LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 Class 
 
.r%^^ 
 
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, atque misericordia 
 vacuos esse decet. — Ccesar ap. Sallust. 
 
 LONDON: 
 GEORGE REDWAY, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN. 
 
 1887. 
 
. T 
 
 GENERAL 
 
THE MOST REV. EDWARD WHITE, 
 
 NINETY-THIRD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, 
 AND PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND, 
 
 Zbi6 imoxh (6 re0pectfull» DeMcateD, 
 
 A SINCERE AND DEVOTED SON OF THE 
 CHURCH OF THE REFORMATION. 
 
 117303 
 
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 differ; 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 difficult. It was 
 Descartes who said that " the prime condition for discover- 
 ing the truth is to be free from all prejudices." But every 
 
VIU 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 works 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. IX 
 
 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 Cranmer'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 morality. 
 Having perused many different " Lives " and " Historical 
 Sketches" of Cranmer, 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 
 cpnviction, cannot be fairly deemed a crime, so long 
 as each party seeks to make converts to his creed. What 
 one sect calls conversion, the opposite sect calls per- 
 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 
 his 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 i^^7. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ....... I 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CRANMER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE . . 5 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE DIVORCE OF HENRY VIII. 
 
 FROM 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 . yd> 
 
 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. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 HENRY VIII.'S POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMS UNDER 
 
 CRANMER'S alleged GUIDANCE . . . .1X8 
 
 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 that, "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." 2 
 
 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 seg. 
 
 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." i 
 
 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. 
 
 1 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 view, according 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 Law. 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 ^way^Xy 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 ousted 
 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 Rea.der or Lecturer 
 at Buckingham Hall." 
 
 1 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. 
 
 5 Vol. vi. p. 433. Edit. 1868. 
 
CRANMER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. Q 
 
 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. Strype 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, — 
 
lO 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 wouM 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 yrars 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 attained to more sound know- 
 ledge of religion." 
 
 From this time until the incidents we are about to re- 
 late, which brought Cranmer into pubHc 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 hquors ' — 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. I 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 VI I L, 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 CATHERINEf 
 
 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. I 3 
 
 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 suddenly 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 
 Jieretic 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 
 that 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. Kennard, 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 VII. to declare null the marriage of Henry VIII. with Catherine 
 of Aragon, his true and lawful spouse, and to grant that Monarch liberty to 
 marry Anne Boleyn. 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. I 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 affectionate 
 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 
 
I 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 by Canon Law of the Church, and, as was 
 considered, equally forbidden by Divine law. The same 
 difficulties 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. 1 9 
 
 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 
 1 243, 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 XL 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, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 Again, Casslmir 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 indignant at her husband's infidelities. 
 Cassimir then became enamoured of his cousin, daughter 
 of Henry, Duke of Lagin, whom he married, although 
 Adelaide was still living. Urban V., by Brief, licensed this 
 secor^d marriage. 
 
 These are a few well-known facts in history. How many 
 private dispensations have 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 marry again.^ 
 
 We might also record several cases in which the Pope 
 has exercised his assumed dispensing powers of permitting 
 persons to marry within the prohibited degrees of affinity. 
 For instance, we have the well-known case of Philip H. of 
 Spain marrying his own niece under Papal dispensation. 
 The Duke of Bouillon paid to the Pope one hundred 
 thousand crowns to enable him to marry 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 money 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 \ ete annuls par le cour de Rome le 3 Jan. 1880." — 
 " Almanac de Gotha," 1883, p. 53, title " Monaco." 
 
 2 Tom, ii. cap. 33. Paris 1826. 
 
DIVORCE OF HENRY VIII. FROM CATHERINE. 2 I 
 
 The Jesuit writer Escabor, in his notorious work, " Liber 
 Theolog. Moralis," published in Brussels, 165 1, 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 vaHd 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 
 
22 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 brothers 
 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, 17 14. 
 
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 1 503, 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 affinity, and because the marriage with Prince 
 Arthur was solemnised according to the rites of the Catholic 
 Church, and afterwards consummated^ 
 
 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 forsani consumma vissetis, Dominus Arthurus prole ex 
 hujusmodi matrimonio non suscepta decessit." Cott. Lib., Vital, 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. 
 
 2 " 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. i6 ; xx. 21. But see Deut. xxv. 5-10. 
 
 2 Cod. Theod., lib. iii. tit. 12. " De Incest. Nup.," Leg. 2. 
 5 /die/. , Leg. 4. 
 
 * Labb. et Coss. '* Concil. Cone. Neo-Cesarencis," can. 2, torn. i. col. 
 1480. Paris, 1 67 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 
 pubhc 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. 
 
 1 Labb. et Coss., torn. vi. col. 1546, and "Edit. Mansi," torn. 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 troubles 
 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 coining 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 15 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. 2"] 
 
 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 
 15 II. Lady Elizabeth died 14th December 15 12. 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 
 
 1 "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 1507; 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 ap 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 the birth of all his children, Henry VI H. 
 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, 
 Charles, 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 Reformat 
 tion was engendered by " beastly lust." 
 
 1 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 WRITlNCxS 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. 3 I 
 
 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,ooo, 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 4000 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. 
 
 acts, expressed a great sense of the service rendered to the 
 King by this Cardinal, bade Cassalis inquire " what, were the 
 things in which he delighted 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 L, 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, any other wo7nan 
 whomsoeve?'^ even if she were already promised to another, or related 
 to hitn in the first degree of affinity ^ ^ 
 
 ^ 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 dispensatioti, 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. 
 2 " First Book of History of England, in two parts." Part i. p. 97. New 
 Edition. Longman & Co. 1866. 
 
