many  years  and  yet  enjoy 
dignity  or  ease  or  both ;  but  of  course  Cranmer  ought  to 
have  known  that  one  of  the  cardinal  virtues  of  the  Papacy 
was,  that  no  faith  need  be  kept  with  heretics.  He  was 
closeted  day  after  day  with  learned  controversialists, 
appealed  to  by  the  recollection  of  his  own  earlier  senti- 
ments, and  entreated  to  yield  to  the  suggestions  of  his  own 
kindly  nature.  He  was  for  a  time  made  a  guest  of  Dr 
Marshall  at  the  Deanery  of  Christ-Church,  where  he  was  at 
times  pampered  and  cajoled,  and  flattered  with  fair  promises, 
that  nothing  more  was  required  of  him  by  the  Queen  than 
his  submission,  and  from  comparative  luxury  was  sent  back 
again  to  his  filthy  prison  and  solitary  confinement. 

When  the  occupant  of  his  cell  in  Bocardo  prison  at 
Oxford,  he  was  witness  to  the  prolonged  sufferings  of  his 
beloved  Chaplain,  Bishop  Ridley,  and  saw  him  led  to 


CRANMEr's  FALL  AND  MARTYRDOM.  23  I 

execution  ;  and  who  can  tell  the  effects  of  such  a  spectacle 
on  a  mind,  left  for  days  to  its  own  isolated  and  self-concen- 
trated contemplations  ?  He  was  denied  all  literary  relaxa- 
tion.   In  his  letter  to  the  Queen  he  wrote  : — 

"  Furthermore,  I  am  kept  here  from  company  of  learned  men,  from 
books,  from  counsel,  from  pen  and  ink,  saving  at  this  time  (September 
1555);  to  write  to  your  Majesty,  which  all  were  necessary  for  a  man 
being  in  my  case."  ^ 

Clothed  in  all  the  symbolic  raiments  of  his  high  office, 
in  Alb,  Rochet,  and  Cope  ;  invested  with  Mitre,  Ring, 
Crozier,  and  Pallium  ; — not,  as  of  old,  fashioned  from  costly 
taffetas,  and  ornamented  with  rich  jewels,  but  now  in 
mockery  made  of  coarsest  canvas,  and  other  rude  mate- 
rials,— he  was  successively  deprived  of  each,  and  was  led 
back  to  prison  with  the  threadbare  gown  of  a  yeoman 
bedel  thrown  over  his  shoulders,  and  a  townsman's  greasy 
cap  forced  upon  his  head. 

Was  there  under  the  exterior  calmness  of  his  bearing, 
no  mental  pain  in  this  cruel  and  heartless  treatment  to  one 
whose  former  pomp  and  greatness  was  of  such  an  exalted 
and  glorious  description  .''  It  were  in  vain,  however,  to 
deny  the  fact.  The  good  Archbishop,  to  whose  gradually 
maturing  perceptions  of  sacred  truth  and  right  judgment, 
to  a  great  extent,  we  owe,  under  Providence,  the  great 
boon  of  the  Reformation,  did  ultimately  succumb,  through 
the  weakness  of  human  nature,  to  the  manifold  intricacies 
of  his  position  and  his  sufferings.  Cranmer,  under 
promise  of  freedom,  signed  his  recantation  on  the  i6th 
February  1556,  within  two  days  after  his  condemnation  to 
the  stake  ! 

Cranmer  fell  !  and  undoubtedly  great  was  the  fall. 
The  delay  in  pronouncing  the  inevitable  sentence  of 
death  arose  from  the  fact,  as  stated,  that,  until  the  laws  of 

^  "  Cranmer's  Remains,"  Jenkyns,  vol.  i.  p.  383,  Letter  ccc. 


232       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Henn- were  repealed,  the  Pope  would  have  had  no  jurisdic- 
tion in  this  country.  The  Pope  of  Rome  ratified  the  whole 
proceedings,  and  at  his  door  lies  the  ultimate  responsi- 
bility. In  fact,  the  Pope's  authorised  representatives  were 
Cranmer's  judges.  The  Pope  issued  his  mandate  for 
Cranmer's  degradation,  and  he  confirmed  the  sentence  of 
death  ! 

And  here  Dr  Lingard,  the  Roman  Catholic  Historian, 

calmly  sitting  in  his  study,  indited  the  following  passage  in 

reference  to  this  transaction  : — 

"  Cranmer  had  not  the  fortitude  to  look  death  in  the  face.  To  save 
his  life  he  feigned  himself  a  convert  to  the  established  creed, ^  openly 
condemned  his  past  delinquency  ;  and  stifling  the  remorse  of  his  con- 
science in  seven  [.']  successive  instruments  adjured  the  faith  which  he 
had  taught,  and  approved  of  that  which  he  had  opposed."  - 

Not  a  syllable  do  we  find  here  related  of  the  subtlety,  and 
even  indignities,  with  which  the  fortitude  of  the  Archbishop 
had  been  assailed,  and  subdued  ;  nor  the  manner  in  which 
the  instruments  of  adjuration  were  procured  (with  promises 
of  freedom),  and  in  which  they  appeared  !  "  Had  not  the 
fortitude  to  look  death  in  the  face  ! ''  Say,  rather,  the 
fortitude  to  contemplate  the  lingering  and  excruciating 
torments  of  the  stake  !  "  It  is  not  for  us,  who  are  placed 
beyond  the  reach  of  such  fiery  trials,  to  condemn  the 
weakness  for  which  he  made  the  atonement." 

It  was  the  learned  Priest  Erasmus,  contemporary-  of 
Cranmer,  who  made  the  open  and  candid  confession,  that 
he  had  "  no  inclination  to  die  for  the  truth.    Ever}-  man 

'  The  only  "  established  Creeds  "  of  the  Roman  Church,  at  that  time,  were 
the  Nicene,  Apostles,  and  Athanasian  Creeds.  These  three  Creeds  Cranmer 
maintained,  and  never  questioned.  Neither  Transubstantiation,  nor  the 
Supremacj-  of  the  Pope — the  two  principal  protests  of  Cranmer — formed  any 
part  of  the  Creed  of  the  Roman  Church.  The  Present — so-called — Pian 
Creed,  was  not  formulated  until  the  year  1564.  This  lax  way  of  wriung  is 
unpardonable  in  a  historian. 

*  "  History  of  England,"  vol.  vii.  p.  274-    London,  1S23-31. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


233 


has  not  the  courage  requisite  to  make  a  martyr  ;  and  I  am 
afraid,  if  I  were  put  to  the  trial,  I  should  imitate  St  Peter," 
and  thus  he  wrote  to  the  Dean  of  St  Paul's. 

The  following  is  the  description  given  by  Strype,  in  his 
"  Ecclesiastical  Memorials,"  of  the  transaction  : — 

"  Other  historians  speak  of  the  Archbishop's  recantation,  which  he 
made  upon  the  incessant  sohcitations  and  temptations  of  the  Popish 
zealots  at  Oxford.  Which  unworthy  compliance  he  was  at  last  pre- 
vailed upon  to  submit  to,  partly  by  the  flattery  and  terror  suggested  to 
him,  and  partly  by  the  hardships  of  his  own  straight  imprisonment. 
Our  writers  mention  only  one  recantation  ;  and  that  Foxe  hath  set 
down,  wherein  they  follow  him.  But  this  is  but  an  imperfect  relation 
of  this  good  man's  frailty.  I  shall  therefore  endeavour  to  set  down 
this  piece  of  history  more  distinctly.  There  were  several  recanting 
writings,  to  which  he  had  subscribed,  one  after  the  other;  for  after  the 
unhappy  Prelate,  by  over-persuasion,  wrote  one  paper  with  his  sub- 
scription set  to  it,  which  he  thought  to  pen  so  favourably  and  dexter- 
ously for  himself,  that  he  might  evade  both  the  danger  from  the  stake, 
and  the  danger  of  his  conscience  too,  that  would  not  serve,  but  an- 
otlier  was  required,  as  explanatory  of  that.  And  when  he  had  com- 
plied with  that,  yet  either  because  writ  briefly  or  too  ambiguously, 
neither  would  that  serve,  but  on  a  third,  fuller  and  more  expressive 
than  the  former.  Nor  could  he  scape  so  :  but  still  a  fourth  and  a 
Jifth  paper  of  recantation  were  demanded  of  him  to  be  more  large 
and  particular.  Nay  ;  and  lastly  a  sixth,  which  was  very  prolix,  con- 
taining an  acknowledgment  of  all  the  forsaken  and  detested  errors  and 
superstitions  of  Rome,  an  abhorrence  of  his  own  books,  and  a  vilify- 
ing of  himself  as  a  persecutor,  a  blasphemer,  and  a  mischief-maker  ; 
nay,  and  as  the  wickedest  wretch  that  lived.  And  this  was  not  all ; 
but  after  they  had  thus  humbled  and  mortified  the  miserable  man  with 
recantations,  subscriptions,  submissions,  and  adjurations,  putting 
words  into  his  inouth  which  his  heart  abhorred ;  by  all  this  drudgery 
they  would  not  permit  him  to  redeem  his  unhappy  life  ;  but  pre- 
pared him  a  renunciatory  oration  to  pronounce  publicly  in  St 
Mary's  Church  (Oxford)  immediately  before  he  was  led  forth  to  burn- 
ing. But  here  he  gave  his  enemies,  insatiable  in  their  reproaches  of 
him,  a  notable  disappointment.  They  verily  thought  that  when  they 
had  brought  him  thus  far,  he  would  still  have  said  as  they  would  have 
him.  But  herein  their  politics  failed  them  ;  and  by  this  last  stretch  of 
the  cord  all  was  undone,  which  they  with  so  much  art  and  labour  had 
effected  before.  For  the  reverend  man  began,  indeed,  his  speech 
according  to  their  appointment  and  pleasure,  but  in  the  process  of  it, 


234       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANI\IER. 


at  that  very  cue,  when  he  was  to  own  the  Pope  and  his  superstitions," 
and  to  revoke  his  own  book  and  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  (which 
was  to  be  brought  in  by  this  preface,  that  one  thing  above  all  the  rest 
troubled  his  conscience  beyond  all  that  he  ever  did  in  his  life),  he,  on 
the  contrary,  to  the  great  astonishment  and  vexation,  made  that  pre- 
face serve  to  his  revocation  and  abhorrence  of  his  former  extorted  sub- 
scriptions, and  to  his  free  owning  and  standing  to  his  book  wrote 
against  Transubstantiation,  and  the  owning  the  evangelical  doctrines 
he  had  before  taught." 

On  this  passage  Dr  Wordsworth  remarks^: — 

"  Notwithstanding  all  the  researches  of  the  historians,  it  cannot,  I 
think,  be  denied,  that  this  part  of  Cranmer's  story  is  involved  in  great 
obscurity  and  uncertainty.  That  Cranmer  made  a  submission  and  re- 
tractation, cannot  be  denied  ;  but  I  own,  I  know  not  how  to  reconcile 
six  submissions,  and  the  nature  of  them,  their  dates,  &c.,  with  other 
circumstances  of  the  narrative.  We  are  not  told  the  period  at  which 
he  was  removed  to  the  lodgings  of  the  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  and 
plied  with  the  several  topics  and  acts  of  seduction,  enumerated  by  Foxe. 
But  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  14th  of  February  was  the  day  of  his 
degradation,  at  which  time  surely  the  Archbishop's  behaviour  gave  no 
warnings  of  his  lamentable  fall :  and  yet  the  fourth  submission,  as 
published  by  Bonner  (and  it  would  seem  that  they  are  ranged  chrono- 
logically), is  dated  the  i6th  of  the  same  month,  only  two  days  after. 
There  are  other  very  suspicious  circumstances  accompanying  Bonner's 
publication.  But  the  above  remark,  I  think,  is  alone  sufficient  to 
show,  that  this  part  of  the  narrative  requires  further  elucidation." - 

Jenkyns  does  not  seem  to  place  much  reliance  on  these 

alleged  recantations.    He  writes  : — 

"  Immediately  after  this  Appeal,  or  perhaps  simultaneously  with  it, 
begins  the  story  of  his  Recantations.  These,  even  if  they  were  better 
authenticated  than  they  have  yet  been,  could  scarcely  claim  a  place 
in  the  present  publication.  Still  less  can  they  do  so,  when  surrounded, 
as  they  are,  with  doubt  and  difficulty."' 

If,  as  Dr  Hook  is  inclined  to  think,  Cranmer  made 

this  (public)  statement  in  the  belief  that  his  life  would  be 

^  "Ecclesiastical  Biography,"  vol.  iii.  p.  591.    London,  1839. 

-  Camerarius,  in  his  "  Life  of  Melancthon,"  seems  to  suspect  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  submissions. — "  Vita  P.  Mel.,"  p.  340.  Edit.  1655.  Forged 
recantations  were  not  infrequent.  Some  few  examples  are  given  in  an 
Appendix  to  this  Chapter. 

^  "Remains,"  vol.  i.  p.  cxvii.    Oxford,  1833. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


235 


spared  if  he  persisted  in  his  recantation,  he  seems  all  but 
entitled  to  the  crown  of  martyrdom.  If,  as  Macaulay 
maintains,  he  made  it  after  learning  that  he  was  to  die  in 
any  case,  and  that  a  lie  would  therefore  serve  him  as  little 
as  the  truth,  then,  as  Macaulay  says,  he  was  no  more  a 
martyr  than  Dr  Dodd.  The  question  is  important,  but 
there  are  no  materials  for  settling  it  definitively.^ 

It  is  a  well  -  known  physical  fact,  supported  by  the 
highest  men  of  science,  that  the  effect  on  an  individual 
subjected  to  long  mental  strain  and  bodily  sufiering,  is  that 
the  intellect  becomes  weakened  and  the  judgment  impaired. 
Such  was  the  state  of  Cranmer  after  his  three  years'  incar- 
ceration. Mr  S.  H.  Burke,  a  member  of  the  unreformed 
Church,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Tudor  Dynasty,"  thus 
describes  Cranmer's  appearance  at  the  time  : — 

"  Cranmer  appeared  weak  and  feeble.  It  is  stated  that  the  gaoler 
would  not  grant  him  a  seat,  so  he  had  to  lean  upon  a  staff.  His  con- 
dition at  this  moment  was  a  disgrace  to  the  authorities,  who  subse- 
quently shifted  the  censure  from  one  to  another.  His  clothes  were 
nearly  threadbare,  and  those  who  remembered  the  strong  and  active 
Prelate  of  a  few  years  before,  could  scarcely  have  recognised  him  now. 
His  jaws  were  drawn  in  ;  his  piercing  eyes  had  become  glossy  and 
sunk ;  the  pleasant  countenance  had  changed  to  the  woe-attenuated 
aspect  of  despair ;  his  long  beard  white  as  snow  ;  his  head  bald  ;  and 
his  whole  appearance  that  of  a  man  in  the  condition  of  uttermost 
distress  ;  so  that  his  '  veriest  enemies  seemed  moved  to  pity' — for  the 
moment."^ 

1  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  9th  edition.     "  Cranmer,"  p.  551. 

^  The  following  remarkable  statement  was  made  by  the  present  Archbishop 
of  York,  in  the  Upper  House  of  York  Convocation,  on  23d  April  1885,  as  to  the 
conduct  of  the  late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Dr  Tait,  with  reference  to  the 
retirement  of  the  Rev.  Mr  Mackonochie,  from  St  Alban's,  and  his  subsequent 
appointment  to  St  Peter's,  London  Docks,  as  reported  in  the  English 
Churchman  (30th  April),  p.  213,  col.  2  : — "  There  were  times  when  a  man  was 
sinking  out  of  this  life,  when  his  bodily  and  mental  faculties  were  disturbed, 
and  his  judgment  wavered  and  faltered.  That  being  so,  he  distrusted  the 
rumours  which  he  heard  from  time  to  time  of  this  or  that  eminent  person  having 
recanted  upon  his  death-bed  the  opinions  of  his  earlier  life — that  he  had 
joined  the  Church  of  Rome,  for  instance,  or  some  other  Communion.  It  was 
neither  just,  kind,  nor  charitable  to  sit  in  judgment  upon,  and  compare  with  the 
whole  of  his  previous  life,  what  a  man  had  said  in  his  dying  moments." 


236       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRAKMER. 

With  his  mind  thus  enfeebled  by  his  sufferings,  Cranmer 
was  an  easy  prey  to  his  persecutors,  and  readily  succumbed 
to  their  intrigues. 

When  once  the  loss  of  self-respect  was  incurred,  Cran- 
mer, if  these  several  recantations  were  genuine,  appears  to 
have  been  reckless  in  his  abject  misery,  and  only  sought 
for  a  season,  by  submission,  to  conciliate  his  ruthless 
persecutors.  It  is  now  of  little  concern  whether  he  signed 
one,  two,  three,  or  six  such  recantations.  Great  as  was  the 
fall,  still  greater  was  its  speedy  reparation,  by  his  noble 
and  dauntless  bearing  in  facing  the  horrible  death  pre- 
pared for  him,  by  his  indignant  confession  of  his  fault,  and 
his  public  recantation,  by  his  deep  contrition,  by  his  open 
exposure  of  his  offending  right  hand  which  betrayed  his 
weakness. 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment  to  consider  of  what  Cran- 
mer was  guilty  to  merit  the  excruciating  torments  of  the 
stake. 

I.  He  was  declared  contiimaciotis  for  not  appearing  at 
Rome  at  the  command  of  the  Pope.  Cranmer  was  not  a 
subject  of  the  Pope,  that  he  should  be  commanded ; 
besides,  being  a  close  prisoner,  he  was  unable  to  do  so ; 
accordingly  the  Pope  deprived  him  of  his  clerical  rank  and 
excommunicated  him.  Under  no  law  of  this  country  had 
the  Pope  jurisdiction  over  an  English  subject,  ecclesiasti- 
cally or  otherwise.i 

'  "  The  Bishop  of  Rome  was  incompetent  to  take  cognizance  of  the  cause  of 
an  EngHsh  metropoHtan,  inasmuch  as  any  exercise  of  his  jurisdiction  in  Eng- 
land was  contrary  to  the  decrees  of  the  Qicumenical  Synods  of  Nice  and 
Ephesus,  which,  as  I  have  already  shown,  were  in  full  force  at  this  time. 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  therefore,  was  not  bound  to  submit  to  any  such  citation. 
This  sentence  was  doubly  null,  as  being  based  on  gross  injustice,  and  as  being 
issued  by  an  incompetent  authority  ;  for  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  no  jurisdic- 
tion over  our  Churches,  and  he  was  also  incompetent  to  judge  in  the  cause." 
— Palmer's  "Apostolical  Jurisdiction  and  Succession  of  the  Episcopacy  of  the 
British  Church  Vindicated,"  p.  239.    London,  1840. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom.  237 


2.  The  charge  of  treason.  If  for  denying  the  Supre- 
macy of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  over  the  King,  then  Cranmer's 
judges  were  all  equally  guilty,  especially  Gardyner,  Bonner, 
and  Dr  Brooks.  The  Pope's  Supremacy  was  no  doctrine 
of  the  Roman  Church.  It  has  only  been  made  so  since 
passing  the  Vatican  decree  of  1870 ;  the  Supremacy  and 
Infallibility  are  now  for  the  first  time  incorporated  in  the 
Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  In  his  examination  before  Dr 
Brooks,  he  denied  that  he  accepted  his  office  as  Archbishop 
at  the  Pope's  hands,  "  which  he  neither  would  nor  could  do, 
for  that  His  Highness  was  the  only  Supreme  Governor  of 
this  Church  of  England,  as  well  in  causes  ecclesiastical  as 
temporal :  and  that  the  full  right  and  duration  of  all 
manner  of  Bishoprics  and  Benefices,  as  well  of  any  other 
temporal  dignities  and  promotions,  appertained  to  his 
Grace  and  not  to  any  foreign  authority,  whatsoever  it 
was."i  If  for  having  signed  the  Memorandum  of  Succes- 
sion in  favour  of  Lady  Jane  Grey,  then  the  entire  Council, 
including  the  cautious  Cecil,  were  equally  guilty,  but  not 
one  of  them  was  proceeded  against.  Further,  the  penalty 
for  treason  was  the  axe,  a  more  merciful  death,  as  in  the 
cases  of  More,  Fisher,  Lady  Jane  Grey,  and  Mary  Queen 
of  Scots,  and  not  the  stake.  Heresy,  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  is  accounted  a  greater  sin  than  treason,  theft,  or 
murder ! 

3.  We  are  reduced  to  the  single  charge  of  alleged  heresy, 
for  which,  according  to  the  cruel  law  of  the  Roman  Church, 
the  punishment  is  death  by  fire,  as  in  the  cases  of  Ridley, 
Latimer,  Hooper,  and  an  army  of  martyrs.  Under 
what  law,  moral  or  divine,  does  the  Church  of  Rome  take 
upon  herself  to  define  what  is  heretical,  and  then  burn 
the  alleged  heretic .''     Cranmer  had  a  right  to  hold  and 

'  Jenkyns'  "  Remains,"  vol.  iv.  p.  115.    Oxford,  1833. 


238       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

teach  his  religious  views  during  the  reign  of  Edward, 
and  to  continue  to  maintain  them.  After  the  death  of 
Edward  he  obtruded  his  opinions  on  no  one.  He  acted 
strictly  and  constitutionally  according  to  the  laws  of  his 
country.  And  when  under  examination  for  heresy  he 
boldly  maintained  his  opinions.  Heap  what  railing 
accusations  they  may  against  Cranmer,  as  the  alleged 
servile  and  unscrupulous  tool  of  Henry,  in  all  this 
monarch's  questionable  transactions,  such  accusations  will 
not  in  the  slightest  degree  justify  Rome's  cruel  persecution 
of  Cranmer,  or  remove  the  stigma  which  will  ever  attach 
to  her  final  barbarous  act.  Nor  will  the  laborious 
attempts,  otherwise  to  blacken  the  character  of  Cranmer, 
divert  the  current  of  indignation  against  Papal  persecu- 
tions, or  be  pleaded  as  an  objection  to  the  Reformation,  of 
which  he  was  "  the  Master  Builder." 

The  scene  at  St  Mary's  Church,  Oxford,  on  the  occasion 
of  Cranmer's  repudiation  of  his  retractations,  was  by  all 
accounts  a  most  impressive  one,  which  even  brought  tears 
into  the  eyes  of  many  of  his  former  associates  then  present; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  result  struck  amazement  and 
confusion  among  his  persecutors.  The  last  act  of  humilia- 
tion was  exacted  from  him  by  a  public  retractation,  confirm- 
ing what  he  had  privately  done  in  writings  also  prepared 
for  him  to  subscribe.^  After  an  oration  delivered  by  Dr 
Cole,  Cranmer  was  led  up  to  a  platform  erected  for  the 
purpose,  in  order  that  he  should  make  the  expected  public 
retractation.  After  offering  a  silent  prayer,  he  then  re- 
hearsed a  general  prayer  for  his  Queen,  his  country,  and 
for  himself,  when  he  proceeded  in  the  following  terms,  as 
recorded  by  an  eye-witness  : — 

1  This,  no  doubt,  formed  what  Dr  Lingard  sets  down  as  the  seventh 
recantation. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


239 


"And  now  forasmuch  as  I  am  come  to  the  last  end  of  my  life, 
whereupon  hangeth  all  my  life  passed,  and  my  life  to  come,  either  to 
live  with  my  Saviour  Christ  in  heaven  in  joy,  or  else  to  be  in  pain  for 
ever  with  wicked  devils  in  hell ;  and  I  see  before  mine  eyes  presently 
either  heaven  ready  to  receive  me,  or  hell  to  swallow  me  up  ;  I  shall 
therefore  declare  unto  you  my  very  faith,  how  I  believe,  without  colour 
or  dissimulation.  For  now  is  no  time  to  dissemble,  whatsoever  I 
have  written  in  time  past. 

"  First,  '  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,'  &c.,  &c  ;  and  every  article  of  the  Catholic  faith,  every 
word  and  sentence  taught  by  our  Saviour  Christ,  His  Apostles,  and 
Prophets  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 

"  And  now  I  come  to  the  great  thing  that  troubleth  my  conscience 
more  than  any  other  thing  that  ever  I  said  or  did  in  my  life  :  and  that 
is  the  setting  abroad  of  writings  contrary  to  the  truth  which  here  now 
I  renounce,  and  refuse,  as  things  written  with  my  hand  contrary  to  the 
truth,  which  I  writ  for  fear  of  death  and  to  save  my  life,  if  it  might  be; 
and  that  is  all  such  bills,  which  I  have  written  or  signed  with  mine 
ow?i  ha?id,  since  ?ny  degradatio?i,  wherein  I  have  written  many  things 
untrue.  And  forasmuch  as  my  hand  offended  in  writing  contrary  to 
my  heart,  therefore  my  hand  shall  first  be  punished.  For  if  I  may 
come  to  the  fire,  it  shall  be  first  burned.  And  as  for  the  Pope,  I  refuse 
him,  as  Christ's  enemy  and  Anti-Christ,  with  all  his  false  doctrine." 

Such  a  speech  took  every  one  by  surprise,  and  greatly 
exasperated  the  Romish  faction.  Lord  Wilh'ams  reminded 
the  Prelate  of  his  former  recantation  and  dissembling.  He 
replied  : — "Alas!  my  Lord,  I  have  been  a  man  that  all  my 
life  loved  plainness,  and  never  dissembled  till  now  against 
the  truth,  which  I  am  most  sorry  for  ;  "  and  he  added,  "  that 
for  the  Sacraments  he  believed,  as  he  had  taught  in  his 
book  against  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  (Gardyner)."  And 
here,  says  the  Chronicler,  personally  present  at  these  pro- 
ceedings, "  he  was  suffered  to  speak  no  more."  He  was 
then  led  to  execution. 

