Part 20

But I think it may be demonstrated, as far as such things are capable of it, from Sanders his own story, that the king’s first scruples, or the jogging of his conscience, as our author styles it, could not come from an inordinate passion to Ann Bolleyn; for he makes Cardinal Wolsey the chief instrument in the intrigue. Let us then see what accounts he gives of his motives to undertake it: he not only takes notice of the great discontent he took at the emperor Charles V., the queen’s nephew, but how studious he was upon the first intimation of the king’s scruples, to recommend to him the Duchess of Alençon, the King of France’s sister; and that, when there were none present but the king, Wolsey, and the confessor. Afterwards Wolsey was sent on a very splendid embassy into France, and had secret instructions to carry on the match with the King of France’s sister. But when he was at Calais, he received orders from the king to manage other matters as he was appointed, but not to say a word of that match. “At which,” saith Sanders,[100] “he was in a mighty rage, because he carried on the divorce for nothing more than to oblige the most Christian king wholly to himself by this marriage.” How could this be, if from the beginning of his scruples he knew the king designed to marry Ann Bolleyn? But Sanders thinks to come off with saying, “that Wolsey knew of the king’s love, but he thought he designed her only for his concubine.” But this is plainly to contradict himself; for before he said,[101] “that Wolsey knew from the beginning whom he intended to marry.” Besides, what reason could there be, if the king had only a design to corrupt her, that he should put himself and the world to so much trouble to sue out a divorce? for the divorce was the main thing aimed at in all the negociations at Rome; other applications had been more proper, if his design was only upon having her for a concubine; “but she would not be corrupted.” If this were the reason, he must again contradict himself, for he makes her a lewd vicious woman. And it doth not seem so probable, if she had been such a person as he describes her, that she would have put the king to so much trouble, and such a tedious method of proceeding, by so many forms of law. But again, Sanders saith,[102] “when she returned from France, and was at court, she found out what Wolsey designed;” which makes it evident, by Sanders his own words, that the design of the divorce was before the thoughts of Ann Bolleyn: and it seems very probable, that Cardinal Wolsey might carry on a public design by it, to draw the king off from the emperor, and to unite him with France. And the Pope at that time being highly displeased with the Emperor, he might think it no difficult thing to procure a dispensation, the King of France’s interest being joined with our king’s. Some have written, “that the Pope himself was in this intrigue at first;”[103] but seeing no proof of it, I dare not affirm it: It is sufficient for my purpose, that the first design was laid quite another way. I confess afterwards, when Wolsey, upon his return from France, saw how things were like to go, he struck in with the king’s humour, as appears by the letters of Ann Bolleyn to him; but yet carried himself so coldly afterwards in the matter of the divorce, that it proved one occasion of his fall. Thuanus, being an historian of great judgment, saw the inconsistencies of Sanders his relations; and therefore concludes, that Wolsey was surprised with the business of Ann Bolleyn, after he went into France, having notice sent him by his friends; and that Wolsey wholly aimed at the French match. Mezeray saith, “the cardinal could not foresee the love of Ann Bolleyn, but his design was to be revenged on the emperor;” and he questions whether the king were smitten with her, till Wolsey was sent into France; when the king so unexpectedly forbade him to proceed in that match, _cum summo eras dolore_, as Sanders confesses.[104] From all this we see plainly, that since Sanders makes Cardinal Wolsey the great contriver and manager of this business, the immediate cause of the schism could not be the love of Ann Bolleyn.

But we have other kind of proofs concerning this matter, besides Sanders his inconsistencies; and those shall be from some of the greatest and most active men of that time, and some remarkable circumstances.

The first is a person of unquestionable integrity, and accounted a martyr for his conscience at that time, I mean Sir Thomas More, then lord chancellor; who, after he had delivered to the House of Commons the original papers of the universities in favour of the divorce, he then said, “that all men should clearly perceive, that the king hath not attempted this matter of will and pleasure, as strangers say, but only for the discharge of his conscience, and the security of the succession to the crown.” Which was a reason alleged by the king himself, and seems to have been built on the grounds which Charles V. assigned for breaking his oath, which he made to marry the Lady Mary, by the first article of the treaty at Windsor. Lord Herbert owns,[105] that the emperor, to avoid the force of this treaty, had alleged something against the marriage between the king and his aunt. But another author, who lived much nearer the time, doth affirm,[106] “that, when the match was debated in the Spanish council, it was then said, that although the match between the king and his brother’s relict were not yet disputed, yet, if the king should die without issue male, rather than the kingdom should pass to foreigners, the English nation would dispute the validity of the marriage;” and to confirm this, in Sir Henry Spelman’s Manuscript Register of the proceedings of the Legatine Court about the divorce, subscribed by the three notaries there present, the witnesses deposed, “that at the time of the marriage, the people said commonly, that it was unfit one brother should marry the other brother’s wife.” And archbishop Warham, then upon oath, declared, “that he told King Henry VII., that the marriage seemed to him neither honourable nor well pleasing to God;” and he confesses the people then murmured at it, but that the murmuring was quieted by the Pope’s dispensation: So that all the satisfaction that was given about it, arose from the Pope’s extraordinary dispensing power with the laws of God, which was a thing vehemently opposed by many in the church of Rome; and the university of Bononia itself afterwards declared, “that the match was abominable, and that the Pope himself could not dispense with it;” and this they say was “after they had read Cardinal Cajetan’s defence of the marriage.” The like was done by the university of Padua, besides many others which I shall not mention, and are easily to be seen.