36 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 " A.D. 1527. Henry 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 Hved on good terms. She 
 bore him children, one of whom, the Princess Mary, 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 Boleyn, 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 
 
 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 Medicis, and 
 
 1 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 iwidertook to maintain 
 
 1 " Cotton Lib. Vitel.," b. x. Quoted b^^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 L kept her in her service for some years, and 
 after this Queen's death the Duchess of Alengon 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, while 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 1536 (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 1 
 
 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 Guardian 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 j-etrospective. I con- 
 sider it therefore unfair broadly to cite this Act to establish the accusation 
 against Mary Boleyn. 
 
 ^ " History of England," vol. vii., p. 155, London, 1823, and see vol. v. 
 p. 137. Edition 1848. 
 
 2 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 origmate 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 Froude 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. P^ROM 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. 61, p. 100, folio edition. 
 
 ^ "A ce qu'il m'ena declare des fois plus de trois en secret il seroit content 
 queledit 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." — Dechiffrement 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 
 
 ^ It is given in Burnet's ** Hist, of the Reformation," in full, vol. i. pt. i. b. 
 ii. p. 1 10; 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 
 Ren^e, 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 with 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 
 
 1 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. 
 
 1 I may 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 VIII. 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 1530. 
 
 The celebrated Faculty of Sorbonne at Paris. "^ — 2nd July 
 1530. 
 
 The Divines of Ferrara. — 29th September 1530. 
 
 The University of Toulouse. — 1st 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- 
 
 1 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. 
 
 2 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, 
 
 1791, pp. 398-9. 
 
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 
 validity 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 VHL," 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. 
 
 1 '* Superioribus diebus, Pontifex secreto, veluti rem magni fecerit, mihi pro- 
 posuit conditionem hujusmodi, concedi posse vestrae 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 
 VI 1 1, 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 2 1st February 1533 the Pope of Rome himself 
 
 1 The "sentence" attributed to Cranmer was given on the 23d May. 
 Anne was not crowned till ist 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 ofificial witnesses.^ 
 
 In April 1533 the Upper and Lower Houses of Convo- 
 
 ^ 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. S7 
 
 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, zn 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 dejiire. 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.2 
 
 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 office 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- 
 
 1 Strypc's "Life of Cranmer," b. i, c. iv. p. 21 (folio edit.). 
 
 2 See Pocock's edit, of "Burnet's History of the Protestant 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 1 2th 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 change 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 stibmitted 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, was 
 
 ^ "State Papers," vol. viii. p. 481. I am now citing these facts in chrono- 
 logical order, 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 aflfecting Cranmer and the 
 part he took in them. 
 
 2 See Pocock's edit, of "Burnet's Hist, of the Prot. Reformation," vol. iv. 
 p. 563. Oxford, 1865. 
 
 3 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 zvas 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 nulHty 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 siinpliciter 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 ! 
 
 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 1 
 
 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 " ! ^ 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." 
 
 2 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 VIIL, 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 
 
 * 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. 
 
 ^ " 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 ofhcial 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. Nares' 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 me alike ; 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. 
 
 1 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 iUicit 
 intercourse with the sister^ daughter, or another 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, nee Romanus Pontifex neque tota simul ecclesia verum 
 cognatum et affinem efificere possunt, qui non est, nee ilium destituere 
 qui a Deo, et natura constitutus est, cum jura hujusmodi, jura sangui- 
 
 E 
 
66 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 nis et naturae sunt, quae humana ope mutari variarique nequeunt. De 
 ea vero affinitate, quae sanctione ecclesiastica solum inventa est, 
 secus ; sive cutn uxoris^ sorore autfilid^ seu inatre^ ex illegitimo coitUy 
 fuerit orta, quae proculdubio natural! et divino jure, nullo quovis modo 
 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 vary. 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 the teaching of the Roman 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 wifeil'' 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 note, 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. 28a 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 
 various 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 
 
 1 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 Em- 
 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. 
 
70 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. 
 2 "Faith of Catholics," 1846, vol. iii. p. 228. 
 
cranmer's second marriage as a priest. 71 
 
 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. 
 . 2 *' Benevale cum dulcissima conjugali, liberisque dulcissimis." — Eras., 
 " Open," 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 story 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 two 
 Jionest 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 
 
 1 "Memorials," b. iii. c. xxxviii. p. 461. London, 1694. 
 
 2 "Pol. Vergil, De Rer. Invent.," lib. v. cap. iv. p. 313. Amst. 1671. 
 
 4 
 
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. 12 1 5. 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 it was in their power to use lawful marriage I' ^ 
 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 wJio 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 vow 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.," torn. 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 Pmil^ 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 Paulus 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. 1961. 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 ii 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 tale extat proeceptum." — Bellarm. **de Cler.,' ' 
 lib. i. c. 18. tom. i. p. 113. Colen., 161 5. 
 
GRANMERS 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. 
 II 39, 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 Goss., "Goncil.," torn. ii. col. 419. Paris, 1671. 
 
 " Ibid.^ torn. X cols. 999 and 1012. Paris, 1671. 
 
 =* " Decret,. Dist." 56, c. 2. ^ Ibid., 56, c. 13. 
 
*]6 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 The English clergy, up to the eleventh century, 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. 926-1129, 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." 1 
 
 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 VIIL, 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 III. 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. 
 
CRANMERS SECOND MARRIAGE AS A PRIEST. "J^ 
 
 of 1839. Ir^ 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 dissijnulation 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- 
 
 ^ " 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- 
 siderably 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 et impugnatd) 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 hve 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 Hfe ; 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 had taken two contradictory 
 oaths on 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 protests There was, however, no secrecy in the 
 matter.^ By this " protest " itself Cranmer declared that 
 he made the same publicly, " that whereas, on his consecra- 
 
 ^ The original Latin of Cranmer's Protestation is in Cranmer's Register, 
 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, 
 publidy et expresse protestor," &c. 
 
 F 
 
S2 
 
 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 obh'ge 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 Westminster^ 
 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 confirmed by the fact, 
 that having acted under a commission from Henry VI I L, 
 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 Prcsmunire 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 ! 
 
