allowed, and, ... leaving her whom neither law nor equity did DISCOURSE permit him to hold, to apply himself to a chaste and lawful marriage? in which cause, whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient, to which all ought to submit without delay, yet his Majesty disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities i:" -the second is the testimony of two Archbishops, two Dukes, three Marquisses, thirteen Earls, five Bishops, six and twenty Barons, two and twenty Abbots, with many Knights and doctors, in their letter to the Pope, "Causæ ipsius justitia," &c.—" the justice of the cause itself being approved everywhere by the judgments of most learned men, and determined by the suffrages of most famous Universities, being pronounced and defined by English, French, Italians, as every one among them doth excel the rest in learning," &c. Though he call it a "lawful marriage," yet it is but one doctor's opinion. And if it had been lawful, the Pope and the clergy were more blame-worthy than King Henry. Secondly, he saith he wanted "due moderation," because "he 2. The forced the parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings." not forced; I have shewed sufficiently that they were not forced, and so due by their letter to the Pope, by their sermons preached at in the Reformation.] St. Paul's Cross, by their persuasions to the King, by their printed books; to which I may add their Declaration, called the Bishops' Book, signed by two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops'. Nor do I remember to have read of any of note that opposed it but two, who were prisoners and no parliamentmen at that time: Sir Thomas More (yet when King Henry writ against Luther, he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Pope's authority too much, lest he diminished his own"); and Bishop Fisher, who had consented in Convo- A. D. 1530. cation to the king's title of the "Supreme Head of the English Church, quantum per Christi legem licet "." But

Stephan. Winton., De Verâ Obedientia, apud Goldast., [Monarch. S. Rom. Imp.,] tom. i. p. 721. [ed. Hanov. 1612.]

Lord [Herbert of] Cherbury, in Hen. VIII., an. 1530, p. 303. "Sufficere sane alioqui debuisset causæ ipsius," &c. [as above in the text. The numbers of the signatures are not quite accurately given.]

1

[Surv., c. vi. sect. 1. p. 80.]

Idem, p. 334. [Lord Herbert, ibid., pp. 390, 391. See also Just Vindic., c. ii. vol. i. pp. 120-122.]

m

[See Roper's Life of Sir Thomas More, pp. 80-83. ed. Singer.]

a [Herbert, in Hen. VIII., pp. 320, 321. But see Hall's Life of Bp. Fisher, cc. xv, xvi; and above c. iii. sect. 2. p. 99. notes m, n.]

Parliament

I.

["ut uno verbo di

cam."]

PART because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation, I will shew him out of Stephen Gardiner himself, who was the tyrant that did compel him. "Quin potius orbi rationem reddere volui,” &c.— "I desired rather to give an account to the world what changed my opinion, and compelled me to dissent from my former words and deeds;-that compelled me (to speak it in good time), which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit, the force of truth, to which all things at length do obey"." Behold the tyrant-not Henry the Eighth, but "the force of truth," which compelled the parliament. Take one testimony more out of the same treatise ;-"But I fortified myself, so that (as if I required the judgment of all my senses) I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth, nor take it to be sufficiently proved, unless I first heard it with mine ears, and smelt it with my nose, and see it with mine eyes, and felt it with my hands"." Here was more of obstinacy than tyranny in the case. Either Stephen Gardiner did write according to his conscience, and then he was not compelled: or else he dissembled, and then his second testimony is of no value;—it is not my judgment, but the judgment of the law itself;— 'Semel falsus, semper presumitur falsus.'

3. [Henry

To the third condition he saith only, that Henry the had suffi- Eighth had not "sufficient authority" to reform,

the Eighth

cient authority.]

First, "because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole."

I have shewed the contrary;-that our Reformation was not made in opposition, but in pursuance, of the acts of general Councils; neither did our Reformers meddle without their own spheres.

And, secondly, because the Papacy is of "Divine" right'. Yet before he told us that it was doubtful, and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove, that "the regiment of the Church by the Pope is of human institution." But I have learned better,-that the proof rests upon his side; both because he maintains an affirmative, and because we are in r [Ibid., p. 81.]

• De Verâ Obedientiâ, [as quoted in note i,] p. 719.

P [Ibid.]

[Surv., c. vi. sect. 1. p. 80.]

218

III.

possession. It were a hard condition, to put me to prove DISCOURSE against my conscience, that the universal regency of the Pope is of human right, who do absolutely deny both his Divine right and his human right.

His next exception is, that it is no sufficient warrant for princes ❝to meddle in spiritual matters, because some princes have done so"."

