Mr. Harpsfield's "Opening Arguments" for the Prosecution: Pretended Divorce of Catherine of Aragon

Harpsfield, Nicholas. The Pretended Divorce of Catherine of Aragon. No location: Hardpress Publishing, 2013.

The Pretended Divorce is available at:http://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Pretended-Divorce-Between-Catharine/dp/131452285X/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374952856&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=nicholas+harpsfield+the+pretended+divorce+of+catherine+of+aragon

It is also available online at: http://books.google.com/books?id=z_gIAAAAIAAJ&dq=nicholas+harpsfield+the+pretended+divorce+of+catherine+of+aragon&source=gbs_book_similarbooks

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."

Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Geoffrey Bromiley's "Thomas Cranmer"

Bromiley, G.W. Thomas Cranmer: Archbishop and Martyr. London: Church Book Room Press, 1956.

Mr. Bromiley is careful, measured, and fair. He offers a standard narrative in favor of Mr. Cranmer's influence. A few little details emerge. It's quite accurate and useful for a novitiate.

"Chapter One: Preparation"

We get the standard narration of Mr. Cranmer's life as cited/stated by the other biographers with a few nuggets that are new.

Mr. Cranmer, after seated in Canterbury, and at the school of Christ Church Canterbury, said:

“I take it that none of us here, being gentlemen born (as I think), but had our beginnings that way from a low and base parentage” (1).

In 1501, his father died. The estate passed to the eldest son. 10s. were left to Whatton Church. 6s. were left to the small chapel at Aslocton. 5 marks were left to the four daughters. 20s/year were left to the two youngest boys, Thomas and Edmund. Standard stuff.

A little-oft mentioned note on Edmund who followed his older brother through the Reforms to Canterbury, being made an Archdeacon of Canterbury by Thomas, was that he fled during the Marian persecutions. Mr. Bromiley noted that “he lived to see the restoration and vindication of his brother’s work, dying abroad in 1571” (2). Mr. Bromiley offers little else.

We take a detour with a quote about two archdeacons of Canterbury (that are a bit paltry, if not a tad prejudicial, but are included).

We insert this here: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=63712

It is the account of Edmund Cranmer followed by the Marian archdeacon Mr. Harpsfied, infamous author of "The Pretended Divorce of Catherine of Aragon." We quote from the website:

"61. EDMUND CRANMER, brother to archbishop Cranmer, was by him, on March 9, 1534, collated to this archdeaconry, and the provostship of Wingham, and had several rich benefices besides conferred on him by his brother soon after his being made archdeacon; he was promoted in 1549, to a prebend in Christ-church, and to the rectories of Clyve and Ickham, in this country; (fn. 120) about which time he is said to have alienated the parsonage house, commonly called the archdeacon's place, at Hackington, to the lord Cromwell and others. All the above preferments he continued to possess till queen Mary's reign, when in1554 he was deprived of them for being married, and compelled to fly into Germany to save his life. He plainly confessed his marriage, alleging, that he thought his marriage lawful, and could never forsake his wife with a good conscience; upon which, sentence was pronounced against him, namely, to be suspended from executing the priestly functions, sequestered from all profits due to him, deprived of all ecclesiastical dignities and benefices, and enjoined to abstain from the marriage bed; to which sentence he submitted, without making any appeal or reply. (fn. 121)

"62. NICHOLAS HARPSFIELD, LL. D. an eminent theologist, was, on his deprivation, presented to this dignity, (fn. 122) and was admitted to it on April 21, 1554.—He was born in the city of London, and educated in Wykeham's school at Winchester, and afterwards at New college, in Oxford, of which he became fellow, where he became very eminent both in the civil and canon law. In 1544 he was admitted principal of an ancient hall, mostly for civilians, called Whitehall, on the site of which Jesus college was afterwards partly built, and in 1546 he was appointed king's professor of the Greek tongue in the university. In 1553 he left his fellowship and took the degree of doctor of his faculty, and had then considerable practice in the court of arches. (fn. 123) Upon his institution into this archdeaconry, he made a solemn protestation, as was injoined him, that he would pay to William Warham, formerly archdeacon, during his life, the pension which had been settled on him out of the profits of the archdeaconry, as mentioned above, and decreed by Dr. John Cocks, vicar-general and principal official to the late archbishop Cranmer; in the same year, on April 27,he was admitted to the prebend of Harlston, in St. Paul's church, and two days afterwards to the churchof Langdon, both void by the deprivation of Dr. John Hodgeskin. (fn. 124) In 1557 he visited all churches, as well exempt, as not exempt, within the diocese of Canterbury, and all chapels and hospitals; (fn. 125) at which time it appears, that he was rector of Saltwood, in this county; but in the year 1559 he was deprived of all his dignities and benefices in the church, and was committed prisoner to the Fleet in the beginning of queen Elizabeth's reign, for not acknowledging the queen's supremacy, after which he continued about twenty-four years a prisoner, which was to the time of his death, which happened in 1583. His confinement was easy, without any hardship or want; here he found leisure to compile several books, of which some remain in manuscript, and others have been printed; the chief of which is, his ecclesiastical history, printed at Douay in 1622; (fn. 126) towards the writing of which, archbishop Parker gave him much encouragement in the free use of his registers.