 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 zvas thought!' 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 no newly -invented 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 
 
 tlcistn 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. 
 Wiclifife, 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, ^y 
 
 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, ail 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, ^ 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 seq., No. 151, dejure. 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. " Columbanus 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, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 It was in May 1536 the Irish Parliament, on the sugges- 
 tion of Brown, Archbishop of Dublin, who gave the first 
 vote, that the Royal 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 
 VI 1 1, c. 5 authorised the King, his heirs and successors, to 
 te 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 o{ prcemunire, 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^ loth August 1868, a Roman Catholic newspaper, quoting 
 Dublin Review, 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 archbishop. 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. 0'Shaughnessy,Bp. of Kimacdaregh, Prov. Tuam. 
 Henry VIII. died 28th January 1547, and 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 Elizabeth the authority of the Pope 
 
CRANMER S OATHS ON CONSECRATION AS ARCHBISHOP. 9 I 
 
 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 ofif 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 verbo sacerdotii here unto your Highness, 
 submitting ourselves humbly to the same, that we will never from 
 henceforth enact, put in use, promtdge, or execute any new canons, or 
 constitutions provincial, or any other new ordinances, provincial or 
 synodal, in our convocations, or synod, in time coming, 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 with " 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 
 
 ^ 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 Rome. He received the Pallium} 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 Pallium, or Pall, 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 palliujti is a short white cloak, 
 ornamented with a red cross, which encircles the neck and shoulder, and falls 
 down the back. These Palls 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," (" Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica," 8th Edit., title "Pallium," p. 220). According to Mathew Paris, 
 in the days of Henry I., the Bishop of York paid ;^io, 000 for his Pall, although 
 Pope Gregory I. said : "I forbid giving any thing for the Palliut?i.^* " Pro 
 ordinatione, vero, vel pallio, sue charitis atque pastello, eundem qui ordinandus, 
 vel ordinatus est, omnino aliquid dare prohibeo," ("Lab. et Coss.," torn. v. 
 Epist. Greg., Papoe I., lib. iv., ep. xliv., col. 1199. 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 1535, 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 how is 
 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, De Verd 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 gave 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. 
 2 See 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 ParHament 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 godmotliers. 
 
 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 was 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 L, 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 Of 
 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 January 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///^ 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 May 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.^ 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). 
 
 2 Jenkyns' "Remains," vol. i. pp. 164-5. Oxford University Press, 1833. 
 •♦Cranmer's Works," P.S. ii. -^23. 
 
102 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 and pray for her, that she may declare herself inculpable and in- 
 nocent." 
 
 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 (12th 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 
 
 1 Some writers deny that the uncle and father were on the Commission. Mr 
 Froude records it as an undoubted fact. 
 
THE FATE OF ANNE BOLEYN. IO3 
 
 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 King 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 we 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; Sir William 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 CRANMER. 
 
 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 crypt 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 ir^ 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 oi 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 
 
 1 Wilkins' "Concil.," vol. iii. p. 864, cited by Dixon. 
 
THE FATE OF ANNE BOLEYN. IO5 
 
 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.^ 
 
 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. 
 
 2 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 populi, 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 
 
 ^ "State Papers," vol. viii. p. 2. 
 
THE FATE OF ANNE BOLEYN. 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 ^ 
 
 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 
 
 1 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 connexions of any kind. 
 
ANNE OF CLEVES. IO9 
 
 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 Strype, 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 Froude. 
 
 ^ 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 
 
no 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 
 Cranmer. 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 VIII. (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. Ill 
 
 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 beheve that the Pope can, by his independent will, 
 make that lawful which in the sight of God and man is 
 unlawful. 
 
 The decision, however 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 inward 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 
 
 1 See Dr Littledale's "Plain Reasons against Joining the Church of Rome," 
 
112 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 now (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 intentioti on the part of the officiating priest (Concil. Trid. 
 Sess., vii. c. xi., "De Sacr. in Genere"). 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 Poenetentia "). 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. II3 
 
 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.^ 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. 
 
 ^ "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 
 
114 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 VIII.," p. 534. Her confession was 
 made to the Archbishop, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Norfolk, and the 
 Bishop of Winchester. See Note t, Jenkyns' " Remains," vol. i. p. 308. 
 Oxford, 1833. 
 
O*-* THE " X 
 
 UNlVi£i<S/TY 
 
 AS AFFECTING THE REFORMATION. 1 1 5 
 
 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," i while, in fact, domtmon 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 
 
 1 " De qua re agitur, cum de Primatu Potificis agitur ? — ^brevissime dicam, 
 de summa rei Christianse." — Bellarmine. " Disp. in Lib. de Prim. Pont. " In 
 Prgefat. 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. 
 
Il6 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 otherwise, 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 country ! — 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 zn 
 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." 
 
 1 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 schism 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. II 9 
 
 He writes ^ : — 
 
 "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 not 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 undermi'he 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- 
 ciphne 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 ambitiousHildebrand(GregoryVII.)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 
 
 1 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 formeidy 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 SOCIAL 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 inefi"ectual 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 11. 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 Henry V.^ again declared the 
 Pope's Bulls and licences to be void. 
 
 Thus we perceive Henry VI 1 1, 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. 
 2 17 Henry IV. c. xviii. 3 ^ 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 1 536 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 Christ! licet supernum caput." See Collier's 
 **Eccl. Hist.," vol. ii. pt. ii. b. i. p. 62. London, 1714. 
 ^ Jbid,^ vol. ii. p. 119. 
 
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. 1 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 
 titne, 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 will 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 
 
 ^ *' 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, ^d 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 Henry VIII. is accused of being 
 schismatical for reserving to himself these same privileges ! 
 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 Regium Exequatur, and, if necessary, 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. 120-128. London, 1827. 
 