If he think the external regiment of the Church to be a matter merely spiritual, he is much mistaken. I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single prince or princes, but a whole succession of kings, with their Convocations, and Parliaments, proceeding according to the fundamental laws of the kingdom. So he might have spared his instances of Saul and Uzziah".

But he saith, that "what King Henry did in such matters King Henry was plainly against his own conscience, as appeareth by his frequent and earnest desires to be reunited to the Pope."

It is a bold presumption in him to take upon him to judge of another man's conscience. God alone knows the secret turnings and windings of the heart of man. Though he had desired a reconciliation with Rome, yet charity requires, that we should rather judge that he had changed his mind than that he violated his conscience. Neither will this uncharitable censure, if it were true, advantage his cause the black of a bean. His conscience might make the Reformation sinful in him, but not unlawful in itself. The lawfulness or unlawfulness of the action within itself, depends not upon the conscience of the doer, but the merit of the thing done.

His witnesses are Bishop Gardiner and Nicholas Sanders'. The former a great counsellor of King Henry, a contriver of the oath, a propugner of the king's supremacy, both in print and in his sermons, and a persecutor of them who opposed it'. For a preacher to preach against his own conscience, comes near the sin against the Holy Ghost. He had reason to say he was constrained," both to hide his own shame, and to flatter the Pope (after his revolt), whom he had so much opposed, especially in the days of Queen Mary;

66

did not act against conscience.

PART otherwise he had missed the Chancellorship of England, and it may be had suffered as a schismatic. Yet let us hear what he saith, that 'King Henry had a purpose to resign the supremacy, when the tumult was in the north; and that he was employed to the emperor to desire him to be a mediator to the Pope about it". All this might have been, and yet no intention of reconciliation. Great princes many times look one way and row another; and if an overture or an empty pretence will serve to quash a rebellion, or prevent a foreign war, will make no scruple to use it. But upon Bishop Gardiner's credit in this cause we cannot believe it. This was one of them who writ that menacing letter to the Pope just before the Reformation, that, if he did not hear them, "certe interpretabimur nostri nobis curam esse relictam, ut aliunde nobis remedia conquiramus"—" they would certainly interpret it, that they were left to themselves to take care of themselves, to seek their remedy from elsewhere"." This was a fair intimation, and they were as good as their words. This was the man who writ the book "De Verá Obedientia," downright for the king's supremacy against the Pope. Lastly, this is [he] who published to the world, that “all sorts of people with us were agreed upon this point with most stedfast consent, that no manner of person bred or brought up in England, hath ought to do with Rome." It had been strange indeed, that all sorts of people should be unanimous in the point, and the king alone go against his conscience.

His latter witness, Nicholas Sanders, is just such another; whose book "De Schismate" is brimfull of virulent slanders. and prodigious fictions against King Henry. He feigneth, that "when his death did draw nigh, . . . he began to deal privately with some Bishops, of the way how he might be reconciled to the See Apostolicd." Testimony he produceth none, but his own authority. They, who will not believe it, may choose. But that which followeth, spoileth the credit of his relation, that "one of the Bishops, being doubtful

III.

Divino."

whether this might not be a trap to catch him, answered that DISCOURSE 219 the king was wiser than all men, that he had cast off the Pope's supremacy by Divine inspiration, and had nothing "Consilio now to feare." That a king should be laying snares to catch his Bishops "appropinquante hora mortist"—" when the very hour of his death was drawing near," and that a Bishop should flatter a dying man so abominably against his conscience (as he makes this to be), is not credible.

But there is a third author alleged by others who deserved more credit, that "it was but the coming two days short of a post to Rome, which hindered that the reconcilement was not actually made." But here is a double mistake. First, in the time; this was in the year 1533, before the separation was made, "currente rotáh" some intimations had been given of what was intended, but the bell was not then rung out; certainly the breach must go before the reconcilement, in order of time. Secondly, in the subject;-this treaty was not about the jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over the English Church, but about the divorce of King Henry and Queen Katharine. The words are these, that "if the Pope would supersede from executing his sentence, until he" (the king) "had indifferent judges who might hear the business, he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to do in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See1." The Bishop of Paris procured this proposition from the king, and delivered it at Rome. It was not accepted. The king's answer came not within the time limited. Thereupon the Pope published his sentence, and the separation followed. So this was about the change of a wife, not of religion, before either King Henry's substraction of obedience, or the Pope's fulmination. In the next place he distinguisheth between the Pope and [R. C.'s disthe Papacy, acknowledging, that 'it may be lawful in some cases to substract obedience from the Pope, but in no case from the Papacy';' which he presumeth, but doth not prove, to be of Divine institution: whereas "Protestants" (saith he), "for the faults of some Popes," have separated themselves

tinction be

tween the

Pope and the Papa

cy.]