"  Coming  to  the  stake  with  a  cheerful  countenance  and  willing  mind, 
he  put  off  his  garments  with  haste.  Fire  being  now  put  to  him,  he 
stretched  out  his  right  hand,  and  thrust  it  into  the  flame,  and  held  it 
there  a  good  space  before  the  fire  came  to  any  other  part  of  his  body, 


240       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER- 


■where  his  hand  was  seen  of  every  man  sensibly  bumii^  j  ayii^  with 
a  loud  voice,  'this  hand  hath  offended.'"^ 

"  As  soon  as  the  fire  got  up,  he  soon  sucaunbed,  never  sdrrii^  or 
CT}  ing  all  the  while.  His  patience  in  the  tonnent,  his  oomage  in 
d\-ing,  if  it  had  been  taken  either  for  the  gl«y  of  God,  Ae  veaUi  of 
his  country-,  or  the  testimony  of  truth,  as  it  was  for  a  pemiaoas  errw, 
and  subversion  of  religion,  I  could  worthily  have  nmwnfnAt^  the 
example,  and  matched  it  with  the  fame  of  any  Fadier  of  anciait  time* 

Such  was  the  testimony  of  an  adversary  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. 

To  go  back  a  little  in  our  history.  The  two  venerable 
Mart^TS,  Ridley  and  Latimer,  had  both  been  brought  before 
the  same  Commission  on  the  charge  of  heresy.  The 
contempt  viath  which  Ridley  held  the  Pope  was  shown  by 
a  significant  act.  He  stood  uncovered,  but  when  he  heard 
the  Pope's  name  mentioned  he  put  on  his  cap.  Being 
ordered  to  remove  it,  he  refused,  protesting  against  the 
authority  of  the  Pope  in  this  countrj',  and  he  resisted  the 
attempts  of  the  ofBcer  of  the  Court  to  uncover  him.  He 
maintained  his  noble  bearing  to  the  end.  He  was  adjudged 
"  an  obstinate  and  incurable  heretic,"  and  condenmed  to 
the  flames.  The  aged  Latimer,  then  in  his  eighty-sec(»d 
year,  worn  out  and  withered,  dressed  in  tattered  garments, 
half  blind  and  deaf,  and  almost  toothless,  was  the  miserable 
object  on  Avhom  these  inhuman  wretches  wreaked  their 
vengeance.     He  was  in  like  manner  consigned  to  the 

^  Stiype  gives  an  acconnt  of  the  expense  in  mrred  in  the  bandit  of  OaooBer, 

taken  from  the  Harleian  M6S.    ~ --y  —  t  '-■  ;  : — 

"Item,  chardges  layd  out  ai.i  pi^ie  :::  i^t  i^nrmimge  of  Cxamma  as 
foUowethe : — 

£.  d. 

First,  for  a  C  of  v  '  =      .  .        Tj'  £.c,  6  O 

Item,  halfe  a  huni:;-.!;  ;:':-.rtT  ''--Z_Z'-'-i  .  '-Hf  iiij'^  „  34. 
Item,  for  y*  carriage  of  y^"^       .       .       .  viij^     „  08 

Item,      to  ij  laborers       ....  xvj^  "  ,,  14 

II  4 

From  this  we  are  to  gather  that  the  connty  had  to  pay  lis.  4'i.  as  the 
average  cost  of  baming  a  heretic 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


241 


flames ;  but  their  ultimate  doom  also  awaited  the  fiat  of 
the  equally  ruthless  Pope.  This  poor  creature  still  had  the 
force  and  dauntless  courage  of  a  true  martyr.  He  and 
Ridley  were  tethered  together  at  the  same  stake,  and  when 
the  faggot  was  lighted  at  Ridley's  feet,  Latimer  cheered 
his  fellow-sufiferer  in  the  ever  memorable  and  emphatic 
words : — 

"  Be  of  good  cheer,  Master  Ridley,  and  play  the  man. 
We  shall  this  day  light  such  a  candle  by  God's 
Grace  in  England,  as  I  trust  shall  never  be  put 

OUT." 

Their  fate  took  place  early  in  October  1555.^ 

There  is  no  need  to  enter  into  further  details  of  this  cruel 
persecution  of  Cranmer, — the  story  has  become  familiar  to 
every  one, — save  to  record  the  date  of  Cranmer's  martyr- 
dom—  2ist  March  1556  —  after  close  on  three  years' 
imprisonment,  and  eighteen  months  after  his  public 
disputations  with  his  accusers,  and  about  five  months  after 
the  martyrdom  of  Ridley  and  Latimer. 

Cranmer  has  been  branded  as  a  coward,  a  renegade  and 
hypocrite,  because,  when  threatened  with  an  agonising 
death,  he,  in  a  moment  of  weakness,  was  induced  to 
renounce  the  reformed  faith  ;  an  act  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  he  almost  immediately  after  bitterly  repented  of,  and 
testified  his  abhorrence  at  the  stake  by  the  well-known 
action  which  even  Voltaire  has  panegyrised  as  being  more 
intrepid  and   magnanimous   than   that   of  the  ancient 

'  Mr  Burke,  in  his  recent  work  before  alluded  to,  seeks  to  cast  the  entire 
blame  of  these  fearful  cruelties  on  Bonner,  Bishop  of  London.  One  can 
scarcely  repress  a  smile  when  we  read  : — "The  action  of  Bonner  was  utterly 
unbecoming  dignity  of  a  Church  founded  in  gentleness,  consideration,  and 
mercy!"  (The  "Tudor  Dynasty,"  vol.  iii.  p.  27.)  But  perhaps  Mr  Burke 
was  not  alluding  to  his  own  Church,  when  he  referred  to  these  characteristics. 

Q 


242       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

Roman.  Cranmer  did  not  take  warning  from  the  case  of 
John  Huss,  when  he  arrived  at  Constance,  and  whose  safe 
conduct  had  been  guaranteed,  with  immunity  from  harm, 
a  pledge  his  accusers  basely  forfeited.  Will  any  member 
of  the  unreformed  Church  dare  assert  that,  under  such 
frightful  circumstances,  Cranmer's  sin  was  greater  than  that 
of  his  accusers,  who  put  him  to  tortures  for  conscience' 
sake .''  Let  them  answer  that  question  !  We  read  from 
the  pens  of  the  same  parties,  indignant  vituperations 
heaped  on  Henry  VIII.  for  sacrificing,  by  a  comparatively 
easy  death — for  high  treason — Fisher  and  More  ;  but  are 
silent  when  the  Pope  inflicts  torture  of  the  most  cruel  kind, 
for  alleged  heresy  1  But  Cranmer's  momentary  apostacy 
furnished  rather  a  dangerous  triumph  to  the  advocates  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  so  long  as  the  case  of  the  Popes 
Marcellinus  and  Liberius  stand  on  record.  Cranmer, 
emaciated  and  feeble,  under  the  fear  of  terrible  torture, 
abandoned — be  it  so — the  reformed  faith,  but  professing 
still  to  hold  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
Pope  Marcellinus,  under  the  fear  of  death,  but  in  the 
strength  of  manhood,  abandoned  God  and  sacrificed  to 
idols.  And  Pope  Liberius,  to  escape  the  tedium  of 
banishment,  subscribed  to  the  Arian  heresy,  and  is,  not- 
withstanding, enrolled  among  the  Saints  of  the  Roman 
Church  ! 

Peter,  himself,  under  less  trying  circumstances  thrice 
denied  his  Lord.  He  even  began  to  curse  and  swear, 
saying  that  he  knew  not  the  man,  Christ,  although  he  had 
shortly  before  protested  that  he  would  rather  die  than  for- 
sake his  Master  !  His  repentance  was  in  tears  of  bitter- 
ness. The  Church  of  Rome  has  accepted  that  act  of 
penance,  and  has  placed  him  on  the  highest  pedestal  of 
honour,  according  to  her  estimation,  as  her  alleged  first 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


243 


Bishop  and  a  Saint.  On  the  other  hand,  Cranmer  was 
deemed  by  the  same  Church  worthy  of  death,  while  faith- 
fully clinging  to  his  Lord  and  Master,  the  same  Christ 
repudiated  by  Peter ;  but  Cranmer  denied  the  usurped 
Supremacy  of  Peter's  so-called  successor,  and  refused  to 
accept  that  theological  enigma,  passing  under  the  hard 
word  Transubstantiation  : 

"  Which  profanes  the  soul  and  parodies  our  God." 
But  Cranmer's  repentance  and  retractation  were  deemed  an 
aggravation  of  his  alleged  crime,  as  he  was  committed  to 
the  flames  !    So  much  for  consistency. 

No  one  ought  fairly  to  condemn  a  man  for  an  isolated 
act,  nor  for  a  single  failure,  under  exceptional  circum- 
stances of  excruciating  trial,  practised  on  a  mind  enervated 
by  mental  anguish,  and  a  body  weakened  and  emaciated 
by  long  and  solitary  confinement.  There  were  circum- 
stances connected  with  Cranmer's  death,  in  which  the 
divine  strength  was  shown  in  his  weakness — circumstances 
which  one  would  have  thought  would  have  awakened 
some  feeling  of  generous  admiration  in  any  breast  that  was 
capable  of  feeling  it,  even  among  those  who  differed  from 
his  doctrine. 

The  whole  course  of  life  and  the  final  manner  of  the 
death,  are  the  real  measures  by  which  a  character  should  be 
estimated.  Judged  by  this  standard,  who  can  cast  a  stone 
or  justly  bring  a  railing  accusation  against  Cranmer 
Has  any  one  of  his  detractors  been  ever  subjected  to  the 
same  process  of  bodily  and  mental  anguish,  with  the  fright- 
ful prospect  of  a  cruel  death  Who  can  impugn  his 
honesty  of  purpose,  integrity  of  heart,  or  conscientious  dis- 
charge of  his  responsibilities,  to  the  full  measure  of  his 
knowledge  and  convictions What  Milton  writes  of  a 
hero  of  old  may  be  writ  of  Cranmer  : — 


244       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


"  Sampson  hath  quit  himself 
Like  Sampson, and  heroicly  hath  finished 
A  life  heroic,  on  his  enemies 
Fully  revenged." 

Cranmer's  persecutors  overreached  themselves.  Had 
they  been  contented  to  accept  the  recantations,  they  would 
have  left  the  Archbishop  to  die  broken-hearted,  pointed  at 
by  the  finger  of  pitying  scorn  ;  and  the  Reformation  would 
have  been  disgraced  in  its  champion.  True,  it  is  said,  that 
Cranmer's  magnanimity  and  contempt  of  death  was  only 
exhibited  when  he  perceived  that  his  fate  was  sealed,  not- 
withstanding his  recantation.  But  whose  was  the  disgrace, 
— Cranmer  in  boldly  facing  the  tortures  of  the  stake,  or  those 
who  cowardly  cajoled  him  in  the  time  of  his  abject  depres- 
sion, then  even  almost  on  the  brink  of  the  grave,  by  false 
promises  of  liberty  and  restoration  of  honours,  and  then  to 
basely  repudiate  those  promises  i" — "  Let  it,  however,  be 
conceded,  that  Cranmer's  weakness  was  in  all  respects  as 
ignominious  as  his  worst  enemies  have  ever  represented  it, 
still  the  history  of  Cranmer's  fall  must  always  occupy  one 
of  the  darkest  pages  in  the  annals  of  Romish  cruelty  and 
cunning."  His  persecutors  were  tempted  by  an  evil  spirit 
of  revenge,  into  an  act  unsanctioned  by  even  their  own 
bloody  laws  (for  recantation  should  always  secure  pardon), 
and  they  gave  Cranmer  an  opportunity  of  redeeming  his 
fame,  and  of  writing  his  name  on  the  roll  of  Martyrs : — 
"  Cranmer  "  (in  the  eloquent  words  of  Southey)  "  had  re- 
tracted ;  and  the  sincerity  of  his  retractation  for  that  sin 
was  too  plain  to  be  denied,  too  public  to  be  concealed,  too 
memorable  ever  to  be  forgotten.  The  agony  of  his  repent- 
ance has  been  heard  by  thousands,  and  ten  thousands  have 
witnessed  how,  when  that  agony  was  past,  he  stood  calm 
and  immovable  amid  the  flames,  a  patient  and  willing. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


245 


holocaust :  triumphant,  not  over  his  persecutors  alone,  but 
over  himself,  over  the  mind  as  well  as  the  body,  over  fear 
and  weakness  as  well  as  death." 

"  Bound  to  the  stake  the  martyr  smiles  at  the  excru- 
ciating pain,  and  his  soul  ascends  in  the  lurid  flames, 
chanting  hymns  of  victory." — Turtle. 

"  Cranmer's  Martyrdom  is  his  monument,  and 
HIS  name  will  outlast  an  Epitaph  or  a  shrine." — 

Strype. 


246       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


APPENDIX,  p.  234. 
CRANMER'S  ALLEGED  RECANTATIONS. 

The  question  that  has  been  suggested  is,  whether  Cranmer  signed 
more  than  one  such  document  ?  Fox  gives  but  one  ;  Strype  refers  to 
six  ;  Dr  Lingard  mentions  seven.  The  late  learned  Dr  Wordsworth,  in 
his  "  Biographical  Dictionary,"  refers  to  Cranmer's  several  alleged  suc- 
cessive recantations  as  of  doubtful  authority.  After  five  alleged  recan- 
tations, each  more  complete  and  emphatic  than  the  preceding  one, 
came  the  last,  a  most  gross  and  fulsome  libel  and  abuse  of  himself ;  all, 
if  genuine,  were  exacted  from  Cranmer  in  two  days,  in  chronological 
order.  These  documents  were  in  the  custody  of  Bishop  Bonner,  the 
most  malignant  and  bitter  enemy  of  Cranmer,  and  were  printed  and 
published  by  him  immediately  after  Cranmer's  death,  including  the 
recantation  prepared  for  Cranmer  to  be  made  in  Christ  Church,  Oxford, 
but  which  he  refiised  to  take  when  he  publicly  repudiated  his  former 
recantation.  It  was  this  last  document  which  constitutes  Dr  Lingard's 
seventh  recantation. 

We  have  no  other  authority  than  Bonner  for  these  documents,  there- 
fore it  is  not  without  reason  that  Dr  Wordsworth  should  doubt  the 
authenticity  of  the  alleged  five  successive  recantations  of  Cranmer,  and 
that  Fox  may  have  been  perfectly  correct  when  he  referred  to  one  such 
document  only.  It  was  Bonner,  the  bitter  enemy  of  Cranmer,  and  a 
most  bigoted  Romanist,  who  alone  vouched  for  the  five  subsequent 
recantations. 

In  a  letter  addressed  by  Thomas  Sampson  to  Henry  Bullinger,  dated 
at  Strasburg,  6th  April  1556,  giving  other  information,  he  wrote: — "Dr 
Cranmer  was  burned  at  Oxford  on  the  21st  of  March.  A  certain 
absurd  recantation,  forged  by  the  Papists,  began  to  be  spread  abroad 
during  his  life  time,  as  if  he  had  made  that  recantation;  but  the 
authors  of  it  themselves  recalled  it  while  he  was  yet  living,  and  he 
firmly  and  vehemently  denied  it.  The  enemies  of  God  are  plotting 
dreadful  and  most  cruel  schemes  against  England."  '  Sampson  here 
probably  refers  to  the  fifth  recantation.  The  continuation  of  Fabian's 
"Chronicles,"  speaking  of  the  burning  of  the  Archbishop  in  1556,  says: 
"  After  he  had  recanted  his  supposed  recantations." 

It  has  been  a  frequent  practice  in  the  Roman  Church  to  allege 
recantations  of  leading  or  important  personages,  when  no  such  recan- 
tations had  taken  place.    I  propose  to  cite  a  few  authenticated  cases. 

'  See  "  Original  Letters  Relative  to  the  English  Reformation,"  &c.  The 
Parker  Society.    Cambridge,  1846.    The  first  portion,  p.  173.    Letter  xc. 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


247 


In  the  late  case  of  the  Rev.  R.  T.  Pope,  in  his  discussion  with  Father 
Macguire,  unable  on  the  spot  to  detect  the  glaring  misquotations  from 
the  "  Fathers,"  of  the  latter,  subsequently  published  his  learned  work, 
"  Roman  Misquotations."  On  his  death  the  Romanists  gave  out  that 
he  had  repented  and  recanted,  which  was  untrue,  for  at  the  time  of  his 
death  he  was  actually  occupied  on  a  new  edition  of  his  work,  which,  but 
for  his  untimely  death,  he  would  have  published. 

But  the  most  recent  case  come  to  light  is  that  which  only  lately 
occurred  on  the  death  of  the  learned  M.  Littrd,  the  author  of  the 
"  Dictionary  of  the  French  Language."  He  was  what  is  called  an  un- 
believer, a  free-thinker ;  but  ever  maintained  an  unblemished  and 
honourable  character.  His  wife  was  a  zealous  Romanist.  When  in  a 
state  of  coma,  a  priest  was  introduced  by  the  wife,  and  the  last  rites  of 
the  Church  were  administered  to  the  dying,  but  utterly  unconscious, 
man.  And  this  act  has  been  proclaimed  as  a  recantation  by  M.  Littre, 
and  readmission  into  the  Church  as  a  repentant  sinner. 

We  have  the  case  of  the  illustrious  Monclar,  who  exposed  the 
Jesuits.  He  died  on  February  12,  1773.  The  Jesuits  reported  that 
"  he  died  repentant,  and  had  retracted  all  that  he  had  said,  in  presence 
of  the  Bishop  of  Apt,  who  made  a  minute  of  that  fact."  Whereas 
it  was  clearly  established  by  Madame  de  Monclar,  the  widow,  that 
Monclar  had  not  "  retracted  a  single  fact  which  he  had  advanced 
against  the  Jesuits,  or  recanted  any  opinion  he  had  formed,"  and 
that  "  it  was  altogether  untrue  that  he  did  so."  And  the  conduct  of 
the  Bishop  of  Apt  was  thoroughly  exposed.  (See  Poynder's  "  History 
of  the  Jesuits,"  vol.  i.  p.  76,  London,  18 16,  who  gives  all  the  facts  and 
notarial  documents.) 

In  the  case  of  Anne  Askew,  the  Papists  gave  out  that  she  had  re- 
canted her  alleged  heresy,  but  this  she  indignantly  denied,  though 
placed  on  the  rack,  and  knowing  that  her  fate  was  the  stake.  (See 
Soame's  "  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,"  vol. 
ii.  ch.  xii.  p.  623,  note  f,  London,  1826  ;  and  Burnet's  "  Hist,  of  the 
Reform.,"  vol.  i.  p.  i.  bk.  iii.  p.  538,  Pocock's  edition.) 

The  Rev.  M.  H.  G.  Buckle,  in  his  Preface  to  his  Translation  of 
Desancti's  "  Confession  :  A  Doctrinal  and  Historical  Essay,"  Partridge 
&  Co.,  1878  (p.  11),  refers  to  the  case  of  Bernardino  Ochino.  "I 
have  long  recognised,"  says  Ochino,  "  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  through 
God's  grace,  and  although  I  mounted  the  pulpit  day  after  day,  yet  I 
dared  not  openly  proclaim  it  ;  you  may  imagine  the  constant  martyr- 
dom I  suffered."  (See  Benrath's  "  B.  Ochino,"  p.  89.)  Mr  Buckle 
proceeds — "  According  to  the  usual  custom,  the  Romanists  propa- 
gated a  report  that  Ochino  had  recanted  in  a  dangerous  illness  at 
Geneva,  and  been  murdered,  in  consequence,  by  the  followers  of 
Calvin.    The  truth  is,  that  after  being  attacked  by  the  plague  and 


248      LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


losing  three  of  his  four  children  [he  having  married  after  he  left  the 
Church  of  Rome],  he  died  at  Schlakan  in  Moravia."  (See  Benrath's 
"  Life  of  B.  Ochino,"  ch.  ix.  p.  298.)    He  never  recanted. 

Pope  Clement  XIV.  issued  a  Brief  for  the  abolition  of  the  Jesuits. 
The  Jesuits  allege  that  Clement  retracted  this  Brief,  whereas  Grei- 
singer,  in  his  "History  of  the  Jesuits "  (vol.  ii.  b.  vii.  ch.  i.  p.  206, 
English  Translation),  proves  the  contrary. 

We  have  also  the  pretended  recantation  of  Lord  Cobham,  refuted. 
(See  Alcock's  "  English  Medireval  Romanism,"  ch.  xii.  sec.  vi.  p.  126 
(reprint).  London,  1872.)  "  Being  sent  back  to  the  Tower,  the  Eccle- 
siastical party,  wishing  to  destroy  his  credit,  forged  a  recantation, 
which  they  said  he  signed  ;  and  which  having  heard  of,  he  immedi- 
ately contradicted."  (Shobrel's  "  Persecutions  of  Popery,"  vol.  i.  ch.  iv. 
p.  192.  London,  1854.  Milman's  "  Church  History,"  vol.  iv.  cent.  xv. 
ch.  i.  p.  185.    London,  1824.) 

Cellario  is  said  to  have  also  retracted,  which  is  proved  to  be  untrue 
by  Young  in  his  "  Life  of  Paleario,"  vol.  ii.  ch.  xxiv.  p.  552  :  note. 
Burnet  mentions  the  case  of  Thomas  Bilney,  who  untruly  was  said 
to  have  recanted,  vol.  i.  p.  268,  Pocock's  Edition,  1865. 

The  pretended  recantations  of  Henry  Vors  and  John  Esch  are  re- 
futed. (See  Milner's  "  Church  History,"  vol.  v.  ch.  ix.  cent.  xvi.  p.  149. 
London,  1824.) 

Luther,  appreciating  the  tricks  of  Romanists,  predicted  that  he 
would  be  charged  with  recanting  on  his  death-bed.  (See  Michelet's 
"  Life  of  Luther,"  cap.  v.  p.  206.    London,  1872.) 

In  the  abridgment  of  Gerard  Brandt's  "  Reformation  in  the  Low 
Countries"  (vol.  i.  p.  81,  seq.  London,  1725),  the  pretended  recanta- 
tion of  Angelus  Merula  (a.D.  1556),  the  Martyr,  is  exposed.  He  main- 
tained that  "  there  is  nothing  necessary  to  salvation  but  what  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Word  of  God,"  &c.,  &c.,  and  much  more  in  condemnation 
of  Romanism.  He  was  examined  before  the  Inquisition,  where  they 
in  vain  attempted  to  compel  him  to  recant.  A  forged  recantation  was 
published,  which  he  publicly  repudiated.  He  was  executed  by  order 
of  the  Inquisition  in  June  1557. 

I  might  mention  many  other  similar  cases,  but  I  shall  conclude 
this,  by  citing  the  case  of  Palmieri,  which  we  find  in  Desancti's 
"  Roma  Papala,"  Littera  xiv.,  n.  vii.,  p.  335  (Ferenze,  1817),  of  which 
the  following  is  a  translation :  — "  D.  Vincenzo  Palmieri  was  one  of  the 
theologists  in  the  Synod  of  Pistoia,  and  was  a  man  of  great  learning, 
especially  in  ecclesiastical  antiquities.  He  had  written  a  considerable 
number  of  books,  and  in  all  of  them  had  assailed  the  Court  of  Rome 
as  guilty  of  corrupting  the  Gospel ;  but  he  had  done  it  with  such 
sound  arguments,  with  such  strong  support  from  documents,  and  such 
logical  power,  that  Rome  has  never  ventured  a  reply,  except  by  the 


cranmer's  fall  and  martyrdom. 


249 


prohibition  of  the  books,  and  the  persecution  of  the  author.  Palmieri 
Hved  a  peaceful  and  retired  hfe  with  his  family  in  Genoa,  his  native 
city,  but  on  the  approach  of  death  was  refused  the  sacraments,  unless 
he  retracted  his  doctrines.  Fully  persuaded  that  he  had  written  in 
conformity  with  the  truth  and  dictates  of  conscience,  he  would  not 
make  the  recantation  required.  That  accomplished  rogue,  Lambrus- 
chini,  who  was  afterwards  Cardinal,  was  at  that  time  Archbishop  of 
Genoa.  He  went  himself  to  Palmieri's  bedside,  and  extracted  from 
him  a  declaration  in  which  he  professed  himself  a  Catholic,  and  sub- 
mitted all  his  writings,  as  he  had  always  done,  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Church.  This  declaration  having  been  made,  my  Lord  the  Arch- 
bishop issued  in  solemn  procession  from  the  Cathedral,  bearing  the 
host  himself  to  Palmieri.  Everyone  said  that  Palmieri  had  retracted, 
and  the  Priests  and  the  Archbishop  confirmed  the  report.  Palmieri, 
who  well  knew  the  Jesuits,  summoned  his  nephew,  and,  in  the  presence 
of  two  witnesses,  consigned  to  them  the  original  duplicate  of  the 
declaration  given  to  the  Archbishop,  and  enjoined  him  to  publish  it 
after  his  death,  in  the  event  of  the  Archbishop  publishing  a  different 
one.  Scarcely  had  Palmieri  breathed  his  last  when  the  Archbishop 
published  a  recantation  of  Palmieri's,  but  composed  by  himself,  and 
the  direct  opposite  of  the  true  one.  The  nephew  published  the  true 
declaration,  and  the  Archbishop  had  to  submit  to  the  lie  direct,  and 
Palmiefi  is  with  the  Priests  a  Jansenist  heretic." 