HENRY VIII. S POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMS. I 29 
 
 Catherine IL, 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 to 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 181 6. 
 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 Papacy. 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 Henry'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 Mary, 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 observed) adopted the English 
 Liturgy and form of worship in the same churches in 
 which they 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 1), 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, 
 
 ^ " Important Considerations ; or, a Vindication of Queen Elizabeth from 
 the Charge of an Unjust Severity towards her Roman Cathohc subjects, by 
 Roman CathoUcs themselves," &c., printed in 1 60 1, pp. 39 and 40. See " His- 
 tory and Authenticity of this Book," proved in reprint by the Rev. Joseph 
 Mendham. London, 1831. 
 
 2 See Tindal's " Rapin," vol. ix. pp. 6, 39. Edit. 1729. 
 
 3 " History of Romish Treasons," pp. 420-428. 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 ani 
 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 
 
 1 " De Rom. Pont.," cap. xlvi. p. 621. Edit. Antv., 1601. 
 
 ^ See Sharon Turner's *' Modern History of England," vol. iv. p. 165, 
 et seq. 1835. 
 
 ^ The case of Parry is an instance reported in the " State Trials," Cob- 
 bett's edition, An. 1584, No. 60, vol. i. col. 1105. 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 Henry, 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 Henry and his Parliament, with the 
 sanction of the English Episcopate, it will be necessary to 
 enter on a few particulars. 
 
 Innocent HI. (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." 2 
 
 1 Decret. D. Greg., "De Magistate et Obedientia," tit. 33, p. 424. Edit. 
 Tauriiii, 162 1. 
 
 2 7^?^., lib. i., "De Translatione Episcop,," tit. ix. And see "Corp. 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 Ro?nan 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 
 infallible utterance. 
 
HENRY VIII.'s POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMS. 133 
 
 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 d^Qrvo^ 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. 
 
 8 Ibid., "Extrav. Commun.," lib. i. tit. viii. vol. ii. p. 1159. 
 ^ 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-io. 
 Oxford, 1833. 
 
J 34 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 " The Bishop of Rome may be judged of none but of God only ; for 
 ahhough 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 Hne 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 exempted 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 I. 
 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. Wycliffe'* 
 
 1 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. 
 
 2 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. ii 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 VIII. 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 1 5 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. 1 
 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.^ 
 
 1 See Rymer's "History," vol. vi. pt. ii. pp. 8- 17. Edit. 1745. 
 
 2 See Dr Leigh's Letter to Crumwell, MSS. Cotton. Cleop., E. iv, ful. 
 229. 
 
138 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 Wolsey had reported to the Pope the frightful state of 
 depravity which was brought to light. Mr Froude says 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 afiy 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-booky 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, may 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 Audley'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 i-est 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, 1881. 
 
140 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 special directions as to the decent conduct of public 
 worship. 
 
 Had Henry 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 Henry'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 country. 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, Matthew 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 following 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 
 change 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 (a.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 1 :— 
 
 " 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 Itahans 
 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, having no cure of souls, but permitting rapacious wolves to 
 disperse thejlock 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) Itahans, 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 Angliae," p. 716, &c. Edition 1640. 
 
 2 Lib. Ixxii. Nismes, 1779. 
 
 * Matt. Paris, "Historia Anglise," 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 observed, 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- 
 served 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 " Modern 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 welfare of the nation t 
 
 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 which they were 
 paid for doing ; 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, 
 
 1 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 Court 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 
 prcemunirey 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. #58. 
 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, otherwise 
 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 t 
 
 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 
 
 had been already recognised by the clergy of the 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 IIL, " 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 VII I., 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 Anglioe," lib. ii. c. viii. sect. 5. fol. 5. 
 London, 1569. ^Jq^xv. 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 slavery. 
 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 infallibility 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 Henry, 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 : quae sera, tamen 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 Henrv'c arts. 
 
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. I 5 I 
 
 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." (*' Encycl. 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 Vlll/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 BuUji 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. 
 
 2 See Burnet's '* History of the Reformation," p. i. b. i. p. 36, Nares' 
 edit. London, 1830. 
 
I 54 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 (sorcalled) 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's " Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty," vol. ii. c. iii. 1880. 
 
HENRY VIII. S POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMS. I 55 
 
 what manner was Cranmer implicated 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 " was an agent of Dr 
 Cranmer," and that " Cranmer deemed it his policy 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 VI. She repealed the Acts of 
 Henry 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 prcBmunire, and be 
 punished accordingly." But this was not considered 
 sufficient, they required the Pope's dispensation and absolu- 
 tion^ 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 it,^ 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 1555, 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. 
 
 ^ *' Ecclesiastical Memorials," vol. ii. c. xix. p. 161, 162, An. 1554. 
 London, 1721. 
 
 ^ 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 
 " Ecclesia 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 CRANMER. 
 
 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, 463-5, 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 coniperia, 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.^ 
 
 ^ 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 property^ 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, 77iuch 7nore 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 : — 
 
 ^ "Secunda Secundae Partis Summ. Theolog." S. Tho. Aquinatis. Romae. 
 1586. Qusest. 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 fro7n 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 law. Quidquid igitur in iis cojnprehenditur 
 legem facit. This law 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. a Castro, ** De haeret. punitione." Madrid, 1773, cap. xii. pp. 123, 128. 
 
 2 The decretal is headed, ** In concilio Generali," vol. ii. p. 758. Edit. Lips., 
 1839. And see '* Colonioe Munatianse," Innoc. III., In Concil. Generali, An. 
 1 2 16. Romse Concil. Later., p. 240. 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, "/;; Ccena 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 real corporeal presence, 
 in the consecrated elements, of " the body, blood, bones, 
 and nerves {ossa et nervos), 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 {perseqiiar 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 wer^ 
 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. 
 
