He not only declined to advocate it, but he also declined to abstain from opposing it, and did oppose it throughout its course in the Lords.[1]
Thus, it will be seen in regard to the charge of habitual and unworthy yielding to Henry's will, that in respect to the divorces he could do no other than he did, if we admit that we are not fully enough informed to condemn him in the case of Anne Boleyn; while, on the other hand, he, a constitutionally timid man, ventured to oppose Henry's will on several occasions, and to an extent, in the case of the Bill of Six Articles,—as Bishop Phillpotts, no great admirer of him, has pointed out—which More and Fisher never equalled. Of his error in regard to Northumberland's conspiracy I have already spoken.
III. We come, therefore, in the last place, to speak of the recantations between his trial and his execution, of which so much capital has been made by his detractors. That these require much excuse it is impossible to deny, but that they are absolutely inexcusable let him only assert who has stood firm in equally trying circumstances.
Cranmer had great reason—apart from the unwillingness to die which most men feel—to desire to live. He had done much to build up a Protestant Church in England, and seemed almost within reach of the end of his labours, and the crowning of the work, when Edward's death brought it to a sudden end. He may well have longed to finish it; he may well have indulged a hope that something would occur to frustrate Mary's plans, or even to alter her designs (for before his death her hopes of offspring had disappeared, and her health was manifestly failing), and have longed to
- ↑ Bishop Phillpott's Correspondence with Lord Macaulay, p. 4. Murray, 1861.