Such,  then,  being  the  acknowledged  practice  of  the  Roman  Church 
in  notable  cases,  it  is  not  a  stretch  of  imagination  to  attribute  to 
Bonner  the  responsibility  of  the  publication  of  five  of  the  six  alleged 
recantations  attributed  to  Cranmer. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

No  Biography  of  Archbishop  Cranmer  would  be  complete 
which  should  fail  to  provide  a  record  of  the  documents 
written  by  him  during  his  Episcopate.  These  have  been 
collected  of  late  years  by  the  Rev.  Henry  Jenkyns,  Pre- 
bendary of  Durham,  and  by  the  promoters  of  the  Parker 
Society,  under  the  painstaking  editorship  of  the  Rev. 
Edward  Cox,  Rector  of  St  Helens,  Bishopsgate  Street, 
London. 

The  writings  of  Cranmer  may  be  conveniently  arranged 
under  three  divisions — his  Letters,  his  State  or  Ecclesi- 
astical Papers,  and  his  Printed  Books.  Their  considera- 
tion will  form  the  subject  matter  of  this  concluding 
chapter. 

Section  I. 

TJie  Letters  of  Cranmer. 

The  Letters  of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  as  contained  in 
the  Parker  Collection,  amount  to  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  in  number,  and  extend  over  a  period  of  twenty- 
five  years.  Three  only  of  the  whole  number  (addressed 
one  to  Lord  Wiltshire,  the  father  of  Anne  Boleyn,  and 
two  to  King  Henry  VIII.  about  his  German  embassy) 
were  written  previously  to  his  nomination  to  the  Primacy ; 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


SO  that  the  whole  collection  may  be  regarded  as  connected 

with,  or  resulting  from,  his  high  position  in  the  Church 

and  Realm.    These  Letters  are  principally  addressed  to 

the  most  exalted  personages  in  the  State,  to  the  then 

Sovereigns  (whose  reigns  coincided  with  the  government 

of  the  Church  by  Cranmer),  to  Sir  William  Cecil,  and, 

most  frequently,  to  the  Lord  Crumwell,  the  Vicar-General 

of  King  Henry.    They  often  reveal  important  secrets  of 

diplomacy,  or  state  facts  nowhere  else  recorded  in  history. 

For  examples,  the  publication  of  a  defence  of  Queen 

Catherine's  marriage  by  Cardinal  Pole,  the  conduct  of 

Catherine  Howard  in  her  imprisonment  in  the  Tower, 

the  attempt  of  the  Duchess  of  Cleves  to  regain  her  position 

as  the  wife  and  Queen  of  Henry  VHI.    They  condescend 

also  to  the  most  trivial  matters,  the  provision  of  venison 

for  the  Archiepiscopal  household,  the  recommendation  of 

some  English  hounds  from  the  English  Court  to  Louis 

the  Elector  Palatine,  "  who  doth  much  esteem  the  pastime 

of  hunting  with  great  greyhounds,  and  specially  with  great 

mastiffs,  which  in  those  parts  be  had  in  great  price  and 

value ; "  and  the  gossip  about  a  Prebendary  being  neither 

a  learner  nor  a  teacher,  but  a  good  "  viander." 

Several  letters  are  urgent  appeals  to  Lord  Crumwell  to 

find  places  for  his  domestics,  preferments  for  deserving 

clergy,  or  provision  for  learned  foreigners,  participants  of 

the  Primate's  hospitality;  and  the  Archbishop  scruples  not 

to  make  his  poverty  the  reason  for  his  requests,  asserting 

in  one  letter,  "  by  cause  I  have  many  to  provide  for,  and 

little  to  provide  them  of."    And  in  another,  addressed  to 

Sir  William  Cecil : — 

"  That  as  for  the  saying  of  S.  Paul, '  Qui  volunt  ditescere  incidunt 
in  tentationem,'  I  fear  it  not  half  so  much  as  I  do  stark  beggary. 
For  I  took  not  half  so  much  care  for  my  living,  when  I  was  a  scholar 
of  Cambridge,  as  I  do  at  this  present.     For  although  I  have  now 


252       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


much  more  revenue,  yet  I  have  much  more  to  do  withal,  and  have 
more  care  to  hve  now  as  an  Archbishop  than  I  had  at  that  time  to 
Hve  as  a  Scholar." 

In  his  correspondence,  Archbishop  Cranmer  gives  a 
veritable  insight  into  the  circumstances  of  the  times.  For 
instance,  he  complains  to  Crumwell,  in  Letter  No.  198  of 
the  series,  of  "  having  found  the  people  of  my  diocese  very 
obstinately  given  to  observe  and  keep  with  solemnity  the 
holidays  lately  abrogated,  and  that  the  people  were  partly 
animated  thereto  by  their  curates."  ^  He  testifies  to  the 
reality  of  Calais  being  at  that  time  a  part  of  the  realm  of 
England  by  the  exercise  of  authority  over  the  clergy 
there  ;  he  shows  the  means  by  which  the  sale  of  the  newly- 
translated  Scriptures  was  promoted  by  a  compulsory 
restriction  of  the  printers  to  ten  shillings  as  the  price  of  a 
Bible.  Another  batch  of  Letters  addressed  to  the  learned 
foreigners,  Bucer,  Bollinger,  Osiander,  Fagius,  Peter 
Martyr,  and  Philip  Melancthon  attest  his  intimacy  with 
the  German  Protestant  Reformers  ;  and  his  hopes  of  find- 

1  Before  the  Reformation  the  hindrance  to  trade  and  agricuUure  caused  by 
the  "holy  days,"  which  had  become  holidays,  was  so  great  that  the  Commons 
formally  complained  to  the  King  that — "A  great  number  of  holy  days  now  at 
this  present  time,  with  very  small  devotion,  be  solemnized  and  kept  through- 
out this  your  realm,  upon  the  which  many  great,  abominable,  and  execrable 
vices,  idle  and  wanton  sports,  be  used  and  exercised,  which  holy  days  .  .  . 
might  be  made  fewer  in  number," — Froude's  "Hist,  of  England,"  i.  208. 
The  statement  was  drafted  by  Crumwell  (see  Brewer's  "State  Papers,"  v. 
468).  Accordingly  (July  15th,  1536),  Convocation  "by  the  King's  Highness' 
authority  as  supreme  head  on  earth  of  the  Church  of  England,"  declared  that 
the  number  of  holy  days  was — "  The  occasion  of  much  sloth  and  idleness,  the 
very  nourish  of  thieves,  vagabonds,  and  divers  other  unthriftiness  and  incon- 
veniences .  .  .  and  loss  of  man's  food,  many  times  being  clean  destroyed 
through  the  superstitious  observance  of  the  said  holy  days,  in  not  taking  the 
opportunity  of  good  and  serene  weather  in  time  of  harvest  ;  but  also  pernicious 
to  the  souls  of  many  men,  which  being  enticed  by  the  licentious  vacation  and 
liberty  of  those  holidays,  do  upon  the  same  cotnmonly  use  and  practice  more 
excess,  riot,  and  superfluity  than  upon  any  other  days." — Stephen's  "  Eccl. 
Statutes,"  p.  333.  Strype's  "Cranmer,"  i.  I22.  See  "Church  Intelligence," 
1885,  Feby.  2,  p.  19. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


ing  a  common  formulary  of  doctrine  which  all  could 
accept,  while  they  testify  to  the  great  respect  and  esteem 
entertained  for  him,  and  for  his  office  by  the  leaders  of 
the  German  Reformation.  These  Letters  also  afford 
testimony  to  the  personal  virtues  of  the  Archbishop,  and 
show  the  combination  in  him  of  a  strict  fidelity  in  matters 
in  which  principle  was  involved,  and  a  large  toleration 
when  circumstances  could  in  any  way  justify  his  modera- 
tion. He  thus  refused  to  an  old  servant  of  the  King  a 
Dispensation  to  marry  within  the  prohibited  degree  of 
affinity  (see  Letter  No.  178),  and  on  the  other  hand 
proposed  that  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  and  Sir 
Thomas  More  should  be  allowed  to  be  sworn  to  the  Act 
of  the  King's  Succession,  and  not  thereby  to  the  Preamble 
of  the  Act,  allowing  them  to  accept  the  King's  Supremacy 
as  established  de  facto  and  not  de  jiire.  There  is  no 
reference  in  his  Letters  to  his  wife  or  children,  an  omission 
not  to  be  wondered  at ;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the 
strength  of  his  parental  and  marital  affection  from  the 
tender  sympathy  expressed  by  him  for  the  widow  of 
Bucer  in  her  bereavement,  and  for  his  Chaplain  and 
servants  in  their  sicknesses.  Three  Letters  are  addressed 
to  his  successor,  Matthew  Parker,  but  they  are  all  merely 
appointments  for  him  to  preach  at  St  Paul's  Cross.  This 
correspondence,  as  might  be  expected,  gives  considerable 
information  about  the  condition  of  Cranmer's  own  Diocese, 
and  sets  forth  his  zeal  in  the  visitation  of  it,  his  anxiety 
for  the  usefulness  and  improvement  of  his  Cathedral 
School,  and  his  proposals  for  the  government  of  his 
Chapter,  and  for  the  due  fulfilment  of  their  duties  by  the 
Prebendaries  and  Preachers.  The  real  value,  however,  of 
the  correspondence  consists  in  its  testimony  to  the  in- 
fluence which  Cranmer  had  with  the  King,  and  in  its 


254       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CKANMER. 


revelation  of  the  innermost  councils  of  the  chief  actors  in 
the  development,  progress,  and  ultimate  successful  accom- 
plishment of  the  English  Reformation. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  a  man's  character  can  best  be 
appreciated  by  his  letters.  In  these  his  inner  self,  his 
faults  and  his  virtues,  his  pride,  selfishness,  or  ambition, 
his  disinterestedness,  patriotism,  and  philanthropy  are 
exposed  to  public  view.  Archbishop  Cranmer  will  nobly 
stand  the  test.  His  written  Letters  are  the  best  credentials 
in  the  face  of  friends  or  of  foes,  as  to  his  high  aims,  his 
purity  of  purpose,  his  constant  perseverance  in  the  path  of 
duty,  his  diligent  endeavour  to  ascertain  and  to  maintain 
the  ancient  path  as  marked  out  by  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  by  the  testimony  of  the  Primitive  Church.  They 
make  us  acquainted  with  the  man,  no  less  than  with 
the  Prelate ;  and  while  we  admire  the  unfailing  tact,  the 
gracious  courtesy,  the  unflinching  courage  of  his  convic- 
tions, the  honesty  exhibited  in  all  his  negotiations,  either 
as  a  Statesman  or  as  the  Primate,  we  cannot  but  give  a 
warm  tribute  of  respect  to  the  simple,  true,  affectionate, 
and  ever  sympathising  heart  laid  bare  to  us  in  this 
lengthened  epistolary  correspondence. 


Section  II. 

Ecclesiastical,  or  State  Papers. 

The  first  effectual  step  in  the  Reformation  of  the  Church 
of  England  was  the  acknowledgment  by  the  Convocation 
of  the  clergy,  and  by  Parliament  of  the  authority  of  the 
Sovereign  as  in  all  causes  Ecclesiastical  or  Civil,  and  over 
all  persons,  clerical  or  lay,  within  his  dominions.  Supreme. 
The  Act  of  Submission,  25  Henry  VIII.  c.  19,  was,  however, 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


nothing  but  the  revindication  for  the  Crown  of  those 
inherent  powers  claimed  for  it  by  the  successive  Sovereigns 
of  England,  whether  of  the  Norman,  Plantagenet,  or 
Tudor  Dynasties  ;  the  final  act  in  a  long-continued  contest 
between  the  Tiara  and  the  Throne  ;  between  the  Kings  of 
England  and  the  Popes  of  Rome,  carried  on  through  five 
long  centuries  with  various  alternations  of  success.  To 
quote  the  words  of  Dr  Hook,  "  King  Henry  only  claimed 
the  authority  and  power  which  had  always  been  inherent 
in  the  kingly  office,  although  it  had  not  always  been 
maintained  by  his  ancestors."  The  Act  of  Supremacy  was 
the  rightful  issue  of  the  principles  contended  for  in  the 
Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  the  Statutes  of  Carlisle,  the 
enactments  of  the  Provisors  and  Praemunires,  of  the 
Wycliffian  age.  It  placed  the  National  English  Church  in 
its  proper  position.  The  Church  of  England,  from  the 
Conquest  to  the  accession  of  Henry  VHL,  had  its  Head  out 
of  the  kingdom,  and  it  was  only  natural  that  where  the 
Head  was,  there  the  heart  should  be  also.  The  best  affec- 
tions of  Englishmen  were  devoted  to  Rome.  On  the  asser- 
tion of  the  Royal  Supremacy  by  Convocation  and  Parlia- 
ment, the  Church  of  England  assumed  its  true  position  as 
the  National  Church,  owning  no  foreign  sway,  inculcating 
henceforth  no  divided  and  half-hearted  allegiance,  but 
seeking  with  a  single  eye,  the  National  welfare,  and  the 
best  happiness  of  the  people.  There  are  no  grounds  for 
supposing  that  either  the  King  or  the  Primate  had  laid 
down  in  their  own  minds  any  definite  or  preconceived  plan 
for  the  further  alteration  of  the  National  Faith.  So  far  as 
they  were  concerned,  the  assertion  of  the  Royal  Supremacy 
was  quite  independent  of  any  reformation  of  doctrines. 
But  the  new  recognition  of  the  Church  of  England  as  a 
National,  independent,  territorial   Church,  and   as  such 


256       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


equally  with  the  Church  of  Rome  a  true  member  of  the 
one  Holy  Catholic  Church,  naturally  involved  further 
changes  and  a  more  effectual  adaptation  of  its  organization 
to  its  new  position.  These  changes,  both  in  doctrine  and 
in  discipline,  alth(^ugh  unforeseen  by  the  first  maintainers 
and  advocates  of  the  Royal  Supremacy,  were  providentially 
effected  by  a  development,  so  slowly,  gradually,  progres- 
sively matured,  that  they  involved  no  violent  revolution, 
no  break  in  the  continuity  of  the  English  Church,  no  great 
alienation  of  any  portion  of  the  people.  It  will  be  my 
purpose  to  point  out  the  various  Ecclesiastical  or  State 
Papers,  by  which  the  Primate  became  the  honoured  instru- 
ment of  securing  to  our  countrj^  that  Reformation  under 
which  England  for  three  hundred  years  has  taken  a 
prominent  position  among  the  nations,  and  exercised  so 
vast  an  influence  as  an  arbiter  of  the  world's  affairs. 

The  first  document  worthy  of  notice  is  a  speech  by 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  addressed  to  the  Southern  Convoca- 
tion in  1536.  This  Convocation  was  presided  over  by 
Lord  Crumwell  as  the  King's  representative,  and  not  only 
so,  but  the  President  introduced  into  it,  Alexander  Alisse, 
a  Scotch  Jurist,  as  his  assessor.  The  chief  purpose  for 
which  the  Convocation  had  been  summoned  was  to  pro\ide 
a  remedy  for  the  dangers  of  the  times.  The  varied  and 
protracted  contentions  about  the  royal  Divorce,  the  relaxa- 
tion of  the  authority  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  general 
uncertainty  and  unsettlement  in  the  matters  of  faith,  had 
induced  a  keen  appetite  for  religious  controversy,  and 
produced  an  universal  spirit  of  vehement  disputation. 
The  Lower  House  exhibited  in  this  ver)'  Convocation  a 
formal  complaint,  divided  into  sixty-seven  heads,  against 
the  new  and  erroneous  doctrines  that  were  commonly 
preached,  taught,  and  spoken.    In  addition  to  these  com- 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


plications,  the  Northern  Dioceses  had  witnessed  in  the 
"  Pilgrims  of  Grace  "  a  wide-spread  disaffection,  in  which 
the  insurgents  demanded  violently  the  restoration  of  the 
Supremacy  of  the  Pope.  Under  these  grave  circumstances 
the  Archbishop  addresses  the  Convocation,  and  urges  them 
to  issue,  in  accordance  with  the  directions  of  the  King, 
some  authoritative  Declaration  as  to  the  extension  of 
the  Catholic  Faith  by  the  National  Church  on  its  separa- 
tion from  the  Papacy.  Cranmer's  speech  is  worthy  of  the 
grave  importance  of  the  occasion.  He  and  his  suffragans 
were  about  to  propose  the  First  Formulary  agreed  on  by 
the  Church  of  England  after  its  separation  from  the  See  of 
Rome,  which  proved  (it  may  be  observed  in  passing)  the 
foundation  on  which  the  more  copious  exposition  of 
doctrine  subsequently  set  forth  during  the  reign  of  Henry 
VHI.  were  constituted. 1    The  Primate  said  : — 

"It  beseemeth  not  men  of  learning  and  gravity  to  make  much 
babbling  and  brawling  about  bare  words,  so  that  we  agree  in  the  very 
substance  and  effect  of  the  matters.  .  .  .  There  be  weighty  con- 
troversies now  moved  and  put  forth,  not  of  ceremonies  and  light 
things,  but  of  the  true  understanding,  and  of  the  right  difference  of 
the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  of  the  manner  and  ways  how  sins  be  forgiven, 
of  comforting,  doubtful,  and  wavering  consciences,  by  what  means  they 
may  be  rectified  that  they  please  God,  seeing  that  they  feel  the  strength 
of  the  law  accusing  them  of  sin,  of  the  true  use  of  the  Sacraments,  the 
number  of  them,  whether  the  outward  work  of  them  doth  justify  man, 
or  whether  we  receive  our  justification  by  faith.  .  .  .  These  be  no 
light  matters,  but  even  the  principal  points  of  our  Christian  religion." 

This  speech  of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  on  the  very  thres- 
hold of  the  proceedings  commenced  under  his  influence 

'  It  may  be  here  stated  that  the  subject  in  dispute  turned  chiefly  upon  the 
Sacraments.  The  Bishops  of  London,  York,  Lincoln,  Bath,  Chichester,  and 
Norwich  maintained  that  the  received  number  of  seven  should  be  retained, 
while  Cranmer  and  the  Bishops  of  Worcester,  Salisbury,  Hereford,  and  Ely 
opposed  this  theory.  Alisse,  the  Scotch  jurist,  on  being  invited  to  give  his 
opinion,  supported  Cranmer,  whereupon  an  unseemly  altercation  took  place 
between  the  Bishop  of  London  and  Alisse. 

R 


258       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

for  the  Reformation  of  the  EngHsh  Church,  is  most 
important,  it  provides  the  key-note  to  the  whole  of  his 
subsequent  conduct.  It  proves  the  purity  of  his  motives, 
and  the  high  aim  he  ever  kept  in  view.  It  was  with  the 
Archbishop  no  mere  contest  between  the  Churches  of 
England  and  Rome,  no  question  of  expediency  as  to  the 
rejection  or  retention  of  established  practices.  He  sought 
to  bring  every  matter  under  the  dominion  of  conscience, 
and  to  discover,  and  to  declare,  what  was  necessary  for  the 
salvation  of  every  single  man.  No  other  Churchman  or 
Statesman  in  the  kingdom  was  known  to  be  animated  with 
the  same  singleness  of  purpose,  or  sought,  as  he  did,  as  the 
end  of  his  Church  legislation,  the  welfare  of  the  individual 
soul. 

The  result  of  the  Convocation  was  the  issuing  the  Docu- 
ment known  as  the  "Articles"  of  1536;  its  most  exact 
title  is  the  following  : — "  Articles  devised  by  the  King's 
Highness  Majestic,  to  'stablyshe  Christian  quietnes  and 
unitie  among  us,  and  to  avid  contentious  opinion  ;  which 
Articles  be  also  approved  by  the  consent  and  determination 
of  the  Hole  Clergy  of  the  Realm.    Anno  MDXXXVI." 

Cranmer  was  intimately  concerned  in  the  preparation  of 
this  document.  Portions  of  it  in  his  handwriting  are  yet 
extant.  It  may  be  said  to  be  the  most  important,  being 
the  first  document  connected  with  the  Reformation.  It 
defines  the  true  position  of  the  English  Church  as  resolved 
to  hold  the  Catholic  Faith,  although  severed  from  the 
Papacy  ;  and  it  provided  that  groundwork  of  religious  be- 
lief which  remained  as  the  root  and  foundation  of  every 
successive  amendment  and  of  every  later  advance  towards 
the  purity  and  practices  of  the  primitive  Christianity. 

The  contents  of  these  Articles  may  be  thus  briefly 
summarized.    The  acceptance  of  the  three  Creeds  (the 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Apostles',  the  Nicene,  and  the  Athanasian)  is  peremptorily 
required,  of  which  the  very  self-same  words  are  to  be  kept, 
and  which  are  to  be  explained  by  the  four  Holy  Councils 
of  Nice,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon.  Bap- 
tism (and  Infant  Baptism)  is  set  forth  as  a  Sacrament,  by 
which  men  obtain  remission  of  sins,  and  the  grace  and 
favour  of  God,  according  to  the  saying  of  Christ,  "  Whoso- 
ever believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  Penance 
as  a  Sacrament  is  retained  with  various  explanations. 
The  "  Sacrament  of  the  Altar "  is  maintained  without 
material  alteration,  and  the  teaching  of  Transubstantiation 
is  fully  asserted.  "  Orders,"  "  Matrimony,"  "  Extreme 
Unction,"  and  "Confirmation"  find  no  place  as  Sacra- 
ments. Images  are  allowed  with  solemn  cautions, 
against  their  superstitious  use.  The  ancient  custom  of 
Palm  branches,  ashes,  holy  candles,  creeping  to  the  Cross 
on  Good  Friday,  sprinkling  with  Holy  Water  (to  put  us  in 
remembrance  of  our  Baptism,  and  the  Blood  of  Christ 
sprinkled  for  our  redemption  upon  the  Cross),  the  hallowing 
the  font,  the  kissing  of  the  Cross,  and  other  like  customs 
are  allowed,  accompanied  with  the  protest — "  That  none  of 
these  ceremonies  have  power  to  remit  sin,  but  only  to  stir 
and  lift  up  our  minds  to  God,  by  whom  only  our  sins  are 
forgiven."  Prayers  for  the  dead  are  permitted  as  a  cha- 
ritable practice,  while  Purgatory,  and  the  deliverance  of 
souls  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome's  Pardons,  are  condemned  as 
being  unsanctioned  by  Scripture,  "  or  that  masses  said  at 
Scala  Cceli,  or  elsewhere,  or  before  any  image,  might  like- 
wise deliver  them  from  pain  and  send  them  straight  to 
heaven."  It  contains,  however,  the  germ  of  the  future  re- 
pudiation "of  Romish  teaching,  and  in  many  points  the 
name  only  of  the  former  doctrine  appears  to  be  retained, 
its  erroneous  teaching  being  mitigated  and  explained  away. 


26o      LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


The  Articles  seem  to  have  failed  in  their  purpose  of 
establishing  Christian  quietness  and  unity,  or  of  avoiding 
contentious  opinions.  In  the  following  year,  the  Arch- 
bishops, Bishops,  Archdeacons,  and  other  learned  men 
consulted  further  together  on  the  affairs  of  religion,  and 
set  forth  another  Formulary,  entitled  "  The  Institution  of 
a  Christian  Man,"  Its  design  is  shown  in  the  words  of  the 
Preface  : — 

"  Towards  the  advancement  of  God's  glory,  and  the  right  institution 
and  education  of  the  People  in  the  knowledge  of  Christian  religion, 
concerning  the  whole  sum  of  all  those  things  which  appertain  to  the 
profession  of  a  Christian  man,  that  by  the  same  all  errors,  doubts, 
superstitions,  and  abuses  might  be  suppressed,  removed,  and  utterly 
done  away,  to  the  honour  of  Almighty  God,  and  to  the  perfect  estab- 
lishing of  the  subjects  of  the  King  in  good  unity  and  concord,  and 
perfect  quietness  both  in  their  souls  and  bodies." 

The  Preface  further  sets  forth  the  plan  or  method 
adopted  in  the  arrangement  of  the  "  Institution  "  : — 

"  We  have,  first  of  all,  begun  with  the  Creed,  and  have  declared,  by 
way  of  Paraphrases,  that  is  a  true  exposition  of  the  right  understand- 
ing of  every  article  of  the  same.  And  afterwards  we  have  entreatise 
of  the  Institution,  the  virtue  and  right  use  of  the  Seven  Sacraments  ; 
and  thirdly,  we  have  declared  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  what  is 
contained  in  every  one  of  them  ;  and  fourthly,  we  have  shewn  the 
interpretation  of  the  Pater  noster  [the  Lord's  Prayer],  whereunto  we 
have  added  the  declaration  of  the  Ave  Maria;  and  to  the  intent  we 
would  omit  nothing  contained  in  the  Book  of  Articles,  we  have  also 
added  the  Article  of  Justification  and  the  Article  of  Purgatory  as  they 
be  in  the  said  book  expressed."  ^ 

Cranmer  had  a  large  hand  in  the  compilation  of  this 

Formulary,  not  only  presiding  at  the  conferences  of  the 

Bishops,  but  by  writing  some  at  least  of  the  Explanations. 

This  fact  is  established  by  Letters  from  Bishops  Latimer 

and  Fox  to  Lord  Crumwell,  who  gave  the  credit  of  it  to 

the  Archbishop,  to  whom  (writes  Bishop  Latimer),  if  there 

be  anything  praiseworthy,  bonna  pars  laudis  oppine  juris 

1  "  Formularies  of  Faith,"  pp.  25  and  26.    Oxford,  1856. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


261 


debitury  This  book,  says  Professor  Jenkyns,  may  be 
truly  pronounced  one  of  the  most  valuable  productions  of 
this  reign.  The  Articles  of  1536  were  its  foundation,  but 
they  were  much  enlarged  and  improved.  It  was  called 
the  "  Bishop's  Book,"  as  put  forth  by  them,  submitting  it 
"  to  be  overseen  and  corrected  "  by  King  Henry,  "  if  your 
Grace  shall  find  any  word  or  sentence  in  it  meet  to  be 
corrected." 