 2 See January 1854, p. 2, June 1849, and September 185 1. 
 
164 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) :— 
 
 " 1st. 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 really^ 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 remaineth 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 
 salutem, by the law of God, to all persons, and that it is to be believed, 
 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 fas 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 change 
 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 
 VIIL, 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 
 then, before the people, in ati high place go TO BE 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 
 atroc ious persecuting principles of the rulers of the Church. 
 Semper eadem 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." — *• Encyclopjedia 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." In 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 
 
 ^ 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, ist 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 by his station to be a party to these proceedings ; 
 and must, therefore, have been present at many of the 
 theological discussions which were occasioned by them. 
 He adds : — 
 
 "It maybe abundantly proved that Cranmer, though not sufficiently 
 in 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 saving their lives 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, by persuading her to recant." 
 
 The specific charges are limited to the cases of Fryth, 
 Lambert, Anne Askew, and Joan Boucher. The first 
 three martyrs were burnt during the reign of Henry VHI. 
 
 "Callendar of State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth," 1558- 1559, p. 532), he 
 gives an interesting account of his interview 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 morning. 
 When I called upon him, * Happy man that you are,' said he, * you can 
 escape ! 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 willing to sign the decree^ as I have, compelled by 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 participation 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 15 19, 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." ^ 
 
 Fryth was the first Englishman after Wicliff who 
 wrote against the received theory of Transubstantiation. 
 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. i860. 
 
 2 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 1534. If we follow the date of 
 Cranmer's letter, 4th June 1533, Foxe's date would appear to be more accurate. 
 
I 70 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 Fryth, 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 Fryth, which was 
 in the Tower in prison, was appointed by the King's 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 
 ^colampadius. 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 my Lord of London hath 
 given sentence 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 PERSECUTIONS. 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 unreformed 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 persecutioii\ 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, 
 Esq., 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. no. 
 
172 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 to the Lord Chancellor ; and that Lord Norfolk, the Earl 
 of Essex, and the Countess of *' Oxflforthe " 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. 
 
CRANMERS PARTICIPATION IN PERSECUTIONS. I 73 
 
 With regard to the fate of Anne Askew, Dr Lingard 
 refers to her only in a note, in which he says that she 
 was, after two recantations, condemned to the flames by 
 Cranmer and other Bishops. It is as certain that Cranmer 
 had no hand in this 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 Hveth, I never meant 
 thing less than to recant. Notwithstanding this, I confess that, in my 
 first troubles, / was examined by the Bishop of London 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 never 
 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 writing., 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., 1881, pp. 395-401, goes into minute particulars of this event, naming 
 each particular person before whom she appeared; he does not once name 
 Cranmer. 
 
174 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." Martyrdom (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 survive. 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 bury 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 memory 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 
 
CRANMERS PARTICIPATION IN PERSECUTIONS. I 75 
 
 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.2 
 
 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. 
 
 1 "Essay on the Spirit of Nations," cap. cxxxv. vol. iii. p. 205. See vol. 
 xvii., Works. Paris, 1785. 
 
 2 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. 
 
I ']6 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 The case oi Joan Boucher^ 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 ParHament (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 Hay ward'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. xxiv. p. 403. 28th Sept. 1867. 
 ' Soame's *' History of England," vol. iii. p. 544. London, 1826. 
 
CRANMERS PARTICIPATION IN PERSECUTIONS. I 77 
 
 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 1550: — 
 
 " 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 
 hceretico comburendo, — 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 yS 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 cruehies, 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. I 79 
 
 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 tp 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. 
 2 "History of the Reformation," vol. i. pp. 551-2. Pocock's 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 clergy, 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 swear 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 Henry'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." 
 
(JRANMER^S PARTICIPATION IN PERSECUTIONS. l8l 
 
 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, with the 
 other members 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- 
 ing 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 treason against the Crown. This " Six Articles 
 Act " was to coerce men's conscience. We hear vehement 
 denunciations levelled against Elizabeth for passing her 
 
CRANMERS PARTICIPATION IN PERSECUTIONS. 1 83 
 
 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.^ 
 
 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 
 religion^ 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.^ 
 
 ^ See Pocock's edition of Burnet's "History of the Protestant Reformation," 
 vol. iv. p. 568. Oxford, 1815. 
 
1 86 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 country, 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 Minister, 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 
 
I 88 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 were thereupon told, as was the fact, that they 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 every 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 brethren, and made under the respective seals of 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 compulsion. This document bears date the 4th May, 1534. — (See 
 Burnet's "History of the Reformation," vol. iv. Records, b. ii. pt. ii. 
 No. 50.) 
 
 It is evident that the great bulk of the ecclesiastical orders were at this time 
 quite glad to free themselves of Papal rule and Papal exactions. It was not 
 until the dissolution of the monasteries 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, the 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 Plsher 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 
 question 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. 
 
igO 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 tJieir 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 noble 
 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. 
 
CRANMERS PARTICIPATION IN PERSECUTIONS. I9I 
 
 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." 
 
 More's fate soon followed. On the 7th May he was 
 examined. On the 26th June a true bill was found against 
 him. On the ist 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 
 Mary, of unhappy memory, 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 divinity, of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and chewed by the recipient, 
 and was the same very 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 Henry, 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 country 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 
 
CRANMERS PARTICIPATION IN PERSECUTIONS. 1 93 
 
 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.^ 
 
 1 See Appendix B. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE PROGRESS OF THE REFORMATION UNDER 
 HENRY VI H. 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. 1 97 
 
 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 1541 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." 
 
 2 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 WRITINGS 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 
 corner, 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. 1 99 
 
 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 
 would 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, TIMES, AND \VRITINGS 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 version 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 or 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 gentry, and all artificers, labourers, or 
 servants, with all persons of the lower class, were strictly 
 prohibited from' perusing the Scriptures. This prohibition 
 continued until the end of Henry's reign. This led to 
 the publication by the anti-reforming party of an amended 
 Exposition of Faith, containing more advanced 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 " Necessary 
 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 Gardyner was the lead- 
 ing spirit to create strife and foster conspiracies against 
 the Archbishop, who now found himself in a sea of 
 troubles. The clergy 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 that delighted not in revenge.'" — *' Encycl. Brit.," 
 9th Edit. "Cranmer." 
 
