distinction in the nature of allegiance. 'In matters secular his duty was to his prince.' But, on the threshold of the exception lay the difficulty which no Catholic could evade—what was the duty of a subject when a king was excommunicated, and declared to have forfeited his crown?
Forest, therefore, fell justly under the treason law. But, inasmuch as Catholic churchmen declared the denial of the Pope's supremacy to be heresy, so, for a few unfortunate months, English churchmen determined the denial of the King's supremacy to be heresy; Forest was to be proceeded against for an offence against spiritual truth as well as a crime against the law of the land; and Cranmer is found corresponding with Cromwell on the articles on which he was to be examined.[1] I do not know that the document which I am about to quote was composed for this special occasion. For the first, and happily the last time, the meaning of it was acted upon.
In an official paper of about this date, I find 'heresy' defined to be 'that which is against Scripture.' 'To say, therefore, that Peter and his successors be heads of the universal Church, and stand stubbornly in it, is heresy, because it is against Scripture (Ecclesiastes v.);
- ↑ 'The Bishop of Worcester and I will be to-morrow with your lordship, to know your pleasure concerning Friar Forest. For if we should proceed against him according to the order of the law, there must be articles devised beforehand which must be ministered unto him; and therefore it will be very well done that one draw them against our meeting.'—Cranmer to Cromwell: Cranmer's Works, vol. i. p. 239.
of belief, that was used in the realm of long time past."—Rolls House MS.