Some  of  the  explanations  are  written  with  great  anima- 
tion, and  contain,  in  vigorous  language,  the  most  Evan- 
gelical teaching  of  the  later  Prayer  Books.  The  zeal  of 
Cranmer  and  his  purpose  of  setting  forth  the  mode  of 
access  of  a  sinner  to  the  divine  favour,  are  everywhere  dis- 
cernible in  the  expositions  of  the  Articles.  The  differ- 
ence and  distinctions  between  Baptism  and  Penance,  and 
the  "  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,"  are  set  forth  with  greater 
plainness,  while  the  whole  number  of  the  Sacraments  is 
admitted  to  be  seven  ;  and  the  teaching  in  regard  to 
Transubstantiation,  to  Purgatory,  Images,  Processions, 
and  ceremonies,  is  identical  with  that  contained  in  the 
Articles  set  forth  in  the  preceding  year  by  the  King  and 
Convocation. 

It  is  proper,  in  this  place,  to  mention  another  of  the 
writings  of  Cranmer  connected  with  the  Formulary,  "  The 
Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,"  and  that  is  the  document 
known  as  Cranmer's  "  Annotations."  It  appears  that  the 
King,  in  the  prospect  of  a  republication  of  this  "  Institu- 
tion," had  taken  pains  to  revise  it,  and  to  attach  to  it 
certain  remarks  from  his  own  pen,  and  submitted  his 
revisions  to  the  judgment  of  Cranmer.  The  task  thus 
imposed  on  the  Archbishop,  says  Mr  Jenkyns,^  will  be 

^  See  Jenkyns'  Preface,  "Remains,"  p.  xvii. 
^  Preface  to  "  Remains,"  vol.  i.  p.  xiv. 


252       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


readily  admitted  to  have  been  of  a  very  delicate  matter. 
But  those  who  are  strongly  impressed  with  the  current 
accounts  of  his  pliability,  will  have  no  difficulty  in  fore- 
telling the  course  pursued  by  him.  They  will  anticipate 
that  he  approved  the  corrections  without  hesitation,  and 
accompanied  his  approbation  with  many  compliments  to 
the  King's  superior  wisdom.  Such  anticipations,  however, 
will  be  altogether  disappointed.  It  will  be  found,  on  the 
contrary,  that  Cranmer  criticised  both  the  grammar  and 
the  theology  of  his  master  with  a  caustic  freedom,  which 
might  have  given  offence  to  an  author  of  far  humbler  pre- 
tensions than  a  Sovereign,  who  had  entered  the  lists  with 
Luther,  and  who  prided  himself  on  his  titles  of  "  Defender 
of  the  Faith"  and  "Supreme  Head"  of  the  National 
Church.  It  is  true  that  he  softened  the  severity  of  his 
criticisms  by  an  apology  for  his  presumption,  in  being  "  so 
scrupulous,  and  as  it  were  a  pricker  of  quarrels  to  his 
Grace's  Book."  But  even  when  these  excuses  have  been 
allowed  their  full  weight,  there  will  still  remain  enough  of 
boldness  to  surprise  those  who  have  no  idea  of  Henry 
other  than  of  a  dogmatical  tyrant,  and  of  Cranmer  than  as 
a  cowardly  timeserver. 

The  one  dominant  principle  ever  present  in  Cranmer's 
mind,  which  lay  at  the  root  of  all  his  proceedings,  was  his 
intense  respect  for  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
His  every  plan  and  purpose  was  brought  to  the  test  of  the 
"  Word  and  the  Testimony."  He  is  described  by  his  father- 
in-law,  Osiander,  as  literarum  sacrarinn  shidiossisiminn,  and 
allowed  of  nothing  which  could  not  be  deduced  from  Scrip- 
ture, or  proved  thereby.  By  the  light  of  the  Divine  Word 
he  discerned  the  unlawfulness  of  the  marriage  of  Henry 
with  the  widow  of  his  deceased  brother,  formed  his  best 
defence  of  the  Royal  Supremacy,  and   conducted  the 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


263 


fortunes  of  the  English  Church  to  the  completeness  of  its 
Edwardian  Reformation.  With  such  an  appreciation  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  it  was  only  natural  that  his  earliest  efforts 
should  hav^e  been  directed  to  the  attainment  of  a  correct 
translation,  and  of  a  general  circulation  of  the  whole  Bible. 
Immediately  after  the  declaration  of  the  Royal  Supremacy, 
the  Archbishop  induced  the  Convocation  to  Petition  the 
King  that  the  Bible  might  be  translated  by  some  of  the 
learned  men  of  his  Highness'  nomination.  Bishop  Cover- 
dale,  in  the  next  year,  1535,  published  an  edition  of  the 
whole  Bible  in  English,  which  was  mainly  a  transcript  of 
Tyndal's  translation.  This  edition  was  never  sanctioned 
for  the  use  of  the  English  Church.  The  Primate,  however, 
assisted  by  some  Bishops,  prepared,  in  1537,  a  Bible  in 
English,  "  both  of  a  new  translation  and  of  a  new  print," 
dedicated  to  the  King's  Majesty,^  which  appears  to  have 
given  him  much  satisfaction.  He  thus  describes  it  in  a 
Letter  to  Crumwell : — "  And  as  for  the  translation,  so  far  as 
I  have  read  it,  I  believe  it  better  than  any  other  translation 
heretofore  made."  And  in  the  same  Letter  he  asks  for  the 
Royal  Licence  that  "  the  same  may  be  read  until  such  time 
that  the  Bishops  shall  set  forth  a  better  translation,  which  I 
think  will  not  be  till  a  day  after  Doomsday."  This  Bible 
was  ordered,  by  a  Royal  injunction,  "  to  be  placed  in  every 
church  for  all  men  to  read  therein ; "  and  it  was  printed  by 
the  King's  printer,  to  be  sold  at  ten  shillings  a  copy,  by 
Bartelott  &  Edward,  Whitechurch,  on  the  promise  of  a 
monopoly  of  its  sale.^  In  June  1540  this  edition  of  the 
Bible  was  printed  in  larger  size,  and  better  type,  under  the 
immediate  superintendence  of  Cranmer,  who  prefixed  to  it 
a  Preface  from  his  own  pen.    The  Preface  was  far  more 

'  Letter  clxxxviii.    Jenkyns'  "Remains,"  vol.  i.  p.  196. 
^  IbiiL,  ccliii.  ;  p.  289,  vol.  i. 


-264      LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


hortatory  than  controversial.  The  Archbishop  appears  to 
have  preferred  to  recommend  the  study  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures from  the  authority  of  others  rather  than  of  himself 
The  greater  portion  of  this  Preface  consists  of  two  lengthy 
extracts  from  the  writings  of  Bishop  John  Chrysostom,  and 
Gregory  Naziansen.  The  following  extract  from  the  Pre- 
face is  from  Cranmer's  own  pen,  and  exhibits  the  same  care 
for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  people  which,  as  exhibited 
by  his  other  works,  was  a  distinguishing  feature  of  his  aims 
and  character  : — 

"  Wherefore  in  few  words  comprehend  the  largeness  and  utility  of 
the  Scripture,  how  it  containeth  fruitful  instruction  and  erudition  for 
every  man.  If  anything  be  necessary  to  be  learned  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture we  may  learn  it.  If  falsehood  shall  be  reproved,  thereof  we  may 
gather  wherewithal.  If  anything  be  to  be  corrected  and  amended,  if 
there  need  any  exhortation  or  consolation,  of  the  Scripture  we  may  well 
learn.  In  the  Scriptures  be  the  fat  pastures  of  the  soul  ;  therein  is  no 
venomous  meat,  no  unwholesome  thing  ;  they  be  the  very  dainty  and 
pure  feeding.  He  that  is  ignorant  shall  find  there  what  he  should 
learn.  He  that  is  a  perverse  sinner  shall  there  find  his  damnation, 
to  make  him  tremble  for  fear.  He  that  laboureth  to  serve  God  shall 
find  there  his  glory,  and  the  promissions  of  eternal  life,  exhorting  him 
more  diligently  to  labour.  Herein  may  princes  learn  how  to  govern 
their  subjects  ;  subjects  obedience,  love,  and  dread  to  their  princes. 
Husbands  how  they  should  behave  them  unto  their  wives,  how  to  edu- 
cate their  children  and  servants  ;  and  contrary,  the  wives,  children, 
and  servants  may  know  their  duty  to  their  husbands,  parents,  and 
masters.  Here  may  all  manner  of  persons,  men,  women,  young,  old, 
learned,  unlearned,  rich,  poor,  priests,  laymen,  lords,  ladies,  officers, 
tenants,  and  mean  men,  virgins,  wives,  widows,  lawyers,  merchants, 
artificers,  husbandmen,  and  all  manner  of  persons  of  what  estate  or 
condition  soever  they  be,  may  in  this  book  learn  all  things  what  they 
ought  to  believe,  what  they  ought  to  do,  and  what  they  should  not  do, 
as  well  concerning  Almighty  God,  as  also  concerning  themselves,  and 
all  others."  ^ 

There  is  yet  another  important  formulary  put  forth 
during  the  reign  of  Henry  VHL,  in  the  preparation  of 
which  Cranmer  exercised  considerable  influence,  and  that 

'  Jenkyns'  "  Remains,"  vol.  ii.  p.  ill. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


265 


is  the  "  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Education  for  any 
Christian  man."  This  work  in  reality  is  nothing  but  an 
enlarged  and  corrected  edition  of  the  two  Formularies 
which  have  been  already  referred  to  as  "  The  Articles  "  of 
1536,  and  the  "Institution  of  a  Christian  man,"  1537. 
The  long  lapse  of  the  interval  of  six  years  between  the 
inception  and  the  ultimate  completion  of  these  Formularies, 
may  be  without  difficulty  accounted  for  from  the  course  of 
political  events.  The  visit  of  the  German  Reformers, 
Francis  Burcard,  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  ; 
Gregorie  Boyneburgh,  a  nobleman  of  Hesse  ;  and  Frederick 
Mycorius,  Superintendent  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Gotha,  in  1558,  to  England,  on  the  invitation  of  Henry, 
with  a  view  to  the  adaptation  of  some  one  Formulary  of 
Faith  for  the  common  acceptance  of  both  the  German  and 
English  Reformers,  and  the  protracted  debates  resulting 
from  this  visit,  necessarily  prevented,  during  the  time  of 
their  residence  in  this  country,  any  authoritative  Declara- 
tion of  the  National  Faith.  The  delay  in  the  preparation 
of  this  final  Formulary  may  be  further  accounted  for  by 
the  proposed  marriage  of  the  King  with  the  Duchess  of 
Cleves,  the  sister  of  one  of  the  royal  favourers  of  the 
German  Reformers.  In  addition  to  these  considerations, 
the  course  of  events  at  home  might  account  for  the  delay. 
The  fall  and  execution  of  Crumwell,  the  family  troubles  of 
Henry  in  the  misconduct  of  his  fifth  queen,  the  equal 
balance  of  the  Reformers  and  Anti-Reformers,  and  the 
warmth  of  their  disputations  with  his  own  kingdom,  the 
intermediate  restriction  exposed  on  the  National  Faith  by 
the  limitations  of  the  "  Six  Articles  Act,"  may  help  to 
account  for  the  postponement  of  any  mature  consideration 
of  Ecclesiastical  affairs.  The  publication  of  this  final 
Formulary  was  attended  with  far  more  antecedent  study 


266      LIKE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRAXMER. 


and  preparation  than  its  two  predecessors.  Questions 
relating  to  the  sacraments  were  addressed  to  each  of  the 
Bishops.  Their  replies  were  duly  summarised  and 
considered.!  The  King  himself  condescended  to  write  its 
Preface,  and  its  various  portions  were  submitted  to  and 
approved  by  Convocation,  and  it  was  finally  ratified  by 
the  acceptance  of  Peirhament  This  Formularj',  from  the 
King's  active  superintendence  of  its  preparation,  was  called 
the  "  King's  Book,"  to  distinguish  it  from  the  "  Institution," 
which  was  known  as  the  "  Bishop's  Book." 

The  contents  of  this  Formularj-,  considered  as  a  whole, 
may  be  described  as  retrograde  in  character,  and  adverse 
to  the  views  of  the  advocates  of  the  Reformation  of 
doctrine.  The  Bishops  who  were  still  votaries  of  the  old 
system,  were  in  the  ascendant.  The  King  himself,  who 
had  been  lately  irritated  by  his  discussions  with  the 
representatives  of  the  foreign  Churches,  whom  he  had 
inxnted  to  his  Court,  was  more  disposed  than  usual  to 
maintain  the  existing  tenets  of  the  Church.  Under  these 
influences,  a  stronger  defence  of  the  administration  of  the 
"  Sacrament  of  the  Altar "  under  one  kind  only,  the 
readmission  of  Orders,  Matrimony,  Confirmation,  and 
Extreme-Unction  into  the  enumeration  of  the  Sacraments, 
and  the  use  of  Images,  are  to  be  found  in  this  Formular}'. 
Cranmer,  however,  had  sufficient  influence  to  secure  a 
qualification  of  these  admissions  by  the  introduction  of 
purer  scriptural  teaching  in  the  annexed  explanations. 
Thus  in  the  account  of  the  "  Sacrament  of  the  Altar we 
find  the  Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  plainly  stated  : — 
"But  in  this  most  high  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  the 
creatures  which  be  taken  to  the  use  thereof,  as  bread  and 
wine,  do  not  remain  still  in  their  own  substance,  but  by 
*  See  "  Post,"  section  iii. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


267 


virtue  of  Christ's  words  in  the  consecration  be  changed  and 
turned  to  the  very  substance  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  Yet  in  the  further  explanation  of 
this  Sacrament  we  read,  the  more  Scriptural  statement 
that  :— 

"  Our  blessed  Saviour  did  institute  this  Sacrament  as  a  prominent 
memorial  of  His  mercy  and  the  wonderful  work  of  our  redemption, 
and  a  perpetual  food  and  nourishment  for  our  spiritual  sustentation 
in  this  dangerous  passage  and  travail  of  this  wicked  life.  It  is  there- 
fore necessary  that  in  the  using,  receiving,  and  beholding  of  this 
Sacrament,  we  have  hearty  remembrance  of  our  most  loving  and 
dear  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, — that  is  to  say,  that  we  think  affectionately 
of  His  most  bitter  passion,  which  He,  being  the  Lord  of  glory,  suffered 
for  us  :  and  to  bewail  our  sins,  which  were  the  cause  of  the  said  death 
and  passion,  calling  necessarily  for  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God, 
which  most  abundantly  is  obtained  by  the  virtue  and  merit  of  the 
same  passion,  and  thinking  that  our  Lord,  which  gave  Himself  in  that 
manner  for  us,  will  not  forsake  us  or  cast  us  away,  but  forgive  us,  if 
we  truly  repent,  and  will  amend  and  become  faithful  servants  to  Him, 
which  so  dearly  hath  bought  us,  and  paid  for  us  neither  gold  nor 
silver,  as  St  Peter  saith,  but  His  own  precious  blood." 

These  words  bear  internal  evidence  of  having  been 
inspired  by  Cranmer.  They  are  the  very  echoes  of  his 
sentiments,  and  are  witnesses  to  the  ever  prevalent  desire 
of  his  heart  to  promote  personal  piety  and  individual 
edification.  It  is  rather  surprising  to  find  the  warm 
eulogy  of  Bishop  Burnet  expressed  towards  a  Formulary 
so  strongly  tinged  with  extreme  Romanist  doctrines  as  is 
this  "  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition  of  a  Christian 
Man."  "  Here  followeth  "  (says  the  Bishop,  writing  of  this 
document)  "an  explanation  of  the  Creed,  full  of  excellent 
matter,  being  a  large  paraphrase  on  every  Article  of  the 
Creed,  such  services  and  practical  references,  that  I  must 
acknowledge,  after  all  the  practical  books  we  have  had, 
I  find  great  gratification  in  reading  that  over  and  over 
again.    The  style  is  strong,  nervous,  and  well  fitted  for 


268       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRAXMER. 


the  weakest  capacities.  '  The  three  final  Articles  in  the 
Formularies  on  "  Free  Will,"  "  Justification,"  and  "  Good 
Works,"  are  exclusively  attributed  to  Cranmer,  and  his 
s  jper\'ision  had  probably  extended  over  the  whole  book, 
as  in  the  minutes  of  a  letter  addressed  by  Henr)-  VIII.  to 
Cranmer,  he  speaks  of  this  "  '  Necessary  Erudition '  as  the 
Archbishop's  own  book."  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that 
the  Primate,  if  he  had  been  the  sole  author  of  this 
Formular)-,  would  have  moderated  man\-  of  its  state- 
ments. He  was,  however,  onh*  one  on  a  Commission, 
from  the  members  of  which  an  unity  of  opinion  could  not 
be  expected.  Cranmer,  at  the  date  of  the  publication  of 
the  "  Necessary-  Doctrine,"  still  believed  in  the  Corporal 
Presence  in  the  "  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,"  and  having 
modified  the  other  teachings  of  this  Formularj-,  as  far  as 
his  influence  went  with  his  suflTragans,  he  acquiesced  in  it 
as  on  the  whole  a  useful  and  .seasonable  publication, 
although  on  many  points  the  free  expression  of  his  own 
opinions  had  been  impeded  and  overruled. 

Henr}-  VIII.,  as  he  approached  the  end  of  life,  became 
more  devoted  to  the  furtherance  of  true  religion.  In  the 
year  1 544  he  determined  to  have  an  English  translation 
of  the  Litany,  and  entrusted  the  work  to  the  hands  of 
Cranmer,  who  performed  the  task  with  so  much  grace 
and  power,  that  in  the  words  of  the  late  Dean  of 
Chichester : — 

"  The  Litany  we  use  in  the  nineteenth  centur\-  is  the  translation 
made  from  an  old  Latin  Litany  of  our  Church  in  the  sixteenth, 
and  is  a  lasting  testimony  to  the  great  abilitj'  of  Cranmer  at  a 
period  when  the  s>Titax  and  rhythm  of  our  language  was  not  yet 
settled."  1 

The  Archbishop,  in  a  Letter  addressed  to  the  King,^ 

1  "  Lives  of  the  .Archbishops, •'  vol.  vii.  p.  206. 
s  Jenkyns'  "  Remains,''  Letter  cclxiv. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER.  ^  269 


gives  an  account  of  the  method  pursued  by  him  in  the 
translation.    He  writes  : — 

"  I  was  constrained  to  use  more  than  the  liberty  of  a  translator, 
for  in  some  processions  I  have  altered  divers  words,  in  some  I  have 
added  part,  in  some  taken  away  part,  some  I  have  left  out  whole,  and 
some  processions  I  have  added  whole,  because  I  thought  that  I  had 
better  matter  for  the  purpose  than  was  in  the  procession."  And  then 
he  adds,  with  his  characteristic  desire  to  promote  personal  holiness  : 
— "  I  trust  that  it  will  much  excitate  and  stir  up  the  hearts  of  all  men 
unto  devotion  and  godliness." 

The  translation  of  the  Litany  was  followed,  in  the  next 
year,  by  that  of  the  whole  Primer,  a  book  containing  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  Creed,  Ave  Maria,  Ten  Commandments, 
seven  Penitential  Psalms,  and  the  Litany,  and  several 
Morning  and  Evening  Prayers  ;  thus  a  comprehensive  and 
popular  Book  of  Devotions,  both  for  public  and  private 
use,  was  provided  for  the  people  in  the  vulgar  tongue, 
which  helped  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  which  became  the  chief  glory  of  the  succeeding 
reign. 

These  Ecclesiastical  and  State  Papers  of  Archbishop 
Cranmer  synchronised  by  a  curious  coincidence  with  the 
duration  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VHI.  The  retrospect  of 
the  proceedings  in  which,  during  the  lifetime  of  his  royal 
Master,  he  had  taken  a  part,  could  not  fail  to  secure  to  him 
much  personal  gratification.  He  had  assisted  in  establish- 
ing the  Royal  Supremacy,  had  secured  the  translation  of 
the  whole  Bible  into  a  tongue  understood  of  the  people, 
had  caused  various  superstitious  customs  to  be  abated  or 
abolished,  had  superintended  the  preparation  of  divers 
Formularies  of  Faith,  which,  if  not  all  that  he  would  have 
desired,  yet  contained  in  them  the  elements  of  further  im- 
provements ;  had  published  in  the  vulgar  tongue  manuals 
of  private  devotions,  as  well  as  a  Litany  for  the  public 


270      LI  I  E,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Services  ;  and  he  could  look  forward  with  quiet  confidence, 
under  the  auspices  of  a  new  Sovereign,  to  yet  larger 
triumphs.  His  share  in  those  future  contests  and  future 
victories  will  be  attested  by  his  printed  works. 

Section  III. 

No  examination  of  Cranmer's  writing  and  sentiments 
would  be  complete  without  some  observations  on  his 
views  of  the  Sacraments  of  the  Church  as  accepted  during 
Henry's  reign.  The  present  developed  theory  of  the  Roman 
Church  is  essentially  sacerdotal.  Grace  and  salvation  are 
declared  to  be  obtained  more  or  less  on  reception  of  one 
or  other  of  the  Sacraments  of  the  Church  at  the  hands  of 
the  officiating  Priest,  technically,  ex  opere  operato.  Cas- 
sander,  an  eminent  divine  of  the  Roman  Church,  seems 
to  fix  A.D.  1 140  as  the  date  when  the  number  of  Sacra- 
ments became  seven.  He  stated  that  he  could  not  find 
any  one  before  that  date  to  have  suggested  seven  as  the 
orthodox  number,  which  he  attributes  to  Peter  Lombard.i 
the  great  "  Master  of  Sentences,"  and  that  they  even  were  not 
then  universally  accepted  as  Sacraments,  properly  so  called. 
The  particular  number  seven  was  suggested  at  the  Council 
of  Florence  in  1439,  and  finally  decreed  as  an  article  of 
faith  at  the  seventh  Session  of  the  Trent  Council  in 
March  1547,  to  be  accepted  under  pain  of  Anathema. 
These  seven  were  stated  to  be  Baptism,  Confirmation,  the 
Eucharist  (or  Lord's  Supper),  Penance,  Extreme  Unction, 
Matrimony,  and  Orders.    It  appears,  however,  according 

1  "  Non  temere  quern  quam  reperies  ante  Petrum  Lombardum,  qui  certum 
aliquem  et  definitum  Sacranientorum  numerum  statuerat :  et  de  his  septem 
non  omnia  scholastic!  ceque  proprie  Sacramenta  vocabant. — Cassander,  "  De 
numero  Sacrament."  Art.  xiii.  p.  951,  Paris,  1616  ;  and  p.  107  "Consult. 
Lugd.,"  1608. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


271 


to  Peter  Lombard  (as  evidenced  by  Cassander),  as  also 
Durandus,  another  eminent  divine,  and  even  by  the  Canon 
Law,  "  Gloss  upon  Gratian,"  that  no  grace  is  conferred  on 
the  administration  of  the  Sacrament  of  Matrimony.^ 

In  this  state  of  uncertainty,  Henry  VI IL  ordered  a 
series  of  sixteen  questions  on  the  subject  of  the  Sacra- 
ments to  be  submitted  to  the  Bishops  and  other  learned 
divines,  and  required  them  to  give  their  opinions  in  writing.'^ 

Cranmer  gave  elaborate  replies  to  these  sixteen  search- 
ing questions.  The  following  is  a  short  summary  of  his 
opinions  on  the  Sacraments  as  at  that  time  entertained.  He 
says,  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  show  forth  what  a  sacra- 
ment is.  The  Incarnation  of  Christ  and  Matrimony  are 
called  mysteries,  rendered  Sacramenta.  "  But  one  Sacra- 
mentum  the  Scripture  maketh  mention  of,  which  is  hard 
to  be  revealed  fully,  and  that  is  mysteruni  iniquitatis,  or 
inysteruin  meretricis  inagiice  et  bestice."  The  early  writers, 
he  says,  mention  many  more  sacraments  than  seven,  for  all 
the  figures  which  signified  Christ  to  come,  as  well  as  the 
figures  of  the  Old  law,  and  in  the  New,  such  as  the 
Eucharist,  Baptism,  pasch,  the  day  of  the  Lord,  washing  of 
feet,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  chrism,  order,  the  imposition  of 
hands,  the  Sabbath,  oil,  milk,  honey,  water,  wine,  salt,  fire, 

1  "  De  Matrimonio  Petrus  Lombardius  negavit  in  eo  gratiam  conferri." — 
Cassand.,  "  Consult.,"  ut  supra,  p.  951.    Edit.  Paris,  1616. 

"In  hoc  Sacramento  non  confertur  gratia  Spiritus  Sancti,  sicut  in  aliis." — 
"Corp.  Jur.  Can.,"  vol.  i.  col.  1607.  Lugd.  1671.  Causa  I,  Q.  i,  c.  loi, 
and  32,  Q.  2,  c.  13. 

"  Ipse  vero  Durandns  hoc  argumento  utitur  ;  matrimonium  non  confert 
prirnam  gratiam,  qux  est  ipsa  justificatio  a  peccatis  ;  neque  secundam  gratiam, 
sive  gratiae  incrementum  ;  nullam  igitur  gratiam  confert." — See  "  Bellarmine 
de  Matrim.  Sacram.,"  lib.  i.  c.  v.  tom  iii.  p.  506.  Colon.,  1616.  "  Durand," 
fol.  cccxviii.    Paris,  1508. 