So that the succession to the crown by this match must depend upon an extravagant power in the Pope, which the Roman church itself never owned, and the wisest statesmen thought by no means fit to depend upon.

The notice of this debate in the Spanish council being sent over to Cardinal Wolsey, seems to have been the first occasion taken of starting the question about the lawfulness of the king’s marriage; which Wolsey, out of a private grudge to the Emperor, as well as for other reasons, was not wanting to carry on till he saw which way it was like to end. And the Pope himself was willing enough to grant the bull for the divorce, till he made a secret peace with the Emperor; and it is easy to see, that the Pope went forwards and backwards in the whole affair, merely as politic considerations moved him; which being fully known to so discerning a prince as Henry VIII., it gave him just occasion to question, whether that authority were so divine as was pretended, which, in so great a matter, did not govern itself by any rule of conscience, but by political measures.

One remarkable circumstance in this matter ought not to be omitted, viz. that the king’s agent at Rome sent him word, “that the Pope’s advice was, that if the king’s conscience were satisfied, he should presently marry another wife, and then prosecute the suit; and that this was the only way for the king to attain his desires;”[107] but the king refused to do it. And when Cardinal Wolsey sent a message to the king to the same purpose, the king replied, “if the bull be naught, let it be so declared; and if it be good, it shall never be broken by any by-ways for me.” And when he objected the tediousness of the suit, he answered, “since he had patience eighteen years, he would stay yet four or five more, since the opinion of all the clerks of his kingdom (besides two) were lately declared for him;” adding, “that he had studied the matter himself, and writers of it, and that he found it was unlawful _de jure divino_, and undispensible.”

Thus we have found the king himself declaring, in public and private, his real dissatisfaction in point of conscience; and that it was no inordinate affection to Ann Bolleyn which put him upon it; and the same attested by Sir Thomas More, and the circumstances of affairs. I now proceed to another witness.

The next is Bishop Bonner himself, in his preface to Gardiner’s book of “True Obedience;” for thus he begins: “Forasmuch as there be some doubtless now at this present, which think the controversy between the king’s royal majesty and the bishop of Rome, consisteth in this point, for that his majesty hath taken the most excellent and most noble lady Ann to his wife; whereas in very deed, notwithstanding the matter is far otherwise, and nothing so.” So that, if Bishop Bonner may be believed, there was no such immediate cause of the schism, as the love to Ann Bolleyn. And withal he adds, “that this book was published, that the world might understand what was the whole voice and resolute determination of the best and greatest learned bishops, with all the nobles and commons of England, not only in the cause of matrimony, but also in defending the gospel’s doctrine, _i.e._ against the Pope’s usurped authority over the church.” Again he saith, “that the king’s marriage was made by the ripe judgment, authority, and privilege, of the most and principal universities of the world; and then with the consent of the whole church of England; and that the false pretended supremacy of the bishop of Rome was most justly abrogated: and that if there were no other cause but this marriage, the bishop of Rome would content himself, _i.e._ if he might enjoy his power and revenues still, which,” he saith, “were so insupportable, that there lay the true cause of the breach: For his revenues here were near as great as the king’s; and his tyranny was cruel and bitter, which he had exercised here under the title of the Catholic church, and the authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, when notwithstanding he was a very ravening wolf, dressed in sheep’s cloathing, calling himself the servant of servants.” These are Bonner’s words, as I have transcribed them out of two several translations, whereof one was published while he was bishop of London.

Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, in his book, not only affirms the king’s former marriage to be unlawful, and the second to be just and lawful, but that he had the consent of the nation, and the judgment of his church, as well as foreign learned men for it; and afterwards he strenuously argues against the Pope’s authority here, as a mere usurpation. And the whole clergy not only then owned the king’s supremacy, (Fisher excepted,) but in the book published by authority, called “A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man,” &c., the Pope’s authority was rejected as an usurpation, and confuted by Scripture and antiquity. King James I. declares, “that there was a general and catholic conclusion of the whole church of England in this case;” and when some persons suspected, that it all came from the king’s marriage, Bishop Bonner, we see, undertakes to assure the world it was no such thing.[108]

The separation was made, then, by a general consent of the nation; the king, and church, and people all concurring: and the reasons inducing them to cast off the Pope’s usurpation were published to the world at that time; and those reasons have no relation at all to the king’s marriage: and if they are good, as they thought they were, and this gentleman saith not a word to disprove them, then the foundation of the disunion between the church of Rome and us, was not laid in the king’s inordinate passion, but on just and sufficient reasons.