"The character of him and his writings, are given with such different censures by those who have mentioned him, so clearly contrary, and to every appearance so full of partiality, as the one or the other of them have been protestants or papists, or at least inclined to the cause of either persuasion, that it is perhaps difficult to judge the real truth of it. On the one side Pitseus, the compiler of the Athenæ Oxonienses, (fn. 127) and some others, give him and his history great commendations; whilst Fox the martyrologist, the author of the Anglia Sacra, and of the English Historical Library, and others of the same sort, give their severe censures, as much to the contrary; however, the general unprejudiced opinion is become much in favour of him, and the commendations the former have bestowed on him."

Enough on the detour on the two archdeacons of Canterbury. We drew brief attention to it because few comment on Thomas' younger brother.  He died somewhere in Germany.  A Lutheran? Reformed?  We don't know.

We return to Mr. Bromiley’s report. It’s a standard narrative:

• 1503, off to Cambridge, at age 14

• Jesus College was “near Cambridge” and Queens was a “quiet retreat.” The idea was that Cambridge was small.

• Standard curricula: trivium/quadrivium

• 1511—B.A. But also, date when Erasmus comes to Cambridge

• No Greek or classical Latin was taught, just ecclesiastical Latin (an easier species)

• College library had few fathers, but only Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome and Gregory

• John Fisher, although “not an outstanding scholar,” was influential, was the Confessor to Lady Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry VII), brought significant benefactions to Cambridge, was the Vice-Chancellor in 1501, initiated the Lectureship for Divinity and Preaching in English in 1502, and became a Bishop of Rochester and Chancellor in 1505. Further, he invited Erasmus to Cambridge. If not a brilliant scholar as Mr. Bromiley cites, he was a “rain-maker” or “money-maker” for the University. This is a new claim: Fisher was not an "outstanding scholar." No evidence is offered.

• There's no record of influences of Erasmus on Cranmer

• Yet, Luther is roiling the international waters and Zwingli has discovered Erasmus' Novum Testamentum in Greek (Zwingli memorized Paul’s epistles in Greek). The new detail or suggestion here is that Mr. Cranmer begins his very serious biblical and theological studies in/on/around 1517. This is a novel suggestion, the early date.  We are not so sure about this.

• Standard narrative: slow, plodding, industrious and copious note-taker.  Everyone cites this.

• New details: 350 books, 100 manuscripts, 2 Hebrew Bibles, 1 NT Greek Bible, complete set of the Greek and Latin fathers, texts from the Schoolmen, and some contemporary writers. We are tracking on a 500-page volume on Mr. Cranmer's collected books.

• Lecturer in divinity in 1523, holy orders in 1523 (this conflicts with some other biographers who date it 1520), and the Doctor of Divinity in 1523 (agreeing with Arthur James Mason), age 34. Some have cited 1526 as the date for the Doctorate.

• 1524, offered but declined canonry to Cardinal’s College, Oxford.

• Let a “most peaceful,” “most happy” and “wholly congenial life” of scholarship.

• Mr. Bromiley offers a larger picture of the resistance to Lutheranism at Cambridge that other writers “fly over.” First, Luther’s books “were burned at Cambridge in 1521” (9). Second, Henry and Fisher were on a rampage against Luther in the 1520s. Third, Thomas More “initiated a definite campaign to root out Lutheran supporters at Cambridge” (9). Fourth, despite this, Luther’s ideas were debated. Fifth, Mr. Bromiley gives a date for the White Horse Inn, or, “Little Germany” where Luther was discussed—1521. He places Barnes, Coverdale, Tyndale, “little Bilney” and Latimer in the mix, but not Cranmer. “There is no decisive evidence that Cranmer had already adopted a Lutheran position” (9)

• Standard narrative on the famed Waltham meeting in 1529 between Cranmer, Fox and Gardiner. Everyone points to this critical year.