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 against him with just accusations who w^ere 
 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 with 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 ar.e 
 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- 
 
 ^ 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, kneeling 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. 1 
 
 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 country. 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 Gardyner'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 conlmitted 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 offhand 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 Chancery. The proceedings 
 occupied twenty-two Sessions, from 15th December 1550 
 
PROGRESS OF THE REFORMATION. 207 
 
 to 14th February 155 1, 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." 1 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, afterwards 
 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 Cranmer's 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 
 
 1 ** History of England," vol. vii. p. 87. 
 
 2 Strype, 156 j Wilkins, iv. 16 ; Collier, n. 226, quoted by Dean Hooke. 
 
208 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), 
 sold 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 1547 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. 
 
 1 Cranmer's family consisted of two daughters — Ann, who died in her 
 father's lifetime, and Margaret, who survived him ; and a son, whom he 
 named after himself, Thomas. 
 
 2 It is a fact worth recording, that at the Council 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* contrary. — Labb et Coss., "Concil. 
 Gen.," torn. x. col. 506. Paris, 167 1. 
 
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 
 
 ^ Fox, in his "Acts and Monuments," says : — 
 
 ** During the time of King Henry VHI., 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, 
 wherein 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 anything worth the answering." 
 This answer was first printed in 155 1, — 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, 1 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- 
 pitiatory of the priests in the mass, of pilgrimages, purgatory, 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 mercy 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, I have put away 
 that childishness."^ 
 
 ' Cranmer's "Remains," by Jenkyns, vol. iii. pp. 13, 14. 
 
PROGRESS OF THE REFORMATION. 211 
 
 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 sub stance ^ 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 offaithP ^ 
 
 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 
 
 1 See "Remains," Jenkyns, vol. ii. pp. 309-404. Oxford, 1832. 
 
212 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. The 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 1st 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 o\(\form of laying on of hands in ordination in the Church 
 of England was not added until the year 1646. 
 
PROGRESS OF THE REFORMATION. 213 
 
 It was in this year that Cranmer pubb'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 1 5 5 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 1548; 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 
 
 y 
 
214 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS 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 Holy 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 Service ; 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 changes 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.' " ^ 
 
 ^ See Dr Blakeney's ''Handbook on the Liturgy of the Church of 
 England," pp. 29, 30. London, 1884. 
 
PROGRESS OF THE REFORMATION. 2 I 5 
 
 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. 
 
 2 The Latin letter is included in Dr Card well'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. 
 
"n;veks/ty 
 
 PROGRESS OF THE REFORMATION. 2 1 7 
 
 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 Craiime}\ 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 btirnt 
 as heretics had the law come into force, Cranmer and his 
 associates are to be condemned for a sicpposed 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 were 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 
 Mary 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 
 
 ^ " History of England," vol. vii. p. 258. 
 
PROGRESS OF THE REFORMATION. 219 
 
 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?" ^ 
 
 1 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. W. Dixon, in his " History of the Church of England," vol. 
 ii. p. 71 e^ seq., 1 88 1, sets forth the vandalism of the unreformed under 
 Henry VIII. in the destruction of all the shrines, monuments, and painted 
 windows relating to Thomas a Becket j and on p. 206 their general vandalism 
 on edifices, books, MSS. &c. 
 
PROGRESS OF THE REFORMATION. 22 1 
 
 majority of Edward's Bishops and Clergy recanted and 
 again accepted the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction, Cranmer, 
 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." ^ 
 
 P.S. — There is a remarkable confirmation of the observation made 
 by Cranmer (ante, 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-teUing, 
 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 "Catholic 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 181 7. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 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 unreformed 
 
 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. 
 
CRANMERS 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 settling 
 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 
 
 1 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- 
 bury 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 Canterbury, at the 
 first coming of the Queen to her reign, 1553." 
 
 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. 
 
CRANMERS 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 VL, 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. (i.) 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 
 
2 26 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 deliver 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 sunimed 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. 
 
 2 A late writer, a member of the unreformed 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 
 eflfrontery to offer it to the public as a historical fact. 
 
2 28 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." 
 
 2 " Cranmer 's Remains," Jenkyns, vol. i. p. 363, No. ccxcvii. 
 
CRANMERS 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," J enkyns, 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 
 
CRANMERS FALL AND MARTYRDOM. 23 1 
 
 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 
 ^555)> 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 
 
 1 " Cranmer's Remains," Jenkyns, vol. i. p. 383, Letter ccc. 
 
232 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 Henry 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. Every 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 
 Supremacy 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 writing is 
 unpardonable in a historian. 
 
 2 " History of England," vol. vii. p. 274. London, 1823-31. 
 
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 solicitations 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- 
 other 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 
 fifth paper of recantation were demanded of him to be more large 
 and particular. Nay ; and lastly a sixths 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 mouth 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 CRANMER. 
 
 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. 
 
 2 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 suffering, 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 vSt 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 CRANMER. 
 
 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. 
 
 J I. He was declared cojitumacious 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.^ 
 
 ^ " The Bishop of Rome was incompetent to take cognizance of the cause of 
 an English metropolitan, inasmuch as any exercise of his jurisdiction in Eng- 
 land was contrary to the decrees of the (Ecumenical 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 Governt)r 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."^ 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 hy 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. 
 
CRANMERS 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 ; 
 a7id that is all such bills, which I have written or sigjted with mine 
 own hand, since my degradatio7i, 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 Williams 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 burning ; crying with 
 a loud voice, * this hand hath offended.' " ^ 
 
 " As soon as the fire got up, he soon succumbed, never stirring or 
 crying all the while. His patience in the torment, his courage in 
 dying, if it had been taken either for the glory of God, the wealth of 
 his country, or the testimony of truth, as it was for a pernicious error, 
 and subversion of religion, I could worthily have commended the 
 example, and matched it with the fame of any Father of ancient time." 
 