^  These  questions  and  answers  are  preserved  in  the  Lambeth  Library  and 
British  Museum.  See  Jenkyns'  "  Remains,"  vol.  ii.  p.  98,  Oxford,  1833, 
who  also  gives  the  full  texts  of  the  Questions  and  Cranmer's  replies. 


272       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 

&c.,  &c.,  are  also  called  sacraments.  He  sees  no  reason 
why  the  word  sacrament  should  be  attributed  to  seven 
only,  and  he  never  met  in  the  old  authors  the  two  words, 
"seven  sacraments"  joined  together.  "It  is  no  doctrine 
of  the  Scripture  or  the  old  authors."  He  finds  in  Scrip- 
ture the  matter,  nature,  and  efficacy  of  two,  only  Baptism 
and  the  Eucharist.  He  finds  Penance  mentioned  in 
Scripture,  "  whereby  sinners,  after  Baptism,  returning 
wholly  to  God,  be  accepted  again  into  God's  favour  and 
mercy.  But  Scripture  speaketh  not  of  Penance,  as  we  call 
it  a  Sacrament,  consisting  of  three  parts,  contrition,  con- 
fession, and  satisfaction."  ^ 

"  That  the  Scripture  taketh  Penance  for  a  pure  con- 
version of  the  sinner  in  heart  and  mind,  and  from  his  sins 
unto  God,  making  no  mention  of  private  confession  of  all 
deadly  sins  to  a  priest  nor  of  ecclesiastical  satisfaction  to 
be  enjoined  by  him."  * 

Matrimony  "  as  a  promise  of  salvation  if  the  Parents 
bring  up  their  children  in  the  faith,  love,  and  fear  of  God." 
"  Of  the  matter,  nature,  and  effect  of  the  other  three,  that  is 
to  say.  Confirmation,  Order,  and  Extreme  Unction,  I  read 
nothing  in  the  Scripture,  as  they  be  taken  for  Sacraments." 
"  In  the  New  Testament,  he  that  is  appointed  to  be  a 

^  It  was  the  same  Peter  Lombard  who  first  defined  that  these  three  were 
parts  of  "Penance."  See  Neander's  "Church  History,"  vol.  vii.  p.  483, 
London,  Bohn's  edit.,  1852. 

2  Nothing  can  be  more  clear  in  the  teaching  of  the  Roman  Church  at  the 
present  day,  than  that  perfect  repentance  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  obtain 
the  benefit  of  Absolution  in  this  so-called  Sacrament  of  Penance.  It  is  clearly 
laid  down  that,  by  an  imperfect  repentance,  arising  from  the  fear  of  punish- 
ment, with  confession  to  a  Priest,  the  sinner,  whose  sins  may  be  however  great 
or  however  often  repeated,  can  obtain  absolution  on  confession  to  a  Priest. 
See  Delahogue,  "Tract  de  Sacr.  Poenit."  Dublin,  1825.  "  Catechesm  ou 
abrege  de  Foi,"  Paris,  1 828,  p.  25.  "On  the  Commandment,"  by  Liguori, 
London  and  Dublin,  1862,  pp.  255-6.  "Concil.  Tred.,"  Sess.  xiv.  c.  iv.  De 
Conlritione,  "  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  Donovan's  Translation, 
Dublin,  1829,  pp.  271. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Bishop  or  Priest  nccdeth  no  consecration  by  the  Scriptures 
for  election, 1  an  appointment  thereto  is  sufficient."  "  A 
man  is  not  bound,  by  the  authority  of  this  Scripture,  to 
confess  his  secret  deadly  sins  to  a  Priest,  although  he  xr^y 
have  him."  "  Unction  for  the  sick  with  oil,  to  remit  venial 
sins,  as  is  now  used,  is  not  spoken  of  in  the  Scripture,  nor 
in  any  ancient  author." 

That  Cranmer  was  not  peculiar  in  his  views  and 
opinions  on  the  Sacraments,  I  propose  to  give  the  answers, 
to  some  of  the  principal  questions,  by  the  Bishop  of 
Rochester.    The  replies  were  as  follows  : — 

"  Q.  How  many  sacraments  there  be  by  the  Scriptures  ? 

"A.  I  think  that  in  the  Scriptures  be  innumerable  sacraments,  for 
all  mysteries,  all  ceremonies,  all  the  facts  of  Christ,  the  whole  story  of 
the  Jews,  and  the  Revelation  of  the  Apocalypse  may  be  named  sacra- 
ments. 

"  Q.  How  many  sacraments  there  be  by  the  ancient  authors  ? 

"A.  I  think  that  in  the  doctors  be  found  many  more  sacraments 
than  seven  ;  namely,  the  bread  of  the  catechumens,  sign  of  the  cross, 
oil,  milk,  salt,  honey,  &c. 

"  Q.  Whether  the  word  sacrament  be,  and  ought  to  be,  attributed  to 
seven  only  ?  and  whether  the  seven  sacraments  be  found  in  any  of  the 
old  authors  ? 

'^A.  I  think  that  the  name  of  a  sacrament  is  and  may  be  attributed 
to  more  than  seven,  and  that  all  the  seven  sacraments  be  found  in  the 
old  authors,  though  all,  peradventure,  be  not  found  in  one  author. 
But  I  have  not  read  Penance  called  by  the  name  of  a  sacrament  in 
any  of  them. 

"  Q.  Whether  the  determined  number  of  seven  sacraments  be  a 
doctrine  either  of  the  Scripture  or  of  the  old  authors,  and  so  to  be 
taught 

"A.  Albeit,  the  seven  sacraments  be,  in  effect,  found  both  in  the 
Scripture  and  in  the  old  authors,  and  may  therefore  be  so  taught,  yet  I 
have  not  read  this  precise  and  determinate  number  of  seven  sacra- 
ments, neither  in  the  Scripture,  nor  in  the  ancient  writers." 

It  was  seven  years  after  this  that  the  Church  of  Rome 

'  The  word  xf'P<""<"'ew  c//tv>ci/f;/tv  (Acts  xiv.  23),  literally  means  "stretch- 
ing forth  of  the  hands,"  used  at  popular  elections  by  "show  of  hands  ;"  hence 
it  acquired  the  secondary  meaning  of  "  to  appoint  by  popular  election." 

S 


2  74       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


stereotyped,  as  it  were,  her  present  Sacramental  sacerdotal 
system. 

It  will  be  thus  seen  that  while  Cranmer's  views  were 
more  advanced  and  precise  than  those  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rochester,  we  have  here  the  principles  clearly  laid  down 
on  which  the  Church  of  England  has  acted,  untrammelled 
by  the  fetters  of  Roman  dogmatism. 

Section  IV. 
TJie  Writings  of  Craniner. 

The  accession  of  Edward  VI.  to  the  throne  materially 
altered  the  position  of  affairs.  The  well-known  proclivities 
of  the  youthful  Sovereign,  and  the  accordant  sympathies 
of  his  Council  of  State,  encouraged  the  Archbishop  to 
commence,  without  delay,  those  larger  schemes  of  re-con- 
struction and  re-adjustment,  which  had  been  maturing  in 
his  mind,  and  which  had  been  kept  in  abeyance  during  the 
last  reign. 

It  is  not  within  the  design  of  this  Chapter  to  record  the 
steps  which  led  to  the  publication  of  successive  editions  of 
our  "  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  in  the  third  and  fifth  years 
of  Edward  VI.,  and  by  which  the  independence  of  the 
English  Church  was  completed.^  The  history  of  these 
stirring  events  has  been  already  related  in  the  preceding 
pages.  We  are  confined  in  this  Section  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  printed  works  of  Cranmer. 

The  First  Book  of  Homilies,  the  public  reading  of 

1  "We  are  not  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  superiority  of  style  discoverable 
in  our  Liturgy,  the  masterly  performance  of  Cranmer  and  his  associates,  which 
has  always  been  admired,  but  seldom  successfully  imitated,  and  never  equalled  ; 
which  is  full  without  verbosity,  refined  without  the  appearance  of  refinement, 
and  solemn  without  the  affectation  of  solemnity." — Sermon  I.,  p.  21.  Oxon. 
1805.    Dr  Lawrence's  "  Bampton  Lectures." 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


which  is  still  enjoined  on  the  clergy  by  the  XXV.  Article 
of  our  Church,  was  the  first  of  these  printed  works.  Three 
of  these  Discourses  on  "  Salvation,"  "  Faith,"  and  "  Good 
Works,"  are  ascribed,  on  contemporary  evidence,  to  the  • 
facile  pen  of  the  Archbishop.  He  steadfastly  upholds,  in 
these  treatises  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  only, 
but  with  such  perpetual  guardianship  and  intimate  con- 
nexion with  the  fruit  of  good  works  as  the  necessary  result 
of  a  right  and  accepted  Faith,  that  in  his  mode  of  dealing 
with  the  doctrine  he  is  absolved  from  all  the  shibbolethic 
and  party  meaning  attached  to  the  use  of  that  phrase  in 
these  more  modern  days.  There  are  certainly  no  expres- 
sions to  justify  the  imputation  of  the  Archbishop  being 
either  a  Solifidiatt  or  an  advocate  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  an  imputed  righteousness.  We  should  arrive  at  a  more 
correct  estimate  of  Cranmer's  statements,  if  we  were  to  say 
that  the  great  cardinal  purpose  of  his  teaching  in  these 
Homilies  was  to  magnify  the  Atonement,  and  the  Sacrifice 
of  our  Blessed  Lord  on  the  Cross,  as  the  sole  meritorious 
cause  of  man's  acceptableness,  and  to  declare  and  establish 
the  great  truth  (which  he  has  made  the  central  teaching  of 
the  Service  of  the  administration  of  the  Holy  Communion), 
that  our  Blessed  Saviour  made  on  the  Cross,  by  His  sacrifice 
once  offered,  a  full,  perfect,  and  sufficient  sacrifice,  oblation, 
and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  In  con- 
firmation of  this  estimate  of  the  teaching  of  these  Homilies, 
we  have  the  judgment  of  Bishop  Burnet.^ 

Cranmer  was  not  at  all  concerned  in  those  niceties, 
which  have  so  much  been  inquired  into  since  that  time, 
about  the  instrumentality  of  Faith  in  Justification;  all  that 
he  then  considered  being  that  the  glory  of  it  might  be 
ascribed  to  the  death  and  intercession  of  Jesus  Christ. 
'  "  Hist,  of  the  Reformation,"  Pocock's  edit.,  vol.  i.  p.  464.  1865. 


276       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


The  care  of  the  rising  generation  always  occupied  a 
predominant  place  in  the  thoughts  of  the  Patriot  States- 
man. Cranmer  took  the  schools  of  the  country  under  his 
protection,  and  constantly  sought  to  promote  the  welfare 
of  the  young.  For  this  purpose,  shortly  after  the  publica- 
tion of  the  First  Book  of  Homilies,  he  authorised  the  use 
of  a  Catechism  translated  into  English  from  the  Latin 
version  of  Justus  Jonas.^  The  real  author  2  of  this  Cate- 
chism, it  is  believed,  was  Osiander  (whose  niece  Cranmer 
married),  who  had  written  in  German  for  the  students  of 
Nuremberg  and  Brandenburg.^  The  authorised  use  of  this 
Catechism  was  the  source  of  much  trouble  to  the  Arch- 
bishop. It  caused  him  to  be  suspected  of  a  wish  to 
inculcate  Lutheran  teaching,  and  added  fuel  to  the  pre- 
valent dissensions.  John  Burcher,  writing  to  Bullinger, 
29th  October  1548,'*  thus  speaks  of  it : — 

"  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  moved  no  doubt  by  the  advice  of 
Peter  Martyr  and  of  some  Lutherans,  has  ordered  a  Catechism  of 
some  Lutheran  opinions  to  be  translated  and  pubUshed  in  our 
language.  This  little  book  has  caused  no  little  discord,  so  that  fight- 
ing has  frequently  taken  place  among  the  common  people  on  account 
of  their  diversity  of  opinion,  even  during  the  sermons." 

There  is  no  evidence  to  prove  that  Cranmer  had  any 
hand  in  the  actual  translation  of  this  Catechism  from  Latin 
into  English.  All  that  can  really  be  attributed  to  him  is 
the  Preface,  in  which  the  Catechism  is  dedicated  to  King 

^  Justus  Jonas  was  a  great  friend  anil  associate  of  Martin  Luther,  and  held  a 
professorship  at  Nuremberg.  He  was  the  translator  of  Osiander's  Catechism. 
Some  state  that  it  was  Justus  Jonas  the  younger. 

-  Blunt's  "  Annotated  Prayer  Book,"  Preface,  p.  37.    London,  1866. 

^  Dr  Burton  says  it  was  framed  on  the  model  of  Luther's  Shorter  Catechism, 
A.D.  1529,  and  its  tone  is  high  Lutheran.  How  Osiander  was  opposed  to  the 
Lutherans,  in  some  points  at  least,  see  Whitaker's  "Disputation,"  Parker 
Society,  p.  380.    Whitaker  was  Dean  Nowel's  nephew. 

*  Original  Letters,  "  English  Reformation,"  ccx.,  cviii.    Parker  Society. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


2/7 


Edward  VI.  This  Preface  is  very  short,  and  contains  no 
doctrinal  nor  controversial  statement.  It  is  a  simple  unim- 
passioned  academical  eulogy  on  the  benefits  of  learning, 
and  an  earnest  caution  against  the  mischief  of  idleness  and 
ignorance. 

Another  treatise,  in  which  the  Primate  had  a  hand, 
entitled  a  "  Confutation  of  Unwritten  Verities,"  quickly 
followed  the  publication  of  Justus  Jonas'  translation  of 
Osiander's  Catechism.  As  in  our  days,  the  apologists  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  have  devised  the  theory  of  Develop- 
ment as  the  defence  of  the  Decree  of  the  Vatican  Council, 
and  of  other  late  tenets  of  Romish  doctrines,  so  in  the  first 
part  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  friends  of  the  Papacy 
pleaded  for  their  teachings  the  authority  of  "  Unwritten 
Verities."  This  weapon  of  defence  was  first  forged  by  the 
ingenuity  of  Stokesley,  the  then  Bishop  of  London.  The 
treatise  under  review  is  an  able  refutation  of  this  claim. 
Some  doubts  have  been  expressed  as  to  the  entire  author- 
ship being  rightly  attributed  to  Cranmer.  There  are  good 
grounds,  however,  for  placing  it  among  his  printed  works. 
Cranmer  was  a  persevering  and  methodical  collector  of 
authorities  on  all  the  Ecclesiastical  questions  which  formed, 
in  his  dangerous  days,  the  matters  of  disputation  ;  and  the 
substance,  order,  and  arrangement  of  the  quotations  as 
printed  in  this  instructive  volume  are  in  the  handwriting  of 
the  Archbishop.  The  purpose  of  the  treatise  is  to  prove 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  from  the  ancient  Fathers, 
that  the  Word  of  God  contains  all  things  necessary  for 
salvation,  and  that  neither  the  writings  of  the  old  "  Fathers," 
nor  general  Councils,  nor  the  oracles  of  Angels,  nor 
apparitions  from  the  dead,  nor  customs  of  Churches,  are 
sufficient  to  establish  doctrines,  or  to  maintain  a  new 
Article  of  Faith.     It  is,  in  a  word,  the  counterpart  of 


278       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


the  Sixth  Article  of  our  Church  on  the  sufficiency  of  Holy- 
Scripture.^ 

We  have  now  arrived  at  a  period  of  Cranmer's  life  in 
which  his  opinions  reached  their  utmost  divergence  from 
the  tenets  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  As  at  an  early  period 
of  his  life  he  was  led,  from  his  knowledge  of  the  history  of 
his  own  and  of  other  Churches,  and  from  the  testimony  of 
ancient  Fathers,  to  repudiate  the  domination  over  all 
Churches  and  States  claimed  by  the  Popes,  so  he  was  led 
at  this  later  period  to  renounce  the  extravagant  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation,  and,  as  a  consequence  of  his  new  con- 
victions, to  convert  the  Mass  into  a  Communion  Service. 
This  most  important  change  in  his  religious  sentiments, 
which  really  lay  at  the  root  of  a  true  doctrinal  Reforma- 
tion, and  of  a  complete  separation  from  the  Church  of 
Rome,  arose  from  no  sudden  impulse,  nor  from  any  new  or 
unlooked-for  external  collision  with  the  Roman  See.  It 
was  a  work  of  gradual '  progress,  and  the  result  of  a  deeper 
acquaintance  with  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  and  with  the 
Liturgies  of  the  Primitive  Churches.  It  affords  no  real 
ground  for  the  charge  of  inconsistency  occasionally  brought 
as  a  railing  accusation  against  the  Archbishop.  He  was  a 
learner  in  a  learning  age.  It  was,  indeed,  his  misfortune  to 
live  in  times  in  which,  what  was  denominated  a  new  learn- 
ing, was  the  characteristic  feature,  and  of  which  new  learn- 
ing he  was  himself  one  of  the  chief  Masters  and  Directors  ; 

>  See  Article  vi, — "  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not 
to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  Article  of  the 
Faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation." 

^  Cranmer  gives  the  account  of  himself : — "  By  little  and  little  I  put  away 
my  former  ignorance.  And  as  God  of  His  mercy  gave  me  light,  so  through 
His  grace  I  opened  mine  eyes  to  receive  it,  and  did  not  wilfully  repugn  unto 
God  and  remain  in  darkness." — Jenkyns'  Preface  to  "  Cranmer's  Remains," 
vol.  i.  p.  75.    Edit.  Oxford,  1833. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


279 


and  in  such  an  age  of  transition,  trial,  and  contention,  pro- 
gression towards  clearer  views,  and  an  advancing  readiness 
to  stand  in  the  ancient  paths,  were  no  sufficient  proofs  of 
either  insincerity,  vacillation,  or  inconsistency.  In  such  a 
time  in  which  the  foundations  of  the  Civil  and  Ecclesias- 
tical polity  were  in  a  manner  laid  bare,  no  man,  lay  or 
cleric,  could  justly  be  blamed  for  a  change  in  his  opinions. 
In  judging  of  the  character  of  such  change,  an  inquiry 
should  be  directed  as  to  the  motive  which  induced  the 
change.  If  the  change  can  be  fairly  attributed  to  a  corrupt 
or  unworthy  motive,  if  it  be  proved  to  bring  additional 
honours,  pecuniary  advantages,  or  personal  improvement 
in  social  position,  we  may  then  legitimately  challenge  the 
conduct  of  the  convert,  and  charge  him  with  inconsistency, 
time  serving,  or  apostacy.  But  Archbishop  Cranmer  was 
a  gainer  in  none  of  these  particulars  by  his  change  of  views, 
and  no  such  accusations  against  him  can  be  substantiated 
or  maintained.  We  have  the  written  evidence  of  Cranmer 
himself  as  late  as  1537-8  to  these  two  facts: — First,  that 
at  this  date  he  believed  in  the  corporeal  presence  in  "  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar;"  and  second,  that  he  had  per- 
sonally read  the  ancient  authors  on  the  subject.  It  were 
better  to  quote  the  Archbishop's  own  words.  He  thus 
writes  to  Joachim  Vadiamus,  in  the  year  1537-8: — 

"  Wherefore  since  the  Cathohc  faith,  which  we  hold  concerning  the 
true  presence  of  the  body  {de  vera  prcscntia  corporis),  has  been  pro- 
mulgated from  the  beginning  of  the  Church  by  such  clear  and  manifest 
passages  of  Scripture,  and  has  likewise  been  sedulously  commended 
to  the  ears  of  the  faithful  by  the  most  eminent  ecclesiastical  writers,  do 
not  go  on,  I  pray  you,  to  desire  any  further  to  root  up  and  overthrow 
a  doctrine  so  well  supported.  Sufficient  are  the  attempts  already 
made."  ^ 

If  these  words,  "  De  vera  presejitid  corporis,"  "  concerning 
the  true  presence  of  the  body,"  prove,  as  they  are  sup- 

'  "Cranmer's  Remains,"  vol.  i.  195.    Oxford,  1833. 


28o       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


posed  to  do,  the  acceptance  by  the  writer,  of  the  doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation,  then  it  is  probable  that,  shortly  after 
this  time,  some  modification  of  these  sentiments,  and  some 
change  occurred  in  his  opinions.  We  have,  at  any  rate, 
certain  facts  which  seem  to  point  to  this  conclusion.  In 
the  first  place,  the  Archbishop  succeeded  so  ill,  and 
became  so  entangled  in  his  argument  with  Lambert,  in  the 
great  disputation  held  in  the  presence  of  King  Henry 
VIII.  in  Westminster  House,  that  the  bystanders  were 
amazed,  and  that  Dr  Gardyner,  the  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
interrupted  him,  and  took  up  the  controversy  himself, 
which  showed  the  existence  of  some  ambiguity  on  his 
mind  on  the  subject.  And  the  arguments  of  Fryth  must 
have  also  made  a  great  impression  upon  him.  In  the 
second  place,  at  this  verj'  time  there  was  a  deputation  of 
German  Reformers  in  England,  on  the  invitation  of  the 
King  and  of  the  Archbishop,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
establishing  a  common  Formular}*  of  Faith,  for  the  joint 
adoption  of  the  English  Church  and  of  the  Reformed 
Lutheran  Churches,  and  that  it  was  only  on  the  later 
opposition  of  the  King  that  any  difficulty  was  made  on  the 
question  of  "  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar."  And,  lastly,  in 
a  Letter  written  to  Lord  Crumwell,  on  the  15th  August, 
1538,  concerning  Adam  Damplif,  a  Priest  at  Calais,  who 
had  a  dispute  with  the  Prior,  and  being  called  upon  for 
his  defence  declared  that  "  he  had  ever  confessed  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  to  be  present  in  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Altar,  and  had  only  confuted  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation." To  which  Cranmer  adds  the  remark,  "  and 
tJierein  I  think  he  taught  the  truthy^  These  three  facts 
seem  to  justify  the  impression  that  Cranmer  had  himself 
become,  shortly  after  his  Letter  to  Vadianus,  a  convert  to 

1  Letter  ccxxviii.,  Jenk}Tis'  "  Remains,"  vol.  i.  p.  257.    Oxford,  1833. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


the  Lutheran  Doctrine  of  Consubstantiation.  This  suspi- 
cion of  the  acceptance  of  Lutheran  Doctrine  is  strength- 
ened by  the  public  sanction  of  the  Lutheran  Catechism  of 
Osiander,  and  of  Justus  Jonas,  to  which  reference  has 
already  been  made.  The  main  cause  of  the  eventual 
surrender  both  of  the  Romish  and  of  Lutheran  doctrine  is 
to  be  traced  to  the  influence  of  Dr  H.  Ridley,  Bishop  of 
London.  That  distinguished  Prelate,  about  the  year  1546, 
brought  to  the  Primate's  notice  the  famous  treatise  of 
Rabanus,  or  Bertram  (also  previously  noticed),  in  which  he 
combated  the  opinions  of  Paschasius  Radbert,  who  first 
asserted,  in  the  ninth  century,  the  doctrine  of  a  change  of 
the  substance  of  the  consecrated  elements,  or  Transubstan- 
tiation,  though  that  expression  was  not  then  invented. 
This  statement  is  made  on  the  authority  of  Cranmer  him- 
self: — "I  grant"  (he  said,  in  his  examination  at  Oxford, 
before  Dr  Brooks,  the  Bishop  of  Worcester),  "  that  then  I 
believed  otherwise  than  I  do  now  ;  and  so  I  did,  until 
my  Lord  of  London,  Dr  Ridley,  did  confer  with  me, 
and,  by  sundry  persuasions  and  authorities  of  Doctors, 
drew  me  quite  from  my  opinions."  ^  Cranmer,  with  his 
accustomed  conscientiousness,  investigated  for  himself  the 
authorities  adduced  by  Bertram,  as  is  evidenced  by  his 
Common  Place  Book,  yet  extant,  and  only  after  thus 
satisfying  himself  of  the  truth,  as  held  by  the  early 
Fathers,  did  he  openly  maintain  his  newly  received 
opinions.  We  have  the  authority  of  Bartholomew 
Traheron  for  the  date  of  the  first  document  of  this  change 
of  views  entertained  by  the  Primate.  In  a  Letter  addressed 
to  Bullinger,  in  the  month  of  December  1548,  he  says  : — 

"On  the  14th  December,  if  I  mistake  not,  a  disputation  was  held  at 
London,  concerning  the  Eucharist,  in  the  presence  of  almost  all  the 
nobility  of  England.    The  arguments  were  sharply  contested  by  the 
'  Jenkyns'  "  Remains,"  vol.  i.  p.  97.    Oxford,  1833. 