Thus it appears, that this gentleman hath by no means proved two parts of his assertion, viz. “That our Reformation was erected on the foundations of lust and usurpation.”

But our grim logician proceeds from immediate and original, to concomitant causes; which, he saith, “were revenge, ambition, and covetousness.”[109] But the skill of logicians used to lie in proving; but this is not our author’s talent, for not a word is produced to that purpose. If bold sayings, and confident declarations, will do the business, he is never unprovided; but if you expect any reason from him, he begs your pardon; he finds how ill the character of a grim logician suits with his inclination. However, he takes a leap from causes to effects; and here he tells us, “the immediate effects of this schism, were sacrilege, and a bloody persecution, of such as denied the king’s supremacy in matters wholly spiritual, which no layman, no king of Israel ever exercised.”[110]

What the supremacy was, is best understood by the book published by the king’s order, and drawn up by the bishops of that time. By which it appears, that the main thing insisted on was, rejecting the Pope’s authority; and as to the positive part, it lies in these things: 1. In defending and protecting the church. 2. In overseeing the bishops and priests in the execution of their office. 3. In reforming the church to the old limits and pristine estate of that power which was given to them by Christ, and used in the primitive church. “For it is out of doubt,” saith that book, “that Christ’s faith was then most pure and firm, and the Scriptures of God were then best understood, and virtue did then most abound and excel; and therefore it must needs follow, that the customs and ordinances then used and made, be more conform and agreeable unto the true doctrine of Christ, and more conducing unto the edifying and benefit of the church of Christ, than any custom or laws used or made by the bishop of Rome, or any other addicted to that see and usurped power since that time.”

This book was published with the king’s declaration before it; and therefore we have reason to look on the supremacy to be taken as it is there explained. And what is there now “so wholly spiritual, that no layman, or king of Israel, ever exercised in this supremacy?” But this writer never took the pains to search into these things, and therefore talks so at random about them.

As to the persecutions that followed, it is well known that both sides blame King Henry the Eighth for his severity; and therefore this cannot be laid to the charge of his separation. For the other effect of sacrilege, I do not see how this follows from the Reformation; for although some uses might cease by the doctrines of it, as monks to pray the dead out of purgatory; yet there were others to have employed the church lands about, as some of them were in founding new bishoprics, &c. And I have nothing to say in justification of any abuses committed that way; only that the king and parliament could not discern the difference between greater and lesser, as to the point of sacrilege; and since the Pope had shewed them the way, by granting bulls for the dissolution of the lesser monasteries, they thought, since the Pope’s power was taken away, they might, with as little sacrilege, dissolve the rest. I will shut up this with the words of archbishop Laud: “But if there have been any wilful and gross errors, not so much in opinion as fact, (sacrilege too often pretending to reform superstition,) that’s the crime of the reformers, not of the Reformation, and they are long since gone to God to answer it, to whom I leave them.”[111]

The method I proposed for satisfaction of conscience about the Reformation, was to consider, whether there were not sufficient cause for it? Whether there were not sufficient authority? And, whether the proceedings of our Reformation were not justifiable by the rules of scripture, and the ancient church? He tells me, “he may safely join issue with me upon all three points, and conclude in the negative.” But upon second thoughts, he finds he may much more safely let it alone: and very fairly would have me take it for granted, “That the church of Rome cannot err in matters of faith;” (for that he must mean by the church there,) “and that our church hath no authority of reforming herself; and that our proceedings were not justifiable, according to the right interpretation of scriptures by the fathers and councils.” But if I will not allow his affirmations for proofs, for his part he will act the grim logician no longer; and in truth, it becomes him so ill, that he doth well to give it over. When he will undertake to prove, that the church of Rome is the one Catholic and infallible church of Christ, and answer what I have produced in the former discourses, I will ease him of any farther trouble; for then I will grant that our Reformation cannot be justified. But till then, I shall think it no want of humility to conclude the victory to be on our side. And I would desire him not to end with such a bare-faced assertion of a thing so well known to be false, viz. “That there is not one original treatise written by a Protestant, which hath handled distinctly, and by itself, that Christian virtue of humility.” Since within a few years, (besides what hath been printed formerly,) such a book hath been published in London. But he doth well to bring it off with, “at least that I have seen or heard of;” for such books have not lain much in the way of his enquiries. Suppose we had not such particular books, we think the Holy Scripture gives the best rules and examples of humility of any book in the world; but I am afraid he should look on his case as desperate, if I send him to the scripture, since he saith, “Our divines do that, as physicians do with their patients whom they think incurable, send them at last to Tunbridge-waters, or to the air of Montpellier.”

