The Pretended Divorce is available at:http://www.amazon.com/
It is also available online at: http://books.google.com/
There is an Epistle and three "Bokes." We're very sympathetic to Mr. Harpsfield's chastisement of Henry's matrimonial "violence and abuse" of Catherine (cf. Mal. 2.10-17 wherein divorce is likened to violence). But, this is a separate issue from the Reformation itself. While we're sympathetic to his cause, we hope he can successfully prosecute his case on exegetical grounds rather than canon law and Papal authority. Harpsfield was a cleric-canonist, not a theologian. By the way, he also prosecuted 100s of cases against the "Protestants and Evangelical Anglicans" during Mary's rule...with alleged cruelty.
As Mr. (Dr. Prof.) MacCulloch reminds us, the terms "Protestant and Evangelical" were the terms of art and derision by the Papal Roman Anglicans for the "Protestant and Evangelical" Anglicans.
The opening arguments for the prosecution of the case for the pretended divorce of Catherine are found in the "Epistle to the Reader."
Epistle to the Reader, 12-24
Boke 1, 25-120
Boke 2, 121-221
Boke 3, 222-302
We bring some select comments from this Oxford-cleric-really-a-canonist-lawyer-at-the-Court-of-Arches who tried 100s of Protestants during Mary’s times and who was imprisoned in Elizabeth’s times. Mr. John Foxe will say he [Harpsfield] was cruel and pitiless.
• “Truth…so much darkened, suppressed and trodden down"
• "Arians, Eutychians, Iconoclasts and other heretics" [= an allusion to the Protestants]
• A “number of bishops under the colour of truth” (= the Protestants and Mr. Harpsfield uses that "term" for the Edwardian and Elizabethan Anglicans)
• Truth has been “injured, defaced, and abolished." As for the divorce, we--at this point--are strongly inclined to Mr. Harpfield's narrow point.
• Mary had “twenty years most lovingly continued in marriage” and the Protestants had “wrongfully declared” that Mary “was unlawfully born and illegitimate...” We are inclined to say with Mr. Harpsfield, "Why, of course."
• “Dame Untruth hath hither made a [glorious] glittering pretence...”
• The Protestants have gone “far from the truth and directly against the Catholic faith…” But, here, we must distinguish between the pretended divorce and other substantive matters of the English Reformation. Hence, we affirm in the narrow part, but deny in large part.
• The King should have heeded the “godly counsel of Sir Thomas More and the good learned bishop of Rochester…” (Fisher). We would add that the Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Bromiley said Mr. Fisher was not an outstanding or brilliant scholar. Yet, Mr. Cranmer offers cheers from the sidelines for Mr. Fisher’s rhetoric against Luther. We’ll leave the issue of Fisher’s scholarship or brilliance to the side.
• David repented at Nathan’s rebuke and so did Theodosius at Ambrose’s rebuke. Ergo, so should Henry have done so.
• Harpsfield will offer three books. Boke 1—reasons for the validity of Henry’s marriage to Catherine. Boke 2—answers to the English “adversaries,” including references to letters by the King and Wolsey to English agents in Rome. Boke 3—objections to Acts of Parliaments, the divorce, and the King’s marriages to Ann Boleyn and Lady Anne of Cleve. This dates the book “after,” at a minimum the Cleve’s marriage.
• “...sheweth withal the manifold plagues that fell as well upon the king’s marriages after this divorce as upon himself and chief procurers and promoters of the said divorce and upon the whole realm…” Manifold plagues did, in fact, result.
We will see how Mr. Harpsfield later supports his "opening arguments" for the prosecution of the thesis: the "Pretended Divorce."
No comments:
Post a Comment