282       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Bishops.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  contrary  to  general  expecta- 
tion, most  openly,  firmly,  and  learnedly  maintained  your  opinion  upon 
the  subject.  .  .  .  The  truth  never  obtained  a  more  brilliant  •victory 
among  us.  I  perceive  that  it  is  all  over  with  Lutheranism,  now  that 
those  who  were  considered  its  principal  and  almost  only  supporters, 
have  come  over  to  our  side." ' 

The  best  and  most  certain  proofs,  however,  of  the 
Primate's  perfect  renunciation,  at  this  date,  both  of  the 
Romish  and  Lutheran  tenets  connected  with  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  "  Lord's  Supper,"  is  the  gift  of  his  great  crown- 
ing work  to  the  Enghsh  Church  on  the  completed  Book 
of  .Common  Prayer.  The  Archbishop,  indeed,  could  not 
possibly  have  foreseen  the  amazing  benefits  he  was  about 
to  confer  upon  the  world  at  large,  in  thus  giving  for  the 
universal  use  of  his  countrymen,  a  National  "  Service  Book," 
which,  in  its  retention  of  all  the  treasures  of  the  ancient 
Sarum  Breviarj',  and  in  its  conformity  with  the  primitive 
truths  of  the  first  and  purest  ages  of  the  Church,  would 
in  after  times  be  a  firm  bond  of  union  between  the  Mother 
Church  of  England,  and  the  numerous  daughter  Churches 
multiplied  and  extended  through  the  divers  nations  of  the 
earth.  The  re-construction  of  the  Prayer  Book  was  accom- 
panied with  every  possible  circumstance  that  could  impart 
to  it  dignity  and  importance  as  a  national  act  It  was 
prepared  by  a  committee  of  Bishops  and  divines  assembled 
at  Windsor,-  who  carried  on  their  deliberations  for  the  space 
of  two  years.  Whether  it  was  sanctioned  by  the  two 
Convocations  is  doubtful,  but  it  was  formally  authorised  by 
the  two  Houses  of  Parliament,  confirmed  with  hearty  good- 
will by  the  youthful  Sovereign,  and  specially  acknowledged 
by  the  most  solemn  declaration  to  have  been  superintended 
by  the  presence  of  the  "  Holy  Ghost."  ^ 

Original  Letters,  " English  Reformation,"  cliL    Parker  Society. 
-  Cranmer's  Letter,  ccxcix.,  Jenkyns'  "  Remains,"  p.  375.    Oxford,  1833. 
^  This  aid  of  the  "  Holy  Ghost"  is  distinctly  asserted  in  the  Act  contained 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


283 


The  special  writings  of  Cranmer  in  connexion  with  the 
"  Book  of  Common  Prayer  "  were  the  two  "  Prefaces  " — 
"  Concerning  the  Services  of  the  Church,"  and  "  Of  Cere- 
monials, why  some  be  abolished  and  some  retained."  In 
the  first  of  these  Prefaces  Cranmer  was  assisted  by  the 
work  of  Cardinal  Quignonez,  a  Spanish  Bishop,^  who  pub- 
lished in  1536  a  reformed  Roman  Breviary,  under  the 
permission  granted  by  Leo  X.,  to  Zaccharie  Ferrerie  de 
Vicenze,  Bishop  of  Guarda,  in  Portugal.  Mr  Blunt,  in  his 
"  Annotated  Prayer  Book,"  has  printed  in  double  column 
the  corresponding  passages  of  the  two  Prefaces.^ 

in  the  "  Statutes  at  Large,"  2  and  3  Edwd.  VI.  c.  i,  "  An  Act  for  uniformity 
of  Service  and  administration  of  the  Sacraments  throughout  the  realms,"  which 
recites — "And  thereupon  having  as  well  eye  and  respect  to  the  most  sincere 
and  pure  Christian  religion  taught  by  the  Scriptures,  as  to  the  usages  in  the 
Primitive  Church,  should  draw  and  make  one  convenient  and  meet  order,  rite, 
and  fashion  of  common  and  open  prayer  and  administration  of  the  Sacraments, 
to  be  had  and  used  in  his  Majesty's  realm  of  England  and  in  Wales,  the  which 
at  this  time  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost  with  one  uniform  and  agreement  is 
of  them  concluded,  set  forth,  and  delivered  to  his  Highness,  to  his  great 
comfort  and  quietness  of  mind,  in  a  Book  entitled  'The  Book  of  the  Common 
Prayer  and  Administration  of  the  Sacraments  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
the  Church  after  the  use  of  the  Church  of  England.'  "  The  penalties  for  breach 
of  the  Act  were  heavy  :  for  the  first  offence,  six  months'  imprisonment,  without 
bail  or  mainprise  ;  and  for  the  second,  a  year's  imprisonment  and  the  loss  {ipse 
facto)  of  benefice.  The  second  Prayer  liook  was  declared  by  another  Act  of 
Parliament  to  be  : — "  Agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  primitive  Church, 
very  comfortable  to  all  good  people  desirous  to  live  in  Christian  conversation, 
and  most  profitable  to  the  estate  of  the  realm,  upon  the  which  the  mercy, 
favour,  and  blessing  of  Almighty  God  is  no  wise  so  ready  plenteously  proved 
as  by  common  Prayer,  due  using  of  the  Sacraments,  and  after  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  with  the  devotion  of  the  prayers."    5  and  6  Edwd.  VI.  c.  i. 

^  For  some  notice  of  the  History  of  the  Quignon  Breviary,  the  reader  is 
referred  to  my  "  History  of  the  Roman  Breviary,"  p.  5.  1880.  Messrs  W. 
H.  Allen  &  Co.,  Waterloo  Place,  London. 

-  Mr  Blunt,  in  his  Preface,  p.  xx.,  edit.  1866,  says  : — "This  Reformed  Roman 
Breviary  was  intended  chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  for  the  use  of  the  Clergy  and 
Monks  in  their  private  recitations,  and  its  introduction  in  some  places  for 
choir  and  public  use  eventually  led  to  its  suppression  in  1566.  No  provision 
was  made  (as  there  had  been  in  the  English  Reformation)  for  adapting  it  to  the 
use  of  the  laity.  During  the  whole  forty  years  of  its  use  there  is  no  trace  cf 
any  attempt  to  connect  the  Quignon  Breviary  with  vernacular  translations  of 


284       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


The  second  Preface  is  entirely  the  production  of  Cran- 
mer's  pen.  It  is  the  fashion  in  these  days  to  pay  either 
none  or  little  attention  to  these  prefatory  writings.  They 
are  regarded  as  archaic  documents,  having  no  reference 
to  modern  times ;  but  if  any  one  will  calmly  examine  this 
Second  Preface,  he  will  find  in  it  an  attestation,  in  a 
singular  degree,  to  the  judgment,  temper,  and  mastery  of 
his  times  possessed  by  the  Primate.  What  moderation  he 
exhibits  in  the  burning  questions  of  his  day !  How 
impartially  he  arbitrates  between  those  who  would  retain 
superstitious  usages  and  those  extremists  who  would  dis- 
regard all  ancient  customs  !  To  the  first  of  these  he 
says: — "This  our  excessive  multitude  of  ceremonies  was 
so  great,  and  many  of  them  so  dark,  that  they  did  more 
confound  and  darken  than  declare  and  set  forth  Christ's 
benefits  unto  us."  To  the  second  of  these  he  says : — 
"  Granting  some  ceremonies  convenient  to  be  had  surely 
when  the  old  may  be  well  used,  these  they  cannot  reason- 
ably reprove  the  old  only  for  their  age,  without  bewraying 
of  their  own  folly."  What  delicacy  of  reproof,  polish  of 
remonstrance,  and  courtesy  in  considering  faults  and  pre- 
judices are  here  apparent!  What  a  wonderful  degree  of 
prescience,  the  highest  prerogative  of  the  true  Statesman, 
either  in  Church  or  State,  is  here  manifested,  so  that  the 
words  and  counsels  of  the  Archbishop,  after  the  lapse  of 
three  centuries,  are  just  as  suitable  to  the  circumstances  of 
the  times  as  when  they  were  first  written.  How  justly  and 
wisely  he  combines  the  vindication  of  the  English  Church 
to  legislate  for  her  own  necessities,  with  the  free  and 
gracious  acknowledgment  of  the  like  privilege  to  other 

prayers  or  Scriptures,  and  although  it  was  undoubtedly  an  initiatory  step  in  the 
same  direction  as  that  taken  by  our  own  Reformers,  yet  it  was  never  followed 
up  nor  intended  to  be  followed  up  :  and  the  object  of  the  Roman  Reform 
throws  out  in  stronger  light  that  of  the  English." 


< 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Churches ! — "  In  these  our  doings,  we  condemn  no  other 
nations,  nor  prescribe  anything  but  to  our  own  people 
only,  for  we  think  it  convenient  that  every  country  should 
use  such  ceremonies  as  they  shall  think  best  to  the  setting 
forth  of  God's  honour  and  glory,  and  to  the  reducing 
the  people  to  a  most  perfect  and  godly  living,  without 
error  or  superstition."  This  Preface,^  of  all  his  writings, 
appears  the  most  complete  in  its  testimony  to  the  posses- 
sion by  Cranmer  of  all  the  qualities  fitting  him  for  the 
discharge  of  his  responsible  but  glorious  task,  as  the 
Primate  of  a  Church  desirous  of  effecting,  within  itself,  a 
true  and  judicious  National  Reformation. 

The  new  book  of  "  Common  Prayer,"  although  generally 
approved,  did  not  secure  the  entire  acceptance  of  the 
nation.  The  ancient  system  addressing  itself  to  the  senses 
rather  than  to  the  understanding  or  the  heart,  and  insisting 
more  upon  outward  observances  than  personal  holiness, 
was  well  calculated  to  enchain  and  captivate  the  ruder 
and  less  educated  classes  of  the  peasantry,  and  naturally 
the  sudden  and  peremptory  abolition  of  practices  and  of 
ceremonies  to  which  they  had  looked  for  salvation,  exerted 
among  them  sentiments  of  horror  and  indignation.  These 
feelings  of  religious  disaffection  were  further  increased  by 
the  sufferings  caused  in  the  rural  districts  by  the  lay 
purchasers  of  the  confiscated  monastic  lands,  who  exacted 
higher  rents,  and,  at  the  same  time,  gave  less  than  their 
former  owners  in  charity  to  their  poorer  neighbours.  These 

^  The  short  Preface  to  the  Ordniation  Services  is  also  attributed  to  Cranmer. 
This  plain  and  distinct  statement  of  the  threefold  Christian  ministry  of  Bishop, 
Priest,  and  Deacon  throws  light  on  the  License  requested  by  Cranmer  from 
the  two  Sovereigns  whom  he  served.  It  is  evident  that  the  request  was 
no  denial  of  the  indelible  character,  or  certain  grace  of  Holy  Orders,  but  only 
a  cautionary  effort  to  avoid  any  possible  danger  of  incurring  a  Prxmunire  by 
securing  the  license  of  the  Sovereign  to  exercise  within  the  Realm  the  rights  of 
his  jurisdiction. 


286       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


popular  risings  extended  through  several  counties,  but  the 
insurrection  in  Devonshire,  aided  by  the  co-operation  of 
some  influential  gentry,  alone  assumed  formidable  pro- 
portions. These  insurgents  addressed  a  petition  to  the 
Privy  Council,  in  which  they  formulated  their  grievances 
under  fifteen  heads.  They  complained  of  the  new  English 
Prayer  Book,  and  demanded  the  restoration  of  private 
Masses,  of  the  reservation  of  the  Host,  of  the  continuance 
of  the  service  in  Latin.  They  further  required  the  re- 
enactment  of  the  "  Six  Articles  Act,"  the  restitution  of 
the  prohibited  days  of  Holiday,  and  the  removal  of  the 
old  ceremonies  of  Holy  Water,  of  Ashes,  of  Palms,  of 
creeping  to  the  Cross,  and  of  processions.  It  fell  to  the 
lot  of  Cranmer,  at  the  request  of  the  Privy  Council,  to 
prepare  an  answer  to  these  complaints.  He  exposed  the 
ignorance  and  folly  of  the  insurgents,  and  proved  to  them, 
in  all  honesty  and  plainness  of  speech,  that  the  various 
customs,  which  they  had  venerated  as  ancient  ceremonies, 
had  been  invented  in  comparatively  modern  times,  and 
he  exposed  with  admirable  effect  the  unreasonableness 
of  their  complaints.  His  reply,  still  extant,  was,  in  fact, 
a  Manifesto  and  Appeal  to  the  Nation,  in  which  he  was 
enabled  to  place  before  it  a  defence  and  explanation  of 
the  new  teachings  and  customs,  and  to  give  sufficient 
reasons  for  the  abolition  of  the  practices  and  ceremonies 
which  they  desired  to  retain.  He  was  thus  enabled 
materially  to  assist  in  the  peaceful  acceptance  of  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  of  the  religious  changes 
with  which  that  acceptance  was  necessarily  associated. 

There  is  another  printed  work  of  the  Primate's  closely 
connected  with  this  western  insurrection,  viz.,  his  "  Sermon 
against  Rebellion."  "The  greatest  cause"  (he  says)  "of 
all  these  commotions  is  sin,  and  under  Christian  profession 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


287 


unchristian  living.  But  there  be  certain  special  causes,  of 
the  which  some  pertain  both  to  the  higher  and  lower 
sort,  as  well  to  the  governors  as  to  the  common  people." 
The  Archbishop  then  expostulates  with  the  different 
classes  in  the  State,  and  concludes  with  a  fervent  prayer,^ 
which  might  form  a  model  for  all  such  supplications. 
This  discourse,  the  only  one  we  have  of  the  Archbishop, 
is  interesting,  as  it  affords  valuable  contemporary  evidence 
as  to  the  condition  of  the  country  at  that  time.  With  the 
omission  of  these  special  allusions,  the  Sermon  might  be 
preached  with  good  effect  at  the  present  day,  if  similar 
painful  occasion  should  arise. 

Cranmer,  at  this  time,  was  in  the  very  hey-day  of  his 
career  of  energy  and  usefulness.  Happy  in  his  enjoyment 
of  domestic  life  and  on  the  restoration  to  him  of  his  wife 
and  children,  he  was  also  the  most  influential  person  in 
the  kingdom,  and  had  entrusted  to  him  a  large  share  in 
the  direction  of  the  affairs  of  Church  and  State.  Not  con- 
tent, therefore,  with  the  late  appeal  to  the  nation  in  behalf 
of  the  new  arrangement  made,  in  answer  to  the  grievances 
of  the  Devonshire  insurgents,  he  resolved  to  stand  forth  as 
the  champion  and  exponent  of  the  Liturgical  and  doctrinal 
changes  effected  under  his  sanction  in  the  conduct  of  the 

^  "  O  Lord,  whose  goodness  far  exceeds  our  naughtiness,  and  whose  mercy 
passeth  all  measure,  we  confess  Thy  judgment  to  be  most  just,  and  that  we 
worthily  have  deserved  this  rod  wherewith  Thou  hast  now  beaten  us.  We 
have  offended  the  Lord  God.  We  have  lived  wickedly,  we  have  gone  out  of 
the  way.  We  have  not  heard  Thy  Prophets  which  Thou  hast  sent  unto  us  to 
teach  us  Thy  word,  nor  have  done  as  Thou  hast  commanded  us,  wherefore  we 
be  most  worthy  to  suffer  all  these  plagues.  Thou  hast  done  justly,  and  we 
be  worthy  to  be  confounded.  But  we  provoke  unto  us  Thy  goodness ;  we 
appeal  unto  Thy  mercy,  we  humble  ourselves,  we  acknowledge  our  faults. 
W'e  turn  to  Thee,  O  Lord,  with  our  whole  hearts,  in  praying,  fasting,  in 
testimony  and  sorrowing  for  our  offences.  Have  mercy  upon  us  ;  cast  us  not 
off  according  to  our  deserts,  but  hear  us  and  deliver  us  with  speed,  and  call 
us  to  Thee  according  to  Thy  mercy,  that  we,  with  one  consent  and  one  mind, 
may  ever  glorify  Thee,  world  without  end.  Amen." 


2  88       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


services  of  the  National  Church.  With  this  intention  he 
pubhshed  in  1552  the  most  important  of  all  his  works,  and 
with  which  his  reputation  as  a  Theologian  is  identified, 
entitled,  "  A  Defence  of  the  True  and  Catholic  Doctrine 
of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour 
Christ."  In  this  Treatise  he  set  forth  plainly  and  sincerely 
what  in  his  judgment  was  the  true  nature  and  use  of  the 
Lord's  Supper ;  and  he  then  enumerates  and  refutes  the 
four  principal  errors  maintained  by  the  Church  of  Rome, 
viz.,  Transubstantiation  ^ : — "  The  corporeal  presence,  the 
eating  and  drinking  of  Christ  by  the  wicked,  and  the 
Sacrifice  of  the  Mass."  "  For  what  availeth  it  (he  asks) 
to  take  away  beads,  pardons,  pilgrimages,  and  such  other 
like  Popery,  so  long  as  two  chief  roots  remain  unpulled 
up  Whereof  so  long  as  they  remain  will  spring  again  all 
former  impediments  of  the  Lord's  harvest  and  corruption 
of  his  flock."  He  expresses  himself  as  animated  by  the 
purest  motives,  and  concludes  his  Preface  with  this  earnest 
appeal : — 

"And  moved  by  the  duty,  office,  and  place,  whereunto  it  hath 
pleased  God  to  call  me,  I  give  warning  in  His  name  unto  all  that  pro- 
fess Christ,  that  they  flee  far  from  Babylon,  if  they  will  save  their 
souls,  and  to  beware  of  that  great  harlot,  that  is  to  say,  the  pestiferous 
See  of  Rome,  that  she  make  you  not  drunk  with  her  pleasant  wine. 
Trust  not  her  sweet  promises,  nor  banquet  with  her  ;  for  instead  of 
wine  she  will  give  you  sour  dregs,  and  for  meat  she  will  feed  you  with 
rank  poison.  But  come  to  our  Redeemer  and  Saviour  Christ,  who 
refresheth  all  that  truly  come  unto  him,  be  their  anguish  and  heaviness 
never  so  great.  Give  credit  unto  Him,  in  whose  mouth  was  never 
found  guile  nor  untruth.  By  Him  you  shall  be  clearly  delivered  from 
all  your  diseases,  of  Him  you  shall  have  full  remission  a pana  et  culpa. 
He  it  is  that  feedeth  continually  all  that  belong  unto  Him  with  His 
own  flesh  that  hanged  on  the  cross ;  and  giveth  them  drink  of  the 

'  Preface  to  Defence,  Jenkyns'  "  Remains,"  vol.  ii.  p.  289.  The  reader 
is  referred  to  previous  remarks  on  the  Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  ante, 
p.  209. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


289 


blood  flowing  out  of  His  own  side,  and  maketh  to  spring  within  them 
water  that  floweth  unto  everlasting  life."  ^ 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  further  enter  at  length  into 
the  subject-matter  of  this  Treatise,  after  what  has  already 
been  submitted  to  the  reader.  It  may  suffice  to  record 
in  Cranmer's  own  words  the  statement  of  the  Romish 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  : — 

"First,  the  Papists  say,  that  in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  after  the 
words  of  consecration  (as  they  call  it),  there  is  none  other  substance 
remaining  but  the  substance  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood,  so  that  there 
remaineth  neither  bread  to  be  eaten,  nor  wine  to  be  drunken.  And 
although  there  be  the  colour  of  bread  and  wine,  the  savour,  the  smell, 
the  bigness,  the  fashion,  and  all  other  (as  they  call  them)  accidents  or 
qualities  and  quantities  of  bread  and  wine,  yet  (say  they)  there  is  no 
very  bread  nor  wine,  but  they  be  turned  into  the  flesh  and  blood  of 
Christ.  And  this  conversion  they  call  transubstantiation,  that  is  to 
say,  turning  of  one  substance  into  another  substance."  ^ 

In  contradistinction  to  this,  the  Archbishop  maintains 
that  "  although  Christ  in  His  human  nature  substantially, 
really,  corporeally,  naturally,  and  sensibly  be  present  with 
His  Father  in  heaven,  yet  sacramentally  and  spiritually 
He  is  here  present.  For  in  water,  bread,  and  wine  He  is 
present,  as  in  signs  and  sacraments."  It  is  plain  from  these 
extracts  that  Cranmer  was  not  only  led  to  renounce  the 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  but  that  he,  with  equal 
wisdom,  judgment,  and  appreciation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  of  the  ancient  Church,  rejected  the  Lutheran  tenets  of 
Consubstantiation,  and  of  the  anti-Sacramental  theories  of 
Zuinglius  and  OEcolamp'adius.  He  was  contented  to  main- 
tain a  real  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
"  verily  and  indeed,  taken  and  received  by  the  faithful  in 
the  Lord's  Supper;"  but  he  entirely  refused  to  designate, 
prescribe,  or  define,  the  mode  of  that  presence.    He  thus  at 

'  Preface  to  Defence,  Jenkyns'  "Remains,"  vol.  ii.  p.  290. 
^  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  290. 

T 


290      LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


once  maintained  the  very  fulness  of  the  saying  of  the 
Divine  Founder  of  this  Heavenly  Feast :  "  This  is  my 
body,  do  this  in  remembrance  of  Me"  surrounded  it  with 
the  fulness  of  sacramental  blessing,  attached  to  its  outward 
sign  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace,  and  yet  freed  the  Holy 
Institution  from  all  the  contrariant,  narrow,  and  enforced 
definitions  which  have  darkened  and  degraded  a  ceremony 
which  should  be  uplifted  far  beyond  the  realm  of  human 
disputations.  The  learned  Editor  of"  Cranmer's  Remains  " 
is  amply  justified  in  his  description  of  this  Treatise  : — 
"  The  result  is  most  satisfactory,  for  after  all  that  has  since 
been  written,  it  is  not  easy  to  point  out  any  tract  of  the 
same  length  against  the  Romish  errors  more  distinguished 
for  closeness  of  reasoning,  clearness  of  arrangement,  and  a 
searching  investigation  of  the  subject."  ^ 

This  vigorous  attack  met  with  an  equally  vigorous  de- 
fence. Dr  Richard  Smythe,  the  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity 
at  Oxford,  and  Dr  Gardyner,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  came 
forward  as  champions  of  Romish  doctrines,  and  published 
replies  to  the  Archbishop's  Treatise.  To  these  replies 
the  Archbishop  prepared  an  answer.  He  reprinted,  with- 
out curtailment,  both  Gardyner's  book  and  his  own,  adding 
such  further  explanations  as  he  thought  requisite  to  meet 
the  objections  of  his  opponents.  He  thus  laid  the  whole 
case,  as  it  was  argued  on  both  sides,  fairly  before  the  reader, 
in  the  perfect  conviction,  that  the  more  thoroughly  it  was 
examined,  the  more  decisive  would  be  the  judgment  in  his 
favour.  Bishop  Gardyner  published  a  second  answer  to 
the  Archbishop,  under  the  assumed  name  of  Marcus  An- 
tonius  Constans,  to  which  Cranmer  was  about  to  supply  a 
third  Treatise,  in  further  confirmation  of  his  arguments, 
when  the  controversy  was  abruptly  closed. 

'Jenkyns'  "Preface,"  vol.i.  p.  Ixxxvi. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


291 


The  great  changes  effected  by  the  Reformation,  both  in 
Church  and  State,  rendered  necessary  some  re-adjustment 
and  revision  of  the  existing  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  I.aws. 
For  this  purpose,  Cranmer,  assisted  chiefly  by  two  eminent 
civilians,  Sir  John  Cheke  and  Dr  Walter  Hadden,  pre- 
pared a  Code  of  Laws,  known  by  the  title,  "  Reformatio 
Legum."^  This  code  was  completed  too  late  in  the  reign 
of  Edward  VI.  to  have  become  invested  with  any  legal 
authority.  It  is,  however,  a  useful  and  important  docu- 
ment, as  being  an  authentic  record  of  the  re-adjustment  of 
the  laws  deemed  necessary  by  those  great  leaders  of  the 
Reformation.  It  retained,  nevertheless,  some  of  the  old 
Popish  leaven  of  persecution  for  conscience'  sake,  but  re- 
stricted "  heresy "  to  the  denial  of  the  admitted  funda- 
mental principles  of  Christianity.  A  prominent  feature  of 
this,  the  last  published  work  on  which  Cranmer  was  en- 
gaged, is  the  injunction  laid  on  the  Bishops  to  hold  a 
Synod  of  their  clergy  in  their  respective  Dioceses  once  a 
year,  in  the  season  of  Lent.  It  is  evident  from  this  book 
of  Laws  that  the  present  personal  autocrated  rule  of  the 
Bishop  in  his  Diocese  was  never  the  intention  of  the  great 

'  The  "  Reformatio  Lcgum  "  was  a  work  of  high  pretensions ;  that,  pro- 
bably, on  which  Cranmer  thought  his  fame  would  rest.  It  was  distributed 
into  fifty-one  "Titles,"  in  imitation  of  Justinian's  celebrated  digest  of  the 
Roman  law  ;  and,  in  imitation  of  the  addition  to  the  printed  copies  of  the 
Pandects  ;  an  Appendix,  de  regidis  pu  is,  was  supplied.  Very  considerable 
care  was  taken  in  the  preparation  of  it :  "  Atque  hoc  modo  hce  quidem  leges 
sunt,  sive  eas  ecclesiasticas,  sive  politicas,  appellare  libeas.  Quarum  materia 
ab  optimis  undique  legibus  petita  videtur,  non  solum  ecclesiasticis,  sed 
civilibus  etiam,  veterumque  Romanorum  proecipua  antiquitate.  Summre 
negotii  proefuit  Tho.  Cranmerus,  Archpis.  Cant.,  orationis  lumen  et  s[)len- 
dorem  addidit  Gualterris.  Haddonus  erit  disertus  et  in  hac  ipsa  juris  facultate 
non  imperltus.  Quin  ha;c  satis  scio  an  Johan  Gheci  viri  singularis  eidem  negotio 
adjutrix  adfuerit  manus.  Quo  factum  est,  ut  cultiori  stylo  concisinat.x  sint 
istse  leges,  quam  pro  commune  ceterarum  legum  more." — "  The  Reformation 
of  the  Ecclesiastical  Laws  in  the  Reigns  of  Henry  VIII.,  Edward  VI.,  and 
Elizabeth."    Edit.  Oxford,  1850.    Cardwell,  p.  xxvi..  Preface. 