Mr. Bromiley summarizes the transition year of 1529 this way:

"On any showing this was a fateful meeting. We can write it off as pure chance or coincidence. But judged in this light of its consequences, the perfect timing suggests strongly the over-ruling hand of God" (11).

Rarely, do the historians, other than Mr. J.H. Merle d’Aubigne, bring "divine providence" into the story. However, as theologians, that must be done.

The West was never the same after the English Reformation.

Whatever view we take of Mr. Cranmer's flaws or achievements, he was a key player in "one lasting and influential reformation," the Edwardian one, 3.0 Anglicanism. It would mutate in the 5.0 version, or, the Elizabethan version. 

The influence of the English Bible was massive.

If this is doubted we point you to a massive, efficacious and powerful volume by David Daniell, The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.  It is overwhelming in terms of the research supporting the conclusion of the Bible's influence.

Available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-English-History-Influence/dp/0300099304/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1378610002&sr=8-2&keywords=david+daniell

The English Bible influenced literature, poetry, music, drama, religious history and went worldwide.

The dominant question: why did England become so tenaciously Protestant in subsequent centuries and not lapse back to Papal (1.0, 4.0) or Non-Papal Roman Anglicanism (2.0, Tractarianism, the latter being a Roman Trojan Horse)?

This 900-page volume by Mr. (Dr. Prof.) Daniell answers that question about the vernacular Bible. 

Mr. Cranmer was involved with this question.

The Pretended Divorce Between Henry VIII & Catharine of Aragon

Harpsfield, Nicholas.  The Pretended Divorce Between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. No location: Hardpress Publishing, 2013.

It should be noted that Mr. Harpsfield was also a Marian and Papal Romanist who wrote several volumes and supervised 100s of criminal trials against Reformed Churchmen. Foxe says he was “pitiless.” He also replaced Mr. Cranmer’s brother as the Archdeacon of Canterbury. He wrote The Six Dialogues as well as this volume. Mr. Harpsfield did brig time under Ms. (Queen) Elizabeth 1.

Wikipedia, an unscholarly source, said this: “Harpsfield defiantly opposed the new regime of Elizabeth I, opposing the election of Matthew Parker and refusing to subscribe to the Book of Common Prayer. At some point between 1559 and 1562, he was committed to Fleet Prison, together with his brother John Harpsfield for his refusal to swear the Oath of Supremacy. He remained in prison until his release on health grounds in 1574, sixteen months before his death.”

The Pretended Divorce is available at:
http://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Pretended-Divorce-Between-Catharine/dp/131452285X/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374952856&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=nicholas+harpsfield+the+pretended+divorce+of+catherine+of+aragon

It is also available online at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=z_gIAAAAIAAJ&dq=nicholas+harpsfield+the+pretended+divorce+of+catherine+of+aragon&source=gbs_book_similarbooks

There is no Table of Contents. It appears, upon perusal, to be structured into four books. It is allegedly written during Queen Mary’s time.

However, before getting to Mr. Harpsfield’s work, there are a few peculiarities:

1. An odd “Preface” by Mr. Nicholas Pocock from 1878,

2. A “Last Will,” of all things, dated 1707 and a book recommendation from a father to a son, a Charles Eyston Sr. to Charles Eyston Jr., to wit, The Pretended Divorce,

3. A hagiographical “Introduction to the Life of Nicholas Harpsfield” by Mr. Nicholas Sanders, our old friend, who wrote in Elizabeth’s times as an exile from England (1585).

All of this before one gets to Mr. Harpsfield's work.

The Preface by Mr. Pocock in 1878:

Mr. Pocock read a paper at the Bristol Branch of the English Church Union (ECU) in 1875.  Lord Acton responds to Mr. Pocock.

We insert this immediately. Mr. Pocock was already a Tractarian. The English Church Union was Anglo-Catholic...that is, 2.0 Anglicans, or Non-Papal Romanists like Misters Iker, Ackerman and Sutton of the ACNA. For Americans, it is difficult to understand this neo-Puritan, Romanticized, and atavistic movement within the Reformed Church of England...or an alleged Reformed Church.  That must be discounted, if not dismissed, these days.

The ECU was an advocacy group within the Church of England. It was founded on May 12, 1859 to challenge the authority of the English civil courts to determine questions of doctrine. It was active in defending Anglo-Catholic, or Tractarian and Ritualistic priests such as Arthur Tooth, Sidney Faithorn Green and Richard William Enraght against legal action brought under the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874. In 1933 it merged with the Anglo-Catholic Congress to form the present organization.

