III. not this he that had so great an hand in framing the oath of DISCOURSE supremacy, and in all the great transactions in the latter days of King Henry? Was not he one of them who 'tickled the king's ears with sermons against the Pope's supremacy?' who was a contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Protestants, and was able by his power with the king to bring the great favourite of those times to the scaffold for heresy and treason? To conclude, if any thing did constrain him, it was either the Bishopric of London or Winchester; or, which I do the rather believe out of charity, the very power of conscience. So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book De Verá Obedientia, where he proposeth this objection against himself, that "as a Bishop" he had "sworn to maintain the supremacy of the Pope;" to which he answers, that "what was holily sworn is more holily omitted, than to make an oath 'the bond of iniquitys."" He [Acts viii. confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome "bona fide," as "to his second wife," but after the return of his first wife (that is the truth, to which he was espoused in his baptism), being convicted with undeniable evidence, he was necessitated out of conscience to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular question of supremacy, and to adhere to his first wife the truth, and after her to his prince, the supreme Head of the English Church upon earth'.' 23.] persons Protestant the sepa His next attempt is to prove, that the Protestants were [Three the authors of the separation from Rome; and he names named by three, Cranmer, Cromwell, and Barnes. He might even as R. C. as well say, that two or three common soldiers of the Cartha- authors of ginian army (and perhaps not one of them at the fight) were ration.] the authors of the Roman overthrow at Cannæ. It was the Universities that approved the separation unanimously. It was the synods that directed the separation. It was the king that established the separation. It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation. How could two or three privadoes, without necromancy, have such an efficacious influence upon the Universities, and synods, and Parliaments, Speed, [Chron.,] in Henry VIII. c. 21. n. 105. [Speed only says, that he "instigated jealousies daily into the King's car" against the Queen, Anne of Cleves.] De Verâ Obedientià, in fine; [as above quoted, p. 818.] [Ibid., pp. 819, 820.] and the king himself? Yet they might have a hand in it. No, nor so much as a little finger. As much as the fly, that sat upon the cart-wheel, had in raising of the dust. The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above six hundred of the most able and eminent persons in the kingdom. What had these three been able to do among them, supposing they had been then Protestants, and of the House? Even as much as three drops of honey in a great vessel of vinegar, or three drops of vinegar in a great vessel of honey. But let us see what it is, which he objects against Cranmer 179 and the rest;-that Cranmer, whom I "will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants," advised "that the king should seek no more to the Court of Rome;" and that, "bidding adieu to the Court of Rome, he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe," at home and abroad". There was no hurt in all this. There could be no suspicion, that "the most learned in all the Universities of Europe" should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court. "But upon this" (saith he) "it was by commission disputed by the divines in both Universities." And so he concludes triumphantly, "Behold! Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope." I answer, that this secession was no secession of the Church of England; nor this disputation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church, but only concerning a particular process, there depending between King Henry and Queen Catherine, about the validity or invalidity of their marriage, and the Pope's dispensation, which Cranmer maintained to be determinable by Divine law, not by canon law. The truth is this; Dr. Stephens and Dr. Fox, two great ministers of King Henry, and Dr. Cranmer, chanced to meet without any design at Waltham, where, discourse being offered concerning this process, Cranmer freely declared his judgment, that the marriage of a brother with his brother's wife was unlawful by the law of God, and that the Pope could not dispense with it; and that it was more expedient and more proper to seek to have this cause determined by the best divines and Universities of Europe, than by the dilatory pro u [Surv., c. iii. sect. 2. p. 44; from Godwin, De Præsul., in V. Cran., p.196.] х [Ibid., from Foxe, Acts and Monum., (bk. viii. vol. ii. p. 271.) ed. 1684.] III. ceeding of the Roman Court. This was related to the king. DISCOURSE The king sent for Cranmer. He offered freely to justify it before the Pope. And to demonstrate both that this was no separation from Rome and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time, it is acknowledged by all our historiographers, that after this Cranmer with others was sent as an ambassador or envoy to Rome, and returned home in the Pope's good grace, not without a mark of his favour, being made his Penitentiary". Likewise, saith another, "Cranmer, that unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury, was his" (the Earl of Hertford's) "right hand, and chief assistant in the work, although but a few months before he was of King Harry's religion; yea, a" great "patron and prosecutor of the six Articles a "that is as much as to say, no friend, no favourer, of Protestants. So this victorious argument fails on both sides. Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer ;— that he "freed the king's conscience from the yoke of Papal dominion"," that is to say, in that process; that "by his counsel... destruction was provided Divinely to the Court of Rome," that is, occasionally, and by the just disposition of Almighty God; that "the king was brought by Cranmer's singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospeld," that is, in that particular case; that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the law of God; and, lastly, that "the Papal power being discovered by King Henry's authority and Cranmer's, did easily fall downe." I much doubt, if I had the book, whether I should find these testimonies such as they are cited. Howsoever, it may be true distinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis. They could not be spoken of the first separation, when Cranmer had no more authority than a private PART doctor, but of the following times. King Henry suppressed the Papal tyranny in England by his legislative power, and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations and care to see the laws executed. Cromwell. Barnes. Against Cromwell he produceth but one testimony,—that "it was generally conceived, and truly (as never thought) that the politic ways for taking away the Pope's authority in England, and the suppression of Religious Houses, were principally devised by Cromwell." First, this is but an argument from vulgar opinion. Secondly, when Archbishop Warham and the synod did first give to King Henry the supremacy and the title of Head of the English Church, Cromwell was no Protestant. He had lately been Cardinal Wolsey's solicitor, and was then Master of the Jewel-House, of no such power to do any great good or hurt to the Protestants. And at his death he professed, that he was no Sacramentary, and that he died in the Catholic Faith. But for the suppression of Religious Houses, it is not improbable. He might well have learned that way under 180 Cardinal Wolsey, when he procured the suppression of forty monasteries of good note for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich: in which business, our historians say, the Pope licked his own fingers to the value of twelve barrels full of gold and silver. Lastly, for Dr. Barnes, poor man, he was neither courtier, nor councillor, nor convocation-man, nor Parliament-man. All the grace, which ever he received from King Henry, was an honourable death for his religion. 'He said, that he,' and "such other wretches as he," had "made the king a whole king," by their sermons. If they did so, it was well done. [Weever's Funer. Monum., p. 101. Lond. 1631, quoted by R. C. ibid. For "as never thought," Weever's words are "as I think."] Lord [Herbert of] Cherbury, in Hen. VIII., anno 1540, [pp. 458. 462.]-Holinsh., [Chron.,] an. 32. Hen. VIII. fol. 242. [p. 941. b. Lond. 1587.] h [Stow, Chron., in Hen. VIII. p. 523. B. See Strype, Eccl. Memor., in Hen. VIII. vol. i. Pt. i. pp. 169–171. Oxf. 1822, and Append. nos. xxviii. xxix; and the Letters Patent and Bulls in Rymer's Fod., tom. xiv. pp. 155, &c. 291, &c. The story of the gold and silver is in Foxe (Acts and Mon., bk. viii. vol. ii. p. 197), but has no connection with the founding of Wolsey's Colleges.] i [Foxe, Acts and Monum., bk. viii. vol. ii. p. 444; quoted by R. C., Surv., c. iii. sect. 2. p. 46.] III. The meaning of " a whole king," is "a Head of the Church," DISCOURSE saith R. C. It may be so, but the consequence is naught. Perhaps he meant a sovereign independent king, not feudatory to the Pope; which he that is, is but half a king. Not only of old, but in later times, the Popes did challenge a power paramount over the kings of England within their own dominions; as appeareth by the Pope's Bull, sent to James the Fifth, king of Scotland, wherein he declareth, that he had "deprived King Henry of his kingdom," as "a heretic, a schismatic, an adulterer, a murderer, a sacrilegious person;" and, lastly, "a rebel and convict of læsæ majestatis, for that he had risen against him" (the Pope) "who was his lord'." But now, supposing all R. C. his suggestions had been true, -that Cranmer and Cromwell had been Protestants at that time, and had been in as much grace, and had had the like opportunity of address to the king, as they had afterwards; that Cranmer had persuaded the king as a divine, and Cromwell as a politician, to separate from the Court of Rome; and that Barnes had preached against the Pope's supremacy,-yet this is far from the authoritative separation of the whole Church and kingdom from the Court of Rome. Moral persuasions may incline, but cannot necessitate, the will. [SECTION THE THIRD.] Catholics be the au thors of the separation.] Therefore, not confiding to these broken reeds, at length [Roman he admits, that Roman Catholics were the authors of the admitted separation ;-"Be it so, that Roman Catholics were the by R. C. to authors of the division;. . . that is worse for Protestants," because "then Protestants continue a wicked schism, wickedly begun, against conscience, against known truth, and consequently a sin against the Holy Ghostm." And to make his assertion good, he produceth the authority of Optatus: "It appeareth evidently that you are the heirs of schismatics." He who reads this would believe, that Optatus spake posi |