292       LIFE,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


Master  Builder  of  the  Reformation.  His  design  was  that 
the  Church  should  be  governed  by  a  Diocesan  Episcopate, 
by  Bishops  acting  through  and  by  their  Synods.  Is  not 
some  such  modification  of  the  Episcopacy  the  crying  need 
of  the  Church  in  these  difficult  times  If  this  proposed 
re-adjustment  of  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  law  had  taken 
place,  many  of  the  vexatious  suits  of  the  present  day,  before 
the  Privy  Council,  would  probably  have  been  obviated,  and 
in  that  case  another  link  would  have  been  added  to  the 
chain  of  the  benefits  conferred  upon  the  English  Church 
by  the  most  distinguished  in  his  long  line  of  distinguished 
Archbishops. 

All  these  active  plans  and  future  reforms  of  Cranmer 
were  arrested  in  a  moment  by  the  premature  death  of 
Edward  VI.  But  the  work  which  the  great  Archbishop 
had  effected  remained  sure  and  steadfast  as  an  anchor 
embedded  in  the  sand,  and  became  strengthened,  annealed, 
and  popularised  in  the  eyes  and  hearts  of  the  Church  and 
nation  by  the  four  subsequent  years  of  fiery  persecutions 
in  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary. 

i0 

Who  can  rise  from  this  record  of  the  writings  of 
Cranmer,  of  which  a  few  examples  have  been  given,  at 
perhaps  too  great  a  length,  without  an  increased  admira- 
tion of  his  learning,  judgment,  talents,  self-control,  marvel- 
lous influence,  and  authority 

Born  of  an  ancient  and  gentle  lineage,  a  diligent  student 
at  Jesus  College,  Cambridge,  of  the  classics  and  the  Civil 
and  Canon  Law  ;  brought  early  in  life  to  the  keen  appre- 
ciation of  the  value  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  confirmed  in 
his  more  liberal  views  by  his  intercourse  with  the  foreign 
Reformers,  and  his  near  relationship  to  Osiander  ;  trained 
to  the  manners  of  the  Court,  by  his  position  as  Ambassa- 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


dor  to  foreign  countries ;  of  the  strictest  personal  piety,  so 
that  not  a  whisper  of  defamation  could  assail  his  character; 
free  from  the  rivalries  of  hostile  politicians,  by  his  known 
absence  of  personal  ambition,  by  his  yielding  disposition 
to  "  bend  the  crooked  hinges  of  his  knees,"  and  to  con- 
ciliate the  caprices  of  an  arbitrary  Sovereign. 

"  His  views  were  large  and  liberal  beyond  his  times  ;  his 
heart  and  his  purse  were  open  to  ability  of  every  descrip- 
tion ;  nor,  although  a  strenuous  advocate  of  truth,  was  he 
ever  uncharitably  and  inflexibly  severe  towards  those  who 
persisted  in  error,  but  exercised  on  all  occasions  a  patience 
and  forbearance  which  his  enemies  applauded,  but  which 
few  of  his  friends  were  disposed  to  imitate."  ^ 

Slow  in  forming  an  opinion,  yet,  having  formed  it,  pos- 
sessed, as  an  honest  man,  of  the  courage  of  his  convictions  ; 
blessed  with  an  excellent  judgment,  a  calm  ^  and  judicial 
mind,  a  true  statesmanlike  prescience,  removed  equally 
from  a  too  great  dependence  on  the  sentiments  of 
others,  or  a  too  persistent  obstinacy  in  asserting  his  own 
opinions  ;  well  acquainted  with  the  treasures  of  the  primi- 
tive Liturgies,  with  the  works  of  the  ancient  Latin  and  Greek 
Fathers  ;  inflamed  above  his  compeers  with  an  ardent  desire 
to  promote  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  people  and  their 
growth  in  personal  holiness.  Archbishop  Cranmer  was, 
alike  by  his  natural  temperament,  and  long  train  of  ante- 
cedent and  attendant  circumstances,  singularly  adapted 
for  the  great  work  assigned  him.  Had  he  been  of  a  self- 
willed,  ambitious,  or  haughty  temperament,  he  might,  like 
Calvin,  Luther,  Knox,  or  Zuingle,  have  left  the  impression 
of  his  name  on  the  fabric  of  the  English  Church.    He  was, 

•  Dr  Lawrence,  "  Bampton  Lectures,"  p.  18.    Third  edition,  1838. 

*  Dr  Hook,  who  is  by  no  means  a  friendly  critic,  nor  a  sympathiser  with 
Cranmer's  difficulties,  speaks  of  him  as  "courteous,  calm,  and  prudent." 
"  Lives  of  the  Archbishops,"  vol.  vii.  p.  296. 


294       LIP'E,  TIMES,  AND  WRITINGS  OF  CRANMER. 


however,  too  honest  a  man,  too  well  instructed  a  "  Master 
Builder."  He  would  remove  from  the  coat  of  his  erring 
brother  the  garish  lace  and  unfitting  embroidery  forbidden 
by  his  Father's  will,  but  he  would  not,  in  so  doing,  use  the 
violence  of  his  brother  Martyrs,  and  destroy  the  garment. 
He  thus  threw  off  the  cerecloths  of  the  Papacy,  and  at  the 
same  time  escaped  the  taint  of  submission  to  any  of  the 
controversialists  of  the  day.  Enrolling  many  of  the  chief 
leaders  of  the  German  Reformation  among  his  personal 
friends,  he  never  allowed  his  judgment  to  be  warped  by 
their  prejudices,  nor  to  be  led  astray  by  their  suggestions. 
He  acted  on  higher  and  nobler  principles.  He  was  con- 
tent to  reform  and  to  re-construct  the  National  territorial 
Church  on  its  existing  foundation,  to  enforce,  in  their  integ- 
rity its  ancient  Creeds  ;  to  retain  its  old  Liturgies,  to  con- 
firm its  traditional  customs,  to  continue  to  uphold  the  dignity 
of  the  Episcopacy,  to  re-establish  its  earlier  privilege  of  a 
vernacular  Bible,  to  uphold  its  legitimate  Convocations, 
and  to  remove  nothing  which  could  be  proved  consonant 
with  the  teachings  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  with  the 
preachers  of  the  first  ages  of  the  Faith. 

Thus,  in  singleness  of  heart,  and  firmness  of  purpose, 
and  in  perfect  simplicity  of  soul,  ARCHBISHOP  Cranmer 
was  the  honoured  instrument  of  eff'ecting  that  Reformation 
for  the  English  Church  which,  free  alike  from  the  accre- 
tions of  Popery,  and  from  the  shortcomings  of  popular 
Protestantism,  has  provided  in  these  days  a  pure  and 
apostolic  system,  suited  for  the  adoption  of  all  National 
Churches,  and  which,  amidst  all  the  multiplied  hindrances 
and  imperfections  inherent  in  human  institutions,  has 
raised  this  Country,  during  the  past  three  centuries,  to  its 
present  foremost  position  among  the  nations  of  the  Earth. 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTYROLOGIST.  295 


APPENDIX. 
Note  to  p.  27. 
JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTYROLOGIST. 

We  are  informed  that  "the  reputation  of  the  secular  Priest  Sander 
for  truth  is  on  a  par  with  John  Fox  !"  The  notorious  slanderer, 
Sander,-'  is  to  be  placed  in  the  same  scales  with  the  learned,  pious, 
and  withal  humble  John  Fox,  the  author  of  the  immortal  work  best 
known  as  "  The  Book  of  Martyrs."  The  juxta-position  of  the  two 
names,  I  regret  to  state,  does  not  originate  with  Mr  S.  H.  Burke,  for 
he  had  before  him  the  statement  of  no  less  authority  than  Dr  Hook, 
Dean  of  Chichester. 

From  the  days  of  the  Jesuit  Parsons  to  those  of  Dr  John  Milner,  and 
from  Dr  Milner  to  the  present  time.  Fox,  who  has  so  graphically  and 
circumstantially  recorded  the  sufferings  of  the  Martyrs  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, has  been  branded  by  members  of  the  unreformed  Church  as  an 
impostor,  a  lying  historian,  a  falsifier  of  documents,  and  one  wholly 
unworthy  of  credit.  That  a  historian,  dealing  with  the  numerous 
individual  cases  in  his  "  Acts  and  Monuments,"  should  be  universally 
accurate  in  all  his  details,  would  be  unreasonable  to  expect.  Have 
not,  to  some  extent,  the  like  objections  been  raised  to  Gibbon,  Hume, 
Alison,  Froude  ?  But  of  Fox  it  may  be  fairly  asserted,  that  no  his- 
torical work  will  bear  stricter  scrutiny  for  the  truth  of  its  broad  details 
than  his  "  Book  of  Martyrs."  Allowing  all  the  industry  of  his  assail- 
ants during  three  centuries,  there  is  nothing  of  any  real  moment  to 
justify  the  charge  that  Fox  was  a  liar,  or  that  he  falsified  documents. 
And  even  if  we  cancel,  from  his  history,  all  his  statements  to  which 
objection  is  brought,  there  will  be  ample  material  left  to  convict  the 
Church  of  Rome  of  a  cruel  and  persecuting  spirit,  which  alone  can 
account  for  the  malignant  hatred  exhibited  against  the  author. 

It  may  be  briefly  stated  that  all  Fox's  contemporaries,  who  could 
judge  of  the  truth  or  otherwise  of  the  alleged  facts,  admired  and  sup- 
ported him,  while  his  critics  lay  behind  the  possibility  of  knowledge. 
Again,  the  Convocation  of  1571  required  every  Prelate  and  Archdeacon 
to  keep  a  copy  of  "  the  Acts  and  Monuments,"  for  family  reading,  in  his 
hall.  By  an  order  made  by  the  Court  of  the  Archdeacon  of  Essex 
(Sept.  17,  1577),  for  Thornchurch  Parish,  "  Fox's  last  Book  of  Monu- 
ments "  was  directed  to  be  procured,  "  and  chained  to  the  desk  in  the 

^  "The  authority  of  our  countryman,  Sander,  a  man  so  famous  for  veraci/y, 
that  if  Captain  Lemuel  Gulliver  had  not  supplanted  him,  we  might  use  the 
proverbial  phrase,  //  is  as  true  as  if  Sander  had  used  zV."— Joslin,  "  Additions 
to  Neves'  '  Remarks  on  Phillips,'  "  p.  563. 


296 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTYROLOGIST. 


Church."'  It  maybe  safely  presumed  that  those  who  enacted  this 
knew  the  facts  at  first  hand,  and  were  satisfied  of  their  substantial 
truth. 

Fox  was  bom  A.D.  1517.  He  entered  Brazenose  College,  Oxford, 
in  1543.  He  was  chosen  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College.  He  was 
ordained  Priest  at  the  hands  of  Bishop  Ridley,  in  June  1550.  In  con- 
sequence of  his  making  no  secret  of  his  Reformation  principles,  he  was 
compelled  to  leave  his  College.  He  died  i8th  April  1587  in  his 
seventieth  year.  Fox  thus  passed  through  the  stirring  times  of  the 
reigns  of  Henry  VIII.,  Edward  VI.,  jNIary,  and  Elizabeth,  the  periods 
covered  by  his  History.  Fuller,  in  his  "Church  Historj',"  Book  ix. 
sec.  68.  p.  76,  London,  1555,  of  Fox  says  : — 

"  There  in  this  age  were  divided  into  two  ranks.  Some,  mild  and 
moderate,  contented  only  to  enjoy  their  own  conscience.  Others, 
fierce  and  fiery,  to  the  disturbance  of  Church  and  State.  Amongst 
the  former,  I  recount  the  Principall,  Father  John  Fox  (for  so  Queen 
Elizabeth  termed  him),  summoned  (as  I  take  it)  by  Arch-Bishop 
Parker  to  subscribe,  that  the  generall  reputation  of  his  piety  might 
give  the  greater  countenance  to  conformity.  The  old  man  [Fox] 
produced  the  New  Testament  in  Greek,  '  This  (he  said)  will  I  sub- 
scribe.' But  when  a  subscription  to  the  canons  was  required  of  him, 
he  refused  it,  saying, '  I  have  nothing  in  the  Church  save  a  Prebend  at 
Salisbury,  and  much  good  may  it  do  you  if  you  will  take  it  away  from 
me.'  However,  such  respect  did  the  Bishops  (most  formerly  his 
fellow-exiles)  bear  to  his  age,  parts,  and  pains,  that  he  continued  his 
place  till  the  day  of  his  death  ;  who,  though  no  friend  to  the  Cere- 
monies, was  otherwise  so  devout  in  his  carriage,  that  (as  his  nearest 
relation  surviving  hath  informed  me)  he  never  entered  any  Church 
without  expressing  solemn  reverence  therein." 

Fuller  gives  the  following  as  the  Epitaph,  "as  we  find  it  on  his 
Monument  in  S.  Giles,  nigh  Cripple-gate  in  London"  (Book  ix. 
p.  187)  :- 

"CHRISTO  S.  S. 

"JOHANNI  Foxo  Ecclesise  Anglicanae  MartjTologo  fidelissimo, 
Antiquitatis  Historicze. 

"  Indagatori  sagacissimo,  Evangelicae  veretatis  propugnatori  acer- 
rimo,  Thaumaturgo  admirabili,  qui  Martyres  Marianos,  tanquam 
Phcenices,  ex  cineribus  redivivos  praestitit." 

Fox  was  an  accomplished  scholar,  author  of  several  learned  works, 
and  deeply  read  in  the  writings  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers.  At 
an  early  stage  of  his  career  he  had  taken  strong  views  on  doctrinal 
questions  as  a  Reformer.    He  had  a  recognised  position  in  society. 

'  See  Archdeacon  Hale's  "  Precedents  in  Criminal  Causes,"  p.  169. 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  M ARTYROLOGIST. 


297 


He  had  been  Tutor  of  Thomas,  afterwards  Earl  of  Northumberland, 
and  of  Jane,  Countess  of  Westmoreland.  From  a  mass  of  manu- 
scripts relating  to  Fox,  preserved  in  the  British  Museum,  we  find  him 
in  constant  communication  with  Grindal,'  afterwards  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  and  with  Aylmer,  Bishop  of  London,  from  both  of  whom 
he  received  substantial  assistance  in  compiling  his  great  work.  These 
manuscripts  show,  with  reference  to  his  public  life,  Fox's  intimacy 
with  the  highest  and  most  respected  characters  of  the  day.  Among 
these  we  find  Cecil,  Lord  Burleigh  ;  Sir  Francis  Walsingham,  Secretary 
of  State  ;  the  Duke  of  Bedford  ;  Sir  Frances  Drake  ;  Archbishops 
Grindal,  Parker  ;  and  of  Alymer,  Bishop  of  London  ;  Dr  Nowell, 
Dean  of  St  Paul's  ;  Pilkington  ;  Lever  ;  and  with  several  others  of  the 
nobility  and  clergy.  "And  I  cannot  but  observe,"  says  Strype,  "the 
esteem  and  character  that  Whitgift  expressed  of  this  reverend 
man."  "The  Archbishop,"  adds  Strype,  his  great  biographer,  "was 
not  a  man  to  speak  otherwise  than  as  he  thought,  and  he  spoke  of 
Fox  as  of  one  that  he  loved  and  venerated."  Bullinger  wrote  to 
Fox  : — "  I  am  devotedly  attached  to  you  on  account  of  your  piety  and 
learning,  but  chiefly  for  your  book  on  the  Martyrs  of  England."  ^  We 
find  him  held  in  great  respect  by  Sir  Thomas  Gresham  and  the 
citizens  of  London.  He  was  also  a  favourite  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  to 
whom  he  dedicated  his  work;  and  withal  he  was  neither  ambitious  nor 
sought  preferment ;  he  was  ever  in  straitened  circumstances.  His 
whole  life  was  one  of  strict  piety  and  abnegation.  And  this  is  the 
man  who  has  been  branded  as  a  liar,  and  a  forger,  and  defacer  of 
docicments,  to  give  colour  to  his  "lying  History." 

Harding,  the  Jesuit,  in  his  controversy  with  Bishop  Jewell,  called 
Fox's  "Acts  and  Monuments"  "the  dunghill  of  your  stinking 
Martyrs."    To  this  Jewell  replied  ^ : — 

"  It  pleaseth  you,  for  lack  of  other  evasion,  to  call  the  story  of  the 
Martyrs  a  dunghill  of  lies.  But  these  lies  shall  remain  on  record  for 
ever,  to  testify  and  to  condemn  your  bloody  doings.    Ye  have  impri- 

'  "  Many  accounts  of  the  acts  and  disputations,  of  the  sufferings  and  ends  of 
the  godly  men  under  Queen  Mary,  came  from  time  to  time  to  Grindal's 
hands  ;  who  had  a  correspondence  with  several  in  England  for  that  end  and 
purpose.  And  as  they  came  to  his  hands,  he  conveyed  them  to  Fox.  Nor 
did  he  only  do  this,  but  he  frequently  gave  Fox  his  thoughts  concerning  them, 
and  his  instructions  and  counsels  about  them  ;  always  showing  a  most  tender 
regard  to  truth,  nor  adopting  common  reports  and  relations  till  more  satisfac- 
tory evidence  came  through  good  hands." — Strype's  "Annals." 

^  Strype's  Life  of  Whitgift,  ap.  Strype's  "Annals,"  1587,  pp.  504,  505, 
fol.  1728. 

^  "Acts  and  Mon.  of  Fox,"  edit.  1843,  pt.  i.  sect.  iv.  p.  65. 
*  Works  of  Bishop  Jewell,  pp.  27,  28,  edit.  1609  ;  and  see  also  pt.  iii.  c.  i. 
div.  3,  pp.  315  and  316. 


298 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTYROLOGIST, 


soned  your  brethren  ;  ye  have  stripped  them  naked  ;  ye  have  scourged 
them  with  rods  ;  ye  have  burned  their  hands  and  arms  with  flaming 
torches  ;  ye  have  famished  them ;  ye  have  drowned  them  ;  ye  have 
summoned  them,  being  dead,  to  appear  before  you  out  of  their  graves  ; 
ye  have  ripped  up  their  buried  carcasses  ;  ye  have  burned  them  ;  ye 
have  thrown  them  into  the  dunghill  ;  ye  took  a  poor  babe,  and  in  the 
most  cruel  and  barbarous  manner  ye  threw  him  into  the  fire." 
Jewell  further  retorted  on  Harding  : — 

"  Our  wantons  and  flesh  worms,  for  so  it  liketh  you  to  call  them, 
have  been  contented  to  forsake  fathers,  mothers,  wives,  children,  goods, 
and  livings,  and  meekly  to  submit  themselves  to  all  the  terror  of  your 
cruelties,  and  to  yield  their  bodies  unto  the  death  ;  to  be  starved  with 
hunger,  to  be  burned  with  fire,  only  for  the  name  of  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  so  delicate  and  flesh  worms  and  wantons  are  they  ! 
Ye  will  say,  that  they  died  stubbornly  in  wilful  error.  Yet,  I  reckon 
not  ye  will  say  they  died  in  great  pleasure,  or  carnal  liberty.  It  is  a 
strange  kind  of  fleshly  wantonness,  for  a  man  to  take  up  his  Cross  and 
follow  Christ.    And  yet  this  is  the  substance  of  our  Gospel." 

This  is  a  practical  answer  to  such  as  assail  Fox's  "  Book  of  Martyrs." 

Fox  commenced  his  "  Acts  and  Monuments  "  abroad,  where  he  re- 
sided to  escape  the  persecutions  of  Queen  Mary's  reign,  .and  did  not 
return  until  the  accession  of  Elizabeth.  While  abroad,  he  received 
considerable  assistance  in  his  work  from  Grindal  and  from  others. 
And  to  that  extent  he  was  obliged  to  rely  on  the  faith  and  character 
of  his  correspondents.  In  accepting  these  communications,  Strype 
observes  that  Fox  exhibited  "  a  most  tender  regard  to  truth,  and 
suspending  upon  common  reports  and  relations  brought  over,  till  more 
satisfactory'  evidence  came  from  good  hands."  ^  We  also  find  him 
assisted  by  Aylmer,  formerly  tutor  to  Lady  Jane  Grey,  and  afterwards 
Bishop  of  London,  as  also  by  several  English  divines. 

With  regard  to  the  work  in  question,  the  first  edition,  being  a  mere 
sketch,  was  printedat  Basle  in  1554;  an  enlarged  edition  was  printed 
in  Latin  in  1559. 

On  his  return  to  England,  Fox  devoted  his  energies  in  verifying 
the  communications  made  to  him,  examining  records,  and  taking  ex- 
tensive journeys  to  verify  facts.  In  1563  he  published  another  edition, 
under  the  title — 

"Acts  and  Monuments  of  these  latter  and  perilous  days,  touching 

1  "  When  all  this  was  understood  by  Mr  Foxe,  he  came  himself  to  Ipswich 
to  inform  himself  truly  about  it.  ...  I  have  set  down  all  this  at  length,  to 
show  what  diligence  and  care  was  used  that  no  falsehood  might  be  obtruded 
upon  the  readers,  and  Foxe  and  his  friends'  readiness  to  correct  any  mistakes 
that  might  happen." — Strj'pe's  "Annals  of  the  Reformation,"  vol.  i.  pf 
378-380. 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  M ARTYROLOGIST. 


299 


matters  of  the  Church  ;  wherein  are  comprehended  and  described  the 
great  persecutions  and  horrible  troubles  that  have  been  brought  and 
practised  by  the  Romish  Prelates,  especially  in  this  realm  of  England 
and  Scotland,  from  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand,  unto  the  time 
now  present,  gathered  and  collected  according  to  the  true  copies  and 
writings  certificatory,  as  well  as  of  the  parties  themselves  that  suffered,' 
as  also  out  of  the  Bishops'  registers,  which  were  the  doers  thereof." 

We  have  first  on  our  list  the  opinion  of  Strype,  who  bears  testimony 
of  the  "  infinite  pains"  Fox  took  in  compiling  his  facts.   He  adds  -  : — 

"  Herein  he  hath  done  exquisite  service  to  the  Protestant  cause,  in 
showing  from  abundance  of  ancient  books,  records,  registers,  and 
choice  manuscripts,  the  encroachments  of  Popes  and  Papalins,  and 
the  stout  oppositions,  made  by  learned  men,  in  all  ages  and  in  all 
countries,  against  them  ;  and  especially  under  King  Henry  and  Queen 
Mary,  here  in  England.  Preserving  to  us  the  memories  of  those  holy 
men  and  women,  those  Bishops  and  Divines,  together  with  their  his- 
tories, acts,  sufferings,  and  their  constant  deaths,  willingly  undergone 
for  the  sake  of  Christ  and  His  Gospel,  and  for  refusing  to  comply  with 
Popish  doctrines  and  superstitions." 

Again  ^  : — 

"  Great  was  the  expectation  of  the  book  in  England  before  it  came 
abroad.  The  Papists  then  scurrilously  styled  it  '  Fox's  Golden 
Legend.'  When  it  first  appeared,  there  was  extraordinary  fretting 
and  fuming  at  it  through  all  quarters  of  England,  and  even  to  Lou- 
vain.  They  charged  it  with  lies,  and  said  there  was  much  falsehood 
in  it ;  but  indeed  they  said  this,  because  they  were  afraid  it  should 
betray  their  cruelty  and  their  lies." 

The  Jesuit  Parsons  alleged,  "as  we  presome"  (for  such  are  his 
words),  that  Fox  mutilated  registers  and  records,  otherwise  it  might 
have  been,  he  tells  us,  able  to  refute  his  statements  !  Strype,  however, 
tells  us  that  ^  : — 

"  Fox  was  an  indefatigable  searcher  into  old  registers,  and  left  tliein 
as  he  found  them,  after  he  had  made  his  collections  and  transcriptions 
out  of  them,  many  whereof  I  have  seen  and  do  possess.  And  it  was 
his  interest  that  they  should  remain  to  be  seen  by  posterity  ;  therefore 
we  frequently  find  references  thereunto  in  the  margins  of  his  book. 
Many  have  diligently  compared  his  books  with  registers  and  council 
books,  and  have  always  found  him  faithful. 

^  One  of  the  most  important  accusations  against  Fox  is,  that  he  recorded 
the  burning  of  an  individual  who  survived  the  alleged  ordeal,  and  lived  to  con- 
tradict the  tale,  which  is  probably  a  fact.  But  it  is  manifestly  unjust  to  apply 
to  this  the  trite  argument,  "ex  uno  disce  omnes. " 

2  "Annals,"  vol.  i.  p.  374-5.    Oxford,  1824. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  375.  1  Ibid.,  pp.  376,  377. 


300 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTYROLOGIST. 


"As  he  hath  been  found  most  diligent,  so  most  strictly  true  and 
faithful  in  his  transcriptions,  and  this  I  myself  in  part  have  found." 

And,  by  the  way,  I  may  here  note  that  the  writer  of  the  article 
"  John  Fox,"  in  the  Ninth,  and  last.  Edition  of  the  "  Encyclopedia 
Britannica"  (p.  503),  remarks  : — "  It  (the  'Acts  and  Monuments')  was 
vigorously  attacked  by  Catholic  writers,  and  its  accuracy  in  details  has 
been  successfully  challenged,  even  such  blunders  as  credulity,  gross 
over-credulity,  having  been  expended  ;  but  the  honourable  lives  of 
Fox  and  his  assistants  place  the  work  above  the  charge  of  wilful 
falsehood."  The  writer  gives  no  illustrations  of  this  "  over-credulity." 
It  is  always  safer  to  travel  along  a  well-worn  groove.  To  attack 
Fox's  book  has  been  even  the  labour  of  our  ritualistic  Clerg)-men. 

Strype  goes  into  particulars  to  prove  how  unfounded  are  several  of 
the  charges  imputing  untruthfulness  to  Fox  ;  and,  for  the  most  part,  the 
errors  are  of  veiy  slight  importance,  considering  the  magnitude  of  the 
work.  But  the  disgrace  lies  in  the  fact  that  these  refuted  charges  are 
being  continually  repeated  as  new  and  original  discoveries. 