Mr. Pocock read his paper at an ECU meeting. He casually alluded to the story of Mrs. Cranmer “being carried about in a chest with breathing holes during the time when the Six Articles were in force.” Lord Acton challenged Mr. Pocock, to wit, that the story rested on the report of Mr. Nicholas Sanders (Sander, Nicholas. The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism. Charlotte, NC: Tan Book and Publishers, 2009) whom Bishop Burnet had rebutted. Burnet’s view had prevailed since the late 17th century, but Mr. Pocock in the late 19th century changed his opinion on the story in favor of Sanders. He changed his views on Burnet's rebuttal of Sanders. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell us why. Just that Sanders-Harpsfield are right and Burnet wrong.

Pocock gratuitously slams Merle D’Aubigne’s apology as “a ridiculous remark.” Mr. D’Aubigne apologized for “Mrs. Cranmer not being presented at the court…unnecessary…and might have embarrassed the pious German lady.”

Although, as an aside, this does raise questions worth pursuing in a few other directions.

Then, Mr. Pocock discovers that the Sanders-story was thinly supported but went back to his earlier source, Mr. Harpsfield, author of the present volume under review.

He did further research and found 4 texts of Harpsfield. Each version had 314, 115, 107, and 92 pages, respectively. The "Preface" is largely Mr. Pocock’s discussion of the textual history.

The will and letter to a son dated 1707:

It contains a letter to his son, Charles Eyston, from his father, Charles Eyston, recommending the bequeathed manuscript to junior. It will enlarge the son’s mind. It has “inconsiderable value to a Catholic” because the Reformation was “Interest and not Religion” which began the “schism.” Mr. Harpsfield was the “last Catholic Archdeacon of Canterbury” he tells his son. He then tells us that the printer was William Cartar, the amanuensis for Harpsfield during Mary’s time. But, this was made known in Elizabeth’s time. The printer was seized in 1583, tried, convicted, and “hanged, drawn, and quartered.” The father writes this from East Hendred, January 19th, 1707.

This gives a sense of recusancy, or English Papal Romanism, in the early 18th century.  It still existed.

"Introduction on the Life of Nicholas Harpsfield" by Nicholas Sanders:

1. Born in London. No date is given.
2. His brother was an Archdeacon during Mary’s reign.
3. Nicholas is chosen a Fellow at New College, Oxford.
4. 1544, Principal of White Hall, Oxford.
5. 1544, the King’s Professor of Greek at Oxford.
6. Upon Edward’s accession, he voluntarily fled England.
7. Upon Mary’s accession, he returned and completed the Doctorate of Law at Oxford.
8. Went to London and Court of Arches.
9. 1554, his brother replaced Cranmer’s brother, Edmund Cranmer, as the Archdeacon of Canterbury.
10. At the Court of Arches, he held countless trials. “Heresy had spread itself throughout the diocese of Canterbury that Dr. Harpsfield was forced to use more than ordinary rigour to suppress it.”
11. Foxe charged Harpsfield “with cruelty.”
12. Upon Elizabeth’s accession, he was chosen by Elizabeth to be the first Prolocutor of the Convocation.
13. In March 1559, he is ordered to dispute as a Romanist articles of religion. He refused and he, along with six others, went to the Tower.
14. The other six clerics were: Dr. Bayne (bp. of Litchfield), Dr. Scot (bp. of Chester), Dr. Oglethorpe (bp. of Carlisle), Dr. Cole (Dean of St. Paul’s), Dr. Chadsey (Archdeacon of Middlesex), and Dr. Langdale (Archdeacon of Lewes).
15. July 1559, he was deprived of ecclesiastical preferments and imprisoned.
He was imprisoned until his release in 1574 on grounds of health, months before his death in 1575.
Mr. Sanders summarizes Mr. Harpsfield:
1. “Grace and prudent man”
2. “Sincere and candid in his behavior”
3. “An able divine”
4. “An inexhausted fountain of all good literature”

Before getting to Mr. Harpsfield's "Pretended Divorce," we get a "Preface by Nicholas Pocock," a "Letter and Will," and an "Introduction to the Life of Nicholas Harpsfield" by Nicholas Sanders.

A Protestant Reformation with modest Reformed credentials arose out of this chaos and disorder? Well, "something" of "some kind" of Reformed Church of England emerged for perhaps 80 years...until William Laud's "Anti-Calvinism," repressions, arrogances, and slight learnedness. What a mess!