surely do a little more—that fortune, who had so often stood his friend, would not desert him just at the last moment; and thus he fell a victim to the tyrant whose will he himself had made irresistible.
The first and greatest distinction, then, of which we are never to lose sight in considering the history of the English Reformation, is that between the separation from Rome and the reformation of doctrine. That these two facts were closely related is true; that many of the same causes which brought about the one also conduced to the occurrence of the other, is also true; but I think that a fair consideration of all the circumstances will tend to show that the connection between them was one which depended upon special circumstances of the times, and not one arising out of the necessity of the case. That this is the true connection between these two important facts, seems to me to be suggested by the different relations in which they stood to one another on the Continent and in England. Thus in Germany and in Switzerland the reformation of doctrine preceded and brought about the separation from Rome. In England the separation from Rome preceded the reformation of doctrine, and contributed to bring it about. Luther professed the utmost deference for the Pope's person and authority long after he had protested against indulgences and had begun to preach justification by faith only.[1] Henry VIII. and his satellites had begun to call the Pope bad names long before they attempted to meddle with the generally accepted doctrines of the Church. Separation from Rome was necessary to the completion of Cromwell's designs; change of doctrine followed as a consequence, partly of the separation itself, partly of the machinery by which