 Such was the testimony of an adversary of the Reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 To go back a little in our history. The two venerable 
 Martyrs, Ridley and Latimer, had both been brought before 
 the same Commission on the charge of heresy. The 
 contempt with 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 country, and he resisted the 
 attempts of the officer of the Court to uncover him. He 
 maintained his noble bearing to the end. He was adjudged 
 " an obstinate and incurable heretic," and condemned to 
 the flames. The aged Latimer, then in his eighty-second 
 year, worn out and withered, dressed in tattered garments, 
 half blind and deaf, and almost toothless, was the miserable 
 object on whom these inhuman wretches wreaked their 
 vengeance. He was in like manner consigned to the 
 
 ^ Strype gives an account of the expense incurred in the burning of Cranmer, 
 taken from the Harleian MSS. They are as follows : — 
 
 "Item, chardges layd out and paide for the burninge of Cranmer as 
 followethe : — 
 
 First, for a C of wood fagots 
 
 Item, halfe a hundrethe of furze faggots 
 
 Item, for y^ carriage of y^"" 
 
 Item, p'^ to ij laborers 
 
 II 4 
 
 From this we are to gather that the county had to pay lis. 4d. as the 
 average cost of burning a heretic. 
 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 Vjs 
 
 i.e.. 
 
 6 
 
 iijs iiijd 
 
 5> 
 
 3 4 
 
 viij'^ 
 
 >> 
 
 8 
 
 xvjd ' 
 
 >> 
 
 I 4 
 
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-sufferer 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 — 2 1st 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 the dignity of a Church founded in gentleness, consideration, and 
 mercy r (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 ! 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 1 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 refused 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. Littrd, 
 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 Mediaeval 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 reqantation, 
 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 : 7iote. 
 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 
 
CRANMERS FALL AND MARTYRDOM. 249 
 
 prohibition of the books, and the persecution of the author. Palmieri 
 lived a peaceful and retired life 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 He direct, and 
 Palmieri 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. 
 
 The 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. 25 I 
 
 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 live now as an Archbishop than I had at that time to 
 live 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, BuUinger, Osiander, Fagius, Peter 
 Martyr, and Philip Melancthon attest his intimacy with 
 the German Protestant Reformers ; and his hopes of find- 
 
 ^ Before the Reformation the hindrance to trade and agriculture 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 hi 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 commonly use and practice more 
 excess, riot, and superfluity than upon any other days." — Stephen's " EccL 
 Statutes," p. 333. Strype's " Cranmer," i. 122. See " Church Intelligence," 
 1885, Feby. 2, p. 19. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 253 
 
 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 jure. 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 
 
2 54 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 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. 255 
 
 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, although 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 country 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 provide 
 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 very 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. 257 
 
 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.^ 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. 259 
 
 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 Coeli, 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 jtoster [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. 26 1 
 
 debitiir?- 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. 
 
2b2 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 sacrarum studiossisimum, 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 have 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 ,1 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.2 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. 
 ^ Jbid..f 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." 1 
 
 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. iii. 
 
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 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 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 Parliament. This Formulary, 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 Formulary, 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 
 invited 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 Formulary. 
 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 CRANMER. 
 
 the weakest capacities." The three final Articles in the 
 Formularies on "Free Will," "Justification," and "Good 
 Works," are exclusively attributed to Cranmer, and his 
 supervision had probably extended over the whole book, 
 as in the minutes of a letter addressed by Henry 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 
 Formulary, would have moderated many of its state- 
 ments. He was, however, only 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 Formulary, as far as 
 his influence went with his suffragans, 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. 
 
 Henry VIIL, as he approached the end of life, became 
 more devoted to the furtherance of true religion. In the 
 year 1544 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 century is the translation 
 made from an old Latin Litany of our Church in the sixteenth, 
 and is a lasting testimony to the great ability of Cranmer at a 
 period when the syntax 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. 
 
 2 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 godhness." 
 
 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 VHL 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 LIFE, 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. II 40 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 
 
 ^ " Non temere quern quam reperies ante Petrum Lombardum, qui certum 
 aliquem et definitum Sacramentorum numerum statuerat : et de his septera 
 non omnia scholastic! seque propria Sacramenta vocabant — Cassander, ** De 
 numero Sacrament." Art. xiii. p. 951, Paris, 1616 ; and p. 107 "Consult. 
 Lugd.,» 1608. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 27 1 
 
 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 mysterunt iniquitatis^ or 
 mysterum meretricis magnce 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, 
 
 ^ •• 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 
 primam gratiam, qute est ipsa justificatio a peccatis ; neque secundam gratiam, 
 sive gratise 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. 
 
 2 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 
 
 &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 effisct 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 
 
 1 It was the same Peter Lombard v/ho 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. Pcenit." Dublin, 1825. " Catechesm ou 
 abrege de Foi," Paris, 1828, p. 25. "On the Commandment," by Liguori, 
 London and Dublin, 1862, pp. 255-6. "Concil. Tred.," Sess. xiv. c. iv. De 
 Contritione. " Catechism of the Council of Trent," Donovan's Translation. 
 Dublin, 1829, pp. 271. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 2/3 
 
 Bishop or Priest needeth no consecration by the Scriptures 
 for election,! 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 may 
 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 7nay 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'V'07"<"'^w i:/i^z>^/^«^^ (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. 
 The Writings of Cranmer. 
 
 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. 275 
 
 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 tJie 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 Solifidian 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 oflfered, 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 pubHshed in our 
 language. This Httle book has caused no httle 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 and 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. 
 