FOOTNOTES:

[49] “Copies of Two Papers written by the late King Charles II., together with a Copy of a Paper written by the late Duchess of York. Published by his Majesty’s command. London, 1686.”

[50] His pamphlet is entitled, “An Answer to some Papers lately printed, concerning the authority of the Catholic Church in matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England. London, 1686.”—Stillingfleet withheld his name.

[51] “I refer myself to the judgment of those who have read the answer to the defence of the late king’s papers, and that of the duchess, _in which last_ I was concerned, how charitably I have been represented there.”—_Preface to the Hind and Panther_, Vol. X. p. 113, 114.

[52] See Vol. X. p. 203-208, and the notes there referred to.

[53] Morley, bishop of Winchester, who, as presently will be noticed, was chaplain in the family of Sir Edward Hyde during the usurpation, tells us, “that the duchess, (then Miss Hyde,) as she was the eldest, so was she the forwardest, and most capable to receive instruction; for God having given her an extraordinary good understanding for one of her sex and years, so he had given her an extraordinary good inclination to the exercises of piety and devotion; so that, when she was not, as I remember, above twelve years of age, I did think her every way fit to be admitted to the receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, which she did then, and always afterwards, with very great devotion, so long as she and I staid together in her father’s house at Antwerp.”—_Preface to Bishop Morley’s Treatise_, p. vi.

[54] Morley says, that he continued to be the duchess’s spiritual director “until after her father’s banishment; and all that time I must bear her witness, that she was not only a zealous Protestant herself, according as it is by law established in the church of England, but zealous to make proselytes.”—_Preface as above_, p. xii.

[55] Dr Peter Heylin was born at Burford, in Oxfordshire, in 1600, and rose high in the church, being one of the chaplains in ordinary to Charles I. During the great civil war, he was reduced to distress, but survived the Restoration, and died in 1662. In 1661, he published his history of the Reformation, under the title of “_Ecclesia Restaurata_.”

[56] These were Sheldon and Morley. Sheldon was bishop of London, and was promoted to the see of Canterbury on the death of the venerable Juxon. Burnet describes him as generous and charitable, and extremely dexterous in politics; but adds, that he only spoke of religion as an engine of government, and _thus_ gained with the king the character of a wise and honest clergyman. He was much blamed by the Low Church divines, for the rigour with which he followed up the parliamentary deprivation, by which two thousand divines, as was alleged, were ejected for non-conformity.

Blandford, successively bishop of Oxford and Worcester, was an able and excellent divine, modest and humble, says Burnet, even to a fault. Morley, bishop of Winchester, had recommended him to the duchess to be her spiritual director in his stead, when he himself retired from court in 1667: “And I made choice of him,” says that prelate, “not only because, in regard of his learning, piety, gravity, and modesty, together with the gentleness and sweetness of his address and conversation, he was at least as fit as any I could think of for that employment, but in regard of his former relation of chaplain to her father, to whom he owed his rise in the church.”—_Preface to Bishop Morley’s Treatise_, p. xiv.

[57] Stillingfleet, being at this time dean of St Paul’s, stood in the van of the controversy with the Papists. He had learning, penetration, some power of language, without much nicety of expression, and, above all, that intrepidity and undaunted resolution which the times required. After the Revolution, he reaped the harvest of his labours in the bishopric of Worcester. This eminent divine was born in 1635, and died in 1699. The tract which follows, is the third part of his Answer to the Papers published by James, respecting the conversion of his brother and wife to the Roman Catholic faith.

[58] This prelate was Dr George Morley, who, during the time of the usurpation, was domestic chaplain to Sir Edward Hyde, afterwards Lord Clarendon; and educated his daughter, Anne Hyde, in the faith of the church of England. See page 189. Upon the Restoration, Morley was made successively bishop of Worcester and Winchester. “He was,” says Burnet, “a pious, charitable man, of an exemplary life, but extremely passionate and obstinate.” This prelate, who was deeply and justly afflicted with the Duchess’s change of religion, vindicated himself from the suspicion of having neglected his duty towards her, by publishing, in 1683, a collection of tracts, with an apologetical preface already quoted, and a letter which he had written to the Duchess in 1670-1, some months before her death, upon hearing a rumour that she was shaken in her adherence to the Protestant faith.

[59] Preface to his Treatise, p. 5.

[60] Letter to her Royal Highness, p. 3, 4.