The  learned  Oldmixon,  in  his  "  History  of  England,"  during  the 
reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  including  the  "  History  of 
the  Reformation,"  London  1730,  page  336,  writes  of  Fox  : — 

"The  Rev.  Father  Mr  John  Fox,  the  Martyrologist,  a  grave,  learned, 
and  painful  Divine,  an  Exile  for  religion,  who  employed  his  time 
abroad  in  writing  '  The  Acts  and  Monuments '  of  that  Church,  that 
would  hardly  receive  him  into  her  bosom,  and  in  collecting  Materials 
relating  to  the  Martyrdom  of  those  that  suffered  for  religion  in  the 
reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Queen  Mary,  all  which  he  published  first 
in  Latin,  for  the  benefit  of  Foreigners,  and  then  in  English,  for  the 
service  of  his  own  Country  and  the  Church  of  England,  in  the  year 
1561.  No  book  ever  gave  such  a  mortal  wound  to  Popery  as  this. 
It  was  dedicated  to  the  Queen,  and  was  in  such  high  reputation  that 
it  was  ordered  to  be  set  up  in  the  Churches,  where  it  raised  in  the 
People  an  invincible  Scorn  and  Detestation  of  that  religion  that  had 
shed  so  much  innocent  Blood." 

And  he  styles  him  an  "  excellent  and  laborious  divine." 

Camden,  in  his  "Annals  of  Elizabeth,"  thus  speaks  of  Fox  : — 

"  Of  the  members  of  the  learned,  died  John  Foxe  of  Oxford,  who, 
with  an  unwearied  zeal  for  truth,  compiled,  with  general  approbation, 
an  '  Ecclesiastical  History  of  England,  or  Martyrology,'  first  in  Latin, 
and  afterwards  enlarged  in  English." 

Soame '  writes  as  follows  : — 

"  Invariable  accuracy  is  not  to  be  expected  in  any  historical  work  of 
such  extent ;  but  it  may  be  truly  said  of  England's  venerable  martyr- 
ologist, that  his  relations  are  more  than  ordinarily  worthy  of  reliance. 

*  "History  of  the  Reformation,"  vol.  iv.  pp.  721,  722.    London  1828. 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTYROLOGIST. 


301 


His  principal  object  being  indeed  to  leave  behind  him  a  vast  mass  of 
authentic  information  relating  to  those  miserable  times  which  it  had 
been  his  lot  to  witness  ;  he  printed  a  vast  mass  of  original  letters, 
records  of  judicial  processes,  and  other  documentary  evidence.  The 
result  of  this  judicious  policy  was  a  work  which  has  highly  gratified 
the  friends  of  Protestantism,  and  successfully  defied  its  enemies. 
Numerous  attacks  have  been  levelled  at  the  honest  chronicles  of 
Romish  intolerance,  but  they  have  ever  fallen  harmless  from  the 
assailants'  hands." 

Neale,  in  his  "  History  of  Puritans,"  bears  the  following  testimony': — 
"  No  book  ever  gave  such  a  mortal  wound  to  Popery  as  this.  It  was 
dedicated  to  the  Queen,  and  was  in  such  reputation  that  it  was  ordered 
to  be  set  up  in  Churches,  where  it  raised  in  the  people  an  invincible 
horror  and  detestation  of  that  religion  which  had  shed  so  much 
innocent  blood." 

The  accurate  and  painstaking  Benjamin  Brook,  in  his  "  Lives  of  the 
Puritans,"  writes  as  follows  - : — 

"  Several  writers  have  laboured  to  depreciate  the  memory  of  Fox, 
by  insinuating  that  his  history  of  the  Martyrs  contained  many  mis- 
representations and  falsehoods.  Fox  and  his  friends  used  the  utmost 
diligence  and  care  that  no  falsehood  might  be  obtruded  on  the  reader, 
and  were  ever  ready  to  correct  any  mistakes  that  might  happen. 
Though  he  might  be  misinformed  in  several  parts  of  his  intelligence, 
yet  these  were  inconveniences  which  must  attend  the  compiling  of  so 
large  a  body  of  modern  history  as  Mr  Fox's  chiefly  was.  No  man  is 
likely  to  receive  from  various  hands  so  large  a  mass  of  information, 
and  all  be  found  perfect  truth,  and  when  digested  to  be  found  without 
the  least  trace  of  error.  What  is  the  weight  of  all  the  objections 
offered  in  contempt  of  the  Foxean  Martyrs,  to  overthrow  so  solid 
and  unanswerable  a  fabric It  is  imputed  of  so  many  undeniable 
evidences  of  Popish  barbarities,  that  its  reputation  will  be  unsullied  to 
the  last  period  of  time.  The  Acts  and  Monuments  of  the  Martyrs 
have  long  been,  they  still  remain,  and  will  always  continue  substantial 
pillars  of  the  Protestant  Church  ;  of  more  force  than  many  volumes  of 
bare  arguments,  to  withstand  the  tide  of  Popery  ;  and  like  a  Pharos, 
should  be  lighted  up  in  every  age,  as  a  warning  to  all  posterity.  No 
book  ever  gave  so  deep  a  wound  to  the  errors,  superstitions,  and 
persecutions  of  Popery,  on  which  account  the  talents  and  labours  of 
Fox  rendered  him  a  fit  object  of  papal  malice  and  enmity." 

The  following  is  from  the  Preface  of  Dr  Wordsworth's  "  Ecclesi- 
astical Biograhpy,"  ^  whose  character  as  an  author  and  divine  stands 
above  suspicion  : — 

^  Vol.  i.  c.  iv.  p.  124.    London,  1754. 
'  Vol.  i.  pp.  331-2.    London,  1813.  ^  P.  xviii.    London,  1839. 


302 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTYROLOGIST. 


"  I  am  well  aware  that  by  the  extent  to  which  I  have  availed  myself 
of  Fox's  'Acts  and  Monuments,'  I  fall  within  the  range  of  such  censures 
as  that  of  Dr  John  Milner,  in  which  he  speaks  of  '  the  frequent  publica 
tions  of  John  Fox's  lying  book  of  Martyrs,  with  prints  of  men,  women, 
and  children  expiring  in  flames,  the  nonsense,  inconsistency,  and 
falsehoods  of  which,'  he  says,  '  he  had  in  part  exposed  in  his  Letters 
to  a  Prebendary.'  I  am  not  ignorant  of  what  has  been  said  also  by 
Dr  Milner's  predecessors,  in  the  same  argument,  by  Harpsfield, 
Parsons,  and  others.  But  neither  his  writings  nor  theirs,  have  proved, 
and  it  never  will  be  proved^  tJiat  JoJm  Fox  is  not  one  of  the  most 
faithful  and  authentic  of  all  historians.  We  know  too  much  of  the 
strength  of  Fox's  book,  and  of  the  weakness  of  those  of  his  Romish 
adversaries,  to  be  further  moved  by  Dr  John  Milner's  censures,  than  to 
reject  them  as  grossly  exaggerated  and  almost  entirely  unsubstantial 
and  groundless.  All  the  many  researches  and  discoveries  of  later 
times,  in  regard  to  historical  documents,  by  Burnet,  Strype,  and 
others,  have  only  contributed  to  place  the  general  fidelity  and  truth  of 
Fox's  melancholy  narrative  on  a  rock  which  cannot  be  shaken. — How 
great  then  is  the  effrontery  of  those  writers  who  attempt  to  persuade 
us,  that  the  accounts  given  us  by  Fox  are  forgeries  of  his  own 
devising." 

Le  Bas,  in  his  excellent  "  Life  of  Cranmer,"  says^  : — 
"  The  work  of  Fox  was  compiled  with  unwearied  industry  from 
documents  and  materials  of  unquestionable  authority  ;  and  it  was 
subjected  by  him  to  scrupulous  revisal,  during  the  remainder  of  his 
life ;  which  was  protracted  for  many  years  beyond  the  period  of  its 
first  appearance." 

And  he  further  adds  : — 

"  With  regard  to  the  fidelity  of  Fox,  in  the  use  of  documents  and 
records,  we  have  the  following  testimony  of  Mr  Todd,-'  himself  an 
investigator  whose  accuracy  is  far  above  suspicion  : — '  In  the  numer- 
ous researches,  which  it  has  often  been  my  duty  to  make  among  ancient 
registers,  and  other  records,  the  accuracy  of  Fox,  in  such  as  he  has 
applied  to  his  purpose,  is  indisputable.'" 

Professor  Smyth,  in  his  "  Lectures  on  Modern  History,"  ^  thus 
approvingly  refers  to  the  work  in  question  : — 

"  Fo.x's  'Book  of  Martyrs'  should  be  looked  at.  It  is  indeed,  in  itself, 
a  long  and  dreadful  history  of  the  intolerance  of  the  human  mind,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  of  the  astonishing  constancy  of  the  human  min  i ;  that  is, 
at  once  a  monument  of  its  lowest  debasement  and  its  highest  elevation. 

1  Vol.  ii.  pp.  196-7.    London,  1833. 

2  Todd's  "  History  and  Critical  Introduction  to  Cranmer's  Defence,"&c.,  &c., 
p.  iv.  note.    London,  1825. 

'  Bohn's  edit.,  1834,  vol.  i.  p.  289,  Lecture  x. 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTYROLOGIST. 


The  volumes  of  Fox  are  also  descriptive  of  the  manners  and  opinions  of 
the  different  ages  through  which  the  author  proceeds.  The  transac- 
tions relating  to  Anne  Askew  ;  the  disputations  of  Lambert  before 
Henry  VIII.,  of  Latimer,  Ridley,  and  Cranmer  at  Oxford  ;  with  the 
examination  and  sufferings  of  these  eminent  martyrs  ;  should  be 
thoroughly  read,  and  may  serve  as  specimens  of  such  atrocities,  and  at 
first  sight  such  astounding  scenes.  Fox  may  be  always  consulted 
when  the  enormities  of  the  Papists  are  to  be  sought  for." 

The  Rev.  C.  Hebert,  D.D.,  thus  speaks  of  Fox  — 

"  No  one  can  have  at  all  extensively  consulted  it  without  coming 
upon  its  historical  defects,  but  it  was  a  work  compiled  with  great  care, 
and  by  the  aid  of  others,  so  that  possibly  a  better  could  not,  at  that 
time,  have  been  made,  and  Bishop  Grindal  compiled  materials  for  part 
of  it  ;  for  none  can  charge  him  with  fiction  or  willing  exaggeration. 
His  work  is,  after  all,  invaluable,  and  without  a  rival  it  has  remained 
to  this  day." 

Froude,  in  his  "  History  of  England,"  -  says:  — 

"  I  have  already  said  that  whenever  Foxe  prints  documents,  instead 
of  relating  hearsay,  I  have  found  him  uniformly  trustworthy  ;  so  far, 
that  is  to  say,  as  there  are  means  of  testing  them." 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Frognall  Dibdin,  D.D.,  contemplated  editing 
Fox's  book.  On  the  issue  of  his  prospectus,  Mr  Southey  wrote  to 
him  :  "  Is  your  edition  of  the  '  Acts  and  Monuments  '  going  forward .'' 
I  have  always  intended  to  take  advantage  of  its  appearance  for  writing 
a  life  of  John  Fox  in  the  Q.  R.,  wherein  I  might  render  due  honour  to  a 
man  for  whom  I  have  a  great  veneration."  The  venerable  and  learned 
Dr  Rennell,  Dean  of  Winchester,  wrote  to  Dibdin  :  "  I  return  you  my 
best  thanks  for  your  kind  communication  of  your  intention  of  giving 
a  new  edition  of  Fox's  '  Martyrs.'  I  think  it  is  impossible  to  conceive 
an  undertaking  of  more  importance  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Pro- 
testant cause  ;  and  that  in  carrying  this  design  into  execution  you 
will  have  deserved  well  of  your  country.  To  vindicate  Fox's  veracity, 
as  would  be  done  in  the  course  of  your  most  laudable  undertaking, 
would  be  to  render  an  essential  service  to  the  Church  of  England."  ^ 

In  the  Preface  of  John  Gough  Nichol's  "  Narratives  of  the  Days  of 
the  Reformation,  chiefly  from  the  MSS.  of  John  Fox,"^  we  read  : — 

"  I  deem  it  perfectly  unnecessary  to  attempt  any  formal  defence  of 
Foxe's  honesty  and  veracity.  I  believe  him  to  have  been  truth-seek- 
ing, but  liable  to  mistakes,  in  an  age  of  difficult  communication,  and 
perhaps  occasionally  subjected  to  intentional  misinformation." 

'  "Lord's  Supper,"  vol.  ii.  p.  475,  A.D.  1517.    London,  1879. 

Vol.  vi.  p.  334.    London,  i860. 
^  "  Reminiscences  of  a  Literary  Life,"  part  ii.  pp.  840-84.    London,  1836. 
*  Printed  by  the  Camden  Society,  1859,  p.  22  et  seq. 


304 


JOHN  FOX,  THE  MARTVROLOGIST. 


And  in  a  note  is  added  :— "  I  am  not  myself  aware  of  any  personal 
instance  of  this  ;  but  it  is  thus  stated,  and  judiciously  commented  upon 
by  Granger  in  his  '  Biographical  History  of  England': — 'The  same 
has  been  said  of  Foxe  which  was  afterwards  said  of  Burnet,  that 
several  persons  furnished  him  with  accounts  of  pretended  facts,  with 
a  view  of  ruining  the  credit  of  the  whole  performance.  But  the  author 
does  not  stand  in  need  of  this  apology  ;  as  it  was  impossible  in  human 
nature  to  avoid  many  errors  in  so  voluminous  a  work,  a  great  part  of 
which  consists  in  anecdotes.'  "  With  all  its  inaccuracies  and  the  pre- 
judices against  Fox,  the  author  adds — "  The  book  becomes  most  valu- 
able as  a  record  of  the  doings  and  sufferings,  a  mirror  of  the  opinions, 
passions,  and  manners  of  the  people  of  England, — for  familiar  pic- 
tures of  public  and  private  struggles  for  conscience'  sake,  it  is  probably 
unequalled  in  any  country  or  language.  It  is  the  Chronicle  of  the 
days  of  the  Reformation,  the  BooK  OF  Martyrs  upon  which  the  in- 
tense interest  of  their  own  and  many  subsequent  generations  was 
concentrated." 

Jenkyns.  in  his  Preface  to  "  The  Remains  of  Cranmer,"  Oxford 
edition,  1833,  continually  refers  to  Fox's  book  without  the  slightest 
hesitation.  With  reference  to  the  last  days  of  Cranmer,  he  adds  : — 
"  A  doubt  may  perhaps  be  raised  respecting  the  propriety  of 
inserting  in  the  present  publication  the  copious  extracts  from  Foxe, 
which  describes  these  closing  scenes  of  Cranmer. — Foxe's  report  was 
collected  with  great  diligence,  and  is  probably  as  accurate  as  the  con- 
fused nature  of  the  discussion  and  the  unfairness  of  those  who  presided 
at  it  allowed."    (Preface,  p.  cxiv.) 

Samuel  Carlyle,^  in  his  Preface  to  the  "  Life  and  Writings  of  Fox," 
informs  us  that  on  making  enquiries  of  Mr  Jenkyns,  with  reference  to 
the  amount  of  reliance  to  be  placed  in  Fox's  book,  he  replied  : — "  I 
had  occasion,  in  editing  '  Cranmer's  Remains,'  to  compare  several  of 
the  papers  produced  by  Fox  with  the  original  documents,  and  on  such 
comparison  I  had  good  reason  to  be  satisfied  with  the  martyrologist's 
fidelity  and  accuracy." 

The  Rev.  Richard  Watson  Dixon,  in  his  recent  excellent  work, 
"  History  of  the  Church  of  England,"  London,  1881,  also  repeatedly 
refers  to  Fox's  "Acts  and  Monuments." 

The  main  question,  as  appears  to  me,  is  the  value  of  the  work  itself, 
independent  of  any  question  as  to  the  extreme  accuracy  of  all  its  parts. 
With  these  remarkable  testimonies  before  us,  from  men  of  acknow- 
ledged reputation,  I  must  confess  that  I  was  taken  by  surprise  when 
I  read  the  following  in  Dean  Hook's  book,  "Lives  of  the  Arch- 
bishops "  - : — 

^  "  Church  Historians  of  England,"  vol.  i.  p.  166.    London,  1870. 
"  Vol.  vi.  p.  148.    Edit.  1868. 


JOHN  FOX  THE  MARTYROLOGIST, 


"  Protestants  complain  with  justice  of  Sander,  who  stands  in  the 
same  relation  to  the  Roman  Catholic  writers  as  Fox  does  to  Pro- 
testants. Sander,  the  purveyor  of  filthy  scandals  of  the  age,  and  it  is 
not  too  much  to  say  that  of  some  he  was  the  author.  Of  him,  it  was 
said,  '  he  lied,  and  he  knew  that  he  lied.'  But  they  who  would  throw 
the  stone  at  Sander  [the  Dean  having  himself  already  hurled  a  huge 
brickbat  at  his  head]  must  not  forget  the  amount  of  glass  of  which 
their  own  house  is  composed.  For  the  character  of  Fox,  I  will  refer 
not  to  a  Roman  Catholic  but  to  the  scholar  more  competent,  from  his 
deep  researches  into  the  public  records,  to  form  an  opinion  upon  the 
subject : — '  Had  [Fox]  the  Martyrologist,'  says  Professor  Brewer, 
'  been  an  honest  man,  his  carelessness  and  credulity  would  have 
incapacitated  him  from  being  a  trustworthy  Historian.  Unfortunately 
he  was  not  honest,  he  tampered  with  the  documents  that  came  [in]  to 
his  hands,  and  freely  indulged  in  those  very  faults  of  suppression  [and 
equivocation]  for  which  he  condemned  his  opponents.' " 

The  reference  given  by  the  Dean  is  incorrect,  it  should  be  "  Letters 
and  Papers,  Foreign  and  Domestic,"  Henry  VIII.,  vol.  i.  p.  Ixxxv. 

The  passsge  quoted  stands  in  a  note  apropos  to  nothing,  without  a 
single  confirmatory  example  to  substantiate  the  sweeping  charge — 
amounting,  at  least,  to  a  charge  of  deliberate  fraud.  Had  such  been 
forthcoming,  we  probably  would  have  detected  the  labour  of  a 
"  Literary  resurrectionist "  digging  up  dry  bones,  long  since  buried. 
But  Mr  Brewer  gives  no  proofs. 

In  a  note  to  the  above  extract,  the  Dean  adds  : — 

"  Some  years  ago  I  had  occasion  to  consult  the  Rev.  Dr  Maitland, 
the  learned  Librarian  of  Lambeth,  on  the  amount  of  credit  I  might 
give  to  a  statement  made  by  Fox.  His  answer  was,  '  You  may  regard 
Fox  as  being  about  as  trustworthy  as  the  Record  Newspaper.  You 
must  not  believe  either,  when  they  speak  of  an  opponent,  for  though 
professing  Protestantism,  they  are  innocent  of  Christian  Charity.  You 
may  accept  the  documents  they  prmt,  but  certainly  not  without  colla- 
tion.   Fox  forgot,  if  he  ever  knew,  who  is  the  father  of  lies.'  " 

And  we  are  to  accept  this  jaunty  statement — more  uncharitable  than 
any  of  Fox's  alleged  lies — as  a  correct  estimate  of  the  value  of  Fox's 
"  Acts  and  Monuments,"  in  preference  to  the  deliberate  and  well- 
considered  observations  of  Strype,  Soames,  Neale,  Brooke,  Dr  Words- 
worth, Todd,  and  Le  Bas,  and  the  several  other  learned  men  above 
named  !  Dr  Maitland's  reference  to  the  Record  Newspaper  sufficiently 
indicates  his  prejudiced  mind  ;  and  it  is  scarcely  creditable  to  Dr 
Hook  to  retail  such  an  anecdote,  probably  never  intended  by  the 
utterer  for  adoption  and  reproduction  in  a  serious  Biographical 
history  ! 

On  the  subject  of  Dr  Maitland's  and  other  attacks  on  Fox's  Book, 

U 


3o6 


BEATIFICATION  OF  MARTYRS. 


the  reader  may  profitably  consult  the  Preface  to  Townsend's  Edition, 
1843,  of  "The  Acts  and  Monuments."  Also  an  elaborate  and  able 
reply  in  "Church  Historians  of  England,''  London,  1870,  vol.  i.  pp. 
99  et  segq.,  in  the  Chapter  entitled,  "  The  Objectors  and  Objections  to 
the  General  Authority  and  veracity  of  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments 
considered,"  in  which  the  various  leading  statements  of  opponents, 
including  Dr  Maitland's,  are  examined.  With  regard  to  Dr  Maitland, 
he  has  admitted  quite  enough  to  justify  Fox's  Book.  In  his 
"  Reformation  in  England,"  p.  575,  he  gives  the  number  of  martyrs 
of  Mary's  reign  to  be  277.  "  Finding  the  number,  as  I  took  them  from 
Fox,  to  consider  with  that  which  had  been  long  since  given,  on,  I 
know  not  what  authority,  I  am  induced  to  hope  that  my  list  is  not  far 
wrong."  And  he  has  arrived  at  this  estimate,  he  tells  us,  "  after  a 
good  deal  of  trouble  has  been  taken  to  make  it  as  full  and  correct  as 
possible." 

The  reader  will  also  find  most  important  information,  and  an  able 
defence  of  Fox's  Book,  in  the  first  volume,  Chapter  ii.  pp.  73  et  seqq., 
Religious  Tract  Society.  The  Introduction  and  Biographical  Preface 
is  written  by  the  Rev.  J.  Stoughton,  D.D. 

To  conclude  this  brief  notice,  I  cannot  do  better  than  endorse  the 
recommendation  of  Dr  Samuel  Waldegrave,  Bishop  of  Carlisle  : — 

"  We  should  do  wisely  in  the  days  of  Victoria  to  outvie  the  Reformers 
of  the  sixteenth  Century,  by  placing  a  copy  of  the  '  Book  of  Martyrs,' 
not  indeed  in  every  Church,  but  in  every  house  ;  yea,  in  every  hand ; 
and  is  there  not  a  cause  ?  Rome  is  labouring  with  redoubled  effort  for 
the  subjugation  of  Britain.  She  attacks  us  openly  from  without,  while 
there  are  traitors  ready  to  open  our  gates  from  within,  and  the  people 
have  forgotten  that  she  is  a  siren  who  enchants  but  to  destroy." 


APPENDIX  B,  p.  194. 

The  executions  of  the  so-called  Martyrs  during  the  reigns  of  Henry 
VIII.,  Elizabeth,  and  James  I.,  are  enumerated  by  names  and  dates 
in  a  book  entitled  "  A  Calendar  of  English  Martyrs  of  the  Sixteenth 
and  Seventeeth  Centuries"  (London,  1876), bearing  the  "  Imprimatur" 
of  Cardinal  Manning.  These  so-called  Martyrs  were  either  beheaded 
or  hanged  as  rebels  and  traitors,  but  not  one  of  them  for  denying  any 
doctrine  of  the  then  accepted  faith  of  the  Roman  Church.  The  stake 
was  the  punishment  for  heresy.  Notwithstanding,  we  are  told  in  this 
"  Calendar"  that  they  "  suffered  death  for  the  Catholic  faith;"  that  they 
were  "  called  upon  to  shed  their  blood  for  Christ's  sake."  In  pubhsh- 
ing  this  list,  "  It  was  thought  that  such  a  roll  of  our  Martyrs,  marking 


BEATIFICATION  OF  MARTYRS. 


day  by  day  the  recurring  anniversaries  of  their  victories,  would  help  to 
keep  alive  their  memory  in  the  minds  of  English  Catholics,  and,  more- 
over, suggest  the  practical  devotion  of  habitually  invoking  their  inter- 
cession," and  that  their  example  is  to  be  followed  should  occasion  re- 
quire. Fifty-four  of  these  are  said  to  have  recently  been  "  beatified," 
the  first  step  to  canonisation,  and  two  hundred  and  fifty-one  declared 
"Venerable"  (see  Times,  loth  January,  and  Weekly  Register,  26th 
February  1887).  Among  these  stand  forth  prominently  Bishop  Fisher 
and  the  Chancellor  More,  the  arch-traitor  Campion,  Garnet,  the  accom- 
plice of  Guy  Foxe,  and  Felton,  who  defiantly  affixed  a  copy  of  the  Pope's 
Bull  of  excommunication  on  the  gate  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  Palace, 
and  the  eleven  Priests  executed  in  the  reign  of  King  James,  who  piti- 
ously  petitioned  the  Pope  for  permission  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  King,  who  refused,  and  who  (according  to  the  opinion  even  of  Dr 
O'Conor,  a  Roman  Catholic  Priest,  in  his  "  Historical  Narrative  of  eleven 
Priests  confined  in  Newgate  for  not  renouncing  the  Pope's  Pretended 
Paper,"  Buckingham,  1812)  "died in  resistance  to  legitimate  authority, 
and  by  the  instigation  of  a  foreign  power."  Dr  O'Conor  deliberately 
lays  the  charge  of  their  "  murder"  on  the  Pope.  See  further  on  this 
subject  the  opinions  of  Bzovius,  the  [R.C.],  "Annalist,"  "  De  Rom. 
Pont.,"  c.  IxiT.  p.  621,  edit.  Antwerp,  1601,  and  the  "  Introdution"  to 
the  "  Memoirs  of  Gregoria  Panzini,"  Birmingham,  1793,  by  the  Rev. 
W.  Berington,  a  Roman  Catholic  Priest. 


Iwiilmll  iSr*  Spears,  Printers,  Eduiburgh.