 2 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, '* EngUsh Reformation," ccx., cviii. Parker Society. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 277 
 
 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 :ollision 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. " 
 
 2 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." — J enkyns' Preface to "Cranmer's Remains," 
 vol. i. p. 75. Edit. Oxford, 1833. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF .CRANMER. 2 79 
 
 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, XhsX. 
 at this date he believed in the corporeal presence in " the 
 Sacrament of the Altar ; " and secojtd, 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 Catholic faith, which we hold concerning the 
 true presence of the body {de verd presentzd corporis), has been pro- 
 mulgated from the beginning of the Church by such clear and manifest 
 passages of Scripture, and has hkewise 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.»i 
 
 If these words, " De verd presejitid corporis,^' " concerning 
 the true presence of the body," prove, as they are sup- 
 
 1 **Cranmer's Remains," vol. i. 195. Oxford, 1833. 
 
2 8o LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 posed to do, the acceptance by the writer, of the doctrine 
 of Tran^ubstantiation, 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 very 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 Formulary 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 
 therein I think Jie taught the truths ^ These three facts 
 seem to justify the impression that Cranmer had himself 
 become, shortly after his Letter to Vadianus, a convert to 
 
 ^ Letter ccxxviiL, Jenkyns' *' Remains," vol. i. p. 257. Oxford, 1833. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 251 
 
 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 1 546, 
 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 substaiice 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 English 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 Breviary, 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." ^ 
 
 1 Original Letters, "English Reformation," clii. Parker Society. 
 
 2 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 Book 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 of 
 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. 285 
 
 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 
 
 1 The short Preface to the Ordination 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 Prtemunire by 
 securing the license of the Sovereign to exercise within the Realm the rights of 
 his jurisdiction. 
 
2 86 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 
 
 1 •* 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. 
 We 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. " 
 
255 LIFE, TIMES, AND WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 
 
 services of the National Church. With this intention he 
 published 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, ofHce, 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 apcena 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 
 
 1 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 mid 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 CEcolampadius. 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.y 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. IxxxvL 
 
THE WRITINGS OF CRANMER. 29 1 
 
 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 Laws. 
 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 Legum " 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 regulis juris, was supplied. Very considerable 
 care was taken in the preparation of it : *' Atque hoc modo hse 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 prsecipua antiquitate. Summse 
 negotii praefuit Tho. Cranmerus, Archpis. Cant., orationis lumen et splen- 
 dorem addidit Gualterris. Haddonus erit disertus et in hac ipsa juris facultate 
 non imperitus. Quin hrec satis scio an Johan Gheci viri singularis eidem negotio 
 adjutrix adfuerit manus. Quo factum est, ut cultiori stylo concisinatae sint 
 istae 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. 
 
 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. 293 
 
 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 LIFE, 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 effecting 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 157 1 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 veracity, 
 that if Captain Lemuel Gulliver had not supplanted him, we might use the 
 proverbial phrase, It is as true as if Sander had used it J" — ^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 /ac^s at first hand, and were satisfied of their substantial 
 truth. 
 
 Fox was born A.D. 15 17. 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., Mary, and Elizabeth, the periods 
 covered by his History. Fuller, in his " Church History," 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 Ecclesiae Anglicanae Martyrologo fidelissimo, 
 Antiquitatis Historicae. 
 
 " Indagatori sagacissimo, Evangelicas veretatis propugnatori acer- 
 rimo, Thaumaturgo admirabili, qui Martyres Marianos, tanquam 
 Phcenices, ex cineribus redivivos prsestitit." 
 
 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. 
 
 1 See Archdeacon Hale's ** Precedents in Criminal Causes," p. 169. 
 
JOHN FOX, THE MARTYROLOGIST. 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."^ BuUinger 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 
 docu77ie7its^ 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." 
 
 2 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 printed at 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 hepubUshed 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." — Strype's ** Annals of the Reformation," vol. i. pf 
 378-380. 
 
JOHN FOX, THE MARTYROLOGIST. 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 thejn 
 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.y vol. i. p; 375. * Ibid., pp. 376, 377. 
 
300 JOHN FOX, TFIE 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 "Encyclopaedia 
 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 Clergymen. 
 
 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 EHzabeth, 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 
 1 56 1. 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. 3OI 
 
 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 i; — 
 
 "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. 
 2 Vol. i. pp. 331-2. London, 181 3. ^ 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^ that John 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 
 hfe ; 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 : — 
 
 " Fox'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 j ; 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. 3O3 
 
 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 thent." 
 
 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 MARTYROLOGIST. 
 
 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 " 2 : — 
 
 1 *' Church Historians of England," vol. i. p. 166. London, 1870. 
 
 2 Vol. vi. p. 148. Edit. 1868. 
 
JOHN FOX THE MARTYROLOGIST. 305 
 
 " 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 Hed.' 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 pubHc 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 VIIL, 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 print, 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 
 
306 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 seqq.^ 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 publish- 
 ing this list, " It was thought that such a roll of our Martyrs, marking 
 
BEATIFICATION OF MARTYRS. 307 
 
 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, 181 2) " 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.], " AnnaHst," " De Rom. 
 Pont," c. Ixiv. 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. 
 
 7'tirnbull &> Spears^ Printers^ Edinburgh. 
 
>• ' 
 
 ^-^ 1^ 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 uunAwr use 
 
 NOV 6 i;.' 
 JUL V 19 8 5 
 
 JUL 1 \m 
 
 AU624]86d 
 
 bes^ 
 
 2S ^931 
 
 ^rrA^ O i.Q 
 
 ^UCP 
 
 4 m^ 
 
 i^ 
 
 uu^ 
 
 rcB 
 
 ir^ 
 
 A5 
 
 y'i 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 DEC 2 0'63 -11 AM 
 
 FEB 17 
 
 JAN 09 1991 
 
 IMtL 
 
 HSS^ 
 
 — Ti-'CD LD 
 
 REC'D as 09 '90 
 
 ^! i iybH 
 
 LD 21-100)?i-7,'33 
 
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 CDDfllDflSSS